[FNZ] Salem of Lies Round 5 - Throne of Lies III
- Thread starter Yuelyn
- Start date
- Tags #lara #larimo #lris #trisbesthost
- Status
I quoted it because your comment was nonsense. Just because scum *can* take advantage of it, doesn't mean it should be discouraged entirely.
My point was to say the standard you were setting was ludicrous there, and you were overly focused on negligible comments.
You may as well have used Astrology to make your arguments. It's really not a far departure from what you actually used.
Yes, which was my issue. Why is it not an issue for Day 1? Why would we just ignore a player who could well be scum, especially one in a considerable position of power?
I've misread nothing. By pointing to it not being alignment indicative for you, you kind of defeat the point entirely, and make a wholly different point - that paying attention comes from the quirks and traits of a player's personality, and doesn't actually indicate alignment at all.
My point was to say the standard you were setting was ludicrous there, and you were overly focused on negligible comments.
You may as well have used Astrology to make your arguments. It's really not a far departure from what you actually used.
Yes, which was my issue. Why is it not an issue for Day 1? Why would we just ignore a player who could well be scum, especially one in a considerable position of power?
I've misread nothing. By pointing to it not being alignment indicative for you, you kind of defeat the point entirely, and make a wholly different point - that paying attention comes from the quirks and traits of a player's personality, and doesn't actually indicate alignment at all.
They wouldn't even talk to me 
Just basic role question, even though I tried to engage with them. 
What's nonsense is you agreeing with what I said but then trying to make it seem like it's still an OK thing to do. It's really not that difficult.
I was setting no standard there, and was getting something started. I fail to see why we're even having this discussion, since you're apparently reading Melkor as scum from 30 pages in, which is still D1 or close to it. What was it in Melkor's posts that made you read him as scum? Please enlighten us.
Explain why you read Melkor as scum then please. And spare me the vacuous remarks.
It's not the most pressing concern for D1. We will get a read on the King as the game progresses. Lynching the King on D1 is an excruciatingly obtuse play, as we risk losing an entire day if he is the Good King, and we must then choose another King. There is no merit in trying to lynch the King on D1. I've stated countless times that we need Gambit to be more involved so we can acquire an understanding of where he stands, but I don't see any benefit in pushing his lynch D1.
There are exceptions to rules. Players play differently when they are different alignments. And it is true that when scum most pay more attention to the thread, because they need to. Something not being alignment indicative for me, does not mean that it isn't alignment indicative for others.
I was setting no standard there, and was getting something started. I fail to see why we're even having this discussion, since you're apparently reading Melkor as scum from 30 pages in, which is still D1 or close to it. What was it in Melkor's posts that made you read him as scum? Please enlighten us.
Explain why you read Melkor as scum then please. And spare me the vacuous remarks.
It's not the most pressing concern for D1. We will get a read on the King as the game progresses. Lynching the King on D1 is an excruciatingly obtuse play, as we risk losing an entire day if he is the Good King, and we must then choose another King. There is no merit in trying to lynch the King on D1. I've stated countless times that we need Gambit to be more involved so we can acquire an understanding of where he stands, but I don't see any benefit in pushing his lynch D1.
There are exceptions to rules. Players play differently when they are different alignments. And it is true that when scum most pay more attention to the thread, because they need to. Something not being alignment indicative for me, does not mean that it isn't alignment indicative for others.
@Ekkologix vote up Ali.
The entirety, or at the very least 90 percent of his content is fluff. There is no desire to help in any conceivable way. He's not trying at all, and it looks like he's avoiding the thread.
Engaging with people and joining conversations is practically the same. Hm, you also said I appear to know what I am doing, so I assume you also meant that I appear confident, no? See, scum doesn't want attention, most of the time. They like to blend in. When one is at the center of attention or drawing attention, it's highly likely they aren't scum. Of course, this does not apply to everyone.
Engaging with people and joining conversations is practically the same. Hm, you also said I appear to know what I am doing, so I assume you also meant that I appear confident, no? See, scum doesn't want attention, most of the time. They like to blend in. When one is at the center of attention or drawing attention, it's highly likely they aren't scum. Of course, this does not apply to everyone.
Um, no? I agreed that scum *could* use mechanics/setup talk to appear to be contributive. I've never agreed that it has no place or room for discussion at all.
It's not so much in his posts - he was pushed for most of the Day and yet there was no traction to getting votes on him, unlike Zara; Melkor has still not claimed despite being a focal suspect for most of the prior Day Phase. I will also note, I've only read up to Page 30.
There is no vacuity contained within my remark. Indeed, I stand by it - you may as well have said the stars told you it for how vague and out of reach you reasoning was.
And this is what I don't get. I understand the penalty of being wrong is worse than usual, but at the same time, scum is scum. I don't see why we'd just ignore the slot because it's day one and if we Mislynch it's bad for us. You'll note that there is a contrast between focusing on a player and lynching them.
You're missing my point. By it not being alignment indicative to you, it already becomes defunct as an attribute towards any one alignment, because well it doesn't actually indicate said alignment. Even if you can prove it as a general rule (I don't think you can, but I don't expect you to attempt to do so either), there are still enough players that aren't complete dreck. And conversely there are those that are dreck. That alone indicates more of a personality trait than an alignment one.
It's not so much in his posts - he was pushed for most of the Day and yet there was no traction to getting votes on him, unlike Zara; Melkor has still not claimed despite being a focal suspect for most of the prior Day Phase. I will also note, I've only read up to Page 30.
There is no vacuity contained within my remark. Indeed, I stand by it - you may as well have said the stars told you it for how vague and out of reach you reasoning was.
And this is what I don't get. I understand the penalty of being wrong is worse than usual, but at the same time, scum is scum. I don't see why we'd just ignore the slot because it's day one and if we Mislynch it's bad for us. You'll note that there is a contrast between focusing on a player and lynching them.
You're missing my point. By it not being alignment indicative to you, it already becomes defunct as an attribute towards any one alignment, because well it doesn't actually indicate said alignment. Even if you can prove it as a general rule (I don't think you can, but I don't expect you to attempt to do so either), there are still enough players that aren't complete dreck. And conversely there are those that are dreck. That alone indicates more of a personality trait than an alignment one.
What about Tobi then ? He's my top one currently, he's doing just the minimum necessary and he's way more in the backline than Ali.....
Yea , but you seem to engage people more individually so you draw more attention at first (at least to me in the first phase a little less now) while he seems like he belnds better in the conversations than you cuz he doesn't seem to engage someone in particular..... i also see people start suspecting Ekko a lot and he's almost everywhere?
Why i suspect him ( right now ) or why i suspected him previously ?
Yea , but you seem to engage people more individually so you draw more attention at first (at least to me in the first phase a little less now) while he seems like he belnds better in the conversations than you cuz he doesn't seem to engage someone in particular..... i also see people start suspecting Ekko a lot and he's almost everywhere?
Why i suspect him ( right now ) or why i suspected him previously ?
I'm sorry, but you're not even reading his post here.
Light is correct in that scum tend to want to go by unnoticed. Being noticed means that there is more scrutiny on what they're saying, and they're more likely to face the consequences of leading mislynches etc. There being exceptions does not mean it isn't scum-indicative.
"but Ratchet, aren't you arguing with Light now, and positing the complete opposite position?"
Apples or oranges. In my argument with Light, the behaviour being discussed is "paying attention". And really, everyone should be paying close attention to the game, that is how it is played. Here, the argument is about going with the flow and so on, and as Town, one should never want to go with the flow. Of course, it must also be said that agreeing with the Town's consensus is not the same as bandwagoning and "going with the flow". As long as you're putting your own information forward to add to the discussion, then you're generally okay. And even if you don't have your own information to add, establishing why you don't have this helps too.
Light is correct in that scum tend to want to go by unnoticed. Being noticed means that there is more scrutiny on what they're saying, and they're more likely to face the consequences of leading mislynches etc. There being exceptions does not mean it isn't scum-indicative.
"but Ratchet, aren't you arguing with Light now, and positing the complete opposite position?"
Apples or oranges. In my argument with Light, the behaviour being discussed is "paying attention". And really, everyone should be paying close attention to the game, that is how it is played. Here, the argument is about going with the flow and so on, and as Town, one should never want to go with the flow. Of course, it must also be said that agreeing with the Town's consensus is not the same as bandwagoning and "going with the flow". As long as you're putting your own information forward to add to the discussion, then you're generally okay. And even if you don't have your own information to add, establishing why you don't have this helps too.
Well during the first phase the hot topic was the discussion with LM where he & Zara were the most involved ones ( tough Ekko managed to convince most of us that Zara was the main sus ) he was also the first player i had an interaction with ( and the one who was interacting the most with everybody ) and he seemed very sus in general like he knew what he was doing, so as i probably said a couple of times he just gives me a sus vibe not as much as in the previous phase right now cuz i'm starting to understand some dynamics ( first game ever btw ) but i think i'll carry this sensation till the end of the game xD
I have never remarked that it has no place or room for discussion at all though.
Well I beg to differ, however, I will drop this, as it is not leading anywhere productive or attention worthy.
Upon your catching up, let us know what, if anything, had changed.
Conversely, you'll note that I have vocalized, a myriad of times, that we should have Gambit be more active, and obtain an appreciation of his alignment, with the aid of his activity. I have never opposed trying to engage with Gambit, however, I did state that pursuing a lynch on him D1 is not something I support.
And you're missing my point. General rules, are well general, because they apply to most of the general population, and are applicable to a class of cases or circumstances. As such, I can agree with the general statement, even if it is not applicable to everyone, in this case me. Just like we've agreed that mechanics talk is typically something scum opt for, and it is a rule of thumb that they generally do that, it, however, does not mean that everyone who discusses those is scum. However, we still denote it as something that is generally a scum tactic. The same principle applies here. Moreover, I fail to see why we are discussing this, aside from stubbornness that is lmao, therefore I'll appreciate it we drop it. We should be focusing on the lynch.
Well I beg to differ, however, I will drop this, as it is not leading anywhere productive or attention worthy.
Upon your catching up, let us know what, if anything, had changed.
Conversely, you'll note that I have vocalized, a myriad of times, that we should have Gambit be more active, and obtain an appreciation of his alignment, with the aid of his activity. I have never opposed trying to engage with Gambit, however, I did state that pursuing a lynch on him D1 is not something I support.
And you're missing my point. General rules, are well general, because they apply to most of the general population, and are applicable to a class of cases or circumstances. As such, I can agree with the general statement, even if it is not applicable to everyone, in this case me. Just like we've agreed that mechanics talk is typically something scum opt for, and it is a rule of thumb that they generally do that, it, however, does not mean that everyone who discusses those is scum. However, we still denote it as something that is generally a scum tactic. The same principle applies here. Moreover, I fail to see why we are discussing this, aside from stubbornness that is lmao, therefore I'll appreciate it we drop it. We should be focusing on the lynch.
- Status