Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mcmcsalot]

Ahh, Cao Cao has arrived! He is here to help keep track of everything. I am glad we have such fantastic generals to keep order. Remember I want you all to decide on who we should kill by nightfall, their are spies here and my plan only works if everyone remains anonymous. Anyone attempting to claim who they are risks their death and the death or one of their friends! No Exceptions!

Vote Count 1.7:

Chairs (1): theorel
Sudgy (3): Twistedarcher, Yuma, Chairs
Ashersky (5): Robz888, Galzria, ashersky, voltaire, XerxesPraelor
XerxesPraelor (2): Eevee, Nkirbit
Twistedarcher (1): mail-mi
Robz888 (1): sudgy

Not Voting (0):

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.

[ashersky]

For the record, the mods answers my question.  If you flavor claim, not only are you modkilled, so is a random member of your faction AND the day goes directly to night.

I will not believe this unless I see a mod post it in-thread.

Ash, now that you've stated it was a gambit officially, I implore you to consider how it is a very unsportsmanlike way to play.

I disagree.  Modkills happen.  They're part of the game.  If I really wanted to get modkilled, I would do it "accidentally" anyway, wouldn't I?  I believe any member of my team should do everything in their power to ensure my team wins.

As an example, do you watch World Cup soccer?  Luis Suarez purposefully broke a rule and was punished for it, but kept Uruguay in the World Cup.  He absolutely did what had to be done to keep his team from being eliminated.  There's no consensus on whether what he did was right, but I don't think you should hold it against me that I think he was a hero in that game.  I apply that belief to all competitive events.  You don't have to, but I'd ask that allow me my beliefs.

Regardless, I don't think we should argue about the sportsmanship or lack thereof of something that isn't happening, and isn't important in this game (unless you want to use it as a reason for my lynch, which is fine, I guess).

As for the answer regarding modkills, I'll ask mcmc to post it when he logs on again.  He even said he would answer in thread if I wanted.  No idea why you don't believe me on that, though?  What incentive do I have to make THAT up?

[ashersky]

mcmc, since you are here, can you post the answer to the modkill question in thread?  Thanks.

[ashersky]

It's simply a strategy. It's just one that I know he's as capable of playing as town or scum.

If you ever get annoyed by something I post, reference this.

Maybe I should make it my signature.

[Voltaire]

As an example, do you watch World Cup soccer?  Luis Suarez purposefully broke a rule and was punished for it, but kept Uruguay in the World Cup.  He absolutely did what had to be done to keep his team from being eliminated.  There's no consensus on whether what he did was right, but I don't think you should hold it against me that I think he was a hero in that game.  I apply that belief to all competitive events.  You don't have to, but I'd ask that allow me my beliefs.

Regardless, I don't think we should argue about the sportsmanship or lack thereof of something that isn't happening, and isn't important in this game (unless you want to use it as a reason for my lynch, which is fine, I guess).

I can allow you your beliefs, of course, but I have no desire to participate in any competitive event where any player(s) have that mindset. It's not fun for me at all, and I get the sense, most others.

I like to think of this as "casual competitive." Others may call it "respecting the game" (that phrase gets used in baseball).

[Galzria]

It's simply a strategy. It's just one that I know he's as capable of playing as town or scum.

If you ever get annoyed by something I post, reference this.

Maybe I should make it my signature.

I -always- recognize it. Doesn't mean I always like it.

[mcmcsalot]

I referenced in my last post but will make it explicitly clear. Any flavor related claim or rule break is absolutely forbidden and punishable by modkill. If the rule break is done purposefully or suspected to be done purposefully I will modkill the player and a random teammate then go to night, breaking the rules is something one can chose to do. I am making sure that choice is not a beneficial one.

[ashersky]

I referenced in my last post but will make it explicitly clear. Any flavor related claim or rule break is absolutely forbidden and punishable by modkill. If the rule break is done purposefully or suspected to be done purposefully I will modkill the player and a random teammate then go to night, breaking the rules is something one can chose to do. I am making sure that choice is not a beneficial one.

Sadly, not every reads the flavor.  I do though!

[Voltaire]

As an example, do you watch World Cup soccer?  Luis Suarez purposefully broke a rule and was punished for it, but kept Uruguay in the World Cup.  He absolutely did what had to be done to keep his team from being eliminated.  There's no consensus on whether what he did was right, but I don't think you should hold it against me that I think he was a hero in that game.  I apply that belief to all competitive events.  You don't have to, but I'd ask that allow me my beliefs.

Perhaps a better way to phrase my answer: I'm fine with someone doing everything they can to win within the rules. If the best way to get their team to win involves breaking the rules, they should respect the game and not to do. However, immediately after the game this should be brought up and the rules changed, because there is clearly a flaw (I'm talking generically here, I don't know the soccer situation) with them. Then, in the next game "doing everything they can" doesn't need to include breaking the rules.

[ashersky]

Perhaps a better way to phrase my answer: I'm fine with someone doing everything they can to win within the rules. If the best way to get their team to win involves breaking the rules, they should respect the game and not to do. However, immediately after the game this should be brought up and the rules changed, because there is clearly a flaw (I'm talking generically here, I don't know the soccer situation) with them. Then, in the next game "doing everything they can" doesn't need to include breaking the rules.

That's a fair and respectable belief.

/offers a handshake

[Voltaire]

/offers a handshake

/handshake

I still think you're scum though. Sorry! 

[ashersky]

/offers a handshake

/handshake

I still think you're scum though. Sorry! 

That's fine.

Maybe a better analogy: I'm like Severus Snape.  I really seem like the bad guy, but turns out I was good all along.

[yuma]

but why is he scummy... or rather you say "this is something that scum!ash is just as capable of doing as town!ash... so why do you think it is scum!ash over town!ash. What is separating the two to make you want to vote for him?

That I don't feel like I have seen from anyone... I just don't get it. Why are we considering lynching him?

His claim is completely dependent on something that he doesn't know exists... a Doc. Right? So if we get to a point where are believe there is no Doc, we should lynch him. Lynch him then, not now. Now we should lynch someone that doesn't have something by all appearances seems to have a legitimate claim that can be found out down the road....

This seems like people are saying "ash has pulled something like this in the past... he might be pulling something now, even though I don't have any real evidence to show that he is pulling something... better lynch him just to be safe!"

And I disagree with that idea.

[yuma]

Hey sudgy... instead of posting in the Rules of Mafia thread... how about you post in here what you think of the ashersky situation. You have obviously seen it... but haven't said anything about it in this thread.

Do you think he is scummy or townie or somewhere inbetween for what just went down?

[sudgy]

Hey sudgy... instead of posting in the Rules of Mafia thread... how about you post in here what you think of the ashersky situation. You have obviously seen it... but haven't said anything about it in this thread.

Do you think he is scummy or townie or somewhere inbetween for what just went down?

I posted in the rules of mafia thread a generic idea, not this case, but anyway, I've been mulling it over, and in the end, it reads null.  Ash is like this, like it or not, and I'll have to find another way to read him.  I do still stand by my statement that we shouldn't lynch him today since if he's town we've lynched a PR (and we can lynch him after he uses his doc if we think he's scum).

[yuma]

Hey sudgy... instead of posting in the Rules of Mafia thread... how about you post in here what you think of the ashersky situation. You have obviously seen it... but haven't said anything about it in this thread.

Do you think he is scummy or townie or somewhere inbetween for what just went down?

I posted in the rules of mafia thread a generic idea, not this case, but anyway, I've been mulling it over, and in the end, it reads null.  Ash is like this, like it or not, and I'll have to find another way to read him.  I do still stand by my statement that we shouldn't lynch him today since if he's town we've lynched a PR (and we can lynch him after he uses his doc if we think he's scum).

Cool... what do you think of the people who are voting for him and are saying that he should be today's lynch?

[ashersky]

unvote

[ashersky]

Ashersky (5): Robz888, Galzria, ashersky, voltaire, XerxesPraelor

This is the wagon in yuma's question, btw.

Robz was on before the whole thing.  Galz joined during, but for stated reasons other than the kerfluffle.  I'm gone.

So it's voltaire and Xerxes.

Voltaire claims a scum read on me post-kerfluffle based on Galz's argument that I could be doing it as scum, and for me toning it down.  Xerxes gave no reason other than being annoyed.

[yuma]

Ashersky (5): Robz888, Galzria, ashersky, voltaire, XerxesPraelor

This is the wagon in yuma's question, btw.

Robz was on before the whole thing.  Galz joined during, but for stated reasons other than the kerfluffle.  I'm gone.

So it's voltaire and Xerxes.

Voltaire claims a scum read on me post-kerfluffle based on Galz's argument that I could be doing it as scum, and for me toning it down.  Xerxes gave no reason other than being annoyed.

I think Robz needs to be questioned as well as he continued to stay on your wagon throughout all of this... when before he stated that his vote on you was "silly."

I can't imagine he left it there so he must agree with something people have said about you... Right?

[mail-mi]

Ashersky (5): Robz888, Galzria, ashersky, voltaire, XerxesPraelor

This is the wagon in yuma's question, btw.

Robz was on before the whole thing.  Galz joined during, but for stated reasons other than the kerfluffle.  I'm gone.

So it's voltaire and Xerxes.

Voltaire claims a scum read on me post-kerfluffle based on Galz's argument that I could be doing it as scum, and for me toning it down.  Xerxes gave no reason other than being annoyed.

Hm. In HP, I (scum) voted you (town) because I was "annoyed." Something to look at later, I don't think xp should be the lynch today.

[sudgy]

Xerxes gets a newbie pass, I would say, and Voltaire I'm not too sure about.  Skimming through his first bit in MXXIX where he was scum, he seemed to vote people based on one post, and it was always him doing it.  I haven't looked at a town game of his though.  (I'm leaving in five minutes somewhere)

Robz keeping his vote on a wagon is a bit suspicious like that, that raises his suspicion in my eyes a bit.

[Twistedarcher]

Galz, I don't really agree with you but I'm also willing to drop it unless you'd like to hear what I have to say. I'm not going to convince you and ultimately your opinion matters more than mine here.

[Robz888]

Yep sure, I can explain.

Initially, my vote for ashersky was a silly vote. I had not read the whole thread, I only gathered that he had claimed, which irritated me, but I didn't know the full context. I knew he wasn't in danger though, so it's between a policy vote and a just plain silly vote.

Having actually read the thread, I no longer believed ashersky's actions were bad. I see what he was doing in claiming. I actually thought I had unvoted or switched votes at that point, but it seems not.

Then, ashersky's outrage at Galz read weird and fake to me. Well, not fake exactly, but like there's something else afoot. I know ashersky has feigned anger and threatening behavior for the sake of a plot. In this case, I agree with Galz that it seems scummy. So I was happy to have my vote on ashersky, actually.

At this point, I don't really think he's the best lynch, and I've agreed with a lot of his strategy. I just think his attitude recently reads scummy. So anyway, I'll probably move my vote, but I don't know whether yet.

[Galzria]

Galz, I don't really agree with you but I'm also willing to drop it unless you'd like to hear what I have to say. I'm not going to convince you and ultimately your opinion matters more than mine here.

I'm more than open to hearing alternate opinions, as long as they're supported.

Essentially, what you really need to address is the idea that from a random townie perspective, I see no distinguishing characteristics that separate two players claiming Mason in the following two combination of scenarios:

MMMDDTT // MDDTTTT

MMMDDTx // MDDTTTx

Granted the second is more risky for scum due to there being an SK, but I see no appreciable difference between the first set that is in any way threatening to scum.

[Voltaire]

Basically my read on ash is "what Galz (and later Robz)" said. Ash clearly went over-the-top in talking to Galz, and was clearly running a crazy gambit. It's the fact that his interactions with Galz in no way escalated "normally". He also did this at the start of the game, with his whole "shoot me in the fucking head" comment (to theorel? TA?). I bet he was trying to escalate stuff back then, too, and it didn't quite take off. That was crazy and out of the blue, too.

He was also clearly implying he was going to flavor claim and get modkilled, too. Pretending he wasn't is ridiculous. I agree with Galz's "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", too. It's like when ash self-voted in whatever game it was and no-one commented. It was just ash.

Here it realllllllllllllllllly feels like ash is "forcing" being himself. Going from 1 to 11, making appeals to emotion, advocating bad claiming, etc. (and by that I mean the cop, not the mason).