Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 80

Author Topic: Supernatural 7 - Game over - Town Win!  (Read 107025 times)

Jim Groovester

  • Bay Watcher
  • 1P
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - The Council of 13
« Reply #375 on: June 16, 2014, 04:37:52 am »

This can be partially excused by your absence, but I would still expect more activity from a veteran player.

I'm trying to find the words to adequately express the contempt I feel right now.

Jiokuy.

Firstly, please answer my questions I directed at you in the previous post. In particular, since I can no longer assume you have the mental capacity to find them on your own, they are quoted here for your convenience:

What part of being LEGITIMATELY ABSENT makes me scummy?
Your posts all seem self-serving.

Please elaborate. I won't stand to be characterized in such a lazy way without significant evidence and reasoning.

Now, we examine the post you just made.

You've made 9 posts this game. Of them I would consider only 5 of them to be playing the game. This can be partially excused by your absence, but I would still expect more activity from a veteran player.

I shall repeat: I WAS FUCKING ABSENT YOU DIPSHITARD

How do you expect me, you, or anyone to meet the expectation for mafia activity if they are not physically able to post?

This isn't a rhetorical question, by the way. I want you to answer it, because I want you to spend the amount of time to think about and type out and post the answer to a question that should be obvious to anybody who isn't a complete moron.

This is honestly offensive. Since I've been back my activity has been fine and I shouldn't have to justify my activity for an absence I told everybody about in advance.

Based on the content of your posts (in particular your questions); I think if you're hunting at all, you're playing a very weak game.

This is vague bullshit.

What content of my posts? What questions? How is it weak? Answer these.

It isn't just vague bullshit, it's vague, scummy bullshit. You cannot get away with being this lazy.

You having a bad case doesn't offend me half as much as your laziness does. You have put literally no effort into your vote on me and I am offended that you think you can lynch me with it.

So Jim, who do you think is scum.

You if you expect to get away with pushing a case this shit.
Logged
You know, it's fucking uncanny how many times people scream that Jim is out to get them and has rallied the town to destroy them, like he's the head of some damn conspiracy theory or something.  I've learned to recognize this as something I call "The Jimbot Fallacy".

Ottofar

  • Bay Watcher
  • Wait, spinning?
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #376 on: June 16, 2014, 07:24:22 am »

Unvote 4maskwolf

@Ottofar:
I'd rather post more in-depth reads on D2, when there's some concrete evidence around. But, I can post something concise when I get tomorrow, for everyone to see.
What would happen if nobody felt like posting on Day 1? If everybody took your stance it'd be a quiet first day.



Yeah, you're right.



Anyway, for the reads.

IG, first. Flailing around and being generally panicy. I'm trusting his third-partiness, and would love to see him vigged. I don't think he should be lynched though, not yet at least.

Flabort doesn't strike me as particularly scummy, but IG getting him to softclaim so easily is a bit suspicious. He had the thing with Toaster, which he withdrew. Coupling that with him not thinking anyone's scum strikes me as passive and cowardly, now that I look into it.

Flabort, why did you feel you had to get IG off yourself?

Jim, his first vote was reasonable, even though it was directed at the guy voting him. The second one is less so, and again an OMGUS. I can sympathize with being annoyed at everybody complaining about the absence, though. Still, a scum, I think, trying to scare his voters away.

ToonyMan, low postcount, pretty good content. Slight town lean.

Jack, nothing wrong there. Town.

Zombie Urist, wait, he's in the game? I'd vig him, if IG wasn't in the game.

Toaster, something feels odd with him, gonna take a look at him in the evening.

Also posting rest of the list in ~5 hours, sorry








Toaster

  • Bay Watcher
  • Appliance
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #377 on: June 16, 2014, 08:39:52 am »

Extend.  I think we could use that last 24 hours to get everything from everyone.


Flabort:
Flabort:
Imperial Guardsman: Starts out scummy, very scummy. I have to soft claim to get him off my case

So... why do the attacks of a "very scummy" person do so well to drive out a claim from you?  If he's that scummy, his cases will go ignored.
The way he saw it, he didn't "do so well", he didn't want me to claim. However, I was trying to prove that he was lying (he was), which I thought would prove he was scum (it didn't). And I see it less as he drove a claim from me, and more of I gained a rise from him.

Hrmph.  I guess.


Jack A T:
Why do you think he's holding nothing back?  I certainly agree he [IG] isn't town, and that it's likely he's third party, but I'm not at all convinced everything he's said is on the up and up.
Toaster: Interesting.  What parts of IGs statements do you least trust?

Primarily his change of wincon on death of Flabort.  He said:

PPE:
Wrong there, I get a different wincon on his death.
Oh?  And what would this new wincon be?
Undisclosed, but I assume its a Lyncher wincon, given the circumstances.

It's plausible that he doesn't know, but Lyncher isn't believable.  Plus, he's a bit too willing to use his 50% bad-things-happen revive.

The ties to Super6 are unusual, but not entirely implausible.  Finally, I'm not giving Flabort a free townie pass based on his statements.


Going to put my (re)reads in another post to not get too wall-o-texty.
Logged
HMR stands for Hazardous Materials Requisition, not Horrible Massive Ruination, though I can understand how one could get confused.
God help us if we have to agree on pizza toppings at some point. There will be no survivors.

notquitethere

  • Bay Watcher
  • Freelance Forum Dweller
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #378 on: June 16, 2014, 10:16:11 am »

COMPILATION OF READS
Part 2

Players Who Have Given Reads
In Chronological Order
NQT
Jim
Toonyman
Flabort
Persus
Zombie Urist
Jack
Jiokuy


Incomplete Reads
King "Everyone else hovers around null" Toaster
TheWetSheep
Ottofar

Players Yet To Give Reads
Tiruin, or her replacement
Imperial Guardsman


Initial Follow Up

Jim, Do you really think so many people are null/neutral?
Toaster, Sheep, Ottofar, what do you think about the players you didn't mention?

(I'm at work atm, so pretty tight for time here and there's a lot to look at here, so will get back to more people as soon as poss. Also, there are some patterns in the reads that I want to explore ASAP.)



Meph, vote count please! Also, extend.



Answers

Toaster
What value do you expect from aggregate suspicion?
In one of the BMs (the wizard-themed one), by collating people's suspicions I noticed there was one player the majority of people had suspected throughout the game, but not all at the same time so he's slipped through. Sure enough, I resolved an end-of-day tie against him and he was scum. It's not the only tool or by any stretch the most useful, but it's a potentially useful thing to check.

Flabort
NQT What do you think of Persus, 4mask, and Jim? If there were more than one third party, which one is most likely for there to be?
OK sure. Persus is pursuing IG which could mean one of the following: Persus is scum and is after a safe target (possible but unlikely when mislynching town is preferable), Persus is town and genuinely disbelieves IG's claim (possible, but if so somewhat overestimates IG), Persus is a third party who's wincon is tied up with defeating IG (like, Persus is secretly a cultist survivor that's out to stop IG or what-have-you. Possible, but a bit of a leap). Right now, I think it's slightly more likely Persus isn't scum, but the reasons I have for this are less compelling the more I think about them. Especially as scum often tend to pick one case and then just doggedly stick with it...

Wolf I'm reading as slightly town now. He's a bit bristly but I don't read defensiveness as scummy. Usually town want to avoid being mislynched too. Sheep, his replacement, has come in with a fresh case which is promising. I want to see more of Sheep before passing a fuller judgement. If he's town, hopefully he'll still be with us tomorrow.

Jim's getting a lot of flak right nowó I don't think Flabort was the best target for him to have picked and he's not made any other case the whole day. Now he's getting mad because he's lynch candidate and the cases against him aren't strongly made. I think there are both better and worse people to lynch today than Jim.

Meph creates the set-ups using a computer script (he gets a bunch of random draws and picks the one he likes best, tweaking it a bit), as such there could be any kind of third party here. We'll have a better idea on Day 2, I daresay.

ZU Glad to see you posting some substance!
NQT: [1] Lots of IIOA, [2]asking for lots of information without really doing anything with it. [3]Called Tiruin out for lurking way too early because he was too excited. I don't really understand why he being excited would lead him to call out a lurker.[4] Asked about an IG lynch and 4mask lynch even though they were at that time very unlikely to be lynched claiming that everyone needs to be responsible for a mislynch. He said he was asking early because
...if no one had done anything else at that time he would have died and I wanted people's opinions on this.
Its super unlikely that there would have been no activity at all after that it makes no sense for him to be worried about him being lynched.

[5]I also disagree with his reasoning that everyone needs the blame for a mislynch. The people voting for the target are obviously responsible, but often if you aren't voting for the person and you have a legitimate case on someone else sometimes it just happens that more people agree with the other case.
1. You seem to be using IIOA incorrectly: I've not speculated on the set-up at all. 2. As I've stated when asking for it, the information will be of most use in future days after flips. But as intended, I've got some initial analysis of everyone's reads in this post with more to follow. 3. I was just in an enthusiastic moment and hadn't really registered that it was still very early on in the game (as I'd posted more than most people at that stage, the game felt like it was quite developed at that time). 4. I've seen games dry up in activity towards the end of a day loads of times, and there was every indication at that time that one of them would be lynched and I wanted to know what people felt about it. As you'll see in a second, I'm about to do the same for the current lynch target. 5. But if you believe the person who is going to be lynched isn't scum and you don't try to prevent that lynch, then you're partly responsible for the mislynch. Scum like to keep their hands clean of mislynches, letting town do the dirty work and claiming innocence: it takes every player to make a mislynch happen.

Jack
*notquitethere: (revoting for clarity at a glance) Spent quite some time sitting back and trying to keep attention on whoever was getting attention, while giving as little as possible in the way of his thoughts.  Defense, when confronted on this, has been a mix of generally competent, but weak, attempts to create doubt, coupled with desperate attempts to make facts seem to back his narrative (see, for instance, the astounding attempt to spin the fact that he was defending himself into proof that he wasn't holding himself to a lower standard of openness than he said everyone should be held to).  Moderate scum lean.
It seems we've reached an impasse here: I've tried to explain as clearly as I can where I was coming from, how I'd intended to give my reflections (and have now since done so) but wanted to make sure everyone else had given theirs. I did hold people to a higher standard of openness than myself at the time, because I knew I'd be posting lots of good content after I'd had the chance of a more thorough read through. I can see why you might not have liked this then, but given that I've delivered on everything I promised, I don't really see what you still have to complain about.

If that were my intention, why would I go about consistently bringing up the need for reads and reflections from others?
notquitethere: To explain why you were trying to focus as much attention as you could on those who were already under attack.  To look like an active, helpful player.
Do I only look like an active and helpful player? I'm more active than you and by asking others for reads I've ensured it's happened. Pretty helpful, wouldn't you say?

Also, by pressing everyone and pursuing a number of cases throughout the day (rather than tunneling one person), I've drawn more flak on myself. How is my play consistent with trying to avoid attention?

I think you hoped nobody would notice your behaviour, including your lack of thoughts, but had some vague idea of how to explain your actions in case you were noticed.  Standard on-the-fly mafia behaviour: no detailed plans, some room for error, you know.  Playing like actual people play, not like the I'm Too Good A Scum Player To Do That argument assumes scum players play (I don't much like that argument, but I see it all too often).
So you're accusing me of playing like... a player. Every single player in this game could concievably be scum, I fail to see how my actions as you've described them make it more likely that I am scum than any other player here. Invent a story to explain my behaviour through a scum lens isn't a case.

Your idea of a good explanation was likely an explanation that would fit with your known tendency towards heterodox play, a tendency you recently awkwardly shoehorned into one of your arguments in defense against Toaster ("I almost always play in ways people disagree with: am I scum in every game?").  (You really wanted people to remember that, didn't you?)
Or, you know, I do have a strong tendency for heterodox play and I'm used to drawing suspicion for bogus things in every game I play?

In sum, I'm seeing a lot of rationalising an existing prejudice. You've decided I'm scum and now you're squeezing everything to confirm that bias.
Logged

Toaster

  • Bay Watcher
  • Appliance
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #379 on: June 16, 2014, 10:31:26 am »

NQT:  I note that your vote lines up with the aggregate suspicion leader (I'm ignoring IG here.)  Is this coincidental?
Logged
HMR stands for Hazardous Materials Requisition, not Horrible Massive Ruination, though I can understand how one could get confused.
God help us if we have to agree on pizza toppings at some point. There will be no survivors.

notquitethere

  • Bay Watcher
  • Freelance Forum Dweller
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #380 on: June 16, 2014, 10:38:12 am »

NQT:  I note that your vote lines up with the aggregate suspicion leader (I'm ignoring IG here.)  Is this coincidental?
Given that I voted ZU before almost everyone put in their reads, I'd damn well say that was coincidental. Unless you're accusing me of being psychic as well as scum?
Logged

Ottofar

  • Bay Watcher
  • Wait, spinning?
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #381 on: June 16, 2014, 10:42:38 am »

NQT, coming up.

extend

Mephansteras

  • Bay Watcher
  • Forger of Civilizations
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #382 on: June 16, 2014, 11:27:48 am »

The Scribe's Tally Sheet
TheWetSheep: Imperial Guardsman
flabort: Ottofar
Imperial Guardsman: Persus13
Jim Groovester: flabort, Jiokuy
Jiokuy: Jim Groovester
notquitethere: Jack A.T., Toaster
Ottofar: TheWetSheep
Persus13: zombie urist
zombie urist: notquitethere, ToonyMan



Day has been extended to ~4pm Pacific Tuesday. There will be no more Extensions this day.
Logged
Civilization Forge Mod v2.80: Adding in new races, equipment, animals, plants, metals, etc. Now with Alchemy and Libraries! Variety to spice up DF! (For DF 0.34.10)
Come play Mafia with us!
"Let us maintain our chill composure." - Toady One

zombie urist

  • Bay Watcher
  • [NOT_LIVING]
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #383 on: June 16, 2014, 11:39:20 am »

...
You need to put a lot more effort into your reads.

zombie urist: Alright.  Until now, you were voting for NQT.  You still suspect NQT.  What do you think of his defenses against allegations against him so far?
Voted IG in the beginning for Jack not asking him (IG) about thirds, but Jack himself already responded to that a few posts before. link
What makes this evidence against Persus13?
NQT stuff below. It makes Persus scummy because it means he copied someone else's case without adding anything new and is being lazy not contributing.

1. You seem to be using IIOA incorrectly: I've not speculated on the set-up at all. 2. As I've stated when asking for it, the information will be of most use in future days after flips. But as intended, I've got some initial analysis of everyone's reads in this post with more to follow. 3. I was just in an enthusiastic moment and hadn't really registered that it was still very early on in the game (as I'd posted more than most people at that stage, the game felt like it was quite developed at that time). 4. I've seen games dry up in activity towards the end of a day loads of times, and there was every indication at that time that one of them would be lynched and I wanted to know what people felt about it. As you'll see in a second, I'm about to do the same for the current lynch target. 5. But if you believe the person who is going to be lynched isn't scum and you don't try to prevent that lynch, then you're partly responsible for the mislynch. Scum like to keep their hands clean of mislynches, letting town do the dirty work and claiming innocence: it takes every player to make a mislynch happen.
1. I guess technically that's not correct, but you've been gathering information and not drawing any conclusions from it. In fact now that you've gathered reads your initial follow up is still to ask people to complete the reads.
2. Maybe. I don't really see any initial analysis. Asking people for more information doesn't really count as analysis.
3. I guess.
4. Still don't believe you. I haven't really seen a game dry up on day 1 especially only after 2 real life days. I guess RangerCado's 1 night thing is an exception but that was also an unusual setup. And TBH if activity dries up I don't think asking everyone for reads will make them post more anyways.
5. Defending people isn't really productive and IMO its much easier to find scum by looking at bad cases. Meh.
Logged
The worst part of all of this is that Shakerag won.

ToonyMan

  • Bay Watcher
  • having a bad vibration
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #384 on: June 16, 2014, 11:50:57 am »

TheWetSheep has replaced in for 4maskwolf.
So 4maskwolf really was a wolf in sheep's clothing...



@Jack AT:
ToonyMan: You said a while back that you had a feeling that NQT and 4maskwolf were working together.  Can you say why you thought and/or think this?
Yeah, I found this post suspicious. He first uses NQT's words in a positive manner, and then says he'll be keeping his eye on him. It felt staged to me.

I'm happy with a few things NQT is doing so I'd like to give him a chance.
What are these things?
A few things:

[1] We are of the same opinion about IG, even down to referring to Witches' Coven 3.
[2] We are both voting ZU for similar reasons.
[3] Tables are pretty.

So while I found his defensive nature suspicious, because of his viewpoints on players it's hard for me to criticize that.



@Jim Groovebot:
You're being way more childish than normal! Where's our ultra competent Sigma?



@Zombie Urist:
You might have missed it, but I voted you:
Zombie Urist for not engaging in the game and being unhelpful. Have anything to say? What are your thoughts on Jack AT and Toaster?
Logged

TheWetSheep

  • Bay Watcher
  • water covering (entire sheep)
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #385 on: June 16, 2014, 12:10:10 pm »

ZU:
Why is Jiokuy town and why are you assuming IG is truthful?
He's new, so his non-scummy posts and attempts at finding scum look more genuine. Although his new reads list is pretty bad.

On IG, that would be a pretty far-fetched and detailed fake-claim to make.

Jim:
Jim Groovester - less content and scumhunting results than what I'd expect

FOR FUCK'S SAKE PEOPLE
Why are you biting my head off when I've said that I haven't read the whole thread? I noticed that you hadn't done much, I didn't know that you've been having trouble posting the whole game.

Jiokuy:
Jim Groovester:
Very Passive. Scummy as heck. Not as Scummy as I am used to, but It's a learning process.
What does the italicized mean?

Quote
flabort:
Neutral. Suspicious, but I suspect day 2 will reveal more.
Why?

Quote
zombie urist:
Lurker, seems ok. Null leaning scum.
That's a bit of a contradiction.

Quote
TheWetSheep:
The New guy. Seems legit. Null.
I've made one post. Why am I 'legit'?

Quote
Imperial Guardsman:
Highly Suspicious, Long-Term Threat.
What? Why aren't you voting him? Do you not believe his claim?

NQT: You're not actually adding content, just compiling other peoples'. ZU has started posting; is he still lynchworthy?

Toaster, Sheep, Ottofar, what do you think about the players you didn't mention?
Null. That's why I didn't mention them.

Ottofar: Respond to this post, please.

You say in your reads list that flabort is not very scummy, that you believe IG is truthful(meaning flabort's town), and that Jim is probably scum, but you vote flabort. Why?

Persus13

  • Bay Watcher
  • 6th King of the Mafia
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #386 on: June 16, 2014, 12:16:01 pm »

Flabort:
You should ask me more questions, or I should ask more questions? I'm going to anyways, but just in case you meant otherways...

Persus What do you think of 4mask, Jim, and NQT? If you were an informative role, would you claim in the morning?
I meant you should ask more questions about stuff you found odd and other stuff like that, instead of just adding it to your spreadsheet.

You can find my reads on 4mask, Jim and NQT in my last post, and I don't have anything to add except 4maskwolf is gone, and Sheep's play so far is looking good.

I wouldn't claim an info role unless I had important information, like I found out if someone was scum.

Jiokuy
Jim:
You have a low post count, and an even lower question count.
I may be wrong, but I have yet to find a post where you question someone who isn't voting you.
I find your attack on Jim hypocritical.
While Jim has only 5 posts of game play, they are all pretty long with a lot of content. You on the other hand have only 9 posts, all of which are comparatively short and you have been around for the whole game, while Jim was only around Friday as well as the weekend when the amount of activity dropped significantly.
Also, Jim has been questioning me pretty thoroughly and I have yet to vote him.

ZU:
Zombie Urist: What's your case on NQT?
I'm sure this question has never been asked before.
Is that sarcasm?

Jim:
I don't know, and I'd rather overestimate someone then underestimate when it comes to that sort of thing, ever since the last Supernatural, where I believed a fake-claim and it caused me and other town players to lose the game.

This is the most important question and you dodge it. Is Imperial Guardsman willing to attempt to use WIFOM or not? It doesn't matter if he does it well or badly.
I honestly do not know, and I prefer not to underestimate people. Going with the people are dumb explanation may be tempting, but from what I've seen it's very easy to fakeclaim, especially when people already believe you are a third-party.

Firstly I think it's asinine to not believe a claim in a Supernatural game because it's unprecedented. There's precedent for that being a bad move. Consider the case of Toaster the resurrected Lone Vampire who was lynched because people did not believe his truthful claim.
It's more of the fact that his flavor, powers, and name don't match up in my mind, as well as the fact that Meph hasn't really referenced previous games before.

Secondly, at what point do you believe Imperial Guardsman made the decision to fakeclaim? Because Imperial Guardsman was making insinuations and hints to the wincon he would eventually claim well before he actually claimed it. He votes flabort here, then flabort claims partially, then a mere twenty minutes after his vote on flabort Guardsman bemoans that flabort claimed here and continues to make these hints until a day later he explicitly makes his claim. So, where in the timeline of these events did Imperial Guardsman decide to fakeclaim to evade pressure?
That is a good point, I missed the "you doomed us both" part of that quote. I need to reread that section again.

notquitethere:
I like your table of reads. Looks like most people think Jack A T is town, ZU is scummy, and Tiruin is null or slight scum.

ZU:
zombie urist: Alright.  Until now, you were voting for NQT.  You still suspect NQT.  What do you think of his defenses against allegations against him so far?
Voted IG in the beginning for Jack not asking him (IG) about thirds, but Jack himself already responded to that a few posts before. link
What makes this evidence against Persus13?
It makes Persus scummy because it means he copied someone else's case without adding anything new and is being lazy not contributing.
Why does a vote and a question at the start of D1 need a case attached. I don't understand your case on me.
Logged
Congratulations Persus, now you are forced to have the same personal text for an entire year!
Longbowmen horsearcher doomstacks that suffer no attrition and can navigate all major rivers without ships.
Sigtext

Ottofar

  • Bay Watcher
  • Wait, spinning?
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #387 on: June 16, 2014, 01:02:40 pm »

Reposting these here for your convenience.

IG, first. Flailing around and being generally panicy. I'm trusting his third-partiness, and would love to see him vigged. I don't think he should be lynched though, not yet at least. 3rd Party.

Flabort doesn't strike me as particularly scummy, but IG getting him to softclaim so easily is a bit suspicious. He had the thing with Toaster, which he withdrew. Coupling that with him not thinking anyone's scum strikes me as passive and cowardly, now that I look into it. Scum.

Flabort, why did you feel you had to get IG off yourself?

Jim, his first vote was reasonable, even though it was directed at the guy voting him. The second one is less so, and again an OMGUS. I can sympathize with being annoyed at everybody complaining about the absence, though. Still, a scum, I think, trying to scare his voters away.

ToonyMan, low postcount, pretty good content. Slight town lean.

Jack, nothing wrong there. Town.

Zombie Urist, wait, he's in the game? I'd vig him, if IG wasn't in the game.

Toaster, something feels odd with him, but I can't place my finger on it. Scum lean, but only by gut.

Persus13, doesn't really stand out to me. Null to slight town.

notquitethere, Well. Don't know exactly. Occasional posts that are very scummy. Somewhat defensive overall. Pushing for activity, which might be a scumtell. Scum, or a third party, or a town power role.

Tiruin. Not been here much, up for replacement. Good content when she posts. Town.

The4maskSheep, 4maskwolf was somewhat panicy, and not always too well argued, but active. Wetsheep's twisting my words and overinterpreting me. Otherwise looks active, and pretty good. Townish.



TWS
Ottofar:
Spoiler: Snip (click to show/hide)
This really looks like you're trying to get the new guy to slip up on at least one of these questions - you even said in the same post that scum would try to lynch him.

He's the only one in the game I don't know, so I thought I'd ask him several questions to find out what he's like as a player.

Also, do not twist my words. I said he might be a likely D1 lynch, and that's because newbies often are.

Also also, on Flabort, I didn't delete a word from that post, or reread it before posting. The things I mentioned then somehow clicked, and made me have a change of heart.

And no, I do not trust IG's claim on his towniness, but the part where he wants him alive. It seems rather unlikely to me that IG would go "hey, Flabbbers here's scum, but pls don't lynch him, I wnana win", don't you think?


PPE:

Jiokuy
Jim:
You have a low post count, and an even lower question count.
I may be wrong, but I have yet to find a post where you question someone who isn't voting you.
I find your attack on Jim hypocritical.
While Jim has only 5 posts of game play, they are all pretty long with a lot of content. You on the other hand have only 9 posts, all of which are comparatively short and you have been around for the whole game, while Jim was only around Friday as well as the weekend when the amount of activity dropped significantly.
Also, Jim has been questioning me pretty thoroughly and I have yet to vote him.

This, well. Jim & Persus. Chainsawing's a heavy tell, when it's this blatant.

flabort

  • Bay Watcher
  • Still a demilich, despite the 4e and 5e nerfs
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #388 on: June 16, 2014, 02:05:34 pm »

Define least impressive game.

Passive, non-confrontational, fluffy and contentless, interested in survival over scumhunting. Active enough, but really not trying to make a splash or get too much attention.

That was my impression of flabort when I completed my read of the thread.
Ouch. Harsh. Fair, though, at least the non-confrontational, active, survivalist, and not wanting to get too much attention parts.
As for splash, and passive, does not claiming first mean anything?

Quote
Jim What do you think of NQT, Persus, and 4mask?

My reads haven't changed since I posted them.

Who is likely to die to the scum tonight?

It depends on who you choose to kill BWAR HAR HAR HAR HAR.

I don't know who is going to die and I don't feel comfortable publicly predicting it.

Why questions about those four people?
Why questions about you (Jim): Because you may be scum, I want more thorough opinions.
Why questions about NQT: Because NQT seems to be controversial right now, and I want more thorough opinions.
Why questions about Persus: Because I needed someone who wasn't under suspicion to balance it out. Although I might have been wrong, I want more thorough opinions, and I can't recall many bad opinions of Persus at the moment.
Why questions about 4mask: Because I wanted his opinions, but it would unbalance the questions if I didn't ask anyone else about him.
*flabort: Having watched flabort apply his spreadsheet before joining NSBM4,
Oh, that's right, I shared my sheet with you since you were GMing that game. So of course you have more insight into it. Heh, I've still got those notes on that Mario Bros themed game if you'd ever want to run it.
Quote
flabort: I notice that you lean towards Toaster being scum, but the only negative value in your reads is on Jim.  What caused the negative value for the latter?  What makes you suspect Toaster, but not suspect the lower-value Jim?  Is this the continuing issues with your scumometer?
(where does ZU work? What new product?)
Let's let ZU have his privacy.
On privacy: Fine, but I was hoping to get a better idea of ZU as a person to get a better idea of how he/she is going to play. But I'll let it drop.
On reads: I'm still letting my scumometer tint my views, but not control them anymore. It is now more of a lens on my opinions then a mirror, at least I'm working towards that. Technically, Jim is not my only negative value, but if IG is to be believed, then his scumometer value is worthless and pointless.
I need to update the scumometer, of course, but Jim earned a negative value by being rude in short posts; his more recent posts have not been logged yet, and will probably lift his value a little.
I suspect toaster mostly due to gut instinct, plus a couple of evil sounding sentences. I do suspect Jim, he's being even more abrasive now than the earlier posts; and I didn't have much to go on before due to previous absence (to the point that I didn't even know he was in the game in my first, unhelpful, read).
Basically what you noted on my reads is continuing issue, yes. I still need to refine my method and application of it.

Flabort, why did you feel you had to get IG off yourself?
Because he was lying, and he was wrong. I wanted to prove him a liar, set the truth straight, and lay groundwork for solving the puzzle, and the best way to do that was to reveal a truth; the best way to do that was to claim.
Furthermore, he was being angry and... I guess the best word is "snobby" or "inappropriately overconfident". I didn't like that behavior, so I did something to change it.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Speaking of "snobby" and "rude".


Toaster: What do you think of our lurking players? Who would you say is still lurking, who has started lurking, what does that say about them?

Tiruin/Tiruin's unnamed replacement Same question.

TheWetSheep Also same question.
Logged
The Cyan Menace

Went away for a while, came back, went away for a while, and back for now.

Imperial Guardsman

  • Bay Watcher
  • [FANATICISM INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #389 on: June 16, 2014, 02:45:44 pm »

Flabort, why did you feel you had to get IG off yourself?
Offofar, why did you feel you had to vote Flabort? Hes done nothing suspicious and I CONFIRMED HIM AS TOWN MULTIPLE TIMES AND HE CLAIMS INVESTIGATIVE.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 80