Mafiascum.net

In post 3519, Skybird wrote:A50, since Varsoon said we are on the pacifist path I don't think you are blocked and voteless anymore.

I know, and I'm NOT claiming I am blocked/voteless NOW. I was referring to my previous claim (precisely the one on D1, since that is the one causing all the commotion and is still not confirmed or claimed by anyone). I'm looking for that specific someone who stole my vote for some time, returned it, saw me being tormented over claiming the fact and didn't step in to admit they indeed stole my vote. That would make them scum because the townie thing to do in this situation is to claim the action regardless of their read on the subject (i.e. me)

To be clear A50, you weren't being tormented over claiming, you were being tormented over not making a vote to prove your claim when you made it.

Pedantic, but yeah.

-Cerb

Just dropping in to say I'm unlynchable now - keep up the good work guys

I'll actually get into this game in a bit - does anybody know why it became pacifist all of a sudden?

A50, I did not steal your vote. I don't know who did.

In post 3526, Reasonably Rational wrote:To be clear A50, you weren't being tormented over claiming, you were being tormented over not making a vote to prove your claim when you made it.

Pedantic, but yeah.

-Cerb

Cerb my question? Do you have any PTs?

~Titus

In post 3530, Bronya Zaychik wrote:

In post 3526, Reasonably Rational wrote:To be clear A50, you weren't being tormented over claiming, you were being tormented over not making a vote to prove your claim when you made it.

Pedantic, but yeah.

-Cerb

Cerb my question? Do you have any PTs?

~Titus

I have one, it was gained almost immediately after I made my statement to be lie detected, and it wasn't created by me. I do know the source of it though.

-Cerb

In post 3531, Reasonably Rational wrote:

In post 3530, Bronya Zaychik wrote:

In post 3526, Reasonably Rational wrote:To be clear A50, you weren't being tormented over claiming, you were being tormented over not making a vote to prove your claim when you made it.

Pedantic, but yeah.

-Cerb

Cerb my question? Do you have any PTs?

~Titus

I have one, it was gained almost immediately after I made my statement to be lie detected, and it wasn't created by me. I do know the source of it though.

-Cerb

*grumbles*

I'll go pout and cry.

To clarify, I know the *claimed* source of it, not necessarily the real source of it.

So, anyways, let's think about the swap.

If any town slot caused the swap to pacifist from genocide, please state such very soon, otherwise we'll have to assume the swap was made by scum.

-Cerb

In post 3526, Reasonably Rational wrote:To be clear A50, you weren't being tormented over claiming, you were being tormented over not making a vote to prove your claim when you made it.

Pedantic, but yeah.

-Cerb

Why are you ignoring the point? The point is someone out there stole my vote and is refusing to acknowledge their responsibility for it, which is making the thread overly toxic and they seem content with that. It's even worse than outright faking a guilty on someone. At least if you fake a guilty you ARE taking the responsibility for the push/lynch.

In post 3534, Almost50 wrote:

In post 3526, Reasonably Rational wrote:To be clear A50, you weren't being tormented over claiming, you were being tormented over not making a vote to prove your claim when you made it.

Pedantic, but yeah.

-Cerb

Why are you ignoring the point? The point is someone out there stole my vote and is refusing to acknowledge their responsibility for it, which is making the thread overly toxic and they seem content with that. It's even worse than outright faking a guilty on someone. At least if you fake a guilty you ARE taking the responsibility for the push/lynch.

Your point is pretty obvious and not really worth addressing.

-Cerb

If someone had claimed responsibility and you were pushing them on the basis of that, then sure, I could see reason to talk it out with you, but since we don't know who that individual is, and the roles we had that allowed that theft to happen are gone, what exactly are you hoping to accomplish by redirecting the conversation to this?

Honestly, it really seems like you simply want that action painted as definitely scum, so that way the next logical conclusion, that you must be town because it was used on you, is reached by others, without you having to actually explicitly state it.

-Cerb

In post 3534, Almost50 wrote:which is making the thread overly toxic and they seem content with that.

I don't think the vote stealer is to blame for toxicity in the thread

In post 3533, Reasonably Rational wrote:If any town slot caused the swap to pacifist from genocide, please state such very soon, otherwise we'll have to assume the swap was made by scum.

it was me, but the swap happening was scum's choice. they already know this, so i'm telling the rest of you.
every member of the scumteam voted on it. because all of them voted yes, we swapped to pacifist. i don't know why they chose that, but it could be an indication genocide mode is not as scumsided as it looked. i was expecting them to reject it, actually.

In post 3538, Chara wrote:

In post 3533, Reasonably Rational wrote:If any town slot caused the swap to pacifist from genocide, please state such very soon, otherwise we'll have to assume the swap was made by scum.

it was me, but the swap happening was scum's choice. they already know this, so i'm telling the rest of you.
every member of the scumteam voted on it. because all of them voted yes, we swapped to pacifist. i don't know why they chose that, but it could be an indication genocide mode is not as scumsided as it looked. i was expecting them to reject it, actually.

Umm..

Okay.

First of all, Genocide is CLEARLY intended to be townsided.

Know why? Because it's a balancing mechanism. When town takes some hits, they get access to what Varsoon believes to be the stronger abilities, and/or scum lose access to their stronger abilities.

-Cerb

So, why the change? Why give them the option, when MC had a plan to deal with a specific subset of suspects?

-Cerb

In post 3539, Reasonably Rational wrote:First of all, Genocide is CLEARLY intended to be townsided.

Know why? Because it's a balancing mechanism. When town takes some hits, they get access to what Varsoon believes to be the stronger abilities, and/or scum lose access to their stronger abilities.

-Cerb

i'm not sure i agree based on Purple Heart's claimed ability, and can only assume you are setup speccing this based on your own role and balancing methods such as the one used in SU2. i do think Varsoon took a lot of nods from the success of that game in this one, so you might be right.

pedit: Maid Cafe's plan came up after i'd already done it. i couldn't take it back at that point even if i'd wanted to. it does locktown Maid Cafe for me, but i imagine for those who were faster on the uptake, they already knew that.

I'm basing it purely on mod meta, not my own role.

How did this vote thing you did work? Also, why did you rush to trigger the ability so early in the day, if you knew that if they accepted the day would reset.

-Cerb

In post 3534, Almost50 wrote:Why are you ignoring the point? The point is someone out there stole my vote and is refusing to acknowledge their responsibility for it, which is making the thread overly toxic and they seem content with that. It's even worse than outright faking a guilty on someone. At least if you fake a guilty you ARE taking the responsibility for the push/lynch.

if whoever took it is scum, they're not going to say.

what do you think about the rest of the game?

i was concerned about activity earlier, as the genocide -> pacifist would not have rolled over until every scum had made a vote.

@RR, do you still have access to said PT? Please ask Varsoon if you are considered as having access. We want to deliver hugs but hugs are not a thing if you have access to said PT.

~Titus

In post 3539, Reasonably Rational wrote:

In post 3538, Chara wrote:

In post 3533, Reasonably Rational wrote:If any town slot caused the swap to pacifist from genocide, please state such very soon, otherwise we'll have to assume the swap was made by scum.

it was me, but the swap happening was scum's choice. they already know this, so i'm telling the rest of you.
every member of the scumteam voted on it. because all of them voted yes, we swapped to pacifist. i don't know why they chose that, but it could be an indication genocide mode is not as scumsided as it looked. i was expecting them to reject it, actually.

Umm..

Okay.

First of all, Genocide is CLEARLY intended to be townsided.

Know why? Because it's a balancing mechanism. When town takes some hits, they get access to what Varsoon believes to be the stronger abilities, and/or scum lose access to their stronger abilities.

-Cerb

I think this is the case too, I recall SU2 had its own balancer as well

In post 3542, Reasonably Rational wrote:How did this vote thing you did work? Also, why did you rush to trigger the ability so early in the day, if you knew that if they accepted the day would reset.

i don't know how it works. Varsoon started it, i assume in the scum PT, after i'd activated the ability.

as for rushing... can't answer that one. rest assured, you can be annoyed with my misplay later.

In post 3544, Bronya Zaychik wrote:@RR, do you still have access to said PT? Please ask Varsoon if you are considered as having access. We want to deliver hugs but hugs are not a thing if you have access to said PT.

~Titus

I definitely still have access to the PT. I can post in it etc.

-Cerb

pedit: There's a certain critical mass of misplays where I stop accepting things were misplays, and have to assume they were actions taken by scum. That's why I dig into the reasoning behind why things are done the way they're done.

How do you not know how it works? Did the ability give a time limit for the scum response? Was it just that as soon as they all voted, it would take effect? Was provision made for a tied vote? How about if the day ended before the votes all came in? Were there any limitations on when you were allowed to trigger it?

In post 3547, Reasonably Rational wrote:edit: There's a certain critical mass of misplays where I stop accepting things were misplays, and have to assume they were actions taken by scum. That's why I dig into the reasoning behind why things are done the way they're done.

How do you not know how it works? Did the ability give a time limit for the scum response? Was it just that as soon as they all voted, it would take effect? Was provision made for a tied vote? How about if the day ended before the votes all came in? Were there any limitations on when you were allowed to trigger it?

that's ok. i'm sorry. i haven't been playing well this game. hopefully scum kills me instead of killing someone just as town but more useful. i don't mind you suspecting me, Cerb.

as soon as all the scum voted and Varsoon was online, it would take effect. he didn't mention anything about tied votes because scum player would need to say yes. if the day ended before all votes were in, it wouldn't go through.
no limitations on when i could trigger it, but i had to do so publicly, which i did.

i'm only answering these questions because scum already knows this. except for the trigger thing, but that doesn't really matter as it's already done.