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.
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
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
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.
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.
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".
Wojjan wrote:
who specifically are you waiting on or do you absolutely want to be the one to hammer Luna?
I'm a guy, despite the feminine nicknameRantai wrote:
she (he?)
Luna wrote:
Salvage discredits RVS all the time but does not actively try to start discussion himself in any discernable way.
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.
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.
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")
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hernan wrote:
The only thing I know for sure is that Wojjan and Salvage are working together
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.
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
That's like voting you because you have a touhou avatar. Why would you do that?Lilac wrote:
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.
Hernan wrote:
So what, you think I'm defending Luna or something?
I really don't trust you or Wojjan, but none of you voted me even after my retarded vote, I'll unvote for now because I thought you'd do what Lilac did and you didn't.Salvage wrote:
Hernan wrote:
So what, you think I'm defending Luna or something?
idk to who you directed that post, but i'd like you to elaborate why you vote wojjan pls
Salvage's vote for obviously for Hernan to contribute and/or post on thread, I even told him explicitly it was for that reason. For him to interpret that as something hostile is an overreaction.Hernan wrote:
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.
Why would you say someone is being too suspicious of yourself and then vote for a reaction leading to probably even more suspicion?Hernan wrote:
Salvage is being too suspicious to me, but seeing as things are going I want to see his reaction to this:
you have a "for" too many. For is a preposition, and generally you only need oneLilac wrote:
Salvage's vote for obviously for Hernan to contribute and/or post on thread, I even told him explicitly it was for that reason. For him to interpret that as something hostile is an overreaction.
Fixed, I actually wouldn't have realised that if you didn't point that out. I usually leave out '-ing' in words as well.Lilac wrote:
Salvage's vote for Hernan was for him to contribute and/or post on thread, I even told him explicitly it was for that reason. For him to interpret that as something hostile is an overreaction.
see this was the main argument I made against Luna too so why are you voting me insteadLilac wrote:
Also, we're past that stage now of random/retarded votes and yet you insisted of continuing on a dead road. That is not productive in any way shape or form.
I'm not voting for you now...? 0_oWojjan wrote:
see this was the main argument I made against Luna too so why are you voting me insteadLilac wrote:
Also, we're past that stage now of random/retarded votes and yet you insisted of continuing on a dead road. That is not productive in any way shape or form.
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.
that's because this is a game about lying. Just because I say someone is mafia doesn't mean I actually think that.So yeah, your point is wrong. A single vote does not necessarily equal pushing for a 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.Protip: Fuck you and you suck are not ad hominems. Stop trying to make me look bad.
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.
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.
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.
I don't trust him, but the statement is true regardless.Wojjan wrote:
111111 never ended, you don't know what Two's alignment is. I don't see why you trust Two there, but you question me trusting Salvage here.
And you never relayed 2) out of that heap: You are saying that your argument on Salvage is well-founded, but earlier you said you could have picked anyone to vote on. So was it a legit suspicion or not? Or did you genuinelly go through the effort of coming up with a good argument to serve as your bad argument?It was not a legit suspicion, just the easiest "pseudo-reason" I could come up with that would get a reaction. Any other reason would have been too obvious of a random vote.
please try harder. At the time where you'd expect a reaction out of salvage, you didn't publicly say that your vote was a baitvote, OR a random vote, OR whatever you want to call your shit. You came up with a faulty reason to vote someone, and pretended it was serious.Luna wrote:
SPOILERSalvage 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.
I think Salvage agrees that not responding in revealing ways to random/obviously baseless votes is good play.
Or are you saying he is a bad player because his reply post didn't contain a response to my vote?
For serious votes, sure. But defending against every random vote is wrong.