|
Let's play a game... |
On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum?
The only thing I find interesting about McCoy is that he didn't feel the need to comment on anything else. I'm not saying that McCoy is town, but this post doesn't make him scum. Not having a firm opinion on players 1 page into the game is probably to be expected, so I'm not sure what you have a problem with here?
He raises a point about Eccleston that's inconclusive but still worth reading. I agree with McCoy that Eccleston's approach leaves much to be desired, and he seems to be looking to pick a fight. Eccleston is not in the business of handing out information of his thought processes.
This doesn't make Eccleston scum, but it certainly feels like a valid point to bring up for discussion.
Please share more of your thoughts.
|
On May 29 2013 22:46 Baker1986 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum? The only thing I find interesting about McCoy is that he didn't feel the need to comment on anything else. I'm not saying that McCoy is town, but this post doesn't make him scum. Not having a firm opinion on players 1 page into the game is probably to be expected, so I'm not sure what you have a problem with here? He raises a point about Eccleston that's inconclusive but still worth reading. I agree with McCoy that Eccleston's approach leaves much to be desired, and he seems to be looking to pick a fight. Eccleston is not in the business of handing out information of his thought processes. This doesn't make Eccleston scum, but it certainly feels like a valid point to bring up for discussion. Please share more of your thoughts.
Well we aint going to be finding scum if we all just hold hands. Aggression in my experience is much more of a town tell then a scum tell.
|
like scum don't want attention and being aggressive early on is a way to bring attention to yourself.
|
Pertwee, J, reporting for duty.
On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum?
Dr. Tennant, I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't see a reason for saying what he did, he just gave us a big bowl of word soup. He's assuming the aliens aren't going to be one of the first people to speak up, but then is going to take the time to give a little speech about how Smith could be or could not be an alien.
McCoy, you state that Smith may just have differing methods to look for the alien, what are you suggesting they differ from? Is there anything in particular in Smith's posts that suggest an alien thought process to you?
|
Apologies, I said Smith when I meant Eccleston. The rest still stands.
|
do you agree with my point on aggression as well?
|
yup mccoys post is scummy as fuck.
until he makes himself seem more town:
##vote smccoy
|
On May 29 2013 23:01 Hurndall3 wrote:
yup mccoys post is scummy as fuck.
until he makes himself seem more town:
##vote smccoy
anything else you would like to add?
|
Yeah why is everyone talking all fancy and not natural? just because its a smurf game lol?
|
|
|
On May 29 2013 23:00 DrTennant wrote:
do you agree with my point on aggression as well?
I can agree, Dr. Tennant, but agression on it's own is more likely a tell that someone is an alien. It's properly channeled, thoughtful aggression that is a tell that someone is properly analyzing their fellow staff. As long as you make that distinction, Dr. Tennant, then yes, I fully agree with you.
|
On May 29 2013 23:07 JPertwee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 23:00 DrTennant wrote:
do you agree with my point on aggression as well? I can agree, Dr. Tennant, but agression on it's own is more likely a tell that someone is an alien. It's properly channeled, thoughtful aggression that is a tell that someone is properly analyzing their fellow staff. As long as you make that distinction, Dr. Tennant, then yes, I fully agree with you.
of course
|
On May 29 2013 23:01 Hurndall3 wrote:
yup mccoys post is scummy as fuck.
until he makes himself seem more town:
##vote smccoy
Humdall, can you walk me through what you think is the part of McCoy's post that most warrants his death?
|
On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum?
It's a considerate post. At that point the majority of players didn't post, and I went by the assumption that scum doesn't post early. I voiced my opinion on Eccleston's excessive aggression, but it's not enough for me to make a judgment in light of the fact that scum might not even have posted yet.
I think Ecclestone's posts might come from both a bad townie or scum. You call it ambiguous, expecting me to give a definite opinion.
I would like you to tell me why you think that me voicing suspicion against a player is considered as saying nothing. Would you rather expect me to make a quick judgment this early in the game?
Bolded your loaded question. Looks like faked hostility, doesn't reflect interest into finding out about my thought process.
|
what Dr tennant said. you want me to copy paste that? oh or do you want me to paraphrase it instead?
|
##unvote
strong response by smccoy
|
On May 29 2013 22:56 JPertwee wrote:Pertwee, J, reporting for duty. Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum? Dr. Tennant, I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't see a reason for saying what he did, he just gave us a big bowl of word soup. He's assuming the aliens aren't going to be one of the first people to speak up, but then is going to take the time to give a little speech about how Smith could be or could not be an alien. McCoy, you state that Smith may just have differing methods to look for the alien, what are you suggesting they differ from? Is there anything in particular in Smith's posts that suggest an alien thought process to you?
Yes. He started by criticizing others for bringing up a topic he deemed unworthy of discussion, when he could have created one himself.
On May 29 2013 18:06 Eccleston wrote:
From what I could see the setup is normal except for the KP delay function. It will not affect lynching until end game though, so I guess it doesn't.
Mr. McGann seems friendly enough. As for you, I don't know... Are you an angry villager or a murderous italian? Your reactions look valid from both perspectives.
Then he proceeded to ask a rather useless question, showing something which is definitely ambiguous, but without showing his thought process.
This brings me back to my current attackers.
I find it hard to believe that they would truly believe my post was ambiguous, while skipping on this post by Ecclestone.
We both express two possible options for the people we speak of, but while I lay out my reasoning, Ecclestone doesn't.
This looks suspicious and might imply that these subjects are linked to each other for their selectivity, speaking of DrTennant here who brought the so called wishy-washy up first.
|
On May 29 2013 23:21 SMcCoy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum? It's a considerate post. At that point the majority of players didn't post, and I went by the assumption that scum doesn't post early. I voiced my opinion on Eccleston's excessive aggression, but it's not enough for me to make a judgment in light of the fact that scum might not even have posted yet. I think Ecclestone's posts might come from both a bad townie or scum. You call it ambiguous, expecting me to give a definite opinion. I would like you to tell me why you think that me voicing suspicion against a player is considered as saying nothing. Would you rather expect me to make a quick judgment this early in the game? Bolded your loaded question. Looks like faked hostility, doesn't reflect interest into finding out about my thought process.
Well i don't know about you but i'm suspicious of everyone. i didnt take it as you saying you were suspicious of Eccleston i took as complete filler post that said absolutely nothing really and i took it as wishy washy and posting for the sake of posting by not taking a stance.
I dont understand why making early judgements could be seen as bad i change my mind on things all the time based on new information and flip floping being scummy is a lie pushed by scum. Its only scummy when its convenient. So i dont understand your worry about making snap judgements.
|
On May 29 2013 23:21 SMcCoy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum? It's a considerate post. At that point the majority of players didn't post, and I went by the assumption that scum doesn't post early. I voiced my opinion on Eccleston's excessive aggression, but it's not enough for me to make a judgment in light of the fact that scum might not even have posted yet. I think Ecclestone's posts might come from both a bad townie or scum. You call it ambiguous, expecting me to give a definite opinion. I would like you to tell me why you think that me voicing suspicion against a player is considered as saying nothing. Would you rather expect me to make a quick judgment this early in the game? Bolded your loaded question. Looks like faked hostility, doesn't reflect interest into finding out about my thought process.
McCoy, what do you think Eccleston's chances of being human are? I can understand your thought process on how you're reading Eccleston. The part I cannot understand is your reasoning on writing a post where I can only gather you're saying "he is null" because you don't even state whether you think he is more likely to be of either alignment. When you wrote that post, what was the explicit purpose of it?
|
On May 29 2013 23:07 JPertwee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 23:00 DrTennant wrote:
do you agree with my point on aggression as well? I can agree, Dr. Tennant, but agression on it's own is more likely a tell that someone is an alien. It's properly channeled, thoughtful aggression that is a tell that someone is properly analyzing their fellow staff. As long as you make that distinction, Dr. Tennant, then yes, I fully agree with you.
This post so good.
The point being that stupid aggression is pointless. Aggression is only useful when the player under pressure needs to fear being lynched. Just randomly yelling at people, while amusing, is pretty useless.
Now, when they actually need to worry about dying, that's when they squeal and plead and reveal their true identity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
