Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheDarkStar]

Sorry to hear it, Vector. Absence in these situations is perfectly understandable.

1. Your link goes to a question that is more about clarification (like me asking Jim what he meant) than suspicion. The answer to the questions reflects a difference on how you and cheese think the rules are. Why, exactly, do you find mastahcheese suspicous and why aren't you voting him for it?
2. Why does it make me more suspicious suspicious than mastahcheese that my words were repeated? This is what you're implying, given that you're questioning me rather than him about it.
3. What you say is true, but it does not answer my question. Why have you asked mastahcheese no questions? What is it that makes him suspicious to you?
4. Because scum is a team, they would be able to coordinate to avoid awkward situations like that. Also, the most common reason for scum agreeing with someone else is not that they are scum; it's that someone is barking up the wrong tree and the scum want to keep it that way.

1. I hoped by answering those questions it would both illuminate how stupid the assumption was- I was willing to give mastahcheese the benefit of the doubt for his somewhat suspicious play at the time (perhaps just made a stupid assumption, everybody makes mistakes etc.) I'm not voting him because I find you more suspicious.
2. You're more suspicious for how you reacted to Jim voting for somebody else- mastahcheese backing you up on it is still suspicious though.
3. I'm pursuing you instead! Sorry buddy. Everything else is already covered by Jim anyway.
4. Eh- WIFOM. (We would've co-ordinated to make it seem like we didn't co-ordinate!)

Un-FOS Jim. I get your logic now; however, why haven't you been questioning cheese about this?

Yeesh. Can you get more timid? An un-FoS is just... meek.

TDS, let me ask you this again, because you've yet to answer it!

What makes you think it's as likely (or more likely) to be a town gambit to hand out free daykills?

1. After Jim explained his reasoning, I understood why he found cheese scummy. Beforehand, I found him mildly suspicious because he seemed to make an accusation without much of a reason. Now that I understand his logic, though, I see what he's thinking and that he does have a real case. However, you avoided the question I asked - you said that you found cheese suspicious, but you still haven't provided an actual reason.
2. I asked for clarification on Jim's argument - how does that make me suspicious?
3. Ok, you're scumhunting me. Why aren't you simultaneously scumhunting cheese, who you've said is also suspicious?
4. Yeah, it ends up being WIFOM either way, so this point can't really be argued much more.

Additional question:

5. Oops, I thought I answered that earlier. As for my answer: I never asserted that one was more likely than the other. Now that I've seen Jim's case I would agree with him that it's fairly scummy. Before that, I had no real opinion on it.

TDS: Why do you think that Cheeetar is defending Jim, as you say at Note Two?  Also, what makes you think that Jim wasn't questioning mastahcheese, which you say at Note Five?

1. Cheeetar reacted after I asked Jim about his case. I still find it odd that there has been such a large reaction from him for scum a small question from me.
2. Rather than questioning cheese, Jim made accusations. While Jim has explained why he did this, I still find it odd that he seems more focused on getting a case than on scumhunting that person to see how valid it is. If he really wanted mastahcheese to answer, he'd ask about all the things that he found odd.


Jim, what will you do if mastahcheese does not respond to what you say? Why did you decide to not ask him any questions? Why haven't you pressured him for a response?


PPE: mastahcheese, why haven't you defended yourself? You're avoiding Jim's accusations by saying that you don't care, essentially. This looks scummy and lazy. Also, you say that you won't defend yourself with words yet. Does this mean that you are going to use role abilities to stop what Jim is doing?

[Cheeetar]

4maskwolf: I'm not posting from home, so I hope you'll excuse the lack of quotes- would've been a nightmare to format on this device. I saw it as strange that TDS was questioning Jim's (fairly apparent) logic mere minutes befor mastahcheese jumped in to defend himself. Noting that suspicious activity, I asked him a question about it. Following on from his unsatisfactory answering (accusing me of defending Jiim, asking me why I wasn't focusing on someone else, asserting that his actions were in no way suspicious) I was able to form the conviction that hey, TDS was just hella scummy, guys.

I'm not voting him for his questioning of Jim. I'm voting him for his reaction to my questioning of him.

SBC: Consider using one of your extensions if you need more time, as TolyK suggested. We all get two, which is neat.

Edit: Ninja'd by TDS. I'll answer that post in a bit.

[mastahcheese]

No, I have no intention of stopping Jim, because I don't think he's going to do anything once he understands what I'm doing, nor do I believe I have any methods of stopping whatever he may be capable of doing.
And it does look scummy. And it does look lazy. And when I'm dead or whatever, people can look back and see who acted the most reasonable, and who acted the most psychotic to the absurd situation of a dangerous person being handed a loaded firearm.
There's order in chaos, my friend, and i'm sure that I've already contributed about half the things I intended to already, with the other half in close persuit.

[flabort]

Jim Groovester How come you are arguing about whether or not being a Shakerag is to be anti-town or not? Is it because you are neither a Shakerag nor a Town? Can you say that your alignment is pro-town (whichever side town may be), though?

I wasn't aware I was making these arguments. To my recollection I have not made any statement about whether I think being a Shakerag is town or anti-town.

I have the town win condition. Don't you?

I may or may not. My first wincon is not.
My second wincon is <censored>. Not <None>. <Censored>.
I am playing under the assumption of town, though, since my first wincon is decidedly pro-town.

[Toaster]

Mastahcheese:  Why are you trying to bait me into shooting you when I've never expressed any suspicion of you?

[Cheeetar]

1. After Jim explained his reasoning, I understood why he found cheese scummy. Beforehand, I found him mildly suspicious because he seemed to make an accusation without much of a reason. Now that I understand his logic, though, I see what he's thinking and that he does have a real case. However, you avoided the question I asked - you said that you found cheese suspicious, but you still haven't provided an actual reason.
2. I asked for clarification on Jim's argument - how does that make me suspicious?
3. Ok, you're scumhunting me. Why aren't you simultaneously scumhunting cheese, who you've said is also suspicious?
4. Yeah, it ends up being WIFOM either way, so this point can't really be argued much more.

Additional question:

5. Oops, I thought I answered that earlier. As for my answer: I never asserted that one was more likely than the other. Now that I've seen Jim's case I would agree with him that it's fairly scummy. Before that, I had no real opinion on it.

Sure. You were only marginally suspicious initially (hence only an FoS and a question.) Moving on my initial FoS and onto the reasons I voted for you:

a) Why did you twig so hard at being FoS'd? You got super defensive super fast for what was one statement and a question.
b) Why did you question Jim's case when you say you had 'no real opinion' on it- why did you then FoS Jim for something you had no read on? Were you simply making yourself seen to be posting?
c) Why were you so quick to tell me I should be focusing on mastahcheese instead, and why do you continue to assert that I have no business scumhunting by focusing on you?

[Toaster]

Flabort:

PPE: Thank you, Toaster. A clearly wonderful example of how Wuba can interpret everything creatively. Now, why are you threatening Cheeetar for not knowing if he's anti-town when I can see multiple other players in the same situation, and what are your reads on each other player?

Because something's pinging my gut regarding his claim.  I've got a hunch on all this, but I'm gathering intel before I say anything more on this.


4mask:

I'd really rather you not.  Partly due to my great distaste for third-party hating, but also because he didn't have to claim his alignment.  He could have kept his mouth shut.  While I suppose he could be a scum-aligned third-party doing a gambit (betting that we don't lynch him now so that he's in the clear later), I don't take third-partyness to be major enough for an automatic lynch.  Particularly when he could be town-sided.  Granted, it's your daykill and you can do what you want with it.

Do you think he's town, mafia, or something else entirely?  If the last, then do you think he is helpful to the town?


Cheeetar:  Fair enough re teams.

If you're hunting scum, who do you suspect and why?


Mastahcheese:

Apparantly people don't make plans as much as I thought to give anything other than "lol, I have no plans", and I haven't worked up the effort to ask something else.

What does that say about your argument on me, since that was pretty much the entirety of it?

I was actually pointing out how he has someone dangerous in front of him, and the means to dispatch said dangerous person.

"EVERYONE LOOK AT ME!  LOOK HOW DANGEROUS I AM!"

...and who acted the most psychotic to the absurd situation of a dangerous person being handed a loaded firearm.

How was I dangerous before you gave me a daykill?

[webadict]

I was actually pointing out how he has someone dangerous in front of him, and the means to dispatch said dangerous person.

"EVERYONE LOOK AT ME!  LOOK HOW DANGEROUS I AM!"

... Are you actually dangerous, or...?

[Superblackcat]

ALL: Where does it say in the rules that our actions are public?
Flabort I'm very confused about your numbering system for our names. Is there a method to the madness, or is it just random numbering. Also, I'll volunteer for a power, I want something that keeps me alive, like a bulletproof vest or something along those lines.
mastahcheese: Do you trust Toaster? Or is this purely because he is hammerer.
Varee: You seem more to be training to confuse us all by your # of people claims. What is the power behind this?
Vector:mastahcheese said you seem to be making yourself unsuspiscious. Why did you dodge the question? Do you think you yourself are doing this, and if not, what do you think made yourself suspicious to mastahcheese?
4mask: Even though you ask us to forget what you posted, what in it did you consider a logical fallacy, what was wrong with it in your opinion?

[Superblackcat]

I personally do not think mastahcheese is scum. Self-Perseverance would be larger, and that is not a gambit to play on Day 1 as scum. The worst he could be is one of those that win when they die/lynch/daykilled/something.

Cheetar,TDS,Jim: Why have you guys been more focused on mastahcheese as opposed to Toaster? He's the one that is dangerous, and in my opinion, seems the better person to try to get a vibe off of. Not even for scum or not scum, but role wise, and , for me at least, playstyle wise.

mastahcheese: Your usual play is very different, at least from what I remember. A lot more rooted I would think. Is this new style because this game is semi-bastard, or because you've changed, or something much more ~~dark~~!

[TolyK]

"EVERYONE LOOK AT ME!  LOOK HOW DANGEROUS I AM!"

TOASTER HAS BEEN MODKILLED.
REASON: PUBLIC SAFETY.

HE WAS... aww, who an I kidding? As if I care for public safety. :p

[Jim Groovester]

Have you no response to my points about how bad your gambit is? Or a response or defense of your own?

Perhaps the gambit does look bad, but the fact is that my beef is with Toaster, not you.
And no, I don't intend to defend myself. At least not with words, yet.
I'll explain later. Maybe.

Then enjoy my vote on you.

And no, I don't intend to defend myself. At least not with words, yet.

Your threat has been noted.

Please die.

Jim, what will you do if mastahcheese does not respond to what you say? Why did you decide to not ask him any questions? Why haven't you pressured him for a response?

I laid out all my reasoning for why I thought mastahcheese was scum. He opted not to counter my reasoning at all and is being defiant about not responding. Oh, well. his problem, not mine. There can't be a conversation if one party is unwilling, so I'm just going to vote him until he's lynched.

How come you haven't answered my question about you being scum for going through the motions with your suspicions and cases?

ALL: Where does it say in the rules that our actions are public?

The start of the day. Pay attention.

Cheetar,TDS,Jim: Why have you guys been more focused on mastahcheese as opposed to Toaster? He's the one that is dangerous, and in my opinion, seems the better person to try to get a vibe off of. Not even for scum or not scum, but role wise, and , for me at least, playstyle wise.

Because mastahcheese is scummy, durrrrrr.

Why would I care if Toaster's dangerous if it doesn't indicate anything about his alignment?

[flabort]

Flabort I'm very confused about your numbering system for our names. Is there a method to the madness, or is it just random numbering. Also, I'll volunteer for a power, I want something that keeps me alive, like a bulletproof vest or something along those lines.

Which numbering system?
Where I ranked which questions I asked from the most to least predicted effectiveness? In which case, that's what that is.
If it's not that, then I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about because I don't recall numbering your names.

Why would I care if Toaster's dangerous if it doesn't indicate anything about his alignment?

Because this is the random bullshit you were earlier complaining might take you out of the game prematurely?

[Jack A T]

Mods: Votecount, please.
Flabort...

Jack A T He is clearly concerned about the secondary wincons, and his suggestion would make the game slightly more traditional. It's also very specific, and my ability to create roles does not lend itself to something so specific (It literally has the words "but not too specific" in it). He is afraid of killing members of the town with it, which is why he specified non-lethally, he's afraid of it's owner being killed reinstating the wincons, which is why he specified weather or not it's owner is alive, and permanently. Really, it's a case of paranoia; this kind of paranoia comes from not wanting to be caught, which leads me to believe he may be anti-town. He's also trying to game the system really hard, with so many clauses in the role name. Jack A T.

This vote depends on a set of unsupported leaps.  While I can see how you see fear (I think "caution" is a better word) in my use of system-gaming good practices (you know how people word Wish spells carefully to avoid DM wish twisting?), you jump from that to "paranoia" without explanation.  From there, you use the term "paranoia" to leap over to "not wanting to be caught" without explanation.  It's as if your case is built on a game of Word Association, with you using your choice to use the word "afraid" to allow you to use "paranoia" to allow you to use "not wanting to be caught."  I also love how this little vocabulary game or whatever it is got you from "afraid of killing members of the town with [my role]" to "may be anti-town" and voteworthy.  Can you explain that?

As a side note, with your power clarification, I retract my suggestion and give a new one: the Frankfurt School.  Feel free to interpret that one.

This [not giving a suggestion] is a null tell for all of them, meaning it doesn't affect my reads yet.

What could/will make it affect your reads?

Everyone else What do you think about the accusation by Jim Groovester that TheDarkStar might only be pretending to scum hunt? Is it indicative of Jim's motives, or is it a well founded accusation?

Not bad, but not as strong as the cheese work.  TheDarkStar always comes off to me as if he's putting less effort in than most, but this fos/unfos thing is unusually weak for him.  What matters most, though, is how TheDarkStar responds (which he really should do).  As for the second question, it doesn't tell me much about Jim's motives (whether pro- or anti-town) (makes sense from either town or mafia, and doesn't give a strong third-party feel), and I've already commented on my view of how well-founded the accusation is.

I am playing under the assumption of town, though, since my first wincon is decidedly pro-town.

And what is that wincon?

Mastahcheese: ...You're seriously trying to do the whole "I'm not going to defend myself because GAMBIT!" thing?

The real question is this: if I'm so dangerous, being capable of handing out daykills like candy on Halloween, why hasn't Toaster done everyone a favor and shoot me already?

...That's it, I'm calling it now: you've got some sort of kill protection, and think you can spin Toaster as scum if you can get him to shoot you (or anyone else, for that matter).

ALL: Where does it say in the rules that our actions are public?

Superblackcat: Day 1 opening:

Meanwhile, every time you interact with anyone it will be publicly announced.

Also, the quote button is your friend.  So, for that matter, are links.  Can you link to the 4mask post you're referring to in the first of your two recent posts?

Cheetar,TDS,Jim: Why have you guys been more focused on mastahcheese as opposed to Toaster? He's the one that is dangerous, and in my opinion, seems the better person to try to get a vibe off of. Not even for scum or not scum, but role wise, and , for me at least, playstyle wise.

What makes the impulsive arms dealer less dangerous than the person he threw a gun at?  Also, shouldn't "scum or not scum" be rather a bit more important than hunting for roletells and getting a basic idea of playstyles?  Finally, what led you to feel that cheese needed your defense?

TheDarkStar: Respond to this stuff, including the questions.
PPE: And that request becomes a bit redundant.

[Jim Groovester]

Because this is the random bullshit you were earlier complaining might take you out of the game prematurely?

That's probably true, but eliminating dangerous players (i.e. skilled, good, experienced, etc.) for no other reason than they are dangerous is a dumb and inelegant strategy.