[FNZ] Role Madness Breaking Bad Role Madness

[Peroroncino]

Well I take issue with my posting being described as an emotional outburst inflicted upon Ekko this game, because I don't see your angle to actually believe that at all. I'll be frank Pero - I'm getting the impression that you're throwing terms and phrases out there without much regard for their application.

like i said maybe if you werent fighting like you always do i would have reason to think differently but i have no reason here

 

[Ratchet]

like i said maybe if you werent fighting like you always do i would have reason to think differently but i have no reason here

I'm afraid this isn't really good enough. In your experience with us, these fights have been fundamentally justified by our alignments. Moreover, if you're going to ascribe emotional foundations to my posts, then I expect you to be able to qualify this when I ask. Let me be clear - I'd like you to bring some quotes you feel demonstrate an emotional outburst from me this game.

 

[TheKnightOfTheSea]

As long as people are contributing to the game without hiding behind fluff I don't really care if the phase is a bit longer tbh.

aye that's fair.

Do you have anything to share re thoughts on Ekko/Ratchet or Pero since those two have been focus points of the game?

I'm kind of lost. Their opinions of each other seemed to have been caused by other games(which i have not played).

 

[Ratchet]

Their opinions of each other seemed to have been caused by other games(which i have not played).

Untrue.

 

[Emil]

Ekko why are you town reading me for one of my supposed scum traits? This makes no sense at all

i did not say it is a "scum trait" of yours. its something I scum read you for in the past and was wrong.

I don't feel i'm really defending anyone, rather than being interested in your reasons for the scum read, hence the questions

this post below is a soft, unwarranted defense. something i've scum read u for in the past and was wrong on. I dont recall you making such early defense as mafia, as much as town. like i said its a false positive. its something i do scum read others for, but for you its something you did as town before. does this answer your question?

Why would he assume pero is gonna be claiming kills later

Seems like quite a bold assumption to jump to

 

[Ratchet]

Vote: Peroroncino

 

[Peroroncino]

I'm afraid this isn't really good enough. In your experience with us, these fights have been fundamentally justified by our alignments. Moreover, if you're going to ascribe emotional foundations to my posts, then I expect you to be able to qualify this when I ask. Let me be clear - I'd like you to bring some quotes you feel demonstrate an emotional outburst from me this game.

what's the point of that? No matter what i bring you will simply say ''that's not emotional'' rational ratchet wouldnt be fighting that's all there is to it.

 

[RippedCal]

i did not say it is a "scum trait" of yours. its something I scum read you for in the past and was wrong.



this post below is a soft, unwarranted defense. something i've scum read u for in the past and was wrong on. I dont recall you making such early defense as mafia, as much as town. like i said its a false positive. its something i do scum read others for, but for you its something you did as town before. does this answer your question?

That's not a soft defense at all though, it's not even a defence. I was interrogating Goblin's thought process

 

[Ratchet]

what's the point of that? No matter what i bring you will simply say ''that's not emotional'' rational ratchet wouldnt be fighting that's all there is to it.

Well, in this case it doesn't matter so much as what I say as whether others agree with you, no? I'll admit it - it's a pet peeve of mine to be told I'm being emotional when I'm not. Moreover, you seem very sure that you're qualified as to what "rational ratchet" does, and yet your position throughout this has been that we always do this, so either I'm never rational (and thus you can't possibly know what rational Ratchet would or would not do), or it's specifically in this game I'm not rational, which I think in turn would prompt more of a read on me than "I don't know about you yet".

 

[Peroroncino]

Well, in this case it doesn't matter so much as what I say as whether others agree with you, no? I'll admit it - it's a pet peeve of mine to be told I'm being emotional when I'm not. Moreover, you seem very sure that you're qualified as to what "rational ratchet" does, and yet your position throughout this has been that we always do this, so either I'm never rational (and thus you can't possibly know what rational Ratchet would or would not do), or it's specifically in this game I'm not rational, which I think in turn would prompt more of a read on me than "I don't know about you yet".

you basically just said you get emotional over being called emotional

 

[Ratchet]

you basically just said you get emotional over being called emotional

Even if that were true (it's not, but it's also not important), what does that have to do with the point at hand? Because your statement is that I was emotionally outbursting (a very strong display of emotion) before any of this.

 

[Peroroncino]

Even if that were true (it's not, but it's also not important), what does that have to do with the point at hand? Because your statement is that I was emotionally outbursting (a very strong display of emotion) before any of this.

and what is the point at hand? I was asked what i thought and i answered it. If you dont like my answer that's your problem isnt it?

 

[RippedCal]

Don't hate Pero's tone in this conversation tbhtbh

 

[Emil]

You've restated the same point over and over in that post, so I'll trim the fat:
It, by definition, is reaching a conclusion. You even later go on to say that you did have evidence for it, so this defence seems weird. What you're saying is that you don't follow the town process of using evidence to inform conclusions, and that I can't hld you to that, and you can just call anyone scum for any reason. And then you say you called me scum because of an isolated post I made you didn't like. So in other words, you're claiming to have followed the town process I laid out, despite also saying that you don't follow that process at all.

it's really not. saying - "you are skoom" really has no value alone. it's like a blind vote. what you do with it afterwards is what gives it the value or agenda that you so speak of and still continuously fail to provide evidence for.

townies make conclusions or hasty decisions all the time. they see a scummy post, they can call it out instantly by saying such person is scum, and then lay out the facts/evidence/iso afterwards. this in itself is not scummy behavior. you are muddying the line between scummy/towny conclusion driven play, which again brings me to my point - my post is the most NAI shite ever, however, you somehow managed to convince yourself OR trying to convince us that it is actually scum driven - this i do not approve of.

I have still yet to confirm or deny that i actually follow that process or not. I don't go around thinking about it when I am scum reading players. my play comes naturally/instinctively/reactively etc... i may follow it in some instances, and break it in another. it's not a metric of anything, specially when you are unable to prove me breaking it or following it via my threadplay this game. i am asking you again, and probably for the last time before i draw my final conclusion - do you think me saying "you are scum" was me actually seriously reaching a conclusion that you are indeed scum?

 

[Ratchet]

and what is the point at hand? I was asked what i thought and i answered it. If you dont like my answer that's your problem isnt it?

Well no, I've explained why I don't like your answer, and your answer has included a claim that I think you need to establish. To bring us back on point, I'd like for your to qualify your assessment of me, which was "you've been emotionally outbursting onto Ekko". If you genuinely believe this to be the case, it should be no trouble at all.

 

[Emil]

This in turn indicates that you're merely contesting my arguments for the sake of them being arguments, which is fairly defensive in its own right. If it's a reaction test, then sure, but you've then gone on to say it's not a reaction test, so I'm even more confused as to where you are exactly on this than I was before your post.

?

 

[Ratchet]

-snip-

This really isn't important Ekko, I've gotten what I wanted out of this conversation. I think there is a lot of interesting discussion around this that you need to pay attention to - in particular Pero's commentary, and also the several drive-bys we've seen around it.

 

[Ratchet]

Don't hate Pero's tone in this conversation tbhtbh

I do think he's obstinate, but I also don't believe he actually believes what he's saying either, and is merely arguing for the sake of argument. Haven't yet decided if I think that's more townie than not.

 

[RippedCal]

I do think he's obstinate, but I also don't believe he actually believes what he's saying either, and is merely arguing for the sake of argument. Haven't yet decided if I think that's more townie than not.

I don't particular love the content but I don't think he's seemed particularly phased by the suspicion as he often is as scum

 

[Dragomir]

What it do, babyyyyyyyy? Let's bust this game wide open.