|
On November 29 2014 02:14 batsnacks wrote:
HTS you said meat has contributed slightly more than slam.
So why is it bats, meant, kush and not bats, slam, kush?
Slam to me is pure policy - policy lurker means I cannot get a read on him. I am not in any way saying Slam is scum. Slam is null.
I put priority on people with scumlike behaviour over people who are pure policy lynch.
The content that Meat has posted and the manner in which he did not is not fully supported. If you look at the long post he did when giving reads some of it is on shaky ground.
|
On November 29 2014 02:33 rsoultin wrote:
Um, HTS...
You just answered your own question. How someone can be a policy lynch and a scum lynch at the same time. Wtf lol. At least if you keep questioning why meat is a policy lynch. Am I misunderstanding your posts or something?
I think you have. Meat isn't a policy lynch yet. I am saying scum based on what he posted before he disappeared. Meat is not a policy, Alakaslam is, and I think might be edging closer to a modkill.
What I am questioning is Kush's justification for calling DSMI a policy lynch when he'd posted more recently (to Kush's voting him) and a scum lynch. He used "doubles" as the explanation. Am I making sense now?
|
EBWOP - Rewording my last sentence for clarity.
Rsoultin, what I am questioning is Kush's justification for calling DSMI a policy lynch AND a scum lynch, when DSMI had posted more recently (to Kush's voting him). He used "doubles" as the explanation. Am I making sense now?
|
Lightning, I'm in the same boat. My previous games of mafia (or werewolf in some cases) people weren't quite as involved, not as serious. Also the first time I've played with the majority contingent in a different timezone, but I've not found that to be a problem.
To add to rsoultin's list, along the lines of #1, I also look for whether a claim can be supported. The person making a claim should be able to support it, although that person doesn't always have to be quoting support every time. If you cannot follow the logic or find reasonable backup, ask away. If they fail #2, you're probably onto something.
The only hazard with #4 is that whilst it's a good measure for yourself, you need to be wary if someone else says "this is forgettable", especially if it's an accusation against them.
All else said, Hopeless, welcome to the show.
|
Also Lightning, can you describe what you perceive to be the scumlike behaviour for Batsnacks, given your revised list?
|
On November 29 2014 06:39 rsoultin wrote:
1. People who aren't consistent. You ask them a question and it doesn't match up with their previous posts.
2. People dodging questions entirely even after they're asked multiple times.
3. People who breeze in, post some, then disappear again.
4. People who seem to be posting a lot yet I can't remember what they actually said, because that means their posts had no new or significant substance to them.
Neither individual is helping the town agenda (both have promoted policy votes over scum votes for example).
Looking at both Bats and Kush (as my current vote is on Bats) and using the above as a checklist for Kush:
#1 - Check. I had pointed out the D1 argument on page 51, but why does Kush expect any of us to think that D1 makes him a townie? Reads with the exception of the one Kush did on his phone have been weak/unsupported. Bats' voting D1 was a problem, but the gap between voting Damdred and then jumping to DSMI is even worse given the arguments he used to try and sell that vote. He pushed that vote well before Damdred did.
#2 - Check. Bats has dodged questions from three people this game (Oats, Breshke, myself). Kush isn't saying much of anything to begin with, but he dodged Oats on the Damdred read.
#3 - Check. Kush is way more sporadic than Bats, Thanksgiving is forgiveable, but afterwards, even Bats hasn't afked.
#4 - Check. At least I remember Bats for being overly defensive. Kush's filter on the other hand, I have had to filter dive three times in the last 12 hours.
I'd say he's topped Bats in the scum category.
##unvote
##vote kushm4sta
|
Meat, welcome back. I went through your D1 and D2 reads.
Can you explain what made you conclude Oats as townie? I'm not disputing it but want to see your thought process. You previously said this:
Some defensive posting. seems to say a lot without saying a lot.
|
EBWOP - checklist post. #2 should be borderline but still overall, more scum than Bats. Bats has been dodging more.
Updated reads after more filtering: SL and Breshke for sure town. Pretty confident about Rasputin too. SL been erratic at times but generally he appears town aligned.
|
Oats, I had drawn a few conclusions before I went to bed last night. I pointed to the inconsistency in Kush's D1 post when I made my top three scrum reads with Kush being one of them. I had bought in to Kushs argument based on the urgency from DSMI. After DSMI was proven town, I revisited his post and made the comparisons.
As for the overexplained part, I am making sure I can follow the logic used by others to go after Kush. I might not be the first one posting here but I failed to probe harder when Kush made his pitch for DSMI. I did not want to make the same mistake again for a vote on Kush. I spent more time filter diving for a reason.
I am scrum hunting and checking what is already being put out is right.
Which is why I used the above checklist as a guide. Does this make sense?
|
EBWOP - Autocorrected. Should be scum hunting.
|
Damdred, you used meta to discredit Trfel's case against Bats and you're using the same rationale in defence of Bats?
|
Damdred: Because your rationale (or use of meta) is inconsistent. My rationale for going after both was not without checking each of their reasons for voting the way they did. My methods weren't flawless but they have been consistent.
If I posted with no explanation, then you have a case.
Oats: It is equally probable that Kush is staying low to make you think he's not scum.
|
[B]On November 30 2014 01:43 Oatsmaster wrote:
completely untrue.
You know what, im gonna stay on this just because half the sky takes no personal responsibility towards his voting and actions.
[/QUOTE]
Wrong. LightningStrike pushed me earlier on why I drove the push for DMSI. I took responsibility for voting him, absolutely but I explained my rationale for doing so.
|
EBWOP - quote messed up, code fail
On November 30 2014 01:43 Oatsmaster wrote:
completely untrue.
You know what, im gonna stay on this just because half the sky takes no personal responsibility towards his voting and actions.
Wrong. LightningStrike pushed me earlier why I drove the push for DMSI. I took responsibility for voting him, absolutely but I explained my rationale for doing so. [/QUOTE]
|
Damdred: What I'm trying to say is that you can't say someone cannot use meta and then use it yourself. If you want to agree to disagree that is fine.
Meta arguments either way hold nothing to me personally but that is besides the point.
|
Kush, two questions.
1 Why are you scumlisting Breshke? He claimed he was hit with RB. Are you counterclaiming? Has anyone?
2 Why are you scumlisting someone who has just entered the game? (Hopeless)
Alakaslam in my eyes was a pure policy lynch. And you said it yourself to me when you brought up DSMI. What prompted the change?
|
On November 30 2014 03:34 Damdred wrote:
Hopeless is correct everyone afk with votes everywhere sucks, Kush shouldn't be the lynch today we need to hash this out
Damdred, it is not only the AFKs that are a problem. The criteria for calling scumlike behaviour is quite variable here and that's not helped by the fact with 50% newer players in the pack. I've seen at least two situations now where people agreed on a specific thing that was going on, but reaching different conclusions. For example, Hopeless being just in here but suggesting as scum and others said null. Second, to use something from my end, I see overly defensive behaviour (especially without any support bed it) as scumlike. Why are people acting like they have something to hide? But others are saying this doesn't suffice.
That's why I picked up on Rasputins list, remove any flaws in my own thinking. Because I was already wrong once.
|
On November 30 2014 05:07 Damdred wrote:
Are you that convinced that Kush is scum hts?
Damdred, yes. Yes I am.
|
On November 30 2014 05:20 Damdred wrote:
Explain to me why?
Let's talk criteria. Here we go. I want to make sure you understand where I'm coming from here.
1 Gaps in posting/support
- First we have the vote on DSMI. When he first listed his reads, he was on his phone, so he was brief, fine. But I'm surprised to not see further extended support/followup for his reads. He called out the following - LS, Rasputin, Oats, and you. There was no followup for LS and Rasputin, and none regarding you, even though Oats, questioned it (see #2)
- Because there was no followup, it appeared a massive gap between how we went from voting you to voting DSMI on what appeared to be weaker evidence from him - namely nitpicking.
- If Kush used "nitpicking" to vote DSMI, why not vote Oats, who was also guilty of nitpicking?
- His defence of Bats was that reads on d1 are poor (or fluid as he said), and that other people haven't been giving reads. Then he admits that "others have been worse" but somehow, before, he had a "stronger read" on you about your shit pushes. To me something doesn't add up.
- Why did I buy into Kush's post? Because of 1) urgency on DSMI's part posting and 2) filtering DSMI's comments relative to others. I didn't take Kush at face value. I checked before I changed votes.
- Kush pushed the vote before you did on DSMI.
- To extend on the D1 argument, it also doesn't make sense to me that he would say D1 is fluid and then expect us to say that D1 proves him innocent. As in we are good enough to read him as town from D1 actions. If that was a troll comment, see #5.
- Conclusion - There are enough gaps and contradictions here, and I revisited Kush's post because he sold me an argument that proved wrong. Urgency was wrong - he flipped town. So I looked closer at the other points I was sold.
2 Dodging questions
- He dodged Oats asking him about the Damdred read. I think he might have dodged one more in there, but I stopped at page 27 when I was double checking that.
3 AFK issue
- He admitted this. Bad as alakaslam, no but taking it at face value, it appeared a huge cop-out, particularly with the D1 argument. We're past Thanksgiving.
4 Forgettable
- As I said before, I recall Bats' filter more than his, although Bats' filter was 2x as much, so there's that.
5 Spam/trolling
- This is applicable more to Bats than Kush, although Kush had a few of these as well. But I find spam/trolling/etc a problem because it just makes it more difficult for the town. There's more to weed through. Scum would want to make it difficult for the town. I won't speak for others but it's not always easy to tell who is trolling/serious/not serious etc when I'm reading this stuff.
- Again as I said before, meta holds nothing to me. If you think I'm taking someone too seriously, call me on it. I took Breskhe too seriously early on, and I stood corrected.
Kush, if you want to answer these, I'm all ears.
|
On November 30 2014 05:58 batsnacks wrote:
It was scummy. omgusing is usually scummy.
The bolded word means???
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
