|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 12:53:40 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jan 25, 2008 12:53:40 GMT -5
Ok, so Smurf has posted 4 times. Enough that he isn’t lurking. Post 1 (D1.P29) he says he can get behind either voting plan. Post 2 (D1. P86) he makes a crack about Roosh, votes for storytellers voting plan, but says we shouldn’t let is straightjacket us. This one is interesting in conjunction with the first post because it seems like he is trying really hard to make EVERYONE happy. He likes both plans, he will vote for the most popular plan, but agrees with the discenters that we should be careful. On it’s own it isn’t much, but it is weird to me that he is so damn agreeable. Like he doesn’t want to piss anyone off. Post 3 (D1. P119) he says he is in the same boat as Santo and that he skims Roosh’s posts. It is also interesting that he is aligning himself with another player in a popular anti-Roosh monster post position. BUT he says that Roosh is just being Roosh and that maybe he is scum maybe not. Again it feels like he is trying to appease everyone. He goes onto say that he doesn’t like that I meta gamed, but that it isn’t scummy, but that he doesn’t like it. Then he says that nothing is triping his scumdar, but that it doesn’t mean anything that nothing has tripped his scumdar. So he is planning to wait until more happens This is the kind of hiding in plain sight post I was talking about. Everything he says is canceled out by what immediately follows it. It is like it was designed not to piss anyone off. It is safe. Like I said in my last post, in this game more then others, I think safe is scummy, because the scum have more to lose in this game. Not enough for a vote, but enough for a big FOS. Here is a link to that post, just in case anyone wants to read it and double check. psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=rottk&action=display&thread=1201030708&page=4#1201220445Then his 4th post (D1.P133) He want’s to reply to Nesta’s challenge, but doesn’t have time. He will get to it when he get’s home. He hasn’t yet, but I figure we can give him time, and now he has another post to respond to. Ok, that is enough for a while. I have to actually work and end the Day for my game on the SDMB.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 12:55:51 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 25, 2008 12:55:51 GMT -5
It is not identical. As acknowledged below, when scum find an immune-to-night-kills-person, they'll want to pursue them. Maybe. If that ever even happens (they find an immune-to-Nightkill person) and if it suits their purposes at the time. But I don't think it will, because: Actually, that's exactly what I mean. If I were scum in this game, I not only would try to play as a townie, I'd be able to. During the Day, I'd leave aside the fact that I was scum, and dedicate myself to finding scum by the same means I use in any other game. I'd be trying to do what everyone else was trying to do, with one minor exception (covered below), and by the same means. Why do it differently? Everyone says that, and I don't agree with it. The town isn't always right on Day One, but I've never had a problem identifying patterns of behavior very early. drainbead was caught on Day One of the Asylum Game, and not based on a major slip but a subtlety of behavior. We cannot afford to wait until Day Four to get a handle on this new paradigm. And make no mistake, it is a new paradigm, and I'm frankly just the tiniest bit suspicious of the folks who are, in effect, saying "It's just the same as always, let's just do what we always do." For instance: Of course they have an agenda. It's just that their agenda is very, very similar to our own. Disagree, again. If you're scum in this game, and you spend any time at all trying to keep your partner alive, then you're playing incredibly poorly. There's no reason for it. If they die, they die. If they die because you made them die, so much the better. Now you are crosskill immune, and no one's going to think you're their partner. This sentence makes me nervous about you, personally. You know better. They absolutely can throw one another to the wolves, if it seems appropriate. This passage makes me feel like you're trying to tell people: hey, if X attacks Y and Y turns out to be scum, then X probably isn't his partner. Which is a terrible assumption to make. Heh. We're disagreeing a lot here today. The odds are against us, I think, but since it's impossible for any scum faction to win until there are no more than four players still playing, the odds aren't that bad. I just think the nature of the game is going to make it harder to identify scum with any confidence.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 12:59:03 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 25, 2008 12:59:03 GMT -5
That said, I strongly agree with your previous post regarding Peasant Smurf. He appears to be waffling an awful lot in the post to which you link.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 13:11:28 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Jan 25, 2008 13:11:28 GMT -5
O.k. I'm sold.
unvote Roosh
vote Peasant Smurf
This is basically the reasoning that got Freudian killed in the other current game, and it worked. Peasant seems like he is playing scared, and only scum would have reason to. Plus, it isn't really helpful to town interests to have players who won't take strong stances.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 13:16:27 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jan 25, 2008 13:16:27 GMT -5
It is not identical. As acknowledged below, when scum find an immune-to-night-kills-person, they'll want to pursue them. Maybe. If that ever even happens (they find an immune-to-Nightkill person) and if it suits their purposes at the time. But I don't think it will, because: Actually, that's exactly what I mean. If I were scum in this game, I not only would try to play as a townie, I'd be able to. During the Day, I'd leave aside the fact that I was scum, and dedicate myself to finding scum by the same means I use in any other game. I'd be trying to do what everyone else was trying to do, with one minor exception (covered below), and by the same means. Why do it differently? Everyone says that, and I don't agree with it. The town isn't always right on Day One, but I've never had a problem identifying patterns of behavior very early. drainbead was caught on Day One of the Asylum Game, and not based on a major slip but a subtlety of behavior. We cannot afford to wait until Day Four to get a handle on this new paradigm. And make no mistake, it is a new paradigm, and I'm frankly just the tiniest bit suspicious of the folks who are, in effect, saying "It's just the same as always, let's just do what we always do." For instance: Of course they have an agenda. It's just that their agenda is very, very similar to our own. Absolutely it is a new paradigm. But you can't let that freeze you. The way the game works, it will be impossible to do anything but get a good guess until Day 3 or 4. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying for the good guess, but it means until then we more or less have to fall back on what we know works. And like you said, the agenda is similar, but not the same. Disagree, again. If you're scum in this game, and you spend any time at all trying to keep your partner alive, then you're playing incredibly poorly. There's no reason for it. If they die, they die. If they die because you made them die, so much the better. Now you are cross kill immune, and no one's going to think you're their partner. This sentence makes me nervous about you, personally. You know better. They absolutely can throw one another to the wolves, if it seems appropriate. This passage makes me feel like you're trying to tell people: hey, if X attacks Y and Y turns out to be scum, then X probably isn't his partner. Which is a terrible assumption to make. I disagree. You might not want to try to keep your partner alive, but you can't throw them to the wolves. There is too much chance of getting randomly lynched for that to be a solid strategy in this game. The fact that there are multiple scum factions actually is why this is extra true. Sacrificing your partner won't get you any extra credit. At least not until much closer to end game. Heh. We're disagreeing a lot here today. The odds are against us, I think, but since it's impossible for any scum faction to win until there are no more than four players still playing, the odds aren't that bad. I just think the nature of the game is going to make it harder to identify scum with any confidence. I think we can agree to disagree on this one. I suppose it doesn't really matter why this game is harder. It is harder. [Fixed Quote Tags]
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 13:18:39 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jan 25, 2008 13:18:39 GMT -5
I screwed up the quote up top in my last post. That should all be one bit quote from Story with a quote from rugger inside.
Li'l Help?
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 14:01:00 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jan 25, 2008 14:01:00 GMT -5
I'm leaning toward Denouement. At this point it's a hunch.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 14:05:37 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jan 25, 2008 14:05:37 GMT -5
New page, New Vote Count:
Greedy Smurf (2) : nesta, hawkeyeop Hal Briston (1) : storyteller0910 NAF1138 (1) : Cookies RoOsh (5) : NAF1138, Pleonast, Santo Rugger, Diomedes, CatInASuit Santo Rugger (2) : Kat, RoOsh Denouement (1) : drainbead
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 14:07:18 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Jan 25, 2008 14:07:18 GMT -5
I screwed up the quote up top in my last post. That should all be one bit quote from Story with a quote from rugger inside. Li'l Help? A voice booms from the heavens:
"I'm good, but not THAT good. What do you mean by 'that'?
Why don't you send me a PM with what you meant to post, and then the Mandate of Heaven will adjust things accordingly?"
...
"Oh, I see the other Mandate has already fixed the problem. Nevermind then. Carry on."
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 14:09:26 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Jan 25, 2008 14:09:26 GMT -5
RE: in Response to CAISdiomedes - votes Roosh and it would be good to get a reason for it as he may know, but some of the rest of us don't When i asked him about it last night, he stated it was a joke. The reason he's voting me is because I'm currently taking Anatomy and Physiology, which includes a dissection lab. Thusly, I cut up Cats and dead people, which I suppose is 'scummy'. The vote was posted following a Doper Chat last night. Roosh - Big posts, covering everything going on. Right first off: Night zero - his Pleonast vote was fine, what struck me as really odd was his sudden retraction. I treated Night Zero as before the Game even started. The Pleo vote was a joke, as I don't even really think I had seen my role when I was doing that, I assumed Night 0 was before the game started. The retraction should be obvious... what evidence did I have BEFORE the game even started on Pleo? His huge post pretty much mentions every post since the start of the Day - Why? ?? This was because I had missed the start of the Day and wanted to catch up. So I just kinda summarized my thoughts on everything because I didn't get to post the first two days of the Game really. That's why it was so big, if I was there at the start, they would have been quicker little posts during that time period. He doesn't vote anyone else or even mention who else he considers scummy. Finally he votes Santo Rugger because of his vote for Roosh. No voting for the scummiest player or who else is considered scummy, just an OMGUS vote The Two posts you refer to were made back to back. I merely split them up to break them up by topics, and to give people in the Mafia/Doper Chat something to read while I typed up the 2nd part. There is no "finally he votes" because in the last part of when I unvote NAF , I point out that there is someone whose vote I find more suspicious and then i promptly type that part up and post it. The Unvoting of NAF occurred because of Santo, there was no period of thinking in between. Only in the creation of the posts. As for who else is scummy, well I had already mentioned my suspicions in my previous posts, and in that one that you mentioned I talked about my dilemma with Cookies and NAF. The suspects are all still there in my old posts, and I'm trying not to repeat myself over.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 14:32:24 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Jan 25, 2008 14:32:24 GMT -5
Ehh. I've asked you to cut down. Others have asked you to cut down. You don't give a shit. And neither do I. /out of gameDear S. Rugger and the others too, When I read it last night, I had a great deal of difficulty sleeping because I kept thinking about it. I'm even hesitant to post here really to respond to it because of this one. I really feel cowed now. I actually took a lot of offense at this post sadly enough, and I feel foolish for doing that. This is just a game and all, but still. I really genuinely do feel bad if you feel this anger towards me. It was not my intention, and it is a habit I have. I always have tended to talk a lot, and have always had difficulty in being concise. However, I don't want my playing style to be a detriment to the enjoyment of this game in itself. Contrary to what you said, I really DO give a shit. I tend not to notice it though unless I'm addressed. I had noticed Diggit 's comments because it was direct and actually addressed me and asked me to cut down. I WANT to play this game because I enjoy this game, and I really like all of you, and I enjoy playing with all of you, but I don't want to hinder your own experiences playing this game. I will and currently AM trying to cut it down, but your post Santo really struck a nerve with me. Because we had played together in the past, and i never felt this sentiment was really there before, I felt as if this post was filled with a sense of anger that I had not expected from this stage. We weren't argueing debating or anything. It truly caught me off gaurd. I'm sorry for the way I post, S.Rugger, and I really am sorry if I caused this outburst. The whole adding the "No offense" at the end AFTER you said all those things really just screwed with me, because I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic, truly angry and frustrated or what. I can't really read the tone of your post, and I just am unsure of how to respond to it in the game, because of the way I have felt now out of the game because of it. But I just want you to know that I DO care what people say about me, and I AM and WILL be trying to be a better player. I truly do feel bad about it. And if a majority of you really strongly feel I am a detriment to this game just by my presence in the game; then please PM me or talk to me outside of this game, and I will reluctantly ask for a substitute because I don't wanna hinder the fun atmosphere and experience of these games. /oog
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 14:46:49 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jan 25, 2008 14:46:49 GMT -5
Important Note: Even though I'm helping DBI moderate this game, I do not know the alignment or role of any of the players. So meta-game the following at your own peril.
Important Note 2: These are my opinions; not those of DBI or anyone else. Mine.
Apologies. I haven't been reading the content of the game all that closely, and I probably should have. I know first hand that sometimes comments get out of hand and it really sucks to be on the receiving end. There is no need for insults, and in my opinion the line was crossed. I also feel that it would be a great injustice for the maligned to bow out for the benefit of the maligner.
Play clean please.
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 14:54:42 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Jan 25, 2008 14:54:42 GMT -5
A voice booms from the heavens:
"Also kindly remember that Law of the Land #2 is 'Thou Shalt Preserve Some Modicum of Civility'. The Mandate of Heavens prefers a mostly hands-off approach to games, but some of you folks (you know who you are) have been pushing things a little. If you genuinely feel emotions not conductive to playing, this Mod suggests a cool-off period before you post.
Now everybody go stand in a corner and meditate for five minutes.
...
One more thing.
It wasn't stated explicitly in the Laws of the Land, but Law #2 also covers honest play. It's nice that you guys can be great friends when not in the game, but be extra careful when talking off-board so you don't give away anything you're not supposed to. The substitute players bench is a little thin at the moment and the Mandate of Heaven has little interest in striking down players for being stupid."
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 15:03:18 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Jan 25, 2008 15:03:18 GMT -5
Roosh,
I have only played with you for like three days now, but nicknames aside(Hawkie really..?), you are a fun read. You are both willing to go out on a limb and change your mind, which I find to be positive traits. My only issue is you seem to need to comment on everything, even if you have nothing to say. In your first massive post, there were several items that you just copied items to note, but didn't have any comment upon them. So I think it is less an issue of being to verbose, and more picking and choosing what you have strong opinions on, and letting everything else be.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 15:36:51 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 25, 2008 15:36:51 GMT -5
Roosh -
[oog] Don't be ridiculous; no one wants you to stop playing. I, personally, don't even want you to change your style, even though I disagree with roughly 80% of what you do and say; a mix of personalities and approaches are the entire reason I even want to play this game. It'd be really boring if we all came at this thing from the same direction. [/oog]
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 15:42:18 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jan 25, 2008 15:42:18 GMT -5
Roosh - [oog] Don't be ridiculous; no one wants you to stop playing. I, personally, don't even want you to change your style, even though I disagree with roughly 80% of what you do and say; a mix of personalities and approaches are the entire reason I even want to play this game. It'd be really boring if we all came at this thing from the same direction. [/oog] What he said.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 16:15:48 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jan 25, 2008 16:15:48 GMT -5
Roosh - [oog] Don't be ridiculous; no one wants you to stop playing. I, personally, don't even want you to change your style, even though I disagree with roughly 80% of what you do and say; a mix of personalities and approaches are the entire reason I even want to play this game. It'd be really boring if we all came at this thing from the same direction. [/oog] Thirded. Yes you make me glaze over sometimes. Love ya anyway.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 16:26:07 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jan 25, 2008 16:26:07 GMT -5
Roosh: I think of you kinda like that odd uncle who always smells like mothballs and only eats foods that are white. We all have our quirks. Please play on.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 16:34:40 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Jan 25, 2008 16:34:40 GMT -5
<snip>But I just want you to know that I DO care what people say about me, and I AM and WILL be trying to be a better player. I truly do feel bad about it. And if a majority of you really strongly feel I am a detriment to this game just by my presence in the game; then please PM me or talk to me outside of this game, and I will reluctantly ask for a substitute because I don't wanna hinder the fun atmosphere and experience of these games. /oog Sorry I upset you Roosh. The last thing I intended was to make you feel intimidated or belittle you. I meant to be firm, though, but I think it came out too forcefully. The absolute last think I want is for you to sub out because I'm being a dick (followed closely by you not having fun in -this- game for the same reason). I added the "No offense," part, because I truly didn't want you to take it personal. Again, I apologize. As for my tone, I would say that slightly frustrated would describe it, but I tend to word things stronger than I need or intend to sometimes. Please don't mistake that for anger. So, a compromise? You cut down on the volume of your posts, and I'll quit being a jackass. Well, I'll quit being a jackass regardless. But it'd be a nice compromise.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 16:41:05 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Jan 25, 2008 16:41:05 GMT -5
<snip> Why do it differently? Because there are three or four players (the other two scum groups last remaining player, the corresponding weak doc self-protecting, and the regular doc) who are going to be basically immune to a particular scum group's night kills. If they can't kill them during the Night, they'll -have- to get them killed during the Day. Is one of us missing something?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 16:48:53 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 25, 2008 16:48:53 GMT -5
Because there are three or four players (the other two scum groups last remaining player, the corresponding weak doc self-protecting, and the regular doc) who are going to be basically immune to a particular scum group's night kills. If they can't kill them during the Night, they'll -have- to get them killed during the Day. Is one of us missing something? I don't think I understand your point. Yes, any given scum will need to get a few other scum lynched in order to win the game. That's my whole thesis - that in this way, they are exactly the same as town, and have no need to take a different approach. In other words: Hypothetical Scum X wants: (1) to get the four scum in the competing factions lynched. We want: (1) to get the four scum in the competing factions lynched. (2) to lynch Scum X (3) to lynch his buddy, Scum Y My point is, in terms of his pursuit of goal #1, Scum X will be indistinguishable from the rest of us. He has no reason to try to get a townie lynched (other than the Powerful Doc - the Weak Docs, I suspect, will fall off sooner or later at Night). He'll try to stay alive himself, but then again, so will everyone to some extent. The only way he differs from us is that we want to lynch Scum Y and he doesn't.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 17:10:39 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Jan 25, 2008 17:10:39 GMT -5
Okay, I think we're getting closer to the same page now. I understand your point, but what I'm trying to say is that Scum X, at some point, will know who Scum Z is. the rest of us won't. P.S. We want: (1) to get the four scum in the competing factions lynched? : :
|
|
Koldanar
Mome Rath
[on:I survived the apocralypse!][of:Into the void, go I]
Posts: 4
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 17:13:35 GMT -5
Post by Koldanar on Jan 25, 2008 17:13:35 GMT -5
Sorry I'm being so quiet and lurking, I'm just trying to observe right now, and begin making cases with the time I have on the weekend. The thing that most excites me is I have 3 separate groups of scum to identify, rather than the large one. As someone mentioned, they'll also be scum searching, so instead of looking back at other games I've lurked on, I need to find my own way to see how these groups would act here.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 17:36:36 GMT -5
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Jan 25, 2008 17:36:36 GMT -5
Re: My vote for Roosh:
I voted for him because he was punning like it was going out of style. I've no problem with cutting up cats (especially those in suits). Punsters, on the other hand...
But I am a little taken aback by the <oog> whineyness. Either Roosh has a seriously thinner shell than he's shown before, or he's trying to get himself unvoted on a sympathy campaign.
There are better candidates for my vote, perhaps, but I'm going to let my vote simmer on Roosh until I find them.
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 17:51:46 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Jan 25, 2008 17:51:46 GMT -5
A voice booms from the heavens:
"The role formerly inhabited by Denouement (aka tragic) will now be played by piratepete. The rosters have been updated to reflect this, as well as an addition to the substitute players' bench that had been missed previously.
Yarr!"
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 17:57:01 GMT -5
Post by piratepete v2 on Jan 25, 2008 17:57:01 GMT -5
Nín hăo, y'all!
*starts reading rather more attentively*
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 18:01:01 GMT -5
Post by piratepete v2 on Jan 25, 2008 18:01:01 GMT -5
First off, nesta's analysis combined with smurf's lack of (promised) defence so far would seem to validate that particular wagon.
Vote: Smurf
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 18:25:10 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Jan 25, 2008 18:25:10 GMT -5
So, a compromise? You cut down on the volume of your posts, and I'll quit being a jackass. Well, I'll quit being a jackass regardless. But it'd be a nice compromise. Deal. Sorry if i came across whiney, Dio. I was just caught off gaurd by what Santo said and how he said it. If he had given an out of game warning before he posted or probably wrote "No offense but..." bit first it probably wouldn't have stung as much. I don't mind anything IN GAME, and I completely am down for it. But I just couldn't read that post at all and actually felt bad for the first time which was kinda a bummer. It just caught me off guard, and yeah, it broke through my shell because I wasn't expecting anything like that. If NAF or someone who I had been having a dialogue within the game had said it, I would have been prepared. But I'm ready to move on from it. And I will try to do better at being concise. Unvote S.RuggerI'm gonna go back and Look at NAF again, but I want to see what this Greedy business is as well. And of course, I am kinda curious to see the mish-mash of voters I have against me's reasonings. I can understand perhaps NAF's vote vs. me the best. The other's I'm not as sure of. But thanks, guys, all of you. I do feel a lot better.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 19:03:27 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Jan 25, 2008 19:03:27 GMT -5
I have a tendency towards metagaming as well. It shows up when I do something (or don't) because I worry how the player will react. I've been sitting on this for the last few hours because I don't want it to look like a pile-on. But we're past the aggravation. Roosh, I have to say that your first long post left me wondering what scum faction you are in. Care to confess? The post is, of course, post D1.61. The particular point that gave me trouble is this bit. 1.53: by NAF. I've underlined the parts that strike me as odd: The meta-gaming always been by Town. "Scum never Meta-game." The thing is, as NAF claimed, he never said that. What he said in post D1.53 was : My argument may have not been compelling, but that isn't the same as it seeming scummy. Let me point out that meta gaming is almost always used by town. Scum has little need to meta game. In this game it might be different, what with competing factions, but if you are town your only objection to meta gaming should really be that it is rather unfair to the other players. You paraphrased NAF's statement, and in doing so changed what he said. You then proceeded to attack as scummy the thing you claimed NAF had said.. That;s a classical definition of a "straw man" argument - something you set up so you could demolish. The first reason that I could come up with is that you want NAF dead, and don't mind twisting the truth to do it. Thus right now, you go to the top of my list of possible scum. I'm not going to vote for you yet, because that's not my style. I vote late, and sparingly, unless I have convincing proof of scumhood, and that will only be forthcoming on Day 1 by confession. I'll vote later; maybe at the end of the weekend. I've still got a week. Second on my list is Hal Briston, for the little gem he dropped in post D1.54. He suggests that confusion and misdirection are an essential tool for town to put to use. That, quite frankly, is untrue. Confusion is a weapon of the scumside. Clarity and straightforwardness, these are the weapons of Townies, that the obfuscation of scum be seen for what it truly is. Townies should be telling the truth. I will concede that there are times when townies should not tell the whole truth - information can be withheld. But it should not be falsified. That's what scum do. So Hal takes second place on my scumlist. I'm prepared to consider a vote of Peasant Smurf, but only if better evidence than has been adduced so far can be presented. That's how I see the game thus far. One or two pointers, nothing conclusive. I await further developments.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 20:07:56 GMT -5
Post by Greedy Smurf on Jan 25, 2008 20:07:56 GMT -5
OK well, apologies for the slight delay, I wasn't in a position to post after getting home from Cricket. Sorry piratepete but getting home from cricket at 11pm, having stuffed my ankle, and having been heckled by drunken spectators I was in no mood or condition to go online to write my defence. And in a quick skim seems I've picked up a couple of more votes, one of which is apparnetly because I'm too nice? Anyway to Nesta first I did reread, and I didn't see anyone posting anything that screamed out "I'm Scum, lynch me" If you did see stuff like that, congratulations, you're a far better player at this game than me. And if you did see stuff like that, Apart from me apparently, why the hell aren't you sharing that? It seems to me the main thing that twigged you, was the fact I mentioned twice that I wasn't voting yet. I was simply trying to be premeptive, before someone hauled me over the coals for not having voted yet, I was getting in first saying "yep, I know I haven't voted yet". In relation to posting for the sake of it, The majority of the discussion between my posts was either from or about NAF & Roosh. And I thought, I would share my thoughts about them, especiailly given their position as the top two vote getters. I thought that was the idea here? It seems if I hadn't of restated my non-voting so far I would have been OK yes? And as to needing to post, It was page 3 on Day 1 for christsakes and someone had already put up the lurkers post!!! I'm not the most chatty of people, in real life or here so yes I am accutely aware of not being seen as a lurker. Now NAF - You've hit it right on. I like to explore things from different points of view. eg the voting plan, or when I'm looking at someones actions. The Voting Plans - I can see upsides and downsides to both, so I would be happy to go with either, so said so. I expressed a preference, but I'm not going to be up in arms if we go the other way. The one thing about both plans that I thought was important i.e. that they not be set in stone until the end of the game, I said my piece on. You & Roosh - Comment made because at that time you were vote getters 1 & 2. I said Roosh seemed to be playing normally "within his style" so for me that wasn't a cue to think him scum. Comment about you, I was stating that I didn't like the metagame reason for the vote - I notice you left out of your analysis that I specifically said I didn't like it because you didn't explain your meta-game reason. And I added, because I didn't want to be accused of trying to smudge you without actually putting my name on a vote, that although I'd just said I didn't like your vote, it didn't mean it was a scum tell. Anyway to sum up your point of attack NAF, yep I am a very agreeable person, & not confrontational by nature and unless I am very certain that someone is scum, I'm not going to stand up point the finger and start screaming my head off at them. Instead I will put my thoughts out there, in a balanced way. stating both reasons for and against what I'm thinking. If that means I'm being agreeable or appeasing or (waffling) or (not being helpful by taking strong stances) so be it, that's the way I am and I'm not going to change, so if that means I get lynched early in the piece so be it. Lesson learned, I'm not cut out for mafia.
|
|