Print

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

[Toaster]

Jim:  I don't want people drinking the WIFOM.

[Jim Groovester]

I'm not going after Jack, yet. I want to have a solider case than "he bandwagon'd lynch him" before I go after him. In effect, I've nothing.

You ever going to get that case?

If you don't hunt I don't see any reason I should shy away from you.

Heliman and Jack A T, are the two of you just going to sit back while I pick at Toaster all day long? I don't care if there's nothing to go off of, you still need to post something and make yourselves readable.

[Jack A T]

As for the response thing, this is directed at everyone, I was considering the possibility of it being used as a weak reason to continue to persecute me, and headed it off.

So...why specifically direct it to Toaster, then?  Convenience?

I find it better to nip would-be attacks in the bud. Proactivity > Reactivity, no?
Also, nice Bandwagon you got there. It'd be a shame if you didn't back it up with real meat. sssssSSSSSSS *BOOM*

Nip would-be attacks in the bud: It's the tone that makes it feel defensive.  You used a hostile, "Oh, and before you inevitably use this against me" tone.  I personally prefer just quickly apologizing for my inability to post (with the BAND TRIP OF DOOM being an exception).  Doesn't seem overly defensive, but still deals with attacks like that.

To summarize: Calmly noting lack of internet access looks fine.  Announcing what is essentially "Oh, and before you attack me for this, here's my defense, Toaster!" looks twitchy and overly defensive.

Bandwagon/Lack of Meat: First, allow me to direct you to this post.

Second: Calm.  When someone is accusing you of being overly defensive, it is not generally a good idea to hastily attack him with almost no evidence.  Especially when you admit that you effectively have nothing on him.  Twice.

Heliman and Jack A T, are the two of you just going to sit back while I pick at Toaster all day long? I don't care if there's nothing to go off of, you still need to post something and make yourselves readable.

This is a very busy weekend for me (lots of acting-related stuff).  I'm going to do what I can, though.

[Heliman]

Heliman and Jack A T, are the two of you just going to sit back while I pick at Toaster all day long? I don't care if there's nothing to go off of, you still need to post something and make yourselves readable.

*tiredly looks at thread*
,,,
Oh yeah.

As for the response thing, this is directed at everyone, I was considering the possibility of it being used as a weak reason to continue to persecute me, and headed it off.

So...why specifically direct it to Toaster, then?  Convenience?

Explain why it could possibly be convenient to target Toaster.

I find it better to nip would-be attacks in the bud. Proactivity > Reactivity, no?
Also, nice Bandwagon you got there. It'd be a shame if you didn't back it up with real meat. sssssSSSSSSS *BOOM*

Nip would-be attacks in the bud: It's the tone that makes it feel defensive.  You used a hostile, "Oh, and before you inevitably use this against me" tone.  I personally prefer just quickly apologizing for my inability to post (with the BAND TRIP OF DOOM being an exception).  Doesn't seem overly defensive, but still deals with attacks like that.
To summarize: Calmly noting lack of internet access looks fine.  Announcing what is essentially "Oh, and before you attack me for this, here's my defense, Toaster!" looks twitchy and overly defensive.

Toaster just did the same thing, and you said nothing about him doing it. Are you afraid to go after a better player, Jack?

[Heliman]

Oh God damn it. Messed up with quotes. the post should read like this:

Heliman and Jack A T, are the two of you just going to sit back while I pick at Toaster all day long? I don't care if there's nothing to go off of, you still need to post something and make yourselves readable.

*tiredly looks at thread*
...
Oh yeah.

As for the response thing, this is directed at everyone, I was considering the possibility of it being used as a weak reason to continue to persecute me, and headed it off.

So...why specifically direct it to Toaster, then?  Convenience?

Explain why it could possibly be convenient to target Toaster.

I find it better to nip would-be attacks in the bud. Proactivity > Reactivity, no?
Also, nice Bandwagon you got there. It'd be a shame if you didn't back it up with real meat. sssssSSSSSSS *BOOM*

Nip would-be attacks in the bud: It's the tone that makes it feel defensive.  You used a hostile, "Oh, and before you inevitably use this against me" tone.  I personally prefer just quickly apologizing for my inability to post (with the BAND TRIP OF DOOM being an exception).  Doesn't seem overly defensive, but still deals with attacks like that.
To summarize: Calmly noting lack of internet access looks fine.  Announcing what is essentially "Oh, and before you attack me for this, here's my defense, Toaster!" looks twitchy and overly defensive.

Toaster just did the same thing, and you said nothing about him doing it. Are you afraid to go after a better player, Jack?

[Jack A T]

Heliman:

Convenient to target Toaster: He was going into a rebuttal of Toaster's arguments.  It could've been convenient to just include the whole "Oh, and before you attack me for this" in the Toaster rebuttal.  However, I don't know what Breadbocks was thinking.  Ergo, I asked him a question.

"Toaster just did the same thing": Where?  Because I don't see anything like that since I came in.  Please clarify.

"afraid to go after [Toaster]": My extremely meta (and long) rebuttal.  Or, to put it differently, I've played with the guy before.  I'm not exactly scared of him.  He's a bit tough to read, but I've found that being outright afraid to go after someone isn't helpful to me, no matter what I am.

[Reelyanoob]

Watching thread. I'd like to sign up for future rounds if possible.

[Heliman]

"Toaster just did the same thing": Where?  Because I don't see anything like that since I came in.  Please clarify.

Jim was just going after him for it.

[Heliman]

Watching thread. I'd like to sign up for future rounds if possible.

That would be great, but you might not want to post this in games that are in session! If you want, try posting in the Games Threshold Discussion and List It's a stupidly specific and ornate sounding thread title, but it's basically where we talk about general things mafia when not in character for the games.

[Jack A T]

"Toaster just did the same thing": Where?  Because I don't see anything like that since I came in.  Please clarify.

Jim was just going after him for it.

Ah, so that's what you meant.  I still fail to see the resemblance.  At all.  As far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong, Toaster), Toaster is trying to steer the game away from WIFOMy WIFOM, not to defend himself.  Nor is he being overly defensive, seeing how he's not really defending himself (as far as I can tell).  And I agree with him there.

While not nearly the worst possible WIFOMy thinking, it's still not a great reason to be wary of someone.  Maybe the mafia is finding the ICs useful in its schemes?  Maybe one of the ICs is scum?  Maybe the scum is killing anyone who comes close to the truth?  Maybe the scum is killing anyone who doesn't?  Maybe the scum looked at previous BM games and saw the attempts to get ICs lynched, and said "Oh, cool, let's let them do that!"?  Maybe the scum is just randomly killing people?  And so on, and so on.  Using stuff like that to determine pretty much anything isn't the greatest idea.  Your case is particularly mild, but still, try to avoid the WIFOM.

Besides, I'm a bit too young to legally drink alcoholic beverages.

To summarize: WIFOM usually bad.  Stopping excessive WIFOM ≠ being overly defensive.  Being overly defensive = being overly defensive.  Ug.

[Toaster]

What Jack said, basically.

I'd be less suspicious of breadbocks if he was working on building a case on someone instead of sitting around waiting for the lynch.  For the record, this applies somewhat to Jim as well- he's being very quiet for a D3.

[lordnincompoop]

Day ends in 6hrs, people.


Votecount:
Heliman - 0-
Jack AT - 0-
breadbocks - 2 - Toaster, Jack AT
Jim Groovester - 0 -
Toaster - 0 -

Not Voting - 3 - Heliman, Jim Groovester, breadbocks
No Lynch  - 0 -

Extend  - 0 -
Shorten  - 0 -


The Day will end Monday, 8PM GMT.

You need 2 to Extend and 3 to Shorten.

[Toaster]

Putting out a preliminary extend to give nonvoters a chance to commit.

[Jim Groovester]

breadbocks.

I have to default to people who aren't hunting.

For the record, this applies somewhat to Jim as well- he's being very quiet for a D3.

What?

What?

I've probably posted the most out of anyone on Day 3. Every page features my scowling visage multiple times.

[Toaster]

Jim:  I was mostly referring to your lack of walls and this post.  It's not really scummy, just unusual.

Spoiler: Also... (click to show/hide)

Fixed that scowl for you.