Jump to content

Pokémon uPick Mafia - Day 4


SB.
 Share

Recommended Posts

@Boron- I don't really understand why you don't understand the Blitz case? It's about as simple as it gets. Blitz asked Iris why she would want to advance the game, when advancing the game is inherently good.

Oh, I seem to have missed that on my first skim read.

The next question, then, is do you guys think that's a serious question and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 776
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

to be honest i thought the answer to the second question would have been more evident; the first may very well have been a sardonic question and typo'd. but they both seemed kind of empty? not sure how to word it exactly. it feels like he wants bbm to re-state what was obvious from his initial post about marth and i don't see where that would lead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next question, then, is do you guys think that's a serious question and why?

It doesn't really matter either way because the two options are either A: Blitz asked a joke question when there was content to analyze or B: He asked a serious question but one that's useless and doesn't contribute anything.

Agreeing with what Crysta said about the other question, reading what other people have said now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My feelings about Marth are that he RVS voted with like no joke justification or anything, which feels kind of weird, especially as enough people had posted by then that most people would have made some joke response. The Eclipse prod I would also expect to come with a vote, because why wouldn't you? Just feels kind of off.

Usually Marth skips RVS altogether, so the first part doesn't bother me. I'd sheep the second because it's definitely something he could have voted on.

The next question, then, is do you guys think that's a serious question and why?

I don't get the point of this question. Other peoples' interpretations don't matter, only what Blitz's actual intentions were (which only he can say).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get the point of this question. Other peoples' interpretations don't matter, only what Blitz's actual intentions were (which only he can say).

I don't get why you feel a need to dissuade her attempt to understand the case better when she just wants a better recap on the Blitz wagon (at least to my knowledge.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That question won't help her understand the case better AND it kind of bothers me when people ask for other peoples' opinions on a subject without giving their own first (well there are exceptions if giving your own opinion takes a lot of time but there are only two short sentences to look at here).

That's just how I read that question. Blitz can come and defend himself if he wants.

I don't have an issue with your case. It's moreso that you're way more confident in it than Prims and Crysta (pretty much just as confident as Manix, but he interpreted Blitz's questions differently so I can get where he's coming from there) and I don't get why.

Also forgot to do this in my last post.

##Unvote

##Vote: Marth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manix's vote in particular felt lazy, although maybe that was just because it was last.

was asleep, not like i could respond when it happened

on top of making that post not long after i woke up as well, so it's not like i sat on it for a while

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you could say I'm really feeling it that but like, something just pinged my scumdar with that post. I'm trying to play kind of aggressively this game. Do you think I'm faking conviction to make my case more appealing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get the point of this question. Other peoples' interpretations don't matter, only what Blitz's actual intentions were (which only he can say).

If you think Blitz is serious and you vote for him, you're voting for scum intent and I have no problems with that. If you think he's joking but vote him anyway, then you're either reaction voting -- or you could also be scum parking on an easy vote. So yeah, I am going somewhere with this question and it is relevant whether you think his question was serious or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you could say I'm really feeling it that but like, something just pinged my scumdar with that post. I'm trying to play kind of aggressively this game. Do you think I'm faking conviction to make my case more appealing?

Sick memes, bro.

No, it's not that. It's more that I wouldn't expect you to be so confident as town based on what Blitz had posted and when he posted it (if there was more to work with, then I wouldn't even care about this). I don't know how to explain this any better, it just bothers me and I'm not sure why (this is why I voted Marth over you, because my issue is with your tone over your actions). It could be because you're making a more conscious decision to play aggressively, though (kinda hard to tell ATM since there's not much to work with).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think Blitz is serious and you vote for him, you're voting for scum intent and I have no problems with that. If you think he's joking but vote him anyway, then you're either reaction voting -- or you could also be scum parking on an easy vote. So yeah, I am going somewhere with this question and it is relevant whether you think his question was serious or not.

Yeah but this is something you could easily read back on yourself. None of the people who voted him thought he was joking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like, why would scum park on a bad case (assuming Blitz was joking but voting him anyways)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but this is something you could easily read back on yourself. None of the people who voted him thought he was joking.

Would anyone actually vote for Blitz while admitting that they didn't think he was serious, though? I mean, even if you're doing a reaction test you have to sound like you think he's serious if you want it to be a believable reaction test. I can only tell so much from the reading versus actually questioning.

Yeah, I can go back and read for myself, but I already said that I'm messed up right now from being busy all day. I'd understand a lot better asking you guys questions than trying to read back on stuff because reading is hard. Do you disagree with that logic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like, why would scum park on a bad case (assuming Blitz was joking but voting him anyways)?

Because other people were doing it, and they can just pass off their vote as "I agreed with what the other people voting him were saying".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would anyone actually vote for Blitz while admitting that they didn't think he was serious, though? I mean, even if you're doing a reaction test you have to sound like you think he's serious if you want it to be a believable reaction test. I can only tell so much from the reading versus actually questioning.

Yeah, I can go back and read for myself, but I already said that I'm messed up right now from being busy all day. I'd understand a lot better asking you guys questions than trying to read back on stuff because reading is hard. Do you disagree with that logic?

I uh...actually missed the reaction test part. Fair enough on your question, actually.

Nah, that's actually really legit! Was questioning you over casing you because I wasn't sure if your questions were just you faking contribution (which would explain the lack of any opinion on your part; while I'm cool with you now, it'd still be nice to have your own thoughts on the matter) or because you were busy and didn't have time for anything else.

Because other people were doing it, and they can just pass off their vote as "I agreed with what the other people voting him were saying".

This part still confuses me. I don't get why scum would ever admit to thinking that he was joking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also honestly, I'm in a bad headspace myself so I can relate to not wanting to read previous posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This part still confuses me. I don't get why scum would ever admit to thinking that he was joking.

Haven't there been cases when an early break-out-of-RVS wagon began to fall apart and people on that wagon started catching criticism, and some people tried to jump off it or claim that their vote wasn't that serious to avoid taking too much heat for their vote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol i forgot strawman was in this game until i saw that he was reading this topic

inb4 "omg iris is scum, throwing attention onto inactives"

im really happy there are 2 more pages though, activity makes me happy. i skimmed the past 2 pages just now but it's all "omg!!! blitz is scum!!! let's wagon him". im going to reread later (lol i said that last time) but one thing that stood out to me that bothered me were paper's posts wrt blitz, like he was just asking for meta / past games without actively thinking about it??? i've never been confident on my paper reads so idk, i'll come back to this thought later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took me a few minutes to get past that transition from RVS to serious stuff because it was rather abrupt. And all of the cases since have been on such minor things that I was having a hard reading anything as more than everyone just nitpicking the shit out of each other.

Mmm, I interpreted that Blitz question as a typo as well. Since Crysta was talking about not pursuing something further because they didn't think it would advance the game enough. I will agree with Crysta that his questions about whether town Marth would vote Eclipse is suspect since the questioned was pretty much already answered by BBM in his earlier post.

Speaking of BBM though,

##Unvote

##Vote:BBM

##Unvote, Vote: Marth

rereading a little it kind of RVS-bugs me that he voted without any joke justification or anything at all, and then is prodding Eclipse without a vote on her, like it's all just a formality.

Mm, but of course let me do my nitpicking. This bothers me since Marth did justify it with the quote from Refa though. And by "justify" I mean obviously sheep an already joke vote.

And then agreeing with but then questioning votes on Blitz. I'm getting gut scum vibe from it.

And while I was thinking of Blitz's question to BBM I realized that either BBM didn't answer it or his second mention Marth (his most recent post) was supposed to be a response to it, in which he just generally restates what he said earlier about Marth. (ie that interaction was weird to me, but why am i trying associative reads ED1 anyways?)

Other thing bothering me is Refa's seeming aggressiveness towards Boron's questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

iris could you give me an answer to my question in regards to your blitz vote? i think there's more than just "omg bandwagon blitz" in the last few pages even if it's not a whole lot more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strawman's vote on me made me reread Marth's posts and I'm not going to lie, I just realized that Marth quoted Refa in his Crysta vote. For some reason I read over Marth's vote twice earlier and came away with the thought that he'd just said "Vote Crysta" with nothing else in the post at all... Blitz's question there makes more sense now. That part of my case doesn't hold any more then, but I still think the other part is valid.

I'm agreeing with the Blitz cases but questioning the wagon because generally speaking, wagons don't build up that fast ED1 on scum. If they do, they normally involve scum starting some early distancing that townies then jump on. Otherwise, scum don't pile onto their buddy who has 2-3 votes already. It doesn't get them much bussing cred and it normally results in their buddy being lynched, particularly when like Blitz they're not good at defending themselves. I don't see any reason to think Blitz and Prims are buddies right now though, so I'm leaning on the other side. That being said, the original reason for the Blitz vote makes sense to me, which is why I'm kind of conflicted.

I don't get the claim that Blitz's question was a joke; only Blitz can say, but the wording or style didn't seem ironic in any way.

@Strawman- what's wrong with aggressive questioning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went back and read through the earlier posts, including Blitz's question to Crysta. The phrasing of that question makes me think that Blitz typo'd, and I'm going to believe that unless he comes back and clarifies that no, he did not in fact typo.

That said, I'm not entirely comfortable with the Blitz wagon because it feels too easy. I mean, even if Blitz didn't typo his question and is 100% serious, it feels way too brazen for scum. I'm going to look back at the Blitz wagon when I don't have a headache.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...