TBTE wrote:

I'm taking the last slot.

fuck everyone

Salvage wrote:

confirm and going to sleep

• The manager of the restaurant stands near the podium and says his speech:
  
  I hope you're enjoying the food on your plates! I'd like to announce that you will be receiving
  even more food when the Chefs are ready again. They are taking a break after all of the cooking
  they have done. A round of applause for our chefs! If they were here, they would thank you for
  all your work in creating an exciting menu filled with a variety of things.....

DeathxShinigami wrote:

I've been told that if I get motivated I get a cool power.

TBTE wrote:

RQS:
1) What is your preferred alignment?
2) What role would you want to get in a game?
3) Would you lynch lurkers?
4) Would you use meta as a tool for scumhunting?
5) How often do you plan on posting? (Please set a quantifiable date... not just "when I have something to say")

1) Town ofc
2) A Basic Townie
3) Hm, that means i would have to lynch myself on most of the games i play so i guess not, unless it was a live or die situation
4) Um. Depends on the situation, i don't really know what this means.
5) Once every day.

NoHItter wrote:

A lot of the people in this game are already in pieguy's game.
I guess those who answered already in pieguys need not post in this thread.

Salvage wrote:

and what do you think about it palion

Luna wrote:

Oh, and Salvage. This is why RVS makes sense. It doesn't need to produce any results (and it likely won't if the players are good) but at least it usually gets *some* discussion started.

Salvage wrote:

i'm not the one that brought it up 2 hours ago.



i'm goin to sleep now, nothing comes to mind sorry about that, we'll see when i wake up ^__^.

Luna wrote:

At least my vote had potential to start discussion. Your ultra-defensive playstyle doesn't. Now, please tell me how it is good town play to shut out all possibities for discussion and continuously try to shove the responsibility onto someone else - not even someone specific but just the general group of players in the game, in a way that nobody will feel responsible in the end?

Luna wrote:

I got a reaction, mission accomplished. (Yes, that was pretty much my only intention. It worked better than expected - that Salvage himself wouldn't react was kinda obvious but it's easy enough to provoke others like you)
But since I'm nice I'll adress your points anyway:
1) I'm not calling RVS a "great method" or anything, but it certainly helps start discussion. My vote on Salvage was basically a random vote, just disguised as a serious one and your post shows how nicely it worked. As I said before - RVS is not there to find alignments or anything, it's to start discussion which is the base of every form of day-scumhunting.
2) Just saying "RVS sucks and you are all noobs if you do it" but not presenting other discussion starters is not being ultra-offensive. It's passive. I have been posting in an attempt to get at least a few posts by others. All Salvage did was saying "RVS sucks, discussion will start anyway." You see how well that has worked so far. And btw my vote was not directed towards the "I'm going to sleep" part but towards the "I'm not the one who brought it up" part which basically says "I'm not responsible for starting discussion" after he said multiple times that someone could just start it. But honestly, it wouldn't have really mattered what he posted - I would have probably voted him anyway since it DOES start discussion. Not the nicest way imaginable but at least this thread is no longer dead.
3) Again, he is discrediting all "workaround" ways to start discussion but doesn't suggest anything himself and doesn't show any initiative to change anything in this dead thread. Accusing someone randomly in RVS is no more scummy than not contributing at all.

So yeah, thanks for finally posting something <3 Even if I got a vote on me by doing so, it was worth it because a zero-discussion thread only benefits scum.
Btw, my vote on Salvage stays for now despite being a kind of RV because I still don't like his playstyle

Users browsing this forum: Rantai and 0 guests

Luna wrote:

I got a reaction, mission accomplished. (Yes, that was pretty much my only intention. It worked better than expected - that Salvage himself wouldn't react was kinda obvious but it's easy enough to provoke others like you) NO. That post was bad, and scummy, and you are not getting that rid with just because you say that you just wanted a reaction.

But since I'm nice I'll adress your points anyway: NO that is how the game works that's not being nice.

1) I'm not calling RVS a "great method" or anything, but it certainly helps start discussion. My vote on Salvage was basically a random vote, just disguised as a serious one and your post shows how nicely it worked. As I said before - RVS is not there to find alignments or anything, it's to start discussion which is the base of every form of day-scumhunting. The way you are considering RVS to work is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED. The very sole trait about RVS is that you provide nothing but incredibly flimsy reasoning like "I don't like your hair." YOU CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE DISGUISE AN RVS VOTE AS A SERIOSU VOTE. That does not work. The moment you build up enough of a case this late in the game, it is a serious vote. You are willingly picking a target and calling them out on scummy behavior, or at least trying to. THAT IS NOT RANDOM. What you describe is a bad vote, substantiated by nothing but false arguments against Salvage, which you cannot retract just by claiming it's an RVS vote.


2) Just saying "RVS sucks and you are all noobs if you do it" but not presenting other discussion starters is not being ultra-offensive. It's passive. I have been posting in an attempt to get at least a few posts by others. All Salvage did was saying "RVS sucks, discussion will start anyway." You see how well that has worked so far. And btw my vote was not directed towards the "I'm going to sleep" part but towards the "I'm not the one who brought it up" part which basically says "I'm not responsible for starting discussion" after he said multiple times that someone could just start it. But honestly, it wouldn't have really mattered what he posted - I would have probably voted him anyway since it DOES start discussion. Not the nicest way imaginable but at least this thread is no longer dead. Salvage was pressuring everyone and anyone who waas protecting RVS as a strategy, INCLUDING YOU. He was actively playing. IF YOU WANT OTHERS TO TALK, PROD THEM. There is no reason to vote on a million miles of bullshit just to provoke posts from other people. FURTHERMORE, YOUR LOGIC IS BS. The I'm not the one who brought it up part referred to that he wasn't the one who originally slagged RVS off, and you wre pretending he was the only dissenter in the game against it with your sassback "And don't just tell us that there's no need for RVS." Maybe that's just a really fucking bad miscommunication, but you are still twisting his words to fit your case. Salvage went to bed, and said and I FUCKING QUOTE: "we'll see tomorrow" He is NOT stopping discussion, he is LOGGING OFF FROM THE INTERNET, and you act as if he's doing jack. You ask him for a topic, he says "I'm going to bed, I'll be back tomorrow." THAT IS NOT SCUMMY. THAT IS NOT A VOTABLE OFFENSE.


3) Again, he is discrediting all "workaround" ways to start discussion but doesn't suggest anything himself and doesn't show any initiative to change anything in this dead thread. Accusing someone randomly in RVS is no more scummy than not contributing at all. NOBODY SAID RVS WAS SCUMMY. RVS is a bad way to get discussion going for the reasons I mentioned, NONE OF WHICH BY THE WAY YOU RELAYED. It is not a tactic for scum to start RVS, it's a tactic for scum to GO ALONG WITH RVS because it ALWAYS PROVIDES EASY MISLYNCHES FOR D1. I believe in unused mafia NoHItter actually got the game out of RVS really fast and we ended up lynching the mafia leader. RVS IS DEMONSTRABLY ANTI-TOWN, but that doesn't make anyone who starts it scum by definition. I am even more annoyed by the fact that YOU ARE STILL SAYING SALVAGE IS NOT CONTRIBUTING. Salvage has MORE POSTS THAN YOU, WITH MORE HANDS-ON CONTENT THAN YOURS.




Btw, my vote on Salvage stays for now despite being a kind of RV because I still don't like his playstyle FUCK YOU

Wojjan wrote:

Luna wrote:

I got a reaction, mission accomplished. (Yes, that was pretty much my only intention. It worked better than expected - that Salvage himself wouldn't react was kinda obvious but it's easy enough to provoke others like you) NO. That post was bad, and scummy, and you are not getting that rid with just because you say that you just wanted a reaction.
I don't really care, it was still worth it. Rather pull attention onto myself than accept an autoloss due to no discussion at all.

But since I'm nice I'll adress your points anyway: NO that is how the game works that's not being nice.

1) I'm not calling RVS a "great method" or anything, but it certainly helps start discussion. My vote on Salvage was basically a random vote, just disguised as a serious one and your post shows how nicely it worked. As I said before - RVS is not there to find alignments or anything, it's to start discussion which is the base of every form of day-scumhunting. The way you are considering RVS to work is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED. The very sole trait about RVS is that you provide nothing but incredibly flimsy reasoning like "I don't like your hair." YOU CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE DISGUISE AN RVS VOTE AS A SERIOSU VOTE. That does not work. The moment you build up enough of a case this late in the game, it is a serious vote. You are willingly picking a target and calling them out on scummy behavior, or at least trying to. THAT IS NOT RANDOM. What you describe is a bad vote, substantiated by nothing but false arguments against Salvage, which you cannot retract just by claiming it's an RVS vote.
My vote was not meant in a serious "I want to kill you" way and I didn't expect a response out of Salvage (so it's neither a serious nor a pressure vote). Salvage was just the person something like this would be easiest to pull off with since you already know beforehand that he won't react to a vote like that. Sure, I didn't choose him "randomly" but it could have hit anybody with that playstyle so I didn't plan to vote him or anything. Even if you don't want to call the vote itself a RV, the end result is similar and that's my whole point. You might notice that I actually don't have any real case against him and just pretended to in order to get reactions from just about anybody at all.


2) Just saying "RVS sucks and you are all noobs if you do it" but not presenting other discussion starters is not being ultra-offensive. It's passive. I have been posting in an attempt to get at least a few posts by others. All Salvage did was saying "RVS sucks, discussion will start anyway." You see how well that has worked so far. And btw my vote was not directed towards the "I'm going to sleep" part but towards the "I'm not the one who brought it up" part which basically says "I'm not responsible for starting discussion" after he said multiple times that someone could just start it. But honestly, it wouldn't have really mattered what he posted - I would have probably voted him anyway since it DOES start discussion. Not the nicest way imaginable but at least this thread is no longer dead. Salvage was pressuring everyone and anyone who waas protecting RVS as a strategy, INCLUDING YOU. He was actively playing. IF YOU WANT OTHERS TO TALK, PROD THEM. There is no reason to vote on a million miles of bullshit just to provoke posts from other people. FURTHERMORE, YOUR LOGIC IS BS. The I'm not the one who brought it up part referred to that he wasn't the one who originally slagged RVS off, and you wre pretending he was the only dissenter in the game against it with your sassback "And don't just tell us that there's no need for RVS." Maybe that's just a really fucking bad miscommunication, but you are still twisting his words to fit your case. Salvage went to bed, and said and I FUCKING QUOTE: "we'll see tomorrow" He is NOT stopping discussion, he is LOGGING OFF FROM THE INTERNET, and you act as if he's doing jack. You ask him for a topic, he says "I'm going to bed, I'll be back tomorrow." THAT IS NOT SCUMMY. THAT IS NOT A VOTABLE OFFENSE.
Okay, seems like I misunderstood his statement and thought it referred to the "Why don't you do something to start discussion". Just to clear this up, I don't particularly care about RVS. I just care about discussion, if no discussion starts and nobody is making any attempts to start it, RVS is at least a viable tool no matter how much you may choose to deny it. Oh, and "we'll see tomorrow" is not necessarily the best idea when we have deadlines and stuff. And Salvage wasn't really pressuring people who wanted to do a RVS, he was just attacking the concept of RVS itself. he could very well have chosen someone in particular and voted him/whatever. Following youtr logic that would not have been a RV since he had a reason, so it would have definitely been an option for him. Instead, he decided to just hate on the RVS and do nothing else to actually spark discussion. Just posting "RVS sucks and you shopuld be ashamed if you like it" is not pressuring.


3) Again, he is discrediting all "workaround" ways to start discussion but doesn't suggest anything himself and doesn't show any initiative to change anything in this dead thread. Accusing someone randomly in RVS is no more scummy than not contributing at all. NOBODY SAID RVS WAS SCUMMY. RVS is a bad way to get discussion going for the reasons I mentioned, NONE OF WHICH BY THE WAY YOU RELAYED. It is not a tactic for scum to start RVS, it's a tactic for scum to GO ALONG WITH RVS because it ALWAYS PROVIDES EASY MISLYNCHES FOR D1. I believe in unused mafia NoHItter actually got the game out of RVS really fast and we ended up lynching the mafia leader. RVS IS DEMONSTRABLY ANTI-TOWN, but that doesn't make anyone who starts it scum by definition. I am even more annoyed by the fact that YOU ARE STILL SAYING SALVAGE IS NOT CONTRIBUTING. Salvage has MORE POSTS THAN YOU, WITH MORE HANDS-ON CONTENT THAN YOURS.
I think you misunderstood me. I didn't claim anybody said RVS was scummy. It was directed towards your post where you suggested that instead of what he is currently doing, Salvage would have more/bigger advantages by RVing someone. I just stated that RVing may help scum in some circumstances, but not doing anything to start discussion is just as good.




Btw, my vote on Salvage stays for now despite being a kind of RV because I still don't like his playstyle FUCK YOU
U mad?

Luna wrote:

1) I'm not calling RVS a "great method" or anything, but it certainly helps start discussion. My vote on Salvage was basically a random vote, just disguised as a serious one and your post shows how nicely it worked. As I said before - RVS is not there to find alignments or anything, it's to start discussion which is the base of every form of day-scumhunting. The way you are considering RVS to work is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED. The very sole trait about RVS is that you provide nothing but incredibly flimsy reasoning like "I don't like your hair." YOU CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE DISGUISE AN RVS VOTE AS A SERIOSU VOTE. That does not work. The moment you build up enough of a case this late in the game, it is a serious vote. You are willingly picking a target and calling them out on scummy behavior, or at least trying to. THAT IS NOT RANDOM. What you describe is a bad vote, substantiated by nothing but false arguments against Salvage, which you cannot retract just by claiming it's an RVS vote.

My vote was not meant in a serious "I want to kill you" way and I didn't expect a response out of Salvage (so it's neither a serious nor a pressure vote). Salvage was just the person something like this would be easiest to pull off with since you already know beforehand that he won't react to a vote like that. Sure, I didn't choose him "randomly" but it could have hit anybody with that playstyle so I didn't plan to vote him or anything. Even if you don't want to call the vote itself a RV, the end result is similar and that's my whole point. You might notice that I actually don't have any real case against him and just pretended to in order to get reactions from just about anybody at all.

Luna wrote:

2) Just saying "RVS sucks and you are all noobs if you do it" but not presenting other discussion starters is not being ultra-offensive. It's passive. I have been posting in an attempt to get at least a few posts by others. All Salvage did was saying "RVS sucks, discussion will start anyway." You see how well that has worked so far. And btw my vote was not directed towards the "I'm going to sleep" part but towards the "I'm not the one who brought it up" part which basically says "I'm not responsible for starting discussion" after he said multiple times that someone could just start it. But honestly, it wouldn't have really mattered what he posted - I would have probably voted him anyway since it DOES start discussion. Not the nicest way imaginable but at least this thread is no longer dead. Salvage was pressuring everyone and anyone who waas protecting RVS as a strategy, INCLUDING YOU. He was actively playing. IF YOU WANT OTHERS TO TALK, PROD THEM. There is no reason to vote on a million miles of bullshit just to provoke posts from other people. FURTHERMORE, YOUR LOGIC IS BS. The I'm not the one who brought it up part referred to that he wasn't the one who originally slagged RVS off, and you wre pretending he was the only dissenter in the game against it with your sassback "And don't just tell us that there's no need for RVS." Maybe that's just a really fucking bad miscommunication, but you are still twisting his words to fit your case. Salvage went to bed, and said and I FUCKING QUOTE: "we'll see tomorrow" He is NOT stopping discussion, he is LOGGING OFF FROM THE INTERNET, and you act as if he's doing jack. You ask him for a topic, he says "I'm going to bed, I'll be back tomorrow." THAT IS NOT SCUMMY. THAT IS NOT A VOTABLE OFFENSE.

Okay, seems like I misunderstood his statement and thought it referred to the "Why don't you do something to start discussion". Just to clear this up, I don't particularly care about RVS. I just care about discussion, if no discussion starts and nobody is making any attempts to start it, RVS is at least a viable tool no matter how much you may choose to deny it. Oh, and "we'll see tomorrow" is not necessarily the best idea when we have deadlines and stuff. And Salvage wasn't really pressuring people who wanted to do a RVS, he was just attacking the concept of RVS itself. he could very well have chosen someone in particular and voted him/whatever. Following youtr logic that would not have been a RV since he had a reason, so it would have definitely been an option for him. Instead, he decided to just hate on the RVS and do nothing else to actually spark discussion. Just posting "RVS sucks and you shopuld be ashamed if you like it" is not pressuring.

Luna wrote:

3) Again, he is discrediting all "workaround" ways to start discussion but doesn't suggest anything himself and doesn't show any initiative to change anything in this dead thread. Accusing someone randomly in RVS is no more scummy than not contributing at all. NOBODY SAID RVS WAS SCUMMY. RVS is a bad way to get discussion going for the reasons I mentioned, NONE OF WHICH BY THE WAY YOU RELAYED. It is not a tactic for scum to start RVS, it's a tactic for scum to GO ALONG WITH RVS because it ALWAYS PROVIDES EASY MISLYNCHES FOR D1. I believe in unused mafia NoHItter actually got the game out of RVS really fast and we ended up lynching the mafia leader. RVS IS DEMONSTRABLY ANTI-TOWN, but that doesn't make anyone who starts it scum by definition. I am even more annoyed by the fact that YOU ARE STILL SAYING SALVAGE IS NOT CONTRIBUTING. Salvage has MORE POSTS THAN YOU, WITH MORE HANDS-ON CONTENT THAN YOURS.
I think you misunderstood me. I didn't claim anybody said RVS was scummy. It was directed towards your post where you suggested that instead of what he is currently doing, Salvage would have more/bigger advantages by RVing someone. I just stated that RVing may help scum in some circumstances, but not doing anything to start discussion is just as good.

I didn't claim anybody said RVS was scummy.

Accusing someone randomly in RVS is no more scummy than not contributing at all.

Luna wrote:

Btw, my vote on Salvage stays for now despite being a kind of RV because I still don't like his playstyle FUCK YOU U mad? YES VERY.

Luna wrote:

I said that lurking/doing nothing is AT LEAST as scummy as pushing a random lynch. So how exactly do you read that as "lurking is a good town strat"?

THIRD, what would be the point of shoving responsibility off him and not onto anyone else? If salvage were scum, wouldn't it make infinitely more sense to actually accuse someone of being a dipshit (ample opportunities) instead of just calling everyone dipshits? Why would he not wrist a lynch out of it while he's going?

Accusing someone randomly in RVS is no more scummy than not contributing at all.

Luna wrote:

But just doing nothing and leaving town without discussion (again, what I accused him of) would be at least as good

Luna wrote:

And votes do not only say "I want you dead", they are also a tool for scumhunting. Ever heard of pressure voting etc? Hell, your beloved Salvage does it all the time. Or look at any game with Two - I can almost guarantee he'll vote for about half the players on D1, does that mean he wants all of them dead or that he is awful?

your beloved Salvage

Wojjan wrote:

I am pretty sure that JUST NOW you admitted that you didn't want to pressure but just wanted conversation and that alone.