criticising someone's protown suspicions? lawlroflcopter wrote:define meta-townish. because it sounds mostly like an excuse for you to ignore whatever scummy things bm does.elmo wrote:BM seems meta-townish.
BM
criticising someone's protown suspicions? lawlroflcopter wrote:define meta-townish. because it sounds mostly like an excuse for you to ignore whatever scummy things bm does.elmo wrote:BM seems meta-townish.
you are really good at framing your statements in such a way that they sound really damning without having actually proven anything.Battle Mage wrote:i should also point out that you appear to have the preconception that i am going to do scummy things. I find it hard to believe that an open minded townie would have that approach.
BM
then why have you assumed that i will behave in a scummy way? Tunnel vision much?roflcopter wrote:you are really good at framing your statements in such a way that they sound really damning without having actually proven anything.Battle Mage wrote:i should also point out that you appear to have the preconception that i am going to do scummy things. I find it hard to believe that an open minded townie would have that approach.
BM
i had no preconceptions about you or anyone else coming into this game. i am observing in the process of doing scummy things here.
roflcopter wrote:it sounds mostly like an excuse for you to ignore whatever scummy things bm does.
wouldn't that require me to be voting you and not voicing my suspicions of a number of other players concurrently? do you think before you accuse me of things?bm wrote:Tunnel vision much?
That's not necessarily the case atall.roflcopter wrote:as in, he's ignoring all of the scummy things you've done, by saying he has a "meta-town" read on you
It wouldnt. You're tunnel-visioning me in the sense that you have the aforementioned preconception that i will behave (and have already behaved) in a scummy fashion. It smells like you are planning to set me up at a later stage. Either that, or you are tunnel-visioning me now.roflcopter wrote:wouldn't that require me to be voting you and not voicing my suspicions of a number of other players concurrently? do you think before you accuse me of things?bm wrote:Tunnel vision much?
DGB, do this, promise to do it, or refuse to in your next three posts, or I will take it as you refusing to do so.I wrote:Why refuse to state who you are suspicious of and why? Why refuse to list the players and make comments? I want a firm stand from you on the players because right now you are my first (second if you count me misreading Korts) real suspect. I will explain further after you procure such a list or again explicitly refuse to.
This is so much BS. Why would it be a preconception to think you have already behaved in a scummy fashion? For that matter, I don't gather how you decided rofl was assuming you were gonna be scummy instead of having already seen you be scummy.Battle Mage wrote:It wouldnt. You're tunnel-visioning me in the sense that you have the aforementioned preconception that i will behave (and have already behaved) in a scummy fashion. It smells like you are planning to set me up at a later stage. Either that, or you are tunnel-visioning me now.roflcopter wrote:wouldn't that require me to be voting you and not voicing my suspicions of a number of other players concurrently? do you think before you accuse me of things?bm wrote:Tunnel vision much?
BM
Yeh sorry, poor wording there on my part. Ignore that. -.-Korts wrote:This is so much BS. Why would it be a preconception to think you have already behaved in a scummy fashion? For that matter, I don't gather how you decided rofl was assuming you were gonna be scummy instead of having already seen you be scummy.Battle Mage wrote:It wouldnt. You're tunnel-visioning me in the sense that you have the aforementioned preconception that i will behave (and have already behaved) in a scummy fashion. It smells like you are planning to set me up at a later stage. Either that, or you are tunnel-visioning me now.roflcopter wrote:wouldn't that require me to be voting you and not voicing my suspicions of a number of other players concurrently? do you think before you accuse me of things?bm wrote:Tunnel vision much?
BM
A prod has now been sent.Guardian wrote:request prod on Yosarian2if it hasn't been done.
"whatever scummy things bm does."roflcopter wrote:you must be the one with the guilty conscience, bm, because i was referring to how scummy you had already looked, not how scummy you'd look in the future. but you're doing a great job of continuing to look scummy. carry on.
Lol. DrippingGoofball is awesome.DrippingGoofball wrote:No it isn't. The scum team consists of Kison, Guardian and BM. vollkan is the neighborhood serial killer.Kison wrote:Because it's precisely what you're calling it: a jokeGuardian wrote:Kison, why go along with the joke that you are busing me?
1. It can yield information, although it's often information that can only be noticed later. For example, in one game I read years ago, player A random voted player B, then much later in the game players A and B claimed they were masons together, and the town figured out somethng was wrong partly because masons don't, as a rule, random vote each other. (Player A was actually a scum mason). Beyond that, you're at least getting someone who could be scum slightly closer to a lynch.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?
Eh, that also seems to be fairly normal Battle Mage behavior, from my games with him.Kirson wrote: To whomever asked me what I think of Battle Mage, I think for the most part his zany behavior matches what I remember from playing with him ages ago. Which doesn't say much. The only thing from him which I find even remotely alarming so far is his declaration that he is pretty sure CKD is Town so early in the game.
Battle Mage wrote:The original idea was to build a meta, but with hindsight, that meta is a scum one.Guardian wrote:Kison, why go along with the joke that you are busing me?
BM, why change your vote every other post?
vote: Kison
BM
Heh. Let me just do a time check here... yup, this post is about 23 hours after the game opened up.Battle Mage wrote:I'm starting to feel DGB is being an intentional distraction while scum-Yos lurks away.
I tend to think fast moving, active games are better for towns, actually; more stuff happens, people stay more involved, ect.Guardian wrote: This is supposed to be such a stellar cast -- we seem to have largely spam'd/noise'd our way to page 8 in two days. Short page lengths are better for towns -- in reality, people are not going to re-read 40 page day ones as well as they read 15 page day ones.
HahahaElmo wrote:Eight-ball.Korts wrote:I'M a little curious to know how Elmo madeanyof his calls.