...
It's not about being HARD or EASY. It's about lynching scum. Difficulty of the lynch does NOT correlate with scummitude. You'll need more than someone going after hard or easy targets, because last I checked, easy targets can be scum.
Scum often go for easy targets because, well, they're easy. I certainly agree that easy targets can be scum, which is why the other thing I keep mentioning is important: Jokerman's targets were two newbies and the players that "no one can read," and he was voting none of them. He was attacking none of them. He showed up immediately when called, announced his suspicions, and then said he was holding onto his vote until he was sure. Then he voted and disappeared.
That's scummy behavior, as a whole.
3. I don't know how you turn "You're attacking me for my behavior. Obviously, I could just do whatever the hell I wanted, but that wouldn't be very good for the group as a whole--now would it?" into "me criticizing you for scumhunting." Overreaction noted.
Behavior is the basis for scum suspects. My point is that if I don't want to be suspected pointlessly (i.e. because I am town), I had better keep tabs on my behavior.
So, are you saying that you wouldn't have acted better if I hadn't shoved you? Because, really, you should be playing like this all of the time!
Of course I'm acting better because you shoved me. It was really helpful, in fact--but ideally, shouldn't one be trying to play a perfect town game, rather than needing to have it kicked into them by Webadict?
a. Jokerman says his targets are Elegy, Tack, and Toony.
b. Vector thinks "Hmm, those are 'easy targets' and he hasn't even been attacking them or questioning them at all. Plus, he's not even bothering to vote."
c. SirBayer says "YOU'RE HYPOCRITICAL FOR VOTING TOONYMAN"
d. I say "No, this is about target-profiling, not about voting ToonyMan in and of itself. I am not doing what I think Jokerman is doing--i.e., attacking a portfolio of weak targets. In fact, here are my suspects, so that you don't have to take my word on it."
e. SirBayer says "OH MY GOD WHY ARE YOU MENTIONING YOUR SUSPECTS ARE YOU SCARED HUH HUH HUH"
f. blah blah blah blah blah
You'll probably want to make this clearer for people that have no idea what you're talking about. Hyperboles don't transfer well without quotes. Otherwise, outsiders are going back trying to figure out what's up.
Sure. URLs attached to letters, now.
Perhaps you wouldn't have gotten in my way had you actually played well to start off with. Because, you're playing well now that there's a lot less accusing people of the things you yourself are doing.
And while we're at it, I think a good reason you're not going after me is because I AM NOT BEING ANYWHERE AS SCUMMY AS YOU. I think your biggest argument against me is "Webadict wasn't playing full strength right off the bat." Hey, look at that, there's all of your evidence you've got. You can even say I said it so it must be true (Which it is.)
If you HAD an argument, you would've posted it. Simple as that. I think it'd be easy to make an argument against me if you truly thought I was scum. But, instead I think you'll just try a "It's a gut thing" type of response, wait it out in hopes someone else will make a reasonable argument for you, and then you'll hop on and ride that wave.
Yes, unfortunately I had to spend a while accusing people of things I, myself was doing, because there wasn't a wide array of other scumtells to pick out. My biggest argument isn't "Webadict wasn't playing full strength off the bat." It looked bad at the time (especially in comparison to how you usually play), but now that you've shown up, I think I'm satisfied. I went back to look at my posts and yours from the beginning of the game, and in retrospect what looked like overreactions/attempts to make me curl up and die, rather than attacking anyone or defending myself, were just vintage Webadict. This quotation, in particular, had bothered me:
Right, so you're saying that somebody who has yet to post (And is therefore a null player) is one of your suspicions. Which can hardly be convincing for the rest of your list. I mean, who would take that seriously?
I also like your little maneuver to generate a lack of confidence in my list. Clever, but no thanks.
You're accusing, but you're also making a suggestion--that my list wouldn't convince anyone. This is a technique people often use to shift opinion, like saying "thank you for the speedy reply" at the bottom of an email. It's pressure and a reminder that a reply had better be forthcoming (or else!), in a very indirect fashion. At the time, it reminded me of things I'd do to diminish other people's cases, and break them down until no one would pay attention to them. A suggestion. You've stopped doing that, though, and for now I am satisfied.
I'm not going to say that I think you're town, but I don't especially think you're scum, either. My accusations are retracted.
Again, it's not about "high-level." If Org was doing the exact thing you were doing, I'd have to lynch him. But, nice try. I mean, all of that evidence I have says that my voting you is COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY JUSTIFIED. Disagree if you want, but it's true.
AND WHY DON'T YOU KICK THE LURKERS?!?!? You can do it by saying
"Eduren: Prod Pandarsenic."
But you don't.
And waiting for anyone is just going to get you killed. We're not waiting for you to be done waiting. Mostly because we believe you're scum.
See, it's like you're failing logic. The people that are attacking you THINK YOU ARE SCUM. If we think you are scum, WE WILL LYNCH YOU. We don't need to wait for other people because WE HAVE A SCUM. So, think about the fact that while you're waiting, we're thinking you're more likely scum because you're too busy waiting for lurkers to defend yourself properly.
And instead of defending yourself, you're HOPING that people will simply vote someone else. You're somehow certain that I won't change my vote, which is odd because if I were you, and I had played as horribly to begin with, I'd probably try and show how greatly I've improved. Granted, you still did exceedingly horrible, but maybe you could've redeemed yourself had you not explicitly said you're just going to avoid me.
I can't disagree that your vote on me is justified, because I
was playing really, really badly. I'm not "waiting for lurkers" to help defend me--obviously, only I can defend myself, and I don't really expect the lurkers to do anything but come back and plop another vote on my head.
I wasn't asking for a prod on Pandarsenic previously because he had what appeared to be a legitimate excuse. Now that he is presumably back from his doctor's appointment, I will
request a prod on Pandar.
I have, in fact, been defending myself, but there's a certain element of just "hoping" that one will be unvoted. I have no way to force anyone to unvote me, and I don't particularly expect to be unvoted given the way I was playing. Certainly, I hope that my improved behavior will result in
not being lynched, but ... well, can I blame anyone? Not really.
1. I prompted you? I didn't really care until later. You still felt the need to bring it up to me.
Again, as I stated previously, I brought up my list to establish context and explain what I was actually talking about. You accused me of doing "what I was accusing Jokerman of." I explained what my accusation was, and then proceeded to bring up my list to show how my behavior was different from my accusations of Jokerman.
2. See what Webadict said. Also, took you this long to get around to OMGUSing? Good work on the slow reaction.
And see, that's what I'm saying about you. You're going after what I consider an easy lynch.
The fact that I attack my attacker only when he does something scummy implies that it isn't an OMGUS. OMGUS requires a certain lack of evidence.
You are blowing my actions, such as they are, out of proportion. If you're scumhunting, then look at what I
am doing, rather than how you could force my actions to appear for your own advantage.
3. Only scum worries what they look like. Only scum, ever.
This is false. Look at all the beginner's games that have ever run, if you like. The beginners start off looking scummy and, as they are attacked, change their play. They care what they look like, for otherwise there would be no incentive to change.
This is like saying "only scum care whether they're lynched or not." It isn't true.
4. You are scared, apparently. See #3.
I see more townies give up than scum players. Yes, an idealized townie is never scared. That doesn't mean that a townie
cannot be scared--does it?
Author
Topic: Pick Your Scumteam - Mafia wins - Thanks to everyone that stuck with it (Read 76217 times)