Hawkeye wrote:Spiral wrote:
What exactly would you like me to answer that Rasputin didn't also ask of me?
I was just curious very curious about your reaction to my discussing Storm's role, among others, and if you did indeed consider I endangered her or another civilian, what would the circumstances for that be. I was also wondering about your reply (the one where I was very disappointed in you :P), because my post was pretty big and you just chose those elements that seemed to suit your cause ignoring the rest. Can you elaborate on that a bit?
I do not think discussing the secrets of a civvie role is beneficial to the civvies at all. This is not a new opinion. Unless the role has a possible traitor ability.
Even so, it is not novel to think discussing civvie secrets is not intelligent. I don't think it is. Why give the baddies more power? Why give them that knowledge/idea? It's not like your discussion of it helped the civilian cause in any way-- it only gave baddies access to those ideas. I'll repeat again THIS IS NOT A NEW THING. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP FOR THIS GAME. FLYIN' HIGH HAS BEEN LYNCHED (wrongly) for this.
I do not appreciate the way you turned my shock that someone would discuss the secrets of a civvie role into a reason to suspect me.
Now:
Hawkeye wrote:Spiral wrote:
Why the hell are you discussing the secrets of a civilian role?
I believe it’s called trying to be helpful. See, I would normally agree with you if I concluded that my brief discussion would result in endangering said civilian or any other civilians for that matter, but having weighed the pros and cons of such an undertaking, I considered that openly discussing it, along with the rest of the roles with secrets would provide us a better understanding of the game mechanics. If you manage to provide a setting where the fact that I discussed Storm’s secret endangers any civilian (note that this is a game with heavy voting manipulation, so a lynch switch or whatever would go undetected), I’ll plead guilty and you can go ahead and take me out for attempting to endanger or expose one or more civilians. Let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that ‘altering the weather’ does indeed mean what I have described in my previous post. Do you think that a team of 7 would not reach the same conclusion, because you know, it’s pretty much common sense? Or maybe you guys haven’t discussed it this yet, in which case I do apologize.
Do you think that a person who survives a lynch would not be an automatic night target either because they are a powerful civilian or to have the baddies check if they do indeed have Apocalypse in the bag? Of course you’d think the same if you actually took a few seconds to rationalize this, instead of trying to come across as very offended and self-righteous in what I consider an aggressive manner. I would buy it if you were Storm and you’d consider that my discussing your secrets could somehow expose you. However, the very fact that out of my entire post you’ve chosen to single out one role in particular to make you look good, tells me that you have nothing to do with that particular, and perhaps the reason is that I might have struck a chord and I’m exposing you or one of your teammates. I see no discussion about the independents and the baddie with secrets, for which you are very welcome. In case you haven’t bothered to read my posts, I like to rely on logic, common sense and what facts I can pick up from people’s posts in order to make what I consider rational judgments. Plus, I like to get some reactions. Thank you for that. And if it’s all right with you, I’ll have to keep an eye on you.
I don't know what you want me to say about this? You chastised me for daring to question you. I think your reasons for "suspecting" me for this are shitty. I think you accused me of being bad simply because I dared say, "wtf" to you. I do not see anything wrong with what I said to you, but I see everything wrong with what you did: WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU OPENLY DISCUSS THE SECRETS OF A CIVILIAN ROLE? What benefit did it give anyone???????
If you're looking for me to have a change of heart on this-- it's not happening. You condemned me for questioning you, and then you were extremely condescending (so I don't want to hear bullshit about me causing you to act in any way). "I like to rely on logic"
Cool!
Hawkeye wrote:Spiral wrote:Hawkeye wrote:Spiral wrote:
Why the hell are you discussing the secrets of a civilian role?
I believe it’s called trying to be helpful. See, I would normally agree with you if I concluded that my brief discussion would result in endangering said civilian or any other civilians for that matter, but having weighed the pros and cons of such an undertaking, I considered that openly discussing it, along with the rest of the roles with secrets would provide us a better understanding of the game mechanics. If you manage to provide a setting where the fact that I discussed Storm’s secret endangers any civilian (note that this is a game with heavy voting manipulation, so a lynch switch or whatever would go undetected), I’ll plead guilty and you can go ahead and take me out for attempting to endanger or expose one or more civilians. Let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that ‘altering the weather’ does indeed mean what I have described in my previous post. Do you think that a team of 7 would not reach the same conclusion, because you know, it’s pretty much common sense? Or maybe you guys haven’t discussed it this yet, in which case I do apologize.
Do you think that a person who survives a lynch would not be an automatic night target either because they are a powerful civilian or to have the baddies check if they do indeed have Apocalypse in the bag? Of course you’d think the same if you actually took a few seconds to rationalize this, instead of trying to come across as very offended and self-righteous in what I consider an aggressive manner. I would buy it if you were Storm and you’d consider that my discussing your secrets could somehow expose you. However, the very fact that out of my entire post you’ve chosen to single out one role in particular to make you look good, tells me that you have nothing to do with that particular, and perhaps the reason is that I might have struck a chord and I’m exposing you or one of your teammates. I see no discussion about the independents and the baddie with secrets, for which you are very welcome. In case you haven’t bothered to read my posts, I like to rely on logic, common sense and what facts I can pick up from people’s posts in order to make what I consider rational judgments. Plus, I like to get some reactions. Thank you for that. And if it’s all right with you, I’ll have to keep an eye on you.
That being said, I don’t want to end this post in a bellicose manner.
Very nice way of saying you suspect me because I dared question you. In addition, the other role you discussed was
Mystique-- a baddie role.
You have no idea how disappointed I am in this reply. If this is all you got from my post then I can only conclude that you either are not capable of properly comprehending what I've said (of course, this can also be my fault for not phrasing my thoughts more accurately), you haven't read everything I've written or you have picked whatever suited your cause.
Because I'm in a very good at the moment, I'll give you a tl;dr
- you have asked me a question and I have answered it;
- I have asked you to give me a setting in which my discussing Storm's role would endanger a civilian;
- the way in which you phrased said question was not to my liking because I quote " [you] come across as very offended and self-righteous in what I consider an aggressive manner."
Anyone is free to ask me anything and question my decisions or my reasoning. The reason I decided to keep an eye on you was the way in which you've chosen to do that. I'm still in an excellent mood, so I'll give you an example which would not have made me look at you: 'Interesting post, Hawkeye. I noticed you have decided to discuss a civilian's secrets along with those of the independents and the baddie, and I do not think that is a good idea because [...]. Would you mind telling me why you decided to do that?'
See the difference? See why your tone would make me want to look at you? See why your reply to mine would make me want to take an even closer look at you? You decide to specifically choose just the bit where I suspect you for 'daring' to ask me a question and omit to mention my discussion about ALL of the independents. Of course I would start suspecting you. Wouldn't you?
#1) I brought up Mystique because YOU asked why I hadn't commented on the other role(s) you discussed. The other roles you discussed were not civilian roles, so I saw no reason not to discuss them. I was not trying to insinuate anything by pointing out Mystique, only that the other roles you discussed were not civilian and I felt no need to mention them on that basis. However, you conveniently ignored this and told me I was bad for doing so.
What would you even like me to respond to, Hawkeye, because it seems to me that you just want me to say that I'm bad. I am not. You don't have points against me, you have complaints. You don't have a case against me that I can respond to because everything you're saying is just "I do not like your tone" or "Why did you ask me this" with an aire of "I am smarter than you". So, Hawkeye, please, tell me, why am I bad? Am I bad because I thought you discussing secret civvie roles was obtuse? Am I bad because I thought Quicksilver was bad? Am I bad because I didn't like how I thought the original Rasputin was trying to seem like a civvie not paying attention? Or am I bad because it is convenient for you to say so?
You could tell us all day long that it is x-men friendly when it might not be. Of course, you could also be a baddie turned good as a result. Who knows...
I think you are bad. :O It didn't cross mind that you were silenced the other day because I was under the impression that Mojo and Vision have been targeted for that. No offense, but they are more likely targets than you: one had won an interesting poll and the other is one of the active players who usually makes more sense than others, you not so much. Besides, you don't even bother replying to some points I've made and addressing some issues that I think make you look scummier than Sunfire, and if you do, you just make yourself look worse. See, I take the time to write these replies and bring arguments that I consider decent, and you come and with stuff like this. Do you know what this tells me? That you don't really give a shit, or if you do, it's so tiny you're practically still constipated, which would explain the attitude. 
So yes, I assumed that you are either keeping a low profile or are out having fun. My mistake. 
I still think you're bad, but if you choose to reply to my inquiries I might reconsider it.
Dazzler.
Meh.
