Persona 4 Mini Mafia - Page 3

On August 20 2013 23:15 DarthPunk wrote:

Because he wanted to say something and the easiest thing to say as scum is some stupid policy that everyone discuss' for pages and pages.

Like If he had just said 'oh yeah. I have learnt and have grown as a player and changed my mind' I would have dropped it. But he tried to align both positions and directly contradicts his previous position as justification for that position.

On August 20 2013 23:19 DarthPunk wrote:


If that has some relevant info you should have posted THAT as your explanation. If you think I am going to look through all your games to answer a question for you, you are fucking retarded.

On August 20 2013 23:30 WaveofShadow wrote:

When did I say you were scum? I've seen Koshi's scum QTs and I know how he gets when under any suspicion at all.

On August 20 2013 23:34 WaveofShadow wrote:
I honestly can't think of another reason Koshi claimed other than he's worried about the pressure he's under.
I've claimed late as a self-aware miller before and it wasn't an issue because my earlier play and continuing play was easily able to assure the rest of town I was town.


Rayn. You were just in this fucking game. GoT where kita fakeclaimed to try and get Koshi to reveal himself? Do you honestly need to me to post scum QT logs that you yourself have?

On August 20 2013 23:35 DarthPunk wrote:
The dissonance in your position does not change with semi-open or closed setups







In a both a closed and semi open setup you do not even know if there are any millers nor their number. The set-up being semi-open vs closed does not absolve you of the contradiction







In both closed and semi-open setups there may be an investigative role/s. The fact that the set-up is semi-open does not change the fact that you said townies (and millers) should never be checked by a cop. In response to a similiar proposition that you are now using to justify your reversal.

Regardless of the set-up being semi-open or closed your explanation directly contradicts your previous belief that one should never claim miller when you don't know THE EXACT NUMBER of millers and that a townie and thus a miller SHOULD NEVER BE COP CHECKED.

Instead of giving a simple or reasonable explanation to your shift in policy you have provided bullshit reasons and excuses. And I want to know why.

On August 20 2013 23:48 DarthPunk wrote:

You got fucking caught with ridiculous reasoning and backflipping. Now you can't argue that you didn't 100% backflip and then tried to justify it with fallacious and ever changing arguments you pull out the OMGUS.

On August 20 2013 23:59 DarthPunk wrote:


I have made a case. Also don't tell me what to do. K thnks. The setup changes nothing about your arguments and the manner in which they contradict the very premise you were defending.

you are trying to make this about meta. it is not. It is about you directly contradicting yourself. For no foreseeable reason.

I'm done with you 'input' I am happy to talk to others about it.

On August 20 2013 23:09 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Oats my point basically is that in semi-open setup miller claims help town more than in closed setups (assumably, when looking at the possible roles). Also knowing what the stance was in CCM and considering what Ace said after the game about the claiming thing i made my proposition. Also if millers claim they should definitely claim on N0 (not like someone did in LXI - claimed somewhere around D2).

On August 21 2013 00:04 Oatsmaster wrote:
rayn, this isnt about which way of approaching miller claims is right.

On August 20 2013 23:15 DarthPunk wrote:

Because he wanted to say something and the easiest thing to say as scum is some stupid policy that everyone discuss' for pages and pages.

Like If he had just said 'oh yeah. I have learnt and have grown as a player and changed my mind' I would have dropped it. But he tried to align both positions and directly contradicts his previous position as justification for that position.

On August 20 2013 23:09 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Oats my point basically is that in semi-open setup miller claims help town more than in closed setups (assumably, when looking at the possible roles). Also knowing what the stance was in CCM and considering what Ace said after the game about the claiming thing i made my proposition. Also if millers claim they should definitely claim on N0 (not like someone did in LXI - claimed somewhere around D2).

On August 21 2013 00:08 Oatsmaster wrote:

DP assumes you would say something like 'what I did in CCM was wrong'

On August 21 2013 00:12 DarthPunk wrote:


That isn't what you originally said. IN FACT YOU NEVER ORIGINALLY MENTIONED IT AT ALL. I was clearly talking about your ORIGINAL EXPLANATION so why the fuck you think trying to twist the conversation is going to help you is beyond me.

On August 21 2013 00:13 DarthPunk wrote:
Rayn,
Why is Koshi town? Why did you call me scum?

On August 21 2013 00:20 Koshi wrote:

This Koshi talking is somewhat boring. But I can answer that.
Because I don't call JK when 4 people are telling me to claim it. I am not going to claim something "under pressure" because 1 guy made a case. I simply won't do that. But even if I did it, you guys are seriously overreacting that this is a 100% scumclaim. Dnu how long you are going to keep hammering on it.