- It's that time of the year again! Just kidding, we were late.
Click here to see the awards and nominate people for the rest of the categories.
- We're looking for artists. Direct message Dr. Watson for more info!
- Status
The characters can help if there are scum pairs because potentially they may lean into being more or less plausible as Masons based on which names are grouped up. Hypothetical example - two brothers and two other guys make up a group of 4. One brother is a town mason, the other brother though has defected to AEW so instead the mason fake claim is one of the other two guys.
That sort of thing. I assume it's fairly likely people familiar with up to date rosters could guess likely Masons anyway.
Okay, you're tied together by reading both of you (roughly!) similarly in terms of motive. But if you're alluding to me tying you together in terms of alignment, there's no reason to assume that.
If you're curious about where distinction lies between you, I feel like Gram has been a bit retracted while you are aggressively doing nothing.
Hm? No, you already did that by saying "one of Gram or Ratchet are scum because lazy, especially if Flower and Ekko are both town". There is no reasoning to evidence any of that statement of course, it's pulled from thin air. You also have no reason to tie us together by motive - you've seen me play *more* than enough scum games with high effort. Ironically, lazy analysis is lazy.
And this means one of us must be scum of Flower and Ekko are town because...?
Spare me your answer, it won't be anything intelligible.
If you are interested in elaboration:
- How both of you approached Flower, at least initially, was to sully the veracity of her claim, so I think it would be fair to subtract points for that.
- Ekko is a relatively easy punching bag in that he says quite a lot that is punishable, and as town he can be quite farmable for scum players.
And no, appealing to your own meta isn't really that persuasive. Knowing that you *could* exert more effort does not make your lack of effort seem any better.
there is actually a small reason. neither u nor gram seem to have an issue with the other. this is the first time you display any sort of read towards him (as far as I recall) and its not rly much to say "he may as well flip scum". gram seems to prefer u over me in our interaction but never really says why. you seem to take no issue with that or with his other posts. i don't really recall any interaction between u guys.
now why I am saying this is because this could be just PoV related thing. you took an issue with flower agreeing with me that your joke post wasn't perceivable as such, but did not take an issue with gram, because you think you are being correct from your PoV and gram agreed with you.
what ultra is saying, or atleas what I figured he meant (correct me if I'm wrong @Ultra ) is its entirely possible one of you is easy going with the other because of being scum, aka potentially pocketing the other and shading me/flowa
it's more pertaining to gram than you because you didn't have a read on gram nor jump in to support an opinion of his. gram on the other hand shaded me and flowa multiple times and agreed with you all without explaining any of it
no idea what u just said and i rly hope it doesn't ever come to flavor to solve this
Yes, hypothetically you could case ten townies, and have them all die, and end up flipping town itself. Spare me, however, the isolated demand for a burden of proof that surpasses most of what we're typically working with in a mafia game, which is mostly loose info.
what do you propose we do?
and asking for evidence is very silly btw ratchy
town works in thoughts and reads. evidence is not something you can expect to see in day 1 without flips or night actions
town works in thoughts and reads. evidence is not something you can expect to see in day 1 without flips or night actions
Nope, this is more infantile Ultra-speak. My first reaction was actually towards you, because you thought that she'd be making a show and dance of having something to claim and not have something prepared to go. I, obviously, did not. The claim itself, however, was not fully satisfying. I have already explained this next bit, but given that you're pretending to be ignorant of it once again, I'll redo it.
When I was first told that the Masons did not know who each other were, I had believed that there was a reason for this level of anonymity. So seeing Flower claim this so easily, and cite paranoia despite having no real need of it, I felt it "looked worse for her than her partner in terms of the likelihood one was scum". When it was later revealed that this is just standard convention, then it was clear there was no need for anonymity to mean anything in particular. What is typically supposed to happen Ultra, and I appreciate you've never been capable of this, is that when new information is brought to the table, you use that new information to revise your current position.
No need for docking points, no need to ascribe nefarious intentions, it's all very well established within the thread.
How I handled it, of course, should have no bearing on how you perceive how Gram handled it.
Which has absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand because you haven't demonstrated either of us "farming implicative material" on Ekko. In fact your position was we had done absolutely nothing just a few posts ago, so there's no reason for this to apply at all.
Well I'm not here to persuade the intellectually dishonest. As I just outlined there, ascribing the motive here to me would require me to need to be lazy and have an excuse of sorts for it. I obviously don't need to be lazy. We don't even need to go into why this even implies alignment (it doesn't).
I wasn't aware there was a prerequisite that suggested I had to have an issue with something Gram has done?
I'm sure there are quite a number of players I haven't interacted with!
He is not saying anything close. He is saying one of us has to be scum because of phoning it in, just names plucked from thin air and dressed up as if they're rooted in logic. I lean town on Ultra, by the way, I just don't care to enable his "process".
Yes, we should all make claims and then have nothing to back them up with, and when we're asked to support them, we should say it's only day 1, and without flips and night actions, we can't do any more.
Note: claims here does not refer to role claims, but to statements of behaviour others have displayed.
Read it over twice. Flavour won't solve it, but there is no reason not to get it from Masons if, IF, they end up claiming.
Yup, nothing intelligible at all. You're the one who made the original statement, it was a silly statement to make, and now you're dismissing the burden of proof, which still lies with you, because you aren't actually able to demonstrate how you came to those names exactly. There is no link or tie, just bluster dressed up as reasoning.
Well, not grab names, throw them together, and say that this means that if that means this. Seems like a poor process to me.
I think I already explained why I didn't agree with your original assessment before the convention was explained, and how you could have arrived at that conclusion without the need for that information. There was also a window of time before that new evidence was brought to light in which I assumed you ought to have reacted to that situation differently given what you knew at the time. If you think it's unfair to make assumptions about how another player should react, well, you do the same. Nonetheless, I don't think this is particularly meaningful, from you.
- Ok.
- Don't play coy. I can ascribe the characteristic of "Doing nothing" and "Farming Ekko" to your play all the same.
- Why are you like this? You act as if placing a burden on a player to contribute meaningfully (The horror!) is wrong because you have demonstrated a capacity in the past to play with effort. How the fuck am I supposed to read you as town if you are intentionally stalwart?
-
- Status