Mafiascum.net

In post 135, QuantumQuasar wrote:vote ph0enix

post #51

rule #4 Don't talk about ongoing games - You may not talk to each other about this game outside of threads I have created for this purpose. You may not talk about other ongoing games in this thread.

My vote is fhe only correct one because we're not bandwagoning day one

Plus, Lunarrest and Phi can both be afk and considered incapacitated in an estate where we all hold joint shares so in the event no action happens on night one (as it should because we're not waiting for blood to be spilled)

then why replace them?

vote ph0enix and let the two others be afk

Three things:

1. The game I was referencing in the post you are talking about is not ongoing, it ended around two months ago, I'm not violating any rules.
2. The proper format of a vote is either using a vote tag or simply with bold text.
3. Even if I was violating any rules, what does that have to do with my alignment? If I was violating anything, the mod would have replaced me or warned me. Would you also vote my replacement if that was the case?

In post 146, QuantumQuasar wrote: I would recommend lynching ph0enix and ending the day early with phi kappa phi and lunarrest inactive before they wake up from their slumber after more than 48 hours so we can get moving instead of beating around the bush.

That's some proper bullshit right there.

Will catch up more fully tomorrow.

The diffrrence is the governing dynamics of the past experience with another participant which makes that game ongoing as it never ends, jt never ever ends

imagine how weak is to not auto lynch a player mentioning another finished game to another

that's what makes that different to karnage reference of a past memory of another player called watson who was a jailer , on how to reminiscence is not presence because you're both present and unconsciously recall and this discussion on technics is much more substantive than speculation

Why do you expect moderators to have an overwatch when quid custodiet custodies, who watches the watchmen

This is not even a thought experiment it's just common sense, now who gets malicious glee out of this from dumbfoundness because this game is ongoing cannot be talked about and your past game is still ongoing just like that famous line "everytime I get out, they pull me back in"

quote:
Discussion of Ongoing Mafia Games is Not Allowed

Recently we have had a spate of people discussing ongoing games. Though this has led to a record number of ongoing game bans, there may be a perception that there is some wiggle room when it comes to discussing ongoing games. This post is to tell you that there is not.

It does not matter if you are dead.
It does not matter if you don't think it will affect a game.
It does not matter if you aren't in the game.
It does not matter if you are posting about a game taking place on another forum or posting about an MS game on another forum.
It does not matter if you are moderating the game in question.

Discussing ongoing games by quoting or otherwise referring to an ongoing game is forbidden. There is no clever way around this rule. Don't try.

If you are unsure whether something violates the rule against discussing ongoing games, please don't hesitate to contact a listmod.

Sigh.

In post 153, QuantumQuasar wrote:The diffrrence is the governing dynamics of the past experience with another participant which makes that game ongoing as it never ends, jt never ever ends

imagine how weak is to not auto lynch a player mentioning another finished game to another

that's what makes that different to karnage reference of a past memory of another player called watson who was a jailer , on how to reminiscence is not presence because you're both present and unconsciously recall and this discussion on technics is much more substantive than speculation

Why do you expect moderators to have an overwatch when quid custodiet custodies, who watches the watchmen

This is not even a thought experiment it's just common sense, now who gets malicious glee out of this from dumbfoundness because this game is ongoing cannot be talked about and your past game is still ongoing just like that famous line "everytime I get out, they pull me back in"

quote:
Discussion of Ongoing Mafia Games is Not Allowed

Recently we have had a spate of people discussing ongoing games. Though this has led to a record number of ongoing game bans, there may be a perception that there is some wiggle room when it comes to discussing ongoing games. This post is to tell you that there is not.

It does not matter if you are dead.
It does not matter if you don't think it will affect a game.
It does not matter if you aren't in the game.
It does not matter if you are posting about a game taking place on another forum or posting about an MS game on another forum.
It does not matter if you are moderating the game in question.

Discussing ongoing games by quoting or otherwise referring to an ongoing game is forbidden. There is no clever way around this rule. Don't try.

If you are unsure whether something violates the rule against discussing ongoing games, please don't hesitate to contact a listmod.

Why don’t you just say.
“I want to be a Mod because I never get anything else in my life”

Like @QQ
This is a FM game.
Don’t treat it as anything else.

play to win but don't try too hard to appear desperate, this isn't just some triviality toronto stock exchange

seriously someone is pulling town with a carrot on a stick and manipulating opinion until someone reacts unless you remain passive and meek

the bluepill is real

I would vote your replacement because the intention of your action on a point of reference makes you both falsely unassociated or associated falsely with the premise of being unassociated. Conversely looking for too much rationale so even if words are fully defensible to first move leads to buddying up or inadvertently leaving some innuendo

Walt Disney said the good side of people shows up and that takes more time for some so you might be protecting me but we're lynching each kther which shows that power roles are looking for info. you communicated precisely with premeditation of sharing which shows intent to make contact to latch on a point of reference.

alright I reread but I'm tired and need to think more so I'll post stuff tomorrow

In post 121, Titus wrote:TSE, I guess you're on translation duty.

Phoenix, I'll try to explain my theory tonight. It makes sense in my head as an aha type moment but I'm not the clearest.

I think Scum!QQ means Scum!Titus
And Titus is coaching QQ.

In post 155, CheekyTeeky wrote:VOTE: Titus

why?

In post 162, Karnage wrote:

In post 155, CheekyTeeky wrote:VOTE: Titus

why?

Cheeky's been voting me since RVS and had a pretty static read there. He's the "bad cop". He accuses me of being evil, no matter what. You meanwhile are saying that everything I do is ok, making you the "good cop".

In post 161, TrueSoulEnergy wrote:

In post 121, Titus wrote:TSE, I guess you're on translation duty.

Phoenix, I'll try to explain my theory tonight. It makes sense in my head as an aha type moment but I'm not the clearest.

I think Scum!QQ means Scum!Titus
And Titus is coaching QQ.

Go ahead and elaborate. I would never coach someone to be that obtuse ever. I also oddly don't think QQ is scum independent of my theory. I just think it helps to lay out the groundwork of even bad theories so faulty premises can be corrected.

Why do you think QQ scum means I am coaching him? Do you think QQ is scum or not? Why would I coach someone to post word salad in a newbie game, when that would likely lead to them getting lynched?

In post 164, Titus wrote:

In post 161, TrueSoulEnergy wrote:

In post 121, Titus wrote:TSE, I guess you're on translation duty.

Phoenix, I'll try to explain my theory tonight. It makes sense in my head as an aha type moment but I'm not the clearest.

I think Scum!QQ means Scum!Titus
And Titus is coaching QQ.

Go ahead and elaborate. I would never coach someone to be that obtuse ever. I also oddly don't think QQ is scum independent of my theory. I just think it helps to lay out the groundwork of even bad theories so faulty premises can be corrected.

Why do you think QQ scum means I am coaching him? Do you think QQ is scum or not? Why would I coach someone to post word salad in a newbie game, when that would likely lead to them getting lynched?

I was just thinking that maybe someone told a newbie to sound so whack to the point barely anyone understood what they were doing/saying.
Doing something completely out of the FM frame.

So then I was looking back to see who it was who was saying “oh you can understand them?”
As I feel if QQ is scum being coached it’s someone who responds like that.

It just turned out that you said it. That’s all.

In post 165, TrueSoulEnergy wrote:

In post 164, Titus wrote:

In post 161, TrueSoulEnergy wrote:

In post 121, Titus wrote:TSE, I guess you're on translation duty.

Phoenix, I'll try to explain my theory tonight. It makes sense in my head as an aha type moment but I'm not the clearest.

I think Scum!QQ means Scum!Titus
And Titus is coaching QQ.

Go ahead and elaborate. I would never coach someone to be that obtuse ever. I also oddly don't think QQ is scum independent of my theory. I just think it helps to lay out the groundwork of even bad theories so faulty premises can be corrected.

Why do you think QQ scum means I am coaching him? Do you think QQ is scum or not? Why would I coach someone to post word salad in a newbie game, when that would likely lead to them getting lynched?

I was just thinking that maybe someone told a newbie to sound so whack to the point barely anyone understood what they were doing/saying.
Doing something completely out of the FM frame.

So then I was looking back to see who it was who was saying “oh you can understand them?”
As I feel if QQ is scum being coached it’s someone who responds like that.

It just turned out that you said it. That’s all.

I understand that theory but I feel that violates the newbie queue and the spirit of it.

First, it tells newbies that being unreadable and confusing is a good way to get what they want. It sets newbies up for failure in the long run. This is the place to grow and learn. I'd coach a newbie to say off the wall things and do off the wall strategies but not be deliberately obtuse. This is for getting to know your style in mafia. If an SE was coaching that style, they should be reprimanded.

Second, it tells newbies that their strength of charisma doesn't matter, all that matters is the gimmick and who knows whom. Not a good example to set.

Third, it limits the reaction the SE could have to the slot. The SE can't suddenly understand the gimmick unless the gimmick changes.

It's just a bad strategy all the way around.

In post 166, Titus wrote:

In post 165, TrueSoulEnergy wrote:

In post 164, Titus wrote:

In post 161, TrueSoulEnergy wrote:

In post 121, Titus wrote:TSE, I guess you're on translation duty.

Phoenix, I'll try to explain my theory tonight. It makes sense in my head as an aha type moment but I'm not the clearest.

I think Scum!QQ means Scum!Titus
And Titus is coaching QQ.

Go ahead and elaborate. I would never coach someone to be that obtuse ever. I also oddly don't think QQ is scum independent of my theory. I just think it helps to lay out the groundwork of even bad theories so faulty premises can be corrected.

Why do you think QQ scum means I am coaching him? Do you think QQ is scum or not? Why would I coach someone to post word salad in a newbie game, when that would likely lead to them getting lynched?

I was just thinking that maybe someone told a newbie to sound so whack to the point barely anyone understood what they were doing/saying.
Doing something completely out of the FM frame.

So then I was looking back to see who it was who was saying “oh you can understand them?”
As I feel if QQ is scum being coached it’s someone who responds like that.

It just turned out that you said it. That’s all.

I understand that theory but I feel that violates the newbie queue and the spirit of it.

First, it tells newbies that being unreadable and confusing is a good way to get what they want. It sets newbies up for failure in the long run. This is the place to grow and learn. I'd coach a newbie to say off the wall things and do off the wall strategies but not be deliberately obtuse. This is for getting to know your style in mafia. If an SE was coaching that style, they should be reprimanded.

Second, it tells newbies that their strength of charisma doesn't matter, all that matters is the gimmick and who knows whom. Not a good example to set.

Third, it limits the reaction the SE could have to the slot. The SE can't suddenly understand the gimmick unless the gimmick changes.

It's just a bad strategy all the way around.

Ah.
Fair Point.

SE hat: Newbies, look over this type of exchange TSE and I had. Regardless of alignment (I don't know TSE's alignment), this is a good interaction. He calmly put forth his theory, I answered. He (probably) listened. This gives somewhat of an indication of both our alignments. Go ahead and post any theory you want feedback on. Feel free to critique my weak theory too. My theory is no more right or wrong because I am an SE. I care more about you guys enjoying this game and learning than I do winning. I assure you, I am doing my best as either alignment. Anything else doesn't help you.

[/SE hat]

In post 168, Titus wrote:SE hat: Newbies, look over this type of exchange TSE and I had. Regardless of alignment (I don't know TSE's alignment), this is a good interaction. He calmly put forth his theory, I answered. He (probably) listened. This gives somewhat of an indication of both our alignments. Go ahead and post any theory you want feedback on. Feel free to critique my weak theory too. My theory is no more right or wrong because I am an SE. I care more about you guys enjoying this game and learning than I do winning. I assure you, I am doing my best as either alignment. Anything else doesn't help you.

[/SE hat]

As an SE we wish to hope to make Newbies into site regulars.
Allowing them to enjoy an amazing FM experience.
To improve and have fun doing it.
To become part of this amazing community and grow to become an extraordinary player.

Lynching

With 9 votes in play, it takes 5 to lynch.

Karnage

(2): Titus, TrueSoulEnergy

Homura

(1): Tapiocaphobe

Ph0enix

(1): QuantumQuasar

Titus

(1): CheekyTeeky

LunarRest

(1): Homura

QuantumQuasar

(1): Ph0enix

Tapiocaphobe

(1): Karnage

Deadline:

(expired on 2020-03-07 22:45:00).

Homura replaces Phi Kappa Phi! Please welcome her!

No rules were broken in 51 because that game is not ongoing. An ongoing game is a game which has not yet been declared over by the mod. If a game is in a completed games subforum or has something like "Over" in the title, or if there's a post in it from the mod saying what everybody's role is, then it's over.[/area]

In post 1, Plotinus wrote:

Prodging

- A naked "prod dodge" does not reset the prod timer. To avoid being prodded/replaced for inactivity, include some game advancing content in your prodges, such as "got prodded; xxxx is still scum."

I love how QQ votes me in 135 because of me supposedly violating some rule. But when he realises the game is not ongoing and I'm not violating anything he's like: "Well, the game's not ongoing, you are not violating any rules, but it's still worth my vote". Somehow.

QuantumQuasar wrote: imagine how weak is to not auto lynch a player mentioning another finished game to another

I mean, what is this? I feel like me and QQ are playing different games here.

The question is, is an action ever too scummy to be scummy, in a sense? Cause, I mean, him actively trying to get me lynched for no good reason is strange, but isn't it too obvious, you know what I'm saying?

I would like to hear more people's opinions when it comes to QQ.

@Cheeky: You voting Titus automatically means that you are unvoting QQ. Why? Do you think his actions are such of a confused Townie of some sort? Or it's something else?

In post 172, Ph0enix wrote:The question is, is an action ever too scummy to be scummy, in a sense? Cause, I mean, him actively trying to get me lynched for no good reason is strange, but isn't it too obvious, you know what I'm saying?

This is called "Too Bad To Be A Wolf" or TBTBAW. I am not a fan. Others live by it. It's understandable in the newbie games. It is not, imo, outside here. I don't use it. Others do. It's your call. You aren't necessarily wrong if you disagree.