Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
If I have an opinion on fank so far, this is the post I'm referring to. Emotions are harder to fake than role forgeries. The emotion here smelled genuine.
More than that, it's more confrontational than diplomatic. A townie will react more than a scum will to slight pressure, because a townie wants to explain himself because he has an interest in advancing an argument- his prosecution of someone, his defense of himself. A scum at this juncture has the liberty to do nothing, because they win by default when town is not making any positive steps forward. The pressure, therefore, is on townies to DO SOMETHING.
Scum don't have to do anything. They can wait for us to lose. Therefore, confrontation over small things reads to me like townies butting heads.
I know some others read this the opposite way, but that's the way I see it.
I agree with everything you actually wrote, but I don't know that it applies to the post that you are talking about.
The exchange went something like this:
weareking: How is that post a scum tell? It's completely null. Town can jokingly say that and mafia can say that as a WIFOM as well.
fank: Exactly, But why deny someone who's been "blatantly" asking for more heat on the fire?
weareking: Because it's not a scum tell, it's null. A true scum tell is something that town are unlikely to do or say on the spur of the moment. As a result mafia tend to say things that they THINK appears to be the best thing for a townie to say in any given situation, and the result is that it reads as forced, maybe only from a gut level, to other players in the game.
Also you totally agreed with me when I said that it's completely null, yet you vote him?
fank: You Question my intentions, when I put it right there, In english???
I have found that when I am evil, I hate having to re-explain myself. I have found that I will get snarky and tell people to just read my previous posts. To be fair, I do this as a villager in some cases as well, but I generally have FAR more patience before I get to that stage -- the snarkiness usually doesn't come out unless it seems like people aren't even paying attention at all and just wasting my time. But as a wolf I might do it even if someone asks me about something that I just barely mentioned at all, days in the past. So, I would not just blindly say that the sarcastic response here was villagery.
When I look at this interaction, his initial explanation was phrased rhetorically, rather than straightforwardly. And it's obvious that weareking did not understand the response, because he proceeded to ask the same question again. At this point, fank still did not explain himself clearly. He's trying to imply that his vote is not a serious vote. Yet he won't actually come out and say it. And when he cast his vote originally, it certainly did not look like a joke vote. He quoted one specific post, called it wolfy, and voted based on that post, yet he's later implying that it was a joke in response to a completely different post.
This is something that draws some concern. I allow people some freedom to just do their own thing. But that freedom has a limit, and someone giving convoluted responses to straightforward questions about their actions is on the wrong side of that limit. That's in the land of deceptive behavior, and villagers don't have a reason to be there.
So to bring this back full circle, his confrontational response was also a deceptive response -- a form of attacking the attacker, by putting the responsibility on weareking for not understanding him, rather than accepting that his own explanation wasn't understandable. I would argue that the wolfiness of the deception outweighs the villageriness of the confrontation. fank is someone I want to keep an eye on.