@GekkisaiDaiNi Please post your post as soon as possible we have 6 hours to go.
Finished Mafia XLVII: The New Era (Fairy Tail)
- Thread starter GM DracLord
- Start date
- Status
Writing it now, I'm on a tablet so don't hold your breath.
TLDR:
-(In response to bb's 1st TLDR point): I'm on tablet. Writing massive posts is hard, time consuming, and quite frankly, not really enjoyable. This leads to some things being left out of posts.
-(In response to bb's 2nd TLDR point): See above ^
-(In response to bb's 3rd TLDR point): Early day, I was just trying to gather info. My case on you and quaking was the culmination of those early reads. I'm sorry of they seem stretched out of proportion or WIFOM-y, but those were all the reads I was getting.
I'm posting this in pieces, because the formatting gets really strange on tablet after enough text.
What? In my first post, I was just noticing it. In my second post, I said you could theoretically scumread it. In my last post, I explained why it could be scummy. Throughout the entirety of this, I said it was a fringe point and wasn't very scummy. That's not inconsistent, that's called "progession of logic". :L
The fluff point was meant for Quaking, not you. Same goes for the rolefishing. Your response to the buddy-buddy plays point is insubstantial. I just responded to the WIFOM point.
Happy?
In response to exaggeration examples:
-why is it very significant? It's weird to post a vote for someone directly after someone else did, no matter the stage of the game.
-That's just opinion. You and quaking had the most votes on you, therefore making you the most pressured.
-For someone who just called me out for stretching things, this is a very stretched point. There's this thing called autocorrect. It happens.
-Um, yes I did? They were directed at Quaking not you, however.
-"Some" means a specific amount of posts. Not every single post you've made has been helpful, therefore only some of them have.
-Just did.
-Again, not really directed at you.
-Huh, I guess it was only once. Thought it was twice.
In response to WIFOM examples:
All of those points I noted as being weak, and didn't use them as main points. That was (once again) more me thinking to myself than anything else.
Of all my points, I was expecting Gekki would respond to the "- selective reading/scumhunting (choosing only certain points to respond to, "misreading" the same information twice)" point, as because the examples regard the choices of Gekki (which are subjective and can be defended) as oppose to what Gekki actually did (which is objective and generally can't be defended). I'm going to take it that he's doing staggered responses and hasn't yet gotten to this one.
- vote counts must be read within the context of the actual vote reasons, otherwise you could interpret them as anything you wanted.
- This is not a stretched point, in light of all the other examples. Autocorrect does however make sense; if you hadn't said that, it'd be a very reasonable point.
- Even for Quaking, you only quoted one scenario (the very first posts he made), if I recall correctly. You can't just break the same conversation into the individual posts that were made during it and then say "look, it's lots of fluff". (That's actually a tactic of presenting data to manipulate it into making it bias.) Especially relative to many other posts of quaking, this is hardly "lots of fluff".
- You say "some" as if there wasn't a significant amount of helpful posts, and I especially get this impression because that comment felt very throw-away. If you did in fact mean "most posts are helpful" or "many posts are helpful", then I don't understand why you would have considered this more in your case, if you were town.
- I'm not sure what "just did" is supposed to mean, but anyway. In light of your comment about how your case on me was about "buddying" and "promoting WIFOM" only, I'd be inclined to replace this point with the exaggeration "this is the best case" or whatever was said. The general way you've pitched the case on me is made to seem as if there was much more than 2 main points in me, which would also be an exaggeration.
- See my response to fluff above.
- Twice is still not "constantly".
If these were in fact a culmination of those early reads, then the amount of exaggeration and your use of WIFOM should be consistent in the case to when you were scumhunting earlier, if you were town.
No, before you were being rather neutral with it. In the third post, you suddenly stopped staying neutral by ending with a "but it could be scummy". Why wasn't this said earlier? In your first case even? The timing of this change in logic is rather coincidental, coming right after I responded to your case (perhaps looking for more dirt on me?), and it's classic scummy WIFOM (because you didn't WIFOM before, the new WIFOM is inconsistent).
You took your time to clarify this. Anyway, if this was the case, then what is this about:
If the fluff and rolefishing points weren't on me, then you voted me only for a buddy-buddy and promoting WIFOM? You pointed out one instance of buddying (which I did in fact explain; if you think there's a problem with me asking people questions to get information on them to build reads, then I'm lost), and your WIFOM point has been shown to be pretty moot, yet you still persist with your vote on me.
-it is significant when you use the term very loosely, although you probably should define what a bandwagon is for reference.
- vote counts must be read within the context of the actual vote reasons, otherwise you could interpret them as anything you wanted.
- This is not a stretched point, in light of all the other examples. Autocorrect does however make sense; if you hadn't said that, it'd be a very reasonable point.
- Even for Quaking, you only quoted one scenario (the very first posts he made), if I recall correctly. You can't just break the same conversation into the individual posts that were made during it and then say "look, it's lots of fluff". (That's actually a tactic of presenting data to manipulate it into making it bias.) Especially relative to many other posts of quaking, this is hardly "lots of fluff".
- You say "some" as if there wasn't a significant amount of helpful posts, and I especially get this impression because that comment felt very throw-away. If you did in fact mean "most posts are helpful" or "many posts are helpful", then I don't understand why you would have considered this more in your case, if you were town.
- I'm not sure what "just did" is supposed to mean, but anyway. In light of your comment about how your case on me was about "buddying" and "promoting WIFOM" only, I'd be inclined to replace this point with the exaggeration "this is the best case" or whatever was said. The general way you've pitched the case on me is made to seem as if there was much more than 2 main points in me, which would also be an exaggeration.
- See my response to fluff above.
- Twice is still not "constantly".
WIFOM isn't always used as main points; it is just as commonly used as side points to build the facade that someone is scummier than the other. But the significance with the WIFOM is not so much that, it's because it is inconsistent with your scumhunting of earlier, which did not involve WIFOM.
[QUOTE="GekkisaiDaiNi, post: 2917591, member: 122913" ]-(In response to bb's 1st TLDR point): I'm on tablet. Writing massive posts is hard, time consuming, and quite frankly, not really enjoyable. This leads to some things being left out of posts.[/QUOTE]
A simple question for Gekki on his BB scumhunt:
Sure, BB asked Quaking to answer a question. What's the scum motivation behind that? Why, assuming they are in fact scumbuddies, would he even bother to make that connection?
Sure, BB asked Quaking to answer a question. What's the scum motivation behind that? Why, assuming they are in fact scumbuddies, would he even bother to make that connection?
Speaking of ignoring points, you just ignored my counter-argument to this.
"Hey Quaking, wanna lynch this guy?"
You should still be able to write a sentence or two that summarises what your response is.
Tips for everyone, regardless of alignment: Don't worry, I feel the exact same way as Gekki too often. The biggest thing to remember is that cases don't have to be as large as mine or Gekki's, and short responses are actually totally fine! In fact, I'd encourage short responses, because people are don't always read large ones, and they often communicate nothing different to the responses requiring more time and effort. It's okay to not respond to the individual points, although you should if you feel that they need to be specifically addressed.
You should never push yourself to write more than you feel, although you should generally always write a sentence (if that's all you feel), because silence causes confusion, delays and ultimately gets people nowhere (except lynched).
I just skimmed over your cases again, and couldn't find it?
You'd ask that directly in a scumchat, instead of implying it in the thread.
Same here (as to ignoring things) except I'm on a tablet, so it's even more easy to not notice things.
People make mistakes.
At this point, I'm not changing my vote. I don't like the cases on TLS, Lugia, or PineApl. If I swap to Quaking, I'm basically suiciding because he has only one vote on him, so I'd put myself at majority. I also voted you because while the other points on you are somewhat WIFOM-y, there are tons of them.
What I said to Quaking would be worded very differently if I was scum and intending to post that in a QT, so it wouldn't be a mistake.
You need to vote who you actually think is scum. Most people haven't made their vote yet, so the current count is highly tentative; furthermore, if Quaking has 1 vote currently and I have 3 (or how many I have, I don't actually know), that's really not a big difference. It's very easy to switch wagons when people only have that many votes on them.
"tons of points [on me]" is another exaggeration.
You're who I really think is scum.
Also, yay, forced to claim as a really helpful town role again! Yay!
N0 Result now. Otherwise, my vote is sticking.
Um, why on earth would I use a killing ability N0 when I had no info?
It's an investigator, this is guilty, this is super guilty.
- Status