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.
forum
PyP {~Restaurant-themed~} Mafia [Town Win!]
posted
Total Posts
973
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.
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.
Plus, stop bashing on grammar. If you can understand what a post means it's good enough.
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
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
Unvote
if an omgus is your only condition to vote someone why aren't you voting Luna yet
I'm not bashing on grammar. I'm just helping for the correct usage of it...usually people prefer it if they said it the right way...I dunno.
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.
Wasn't this a mafia thread? Also, Lilac, what part of -retarded vote- you didn't get?
you didn't answer my question
why would you ostracise someone for calling your vote retarded if you called your vote retarded
why would you ostracise someone for calling your vote retarded if you called your vote retarded
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.
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.
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.
Sorry Wojjan, I had no idea what "omgus" means, Salvage just explained it to me. I guess you're right then Vote: Luna
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.
well you WERE voting me instead of Luna and if you think that argument makes sense why did it not when I made it?
Oh...if it was in that big wall of text, then I wouldn't have read it...
I read the Page 12 one though so...
I read the Page 12 one though so...
If you say so. Vote: Luna.
Oh yeah, nice job tricking Sinistro as well.
Oh yeah, nice job tricking Sinistro as well.
Sorry for massive wall of text again, just felt like I needed to reply to Wojjan's ridiculous accusations~
Didn't proofread, so if you find big grammar mistakes or anything that's why.
I'm only pushing for a lynch if I actually try to get someone killed. There's stuff like pressure votes or bait votes that don't intend to kill anyone but instead collect information. Let me quote Two from 111111, since you guys accept him as a good player:
"ad hominem" means personal attacks to discredit one's actions or arguments.
When your reactions to my vote and me explaining the intentions behind my vote are mostly "You Suck" and "Fuck You" that's clearly an attempt to make me look ridiculously bad and thus discredit my actions. That's the definition of ad hominem.
But I don't even care what you call it, it's not really appropriate behavior anyway.
And yes, my arument was very bad. I don't blame you for voting me. What I do blame you for is your overly exaggerated focus on only that vote and your crazy overagression.
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.
You acted like it.
What? Did you even read my post? I don't even use mafiascum and this post doesn't say I do lol All I use it for is checking rules because games on this forum seem to generally follow mafiascum.
You literally said that "bait votes don't exist" (If you want, I can even look the quote up and post it for you). What do you base this on? Personal experience? Well, then your experience is incomplete. I just assumed that you opened mafiascum, searched for the term and didn't find anything (I don't even know if it's listed) since you were obviously were baited by the vote and thus should have acknowledged that stuff like that exists.
Stop trying to make me look bad like that lol
Of course you didn't say everybody else is town. But you say that I am scum. Or is that wrong? If you think I'm town you wouldn't push my lynch that overly agressive unless you had a reason (read: Lyncher).
What I'm accusing you of is that your extreme playstyle focuses everything only on me and any other discussion that might move away from a Luna-lynch WILL get drowned in your sea of agression.
I can deal with it fine, but it's annoying when half the post consists of personal attacks instead of content.
Of course you didn't SAY it. That would ruin your chances at winning. You just FELT like you had to take the first opportunity before anyone could be confirmed. And sure, when you lynch me doesn't change anything for you, only that you actually get me lynched. But same goes for a lyncher.
Then spell it out. There were multiple instances where you quoted "contradictions" that were not actually contradictions but looked like it out of context. Like the RVS vs Lurking scumminess issue.
1) If you say so...
2) I didn't say that playstyle was necessarily scummy, I said that even if it were a scumtell (it's not, but I still dislike his play) it wouldn't be a viable one on Salvage since he does it every game.
3) I didn't try to confuse town, I tried to get information. Since when does "force reactions" equal to "confuse town"? Stop putting words in my mouth.
I posted that we should get discussion started. Salvage said something along the lines of "Someone will start it eventually" I told him to do it himself if he already hated on RVs and he replied something like "I'm not the one who brought that up 2 hours ago". 2 hours ago was me posting that we need to get discussion started asap (deadlines and stuff, you know?) so to me that looked like "I didn't bring it up, I'm not responsible. Start discussion yourself".
I'd say that's an understandable train of thoughts.
I never voted for you up to this point and it was not because of your initial reaction. I believe you are town. Your behaviour so far however has convinced me that you are most likely a Lyncher and that is absolutely not pro-town even if they are "technically" town.
fyi, after so many (long) posts this hardly qualifies as OMGUS. Otherwise nobody would ever be allowed to vote for their attacker. Nobody. Ever. (This is also @Hernan. OMGUS looks different, I just knew it would be brought up regardless)
And Lyncher is my genuine read on you after you displayed you crazy over-focus on only lynching me asap no matter what (And you saying that you'll vote me any day after this even if I survive, no matter what).
Congratulations, you did understand what I would have done if anyone would have voted Salvage.
And you attacking me did make me think you are town. I still think that. Just that you are a Lyncher and thus effectively anti-town. I never said that it was wrong to attack me. I even said that it was the right decision (to lazy to look for the exact quote, but it's there). I didn't vote you because you "attacked me" but because of the way you decided to follow up on that attack.
Didn't proofread, so if you find big grammar mistakes or anything that's why.
SPOILER
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'm only pushing for a lynch if I actually try to get someone killed. There's stuff like pressure votes or bait votes that don't intend to kill anyone but instead collect information. Let me quote Two from 111111, since you guys accept him as a good player:
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.
SPOILER
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.
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.
"ad hominem" means personal attacks to discredit one's actions or arguments.
When your reactions to my vote and me explaining the intentions behind my vote are mostly "You Suck" and "Fuck You" that's clearly an attempt to make me look ridiculously bad and thus discredit my actions. That's the definition of ad hominem.
But I don't even care what you call it, it's not really appropriate behavior anyway.
And yes, my arument was very bad. I don't blame you for voting me. What I do blame you for is your overly exaggerated focus on only that vote and your crazy overagression.
SPOILER
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.
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.
SPOILER
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.
You acted like it.
SPOILER
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.
What? Did you even read my post? I don't even use mafiascum and this post doesn't say I do lol All I use it for is checking rules because games on this forum seem to generally follow mafiascum.
You literally said that "bait votes don't exist" (If you want, I can even look the quote up and post it for you). What do you base this on? Personal experience? Well, then your experience is incomplete. I just assumed that you opened mafiascum, searched for the term and didn't find anything (I don't even know if it's listed) since you were obviously were baited by the vote and thus should have acknowledged that stuff like that exists.
Stop trying to make me look bad like that lol
SPOILER
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.
Of course you didn't say everybody else is town. But you say that I am scum. Or is that wrong? If you think I'm town you wouldn't push my lynch that overly agressive unless you had a reason (read: Lyncher).
What I'm accusing you of is that your extreme playstyle focuses everything only on me and any other discussion that might move away from a Luna-lynch WILL get drowned in your sea of agression.
SPOILER
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.
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.
I can deal with it fine, but it's annoying when half the post consists of personal attacks instead of content.
Of course you didn't SAY it. That would ruin your chances at winning. You just FELT like you had to take the first opportunity before anyone could be confirmed. And sure, when you lynch me doesn't change anything for you, only that you actually get me lynched. But same goes for a lyncher.
SPOILER
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.
Then spell it out. There were multiple instances where you quoted "contradictions" that were not actually contradictions but looked like it out of context. Like the RVS vs Lurking scumminess issue.
SPOILER
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.
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.
1) If you say so...
2) I didn't say that playstyle was necessarily scummy, I said that even if it were a scumtell (it's not, but I still dislike his play) it wouldn't be a viable one on Salvage since he does it every game.
3) I didn't try to confuse town, I tried to get information. Since when does "force reactions" equal to "confuse town"? Stop putting words in my mouth.
SPOILER
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
I posted that we should get discussion started. Salvage said something along the lines of "Someone will start it eventually" I told him to do it himself if he already hated on RVs and he replied something like "I'm not the one who brought that up 2 hours ago". 2 hours ago was me posting that we need to get discussion started asap (deadlines and stuff, you know?) so to me that looked like "I didn't bring it up, I'm not responsible. Start discussion yourself".
I'd say that's an understandable train of thoughts.
SPOILER
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?
I never voted for you up to this point and it was not because of your initial reaction. I believe you are town. Your behaviour so far however has convinced me that you are most likely a Lyncher and that is absolutely not pro-town even if they are "technically" town.
SPOILER
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.
fyi, after so many (long) posts this hardly qualifies as OMGUS. Otherwise nobody would ever be allowed to vote for their attacker. Nobody. Ever. (This is also @Hernan. OMGUS looks different, I just knew it would be brought up regardless)
And Lyncher is my genuine read on you after you displayed you crazy over-focus on only lynching me asap no matter what (And you saying that you'll vote me any day after this even if I survive, no matter what).
SPOILER
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.
Congratulations, you did understand what I would have done if anyone would have voted Salvage.
And you attacking me did make me think you are town. I still think that. Just that you are a Lyncher and thus effectively anti-town. I never said that it was wrong to attack me. I even said that it was the right decision (to lazy to look for the exact quote, but it's there). I didn't vote you because you "attacked me" but because of the way you decided to follow up on that attack.
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?
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.
on baitvotes: baitvotes is the biggest bullshit ever, it never works and is ALWAYS in my experience scumm pedaling back from a bad lynch before it happens, or scumpainting someone who went along because they don't know what else to do.
baitvotes happen, but never work as a tactic which you have once again proven, so I say that baitvotes as a strategy does not exist.
baitvotes happen, but never work as a tactic which you have once again proven, so I say that baitvotes as a strategy does not exist.
you also don't get what an ad hominem is. When I say fuck you, I am not saying "your argument is wrong because fuck you. I am saying "your argument is wrong for so-and-so reason. Fuck you."
"You suck You suck You suck You suck You suck You suck" And "How could you think that? Fuck You!" make it look like I'm so bad that you don't even need to explain anything. It's ad hominem.
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.
Any player would assume if someone acts serious about a serious reason to seriously vote that the player is being serious. They would respond in line. Salvage had no cues to know that your vote was a baitvote, only to know that your vote was a shit vote.
[quote="Wikipedia, backed up by four references,":16909]Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an ad hominem or a logical fallacy.Luna wrote:
"You suck You suck You suck You suck You suck You suck" And "How could you think that? Fuck You!" make it look like I'm so bad that you don't even need to explain anything. It's ad hominem.
Umm, of course I wouldn't say publicly that it's a bait vote. Nobody would react if I did. Acting like it's serious is kind of the point if you want anyone to react.Wojjan wrote:
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.
Any player would assume if someone acts serious about a serious reason to seriously vote that the player is being serious. They would respond in line. Salvage had no cues to know that your vote was a baitvote, only to know that your vote was a shit vote.I agree, it was a shitvote. So he didn't respond. That's the correct play.
Yet you still try to make me look horrible because I said it was right for him to not react? You make no sense.
i suggest you drop it luna, cause you're deffending the impossible, your very first idea was bad and it's still bad.
we could save a day or so if you want to roleclaim to avoid your lynch, cause i don't really see another way i would not vote for you.
we could save a day or so if you want to roleclaim to avoid your lynch, cause i don't really see another way i would not vote for you.
no, YOU don't make any sense! If someone votes you for a shit reason you say the reason is shit! YOU DON'T IGNORE ITLuna wrote:
Umm, of course I wouldn't say publicly that it's a bait vote. Nobody would react if I did. Acting like it's serious is kind of the point if you want anyone to react.Wojjan wrote:
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.Any player would assume if someone acts serious about a serious reason to seriously vote that the player is being serious. They would respond in line. Salvage had no cues to know that your vote was a baitvote, only to know that your vote was a shit vote.I agree, it was a shitvote. So he didn't respond. That's the correct play.
Yet you still try to make me look horrible because I said it was right for him to not react? You make no sense.
And while "name calling" may not be ad hominem in itself, it can be used as such (Like back there, it was supposed to make me look like a horrible player and thus discredit my actions).
But again, I don't really care about terminology, it doesn't change your behaviour.
But again, I don't really care about terminology, it doesn't change your behaviour.
no it was supposed to make you look like a horrible player. I provided ample reasons to discredit your actions otherwise.
And whatever, looks like I really have to claim now.
Didn't really want to with this role, but whatever...
I'm a 3-Shot Paranoid Doctor (= Jailkeeper)
Don't really want to claim my food yet in case there are activated abilities that use that information (like in 111111) unless you can provide good reasons why I should.
Didn't really want to with this role, but whatever...
I'm a 3-Shot Paranoid Doctor (= Jailkeeper)
Don't really want to claim my food yet in case there are activated abilities that use that information (like in 111111) unless you can provide good reasons why I should.
what
If you mean flavor, there is no special flavor text. Just that I protect someone from poison if that counts.