Open 713: Jungle Republic [Game Over]


User avatar
Beefster
Beefster
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Beefster
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2117
Joined: March 21, 2010
Location: Colorado

Post Post #175 (ISO) » Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:39 pm

Post by Beefster »

In post 174, BuJaber wrote:Are you a wolf beef? You're too interested in ending the day early.
Where are you getting that idea?
On hiatus indefinitely. This was a nice distraction when I was working through my faith transition out of Mormonism, but I need to move on to bigger and better things now.
Get to know a meat boy
User avatar
Beefster
Beefster
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Beefster
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2117
Joined: March 21, 2010
Location: Colorado

Post Post #176 (ISO) » Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:41 pm

Post by Beefster »

Also, that's a loaded question.

Your frustration does not appear genuine.
On hiatus indefinitely. This was a nice distraction when I was working through my faith transition out of Mormonism, but I need to move on to bigger and better things now.
Get to know a meat boy
User avatar
BuJaber
BuJaber
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BuJaber
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 3840
Joined: November 8, 2017

Post Post #177 (ISO) » Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:11 pm

Post by BuJaber »

Sorry you feel that way.
My frustration is genuine. The level of frustration varies with mood.
User avatar
BuJaber
BuJaber
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BuJaber
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 3840
Joined: November 8, 2017

Post Post #178 (ISO) » Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:16 pm

Post by BuJaber »

I get that you think I am scum but you keep adding things to the list of offences that are simply not there. Someone could be scum but not check all the boxes for your definition of scummy. You are interpretting every post I make as scummy which is literally impossible. No scum would do everything in a scummy way.
User avatar
Korina
Korina
Ask, prefers they
Recruiter
User avatar
User avatar
Korina
Ask, prefers they
Recruiter
Recruiter
Posts: 6482
Joined: February 12, 2018
Pronoun: Ask, prefers they
Location: Oclax
Contact:

Post Post #179 (ISO) » Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:08 am

Post by Korina »

In post 173, BuJaber wrote:People need to post now. I refuse to be lynched just because half the players waited until the last day and there wasn't any time to change the wagon.

Korina playing 3 games is pretty small you need more :P I thought it would be a lot but it's very underwhelming. Site meta is slow for most games so it's not that hard to catch up. On average days obviously. When RL is kicking your butt or you would have no internet access there is VLA. And the prodding policy of the site is quite lenient.
Try 72/24 and 48/24 hour games, plus this game, which is 168/48. :P

This is the only site where I could fesibly get away with doing 3+ games at once.
GTKAS:
The most recent one and the only one that actually matters. | ROOMS HAVE AIR ~ Who | Not_Mafia did not submit a naive cop action. big mistake there tbh ~ xyzzy
I dissociate, any signed posts are from my headmates. Refer to GTKAS, or DM me for more information.


#
C
u
l
t
s
A
r
e
n
t
B
a
s
t
a
r
d
| Plurality Discussion Thread
User avatar
Thor665
Thor665
Papa Smurf
User avatar
User avatar
Thor665
Papa Smurf
Papa Smurf
Posts: 33454
Joined: October 11, 2009
Location: Venice, FL

Post Post #180 (ISO) » Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:00 am

Post by Thor665 »

In post 86, Montosh wrote:I think it's probably fairly good play. But it doesn't feel like the norm exactly. Does it really surprise you that people reacted to that? Like, I think i'm getting that your style of play is to after
every
thread of info hard, but I can't believe you've never had people being off put a little by just how hard you go at it.
Whether or not I'm used to people being offput by my play does nothing to suggest how often I find scum trying to claim that 'different' equates to 'scummy' nor how often I manage to catch them after doing so.

You spent a whole lot of words to avoid answering the question - you're basically admitting nothing I did actually was particularly scummy, yet are defending your right to attack it on a vague conceptual basis without being willing to say that you yourself found it suspect for xyz reasons.

Why is that?
In post 99, Korina wrote:My vote on Thor is because I get a serious scum vibe from what he was planning. I can't describe it any other way.
Can you describe what you think I was planning?
In post 111, skitter30 wrote:ie this isn't doesn't accurately represent what I'm arguing. My problem isn't that you highlighted some issue and brought it to everyone's attention so that people can discuss it (ie scumhunting). My problem is that I think you artificially framed the issue as a you v him conflict (ie you highlighted the conflict aspect) which encourages people to pick sides (which is what happened shortly thereafter, people were saying they agreed with you or paradox), and I think that it was an opportunistic/manipulative way of getting people to side with you because you can most likely out-argue paradox.
How could I have "scumhunted" him without setting up the false situation you're claiming I set up exactly?

I also note that you did not take up my offer to explain how I could have framed the questioning *without* the so-called false dichotomy - should I take that as tacit admission that you're admitting I couldn't have? Which would then make me wonder about you calling it a scumtell.



In post 111, skitter30 wrote:You set it up as a conflict between you and him. I don't think you were necessarily setting it up as scum/town, but my point is that you set it up so that there would be *sides* where they didn't necessarily naturally exist.
How do 'sides' exist beyond humans having differing opinions?
I agree I set up sides - do you think my side looks artificially created and that his side is the more objectively correct stance? Because if so I would ask you the same thing I asked him - how do you come to that conclusion?
If you think my side *IS* the more correct one (and I am 99.9% sure it is) then how the hell are you getting off suggesting I artifically created it for game advancement?
In post 111, skitter30 wrote:a) she

b) this is kinda a bad/awkward/weird vote, and no, not because it's on me.

I don't think you're actually calling me scum anywhere; if you are, I missed it and I'd appreciate a tldr. If you're not calling me scum, why are you voting me exactly? If I don't give you an answer you like, you just gave yourself an excuse to votepark me forever. And if I do give you an answer you like, like what was the point?
a) apologies
b) How is it awkward?

I'll agree I haven't called you scum before this - but now that you dodged the answer I'll go ahead and shift to 'yes, I am calling you scummy now'.
Of course, for that to be awkward I'd kind of have to have called anyone scum - and I really haven't yet this game (until just now) so I fail to see the awkwardness you're claiming - explain it?

If you don't give an answer I like, yeah, I'll probably vote you - in a theoretical world where I votepark and you otherwise behave townish I'll agree that would look suspect for me, I don't see how that's an issue right now though - explain?
If you give an answer I like I'll *gasp* probably move my vote, and that would be the point, because I scumhunted you - can you explain why that's such a strange and unusual idea for you? Do you *NOT* ask questions that people can give answers you like to? Like, if every question is supposed to make people go deeper and deeper on their vote then that's pretty weird.
In post 116, BuJaber wrote:NM so you scumread Thor?
Why? Why not?

Upon rereading I have comvinced myself that skitter v Thor is definitely TvS. Or in this game possibly SvW. So I'll be voting there and only there. Whether you like it or not Thor you made it binary.
I agree and have often stated that I made it binary.
Even Skitter is having to agree with that now, the weird thing being is she's expanding it to I forced some artificial choice upon people...which kind of ignores that the opposite stance (which was used to vote me) is slightly nonsensical and assuredly unsupported, and also ignores literally every other instance in this thread where someone set up a stance vs. stance situation (which is, as I've noted, what scumhunting is all about) and Skitter sits there not calling out a single one.

Which says we should all be voting her to my mind.
In post 119, Espeonage wrote:Going to admit before I get asked I have not read skitt v thor.
You should, or at least read my very short paragraph in response to BuJaber right above this reply ^^^
Because either I'm crazy, or Skitter is blatantly misrepping the entire concept of scumhunting to call me scummy.
In post 147, BuJaber wrote:I do want to point out that you should pay attention to the speed in which my wagon is growing and what that implies. 2 people in the game wouldn't vote each other and 3 wouldn't vote each other. Somebody being voted by everyone who posted is incredibly suspicious.
At the point of this quote you had three votes on you.
Can you describe which were unnaturally fast specifically as opposed to generally?
I don't think it was fast at all.
User avatar
skitter30
skitter30
she/her
Last Laugh
User avatar
User avatar
skitter30
she/her
Last Laugh
Last Laugh
Posts: 36569
Joined: March 26, 2017
Pronoun: she/her
Location: Est

Post Post #181 (ISO) » Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:33 am

Post by skitter30 »

In post 154, BuJaber wrote:My case on me boils down to three things:

1) I misread a quote.

Human error.

2) I said I would only vote for one of two people.

True, but it takes 7 to lynch and I would be more open minded if I saw that I won't get my way. This isn't my first game, I understand how lynches work. Taking that statement literally is a bit naive or insulting to me. Also I change my mind. A lot. It is part of my process. It isn't AI. There are multiple games in my history to show you this.

3) I wanted to lynch a lurker then switched my vote really quickly

See above. Also I reread the skitter/thor conversation between those two votes.

If you got other reasons let's hear em. We have two weeks.
1. I don't think you'd get lynched over misreading a post, but the way you're being so defensive about it is weird / over-reaction-y.
In post 160, BuJaber wrote:People would lynch me for misreading the quote because nobody has any reason to believe that I did. I made a mistake and therefore it makes for me to get lynched. It's a game of mafia. People shouldn't take my word for it just in case. It also sets a bad precedent if I am forgiven for that.
Like it really isn't as big a deal as you're making it out to be so you're being weirdly defensive.

2. I mean, you repeatedly claimed that you thought there has to be scum in {me/Thor}, so calling us naive for believing you is like a weird thing to do? Like changing your mind isn't necessarily a problem, but taking a hard position ('I will only lynch in that pair') and backtracking under pressure by blaming us for believing you is kinda scummy.

3. I don't really think switching your vote is fundementally a problem, but I still think that your proposition of 'lynching a lurker' is nebulous (ie who exactly are the lurkers, and which one do you pick?) and the fact that you couldn't/wouldn't answer these questions before is kinda :/

------
In post 155, LaserGuy wrote:No, I was specifically referring to Thor and Paradox being aligned scum here. But your defense of Montosh is noted.
Tbh I think your both town and that you're tunneling on something NAI.

------
In post 174, BuJaber wrote:Are you a wolf beef? You're too interested in ending the day early.
what on earth is this?

a) why wolf (ie and not generic 'scum')?

b) Where do you see him being interested in ending the day early?

This is such a bizarre accuasation???

------
In post 179, Korina wrote:Try 72/24 and 48/24 hour games, plus this game, which is 168/48.

This is the only site where I could fesibly get away with doing 3+ games at once.
I mean, I get it, life gets busy and you might not have time to post as much as you like - but like the fact that you're repeatedly popping in to tell us you're busy and that you can't really post content looks excuse-y.
User avatar
skitter30
skitter30
she/her
Last Laugh
User avatar
User avatar
skitter30
she/her
Last Laugh
Last Laugh
Posts: 36569
Joined: March 26, 2017
Pronoun: she/her
Location: Est

Post Post #182 (ISO) » Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:34 am

Post by skitter30 »

Spoiler: @Thor
In post 180, Thor665 wrote:How could I have "scumhunted" him without setting up the false situation you're claiming I set up exactly?

I also note that you did not take up my offer to explain how I could have framed the questioning *without* the so-called false dichotomy - should I take that as tacit admission that you're admitting I couldn't have? Which would then make me wonder about you calling it a scumtell.
'Hey, can you explain what why you think it's scummy to vote a person you want to PL in RVS'?

'Hey, I disagree that using RVS to vote a PL is scummy. Why do you think it is?'

vs
In post 13, Thor665 wrote:No protown player does what?
Because I'd love to see you support this logic. It's the opposite of everything I know and have ever seen on this site, so either I'm really wrong, or you're full of hoo-hah.
Yes, the versions that I wrote inherently imply that there's disagreement and conflict too. Your version highlights and frames that conflict and casts it explicitly as 'I am right and you are wrong'

I'm not arguing that there *can't* be sides or that there *shouldn't* be sides or that there *aren't* sides in a conflict. I'm arguing that you highlighted the sides/conflict when you didn't have to.

So yes, I think it's entirely possible to ask questions and scumhunt without explicitly framing it as 'Either I must be right or you are'.
In post 180, Thor665 wrote:How do 'sides' exist beyond humans having differing opinions?
I agree I set up sides - do you think my side looks artificially created and that his side is the more objectively correct stance? Because if so I would ask you the same thing I asked him - how do you come to that conclusion?
If you think my side *IS* the more correct one (and I am 99.9% sure it is) then how the hell are you getting off suggesting I artifically created it for game advancement?
I'm saying that you set it up as sides when it didn't need to be.

I don't think that your goal is to understand the other person's POV or to understand where they're coming from, but rather that you're trying to win arguments.

The paradox thing was set up as 'I believe I'm right and I fundementally believe that you're wrong' in a derisive fashion that indicated that you didn't actually believe he could ever explain himself satisfactorily.

With me, my argument isn't like that complex or anything, and I've restated it many different times, and I'm kinda having a hard time believing you fundementally don't understand what I'm trying to say.

In each iteration of this back-and-forth, you've been reframing what I'm saying and trying to transform the discussion into being about something else, into something more general/innocuous (how is this not scumhunting!) or loaded questions ('How do sides exist beyond humans having differing opinions?').

You're asking me a lot of questions but you're not actually listening to what I'm saying. You're just using each round of this back-and-forth to slightly change the discussion into one that's rhetorically more favorable to you.

Like that's exactly what you did when you voted me:
In post 180, Thor665 wrote:b) How is it awkward?

I'll agree I haven't called you scum before this - but now that you dodged the answer I'll go ahead and shift to 'yes, I am calling you scummy now'.
Of course, for that to be awkward I'd kind of have to have called anyone scum - and I really haven't yet this game (until just now) so I fail to see the awkwardness you're claiming - explain it?


If you don't give an answer I like, yeah, I'll probably vote you - in a theoretical world where I votepark and you otherwise behave townish I'll agree that would look suspect for me, I don't see how that's an issue right now though - explain?

If you give an answer I like I'll *gasp* probably move my vote, and that would be the point, because I scumhunted you - can you explain why that's such a strange and unusual idea for you? Do you *NOT* ask questions that people can give answers you like to? Like, if every question is supposed to make people go deeper and deeper on their vote then that's pretty weird.
In post 79, Thor665 wrote:Also, I'm going to do this;

VOTE: skitter

Until he can describe how he isn't calling me scum for scumhunting.
In post 111, skitter30 wrote:My problem isn't that you highlighted some issue and brought it to everyone's attention so that people can discuss it (ie scumhunting). My problem is that I think you artificially framed the issue as a you v him conflict (ie you highlighted the conflict aspect) which encourages people to pick sides (which is what happened shortly thereafter, people were saying they agreed with you or paradox), and I think that it was an opportunistic/manipulative way of getting people to side with you because you can most likely out-argue paradox.
Like if I'm scummy for dodging a question *when I answered it*, I don't really think you're trying to engage me in good faith or that you actually care what my answer is.

And that's why I think the vote is bad/awkward/whatever the right word is, because you can always declare I didn't answer it satisfactorily. Like you've kinda proven me right, again. My response doesn't actually matter; you're just using what I'm saying to transform the discussion into something else - 'now I can call you scummy for dodging my question!'

Like you're being manipulative because you're setting up an ultimatum you've demonstrated I can't actually satisfy.

I don't understand the bolded.

Italics - like I said above - I don't think my answer actually matters and that you're going to use whatever I say as a reason to continue the argument and/or scumread me; ie that you can always declare me to be wrong and find me scummy for it.

Underlined: More loaded questions and I don't even get what you're trying to ask me with them.

I'm also kinda done with this back-and-forth because I don't think anyone else is actually reading it and I feel like you've been misrepping me so I don't really see the point in continuing this, so yeah.

(I also notice that you dodged my observation that in creating the 'sides' thing you got your townreads, which is the fundemental point of my argument).
User avatar
Thor665
Thor665
Papa Smurf
User avatar
User avatar
Thor665
Papa Smurf
Papa Smurf
Posts: 33454
Joined: October 11, 2009
Location: Venice, FL

Post Post #183 (ISO) » Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:14 am

Post by Thor665 »

In post 182, skitter30 wrote:
Yes, the versions that I wrote inherently imply that there's disagreement and conflict too
. Your version highlights and frames that conflict and casts it explicitly as 'I am right and you are wrong'

I'm not arguing that there *can't* be sides or that there *shouldn't* be sides or that there *aren't* sides in a conflict.
I'm arguing that you highlighted the sides/conflict
when you didn't have to.
:neutral:
So now the issue isn't that I created a conflict, it's that I made it somehow bigger than I needed to, when I could have created a smaller conflict?
Do I have that right?
In post 182, skitter30 wrote:So yes, I think it's entirely possible to ask questions and scumhunt without explicitly framing it as 'Either I must be right or you are'.
Even though you admit that the questions you asked are doing that exact thing also - just in a smaller/more subtle way.
In post 182, skitter30 wrote:I don't think that your goal is to understand the other person's POV or to understand where they're coming from, but rather that you're trying to win arguments.
I don't need to win an argument that is objectively already won.
I do need to ask questions to understand his stance.
I *could* have just gone "this is obvious bull-hookey and here's why" and voted him over it if my goal was to create conflict and not understand what he thought, yeah?
In post 182, skitter30 wrote:With me, my argument isn't like that complex or anything, and I've restated it many different times, and I'm kinda having a hard time believing you fundementally don't understand what I'm trying to say.
I actually think i do understand what you're trying to say - and I'm saying it's scummy and am trying to paint you into a corner where everyone else understands it's scummy also.
Because either that will happen, or you'll answer in some way that shows I am misunderstanding you.
Currently it is favoring the former for me.
In post 182, skitter30 wrote:In each iteration of this back-and-forth, you've been reframing what I'm saying and trying to transform the discussion into being about something else, into something more general/innocuous (how is this not scumhunting!) or loaded questions ('How do sides exist beyond humans having differing opinions?').
I don't think that's true at all and would call you a liar.
Please show me how I'm re-framing your stance exactly rather than just generically claiming I am.
Because I'm not.
Unless I'm wrong but I think your claim is hoo-hah ;)
In post 182, skitter30 wrote:Like if I'm scummy for dodging a question *when I answered it*, I don't really think you're trying to engage me in good faith or that you actually care what my answer is.
You didn't actually answer it though.
Look at your current answer - "Thor asked the question in a way that was more setting up a conflict than a less setting up conflict answer could have been" is a pretty long stride from your initial call against me, and also pretty much is now implying awareness that what I did is called 'basic scumhunting'.
In post 182, skitter30 wrote:And that's why I think the vote is bad/awkward/whatever the right word is, because you can always declare I didn't answer it satisfactorily.
That is true - the real issue is whether I can back up the claim that I find it unsatisfactory and whether you can back up the claim that it is satisfactory and then how other people interpret and assess those claims.

I've been very clear about why I find it unsatisfactory, yeah? if not, ask for clarification.
In post 182, skitter30 wrote:I don't understand the bolded.
It was based on a theory that maybe you found it awkward because I hadn't called you scum before voting you - which is what your words implied to me, and explaining why that stance held little water.

Make sense now?
In post 182, skitter30 wrote:Italics - like I said above - I don't think my answer actually matters and that you're going to use whatever I say as a reason to continue the argument and/or scumread me; ie that you can always declare me to be wrong and find me scummy for it.
Sure...but let's then go back to "wouldn't that then just be based on a presumptive of me being scum"
You're complaining that I gave you no "out" before even trying to fulfill the "out" making your prediction self fulfilling (though I feel you went that way because you recognized that you couldn't back up your made-up scum case hoo-hah.
In post 182, skitter30 wrote:Underlined: More loaded questions and I don't even get what you're trying to ask me with them.
I'm explaining what would happen if you gave an answer I liked.
Then I'm asking why anyone would ask a question if that *wasn't* a possibility.
It's mostly pointing out how you're setting up false predictions based on suggesting no one scumhunts the way basically everyone scumhunts and then using that as evidence to call what I'm doing scummy.
In post 182, skitter30 wrote:I'm also kinda done with this back-and-forth because I don't think anyone else is actually reading it and I feel like you've been misrepping me so I don't really see the point in continuing this, so yeah.
Where and how am I misrepping you?
In post 182, skitter30 wrote:(I also notice that you dodged my observation that in creating the 'sides' thing you got your townreads, which is the fundemental point of my argument).
I'm ignoring it because it's requiring me to be either
a) a mindreader
or
b) as scum to think that what I'm doing is pro town and seen as pro town and therfore something I'd do as town making it not a valid tell.

I will agree that my mindreading predicative powers that I only use as scum and not town (and ignoring that my power is apparently useless and results in equal scumreads if even one person slightly questions me) is part of your case - I just don't see them as valid or worth debating because they're nonsensical. Feel free to address this rebuttal if it excites you.
User avatar
Thor665
Thor665
Papa Smurf
User avatar
User avatar
Thor665
Papa Smurf
Papa Smurf
Posts: 33454
Joined: October 11, 2009
Location: Venice, FL

Post Post #184 (ISO) » Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:22 am

Post by Thor665 »

In post 46, skitter30 wrote:It's not that I think it's an inaccurate or unfair portrayal of the situation, or that I think that both of you are right or wrong, so much as I think that you're deliberately forcing/highlighting this conflict and encouraging people to pick sides in an environment likely advantageous to you.
In post 182, skitter30 wrote:
Yes, the versions that I wrote inherently imply that there's disagreement and conflict too
. Your version highlights and frames that conflict and casts it explicitly as 'I am right and you are wrong'

I'm not arguing that there *can't* be sides or that there *shouldn't* be sides or that there *aren't* sides in a conflict.
I'm arguing that you highlighted the sides/conflict
when you didn't have to.
For the tl:dr of why Skitter is scum.

Initial claim is the first quote.
Clarified claim is the second quote.

She has not actually shown me encouraging people to pick a side in any way.
She has not questioned anyone else for setting up any sort of disagreement.
She agrees I wasn't unfair in my question.
She has now agreed that there was already inherently conflict (indeed, it was created by the person she is claiming is town in this exchange)
She agrees that her best examples of how I could have questioned the player *also* caused conflict.
So her basic claim is, I asked a question that was a little more standoffish than it should have had to have been.

And she's doubling down on it as a valid issue to call me scum over this.
(and has now expanded to me misrepping her)

I would suggest that if she can't show me misrepping her that people should vote her more.
I would also suggest that the above is a pretty valid reason to vote her, as she has and continues to try to frame me asking a question as scum intent.
User avatar
Thor665
Thor665
Papa Smurf
User avatar
User avatar
Thor665
Papa Smurf
Papa Smurf
Posts: 33454
Joined: October 11, 2009
Location: Venice, FL

Post Post #185 (ISO) » Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:24 am

Post by Thor665 »

Oh, and I did all the above because I knew I could win an argument and get insta town read.
But thankfully she saw through it and questioned me, causing me to get scum read - which apparently my scum plan didn't anticipate as a possibility in a game based around questioning why people are doing things.

Yeah.
Think about that.
User avatar
skitter30
skitter30
she/her
Last Laugh
User avatar
User avatar
skitter30
she/her
Last Laugh
Last Laugh
Posts: 36569
Joined: March 26, 2017
Pronoun: she/her
Location: Est

Post Post #186 (ISO) » Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:49 am

Post by skitter30 »

Tomorrow cuz I'm going to a wedding tonight.
LaserGuy
LaserGuy
Goon
LaserGuy
Goon
Goon
Posts: 465
Joined: November 2, 2017

Post Post #187 (ISO) » Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:05 am

Post by LaserGuy »

In post 179, Korina wrote:
In post 173, BuJaber wrote:People need to post now. I refuse to be lynched just because half the players waited until the last day and there wasn't any time to change the wagon.

Korina playing 3 games is pretty small you need more :P I thought it would be a lot but it's very underwhelming. Site meta is slow for most games so it's not that hard to catch up. On average days obviously. When RL is kicking your butt or you would have no internet access there is VLA. And the prodding policy of the site is quite lenient.
Try 72/24 and 48/24 hour games, plus this game, which is 168/48. :P

This is the only site where I could fesibly get away with doing 3+ games at once.
You don't seem to have any trouble keeping up. Any time someone mentions you, you respond quickly. You just aren't actually engaging in discussion beyond that, and your answers are extremely evasive. Working on a giant reads post for several days is not nearly as useful as actually interacting with people and trying to find scum.

Liking this at the moment.
VOTE: Korina
User avatar
Thor665
Thor665
Papa Smurf
User avatar
User avatar
Thor665
Papa Smurf
Papa Smurf
Posts: 33454
Joined: October 11, 2009
Location: Venice, FL

Post Post #188 (ISO) » Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:50 am

Post by Thor665 »

@Laser - what are your thoughts on viewtopic.php?p=9975923#p9975923 ?
User avatar
Korina
Korina
Ask, prefers they
Recruiter
User avatar
User avatar
Korina
Ask, prefers they
Recruiter
Recruiter
Posts: 6482
Joined: February 12, 2018
Pronoun: Ask, prefers they
Location: Oclax
Contact:

Post Post #189 (ISO) » Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:12 am

Post by Korina »

In post 187, LaserGuy wrote:
In post 179, Korina wrote:
In post 173, BuJaber wrote:People need to post now. I refuse to be lynched just because half the players waited until the last day and there wasn't any time to change the wagon.

Korina playing 3 games is pretty small you need more :P I thought it would be a lot but it's very underwhelming. Site meta is slow for most games so it's not that hard to catch up. On average days obviously. When RL is kicking your butt or you would have no internet access there is VLA. And the prodding policy of the site is quite lenient.
Try 72/24 and 48/24 hour games, plus this game, which is 168/48. :P

This is the only site where I could fesibly get away with doing 3+ games at once.
You don't seem to have any trouble keeping up. Any time someone mentions you, you respond quickly. You just aren't actually engaging in discussion beyond that, and your answers are extremely evasive. Working on a giant reads post for several days is not nearly as useful as actually interacting with people and trying to find scum.

Liking this at the moment.
VOTE: Korina
Because there's certain times I'm actually active on one thread. I try to reply quickly whenever someone mentions me.
(Sarcasm kinda intended) I'm also sorry that I have a real life, I go to school, I have a job, and that I can't really focus all my attention onto one thing for long periods of time. (Plus if my school didn't block this site, I would be able to post more often).
GTKAS:
The most recent one and the only one that actually matters. | ROOMS HAVE AIR ~ Who | Not_Mafia did not submit a naive cop action. big mistake there tbh ~ xyzzy
I dissociate, any signed posts are from my headmates. Refer to GTKAS, or DM me for more information.


#
C
u
l
t
s
A
r
e
n
t
B
a
s
t
a
r
d
| Plurality Discussion Thread
User avatar
Thor665
Thor665
Papa Smurf
User avatar
User avatar
Thor665
Papa Smurf
Papa Smurf
Posts: 33454
Joined: October 11, 2009
Location: Venice, FL

Post Post #190 (ISO) » Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:39 am

Post by Thor665 »

In post 180, Thor665 wrote:
In post 99, Korina wrote:My vote on Thor is because I get a serious scum vibe from what he was planning. I can't describe it any other way.
Can you describe what you think I was planning?
@Korina - I actually do just post to hear myself talk, but since I read all of my own posts back to myself in a sultry voice I like to think everyone else can read them, or at least scan them, once also.
LaserGuy
LaserGuy
Goon
LaserGuy
Goon
Goon
Posts: 465
Joined: November 2, 2017

Post Post #191 (ISO) » Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:45 am

Post by LaserGuy »

In post 189, Korina wrote:Because there's certain times I'm actually active on one thread. I try to reply quickly whenever someone mentions me.
(Sarcasm kinda intended) I'm also sorry that I have a real life, I go to school, I have a job, and that I can't really focus all my attention onto one thing for long periods of time. (Plus if my school didn't block this site, I would be able to post more often).
I understand you have other obligations and are playing other games. That's fine. The problem is that in basically every post you've made recently, you've just made excuses for not playing this one.

@Thor, I will comment on your post in a bit. I'd prefer to reread the whole discussion first, and, well, there's a lot of it.
User avatar
Korina
Korina
Ask, prefers they
Recruiter
User avatar
User avatar
Korina
Ask, prefers they
Recruiter
Recruiter
Posts: 6482
Joined: February 12, 2018
Pronoun: Ask, prefers they
Location: Oclax
Contact:

Post Post #192 (ISO) » Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:38 am

Post by Korina »

In post 190, Thor665 wrote:
In post 180, Thor665 wrote:
In post 99, Korina wrote:My vote on Thor is because I get a serious scum vibe from what he was planning. I can't describe it any other way.
Can you describe what you think I was planning?
@Korina - I actually do just post to hear myself talk, but since I read all of my own posts back to myself in a sultry voice I like to think everyone else can read them, or at least scan them, once also.
Didn't see it during skimming. Sorry. Ok, so, tl;dr and my best explanation, is that by some roundabout way you convince us that you're town by doing that. I don't see someone with town motivation doing that.
LaserGuy wrote:
In post 189, Korina wrote:Because there's certain times I'm actually active on one thread. I try to reply quickly whenever someone mentions me.
(Sarcasm kinda intended) I'm also sorry that I have a real life, I go to school, I have a job, and that I can't really focus all my attention onto one thing for long periods of time. (Plus if my school didn't block this site, I would be able to post more often).
I understand you have other obligations and are playing other games. That's fine. The problem is that in basically every post you've made recently, you've just made excuses for not playing this one.

@Thor, I will comment on your post in a bit. I'd prefer to reread the whole discussion first, and, well, there's a lot of it.
My major thing is that this is a 2 week day cycle game. I have a lot of time to post on here. It's not a big concern of mine to post quite frequently/major things unlike the 72/24 and 48/24 game.
I'm trying to get around to it, but, like I said, I'm trying to balance out the excessive time I have here to actually post/making sure I'm satisfied with my reads.
GTKAS:
The most recent one and the only one that actually matters. | ROOMS HAVE AIR ~ Who | Not_Mafia did not submit a naive cop action. big mistake there tbh ~ xyzzy
I dissociate, any signed posts are from my headmates. Refer to GTKAS, or DM me for more information.


#
C
u
l
t
s
A
r
e
n
t
B
a
s
t
a
r
d
| Plurality Discussion Thread
User avatar
Thor665
Thor665
Papa Smurf
User avatar
User avatar
Thor665
Papa Smurf
Papa Smurf
Posts: 33454
Joined: October 11, 2009
Location: Venice, FL

Post Post #193 (ISO) » Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:41 am

Post by Thor665 »

In post 192, Korina wrote:my best explanation, is that by some roundabout way you convince us that you're town by doing that. I don't see someone with town motivation doing that.
How did I manipulate anyone into townreading me by doing 'that'?
Bonus points, what is 'that'?
User avatar
Korina
Korina
Ask, prefers they
Recruiter
User avatar
User avatar
Korina
Ask, prefers they
Recruiter
Recruiter
Posts: 6482
Joined: February 12, 2018
Pronoun: Ask, prefers they
Location: Oclax
Contact:

Post Post #194 (ISO) » Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:45 am

Post by Korina »

It honestly could just be personality at this point. I'm used to when I start working on something, having people ask me like "how far along is it?" and I honestly think after a point I just do it automatically now.

P-Edit:
1. I voted someone to get somebody to attack me.
2. I intentionally set up the attack on me to obligate people to react to it.
3. I knew they'd be more likely to agree with me than whoever I argued with.
This is what I'm referring to by "that".

I don't see anyone town-motivated player doing this.
GTKAS:
The most recent one and the only one that actually matters. | ROOMS HAVE AIR ~ Who | Not_Mafia did not submit a naive cop action. big mistake there tbh ~ xyzzy
I dissociate, any signed posts are from my headmates. Refer to GTKAS, or DM me for more information.


#
C
u
l
t
s
A
r
e
n
t
B
a
s
t
a
r
d
| Plurality Discussion Thread
User avatar
Beefster
Beefster
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Beefster
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2117
Joined: March 21, 2010
Location: Colorado

Post Post #195 (ISO) » Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:03 pm

Post by Beefster »

Korina and BuJ are both good wagons.

I'd be happy lynching either one at this point.
On hiatus indefinitely. This was a nice distraction when I was working through my faith transition out of Mormonism, but I need to move on to bigger and better things now.
Get to know a meat boy
User avatar
Espeonage
Espeonage
any
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Espeonage
any
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 11651
Joined: December 17, 2009
Pronoun: any
Location: Existential Dread of my Inner Thoughts

Post Post #196 (ISO) » Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:16 pm

Post by Espeonage »

I don't get why people dislike multiball. Because buj raises some good points about beef.

Ill read the Thor skit thing because Thor asked nicely but don't have time now.
Don't @ me.
User avatar
Espeonage
Espeonage
any
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Espeonage
any
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 11651
Joined: December 17, 2009
Pronoun: any
Location: Existential Dread of my Inner Thoughts

Post Post #197 (ISO) » Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:18 pm

Post by Espeonage »

Also korina, if you spent the time you have been talking about games on other sites you'd be up to date here. Calling it NAI for now though.
Don't @ me.
User avatar
TheGoldenParadox
TheGoldenParadox
he
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
TheGoldenParadox
he
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2971
Joined: November 8, 2017
Pronoun: he
Location: SF Bay Area

Post Post #198 (ISO) » Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:34 pm

Post by TheGoldenParadox »

I think Buj's frustration with beef and his desre to not be lynch just because no one cares is very genuine. Townreading him for it.
Skitter - what I don't understand is that you're immediately attacking Thor for making something binary and being able to win an argument. Can you please explain your thought process behind that?
Aside from that, I don't think I have much to contribute. Life is hitting me hard.
User avatar
BuJaber
BuJaber
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
BuJaber
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 3840
Joined: November 8, 2017

Post Post #199 (ISO) » Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:09 pm

Post by BuJaber »

I wasn't calling you naive I was saying it would be naive of me. Stating you only want to lynch 2 people is a strategy. But stubbornly sticking to these 2 people would be naive. Therefore taking it literally is you calling me naive. But I concede I'm clearly in the wrong here. Everyone agrees it was scummy so it must be scummy I won't do it in future games.

As for the speed it was within 5 hours or so that 3 people declared they agreed with espeo. Laser didn't actually vote for me but he stated willingness. Fanta especially comes in votes for the hot wagon and leaves yet again.
Locked

Return to “Completed Open Games”