EPTCASE ON CIRCUMSTANCE
CASE ON CIRCUMSTANCE
On November 03 2014 03:11 GlowingBear wrote:
.: Circumstance, master of passivity
A quick skim through his filter will show that he is the most passive player on the thread.
Who is his top scum read? Nobody knows.
Who does he think is town? Nobody knows.
Not only he refuses to point fingers of suspicion, he also doesn't try to push the thread forward. He did it once. Just once. With oats. But it was still wishy washy.
This is solely my case on him. I'll analyse his passivity post by post now, and bring minor arguments on him. Just click on spoiler:
+ Show Spoiler +
Bad entrance. Downgrades his play (hi guys, I'm new on TL) and forced town claim (I'm town lololol makes things easier(?)). Doesn't look like a natural town writing style to me. As I said before, scum has a hard time trying to put himself in the game. Their writing style is mostly forced.
You see, he doesn't compromises himself here in any position.
He says people seems forced to post and that was an null tell from Kirby, BUT he also thinks that my push on him is also null. An innocent misread. So both of us were null at that time.
I don't believe this.
In a jokey atmosphere, when someone does what I did, there is clearly a motivation behind it.
Which means
1) I'm town trying to bring serious discussion to the topic
2) I'm town having a scumread
3) I'm scum trying to look townie
4) I'm scum trying to pick on a bad post from town.
That's what you can understand from my post. There is no space for "innocent misread".
Translation: I don't want to bring attention.
"Just making things clear" = I'm not calling you scum for that, I just want clarification. Please don't be angry at me.
Useless WIFOM. Disconnected conclusions. "Horde may be mafia, therefore... IS THE CAT A SORT OF EVENT OR THERE IS A KEL THUZAD ROLE?"
"EARLY" suspicion. Translation = "this is not going to hold water for long"
Analyze Oats. Do not vote for him.
NOW, THE MOST ILLUSTRATIVE POST:
So, after being afk, he comes to the thread, HE IS OK WITH THE RNG LYNCH AS PLAN B, but he is NOT SOLD ON NUKE'S CASE and ASKS FOR ANOTHER ONE?
Wow. He still has no scumread. He is not convinced of lynching anyone. And he does not take any stance.
In this post, he is:
1) Mostly ok with lynching anyone
2) Not ready enough to sheep a case (still avoiding getting attention)
3) Never taking stances
He doesn't want to bring attention, again. Like, lol, "my opinion isn't relevant, so I'm not giving it" lolololol.
That's all.
If you don't want to read everything, read the last two quotes.
##Vote: Circumstance
.: Circumstance, master of passivity
A quick skim through his filter will show that he is the most passive player on the thread.
Who is his top scum read? Nobody knows.
Who does he think is town? Nobody knows.
Not only he refuses to point fingers of suspicion, he also doesn't try to push the thread forward. He did it once. Just once. With oats. But it was still wishy washy.
This is solely my case on him. I'll analyse his passivity post by post now, and bring minor arguments on him. Just click on spoiler:
+ Show Spoiler +
On October 31 2014 12:01 Circumstance wrote:
First game on TL, using TL's systems, thank God I'm town, makes things a lot easier.
(Question: If someone votes in the separate thread, is that vote binding for the day?)
First game on TL, using TL's systems, thank God I'm town, makes things a lot easier.
(Question: If someone votes in the separate thread, is that vote binding for the day?)
Bad entrance. Downgrades his play (hi guys, I'm new on TL) and forced town claim (I'm town lololol makes things easier(?)). Doesn't look like a natural town writing style to me. As I said before, scum has a hard time trying to put himself in the game. Their writing style is mostly forced.
On October 31 2014 12:18 Circumstance wrote:
I think it's jumping to conclusions a bit quickly - the game had a clearly defined starting time, so if you didn't post pretty quickly, you'd look suspicious in that you were laying low. Seems like an innocent misread.
I think it's jumping to conclusions a bit quickly - the game had a clearly defined starting time, so if you didn't post pretty quickly, you'd look suspicious in that you were laying low. Seems like an innocent misread.
You see, he doesn't compromises himself here in any position.
He says people seems forced to post and that was an null tell from Kirby, BUT he also thinks that my push on him is also null. An innocent misread. So both of us were null at that time.
I don't believe this.
In a jokey atmosphere, when someone does what I did, there is clearly a motivation behind it.
Which means
1) I'm town trying to bring serious discussion to the topic
2) I'm town having a scumread
3) I'm scum trying to look townie
4) I'm scum trying to pick on a bad post from town.
That's what you can understand from my post. There is no space for "innocent misread".
On October 31 2014 12:23 Circumstance wrote:
Because I'm not ready to call out potential scum this early in, and the subject matter is pretty innocuous. Plus, I've dealt with a fair number of games where someone from town made these kind of quick claims that did not always pan out.
Because I'm not ready to call out potential scum this early in, and the subject matter is pretty innocuous. Plus, I've dealt with a fair number of games where someone from town made these kind of quick claims that did not always pan out.
Translation: I don't want to bring attention.
On October 31 2014 12:51 Circumstance wrote:
Just making things clear - if you didn't read portions of the thread, then what makes you say it's all fluff?
Just making things clear - if you didn't read portions of the thread, then what makes you say it's all fluff?
"Just making things clear" = I'm not calling you scum for that, I just want clarification. Please don't be angry at me.
On October 31 2014 13:45 Circumstance wrote:
But the post specifically stated a goal of eliminating the Horde, which someone (don't remember who) suggested would be the Mafia. So what I'm wondering is, was Mr. Bigglesworth a sort of game event, or is there a Kel'Thuzad role?
But the post specifically stated a goal of eliminating the Horde, which someone (don't remember who) suggested would be the Mafia. So what I'm wondering is, was Mr. Bigglesworth a sort of game event, or is there a Kel'Thuzad role?
Useless WIFOM. Disconnected conclusions. "Horde may be mafia, therefore... IS THE CAT A SORT OF EVENT OR THERE IS A KEL THUZAD ROLE?"
On October 31 2014 15:15 Circumstance wrote:
I don't know enough about explanaition posts to try and write soomething super-detailed, and there isn't all too much just yet to go off of, so I'm just gonna give a brief explanation for my first formal action.
The early suspicion for me is on Oats. A quick filter seems to show him being rather "floaty" - posting often enough to be seen as active, replying to discussion posts enough to be seen as involved, but not contributing to those same discussions enough to be seen as the originator of any idea. It seems like he's going out of his way not to initiate or develop any reads, not to move discussions forward, but merely to antagonize, to take existing discussions and say "this is bad, this is wrong, you don't know what you're doing". I can't tell if it's meant as a way to gain the trust of other players or something else entirely, but ATM, this doesn't feel like the way someone acts if they want the town to be moving towards any meaningful conclusion.
Seuss, I understand where you're coming from on GB, but for my money, I think we might be learning more if we
##Analyze: Oatsmaster
I don't know enough about explanaition posts to try and write soomething super-detailed, and there isn't all too much just yet to go off of, so I'm just gonna give a brief explanation for my first formal action.
The early suspicion for me is on Oats. A quick filter seems to show him being rather "floaty" - posting often enough to be seen as active, replying to discussion posts enough to be seen as involved, but not contributing to those same discussions enough to be seen as the originator of any idea. It seems like he's going out of his way not to initiate or develop any reads, not to move discussions forward, but merely to antagonize, to take existing discussions and say "this is bad, this is wrong, you don't know what you're doing". I can't tell if it's meant as a way to gain the trust of other players or something else entirely, but ATM, this doesn't feel like the way someone acts if they want the town to be moving towards any meaningful conclusion.
Seuss, I understand where you're coming from on GB, but for my money, I think we might be learning more if we
##Analyze: Oatsmaster
"EARLY" suspicion. Translation = "this is not going to hold water for long"
Analyze Oats. Do not vote for him.
NOW, THE MOST ILLUSTRATIVE POST:
On November 01 2014 09:42 Circumstance wrote:
So, we have GB as a call for the D1 backup, and some people seem to be jumping onboard for risk.nuke. I've read the case for lynching risk.nuke, and I'm not yet completely sold. I don't have a solid read on him yet, so can anyone give me a reason we should lynch someone else INSTEAD of risk.nuke?
So, we have GB as a call for the D1 backup, and some people seem to be jumping onboard for risk.nuke. I've read the case for lynching risk.nuke, and I'm not yet completely sold. I don't have a solid read on him yet, so can anyone give me a reason we should lynch someone else INSTEAD of risk.nuke?
So, after being afk, he comes to the thread, HE IS OK WITH THE RNG LYNCH AS PLAN B, but he is NOT SOLD ON NUKE'S CASE and ASKS FOR ANOTHER ONE?
Wow. He still has no scumread. He is not convinced of lynching anyone. And he does not take any stance.
In this post, he is:
1) Mostly ok with lynching anyone
2) Not ready enough to sheep a case (still avoiding getting attention)
3) Never taking stances
On November 01 2014 10:47 Circumstance wrote:
Do you want me to explain my schedule to you? I will if you want.
As for GB's question, my current reads aren't strong enough to lay out on the table right now, and frankly, I don't know how much it matters at this stage. We've got some clear targets that are slowly beginning to get multiple votes placed on them. If we don't consolidate, we run the risk of a no-lynch, which doesn't benefit anyone. I don't WANT to lynch you right now, GB, because I'm not a fan of RNG and you keep discussions going. But before I place my vote on risk.nuke, I want to hear the argument against it, assuming there is one, to see if it holds water.
Do you want me to explain my schedule to you? I will if you want.
As for GB's question, my current reads aren't strong enough to lay out on the table right now, and frankly, I don't know how much it matters at this stage. We've got some clear targets that are slowly beginning to get multiple votes placed on them. If we don't consolidate, we run the risk of a no-lynch, which doesn't benefit anyone. I don't WANT to lynch you right now, GB, because I'm not a fan of RNG and you keep discussions going. But before I place my vote on risk.nuke, I want to hear the argument against it, assuming there is one, to see if it holds water.
He doesn't want to bring attention, again. Like, lol, "my opinion isn't relevant, so I'm not giving it" lolololol.
That's all.
If you don't want to read everything, read the last two quotes.
##Vote: Circumstance
![[image loading]](http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/114/805/Baby-Justice.jpg)
