|
On November 05 2012 02:41 Djodref wrote:
So it means that you have confirmation bias against me. You don't want to give me a chance to defend myself, you have already made up your mind and you want to see me dead.
It means that you are now 100% convinced that I am scum (in the case where you are town) which is stupid because I am not scum and townies should always keep their mind open or that you are scum yourself.
Lol djo... you realize you just said "your argument is stupid because I'm not scum."
|
Anyway, you are not showing town mentality at all, as debears rightly emphasized it with his case. I'm more and more certain that you are scum.
|
On November 05 2012 02:44 Rad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 02:41 Djodref wrote:
So it means that you have confirmation bias against me. You don't want to give me a chance to defend myself, you have already made up your mind and you want to see me dead.
It means that you are now 100% convinced that I am scum (in the case where you are town) which is stupid because I am not scum and townies should always keep their mind open or that you are scum yourself. Lol djo... you realize you just said "your argument is stupid because I'm not scum."
Honestly I would be pissed off if Clarity is town and do not want to discuss his case against me beforehand because he is afraid that I could talk my way out of the lynch. I don't understand why a townie would want to see me dead so much.
|
On November 05 2012 02:40 Rad wrote:@Clarity Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 16:22 Clarity_nl wrote:
/snip
All the answers to the questions I asked can be used later, and I urge everyone to look at who answered their question and who hasn't.
/snip
You make 2 statements here. 1. The answers to your questions can be used later (I agree) 2. You urge everyone to look at who answered their questions and who hasn't (implying not answering is scummy) Considering you're going to be making a case on djo, can you explain the importance of your #2 suggestion? Seems like if you truly thought it was an important thing to note, you'd be more interested in alsn and cheese over djo and debears? With your statements, you spread suspicion across 5 different people and then center in on someone who doesn't apply to your second point. Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 17:20 Clarity_nl wrote:
Top 3 choices in my eyes are Debears, Sylver and you.
As for people who haven't answered my questions: Alsn, Cheese, Sylver.
First off, thanks for quoting djo's post. I did indeed miss that, feeling that I have to respond the accusations against me immediately.
You must understand the way djo framed his question. He wanted me to list who didn't answer my questions and who I have a scumread on.
I mentioned that it's scummy to not respond to my question, and it is. But if I dig into someone's filter I can find stuff that looks/is scummy. That doesn't mean they're scum.
The list of people who hadn't answered was just that, and nothing more.
My scumreads on the other hand aren't based on a single weak scumslip or the fact that they didn't answer a certain question.
On November 05 2012 02:41 Djodref wrote:
So it means that you have confirmation bias against me. You don't want to give me a chance to defend myself, you have already made up your mind and you want to see me dead.
It means that you are now 100% convinced that I am scum (in the case where you are town) which is stupid because I am not scum and townies should always keep their mind open or that you are scum yourself.
When did I say that I'm convinced you are scum? I don't have confirmation bias either, but notice how everytime I mention the possibility of you being scum, you lash out harder and fiercer against me.
|
On November 05 2012 02:49 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 02:44 Rad wrote:On November 05 2012 02:41 Djodref wrote:
So it means that you have confirmation bias against me. You don't want to give me a chance to defend myself, you have already made up your mind and you want to see me dead.
It means that you are now 100% convinced that I am scum (in the case where you are town) which is stupid because I am not scum and townies should always keep their mind open or that you are scum yourself. Lol djo... you realize you just said "your argument is stupid because I'm not scum." Honestly I would be pissed off if Clarity is town and do not want to discuss his case against me beforehand because he is afraid that I could talk my way out of the lynch. I don't understand why a townie would want to see me dead so much.
If you are town you can talk your way out of a lynch regardless. It's not like I would've posted my case an hour beforehand, right about now is when I would've posted it. I am currently working on a different case while also answering questions, so please bear with me. I will keep djo's case on hand in case I get lynched. I will post it before the deadline if it seems I'll die. Otherwise saving it for D2
|
ebwop: I was working under the assumption that you were basically on the same schedule as me.
|
My case for why I think debears is scum.
His reaction's so far to pressure.
When I made my introductory post, I merely wanted to point out that he was being a little bit unfair in using skewed statistics to make us all forgive him if he should happen to be away. However, he instantly throws a FoS at me in order to discredit me instead of calmly explaining how I was wrong. Looking at his behaviour in XXVIII when he was town, the main reason I never got completely convinced he was scum was because he kept his cool and calmly explained why Z-BosoN was using faulty logic instead of going crazy about it.
Later, when sylver votes him for what he later explains is a strong FoS, he basically goes completely OMGUS on sylver instead of again, calmly explaining why sylver is wrong, accusing him of "bullshit reasoning"(see this post at the end. Unless debears has completely changed his town meta I don't see how I can view this behaviour as town debears.
Then there's his attitude towards Obzy, saying he's posting useless and worthless content. It's the exact same strategy he used in XXIX to discredit Inig, a timid beginner townie. Sure, you told him to get coaching, but how does that one line make up for saying his content is useless and worthless? In fact, it's more of the same from debears, seeing as Obzy was pointing fingers at debears it's yet more flaming in order to discredit someone who is suspicious of him.
His voting pattern so far
He voted for da0ud "just so lurkers know that he's serious". This is definitely something which I can't blame him for, since da0ud did indeed start posting shortly thereafter. But then he goes on to OMGUS vote sylver, maintaining for a very long time that sylver had "bullshit reasons" for voting him. Yet all is forgiven as soon as sylver backs off? No, actually not, he has kept criticising sylver. Interestingly however, he picks Clarity as his next target, a player who I can't yet see is behaving all that scummy. A paragon of town, definitely not, but probable scum? I don't think so. Interestingly, he's also sheeping off of Djodref instead of pursuing the scum reads he has shared so far. Largely, I find that the way he votes this game is very similar to the way he voted in XXIX so largely, I'd say this is a meta read more than anything else.
However, I'd like to preface this by saying I definitely have concerns with regards to the cases against Clarity. I find that his behaviour overall is pretty null, or maybe even slightly town. But depending on how he actually addresses the cases brought forward thus far, I can definitely see myself changing my mind about him. Because while both of you are correct in criticising him for his actions, I'd just prefer to hear his side of the story first as you're being pretty hyperbolic about how important your points are.
So, since I'm not yet convinced enough of Clarity's guilt, as well as the fact that I feel unless we have more than one wagon, it'll be harder to find out much of substance after the vote, I'm voting for my top scum read:
##Vote: debears
|
On November 05 2012 02:54 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 02:49 Djodref wrote:On November 05 2012 02:44 Rad wrote:On November 05 2012 02:41 Djodref wrote:
So it means that you have confirmation bias against me. You don't want to give me a chance to defend myself, you have already made up your mind and you want to see me dead.
It means that you are now 100% convinced that I am scum (in the case where you are town) which is stupid because I am not scum and townies should always keep their mind open or that you are scum yourself. Lol djo... you realize you just said "your argument is stupid because I'm not scum." Honestly I would be pissed off if Clarity is town and do not want to discuss his case against me beforehand because he is afraid that I could talk my way out of the lynch. I don't understand why a townie would want to see me dead so much. If you are town you can talk your way out of a lynch regardless. It's not like I would've posted my case an hour beforehand, right about now is when I would've posted it. I am currently working on a different case while also answering questions, so please bear with me. I will keep djo's case on hand in case I get lynched. I will post it before the deadline if it seems I'll die. Otherwise saving it for D2
As we saw from last game, djo is terrible at talking himself out of a lynch when town. If he's town this game, I can understand his frustration. Also it doesn't really make sense for you to hold off on everything unless:
1. (if you're town) You're convinced he's scum and want to make sure you hit him with everything you've got
2. (if you're scum) You want to make it really difficult for him to defend.
You say you're not convinced he's scum. Why wait to hit him with everything you've got? Or at this point, why wait on posting your djo case? Your thoughts could help town make a better decision if you think you've got a good case on djo.
|
On November 05 2012 02:35 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 02:33 Djodref wrote:one more question clarity, why didn't you discuss with me about my "scuminess" last time. By the way, the lynch is in 7.5 hours which makes it at 10 am for me. It is 2.30am now and I am working tomorrow so I have the right to sleep  Wait, where are you living currently? I didn't want to discuss your scumminess with you because I'd rather have an entire case up, rather than tell you then and give you time to prepare and possible post stuff to contradict my arguements before my case goes up.
The fact that you don t want to discuss with me nor give me enough time to defend myself against your case shows that you have some confirmation bias against me.
|
On November 05 2012 03:03 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 02:35 Clarity_nl wrote:On November 05 2012 02:33 Djodref wrote:one more question clarity, why didn't you discuss with me about my "scuminess" last time. By the way, the lynch is in 7.5 hours which makes it at 10 am for me. It is 2.30am now and I am working tomorrow so I have the right to sleep Wait, where are you living currently? I didn't want to discuss your scumminess with you because I'd rather have an entire case up, rather than tell you then and give you time to prepare and possible post stuff to contradict my arguements before my case goes up. The fact that you don t want to discuss with me nor give me enough time to defend myself against your case shows that you have some confirmation bias against me.
No, it just shows that my scumread kept getting stronger and stronger and I was wondering why you were so curious about it.
It's not confirmation bias if it's true.
On November 05 2012 03:01 Rad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 02:54 Clarity_nl wrote:On November 05 2012 02:49 Djodref wrote:On November 05 2012 02:44 Rad wrote:On November 05 2012 02:41 Djodref wrote:
So it means that you have confirmation bias against me. You don't want to give me a chance to defend myself, you have already made up your mind and you want to see me dead.
It means that you are now 100% convinced that I am scum (in the case where you are town) which is stupid because I am not scum and townies should always keep their mind open or that you are scum yourself. Lol djo... you realize you just said "your argument is stupid because I'm not scum." Honestly I would be pissed off if Clarity is town and do not want to discuss his case against me beforehand because he is afraid that I could talk my way out of the lynch. I don't understand why a townie would want to see me dead so much. If you are town you can talk your way out of a lynch regardless. It's not like I would've posted my case an hour beforehand, right about now is when I would've posted it. I am currently working on a different case while also answering questions, so please bear with me. I will keep djo's case on hand in case I get lynched. I will post it before the deadline if it seems I'll die. Otherwise saving it for D2 As we saw from last game, djo is terrible at talking himself out of a lynch when town.
That is a good point. But at least now we know what djo looks like when he's town avoiding to get lynched.
|
Looking at what Clarity has said since coming back into thread so far isn't exactly reinforcing my belief that I think there's a possibility of him being town.
Clarity, if you really want to help town I'd recommend you actually present your case and try to actually make it count. If it turns out that you get mislynched anyway then at the very least we will know that you were sincere all along today. Having minor arguments about why you've not yet presented a case just means that what you really want to say gets pushed further towards lynch, which is bad for town since then we won't have time to judge you properly on your arguments.
|
On November 05 2012 03:09 Alsn wrote:
Looking at what Clarity has said since coming back into thread so far isn't exactly reinforcing my belief that I think there's a possibility of him being town.
Clarity, if you really want to help town I'd recommend you actually present your case and try to actually make it count. If it turns out that you get mislynched anyway then at the very least we will know that you were sincere all along today. Having minor arguments about why you've not yet presented a case just means that what you really want to say gets pushed further towards lynch, which is bad for town since then we won't have time to judge you properly on your arguments.
Like I said I'm working on it.
|
My case on debears:
All game long he's been accusing people of FoS'ing him while he's away. The reason it's interesting is that he doesn't mention when he leaves, it's just "unlucky" I guess. But it's a good way to redirect attention to whomever is accusing him.
By itself this doesn't mean much, but by the end of this post you should know why I'm extremely suspicious of debears.
On November 03 2012 13:25 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 13:23 Djodref wrote:On November 03 2012 13:09 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On November 03 2012 13:00 Djodref wrote:@ CheeseI'm pretty sure that the following quote was totally serving your mafia agenda in the last game. But I guess I should better trust you because I don't really see why you should be dishonest right now about it. On October 29 2012 13:24 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:
Holy meta argument Batbears. Are you saying that Dandel under pressure is basically = Kush in terms of meta? Let's take a look at the second one On October 28 2012 09:20 Rad wrote:
Djo NOW YOU SHOW UP? On October 28 2012 09:21 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:
A wild Djo appears? I don't know if you have seen Rad post or not before posting yours but I really felt that you were both accusing me of active lurking. Why the lolwut by the way ? What did you not understand in my comment ? @Djo The second part of the first quote isn't a joke. It's an analogy. Therefore it has nothing to do with anything. The second quote: Pokemon reference, it means I think of you as a pokemon. Pokemon are innocent and cute; I'm not casting aspersions on you in the least. Yes, @obsQT I just mentioned pokemon. We could go with this WIFOM crap all day. These "jokes" means absolutely nothing. Are we seriously still talking about a failboat joke? Stop this incessant attempt to tunnel me--it bears no weight at all because it is probably one of the most subjective things one could possibly focus on. Especially since it's coming from another game entirely. I declare this useless argument over *gavel slam*. @ CheeseI'll stop tunneling you when I'm satisfied with your answers. Why do you want us to stop discussing ? This discussion has derived from its original point to go something quite useless, I agree. My point is that you could have used these jokes to make me look bad. I know this was a pokemon reference but I think "a wild Djo appears" was implying active lurking, especially in the context of the thread, rather than implying that I was innocent as a pokemon. My point is that jokes can be used by mafia to cast suspicion on a player without looking like you are doing it. It's a great tool used this way. Djo, if you are town, stop arguing over stupid points. You're wrong. Get over it If you're mafia, keep arguing
Debears does two things here.
1. He halts discussion. He doesn't change subject, he just stops the current one.
2. He calls djo wrong. There is no explanation. Just: "You're wrong. Get over it"
He's also telling Djo to stop being an idiot, NOW. Why would he want him to stop if he had nothing better to discuss?
My current scumreads have changed wildly with recent developments. To me, a debears/djodref scumteam seems most likely, but since djo has set it up so that I cannot post a useful case about him now I'm posting this instead.
On November 04 2012 02:13 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 02:07 Alsn wrote:On November 04 2012 02:01 debears wrote: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). How much fluff do you actually see in my filter? Quote it and put it in a spoiler. Then take my quotes that look like they are accomplishing something. and put them in another spoiler. I want to see how much you think his fluff argument holds true.
Here it starts, the whole "fluff debate". Fluff talk about fluff. It is the epitome of useless.
Here are all his posts regarding this issue:
+ Show Spoiler +On November 04 2012 02:13 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 02:07 Alsn wrote:On November 04 2012 02:01 debears wrote: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). How much fluff do you actually see in my filter? Quote it and put it in a spoiler. Then take my quotes that look like they are accomplishing something. and put them in another spoiler. I want to see how much you think his fluff argument holds true. On November 04 2012 02:20 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 02:16 Rad wrote:On November 04 2012 02:13 debears wrote:On November 04 2012 02:07 Alsn wrote:On November 04 2012 02:01 debears wrote: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). How much fluff do you actually see in my filter? Quote it and put it in a spoiler. Then take my quotes that look like they are accomplishing something. and put them in another spoiler. I want to see how much you think his fluff argument holds true. That's quite a lot of work you're asking from him and doesn't really help town much, does it? It's all going to be subjective at that point, he might say "this is fluff" and you can just argue that it's not. If we want to determine how much fluff you've given so far, we can check your filter and determine for ourselves. 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. On November 04 2012 02:27 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 02:26 Rad wrote:On November 04 2012 02:20 debears wrote:On November 04 2012 02:16 Rad wrote:On November 04 2012 02:13 debears wrote:On November 04 2012 02:07 Alsn wrote:On November 04 2012 02:01 debears wrote:On November 04 2012 01:58 Alsn wrote:On November 04 2012 01:49 debears wrote:On November 04 2012 01:39 Alsn wrote:
[quote]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). How much fluff do you actually see in my filter? Quote it and put it in a spoiler. Then take my quotes that look like they are accomplishing something. and put them in another spoiler. I want to see how much you think his fluff argument holds true. That's quite a lot of work you're asking from him and doesn't really help town much, does it? It's all going to be subjective at that point, he might say "this is fluff" and you can just argue that it's not. If we want to determine how much fluff you've given so far, we can check your filter and determine for ourselves. 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 On November 04 2012 02:31 debears wrote:Show nested quote +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:On November 04 2012 02:16 Rad wrote:On November 04 2012 02:13 debears wrote:On November 04 2012 02:07 Alsn wrote:On November 04 2012 02:01 debears wrote:On November 04 2012 01:58 Alsn wrote:
[quote]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). How much fluff do you actually see in my filter? Quote it and put it in a spoiler. Then take my quotes that look like they are accomplishing something. and put them in another spoiler. I want to see how much you think his fluff argument holds true. That's quite a lot of work you're asking from him and doesn't really help town much, does it? It's all going to be subjective at that point, he might say "this is fluff" and you can just argue that it's not. If we want to determine how much fluff you've given so far, we can check your filter and determine for ourselves. 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 On November 04 2012 02:42 debears wrote:Show nested quote +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:On November 04 2012 02:16 Rad wrote:On November 04 2012 02:13 debears wrote:On November 04 2012 02:07 Alsn wrote:
[quote]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). How much fluff do you actually see in my filter? Quote it and put it in a spoiler. Then take my quotes that look like they are accomplishing something. and put them in another spoiler. I want to see how much you think his fluff argument holds true. That's quite a lot of work you're asking from him and doesn't really help town much, does it? It's all going to be subjective at that point, he might say "this is fluff" and you can just argue that it's not. If we want to determine how much fluff you've given so far, we can check your filter and determine for ourselves. 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
Wait... but what did debears say in that previous quote.... stop arguing over stupid points?
On November 04 2012 02:46 debears wrote:Show nested quote +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:On November 04 2012 02:26 Rad wrote:On November 04 2012 02:20 debears wrote:On November 04 2012 02:16 Rad wrote:
[quote]
That's quite a lot of work you're asking from him and doesn't really help town much, does it? It's all going to be subjective at that point, he might say "this is fluff" and you can just argue that it's not. If we want to determine how much fluff you've given so far, we can check your filter and determine for ourselves. 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 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
I end up trying to shut him up, and it works. He manages to convey that he posts more content than fluff, with SEVEN fluff posts. I figured maybe he was trying to bury something, but if it's there I can't find it. Regardless, flooding the thread with useless posts is anti-town.
Although this stood out, by itself it doesn't mean much. He spammed because he wanted to prove a point.... I guess
On November 04 2012 04:02 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 03:51 Alsn wrote:On November 04 2012 03:46 debears wrote: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. Where do you get that I'm artificially increasing my filter? I'm not posting for the sake of filter. I'm posting for the sake of discussion and finding scum
Oh, okay.
On November 03 2012 11:39 debears wrote:
Btw to all obs
I will attempt to reach the fabled 30 pg filter
Because talking a lot is pro town right? But day 1 debears is always the same, every game I've looked into anyway.
He starts out aggressive, regardless of alignment. But last game where he was scum, he actively lurked the more the game went on, he fed off of his "townie vibe" because he posted a lot.
But never has he proclaimed he will be posting a lot, this game he has.
Why is that? I believe that he's forcing himself to be active all game. By posting this he is forced to keep his promise or he will stick out. He gets over his fear of posting later in the game as scum this way.
It's easy to be active D1 scum, you can keep your story straight. The longer the game goes the more problems you'll have and debears has experienced this and knows it as a weakness.
But what REALLY caught my eye were these:
On November 03 2012 14:27 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 14:21 Obzy wrote:K - This is in response to debears post asking about me. I may screw up the formatting but hopefully not - On November 03 2012 13:40 debears wrote:
Obsy has been around the thread. What I have found is that he seems to be actively lurking. Notice above post. Asking a pretty much useless question. It's newbie town/scum tell, so it's a null tell
Yeah, I've been trying to read and refresh the thread regularly, I think I've been away from it for maybe an hour total since game start. On November 03 2012 13:40 debears wrote:
He has a few one-liners like the above. Mostly, his posts do not take a strong stance and his opinions seem to be easily swayed. Again newbie town/scum tell.
I've typed out a few posts that were a bit longer, but after re-reading, it didn't look like they did anything to advance town interests and the only thing they did was look spammy and unhelpful, so I've mostly been deleting them. I am, as mentioned, not really certain whether or not I'm judging things properly and taking a concrete stance on something that turns out to be stupid feels sort of dumb. On November 03 2012 13:40 debears wrote:
I don't like this post. At all. Trying to come up with excuses to not be posting. Sure the thread is moving pretty decently (score one for town), but it's nothing huge and pretty easy to follow so far imo.
No comment, it does move really fast. On November 03 2012 13:40 debears wrote:
Here he acts confused. He asks questions without answering them himself or even really attempting to answer them himself.
I didn't really want to call you out directly. You responded really strongly to Alsn's red font, and it seemed counterproductive - but stifling discussion is a problem; given that you've been the primary generator of discussion. On November 03 2012 13:40 debears wrote:
Who have a tough time contributing early? Usually scum because
1) They are afraid to post and put themselves out there since they are guilty and know so
2) They know the players they are accusing are town and they can't actually find real evidence to use
However, I admit this is also a newbie town trait.
I don't have a problem with posting, I don't want to post meaninglessly. Writing about things that are actually useful and will help everybody is difficult, because when I look at what I've drafted it looks moronic and doesn't help anybody. Answering being directly called out is a lot easier, since I don't have to cast about for what to say, I just have to explain how I'm playing. On November 03 2012 13:40 debears wrote:
Honestly, this post is just absolutely worthless. It has no actual input. Says nothing about the current happenings of the thread.
I wanted the conversation to shift away from talking about Cheese using jokes or not. It was a meaningless thing to discuss. Pointing it out so early and then dwelling on it for so long meant that it isn't a good scumtell for Cheese, while also making him aware of the fact he was doing it (Assuming that it WAS a scumtell, it no longer is). That entire discussion was just a waste of time, so I would say that it makes sense that my post, pointing it out, was equally useless. I definitely have been reading the thread, but haven't done a very good job of blending in. That's not really the point, anyways. You haven't been blending in, because you've been actively advancing the interests of town. I'm not a good enough judge to know if you're doing so genuinely, but you're the most active player currently (IMHO). I haven't read past this post yet, but I'll go ahead and do so now. If I see something, I'll comment. So what is your exact read on me? Scum, slightly scum, null, slightly town, or town?
On November 04 2012 03:03 debears wrote:
@Sylver
Do you consider me a good lynch candidate based on activity?
and I have put more than one sentence in a post. My most important posts have more than 1. Those are the key
Why is debears so concerned about what specific people think of him? Surely if you're town you just behave normally and address concerns as they come? Or maybe he's trying to get people to say that he's town, so he can use it in his defense later. Regardless I do not see a town motive for asking these questions. All they do is divert from what people are discussing, for an answer that doesn't mean a thing. If people think you're scum, they'll say so, no need to ask.
My final point is his entire case against me.
It comes out of nowhere. Please read through debears filter and find posts where he questions me or says he's suspicious of me. It's too convenient. Has anyone noticed that after he posted his case things have gone "smoothly"?
|
|
|
Well, at least that clears up the issue of who the prime lynch candidates are. Also answering Djod's worry about being targeted while asleep.
|
On November 05 2012 02:16 sylverfyre wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 01:41 debears wrote:
@Sylver
can you repost that so I know what exactly you are adding to that? I'm sorry, repost what?
My response was to this post
On November 05 2012 01:40 sylverfyre wrote:
Djo is still making little sense with his plurality lynch strategy. After saying straight up that it's too late to discuss lynch strategy.
I feel like people might be reading into stuff too much on clarity, after forcing a lot of stuff out of him and then rejecting it as a "List" - you're basically cutting him off and being like "your idea is bad don't share that" and then are mystified when he gets quiet. Furthermore, he was active during the part of the day that debears was arguing rather constantly about his "Fluff Percentage" (and appears to even have gotten sidetracked by skimming through and pulling a number out, presumably hoping to get debears to drop the pointless argument)
Successfully waste someone's time -> call them scum for not contributing enough? I am really not sure how I feel about that. He's got a 4 page filter which doesn't read as fluffy to me (I admit I'm just skimming right now)
Shit, he's not even the only one who iterated through the people he had questions for - so why is he the only one being called out for it? o.O
I realize he didn't follow through with pressure on his cases (in fact, I pretty much missed the question he asked me until I got around to it by scumhunting at Djo's prod.)
His latest posts really make me think he isn't pulling off some active lurking strategies.
BTW, game 1 he had page and a half when he got modkilled. At the same time this game, he has almost twice that. I really can't call that "more passive" even though he's not coming out swinging this game.
which is almost a carbon copy of this post
On November 05 2012 00:38 sylverfyre wrote:
Djo is still making little sense with his plurality lynch strategy. After saying straight up that it's too late to discuss lynch strategy.
I feel like people might be reading into stuff too much on clarity, after forcing a lot of stuff out of him and then rejecting it as a "List" - you're basically cutting him off and being like "your idea is bad don't share that" and then are mystified when he gets quiet. Furthermore, he was active during the part of the day that debears was arguing rather constantly about his "Fluff Percentage" (and appears to even have gotten sidetracked by skimming through and pulling a number out, presumably hoping to get debears to drop the pointless argument)
Successfully waste someone's time -> call them scum for not contributing enough? I am really not sure how I feel about that.
Shit, he's not even the only one who iterated through the people he had questions for - so why is he the only one being crucified for it? o.O
I realize he didn't follow through with pressure on his cases (in fact, I pretty much missed the question he asked me until I got around to it by scumhunting at Djo's prod.)
I wish he hadn't left so abruptly though.
Da0ud seems in the same boat. He's on the quiet side, and now he's waiting before making another move.
|
On November 05 2012 02:19 Clarity_nl wrote:I am going to put my comments into the quote itself, I will use green for added effect. Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 23:54 debears wrote:Hey guys, I believe Clarity is scumhttp://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=16787463First, look at Djo's case about Clarity's - non committal attitude - blending in - lack of scumhunting I would like to add two things to that. 1) Scumhunting MethodClarity's scumhunting method for day 1 appears to be looking for people who don't answer questions. Why is this a scum favored strategy? It's an easy way to scumhunt. You don't have to read for changes in behavior/motivations. Also, if everyone answers the questions, then you can say "oh, idk who is scum cuz all my questions were answered" My scumhunting method is not "looking for people who don't answer questions". You are taking something I said I believe is scummy and turning into saying it's the only thing I think is scummy.Example of what I mean On November 04 2012 17:08 Clarity_nl wrote:
All the answers I got were sufficient. Hell, your answer had an entire case on sylver attached to it. Maybe I should be pushing people harder. I feel like there are plenty of people already doing that though.
My top scrumreads at the time were you and Alsn, Alsn wasn't around at all and you were already being pushed by others.
I was just reading, and as I said I will end up posting at least a solid case today, you can tell me if my information gathering has been weak at that point. 2) Contradiction to his scumhunting viewsOn November 04 2012 17:20 Clarity_nl wrote:
Top 3 choices in my eyes are Debears, Sylver and you.
As for people who haven't answered my questions: Alsn, Cheese, Sylver. In this post, clarity names 3 top scumreads. He has no reasoning. Not only that he acknowledges that 3 people haven't answered his questions. Now let's look at what he said about people who don't answer his questions. On November 04 2012 16:54 Clarity_nl wrote:On November 04 2012 16:48 Djodref wrote:
@ Clarity
A few people never answered your questions from the list. Why do you not push them as well ? Because I felt it would go along nicely with any cases I would make. If you "miss" a question asked to you that's super scummy because town reads and re-reads a lot. Scum just sorta play.. Because they don't need extra information[. and this On November 03 2012 18:43 Clarity_nl wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 03 2012 16:06 Obzy wrote:
@Cheese
>:l The no newb cards comment seems specifically aimed at me. Not really a fan. I'm not wholly sure why he dropped his argument against debears so quickly - pointing out previous meta, etc, and then it just absolutely falls off the face of the planet. Why? (I disagree with this statement, by the way:
I don't think it's directed at you specifically, but it's interesting that you think it is. The reason Cheese said to not drop the newbie card is because it's not town behavior. When you are town you want people to believe you, if you come out of the gate saying you're awful and no one should listen to you then that's anti-town. It also prevents scum from using "omg sorry I'm just new!", the less excuses scum have available the better for town. My reads at this point in time: Obzy: Leaning slightly town. He hasn't quite come out of his shell yet but he seems genuinly interested in discussion and progressing. @ ObzyDo you think you can get over this "I'm new" thing and give us the best reads you've got? Instead of posting something that's obvious to everyone perhaps post something that stands out to you. _ Rad: Null. He's being more careful than last game, lurking a bit more. He mentioned he would be more careful, but not in pregame, he did this after the role PMs were sent. He also seems really invested in helping Obzy out as he's the newest, the only one here who wasn't in XXIX. @ RadWhy the interest in Obzy? Are you going to use MLG as an excuse at any point this weekend? _ Alsn: Leaning slightly scum, very little info about him though. He opened super aggressive this game, which is the opposite of how he played in the majority of XXIX. Perhaps the only reason he snapped at debears so hard is because debears said On November 03 2012 10:04 debears wrote:
If I'm not here for lynch, its irl conflicts 99% of the time. Don't pull an Alsn @ AlsnWhy the change in behavior from last game? What do you think of debears at this point? _ Mr Cheesecake: Null. He went SUPER defensive when he was called out about making a ton of jokes, but that discussion got blown way out of proportion. The fact that he's acting more like the way he was in mafia QT XXIX than in the actual XXIX thread is indicative of town. @ CheeseYou did have some jokes in the XXIX thread. Can you tell us if these were jokes for the sake of jokes or if you used them to push a scum agenda? An argument can be made for both. _ Djodref: Leaning slightly scum, He was obsessed with policy. Everyone was ready to move on but he kept mentioning it over and over. He's also the person that blew up the whole *Cheese's scum joke* thing, which bogged us down for a couple of pages. @ Djodref If you had to lynch someone right now, would it be da0ud or someone else? _ Debears: Null. Regardless of if he's scum or town, he is getting the ball rolling which is good for us. Problem is... that was what he was doing in XXIX as well and he was scum in that. Older games suggest this is simply his meta so there is no read to be made about his opening. What I'm curious about is if he's going to pull a vanishing act in D2 / D3 again. @ DebearsWhat's your ready on Obzy? _ Sylverfire: Null. Only have 3 real posts to read him on. He opened really aggressive onto debears, even though he's keeping the ball rolling, an odd choice. He showed up way late but Rad pointed out that he is sticking to the same schedule he's had in previous games. @ SylverfireYou've only shared your read on debears, is there anything else that stands out to you? _ So with all that said, I only have two slight scumreads on Alsn and Djo, so I hope they defend themselves as soon as possible. Even if we end up lynching da0ud for lurking, currently with 0 posts, we can at least gather as much information as possible Hopefully this gets some discussion going, please comment on as much as possible in my post and point out any flaws. It's a contradiction, and a contradiction in a mafia oriented way. His scumhunting method is a way to avoid actually having to scumhunt, then he doesn't even use it when he gives his top scumreads I did not have cases ready. Yes I was on and checking mafia but I was also working. Djo specifically asked me who my current scumreads were, and who hadn't answered my questions yet. I answered both.
Again you put an emphasis on people not answering my questions, when that is only part of it. The same way your "meta" read on me (which is 1 post, that I made about you, that was accurate.) is not the entirety of your case.
I had a strong read on you. I do not have a strong read in this game yet
|
|
|
On November 05 2012 03:56 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 02:19 Clarity_nl wrote:I am going to put my comments into the quote itself, I will use green for added effect. On November 04 2012 23:54 debears wrote:Hey guys, I believe Clarity is scumhttp://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=16787463First, look at Djo's case about Clarity's - non committal attitude - blending in - lack of scumhunting I would like to add two things to that. 1) Scumhunting MethodClarity's scumhunting method for day 1 appears to be looking for people who don't answer questions. Why is this a scum favored strategy? It's an easy way to scumhunt. You don't have to read for changes in behavior/motivations. Also, if everyone answers the questions, then you can say "oh, idk who is scum cuz all my questions were answered" My scumhunting method is not "looking for people who don't answer questions". You are taking something I said I believe is scummy and turning into saying it's the only thing I think is scummy.Example of what I mean On November 04 2012 17:08 Clarity_nl wrote:
All the answers I got were sufficient. Hell, your answer had an entire case on sylver attached to it. Maybe I should be pushing people harder. I feel like there are plenty of people already doing that though.
My top scrumreads at the time were you and Alsn, Alsn wasn't around at all and you were already being pushed by others.
I was just reading, and as I said I will end up posting at least a solid case today, you can tell me if my information gathering has been weak at that point. 2) Contradiction to his scumhunting viewsOn November 04 2012 17:20 Clarity_nl wrote:
Top 3 choices in my eyes are Debears, Sylver and you.
As for people who haven't answered my questions: Alsn, Cheese, Sylver. In this post, clarity names 3 top scumreads. He has no reasoning. Not only that he acknowledges that 3 people haven't answered his questions. Now let's look at what he said about people who don't answer his questions. On November 04 2012 16:54 Clarity_nl wrote:On November 04 2012 16:48 Djodref wrote:
@ Clarity
A few people never answered your questions from the list. Why do you not push them as well ? Because I felt it would go along nicely with any cases I would make. If you "miss" a question asked to you that's super scummy because town reads and re-reads a lot. Scum just sorta play.. Because they don't need extra information[. and this On November 03 2012 18:43 Clarity_nl wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 03 2012 16:06 Obzy wrote:
@Cheese
>:l The no newb cards comment seems specifically aimed at me. Not really a fan. I'm not wholly sure why he dropped his argument against debears so quickly - pointing out previous meta, etc, and then it just absolutely falls off the face of the planet. Why? (I disagree with this statement, by the way:
I don't think it's directed at you specifically, but it's interesting that you think it is. The reason Cheese said to not drop the newbie card is because it's not town behavior. When you are town you want people to believe you, if you come out of the gate saying you're awful and no one should listen to you then that's anti-town. It also prevents scum from using "omg sorry I'm just new!", the less excuses scum have available the better for town. My reads at this point in time: Obzy: Leaning slightly town. He hasn't quite come out of his shell yet but he seems genuinly interested in discussion and progressing. @ ObzyDo you think you can get over this "I'm new" thing and give us the best reads you've got? Instead of posting something that's obvious to everyone perhaps post something that stands out to you. _ Rad: Null. He's being more careful than last game, lurking a bit more. He mentioned he would be more careful, but not in pregame, he did this after the role PMs were sent. He also seems really invested in helping Obzy out as he's the newest, the only one here who wasn't in XXIX. @ RadWhy the interest in Obzy? Are you going to use MLG as an excuse at any point this weekend? _ Alsn: Leaning slightly scum, very little info about him though. He opened super aggressive this game, which is the opposite of how he played in the majority of XXIX. Perhaps the only reason he snapped at debears so hard is because debears said On November 03 2012 10:04 debears wrote:
If I'm not here for lynch, its irl conflicts 99% of the time. Don't pull an Alsn @ AlsnWhy the change in behavior from last game? What do you think of debears at this point? _ Mr Cheesecake: Null. He went SUPER defensive when he was called out about making a ton of jokes, but that discussion got blown way out of proportion. The fact that he's acting more like the way he was in mafia QT XXIX than in the actual XXIX thread is indicative of town. @ CheeseYou did have some jokes in the XXIX thread. Can you tell us if these were jokes for the sake of jokes or if you used them to push a scum agenda? An argument can be made for both. _ Djodref: Leaning slightly scum, He was obsessed with policy. Everyone was ready to move on but he kept mentioning it over and over. He's also the person that blew up the whole *Cheese's scum joke* thing, which bogged us down for a couple of pages. @ Djodref If you had to lynch someone right now, would it be da0ud or someone else? _ Debears: Null. Regardless of if he's scum or town, he is getting the ball rolling which is good for us. Problem is... that was what he was doing in XXIX as well and he was scum in that. Older games suggest this is simply his meta so there is no read to be made about his opening. What I'm curious about is if he's going to pull a vanishing act in D2 / D3 again. @ DebearsWhat's your ready on Obzy? _ Sylverfire: Null. Only have 3 real posts to read him on. He opened really aggressive onto debears, even though he's keeping the ball rolling, an odd choice. He showed up way late but Rad pointed out that he is sticking to the same schedule he's had in previous games. @ SylverfireYou've only shared your read on debears, is there anything else that stands out to you? _ So with all that said, I only have two slight scumreads on Alsn and Djo, so I hope they defend themselves as soon as possible. Even if we end up lynching da0ud for lurking, currently with 0 posts, we can at least gather as much information as possible Hopefully this gets some discussion going, please comment on as much as possible in my post and point out any flaws. It's a contradiction, and a contradiction in a mafia oriented way. His scumhunting method is a way to avoid actually having to scumhunt, then he doesn't even use it when he gives his top scumreads I did not have cases ready. Yes I was on and checking mafia but I was also working. Djo specifically asked me who my current scumreads were, and who hadn't answered my questions yet. I answered both.
Again you put an emphasis on people not answering my questions, when that is only part of it. The same way your "meta" read on me (which is 1 post, that I made about you, that was accurate.) is not the entirety of your case.
I had a strong read on you. I do not have a strong read in this game yet
You are completely denying the fact that you said people not answering your questions is very scummy twice. Yet, you know who hasn't answered your questions, and you don't find them in your top 3 suspicions
|
On November 05 2012 02:11 Djodref wrote:
@ sylverfyre
Yeah, I live and work in South Korea so you can check that it is indeed 2 am in the banner of this thread.
Was it a general statement ? I thought it was a reference at you and debears going into OMGUS mode just before your post.
Why does your profile location say france then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
