|
On February 11 2016 01:06 Valdiano wrote:
doublechecked saita's filter to make sure I didn't miss anything from conversation but there's nothing alignment indicative from it that could have applied to that last post.
although I do get an impression of posting just to post, reading his filter.
there were opportunities I think in 1-2 posts where he could have taken a stance on nnn/war
going to say a scumlean for now.
I value my reads. People on TL are too quick to take stances because they don't know how to scum hunt outside trying to read stances others make rather than trying to GAUGE MOTIVE. This is stupidity.
Town is more likely to be in error than scum; scum have perfect information. However, gauging "townieness" based on someone's willingness to take a stance makes a great environment for scum to simply take a wrong stance- but firmly so- and change it once they are wrong.
TL;DR: your read on me sucks about as bad as my effort in any particular game of Mafia, which will be a potent statement at the reveal.
Have fun with that smurfhunters.
|
On February 11 2016 03:41 saitamaofonepunch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 01:06 Valdiano wrote:
doublechecked saita's filter to make sure I didn't miss anything from conversation but there's nothing alignment indicative from it that could have applied to that last post.
although I do get an impression of posting just to post, reading his filter.
there were opportunities I think in 1-2 posts where he could have taken a stance on nnn/war
going to say a scumlean for now. I value my reads. People on TL are too quick to take stances because they don't know how to scum hunt outside trying to read stances others make rather than trying to GAUGE MOTIVE. This is stupidity. Town is more likely to be in error than scum; scum have perfect information. However, gauging "townieness" based on someone's willingness to take a stance makes a great environment for scum to simply take a wrong stance- but firmly so- and change it once they are wrong. TL;DR: your read on me sucks about as bad as my effort in any particular game of Mafia, which will be a potent statement at the reveal. Have fun with that smurfhunters.
In fact there is an additional point I missed: that, you cite my "missing an opportunity" to take a stance as scummy.
Why exactly? Wouldn't scum take every opportunity to take a stance on a town player?
And this statement does not imply that I "know" one of those two to be town. The reason it works without my knowledge of that is this: that for me to acknowledge them at all without "taking a stance" as scum requires that one of them be my scum-mate; otherwise, what is my motive for refusing to toss out a scumread if I am to mention them at all?
As scum, if I were to post just for posting's sake, why not simply join their needless "to smurf hunt or not to smurf hunt" argument? This is a much better form of blending in.
|
On February 11 2016 01:35 Bhaal LoM wrote:
I actually liking you Vald and might give you a pass for now. I think smurf hunting isn't really useful myself because it will distract us for trying to find scum.
You have any specific thoughts on what Vald posted?
|
On February 11 2016 02:58 saitamaofonepunch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 00:59 nnn_thekushmountains wrote:On February 11 2016 00:28 saitamaofonepunch wrote:On February 11 2016 00:00 nnn_thekushmountains wrote:On February 10 2016 23:26 saitamaofonepunch wrote:
Unfortunately, it smacks a bit townie.
Also no I don't expect much alignment indication in the start of the game. Hence, so much stuff is NAI.
So is it correct to assume you have the same read on both Wartruck and myself: bad players who are leaning townie? And your definition of omgus is what? And we are leaning town because of the omgusing itself or because we omgused in a townie way? That assumption is not correct. You are players who have done a bad play that is more often town than scum in alignment indication. My definition of omgus is reading a player as scum simply because they read you as scum. Neither of you has progressed from null. Nothing you said here makes sense. That assumption is not correct. You are players who have done a bad play that is more often town than scum in alignment indication.
If we have done something that more often comes from town, then that should lead to a town lean. On the spectrum of scum to town, we should be on the town side of null. My definition of omgus is reading a player as scum simply because they read you as scum.
You are misrepresenting the reasons behind our suspicions. Wartrukk suspected me for smurf hunting. I suspected Wartrukk for being suspicious of smurf hunting. How did Wartrukk OMGUS at all? I can understand why you'd think I OMGUSed, but realize that if he was suspecting someone else for smurf hunting, my suspicion would have still been there. So the true reason behind that suspicion isn't OMGUS either. Coming into the thread early and saying "I'm town" also comes from town more often than scum. Do you seriously expect me to immediately give them a town lean? Please. I weigh my reads before I give them. And I took it on someone's word that wartrukk was omgusing you- so lynch me for not reading. Finally, you did specifically state at one time "you are scumreading me for X? Then you are scum" which is practically omgus. I will find it later. On phone.
On February 10 2016 11:25 nnn_thekushmountains wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2016 10:55 Wartrukk wrote:
You're getting a lot out of 3 words and an acronym lol
The real scumstrat, however, would be padding your filter with what basically boils down to setup discussion since people aren't allowed to confirmw hether you're correct on them.
What is the town-favoured strat to outing smurfs, though? That's something I can't figure out, not like you can use meta without a seed of doubt since you can't ever confirm you're correct. How is smurf hunting setup speculation? Setup speculation is speculating about roles. Smurf hunting is done for fun. It is pure NAI. I didn't do it to meta someone. I never said anything about meta. You are misrepresenting me. I'm scum because I'm padding my filter, huh? And you're not? YUP you got so much content in those posts, right! So let me reiterate. You are scum for scumreading me for 100% NAI content.
this is not an Omgus, but in skimming it can look like it.
Under careful reading, I like it- this is an excellent point.
IF wartrukk had voted you.
Nonetheless the point remains good.
|
On February 11 2016 03:48 keanuisgod wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 01:35 Bhaal LoM wrote:
I actually liking you Vald and might give you a pass for now. I think smurf hunting isn't really useful myself because it will distract us for trying to find scum. You have any specific thoughts on what Vald posted?
I will await the answer to this too.
It is bound to start a small argument between us that I think will be a healthy one.
|
This is making me want to flick the subterranean bhaal but he is probably on a different time schedule. Meh.
|
WartrukkShow nested quote +On February 10 2016 21:11 Wartrukk wrote:On February 10 2016 19:47 unholyflare wrote:On February 10 2016 10:40 Wartrukk wrote:
So saying you're going to out smurfs, I say I think that's scummy (I still do) and after you go about trying to out smurfs you come back to my post and say "Joke phase lol"
Yeah, I'm the one fabricating reads, right? I don't understand how you or anyone can believe this. If, somehow, we know the identities of all/most of the people in the game, it would be easier to scumhunt. I think you're pretty suspicious for this as it suggests you have something to hide. I'm checking the thread before I go to bed but one more time, we can't know the identities of anyone for sure it only creates wifom For some people we can be close to 100% sure of their identity. For instance, I am close to 100% sure that keanuisgod is shapelog. Even if you disagree, wouldn't the obvious identity of a smurf be helpful for some rough but effective metaing? ie if keanu aka shapelog has a huge filter, that doesn't necessarily point to him being town. Show nested quote +On February 10 2016 11:50 Wartrukk wrote:
I'm going to take a break I think I'm tunneled on the smurf hunting idea too hard. I'm not taking back what I said as I still think there is a clear mafia motivation for it but I can't articulate them properly it seems I didn't realize you were actually tunneled on me for smurf hunting. Exactly how sure were you that I was scum?
I guess if meta reads are all you are confident in making then a 99% smurf read is fine I just don't think it's 100% even if you truly believe you are the smurf detective.
I used the word tunneled because I was tunneled on the idea that smurf huntingis super scummy and since you seemed, in my eyes, to be fighting me for no real reason.
I'm over the smurf thing now. Bhaal lom is still in my leanscum pile, NNN is null because i admit he posted some stuff (like early game to saitama) that I was thinking. Vald is coming out of the gate strong andI think that's towny, especially if he replaced in on short notice. Saitama had a weird early game and I had him as leanscum last night but I haven't read too closely the 30 or so posts from last night.
|
On February 11 2016 03:54 saitamaofonepunch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 02:58 saitamaofonepunch wrote:On February 11 2016 00:59 nnn_thekushmountains wrote:On February 11 2016 00:28 saitamaofonepunch wrote:On February 11 2016 00:00 nnn_thekushmountains wrote:On February 10 2016 23:26 saitamaofonepunch wrote:
Unfortunately, it smacks a bit townie.
Also no I don't expect much alignment indication in the start of the game. Hence, so much stuff is NAI.
So is it correct to assume you have the same read on both Wartruck and myself: bad players who are leaning townie? And your definition of omgus is what? And we are leaning town because of the omgusing itself or because we omgused in a townie way? That assumption is not correct. You are players who have done a bad play that is more often town than scum in alignment indication. My definition of omgus is reading a player as scum simply because they read you as scum. Neither of you has progressed from null. Nothing you said here makes sense. That assumption is not correct. You are players who have done a bad play that is more often town than scum in alignment indication.
If we have done something that more often comes from town, then that should lead to a town lean. On the spectrum of scum to town, we should be on the town side of null. My definition of omgus is reading a player as scum simply because they read you as scum.
You are misrepresenting the reasons behind our suspicions. Wartrukk suspected me for smurf hunting. I suspected Wartrukk for being suspicious of smurf hunting. How did Wartrukk OMGUS at all? I can understand why you'd think I OMGUSed, but realize that if he was suspecting someone else for smurf hunting, my suspicion would have still been there. So the true reason behind that suspicion isn't OMGUS either. Coming into the thread early and saying "I'm town" also comes from town more often than scum. Do you seriously expect me to immediately give them a town lean? Please. I weigh my reads before I give them. And I took it on someone's word that wartrukk was omgusing you- so lynch me for not reading. Finally, you did specifically state at one time "you are scumreading me for X? Then you are scum" which is practically omgus. I will find it later. On phone. Show nested quote +On February 10 2016 11:25 nnn_thekushmountains wrote:On February 10 2016 10:55 Wartrukk wrote:
You're getting a lot out of 3 words and an acronym lol
The real scumstrat, however, would be padding your filter with what basically boils down to setup discussion since people aren't allowed to confirmw hether you're correct on them.
What is the town-favoured strat to outing smurfs, though? That's something I can't figure out, not like you can use meta without a seed of doubt since you can't ever confirm you're correct. How is smurf hunting setup speculation? Setup speculation is speculating about roles. Smurf hunting is done for fun. It is pure NAI. I didn't do it to meta someone. I never said anything about meta. You are misrepresenting me. I'm scum because I'm padding my filter, huh? And you're not? On February 10 2016 08:01 Wartrukk wrote:
hullo On February 10 2016 08:20 Wartrukk wrote: YUP you got so much content in those posts, right! So let me reiterate. You are scum for scumreading me for 100% NAI content. this is not an Omgus, but in skimming it can look like it. Under careful reading, I like it- this is an excellent point. IF wartrukk had voted you. Nonetheless the point remains good.
Can you elaborate on this post? Whose point is good? Yours or his?
|
On February 11 2016 05:37 Wartrukk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 03:54 saitamaofonepunch wrote:On February 11 2016 02:58 saitamaofonepunch wrote:On February 11 2016 00:59 nnn_thekushmountains wrote:On February 11 2016 00:28 saitamaofonepunch wrote:On February 11 2016 00:00 nnn_thekushmountains wrote:On February 10 2016 23:26 saitamaofonepunch wrote:
Unfortunately, it smacks a bit townie.
Also no I don't expect much alignment indication in the start of the game. Hence, so much stuff is NAI.
So is it correct to assume you have the same read on both Wartruck and myself: bad players who are leaning townie? And your definition of omgus is what? And we are leaning town because of the omgusing itself or because we omgused in a townie way? That assumption is not correct. You are players who have done a bad play that is more often town than scum in alignment indication. My definition of omgus is reading a player as scum simply because they read you as scum. Neither of you has progressed from null. Nothing you said here makes sense. That assumption is not correct. You are players who have done a bad play that is more often town than scum in alignment indication.
If we have done something that more often comes from town, then that should lead to a town lean. On the spectrum of scum to town, we should be on the town side of null. My definition of omgus is reading a player as scum simply because they read you as scum.
You are misrepresenting the reasons behind our suspicions. Wartrukk suspected me for smurf hunting. I suspected Wartrukk for being suspicious of smurf hunting. How did Wartrukk OMGUS at all? I can understand why you'd think I OMGUSed, but realize that if he was suspecting someone else for smurf hunting, my suspicion would have still been there. So the true reason behind that suspicion isn't OMGUS either. Coming into the thread early and saying "I'm town" also comes from town more often than scum. Do you seriously expect me to immediately give them a town lean? Please. I weigh my reads before I give them. And I took it on someone's word that wartrukk was omgusing you- so lynch me for not reading. Finally, you did specifically state at one time "you are scumreading me for X? Then you are scum" which is practically omgus. I will find it later. On phone. On February 10 2016 11:25 nnn_thekushmountains wrote:On February 10 2016 10:55 Wartrukk wrote:
You're getting a lot out of 3 words and an acronym lol
The real scumstrat, however, would be padding your filter with what basically boils down to setup discussion since people aren't allowed to confirmw hether you're correct on them.
What is the town-favoured strat to outing smurfs, though? That's something I can't figure out, not like you can use meta without a seed of doubt since you can't ever confirm you're correct. How is smurf hunting setup speculation? Setup speculation is speculating about roles. Smurf hunting is done for fun. It is pure NAI. I didn't do it to meta someone. I never said anything about meta. You are misrepresenting me. I'm scum because I'm padding my filter, huh? And you're not? On February 10 2016 08:01 Wartrukk wrote:
hullo On February 10 2016 08:20 Wartrukk wrote: YUP you got so much content in those posts, right! So let me reiterate. You are scum for scumreading me for 100% NAI content. this is not an Omgus, but in skimming it can look like it. Under careful reading, I like it- this is an excellent point. IF wartrukk had voted you. Nonetheless the point remains good. Can you elaborate on this post? Whose point is good? Yours or his?
Nnn kush mountain dude has the good point.
|
It's just weird that you added the qualifier "IF he voted for you" but then said his point is still good. What would me voting him have changed? What if I had later said I was just voting him for pressure?
|
On February 11 2016 06:12 Wartrukk wrote:
It's just weird that you added the qualifier "IF he voted for you" but then said his point is still good. What would me voting him have changed? What if I had later said I was just voting him for pressure?
If you had voted him on that basis, it would have shown real intent to actively and strongly scumread him. There was no benefit to be had from pressure voting him at the time as he was active and engaging cooperatively.
That would have been scummier. As it stands, that was insufficient reason to scumread nnn, but you did not vote for him. You made your intent clear.
NAI.
I don't find much AI until things really get going.
|
What, being a smurf and unable to fall back on some meta got everyone scared?
It's kind of good in that the thread is not being subjected to spam, but there comes a point where as scum I'd totally be lurking right now.
|
Hey Onegu, can we get Valdiano added to the OP? Wanted to find out who had posted least and whoop- no big deal right now but later...
|
##Vote: 77GoldROM
Care more or begone legitimately.
|
On February 11 2016 07:52 saitamaofonepunch wrote:
Hey Onegu, can we get Valdiano added to the OP? Wanted to find out who had posted least and whoop- no big deal right now but later...
. Yeah I'm on my way back from Detroit as soon as I am home will do.
|
Ok, I'm home now.
Don't really have much to add, but while we're waiting for some people to respond and start posting content might as well add comments about some people:
Initially I was somewhat torn over Valdi's initial posts, in the sense that he may have tried to put a "wall of soft reads" and then leave making it seem like he's contributing, but on second read his 1st post seems quite strong, so I'm leaning slightly town on him based on feels (though I really want to keep him as null in case my first hunch was right).
On February 11 2016 05:33 Wartrukk wrote:
Saitama had a weird early game and I had him as leanscum last night but I haven't read too closely the 30 or so posts from last night.
Adding to this, saitama appeared in the thread with a seemingly aggressive presence that I initially found scummy (as in "this is what an active scum would act"), but he's been having the same consistent behavior throughout the rest of his posts, even when talking about different topics ("how TL scumhunts", "the smurf things", etc), so it feels more genuine (e.g a scum would be more focused on having his aggressiveness disrupt the thread.
It may be just his playstyle though and be NAI, but for now he's slightly townie for me.
Bhaal lom is still in my leanscum pile
I wonder if it's for the same reason I have him as scummy too ... though in retrospect the reason may be a little flimsy (so I'd better wait for him to come and post something first)
Also saita, you have to vote in the voting thread too.
|
On February 11 2016 07:47 saitamaofonepunch wrote:
What, being a smurf and unable to fall back on some meta got everyone scared?
It's kind of good in that the thread is not being subjected to spam, but there comes a point where as scum I'd totally be lurking right now.
I think there's not much we can do now but try engaging in conversation with the current active players.
saita, what are your thoughts on: Warty and Bhaal?
I have to add on Warty, that on top of the "slight town" feeling I mentioned before, his "half-assed" semi-reads seem to mirror my half-assed semi-reads (except NNN I suppose), which in this abyss of content we call "thread" seems like a good sign (in the "it feels like a fellow townie" deal).
|
I am here sorry I had to deal with being a University Student all day and I going to catch up now.
|
So people are scumreading and I kinda get why because I haven't posted much but there still a couple people I don't think had posted so far. Will check that.
|
Nvm everyone had posted at least once at least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
