I am Foxtrot

[Cryptonic]

I'd rather hear an explanation of why he did it from @powerofdeath himself rather than people apologizing for him.

I'm not apologizing for him, I'm stating how it appeared to someone who had an overview of the entire game.

[Quick]

"Lynch all liars" is a real thing for many players. If you make a dumb gambit and are caught on it, your credibility is shot and you might not recover from that given most S-FMs aren't that long and reads are usually based on fluff anyway. If you've actually been caught lying, good luck.

There are certainly times when gambits might be useful / optimal play, but it takes a very skilled and savvy player to pull it off and perhaps, a very tough time in the game when a break is badly needed. Basically, it's hero-ball in my eyes and just not a good way to approach the game most of the time.

Right, for the most part I agree. My point is that there is a method to it and you have to know what you are doing. I come from a site where I see a lot of crazy shit; People claiming mafia and whatever. It gets into some really bad mind fuckery. Thing is though, that there are some people who know exactly what they are doing when they are doing it. For the rest of the people it just looks random so they try it and fail miserably.

[BananaCucho]

I'm not apologizing for him, I'm stating how it appeared to someone who had an overview of the entire game.

In order for it not to be a gamethrow, he had to have done it with the mindset that that move would advance his win condition

Until he explains that, the move was a terrible and unnecesary lie that ended up costing his team the game, so it's a game throw.

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

The problem is that everyone thinks they fall into the "genius" category.

When they read these types of things happening, they never think it applies to them and their SICK READS GUISE. They are too good to ever make mistakes.

Case in point, Duck claiming his fake-Sheriff claim helped solve the game. (hint: it got the real Sheriff mislynched and wasted an entire day of chat)

This is false. My claim had nothing to do with the real sheriff getting lynched. The real sheriff came out at an odd time and with a check on their only town read and not their mafia read which looked like a culted cop.

My fake check on sparknuts DID solve the game, you can't say otherwise.... It confirmed sparknuts as town, and slaol as cult with morp and keiichi. The day chat is what helped link everyone. When town is headed in the wrong direction it is easier to get them to listen if you claim a PR. Saying I am VT, but trust my reads is more difficult than saying I am sheriff, I have a red check. @Calix you read the situation completely wrong. It is not about claiming a red check blindly based on never making mistakes, but gaining information and steering town back in the correct direction. Depending how the player reacts you either hold or rescind the claim. In many cases lynching a town is not even a bad thing if you get enough information out of it to solve the game, but good players will usually know when to rescind.

Also, if firebringer was the singer his manager fake claim would have been genius. The manager would have been able to roleswap with the singer and thus auto win the game.

[Kovath]

This is false. My claim had nothing to do with the real sheriff getting lynched. The real sheriff came out at an odd time and with a check on their only town read and not their mafia read which looked like a culted cop.

My fake check on sparknuts DID solve the game, you can't say otherwise.... It confirmed sparknuts as town, and slaol as cult with morp and keiichi. The day chat is what helped link everyone. When town is headed in the wrong direction it is easier to get them to listen if you claim a PR. Saying I am VT, but trust my reads is more difficult than saying I am sheriff, I have a red check. @Calix you read the situation completely wrong. It is not about claiming a red check blindly based on never making mistakes, but gaining information and steering town back in the correct direction. Depending how the player reacts you either hold or rescind the claim. In many cases lynching a town is not even a bad thing if you get enough information out of it to solve the game, but good players will usually know when to rescind.

Also, if firebringer was the singer his manager fake claim would have been genius. The manager would have been able to roleswap with the singer and thus auto win the game.

I mean... he wasn't, so Whad revealed himself...

[DarknessB]

I mean... he wasn't, so Whad revealed himself...

It's a counterfactual for sure and puzzling to bring up for that reason. Also, in terms of setup balance, having a night immune Town role is pretty insanely OP -- there's a reason people don't do that in setups. Essentially, the Mafia ran out of time given all the night immune players between the Singer and gifts.

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

I mean... he wasn't, so Whad revealed himself...

I was referring to where darkness said a citizen should have been the one to do it if any, but if the singer does it town just autowins.

I think his play was not bad, but just not worth the risk. The manager outting in that save was good for town despite him not really leading. I think if fire follows it up slightly more towny so that he does not possibly get lynched it is good. I didn;t even believe he was sheriff when he claimed a red check on iced, so it definitely fooled me. I had the idea in the back of my mind that he could be a TPR, but not enough to ever consider night killing him.

[DarknessB]

Re: Music, I'd like to paraphrase my favorite Banana quote re: game balance:

"The singer isn't supposed to able to be killed, and any action he takes is supposed to protect his target from audits no matter what. Oh, there were also 5 TPRs including a Sheriff and Escort. Game was OP in favor of scum."

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

In order for it not to be a gamethrow, he had to have done it with the mindset that that move would advance his win condition

Until he explains that, the move was a terrible and unnecesary lie that ended up costing his team the game, so it's a game throw.

If town is already fucked why is it not a good play to try and take a calculated risk and fake a red on someone who the person reads as mafia/is not contributing to town and is therefore useless if town and will just continue to lessen their chances of winning. Even if it is not the best play available, I would not say it is intentionally losing the game, but taking a major risk to comeback into the game.

[BananaCucho]

If town is already fucked why is it not a good play to try and take a calculated risk and fake a red on someone who the person reads as mafia/is not contributing to town and is therefore useless if town and will just continue to lessen their chances of winning. Even if it is not the best play available, I would not say it is intentionally losing the game, but taking a major risk to comeback into the game.

He wasn't town. He was neutral that could win with town or one of the scum factions.

His faction was alive and well. He had a doctor from his faction protecting him. Once he fakes his guilty that ends up being a mislynch, his doctor goes elsewhere and dies to vet, and he's lynched. That one fake claim eliminated 2/3 of his faction.

It wasn't needed and I want the explanation from him and not apologizers.

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

He wasn't town. He was neutral that could win with town or one of the scum factions.

His faction was alive and well. He had a doctor from his faction protecting him. Once he fakes his guilty that ends up being a mislynch, his doctor goes elsewhere and dies to vet, and he's lynched. That one fake claim eliminated 2/3 of his faction.

It wasn't needed and I want the explanation from him and not apologizers.

gotcha, fuck him!

[Calix]

He wasn't town. He was neutral that could win with town or one of the scum factions.

His faction was alive and well. He had a doctor from his faction protecting him. Once he fakes his guilty that ends up being a mislynch, his doctor goes elsewhere and dies to vet, and he's lynched. That one fake claim eliminated 2/3 of his faction.

It wasn't needed and I want the explanation from him and not apologizers.

Okay, this is getting dumb.

No way did POD fake-claim to nuke his faction. How is that relevant to his INTENTIONS behind fake-claiming?

You're using hindsight bias here.

[BananaCucho]

Okay, this is getting dumb.

No way did POD fake-claim to nuke his faction. How is that relevant to his INTENTIONS behind fake-claiming?

You're using hindsight bias here.

Again, more apologists for POD. Instead of him explaining why he did it, everyone else has to explain for him.

[Calix]

Again, more apologists for POD. Instead of him explaining why he did it, everyone else has to explain for him.

Show me where I'm 'apologising' for his play. I'm pointing out holes in your logic - aka, that you're using the results to claim it was a game-throw, despite the fact that POD could not have predicted that.

You're NOT getting a response from him. POD isn't going to post anything for you to tear into after he's seen how salty everyone was. Deal with it.

[Quick]

Again, more apologists for POD. Instead of him explaining why he did it, everyone else has to explain for him.

So what if POD had a reason, as misguided as it was, and just doesn't want to have to bare the shame that is undoubtedly going to follow for "making such a terrible play?" It was one play of one game. I think POD will learn from the mistake so I don't see the point in beating a dead horse.

[BananaCucho]

Show me where I'm 'apologising' for his play. I'm pointing out holes in your logic - aka, that you're using the results to claim it was a game-throw, despite the fact that POD could not have predicted that.

You're NOT getting a response from him. POD isn't going to post anything for you to tear into after he's seen how salty everyone was. Deal with it.

You're literally being an apologist - a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial. Literal definition.

[BananaCucho]

So what if POD had a reason, as misguided as it was, and just doesn't want to have to bare the shame that is undoubtedly going to follow for "making such a terrible play?" It was one play of one game. I think POD will learn from the mistake so I don't see the point in beating a dead horse.

How is him explaining his play bearing the shame? It anything ignoring it and pretending to be another player made the situation worse for him.

[Calix]

You're literally being an apologist - a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial. Literal definition.

There's no controversy. It wasn't a game-throw and you have no evidence aside from a landfill of hindsight bias to prove he was doing it out of malice.

You are mad because it resulted in Town losing, but you can't prove that he intended to do that.

[BananaCucho]

There's no controversy. It wasn't a game-throw and you have no evidence aside from a landfill of hindsight bias to prove he was doing it out of malice.

You are mad because it resulted in Town losing, but you can't prove that he intended to do that.

It doesn't have to be malice. Did you see POD's first post in dead chat after he died?

"lol"

He fakes a guilty, doesn't explain what happened in his last will or Tyrell message, and then says "lol" like a troll does after getting banned for gamethrowing on their 17th smurf. Until he explains it, it looks exactly like a gamethrow.

[Calix]

It doesn't have to be malice. Did you see POD's first post in dead chat after he died?

"lol"

He fakes a guilty, doesn't explain what happened in his last will or Tyrell message, and then says "lol" like a troll does after getting banned for gamethrowing on their 17th smurf. Until he explains it, it looks exactly like a gamethrow.

Game-throwing requires an element of malice (provided via INTENT), otherwise it's just bad play.

What's stopping you from thinking it was just sc2mafia Gambit #28204?

[Quick]

How is him explaining his play bearing the shame? It anything ignoring it and pretending to be another player made the situation worse for him.

Lets say his reasoning was not the best for the play. Would you really want that advertised for the whole world to see? Thing is, even if it was a decent play people are still going to say "you should have known." I'm not saying if the play was good, but that is just what people are going to think.

[Calix]

It's also hilarious that you are using "lol" as an example of game-throwing intent. That's entirely up to interpretation.

[BananaCucho]

Game-throwing requires an element of malice (provided via INTENT), otherwise it's just bad play.

What's stopping you from thinking it was just sc2mafia Gambit #28204?

If he explains it I'll believe that's the case.

Lets say his reasoning was not the best for the play. Would you really want that advertised for the whole world to see? Thing is, even if it was a decent play people are still going to say "you should have known." I'm not saying if the play was good, but that is just what people are going to think.

I don't have to agree with a reason to understand it. I just want to understand his reasoning.

It's also hilarious that you are using "lol" as an example of game-throwing intent. That's entirely up to interpretation.

And its hilarious how you continue to be the Foxtrot Apologist.

[Calix]

And its hilarious how you continue to be the Foxtrot Apologist.

"Agree with me and my misguided witch-hunt or I'll dismiss your views as coming from an 'apologist' so that I never have to counter them."

If you think you're going to succeed in ANY of your goals, you are delusional. POD is not going to respond and the more you keep badgering him, the more people will realise how absurd your accusations are...which will actually make them SIDE with him.

[BananaCucho]

"Agree with me and my misguided witch-hunt or I'll dismiss your views as coming from an 'apologist' so that I never have to counter them."

If you think you're going to succeed in ANY of your goals, you are delusional. POD is not going to respond and the more you keep badgering him, the more people will realise how absurd your accusations are...which will actually make them SIDE with him.

If he never responds all it tells me is he's coward that won't own his play. It affects his future games with me as I won't value anything he says as genuine or believe any claim he makes because I won't ever understand his mindset of why he did what he did. That's his loss not mine.

[Calix]

If he never responds all it tells me is he's coward that won't own his play. It affects his future games with me as I won't value anything he says as genuine or believe any claim he makes because I won't ever understand his mindset of why he did what he did. That's his loss not mine.

Given that you are supposedly going on a break, that doesn't hold the weight you think it does.

That's not even getting into the selfishness of "I will act in a specific, NAI way towards POD in all future games because of a grudge" despite the impact that'll have on the rest of the players in said games.

[BananaCucho]

Given that you are supposedly going on a break, that doesn't hold the weight you think it does.

That's not even getting into the selfishness of "I will act in a specific, NAI way towards POD in all future games because of a grudge" despite the impact that'll have on the rest of the players in said games.

I'm not looking to threaten POD or bully him. I want an explanation so I can understand his mindset. Is that so much to ask?

It's not a grudge. There's a reason why people don't take certain players seriously after so many games of bad play with poor/no explanation. I won't list names but you know exactly what I'm talking about.

[Shifty]

If he never responds all it tells me is he's coward that won't own his play. It affects his future games with me as I won't value anything he says as genuine or believe any claim he makes because I won't ever understand his mindset of why he did what he did. That's his loss not mine.

Lmao

[Calix]

I'm not looking to threaten POD or bully him. I want an explanation so I can understand his mindset. Is that so much to ask?

It's not a grudge. There's a reason why people don't take certain players seriously after so many games of bad play with poor/no explanation. I won't list names but you know exactly what I'm talking about.

This is obvious bullshit.

You've made this much fuss about POD; there's no way you are merely seeking an 'explanation' when you haven't even considered the obvious ones provided already. You're just looking to shame him until you get bored. We've seen it before, as you mentioned yourself.

Are you claiming POD has played as badly as shown here on multiple occasions?

[BananaCucho]

This is obvious bullshit.

You've made this much fuss about POD; there's no way you are merely seeking an 'explanation' when you haven't even considered the obvious ones provided already. You're just looking to shame him until you get bored. We've seen it before, as you mentioned yourself.

Are you claiming POD has played as badly as shown here on multiple occasions?

I'm not going to get into the specifics of his general play here. Nice try in baiting that though.

You're obviously arguing for the sake of arguing with me at this point. All along I've asked for POD to explain his play - in fact my first post on this thread is:

@powerofdeath

Still haven't explained why you did it mate

Immediately after the apologists come swooping in to the rescue of poor little POD.

[Calix]

I'm not going to get into the specifics of his general play here. Nice try in baiting that though.

You're obviously arguing for the sake of arguing with me at this point. All along I've asked for POD to explain his play - in fact my first post on this thread is:



Immediately after the apologists come swooping in to the rescue of poor little POD.

Repeating 'emergerd the apologists are under my bed, ma!' isn't going to make it true.

You're not getting your 'wish' of him responding, nor are you going to get anywhere with 'shaming' him. It's that simple.

[Voss]

He wasn't town. He was neutral that could win with town or one of the scum factions.

His faction was alive and well. He had a doctor from his faction protecting him. Once he fakes his guilty that ends up being a mislynch, his doctor goes elsewhere and dies to vet, and he's lynched. That one fake claim eliminated 2/3 of his faction.

It wasn't needed and I want the explanation from him and not apologizers.

How did he know he had a doctor protecting him? You can't really say he caused the doctor's death if he didn't even know that a doctor was on him.

[Quick]

I'm not going to get into the specifics of his general play here. Nice try in baiting that though.

You're obviously arguing for the sake of arguing with me at this point. All along I've asked for POD to explain his play - in fact my first post on this thread is:



Immediately after the apologists come swooping in to the rescue of poor little POD.

I'd say your tone in your original post was quite aggressive if I'm being totally honest.

[BananaCucho]

Repeating 'emergerd the apologists are under my bed, ma!' isn't going to make it true.

You're not getting your 'wish' of him responding, nor are you going to get anywhere with 'shaming' him. It's that simple.

And you know that you're not going to get me to back down so why continue to restate the same thing over and over?

[SuperJack]

This thread should be closed. PoD made a choice which had a negative result. Which is just a mistake. And if not then the FM staff would of already sorted it.

[Calix]

And you know that you're not going to get me to back down so why continue to restate the same thing over and over?

That's an admission that you're arguing out of pride and not because you have any points to counter mine. Thank you for playing and have a nice day.

I'm not trying to persuade you. I've told you that multiple times before.

[BananaCucho]

How did he know he had a doctor protecting him? You can't really say he caused the doctor's death if he didn't even know that a doctor was on him.

I'll concede that point.

I'd say your tone in your original post was quite aggressive if I'm being totally honest.

That's your interpretation

[BananaCucho]

That's an admission that you're arguing out of pride and not because you have any points to counter mine. Thank you for playing and have a nice day.

I'm not trying to persuade you. I've told you that multiple times before.

Whatever you say Calix.

[Calix]

Whatever you say Calix.

[Brendan]

[Gyrlander]

I want an emoticon too.

[Calix]

Any of the other lurkers want to chip in with their equally valid insights?

[DarknessB]

I want an emoticon too.

There's already one for you:

[Sino]

Any of the other lurkers want to chip in with their equally valid insights?

I prefer lurking, thanks !

[DarknessB]

Any of the other lurkers want to chip in with their equally valid insights?

Yes, I'm very concerned about the use of non-FM authorized terminology to describe accounts with more than one player. Thoughts?

[Quick]

There's already one for you:

LOL I actually get the joke. I am proud of the way I have grown up here. :3

[Gyrlander]

There's already one for you:

I've got amazing hair so that emoticon is wrong.

Also, I'm very dissapointed, sad and depressed because of your attitude with me. I hope you recapacitate and say sorry 1000000000000000000000000 times. When you do that, I may forgive you.

However, there is another way which is giving me +10 Rep. Only for pros, though.

[DarknessB]

I've got amazing hair so that emoticon is wrong.

Also, I'm very dissapointed, sad and depressed because of your attitude with me. I hope you recapacitate and say sorry 1000000000000000000000000 times. When you do that, I may forgive you.

However, there is another way which is giving me +10 Rep. Only for pros, though.

In the past, people who have overtly asked for rep have been negative rep bombed -- just as a heads up, lol.

[Sino]

Yes, I'm very concerned about the use of non-FM authorized terminology to describe accounts with more than one player. Thoughts?

Who makes the rules about what is authorized and non authorized terminology ?

[Brendan]

Any of the other lurkers want to chip in with their equally valid insights?

My insight is the most valid because I have a red name and I stopped caring a while ago.