|
On December 10 2013 13:21 LSB wrote:I think you need to add a new page to your book Bum. Thou shall not betray own plan in PYP mafia or else someone will replace in and mess you up. 
No comment. We should probably not talk about it, because you are still playing it.
|
On December 10 2013 13:24 Plutarch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 13:19 Corazon wrote:On December 10 2013 13:12 Plutarch wrote:On December 10 2013 13:02 Corazon wrote:@Plutarch: Jumping around your vote can be a town thing if you are justifying your votes and your reads, but Xatalos is just jumping around and harping on people for nothing and with no purpose other than to look like he is scum hunting. Case in point: On December 10 2013 08:19 Xatalos wrote:On December 10 2013 07:20 raynpelikoneet wrote:On December 10 2013 07:18 Alakaslam wrote:On December 10 2013 07:16 raynpelikoneet wrote:On December 10 2013 06:44 purpletrator wrote:On December 10 2013 06:43 LSB wrote:
##Vote: purpletrator
Scum are mafia pretending to be someone else.
Smurfs are players pretending to be someone else.
Smurfs = Mafia.
Flawless mafia. Lynch all Smurfs You could at least start in alphabetical order. What if I reveal my identity? Would you change your vote to a different smurf? Worst post in thread. ##Vote: purpletrator Kusplain? Hello sir, I promise not to get mad at you this game If purpletrator can reasonably explain what he is going to achieve with that post i'm going to unvote. Now i gotta sleep! cya tomorrow. Please don't be useless Alakaslam ok? By the way... rayn, what are you doing? I thought you were going to be one of the most contributive players here. I hope it'll get better from here... Otherwise you're probably scum. What is the point of this post? Does he think Rayn is scummy because he sleeps? There's no purpose to this post. It's not scum hunting. It's calling out Rayn for sleeping. How does this help us find scum? Also, there is the point that townies believe in their reads and scum don't. If Xatalos believed I was scum, wouldn't he continue to pressure me and push for my lynch? Why does he insist on attacking kush for being kush and attacking Rayn for sleeping? Do you see any purpose to these posts? Is Xatalos trying to find a lynch? In my opinion, he isn't and that's why I voted for him. I viewed those things as throwaway comments that people often make day one in order to set expectations for behavior and contribution. I think you are reading far too much into early day one pressure votes. If the game had progressed further then of course I would expect a more concerted push behind a vote but in the context of the game state as it stands I don't believe his votes have been particularly scummy. In fact I think he is more likely to be town than scum at this point. I am just trying to determine if you actually believe in the reasoning behind your xatalos push or if this is simply posturing, because at this point the case is not very strong at all. I would like to bring something up from earlier though. If you're activity was going to be fine regardless why did you feel the need to post that you were going to be inactive? And more importantly why did you not post this before roles had been sent out? Please tell me where I explicitly said I was going to be "inactive" Don't be bad please. We both know what I meant by that. What is the purpose of stating one stupidly semantic sentence in response to a constructive post? ##vote: corazonI expect better from you.
Why are you twisting my words and misconstructing my sentences in a way that conveniently gives you a way to attack me?
|
On December 10 2013 13:26 Corazon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 13:24 Plutarch wrote:On December 10 2013 13:19 Corazon wrote:On December 10 2013 13:12 Plutarch wrote:On December 10 2013 13:02 Corazon wrote:@Plutarch: Jumping around your vote can be a town thing if you are justifying your votes and your reads, but Xatalos is just jumping around and harping on people for nothing and with no purpose other than to look like he is scum hunting. Case in point: On December 10 2013 08:19 Xatalos wrote:On December 10 2013 07:20 raynpelikoneet wrote:On December 10 2013 07:18 Alakaslam wrote:On December 10 2013 07:16 raynpelikoneet wrote:On December 10 2013 06:44 purpletrator wrote:
[quote]
You could at least start in alphabetical order. What if I reveal my identity? Would you change your vote to a different smurf? Worst post in thread. ##Vote: purpletrator Kusplain? Hello sir, I promise not to get mad at you this game If purpletrator can reasonably explain what he is going to achieve with that post i'm going to unvote. Now i gotta sleep! cya tomorrow. Please don't be useless Alakaslam ok? By the way... rayn, what are you doing? I thought you were going to be one of the most contributive players here. I hope it'll get better from here... Otherwise you're probably scum. What is the point of this post? Does he think Rayn is scummy because he sleeps? There's no purpose to this post. It's not scum hunting. It's calling out Rayn for sleeping. How does this help us find scum? Also, there is the point that townies believe in their reads and scum don't. If Xatalos believed I was scum, wouldn't he continue to pressure me and push for my lynch? Why does he insist on attacking kush for being kush and attacking Rayn for sleeping? Do you see any purpose to these posts? Is Xatalos trying to find a lynch? In my opinion, he isn't and that's why I voted for him. I viewed those things as throwaway comments that people often make day one in order to set expectations for behavior and contribution. I think you are reading far too much into early day one pressure votes. If the game had progressed further then of course I would expect a more concerted push behind a vote but in the context of the game state as it stands I don't believe his votes have been particularly scummy. In fact I think he is more likely to be town than scum at this point. I am just trying to determine if you actually believe in the reasoning behind your xatalos push or if this is simply posturing, because at this point the case is not very strong at all. I would like to bring something up from earlier though. If you're activity was going to be fine regardless why did you feel the need to post that you were going to be inactive? And more importantly why did you not post this before roles had been sent out? Please tell me where I explicitly said I was going to be "inactive" Don't be bad please. We both know what I meant by that. What is the purpose of stating one stupidly semantic sentence in response to a constructive post? ##vote: corazonI expect better from you. Why are you twisting my words and misconstructing my sentences in a way that conveniently gives you a way to attack me?
Substitute 'inactive' with 'less active' and then please focus on the things that matter instead of the things that do not.
Of all the things you could have responded with that was the least useful.
|
I say we lynch someone who is threatening to be modkilled. I've had that argument before and I still stand by that it's not the same as a no lynch.
|
On December 10 2013 13:29 Plutarch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 13:26 Corazon wrote:On December 10 2013 13:24 Plutarch wrote:On December 10 2013 13:19 Corazon wrote:On December 10 2013 13:12 Plutarch wrote:On December 10 2013 13:02 Corazon wrote:@Plutarch: Jumping around your vote can be a town thing if you are justifying your votes and your reads, but Xatalos is just jumping around and harping on people for nothing and with no purpose other than to look like he is scum hunting. Case in point: On December 10 2013 08:19 Xatalos wrote:On December 10 2013 07:20 raynpelikoneet wrote:On December 10 2013 07:18 Alakaslam wrote:On December 10 2013 07:16 raynpelikoneet wrote:
[quote]
Worst post in thread.
##Vote: purpletrator Kusplain? Hello sir, I promise not to get mad at you this game If purpletrator can reasonably explain what he is going to achieve with that post i'm going to unvote. Now i gotta sleep! cya tomorrow. Please don't be useless Alakaslam ok? By the way... rayn, what are you doing? I thought you were going to be one of the most contributive players here. I hope it'll get better from here... Otherwise you're probably scum. What is the point of this post? Does he think Rayn is scummy because he sleeps? There's no purpose to this post. It's not scum hunting. It's calling out Rayn for sleeping. How does this help us find scum? Also, there is the point that townies believe in their reads and scum don't. If Xatalos believed I was scum, wouldn't he continue to pressure me and push for my lynch? Why does he insist on attacking kush for being kush and attacking Rayn for sleeping? Do you see any purpose to these posts? Is Xatalos trying to find a lynch? In my opinion, he isn't and that's why I voted for him. I viewed those things as throwaway comments that people often make day one in order to set expectations for behavior and contribution. I think you are reading far too much into early day one pressure votes. If the game had progressed further then of course I would expect a more concerted push behind a vote but in the context of the game state as it stands I don't believe his votes have been particularly scummy. In fact I think he is more likely to be town than scum at this point. I am just trying to determine if you actually believe in the reasoning behind your xatalos push or if this is simply posturing, because at this point the case is not very strong at all. I would like to bring something up from earlier though. If you're activity was going to be fine regardless why did you feel the need to post that you were going to be inactive? And more importantly why did you not post this before roles had been sent out? Please tell me where I explicitly said I was going to be "inactive" Don't be bad please. We both know what I meant by that. What is the purpose of stating one stupidly semantic sentence in response to a constructive post? ##vote: corazonI expect better from you. Why are you twisting my words and misconstructing my sentences in a way that conveniently gives you a way to attack me? Substitute 'inactive' with 'less active' and then please focus on the things that matter instead of the things that do not. Of all the things you could have responded with that was the least useful.
You can't substitute those two words.
Do you understand how active I am? I post a lot. I gave the example of my filter from basics.
Inactivity= 1-2 posts a cycle
Less active= 2-3 pages
Your argument falls apart.
|
On December 10 2013 13:30 bumatlarge wrote:
I say we lynch someone who is threatening to be modkilled. I've had that argument before and I still stand by that it's not the same as a no lynch.
That is fine if we are really stuck for someone to lynch. But as I stated earlier; I would much rather try to find scum day one than settle on a lurker lynch which is essentially a coin-flip.
|
On December 10 2013 13:21 Plutarch wrote:Purple I would like you to explain the issue you had with my statement clearly. What is lackluster about stating you would rather lynch scum than lurkers in the context of a conversation about lurker policy? Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 06:33 purpletrator wrote:On December 10 2013 06:30 Xatalos wrote:On December 10 2013 06:27 purpletrator wrote:
I am a civilian. To my great dismay, my blood is not purple.
Plutarch, what distinguishes "scum" from "coin-flip"? I'd assume he means that lurker = coin-flip. Did you ask merely out of curiosity or for what reason? It was a pretty lackluster statement to make. I want to know if there was any meat to the meaning behind "coin-flip", because its an empty phrase, much like things like WIFOM and scumslip. Empty buzzwords that don't actually find scum but look like you want to find them.
It wasnt explicit that you equated coinflip to lurker. It was also a crock of shit in the sense that you cant know with certainty scum vs coinflip. If you want to call it policy, do that.
|
Are there a lot of new players in this game?
|
General comments:
purpletrator is being incredibly defensive and showing off as paranoid to me
xatalos has been powerplaying quite hard day 1, and typically lynches of major town voices go badly day 1.
Push Post
Personally I think the most important post so far is this
On December 10 2013 10:10 Holyflare wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 09:42 sidesprang wrote:
Ok, so a lot of things going on. I agree we should not let lurkers stay silent, and should poke anyone that stays silent for to long. But there is a lot of value in not spamming down the thread if you are town, that will only make the scummy post harder to see. I'm mainly looking at you Xatalos, as you are on your third page in filter with like half of the post being oneliners. Even if town you will be detrimental to the town if you keep this up! There are others aswell, just used you as an example.
--------
About Cora there are a few things I did not like and caught my eye. His opening post is not good, and if he's mafia hes basically just buying himself an excuse to lurk for day 1 and then come out day 2 and bring chaos onto the town.
He also deflected a lot in his defence and basically just said "look at X he's scummier than me".
And lastly he asked for people to vote for him if they found him scummy, which is very Anti-Town.
I do not feel cora is mafia yet at least, but definetly worth to look at.
-------
@Kish, can anyone that have played with him earlier say something about how he plays. He is deffo playing the most anti town atm, but he's also doing it on purpose which is frustrating.
I really really do not like this post as an entry post: A) Sheeps everthing I have mentioned on Cora. B) Uses a big chunk of his entry post saying why cora is displaying mafia associated traits but won't vote him yet? C) Mentions Xatalos in a completely non-inquisitive manner, no justification on a read based on Xan's posts or anything. Sidesprang, what do you think of Xatalos so far? He has been pressured quite hard this game, were his responses more town alignment indicative to you?
I've already mentioned how I felt the initial read of Cora was incredibly forced. This can easily attributed to Holyflare's overeagerness.
What is important to keep an eye out are the bandwagoners. Or the "bait and switch" approach. Make a flimsy case, wait for someone to quickly jump on your plan, and finger the bandwagoner as mafia. The logic behind this is that very few townies would be willing to push a bad lynch, but a mafia would be willing to push many lynches on greenies regarless of the contents of the lynches.
On December 10 2013 11:13 sidesprang wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 10:10 Holyflare wrote:On December 10 2013 09:42 sidesprang wrote:
Ok, so a lot of things going on. I agree we should not let lurkers stay silent, and should poke anyone that stays silent for to long. But there is a lot of value in not spamming down the thread if you are town, that will only make the scummy post harder to see. I'm mainly looking at you Xatalos, as you are on your third page in filter with like half of the post being oneliners. Even if town you will be detrimental to the town if you keep this up! There are others aswell, just used you as an example.
--------
About Cora there are a few things I did not like and caught my eye. His opening post is not good, and if he's mafia hes basically just buying himself an excuse to lurk for day 1 and then come out day 2 and bring chaos onto the town.
He also deflected a lot in his defence and basically just said "look at X he's scummier than me".
And lastly he asked for people to vote for him if they found him scummy, which is very Anti-Town.
I do not feel cora is mafia yet at least, but definetly worth to look at.
-------
@Kish, can anyone that have played with him earlier say something about how he plays. He is deffo playing the most anti town atm, but he's also doing it on purpose which is frustrating.
I really really do not like this post as an entry post: A) Sheeps everthing I have mentioned on Cora. B) Uses a big chunk of his entry post saying why cora is displaying mafia associated traits but won't vote him yet? C) Mentions Xatalos in a completely non-inquisitive manner, no justification on a read based on Xan's posts or anything. Sidesprang, what do you think of Xatalos so far? He has been pressured quite hard this game, were his responses more town alignment indicative to you? A) I might be blind but I dont see you mention everything I mentioned, but if I still find it scummy would I not be allowed to say it ? B) I don't see a reason for voting anyone yet, he is deffo looking scummy but It's still early in D1. C) The point about Xatalos was a plea to the Town that people should rather focus on more quality over quantity when posting. Can I not do that in a non-inquisitive manner? I said I just used him as an example. About Xatalos, I deffo dont like his opening. He goes after Cora and Kush which I think its fine, but also goes after Slam and Spag which had barely spoken and had not said anything scummy. So Artanis evaluation of him fits nicely, tho I wont say he is mafia because of it. He might just do it to start discussion, as he says he likes all the action happning here. I dont and will keep an eye on him. And his defence was kinda just meta, "saying that is how he plays", and I dont know the guy. Might be true might not be. I dont like meta defences and its another thing that will make me keep an eye on him.
Indeed he continues his bandwagony attitude. Although there have only been two posts from him, bait and switch has a 100% success rate (n = 1), and I might as well go with it. I am seriously concerned about his willingness to support lynches without contributing much personal insights.
##unvote
##Vote; sidesprang
|
On December 10 2013 13:32 Corazon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 13:29 Plutarch wrote:On December 10 2013 13:26 Corazon wrote:On December 10 2013 13:24 Plutarch wrote:On December 10 2013 13:19 Corazon wrote:On December 10 2013 13:12 Plutarch wrote:On December 10 2013 13:02 Corazon wrote:@Plutarch: Jumping around your vote can be a town thing if you are justifying your votes and your reads, but Xatalos is just jumping around and harping on people for nothing and with no purpose other than to look like he is scum hunting. Case in point: On December 10 2013 08:19 Xatalos wrote:On December 10 2013 07:20 raynpelikoneet wrote:On December 10 2013 07:18 Alakaslam wrote:
[quote]
Kusplain?
Hello sir, I promise not to get mad at you this game If purpletrator can reasonably explain what he is going to achieve with that post i'm going to unvote. Now i gotta sleep! cya tomorrow. Please don't be useless Alakaslam ok? By the way... rayn, what are you doing? I thought you were going to be one of the most contributive players here. I hope it'll get better from here... Otherwise you're probably scum. What is the point of this post? Does he think Rayn is scummy because he sleeps? There's no purpose to this post. It's not scum hunting. It's calling out Rayn for sleeping. How does this help us find scum? Also, there is the point that townies believe in their reads and scum don't. If Xatalos believed I was scum, wouldn't he continue to pressure me and push for my lynch? Why does he insist on attacking kush for being kush and attacking Rayn for sleeping? Do you see any purpose to these posts? Is Xatalos trying to find a lynch? In my opinion, he isn't and that's why I voted for him. I viewed those things as throwaway comments that people often make day one in order to set expectations for behavior and contribution. I think you are reading far too much into early day one pressure votes. If the game had progressed further then of course I would expect a more concerted push behind a vote but in the context of the game state as it stands I don't believe his votes have been particularly scummy. In fact I think he is more likely to be town than scum at this point. I am just trying to determine if you actually believe in the reasoning behind your xatalos push or if this is simply posturing, because at this point the case is not very strong at all. I would like to bring something up from earlier though. If you're activity was going to be fine regardless why did you feel the need to post that you were going to be inactive? And more importantly why did you not post this before roles had been sent out? Please tell me where I explicitly said I was going to be "inactive" Don't be bad please. We both know what I meant by that. What is the purpose of stating one stupidly semantic sentence in response to a constructive post? ##vote: corazonI expect better from you. Why are you twisting my words and misconstructing my sentences in a way that conveniently gives you a way to attack me? Substitute 'inactive' with 'less active' and then please focus on the things that matter instead of the things that do not. Of all the things you could have responded with that was the least useful. You can't substitute those two words. Do you understand how active I am? I post a lot. I gave the example of my filter from basics. Inactivity= 1-2 posts a cycle Less active= 2-3 pages Your argument falls apart.
It isn't an argument. I meant less active. I stated inactive. The question remains relevant and the same. If you continue on this minor tangent rather than addressing the breadth of my post I will assume you are trying to derail the conversation instead of contributing meaningfully and lynch you accordingly.
|
On December 10 2013 13:35 Plutarch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 13:32 Corazon wrote:On December 10 2013 13:29 Plutarch wrote:On December 10 2013 13:26 Corazon wrote:On December 10 2013 13:24 Plutarch wrote:On December 10 2013 13:19 Corazon wrote:On December 10 2013 13:12 Plutarch wrote:On December 10 2013 13:02 Corazon wrote:@Plutarch: Jumping around your vote can be a town thing if you are justifying your votes and your reads, but Xatalos is just jumping around and harping on people for nothing and with no purpose other than to look like he is scum hunting. Case in point: On December 10 2013 08:19 Xatalos wrote:On December 10 2013 07:20 raynpelikoneet wrote:
[quote]
If purpletrator can reasonably explain what he is going to achieve with that post i'm going to unvote.
Now i gotta sleep! cya tomorrow.
Please don't be useless Alakaslam ok? By the way... rayn, what are you doing? I thought you were going to be one of the most contributive players here. I hope it'll get better from here... Otherwise you're probably scum. What is the point of this post? Does he think Rayn is scummy because he sleeps? There's no purpose to this post. It's not scum hunting. It's calling out Rayn for sleeping. How does this help us find scum? Also, there is the point that townies believe in their reads and scum don't. If Xatalos believed I was scum, wouldn't he continue to pressure me and push for my lynch? Why does he insist on attacking kush for being kush and attacking Rayn for sleeping? Do you see any purpose to these posts? Is Xatalos trying to find a lynch? In my opinion, he isn't and that's why I voted for him. I viewed those things as throwaway comments that people often make day one in order to set expectations for behavior and contribution. I think you are reading far too much into early day one pressure votes. If the game had progressed further then of course I would expect a more concerted push behind a vote but in the context of the game state as it stands I don't believe his votes have been particularly scummy. In fact I think he is more likely to be town than scum at this point. I am just trying to determine if you actually believe in the reasoning behind your xatalos push or if this is simply posturing, because at this point the case is not very strong at all. I would like to bring something up from earlier though. If you're activity was going to be fine regardless why did you feel the need to post that you were going to be inactive? And more importantly why did you not post this before roles had been sent out? Please tell me where I explicitly said I was going to be "inactive" Don't be bad please. We both know what I meant by that. What is the purpose of stating one stupidly semantic sentence in response to a constructive post? ##vote: corazonI expect better from you. Why are you twisting my words and misconstructing my sentences in a way that conveniently gives you a way to attack me? Substitute 'inactive' with 'less active' and then please focus on the things that matter instead of the things that do not. Of all the things you could have responded with that was the least useful. You can't substitute those two words. Do you understand how active I am? I post a lot. I gave the example of my filter from basics. Inactivity= 1-2 posts a cycle Less active= 2-3 pages Your argument falls apart. It isn't an argument. I meant less active. I stated inactive. The question remains relevant and the same. If you continue on this minor tangent rather than addressing the breadth of my post I will assume you are trying to derail the conversation instead of contributing meaningfully and lynch you accordingly.
This is basically your argument though. You are saying that I said "inactive" when I actually said "less active". Your argument falls apart.
|
On December 10 2013 13:34 purpletrator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 13:21 Plutarch wrote:Purple I would like you to explain the issue you had with my statement clearly. What is lackluster about stating you would rather lynch scum than lurkers in the context of a conversation about lurker policy? On December 10 2013 06:33 purpletrator wrote:On December 10 2013 06:30 Xatalos wrote:On December 10 2013 06:27 purpletrator wrote:
I am a civilian. To my great dismay, my blood is not purple.
Plutarch, what distinguishes "scum" from "coin-flip"? I'd assume he means that lurker = coin-flip. Did you ask merely out of curiosity or for what reason? It was a pretty lackluster statement to make. I want to know if there was any meat to the meaning behind "coin-flip", because its an empty phrase, much like things like WIFOM and scumslip. Empty buzzwords that don't actually find scum but look like you want to find them. It wasnt explicit that you equated coinflip to lurker. It was also a crock of shit in the sense that you cant know with certainty scum vs coinflip. If you want to call it policy, do that.
It was pretty clear. I also believe you can know scum with such a high probability that it is almost certain, so it really isn't a crock of shit.
Regardless I don't see the point in attacking that post at all. What were you trying to gain from doing so?
|
On December 10 2013 13:33 Plutarch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 13:30 bumatlarge wrote:
I say we lynch someone who is threatening to be modkilled. I've had that argument before and I still stand by that it's not the same as a no lynch. That is fine if we are really stuck for someone to lynch. But as I stated earlier; I would much rather try to find scum day one than settle on a lurker lynch which is essentially a coin-flip.
The best scum hunters aren't good early. Talkative scum have to be brilliant to not make mistakes early. They would only benefit if they are a lot quicker/smarter then us. I'd like I not think that.
|
United Kingdom30774 Posts
On December 10 2013 13:38 bumatlarge wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 13:33 Plutarch wrote:On December 10 2013 13:30 bumatlarge wrote:
I say we lynch someone who is threatening to be modkilled. I've had that argument before and I still stand by that it's not the same as a no lynch. That is fine if we are really stuck for someone to lynch. But as I stated earlier; I would much rather try to find scum day one than settle on a lurker lynch which is essentially a coin-flip. The best scum hunters aren't good early. Talkative scum have to be brilliant to not make mistakes early. They would only benefit if they are a lot quicker/smarter then us. I'd like I not think that.
I disagree.
|
On December 10 2013 13:34 bumatlarge wrote:
Are there a lot of new players in this game?
This game is just smurfs, old foogys, and a few others who've played a good amount of games
|
On December 10 2013 13:37 Corazon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 13:35 Plutarch wrote:On December 10 2013 13:32 Corazon wrote:On December 10 2013 13:29 Plutarch wrote:On December 10 2013 13:26 Corazon wrote:On December 10 2013 13:24 Plutarch wrote:On December 10 2013 13:19 Corazon wrote:On December 10 2013 13:12 Plutarch wrote:On December 10 2013 13:02 Corazon wrote:@Plutarch: Jumping around your vote can be a town thing if you are justifying your votes and your reads, but Xatalos is just jumping around and harping on people for nothing and with no purpose other than to look like he is scum hunting. Case in point: On December 10 2013 08:19 Xatalos wrote:
[quote]
By the way... rayn, what are you doing? I thought you were going to be one of the most contributive players here. I hope it'll get better from here... Otherwise you're probably scum. What is the point of this post? Does he think Rayn is scummy because he sleeps? There's no purpose to this post. It's not scum hunting. It's calling out Rayn for sleeping. How does this help us find scum? Also, there is the point that townies believe in their reads and scum don't. If Xatalos believed I was scum, wouldn't he continue to pressure me and push for my lynch? Why does he insist on attacking kush for being kush and attacking Rayn for sleeping? Do you see any purpose to these posts? Is Xatalos trying to find a lynch? In my opinion, he isn't and that's why I voted for him. I viewed those things as throwaway comments that people often make day one in order to set expectations for behavior and contribution. I think you are reading far too much into early day one pressure votes. If the game had progressed further then of course I would expect a more concerted push behind a vote but in the context of the game state as it stands I don't believe his votes have been particularly scummy. In fact I think he is more likely to be town than scum at this point. I am just trying to determine if you actually believe in the reasoning behind your xatalos push or if this is simply posturing, because at this point the case is not very strong at all. I would like to bring something up from earlier though. If you're activity was going to be fine regardless why did you feel the need to post that you were going to be inactive? And more importantly why did you not post this before roles had been sent out? Please tell me where I explicitly said I was going to be "inactive" Don't be bad please. We both know what I meant by that. What is the purpose of stating one stupidly semantic sentence in response to a constructive post? ##vote: corazonI expect better from you. Why are you twisting my words and misconstructing my sentences in a way that conveniently gives you a way to attack me? Substitute 'inactive' with 'less active' and then please focus on the things that matter instead of the things that do not. Of all the things you could have responded with that was the least useful. You can't substitute those two words. Do you understand how active I am? I post a lot. I gave the example of my filter from basics. Inactivity= 1-2 posts a cycle Less active= 2-3 pages Your argument falls apart. It isn't an argument. I meant less active. I stated inactive. The question remains relevant and the same. If you continue on this minor tangent rather than addressing the breadth of my post I will assume you are trying to derail the conversation instead of contributing meaningfully and lynch you accordingly. This is basically your argument though. You are saying that I said "inactive" when I actually said "less active". Your argument falls apart.
That is not my argument. the question is 'Why mention activity at all if your activity was going to be fine and why not say something before roles were assigned.'
That is the argument. You are deliberately nitpicking the choice of one word and misrepresenting the question. If you refuse to cooperate and continue to be obstructive rather than constructive you can get lynched.
|
On December 10 2013 13:39 Holyflare wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 13:38 bumatlarge wrote:On December 10 2013 13:33 Plutarch wrote:On December 10 2013 13:30 bumatlarge wrote:
I say we lynch someone who is threatening to be modkilled. I've had that argument before and I still stand by that it's not the same as a no lynch. That is fine if we are really stuck for someone to lynch. But as I stated earlier; I would much rather try to find scum day one than settle on a lurker lynch which is essentially a coin-flip. The best scum hunters aren't good early. Talkative scum have to be brilliant to not make mistakes early. They would only benefit if they are a lot quicker/smarter then us. I'd like I not think that. I disagree.
As do I.
|
On December 10 2013 13:38 Plutarch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 13:34 purpletrator wrote:On December 10 2013 13:21 Plutarch wrote:Purple I would like you to explain the issue you had with my statement clearly. What is lackluster about stating you would rather lynch scum than lurkers in the context of a conversation about lurker policy? On December 10 2013 06:33 purpletrator wrote:On December 10 2013 06:30 Xatalos wrote:On December 10 2013 06:27 purpletrator wrote:
I am a civilian. To my great dismay, my blood is not purple.
Plutarch, what distinguishes "scum" from "coin-flip"? I'd assume he means that lurker = coin-flip. Did you ask merely out of curiosity or for what reason? It was a pretty lackluster statement to make. I want to know if there was any meat to the meaning behind "coin-flip", because its an empty phrase, much like things like WIFOM and scumslip. Empty buzzwords that don't actually find scum but look like you want to find them. It wasnt explicit that you equated coinflip to lurker. It was also a crock of shit in the sense that you cant know with certainty scum vs coinflip. If you want to call it policy, do that. It was pretty clear. I also believe you can know scum with such a high probability that it is almost certain, so it really isn't a crock of shit. Regardless I don't see the point in attacking that post at all. What were you trying to gain from doing so?
Well since you understood your own post, of course you wont see a point to attacking it. I think it was fake, I just dont know if it was fake or fake
|
K, I'm here for a bit before sleep. I'll be here all day tomorrow but gonna post my thoughts on some stuff first:
On December 10 2013 10:10 Holyflare wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 09:42 sidesprang wrote:
Ok, so a lot of things going on. I agree we should not let lurkers stay silent, and should poke anyone that stays silent for to long. But there is a lot of value in not spamming down the thread if you are town, that will only make the scummy post harder to see. I'm mainly looking at you Xatalos, as you are on your third page in filter with like half of the post being oneliners. Even if town you will be detrimental to the town if you keep this up! There are others aswell, just used you as an example.
--------
About Cora there are a few things I did not like and caught my eye. His opening post is not good, and if he's mafia hes basically just buying himself an excuse to lurk for day 1 and then come out day 2 and bring chaos onto the town.
He also deflected a lot in his defence and basically just said "look at X he's scummier than me".
And lastly he asked for people to vote for him if they found him scummy, which is very Anti-Town.
I do not feel cora is mafia yet at least, but definetly worth to look at.
-------
@Kish, can anyone that have played with him earlier say something about how he plays. He is deffo playing the most anti town atm, but he's also doing it on purpose which is frustrating.
I really really do not like this post as an entry post: A) Sheeps everthing I have mentioned on Cora. B) Uses a big chunk of his entry post saying why cora is displaying mafia associated traits but won't vote him yet? C) Mentions Xatalos in a completely non-inquisitive manner, no justification on a read based on Xan's posts or anything.
Agree completly w/ holy here. I had the same thoughts reading it. Also worth mentioning is how that first paragraph says absolutely nothing. Just obvious stuff like lurking is bad and people shouldn't spam. It's not like he's using it to call out Xatalos since he says he's just using him as an example. It's just a safe non-confrontational post.
|
On December 10 2013 13:42 Plutarch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 13:39 Holyflare wrote:On December 10 2013 13:38 bumatlarge wrote:On December 10 2013 13:33 Plutarch wrote:On December 10 2013 13:30 bumatlarge wrote:
I say we lynch someone who is threatening to be modkilled. I've had that argument before and I still stand by that it's not the same as a no lynch. That is fine if we are really stuck for someone to lynch. But as I stated earlier; I would much rather try to find scum day one than settle on a lurker lynch which is essentially a coin-flip. The best scum hunters aren't good early. Talkative scum have to be brilliant to not make mistakes early. They would only benefit if they are a lot quicker/smarter then us. I'd like I not think that. I disagree. As do I.
I'd be more then happy if I were proved wrong with scum lynch right now. Assuming you aren't calling me stupid. Have at you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
97
64
4
EPT
