Fable 10- Surprise- Game Thread

Moderators: Zoomzip, Telleo, bkbkbk, condude1, sjg11

Re: Fable 10- Surprise- Game Thread

Postby ExiledAtHome » 05 Jan 2018, 07:33

RS,

If we passed to EAH, Shadow, and Shirt tonight, you'd be eligible for Head, Body, and RightLeg tomorrow night (N8), but still ineligible for the LeftArm. That's the closest we can get (a second player would still need to get the Arm tomorrow night).

None of us four players, under any circumstances, would be eligible for all four pieces on N8.
Gold Classicist Member
User avatar
ExiledAtHome
 
Posts: 3376
Joined: 19 Aug 2014, 22:56
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1385)
All-game rating: (1590)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Fable 10- Surprise- Game Thread

Postby shirt » 05 Jan 2018, 17:40

ExiledAtHome wrote:You just keep saying there's no benefit for scum if you hold all the pieces. I didn't have any idea why that is.

Which is why i pointed to the post that explained EXACTLY that. (You know the one, you timestamped it in your 'proof' i'm unreasonable)

I pretty much stopped trying to understand a thing you're saying a long time ago.
I know, that's why i point back to posts you haven't bothered to read when they are relevant to the issue at hand.

The thought was if we're wrong about you, scum holds all the pieces, so passing to two different non-GPD players ensures some pieces are in town's control.
No it does not.
It ensures scum holds (or at least controles) all the piece if EITHER (not both, either) Shadow or me is scum


I'm not going to keep defending myself to you.

The thing i'm accusing you of in 1 sentence.
Thank you.
- the credible-looking RL situation that could cause this behavior from a townie has been noted (and if true, sorry, though i don't see why you wouldn't replace out if that's the case)


I love how you make these comments such as "have anything to contribute" or "gonna add anything to" (implication being that we're ignoring you) in reference to posts you've JUST MADE. You made that point at 23:30, and at 00:15 you're already on my case for not addressing it.

Dude....
You FLAT OUT ADMITTED, having ignored that one, IN THIS VERY POST

As for the "throws accusations of 'ignoring' out within less than an hour"-argument itself.
Yup, that looks bad out of context.
Now lets look at it IN context:
- The 'ignored' post was made 1,5 hours before the deadline
- The issue it addressed was the main topic at that time, as it needed to be resolved before the deadline
- You responded to the issue in a way, that only makes sense if you haven't read that post.
- I reacted to that situation less than an hour before the deadline on exactly that issue.
I'm literally a five headed dragon... Who cares!
User avatar
shirt
 
Posts: 745
Joined: 06 Apr 2012, 15:45
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT +1

Re: Fable 10- Surprise- Game Thread

Postby shirt » 05 Jan 2018, 18:35

ExiledAtHome wrote:Shirt, the above two comments are the sort of discussion I was suggesting we have. Never was it supposed to shutdown efforts to scumhunt, just these are the mechanical discussions we need to win the game.


Yes the (assuming something goes slighyly off plan) kill-pool of only Justy(or iggy, but same issue), is terrible on it's face, even if you don't take into consideration i might get a (real) mechanically-cleared-town on him.
So far, so obvious.

So why is it a (rage-quit worthy) bad thing, to try to figure out who should be in the kill-pool?
(Especially as 'what are the passes going to be, without this' has been handled by Joe, since D2)
I'm literally a five headed dragon... Who cares!
User avatar
shirt
 
Posts: 745
Joined: 06 Apr 2012, 15:45
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT +1

Re: Fable 10- Surprise- Game Thread

Postby Iggy » 05 Jan 2018, 18:37

still here. still not really helping. just making sure you remember me. :oops:
Iggy
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: 20 Jan 2009, 03:05
Location: Indianapolis
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1187)
All-game rating: (1259)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Fable 10- Surprise- Game Thread

Postby shadowface » 05 Jan 2018, 18:41

shirt wrote:
The thought was if we're wrong about you, scum holds all the pieces, so passing to two different non-GPD players ensures some pieces are in town's control.
No it does not.
It ensures scum holds (or at least controles) all the piece if EITHER (not both, either) Shadow or me is scum

Can someone explain to me why we care remotely if a scum (who we weren't going to nightkill anyways for a few days) is officially given pieces at this point? Scum lying about holding pieces that everybody expects them to have just puts them in dipoles. Why would they want to do that?
The player formerly known as shadowfriend1
Proud bearer of the Angle of Unnecessary Overshoot
Previously cursed by the Talisman of Greater Scumminess :twisted:, now an innocent, reformed townsperson
Nanook wrote:C O W A R D
User avatar
shadowface
 
Posts: 5506
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 06:26
Location: Toronto
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (892)
All-game rating: (892)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Fable 10- Surprise- Game Thread

Postby ExiledAtHome » 05 Jan 2018, 23:22

shirt wrote:
ExiledAtHome wrote:You just keep saying there's no benefit for scum if you hold all the pieces. I didn't have any idea why that is.

Which is why i pointed to the post that explained EXACTLY that. (You know the one, you timestamped it in your 'proof' i'm unreasonable)

No, your explanation wasn't clear. I didn't understand your logic, and so I said unless you're town, I don't see the value in passing everything to you. It doesn't matter how many times you point me back (rather vaguely, actually) to what your specific argument was, I didn't understand the argument itself. I read it, it just wasn't making sense to me. The way you write out your thoughts, you allude to tons of assumptions but don't spell out the foundation of those assumptions. I've made it clear that I am having difficulty understanding your argument, but you insist on maintaining that all I need to do is go back to your specific post. If you actually cared to ensure I understand, instead of just repeatedly accusing me of dodging or ignoring, then you'd find a way to restate your position. Your refusal to do so suggests to me that you're more interested in framing a perception of me being scummy rather than actually trying to reach an understanding.

shirt wrote:
I pretty much stopped trying to understand a thing you're saying a long time ago.
I know, that's why i point back to posts you haven't bothered to read when they are relevant to the issue at hand.

I've read your every post. I just haven't understood your position.

shirt wrote:
The thought was if we're wrong about you, scum holds all the pieces, so passing to two different non-GPD players ensures some pieces are in town's control.
No it does not.
It ensures scum holds (or at least controles) all the piece if EITHER (not both, either) Shadow or me is scum

As I understand it now, your position is that if we were passing exclusively to you, then if you're scum, scum controls all pieces (2 passed to you, 2 diverted), whereas if we're passing to you or Shadow, then if either you or Shadow is scum, scum controls all pieces (2 passed to the scum player, the other 2 diverted). Thus, it only increases our chances of full scum control by passing to two players. I get that now. But, you've NEVER stated it as succinctly as I just did. You laid out the assumptions, but never spelled out why, which is why I had so much trouble with your position. In the absence of a better comprehension of your plan, it just seemed counter-intuitive that we'd increase the chances of scum having FULL control by passing to multiple players.

shirt wrote:
I'm not going to keep defending myself to you.

The thing i'm accusing you of in 1 sentence.
Thank you.
- the credible-looking RL situation that could cause this behavior from a townie has been noted (and if true, sorry, though i don't see why you wouldn't replace out if that's the case)

Nah, you've been accusing me of shutting down discussion of scumreads (a blatant mischaracterization of my position); of willfully pushing a late day anti-town proposal (a major misreading of my intent); and of ignoring your repeated explanations of why passing to 1 player last night was favorable (a false assumption on your part based on your failure to self-evaluate the clarity of your own posts).

And, as for your latter statement there, you're seriously going to lecture ME on not subbing out? That's precious, considering some of the activity levels going on around here this game.

shirt wrote:
I love how you make these comments such as "have anything to contribute" or "gonna add anything to" (implication being that we're ignoring you) in reference to posts you've JUST MADE. You made that point at 23:30, and at 00:15 you're already on my case for not addressing it.

Dude....
You FLAT OUT ADMITTED, having ignored that one, IN THIS VERY POST

Nope, never ignored. Failed to comprehend.

shirt wrote:As for the "throws accusations of 'ignoring' out within less than an hour"-argument itself.
Yup, that looks bad out of context.
Now lets look at it IN context:
- The 'ignored' post was made 1,5 hours before the deadline
- The issue it addressed was the main topic at that time, as it needed to be resolved before the deadline
- You responded to the issue in a way, that only makes sense if you haven't read that post.
- I reacted to that situation less than an hour before the deadline on exactly that issue.


Nah, the point you made (about wanting to better develop your scumreads before we discuss where to pass) was the post I was referring to, and it's the post you accused me of ignoring no more than 45 minutes after you'd initially posted it. You ALSO accused me of ignoring your EOD post, but that's not what I was referencing.

And, again, for the umpteenth time, I did read your post. It just didn't make sense.
Gold Classicist Member
User avatar
ExiledAtHome
 
Posts: 3376
Joined: 19 Aug 2014, 22:56
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1385)
All-game rating: (1590)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Fable 10- Surprise- Game Thread

Postby ExiledAtHome » 05 Jan 2018, 23:26

shadowface wrote:
shirt wrote:
The thought was if we're wrong about you, scum holds all the pieces, so passing to two different non-GPD players ensures some pieces are in town's control.
No it does not.
It ensures scum holds (or at least controles) all the piece if EITHER (not both, either) Shadow or me is scum

Can someone explain to me why we care remotely if a scum (who we weren't going to nightkill anyways for a few days) is officially given pieces at this point? Scum lying about holding pieces that everybody expects them to have just puts them in dipoles. Why would they want to do that?


It's not a massive problem, as we just keep sticking to the Kill the Conduit plan and hope to avoid pieces if we need to shoot in the secondary pool.

However, depending on how many players we are passing to, it can take a little while to figure out exactly who lied. If scum lies and successfully forces a secondary pool kill and we hit a townie with 2 pieces, the clock starts ticking away really fast to nail the lying scum before the end-game scenario, in which case we'd be facing a 50-50 situation for the win. I don't like those odds, given how far we've come.
Gold Classicist Member
User avatar
ExiledAtHome
 
Posts: 3376
Joined: 19 Aug 2014, 22:56
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1385)
All-game rating: (1590)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Fable 10- Surprise- Game Thread

Postby ExiledAtHome » 05 Jan 2018, 23:47

shirt wrote:
ExiledAtHome wrote:Shirt, the above two comments are the sort of discussion I was suggesting we have. Never was it supposed to shutdown efforts to scumhunt, just these are the mechanical discussions we need to win the game.


Yes the (assuming something goes slighyly off plan) kill-pool of only Justy(or iggy, but same issue), is terrible on it's face, even if you don't take into consideration i might get a (real) mechanically-cleared-town on him.
So far, so obvious.

So why is it a (rage-quit worthy) bad thing, to try to figure out who should be in the kill-pool?
(Especially as 'what are the passes going to be, without this' has been handled by Joe, since D2)


You know damn well that I WASN'T reacting that way to you trying to figure out who should be in the kill-pool (in fact, I WAS THE ONE PUSHING TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION BECAUSE DECIDING WHERE TO PASS PIECES IS HOW WE CREATE KILL POOLS!)

I was reacting to you relentlessly pressing me to explain why I suggested we pass to more than 1 player, as if your proposal was objectively and clearly pro-town, when I repeatedly stated that I didn't really understand your position, and thus had no real defense to offer other than your plan seemed to be based on me knowing you're town, when I don't. There's a huge difference between not understanding your proposal, and thus opting for what seemed like a cautious alternative, and understanding your proposal clearly and simply rejecting it in pursuit of something less beneficial. I've tried to explain so many times that I never really grasped the nuance of your proposal, but those explanations have just been met with more derision and accusation from you, which pushed me onto the ledge.
Gold Classicist Member
User avatar
ExiledAtHome
 
Posts: 3376
Joined: 19 Aug 2014, 22:56
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1385)
All-game rating: (1590)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Fable 10- Surprise- Game Thread

Postby shirt » 06 Jan 2018, 00:54

ExiledAtHome wrote:If you actually cared to ensure I understand, instead of just repeatedly accusing me of dodging or ignoring, then you'd find a way to restate your position.
I DID.
- The topic at hand was 'should we pass to 1 or 2 people'
- i gave a breakdown of why '1' was the correct answer (the one hour prior to the deadline)
- you stated '2' was the correct answer... with no indication what so ever you'd even seen my breakdown
- i asked you what thought about the breakdown (the one 15 minutes, to the deadline, you recall that one, the one you ripped out of context to paint me as unreasonable) you (at best) missed
- you either didn't bother to go back to read it or at least you didn't bother to ask


Your refusal to do so suggests to me that you're more interested in framing a perception of me being scummy rather than actually trying to reach an understanding.

shirt wrote:
I pretty much stopped trying to understand a thing you're saying a long time ago.
I know, that's why i point back to posts you haven't bothered to read when they are relevant to the issue at hand.

I've read your every post. I just haven't understood your position.
THEN ASK.
Unlike what you're implying here:
I HAVE "spelled out spell out the foundation of those assumptions", for EVERY assumption ANYONE bothered to actually ask
(and btw announced/explained i would be doing EXACTLY that, both when i signed up AND in my first post this game)


Nah, you've been accusing me of shutting down discussion of scumreads (a blatant mischaracterization of my position);

NO I HAVE NOT

of willfully pushing a late day anti-town proposal (a major misreading of my intent); and of ignoring your repeated explanations of why passing to 1 player last night was favorable (a false assumption on your part based on your failure to self-evaluate the clarity of your own posts).
Sorry, which part of you claiming to have an answer and refusal to ask clarification, was intended to inform me i needed to clear stuff up?

And, as for your latter statement there, you're seriously going to lecture ME on not subbing out? That's precious, considering some of the activity levels going on around here this game.
You claimed to have damn good reasons to sub-out. NOT WANTING TO PLAY THE GAME explicitly one of them.
and DIDN'T.
There is exactly 1 other player this game, that did the exact same thing and he (surprising no one) flipped scum.
So yes, yes i am.

Am i saying that if i had to force replace someone this game, i would have picked you?......
Oh HELL NO.
The points you brought up, for why you should be one of (if not the) last ones who'd deserve being force-replaced, are pretty much spot on.
The point i actually made:
- You claim (or at least imply) you don't want to be here
- You can leave, the mechanic is there
- You don't
- I doubt the claim you want to.



shirt wrote:
I love how you make these comments such as "have anything to contribute" or "gonna add anything to" (implication being that we're ignoring you) in reference to posts you've JUST MADE. You made that point at 23:30, and at 00:15 you're already on my case for not addressing it.

Dude....
You FLAT OUT ADMITTED, having ignored that one, IN THIS VERY POST

Nope, never ignored. Failed to comprehend.
And refused to try or ask (while you HAVE realized, some effort is required), what's the difference?


shirt wrote:As for the "throws accusations of 'ignoring' out within less than an hour"-argument itself.
Yup, that looks bad out of context.
Now lets look at it IN context:
- The 'ignored' post was made 1,5 hours before the deadline
- The issue it addressed was the main topic at that time, as it needed to be resolved before the deadline
- You responded to the issue in a way, that only makes sense if you haven't read that post.
- I reacted to that situation less than an hour before the deadline on exactly that issue.


Nah, the point you made (about wanting to better develop your scumreads before we discuss where to pass) was the post I was referring to, and it's the post you accused me of ignoring no more than 45 minutes after you'd initially posted it.
link? (i have no idea which posts you're talking about here)


You ALSO accused me of ignoring your EOD post, but that's not what I was referencing.

NO I DID NOT

And, again, for the umpteenth time, I did read your post. It just didn't make sense.
Then 'for the umpteenth time', ASK.




You know damn well that I WASN'T reacting that way to you trying to figure out who should be in the kill-pool (in fact, I WAS THE ONE PUSHING TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION BECAUSE DECIDING WHERE TO PASS PIECES IS HOW WE CREATE KILL POOLS!)

So the reason:
you refused to cooperate with me trying to figure out who should be in the kill pool tomorrow
because INSTEAD of that, we should be deciding on the kill-pools

was entirely based on the fact i wasn't explicit enough in stating what i was going for.
(or that it was in fact, the exact same thing you (claim you were) going for)
BEFORE you stated what it was you were going for?

Yeah.... i'm not sure even i follow that one.
I'm literally a five headed dragon... Who cares!
User avatar
shirt
 
Posts: 745
Joined: 06 Apr 2012, 15:45
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT +1

Re: Fable 10- Surprise- Game Thread

Postby RedSun » 06 Jan 2018, 01:06

Iggy wrote:still here. still not really helping. just making sure you remember me. :oops:


"Still not really helping… "

can we please kill this guy tonight?
Groups:
The Glorious Holy Asterian Empire in CYOC
RedSun
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: 10 Jun 2017, 00:21
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1156)
All-game rating: (1173)
Timezone: GMT-6

PreviousNext

Return to Game Threads

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests