|
Good morning,
First off all, my prime playing time will probably be when you US folks are sleeping and the other way around. So please keep in mind that it may sometimes take several hours before I can answer question and provide my view points.
We should try to find a middle ground between spam and lurking, obviously neither are good for town. But I rather we focus on posting when we have some new insight to provide, and thus help keep the thread atleast somewhat clean. Unessecary spam is just... spam. I fail to see how spam, confusion and weak claims are helping town.
This is what've noticed after reading this thread (and I'm not alone): In less than 8 hours, Rainbows has provided three different "cases".
The first one could be passed off as a joke.
The second, according to himself a "serious" vote based on not getting an answer quickly enough (?).
The third, and this time he really want to get a lynch going, based on nothing (or wierd reading skills).
I would like to hear Rainbows explanation.
|
Since it seems that Rainbows isn't online and answearing, do you think that he is scum Warent?
|
Well I can't say scum for sure, but I definitely don't like it.
Rainbow votes Smancer. Then Rainbow unvotes, then talks about his policy that there should be no policy and that everyone has their own policy. Rainbow then brings up a policy scenario. Well, he states it isn't policy based. Well to me, it sounds like it is, since a policy defines a set of actions in response to certain behavior. I don't know that Rainbow would bring a policy question and call it not policy, seems like he's cautiously gauging townie response and the town meta.
Honestly, I want a response from not only Rainbow but also Smancer, since to me, it's interesting that Rainbow voted Smancer, unvoted Smancer and then voted Smancer again. In response Smancer had voted Rainbows and then unvoted Rainbow. I just a lil' weirded out by the voting trend.
+ Show Spoiler +As a little meta thing, Rainbows seems to deviate a lot more from previous games, he did troll vote, but not to extent of this game. He also spams a lot more.
|
My read is bad townie or scum.
|
@Warent, so what does your gut lean towards? Would you vote Rainbow?
|
Warent, do you have opinions on someone not named Rainbows?
|
I'll wait for his explanation before I vote.
At work now, I'll be back later today.
|
VOTE COUNT:
TheRavensname (0) Rainbows
Rainbows (3) Smancer, Moloch, Fishgle, jrkirby
Smancer (0) Rainbows, Rainbows
Saraf (1) Rainbows
Note Voting: all you other chumps
Deadline is in 40.5 hours. Voting is mandatory.
If you see your vote (or anyone else') out of place please inform me or someone else on the hosting team so that we can correct it.
|
No-ones here? I want interactions to analyse... Rainbows, when you come online you got some explaining to do. I'll be leaving now and will be back in 10 hours.
|
God I must be feeling poorly when my first thought of waking up at 5:30 AM is to read the entire thread and try to figure it all out half awake. But, lets see where it goes.
Rainbows I have a question for you because I know you hate talking about policy.... why did you bring up a situation in vague enough terms that it had to be answered with policy and not answer it yourself? Its rather unlike your past games (I also know you hate Meta analysis.).. PS:Saraf called you an idiot and an asshole, who just MIGHT be a townie too but think its unlikely. Not really the best lynch reason.
Jampi: Why are you calling Rainbows out for policy lynching? He seems to have made it pretty clear he hates policy discussion in general, and he has yet to really use it in any of his previous games.
Jrk: Postig at random people is actually how rainbows plays. Look at the previous two newbie mini games for proof of that. Do you have another scum read? Or is the phrase other guy just referring to the lurkers?
Obzy: DO not go down the road of assuming everyone is town because no one is objecting to them being town. We made that mistake with rainbows last game and it cost us so badly. ALWAYS assume everyone is scum until they give you a really really good reason, which you should only share if your confident enough in your read to help defend them, and even then.. you need to hold them to the same degree of suspicion as your scum reads. You need to compare them to the results and look at who they are going after and make sure your not getting fooled.
Alot of people are calling Rainbows out for spammyness, but it seems quite a few other people are spamming pretty hard themselves, see the discussion on lurkers killing all of the drones and bio before people have even had 24 hours to get into the thread (I think jarjar still the only person who hasn't posted sense he /ined, so I would say theres only one real lurker.) and mentions of Rainbow's role claim last game by Obzy for examples. Just going to toss this out there: Come up with more then just spammyness by the end of day 1, sense he did get the discussion ball rolling at least.
Now back to sleep before I have to go to class.
|
Just so you guys know my schedule I usually go to bed a little bit before the deadline. So last night I was up just for the beginning.
So far I think Rainbows has done a good job of getting people to talk. I agree that you can't find scum unless you get people talking.
I take issue with this post:
+ Show Spoiler +On April 05 2013 11:57 Saraf wrote:glhf Can we vote for a no-lynch in this game, or must votes be placed on individuals?Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 09:28 Rainbows wrote:
Okay enough guys.
##Unvote
Anyone who's here right now I want to give me their opinions on a statement.
--- I don't want to talk about policy. You can policy me this or policy me that, or raise me a lynch-all-liar policy, but I don't want to hear it. Your policy is your own. Enact it when you see fit, if at all. Don't spew it in the thread incessantly to act like you're contributing or it's the 'must-do' in a mafia game.
If you want to override this and go on with it, fine with me. Whatever you feel is best. Not talking policy Day 1 is bullshit. Scum know who scum are but we don't, and the only way we catch scum is by making them fuck up. Even if the policy ends up being "there is no policy", the debate drives conversation and conversation is the only reliable way we have of rooting out scum and eliminating them. Problems arise for town when scum derails the conversation, so here's some day 1 policy to chew on: In the absence of really strong reads, lynch the spammiest asshole who shits up the thread the most. Spamming the thread is a scum tactic to distract and disrupt town; even if the spammiest asshole is just some poor well-meaning fattie (who should have applied the litmus test "does this post help town?"), at the very least in Day 2 the thread will be less shit up, and it'll be easier to find scum without him shitting up the thread.
Everyone hopefully will have a good reason for lynching someone. Just because they appear spammy is not reason enough IMO. We need to start looking at peoples objectives. I have already said that I think Rainbows objective was just to get people to post. It could be a front to act towny but I don't think he is a good lynch for day one.
Even though I take issue with his intial post, he clears it up later by explaining what he consders spam and what he considers lots of useful posts.
On April 05 2013 15:00 jrkirby wrote:
So I'm worried about rainbows. I feel like he might actually be a fatty, and is just acting stupid by accusing random people for no reason. But the way he's acting is just stupid, and only helps the skinnies. And since he's just helping the skinnies I feel like I have to vote for him, because no one is acting as stupid as him. I don't want to lynch all the lurkers just yet - partially because there's 3 of them and it's a crapshot - and rainbows is the only other guy giving off that scum vibe. So until something changes, or one of the scum making a foolish post, my vote is on rainbows.
The mafia are (probably) gonna kill one of us tonight, so it would be good if we at least have a chance of killing one of them tonight. It might not be rainbows but I feel like the chances are better than even.
Why do you think generating discussion is only helping skinnies? That can't be enough to warrant a vote untless you are trying to pressure for more.
I don't have a very good scum read on anyone ATM but jrkirby and Saraf for the quotes I posted are on my watch list.
|
K, just caught up.
I think jrkirby is my scummiest read at the moment. He votes rainbows pretty early. Then later on he tells us that he feels like he "might actually be a fatty, and is just acting stupid" BUT he feels like he has to vote for him because he's "helping the skinnies".
Anyone that votes for someone and then defends them is gonna read scum to me.
##vote: jrkirby
|
I'll point out also that Molock and jkirby both think Rainbows is scum in these two posts 3 minutes apart. My initial thought is that they are scum looking to get a bandwagon vote on Rainbows.
+ Show Spoiler +On April 05 2013 14:57 Moloch wrote:Show nested quote +Moloch, in this post you calling Rainbows scum in a noncommital way (bolded by me). Do you think he is actually scummy for that post? That was supposed to be a joke at that point. I didn't actually think he was scummy at that point. My original vote for him was a joke as well, since it was based upon him posting a lot early and not having enough time to eat pizza. But, I've kept my vote on him for a couple reasons. According to this post, he gets very defensive about about being called scum, whereas I interpreted Saraf's comment to not be calling out anyone in particular - just being the way he thought about stuff. (It's possible that I don't feel like anyone's been spammy so far affected how I interpreted it). I also don't like how he changed his vote from Smancer to someone else to quickly. He gave a reason he thought Smancer was a suspect, then just changed it to Saraf because he got overly defensive (but he had a couple posts in between Saraf labeling him and switching his vote, which makes me suspect that it wasn't a hasty vote-switch caused by emotion) I'm not certain about anyone, but Rainbows seems like the best bet at the moment. On April 05 2013 15:00 jrkirby wrote:
So I'm worried about rainbows. I feel like he might actually be a fatty, and is just acting stupid by accusing random people for no reason. But the way he's acting is just stupid, and only helps the skinnies. And since he's just helping the skinnies I feel like I have to vote for him, because no one is acting as stupid as him. I don't want to lynch all the lurkers just yet - partially because there's 3 of them and it's a crapshot - and rainbows is the only other guy giving off that scum vibe. So until something changes, or one of the scum making a foolish post, my vote is on rainbows.
The mafia are (probably) gonna kill one of us tonight, so it would be good if we at least have a chance of killing one of them tonight. It might not be rainbows but I feel like the chances are better than even.
|
##vote: jrkirby
I'll vote him for now, because I feel he is acting scum and trying to point fingers at the one person who actually got the thread moving toward finding scum.
@Rainbows what is your read on jrkirby.
|
VOTE COUNT:
TheRavensname (0) Rainbows
Rainbows (3) Smancer, Moloch, Fishgle, jrkirby
Smancer (0) Rainbows, Rainbows
Saraf (1) Rainbows
jrkirby (2) JarJarDrinks, Smancer
Note Voting: all you other chumps
Rainbows is currently set to be lynched
Deadline is in 35 hours. Voting is mandatory.
If you see your vote (or anyone else') out of place please inform me or someone else on the hosting team so that we can correct it.
|
Coming back an hour later I think my conspiracy theory about posts being close together was a bit over the top. I am leaving my vote for now because I don't like how jrkirby pointed at the one person who was trying to get the ball rolling in finding scum.
Is anyone here?
|
Warent
On April 05 2013 15:53 Warent wrote:
Good morning,
First off all, my prime playing time will probably be when you US folks are sleeping and the other way around. So please keep in mind that it may sometimes take several hours before I can answer question and provide my view points.
We should try to find a middle ground between spam and lurking, obviously neither are good for town. But I rather we focus on posting when we have some new insight to provide, and thus help keep the thread atleast somewhat clean. Unessecary spam is just... spam. I fail to see how spam, confusion and weak claims are helping town.
This is what've noticed after reading this thread (and I'm not alone): In less than 8 hours, Rainbows has provided three different "cases".
The first one could be passed off as a joke.
The second, according to himself a "serious" vote based on not getting an answer quickly enough (?).
The third, and this time he really want to get a lynch going, based on nothing (or wierd reading skills).
I would like to hear Rainbows explanation.
A bunch of generic pro-town things being advocated. He provides a (bad) summary of events in the thread and... that's it.
On April 05 2013 16:03 Warent wrote:
My read is bad townie or scum.
A really non-comittal read. Those are always the two obvious choices in a situation such as this. Warent wants to 'wait for my explanation', which there will be none. Instead of coming to thread and giving us something to work with, Warent decides to play the 'Suspicious guy is suspicious' card and do nothing while appearing to do something. Rainbows no like.
Saraf
On April 05 2013 11:57 Saraf wrote:glhf Can we vote for a no-lynch in this game, or must votes be placed on individuals?Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 09:28 Rainbows wrote:
Okay enough guys.
##Unvote
Anyone who's here right now I want to give me their opinions on a statement.
--- I don't want to talk about policy. You can policy me this or policy me that, or raise me a lynch-all-liar policy, but I don't want to hear it. Your policy is your own. Enact it when you see fit, if at all. Don't spew it in the thread incessantly to act like you're contributing or it's the 'must-do' in a mafia game.
If you want to override this and go on with it, fine with me. Whatever you feel is best. Not talking policy Day 1 is bullshit. Scum know who scum are but we don't, and the only way we catch scum is by making them fuck up. Even if the policy ends up being "there is no policy", the debate drives conversation and conversation is the only reliable way we have of rooting out scum and eliminating them. Problems arise for town when scum derails the conversation, so here's some day 1 policy to chew on: In the absence of really strong reads, lynch the spammiest asshole who shits up the thread the most. Spamming the thread is a scum tactic to distract and disrupt town; even if the spammiest asshole is just some poor well-meaning fattie (who should have applied the litmus test "does this post help town?"), at the very least in Day 2 the thread will be less shit up, and it'll be easier to find scum without him shitting up the thread.
It is obvious that Saraf is referring to me here. I'm spamming, I'm doing a bunch of nuisance-like things and he doesn't like it. He says he would like to lynch me; even if I'm probably town. Saraf seems to know I'm town, because he refers to me as such and tells me how I should be playing.
On April 05 2013 13:35 Saraf wrote:
Obzy: posting a lot is not the same as spam. If you post a ton, and all of your posts contribute to scumhunting/creating a pro-town environment then are you spamming? Obviously not. Look at everything posted from the start of the game up until Rainbows drops the "comment on this" post about policy. Everything prior is pointless and spam. Look at the rando dialogue between Rainbows and TRN, what point does that serve? Before anyone got the ball rolling that was fine, but if, for instance, I just look at Rainbows's vote on me and OMGUS him now what do I accomplish? Jack shit, I spam the thread, and just make myself look an ass. And I do want people to chew on the policy, see if they think it sucks, see if they think it's good. And see why they think the way they do.
Rainbows, you're obviously up, what do you actually think about the policy?
Notice the hypocrisy in this underlined statement. Saraf wants policy talk. Awesome, go for it man... wait, what policy has he brought up -- none. He wants people to talk about policy but is doing nothing to drive the discussion. He's trying to come off all pro-town by being 'yeah, we should lynch a scummy spammer guy, and totally talk about policy because it generates discussion!". He completely ignores A) that discussion is already happening, and we can talk about that and B) He himself is not bringing up policy to talk about and "get information".
I digress, he's brought up the policy to 'lynch the spammiest asshole', but that in itself people are already talking about because I'm the center of discussion. So antagonisitic.
Nobodywonder
On April 05 2013 16:03 nobodywonder wrote:Well I can't say scum for sure, but I definitely don't like it. Rainbow votes Smancer. Then Rainbow unvotes, then talks about his policy that there should be no policy and that everyone has their own policy. Rainbow then brings up a policy scenario. Well, he states it isn't policy based. Well to me, it sounds like it is, since a policy defines a set of actions in response to certain behavior. I don't know that Rainbow would bring a policy question and call it not policy, seems like he's cautiously gauging townie response and the town meta. Honestly, I want a response from not only Rainbow but also Smancer, since to me, it's interesting that Rainbow voted Smancer, unvoted Smancer and then voted Smancer again. In response Smancer had voted Rainbows and then unvoted Rainbow. I just a lil' weirded out by the voting trend. + Show Spoiler +As a little meta thing, Rainbows seems to deviate a lot more from previous games, he did troll vote, but not to extent of this game. He also spams a lot more.
NW gives a huge summary. and throws some shit. He meditates on the policy thing, which I told everyone wasn't policy. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW PEOPLE THINK AND POLICY JESUS CHRIST PEOPLE. Had to get out of the way. This post, and subsequently the spoiler, show no effort on NW's part to come to a conrete read on me. He simply says that I'm doing things. He seems really apprehensive about giving an actual read and just flops around.
I want peoples opinions of NW. Saraf might just be a banality-spewing town; and I'm unsure if his lolpolicy was serious or not. But NW - that guy. He's scummy.
|
On April 05 2013 23:32 Smancer wrote:
Coming back an hour later I think my conspiracy theory about posts being close together was a bit over the top. I am leaving my vote for now because I don't like how jrkirby pointed at the one person who was trying to get the ball rolling in finding scum.
Is anyone here?
I'm on the fence about Jrkirby. Nothing he's done so far is alignment-indicative. He voted me or whatever, brool story cro.
|
On April 05 2013 23:37 Rainbows wrote:WarentShow nested quote +On April 05 2013 15:53 Warent wrote:
Good morning,
First off all, my prime playing time will probably be when you US folks are sleeping and the other way around. So please keep in mind that it may sometimes take several hours before I can answer question and provide my view points.
We should try to find a middle ground between spam and lurking, obviously neither are good for town. But I rather we focus on posting when we have some new insight to provide, and thus help keep the thread atleast somewhat clean. Unessecary spam is just... spam. I fail to see how spam, confusion and weak claims are helping town.
This is what've noticed after reading this thread (and I'm not alone): In less than 8 hours, Rainbows has provided three different "cases".
The first one could be passed off as a joke.
The second, according to himself a "serious" vote based on not getting an answer quickly enough (?).
The third, and this time he really want to get a lynch going, based on nothing (or wierd reading skills).
I would like to hear Rainbows explanation. A bunch of generic pro-town things being advocated. He provides a (bad) summary of events in the thread and... that's it. A really non-comittal read. Those are always the two obvious choices in a situation such as this. Warent wants to 'wait for my explanation', which there will be none. Instead of coming to thread and giving us something to work with, Warent decides to play the 'Suspicious guy is suspicious' card and do nothing while appearing to do something. Rainbows no like. SarafShow nested quote +On April 05 2013 11:57 Saraf wrote:glhf Can we vote for a no-lynch in this game, or must votes be placed on individuals?On April 05 2013 09:28 Rainbows wrote:
Okay enough guys.
##Unvote
Anyone who's here right now I want to give me their opinions on a statement.
--- I don't want to talk about policy. You can policy me this or policy me that, or raise me a lynch-all-liar policy, but I don't want to hear it. Your policy is your own. Enact it when you see fit, if at all. Don't spew it in the thread incessantly to act like you're contributing or it's the 'must-do' in a mafia game.
If you want to override this and go on with it, fine with me. Whatever you feel is best. Not talking policy Day 1 is bullshit. Scum know who scum are but we don't, and the only way we catch scum is by making them fuck up. Even if the policy ends up being "there is no policy", the debate drives conversation and conversation is the only reliable way we have of rooting out scum and eliminating them. Problems arise for town when scum derails the conversation, so here's some day 1 policy to chew on: In the absence of really strong reads, lynch the spammiest asshole who shits up the thread the most. Spamming the thread is a scum tactic to distract and disrupt town; even if the spammiest asshole is just some poor well-meaning fattie (who should have applied the litmus test "does this post help town?"), at the very least in Day 2 the thread will be less shit up, and it'll be easier to find scum without him shitting up the thread. It is obvious that Saraf is referring to me here. I'm spamming, I'm doing a bunch of nuisance-like things and he doesn't like it. He says he would like to lynch me; even if I'm probably town. Saraf seems to know I'm town, because he refers to me as such and tells me how I should be playing. Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 13:35 Saraf wrote:
Obzy: posting a lot is not the same as spam. If you post a ton, and all of your posts contribute to scumhunting/creating a pro-town environment then are you spamming? Obviously not. Look at everything posted from the start of the game up until Rainbows drops the "comment on this" post about policy. Everything prior is pointless and spam. Look at the rando dialogue between Rainbows and TRN, what point does that serve? Before anyone got the ball rolling that was fine, but if, for instance, I just look at Rainbows's vote on me and OMGUS him now what do I accomplish? Jack shit, I spam the thread, and just make myself look an ass. And I do want people to chew on the policy, see if they think it sucks, see if they think it's good. And see why they think the way they do.
Rainbows, you're obviously up, what do you actually think about the policy? Notice the hypocrisy in this underlined statement. Saraf wants policy talk. Awesome, go for it man... wait, what policy has he brought up -- none. He wants people to talk about policy but is doing nothing to drive the discussion. He's trying to come off all pro-town by being 'yeah, we should lynch a scummy spammer guy, and totally talk about policy because it generates discussion!". He completely ignores A) that discussion is already happening, and we can talk about that and B) He himself is not bringing up policy to talk about and "get information". I digress, he's brought up the policy to 'lynch the spammiest asshole', but that in itself people are already talking about because I'm the center of discussion. So antagonisitic. NobodywonderShow nested quote +On April 05 2013 16:03 nobodywonder wrote:Well I can't say scum for sure, but I definitely don't like it. Rainbow votes Smancer. Then Rainbow unvotes, then talks about his policy that there should be no policy and that everyone has their own policy. Rainbow then brings up a policy scenario. Well, he states it isn't policy based. Well to me, it sounds like it is, since a policy defines a set of actions in response to certain behavior. I don't know that Rainbow would bring a policy question and call it not policy, seems like he's cautiously gauging townie response and the town meta. Honestly, I want a response from not only Rainbow but also Smancer, since to me, it's interesting that Rainbow voted Smancer, unvoted Smancer and then voted Smancer again. In response Smancer had voted Rainbows and then unvoted Rainbow. I just a lil' weirded out by the voting trend. + Show Spoiler +As a little meta thing, Rainbows seems to deviate a lot more from previous games, he did troll vote, but not to extent of this game. He also spams a lot more. NW gives a huge summary. and throws some shit. He meditates on the policy thing, which I told everyone wasn't policy. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW PEOPLE THINK AND POLICY JESUS CHRIST PEOPLE. Had to get out of the way. This post, and subsequently the spoiler, show no effort on NW's part to come to a conrete read on me. He simply says that I'm doing things. He seems really apprehensive about giving an actual read and just flops around. I want peoples opinions of NW. Saraf might just be a banality-spewing town; and I'm unsure if his lolpolicy was serious or not. But NW - that guy. He's scummy.
You only want an opinion from the town on me? Why not Saraf too, you comment on his posts and seem to say that Saraf is scummy, but never really do.
I find this strange because after all, you did vote for him earlier, But now you just seem to suggest that he is just a silly town. I don't like that youre giving Saraf a free pass.
That said, I do fully welcome people to write opinions on me. It'll get more content out.
On Warent, I leaning scum on him, since he was very non-committal on Rainbows and just not very active. Anyways I do want Warent to weigh in later now that Rainbows has replied.
|
On April 05 2013 15:00 jrkirby wrote:
So I'm worried about rainbows. I feel like he might actually be a fatty, and is just acting stupid by accusing random people for no reason. But the way he's acting is just stupid, and only helps the skinnies. And since he's just helping the skinnies I feel like I have to vote for him, because no one is acting as stupid as him. I don't want to lynch all the lurkers just yet - partially because there's 3 of them and it's a crapshot - and rainbows is the only other guy giving off that scum vibe. So until something changes, or one of the scum making a foolish post, my vote is on rainbows.
The mafia are (probably) gonna kill one of us tonight, so it would be good if we at least have a chance of killing one of them tonight. It might not be rainbows but I feel like the chances are better than even.
On the subject of jrkirby, I really don't like his metaphors because it is subject to interpretation and thus we cannot really know what jrkirby is thinking. Also I feel his talk about lurkers was unnecessary at the time. We hadn't really mentioned lurkers in general. Overall his whole post gives him a way out to freely switch around, something that I don't like and to indicates a level of scumminess. That said he better be thorough when he switches, because otherwise I think that jrkirby is scum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
