Andycyca wrote:Mod: could we have some prods for orangepenguin, xofelf and Shadow?
If you read the thread thus far, you would see that at least xofelf has posted, just a few posts up from yours.
Alot of eyebrows were raised concerning the vote, including yours, but I felt the lack of pressure. I thought it warranted a serious vote, and a way out of RVS. I didn't remove the vote, cause I didn't necessarily buy his explanation, and he hasn't really convinced since.Goatrevolt wrote:I thought his original vote on Andy was a stretching somewhat. He didn't even bother to learn whether or not Andy was joking or serious, just kind of jumped aboard.Kmd4390 wrote:So what was your point on TM? Do you still see him as scummy?
I'm moderately suspicious of him, because he's basically just sat on his early Andy vote and hasn't really done much since.
Bold assessment to make this early.Kmd4390 wrote:Anyone else think Andy and Goat are part of the scum team?
If you are as experienced as I think you are, you know my reasoning here.Goat wrote:I see no reason why this must be so.
I don't see anything wrong with jumping on small things early like he did.Goat wrote:I thought his original vote on Andy was a stretching somewhat. He didn't even bother to learn whether or not Andy was joking or serious, just kind of jumped aboard.
I'm moderately suspicious of him, because he's basically just sat on his early Andy vote and hasn't really done much since.
The fact that you call it elaborate makes me believe this even more. It's very common for scum to distance as early in the game as possible.Goat wrote:Nope, can't say I do. I'm really curious why you jumped to this conclusion though. Are we playing some elaborate distancing game?
I missed something? That's rare. *checks*Goat wrote:Also, you avoided my questions at the top of post 94. I'm pretty interested in your answers to those (basically, I don't see why my actions here are so scummy to you, and I'd like to see your thought process).
Why would you randomly joke vote someone in the middle of a real discussion without any reason? - I've seen people do it, but generally less experienced players. So fair point. I just thought some reasoning on your vote would have been nice.Goat-94 wrote:Why would I randomly joke vote someone in the middle of real discussion without any reason? Besides, why would I point out now that my vote was serious, long after the fact, when nobody even asked me about it? Am I lying for no discernible reason about something that isn't even that important?
What do you think of both players at this point? Even if it's a weak read, town or scum on each?TM wrote:Bold assessment to make this early.
So it was a pressurevote? (if not, please answer my last question)TonyMontana wrote:Alot of eyebrows were raised concerning the vote, including yours, but I felt the lack of pressure. I thought it warranted a serious vote, and a way out of RVS. I didn't remove the vote, cause I didn't necessarily buy his explanation, and he hasn't really convinced since.Goatrevolt wrote:I thought his original vote on Andy was a stretching somewhat. He didn't even bother to learn whether or not Andy was joking or serious, just kind of jumped aboard.Kmd4390 wrote:So what was your point on TM? Do you still see him as scummy?
I'm moderately suspicious of him, because he's basically just sat on his early Andy vote and hasn't really done much since.
Got anything to back this up? (besides the discussion around my vote) Because we could try several potential scumpairs just by watching 2-person discussions (yours, for example)Empking wrote:Kmd4390 wrote:Anyone else think Andy and Goat are part of the scum team?
How come you didn't explain this at the time? You just said "please, we've already gone through the silly discussion phase" which implies scum feigning arrogance in order to mask not bothering to do their reading before laying a vote down.Andycya (96) wrote:Oh I see now. Here's what I meant: I didn't know whether your post was serious or not, but I assumed not, since we were already discussing meatier events. However, You were making a very weird statement (vouching for his towniness). Since we were already discussing non-jokes I read it as stalling other discussions. However, seems like my own vote originated much more discussion topics.
So you admit your vote one me means little more than a random vote (that's what an "opening bandwagon"implies- if it means something else you needed to give actual reasons for having voted me; which you didn't). Furthermore, your two subsequent posts both consist entirely of irrelevant theory discussion. You're not actually engaging with the game at all (a scum-tell in and of itself), and have failed to move beyond or further justify your "opening bandwagon" vote beyond suggesting I shouldn't attack Andy for claiming to "start discussion" (hardly my only point against him anyhow). Glad to see the FoS wasn't misplaced.Sudo_Nym (62) wrote:My vote on you has more to do with my belief that your actions made you a good opening bandwagon than any "deliberate scummyness" you have. It usually takes more than the random stage to determine if someone is really being scummy or what.
*is intrigued to hear the difference, in spite of insult*Kmd4390 wrote:I don't see anything wrong with jumping on small things early like he did.
And this is typical of TM. While I don't like it, he is about as useful as a blank dictionary early in the game. The only time he really does anything is late in the game. Very late. (reference= Open 99 where TM was scum / Large Family Guy where TM was town.) There is a difference between the two, but I'll wait to point it out until I see it.
I don't read good. Not this early. But I'm pleased with having my vote where it is. As for goat, I'm neutral at this point.Kmd4390 wrote:What do you think of both players at this point? Even if it's a weak read, town or scum on each?
I have no idea how experienced you think I am. Feel free to check my wiki if you wish to read up on me. However, I do understand your reasoning here, I just think you're entirely wrong. Fair enough?Kmd4390 wrote:If you are as experienced as I think you are, you know my reasoning here.Goat wrote:I see no reason why this must be so.
Really? And why would my word choice "elaborate" make you feel you are correct. Let's run through:Kmd4390 wrote:The fact that you call it elaborate makes me believe this even more. It's very common for scum to distance as early in the game as possible.Goat wrote:Nope, can't say I do. I'm really curious why you jumped to this conclusion though. Are we playing some elaborate distancing game?
You "missed" it? *cough* Bullshit. You responded to the rest of the post. Missed it seems unlikely.Kmd4390 wrote:I missed something? That's rare. *checks*Goat wrote:Also, you avoided my questions at the top of post 94. I'm pretty interested in your answers to those (basically, I don't see why my actions here are so scummy to you, and I'd like to see your thought process).
You've seen it one time before, and it was scum, so that somehow makes me more likely to be scum? Bad argument. A sample size of 1 is pretty weak for making justifications like that.Kmd4390 wrote:Why would you point out that it was serious now? - To have a reason to keep the vote without being told you aren't doing anything? The only time I can remember seeing a vote like this (non-random, very early, unexplained) was when Shea did it as scum TBH.
So if you don't think I'm lying, then why did you attack me under the premise that my vote looked like a joke, not a serious vote?Kmd4390 wrote:Are you lying about something unimportant? - Doubtful. You may be trying to appear protown by doing something that may look more helpful than it really is though.
What's a "pressurevote"?Andycyca wrote:So it was a pressurevote? (if not, please answer my last question)
Practically any game I'm in. The only one I can find right off is ongoing, though.Empking wrote:SN: Do you have any games to support your meta claim?
This depends on the player. Some distance. Some defend. Some ignore. It's a judgement call and my judgement says distancing here.Ort wrote:Kmd: I'm not really a fan of looking for "distancing" connections between two people, neither of whom have yet flipped; on day one. I'm inclined to think the far more common (and better) play is to either defend one's scumbuddies day one or just ignore them altogether. Arguments over two people "distancing" on day one are too subject to WIFOM and the ones I've seen are almost always wrong.
I guess. I disagree, but still.Goat wrote:I have no idea how experienced you think I am. Feel free to check my wiki if you wish to read up on me. However, I do understand your reasoning here, I just think you're entirely wrong. Fair enough?
It's Page 5. You can easily back off of each other later in the day and get away with it. That's why it is the perfect time to attack each other like that.Goat wrote:Really? And why would my word choice "elaborate" make you feel you are correct. Let's run through:
I placed the 3rd vote on Andy in the random phase.
He responded strongly to my 3rd vote with an apparently sarcastic OMGUS.
I attacked him immediately afterward to explain himself because his vote didn't look like a joke.
He mentioned that it was just sarcasm.
He votes Ortolan based on poor reasoning.
I jump on his wagon, as a critical 4th vote, and argue in favor of him being scum with Sudo_Nym and Empking.
And we're apparently just distancing. Because that's likely......
Because I think Andy is scum. And I think you and Starbuck are his buddies. I don't think Ort is scum.Goat wrote:Here's a question: Why have you kept your random vote on Andy this entire time, even though you have not bothered to question or pressure him a single time since early page 2 when you merely asked him the seriousness of his vote? I see you questioning Ortolan, myself, Starbuck, but not Andy, who your vote is conveniently on.
My point was that I haven't seen it from town and it sounds very similar to the one time I did see Shea's play in Medieval. I know it's a weak point though. OGML, for example, makes seemingly baseless votes all the time lately.Goat wrote:You've seen it one time before, and it was scum, so that somehow makes me more likely to be scum? Bad argument. A sample size of 1 is pretty weak for making justifications like that.
My assumption when reading that post was that it was a joke. I think you should have done more with it if it wasn't.Goat wrote:So if you don't think I'm lying, then why did you attack me under the premise that my vote looked like a joke, not a serious vote?