↑ Zoidberg wrote:
Could someone please clarify what this means for me?
I rank people on a scale of 0 (absolute town) to 100 (absolute scum). Everybody starts at 50 (and almost nobody goes below 50, because of me being super-skeptical about the existence of towntells). Scumtells push the score up. A score of +3 is a minor scumtell, +5 is a normal scumtell, +10 is serious, etc.
Main reason I use the system is just that it better helps me track how I feel about people over time (as in, there's no reason why something which is scummy on p 10 becomes less scummy over time - a scumtell is a scumtell no matter when it happens; whereas I find that there is a natural tendency to treat the present/more recent events as more weighty). Also, the way I play is more directed at discrete tells rather than "general reads" (and I detest gut-based play) - so using the points directly ties my suspicions to specific tells (and, in turn, gives me an easy way of responding whenever people ask why I suspect a particular person).
↑ Zoidberg wrote: ↑ vollkan wrote:What's your reason for thinking that?
-The case on Drench and BT I felt was legit
I followed the reasoning of the BT one, but in a nutshell, what do you understand the Drench case to be?
↑ Ythan wrote: ↑ vollkan wrote:My questioning of Quilford consisted of 310 words, in 10 posts, over 47 minutes. I hardly think that's excessive.
But they were all pretty dumb. It's a silly case imo.
How? Quilford claimed he'd done something for X reason. X reason did not appear to make sense. So I questioned him about it.
Yes, it didn't end up being a smoking gun, but that doesn't mean it was "silly" - nor does it mean I was "trying too hard" (hint: "The Interrogator" is my title for a reason)
[quote="ThunderHog"
- I initially placed my vote due to Drench's post 385. It makes a great point which I agreed with completely.
- Move to post 421. BT tries to subtly hop on the Quill wagon with crap logic. P-hydra's post 424 addressed this issue - which cemented my vote, IMO.
- BT's post 475. He attempts to address me stating that he was not trying to build a case against Quill, when, in-fact, he was. Ythan's post 483 addressed this as well.
[/quote]
Thunder+5
UNVOTE: Zoidberg
VOTE: Thunder
1) Post 385 doesn't make any sense at all as a reason to suspect BT. BT had declared his opinion on trollie and SPB, but why does that make it scummy to ask other people for their reasons?
2) a) What part of 421 "subtly"? He had four lines of reasoning and a vote. What, exactly, is "subtle" about that? I'll tell you what is subtle though - using an emotive word like "subtly" to try and make a completely non-suspicious thing sound insidious.
b) Craplogic? Why?
c) 424 didn't actually address the issue at all. 424 was about the (valid) retreat option/fallback point.
3) Did you even read 475? here, let me quote:
↑ BT wrote: ↑ ThunderHog wrote:Post 424 is a big one, IMO. It builds an entire case against BT with only a single sentence
Problem with that Thunderhog is that 424 isn't a case - it only interprets my moves in a particular way so of course it'd "make sense" but only that.
He isn't denying that HE was trying to build a case on Quilford - because he isn't even referring to his attack on quilford. He's saying that 424 (ie. p-dra's post against him) isn't a case but simply an interpretation of his actions.
4*) Striking thing about each your three reasons above is that in every one, you refer to other people's posts to support your own arguments. Insecure, much?
1D wrote:
vollkan do you have any reads on people you haven't given points to? if so who (and what read?)
No, anything that I consider as alignment-relevant is captured in my points.
