Technically I outted them as 3p because I was a delayed lover with KoD and their choice of killing him cost me the game, so I cost them the game. I was aware that they were planning to kill him before they did and did nothing to alleviate the issue but that's neither here nor there, 3p's are king maker even when they aren't king maker.

Monster's assertion that she was only threatening to out them if they bussed her is technically correct but her view on being bussed isn't. That might be a meta thing. Essentially she wanted Sky and Aaarrrgh to back her if she got in trouble with town for the extremely risky plays she had made up to that point. Sky essentially told her that he wouldn't risk the extreme deep wolf momentum he had to do so. Aaarrrgh wasn't going to take such an out of character hard stance either. Both would likely jump on board if she was going down and that was the bussing in question. Neither posited throwing monster under the bus, but if the bus was already rolling over her, they weren't going to hit the breaks either. The other issue was that monster wanted to open wolf later in the game and Sky again wouldn't risk his deep wolf for something that presented very little reward, since town was already not lynching mafia to begin with. Unbeknownst to them at the time, town still had it's vig, increasing the risk and reducing the reward even more. From an outside perspective, I don't feel like anybody was trying to force their method of play on others, simply not going along with the plans of others. As moderator of the game in question I don't feel like that constitutes bullying, but this is in no means a statement on how the lack of teamwork or derisiveness was received by the players involved.

You actually played again after that game, though, despite you claiming otherwise. You tried to lynch Sykstone right away (and failed).

Haha, I am definitely not his Alt. There's at least one player here who met us both. And others that know us from way back. I came to his defense because you come here and call him a bully out of the blue, while the rude and inappropriate person in that chat was you. That is just too much. Be as obnoxiou as you like, but don't play the victim.

i don't think bussing someone against their will (as defined as voting for a teammate here) is necessarily poor form. I do tend to agree with monster that policy lynching people who play in a way harmful to the meta is distasteful. I'm rather fond of the dysfunctional melting pot of insufferable and erratic people we have on this site right now, and so any attempt to dissolve that is not something i'll support. I do think threatening to out your team is distasteful too, but its also amusing when mafia teams implode, and being able to form a cohesive team with your partners is definitely a part of the game, so i see imploding as a part of the game too.

I can more or less guess how things went down from how the parties involved have thus described it. I don't think the scenarios presented really contradict, i think people just attribute significance to different things.

In short, I largely side with monster in being upset with skystone's take on policy lynches. I wouldn't want to exile him from the community myself or anything though. That'd be hypocritical. Policy lynching him for supporting policy lynching would also be hypocritical but i'm reading monster's intent in this case as just wanting petty revenge, which i wholly endorse. If monster wants to stop playing because she finds skystone too objectionable thats her perogative though, and i won't really blame skystone for that.

I am amenable to Jay's take. He is certainly more neutral than we are.

However, I don't support policy lynches. At least not the sort that extend beyond the moment.* And absolutely never, ever for play-style reasons. That wouldn't be fun.

Insofar as I recall, my only mentions of "policy" were a) vetoing a kill on Amber, as she'd been N1'd the game before; and b) telling Monster that I'd let her out us before I caved to coercion (the 'policy' aspect being that I don't appreciate use of the game itself as leverage).


*E.g., on Day 1, I might be amenable to voting for someone who insists that they will only ever vote for one player.

Hi guys!

What's going on in --

Oh. Oh no.

/in

#pettytaleofrevenge

opcorn:

also I think all spots are filled already kod

Pretty sure he was /in on the petty take of revenge since he already /in'd on the game.

ah ****

Honestly I am just waiting on confirmation that Monster is solidly in and then I will deal roles.

Get Cin Min over here. It'll make for a party when Monster collides with her.

maybe another time

Well, at least you're here. I can die happy.

hopefully as a day 1 lynch???

I counted 3 soft-confirmed intentions to maybe help me lynch Sky Day 1, but still zero pinky promises. I'm beholden to the condition I gave. I'm a savage, but I'm not a takesi-backsies maniac.

I like how you call yourself savage but refuse to play without an ultra controlled day 1 condition. A true savage would not hide without aid, they would rage against the entire world if they had to.

who's that chicken

That being the case, I'm still going to consider that slot "open" for the time being; if anyone new decides to /in before Monster gets her desired pinky promises or /ins without them, they're in.

Monster said this isn't even the most savage forum she's played on. I think monster likes to hurt feelings.

Hey, I've seen things that don't necessarily resort to total war.

Certainly feels like it sometimes much to my mirth.