↑pieceofpecanpie wrote:ac skipped a bit with that paraphrasing, but from what I understand from complicated words such as "unpleasant meta" and "remove him preemptively" you are proposing a Day 1 policy lynch on NS? (this is where the easy lynch comes from) I feel where this is drawing criticism is that your language use seems to draw some sort of conflicted position, but you vote him anyway (this is where the distancing part comes in). Does that sound reasonable?
There's two different parts to the NS case.
The first is the meta case, which seems to be the thing discussed most. I specifically said that lynching him over that now wouldn't achieve anything, but that later it might be necessary. I was not proposing a policy lynch at this time.
The second is the active lurking, which is why I voted for him. I stated that, of the reasons GM posted for voting him, only the lurking was absolute. The others seemed to be based on personal experience and feelings, and were not something I could use myself. The active lurking however is enough. Using my vote to attempt to push him into acting more is acceptable use in my opinion.
Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:57 pm
by Cheery Dog
The active lurking from NS
is
his meta though.
Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:00 pm
by Apozzle
My interpretation from what people were saying was that his meta was being hard to read and unhelpful. While lurking might be included in that, it isn't the entire thing.
Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:14 pm
by Apozzle
Yeah, okay, I read back over everything. What was being said was mostly that he was hard/impossible to read. That is what I was referring to when discussing his meta. My posts probably look a lot less consistent if you do in fact just consider his meta to be active lurking.
Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:16 pm
by Cheery Dog
He is hard/impossible to read because of all the active lurking, at least that's what I see.
↑Cub Daigoro wrote:Someone's likely to hit scum in RVS. Why not me?
Why not you indeed. Whether or not NS is scum is irrelevant here - my point isn't solely that you're voting the same person that you voted in RVS. It's that your reasons, rather than feeling like genuine attempts to scumhunt, feel like extensions of your RVS vote - that is,
excuses
to keep your vote on NS without having to look elsewhere.
Cub Daigoro wrote:Are you satisfied with NS's responses?
Not really, but two things. First of all, I've found NS historically difficult to read. Second of all, I found a better reason to vote for someone (namely, you).
People wrote:Seems to me we left RVS around post 20 or so.
I'd say we left RVS at 47
No. "Leaving RVS" is not a concrete post. It's a fluid transition, and trying to find a single post that ends RVS is absolutely useless with respect to... y'know, finding scum?
Belisarius wrote:Nope. I have only weak townreads (on you and implosion, for trying to end RVS) at this stage.
This is a really bad reason to townread me (and people in general, but
especially
me). I actually used to (I don't anymore) make a point as scum to look helpful in getting out of RVS. Wanting to get out of RVS isn't exclusive to town.
Cub wrote:It seemed productive to me, or at least potentially so, so it didn't ping my scumdar. In any case, you've clearly been posting content since. You're making a huge stretch implying that my response to NS is fake because I didn't respond to you the same way.
Fair enough.
I'm going to withhold an actual read on NS in light of me misreading him in the past. He has a meta which certain people are very, very good at cracking. I am not one of those people (although I've only played with him once or twice).
↑Belisarius wrote:I've never been able to read NS.
Cub Daigoro wrote:Are you satisfied with NS's responses?
Not really, but two things. First of all, I've found NS historically difficult to read. Second of all, I found a better reason to vote for someone (namely, you).
If NS plays anything like he used to, then well, I don't think anyone can read him.
, I believe that your prodding at NS is a product of you not wanting to do genuine scumhunting on other people, so that you can keep your vote passively on him.
I came to this conclusion by looking at your prodding and deciding that it didn't look genuine, or that it looked like excuses to not move your vote rather than questions that you sincerely want to know the answers to.
↑Nobody Special wrote:I just read your iso and failed to come up with any kind of reason to vote me.
Would you [like] to provide some reasoning now?
Out of your seven posts, one has content. It consisted of an OMGUS vote that you described as RVS well past RVS (IMO). You've done literally nothing else. I see no reason to move my vote.
hahahahaahahahahaha people still say omgus. ~nothing ever changes, not even this forum~
Hang on, why FOS instead of putting you're vote there? In fact, why would you not, unless you're actually worried about a wagon forming and not wanting to vote your scum buddy
VOTE: : pieceofpecanpie
calm your horses bro
↑Cub Daigoro wrote:
Here he is voting me for "busing" NS:
bussing
↑Edosurist wrote:I would write my post now, but my computer won't charge, so I'm saving the battery for more important things... no offense to you guys.
In other words, I'm stuck to phone posting.
Posting from phones is, while not simple, possible, and if one is town one should be willing to deal with the frustration (I have)
pieceofpecanpie wrote:Okay implosion, explain how it makes sense. Since I've overreacted to SafetyDance then you must be with him all the way on his logic
Absolutely not. You can overreact to a completely terrible case. Me saying you overreacted has absolutely no bearing on my opinion of the case in question. I
haven't actually read safetydance
and i'm busy at the moment but i'll read him later.
(emphasis mine)
what
↑pieceofpecanpie wrote:
Everyone if safety flips scum I'd look to implosion as a partner.
I think (which is why I mentioned it) that FOS are weak excuses from players who don't wish to vote but want to appear like they are scum-hunting to throw fake reads out there. As town, you're only ability in this game is to vote, so no, I don't see any town-motivation to not vote someone. Especially this early in the game.
Dumb. Voting is the only power the town has - but with great power comes great responsibility. And sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. And I think this is the start of a beautiful friendship.
(Seriously though conservative voting is a completely legitimate playstyle which I myself use; I prefer to
ask questions
let the smart people ask questions first; shoot later.)
↑Nobody Special wrote:This may be premature, but it seems to me that Cub and Zaicon are the same alignment. I'm much less willing to lump SafetyDance into that grouping, but it's possible.
↑Nobody Special wrote:This may be premature, but it seems to me that Cub and Zaicon are the same alignment. I'm much less willing to lump SafetyDance into that grouping, but it's possible.
↑Edosurist wrote:ac, anything you wanna say? I don't see you reading the thread right now...
Maybe you should give me a couple of gosh darn minutes to go through the 7 pages??
Anyway yeah skimmed and these are just my initial reactions. Gonna try to fix my email settings now.
Okay, then maybe we can clear things up:
I don't support lynching him today
just
because he is difficult to read.
I also don't support
refusing
to lynch him because he is difficult to read.
I consider voting him because of his lurking acceptable, because it is generally scummy behaviour. He should not get a free pass because "he always does it". If that is the policy when you play with him, then you give him an advantage whenever he is scum.
Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:46 pm
by Apozzle
EBWOP: Oh bugger. I did not mean to post all those quotes.
Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:15 pm
by Cub Daigoro
Apozzle, do you have any thoughts yet on ac983fan, Belisarius, or Zaicon?
Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:17 pm
by Edosurist
@Zaicon
He didn't explicitly state that NS was scummy for more than one reason, but he called people out for bussing him at least twice.
If he votes two different people for "bussing" NS, he better think NS really is scum.
Apozzle wrote:
Okay, then maybe we can clear things up:
I don't support lynching him today
just
because he is difficult to read.
I also don't support
refusing
to lynch him because he is difficult to read.
I consider voting him because of his lurking acceptable, because it is generally scummy behaviour.
He should not get a free pass because "he always does it".
If that is the policy when you play with him, then you give him an advantage whenever he is scum.
Thaaat made things more confusing.
Lurking
IS
his meta that's difficult to read.
Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:25 pm
by Edosurist
That shouldn't be red. I was going to highlight things for correlation, but I realized it didn't fit right... whatever.
Also, in case it wasn't clear, the quote and what followed was @Apozzle
Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:26 pm
by Cub Daigoro
Cleared things up for me. Maybe because it squares with my thinking about it.
Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 4:11 pm
by goodmorning
@Cheery: Why are you calling out Beli harder than Apozzle when they did pretty much the same thing?
Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 4:39 pm
by Cheery Dog
↑goodmorning wrote:@Cheery: Why are you calling out Beli harder than Apozzle when they did pretty much the same thing?
Beli's done it twice.
Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:24 pm
by pieceofpecanpie
...And Apozzle just stopped doing it?
It's really weird to see it from different players. I can't recall being in a game where people done something scummy, have then made an example of themselves and told town off in the process.
↑Cub Daigoro wrote:Cleared things up for me. Maybe because it squares with my thinking about it.
He hasn't told us what he's been doing should be rousing suspicion, so yes it appears to be the case. It may also be that he its no longer flat out lurking.
Posted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 3:23 pm
by implosion
Sorry. These have been busy days, and I'll try to post something comprehensive but not wall-ish today.
Posted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 3:58 pm
by ac1983fan
↑implosion wrote:Sorry. These have been busy days, and I'll try to post something comprehensive but not wall-ish today.
Nothing wrong with a good ol' wall of text though.
Posted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 6:59 pm
by Gammagooey
No vote changes since last votecount so not putting up another one right now.
Asking people on the replacement list to replace Messiah, should have a replacement in the next day or two.
Mesiah PMed me back before the replacement did, nevermind.
Posted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 1:04 am
by implosion
Well my memory failed miserably.
I will GET TO THIS TOMORROW. If I don't please give me negative reinforcement of some kind.
Posted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:43 am
by SafetyDance
I'm online! Only for a bit so will try and post something that's more pertinent that a prod dodge last post. There may be walls.
Posted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:02 am
by goodmorning
BRING IT
No, wait, why is this game so dead?
This argument about NS's meta is so unbelievably counterproductive right now.
Looking forward to a replacement, maybe they'll bring the life back.
Posted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:12 am
by SafetyDance
Spoiler:
↑Zaicon wrote:goodmorning, what was your reason to vote for Nobody Special in post 46?
SafetyDance, why did you specifically mention trying to get Nobody Special lynched due to lurking? You did mention 'everybody else', but why call out NS?
Cheery Dog, what was your interpretation of implosion's case? Basically, I agree with Cub Daigoro's reasoning here, so I'm curious as to why you disagree (preferably without using implosion's reasoning in Post 89, as that came later and elaborates on his initial reasoning presented).
You mean a side from the reasons included in that post and Post #63?
On Cub, he is/was using the reasoning that because his RVS vote might be on scum then that is a good reason to leave it there now. I don't find that acceptable and anyone who would say anything like that is likely scummy for either knowing NS is scum and bussing him or scummy because he's not even trying to scumhunt and thinks a RVS vote can be used without reason for a valid on.
That is why I voted him. You can tunnel one reason listed for your own agenda if you like but I'm not going to repeat myself again.
↑pieceofpecanpie wrote:
Everyone if safety flips scum I'd look to implosion as a partner.
what
Heh, you could describe that as premature.
But unlike your comment to someone else, I don't think this was foolish. I thought implosion's response in #122 was particularly delicious, taking the bait and putting his own uppity defensive attitude on display. He's a contradictory mix of
"Yeah, I'm just hanging around here mostly giving troll responses"
to
"I don't spend every waking moment here! Have some patience."
...And I watched him scoot around on the site elsewhere at will for those 6 hours as well. I've seen people needling him for days on end for thoughts, explanations, elaborations etc. for him to eventually swan in, give a crummy line or two and swan away again. Now I'm not going to turn into "that guy", the "you aren't active enough here" nazi,
but I'd rather nip this in the bud quickly with NS
. If he's got time to surf around the site, he's got time to come back here and give a follow-up to anything he's posted. Besides, it's not like we're playing fucking correspondence chess. Although there are oceans between us we live in an instantaneous age, of internet and magnets and shit.
↑ac1983fan wrote:
Those aren't reasons; what you have there are just a bunch of links to his posts and saying "I don't like these." You're also still voting NS and haven't really engaged any of the other wagons/cases other than to say "meh I think they're meh."
They are meh. And not liking people's posts means I don't see them coming from a Town perspective, that they don't fit, that they are scummy.
@Apozzle: When there's someone who's not even posted once, a mere lurker can indeed slide under the radar.
↑Belisarius wrote:Still don't like the NS wagon; the case on him amounts to "Kill him because META!" It's unalloyed WIFOM.
Nooooooo, kill him because of 25, kill him because of 37, kill him because of 65 even, kill him because he's done even less than you have.
Not because you can't read him, that's stupid.
And let me break this down, since people are going to be like" but why do you think they're scummy??"
25 is scummy because NS has been around long enough to know that people sometimes do really random stuff D1. This should not confuse him, and I feel like he's playing the "I don't know anything" card early on with it.
37 is scummy because it is completely unhelpful to Town and because he caved to pressure rather than make a fuss.
65 is a little bit scummy just in the way he reacts to Cub; that vote had been on him since the first page and he chose not to address it til then?
Active lurking is rather scummy for obvious reasons.
Well yes, but this seems to be something others seem to be forgetting. It's like they didn't read #98 #128 at all. Points that still stand now. Well, at least Post #205 happened, small mercies I suppose.
I think (which is why I mentioned it) that FOS are weak excuses from players who don't wish to vote but want to appear like they are scum-hunting to throw fake reads out there. As town, you're only ability in this game is to vote, so no, I don't see any town-motivation to not vote someone. Especially this early in the game.
Dumb. Voting is the only power the town has - but with great power comes great responsibility. And sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. And I think this is the start of a beautiful friendship.
(Seriously though conservative voting is a completely legitimate playstyle which I myself use; I prefer to
ask questions
let the smart people ask questions first; shoot later.)
Hi Uncle Ben/Rick, I love the smell of cliché in the morning.
DayVigging =/= Voting. I don't like FOS, I think it was bad, I wanted to put pressure on (and it got a reaction) for not voting, I did the only thing in my power to do so.
↑ac1983fan wrote:Apozzle:
SafetyDance: You need to stop using that eye-rolling icon it is very annoying also you are making ridiculous cases.
Why?
=====
Personally, not liking all this, "omg reaction test!" that people are throwing out there and admonishing others as an excuse to belittle their play. If you're not being honest and sincere then you're not playing to a town wincon.
↑Apozzle wrote:
Okay, then maybe we can clear things up:
I don't support lynching him today
just
because he is difficult to read.
I also don't support
refusing
to lynch him because he is difficult to read.
I consider voting him because of his lurking acceptable, because it is generally scummy behaviour. He should not get a free pass because "he always does it". If that is the policy when you play with him, then you give him an advantage whenever he is scum.
Yep, this site in general seems to be quite apathetic to it, no idea why, it's not beneficial in any way.
Btw, a suggestion, if you're going to quote a wall like that wrap it in spoiler= tags. Just write 'spoiler=' in brackets [] at the start and /spoiler in brackets [] at the end.
↑SafetyDance wrote:Hang on, why FOS instead of putting you're vote there? In fact, why would you not, unless you're actually worried about a wagon forming and not wanting to vote your scum buddy
FOS (vote): pieceofpecanpie
So you unvote your sure scumpick to vote someone you believe is scum by association to him?
wtf?
This is wrong. From your way of thought, NS is scum. Then you suggest that pecan is scum because he was too cautious to actually vote NS, his partner.
That assertion is a stretch, and you unvoted who you believe is scum in both scenarios to do it.
I'd also say that you appear to have overreacted, but in a different way.
Within the course of 5 hours, you made 7 posts. 7 fairly long ones, mind you.
It's mainly directed at pecanpie, but it also has things like this:
↑SafetyDance wrote:You're sheeping and you have a policy against policy lynching. The irony.
What you quoted wasn't nearly a policy vote. It looks like you were hasty to respond to another person joining your wagon.
VOTE: SafetyDance
Also, I'm curious. Why haven't you mentioned Apozzle once if you have a strict lurker = scum policy?
"Sure"? Erm what? I
voted
NS for the reasons outlined in the post I voted him in. "Sure scumpick" is your phrasing. So you're line of thought on my line of thought is already off on some beaten, de-railed track.
When there's a lot of posts to catch up on, I will try and catch up on them at once. If you like, in the future I can wait 12 hours between each post and incrementally answer people that way. I however, don't think that's a wise course of action.
If you think preferring to lynch a lurker on the face of no other obvious targets is strict, again that is your own interpretation.
Yours
. As for Apozzle, sorry. I clearly fucked up. Henceforth I shall go to sleep with the Activity Overview firmly imprinted into my retina and I will list everyone's last post times on color co-ordinated charts for easy identification. Because I am a machine.
↑ac1983fan wrote:Zaicon: Could you elaborate on what you "don't like" about POPP's reaction to SD? That's pretty fookin' vague.
I don't like the fact that pieceofpecanpie took the opportunity to accuse SafetyDance of 'jumping off of Nobody Special' when SafetyDance voted for pieceofpecanpie. All he bases that on was the fact that SafetyDance changed his vote from a semi-lurker to pieceofpecanpie. I don't know why he assumes that means SafetyDance's vote for Nobody Special was "meaningless". I also don't know why that's worthy of a vote (nor his later claim of implosion being SafetyDance's partner, which just seems like setting up lynches at this point).
Zaicon, you see popp's reaction as scummy, but don't you also see what SD did?
He changed his vote to popp because some association between him and NS (which is ridiculous in the first place). If he already believes that NS is scum, ockham's razor says that he should vote NS, not popp. Where is the town motivation in that?
I doubt SD would bus popp this early, that fast, so I'm calling SD scum and popp town.
Don't you see what Edoruist did? You can explain your reasoning further but he'll still grasp onto one straw. Are you in that much of a need of a quick-lynch. You appear very on-edge.
In fact, judging by this case against me being your only play of the day, what's your obsession with me?
You seemed so astutely away of the all the playlist before. It's confusing.
↑Edosurist wrote:goodmorning, why do you have an obsession with SD?
Because her little toe has a better judge of character than all of you combined?
Or she spent of her time last game tunnelling me so she's trying to counter-balance that
