|
On November 04 2012 09:57 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 09:44 Rad wrote:On November 04 2012 08:58 debears wrote:@RadHow about you read before jumping on me On November 04 2012 02:42 debears wrote:On November 04 2012 02:39 Rad wrote:On November 04 2012 02:31 debears wrote:On November 04 2012 02:30 Rad wrote:On November 04 2012 02:27 debears wrote:On November 04 2012 02:26 Rad wrote:On November 04 2012 02:20 debears wrote:
[quote]
Give me a percentage of fluff in my filter then. If your going to accuse me of something, at least make is specific. This "you're posting so much fluff" is doing nothing. That's your best reasoning on me so far. What good does this percentage do except make some arbitrary point to argue about endlessly? "50% fluff, scum!!!" "only 25% fluff, clearly not a scum tell!" I'm trying to figure out what you expect to come from such a number. If you're scum and you want alsn to waste time coming up with this percentage, clearly you don't think it'll be damning. Nothing to come out of this number except WIFOM on both sides of the argument. Stop bitching and just give me a damn percentage. Holy shit. I'm not gonna freak out. I already admitted I had fluff Answer the question about what good can come from coming up with a percentage. So I know where my fluff rating stands. So I can determine whether you are being genuine or not based on what I feel Your "fluff rating"? O.o Anyway, my issues were with your reasoning for wanting alsn to spend time doing something that doesn't help town at all. If you could think of reasons why it would help town, great, I was hoping to hear them from you, but you're stuck on just pushing the wasting of time to happen. Get on Alsn if you really want this huge waste of time to happen, not me (I wasn't the one pushing the fluff idea on you), but if you don't give a good answer as to why your "fluff rating" matters to town, I'll consider this you just pushing people to waste time. Again, as I stated before, if you're scum, you clearly don't think your fluff percentage will be a bad thing against you, so it's worthless to even look up at this point. Because I'm town and I'm trying to figure out who's scum. Attacking someone without specific reasoning means you can back out on your argument easier later. Saying "you're posting a lot of fluff" is a very ambigious statement. Why don't you want to just give me a percentage? It's a very simple request. Off the top of your head On November 04 2012 02:46 debears wrote:On November 04 2012 02:44 Clarity_nl wrote:On November 04 2012 02:42 debears wrote:On November 04 2012 02:39 Rad wrote:On November 04 2012 02:31 debears wrote:On November 04 2012 02:30 Rad wrote:On November 04 2012 02:27 debears wrote:
[quote]
Stop bitching and just give me a damn percentage. Holy shit. I'm not gonna freak out. I already admitted I had fluff
Answer the question about what good can come from coming up with a percentage. So I know where my fluff rating stands. So I can determine whether you are being genuine or not based on what I feel Your "fluff rating"? O.o Anyway, my issues were with your reasoning for wanting alsn to spend time doing something that doesn't help town at all. If you could think of reasons why it would help town, great, I was hoping to hear them from you, but you're stuck on just pushing the wasting of time to happen. Get on Alsn if you really want this huge waste of time to happen, not me (I wasn't the one pushing the fluff idea on you), but if you don't give a good answer as to why your "fluff rating" matters to town, I'll consider this you just pushing people to waste time. Again, as I stated before, if you're scum, you clearly don't think your fluff percentage will be a bad thing against you, so it's worthless to even look up at this point. Because I'm town and I'm trying to figure out who's scum. Attacking someone without specific reasoning means you can back out on your argument easier later. Saying "you're posting a lot of fluff" is a very ambigious statement. Why don't you want to just give me a percentage? It's a very simple request. Off the top of your head Well I'm glad you cleared that up. Anyway, you want your number so badly? 35% fluff. Can we move on now? I feel like we reversed 12 hours and we're talking about Cheese's joke. Ok. Finally. I have 65% content in a large filter according to you, which arguably is more contribution to the thread than most. This is why the fluff argument is invalid. See my point Rad? That is all. Now, scumhunting coming You think I missed this before, but I didn't. It's an invalid point for me. I don't care how much fluff/content you have. It hasn't been a concern of mine. My concern was that there's no town motivation to make another person waste time going through your posts. Only scum motivation. You're claiming there's a town motivation to help point out that your 65% is useful content, but who the hell cares? The fluff argument wasn't going anywhere, it didn't have any potential to get you lynched at that point. You wanted alsn to spend his time reading through your filters, separating fluff from good content and coming up with a percentage just so you could make that point?! If you're town, why would you want that instead of him focusing on hunting down scum? If you're scum, I GET IT. You wanted him to waste his time. You could have just as easily come out and said it if you really thought it defended you against his fluff argument. When someone discredits me for a bullshit reason, I will defend myself and straighten the point. You say the fluff argument wasn't going anywhere, except that others like Alsn agreed with it. CC went so far to apologize about his fluff. Sylver's argument convinced enough people at that point that I needed to address it.
Address it, yes, of course, but don't ask someone to go through your entire filter and sort it by fluff and non fluff. That's a huge waste if time if you're town. Again, if you're not, sure, you should try to get people to do that cause wow what a waste of time that would be.
I'm heading out for the night. I might post more later tonight or might not until tomorrow. I should be around a lot of the day tomorrow like I was today.
|
On November 04 2012 07:59 sylverfyre wrote:
@Obzy Why am I scummy to you? Do you have your own arguments, or are you sheeping onto debears? You've said three times that I look bad, but you haven't given any of your own reasons. Looks like sheeping to me.
Do you really want me to go through the whole thread and pick out all the times that debears chain-posted oneliners? I think it's a waste of time. He's done it, he's not really doing it anymore, I'm satisfied as far as that is concerned. If you're so interested, look for yourself.
Shit, if I'm your only scum read, why aren't you putting pressure on me?
You entered the thread and immediately voted debears with reasoning that I wasn't sure about (disagreement with the parts of the filter that were meaningless fluff), and later unvoted upon being challenged - given how resistant a lot of people are to voting, unvoting due to pressure seemed out of place. I'm wary of putting pressure on you because I don't want to be wrong while feeling uncertain. If I'm going to be wrong, I want to at least have conviction in my reads, instead of guessing. If I thought that you were scum, rather than looking scummy and worth thinking about, I would have voted.
If that makes any sense :0
|
On November 04 2012 10:07 Obzy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 07:59 sylverfyre wrote:
@Obzy Why am I scummy to you? Do you have your own arguments, or are you sheeping onto debears? You've said three times that I look bad, but you haven't given any of your own reasons. Looks like sheeping to me.
Do you really want me to go through the whole thread and pick out all the times that debears chain-posted oneliners? I think it's a waste of time. He's done it, he's not really doing it anymore, I'm satisfied as far as that is concerned. If you're so interested, look for yourself.
Shit, if I'm your only scum read, why aren't you putting pressure on me? You entered the thread and immediately voted debears with reasoning that I wasn't sure about (disagreement with the parts of the filter that were meaningless fluff), and later unvoted upon being challenged - given how resistant a lot of people are to voting, unvoting due to pressure seemed out of place. I'm wary of putting pressure on you because I don't want to be wrong while feeling uncertain. If I'm going to be wrong, I want to at least have conviction in my reads, instead of guessing. If I thought that you were scum, rather than looking scummy and worth thinking about, I would have voted. If that makes any sense :0
@obsy
Who do find suspicious at this point?
Also, if you were to name two people that are the best lynch candidates, who are they right now?
|
Rad's shift in response to debears' post surprised me a bit, when I looked at it this morning. I do think it seemed out of place compared to his original response.
On November 04 2012 08:32 debears wrote:
180 on me - His 180 and sudden aggressiveness on my obsy post doesn't seem like it was his idea. It feels coached/coming from his partner (this point I would really like some input on from everyone) and it most definitely doesn't feel like a genuine change of suspicion about me
Even if it was coached, although I thought we weren't supposed to discuss that sort of thing, what would make it mafia coached? It could be town-coached too. The 180 felt strange, but I don't think it implies mafia.
|
If I had to pick two people right this instant because the lynch is happening in two minutes, I would at least pick da0ud due to the fact he hasn't said much. I'm expecting him to say more over the next 23? ish hours, though. I want to see what he thinks before talking about lynching a lurker.
(That isn't the case, luckily.)
I've been suspicious of Sylver because he backed off under pressure. Why? If he wasn't willing to follow through, why did he vote? I'm worried about voting at all because I don't want to get it wrong and feel dumb. With so little conviction behind an accusation, it seemed like he was voting for you because it wouldn't be exceptionally controversial... if that makes sense? I may be misremembering, I don't want to reread the thread yet again at this moment lol >.<; Just was my gut feeling upon reading his original post.
I've got misgivings with regards to Mr. CC, but he's answered that, somewhat.
I think the argument between Rad and you(db) is a little... Hm. I don't know what to think of it, since it's largely revolving around a set of questions aimed towards myself. It's hard to think about it impartially, and it doesn't help that I think you're both town. Sort of unexpected for you two to argue.
|
On November 04 2012 10:22 Obzy wrote:
If I had to pick two people right this instant because the lynch is happening in two minutes, I would at least pick da0ud due to the fact he hasn't said much. I'm expecting him to say more over the next 23? ish hours, though. I want to see what he thinks before talking about lynching a lurker.
(That isn't the case, luckily.)
I've been suspicious of Sylver because he backed off under pressure. Why? If he wasn't willing to follow through, why did he vote? I'm worried about voting at all because I don't want to get it wrong and feel dumb. With so little conviction behind an accusation, it seemed like he was voting for you because it wouldn't be exceptionally controversial... if that makes sense? I may be misremembering, I don't want to reread the thread yet again at this moment lol >.<; Just was my gut feeling upon reading his original post.
I've got misgivings with regards to Mr. CC, but he's answered that, somewhat.
I think the argument between Rad and you(db) is a little... Hm. I don't know what to think of it, since it's largely revolving around a set of questions aimed towards myself. It's hard to think about it impartially, and it doesn't help that I think you're both town. Sort of unexpected for you two to argue.
Very well. I would say both are among my top candidates.
My main point on the 180 was that it was not a genuine reaction imo (it also didn't feel like an original idea from him but that's something that input from everyone will tell me more about).
1)It was a sudden 180 when compared to his earlier posts about what I had said. Also, it took him a few hours to suddenly flip out like that.
2) For town, suspicions usually don't suddenly change like that after your reaction was different earlier, because it's easier to stick with a gut feeling.
3) Mafia, however, have to search for things to call people out on. Usually, a mafia has to look back to find something to use since
a) it's hard to think on the spot whether a post would sound scummy from a town perspective
b) mafia have to determine whether pointing out something scummy will fill their agenda
|
On November 04 2012 02:27 Clarity_nl wrote:
I'd just like to point out that da0ud dissapeared off the face of the earth, and I'm not happy about this at all.
I am just waking up and I still have 8 pages to read and I don't like that post. Look at the timestamp on my timezone and see why I am not active while you guys at the opposite side of earth are all awake and posting 10 messages a minute.
Be sure I would love to be awake at the same time as you guys.
|
On November 04 2012 09:59 Obzy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 07:58 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:
I'm semi-lurking, but I'm active. Holy contradiction batman.
To clarify- I meant that you're clearly reading the thread actively, but you hadn't really had a tendency to comment on anything except things involving Djo. Active as in, at your computer. Semi-lurking as in, posting enough to not be called out for lurking. It was a bad word choice though. Thanks for the reads, that's what I was looking for.
On November 04 2012 09:59 Obzy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 07:58 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:
I'm semi-lurking, but I'm active. Holy contradiction batman.
To clarify- I meant that you're clearly reading the thread actively, but you hadn't really had a tendency to comment on anything except things involving Djo. Active as in, at your computer. Semi-lurking as in, posting enough to not be called out for lurking. It was a bad word choice though. Thanks for the reads, that's what I was looking for.
@ Cheesecake
I think Obzy has just accused you of active lurking. What do you have to respond to that ?
|
On November 04 2012 12:20 da0ud wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 02:27 Clarity_nl wrote:
I'd just like to point out that da0ud dissapeared off the face of the earth, and I'm not happy about this at all. I am just waking up and I still have 8 pages to read and I don't like that post. Look at the timestamp on my timezone and see why I am not active while you guys at the opposite side of earth are all awake and posting 10 messages a minute. Be sure I would love to be awake at the same time as you guys.
@ daoud
The timestamps are all converted in local time for the users. Anyway, TL displays the time in South Korea (KST) in his banner so they can use it if they want to know what time it is in Hong Kong. My guess is KST minus 1 hour, am I right ?
|
On November 04 2012 06:21 debears wrote:
@CC
It could be. I find his earlier actions scummier than his wording though.
Anyways,
##Unvote
##Vote Dau0d
Dude is most definitely the most inactive player right now
Still a few more pages to go. Nice one for someone picking on Sylver for addressing a case against you and vote pressuring you when you are not here to defend yourself.
Good timing and you dont wait only a few minutes, you wait for 6am to be sure I am not here.
You are contradicting a point you made against Sylver.
##Vote Debears
I have not finished reading the thread so I might unvote and revote and re-unvote again like you to add more fluff in my filter or the entire game.
|
I could do the same with you Clarity for voting me when you knew it was the best time to vote me when i am not here to defend myself
|
On November 04 2012 12:31 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 12:20 da0ud wrote:On November 04 2012 02:27 Clarity_nl wrote:
I'd just like to point out that da0ud dissapeared off the face of the earth, and I'm not happy about this at all. I am just waking up and I still have 8 pages to read and I don't like that post. Look at the timestamp on my timezone and see why I am not active while you guys at the opposite side of earth are all awake and posting 10 messages a minute. Be sure I would love to be awake at the same time as you guys. @ daoudThe timestamps are all converted in local time for the users. Anyway, TL displays the time in South Korea (KST) in his banner so they can use it if they want to know what time it is in Hong Kong. My guess is KST minus 1 hour, am I right ?
Yes, right time is in KST. So you were right. 1.30am. But it doesnt change much on the weak accusations.
|
On November 04 2012 05:40 Djodref wrote:
@ Rad
1My main goal with the sudden FoS on Cheese was to spark some discussion. I said it was confusing but it was more a pretext. The truth is that I didn't like it.Using sarcasm was not a brilliant idea but again, I wanted to show that I was trying to spark discussion.
2.It's very important to state your reasons for your vote. Sylverfire failed to explain what he wanted from debears with his vote so I didn't see it as a pressure vote. It turned out that it was more like a super FoS. I'm not against pressure voting but you have to state clearly what is your goal with it. Voting for casting suspicion upon someone sounds like voting for voting in my opinion.
3. It was me indeed but I don t think we need the policy for this game. The activity level is high and you can vote for anyone if you have a problem. It works better this way I think.
I'll try to explain what I meant with the sentence in font bold because I think you guys are misinterpreting it. First of all, please remember that, at the time I drop my bomb, there is not much to discuss in the thread. So I spontaneously and stupidly attacked someone head on for something that I didn't like. Then I felt that it was going to fire back at me, so I wanted you to understand why I dropped a FoS like that without plainly saying that my goal was to spark discussion, otherwise it wouldn't have happened imo. So I've used this question "Would you prefer me to discuss how we should use plurality lynch ?" as a sarcasm to show (or imply if you prefer) that my goal was to spark discussion.
And please judge me on my actions and not on my wording.
I wanted to say
"By using sarcasm, I wanted to hint at the fact that my sudden FoS was sparkin discussion"
"Using sarcasm was not a brilliant idea, but I was implying that I wanted to spark discussion"
Is it clear now ?
By the way, if you have still problems with that, please tell me what could be the mafia motivations for dropping the sudden FoS in the first place ?
|
@ Cheesecake
I'm starting to have some serious concerns in your regard. Do you see the similarity between this + Show Spoiler +On October 26 2012 03:51 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:<snip> Also, why would you say this, Djodref? Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:01 Djodref wrote:
my principal concern is to find the mafia. Everybody's "principal concern" is to find mafia. Sort of like that "why are you afraid of seeming suspicious" question -- the answer is self explanatory. I fail to see a point here. That's what I have to say concerning Djodref atm, and my FoS still applies. <snip> On November 04 2012 05:46 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 05:40 Djodref wrote:
@ Rad
1My main goal with the sudden FoS on Cheese was to spark some discussion. I said it was confusing but it was more a pretext. The truth is that I didn't like it. Using sarcasm was not a brillaint idea but agin, I wanted to show that I was trying to spark discussion.
2.It's very important to state your reasons for your vote. Sylverfire failed to explain what he wanted from debears with his vote so I didn t see it as a pressurr vote. It turned out that it was more like a super FoS. I'm not against pressure voting but you have to state clearly what is your goal with it. Voting for casting suspicion upon someone sounds like voting for voting in my opinion.
3. It was me indeed but I don t think we need the policy for this game. The activity level is high and you can vote for anyone if you have a problem. It works better this way I think. Hmm... @Rad What do you think about that underlined portion right there?
The similarity is nit-picking some sentences in my post to interpret them at your convenience to make me looking scummy.
I've been making some decent posts (in my opinion) to explain you the difference I see between voting to pressure someone or voting because you are suspicious of someone and you have made no comments against them.
I've got the feeling that you don't want to discuss with me and just want to make me looking suspicious. Very similar to what happened last game. I'll tell you right now, you are not going to push a mislynch on me in this game.
If you are town, remove your confirmation biased glasses and start to discuss with me. I've been defending myself but it is no use if you dismiss my posts.
|
@ sylver
I might have been too quick with my judgement on you. You explanations make sense somehow even if I don't like how you explained your slip. I would be glad to change my vote if you were able to present a good case against someone 
And, yes, I'm using my vote to force him to scumhunt.
|
@Clarity
I actually take your vote on me as a reminder to answer your concern on me being vague. (I don't take it as a contradictory fluffly vote like Debears).
Let me answer to your post :
On November 04 2012 00:58 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 22:06 da0ud wrote:On November 03 2012 22:01 Djodref wrote:
Definition of casting suspicion: suggest that something or someone might be suspect
I had to look up in the dictionary to be sure ^^
This coupled to the fact that his reasons to vote debears are insufficient in my eyes (you vote someone for some facts, not because he is fluffy without showing where he is fluffy) made sylverfire my top scumread right now. I see your point Djodref but I don't think because someone else votes another one for being a "poor" contirbutor and sees that as a scum read would make himself scum. He is trying to put pressure on Debears in order to get him to maybe post less and better content. That wasn't his point though, and why do you assume (or know) that sylver's motivations are to put pressure on debears?
I was indeed assuming, if it wasn't his main point, at least it was how I perceived it. Sylver had other points against Debears like the case with Rad but I still believe he was putting pressure on Debears for posting too much and too less content.
The result is actually getting Debears to post maybe 20 times afterwards within 45 mintutes to get a percentage on how much fluff there is in his filter. Like we care the exact number.
|
On November 03 2012 11:21 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 11:18 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On November 03 2012 11:13 Clarity_nl wrote:On November 03 2012 11:12 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On November 03 2012 11:11 Clarity_nl wrote:On November 03 2012 11:10 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On November 03 2012 11:09 debears wrote:On November 03 2012 11:04 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:Debears you seem really paranoid. On November 03 2012 10:42 debears wrote:
Yeah i am. He calls me a liarin red and then peaces out without wanting to hear my thoughts. Aint that scummy? Considering how active he was around lynch time last game, which was only an hour before this He didn't call you, Debears the person, a liar. You're taking Alsn's nit-pick of a post awfully personally. The quick, useless FoS is also the same exact tactic you used last game. Old hat, Debears, old hat.
1) i don't wear a hat2) i rescind my argument. The red text threw me off Scumtell. Howso? Mafia usually wear hats. He's so adamant that he most certainly does NOT wear a hat. Therefore, scumtell. I thought you were gonna come out with some kind of awesome flavor theory. Dissapointed. On others I'd point your joking attitude out as scum but I mean, you're Mr Cheesecake. Anyone stand out to you so far? I didn't joke at all last game, apart from a few trollish posts at the end hehe. I just think Debears is playing his scumgame from the last game right to the T. Aggressive opener, meaningless FoS. He also explicitly mentions that he's town and is being called a liar (someone saying you lied =/= being a liar). It's cause I read your Mafia QT I guess, you're right, in the thread itself you were super serious. So why the change of tone? XXIX is my first mafia game on TL, so it's my first encounter with debears. Maybe debears opens like this in every mafia game regardless? I'll go dig around. Feel free to comment debears.
@ Calrity
First encounter with debears ? What did you mean to say exactly ?
|
@Dau0d
Nice. We can have some fun now
What input do you have on the my cases on Sylver and Rad?
What input do you have on other cases?
Who are your top scumreads and lynch candidates right now?
Also, will you be here for lynch? If not, what is the closest time before lynch you will be here?
|
On November 04 2012 00:58 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 23:35 da0ud wrote:On November 03 2012 23:21 Djodref wrote:
I'm not sure to understand exactly what you mean...
Are you saying that I purposely misinterpret what sylver has said and done to attack him ?
Could you clarify where you think I am wrong ? Yes. Explanation of where I think you are wrong is in the previous post : the same one you said i am defending Slyfire and he can use it as a rope to start his own defense. What is the point of your question if you already replied to its own answer ? You say you explained in your previous post but you didn't. You are accusing Djodref of accusing someone against his better judgement... Please be more specific with what you disagree with in his posts.
These are the two posts where I explain where I think his judgment against Sylver is wrong (to me).
On November 03 2012 22:06 da0ud wrote:
I see your point Djodref but I don't think because someone else votes another one for being a "poor" contirbutor and sees that as a scum read would make himself scum.
On November 03 2012 23:13 da0ud wrote:
@Djodref :
I am not defending him, i am saying that there is more scumtell in the way you interpret it than in the his argument against Debears itself.
Where I think Djo was wrong is when he targets Sylver as scum because he votes someone that to him don't do good to town by posting a lot of irrelevant content. This doesn't help identify the good pieces of information in the thread as they are mixed with other posts.
What I missed at the time was the accusation from Djo on the : I'm casting suspicion with my vote. Djodref is the same one who said to stop nit picking in his posts while this seems like pure nit picking to me. Yes a BIG FoS on Debears would have been appropriate and not a vote, but Debears has already voted and unvoted two or three times so why not ?
|
On November 04 2012 13:19 debears wrote:@Dau0dNice. We can have some fun now What input do you have on the my cases on Sylver and Rad? What input do you have on other cases? Who are your top scumreads and lynch candidates right now? Also, will you be here for lynch? If not, what is the closest time before lynch you will be here?
@ Debears, I will finish replying to clarity's post and address this afterwards.
In how many hours is the lynch time from the time you will post your answer ? I just want to calculate if this will be feasible for me to be arround.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
