RangeroftheNorth wrote:Can we lynch him now?
you crack me up.
Gives the mafia more information than it gives the town? Newsflash: the mafia have more information about the game setup than the town does. Any information released is bound to help the town more than the scum, because the town is learning more new information than the town. Assuming that sk is town, the mafia already know that, while we don't. A claim might help us decide which is more likely (for example, if he claims vigilante, we might think he did not act like one, and lynch him).Turbovolver wrote:Off to the top of my head, claiming gives the mafia far more information than it gives the town. The town can rarely, if ever, be sure that you speak the truth, whereas the mafia will always know.Stewie wrote:Make one. [an argument against claiming]
If the scum have good safe-claims (or are good at making up false claims), a mass-claim will hurt the town. Individual claims are just a small piece of a mass-claim, and although it could be said there is a better chance of forcing just scum to claim because of how the lynches go, this is no guarantee.
Are those arguments particularly watertight? Probably not. But some people believe claiming is a bad idea, and those are some possible reasons why.
Those are nice examples for newbie games, where there's only town, mafia, and one or two power roles. However, this game has a closed setup, giving countless posibilities. The town might not want to lynch a role, while the mafia is scared of a doc-block or doesn't care about killing that role.Turbovolver wrote:Well, I've seen people give the following speech a bunch of times:Stewie wrote:Rarely if ever. I can't recall any situations off the top of my head.Turbovolver wrote:It is certainly not only the scum who will refuse to claim. I've seen frustrated townies do it all the time in newbie games, and I imagine it happens elsewhere too.
what am I supposed to do?
If I claim vanilla townie, you guys will lynch me anyway.
If I claim scum, you guys will lynch me.
If I claim power-role then the scum will kill me at night.
To be honest, I haven't actually made sure that only scum give these speeches.
What I said was in no way a WIFOM. All I said is "townies don't always make good plays". You really want to call that a WIFOM? [/quote]Stewie wrote:I want you to tell me what good for the town could come out of not claiming when the pressure won't let up. You didn't give me a reason, you gave me a WIFOM.Turbovolver wrote:You want a good reason why a pro-town player would not claim? Well, I don't know if it could ever be considered "good play" to flat-out refuse to claim, especially when it looks like pressure won't let up. But just because it isn't good play doesn't mean a townie couldn't do it.
I might go through and check all of your reponses, I might not. All you've shown by going on this little "claim crusade" is that you are desparate to avoid answering players' suspicions against you, if you ask me. This is one argument I've been in that *I* can recognise as stupid before it's been pointed outStewie wrote:*Lots of stuff*
Yes, I am. What, you've never seen a townie make a mistake before?Stewie wrote:You are basically saing "he made a bad play, but he can still be town!"
This is not pro-town behavior. This is what I call "selective attention", or "tunnel vision". You only look at what goes into your theory of Stewie as scum, but disregard that which is inconsistent. Sometimes it helps to read responses to what you have to say.Turbovolver wrote:I might go through and check all of your reponses, I might not.
So Stewie has given responses (see quote above), but is desperate to avoid answering players' suspicions? I believe Stewie has answered you quite consistently, and thoroughly. I do not keep track of every word said in this thread, but I am beginning to think your insistence on Stewie is becoming a smoke screen for scum to hide behind.Turbovolver wrote:All you've shown by going on this little "claim crusade" is that you are desparate to avoid answering players' suspicions against you, if you ask me. This is one argument I've been in that *I* can recognise as stupid before it's been pointed out
A few questions then:Turbovolver wrote:What, you've never seen a townie make a mistake before?
Ridiculous.
The argument has degenerated into a discussion about whether claiming is good behaviour or not - despite me leaning slightly towards claiming being the better play. All I did was post arguments when Stewie asked me to, and I admitted myself that I made them up off the top of my head and they probably weren't holeproof. That is, there wasn't really much to gain by reading why my quickly-constructed arguments were wrong - so I didn't. I did notice the point about the WIFOM thing being rubbish, so I pointed that out.petroleumjelly wrote:This is not pro-town behavior. This is what I call "selective attention", or "tunnel vision". You only look at what goes into your theory of Stewie as scum, but disregard that which is inconsistent. Sometimes it helps to read responses to what you have to say.Turbovolver wrote:I might go through and check all of your reponses, I might not.
He himself has specifically said that he isn't fully responding to me, in this post:petroleumjelly wrote:So Stewie has given responses (see quote above), but is desperate to avoid answering players' suspicions? I believe Stewie has answered you quite consistently, and thoroughly. I do not keep track of every word said in this thread, but I am beginning to think your insistence on Stewie is becoming a smoke screen for scum to hide behind.Turbovolver wrote:All you've shown by going on this little "claim crusade" is that you are desparate to avoid answering players' suspicions against you, if you ask me. This is one argument I've been in that *I* can recognise as stupid before it's been pointed out
---------------------------------------------------------------Stewie wrote:Then you won't mind me not addressing any points in the thread (until snowmonkey claims). If snowmonkey can get away with being two away from a lynch and not claiming, surely it's also ok for me not to address any points you bring up
The only persuing I did was the OMGUS thing, because it was blatantly wrong. This seems almost like misrepresentation to me - I only posted that I realised the argument was stupid in the same post that I refused to continue arguing.petroleumjelly wrote:Also, if you know the argument you are in is "stupid",whyare you pursuing it?
1) Yes, he has - misunderstanding the reasons behind snowmonkey's votes. At least this.petroleumjelly wrote:A few questions then:Turbovolver wrote:What, you've never seen a townie make a mistake before?
Ridiculous.
1.) Has Stewie done anything you would classify as "a mistake"?
2.) If he has, why are you not considering that he is atowniewho made a mistake? I believe you said a while ago that "Stewie is going down". Is there something in particular that makes you so confident he is scum?
Good idea. I'm thinking maybe we should list the scummy things Stewie has done and you can tell us why they don't make you suspicious.petroleumjelly wrote:I am personally growing tired of having to read the constant banter between yourself and Stewie. It may serve it's purpose later in the game, but I think we need to make a change in direction.
A deadline is already set - 8PM GMT on Saturday. So you should probably put your vote where it counts if you are going to be away.petroleumjelly wrote:Sorry for the double request, butMod, if you set a deadline, would be please be sure to allow me a sufficient chance to re-read by the time I return?
I think you have been stretching in your arguments: anybody who disagrees with you (i.e.PetroleumJelly wrote:Blatant defense of Stewie(to hopefully stop this silly back-and-forth arguing)
His only actions just so happen to be suspect. He said he would post here by Sunday, and yet he has not. My vote will be staying on him.PetroleumJelly wrote:His reason for voting Turbovolver early in the thread (“I wonder what will happen if he gets more”) did not strike me as pro-town. His unexplained following for the voting of Sineish was odd. And he is apparently gone until Sunday. His lack of posts and lack of content does nothing to make me less suspicious of him.
I know this argument is over, but I have a very important thing to point out. You actually HAVE to lynch people who are not beneficial in extreme situations (like this one). Infact the entire game breaks down if people who do no act in the best interest of the town are allowed to live. That's why the game has evolved to where it is today, with the "rules" it has today.Turbovolver wrote:It is not our goal to eliminate those who are not beneficial, it is our goal to eliminate the scum. Advocating a lynch based on anything but alignment is a bit scummy to me.RangeroftheNorth wrote:If sm continues to refuse to give a full claim, he is acting in a way that is not beneficial to the town and therefore should be lynched.
You would, wouldn't youSotty7 wrote:I agree that the question of if Stewie and myself are partners is something that is just wasting time for today
Wine In Front Of Mesnowmonkey wrote:what is WIFOM?
Right now, I agree 100%. That by the way means that I'm scum with Stewie.Petroleumjelly wrote:In my eyes, you are wasting time when you could be pressuring other people. I am sure I am not alone in this sentiment.
That means nothing. Trying to make anything out of that statement is WIFOM (PS Snowmonkey, WIFOM stands for Wine in Front of Me, and you can look it up in the wiki - I'm no good at explaining it).petroleumjelly wrote:Oh my, yes, Turbo: I am so linked to Stewie that I opened my post with the phrase:
PetroleumJelly wrote:Blatant defense of Stewie(to hopefully stop this silly back-and-forth arguing)
I am quite happy to accept we disagree if you can accept that that isn't the reason for my post.petroleumjelly wrote:I think you have been stretching in your arguments: anybody who disagrees with you (i.e.ME) comes under your suspicions. Not everybody is going to agree with you: I did not interpret Stewie's posts the same way you have.
Yeah, we all know he is suspect. It also looks very unlikely he'll be lynched today.petroleumjelly wrote:Also, my suspicions on Quailman is not only "lurker hunting". As I have previously mentioned:
His only actions just so happen to be suspect. He said he would post here by Sunday, and yet he has not. My vote will be staying on him.
Switched? No, I still think Sotty7 and Stewie are linked.petroleumjelly wrote:Further, I think you are making convenient links now. As of late, you have been saying that you think Sotty7 and Stewie were scum partners: now you have switched it to being myself and Stewie.
I obvious had read it, because I referred to it in my post. That analysis is one of the things that makes me MORE suspicious, in that you don't think Stewie has donepetroleumjelly wrote:Just because I don't find somebody as suspicious as you do does not make me scum. I already posted my explanations for where everybody stands in my eyes for this game: perhaps you should go back and read it so you understand where I'm coming from.
I think it has been rather telling. Here's my narrowing down.Don Gaetano wrote:Acually I agree with you, Sotty. Expecially since Turbo has linked Stewie to PJ and Pablito aswell as Sotty so far today. It's starting to enter the realm of FOSing everyone that's done something suspicious during the game, since you can't be sure that anyone's pro-town. So while the chance of one of those links being true is pretty high, it does become pointless to point them out, if you can't narrow them down.
You don't like me not answering your questions, but you are completly fine with snowmonkey not answering pleas for a claim? You don't like me not refuting your posts, but you "might" check my responses, or "might not." Conflict of interest?Turbovolver wrote:I might go through and check all of your reponses, I might not. All you've shown by going on this little "claim crusade" is that you are desparate to avoid answering players' suspicions against you, if you ask me. This is one argument I've been in that *I* can recognise as stupid before it's been pointed out.
I've seen townies making mistakes before, but not one as big as this one... either that, or they got lynched for it, as they should, since most of the time when a player makes a mistake they are scum. Especially a mistake this big.Turbovolver wrote:Yes, I am. What, you've never seen a townie make a mistake before?Stewie wrote:You are basically saing "he made a bad play, but he can still be town!"
Ridiculous.
Don Gaetano wrote: =====
This will be my last "rant" against snowmonkey today, because I'm personally becoming incredibly angry with him for putting the town in this position. If he should by any chance turn out to be pro-town, I'll probably explode, because he could've stopped this from happening ages ago, and getting himself lynched as a townie when it could've been avoided so easily would be the most irritating thing I've ever experienced in mafia. Still, like I've said, I can't see how we can allow him to live if he doesn't claim pretty soon.
Sotty7 wrote:Grudgingly I'll have to say that this is a good answer. If you truly believe that we are both scum based of individual evidence then I guess you are allowed your opinion (as wrong as it might be). If you were to try and push the “link” that does not exist then my slight suspicions of you would have sky rocketed.Turbo wrote: His actual defense of you is fair enough. I think both you and Stewie are likely to be scum based onindividual evidence, so when one of you defends the other I will note that. While it would look even worse if the defense wasn't solid, it doesn't mean it still doesn't look suspicious to me.
Here you go again. To me, individual evidence means that there is no link, and the only thing that we share is thatTurbovolver wrote:Using the reasoning that if two people deny being linked it's lookingmost likelythat they are scum together(unless of course the linking reason is rubbish logic... I don't feel that mine have been), it really doesn't look good for Stewie, petroleumjelly and Sotty7.
So cross off the pablito link, I think it's much less likely than the other two.
If I ask you to spoon feed me, then why the **** can't you just do it. If you think I'm a blind idiot, then why don't you point out what you think I'm overlooking, as any sensible pro-town player would when confronted with an idiot.snowmonkey wrote:dude, seriously, go back, read my posts, decide for yourself. if you cant figure it out then you have no business playing this game. im not going to spoon feed it to you. but, in reality, I already have. lynch me or not. maybe if you took off your blinders you could see the whole picture. then again, maybe you just have natural tunnel vision. At this point though, I don't know and I don't really care.
No need to resort to ad hominem attacks. We've all been giving opinions on each other's gameplay and behavior, but no need to attack personality.snowmonkey wrote: dude, seriously, go back, read my posts, decide for yourself. if you cant figure it out then you have no business playing this game. im not going to spoon feed it to you. but, in reality, I already have. lynch me or not.
First I'll answer your second question. Sometimes during long posts it's hard to remember who the speaker is, so that's why the third person when listing people. And I include myself as a possibility whenever possible because if I purposely exclude myself someone might interpret it as a ploy to subconsciously divert readers away from my presence.Don Gaetano wrote: Maybe it's just that none of you (who don't think we should lynch Snowmonkey) looks at this from a metagaming point of view. If you don't even consider meta-gaming issues then I can see how many people have come to the conclusion that he could very well be pro-town, but when you take metagaming issues into account, it's impossible to let him live right now. If it's this statement you disagree with, then read my reasoning for it, and tell me what you disagree with.
=====
And Pablito, why do you refer to yourself in the 3rd person and even advocate, that we may want to lynch you tomorow?
Way to leave out another thing I said, namelySotty7 wrote:FOS: Turbovolver
Even if you want to discount a defense as evidence just because the defense wasn't flawed (I can see arguments either way here), what about the point above?Turbovolver wrote:Also, you are the only person Stewie has defended, despite him saying that he thinks pretty much all of the attacks people have made are over-reasoned and insignificant. When both of you are scummy in my mind (for individual reasons) and then something like that happens, I think it's rather natural to link the two of you together.
I feel I've already explained this. The responses I was only maybe going to check (and I have since checked - if you want comments on them just ask) were telling me why the arguments I made up on the spot were wrong - I didn't even necessarily agree with those arguments myself, I was just showing what a pro-town person refusing to claim might be thinking. So it didn't seem very fruitful to discuss things further.Stewie wrote:You don't like me not refuting your posts, but you "might" check my responses, or "might not." Conflict of interest?
What happened to all the stuff about WIFOM? You've subtley changed the subject here by switching from the general to a specific case (snowmonkey). I think this makes it clear the stuff you said above was rubbish and couldn't be defended. Perhaps you are right about snowmonkey needing to be lynched, but I'm suspicious of what you did here.Stewie wrote:I've seen townies making mistakes before, but not one as big as this one... either that, or they got lynched for it, as they should, since most of the time when a player makes a mistake they are scum. Especially a mistake this big.Turbovolver wrote:Yes, I am. What, you've never seen a townie make a mistake before?Stewie wrote: You are basically saing "he made a bad play, but he can still be town!"
Ridiculous.
Turbovolver wrote:I just realised I missed a post by Sotty7 - the one where she summarises her views on Stewie. I was wondering why there was quoted text I'd never seen before. I read it and posted my thoughts at the bottom of this post.
Way to leave out another thing I said, namelySotty7 wrote:FOS: Turbovolver
Even if you want to discount a defense as evidence just because the defense wasn't flawed (I can see arguments either way here), what about the point above?Turbovolver wrote:Also, you are the only person Stewie has defended, despite him saying that he thinks pretty much all of the attacks people have made are over-reasoned and insignificant. When both of you are scummy in my mind (for individual reasons) and then something like that happens, I think it's rather natural to link the two of you together.
I do not know the alignment of Stewie, and I'm not trying to “get away from him”, I am just pointing out the big holes in your logic. It seems people that do not agree with you or see things in your mindset then they are all grouped together as scum. The fact that you have suddenly linked PJ in too just really waters down your argument. My FOS is not baseless and if Snow was not acting the way he is right now, I would be voting you.Turbovolver wrote:If you are trying to defend against being linked based on a misrepresentation, that only furthers in my mind that you are trying to get yourself away from Stewie because you know him to be scum.
...at the very least your FOS seems rather baseless..
So first of all you fail to deny that you left out something I said to make me look worse.Sotty7 wrote:Turbovolver wrote:Even if you want to discount a defense as evidence just because the defense wasn't flawed (I can see arguments either way here), what about the point above?
Did it ever cross your mind that Stewie has only defended me because your reasoningwas wrong? If the logic of someones attack is flawed it's players right to point that out! It's just plan commonsense, to correct someones mistake. If he hard augured against your valid points, making no sense, then yes, then I would understand there to be a link between us. The fact he did not do that and yet youstillinsist on this link is baffling to me.
Oh, so you don't deny that you've misrepresented me? Pointing out "big holes" in my logic doesn't really count when you make your arguments with only half the facts.Sotty7 wrote:I do not know the alignment of Stewie, and I'm not trying to “get away from him”, I am just pointing out the big holes in your logic. It seems people that do not agree with you or see things in your mindset then they are all grouped together as scum. The fact that you have suddenly linked PJ in too just really waters down your argument. My FOS is not baseless and if Snow was not acting the way he is right now, I would be voting you.Turbovolver wrote:If you are trying to defend against being linked based on a misrepresentation, that only furthers in my mind that you are trying to get yourself away from Stewie because you know him to be scum.
...at the very least your FOS seems rather baseless..