RVS is one possible way of giving us something to discuss about.
You can't just start playing without having something to discuss about.
You can't just start playing without having something to discuss about.
forum
PyP {~Restaurant-themed~} Mafia [Town Win!]
posted
Total Posts
973
yes you can, you generate something to discuss about by talking
Then start talking about stuff.
And don't just tell us that there's no need for RVS.
And don't just tell us that there's no need for RVS.
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 ^__^.
i'm goin to sleep now, nothing comes to mind sorry about that, we'll see when i wake up ^__^.
So you are basically saying that you have no intention of starting discussion?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 ^__^.
vote: Salvage
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?
Vote Luna there is just so much wrong with this postLuna 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?
FIRST OFF, you are voting Salvage on account of not contributing. Salvage's entire argument was that RVS doesn't create any good discussion. It's just a bunch of votes on a bunch of players and eventually you just mass unvote and that's that. If you vote a new player they fuck up and they dig themselves deeper explaining and you mislynch them and then we're even farther away. Town or scum familiar with the concept will know well enough not to trip over it, town or scum that don't know what's going on fuck themselves over. THERE IS NO WAY to get an alignment from it until you lynch someone over a possible screwup
SECOND, Salvage isn't being ultra-defensive, he is being ultra-offensive and actually discrediting a meh town strategy like randavotes over actually useful stuff like setup speculation instead of just going along with an easy lynch out of RVS, and then actually calling people out on the bullshit you among other people are throwing against him. You say Salvage is shutting off discussion but HE WENT TO SLEEP and you are voting for him because you know you can get an easy lnch on him if enough scum chime in.
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? YOU KEEP CALLING HIM SCUM, but he has yet to do anything scummy other than disagree with you.
what the FUCK is wrong with you
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
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
WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCKLuna 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
ARE YOU SERIOUSLY
I AM JUST
WHAT
NO IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT
Apparently it does
Users browsing this forum: Rantai and 0 guestsAny opinions, Rantai?
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
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
U mad?
Oh my god, over reaction.
I've already gone over my gripes with Salvage's reasoning behind his playstyle in another thread (not the playstyle itself). I can see where Luna is coming from and in part I agree. However the deflection that the vote was a RV in disguise is extremely weak, to the point where I think you're trying to dig yourself out of a shallow hole but ended up digging deeper. Not sure if that was a slip up or just the way you are.
Though my bigger concern is the apparent weak walls of text (of suspect amounts of 'emotion' for lack of better words) that Wojjan is spitting out. Maybe it's because I don't understand 50% of what he/she/it is saying but the whole thing just screams of "omg omg you attack Salvage, I rage".
It seems far too out there for a mafia this early in the game but I am not going to dismiss it this time because I know Wojjan is one of the less straight forward players.
Edit: English failure.
I've already gone over my gripes with Salvage's reasoning behind his playstyle in another thread (not the playstyle itself). I can see where Luna is coming from and in part I agree. However the deflection that the vote was a RV in disguise is extremely weak, to the point where I think you're trying to dig yourself out of a shallow hole but ended up digging deeper. Not sure if that was a slip up or just the way you are.
Though my bigger concern is the apparent weak walls of text (of suspect amounts of 'emotion' for lack of better words) that Wojjan is spitting out. Maybe it's because I don't understand 50% of what he/she/it is saying but the whole thing just screams of "omg omg you attack Salvage, I rage".
It seems far too out there for a mafia this early in the game but I am not going to dismiss it this time because I know Wojjan is one of the less straight forward players.
Edit: English failure.
Oh god a ninja, now to read again >.>
rvs worked on that other game, we lynched mafia leader (TBTE) D1
but that was probably extreme luck
but that was probably extreme luck
That wasn't RVS that was based on a testimony from DxS (we probably shouldn't discuss on going games)
The main reason I am having INCREDIBLE difficulty even believing that you aren't just scrabbling out of a losing battle by claiming that you didn't mean it is the way you phrased it. NOTHING in that ENTIRE POST can be interpreted as not serious. YOU DID HAVE A CASE, IT WAS JUST A BAD CASE. Your argument doesn't make sense in the slightest, but you can't use that to cover up the fact that you're still maknig an argument. Maybe you are scum, or just a bad town player, but it is too late for tricks like this. At this point on day one you cannot make a vote with deliberate intentional bad reasons.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.
The entire point I'm making is that RVS is not a good tool to incite discussion. I don't think you read anything at all that I wrote. The deadline should have been a day ago, but because of modly absence the day is extended indefinitely. Why do you fence that as an argument against Salvage too? How is that related to anything I said? Why would you not allow Salvage to log off?! PLEASE READ WHAT YOU TYPE. YOU ARE REPRIMANDING SALVAGE FOR GOING TO BED IN REAL LIFE.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.
READ THE SECOND PART OF MY POST AGAIN. I am saying that scum would do exactly what you are describing: find a scapegoat to shove the blame on, vote them, get a bandwagon going. Salvage DIDN'T. That is PRO-TOWN, INFINITELY MORE THAN WHAT SHIT YOU'RE TRYING TO PULL.
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.So am I to understand that you are full of shit or that you're promoting lurking as townstrat?
I thing you have a far too gross expectation of the amount of posts in a game, especially one this small, with the mod gone, day hung on hold indefinitely and the deadline being long past. DISCUSSION IS NOT DEAD. BESIDES, Salvage didn't even withhold any discussion, he said he was going to start discussion TOMORROW, AFTER GOING TO BED. WHY DO YOU ONLY READ PARTS OF POSTS.
Luna wrote:
Btw, my vote on Salvage stays for now despite being a kind of RV because I still don't like his playstyleYES VERY.
I'm not really sure what to think of this argument between Wojjan and Luna. It's possible that Salvage and Wojjan are both mafia and trying to protect each other, but isn't that too obvious? It makes me feel as if a scenario like that is almost impossible -- unless of course they planned this, in which case they're aiming for a hit or miss.
...however, it's clearly not worth a vote yet. We'll see how things progress
...however, it's clearly not worth a vote yet. We'll see how things progress
Do you seriously think I'd believe that it would be possible to lynch Salvage D1 over something trivial like that? Even if all scum did hop on a potential wagon, it's D1 so we would still need a TON of townie votes. And while most people here are certainly no pros at the game, I have enough faith in them to be convinced that they wouldn't blindly hammer over something like that. You said yourself that my attack was completely baseless and doesn't make real sense, don't you think at least some other players would have noticed that as well? I agree btw, the attack sucked. Because it wasn't supposed to kill anyone.
Again, as I already said in my first post, I would have voted Salvage pretty much regardless of what he'd post. Unlucky timing that he had to go to bed right then. And what's that about the day being indefinitely on hold? Did I miss something? As far as I know Backfire is currently hosting while animask is gone and he is still here. Deadline is not yet over either, I think you are confusing games or something (Or I missed something huge lol).
@the two quotes about scumminess of RVS:
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"?
Again, as I already said in my first post, I would have voted Salvage pretty much regardless of what he'd post. Unlucky timing that he had to go to bed right then. And what's that about the day being indefinitely on hold? Did I miss something? As far as I know Backfire is currently hosting while animask is gone and he is still here. Deadline is not yet over either, I think you are confusing games or something (Or I missed something huge lol).
@the two quotes about scumminess of RVS:
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"?
Oh man when was the last time I saw a textwall that big
You said you never called RVS scum, then I pointed out exactly where you called RVS scum. The only reason that could have worked is if you meant lurking is just as scummy as RVS (not at all) (that is not true) (you are bad at this)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"?
Luna do you know what a vote means? A vote is basically "THIS IS THE PERSON I WANT DEAD TODAY." You do not just throw them around like they're sparklers or something. You can use them as a warning, but you don't use them just to get things going. That's why RVS is bad, and that's why your logic is bad and that's why if you do not get lynched today I will not hesitate to pursue your lynch any next day.
There is a difference between RVS in general and pushing a random lynch. RVS is not scummy in itself, pushing a random lynch is. You just took the quotes out of context to make them look ridiculous.
Let me explain step-by-step how these quotes came into existence:
Also, the other quote doesn't say that I'd never called RVS scummy, it says that I didn't accuse anybody of saying just that. But that's kinda besides the point since it's true that I didn't call RVS scummy.
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?
Let me explain step-by-step how these quotes came into existence:
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?Here you say that instead of stopping discussion (what I was accusing him of), he'd rather push for a random lynch since it'd benefit him more. To that I replied with:
Accusing someone randomly in RVS is no more scummy than not contributing at all.By that, I meant that as scum he could certainly push for a random lynch. But just doing nothing and leaving town without discussion (again, what I accused him of) would be at least as good, if not better in the long run. This post DOES NOT say that RVS is scummy or anything, just that the benefits scum could pull out of RVS are not bigger than those they get out of lurking/hindering discussion.
Also, the other quote doesn't say that I'd never called RVS scummy, it says that I didn't accuse anybody of saying just that. But that's kinda besides the point since it's true that I didn't call RVS scummy.
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?
BUT HE ISN'T DOING THAT EITHERLuna wrote:
But just doing nothing and leaving town without discussion (again, what I accused him of) would be at least as good
I am pretty sure that JUST NOW you admitted that you didn't want to pressure but just wanted conversation and that alone.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 Salvagelol
I've said that pretty clearly since the beginning. If you want to re-read some of my posts, I rather clearly state that I just wanted a reaction from someone so we can have a starting point for some discussion (or "conversation" as you choose to call it) and I also said at multiple points that I didn't expect a reaction from Salvage himself, so I didn't really pressure him.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.
so if you don't want salvage dead and you don't want to pressure hiw WHY ARE YOU FUCKING VOTING HIMLuna wrote:
I've said that pretty clearly since the beginning. If you want to re-read some of my posts, I rather clearly state that I just wanted a reaction from someone so we can have a starting point for some discussion (or "conversation" as you choose to call it) and I also said at multiple points that I didn't expect a reaction from Salvage himself, so I didn't really pressure him.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.
do you read your posts or do you just yell at a stenographer
My post about voting was an example. Lynching and Pressuring are not the only uses for votes. My vote was what you could call a "bait vote" to bait reactions from elsewhere. There's also distancing votes and stuff like that =) (Read my post againt, there's a little "etc" after "pressure voting" indicating that those are not the only possible uses of votes)
there is NO SUCH THING, bait votes are only used by scum trying to weasel out of a bad post.
foulcoon, if you dont mind, can you change the title to day 1? (you can do that right?)
Unvote
Salvage's disapproval on RVS seem more of a dismotivating, not pressuring. On the other hand, it also seems like an attempt on generating a discussion, only it ended up "well why don't you give us a better option, smartass?"
Even though I agree on every parts with you, you REALLY REALLY look like you are trying to protect Salvage. The usual scenario would 1) Salvage posts a poorly worded defense 2) People takes it as a suspicious post 3) lynch (no hard feelings though). For a person like you, who highly respects Salvage as a mafia player, this may be a natural action. However, you action felt a bit too hasty on timing and *ahem* unusually aggressive. I would have understood if you protected Salvage by rewording Salvage's post for town, but you jumped in right away with a high confident in Salvage being the town side. I would like you to explain why you were so convinced that Salvage is pro-town?
Until then, Vote: Wojjan
Salvage's disapproval on RVS seem more of a dismotivating, not pressuring. On the other hand, it also seems like an attempt on generating a discussion, only it ended up "well why don't you give us a better option, smartass?"
Even though I agree on every parts with you, you REALLY REALLY look like you are trying to protect Salvage. The usual scenario would 1) Salvage posts a poorly worded defense 2) People takes it as a suspicious post 3) lynch (no hard feelings though). For a person like you, who highly respects Salvage as a mafia player, this may be a natural action. However, you action felt a bit too hasty on timing and *ahem* unusually aggressive. I would have understood if you protected Salvage by rewording Salvage's post for town, but you jumped in right away with a high confident in Salvage being the town side. I would like you to explain why you were so convinced that Salvage is pro-town?
Until then, Vote: Wojjan
wow , just wow .. is this real love
anyways i just woke up and got a call from work so i have to go there, i'll see if i have time there to post something there (which i really really doubt) but otherwise i'll be here later
i readed everything really fast and i don't understand it, luna seems like he's posting a lot of stupid stuffs but the reacting from wojjan it's like wtf, even if you love me and i love you why defend me like if i were a greek god rofl
anyways i'll read later guys cya
anyways i just woke up and got a call from work so i have to go there, i'll see if i have time there to post something there (which i really really doubt) but otherwise i'll be here later
i readed everything really fast and i don't understand it, luna seems like he's posting a lot of stupid stuffs but the reacting from wojjan it's like wtf, even if you love me and i love you why defend me like if i were a greek god rofl
anyways i'll read later guys cya
also before i go i wanna say that everything wojjan said it's pretty logic, still the way she reacted seems weird but way more logic than luna whose trying to like cover himself over and over with things that are getting more dumb with every post
Salvage wrote:
also before i go i wanna say that everything wojjan said it's pretty logic, still the way she reacted seems weird but way more logic than luna whose trying to like cover himself over and over with things that are getting more dumb with every post
Was thinking the same thing.Sync wrote:
Salvage wrote:
also before i go i wanna say that everything wojjan said it's pretty logic, still the way she reacted seems weird but way more logic than luna whose trying to like cover himself over and over with things that are getting more dumb with every post
Luna was pushing for a lynch on the only good player in the ENTIRE game and I am not letting that happen, especially not on D1, especially not without proof, especially not with a bogus argument.
I am a million million timeses convinced that Luna is scum right now and seeing people vote me because I ACTUALLY SPEAK UP is just
disheartening really. if you want discussion so bad then don't lynch everyone who's talking and actually making an opinion for a change.
disheartening really. if you want discussion so bad then don't lynch everyone who's talking and actually making an opinion for a change.
Luna, this "I got a reaction, mission accomplished." thing, is bullshit, it's day one and all you're trying to do is turn everyone againt each other.
Mafia:
Wojjan
Luna
Salvage
good job guys we're almost done already
Wojjan
Luna
Salvage
good job guys we're almost done already
why is foulcoon so good
btw back home in like 40 minutes
btw back home in like 40 minutes
ok
Vote: Luna
Vote: Luna
Vote: Sync
you are three letters off but points for trying I guess
so four mafs are Me salvage Luna and Sync?
so four mafs are Me salvage Luna and Sync?
seems likely
Clearly Luna and Foulcoon are mafiafoulcoon wrote:
Vote: Sync
Don't we all have to do that? And what's the problem with pushing a lynch against a good player? And why are you aggressively defending for it while Salvage could have dealt by himself (and you are calling him the ONLY good player, which means you agree Salvage could have dealt with it) ?Wojjan wrote:
Luna was pushing for a lynch
You also don't have a clear evidence on why Salvage is pro-town. You said we need a proof when we are pushing for a lynch. I agree with you. However, defense should also have a proof on why the person is a town if you are going to play with "you need proof" game. Without that, it's really hard for me to understand why you aggressively defended Salvage like that at all.
Sync: You don't just ride on a vote train like that. You should write why Luna is a suspicious person. It doesn't have to be made by you, meaning you could go on Wojjan's post for example, point out stuff you agree with and the reason why you agree with it. Do that for your next post, or else I'll consider as a mafia trying to blend in with townies.
are you saying we are the townies where he's trying to blend?
in that case then the rest of your post doesn't make sense and you should vote for luna
in that case then the rest of your post doesn't make sense and you should vote for luna
Okay, lets call it "what it seems the general town view". And I don't know how Sync considers you guys, but he's behavior seems like he's trying to blend in to the game.
And I don't know about you yet. You don't stand and neither sides if we go with the "proof" game.
He even admitted that he was trying to get a reaction. He wanted to make other people look bad. Sounds scummy to me.
Wow don't you think this is just a little premature?
I do agree that Luna's announcement was extremely scummy (dummy vote) but forming a wagon this early won't benefit us at all. If anything I'd rather wait for everyone to say their piece before moving through. As far as I can tell some of us haven't posted for a while.
On that note, weren't you the one saying that we shouldn't be lynching those who are talking? Yet here we are. (@Wojjan)
I do agree that Luna's announcement was extremely scummy (dummy vote) but forming a wagon this early won't benefit us at all. If anything I'd rather wait for everyone to say their piece before moving through. As far as I can tell some of us haven't posted for a while.
On that note, weren't you the one saying that we shouldn't be lynching those who are talking? Yet here we are. (@Wojjan)
Nope. I'm questioning the haste by which this vote is moving.
Oh and pointing out hypocrisy of sorts.
Oh and pointing out hypocrisy of sorts.
if we're gonna keep calling that "too fast" excuse then we'll never squeeze out a lynch because everyone starts voting but then "woah woah this is going too fast" and you start a lynch on me for starting that lynch but then that also goes fast and then we just keep on going in circles.Rantai wrote:
Nope. I'm questioning the haste by which this vote is moving.
Oh and pointing out hypocrisy of sorts.
Hrm good point I guess.
Though I'm still adamant on hearing everyone's opinion first.
Though I'm still adamant on hearing everyone's opinion first.
who specifically are you waiting on or do you absolutely want to be the one to hammer Luna?Rantai wrote:
Though I'm still adamant on hearing everyone's opinion first.
Argh, I just wrote a stupid long post and when I clicked submit the page failed to load and deleted everything u.u
Brb, typing stuff again...
Brb, typing stuff again...
please be more conciseI know that you don't want me to post a long post to defend myself because you'll be on me regardless; but I don't want to be mislynched so, to quote you, "Fuck You".
It's still quite a bit shorter because I didn't have the nerve to post everything again...
Wojjan, your reasons for wanting me lynched so bad are kind of ridiculous. You base all your agression on my vote on Salvage which, as has been made clear several times, would NEVER have led to his lynch. Even I agree that the attack/vote was super-weak, baseless and wouldn't have done anything, but that was not its intention. Yet you insist that I was "pushing for his lynch"? Sure, next thing you'll claim that RVs are pushing for someone's lynch?
I did expect someone to call me out for voting Salvage in such an obviously bad way, but when that first post consists mostly of Capslock and ad hominem (I can't even count the number of "Fuck you"s and "You suck"s), that's blowing it way out of proportion don't you think? If you think that I'm scum, you could calmly convince town with arguments and if they make sense, town would follow you. Instead you decide to intimidate everyone into voting me no matter what. Again, this is because of a single vote that wouldn't have done ANYTHING to Salvage in the long run. Salvage had even already reacted to it, by posting a reply with pretty much no reaction which is the right thing to do. Yet you still think he would have died if you didn't flame me to death with a huge wall of capslock? Your main complaint with my strategy-claim (forcing a reaction to get discussion started) was that "something like that doesn't exist" or "bait-votes don't exist". Just because it isn't called like that on mafiascum doesn't mean it can't exist. It certainly baited a reaction out of you, so how can you deny its existence? How is it impossible that that was my intention?
Instead of looking at all the possibilities (you know, like town should. To avoid mislynches and stuff) you decided to make this thread 100% about "Luna is scum" and deny any kind of further discussion with your over-the-top agression that will make sure that anyone who thinks differently will feel your wrath next. You even made it very easy for you to just continue like that by saying that you'd continue voting for me every day if I don't die now.
All that because of a single vote that wouldn't have killed anyone. Talk about blowing stuff out of proportion. The only real explaination I can see for your overexaggerated behaviour is that you need to kill me and feel like this is your only/best chance. Are you a lyncher? (inb4 "Calling your attacker a lyncher to escape a lynch? scumscumscumscumscum")
Sync, your reason for voting me is basically that I was trying to "force reactions" and you call that scummy. That is not at all true. I did fish for reactions, but that's not a scummy thing to do - sure, it can be used in a scummy way by making someone look scummy in their reaction and then jumping on them. But in general, reactions are good for town. It's where reads come from: No reactions means no discussions or reads. Without discussion or reads, scum wins. So it's in town's best interest to get reactions and analyze them. Scumhunting (= the most pro-town thing you can do) relies a lot on forcing reactions, so if your only reason for voting me is "you were trying to force reactions", then I can't understand you. If you have different reasons, that's okay.
And just for the record, this is what I do/do not want and think because people seem to be confused by the way Wojjan posts my quotes out of context and think actually want Salvage dead or something.
1) I did not like how Salvage discredits RVS all the time but does not actively try to start discussion himself in any discernable way.
2) I do NOT however want him lynched for that. He does exactly the same thing every game, so it's hardly a scumtell. Duh
3) I wanted to force a reaction from someone
4) I did NOT want to force a scummy reaction to bandwagon someone. That Wojjan's post turned out to be so ridiculously strange is a coincidence.
Just in case it helps you believe my claimed strategy, go look at my posts before my vote on Salvage. they are all about how we need to get discussion going. Then Salvage says that he isn't responsible for starting discussion (or at least that's how I understood the post) so after nothing had happened so far I felt like I should do it. Because, you know, no discussion = scum win. Easiest way to generate discussion is with a controversial vote, so I did just that. And as you can see, it worked. The thread is no longer dead. The only reason that we are only talking about me being scum is because Wojjan decided to post a huge wall of Capslock which is hard for anyone to ignore.
What's the votecount? I didn't really want to claim but it looks like I'm not given a choice.
vote: Wojjan (inb4 "OMGUS-vote??? scumscumscumscumscum")
Wojjan wrote:
who specifically are you waiting on or do you absolutely want to be the one to hammer Luna?
-
Salvage* - NoHItter*
- JInxyjem*
-
Luna* -
Hernan* - DeathxShinigami*
-
foulcoon* - pieguy1372*
-
Sync* -
palion* -
Rantai* - Lilac*
-
Wojjan* -
bmin11* - TBTE*
And holy wall of text.
To be honest I don't really think Luna is scum. Most of what she (he?) says makes sense to me which also wouldn't point towards a scumtell (except the dummy vote). Also I don't think Wojjan is either, this is way too aggressive to be a mafia play in my opinion. That much attention just begs to be lynched which makes no sense for a mafia player. Lyncher seems far more likely and if so we can probably deny him/her/its opportunity to win.
If you want my honest opinion, the fact that Salvage barely reacted on top of the fact that he rode the wave into Luna's wagon raises my eyebrows.
Edit: My suspicions also extend to those who just went "Oh ok, vote". It's so blatant it hurts.
If you want my honest opinion, the fact that Salvage barely reacted on top of the fact that he rode the wave into Luna's wagon raises my eyebrows.
Edit: My suspicions also extend to those who just went "Oh ok, vote". It's so blatant it hurts.
I'm a guy, despite the feminine nicknameRantai wrote:
she (he?)
Oh before I go to sleep, food for thought (to the best of my ability in this state of mind).
Vote Count:
Luna (4) - Wojjan, Sync, Salvage, palion
Wojjan (2) - bmin, Luna
Hernan (1) - Lilac
Sync (1) - foulcoon
Less than 24 hours, 8 to hammer.
Vote Count:
Luna (4) - Wojjan, Sync, Salvage, palion
Wojjan (2) - bmin, Luna
Hernan (1) - Lilac
Sync (1) - foulcoon
Less than 24 hours, 8 to hammer.
so you find me suspicious cause i barelly reacted to Luna's non-sense accusation (which btw he also said it was baseless)
makes me think you don't read the thread, which of course you could do as mafia since you know who your partners are.
unvote, vote Rantai
makes me think you don't read the thread, which of course you could do as mafia since you know who your partners are.
unvote, vote Rantai
Luna wrote:
Salvage discredits RVS all the time but does not actively try to start discussion himself in any discernable way.
rofl
anyways i'm still up for lynching luna btw, cause he didn't say anything logic still and his 'tactics' are stupid and trying to pull some retarded move and then cover it by saying it was based on creating discussion on the most counterproductive way possible (with an accusation that will not lead anywhere at all).
Well, what else could that vote have done?
Kill you? Most certainly not.
Get an reaction out of you? We all know that you won't react to a bad vote like that.
I won't blame you if you don't believe me though
Kill you? Most certainly not.
Get an reaction out of you? We all know that you won't react to a bad vote like that.
I won't blame you if you don't believe me though
You want my opinion on this thread?
Wojjan has a hard on for Salvage, defends him by the Chainsaw Defence approach triggered by a crappy vote to begin with.
Salvage basically does nothing, like always. Probably because he's got Wojjan as his servant or something.
Luna's digging a bigger hole by STILL talking back to Wojjan.
Rantai is stating the obvious. I mean, of course people won't react to anything if they think it's nothing.
Everyone else is too afraid to post, not wanting to raise suspicion to get either lynched D1 or be a possible NK target N1. Or don't really have the opportunity to do it.
Unvote, Vote: Wojjan. I don't want someone aggressive like you in the further days ahead. Plus, lynching you is probably the key to determining whether you defended Salvage and attacked Luna for the right reasons.
Wojjan has a hard on for Salvage, defends him by the Chainsaw Defence approach triggered by a crappy vote to begin with.
Salvage basically does nothing, like always. Probably because he's got Wojjan as his servant or something.
Luna's digging a bigger hole by STILL talking back to Wojjan.
Rantai is stating the obvious. I mean, of course people won't react to anything if they think it's nothing.
Everyone else is too afraid to post, not wanting to raise suspicion to get either lynched D1 or be a possible NK target N1. Or don't really have the opportunity to do it.
Unvote, Vote: Wojjan. I don't want someone aggressive like you in the further days ahead. Plus, lynching you is probably the key to determining whether you defended Salvage and attacked Luna for the right reasons.
so you want to lynch the only logic player so far
seems smart lilac, not as town tho.
seems smart lilac, not as town tho.
Nope, I'm policy lynching against an aggressive player. If Wojjan said anything logical, it was lost in the myriad of caps lock and incoherence. Or maybe I just hate reading coloured, capitalised text.
But since you both seem to be BFFs, you could probably translate!
But since you both seem to be BFFs, you could probably translate!
i don't need to translate anything, i'm surprised you're so selective in which posts do you read and which not only for the caps or colour posts when it doesn't matter if the content makes total sense
you wanting to lynch someone cause of agressiveness it's so bad it makes me want to cry.
you wanting to lynch someone cause of agressiveness it's so bad it makes me want to cry.
That and I did say it would give the most information about the justification of aggression. If Wojjan comes up Mafia, you're mostly likely mafia as well. If Wojjan comes up town, you're probably town.
Don't cry man, remember the times we were on Skype with NyaaKoneko? Anyway, it's not that fact if it makes sense, it's if I want to waste my time, reading something which I'm pretty sure...is just Cee Lo Green.
Don't cry man, remember the times we were on Skype with NyaaKoneko? Anyway, it's not that fact if it makes sense, it's if I want to waste my time, reading something which I'm pretty sure...is just Cee Lo Green.
are you saying then that you want to lynch wojjan without reading his posts cause you assume it's cee lo green whatever that means?
Oh, Cee Lo Green. Essentially I think it's all of Wojjan's posts are just "Fuck you." posts.Lilac wrote:
Unvote, Vote: Wojjan. I don't want someone aggressive like you in the further days ahead. Plus, lynching you is probably the key to determining whether you defended Salvage and attacked Luna for the right reasons.
Now, you do know Chainsaw Defences are clearly a frickin' scum tell. Wojjan basically wants you to keep surviving since you're clearly the greatest asset this town has. Sure, I can believe that. The fact is, that don't mean shit unless you're town. Lynching Wojjan will show if you're actually town and whether Luna's mafia or not. It's essentially two birds with one stone.
I can see why Salvage voted for you...
You haven't said anything. At all.
Can you at least give your opinion of the thread so far?
Can you at least give your opinion of the thread so far?
IN WHICH LILAC GIVES UP ON BEING A TOUGH GUYLilac wrote:
Unvote, Vote: Wojjan. I don't want someone aggressive like you in the further days ahead. Plus, lynching you is probably the key to determining whether you defended Salvage and attacked Luna for the right reasons.
Oh shit, Mama Wojjan's gonna get mad guys.
Run for your lives!
Run for your lives!
this is again a million times wrong, do you have a second?Luna wrote:
please be more conciseI know that you don't want me to post a long post to defend myself because you'll be on me regardless; but I don't want to be mislynched so, to quote you, "Fuck You".
It's still quite a bit shorter because I didn't have the nerve to post everything again...
Wojjan, your reasons for wanting me lynched so bad are kind of ridiculous. You base all your agression on my vote on Salvage which, as has been made clear several times, would NEVER have led to his lynch. Even I agree that the attack/vote was super-weak, baseless and wouldn't have done anything, but that was not its intention. Yet you insist that I was "pushing for his lynch"? Sure, next thing you'll claim that RVs are pushing for someone's lynch?
I did expect someone to call me out for voting Salvage in such an obviously bad way, but when that first post consists mostly of Capslock and ad hominem (I can't even count the number of "Fuck you"s and "You suck"s), that's blowing it way out of proportion don't you think? If you think that I'm scum, you could calmly convince town with arguments and if they make sense, town would follow you. Instead you decide to intimidate everyone into voting me no matter what. Again, this is because of a single vote that wouldn't have done ANYTHING to Salvage in the long run. Salvage had even already reacted to it, by posting a reply with pretty much no reaction which is the right thing to do. Yet you still think he would have died if you didn't flame me to death with a huge wall of capslock? Your main complaint with my strategy-claim (forcing a reaction to get discussion started) was that "something like that doesn't exist" or "bait-votes don't exist". Just because it isn't called like that on mafiascum doesn't mean it can't exist. It certainly baited a reaction out of you, so how can you deny its existence? How is it impossible that that was my intention?
Instead of looking at all the possibilities (you know, like town should. To avoid mislynches and stuff) you decided to make this thread 100% about "Luna is scum" and deny any kind of further discussion with your over-the-top agression that will make sure that anyone who thinks differently will feel your wrath next. You even made it very easy for you to just continue like that by saying that you'd continue voting for me every day if I don't die now.
All that because of a single vote that wouldn't have killed anyone. Talk about blowing stuff out of proportion. The only real explaination I can see for your overexaggerated behaviour is that you need to kill me and feel like this is your only/best chance. Are you a lyncher? (inb4 "Calling your attacker a lyncher to escape a lynch? scumscumscumscumscum")
Sync, your reason for voting me is basically that I was trying to "force reactions" and you call that scummy. That is not at all true. I did fish for reactions, but that's not a scummy thing to do - sure, it can be used in a scummy way by making someone look scummy in their reaction and then jumping on them. But in general, reactions are good for town. It's where reads come from: No reactions means no discussions or reads. Without discussion or reads, scum wins. So it's in town's best interest to get reactions and analyze them. Scumhunting (= the most pro-town thing you can do) relies a lot on forcing reactions, so if your only reason for voting me is "you were trying to force reactions", then I can't understand you. If you have different reasons, that's okay.
And just for the record, this is what I do/do not want and think because people seem to be confused by the way Wojjan posts my quotes out of context and think actually want Salvage dead or something.
1) I did not like how Salvage discredits RVS all the time but does not actively try to start discussion himself in any discernable way.
2) I do NOT however want him lynched for that. He does exactly the same thing every game, so it's hardly a scumtell. Duh
3) I wanted to force a reaction from someone
4) I did NOT want to force a scummy reaction to bandwagon someone. That Wojjan's post turned out to be so ridiculously strange is a coincidence.
Just in case it helps you believe my claimed strategy, go look at my posts before my vote on Salvage. they are all about how we need to get discussion going. Then Salvage says that he isn't responsible for starting discussion (or at least that's how I understood the post) so after nothing had happened so far I felt like I should do it. Because, you know, no discussion = scum win. Easiest way to generate discussion is with a controversial vote, so I did just that. And as you can see, it worked. The thread is no longer dead. The only reason that we are only talking about me being scum is because Wojjan decided to post a huge wall of Capslock which is hard for anyone to ignore.
What's the votecount? I didn't really want to claim but it looks like I'm not given a choice.
vote: Wojjan (inb4 "OMGUS-vote??? scumscumscumscumscum")
Yes I have a second
Post away
Post away
That's exactly why he shouldn't have voted for me. I'm still trying to decide who I believe. I think Luna went too fast and made everyone turn against him, but I can't tell for sure if he was really trying to get a reaction from Salvage or he made a mistake.
The only thing I know for sure is that Wojjan and Salvage are working together, and Salvage knows I didn't take any side yet, so I don't see you he would he vote me knowing that something like that would put me against him.
Salvage is being too suspicious to me, but seeing as things are going I want to see his reaction to this:
Vote: Wojjan
The only thing I know for sure is that Wojjan and Salvage are working together, and Salvage knows I didn't take any side yet, so I don't see you he would he vote me knowing that something like that would put me against him.
Salvage is being too suspicious to me, but seeing as things are going I want to see his reaction to this:
Vote: Wojjan
Just to clear this up, I didn't try to get a reaction from Salvage (It's well known that he won't react to a random/bad vote against him) but from anybody else. I got a reaction from Wojjan, but it was a "bit" more agressive than expected lolHernan wrote:
[...] but I can't tell for sure if he was really trying to get a reaction from Salvage or he made a mistake.
Was I the only one who threw something across the room?Hernan wrote:
Salvage is being too suspicious to me, but seeing as things are going I want to see his reaction to this:
Vote: Wojjan
I asked you to be concise because I didn't feel like reading an A4 worth of your bullshit again which you could get across in three lines of bullet points.Luna wrote:
please be more conciseI know that you don't want me to post a long post to defend myself because you'll be on me regardless; but I don't want to be mislynched so, to quote you, "Fuck You".
It's still quite a bit shorter because I didn't have the nerve to post everything again...
Wojjan, your reasons for wanting me lynched so bad are kind of ridiculous. You base all your agression on my vote on Salvage which, as has been made clear several times, would NEVER have led to his lynch. Even I agree that the attack/vote was super-weak, baseless and wouldn't have done anything, but that was not its intention. Yet you insist that I was "pushing for his lynch"? Sure, next thing you'll claim that RVs are pushing for someone's lynch?If you vote someone, you are pushing for their lynch. I have been over this a million times that I don't buy your excuse that your attack was intentionally bad, or that you were baiting, so please stop bringing it up.
I did expect someone to call me out for voting Salvage in such an obviously bad way, but when that first post consists mostly of Capslock and ad hominem (I can't even count the number of "Fuck you"s and "You suck"s), that's blowing it way out of proportion don't you think? If you think that I'm scum, you could calmly convince town with arguments and if they make sense, town would follow you. Instead you decide to intimidate everyone into voting me no matter what. Again, this is because of a single vote that wouldn't have done ANYTHING to Salvage in the long run.Protip: Fuck you and you suck are not ad hominems. Stop trying to make me look bad.
Your argument was bad, very bad, and if I saw anyone pull that especially as a townie, since back then I was still doubting for a second if you were scum, I would accuse them all the same. I yell at you, deal with it.
Salvage had even already reacted to it, by posting a reply with pretty much no reaction which is the right thing to do.I want to know in what perverted hellhole you learnt to play mafia where not responding to posts where people accuse you is a good thing to do.
Yet you still think he would have died if you didn't flame me to death with a huge wall of capslock?I didn't say that.
Your main complaint with my strategy-claim (forcing a reaction to get discussion started) was that "something like that doesn't exist" or "bait-votes don't exist". Just because it isn't called like that on mafiascum doesn't mean it can't exist. It certainly baited a reaction out of you, so how can you deny its existence? How is it impossible that that was my intention?I have often voiced my complaint to NoHItter that mafiascum is an incomplete piece of fuck and that anyone who uses it is either grasping at straws or inherently bad at recognising bad strategies, but you bringing it up explains a lot more about your past posts than it should have.
Instead of looking at all the possibilities (you know, like town should. To avoid mislynches and stuff) you decided to make this thread 100% about "Luna is scum" and deny any kind of further discussion with your over-the-top agression that will make sure that anyone who thinks differently will feel your wrath next. You even made it very easy for you to just continue like that by saying that you'd continue voting for me every day if I don't die now.I did not say that. I am not saying you are scum and everyone else is town, stop putting words in my mouth.
All that because of a single vote that wouldn't have killed anyone. Talk about blowing stuff out of proportion. The only real explaination I can see for your overexaggerated behaviour is that you need to kill me and feel like this is your only/best chance. Are you a lyncher? (inb4 "Calling your attacker a lyncher to escape a lynch? scumscumscumscumscum")Yes, because it was a bad vote. Believe you that my first draft was a lot angrier than all my current posts, and that I had to severely cut on the fuck yous to fit forum regulations. This is a game of arguing so if you can't deal with someone yelling at you I suggest you quit now.
I am not a lyncher, and I did not say killing you now is my only OR best chance. Lynching you now or lynching you on lylo will not make a difference to me.
And just for the record, this is what I do/do not want and think because people seem to be confused by the way Wojjan posts my quotes out of context and think actually want Salvage dead or something.I did not quote anything out of context, I quoted parts of your posts of which to context did not diminish anything of their truth. Read them again, read them better. If you still don't get it I will spell it out for you.
1) I did not like how Salvage discredits RVS all the time but does not actively try to start discussion himself in any discernable way.1) Salvage was adding to discussion
2) I do NOT however want him lynched for that. He does exactly the same thing every game, so it's hardly a scumtell. Duh
3) I wanted to force a reaction from someone
4) I did NOT want to force a scummy reaction to bandwagon someone. That Wojjan's post turned out to be so ridiculously strange is a coincidence.
2) You were saying he wasn't scum and that you could have picked anyone, but now your reason which you expected to be called out on is apparently legit again? Please just stop posting.
3) You were scrabbling out of a bad accusation. Whether you are town or mafia at this point doesn't matter if you admit to deliberately posting false opinions to confuse town.
Just in case it helps you believe my claimed strategy, go look at my posts before my vote on Salvage. they are all about how we need to get discussion going. Then Salvage says that he isn't responsible for starting discussion (or at least that's how I understood the post)then read it again, because that's not what it says
so after nothing had happened so far I felt like I should do it. Because, you know, no discussion = scum win. Easiest way to generate discussion is with a controversial vote, so I did just that. And as you can see, it worked. The thread is no longer dead. The only reason that we are only talking about me being scum is because Wojjan decided to post a huge wall of Capslock which is hard for anyone to ignore.which brings me to 4) You say you wanted someone to post a reaction to your post, but not want to lynch them over it. However, you're voting me at the end of your wall. I did exactly what your bait was supposedly gonna do and now I'm scum because of it?
vote: Wojjan (inb4 "OMGUS-vote??? scumscumscumscumscum")you did this with the lyncher thing too, where you make a scummy argument, actually state that it's a scummy argument, and then make it anyway, slipping it in there with an inb4. THIS DOES NOT DISCREDIT IN ANY WAY THAT THIS IS A SCUMMY ARGUMENT.
Now I'm gonna go on a tangent for a sec explaining what a bait vote is and how you use it:
What you did, Luna, was post a very controversial, obviously bad reason to vote someone, and wait for a reaction. That is pretty much the only part you did that had anything in common with a baitvote.
A baitvote is usually made on a flimsy reasoning, BUT WAITS FOR PEOPLE TO JUMP ON THAT BANDWAGON instead. THOSE PEOPLE FOLLOW YOU, AND YOU KNOW YOUR REASONS SUCK. THEY ARE SCUM. This is what a bait vote is fundamentally. You post a dumb thing, and wait to see if someone says “you've got a point Vote Salvage”
The other thing that could happen is someone calls you out on it. YOUR BAITVOTE FAILED, BUT AT LEAST A CRITICAL THINKER CALLED YOU OUT ON IT. THIS IS PRO-TOWN. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO HOLD AGAINST THEM A MOMENT LATER TO VOTE OVER.
What you did, Luna, was post a very controversial, obviously bad reason to vote someone, and wait for a reaction. That is pretty much the only part you did that had anything in common with a baitvote.
A baitvote is usually made on a flimsy reasoning, BUT WAITS FOR PEOPLE TO JUMP ON THAT BANDWAGON instead. THOSE PEOPLE FOLLOW YOU, AND YOU KNOW YOUR REASONS SUCK. THEY ARE SCUM. This is what a bait vote is fundamentally. You post a dumb thing, and wait to see if someone says “you've got a point Vote Salvage”
The other thing that could happen is someone calls you out on it. YOUR BAITVOTE FAILED, BUT AT LEAST A CRITICAL THINKER CALLED YOU OUT ON IT. THIS IS PRO-TOWN. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO HOLD AGAINST THEM A MOMENT LATER TO VOTE OVER.
Lilac, Luna has exactly said one logical thing in all of their posts: DISCUSSION IS GOOD. You do not want to lynch people who are aggresive, call people out on bad play, and actually look for scum. I'm surprised that you do not know that a policy lynch always hurts town, because, well, you don't base it on shit other than someone's attitude.
You yourself have tried playing aggressive in your last few games, want me to lynch you over it?
You yourself have tried playing aggressive in your last few games, want me to lynch you over it?
Hernan wrote:
The only thing I know for sure is that Wojjan and Salvage are working together
i lol'd at this.
are we?, i'm saying his posts are pretty logic totally opposite to Luna's.
does someone want to proove me wrong?
You cannot deny that Salvage is a very good mafia player. I don't think I have seen him lose games, or not by his own fault. Why would you let a sucky vote on him pass through WITHOUT defending him would be more fitting.bmin11 wrote:
Don't we all have to do that? And what's the problem with pushing a lynch against a good player? And why are you aggressively defending for it while Salvage could have dealt by himself (and you are calling him the ONLY good player, which means you agree Salvage could have dealt with it) ?Wojjan wrote:
Luna was pushing for a lynch
You also don't have a clear evidence on why Salvage is pro-town. You said we need a proof when we are pushing for a lynch. I agree with you. However, defense should also have a proof on why the person is a town if you are going to play with "you need proof" game. Without that, it's really hard for me to understand why you aggressively defended Salvage like that at all.
Defense does actually NOT require proof! You need to make a compelling argument as to why you think a person is scum, all arguments you make as to why a person is town are useless unless mechanical. We are not townhunting.
As for defending him, Salvage just wasn't around, and Lune even admitted that he didn't want a reaction from salvage so I don't see why you are bringing this up
did you miss Lilac's vote on me? Why would you need two pressure votes? Why would you admit a pressure vote is a pressure vote before making it? This seems like a dumb approach to voting, and an attempt to sneak your vote onto me and get me closer to a lynch. Please unvote.Hernan wrote:
Salvage is being too suspicious to me, but seeing as things are going I want to see his reaction to this:
Vote: Wojjan
I meant aggression as in coloured text and caps lock spam. Sure, I've been aggressive through my other games and I know policy lynches are bad but you just really hit the nail in the coffin with your posts in page 6 or 7 or w/e.
Salvage, please use the word "logical" and not "logic". Logic is a noun, logical is an adjective.
Unvote. Vote: Hernan. I'll unvote. Plus, I did not like the way Hernan worded his voting.
Salvage, please use the word "logical" and not "logic". Logic is a noun, logical is an adjective.
Unvote. Vote: Hernan. I'll unvote. Plus, I did not like the way Hernan worded his voting.