Scarecrow wrote:Oh wait, you're right.Battle Mage wrote:Dont panic scum. I was only joking, and so (i think) was Fircoal.
But dont worry, just because i havent caught you already, doesnt mean i wont.
Scarecrow wrote:What? Is battle-mage joking? And if so, did firecoal just reveal himself?
I'm in two werewolf games right now, with a lot of the same players, and one of them is normal (This one), and the other is supposed to be themed and weird, so yeah.
Give me a break! Do you even listen to yourself or do you just flap your lips like a retard and hope that the absurd rubbish you spew strikes a chord with someone (like goat, who would be more aptly named sheep).PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:ThAdmiral wrote:Bolded is mine
@ pooky: you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for reasons why I'm scummy such as:
It's 3 pages into day one, bottom of the barrel? Can you come up with better reasons to attack someone at this point in the game? If not, I'd say I'm using the top of the barrel
- I random voted even though everyone else was as well
Exactly, scum trying to fit in with everyone else, though usually a protown n00b doesn't put so much effort as to have a random excuse of because you haves squiggles in their random vote as well, scum absolutely love trying to be funny on day 1, people don't like to lynch comedians, it's one of those if you make me laugh I won't kill you type of complexes. You know that feeling of need when you first typed that vote, when your gut said, damn if i don't attach a reason to this randomvote, I might look scummy... hum better come up with something... hmm how about a joke about squiggles.. that sounds good and innocous and will slip under the radar
- I listed people who hadn't posted yet (yes it was only page two but it had been a couple of days since the game started, I'm involved in so many low-activity games I don't want this becoming one as well)
Oh please, you were genuinely concerned that this thing would go low activity because 4 people hadn't posted before a week was up? If you don't think randomvoting early is important what the heck were you so eager to get them to show up for? Is it really that important that everyone posts by 4 days in? Sounds exactly like what I thought it was, you trying to look helpful when you're really not providing much.
- And just because you didn't see the sarcasm in my unvote post (I'll admit it's harder to bring across in text than it is in real life) doesn't mean I was lying about it. I agree that I've never seen someone offended/scared by my vote, which should highlight the ridiculous nature of the suggestion (i.e. irony).
Sarcasm is a scumtell, honestly what was the purpose of your unvote? what did you think the purpose of randomvoting is in a game? when someone "lies" in a game, my first instinct isn't to think hey he's joking/kidding, my first instinct is that they've got something to hide. So I'll ask you now, do you think you're here to find scum or to make us laugh?
- I don't like random votes. I regretted the fact that I did one and I unvoted. Haven't you ever done something you regretted or something stupid (other than the ludicrous attack on me) in a mafia game.
Did you like them when you made them? If so, what made you change your mind? If not, why did you make them in the first place?
I like how you're playing as well, waiting a few days for an easy prey to come along that people have already commented on and then jumping on board. Bravo
Am I supposed to detect any irony or sarcasm here? is the last comment entirely serious or are you attacking my playstyle?
battle mage wrote:Ancalagon and Panzer are always scum. With one replacing the other, i dont think there can be any other solution:
Vote Ancalagon
coron wrote:Vote: Jingolaw Voting Coron is a scum tactic.
Gosh, you couldniempie wrote:Vote: Talitha
Just because random.org told me to do.
ThAdmiral wrote:
Give me a break! Do you even listen to yourself or do you just flap your lips like a retard and hope that the absurd rubbish you spew strikes a chord with someone (like goat, who would be more aptly named sheep).
My, why should I give you a break? We're looking for evil werewolves here.. hmm nice personal attack on me... what are you hoping to accomplish? Would you like to hurt my feelings?
Your arguments:
1. That my random vote is somehow distinguished from the other peoples random votes because it had a silly reason attached and seemed like an attempt to be funny.
Let's look at some other peoples first day votes:battle mage wrote:Ancalagon and Panzer are always scum. With one replacing the other, i dont think there can be any other solution:
Vote Ancalagoncoron wrote:Vote: Jingolaw Voting Coron is a scum tactic.Gosh, you couldniempie wrote:Vote: Talitha
Just because random.org told me to do.almostsay the same about these! (<- that was sarcasm by the way)
Actually you can't.. Coron is clearly OMGUSing, Niempie is basically saying she rolled the dice, battle mage's comments seem more of a type of metagaming against a certain player.
2. That I wasn't actually concerned about non-activity but rather I was trying to look helpful so I could slide under the radar.
I'm going to be honest: I'd personally rather all the people involved in the game to actuallybeinvolved in the game. You may notice that my call for these people to post something was later backed up by the fact that they were indeed prodded by the host.
Ok mr.helpful, let's look at the facts here, the host started the game at 4:06pm on Monday, you posted your cry for prods at midnight Wednesday, that's a 56 hours after the game started. So I'm guessing you're saying that 56 hours more or less is as long as you can stand a certain player being away from the thread. Now let's look at our currect crop of "deliquents"....(those not already on your list)(just some of the most glaring candidates)
TheJiveMachine(Last Post, Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:56 pm, 199 Hours ago)
Niempie(Last Post, Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:42 am, 184 Hours ago)
Bird1111(Last Post, Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:50 am, 183 Hours ago)
These folks have been missing more than three times as long as the 56 hour period before you asked for prods on us, if you're geniunely concerned about someone being missing after just 56 hours, shouldn't you be MUCH more concerned when someone is gone for more than three times as long a period? How come you didn't ask for prods on these people? My guess is that you actually don't care that much and your move of askingfor prods on those 4 guys 56 hours into the game was just a move designed to try to make you come off as a helpful sort of chap who wants activity and to root out those evil scum scums! My point is that if you actually were who you say you are, you wouldn't have let these three guys slip by more than a whole week without posting without asking for some kind of prod... Since you did, I'm kinda guessing you don't actually care about this whole activity thing as you claim you do.
3. Sarcasm is a scum tell.
It is? Based on what? I'd like to see you try to prove that mafiates are more likely to use sarcasm than anyone else.
I obviously can't prove it, that's the whole point of a tell, if I could prove it, it wouldn't be a tell, it would be evidence
4. There is something suspicious about my unvote.
I have random voted in the past but recently I have felt it is basically a useless practice and am planning on stamping it out of my game. I know that in the early stages there is not much to go on so people vote randomly to get responses but from now on I plan not to be one of those people.
And yes - I'm deadly serious - I am attacking your playstyle . I think you've got nothing to go on and just chose to target the person with the most votes at the time. Tell me I'm wrong.
This is actually my favorite part of your post, you say you don't like random voting and you don't like my playstyle and you don't like it when people don't show up. So I'm going to ask you what you actually expect me to do. Do you expect me to show up, not random vote, and also not attack someone who I think is suspicious? What else is there left to do then? What do YOU think I should have done upon showing up if you do not approve of what I have done?
PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:Bolded in the quote is mine.ThAdmiral wrote:
Give me a break! Do you even listen to yourself or do you just flap your lips like a retard and hope that the absurd rubbish you spew strikes a chord with someone (like goat, who would be more aptly named sheep).
My, why should I give you a break? We're looking for evil werewolves here.. hmm nice personal attack on me... what are you hoping to accomplish? Would you like to hurt my feelings?
Your arguments:
1. That my random vote is somehow distinguished from the other peoples random votes because it had a silly reason attached and seemed like an attempt to be funny.
Let's look at some other peoples first day votes:battle mage wrote:Ancalagon and Panzer are always scum. With one replacing the other, i dont think there can be any other solution:
Vote Ancalagoncoron wrote:Vote: Jingolaw Voting Coron is a scum tactic.Gosh, you couldniempie wrote:Vote: Talitha
Just because random.org told me to do.almostsay the same about these! (<- that was sarcasm by the way)
Actually you can't.. Coron is clearly OMGUSing, Niempie is basically saying she rolled the dice, battle mage's comments seem more of a type of metagaming against a certain player.
Is it actually possible to be more pedantic?
2. That I wasn't actually concerned about non-activity but rather I was trying to look helpful so I could slide under the radar.
I'm going to be honest: I'd personally rather all the people involved in the game to actuallybeinvolved in the game. You may notice that my call for these people to post something was later backed up by the fact that they were indeed prodded by the host.
Ok mr.helpful, let's look at the facts here, the host started the game at 4:06pm on Monday, you posted your cry for prods at midnight Wednesday, that's a 56 hours after the game started. So I'm guessing you're saying that 56 hours more or less is as long as you can stand a certain player being away from the thread. Now let's look at our currect crop of "deliquents"....(those not already on your list)(just some of the most glaring candidates)
TheJiveMachine(Last Post, Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:56 pm, 199 Hours ago)
Niempie(Last Post, Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:42 am, 184 Hours ago)
Bird1111(Last Post, Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:50 am, 183 Hours ago)
These folks have been missing more than three times as long as the 56 hour period before you asked for prods on us, if you're geniunely concerned about someone being missing after just 56 hours, shouldn't you be MUCH more concerned when someone is gone for more than three times as long a period? How come you didn't ask for prods on these people? My guess is that you actually don't care that much and your move of askingfor prods on those 4 guys 56 hours into the game was just a move designed to try to make you come off as a helpful sort of chap who wants activity and to root out those evil scum scums! My point is that if you actually were who you say you are, you wouldn't have let these three guys slip by more than a whole week without posting without asking for some kind of prod... Since you did, I'm kinda guessing you don't actually care about this whole activity thing as you claim you do.
Those people have already posted which shows they are aware the game has begun and have proven that they can get on at least every now and then. The people I was asking to post at the time were indeterminables. Completely different situation.
3. Sarcasm is a scum tell.
It is? Based on what? I'd like to see you try to prove that mafiates are more likely to use sarcasm than anyone else.
I obviously can't prove it, that's the whole point of a tell, if I could prove it, it wouldn't be a tell, it would be evidence
So basically your admitting that it's a load of crap then. Great.
4. There is something suspicious about my unvote.
I have random voted in the past but recently I have felt it is basically a useless practice and am planning on stamping it out of my game. I know that in the early stages there is not much to go on so people vote randomly to get responses but from now on I plan not to be one of those people.
And yes - I'm deadly serious - I am attacking your playstyle . I think you've got nothing to go on and just chose to target the person with the most votes at the time. Tell me I'm wrong.
This is actually my favorite part of your post, you say you don't like random voting and you don't like my playstyle and you don't like it when people don't show up. So I'm going to ask you what you actually expect me to do. Do you expect me to show up, not random vote, and also not attack someone who I think is suspicious? What else is there left to do then? What do YOU think I should have done upon showing up if you do not approve of what I have done?
I never said other people couldn't random vote. Even if I did I hardly think they'd listen to me anyway. I simply said I was not going to random vote in future.
And feel free to attack someone who is suspicious, it just seems suspicious to me that you would choose to attack the easiest target, and furthermore neglect the fact that there seemed to be a bandwagon forming against them out of basically nowhere. Oh, wait, that's because you were part of it.
I don't mind you attacking me, just don't pretend like you've got some watertight case full of hard evidence when you're really just relying on your incorrect assumptions on my true intentions and some hackneyed logic.
ThAdmiral wrote:Large italicised dark red text is minePookyTheMagicalBear wrote:Bolded in the quote is mine.ThAdmiral wrote:
Give me a break! Do you even listen to yourself or do you just flap your lips like a retard and hope that the absurd rubbish you spew strikes a chord with someone (like goat, who would be more aptly named sheep).
My, why should I give you a break? We're looking for evil werewolves here.. hmm nice personal attack on me... what are you hoping to accomplish? Would you like to hurt my feelings?
Your arguments:
1. That my random vote is somehow distinguished from the other peoples random votes because it had a silly reason attached and seemed like an attempt to be funny.
Let's look at some other peoples first day votes:battle mage wrote:Ancalagon and Panzer are always scum. With one replacing the other, i dont think there can be any other solution:
Vote Ancalagoncoron wrote:Vote: Jingolaw Voting Coron is a scum tactic.Gosh, you couldniempie wrote:Vote: Talitha
Just because random.org told me to do.almostsay the same about these! (<- that was sarcasm by the way)
Actually you can't.. Coron is clearly OMGUSing, Niempie is basically saying she rolled the dice, battle mage's comments seem more of a type of metagaming against a certain player.
Is it actually possible to be more pedantic?
wow, big letters, and flashy coloring too, so basically you're saying I'm correct in my evaluation but trying to make it an insult?
2. That I wasn't actually concerned about non-activity but rather I was trying to look helpful so I could slide under the radar.
I'm going to be honest: I'd personally rather all the people involved in the game to actuallybeinvolved in the game. You may notice that my call for these people to post something was later backed up by the fact that they were indeed prodded by the host.
Ok mr.helpful, let's look at the facts here, the host started the game at 4:06pm on Monday, you posted your cry for prods at midnight Wednesday, that's a 56 hours after the game started. So I'm guessing you're saying that 56 hours more or less is as long as you can stand a certain player being away from the thread. Now let's look at our currect crop of "deliquents"....(those not already on your list)(just some of the most glaring candidates)
TheJiveMachine(Last Post, Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:56 pm, 199 Hours ago)
Niempie(Last Post, Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:42 am, 184 Hours ago)
Bird1111(Last Post, Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:50 am, 183 Hours ago)
These folks have been missing more than three times as long as the 56 hour period before you asked for prods on us, if you're geniunely concerned about someone being missing after just 56 hours, shouldn't you be MUCH more concerned when someone is gone for more than three times as long a period? How come you didn't ask for prods on these people? My guess is that you actually don't care that much and your move of askingfor prods on those 4 guys 56 hours into the game was just a move designed to try to make you come off as a helpful sort of chap who wants activity and to root out those evil scum scums! My point is that if you actually were who you say you are, you wouldn't have let these three guys slip by more than a whole week without posting without asking for some kind of prod... Since you did, I'm kinda guessing you don't actually care about this whole activity thing as you claim you do.
Those people have already posted which shows they are aware the game has begun and have proven that they can get on at least every now and then. The people I was asking to post at the time were indeterminables. Completely different situation.
You were worried we wouldn't know the game had begun? Indeterminable how? Did you expect us to vanish off the site and not post on it?
3. Sarcasm is a scum tell.
It is? Based on what? I'd like to see you try to prove that mafiates are more likely to use sarcasm than anyone else.
I obviously can't prove it, that's the whole point of a tell, if I could prove it, it wouldn't be a tell, it would be evidence
So basically your admitting that it's a load of crap then. Great.
I didn't say it was a load of crap, a tell is a tell, I simply said that I couldn't PROVE it. Just because I can't prove it does not mean I am saying that it is absolute crap. Do you believe everything that can not be proven is absolute crap?
4. There is something suspicious about my unvote.
I have random voted in the past but recently I have felt it is basically a useless practice and am planning on stamping it out of my game. I know that in the early stages there is not much to go on so people vote randomly to get responses but from now on I plan not to be one of those people.
And yes - I'm deadly serious - I am attacking your playstyle . I think you've got nothing to go on and just chose to target the person with the most votes at the time. Tell me I'm wrong.
This is actually my favorite part of your post, you say you don't like random voting and you don't like my playstyle and you don't like it when people don't show up. So I'm going to ask you what you actually expect me to do. Do you expect me to show up, not random vote, and also not attack someone who I think is suspicious? What else is there left to do then? What do YOU think I should have done upon showing up if you do not approve of what I have done?
I never said other people couldn't random vote. Even if I did I hardly think they'd listen to me anyway. I simply said I was not going to random vote in future.
And feel free to attack someone who is suspicious, it just seems suspicious to me that you would choose to attack the easiest target, and furthermore neglect the fact that there seemed to be a bandwagon forming against them out of basically nowhere. Oh, wait, that's because you were part of it.
I don't mind you attacking me, just don't pretend like you've got some watertight case full of hard evidence when you're really just relying on your incorrect assumptions on my true intentions and some hackneyed logic.
More personal insults, my how energetic you are. When I started my case on you, you had TWO votes while a lot of others had one vote, do you honestly expect that the one vote difference between you and the rest of the field made you such an appetizing target that I just couldn't resist sinking my teeth into you rather than all of the comments I've made about your posting so far? I never pretended I had an airtight case full of hard evidence, we don't have those here on mafiascum, this isn't CSI
Scarecrow wrote:Whatever you say. However, would you care to explain why you're voting me and not Coron, who, in addition to being the one voting firecoal (which I am not), has also been lurking and has not even deigned to provide a reason for his vote?
PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:bolded is still mineThAdmiral wrote:Large italicised dark red text is minePookyTheMagicalBear wrote:Bolded in the quote is mine.ThAdmiral wrote:
Give me a break! Do you even listen to yourself or do you just flap your lips like a retard and hope that the absurd rubbish you spew strikes a chord with someone (like goat, who would be more aptly named sheep).
My, why should I give you a break? We're looking for evil werewolves here.. hmm nice personal attack on me... what are you hoping to accomplish? Would you like to hurt my feelings?
Your arguments:
1. That my random vote is somehow distinguished from the other peoples random votes because it had a silly reason attached and seemed like an attempt to be funny.
Let's look at some other peoples first day votes:battle mage wrote:Ancalagon and Panzer are always scum. With one replacing the other, i dont think there can be any other solution:
Vote Ancalagoncoron wrote:Vote: Jingolaw Voting Coron is a scum tactic.Gosh, you couldniempie wrote:Vote: Talitha
Just because random.org told me to do.almostsay the same about these! (<- that was sarcasm by the way)
Actually you can't.. Coron is clearly OMGUSing, Niempie is basically saying she rolled the dice, battle mage's comments seem more of a type of metagaming against a certain player.
Is it actually possible to be more pedantic?
wow, big letters, and flashy coloring too, so basically you're saying I'm correct in my evaluation but trying to make it an insult?
No, I'm saying the difference is so minute between mine and the three examples it makes you look a fool for even bringing it up.
2. That I wasn't actually concerned about non-activity but rather I was trying to look helpful so I could slide under the radar.
I'm going to be honest: I'd personally rather all the people involved in the game to actuallybeinvolved in the game. You may notice that my call for these people to post something was later backed up by the fact that they were indeed prodded by the host.
Ok mr.helpful, let's look at the facts here, the host started the game at 4:06pm on Monday, you posted your cry for prods at midnight Wednesday, that's a 56 hours after the game started. So I'm guessing you're saying that 56 hours more or less is as long as you can stand a certain player being away from the thread. Now let's look at our currect crop of "deliquents"....(those not already on your list)(just some of the most glaring candidates)
TheJiveMachine(Last Post, Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:56 pm, 199 Hours ago)
Niempie(Last Post, Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:42 am, 184 Hours ago)
Bird1111(Last Post, Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:50 am, 183 Hours ago)
These folks have been missing more than three times as long as the 56 hour period before you asked for prods on us, if you're geniunely concerned about someone being missing after just 56 hours, shouldn't you be MUCH more concerned when someone is gone for more than three times as long a period? How come you didn't ask for prods on these people? My guess is that you actually don't care that much and your move of askingfor prods on those 4 guys 56 hours into the game was just a move designed to try to make you come off as a helpful sort of chap who wants activity and to root out those evil scum scums! My point is that if you actually were who you say you are, you wouldn't have let these three guys slip by more than a whole week without posting without asking for some kind of prod... Since you did, I'm kinda guessing you don't actually care about this whole activity thing as you claim you do.
Those people have already posted which shows they are aware the game has begun and have proven that they can get on at least every now and then. The people I was asking to post at the time were indeterminables. Completely different situation.
You were worried we wouldn't know the game had begun? Indeterminable how? Did you expect us to vanish off the site and not post on it?
Indeterminable how? As in you don't understand the word? I didn't expect you too, but you know there are plenty of fine internet dictionaries; you could have looked it up. The fact is you hadn't shown up yet and I wanted you to.
3. Sarcasm is a scum tell.
It is? Based on what? I'd like to see you try to prove that mafiates are more likely to use sarcasm than anyone else.
I obviously can't prove it, that's the whole point of a tell, if I could prove it, it wouldn't be a tell, it would be evidence
So basically your admitting that it's a load of crap then. Great.
I didn't say it was a load of crap, a tell is a tell, I simply said that I couldn't PROVE it. Just because I can't prove it does not mean I am saying that it is absolute crap. Do you believe everything that can not be proven is absolute crap?
Okay, then give me some reason to believe you, because I absolutely do not. I think it's ridiculous to say that because someone is mafia they are more likely to use sarcasm. And if it were true most of the rest of the people in this game would be guilty as well. Yet once again your "rules" seem only to apply to me.
4. There is something suspicious about my unvote.
I have random voted in the past but recently I have felt it is basically a useless practice and am planning on stamping it out of my game. I know that in the early stages there is not much to go on so people vote randomly to get responses but from now on I plan not to be one of those people.
And yes - I'm deadly serious - I am attacking your playstyle . I think you've got nothing to go on and just chose to target the person with the most votes at the time. Tell me I'm wrong.
This is actually my favorite part of your post, you say you don't like random voting and you don't like my playstyle and you don't like it when people don't show up. So I'm going to ask you what you actually expect me to do. Do you expect me to show up, not random vote, and also not attack someone who I think is suspicious? What else is there left to do then? What do YOU think I should have done upon showing up if you do not approve of what I have done?
I never said other people couldn't random vote. Even if I did I hardly think they'd listen to me anyway. I simply said I was not going to random vote in future.
And feel free to attack someone who is suspicious, it just seems suspicious to me that you would choose to attack the easiest target, and furthermore neglect the fact that there seemed to be a bandwagon forming against them out of basically nowhere. Oh, wait, that's because you were part of it.
I don't mind you attacking me, just don't pretend like you've got some watertight case full of hard evidence when you're really just relying on your incorrect assumptions on my true intentions and some hackneyed logic.
More personal insults, my how energetic you are. When I started my case on you, you had TWO votes while a lot of others had one vote, do you honestly expect that the one vote difference between you and the rest of the field made you such an appetizing target that I just couldn't resist sinking my teeth into you rather than all of the comments I've made about your posting so far? I never pretended I had an airtight case full of hard evidence, we don't have those here on mafiascum, this isn't CSI
Two votes...and an fos...and some other people pointing out my admittedly strange unvote. No, I wasn't the obvious target. (<- sarcasm)
ThAdmiral wrote:Big flashy letters are still mine.PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:bolded is still mineThAdmiral wrote:Large italicised dark red text is minePookyTheMagicalBear wrote:Bolded in the quote is mine.ThAdmiral wrote:
Give me a break! Do you even listen to yourself or do you just flap your lips like a retard and hope that the absurd rubbish you spew strikes a chord with someone (like goat, who would be more aptly named sheep).
My, why should I give you a break? We're looking for evil werewolves here.. hmm nice personal attack on me... what are you hoping to accomplish? Would you like to hurt my feelings?
Your arguments:
1. That my random vote is somehow distinguished from the other peoples random votes because it had a silly reason attached and seemed like an attempt to be funny.
Let's look at some other peoples first day votes:battle mage wrote:Ancalagon and Panzer are always scum. With one replacing the other, i dont think there can be any other solution:
Vote Ancalagoncoron wrote:Vote: Jingolaw Voting Coron is a scum tactic.Gosh, you couldniempie wrote:Vote: Talitha
Just because random.org told me to do.almostsay the same about these! (<- that was sarcasm by the way)
Actually you can't.. Coron is clearly OMGUSing, Niempie is basically saying she rolled the dice, battle mage's comments seem more of a type of metagaming against a certain player.
Is it actually possible to be more pedantic?
wow, big letters, and flashy coloring too, so basically you're saying I'm correct in my evaluation but trying to make it an insult?
No, I'm saying the difference is so minute between mine and the three examples it makes you look a fool for even bringing it up.
IUsing metagaming against a certain player is a valid tactic, OMGUS voting is a valid tactic, voting based on a random number generator is a valid tactic, I don't see how you can say that your random vote based on a person having "squiggles" in their name could be a valid tactic, though of course I open the floor for you to make the argument that either such a move is a valid tactic, or that the preceding three moves you've laid out are in fact silly and stupid tactics
2. That I wasn't actually concerned about non-activity but rather I was trying to look helpful so I could slide under the radar.
I'm going to be honest: I'd personally rather all the people involved in the game to actuallybeinvolved in the game. You may notice that my call for these people to post something was later backed up by the fact that they were indeed prodded by the host.
Ok mr.helpful, let's look at the facts here, the host started the game at 4:06pm on Monday, you posted your cry for prods at midnight Wednesday, that's a 56 hours after the game started. So I'm guessing you're saying that 56 hours more or less is as long as you can stand a certain player being away from the thread. Now let's look at our currect crop of "deliquents"....(those not already on your list)(just some of the most glaring candidates)
TheJiveMachine(Last Post, Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:56 pm, 199 Hours ago)
Niempie(Last Post, Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:42 am, 184 Hours ago)
Bird1111(Last Post, Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:50 am, 183 Hours ago)
These folks have been missing more than three times as long as the 56 hour period before you asked for prods on us, if you're geniunely concerned about someone being missing after just 56 hours, shouldn't you be MUCH more concerned when someone is gone for more than three times as long a period? How come you didn't ask for prods on these people? My guess is that you actually don't care that much and your move of askingfor prods on those 4 guys 56 hours into the game was just a move designed to try to make you come off as a helpful sort of chap who wants activity and to root out those evil scum scums! My point is that if you actually were who you say you are, you wouldn't have let these three guys slip by more than a whole week without posting without asking for some kind of prod... Since you did, I'm kinda guessing you don't actually care about this whole activity thing as you claim you do.
Those people have already posted which shows they are aware the game has begun and have proven that they can get on at least every now and then. The people I was asking to post at the time were indeterminables. Completely different situation.
You were worried we wouldn't know the game had begun? Indeterminable how? Did you expect us to vanish off the site and not post on it?
Indeterminable how? As in you don't understand the word? I didn't expect you too, but you know there are plenty of fine internet dictionaries; you could have looked it up. The fact is you hadn't shown up yet and I wanted you to.
Well according to dictionary.com, it means
1. not determinable; incapable of being ascertained., tell me sir, what was indeterminable about me at the time you made that post, whether I would post at all in this thread or the time that I would make such a post?
3. Sarcasm is a scum tell.
It is? Based on what? I'd like to see you try to prove that mafiates are more likely to use sarcasm than anyone else.
I obviously can't prove it, that's the whole point of a tell, if I could prove it, it wouldn't be a tell, it would be evidence
So basically your admitting that it's a load of crap then. Great.
I didn't say it was a load of crap, a tell is a tell, I simply said that I couldn't PROVE it. Just because I can't prove it does not mean I am saying that it is absolute crap. Do you believe everything that can not be proven is absolute crap?
Okay, then give me some reason to believe you, because I absolutely do not. I think it's ridiculous to say that because someone is mafia they are more likely to use sarcasm. And if it were true most of the rest of the people in this game would be guilty as well. Yet once again your "rules" seem only to apply to me.most of the people in this game? ok sure, find me 8 others
4. There is something suspicious about my unvote.
I have random voted in the past but recently I have felt it is basically a useless practice and am planning on stamping it out of my game. I know that in the early stages there is not much to go on so people vote randomly to get responses but from now on I plan not to be one of those people.
And yes - I'm deadly serious - I am attacking your playstyle . I think you've got nothing to go on and just chose to target the person with the most votes at the time. Tell me I'm wrong.
This is actually my favorite part of your post, you say you don't like random voting and you don't like my playstyle and you don't like it when people don't show up. So I'm going to ask you what you actually expect me to do. Do you expect me to show up, not random vote, and also not attack someone who I think is suspicious? What else is there left to do then? What do YOU think I should have done upon showing up if you do not approve of what I have done?
I never said other people couldn't random vote. Even if I did I hardly think they'd listen to me anyway. I simply said I was not going to random vote in future.
And feel free to attack someone who is suspicious, it just seems suspicious to me that you would choose to attack the easiest target, and furthermore neglect the fact that there seemed to be a bandwagon forming against them out of basically nowhere. Oh, wait, that's because you were part of it.
I don't mind you attacking me, just don't pretend like you've got some watertight case full of hard evidence when you're really just relying on your incorrect assumptions on my true intentions and some hackneyed logic.
More personal insults, my how energetic you are. When I started my case on you, you had TWO votes while a lot of others had one vote, do you honestly expect that the one vote difference between you and the rest of the field made you such an appetizing target that I just couldn't resist sinking my teeth into you rather than all of the comments I've made about your posting so far? I never pretended I had an airtight case full of hard evidence, we don't have those here on mafiascum, this isn't CSI
Two votes...and an fos...and some other people pointing out my admittedly strange unvote. No, I wasn't the obvious target. (<- sarcasm)
So your contention is that the fact you had one more fos and one more vote than the rest of the field made you a MUCH easier target and by FAR the easiest target for me to go after and that I chose you based on this rather than the other reasons that I've pointed out? I'm just asking because to me it sounds fairly ludicrious and I wanted your word on record that that was what you believed
PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:IUsing metagaming against a certain player is a valid tactic, OMGUS voting is a valid tactic, voting based on a random number generator is a valid tactic, I don't see how you can say that your random vote based on a person having "squiggles" in their name could be a valid tactic, though of course I open the floor for you to make the argument that either such a move is a valid tactic, or that the preceding three moves you've laid out are in fact silly and stupid tactics
When you say tactic, do you mean tactic for catching scum? If so:
- Metagaming is not, as everyone is given random roles in each new game they're involved in. That's like saying you should definitely bet on red in roulette because it's come up red the last five times.
- OMGUS voting can be a valid tactic but he was omgussing(?) in jest, which contradicts your point
- I'm simply at a loss to see how random number generator votes are at all useful in rooting out scum.
Well according to dictionary.com, it means
1. not determinable; incapable of being ascertained., tell me sir, what was indeterminable about me at the time you made that post, whether I would post at all in this thread or the time that I would make such a post?
Well, yes.
most of the people in this game? ok sure, find me 8 others
1.battle mage wrote:voting Twito is a definite scum-tell!
Vote: Scarecrow
Having said that, so is wagonning alongside Ancalagon!2.Scarecrow wrote:OMFG scum partner! Anyone who likes Twito is definitely anti-town!3.Ancalagon wrote:Ono! He caught me!4.Fircoal wrote:But we need the spam.5.Jingolaw wrote:I'll leave my vote where it is for now, as Coron is obviously scum. Obviously.6.Battle Mage wrote:oh dear, im at lynch -7. If i get one more vote, i think ill claim. ROFL7.Battle Mage wrote:ok-im claiming. My role dictates that i am an Invincible Day-Night Vig with a maximum of 5 kills for the duration of the game. I can also roleblock and protect 1 person each night. I also get a prod every time a Mafia Member posts.
To sum up, i now know the identity of every single Mafia Member.
Game over methinks.8.Fircoal wrote:Curses, now you know I'm mafia.
So your contention is that the fact you had one more fos and one more vote than the rest of the field made you a MUCH easier target and by FAR the easiest target for me to go after and that I chose you based on this rather than the other reasons that I've pointed out? I'm just asking because to me it sounds fairly ludicrious and I wanted your word on record that that was what you believed
Two things:
a) At least we agree on the fact that I did indeed have more votes and fos's than the other players. However you are still ignoring the other general comments of light suspicion put up by people who neither voted nor fosed me. I.e. the popular mood at the time was that I was suspicious.
b) If you did have such great reasons why did you not put them in your first post rather than the vague: "mostly because of his earlier comments" and "partly because I <3 Tali" (which would be "justifying it with a fairly trivial meaning" wouldn't it, something you indicted me for)? Why is it that you only came up with your arguments after you were pressured into revealing them?
PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:Oh and in addendum, instead of saying something like "No, I'm saying the difference is so minute between mine and the three examples it makes you look a fool for even bringing it up."
try saying "No, I'm saying the difference is minute between mine and the three examples." it conveys the same meaning as what you've said before, without trying to be intentionally hurtful towards the other person.
Unless of course you can come up with a good reason for trying to hurt my feelings, because I honestly don't see what adding that other part in can do. Usually adding personal attacks such as those do not lend increased credibility to one's contention or argument.
Of course if you do intend to hurt my feelings and have no real strategic or in game reason for making such comments, then feel free to carry on as you have before.
I do geniunely hope that you will see that making such personal attacks is somewhat pointless in the sense that it doesn't really help you unless you enjoy hurting other people.
Which I truly do hope you do not enjoy, surely whatever momentary pleasure you receive from writing such a note will be negated by a sense of guilt in the future.
Instead, try deleting the personal attacks after you've vented out your fustration.
Thank you for reading this.
I'm sorry if I've offended you. I was happy to swing when you were swinging back but I will try to tone it down from now on.
You've quoted Bm 3 times and me twice. And I wasn't being sacrastic when I said we need the spam. Well I kind of was. We kind of do need the spam.ThAdmiral wrote:most of the people in this game? ok sure, find me 8 others
1.battle mage wrote:voting Twito is a definite scum-tell!
Vote: Scarecrow
Having said that, so is wagonning alongside Ancalagon!2.Scarecrow wrote:OMFG scum partner! Anyone who likes Twito is definitely anti-town!3.Ancalagon wrote:Ono! He caught me!4.Fircoal wrote:But we need the spam.5.Jingolaw wrote:I'll leave my vote where it is for now, as Coron is obviously scum. Obviously.6.Battle Mage wrote:oh dear, im at lynch -7. If i get one more vote, i think ill claim. ROFL7.Battle Mage wrote:ok-im claiming. My role dictates that i am an Invincible Day-Night Vig with a maximum of 5 kills for the duration of the game. I can also roleblock and protect 1 person each night. I also get a prod every time a Mafia Member posts.
To sum up, i now know the identity of every single Mafia Member.
Game over methinks.8.Fircoal wrote:Curses, now you know I'm mafia.
PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:1) Metagaming is a valid tactic because different players play their roles differently, if a player happens to be weaker, i.e. easier to pressure into a mistake or more conducive to making one later, it is a valid option to pressure him early. OMGUS voting is just standard voting back at someone who's voted you, it's part of the don't vote for me or I'll vote for you strategy of trying to keep people from voting you, there's nothing silly or funny about OMGUS voting, it's a purely strategic decision. Random voting is simply a divestment of responsibility which says that the choice was not in any way based on player behaviour, his own role, or activity in the thread so far. You voting based on "squiggles" indicates that you made an active decision to vote for a player based on him having squiggles(which I find hard to believe because, that someone would vote somebody else based just on "squiggles") that is why I came to the idea that you randomly decided to vote for that person, and then later came up with the reason "because he had squiggles" to justify your basically random vote. The need to justify a random vote shows up more by a scum than a townsperson. The first 2 examples you've cited are examples where a player makes an ACTIVE decision to target another player with his or her vote based on a reason that has strategic validity, the third example is of a player making an active decision to divest his responsbility to a third party, which is also a strategic decision. My contention is that it's unlikely that you made a strategic decision to vote people with squiggles in their name, and thus likely made an active decision to vote and then came up with a justification after the fact.. The fact that you felt the need to come up with a justification for your random day one vote makes me believe you are a scum.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. As far as I can tell meta gaming is generally frowned on and people should take each game as a separate entity. One thing that I see come up quite a lot are comments like: "this guys playing differently this game, so I reckon he's scum" (similar to the recent comments of "active pooky=pookyscum"). These arguments are flawed because the different playing style could be contributed to a host of other reasons.
As I said OMGUS can potentially be strategic but his vote was clearly a joke vote, so your reasoning doesn't apply.
You might say my vote was a random vote with a joke attached. Would anything have changed if I just said "i picked ~n9v~ out of a hat so...".
2. Well, yes doesn't answer the question. What did you think was indeterminable about me?
I was agreeing with both "if they will vote" and/or "when they will vote".
3.I think someone's already addressed the fact you've quoted the same person multiple times.
Once again with the nit-picking. I found all those in the first one-and-a-half pages. If I looked further I would probably find more but I think I found enough to make the point that sarcasm is fairly prevalent in this game.
4. a) the popular mode was that you were suspicious BECAUSE you were suspicious, I found you suspicious BECAUSE you were suspicious.
b) Mostly because of his comments means because of your earlier comments, I didn't highlight exactly why because I was hoping others could read them and come up with the reasoning themselves. I <3 Tali would be a fairly trivial reason along with the first reason, that's why it's "partly". I indicted you for using a trivial reason as your ONLY reason.
a) Well I may have been 'suspicious' but I generally thought the case against me was very weak, and then you came along and essentially rehashed it.
b) You hoped other people would come up with reasoning for your contentions? That sounds lazy and evasive. I.e. creating suspicion for other people to follow through on. Furthermore there is a very fine line between what you did and what I did, so I still think to attack me for it is a bit hypocritical.
5.) Swing back? When have I made a personal attack on you? I deeply apologize if you think I have.
Okay, so mine were a bit harsher. Let's just move on alright.
