|
Vatican City State88 Posts
On April 14 2013 00:40 raynmaster wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 14 2013 00:37 MockArmor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 00:35 raynmaster wrote:On April 14 2013 00:26 ShotgunBiceps wrote:
Just trying to get read on you and your stances help on that. What in Mocsta catches your eye, and is it only Mocsta or the hole hydra? Its just Mocsta and the fact that he currently has said that he doesnt want to disclose any reads. Walk me through in particular why that is scummy. Walk me through why a townie would not choose to give out scumreads 12hrs into the game. + answer the outstanding question I have directed to you. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=406683¤tpage=29#566 Dude, its like 18 hours, almost 24. Because then you are not taking a stand on anything and you dont have any hard statments that you have to make regarding a person's alignment. Like you can always say, NO NO I DIDNT THINK HE WAS SCUM, I DIDNT SAY THAT. So make a stand, put out your reads. I have no idea why you dont want to give out SCUMREADS at all. Thats rayn posting, Im oats. Famously said, I DONT KNOW WHAT HE IS THINKING. I will give out scum read(s) by declaring by means of a vote/case/comment etc when I feel it is appropiate.
Certainly not only because it was requested.
Oh, and Oats, I am confident you will find that I answered /Rayns question in its entirety.
I must admit, that I think continuing exploring this conversation is of merit however.
Thus, I am still awaiting feedback to my questions.
|
Vatican City State88 Posts
On April 14 2013 00:54 raynmaster wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 14 2013 00:50 MockArmor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 00:40 raynmaster wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 14 2013 00:37 MockArmor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 00:35 raynmaster wrote:On April 14 2013 00:26 ShotgunBiceps wrote:
Just trying to get read on you and your stances help on that. What in Mocsta catches your eye, and is it only Mocsta or the hole hydra? Its just Mocsta and the fact that he currently has said that he doesnt want to disclose any reads. Walk me through in particular why that is scummy. Walk me through why a townie would not choose to give out scumreads 12hrs into the game. + answer the outstanding question I have directed to you. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=406683¤tpage=29#566 Dude, its like 18 hours, almost 24. Because then you are not taking a stand on anything and you dont have any hard statments that you have to make regarding a person's alignment. Like you can always say, NO NO I DIDNT THINK HE WAS SCUM, I DIDNT SAY THAT. So make a stand, put out your reads. I have no idea why you dont want to give out SCUMREADS at all. Thats rayn posting, Im oats. Famously said, I DONT KNOW WHAT HE IS THINKING. I will give out scum read(s) by declaring by means of a vote/case/comment etc when I feel it is appropiate. Certainly not only because it was requested. Show nested quote +Oh, and Oats, I am confident you will find that I answered /Rayns question in its entirety. I must admit, that I think continuing exploring this conversation is of merit however. Thus, I am still awaiting feedback to my questions. Whats the point of this thing? to say DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DO? or something else? The point was: - I answered all of Raynmasters questions in its entirety, &
- I am still awaiting feedback to my simple and straight-forward question - now questions
Namely,
Question 1
&
Question 2
I admit you (Oats) gave half a response to question 2. But unfornately its still only half a response. And further, I didn't realise Raynpelikoneet needed a "patsy" to speak on his behalf.
|
Vatican City State88 Posts
hmm just realised patsy was incorrect word choice.
just replace with, needed his "qt partner"
|
Vatican City State88 Posts
Well I wasn't directing the question about Rayn behaviour to you Oats. It was clearly directed to Rayn.
Further, his response has been far from satisfactory. He has dodged the core of the matter entirely.
As for the second question; no; you did not answer it (completely).
In addition, I also find it interesting how quick you are to launch into ad-hominems.
Let me break it down for you.
Rayn asked me 2 questions. Do I have reads // what is my read on Hapa.
I answered both in their entirety.
He reciprocates by proclaiming my response was scummy; as i chose not to elucidate on my reads (even though he did not directly ask).
I asked why my response can only be scummy; and in essence, can not originate from town.
Neither of you have addressed this question.
Your statement about giving hard stances etc, whilst a valid comment, does not imply one is town or scum.
Thus, one: does not align with the stance of your QT partner Rayn; and two: does not explain why the comment can not originate from town.
I expect this to clear up the differences.
If you prefer Rayn to continue this discussion, than I suggest you do not reply to this.
|
Vatican City State88 Posts
On April 14 2013 01:13 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 13 2013 15:54 MockArmor wrote:
My prior was post presented after VE presents rather valid points on both shotgun and DP/Palmar...
For DP/Palmar, definitely subpar play. Sadly, they are one of several people who have done next to nothing...
As for Hapa: I really didn't understand his townread on Wave (hence why I asked). His explanation wasn't very strong either. I know that Hapa's a strong town player, and find it hard to believe the guy would do something like this so haphazardly. The recent mislynch of Ace in my mind though reminds me that good players do dumb things. So this is a poor reason to suspect Hapa as scum. But there's more to it than that.:
But there's Scum Motivation too for this action. As scum, Hapa has Wave "buddied" to sway the vote. Wave already extended out to Hapa saying he was going to buddy him, so why not take advantage of this as scum? I know he's aware of what motivates buddying, as I recall him using buddying as a casepoint before in a past game. I'm looking forward to Hapa's defense.
##FoS: Shotgun On April 14 2013 00:02 MockArmor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 23:54 raynmaster wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 13 2013 23:47 MockArmor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 23:42 raynmaster wrote:On April 13 2013 23:35 MockArmor wrote:On April 13 2013 23:19 SamuelLJackson wrote:
Mocsta you didn't answer my question. Why did you attempt to make a big deal out of a person posting something that in essence looked like a confirmation post and a post implying that he was going to bed? The complaint in general feels false given that the game had just started and it doesn't seem like you could have genuinely felt frustrated by the state of things at the time of the post. The question should not be addressed to Mocsta. Regardless; I have been content with the posting of my partner.. I also believe the post you have chosen to bring attention is, contains a valid opinion of thread sentiment. Rather, I think it is you, who is choosing to elucidate matters of the minutiae to the fore. Why would you not want a player you are talking to in the first place to answer? Are you gonna try to get out of bad spot by letting your partner to answer a question directed to someone else? /rayn That answer was clearly written by Mocsta. As is this response. What is your point? Are you suggesting that I am able to elucidate the inate thoughts of GoodKarma at the time of writing? What i do know is that the post in question, shared the same sentiments I felt at the time. The thread was too spammy; too crazy; and too emotional. Hey do you have any reads? Or expand on your hapa read please. Yes, we have reads. To expand on Hapa: We don't perceive him as scum; nor an entity to invest further time into this cycle. + Show Spoiler +
In my opinion, town Hapa is quick to jump to conclusions, and just as quick to re-evaluate his reads and make his current stance visible. I think that occured today.
Can you explain this, MA? You FoS Hapa because he has scum motivation for buddying me etc etc and is kinda scummy whatever. Then you call him town?. Reads are subject to change, in particular Day1 where new information comes to bear rapidly.
My read on Hapa is as I described in the post below.
On April 14 2013 00:02 MockArmor wrote:To expand on Hapa: We don't perceive him as scum; nor an entity to invest further time into this cycle. + Show Spoiler +
In my opinion, town Hapa is quick to jump to conclusions, and just as quick to re-evaluate his reads and make his current stance visible. I think that occured today.
GKs conversation with Hapa placed his thoughts in alignment with mine; if that is what you were actaully asking.
|
Vatican City State88 Posts
On April 14 2013 01:28 raynmaster wrote:
To add on, you said that it can originate from town, I say that I cant think of a situation where town doesnt want to be forthcoming with his reads.
Town does not need to be forthcoming with reads. Town chooses to be forthcoming, assuming it equates to transparency, and thus, establishing innocence.
What town needs to do is scum hunt; and that is precisely why I did not want to give out reads at the point in time.
Why?
(1) The thread is full of loose/emotional comments being thrown around.
Many people are looking scummy for contributing to this "shit-fest" and its easy to get tunneled on bad play; as opposed to scummy play.
Constantly, asking for "reads" is inhibiting critical evaluation from taking place; as you are asking someone to crystalize their thoughts before they have soaked in this "shit fest" of a thread. --------------
(2) Instead of giving out meaningless "reads"; I would rather enter discourse with my reads to discern their alignment.
Theres a damn good reason I have been maintaing dialogue with you/rayn.
Anywho, I think you (Oats) and I are done with conversation.
I await Raynpelikoneets response to my outstanding questions.
|
Vatican City State88 Posts
On April 14 2013 01:42 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:
Idk MockArmor, looks like you wanted to push a misslynch on Hapa, then he retaliated and you decided to give him a town read for appeasement. If you want to build a case on me, please go ahead.
There should be sufficient filter to cherry pick.
In fact, I would like you to be accountable for making a comment such as the above.
Do not tell me it "looks like you wanted to push a misslynch on Hapa".
Stop throwing shit around, and prove it to me.
Walk me through why the phrasing GK used specifically relates to wanting to push a misslynch.
Walk me through why my phrasing is designed for appeasement.
|
Vatican City State88 Posts
Oats, I think the bolded sentence is quite self-explanatory. No re-phrase is required.
This is shitting up the thread; so will be my last reply to you regarding this conversation.
|
Vatican City State88 Posts
On April 14 2013 01:59 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 14 2013 00:02 MockArmor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 23:54 raynmaster wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 13 2013 23:47 MockArmor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 23:42 raynmaster wrote:On April 13 2013 23:35 MockArmor wrote:On April 13 2013 23:19 SamuelLJackson wrote:
Mocsta you didn't answer my question. Why did you attempt to make a big deal out of a person posting something that in essence looked like a confirmation post and a post implying that he was going to bed? The complaint in general feels false given that the game had just started and it doesn't seem like you could have genuinely felt frustrated by the state of things at the time of the post. The question should not be addressed to Mocsta. Regardless; I have been content with the posting of my partner.. I also believe the post you have chosen to bring attention is, contains a valid opinion of thread sentiment. Rather, I think it is you, who is choosing to elucidate matters of the minutiae to the fore. Why would you not want a player you are talking to in the first place to answer? Are you gonna try to get out of bad spot by letting your partner to answer a question directed to someone else? /rayn That answer was clearly written by Mocsta. As is this response. What is your point? Are you suggesting that I am able to elucidate the inate thoughts of GoodKarma at the time of writing? What i do know is that the post in question, shared the same sentiments I felt at the time. The thread was too spammy; too crazy; and too emotional. Hey do you have any reads? Or expand on your hapa read please. Yes, we have reads. To expand on Hapa: We don't perceive him as scum; nor an entity to invest further time into this cycle. + Show Spoiler +
In my opinion, town Hapa is quick to jump to conclusions, and just as quick to re-evaluate his reads and make his current stance visible. I think that occured today.
Well, you go through the trouble of digging up something potentially scummy from Hapa and question him about it. After a few hours of lurking, you guys suddenly come to the conclusion that Hapa is probably town (or something to that effect) and deem him no longer worthy of pursing today. I understand the stance, but what I don't understand is why, if you have initial suspicions of Hapa, that you're willing to let him off the hook so easily and not entertain the possibility of investigating him this cycle.
Firstly, you have a keen enough eye to pay attention to our posts; yet, are not observant enough to notice that the early pressure on Hapa was solely GK.
FYI,
I entered the thread roughly 4 hours, caught up; gave my reads to GK.
Let me quote him hhaha (cos i was surprised too)
"I agree ironically with pretty much everything you've said".
Secondly, you have a very strong choice of words here Wave.
"let him off the hook so easily" // "a few hours of lurking"; if I didnt know better, I would think you are calling me scum. Yet, I do not see a vote or a case for the accountability I was talking about earlier.
To answer your question; I didnt think a ##FoS was hard pressure; thus enabling "letting off the hook easily".
Thirdly, (to address the crux of your concerns) you present your opinion as if reads are not subject to change.
Why is this?
I explained why I let Hapa off the hook in short. You still have not explained in detail what the dispute is?
Lastly, "I understand the stance" what does this actually mean?
|
Vatican City State88 Posts
On April 14 2013 02:24 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 14 2013 02:17 MockArmor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 01:59 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 14 2013 00:02 MockArmor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 23:54 raynmaster wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 13 2013 23:47 MockArmor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 23:42 raynmaster wrote:On April 13 2013 23:35 MockArmor wrote:On April 13 2013 23:19 SamuelLJackson wrote:
Mocsta you didn't answer my question. Why did you attempt to make a big deal out of a person posting something that in essence looked like a confirmation post and a post implying that he was going to bed? The complaint in general feels false given that the game had just started and it doesn't seem like you could have genuinely felt frustrated by the state of things at the time of the post. The question should not be addressed to Mocsta. Regardless; I have been content with the posting of my partner.. I also believe the post you have chosen to bring attention is, contains a valid opinion of thread sentiment. Rather, I think it is you, who is choosing to elucidate matters of the minutiae to the fore. Why would you not want a player you are talking to in the first place to answer? Are you gonna try to get out of bad spot by letting your partner to answer a question directed to someone else? /rayn That answer was clearly written by Mocsta. As is this response. What is your point? Are you suggesting that I am able to elucidate the inate thoughts of GoodKarma at the time of writing? What i do know is that the post in question, shared the same sentiments I felt at the time. The thread was too spammy; too crazy; and too emotional. Hey do you have any reads? Or expand on your hapa read please. Yes, we have reads. To expand on Hapa: We don't perceive him as scum; nor an entity to invest further time into this cycle. + Show Spoiler +
In my opinion, town Hapa is quick to jump to conclusions, and just as quick to re-evaluate his reads and make his current stance visible. I think that occured today.
Well, you go through the trouble of digging up something potentially scummy from Hapa and question him about it. After a few hours of lurking, you guys suddenly come to the conclusion that Hapa is probably town (or something to that effect) and deem him no longer worthy of pursing today. I understand the stance, but what I don't understand is why, if you have initial suspicions of Hapa, that you're willing to let him off the hook so easily and not entertain the possibility of investigating him this cycle. Firstly, you have a keen enough eye to pay attention to our posts; yet, are not observant enough to notice that the early pressure on Hapa was solely GK. FYI, I entered the thread roughly 4 hours, caught up; gave my reads to GK. Let me quote him hhaha (cos i was surprised too) "I agree ironically with pretty much everything you've said".
Secondly, you have a very strong choice of words here Wave. "let him off the hook so easily" // "a few hours of lurking"; if I didnt know better, I would think you are calling me scum. Yet, I do not see a vote or a case for the accountability I was talking about earlier. To answer your question; I didnt think a ##FoS was hard pressure; thus enabling "letting off the hook easily".
Thirdly, (to address the crux of your concerns) you present your opinion as if reads are not subject to change. Why is this?I explained why I let Hapa off the hook in short. You still have not explained in detail what the dispute is?
Lastly, "I understand the stance" what does this actually mean? I'm not calling you scum, nor do I believe you are at this stage. [red]My point remains that FoS's in general are very noncomittal and, if you are scum, that is your way out, and the brief clause you provided to claim Hapa = town was fairly generic in flow with the thread. "I understand the stance" = I know what your stance is on Hapa currently. MA, what's your read on Rayn after all the "AHMIGERD GIMME READS" stuff?
Thank you for admitting: you are looking purely at the action (FoS).
It doesnt matter what you think it "scummy in general'. What matters is whether you think GK motives were scummy.
Lets apply some critical thought:
Do you think the manner GK maintained dialogue is indicative of someone trying to be non-committal; someone trying not to discern alignment; someone not trying to figure out the game?
-------------------------------------------
Secondly,
and the brief clause you provided to claim Hapa = town was fairly generic in flow with the thread.
Are you suggesting, because I happen to agree with a 'flow in the thread' that I become scummish in conjuction with an old FoS? Are you suggesting, it is scummy for reads to be re-evaluated?
-------------------------------------------
Lastly, I am still waiting for Rayn to reply back. Dialogue onus is currently on him.
What do you make of Rayn; since you seem to be carrying his torch. - I do believe he was the one that questioned me originally regarding Hapa, ironically telling me we had voted him; when in fact it was just an FoS.
|
Vatican City State88 Posts
On April 14 2013 02:24 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:I'm not calling you scum, nor do I believe you are at this stage. + Show Spoiler [Blah blah] +]My point remains that FoS's in general are very noncomittal and, if you are scum, that is your way out, and the brief clause you provided to claim Hapa = town was fairly generic in flow with the thread.
"I understand the stance" = I know what your stance is on Hapa currently.
MA, what's your read on Rayn after all the "AHMIGERD GIMME READS" stuff? So you are not calling me scum; nor do you "believe" I am scum currently.
So...Why are we going through this dance then?
You know.. where you repeat the same things where the subtext infers you think the actions are scummy
On April 14 2013 01:42 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:
Idk MockArmor, looks like you wanted to push a misslynch on Hapa, then he retaliated and you decided to give him a town read for appeasement. On April 14 2013 01:59 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:
Well, you go through the trouble of digging up something potentially scummy from Hapa and question him about it. After a few hours of lurking, you guys suddenly come to the conclusion that Hapa is probably town (or something to that effect) and deem him no longer worthy of pursing today. I understand the stance, but what I don't understand is why, if you have initial suspicions of Hapa, that you're willing to let him off the hook so easily and not entertain the possibility of investigating him this cycle.
This certainly doesnt read as curious; the connotation is clearly negative, and designed to read as scummy actions.
So WaveOfCheesecake
When did you read of us evolve to "not scum"
And what set it off; please walk me through this.
|
Vatican City State88 Posts
SamuelLJackson,
Both slots here agree on FMB.
Im happy we both picked up on the GK comment.
This is what I wrote about FMB in the QT.
"I also dont like Prome/Phagga so far. They look like they are looking for bad actions, rather than scum motivation.
i.e. them picking on us. Your questions are town confidence."
I am also awaiting their MA case.
|
Vatican City State88 Posts
On April 14 2013 02:43 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 14 2013 02:35 MockArmor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 02:24 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 14 2013 02:17 MockArmor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 01:59 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 14 2013 00:02 MockArmor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 23:54 raynmaster wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 13 2013 23:47 MockArmor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 23:42 raynmaster wrote:On April 13 2013 23:35 MockArmor wrote:On April 13 2013 23:19 SamuelLJackson wrote:
Mocsta you didn't answer my question. Why did you attempt to make a big deal out of a person posting something that in essence looked like a confirmation post and a post implying that he was going to bed? The complaint in general feels false given that the game had just started and it doesn't seem like you could have genuinely felt frustrated by the state of things at the time of the post. The question should not be addressed to Mocsta. Regardless; I have been content with the posting of my partner.. I also believe the post you have chosen to bring attention is, contains a valid opinion of thread sentiment. Rather, I think it is you, who is choosing to elucidate matters of the minutiae to the fore. Why would you not want a player you are talking to in the first place to answer? Are you gonna try to get out of bad spot by letting your partner to answer a question directed to someone else? /rayn That answer was clearly written by Mocsta. As is this response. What is your point? Are you suggesting that I am able to elucidate the inate thoughts of GoodKarma at the time of writing? What i do know is that the post in question, shared the same sentiments I felt at the time. The thread was too spammy; too crazy; and too emotional. Hey do you have any reads? Or expand on your hapa read please. Yes, we have reads. To expand on Hapa: We don't perceive him as scum; nor an entity to invest further time into this cycle. + Show Spoiler +
In my opinion, town Hapa is quick to jump to conclusions, and just as quick to re-evaluate his reads and make his current stance visible. I think that occured today.
Well, you go through the trouble of digging up something potentially scummy from Hapa and question him about it. After a few hours of lurking, you guys suddenly come to the conclusion that Hapa is probably town (or something to that effect) and deem him no longer worthy of pursing today. I understand the stance, but what I don't understand is why, if you have initial suspicions of Hapa, that you're willing to let him off the hook so easily and not entertain the possibility of investigating him this cycle. Firstly, you have a keen enough eye to pay attention to our posts; yet, are not observant enough to notice that the early pressure on Hapa was solely GK. FYI, I entered the thread roughly 4 hours, caught up; gave my reads to GK. Let me quote him hhaha (cos i was surprised too) "I agree ironically with pretty much everything you've said".
Secondly, you have a very strong choice of words here Wave. "let him off the hook so easily" // "a few hours of lurking"; if I didnt know better, I would think you are calling me scum. Yet, I do not see a vote or a case for the accountability I was talking about earlier. To answer your question; I didnt think a ##FoS was hard pressure; thus enabling "letting off the hook easily".
Thirdly, (to address the crux of your concerns) you present your opinion as if reads are not subject to change. Why is this?I explained why I let Hapa off the hook in short. You still have not explained in detail what the dispute is?
Lastly, "I understand the stance" what does this actually mean? I'm not calling you scum, nor do I believe you are at this stage. My point remains that FoS's in general are very noncomittal and, if you are scum, that is your way out, and the brief clause you provided to claim Hapa = town was fairly generic in flow with the thread. "I understand the stance" = I know what your stance is on Hapa currently. MA, what's your read on Rayn after all the "AHMIGERD GIMME READS" stuff? Thank you for admitting: you are looking purely at the action (FoS). It doesnt matter what you think it "scummy in general'. What matters is whether you think GK motives were scummy. Lets apply some critical thought: Do you think the manner GK maintained dialogue is indicative of someone trying to be non-committal; someone trying not to discern alignment; someone not trying to figure out the game? ------------------------------------------- Secondly, Show nested quote +and the brief clause you provided to claim Hapa = town was fairly generic in flow with the thread. Are you suggesting, because I happen to agree with a 'flow in the thread' that I become scummish in conjuction with an old FoS? Are you suggesting, it is scummy for reads to be re-evaluated? ------------------------------------------- Lastly, I am still waiting for Rayn to reply back. Dialogue onus is currently on him. What do you make of Rayn; since you seem to be carrying his torch. - I do believe he was the one that questioned me originally regarding Hapa, ironically telling me we had voted him; when in fact it was just an FoS. I am suggesting that scum tend to re-evaluate their 'reads' very quickly. Reading your filter it seemed like 'shit, Hapa totes suspicious", then a post or two later was 'nah, Hapa probs town". [red]I think you've cleared it up nicely, however.
Actually, I dont think anything has been cleared.
I did not explain a single action: instead, I threw it back to you to prove your stance.
Lets apply some critical thought:
Do you think the manner GK maintained dialogue is indicative of someone trying to be non-committal; someone trying not to discern alignment; someone not trying to figure out the game?
We dont get any resemblance of applying that critical though; yet, the opinion has changed. Any reason you are shying away from this?
Let me remind you of an important quote, you might even recognise the originator 
On April 14 2013 02:43 xxx wrote:
I am suggesting that scum tend to re-evaluate their 'reads' very quickly.
This ties in quite nicely with your recent post
On April 14 2013 02:43 MockArmor wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 14 2013 02:24 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:I'm not calling you scum, nor do I believe you are at this stage. + Show Spoiler [Blah blah] +]My point remains that FoS's in general are very noncomittal and, if you are scum, that is your way out, and the brief clause you provided to claim Hapa = town was fairly generic in flow with the thread.
"I understand the stance" = I know what your stance is on Hapa currently.
MA, what's your read on Rayn after all the "AHMIGERD GIMME READS" stuff? So you are not calling me scum; nor do you "believe" I am scum currently. So...Why are we going through this dance then? You know.. where you repeat the same things where the subtext infers you think the actions are scummy On April 14 2013 01:42 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:
Idk MockArmor, looks like you wanted to push a misslynch on Hapa, then he retaliated and you decided to give him a town read for appeasement. On April 14 2013 01:59 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:
Well, you go through the trouble of digging up something potentially scummy from Hapa and question him about it. After a few hours of lurking, you guys suddenly come to the conclusion that Hapa is probably town (or something to that effect) and deem him no longer worthy of pursing today. I understand the stance, but what I don't understand is why, if you have initial suspicions of Hapa, that you're willing to let him off the hook so easily and not entertain the possibility of investigating him this cycle. This certainly doesnt read as curious; the connotation is clearly negative, and designed to read as scummy actions. So WaveOfCheesecakeWhen did you read of us evolve to "not scum" And what set it off; please walk me through this. On April 14 2013 02:46 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:
I have a really critical tone regardless of alignment. From what it looked like in your filter (I wasn't paying attention to who was talking, just the smurf), it went from HAPA SUSPECT to HAPA TOWN pretty fast. Looked like you got scared and just stopped. But apparently it's just you coming in and telling GK to stop being wrong? Why are you telling me you have a critical tone regardless of alignment?
Why do you feel the need to insert alignment? When did i call you scum; I just asked for a critical thought opinion?
This reads as inherent guilt to me.
Further; I did not come in and tell GK to stop being wrong. GK hasn't been in the thread since I have been online.
In addition; even if I told him he was wrong, how does that evolve your read to "not scum".
======================
So in short.
When did you think we were not scum.
What made you change your mind.
If you thought we were town, due to the Hapa issues; why continue to ask questions that imply you think MA is scummy.
|
Vatican City State88 Posts
WaveofCheese
This is your line of thought in regards to my commentary
On April 14 2013 00:02 MockArmor wrote:
To expand on Hapa: We don't perceive him as scum; nor an entity to invest further time into this cycle. On April 14 2013 02:46 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:
it went from HAPA SUSPECT to HAPA TOWN pretty fast.
Hence, you conclude I inferred town.
On April 14 2013 03:17 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:
I'm not calling you scum, nor do I believe you are at this stage. It is more than reasonable to expect, you inferred we are town here.
So what do we get?
On April 14 2013 03:17 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:
Never thought you were town.
=============
Now, if you are town, I am not concerned whether you think I am town/null or whatever.
What I am concerned about is, why you think what you do.
So an answer such as this:
On April 14 2013 03:00 MockArmor wrote:
2.) What made you change your mind. On April 14 2013 03:17 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:
2.) My brain, something in there. Is certainly not good enough; and requires further clarity and explanation.
In particular when the crux of the dialogue you initiated was:
On April 14 2013 01:13 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:
Can you explain this, MA? You FoS Hapa because he has scum motivation for buddying me etc etc and is kinda scummy whatever. Then you call him town? Lets not be hypocritical. I look forward to your more detailed response.
|
Vatican City State88 Posts
On April 14 2013 03:08 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 14 2013 03:00 VIVAX420 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 02:24 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:On April 14 2013 02:17 MockArmor wrote:On April 14 2013 01:59 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 14 2013 00:02 MockArmor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 23:54 raynmaster wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 13 2013 23:47 MockArmor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 23:42 raynmaster wrote:On April 13 2013 23:35 MockArmor wrote:On April 13 2013 23:19 SamuelLJackson wrote:
Mocsta you didn't answer my question. Why did you attempt to make a big deal out of a person posting something that in essence looked like a confirmation post and a post implying that he was going to bed? The complaint in general feels false given that the game had just started and it doesn't seem like you could have genuinely felt frustrated by the state of things at the time of the post. The question should not be addressed to Mocsta. Regardless; I have been content with the posting of my partner.. I also believe the post you have chosen to bring attention is, contains a valid opinion of thread sentiment. Rather, I think it is you, who is choosing to elucidate matters of the minutiae to the fore. Why would you not want a player you are talking to in the first place to answer? Are you gonna try to get out of bad spot by letting your partner to answer a question directed to someone else? /rayn That answer was clearly written by Mocsta. As is this response. What is your point? Are you suggesting that I am able to elucidate the inate thoughts of GoodKarma at the time of writing? What i do know is that the post in question, shared the same sentiments I felt at the time. The thread was too spammy; too crazy; and too emotional. Hey do you have any reads? Or expand on your hapa read please. Yes, we have reads. To expand on Hapa: We don't perceive him as scum; nor an entity to invest further time into this cycle. + Show Spoiler +
In my opinion, town Hapa is quick to jump to conclusions, and just as quick to re-evaluate his reads and make his current stance visible. I think that occured today.
Well, you go through the trouble of digging up something potentially scummy from Hapa and question him about it. After a few hours of lurking, you guys suddenly come to the conclusion that Hapa is probably town (or something to that effect) and deem him no longer worthy of pursing today. I understand the stance, but what I don't understand is why, if you have initial suspicions of Hapa, that you're willing to let him off the hook so easily and not entertain the possibility of investigating him this cycle. Firstly, you have a keen enough eye to pay attention to our posts; yet, are not observant enough to notice that the early pressure on Hapa was solely GK. FYI, I entered the thread roughly 4 hours, caught up; gave my reads to GK. Let me quote him hhaha (cos i was surprised too) "I agree ironically with pretty much everything you've said".
Secondly, you have a very strong choice of words here Wave. "let him off the hook so easily" // "a few hours of lurking"; if I didnt know better, I would think you are calling me scum. Yet, I do not see a vote or a case for the accountability I was talking about earlier. To answer your question; I didnt think a ##FoS was hard pressure; thus enabling "letting off the hook easily".
Thirdly, (to address the crux of your concerns) you present your opinion as if reads are not subject to change. Why is this?I explained why I let Hapa off the hook in short. You still have not explained in detail what the dispute is?
Lastly, "I understand the stance" what does this actually mean? I'm not calling you scum, nor do I believe you are at this stage. My point remains that FoS's in general are very noncomittal and, if you are scum, that is your way out, and the brief clause you provided to claim Hapa = town was fairly generic in flow with the thread. "I understand the stance" = I know what your stance is on Hapa currently. MA, what's your read on Rayn after all the "AHMIGERD GIMME READS" stuff? Then why are you talking? To get a read on a null tell. Whats a read on a null tell.. lol?
|
Vatican City State88 Posts
For brevity; let me re-quote you.
On April 14 2013 02:43 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:
I am suggesting that scum tend to re-evaluate their 'reads' very quickly.
Funny how you went from:
On April 14 2013 03:33 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:
*Refers to MockArmor*
To get a read on someone who was null* to
On April 14 2013 03:00 MockArmor wrote:
So in short.
1.) When did you think we were not scum.
2.) What made you change your mind.
3.) If you thought we were town, due to the Hapa issues; why continue to ask questions that imply you think MA is scummy. On April 14 2013 03:17 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:
1.) I though you were scummy, and I wanted an answer for that flip-flop on Hapa.
2.) My brain, something in there.
3.) Never thought you were town. to
On April 14 2013 03:19 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:
like I thought you were totes scum and now I think you're totes town. to
On April 14 2013 03:25 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:
In fact, why are you blowing this over the top, when all I wanted was a simple explanation of your guys' reads on Hapa? You seem really paranoid about defending yourself right now.
=================================
Let me jog your memory
##Vote: WaveOfCheesecake
|
Vatican City State88 Posts
Are you implying that because
"i'm so high" you can not be held accountable?
|
Vatican City State88 Posts
ahh frame; what a scummy action... are you back to considering MA scum?
|
Vatican City State88 Posts
On April 14 2013 03:47 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:
Read the quote again.
Enlighten me.
Its 3am, im tired; and I dont get the inferrence.
|
Vatican City State88 Posts
On April 14 2013 03:48 WaveOfCheesecake wrote:+ Show Spoiler +None of that is indicative of anything whatsoever, Mocsta; CC and I have been talking throughout this conversation you've been having with him.
He's just writing stuff, possibly while high, and we have slightly differing views on what your conversation has meant thus far.
Let me go through it with you though, since you don't seem to understand his point of view:
First CC thought you were scummy, now he thinks you're town.
The quote where he says he never thought you were town? He meant before, you know, when he thought you were scummy.
What's the deal with you attempting to turn everything we say around on us though? I can't be sure of what CC thinks of you right now, but you've been null-leaning scum for me for ages, including now.
Why dont you start by telling me, when CC joined the conversation.
Or are you suggesting it has been CC the entire time from the first accusation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
