890: Cults of Darkness and Shadow - Game over!

[DisCode]

/confirm

[DisCode]

Incant Data

P.S. Congrats Percy ^.^

[DisCode]

I don't think starting to throw Incantations randomly around is a good idea. Yes, we can move it around, but once you put it in game, it will stay in game.

FoS: Dis

I'm not in favor of any no-lynches. My vote will be used and it's now at a good place.

[DisCode]

post 21
First of all, there's no danger in having too many votes out this day. The danger lies when this game day takes too long to finish. Because the fact is that with each 3 RL days, it will take one less vote to lynch. The more votes that get used for a lynch, the better. Because if we need very few votes, it's easier for scum to control the lynch. With more votes out, the chance of this happening is getting smaller with each vote out there.
Secondly, don't ever use 'scum', 'is' and 'vig' in one sentence, unless there is a negative involved. Because this isn't true at all. Even if a scum team wants to get rid of the other scumteam, that doesn't mean it will shoot at who they think are scum for certain. They still want to win from the time and that may include shooting claimed powerroles or strong players who are very unlikely to get lynched and/or might be dangerous against them.

Those were points I disagreed with. Now onto the scummy bit of the linked post, which is about the pro-town bit. It seems a way to give us the impression we can't clear each other and doubt everyone. Not liking that one bit.

post 23
When starttransmission is back, he should explain why Data's comment tempted him to vote for him and why he decided not to do so.

Incant Seacore

Post 47
Scummy post from Chaco. First of all, the 'soft push' against those players who have already incanted (For those who don't know what I mean, see: 'That can be considered scummy since' in the linked post)
Second reason is combined with post 49 as you were talking about the players who had voted today in post 47. Yet in post 49, you're denying you did talk about today.

Also, Fara, I would like to hear, do you agree/disagree with my thoughts on

Random bandwagons being bad

Disagreed

Power roles being evident of being "pro town" and thus less trustworthy

depends

Pro town tells being significantly less helpful compared to scum tells in this game as opposed to normal games.

disagreed

In fact, I would like to hear from other people on these points as well.

Bolded the answers.

Post 60, just found the link you were talking about. So now I'm curious, why did you point out the link of the Darkness PM, but not the one of the Shadow PM?

[DisCode]

@Dis: Are you suggesting we should speedlynch? I don't like that. It's true that with less votes is easy for scum to control the lynches, but we shouldn't hurry. Look, two weeks (around the same time given in a normal game) would leave us to 7 incantations to lynch, and that sounds good (majority).

No, I do not want a speedlynch. Thanks for twisting what I said.

[DisCode]

because if we need very few votes, it's easier for scum to control the lynch.

In my opinion this is a good thing. We tempt the scum to reveal themselves. If we need 10 to lynch and it's a town kill, then we've got all those people, plus anybody else that was suspicious to look at. If we only needed 6 and the same thing happens, then that makes it a lot easier.

When I say 'very few', then I mean 'very few'. A lynch with 10 players on board is way overreacted as it's very unlikely it will happen. Luckily, due to the change in rule, it's very unlikely this will happen as well for now.
And disagreed. Do you know how easy it is to have an influence on a lynch when you need only a few votes? It's very hard in this case to seperate the town from the scum.

I also don't understand why people are so suspicious about my pro-town comment. I'm talking about "pro-town tells" being things that actively make you think they are hunting for scum.
If you are including in "pro-town tells" the absence of "scum tells" then thats cool.
That's the only one I think can be trusted, because everything else could be scum hunting scum.

Now onto the scummy bit of the linked post, which is about the pro-town bit. It seems a way to give us the impression we can't clear each other and doubt everyone. Not liking that one bit.

Also, I completely disagree with DisCode on his vig comment. It benefits one scum team to actively hunt the other to extinction, then to come after town, because they can't trust that the other scum team doesn't have the same plan. Thus their night kill would likely be used in a vig way. If they have a dreamwalker then they will really be scum hunting.

You don't get it, do you?
Vig wants town to win. Mafia wants mafia to win. Therefore, vig kills players that are scummy or distracting/useless, while mafia kill players that are dangerous to them. Huge difference.
Also, it's notable how you discredited somebody (I believe Serial) for wanting to trust into a guilty/innocent result, while you want to trust in two whole mafia teams. At least the cop can be town-sided.

The problem with getting too high an incant population early is that it has a lack of accountability to hold people to in later days. An "accidental" multi-lynch could happen by somebody being "unfortunately away" from the game.

Are you talking about later days now? Because this whole argument started, because players started to state that random votes are bad in this game. I'm pretty sure there won't be random votes in later days.

Also, you're very scummy for trying to control future lynches:

5)Anybody who votes to make the votes uneven is viewed suspiciously, whether the person who dies flips scum or not.
6)Anybody who votes within the last hour of the last deadline is viewed extremely suspicious, probably an auto lynch.

Though I didn't ask any questions to you, Chaco, you may respond to my comment about post 47, which can be found in post 62.

Also, Seacore, I did not vote you based upon you thinking that mafia will act as vigs. It was something I disagreed about with you and disagreement is not a scumtell.
The 'boohoohoo' - speech of you being targeted was very

touching

scummy. As for the accusation against you of buddying, it seems that you don't have any troubles responding to it in post 77 (Two posts below the post I'm now commenting on). This is already scummy, but that you're now trying to play 'victim' after having stated this:

Hehe, I was about to comment on the buddying too, I'm happy for you to note it, I know that it can look suspicious sometimes, but I enjoy finding someone who sees eye to eye with me.

just makes it worse.

Money says me because he's been buddying me. It's a common scum tactic, and you fell right into it.

According to this, you believe that Seacore is playing a common scum tactic. Meaning you think he's scum. Yet, no incant. How come?


Going to look at the arguments between Faraday and Death now.

[DisCode]

Death, your opinion of Seacore and Chaco, please.
And answer Faraday's question for once as you're trying really hard to evade it.

That's all regarding that discussion. I'm now off to mourn for the minutes I've lost due to reading that

[DisCode]

same question to pretty much everyone who isn't incanting/hasn't made their position clear.

DataDanne, Seacore and Faraday. Pretty much in that order.

Reasons for the last two?

[DisCode]

So your opinion of his buddy posts to you is?
Also, what's your general opinion about 'buddying'?

[DisCode]

EBWOP
Already reminded you of this in the big post. You've got nothing to say in response to this, Chaco?

Post 47
Scummy post from Chaco. First of all, the 'soft push' against those players who have already incanted (For those who don't know what I mean, see: 'That can be considered scummy since' in the linked post)
Second reason is combined with post 49 as you were talking about the players who had voted today in post 47. Yet in post 49, you're denying you did talk about today.

[DisCode]

Well, normally, when someone buddies me I generally respond with,"Do not invoke me." But I was interested in his alignment, so wanted him to further it.

So the difference in this game with 'normally' is caused due?
Cause this is strange. You see buddying as a scumtell, but normally you'd stop it, but in this game you wanted to see what would happen.

Also, @98: No, not really. Your soft push makes no sense since the push would be to get them to vote, however I wanted the contrasting. I felt like incanting a bunch without need to is pointless.

And I used today as an example, but the purpose was for later days. Since you, obviously, cannot unincant.

I think you misunderstood by what I meant with 'soft push'. You called the action scummy, without calling it scummy as you stated that 'it

can be seen

as scummy.'
As for you stating that today was used as example, not buying that. Because in post 47, you stated this:

@People who have already incanted. I do not think that was a good move in the slightest, and a No Lynch may not occur since you have done so. That can be considered scummy since, if you read the rules, you'd know the relation of the two.

As for your general thoughts about buddying, I was asking which reasons you can see for town and which reasons you can see for scum doing so. Please state them.
And I'm still waiting on your opinion of the buddy posts from Seacore.


Death, why don't you want to state your opinions of Chaco and Seacore?
Also, what about my first post in ISO?

Magua, you state that you won't FoS Seacore, eventhough you do find the Seacore/Chaco conversation to be scummy. So why only mention that you won't FoS Seacore, but not Chaco, while being suspicious of the Seacore/Chaco convo?

Seacore's big post which contains a lot of repitition that was already commented on:
1. Doesn't give any reason for what I accused him off.
3. Shows that Seacore is overreacting as I already stated that it's not scummy to me.
5. Shows exactly what I'm accusing you off. It all depends on context.

As for your part about me, check Chaco posts after I questioned him about the buddying stuff. Either I can't read or he does think you're scummy for it.

I also like Faraday's comment about this post:

Why are you focusing your analysis on the people who have interacted negatively with you? Seems like you're ignoring everyone else.

[DisCode]

Prod avoidance. No time today, but should be back to posting starting tomorrow.