|
BottleKnight posted:Regardless, I disagree with this and find it very condescending. Then why don't you address the weaknesses to the case I brought up? You admitted to exaggerating the "like five times" part, but it was a really, really bad exaggerating. It wasn't four or three times, it was once, maybe one and a half if you count my minor suspicion against you not disappearing overnight. It's a bad case BK. I assumed you knew. I am sorry to be the one to tell you.
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 07:30 |
|
|
BottleKnight posted:Ecco's starting to read like scum who is annoyed they're being cased so early despite their activity. quote:Your ecco gambit is bad and isn't good for town. Vote for who you think is scum, please, and if that is still Magnus then fine, but just say so. also nah. people can disagree about the merits of an ecco gambit but you can't disagree with the reality of what it helps prevent: a lategame where active posters have been largely cleared out by nightkills and executions, and the few remaining players have to essentially at best flip a coin and at worst have to choose one of many bad options.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:I hadn't heard about the Ecco Gambit before but I agree with it 100% have you read over magnus yet? He has the appearance of playing the game with his words, but especially in context his posts are nonsense. He is a solid vote imho.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
SirSamVimes posted:There's nothing wrong with arguing with against a case. It's weird to declare it to be some kind of invalid gambit. Well ignoring that weird does not mean scummy, do you disagree with the buildup as to why I said what I said? The case is unsound, and that he talks about it like it's a good case to pursue seems unreasonable -> insincere. like Max said, it feels like BK only posted like he did because I'm the latest one to say his name. Making a bad case though doesn't necessarily make someone scum! And in this case there is a valid explanation for why BK would post his bad case as town.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:Still don't like MG2, though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
SirSamVimes posted:That's the thing I've been saying is weird. Is it weird because you don't think it's something someone could do, or is it only weird because I'm the one who said it? If it's the former, well, it's actually very sensible, since it forces you to play and act and react, and it's not a common scum strategy since it draws a lot of attention to yourself very quickly by making yourself a part of a conversation (scum almost universally prefer being ignored and left alone for obvious reasons). If it's the latter, then that's silly. I wanted to see if BK would own up to doing something insincere as town. He hasn't, which makes me think it's more likely he's scum if only because that townie explanation is dismissed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
SirSamVimes posted:I think it's weird because it is a means of disregarding a case against you regardless of the validity of said case. Even if the case wasn't great, it still pings me. It's a good thing then that I dismissed the case on its merits first, and continued to bring up its poor merits even during this back and forth with you. And you can't say "regardless of the validity" and then in the next sentence say "even if it wasn't great." it's one thing to dismiss a case against you without addressing its merits; it's another to dismiss it for being bad, explaining why, and then coming up with alternate theories other than just "scum!! SCUMMMMMMMMmmmmm" SirSamVimes posted:Then again, I did wake up half an hour ago so maybe I'm just being bad at mafia
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
BottleKnight posted:I didn't agree with Ecco's condescension re: my case, so therefore scum? BottleKnight posted:It's like you don't want to be caught in an OMGUS, Ecco, so instead you're just spinning your wheels endlessly in an attempt to dismiss it. I called you scummy first  so technically yours is the OMGUS.BottleKnight posted:yes but both are dismissals and you read more like you're throwing theories at the wall than actually really thinking anything. Am I scum for casing you or town? I'm probably scum, based entirely on my reaction to your dismissal. But don't forget that I came up with an entirely different theory where BK is town, so I didn't just dismiss it haphazardly, I gave it the greatest of care. BottleKnight posted:On a reread the grammar of this paragraph is misleading and bad so let me rephrase. thank you. BottleKnight posted:The "Am I scum for casing you or town? I'm probably scum, based entirely on my reaction to your dismissal." is me talking about myself. The "But don't forget that I came up with an entirely different theory where BK is town, so I didn't just dismiss it haphazardly, I gave it the greatest of care." is you talking about yourself. I should've fixed that but I didn't, life goes on etc this doesn't help you, bad BK. I think there's a good chance you're scum. I think there is a possibility you're town, because the reasons why I think you're scum aren't 100%, and I wanted to see if you were doing a (very reasonable) town strategy. what are you even trying to say here? That it's scummy to admit you're not 100% confident about a case? it's just a lot of incoherent words.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
BottleKnight posted:I pretty clearly state that you aren't committing to any of your scumhunting. This is scummy because instead of scumhunting you want to just vote out alingment-neutral posters. It makes you look like you are helping the town when you aren't at all. Okay let's break this down: - "Aren't committing to any of your scumhunting" is another exaggeration. For starters, I haven't done much scumhunting this game - I have a vague feeling about Quandary, and I have a less vague feeling about you, but that's about it. This isn't particularly damning since not many people have done scumhunting so far, which is very reasonable since up to today the game has been pretty stagnant. I think what you mean to say is, it's scummy that I didn't come out of the gate accusing you as soon as I thought something was fishy, which is a bad way to play the game. - I think you need to move beyond this idea that voting out non-entities early on is a bad idea. I am generously willing to admit it's a contentious idea, but even if it's "bad for the town" (it isn't), how does that make me scum? The gambit is named after me for a reason. Ironically if the real reason why you're voting for me is because I want to get rid of players like Magnus, then it is you who are voting for me for alignment-neutral reasons. BottleKnight posted:I still don't even get your theory on why I'm town. it's not a theory, it's an explanation. It begins with your case being bad, and yet you don't qualify it as bad - you push it as if it's a solid case. You continue to treat it like it's solid, when much of it is nonsense and what isn't is grossly exaggerated. I am left thinking either you're scum pushing a bad case because you're incapable of making a good case (possible), or that you're town deliberately pushing it for some other reason. A potential other reason is: "I am going to get into the game by picking a fight with an active poster, making a case against them, and rolling with the punches over it." The game was stagnating, and you were a pretty empty poster day 1. I was too! My method of getting more involved with the game was making a list of every player and seeing how I felt about them. Yours could easily have been the above, since posting a case would get your brain working, it would cause others to read and respond to it, it'd cause the player you're casing to react, and you would necessarily garner a lot of attention. I figured there was no way you reasonably believed your bad case was actually good. I figured there might have been a good chance you were town deliberately just trying to jumpstart your activity. It's not really condescending except insofar as I respect you well enough to think you'd know when you're making a bad case or not. I certainly do. But on the off-chance you genuinely don't, then I'll say it again: Your case is bad! It is based off points that are untrue and/or really exaggerated! You do not appear to be a Good Townie for your case, since it looks even in a charitable light as reactionary and opportunistic! You should consider either admitting the faults in your case and instead couching your suspicions somewhere else or admitting you weren't being sincere in the first place and explaining why.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
MG2 posted:This post is incredibly weird to me. Ecco whole train of thought is based off of Ecco knowing bottle knight is town. Knowing because bottle knight is not on ecco's scum team. Ergo Ecco knows he's town and interprets his actions as they state in the quote above. nah that's not true. coming up with a reason why a suspicion might not be true is both not indicative of "knowing" the case is wrong, and also not actually scummy. asking BK about it is super helpful at figuring out his alignment. like what is my endgame here as scum? make a case on BK and then immediately deflate it, so that... I can... ??
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
BottleKnight posted:And since the rest of your post is just calling my case bad, I'm just going to ignore it. you really shouldn't, if only because I'm not the only one who thought it was bad. Nobody has even supported it so far - maybe magnus, tacitly, but Magnus and SSV are both more peeved that I said there's a chance you're town, not because of your case. Your case is bad. It would do wonders if you could actually address my points why it's bad, since (especially if you're town) it gives you a chance to shore up its weak points, or (in my ideal world) you'd drop it altogether. BottleKnight posted:You are scummy because you say you have scum feelings but instead of posting cases on these people (ie scumhunting) you are going for this ecco gambit thing which allows you hide and hedge while maintaining a high post count. EccoRaven posted:Ironically if the real reason why you're voting for me is because I want to get rid of players like Magnus, then it is you who are voting for me for alignment-neutral reasons. And for the record this isn't actually the same case you started with. Remember your first case was because I called you scum "like five times!!!" without voting you, not because I am pursuing magnus in lieu of scumhunting entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Hey BK I hope this helps you: REASONS WHY MAGNUS MIGHT BE SCUM: - Non-entity all of day 1, posting frequently enough to not be a "lurker" and posting such that it looks like content but in truth was a lot of nothing. --- e.g. his case on me and merk being in a scumteam together was pulled out of thin air. When people asked him about it, he dodged explanations. When he finally confessed "it was a fake case to gauge reactions," he never said any of his thoughts on those reactions - like it was just done to pass the time rather than help the town. - He made a nonsense vote on me at the end of day 1 when he was the only vote on me and when the deadline was looming fast. Could easily be interpreted as him encouraging a no-hang by spreading out the votes. - He promised to reread and never came through, and it doesn't look like he ever will. - Day 2, he has not changed much. He made a case against me that's more "ecco is posting weirdly" than actually showing why it makes me scum, and considering I have been his biggest advocate for his execution it could also be interpreted as OMGUS. Why would scum be more likely to do this than town? Because scum generally don't want attention, but they want to be able to point to something they've done to deflect attention from themselves. If we all ignore Magnus to Day 4 or something, he could point to his day 1 posting and say "look, I had a case on merk and ecco being scum together," or some other phrasing that'll paint his contributions as positive to the game and help people look away from him. By also being so low-key, he avoids attention in the first place, allowing him to hide in the shadows. COUNTERPOINT: "Ecco, couldn't Magnus just be super disengaged generally? Couldn't Magnus just be not reading the thread regardless of his alignment, and only posting whatever thoughts suit him when he feels like it?" Very possible! But that's the thing with town liabilities. If Magnus is town, he's doing the rest of us a huge disservice by not engaging with the game and only posting nonsense when he does. No mafia would ever nightkill him. No town would ever vote for him for scumminess alone. A cop investigating him would be nice, but with the chance of a framer even if the cop gets a scum result it's still not open and shut. Our only real hope is we are in the setup with the vig who will use their one and only shot on him, but there's only a 25% chance of that being the case anyway. I don't like playing mafia games where it gets to be lategame (or even exlo) and the town has to choose between 3+ candidates, all of whom are lurkers, nonsense posters, or otherwise non-entities. I hate how towns vote for active posters (and scum generally nightkill them too), which has the double effect of both stagnating the game, AND tacitly rewarding non-entities by keeping them alive longer. It is far better for the town if we just voted them out now and save us all the trouble down the line. If nobody agrees with me (or I should say nobody but Jose), then I am fine dropping it for now, but I still think it's the better plan, and I think one will be hard-pressed to say I'm scum for thinking so.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Max posted:- BK, if scum, should be jumping with joy at the thought of lunching MG, because that would honestly be an easy vote. He's not. That either means, to me, that BK is town and has reservations about essentially following along with lunching low content players (this has it's own issues early on) or BK is scum and MG is his scum buddy. to be fair, as scum, I looooove keeping players like Magnus around. Because they don't pay close attention to the game, they are easily persuaded; because they post so infrequently, they are always easy targets to pursue in lieu of a scumbuddy, especially late-game when enough has happened that a scum player can construct an actually-persuasive case against them; and because they don't post substantively, meaning at endgame they can't shake off those one or two townies voting for them, clearing the way for a scum hammer and victory. Magnus brought up the game a few years ago where merk and I were scum together; we fought tooth and nail for that victory, and we kept Dhaes alive until exlo, even though Dhaes knew we were both scum, only because we (correctly) knew we could get him voted out and lead us to victory. BK as scum (or anyone as scum for that matter) might have very reasonably made a similar calculation. Seeing me go after Magnus, if both Mags and me are town, gives BK maybe two days worth of executions queued up. If Magnus dies and flips town, scum-BK can say "told you so" and vote me with more credibility. If I die, BK can say later in the game "maybe Ecco was right???" and make a quick and easy case on Magnus. It makes sense from a scum perspective, especially since my stance is very unconventional, which makes it all the easier to sound sincere when one says "that's different and therefore scummy!"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Quandary posted:I've changed my opinion on ecco, I think she's a misguided townie because I don't think she'd double down this hard on policy lynches as scum. ##unvote you thought I was scum? you were voting jose...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
chaoslord posted:Hi everyone, who is scum? opop is a daycop and got a scum result on you
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
SirSamVimes posted:The point is that you were doubling down on writing imgay off as just being a shitposter and someone who should be killed. to be fair, imgay's posting this game has been a lot of bluster with no substance. day 1 was reasonably mostly reactive to Jose and me, but day 2 he's been a non-entity.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:to be fair, imgay's posting this game has been a lot of bluster with no substance. day 1 was reasonably mostly reactive to Jose and me, but day 2 he's been a non-entity. e: lol yeah just reread imgay, it's like his normal shitposting but with an editor. his day 1 concern trolling is the vast majority of his posts this game.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
I would prefer magnus getting replaced to executed if it comes to that. would definitely vote BK in lieu of magnus if cpig decides to replace him.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
replacements are better than modkills which are better than someone who can't even play the game they signed up for.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
 we were too good for this world jose
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:Holy poo poo you a loving moron Max how much more obvious could it have been that SSV was scum this 110%
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:Thanks for throwing down an immediate vote in LYLO, Max max should stick to organizing legions and leave mafia to the experts!! yeah it SHOULD have been deciding between hats and leatherman (which would have been a very interesting endgame since hats wasn't around as much but leatherman was around and looking Smart Townie after recommending a no-hang). but alas.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 07:30 |
|
|
Max posted:I mean, I knew that was the narrative. But I thought the plan to see about nailing the other scum first was a good idea and we all agreed on BK anyway. FYI and for the future (because please don't retire again!), but this is not something any scum does when their buddy gets investigated. one of the hard things playing scum is scum *know* when their buddy has been successfully discovered (or conversely *know* when their buddy is discovered improperly [e.g. that a town is mistaken]). and since that's what they know, they never seriously doubt those results. going hard against SSV in lieu of BK does not make sense from a casual scum perspective, but makes perfect sense from a (somewhat myopic) town perspective. it should have suggested Quandary was the one telling the truth. it's also why I figured Jose was town. he wouldn't have focused so hard on imgay and draw a lot of attention and ire from people if he had been scum. anyway gg scum, glad I made you think I was a cop, pig run more of these mafia is fun.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2016 06:44
|
|