What the fk did I post this early morning. this is why sleep deprivation is bad for you, mmkay. Don't have much time so I'll be quick about it.
Since I think most of the bases have been covered already: yes, it was a scumbait. I get less coherent in later posts due to REASONS, but the primary scumbait was the Valenius and Pixelated reads and broadly targeted at everyone. The Pixelated read is somewhat plausible of a bait, but the Valenius one was super fking obvious. Like, how the fk am I going to clear Valenius as town when he had ONE post, which is, in standard situations normal, and being one of the first stabs at substantive discussions slightly town leaning (for me). It's so terribly obvious to anyone who reads his filter, that I'm wondering why I felt the need to try and use him as a scumbait too.
I was going to respond quicker to Roland's post on Cavalinho, but I was running myself in circles check something meta Cavalinho was referring to about why Robik was lynched in LII no time to quote the post, ("he was lynched because he was a strong player and he read me as town". He also read me as mafia that game and was wrong, and they also nightkilled him because they thought he was blue) but then I realized this was utterly irrelevant to anything pertinent, deleted it, and just finished my post. The questions were an effort to specifically encourage sqrt and Cavalinho to respond.
I just used Valenius and Pixelated because they gave me the most neutral reads.
On the five points Eden makes, to be clear if I didn't answer it this morning: 1) The bait was initially targeted at everyone, and is the original intent. The second post was delayed because of dead-end meta-analysis, but the refocusing onto Cavalinho and sqrt was done afterwards, correct. Won't argue this, and you can read it for what you want. 2) See above. Town can sheep, but sheeping still means they aren't thinking for themselves, and makes me devalue their analysis as a worst-case scenario. 3) We clearly have different definitions of reads, but he clearly talks about sqrt and Valenius in that post, and it's basically a repeat of what OK said a few posts prior to it regarding why Robik's plays. Same error about sqrt not posting after the RVS phase and everything. Argument about semantics, useless line of questioning. 4) When you made the post, it became pretty clear that it was . Had I not made the Valenius bait so fking obvious, I might've. Then again, I'm not entirely sure why I was so quick to jump the gun, so this is valid. 5) You just made a case about my second post being 20 minutes following up my first post. sqrt had 3 and 1/2 hours since VALENIUS posted his question to OK, and 15 minutes to Robik's WTF to OK's post, and had time to make a joke post referencing Robik joking about never being mafia on TL. Perhaps it's just me, but I really dislike that.
I think at this point I'm resigned to having a scummy Day 1 town meta because "mistakes were made", so have at thee and debate it at your leisure. I've got more productive avenues to explore.
On the Valenius post: sqrt, how do you get a "neutral" read off of it? It's filled decent, non-rehashed analysis (though I think he could explain his reasoning on Pixalated: Valenius what is your read of him, and why do you think that). You don't like it because he calls you scum, yeah, but tell me: why shouldn't we view you as scummy given your current contributions? Your reads post had two pieces of original analysis:
1) is idle speculation of my relationship with Valenius, and to that I say: don't ask, don't tell . Ok, I kid, but it was based off something which can readily be falsified with a single glance at his filter at the time. Like, it's SUPER obvious, and really, why would I as scum try to link myself to my scum partner so early (and vice versa), and with something so easily disputed? Neither does this say that he's town if I'm scum (when I "downgraded" him and gave the actual read, Eden was on the Tolkien/Cavalinho 4eva pairing at the time, so I would have no incentive to change anything about Valenius), just that this is a useless line of inquiry.
2) idle speculation that Pixelated is blue (don't speculate about other people being blue. I talked about blues in my admittedly disastrous Day 1, but that's a nono and I was only making a soft vet claim, as opposed to calling someone out explicitly as blue (and even that's scummy). DON'T DO THAT AS TOWN.
Alot of this also applies to Eden's recent post, and while it confuses my read of him, he still seems town to me. If aggressive in his scumhunting. No need for a double lynch like LII gaiz.
You know what, fk it. ##Vote: sqrt
The read wasn't strong at all (and I was wavering between hiim and Cavalinho), but after those posts, this is my strongest read, and something which people really should be talking about more because fk.
Currently, it seems myself and Cavalinho are the likely lynch targets thus far, and I would submit sqrt as another. Let's keep the votes within this group unless something major comes up.
LT: 1-4 we're good on but your 5 is fuckin with me. I believe the point being that you pulled in the trap so soon after you set it, which is an unreasonably short amount of time. Who's gonna ever fall for it so quickly? That's got nothing to do with the other time differences like the 3 1/2 hours w/ Valenius, Robik's 15 minutes to me and yet you're comparing it for some unknown reason.
On March 27 2014 02:51 Eden1892 wrote: I'm going to address you directly once more, Cavalinho, and then until you demonstrate you're capable of reading properly and/or arguing in good faith, I'm not going to address you further.
There's a plethora of things you haven't addressed. The issue is that most of them aren't really arguable (not in the sense that there is no legitimate counterargument but more literally that they can't be argued). You're doing a lot of subtle things with the way you write; I raised the example of how your tone kept changing to match what Robik was doing re: OnceKing, for instance. You haven't said anything about it. I don't expect you to say anything productive or helpful, though, on that front, and it isn't worth arguing out. (You will say that either I am misinterpreting your tone or that your tone changes are coincidental, and it will simply be up to the audience to decide whether you are lying or I am wrong.)
Even still, there are things I've raised which you could have argued but have elected not to argue, probably because they're unarguable (in the sense that there is no legitimate counterargument). You've repeatedly straw manned the arguments against you instead of addressing them charitably and reasonably. At no point did your questions, and responses to the answers you received, have any apparent constructive direction. Your voting rationale given was entirely post-hoc and despite your last message here it's obvious that you are sticking to your vote in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it, probably because you're desperate scum latching onto any last shred of capacity to cast doubt on me that you have.
---
Why are all of you so quick to accept Tolkein's blatant lies about his test? Please. Until someone can rebut the five points raised in this post and establish that none of them are proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Tolkein is lying, no one in this thread has any reason to believe that Tolkein is being honest.
You say that there are things that I could have argued in yet you don't post what any of them are or where I could have missed them. Since you are just the best player in all the known universe I think you should enlighten us and tell us what I've been missing. I'm directing all of my questions and answers towards you (which you conveniently gloss over) and how you're deliberately ignoring what I'm saying in favor of trying to discredit me.
I've said that either you or LT is mafia, but you just skim over that and call me an idiot and come to the conclusion that I'm saying both of you are mafia together. That isn't even counting the other times you've skimmed my posts and just came to the conclusion that I'm scum. (Filter dive if you want them, I've focused on them pretty extensively.)
Furthermore, you keep saying "straw man" and again fail to provide examples. Everything you say about my arguments really just makes sense at a cursory glance but, after any type of in-depth reading, it's clear that nothing you say about me or my arguments makes any actual sense.
While we're on the topic, why is it that you consistently push me as scummy while voting someone else? That's like...What? You've egged on this wagon ridiculously hard, while voting someone else, and still haven't come to the conclusion that I'm town based on the votes piling up on me.
I want to ask for your reads on all the players in the game right now. You keep pushing people as scummy but you only have like two townreads, both of which being universally read by everyone as townie.
Also, I'm rescinding my townread on sqrt. That vote was absurdly dumb.
On March 27 2014 06:51 OnceKing wrote: LT: 1-4 we're good on but your 5 is fuckin with me. I believe the point being that you pulled in the trap so soon after you set it, which is an unreasonably short amount of time. Who's gonna ever fall for it so quickly? That's got nothing to do with the other time differences like the 3 1/2 hours w/ Valenius, Robik's 15 minutes to me and yet you're comparing it for some unknown reason.
Typing on phone but. I'm not sure, I think it was just stupidity. i was low on sleep, not entirely sure either.
can't see the youtube video but I assume it's about Day 1 incompetence.
The neutral read was from before he did his reads, and after he posted his reads, I didn't change my read because the reads really wasn't anything new.
On the Valenius post: sqrt, how do you get a "neutral" read off of it? It's filled decent, non-rehashed analysis (though I think he could explain his reasoning on Pixalated: Valenius what is your read of him, and why do you think that). You don't like it because he calls you scum, yeah, but tell me: why shouldn't we view you as scummy given your current contributions? Your reads post had two pieces of original analysis:
Sorry, are you saying pixelated called me scum (dont think he did). Or are you going back to talking to sqrt and me calling him scum?
On March 27 2014 06:55 sqrtofneg1 wrote: The neutral read was from before he did his reads, and after he posted his reads, I didn't change my read because the reads really wasn't anything new.
On March 27 2014 06:55 sqrtofneg1 wrote: The neutral read was from before he did his reads, and after he posted his reads, I didn't change my read because the reads really wasn't anything new.
can you english
Translation (Correct me if im wrong sqrt)
His neutral read on me was before I posted my long read post. Since thoroughly digesting that long post, he feels nothing in there was new, so it hasn't changed any of his reads.
Furthermore Eden, could you explain why cutting discussion short is pro town? All town has is talking, and if you don't want to talk to clarify what you actually feel about me...That isn't good. Not from a town perspective, anyway.
Meant I was asking about your read on pixalated. You say you dont like the posts and thats it. It makes me uncomfortable in am otherwose good post.
Sqrt I meant your responsr to OK. You're saying you're still deciding because he just post his reads and NOTHING MUCH but you did as well. And less content and original contributions compared to it. And you di ssd like his scumread on you. Whatever, I dislike mine but so what. You and I give off scum vibes. Deal.
I also started on that post after robik posted in response to eden so I didnt see alot of posts after.
- He concedes point #1. ("Won't argue this, and you can read it for what you want.") - He concedes point #2. ("Town can sheep, but sheeping still means they aren't thinking for themselves, and makes me devalue their analysis as a worst-case scenario." in response to the assertion that his test isn't alignment-indicative) - He concedes point #4. ("Then again, I'm not entirely sure why I was so quick to jump the gun, so this is valid.")
- He actually doesn't concede point #3. Here is the sequence of relevant posts.
On March 26 2014 13:47 Pixalated wrote: I don't like how he cleared both sqrt and val. Already explained why I don't feel that Val's questions make him town, and sqrt posting random stuff doesn't mean much.
What this means about his alignment I'm not sure. Could be mafia trying to get cred by claiming that people are townie and having 'right' reads when they flip.
On March 26 2014 19:13 Lord Tolkien wrote: Valenius is super town in my eyes, he's cleared for me.
Pixelated is neutral or slightly scummy to me.
On March 26 2014 20:29 Pixalated wrote: In response to Onceking's question before I left - Eden is town. His logic is sound, I agree with his reads, and I like how he pressured Robik.
The one thing that I can agree with LT about is the sqrts thing. Upon my reread of the thread I noted that he left AFTER onceking started talking policy and Robik started pressuring him (I initially thought that he left before). I find it odd that he didn't take the time to make at least a quick comment on it before going to sleep. Still, it isn't enough to judge imo, and I find it oddly suspicious how he reads him to be scummier than Cav, who has had some very faulty logic (will get to that in abit).
On March 26 2014 20:31 Lord Tolkien wrote: Was trying to scumbait with it when questioning Cavalinho and sqrt. Was trying to see if they would piggyback off of it. Went back and deleted those sections specifically to try.
Pixelated is leaning town. He's had more posts and has given reads on sqrt and Valenius, but the main crux of their points have been similar to what OK and others in the thread have said (not much to be said this early into the game, however). He was however the first to defend OK's post (outside of OK), and rightly so. If we're continuing with the Cavalinho lynch, it is...unlikely for them to simultaneously bandwagon on a possible lynch and defend the person in question.
Pixalated's original post on sqrt was not a read. Full stop, end of story. Tolkien is going to quibble about definitions until he hangs because it's his only way out, but "sqrt posting random stuff doesn't mean much" doesn't say "sqrt is X alignment." It's just not a read, there is no room to argue about this.
The problem is that he explicitly said that he "went back and deleted those sections specifically to try" this. This is implying that the part that followed was intended to be in the original post. Again, Pixalated did not give a read on sqrt, so everything Tolkien allegedly "would have said" in the original post could not have actually been in that post. As noted: he's lying.
- He also doesn't concede point #5. He's alleging that I'm inconsistent in my application of criticism regarding the timing of specific posts. He is, of course, completely wrong here as well. My argument is that his supposed "trap" post for Cavalinho and sqrt came a full 20 minutes after his supposed "bait" post, when logically if you were really constructing a trap like that, you would have no reason not to include the trap question in the same post as the bait. You would have thought through the entire process -- "how will they respond to my question? will they take the bait? what would it mean for their alignment if they do X thing?" -- and there's simply no way you would forget for 20 minutes to ask the crucial question to set it up. It just doesn't logically follow as the thought process of someone who was intentionally setting up bait for a trap. This has nothing to do with whether sqrt would have taken a few hours to make a real post, or whatever else.
In conclusion, Tolkien has either conceded or unsatisfactorily responded to every point I've made demonstrating that he is lying, he hasn't established anything remotely resembling reasonable doubt that he was lying, and there is no credible townsided explanation for his lies. Kill him.
On March 27 2014 06:55 sqrtofneg1 wrote: The neutral read was from before he did his reads, and after he posted his reads, I didn't change my read because the reads really wasn't anything new.
can you english
Translation (Correct me if im wrong sqrt)
His neutral read on me was before I posted my long read post. Since thoroughly digesting that long post, he feels nothing in there was new, so it hasn't changed any of his reads.
On March 27 2014 06:55 sqrtofneg1 wrote: The neutral read was from before he did his reads, and after he posted his reads, I didn't change my read because the reads really wasn't anything new.
can you english
Translation (Correct me if im wrong sqrt)
His neutral read on me was before I posted my long read post. Since thoroughly digesting that long post, he feels nothing in there was new, so it hasn't changed any of his reads.
That the gist of it?
Yes.
Why did you vote me? Was it really based off the fact that I made a promise to respond to a post later on? Is that supposed to be a legitimate scumread?
Don't know, I just pulled his filter up a minute ago and I'm reading. I'm inclined to think town solely based on the fact that the people pushing him as a lynch are setting off my bullshit radar, but that's not good enough for me because it's not based off of something he's personally done.
EPT
. Ok, I kid, but it was based off something which can readily be falsified with a single glance at his filter at the time. Like, it's SUPER obvious, and really, why would I as scum try to link myself to my scum partner so early (and vice versa), and with something so easily disputed? Neither does this say that he's town if I'm scum (when I "downgraded" him and gave the actual read, Eden was on the Tolkien/Cavalinho 4eva pairing at the time, so I would have no incentive to change anything about Valenius), just that this is a useless line of inquiry.
