What should my defence be then? You said it's scummy, I said I disagree and showed you that I'm not the only one that thinks that way. Also, when you start playing against players better than me, meta will be the most useful tool you'll have. Do you think good players slip often? No, but even good players change their playstyle, even if they don't want to, as scum. I can only think of one person I played with that doesn't (Primate). So saying Meta is a scum tool is entirely naive.KoC wrote:Your only defence is "I disagree", and "other people have done it". That doesn't make it right. And I'll say it again - "It's my meta" is not a defence. Meta is the most WIFOM-friendly scum-tool in the game.
But you fail to realise, that me saying that forbiddan lynching was needed was not scummy behaviour in my eyes. Some lynches must be done. Stop hoping for the best. It ain't happening.KoC wrote:but I'm suspicious of anyone who defends themselves by claiming that scummy behavior is their meta.
There was at least one other player that said they felt the lynch needed to go through regardless of alignment - a bold statement and partially worrisome, but that doesn't bother me. The fact you felt the lynch needed to go through, said you would hammer it, but never voted for it is what gets me. The sidelines cheering on of what, as you've said, you felt was a towny REGARDLESS of the reason is the giant red flag.But you fail to realise, that me saying that forbiddan lynching was needed was not scummy behaviour in my eyes. Some lynches must be done. Stop hoping for the best. It ain't happening.
I was in the game for 3 days. I wasn't directly involved in the forbiddan case. I wasn't going to just pop in and vote. Sure, putting my money were my mouth is would have been better, especially after making bold statements, and to that extent you may be right that it is a scummy action, I'll give you that, but saying that someone is scummy for "staying in the sidelines" for 3 days, where I could have just lurked until the day was over, and posted afterwords, is kinna meh.SpyreX wrote:The fact you felt the lynch needed to go through, said you would hammer it, but never voted for it is what gets me.
Whether it was scummy in your eyes or not doesn't count. It looks incredibly scummy in my eyes, and in 3 other people's as well.But you fail to realise, that me saying that forbiddan lynching was neededwas not scummy behaviour in my eyes.Some lynches must be done. Stop hoping for the best. It ain't happening.
Erm, maybe try posting some actual evidence in your favour, rather than using PBPA's as a whole case. Alternatively, look at the others who have displayed scummy behaviour, and put a good case together against them.What should my defence be then?
I've played 24 games off-site and moderated 6 off-site, so I think it's fair to say: I've played against and with much better scum than you. And you're right, their play does change from game to game, usually. But not DAY TO DAY, which is what you've done.Also, when you start playing against players better than me, meta will be the most useful tool you'll have. Do you think good players slip often? No, but even good players change their playstyle, even if they don't want to, as scum. I can only think of one person I played with that doesn't (Primate). So saying Meta is a scum tool is entirely naive.
My playstyle has not changed! You are failing at judging playstyles badly. So you are ready to ignore the fact that I've said that my playstyle has been constant with other games I was in, but want to be all conclusive of my playstyle based on about 5 posts?KoC wrote:But not DAY TO DAY, which is what you've done.
Matjoeman ain't a bad player. Good players will lynch town as town on purpose.KoC wrote:Oh, and they don't try and excuse wanting to lynch town, either.
1)Mafia is different from site to site 2)I don't doubt you did play against better players. I know I'm not the best player out there, but frankly the case on me is quite bogus. The only one that does not fail at ignoring posts among you all is SpyreX.KoC wrote:I've played 24 games off-site and moderated 6 off-site, so I think it's fair to say: I've played against and with much better scum than you
Okay, first off, it doesn't take a lynch to let you see what's what in a game. I read through, came to a conclusion in my first day, based on what I could see, and went with it. It was wrong, but I "put my money where my mouth was", and made an active contribution to the game.FaerieLord wrote:I was in the game for 3 days. I wasn't directly involved in the forbiddan case. I wasn't going to just pop in and vote. Sure, putting my money were my mouth is would have been better, especially after making bold statements, and to that extent you may be right that it is a scummy action, I'll give you that, but saying that someone is scummy for "staying in the sidelines" for 3 days, where I could have just lurked until the day was over, and posted afterwords, is kinna meh.SpyreX wrote:The fact you felt the lynch needed to go through, said you would hammer it, but never voted for it is what gets me.
If I really wanted to avoid getting my hands dirty, I could have done just that, and no one would notice for three days.
So, you've basically said "If I wanted to avoid your attention, I would have just lurked for three days.", which is a) a pile of WIFOM and b) a contradiction to what you said earlier, where you said you were willing to point shit out against forbiddan, but didn't want to vote in order to avoid attention.FaerieLord wrote: I didn't place my vote on forbiddan because I was worried about getting attention.
*deepbreath*FaerieLord wrote:My playstyle has not changed! You are failing at judging playstyles badly. So you are ready to ignore the fact that I've said that my playstyle has been constant with other games I was in, but want to be all conclusive of my playstyle based on about 5 posts?KoC wrote:But not DAY TO DAY, which is what you've done.
I don't give a shit about your meta! Meta's can be repurposed so easily by even a mediocre player! I'm going on this game, and you've gone from serene, rarely voting, to basically OMGUSing (minus vote) everyone who has raised a finger against you, and pursuing a case that stinks!
Matjoeman ain't a bad player. Good players will lynch town as town on purpose.KoC wrote:Oh, and they don't try and excuse wanting to lynch town, either.
WIFOM! Complete and utter WIFOM! "A good town player did it once, so because I'm doing it, I must be town!"
1)Mafia is different from site to site 2)I don't doubt you did play against better players. I know I'm not the best player out there, but frankly the case on me is quite bogus. The only one that does not fail at ignoring posts among you all is SpyreX.KoC wrote:I've played 24 games off-site and moderated 6 off-site, so I think it's fair to say: I've played against and with much better scum than you
1) I played about 7 games with an exact same set-up as this
2)THe case is NOT BOGUS! Saying it over and over again will not make it so! You are nor Captain Picard!
ITT, I shall teach you scalesKoC wrote:"If I wanted to avoid your attention, I would have just lurked for three days."
But you fail to realise that the day 1 play you are basing on is just three fucking days. You are ready to ignore my play for like forever and say that that I changed my entire playstyle based on just three. fucking. days. IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!KoC wrote:I don't give a shit about your meta! Meta's can be repurposed so easily by even a mediocre player! I'm going on this game, and you've gone from serene, rarely voting, to basically OMGUSing (minus vote) everyone who has raised a finger against you, and pursuing a case that stinks!
Here, you entirely fail at getting the point. You said "Good players don't lynch town." I said MJM was a good player and he did it. And now you are screaming WIFOM when you brought it up in the first placeKoC wrote:WIFOM! Complete and utter WIFOM! "A good town player did it once, so because I'm doing it, I must be town!"
1)I'm not talking about setups.KoC wrote:1) I played about 7 games with an exact same set-up as this
2)THe case is NOT BOGUS! Saying it over and over again will not make it so! You are nor Captain Picard!
See, I'm glad you can see its scummy what happened. However, lurking and not saying anything about the case ALSO would have been scummy. I would have noticed you not saying anything about it when you replaced in, and I think its safe to say I wouldn't be the only one. I assume you are a solid player so I think you know the latter would have been apparent as well.I was in the game for 3 days. I wasn't directly involved in the forbiddan case. I wasn't going to just pop in and vote. Sure, putting my money were my mouth is would have been better, especially after making bold statements, and to that extent you may be right that it is a scummy action, I'll give you that, but saying that someone is scummy for "staying in the sidelines" for 3 days, where I could have just lurked until the day was over, and posted afterwords, is kinna meh.
If I really wanted to avoid getting my hands dirty, I could have done just that, and no one would notice for three days.
In 3 days, I'd expect enough of a reread to have an opinion. So, I, personally would have. are we still on this?TheSweatpantsNinja wrote:Killa seven. Hence the vote. Forbiddanlight's trap was foolish, because those kind of "traps" almost always backfire, but I think k7's jump on that wagon was scummy nonetheless.
And yet again you've poked your head in, seen who is pointing their fingers your way, and disappeared without contributing anything...killa seven wrote:yea i just read your posts, all uve said is ive done something unordinary scummy as opposed to usual, then next post days later vote me with no explanation and call them instincts.
Makes sense, but justement, doesn't it look TOO obvious? The interpretation says basically: I think he's Town, but I vote him. Just too obvious. It is suspect of course, but it's a very easy conclusion to come to as well...So nobody cares that FaerieLord basically admitted he was going to hammer forbiddan, despite the fact about a page earlier, and ever since, he claimed he was leaning misguided town in her? Sod the rest of the case: HE SAID HE WOULD HAVE HAMMERED SOMEONE HE CONSIDERED TOWN. The only reason he would have for that is: he's scum.
I could say the same thing for Meta Analysis. Basing conclusions on Meta is not necessarily scummy, but it's far from safe. I'm also astonished about the importance a "shit" can bear for some people. I can imagine from here: "He said "shit"! Oh my! Lynch him ultra quick! Aaaah!People like policy lynches for reasons that are beyond me. I'm going to reread another FL game I'm in soon and see if there's anything about his thoughts on policy lynches there, but I doubt it will change my opinion here.