|
On June 22 2012 09:38 slOosh wrote:
It's absolutely imperative that we resolve this miller claim issue. If we aren't all on the same page then scum can use the miller business to screw us over later. It has to be clear. Late-claiming millers will be policy lynched on the basis of it is purely anti-town. Scum can also "look VT and pro-town", so that is just foolish Zephirdd.
This would be true, when a miller could actually be mixed with a role(ie. miller vig, miller medic or stuff). Here, a Miller is a confirmed non-blue.
A confirmed non-blue reduces the number of targets for scum. A miller claim is scummy in itself, and it reduces the number of potential targets for the scum to snipe. I don't want to see blues dead and have to deal with millers.
If a scum is pro-town, then that scum is substantially going against his wincon. Seriously, I'm yet to see a scum that actually contributes positively to town.
Late-claiming millers will be analyzed and lynched if the players decide on a majority. Don't spill bullshit, you can't simply policy lynch someone when there are drawbacks for early miller claims.
As I see now, it's either claim miller now - have blues be more vulnerable - and be "immune" to cops, or claim miller later IF and ONLY IF you are investigated by a cop, and we can use the information at that time, just like it would be done in any other setup with unreliable cops(with framers, sanity or other stuff).
I'd prefer millers to stay shut and protect our blues.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 22 2012 09:44 VisceraEyes wrote:
Marv, I find myself to be terribly entertaining, so you're going to have to surround that statement with some sort of context if you want me to understand what you mean.
Now, my argument isn't about you defending yourself for the same reason. My argument is that you're defending yourself in the same fashion...using meta. You're encouraging everyone to leave the thread and go read other games. Why?
one was a defence, one was not. do you see yet?
i didn't encourage people to leave the thread to read other games. i said i never said anything scummy in LV and I pointed out explicitly the scummy thing I was pressured for in magic.
the whole original question was on meta, and now you're pushing me for defending on meta? really?
|
Australia3894 Posts
@Marv, do you think VE is scum?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 22 2012 09:46 Zephirdd wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 09:38 slOosh wrote:
It's absolutely imperative that we resolve this miller claim issue. If we aren't all on the same page then scum can use the miller business to screw us over later. It has to be clear. Late-claiming millers will be policy lynched on the basis of it is purely anti-town. Scum can also "look VT and pro-town", so that is just foolish Zephirdd. This would be true, when a miller could actually be mixed with a role(ie. miller vig, miller medic or stuff). Here, a Miller is a confirmed non-blue. A confirmed non-blue reduces the number of targets for scum. A miller claim is scummy in itself, and it reduces the number of potential targets for the scum to snipe. I don't want to see blues dead and have to deal with millers. If a scum is pro-town, then that scum is substantially going against his wincon. Seriously, I'm yet to see a scum that actually contributes positively to town. Late-claiming millers will be analyzed and lynched if the players decide on a majority. Don't spill bullshit, you can't simply policy lynch someone when there are drawbacks for early miller claims. As I see now, it's either claim miller now - have blues be more vulnerable - and be "immune" to cops, or claim miller later IF and ONLY IF you are investigated by a cop, and we can use the information at that time, just like it would be done in any other setup with unreliable cops(with framers, sanity or other stuff). I'd prefer millers to stay shut and protect our blues.
except you need to just be quiet because you're wrong.
|
On June 22 2012 09:42 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 09:20 VisceraEyes wrote::OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Anyways look what I found guys! On May 30 2012 06:16 marvellosity wrote:On May 30 2012 06:16 VisceraEyes wrote:
Marvel, the correct response is "my thoughts are X and Y and Z"...my question of you wasn't an accusation, so there's no need to get defensive. Saying things like "I already said" and "I made a comment" are very defensive when all I wanted was your input.
:/ Much like Magic you are reading my responses as defensive when they were not. I'm just baffled you are asking questions I have already stated clear opinions on or at least alluded to. This was his defense in LV, the Zim themed large we were just in. Marv DOMINATED that game as scum, and look at what his first act of the game was (upon replacing in)! It was using his "meta" as a personalized defense against my accusations. Look at his defense this game! Oddly enough, it's a personalized "meta" defense again! Marv, your response? This is the second misrepresentation. Trying to compare a 'defence' in a game where I wasn't accused to my defence this game where I am in fact accused First misrepresentation: Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 07:34 marvellosity wrote:
here's a clue
count how many times anyone said i said or even hinted at anything scummy in LV
see the pressure i was under at the start in magic at the start for wanting to shoot NT off the bat
compare to current situation
profit Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 08:57 VisceraEyes wrote:
Probulous, what did you see when you went back and read Magic? When I went back, all I saw was a completely different opening strategy. I mean, he could just be doing a fast-expand or something, but it's looking kinda cheesy to me. :/ I clearly said what I was referring to in Magic and yet you try to pretend that you went and looked and didn't find anything. Despite the fact I said exactly what I was referring to.
I "pretend" that I went and didn't find anything? I went and looked and I said EXACTLY what I found. I don't care about you wanting to shoot NT, nothing similar has happened this game to compare it to. When I went back, I found what I was looking for - you acting like a townie. You haven't done that this game. When I went and looked at your scum game, I found something there too - you defending yourself needlessly with meta. You HAVE done that this game. These aren't misrepresentations, they're observations I'm making. If you don't like it, STOP TELLING PEOPLE TO GO READ YOUR PREVIOUS GAMES.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 22 2012 09:46 Probulous wrote:
@Marv, do you think VE is scum?
I think he's pushing me dodgily. Haven't worked out if it's scummy or VE just being VE yet.
|
The original question that was posed you never answered Marv, wtf? You told everyone to go look for themselves!
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 22 2012 09:47 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 09:42 marvellosity wrote:On June 22 2012 09:20 VisceraEyes wrote::OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Anyways look what I found guys! On May 30 2012 06:16 marvellosity wrote:On May 30 2012 06:16 VisceraEyes wrote:
Marvel, the correct response is "my thoughts are X and Y and Z"...my question of you wasn't an accusation, so there's no need to get defensive. Saying things like "I already said" and "I made a comment" are very defensive when all I wanted was your input.
:/ Much like Magic you are reading my responses as defensive when they were not. I'm just baffled you are asking questions I have already stated clear opinions on or at least alluded to. This was his defense in LV, the Zim themed large we were just in. Marv DOMINATED that game as scum, and look at what his first act of the game was (upon replacing in)! It was using his "meta" as a personalized defense against my accusations. Look at his defense this game! Oddly enough, it's a personalized "meta" defense again! Marv, your response? This is the second misrepresentation. Trying to compare a 'defence' in a game where I wasn't accused to my defence this game where I am in fact accused First misrepresentation: On June 22 2012 07:34 marvellosity wrote:
here's a clue
count how many times anyone said i said or even hinted at anything scummy in LV
see the pressure i was under at the start in magic at the start for wanting to shoot NT off the bat
compare to current situation
profit On June 22 2012 08:57 VisceraEyes wrote:
Probulous, what did you see when you went back and read Magic? When I went back, all I saw was a completely different opening strategy. I mean, he could just be doing a fast-expand or something, but it's looking kinda cheesy to me. :/ I clearly said what I was referring to in Magic and yet you try to pretend that you went and looked and didn't find anything. Despite the fact I said exactly what I was referring to. I "pretend" that I went and didn't find anything? I went and looked and I said EXACTLY what I found. I don't care about you wanting to shoot NT, nothing similar has happened this game to compare it to. When I went back, I found what I was looking for - you acting like a townie. You haven't done that this game. When I went and looked at your scum game, I found something there too - you defending yourself needlessly with meta . You HAVE done that this game. These aren't misrepresentations, they're observations I'm making. If you don't like it, STOP TELLING PEOPLE TO GO READ YOUR PREVIOUS GAMES.
I've quite clearly stated I am not, stop it. The similar thing, VE, is that I wasn't afraid of saying something that was scummy in that game. In this game, unless you underestimate me which I think you do not, you should be aware that I know making a sidestep to Mattchew's question could be viewed scummily, and I'd avoid it like the fucking plague if I were scum.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
also my above reply fits VE's post above perfectly. that will be all
|
I don't underestimate you, which is why I know scumMarv wouldn't think twice about side-stepping the question. Take it as a compliment, not an affront.
|
On June 22 2012 09:47 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 09:46 Zephirdd wrote:On June 22 2012 09:38 slOosh wrote:
It's absolutely imperative that we resolve this miller claim issue. If we aren't all on the same page then scum can use the miller business to screw us over later. It has to be clear. Late-claiming millers will be policy lynched on the basis of it is purely anti-town. Scum can also "look VT and pro-town", so that is just foolish Zephirdd. This would be true, when a miller could actually be mixed with a role(ie. miller vig, miller medic or stuff). Here, a Miller is a confirmed non-blue. A confirmed non-blue reduces the number of targets for scum. A miller claim is scummy in itself, and it reduces the number of potential targets for the scum to snipe. I don't want to see blues dead and have to deal with millers. If a scum is pro-town, then that scum is substantially going against his wincon. Seriously, I'm yet to see a scum that actually contributes positively to town. Late-claiming millers will be analyzed and lynched if the players decide on a majority. Don't spill bullshit, you can't simply policy lynch someone when there are drawbacks for early miller claims. As I see now, it's either claim miller now - have blues be more vulnerable - and be "immune" to cops, or claim miller later IF and ONLY IF you are investigated by a cop, and we can use the information at that time, just like it would be done in any other setup with unreliable cops(with framers, sanity or other stuff). I'd prefer millers to stay shut and protect our blues. except you need to just be quiet because you're wrong.
Or maybe you could enlighten me why am I wrong, why is it bad that I want to protect possible blues, when the setup is specifically designed to give scum stronger powers when town has stronger powers.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
Don't be an idiot. Why would I let myself in for this (fairly predictable, even if how long and hard it has continued was not) when I didn't have to? Use your noggin.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 22 2012 09:52 Zephirdd wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 09:47 marvellosity wrote:On June 22 2012 09:46 Zephirdd wrote:On June 22 2012 09:38 slOosh wrote:
It's absolutely imperative that we resolve this miller claim issue. If we aren't all on the same page then scum can use the miller business to screw us over later. It has to be clear. Late-claiming millers will be policy lynched on the basis of it is purely anti-town. Scum can also "look VT and pro-town", so that is just foolish Zephirdd. This would be true, when a miller could actually be mixed with a role(ie. miller vig, miller medic or stuff). Here, a Miller is a confirmed non-blue. A confirmed non-blue reduces the number of targets for scum. A miller claim is scummy in itself, and it reduces the number of potential targets for the scum to snipe. I don't want to see blues dead and have to deal with millers. If a scum is pro-town, then that scum is substantially going against his wincon. Seriously, I'm yet to see a scum that actually contributes positively to town. Late-claiming millers will be analyzed and lynched if the players decide on a majority. Don't spill bullshit, you can't simply policy lynch someone when there are drawbacks for early miller claims. As I see now, it's either claim miller now - have blues be more vulnerable - and be "immune" to cops, or claim miller later IF and ONLY IF you are investigated by a cop, and we can use the information at that time, just like it would be done in any other setup with unreliable cops(with framers, sanity or other stuff). I'd prefer millers to stay shut and protect our blues. except you need to just be quiet because you're wrong. Or maybe you could enlighten me why am I wrong, why is it bad that I want to protect possible blues, when the setup is specifically designed to give scum stronger powers when town has stronger powers.
everyone in the game apart from you (even prob isn't really arguing it) thinks so. I quoted wbg from his analysis last game saying claiming miller is 100% the right reason. you know, the guy who hosts and thinks about this setup the most. sloosh also covers it nicely. you may think you are right but you need to drop it, because miller claims past day 1 will be policy lynched.
|
On June 22 2012 09:52 marvellosity wrote:
Don't be an idiot. Why would I let myself in for this (fairly predictable, even if how long and hard it has continued was not) when I didn't have to? Use your noggin.
See, the funny part is that you could ask yourself the same question. Why would you put yourself in this situation as town? It doesn't make any fucking sense.
|
On June 22 2012 09:54 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 09:52 Zephirdd wrote:On June 22 2012 09:47 marvellosity wrote:On June 22 2012 09:46 Zephirdd wrote:On June 22 2012 09:38 slOosh wrote:
It's absolutely imperative that we resolve this miller claim issue. If we aren't all on the same page then scum can use the miller business to screw us over later. It has to be clear. Late-claiming millers will be policy lynched on the basis of it is purely anti-town. Scum can also "look VT and pro-town", so that is just foolish Zephirdd. This would be true, when a miller could actually be mixed with a role(ie. miller vig, miller medic or stuff). Here, a Miller is a confirmed non-blue. A confirmed non-blue reduces the number of targets for scum. A miller claim is scummy in itself, and it reduces the number of potential targets for the scum to snipe. I don't want to see blues dead and have to deal with millers. If a scum is pro-town, then that scum is substantially going against his wincon. Seriously, I'm yet to see a scum that actually contributes positively to town. Late-claiming millers will be analyzed and lynched if the players decide on a majority. Don't spill bullshit, you can't simply policy lynch someone when there are drawbacks for early miller claims. As I see now, it's either claim miller now - have blues be more vulnerable - and be "immune" to cops, or claim miller later IF and ONLY IF you are investigated by a cop, and we can use the information at that time, just like it would be done in any other setup with unreliable cops(with framers, sanity or other stuff). I'd prefer millers to stay shut and protect our blues. except you need to just be quiet because you're wrong. Or maybe you could enlighten me why am I wrong, why is it bad that I want to protect possible blues, when the setup is specifically designed to give scum stronger powers when town has stronger powers. everyone in the game apart from you (even prob isn't really arguing it) thinks so. I quoted wbg from his analysis last game saying claiming miller is 100% the right reason. you know, the guy who hosts and thinks about this setup the most. sloosh also covers it nicely. you may think you are right but you need to drop it, because miller claims past day 1 will be policy lynched.
"Hey guys I think they shouldn't do it because of XXX"
"This is stupid you are wrong."
"Why am I wrong?"
"YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!"
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
a) because i'm unafraid
b) because i get information from who and how i'm pushed
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
Zephirdd: yes, that'll do.
|
Hmmmm....not buying it. Sorry Marv. Prove your town the ol' fashioned way...by finding scum. If I think you're finding scum, then I'll unvote you. Until then, you're my best read right now.
|
Australia3894 Posts
On June 22 2012 09:47 marvellosity wrote:I think he's pushing me dodgily. Haven't worked out if it's scummy or VE just being VE yet.
See here is what I don't understand.
- Mattchew asks you a simple question about what is different between your scum and your town play.
- You say it's a good question (it is actually) and then you don't answer.
- You get pushed to answer and you refer briefly to differences between the openings of two games (one town, one mafia). But you don't explicitly state what the difference are, or how they help us determine your alignment. To me it seems like an attempt to brush off the question and move onto other "more important" things.
- Then when other people start pushing you, you get all snarky which just makes me go
- You tell VE to go read the games but when he comes back with his response you say he is misrepresenting you but you don't think he is scum.
Why haven't you answered the original question? You admitted it's a good question, you claim VE is misrepresenting you but isn't scum so surely the best way to clear your name would be to outline exactly what you intended when you briefly referenced those games. I mean you seem to be saying that VE is mistaken but don't bother to actually take the time to thorughly correct the mistake. Why?
Because you don't want to answer the question. Townies want to provide data and clarity and you just wanted to move onto other things.
Has Matt just left the thread then? ><
|
VE I think you are paranoid town right now. Yes, Marv could be scum. But I really don't see it right now and it's dominating the thread in a bad way. Zephirdd, the benefits of a "possible blue" is nothing compared to the possible headaches caused by miller claims. That's why we make any miller claim D1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
