|
On November 04 2012 01:33 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 04 2012 01:20 Djodref wrote:
@ sylverfire
I don't know debears alignment. I'm already saying it in the post where I vote against you.
I think town players should not use their vote to cast suspicion upon someone. Town players should build cases to convince everybody to lynch the player they find the most suspicious.
You have the right to be suspicious of debears. But I think you have to bring better reasons to persuade us to do so. If you think that casting suspicion upon him is enough and expect other players to build a case against debears for you, then I would say that you are mafia.
Why did you use the word townies instead of players ?
So, you say that town players shouldn't vote as a pressure move / attract suspicion to someone? You used your vote last game on Inig as vote pressure: On October 26 2012 09:16 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 08:34 Inigmaticalism wrote:
Right now I dont have any scum reads, only town reads which Ive already said in earlier posts. So I would lynch one of the lurkers probably. Also, Djo you seem to be the only one really going after me, so while your asking everyone what they think of me, you should answer your own question. what you you think of me?
-Should be back to post something in around 6-7 hours. I have already my eyes on you and I think that your posts lack content and scumhunting. You are my top scumread right now. Let's assume that the lurkers are going to get modkill today, who would you like to lynch ? Vote-pressuring you ## Vote Inig Same with Nack: On October 28 2012 22:44 Djodref wrote:
We still have no insight from Nackht at all. He has only said that he was sure that Kush was scum.
I'm not sure about Cheese anymore. I'm null on him right now. His case shows good scumhunting efforts, even if they go in the wrong direction. Him using a "djo attempt to discredit me" paragraph in his case is a towntell for me because it shows that he has natural sense of innocence (in opposition of the usual self-culpability). If he still believes I am scum after my answers to his case, I want him to look for my potential scumbuddies. No by association by the way because I am town and anyway you should wait for me to flip to start this kind of thing.
I want dandel to decide if I am scum or SK and bring consequent proofs to his case.
I'm very very wary of Nackht. He has given us nothing (expect him being sure that Kush was scum) so far and I don't understand why a town replacement would be retaining info like he does. The other thing speaking against him is that I don't have a strong scumread at the moment and it makes the probability for the lurkers to be mafia higher. So I hope that we have a modkill on Roco today.
I'm going to vote pressure him to make nackht talk. Keeping this vote on him until he gives us a complete assessment of what is going on here according to him. He promised it but he has just given us a "lol" so far.
##Vote nackhtjogger
You obviously believe in vote pressure to cast suspicion from a townie perspective.
I have no problem with people using their vote to pressure people into talking or whatever reason they have if they state a reasonable explanation for a pressure vote.
My problem with sylverfire post is that the initial reasons he gave for his vote were that debears filter was fluffy and that he cast a quick FoS on Alsn. Then he said that he also wanted to cast suspicion upon debears. He never said that he was using his vote as a pressure vote in the first place. The regrettable thing is that other people said this before he could defend himself.
According to me, if you think that a player is suspicious enough to vote against him, you should persuade other players to vote for him, which sylverfire has failed to do imho. But I might not understand exactly the meaning of "cast suspicion", I see this expression as quite pejorative.
|
On November 04 2012 01:39 Alsn wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
On November 04 2012 01:33 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 01:20 Djodref wrote:
@ sylverfire
I don't know debears alignment. I'm already saying it in the post where I vote against you.
I think town players should not use their vote to cast suspicion upon someone. Town players should build cases to convince everybody to lynch the player they find the most suspicious.
You have the right to be suspicious of debears. But I think you have to bring better reasons to persuade us to do so. If you think that casting suspicion upon him is enough and expect other players to build a case against debears for you, then I would say that you are mafia.
Why did you use the word townies instead of players ?
So, you say that town players shouldn't vote as a pressure move / attract suspicion to someone? You used your vote last game on Inig as vote pressure: Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 09:16 Djodref wrote:On October 26 2012 08:34 Inigmaticalism wrote:
Right now I dont have any scum reads, only town reads which Ive already said in earlier posts. So I would lynch one of the lurkers probably. Also, Djo you seem to be the only one really going after me, so while your asking everyone what they think of me, you should answer your own question. what you you think of me?
-Should be back to post something in around 6-7 hours. I have already my eyes on you and I think that your posts lack content and scumhunting. You are my top scumread right now. Let's assume that the lurkers are going to get modkill today, who would you like to lynch ? Vote-pressuring you ## Vote Inig Same with Nack: Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 22:44 Djodref wrote:
We still have no insight from Nackht at all. He has only said that he was sure that Kush was scum.
I'm not sure about Cheese anymore. I'm null on him right now. His case shows good scumhunting efforts, even if they go in the wrong direction. Him using a "djo attempt to discredit me" paragraph in his case is a towntell for me because it shows that he has natural sense of innocence (in opposition of the usual self-culpability). If he still believes I am scum after my answers to his case, I want him to look for my potential scumbuddies. No by association by the way because I am town and anyway you should wait for me to flip to start this kind of thing.
I want dandel to decide if I am scum or SK and bring consequent proofs to his case.
I'm very very wary of Nackht. He has given us nothing (expect him being sure that Kush was scum) so far and I don't understand why a town replacement would be retaining info like he does. The other thing speaking against him is that I don't have a strong scumread at the moment and it makes the probability for the lurkers to be mafia higher. So I hope that we have a modkill on Roco today.
I'm going to vote pressure him to make nackht talk. Keeping this vote on him until he gives us a complete assessment of what is going on here according to him. He promised it but he has just given us a "lol" so far.
##Vote nackhtjogger
You obviously believe in vote pressure to cast suspicion from a townie perspective.
This is a great catch, cheese. It's pretty damning, but to be honest, djo is someone I can see innocently contradicting himself like this, so I don't know what to think about it in the end. Remember nack's take on djo last game:
On October 30 2012 06:24 nackhtjogger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:55 Rad wrote:On October 30 2012 05:50 nackhtjogger wrote:
Hey, I'm not saying Djo isn't scum. But if he is he's fucking Keyzer Soze. I say we lynch Cheesecake the obv scum before we try to shoot the devil in the back Why do you think he's such an amazing scum if he ends up being one? He's the main reason you have 61 pages to read over. Do you think he's really been that helpful to town so far? We constantly keep catching him with useless comments, wifom, bs. Hell he even admits that he feels he looks scum. I can't see a good reason not to lynch him right now. Go ahead, I'm actually quite curious. But be weary of the fact that this guy had this to say pre-game: Take a look at his pre-game post: Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 12:07 Djodref wrote:
Well, in fact, I have considered all the possible configurations and I think it is for the best
Djo town / Debears town
I'm gonna end up tunneling you for stupid WIFOM reasons
Djo town / Debears town
I'm getting lucky and I lynch you for stupid WIFOM reasons
Djo scum / Debears town
According to my town meta, I tunnel you for stupid WIFOM reasons
Djo scum / Debears scum
I attempt to bus you using stupid WIFOM reasons
Djo town / Debears town two times Imo this and the post about rocco that I've lol-ed about makes him unslippable, or rather his slips are not to be taken seriously. If he can fake being this clumsy guy who has the balls to purposefully talk so much with the specific intent of rendering the thread unreadable than I think he's a good mafia player with an imba tactic. He just happened to slip up too much this game.
|
On November 04 2012 01:47 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 01:33 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 04 2012 01:20 Djodref wrote:
@ sylverfire
I don't know debears alignment. I'm already saying it in the post where I vote against you.
I think town players should not use their vote to cast suspicion upon someone. Town players should build cases to convince everybody to lynch the player they find the most suspicious.
You have the right to be suspicious of debears. But I think you have to bring better reasons to persuade us to do so. If you think that casting suspicion upon him is enough and expect other players to build a case against debears for you, then I would say that you are mafia.
Why did you use the word townies instead of players ?
So, you say that town players shouldn't vote as a pressure move / attract suspicion to someone? You used your vote last game on Inig as vote pressure: On October 26 2012 09:16 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 08:34 Inigmaticalism wrote:
Right now I dont have any scum reads, only town reads which Ive already said in earlier posts. So I would lynch one of the lurkers probably. Also, Djo you seem to be the only one really going after me, so while your asking everyone what they think of me, you should answer your own question. what you you think of me?
-Should be back to post something in around 6-7 hours. I have already my eyes on you and I think that your posts lack content and scumhunting. You are my top scumread right now. Let's assume that the lurkers are going to get modkill today, who would you like to lynch ? Vote-pressuring you ## Vote Inig Same with Nack: On October 28 2012 22:44 Djodref wrote:
We still have no insight from Nackht at all. He has only said that he was sure that Kush was scum.
I'm not sure about Cheese anymore. I'm null on him right now. His case shows good scumhunting efforts, even if they go in the wrong direction. Him using a "djo attempt to discredit me" paragraph in his case is a towntell for me because it shows that he has natural sense of innocence (in opposition of the usual self-culpability). If he still believes I am scum after my answers to his case, I want him to look for my potential scumbuddies. No by association by the way because I am town and anyway you should wait for me to flip to start this kind of thing.
I want dandel to decide if I am scum or SK and bring consequent proofs to his case.
I'm very very wary of Nackht. He has given us nothing (expect him being sure that Kush was scum) so far and I don't understand why a town replacement would be retaining info like he does. The other thing speaking against him is that I don't have a strong scumread at the moment and it makes the probability for the lurkers to be mafia higher. So I hope that we have a modkill on Roco today.
I'm going to vote pressure him to make nackht talk. Keeping this vote on him until he gives us a complete assessment of what is going on here according to him. He promised it but he has just given us a "lol" so far.
##Vote nackhtjogger
You obviously believe in vote pressure to cast suspicion from a townie perspective. I have no problem with people using their vote to pressure people into talking or whatever reason they have if they state a reasonable explanation for a pressure vote. My problem with sylverfire post is that the initial reasons he gave for his vote were that debears filter was fluffy and that he cast a quick FoS on Alsn. Then he said that he also wanted to cast suspicion upon debears. He never said that he was using his vote as a pressure vote in the first place. The regrettable thing is that other people said this before he could defend himself. According to me, if you think that a player is suspicious enough to vote against him, you should persuade other players to vote for him, which sylverfire has failed to do imho. But I might not understand exactly the meaning of "cast suspicion", I see this expression as quite pejorative.
- He never said anything about the FoS on Debears, I did. He just said that his reaction was odd to Alsn.
- In you're post about Inig, your explanation was "lack of content / scumhunting" ---> hardly a reason. Especially to have other people vote for him. Same with Nack, nobody else voted for him and you didn't persuade anyone else to do so.
- In both instances, your prime goal was to cast suspicion. Get people interested in what Inig was doing, get people interested in what Nack was lurking about.
Your logic is backward this game.
|
On November 04 2012 01:40 sylverfyre wrote:
You're reading what you want to read.
Remember that I spent last game mostly obsing, and it was depressing watching town lose because of inactivity when 2 out of 3 scum had blatantly labelled scum. I said what I said because I don't WANT that to happen this game. And I don't think any of these 9 players will do that. Just because "oh, I'm the most active" doesn't mean you're the only one contributing.
I am expecting a better game this time, and predicting that we aren't going to need to enact a policy lynch on lurking, or have town suffer from excessive lurking. Why are you trying to read more into what I said anyway?
Maybe I said townies because I am scum. Maybe I said townies because I'm town. You can't read into it - it's just a dumb WIFOM loop.
Or maybe, I'm just talking about the whole friggin game and you're reading WAY TOO MUCH into arbitrary word choice.
(technically, even scum are "part of the town" when it comes to posting voting and lynching) I reiterate: Your vote is both OMGUS and backed up by arbitrary "scum tells".
Also it's interesting that you're defending your own "make them post with pressure" while OMGUS voting me. You know your OMGUS vote is doing here? Nothing. It's just keeping my pressure on you, because they remove any reason.
(Press F5 to check thread again)
I liked "Confidence" a whole hell of a lot better than "Useless." Useless reeks of hostility.
Last game literally has nothing to do with voting me for "fluff" when I do have content. You weren't active. You hadn't posted anything. That's no content up to the point you vote for me in my view.
The "townies showing dedication" comment is not WIFOM at all. WIFOM is whether a scum would make a certain action (nks for example)
The townies comment is about you contradicting what you said
You either thought or know that the actives are townies, based on your word choice.
You vote one of the actives
Yeah I have my vote on you because I find your inital post pretty scummy. I'm keeping my vote on you because I want to pressure you back. OMGUS? Sure. Warranted if I find you scummy? Hell yes.
And about useless. It reeks of "hostility". Does it reek of scumminess? If not, your just trying to cast suspicion on me for bullshit reasons
|
On November 04 2012 01:54 Rad wrote:
This is a great catch, cheese. It's pretty damning, but to be honest, djo is someone I can see innocently contradicting himself like this, so I don't know what to think about it in the end.
Agreed. And that's why it's so darn hard to read him.
|
On November 04 2012 01:44 Alsn wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
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.
|
@CC
What do you think of Djo's seriousness attitude this game?
His personality seems different from last game in that regard, where he seemed much more amicable
|
I would like to add a point regarding sylver's scumslip. Please take note how he reacted to it.
On November 04 2012 01:08 sylverfyre wrote:
/snip
And finally, on your final point:
I'm not saying townies will be more dedicated this game. I'm saying PLAYERS will be more dedicated this game. Why? The game filled up instantly and we don't have anyone from last game who lurked like crazy except for da0ud (who was on vacation, and is presumably more available now. I hope.) We have no Roco69 players this game, even da0ud has posted some content now. I don't think we'll have a day 1 lynch with anything less than 9 votes cast.
Your scumslip is grasping at straws and making up scum tells is really bad for town. Leaving my vote on you.
/snip
He denies the fact that he used the word "townies". In my opinion, a town player would have said "I've used the word townies but I meant players, I've slipped, my bad". Last game, I've accepted my slip and explained why I've slipped.
I think it is mafia reaction to deny it like that.
|
@debears
At one point in last game, djo said something like "debears, you know my scum play is better than this!" Think it was right before he was lynched. What's your take on djo's past scum game and his play this game?
|
On November 04 2012 01:58 Alsn wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
On November 04 2012 02:01 Rad wrote:
@debears
At one point in last game, djo said something like "debears, you know my scum play is better than this!" Think it was right before he was lynched. What's your take on djo's past scum game and his play this game?
I don't really want to read much into his past scum game or his first town game, besides his general personality.
HIs last game was much more indicative of how I believe he will play from now on. And I do think he is acting different off the top of my head. I'll have to research though before I can say definitively.
|
ebwop
the reason why about his first 2: he was playing the noob card and was his first time playing both sides
|
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 Djodref wrote:I would like to add a point regarding sylver's scumslip. Please take note how he reacted to it. Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 01:08 sylverfyre wrote:
/snip
And finally, on your final point:
I'm not saying townies will be more dedicated this game. I'm saying PLAYERS will be more dedicated this game. Why? The game filled up instantly and we don't have anyone from last game who lurked like crazy except for da0ud (who was on vacation, and is presumably more available now. I hope.) We have no Roco69 players this game, even da0ud has posted some content now. I don't think we'll have a day 1 lynch with anything less than 9 votes cast.
Your scumslip is grasping at straws and making up scum tells is really bad for town. Leaving my vote on you.
/snip
He denies the fact that he used the word "townies". In my opinion, a town player would have said "I've used the word townies but I meant players, I've slipped, my bad". Last game, I've accepted my slip and explained why I've slipped. I think it is mafia reaction to deny it like that.
He's not denying using the word townies. He's denying the connotation of the word townies. There is no motivation for anyone to outright deny that they used a word, because, well, it's written in stone.
On November 04 2012 01:59 debears wrote:
@CC
What do you think of Djo's seriousness attitude this game?
His personality seems different from last game in that regard, where he seemed much more amicable
Top scumread atm (Woa, is this last game already?) He's still smileydjo, but seasoned with something I can't recognize this game. He's contradicting his own town play and, previously, trying to nitpick at me for little to no reason.
|
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 02:03 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 02:01 Rad wrote:
@debears
At one point in last game, djo said something like "debears, you know my scum play is better than this!" Think it was right before he was lynched. What's your take on djo's past scum game and his play this game? I don't really want to read much into his past scum game or his first town game, besides his general personality. HIs last game was much more indicative of how I believe he will play from now on. And I do think he is acting different off the top of my head. I'll have to research though before I can say definitively.
I only bring it up at this point because you were suggesting a difference between last game (town) and this game (unknown). I feel like he's pretty confident in his scum play due to his claim about it last game. I think you could bring in some interesting insight on that point since you're the one he made that final appeal to before his lynching.
His last game was, well, pretty terrible yeah? If he's town this game, I'd think he'd want to try to take things a bit differently because he even admitted last game that he thought he was scummy, and didn't really blame us for the mislynch. Differences between last game and this game probably won't say much because of that.
|
On November 04 2012 01:56 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 01:40 sylverfyre wrote:
You're reading what you want to read.
Remember that I spent last game mostly obsing, and it was depressing watching town lose because of inactivity when 2 out of 3 scum had blatantly labelled scum. I said what I said because I don't WANT that to happen this game. And I don't think any of these 9 players will do that. Just because "oh, I'm the most active" doesn't mean you're the only one contributing.
I am expecting a better game this time, and predicting that we aren't going to need to enact a policy lynch on lurking, or have town suffer from excessive lurking. Why are you trying to read more into what I said anyway?
Maybe I said townies because I am scum. Maybe I said townies because I'm town. You can't read into it - it's just a dumb WIFOM loop.
Or maybe, I'm just talking about the whole friggin game and you're reading WAY TOO MUCH into arbitrary word choice.
(technically, even scum are "part of the town" when it comes to posting voting and lynching) I reiterate: Your vote is both OMGUS and backed up by arbitrary "scum tells".
Also it's interesting that you're defending your own "make them post with pressure" while OMGUS voting me. You know your OMGUS vote is doing here? Nothing. It's just keeping my pressure on you, because they remove any reason.
(Press F5 to check thread again)
I liked "Confidence" a whole hell of a lot better than "Useless." Useless reeks of hostility. Last game literally has nothing to do with voting me for "fluff" when I do have content. You weren't active. You hadn't posted anything. That's no content up to the point you vote for me in my view. The "townies showing dedication" comment is not WIFOM at all. WIFOM is whether a scum would make a certain action (nks for example) The townies comment is about you contradicting what you said You either thought or know that the actives are townies, based on your word choice. You vote one of the actives Yeah I have my vote on you because I find your inital post pretty scummy. I'm keeping my vote on you because I want to pressure you back. OMGUS? Sure. Warranted if I find you scummy? Hell yes. And about useless. It reeks of "hostility". Does it reek of scumminess? If not, your just trying to cast suspicion on me for bullshit reasons
I come to thread. I see it has exploded by like 10 pages. Then when I more closely examine those 10 pages, I see a lot of fluff. I was disappointed, and I expressed as much. I was calling out the actives for posting a lot of garbage. It isn't condusive to scumhunting to post "LOL" as the entire content of a post. It fills up filters and threads with emptyness.
Hostility breeds a bad environment for town be free to speak their minds, a bad environment for scumhunting. I'm not saying you're scum by saying you're hostile, but I'm saying hostility isn't going to help town.
Case in point: Nack was being pretty hostile. In the end, he had the right reads, but had a very hard time convincing people of them because he was so hostile. Bad for town.
|
On November 04 2012 02:04 Alsn wrote:Show nested quote +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=73803
here'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
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
