Print

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

[Neruz]

I told you, because Web is a good player, i wanted to know what he was doing, if he had an action, who he used it on. I actually didn't expect to find anything of use N1, but i did expect that the information of who Web targeted N1 would come in use later in the game, either during the MC or at the advent of Web's death.

Wait... how would it be useful after his death?  And isn't a good player more likely to be killed off early, rendering any investigative actions on him useless?

Duh. When he dies, he roleflips, so i know what he did.

So going "Why would i do X?" is WIFOM, but going "Why would [other person] do X?" is perfectly fine?

Yes, it is, Neruz.  And even if it weren't, it's NOT WIFOM UNLESS YOU'RE SCUM.  Got that?

:|

Your logic is so broken here i literally cannot think of a response.


Wait, here's one.

You're allowed say "Why would Neruz do X if he was Town?" and it's not WIFOM, but if I say exactly the same thing, it's WIFOM? Seriously, i'm thinking we're either misunderstanding each other, or your logic is totally screwballs bonkers and you're desperately trying to get my lynched with WIFOM attacks.

Dopps are in a circular spot. They need both me and WA dead. They can't kill both me and WA. Ergo they have to push for a mislynch on one of us.

Doubly circular argument is doubly circular.

[patronising voice]Yes Leafsnail.[/patronising voice]

[Leafsnail]

Duh. When he dies, he roleflips, so i know what he did.

And that helps you... how?

You're allowed say "Why would Neruz do X if he was Town?" and it's not WIFOM, but if I say exactly the same thing, it's WIFOM? Seriously, i'm thinking we're either misunderstanding each other, or your logic is totally screwballs bonkers and you're desperately trying to get my lynched with WIFOM attacks.

Argh... look, I'm sick of people misusing the word "WIFOM" so I will post a definition now.

In gaming, it's any kind of game or subgame, especially a psychological one, in which a player is given a set of apparently equal choices where one or more is completely wrong. In such games one often may try to use what he knows of his opponent to make a better choice.

In other words - you do something which you wouldn't be expected to do, and use that to trick your opponent.  Now, think about it again.

Claiming actions and accusing people is not WIFOM.  On the other hand "Why would I do that..." is.

Can you think of ANY way at all in which what I'm saying can fit that definition?  No.  Because there is none.  It's.  Not.  WIFOM.  End of.

[Neruz]

Duh. When he dies, he roleflips, so i know what he did.

And that helps you... how?

Please tell me you are joking.

Argh... look, I'm sick of people misusing the word "WIFOM" so I will post a definition now.

In gaming, it's any kind of game or subgame, especially a psychological one, in which a player is given a set of apparently equal choices where one or more is completely wrong. In such games one often may try to use what he knows of his opponent to make a better choice.

In other words - you do something which you wouldn't be expected to do, and use that to trick your opponent.  Now, think about it again.

Claiming actions and accusing people is not WIFOM.  On the other hand "Why would I do that..." is.

Can you think of ANY way at all in which what I'm saying can fit that definition?  No.  Because there is none.  It's.  Not.  WIFOM.  End of.

That's my point. If I say "Why would i do X if i'm Y" then it's WIFOM, but if you say "Why would Neruz do X if he's Y" then it's not?

[Neruz]

All of which, by the way, is completely irrelevant to the fact that i've already told you why i chose to follow Webadict.

[Leafsnail]

Please tell me you are joking.

I really don't see how it would help you that much to learn what a dead player did before he died.

That's my point. If I say "Why would i do X if i'm Y" then it's WIFOM, but if you say "Why would Neruz do X if he's Y" then it's not?

Yes.  Because I cannot be trying to trick myself by making you do an action which I don't expect you to.

You on the other hand can be trying to trick me by performing an action I don't expect you to.

Understand?

All of which, by the way, is completely irrelevant to the fact that i've already told you why i chose to follow Webadict.

Which is irrelevant to the fact that you are a doppelganger.

[Neruz]

Please tell me you are joking.

I really don't see how it would help you that much to learn what a dead player did before he died.

...

Well, lets see, lets say WA has a roleblocking ability, he uses it, then lets say that night he dies. We don't know who he roleblocked do we? This could be important if, say, he roleblocked the Exterminator. So we're all sitting around wondering why there was only one kill N1, i now have a lead, N1, WA blocked player X, i know this because he flipped a blocking role, so i have a place to start.


Mostly though, such information is useful at the MC portion of the game. If WA were scum he would likely lie about who he targeted and what he did, i would then be able to catch him in his lie.

This is a Mafia game Leafsnail, information is good.

That's my point. If I say "Why would i do X if i'm Y" then it's WIFOM, but if you say "Why would Neruz do X if he's Y" then it's not?

Yes.  Because I cannot be trying to trick myself by making you do an action which I don't expect you to.

You on the other hand can be trying to trick me by performing an action I don't expect you to.

Understand?

No, we're both saying the same thing, the only difference is the person who points it out.


Lets say i'm scum, i deliberately act in a town manner in order to play the "Why would i do X if i were scum?" card. But before i can make this post, someone else points this out and says "Why would Neruz do X if he were scum?" How does this, in any way, reduce the wine within the statement? All that's changed is somone else is pointing it out.

The player who asks "Why would Neruz do X if he were scum" is still engaging in WIFOM; to use the actual wine example from The Princess Bride, lets say during that scene a third person comes in and says "Why would [Character1] poison his own glass if he knew you knew he would poison his own glass?", how does the third party introducing this fact in any way change the fact that it is a recursive argument that does nothing but introduce uncertainty?

All of which, by the way, is completely irrelevant to the fact that i've already told you why i chose to follow Webadict.

Which is irrelevant to the fact that i am trying to mislynch a townie.

Just fixed that for you.

[webadict]

Please tell me you are joking.

I really don't see how it would help you that much to learn what a dead player did before he died.

That's my point. If I say "Why would i do X if i'm Y" then it's WIFOM, but if you say "Why would Neruz do X if he's Y" then it's not?

Yes.  Because I cannot be trying to trick myself by making you do an action which I don't expect you to.

You on the other hand can be trying to trick me by performing an action I don't expect you to.

Understand?

All of which, by the way, is completely irrelevant to the fact that i've already told you why i chose to follow Webadict.

Which is irrelevant to the fact that you are a doppelganger.

Well, let's think of it this way, Leafsnail:

You're saying "Why would Neruz do that as town?" How about I ask, "Why would you want to lynch Neruz as town?"

Let's see: The guy with the gun that can kill people believes that the guy who can watch the person with the gun and see who targets him the following Night is town and does not want him lynched, due mostly to the fact that he is Town and that he can watch me tonight and see who targets me.

Therefore, town you, knowing that the Vigilante believes he's right (And likely 50% of the town's only hope) would like to keep the guy who can watch him that Night to see who kills him. Your only evidence on him is this post:

You don't have to like it, you just have to accept the facts. And the facts are that the Dopps need WA dead to win, thus lynching him is only assisting them.

Now that we've got the extension, i'll unvote and revote Leafsnail, since WA is no longer in danger of being ninja mislynched.

Yep, great votehopping, Neruz.

Aaaaand no evidence. Just a restatement that you refuse to move your vote nor give additional (Read: any) information to think Neruz is a Doppelganger. Killing him won't give you a Doppelganger, but I... maybe I'm wrong about you.

Neruz's behaviour was horrible.  He changed his vote as a joke, and was fine with getting Pandarsenic lynched on it.  Then he suggests a policylynch on Org... in what is quite possibly mylo.  Then he defends you but not himself, but chickens out of voting me and votes ExKirby for making a mistake instead.  Then he misunderstands my post and uses it as an excuse to OMGUS (he probably felt emboldened by having webadict on his side).

I've also just realised something - his claim is EXTREMELY problematic.  The only tracking role in the game is the Journalist (well, the MS can too, but he'd have no reason to pick that).  That means he had the option to either watch or track in the night.  So, for his claim to work, he either tracked Webadict or watched Janus.

Now, I can't see why town Neruz would watch Janus.  I mean, he wasn't being amazingly townie (although, looking back, Neruz's ignoring of Janus is interesting) and even if he was, he'd be an unlikely target for the dopps.

As for tracking webadict... why?  Firstly, tracking is worse than watching from a town perspective anyway - you'd have to not only guess a doppelganger but also the doppelganger who's doing the kill, and even if you get it right, they can still claim a wide variety of different roles.  Watching the NK target (easier to find than the killing dopp) gives you a list of people, and you know one of them HAS to be scum.  And even if he did choose to watch... why webadict?  What was so incredibly scummy about him?

In short, the only thing Neruz has going for him is that he created a sortof-confirmed townie.  For me, that isn't nearly enough.

There'd be no reason to watch Janus unless he really wanted to see if ANOTHER reporter targeted him (Not bloody likely.) Therefore, watching who I target (and trying to catch me) makes complete sense.

His joke voting is a cover. It's obvious enough to KNOW it's obvious, and you're ignoring it for something else. The same logic could apply to my behavior Day 1, which is equally ridiculous, because your vote would never stand a chance. You're resorting to some very terrible reasons, given that there are way better reasons to vote others.

[Neruz]

Funny how he suddenly goes quiet. I suppose he could be in bed.

[webadict]

Well, he went to bed a good 7 minutes after you posted. I understand.

Plus, he needs time to continue this debate, which seems to be trying to derail from Kashyyk, who is also scumzors. Be careful though, since ExKirby and Pandarsenic have yet to post.

[Pandarsenic]

Skimming yields the following results:

Still alive: Org, Neruz, Pandarsenic, Webadict, Leafsnail, Kashyyk, ExKirby; 2/7 are scum. Webadict is almost-confirmed War Veteran or Exterminator.
Idiots vote me for being gone despite my saying everywhere that I'm going to be gone.
Neruz is tracker (?) who saw Webadict pewpew someone, more or less confirming him.
ExKirby, Kashyyk, Org, and Leafsnail are absolute idiots, in that order.

ExKirby, why are you still voting the greatest single threat to the dopps?
Kashyyk, Org: You've at least somewhat stopped being stupid. Good.
Leafsnail: Stop being stupid. First, you're tunneling. Second, you're getting caught in "X and Y must be a team!" mode. Third, you're being stupid.

But hell, if Web will !none tonight it's FL anyway. We can kill any 2 of the many, many people who attacked the confirmed pair.

I'm inclined to think at least one of the scum was probably in the earlier set of attacks (first or second). I'm thinking, in terms of game flow, one was scum who attacked then realized he could never get away with it, another was an idiot townie, and the later ones are townies who just didn't think hard enough or read carefully enough. As scum (maybe just from where I'm coming from) I would not have been willing to go for a mislynch on one of them. Too risky and too blatant, especially after every other person had done this.

Notable though: ExKirby is still voting Neruz, and Kashyyk pulled out very reluctantly and only after Webadict threatened to kill him.

I'm thinking one of ExKirby and Kashyyk. Or both. We'll see.

[Neruz]

Pandar, Web has claimed Vig, he could be lying, all we know for sure is that he is probably not a Doppelganger and he's definitely not a War Vet, if he was i would be dead.

[Pandarsenic]

Oh, right, we renamed Aggressive War Veteran.

My points all still stand, yes?

[Neruz]

Yes, your points still stand. Your point about ExKirby is especially good, i hadn't noticed that, too busy trying to beat the stupid out of Leafsnail.

[Org]

Hey now. I am not being stupid.

[ExKirby]

And I'm having an RL slowdown. Unvote.

I reckon this is escilating into a side vs side war, and not in the town vs scum way. I'm gonna have to sit on the fence.