Because OMGUS rocks.
@ Col. Cathart: Are you proposing a D1 massclaim? Because otherwise I can't see why you'd be interested in Fate's role.
Parama wrote:They are being retarded and need to start scumhunting.Mysterious Mystery Man wrote:@ Fate, Parama: What do you think of the players who support a massclaim?
Inappropriate language. Let's all keep this civil.
This in particular:Limerickx wrote:@ Parama: What has doombunny said that makes you think he has something to hide?Seems like he a motive other than the town motive for not wanting a massclaim. This may be me reading into things too much but it makes sense to me at the very least.Doombunny9 wrote:Also, I think we've established the fact that we're not going to massclaim so I see little reason to go on about it.
What kind of motive?
Also, kunk isn't posting in another game as well so I don't think it's exclusively this game he's actively ignoring.
The current case on Kerristar isn't based on inactivity, what's your point?
Some scum attack their buddies. Others cozy up to them. But I think the strongest tell is when someone tries to do neither, and ignores certain players in the game. That's the vibe I get from Parama, like he's trying to write off Col. Cathart's slip-up. He's expressing moderate suspicion of Kerristar and C.C, but isn't really confronting them. I sense a scum pairing.Limerickx wrote:Agreed with MMMs line of thinking, but I still think that being sneaky in favor of a massclaim, ala Kerristar, is more scummy, though Para's reasoning (lack thereof) has made me more suspicious.
Especially because I don't see how a brief sentence by Doombunny implies 'getting hung up on it.'
First off, you still don't explain why you are in support of a massclaim. Secondly, you say that your support was conditional, but you don't explain the conditions.Kerristar wrote:Our support of the massclaim depended on what it consisted of.
The only person I see with a reasonable point against us is Limerickx, although misguided. I see scum hoping for a quick policy lynch on inactivity.
So, I'm guessing that whether massclaim involves roles and/or names makes a difference. Col. Cathart explained what he meant in the post below that, but you didn't respond. Please tell us why you support any kind of massclaim, and what difference the names and roles make to the claim.Kerristar wrote:Your logic behind the massclaim makes sense, I'm leaning towards supporting it. Is it both role and name claim or just one or the other?
Implies Limerickx is town.Kerristar wrote:The only person I see with a reasonable point against us is Limerickx, although misguided.
Implies Limerickx is scum.Kerristar wrote:I see scum hoping for a quick policy lynch on inactivity.
How? This is likely the first thing the mod thought of when creating the roles. Add that to the fact that it's hard to tell which roles are pro-town and which are anti-town, and we have endless discussion that goes nowhere, and stops all scumhunting.Kerristar wrote:Namecopping. Locking scum into an early nameclaim would allow for looking for fakeclaims.
xRECKONERx wrote:I don't think a nameclaim would accomplish ANYTHING. The flavor of this game seems to be that some of the crew on the Normandy are planning a mutiny against Shepard. All a nameclaim would do is likely result in only listing off a shortlist of the Normandy crew members (Shepard, Liara, Garris, Tali, Joker, Wrex, Ashley, Jack, Thane, etc.) and give us no indication of who's scum, but give scum the ability to guess the flavor and find the power roles.