I had a lot to catch up on, so appologies if some of the stuff I say has already been said and note WoT incoming.
The two things Laarz mentioned were not contradictory. Neither were they not non-contradictory. I read them as two separate statements/thoughts/hypotheticals. They may overlap. They may not.
The two things you mentioned in the same sentence were contradictory. First you said you didn't think there was a specific vendetta from last game then you outlined a (possible) specific vendetta from last game.
Ok, makes sense.
I imagine my response would be different. I can't say how different (referring to whether or not I vote or interrogate). The why is easy though.
That response doesn't appear to have anything to do with Laarz, whom you quoted. The only part specific to this game is "I don't think there is a vendetta." You justify it, but again, the justification is a general belief rather than anything about any of the players you mentioned.
That type of post is commonly referred to as an Information Instead Of Analysis post. It's generally considered a scum tell. The speaker is upping the post count and appears to be interacting with players, yet isn't. Lurking in plain sight.
Same destination through a different route: that post would earn scumpoints from me. Probably more than your original post. FYI, I have far fewer problems with your original post than with the "I was supplying information" response I received back.
Again, I can't help but notice how the revised version ignores Laarz. Everytime I make a "Interesting that you....." type of statement, I'm genuinely interested in a response. Did you want a response from Laarz?
Yes I did want a response from Laarz, I did want to know why he thought there might be a vendetta.
I was referring to post 84 rather than post 74 but I concede the point anyway. I shouldn't have used the term accusations. I asked questions but didn't state an accusation (other than a vote) until the very post in which I accused you of avoiding my accusations. The accusations in my head were left unsaid. I should have said interrogations or something similar.
Again I thought I answered post 84, but ok.
This is delving into offtopicness a little...
Why me? I feel I'm far more tolerant of mistakes than non-committers/ambivolence/LIPSing. I can't help but notice my arguments against you last game were of the same vein.
Yes your arguments against me are of the same vein as they were last game that is why I got defensive of my play. Not quite sure what LIPsing means.
First, I was agreeing with this being some pretty random nitpicking (which is to some degree expexted on D1) and had no suspicion of Jcakes whatsoever. Then I read the following.
First of all, I do not believe this was your original intention - I believe you were trying to direct suspicion against Gory, masking it as a semi-joke to create a defense for the case that somebody would call you out on it. Second of all, this can be said about every damn post that gets even a mildly negative respond on D1.
And what is up with this semi brown-nosing of Gory, sudden hindsight and excuses about flaws about you as a mafia player?
If you're initial comments about vendettas had been as innocent as they seemed to me, I do not believe you would make such a big fuss about it. After all, it was a joke, right?
Vote: Jcakes
My intention was to put it out there and watch for a response. I expected people to take it as a joke. Goryani’s initial response felt very defensive and his attack felt very similar to the one against me in the previous game (for the record he was scum and I was town) so I pushed him on it a bit. His response was a full on attack on me and I got defensive.
Voting you because of the first question.
Vote: Caluin Graye
Interesting, I didn’t notice that initially. I was curious as to why leo would defend Laarz, but you are right that the way CG has phrased that appears to be subtle role fishing.
I feel we can trust Laarz. Yes, he made a lot of posts within the hour and, yes that is suspicious, but did anyone think he was playing a role? Pyro and Kegs caught the reference, but Kegs doesn't "engender" that? really, Kegs? Was that auto-correct?
Innocent until proven guilty, or at least so far today, squirming or lurking. There is some interesting conversation going on and I wanna say some people haven't made a post yet. However, I'll wait until the day is halfway up to look at them more. Mafia sometimes put a couple of guys out there to post, make it look like town and the others lurk, sometimes jump on the bandwagon (if there is one) at last minute, not make many or any posts.
Interesting that you believe innocent until proven guilty, I’ve generally subscribe to assume guilt until innocence is proven.
Not trying to be a jerk to you, Cakes, but did you mean English is not your first language or you just have a hard time expressing yourself; the subject of English is not your strong suit?
you'd be surprised about vendettas, Cakes. People carry them from game to game and act upon them. I still don't think I've gotten Sathoris back for the LotR game. Yeah, he was on my list for a long time, lol!
I meant that I have a hard time expressing myself.
Korial: you're spending an awful amount of time excusing for your playstyle and opinions. Nervous much?
Also, making a list without any sort of substnance and without coming to any sort of conclusion.. Doesn't sit well with me.
If you had to chose somebody for a lynch, right now, who would it be and why?
This. Korial does appear to be spending a lot of time explaining where he is and why he is not online. It seems very similar to the only game I’ve played with him (I think it was the roles of madness game).
First you know and now you feel? That seems wrong to me. Either you know or you feel. Which is it?
Not entirely correct. There is a town role that gives you talk with your mates, called masons. You usually trust them and back them up unless you are very sure there's a traitor amongst them. That's why I asked if she feels or knows. You, sir, just went on top on my scum list.
Unvote: Laarz
Vote: Caluin Graye
I put these two together, because it feels a bit like pot calling the kettle black. The first post you are essentially asking “do you have a role that lets you know that Laarz is innocent”. Your second post speculates that Leo maybe mason.
This is as far as I got before I went to a morning meeting.
No. I was pointing out why CG was scum. We all know there could be masons and they would back each other up. He just left out that possibility in his post. That is scum tell.
No, speculating about town PRs is a scum tell.
So assume leo and laarz are really both town and connected in someway via PRs. Why on earth would you want two town PRs to reveal information about their interactions to everybody, including anti-town? If they are both anti-town, why do you think they would give a useful answer? It is a completely pointless question - unless you are anti-town looking for information on possible town PRs.
My vote stands.
And for the record, I don't see the point of leo's claim about trusting laarz, but I also have a hard time seeing it as a scum move.
Why would CG mention the mason possibility? It would be pure speculation and not in anyway helpful to town.
But two scum buddies would? Noone besides you are discussing that Leo and Laarz might be masons. Your argument is weak at best.
I agree with all of the above.
I don't mind you fingring her. That's your private business. What I react to is that you called her scum without discussing the mason possibiity.
Lol at the innuendo. I still don’t see why speculating on a town power role is a good thing to do. You can explain a lot of behavior away by assuming a power role, but it is not something I would normally do.
