On December 16 2014 09:57 GlowingBear wrote: Also, rsoultin, although I've asked about what you think of xata, you've made a HUGE post on him just to say you find him null.
But you still voted him at the end of day1
Of course you tried to say that "earlier" was "day2", but I find hard to believe you turned a scumread into an easily sheep able player.
I could quote my earlier post and bold the salient portions, like when I said I was trying to get him to explain his read on 27nb, and that his comments are based in logic which appeals to my need for things to make sense.
However, I won't. I'm not getting into an argument with you over minor details in a read on Xata when I have your case to build.
On December 16 2014 09:53 rsoultin wrote: 1. I've addressed GBs case on HF in-thread. 2. Not sure how I've been less than committal on you and GB. The burden of proof is on you, because I think my "commitment" has been rather obvious. 3. I said right in my Xata read that I'm not necessarily reading him as scum, just that his play is very cautious and that raised doubts. 4. I have since apologized to Tube, and even explained what I thought and where I've gone wrong with my read on SL. Not to mention I said earlier that it was meta and he was the only one I was comfortable meta-reading.
So clearly you do need to go through my filter or read the thread yourself.
1. Cursory glance through your filter suggests you addressing it was like a 3 sentence paragraph on how you thought it was poor. For the volume of the content in that post, and the level to which you apparently believe the exact opposite; it should warrant a much larger response.
2. There's a difference between stating a read and pushing a read. 1 is committal the other isn't. You're have not been pushing your read. Given your filter length and post count, I would assume that you have been pushing a lot harder than you actually have.
3. Right, I get that. But you realize Xata was in a position to hammer HF who you think is town; or Kels who is confirmed mafia. He hammers Kels. In your eyes he should be supremely town. Yet you go through this giant elaborate process to null read him on the grounds that he was a primary cause of lynching mafia....I can't even comprehend this read.
4. So you're saying that rather than your thread content read which gave you town on SL; now....multiple days into the game, you're going to defer to a meta-read?
I think you are very good at not seeing all the angles. Like, for instance, how someone can just pass a present on. Deliberately obtuse or oblivious?
Anyone else curious about SL's gift for making definitive WIFOM statements at every opportunity? Or that he never, ever, ever expresses a single doubt about GB?
Paranoia, my friend, is a town trait. And you had it in spades last time I played with you.
Absolutely ridiculous assumptions all game about mass murderers/death presents /nk's /alignments yes
So, why is your vote on Ritoky for 1 scum action while Sicklucker has only done scummy or bad towny things for DAYS?
Why are we allowing that? How about we either wagon HF or Sick, if they turn town then wagon Ritoky or me tomorrow?
This is where the crux of your argument falls apart.
Not really. I've made it pretty clear that Sick is playing his role perfectly. For some reason most all of you think it's just him playing bad. He's not playing bad. I'm saying lynch him as even if he is town he isn't helping town. Lynch him. But only after you HF.
His reasoning is so terrible that i find it hard to believe that someone so intelligent and playing so "perfectly" would ever make them. It's likely he's just bad at thinking and town or bad at thinking and mafia. None of what you have said picks them apart. Only soul has just brought up something valid about sl's past game now.
So, you're saying he is too scummy to be scum?
No I'm saying his logic is too dumb to be so open and closed as scum like you are suggesting but it doesn't make him town or mafia. None of what you are saying makes any sense whatsoever. If you wanted to convince people do what rsoul said and show how he's not that stupid as town in other games and this is entirely his mafia agenda this game otherwise you are just biased and tunneled.
I need more education on the strategies of Mafia. I don't understand how after 2 full days and 2 nights why I should have ANY influence from previous meta play? I get using meta in the beginning to throw out reads but, there is just so much content in this game, what does clouding anything with previous games actually do?
I think it was even you saying that previous games meta were bullshit as the person misread you there. So, uh NOW I should be arguing meta? I'm pretty dense and stubborn if you haven't noticed, you'll have to dumb this down.
You can argue meta if you can prove that meta exists which like nobody has done this game really but still made meta cases. His points are so atrocious that i do not know whether it is his normal play to make such leaps of logic so would consult other games to see if it was. If he doesn't usually play this way at all then it lends a lot of justification to what you have been saying about him. If he does usually play like this then your points that he is playing his role perfectly is moot because he normally plays town like that too.
I just made the assumption that he was just silly and ignorant and doesn't really ever think things through because he wasn't being very intelligent which doesn't really make him an alignment. This made your case seem impossible and thus i largely ignored all of what you were saying about him.
This is a fair point. I'll give you my points are all conspiracy theorist type basis. It's based on how I view your and his interactions are trying to accomplish. I'm not going to bother with trying to figure out if it's his meta as I don't feel it's useful. The only way to prove my viewpoint is if he flips mafia. If he doesn't then I will reevaluate as it'll mean some assumptions will be incorrect.
On December 16 2014 09:53 rsoultin wrote: 1. I've addressed GBs case on HF in-thread. 2. Not sure how I've been less than committal on you and GB. The burden of proof is on you, because I think my "commitment" has been rather obvious. 3. I said right in my Xata read that I'm not necessarily reading him as scum, just that his play is very cautious and that raised doubts. 4. I have since apologized to Tube, and even explained what I thought and where I've gone wrong with my read on SL. Not to mention I said earlier that it was meta and he was the only one I was comfortable meta-reading.
So clearly you do need to go through my filter or read the thread yourself.
1. Cursory glance through your filter suggests you addressing it was like a 3 sentence paragraph on how you thought it was poor. For the volume of the content in that post, and the level to which you apparently believe the exact opposite; it should warrant a much larger response.
2. There's a difference between stating a read and pushing a read. 1 is committal the other isn't. You're have not been pushing your read. Given your filter length and post count, I would assume that you have been pushing a lot harder than you actually have.
3. Right, I get that. But you realize Xata was in a position to hammer HF who you think is town; or Kels who is confirmed mafia. He hammers Kels. In your eyes he should be supremely town. Yet you go through this giant elaborate process to null read him on the grounds that he was a primary cause of lynching mafia....I can't even comprehend this read.
4. So you're saying that rather than your thread content read which gave you town on SL; now....multiple days into the game, you're going to defer to a meta-read?
I wish I had shot you
1. His case was underwhelming, and didn't require a large response. I was not the only one who thought that, clearly. 2. Not linking the quotes pushing, but there were plenty. 3. Doubts is not a null read. It is, quite simply, doubts. 4. I am saying that my initial read was based on meta. Read my filter.
This is my last response to either of you @ritoky & GB. I asked people if they wanted the case I'd made against GB, stating that I still needed to rustle up the quotes, well before GB came back into the thread.
It wasn't a bad try at sucking me into a back-and-forth, though. Kudos to you both for the attempt.
On December 16 2014 09:53 rsoultin wrote: 1. I've addressed GBs case on HF in-thread. 2. Not sure how I've been less than committal on you and GB. The burden of proof is on you, because I think my "commitment" has been rather obvious. 3. I said right in my Xata read that I'm not necessarily reading him as scum, just that his play is very cautious and that raised doubts. 4. I have since apologized to Tube, and even explained what I thought and where I've gone wrong with my read on SL. Not to mention I said earlier that it was meta and he was the only one I was comfortable meta-reading.
So clearly you do need to go through my filter or read the thread yourself.
1. Cursory glance through your filter suggests you addressing it was like a 3 sentence paragraph on how you thought it was poor. For the volume of the content in that post, and the level to which you apparently believe the exact opposite; it should warrant a much larger response.
2. There's a difference between stating a read and pushing a read. 1 is committal the other isn't. You're have not been pushing your read. Given your filter length and post count, I would assume that you have been pushing a lot harder than you actually have.
3. Right, I get that. But you realize Xata was in a position to hammer HF who you think is town; or Kels who is confirmed mafia. He hammers Kels. In your eyes he should be supremely town. Yet you go through this giant elaborate process to null read him on the grounds that he was a primary cause of lynching mafia....I can't even comprehend this read.
4. So you're saying that rather than your thread content read which gave you town on SL; now....multiple days into the game, you're going to defer to a meta-read?
I wish I had shot you
1. His case was underwhelming, and didn't require a large response. I was not the only one who thought that, clearly. 2. Not linking the quotes pushing, but there were plenty. 3. Doubts is not a null read. It is, quite simply, doubts. 4. I am saying that my initial read was based on meta. Read my filter.
This is my last response to either of you @ritoky & GB. I asked people if they wanted the case I'd made against GB, stating that I still needed to rustle up the quotes, well before GB came back into the thread.
It wasn't a bad try at sucking me into a back-and-forth, though. Kudos to you both for the attempt.
1. It was large enough to almost lynch someone who you think was town....and you think it is from a mafia agenda....like the fact that you're not going out of your way to massively discredit it only proves that you're not pushing your read on GB in particular. 2. Link them, make the case on GB, why are you threatening to give reads instead of actually giving them? 3. WHY ARE YOU NULL READING SOMEONE WHO HAMMERS SCUM INSTEAD OF SOMEONE YOU THINK IS TOWN? 4. Your new read is also based on meta, you say he is not as paranoid as last time and then link a game.
Then you're going to not continue speaking or make your case....how is this town at all?
I've gone through fluctuations with ritoky the most tbh. Like scummy as fuck for the bs meta case to not really scummy for claiming the present but also scummy for claiming the present and then he actually saw your case on me was bad and hammered mafia so i thought he may have actually just been retarded town again and then he claimed mafia and replaced froggy who was the weakest of my reads.
All the other ones have good reasons to be scum and froggy was just afk and agreeing with your case.
On December 16 2014 10:36 Holyflare wrote: I've gone through fluctuations with ritoky the most tbh. Like scummy as fuck for the bs meta case to not really scummy for claiming the present but also scummy for claiming the present and then he actually saw your case on me was bad and hammered mafia so i thought he may have actually just been retarded town again and then he claimed mafia and replaced froggy who was the weakest of my reads.
All the other ones have good reasons to be scum and froggy was just afk and agreeing with your case.
My problem here is that his entrance was bad and he didn't step up after. He admits that when we don't have a good read it is okay to lynch lurkers. Then, a huge wagon was on bunnies, so: a) he either believes bunnies is mafia or b) has no idea and tries to lynch a lurker.
On December 16 2014 10:36 Holyflare wrote: I've gone through fluctuations with ritoky the most tbh. Like scummy as fuck for the bs meta case to not really scummy for claiming the present but also scummy for claiming the present and then he actually saw your case on me was bad and hammered mafia so i thought he may have actually just been retarded town again and then he claimed mafia and replaced froggy who was the weakest of my reads.
All the other ones have good reasons to be scum and froggy was just afk and agreeing with your case.
My problem here is that his entrance was bad and he didn't step up after. He admits that when we don't have a good read it is okay to lynch lurkers. Then, a huge wagon was on bunnies, so: a) he either believes bunnies is mafia or b) has no idea and tries to lynch a lurker.
I don't see him doing any of these.
All his day 1 was bad seeing as all his targets were town and all his scum reads were based on things that don't make people mafia :p
Also ignoring the bunnies lynch is kind of outrageous even if he claims it's because he doesn't get good reads on her. Like he scum read me for not properly reading bunnies and updating reads on her (even though i did) while having no opinion on bunnies himself??
EPT
