Deadline is in
thenewearth is temporarily V/LA.
I second this (regarding 2's prolific posting).In post 234, RedCoyote wrote:That's just noise. That's cluttering the thread with junk.
This is a good point. I've only ever said that as scum (I believe). Does anyone else find this an odd thing for Mr. E to say, or is it just a one-off thing?In post 241, goodmorning wrote: @Mr E: Why are you assuming you'll flip? Why mention flips now?
Obviously. Cases are based on the assumption of the suspect's flip.In post 242, Mr E Roll wrote:I mention flips because that was what TNE’s reads/case on 2 seemed to be based on.
This post indicates otherwise, to bring up just one example (of many).In post 255, ² wrote:Maybe I'm posting both quality and quantity.In post 234, RedCoyote wrote:Maybe you posting 10 times more than every other player fools tne and goodmorning, but it sure as hell doesn't fool me. Quality > quantity.
- b
So.... where is your response?In post 256, ² wrote:I'm sorry that I didn't get around to responding to it sooner.In post 237, A_Stone wrote:Btw, 2, the Spoilered part of my post was addressed to you
- b
As RC pointed out... it's not the quantity of posts that is disturbing, it is the quality (which is in the toilet).In post 268, RachMarie wrote:Syndrome, atm I am leaning town on Squared... that may change when I get a chance to really look at the ISOs, but from what I have seen they seem to be ok, as for the heavy level of posting, both heads are really hyperactive types who post a shitaki amount, so yeah not good enough for a case on them...
And no. You took the time to post this, you might as well have given something of a reason, and then explained in more detail later.
I never claimed every single one of my posts lives up to these criteria.In post 276, EspeciallyTheLies wrote:This post indicates otherwise, to bring up just one example (of many).
I responded to what I found relevant to respond to. If I missed something that you'd like me to respond to, point it out.In post 276, EspeciallyTheLies wrote:So.... where is your response?
This is not true. Perhaps you're simple not emotionally or intellectually capable of understanding the concerns I've raised regarding A_stone. In fact, you thinking that this could be bussing would suggest just that. f will hate me for this post, but I'm not going to phrase it in any diplomatic way.In post 276, EspeciallyTheLies wrote:Conclusion: A_Stone is looking pretty scummy, but so is 2. Bussing maybe? I don't know, but I'm going back to 2; the recent posts have been nothing but distraction. There's been no real content, discussion or actual responses to anyone (go ahead, go look, I just did).
VOTE: 2
I'm not and wasn't. And this still isn't an explanation of your vote on Rach.In post 280, syndromeofatown wrote:Hey how about you don't tell me what to do or tell me what I can and cannot post and when. Thanks.And no. You took the time to post this, you might as well have given something of a reason, and then explained in more detail later.
Weren't you the one talking about assessing actions based on whether it was town-motivated or scum-motivated? What town motivation is there in randomly voting someone and not sharing the thought process behind it? Maybe he saw something the rest of us missed? Instead of just explaining it, he gave me attitude.
If you bothered to actually read anything I've said, you'd know how I feel about A_Stone. I just happen to think you may also be scum. Ad Hom isn't a good defense.In post 279, ² wrote:Perhaps you're simple not emotionally or intellectually capable of understanding the concerns I've raised regarding A_stone.
Sorry, I thought that the random-ness of the vote was implied.In post 265, ² wrote:Yes, the initial vote. Then you started tunneling. Then I asked you if it was random, which you didn't answer. Then, when you ran into some trouble, you unvoted me, asserting that the vote had always been random.In post 263, A_Stone wrote:You're overthinking this way too much, my vote on you *was* random.
- b
Yes, yes it was.
>.> Are you ever going to answer why the question had to be asked, or are you just going to make a case on how I'm backpedaling to the sunrise in your opinionIn post 264, ² wrote:Yes you do, but you have to pretend not to at this point to backpedal out of this. It's not going to work.In post 263, A_Stone wrote:I still want to know why you had to ask, you said it wasn't obvious to you it was a player, and yet the post beforehand said he was giving him scumvibes? I don't see *how* the acronym wasn't apparent, everyone else understood it.
- b
1. I unvoted when I thought it was the general consensus that RVS was over, there was no point in holding my RVS vote after that point.In post 266, Mr E Roll wrote:@A_Stone assuming your vote on 2 was random all that time why did you feel it necessary to Unvote at that specific time? You say it’s because we left RVS but without placing a new vote it doesn’t look likeyouleft RVS.
It seems to me you took your vote off of 2 hoping to stop the back and fourth with him.
It also looks like you are trying to redirect attention away from yourself by asking for more content from some of the more lurkerish players.
It's just a trait of mine, I'm quite apologetic irl too.In post 273, EspeciallyTheLies wrote:A_Stone's 230 is really bugging me. The responses in the spoiler come off almosttoo agreeable. Scum will often try to appease the concerns of the town in order to seem more friendly, and think it makes them look less scummy. 230 feels very scummy to me.
He looks like he has an amazingly strong presence doesn't he, then suddenly we realize he's using a post to answer every question individually.In post 285, RachMarie wrote:
Am I supposed to just vote for 2 even if I dont think they are likely to be scum just cause peeps dont like how much they post?
Huh, I'd have thought it'd be the opposite, wouldn't Scum care wayyyy more about how they looked to the town, and try to look more uniform?In post 269, goodmorning wrote:IIRC, the theory behind it is that Townies tend to be paranoid, which tenses them up.In post 263, A_Stone wrote:I'll look into it a bit more then.In post 241, goodmorning wrote:@Stone: Not off the top of my head.
Rach's posts so far this game have been terrible. buldermar and I have both brought her up in our convos. our experience (more bulder's than mine - I have played one completed game with her) is that she posts like this regardless of alignment, but it's still terrible. soat reacting to her posts the way he did makes town sense to us. My initial read of soat was town. It softened a bit toward null, but those two posts firmed the read back up, and to me that was comment-worthy.In post 283, EspeciallyTheLies wrote:Weren't you the one talking about assessing actions based on whether it was town-motivated or scum-motivated? What town motivation is there in randomly voting someone and not sharing the thought process behind it? Maybe he saw something the rest of us missed? Instead of just explaining it, he gave me attitude.
Basically, I have a really strong case if gut and associative tells are a really strong case, which intellectually they aren't.In post 287, RachMarie wrote:uhhhh...
When you come back after some sleep could you like rephrase that into something more understandable?
Thanks
so...are you thinking hold on to the case and see if something objective develops? or lay out the case and see what others make of it?In post 291, goodmorning wrote:Basically, I have a really strong case if gut and associative tells are a really strong case, which intellectually they aren't.In post 287, RachMarie wrote:uhhhh...
When you come back after some sleep could you like rephrase that into something more understandable?
Thanks
Also I'm sad that you didn't mention that we have a game together :[
If her posts so far have been completely terrible why did you have her as a null read?In post 289, ² wrote:Rach's posts so far this game have been terrible. buldermar and I have both brought her up in our convos. our experience (more bulder's than mine - I have played one completed game with her) is that she posts like this regardless of alignment, but it's still terrible
meta. the overall lack of content is a good match for the borkgame I played with her (as part of another hydra), though possibly slightly worse than day 1 of that game. I didn't move off null in that game until day 3 iirc. My partner (orcinus) had her null-town based on his own prior experiences.In post 294, syndromeofatown wrote:If her posts so far have been completely terrible why did you have her as a null read?In post 289, ² wrote:Rach's posts so far this game have been terrible. buldermar and I have both brought her up in our convos. our experience (more bulder's than mine - I have played one completed game with her) is that she posts like this regardless of alignment, but it's still terrible
Why shouldn't they?In post 277, ² wrote:I never claimed every single one of my posts lives up to these criteria.In post 276, EspeciallyTheLies wrote:This post indicates otherwise, to bring up just one example (of many).