|
On October 02 2013 18:48 Holyflare wrote:
The first line of your post says that we should move on and find scum but you haven't really contributed anything in accordance to that. Why not? Are you just happy to sit back and follow the herd?
Is this for me? Who am I following? (Besides leaning on Risens observations about your rng vote) I'm pretty sure voting you is inside the box labeled "Finding scum" right now.
Marv why is it bad for me to vote HF as my opener?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
HF has tried harder than most other people in the game and at the very least has been active and the centre of attention. He felt quite town reading through to me.
A vote on him feels pretty opportunistic coming in to the thread when you did.
Especially with the line "and he hasn't really done anything" - that's a bit rich.
|
Yeah I'll go with that, actually
##Vote Dirkzor
|
Yes he have been posting, but when I read it I don't really see any meat. Might just be me but that's how I see it. Some of his posts seems to be just for the sake of posting.
+ Show Spoiler +On October 02 2013 12:52 Holyflare wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 12:51 Oatsmaster wrote:On October 02 2013 12:48 Holyflare wrote:
Risen, in a game of 9 players in which I know nothing about any of the players there is no better system to accept straight off than RNG. Obviously there are ways to get my attention drawn to other people, however, in a 'world heavyweight championship' as you so lovingly pointed out, is it really going to be that obvious when people screw up? I think not. Like I said in my original post, however, I am open to peoples opinions on other players.
except that we have 48 hours to find scum and its only 2/9 chance that we get scum. And probably another 4/9 that we hit an obvious townie that is obvious town after 48 hours. Now its not so useful is it? Do you even read what is posted? Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 12:18 Blazinghand wrote:
Also to all the RNG doubters: RNG has a 2/7 chance of hitting scum today! Not 2/9 as you might think. Why is that?
Well, first off, I'm talking to people who aren't Oats and are town. You personally know that of the 8 non-you players, 2 are scum. So you'd think it would be a 2/8 chance of an RNG hitting scum. Pretty lame right? WRONG. If the RNG is on the doctor and the lynch starts to gather steam, he'll surely claim. This means that the doctor isn't even in the lynch pool, and we can roll again for a new RNG. this means we can discount one town player from our odds, meaning that you have a 2/7 (over 30%!) chance of lynching scum with RNG! On October 02 2013 14:05 Holyflare wrote:
Stop posting long posts??? It's called analysis of a player. The fact that even after I've posted that you aren't asking me anything, aren't trying to discover whether I am in fact town or not and aren't trying to decipher other peoples motives is just rubbing me the wrong way. It's easy to jump on a player because he played the noob card but there are 2 scum in this game not just one. If i were to be lynched and did indeed flip town then wouldn't you regret not pressuring other people on why they think i'm a sure fire scum?
When I read through his filter it feels clinicly clean. Don't know how to describe it really... it like trying to get rotten wood look fresh on the surface.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
That's totally different reasoning to the reasoning you used last page.
At least you've taken to providing contextual evidence to your scumread instead of your null read now. Yay!
|
Would still like your thoughts on oats, marv.
|
Not different reasoning. He hasn't done anything. I said the in the first post and I stand by that. Add that to supporting rng "because BH said so" and him walking around BH's shadow is a great reason for me to vote him. I still dont get how it can be opportunistic? Had it been oppurtinistic if I had voted someone else or is it onle because it was HF?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
Don't really have any. Annoying.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On October 02 2013 19:15 Dirkzor wrote:
Not different reasoning. He hasn't done anything. I said the in the first post and I stand by that. Add that to supporting rng "because BH said so" and him walking around BH's shadow is a great reason for me to vote him. I still dont get how it can be opportunistic? Had it been oppurtinistic if I had voted someone else or is it onle because it was HF?
Why can't a townie do this?
|
On October 02 2013 19:13 Clarity_nl wrote:
Would still like your thoughts on oats, marv.
And i would like your thought on me instead of "Oh i'll take that ##Vote"
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
Could you also tell me how he's been walking around in BH's shadow, apart from agreeing with the original RNG lynch proposal?
|
United Kingdom30774 Posts
On October 02 2013 19:15 Dirkzor wrote:
Not different reasoning. He hasn't done anything. I said the in the first post and I stand by that. Add that to supporting rng "because BH said so" and him walking around BH's shadow is a great reason for me to vote him. I still dont get how it can be opportunistic? Had it been oppurtinistic if I had voted someone else or is it onle because it was HF?
Do I have to say it again?? I've given reasons why I supported rng from my point of view not because BH said it so it must be good. Either way, I understand that you read town on oats but what reason did he have to ignore the points about other people in the game? Couple that with his inability to check up on me before determining I am actually scum what are the reasons that you lean town on oats??
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On October 02 2013 18:47 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 18:37 Holyflare wrote:
slOosh at least started asking questions when he initially joined into the discussion although has not really contributed since then at least he read up to date or so it seems. He's not too into meta but is alright saying that oats' play is just like his meta view of him though which was a little odd. Need to hear more on that side of things.
I like this observation :>
Btw, Dirk, this part of a post alone that Holy made is probably more interesting content than has been produced by most of the thread.
|
On October 02 2013 19:17 Dirkzor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 19:13 Clarity_nl wrote:
Would still like your thoughts on oats, marv. And i would like your thought on me instead of "Oh i'll take that ##Vote"
I could quote marvs posts if you'd like but they're right there. #Sheeple
You spend 4 paragraphs on a null read yet your scumread is hardly explained. Saying HF has done nothing means you haven't read the thread carefully enough. Reading him as most likely to be scum is bleh.
|
On October 02 2013 19:22 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 19:17 Dirkzor wrote:On October 02 2013 19:13 Clarity_nl wrote:
Would still like your thoughts on oats, marv. And i would like your thought on me instead of "Oh i'll take that ##Vote" I could quote marvs posts if you'd like but they're right there. #Sheeple You spend 4 paragraphs on a null read yet your scumread is hardly explained. Saying HF has done nothing means you haven't read the thread carefully enough. Reading him as most likely to be scum is bleh.
Thank you.
Ok. So I went back to find evidence that HF have been sheeping BH. Not much was found...
Only little thing was this (and it's not really worth noting in the sheeping department):
On October 02 2013 13:56 Holyflare wrote:-snip- Not to mention; Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 13:42 Oatsmaster wrote:the point i'm getting at here isn't that having a strong stance early on is scummy. THIS IS NOT MY POINT. STOP LYING AND STATING THAT IT IS MY POINT. my point is the lack of follow-up, the lack of interaction with the guy being voted or the guy not voting him. After all, if I REALLY do think holyflare is scummy, you should be all over me trying to refine my scumread on him. I shouldn't have to twist your arm to get you to do this.
So you vote for someone then you ask him to explain? If I think a guy is scum, then why do I have to have interaction with him? And if everyone else in the thread thinks the same way, then why do I have to have interaction with them? If you think (you said you KNEW) a person was scum, your orientation as a townsman should be to prove to your allies that the person is in fact scum. If you do not interact with the person at all how can you garner anymore information than the one post you base your entire 'analysis' on? The fact that you say everyone else agrees with you in this thread is just testament to the fact that you have put no effort or thought into your stance and are just going with the flow to follow up for an 'easy' lynch.
On October 02 2013 13:47 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 13:42 Oatsmaster wrote:the point i'm getting at here isn't that having a strong stance early on is scummy. THIS IS NOT MY POINT. STOP LYING AND STATING THAT IT IS MY POINT. my point is the lack of follow-up, the lack of interaction with the guy being voted or the guy not voting him. After all, if I REALLY do think holyflare is scummy, you should be all over me trying to refine my scumread on him. I shouldn't have to twist your arm to get you to do this.
So you vote for someone then you ask him to explain? If I think a guy is scum, then why do I have to have interaction with him? And if everyone else in the thread thinks the same way, then why do I have to have interaction with them? The answer seems obvious to me. Your goal is to establish the alignment of the guy you have a scumread on. Sure, you think he's scum, but you don't KNOW. So you talk with him. You talk with other players and try to convince them. Maybe they support you, maybe they point out how he's scummier or townier than you thought. In these interactions, most people betray what alignment they are through how they think-- be they town or scum. The goal is to develop a co-operative discourse in which people all have solid reads on each other. It involves an acknowledgement that part of what writing a case and voting is, is pressure-- it's developing your read. Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 13:44 Oatsmaster wrote:
Its funny that you played with me all these games with me BH, and you still dont know I exaggerate the hell out of my stuff.
When you lie, I will call you a liar. Quote me instead of putting words in my mouth.
Other then that HF have been more original then I said he had been. Hmm.. That clashes with my previous belief. After re reading I'm also leaning more scum on oats. But I'm not sure it is entirely because of re-reading or just because I now think HF looks less scum.
The problem with oats is that he have done some wierd shit as I pointed out earlier. But the feel I get when reading his filter is of someone who cares...
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
So you voted a scumread based on evidence that didn't exist? Your claim was effectively that he was sheeping BH and unoriginal, and now having "checked" his filter, he is in fact not sheeping BH and original after all.
Smelly.
And for some reason your use of ellipses in both posts where you talk about Oats is really... well, noticeable to me. Not sure how fair it is to hold that against you though.
|
There is no physical evidence because it was a "I feel like this" vote. Same with Oats basicly. If I look at the posts and the way he have been acting I can see why people think he might be scum, but the feeling I got was somewhat townie. And that confuse me. After going back to prove my feeling there was nothing there and my feeling changed somewhat.
Since I don't have much to work with so early on it is mostly how I feel. That probably sounds weird but thats how my head works.
And don't hold the ellipses agaisnt me. I assure you that it is random. I used to do it a lot but I'm trying to stop when there is no particular need. I am not very good at that yet.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
That's fine, but when you vote on "feels" with blatant disregard to the facts (known in some circles as lying) then, well, I'm not convinced my vote is in the wrong place.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
I mean seriously, if you're going to vote for someone like that, you should probably check that what you're saying about them is actually true, don't you think?
Or is the truth not important when attached to a vote?
|
Man, slow game.
Marv, though I have no intention of moving my vote anytime soon, dirk did ask a decent question.
Why was his vote on Holyflare "opportunistic"? As opposed to just, you know, scummy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
