Hephaestos said:
1) well the difference with your style is that you persist on many many points. Even if one question is answered you have a dozen lined up behind the first few.
2) When you start spending day one to analyze 1/3rd of the players of the round in that particular manner, it sends a message that you're gonna hit hard on everyone and anyone..... not if they slip up, but as you go down the list.
3) Last round you focused Gniz. He had a playstyle completely antagonist from yours, I can understand it, but you still stayed on the case for a heck of a time...it's that overinsistance that made it bullying.
4) The latest example is the best for my point of you overanalyzing into bullying day one. trash said she had 192 posts overnight. You point out it's wrong and that she can't have logged on for 28 hours to get that number. What do you do with this info? instead of drawing conclusions or going to the next question, you requier from her an explanation, and insist on it.
5) The only info that you get is that people are enoyed and become somewhat agressive to you. This is what happened with Gniz's being sick last round. You argued for a while on the "let's say" and in the end you had to drop the case (and he turned out town).
6) And lastly to my Hos on you... I do think you're capable of changing your playstyle to fit your situation, so I believe this day one presure is there to position you as a feared person in the town...hence preventing you from being openly scrutinized, by fear of repercutions.
|
1) The whole point is to have a one "complete" question, and break it down into overlapping segments. That way, an answer to a question may result in contradicting evidence. For example, when I first started questioning ABC about "i'll wait for prof, I had noticed two things in his post. One was that he knew me; two, that he didn't know how vote totals work. Now, if he knew me through a game, then he should know vote totals. So instead of asking both at the same time and give him time to maneuver around the questions, I asked the first question. "How do you know me" etc. He said (without answering my question)
"I remember lots of finger pointing from what I read, I need to see everyone start posting to find out who might be mafia. I still think it's Trashleg..."
so, because of his evasiveness, I replied:
"If you remember me finger pointing, then you must have read past threads. Right?"
he said, "At first I was just plain voting Noname becuase he instant voted me because of my avatar...I think Trashleg or Heph are suspicious. I assume it was a joke vote because it looks like now we can unvote, I only saw the DBZ and other Mafia, I played this on a different site."
To me, this was another miscommunication. I misinterpreted other Mafia as "I only saw the DBZ thread and what I know about mafia is from playing on a different site."
Now with ABC, it's a bad example because his communication skills were just so poor earlier. The end result was that he didn't actually read the DBZ, but has only been reading the last page of every game. Despite this, he never understood how vote totals work. Anyway, the idea is to ask a question that may show contradicting evidence on the next question.
2) It is most definitely not "a list". I point out things that I see wrong, and if it isn't currently being pursued by another player, I invovle myself. This should be readily understood by the fact that I hate lurkers. I don't work people out in order. I can only suspect someone for what they say. I mentioned this a couple games ago as well.
3) Gniz refused to answer a question and was cagey, exactly like how ABC was being this game, except completely not answering any questions at all. On top of it all
4) Trashleg's post count was resolved. I put an HoS on her. I did not require an explanation. I pointed out what I saw, so that others may see as well, and I HoSed her. It wasn't just the post count being wrong. It was the idea that she was blaming the active for her not posting. An explanation of "oh I just made a mistake" doesn't cut it. Sure it could be true, but it's also the only excuse that is believable. So I can't rule it out that it's a lie. Sorry.
Anyway, you didn't help by saying, "it's ok, we're just like that", and completely avoiding the post count. You even went as far as what I would call buddying by sarcastically saying "(oh yeah I just replied for the lolz of linkz and proff saying we talk a lot :-p)"
You even commented that noone was talking to you (is that correct?) "great so i'm doomed to read when I get back as i'm really in a shifted time slot from y'all " (I assumed this came from the fact that you made 3 posts, 1 being quite long, without response) and immediately I wrote, "you are being funny, because it's barely been 160 in 24 hours." I got no response from you whatsoever. I then made a string of 8 or so posts without any response from you, at least one of them being a quote response.
5) When I am questioning people I'm not looking for reactions. I was going to answer your other post here the one saying "that's what's killing you isn't it", so I'll do it here. I'm not looking for people who overreact. It just so happens that you are both overreacting.
As far as Gniz, I was on him because of this post:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3816404
He defended lurkers. Worse, he defended 2 people who had to be replaced due to inactivity. He insulted the town by saying there was nothing relevant being discussed and only suspected townies until his own modkill/replacement.
6) I challenge you to prove that statement. Sorry, this is really a catch 22. Even if you can show that I've been playing differently, that does not logically prove that I'm "simply failing to replicate normal play" any more than I'd be "altering my play", and I'd call that a logical fallacy.
; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for 
, let me know!
