Antihero wrote:Zerofang, you plagiarizer :p
SOW wrote:(1) What are your rules for defining RVS?
What significance does this question have? What information about people's alignments do you hope to gain from the answer to this question?
(2) What do you call the stage after RVS?
(3) What are your rules that define the next Stage?
You know, all the answers to these questions do is clutter up the discussion.
(4) How many times have you played mafia alignment?
Finally, a question that might have scumhunting meta significance. A few.
(5) What makes it less favorable to you than playing town alignment?
I was just trying to get discussion going with the whole mini analysis of Tasky's answer; this question will go nowhere.
That Tasky vote is aweful.
As I stated, those questions were specifically for Tasky. Others were welcome to answer too. But, his excuse was that "anything goes" in RVS. So, I wanted his explanation for what happens after RVS for him. What is is method after RVS? Will he hold to his idea that he can make anything up he wants. That is what makes these questions significant. What is his game theory?
Question 5 may very well go somewhere. If he is enjoying the fact that he is currently mafia (if that is his current role), than it will let us see more of his game play. Is he squeamish about how honest he is? Is he good at lying? So on.
Antihero wrote:Let's take a look at SOW's last few posts. Right after my Tasky vote:
SOW wrote:Tasky, are you aligned with town in this game? Will you have a favorite experience, or an unfavorite experience?
I think we should vote players for intra-game reasons, and not inter-game reasons. It does not matter what role they played in another game. It only matters what role they play in this game.
What do you mean by a "favorite experience"?
Stating the obvious is a mild scumtell, you know.
What is the obvious? Tasky was claiming inter-game reasons. I just responded to him by saying that was not valid. It did not appear obvious to him.
I explained what I meant by "favorite experience" in
post #67 at the bottom. But, maybe you did not read it, when you extracted the questions out.
Antihero wrote:SOW wrote:Nice! Another RV for "whatever reason you want..." I assume, the dot dot dot, means you can fabricate "whatever reason you want..." I am honestly okay with what ever vote you cast at this point. As it cannot yet lead to an incorrect lynch. But, I will have my eye on you to see if you continue to fabricate "whatever reason you want..."
Is anyone else scratching their head at this paragraph?
SOW wrote:You are really focused on the term "rolefish".
(1) What qualifies as role fishing?
(2) What details made you think of this specific question?
(3) What details made you think that everyone should make the same statement?
(4) Why do you assume that such a mechanism of "lie detector" would effectively respond to such a statement by each player?
*sigh*
Too much!
SOW, what's the reason for
your
Tasky vote?
I really wonder if you read anything I posted carefully. Right after my vote, I explain it. In
post #77 I state:
Shepherd_of_Wolves wrote:I think his post,
#71 was a way to hide his statement. Because if the possible "lie detector" role is in the game, than he made his statement null and void within a post that is full of claims that contradict each other. The post detection may be weighted on the whole post, and not just an isolated statement within the post. If we make verifiable statements to be detected, I think they need to be isolate the statements like antihero.
At least Tasky saw my reason. I did not say it was lynch worthy or not. I do not understand whether or not the "lie detector" role could isolate one statement or has to have the post weighed as one. Too many claims could have a possible affect as to if the statement can be read by a "lie detector". Even though I do not see this reason enough to lynch, I think it has some merit.
But, as he made an isolated claim in
post #108. My reason stands resolved.
UNVOTE: Tasky