|
On November 03 2012 23:44 debears wrote:
1) Sylver had obviously been following the thread before this post, yet he posts it AFTER I leave the thread. This is especially alarming considering he suddenly accuses and votes me for terribad reasoning
2) It's a big post, showing that he had it written for a while
You say it's a big post and that it must have taken a while to write, yet you don't even acknowledge the possibility that maybe that's why you weren't around any more? Because it had taken him a lot of time to write it and you had simply left at that point? Given your point 2) I don't see how you can at the same time accuse him of deliberately waiting until you were gone.
|
On November 04 2012 01:49 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 01:39 Alsn wrote:On November 04 2012 01:13 debears wrote:On November 03 2012 14:44 sylverfyre wrote:
Holy shit, this flavor. What.
If we're gonna lynch a lurker, I'd rather it be early game than late, at least. But I think that we have more... dedication among the townies this game. There wasn't a long wait for the last few signups - everyone here seems pretty pumped to play some mafia seriously. I don't think lurker policy lynch will come up at all. You said townies. That's very different than saying the town or players. Very, very different. It means that you either 1) Think the people being active are townies 2) Know that the people being active are townies There is no other reason for using townies to describe those of us who are showing activeness and dedication Also, you voted me, meaning you voted for someone who you think is townie based on the above. That is scummy as shit debears, even if we hypothetically assume the two most active players are scum, it would still mean that town on the whole is being active and not lurking. I think your argument is bad and your insistence that his statement is a scum slip is far fetched imho. Eh. I think it's very odd to say that townies have good dedication, and I'm one of the guys showing dedication, yet he votes me. Also, what do you think of this part of his post alsn? For a guy who hadn't posted anything, why is he calling all the actives out for substance? What good does that do? That part of his post, sure, I agree that it's somewhat a silly statement. It doesn't change the fact that you had been acting very strangely and quite counter-productive to town interests. From where I'm sitting his vote was merited. Especially in light of the fact that he said he meant it as a strong FoS as opposed to a rock solid reason for why you absolutely must be scum. You OMGUSing him most certainly doesn't damage his case.
Also, it's unfortunate that I'm indirectly helping him defend himself, but at this point I simply find you/Djod more scummy than him and I figured the chance of him being scum was lower than the risk of you guys getting off the hook if I had stayed silent and just watched. It seems that from the latest developments that other people had the same thought.
|
On November 04 2012 01:58 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 01:44 Alsn wrote:On November 03 2012 23:44 debears wrote:
1) Sylver had obviously been following the thread before this post, yet he posts it AFTER I leave the thread. This is especially alarming considering he suddenly accuses and votes me for terribad reasoning
2) It's a big post, showing that he had it written for a while
You say it's a big post and that it must have taken a while to write, yet you don't even acknowledge the possibility that maybe that's why you weren't around any more? Because it had taken him a lot of time to write it and you had simply left at that point? Given your point 2) I don't see how you can at the same time accuse him of deliberately waiting until you were gone. Alsn, you don't find the timing convenient at all? It seems he had covered the whole thread at that point. What's the best way to discredit someone? Waiting til they aren't there to argue with you The fact that you keep bringing this up made me go look it up. Seriously, he posted his case 6 minutes after you posted your good night post. If he was truly being deliberate about wanting you to be gone, don't you think he would've waited a little longer? I didn't even realise how massive a contradiction your points 1) and 2) were until now.
You are seriously suggesting that he had typed up his introduction post, figured if he was going to frame you as scum that it would be best to sit and F5 spam until you left, and then immediately post it? That's about the most far fetched conspiracy theory I've ever heard.
|
On November 04 2012 02:01 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 01:58 Alsn wrote:On November 04 2012 01:49 debears wrote:On November 04 2012 01:39 Alsn wrote:On November 04 2012 01:13 debears wrote:On November 03 2012 14:44 sylverfyre wrote:
Holy shit, this flavor. What.
If we're gonna lynch a lurker, I'd rather it be early game than late, at least. But I think that we have more... dedication among the townies this game. There wasn't a long wait for the last few signups - everyone here seems pretty pumped to play some mafia seriously. I don't think lurker policy lynch will come up at all. You said townies. That's very different than saying the town or players. Very, very different. It means that you either 1) Think the people being active are townies 2) Know that the people being active are townies There is no other reason for using townies to describe those of us who are showing activeness and dedication Also, you voted me, meaning you voted for someone who you think is townie based on the above. That is scummy as shit debears, even if we hypothetically assume the two most active players are scum, it would still mean that town on the whole is being active and not lurking. I think your argument is bad and your insistence that his statement is a scum slip is far fetched imho. Eh. I think it's very odd to say that townies have good dedication, and I'm one of the guys showing dedication, yet he votes me. Also, what do you think of this part of his post alsn? I kinda expected a bit more... substance in the thread by now. For a guy who hadn't posted anything, why is he calling all the actives out for substance? What good does that do? That part of his post, sure, I agree that it's somewhat a silly statement. It doesn't change the fact that you had been acting very strangely and quite counter-productive to town interests. From where I'm sitting his vote was merited. Especially in light of the fact that he said he meant it as a strong FoS as opposed to a rock solid reason for why you absolutely must be scum. You OMGUSing him most certainly doesn't damage his case. Also, it's unfortunate that I'm indirectly helping him defend himself, but at this point I simply find you/Djod more scummy than him and I figured the chance of him being scum was lower than the risk of you guys getting off the hook if I had stayed silent and just watched. It seems that from the latest developments that other people had the same thought. So, in essence, you think that a vote to tell someone to post less is productive? Being active =/ acting strangely or counter productive I was sparking conversation dude OMGUS is warranted when I find him scummy Again, that isn't even what he said. He said he wanted you to post less fluff and more content. How is that a vote to make you post less?
Also, if you're explaining away fluff as sparking conversation I don't know what to say, how is posting a bunch of fluff productive? Either people find you scummy for it(bad if you're town, it lessens your credibility) or people will actually reply with fluff themselves(even worse).
|
On November 04 2012 02:08 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 02:04 Alsn wrote:On November 04 2012 01:58 debears wrote:On November 04 2012 01:44 Alsn wrote:On November 03 2012 23:44 debears wrote:
1) Sylver had obviously been following the thread before this post, yet he posts it AFTER I leave the thread. This is especially alarming considering he suddenly accuses and votes me for terribad reasoning
2) It's a big post, showing that he had it written for a while
You say it's a big post and that it must have taken a while to write, yet you don't even acknowledge the possibility that maybe that's why you weren't around any more? Because it had taken him a lot of time to write it and you had simply left at that point? Given your point 2) I don't see how you can at the same time accuse him of deliberately waiting until you were gone. Alsn, you don't find the timing convenient at all? It seems he had covered the whole thread at that point. What's the best way to discredit someone? Waiting til they aren't there to argue with you The fact that you keep bringing this up made me go look it up. Seriously, he posted his case 6 minutes after you posted your good night post. If he was truly being deliberate about wanting you to be gone, don't you think he would've waited a little longer? I didn't even realise how massive a contradiction your points 1) and 2) were until now. You are seriously suggesting that he had typed up his introduction post, figured if he was going to frame you as scum that it would be best to sit and F5 spam until you left, and then immediately post it? That's about the most far fetched conspiracy theory I've ever heard. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=374466&user=73803here's his filter from last game Closest thing to around 14:00 was at 13:30 and that was only once the entire game. Very odd timing from him That 13:30 post also happened to be... drumroll please. His introductory post.
|
Seriously debears, you're being extremely stubborn. At this point I'm leaning that you're either very strongly town where the only reasoning for your actions would be that you feel scum is bullying you into stopping. Or you're scum and are being afraid that if you change your mind people will find you scummy.
At this point I'd like it if you focused your attention somewhere else than towards explaining yourself so that I can make an informed decision on which is more likely.
|
I'd say the latter half of your filter is mostly you defending yourself, which isn't fluff in the slightest. However off the top of my head I remember you addressing the fucking observers at one point, and sylver certainly wasn't wrong in saying that you've seemed almost deliberate in "splitting" your posts such that your thoughts are less condensed.
|
Djod, I'd say you should just play like you want to play, within reason. Spending too much time thinking about what other people will think about you is what scum do.
|
On November 04 2012 02:31 debears wrote:
So I know where my fluff rating stands. So I can determine whether you are being genuine or not based on what I feel
Here's the thing. I don't have a problem with you posting some fluff, the problem is that you keep rationalising it as if somehow we shouldn't pay any attention to it. It's the same kind of behaviour I meant with regards to how you responded to my 99% lie post. You keep acting as if we need to forgive anything we find scummy about you as "look guys, I'm pro-town, don't worry about anything".
|
I refuse to answer pre-game stuff on principle. Please don't bring it up again.
|
On November 04 2012 02:42 debears wrote:
Why don't you want to just give me a percentage? It's a very simple request. Off the top of your head With the amount you have posted, just because the percentage is low now doesn't mean that it was low earlier. At the time when sylver actually voted for you I'd say the amount of fluff posts you had made was among the highest in the game(possibly only rivalled by Cheese, but I seriously don't want to look it up).
I'm inclined to agree with Rad that if you're truly setting a scum trap, it's useless at this point. Although interestingly Clarity actually felt the need to respond to it despite the lack of sense you've been making lately(pre-game speculation being the crowning achievement I'd say).
|
On November 04 2012 03:46 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 03:38 sylverfyre wrote:
At the time, your posts were a lot of oneliners. If you have a 30 page post of oneliners (instead of longer posts, with more than one sentence of information per post) then it's much harder to read your filter. Which is bad for town. All I'm asking there is to up your words per post and cool down on the tripleposting.
It's worth noting, you're actually doing what I'm asking of you right now, even as you're calling me out for being frustrated at you for it. Thanks, I guess? While you consider a long filter bad for town, have you considered that an active town, especially super active town, is extremely bad for scum. They lose control of the thread, and have a threat who is invested and reads things over. And artificially increasing your filter is what? At best it's a genuine attempt at making the observers laugh about something, at worst you're scum trying to hide behind Hapa's advice that he has posted after/during almost every single newbie lately, that lynching the most active player is almost always a mislynch. Neither of those help us find scum.
|
EBWOP: Actually, I realised that the latter may help us find scum if you're the scum. But I'd be pretty surprised if that was your plan.
|
Obsy, I'd like you to revise your statement at the end of your post. Sylver looks "bad"? What does that even mean? Rad, Clar, and debears looks good? Again, what does this mean? Does bad = scum? Or are you just accusing him of making bad arguments?
|
Cheese, what's so important about that distinction? A townie has just as much of an interest in making sure people think they have town's best interest at heart as scum has in trying to emulate that. At most it feels like a null tell to me.
The fact that he worded it awkwardly may be somewhat scummy(if you're supposing that he worded it awkwardly because he thinks about his actions differently than a townie would) but other than that the distinction seems like a pointless one to me.
|
Of course scum worries about trying to show that they are acting with pure intentions. But you're saying it like just because one is worried about others not thinking you have pure intentions that if they are, it must be a slip.
Do you think that a townie doesn't have to be worried about what everyone else thinks of them?
|
EBWOP:But you're saying it like just because one is worried about others not thinking you have pure intentions that if they make that fact known, it must be a slip.
|
On November 04 2012 06:27 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 06:22 Alsn wrote:
Of course scum worries about trying to show that they are acting with pure intentions. But you're saying it like just because one is worried about others not thinking you have pure intentions that if they are, it must be a slip.
Do you think that a townie doesn't have to be worried about what everyone else thinks of them? Alsn, in my experience, townies are much less worried about how they are viewed among the town. They are more worried about scumhunting since town know they are innocent. Mafia, on the other hand, must try to "scumhunt" while appearing town, due to a guilty conscience. Less so maybe, but reading for example the newbie guide will tell you that a townie's first priority is to establish your own innocence. If that doesn't mean town needs to worry about their image, I don't know what it means. If you don't make sure that you look genuine, it would mean any scum voting for you seemingly had good reasons for doing so. Hell, just look at my play during XXVIII, I made pretty much everyone in the game(including you) suspect me because I wasn't careful enough about being consistent which derailed the thread and allowed SDM to flawlessly vote me out of the game without arousing any suspicion whatsoever. I spent the better part of four days trying to "fix my reputation" but in the end ultimately failed to do so, causing my lynch with arguably almost no benefit for town at all.
I'm merely saying that you can't accuse someone just because "scum would think that way!" if it's actually also true that town should think that way too. You can just as well make the case that it was a town slip(like, say, the one he made in XXIX that made everyone in the thread wrongly suspect him for 4 days straight?). I think if we keep paying attention to "weak slips" just because we managed to nail kush on it that one time, we haven't learned anything at all from XXIX.
|
On November 04 2012 06:52 debears wrote:
Djo's words implies that he feels pressure that he must appear townie, and I don't think that townies actually feel pressure to prove they're innocent, unless it's lylo. A townie may want to appear innocent, but if they don't day1 it's not a big deal. Scum want to from the very beginning of day1 Why isn't it a big deal? If a townie who doesn't appear innocent is lynched, it's much harder to find which of the voters(if any) were making "forced" arguments.
|
I don't even know why I'm arguing with you at this point, as I still haven't figured out if Djod deserves slack from me or not. I'll take a closer look at his filter and see if he deserves it, because at this point I haven't looked too closely at his filter since I made my FoS against him because I've been busy looking at other people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
