Day 5. Cult has it then.

I tried to warn you, man.

and again, with my double vote even if argh hadn't been culted the cult would still control the vote. we have 5/7 now.

You didn't do any warning Arrgh.

At least now you're not playing against your win condition.

I told you your math was wrong, you could have taken a more humble stance then. I'm also talking about our conversation in the early game. It can be well worth it to be cautious in a game with a lot of hidden information.

I already told you I had no intent of laying low. That includes being humble.

And what earlier conversation? D1? Because if that is the case, you still didn't do any warning. All you did was play against your win con and backed the wrong horse.

Course that doesn't matter since you're not playing against your win con now.

I did not play against my win con. I made an evaluation of the information available and acted accordingly. I admit that I played badly, and in the end completely ruined town's chances to win, but taking a (badly) calculated risk is not the same as playing against win con. At the time I honestly believed my actions were good for town.

You did play against your win con as evidenced by your actions based on the available information at the time.

Let me take a moment to reiterate that, ultimately, how you play is up to you, regardless of what happens.

That being said, you fully and intentionally did play against your win con D1 much to my chagrin. Part of that, given your reaction to me, is probably because of how you view me. You had not only myself, but Tevish as claimed townies that had the expressed intent of following a plan that dealt with people who had not claimed to be town. You opted to not pair with those claiming to be town, and took it further by creating a situation where you willingly let a claimed townie face the lynch if only to not force a lynch on someone you, more than likely, didn't want to lynch because of an odd combination of your morbid curiosity to see things play out, not go after 3ps (known or unknown), and, likely, because you felt bad for the focus being placed on someone who threw a fit.

Ultimately, yes, you did play against your win con. At the end of the day, you are the reason the cult not only lived, but took over the game. But that's neither here nor there because, this being a game, you can play how you wish; however, your insistence that you did not play against your win con initially is laughable at best. Pitiful at worst based on the justification you're trying to spoon feed me.



Take heart though. We can agree to disagree whether you or I like it or not.

I'd like to win with cult if they'll let me.

I'll also say why I picked you KoD to rez, I didn't think I'd get much use out of the other roles. If I thought a town win was still possible at this point I'd play towards that, but it seems highly unlikely the way things rolled to this point.

Even if I got off a shot tonight the majority is nearly in place. Don't know how things go on a tie vote.

Though Rags double vote says they essentially have it.

@KoD: Since when does it matter that someone claims town? That is by far the single most common fake claim, and doesn't really say anything. Especially in a bastard game. Besides, I was fully willing to Lynch a non town, just not the one you wanted (and, once again, you were right but I had no reason to believe that at the time). This is a political game, and you did not present your case we'll. You failed utterly to convince me either that you were honest in your intentions or that your plan was better than any other. I tried to work with you, but you have me very little to work with. In fact, you chose to dig deeper when I tried to help you out, saying you didn't mind dying. Which to me is far more playing against win con than anything I did. If you had joined me in lynching Shockwave, you might have had a chance at convincing me to Lynch Zinger D2. I let a claimed townie die, yes, but so did you buy refusing to leave a wagon which wasn't working.

I'll throw to you what you've thrown to me. Because of the nature of this game, the claims made matter. Case in point Rag and Amber claiming nontown alignments. Case in point you claiming your alignment honestly. The better question is why, when presented information people are putting out there, you wouldn't treat it for what it was at face value as opposed to disregarding it entirely. Couple onto that the actions taken (ie. Tevish and I focusing on a plan that dealt with two of the claimed nontown while pursuing a third that was based off of his reactions to me).

You've repeated your pointless talking point about how you were acting on the information you had available to you since there was hidden information. Tell me, exactly what information was available to you? Because from where I sit you had claims from people that you, apparently, were not willing to consider while also making your decisions based on extreme bias towards me (of which I showed earlier D1).

To hammer the above home, refer to Tevish. He had commented on how odd it was to not pursue lynching claimed nontown (ie. Amber and Rag). I brought this up already D1, but you seem content in your blissful ignorance that it bears bringing back up. You willingly chose to not pursue Rag despite Rag claiming to not be town. You even made a point of saying you don't know which alignments are a threat to the town (this, despite Rag claiming the ability to kill and you still maintaining not wanting to lynch Rag). So, in my infinite wisdom, I championed your point about leashing Rag to shoot the other nontown (Amber) while we pursue someone else, and Zinger's reaction towards me (the bargaining) more than justified the focus on him.

But your bias kicked in with Zinger's personal post.



Now, this game is more than just politics. It also entails eliminating threats while working with your team if you have one (ancient egyptian is the exception here). As far as the politics goes, you were the catalyst that caused this whole scenario. While you say that I didn't make my case, I am obligated to tell you that I more than made my case. After all, Tevish was for it despite the whole not just lynching one of the claimed nontown, and that was due to your desire to not lynch Rag. Since Tevish was on board, the case made sense, and Tevish being the logic based player he is says something concerning the approach I proposed. However, there is also something to be said about convincing a player who, and I quote,:



Queue your morbid curiosity.

But yes, there's no convincing someone who is intent on playing against their win con intentionally (as is illustrated by your own words about your approach to the game).

Now, for you to assert that I failed to convince you, yes, you are right. As I mentioned just above, it is near impossible to convince someone with a biased mindset like what you had/have. It didn't matter that, when asked why Zinger, I pointed out his response to me when I proposed a plan that removed him. It didn't matter what I said because, as I've shown, you have a bias against me that caused you to steer clear of whatever it was I was selling. Honest intent indeed. It's funny since Rag lied about her initial alignment, yet I'm the one who doesn't seem honest enough in my intent.


For the sake of the record and for the truth of the matter, no, you did not try to work with me. If anything, I tried to work off of what you wanted wrt to Rag. You set out with the intent, as illustrated in the quote composed of your own words, to not go after some people. It's a wonder why you decided on Shock in the first place since, you know, you believed he was 3p yet you were willing to lynch him instead of give him a chance to win like you did with Zinger.

And, again, no. Death may have caused me to be a day behind, but that's about the only mistake I made when trying to assess the game state. You, on the other hand, were the direct cause of town losing this because of your unwillingness to work with your team, your intentional desire to play against your team's win con, and your bias towards me. You know why I know this?

[quote=Final VC for D1]
The Final Count:
KoD: Naga, Amber, Rag, Zinger
Rag: CL
Aaarrrgh: Shock
Zinger: KoD, Tevish[/quote]

Side Note: The first page count is different from this one (JD has Tevish voting me in that one, but it hardly matters for the point being made).

The quoted vote count was the final tally the mod had at the end of D1. I know for sure that Tevish didn't bite on your proposal for Shock, as opposed to voting with me against Zinger and having Rag shoot Amber.

Rag initially was going to go along with the plan, but when the first vote count came out for D1 it had me with three votes (Naga, Amber, and Rag) so Rag opted to keep her vote on me. Throughout the day Rag made it known she'd follow town's will (more so you later on as the end of the day drew closer). Realistically, you could have had Rag move her vote from me to, say, Shock if you had been serious about not seeing a claimed townie die on your watch. You didn't bother with that though. Course, you could have also gone with the plan, and signaled to Rag to follow the proposed plan which would have assured Zinger's lynch and Amber being targeted at night by Rag.

But your priorities were elsewhere. More than likely due to your morbid curiosity.

In any event, the "wagon" on Zinger wasn't failed since it had support from a fellow person claiming to be town (thanks Tevish). That's more than I can say for your singular vote on your Shock wagon.



In any case, the point is well established by your words and actions this game. You intentionally played against your win con through multiple areas (your bias towards me, your actions that led to my lynch, and your willingness to not pursue threats to the town).


At this point, I do not believe there are enough words in the English language to string together to help me convey to you that you won't be able to convince me otherwise to your playing against your win con.

I'll leave it at that.

I'd say playing against your win-con has more to do with intent than effectiveness

if a town player honestly thinks that lynching confirmed town will help them win the game, then they're still playing towards their wincon in my opinion (just not very well). What argh did is probably significantly easier to justify than lynching confirmed town.

and if you're doubting that argh was honestly trying to secure a town victory then i have nothing to say about that

I suggested the compromise of lynching Shockwave, you refused to even consider it, so I didn't pursue it further.

You failed to convince a majority to follow your plan. Clearly you did not make a compelling enough case.

I'm more than willing to concede that I made mistakes in this game. Are you willing to do the same?

I've taken some time since I posted that to regain my composure and collect myself. I do not want to keep talking about this. We have different opinions about both strategy and what makes the game fun, and so we're unlikely to resolve this. Although I still disagree with a lot of what you said, I understand better why you said it.

I culted Aaarrrgh last Night. Aaarrrgh should be cult, though might not have been informed as much? Who knows. All I knows is Vote: KoD

I know now, but I didn't when the day started.