TWG CLIX: Form your special exclusive groups now! - Game Thread

[danceflashrevo]

aj is botchi sry

[ShadoWolfe]

Originally Posted by danceflashrevo

wolfe you seem to be a lot more aggressive in this game than the game/rerolls that I played with you most recently. Any reasons I would have that perception?

On my phone, but I'ma try to address some things real quick. I get called aggressive every game, so that doesn't really mean a lot to me. I was mislynched for being aggressive last game, which you were in. I don't see myself as extremely aggressive this game, although I can see how pushes can come off as that. If you're just referring to the inDheart interaction, though, then I can see where you're coming from. That said, I'd like to note that I wasnt aggressive in my initial response to him, just surprised that he had tried to exculpate himself from my read on him by saying the same exact thing about me. His calling that behavior sociopathic was kind of annoying, so I added "get wrecked, son" to annoy him back. He responded with insults and a promise to dig up dirt, which seemed weird considering that looking for evidence shouldnt follow a conclusion you've already reached. I see now that "get wrecked, son" mightve been the trigger for his response, but his whole reaction seemed weird, especially the part where he read my read of him and responded with the same exact "read" of me, which even he admitted later was based on an uninformed first impression.

[danceflashrevo]

What I mean specifically by aggressiveness is you seem much more offensive this game. You were mislynched because town was being stupid.

[botchi246]

Originally Posted by inDheart

hey botchi, since we have a few inactives so far, i'm wondering: how do you feel about inactivity in general? like, i feel it's somewhat obvious that it's not a great quality to have, but would you see it as enough to e.g. push a lynch on an inactive player, lacking any better candidates?

well d0 i dont put a lot of thought into the inactives, becuase it tends to be the pattern every game except maybe turbo.

but as the days go on, it is definitely worse no matter what role you have. some players might go inactive just because they think they are safe if they claimed, and this is probably not a good habit. Not a good habit because if you are being cleared by a majority, then your insight would be good since everyone feels they have a lock on you. in charu's case, i think most everyone is believing his claim, but ya know he seems content to watch the world burn. id prolly act like that too in his position.

those players who are inactive with a minimum of contentful(?) posts are the one's in danger to me. if you dont participate, how can anyone really assign a role to you? although, the catch 22 is that if you do participate with a lot of contentful(??) posts, then there is a lot more to read you on and possibly incriminate, which is dangerous if you dont really know how to put your words together right.


dammit another long post. charuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

[ShadoWolfe]

Originally Posted by danceflashrevo

What I mean specifically by aggressiveness is you seem much more offensive this game. You were mislynched because town was being stupid.

Ah, well honestly I dont think I'll ever play as offensively as I did in my first game here. In BOATS, I probably put in 50+ hours just reading, re-reading, pushing, and talking to people OOTC, so this is small time in comparison.

[ShadoWolfe]

Originally Posted by inDheart

i'm still having a hard time placing him, though as charu's pointed out, he's done this kind of thing before as town-aligned (if we're talking about the same game)

.. Just a small correction here, Charu mentioned that the reasoning for my mislynch last game "we don't like your posts, so you're scum" is similar to the reasoning I'm apparently using on you now. Except, he notes, for the absence of silly logic.

[Gradiant]

Originally Posted by mellonxcollie

I didn't mean pointless like that!

I meant I didn't understand what the point of the arguments were and it seemed like they were just going in circles.

I do think they will be important for the game. I did read it all and am not just dismissing it that's for sure

You say you didn't mean pointless, then imply that they are currently pointless and would be more important later. This phase's lynch will most likely be because of one of these conversations, so you saying this just gives the huge impression you don't want to have to give any actual input

[ShadoWolfe]

Wait, where's the post I made last night addressing inDheart's post "point by point"? Its not showing up on my phone, do you guys see it or did I forget to hit "send" on computer?

[Gradiant]

Originally Posted by mellonxcollie

I really don't like this post.

I agree that pure gut reads aren't very helpful *to other players* and that logic should be used in forming opinions.

But this is TWG. When you're a vanilla townie playing TWG, logic can only take you so far because you don't have any facts to back up the logic. All you have is what you *think* you know, AKA what your gut tells you is the most likely scenario.

The only people who can play TWG without their gut are the people who do not need to use it because they already know. aka the wolves

Robotic posts like your's don't actually really help. we can all figure the mechanics out on our own thank you. What helps is saying your personal opinions about things and your reads

Hell, even here you're talking about shit that came about because of dbp's argument with him

[Gradiant]

Originally Posted by ShadoWolfe

Wait, where's the post I made last night addressing inDheart's post "point by point"? Its not showing up on my phone, do you guys see it or did I forget to hit "send" on computer?

553?

[ShadoWolfe]

Originally Posted by Gradiant

553?

Idk, I'm on phone but yeah I found it. It had disappeared off tapatalk and I had to open browser to see it

[Gradiant]

Supposed to be longer shift at work today, we'll see if what happened yesterday happens again. I'll be back later

[inDheart]

Originally Posted by ShadoWolfe

.. Just a small correction here, Charu mentioned that the reasoning for my mislynch last game "we don't like your posts, so you're scum" is similar to the reasoning I'm apparently using on you now. Except, he notes, for the absence of silly logic.

hey, whatever makes you sleep at night

i think saying "same kind" covers that difference

[Precarious]

Back. Time to get caught up.

I'll be at an event tonight and gone for a few hours, so I'll try to get in as much now as I can. Once I'm back, I'll do a full review/roster run.

[ShadoWolfe]

Originally Posted by inDheart

so yeah, here's you addressing mellon. you're passing this off as justifying your playstyle. that doesn't address this specific instance, particularly why mellon thinks your post feels "forced", which is still a bad quality to have. you picked an argument loser to push in freez and i don't think that reflects well on you here no matter how much you've given "reasoning".

You keep saying that I picked an argument loser to push in Freez, but isn't that contradicting your other stance that their argument was totally neutral before I jumped in?

Originally Posted by inDheart

so supposedly since i'm so behind on this, let's check in with the current state of affairs, eh? most recently you responded to this freez post with this:



plus, if you've supposedly explained the same thing three times, i need only read one explanation because they're all the same, correct? okay, therefore i have the same misgivings.

you say you see a "bad progression of "logic"", except what i've wanted to demonstrate to you by talking out that whole exchange is that your "progression" is on a poor foundation. so i'm siding with freez in that the whole conversation was rather neutral, and you continue to defend your interpretation. perhaps we need to agree to disagree if you're really going to stick to it. but something i see that i can't resolve with that is your minimization of this as a "reaction test". your unvote is supposedly because you saw something you liked in freez's reaction (which is easy enough to go back and claim when all you say at the time is "Fair enough. Unvote.")

Again, if the argument is neutral, how did I pick an argument loser to push? Also, I actually did say at the time why I unvoted, so I can't see how you're accusing me of trying to minimize the push.

Originally Posted by inDheart

, and you did so without responding to the substance of his post at the time. unless you're completely unmoved by being accused of lying, i don't know why you didn't address that at the time. your breadcrumbs are showing my dude

I didn't need to respond to the "substance" of his post, which was basically "no, you're reading me wrong, stop it." His reaction was good, his tone was good, so I got off. I even said it at the time. Also, when he accused me of "lying" (of altering his posts to suit my agenda IIRC) I DID respond, saying that that couldn't havr been the case because all I did was quote his posts, in order.
Your reasoning doesn't hold up no matter which way I look at it, tbh. Also, I'm glad you see breadcrumbs, because wolves don't leave breadcrumbs, they leave a trail of blood. They don't eat bread, they eat villagers.

Maaan, it's so much easier to see the holes in your attack now that I'm all rested and relaxed. What's up, inDheart?

[mellonxcollie]

Originally Posted by Gradiant

You say you didn't mean pointless

I already explained to Charu what I meant by that.

The content of the arguments seemed largely "pointless" to me. One example I can give are your large quote train posts that you posted multiple times, yet they didn't really have a solid point and were just Freezin quotes repeated. Or one of the ad hominem attacks.

then imply that they are currently pointless and would be more important later.

Not sure where you're pulling this one from. I said "I do think they will be important for the game. I did read it all and am not just dismissing it that's for sure". The game means the game in general, now and later. and I also explained that I think they are important and should not be dismissed.

If you actually read my post it is pretty clear what I meant just from that but I'll help you out anyway

Originally Posted by mellonxcollie

I'm having a hard time coming up with ideas I have to analyze the interactions, even if it's hard and the arguments are difficult to follow about the exchanges because they seemed a little... pointless? I used .... and a ? here to show that I realize "pointless" might not be the best possible word choice, but it was the best I could think of

Seems like you're completely misinterpreting what I said, perhaps intentionally

It's kinda weird how you jump on every post I make. especially when it seems you need to twist my words in order to make your points.

[inDheart]

Originally Posted by ShadoWolfe

You keep saying that I picked an argument loser to push in Freez, but isn't that contradicting your other stance that their argument was totally neutral before I jumped in?

that's not my stance. you picked a loser, because you saw one

[inDheart]

Originally Posted by ShadoWolfe

I didn't need to respond to the "substance" of his post, which was basically "no, you're reading me wrong, stop it." His reaction was good, his tone was good, so I got off. I even said it at the time. Also, when he accused me of "lying" (of altering his posts to suit my agenda IIRC) I DID respond, saying that that couldn't havr been the case because all I did was quote his posts, in order.

i mean this post. the only response i see to this is the one i said, the "fair enough"

Originally Posted by FreezinIce

Ok

First of all in the context of the conversation these quotes:






was made when the conversation was at a neutral stance. Nobody had voted for me, nobody was going after me at that point, this was just me typing out my thoughts about Gradiants reaction and trying to think it out. But thank you for cherry picking my quotes to suit your own ends.




is it a wagon if theres only one vote? is it hoping on the wagon if i dont even vote for him? never mind all that, is it hoping on the wagon if im not even attacking him?



bruh just for you i didnt use punctuation in this entire post. get rekt by your ocd

[botchi246]

Originally Posted by FreezinIce

is it a wagon if theres only one vote? is it hoping on the wagon if i dont even vote for him? never mind all that, is it hoping on the wagon if im not even attacking him?

this whole wagon thing.

it is consider hopping on a wagon if you are hoping to start a wagon. you do not have to vote for him, but your posts can indicate who you would be ok with lynching (lol ofc). Even if you are not attacking him, the previous sentence applies here. It really just depends on your intentions.

"Hey, guy #1 said stuff about this guy #2. I agree with guy #1, so i dont like #2." -jumpnig on wagon

"Hey, guy #1 said stuff about this guy #2. I agree with guy #1 but i dont want to judge #2 until i have made my own conclusions." -not jumping on the wagon

just examples ( i think they work)

[botchi246]

^ directed at freezinice not indheart

also the only reason i broke that wagon thing down above was because indheart posted that quote and brought it back to my attention