EPTOn October 03 2013 16:06 Clarity_nl wrote:
This is an outright lie.
Your case says he has not contributed at all and sheeping.
When pressured you come up with a variation of "his posts feel constructed"
Why did you switch from reasons to "feel"? It's because your original reason got debunked by marv and you were forced to backtrack.
After that you kind of retract your read on HF, but instead of saying that you immediately go back to your old faithful "well, oats could be scum or town". The same thing you
You emphasize here that your HF read is now gone.
After all that you go "welp, I guess I have no reads."
tl;dr
*Makes a case based on fiction
*Backtracks when called out and says it's a feel read
*THEN he retracts the read entirely because his reasons didn't hold up, DESPITE it being a feel read
*Claims he has never "framed it as anything but a feel read"
*Has not given analysis on anyone other than Oats or HF. Everyone else has basically been ignored, with the exception of a sentence or two.
Show nested quote +
On October 03 2013 15:46 Dirkzor wrote:
I don't believe I framed it to be anything other then a feel read. I wrote how I felt about him. Him posting rubbish and following BH. After re-reading to stand up for my belief I got another feeling because there really wasn't any evidence..
And people have been noticing how I made 2 quotes of Oats and then voted HF with only a few lines attached. That was because BH said oats was scummy and I wanted to weigh in on that. The post ended up going another way though.
On October 03 2013 03:11 raynpelikoneet wrote:
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?
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?
I don't believe I framed it to be anything other then a feel read. I wrote how I felt about him. Him posting rubbish and following BH. After re-reading to stand up for my belief I got another feeling because there really wasn't any evidence..
And people have been noticing how I made 2 quotes of Oats and then voted HF with only a few lines attached. That was because BH said oats was scummy and I wanted to weigh in on that. The post ended up going another way though.
This is an outright lie.
Show nested quote +
On October 02 2013 18:38 Dirkzor wrote:
I believe BH's rng post was meant to be what it turned out to be. Discussion starter. It worked. Great. Now lets move on and find scum.
Shit I don't even know what to write... Been so looong.
Oats seem either weird, confused or scummy. Not sure which yet.
The first sentence still doesnt make sense to me after reading it 5 times (Hungover so might be my fault). it also baffles me that he seems so sure about who to lynch so early. There are other examples:
This whole posts is nonsense aswell.
But through all this I somewhat still think he is town... hmm...
HF's rambling about meta and being weak is rubbish. Him jumping the rng wagon, as pointed out by Risen, without any good reason is rubbish. After this, despite that BH think he have been posting better, he havent really done anything. He has sheeping BH and using BH arguments to push oats.
##Vote Holyflare
I believe BH's rng post was meant to be what it turned out to be. Discussion starter. It worked. Great. Now lets move on and find scum.
Shit I don't even know what to write... Been so looong.
Oats seem either weird, confused or scummy. Not sure which yet.
On October 02 2013 13:16 Oatsmaster wrote:
Stifling discussion is top scum play for calling someone scummy when they are being agressive and shit.
Holyflare is the right lynch!.
Stifling discussion is top scum play for calling someone scummy when they are being agressive and shit.
Holyflare is the right lynch!.
The first sentence still doesnt make sense to me after reading it 5 times (Hungover so might be my fault). it also baffles me that he seems so sure about who to lynch so early. There are other examples:
On October 02 2013 14:01 Oatsmaster wrote:
All those words. That dont mean anything.
I meant saying that someone is stifling discussion is what scum always like to do.
Everyone else thinks that you are scummy. Therefore I cant do anything more to convince people at this point of time.
COME ON HOLYFLARE. STOP POSTING LONG POSTS. NOT GOOD.
You and BH are probably not on the same scumteam but I have a way more sure read on you than on BH.
BH, is Holyflare a noob or not?
All those words. That dont mean anything.
it's the top scum play to stifle discussion. With his sure stance on me being scum and despite me resonding why I posted what I did is it not he who is in fact stifling the discussion?
I meant saying that someone is stifling discussion is what scum always like to do.
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.
Everyone else thinks that you are scummy. Therefore I cant do anything more to convince people at this point of time.
COME ON HOLYFLARE. STOP POSTING LONG POSTS. NOT GOOD.
You and BH are probably not on the same scumteam but I have a way more sure read on you than on BH.
BH, is Holyflare a noob or not?
This whole posts is nonsense aswell.
But through all this I somewhat still think he is town... hmm...
HF's rambling about meta and being weak is rubbish. Him jumping the rng wagon, as pointed out by Risen, without any good reason is rubbish. After this, despite that BH think he have been posting better, he havent really done anything. He has sheeping BH and using BH arguments to push oats.
##Vote Holyflare
Your case says he has not contributed at all and sheeping.
Show nested quote +
On October 02 2013 19:10 Dirkzor wrote:
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 +
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.
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:
Do you even read what is posted?
Show nested quote +
On October 02 2013 12:51 Oatsmaster wrote:
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?
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.
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!
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?
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.
When pressured you come up with a variation of "his posts feel constructed"
Why did you switch from reasons to "feel"? It's because your original reason got debunked by marv and you were forced to backtrack.
Show nested quote +
On October 02 2013 20:11 Dirkzor wrote:
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):
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...
On October 02 2013 19:22 Clarity_nl wrote:
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 19:17 Dirkzor wrote:
And i would like your thought on me instead of "Oh i'll take that ##Vote"
On October 02 2013 19:13 Clarity_nl wrote:
Would still like your thoughts on oats, marv.
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;
-snip-
Not to mention;
On October 02 2013 13:42 Oatsmaster wrote:
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.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?
On October 02 2013 13:47 Blazinghand wrote:
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.
When you lie, I will call you a liar. Quote me instead of putting words in my mouth.
On October 02 2013 13:42 Oatsmaster wrote:
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 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.
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.
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...
After that you kind of retract your read on HF, but instead of saying that you immediately go back to your old faithful "well, oats could be scum or town". The same thing you
Show nested quote +
On October 02 2013 22:00 Dirkzor wrote:
Truth is important. I was wrong I admit that. But I don't always go back and re-read just to be sure right before posting. I read the thread and was I got from it was that HF had sheeped BH so i wrote that. That turned out to be wrong after more careful scrutiny. Worse then that it puts me back as for as reads go.
I don't understand why he is an easy place to put my vote. It would have been so much easier just to vote rayn if I wanted to do that.
On October 02 2013 21:03 marvellosity wrote:
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?
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?
Truth is important. I was wrong I admit that. But I don't always go back and re-read just to be sure right before posting. I read the thread and was I got from it was that HF had sheeped BH so i wrote that. That turned out to be wrong after more careful scrutiny. Worse then that it puts me back as for as reads go.
I don't understand why he is an easy place to put my vote. It would have been so much easier just to vote rayn if I wanted to do that.
You emphasize here that your HF read is now gone.
Show nested quote +
On October 02 2013 22:45 Dirkzor wrote:
I was thinking about voting myself as a placeholder. After my HF fuckup I don't really have a clear read so I decided just to let it stay put...
If I'm scum I wouldn't draw that much attention to myself. Meh...
I was thinking about voting myself as a placeholder. After my HF fuckup I don't really have a clear read so I decided just to let it stay put...
If I'm scum I wouldn't draw that much attention to myself. Meh...
After all that you go "welp, I guess I have no reads."
tl;dr
*Makes a case based on fiction
*Backtracks when called out and says it's a feel read
*THEN he retracts the read entirely because his reasons didn't hold up, DESPITE it being a feel read
*Claims he has never "framed it as anything but a feel read"
*Has not given analysis on anyone other than Oats or HF. Everyone else has basically been ignored, with the exception of a sentence or two.
You're entire case revolves around me changes my opinion... I don't see that as a problem to be honest.
my tl:dr version:
*makes a case based on first read through and the feeling i got*
*when called out re-read to find evidence, explain and convince*
*doesn't find evidence*
*Can see reasons for being wrong by people the calling him out*
*changes his veiw based on this*
I never said I had no read. Neither have I stated that I now think HF is town. Some of the things that I thought was scummy about him have just changed and thus I didn't have a clear read I could target.
