|
On October 03 2013 02:50 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On October 03 2013 04:26 marvellosity wrote:
Clarity, maybe you were derping with the townread on slOosh, but what caused you to have it anyway? There must have been reasoning behind it.
Yeah, he was the first to call HF town which seemed like a weird thing for scum to do at the time.
Basically the two observations standing out to me (HF and risen) is what he pointed out, and my brain was like "welp, town"
|
Maybe if we all ask him at once
|
|
|
Hey blazing, whatcha think about dirk?
|
On October 03 2013 05:31 marvellosity wrote:
Btw, Risen, your case on Clarity is riddled with confirmation bias.
Any good points you may have had (I picked up on the slOosh townread thing) are kinda lost in between all the points that clearly aren't actually points.
Can you explain this? As in, it's just something you noticed or it's something you found scummy?
|
marv are you still neutral towards a possible sloosh lynch? What do you make of his townread on dirk and his explanation of it?
I wish more stuff happened. Bedtime now though
|
On October 03 2013 15:46 Dirkzor wrote:Show nested quote +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 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.
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. Show nested quote +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!. 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: Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 14:01 Oatsmaster wrote: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.
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 +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.
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.
On October 02 2013 20:11 Dirkzor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 19:22 Clarity_nl wrote: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): Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 13:56 Holyflare wrote:-snip- Not to mention; 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. Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 13:47 Blazinghand wrote: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. 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...
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
On October 02 2013 22:00 Dirkzor wrote:Show nested quote +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? 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.
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...
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.
|
ebwop The same thing you already discussed at length in your opening post
Hit post by accident >.<
|
On October 03 2013 16:01 Blazinghand wrote:Sounds good! Just to reiterate, contrast his filter this game with his play in Sicilian: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=414884&user=raynpelikoneet&view=allhe had posts like this (link) and like this (link) or this (link) early in the game. I'm talking serious cases, calling people out, pushing, following up, convincing other players of his thoughts. And he HAD thoughts. Rayn as town forms reads and pushes them. He follows through. He leads. Where is that rayn this game? no-where. This is scum rayn, pure and simple. He's been around, he's had a lot of time, and he's given us squat. he normally delivers far more with far less. Lynch him. lynch him hard.
Blazing, consider aperture 2 and rayn's play in it. I realize it's a giant themed game but he was much less involved in everything as well there, and town.
You're right though, rayn has not contributed, and it would be nice if he did.
But saying that his change (similar to aperture 2) is despite not being his scum meta can only be scum aligned is a stretch.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that rayn is in fact the easy target now. After he showed up and did jack-shit but act confused and having no direction.
|
On October 03 2013 09:58 slOosh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 08:26 marvellosity wrote:
alrighty. ty for your input ^^ expecting that Risen shizzle from you though :> There's nothing too compelling in the case on Clarity. There's a potentially good point in how clarity retracted his townread of me, but given clarity's explanation and the fact that he actually draws attention to it is a plus for him. He threw out his big case, and then just sits on it. There's no trying to convince people he is right, or even bring some attention to it, then he goes into sulking mode (immune to lynch? really?) without either trying to boil down his case into succinct points, or moving on to other stuff cause maybe he is wrong and it is a good time to regroup. Seems like pretense of contribution to me. Your current evaluation of Risen? Also clarity, I can see you angling for my lynch or something. Anything you want to ask me directly?
Not really, just keep doing it is whatever it is you're doing. Which is voting me apparently.
With your reasoning being that I "waffled" on bh.
That was my entry post btw, and bh was basically town leader when I arrived, so sharing some thoughts on him seemed cool.
I tend to do this thing you know, when I've entered the thread and the games been underway already, I give my opinion on the things that have happened so far. Yes, I came to the conclusion "lol null" on BH, but I also came to the conclusion that I don't wanna lynch him today.
On October 03 2013 12:55 Blazinghand wrote:
he's been on my dick. just finished ocelot barbery, time to look at clarity dirk and sloosh
You keep saying this but what it was is: you were around to talk to
|
On October 03 2013 16:26 Dirkzor wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 03 2013 16:06 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 15:46 Dirkzor wrote: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 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. 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!. 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. 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 +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. 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:On October 02 2013 19:22 Clarity_nl wrote: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; 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: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. 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... 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: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? 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... 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.
Your vote is still on him btw. I realize you made the post about voting yourself as placeholder. You are aware you can simply unvote?
Who have you looked at recently other than HF/Oats and did you develop a read out of looking at them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
