|
On November 04 2013 13:10 hzflank wrote:WoS has only played scum once? Then wth was he doing coaching me in my first scum game. I even said before it started that having WoS as a coach was a handicap, and still they let this uni-scummer coach us. I think what Thrawn was getting at was this line: Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 10:48 WaveofShadow wrote:
Vanesco's post looks like typical 'scum trying to jump on the first odd thing somebody does for early game contributions n' shizz.
You are aware that scum sometimes jump on to something. The thing that you don't mention is that scum tend to do this if they think at least one town will also jump on it, as that allows them to place/leave their vote on the target for a longer period of time. I could certainly argue that Vanesco did this with his first post, but then one may also argue that you did the same. Basically, that sentence was a little bit hypocritical. Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 12:55 WaveofShadow wrote:
As for 'who we are firm with,' care to elaborate? I asked you a question and you just gave me a very generic answer, without the specifics I was asking for. Well, sometimes a man....actually we are not having that conversation. Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 12:35 WaveofShadow wrote:
hzflank do you think that is alignment indicative of anyone involved in the cycle of firmness? Yes. If you enter a game with a really direct post where you call someone scum, it is probably for one of two reasons. Either you think it's time that the game got rolling and you want to change the style of conversation that is taking place, or you want your first post to make you look like you are town. Umasi wanted to look like he was town, because if he were trying to direct the conversation to be more about post analysis and scum hunting then he would not of added this last sentence to his post. Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 10:30 Umasi wrote:
Also, I support claiming votes and actions after they occur, so once it's back to the blues being VTs and unviggable, can't really think of a downside. Ofcourse, it is fair to point out that trying to look like town does not always make a person scum. But trying to look like town in your very first post makes someone (Umasi) look like uncomfortable scum.
1. I hope this is a joke. Iirc that game you were shot by SK trying to hit town. So he must have been doing something right. And even if it is a joke its a bad one.
2. Or town see something they dont like and push it. Its not scummy to open up with calling someone sketchy.
3. No need for this at all.
4. Or he is town and saw something he didnt like and wanted to point it out for discussion. I dont see a newer scum player comeing in the game and pushing mislynch this early.
5. Not really makes him null, if not slightly townie. I dont see a newer scum player running that type of play.
|
On November 04 2013 13:44 Vanesco wrote:
I don't get where this idea of my calling out Syl for not being firm is coming from. I just didn't like what he had to say and I decided that instead of people joking around I wanted to actually start the game, so I called him out. I didn't really take much of a stance because nothing in his response made me feel like he was scummy.
I'm having a really big scum read on Umasi currently. As explained before, in his first post I think only consists of 1 real accusation which is that I do not like talking about strategy since scum can meta it. To me it seems that he wants town to discuss strategy which leads me to the two most likely conclusions.
1) He doesn't know what to do, usually means a weak town and can be tricked easily by scum, or
2) mafia that wants to know the towns plans and how to use it against them
His only other post is him making a joke at somebody who thinks he's scum and then saying that I didn't pressure Syl hard (which I explain in the paragraph above). He then talks about how I don't like to talk about strategy which I explain why above. He mistakenly calls strategy "mechanics" when they are completely different things (in my opinion). I view mechanics as the rules of the game where strategy is how to play the game. I don't know if this is just me but it seems like he wants to blame that I'm not allowing people to discuss the rules of the game when infact I just don't like when people discuss the strategy they are going to use.
And truly, I am scum for mistakenly calling it mechanics, not strategy. Bolded is irrelevant, obviously.
It doesn't matter why you want to justify shutting down strategy or policy or mechanics or whatever the fuck discussion, it's easy to bullshit a reason for it. I think it's blatantly scum agenda to shut it down if it's occuring!
I don't think anyone else in the thread is too scummy, and I won't talk about townreads (for obvious reasons.) If anyone has specific questions, feel free to ask etcetcetc
also, people who think I'm scum please vote.
|
On November 04 2013 13:36 hzflank wrote:
This should be in a pm, but I cannot pm you right now so before I get back to the game...
I was a jerk to you before that game started. That was intend as a joke, I did not mean any offense. I am genuinly very grateful for your assistance during that game.
Okay that said, back to being a jerk and playing this game.
Oh ok I got it. Policy lynch you straight up.
##VOTE HZFLANK
No place for this, I basicly dont want to play with a child just fucking around.
|
Ofcourse it was a joke: I used the word 'uni-scummer'. I realize that people may not read my posts in the same tone that I write them, but If I am making up a silly word then I am not being serious.
|
On November 04 2013 09:56 hzflank wrote:
To clarify, perhaps:
On night X+1, each person claims what actions they took on night X (if any).
Then each person claims who they voted for on day X.
The three people who used actions should be roughly the same three people who had the most votes. It could be slightly out as we would be missing information from the people who died on Day X (if town), night X and Day X+1.
Come to think of it with up to three people's votes missing it might not be worth claiming who we voted for, so this may not have any merit.
Elaborating on Vanesco here, I'll use this post as an example
Main question for you here is: How could we ruin strategies by talking about them?
For instance, how do scum fuck with this plan. How would you abuse this plan as scum?
Would you? CAN YOU?
what witchcraft discussion CAN scum abuse? Since blues are based on townreads ANYWAY, it's not like we're all blue hunting at all, so power discussion isn't something scum can abuse. Especially because they don't have roleblockers or anything, only blue vigis.
although I don't think there's an important facet of strategy discussion to be had (otherwise I'd talk more about strategy,) your specific outlook on how to handle it is scummy.
|
On November 04 2013 14:03 hzflank wrote:
Ofcourse it was a joke: I used the word 'uni-scummer'. I realize that people may not read my posts in the same tone that I write them, but If I am making up a silly word then I am not being serious.
Ok then your just being a ass, gotcha
|
Look normally Im really chill, but this is just bothering me. It doesnt bother me when people call each other fucking idiots or play like shit or anything like that as that normally comes from emotions in the game. But when you basicly come in bash someone for no reason, then say back to being a jerk, just makes me not want to play with you...
|
On November 04 2013 14:05 Umasi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 09:56 hzflank wrote:
To clarify, perhaps:
On night X+1, each person claims what actions they took on night X (if any).
Then each person claims who they voted for on day X.
The three people who used actions should be roughly the same three people who had the most votes. It could be slightly out as we would be missing information from the people who died on Day X (if town), night X and Day X+1.
Come to think of it with up to three people's votes missing it might not be worth claiming who we voted for, so this may not have any merit. Elaborating on Vanesco here, I'll use this post as an example Main question for you here is: How could we ruin strategies by talking about them? For instance, how do scum fuck with this plan. How would you abuse this plan as scum? Would you? CAN YOU? what witchcraft discussion CAN scum abuse? Since blues are based on townreads ANYWAY, it's not like we're all blue hunting at all, so power discussion isn't something scum can abuse. Especially because they don't have roleblockers or anything, only blue vigis. although I don't think there's an important facet of strategy discussion to be had (otherwise I'd talk more about strategy,) your specific outlook on how to handle it is scummy.
I believe that by talking about a plan (in this game, with this setup) is a bad choice because lets say we find out that player X,Y,Z were voted on the most. That means the next 3 votes will probably overlap with at least 1 of the previously chosen players. This just seems like we are giving scum an easy way to kill one of the blue roles.
|
I dont know, maybe I havent taken enough pain meds and I feel like shit now, but I think his posts are over the top and unfounded, they are just random with little or no justification. Im going to take some more medicine clear my head and be back later to actually play.
|
On November 04 2013 12:47 thrawn2112 wrote:
i'm out for a bit...fairly bland start so far
PSA: it is Nov 04 2013 which means I'm wearing a special hat for special people so I will likely NOT be sober at any given moment over the next 24-ish hrs
I don't see anything blatantly scummy atm, but I do want to throw this list out there:
rayn
WoS
Sylencia
OO
Vanesco
Umasi
if you aren't on this list then that means you either haven't posted, or you haven't posted anything memorable and as such you will be who I focus on first upon returning to the thread.
So you are advocating a lurker lynch.
|
Cool it Onegu. He said that he didn't mean offense and was greatful towards WoS. His "back to being a jerk" thing is obviously light-hearted. Your policy lynch is not a good idea.
|
Onegu calm down, I obviously misinterpreted him in our exchanges and for that I apologize as well.
Back to the game:
##Unvote
I REALLY fucking hope this doesn't bite me in the ass but Vanesco is now exhibiting a little more of what I was waiting for.
On November 04 2013 13:44 Vanesco wrote:
I don't get where this idea of my calling out Syl for not being firm is coming from. I just didn't like what he had to say and I decided that instead of people joking around I wanted to actually start the game, so I called him out. I didn't really take much of a stance because nothing in his response made me feel like he was scummy.
I'm having a really big scum read on Umasi currently. As explained before, in his first post I think only consists of 1 real accusation which is that I do not like talking about strategy since scum can meta it. To me it seems that he wants town to discuss strategy which leads me to the two most likely conclusions.
1) He doesn't know what to do, usually means a weak town and can be tricked easily by scum, or
2) mafia that wants to know the towns plans and how to use it against them
His only other post is him making a joke at somebody who thinks he's scum and then saying that I didn't pressure Syl hard (which I explain in the paragraph above). He then talks about how I don't like to talk about strategy which I explain why above. He mistakenly calls strategy "mechanics" when they are completely different things (in my opinion). I view mechanics as the rules of the game where strategy is how to play the game. I don't know if this is just me but it seems like he wants to blame that I'm not allowing people to discuss the rules of the game when infact I just don't like when people discuss the strategy they are going to use.
Essentially Vanesco, whether or not he has played on other forums or whatever boils down to either noob scum or noob town. An experienced player would not need attempt to earnestly call people out simply to 'get the game going' without dropping a vote or taking a hard stance, whether pressure-vote or not.
I redact my earlier scumread on him and (hopefully this doesn't bite me in the ass) he is now noob town.
The OMGUS on Umasi, (OMGUS in my experience tends to be used by town way more often than scum) the blatant disregard for what a towny is 'supposed to do' (why call someone out for no reason whatsoever---only serves to draw attention to himself which he has certainly garnered). I would think a newbie scum would at the very least attempt to backtrack due to inherent guilt when being shown that what he has done is considered scummy here.
Townread for now, but Vanesco I want to see something positive from you real soon. Scumread on Umasi notwithstanding.
|
On November 04 2013 12:52 Umasi wrote:
Main reasons we should vote for Vanesco is
A: he preferred for a lack of talk about witchcraft specific mechanics (which is scum agenda but wuevuh)
B: Ambiguous post about Sylencia, which was scummy at the time for being ambiguous and scumm-ier after ^^^that quote, as explained.
On your point A, not wanting to talk about setup isn't necessarily scummy. Scum people love talking about setup because it allows them to stick in a lot of words without pressuring people. Look at me in Hogwarts.
Your point B I somewhat agree with.
On November 04 2013 13:52 Vanesco wrote:
I have no reason to vote currently. There are still many people who have yet to post and it seems like an easy thing to just sheep on somebody else's vote without having to give much input.
What are you talking about? Your reasoning for not voting is that other people could sheep onto you without giving input.
The problem with that reasoning is as follows:
1.) You state that you have a "really big scum read on Umasi".
2.) If you have a big scum read on someone, it follows that you should want them lynched.
3.) If you vote them and people sheep on to you, those people are helping exact the lynch that you want.
If you have a big scum read someone, why do you have a problem with people agreeing with your read? Is your read on Umasi actually not "really big"? This doesn't make sense.
Gumshoe, you'd better start talking soon because in your last game (GoT Mafia) you said practically nothing and got vig'd N1 as a VT. I'd not like a repeat.
|
On November 04 2013 14:44 EchelonTee wrote:
Cool it Onegu. He said that he didn't mean offense and was greatful towards WoS. His "back to being a jerk" thing is obviously light-hearted. Your policy lynch is not a good idea.
Ill listen to WoS. If he thinks Im off base Ill respect that, as I respect WoS quite a bit and this was directed at him and I found offense to it.
|
Look, I did not bash anyone. Maybe you did not interpret what I wrote the way in which I intended it to be interpreted. When I said back to being a jerk it was because I was intending to keep up a certain tone in my in game posts for most of day one, and I have sound strategic reasons for doing so.
I am here to play a game. At no time, ever, during the game have I or will I ever intend to personally insult anybody. It might happen on occasion due to the medium (text), and if it does then I will apologise.
There are also some cultural differences in the way British people phrase things compared to Americans, and ofcourse British slang can be different. Not to mention that British humour is very different to American humour.
I'm useless at the moment, so will be back to the game later.
|
On November 04 2013 14:53 WaveofShadow wrote:Onegu calm down, I obviously misinterpreted him in our exchanges and for that I apologize as well. Back to the game: ##UnvoteI REALLY fucking hope this doesn't bite me in the ass but Vanesco is now exhibiting a little more of what I was waiting for. Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 13:44 Vanesco wrote:
I don't get where this idea of my calling out Syl for not being firm is coming from. I just didn't like what he had to say and I decided that instead of people joking around I wanted to actually start the game, so I called him out. I didn't really take much of a stance because nothing in his response made me feel like he was scummy.
I'm having a really big scum read on Umasi currently. As explained before, in his first post I think only consists of 1 real accusation which is that I do not like talking about strategy since scum can meta it. To me it seems that he wants town to discuss strategy which leads me to the two most likely conclusions.
1) He doesn't know what to do, usually means a weak town and can be tricked easily by scum, or
2) mafia that wants to know the towns plans and how to use it against them
His only other post is him making a joke at somebody who thinks he's scum and then saying that I didn't pressure Syl hard (which I explain in the paragraph above). He then talks about how I don't like to talk about strategy which I explain why above. He mistakenly calls strategy "mechanics" when they are completely different things (in my opinion). I view mechanics as the rules of the game where strategy is how to play the game. I don't know if this is just me but it seems like he wants to blame that I'm not allowing people to discuss the rules of the game when infact I just don't like when people discuss the strategy they are going to use.
Essentially Vanesco, whether or not he has played on other forums or whatever boils down to either noob scum or noob town. An experienced player would not need attempt to earnestly call people out simply to 'get the game going' without dropping a vote or taking a hard stance, whether pressure-vote or not. I redact my earlier scumread on him and (hopefully this doesn't bite me in the ass) he is now noob town. The OMGUS on Umasi, (OMGUS in my experience tends to be used by town way more often than scum) the blatant disregard for what a towny is 'supposed to do' (why call someone out for no reason whatsoever---only serves to draw attention to himself which he has certainly garnered). I would think a newbie scum would at the very least attempt to backtrack due to inherent guilt when being shown that what he has done is considered scummy here. Townread for now, but Vanesco I want to see something positive from you real soon. Scumread on Umasi notwithstanding.
Ok
##UNVOTE
Ill be back in a bit.
|
On November 04 2013 14:24 Vanesco wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 14:05 Umasi wrote:On November 04 2013 09:56 hzflank wrote:
To clarify, perhaps:
On night X+1, each person claims what actions they took on night X (if any).
Then each person claims who they voted for on day X.
The three people who used actions should be roughly the same three people who had the most votes. It could be slightly out as we would be missing information from the people who died on Day X (if town), night X and Day X+1.
Come to think of it with up to three people's votes missing it might not be worth claiming who we voted for, so this may not have any merit. Elaborating on Vanesco here, I'll use this post as an example Main question for you here is: How could we ruin strategies by talking about them? For instance, how do scum fuck with this plan. How would you abuse this plan as scum? Would you? CAN YOU? what witchcraft discussion CAN scum abuse? Since blues are based on townreads ANYWAY, it's not like we're all blue hunting at all, so power discussion isn't something scum can abuse. Especially because they don't have roleblockers or anything, only blue vigis. although I don't think there's an important facet of strategy discussion to be had (otherwise I'd talk more about strategy,) your specific outlook on how to handle it is scummy. I believe that by talking about a plan (in this game, with this setup) is a bad choice because lets say we find out that player X,Y,Z were voted on the most. That means the next 3 votes will probably overlap with at least 1 of the previously chosen players. This just seems like we are giving scum an easy way to kill one of the blue roles.
I agree with this post. Without PMs (like in Liar Game, a game with a huge amount of votes+pms) it seems too hard to use Witchcraft Vote analysis to determine alignment. The gain doesn't seem worth the risk.
|
On November 04 2013 14:53 EchelonTee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 12:52 Umasi wrote:
Main reasons we should vote for Vanesco is
A: he preferred for a lack of talk about witchcraft specific mechanics (which is scum agenda but wuevuh)
B: Ambiguous post about Sylencia, which was scummy at the time for being ambiguous and scumm-ier after ^^^that quote, as explained. On your point A, not wanting to talk about setup isn't necessarily scummy. Scum people love talking about setup because it allows them to stick in a lot of words without pressuring people. Look at me in Hogwarts. Your point B I somewhat agree with. Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 13:52 Vanesco wrote:
I have no reason to vote currently. There are still many people who have yet to post and it seems like an easy thing to just sheep on somebody else's vote without having to give much input. What are you talking about? Your reasoning for not voting is that other people could sheep onto you without giving input. The problem with that reasoning is as follows: 1.) You state that you have a "really big scum read on Umasi". 2.) If you have a big scum read on someone, it follows that you should want them lynched. 3.) If you vote them and people sheep on to you, those people are helping exact the lynch that you want. If you have a big scum read someone, why do you have a problem with people agreeing with your read? Is your read on Umasi actually not "really big"? This doesn't make sense.
Gumshoe, you'd better start talking soon because in your last game (GoT Mafia) you said practically nothing and got vig'd N1 as a VT. I'd not like a repeat.
Which is really fucking weird since the game directly before that he posted like fucking CRAZY.
ET, Vanesco's behaviour leads me to believe this is a case of failing to fit in right away in his first grand adventure with the big boys. I've seen this happen multiple times, (VA being a notable example) where people's playstyles clash heavily with what we're used to seeing here on TL and people inevitably get called scummy for it. Essentially if Vanesco were scum he'd be pretty damn aggressive in his first foray past his newbies and that simply doesn't seem wise to me.
Do you think Vanesco is scum for his actions or can he be town as well?
|
On November 04 2013 14:38 EchelonTee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 12:47 thrawn2112 wrote:
i'm out for a bit...fairly bland start so far
PSA: it is Nov 04 2013 which means I'm wearing a special hat for special people so I will likely NOT be sober at any given moment over the next 24-ish hrs
I don't see anything blatantly scummy atm, but I do want to throw this list out there:
rayn
WoS
Sylencia
OO
Vanesco
Umasi
if you aren't on this list then that means you either haven't posted, or you haven't posted anything memorable and as such you will be who I focus on first upon returning to the thread. So you are advocating a lurker lynch.
how's it goin? no, not even thinking about lynching yet. but i'm glad you brought it (lurker lynching) up
what do you think about the drama? is it real drama or is it "real" drama?
or just distracting and annoying?
|
So it seems that from all this negative feedback on me not voting that after thinking somebody is very scummy a vote is typical action. From my POV it seemed better not to vote because I don't like lurkers to just get a free ride by latching on, but after seeing the responses I have to agree with most of them and it was a bad play by me. Therefore:
##Vote: Umasi
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
