|
On February 12 2013 10:28 warbaby wrote:Mocsta, I've already commented on the noises people are making about your play. I don't think they make enough sense to call you scummy, yet. Either you think I'm scum, think I am null, or think I am town. The "scummy, yet" indicates you think I lean towards scum, or at the very least highly suspicious. Hence, again, I see no reason why you are pointing this out as if you are "buddying" me and sticking up for me.
Me vs WaveofShadow is a false dichotomy, Mocsta. What about sylencia? He could easily be a scum trying to blend in. Why is you/wave false dichotomy? Both of you majorly fucked up in my opinion; but took quite different approaches in handling the situation? Are you suggesting there is no dichotomy; if so, my only thought is that you think you have both walked the same path?
As for Sylencia, yes he is blendy as, and... so far his post contribution is alignment null to me. Im not voting for a guy D1 based on that filter. If you want to pressure him, be my guest, but my sights are on Geript currently.
I can't seriously vote WaveofShadow when there are other people who have made very small contributions. I'm not commenting on the case against me any more at this point, except to maintain that I think it's fairly ridiculous. I am not against waiting for everyone to input, before making jumping to a conclusion on scum read.
But what you have written reads to me as:
I will not pursue my scum read; as I am choosing to follow-up on a lurker.
Either way, I asked for your opinions on Geript. Are you planning to share?
|
On February 12 2013 10:29 warbaby wrote:
Also Mocsta, I don't think geript is using a chainsaw defense for me, I think he's just trying to make a case against you. Your association here is pretty shaky, although not entirely unfounded.
warbaby,
is there a point to this post?
let us summarise
- its not chainsaw defense
- he makes case against you
- your association is shaky (weak)
- you association is not unfounded (link exists)
All I am reading is a conflicting, wishy-washy stance:
either, Geript made a chainsaw or he didnt.
Why are you giving yourself a backdoor to change your stance as required?
|
You asked me a question, so I answered you. My stance on you is null, so of course I have the ability to change my stance later. That's not a back door, that's called making up my mind when I have sufficient evidence.
The way you're analyzing my response is... bizarre. You need to chill out and think rationally, not come up with the most tenuous of associations and strained explanations for motivations when people do simple things like answer your questions directly.
If you want my general opinion on geript, well it's only like 24h into the game. So far his contributions aren't stellar, but neither are anybody else's (including yourself). I'm certainly not going to claim he's scum based on the available evidence this early in the game (like you seem so eager to do, to anybody, which could be a bit scummy).
I think voting Sylencia makes more sense right now than anybody else.
|
On February 12 2013 11:01 warbaby wrote:
You asked me a question, so I answered you. My stance on you is null, so of course I have the ability to change my stance later. That's not a back door, that's called making up my mind when I have sufficient evidence.
The way you're analyzing my response is... bizarre. You need to chill out and think rationally, not come up with the most tenuous of associations and strained explanations for motivations when people do simple things like answer your questions directly.
If you want my general opinion on geript, well it's only like 24h into the game. So far his contributions aren't stellar, but neither are anybody else's (including yourself). I'm certainly not going to claim he's scum based on the available evidence this early in the game (like you seem so eager to do, to anybody, which could be a bit scummy).
I think voting Sylencia makes more sense right now than anybody else.
Why?
|
Reasons I think sylencia is "scummy": his posts are minimal and blendy. But he has more than zero posts, so it could be possible to say we're lynching him as a lurker. There is still 50% of D1 left, so I want to see what more he posts. Sevryn and (less so) Mandalor are in the same category right now, IMO.
All these accusations of active players being scum around aren't completely bad, but none of them are really making sense to me right now in D1.
|
On February 12 2013 11:01 warbaby wrote:
You asked me a question, so I answered you. My stance on you is null, so of course I have the ability to change my stance later. That's not a back door, that's called making up my mind when I have sufficient evidence.
The way you're analyzing my response is... bizarre. You need to chill out and think rationally, not come up with the most tenuous of associations and strained explanations for motivations when people do simple things like answer your questions directly.
If you want my general opinion on geript, well it's only like 24h into the game. So far his contributions aren't stellar, but neither are anybody else's (including yourself). I'm certainly not going to claim he's scum based on the available evidence this early in the game (like you seem so eager to do, to anybody, which could be a bit scummy).
I think voting Sylencia makes more sense right now than anybody else.
Lets be fair. Your post was super wishy-washy and non-committal. Mocsta is always trying to get a rise, its how he plays.
|
Sn0_man, it's D1 and I have no real idea who the scum are. So no, I don't have strong opinions right now, and I'm feeling very noncommittal towards lynching active players that aren't making egregious scumslips (which IMO is all of the currently active players).
The problem with Sylencia is similar to zarepath's case against WoS. Sylencia's not putting a lot of effort into moving discussion forward. WoS seems to be addressing this, but so far sylencia isn't (sevryn is pretty bad in this regard as well).
|
On February 12 2013 11:05 warbaby wrote:
Reasons I think sylencia is "scummy": his posts are minimal and blendy. But he has more than zero posts, so it could be possible to say we're lynching him as a lurker. There is still 50% of D1 left, so I want to see what more he posts. Sevryn and (less so) Mandalor are in the same category right now, IMO.
All these accusations of active players being scum around aren't completely bad, but none of them are really making sense to me right now in D1.
Problem with this is, warbaby, is you're really just echoing exactly what I and other members have been saying for hours already. You have contributed nothing new to the thread and upon viewing your filter, you jump on whatever bandwagon seems best to you at the time.
Zarepath makes a case on me? FoS.
(Then you go on to talk about 'false dichotomies' and I don't even know what you were talking about. You either think I'm suspicious or you don't.)
LA comes up? Vote 9-bit.
Except of course you contradict yourself right after:
You're right, we shouldn't consolidate LAL votes until much closer to the deadline. But what is even the point of putting 1 vote on each lurker? It's not going to make them feel much pressure if there's (at that time) no chance of them actually being lynched.
Anyway, you are right that we shouldn't consolidate now. I didn't think of that -- I'm trying to get work done today and I'm not paying 100% attention to the game right now (I work Mon-Fri 9-5 EST).
I want to see a case from you; at the very least something more concrete then following everything everyone else has already laid the groundwork for. Be your own man!
Note that I'm pressuring you because I want to see something positive come out of you; I'm inclined to agree with Mocsta's analysis of bad town. Stop focusing on defending yourself because you only make yourself look worse.
|
|
|
On February 12 2013 11:01 warbaby wrote:
I think voting Sylencia makes more sense right now than anybody else.
You've signed your death note.
##Vote: Warbaby
Ever since the pressure has died down on you (almost a day ago), you have slunken away to the shadows and not contributed to the scum hunt. Now you want to lynch Sylencia because he's doing what 5-6 other players are doing? It makes no sense. Right now, we are talking about Geript and you. Don't give us this shit that we should stop talking about it.
The only way you can save yourself now is to tell us why we should lynch Geript and not you. 22 hours. GL HF.
|
On February 12 2013 11:18 WaveofShadow wrote:
Note that I'm pressuring you because I want to see something positive come out of you; I'm inclined to agree with Mocsta's analysis of bad town. Stop focusing on defending yourself because you only make yourself look worse.
*Coming out of hibernation*
I said you (WoS) were bad town in my opinion.
That warbaby is continually swapping wagons, and attempts to continually share opinions which are actually "in the middle" and say nothing; reeks to me more of a scum trying to contribute but not knowing how to do it.
If he wanted to be "pro-town" or even just town;
He had a golden opportunity to provide a read on Geript.. instead.. he says
"he didnt chainsaw" - using wishy-washy reasoning
&
"he has only been here 24hrs, so i dont have an opinion" - yet he wants to hunt Sylencia?!?!?
if you think that the actions above are that of a "bad townie", I am willing to here out your reasons
*back to active lurking*
|
All three cases have a problem with me having a town read on Warbaby. So what? The worst thing that I read from him is:
On February 11 2013 21:22 warbaby wrote:If you're upset that I'm giving up this early, I would consider requesting a replacement. Just let me know if you'd prefer to shit all over someone other than me.
Which reads to me as, "Don't look at me." In context, I think it's more of a wanting to catch his breath between arguments. If you want to make a case against Warbaby, then do that.
My question to you is why are you guys so interested in having me waste time talking about a town read rather than actually going back and evaluating who is likely scum?
On the chainsaw defense:
If you read my post on 24:
+ Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 01:11 geript wrote:I do think warbaby is town. On points 1 and 2: While this is a newbie game, I don't think that taking his townie claim or referencing 36 as anything other than a null read. Sorry, but I'm not seeing the point you're making in 4 either. As I read: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:54 warbaby wrote:
Since we've both posted plenty, how about we not post for a while? more as trying to get the town as a whole involved rather than have Mcosta posting incessantly as he has been. While I agree on point 3, that warbaby hasn't really partaken in scum hunting, I don't think that this is a good measure of town v scum 6 hours into D1. To be honest, your case feels more like a gag. My concern would moreso be Mocsta. 1. He seems unconcerned as to who to throw towards the vote While some may read it as him aggressively trying to test the town, I read his posts and various switches and tests as just trying to see where he can gain traction. As well, he jumps on the first person having any real traction. 2. He doesn't even read his own posts First, he calls Warbaby's generic opening scummy when it's null at best. Next he tacks on his own important notes, and finally he calls Warbaby's initial post null. 3. He has diarrhea of the keyboard Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:55 Mocsta wrote:
Post consolidation definitely important. No need to hear every thought. But this is no excuse for lurking either. Additionally, he brings ups the post consolidation point which he actively avoids. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:52 Mocsta wrote:
Did not realise 4 people represented a majority in this game.
Why dont you give others a chance to post their own thoughts instead of trying to forcefully influence them before they have spoken.
Are you trying for a dictatorship here or something? Here he's accusing me, in effect, of running for mayor all while pushing his RNG agenda heavily. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 14:15 Mocsta wrote:\
I thought you said you were going to take a break from posting anyways.... Blames warbaby for coming back to post 2 times after 'taking a break' when Mocsta has posted 8. At best, all this comes off as unintentional bad play. At worst it's an overexcited scum player. I find the latter more believable and either way I feel better about lynching him currently than lynching a lurker.
in light of Cora's post on 21
+ Show Spoiler +On February 11 2013 14:46 cDgCorazon wrote:##Vote: WarbabyCongratulations WB, it's been 5 hours and I already think you are scum. I'm going to break this down into a few points: 1. Your "I'm not Mafia rofl" claim.The biggest problem is that you have claimed town within the first 4 hours. You not only claimed town, but you're basically waving a giant sign that says "HEY LOOK EVERYONE, I'M TOWN". The nature of your claim is ridiculous, almost too much. Examples: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:41 warbaby wrote:
So you have a problem with me claiming that I'm being pro-town? You clearly did not read the post-game analysis in '36. Claiming town is not a scummy thing to do.
I'm not trying to trick you into thinking I'm town.
Corazon was town in '36 and so am I, right now, in '37.
You're coming on way too strong with this claim for me to believe it. 2. Continuing to play the victim from the mislynch in NMM 36.Examples: Show nested quote +Warbaby
"Also whatever guys, if you want to vote me for posting good ideas for town that you agree with, go ahead. That's why I got mislynched in '36 and now it's up for nomination as the worst lynch in 2013. I suppose you want to top '36 by mislynching me D1? :D"
"I had to defend myself against these ridiculous claims in '36, until I was finally mislynched for it."
It's another part in trying to associate yourself too hard with being townie. You need to get it through your head that this isn't XXXVI anymore. We're all sorry for the mislynch last game, but you need to come in here and forget about it. It's a whole different game with different players. Stop trying to stay in the past. 3. Your lack of scumhunting.Goes without saying, you've done none of it yet. All the jabs you made at Mocsta have been points that myself and other people have discussed to death already. Bring something new to the table. 4. Trying to change the subject when the pressure is on you.Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:54 warbaby wrote:
Since we've both posted plenty, how about we not post for a while? This is the scummiest part. If you are town, you should be trying to prove that your claim is true, and not kill discussion right when it starts to pick up. For these reasons, you are getting my vote for the time being. If you are really town, you should have no trouble proving your innocence.
Then you'll see that I address his points as he presented them. I didn't claim warbaby as town; I stated I think he's town. There's a big difference between the two. As for attacking you, if you call me saying you have taken a wet watery crap all over your filter attacking you, then I'm guilty. But hey, I'm not the only person who's "attacked" you by commenting on your style.
As for Cora's problem with me throwing jabs, he's wrong. I work best as part of group think being able to bounce ideas off of people. I enjoy figuring out the positioning and the setup far more than the finish; plus it's what I'm good at. If you don't like it, then either deal with it (as you do with Mocsta and his 'style') or vote me off the island.
back to rereading
|
On February 12 2013 11:40 geript wrote:
As for Cora's problem with me throwing jabs, he's wrong. I work best as part of group think being able to bounce ideas off of people. I enjoy figuring out the positioning and the setup far more than the finish; plus it's what I'm good at. If you don't like it, then either deal with it (as you do with Mocsta and his 'style') or vote me off the island.
It's not you "setting us up". It's you saying a few words and expecting us to finish the job and do most of the work.
That way, if the person flips town, you can say someone else caused them to be lynched. If the person flips scum, you can say that you knew it all along. It's too much in the middle ground, and in this case being in the middle ground is scummy.
|
On February 12 2013 11:32 cDgCorazon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 11:01 warbaby wrote:
I think voting Sylencia makes more sense right now than anybody else.
You've signed your death note. ##Vote: WarbabyEver since the pressure has died down on you (almost a day ago), you have slunken away to the shadows and not contributed to the scum hunt. Now you want to lynch Sylencia because he's doing what 5-6 other players are doing? It makes no sense. Right now, we are talking about Geript and you. Don't give us this shit that we should stop talking about it. The only way you can save yourself now is to tell us why we should lynch Geript and not you. 22 hours. GL HF.
You think I'm scum because I want to lynch the worst lurkers (sylencia, sevryn)? So you think LAL is a scum tell? Sorry I don't follow. I'll look at geript's filter and get back to you, but I'm still not comfortable lynching active players unless they do something seriously scummy.
|
On February 12 2013 11:40 geript wrote:All three cases have a problem with me having a town read on Warbaby. So what? The worst thing that I read from him is: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 21:22 warbaby wrote:If you're upset that I'm giving up this early, I would consider requesting a replacement. Just let me know if you'd prefer to shit all over someone other than me. Which reads to me as, "Don't look at me." In context, I think it's more of a wanting to catch his breath between arguments. If you want to make a case against Warbaby, then do that.
Not sure the point of this? Corazon made the case; and I have re-enforced the case by pressuring warbaby. Not sure if you realise, but cases are not required to point out scummy behaviour. Cases are required to persuade town to VOTE with you.
My question to you is why are you guys so interested in having me waste time talking about a town read rather than actually going back and evaluating who is likely scum? On the chainsaw defense: If you read my post on 24: + Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 01:11 geript wrote:I do think warbaby is town. On points 1 and 2: While this is a newbie game, I don't think that taking his townie claim or referencing 36 as anything other than a null read. Sorry, but I'm not seeing the point you're making in 4 either. As I read: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:54 warbaby wrote:
Since we've both posted plenty, how about we not post for a while? more as trying to get the town as a whole involved rather than have Mcosta posting incessantly as he has been. While I agree on point 3, that warbaby hasn't really partaken in scum hunting, I don't think that this is a good measure of town v scum 6 hours into D1. To be honest, your case feels more like a gag. My concern would moreso be Mocsta. 1. He seems unconcerned as to who to throw towards the vote While some may read it as him aggressively trying to test the town, I read his posts and various switches and tests as just trying to see where he can gain traction. As well, he jumps on the first person having any real traction. 2. He doesn't even read his own posts First, he calls Warbaby's generic opening scummy when it's null at best. Next he tacks on his own important notes, and finally he calls Warbaby's initial post null. 3. He has diarrhea of the keyboard Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:55 Mocsta wrote:
Post consolidation definitely important. No need to hear every thought. But this is no excuse for lurking either. Additionally, he brings ups the post consolidation point which he actively avoids. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:52 Mocsta wrote:
Did not realise 4 people represented a majority in this game.
Why dont you give others a chance to post their own thoughts instead of trying to forcefully influence them before they have spoken.
Are you trying for a dictatorship here or something? Here he's accusing me, in effect, of running for mayor all while pushing his RNG agenda heavily. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 14:15 Mocsta wrote:\
I thought you said you were going to take a break from posting anyways.... Blames warbaby for coming back to post 2 times after 'taking a break' when Mocsta has posted 8. At best, all this comes off as unintentional bad play. At worst it's an overexcited scum player. I find the latter more believable and either way I feel better about lynching him currently than lynching a lurker. in light of Cora's post on 21 + Show Spoiler +On February 11 2013 14:46 cDgCorazon wrote:##Vote: WarbabyCongratulations WB, it's been 5 hours and I already think you are scum. I'm going to break this down into a few points: 1. Your "I'm not Mafia rofl" claim.The biggest problem is that you have claimed town within the first 4 hours. You not only claimed town, but you're basically waving a giant sign that says "HEY LOOK EVERYONE, I'M TOWN". The nature of your claim is ridiculous, almost too much. Examples: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:41 warbaby wrote:
So you have a problem with me claiming that I'm being pro-town? You clearly did not read the post-game analysis in '36. Claiming town is not a scummy thing to do.
I'm not trying to trick you into thinking I'm town.
Corazon was town in '36 and so am I, right now, in '37.
You're coming on way too strong with this claim for me to believe it. 2. Continuing to play the victim from the mislynch in NMM 36.Examples: Show nested quote +Warbaby
"Also whatever guys, if you want to vote me for posting good ideas for town that you agree with, go ahead. That's why I got mislynched in '36 and now it's up for nomination as the worst lynch in 2013. I suppose you want to top '36 by mislynching me D1? :D"
"I had to defend myself against these ridiculous claims in '36, until I was finally mislynched for it."
It's another part in trying to associate yourself too hard with being townie. You need to get it through your head that this isn't XXXVI anymore. We're all sorry for the mislynch last game, but you need to come in here and forget about it. It's a whole different game with different players. Stop trying to stay in the past. 3. Your lack of scumhunting.Goes without saying, you've done none of it yet. All the jabs you made at Mocsta have been points that myself and other people have discussed to death already. Bring something new to the table. 4. Trying to change the subject when the pressure is on you.Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:54 warbaby wrote:
Since we've both posted plenty, how about we not post for a while? This is the scummiest part. If you are town, you should be trying to prove that your claim is true, and not kill discussion right when it starts to pick up. For these reasons, you are getting my vote for the time being. If you are really town, you should have no trouble proving your innocence.
Then you'll see that I address his points as he presented them. I didn't claim warbaby as town; I stated I think he's town. There's a big difference between the two.
Yes, I understand thinking/claiming is different; but that is not the point. Lets say you “thought” warbaby was town; the method you employed to defend his “honour” was still the scummiest action of the 3 options I presented.
On February 12 2013 09:57 Mocsta wrote:
Ask yourself, if you didn’t like warbaby case I see three options of approach
(1) Breakdown the case presented – and present flaws in logic
(2) Query warbaby for more information – to devine his alignment
(3) Attack the attacker
Clearly, (3) is the scummiest action of those three.
Further to this; scum are the ones constantly proof-checking posts etc; claiming he is town is a pretty stupid scum slip. I don’t want to treat you as stupid; so I choose not to consider this point as a valid counter
Hence, it has not been disputed why this is not a chainsaw defense..
As for attacking you, if you call me saying you have taken a wet watery crap all over your filter attacking you, then I'm guilty. But hey, I'm not the only person who's "attacked" you by commenting on your style.
Wow; this is quite lame logic.
I didn’t realise, others agreeing with you, made the argument reasonable.
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
There is a clear contrast behind how I am presenting my reads; and how you are. I am transparent in my thought process; and have been responding to peoples arguments with clearly laid out logic.
You on the other hand, continue to make swipes; do not actually refute the argument; and then rely on the opinion of others as your justification.
And with your wall of text; I still have not seen anything to dispute the chainsaw defense claim.
As for Cora's problem with me throwing jabs, he's wrong. I work best as part of group think being able to bounce ideas off of people. I enjoy figuring out the positioning and the setup far more than the finish; plus it's what I'm good at. If you don't like it, then either deal with it (as you do with Mocsta and his 'style') or vote me off the island.
Is this your plea?
That you are a team player; that you enjoy setup speculation; and that you do not enjoy “the finish”.
If this was a job interview, do you think you would get the job with that?
Let me give you a real-world translation:
I like working in teams because I can focus on the unimportant things I like; and allow others to do the leg work. Further, I get bored easily, and will start to drop in participation and contribution.
Let me give you a forum-mafia translation:
I like blending in by working in teams and focusing on setup speculation. As the game progresses I will feign being a bored player as a reason to explain my drop in contributions.
i.e.
I AM SCUM
On February 12 2013 10:07 Mocsta wrote:
##Vote: Geript
|
On February 12 2013 11:32 cDgCorazon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 11:01 warbaby wrote:
I think voting Sylencia makes more sense right now than anybody else.
You've signed your death note. ##Vote: WarbabyEver since the pressure has died down on you (almost a day ago), you have slunken away to the shadows and not contributed to the scum hunt. Now you want to lynch Sylencia because he's doing what 5-6 other players are doing? It makes no sense. Right now, we are talking about Geript and you. Don't give us this shit that we should stop talking about it. The only way you can save yourself now is to tell us why we should lynch Geript and not you. 22 hours. GL HF.
You think I'm scum because I want to lynch the worst lurkers (sylencia, sevryn)? So you think LAL is a scum tell? Sorry I don't follow. I'll look at geript's filter and get back to you, but I'm still not comfortable lynching active players unless they do something seriously scummy.
|
On February 12 2013 12:12 warbaby wrote:
You think I'm scum because I want to lynch the worst lurkers (sylencia, sevryn)?
Matey,
please explain why they are the worst-two lurkers.
To me they are all shit.
+ what about guys like 9-bit & macheji; why are you ignoring them in your campaign?
|
Ebwop sorry for the double post. Trying to post mobile. I meant to post:
Ebwop: I'm not OK lynching active players D1 if there are lurkers with 2 or 3 posts, which there still are.
|
9bit and macheji have 0 posts and will be replaced. No point lynching them
|
On February 12 2013 12:17 warbaby wrote:
9bit and macheji have 0 posts and will be replaced. No point lynching them
OK.
I will just say this:
I think that is a silly reason; ppl present these arguments all the time, and its very rare they do just drop out.
Look at Acid in NMM XXXV; had 0 posts, people present the modkill argument, and then he came in with a bang.
If your going to push lurkers; push them all please; otherwise I want genuine reasons why you are giving preferential treatment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
