|
On October 03 2013 02:53 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 02:50 raynpelikoneet wrote:On October 03 2013 02:46 Clarity_nl wrote:On October 03 2013 02:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:
No i am not gonna vote for you.
Does anyone have a clue what the hell is BH doing? Read the thread and find out, do not post until you're caught up. Thanks. I am caught up, i am not posting if i am not caught up. Hey Blazinghand. Why exactly are you voting for Oats? I have read like 20 different reasoning for your vote and every time it's different. Like at least three time you say "it's not RNG", then "and also RNG", then "not RNG". I have a hard time figuring out why do you exactly think Oats is scum. Actually it goes: 1) Let's vote whoever gets rng'd by my post number! 2) it's oats, let's lynch him, my idea is good because X 3) oh look his reaction to my random lynch on him makes him look scummy to me, so we should lynch him It's really not that hard to follow.
Yeah but he also gives policy reasons and all kinds of shit besides that, and brings up the RNG reasoning too later on.
|
On October 02 2013 15:09 Blazinghand wrote:
Yeah basically I'm mad at him so we should lynch him. Then he won't make me mad in future games cause I can basically lynch players on a whim due to my great influence. This is actually an okay reason imo because it will make him play good and not like oats.
Also RNG.
Like, for example, this is probably the worst post in this game.
|
I think that's just blazinghand being blazinghand. He likes numbers and theorycrafting so despite having a scumread on oats he considers possibilities where he's town and justifies the lynch in that case.
That's my interpretation anyway.
He has contributed quite a bit, I don't have a solid read on him but I think he's a poor lynch today.
I'd like to hear more about your thoughts on oats, and please comment on dirk as well.
|
Like, it's not improbable for him to be scum doing all this rng business but I can't tell. He's clearly putting effort in and that's cool.
|
I dunno, maybe it's just BH making him mad. He's kinda... over-analyzing stuff in non-Oats' manner.
I'll look into Dirkzor, gimme a sec.
|
I am trying to find out myself if i believe his "feel reads" are legit or if he is scum.
Dirkzor if you base your early day 1 reads on feels, why did you say somthing completely different in your post where you voted for HF? If it's a gut read why frame it to something else?
|
On October 03 2013 03:02 raynpelikoneet wrote:
I dunno, maybe it's just BH making him mad. He's kinda... over-analyzing stuff in non-Oats' manner.
I'll look into Dirkzor, gimme a sec.
No seriously. Details would be nice.
What is analyzing stuff in an "oats manner" and how is it different from this game?
Quote the post where he is over analyzing.
|
On October 02 2013 15:10 Clarity_nl wrote:Blazinghand is a cool guy (meaning no lynchy lynchy todaysies despite no real read on him (sowwy)) Holyflare town, sloosh town (despite opening post making me tilt my head) Risen is bleh, have to wait for him to have a scumread and have him explain it to see what colour his blood is. Oats..... his OMGUS on BH looks pretty bad. But then again oats tends to look pretty bad early as town. Did he, as scum, crack under the pressure of a single vote by BH? I dunno, sounds doubtful. I liked his pressure on holyflare, because an opening post proclaiming newb should always be pressured. But sloosh came out looking town and oats hasn't retracted his vote yet, so let's see what he thinks when he's back. I'm not convinced, anyway. Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 13:28 Oatsmaster wrote:
This feels so much like Mocsta in Newbie 47 or whatever.
Oats could you explain this?
First post in the thread. Do you know something I don't? At the point of this post what has sloosh done in thread to give you this feeling? I can understand having a town read on HF (straight calling him town is a big stretch at this point but this is mafia where we don't use logic and weeeeeeeeeeeee). I, however, am bleh. Why am I bleh? Bleh because you have some meta read on me that requires my reads? You already had a read in thread. It wasn't a strong read, just a read that was worthy of a vote. Why isn't that enough for your meta? I can tell you now I think it's almost impossible to have a scum read stronger than 60/40 day 1. It's not logical to have a scum read day 1 when there is so little to go off of. Clarity would know this, clarity should know this, and he's my top scum read for now because... What is this shit about oats? You liked his pressure where he didn't like the newb claim from HF? I did the same exact thing as him before him. For him it's bad and town, for me it's hold on lets wait. This looks like a subtle push on me you're hoping will gain traction. You haven't committed to anything and can fit things to whatever you want at a later point in time.
On October 02 2013 15:14 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 15:10 Blazinghand wrote:
Seriously though if the reason I've given for lynching him are normal oats behavior then that's like a policy lynch reason right there. We should do it, it would be awesome. I know you like your game theory, and technically we have a 2/7 chance (since doc will claim), but the information we get off of people agreeing to a random lynch isn't that telling I don't think. Rather just spark discussion as usual and see what happens. Despite,(according to database numbers) a random lynch being slightly more effective, if it hits town it probably gets less information than if there are a couple of lynch candidates and they are discussed and votes are moved around.
He's rewording the 2/7 thing and acting like he's contributing, he's saying that a random lynch is slightly more effective and at the same time saying he'd rather not use something he views as more effective. Why the contradiction within your own post?
On October 02 2013 15:23 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 15:20 Blazinghand wrote:On October 02 2013 15:14 Clarity_nl wrote:On October 02 2013 15:10 Blazinghand wrote:
Seriously though if the reason I've given for lynching him are normal oats behavior then that's like a policy lynch reason right there. We should do it, it would be awesome. I know you like your game theory, and technically we have a 2/7 chance (since doc will claim), but the information we get off of people agreeing to a random lynch isn't that telling I don't think. Rather just spark discussion as usual and see what happens. Despite,(according to database numbers) a random lynch being slightly more effective, if it hits town it probably gets less information than if there are a couple of lynch candidates and they are discussed and votes are moved around. That's a reasonable thing to say. That being said, the RNG led (and in general it seems, leads) to a good discussion. I don't think things would have played out as they did unless I RNGed this game, and I'm glad I did. That's fine and I think we have some information that came out of it rather than lurker lynch policy talk which is a dead horse. But do you plan on hanging on to your rng lynch today unless someone becomes obvious scum? Or do you feel that oats is no longer a random lynch now and you think he's most likely to flip scum at this time, and if that changes you'll change your vote?
A lot of words to say "Are you sticking to your RNG vote or will you vote the person you think is most scummy?" Is that even a real question?
On October 02 2013 15:46 Clarity_nl wrote:
I'm not trying to imply that I put him as a townread as some kind of trap, I didn't, just wasn't thinking properly.
But did you not find it odd that I gave him a townread earlier?
Where did this even come up? Why do you feel the need to defend yourself against something no one has brought up.. Why are you looking at your filter and trying to find things that are potentially scummy then preemptively defending yourself? Why am I the only one who sees this?
On October 02 2013 19:05 Clarity_nl wrote:
Yeah I'll go with that, actually
##Vote Dirkzor
Just going with the flow, eh? Because it looks to me like in your post right before this you were doubtful.
On October 02 2013 18:58 Clarity_nl wrote:
Did you really feel the need to drop a vote before reading marv, were you afraid someone might vote him before you? I don't really understand.
So you read what he wrote, didn't feel anything from it, marv came in with a vote, you were suspicious of it, and then when he gave an extremely simple explanation of his vote you were all about it? Ok. Why didn't you stick to your previous feeling?
On October 02 2013 18:59 marvellosity wrote:
I explained why I voted.
Your question is silly.
"yes, I was terrified someone might vote him before me, that's absolutely why I voted him like that"
Actually marv, yeah that's a very good reason to vote like that. I know you're being sarcastic in the quote, but wouldn't scum marv want to lead a lynch instead of adopting one later? Why does Clarity not see this, but instead immediately drops his pressure on marv? There's no way he has any sort of town read on marv at this point. Does clarity know something I don't?
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.
Why is that? You certainly haven't given anything on HF since the very first post at this point where you simply call him town. Another case of knowing too much.
On October 02 2013 21:49 Clarity_nl wrote:
How'd you feel about a sloosh lynch if dirk didn't exist in this game?
Why?
On October 02 2013 21:51 Clarity_nl wrote:
You're no fun marv. Is there anyone other than dirk that you have an opinion on so far?
Oh, sure. Yeah totally.
On October 02 2013 22:58 Clarity_nl wrote:Contradiction.
Nitpick. It wasn't a contradiction from where I'm standing. Where's the contradiction?
On October 02 2013 23:04 Clarity_nl wrote:
I'm saying your question is based on the false premise that I think you're scum.
Huh? Maybe it's all the SUPER SUBTLE soft pushing you've been doing on him.
+ Show Spoiler +On October 02 2013 15:23 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 15:20 Blazinghand wrote:On October 02 2013 15:14 Clarity_nl wrote:On October 02 2013 15:10 Blazinghand wrote:
Seriously though if the reason I've given for lynching him are normal oats behavior then that's like a policy lynch reason right there. We should do it, it would be awesome. I know you like your game theory, and technically we have a 2/7 chance (since doc will claim), but the information we get off of people agreeing to a random lynch isn't that telling I don't think. Rather just spark discussion as usual and see what happens. Despite,(according to database numbers) a random lynch being slightly more effective, if it hits town it probably gets less information than if there are a couple of lynch candidates and they are discussed and votes are moved around. That's a reasonable thing to say. That being said, the RNG led (and in general it seems, leads) to a good discussion. I don't think things would have played out as they did unless I RNGed this game, and I'm glad I did. That's fine and I think we have some information that came out of it rather than lurker lynch policy talk which is a dead horse. But do you plan on hanging on to your rng lynch today unless someone becomes obvious scum? Or do you feel that oats is no longer a random lynch now and you think he's most likely to flip scum at this time, and if that changes you'll change your vote? On October 02 2013 18:42 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 18:34 marvellosity wrote:On October 02 2013 15:23 Clarity_nl wrote:On October 02 2013 15:20 Blazinghand wrote:On October 02 2013 15:14 Clarity_nl wrote:On October 02 2013 15:10 Blazinghand wrote:
Seriously though if the reason I've given for lynching him are normal oats behavior then that's like a policy lynch reason right there. We should do it, it would be awesome. I know you like your game theory, and technically we have a 2/7 chance (since doc will claim), but the information we get off of people agreeing to a random lynch isn't that telling I don't think. Rather just spark discussion as usual and see what happens. Despite,(according to database numbers) a random lynch being slightly more effective, if it hits town it probably gets less information than if there are a couple of lynch candidates and they are discussed and votes are moved around. That's a reasonable thing to say. That being said, the RNG led (and in general it seems, leads) to a good discussion. I don't think things would have played out as they did unless I RNGed this game, and I'm glad I did. That's fine and I think we have some information that came out of it rather than lurker lynch policy talk which is a dead horse. But do you plan on hanging on to your rng lynch today unless someone becomes obvious scum? Or do you feel that oats is no longer a random lynch now and you think he's most likely to flip scum at this time, and if that changes you'll change your vote? What info in particular do you think was gained? Just the usual really. I didn't mean anything in particular but it >felt< that the starting hours were more productive than usual due to BH's rng lynch suggestion. I can't really quantify it. What do you think of oats? On October 02 2013 19:13 Clarity_nl wrote:
Would still like your thoughts on oats, marv. On October 02 2013 22:44 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 22:38 Dirkzor wrote:
Maybe I didn't value that vote so highly. Maybe I did just want to stir up things to see what fell out. Man... Could you explain your townread on oats better? You seemed to go "despite this list of things I just mentioned I still think he's town because reasons", namely that he cares... Could you point out some examples?
What do YOU think of oats? You haven't said anything about him since you came into the thread saying his OMGUS was bad, but he's usually bad. The very next thing you actually say in relation to him is contradiction? You totally weren't laying a trap earlier, but now it looks like you are.
On October 03 2013 00:32 Clarity_nl wrote:
You tend to make sense.
Though honestly if you were wrong I'd sheep you as scum so, meh.
This is why meta is stupid.
On October 03 2013 02:37 Clarity_nl wrote:
Please drop off your reads at the read centre near you, or call if you have thoughts that you need help with. When you contact us to arrange discussion of your reads you will be informed of the pick-up schedule for your area. Click here to locate the nearest read centre to you.
BEEP
Filler.
On October 03 2013 02:46 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 02:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:
No i am not gonna vote for you.
Does anyone have a clue what the hell is BH doing? Read the thread and find out, do not post until you're caught up. Thanks.
Totally ok for you to ask a million questions, no one else can, though.
|
On October 03 2013 03:31 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 03:02 raynpelikoneet wrote:
I dunno, maybe it's just BH making him mad. He's kinda... over-analyzing stuff in non-Oats' manner.
I'll look into Dirkzor, gimme a sec. No seriously. Details would be nice. What is analyzing stuff in an "oats manner" and how is it different from this game? Quote the post where he is over analyzing.
It's nothing specific in any specific post. He is using a lot of words, that's something he usually does not do. His posts are usually short and i would have expected him to not fight with BH as he did. I would have expected him to say "whatever man, you're scum or retarded for doing this shit" or something.
|
Hit post instead of preview. He's scum because he knows too mucyh, he looiks at his own posts trying to find scummy things about them and preemptively goes to defend himself, nitpicks, and calls out other people for doing the same things as him.
|
No I just reread sloosh and realized I was derping with the townread. It was early.
|
And then found it curious BH (who was around) hadn't commented on it.
|
|
|
Man Risen that sure is like, a post.
|
So what do people think about Risen's post. I'm kinda sure he is town.
|
I guess I'll reply.
At the point of this post what has sloosh done in thread to give you this feeling?
My (faulty, as I admitted not much later) townread on sloosh came from him calling holyflare town and saying he liked risen the least. At this point when I was reading I agreed with this assessment. It was dumb thinking and the reason I was being dumb was because it was early.
What is this shit about oats? You liked his pressure where he didn't like the newb claim from HF? I did the same exact thing as him before him. For him it's bad and town, for me it's hold on lets wait. This looks like a subtle push on me you're hoping will gain traction. You haven't committed to anything and can fit things to whatever you want at a later point in time.
Yes.
He's rewording the 2/7 thing and acting like he's contributing, he's saying that a random lynch is slightly more effective and at the same time saying he'd rather not use something he views as more effective. Why the contradiction within your own post?
I didn't reword anything, I asked BH a question because (as rayn pointed out just now) BH was being unclear as to why his vote was on oats. It was rng then it was reasons then it was rng again.
A lot of words to say "Are you sticking to your RNG vote or will you vote the person you think is most scummy?" Is that even a real question?
Yes.
Where did this even come up? Why do you feel the need to defend yourself against something no one has brought up.. Why are you looking at your filter and trying to find things that are potentially scummy then preemptively defending yourself? Why am I the only one who sees this?
Didn't look at my filter, looked at his.
So you read what he wrote, didn't feel anything from it, marv came in with a vote, you were suspicious of it, and then when he gave an extremely simple explanation of his vote you were all about it? Ok. Why didn't you stick to your previous feeling?
dirk makes a post. I don't really like the post. marv drops a vote, then reads the post. This seems weird to me so I inquire (exactly the thing you say I didn't notice) and marv's reply is bleh, That said, his reasoning and his (and dirks) post that followed made me agree with the vote so I followed.
Everything else you said is just replying to my posts.
You are skewing (knowingly or unknowingly I don't know) my posts to make them appear scummy. Why is that?
On October 03 2013 03:49 raynpelikoneet wrote:
So what do people think about Risen's post. I'm kinda sure he is town.
It does kind of have that game of thrones paranoia feel to it.
|
I didn't reword anything, I asked BH a question because (as rayn pointed out just now) BH was being unclear as to why his vote was on oats. It was rng then it was reasons then it was rng again.
Wait what Clarity. why did you clarify BH's actions to me if you are not sure what he was doing?
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
Good morning
1) RNG
then 2) oh hey oats is actually scummy
then 3) wait, are you saying this is somehow normal oats behavior? Well, assuming that's true, we need to lynch him anyways since he's a liability.
So either oats is objectively scummy or he's a guy who acts objectively scummy as town. The policy thing I mentioned was just to defuse the stupid meta argument that somehow oats shouldn't be lynched today because he's normally like this
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
On October 03 2013 04:05 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +I didn't reword anything, I asked BH a question because (as rayn pointed out just now) BH was being unclear as to why his vote was on oats. It was rng then it was reasons then it was rng again. Wait what Clarity. why did you clarify BH's actions to me if you are not sure what he was doing?
He's been all over my dick. Probably because I wasn't posting though so he wanted to... you know... be helpful? hue
|
On October 03 2013 04:05 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +I didn't reword anything, I asked BH a question because (as rayn pointed out just now) BH was being unclear as to why his vote was on oats. It was rng then it was reasons then it was rng again. Wait what Clarity. why did you clarify BH's actions to me if you are not sure what he was doing?
I asked him what he was doing and then he answered.... and then I knew.
Man I'm quickly becoming less hyped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
