Well I did take a long hiatus. Sorry for making you replace into such a terrible situation btw, though you did an excellent job as far as I recall.Nice to see Raging Rabbit again. I figured you were a done deal after that fiasco between you and Twito.
Doesn't yield the same sort of information, and from my experience the discussion it creates revolves strictly around theory and meta and doesn't have much to do with the game. I'm not letting this deteriorate into a Twito discussion, you can keep crying your eyes out as far as I'm concerned. Also, you're buddying up to midgets.Battle Mage wrote:Lol, i dont think that is a reason against self-voting in the early stages. It is just as likely (in fact, moreso) to promote discussion than voting for an individual. Yeh the self-vote was a mistake, but the premise is kinda the same. It's a vote which doesnt affiliate me to anyone directly, but indirectly is far more useful than a random vote.Raging Rabbit wrote:Voting yourself is kinda like saying "screw useless random votes, I'll start with voting myself for kicks and giggles." Then several joke posts after you switch to obsessive random voting. Doesn't mean much because the self-vote was apparantly a mistake and this being you an' all, but then again you did cry for Twito.
Twito was a legend. Face facts.
BM
1. I'm not exactly a fan of random votes, but they do form a sort of connection that can be analayzed later.vollkan wrote:This game looks set to be great. The list of players is absolutely brilliant.
Raging Rabbit wrote: Doesn't yield the same sort of information, and from my experience the discussion it creates revolves strictly around theory and meta and doesn't have much to do with the game. I'm not letting this deteriorate into a Twito discussion, you can keep crying your eyes out as far as I'm concerned. Also, you're buddying up to midgets.Vote: Vollkan
Four questions:
1) What "sort of information" does a non-self random vote yield?
2) Can you see any inherent game value in having a theory debate early on?
3) Based on your answers to 1) and 2), do you think self-voting in the random stage can be a reasonable course of conduct?
4) Was your post that I quote above at all influenced by meta actions of myself?
What makes you read DGB as pro town?Korts wrote:Otherwise I feel DGB has been fairly pro-town, but this statement is openly buddying up to rofl.
Here it's bad that people suspected him based on his unexplained vote on CKD and didn't ask what the reasons were (though as was said before, suspicion based on lack of explanation implies interest in said explanation).Yos wrote:Also, I find it odd that Korts, Volkan, and Destuctor are all all attacking for my vote on CKD and yet not one has shown the slightest bit of curiosity for why I am voting him.
When des bluntly asks what the reasons are, per Yos' request, Yos casts that in a questionable light as well.Yos wrote:Any reason you're only asking me this now?
Here in response to Vollkan's vote on on him, suddenly the reasoning for the CKD vote shoud've stayed at "gut" because his attempt to explain his logic got him attacked as well - though in the above quote he was all for explaining this. Very odd that he seems to hold the opposite opinion here, as if the only reason he explained in the first place was to say "I told you it should've statyed at gut."Yos wrote:
This is exactally why some people just say "gut", you know. Because whenever you try to explain exactally why you have a bad, scummy feeling about someone's posts, you get attacked for it.
I'm not trying to constuct a "logical case" here, really. I think CKD is scum, and I'm trying to explain what gave me that impression. You can either agree or disagree.
Where are you seeing DGB elbows deep in shit? Are we even reading the same game? She's under no pressure at all...Korts wrote:Ok, let me elaborate on that gut feel after all. DGBscum doesn't have any motive to be elbows deep in shit while she mimes scumhunting. DGB's actions so far have been pro-town, therefore I have no reason to suspect her. Why are you trying to dig any deeper when what we're discussing is atownread on someone?
Why? Pure gut?dgb gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. that has no bearing on her alignment at all, i just like her.
i also find her townish in this game.
It left many people out, I dislike commenting on players I don't have much to say about.ragingrabbit, what is your opinion of sensfan? post 441 left him out entirely.
Because Guardian makes no sense as a vig kill, and we're not even sure we have a vig. I can't completely rule it out, but I'm willing to assume the far, far liklier option.Korts wrote:This question is based on an assumption that isn't really based on any evidence. Why are you assuming the Guardian kill was a scumkill unless you took part in deciding it?
Why can't that be a scum move? It carries no real bad implications for her and gives the appearance that she's actually scumhunting.Korts wrote:You misunderstand me. When I said "elbows deep in shit" I was saying that she's not afraid to stir up shit with her bare hands, as in fishing for emotions, reactions etc.
I just realized I meant third sentence, which is:Korts wrote:Shouting WIFOM at every hint of it is idiocy and a way to be acting like you're scumhunting. Again, looking at the motivations for her actions, I have the impression that she has slightly more motivation to be stirring up shit the way she's doing as town than as scum. Ignoring the motivations and running around screaming WIFOM isn't exactly a logical reply.
Circular argument, says nothing. Wasn't talking about WIFOM here. The BM-Guardian link that was part of your attack on BM is a WIFOM trap in light of his kill, I'm surprised you didn't comment on the kill in relation to BM before.Korts wrote:DGB's actions so far have been pro-town, therefore I have no reason to suspect her.
Korts wrote:This comment carries heavy implications without you having provided any proof. Where was I doing that? Quotes plz.
Right here.Korts wrote:Firstly, I didn't know how else to phrase it. Secondly, it was you who were implying you knew Guardian was town. Since there are no pro-town linked roles on the front page, this doesn't sit well with me, particularly because you didn't outright state that you thought Guardian was town, but tried to plant the thought of Guardiantown with a passing comment. I'd have had no problem with you stating that you have a town read on Guardian, what I do have a problem with is you trying to pass it as almost a suggestion.
What good does this threat do you?Korts wrote:If you can't explain why you made the assumption of Guardian being a scumkill, why you think it's WIFOM to explore the motivations for certain ways of behaviour, and how I was attacking BM for his town read on Guardian, my vote will be more than happy to visit you for an extended stay.
Any vig with a minimal amount of judgement who suspected such a connection would kill CKD rather than Guardian, to save the town a potential mislynch in case he was wrong. Other than the apparant connection I can't see any other reason anywhere near strong enough to warrant vigging Guardian, plus he was about to tell us why he didn't like the case on CKD so the timing of the kill prevented us information and was clearly anti-town, plus early kills in general favor the scum. Therefore, this being a vig kill is extremely unlikely and I'm comfortable assuming it was a scum kill.Korts wrote:I don't see how Guardian shouldn't make sense as a vig kill. You have to at least acknowledge that there were multiple players suspicious of him; and his attempt at stalling the CKD wagon at L-2 could've been taken as either buddying-up/opting for brownie points or derailing a scumbuddy-wagon as well as pro-town apprehension.
I neverIf you take the first half of the sentence as granted, the second half is evident as conclusion. And the first half isn't circular logic/WIFOM in itself. Therefore I don't see what you're implying could be WIFOM here.
I don't have the patience to really go into exact definitions right now, but WIFOM is basically trying to form a set of assumptions that goes on an infinite loop and is therefore useless, while circular logic is an argument that depends upon itself as proof - X is bad because god said so, god said so because X is bad - and therefore in effect doesn't say anything new.First off, wait a second. Circular logic is the same as WIFOM, unless you're misusing the term. Please give your definitions to those two terms. My understanding of WIFOM is derived from the Princess Bride, and deciding whether the Wine In Front of Me or the Wine In Front Of You is poisoned is a very clear circular argument.
I just don't think a disagreement on the use of tenses - to which you later conceded - is cause for a vote, so I assumed the more important point was BM's connection to Guardain.Second, I admit that I failed to correct that the BM-Guardian link that I made is obviously invalid now that Guardian's flipped town. But that never was the focal point of my case. Note that the vote on BM (in post 327) came structurally after I replied to BM misrepping rofl even after clarification, and not after I accused BM and Guardian of being connected. I also continued the post after the vote.
Subtle definitions aside, what you're basically doing here isSee bolded. My beef was with the very subtle implication that Guardian was town, specifically because of the structure of the sentence BM implied it in. When I first read it, I didn't even realize that he extended the implied townness to Guardian, I thought he only meant himself.
Yes, my case stems from my inital strong gut feeling. How does that prove to you I'm scum exactly? I don't see any reasoning for your vote other than pure OMGUS.Basically I thought, and still think, that you are merely following up on your stated "bad feeling" about me with a very poorly fabricated case. Your points are weak and rely in semantics.
Yos wrote:Oh? How so?
This pretty much sums it up.des wrote:Yos seems to go the distance to misrepresent my play.
Vollkan covered the point on your gut, so far as it's definition goes. I can concede, though, that my curiosity about your actual reasons may not have been as evident as I thought.
I don't understand how you could describe my vote change and interaction with ckd in the way you have, even after asking me for clarification and saying you understood. Saying I "dropped suspicion of ckd completely" is obviously misrepresentative given that my change of vote was accompanied by messages like, "ckd, I still want you to answer my questions." I've even said I could switch back to ckd if I wanted to. Where in that do you see me completely dropping my suspicion of him?
I don't even know why you'd begin to say I'm defending ckd or how my questioning you and Vollkan can be construed as attacks.
I'm seriously wondering if you actually believe this cause to suspect me.
Yes.Yos wrote:What do you think about destructor's actions in regards to the CKD wagon after CKD put himself at lynch -1? Do they make sense to you?
Only because you somehow interperted the attack itself as not asking you that question.It's not questionable that he asked me, but it's really questionable that he didn't at all do so until I requested him.
Misread you there, but that doesn't solve the issue - you continually nodge people into asking you for reasons, and then when you provide said reasons and they don't find them convincing you attack them for questioning your reasons, which you claim is anti town. Basically what you've created here is a win-win situation where any reason you provide should be seen as pro town because you could've just said gut. I think it's pretty absurd to say that questioning your reasoning is anti town in and of itself, questioning other people's reasoning is a big part of playing this game, despite the "pure gut" reasoning being impossible to question.Um, how could you possibly get that out of my post? That's pretty much the exact opposite of what I said.
I was pointing out that Volkan's actions were desturctive and anti-town, in that if you punish someone for trying to explain why he is suspicious of someone, then they're more likely to just say "gut", and that that is clearly less useful to the town.
I certanly didn't say "I told you it should have stayed at gut", or anything like that; me explaining my thought process should certanly help the rest of the town understand why I think CKD is most likely scum. On the other hand, Volkan voting me just because I explained my suspicions, especally when there was noting wrong or illogical about my suspicions, is very anti-town.
Already commented on CKD, I'm not convinced by the case on him and see him as neutral-pro town. Anything specific you want me to refer to?I notice you're trying to attack me for superficial and irrelevent side-issues and misrepresenting minor points of disagreement with Volkan, while totally not commenting on CKD himself here. Why is that?
Lovers Multiball, though to be fair she played most of it as TS and then replaced in as DGB....what game is that?
You'veKorts wrote:The bolded part is BS. Me not having a reason to suspect her doesn't meant she's been pro-town specifically, just that she hasn't been scummy. Her being pro-town does, however, mean that I don't have a reason to suspect her.
But you yourself admit it wasn't clear, and it a disagreement about the use of tenses is a very minor point anyways and not worthy of a vote.Korts wrote:I did later concede that point, but at the time of my vote, it wasn't clear whether BM was just being boneheaded about it or purposefully misrepping. And purposeful misrepping I see as a valid premise for a vote.
There totally was a stated town read, subtle differences aside. What it seemed to me you said in response to BM's questioning was "it's worthless digging in to a town read" - in other words, town reads aren't good scumtells. You then used BM's town read on Guardian as a scumtell.Korts wrote:What? That's BS. You're completely missing the point. I wasn't "digging deeper into the town read"--there wasn't a stated town read. I was accusing BM of subtly implying the notion that Guardian is town. I never asked BM to clarify on his read.
So any case made against you which you find weak is cause for a vote? I'd consider the earlier gut read a pro town sign in this case, if anything.Korts wrote:I'll say it again. The thing that convinced me wasn't that you followed up on your gut case, but the fact that you followed up with such a weak case and invalid points, and seemingly only for the sake of staying consistent with your apparent "bad feeling" regarding me.
Des explained that perfectly well imo, he had two candidates for a vote and preffered switching to prevent a L-1 situation relatively early in the day. I don't get why you try to make it my responsibility to defend him.Yos wrote:Ok, you need to explain it to me, then.
Under what circumstances would someone putting themself at lynch -1 convince you to unvote them and instead push a different bandwagon? Because, personally, I can not think of ANY situation when I would do that as a pro-town person.
Meh, I'd still unvote or at least state that I no longer find him suspicious. Plus your case on him was really weird to begin with.Korts wrote:Because I didn't see any better place for my vote.
You are correct, I misread you. Now that I understand what you were saying, there isn't a contradiction with your read on DGB but the point itself is really reaching.Korts wrote:There was no stated town read! Show me where BM explicitly stated that he has a town read on Guardian before my accusation. My beef was with the implicit suggestion. You are blatantly ignoring my points and restating yours.
In your situation, assuming that you're town, a "weak" case that came out of nowhere would look worse to me than a "weak" case based on an ealier expressed gut - the case can be explained as the townie trying to follow up on his feeling, and not doing too well. I don't see how this is a town tell.Korts wrote:When the case seems to have been made for the sole purpose of following up on a stated read, I think the conviction in it deserves to be tested. The gut read is at best a null-tell.
Yup.Korts wrote:I assume you mean scumtell.
Anti town yes, scummy not necassarily. Especially when said "weak case" is against you, because everyone's inclined to consider the majority of points raised against them weak. So I wouldn't consider it scummy unless I had reason to think the case was dishonest, or so extremely weak I can't see how that could possibly be means for a vote - which I don't think applies to my case on you.Korts wrote:Do you agree that making a very weak case and pushing it anyway is scummy?
Wasn't vollkan the SK?vollkan, how about actually making an effort to pretend to scum hunt? This game isn't the debating club, and besides, after you're dead, we're going to need to know who you were bus'ing.
Not at all. I haven't seen you do much scumhunting, for one, mostly you went back and forth with des and vollkan a whole lot and went all out on BM when the opprotunity presented itself. You don't seem to be questioning that many people or really be actively looking for scum. Your questioning of des, as you yourself keep stating, isn't because he's a main suspect but because you want to argue with him some and figure the point out (which I don't see how you haven't yet, his explanation has been fully satisfactory imo even before he started repeating it ad infinitum per your request), so it's not much of an attack really. You don't seem to be putting your head out much.Eh? What are you talking about? I've been scumhunting pretty consistatnly all game. In fact, the reason you're attacking me here is because I was scumhunting and trying to find out if you were scum. Contradiction much?
Canonizing yourself here, I dislike that. Scum have strong motive to attack the people everyone think are pro town, especially with possible docs around that make them bad kill choices, so as scum you would definitely want to cast him in a doubtful light. Also, again, you weren't really attacking him, just "questioning his motives", which puts less heat on you because you never really comitted yourself to the suspicion. Instead of taking heat for selflesslesly attacking des as you present it here, your aim could easily have been discrediting des some while giving off the appearance of scumhunting and being attentive.RR and Elmo said at the time that they didn't like my case on you. Which was fine; I certanly knew beforehand that I would take a lot of heat in suspecting someone that nearly everyone else in the game had already decided was town. But, you know, you can't worry about that when scumhunting.
You make a weak case on Guardian, than a really comfortable case on BM based on close to nothing which you never really seemed to believe, than you stay on BM after having admitted you don't have any real reason to suspect him anymoe, than you OMGUS me on a really weak basis which I quickly disprove and you unvote. So basically, you say a whole lot but actually do very little in terms of scumhunting, and seem to settle on targets just because they're a good place for you to keep your vote in at the time.Korts wrote:Your case is basically this, correct me if I'm wrong: I made a case on Guardian (which was justified, just not based on the tell I thought it was); I made a case on BM based on a BS point of view in an argument, which I later retract on account of it being weak, but leave my vote because I can't find another place for it; "OMGUS" case on you, based on the fact that you seem to be pushing a weak case very hard; self-preservation vote on CKD (how's that even a point against me?); "bad logic" on the gut read on DGB.
What changed?Korts wrote:You are pushing this point like it's especially damning. I like keeping my vote out somewhere, and usually when I don't have any leads it's my most recent suspect who gets the honor.RR wrote:than you stay on BM after having admitted you don't have any real reason to suspect him anymoe
See, it didn't happen that way. You presented a weak case on me. I answered your points. You kept pushing on the same ill-founded reasons. So I voted you for pushing a crap case. There's no OMGUS there (and I'm not even taking into account that OMGUS doesn't exist in practise)./quote]RR wrote:than you OMGUS me on a really weak basis which I quickly disprove and you unvote.
Your vote was based on not liking how you thought my case was just a followup on my earlier bad gut, which as you yourself admitted later isn't a scumtell.
My focal point is that all of your cases had very little to none at all behind them, and you never invested yourself too strongly in one. They just seem like a tool for you to keep moving your vote around and appear to be scumhunting, which I don't think you are.
Yos being mafia further strengthens my suspicion, I had a feeling you were connected before but wanted to question Yos on his point of view first.
Yos asking questions about the case of you isn't an obvious defence as you tried to present it, it's more like casting an air of doubt on it and allowing himself room for either a bus or a more blatant defence should the situation arise.
You on the other hand have been very non-comittal on Yos, saying you don't see any proof of him being scum and later when more attention was going his way that you see him as slightly scummy, again giving yourself lots of leeway to change your read in whichever way you liked.
Korts wrote:Meanwhile, the debate between Yos and des doesn't seem to give proof of either one being scum. Yos seems to be slightly reaching, while des seems to be extrapolating Yos's scumminess from the fact that Yos is slightly reaching. Of the three main participants of that line of discussion (Yos, des, vollkan), vollkan seems to be the one who chimes in for personal motives.Korts wrote:The Yosarian-suspicion I agree with to a lesser extent. I don't really see vollkan as scummy, though...
Your vote was based on not liking how you thought my case was just a followup on my earlier bad gut, which as you yourself admitted later isn't a scumtell.Korts wrote:You are pushing this point like it's especially damning. I like keeping my vote out somewhere, and usually when I don't have any leads it's my most recent suspect who gets the honor.RR wrote:than you stay on BM after having admitted you don't have any real reason to suspect him anymoe
See, it didn't happen that way. You presented a weak case on me. I answered your points. You kept pushing on the same ill-founded reasons. So I voted you for pushing a crap case. There's no OMGUS there (and I'm not even taking into account that OMGUS doesn't exist in practise).RR wrote:than you OMGUS me on a really weak basis which I quickly disprove and you unvote.
Korts wrote:Meanwhile, the debate between Yos and des doesn't seem to give proof of either one being scum. Yos seems to be slightly reaching, while des seems to be extrapolating Yos's scumminess from the fact that Yos is slightly reaching. Of the three main participants of that line of discussion (Yos, des, vollkan), vollkan seems to be the one who chimes in for personal motives.
What changed?Korts wrote:The Yosarian-suspicion I agree with to a lesser extent. I don't really see vollkan as scummy, though...
Yes, but it being a follow up was a part of your attack, along with it being weak (and I'm sure it seemed more appealing due to the OMGUS part - it being against you). As you conceded later, the follow up bit doesn't strengthen your case but weakens it, if anything.Korts wrote:It was about how yourweakcase was a follow-up. If you had made a stronger case, I would't have "OMGUS"-ed you.
So basically, despite talking a lot, you aren't really doing any scumhunting. I happen to think that's a fine focal point.Korts wrote:The cases I made were all as strong as I could find. I didn't invest myself in them strongly because they weren't strong cases. If this is your focal point, it's not a strong one.
Nothing is exclusively scummy, but it does make you more likely to be his scumpartner; along with other things.Korts wrote:Why don't you FoS everyone who has expressed no suspicion or conflicting reads on Yos? I agree, I have been non-committal on Yos, but I don't see how that's exclusively a stance that scum would take.
You said that the debate doesn't give proof of either's alignment, and that vollkan, the third participant, was the scummy one. Then suddenly you somewhat agree with the case against Yos and find vollkan pro town.Korts wrote:Didn't I concede that Yos was reaching? That, IMO, pretty much covers deserving suspicion to a lesser extent.
True. I thought the scumkill is done at random if it isn't submitted until deadline, like the vig and SK kills, but it turns out it doens't. Still, anti town roles have a strong incentive to kill quickly while pro town roles are the other way around.rofl wrote:thats a fair point. des and i basically quickhammered him between us.
Not exactly. Korts' kill for today is done with, so assuming a mislynch and a scumkill that goes through we're left with 7 tomorrow. Now, without Korts this puts us in a situation where if the scumkill goes through we're at close to lylo tommorow, we'll have 6 left and a missed lynch means they can kill again early d5 and (assuming a 3 person scumgroup) win the game. With Korts, who kills as we choose to not get lynched/because he's actually town, we get today's lynch - which surely won't hit scum if we kill Korts - plus his kill tomorrow - the equivalent of the alternative's option's lynch, choosing 1 of 6 people - and if both fail and all scum kills go through we're at a very miserable situation, but still haven't lost. This looks like slightly better odds to me, but the factor of keeping the probable SK alive is quite indimidating and I'm really not sure yet. We also have to take into acount the possibilty of a 2 person scumgroup + SK which isn't that unbalanced in a 14 player game with potenially few power roles, mafia kills possibly getting prevented and Korts potenially being part of a second scumgroup. Confusion ensues.Yeah. When we hit prisoner's dilemma territory depends on the number of scum. Is 1 SK + 4 mafia too much? Probably, so.. 9 -- lynch -> 8 -- mafia kill -> 7 -- Korts kill -> 6 is effectively LyLo with two shots at hitting scum. But we only get the one lynch before that. So, yeah, if Korts is a SK, we kinda have
You vig whoever the town wants you to, so as to gain us a second lynch which gives off more information and is in every way better than an individual decision, or we know you're the SK and lynch you. Simple as that.Korts wrote: Either way, I'm vidging Elmo tomorrow unless you want to lynch him instead.
Wait 'till you hear everyone's opinion, then vig the majority choice. I think that's the obvious course of action if you're pro town.Korts wrote:Elmo is scum. Does it get any simpler than that? That's not just my opinion.
Ever since his entry post he seems to happy sticking to the backround, posting little substance that almost always goes along with popular opinion. I get this feeling he doesn't really care much about who gets lynched, which is very different from the town-tajo I played with who seemed much more emotionally invested in the game.Elmo wrote:Why'd you think Tajo's scum, Rabbit? He seems townish to me. Not contributing tonnes, but what is there reads town. I suppose that haven't seen him as scum, and I only played with him once, like a year ago in a newbie game. But I'm more confident about him than a bunch of other people.
I also talked about Yos a lot. What's wrong with concentrating on two main suspects? Now that Korts probably is a questionable lynch and Yos truned scum, I'm looking at other people as well.des wrote:The only part of vollkan's list I'm uneasy about is his read on RR. I know he hasn't done anything obviously scummy, but I'm worried that maybe he's flying under the radar. I feel like most of his posts have only been about Korts.
Hmm. This being a triple-post implements he might've gone back and looked at the numbers, so I don't see how he arrived to this conclusion. Maybe a false alarm in an attempt to look like he's thinking from a pro town PoV.populartajo wrote:Damn, sorry for the triple post.
If Vollkan isnt scum and if scum hasnt killed yet then I can autolynch vollkan if they decide to kill right now.
Unvote.
But I think he should claim, anyways.
Adel, also I think the number of nonvoters is off.
Hmm. Why didn't you hammer FL?Tajo wrote:Vollkan, Im admitting I am a lazy bastard and just thought that one (if not both) of you and FL had to be scum since I have townie and neutral reads from other players.
Actually you were on both townie wagons, then voted for vollkan, then only hammered FL after I explicidly asked why you didn't earlier.populartajo wrote:I never said that would confirm me.Korts wrote:Why do you think that would confirm you?populartajo wrote:Woot I hammered scum.
Why am I not confirmed?
Its like all are having a party of confirmed townies for suspecting FL and Im not invited when she was my top suspect (along with Vollkan) for a long time.
Whichever it is, assuming a 3 person scumgroup there'd be no way for them to both kill and block Korts. And surely, Korts is able to kill - nobody else claimed credit on the Yos kill, so it was clearly commited by Korts, who also can't be a member of the mafia.Elmo wrote:Well, that takes some of the edge off. I would guess we have a mafia roleblocker left, although we can always hope it's a doc and they now cannot kill. I think we shouldn't count on Korts being able to kill today. (We'll know if he's lying, because he's compulsive either way.)
Bad plan, SK's are immune to kills so a suicide would only be effective if he happens to be a vig. And he could claim he go blocked anyways. When we decide it's time, Korts should be lynched.rofl wrote:also, possible korts should be suiciding today or tomorrow
It's not that, I think Korts is anti town as well and have for a while now. Feeling ratty is a probable cause for the pissed off tone, but there's something else there I'm having trouble putting my finger.I suspect it's resembling that thing that scum like to do where they'll basically abandon any pretence at judging alignment and move straight to trying to get the person attacking them lynched. Difference is, I've been saying KortsScum for ages, and I'm probably OMGUSsing to some degree.
Or it could be something else; I don't know. I was feeling pretty ratty when I wrote it, if that's any info. (shrug)
This paragraph in particurlar is odd, both in the manner it's phrased and the way you pass off total WIFOM as absolute fact and use it to accuse vollkan.Elmo wrote:If he wanted me to support him as scum, yes, he would just have asked me to in the quicktopic thread. Scum do not try and force each other's hand to support them or take a specific course of action, they work AS A TEAM in a coordinated fashion. If I was scum with him, we would have done something like read over the thread together, figure out whether or not it was the correct move for me to defend him or bus him, and then act accordingly, and all without giving any indication of it in-thread. Probably it would come out roughly like how Vollkan acted.
Yeah, but he was talking about Yos asking you to defend him and you implement that to a throwaway comment on vollkan being scum. I don't like the subtle attempt to throw attention elsewhere.Elmo wrote:That's roughly what I or any other competent player would have done as scum when they have access to daytalk; you act as a coordinated team, since that's the principle advantage you have as group scum.
Doesn't seem all that unbalanced. Remember that doc and tracker are weakened since they have to submit their action before the kill for it to work.Elmo wrote:Does c. sk vs. 3 mafia vs. tracker + doc + cop seem at all balanced to people?
Yeah, saying cop instead of tracker there is kind of a serious slip. I'm almost sure Elmo's a real cop now. Anyways, game breaking plan:Elmo wrote:I love how your argument is predicated on an existent cop. Would you please explain to the gallery how compulsive vig + doc + tracker is balanced against 1 GF + 3 goons? Or why the mafia would have even have a godfather with no cop in the setup?Korts wrote:4 scum is much more likely than 1 GF and 2 Goons against a Cop-Doc-Vig-Tracker town.
