|
hzflank United Kingdom. July 27 2013 17:21.
To finish, I liked the way that a lot of votes were thrown around early and I see benefit in continuing to do this, as it will provide extra information in the future. Since I think that Paperscraps is the scummiest player so far:
[quote]
Are you serious? All the votes so far have been joke votes. How can you not see that?
|
On July 27 2013 17:59 Oatsmaster wrote:
hzflank, why did you spend a whole like 200 words shitting on town man.
I woke up and read the thread. It was a bit hard to read after just waking up as it was full of talk about lurkers even though the game has just started. Then I had to read through it again and by the end of it I decided that it deserved to be shit on.
On July 27 2013 17:59 Oatsmaster wrote:
So you dont believe his words that he was kidding around right? Why?
On July 27 2013 18:05 Oatsmaster wrote:Show nested quote + hzflank United Kingdom. July 27 2013 17:21.
To finish, I liked the way that a lot of votes were thrown around early and I see benefit in continuing to do this, as it will provide extra information in the future. Since I think that Paperscraps is the scummiest player so far: Are you serious? All the votes so far have been joke votes. How can you not see that?
I do not believe that every post he has made should be considered kidding around. I understand that sometimes people make posts without a purpose, but I do not believe that every post a person has made so far should be considered to have no serious purpose. We cannot allow people to suggest that we ignore everything that they have posted so far.
I do not consider all of the votes so far to be jokes. I do not think that any of them are meant to stick and I would expect all of them to move before the end of the day. However, some of the votes were placed in the hope of getting reactions or creating discussion, rather than just being jokes.
|
On July 27 2013 18:01 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 17:57 hzflank wrote:On July 27 2013 09:55 Paperscraps wrote:
I don't have a problem with taking them out sooner, rather than later. If you are stuck in a potential mylo/lylo situation with a lurker, it is no fun. Of course, if some one is overly scummy we should lynch them first.
Day 1 lynches are always interesting though. It is hard to get solid reads and judge interactions between players.
That is not taking a stance. Taking a stance would be “I am going to vote for anyone who lurks”. Saying that you will vote for a lurker unless someone else is scummier and then going on to say that it is hard to get solid reads on day 1 is not taking a stance. I do not think that being afraid to say what to do with lurkers is a scum tell. I do think that attempting to mimic thread sentiment is a scum tell. But I said the same thing. Show nested quote +Hi guys, I propose that we lynch the lurkiest guy D1.Obviously if someone looks really scummy then we lynch him first, but if that's not the case then we lynch the guy with the least posts Why is Paperscraps scummy for it but not me? Do yours and stutters' reasons only apply to single players?
Yours was the first post in the thread and therefore your post could not possibly mimic thread sentiment.
My reasoning applies to all players. I do not know who Stutters' reasoning applies to, but I would prefer not to have my reasoning associated with Stutters or any other player until we have seen some flips.
|
It's difficult to ascertain tone and sarcasm and some of these less subtle jokes on the internet. I even indicated I thought paperscraps was joking early on. But when posts have 0 use and possibly 0 intentions of helping the scum hunt...then it's not really a funny joke anymore. Paperscrap's posts were really poor imo for a townie, but I can accept the possibility that he was "not being serious".
|
On July 27 2013 17:37 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 17:33 hzflank wrote:On July 27 2013 17:30 Vivax wrote:
Wtf guys.
Did nobody find my post scummy? Man I suck.
Fuck lurker lynches. Lynch scum.
##vote stutters I found your first post scummy before I read all of the following posts. They were so much worse than yours that they made your first post look like a scum trap. It was kinda designed to lure some response from scum thinking they got an easy target. But I need to work on appearing scummy, either that, or scum this game is a team of cravens (thx GoT).
You really believe your post had a chance to lure scum? I honestly thought u were just clueless villager, and would wait till you were awake to hopefully address that.
|
On July 27 2013 11:26 exarezee wrote:
We're obviously not going to lynch a lurker Day 1. To do so would be a terrible play on the collective town's part. If we assume that it's a bad play to lynch a lurker, why are we discussing it? Do you want me to elaborate on why lynching a lurker is bad?
I said I have a slight scum read based on gut instinct and feel. I bunch this together into tonal reads. But like I said, it's very slight as I have not played with the players before. There is no need for me to start throwing evidence on people at the beginning of Day 1 (to be exact there is little evidence). My posts have been much better than some of the fluff already being made. I mean, I can go into more detail why I think koshi and paperscraps have posted more scumlike than others who have posted...but that post can wait.
Most people have now posted and the current discussion is at risk of stagnating. You have already talked about Paper, so unless you have anything to add there would you now be willing to tell us why you found Koshi more scum like than others?
|
Yea, so apparently everybody who was promoting this lunacy of lynch lurkers were all joking or setting a pretty miserable tarp. Which is why we never needed to go on this path of discussion to begin with.
I like a wagon on paperscraps.
|
On July 27 2013 18:53 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 11:26 exarezee wrote:
We're obviously not going to lynch a lurker Day 1. To do so would be a terrible play on the collective town's part. If we assume that it's a bad play to lynch a lurker, why are we discussing it? Do you want me to elaborate on why lynching a lurker is bad?
I said I have a slight scum read based on gut instinct and feel. I bunch this together into tonal reads. But like I said, it's very slight as I have not played with the players before. There is no need for me to start throwing evidence on people at the beginning of Day 1 (to be exact there is little evidence). My posts have been much better than some of the fluff already being made. I mean, I can go into more detail why I think koshi and paperscraps have posted more scumlike than others who have posted...but that post can wait. Most people have now posted and the current discussion is at risk of stagnating. You have already talked about Paper, so unless you have anything to add there would you now be willing to tell us why you found Koshi more scum like than others?
I really didn't like his fluff. That's about it.
|
I guess I should elaborate. I don't find fluff at all useful for the collective town. It makes the thread bigger, and it just makes us sift through more posts for pertinent information. Posting some fluff along with some discussion aka captain jack is tolerable at least. Posting some fluff for the sake of posting and then disappearing is not. I'd rather he didn't post at all, or just make a "i'm going to bed see you guys tomorrow" post instead.
|
Okay. Looking at Koshi's filter there is little to add to that. Personally I do not think it is alignment-indicative as he was obviously making a joke about lynching the person with the least posts.
|
I'm hereby starting a FirmTofu wagon, anyone with me?
##Vote FirmTofu
|
After reading Tofu's filter I am going to have to decline at this point. He actually looks a lot more town in his filter than he does in the thread (or at least my read on him has changed after some rereads of his posts). To me it actually looks like Tofu is trying to open the game up for scum-hunters.
I realize that your post is not serious, Clarity, however I would appreciate it if you could tell us if you actually have a reason for a wagon on Tofu.
|
On July 27 2013 19:04 Clarity_nl wrote:
I'm hereby starting a FirmTofu wagon, anyone with me?
##Vote FirmTofu
One or two reasons along with the vote usually don't hurt in convincing people to join your wagon.
|
On July 27 2013 19:11 hzflank wrote:
After reading Tofu's filter I am going to have to decline at this point. He actually looks a lot more town in his filter than he does in the thread (or at least my read on him has changed after some rereads of his posts). To me it actually looks like Tofu is trying to open the game up for scum-hunters.
I realize that your post is not serious, Clarity, however I would appreciate it if you could tell us if you actually have a reason for a wagon on Tofu.
Might I ask why you think his post is not serious?
|
On July 27 2013 19:17 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 19:11 hzflank wrote:
After reading Tofu's filter I am going to have to decline at this point. He actually looks a lot more town in his filter than he does in the thread (or at least my read on him has changed after some rereads of his posts). To me it actually looks like Tofu is trying to open the game up for scum-hunters.
I realize that your post is not serious, Clarity, however I would appreciate it if you could tell us if you actually have a reason for a wagon on Tofu. Might I ask why you think his post is not serious?
The tone. "I am hereby starting a wagon without giving any reasons for it".
|
On July 27 2013 19:11 hzflank wrote:
After reading Tofu's filter I am going to have to decline at this point. He actually looks a lot more town in his filter than he does in the thread (or at least my read on him has changed after some rereads of his posts). To me it actually looks like Tofu is trying to open the game up for scum-hunters.
I realize that your post is not serious, Clarity, however I would appreciate it if you could tell us if you actually have a reason for a wagon on Tofu.
I'm not quite sure what that means. "looks a lot more town in his filter than he does in the thread"? Could you explain?
Anyway, disagree completely with your conclusion which you reached a full 7 minutes after I asked (excluding when you actually read my post and made your own)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
On July 27 2013 09:54 FirmTofu wrote:
Yeah, I dunno what you guys are doing fluffing up the thread with fluff and general bullshit but It's be great if we could discuss the game now.
FirmTofu would like us all to actually discuss the game, instead of all this fluff that's going on, like everyone talking about the lurker lynch policy!
Granted, this post might have been in context with Koshi's 1,2,3 posts, but that was Koshi trying to prove a point.
Firmtofu before this point however, did not discuss anything other than lurker lynch policy:
+ Show Spoiler +On July 27 2013 09:25 FirmTofu wrote:Okay, I'm back on a computer. Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 09:01 Vivax wrote:
Hi guys, I propose that we lynch the lurkiest guy D1.Obviously if someone looks really scummy then we lynch him first, but if that's not the case then we lynch the guy with the least posts. I think scum really likes to post as few as possible.
I know that's gonna look kinda scummy, but I'm going to bed now. Gn! This comes up every game. How scummy does someone have to be for you to want to lynch them over a lurker? You have to consider that lynching lurkers provides very little information whereas lynching scummy people might tell us a lot about how people are related to one another. On July 27 2013 09:40 FirmTofu wrote:
To all of you that are out there...
Do you think policy lynching a lurker day 1 is a good idea? Why or why not? On July 27 2013 09:41 FirmTofu wrote:
Personally, I think we should use it as a last resort. Lynch a lurker only if
1) Half the town is lurking
or
2) All the active people look genuinely helpful/useful and none of them look like good lynches.
Shitting on town, regardless of if you're being a hypocrite or not, is something scum love doing.
Then there is the useless vote with an easy out, classic scum:
On July 27 2013 11:37 FirmTofu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 11:35 exarezee wrote:
@FirmTofu
I'd rather wait until more posts are made. I think only 6 or 7 of the players in the game have posted so far. If you're going to wait, then I'm going to have to vote you until you do. ##Vote: exarezeeYou can't simply say you have scumreads and not explain them.
"I am voting for you, and I will keep my vote on you until you do X!"
This is not a vote to kill scum, this is a vote to have a vote on someone, and he backs off the moment his demands are met.
On July 27 2013 13:31 FirmTofu wrote:
##Unvote
I'm not sure that the case on paperscraps has much substance to it, but at least it's something.
Not only does he back off the moment he's able to, he's also wishy-washy about the case itself.
But the most troubling things I found were his last two posts:
On July 27 2013 13:39 FirmTofu wrote:
If I had to lynch someone right now, it would be CJS. All of his posts are filled with fluff and he has a random vote on Oats. I'm hating having to decipher all of his wordplay in his posting.
Paperscraps would not be a bad lynch for similar reasons. I'm not as convinced as I am for CJS, but suspicion is still there.
Right now, exarezee is looking pretty town.
Notice how he explains that he's having a hard time reading CJS because of his roleplay, and Paperscraps would be a good lynch too because he's hard to read. That's all well and good, pressure them to be more easier to read, but the mindset is revealed in the part I bolded.
He first claims that if he had to lynch someone it would be CJS or Paper because they're currently hard to read, but now he's suddenly saying he's suspicious that they're scum? why?
Then he throws a random unsolicited townread into his post, because scum love giving townreads.
On July 27 2013 13:41 FirmTofu wrote:
I want to hear more from stutters and the people who haven't posted yet. For all we know, the entire mafia team could be in that group of people.
This post is the epitome of useless. Instead of focusing on the information we do have, Firm decides to point out that there's no point in scumhunting because for all we know all the people who haven't posted are scum.
FirmTofu is pretty likely scum and our best lynch right now.
|
I am not going to defend the points you have raised against Tofu as that is his job and not mine. I do not like the fact that you start your case on Tofu with an attack on me based on the timing of my post. If I happen to be at my computer then 7 minutes is more than enough time to read your post, read Tofu's filter, consider it and make my own short post.
On July 27 2013 19:34 Clarity_nl wrote:
I'm not quite sure what that means. "looks a lot more town in his filter than he does in the thread"? Could you explain?
After my initial two reads of the thread I was aware of a post from Tofu that I thought was scummy. It was this post:
On July 27 2013 11:11 FirmTofu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 10:56 exarezee wrote:
This talk of lurkers is really confusing me. I mean, we SHOULD all know better than to do this. Why is this even being discussed? If someone falls for the "trap" it's mostly due to naivety than anything else. I think we should move the discussion along.
As I have not played with you guys before, it is difficult to make tonal reads on Day 1. I already find a few people scummy: koshi and paperscraps. But this is only a slight lean, as i realize some people just post more "scumlike" than others. What? You don't want to discuss it? Are you deliberately trying to stifle discussion? If you don't want to talk about this, then what DO you want to talk about? Also, you are just naming people without saying why you find them scummy. Please explain why. Your suspicions mean nothing unless you elaborate on them.
I have already mentioned what I did not like about that in a previous post.
However, upon reading Tofu's filter it seemed like he was trying to probe multiple people and move the discussion along by asking questions instead of talking about lurkers. Seen in that light, the above quote no longer looks scummy.
|
Erm, in the quote you used he is actually defending the lurker discussion, which exarezee is trying to remove.
|
On July 27 2013 19:47 Clarity_nl wrote:
Erm, in the quote you used he is actually defending the lurker discussion, which exarezee is trying to remove.
In the quote that I used he is not defending the lurker discussion, he is attacking Exar. To me it looks like he is trying to move the discussion along by beginning to attack players, rather than just talking about lurkers.
|
I'm not too interested in discussing this for much longer, but if you're trying to move discussion away from lurker lynch policy, I don't think you're supposed to attack the person saying the discussion should move away from lurker lynch policy.
I don't believe 7 minutes is enough time to read a page of filter, make sure you understand the context, and reach a conclusion about the persons alignment. Given that you were so quick to respond and I disagreed with your conclusion I called you out on it, if you think that's scummy then call it scummy, if you think that's wrong then call it wrong, but don't say you "didn't like it" because that's just useless for everyone involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
