|
yeah i dont see the need to put the effort into quoting each argument and pointing exactly where somebody is trying to make an accusation out of thin air when if people just looked at them they would realize there is statistically an 8/11 chance that whoever they're accusing is town because their argument was empty to begin with, in that people just pick out innocuous tidbits of a post and try to make it seem like something a mafia would say (sometimes even extrapolating to create an even less believable post, you being the repeat offender of this one)
On July 17 2012 06:48 calgar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 06:45 tube wrote:On July 17 2012 06:41 Hapahauli wrote:
EBWOP: Oh shucks, calgar beat me to it. didnt i beat both of you to it well looks like mufaa is also convinced that my active lurking is a scumtell despite the fact that i already said i dont suspect anyone and again i dont see a reason to bandwagon me for not being careful with accusations Our advice seems to be falling on deaf ears, here. Why don't you read my summary of iamperfection again, I think it was very suspicious and poorly written post on his part (and his only one, to boot).
? i was wrong in my response to evulrabbitz or what is this about?
also when was i non-commital in any of my posts
is there no such thing as being committed to not agreeing with you?
also how does that mean i'm never going to agree with anyone, i just don't see enough information yet because literally nothings happened and everyone in the game is pulling things out of nowhere
|
Let me explain myself in simpler terms, by the way, since I seem to be getting misinterpreted. I'm not saying "I think tube is town, but lynch him anyways".
I'm saying tube sounds scummy as all hell, and if we don't lynch him because of it now, if he IS town, his scummy play may bite us in the ass later.
If the only two options for someone are "scum" and "seems like scum", it's a choice between "Lynch now" and "lynch later", unless they fix their play enough to get some BOTD.
|
@ Tube - The goal of the accusations is to get people to talk. When people talk, the town gets more information about who's scummy and who's townie. You're missing the
Regarding you being "non-commital" - people define committment as the willingness to take a strong stance against a player or take a controversial opinion. Generally (according to the guides), mafia are often timid and non-controversial, because they don't want to attract attention.
As it stands, your posts so far sound a lot like that - harmless one-liners that try to deflect attention from yourself.
|
On July 17 2012 06:48 calgar wrote:
You say you don't suspect anyone but it doesn't seem like you're even trying, either. You aren't helping town out at all so town is naturally going to be suspicious.
and somehow you and everyone else are helping town by "contributing" the exact same argument against me repeatedly?
people just need to post more and stop wasting their time bandwagoning me
if i saw an argument i agreed with i would say so
and if i identified to myself a scumtell i would say so
but neither of those happened and i didnt want to be inactive
|
On July 17 2012 07:05 tube wrote:yeah i dont see the need to put the effort into quoting each argument and pointing exactly where somebody is trying to make an accusation out of thin air when if people just looked at them they would realize there is statistically an 8/11 chance that whoever they're accusing is town because their argument was empty to begin with, in that people just pick out innocuous tidbits of a post and try to make it seem like something a mafia would say (sometimes even extrapolating to create an even less believable post, you being the repeat offender of this one) Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 06:48 calgar wrote:On July 17 2012 06:45 tube wrote:On July 17 2012 06:41 Hapahauli wrote:
EBWOP: Oh shucks, calgar beat me to it. didnt i beat both of you to it well looks like mufaa is also convinced that my active lurking is a scumtell despite the fact that i already said i dont suspect anyone and again i dont see a reason to bandwagon me for not being careful with accusations Our advice seems to be falling on deaf ears, here. Why don't you read my summary of iamperfection again, I think it was very suspicious and poorly written post on his part (and his only one, to boot). ? i was wrong in my response to evulrabbitz or what is this about? No, you were right. I was just suggesting that since you had no suspicions you could see what you thought about mine. As a way to try and become a more active participant. Also, your posts are slightly difficult to understand because of awkward formatting. Could you try using sentences and punctuation?
|
On July 17 2012 06:42 Mufaa wrote:@Jingle- Early in the day you say: Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 12:15 JingleHell wrote:
I'm really curious though, when there's no votes (I hate the risk of early bandwagons), and if you think this accusation is such a pointless distraction and so on, why are you squirming around so much under this very light pressure? A reasonable opinion, except for the fact that you have two out of the three total votes so far. Both of your votes/cases so far have been the most obvious choices, which if the day ended right now I would be upset if we didnt lynch one of them. When you're claiming that you hate the risk of early bandwagons however and you're the most likely cause of a bandwagon forming I have to question it. I'm not sure if you're scum, but this feels like you're trying to skirt around discussions by picking the most obvious tells without actually trying to find scum.
I guess it's good that the day isn't over then. I don't disagree with either of his votes and I would have even accepted him voting against me. JingleHell has been facilitating discussion for a while and it's discussions that are going to give us the evidence we need. Neither vote is too reckless. It's not irresponsible.
His first vote against YourHarry (point of information so you don't have to double check and compare your notes later, YourHarry voted for me in his first post of the game):
On July 16 2012 14:07 YourHarry wrote:
##Vote Obvious.660
Obvious scum
BTW, "wait and see" does not mean that we should actively stop what we are discussing to see what happens. It could mean, carry on with discussions and finger pointing and see where our scum hunting leads us.
YourHarry's entire argument hinges upon JingleHell's colloquialism. Nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. Not necessarily distraction from more pressing tells, but it's questionable to argue about a turn of phrase when the intent behind it was abundantly clear when JingleHell made it.
JingleHell removes his vote and puts it to tube, who has been posting a great deal but without any meaningful content except to say that he has formed (read: shared) no opinions whatsoever except that our arguments have not been compelling. If tube is town, he's weak town and a liability later in the game. If tube is mafia, he's not doing enough to defend himself and take the FOS off of himself. JingleHell's vote is smart and it's not wasted if he doesn't change it, unless tube's participation becomes more town-friendly.
And once again, votes make talking happen. Less than 24 hours into day one, it's an easy way to facilitate discussion. There's still plenty of time for discussion and analysis before the end of the day cycle.
|
how is there even such a thing as mafia "generally" act this way because if that were true a mafia would never act that way
you guys find it really hard to believe that a townie wouldn't want to attract attention until he found more evidence or made some kind of actual connection between nights and days
|
On July 17 2012 07:13 Obvious.660 wrote:
JingleHell removes his vote and puts it to tube, who has been posting a great deal but without any meaningful content except to say that he has formed (read: shared) no opinions whatsoever except that our arguments have not been compelling. If tube is town, he's weak town and a liability later in the game. If tube is mafia, he's not doing enough to defend himself and take the FOS off of himself. JingleHell's vote is smart and it's not wasted if he doesn't change it, unless tube's participation becomes more town-friendly.
How is it not fallacious to assume that someone who doesn't hold a strong opinion on day one will never contribute later?
|
On July 17 2012 07:14 tube wrote:
how is there even such a thing as mafia "generally" act this way because if that were true a mafia would never act that way
you guys find it really hard to believe that a townie wouldn't want to attract attention until he found more evidence or made some kind of actual connection between nights and days
Welcome to the wide world of WIFOM. The thing is, there's some scum tells that are still relatively solid, despite scum knowing them. Not committing is one of them. Just because scum know it's dangerous, doesn't mean they can avoid it completely. If you take strong stances, it can come back and bite you later, unless your strong stances, and your transition from one to another, make sense. It's more prone to making sense if you're town.
No, you can't "know" that something is or isn't scummy. But you also can't make a case without deciding something seems scummy for X reason. If you never make cases, the scum are guaranteed to win. It doesn't matter what your reasoning is, HAVING reasoning for what you do or say is always relevant.
So far, you've failed horrible in that regard. And a townie wanting to withhold judgment for a lack of evidence should either show some initiative and look into the case, and post their reasoning on it, or stay the hell out from underfoot so they don't clutter things up and start sidetracks.
|
I'm done with tube. This is going around in circles and wasting time. His current approach to responding is making my head hurt.
I'd suggest we leave him alone until tomorrow morning to see if he is in fact capable of making reads. There's 11 other players to analyze and conclude whether we think they're scum or town. By no means does this imply I'm giving him a free pass. If he hasn't come back with something meaningful by lynch time tomorrow, I'm likely to be joining Jingle's (present) company.
I'm still waiting for Fulla to show up for real. Almost 24 hours now since his Welcome Everyone post.
|
On July 17 2012 07:14 tube wrote:
how is there even such a thing as mafia "generally" act this way because if that were true a mafia would never act that way
you guys find it really hard to believe that a townie wouldn't want to attract attention until he found more evidence or made some kind of actual connection between nights and days
You need to share what you know and what you believe. It's important because if you are town and get randomly chosen (assuming no better target exists for mafia) tonight and die, you have contributed nothing of value and we will never really know why you were chosen.
Maybe they got tired of reading your posts.
Maybe they want to use you as a vehicle of suspicion on others who had formed opinions against you or defended you.
Bottom line - having no opinion is not playing town-safe, especially when you are in the spotlight.
Form an opinion, roll with it, see what information it can get you. Don't sit on the sideline and let everyone else do the work. Doesn't seem like a fun way to play the game, honestly.
|
On July 17 2012 07:12 calgar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 07:05 tube wrote:yeah i dont see the need to put the effort into quoting each argument and pointing exactly where somebody is trying to make an accusation out of thin air when if people just looked at them they would realize there is statistically an 8/11 chance that whoever they're accusing is town because their argument was empty to begin with, in that people just pick out innocuous tidbits of a post and try to make it seem like something a mafia would say (sometimes even extrapolating to create an even less believable post, you being the repeat offender of this one) On July 17 2012 06:48 calgar wrote:On July 17 2012 06:45 tube wrote:On July 17 2012 06:41 Hapahauli wrote:
EBWOP: Oh shucks, calgar beat me to it. didnt i beat both of you to it well looks like mufaa is also convinced that my active lurking is a scumtell despite the fact that i already said i dont suspect anyone and again i dont see a reason to bandwagon me for not being careful with accusations Our advice seems to be falling on deaf ears, here. Why don't you read my summary of iamperfection again, I think it was very suspicious and poorly written post on his part (and his only one, to boot). ? i was wrong in my response to evulrabbitz or what is this about? No, you were right. I was just suggesting that since you had no suspicions you could see what you thought about mine. As a way to try and become a more active participant. Also, your posts are slightly difficult to understand because of awkward formatting. Could you try using sentences and punctuation?
Yeah I agree his argument had bad logic but again I think he's just making accusations out of nothing, like this segment for example:
You are by far looking the more sucpicious right now. The accusation on tube is telling to me. After the heat on you it seems you like you know want to set up a policy of lynching lurker or people that do one liners. Instead of drving the attention on one person it appears to me you are trying to get us looking at a whole group in order to confuse the town
I don't necessarily read such an argument as a scumtell because it could also just as easily be his candid attempt at scumhunting. Fact of the matter is, there's virtually no way to tell for something like this.
Also, if you think putting words into people's mouths is suspicious, take a look at JingleHell's early posts against me that sparked the entire bandwagon. He does it multiple times by saying that I basically said so and so and therefore was clearly playing against town.
|
On July 17 2012 07:30 tube wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 07:12 calgar wrote:On July 17 2012 07:05 tube wrote:yeah i dont see the need to put the effort into quoting each argument and pointing exactly where somebody is trying to make an accusation out of thin air when if people just looked at them they would realize there is statistically an 8/11 chance that whoever they're accusing is town because their argument was empty to begin with, in that people just pick out innocuous tidbits of a post and try to make it seem like something a mafia would say (sometimes even extrapolating to create an even less believable post, you being the repeat offender of this one) On July 17 2012 06:48 calgar wrote:On July 17 2012 06:45 tube wrote:On July 17 2012 06:41 Hapahauli wrote:
EBWOP: Oh shucks, calgar beat me to it. didnt i beat both of you to it well looks like mufaa is also convinced that my active lurking is a scumtell despite the fact that i already said i dont suspect anyone and again i dont see a reason to bandwagon me for not being careful with accusations Our advice seems to be falling on deaf ears, here. Why don't you read my summary of iamperfection again, I think it was very suspicious and poorly written post on his part (and his only one, to boot). ? i was wrong in my response to evulrabbitz or what is this about? No, you were right. I was just suggesting that since you had no suspicions you could see what you thought about mine. As a way to try and become a more active participant. Also, your posts are slightly difficult to understand because of awkward formatting. Could you try using sentences and punctuation? Yeah I agree his argument had bad logic but again I think he's just making accusations out of nothing, like this segment for example: Show nested quote +You are by far looking the more sucpicious right now. The accusation on tube is telling to me. After the heat on you it seems you like you know want to set up a policy of lynching lurker or people that do one liners. Instead of drving the attention on one person it appears to me you are trying to get us looking at a whole group in order to confuse the town
I don't necessarily read such an argument as a scumtell because it could also just as easily be his candid attempt at scumhunting. Fact of the matter is, there's virtually no way to tell for something like this. Also, if you think putting words into people's mouths is suspicious, take a look at JingleHell's early posts against me that sparked the entire bandwagon. He does it multiple times by saying that I basically said so and so and therefore was clearly playing against town.
Woah! It's like a completely different person sat down at your computer and started typing. WELCOME TO THE GAME, TUBE!
|
On July 17 2012 07:30 tube wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 07:12 calgar wrote:On July 17 2012 07:05 tube wrote:yeah i dont see the need to put the effort into quoting each argument and pointing exactly where somebody is trying to make an accusation out of thin air when if people just looked at them they would realize there is statistically an 8/11 chance that whoever they're accusing is town because their argument was empty to begin with, in that people just pick out innocuous tidbits of a post and try to make it seem like something a mafia would say (sometimes even extrapolating to create an even less believable post, you being the repeat offender of this one) On July 17 2012 06:48 calgar wrote:On July 17 2012 06:45 tube wrote:On July 17 2012 06:41 Hapahauli wrote:
EBWOP: Oh shucks, calgar beat me to it. didnt i beat both of you to it well looks like mufaa is also convinced that my active lurking is a scumtell despite the fact that i already said i dont suspect anyone and again i dont see a reason to bandwagon me for not being careful with accusations Our advice seems to be falling on deaf ears, here. Why don't you read my summary of iamperfection again, I think it was very suspicious and poorly written post on his part (and his only one, to boot). ? i was wrong in my response to evulrabbitz or what is this about? No, you were right. I was just suggesting that since you had no suspicions you could see what you thought about mine. As a way to try and become a more active participant. Also, your posts are slightly difficult to understand because of awkward formatting. Could you try using sentences and punctuation? Yeah I agree his argument had bad logic but again I think he's just making accusations out of nothing, like this segment for example: Show nested quote +You are by far looking the more sucpicious right now. The accusation on tube is telling to me. After the heat on you it seems you like you know want to set up a policy of lynching lurker or people that do one liners. Instead of drving the attention on one person it appears to me you are trying to get us looking at a whole group in order to confuse the town
I don't necessarily read such an argument as a scumtell because it could also just as easily be his candid attempt at scumhunting. Fact of the matter is, there's virtually no way to tell for something like this. Also, if you think putting words into people's mouths is suspicious, take a look at JingleHell's early posts against me that sparked the entire bandwagon. He does it multiple times by saying that I basically said so and so and therefore was clearly playing against town.
Feel free to respond showing how my paraphrasing was so unreasonable, in context, without reading your mind, otherwise this sounds like an OMGUS.
|
On July 17 2012 07:30 tube wrote:Also, if you think putting words into people's mouths is suspicious, take a look at JingleHell's early posts against me that sparked the entire bandwagon. He does it multiple times by saying that I basically said so and so and therefore was clearly playing against town. Ah, your first real post of the game - congrats! There is a difference in the two, though. Jingle (and others) have made you talk. Discussion has been generated and you are using punctuation and sentences now. iamperfection came in, dropped a rash accusation, and disappeared. No discussion, no benefit to the town. Different, no?
|
EBWOP: Also, how in the hell did people being suspicious of you suddenly become MY doing?
|
On July 17 2012 07:26 Hopeless1der wrote:
I'm done with tube. This is going around in circles and wasting time. His current approach to responding is making my head hurt.
It's going in circles because all of you said the same thing over and over without explaining, which led me to say the same thing over and over until obvious.660 made this post:
On July 17 2012 07:26 Obvious.660 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 07:14 tube wrote:
how is there even such a thing as mafia "generally" act this way because if that were true a mafia would never act that way
you guys find it really hard to believe that a townie wouldn't want to attract attention until he found more evidence or made some kind of actual connection between nights and days You need to share what you know and what you believe. It's important because if you are town and get randomly chosen (assuming no better target exists for mafia) tonight and die, you have contributed nothing of value and we will never really know why you were chosen. Maybe they got tired of reading your posts. Maybe they want to use you as a vehicle of suspicion on others who had formed opinions against you or defended you. Bottom line - having no opinion is not playing town-safe, especially when you are in the spotlight.Form an opinion, roll with it, see what information it can get you. Don't sit on the sideline and let everyone else do the work. Doesn't seem like a fun way to play the game, honestly.
actually giving me a reason to do things differently.
However, to respond to you, Obvious, isn't it obvious that nobody knows anything yet. Even if I had a role I haven't gotten to use it so I can't say anything quite for sure. My strongest opinion is that people who have very few to no posts should be the ones under heaviest suspicion.
|
##Vote tube
Reason: out of character posting. Coached response.
|
I can't tell if you're being serious but ask an admin or something I don't even know what coaches do and none have contacted me.
|
Hold up, Obvious. Going from
On July 17 2012 07:32 Obvious.660 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 07:30 tube wrote:On July 17 2012 07:12 calgar wrote:On July 17 2012 07:05 tube wrote:yeah i dont see the need to put the effort into quoting each argument and pointing exactly where somebody is trying to make an accusation out of thin air when if people just looked at them they would realize there is statistically an 8/11 chance that whoever they're accusing is town because their argument was empty to begin with, in that people just pick out innocuous tidbits of a post and try to make it seem like something a mafia would say (sometimes even extrapolating to create an even less believable post, you being the repeat offender of this one) On July 17 2012 06:48 calgar wrote:On July 17 2012 06:45 tube wrote:On July 17 2012 06:41 Hapahauli wrote:
EBWOP: Oh shucks, calgar beat me to it. didnt i beat both of you to it well looks like mufaa is also convinced that my active lurking is a scumtell despite the fact that i already said i dont suspect anyone and again i dont see a reason to bandwagon me for not being careful with accusations Our advice seems to be falling on deaf ears, here. Why don't you read my summary of iamperfection again, I think it was very suspicious and poorly written post on his part (and his only one, to boot). ? i was wrong in my response to evulrabbitz or what is this about? No, you were right. I was just suggesting that since you had no suspicions you could see what you thought about mine. As a way to try and become a more active participant. Also, your posts are slightly difficult to understand because of awkward formatting. Could you try using sentences and punctuation? Yeah I agree his argument had bad logic but again I think he's just making accusations out of nothing, like this segment for example: You are by far looking the more sucpicious right now. The accusation on tube is telling to me. After the heat on you it seems you like you know want to set up a policy of lynching lurker or people that do one liners. Instead of drving the attention on one person it appears to me you are trying to get us looking at a whole group in order to confuse the town
I don't necessarily read such an argument as a scumtell because it could also just as easily be his candid attempt at scumhunting. Fact of the matter is, there's virtually no way to tell for something like this. Also, if you think putting words into people's mouths is suspicious, take a look at JingleHell's early posts against me that sparked the entire bandwagon. He does it multiple times by saying that I basically said so and so and therefore was clearly playing against town. Woah! It's like a completely different person sat down at your computer and started typing. WELCOME TO THE GAME, TUBE!
to
On July 17 2012 07:39 Obvious.660 wrote:
##Vote tube
Reason: out of character posting. Coached response.
is a bit bizarre.
Frankly, that sounds more like scum suddenly seeing a chance for a bandwagon on someone they didn't lead the case against.
##Unvote
##Vote Obvious.660
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
