Print

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

[Scripten]

That
What?
No, I'm saying I could have, but that I didn't, because I'm going after you, if you even read what I typed.

I didn't push him to lynch, I merely made a comment. And now you're trying to twist every word I say to make me sound as scummy as possible (Which is exactly what you should do as scum. I can easily see any scum literally salivating over seeing my post, which is the whole point.)
I really hope people look back on how you're acting, and how far you try to twist things.

You misunderstand me.

I get that you're actively going after me. What you're also doing is pushing that OSG reacted to your alleged "reaction test" but leaving it to others to actually pursue that wagon. That's scummy.

[mastahcheese]

That
What?
No, I'm saying I could have, but that I didn't, because I'm going after you, if you even read what I typed.

I didn't push him to lynch, I merely made a comment. And now you're trying to twist every word I say to make me sound as scummy as possible (Which is exactly what you should do as scum. I can easily see any scum literally salivating over seeing my post, which is the whole point.)
I really hope people look back on how you're acting, and how far you try to twist things.

You misunderstand me.

I get that you're actively going after me. What you're also doing is pushing that OSG reacted to your alleged "reaction test" but leaving it to others to actually pursue that wagon. That's scummy.

That's me tunneling. It's actually a rather often-referenced part of my playstyle, in that I tend to not care about what people are doing if I have a designated target. It's actually ironic, looking back on it, that the whole reason I pointed it out was that Nerjin was basically tunneling me, and not seeing what OSG was doing, but I was mostly just ticked that he ruined the whole point of my post.
Now arguing with you feels utterly pointless, because all my work was for nothing. But I'm still getting a steady scum-vibe off you, so maybe it's not all waste. Plus Nerjin seems to have actually taken a closer look at the thread because of all this, so not all is lost.

I'd like to point this out to the new players: Both of your ICs are attacking the same person. This is probably something you should pay attention to, as it may be a valuable learning experience.

[Scripten]

That's me tunneling. It's actually a rather often-referenced part of my playstyle, in that I tend to not care about what people are doing if I have a designated target. It's actually ironic, looking back on it, that the whole reason I pointed it out was that Nerjin was basically tunneling me, and not seeing what OSG was doing, but I was mostly just ticked that he ruined the whole point of my post.
Now arguing with you feels utterly pointless, because all my work was for nothing. But I'm still getting a steady scum-vibe off you, so maybe it's not all waste. Plus Nerjin seems to have actually taken a closer look at the thread because of all this, so not all is lost.

Eh, Nerjin's post didn't show up until I was done writing my response, though you can't really know that. Tbh, acting really scummy and saying it was a reaction test isn't an example of a good reaction test. Good reaction tests need to take people off guard and shake them up. Attacking the same person you've been after most of the game isn't really all that surprising, and going after them with a silly conspiracy theory isn't going to make anyone worried.

I'd like to point this out to the new players: Both of your ICs are attacking the same person. This is probably something you should pay attention to, as it may be a valuable learning experience.

So am I scum with Hector13 or am I scum with Nerjin? Or is OSG scum with me?

See, this is why we don't do associatives before flips. You start looking silly.

[mastahcheese]

I'd like to point this out to the new players: Both of your ICs are attacking the same person. This is probably something you should pay attention to, as it may be a valuable learning experience.

So am I scum with Hector13 or am I scum with Nerjin? Or is OSG scum with me?

See, this is why we don't do associatives before flips. You start looking silly.

The only association I made is that you and Nerjin are both ICs.
Unless you want to refute this, I ask of you politely again to stop twisting my damn words, because it's just annoying, at this point, since I was trying to talk to the newer players, as a learning experience, which is the point of a BM.

[Peradon]

I.... I dont even.....

Ok, I think we should extend, I'll get to writing a larger post.....

[Peradon]

Nah, it's fine to question votes on you and your concerns about my wording aren't scummy. My problem was with the way you presented yourself as a threat, which was posturing and doesn't actually make sense.

I didnt present myself as a larger threat, I was theorizing why you might unvote mastah and vote me.

Scum don't need lynches to eliminate threats. Any mislynch is a good mislynch for them. They have the night kill.

It may just be me being a noob, but I dont see how this is connected to the above quote...

Actually, it was not the compliments that bothered me so much as the neutrality.

If you needed an explanation for my giving him a nuetral read, you could have just asked. At the time of that post, Hector hadnt posted much, but he gave a RL reason for it, and once he recovered, he was doing some scumhunting. The fact that he didnt have much content, but was scumhunting, gave me the a nothing on him, thus his nuetrality. Why did you automatically suspect malicous intent with my giving him a nuetral read?

I'd like to point this out to the new players: Both of your ICs are attacking the same person. This is probably something you should pay attention to, as it may be a valuable learning experience.

Mastah, what are you trying to imply in this post?

[hector13]

Not quite. It's more the tone after the questions are answered. It's all very amicable and feels fake, like I said.

This is the second time you've thought my interactions were fake (first being the sprint game)

Though I can see why you think that, I tend to get ultra-formal when I feel like I'm interacting with a person one-on-one, for some reason.

Also the buddying thing; this being a newbie game I just felt that Peradon's reasons for his reads on you and mastah had some thought behind them, and complimented that because explaining his thought process is something I think he should continue doing. This is in contrast to what Zormod did, basically saying "yeah, he's town, he's scum, not sure about this guy", which is not particularly helpful to us.

I did have a fairly comfortable town read on Peradon at that point -- hence the lack of "YOU'RE SCUM ADMIT IT SCUMMY S(CUM) SCUMMERSON!"-esque zeal -- because he was putting some effort into scumhunting and explaining his thoughts on things. However, this was before he changed his vote from top-scumread Zormod to second-most-likely-townread Dani, as a result of Zormod's observation, which could just as easily be turned back on Zormod. I... have difficulty understanding this.

Peradon: Why would you change your vote based on the observation of your top scumread, when you were voting for them for the same reason they brought up?

You also mentioned Dani was a threat here. Could you explain this further, and why you think they are more of a threat than Zormod?

[flabort]

That's three votes for extension, so the day has been increased to Friday.

[mastahcheese]

Nah, it's fine to question votes on you and your concerns about my wording aren't scummy. My problem was with the way you presented yourself as a threat, which was posturing and doesn't actually make sense.

I didnt present myself as a larger threat, I was theorizing why you might unvote mastah and vote me.

Scum don't need lynches to eliminate threats. Any mislynch is a good mislynch for them. They have the night kill.

It may just be me being a noob, but I dont see how this is connected to the above quote...

Actually, it was not the compliments that bothered me so much as the neutrality.

If you needed an explanation for my giving him a nuetral read, you could have just asked. At the time of that post, Hector hadnt posted much, but he gave a RL reason for it, and once he recovered, he was doing some scumhunting. The fact that he didnt have much content, but was scumhunting, gave me the a nothing on him, thus his nuetrality. Why did you automatically suspect malicous intent with my giving him a nuetral read?

I'd like to point this out to the new players: Both of your ICs are attacking the same person. This is probably something you should pay attention to, as it may be a valuable learning experience.

Mastah, what are you trying to imply in this post?

I'm not trying to imply anything. I am actually attempting to be as transparent as possible, in informing people that maybe there is knowledge to collect over here. The point of this game is to learn. Plain and simple. If you leave here with having learned nothing, then everyone involved has failed. It is that simple.

[Peradon]

Peradon: Why would you change your vote based on the observation of your top scumread, when you were voting for them for the same reason they brought up?

You also mentioned Dani was a threat here. Could you explain this further, and why you think they are more of a threat than Zormod?

I thought I explained that, but I'll say it again. What zormod said was true. I dont  think it matters who points out the truth, as long as its true. If you had pointed out that Dani wasnt posting any questions, I would have had the same reaction. The fact that Zormod said it doesnt make a difference. I still thik zormod is scum, but Dani is being an active-lurker even more so than Zormod, which is why I changed my vote.

I also want to point out Dani's failure to deliver, which according to the OP is a pretty strong scumtell.

Hello again. There is only myself to blame for that; I looked at my last game again and I asked maybe one context-related question for the six(?) days the game ran. It doesn't come naturally to me to take shots in the dark, but sure, I'll see what I can do.
Hmm.

He then posts one question, over something that had been hashed over several times already.

Hello hector. Why were you so desperate to paint origami as scum over a theory disagreement? But now

One question. That was all. After that, silence until this

sorry for placeholder post I have a metric crapton of homework to do
I get home early tomorrow though, so if my requirements stop piling up, I'll post and stuff

Where he again promises to post, but he hasnt yet. Either he is really telling the truth, or... or...


....

Ok, I'm grasping at straws here. I admit, I over reacted to Zormods post....

Unvote Dani
Vote Zormod

[Scripten]

Peradon:

I didnt present myself as a larger threat, I was theorizing why you might unvote mastah and vote me.

From your wording, it appears that you will want to lynch him eventually, but I am a bigger threat. Why do you see me as a bigger threat?

You certainly seem to be pushing the idea.

It may just be me being a noob, but I dont see how this is connected to the above quote...

Scum don't need to utilize the lynch to eliminate threats. They have the night kill.

Why did you automatically suspect malicous intent with my giving him a nuetral read?

I think you can probably answer this yourself, considering this is a game of mafia.

I thought I explained that, but I'll say it again. What zormod said was true. I dont  think it matters who points out the truth, as long as its true. If you had pointed out that Dani wasnt posting any questions, I would have had the same reaction. The fact that Zormod said it doesnt make a difference. I still thik zormod is scum, but Dani is being an active-lurker even more so than Zormod, which is why I changed my vote.

I also want to point out Dani's failure to deliver, which according to the OP is a pretty strong scumtell.

But that's just it. It does matter who is pointing out the truth. There's that motivation part of the scumhunting technique I've been promoting. Look for peoples' tactics when they make posts. Think about why they might be posting what they are.

In this case, consider that you had a top scumread tell you who to vote and that you did as they asked, while still thinking they were scum. Do you see the problem here?

Hector13:

This is the second time you've thought my interactions were fake (first being the sprint game)

Though I can see why you think that, I tend to get ultra-formal when I feel like I'm interacting with a person one-on-one, for some reason.

This is a fairly decent point. It may be that our playstyles clash slightly. That being said, it's not wise to let things slide too much so I will be expecting to interact with you until I can more easily get a read on your play.

Mastahcheese:

The only association I made is that you and Nerjin are both ICs.
Unless you want to refute this, I ask of you politely again to stop twisting my damn words, because it's just annoying, at this point, since I was trying to talk to the newer players, as a learning experience, which is the point of a BM.

I don't really feel like you need to point out that the ICs are going to be teaching the newbies. I'm not twisting your words. You didn't give your reasoning for pointing out the interaction, and, frankly, it looks like a blatant attempt to push that the ICs are ganging up on you because we're a scumteam.

[mastahcheese]

, it looks like a blatant attempt to push that the ICs are ganging up on you because we're a scumteam.

I could so easily attack the wording of this, but it would serve no purpose.
Just throwing that out there.

Honestly, I don't care that you don't think I have a reason to do what I do, because I'm not you.
Which is more important: teaching the players, or winning the game?
I'm attempting to show people how to deal with a person who is acting unreasonably, and irrationally, which is a situation they will come across if they keep playing Mafia. If you neglect to educate on how such a volitile situation should be approached, you're leaving them ill prepared for games beyond this.

[Scripten]

Honestly, I don't care that you don't think I have a reason to do what I do, because I'm not you.
Which is more important: teaching the players, or winning the game?
I'm attempting to show people how to deal with a person who is acting unreasonably, and irrationally, which is a situation they will come across if they keep playing Mafia. If you neglect to educate on how such a volitile situation should be approached, you're leaving them ill prepared for games beyond this.

So you're not an IC and you're pushing that your play is due to you "teaching the newbies". If an IC excused their scummy behavior with their IC-ness, I'd leap on that like a fly to... well, you get the point. As an IC, I will give advice that could potentially out me, were I scum. That being said, I will never, ever use my IC role to defend my actions outright. That's intellectually dishonest and against the spirit of the game. I have never come across a situation where an IC or experienced player felt it necessary to act irrationally to teach the newbies how to respond to that situation and I don't believe your claims that this is what you are doing. I think you are backpedaling because you expected the newer players to trust your conspiracy theory and wagon me at the end of the day.

Why didn't you just wait until the night phase to take care of me?

Vote mastahcheese

[Comrade Shamrock]

Scripten

You seem to be twisting mastahcheese's words now. You say because he's not an IC he can't offer advice.

I'd like to point this out to the new players: Both of your ICs are attacking the same person. This is probably something you should pay attention to, as it may be a valuable learning experience.

Now what on earth is wrong with this? Both of the official teacher-players are attacking the same person. Now Cheese could be saying both of you are a team, he's doing something in particular we should be paying attention to or that even the mighty can fall. When I read it I did not get the implication that the ICs were scum. It was more like

"Gather round kids, this is an important event and I want to pay particular attention"

So you're not an IC and you're pushing that your play is due to you "teaching the newbies". If an IC excused their scummy behavior with their IC-ness, I'd leap on that like a fly to... well, you get the point. As an IC, I will give advice that could potentially out me, were I scum. That being said, I will never, ever use my IC role to defend my actions outright. That's intellectually dishonest and against the spirit of the game. I have never come across a situation where an IC or experienced player felt it necessary to act irrationally to teach the newbies how to respond to that situation and I don't believe your claims that this is what you are doing.

I don't think he's using it as an excuse. His play has got him into a bad situation and he's trying to get the rest of us to pay attention to how you should try and get out of it.

I don't really feel like you need to point out that the ICs are going to be teaching the newbies. I'm not twisting your words. You didn't give your reasoning for pointing out the interaction, and, frankly, it looks like a blatant attempt to push that the ICs are ganging up on you because we're a scumteam.

So only the ICs are going to be doing the teaching? I don't know how to put this in words. Seems like setting up authority.

Scum don't need to utilize the lynch to eliminate threats. They have the night kill.

I really hate this. It says to me "I'm pushing a case I'm not scum. I would eliminate who I wanted dead with the NK. Trust me."

[Scripten]

Comrade, you are not reading the game very closely.

You seem to be twisting mastahcheese's words now. You say because he's not an IC he can't offer advice.

Mastahcheese should not be engaged in telling newer players what to do from a position of authority, no. The IC role is there specifically to avoid experienced players steamrolling newbies by giving them poor or leading advice.

Now what on earth is wrong with this? Both of the official teacher-players are attacking the same person. Now Cheese could be saying both of you are a team, he's doing something in particular we should be paying attention to or that even the mighty can fall. When I read it I did not get the implication that the ICs were scum. It was more like

"Gather round kids, this is an important event and I want to pay particular attention"

All newer players should be paying attention to the ICs regardless of what is going on in the game. Furthermore, new players should be paying attention to the entire game, not just places where players asserting authority tell them to do so.

Not to mention, that particular quote was taken as having implied assertions that other players have caught onto.

I don't think he's using it as an excuse. His play has got him into a bad situation and he's trying to get the rest of us to pay attention to how you should try and get out of it.

Is that how you're reading it?

Because I'm reading it is "I'm in a bad spot, so I need to come up with some wild excuses to backpedal out of my reckless scumplay." What is the town motivation you seem to see from Mastahcheese's play?

So only the ICs are going to be doing the teaching? I don't know how to put this in words. Seems like setting up authority.

My role as an IC is 100% separate from my role as a player. So yes, when I am acting as IC, I am acting from authority. As a player, I am instantly wary of other players trying to lead newbies by giving "advice" like this. (That is, using the "I'm an experienced player showing players what not to do, not scum!")

I really hate this. It says to me "I'm pushing a case I'm not scum. I would eliminate who I wanted dead with the NK. Trust me."

This is scum 101, actually. There's no reason for scum to try to lead the lynch on a more threatening player when they could just get an easy lynch and NK the threat.