M80 Game Thread

[brainbomb]

here is an example. See if someone reads my above post, then sees me talking futher about that post, when I say "he" it should be relatively obvious that the person I am speaking too is the person that gave the impetus of the dialogue in the first place.

While I am all for helping people know who is being talked about in a given post, it also can get tedious saying rivera said this and rivera said this and rivera said this, and he, rivera said this, and since you are incapable of reading the post itself, rivera said this, and rivera ate that, and rivera went here, and rivera cracked corn but I dont care

[brainbomb]

I hardly think the problem with webdiplomacy is that there is just not enough hand holding going on.

[Jamiet99uk]

here is an example. See if someone reads my above post, then sees me talking futher about that post, when I say "he" it should be relatively obvious that the person I am speaking too is the person that gave the impetus of the dialogue in the first place.

While I am all for helping people know who is being talked about in a given post, it also can get tedious saying rivera said this and rivera said this and rivera said this, and he, rivera said this, and since you are incapable of reading the post itself, rivera said this, and rivera ate that, and rivera went here, and rivera cracked corn but I dont care

It wouldn't hurt to mention the subject of your comments once in each post, or to compile them into slightly longer posts instead of scattering each sentence into the thread one at time.

It's no big deal, Brainbomb, let's not fight.

[Foxcastle]

Also, Jamie, I'm not sure what your theory is that Bunny and I are scum together. Like, walk through the theory that Bunny and I are scum together, and then walk through the theory that I'm town, and which one makes more sense?

The theory was that it went something like this:

1. You voted your team-mate Bunny because his strategy of being silent and dropping +1's did annoy you;

2. He wasn't a serious wagon when you said "I don't want to vote Bunny anymore";

3. You went to sleep.

4. You got up, checked back in, and saw that your pal Bunny now was a lead wagon, so you realised you'd better move your vote to his main counter-wagon at that time, to reduce the risk of him being flipped.

5. I questioned you about that and you said "Leaving my vote on Bunny was because of indecision" - but that appears inconsistent with your use of "unvote" later on when you wanted to move your vote.

You're defending yourself pretty well now, but I'm just explaining that the above was my thought process.

I obviously can't be objective here, but I don't think what happened makes sense as scum-scum.

[Jamiet99uk]

Also, Jamie, I'm not sure what your theory is that Bunny and I are scum together. Like, walk through the theory that Bunny and I are scum together, and then walk through the theory that I'm town, and which one makes more sense?

The theory was that it went something like this:

1. You voted your team-mate Bunny because his strategy of being silent and dropping +1's did annoy you;

2. He wasn't a serious wagon when you said "I don't want to vote Bunny anymore";

3. You went to sleep.

4. You got up, checked back in, and saw that your pal Bunny now was a lead wagon, so you realised you'd better move your vote to his main counter-wagon at that time, to reduce the risk of him being flipped.

5. I questioned you about that and you said "Leaving my vote on Bunny was because of indecision" - but that appears inconsistent with your use of "unvote" later on when you wanted to move your vote.

You're defending yourself pretty well now, but I'm just explaining that the above was my thought process.

I obviously can't be objective here, but I don't think what happened makes sense as scum-scum.

Trying to be objective, what does not make sense about my logic?

[brainbomb]

here is an example. See if someone reads my above post, then sees me talking futher about that post, when I say "he" it should be relatively obvious that the person I am speaking too is the person that gave the impetus of the dialogue in the first place.

While I am all for helping people know who is being talked about in a given post, it also can get tedious saying rivera said this and rivera said this and rivera said this, and he, rivera said this, and since you are incapable of reading the post itself, rivera said this, and rivera ate that, and rivera went here, and rivera cracked corn but I dont care

It wouldn't hurt to mention the subject of your comments once in each post, or to compile them into slightly longer posts instead of scattering each sentence into the thread one at time.

It's no big deal, Brainbomb, let's not fight.

its not a fight Jamie.
But you Jamie, need to use logical inferences more often. So that way you dont waste time and energy worrying about conundrums that a simple inference could fix.

I do think that asking a clarifying question is fine. When bunny had conflicting scumreads, and you pointed it out, he stated that it was possible to independentely scumread two people, which is a logical inference I would make. Otherwise, unless he comes out and says eden and bb were W/W, I pretty much already know hes not an idiot, and hes probably wiser than that as mafia in the first place.
And then later, I jokingly said, Jamie thinks that bunny beleived the game is multiball and that eden and I are scum but on opposing scumteams.

and once again you took it literal rather than making a logical inference that im probably having a laugh. I would think youd know me well enough to know by now that I wouldnt start conjuring up that there are multiple scumteams in this setup, nor that I actually think bunny beleives such a thing.

You get this I hope

[Jamiet99uk]

Can anybody point to a particular passage in a previous game in which someone put a lot of energy / words into a fakeclaim that was initially persuasive but outed as false later?

I want to try something.

[brainbomb]

I have not yet dismissed the possibility that you are just playing the role of what you think you are like as town. Something you do pretty well as scum.

[Jamiet99uk]

here is an example. See if someone reads my above post, then sees me talking futher about that post, when I say "he" it should be relatively obvious that the person I am speaking too is the person that gave the impetus of the dialogue in the first place.

While I am all for helping people know who is being talked about in a given post, it also can get tedious saying rivera said this and rivera said this and rivera said this, and he, rivera said this, and since you are incapable of reading the post itself, rivera said this, and rivera ate that, and rivera went here, and rivera cracked corn but I dont care

It wouldn't hurt to mention the subject of your comments once in each post, or to compile them into slightly longer posts instead of scattering each sentence into the thread one at time.

It's no big deal, Brainbomb, let's not fight.

its not a fight Jamie.
But you Jamie, need to use logical inferences more often. So that way you dont waste time and energy worrying about conundrums that a simple inference could fix.

I do think that asking a clarifying question is fine. When bunny had conflicting scumreads, and you pointed it out, he stated that it was possible to independentely scumread two people, which is a logical inference I would make. Otherwise, unless he comes out and says eden and bb were W/W, I pretty much already know hes not an idiot, and hes probably wiser than that as mafia in the first place.
And then later, I jokingly said, Jamie thinks that bunny beleived the game is multiball and that eden and I are scum but on opposing scumteams.

and once again you took it literal rather than making a logical inference that im probably having a laugh. I would think youd know me well enough to know by now that I wouldnt start conjuring up that there are multiple scumteams in this setup, nor that I actually think bunny beleives such a thing.

You get this I hope

You are not wrong, as a general point. However, I sometimes fall foul of making what appear to be logical inferences, when in fact they were not what the person then says they meant.

For example: Every time I have a conversation with Fluminator.

[Kakarroto]

Well, that was a roller coaster to catch up to. First instinct was that eden had to die for it with the shot, but after a bit of thought, I think the best use of it is to save it for the bomb. Well in case we don't get them on a day.

I can understand the feelings of wanting eden to be the day vote after his retraction, I had the same impulse of feeling betrayed. With the benefit of reading it later and not being able to post instantly, I had some thoughts that maybe that might not be the best to do and there might be something more. Still I was very angry at eden and highly suspicious.

But I guess this is it now with that reclaim. I suggest you make good of the time you have now still. I thought a bit about it but there is no sure way to save you.

Also I thought about if there is a better use than what brain suggested, but I guess the doubler is the best in that case. Not sure if you want to use it on him, but it's your decision.

If you have any questions towards me, shoot them, I'll answer them the best I can.

[brainbomb]

Questioning (takes time and alleviates misinterpretation)
Reacting (wastes time and assumes misinterpretation)
Inferring (saves time but risks misinterpretation)

[sweetandcool]

I have not yet dismissed the possibility that you are just playing the role of what you think you are like as town. Something you do pretty well as scum.

Who is you? Jamiet? I can guess, but I'm not confident at all.

[Jamiet99uk]

I have not yet dismissed the possibility that you are just playing the role of what you think you are like as town. Something you do pretty well as scum.

An entirely reasonable standpoint for you to take at this point in the game-state, Brainbomb. There is much to be unearthed, me hearty.

[brainbomb]

I have not yet dismissed the possibility that you are just playing the role of what you think you are like as town. Something you do pretty well as scum.

Who is you? Jamiet? I can guess, but I'm not confident at all.

Imagine player Bill writes a very long post saying that brainbomb is scum.
Bill uses a ton of examples. And brainbomb doesnt read the post, skips right to the comment area and says

"what? you scumread me?"

this is an example of reactive play. Rather than question their talking points, or move on with life and make the simple logical inference that this person thinks I may be mafia, I chose to get reactive.

The only logical inferences I can make there are that bill is scum who writes really well constructed posts framing town, or that bill is town who really thinks im scum.

[ghug]

Can anybody point to a particular passage in a previous game in which someone put a lot of energy / words into a fakeclaim that was initially persuasive but outed as false later?

I want to try something.

Is that something fakeclaiming?

M62 is a good one. Bunny fakeclaimed when caught (and lied about GM communication, so maybe not the best example), and then two VTs had competing Priest claims.

[Jamiet99uk]

Can anybody point to a particular passage in a previous game in which someone put a lot of energy / words into a fakeclaim that was initially persuasive but outed as false later?

I want to try something.

Is that something fakeclaiming?

M62 is a good one. Bunny fakeclaimed when caught (and lied about GM communication, so maybe not the best example), and then two VTs had competing Priest claims.

I'm not going to claim or fakeclaim anything during this phase.

I'll take a look into that and get back to you all a bit later. Don't wait with too much anticipation as it may lead to nothing. It's useful that you picked the example of somebody who is in this game, though.

[ghug]

Can anybody point to a particular passage in a previous game in which someone put a lot of energy / words into a fakeclaim that was initially persuasive but outed as false later?

I want to try something.

Is that something fakeclaiming?

M62 is a good one. Bunny fakeclaimed when caught (and lied about GM communication, so maybe not the best example), and then two VTs had competing Priest claims.

I'm not going to claim or fakeclaim anything during this phase.

I'll take a look into that and get back to you all a bit later. Don't wait with too much anticipation as it may lead to nothing. It's useful that you picked the example of somebody who is in this game, though.

The two VTs were HR and Balki, and I was the real Priest. I figure that might aid in finding the claims themselves.

[brainbomb]

quite a while back I changed the way I fake claim, because the big flaw in fake claiming is if you do it at an end of day someone else dies, maybe a real PR, if you do it at night mafia knows you just wanna eat the night kill. and then it assumes the real version of the role is someone very edgey, laid back who doesnt flinch at the sight of someone impersonating them.

alot of it is leaps of faith.

the better thing to do is play like you dont want to die. because then without ever even having to claim scum has to decide the reason why you dont want to die.

the attribute of my towngame I have put relentless effort into is living, and I have not been miskilled in a mafia game in over two years now

[brainbomb]

there is a time where fake claims are super pro town, and in the case of eden I sensed the claim was real, so I waited til only two minutes were left to cc, and padded the cc by saying I trusted eden and he was town.

it makes it less likely a flash wagon shifts back to eden and it leaves it up for mafia to not know which of us was real. but eden started getting mentioned as being a vig shot, so obviously the fakeness has to end

[President Eden]

there is a time where fake claims are super pro town, and in the case of eden I sensed the claim was real, so I waited til only two minutes were left to cc, and padded the cc by saying I trusted eden and he was town.

it makes it less likely a flash wagon shifts back to eden and it leaves it up for mafia to not know which of us was real. but eden started getting mentioned as being a vig shot, so obviously the fakeness has to end

Yeah and this 100% was one of them. Based on the confusion everywhere in the thread, I thought the play had a really good chance of working, but the vig threat blew it up.

Which I don’t fault fwiw — it’s unfortunate but I can’t really put myself in the shoes of an outside observer on this one, so I have no way to say it wasn’t reasonable to start discussing vigging me.