Posted November 11, 2011
NotFrenchYet: It's the phrasing that bothers me. You didn't need to mention that either he's acting in town's interest (which implies he's town), or he's scum and knows more about the setup. It comes across as you being reluctant to express an opinion on him and/or to pressure him. In addition, you seemed quite keen to advance the theory that there are only two mafia. Do YOU know something about the game's setup?
I wasn't trying to express an opinion or pressure him. As I said, I was throwing something out there to see if it stuck. And yes I do know something about the game's setup. It's broken and unfair, but we've been over that already :)
NotFrenchYet: My point is that in one post you suggest the mafia targetted the experienced players, yet in another you implicitly suggest that the mafia knew who had power roles (players who stayed off the wagon are alive because they didn't have power roles, which implies the mafia must have known they didn't have power roles.) You're turning your own argument into a circle which renders it useless for town.
Yes I did say both.. and there is absolutely nothing contradictory about them at all. Given the choice, the mafia are more likely to choose the experienced players with power roles than the inexperienced ones without them.. Nor is it useless to town. Sure, it doesn't identify the mafia but it does stop us from mislynching using bad logic.
NotFrenchYet: It's possible... Twilight suggested the mafia could be trying to hide behind post restrictions. Rod has already mentioned that the mafia would be unlikely to drawn attention to themselves with a restriction ; why couldn't this be a double-bluff? You've certainly drawn enough attention to it...
I mentioned one of my post restrictions 380 posts before TwilightBard suggested that.. and his suggestion came just before Orry got lynched for his post restrictions (oh I do wonder why I've drawn attention to them.. maybe that was a good demonstration of how they make the game unfair). Was he mafia? No.. he wasn't. So your conclusion is the complete opposite of any reasonable one that can be drawn from how this game has developed. Not really the first time you've done that, is it? NotFrenchYet: If by "explicitly stated" you mean this:
NotFrenchYet: ... I see no mention of you removing your vote to let me continue my plan. I just read it as irritation, and wondered why you would be annoyed at that - I wondered if you were expecting me to react in a stronger way. Continuing to pester me about it after I responded would have been horribly obvious.
When someone says "If you had told me that before, I would have not done X" and then undoes X, it is them helping towards whatever you were trying to do. Yes I was annoyed because you could have stopped me from thinking you were just ignoring me but I wasn't expecting any reaction towards me.. I was expecting you to continue pressuring pazzer! NotFrenchYet: ... I see no mention of you removing your vote to let me continue my plan. I just read it as irritation, and wondered why you would be annoyed at that - I wondered if you were expecting me to react in a stronger way. Continuing to pester me about it after I responded would have been horribly obvious.
NotFrenchYet: Oh come on, that's no excuse..! There are four of us who are new to the game, and it's not stopping the rest of us. Furthermore, I pushed my own suspicion with positive feedback on D2 and it helped get Orry killed. I don't want that to happen again either, and I think it's obvious I'm playing more cautiously, but there's a difference between "pushing suspicion" and offering reads.
That response pushed you up a notch. Not offering your reads on D4 "because I'm new" doesn't sit right at all - all the more worrying when a) we've been at this for a month now, and b) you're actually the most experienced of the new folks since you played in GOG game 7.
Not offering reads on D1-3 == because I'm new and didn't want to get a townie lynched. That response pushed you up a notch. Not offering your reads on D4 "because I'm new" doesn't sit right at all - all the more worrying when a) we've been at this for a month now, and b) you're actually the most experienced of the new folks since you played in GOG game 7.
Not offering reads on D4 == don't want to get a townie lynched at My&Lo
Besides, I'm doing just fine here. You've done nothing less than admit you are pressuring me to see what my responses give - fishing if you will. But you are the one coming to conclusions that are completely contradictory to reason... and I'm pointing them out.
I'd like to think others are watching this.. but they might be put off by the wall-of-text-yness :P
I'm going to miss the "unhelpful play comments" to reduce the WOT unless you want me to respond to anything in particular?
PRE-POST EDIT: Now I can see why you were looking at pazzer with the mass-claim request etc. and hammer-voting Orry :/