OGML 195)
OGML wrote:Given that Rhinox's posts up to that point (and, well always) are basically little novellas, and he had had something to say on just about everything else that had happened in the game, his complete lack of interest in what I had said about you was something I found telling.
I've already responded to this once. After you take my response into account, I'll clarify anything you still need clarified.
OGML wrote:I have to hope this has been discussed pretty heavily by now, but wtf Rhinox, you're defending yourself entirely with appeal to emotion, and you're simultaneously using flattery on everyone else in the game.
This gets you top marks on my scum report card. I'll hold off til I finish reading, but based on this alone you should hang today.
Point conceded. Whats said is said, and trying to defend this point any further will only continue to look like like appeals/flattery, etc.
OGML wrote:Here, Rhinox specifically works on flattering bio by appealing to his authority on the subject. Silly padawan.
Actually, you missed the whole point of that statement - That i missed the obvious corrolary to my theory that sk will alter their play if they're aware the town is focused on them - that mafia will alter their play and possibly relax if they think the sk is the focus. This is the best point I head yet about why the talk about the sk has been OK.
OGML 196)
OGML wrote:And this was my issue with what Korts did, which you never seemed to find interesting enough to comment on. It doesn't say anything about alignment, thus making it an ideal play for scum.
I've already responded to this once (allegedly ignoring korts). After you take my response into account, I'll clarify anything you still need clarified.
OGML 198)
OGML wrote:Ah, the specter of a quicklynch. If thats not enough to scare people off your wagon, gosh I just don't know what is.
I've got news for you. A real, honest to god day one quicklynch will not happen outside of a newbie game, and even then I'm not convinced it will happen. Whats going on now is by no means quick, and there has been more than enough content generated up to this point to offset whatever theoretical devastating repercussions of a quicklynch are brought up when someone has no other way to get people to stop voting for them.
---------------------
stallin' and stallin' and stallin'
Its in the interest of my win condition to prevent my lynch regardless of my allignment. I feel the wagon on my was because of my initial controdiction - If I would have tried to ignore it ever happened and moved on, that would have been scummy. Honestly defending it was also viewed as scummy. I could have BSed some excuse that wouldn't have looked as scummy (probably), but it would have been fabricating a lie only meant to save myself. If I'm lynched, it was decided on Page 3 (-ish... somewhere around there). No matter how I acted afterwords, there was no erasing the scumminess. Of course, in the last 6 pages there has been a lot of opinions about it, which would be very helpful tomorrow if I'm lynched and my allignment is revealed. I just hope that the town utilizes the information, and it isn't minimized by the argument that "Rhinox was an idiot, any town player would have found him scummy and lynched him, so theres no reliable way to find scum on his wagon".
OGML wrote:Re Rhinox 181: My meta of you as scum is that you're good. My meta of you as town is that you're good. So, similar to how you picked up on Vi in Mafia 87 for inconsistencies, the fact that your appeal to emotion to the Nth degree defense here is horrendous, is an inconsistency with your usual standard of play. You yourself explained why this may be so - its your first game with multiple scum partners, and certainly your first game without a self-destructive scum partner. Thus, the differences.
So what will your new conclusion be when I show up town tomorrow morning? (hint: don't you think that even a good player can have a bad game?)
RC 199)
RC wrote:I disagree with this. I think the town should constantly be aware of how many people are left, what the worst possible number of scum there are, what roles they are working with, etc...
This should all be on a townie's (or really even a scum's) mind before they vote to lynch, Day 1 or not.
But you can do that without assuming anything about factions... in a mini, I always assume there are 4 total scum.
RC wrote:I have, but you're not willing to say that you agree/disagree with me (you'd prefer to talk in circles).
I have, but you're not willing to say that you agree/disagree with me (you'd prefer to talk in circles).
Without being an ass, I think you have been asked some questions that you haven't answered clearly/dodged skillfully.
RC wrote:Seeing as how I'm part of the town, doesn't my opinion deserve the same weight as anyone elses?
Sure does... but you seem to be incinuating that you're opinion is more important.
RC wrote:(emphasis added).
You were being sarcastic here, correct?
I was actually trying to express suprise at you saying the purpose of the entire sk conversation was to warn town PR's about the presence of an sk... Perhaps I implied a bit much in the sentence you bolded, but you also misrepped me by saying that I thought it was the strongest scum tell in the game so far...
Rhinox 171 wrote:
I mean, I'm sure whoever is mafia loves your argument right now about sks... get the town paranoid about an sk, so maybe the town PR's spend tonight looking for the ghost sk instead of looking for mafia, or looking for scum in general.
RC wrote:
Do you think that's what I'm trying to do?
No I don't think that was you're intention... I think it would be too risky to do if you were mafia. But I do feel it is an unfortunate side effect to the conversation.
RC wrote:It's passive-aggressive. You were saying that you haven't given anyone a reason to trust what you said.
When people say things like that about themselves, I get worried. I get worried because a player knows whether or not he should be trusted or shouldn't.
If you don't believe people should trust you, why should I?
Ironically, this sort of thing pretty much cost the town the game in my most recent completed game. I said something to the effect of not trusting my own scum-hunting ability, so the obvtown player with the most town influence didn't trust me either when I was trying to make a case that actually was on the last scum remaining... the last scum ended up winning...
RC wrote:I'm not voting you based on any of this SK stuff. I'm voting you based on WIFOM, your attempts at pairing people off, and because of these little passive-aggressive manipulations you've been using to get people to feel sorry for you.
Ok, I'll go through these 1 by 1:
use of WIFOM:
I concede that a lot of my defense is WIFOM and thus inherantly not trustworthy... But it was the truth. I've hinted at this above, but I'll be more direct now... consider the other ways I could have responded: I could have either A)Told the WIFOM truth, as I did... B)Ignored the accusations alltogether... C)Fabricated a BS excuse. Considering those are my only options, is there any sort of defense I could have used that wouldn't have made me look scummier than the initial offense? Maybe C, but it would be lies. A or B both make me look scummier. I think B is worse than A, actually. Maybe I could have used A with less appeals and less WIFOM, and made it more concise, but that is the curse to my long-winded nature of posting.
attempts at pairing people off:
Wait a minute... this explains a lot... You think I was trying to pair you and pops as scum mates? That couldn't be further from the truth... yes, I said that I thought pops was defending you, But a player defending another player does not mean that both are scum. Maybe pops legitamately didn't agree with the accusations against you. Maybe pops is scum and knows you're town and was defending a townie to look town or make a townie friend. Based on the fact that I actually asked for pops opinion, and the subsequent conversation we had, I came to the conclusion that pops' feelings he said about you were genuine.
little passive-aggressive manipulations you've been using to get people to feel sorry for you:
as I said to OGML above, whats said is said, and any attempt to further defend this point will only look progressively worse. I'll concede the scumminess of it, and hope its not enough to get me lynched.
RC wrote:I think those are fair points, a shame that no one brought those up earlier.
No, but then again I've never played on MS with an SK before. XD
Why is it a shame? are they not valid points because they were brought up now, and not earlier? Why or why not?
RC wrote:I have just as much right as anyone else, and I say it should always be ok to talk about an SK. I do not set limitations on what should or shouldn't happen for a town to talk about roles in a setup.
Well then I disagree with your philosophy... I think limitations should be set. When I'm not sure talking about topic A will help the town, but I think it may help the mafia, then I avoid topic A. I don't start talking about topic A hoping that something pro-town will evolve out of it, all the while thinking that its definately helping scum.
RC wrote:Regardless whether or not you think WIFOM is a good tell, do you dispute that this is a genuine case of it?
Its genuinely WIFOM, but not the kind that says anything about my allignment, IMO. Its similar to saying "I don't think player X is scum today because player Y was nked, and I don't think player X would have nked player Y." Its definately WIFOM, but depending on the context, doesn't say a thing about the player using the WIFOM.
RC wrote:It was Rhinox's position that talking about the SK on Day 1 is useless, regardless of the implications it might have later in the game, because he thought we would know at some later date.
Thats either an innocent misread of Rhinox 55, or an intentional misrep of it:
Rhinox 55 wrote:we should know tomorrow or at some point down the road if there is an sk to deal with, so why worry about it before we know?
Should be interpretted as (and this has been my position in the entire conversation): We don't need to specifically worry about an sk until we have reason to believe there is an sk - until then, hunting factionless scum is the best we can do.
RC wrote:I want so badly to play the newbie card right now ;_;
I think you just did
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry IAUN, not ignoring you... just having a hard time keeping track of everybody who needs answered.
IAUN wrote:If all you mean by 'suspicious' is "It's possible they're scum, because it's always possible that somebody is scum", then why bother pointing out specific behaviours as 'suspicious'? Isn't everything anyone says 'suspicious', by your definition?
I guess the best way for me to define this is:
suspicious = potentially scummy.
suppose a replacement player A jumped in right now and said something like, "IAUN is obvscum" and voted. That would be highly suspicious, but not necessarily scummy. What would follow would probably be a barrage of questions asking "Why?". If player A has some very good reasons, then it probably would no longer be considered suspicious nor scummy. If Player A had no good reasons, then they would be seen as scummy and the suspicions would be validated. To tie this into my previous expanation (to show that I am indeed saying the same thing in a different way), I would still call a player who has done nothing scummy but is not confirmed town suspicious, because they still have the potential to be scum.
IAUN wrote:So, these two quotes are kind of contradictory. In one, you're arguing that power roles will act the same whether there's an SK or not, but in the other you're saying that Coyote is helping the scum by sending the power roles on an SK hunt. How does that work?
I don't think I'm being contradictory at all. I don't think town roles should play any differently by assuming anything about scum factions, so if anything thats consistent with my suspicions of RC for insisting that town roles should play differently by assuming an sk.