Mod: can you tell us whether double-targeting is allowed?
were I to include a role with 2 active abilities, which i am neither confirming nor denying, then It might be possible for them to submit 2 actions during a night phase. However a role which could do this I am neither confirming nor denying.
Sorry. My question was whether a player can target another player twice in a row on two consecutive nights.
Could you also tell us whether, in a version of the Tspoon universe that included a 1-shot vig, whether a role-blocked vig would have used his 1 shot?
Thanks Empking for being the first to bring up the RB and give the scum team clever ideas! Though I am sure they thought of it already.
Please do not skip over the whole of this wall: important tl;dr at foot of post.
xvart wrote:
Hoppster, 458 wrote:
xvart wrote:This is laughable since you are accusing me of "not trying" and while you do the absolute bare minimum to try and disprove my suspicions.
You're not reading my posts.
Again, you have not explain how I am not reading your posts or why you believe I am not reading your posts.
Spoiler: What I said earlier (with addition of idiot-friendly annotations in blue)
Hoppster wrote:
xvart wrote:
Hoppster, 433 wrote:I'm trying to see if you bother trying to work out what I'm showing you. You're not - you're attitude is clearly "well I don't need to bother trying because he didn't explain", which is either a terrible-town attitude or a scum attitude.
You're obviously not even trying to read what I'm helpfully laying out for you. You're basically just trying to smear me now and you're not even trying to scum-hunt.
This is laughable since you are accusing me of "not trying" and while you do the absolute bare minimum to try and disprove my suspicions.
You're not reading my posts.
Hoppster wrote:I'm trying to see if you bother trying to work out what I'm showing you.
This quote, in context, is quite obviously the bit I have isolated which you have missed, misunderstood, or just pretended did not exist.
You are accusing me of doing the bare minimum to try and disprove your suspicions. However, this point was already addressed, in the isolated sentence I included. Your point is wrong, because I was, as I said earlier, "trying to see if you bother trying to work out what I'm showing you".
xvart wrote:
Hoppster, 433 wrote:
xvart wrote:
Hoppster, 101 wrote:Are you saying that there is no chance that Thomith is town? Pray, tell us how you know this.
This is pretty interesting in the fact that you are using the scum knowledge tell (scum know who is not scum) only you are using it backwards. You are asking how Toro knows that Thomith is scum; so unless
you think Toro is bussing Thomith
this isn't even a tell. It's backwards; and if you think he is bussing you should have been voting either of them; but at the time of this post you are voting SleepyKrew while only FoSing Toro.
Did I say I was not thinking the bold? No.
You didn't explicity say you think Toro is bussing Thomith; but that is the only conclusion that can be drawn from your statement "are you saying there is no chance that Thomith is town." You are asking Toro how he knows that Thomith is scum with the implication that he has inside information. The only way he would
know
that Thomith is scum is if he is a daycop or they are scum buddies together. Since the first isn't true they would have to be scum buddies together.
Hoppster, 433 wrote:I'm not somebody who changes his vote every time he sees what he thinks is a scum-tell, because that would be stupid. You're dropping loads, but SleepyKrew has been taking priority because he is more obvious scum. In this case, I thought it was a scum-tell and thusly pressed (yes, I'm not an idiot,
I did realise it would mean Thormith is scum as well
), but believed SleepyKrew was still likelier scum taking everything into account.
And what's up with the bolded portion of this quote (which directly follows the previous one)? You try and admonish my argument that you didn't say they were scum together but then you admit that you knew that would be the case.
You're not reading my posts.
Hoppster wrote:
xvart wrote:
you think Toro is bussing Thomith
Did I say I was not thinking the bold? No.
This quote, in context, is quite obviously the bit I have isolated which you have missed, misunderstood, or just pretended did not exist.
You are accusing me of contradicting myself by saying that Toro wasn't bussing Thomith but they were scum together, or something stupid like that. However, this point is wrong, because as I clearly said earlier, I did NOT rule out Toro bussing Thomith. "Did I say I was not thinking the bold? No." "... yes, I'm not an idiot, I did realise it would mean Thormith is scum as well".
xvart wrote:If you were meaning to say "for someone who is likely town" or "someone who might be town" you should have said that because what you said definitively identifies me as town. It's what we call a scumslip since only scum would know definitively that I am town. Furthermore, the fact that you attempted to use examples and logic (incorrectly) further identifies you as scum because you attempting to undermine me (and my methods) and not defending or excusing the behavior. "town" =/= "scum or idiot" in any language, ESL or otherwise. The biggest problem you have with this whole issue is that you can't use the excuse "I was typing too fast and meant 'for someone who is likely town' or 'for someone who might be town'" because you have backed yourself into a corner and neither of those excuses would hold any weight given your expressed suspicion of me.
I'm not defending my behaviour, because I have nothing to defend. I am right. You are wrong.
I was trying to use examples and logic to show how I am right and your case is complete idotic crap.
xvart wrote:Your examples hold no weight. The point in contention is the proper noun (Homer Simpson, Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, or me as the case may be); not what they are saying that follows. In each of your examples, it cannot be argued that when you said "For Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen" you meant for "two people
other than
Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen" just like you can't argue that when you said "For town" (for someone who is town) you meant "For someone who is either scum or an idiot." Everything that follows is irrelevant to the argument (whether it be preferred make up, Christmas presents, or enjoyment of chess).
ASKFJGOEJGSLKL
THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM ARGUING AT ALL
THAT IS WHAT I AM ABSOLUTELY NOT ARGUING IN THE SLIGHTEST
READ WHAT I'M POSTING
IT IS ENTIRELY RELEVANT TO READ PAST THE "FOR X" PART
THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT I AM MAKING
Spoiler: Again, what I said earlier (blue annotations aren't quite so idiot-friendly, as I'm honestly struggling to think of a way to make it any more obvious how wrong you are than I already did, but you obviously just glossed over it)
Hoppster wrote:"For town" - the following only applies if you are town (fairly interchangeable with "if you're town")
This seems to be the main thing you're struggling to understand. Imagine an old man saying "For me, playing chess is fun!"
He's not saying playing chess is fun for everybody. He's saying it's fun for him. In other words, it only applies if you are him.
OF COURSE I DON'T MEAN "FOR ME" = "FOR ANYBODY APART FROM ME"
THAT WOULD BE REALLY, REALLY STUPID
YET SOMEHOW THAT'S HOW YOU'RE INTERPRETING IT
IT BOGGLES ME
BOGGLES ME
WHAT FOLLOWS THE "FOR ME" IS ENTIRELY, ENTIRELY RELEVANT AND YOU ARE BEING AN IDIOT BY IGNORING IT
HE IS SAYING THAT HE FINDS CHESS FUN
HE IS NOT SAYING THAT EVERYBODY FINDS CHESS FUN
I AM ARGUING THE ABOVE TWO SENTENCES
I AM NOT ARGUING THAT HE IS SAYING "EVERYBODY BUT ME FINDS CHESS FUN"
Or a TV advert with Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen saying "For us, L'Oreal is the only hair product we will use!"
They're not saying it's the only hair product that anybody uses, it means that it's the only hair product that they specifically will use. It only applies if you are them. (And then the wannabes out there who want to be just like them will then strive to use only L'Oreal.)
OF COURSE I DON'T MEAN "FOR US" = "FOR ANYBODY APART FROM US"
THAT WOULD BE REALLY, REALLY STUPID
YET SOMEHOW THAT'S HOW YOU'RE INTERPRETING IT
IT BOGGLES ME
BOGGLES ME
WHAT FOLLOWS THE "FOR US" IS ENTIRELY, ENTIRELY RELEVANT AND YOU ARE BEING AN IDIOT BY IGNORING IT
THEY ARE SAYING THEY USE L'OREAL
THEY ARE NOT SAYING EVERYBODY USES L'OREAL
I AM ARGUING THE ABOVE TWO SENTENCES
I AM NOT ARGUING THAT THEY ARE SAYING "EVERYBODY BUT US USES L'OREAL"
Now imagine an advert starring Homer Simpson, advertising a new DVD boxset. He says "For all true Simpsons fans, there's no superior Christmas present!"
He's not saying it's the best Christmas present for everybody - it only applies to Simpsons fans. (And if you know somebody who is a Simpsons fan, the clear suggestion is that you should buy them this DVD boxset.)
OF COURSE I DON'T MEAN "FOR ALL TRUE SIMPSONS FANS" = "FOR ANYBODY APART FROM ALL TRUE SIMPSONS FANS"
THAT WOULD BE REALLY, REALLY STUPID
YET SOMEHOW THAT'S HOW YOU'RE INTERPRETING IT
IT BOGGLES ME
BOGGLES ME
WHAT FOLLOWS THE "FOR ALL TRUE SIMPSONS FANS" IS ENTIRELY, ENTIRELY RELEVANT AND YOU ARE BEING AN IDIOT BY IGNORING IT
HE IS SAYING THAT THERE IS NO BETTER CHRISTMAS PRESENT FOR ALL TRUE SIMPSONS FANS
HE IS NOT SAYING THAT THERE IS NO BETTER CHRISTMAS PRESENT FOR ANYBODY
I AM ARGUING THE ABOVE TWO SENTENCES
I AM NOT ARGUING THAT HE IS SAYING "FOR EVERYBODY APART FROM ALL TRUE SIMPSONS FANS THERE IS NO BETTER CHRISTMAS PRESENT"
Finally, pretend we have Madonna advertising a new CD, and she says "For all true music fans, missing out on this would be stupid!"
She's not saying that if you don't buy her CD you're stupid. She is saying if you're a true music fan and you don't buy her CD, you're stupid. Not buying her CD would mean you're either not a true music fan, or you are a true music fan but you're stupid. Thus all the people who do regard themselves as true music fans will feel pressured into buying the CD, because to not would either mean they are not a true music fan or that they are stupid.
OF COURSE I DON'T MEAN "FOR ALL TRUE MUSIC FANS" = "FOR ANYBODY APART FROM TRUE MUSIC FANS"
THAT WOULD BE REALLY, REALLY STUPID
YET SOMEHOW THAT'S HOW YOU'RE INTERPRETING IT
IT BOGGLES ME
BOGGLES ME
WHAT FOLLOWS THE "FOR ALL TRUE MUSIC FANS" IS ENTIRELY, ENTIRELY RELEVANT AND YOU ARE BEING AN IDIOT BY IGNORING IT
SHE IS SAYING YOU'D BE STUPID NOT TO BUY THE CD IF YOU'RE A TRUE MUSIC FAN
SHE IS NOT SAYING THAT EVERYBODY WOULD BE STUPID TO NOT BUY THE CD
I AM ARGUING THE ABOVE TWO SENTENCES
I AM NOT ARGUING THAT SHE IS SAYING "EVERYBODY APART FROM TRUE MUSIC FANS WOULD BE STUPID NOT TO BUY THE CD"
IF YOU DON'T BUY THE CD THERE ARE TWO POSSIBILITIES
YOU ARE NOT A TRUE MUSIC FAN
YOU ARE A TRUE MUSIC FAN, BUT A STUPID ONE
THAT'S WHAT I'M ARGUING
HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT
xvart wrote:Scum motivated behaviors you have exhibited:
Changing reads that coincide with wagon momentum;
Attacking the attacker and not the attack;
Justifying actions after the fact with information not available and unprovable;
Knowing someone's town alignment;
Directing a possible vig kill to a single individual; and,
Mismatched suspicions and voting (debatable).
Okay, that's fair enough, but it is just a coincedence and nothing more.
I have admittedly been calling you an idiot repeatedly, but this is in tandem with argumets, not instead of.
What? How is that scum-motivated? Are you saying this couldn't happen to town? I hope this comes back to bite you on the ass as town one day.
No, you just can't read (or understand my arguments) properly.
So what? How is that scummy?
Debatable, fine. You admit yourself this isn't a 'solid' point so I won't bother defending (it'd just be "no it wasn't").
xvart wrote:Directing a vig kill is highly scummy because it is very easily manipulated by scum night actions
I ANSWERED THIS
AND YOU OBVIOUSLY AGAIN DID NOT READ IT
I AM ANGRY AND SUPRISED FOR SOME STUPID REASON WHEN REALLY I SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED YOU NOT TO READ IT
Spoiler: What I said earlier, pre-emptive annotations added in blue
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
Sundy wrote:Hoppster: an example of why xvart is more convincing: You padded your post with a million examples like Madonna and The Simpsons, but you kind of missed the point. You didn't say "if you're town, you'll feel blah blah blah," you said "for town, you'll feel blah blah blah." The lack of an If is key, and I think it's telling you inserted If into your defense, and said it was interchangeable when it is not.
YOU'RE NOT READING IT PROPERLY
AAARGH
READ IT
THAT PART IS NOT AN IMPORTANT PART, BUT IF YOU PRETEND IT DOESN'T EXIST AND THEN READ THE REST AND COME BACK AND READ IT AGAIN THEN IT SHOULD BE REALLLLLLLY OBVIOUS
Sundy wrote:
unvote, vote: Hoppster
Ohhhhh come on.
What the hell is it that xvart has going for him?
It must be his personality, because it's damn sure not his arguments, and both my username and avatar are superior to his.
SleepyKrew wrote:
Captain Corporal wrote:I have been keeping a few notes on people
Lynch All Liars
But I still think Hop is scum. What to do?
WHY IS THIS GUY STILL ALIVE
Spoiler: tl;dr for everybody not reading the wall-war
xvart doesn't read my posts where I already answer what he's saying. (See here.)
xvart is pushing a scum-slip which is not a scum-slip. (See here, same post as link above. It's in the spoiler.)
If you're not reading the walls, you DEFINITELY need to read my spoilered response to his supposed scum-slip, because despite my answer being incredibly comprehensive and idiot-friendly he continues to push the issue.
Benmage: First, for the sake of irony. I'm going to illustrate how completely idiotic and hypocritical scumhunter is.
Sundy wrote:
Sorry. My question was whether a player can target another player twice in a row on two consecutive nights.
why not?
Sundy wrote:
Could you also tell us whether, in a version of the Tspoon universe that included a 1-shot vig, whether a role-blocked vig would have used his 1 shot?
A roleblocked vig would still keep his shot. I am not saying there is a vig or roleblocker in the setup though
1 Thessalonians 5:21: Test everything, but hold fast onto what is good
"Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick"
~Screwtape
Sundy wrote:
Sorry. My question was whether a player can target another player twice in a row on two consecutive nights.
why not?
Sundy wrote:
Could you also tell us whether, in a version of the Tspoon universe that included a 1-shot vig, whether a role-blocked vig would have used his 1 shot?
A roleblocked vig would still keep his shot. I am not saying there is a vig or roleblocker in the setup though
Would they be informed of keeping their shot?
Plus, if you guys want to make a point, skip the walls, because everyone else in the game does as well. - Magister Ludi
Sundy wrote:Hoppster: an example of why xvart is more convincing: You padded your post with a million examples like Madonna and The Simpsons, but you kind of missed the point. You didn't say "if you're town, you'll feel blah blah blah," you said "for town, you'll feel blah blah blah." The lack of an If is key, and I think it's telling you inserted If into your defense, and said it was interchangeable when it is not.
YOU'RE NOT READING IT PROPERLY
AAARGH
READ IT
THAT PART IS NOT AN IMPORTANT PART, BUT IF YOU PRETEND IT DOESN'T EXIST AND THEN READ THE REST AND COME BACK AND READ IT AGAIN THEN IT SHOULD BE REALLLLLLLY OBVIOUS
OK. You should really P-edit your posts, and then slice out any extraneous language. I swear you were posting the exact same paragraph two or three times. I do not see how I am misinterpreting what you said at all. Your sentence seemed to be saying that if xvart were town, he would read what you said and see the sense in it. Except you left out the "if." Whatever. Let us drop that question for now.
So who should we vote? I am going to ignore everything you say about xvart, since your case seems built upon your problems with his case on you. And that leaves SK. Since your very second post, you have been pushing a lynch on SK. I actually had a town read on you at first because I liked your first attack on him-- that you pointed out that CC did not vote the miller claim. A lot of your other points did not seem as well-grounded, and were significantly more subjective. You have quoted his posts like 12 times and say "this is scummy."
Can you concisely state why SK is scum using analysis and evidence? Or anyone else that we should vote besides yourself?
Empking, you were saying how it was scummy for someone to expand their options of who they would vote for. If you look at Hoppster and his stance on PJ, you will say that he rules out a PJ lynch at first, and later says he is more open to the possibility. What do you think of that????
vollkan, 492 wrote:What's puzzling me here is that your initial case convinced me, but Hoppster's rebuttal seemed clear enough. However, I am now worried that, not having the ability to keep up with your walls (I've been reading them, but it's just hard to follow), I am missing something important on hoppster. It especially concerns me because the sort of tells you are identifying are precisely the type that I consider most important as scumtells.
Sometimes I do get a little verbose and as such lose the focus/clarity of my intent. I'll try and make a quick bullet point list to summarize it all.
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.
Hoppster, 502 wrote:THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM ARGUING AT ALL
THAT IS WHAT I AM ABSOLUTELY NOT ARGUING IN THE SLIGHTEST
READ WHAT I'M POSTING
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.
Hoppster, 502 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.
Hoppster admits this as well, although claims it is in tandem with counterarguments (which in some cases it is true, but other cases it is not);
Regarding justifying actions after the fact Hoppster says this:
Hoppster wrote:What? How is that scum-motivated? Are you saying this couldn't happen to town? I hope this comes back to bite you on the ass as town one day.
I agree that town does this, but not to the degree you've done it. The saying "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." The fact that you have done it repeatedly says something about your alignment. Multiple examples will be provided later.
This has been detailed to great extent, but I'm really less concerned with the original argument of him knowing my alignment and more concerned with the fact that he came back and claimed that when he said "for someone who is town" (or even "for someone whose likely town" if that were the case) he meant "for someone who is scum or idiot town." This is a blaring contridiction and as good of a backpedal as I've ever seen.
Directing a possible vig kill to a
single
individual is scummy despite his arguments to the contrary. As scum, you know if the single target is a part of your faction or not, so you can then allow the kill or not to the best outcome. You would also know your scum partners abilities and if there is a RBer so can make accomodations necessary if you have the ability to do so. If you don't direct it to a single individual then it is a lot more risky/less possible benefit without knowing who the specific target is.
