My role (or lack thereof) also is linked to my character, though weakly.
Office Mafia Day 1
Posts
Total:
853
-->
@Vader
yes...cause he has done that in the past. probably to distract scum from targetting him
Link please?
Everyone should be character in PM analysis. Mod explicitly says that discussion about "PM structure" are forbidden. As it is, my PM has no justification.
-->
@ILikePie5
Assuming 188 to 190
188 was telling what GP was, it was two options. I said either he is power role, or he is scum. I fought A, because his behavior did not make me lean B at the time to give me clues
188 was telling what GP was, it was two options. I said either he is power role, or he is scum. I fought A, because his behavior did not make me lean B at the time to give me clues
I then said SA and GP could be a team since they have not talked much with each other and GP seems to be targeting me vs SA who is a scum
-->
@drafterman
I'm not so much questioning greyparrot claim as I am trying to see if we can put the argument to rest that supa keeps making about "this character would be a power role or wouldnt be yada yada". I was under the impression from my own role claim and your earlier claim that roles do not have justification. But so far the answers seemed to be mixed so it's a non point I guess and we'll have to see clips.
Flips*
-->
@drafterman
I mean as town, look at my two options.
-->
@Vader
Yeah, exactly. As town. Hence, not scum. That's my argument. This is GP town doing this, not a scum GP doing this.
-->
@Vader
I then said SA and GP could be a team since they have not talked much with each other and GP seems to be targeting me vs SA who is a scum
You did not say that.
-->
@drafterman
Are you serious, or did you link to the wrong post? How, in any possible reading, is that post experienced insight? All I did was point out that simply because you died didn't mean you lost, because your team won. That is pretty much the furthest from experienced insight it could be.
-->
@ILikePie5
Yes I did in 190.
-->
@ILikePie5
i did not say reasoning, but am happy to give it since u asked
-->
@drafterman
Yes but we must weigh in the possibilities here though. You worked with him how to play as scum... he could have used some tips you gave him.
i don't like him not getting on SA, if SA is scum, i say GP is next lynch
i don't like him not getting on SA, if SA is scum, i say GP is next lynch
-->
@SirAnonymous
I just don't see a noob getting involve in the discussion at all.
yet he scum me because i dropped a shitty playstyle leading to me sucking and losing games for teams
-->
@Vader
I really didn't give him any tips other than action-specific ones. I'm not about to school one more experienced than I. He's "grey" parrot for a reason. Legend has it, when he started Mafia he was "full head of brown hair" parrot.
As it is, he was fairly clear that he hates main character claims as Mafia. It'd be extremely odd for him to come out, in the very next game, doing just that.
Unless he was playing the long con, which kudos to him.
-->
@drafterman
I just don't see a noob getting involve in the discussion at all.
Go read the Lucid Dreamer's mafia. That was my first online mafia, and I was one of, if not the, most active players. Maybe that's true of other noobs, but it definitely isn't true of this one.
-->
@drafterman
that's why my read is unclear. his RFD for my VTL is scummy, but the way I think he is using his role is town. His avoidance of SA is scummy if SA is scum
If SA flips scum, we should consider a lynch candidate in him
-->
@SirAnonymous
Go read the Lucid Dreamer's mafia.
Please don't make me. It was painful to watch that lynch at MYLO the first time.
-->
@drafterman
It was painful to watch that lynch at MYLO the first time.
If you already read it, then why did you expect me to be inactive in this one after I was active in that one?
-->
@SirAnonymous
I didn't comment on the level of your activity.
Drafters sarcasm and non direct insults are amazing lol.
-->
@drafterman
You said
I just don't see a noob getting involve in the discussion at all.
Firstly, this implies that you didn't see me getting involved in the discussion at all. Secondly, it was in reference to my response to a link to a post that you provided as an example of experienced insight even though that post wasn't even about this game. Now you're saying
I didn't comment on the level of your activity.
True, but you did comment on what you expected about my level of activity (not getting involved in the discussion), an expectation that you used as evidence to make the post in the link seem suspicious because it was a noob getting involved in the discussion, even though you knew from reading the Lucid Dreamers mafia that I do get involved in the discussion.
How does this make any sense?
-->
@SirAnonymous
Because you can be active in the game in general without jumping into a specific conversation between two users.
-->
@drafterman
Because you can be active in the game in general without jumping into a specific conversation between two users.
That's true, but why would you link to such a post as an example of "experienced insight," and why would that post be suspicious?
-->
@drafterman
And if I remember correctly, there were 2-3 others who jumped into that conversation. Why single out me?
-->
@Lunatic
Drafters sarcasm and non direct insults are amazing lol.
His lack of logic on my "experienced insight" is even moreso.
-->
@Lunatic
+1Drafters sarcasm and non direct insults are amazing lol.
-->
@SirAnonymous
Because I don't see a noob jumping into the conversation like that.
-->
@drafterman
Why not?