Print

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

[Maximum Spin]

I didn't specifically say "Jim" but... yeah, pretty much.
Look, back when I used to play at a different place I used to like no-lynching, but since I've been here I have only seen it used by mafia to get a free kill. It's an instant red flag for me.
And, generally, the pattern I would expect is that one mafia player suggests it while the rest hang back, ready to join in on the idea if town seem to be biting. So, I decided to seem to be biting, to see how the other players would respond. So far, really only web passed the test, which makes me less suspicious of him.

I can't think of a non-scummy reason to be mad that I did this, either.

Actually, come to think of it, this feels a lot like notquitethere as scum back in what I think was webadict's Supernatural. Seizing on an instance of town deploying a minor trick to whine about endlessly and try to put that player on the back foot. I really don't think it's going to work though.

[Maximum Spin]

I don't think that his lie furthered a scum wincon. I think it's indicative of a pattern of behaviour from Maximum Spin, by which I mean he's unwilling to commit to anything. He's suspicious of me but seems to be refusing to directly engage with me any further than I force him to. He says he's willing to go with one plan, but when that plan receives any pushback he was actually lying the whole time. Why are you framing this as though the only way to decide if someone is scum is for them to directly hinder the town? Trying to avoid suspicion by dodging direct confrontation seems equally scummy to me.

How am I dodging direct confrontation? I just swore at you a few minutes ago. I have directly stated that I think your argument is dumb and obviously shady and I don't believe you when you pretend not to understand that.
In terms of "refusing to directly engage with you", how so? I've responded to you a couple times now. If you're trying to spin something out of what you said before about me not asking you any questions... why would I want to hear your answers to any questions when I would not believe them? That's just more boring old-meta.

[Maximum Spin]

... and for the record, one last thing. I don't think "unwilling to commit to anything" ever describes my playstyle. My vote is STILL on Jim since game start, for god's sake.

[webadict]

I don't think that his lie furthered a scum wincon. I think it's indicative of a pattern of behaviour from Maximum Spin, by which I mean he's unwilling to commit to anything. He's suspicious of me but seems to be refusing to directly engage with me any further than I force him to. He says he's willing to go with one plan, but when that plan receives any pushback he was actually lying the whole time. Why are you framing this as though the only way to decide if someone is scum is for them to directly hinder the town? Trying to avoid suspicion by dodging direct confrontation seems equally scummy to me.

Hm, I understand a bit where you're coming from.  That's... kinda just how Max is?  Like, take my word for it or don't, he's actually engaging a lot more than he used to.

Sometimes, in order to understand a mind frame, seeing how far they'll take it will tell you a lot.  In this particular case, Max looks like he wanted to see who was actually in for a No Elim.  To me, that's not scummy behavior, but if you think he was actually for a No Elim, then that's what you should be trying to prove.  However, I don't really see it.  The best you could argue is that he made an an argument and tried to get everyone on board with it slyly, but that's gonna involve you understanding Max's mindset here.

The point of me asking how it furthers scum wincon is what's going to persuade me the most.

I don't think that his lie furthered a scum wincon. I think it's indicative of a pattern of behaviour from Maximum Spin, by which I mean he's unwilling to commit to anything. He's suspicious of me but seems to be refusing to directly engage with me any further than I force him to. He says he's willing to go with one plan, but when that plan receives any pushback he was actually lying the whole time. Why are you framing this as though the only way to decide if someone is scum is for them to directly hinder the town? Trying to avoid suspicion by dodging direct confrontation seems equally scummy to me.

How am I dodging direct confrontation? I just swore at you a few minutes ago. I have directly stated that I think your argument is dumb and obviously shady and I don't believe you when you pretend not to understand that.
In terms of "refusing to directly engage with you", how so? I've responded to you a couple times now. If you're trying to spin something out of what you said before about me not asking you any questions... why would I want to hear your answers to any questions when I would not believe them? That's just more boring old-meta.

Alright, let's dial it down.  We're getting nowhere fast in this argument.

[webadict]

Jim Groovester.  I can't see any teams that don't involve Jim at the moment.

[Deus Asmoth]

How am I dodging direct confrontation? I just swore at you a few minutes ago.

Why do you think that is in any way relevant?

I have directly stated that I think your argument is dumb and obviously shady and I don't believe you when you pretend not to understand that.

You mistake me not believing your unfounded statements with me not understanding them.

In terms of "refusing to directly engage with you", how so? I've responded to you a couple times now.

What I actually said was that you refuse to engage with me further than you're forced to. I'll add 'blatantly misrepresents the accusations against him' to the list though.

If you're trying to spin something out of what you said before about me not asking you any questions... why would I want to hear your answers to any questions when I would not believe them? That's just more boring old-meta.

So we've gone from you having generic 'bad vibes' to you being willing to believe Webadict's opinion about me being town-ish despite him being one of your scum reads to you not being able to believe a word I say. Did you figure out there was no point in asking me anything before the game started or did this opinion develop partway through?

I didn't specifically say "Jim" but... yeah, pretty much.

In what way does you agreeing to a plan that I suggested and Toony agreed to have anything to do with Jim?

[TricMagic]

I'm, honestly going to keep my vote on webadict right now. I feel they're trying to control the narrative.

Well I was. Dues, can you give a solid rundown on why No Lynch is the currect move here? Put it out like we're new to the game, way back when.

[Maximum Spin]

In terms of "refusing to directly engage with you", how so? I've responded to you a couple times now.

What I actually said was that you refuse to engage with me further than you're forced to. I'll add 'blatantly misrepresents the accusations against him' to the list though.

I'm not forced to engage with you at all, dude. I could, like, leave. Like Jim has!

So we've gone from you having generic 'bad vibes' to you being willing to believe Webadict's opinion about me being town-ish despite him being one of your scum reads to you not being able to believe a word I say. Did you figure out there was no point in asking me anything before the game started or did this opinion develop partway through?

You're misunderstanding again, but you gave me an easy way to explain it, at least. Yes, before the game started. Because this is a game of mafia where I don't believe anything anyone says. It's actually not somewhere I've gone, it was the starting point.

I had written more but I changed my mind because every part of your post is just so goddamn disingenuous and I was starting to rant. I think I'll take webadict's advice, even if he does turn out to be scum, and just let it be. I think everyone can tell that you're willfully misunderstanding.

[webadict]

I'm, honestly going to keep my vote on webadict right now. I feel they're trying to control the narrative.

Please show which game I don't try to control the narrative?

[Deus Asmoth]

Webadict

Sometimes, in order to understand a mind frame, seeing how far they'll take it will tell you a lot.  In this particular case, Max looks like he wanted to see who was actually in for a No Elim.  To me, that's not scummy behavior, but if you think he was actually for a No Elim, then that's what you should be trying to prove.  However, I don't really see it.  The best you could argue is that he made an an argument and tried to get everyone on board with it slyly, but that's gonna involve you understanding Max's mindset here.

The point of me asking how it furthers scum wincon is what's going to persuade me the most.

I don't think he was for a No-lynch. I don't think he cares about the lynch result either way. If you want to know how that furthers the scum wincon, joining bandwagons is generally a way that scum players try to avoid suspicion. The only thing unusual about this one is that it was for a No-lynch rather than a player, but the concept is the same. That's why I think he played it off as him baiting (checks notes)... Jim, somehow... when it was obvious that most players weren't in favour of it.

Max

In terms of "refusing to directly engage with you", how so? I've responded to you a couple times now.

What I actually said was that you refuse to engage with me further than you're forced to. I'll add 'blatantly misrepresents the accusations against him' to the list though.

I'm not forced to engage with you at all, dude. I could, like, leave. Like Jim has!

Please tell me that you understand that openly ignoring someone's questions would be scummy as hell.

So we've gone from you having generic 'bad vibes' to you being willing to believe Webadict's opinion about me being town-ish despite him being one of your scum reads to you not being able to believe a word I say. Did you figure out there was no point in asking me anything before the game started or did this opinion develop partway through?

You're misunderstanding again, but you gave me an easy way to explain it, at least. Yes, before the game started. Because this is a game of mafia where I don't believe anything anyone says. It's actually not somewhere I've gone, it was the starting point.

And yet you have no problem asking other people questions. And so we circle back around to you outsourcing your scum hunting to people you've said you don't trust rather than actually engaging with the person you're suspicious of.

I had written more but I changed my mind because every part of your post is just so goddamn disingenuous and I was starting to rant. I think I'll take webadict's advice, even if he does turn out to be scum, and just let it be. I think everyone can tell that you're willfully misunderstanding.

Maybe if you keep saying I'm misrepresenting you people will just believe it without you substantiating the claim.

Everyone else In case it's not clear, I'd like to lynch Maximum Spin tomorrow.

[Maximum Spin]

Please tell me that you understand that openly ignoring someone's questions would be scummy as hell.

Ha ha ha, no, see, this is the point, you just haven't played with me before. I basically always do that.

[ToonyMan]

I'm, honestly going to keep my vote on webadict right now. I feel they're trying to control the narrative.

If Web is town I think he's probably right on who scum are.

[Deus Asmoth]

Tric:

I'm, honestly going to keep my vote on webadict right now. I feel they're trying to control the narrative.

Well I was. Dues, can you give a solid rundown on why No Lynch is the currect move here? Put it out like we're new to the game, way back when.

From a practical standpoint, I'm voting no Lynch because I don't think there's enough time left to get Max lynched. From the original plan though:

We have seven players today. You have a kill. Scum team has a kill. If we no lynch and you don't kill someone tonight we start tomorrow with six players. The practical effect of having seven players and having six players is identical, since we lose the game at four players just the same as three. We're also statistically more likely to lynch/kill scum at six players rather than seven. This plan was made based on the impression I got from Toony that you were going to shoot someone no matter what though.

[ToonyMan]

If I believe my Max and Web bros then it's totally Jim and Deus. Regardless of who scum are I think they're doing a good job.

[Deus Asmoth]

Please tell me that you understand that openly ignoring someone's questions would be scummy as hell.

Ha ha ha, no, see, this is the point, you just haven't played with me before. I basically always do that.

You claiming to be bad at the game isn't actually a defence.