You have no ideaIn post 473, Sky_Paladin wrote:My only concern is that she was part of the back and forth with Tatl and Tael that resulted in them putting doc in every post which proooooobably gave away that they were the doc.
I get what you're pointing out here, but youIn post 472, GuyInFreezer wrote:Oh?In post 471, Beefster wrote:I should not have gone along with you.
I'm preeeeetty sure I let you decide if you wanted to join the wagon or not.
In post 393, GuyInFreezer wrote:That would be fantastic.
You can always ISO RF to convince yourself if that's the way you prefer.In post 397, Beefster wrote:Yup. Hammer after claim. Unless RF says something that somehow redeems him.
2 things:In post 475, GuyInFreezer wrote:You have no ideaIn post 473, Sky_Paladin wrote:My only concern is that she was part of the back and forth with Tatl and Tael that resulted in them putting doc in every post which proooooobably gave away that they were the doc.
how much I tried to fix this
by softing doc myself
In post 479, Beefster wrote:I just read through your ISO and I see no softclaiming doc.
In post 442, GuyInFreezer wrote:Thoughts on Hawk/Sesq/skitter plsIn post 429, Tatl and Tael wrote:But I'm making it as clear as possible where my reads stand
In case you're somehow really nightkilled.
In post 444, GuyInFreezer wrote:Dunno if that will appease the doc to be on you.
Did you feel the urge to get your vote off me when I replied that toIn post 479, Beefster wrote:You can use it either to get votes off you
Do you even know what white knighting is?In post 483, Beefster wrote:GIF does quite a bit of white knighting against PLs in 267, 273, and 378
Do you even know what IIOA is?In post 483, Beefster wrote:273 in particular reeks of IIOA.
And?In post 483, Beefster wrote:He really likes pointing out that this is a multiball game. It seems as if every third post from him makes some reference to that.
I'm pretty sure I was anything but friendly this game.In post 483, Beefster wrote:In general, his tone comes off as trying too hard to be friendly/joking.
Meh. Wrong terminology.In post 485, GuyInFreezer wrote:Do you even know what white knighting is?In post 483, Beefster wrote:GIF does quite a bit of white knighting against PLs in 267, 273, and 378
Do you even know what IIOA is?In post 483, Beefster wrote:273 in particular reeks of IIOA.
And?In post 483, Beefster wrote:He really likes pointing out that this is a multiball game. It seems as if every third post from him makes some reference to that.
Because you're always serious.In post 486, GuyInFreezer wrote:Oh alsoI'm pretty sure I was anything but friendly this game.In post 483, Beefster wrote:In general, his tone comes off as trying too hard to be friendly/joking.
Yes, Mumble has been replaced by springlullabyIn post 458, skitter30 wrote:@mod: Has mumble been replaced? Also
You do realize that I had to step up because the policy lynch was actually happening, right?In post 487, Beefster wrote:It's easy to stand up to policy lynches and it's an easy way to earn towncred.
Focusing on stats in the context that you brought them up doesn't look all that great.
Apparently you don't see the difference of what you did as scum apparently and what I did so let me clarify it for you.In post 487, Beefster wrote:Last time I was in a multiball as scum, I called attention to the fact that it was multiball and therefore scum would scumhunt. It, among other factors was my demise.
Always.In post 488, Beefster wrote:Because you're always serious.
also "next phase" instead of "next day" is an interesting word choiceIn post 459, skitter30 wrote:I think this is a pretty weird post. Like you pop in during twilight to ask GIF about Kop (ie as opposed to talking about something topical like Red wagon or the rc/mikan/gif thing).In post 439, Sky_Paladin wrote:Gif, while we're in twilight, thoughts on Kop?
As an aside I have been too busy to really focus on this game; I'm probably going to drop out if I can't commit properly by the next phase.
Like why is this directed at GIF in particular? Why were you specifically asking about Kop at that juncture?
hydras are not necessarily good for town, "more opinions" is kind of hard when most hydras are so fucking bad at distinguishing eachother, and most people are so fucking bad at distinguishing them, it looks like a contracted fuckpile of uncertainty. scum can use this for subversion and trickeryIn post 473, Sky_Paladin wrote:Other thoughts:
I enjoy Mikan's entrance to the game, it's fairly active and her opinion is clear. It's miles-away more towny than TD IMO. My only concern is that she was part of the back and forth with Tatl and Tael that resulted in them putting doc in every post which proooooobably gave away that they were the doc. I'm town-sorting this slot for now.
Actually that's the whole player base so I'll just do a full reads list.
Town
GiF - for towning it up late day 1 even if it was for a mislynch
Mikan - as above
To Sort
Hawk/Skitter
Scum
Icon/Beefster
Some of Icon's posts that ping me -
152 - posts complaining about hydra's. Contrast with my own post 137 -
"if you're playing a hydra I expect you to bring the best and worst of both players, and you don't get to blame your other head for not being town enough."
With
"Make up your mind, and then say what you want. It doesn't help town to hear 2 colliding opinions coming from 1 slot."
Bolded for emphasis. This doesn't seem like a towny-thing to say. Two different opinions is exactly what I'd expect - and hope for - from a hydra. The more unique thoughts out there, the better off town is.
179 is a bit weird. Icon has gone a good chunk of the game at this point asking for a lynch on NM solely because NM claimed scum (...which is fair) and earlier criticises Kop for not voting NM (158), and made it clear in 155 that their vote on NM wasI'm voting him because he claimed mafia, and has made no attempt at, well, anything.
This post asking for Beefster to explain their vote on Not Mafia therefore surprised me, because Icon is aware that by that point the only real reasons to vote NM were because of inactivity and claiming scum. What else could Beefster add? It seemed opportunistic. Icon later switches to Beefster which I concede does look natural.
Later when the game is stalled, Icon questions Tatl and Tael for their NM vote 242. They also poke Skitter for the same thing a little later.
Late day 1 Icon posts some thoughts on Hawk/Beefster, and finally settles on Beefster. This looks natural and I wouldn't call it except...it's multiball, and scum can legitimately scum-hunt the other team.
@Icon
I guess I'm questioning your progression of reads here, Icon. It looks like you wanted NM dead and then once you switched away, anybody else voting for NM got your question mark, and you didn't really mention them late day 1.
What is your current opinion on Hawk/NM?
You call it pressuring.In post 478, Beefster wrote:You were, rather confidently, pressuring my vote one way or the other. I was put off by it at the time even though I sort of kinda saw scum in RF (at first). You primed my thought processes for a scum read.
Terminology. Lawyering. Technicalities.In post 495, GuyInFreezer wrote:Oh also
You call it pressuring.In post 478, Beefster wrote:You were, rather confidently, pressuring my vote one way or the other. I was put off by it at the time even though I sort of kinda saw scum in RF (at first). You primed my thought processes for a scum read.
I call it convincing.
"calling things out but not actually explaining why they are bad" meme.In post 496, Beefster wrote:Terminology. Lawyering. Technicalities.In post 495, GuyInFreezer wrote:Oh also
You call it pressuring.In post 478, Beefster wrote:You were, rather confidently, pressuring my vote one way or the other. I was put off by it at the time even though I sort of kinda saw scum in RF (at first). You primed my thought processes for a scum read.
I call it convincing.