<font="gothic">Rant 16: Five Great Stupids</font>
It is presently Three O'Clock in the morning and once again I am getting that swelling of hatred within me and have to just complain about how stupid you are. Now, I'm not sure if it is the late hour or the fact that the only thing I have eaten in the past 24 hours is half a box of Cherrios but I seem to be unable to focus on anything specific. So in place of a normal rant, here are five common great stupids I am getting sick and tired of seeing.
<font="gothic">Stupid 1: "Fail" cries</font>
I'm the kind of person who believes in elaborating on one's thought process and will often scare and intimidate people by using big words like "<font="gothic">elaborate</font>", "<font="gothic">considering</font>", or simply spelling out three letter words to their entirety. It doesn't take much to understand that condensing one's thoughts to a single word is a lazy way of expressing yourself and often an underdeveloped opinion.
Consider this situation: The night starts, and there are 6 alive, 2 are scum, there is a claimed Cop and a Bodyguard who have to worry about an Interceptor. If the Interceptor is successful and there are 2 deaths at night, then the scum wins. So, the question is what should the Bodyguard be doing? The knee jerk reaction is to protect the cop, but clearly the cop would be intercepted in anticipation. Therefore the Bodyguard should not be on the Cop but this means the scum have their free shot. Goto Line 1. The end result is that protecting the Cop is really a risk. If we assume there is a 50% chance the scum are intercepting and 50% that they are going to try to kill, although odds will differ from person to person, then there is a 50% chance the Bodyguard's protection attempt will instantly lose the game for the town, and only a 25% chance that it kills a scum. If we assume the game has whispers, then there is a 25% chance that the Bodyguard who would have whispered the cop by now dies and the town is short 1 verified innocent.
So what should the Bodyguard do? Well, there is no right or wrong answer. It is a gambling question and a matter of guessing and trying to assume what the other person who you do not even know will be doing. The safest bet is to no visit because then scum can't intercept you, and they may be intercepting the cop, you don't know.
The problem I have with morons whose entire thought process is limited to somewhere between a single word and an abbreviated word is that they project vague ideas. A "fail" in my book is someone who should have known better, but didn't. Sort of like how I just spent 5 minutes trying to read through and find an existing rant to link that sentence to before I came to the conclusion that I don't have a rant about "They should have known better" because I strongly believe that "They are all hopeless morons who should die in a fire". That would be a good example of a "fail". When you express yourself in vague terms, you lose sight of what is important. Crying about how someone "failed" is really a matter I could go into deeper about desire to feel superior and that sort of thing, but that brings me on to stupid number 2...
<font="gothic">Stupid 2: Whining</font>
Yes, once again I leave myself open to being called a hypocrite. My retort to the inevitable jab here is that I tend to back up my calling people stupid with things like facts and explanations, whereas your average moron will back it up by abbreviating three letter words and turning on their caps lock key.
It sickens me when situations come up and a townie will provide a good reason for his own lynch, gets lynched, and then has to whine about it because not only did they turn out to be town, but in the midst of them calling everyone else scum for discussing their lynch, they guessed 1 of them right and now want to rub it in everyone's face. This really comes down to a matter of being able to articulate yourself well. In simple words, it means you need to be able to express reasons and back it up with facts rather than just screaming
IM RITE UR DUM I KNO SCUM
The fact of the matter is, there is a fine line between being a skillful Hatemonger who is capable of explaining where you went wrong and why you got lynched, and being a whiny little moron who everyone tries to ignore. Walking this line is a challenge that most are not up to and they ca- What? You want to know where the line is? It is wherever I damn well say it is, all right? Six inches to the left of my big toe if it makes you feel better. As long as we are on the subject of whining, this brings me to Stupid number 3...
<font="gothic">Stupid 3: Drama</font>
I make a point not to ever name any names in my rants. I also make a point to reply to comments on my profile. I have gotten used to a forum style of discussion and will often leave 2 copies of the message. 1 on my own page following the comment I am replying to, and 1 on the profile of whoever I am replying to. Every now and again, someone will get upset over something that happened in a game and will come to try and start some drama over it on my profile. This is never a good idea, my wit is sharpest when I have some time to think and I am quite capable of giving a virtual smack down to anyone who invites the opportunity. However, I do not have a monopoly on drama around here. I have actually started getting almost daily reports from a fellow Hatemonger about the drama they are dealing with. It is mildly annoying because I don't give a damn half the time, and the other half it becomes good rant material. So the result is I end up unwilling to turn down looking at the drama anyway.
Back on the main subject at hand, I have to wonder how many people have realized that it is actually an online game they play for fun or amusement? Yes, I am fully aware that I have left myself open to a jab in this paragraph as well, but my continued presence here is a mystery even to myself. Perhaps it has to do with habit. Dramawhores who will fight to their last breath for someone to validate them and take their side only encourage stupid behavior and poor form. It may be amusing for a while to screw around with someone who desperately clings to the drama, but after a while, it gets tiresome. Furthermore, it should be unsurprising that the majority of uninvolved people do not want to hear about it anyway.
<font="gothic">Stupid 4: Forgetting the obvious</font>
Remember that bodyguard I mentioned in the first stupid? Well, that bodyguard had to whisper his claim to the cop the day before, and nobody counter-claimed. Furthermore, nobody counter-claimed the hunter, either. Well, scum managed to kill the cop that night, and the scum both counter-claimed the Bodyguard. This would, under intelligent circumstances, have been an auto-win for the town. The Bodyguard spent the entire day saying how he wasn't counter-claimed on day 1, and asking the cleared hunter to go back and check to see if the cop thought to pass this information along. The cop did not. The end result was to lynch the one Bodyguard who tried to encourage the Hunter to look back and check to see if the Cop thought to tell them he was cleared day 1, resulting in an easy scum win in what should have been a situation where they should have been screwed.
Yes, there was much stupid in that game.
<font="gothic">Stupid 5: Dumbfounded Assumptions</font>
I am always amazed how often people will lock into one mode of thinking so hard that they are shocked to disbelief when they discover that they were wrong. No amount of reason or alternatives will convince them otherwise. And this isn't just with guessing scum, this can be stupid things too. Take this situation. A setup contains several Blues, a Granny, a Mason, a Vigilante, a Cultist, and an assorted mafia including a Yakuza.
3 people die night 1 - A Yakuza, a cultist, and a mason.
There are many possible situations here. The Yakuza could have recruited the head cultist, killing the recruit and shooting the mason... The Mason could have been shot and both the Yakuza and the Cult leader targeted the Granny... The mason could have visited the cult leader who recruited the Yakuza's target... Vigilante could have just plain shot someone... Any number of things really.
But in this specific game, one person had locked onto the idea that the Masons must have mismasoned and were therefore all dead. A valid possibility, but certainly not the only one. Well, they began to argue this with such an adamant view on the matters that when someone claimed mason later that day, this person was determined to lynch the claimed mason because they didn't fit in his opinion of what must have happened. The moron could not believe it was even possible for anything else to have caused the mason's death the other night. As it turned out, the Mason simply recruited the Granny. This was explained as the moron kept pushing the lynch, and he ended up getting lynched instead just for being stupid. The graveyard view was amusing because he just couldn't figure out how or why there was still a mason alive and recruiting.
This is a list of 5 random stupids that I am sick of seeing. What do you expect me to say here?
"However, I do not have a monopoly on drama around here. I have actually started getting almost daily reports from a fellow Hatemonger about the drama they are dealing with." I assume you are referring to me. --Skoffin 06:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)