In post 605, Thor665 wrote: In post 591, Cho wrote:Do you understand this, or rather, follow my train of thought?
I follow your train of thought but find it very surface oriented.
The point isn't that he called me scum for multiball commentary - the point is how and why he did it considering the conversation it was brought up in.
Does that make sense?
In post 597, PeregrineV wrote:Except
Multiball means 2 scumteams, as per the definition: "Serial Killers and other one-person groups do not count; the term is specific to scum groups of multiple players."
So, your attempt to use SKs to discredit me is pretty blatant.
Your attempt to use 24 player games as examples is also blatant. I included them for reference, but 24 is not 21, and the setup and balance for each is different.
So, try 25%. And recently, none of them.
I will agree the wiki defines multiball as notincluding SKs.
I will also say I have been in a game witha 2-player SK.
That said - if you look at my comment to Nero it clearly included the idea of 'any scum role that is not aligned with some other scum role'
Also, if I had clarified SK - I understand that 'SK hunting' is also considered a scumtell (or SK tell) so I don't actually see the point of even trying to draw the difference here.
I saw what you said to Nero.
I saw what you said about the game.
Based on my experience, it's not multiball.
If you want to speculate there might be an SK in the game, I would wonder why you speculate that or why you care, but would probably agree.
If you try to speculate that Nero's actions point to him being the SK, then I'll tell you I don't get that.
I did not see in your comment where you were specifying a Serial Killer. You said Nero was not scumbuddies with Csar (
259).
Do you disagree that my comment means what I said it means here? And if you do, please explain why.
Try this format
-Thor's comment (linked)
-What Thor meant
Then I'll be able to answer it, since right now I'm not sure what you are asking.
Well...actually, yes, I said exactly that.
In post 557, Thor665 wrote:Please provide me a link to all the 21+ player games you have been in recently that were not multiball.
My bad, I did misread that.
I assumed that you wanted to point out 21 player games that were multiball, because we are in a 21 player game that you stated was obviously multiball.
You may now argue for the nature of 21+ games, but I'll state in advance that changing the facts changes the arguement, esp. about something like mafia game size.
So I should add 'lying to butter up a case' to your scumtells then
You're trying to defend yourself in a pedantic manner.
It looks scummy to me.
What's up with this? Why don't you walk me through how and why you actually think your catch on me is scummy and also why it doesn't apply to Nero or Goofy - that would be interesting to hear moreso than the weak word dance you're doing now.
-Sure, why not.
-Being exact about what you said and what I said in a printed forum game is kind of the point of the printed forum game.
-OK
-I think that you saying that this game is obviously multiple mafia teams implies some sort of inside knowledge of the setup that you did not relate to the thread at the start of the game. Most commonly, this is through a scum role designation of specific mafia (Blue, Red, Mafia A, etc.), and less commonly through a town role (Mafia A cop, Red Mafia Cop, etc.). However, I don't think it is in your nature to "slip", nor to be so bold nor so brazen about possibly having a scumrole. So, as stated before,
In post 501, PeregrineV wrote:The worst Thor post was calling this game multiball (261 and 265) for pretty much no reason (because it's 21 players?!?). Should there turn out to be 2 scumteams, I'll probably strongly advocate for a Thor lynch. Until then, I'll go back and forth with and about him trying to figure out if he is town that I just don't get or scum trying to trick me. Always fun.
-I already pointed out the differences between mentioning, speculating, and stating. You've been pushing everything based on my 501 statement, and instead of just letting it go (which I do sometimes), I proceeded to point out why you were wrong. You've since continued to push for my lynch, not for actually being wrong in my opinion, conclusion, or summary, but because I have that opinion, posted that conclusion, and backed up that summary. Making this another case of (strength of reaction) vs (strength of initial post) (see Scripten vote).