Mini Normal 1888 - TwoFace Mafia - Game Over

FireScreamer · Post Post #75 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:54 am

In post 73, Barleycorn wrote:
In post 71, Shadow_step wrote:**ignores every question asked to it**
what questions has dogwatch ignored?

This.

Also in what world is building alternatives to yourself something that only has scum incentives?

Shadow_step · Post Post #76 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:55 am

In post 73, Barleycorn wrote:
In post 71, Shadow_step wrote:**ignores every question asked to it**
what questions has dogwatch ignored?

You just quoted it in your previous post.

FireScreamer · Post Post #77 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:57 am

In post 76, Shadow_step wrote:
In post 73, Barleycorn wrote:
In post 71, Shadow_step wrote:**ignores every question asked to it**
what questions has dogwatch ignored?
You just quoted it in your previous post.

So by every question you meant one question that could easily be read as rhetorical?

Seems like you are misrepresenting things in the face of pressure on grundy's awful logic. Don't worry. Once she flips i'm coming after you.

Shadow_step · Post Post #78 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:58 am

In post 75, FireScreamer wrote:
In post 73, Barleycorn wrote:
In post 71, Shadow_step wrote:**ignores every question asked to it**
what questions has dogwatch ignored?
This.

Also in what world is building alternatives to yourself something that only has scum incentives?

You'll know with experience.

Barleycorn · Post Post #79 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:58 am

In post 74, Shadow_step wrote:No it wasn't.
It's trying to show that he's being pro town by asking a bunch of people as to why they are RVS voting Fire. Being on 3 votes is nothing. It's L-4, what's the big deal?

so you think scum!dogwatch was trying to look like a concerned townie

FireScreamer · Post Post #80 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:59 am

In post 78, Shadow_step wrote:
In post 75, FireScreamer wrote:
In post 73, Barleycorn wrote:
In post 71, Shadow_step wrote:**ignores every question asked to it**
what questions has dogwatch ignored?
This.

Also in what world is building alternatives to yourself something that only has scum incentives?
You'll know with experience.

"I don't have an answer to this. Quick his forum title says goon, discredit him!"

Shadow_step · Post Post #81 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:59 am

In post 77, FireScreamer wrote:
In post 76, Shadow_step wrote:
In post 73, Barleycorn wrote:
In post 71, Shadow_step wrote:**ignores every question asked to it**
what questions has dogwatch ignored?
You just quoted it in your previous post.
So by every question you meant one question that could easily be read as rhetorical?

Seems like you are misrepresenting things in the face of pressure on grundy's awful logic. Don't worry. Once she flips i'm coming after you.

I don't care about aromagrundy. Dog watch is scum.

Barleycorn · Post Post #82 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:00 am

In post 76, Shadow_step wrote:
In post 73, Barleycorn wrote:
In post 71, Shadow_step wrote:**ignores every question asked to it**
what questions has dogwatch ignored?
You just quoted it in your previous post.

it looked rhetorical. are you saying that you wanted dogwatch to answer the question: "concerned townie much?"

how would one answer that anyway?

FireScreamer · Post Post #83 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:00 am

In post 79, Barleycorn wrote:
In post 74, Shadow_step wrote:No it wasn't.
It's trying to show that he's being pro town by asking a bunch of people as to why they are RVS voting Fire. Being on 3 votes is nothing. It's L-4, what's the big deal?
so you think scum!dogwatch was trying to look like a concerned townie

Also I thought we have covered already that a desire to appear townie also has incentives for actual townies and is therefor a null tell.

Barleycorn · Post Post #84 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:02 am

In post 83, FireScreamer wrote:
In post 79, Barleycorn wrote:
In post 74, Shadow_step wrote:No it wasn't.
It's trying to show that he's being pro town by asking a bunch of people as to why they are RVS voting Fire. Being on 3 votes is nothing. It's L-4, what's the big deal?
so you think scum!dogwatch was trying to look like a concerned townie
Also I thought we have covered already that a desire to appear townie also has incentives for actual townies and is therefor a null tell.

that is a different discussion. i am trying to figure out what shadow meant by 48. he has implied so far that it was a question he wanted dogwatch to answer, but also that it was a statement about dogwatch's alignment.

Shadow_step · Post Post #85 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:03 am

In post 80, FireScreamer wrote:
In post 78, Shadow_step wrote:
In post 75, FireScreamer wrote:
In post 73, Barleycorn wrote:
In post 71, Shadow_step wrote:**ignores every question asked to it**
what questions has dogwatch ignored?
This.

Also in what world is building alternatives to yourself something that only has scum incentives?
You'll know with experience.
"I don't have an answer to this. Quick his forum title says goon, discredit him!"

More like I'm not the IC and this is not a newbie game so I'm not gonna waste my energy on explaining basic mafia stuff that everyone should know.
Scum are survivalistic, town are less so. As town you're not as worried about getting lynched as you are as scum. As scum you quickly want a CW. As town you're more relaxed.

Shadow_step · Post Post #86 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:05 am

In post 82, Barleycorn wrote:
In post 76, Shadow_step wrote:
In post 73, Barleycorn wrote:
In post 71, Shadow_step wrote:**ignores every question asked to it**
what questions has dogwatch ignored?
You just quoted it in your previous post.
it looked rhetorical. are you saying that you wanted dogwatch to answer the question: "concerned townie much?"

how would one answer that anyway?

By why is he asking reasons for rvs votes ? What is the point of asking reasons for RVS votes ? How does one person being on 3 votes on day 1 such a big deal?

FireScreamer · Post Post #87 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:07 am

In post 85, Shadow_step wrote:
In post 80, FireScreamer wrote:
In post 78, Shadow_step wrote:
In post 75, FireScreamer wrote:
In post 73, Barleycorn wrote:
In post 71, Shadow_step wrote:**ignores every question asked to it**
what questions has dogwatch ignored?
This.

Also in what world is building alternatives to yourself something that only has scum incentives?
You'll know with experience.
"I don't have an answer to this. Quick his forum title says goon, discredit him!"
More like I'm not the IC and this is not a newbie game so I'm not gonna waste my energy on explaining basic mafia stuff that everyone should know.
Scum are survivalistic, town are less so. As town you're not as worried about getting lynched as you are as scum. As scum you quickly want a CW. As town you're more relaxed.

Well its a good job you are not the IC because you sure like to matter of factly state nonsense and patronize needlessly.

Barleycorn · Post Post #88 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:07 am

In post 86, Shadow_step wrote: By why is he asking reasons for rvs votes ? What is the point of asking reasons for RVS votes ? How does one person being on 3 votes on day 1 such a big deal?

ok. it was not clear until now that this was the purpose of that question, which by all appearances was rhetorical.

i would like to see dogwatch's response.

Barleycorn · Post Post #89 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:08 am

fire, stop mucking up the thread please.

Shadow_step · Post Post #90 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:09 am

Fucking hell I hope you're not an FB alt.

FireScreamer · Post Post #91 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:14 am

In post 89, Barleycorn wrote:fire, stop mucking up the thread please.

Specify how. I should probably be cleaning up the quote pyramids I guess.

Barleycorn · Post Post #92 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:16 am

In post 91, FireScreamer wrote:
In post 89, Barleycorn wrote:fire, stop mucking up the thread please.
Specify how. I should probably be cleaning up the quote pyramids I guess.

an off-topic post and an antagonizing one.

FireScreamer · Post Post #93 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:18 am

In post 92, Barleycorn wrote:
In post 91, FireScreamer wrote:
In post 89, Barleycorn wrote:fire, stop mucking up the thread please.
Specify how. I should probably be cleaning up the quote pyramids I guess.
an off-topic post and an antagonizing one.

Nothing i've said has been off topic and I'll respond to someone trying to discredit an argument due to its source with the scorn that it deserves. I'm attacking the actions and not the man.

Barleycorn · Post Post #94 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:20 am

i disagree with the former and have issues with the latter but I see no value in this discussion so this will be my last post in it.

Barleycorn · Post Post #95 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:21 am

it is my fault for starting it in annoyance.

aronagrundy · Post Post #96 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:33 am

In post 63, Barleycorn wrote:
In post 50, aronagrundy wrote:That said, dog's resistance to the fire wagon makes me want to vote fire so

VOTE: fire
this was your first explicit reason for voting fire.
In post 54, aronagrundy wrote: I also never said dog was scum. I've wanted to start a wagon and felt like fucking with him
this is the second reason you vote fire.

fire's point seems to be that neither reason logically supports your fire vote. do you disagree?

personally, i fail to see how fucking with dogwatch is a reason to vote fire.

what is your point, arona? that you don't like fire's reaction to your vote? what don't you like about it? it's possible that 60 goes into this but it's incredibly unclear.

arona is obfuscating in this conversation. but i don't know if it's intentional.

I wanted to start a wagon because 1. it's fun and there's not much to go on in the early game, and 2. they're a great way to get reactions and develop reads. I saw dog questioning the fire votes and voted for fire because they had 3 votes and it was the best way to start a wagon, plus wouldn't it be funny if I voted right after dog started questioning the votes (you might not have laughed but I did!). I was not scumreading dog.

Like I've said, what I didn't like about fire's reaction was that I thought his logic re: scum!dog defending town!fire was weak. In retrospect I think it's weird that the post where he votes fire is devoted mostly to fosing me, though.

aronagrundy · Post Post #97 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:37 am

ftr, I think my logic is a bit shaky on scumreading fire's reaction but it was something that just didn't make sense to me.

His actions on this page make me feel more confident that he's scum. He goes from scumreading dog to defending him and attacking shadow for pushing him...?

aronagrundy · Post Post #98 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:47 am

btw I still don't think scum!dog would make a post questioning the fire wagon. If fire is scum, why would you want people to form associations this early? If fire is town, why bother resisting a town wagon?

dog how much experience with mafia do you have

aronagrundy · Post Post #99 (ISO) » Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:54 am

In post 65, Barleycorn wrote:
In post 49, aronagrundy wrote:
In post 34, NorskaBlue wrote:
In post 32, aronagrundy wrote:Because like transcend is probably voting one of his suspects so the question kind of rang hollow for me and then mozamis just doesn't follow through?? I guess I just feel like it's an empty post
How's that? Transcend mentioned four people (two FoS, two tr) but only voted for one. What rings hollow about him wanting to find out the others? And what is suspicious about empty posts? I'm not saying they're good, but this early in the game, it can be a bit tricky to provide any useful content.
Well it was more of a gut feeling, but then when mozamis didn't follow through it became an empty post when it shouldn't have been.

In post 50, aronagrundy wrote:That said, dog's resistance to the fire wagon makes me want to vote fire so

VOTE: fire
i don't get this progression in the context of your fire vote being to fish for reactions.

were you scumreading fire at the time of 50? were you scumreading mozamis at the time of 50?

VOTE: arona

i didn't have a read on fire. i was iffy on mozamis. I know that's inconsistent but again I wanted to see what would happen if the wagon on fire continued to build