The below post
is
an xvart wall.
xvart wrote:Hoppster wrote:I'm trying to see if you bother trying to work out what I'm showing you.
As I have explained, this isn't a sufficient response for me
because
in your original long string of posts when no commentary you labeled it all according to what I was accusing you of. If anything, this should have been proof that I did read what you were saying since everything I was accusing you of was labeled in each of your posts. It took you a while later to actually provide a rebuttal of why my interpretation was wrong.
I didn't label it according to what you were accusing me of, I was labelling my posts as to what
dealt
with your points. Admittedly in hindsight some of them are a bit unrealistic of me to expect you to have got, but there are certainly some that, paticularly given my labelling, you should have been able to identify what I was showing.
xvart wrote:Hoppster, 502 wrote:IT IS ENTIRELY RELEVANT TO READ PAST THE "FOR X" PART
No, everything after the "for town" part is irrelevant because that is the only part I was originally arguing: the knowledge of someone's alignment that only scum would know. The behavior afterwards is inconsequential because you identified me as someone who was definitively town in the first two words of your post.
asdfkgjskdsds
You didn't even read my post, did you?
I am completely lost as to how to explain this now, because I have made it simple, step-by-step, given relevant examples, and you still miss it.
Given the context of the whole sentence (as shown clearly in my several examples) the "For X" does not mean the sentence is necessarily directed solely at X.
"For X, doing Y would be Z" means that the person(s) being addressed are either:
- X and Z (as they do Y)
- X but not Z (as they do not do Y)
- Not X (may or may not be Z)
In this example, X is town, Y is not reading my posts yet still attacking me, Z is stupid.
If that doesn't clarify it, you can lynch me based on these stupid, awful semantics that are just completely wrong, because I'm not going to defend myself anymore from it. I've made it perfectly clear, and you're basically saying "NUH-UH".
xvart wrote:Hoppster wrote:Hoppster wrote:xvart wrote:Hoppster, 357 wrote:Mafia One-Shot Vigilante is a normal role. I think it's safer if we tie Toro to a certain specific target, whether that be himself or a lurker. (I'd prefer it to be himself, seeing as lurkers can be replaced.)
I think I've seen one mafia vig and it was a large them (I think). I highly doubt there is a mafia one shot vig in a mini normal all things considered. And the directing a vig kill to a single person is highly scummy due to the influence scum have in the night actions.
The only thing that could even be construed as justified suspicion here would be if you believe that I am scum and my faction has a Redirector or Bus Driver, with both being explicity non-Normal.
Or perhaps if I have full setup knowledge and know every single person's role.
A hypothetical scum roleblocker DOES NOT mean directing the vig shot is scummy, AS THEY CAN ROLEBLOCK REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE SHOT IS DIRECTED OR NOT
AND THEN I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ELSE YOU COULD POSSIBLY THINK IS SCUMMY
You accuse me of not reading because you have a different interpretation of what you said than what you actually said? Where did you say anything about a roleblocker in your first response? This is another example of you justifying something after the fact with evidence that was not originally stated. What you said originally is completely different than your annotations in blue. The whole point is if there is a RBer they know if the single individual set to be killed is on their team or not. When it is not directed, they do not know if the target is going to be their team or not. Even if they don't have a RBer they can influence the kill during the day to someone who is town and say "welp, at least we got rid of a town lurker." Giving scum advanced knowledge of specific night actions only helps scum and not town because they have more information about night actions to begin with.
Oh. My. Fricking Days.
YOU ARE NOT READING MY POSTS
Hoppster wrote:What I said earlier, pre-emptive annotations added in blue
Given the ridiculous nature of your attacks, I felt that you would bring up the roleblocker as it's the one bit I didn't address beforehand (as I thought it obvious, but eh). Perhaps a poor choice of words in 'annotations' (addendum strikes me as a better alternative in hindsight), but that is it.
The thing is, the whole thing about scum deciding whether to Roleblock Toro is great and all if he is town.
Do we know he is town?
No, we do not.
However, if we are to assume that he is town, then really, there's no issue. As ridiculous an assumption as it is, if we assume he is town and we direct his vig-shot which is resultingly blocked, using not dissimilar logic to yours we can just assume the vig target was scum and lynch it (as it would be counter-productive for scum to roleblock Toro to prevent town Player X from dying only to have that player mislynched the next day).
Giving Toro-scum free reign is ridiculous, as he could perfectly justify an Empking-vig (having been suspicious of him), but really, that would be a stupid vig-shot. I do not trust Toro to choose his target, and even Toro-town could still vig Empking (as the suspicious would be genuine - it may even be more likely this way).
The issue I had imagined you were going to bring up was "well if he gets roleblocked then we won't know whether he's lying or not" or something to that effect.
This post is just complete junk.
Number One I have dealt with several, several times now. Each time you refuse to read what I'm saying. Maybe you're looking at the words, but you certainly aren't reading them.
Number Two is not a scum-tell.
Number Three I have dealt with in this post.
xvart wrote:Hoppster, 360 wrote:I'm fine with a lurker vig provided we tie down Toro to a specific shot.
This goes back to the directing vig kill argument. You are fine with a vig shooting
any lurker
but you want it tied down to a specific lurker for what purpose? Why does it matter which lurker he shoots if you are fine with generalized lurker kill?
We give him the option of two lurkers. If Toro is scum and one of the lurkers is scum, all he has to do is shoot the one who is not scum. I'd much rather not get into WIFOMic situations like that and that is avoided completely by directing the shot.
xvart wrote:And who did you consider a lurker at that point in the game?
1joe60, jakesh. To a certain extent, looking at the posts, I actually had (still have? :/) relatively few posts (disregarding people who had replaced in), although I think I have provided substantial content. I was slightly worried Toro would be able to vig me and then be able to justify it the next day as a lurker vig-shot.
Benmage: First, for the sake of irony. I'm going to illustrate how completely idiotic and hypocritical scumhunter is.