Game 31: Separated Scum

Page 2 of 18 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10 ... 18  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Ed S. on Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:09 pm

Mr. Honcho wrote:This is 3v8 with mafia having one kill, thoughts on having the vig hardclaim and get blocked/killed, then playing nightless nilla?

I'm open to discussion on this as well, but personally I'm very much against asking someone to effectively suicide. More likely than not, they want to play the game as much as anyone else. It also won't be "nightless nilla" because of the scum's ability to inspect.
avatar
Ed S.

Posts : 170
Join date : 2017-06-21
Location : Wherever Ed Sheeran is.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Maria S. on Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:35 pm

What merit does RVS have that could possibly be more useful than a day full of discussions about the game itself. If this day were in RVS, by the time the day ends, most likely the person lynched would be lynched because of inactivity or something similar due to the lack of info. This directly contrasts what you just said about inactivity not meaning scum. However its only been like 7 posts into the game and already we can apply pressure to people, this would have been delayed if this day was in RVS.

I also want to stress to use a bit of judgement in terms of discussing wifom topics. Like i said, discussing them prematurely can just mean scum will adapt to what has been said and cause even MORE wifom. An example of this is the softing thing. Therefore its probably best to avoid talking about them until you can use them as a factor when building ur case against a certain scumread.

Mr. Honcho wrote:This is 3v8 with mafia having one kill, thoughts on having the vig hardclaim and get blocked/killed, then playing nightless nilla?

Way too reckless, instead of just letting the OS vig kill off the CV, having the confirmed townie in our arsenal even if they're roleblocked every night is still useful. Thats why its better if vig claimed after we know OS vig used its kill.
avatar
Maria S.

Posts : 51
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Ed S. on Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:50 pm

I think using RVS for the same reason it's always used for (reactions) has use still. A day full of discussions about the game is good. A day full of discussions about the game and reactions would be better and makes it less likely that an inactive player will be lynched. I don't want to go into to much wifom with RVS discussion, but there's no reason for us to disregard it when we have the option to use it in conjunction with something else.
avatar
Ed S.

Posts : 170
Join date : 2017-06-21
Location : Wherever Ed Sheeran is.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Maria S. on Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:41 am

Ed S. wrote:I think using RVS for the same reason it's always used for (reactions) has use still. A day full of discussions about the game is good. A day full of discussions about the game and reactions would be better and makes it less likely that an inactive player will be lynched. I don't want to go into to much wifom with RVS discussion, but there's no reason for us to disregard it when we have the option to use it in conjunction with something else.

But dont you think using your lynch for legit reasons puts more pressure and in turn is more effective in getting a truthful reaction than a baseless random lynch that can give an excuse for the person getting lynched to do the same. RVS relies on someone pretty much screwing up until you can get out of RVS by starting to pressure him. However it's much more efficient use of our time and our lynch to not start randomly lynching.
avatar
Maria S.

Posts : 51
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Magnus D. on Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:52 am

I, the great Magnus D., believe that the Vig should not hardclaim right off the bat, as them being alive indicates that scum cannot get free inspects every night.

There are also many things that completely slipped my mind when I first read Ed's post. Softing roleblocks would allow scum to get the information they want without town being able to confuse them since they are likely to know or be able to narrow down their partners and hence the Vig. We should avoid softing roleblocks at any cost and immediately policy lynch anyone who does!

There is also not that much use in taking a leader role for scum since this is not actually that similar to Star-Crossed - scum have no communication but also don't know each other and are thus unlikely to coordinate in this thread just as well.

If the Mafia Roleblocker and Mafia Vig are gone I'd definitely not mind having our Vig hardclaim. Roleblocker doesn't matter as much though - if the Mafia Vig is gone I'd be fine with a claim at that point already as well.

And speaking of our Vig, I'd be fine with giving them 2-3 targets and leave it to them to pick the best target as long as the scum:town ratio isn't too terrible (say scum occupying 33% or more of the town).

Maria, I'm not lazy! There are perfectly valid reasons for everything I say in here.
avatar
Magnus D.

Posts : 12
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by ajhockeystar on Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:26 am

Votecount 1.1
******************************

Magnus D.(1)- Ed S.
Ed S.(1)- Magnus D.
Rhonda R.(1)- Mr. Cheeves
Mr. Cheeves(1)- Maria S.
Wilkinson A.(0)-
Kodama N.(0)-
Roderick S.(0)-
Maria S.(0)-
Mr. Honcho(0)-
Mona L.(0)-
Kazalie Z.(0)-
Not Voting(7)- Wilkinson A., Kodama N., Roderick S., Mr. Honcho, Mona L., Kazalie Z., Rhonda R.
******************************
There are 11 alive so it takes 6 to hammer. Plurality applies.
Deadline is Wednesday the 28th at 9pm EST.

If the deadline was now, Magnus D. would be lynched.
avatar
ajhockeystar
Admin

Posts : 947
Join date : 2014-01-11

View user profile http://psanon.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Mr. Cheeves on Sun Jun 25, 2017 1:47 pm

Mr Honcho, having the vig claim would effectively result in the vig clear being dead by the night, as even if they would keep the vig alive for potential misshoots then town would have a clear. It is in my understanding they would try to keep it so that they wouldn't let reads come from a clear. And meanwhile, we can hope that the Traitor Os Vig shoots another traitor instead, leaving us in a better position. As for the questions above,

1) Ed S. There was nothing really I had meant to imply that, just as a joke for lynching each other for no apparent reason.

2) Random Voting Stage? Why would I suggest the idea? Well at that point in time not everyone had talked, and there was no solid evidence to lynch someone. What kind of route would you suggest, Maria? Talking about our roles and what they do would solve nothing except give more strategies on what to do, not who to lynch. And I wholeheartedly support the idea of the vig NOT to claim, as I have explained above. I'd like to hear more on the reasoning to oppose RVS. And for the most part I agree with what you said on your posts, Ed S. but I'd rather leave more freedom to the vigilante to decide who they want to kill. If scum is able to manipulate the vigilante and convince other town members into killing the wrong target, it pretty much guarantees scum the win. So I'm sticking with the thought that if the compulsive vigilante has a strong gutread for whatever reason they should shoot them, instead of an iffy town/scum suggestion.
avatar
Mr. Cheeves

Posts : 9
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Maria S. on Sun Jun 25, 2017 3:15 pm

Well magnus you definitely were lazy at the time of ur first post lol, however that point still applies to everyone who has logged on but decided to not post anything (eg. Rhonda and others that i cant remember). Quite strange since there is definitely a live topic of discussion.

Mr cheeves, at the time no one has actually given their own opinion on Ed's post but magnus just said "i agree with everything u said", that was an opportunity for you, who posted directly afterwards, to question his post despite there being unanswered questions as to why he didnt give his own answers to the question. Instead, you just decided to joke about it and attempt to initiate RVS. I dont have a problem with joking around if its in conjunction with proactive scumhunting but there was a clear opportunity yet u just decided to go for RVS. I understand that you wanted to use RVS to get reactions, but magnus pretty much gave his reaction to Ed's post, yet you dont decide to make use of something that you were intending to find? Sounds a bit contradictory.

The following action is not because I want to alleviate pressure on Mr Cheeves, but Rhonda is one of the people i remember spotting online but decided not to say anything which I find very weird.
unvote mr cheeves, vote rhonda
avatar
Maria S.

Posts : 51
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Ed S. on Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:18 pm

Maria: I’m slightly confused by the wording of your first sentence. Currently, I’m assuming that “the same” is referring to encouraging random lynches. In which case: do you believe RVS can’t garner truthful reactions? This can probably turn into a blanket discussion about RVS as a whole, but I’d argue that it has use here already (see my comment on Rhonda at the bottom of this post).

That being said, yes, I agree that unlike Game 30 we already have the ability to pressure people and leave RVS, which is why I said RVS can be placed on the back burner. It’s still there though, and if someone has an oddly scummy reaction to it (white-knighting comes to mind), it’s served its purpose. I’m content with placing a not-so-random vote on:

Unvote Magnus D., vote Mr. Cheeves

I personally don’t like that response, largely for the reasons Maria has already brought up-you were looking for reactions, Magnus had a reaction, and you ignored it. Furthermore, let’s say that you were in fact referring to mine and Magnus’s votes on each other. In that case, I’d have expected to see at least some comment on the content of my first post.

Mr. Cheeves wrote:If scum is able to manipulate the vigilante and convince other town members into killing the wrong target, it pretty much guarantees scum the win. So I'm sticking with the thought that if the compulsive vigilante has a strong gutread for whatever reason they should shoot them, instead of an iffy town/scum suggestion.
The scum’s ability to manipulate the Vig is as strong as their ability to manipulate the votes,which they’re doing anyway. Scum’s not guaranteed a win from manipulating the votes, and the Vigilante shooting the town’s second strongest scumread effectively gives us Double Day. They’re welcome to go with their gut read if they’re confident enough in it. But I still think we should discuss shots as well just in case the Vig doesn’t have a strong enough gut read. (This isn’t factoring into my read on you, but I wanted to point it out.)

Magnus: There’s always an incentive for scum to take a leader role in my opinion, given the need to push mislynches. I was encouraging everyone to be more active because they don’t have to worry as much about being nightkilled.

This is only a slight nitpick, but 3/11=0.272727(and so on). 3/10=.30, and 3/9=.33333(and so on). I cringe at my own use of math, but a mislynch+mis-shoot would automatically put us at 33%. I’m fine, however, with letting the Vig shoot their strongest gut read at any time if it’s strong enough, as I said to Mr. Cheeves.


RE: The Inactives

There are currently five people who haven’t posted at all-Rhonda, Wilkinson, Kodama, Roderick, Kazalie.

I appreciate that there’s pressure on Rhonda, who was last online “today at 1:33,” meaning that the last thing she’d have seen is AJ’s vote count. If I were to guess why she didn’t make a post, it would be one of the following, listed in no particular order of likelihood:
She assumed we were in RVS and doesn't like RVS in general, so she decided to wait until it was done. (AKA Amelia in Game right now-“What happened so far-oh, it’s just memes.”)
She saw there was a vote on her and wasn’t sure how to react, so she didn’t.
She saw that while there was a vote on her, plurality wasn’t on her, so the had nothing to worry about.

Wilkinson hasn’t been online since confirming, and the other three have yet to confirm. We’d like to hear from all of you.
avatar
Ed S.

Posts : 170
Join date : 2017-06-21
Location : Wherever Ed Sheeran is.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Ed S. on Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:30 pm

Ed S. wrote:
Furthermore, let’s say that you were in fact referring to mine and Magnus’s votes on each other. In that case, I’d have expected to see at least some comment on the content of my first post.
I should clarify: I'd have expected a comment on my first post in your own first post.

Also, there are five guests online. I doubt they're all from Game 30. Join us.
avatar
Ed S.

Posts : 170
Join date : 2017-06-21
Location : Wherever Ed Sheeran is.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Magnus D. on Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:51 pm

Maria S. wrote:Well magnus you definitely were lazy at the time of ur first post lol, however that point still applies to everyone who has logged on but decided to not post anything (eg. Rhonda and others that i cant remember). Quite strange since there is definitely a live topic of discussion.
It was not lazy. In fact, it was a calculated plan that I, the great Magnus D., have laid out to catch scum off guard whenever they decided to address my first post! I fear it could have worked a lot better than it actually did since sadly, not many people have posted since, and thus nobody jumped on me for an easy wagon like I had expected from at least one or two people, but I definitely believe that there is indeed at least one person who has been caught red handed regardless of my original plan!

Mr cheeves, at the time no one has actually given their own opinion on Ed's post but magnus just said "i agree with everything u said", that was an opportunity for you, who posted directly afterwards, to question his post despite there being unanswered questions as to why he didnt give his own answers to the question. Instead, you just decided to joke about it and attempt to initiate RVS. I dont have a problem with joking around if its in conjunction with proactive scumhunting but there was a clear opportunity yet u just decided to go for RVS. I understand that you wanted to use RVS to get reactions, but magnus pretty much gave his reaction to Ed's post, yet you dont decide to make use of something that you were intending to find? Sounds a bit contradictory.
This right here is what I, the great Magnus D., believe to be the best possible reasoning for a lynch at the moment! Of course, I do dislike Rhonda popping in without posting anything, as well as anyone else who may have done so (although I fear I must admit to not having kept track of any such vile deeds, or non-deeds rather), but I far prefer lynching someone who is active on day 1 and get substitutes for any inactive players, and I do not yet see much that would unsettle me coming from anyone else.
I assure you this isn't laziness this time.

Ed S. wrote:Magnus: There’s always an incentive for scum to take a leader role in my opinion, given the need to push mislynches. I was encouraging everyone to be more active because they don’t have to worry as much about being nightkilled.
I am very aware of, do not disagree with this, and did not mean to imply that I do. I was solely pointing out the discrepancies in your comparison of this setup to Star-Crossed, which I believe to be inaccurate.


Vote Mr. Cheeves
avatar
Magnus D.

Posts : 12
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Maria S. on Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:06 pm

Ed, its true that i dont think RVS can garner truthful reactions. In server mafia, its much more impulsive and fast-paced and so out of the blue lynches can indeed cause scum to slip. However in forum mafia, players can take time in writing a post, think thought it, double check it to make sure there are no slips. Therefore it's gonna take a lot more than an out of the blue random lynch to make scum slip. Regarding the RVS use with rhonda, surely its a disadvantage towards RVS since a possible reason of her not talking is because she doesnt like RVS. That could be mistaken for scummy lurking or something which means the point about untruthful conclusions is backed up.

Magnus you say that your first post was a trap to lure scum into jumping on you, yet you lynch mr cheeves because he didnt jump on you? Also why is jumping on you a scummy move if a legitimate reason is made? Surely thats a sign of pro-activeness regardless of ease of reading the situation.
avatar
Maria S.

Posts : 51
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Magnus D. on Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:11 pm

Maria S. wrote:Magnus you say that your first post was a trap to lure scum into jumping on you, yet you lynch mr cheeves because he didnt jump on you? Also why is jumping on you a scummy move if a legitimate reason is made? Surely thats a sign of pro-activeness regardless of ease of reading the situation.
I was talking more about a case where either no legitimate reason is made, or where someone would restate someone else's reasoning, or just sheep the first vote with no further reasoning or information behind it. In Cheeves' case I, Magnus D., believe that it's scummy that he chose to completely ignore my crossvote with Ed despite wanting to analyse reactions in RVS, which my first post definitely was.
avatar
Magnus D.

Posts : 12
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Mr. Honcho on Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:37 am

Mr. Cheeves wrote:Mr Honcho, having the vig claim would effectively result in the vig clear being dead by the night
That's the point, if vig dies/gets blocked then scum have 1 kill total, since otherwise we risk misshooting.

As for RVS, I don't think that using it for reaction testing in a forum game is productive. That being said, I don't think that people trying to use it is scummy, since I know this opinion isn't universally shared.
avatar
Mr. Honcho

Posts : 6
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Wilkinson A. on Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:02 am

Lynch Magnus D.

I don't like your swaggin' style.
avatar
Wilkinson A.

Posts : 30
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Magnus D. on Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:05 am

Wilkinson A. wrote:Lynch Magnus D.

I don't like your swaggin' style.
I, Magnus D. believe that it is preposterous for you to ignore everything else in favor of a vote on a far superior player at this stage of the game!
avatar
Magnus D.

Posts : 12
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Roderick S. on Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:39 am

Lynch Wilkinson A.

confirming!! flower
avatar
Roderick S.

Posts : 29
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Roderick S. on Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:46 am

Maria S. wrote:Confirming, wilkinson is gonna get rekt 11-0

Maria S. wrote:When u get scared from your own avatar

Maria S. wrote:
Ed S. wrote:Hello, Game 31!

m, and look what you’ve done!

I’ve also got some things to say about the setup. I’ve bolded what I believe to be the key points, but I encourage people to read the whole thing. Sorted in order of what I think is most important to least:

This theme reminds me of Star-Crossed. And because of that, I feel it encourages EVERYONE taking a “leader” role, as Mika brought up in Game 21. Everyone needs to be as active as possible. At the same time, it needs to be remembered that being inactive does not automatically equal scum. (So much of why scum won Games 20 and 21 was because everyone was inactive af-three pages? Really?)

My understanding is that the Mafia does not have a factional nightkill, meaning that the only deaths at night should be caused by the compulsive Vigilante (and Traitor OS Vigilante). I think it’s important as a result that in addition to not being too scattered on a lynch, we should come to an agreement on who the Vigilante should target each night, especially since they’re compulsive. This should be disregarded if the game progresses too long without a scum death, as the scum could potentially gain too much sway on the decision.

Additionally, I think that if the CV is alive after a night with 2 deaths (indicating the OS Vig has used their shot), they should claim. They’ll be clear and the Mafia will have no way to eliminate them, if I’m understanding this correctly. Mafia has a roleblock, however, which is why I’m not confident about this. Do we wait until the Roleblocker’s gone as well? What do you all think of this?

Also, a night with no kills indicates that the CV has been roleblocked. I would like to remind people to look for signs that someone may be Roleblocker softing their target. We could, in this scenario, fake softs to confuse the scum OS Vig.  I’d like to come to a conclusion prior to something like this happening, as the purpose is defeated otherwise. The downside to “hypoing softs” is that we lose out on finding someone actually trying to soft and getting them lynched. But hopefully by the time that happens we have way more to go on than a search for a soft. Again, what do you all think of this?

My hope is that the hidden Miller will be helpful regarding interaction reads, but since it flips as Vanilla Townie I don’t plan on relying on it too much.

NOTE: Our discussion on this last point (hidden Miller) should be limited. We don’t want to give the Mafia an idea of what behaviors to avoid.

I’d also love to see Mafia Vig or Roleblock a partner of theirs. Or roleblock their Vig the night they try to shoot.

By the way, I checked my Bulbapedia page and my only Pokemon is half a Binacle.

I want answers.
Your first point shouldn't be dependent on theme, it should hold for every game. Although I dont really see how it reminds you of star-crossed, it doesnt really matter. What matters is that, as you said, everyone takes it upon themselves to be as active as possible. However it's easier said than done when you have lazy people like Magnus simply saying "i agree with everything you said" when your post clearly has unanswered questions left for us. The fact that this theme isnt just a variation of vanilla means that the intricacies of the roles can be discussed throughout day 1 instead of resulting to RVS which leads to a more fruitful day 1. However again, easier said than done when we have people like Mr Cheeves encouraging RVS when there's clearly a better route for day 1.

Regarding your 3rd point, I think its fine if CV claims regardless of roleblocker being alive. It just means that lynching is the only way to get somebody killed assuming roleblocker is always on CV. Also about the softing claims, the simple act of mentioning that topic just made it useless, especially since you went on explaining in further detail how it could play out. Which is why we shouldn't use anything that uses wifom as a topic of discussion until at the very moment where it can make a case against a scumread.

As of right now, I have a decent reason (explained above) to make this lynch
Vote Mr Cheeves

i don't like Maria's opening and the immediate opposition to D1 RVS strikes me as scum trying to gain towncred by "moving town forward in the right direction" which is only indicative of town after RVS has been going on for a while and hasn't been fruitful. I also don't see the reasoning for the Mr Cheeves lynch and tonally the "I have a decent reason (explained above) to make this lynch" is really weird it's as if they know they're lynching town so trying to justify that they have a reason for it
avatar
Roderick S.

Posts : 29
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Roderick S. on Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:47 am

Unlynch Wilkinson A, Lynch Maria S.
avatar
Roderick S.

Posts : 29
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Roderick S. on Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:48 am

Ed S. wrote:Confirming that I am Ed Sheeran. Disappointed to not be O O. I look like Carl Fredrickson of Upin my opinion.

Good luck to everyone!

this opening is also scummy
avatar
Roderick S.

Posts : 29
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Roderick S. on Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:49 am

Rhonda R. wrote:Confirming, ready to armbar the mafia into submission.

why has no one pushed this yet. This is Rhonda's only post
avatar
Roderick S.

Posts : 29
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Roderick S. on Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:00 pm

Magnus is the most towny player atm
avatar
Roderick S.

Posts : 29
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Maria S. on Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:12 pm

Mr. Honcho wrote:
Mr. Cheeves wrote:Mr Honcho, having the vig claim would effectively result in the vig clear being dead by the night
That's the point, if vig dies/gets blocked then scum have 1 kill total, since otherwise we risk misshooting.

As for RVS, I don't think that using it for reaction testing in a forum game is productive. That being said, I don't think that people trying to use it is scummy, since I know this opinion isn't universally shared.

I still think having a confirmed town by our side is a better option and like ed said, getting the vig to just suicide is unfair for the vig. Also I wasnt saying that people who use RVS is scummy, i said that in mr cheeves case where although he says he wants to use RVS as a way to get reactions, there was a free opportunity to do just on magnus yet he didnt which seened contradictory. My previous post about it is probably better explained.

Roderick S. wrote:
Ed S. wrote:Confirming that I am Ed Sheeran. Disappointed to not be O O. I look like Carl Fredrickson of Upin my opinion.

Good luck to everyone!

this opening is also scummy

You can say whatever you want at the start of the game....nothing scummy about it

Roderick S. wrote:
Rhonda R. wrote:Confirming, ready to armbar the mafia into submission.

why has no one pushed this yet. This is Rhonda's only post

I am fairly sure rhonda's already being pushed by me.

In regards to your lynch against me, maybe you can see the reasoning of my lynch better in the more recent post i did about him. Again i dont see how you can justify any of the stuff i said before the game started to be scummy but i believe that wasnt the reason that led you to lynch me, just an add on. About the main reason tho, I dont have to see RVS go on to then decide whether it should end. Ed did a good job in his first post and brought about a strange (at the time) reactionary post from magnus which can be pressured, without the use of RVS, therefore the game can progress without the need to go into RVS which is honestly a very shaky stage. Again look at my previous post about why i lynched mr cheeves for a more detailed explanation than the one you replied to but if you dont see the reason for my lynch, you dont just decide that I am scummy, instead you question the reasoning and ask for more detail.
avatar
Maria S.

Posts : 51
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Ed S. on Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:36 pm

Odd but minor error in my last post-the number 30 when I was referring to Amelia’s comment on RVS disappeared, as did the numbers used to list Rhonda’s possible reasons for not posting.

I just accidentally deleted my post. I'm retyping it, but since my response to Roderick's posts was getting fairly long on its own I'll separate it into this. Welcome to the game by the way.

Roderick S. wrote:
i don't like Maria's opening and the immediate opposition to D1 RVS strikes me as scum trying to gain towncred by "moving town forward in the right direction" which is only indicative of town after RVS has been going on for a while and hasn't been fruitful. I also don't see the reasoning for the Mr Cheeves lynch and tonally the "I have a decent reason (explained above) to make this lynch" is really weird it's as if they know they're lynching town so trying to justify that they have a reason for it
Tone reading's never been my forte, but I believe the reasoning for the Mr. Cheeves lynch was his suggestion that everyone else ignore the Magnus/Ed discussion in favor of RVS (this was what I perceived Mr. Cheeve's comment to be at that time). Maria can obviously answer this better than I can. Questions: If Maria strikes you as scum trying to gain towncred for her post, what differentiates mine and Mona's first in-game posts to the point where you don't mention them here? Additionally,what don't you like about her opening?

Roderick S. wrote:
Ed S. wrote:Confirming that I am Ed Sheeran. Disappointed to not be O O. I look like Carl Fredrickson of Upin my opinion.

Good luck to everyone!

this opening is also scummy
What about it?

Roderick S. wrote:
Rhonda R. wrote:Confirming, ready to armbar the mafia into submission.

why has no one pushed this yet. This is Rhonda's only post
Again, what about this is scummy? If it's the mention of "ready to armbar the mafia into submission," then why is Magnus's confirmation post not scummy? If it's that this is her only post of the game, does Wilkinson's showing up to vote Magnus exempt him from that? What about Mr. Honcho's suggestion that the Vigilante should claim?

Roderick S. wrote:Magnus is the most towny player atm
Again, why is this?
avatar
Ed S.

Posts : 170
Join date : 2017-06-21
Location : Wherever Ed Sheeran is.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Ed S. on Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:34 pm

Maria: I see what you mean with scum being able to go over their posts in forum mafia. Regarding the RVS use with Rhonda, I agree that a hasty conclusion before she’s posted her thoughts would be unfair, and I don’t intend to do that. For that reason, [color] if you’re reading this as guest, Rhonda, your comments would be very much appreciated.[/color]

I’m undecided on the validity of Magnus’s first post being an attempt to bait, as it doesn’t strike me as scummy-it’s an omgus vote RVS, which is fairly common from both factions and thus not indicative of alignment. Had someone jumped onto the Magnus wagon for that I’d certainly have a problem with it, but I’m having trouble seeing why Magnus expected it to work in this way.

Mr. Honcho: We also risk mislynching. Does this mean we shouldn’t vote?

Wilkinson: Is this the only comment you have given the content we have so far?

I’m sorry for the delay. My internet cut out shortly after typing my response to Roderick, and it may do so again soon.
avatar
Ed S.

Posts : 170
Join date : 2017-06-21
Location : Wherever Ed Sheeran is.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 18 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10 ... 18  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum