Mini 1415: Fairly Oddparents Mafia Game Over

[PeregrineV]

@Captaineddie- Just want to point out that breaking the game with wishes and breaking the game based on names are all breaking the game.

And after being Harry Potter in Harry Potter mafia, I did not feel a strong desire to claim Timmy in Fairly Oddparents.

And adding spice is one thing, but pretty much every person was told to nameclaim, so it was not "just interesting". And if it's not scumhunting, then why devote 75% of your posts to name flavor?

[captaineddie]

@Captaineddie- Just want to point out that breaking the game with wishes and breaking the game based on names are all breaking the game.

And after being Harry Potter in Harry Potter mafia, I did not feel a strong desire to claim Timmy in Fairly Oddparents.

And adding spice is one thing, but pretty much every person was told to nameclaim, so it was not "just interesting". And if it's not scumhunting, then why devote 75% of your posts to name flavor?

It's not "breaking" the game with name claiming, how would that be the case? If indeed someone claimed a name that another player already had, that's two suspicions, not all three members outed. Big difference.

Why don't you want to claim Timmy? It's not like these name have any ACTUAL meaning behind them, and it makes for spicier game. To me, flavour is fun. The "75%" of his post dedicated to name flavour was only because you refused to claim. V thought he had something there, so he kept on tugging.

[Vifam]

PV you suck at this

[Sanjay]

I feel like it goes without saying that PV's Vifam case is uncompelling.

The question is whether it is scummy (or how scummy it is, probably).

On the one side, it feeds in to townPeregrine's extreme paranoia that the setup is more complicated than it seems. Peregrine's been very consistent about this, and it is the one thing that is causing me hesitation.

On the other hand, if you read that case alone, it really seems like Peregrine wrote the case because he wanted to have a case on Vifam, not because it is a good case. Maybe I'm just saying that because it is a really, really, bad case.

I am sorry I couldn't think of a more diplomatic way to put this, but Peregrine's play has been pretty dumb this game. The question is whether it is too dumb to be believed.

[Vifam]

1. Who is to say we can't get anything out of nameclaiming, you're claiming that it's completely useless, but if there is even a chance we can get something, why not, why is it such a big deal to you?

2. I never said not nameclaiming automatically makes you scum, that's an obvious misrepresentation

3. Anyone that has played with me knows that I post in short bursts, so of course 75% of what I say is gonna be on the same topic at the very start of the game.

[Vifam]

It's hard to believe PV has convinced myself that I'm scum based on the "case" he's posted on me

[Vifam]

Because it's bad, it's a bad case

[Balrog]

I don't see the scum motivation from Vifam here.

Do you see town motivation?

"We can't proved he pissed in your Wheaties, but he has a dick and a bladder, so he probably did."

Give me a break.

For the record, I was referring to the question where I asked you what game on MTGS you played in. But you're welcome to answer my other question, as well, as it's pretty obvious when my questions are meant to be rhetorical. (Hint: That wasn't a rhetorical question.)

@Balrog

- Can you group the players in groups of three, excluding yourself?

Group them into what, exactly?

I feel like it goes without saying that PV's Vifam case is uncompelling.

This.

[Vifam]

Also Balrog I am not dumb, ur dumb, You are the dumb one. YOU are the one who is not intelligent

[PeregrineV]

1. Who is to say we can't get anything out of nameclaiming, you're claiming that it's completely useless, but if there is even a chance we can get something, why not, why is it such a big deal to you?

Answered in 272.
And once again I will point out that each TOWN player has 2 wishes. You don't want to discuss the usefulness of them, but instead want nameclaims.

How does that knowledge help you catch scum?

2. I never said not nameclaiming automatically makes you scum, that's an obvious misrepresentation

This is true, you never said it.

3. Anyone that has played with me knows that I post in short bursts, so of course 75% of what I say is gonna be on the same topic at the very start of the game.

Would you say you expressed mild interest in the topic of nameclaims, or greater than mild, or less than mild?
And

How does that knowledge help you catch scum?

[PeregrineV]

For the record, I was referring to the question where I asked you what game on MTGS you played in. But you're welcome to answer my other question, as well, as it's pretty obvious when my questions are meant to be rhetorical. (Hint: That wasn't a rhetorical question.)

Oh yeah. I actually never got to play on MTGS. I signed up because a group came from the WOTC boards, but there wasn't enough room in the game PK set up. I tried to replace into other games, but was too slow. Since it was becoming another forum to check, I just stuck with the two I already have.

[PeregrineV]

In post 273, PeregrineV wrote:
@Balrog- Can you group the players in groups of three, excluding yourself?


Group them into what, exactly?

Groups of three players that can investigate each other tonight. We are allowed to organize, so having groups of three allows for pretty good coverage yet reduces the gamebreakiness of the first plan.

I would rather you choose the groups, since you are my strongest townread.

[Vifam]

It's one thing to discuss all the cool stuff we could do with our muffins, you were talking about outright breaking the game. Sorry I didn't find that interesting. If the topic was "All the cool stuff we could do with our muffins" I wouldn't lash have out at anybody.


It doesn't help me "catch scum" but it's interesting, and if there is chance that it could help us find scum, again, why not? Your argument is basically "I don't think it's important so the fact that you're proposing it MUST mean your scum" when in fact, I don't think it's that important either. It was just fun to see what characters were in the game and it doesn't harm a thing

[PeregrineV]

Also Balrog I am not dumb, ur dumb, You are the dumb one. YOU are the one who is not intelligent

[Vifam]

Literally nothing confusing about that post

[PeregrineV]

Literally nothing confusing about that post

What Balrog post(s) triggered that?

[Vifam]

The one where he called me dumb obviously

[PeregrineV]

It's one thing to discuss all the cool stuff we could do with our muffins, you were talking about outright breaking the game. Sorry I didn't find that interesting. If the topic was "All the cool stuff we could do with our muffins" I wouldn't lash have out at anybody.


It doesn't help me "catch scum" but it's interesting, and if there is chance that it could help us find scum, again, why not? Your argument is basically "I don't think it's important so the fact that you're proposing it MUST mean your scum" when in fact, I don't think it's that important either. It was just fun to see what characters were in the game and it doesn't harm a thing

But you haven't mentioned this. What cool things are you going to wish for?

[Vifam]

I'm probably going to shoot you

[Vifam]

No wait I'll ask for a gun for D2 then shoot you the minute it starts

[PeregrineV]

I'm probably going to shoot you

Revolutionary!

I'll be wishing for PGOness.

pedit: I'll wish for day/night PGOness, or better yet, vengeful!

[Human Destroyer]

Kids can't wield guns

js

[Vifam]

I'd also like someone shoot Kiwieagle scum can only backfire so much

[Balrog]

Also Balrog I am not dumb, ur dumb, You are the dumb one. YOU are the one who is not intelligent

ok

For the record, I was referring to the question where I asked you what game on MTGS you played in. But you're welcome to answer my other question, as well, as it's pretty obvious when my questions are meant to be rhetorical. (Hint: That wasn't a rhetorical question.)

Oh yeah. I actually never got to play on MTGS. I signed up because a group came from the WOTC boards, but there wasn't enough room in the game PK set up. I tried to replace into other games, but was too slow. Since it was becoming another forum to check, I just stuck with the two I already have.

Ah. I remembered seeing your name, I just didn't recall if you actually played and I didn't see you in the player list in Emo_Pinata's game, which is the one I thought you had played in.

In post 273, PeregrineV wrote:
@Balrog- Can you group the players in groups of three, excluding yourself?


Group them into what, exactly?

Groups of three players that can investigate each other tonight. We are allowed to organize, so having groups of three allows for pretty good coverage yet reduces the gamebreakiness of the first plan.

I would rather you choose the groups, since you are my strongest townread.

I thought we weren't going to do that.

[PeregrineV]

I thought we weren't going to do that.

@NumQ- How much coordination are we allowed to have/use?

I never said you couldn't coordinate. It's the game breaking I don't like.