No, I'm doing scum-hunting here Thor. Ssssshhhhhhhh.
Don't be a wet blanket and ruin things
↑ MagnaofIllusion wrote:
So why did you vote enomis over Thor when you had ‘good’ (as defined by you) justification for your Thor vote and this rather pointless assertion that bandwagonning is a Newbscum-tell.
Look, I’m going to take a page out of the Iceguy handbook –
“OH MY GOD ICEGUY IS MAKING UP SCUM-TELLS. THERE IS NO SUCH THINGS AS THAT SO CALLED NEWBSCUM-TELL. HE’S SCUM HE’S SCUM”
I just wanted to give everyone a taste of the crap we can expect from you later on.
And look – it’s typical Iceguy use of generic Wikitells (misrep – which in Iceguy’s world is any statement he disagrees with) that don’t actually have any actual application …
Why is ‘sheeping me’ the safe route when it drew him so much immediate scorn?
Do you seriously suggest he was serious about Policy Lynching Whisper?
Why did you dodge the following question –
Is bandwagonning just for the sake of it, especially early Day 1, a scumtell?
Yes, technical error there. My mistake. Here is the proper link to your fluff – Post 41
↑ enomis wrote:↑ Nachomamma8 wrote:Yes. I agree that he seems pretty scummy and I'm not really worried about soliciting a claim first simply because I'm going to lynch him regardless of what he claims. Why shouldn't I hamnmer?
A hammer on page four? No way. UNVOTE: Strangercoug, do you think the advantage of hammering now really outweighs the disadvantage of hammering now. Really?
jerobbo wrote:Why are you going to hammer regardless of a claim?
Why are you so certain he's scum after 4 pages and with your 2nd post?
Why should you hammer should be the question?
↑ SnakePlissken wrote:OK Nacho his vote is back down to L-2 so you still willing to put a vote on him if you are convinced enough to hammer? Enomis, I know what I'm doing. You play your way and will mine.
↑ StrangerCoug wrote:...Yeah. Not claiming on page 4.
IceGuy still needs to talk to me about how enomis was lurking, because best-case scenario it's hypocritical. I understand the bit about the wagoning.
Magna wrote:I want a full opinion – there is no role in the game that you would not hammer if claimed? Please answer in your next post.
Yates wrote:What? This is very unlike the Town-Nacho that was recently lynched in an ongoing game. The Town-Nacho was much more logical with his votes and was against pressure votes Day 1.
↑ Nachomamma8 wrote:
Why are you so certain he's scum after 4 pages and with your 2nd post?
Because he's scum. The number of pages in the game and the number of posts I have don't change that fact.
↑ Nachomamma8 wrote:
Why should you hammer should be the question?
If I had posted an intent to hammer and no one unvoted in response, then that means a serious wagon was formed on SC on page 4. And any player who has a wagon on them comprised of serious votes on Page 4 is either scum or a serious liability.
jerobbo wrote:I Think it does, I fail to see how anyone can be so sure that someone is scum after 4 pages.
So now that people got off you don't think he's scum anymore?
You seemed so sure he was scum yourself after a mere 4 pages, now you're basing it on other peoples thoughts? What gives?
It's the absoluteness of your posts that gives me a funny vibe. It also appears that's against your meta.
IceGuy wrote:I'm waiting for SC's explanation to pass judgment on him.
↑ Nachomamma8 wrote:Yates wrote:What? This is very unlike the Town-Nacho that was recently lynched in an ongoing game. The Town-Nacho was much more logical with his votes and was against pressure votes Day 1.
I haven't voted yet, so you can't judge the logic behind my votes.
↑ Yates wrote:↑ Nachomamma8 wrote:Yates wrote:What? This is very unlike the Town-Nacho that was recently lynched in an ongoing game. The Town-Nacho was much more logical with his votes and was against pressure votes Day 1.
I haven't voted yet, so you can't judge the logic behind my votes.
Technicality. You threatened to hammer - which is INTENT to vote. My argument and concerns remain valid.
Nacho wrote: This is correct.
Nacho wrote: My opinion of his alignment hasn't changed since my first post.
Iceguy wrote: Let me just remind you this "crap" caught scum-MoI redhanded.
Iceguy wrote:MISREPCEPTION!
A misrep of what I call a misrep!
Iceguy wrote:He followed you onto SC, as well.
Iceguy wrote:I already explained it approximately seven hundred times.
↑ SnakePlissken wrote:I would rather that you and Thor dont patronise me either.
↑ MagnaofIllusion wrote:
Iceguy wrote: Let me just remind you this "crap" caught scum-MoI redhanded.
And it also 'caught' Town MoI red-handed. Convienant you omit that little fact, huh?
Not to mention the fact that ‘caught scum’ MoI coasted to win at endgame while Town Vengeful MoI was lynched and managed to take down more scum than you.
Look, fluffly filler. Are you saying you aren’t using misrep in the term it is generally accepted here on MS – that of a purposeful statement that does not reflect the actual intention of the person being commented on?
So what? Do you find his ‘following’ unwarranted by the posting in thread (aka he has no reason to find Stranger scummy)?
More fluff. Quit dodging the question – it is a simple Yes or No answer … can you not handle that?
IS BANDWAGONNING JUST FOR THE SAKE OF IT, ESPECIALLY EARLY DAY 1, A SCUMTELL?
Magna wrote:So you think he is scum but refuse to vote for him …
Yates wrote:Again, that has nothing to do with anything. Go reread the post because I am not going to argue in circles about context. CONTEXT is everything.
Thor665 wrote:@Nacho - threatening to hammer is still stated intent to vote, which he can certainly react to. Do you think his vote is bad? I actually am taking it as a town tell currently.
↑ MagnaofIllusion wrote:So where was I?
@Pops– while I appreciate the meta-humor in you adopting a aura of Cool Inscrutability in a Darox-Mod game I think I’m going to see something in the way of actual reads from you.
MoI wrote:
Is RBT scum? You seemed to pick up on her pretty quick in Box Office.
MoI wrote:
Pops wrote:Serious image management when he metas himself, survivor-scum tell.
His position on the RVS stage seems like a wave that appears like a particle if you observe it. It's unproductive, yet he participates in it, thus encouraging it.
I'm either 0/2 or 1/2.
I’d give you credit for 2/2 there but you didn’t vote Coug so no cookie Pops …
↑ Nachomamma8 wrote:
If I had posted an intent to hammer and no one unvoted in response, then that means a serious wagon was formed on SC on page 4. And any player who has a wagon on them comprised of serious votes on Page 4 is either scum or a serious liability.
nachomamma wrote:
Yates wrote:What? This is very unlike the Town-Nacho that was recently lynched in an ongoing game. The Town-Nacho was much more logical with his votes and was against pressure votes Day 1.
I haven't voted yet, so you can't judge the logic behind my votes. Also, I haven't expressed an opinion in this game approving of pressure votes.
Thor wrote:The MoI and Icy walls are going to become a problem soon, aren't they? Stay on target guys - I don't care about the other game stuff because it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
Iceguy wrote:I'm using misrep in the common MS sense. You're misrepping me, saying I'm using misrep in another sense. That's misrepception.
Nacho wrote:Voting him would be a detriment to lynching him. No other player in this game at this time would be willing to put down the hammer vote.
Pops wrote:It's page four, I don't have m/any reads yet. When I get some, you'll know about them
Pops wrote:To be perfectly honest, there's some players I feel I can read leaps and bounds better by LyLo than I can with a day or two posts. I try to reorder lynch decisions (inb4lininguplynches) so that I'm lynching people that my opinion is unlikely to change about with more material before people that are much easier to read with a large amount of material. I guess you could say it's the opposite of lynching killa 7 d1 - it's lynching a player who has an abundance of info on Dlast last, rather than lynching someone who will have 0 info on Dlast first. (killa 7 might have been before your time, guy basically never posted anything that remotely resembled content.)
Snake wrote:Oh and for the record MoI just because you have that best newbie badge by your name doesn't make your opinion automatically right and I would rather that you and Thor dont patronise me either.
Magna wrote:That’s a pretty stupid assumption. Meanwhile I’ll go on record and say your absolute commitment to not voting when you have someone you are calling scum is in-itself scummy.
↑ Nachomamma8 wrote:Why is that?I'm clearly taking a position.
↑ MagnaofIllusion wrote:Thor wrote:The MoI and Icy walls are going to become a problem soon, aren't they? Stay on target guys - I don't care about the other game stuff because it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
Pops wrote:To be perfectly honest, there's some players I feel I can read leaps and bounds better by LyLo than I can with a day or two posts. I try to reorder lynch decisions (inb4lininguplynches) so that I'm lynching people that my opinion is unlikely to change about with more material before people that are much easier to read with a large amount of material. I guess you could say it's the opposite of lynching killa 7 d1 - it's lynching a player who has an abundance of info on Dlast last, rather than lynching someone who will have 0 info on Dlast first. (killa 7 might have been before your time, guy basically never posted anything that remotely resembled content.)
Let me see if I can summarize this –
You’d rather lynch those players who will not change your early opinion of them with a wealth of material (aka living to LYLO) before those players who will give you more readable information if they live that long.
Is that correct?
↑ MagnaofIllusion wrote:Stranger wrote: That was pretty much it, admittedly.
So your vote on Thor was because you thought he was being serious in his policy lynching discussion.
↑ MagnaofIllusion wrote:Have you ever played with Thor before?
↑ Nachomamma8 wrote:No one asked you to claim.
↑ Nachomamma8 wrote:Why are you ignoring the wagon on you?
↑ StrangerCoug wrote:↑ MagnaofIllusion wrote:Have you ever played with Thor before?
Yes. The only game that comes to immediate mind is a mini normal that we just finished but I swear we've been in more than that.
↑ MagnaofIllusion wrote:Farside needs a refresher course in using quotes
--
farside wrote:I answered that here
In addition I don't like BW votes with no reasoning. The fact that emonis didn't disappear after being called out gives me pause on my initial reaction to his post.
I don't like Snakes vote or reasoning for his vote on SC. Weak reasoning there.......more later.
Yes, I saw that response. I specifically wanted to see if you would elaborate on the points I asked about.
Do you have difficulties in getting good reads when you play with players like faraday or CES who really never justify their votes and generally think bandwagonning is a way to get information?
↑ SnakePlissken wrote:
Also Faraday it's hard to be ultra detailed when several others have already voted on a person and you agree with them, especially on day 1 when its nigh impossible without a ridiculous scum slip to be 100% sure of anything, so feel free to try that on day 2, but on day 1 that isn't going to wash with me.
Nacho wrote:No. It's a useless vote if the town's not willing to lynch him.
SC wrote:It wasn't. Context implies that I considered him scummy just before he voted me. I mention that I'm anti-PL, then Thor665 goes and says he's serious about it.