In post 439, LoHa wrote:Sakura likes votes on her so why not keep it interesting for her.
VOTE: Sakura
So you were lying here then?
In post 439, LoHa wrote:Sakura likes votes on her so why not keep it interesting for her.
VOTE: Sakura
In post 475, Sakura Hana wrote:In post 439, LoHa wrote:Sakura likes votes on her so why not keep it interesting for her.
VOTE: Sakura
So you were lying here then?
In post 477, LoHa wrote:Paraphrase the lie.
In post 476, LoHa wrote:The reasons why I'm scumreading you is because you said I was self-metaing when I was bringing objective arguments for my townieness, and you were taking Ether's side when she was obnoxiously bullying me. Also I didn't like your reaction to me questioning you on your arguments for voting, so there's that and some other stuff like this right here, with the "scum for liking votes on me" shenanigans.
In post 478, Sakura Hana wrote:In post 477, LoHa wrote:Paraphrase the lie.
You vote me and the reasoning in your post is because I like votes on me.
You said that you never said you voted me for liking votes on me...
So you're either lying on one post or the other, pick one.
In post 452, LoHa wrote:You don't think sheeping Ether is a good idea?
In post 464, LoHa wrote:I didn't say I was sheeping Ether, btw. I asked you.
In post 482, LoHa wrote:How bout I voted you for reasons I didn't care to share just then, and added a remark which I thought was kind of cute and I could use to up my theatrics and the fun I'm having with this game.
In post 480, Sakura Hana wrote:In post 476, LoHa wrote:The reasons why I'm scumreading you is because you said I was self-metaing when I was bringing objective arguments for my townieness, and you were taking Ether's side when she was obnoxiously bullying me. Also I didn't like your reaction to me questioning you on your arguments for voting, so there's that and some other stuff like this right here, with the "scum for liking votes on me" shenanigans.
If this was true you'd have voted me like 15 pages ago.
In post 483, Sakura Hana wrote:I say you're voting me for opportunism, this is your reply:
In post 452, LoHa wrote:You don't think sheeping Ether is a good idea?
This implies that you're Sheeping Ether, yet you backpedal on your reasoning using semantics here:
In post 464, LoHa wrote:I didn't say I was sheeping Ether, btw. I asked you.
In post 484, Sakura Hana wrote:In post 482, LoHa wrote:How bout I voted you for reasons I didn't care to share just then, and added a remark which I thought was kind of cute and I could use to up my theatrics and the fun I'm having with this game.
... What...
So you vote me for "hidden reasons" and then you complain that i see your post as opportunist because you didn't show those "hidden reasons" as i didn't know they existed?
What does this logic even come from omg
In post 488, lordj210 wrote:VOTE: vote loha the last few posts by her is just off starting to almost contradict everything she says not shure if its from the added pressure or because shes jut putting whatever out there and cant keep everything straight of wht shes saying
In post 486, Sakura Hana wrote:Seriously that's like the most scummiest thing you've said ever
"OH I ACTUALLY HAD REASONS I JUST DIDN'T SHARE THEM"
Yeah No, i want to see you deader than dead now.
In post 489, LoHa wrote:I still don't see you clarifying a supposed argument I'm hiding so yeah. Also, as you should know by now I wasn't sheeping Ether, I might have insinuated it to further my investigation, I see you're making a big deal of it and I interpret it as scummy.
In post 489, LoHa wrote:Again you are timetraveling. You may not invoke stuff that happened after you called me an opportunist to justify calling me an opportunist. Logic 1 o 1
In post 491, LoHa wrote:yeah, no. I don't see why that's supposedly scummy. Elaborate.
Controversial theory wall that other players might disagree with wrote:There's no hard and fast rule for claiming. Claiming as town permanently cripples your night phase value--either as a power role or as a decoy--and the policy has kind of evolved past its utility. If you think about it strategically, there are four logical reasons that claiming might get you out of a lynch:
- To bring up mod-outguessing aspects, in a semiopen or closed game. Best example I can give is here, where the Dutch mod gave an American a role from an obscure comic he'd obviously never heard of, in a language he obviously didn't know.
- There's an equivalent to this in open setups: if you claim a power role and nobody counterclaims you, then you are probably telling the truth.
- To demonstrate why your actions, which wouldn't make sense as a vanilla townie, would make sense as the role you actually are. A cop with results would definitely have reasons to behave differently, for example.
- Not technically to convince people that you're
town,but just to convince it not to lynch you: if you claim a power role, then that raises the stakes so they might want to go for a safer wagon and give you a few more nights.
Like I said, a claim hurts you in the night phase regardless of what you are. Claiming outside of massclaim should be avery last resort; if you've still got more defenses in you, try those first. If you take a hard look at that list, there's not much of a reason to do it at all as vanilla. I'm of the opinion that vanillas shouldneverclaim under pressure, except in the case of the next paragraph.
Unfortunately, the current site meta doesn't really see it that way: there are lots of people whowilltry to kill you if you don't claim on command, and at the same time will unvote you as vanilla and run more people up to claims. These people are idiots, but nonetheless claiming is obviously better than dying. So you might not actually have a choice. Go forth and enlighten the masses!
Despite this educational rant, I reserve the right to demand that people claim or die in the future.
In post 495, Ether wrote:Sakura, what's with that thesaurus thing he keeps doing? He said he was familiar with you on Osu; is there anyone from there who does that?
Post 211, LoHa wrote:Furthermore SilverWolf is seemingly agreeing with you that I lack prowess in answering questions; I say this question has a false premise, and I am left with either answering it in an improvisational manner to uphold the illusion of both of our competence (which I won't do because it would be untruthful), or address the problem for what it is (incompetence to ask a valid question on your part), regardless of how momentum-stalling it might be perceived as.
Post 320, LoHa wrote:Meta has no business here. Player A wants to get Player X off his back so he answers his redundant question as if it was a good one and gives Player X a good feeling about himself, thus conditioning him to give back good feelings in the form of townreads, i.e. scum, because town doesn't want inflated townreads, town would rather have unadulterated feedback about his and other people's play because town wants to figure out the game and other townies can help him if they stay objective.
Player B wants to get Player X off his back as well, if only because Player X is causing an unnecessary distraction, but B won't sugercoat the awfulness of the question and expects further to be rewarded with the same amount of candidness. In fact he's probing the playerlist to see who is capable of this trait so he can get to work on day2 and find some scum, now with a fairly decent psychological profile on each of the players at his aid. Sacrificing day1 sympathy, the appearance of being oh so interested and invested in the game has to make way for the tactic and discipline to gain instruments of scumdetection for player B, who is town, to assure a win for his team.
In post 481, lordj210 wrote:these past few pages of back and frth has me extreamly confused now