MeMe:
Talk about nitpicking at words... (and yes, that’s deliberately ironic). I feel that you are doing the very thing you accuse me of doing- you are avoiding the points I raised by flinging any nitpick and accusation you could find back at me.
MeMe [23] wrote:EmpTyger wrote:Eh, perhaps I am metagaming too much, although I guess I see it like your speculating on the translation between character and role in the case of Javert. Part of the game.
Let me remind you that I was responding to
your
idea about the possibility of the cop coming forward.
I made a distinction since I thought that you just established, and it was generally agreed, that it would be more fun (among other reasons) to not take advantage of the setup. So I distinguished between discussing the merits of a cop coming forward (independent of setup) which I had brought up, and analyzing likely aspects of special characters and roles (dependent on setup) which you had brought up.
Really, this isn’t even an important point, but if you’re going to pick out a sentence to make my motives seem nefarious, I feel I should show that that wasn’t the case. And aesthetics of the relative levels of fun aside, it seems suspicious to me to advocate discarding a potential strategy without considering whether it would be good or bad. Limiting the town’s options doesn’t seem like it helps the town.
MeMe [cont.] wrote:EmpTyger wrote:I’d rather wait until hearing everyone’s answer before answering your "why would this matter" question, if that’s alright?
I don't mind waiting -- but for someone doing a lot of heavy questioning, it's a bit odd that you seem to be avoiding answering one.
Yes, I’m not answering it- for the purpose of not influencing the responses of those who haven’t yet responded- which I would hardly call odd. But I’m hardly avoiding it. I said exactly when I would answer it. I’ll take your “I don’t mind waiting” at face value and try to ignore the insinuations.
Honestly, my reason for waiting isn’t a big deal, and I feel that when I do finally say it, the reaction is going to be “so why’d you make a big deal about not saying it earlier?”.
MeMe [cont.] wrote:EmpTyger wrote:In [10] you said you weren’t sure whether a non-Javert cop should come forward, but would reconsider if someone was a non-Javert cop. I was pointing out if someone came forward then there is no longer anything to consider- the non-Javert cop has already come forward! So it seemed you left it ambiguous whether a non-Javert cop should come forward, so I asked for clarification. Which you kind of did in [20], although you still are hedging.
Well your explanation here is exactly what I thought it was...nitpicking at my words. There's no way you can honestly say that I'm "hedging," I went out of my way to be perfectly clear about what my meaning was. Or are you still confused? Be specific about your allegation of "hedging" -- if you can't, I'll have to wonder why you're trying so hard to make me look less than forthcoming.
I almost think I better claim confusion, because I can’t complete figure out what you’re talking about.
By “hedging” I meant that you could be interpreted as meaning that you were in favor of a non-Javert cop claiming just as easily as that you were against a non-Javert cop claiming. I can’t find anyplace where you are less ambiguous on this matter, much less “out of [your] way to be perfectly clear”. Regarding a non-Javert cop, you have [10], which I thought I already explained didn’t make any logical sense; and you have [20], in which you say you are “generally…against” but “it might be a decent idea”. What am I missing?
Now, is that specific enough? I’m not “trying so hard to make [you] look less than forthcoming”. I’m trying to figure out why you aren’t.
MeMe [cont.] wrote:EmpTyger wrote:MeMe [cont] wrote:1) sanity is always in question (unless the role specifically states sanity)<snip>
Pardon my inexperience, because I feel silly for bringing up something that seems very obvious. But, I mean, wouldn’t it defeat the purpose of insanity for the role to specifically say so?
I'll pardon your inexperience, but your tone is beginning to feel less innocently inquisitive and more accusatory. Sanity is always in question unless the role specifically states sanity. The only specificity I've ever seen in a cop role is "you are guaranteed sane" or the like. Did you really think I was suggesting that a role might say "you are paranoid" or "you are reverse"? And why didn't you consider it from the "you are sane" angle rather than the ridiculous "you are insane" one? Again, it feels as though you're working hard to make me look bad, but you're having to bend over backward to do so.
You’re the one who just implied I was “[making you] look less than forthcoming”, so watch the accusations of being accusatory, hm?
I didn’t see any point to sanity if it’s the mod gives out that information explicitly, which was what you were implying. So I questioned you about something else you seemed to be saying which made no sense. And btw, I afterwards ran a forum search and found less than 5 games that used a guaranteed sane cop. Moreover, to quote the wiki page, “When a Moderator uses these roles [sanities], the player receiving the role is only told his/her role is Cop.” So, I don’t think it’s ridiculous that I never heard of “guaranteed sanity”.
As for “Again, it feels as though you're working hard to make me look bad, but you're having to bend over backward to do so.”: May I say, likewise? I feel I’m identifying points that seem suspicious, and probing to see why, but rather than address them, you bend over backwards to accuse me of framing you.
MeMe [cont.] wrote:EmpTyger wrote:MeMe [8] wrote:vote: gootentag
<snip>
This wasn’t explicitly labeled as random. Was it?
What's the purpose of asking "was it"? You can see perfectly well that it wasn't.
Animal, vegetable, or mineral? Should I ask the obvious follow-up, or am I to assume that there’s a reason you’re not giving a reason? Do you want me to ask what your reason was for not voting randomly, or shall I merely inquire about your reason for not yet giving a reason? Perhaps I should ask what’s the purpose of asking “what’s the purpose of asking ‘was it’?”?
To answer your question: in the 2 games I’ve played there have been votes that seem to be random which weren’t marked as such, and in at least one case there was an additional reason. And, you know, I kind of thought the reason why Person A voted for Person B might possibly turn out to be relevant to a game of mafia, just maybe
[Please forgive that burst of sarcasm. I hardly expected to regret not tacking on an “If not, then what?” to a simple question.]
LML:
LoudmouthLee [24] wrote:<snip>
Vote: EmpTyger
Rationale:
Point 1- He asked the initial question about everyone's knowledge of Les Mis. If ET is mafia, then he would likely be able to ascertain his claim chances if he knows the knowledge base of his opponents. Very.. questionable.
Especially after we see post 22:
I’d rather wait until hearing everyone’s answer before answering your "why would this matter" question, if that’s alright? It probably doesn't matter at this point, but I might as well wait. I think it’s just bob and gootentag’s status which are uncertain, so after they indicate.
See above in response to MeMe. But also, I don’t really understand this reason for suspecting me. Numerous people have already come forward to claim familiarity with the book, so if I were a mafia trying to fabricate a claim, then how do what the last 2 have to say affect anything? I really think I’m missing something in your accusation.
LoudmouthLee [cont.] wrote:Point 2- ET seems to have a "cop fear", especially one about a sane cop. Javert might have been "discredited" somewhat, but Javert (a very likely role) is still a cop.
Spot me if I made a mistake. I'll be happy to correct.
I’m not quite sure what you’re basing my perception of a “cop fear” on, so I’m not quite sure whether you’ve “made a mistake”. Honestly, I’ve never heard the term “cop fear” before. So I guess I should ask you to clarify this too?
Forgive my posting in another thread... didn't see this game was up yet. Sorry.
)