Bay 12 Games Forum

That hasn't worked so well in the Spanish exclaves in Morocco, hasn't there been a handful of mass rushes on the fences there in the past few months?

Sniper rifles? As in just regular ones and not the "BOOMANTI-TANKROUNDSTOTHEFACE" sniper rifles?

A'ight, when I said don't make 9 pages of stuff, I meant have some stuff.

Anyway...

Trying to piece together which bits of Lenglon's response is related to which bit in my post. I'm reasonably sure I got confused over how Lenglon's fusion works at some point during it, but I'll explain it when I get to it.

PPE: Alternatively, Lenglon can go through it again later, since she ignored quite a bit of it in favour of channeling her inner Lord Mandelson.

Lenglon: could you remind us of how your fusion ability works re: change in alignment? Is it you or your target that changes? There's 50+ pages to go through, so it's easier to just ask at this point.

Hector13:
seriously? Okay, in order it is:
1) because your accusation is self-contradictory. You are voting us for lightly opposing a plan we ourselves proposed, and doing that at the exact moment of its proposition. if said plan benefits faction X, and we are not faction X, then why propose it in the first place? you cant have it be both pro-ANYONE and anti-THAT SAME ANYONE at the same time. So what the hell are you doing?

What accusation did I make?

I don't think I made an accusation, I asked a question to clarify what Shakerag was doing, 'cause it was early morning and I wasn't awake enough to entertain my usual "what if "x player is y alignment, how would that change things?" thought process. Like you say, it didn't make sense, so I asked about it.

2) bizzare WIFOM is the first thing I bring up because it's the only way I can think of to reconsile the self-contradictory nature of your accusation. Logic failures like that peeve me off to no end.

You missed a bit to answer, byraway:

Why would I have to do that? Is that the only reason a I would be voting for you? Considering those reasons, why is bizarre WIFOM the first thing you bring up? Answer all questions, in order, if you please.

Kind of important for me to figure out your position here, seeing as bizarre WIFOM (isn't all WIFOM bizarre?) is still the only thing you've brought up.

3) Wuba BYOR pre-massclaim and you want to argue ability balance. Nobody can answer that until roles are on the table, go (role)fish elsewhere since I see no reason to tell you the drawbacks of mine just because you feel threatened by us.

You want to tell me that Wuba hasn't figured out how to balance a BYOR after 15 tries? Please.

Considering you've told us of the aspect of your role that I'm asking about, how am I rolefishing?

Answer: I wasn't. I'm asking you to theorycraft. Where did I suggest I was threatened by you?

A reminder of what I want:

Afterward, please tell me how a fusion ability like yours could benefit the town while simultaneously be balanced enough to not unduly disadvantage third-party and, perhaps more importantly, scum.

Ulterior motive: After N1, I know there's a player with an ability who can, for lack of a better (read: more entertaining) term, fuck you and Shakes right up. Please do use it, they-who-shall-not-be-named.

4) Are you seriously upset that I didn't wait until LYLO and then intentionally join the scumteam? That's your idea of a pro-town action? That is literally what you just said I should have done. What is this I don't even.

This was where I think my sleep-addled mind confused which way the alignment change goes. Probably 'cause I don't believe that this ability works the way Lenglon said it does, and I don't believe Lenglon is town.

Also, it is not literally what I said. 'cause literally means actually, and I didn't say that. I presented something without explaining the thought basis for it, which is what the previous line/paragraph hopefully alleviates.

5) What. "It would have been much more sane to lynch <player A> at some point assuming <player A> is town." Yes that is how the town works, we lynch fellow townies every chance we get. also the sky is orange, and water is dry.

That's a pretty textbook example of misrepresentation. Shakerag claimed Miller.

Test for some clever clogs: what ways can we confirm a Miller is actually a Miller and not scum/SK/otherwise anti-town?

6)Us having a quicktopic seemed completely obvious by the nature of the fusion, so much so that I didn't even think to mention it. I very much wasn't hiding it as you could see yesterday when it came up.

Well flabort thought it was completely obvious that they would flip 'cause of their auto or whatever, folks gotta stop making assumptions.

Thus, you hid it by omission, and you didn't bring the QT up first. I don't think you want to look like Trump by having someone representing you saying one thing, and you saying the opposite.

[aside]I hope so hard that someone submitted Donald Trump as a role.[/aside]

7) wincons are listed in the OP hector, asking someone what their wincon is is not a valid alignment check. as I said before, Im town. I win when all anti-town factions are dead.

Fair point.

8 ) I like the vote, I just don't like the attack. or specificly the logical falacies involved in the attack. a case based on facts I can respect. This mess you tossed my way is offensive to even look at.

Hector: Why are you encouraging me to play in an anti-town manner and why does your case make the basic assumption that the lynch is controlled by scum? and why are you using "we" in talking about that scum-controlled lynch?

There's a lot wrong here.

Could you explain where I encouraged you to play in a manner that was anti-town? Where did I make the basic assumption that the lynch is controlled by anyone, town, scum, or otherwise? 'cause your case is kinda dependent on those two things, and I don't see it.

What I am seeing is you taking something I say, assuming I mean it in the most anti-town way possible, using that position to put words into my mouth to that effect, using those words as a foundation to respond to, and then summing it up as "well you're obviously scum if you said that."

The collective noun thing is something I do. I use it to refer to the town at large, such as when you failed to mention you have a QT with Shakes to the town at large, or how the town at large is s'posed to confirm that Shakes is truthing with his Miller claim. I think that covers all the times that I use a collective noun in this post which is where your case comes from.

So, to sum up, I made no case, I asked a question, demanded clarifications, and wanted you to do things like theorycraft how your role would be balanced in the game at large. If, in doing so, I offended your sensibilities... well, that's your problem, not mine.

I mean, comon, just because Im offering to let your scumbuddy jump ship doesn't mean you can get away with this kinda stuff Hector.

I like how you went from "I have no idea how to read you based on your vote and question" to "holy shit, obvscum" in one post, probably in an attempt to justify the obvOMGUS. Well done.

---

So, with all that in mind, perhaps you'd like to respond to things like an adult and not a petulant child Alistair Darling whoops wrong Alistair Alastair Campbell? I think you missed some of the things I wanted from the dizziness caused by you spinning my words so hard. I'll even provide a template for you, so you don't have to format things so much on your phone!

Didn't you modkill origamiscienceguy?

You clearly have time to post now, you just responded to Jack with a... "comprehensive" post on their case.

Why not scum hunt someone who is not Tolyk instead of incessantly saying "waiting on Tolyk, nyah. Tolyk hasn't responded yet, nyah."

Quote from: EnigmaticHat on June 12, 2017, 04:37:18 pm

Quote from: redwallzyl on June 12, 2017, 04:15:29 pm

Quote from: EnigmaticHat on June 12, 2017, 03:40:55 pm

Otherwise why have the damn thing in the first place?

Political stunt for support because no one thought it would happen.

Well yes but that's the wrong way to use the tool.

The point is that while Brexit was questionable as a decision (again, wrong thread), the actual way the referendum was handled was good.  Not having a referendum would also have been valid, but having one and then ignoring the result or trying to delegitimize their own referendum, that would be a mistake.

Although to be fair, the referendum was explicitely made legally non-binding.

True, but no politician, however anti-Brexit, will use that argument because it's akin to saying "well, you're too stupid to have chosen the right thing so we're just going to ignore you."

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 12, 2017, 04:21:54 pm

The bigger problem is that if you legitimize electoral boycotts, the losing side will always do them and then claim illegitimacy. This sort of thing could actually, literally, destroy democracy if people buy into it.

The losing side claiming the election is illegitimate isn't a particularly rare occurrence, and doesn't seem to be any more democracy destroying than various other general threats.

Depends on context, really.

PPE: ninja'd by Frumple, so n'mind.

GOP Don't Care Act.

[tribalism]Pretty much what all Republican legislature should be called, amirite[/tribalism]

Isn't that illegal? Check local laws and shit, man.