|
On July 07 2012 13:04 Sinensis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 12:58 Zephirdd wrote:On July 07 2012 12:42 Sinensis wrote:
Okay, I'm caught up:
sloosh, what are you doing? You vote wiggles with no explanation, people call you out for it, you change your vote to me with no explanation at first, people call you out for it, then your explanation is that I was your first suspicion (even though you randomly voted wiggles first?) because my posting is mechanical? My posting is mechanical and that's why I'm scummy, maybe you could elaborate on that. Even though you seem to have changed your mind again to prplhz before I responded to you. Are you just jumping on the easiest target every time? What's the deal?
Prplhz shouldn't be lynched today. No way in hell. He's gotten too much negative attention from too many people, it seems likely to me mafia is pushing for the easy lynch against an aggressive player. And why wouldn't they? prplhz isn't playing as good or as friendly as he could be. This is the last time I defend him against the rest of the angry mob unless he stops with the "LOL SCUM LOL."
I am going to go with gut for my day one vote. Zephirdd's posting is the scummiest right now in my opinion. He spends a lot of his time telling other, presumably town players, how to play. Something mafia can't seem to resist doing in most of the games I play. He is stating mostly FACTS (people talking like they know something for certain are suspicious because only mafia have FACTS) and very little speculation.
As for everyone who is suspicious of me for lurking, you're right, it's suspicious, my bad. I work during the day (USEAST) and can't post till night usually. Expect my posts then, like I'm doing now. If anyone has any questions for me now is a good time I will be around.
##vote: Zephirdd Alright, there are a couple of wrong things here. 1. Calls sloosh out, yet considers me the scummiest target 2. Says prplhz has gotten too much negative attention. Can you tell me it is possible to give him a positive trait to his play? No you can't. Because there is NO positive trait to his play so far. He's gotten a lot of negative attention because that's what his play warrants - and you agree with this on your very last sentence. In fact, his lynch has actually gotten an awfully lot of resistance, more than I would like. 3. Reasoning for me being scum is bullshit and does not warrant a vote. I posted an awful lot for day 1 this game, so if you want to point out specific points in my play, do it and I'll counter anything you have. I've stated things with certainty, because that's what I believe to be true. Stating things as FACTS means being certain of yourself. Maybe they are wrong later, who cares. What's important is that I'm decisive in what I say, and I should be held accountable to that later. Also, I love how it took you 39mins to arrive at the conclusion that I am scum, when you are behind 10 pages. Will want to hear more from you. 1. Well, at least you can read. 2. I stand by what I said. 3. "Your reason is bullshit because it's bullshit." Good job.
As I said, I posted an awfully lot. Point me what is scummy specifically, and I'll point out why it is not scummy.
Additionally, I added reasoning for stating things with certainty. That alone should show why it's a bad argument to vote me for that.
Also, I just realized I kinda read your third paragraph wrongly. I thought you were complaining that I was posting with certainty, but you're complaining that I am mostly stating "facts" instead of "speculation".
Guess what, speculating stuff is terrible =_= Oh I think you are mafia oh maybe you are town! No. I look at what people post, and define scum or town according to what they do. Then, I state a FACT and use it to prove that someone is SCUM. In fact, my spreadsheet right now only has facts, and these facts help me determine an alignment. Playing under speculations is a bad way to play imo.
On July 07 2012 13:08 Sinensis wrote:
Yeah, and I don't think he'd post like that as mafia. I don't think anyone would. I don't know how else you want me to explain it to you but I believe what I believe and if you take a look at my history in TL games, it's usually pretty hard to change my mind once I've made it up.
Won't even bother rebutting then :|
|
On July 07 2012 13:12 Zephirdd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 13:04 Sinensis wrote:On July 07 2012 12:58 Zephirdd wrote:On July 07 2012 12:42 Sinensis wrote:
Okay, I'm caught up:
sloosh, what are you doing? You vote wiggles with no explanation, people call you out for it, you change your vote to me with no explanation at first, people call you out for it, then your explanation is that I was your first suspicion (even though you randomly voted wiggles first?) because my posting is mechanical? My posting is mechanical and that's why I'm scummy, maybe you could elaborate on that. Even though you seem to have changed your mind again to prplhz before I responded to you. Are you just jumping on the easiest target every time? What's the deal?
Prplhz shouldn't be lynched today. No way in hell. He's gotten too much negative attention from too many people, it seems likely to me mafia is pushing for the easy lynch against an aggressive player. And why wouldn't they? prplhz isn't playing as good or as friendly as he could be. This is the last time I defend him against the rest of the angry mob unless he stops with the "LOL SCUM LOL."
I am going to go with gut for my day one vote. Zephirdd's posting is the scummiest right now in my opinion. He spends a lot of his time telling other, presumably town players, how to play. Something mafia can't seem to resist doing in most of the games I play. He is stating mostly FACTS (people talking like they know something for certain are suspicious because only mafia have FACTS) and very little speculation.
As for everyone who is suspicious of me for lurking, you're right, it's suspicious, my bad. I work during the day (USEAST) and can't post till night usually. Expect my posts then, like I'm doing now. If anyone has any questions for me now is a good time I will be around.
##vote: Zephirdd Alright, there are a couple of wrong things here. 1. Calls sloosh out, yet considers me the scummiest target 2. Says prplhz has gotten too much negative attention. Can you tell me it is possible to give him a positive trait to his play? No you can't. Because there is NO positive trait to his play so far. He's gotten a lot of negative attention because that's what his play warrants - and you agree with this on your very last sentence. In fact, his lynch has actually gotten an awfully lot of resistance, more than I would like. 3. Reasoning for me being scum is bullshit and does not warrant a vote. I posted an awful lot for day 1 this game, so if you want to point out specific points in my play, do it and I'll counter anything you have. I've stated things with certainty, because that's what I believe to be true. Stating things as FACTS means being certain of yourself. Maybe they are wrong later, who cares. What's important is that I'm decisive in what I say, and I should be held accountable to that later. Also, I love how it took you 39mins to arrive at the conclusion that I am scum, when you are behind 10 pages. Will want to hear more from you. 1. Well, at least you can read. 2. I stand by what I said. 3. "Your reason is bullshit because it's bullshit." Good job. As I said, I posted an awfully lot. Point me what is scummy specifically, and I'll point out why it is not scummy. Additionally, I added reasoning for stating things with certainty. That alone should show why it's a bad argument to vote me for that. Also, I just realized I kinda read your third paragraph wrongly. I thought you were complaining that I was posting with certainty, but you're complaining that I am mostly stating "facts" instead of "speculation". Guess what, speculating stuff is terrible =_= Oh I think you are mafia oh maybe you are town! No. I look at what people post, and define scum or town according to what they do. Then, I state a FACT and use it to prove that someone is SCUM. In fact, my spreadsheet right now only has facts, and these facts help me determine an alignment. Playing under speculations is a bad way to play imo. Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 13:08 Sinensis wrote:
Yeah, and I don't think he'd post like that as mafia. I don't think anyone would. I don't know how else you want me to explain it to you but I believe what I believe and if you take a look at my history in TL games, it's usually pretty hard to change my mind once I've made it up. Won't even bother rebutting then :|
Speculating stuff is terrible? What else can town do? Maybe you can explain that instead of begging me for more content to pick apart that'll get you out of the voting line.
|
Yeah... about that...
I guess I went overeager there. "Terrible" is a strong word.
What I mean: I don't speculate, I use facts and determine alignment of people with these. Facts, determined in the way people are playing the game(...do I have to talk about prplhz again?). Speculating is, however, useful when talking about things like night actions and stuff.
However, we are scumhunting now, or should be. In the day. daaay. Right now, we got plenty of things to work with. Baiting discussion - like me talking about the dicussion of policy lynches on the beginning, or sloosh voting wiggl3s - has already been done. You don't speculate how a person would do something as X or Y. You look at what he did and ask yourself: "is this pro-town? is there a scum agenda to it?". prplhz's actions are "no" and "yes" for these respectively. Him going MIA just confirms the scum agenda: he is hiding and trying to avoid connections between him and others.
|
On July 07 2012 13:25 Zephirdd wrote:
Yeah... about that...
I guess I went overeager there. "Terrible" is a strong word.
What I mean: I don't speculate, I use facts and determine alignment of people with these. Facts, determined in the way people are playing the game(...do I have to talk about prplhz again?). Speculating is, however, useful when talking about things like night actions and stuff.
However, we are scumhunting now, or should be. In the day. daaay. Right now, we got plenty of things to work with. Baiting discussion - like me talking about the dicussion of policy lynches on the beginning, or sloosh voting wiggl3s - has already been done. You don't speculate how a person would do something as X or Y. You look at what he did and ask yourself: "is this pro-town? is there a scum agenda to it?". prplhz's actions are "no" and "yes" for these respectively. Him going MIA just confirms the scum agenda: he is hiding and trying to avoid connections between him and others.
Do you understand that a town player on D1 doesn't have facts, at all? Not a single one of them?
Because if you did, I do not think you would be saying for the second time that you don't speculate and are forming opinions based on facts.
|
On July 07 2012 13:28 Sinensis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 13:25 Zephirdd wrote:
Yeah... about that...
I guess I went overeager there. "Terrible" is a strong word.
What I mean: I don't speculate, I use facts and determine alignment of people with these. Facts, determined in the way people are playing the game(...do I have to talk about prplhz again?). Speculating is, however, useful when talking about things like night actions and stuff.
However, we are scumhunting now, or should be. In the day. daaay. Right now, we got plenty of things to work with. Baiting discussion - like me talking about the dicussion of policy lynches on the beginning, or sloosh voting wiggl3s - has already been done. You don't speculate how a person would do something as X or Y. You look at what he did and ask yourself: "is this pro-town? is there a scum agenda to it?". prplhz's actions are "no" and "yes" for these respectively. Him going MIA just confirms the scum agenda: he is hiding and trying to avoid connections between him and others. Do you understand that a town player on D1 doesn't have facts, at all? Not a single one of them? Because if you did, I do not think you would be saying for the second time that you don't speculate and are forming opinions based on facts.
Oh don't we?
I guess I'll repeat myself. Again. With prplhz.
FACT 1
> prplhz just came out from Movie Star Mini Mafia
FACT 2
> He saw what a post like THIS can do. wherebugsgo explains it on his post-game analysis posts, this kind of posting only creates havoc and is terrible for a good town atmosphere.
FACT 3
He posted THIS. Fun fact: he did it against the same player VE did on MSMM.
Mind you, this was so fucking early in the game, and nothing marv said warranted that baseless accusation.
FACT 4
He complains that marv is ignoring him here. And does the same baseless accusation again.
FACT 5
He complains that marv and VE started an exchange similar to the one on MSMM here.
FACT 6
Right after marv and VE stop their exchange and didn't create a havoc in the thread, he posts the same kind of disruptive post here.
FACT 7
After me and marv point out the previous facts, his whole defense is
On July 07 2012 01:51 prplhz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 01:37 Dangeresque77 wrote:
[...]
i would be ok to vote for prplhz but im not totally convinced that hes scum. then again it would help to jst go ahead and lynch one person to give us a starting ground
[...]
listen to this man
And after that, he never posts again.
Are you telling me that, given this information, you can infer that prplhz is town?
Because I certainly cannot.
|
Stop it. Sinensis, what are you trying to accomplish with this train of discussion?
|
On July 07 2012 13:37 Zephirdd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 13:28 Sinensis wrote:On July 07 2012 13:25 Zephirdd wrote:
Yeah... about that...
I guess I went overeager there. "Terrible" is a strong word.
What I mean: I don't speculate, I use facts and determine alignment of people with these. Facts, determined in the way people are playing the game(...do I have to talk about prplhz again?). Speculating is, however, useful when talking about things like night actions and stuff.
However, we are scumhunting now, or should be. In the day. daaay. Right now, we got plenty of things to work with. Baiting discussion - like me talking about the dicussion of policy lynches on the beginning, or sloosh voting wiggl3s - has already been done. You don't speculate how a person would do something as X or Y. You look at what he did and ask yourself: "is this pro-town? is there a scum agenda to it?". prplhz's actions are "no" and "yes" for these respectively. Him going MIA just confirms the scum agenda: he is hiding and trying to avoid connections between him and others. Do you understand that a town player on D1 doesn't have facts, at all? Not a single one of them? Because if you did, I do not think you would be saying for the second time that you don't speculate and are forming opinions based on facts. Oh don't we? I guess I'll repeat myself. Again. With prplhz. FACT 1> prplhz just came out from Movie Star Mini MafiaFACT 2> He saw what a post like THIS can do. wherebugsgo explains it on his post-game analysis posts, this kind of posting only creates havoc and is terrible for a good town atmosphere. FACT 3He posted THIS. Fun fact: he did it against the same player VE did on MSMM. Mind you, this was so fucking early in the game, and nothing marv said warranted that baseless accusation. FACT 4He complains that marv is ignoring him here. And does the same baseless accusation again. FACT 5He complains that marv and VE started an exchange similar to the one on MSMM here. FACT 6Right after marv and VE stop their exchange and didn't create a havoc in the thread, he posts the same kind of disruptive post here. FACT 7After me and marv point out the previous facts, his whole defense is Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 01:51 prplhz wrote:On July 07 2012 01:37 Dangeresque77 wrote:
[...]
i would be ok to vote for prplhz but im not totally convinced that hes scum. then again it would help to jst go ahead and lynch one person to give us a starting ground
[...]
listen to this man And after that, he never posts again. Are you telling me that, given this information, you can infer that prplhz is town? Because I certainly cannot.
I knew you'd go quote a bunch of stuff unrelated to what we were talking about and ennumerate them as bolded FACTS.
What happened to Won't even bother rebutting then :| ? Why did you go back to talking about prplhz when before you couldn't even bother?
My vote isn't changing any time soon at this rate.
|
Oh, and also if you could clarify your post against me that would be great. Because I'm not really sure how to answer the question "Are you just jumping on the easiest target every time?". Are you calling me scummy or ... ?
|
On July 07 2012 13:42 slOosh wrote:
Stop it. Sinensis, what are you trying to accomplish with this train of discussion?
More than you, apparently.
|
On July 07 2012 13:44 slOosh wrote:
Oh, and also if you could clarify your post against me that would be great. Because I'm not really sure how to answer the question "Are you just jumping on the easiest target every time?". Are you calling me scummy or ... ?
It's suspicion. In my first post I said "sloosh would be wise to clarify his votes." You didn't do that adequately. You just switched your vote to me, and then your suspicion to prplhz.
|
Really? That's the route you want to take? Condescension? From the one you previously expressed "disappointment" in?
|
Try reading my filter - I explain each vote switch. I also explain the reason for my delay. Then give me your updated thoughts.
|
I knew you'd go quote a bunch of stuff unrelated to what we were talking about and ennumerate them as bolded FACTS
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT
WHAT
WAHT
AWHTAW
THAW
HT
ATA
THSDDS
What the fuck.
How.
What.
I need a break. Look. Can you define a fact in simple terms? I can: it's something that can't be denied.
I posted facts. I literally pointed the obvious. Things that cannot be denied. These things made me infer that someone is scum - scumhunting
I have not seen you pointing out facts about me. I have not seen you pointing out things that can't be denied, specifically, the way I'm doing to an actual candidate. Do you think your vote on me has any chance of gaining any traction to form into a lynch? If you think so, I think you are wrong because your case is substantially weak when compared to what I point out about the actual candidate. If you don't think so, then why are you even bothering with me?
I need a break. I'll grab some beer. Watch EVO. and go to sleep. Don't wait my answers until tomorrow at ~00KST(which should be noon for me).
|
On July 07 2012 13:49 slOosh wrote:
Try reading my filter - I explain each vote switch. I also explain the reason for my delay. Then give me your updated thoughts.
You switched your lynch candidate 3 times in 4 posts, and one of those posts was an edit. My thoughts were up to date a page ago.
|
That break sounds like a good idea Zephirdd - remember that this guy thinks you are scum so don't let it get to you.
|
On July 07 2012 13:58 Sinensis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 13:49 slOosh wrote:
Try reading my filter - I explain each vote switch. I also explain the reason for my delay. Then give me your updated thoughts. You switched your lynch candidate 3 times in 4 posts, and one of those posts was an edit. My thoughts were up to date a page ago.
So how is that suspicious? Why is that exclusively a scum thing to do?
|
On July 07 2012 13:59 slOosh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 13:58 Sinensis wrote:On July 07 2012 13:49 slOosh wrote:
Try reading my filter - I explain each vote switch. I also explain the reason for my delay. Then give me your updated thoughts. You switched your lynch candidate 3 times in 4 posts, and one of those posts was an edit. My thoughts were up to date a page ago. So how is that suspicious? Why is that exclusively a scum thing to do?
It's suspicious because like I said before, you are switching your vote to people that are already priority lynch targets. That's suspicious. You give few, if any, reasons of your own for your voted. You are "jumping on bandwagons." You are "going with the flow."
You said I was "mechanical." I don't agree with that observation. I am not a very careful poster at all; take a look at my last games if you don't believe me. I have already said why I don't agree with the observation that my play has been mechanical. I have already said why I would not choose prplhz as a day 1 lynch.
|
Facts need speculation to be useful.
Speculation needs facts to be useful.
I haven't had time to carefully read the cases yet, but currently it seems you two are frustrated because your different scumhunting methods make it difficult for you to explain your opinions and the reasons behind them to each other. Because you don't understand the motives behind each other's actions, it's easy to see them as scummy.
I'm too tired to know if this post is ridiculously idiotic.
Tell me in the morning, will you?
|
On July 07 2012 14:24 MrZentor wrote:
Facts need speculation to be useful.
Speculation needs facts to be useful.
I haven't had time to carefully read the cases yet, but currently it seems you two are frustrated because your different scumhunting methods make it difficult for you to explain your opinions and the reasons behind them to each other. Because you don't understand the motives behind each other's actions, it's easy to see them as scummy.
I'm too tired to know if this post is ridiculously idiotic.
Tell me in the morning, will you?
This is not a cop movie starring Jackie Chan or Chris Tucker. This is not one of us is the by the book and the other unconventional and wreckless.We were not forced to work together on assignment.
|
On July 07 2012 14:14 Sinensis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 13:59 slOosh wrote:On July 07 2012 13:58 Sinensis wrote:On July 07 2012 13:49 slOosh wrote:
Try reading my filter - I explain each vote switch. I also explain the reason for my delay. Then give me your updated thoughts. You switched your lynch candidate 3 times in 4 posts, and one of those posts was an edit. My thoughts were up to date a page ago. So how is that suspicious? Why is that exclusively a scum thing to do? It's suspicious because like I said before, you are switching your vote to people that are already priority lynch targets. That's suspicious. You give few, if any, reasons of your own for your voted. You are "jumping on bandwagons." You are "going with the flow." You said I was "mechanical." I don't agree with that observation. I am not a very careful poster at all; take a look at my last games if you don't believe me. I have already said why I don't agree with the observation that my play has been mechanical. I have already said why I would not choose prplhz as a day 1 lynch.
If you truly believe what you have just said, I invite you to take a step back, reread my posts in context, and explain to me exactly where I do what you claim I do.
I was the first vote for drwiggl3s, and also for you (aside from one post from MrZentor), and I got some flak for not jumping on the prphlz wagon by NSH. I've given reason for all of my votes, and I don't see how you can even consider switching votes to priority lynch targets an exclusively scum trait, as town have ample reason to do so, i.e. to lynch scum. Where are you getting your suspicions on me?
Additionally, why did you choose to mention your reluctance of a prplhz D1 lynch now? How is that in my question?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
