Page 5 of 34
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:26 am
by Spolium
charter wrote:Megatheory wrote:K, let's work backwards a bit here. What do you mean by "serious vote?"
One with a serious reason for it... (I felt that was clear from before, but whatever)
@Megatheory - Now that you have an answer to this, could you explain what else charter could have meant by "serious vote"?
Braeden wrote:Everyone knows the more infamous properties on the Monopoly board, and I believe that special roles would go with the 'special properties.' (speculating here)
This makes sense. Also, there are enough properties to allow for scum to fakeclaim without too much risk of conflicting with an existing player.
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:31 am
by Spolium
Oh, goddamn it.
mod - can you sort out my quote tags above? The nested quote should be Megatheory, the main quote charter.
Got it. —SC
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:43 am
by Nightfall
NOTE:
(I will be away for three days in the coming week as my family and I are visiting my grandmother - Right now it looks like I will be away Monday morning to Wednesday evening but that can change - Sorry if this causes any problems.)
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:51 pm
by Gamma
Nightfall wrote:notmoral?
what i mean is (reading from the Wiki board): New York Avenue, St. James Place, they don't sound like scum terms.
Jail and GO sounds pretty easy, but among others, I'm not so sure.
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:55 pm
by charter
yawetag wrote:Would you now say that both of my statements are correct?
I suppose.
96- Dumb post, trying to outguess mod.
98- See above.
99- No.
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:57 pm
by Alabaska J
Gamma wrote:Nightfall wrote:notmoral?
what i mean is (reading from the Wiki board): New York Avenue, St. James Place, they don't sound like scum terms.
Jail and GO sounds pretty easy, but among others, I'm not so sure.
Jail could be like a jailer though. So not even that is sure.
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 6:02 pm
by Jebus
Either way, no point in trying to figure out what's what. Scum by any other name is still scum, let's just settle for that.
Generally, we don't even know if we're pieces, places, or what have you.
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:37 pm
by yawetag
yawetag in Post 90 wrote:You [charter] state that by roleclaiming, both scum and town have fun analyzing the names, but it's "possible to tell the difference."
In a normal game where roleclaiming isn't done, both scum and town typically analyze what people say to make suspicions and votes.
charter wrote:yawetag wrote:Would you now say that both of my statements are correct?
I suppose.
If roleclaiming has the same overall point as general scumhunting, why would we want to do it? It ends up giving more information to scum while keeping the townies at the same place (simple scumhunting).
unvote; vote: charter
for thinking it's a good idea.
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:46 pm
by charter
If that's not a blatent twist of the actual facts, shoot me now.
It has the same overall point in that it helps catch scum. Once again, you are assuming that my suggestion has no protown benefit, you don't even care to see them. From past experience, scum got NOTHING out massnameclaim but town was able to catch them.
And did I say I don't want to do "general scumhunting"? No I did not.
So take your wrong assumptions, throw them out the window, and try again.
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 9:55 pm
by yawetag
charter wrote:If that's not a blatent twist of the actual facts, shoot me now.
It has the same overall point in that it helps catch scum. Once again, you are assuming that my suggestion has no protown benefit, you don't even care to see them. From past experience, scum got NOTHING out massnameclaim but town was able to catch them.
And did I say I don't want to do "general scumhunting"? No I did not.
So take your wrong assumptions, throw them out the window, and try again.
I never said you didn't want to do "general scumhunting." However, when the thread is already full of analysis of players' normal chat, I don't think adding in the analysis of roleclaims is much help. My mind might change a few days from now, but right now looking for scum through chat is my best bet.
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 5:44 am
by charter
So you're admitting you're voting me for a bullshit reason then?
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:39 am
by yawetag
charter wrote:So you're admitting you're voting me for a bullshit reason then?
No, I'm voting for you for suggesting that roleclaiming was a good idea. As you can tell, I, and most everyone else, doesn't think it's a good idea.
My point was that roleclaim scumhunting would only confuse the normal scumhunting. This confusion is something scum would want.
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:30 am
by charter
And I'm saying that's a bullshit reason because you never once considered the benefits it might have. You just used my suggestion as an excuse to vote me.
And nothing about my suggestion or massnameclaim interferes with "normal scumhunting".
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:56 am
by yawetag
charter wrote:And nothing about my suggestion or massnameclaim interferes with "normal scumhunting".
Other than the added confusion, you're right.
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:55 am
by Alabaska J
charter wrote:From past experience, scum got NOTHING out massnameclaim but town was able to catch them.
that may be true but look at the game we are in. how is nameclaiming going to help?
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:10 am
by pacman281292
I don't find advantages on nameclaiming, charter. Outguessing mod=likely mistakes=epic fail.
And, no; the reason you state to nameclaim are totally the same if we were playing normally. With the difference that scum will have 99% more possibilities for power rolefishing and it's more probable to lynch someone based on outguessing the mod.
FoS: charter
.
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:14 am
by charter
Ok, since no one will listen to the reason I suggested it, either lynch me for a complete bullshit reason or drop it.
I wasn't advocating it to play outguess, I wasn't advocating it to replace scumhunting, I was advocating it to analyze how people reacted after we did it. That's how you catch scum, not playing outguess.
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:24 am
by pacman281292
charter wrote:Ok, since no one will listen to the reason I suggested it, either lynch me for a complete bullshit reason or drop it.
I wasn't advocating it to play outguess, I wasn't advocating it to replace scumhunting, I was advocating it to analyze how people reacted after we did it. That's how you catch scum, not playing outguess.
Unfortunately, as I stated above, scum will have rolefishing sooo easy, still if you don't pretend to.
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:24 am
by charter
charter wrote:either lynch me for a complete bullshit reason or drop it.
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:34 am
by pacman281292
charter wrote:charter wrote:either lynch me for a
complete bullshit
reason or drop it.
hmm... bullshit? so why did you defend it alot?
You have already won the jackpot. congratulations.
Unvote, Vote: charter
. Appeal to emotion scum. nuf said.
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:11 am
by Jebus
charter wrote:charter wrote:either lynch me for a complete bullshit reason or drop it.
Sounds like a challenge to me.
unvote, Vote: Charter
And an FoS to Yawetag, suggesting something that people turn out to not like is not a scumtell, it was the non-existent rolefishing that would be the scumtell. In this case, it was just an idea that may or may not have been thought through. So dependent tell at best.
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:31 am
by charter
Congratulations, you guys just lynched a power role.
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:32 am
by Gamma
what the fuck, we lynched him?
5 pages in?
That or i wasn't paying attention to the votecount.
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:32 am
by Gamma
5 pages in, no less.
You guys are all fucking idiots.
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:57 am
by Spolium
What the hell?
FoMFS Pacman and Jebus, assuming charter flips town.