• We're looking for artists. Direct message Dr. Watson for more info!

Game Ranked Skyrim Mafia

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
Whicker said:
The main issue is that this is how you approached last game as scum. Very first page you pinged Melkor's opener and then didn't really let up on him until after he was lynched and your team had control of the game.
Click to expand...
this feels a bit forced because 1) magic did back off of aurelian 2) the phase isn't old enough yet to draw this comparison. also throwing down a vote on someone right away to get reactions is something magic does every game as any alignment.
 
Ratchet said:
He thinks you're a bad player and a negative presence for town. You know he thinks this. So you being gone tracks with his statement. You brought up the game he hosted which has nothing to do with his opinion of you as it's not like it has reversed.
Click to expand...
he can have his opinion on my play, it doesnt affect me, but it needs to factually make sense

he cant advocate for policy lynching a player without establishing why said player IS IN FACT detrimental to town. this is scummy

cp has more than enough data to figure out that there is no co-relation between me being in the game and town losing, as seen per last game

the 2 games i played the least on (last game and eastenders mafia) where the 2 games town got sweeped

cp's policy lynch is baseless. i am challenging that, and u shudnt be enabling it
 
Ratchet said:
I believe I asked you a question earlier
Click to expand...
Yeah why I liked Ekko's post? Because I thought earlier on you didn't have a lot to say. Obviously you're saying a lot now, but I'm not really ready to buy any stock in what you're saying at this point in time.
 
Ekkologix said:
cp's policy lynch is baseless. i am challenging that, and u shudnt be enabling it
Click to expand...
I'm not enabling it, I told him as much too. But your angle doesn't line up at all - you're presenting his policy lynch as if it's indicative of scum logic but you're bringing up elements that have no bearing on his reasoning anyway. It's a bad faith argument Ekko. You are insisting he needs to go back over why he thinks you're bad/negative for the town - he doesn't, not for what he's advocating.
 
CraigPelton said:
this feels a bit forced because 1) magic did back off of aurelian 2) the phase isn't old enough yet to draw this comparison. also throwing down a vote on someone right away to get reactions is something magic does every game as any alignment.
Click to expand...
1. I hadn't read past that post at that point.
2. Is the whole point, and I'm not aware of Magic's meta beyond one game.

I'm reading through the game and Aurelian's post pings me as weird so I comment on it. Then, I go back and start reading again from that point and Alco's post made me think of what Magic did last game so I commented on it.
 
i think CP is being ingenuine toward me, but its fine im not childish, i wont affect my play

i think cp's posts to magic were townie / read uninformed to me

his posts advocating for policy lynch if nothing better comes up however is like his posts about psychic in vegas mafia, where he said she shud be lynched if nothing better comes up
 
Black Pegged Dragon said:
Yeah why I liked Ekko's post? Because I thought earlier on you didn't have a lot to say. Obviously you're saying a lot now, but I'm not really ready to buy any stock in what you're saying at this point in time.
Click to expand...
Ekko's post came after I'd said a fair bit already though. What sort of metric are you using, that I can be reasonably accused of struggling for content here?

I didn't ask you to put any stock into any part of what I said (though dismissing what I'm saying before you have reason to town read me is pretty silly imo).

The only good part of this is that it tracks insofar as you commented towards me at the start telling me I needed to give some input, so at least the internal logic holds even if it does require you to be using my presence from much earlier to support a point made against me that came later, which obviously doesn't make a great deal of sense anyway.
 
Vote lynch CraigPelton

If we're talking about people's inconsistencies. This man did a complete 180 on my read on Magic because.... idk.
 
Ratchet said:
I'm not enabling it, I told him as much too. But your angle doesn't line up at all - you're presenting his policy lynch as if it's indicative of scum logic but you're bringing up elements that have no bearing on his reasoning anyway. It's a bad faith argument Ekko. You are insisting he needs to go back over why he thinks you're bad/negative for the town - he doesn't, not for what he's advocating.
Click to expand...
the bad faith is on his end, he didnt provide a reasoning! thats why its being dismissed

all he gave was a formula of lynch ekko = town win % increases (town loss % decreases)

he does, and im tired of u pretending he doesnt. if he doesnt establish why said policy lynch is beneficial to town he needs to drop it. surely u see the problem in him being allowed to do stuff like this with no repercussion? he can come in every game and repeat the same thing. policy lynching day 1 is the perfect cover for scum that arent able to generate content.

if you arent enabling it then dont respond to me until u get a reason from him as to why he thinks that wagon increases town's chances to win
 
Whicker said:
1. I hadn't read past that post at that point.
2. Is the whole point, and I'm not aware of Magic's meta beyond one game.

I'm reading through the game and Aurelian's post pings me as weird so I comment on it. Then, I go back and start reading again from that point and Alco's post made me think of what Magic did last game so I commented on it.
Click to expand...
I'm aware you didn't know that about magic, which is why I judged your post in terms of being genuine or not rather than correct.
 
Whicker said:
Vote lynch CraigPelton

If we're talking about people's inconsistencies. This man did a complete 180 on my read on Magic because.... idk.
Click to expand...
I'm prone to give posts by newer (to me) players a surface level glance until someone offers a deeper interpretation to consider
 
Ekkologix said:
the bad faith is on his end, he didnt provide a reasoning! thats why its being dismissed

all he gave was a formula of lynch ekko = town win % increases (town loss % decreases)

he does, and im tired of u pretending he doesnt. if he doesnt establish why said policy lynch is beneficial to town he needs to drop it. surely u see the problem in him being allowed to do stuff like this with no repercussion? he can come in every game and repeat the same thing. policy lynching day 1 is the perfect cover for scum that arent able to generate content.

if you arent enabling it then dont respond to me until u get a reason from him as to why he thinks that wagon increases town's chances to win
Click to expand...
I'll probably make this my last post for the night.

Ekko, what you're doing here is essentially stacking the deck against CP. Not by giving him some unreasonable standard of evidence to meet, but by demanding he meets criteria you know full well he won't bother to as either alignment. Him not explaining why he thinks you being dead is better for town again is not a position that comes from scum him only. You're fully aware that as town too, he won't just cave your demands on this, and is wont to resist them.

I also don't think you believe as scum he can't "generate content". This seems to be the latest buzz term used here - he's perfectly capable of setting up positions for him to hold and so forth.
 
Ratchet said:
I'll probably make this my last post for the night.

Ekko, what you're doing here is essentially stacking the deck against CP. Not by giving him some unreasonable standard of evidence to meet, but by demanding he meets criteria you know full well he won't bother to as either alignment. Him not explaining why he thinks you being dead is better for town again is not a position that comes from scum him only. You're fully aware that as town too, he won't just cave your demands on this, and is wont to resist them.

I also don't think you believe as scum he can't "generate content". This seems to be the latest buzz term used here - he's perfectly capable of setting up positions for him to hold and so forth.
Click to expand...

if he doesnt want to elaborate or drop it as either alignment then he can get lynched lol. hes not some omnipotent presence thats above playing this game. if he presents a shit lynch option and doesnt explain it he can be disposed of, we dont need him, and we shudnt be promoting this sort of play in this site

ok now the way ur putting it seems that this policy wagon is not "lynch ekko to increase town's chances of winning!" but rather "lynch ekko to increase my enjoyment of the game!", which you probably agree with anyway so i get nothing by talking to you about it, but if thats the case then i respond to him, in the nicest way possible, to kindly fk off lol, regardless of alignment

speaking of "regardless of alignment". if he can do it as scum and i have no reason to think hes town then why r you defending it? do u read im town? or do u just agree with him? i cant tell what ur motive is but u can drop the good guy act tbh

lastly, if i vote u right now and say "lynch ratchet! it increases town's chances of winning and we shud lynch there if nothing else comes up!!!" then proceed to vote u and say naught more, what will be ur immediate response to it? surely i dont have to explain my position then? otherwise why is cp treated differently? cuz he made it a habit? that habit needs to be broken
 
CraigPelton said:
I'm prone to give posts by newer (to me) players a surface level glance until someone offers a deeper interpretation to consider
Click to expand...
Okay but I made the same argument last time. So the “it’s too early to make that determination” argument should have always been the case, right? Or if it seemed genuine to you then why would it be forced when I repeated my same thought process?
 
Whicker said:
Okay but I made the same argument last time. So the “it’s too early to make that determination” argument should have always been the case, right? Or if it seemed genuine to you then why would it be forced when I repeated my same thought process?
Click to expand...
not quite
Whicker said:
I didn't like either one of your openers.

It's doubtful two scum would both jump out this early, but your questioning of Aurelian pinged me the same as his opener about BPD. Both posts struck me as early "let's find this scummy thing and get a basis for a push." IIRC you and Psychic did this with Melkor last game and you were scum.
I found the post about Ekko strange considering he wasn't even close to making it unreadable last game. Just seemed really weird
Click to expand...
here you're just talking about the initial vote
Whicker said:
The main issue is that this is how you approached last game as scum. Very first page you pinged Melkor's opener and then didn't really let up on him until after he was lynched and your team had control of the game.
Click to expand...
here you're comparing him to the way he conducted the entire phase last game, which doesn't really make sense given how early in this phase this exchange happened. you don't even give magic a chance to fulfill or not fulfill the thing you think he's going to try to do.

this is why it feels like you're leading with a conclusion about something that hasn't happened yet to justify your push in the second post rather than just feeling sussed out by something in the first
 
Reader mode
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top