2 are both heads in agreement with not casting a random vote? Do you not think random voting has any value?
Random vote based on their avatar.
So if I vote you because I think you're scum, can I claim that it's a random vote based on my estimation of your alignment as well?
- b
Can you rephrase this coherently?
It is coherent already, but I'll rephrase it in a way I think you'll understand. If you base your vote on my avatar, it's not random. If you insist that a vote can be random when it's based on something (it being an avatar or an estimation of an alignment), I can just as well insist that my vote is random when it's based on my estimation of your alignment.
In post 31, A_Stone wrote:I would say it's a null tell atm, considering this can easily be used to the advantage of scum-2, and could simply be average play for town-2
How would it be advantageous for us not to random vote?
- b
It's always good to play to your town meta, if you had random voted it would have raised some questions from the people you had played with.
This is backwards.
If it is advantageous for scum-us not to random vote because we havn't done it as town before, that merely reflects you being incapable of properly analysing previous games that we've played. That is, you're not applying the information you have optimally. This holds true for any circumstances where the lack of that very information would leave to a better decision than the decision made with the information available, and this is an example.
- b
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:00 am
by ²
^^ leave should be lead.
- b
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:01 am
by ²
In post 165, A_Stone wrote:Why do you make posts like this, your posts as a hydra should be seamless, why do you see a need to reinforce your views?
I disagree with your premise.
- b
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:02 am
by ²
In post 165, A_Stone wrote:Again? You've said that you two are talking together in chat. Why are you making posts explicitly for the purpose of looking town? Is that not something more likely for scum to do?
Once again I disagree with your premise.
- b
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:03 am
by ²
In post 165, A_Stone wrote:And yet you *never* did, I thought it obvious after #23 that it was a joke, any reason why you didn't see it that way?
I personally didn't get the joke the first time around, and I attribute that largely to the fact that I do not live in an english-talking country.
- b
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:04 am
by N
Deadline is in
(expired on 2013-05-14 21:34:45)
goodmorning is LA until Tuesday.
A_Stone is V/LA until Wednesday.
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:12 am
by ²
In post 165, A_Stone wrote:2 saw the use of soat in quote format, along with evidence of who it was. With this evidence,
Firstly, I was responding to RedCayot, not SoaT. Secondly, even if I was responding to SoaT, I may not have realized what the abbreviation meant because I was responding to the person through the quote of another person (i.e., I didn't make that abbreviation myself).
Finally, and most importantly, what would the scum motivation for acting as if I don't understand that abbreviation if I actually did be?
I think you're pretending to think that you've found something to launch some sort of attack on us. I think your process went something like this: you read all of our posts in ISO, and decided to attack anything you could find. You noticed this and thought "hey, this could be a great thing to attack" without thinking about whether it actually made any sense from a scum perspective. Why did you do that? It's a subtle scum-slip, but people make it all the time. As scum, they forget the fact that your motivation shouldn't be winning arguments, launching attacks or finding mistakes, but look at posts that can only be motivated by a scum perspective. You fall victim of a) launching an attack that completely ignores what potentially would be scum motivated and what wouldn't, b) aims at finding mistakes (such as me not realizing what SoaT was an abbreviation of - despite it being obvious that there couldn't be any scum motivation for pretending to have missed this), and possible c) aimed at winning arguments (although this one is more debatable).
Either way, I feel these are sufficient reasons to establish quite a strong scum read on you, so I'm going to vote you unless that would put you on L-1 (in which case I'll postpone voting you until I've talked to ff). Will read the remainder of the posts subsequent to the one I'm quoting now first, though.
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:14 am
by ²
In post 165, A_Stone wrote:Seems off to me. It was obviously a player, why did the question need to be asked?
It wasn't obvious to me, or I wouldn't have asked it. Again: what's the scum motivation behind pretending not to know what it meant? Why would scum-me be less likely to know what it meant than town-me? These are two questions that must be answered in order to justify you thinking that it "seems off". If you don't answer these questions, I'm inclined to think that the "seems off" part is just putting seeds out there and hoping that people jumps on this.
- b
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:16 am
by ²
In post 169, A_Stone wrote:-f & -b, why use two posts when yu could just sign it as both?
Because we want to. How is this related to our alignment?
In post 164, goodmorning wrote:I didn't say you were voting them. I asked you why I shouldn't vote them, since you wanted to know why I should.
If there isn't a reason not to vote, you should vote. If there isn't a reason to vote, you should not vote. These are sides of the same logical coin, so you guys are getting nowhere if you're merely going to answer each question with its negation.
- b
1. I don't see a reason not to vote.
2. tne apparently felt differently.
3. By asking him "why not vote" I was mainly requesting a clarification of his position.
4. He declined to give one.
5. The other big thing that may have interested me was whether he in fact had a good reason not to vote you.
5a. In which case there might have been some interesting conversation about that.
6. He declined to give any of those either.
@Stone:
In post 175, ² wrote:It is coherent already, but I'll rephrase it in a way I think you'll understand. If you base your vote on my avatar, it's not random. If you insist that a vote can be random when it's based on something (it being an avatar or an estimation of an alignment), I can just as well insist that my vote is random when it's based on my estimation of your alignment.
- b
I'll do us all a favour and
tl;dr - This is a semantic game it is not possible to win.
other tl;dr - "It's not really random if it's based on something, even something meaningless; therefore I can say it's random if it's based on something meaningful since you say it's random when based on something meaningless"
The other stuff from that head in this giant batch of posting looks reasonably sane though. Especially the signing bit, there are a lot of good reasons for hydrae to do so, many regardless of alignment.
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:23 am
by ²
A_Stone, is your vote on us still random? If not, in what post did you state that it was no longer a random vote? If you didn't state this already, what made it not random specifically?
- b
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:25 am
by ²
In post 186, goodmorning wrote:3. By asking him "why not vote" I was mainly requesting a clarification of his position.
4. He declined to give one.
The same holds true for you. He could just repeat his own question, then you could do the same, and this process could continue
He made a space pun. That's your definition of over-reasoning? Interesting.
I'll be coming back to this later.
- f
And yet you *never* did, I thought it obvious after #23 that it was a joke, any reason why you didn't see it that way?
And this is what I wanted to see before I came back to it - I wanted more posts from you to firm up my initial impression that you were propping up a random vote by characterizing our posts about RVS as "arguments" we were trying to win rather than reasons why we personally don't do RVS.
And what I see is more of the same. It is scummy to play as a hydra while keeping the two individuals' posts recognizable. It is scummy to not recognize an abbreviation, or to not ask about it the first time it appears in thread.
Buldermar and I don't consult each other on every single post. We are playing this game as though we're masons who share a single vote. When we are speaking for each other or speaking about our consensus about game events or players, we'll make that clear. When we are not speaking for each other, we'll try to make that clear as well.
We are in agreement about our vote.
-f
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:29 am
by ²
In post 186, goodmorning wrote:I'll do us all a favour and
tl;dr - This is a semantic game it is not possible to win.
other tl;dr - "It's not really random if it's based on something, even something meaningless; therefore I can say it's random if it's based on something meaningful since you say it's random when based on something meaningless"
I'd be willing to accept it being random if it was based on for instance a random generator, even when it strictly speaking still isn't entirely random. It's not a game of semantics, because I'm winning the argument even using a loose definition of the term "randomness".
- b
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:34 am
by goodmorning
@189: My point is that I was trying to hike in a specific direction and he just sat down.
@191: My point there is that the definition of "random" as in "RVS" is something like "off the cuff, with or without bullshit fake justification". It doesn't actually mean random, though I think a lot of people just scan the playerlist and go "... that one" and then come up with a silly reason for voting them later, so in that sense it is random, but I'm not going any further than that on this topic because it's pretty distracting from the issues at hand, namely,
WHO WAS PHONE???
WHO IS SCUM?
Also the fact that you two just interspersed posts in all that is quite frankly scary to me.
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:38 am
by ²
Scared you? How so?
- f
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:39 am
by ²
In post 192, goodmorning wrote:@191: My point there is that the definition of "random" as in "RVS" is something like "off the cuff, with or without bullshit fake justification". It doesn't actually mean random, though I think a lot of people just scan the playerlist and go "... that one" and then come up with a silly reason for voting them later, so in that sense it is random, but I'm not going any further than that on this topic because it's pretty distracting from the issues at hand, namely, WHO WAS PHONE??? WHO IS SCUM?
Also the fact that you two just interspersed posts in all that is quite frankly scary to me.
Alright, I agree that we shouldn't go into more details about the term "randomness" and its application.
Our posts interspersed because I told ff on gchat that I voted A_stone and that she could read my posts if she felt like it. She then said she were going to respond to one of his posts. We usually confront each other when something happens in this game, and we're both a bit annoyed with the slow pace of it.
Like you guys are machines. It's sort of an admiring fear I suppose.
In post 194, ² wrote:Our posts interspersed because I told ff on gchat that I voted A_stone and that she could read my posts if she felt like it. She then said she were going to respond to one of his posts. We usually confront each other when something happens in this game, and we're both a bit annoyed with the slow pace of it.
- b
I was going to say that it doesn't feel that slow to me, but that's just because of you guys I think.
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:53 am
by ²
In post 195, goodmorning wrote:I was going to say that it doesn't feel that slow to me, but that's just because of you guys I think.
I take that as a compliment - so thanks =)
- b
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:54 am
by EspeciallyTheLies
I'm a little lost here but 2's 182 rings a lot of bells for me. I'm going to hold off a vote on A_Stone until I get a chance to check his ISO a bit more thoroughly (at work atm), but I am in agreement.
In post 104, ² wrote:I think that having the second head confirming is pro-town. By not doing it we could,i if we were scum, pretend that the second head got a different perspective on something and backpeddal out of an unfortunate situation/read.
- b
I'm mostly caught up. This post is troubling. Why did 2 feel the need to point out that their playstyle was "pro-town".
Then, followed by this to SoaT, who was already giving me scumvibes:
In post 123, ² wrote:I think I've made it pretty clear already what I want you to do, and I don't buy that you've somehow missed it.
- b
This post made me think that you were reading 2 and Soat as scum.
How come you didn’t vote for either of them?
I’m also a little puzzled that you are now talking about joining them on the Stone bandwagon. Aren’t you a little uncomfortable being on the same wagon as your two early scum reads? Did I misinterpret what you said in post 144? Or have your reads changed?
