|
@nobodywonder
You wanted to hear from me as to why I voted Rainbows and then unvoted.
How was it not absolutely clear that those were not serious votes?
My read on you is that you are trying to start Drama based on nothing which is a pretty scummy thing to do.
So to recap your first post in this thread is an analysis of joke votes. Your second post is just asking Warent what he thinks of Rainbow. And your third post is commenting on Rainbows giving Saraf a free pass. Furthermore you think Warrent is scummy because he hasn't been committal. But the same could be said about you. You haven't committed, you wrote a weak analysis of joke votes, and you aren't active.
I don't like that you haven't actually contributed analysis on anything that hasn't been a joke.
|
A bunch of generic pro-town things being advocated. He provides a (bad) summary of events in the thread and... that's it.
I was not providing a summary of events in the thread - I was summing up your actions. Perhaps it wasn't clear enough, no worries, hopefully this will make things more clear.
##Vote Rainbow
As far as policies goes, this is my opinion: we should not lynch people based on whims, misinterpretations or lies.
Rainbows third, so called, case against Saraf is completely based on either an obvious misinterpretation or a lie.
Saraf:
even if the spammiest asshole is just some poor well-meaning fattie (who should have applied the litmus test "does this post help town?")
Rainbow:
I think we should all rally around lynching Saraf, because he called me town and expressed interest in lynching someone he called probably town.
Rainbow:
Saraf seems to know I'm town, because he refers to me as such and tells me how I should be playing.
Saraf has never called Rainbow town. Even if does NOT equal probably town! Rainbow must know this.
I don't think this is a misinterpretation, I think this is Rainbow trying to create something out of nothing. Most likely reason the obvious one - he is scum. And he's not helping himself when he refuses to explain his own action but rather continue to accuse others.
|
On April 05 2013 21:49 Smancer wrote:I'll point out also that Molock and jkirby both think Rainbows is scum in these two posts 3 minutes apart. My initial thought is that they are scum looking to get a bandwagon vote on Rainbows. + Show Spoiler +On April 05 2013 14:57 Moloch wrote:Show nested quote +Moloch, in this post you calling Rainbows scum in a noncommital way (bolded by me). Do you think he is actually scummy for that post? That was supposed to be a joke at that point. I didn't actually think he was scummy at that point. My original vote for him was a joke as well, since it was based upon him posting a lot early and not having enough time to eat pizza. But, I've kept my vote on him for a couple reasons. According to this post, he gets very defensive about about being called scum, whereas I interpreted Saraf's comment to not be calling out anyone in particular - just being the way he thought about stuff. (It's possible that I don't feel like anyone's been spammy so far affected how I interpreted it). I also don't like how he changed his vote from Smancer to someone else to quickly. He gave a reason he thought Smancer was a suspect, then just changed it to Saraf because he got overly defensive (but he had a couple posts in between Saraf labeling him and switching his vote, which makes me suspect that it wasn't a hasty vote-switch caused by emotion) I'm not certain about anyone, but Rainbows seems like the best bet at the moment. On April 05 2013 15:00 jrkirby wrote:
So I'm worried about rainbows. I feel like he might actually be a fatty, and is just acting stupid by accusing random people for no reason. But the way he's acting is just stupid, and only helps the skinnies. And since he's just helping the skinnies I feel like I have to vote for him, because no one is acting as stupid as him. I don't want to lynch all the lurkers just yet - partially because there's 3 of them and it's a crapshot - and rainbows is the only other guy giving off that scum vibe. So until something changes, or one of the scum making a foolish post, my vote is on rainbows.
The mafia are (probably) gonna kill one of us tonight, so it would be good if we at least have a chance of killing one of them tonight. It might not be rainbows but I feel like the chances are better than even.
##Unvote rainbows
By this logic you and jarjar are scum trying to bandwagon me. But just because two people vote for the same person doesn't automatically mean they're scum.
My read on rainbows wasn't very strong. There's actually someone else I've got my eye on now, but he hasn't shown any real evidence, it's just a hunch.
|
What drama?
LOL you complain about me being useless and summarizing. What is this post I see, a summary of my posts... Wow so useful, I don't even...
The things that you said can also be applied to you. I don't like how you sheeped onto the jrkirby vote. First you respond to JJD's vote by bringing up an association scenario and then vote jrkirby with a weak reason. Take your own advice, sir. (in bold)
On April 05 2013 21:49 Smancer wrote:I'll point out also that Molock and jkirby both think Rainbows is scum in these two posts 3 minutes apart. My initial thought is that they are scum looking to get a bandwagon vote on Rainbows. + Show Spoiler +On April 05 2013 14:57 Moloch wrote:Show nested quote +Moloch, in this post you calling Rainbows scum in a noncommital way (bolded by me). Do you think he is actually scummy for that post? That was supposed to be a joke at that point. I didn't actually think he was scummy at that point. My original vote for him was a joke as well, since it was based upon him posting a lot early and not having enough time to eat pizza. But, I've kept my vote on him for a couple reasons. According to this post, he gets very defensive about about being called scum, whereas I interpreted Saraf's comment to not be calling out anyone in particular - just being the way he thought about stuff. (It's possible that I don't feel like anyone's been spammy so far affected how I interpreted it). I also don't like how he changed his vote from Smancer to someone else to quickly. He gave a reason he thought Smancer was a suspect, then just changed it to Saraf because he got overly defensive (but he had a couple posts in between Saraf labeling him and switching his vote, which makes me suspect that it wasn't a hasty vote-switch caused by emotion) I'm not certain about anyone, but Rainbows seems like the best bet at the moment. On April 05 2013 15:00 jrkirby wrote:
So I'm worried about rainbows. I feel like he might actually be a fatty, and is just acting stupid by accusing random people for no reason. But the way he's acting is just stupid, and only helps the skinnies. And since he's just helping the skinnies I feel like I have to vote for him, because no one is acting as stupid as him. I don't want to lynch all the lurkers just yet - partially because there's 3 of them and it's a crapshot - and rainbows is the only other guy giving off that scum vibe. So until something changes, or one of the scum making a foolish post, my vote is on rainbows.
The mafia are (probably) gonna kill one of us tonight, so it would be good if we at least have a chance of killing one of them tonight. It might not be rainbows but I feel like the chances are better than even.
On April 05 2013 21:54 Smancer wrote:
##vote: jrkirby
I'll vote him for now, because I feel he is acting scum and trying to point fingers at the one person who actually got the thread moving toward finding scum.
@Rainbows what is your read on jrkirby.
anyways I have class now won't be able to respond til many hours
|
Oh just saw a new post from jrkirby, interesting. Just tell us your scumread, and town will be delighted.
What wtf? that doesn't make sense, you have an eye on someone but he hasn't shown any real evidence. Doesn't that mean that someone isn't a very good candidate. What? Why even bother to mention this? It doesn't make sense, this only serves to give you another out or freebie to bandwagon when someone acts stupid/scummy. Go get scumhunting, you noncommital person.
I more I reread this, the more I dislike you. ##Vote: jrkirby
now i gtg since class is too soon
|
On April 06 2013 01:14 nobodywonder wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 15:00 jrkirby wrote:
So I'm worried about rainbows. I feel like he might actually be a fatty, and is just acting stupid by accusing random people for no reason. But the way he's acting is just stupid, and only helps the skinnies. And since he's just helping the skinnies I feel like I have to vote for him, because no one is acting as stupid as him. I don't want to lynch all the lurkers just yet - partially because there's 3 of them and it's a crapshot - and rainbows is the only other guy giving off that scum vibe. So until something changes, or one of the scum making a foolish post, my vote is on rainbows.
The mafia are (probably) gonna kill one of us tonight, so it would be good if we at least have a chance of killing one of them tonight. It might not be rainbows but I feel like the chances are better than even. On the subject of jrkirby, I really don't like his metaphors because it is subject to interpretation and thus we cannot really know what jrkirby is thinking. Also I feel his talk about lurkers was unnecessary at the time. We hadn't really mentioned lurkers in general. Overall his whole post gives him a way out to freely switch around, something that I don't like and to indicates a level of scumminess. That said he better be thorough when he switches, because otherwise I think that jrkirby is scum.
People were definitely talking about lurkers before me. Also if people don't like metaphors I won't use them in the future.
And how do you expect anyone to be entirely sure of a lynch on the first night? No one except scum and maybe the wow raiders has any guaranteed info at all. I was just throwing my vote at the most likely candidate at the time, and I'll keep switching as long as I think there's a more likely candidate. Hopefully I find a better read soon.
|
On April 06 2013 01:24 Warent wrote:Show nested quote +A bunch of generic pro-town things being advocated. He provides a (bad) summary of events in the thread and... that's it. I was not providing a summary of events in the thread - I was summing up your actions. Perhaps it wasn't clear enough, no worries, hopefully this will make things more clear. ##Vote RainbowAs far as policies goes, this is my opinion: we should not lynch people based on whims, misinterpretations or lies. Rainbows third, so called, case against Saraf is completely based on either an obvious misinterpretation or a lie. Saraf: Show nested quote +even if the spammiest asshole is just some poor well-meaning fattie (who should have applied the litmus test "does this post help town?")
Rainbow: Show nested quote +I think we should all rally around lynching Saraf, because he called me town and expressed interest in lynching someone he called probably town. Rainbow: Show nested quote +Saraf seems to know I'm town, because he refers to me as such and tells me how I should be playing. Saraf has never called Rainbow town. Even if does NOT equal probably town! Rainbow must know this. I don't think this is a misinterpretation, I think this is Rainbow trying to create something out of nothing. Most likely reason the obvious one - he is scum. And he's not helping himself when he refuses to explain his own action but rather continue to accuse others.
You were summing up the thread because I was the only one doing things.
Saraf literally said: EVEN IF YOU'RE TOWN YOU SHOULD BE LYNCHED. Your defence is lawlzy, please try harder.
|
Hi guys. I'm only here for this post; I'll try to be on intermittently throughout the day but until I get my internet set up at my new house this evening, I can't guarantee anything. I will definitely have time to post more in the second half of this day, though. Until Saraf shows up again, I don't think we can really get a good read on him. Rainbows' point on the previous page makes sense to me; in that Saraf hadn't brought up any real discussion - but that's why we're waiting, presumably haha.
I don't really like Warent's vote on Rainbows. Honestly, I sort of dismissed the early votes because they didn't mean much to me - it felt like it was too early for serious votes [even including Rainbows specifically saying his vote, at one point, was serious] - it did, however, make me feel that Rainbows was more likely to be townish than not (at that point in time). Most of the votes seem tentative - in a "Well, for now, he's a reasonable choice" way. If I had to pick a scumread, at the moment, it would be Warent for his vote and justification - things may change, though. I haven't really had the focus to read the thread in depth, rather than just looking at the surface. + Show Spoiler +Was slightly manic yesterday so my posting was sort of... unfocused and spammish - -; Apologies apologies etc etc.
jrkirby - Hopefully you're willing to expand on your possible scumread later today, assuming they post reasonably. ^^ (nobodywonder, I don't really get how you could actively think a person is noncommittal with the little posting that's happened - everyone seems sort of noncommittal, and voting feels more like testing the waters at this point.)
I'm a little perplexed as to how JarJar was able to walk in, vote, and walk out without anybody finding it worth mention. jkirby, what do you have to say about his comments?
(I'll try to be on throughout the day, but I might not be back for a little while. Will answer any questions directed to me when I get back.)
|
On April 06 2013 01:49 Rainbows wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 01:24 Warent wrote:A bunch of generic pro-town things being advocated. He provides a (bad) summary of events in the thread and... that's it. I was not providing a summary of events in the thread - I was summing up your actions. Perhaps it wasn't clear enough, no worries, hopefully this will make things more clear. ##Vote RainbowAs far as policies goes, this is my opinion: we should not lynch people based on whims, misinterpretations or lies. Rainbows third, so called, case against Saraf is completely based on either an obvious misinterpretation or a lie. Saraf: even if the spammiest asshole is just some poor well-meaning fattie (who should have applied the litmus test "does this post help town?")
Rainbow: I think we should all rally around lynching Saraf, because he called me town and expressed interest in lynching someone he called probably town. Rainbow: Saraf seems to know I'm town, because he refers to me as such and tells me how I should be playing. Saraf has never called Rainbow town. Even if does NOT equal probably town! Rainbow must know this. I don't think this is a misinterpretation, I think this is Rainbow trying to create something out of nothing. Most likely reason the obvious one - he is scum. And he's not helping himself when he refuses to explain his own action but rather continue to accuse others. You were summing up the thread because I was the only one doing things. Saraf literally said: EVEN IF YOU'RE TOWN YOU SHOULD BE LYNCHED. Your defence is lawlzy, please try harder.
He did. And you are trying to make Even if you are into probably are. These are two very different statements. What reasons do you have for twisting the meaning like that, unless you are trying to promote a miss-lynch?
|
You can tell by the context that he thinks I'm probably town. Just look at the statement where he tells me what I should be asking myself this game as town.
Regardless, he wants to lynch me despite my alignment which is not town-mindset at all. We can keep arguing syntax or lynch scum, kk?
|
Jarjar hasn't posted enough to get a good read off. But I don't think he's too serious. If he is, he needs a lot better justification than that.
he said "Anyone that votes for someone and then defends them is gonna read scum to me."
I was just clarifying that I saw rainbow as scum then (and I'm still suspicious), it really isn't a solid read.
But yeah, jarjar really needs to say more. Two posts in this thread and one is a vote with almost no justification. It's not clearly scum, but it makes me leery.
|
I wish it were easier to tell the difference between stupid townie and scum T.T
|
On April 06 2013 02:21 jrkirby wrote:
I wish it were easier to tell the difference between stupid townie and scum T.T
You actually rose really high on my town meter for this post. :o
|
On April 05 2013 23:37 Rainbows wrote:NobodywonderShow nested quote +On April 05 2013 16:03 nobodywonder wrote:Well I can't say scum for sure, but I definitely don't like it. Rainbow votes Smancer. Then Rainbow unvotes, then talks about his policy that there should be no policy and that everyone has their own policy. Rainbow then brings up a policy scenario. Well, he states it isn't policy based. Well to me, it sounds like it is, since a policy defines a set of actions in response to certain behavior. I don't know that Rainbow would bring a policy question and call it not policy, seems like he's cautiously gauging townie response and the town meta. Honestly, I want a response from not only Rainbow but also Smancer, since to me, it's interesting that Rainbow voted Smancer, unvoted Smancer and then voted Smancer again. In response Smancer had voted Rainbows and then unvoted Rainbow. I just a lil' weirded out by the voting trend. + Show Spoiler +As a little meta thing, Rainbows seems to deviate a lot more from previous games, he did troll vote, but not to extent of this game. He also spams a lot more. NW gives a huge summary. and throws some shit. He meditates on the policy thing, which I told everyone wasn't policy. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW PEOPLE THINK AND POLICY JESUS CHRIST PEOPLE. Had to get out of the way. This post, and subsequently the spoiler, show no effort on NW's part to come to a conrete read on me. He simply says that I'm doing things. He seems really apprehensive about giving an actual read and just flops around. I want peoples opinions of NW. Saraf might just be a banality-spewing town; and I'm unsure if his lolpolicy was serious or not. But NW - that guy. He's scummy.
Seeing as how this is the third game now where NW has been a scummy read day one... have we ever wondered if NW just isn't that bright/isn't that good? I think NW just isn't that great and just makes mistakes and poor judgements that never seem to go well for him.
Just curious rainbows: Do you think Saraf or Nobodywonder has a higher chance of being scum, seeing as how right now the way I read it based off that wording is that you yourself are now voting for a guy you think might be town compared to a guy you think is scummy.
|
On April 06 2013 02:20 jrkirby wrote:
Jarjar hasn't posted enough to get a good read off. But I don't think he's too serious. If he is, he needs a lot better justification than that.
he said "Anyone that votes for someone and then defends them is gonna read scum to me." You don't think that's scummy behavior?
I was just clarifying that I saw rainbow as scum then (and I'm still suspicious), it really isn't a solid read. That's not really what you said. Your exact quote was: "And since he's just helping the skinnies I feel like I have to vote for him, because no one is acting as stupid as him." How can I not read as "I'm voting for someone that i think is just a bad townie"?
|
On April 06 2013 03:25 JarJarDrinks wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 02:20 jrkirby wrote:
Jarjar hasn't posted enough to get a good read off. But I don't think he's too serious. If he is, he needs a lot better justification than that.
he said "Anyone that votes for someone and then defends them is gonna read scum to me." You don't think that's scummy behavior? Show nested quote +I was just clarifying that I saw rainbow as scum then (and I'm still suspicious), it really isn't a solid read. That's not really what you said. Your exact quote was: "And since he's just helping the skinnies I feel like I have to vote for him, because no one is acting as stupid as him." How can I not read as "I'm voting for someone that i think is just a bad townie"?
On the first day, no real townie can be 100% confidant about their reads. How could we? We have no real information, just superficial shit like "oh he kinda implied he wants to kill a townie in some backhand fasion." We can get guesses, like "That guy is making suspicious votes and acting like scum, while there is a chance he's just a stupid townie, there's still a better than neutral chance that he's scum."
My vote for rainbows was the latter. At that time, I thought there was a better than neutral chance of him being scum. I didn't want to kill him because I thought he was a bad townie, I thought he might just be a bad townie because he's giving off scum vibes.
|
What about you jarjar? What do you think about rainbows? or any other player for that matter? Because you've only talked about me so far.
|
On April 06 2013 03:45 jrkirby wrote:
What about you jarjar? What do you think about rainbows? or any other player for that matter? Because you've only talked about me so far. Reading rainbows as town mostly but that's due in part to believing that you're scum. He's talking alot which I like. Though he did that in the last game which had me fooled for quite a bit.
My turn for a question: Why did you unvote?
|
Rainbows, are you here? You haven't answeared my questions here and here. I'm not sure about your alingment and answearing these questions would help me with that.
Warrent, your filter still doesn't give information what you think about anyone other than Rainbows. I'm sure you must have opinions on others.
TheRavenName, I wasn't calling Rainbows for policy lynching, I was interpreting Sarafs post for him.
|
Because my read on him wasn't very strong, and there are a lot more things for me to think about here. My vote on him was never too serious, he was just a sore thumb.
If you like people talking a lot, why have you been so quiet thus far?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
