Open 340: The Donner Party (Game Over: Agatha eats well)

[MrStrife]

/confirm

I find kdowns' and SodaSpirit's confirmations very interesting. Will vote one of the two of them once the game begins.

[MrStrife]

Strife, why'd you say that out loud? *groan*

I have reasons. Not sharing them at this time.

[MrStrife]

I know exactly what your reasons are. And you shouldve kept them to yourself until Daystart.

Why?

[MrStrife]

Because now the others know.

Assuming I'm correct, town have no benefit in not knowing. In fact, sharp-eyed town should already. And do you honestly believe that scum wouldn't have caught it immediately afterwards?

I dislike that you asked that question. But at the moment, I don't wish to discuss the matter further.

[MrStrife]

I'm sorry Sleepy, that really sucks.

But, I'd appreciate it if we didn't spam the game while its confirming. Thanks.

[MrStrife]

The meta argument against Thomith is a wretched hive of scum and villiany.

SleepyKrew, why did you continue to push the confirmation issue after I basically stated I didn't want to discuss it ATM? Give me your thought process.

[MrStrife]

When I said this:

Strife, why'd you say that out loud? *groan*

I have reasons. Not sharing them at this time.

You said this:

I know exactly what your reasons are. And you shouldve kept them to yourself until Daystart.

When I said this:

Because now the others know.

Assuming I'm correct, town have no benefit in not knowing. In fact, sharp-eyed town should already. And do you honestly believe that scum wouldn't have caught it immediately afterwards?

I dislike that you asked that question. But at the moment, I don't wish to discuss the matter further.

You said this:

Strife, there are THREE of them. We had a chance at all 3.

I kept saying that I didn't want to discuss it, yet despite that, you kept trying to discuss the issue with me.

And why did you ask the mod whether those confirms were legitimate when you did?

[MrStrife]

You asked if I thought scum wouldn't have caught it immediately.
I pointed out that only 2 people had confirmed wrong, so we still had a chance at catching all 3 if you kept your mouth shut.

It was rhetorical. And notice how I said that I didn't want to discuss the matter further at the end of that post. And that doesn't explain the rationale behind post #8.

I asked the mod becase their names were bolded in the OP.

So, did you believe that they were scum due to the confirmations before you clarified with the mod?

[MrStrife]

Quite possibly.

If you thought they were scum, why didn't you see if they responded before you asked?

Also, those confirmations were never a scum tell. Your behavior might be.

[MrStrife]

Responded? With... what? To what? What?

To my claim that there confirmations were "interesting", or my intent to vote them. Surely you would expect somebody to respond to something that agressive in the confirmation stage? Or players other than the three of you could have responded to my post. Did you not believe that was possible/likely? Why?

So you lied earlier? Why "might" my play be a scumtell?

I never explicitly stated that they were scum because of their confirmations. However, it was a lie by omission. I will explain after I've decided that there is no longer a benefit to keeping it secret- probably after this back-and-forth has stopped being useful.

Your play "might" be a scumtell because I want to get more insight into your thought processes before I decide.

[MrStrife]

I see. 'kay. I'll be blunt then.

My whole purpose in making that comment was to draw reactions out of players, get commentary, essentially knock us out of the RVS before the game had even begun. However, you then proceeded to attempt to push the issue with me, and then asked the mod whether or not the confirmations were legitimate- essentially cutting off any sort of discussion before it had begun. I want to understand exactly why you did those two things.

[MrStrife]

I was telling you off for bringing up the issue before everyone confirmed, then answered a question.

I felt it was clearly a rhetorical question. Perhaps I am wrong. I am more concerned as to why you would feel the did to tell me off, when I had explained that I had a reason for saying what I did IN THE THREAD, and that I wanted to keep it secret at that time. I would actually like an impartial observer to look back at those posts and say that I was this unclear.

I asked if they were good confirmations because I wanted to see if they were good confirmations.

And I don't get why you would do that before the two who made the bad confirmations actually responded. If they didn't respond, fine. But do you disagree that there was a chance that they would? Or that other people would respond to my comment? And thus possibly generate discussion? If the mod explained first, fine. I don't see why you felt the need to cut off any opportunity for a possible area of discussion.

Your method would not knock us out of RVS, not at all.

Explain it to me like I was a 4-year old. How would my idea not knock us out of the RVS?

Vote: SleepyKrew

The meta case is simply bad. You're working off a sample size of a single response in a single game. The responses aren't particularly different, and I don't feel that you have adequately explained how they are. If you have, quote those posts. I can't seem to find them.

I was trying to get insight into your thought process, and you continually shut me down, and in the end, your responses simply became "You're WRONG", without explaining why.

[MrStrife]

Well I'd say that was a successful gambit.
cjdrum + Jon + ???
Strife, if you still want me to, I'll respond to your wall-o-fun later.

Thank you for mocking me. That was completely necessary. But, you don't have to respond to my post. I completely disagree with your responses, and still find you somewhat scummy for your early content, which I may detail again at a later time. But for now here's my question. Explain, in detail, how your gambit was different from mine, which, according to you:

Your method would not knock us out of RVS, not at all.

Because I don't see any difference at all, if you hadn't completely cut my plan off before it began. But,

unvote

. There are bigger scum to fry.

I pointed out that only 2 people had confirmed wrong, so we still had a chance at catching all 3 if you kept your mouth shut.

How does this have anything to do with being scummy?

The reasoning itself (even if misunderstanding my point) isn't what really makes him scummy. What makes him scummy are his sharp, declaratory sentences, after I asked him to let me in on his thought process. I was asking him to explain what he was thinking step-by-step, so I could get into his head, and therefore get a better read. He refused to do so.

Spoiler: Quick Catch-up post

Vote: thomith because I guess I believe SK.

Why? Exactly what has he said that you find convincing?

I was just following his vote, coz i decided to skip and NOT READ all those shit before the game started on confirmation stage.

This is terribad. Town should be reading as much as they can, because they want to get as much information as possible. I can see skipping the spam, but there is plenty of content in those 4 pages, that you can completely ignoring.

[quote="In [url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 1#p3471131]
UNVOTE:
VOTE: SleepyKrew
for doing so and suggesting I'm scum.[/quote]

Cool OMGUS bro.

Vote: cjdrum

Guys, at least Jon has responded and to some degree is interacting. CJdrum just popped in, bandwagoned, and then completely disappeared.