I'm content with seeing what LampDwellr really is.
He is being way too aggressive to be a helpful townie right now.
Vote LampDwellr
I'm extremely annoyed that you keep misrepresenting me. I'm sure you can tell! Please explain how that annoyance is scummy. You're right that I haven't been helpful lately but that is a product of my rather strong frustration.
Lamp Dwellr - Leaning scum. She seems too defensive, but I'm not sure what to make of that since I know she's experienced. She brings up good points at times, but my gut says scum.
.
I am defending myself once per time attacked, and I keep getting attacked for the same non-thing that I didn't post. So I'm annoyed about that. But just because people are nit-picking me should not be construed as overdefensiveness.
Unless you're planning to say that me choosing to respond here is also too defensive or something, which
Ah, I seem to be stuck in a neverending cycle of “he said/she said” with LampDwellr. In order to make this less messy, I have to use Word, which then screws up the quotes…
LampDwellr: H) Your assumption that there are 6 scum and 3 are male and 3 are female seems problematic for a number of reasons. Your reasoning from it also strikes me as spurious, because the order in which you kill people matters even if you do decide that it's 90% likely the scum are half-male and half-female - which is not the case. J) It is not the case that [it is 90% likely that the scum are half-and-half], is what I was saying. An awkward sentence, but not as awkward as saying "even if you do decide that it's 90% likely the scum are half-male and half female - which is not actually the confidence interval I would assign such a circumstance." L) I am not certain that it is not a 50/50 split. But that's not something I'd like to gamble heavy on, because I think it's more like...40% likely that it's 50/50. It could easily be an odd number of scum, especially if you have loner scums or neutrals, and if it is an even number of scum it may well not be 50/50.
Kankennon:
H) Okay, here I said that it made sense if the (most likely 6) bad guys were evenly split among the genders, half and half. A 50/50 split made perfect sense to me, and I would feel that it would be a logical assumption based on simply the fact that the game has a pre-laid out group of players that have been made aware of each other’s gender and instructed that it matters somehow. If the players are evenly split, then why wouldn’t you think that the good/bad roles are evenly split as well? They certainly don’t have to be and very well might not be, but doesn’t logic dictate that to be the most likely scenario? What is LampDwellr’s true point here?
J) LampDwellr’s restatement of what he meant by “which is not the case” is far more convoluted than it should possibly be. Notice how he made the sentence WAY more awkward instead of clarifying what he supposedly meant instead.
L) LampDwellr goes from completely certain that it is not 50/50, to agreeing that there might be a 40% chance of the 50/50 split.
LampDwellr: H) We were talking about possible options for the setup and I thought your reasoning was spurious. So I explained why rather than going "nope dumb"
J) I did clarify what I meant, in multiple iterations. I was restating the part in quotation marks to explain why I opted for the simplified wording in the first place. I can't believe you're actually still pushing this nonsense, frankly.
L) I REALLY CANNOT BELIEVE that you are pushing THIS more. I did not say that I was completely certain it was not the case. I said it was not the case that we can be confident scum are 50/50 M/F. That is all I ever said. Quit it.
O) My vote is still on you at this point because you're pushing so aggressively that I said I was 100% sure the scum weren't 50/50 M/F, and you know that's not what I said, so you must be lying. Town don't have a habit of lying, and if that is your habit as town you should quit it. If you were lying about what someone else said I might also be voting you for that.
My initial vote was because of all that "I'm sure I'm gonna get nailed for this but" stuff you were spewing, which is a frequent noobscum gesture.
Q) I am acknowledging that these statistics are made up, because they're all in HYPOTHETICAL CONVERSATIONS.
Curious. LampDwellr is the one yelling, ranting, and making up statistics and insisting that other people (mainly me) said them, yet I’m the one being aggressive here?
Oh by the way, I never stated that I was 100% certain about ANYTHING (or even 90% for that matter). Where did that originate? Oh yeah…
Stop being awful at reading comprehension if you're going to play mafia. Show me what bit of text of MINE this bolded part is responding to. I didn't ever say "Kank said he was 100% certain of a thing." You're responding to literal nothing.
Why are you doing this?
Are you scummy or an idiot? Your choice. Warning for flaming
Ah, I seem to be stuck in a neverending cycle of “he said/she said” with LampDwellr.
That is because you initially quoted me out of context and continue to insist that I said something I didn't. You started this.
I am making no connection between your observation that 100% of d1 lynches have been town and anything you said afterwards. Stop connecting these. This is one of many reasons why you are failing in this conversation.
O) My vote is still on you at this point because you're pushing so aggressively that I said I was 100% sure the scum weren't 50/50 M/F, and you know that's not what I said, so you must be lying. Town don't have a habit of lying, and if that is your habit as town you should quit it. If you were lying about what someone else said I might also be voting you for that.
My initial vote was because of all that "I'm sure I'm gonna get nailed for this but" stuff you were spewing, which is a frequent noobscum gesture.
The bolded is the most nonsensical smear I've ever seen. Unless LD is a telepath, how can he know for sure whether we truly understand his meaning? Sure he's been trying to clarify himself, but shouldn't he have been clear the first time with so much experience? As far as I can see, LD is defending his slip to the extent of lying himself. He then contradicts himself in the next sentence that says that town don't have a habit of lying. So it's either a sloppy town statement, or it's scum trying to cover their tracks. Even after I told LD to be careful and to proofread before posting, he still comes up with this. Vote LampDwellr
None of this makes any sense.
I am not lying, you are wrong, and Kank is misrepresenting my original statement. He always was: he quoted it without the entire sentence to begin with. Kank's also now accusing me of "ranting and yelling" in a post that was shorter than his post I was responding to.
I didn't contradict myself by saying "townies don't lie." Townies don't lie. What am I lying about? I said to begin with that it was not the case that [we can be confident there are an even number of m/f scum].
The logic "shouldn't someone who has experience be able to write a sentence that I personally like" is actually a horrible reason for this vote. Just terrible.
And this "even after I told him to proofread" thing? Where the hell do you get off? You're not reading my posts very well. That's your fault.
I don't get it, though. You think it was scummy of me to respond to Kank's meta with "hey, that's not very accurate"? And what "actions" are you even talking about?
Quick post here to avoid the dreaded Mod prod as is likely to get it in my place. i need to re-read the thread when I am more coherent, Insomnia Sucks.
Kank: Earlier you asked us what I felt about Lampdweller now, of the people who currently have wagons against them he is the most consistent and coherent to liking him less as scum especially as I dislike the other vote on him. And to echo Seppel the only time I have seen a gambit like the one Dusty pulled Scum did it. So of the two of them would be more willing to go after Dusty but need to do a full re-read before I change my vote.
Can you cite where the gambit was pulled and by whom?
Day 1 Triskellion just before you joined the game, pulled by Iso claiming that Foxlet was playing differently than normal. I ended up initially voting for Iso then switching my vote off him to Vitek who dropped into a similar position to the one WoD now finds himself. Hindsight being 20/20 wish I has stuck with Iso.
Still haven't done a re read so don't wish to commit a vote to either side atm.
Ugh. An Iso gambit.
FWIW, anything Iso does should not be something you form an opinion as a result of.
I still don't like Maokun, something is up with LampDwellr, but I'll go ahead and unvote; vote stardust for being my best lead.
Normal Mafia games ran this year, and in every single one on Day 1, a townie was lynched. The odds are that whoever everyone jumps on today will most likely be a townie as well.
A) Interesting! I know why it'd be 75/25 or so in favor of a townie getting lynched, but why do you think it's 100%? That's a lot.
Quote from Kankennon »
I'm perfectly content with leaving my vote on the (currently) not-playing Iso.
B) I don't think "because townies usually get lynched I'm not gonna vote for anyone" is very reasonable. Townies getting lynched day one lets you check the wagon for the weakest justifications, and helps you scumhunt. It's virtually always protown to lynch SOMEBODY. I think I remember you saying you're kinda new at Mafia, is that true?
Very well, I'll stop with the jokey votes then if it's time to really start playing. Unvote Yes, this is my first official Mafia game so feel free to label me with whatever sort of noob Post-It notes you desire. Be sure not to consider me using humor or sarcasm as a tell in either direction, because that's how I always am 24/7. (Feel free to check back in any of my 10,000+ posts.) It's way too early for me to get a read on anyone yet, and no, I'm not going to jump off a bridge just because everyone else is doing it. One of my all-time pet peeves is people who commit to playing a game and then never show up to play it. With that said, I'll place my official vote on whoever shows up LAST, between Seppel and captaineddie.
C) I got no anti-noob bias; you don't look confused here. I think you'll probably be good at this game, actually. I do have anti-"please don't think I'm scummy if I do X" bias, though. And - for example - I haven't voted yet, but I'm not making a show of not voting yet. A lot of new players don't want to die early in their first game, so it could be that. On the other hand, it could be... Vote: Kankennon
Oh I totally get that me posting so much already is putting a target sign on my back, from either townies willing to jump on the Kankwagon because I seem to be so scummy, or from nervous scummers worried that I might be too active and able to root them out.
General statement is general. I get that you voted for me because I outwardly warned of my use of humor and sarcasm, which obviously means that if you use it or even warn people that you plan to use humor/sarcasm no matter what, then that also brands you as scummy, no matter what.
F) Nah, it seemed overly self-aware.
Quote from Kankennon »
Seriously, I only had like 15 minutes to check things out at the time, and I figured that checking Normal games was the best use of my time since this game has been labled a "Normal" game. If this Normal game is not actually a Normal game, then so be it. In any case, if Mafia players account for 25% of the players, then wouldn't you think they'd get hit at least 25% of the time out of the gate? All I found that it was an odd statistic that sampled a small portion of the total games played, yes. Does it have any bearing in this game? Probably not. Feel free to throw facts and statistics around however you like. I'm done looking up past game statistics and will focus my numbers on the game at hand.
G) I think looking up past game statistics is pretty interesting and informative! So did you. You depart quickly, though. Why?? I think you would expect to hit scum about 15% of the time on D1, because scum represent only 25-30% of the players and scum can also vote, which increases the likelihood of a successful townie wagon. It's hard to hit scum unless they bus. What I found interesting was the 100% part! It means that some of the things people in normals on THIS VERY FORUM are seeing as scummy probably aren't! It's still protown to vote people.
H) Your assumption that there are 6 scum and 3 are male and 3 are female seems problematic for a number of reasons. Your reasoning from it also strikes me as spurious, because the order in which you kill people matters even if you do decide that it's 90% likely the scum are half-male and half-female - which is not the case. Since we're gaming the setup a bit here, why do you think it is likely that there are an equal number of M/F scum, exactly? Hitting half the baddies in 11 lynches is pretty horrible anyway, with nightkills included! BUT ANYWAY, you're doing this thing through your posts where you're like "sorry I was really joking, sorry you couldn't tell, don't persecute me for making jokes!" If everything you say is half-serious this is a very convenient position for you, wouldn't you say?
I) Very nice catch there Kank. Lamp how do you know the lay out of the scum team?? I can think of a very good reason which leads us to vote: LampDwellr
Is there something you know about the scum splits here that the general public does not know? Just how do you know that the split isn't half and half?
Oh good heavens. Must be election season if we're quoting half-sentences now and someone else is barning it. I'll quote a little more of the sentence:
Quote from LampDwellr »
even if you do decide that it's 90% likely the scum are half-male and half-female - which is not the case.
J) It is not the case that [it is 90% likely that the scum are half-and-half], is what I was saying. An awkward sentence, but not as awkward as saying "even if you do decide that it's 90% likely the scum are half-male and half female - which is not actually the confidence interval I would assign such a circumstance." ~~~~~~ Back to the actual conversation.
Quote from Kankennon »
In all reality, the fact that I'm a jokester by nature will surely lead to my early death until people get used to me and say, "Oh that's just Kank. He does that no matter what side he's on."
K) You keep making this error where you think that people think that being silly is worth killing someone for. I don't agree. Saying stuff that's quasi-relevant and then when challenged saying "I was being silly" is the thing I was talking about. And now here's that "I will surely die" fatalism stuff. Which is another one of those quasi-scummy things.
L) I am not certain that it is not a 50/50 split. But that's not something I'd like to gamble heavy on, because I think it's more like...40% likely that it's 50/50. It could easily be an odd number of scum, especially if you have loner scums or neutrals, and if it is an even number of scum it may well not be 50/50.
Yes... you are bad at quoting... Perhaps you should proofread your posts more carefully since there was also confusion on what you meant with the slip that you knew more about the set up than you did.
I am not ever going to apologize for someone quoting a quarter of a sentence out of context and then trying to make something out of it. The person you're looking for on this "causing confusion" charge is not me. Make serious posts, not random needling.
PG is right. I was merely commenting about the people who were getting the barns on them other than myself at the time, and I couldn't see any good justification for barns on either of them. A lot has happened since then. I'd REALLY like the non-players to start playing. I'm more annoyed by players not playing than I am by LampDwellr and GrickyTimmick deciding that I'm a baddie.
Har. Draw this out to its logical conclusion: the people playing the most town are the people who do nothing to advance the plot. Ergo, nobody should advance the plot.
I think it's pretty dumb! I don't know anything about the setup. All I was saying at any point is that we CAN'T assume things about the setup, and we've got 3 people who've voted me for allegedly knowing so much about the setup. Dork Knight's vote is dumber because he somewhat apparently didn't read any of my responses at all, but Ka's came sooner and looks more like an eager "HAHA CAUGHT YOU" fallacy than Dork's.
They're both wrong, though. I don't know anything about the setup, didn't say I did, and I did say we shouldn't assume things about the setup. Good heavens.
~~~~~
Quote from "Kankennon" »
I'm noticing a pattern of LampDwellr and GrickyTimmick sharing many of the same opinions yet seemingly avoiding referencing or talking to/about each other.
Quote from "Kankennon" »
I'd really like to see them grill each other for a change and show the rest of us novices just how it's supposed to be done. I must say that I'm somewhat suspicious of a possible interconnection between them.
O)
I don't know why Gricky's not talking about me, but the reason I am not talking about Gricky is I haven't posted in a couple days. I'll get to that in my next post.
Also: I'd really like to see you not make spurious claims, but we can't always get what we want. You think there is a linkage because we both voted you at roughly the same time for a decent reason; in fact we did so because of the decent reason.
~~~~~
Quote from "Dork Knight" »
I don't like the fact that LampDwellr seems to know something about the setup that only scum could know. His backpedalling that what he wrote isn't what he meant doesn't ring true to me. It sounds like scum who said too much and got caught.
Quote from "Dork Knight" »
vote LampDwellr
Quote from "Dork Knight" »
Well, you see son, sometimes, a man has to think things over before he makes a big decision. If ya just fire up the lawnmower and have at it before you think it through, you'll never have an award winning turf.
P)
You need to think harder. I am not backpedaling. I clarified, but that is not backpedaling. I did not say that what I wrote isn't what I meant, I said the quarter-sentence that Kank posted isn't what I meant. What Kank did was the equivalent of me doing this:
Quote from "Dork Knight" »
what he wrote isn't what he meant
Q) All I was ever saying - read the whole original post - was that strategy speculations based on 3 fem and 3 male scum are not accurate. That is the theme of the entire post. I don't think it's 90% likely that half the scum are male and half are female, and that is because of reasons I already posted. I didn't say, ever, "scum definitely aren't half male and half female." This is a pretty bad vote rationale, man. Almost like, distractingly facile.
~~~~~~~~~
Quote from "GrickyTimmick" »
F. I think this is the beginning of the ties you are trying to make between me and Lampdwellr. I did think I was first, but it turns out that you are right, he was. However, my vote reasoning and analysis are completely different. I'm already knee-deep in quotes so I really don't wanna go searching for it right now, but Lamp's reasons and my reasons have nothing to do with each other from what I remember.
R)
I'm voting him because he made statements overqualifying himself and trying to pre-protect against "seeming scummy," and then said some fatalistic stuff that looked a bit noob-scummish. I think the "WAIT DID YOU SAY YOU KNOW THE SETUP" bad quote he did of me reads about 50/50 'he must be scum if he is voting me' and 50/50 'get offa me, town, I'll attack you back,' so that's a bit of a wash in my eyes.
~~~~~~~~~
Quote from "Kankennon" »
LampDwellr: How do you see GrickyTimmick’s behavior and reasoning?
S)
Gricky looks aggressive to me, which is not a way scum typically plays with a village full of new players, who often think aggression looks scummy.
These posts are so large that Kank and Gricky are town.
My read is usually that scum care more. What's your reasoning?
I take it that this is your first game with Seppel .This is vaguely normal for him. At some point he may come back and give us some reasoning for this.
U) No it's fine that he said that, I just want to hear more about it. I'm not mad the post was short or whatever.
A) In whose math book does “most likely” equal 100%? Never once did I guess or state that it was a sure thing (100% chance) that a townie would get lynched, only that whoever got lynched day 1 would “most likely” be town. B) I’d much rather do as careful of an analysis as possible Day 1 than just go crazy and quickly lynch somebody on pure speculation and hope to see what can be garnered from their death. Obviously somebody has to die day 1 or else the day ends in a no lynch and the scum get a free kill. I get that. I just think it’s smarter to do as much research as possible first than try to speed through it. I would imagine that a quick barn of someone would turn up much less useful information, because the scum players would be happy to see a townie die quickly, yet would likely go out of their way to stall a lynch if the sights are on a known scum buddy (unless their stalling would be super obvious). C) I was hoping I could be sillier than I am and have been recently, but I get that it would only be detrimental to the game and confuse people, possibly leading them down the wrong path(s). Lesson learned. D) I’m not going to have time to research past games anymore. Just this reread here is going to take me at least an hour. E) LampDwellr was surprisingly vague on exactly why he voted for me actually. F) Overly self aware? LampDwellr voted for me because I talk about myself all the time and/or warn others of my possible naughty behavior? Well, I can’t deny that. I do that every waking hour of the day. If you’re interested, there’s a whole back story why gets you while you’re at it. G) Why did LampDwellt chide me at first for dredging up minor information from past games and then ask me why I stopped doing it. Whaaaa? H) Okay, here I said that it made sense if the (most likely 6) bad guys were evenly split among the genders, half and half. A 50/50 split made perfect sense to me, and I would feel that it would be a logical assumption based on simply the fact that the game has a pre-laid out group of players that have been made aware of each other’s gender and instructed that it matters somehow. If the players are evenly split, then why wouldn’t you think that the good/bad roles are evenly split as well? They certainly don’t have to be and very well might not be, but doesn’t logic dictate that to be the most likely scenario? What is LampDwellr’s true point here? I) Here Kahedron jumps in and votes LampDwellr. Kahedron: Could you give me a full read of LampDwellr now that there has been more said about the situation? J) LampDwellr’s restatement of what he meant by “which is not the case” is far more convoluted than it should possibly be. Notice how he made the sentence WAY more awkward instead of clarifying what he supposedly meant instead. K) Meesa gonna die? L) LampDwellr goes from completely certain that it is not 50/50, to agreeing that there might be a 40% chance of the 50/50 split. M) So, how can a person not decide if someone is bad, yet still vote for them and leave their vote on them for…how long now? N) I was not the only one that thought LampDwellr’s vague statements about setup splits were eyebrow-raising. What did I not do? I didn’t place my vote on LampDwellr. I placed a half-hearted OMGUS vote on GrickyTimmick instead and y’all saw where that went. O) Lamp & Gricky: Please state for the record why your votes are on me again if you will. I can’t be the only interested and/or forgot exactly why. P) It wasn't exactly clear what he said, was it? Q) I see a pattern of LampDwellr using completely made up statistics: 100%, 40%, 90% R) I’d like to see LampDwellr look at me through a new lens, just like I’m doing here with him. S) One of LampDwellr’s more reasonable statements I would say. T) While I’m of the belief that scum are far more likely to lurk more and only post when they feel like they can capitalize on something. U) I too would like to hear more from Seppel and everyone else for that matter.
This took me an extremely long time to go through. Kank’s final verdict on LampDwellr as of this post:
I’m gonna get some sleep…
A) Not what I was saying. I was saying it was interesting that it had happened in every game you looked at. That wasn't a challenge to you.
E) I wasn't that vague.
F) I voted you - and I said this already, cut it out - because it seemed like you were preclaiming that "yeah I'll probably look scummy guys" in an effort to deflect potential criticism later. It's a noobscum move at times.
G) Nope! I did not chide you for dragging up information from past games at all.
H) We were talking about possible options for the setup and I thought your reasoning was spurious. So I explained why rather than going "nope dumb"
J) I did clarify what I meant, in multiple iterations. I was restating the part in quotation marks to explain why I opted for the simplified wording in the first place. I can't believe you're actually still pushing this nonsense, frankly.
L) I REALLY CANNOT BELIEVE that you are pushing THIS more. I did not say that I was completely certain it was not the case. I said it was not the case that we can be confident scum are 50/50 M/F. That is all I ever said. Quit it.
M) I speculated, I did not decide. There are many reasons to vote someone, and certainty is rarely the #1 reason.
O) My vote is still on you at this point because you're pushing so aggressively that I said I was 100% sure the scum weren't 50/50 M/F, and you know that's not what I said, so you must be lying. Town don't have a habit of lying, and if that is your habit as town you should quit it. If you were lying about what someone else said I might also be voting you for that.
My initial vote was because of all that "I'm sure I'm gonna get nailed for this but" stuff you were spewing, which is a frequent noobscum gesture.
Q) I am acknowledging that these statistics are made up, because they're all in HYPOTHETICAL CONVERSATIONS.
These posts are so large that Kank and Gricky are town.
My read is usually that scum care more.
What's your reasoning?
I take it that this is your first game with Seppel .This is vaguely normal for him. At some point he may come back and give us some reasoning for this.
No it's fine that he said that, I just want to hear more about it. I'm not mad the post was short or whatever.
I am making 2 posts: a reactive CONTROL POST and a proactive AGGRO POST. This is the CONTROL POST. Tapped Hallowed Fountain, your turn.
Quote from "Wessel" »
What's your view of Kahedron's vote?
I think it's pretty dumb! I don't know anything about the setup. All I was saying at any point is that we CAN'T assume things about the setup, and we've got 3 people who've voted me for allegedly knowing so much about the setup. Dork Knight's vote is dumber because he somewhat apparently didn't read any of my responses at all, but Ka's came sooner and looks more like an eager "HAHA CAUGHT YOU" fallacy than Dork's.
They're both wrong, though. I don't know anything about the setup, didn't say I did, and I did say we shouldn't assume things about the setup. Good heavens.
~~~~~
Quote from "Kankennon" »
I'm noticing a pattern of LampDwellr and GrickyTimmick sharing many of the same opinions yet seemingly avoiding referencing or talking to/about each other.
I'd really like to see them grill each other for a change and show the rest of us novices just how it's supposed to be done.
I must say that I'm somewhat suspicious of a possible interconnection between them.
I don't know why Gricky's not talking about me, but the reason I am not talking about Gricky is I haven't posted in a couple days. I'll get to that in my next post.
Also: I'd really like to see you not make spurious claims, but we can't always get what we want. You think there is a linkage because we both voted you at roughly the same time for a decent reason; in fact we did so because of the decent reason.
~~~~~
Quote from "Dork Knight" »
I don't like the fact that LampDwellr seems to know something about the setup that only scum could know. His backpedalling that what he wrote isn't what he meant doesn't ring true to me. It sounds like scum who said too much and got caught.
vote LampDwellr
Quote from "Dork Knight" »
Well, you see son, sometimes, a man has to think things over before he makes a big decision. If ya just fire up the lawnmower and have at it before you think it through, you'll never have an award winning turf.
You need to think harder. I am not backpedaling. I clarified, but that is not backpedaling. I did not say that what I wrote isn't what I meant, I said the quarter-sentence that Kank posted isn't what I meant. What Kank did was the equivalent of me doing this:
Quote from "Dork Knight" »
what he wrote isn't what he meant
All I was ever saying - read the whole original post - was that strategy speculations based on 3 fem and 3 male scum are not accurate. That is the theme of the entire post. I don't think it's 90% likely that half the scum are male and half are female, and that is because of reasons I already posted. I didn't say, ever, "scum definitely aren't half male and half female." This is a pretty bad vote rationale, man. Almost like, distractingly facile.
~~~~~~~~~
Quote from "GrickyTimmick" »
F. I think this is the beginning of the ties you are trying to make between me and Lampdwellr. I did think I was first, but it turns out that you are right, he was. However, my vote reasoning and analysis are completely different. I'm already knee-deep in quotes so I really don't wanna go searching for it right now, but Lamp's reasons and my reasons have nothing to do with each other from what I remember.
I'm voting him because he made statements overqualifying himself and trying to pre-protect against "seeming scummy," and then said some fatalistic stuff that looked a bit noob-scummish. I think the "WAIT DID YOU SAY YOU KNOW THE SETUP" bad quote he did of me reads about 50/50 'he must be scum if he is voting me' and 50/50 'get offa me, town, I'll attack you back,' so that's a bit of a wash in my eyes.
~~~~~~~~~
Quote from "Kankennon" »
LampDwellr: How do you see GrickyTimmick’s behavior and reasoning?
Gricky looks aggressive to me, which is not a way scum typically plays with a village full of new players, who often think aggression looks scummy.
Again... saw A Bear viewing this thread and again... no post...
Vote: A Bear for massive lurking.
maybe if you stopped posting massive walls of text i'd be able to post
can't you just link to the post you want or quote the part you're replying to instead of the entire freakin essay come on
one thing i've gathered is that people seem to be copying others' opinions and not making their own. stop that. it's a bad habit.
even if your opinion is similar you should write it out because you may realize something that you didn't before while typing
for example while writing this i decided that wessel is my greenest townread because his longpost was basically a cliffnotes of this game so far so i am in debt to him and also he hasn't tried to twist anything with his observations like other people are doing (everyone)
Har. Draw this out to its logical conclusion: the people playing the most town are the people who do nothing to advance the plot. Ergo, nobody should advance the plot.
So the barns are on IB, Maokun, and myself is that right?
I'm not seeing IB behave any differently than the other games I watched him get lynched early in and flip town.
Maokun? No idea. I'm not seeing the guilt you've lain upon this person.
This has me a little confused. Can you please clarify it?
On my first read of it, I thought you were discussing the barn post that IB made and the people who jumped on him for doing so... but the votes were from EtR, Tom and then GrickyTimmick barns the same post IB does while explaining why IB's barn wasn't scummy
how did you get you and maokun unless i am vastly misunderstanding this
PG is right.
I was merely commenting about the people who were getting the barns on them other than myself at the time, and I couldn't see any good justification for barns on either of them.
A lot has happened since then.
I'd REALLY like the non-players to start playing.
I'm more annoyed by players not playing than I am by LampDwellr and GrickyTimmick deciding that I'm a baddie.
I'm extremely annoyed that you keep misrepresenting me. I'm sure you can tell! Please explain how that annoyance is scummy. You're right that I haven't been helpful lately but that is a product of my rather strong frustration.
Yes!
bahahahaha
Kank quoted a quarter of a sentence I wrote, and is now still attacking me for that quarter-sentence.
Genuine. Right.
I am defending myself once per time attacked, and I keep getting attacked for the same non-thing that I didn't post. So I'm annoyed about that. But just because people are nit-picking me should not be construed as overdefensiveness.
Unless you're planning to say that me choosing to respond here is also too defensive or something, which
Stop being awful at reading comprehension if you're going to play mafia. Show me what bit of text of MINE this bolded part is responding to. I didn't ever say "Kank said he was 100% certain of a thing." You're responding to literal nothing.
Why are you doing this?
Are you scummy or an idiot? Your choice.
Warning for flaming
That is because you initially quoted me out of context and continue to insist that I said something I didn't. You started this.
I am making no connection between your observation that 100% of d1 lynches have been town and anything you said afterwards. Stop connecting these. This is one of many reasons why you are failing in this conversation.
None of this makes any sense.
I am not lying, you are wrong, and Kank is misrepresenting my original statement. He always was: he quoted it without the entire sentence to begin with. Kank's also now accusing me of "ranting and yelling" in a post that was shorter than his post I was responding to.
I didn't contradict myself by saying "townies don't lie." Townies don't lie. What am I lying about? I said to begin with that it was not the case that [we can be confident there are an even number of m/f scum].
The logic "shouldn't someone who has experience be able to write a sentence that I personally like" is actually a horrible reason for this vote. Just terrible.
And this "even after I told him to proofread" thing? Where the hell do you get off? You're not reading my posts very well. That's your fault.
I don't get it, though. You think it was scummy of me to respond to Kank's meta with "hey, that's not very accurate"? And what "actions" are you even talking about?
What's up with me?
A) Not what I was saying. I was saying it was interesting that it had happened in every game you looked at. That wasn't a challenge to you.
E) I wasn't that vague.
F) I voted you - and I said this already, cut it out - because it seemed like you were preclaiming that "yeah I'll probably look scummy guys" in an effort to deflect potential criticism later. It's a noobscum move at times.
G) Nope! I did not chide you for dragging up information from past games at all.
H) We were talking about possible options for the setup and I thought your reasoning was spurious. So I explained why rather than going "nope dumb"
J) I did clarify what I meant, in multiple iterations. I was restating the part in quotation marks to explain why I opted for the simplified wording in the first place. I can't believe you're actually still pushing this nonsense, frankly.
L) I REALLY CANNOT BELIEVE that you are pushing THIS more. I did not say that I was completely certain it was not the case. I said it was not the case that we can be confident scum are 50/50 M/F. That is all I ever said. Quit it.
M) I speculated, I did not decide. There are many reasons to vote someone, and certainty is rarely the #1 reason.
O) My vote is still on you at this point because you're pushing so aggressively that I said I was 100% sure the scum weren't 50/50 M/F, and you know that's not what I said, so you must be lying. Town don't have a habit of lying, and if that is your habit as town you should quit it. If you were lying about what someone else said I might also be voting you for that.
My initial vote was because of all that "I'm sure I'm gonna get nailed for this but" stuff you were spewing, which is a frequent noobscum gesture.
Q) I am acknowledging that these statistics are made up, because they're all in HYPOTHETICAL CONVERSATIONS.
No it's fine that he said that, I just want to hear more about it. I'm not mad the post was short or whatever.
My read is usually that scum care more.
What's your reasoning?
They're both wrong, though. I don't know anything about the setup, didn't say I did, and I did say we shouldn't assume things about the setup. Good heavens.
Also: I'd really like to see you not make spurious claims, but we can't always get what we want. You think there is a linkage because we both voted you at roughly the same time for a decent reason; in fact we did so because of the decent reason.
All I was ever saying - read the whole original post - was that strategy speculations based on 3 fem and 3 male scum are not accurate. That is the theme of the entire post. I don't think it's 90% likely that half the scum are male and half are female, and that is because of reasons I already posted. I didn't say, ever, "scum definitely aren't half male and half female." This is a pretty bad vote rationale, man. Almost like, distractingly facile.
Har. Draw this out to its logical conclusion: the people playing the most town are the people who do nothing to advance the plot. Ergo, nobody should advance the plot.
I have decided nothing. It's a vote.