Print

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

Just run the game without a co-mod. You can handle it, yeh? Pros: !!insanity, fun!!, Cons: Game might not go so well, roles might be unbalanced.

8 (53.3%)

Seek out a new co-mod. You might need it. Pros: sanity, good design, general boost, Cons: less !!insanity!!.

3 (20%)

I have no opinion on the matter.

4 (26.7%)

Total Members Voted: 15

[TheBiggerFish]

Oh hi.

Everybody:Scumspects?  Anybody?

@griffinpup:Define 'random'.  Like, random targets on both ends?

[BlackHeartKabal]

BHK

So, I'll just vote NQT, and read Jack's fate if he rolls mafia, because what are the odds I'm going to draw a card with a 9.09% chance of being drawn twice in a row?

You sound really chill about 'just vote'ing NQT.  Why did you hammer him without giving him time to respond? Even more interesting...

I tried to read Jack's tarot.

Why did you try to read Jack's tarot after you said that you would only do that if NQT flipped scum??

1. Of course I'm chill about hammering someone I think is mafia. And I've already explicitly said that I hammered him without listening to what he had to say because his "You'll regret it" 'defense' confirmed him as scum to me.

2. I forgot the reason why I said I wasn't going to read Jack's tarot, which was the only thing keeping me from wanting to read him. The three redirects made it irrelevant, however.

[griffinpup]

BHK

BHK

So, I'll just vote NQT, and read Jack's fate if he rolls mafia, because what are the odds I'm going to draw a card with a 9.09% chance of being drawn twice in a row?

You sound really chill about 'just vote'ing NQT.  Why did you hammer him without giving him time to respond? Even more interesting...

I tried to read Jack's tarot.

Why did you try to read Jack's tarot after you said that you would only do that if NQT flipped scum??

1. Of course I'm chill about hammering someone I think is mafia. And I've already explicitly said that I hammered him without listening to what he had to say because his "You'll regret it" 'defense' confirmed him as scum to me.

2. I forgot the reason why I said I wasn't going to read Jack's tarot, which was the only thing keeping me from wanting to read him. The three redirects made it irrelevant, however.

1.  You hammered him before he said anything... You didn't wait for a "you'll regret it" defense.  That's the whole point.

Why are you lying?
2.  Then why did you choose him?

[BlackHeartKabal]

BHK

BHK

So, I'll just vote NQT, and read Jack's fate if he rolls mafia, because what are the odds I'm going to draw a card with a 9.09% chance of being drawn twice in a row?

You sound really chill about 'just vote'ing NQT.  Why did you hammer him without giving him time to respond? Even more interesting...

I tried to read Jack's tarot.

Why did you try to read Jack's tarot after you said that you would only do that if NQT flipped scum??

1. Of course I'm chill about hammering someone I think is mafia. And I've already explicitly said that I hammered him without listening to what he had to say because his "You'll regret it" 'defense' confirmed him as scum to me.

2. I forgot the reason why I said I wasn't going to read Jack's tarot, which was the only thing keeping me from wanting to read him. The three redirects made it irrelevant, however.

1.  You hammered him before he said anything... You didn't wait for a "you'll regret it" defense.  That's the whole point.

Why are you lying?
2.  Then why did you choose him?

1. I simply didn't know the amount of votes needed for a hammer that day. The "You'll regret it" defense generally isn't posted after a hammer by anyone, so I assumed he said it before I hammered. I'm above lying about personal things to win a mind game.

2. I forgot the reason why I didn't want to. With no reason not to choose him, I chose him, simple as that.

[TheBiggerFish]

...

I am very suspicious of BHK with the purple defense there.  I mean, seriously?  Trading on character as a defense in a game where one's modus operandi should be 'assume everybody's lying until proven otherwise'?  And denigrating the game you're playing at the same time.

[BlackHeartKabal]

...

I am very suspicious of BHK with the purple defense there.  I mean, seriously?  Trading on character as a defense in a game where one's modus operandi should be 'assume everybody's lying until proven otherwise'?  And denigrating the game you're playing at the same time.

I've dealt with people who lied about being busy with events or personal things and then betrayed that trust just to win. It's cheesy, gamey, and annoying. If griffinpup didn't accuse me of doing something like that, then okay, sorry, but I'm not going to agree with anyone who defends behavior like that.

[TheBiggerFish]

Oh.

Yeah, that's just kinda cheaty.  Also not what griffinpup said, so I'm still kinda confused here.  Meh.

[BlackHeartKabal]

Also not what griffinpup said

Then we have no problem.

[griffinpup]

1. I simply didn't know the amount of votes needed for a hammer that day. The "You'll regret it" defense generally isn't posted after a hammer by anyone, so I assumed he said it before I hammered. I'm above lying about personal things to win a mind game.

2. I forgot the reason why I didn't want to. With no reason not to choose him, I chose him, simple as that.

1. Why did you tell me that you hammered him because you didn't buy his defense then?? So you just decided to vote NQT, cuz you 'forgot' that your vote was the hammer vote.  And when you got asked, your excuse wasn't that you forgot, your excuse was that you didn't by his "you'll regret" speech.  So why are you changing your story now? Oh, good to know.  Are you mafia?
2. Your decision to choose Jack boiled down to... Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  Even though he got a townie lynched.

[TheBiggerFish]

BHK.

[TheBiggerFish]

(as per above)

[BlackHeartKabal]

Also not what griffinpup said

Then we have no problem.

Nevermind this, apparently!

1. I simply didn't know the amount of votes needed for a hammer that day. The "You'll regret it" defense generally isn't posted after a hammer by anyone, so I assumed he said it before I hammered. I'm above lying about personal things to win a mind game.

2. I forgot the reason why I didn't want to. With no reason not to choose him, I chose him, simple as that.

1. Why did you tell me that you hammered him because you didn't buy his defense then?? So you just decided to vote NQT, cuz you 'forgot' that your vote was the hammer vote.  And when you got asked, your excuse wasn't that you forgot, your excuse was that you didn't by his "you'll regret" speech.  So why are you changing your story now? Oh, good to know.  Are you mafia?
2. Your decision to choose Jack boiled down to... Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  Even though he got a townie lynched.

1. "Didn't buy his defense" is something that you would shoot down as "not descriptive enough" or something along those lines. Not voting someone I think is mafia that something that unnecessarily prolongs games. Forgetting something requires knowing it previously as a prerequisite, I can have multiple reasons for an action or choice, and explain what you mean by changing my story? You also aren't getting a response to the last part.
2. His reasoning for voting NQT made sense. 1 scum does not equal 1 town, so it's nonsense that scum would perform such a play that would work around them being so disposable, assuming Jack wanted to just make up everything related to jail just to get NQT offed. Everything was logical but the result, which is confusing me.

BHK.

b-b-b-b-bandwagon

[Jack A T]

Finished exam.  Back now.

Fallacy: A question, to clarify NQT's statements: Would the holder of the power Disaster Aversion be notified if it activated?
Like many BYORs, this game has a clear mechanical theme.  The theme here is action interference.  I'm a doctor variant, and Tiruin's claimed to be similar.  NQT was a blocker whose bulletproofing randomizes a kill.  4mask claimed a randomizing power.  Add a ton of unexplained redirects/randomizes and action failures, and we've got a mess.  I'm leaning towards a massclaim today or D4: possibly the only way we'll make sense of the convoluted paths our actions are taking.

@Jack I didn't know what "PFP" meant (still don't, though I assume it has to do with saying "I'm alive, there's just too much going on for me to respond." Once she posted, I was satisfied. Un-FoS (that's a thing, right?)

Wozzy: I'm not quite sure I understand what happened here.  You saw Tiruin often using an acronym you didn't know, so instead of asking her what it means, you decided she seemed to be "avoiding most questions"?  How did you go from not knowing what PFP meant to guessing it meant she was avoiding most questions?  Did you ever look for any questions she actually avoided before making the FoS?

By the way, there's a guide to local terminology in the Beginner's Mafia OP.

BHK: I can understand you losing track of hammer-necessary votes.  I also can understand you forgetting the order of posts.  Those make sense.
However, I do not understand your initial defense in that context.  You portrayed yourself as either knowing you were hammering or not caring whether you were hammering, all "chill about hammering."
This leaves me with a couple questions:
*Why, in that particular situation, would slightly accelerating a scum lynch outweigh the town's interest in the evidence that would have been generated from discussion of the fresh topic?
*Why not initially say you forgot how many votes were needed for a hammer?

2. His reasoning for voting NQT made sense. 1 scum does not equal 1 town, so it's nonsense that scum would perform such a play that would work around them being so disposable, assuming Jack wanted to just make up everything related to jail just to get NQT offed. Everything was logical but the result, which is confusing me.

How is the result confusing you?  It's pretty clear what happened at this point: NQT got hit with a block (that failed), and with no information whatsoever about the block, he struck out on a limb and recklessly claimed a specific action failure.  He wanted information and didn't know that he was essentially claiming a failed kill on Tiruin.

[TheBiggerFish]

@BHK:Not bandwagon, more like you were appearing incredibly self-contradictory and kinda weird, ergo scummy.  But you're explaining enough now, so I guess unvote.

Still pretty suspicious, but not enough anymore.

[BlackHeartKabal]

BHK: I can understand you losing track of hammer-necessary votes.  I also can understand you forgetting the order of posts.  Those make sense.
However, I do not understand your initial defense in that context.  You portrayed yourself as either knowing you were hammering or not caring whether you were hammering, all "chill about hammering."
This leaves me with a couple questions:
*Why, in that particular situation, would slightly accelerating a scum lynch outweigh the town's interest in the evidence that would have been generated from discussion of the fresh topic?
*Why not initially say you forgot how many votes were needed for a hammer?

2. His reasoning for voting NQT made sense. 1 scum does not equal 1 town, so it's nonsense that scum would perform such a play that would work around them being so disposable, assuming Jack wanted to just make up everything related to jail just to get NQT offed. Everything was logical but the result, which is confusing me.

How is the result confusing you?  It's pretty clear what happened at this point: NQT got hit with a block (that failed), and with no information whatsoever about the block, he struck out on a limb and recklessly claimed a specific action failure.  He wanted information and didn't know that he was essentially claiming a failed kill on Tiruin.

*Why, in that particular situation, would slightly accelerating a scum lynch outweigh the town's interest in the evidence that would have been generated from discussion of the fresh topic?
"He's scum. He's about to die. Why would he not lie and screw with the town?"
*Why not initially say you forgot how many votes were needed for a hammer?
Because I figured that I'd be told that I was lying about forgetting, and lynched, if I opened and ended with that.

"How is the result confusing you?  It's pretty clear what happened at this point: NQT got hit with a block (that failed), and with no information whatsoever about the block, he struck out on a limb and recklessly claimed a specific action failure.  He wanted information and didn't know that he was essentially claiming a failed kill on Tiruin."

But his only kill was one that was a roleblock unless he used it twice. It would be considered a roleblock the first time, if I'm remembering it correctly. He didn't attempt to kill Tiruin, which, of course, confuses me, since your claim is reliant on the assumption that he explicitly tried to kill Tiruin. Everything sounds perfect in my head, but it's hard to put into words, so I just say what my thoughts form into and play hit-or-miss with it, since the general idea of what I want to say can be bought up easy enough.