[Korbas]

So let me get this straight.

Tennes places a joke vote on me, then makes what some call a slipup. A train starts on him.

I make a joke about it, then later say fuck it and join the train with an OMGUS vote. Pointing out the claw = good guy thing. Now I'm some how scumy for it and a train starts on me.

I still don't get it.

[Omtose]

Tulas Shorn, on 10 February 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

Also, I feel like analysis of how the claw might see themselves in the book, and whether they are really bad guys or not, is overly tangential.

The question really is whether or not it would be reasonable for Tennes to refer to himself as a bad guy within a set up where the town are claw. Analysis of how far they would be subject to Empire propoganda or whatever is a poor excuse for contribution at best.

To call my comments 'analysis' is to take my tongue-in-cheek asides with a level of seriousness which makes one strongly consider whether we've found our game's stick-in-the-mud.

But to go along with your point, I would actually call it not even an intended 'excuse for analysis', but rather some good old-fashioned tangenital musing with zero intended relevance to the matter at hand. For the reason of having nothing much else to add to the current debates, other than what I already stated. I prefer the vote Korbas argument to the vote Tennes argument. But I like to reread before I vote, and I have not yet summoned up the energy to do that. Maybe later.

[Tulas Shorn]

Tiamatha, on 10 February 2015 - 01:05 PM, said:

Firs.... <coughs> ... I mean ...last?

Any comments on the game beyond just checking in?

[Tulas Shorn]

Omtose, on 10 February 2015 - 04:12 PM, said:

Tulas Shorn, on 10 February 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

Also, I feel like analysis of how the claw might see themselves in the book, and whether they are really bad guys or not, is overly tangential.

The question really is whether or not it would be reasonable for Tennes to refer to himself as a bad guy within a set up where the town are claw. Analysis of how far they would be subject to Empire propoganda or whatever is a poor excuse for contribution at best.

To call my comments 'analysis' is to take my tongue-in-cheek asides with a level of seriousness which makes one strongly consider whether we've found our game's stick-in-the-mud.

But to go along with your point, I would actually call it not even an intended 'excuse for analysis', but rather some good old-fashioned tangenital musing with zero intended relevance to the matter at hand. For the reason of having nothing much else to add to the current debates, other than what I already stated. I prefer the vote Korbas argument to the vote Tennes argument. But I like to reread before I vote, and I have not yet summoned up the energy to do that. Maybe later.

Sure, I just think that people actually posting about the game might be a more useful use of their time... It's a poor excuse for contribution not because it's trying to be useful and fails, but because they could post something more useful instead... If you've nothing else to add to current debates, there are still more useful things you could be doing, such as checking to see if there is anything you think looks suspect (regarding re-reading, it's like 3 pages) and could spur a new debate, or trying to spur new content in some other fashion...

[Ampelas]

I am getting slammed at work today. I will try to catch up in a couple of hours. From what I have seen people have gotten on and defended or tried to deflect from Tennes. So I feel comfortable in my vote so far. I will do a full reread later on.

[Tennes]

Ampelas, on 10 February 2015 - 04:23 PM, said:

I am getting slammed at work today. I will try to catch up in a couple of hours. From what I have seen people have gotten on and defended or tried to deflect from Tennes. So I feel comfortable in my vote so far. I will do a full reread later on.

Deflecting from the statement that the claw are bad guys, oh lord.

[Tulas Shorn]

Korbas, on 10 February 2015 - 04:08 PM, said:

So let me get this straight.

Tennes places a joke vote on me, then makes what some call a slipup. A train starts on him.

I make a joke about it, then later say fuck it and join the train with an OMGUS vote. Pointing out the claw = good guy thing. Now I'm some how scumy for it and a train starts on me.

I still don't get it.

Hmm, maybe it would have helped if you had actually bothered to explain your vote at the time... Because when you're vote 4 on a train where you'd earlier asked about people's interest in that train, the obvious thing seems to be to connect the dots, rather than to say "Oh, well that's cleary a coincidence, that's just a fuck it OMGUS vote, obviously"...It's all very well to backtrack and say that's what it was at this point, but there's no evidence or real indication of that being the case, because you didn't give any at the time... Indeed, the fact that you argued the claw=town thing seems to suggest that it was a more serious vote than just "bah, fuck it, let's OMGUS this guy", in which case, why not commit to the vote previously?

The case is based on the fact that you seemed to be testing the waters about how interested people were in Tennes, and then coincidentally hopped on the train after Pallid put down his vote, rather than just voting him and seeing if people had interest in the normal way.

[Tulas Shorn]

Ampelas, on 10 February 2015 - 04:23 PM, said:

I am getting slammed at work today. I will try to catch up in a couple of hours. From what I have seen people have gotten on and defended or tried to deflect from Tennes. So I feel comfortable in my vote so far. I will do a full reread later on.

I see this line of thought pretty commonly, and in general it annoys me. If we followed this line of thought, I don't see that we would ever get past a "first come, first served" decision based system.

Not being convinced by the first thing that comes along =/= deflection.

The whole game is based around discussing and evaluating cases. Some level of defending people is inevitable, because the whole point is that if you think a case is wrong, you explain why and argue for a case that you think is more likely. If you think that someone is totally grasping at straws in order to present an alternative, then there might be a case for deflection, but it's day one, cases aren't really going to be watertight...

Disagreeing with your case =/= deflection.

[Tulas Shorn]

You know, for 5 anons online, it sure is quiet...

[Ultama]

Easily 5 paragraphs of writing disappeared due to bad fucking connection

[Ultama]

Tulas Shorn, on 10 February 2015 - 04:20 PM, said:

Omtose, on 10 February 2015 - 04:12 PM, said:

Tulas Shorn, on 10 February 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

Also, I feel like analysis of how the claw might see themselves in the book, and whether they are really bad guys or not, is overly tangential.

The question really is whether or not it would be reasonable for Tennes to refer to himself as a bad guy within a set up where the town are claw. Analysis of how far they would be subject to Empire propoganda or whatever is a poor excuse for contribution at best.

To call my comments 'analysis' is to take my tongue-in-cheek asides with a level of seriousness which makes one strongly consider whether we've found our game's stick-in-the-mud.

But to go along with your point, I would actually call it not even an intended 'excuse for analysis', but rather some good old-fashioned tangenital musing with zero intended relevance to the matter at hand. For the reason of having nothing much else to add to the current debates, other than what I already stated. I prefer the vote Korbas argument to the vote Tennes argument. But I like to reread before I vote, and I have not yet summoned up the energy to do that. Maybe later.

Sure, I just think that people actually posting about the game might be a more useful use of their time... It's a poor excuse for contribution not because it's trying to be useful and fails, but because they could post something more useful instead... If you've nothing else to add to current debates, there are still more useful things you could be doing, such as checking to see if there is anything you think looks suspect (regarding re-reading, it's like 3 pages) and could spur a new debate, or trying to spur new content in some other fashion...

It's posts like this that is edging me towards thinking your a symp. You need more content to work with?

Are we not allowed to digress into meaningless chatter and them lynch the weirdest post/person. Scum are going to be careful with what they write unless the slip up and need their symp to step up to the plate. I've already stated that I like your reasoning for Korbas vote but now you got me asking the question, what's your motive? Your Korbas analysis, half a case or whatever you call it has got people swaying away from Tennes which is fine. Now you comment that you need more game related chatter over day one nonsense.

People should be allowed to write whatever they want to because that's how we get slips or that's how we spot someone doing only that but not contributing the the serious part of deciding who to lynch.

People are cagey early on, sitting back and letting others direct the thread. If they see a reason to vote then they will, I'd prefer a couple of non committal votes if it helps us get the lynch. By telling them it's not good enough you may make their next vote disappear.

[Ultama]

For the win. Different tab, backspace. Oh yeah. 4 paragraphs not 5.

[Tennes]

Tulas Shorn, on 10 February 2015 - 04:44 PM, said:

You know, for 5 anons online, it sure is quiet...

To be honest I don't have a lot more to say, most of this game has been spend deciding whether or not the claw are the bad guys which is just ludicrous to me.

I do like the case against Korbas and my vote is there, so we will see I guess.

[Ultama]

Tennes, on 10 February 2015 - 04:23 PM, said:

Ampelas, on 10 February 2015 - 04:23 PM, said:

I am getting slammed at work today. I will try to catch up in a couple of hours. From what I have seen people have gotten on and defended or tried to deflect from Tennes. So I feel comfortable in my vote so far. I will do a full reread later on.

Deflecting from the statement that the claw are bad guys, oh lord.

Er what was your initial reaction to it?

[Ultama]

Tulas Shorn, on 09 February 2015 - 07:12 PM, said:

Tennes, on 09 February 2015 - 05:59 PM, said:

back to the subject at hand, namely of us being the bad guys;

Welp, easiest game ever?

Ampelas, on 09 February 2015 - 07:16 PM, said:

Tulas Shorn, on 09 February 2015 - 07:12 PM, said:

Tennes, on 09 February 2015 - 05:59 PM, said:

back to the subject at hand, namely of us being the bad guys;

Welp, easiest game ever?

I haven't seen that happen in a long time. Slips happen though.


Vote Tennes

[Ultama]

You were the first to highlight it you hypocrite

[Tennes]

Wait, what? Do you think I am somehow multiple different people at once?

[Ultama]

To add thoughts for later in the game. Town should certainly come back here when they get a scum cf. (Scum = bad (Tennes))

😛

[Ultama]

Tennes, on 10 February 2015 - 04:55 PM, said:

Wait, what? Do you think I am somehow multiple different people at once?

Sorry I thought I was talking exclusively to Tulas.

[Tennes]

Ultama, on 10 February 2015 - 04:58 PM, said:

Tennes, on 10 February 2015 - 04:55 PM, said:

Wait, what? Do you think I am somehow multiple different people at once?

Sorry I thought I was talking exclusively to Tulas.

I am a big orange ROCK.

Tulas is a grey DRAGON.

Easy to get confused, don't worry about it

I hope you feel appropriately sheepish if/when my CF comes up.