|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
Dude, I forgot for like a split second and I retracted it like seconds later. I didn't play against my wincon. I admit it was a mistake I made, and I am aware it made this game more difficult for me. This was my first time being a mason and I forgot.
I admitted this mistake and will make sure to in my notes write in all caps (as I did after making that mistake) who my mason partner is.
EDIT: actually, it was up for a good 4 minutes before I realized I had made a mistake. Would you really modkill me in those 4 minutes? Or would you do it after I retracted it and made up a good (and very convincing!) argument as to why my own case was bad, taking all the pressure off of MrZ? Or would you do it after MrZ and I defended each other N1 and D2 and never got lynched?
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
Like, obviously I didn't play well and obviously attacking your own Mason partner, even for a brief period of time, is a rookie mistake. I shouldn't have made that mistake and I'll make sure not to make it in the future. I guess I wonder what it is you're trying to explain to me here Prom
EDIT:
On December 09 2012 08:00 Blazinghand wrote:
It's true, I made a mistake and forgot who my Mason partner was. I'll endeavor to not make that same error in the future. Thank you for the constructive criticism.
On December 10 2012 12:52 Promethelax wrote:
if you don't admit to your mistakes you won't be able to improve.
timestamps for relevance
|
On December 10 2012 12:58 Blazinghand wrote:Like, obviously I didn't play well and obviously attacking your own Mason partner, even for a brief period of time, is a rookie mistake. I shouldn't have made that mistake and I'll make sure not to make it in the future. I guess I wonder what it is you're trying to explain to me here Prom EDIT: Show nested quote +On December 09 2012 08:00 Blazinghand wrote:
It's true, I made a mistake and forgot who my Mason partner was. I'll endeavor to not make that same error in the future. Thank you for the constructive criticism. Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 12:52 Promethelax wrote:
if you don't admit to your mistakes you won't be able to improve. timestamps for relevance
Your play was bad. Solidly. Throughout this whole game. The attack on your mason partner is the most obvious. But you also talked about how you had been the one to make the case on Shiao, you are taking credit for good plays which weren't yours. You fumbled this game throughout and between this and Mario I think you need to rethink how you play blue.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On December 10 2012 13:04 Promethelax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 12:58 Blazinghand wrote:Like, obviously I didn't play well and obviously attacking your own Mason partner, even for a brief period of time, is a rookie mistake. I shouldn't have made that mistake and I'll make sure not to make it in the future. I guess I wonder what it is you're trying to explain to me here Prom EDIT: On December 09 2012 08:00 Blazinghand wrote:
It's true, I made a mistake and forgot who my Mason partner was. I'll endeavor to not make that same error in the future. Thank you for the constructive criticism. On December 10 2012 12:52 Promethelax wrote:
if you don't admit to your mistakes you won't be able to improve. timestamps for relevance Your play was bad. Solidly. Throughout this whole game. The attack on your mason partner is the most obvious. But you also talked about how you had been the one to make the case on Shiao, you are taking credit for good plays which weren't yours. You fumbled this game throughout and between this and Mario I think you need to rethink how you play blue.
Fair enough, I made mistakes. And in the post game perhaps I was too strident in the defense of my play, when in fact most of the town had a scumread on shiao before I did. Anything else helpful specifically besides "your play was bad?"
|
I actually assumed it was a badass ploy to draw out bandwagons. Idiocy was my second guess. And hey, accidents do happen. Should have rolled with it and used it to see who was too happy to jump on board.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
Whatever minor play issues I had this game, I certainly had fun and will take it as a learning experience-- perhaps I can become an even better player.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On December 10 2012 15:35 Blazinghand wrote:
Whatever minor play issues I had this game, I certainly had fun and will take it as a learning experience-- perhaps I can become an even better player.
right, I was apoplectic in QT that you made a case on your mason partner, but in the end that was only one thing and... Ace? was right that we'll look back on it and laugh. I don't think your play suffered from any other issues particularly and I agree with syllogism with regards to who we should be aiming any anger at.
This is the primary reason I left my ranting in obsQT, the case was silly and it was what it was, but BH already knows this and there's nothing anyone can say to prevent it happening again or anything, that's for BH. Actually BH has been quite stoic in the face of the rage I've aimed at him the last couple of games + the exceedingly pointless criticisms here post-game.
|
Am I the only one who doesn't really care about the case on MrZ?
Our first day was kind of low activity. We had lots of people half lurking. I expect BH to make a half-baked case or two and throw them around to stir things up, and I don't care if the case was on his mason partner. MrZ was never in ANY danger of getting lynched, so why does it matter?
If it were others who had made a case on x and then claimed mason partners with x, I'd be more worried. But I actually didn't find it that weird and I certainly don't think it was playing against wincon. Town just has to lynch scum. There shouldn't be any kind of restriction on who you build cases on.
Take with a grain of salt, given that I tried to pump up the town cred of someone I knew was scum...but still.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
the issue is that it causes confusion where there doesn't need to be confusion
i was of the mind for a while that town would have to flip BH for how the play went down. Obviously that went away but basically town needlessly complicating stuff for town = not good, is the basic idea.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
Austinmcc I agree that some of the rage is a bit misdirected, but the case against MrZ did have the effect of weakening my Mason claim a bit, even if perhaps it shouldn't have. As I was re-examining my notes after posting the case initially I remembered he was my mason partner and realized I couldn't push him since we might have to claim at some point and also he might actually get lynched. It certainly wasn't playing against wincon, especially given how it was retracted, but it meant there was a bit of hesitance about believing the mason claim. I imagine if the claim order were reversed (MrZ and me claimed and Kei/WBG counterclaimed) MrZ would have been lynched instead of WBG. That being said, MrZ and I did a good job of defending each other throughout this game and the case was retracted immediately so it wasn't a huge issue.
E: but yeah basically what marv said. there's plenty of people to write questionable meta cases against D1, it's unnecessarily confusing to do it against your mason partner, so barring weird circumstances as a mason you should try to avoid attacking your partner.
|
Oh, I don't think I've said this to you bh and I know you are somewhat mad about my assertions about your play so I want you to know this as well, I think you handled the case on MrZ as well as you could have after making it. The immediate retraction and all that made it impossible to see the scum motivation behind the case too. Making the case hurt your claim a lot (obviously) but I think that taking it back right away, calling it dumb, and saying you were an idiot, was the right play there after making the case.
|
I think it can be interpreted as playing against your wincon because you've been explicitly told that he was town. So it would be an attemt to get a townie lynched.
Eh, no big deal imo. You didn't exactly play well, but I sure as hell wouldn't even threaten a modkill on that.
Y'all need to lighten up and just laugh it off.
|
On December 11 2012 01:01 marvellosity wrote:
the issue is that it causes confusion where there doesn't need to be confusion
i was of the mind for a while that town would have to flip BH for how the play went down. Obviously that went away but basically town needlessly complicating stuff for town = not good, is the basic idea.
On December 11 2012 01:02 Blazinghand wrote:
Austinmcc I agree that some of the rage is a bit misdirected, but the case against MrZ did have the effect of weakening my Mason claim a bit, even if perhaps it shouldn't have. As I was re-examining my notes after posting the case initially I remembered he was my mason partner and realized I couldn't push him since we might have to claim at some point and also he might actually get lynched. It certainly wasn't playing against wincon, especially given how it was retracted, but it meant there was a bit of hesitance about believing the mason claim. I imagine if the claim order were reversed (MrZ and me claimed and Kei/WBG counterclaimed) MrZ would have been lynched instead of WBG. That being said, MrZ and I did a good job of defending each other throughout this game and the case was retracted immediately so it wasn't a huge issue.
E: but yeah basically what marv said. there's plenty of people to write questionable meta cases against D1, it's unnecessarily confusing to do it against your mason partner, so barring weird circumstances as a mason you should try to avoid attacking your partner.
I guess I just didnt' feel confused. I'm not advocating it, but ... the mason claim was so instantaneous, so genuine, and backed up with logs the minute they were requested.
There was no way you guys weren't masons. While the case on MrZ didn't fit that, oh well...it wasn't a big enough deal to worry about imo, and I was sitting there suspecting EVERYONE.
|
On December 11 2012 01:08 Dandel Ion wrote:
I think it can be interpreted as playing against your wincon because you've been explicitly told that he was town. So it would be an attemt to get a townie lynched.
Eh, no big deal imo. You didn't exactly play well, but I sure as hell wouldn't even threaten a modkill on that.
Y'all need to lighten up and just laugh it off.
By that logic, scum shouldn't be allowed to vote for a teammate. Your Win-Con is to win the game, it doesn't matter what method you use to do so as long as they fall within the rules of the game. Obviously don't cheat, but if you willingly give away confirmed town resources in an effort to catch scum, you're still playing to your win-con. You're just going about it in what is quits possibly the worst possible method.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On December 11 2012 01:10 austinmcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 01:01 marvellosity wrote:
the issue is that it causes confusion where there doesn't need to be confusion
i was of the mind for a while that town would have to flip BH for how the play went down. Obviously that went away but basically town needlessly complicating stuff for town = not good, is the basic idea. Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 01:02 Blazinghand wrote:
Austinmcc I agree that some of the rage is a bit misdirected, but the case against MrZ did have the effect of weakening my Mason claim a bit, even if perhaps it shouldn't have. As I was re-examining my notes after posting the case initially I remembered he was my mason partner and realized I couldn't push him since we might have to claim at some point and also he might actually get lynched. It certainly wasn't playing against wincon, especially given how it was retracted, but it meant there was a bit of hesitance about believing the mason claim. I imagine if the claim order were reversed (MrZ and me claimed and Kei/WBG counterclaimed) MrZ would have been lynched instead of WBG. That being said, MrZ and I did a good job of defending each other throughout this game and the case was retracted immediately so it wasn't a huge issue.
E: but yeah basically what marv said. there's plenty of people to write questionable meta cases against D1, it's unnecessarily confusing to do it against your mason partner, so barring weird circumstances as a mason you should try to avoid attacking your partner. I guess I just didnt' feel confused. I'm not advocating it, but ... the mason claim was so instantaneous, so genuine, and backed up with logs the minute they were requested. There was no way you guys weren't masons. While the case on MrZ didn't fit that, oh well...it wasn't a big enough deal to worry about imo, and I was sitting there suspecting EVERYONE.
like you said, this is coming from the guy who towned up his redcheck. Town has enough to worry about without adding extra complications (however small or large) where they are unnecessary.
This is a niggle I have with your play in general, you overcomplicate sometimes which is fine for you because you're the one doing it, but for the rest of town it can have the result of obfuscating rather than clarifying.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On December 11 2012 01:12 Hopeless1der wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 01:08 Dandel Ion wrote:
I think it can be interpreted as playing against your wincon because you've been explicitly told that he was town. So it would be an attemt to get a townie lynched.
Eh, no big deal imo. You didn't exactly play well, but I sure as hell wouldn't even threaten a modkill on that.
Y'all need to lighten up and just laugh it off. By that logic, scum shouldn't be allowed to vote for a teammate. Your Win-Con is to win the game, it doesn't matter what method you use to do so as long as they fall within the rules of the game. Obviously don't cheat, but if you willingly give away confirmed town resources in an effort to catch scum, you're still playing to your win-con. You're just going about it in what is quits possibly the worst possible method.
I remember in EMM WBG was chill with me claiming SK, as the SK, because I thought it would let me win the game (and town lynched me anyways! the bastards! At least they lost afterwards). In retrospect not a great move I guess BUT ALSO IN RETROSPECT it was worth a shot and might have worked.
Yeah my scum play is pretty good
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
Town won Emergency, Blazing 
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
|
You claimed SK and thought the Town would let you win? o.0
|
On December 11 2012 01:12 Hopeless1der wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 01:08 Dandel Ion wrote:
I think it can be interpreted as playing against your wincon because you've been explicitly told that he was town. So it would be an attemt to get a townie lynched.
Eh, no big deal imo. You didn't exactly play well, but I sure as hell wouldn't even threaten a modkill on that.
Y'all need to lighten up and just laugh it off. By that logic, scum shouldn't be allowed to vote for a teammate. Your Win-Con is to win the game, it doesn't matter what method you use to do so as long as they fall within the rules of the game. Obviously don't cheat, but if you willingly give away confirmed town resources in an effort to catch scum, you're still playing to your win-con. You're just going about it in what is quits possibly the worst possible method.
Yeah I'm not saying I agree with that logic l0l
Though this instance was quite clearly NOT a deliberate scumtrap, so meh
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
