Introductions: I am Mute. This is my second newbie game here.
Your name just reeks of scuminess. WHY SO ANGRY SCIENTIST? YOU GONNA TAKE YOUR ANGER OUT ON US POOR TOWNSFOLK?
Ah, gotcha. Lemme guess an experiment went wrong and you were angry over the failure? =PAngry Scientist wrote:Nah, I'm cool until you'll call me 'Mad' instead of 'Angry'Mute wrote:Vote: Angry Scientist
Your name just reeks of scuminess. WHY SO ANGRY SCIENTIST? YOU GONNA TAKE YOUR ANGER OUT ON US POOR TOWNSFOLK?
VOTE: theplague42
This guy is the plague. The mafia plagues this town. Which means, he's the mafia. QED.
...oh ****. Sorry, I had forgotten to unvote.theplague42 wrote:1. You're correct, he did. It was farther into the line so I must have missed it. Also, his lack of an unvote made me think that he hadn't voted yet.
2+3. I've read some games where people have been attacked harshly for "being defensive" in the RVS. And my FoS was pointing out something suspicious, not a die-hard scumtell. I am not going to cause myself to get attacked this early without a solid reason for voting.
Does anyone, for that matter, know how to go about making a table?Mute wrote:Actually:
@Stels/Nacho/Ty- How does one go about making a table in a post? To clarify, it's that thing one can use using BBcode to make a table that looks something like:
=STy wrote:Hello everyone, I’m Ty. As a Semi-Experienced player I will help answer any gameplay/theory related questions you have about Mafia. Remember though, the other experienced players and I are still going to be playing to our win condition, so do be careful.
Mute
Sorry Mute, I have no idea how to make a table.
1) What’s the most important lesson you learned from your first game?
2) Did you enjoy being the Doctor? Why do you feel you were lynched and how could you have prevented it?
3) What did you think of Nachomamma8 scum in your previous game?
Players | Percent |
---|---|
theplague42 | 60 |
Neuky | 60 |
Workdawg | 60 |
Angry Scientist | 60 |
Naben | 60 |
Stels | 60 |
Ty | 60 |
Nachomamma8 | 55 |
The point of the table was more to get a concrete view of my stance out there. To say "oh yeah, I'm gonna play as everyone is more likely scum than town and gameplay will prove innocence" is nice and all, but it can easily be twisted by scum to be used for whatever bussing/WIFOM reasons against me later on.Angry Scientist wrote:Mute:About your table... Sure, it's nice to keep the track of everyone, but what's the reason of revealing that table to us? If you'll be posting the entire table regularly, you're pretty much giving your neutral and town reads all the time, and that helps scum pick their targets at night.
It's not at all uncommon for votes to fly to and fro during the RVS. So far both of my votes in this game have been just that.Plague wrote:Because he randomly switched his vote during RVS. I just don't understand why someone would make a joking vote, then immediately switch to me when someone places a vote on me. And isn't the second vote on a bandwagon generally scum, especially if it doesn't have strong reasoning behind it? I remember that from the wiki.
I can take this as either a town-based statement or a scum-based one. Not sure what to make of it. But...Ty wrote:Hello everyone, I’m Ty. As a Semi-Experienced player I will help answer any gameplay/theory related questions you have about Mafia.Remember though, the other experienced players and I are still going to be playing to our win condition, so do be careful.
...Correct me if I'm wrong, but where did any of those three accuse stels of being scum?Ty wrote:Nachomamma8, Angry Scientist, Neuky
1) What’s your favorite role and why?
2) Why is Stels the scum?
3) Do you think you’re going to be lynched today? Why or why not?
Workdawg wrote:Zomg hi.
I am a full on newbie... never played a game before, but I did plenty of reading while waiting for my account to be activated.
Hooray!
Your first two posts come off as a bit too innocent. Like, you're trying to not attract too much attention to yourself during the RVS. I won't and cannot hold that you placed a vote during then against you, but I am holding you to only placing a vote after an SE explains the vote-tag, without any given reason otherwiseWorkdawg wrote:Does it work like this?
VOTE: Stels
<.<
>.>
*Yes, that is my plan, to use a table with which to hunt scum using the aid of. The table alone is meaningless, but paired with a case against someone it'd be enough for me to vote for them.Workdawg wrote:I suppose I'm playing right in to your suggestion that scum will try and use your table against you, but maybe that's your plan all along.This is my first game, but it seems to me that a scum player would be a lot more successful if they had a gameplan going in to the game; where that really wouldn't benefit a townie. Part of that game plan would be to consider what people will think of it, and to call out possible town reactions to it.
It just seems pretty self-serving to me to throw up the table and have your defense all laid out in advance in case someone calls you out on it.
It is not a requirement to answer a questioned posited during the RVS. While highly suspicious, it is not as big a scum-tell as this post makes it out to be.Ty wrote:Nachomamma8
There’s no one-size-fits-all answer, it depends on the unique response (or non-response as it may be) given by the player. Let’s take your response for example. What you just did is a deflection, meaning you ignored the question and instead attempted to talk about something else. Why do people deflect? Often times it means they are trying to hide something or they don’t feel comfortable with how they would have responded. Based on win conditions, the only people who have an incentive to be careful about how others perceive them are the scum who are trying to fit in with the town (it should be noted however that newbies will often times do this, as demonstrated by theplague42, however this point is irrelevant to Nachomamma8).Nachomamma8 wrote: Ty, how does my answer to any of those questions allow you to get a gauge on my alignment?
It’s important to differentiate Nachomamma8’s non-answering of the question from others who disliked my questioning (Angry Scientist, Stels). Both AS and Stels voiced annoyance over being questioned, but both did so regardless.
I do not like this post.Ty wrote:Stels wrote: I seriously hate RQS, since they can basically be used against you, plus you're the only one who benefits from it, although it doesn't help you determine alignment in any way. I see no reason not to answer though so:Anything you say can and will be used against you, RQS or not. My question to Stels is, why exactly do you care if something is used against you (unless you’re mafia, of course)?I would be interested to hear why you think a RVS random vote gleans more useful information than what I have done? It’s expected, it provides almost no information to other players other than who is bad at humor, and generally newbie mistakes render it pointless anyways. Your response would probably be “but Ty, it applies pressure!” Pressure can be applied without silly voting and because it’s so standard any hollow threats are immediately seen through.The fact that it allows everyone the chance to write a solid post provides the game and its players with more information.People saying more things gives others the opportunity to analyze and reason, implying that it actually helps everyone (except the scum), not just me.
It only doesn’t help determine alignment if you don’t want it to. Taking the time to analyze how people respond to the questions or being questioned generally can yield some interesting information which can be used to set a baseline or stored for later.
However you’ll notice I didn’t say it’s completely worthless because it does have its uses.For example, you’ll notice that Nachomamma8 voted Naben. This vote is intended to look likeshe’s involved while actually doing little to further the game. Naben hasn’t confirmed and will most likely be replaced, meaning he isn’t a participant in the game. At first glance this may look like a standard lurker vote, however Neuky had actually confirmed into the game and also hadn’t posted. What would make more sense, voting for someone that has fallen off the face of the planet or voting someone who is in the game but hasn’t posted yet?
As it stands, Nachomamma8 has posted in a manner that raises alarm bells over being suspicious and possibly having ulterior motives, and has not helped the town in anyway whatsoever in her post (besides an unrelated technical issue) with her vote or question. My question to Nachomamma8 would be is there a reason I shouldn’t push for your lynch today based on the various reasons listed above?
Contradiction, thy name is Ty. While I understand you want a person to defend themselves, you've applied no pressure on Naben to even warrant putting pressure on Nacho for doing that.Ty wrote:I briefly spoke about lurking in the above part of my post however I should inform you all thatI policy lynch lurkers. If you don’t have a reason for not posting for extended periods of time I will ruthlessly advocate for your lynch faster than you can say I-didn’t-realize-lurking-is-anti-town-play.
Erm... Details as in..?Stels wrote:@Mute: Can I have the details of the game that you played with Nacho? The mod name specifically interests me. I just want to prove that 1 part of your table wrong. Although this has been said already, all the mods, choose the roles of people at random.
Also, finding you a bit scummy, since you refer to me and Workdawg towards something you're answering, yet I didn't quite ask. Plus you keep referring to the more experienced players more often. We're not the only ones here.
One last thing:This basically means that everyone here is scum, even you. You can't prove anything until a flip occurs, or pretty much late game, when someone slips and their gamble crumbles. I got lynched for this in my first newbie game here.Mute wrote:Guilty until proven innocent.
VOTE: Ty
Wow dude.Workdawg wrote:After reading, and rereading everything posted about Ty up until now, I'm finding him to be pretty suspicious too. Mute and his table still rub me the wrong way, but in the interest moving things along I'm throwing down the hammer.
VOTE: Ty
It looks scummy because itWorkdawg wrote:EBWOP: I suppose hopping on the bandwagon with the hammer looks scummy. My reasoning is that both his posts have been long on words, but short on anything helpful. There's a lot of junk in there and it seems to me like he's trying to avoid being a lurker, but also avoid suspicion by diverting to Nacho and Stels, the two other experienced players...is he trying to get them lynched so he can take advantage of all of us poor newbies?!?!?
To be fair I was posting a response to Stels when you and nacho ninja'd in. =PWorkdawg wrote:@Mute from Preview
As far as throwing down the hammer... I guess I'm a little bit anxious since it's my first game. As you can tell, I'm pretty active online and the idea of waiting 2 weeks to learn any concrete information as craziness to me. If I set myself up as a target for Day2, then I guess we'll see what happens.
DAG NABIT WHAT'D I SAY ABOUT NINJAS?!Nachomamma8 wrote:Good catch, Angry Scientist.
Uhm... Nacho these two bolded points seem, to me, to contradict one another.Nachomamma8 wrote:At this moment,I'm inclined to think Workdawg is town. Most scum quickhammers are votes that aren't explained very well, and when confronted, they end up giving an "I didn't see the votecount" excuse, instead of announcing that they're throwing down the hammer.That being said, I am not ready in any case for the day to end, so I'd recommend that no one else try to quickhammer.
There is one thing that bothers me about this entire scenario, and it's below:Workdawg wrote:EBWOP: I suppose hopping on the bandwagon with the hammer looks scummy. My reasoning is that both his posts have been long on words, but short on anything helpful. There's a lot of junk in there and it seems to me like he's trying to avoid being a lurker, but also avoid suspicion by diverting to Nacho and Stels, the two other experienced players... is he trying to get them lynched so he can take advantage of all of us poor newbies?!?!?I don't like that he realizes that the hammer looks scummy after the fact. It seems he's slightly regretting the hammer, but not because he thought of the chance that Ty might be town, but instead because the scenario might make him look scummy.
Bad newbie-scum play.Nachomamma8 wrote:Mute, why do you think Workdawg would try to hammer his scumbuddy?
No. This thing right here you're doing? Stop that. I only say this because this is ultimately what got me lynched my last game, I gave up and let myself get lynched without giving myself the chance to form an argument of defense.Workdawg wrote:Preview edit @tp42:I would hardly call that a challenge, at the time I thought it was twilight and there was nothing I could do about it then. I agree that it looks pretty bad, a rookie mistake of epic proportions.If the wagon comes for me, the I deserve it and there's nothing I can do to stop it.
A flip: when a person's role is revealed by the game mod through either a lynch or a night kill.Workdawg wrote:@Mute:I'm confused about how trying (and failing miserably) hammer Ty makes you think him AND I are scum. I certainly understand that I painted a big target on myself with my haste,but what would the point of drawing attention to either of us if we were in it together? It seems imminent that either one of us will be lynched now, and certainly that's not good if we are in it together.
Also, can you elaborate on what a "flip" is?
Let's start with this. There is never a post that can be considered "needlessly short." There's too long which gives plenty of room for ambiguity. Second, the best posts I feel are the ones that are short, sweet, and to the point. The acronym K.I.S.S. (keep it simple, stupid!) is an acronym I apply to my daily life.Ty wrote:Mute
First, I don’t like your post. It’s short, needlessly short.Mute wrote:I do not like this post.
Firstly, it's long. Needlessly long.
Second, this is in relation to the first segment of bolded text. The entire thing (the bolded portion) is hypocritical. Any information that the town has, the scum has as well. Specifically, the underlined text. This can be used by scum to find people to eliminate during the night to be able to further spread confusion and cause mislynches.
And you're right, questioning does reveal a great deal of information, both of the ones being asked and the ones asking the questions.
...wait, am I being attacked with this? Is the information I'm using against you useless, really? To you, perhaps, but to others? I am not at all liking the passive-aggressive and high-and-mighty tone in your posts thus far in-game. Whether or not it's a scum-tell depends on context but I personally hate people who act this way unjustifiably.Ty wrote:See, I can post useless information too!
I don't like condescension. Not byTy wrote:Anyways, we’re finally getting to some of the good stuff. This is a continuation of Workdawg’s paragraph from above, and it’s important that everyone read this. Mute, your train of thought in regards to your second statement is very misguided. INFORMATION HELPS THE TOWN. Now repeat that to yourself one hundred times.
Then may I advocate you practice what you preach please? As it stands, you've tunneled on Nacho for his refusal to answer your questions. I gave the merit that asking questions does reveal info, but maybe you misinterpreted it.Ty wrote:It’s fairly obvious the scum will see what we see, however the pros in this situation FAR outweigh any negatives. Large amounts of posting benefit the town in two very important ways. First, discussions and analyzing posts are almost all that the town has to go off when reaching a consensus on who to lynch, so would you agree it’s important that the town is as well informed as possible before making that decision? Secondly, the more people talk the easier it is to separate the scum from the townsfolk for scumhunting purposes. The scum are forced to either 1) talk more, which increases the chances of slip-ups and scumtells or 2) go into lurk mode, which becomes extremely noticeable.
To summarize, POST AS MUCH AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN and give the town (who should be scumhunting) a much, much needed advantage. Also, I thank you greatly for your approval of my questioning, as Nachomamma8 doesn’t seem to be as big of a fan of them as you are.
You're right in that regard. Scum would want to ignore the context of RVS/RQS and push for a mislynch. But to say the town would be too dense to let that happen is a logical error as well, as quite frankly IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.Ty wrote:Stels
RQS can be used against you? You mean to say that something you post can later be used against you? Instead of making some snappy sarcastic comment I’ll just say that that it’s a bonus for the town. Unless they are as dense as your example makes them out to be, the town should be able to take circumstance into consideration and allow it precedence over a question designed to get the game moving. At least I really hope so.Stels wrote:@Ty: Main concern about RQS is that it can be used against you. Say, you answer a question, like: "Do you support Lynch All Liars?" and someone answers yes, yet later in the game, someone lies but that person will not support his lynch for certain reasons, such as believing his claim. Yes, he has contradicted what he answered at the beginning of the game, but he has his reasons. Scum-tell? Not really. I didn't say I hated your RQS specifically, I still answered right? I just said that I hate them in general since the questions are pretty random as well as only one person benefiting from it. And please don't tell me, "you all can go ahead and do RQS yourselves" because that's just upright stupid. Oh and on the topic that it helps everyone, it doesn't. As I have said before, it only benefits you, since only you know the logic behind that question, no matter how random it can be.
Then why are you coming off as using a weak argument? Why say they hold no long-term impact here, when you say the exact opposite earlier on?Ty wrote:No, I’m not the only person that benefits. I believe I pointed out that the entire town benefits from the RQS due to the posting it creates. You are tunneling your vision in regards to how the questions are important. Frankly, I find the (non)responses to be most telling. You don’t need me brain to analyze how someone responded and the resulting discussion that takes place?In fact, allow me to let you in on a dirty little secret. Most of those questions have no logic at all and I don’t have an ulterior motive.Surprising as it is, we’re on the same playing field.
What happened to you just there? How is keeping information a secret something saved for someone better? How is this pro-town play?Ty wrote:I briefly touched on why RQS is generally better than RVS in my previous post and I’m more than willing to discuss this theory with you, however it seems my time is better used elsewhere in the current state of things.
---Ty wrote:INFORMATION HELPS THE TOWN. Now repeat that to yourself one hundred times.
The bolded, I am going to rail on here. On ISO:#0, you flat out ask Angry, Nacho, and Neuky "2) Why is Stels the scum?"Ty wrote:Stels wrote:@Ty again: So, provide me with a reason why I'm scum, maybe I'll believe you. Or correct you with a whip. Plus, if I am scum according to you, why aren't you voting me?I don’t think you’re the scum at all.If you’ve read my posts you’ll notice I have other suspects. As to why I’m not voting, I don’t toss my vote around like candy. I vote when I feel I have the right person, it helps avoid possible quicklynches, you know, like the one that almost happened right now.
(taking a break from responding to my other game. yay procrastination.)Neuky wrote:OK - got some catching up on the whole almost hammer wagon thang to do - but in the meantime...
@Mute
I wanted to check on something.
Mute wrote:the list is a tool, yes, that I intend to post updates with it when I feel the need arises, in particular at the start of days.Ok regarding the above, I'm reading this as the table will be something town can look at if you die at some stage in the game. It's hardly going to defend you, but it would be a kind of inheritance to town of your thoughts before you died.Mute wrote:I'd like to avoid repeating what happened my last newbie game and get caught with the only way to defend myself is to let myself be lynched and have my claim be verified.
My point is you are assuming this would be a lynch, you've even said you'll post it in the morning (not twilight), and not assumed there's a chance you'd get killed at night. Why not?
I'll address you points in quick.Workdawg wrote:Mute
We went at it over the table for a while. He's responded decently, but I guess I get a funky vibe off how he claims to be playing the game (scum until proven town) and the table in general. I honestly still can't see how the table benefits anyone but scum... ESPECIALLY when everyone starts out as scum in the table. If the idea of scumhunting is to press specific people until you find someone who is scum, then that table seems quite backwards to me. You press them and their number goes down until you decide they are town. If you press them and just get a bunch of null reads, then they are still going to be scum. Or do you consider a null read to be in town favor based on the chances of them being town > being scum.
Another issue I have with the table, and I've expressed it before, is that it seems to just add a bunch of clutter to the thread rather than just saying "I think x and y are scummy, and here is why" If you post the table, I feel like you'd need to post a reason for every single persons standing in the table. I think it would be too easy to manipulate the table to scum advantage.
Lastly, you never told me what my rating is in your table after the events of last night :p
Oh joy!Drench wrote:Naben has confirmed! Yes, that's right, nobody flaked in the confirmation stage!
asano234 replaces Angry Scientist starting immediately. Please welcome them!
Workdawg wrote:I felt like a target because I stirred up a lot of crap and it seems like that would make me an easy target, but you make a good point that leaving me out there as a scapegoat is also a likely play. I guess I feel better about that, lol.theplague42 wrote:@Workdawg
More suspicious behavior. Why would they NK you? The only way I could see that happening is 1. you did actually hammer, and 2. Ty was scum. Unless you were ultra-early bussing your partner. If a player gets enough suspicion, he's probably going to be left alive as a scapegoat. Or left alive to create WIFOM confusion.
That's true, but he explicitly said he was going to do whatever it takes to win. If he REALLY thought Ty was scum, then it seems like the right move would have been to stick to his guns on that. If he's going the IC route and trying to prolong day one as he says, then that's fine. Maybe there's just not enough evidence against Ty yet and his vote was simply to stir the pot and try to get a reaction out of Ty. I can't comment on his intent, just my analysis of it. I didn't really intend for that to be an attack on Nacho. The first line of my statement is how I feel about him... his actions surrounding Ty have me suspicious and I stated that suspicion.theplague42 wrote:I would rather have an IC play more teacher than player than the other way around. Why would anyone believe he is scum if he is tossing out good thoughts, asking questions, and defending himself well? Isn't that what town is supposed to do?Workdawg wrote:Nacho
I feel like he's really playing his IC role more than the game. He's definitely tossing out good thoughts and make people question eachother. He's also defended himself well against Ty. No one else has really questioned him though.
And why is nacho voting ty suspicious? It was still RVS, so any and every possible scumtell is worthy of suspicion, considering there isn't much else to go on. How can you accuse Ty of tunneling on Nacho? In post 77, you comment on every player in the game, excluding yourself of course. Yet you only post real evidence/quotes for the argument against me and Nacho. The difference is that you are agreeing (?) with me. I'm not sure what word to use, but your conclusion is that my response was not scummy. Your attack on Nacho was by far the longest out of any of them. Then you throw out the possibility of Ty/Nacho scumteam. The point that I agree with on that is the "suspicion, but no vote" on Ty's part towards Nacho. The unvote by Nacho isn't suspicious at all by itself. He already gave a perfectly good reason for it, avoiding "crazed newbies" such as yourself. However, I will again point out the lack of emotion on Nacho's part. The "if it were a normal game" logic seems silly. There are ways to express your anger without scaring people off. But I think this points to Nacho as scum, while not really saying anything about Ty. Hopefully this is clear, as I'm just going by order that I remember.
(1)Am I supposed to keep my crazy thoughts to myself and then start yelling I KNEW IT when it happens, or throw them out there and let people shoot holes in them?You've said you agree with parts of it (at least the scumminess of some of Nacho's actions), so obviously I'm not completely off my rocker.
(2)Also, am I supposed to analyze myself?I thought that was everyone else's job. I guess if you want that, here it is.
WorkdawgSilly newb making a ton of mistakes,(3)but he is more town than the mayor of townsvilleland..
theplague42 wrote:@Neuky
I think aggression is more of a towntell than a scumtell in a newbie games. SEs and ICs are supposed to play at their best, as that would teach us newbies more than if they intentionally played badly, which would probably be very difficult to do anyways.
(4)Aside from that, I agree with the newb-scum possibility (bad word, but I can't think of the one I want to use; starts with a "c"...) and the dawg/stels team idea.He makes a lukewarm comment about Stel's encouragement, which pales in comparison to the amount of advice Ty has given (his towniness/scuminess is irrelevant for this). The fact that you took the time to post out the wagon is really pro-town and just plain helpful IMO.
Preview edit: Yet another disturbing lack of emotion.(5)AFAIK newb-town are more likely to freak out, while newb-scum are more likely to just sit there.Also, as I was reading over my post (finally previewing to avoid errors:)), I had a thought about the tunneling on Nacho. By this point, Workdawg seems to have more suspicion on Nacho than Ty, judging by his summary post above. Then why keep your vote on Ty instead of Nacho?(6)As far as the "dawg/stels" team idea, that's an interesting suggestion I suppose. What was the great and wonderful plan? Pick the first person to get two votes and attempt to wagon them, and then F up the vote count (or I suppose run it up to 4 and then hope someone else hammers)?Didn't Nacho say that the usual scum hammer move is to pretend you didn't realize it and then try to act innocent when you get caught laying down the hammer?(7)IIRC, Scum can only communicate at night (and apparently during confirmation according to the rules)so it's not like we would have had time to talk about who we want to target. My comments about Stels are simply because he specifically encouraged me to keep going after most everyone turned on me.
I would call that encouragement. While certainly Ty has provided useful help, he hasn't really provided encouragement like that. Ty still hasn't even really posted a response to what happened yet. He acknowledged reading it, but not there was no response.Stels wrote:@Workdawg: If a wagon comes onto, there is always something that you can do to redeem yourself or at least be helpful to town by scumhunting even if you are lynched. Don't. Give. Up.
Just to point out something: Don't be concerned with looks, just don't bother with it. The only thing I can see in that is more of a scum-tell than a town-tell, since scum have more reason for wanting to look good than town. Sure you don't want to be lynched for looking scummy, but trying to appear to be something you are not, isn't helpful at all. Just be yourself and do what you got to do. I think I got lynched as that being part of the reason in my first Newbie Game as well.
About the second part here:
First Neuky gets on my case about showing emotion in my posts, and now you get on my case about not doing so. What do you guys want from me? lol
Drench wrote:2. Unless it is explicitly stated in your role PM that you can do so, do not communicate with anyone outside this thread. Even then, only communicate when your role PM states you can.
Actually I did miss that 4 and 5 were within a quote made by you. I saw that he started to give an analysis on himself, by bolding his name, and missed that he quoted you. I tunneled in on all the scum-slips he made, and hadn't noticed.theplague42 wrote:Actually, I just realized I'm an idiot. Mute, do you realize that points 4 and 5 aremywords? This does throw bad light on the rest of the argument, but number 7 is pure gold. I will point out the possibility of Mute bussing his partner. I think it's extremely unlikely, but it's a thought. Barring the two screwed up points, the whole process seems too good to be a scum bus.
In hindsight, yes it is. I still have no doubt that dawg is scum. I dismissed his accidental near-hammer as a small newbie slip-up with a chance of being a scum-slip. His post which I drilled was a huge alarm for me to find him scummy enough to take my vote off of Ty, my then highest scum-suspect, to him.Stels wrote:@Mute: Your last post was scummy as hell. You're just trying too damn hard to get Workdawg onto the noose.
@Drench: Can we get a votecount? Thanks~
Of the possible set-ups in this game, only half have a chance to have a cop. It'd be a safe bet to ask that, but I won't. If someone is a PR thetheplague42 wrote:Preview edit: Mute, I think "rules" applies to all of Drench's starting posts. The roles are available to everyone in this and other open-type games, so it's info known to everyone. If you feel the need, put out a request to the possible cop to investigate him. The cop may or may not listen, but it's better than accusing him of being scum when most of your argument fell through the floorboards.
andWorkdawg wrote:@MuteDo you really want to argue the semantics of the rules vs the sample role PMs, which immediately follow the rules? I'm obviously no expert, but splitting hairs in something so irrelevant just to try and reinforce your failed accusation on me seems pretty scumming in itself.
UNVOTE: Ty
VOTE: Mute
I fail to see the irrelevance, so please enlighten me to it.Workdawg wrote:As far as my vote for Mute, he was my first vote... I changed from him in my anxious "crackmonkey" attempt to hammer Ty. After looking at the rest of his posts since then, I still feel like he's scum, and the evidence has only been mounting against him as far as I'm concerned.
@MuteYou think I'm super scum now, so what's my number? This is the third time I've asked you and you've never given it to me. The first time, I'll assume you didn't notice me ask.
---
So what's the story, am I the scummiest of the scum, or am I still on par with every else (except Nacho).
Wrong, I tell whomever asks what purpose it serves, and have done nothing but. So far, only you and neuky have been the most vocal against it, and nearly everyone else feels it's either insignificant or a null-tell. If you feel nothing but a contempt for it, feel that I am scum for using a table to give a numerical rating of the players, constantly use it as a way to undermine any shot of scum-hunting, say that your case against me is because I have a bad case against you, and have placed what I feel is an OMGUS vote on me, that with everything else continually gives me an impression that you're scum.Workdawg wrote:Specifically on your above comments
This seems just like another case of you claiming the scum will try and use it against you. Why do you keep using that as your defense? If the only thing the table is doing for you is giving scum something to use against you, then why did you/are you using it.
Maybe you can outline for me what exactly your grid has done so far that is pro-town.
The more discussion there is about this, the more it just seems to me that all you've done is try and tell people what they want to hear about the table.
That I have seen fit to give you that number based on your play is why I am so set on you being scum.Mute wrote:If you do not like where you fall on my grid, remember that A) this is a grid I am using for MYSELF, and this does not and should not influence anyone; if you feel someone is scum vote for them on the basis ofyourown reads, and B) I feel your play is worthy of either a high or a low score.
This is in all honesty an experiment on my part on using a number-based system to keep track of scum suspicions. I do not expect it to be perfect and the amounts will fluctuate with my whim.I will not rely on it alone to lynch anyone I feel is scum, merely as a way to keep track and augment my arguments and such.If at all you'd like to see where you fall at any time, just ask.
*sigh*Workdawg wrote:theplague42 wrote:Best argument I've seen against the table so far. The initial sentence is fuzzy, but the second half is great.Workdawg wrote:So, I'm scum because you gave me a number... isn't it supposed to work the other way around? You find enough evidence against someone that the number climbs high enough that you call them scum. I guess I'll have to wait and see what the evidence is.Workdawg, it seems like your first sentence isn't really coinciding with the second part. I would say this is more an issue of writing your summary before your details, rather than inconsistency.Anyways, I would say that Mute's reasoning is more "you give me a huge number, which implies I'm scum, which means I deserve a high number." (I'm saying this from workdawg's POV) Mute's using circular logic to try to prove his point.
It is a flaw in my writing style, but yeah.
The second sentence I was simply trying to explain how I feel it should work, rather than what the first sentence explains as how Mute made it sound like it works. I guess to say it better would be something like...
"So, I'm scum because you game me a number, isn't it supposed to work the other way around? Shouldn't you have to find enough evidence to justify the number getting high enough to call someone scum?"
Please read the bold, as that IS what the case is. I feel that from X's posts that they deserve a score of #. Because I feel from their posts that they deserve #, I'll look for cases to build against them.Mute wrote:If you do not like where you fall on my grid, remember thatA) this is a grid I am using for MYSELF, and this does not and should not influence anyone; if you feel someone is scum vote for them on the basis ofyourown reads, andB) I feel your play is worthy of either a high or a low score.
This is in all honesty an experiment on my part on using a number-based system to keep track of scum suspicions. I do not expect it to be perfectand the amounts will fluctuate with my whim. I will not rely on it alone to lynch anyone I feel is scum, merely as a way to keep track and augment my arguments and such. If at all you'd like to see where you fall at any time, just ask.
It's not hypocrisy. I have every reason to play as if everyone is scum, and am doing so, and only by their play will I feel whether it's a town vibe or a scum vibe I'm picking up from them. e.g. a person posts and I get serious town-vibes from them, then I feel they're more likely than not town, but I won't discredit that they could be scum who are presenting themselves to be town very well.theplague42 wrote:Ok in the first part of this post, I looked at Mute (my biggest suspect) ISO, so I may be backtracking a lot.Actually, according to Mute, this is his first time using it.asano234 wrote:That said i am sure that this table is useful to you and maybe it has been sucessful in the past but it just feels too unscientific for my liking and a bit random to say the least. Out of curiousity i would be interested where i fall on the table being a newbie and therefore an unknown quantity.As I'm looking back, the bolded part seems suspicious. He seems to be defending the table before any comments were made about it. Earlier in the same post:Mute wrote:This is in all honesty an experiment on my part on using a number-based system to keep track of scum suspicions.I do not expect it to be perfect and the amounts will fluctuate with my whim. I will not rely on it alone to lynch anyone I feel is scum, merely as a way to keep track and augment my arguments and such. If at all you'd like to see where you fall at any time, just ask.Now look at his previous post:Everyone starts out at 60, because it is a nice enough a number to prove my point in thatI have as much reason to think of everyone as scum as much as they are town.This is to, for me, keep track of how everyone acts, and the scores are rather arbitrary.Bolded hypocrisy.I'm going to play with the mindset of "scum with medium probability until highly suspected/proven town."
Look at my first game, and that will back up this next statement: I am good at out-WIFOMing the scum. This is how I have always played here, and have been playing off-site. Yes I will worry about what scum will think, so as to find them better. D1 is terrible for it because we rely solely on a person's posts to decide if they're scum or not. It's when an NK is made that the real battle of wits begins. This is the part I look forward to.Plague wrote:Mute seems to be very concerned about how the scum will specifically target him.Mute wrote:The point of the table was more to get a concrete view of my stance out there. To say "oh yeah, I'm gonna play as everyone is more likely scum than town and gameplay will prove innocence" is nice and all, but it can easily be twisted by scum to be used for whatever bussing/WIFOM reasons against me later on.Angry Scientist wrote:Mute:About your table... Sure, it's nice to keep the track of everyone, but what's the reason of revealing that table to us? If you'll be posting the entire table regularly, you're pretty much giving your neutral and town reads all the time, and that helps scum pick their targets at night.If the scum were to actually consistently attack him for bad reasons, wouldn't they get lynched?As I've argued before, good scum will use logical arguments to get someone lynched. If the table gets attacked, then it's probably for good reason.
Thank you for the warning at least.Stels wrote:The Ol' Wall-O-Text
So... wait, lemme see if I have this right now: both you and Dawg are operating with the thought that play-style isn't the things a person posts in the game? See, to me, play-style is a persons posting/posts and how they are interpreted by others. So, with the mindset I'm using, which is that, how is my using a person's style of playStels wrote:Mute
ISO #5, creates table.
One part I don't like about the table is thatI just don't like what he said here.Mute wrote:B) I feel your play is worthy of either a high or a low score.So, instead of just scum-hunting and putting his findings into that table, he also lets our playing-style get in the way... I just don't like that. Or would you like to clear this misunderstanding?
I have been using FoS/HoS this game. Several times in fact.Stels wrote:ISO #7 addresses that there is a flaw in the table, says that he will fix that when someone thinks of something, so far, he has denied everything related to the table. Also just noticed that the table is pretty much useless after reading this post again. Why not just go about and use the good oldFoSandHoS? Same thing, less work.
Pardon me a moment...Stels wrote:ISO # 12. Not much to say about this post, but until this point, all he has been doing is calling my name. Nothing wrong with that,it just feels like you're trying to buddy up to me.You say you were replying to something that I asked, which you did, yet you referred to him in the same post and talking about how his hammer felt scummy, which it did, yet in post #12 he refers to me yet again in reply to Workdawg, making an excuse for something that no one asked him, etc...
-sigh-Stels wrote:ISO #14: Responds to Ty. Generally, he is downright opposes Ty, well in fact, yet he yet again, mentions me, and even defends me. Thanks for that, but again, buddying up.
Sorry I saw you accuse me of knit-picking and not having a bad case, and my hypocrisy sensors went off which just further cements a Stels/Dawg team.Stels wrote:ISO #18: Only thing I can find here is him contradicting himself:withMute wrote:First bolded segment: Yes, that is what you're supposed to do, throw your ideas out to let people shoot holes in them. If your logic/reasoning is flawed it hurts town to both keep it secret, and to keep that flawed logic in the game.Yes, point 5 was proven to be said by TP42, yet at the time he posted, he thought it was Workdawg who said that, which he was referring to, thus contradicting himself when he tried to build a case against WD.Mute wrote:Fifth bolded part: Pure speculation on your part, which I find misleading to the town.
Nitpicks Workdawg's "talking in confirmation is stated in the rules/sample role pm's". Believe strongly that Workdawg is scum, yet doesn't present a solid case on him as well as the badhammer on Ty being his only real evidence which at the time he didn't think was enough to warrant a vote. AKA, he doesn't have enough evidence as it stood from ISO #22.
ISO #23: Proceeds to give Workdawg his imaginary numbers. Sorry if I offend you by saying that.
ISO # 26 & 24: He says that he won't use the table to see someone as scum, simply to augment his current standing (26) yet before that he says that because of his number from his table, he is intent on Workdawg being scum (24); the number from that table is basically the only thing that is keeping his vote on him.
BTW, you said prob two times, not one. Just an FYI.
Scummy.
andStels wrote:@Mute: I know how pro-town Nacho can be, but that is no reason at all to give him privileges and making him an exception. How are you certain that Nacho isn't as likely scum as us? He may be scum last game, what's stopping him from being scum again? If you had a different mod, which I'm sure you did, then he has the same chance to start out at 60? as any of us. I've been scum in the game before this as well, so why not start me out on 55 as well? Exactly.
It's a number arbitrarily given by me. Why was it such a huge deal that my rating on someone was different from everyone else? What is the big deal when the numbers I give on the table don't amount to anything by themselves, are dictated by the reads and vibes I get from the players? What reason is there for you to have not just discarded it as needless fluff, what purpose do you have in bringing it up, what motivation could there be?Stels wrote:@Mute: Can I have the details of the game that you played with Nacho? The mod name specifically interests me. I just want to prove that 1 part of your table wrong. Although this has been said already, all the mods, choose the roles of people at random.
Also, finding you a bit scummy, since you refer to me and Workdawg towards something you're answering, yet I didn't quite ask. Plus you keep referring to the more experienced players more often. We're not the only ones here.
One last thing:This basically means that everyone here is scum, even you. You can't prove anything until a flip occurs, or pretty much late game, when someone slips and their gamble crumbles. I got lynched for this in my first newbie game here.Mute wrote:Guilty until proven innocent.
Neuky ISO #6 wrote:Just want to add - yes I'm thinking currently of a Dawg / Stels partnership- and I've just seen Dawg's post 77 -
Had to whoop when I saw this! "Yep Stels a townie, except if he flips scum, he could just have been helping me out as SE"...Workdawg wrote:Stels
I get a townie vibe from him for his encouragement, but that could easily just be the SE trying to help me out.
If I learned anything from my first newbie game, reluctance to suspect a person when others are already suspicious of a person for pretty solid reasons makes that first person scum. Stels says that if dawg is worried about appearing as town and continues to be so, he'll jump to his wagon.Stels wrote:@Neuky: The "trying to appear to be something you are not, isn't helpful at all". This is SE advice for not just dawg, but for everyone here (my advice isn't just for everyone to see that I'm supporting just one player, it's meant for everyone to look at).Town wouldn't be concerned at appearing scummy, since they are town. That's the general gist of it. If he still cares about trying to appear town, I'll hop onto his wagon.
In a game I started to play in another forum I was attacked left and right for not proclaiming that the person I was voting for was at L-2 when I voted for them. I'm not sure if I'd be allowed to talk about it more than that as I had to sub out of it, but suffice to say I got chewed out by nearly everyone there, so whenever someone's gonna be at L-2 or L-1, I'm gonna announce it regardless.theplague42 wrote:You FoS'd Stels because he didn't announce that his vote put Workdawg at L-2. Why exactly is that scummy? There isn't much difference between L-2 and L-3, so should people be forced to announce at L-3? Following that logic, L-3 and L-4 aren't that different of situations, either. So should we announce that we're putting theMute wrote:EBWOP:
@ Mod: vote count s'il vous plait?
If my math's right, both Dawg and I are at L-2, as it stands with Ty's and Stel's latest votes.secondvote on someone? No, we shouldn't. It's one of those things where if you try to use it as a scumtell, there's nowhere to draw the line that says "beneath this is not a scumtell." Not announcing L-1 is definitely suspicious, but even that isn't a cut-and-dry scumtell. Anything below that, YMMD. Following this, why didn't you say anything about Ty putting Workdawg at L-2 w/o saying anythings? I don't agree that he should have to, but your views are inconsistent. Basically, what I'm getting from this is that people should announce that they are puttingyouwithin a half lightyear of a lynch, but anyone else is fair game? Seems like you're awfully nervous about getting even remotely close to a lynch.
Glad you enjoyed my taco and fish based humor. I am altogether disgusted by that marriage of food chains. Dunkin Donuts and Baskin Robins in one store? MIRACULOUS WONDERMENT OF DELICIOUSOSITY; fish and tacos? OH GOD IT'S GOTTA BE SOME SORTA BAD JOKE PLEASE NO!Workdawg wrote:@Mute:
LOL, thank you for addressing the taco bell issue.
On topic, I guess my interpretation of "gut" is simply your overall feeling disregarding any conclusions backed up by logic. When you say your gut gives me an 84, I would have considered both things your head and your gut say. Thoughts based on logical arguments would augment the score from there, but it's your system I suppose.
@asano234
I'm very curious about your reason for voting for Mute. Obviously I've been on his case for a while, but I have my case laid out all over the place. Your comment about just being sick of the argument doesn't do it for me, and saying that the table is swinging you from me to him doesn't either. You did put him at L-1, and while I don't mind the fact that you didn't announce this, I would say that's a pretty serious vote to throw out there without justification. I'm guilty of doing the same thing, but at least I followed up my vote with my reasons immediately.
I'm not really sure what to think about this. Your last sentence says that you will outline your thoughts later, so obviously you have some, but you can't be bothered to post them at the time of the vote? It strike me as rather suspicious to go to L-1 on someone and then leave the thread for who knows how long. It would be mighty convienient if someone else swept in and laid down the hammer on him while you are gone so that he doesn't have a chance to defend himself (though he doesn't really do this much anyone, in my experience).
(Yes, I realize the above is pretty hypocritical. I did the same thing before, but at least I gave my reasons for doing so.)
Players | Percent |
---|---|
theplague42 | 54 |
Neuky | 49 |
Workdawg | 79 |
Angry Scientist Asano | 50 54 |
Naben Veridis | ???????? |
Stels | 66 |
Ty | 67 |
Nachomamma8 | 65 |
I'd like to say you're comparing a null-tell (that I even said it was) to a vote placed during the RVS where silly antics are the way that session takes place.theplague42 wrote:Mini-wall ahead. I didn't think it would be a wall, but it certainly seems longer than an average post. Edit: make that a huge wall after adding the asano section.
MuteThis post made me laugh and head-desk simultaneously. "Being swayed by logic so easily and casting a vote by it?" First of all, that is a completely ridiculous claim. Logic is the hand behind the weapon of a lynch. What you're saying by this accusation is that scum players make logical arguments and town players make illogical arguments. That is utterly ridiculous. Townies use logic to find scum. Anyone that disagrees with the fundamental part of that statement is completely wrong, IMO.Mute wrote:Plague: does a decent job of scum-hunting and providing towards the town. But one thing got me; being swayed by logic so easily and casting a vote by it? Null-read alone, but will future posts prove whether he's scum or not? Unsure; I bring it up for posterity. Town-vibes though.
Secondly, do my ears deceive me? I seem to remember something rather similar in the beginning of the game....By this, I am in no way agreeing that using logic is a scumtell. I already explained that above. I'm instead pointing out that Mute is using a double standard when looking at scumtells. Anything he does is townie, while the same things are scummy if committed by other people. Considering that he called Angry Scientist's logic "flawless," wouldn't it make sense that I was swayed by him as well? Apparently flawless logic only applies to voting other people... Unless he's talking about my switch back to Mute from Workdawg, following Workdawg's logic. In that case, I'm guessing that Mute just doesn't want to admit that he (as well as I) was completely embarrassed by that. I was blinded by Mute's bad logic, which he certainly didn't seem to mind at the time, as I was an extra vote on his supposed suspect.Mute in post 12 wrote:Ah, gotcha. Lemme guess an experiment went wrong and you were angry over the failure? =PAngry Scientist wrote:snip
VOTE: theplague42
This guy is the plague. The mafia plagues this town. Which means, he's the mafia. QED.
Also your logic is flawless.Vote: theplague42
@all
We really need more activity! The majority of the posting is being done by about half the players, and its getting rather repetitive. We need other opinions!
OH GOD THE WALL IT IS LIKE RUNNING UP A 75 DEGREE INCLINE WAAAAAAH.Ty wrote:I see both Mute and Workdawg online. I look forward to a reply. Thanks.
It is from my first game that I've learned walls of text that are hard to read are easy for scum to use to insert fluff, weak arguments, and misdirection, and while it behooves them not to make slips they do use long walls of text to obfuscate the truth.Ty wrote:Frankly I don’t understand how the length of my posts makes me scum, in fact one would almost argue that it would be to the scum’s advantage to make shorter posts. More writing means more opportunities for a slip that could be potentially harmful.However I would ultimately say it’s a null-tell.
Once again there's your snappy wit out in view again.Ty wrote: Either your definition is wrong, or you’ve been skimming over my posts. I’ve gone head to head with Nachomamma and now Workdawg while scumhunting, and I’ve determined with a fair amount of confidence that Workdawg is scum.
I’m sorry I’m not messing around with a table that serves no purpose, bickering with Workdawg, or posting such insightful analysis as “Stels: recently has caught my attention.”
Mute wrote:Question to all since I've still got the mouth to speak with:
Whenever anyone posts an ISO post of several people, do you read all of it, or just the part that is directed towards you, and (slightly) skim over the rest (if at all)?
Yes it is ironic that he continues to stick to me instead of other people, even when I am not addressing him at all. I do not like being shadowed. Isn't that considered a form of tunneling in this game? I don't know, but I agree it is funny he butts in there.veridis wrote:Somehow me voting Ty becomes Mute and dawg arguing with each other again. I'd like you guys to try an experiment, 2 posts each without mentioning the other person.
oh and Mute, it was spooked. Workdawg backs off pretty quickly(but leaves his vote for a while), Nacho unvotes "just in case" and Stels unvotes "to be safe for the night".
He pointed that fact out.Workdawg wrote:I'm still catching up here, but I wanted to point out that TP42 put me at L-1 in post #207. So yeah...
See the bold and the underlined, specifically.theplague42 wrote:WorkdawgWhy are you claiming so early?Workdawg wrote:I have to admit, it certainly seems like you've got a strong case against me. You've obviously got quite a bit of experience hunting scum and analyzing posts. At this point, I'm not sure what I can even say to you that will convince you I'm town.
I will straight up say it, I am a townie. Any actions that you think are scum-tells are simply my ignorance at how this game is properly played. I feel like I made one major mistake and have been unable to adequately defend myself from the inquisition that's been imposed on me as a result.You are nowhere close to L-1,And yes, there isn't much way to defend against an attempted hammer two meatworld-days into a game-day, much less Day 1even with my soon-to-be vote.
I do not believe you for a second on this. You specifically stated that time was the main reason for voting Ty. You later frantically defended that by saying that you couldn't stand waiting two more weeks for the day to be over. Later, you switch track by saying that you have other "evidence" for voting Ty. Yet you never once give a concrete example (parroting Ty a little here) of why you voted him.Workdawg wrote:Once again, time really played no role in my vote against you other than that I was simply anxious to do something good for the team. The evidence against you I felt was strong enough.Considering both of the other experienced players also placed a vote against you for their own reasons, I don't see how it's unreasonable to assume that a newb town see's some things he doesn't like and then jumps on the band wagon as well; especially considering that the two experienced players are already on board.
Before you voted, you said that you thought Mute was scummy. Yet you tried to hammer Ty two days into the day. Therefore:
Unvote
Vote: Workdawg
If we end up lynching him and he flips scum, I'm beginning to change my mind and to think that Mute could be his partner. The sheer amount of time that they are putting in to constantly attack one another is mindboggling. That, combined with the immediate back-down after veridis pointed it out, could indicate bussing/distancing.
Although if Workdawg is town, then I still think Mute could be scum, but my suspicion would be greater than if Workdawg is scum. Now that I say this, I'm not exactly sure why I want Workdawg lynched before Mute. But I do, if just to eliminate all chance of another "miscount" and pseudo-hammer. Lynch all Liars! Yes, by that statement I mean that I believe that Workdawg lied.
:scoff: Letting down? I want scum-Dawg hung up and made an example of. After the line, I'll be responding to Ty and it ties into that statement.theplague42 wrote:If we end up lynching him and he flips scum, I'm beginning to change my mind and to think that Mute could be his partner. The sheer amount of time that they are putting in to constantly attack one another is mindboggling. That, combined withthe immediate back-down after veridis pointed it out, could indicate bussing/distancing.
Mute
Walls are only helpful to scum if they don't contain any real information. Ty's walls are progressing from SE-voice to player-voice as the game goes on, which seems completely consistent with the amount of in-game content to work with.
First and foremost, let us keep this fact in mind: Dawg has read up about mafia. In ISO #2 he states that this includes reading up on several normal games. These are points to keep in mind as I go on.Workdawg wrote:Zomg hi.
I am a full on newbie... never played a game before, but I did plenty of reading while waiting for my account to be activated.
Hooray!
Let me remind you of something: town doesn't need to worry about being lynched, only in lynching scum. Scum want to stay alive to win.Workdawg wrote:Still on the WIFOM boat I see. In any case, you seemed pretty concerned about my appealing to people emotions... so what? Just because it's something scum will do to try and save themselves doesn't mean that it's a 100% scum tell. You already said that you went down and your only defense was to let yourself get lynched.Mute wrote:This post is filled with more appeal than Bill Clinton! He flatout appeals to emotion here:If that ain't appeal to emotion then I don't know what is. This is a sign he's finally caved under pressure. And immediately he uses a WIFOM argument to try and defend himself!Workdawg wrote:While I suppose it's a rather ridiculous request, if you were to analyze ISO 7 and 8 as if they had been posted in one post, at the time of the vote, would that make you feel any differently about the situation? I agree that it can easily look like I'm just trying to cover my tracks,but if you give me the benefit of the doubt and just chalk it up to a rookie mistake that I left off my reason due to my anxiousness, maybe it looks less scummy.I'd like to think that if I were newb-scum, I would have been more careful not to look too scummy, rather than to just jump in head first without concern for how it appears to everyone else. Didn't you say that it's typically the scum players who are concerned with how they appear? Though clearly I have much to learn about playing this game.Maybe you should have tried appealing to emotion. Why would anyone about to be lynched NOT try to stay in the game?If there is some sort of secret town move in which going and getting themselves lynched, then that's fine... but that's not the case here.
-sits patiently awaiting post-Ty wrote:Hey all, bit busy tonight. I'll be posting tomorrow, don't worry.
I have.Neuky wrote:this ^Nachomamma8 wrote:I'd love if Mute and Workdawg worked on developing cases on their #2 suspects though because these walls are going overboard and even if one of you is right about the other, there are scumbuddies.
One of you guys may be right about the other - but consider the possibility that town is tunnelling town..
I've got some time on Sunday, so I'll post tomorrow, something a bit more substantive.
Stels was more than likely pre-empting a false-claim..Neuky wrote:@Stels - you did say earlier that when you give advice its generally for everyone - can you explain how this post is in the interests of town?
Stels wrote:Workdawg wrote:@Stels: I haven't lied yet, and I don't intend to start now. Certainly not to claim to scum for no reason.With this, you can't claim a PR anymore, if there are any. Just saying.
Plague's said it. I've got a serious feeling of you and him buddying up. With each of your posts towards Dawg I gather that assumption, hence why I said that.theplague42 wrote:Workdawg has obviously read a lot of games and articles. I'm sure that he's read about "Lynch All Liars" sometime or another. Your warning (yes, I'm calling it a warning) is unnecessary if Workdawg is as knowledgable as I believe him to be. I'll say again, the "just saying" comment really irks me. Calling it "warning" instead of "advice" also makes me suspicious. The words are pretty much synonymous in this usage, so it seems like you're trying to get away from accusations of being scumbuddies without changing the intent of what you say. Both "warning" and "advice" convey a meaning of telling someone what they shouldn't do. It's completely unnecessary in this case.
-sigh-Stels wrote:So what do you want me to do about it? Want me to stop talking to Workdawg? Should I just go and isolate myself in the corner so no one can buddy-up to me anymore? Want me to stop giving advice? Fine! We got an IC and another SE here to do that in my place. Is that really helpful? Figure it out for yourselves.Mute wrote:@Stels:Plague's said it. I've got a serious feeling of you and him buddying up. With each of your posts towards Dawg I gather that assumption, hence why I said that.theplague42 wrote:Workdawg has obviously read a lot of games and articles. I'm sure that he's read about "Lynch All Liars" sometime or another. Your warning (yes, I'm calling it a warning) is unnecessary if Workdawg is as knowledgable as I believe him to be. I'll say again, the "just saying" comment really irks me. Calling it "warning" instead of "advice" also makes me suspicious. The words are pretty much synonymous in this usage, so it seems like you're trying to get away from accusations of being scumbuddies without changing the intent of what you say. Both "warning" and "advice" convey a meaning of telling someone what they shouldn't do. It's completely unnecessary in this case.