On April 06 2013 16:25 Obzy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 15:03 jampidampi wrote:##Vote: RainbowsRainbows is really scummy. At the start, he had the opportunity to continue discussing what was being discussed, but instead he brings up this hypotetical question. Now what purpose does it serve? Scum could post this to know what kind of behaviour we find scummy. Town could post this to generate discussion. But I don't believe that. Rainbows had already got good discussion rolling about something that matters to town (policy). But instead he brings up something that can't benefit town. And there is no followup whatsoever. Trying to follow guidelines on what sort of behavior people find scummy is pointless, it's been well proven even in our newbie game that we are willing to adapt. Scumminess indicators are not a thing that are engrained since birth. I feel like he was just trying to generate conversation and promote a positive town atmosphere - in the same way that my first few posts, upon re-reading, look sorta pointless. I was trying to help get the thread started, so we didn't have an empty day 1 that we couldn't draw good conclusions from.
But why didn't continue talking about the things discussed then and instead brought up something else that doesn't serve a purpose?
Show nested quote +
Rainbows asked if Ravens was scum or VT. Blatant bluefishing. No scum would ever answear "Yes, I'm scum". If Ravens had claimed VT there, scum would know he isn't blue. Ravens may have in confusion softclaimed a powerrole there. I can't find any townie reasonin Rainbows would ask this question.
Bluefishing!? How in the world did you get that? Literally no matter what, the proper answer is to say VT. If Ravens had claimed VT, scum would know that he claimed VT. If he's blue, he doesn't have to tell the truth! The question looked like meaningless banter; if it was malicious, it was incredibly shallow, and calling it Bluefishing is absurd in the extreme. (imo ^^)
Can you explain why a townie would ask that question? There is no way the answear is going to be alignment indicative in any way.
Show nested quote +
Rainbows says how he likes Obzy. If you look at any mafia games posts, when someone likes someone, he thinks that guy is town. Just look at the list posts in this game: "I don't like XXX" is used in contexes, where people think XXX is scummy. Yet when I ask him to explain his liking of Obzy, he says he liked the name and that he has posted a lot, when at the time, Obzy had three posts. If look at those three posts, that is not a good basis for a town read.
Hehe I like being told that I'm liked though :0 It's motivating! Legitimately thinking that I was strongly town at that point may have been a bit much, but he didn't say that. I feel like you're trying to build a mountain out of a molehill here, and the connection is not as strong as you are making it out to be.
He himself implied that it was a townread at the time.
Show nested quote +Rainbows thinks he is the center of the thread and that he should be talked about. + Show Spoiler + On April 06 2013 01:49 Rainbows wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 01:24 Warent wrote:A bunch of generic pro-town things being advocated. He provides a (bad) summary of events in the thread and... that's it. I was not providing a summary of events in the thread - I was summing up your actions. Perhaps it wasn't clear enough, no worries, hopefully this will make things more clear. ##Vote RainbowAs far as policies goes, this is my opinion: we should not lynch people based on whims, misinterpretations or lies. Rainbows third, so called, case against Saraf is completely based on either an obvious misinterpretation or a lie. Saraf: even if the spammiest asshole is just some poor well-meaning fattie (who should have applied the litmus test "does this post help town?")
Rainbow: I think we should all rally around lynching Saraf, because he called me town and expressed interest in lynching someone he called probably town. Rainbow: Saraf seems to know I'm town, because he refers to me as such and tells me how I should be playing. Saraf has never called Rainbow town. Even if does NOT equal probably town! Rainbow must know this. I don't think this is a misinterpretation, I think this is Rainbow trying to create something out of nothing. Most likely reason the obvious one - he is scum. And he's not helping himself when he refuses to explain his own action but rather continue to accuse others. You were summing up the thread because I was the only one doing things. On April 06 2013 12:36 Rainbows wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 21:45 JarJarDrinks wrote:
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
First post of the day. Neglects to comment on my play which I find exceedingly odd. I was pretty much the entire thread at that point. On April 05 2013 23:37 Rainbows wrote:Show 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. [snip] Show 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. [snip] 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. On April 06 2013 12:12 Rainbows wrote:
He didn't do anything of use early game. He was around, but chose to do nothing useful. He barely even talked to me, and pretty much ignored events in the thread. His real 'entrance' post to the thread is here: This scummy since Rainbows clearly cares his image. He cares that people see him as town. He cares enough to make a point of being the center of discussion. Scum care for their image. Here is another case of Rainbows caring about his image: On April 05 2013 23:37 Rainbows wroteNobodywonderOn 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. Blues also care about their image, though, presumably. They're trying to act like they are just VTs, but without denying information to town.
Show nested quote +The only post which he brings up from nobodywonder is this one, where nobodywonder suspects Rainbows.
Rainbows is hellbent in his interpretating that Saraf called him town, even when multiple people have said that was not what Saraf intented to say. If Saraf is town, what Rainbow did was scummy, because he has more reasons to potentiaaly misslynch Saraf. If Saraf is scum, it's still scummy. Rainbows appears to put pressure on Saraf and if Saraf is ever on the chopping block, Rainbows can go "oh shit, my reasoning is really dump" and save him. And here, I think that if Rainbows was able to actually form a wagon on Saraf, it would have more to it than just this piece of information. It would be a terrific plan if they were scumbuddies and Rain had the amount of thread presence necessary to direct AND THEN UNDIRECT an entire lynch, several days in - but that's some tinfoil hat stuff right there.
As such - I do not think that your case has merit. I'm not sure if it makes you scum or not, though - and I wish that Rain hadn't absolutely fucking exploded when you posted it lol. Does that answer the question to your satisfaction?
Does his response to my case look like a townies response? He is overemotional and instantly OMGUSSES me. He missinterprets my logic. He clearly feels the pressure but still calls the case BS. How is this a townie response?
In addition to everything I have already posted regarding Rainbow's innocence and my townread on him, I suppose I could also point out this - And these quotes are a pain to get - If he is scum, why is he antagonizing everyone one at a time, writing cases whimsically and without warning, dropping them at a feather's touch - almost if not always because he himself decided another case was better? I'm not verbose enough to explain this in a poetic way, but he's too batshit crazy to be scum at this point in time. (In a good way ^^;; )(...Imo. =P)
The first few fall into the trolly start category and I don't think anyone could think of them as serious. He votes for Smancer for not answearing his question that by his own words meant nothing. He votes on Saraf totally missinterpreting Sarafs post. Do these votes hold any weight? I see them as scum trying to look for potential misslynches. His case on Raven has some good points but the others just bad. Then he OMGUSSES me and switches back to Raven. I see 1 vote that has a clear meaning. And I just noticed that he calls Raven null at the end of his case.
|
EPT
