NY 172: Another Large Normal (GAME OVER)

[projectmatt]

Uh yeah actually, Mr. Rodgers literally said "we gain good info from their wagon". Did you just intentionally misinterpret what I said?

Oh apparently I missed that Rogers post. I assumed Rogers was voting him for being willfully obtuse.

That is the primary reason but the info is my secondary reason.

@Matt: Look, I just find it bizarre that people, experienced people, would actually scum read him from his early posting. It has stuck out to me all game; apparently you and a few others have noticed it too.

I think he has hurt the game state terribly and removing him would help to address the bizarre push from certain people like Pere & Thad.

PEDIT: I read his posting as town too (after the "scum" claim not because of it).

I see where you're coming from and agree with your logic entirely up to the point where you think it's a good idea to lynch BJC. The pushes on him have been odd, and that's even more reason not to lynch him. He hasn't hurt the game state much at all, and I think liability lynching is bad.

[Mister Rogers]

Since I think the actual issue surrounding Luca is like inane, no, I didn't go look.

I think the PK issue needs addressing though.

That's not what you say here. You clearly think my read of Luca is important.

What I thought was important was your description of your previous play with Luca. DG pointed out that it didn't match up with the description and I wanted to see your answer.

Which didn't address the point. Why didn't you respond to DG's follow-up to you about it?

First it should be noted that pisskop was playing the completed game with Luca in (Luca was town, pisskop was scum), and so having been in it he has more of a feel for the game as a whole compared to me who just read through Luca's ISO.

That being said, I generally disagree with pisskop's bolded statement.

Luca would admittedly fall away from the game for days at a time, but his posting was ok if not inspiring. He contributed much more to the early game than he has here, and also did not prod dodge as he has here

.

This?

I don't see any discrepancy between my attitude about all the non-content posters and Luca

.

These don't match up.

And, and more evidence that you do think its important.

And, no.

[PeregrineV]

Talah/Mastin Meta Dispute: instinct: when it comes to meta, ime, there's usually at least one scum involved. Either from the two fighting over meta or the person that steps in and defends/attacks one of the others - haven't parsed through this, thought it should be noted anyway.

Curious as to how you are going to resolve the argument of meta between the two when, between the two, it's entirely subjective.

[Mister Rogers]

Uh yeah actually, Mr. Rodgers literally said "we gain good info from their wagon". Did you just intentionally misinterpret what I said?

Oh apparently I missed that Rogers post. I assumed Rogers was voting him for being willfully obtuse.

That is the primary reason but the info is my secondary reason.

@Matt: Look, I just find it bizarre that people, experienced people, would actually scum read him from his early posting. It has stuck out to me all game; apparently you and a few others have noticed it too.

I think he has hurt the game state terribly and removing him would help to address the bizarre push from certain people like Pere & Thad.

PEDIT: I read his posting as town too (after the "scum" claim not because of it).

I see where you're coming from and agree with your logic entirely up to the point where you think it's a good idea to lynch BJC. The pushes on him have been odd, and that's even more reason not to lynch him. He hasn't hurt the game state much at all, and I think liability lynching is bad.

The truth is, I am a closet lynch all lurkers fanatic but I have repressed that impulse due to site meta. Even though recovery is a daily ongoing process, I do completely agree with you but only to the point to where he thumbed his nose at us.

[4nxi3ty]

@PV, ehhh I'm not going to resolve their argument at all; i'm go to dig through the event and think on how it played out tho between the two and anyone else

[projectmatt]

Uh yeah actually, Mr. Rodgers literally said "we gain good info from their wagon". Did you just intentionally misinterpret what I said?

Oh apparently I missed that Rogers post. I assumed Rogers was voting him for being willfully obtuse.

That is the primary reason but the info is my secondary reason.

@Matt: Look, I just find it bizarre that people, experienced people, would actually scum read him from his early posting. It has stuck out to me all game; apparently you and a few others have noticed it too.

I think he has hurt the game state terribly and removing him would help to address the bizarre push from certain people like Pere & Thad.

PEDIT: I read his posting as town too (after the "scum" claim not because of it).

I see where you're coming from and agree with your logic entirely up to the point where you think it's a good idea to lynch BJC. The pushes on him have been odd, and that's even more reason not to lynch him. He hasn't hurt the game state much at all, and I think liability lynching is bad.

The truth is, I am a closet lynch all lurkers fanatic but I have repressed that impulse due to site meta. Even though recovery is a daily ongoing process, I do completely agree with you but only to the point to where he thumbed his nose at us.

I think the "lynch all lurkers" strategy is very poor. More useful is the whole "lynch the mafia" type strategy I would strongly urge you to seriously reconsider where your vote is and the purpose it currently serves. I understand being annoyed by BJC's play but I think we both know there's a lot more bigger fish to fry.

[pisskop]

Just going to put this out there

vote: Mister Rogers

Bad. Bad sweater-man.

[Mister Rogers]

@Pere: Your organizational skills. Are we going to pressure a lurker or are we going to lynch an active poster. At this point its becoming concerning because deadline is approaching and I don't think we can afford to waffle about. Scum I think would love a divided town to waste more time towards the deadline.

[Mister Rogers]

Just going to put this out there

vote: Mister Rogers

Bad. Bad sweater-man.

This is bizarre. Why are you so touchy about Luca?

[pisskop]

Why are you so touchy about Luca?

What does this have to do with Luca? :/ What a terrible question.
I don't like how you select what to respond to, how you analyze posts, or how you push from the background. Also your reads aren't grounded in the game.

How do you nullscum read a player with loads of content for 'having a naturally scummy style.' Lets see meat please.

[Mister Rogers]

Why are you so touchy about Luca?

What does this have to do with Luca? :/ What a terrible question.
I don't like how you select what to respond to, how you analyze posts, or how you push from the background. Also your reads aren't grounded in the game.

How do you nullscum read a player with loads of content for 'having a naturally scummy style.' Lets see meat please.

What's so difficult about that? He's an easy lynch. An easy D1 lynch. Hence the null. I read his tone better which is consistently sincere but he needs watching because he is hard for me to read; I will read scum from him very easily and I would prefer not to lynch town D1 which happens so often with easy lynches.

You still haven't answered DG's question.

[PeregrineV]

@Pere: Your organizational skills. Are we going to pressure a lurker or are we going to lynch an active poster. At this point its becoming concerning because deadline is approaching and I don't think we can afford to waffle about. Scum I think would love a divided town to waste more time towards the deadline.

Activescum- posters are easier to catch as scum later. Pless-mod is on top of prods, etc., so lurkers will most likely be replaced. Scummy lurkers should be hung/vigged. Town lurkers should nut it up and get in here anyway.

I would rather lynch bjc, but would consider Luca, maybe Aptil, maybe Snow. Probably not 4nxiety or DV or BiPolar out of the low posters.

Out of the high posters, cases require more validity. Only ones I'd really consider at this point are talah and pisskop.

[talah]

Pere - I'm not overly concerned with bjc at the moment. He's not inaccessible and has a rather 'fuck you'-ish attitude which I like. For now.

I'd rather get a full set of data to be making assessments from, rather than just be content with the idea that lurkers are some kind of quasi-amputee kittens that we need to feel sorry for and insist that, dammit! they have the RIGHT to lurk!

Pidgeon - Oh I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where Luca said he had some intense real life issues happening and arranged V/LA with a view to replacing out if he was unable to play the game. What's that? He actually apologised for not providing content and promised content and then fucked off to 'scum iz intense'-land? Oh my. Well I suppose we should wait for LUCA TO RESPOND THEN, don't you think?

Anyway I've got a long day ahead of me and I need a break, so I'll be back around my prod timer because you fucks obviously need time to work things out between yourselves anyway. Did I mention that I'm an excellent wagon for those of you that want to push a policy/information lynch? Probably.

Oh and the last couple of posts from matt made my brain feel like it was out of sync with the universe.

[Mister Rogers]

What bigger fish like Aptil??

Why is your push here so fake??????????????

[pisskop]

Wha~? Why did you vote Gant but question mastin for similar sentiment?

Its not DG (the player) that matters as much (in this inquiry) and pardon me once again but this is an outstanding query that has not been answered.

Can you elaborate on this?

mastin2 -- scum very bad entry reads, bad vote switch backpedal. So sad r/l tho.

And this, please.

478 Can you use his ingame content to describe this nullscum read? Like post analysis.

I need to look at those recent posts.

Any luck with this?

Lets see meat please.

Will you start reading players based on their content in game? This is part of why Im negatively reading you.

[Mister Rogers]

Uh yeah actually, Mr. Rodgers literally said "we gain good info from their wagon". Did you just intentionally misinterpret what I said?

Oh apparently I missed that Rogers post. I assumed Rogers was voting him for being willfully obtuse.

That is the primary reason but the info is my secondary reason.

@Matt: Look, I just find it bizarre that people, experienced people, would actually scum read him from his early posting. It has stuck out to me all game; apparently you and a few others have noticed it too.

I think he has hurt the game state terribly and removing him would help to address the bizarre push from certain people like Pere & Thad.

PEDIT: I read his posting as town too (after the "scum" claim not because of it).

I see where you're coming from and agree with your logic entirely up to the point where you think it's a good idea to lynch BJC. The pushes on him have been odd, and that's even more reason not to lynch him. He hasn't hurt the game state much at all, and I think liability lynching is bad.

The truth is, I am a closet lynch all lurkers fanatic but I have repressed that impulse due to site meta. Even though recovery is a daily ongoing process, I do completely agree with you but only to the point to where he thumbed his nose at us.

I think the "lynch all lurkers" strategy is very poor. More useful is the whole "lynch the mafia" type strategy I would strongly urge you to seriously reconsider where your vote is and the purpose it currently serves. I understand being annoyed by BJC's play but I think we both know there's a lot more bigger fish to fry.

What bigger fish like Aptil??

Why is your push here so fake??????????????

[Mister Rogers]

Wha~? Why did you vote Gant but question mastin for similar sentiment?

Its not DG (the player) that matters as much (in this inquiry) and pardon me once again but this is an outstanding query that has not been answered.

Can you elaborate on this?

mastin2 -- scum very bad entry reads, bad vote switch backpedal. So sad r/l tho.

And this, please.

478 Can you use his ingame content to describe this nullscum read? Like post analysis.

I need to look at those recent posts.

Any luck with this?

Lets see meat please.

Will you start reading players based on their content in game? This is part of why Im negatively reading you.

So you have chosen not to listen to me. I told you that its not DG the player that matters it was the vote switch. Mastin has not really returned to the game and actually it kind of sucks because that horse has left the barn so long ago and the game is entirely different.

You answer DG's question.

[pisskop]

10-4. Now about the other questions you choose to ignore.

[Mister Rogers]

Just to make it clear: Matt has just pushed a "lynch all lurkers s bad" on me while he is voting Aptil. I can only read this as a fake push to appear townie and possibly more specifically as a defense of BJC.

[pisskop]

Also what DG question. Quote it.

[Mister Rogers]

I already did. Are you reading the thread?? Go back like 2-3 posts.

[pisskop]

No. DG asked no question. Jeepers IDK how the rest of you can town this deliberate evasion.

[mastin2]

I realize that this game needs me, but right now, my focus is largely elsewhere. I'll do what I can to get caught up, though.

[Mister Rogers]

I realize that this game needs me, but right now, my focus is largely elsewhere. I'll do what I can to get caught up, though.

Hope everything is well. It will do this game quite a bit of good to have another active player.

With this strange Matt push I am up for MOAR BJC VOTES.

[Damon_Gant]

I understand being annoyed by BJC's play but I think we both know there's a lot more bigger fish to fry.

This is the second fish analogy that has been used in this topic to describe the fact that there are apparently better people to have a vote on than lurkers such as bjc and Luca (the earlier one to use this analogy being pisskop). Stop telling me that these bigger and better fish exist, and start telling me who they are and giving me convincing reasons to vote for them. You see, the more the day goes on and I see people (including myself) struggling for scumreads and struggling to know where to go, the more I'm convinced that the majority of the scum in fact lie among these lurkers.

I've looked at the ISOs of 4nx, ThAd and pisskop. Out of those 3, I would say that it's 4nx who worries me the most, I think because his earlier posting looks like active lurking. However, to be honest, I can't logically justify a scumread, and my read on him is null. Pisskop I also have a null read on. ThAd looks town to me, there's just something genuine about his tone, particularly at the start of the game, but again it's all very gut - I much prefer logic!

With all this uncertainty I have about those who are active among us, I feel like there are quite possibly 3 or more scum hiding among the lurkers. That is where I currently see the game being played. To those who do not like this, I want to be convinced. So convince me that someone else is scum.