no, i just find it intensely irritating that people let katsuki think that his play is even remotely okIn post 1670, Bert wrote:Do u think he or she is capable of playing better??? Examples from the past???
It was one of my worst town games ever.
How about you get your head out of your ass, stop trying to meta-scumhunt, and focus on this game. Katsuki has posted plenty. You think he's scum? Look in his posts and find a case. It's possible.In post 1679, Idiotking wrote:See, this is what happens when people go so far against policy lynching. It encourages people to just not play, period. You can't kill them, because then you're not scumhunting, which means they aren't incentive to play any harder. Which means you can't get any reads on them, which means you CAN'T scumhunt. It effectively limits the town's targets to people who are active, giving people who AREN'T active a free pass. That just sucks the life right out of Mafia. I don't care if the meta changes, I don't care if people start looking for different kinds of tells, THIS is the real scourge of MafiaScum, and it will kill the game.
As it sits, we would not be able to get a good read of Katsuki's play until D4 or D5.This is bullshit.That's entirely too late in the game, because we'll be focusing on everybody else. So a policy lynch/policy vig is our ONLY way to avoid that. Sure, it may be sub-optimal for any given game, but in the aggregate it would improve the play quality of the site as a whole. So for heaven's sake, Cabd, shoot Katsuki.
I didn't have a BEST TOWN PERFORMANCE title for nothing... = =In post 1670, Bert wrote:Do u think he or she is capable of playing better??? Examples from the past???
You're asking vig to POLICY instead of shooting scum.In post 1679, Idiotking wrote:See, this is what happens when people go so far against policy lynching. It encourages people to just not play, period. You can't kill them, because then you're not scumhunting, which means they aren't incentive to play any harder. Which means you can't get any reads on them, which means you CAN'T scumhunt. It effectively limits the town's targets to people who are active, giving people who AREN'T active a free pass. That just sucks the life right out of Mafia. I don't care if the meta changes, I don't care if people start looking for different kinds of tells, THIS is the real scourge of MafiaScum, and it will kill the game.
As it sits, we would not be able to get a good read of Katsuki's play until D4 or D5.This is bullshit.That's entirely too late in the game, because we'll be focusing on everybody else. So a policy lynch/policy vig is our ONLY way to avoid that. Sure, it may be sub-optimal for any given game, but in the aggregate it would improve the play quality of the site as a whole. So for heaven's sake, Cabd, shoot Katsuki.
This only applies if you are not scum, and we have no reason to think otherwise at the moment. And by your playstyle, we wouldn't have any reason to think ANYTHING until a much later day. So yeah, you should totally be policied (policized?).
Oh shut the fuck up. Stop pretending that we're some piece of shit scum on the street. Katsuki and I both have quality posts and often times have good strategies for catching scum. We just choose to do it a different (and rule-accepted) rate. We're still playing the game. We're still members of this town.In post 1684, Idiotking wrote:I'm going to hold back my surprise at our two habitual lurkers being upset at my anti-lurker pro-policylynch rant post.
Oh buddy boy. You are just so so so wrong. I can not even believe how much plain ignorance is in this post. And coming from an '08er at that.In post 1687, Idiotking wrote:We don't know that you're members of the town, and you really, really aren't playing the game if you do nothing but lurk.
No, you really don't get what I was saying.In post 1690, Idiotking wrote:The wagons on you could be town-led. Are you implying that wagons are exclusively a tool for scum?
Most of your posts are complete shit.
Votes can be done in prod-dodges.
Oh, do you want me to get into what substantive means? We can go back into that. I'm back into being active in this game.In post 1692, Idiotking wrote:I think it's cute how your most substantive posts (read: only) have been defensive rage-posts.
Yes and this is why site meta is shit right nowIn post 1677, Bert wrote:No, I'm on my phone. I also don't care for his future long term meta and you're suggsting we lynch him to make a long term statement that his or her play is not ok
Hence the ??!!!!!
In post 1693, MafiaSSK wrote: Oh, do you want me to get into what substantive means? We can go back into that. I'm back into being active in this game.
And at least the debate we had last time were about actual posts in this game rather than fucking meta.
If you wanna call me scum Idiotking, if you want to see me dead, give me a case, rather than going to this lurker bullshit.
This is going to sound sarcastic, but it's not, I'm sorry. I'm sorry that my lurking makes you think I'm an arrogant useless shitsack. That type of anger really shouldn't be in a game. We should be playing to have fun. I'll try and be more active if that would help, I guess.In post 1695, Selkies wrote:Yes and this is why site meta is shit right nowIn post 1677, Bert wrote:No, I'm on my phone. I also don't care for his future long term meta and you're suggsting we lynch him to make a long term statement that his or her play is not ok
Hence the ??!!!!!
Also I'm suggesting to lynch him because he's being townread for adhering to his town meta, which apparently is to be an arrogant useless shitsack. I am not ok with this reason for town reading people
There is a reason why multiple ppl in this game have me read as town. Because this is not my scumplay, plain and simple. You're just either too bad/scum to be willing to realize that in thread.In post 1685, Idiotking wrote:Also,
This only applies if you are not scum, and we have no reason to think otherwise at the moment. And by your playstyle, we wouldn't have any reason to think ANYTHING until a much later day. So yeah, you should totally be policied (policized?).