|
On January 08 2017 06:58 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 06:55 reps)squishy wrote:
I have found Grack suspicious in the past. Now he claims doctor. Then BTDT claims doctor as well. I do not think both of them are town. I do not like the disorder Grack has created in past. I believe it was a scummy move to create confusion and prevent progress. I have to go work in a few minutes so I am firmly going to vote for Grack.
##Unvote
##Vote Grackaroni You sound like some bloated up politician just to jump on the most common pile. That makes this post pretty scummy.
Grack was one of my scum leads for a while. His refusal to show Vivax was town was key to my suspicion. His view on arguments called for specific evidence which would not lead to town finding out other town.
On January 07 2017 12:04 Grackaroni wrote:
That's not how mafia works. To lynch someone you have to convince people that they are mafia.
In mafia I believe getting town reads is just as important as finding scum reads. It is important to know who to lynch and who not to lynch. Convincing people someone is town is important so that we know who our allies are. It is a game of informed minority vs uninformed majority. We want to make it an informed majority. Any read is a good read regardless of if it is a town or scum read. So that is why I originally suspected Grack.
I unvoted Grack because of a lapse of judgement (hard to admit). At the time I felt that the lack of objectiveness and direction by Boston was highly AI. But that could easily be explained by newbie play.
When the doctor claim came out I felt like Grack was actually the doc and my suspicions vanished. Then btdt cc'd. And that lead to my prior suspicions reemerging. I thought Grack was mafia, and that role call was a last ditch to save himself. And I took btdt's word for it at the time. I arrived at the conclusion to vote for Grack because of my own thought processes, and not being a populist politician as you accuse me of.
Many of you will probably ask why is this coming out now and not earlier. It is because a mixture of work and car problems. Which includes car dying, failing to jump start it, installing a new battery, then having my car lose power because of a loose terminal, lastly getting towed. Anyway college for me will be starting on the 11th until then I will only have work to worry about. I hope that the substance of my posts make up for my sub-par activity.
|
That's not what I was hoping to see when I woke up, zzz. In any case, BTDT's 100% dying. Nothing more needs to be said there.
On January 08 2017 09:02 darthfoley wrote:
Give me one reason not to fucking lynch btdt
On January 08 2017 09:04 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 09:02 darthfoley wrote:
Give me one reason not to fucking lynch btdt The only one I can think of is that he's tilting and throwing as town. But it's still a nobrainer to do it and he will get my vote no matter what. Really sad that grack, a player I've known since Game of Thrones mafia and who has clearly shown his skill this game, had to go cause of him.
Noting this because you two were pretty adamant that BTDT vs Grack is TvT iirc and I don't get why Grack flipping Medic leads to this change in attitude.
(well actually that's not true but I want to hear your answers first)
|
On January 08 2017 13:40 Vivax wrote:3) You need to open the nested quotes ika. Then it takes quite a bit of habit to learn to read that and find what you want, but the question was this: Which question? This question: 2) nope thats not what i said, i said you were implying i am town based on how you acted. theres a difference there How did I act? I asked Darthfoley out about his read on you. You think that implies a townread on you? Sorry, it doesn't. Hope that's out of the way now. My read on you anyhow is that you're probs town. I mean, you clearly care about the game. You seem interested into digging into things and so on. You also get emotional about the outcome. Overall that seems townie to me. For SW my read isn't as strong yet. The way she accused me of defending you earlier simply felt very unfair and like she was just trying to put words into my mouth. Then at some point she came back and the tone of the post sounded very different, so I found that a bit odd. It was somewhat less aggressive. Could be scum indicative as it would mean that her earlier conviction into what she accused me for was only a temporary act. To finish the post, I'm going to leave her at nullish/scummish for the time being. The post I found odd cause of the change in tonality is : + Show Spoiler +On January 07 2017 00:02 SilverWolf77 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 23:40 Vivax wrote:
I don't have a read on ika so far and I don't need to have one to question darthfoley's read on him. No, you don't have to have a read on ika to say darthfoley's read on him is bad. I agree. The problem I have is the way you are doing it. Basically, ika no longer has to answer the suspicion because you interjected. Not only interjected but also defended ika by asking if darthfoley has his meta and implying that ika's questions are not scummy. You have a right to have an opinion on ika's questioning but the way you are doing it is very protective of ika. If you have no read of ika, this doesn't make much sense. I guess my gut just pinged hard off of that and also I think you interjected when someone was questioning someone else-I think Calix pointed this out already. Anyway, from my experience, scum like to do this because they get towncred for defending people they know are town. It's way too early to have a super strong opinion on someone's alignment, unless you know that alignment. Doesn't mean we can't have reads. We certainly can. But when I would of preferred to see ika answer the suspicion and engage with darth rather than have you interject. Sorry if I'm not explaining myself well. I'm tired and rambling right now. Be back in a little bit.
I think your reasons for town-reading ika are bad and you should reread him if your main reason is him being emotional and invested because that's more personality-indicative for him from what I've seen recently. (applies to SW to an extent as well)
As far as your SW tone read goes, I would like to know which posts you are comparing with the one you flagged up. Not convinced that it's scum-indicative as it stands due to that last line.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 08 2017 17:59 reps)squishy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 06:43 Vivax wrote:On January 08 2017 06:40 reps)squishy wrote:On January 08 2017 06:30 Vivax wrote:On January 08 2017 06:25 Vivax wrote:
So saying that darthfoley's read on ika looks forced equivals telling darthfoley to back off ika? What the hell is wrong with people's logic in this game? Squishyyyyyyyy Like I said let people argue. It is the only way for information to unravel. If someone wants to lynch them, then you can make a counter argument. Stopping a simple argument is suspicious in my eyes. You are dodging the main issue: 1) I can call someone scum for a read he makes. That doesn't stop his discussion with anyone else. 2) Calling his read on Ika forced doesn't equival defending Ika. If I told him "Your read on Ika is wrong, he's town" I'd be defending Ika. 1) You reserve the right to call someone scum for a read someone makes; it is actually important. Recognize the time that it comes does influence the direction it will go. Scenario 1- Player A makes argument/claim vs player B, player B defends himself against player A, then player C critics either A's argument/claim or comes to B's defense. Scenario 2- Player A makes argument vs player B, Player C critiques player A's argument/claim or defends player B before player B defends him/herself. 2) You are correct! But it prevents progress, a clear goal of the mafia. So I feel that you are guilty of Scenario 2. And why I do not like Scenario two is because any accusation could look absurd or "forced" if you do not hear a player's defense of him/herself. Critiquing someone's argument or claim prematurely prevents reads from unraveling whether it is a town or scum read. Here is the suspicious post in my opinion. Below the quote I will put the post into scenario format for clarity purposes. Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 23:07 SilverWolf77 wrote:On January 06 2017 14:13 Vivax wrote:Is there anyone here who actually didn't play mafia before, or just very very little? On January 06 2017 11:31 darthfoley wrote:On January 06 2017 10:43 Calix wrote:
I sense I'll have an aneurysm at this rate.
DF, you seem sensible. What else have you noticed so far? I actually feel weird about ika. Asked the kinda useless questionnaire and has basically been bs'ing a bit since. Not a real read but I find his opening a little off This read looks forced. I mean, you will say it isn't a read I know, but we both know it kind of is. And to me it just looks like you were looking for someone to make look guilty easily to fulfill Calix demand. Fend yourself, Foley. Vivax-Why are you defending ika so early in the game? Key: Player A: DF, Player B: Ika Player C:Vivax When questioned by Calix Player A (DF) Makes argument against Player B (Ika) Before Player B (ika) Defends himself against player A (DF), Player C (Vivax) Critiques Player A's suspicions. And as a result Ika never responded to DF. I will reiterate my self. Vivax's premature defense of Ika prevented a potential read from being uncovered. So that is why I think Vivax's defense of other players is scummy. On January 08 2017 18:10 reps)squishy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 06:58 Vivax wrote:On January 08 2017 06:55 reps)squishy wrote:
I have found Grack suspicious in the past. Now he claims doctor. Then BTDT claims doctor as well. I do not think both of them are town. I do not like the disorder Grack has created in past. I believe it was a scummy move to create confusion and prevent progress. I have to go work in a few minutes so I am firmly going to vote for Grack.
##Unvote
##Vote Grackaroni You sound like some bloated up politician just to jump on the most common pile. That makes this post pretty scummy. Grack was one of my scum leads for a while. His refusal to show Vivax was town was key to my suspicion. His view on arguments called for specific evidence which would not lead to town finding out other town. Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 12:04 Grackaroni wrote:
That's not how mafia works. To lynch someone you have to convince people that they are mafia. In mafia I believe getting town reads is just as important as finding scum reads. It is important to know who to lynch and who not to lynch. Convincing people someone is town is important so that we know who our allies are. It is a game of informed minority vs uninformed majority. We want to make it an informed majority. Any read is a good read regardless of if it is a town or scum read. So that is why I originally suspected Grack. I unvoted Grack because of a lapse of judgement (hard to admit). At the time I felt that the lack of objectiveness and direction by Boston was highly AI. But that could easily be explained by newbie play. When the doctor claim came out I felt like Grack was actually the doc and my suspicions vanished. Then btdt cc'd. And that lead to my prior suspicions reemerging. I thought Grack was mafia, and that role call was a last ditch to save himself. And I took btdt's word for it at the time. I arrived at the conclusion to vote for Grack because of my own thought processes, and not being a populist politician as you accuse me of. Many of you will probably ask why is this coming out now and not earlier. It is because a mixture of work and car problems. Which includes car dying, failing to jump start it, installing a new battery, then having my car lose power because of a loose terminal, lastly getting towed. Anyway college for me will be starting on the 11th until then I will only have work to worry about. I hope that the substance of my posts make up for my sub-par activity.
Not sure what to make of reps right now. On the one hand, I like his first post as it makes sense with what he's been doing and is using his own logic even if it is unconventional.
My main problem with reps right now is that his posts relating to Grack/ BTDT seem narrative-like to me (that third paragraph particularly) and they're not showing the same type of analysis that his first post shows. I'm not 100% sure why that's the case. Possible that he was struggling to keep up with the thread and that's why his post quality dropped or it's his inexperience with claim analysis talking (although neither of those are AI). I am thinking the second one because of how his posts are written. I can't really put my finger on it but they're very...generic?...with how he approaches it. It's very basic "one of them must be lying so I'll vote the guy I scum-read earlier" reasoning.
It's also possible that he wanted to stay neutral in the drama but given that he makes it clear that he prefers Grack and it's just his reasoning that's weird, I think my other theories are more likely.
As it stands, I still think he's town because of his earlier posts but if this becomes a pattern then I'd reconsider.
|
Boston looks like he is coasting. Here's what he does at EOD:
- Responds to the Onegu thing with an explanation that contradicts his stated reasoning at the time
- Forms gut reads on people who were already being scum-read (this is scummy because he claimed to be reading up yet his thoughts conveniently match what the current thread consensus was, wtf)
- Questions ME after other people do (lack of initiative with pushing his reads + blending)
- Does not vote until Grack vs BTDT becomes a thing (see above point)
Looks like a classic case of scum blending in to me.
(also why the fuck would a townie would ask about whether ending the day early is possible when he still hadn't contributed at that point and said he was going to???)
The main thing redeeming him is that BTDT made that massive case against him and most of that didn't actually show scum motivation. That suggests they're not on a team since scummers would be more aware of their team-mates' scummy-ass behaviour.
|
Although ME's large post was good tone-wise, his actions are questionable especially with his vote and wanting to "hold it until EOD" (before voting for Grack) which makes no sense for town to do (it literally makes you harder to read - a non-town trait). There is no reason to do that just for a vote at the end of a large wagon on a counterclaimed person and the fact that he leaves it until the very end of the day means that he doesn't have to explain why he preferred Grack > BTDT or give us much information re: votes/ people he wants dead.
As for the people on the KSC wagon, I actually think they're more likely to be town given how easy it is for scum to just hop on the Grack train with no consequences. I can't say that for sure, however, as neither of them were getting emotional about it or expressing a lot of frustration over Grack dying prior to the lynch (which is generally how town reacts to a town-read of theirs being lynched) but I also get why they might have been resigned to seeing Grack die. DF being paranoid about the wagons and the people voting on them is townie and it also reminds me of how he was around ExO last game we played. Meanwhile Vivax is either a townie who figured "fuck it nobody is listening to me anyway" or a scummer who knew Grack was town and was 'opposing' the lynch without actually trying to stop it. As said earlier, I'm leaning towards the former atm (also some of his posts reminded me of me in HM 3) but latter is possible given that he seems pretty "whatever" about who dies in general and not just in relation to Grack.
It's hard to know what to make of KSC himself at EOD since he wasn't around and his Grack vote was one from the early stages with trolly reasoning so there's nothing to analyse there. I think he's a good target for tomorrow in terms of forcing him to do stuff and spew his alignment.
|
On January 08 2017 20:39 Calix wrote:
Boston looks like he is coasting. Here's what he does at EOD:
- Responds to the Onegu thing with an explanation that contradicts his stated reasoning at the time
- Forms gut reads on people who were already being scum-read (this is scummy because he claimed to be reading up yet his thoughts conveniently match what the current thread consensus was, wtf)
- Questions ME after other people do (lack of initiative with pushing his reads + blending)
- Does not vote until Grack vs BTDT becomes a thing (see above point)
Looks like a classic case of scum blending in to me.
(also why the fuck would a townie would ask about whether ending the day early is possible when he still hadn't contributed at that point and said he was going to???)
The main thing redeeming him is that BTDT made that massive case against him and most of that didn't actually show scum motivation. That suggests they're not on a team since scummers would be more aware of their team-mates' scummy-ass behaviour.
Oh I havent forgot about him dont worry.
|
On January 08 2017 19:26 Calix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 13:40 Vivax wrote:3) You need to open the nested quotes ika. Then it takes quite a bit of habit to learn to read that and find what you want, but the question was this: How does that question have anything to do with your alignment? Which question? This question: But you have seen ikas meta yes? 2) nope thats not what i said, i said you were implying i am town based on how you acted. theres a difference there How did I act? I asked Darthfoley out about his read on you. You think that implies a townread on you? Sorry, it doesn't. Hope that's out of the way now. My read on you anyhow is that you're probs town. I mean, you clearly care about the game. You seem interested into digging into things and so on. You also get emotional about the outcome. Overall that seems townie to me. For SW my read isn't as strong yet. The way she accused me of defending you earlier simply felt very unfair and like she was just trying to put words into my mouth. Then at some point she came back and the tone of the post sounded very different, so I found that a bit odd. It was somewhat less aggressive. Could be scum indicative as it would mean that her earlier conviction into what she accused me for was only a temporary act. To finish the post, I'm going to leave her at nullish/scummish for the time being. The post I found odd cause of the change in tonality is : + Show Spoiler +On January 07 2017 00:02 SilverWolf77 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 23:40 Vivax wrote:
I don't have a read on ika so far and I don't need to have one to question darthfoley's read on him. No, you don't have to have a read on ika to say darthfoley's read on him is bad. I agree. The problem I have is the way you are doing it. Basically, ika no longer has to answer the suspicion because you interjected. Not only interjected but also defended ika by asking if darthfoley has his meta and implying that ika's questions are not scummy. You have a right to have an opinion on ika's questioning but the way you are doing it is very protective of ika. If you have no read of ika, this doesn't make much sense. I guess my gut just pinged hard off of that and also I think you interjected when someone was questioning someone else-I think Calix pointed this out already. Anyway, from my experience, scum like to do this because they get towncred for defending people they know are town. It's way too early to have a super strong opinion on someone's alignment, unless you know that alignment. Doesn't mean we can't have reads. We certainly can. But when I would of preferred to see ika answer the suspicion and engage with darth rather than have you interject. Sorry if I'm not explaining myself well. I'm tired and rambling right now. Be back in a little bit. I think your reasons for town-reading ika are bad and you should reread him if your main reason is him being emotional and invested because that's more personality-indicative for him from what I've seen recently. (applies to SW to an extent as well)As far as your SW tone read goes, I would like to know which posts you are comparing with the one you flagged up. Not convinced that it's scum-indicative as it stands due to that last line.
I question where you get the bolded for both me and SW. The last game you have played with us we were both scum and we both lacked emotions and investments in the thread
So is there a game your refrencing here or where this that come form?
|
On January 08 2017 14:38 Vivax wrote:
Anyway, from my experience, scum like to do this because they get towncred for defending people they know are town. It's way too early to have a super strong opinion on someone's alignment, unless you know that alignment. Doesn't mean we can't have reads. We certainly can. But when I would of preferred to see ika answer the suspicion and engage with darth rather than have you interject.
Sorry if I'm not explaining myself well. I'm tired and rambling right now. Be back in a little bit.
[/spoiler][/QUOTE]
As for the SW thing, i would like to see more quotes where you think she was backing off cus from what i have seen she never has nor did.[/QUOTE]
As for the SW thingy all you have to do is look at the posts directed at me previous to that post when it looked to me like she adopted a less accusative tone and posted rather extensively. It was actually one of the better posts of the series as it wasn't just a bunch of accusations. But either way I don't put too much weight into this read and I prefer to reserve judgement on SW for now so I'm not going to quote the posts as I don't see the use for that now.[/QUOTE]
I left my quote you were referring to when you said I backed off and I'd like to see the one you are referring to before that, that shows I was being aggressive. You don't have to pull a bunch of quotes. Just one.
I made several posts and not just the above one explaining my suspicion of your behavior. It's better to explain it than to just point fingers so I did. I was tired like I said and I'm not gonna go full steam "your're scum, die" because that puts you on edge and accomplishes nothing. What I like to see from people when I accuse them of something, is an explanation for their behavior. It's how I read people. I also like to see how they are reading others and if their reads follow a clear though process and even though you are undecided on me, I'd still like to see what you are thinking here.
I don't know what to think of your reaction to Grack's lynch. On the one hand, I felt it could come from scum who knew Grack was town but you didn't use it to try to cast shade on others for future mislynches which is what I'd expect scum to do. The suspicion on Grack was perfectly valid so for you to be so certain he was town threw me. However, your reaction seemed to be genuinely upset about it and that's more town. So clearly I'm confused about your alignment based on your play to this point and I'm gonna have to put you back at null until I figure it out.
|
Well, those quotes got messed up. No more cutting anything out for me. I'm just quoting whole posts from now on.
|
I have something to add about B0ston. I don't know if this has been missed.
On January 08 2017 07:12 B0stonSC wrote:
Well that seems rather sorted. is Instalynch a thing on this site?
If you are town why would you want an instalynch when there's a CC ? I think that holds for a lot of other people too. And Grack was one of the most vocal people here.
On January 08 2017 21:00 Calix wrote:
Although ME's large post was good tone-wise, his actions are questionable especially with his vote and wanting to "hold it until EOD" (before voting for Grack) which makes no sense for town to do (it literally makes you harder to read - a non-town trait). There is no reason to do that just for a vote at the end of a large wagon on a counterclaimed person and the fact that he leaves it until the very end of the day means that he doesn't have to explain why he preferred Grack > BTDT or give us much information re: votes/ people he wants dead.
I wanted to hold it until EOD because i was reading through the posts, and to me Grack didn't look scum. I couldn't come up with anything conclusive about anyone else. And since you can't abstain here, I just voted. As such my one vote wasn't going to make any difference except give away information at that point.
|
On January 08 2017 17:59 reps)squishy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 06:43 Vivax wrote:On January 08 2017 06:40 reps)squishy wrote:On January 08 2017 06:30 Vivax wrote:On January 08 2017 06:25 Vivax wrote:
So saying that darthfoley's read on ika looks forced equivals telling darthfoley to back off ika? What the hell is wrong with people's logic in this game? Squishyyyyyyyy Like I said let people argue. It is the only way for information to unravel. If someone wants to lynch them, then you can make a counter argument. Stopping a simple argument is suspicious in my eyes. You are dodging the main issue: 1) I can call someone scum for a read he makes. That doesn't stop his discussion with anyone else. 2) Calling his read on Ika forced doesn't equival defending Ika. If I told him "Your read on Ika is wrong, he's town" I'd be defending Ika. 1) You reserve the right to call someone scum for a read someone makes; it is actually important. Recognize the time that it comes does influence the direction it will go. Scenario 1- Player A makes argument/claim vs player B, player B defends himself against player A, then player C critics either A's argument/claim or comes to B's defense. Scenario 2- Player A makes argument vs player B, Player C critiques player A's argument/claim or defends player B before player B defends him/herself. 2) You are correct! But it prevents progress, a clear goal of the mafia. So I feel that you are guilty of Scenario 2. And why I do not like Scenario two is because any accusation could look absurd or "forced" if you do not hear a player's defense of him/herself. Critiquing someone's argument or claim prematurely prevents reads from unraveling whether it is a town or scum read. Here is the suspicious post in my opinion. Below the quote I will put the post into scenario format for clarity purposes. Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 23:07 SilverWolf77 wrote:On January 06 2017 14:13 Vivax wrote:Is there anyone here who actually didn't play mafia before, or just very very little? On January 06 2017 11:31 darthfoley wrote:On January 06 2017 10:43 Calix wrote:
I sense I'll have an aneurysm at this rate.
DF, you seem sensible. What else have you noticed so far? I actually feel weird about ika. Asked the kinda useless questionnaire and has basically been bs'ing a bit since. Not a real read but I find his opening a little off This read looks forced. I mean, you will say it isn't a read I know, but we both know it kind of is. And to me it just looks like you were looking for someone to make look guilty easily to fulfill Calix demand. Fend yourself, Foley. Vivax-Why are you defending ika so early in the game? Key: Player A: DF, Player B: Ika Player C:Vivax When questioned by Calix Player A (DF) Makes argument against Player B (Ika) Before Player B (ika) Defends himself against player A (DF), Player C (Vivax) Critiques Player A's suspicions. And as a result Ika never responded to DF. I will reiterate my self. Vivax's premature defense of Ika prevented a potential read from being uncovered. So that is why I think Vivax's defense of other players is scummy.
I was suspicious of Squishy for going with the flow so much and being wishy washy but this post I actually like. It explains why I was suspicious of this as well and I like when someone is thinking similarly to me and follows an easy to read though process. So I'm gonna lean town on Squishy.
B0ston and ME are scumleans because of their behavior in the thread. Making excuses, complaining about the gamestate, not getting involved in any of the conversation, nervousness. They both seem to be hating the game and playing very under the radar.
I really need Kelsier to come back. The absence from the thread is troubling.
What I like about kmatt is the fact that he wasn't willing to accept the townslip ika was calling him town for. If he was scum who knew the setup and faked that, he'd accept it right away. Instead he pushed back against it and argued against it. This leans more town for me.
|
On January 08 2017 19:15 Calix wrote:That's not what I was hoping to see when I woke up, zzz. In any case, BTDT's 100% dying. Nothing more needs to be said there. Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 09:02 darthfoley wrote:
Give me one reason not to fucking lynch btdt Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 09:04 Vivax wrote:On January 08 2017 09:02 darthfoley wrote:
Give me one reason not to fucking lynch btdt The only one I can think of is that he's tilting and throwing as town. But it's still a nobrainer to do it and he will get my vote no matter what. Really sad that grack, a player I've known since Game of Thrones mafia and who has clearly shown his skill this game, had to go cause of him. Noting this because you two were pretty adamant that BTDT vs Grack is TvT iirc and I don't get why Grack flipping Medic leads to this change in attitude. (well actually that's not true but I want to hear your answers first)
I wasn't adamant that it was TvT. Vivax and Grack were. I just thought that Grack was town.
|
Can Silverwolf77 figure out how quotes work and edit her posts ?
|
I mean I can postulate why scum!btdt would've been that CC, but it's only slightly less illogical than his town!btdt supposed explanation
|
On January 09 2017 02:27 MichaelEhrmantraut wrote:
Can Silverwolf77 figure out how quotes work and edit her posts ?
We are not allowed to edit posts here.
|
On January 09 2017 02:27 MichaelEhrmantraut wrote:
Can Silverwolf77 figure out how quotes work and edit her posts ?
You can't edit your posts.
But yea please preview your posts before you have badly formatted quotes please
|
On January 09 2017 02:23 MichaelEhrmantraut wrote:I have something to add about B0ston. I don't know if this has been missed. Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 07:12 B0stonSC wrote:
Well that seems rather sorted. is Instalynch a thing on this site? If you are town why would you want an instalynch when there's a CC ? I think that holds for a lot of other people too. And Grack was one of the most vocal people here. Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 21:00 Calix wrote:
Although ME's large post was good tone-wise, his actions are questionable especially with his vote and wanting to "hold it until EOD" (before voting for Grack) which makes no sense for town to do (it literally makes you harder to read - a non-town trait). There is no reason to do that just for a vote at the end of a large wagon on a counterclaimed person and the fact that he leaves it until the very end of the day means that he doesn't have to explain why he preferred Grack > BTDT or give us much information re: votes/ people he wants dead.
I wanted to hold it until EOD because i was reading through the posts, and to me Grack didn't look scum. I couldn't come up with anything conclusive about anyone else. And since you can't abstain here, I just voted. As such my one vote wasn't going to make any difference except give away information at that point.
Wait wtf.
Why are you concerned about "giving away information" with your votes if you're town?!
That's mafia rationale.
|
On January 09 2017 02:29 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2017 02:27 MichaelEhrmantraut wrote:
Can Silverwolf77 figure out how quotes work and edit her posts ? You can't edit your posts. But yea please preview your posts before you have badly formatted quotes please
I already said I'm not gonna quote snip anymore but if there is a better way people want me to do it, I'm happy to go along with that. Otherwise I'll just copy the whole thing or use spoilers if needed.
|
On January 09 2017 01:54 ika42 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 19:26 Calix wrote:On January 08 2017 13:40 Vivax wrote:3) You need to open the nested quotes ika. Then it takes quite a bit of habit to learn to read that and find what you want, but the question was this: How does that question have anything to do with your alignment? Which question? This question: But you have seen ikas meta yes? 2) nope thats not what i said, i said you were implying i am town based on how you acted. theres a difference there How did I act? I asked Darthfoley out about his read on you. You think that implies a townread on you? Sorry, it doesn't. Hope that's out of the way now. My read on you anyhow is that you're probs town. I mean, you clearly care about the game. You seem interested into digging into things and so on. You also get emotional about the outcome. Overall that seems townie to me. For SW my read isn't as strong yet. The way she accused me of defending you earlier simply felt very unfair and like she was just trying to put words into my mouth. Then at some point she came back and the tone of the post sounded very different, so I found that a bit odd. It was somewhat less aggressive. Could be scum indicative as it would mean that her earlier conviction into what she accused me for was only a temporary act. To finish the post, I'm going to leave her at nullish/scummish for the time being. The post I found odd cause of the change in tonality is : + Show Spoiler +On January 07 2017 00:02 SilverWolf77 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 23:40 Vivax wrote:
I don't have a read on ika so far and I don't need to have one to question darthfoley's read on him. No, you don't have to have a read on ika to say darthfoley's read on him is bad. I agree. The problem I have is the way you are doing it. Basically, ika no longer has to answer the suspicion because you interjected. Not only interjected but also defended ika by asking if darthfoley has his meta and implying that ika's questions are not scummy. You have a right to have an opinion on ika's questioning but the way you are doing it is very protective of ika. If you have no read of ika, this doesn't make much sense. I guess my gut just pinged hard off of that and also I think you interjected when someone was questioning someone else-I think Calix pointed this out already. Anyway, from my experience, scum like to do this because they get towncred for defending people they know are town. It's way too early to have a super strong opinion on someone's alignment, unless you know that alignment. Doesn't mean we can't have reads. We certainly can. But when I would of preferred to see ika answer the suspicion and engage with darth rather than have you interject. Sorry if I'm not explaining myself well. I'm tired and rambling right now. Be back in a little bit. I think your reasons for town-reading ika are bad and you should reread him if your main reason is him being emotional and invested because that's more personality-indicative for him from what I've seen recently. (applies to SW to an extent as well)As far as your SW tone read goes, I would like to know which posts you are comparing with the one you flagged up. Not convinced that it's scum-indicative as it stands due to that last line. I question where you get the bolded for both me and SW. The last game you have played with us we were both scum and we both lacked emotions and investments in the thread So is there a game your refrencing here or where this that come form?
What I mean there is you raging at SP last game as mafia. I also recall you two were quite aggressive with your posts in Fringe in one of the universes or something (but I only skim-read that game so correct me if I'm wrong).
(also I disagree that SW was scum since she was uninformed neut in that game and didn't have info on who mafia were. afaik I have yet to see a mafia!SW so that's why I said it's less applicable to her)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
