Don't you love it when you prepare post in quick reply window and then forget about it and click different page in the thread to check something?

Did he attack you personally or insult you in a way you did? I am not aware he did it although there is some possibility as I didn't read everything. But as far as I know he only attacked you arguments while you were calling him names.
Although I am not the biggest fan of HSL questioning any nitpick while dodging most question going his way, I don't think he did anything crossing boundaries here.
I actually considered to call him out in my yesterday post, but in regards to drealmer but I ultimately decided against it as there was enough people mentioned already and I felt like of all those mentioned he handled it in the least aggressive manner.

The thing is, what you consider "refusal to play" just is playstyle for some people.
They may play that way because they don't have more time but still want to participate because they like the game. Or they are new or timid and don't know better way to post or it is just the only way they know or want to post.
I am still glad they play and I prefer to have them this way than not at all.
I doubt constsnt complaining about them and calling them useless will change them. I am more inclined to believe it will have opposite effect and will turn them off when you are invalidating their gamestyle.
Instead of berating and mocking them one should encourage them to post more.
Or use in-game features.
I am not happy either when game gets paralyzed for too many lurkers. If you were here longer you could know that I too used to have troubles with lurkers and constantly tried to encourage them to post more and thought of way how to deal with them via rules.
My current stance is that they should be investigated or shot to root out possible mafia from their midst intead of calling them non-players and similar over and over again.

Sure, lynch them for it if you don't like it, nightkill them, ask them to post more (in that order if you wish so), but I don't think calling them useless helps.

Once again, just my opinion, not official one.

I'll pick this and tell you what I found wrong with the situation around that post and what for me shows your general behaviour. You made case of why is trent (or HSL?) scummy after you decided he is scummy. People told you that you shouldn't approach post analysis with only intent to prove what you already decided and adjusting every post to suit your reads but rather form your opinion based on those posts.
You refuted them by saying it could be true for other people but it is not here because it's you doing it and you are doing it logical.
Then when people tried to reason with you and make you see your analysis are flawed for making them for already decided perspective you mostly shrugged them off. So they asked you to do analysis of players from differnet perspective and when you finally got to it, it was that terrible post where you basically ignored what they asked you to and most of all you ridiculed every single trenton's post in the game.
Can you be surprised he (and others too) wasn't particulary happy with it?
No one is too happy when their request is just met with mockery and every post of one player is ridiculed.

You are also making it incredible hard to argue with you because when people attack some your conviction or outlandish statement , you just call it possible theory that doesn't have to be true and that makes it defended in your eyes and you continue to use that theory with 100% conviction. That makes it incredibly hard for others to reason with you. "You: Person A is scum because he is alien. Person B: It is stupid, he is not alien. You: Don't judge me, it is just theory and I think it could be true. Person B: Whatever. You: Person A is scum because he is alien."
Get me?
And it doesn't even have to be outlandish statement as in my example. But even from normal theories you pick one, decided it has to be true, but deflect criticism about it by saying it's just theory and then you continue to ride it hard.
Don't get surprised people don't want to waste time arguing with you.

I will second what Krypsyn said and will add that you don't seem to judge your behaviour the same way you treat others.
Ie. you often misspelled people names and no one cared and when someone did that to you, you called them out for it. MInor thing but it symptom of what I mean. The same way with that meta thing in this game. You were telling people to not use past games to judge but you did it yourself and when HSL called you out for it, you dismissed him as scummy and told him that you know what are you doing.

Even if you say you try to not come off that way, it feels the same way like during games. And that is that you preach one thing but do other and don't really try.
You seem to have little regard for others and always come off as you think that you know everything better than others and they should look up to you.
When others do something incorrect, it makes them auto scummy or bad in your eyes but, as you said yourself somewhere, if you fill thread with 10 theories and only 1 turns out to be correct then you were still right.
What if others filled the thread with 10 theories and you found them wrong? I fell like you would call them bad and scummy and either tried to make them follow you instead because you know better or call them scummy. All that with you liberal use of words in caps (because screaming words is cool) and what would be it would depend on how you were decided about them previously because you tend to tunnel extremly hard and refuse to acknowledge it and think about it.

I don't recall the last time I did. :P

Touche.

Though you followed my lead on the last kill in the Deep Smelly Dungeon. I'll call that a win.

Enough already, show some decency.

First off, you did resort to personal attacks and name-calling - you still do, even now - for no reason at all; the least you could do is take responsibility for it.

I referenced a very specific reaction of yours from a past game, because it put your bad conduct into context; I couldn't believe that someone that had been on the receiving end would act in the same, if not worse, manner their own offender had acted.
I'm not sure if you really don't get it, or just refuse to admit that you crossed a line you shouldn't have, more so when you were very offended when someone else did it to you, and frankly, I don't care which it is.

And putting words in my mouth? I never said I want you to quit playing; it's not my place, nor how I operate. You want to play? Play. But that comes with being decent, respectful, and civil. You don't want to play? Don't play. Acting as if you're the wronged one here to try and justify your attempt to shift responsibility on me for your behaviour and your decision to leave, is bad sportsmanship, to say the least.



I won't deny that I got tired of his "you disagree with me? You're scum, and all you do is misrepresent me and twist my words" mantra pretty quickly, and that it influenced quite a bit the way I addressed him. Could I have been less aggressive with him? Probably. And while it's no excuse, the times I tried, I was met with aggressiveness and more of the same, and that certainly didn't motivate me to keep trying.
In the case of his attack of a4plz though, I consider the way he went about it a huge misconduct, and I told him as much, without resorting to name-calling or anything like that.

If you feel like I should be called out about anything related to him, or anyone else, please do; I don't claim to be infallible, and I sure as hell am no angel, and I take responsibility and apologise for any line(s) that I may have crossed.


FWIW:

If this is what you meant with your response to me in your post #1440 ("messed something up in the background, and he knows it can't affect the gameplay,"), I have to disagree. Knowing about the no-majority lynch mechanic a Day earlier could well have affected the outcome of both D3 and D4.

As for when and how Mafia was told about Spectres being unkillable at Night - I thought you were being vague about it because you knew that making a clear statement would practically "confirm" or "clear" a Mafia player, and you wanted to avoid any such mod intervention. Still unsure if that was the case, not that it matters at this point.


As I said in-game, and the reason I had asked you via PM, I was hoping for such a mechanic. But only two times, and mostly only the most recent investigation sounds a bit too limited in this setup, imho.
And while the report you posted was a mistake, I think giving a final report of investigation results of the past X Nights upon the death of the Undertaker, or alternatively of all results upon the death of their Spectre. might be something to consider.


The Spectre mechanic was really intersting, hats off for coming up with it and putting so much thought into implementing it.
I'm not sure I see the point of stating that they could not self-target, since Spectres were untouchable. Am I missing something?

When I saw that both Bookwyrm627 and yogsloth bid us goodbye, I had thought that Spectres had a definite amount of "energy" they could exist on, and doing things was draining it, but I thought that voting was also part of it.


I think you reversed Bookwyrm627's actions of N2 and N3? I mean, if he had successfully blocked flubbucket N2, cristigale wouldn't have died, right?


Thanks for all the thought and effort you put in this, and tanks for hosting.

That wasn't what I was referring to with "messed something up in the background, and he knows it can't affect the gameplay." I was actually referring to telling Bookwyrm that I would tell Evil that Spectres are unkillable. I planned on telling them that at Nightfall, but he revealed it in the thread during the Day.
So he thought that Evil was already informed, but they weren't.

Nope, that wasn't my reason. See above.

You're probably right. I think the biggest problem with the setup right now is the lack of information.

I'll be considering options as I revise the setup.

Thank you. :-)

BTW, it's not copyrighted, so if anyone wants to use it, they can go right ahead. :-P

No, not really. X-D
I had a lot of text that wasn't really relevant, I just put it there to protect myself during the early stages of planning, and kind of neglected to take it out.

Good eye.

Yeah, you're right. I didn't keep accurate notes as to Night actions, so I'm pretty sure I mixed up at least some nights in there.

Thanks for the appreciation, and thanks for playing.

He got the actions swapped in the data dump. I held my action on Night 2, so conserve as much power as I could for hopefully something bigger later.

So I mislynched poor Adalia on misinformation, and followed it up by pushing for Babark on a straight up wrong assumption.

Agent, I'd like to pass you this buck I'm holding. ;)

Lol, just realized how much that actually did affect the game. Oops...
Well, I warned everyone the thing wouldn't be balanced. X-D

But I really do apologize for being so many of the details messed up. I need to make myself a really strict set of rules, to keep everything straight.

Rules only help to the extent you've anticipated what will come, but to be fair, practice helps. :)

And the more open the original setup is, the less there is to speculate about and worry about whether you told the right people the right thing at the right time.

You should really place all the blame on Krypsyn.

You're the victim here!!

Amen, gogsister.

I agree with a lot of this, except where my view is a bit different is that, I still consider the non-participation or active lurking (where someone posts here or there but their content is lacking in substance) to, at a certain point, become an anti-town playstyle. Also, I would say more often than not, lurking/low-quality participation players are doing it because of 1.) bored town laziness and don't care to really help much because their role/interest is limited, votable/lynchable imo, 2.) afraid to stick their neck out and get lynched even though they are vanilla town and that is their job, and is therefore anti-town, 3.) they are scum, more than the things you say like being timid new players or not knowing what to post. But whatever reasons someone gives for not posting much, they should give them, and then we should each try to discern if we believe them or not.

When this happens, yes I agree, using the game mechanics/player power to remove these people from play (which is my preference, opposed to investigating or whatever else, which I think is a waste of an ability-use for such a player.) If anyone would have made a lynch argument for JMich or flub based on lurking and non-participation not-much helpfulness, I would have agreed and gotten on board, but no one was much interested in such things. It also applied to a4plz for 2 Days, and we did nothing but keep shaking her and saying "hey, play!" and accepting her replies of non-contribution. We should have killed them all. Lynch All Lurkers, if no other obvi-scum present themselves for lynch or their lurking/non-contributions cross that line of warranting a vote. Also, sometimes berating players is a last resort to trying to goad them into playing/posting more/better. *shrug* That is just some people's playstyles to do, afterall.

I do recognize and like that I have found more often than not that when I ask people to post something relating to the game happenings that they do. The players that don't, yep, perhaps vote-worthy, depending on each individual circumstance/situation/how egregious or whatever.

However, part of my view in the lurking playstyle is also this:

The game itself is setup around this premise:

"A group of fellow townspeople must work together to try and root out the Evil among their numbers who are there trying to turn townspeople on each other, kill us and over take us and make us be in fear and and generally over all cause confusion."

If you aren't there to play "pretend townsperson", then I too think, "why are you playing the game? don't play if you aren't going to play."

My guess is a lot of time players prefer to get a role of somesort or Mafia, and when they don't they are bored and don't care as much and don't want to participate as much as they would otherwise. To me, that is anti-town, bad gamesmanship, and not really something I welcome in games I play. Yes we can't rule people out from playing that way as a community, but we as moderators can put in rules if they don't upset fairness/balance and as players, we can and should otherwise it it into our own hands and lynch them.

All I did was play the game as I see how to play it, I think you (and others) are not understanding or believing my train of thought that led me to thinking players may or may not be scum. I see 1, 2, 3, 4 things that ping scummy to me in trent, I ask him about them over time, he responds to maybe 1 of them, and did what I saw as backtracking with that 1 (again he at first stated he was okay with no-lynch perhaps this game, with no specification of "later in the game, not Day 1", which sure, he can clarify that and it may be true, but, I also have to note that it could be scummy backtracking, at this point he is still certainly to be decided), accompany that with 3 other things that ping moderately to high-scummy to me, with him not participating/contributing anything about anything else (except focused on killing HijacK) or defending himself/explaining the things I've raised to him, and yes, I decided that he is MOST LIKELY to be Evil. I hadn't decided that he IS Evil and go into everything else he says assuming he is nor do I refuse to go back and look and consider that he may be good. I did consider that multiple times. The thing is, with this game, you eventually have to make a decision of who you think is most likely scum, and move forward with it, make a case for it, etc. and that is all I meant to do.

A lot of the cases people made this past game I found weak, so I had to go with my own. I wish I would have found JMich scummy in what HSL but as I said multiple times, that simply wasn't my read on it. What can I say, as awesome as my mad skillzzzz are (that is huge sarcasm, btw), I can't be correct every time!

And yep, I probably repeated myself too much, and I'll work on that.

Saying that..., and in response to:

This is not how I try to be, honestly. I will try to have more constructive and productive conversations moving forward. Also, I certainly am always looking for an appreciate constructive criticism both 1.) on my play in general and 2.) on things done in a specific game/specific situation ("ohman, you totally should have investigated #### instead of #### because of 1 and 2 and this and that", or whatever.)

I really believe we have a bunch of good players here, and if done in a healthy and loving way we can help each other improve more and more and continue to have a great and awesome forum mafia community here (really this is what I was trying to do with trent's sarcastic criticism when I gave it, which was at wyrm's request and I would have rather not done, but felt pressured to, maybe it would have been better if I hadn't but that is why I tried to make it so over the top and signed it with love, because it really was in the spirit of the game and not at all meant to be cruel/mean.

All anyone can do as a fellow player who they are trying to work with is say "hey, you are seeming anti-town because you are doing this and this or this, you are coming over scummy to me because this or this, we can only do our best to make the best judgements.") and I absolutely know that everyone could simply be wrong (I believed babark and dess, at first, to most likely be wrong about me, as well as others in this game and many others at other times in other games. You also have to understand that with my quick-lynchability lately, I have to be on extra-guard for scum-players to put a quick push on me or join an convenient wagon on me), so when I say that I am "finding someone scummy" or even "decided they are scum", it us under the realization that I could absolutely be wrong, but that I have to go forward with that thought rather than dilly-dally about things any longer. Again, just doing best to play best way I know how.

Again, I don't mean to ride it hard, I mean to present that I still think it is a quite viable option that should be discussed, and if no one else presents a good reason why not, or a better reason for something else, then I am going to go with it, and urge others to too, that is the game. I will try to be more calm/less persuasive in my persuasive arguments (this is a persuasive logic based game, imo, but, yeah, can be less forceful, at times, I'm sure.) I do often feel like my ideas don't consideration when I really think they should at least get some, and so I feel like I have begun to need to fight to be heard more and more, I'll certainly keep that in mind and tone it down.

I often let the name misspelling pass, I understand it is easy to think it is "dreamler." However, sometimes if someone gets it repeatedly wrong, I will simply tell them, politely. In this game, I felt flub was doing it on purpose, and called him on it. Yes, I know, I could be wrong, but, I saw it as likely scum-tactic, or if not a scum-tactic, that he was simply being unnecessarily antagonistic to me because he wanted to be, and so I was telling him basically to F off. Again, if he was truly not seeing my name correctly (after how many games playing together?), he could have simply said so.

Where have I gotten others wrong? If I get a name wrong, I personally like to have it pointed out to me. Often it is probably a type-o, and that can be determined if/when it is pointed out to me (also, can't edit posts, so, it is also possible that I noticed afterwards that I misspelled, but there's nothing I can do about it), best to just check/communicate about such things, imo.

I do appreciate the criticism, as I said, but what would work better for me is if during a game (you can go ahead and use this game past-examples) someone said that this is how it is seeming to them and tried to work it out with me. Talking in general, well, I honestly feel a lot of times you might just be misunderstanding me or something else, and I just can't be sure without specific examples.

That is certainly not always true, it sucks I come off that way to some people. Again, there are plenty examples of mistakes or poor-analysis that I note as just being poor analysis (see my analysis on babark after he goes to lynch as 1 example.) But again, what you're describing here is essentially me simply trying to play the game: I see a wagon up for analysis, I see poor reasons for being on the wagon, I see more scummy things from that player too, I see them on 2 wagons, mine which I know to be wrong (whether wrong because he is wrong or wrong because he is scum is irrelevant at this point, it's simply a fact about the player's position), and the other which I strongly believe to be wrong. Yes, I could be wrong in thinking any of the players on wagon are Evil, but I have to use my best judgement and try to do my best. That is what I did. Again, trent did nothing to make me think he wasn't evil that pushed hijack and was covering scum-play with his meta-switch failed-gambit. I don't know how many times I can say it, that is simply what my read was.

Realize I also had to analyze all of that in light of always finding him scummy, which I know I do and know I have been wrong so so wrong before. And yet, I still judged it that way ultimately. *shrug* I should just never try to read trent maybe and leave it to others.

I really don't tunnel that much. I tunneled on you my first game ever because I was a noob that didn't know what he was doing. Once on zeo because I really thought he had to be scum, once on bler because I thought he had to be scum (he was), this once on trent, because I ultimately decided there was enough damning evidence that this time, finally with him, he actually was. I wasn't decided he was and found things to fill that, I found things that lead me to believe it, simple as that.

I'll definitely make sure I don't tunnel going forward. Unless, of course, I'm SURE. (also note, sometimes someone can be sure of something but not want to reveal how they are sure, because, you know, they have a PR, and it'd be nice if other players could go forward with such statements on their own judgement whether to believe the player or not rather than pry them for why or how they know, because obviously, they could have a PR, and someone prying about that is not cool/anti-town, the player will reveal as they see fit, imo.

Hmmm, was that all for now? well it is for now...

So many words...

:þ

That is something else I've been meaning to comment on.

On top of working on my brevity and succinctness, which I've said I will do and will/have done, I think (didn't start getting long or repetitive until later in the game, at least), and will strive to do even more, I ask that everyone work on being able to read posts that are a bit more longer and involved.

It's not that many words, and with the complexity of the game, is sometimes warranted and at other times necessary.

Also, flavor posts can be fun and add to the fun, I encourage all to make more longer posts with flavor additives and more out-loud pontificating about things they think are possible/propose ideas they think of or even on the fringes think maybe in some circumstance could be worth considering without fearing they'll be hounded for not stating everything perfectly and being damned for it.

Ha, that explains quite a bit why some things went the way they did later in the game. And I still have to disagree with the "it can't affect the gameplay", and with "that wasn't my reason". It totally affected how D3 and D4 went, and it would have affected the view/reads on players if you hadn't stuck with your vague replies.


Yes, the lack of information, or at least info that can be confirmed/collaborated in some fashion was a big problem. I think adding something that balances things out, at least to some degree, in the case of the Undertaker dying early is necessary. As adaliabooks had said at some point, at least in flubbucket's Milk Game, the existence of other roles made using Process of Elimination possible.


Still, it was an interesting idea and setup.