|
On January 31 2013 03:31 BinOnFire wrote:
I'm sorry, when did I totally misrepresent you, marv?
Can you seriously not read what's even on this page?
On January 31 2013 03:11 SuckMyTopdeck wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 03:09 BinOnFire wrote:
-snip
His theatrics in casting Oats and I as scum also seems forced and tacky.
-snip- At the very least this is a gross misrepresentation, since my analysis led me to think you were probably town. Why are you misrepresenting me so viciously, or not reading the thread?
|
Now it's not on this page and I look stupid :D
|
EBWOP: By that, I thought the quotes I pulled in my post above were all SNB's posts - were those actually you?
|
The conclusion of that post doesn't change the fact that the actual "suppose if such and such" was forced and tacky. You don't get any credibility from me just by claiming that I'm town :3
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On January 31 2013 03:34 BinOnFire wrote:
The conclusion of that post doesn't change the fact that the actual "suppose if such and such" was forced and tacky. You don't get any credibility from me just by claiming that I'm town :3
You said forced theatrics casting as you as mafia. The endpoint of my analysis was that I thought you were town.
|
Yes, you created a scenario where I was cast as mafia, and then concluded that you thought I was town.
>_>
|
I think I can agree about killing Crossfire first though. Also D1 ends in like 4 hours or so, it's not "half D1" at all >_>
Speaking of which Imma cast BloodMire before I forget. Will check with Prome what to cast later
##Cast Bloodstained Mire: Put Badlands into play
/G
|
On January 31 2013 03:36 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 03:34 BinOnFire wrote:
The conclusion of that post doesn't change the fact that the actual "suppose if such and such" was forced and tacky. You don't get any credibility from me just by claiming that I'm town :3 You said forced theatrics casting as you as mafia. The endpoint of my analysis was that I thought you were town.
Reposting for filter. It was giving me fucking flood control.
|
On January 31 2013 03:37 BinOnFire wrote:
Yes, you created a scenario where I was cast as mafia, and then concluded that you thought I was town.
>_>
Alright, I'm going to conclude you're not worth listening to, as that's not what you originally wrote.
I was trying to clear up the supposed contradiction, and then because of it I thought you were town.
|
That's exactly what I wrote. When you cast someone as something, it implies that that's not their actual role, eg "the actor was cast as a ninja zombie dragon." The point is that writing up a fictional script to make your point doesn't actually make your point any more valid.
|
...This is one of those English-as-a-second-language problems, isn't it?
|
On January 31 2013 03:41 BinOnFire wrote:
That's exactly what I wrote. When you cast someone as something, it implies that that's not their actual role, eg "the actor was cast as a ninja zombie dragon." The point is that writing up a fictional script to make your point doesn't actually make your point any more valid.
You're literally making no sense.
1. iGrok thinks you're mafia because of contradictions with this card
2. marvelbabe tries to understand exactly what the contradiction is and its implications
3. marvelbabe concludes that the contradiction has very little mafia motive
Is this so hard to grasp?
|
Then let's leave it at that. Yes, I understand that you're saying that you don't think I'm scum. Now, why should that convince me that you're not scum? Anyone can point town-reads in whatever direction they choose, and it's things like feeling the need for theatrics, and in general being of much less substance than usual, that make me suspicious of you.
No hard feelings 
|
On January 31 2013 03:47 BinOnFire wrote:Then let's leave it at that. Yes, I understand that you're saying that you don't think I'm scum. Now, why should that convince me that you're not scum? Anyone can point town-reads in whatever direction they choose, and it's things like feeling the need for theatrics, and in general being of much less substance than usual, that make me suspicious of you. No hard feelings
What are the theatrics?
|
The scripted scenario, what else? If you had just said "There is no mafia motivation for this line of play," that would be one thing, and your post
On January 31 2013 02:21 SuckMyTopdeck wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 02:18 (DontFear)ThePoster wrote:
Can someone point a small summary on why everybody is attacking Oats right now?
Is it just him apparently going against MG's plan?
Suck, do you think he's scum?
/G
Uh, I would actually guess not. The premise would be: Bin (MG + Oats) are scum. MG provides a plan to do with this card, which either a) has the aim of looking "pro-town" b) furthers mafia agenda (mafia have some reason for this card or something). On this basis I don't understand Oats' motivation at all for then proceeding to cast doubt on the plan. If it's good for mafia for whatever reason, they have the motivation for keeping the plan of playing this card looking as townie as possible, which is the opposite of what's been achieved.
should have stood by itself. Why follow it up with something that doesn't add any more weight to the argument?
|
Hey guys, popping in to give an update, had a rough afternoon and thought i might be getting fired from my work as my boss just left the company and everyone is running around like chickens with their heads cut off. I still find marv/s&B to be the most likely scum, and i will elaborate on this tonight at any rate. I really need a cold shower and some food right now though.
|
On January 31 2013 03:49 BinOnFire wrote:The scripted scenario, what else? If you had just said "There is no mafia motivation for this line of play," that would be one thing, and your post Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 02:21 SuckMyTopdeck wrote:On January 31 2013 02:18 (DontFear)ThePoster wrote:
Can someone point a small summary on why everybody is attacking Oats right now?
Is it just him apparently going against MG's plan?
Suck, do you think he's scum?
/G
Uh, I would actually guess not. The premise would be: Bin (MG + Oats) are scum. MG provides a plan to do with this card, which either a) has the aim of looking "pro-town" b) furthers mafia agenda (mafia have some reason for this card or something). On this basis I don't understand Oats' motivation at all for then proceeding to cast doubt on the plan. If it's good for mafia for whatever reason, they have the motivation for keeping the plan of playing this card looking as townie as possible, which is the opposite of what's been achieved. should have stood by itself. Why follow it up with something that doesn't add any more weight to the argument?
So the theatrics is in fact the part where I'm calling you town, whereas in your analysis you said my theatrics as casting you as mafia. That makes no sense still.
Anyway, I'm done here, this is ridiculous.
|
oh....... now I understand. Ok, misunderstanding. Literally casting like acting.
I have no idea why you'd read scumminess into that, it was just some fun and illustrating my point a little. Kk.
|
Alternative scenario is that scum proposed a plan which they thought would give lots of people lots of cards, which they figured they could deal with. Then they saw it would give one person lots of zombies instead. Panic into derp.
Not saying this is what happened, but making up cute QT conversations is not very useful. Most likely is that there was no QT convo between MG and Oats on this. Here's how it goes from town:
MG: K, I got a plan to win this as town. We play blablabla.
Oats: ok, well, I'm not entirely sold on the idea because A, B, C.
MG: counterarguments.
Oats: well, I'm posting A, B and C in the thread anyway.
This convo seems equally unlikely, so they probably never had any convos about it and any cutesy QT convos you invent are a figment of your imagination, no more, no less.
However, I agree that the whole play was probably just not thought out at all, moving it back down to not indicative of alignment. I will reread Bin and see what I think.
/Acro
|
On January 30 2013 21:14 Clockwork Hydra wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 13:55 SuckMyTopdeck wrote:
wut
also i will tap my forest to play wild growth on my savannah then i will tap that to put two mana into the other thing
also also arguing about how much gonzaw et al is/are posting is stupid. it's like you've never played a game with him before. i used to rage at him too but now i kind of just let the waves of posting wash over me. it makes deep analysis of the game pretty much impossible though, so you either have to filter specific people or else you have to just kind of play on general impressions. but with someone posting that much you can't try and read the whole game.
it's just kind of his/their thing. i really wish they would not do it but ive pretty much given up, what are you gonna do.
reads time: bin on fire is probably town because he feels town to me right now (lol)
no but seriously
bin on fire is probably town because of how he's being helpful and promoting discussion and shit.
scumreads are tough but right now i'm pointing at whatever the acro hydra is. i really don't like how he was all "you gotta give me your power or else think i'm scum", forcing people into shitty dichotomies is not a good way to go about being townie. also how he's been running for mayor while refusing to acknowledge that he was running for mayor until we made him.
okay bedtime -snb I was going to put that in spoiler tags, but it deserves to be seen.
Let me get this straight: I forced you into a shitty dichotomy? Nope. All I said was that you seem overly butthurt over HRM and if you had an actual reason for not wanting a shambling herd of zombies, you should come out and say so. Of course, my tone was taunting, because I really want you to post more, because I have been leaning scum on you all game and that has not improved over time. PS. I haven't asked NT or iGrok to call me scum and they also have their reservations about zombies. NT and iGrok are straightforward: iGrok just doesn't want rampant power growth from anybody and NT just doesn't want a null read getting too much power. I have my reservations about both reasons and have given my counter-arguments. You, however, shroud whatever reason you have in policy chatter. Instead of giving an actual straight reason you give vague platitudes like: Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 05:16 SuckMyTopdeck wrote:On January 30 2013 04:10 Clockwork Hydra wrote:
@Marv: you said SnB wasn't around, yet he dropped in to play a Savannah (in a slightly trolly way) before you posted your "help me, SnB deserted me" and has now posted a long policy post. Why did you excuse yourself due to SnB's absence, despite SnB clearly not being absent.
@SnB: unless you plan on wiping out everybody else in turn 2 or 3 or so, you will have to rely on your fellow townies. We play as a team. Making every part of that team stronger is good. Now if you're worried about zombies (Nova and iGrok as well), then you should probably start analysing our posts. We have made enough of them and have been rather transparent. Do you think we're scum?
/Acro I want to make *everybody* stronger. I don't want to put a disproportionate amount of strength in any one specific player. You're distorting my position. Which sounds great, but you give no actual way of MAKING everybody stronger. Additionally, Marv evades questions with a reflection, while doing none of his usual town play. You know what happened last time Marv lurked through day 1? He flipped scum. You... well: 1. Utter dearth of sensible scumhunting in your filter. 2. Vague policies with no practical import to the game. 3. Inconsistent play: fear of zombies into giving away free zombies. But it's okay, you're probably both back into lurk and I won't get a response. You have until the attack phase of D2 to convince me you're not scum. /Acro
the shitty dichotomy i meant was you saying that if I don't want you to have twenty zombies, the only way to justify that is if i think you're scum. that's just terrible logic.
-snb
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
