|
On October 17 2012 23:15 Douglas Quaid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 23:00 Harry Tasker wrote:On October 17 2012 22:58 Douglas Quaid wrote:
@ Harry - Oh come on. That post by Ben Richards is such a try-hard post.
It reads like you're picking a fight with him for the sake of it, and not because he's actually suspicious.
Top suspect is you dooood. it's the fact it's try-hard... it's contentless and wrong Being "try-hard" is not a scumtell. It's the opposite. Also, his post is content-less, but it's NOT completely "wrong" as you suggest. Hell you yourself accuse him of "stating the obvious" (hellooooo contradiction). I'm more interested in reading into sincerity when reading that post, and he seems rather eager to start things off. Townie to me for now.
I'm for now (perhaps wrongly) assuming a base level of competence for this game due to the nature of signups.
What you're seeing as try-hard I'm seeing as fluff that actually contributes nothing at all to the conversation.
A bunch of stating the obvious and stuff I consider wrong (make long consolidated posts, don't make smaller posts where you quote each other and talk to each other) is practically the definition of looking like you're contributing without actually doing so (and being misleading in the process).
|
On October 17 2012 15:48 Alan Schaefer wrote:
Longer posts don't make the thread more readable. Clearly you've never played with gonzaw.
[...]
ROFL I'm not going to lynch you, you're funny.
I wanted to bash Ben Richards for all the things he wrote but I see that Harry Tasker has done this for me. The only thing I disagree with is the conclusion; I don't think that Ben Richards is scum right now because it makes no sense for scum to push scum agenda in their first post. It's simply barely ever worth it to stick your neck out like that and say obviously wrongs things like "Don't use posting style for analysis". I think it's a little scummy that he's just repeating me on his "Be careful of lynch-a-lurker policies because scum will just not lurk then", the consolidation thing could be said by either alignment but as Harry Tasker pointed out it's probably not going to be a problem. This is a 7 player game, not a 80 player beast, and it's going to be easy enough to read by everyone. Not doing 20 page one-liner tunneling fests and consolidating isn't the same thing at all. I also think it's townie for him to say that scum can easily fake things like posting style and activity patterns because I don't think that's true at all. People have sleeping patterns and they have work and school, most people have only around 2-4 hours where they are really active on mafia. I consider this a townie thing to say because generally townies think it's a lot easier to be scum than scum think it is. Consequently, I disagree with the scum read on Ben Richards.
I don't agree that Harry Tasker wants to "roleplay" his character at all though. I want Alex Hesse to be me, because scum will have an easier time faking me faking Alex Hesse than they will have faking just good old me. Also, I have no clue who most of these guys are even though I get the theme of "Arnold Schwarzenegger characters".
|
On October 17 2012 23:44 Alex Hesse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 15:48 Alan Schaefer wrote:
Longer posts don't make the thread more readable. Clearly you've never played with gonzaw.
[...] ROFL I'm not going to lynch you, you're funny. I wanted to bash Ben Richards for all the things he wrote but I see that Harry Tasker has done this for me. The only thing I disagree with is the conclusion; I don't think that Ben Richards is scum right now because it makes no sense for scum to push scum agenda in their first post. It's simply barely ever worth it to stick your neck out like that and say obviously wrongs things like "Don't use posting style for analysis". I think it's a little scummy that he's just repeating me on his "Be careful of lynch-a-lurker policies because scum will just not lurk then", the consolidation thing could be said by either alignment but as Harry Tasker pointed out it's probably not going to be a problem. This is a 7 player game, not a 80 player beast, and it's going to be easy enough to read by everyone. Not doing 20 page one-liner tunneling fests and consolidating isn't the same thing at all. I also think it's townie for him to say that scum can easily fake things like posting style and activity patterns because I don't think that's true at all. People have sleeping patterns and they have work and school, most people have only around 2-4 hours where they are really active on mafia. I consider this a townie thing to say because generally townies think it's a lot easier to be scum than scum think it is. Consequently, I disagree with the scum read on Ben Richards. I don't agree that Harry Tasker wants to "roleplay" his character at all though. I want Alex Hesse to be me, because scum will have an easier time faking me faking Alex Hesse than they will have faking just good old me. Also, I have no clue who most of these guys are even though I get the theme of "Arnold Schwarzenegger characters".
To the bold: this is a misunderstanding. I agree with what you're saying, it's also what I was saying (or what I meant to say). Obviously I cannot say my name, so my point was that I want me to be obviously me, I just threw in my given name there 
Interesting point on how easy townies/scummies see it playing scum. Hmm. Yes, ok, that's eased my view on him a bit. Hrr, kinda annoying how bad I find Ben's post then if he's town :/
|
Alex, could you tell me how these two points mesh together please?
On October 17 2012 09:42 Alex Hesse wrote:
Sure, we need to look at the normal signs of a scum as well but don't dismiss posting style analysis just like that. There are many people on this forum who have very distinct posting style and even in this game where we are all smurfs who do not want to be figured out it's going to show. Posting style analysis can be just as effective as normal analysis but of course they will both have to compliment each other for a complete analysis.
On October 17 2012 23:44 Alex Hesse wrote:
I don't agree that Harry Tasker wants to "roleplay" his character at all though. I want Alex Hesse to be me, because scum will have an easier time faking me faking Alex Hesse than they will have faking just good old me. Also, I have no clue who most of these guys are even though I get the theme of "Arnold Schwarzenegger characters".
In the first quote it looks like you're saying we don't want to be figured out (I find this untrue) and in the second it looks like you're wanting to be figured out?
|
I don't see the contradiction there Harry. One is talking about players hiding their normal identity while the second is talking about maintaining a consistent and unique identity in this game
Also I want to propose that no one actually vote until we are ready to actually lynch. For now we should just compile fos's until there is a consensus. This will make it much harder for scum to hammer without reason.
|
On October 18 2012 00:00 Harry Tasker wrote:Alex, could you tell me how these two points mesh together please? Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 09:42 Alex Hesse wrote:
Sure, we need to look at the normal signs of a scum as well but don't dismiss posting style analysis just like that. There are many people on this forum who have very distinct posting style and even in this game where we are all smurfs who do not want to be figured out it's going to show. Posting style analysis can be just as effective as normal analysis but of course they will both have to compliment each other for a complete analysis.
Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 23:44 Alex Hesse wrote:
I don't agree that Harry Tasker wants to "roleplay" his character at all though. I want Alex Hesse to be me, because scum will have an easier time faking me faking Alex Hesse than they will have faking just good old me. Also, I have no clue who most of these guys are even though I get the theme of "Arnold Schwarzenegger characters". In the first quote it looks like you're saying we don't want to be figured out (I find this untrue) and in the second it looks like you're wanting to be figured out?
On October 18 2012 00:14 Jack Slater wrote:
I don't see the contradiction there Harry. One is talking about players hiding their normal identity while the second is talking about maintaining a consistent and unique identity in this game
Also I want to propose that no one actually vote until we are ready to actually lynch. For now we should just compile fos's until there is a consensus. This will make it much harder for scum to hammer without reason.
Well, I actually think that Harry Tasker is right that the way I said it sounded self contradictory. This is a smurf game and we don't want to be figured out or else we wouldn't be playing in a smurf game or we could intentionally try to make sure that people figured us out. I could post a list of the games that I was in or post catch phrases ("You"). We also need to be careful with the smurf accounts and all this will make everybody post slightly different from what they usually do but we're still us and we have no intention of not being us if we're townies. We just can't (and consequently we don't want to) make it obvious and that's going to slightly affect us.
Anyway, I don't want to talk about this because it's borderline talking about identities which is disallowed. Just wanted to explain myself.
|
I like the idea that we just vote. Everybody knows by now that we need to be careful of scum hammering and then he doesn't have to take any responsibility because he'll just be gone the next day so just let people do what they want to. This is not a newbie game, I imagine that every townie in this game is smart enough to figure things out on his own.
With the no hard deadline thing we have around 72 hours though and there's no reason to end the day within the first 24.
|
I make no such assumptions about the base skill level of the playerbase in this game. I know that I was allowed to play.
Frankly I don't care if you think my post was contentless and bad, because A) it was my very first post and B) virtually nothing had happened otherwise.
What I do care about though is the idea that my post is pushing a scum agenda. If you disagree with my post that's fine. But I draw the line at "I disagree, you must be scum". Because that's what that boils down to with Harry Tasker, regardless of how he cries "No, see, it's because fluff contentless blah blah blah". If you responded at all to the post, then it generated discussion about how we look for scum motherfucker. Cool, you disagree on my point about consolidating our posts? Well good luck with that! I'm going to be consolidating my posts in an attempt to keep the thread tidy. If that makes me wrong or bad, cool. I don't fucking care. But shit like
On October 17 2012 23:44 Alex Hesse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 15:48 Alan Schaefer wrote:
Longer posts don't make the thread more readable. Clearly you've never played with gonzaw.
[...] ROFL I'm not going to lynch you, you're funny. I wanted to bash Ben Richards for all the things he wrote but I see that Harry Tasker has done this for me. The only thing I disagree with is the conclusion; I don't think that Ben Richards is scum right now because it makes no sense for scum to push scum agenda in their first post. It's simply barely ever worth it to stick your neck out like that and say obviously wrongs things like "Don't use posting style for analysis". I think it's a little scummy that he's just repeating me on his "Be careful of lynch-a-lurker policies because scum will just not lurk then", the consolidation thing could be said by either alignment but as Harry Tasker pointed out it's probably not going to be a problem. This is a 7 player game, not a 80 player beast, and it's going to be easy enough to read by everyone. Not doing 20 page one-liner tunneling fests and consolidating isn't the same thing at all. I also think it's townie for him to say that scum can easily fake things like posting style and activity patterns because I don't think that's true at all. People have sleeping patterns and they have work and school, most people have only around 2-4 hours where they are really active on mafia. I consider this a townie thing to say because generally townies think it's a lot easier to be scum than scum think it is. Consequently, I disagree with the scum read on Ben Richards. I don't agree that Harry Tasker wants to "roleplay" his character at all though. I want Alex Hesse to be me, because scum will have an easier time faking me faking Alex Hesse than they will have faking just good old me. Also, I have no clue who most of these guys are even though I get the theme of "Arnold Schwarzenegger characters".
^ the bolded? Alex Hesse has me as a townread, yet simultaneously thinks I'm pushing a scum agenda? Like what the FUCK? Scum are just dying for shit like that to hit the thread, because it tells them that I'm a viable fucking MISLYNCH LATER.
Whatever, I'm going to cool off and then look over the thread after I've had a cup of coffee.
|
Just because it generated conversation doesn't necessarily make it inherently not-scummy, dear.
Also, you should care about people being able to get a better read on you, re: consolidated posts. Do you disagree with what I said about posting like that? If so, why? Do you not get reads from conversations, relations, tidbits, questions, interactions and the like?
|
On October 18 2012 00:30 Alex Hesse wrote:
I like the idea that we just vote. Everybody knows by now that we need to be careful of scum hammering and then he doesn't have to take any responsibility because he'll just be gone the next day so just let people do what they want to. This is not a newbie game, I imagine that every townie in this game is smart enough to figure things out on his own.
With the no hard deadline thing we have around 72 hours though and there's no reason to end the day within the first 24.
While we have 72 hours, it's worth talking about the instant-lynch mechanic in a previous game (GSL Mini II) in regards to the deadline length. The 72 hour day made people really complacent about contributing early (and leading to last-minute deadline scrambles), which should be avoided at all costs this game. We have time, but don't be afraid to contribute early and often.
@ Ben Richards
That thing by Alex Hesse you pointed out is really off. It's a "too scummy to be scum" read, and is questionable logic at best.
The entire post is just strange - he seems to be half-accusing you of being scum and then overall disagreeing with the scumread on you.
On October 17 2012 23:44 Alex Hesse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 15:48 Alan Schaefer wrote:
Longer posts don't make the thread more readable. Clearly you've never played with gonzaw.
[...] ROFL I'm not going to lynch you, you're funny. I wanted to bash Ben Richards for all the things he wrote but I see that Harry Tasker has done this for me. The only thing I disagree with is the conclusion; I don't think that Ben Richards is scum right now because it makes no sense for scum to push scum agenda in their first post. It's simply barely ever worth it to stick your neck out like that and say obviously wrongs things like "Don't use posting style for analysis". I think it's a little scummy that he's just repeating me on his "Be careful of lynch-a-lurker policies because scum will just not lurk then", the consolidation thing could be said by either alignment but as Harry Tasker pointed out it's probably not going to be a problem. This is a 7 player game, not a 80 player beast, and it's going to be easy enough to read by everyone. Not doing 20 page one-liner tunneling fests and consolidating isn't the same thing at all. I also think it's townie for him to say that scum can easily fake things like posting style and activity patterns because I don't think that's true at all. People have sleeping patterns and they have work and school, most people have only around 2-4 hours where they are really active on mafia. I consider this a townie thing to say because generally townies think it's a lot easier to be scum than scum think it is. Consequently, I disagree with the scum read on Ben Richards. I don't agree that Harry Tasker wants to "roleplay" his character at all though. I want Alex Hesse to be me, because scum will have an easier time faking me faking Alex Hesse than they will have faking just good old me. Also, I have no clue who most of these guys are even though I get the theme of "Arnold Schwarzenegger characters".
Read the red/bolded line then read his conclusion. It makes no sense for him to include that in his analysis.
In addition, the whole post is just incredibly over-justified for this point in the game.
|
On October 18 2012 01:05 Harry Tasker wrote:
Just because it generated conversation doesn't necessarily make it inherently not-scummy, dear.
Also, you should care about people being able to get a better read on you, re: consolidated posts. Do you disagree with what I said about posting like that? If so, why? Do you not get reads from conversations, relations, tidbits, questions, interactions and the like?
Strawman. Interesting.
Yes, of course I care about people getting a better read on me. Do YOU disagree that we should judge people based on the content of their posts and their actions in-thread? Do you disagree that people arguing back and forth is poisonous to an environment conducive to finding scum?
Try considering the context of things others post rather than just labeling things that you disagree with "scummy" in the future.
@DQ
Ultimately I'm keeping an eye on Alex for the reasons you laid out. I agree that it's strange that he agrees that I did something scummy, yet says "I disagree with the scum read on Ben". What do you make of Harry Tasker? Should we believe his "True Lies"? OOOHHHHHHHH!
|
Harry is making an effort to gun for people, so I have no reason to suspect him so far. He's aggressive and making his opinions known - me disagreeing with some of them is irrelevant for my read on him. He's behaving townie so far, though obviously I can't make a definitive read on him based on only 7 posts
|
On October 18 2012 03:04 Ben Richards wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 01:05 Harry Tasker wrote:
Just because it generated conversation doesn't necessarily make it inherently not-scummy, dear.
Also, you should care about people being able to get a better read on you, re: consolidated posts. Do you disagree with what I said about posting like that? If so, why? Do you not get reads from conversations, relations, tidbits, questions, interactions and the like? Strawman. Interesting. Yes, of course I care about people getting a better read on me. Do YOU disagree that we should judge people based on the content of their posts and their actions in-thread? Do you disagree that people arguing back and forth is poisonous to an environment conducive to finding scum? Try considering the context of things others post rather than just labeling things that you disagree with "scummy" in the future.
Firstly, don't tell me what to do.
Yes, obviously we should judge people based on the content of their posts and their actions in-thread.
And yes, I do disagree that people arguing is poisonous to an environment for finding scum. Within arguments are all sorts of interesting possibilities for divining alignments; sincerity, fervour, investment, honesty, interactions, etc. etc. Obviously within reason; this does not extend to "you suck!" ... "no u"
The 'context' of your post is a 7 player game, i.e. a very low number, where ensuring there is plenty of activity, especially with this setup, is paramount; and your point looks to be discouraging this.
In this setup, posting too much is *considerably* less of a problem than not posting enough, imo.
|
Can the host or co-host add filter links to the OP? Thanks!
|
Goddamnit I can't read. Questions not supposed to be asked in thread. Bah.
Anywho, since you're around Harry, what do you think of Alex?
|
On October 17 2012 23:15 Douglas Quaid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 23:00 Harry Tasker wrote:On October 17 2012 22:58 Douglas Quaid wrote:
@ Harry - Oh come on. That post by Ben Richards is such a try-hard post.
It reads like you're picking a fight with him for the sake of it, and not because he's actually suspicious.
Top suspect is you dooood. it's the fact it's try-hard... it's contentless and wrong Being "try-hard" is not a scumtell. It's the opposite.
wrong
soooo very wrong - incredibly wrong in fact. That kind of contentless tryhard first post is a super easy thing for scum to do in order to get town cred and seem like they're contributing to the thread.
Suspiciously wrong
On October 18 2012 02:46 Douglas Quaid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 00:30 Alex Hesse wrote:
I like the idea that we just vote. Everybody knows by now that we need to be careful of scum hammering and then he doesn't have to take any responsibility because he'll just be gone the next day so just let people do what they want to. This is not a newbie game, I imagine that every townie in this game is smart enough to figure things out on his own.
With the no hard deadline thing we have around 72 hours though and there's no reason to end the day within the first 24. While we have 72 hours, it's worth talking about the instant-lynch mechanic in a previous game (GSL Mini II) in regards to the deadline length. The 72 hour day made people really complacent about contributing early (and leading to last-minute deadline scrambles), which should be avoided at all costs this game. We have time, but don't be afraid to contribute early and often. @ Ben RichardsThat thing by Alex Hesse you pointed out is really off. It's a "too scummy to be scum" read, and is questionable logic at best. The entire post is just strange - he seems to be half-accusing you of being scum and then overall disagreeing with the scumread on you. Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 23:44 Alex Hesse wrote:On October 17 2012 15:48 Alan Schaefer wrote:
Longer posts don't make the thread more readable. Clearly you've never played with gonzaw.
[...] ROFL I'm not going to lynch you, you're funny. I wanted to bash Ben Richards for all the things he wrote but I see that Harry Tasker has done this for me. The only thing I disagree with is the conclusion; I don't think that Ben Richards is scum right now because it makes no sense for scum to push scum agenda in their first post. It's simply barely ever worth it to stick your neck out like that and say obviously wrongs things like "Don't use posting style for analysis". I think it's a little scummy that he's just repeating me on his "Be careful of lynch-a-lurker policies because scum will just not lurk then", the consolidation thing could be said by either alignment but as Harry Tasker pointed out it's probably not going to be a problem. This is a 7 player game, not a 80 player beast, and it's going to be easy enough to read by everyone. Not doing 20 page one-liner tunneling fests and consolidating isn't the same thing at all. I also think it's townie for him to say that scum can easily fake things like posting style and activity patterns because I don't think that's true at all. People have sleeping patterns and they have work and school, most people have only around 2-4 hours where they are really active on mafia. I consider this a townie thing to say because generally townies think it's a lot easier to be scum than scum think it is. Consequently, I disagree with the scum read on Ben Richards. I don't agree that Harry Tasker wants to "roleplay" his character at all though. I want Alex Hesse to be me, because scum will have an easier time faking me faking Alex Hesse than they will have faking just good old me. Also, I have no clue who most of these guys are even though I get the theme of "Arnold Schwarzenegger characters". Read the red/bolded line then read his conclusion. It makes no sense for him to include that in his analysis. In addition, the whole post is just incredibly over-justified for this point in the game.
however, i like this post. Feeling conflicted about DQ.
I also very much don't like ben richards's first post.
I'm going to make a point of posting in this thread every time I open it. I usually don't do that, but I agree with those who've pointed out that in this game getting content into the thread is more important than ever.
|
@Alan, what do you not like about Ben Richards first post exactly?
@DQ, I will field your question about Alex.
I don't see anything scum or scum agenda pushing in Alex's posts so far and while he disagrees with some of my posts I don't feel like he does it in a scummy way. The problem I do have with his posting is even this early in the game it is lacking in content. His posts also read as being carefully worded and thought out, like how he answered to the accusations against his contradiction. He seems like he didn't want to cause a stir centering around him, despite me answering for him in what I believe to be a reasonable manner and explaination.
+ Show Spoiler +
you can all be jealous that I am a character from the greatest movie of all time
|
On October 18 2012 03:48 Douglas Quaid wrote:
Goddamnit I can't read. Questions not supposed to be asked in thread. Bah.
Anywho, since you're around Harry, what do you think of Alex?
Not sure, I don't like the scum wouldn't push a scum agenda point either, but I did like his viewpoint on how townies/scum view playing scum.
I also agree with him on the voting. I really disagree with whoever it was (Jack?) who said we should collect our FoS and then vote. To me, this sounds like a way for scum having to worry far less about how they're casting their votes. And as Alex said, we're not stupid, so I *want* scum to worry about how they're voting (rather than going "this is the time for voting guise!") as I know I can always explain mine just fine. The more shit scum have to worry about the better, and trying to lay down voting rules beyond common sense doesn't seem to help this.
|
On October 18 2012 04:04 Jack Slater wrote:@Alan, what do you not like about Ben Richards first post exactly? @DQ, I will field your question about Alex. I don't see anything scum or scum agenda pushing in Alex's posts so far and while he disagrees with some of my posts I don't feel like he does it in a scummy way. The problem I do have with his posting is even this early in the game it is lacking in content. His posts also read as being carefully worded and thought out, like how he answered to the accusations against his contradiction. He seems like he didn't want to cause a stir centering around him, despite me answering for him in what I believe to be a reasonable manner and explaination. + Show Spoiler +
you can all be jealous that I am a character from the greatest movie of all time
it's really easy for scum to make silly contributions like that
plus all of his points are either wrong or obvious
plus it's a list and I just don't like lists.
|
Harry, I don't think you understand my plan. For all intents and purposes the FOS's are meant to serve as your "vote" but because it will not be officially counted 2 or 3 incorrect FOS's that are going to be changed can't be hammered by scum and then have them just switch accounts.
Scum don't have to worry about looking scummy as long as they can lockdown a mislynch. I don't want them having any control over who and when we lynch someone
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
