Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 38

Author Topic: Beginners' XXVII - Imperishable Night - Game Over!  (Read 184110 times)

Zrk2

  • Bay Watcher
  • Emperor of the Damned
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 3 - Last Remote
« Reply #495 on: October 11, 2011, 02:48:04 pm »

So, Mormota and Powder Miner, you need to get on the board. Solidify your scumpicks and come out swinging. I want a vote, a reason, and examples to back them up. Let's go, there's only one day left.

Quickly checking back, it seems your very first vote was the fourth on Jafferey. You later claimed to be the first because the others were RVS, but that's not really a good explanation, especially since you unvoted his replacement with no fuss.

Just throwing this out here: Why would I not unvote the replacement? He just replaced, he can't be scummy.

...Because he still replaced someone that appeared scummy? A replacement cannot change roles in the process of being replaced so all those previous scumtells were still valid reasons to vote. This just doesn't make sense.
Logged
He's just keeping up with the Cardassians.

Powder Miner

  • Bay Watcher
  • this avatar is years irrelevant again oh god oh f-
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 3 - Last Remote
« Reply #496 on: October 11, 2011, 05:55:15 pm »

SO you do, Zrk2. So you do. I can provide you with that.

The first reason why I think you're scum is because the first thing you did when you came in was post an unnavigable thing that really proved nothing and then just jumped straight to a caseless vote against me. (Here.)
As far as I can decipher from that, yor reaon would appear to have been parroting IronyOwl (this is bad), by saying that he had an impressive post against me and then voting me. This is parroting.

Then sure, you had new reasons to go for me, but at least one of them is hypocritical AND parroting- you call me out on (mistakenly) calling IronyOwl on post number for one of my post reasons, just like IronyOwl already did. (Hey paaarrrotiing, guess what!)(HEre.). However, you had already noted IronyOwl's post number at the top of the post. (Merely commenting, but yes, indeed noting it, hypocritically, on a point you parroted from IronyOwl.) (Here, very top of the post.)




Logged

Zrk2

  • Bay Watcher
  • Emperor of the Damned
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 3 - Last Remote
« Reply #497 on: October 11, 2011, 08:01:34 pm »

SO you do, Zrk2. So you do. I can provide you with that.

The first reason why I think you're scum is because the first thing you did when you came in was post an unnavigable thing that really proved nothing and then just jumped straight to a caseless vote against me. (Here.)
As far as I can decipher from that, yor reaon would appear to have been parroting IronyOwl (this is bad), by saying that he had an impressive post against me and then voting me. This is parroting.

Then sure, you had new reasons to go for me, but at least one of them is hypocritical AND parroting- you call me out on (mistakenly) calling IronyOwl on post number for one of my post reasons, just like IronyOwl already did. (Hey paaarrrotiing, guess what!)(HEre.). However, you had already noted IronyOwl's post number at the top of the post. (Merely commenting, but yes, indeed noting it, hypocritically, on a point you parroted from IronyOwl.) (Here, very top of the post.)

So? I found examples and reasons and I articulated them. I reasoned, I exampled, I prooved. You on the other hand BSed and backed off the second you were questioned on your reasoning. You then lurked the day away hoping no one would notice you when I pointed out these flaws, in fact you lurked so hard you got prodded. Not just called on it, but fucking prodded. Now you come out against me, and you have what? One reason for voting me? There is nothing wrong with repeating a point if you have other reasons to back it up. I did, I do I always have.
Logged
He's just keeping up with the Cardassians.

Powder Miner

  • Bay Watcher
  • this avatar is years irrelevant again oh god oh f-
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 3 - Last Remote
« Reply #498 on: October 11, 2011, 09:56:10 pm »

I have two reasons, three if you count the fact that I called you out on parroting.
And I was prodded because I was too busy for a Mafia post sunday. Thing for my church, and then on monday, I had a quick combo of homework and Boy Scouts.
Logged

Urist Imiknorris

  • Bay Watcher
  • In the flesh, on the phone and in your account...
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 3 - Last Remote
« Reply #499 on: October 12, 2011, 10:28:32 am »

Extend. Mormota, you still have questions to answer. I'm not going to let this day end until you've answered.
Logged
Quote from: LordSlowpoke
I don't know how it works. It does.
Quote from: Jim Groovester
YOU CANT NOT HAVE SUSPECTS IN A GAME OF MAFIA

ITS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE GAME
Quote from: Cheeetar
If Tiruin redirected the lynch, then this means that, and... the Illuminati! Of course!

Mormota

  • Bay Watcher
  • Necron Lord
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 3 - Last Remote
« Reply #500 on: October 12, 2011, 11:41:31 am »

Also, you didn't address my other concern: You were suspicious of Shakerag for not scumhunting, but the only scumhunting you were doing was calling him out on it and asking him what he meant. Doesn't that strike you as problematic?

Not actually, no. Because what I called him out on was a general lack of scumhunting. I was scumhunting in my views, and I seriously fail to see what you are expecting here. Just because I make mistakes it doesn't mean nobody else does.

I'm not assuming that if someone attacks you they have to be scum. I'm assuming that it's odd to automatically assume that someone's going after you for genuine but bad reasons rather than because they're scum. What makes you think Urist is town? Do you have reasons, or do you just assume everyone is town until they do something horribly, horribly scummy?

I have explained this exactly in the part you quoted. Urist is not acting scummy, he is doing his townie job. On just what base would I attack him? You are repeating your points, seem to be of the opinion that hypocrisy is scummy, yet you are not doing much better, IronyOwl.

All I can find at the moment, so I'll have to go back and properly address this later. I find your general drifting with votes suspicious in general, though; unvoting and then just sitting there while the lynch went through D1 strikes me as suspicious, for instance, since while it's not a bandwagon, it shows a definite disinterest in who's lynched.

Your train of thought shows a definite lack of thought behind it. My vote would not have changed who's lynched. Why should I then just vote someone? You are making points and asking questions which could have been easily avoided if only you thought more about it, and all this gives me the feeling you are just attacking someone for the sake of attacking and looking town.

So, Mormota and Powder Miner, you need to get on the board. Solidify your scumpicks and come out swinging. I want a vote, a reason, and examples to back them up. Let's go, there's only one day left.

Yet you are not doing it either.

...Because he still replaced someone that appeared scummy? A replacement cannot change roles in the process of being replaced so all those previous scumtells were still valid reasons to vote. This just doesn't make sense.

This is completely asinine. I can not vote someone and call them scum if I haven't seen them in action.

So? I found examples and reasons and I articulated them. I reasoned, I exampled, I prooved. You on the other hand BSed and backed off the second you were questioned on your reasoning. You then lurked the day away hoping no one would notice you when I pointed out these flaws, in fact you lurked so hard you got prodded. Not just called on it, but fucking prodded. Now you come out against me, and you have what? One reason for voting me? There is nothing wrong with repeating a point if you have other reasons to back it up. I did, I do I always have.

Why do you feel so offended by being attacked? Then you claim that having a few points is not a problem, but call Powder out for only having one. Uh... right? Well. No. Not at all.

His explanation for not voting for an extension also seems scummy - why would a town player not want to hear their target's defense?
(By the way, I'd like an answer to that, Mormota)
Which you didn't answer.

If I am confident that someone is scum, then why would I want to hear more from them?
Logged
Avid Aurora player, Warhammer 40.000 fan, part-time writer and cursed game developer.
The only thing that happened in general was the death of 71% of the fort, and that wasn't really worth mentioning.

Dariush

  • Bay Watcher
  • I don't think I !!am!!, therefore I !!am!! not
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII
« Reply #501 on: October 12, 2011, 12:04:52 pm »

The day has been extended by 24 hours.

Votecount:

  • Zrk2: Powder Miner,
  • Mormota: Urist Imiknorris, IronyOwl
  • Urist Imiknorris:
  • Powder Miner: Zrk2,
  • IronyOwl: Mormota,

Not voting:

Extend:

The day will end Thursday, 6 PM GMT. You need (in total) 2 votes to extend and 4 to shorten.

LT for this game. (Mostly for myself, for easier votecounts, but feel free to use it)

Zrk2

  • Bay Watcher
  • Emperor of the Damned
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 3 - Last Remote
« Reply #502 on: October 12, 2011, 02:34:06 pm »

I have two reasons, three if you count the fact that I called you out on parroting.
And I was prodded because I was too busy for a Mafia post sunday. Thing for my church, and then on monday, I had a quick combo of homework and Boy Scouts.

OOC: You could have sent the mod a PM and not been prodded. It would look less suspicious.

So, Mormota and Powder Miner, you need to get on the board. Solidify your scumpicks and come out swinging. I want a vote, a reason, and examples to back them up. Let's go, there's only one day left.

Yet you are not doing it either.

I already made my case for Powder.
Spoiler: My Case (click to show/hide)

...Because he still replaced someone that appeared scummy? A replacement cannot change roles in the process of being replaced so all those previous scumtells were still valid reasons to vote. This just doesn't make sense.

This is completely asinine. I can not vote someone and call them scum if I haven't seen them in action.

But you still have all the scumtells from the previous person. All those still stand. Replacing doesn't change any of that. That's what I just said.

So? I found examples and reasons and I articulated them. I reasoned, I exampled, I prooved. You on the other hand BSed and backed off the second you were questioned on your reasoning. You then lurked the day away hoping no one would notice you when I pointed out these flaws, in fact you lurked so hard you got prodded. Not just called on it, but fucking prodded. Now you come out against me, and you have what? One reason for voting me? There is nothing wrong with repeating a point if you have other reasons to back it up. I did, I do I always have.

Why do you feel so offended by being attacked? Then you claim that having a few points is not a problem, but call Powder out for only having one. Uh... right? Well. No. Not at all.
I didn't feel offended. I was concerend that his attack was so poor, so I called it. There is a difference.

Quote
His explanation for not voting for an extension also seems scummy - why would a town player not want to hear their target's defense?
(By the way, I'd like an answer to that, Mormota)
Which you didn't answer.

If I am confident that someone is scum, then why would I want to hear more from them?

Because they might have something worthwhile to say? Because they might be able to make sense of what they were doing? Because they still have stuff to say? Because more information is always welcome? And that's only off the top of my head.
Logged
He's just keeping up with the Cardassians.

Urist Imiknorris

  • Bay Watcher
  • In the flesh, on the phone and in your account...
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 3 - Last Remote
« Reply #503 on: October 12, 2011, 03:52:34 pm »

Extend.
Quote from: Zrk2
...Because he still replaced someone that appeared scummy? A replacement cannot change roles in the process of being replaced so all those previous scumtells were still valid reasons to vote. This just doesn't make sense.

This is completely asinine. I can not vote someone and call them scum if I haven't seen them in action.

But you still have all the scumtells from the previous person. All those still stand. Replacing doesn't change any of that. That's what I just said.

I think what he meant was that you have no way of knowing what were legitimate scumtells and what was simply the replaced being themselves, so the best course of action would not be to dump the other guy's crimes on the replacee.


Quote from: Mormota
His explanation for not voting for an extension also seems scummy - why would a town player not want to hear their target's defense?
(By the way, I'd like an answer to that, Mormota)
Which you didn't answer.

If I am confident that someone is scum, then why would I want to hear more from them?

Because if you're town, you're always looking for scum to incriminate themselves. This requires them to post. If you're scum, you're looking for someone to die, but don't really care who. This is easier when you don't let them defend themselves.
Logged
Quote from: LordSlowpoke
I don't know how it works. It does.
Quote from: Jim Groovester
YOU CANT NOT HAVE SUSPECTS IN A GAME OF MAFIA

ITS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE GAME
Quote from: Cheeetar
If Tiruin redirected the lynch, then this means that, and... the Illuminati! Of course!

Zrk2

  • Bay Watcher
  • Emperor of the Damned
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 3 - Last Remote
« Reply #504 on: October 12, 2011, 04:13:10 pm »

Extend.
Quote from: Zrk2
...Because he still replaced someone that appeared scummy? A replacement cannot change roles in the process of being replaced so all those previous scumtells were still valid reasons to vote. This just doesn't make sense.

This is completely asinine. I can not vote someone and call them scum if I haven't seen them in action.

But you still have all the scumtells from the previous person. All those still stand. Replacing doesn't change any of that. That's what I just said.

I think what he meant was that you have no way of knowing what were legitimate scumtells and what was simply the replaced being themselves, so the best course of action would not be to dump the other guy's crimes on the replacee.

That still doesn't invalidate previous scumtells though. Alebeit it is a rather unique situation, so there is some leeway.
Logged
He's just keeping up with the Cardassians.

Powder Miner

  • Bay Watcher
  • this avatar is years irrelevant again oh god oh f-
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 3 - Last Remote
« Reply #505 on: October 12, 2011, 08:29:08 pm »

Unfortunately, I won;t be able to post for the rest of the day- upcoming field trip, which goes from friday-sunday. BAAAAANDDDDDDDD TRIPPPP
...I suppose an extend is therefore in order.
Logged

Mormota

  • Bay Watcher
  • Necron Lord
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 3 - Last Remote
« Reply #506 on: October 13, 2011, 08:22:17 am »

Because if you're town, you're always looking for scum to incriminate themselves. This requires them to post. If you're scum, you're looking for someone to die, but don't really care who. This is easier when you don't let them defend themselves.

Then I made a mistake. So did everyone else who lynched him in the end. Regretting it will not get us anywhere.

Answers.

Fair enough.

Unfortunately, I won;t be able to post for the rest of the day- upcoming field trip, which goes from friday-sunday. BAAAAANDDDDDDDD TRIPPPP
...I suppose an extend is therefore in order.

I'll be at a bridge tournament, so definitely agreed with this. Extend.
Logged
Avid Aurora player, Warhammer 40.000 fan, part-time writer and cursed game developer.
The only thing that happened in general was the death of 71% of the fort, and that wasn't really worth mentioning.

Dariush

  • Bay Watcher
  • I don't think I !!am!!, therefore I !!am!! not
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 3 - Last Remote
« Reply #507 on: October 13, 2011, 08:35:00 am »

The day has been extended by 24 hours.

No vote changes, so no votecount.

Urist Imiknorris

  • Bay Watcher
  • In the flesh, on the phone and in your account...
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 3 - Last Remote
« Reply #508 on: October 13, 2011, 11:46:59 am »

Zrk2, what the fuck do you mean by this:
I guess I'm confirmed. BM will wrap up right shortly.
Logged
Quote from: LordSlowpoke
I don't know how it works. It does.
Quote from: Jim Groovester
YOU CANT NOT HAVE SUSPECTS IN A GAME OF MAFIA

ITS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE GAME
Quote from: Cheeetar
If Tiruin redirected the lynch, then this means that, and... the Illuminati! Of course!

Zrk2

  • Bay Watcher
  • Emperor of the Damned
    • View Profile
Re: Beginners' XXVII - Day 3 - Last Remote
« Reply #509 on: October 13, 2011, 02:06:40 pm »

Zrk2, what the fuck do you mean by this:
I guess I'm confirmed. BM will wrap up right shortly.

That we're in LYLO so it won't drag on for weeks. At most a few more days. Actually, that does look kind of scummy, but it was honestly just a throwaway line. Oops.

Mod: Is there a limit to the number of extends? I'm honestly ready for the day to end and the vote to come down, this is dragging on and I have other things to do with my time. Oppose extend.
Logged
He's just keeping up with the Cardassians.
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 38