I guess I overdid it a bit. Regardless of Ranger's alignment, I sincerely hope I did not ruin the game for her. Sometimes I do not realize that I am being a dick.
"You've been furthering the win condition of the Mafia even better than the Mafia." - Dierfire
@ai I highly doubt it because it wasn't inflammatory
But in all seriousness, I can only half see your argument. Like the reads list is dissonant, but the argument is more about that there's no reasons? A good scum can cover that up just like a bad town can flail over it.
Self meta is bad but people have vanity issues. It's what they do. I see it from a lot of either alignment and you just have to say it's null and void. But 9/10 times you can't really make a case with it
In post 648, Flubbernugget wrote:Is this a good summary of Ranger v. AI?
AI: your reads are bad. You are scum
Ranger:that's just how I play
AI: your play is bad. You are scum
Ranger: my play isn't bad tho
AI: yes it is
Ranger: no it's not
Etc.
I think there are some important details in that conversation though. His claim that I slipped with my earlier comment about citizen versus villager is patently false. If I were a villager and see someone labeled as a "citizen" appear dead, I would have asked the same question. I'm almost wondering if ranger's role pm said citizen based on his reading of the conversation. I'm going to have to re-read the conversation between AI and Ranger more carefully before I decide if I want to move my vote over to wanderer or not.
But in all seriousness, I can only half see your argument. Like the reads list is dissonant, but the argument is more about that there's no reasons? A good scum can cover that up just like a bad town can flail over it.
The point is that providing reasons forces you to expose yourself. Yes, experienced scum are quite capable of making up reasons, but at the same time they are taking a risk by doing that. So it is only rational to make sure that people give reasons for whatever they do (once the RVS ends). It makes it easier to read them. How people read other people, on the basis of these provided reasons, is also important, and this is also decided by underlying reasons, which could be made explicit.
Self meta is bad but people have vanity issues. It's what they do. I see it from a lot of either alignment and you just have to say it's null and void. But 9/10 times you can't really make a case with it
Nothing is ever exactly the same. Therefore look at the game at hand.
"You've been furthering the win condition of the Mafia even better than the Mafia." - Dierfire
In post 648, Flubbernugget wrote:Is this a good summary of Ranger v. AI?
AI: your reads are bad. You are scum
Ranger:that's just how I play
AI: your play is bad. You are scum
Ranger: my play isn't bad tho
AI: yes it is
Ranger: no it's not
Etc.
I think there are some important details in that conversation though. His claim that I slipped with my earlier comment about citizen versus villager is patently false. If I were a villager and see someone labeled as a "citizen" appear dead, I would have asked the same question. I'm almost wondering if ranger's role pm said citizen based on his reading of the conversation. I'm going to have to re-read the conversation between AI and Ranger more carefully before I decide if I want to move my vote over to wanderer or not.
Aren't you fully outed? Shouldn't you be looking at that as to whether or not they pushed you to claim, and why they would have done that?
And arguing theory should be left to the mafia discussion forum. You're normally best just stating your stances and leaving it at that. It's easy for scum to argue theory and is a good red herring from a lack of scumhunting
Because Ranger is more obviously scummy. I am not saying you have been cleared.
And arguing theory should be left to the mafia discussion forum. You're normally best just stating your stances and leaving it at that. It's easy for scum to argue theory and is a good red herring from a lack of scumhunting
So you don't want people to use theory to find scum?
Interesting.
*takes note*
"You've been furthering the win condition of the Mafia even better than the Mafia." - Dierfire
In post 648, Flubbernugget wrote:Is this a good summary of Ranger v. AI?
AI: your reads are bad. You are scum
Ranger:that's just how I play
AI: your play is bad. You are scum
Ranger: my play isn't bad tho
AI: yes it is
Ranger: no it's not
Etc.
I think there are some important details in that conversation though. His claim that I slipped with my earlier comment about citizen versus villager is patently false. If I were a villager and see someone labeled as a "citizen" appear dead, I would have asked the same question. I'm almost wondering if ranger's role pm said citizen based on his reading of the conversation. I'm going to have to re-read the conversation between AI and Ranger more carefully before I decide if I want to move my vote over to wanderer or not.
Aren't you fully outed? Shouldn't you be looking at that as to whether or not they pushed you to claim, and why they would have done that?
I claimed to defuse an argument that was looking bad for a town member who was also the person who started the argument.
"You've been furthering the win condition of the Mafia even better than the Mafia." - Dierfire
