Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 2:41 pm
Page 12 of 52
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 3:34 pm
↑ singersigner wrote:A thousand times this. I question Amrun's resistance to voting for Shea simply because he's not posting in this thread. She's done her "research" before and I'm questioning why she didn't do it here.
What research do you think I didn't do?
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 3:58 pm
That he referenced town meta of his. Like he did in AFFC. But it was neutral meta.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 4:02 pm
↑ Captain Haddock wrote:I think Matias tried to encourage suspicion of me without comitting himself and he's asked for opinions without giving any.
↑ Matias wrote:I don't agree with you. I don't think Haddock's "vote" was early at all. It was after 3 votes on Llamarble's bandwagon. Do you agree that, if you don't find bandwagoning scummy, that those that avoid bandwagoning are instead the scummy ones? Or do you feel like that isn't necessarily the case?
Unvote
This is what I'm talking about. Not "early at all"! "After 3 votes on Llamarble's bandwagon", like that was anything other than 3 rvs votes on the same person.
What analysis? I just ISOed you and I can't see any. Notepad?
VOTE: Matias
This is the post that initially made me think Haddock was scum. Amrun pointed this out first, and then I read it again. I still don't like it. Haddock seems to jump at a shadow really. Matias wasn't even making a point about Haddock so much as zach. This looks like scum jumpiness, but it could be a misunderstanding as town. It's still scummy, though.
One other note, this is the first vote on Matias. Haddock isn't going with the flow, he's essentially starting the wagon on Matias.
His next to posts have little relevance, but then he posts this:
↑ Captain Haddock wrote:
I know what you meant now but saying "early bandwagoning is scummy" isn't bandwagon analysis, what was your reason besides that? Because he wasn't the only one to do it.
Quite towny.
Why do you think it's artificial? I'm not voting him for being wrong, I don't think describing the 6th post "as not early at all" is geniune and the rvs "bandwagon" doesn't explain that to me. I'm voting him because I think he was trying make me suspicius and he was testing the waters.
↑ Amrun wrote:↑ Captain Haddock wrote:I think Matias tried to encourage suspicion of me without comitting himself and he's asked for opinions without giving any.
↑ Matias wrote:I don't agree with you. I don't think Haddock's "vote" was early at all. It was after 3 votes on Llamarble's bandwagon. Do you agree that, if you don't find bandwagoning scummy, that those that avoid bandwagoning are instead the scummy ones? Or do you feel like that isn't necessarily the case?
Unvote
This is what I'm talking about. Not "early at all"! "After 3 votes on Llamarble's bandwagon"
What analysis? I just ISOed you and I can't see any. Notepad?
VOTE: Matias
This post is just terrible. The point of Matias' post was not about Captain Haddock, but about discussing Zachrulez' motivation. This shows that Haddock is image conscious and lashing out at perceived threats.
Your post is terrible. NO, Encouraging suspicion of a player you won't even vote is scummy. Matias didn't exactly use neutral language and he was telling Zach his logic meant he should suspect me. But since then he said I was scummy for voting him.
"Haddock voted him to lash out at a threat" is dumb, the thing to do as scum would be ignore him and let him vote someone else(which he did). But I'm town and I want him lynched.
Matias was testing the waters at the start, he didn't even give a scum suspect but asked for multiple reads. His first vote was the only real wagon(rvs doesn't count), and now he's hopped onto me. He hasn't given any reasons for voting me either he just wants to vote with everyone else, he doesn't want to try and get a suspect lynched, just bandwagon.
Let's break that up:
I know what you meant now but saying "early bandwagoning is scummy" isn't bandwagon analysis, what was your reason besides that? Because he wasn't the only one to do it.
Here, Haddock misunderstands Matias' point again. Zach said that early bandwagoning is townie. Matias asked zach what zach's thoughts were on Haddock, because Haddock was bandwagoning, too. Zach said it was too early, Matias didn't think so. There is no indication there that Matias was targeting Haddock, but Haddock still interpreted it as a threat. He also points to other people bandwagoning early.
Hmmm, before that, this happened:
And then he defended his "nope" here:
↑ Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:
Pretty sure that's an artifact of spatial proximity instead of something Captain Haddock actually did.
P.S. My FoS in #56 is more general than implied.
CES defends Haddock and weakly supports Haddock's favorite bandwagon
without actually getting on it
(CES voted after Haddock's 43, but before Haddock's post that I'm quoting now). I smell a scumteam.
Why do you think it's artificial? I'm not voting him for being wrong, I don't think describing the 6th post "as not early at all" is geniune and the rvs "bandwagon" doesn't explain that to me. I'm voting him because I think he was trying make me suspicius and he was testing the waters.
Confirm vote: Captain Haddock
Why in the hell did he feel the need to defend CES's argument? Because CES is his partner, that's why. He jumped in and gave a justification for CES' post.
Right now I'm going to break off the wall because I realize it's getting absurdly long, and I personally hate walls. However, I will say this: I think Haddock is scum now more than ever before. When I did this re-read, I thought I would find reasons for Haddock being town, in fact that was the whole purpose of this re-read. However, I've only found more individual evidence to support Haddock scum, and quite a bit of evidence to support a Haddock/CES scumteam. I haven't finished yet, but for now I've very happy with my vote on Haddock.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 4:18 pm
Okay, picking up where I left off with this post:
I've already run through the first 3/4's of this post, so let me finish off:
Sorry if the re-quoting annoys you, but I think its important to provide context while focusing in a particular part of a post. Anyway, this post again completely misunderstands both Matias and Amrun's points. Again, he thinks that Matias' posting was a veiled threat, while it clearly wasn't. He then light OMGUS' Amrun by saying that her post is bad. He also said that Matias hopped on to him, and that was part of Matias' initial "threat", which is silly. Next post:
Oh God, quotes within quotes within quotes. This is the fucking inception of quote pyramids. But its also another example of Haddock digging deeper. He says that the "veiled threat" is scummy, and then gives as evidence the fact that Matias voted for him later. Clearly Matias' vote was in response to my (really Amrun's) point that Haddock was perceiving evils that weren't there. Its circular logic and hard to explain, so let me put it in easy to read format:
Zachrules: I think early bandwagoning is townie.
Matias: What do you think of Haddock; he bandwagoned early.
Zachrules: Meh, too early to be anything.
Matias: He was the third vote, that doesn't seem too early.
Haddock: OMG! He's trying to attack me, [votes Matias]
Amrun: Wow, that was scummy Haddock.
Me: Amrun's right.
Matias: Yeah
Haddock: See, Matias wants me dead!
Damn that looks prettier without a massive quote pyramid
.
Meanwhile, CES votes for an easy lurker target:
And yes, that is literally his entire post.
I'm putting another break in this wall since Haddock's next post is quite large.
↑ Captain Haddock wrote:
I know what you meant now but saying "early bandwagoning is scummy" isn't bandwagon analysis, what was your reason besides that? Because he wasn't the only one to do it.
Quite towny.
Why do you think it's artificial? I'm not voting him for being wrong, I don't think describing the 6th post "as not early at all" is geniune and the rvs "bandwagon" doesn't explain that to me. I'm voting him because I think he was trying make me suspicius and he was testing the waters.
↑ Amrun wrote:↑ Captain Haddock wrote:I think Matias tried to encourage suspicion of me without comitting himself and he's asked for opinions without giving any.
↑ Matias wrote:I don't agree with you. I don't think Haddock's "vote" was early at all. It was after 3 votes on Llamarble's bandwagon. Do you agree that, if you don't find bandwagoning scummy, that those that avoid bandwagoning are instead the scummy ones? Or do you feel like that isn't necessarily the case?
Unvote
This is what I'm talking about. Not "early at all"! "After 3 votes on Llamarble's bandwagon"
What analysis? I just ISOed you and I can't see any. Notepad?
VOTE: Matias
This post is just terrible. The point of Matias' post was not about Captain Haddock, but about discussing Zachrulez' motivation. This shows that Haddock is image conscious and lashing out at perceived threats.
Your post is terrible. NO, Encouraging suspicion of a player you won't even vote is scummy. Matias didn't exactly use neutral language and he was telling Zach his logic meant he should suspect me. But since then he said I was scummy for voting him.
"Haddock voted him to lash out at a threat" is dumb, the thing to do as scum would be ignore him and let him vote someone else(which he did). But I'm town and I want him lynched.
Matias was testing the waters at the start, he didn't even give a scum suspect but asked for multiple reads. His first vote was the only real wagon(rvs doesn't count), and now he's hopped onto me. He hasn't given any reasons for voting me either he just wants to vote with everyone else, he doesn't want to try and get a suspect lynched, just bandwagon.
I've already run through the first 3/4's of this post, so let me finish off:
↑ Amrun wrote:↑ Captain Haddock wrote:I think Matias tried to encourage suspicion of me without comitting himself and he's asked for opinions without giving any.
↑ Matias wrote:I don't agree with you. I don't think Haddock's "vote" was early at all. It was after 3 votes on Llamarble's bandwagon. Do you agree that, if you don't find bandwagoning scummy, that those that avoid bandwagoning are instead the scummy ones? Or do you feel like that isn't necessarily the case?
Unvote
This is what I'm talking about. Not "early at all"! "After 3 votes on Llamarble's bandwagon"
What analysis? I just ISOed you and I can't see any. Notepad?
VOTE: Matias
This post is just terrible. The point of Matias' post was not about Captain Haddock, but about discussing Zachrulez' motivation. This shows that Haddock is image conscious and lashing out at perceived threats.
Your post is terrible. NO, Encouraging suspicion of a player you won't even vote is scummy. Matias didn't exactly use neutral language and he was telling Zach his logic meant he should suspect me. But since then he said I was scummy for voting him.
"Haddock voted him to lash out at a threat" is dumb, the thing to do as scum would be ignore him and let him vote someone else(which he did). But I'm town and I want him lynched.
Matias was testing the waters at the start, he didn't even give a scum suspect but asked for multiple reads. His first vote was the only real wagon(rvs doesn't count), and now he's hopped onto me. He hasn't given any reasons for voting me either he just wants to vote with everyone else, he doesn't want to try and get a suspect lynched, just bandwagon.
Sorry if the re-quoting annoys you, but I think its important to provide context while focusing in a particular part of a post. Anyway, this post again completely misunderstands both Matias and Amrun's points. Again, he thinks that Matias' posting was a veiled threat, while it clearly wasn't. He then light OMGUS' Amrun by saying that her post is bad. He also said that Matias hopped on to him, and that was part of Matias' initial "threat", which is silly. Next post:
↑ Captain Haddock wrote:↑ Bub Bidderskins wrote:↑ Amrun wrote:↑ Captain Haddock wrote:I think Matias tried to encourage suspicion of me without comitting himself and he's asked for opinions without giving any.
↑ Matias wrote:I don't agree with you. I don't think Haddock's "vote" was early at all. It was after 3 votes on Llamarble's bandwagon. Do you agree that, if you don't find bandwagoning scummy, that those that avoid bandwagoning are instead the scummy ones? Or do you feel like that isn't necessarily the case?
Unvote
This is what I'm talking about. Not "early at all"! "After 3 votes on Llamarble's bandwagon"
What analysis? I just ISOed you and I can't see any. Notepad?
VOTE: Matias
This post is just terrible. The point of Matias' post was not about Captain Haddock, but about discussing Zachrulez' motivation. This shows that Haddock is image conscious and lashing out at perceived threats.
I missed this completely, but now that I look back on it, Haddock's actions seem really scummy. In context, it seems like a very weird thing for him to say, like he perceived even slightest thing to be a threat. I don't like it.
unvote; vote: Captain Haddock
Subtle encouragement to vote me but no attack and voting someone else is no threat at all. Your logic applies more to Matias, as he took no issue with my reasons for voting him(ignored my case) but voted me. You and Amrun should be voting him.
Oh God, quotes within quotes within quotes. This is the fucking inception of quote pyramids. But its also another example of Haddock digging deeper. He says that the "veiled threat" is scummy, and then gives as evidence the fact that Matias voted for him later. Clearly Matias' vote was in response to my (really Amrun's) point that Haddock was perceiving evils that weren't there. Its circular logic and hard to explain, so let me put it in easy to read format:
Zachrules: I think early bandwagoning is townie.
Matias: What do you think of Haddock; he bandwagoned early.
Zachrules: Meh, too early to be anything.
Matias: He was the third vote, that doesn't seem too early.
Haddock: OMG! He's trying to attack me, [votes Matias]
Amrun: Wow, that was scummy Haddock.
Me: Amrun's right.
Matias: Yeah
Haddock: See, Matias wants me dead!
Damn that looks prettier without a massive quote pyramid
.Meanwhile, CES votes for an easy lurker target:
And yes, that is literally his entire post.
I'm putting another break in this wall since Haddock's next post is quite large.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 4:22 pm
I don't really think Haddock and CES are a scumteam, but that post did bring something up for me.
Captain Haddock, why don't you suspect CES?
Captain Haddock, why don't you suspect CES?
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 4:41 pm
↑ Captain Haddock wrote:I'm too sure Matias is scum to lurker lynch and the case on Johnhog is a lot weaker than Matias'. I'm sure Johnhog could've sheeped everyone like Matias if he wanted too.
Llamamrble, why haven't you said anything about me since post 57?↑ Bub Bidderskins wrote:↑ Captain Haddock wrote:↑ Bub Bidderskins wrote:
I missed this completely, but now that I look back on it, Haddock's actions seem really scummy. In context, it seems like a very weird thing for him to say, like he perceived even slightest thing to be a threat. I don't like it.
unvote; vote: Captain Haddock
Subtle encouragement to vote me but no attack and voting someone else is no threat at all. Your logic applies more to Matias, as he took no issue with my reasons for voting him(ignored my case) but voted me. You and Amrun should be voting him.
No I shouldn't be voting for Mat. Why? Because he didn't perceive a non-existent threat. I'm not sure if you understand the case against you. I'm voting you because you thought there was some sort of threat against you in Matias' posting when there wasn't anything of the sort. That is self-centered scum play IMO.
Matias obviously wasn't even going to call me scum because no one was interested so there was no threat at all! If you meant that I thought he was trying to encourage suspicion on me, yes and that's scummy if he would rather have no vote and not give an opinion till he found out how much support there would be. Since when did scum push people they percieve a threat rather than people they can lynch?
↑ Amrun wrote:↑ Captain Haddock wrote: NO, Encouraging suspicion of a player you won't even vote is scummy.
It's not at all, actually. You think everyone is limited to one scum read per day and can only discuss the person they are voting? No.
He wasn't calling me a suspect, he gave no opinion of me. Why are you using the word scum read when he prefered having no vote to voting me? That question is misreping and loaded.
An empty "ur wrong"... Matias I don't care if you think you've corrected you play. If there was anything wrong with my reasons you could explain straight away.
Me voting him is no reason to vote me unless he hates the reasons, or is scum OMGUSing.
He explained nothing. If you have the time try and read our ISO's quickly side by side. This is a lie and he needs to hang for it alone. "I'll get more indepth later because I'm busy", 4 hours later he posts, it's not hard to be more indepth than this.
I wonder if it's a coincidence that all the bandwagoned players are at the bottom?
Did anyone notice the size of my wagon? It makes me more sure I've caught scum.
Again, breaking that up:
I'm too sure Matias is scum to lurker lynch and the case on Johnhog is a lot weaker than Matias'. I'm sure Johnhog could've sheeped everyone like Matias if he wanted too.
Llamamrble, why haven't you said anything about me since post 57?
Dismisses a case on Johhog. Individually, I do have a scumread on Johhog, so this could show more buddying, but IMHO the CES/Haddock link is much stronger. Also, note how self centered he is, asking other players for reads on himself. Scum want to know where they stand with the town.
↑ Bub Bidderskins wrote:↑ Captain Haddock wrote:↑ Bub Bidderskins wrote:
I missed this completely, but now that I look back on it, Haddock's actions seem really scummy. In context, it seems like a very weird thing for him to say, like he perceived even slightest thing to be a threat. I don't like it.
unvote; vote: Captain Haddock
Subtle encouragement to vote me but no attack and voting someone else is no threat at all. Your logic applies more to Matias, as he took no issue with my reasons for voting him(ignored my case) but voted me. You and Amrun should be voting him.
No I shouldn't be voting for Mat. Why? Because he didn't perceive a non-existent threat. I'm not sure if you understand the case against you. I'm voting you because you thought there was some sort of threat against you in Matias' posting when there wasn't anything of the sort. That is self-centered scum play IMO.
Matias obviously wasn't even going to call me scum because no one was interested so there was no threat at all! If you meant that I thought he was trying to encourage suspicion on me, yes and that's scummy if he would rather have no vote and not give an opinion till he found out how much support there would be. Since when did scum push people they percieve a threat rather than people they can lynch?
Again, pushes the idea that Matias sowed some sort of seeds of suspicion on Haddock, when that clearly wasn't the case.
An empty "ur wrong"... Matias I don't care if you think you've corrected you play. If there was anything wrong with my reasons you could explain straight away.
Me voting him is no reason to vote me unless he hates the reasons, or is scum OMGUSing.
"I'm right because you haven't said I'm wrong yet". Also in this post: a complete misunderstanding what what OMGUS is.
He explained nothing. If you have the time try and read our ISO's quickly side by side. This is a lie and he needs to hang for it alone. "I'll get more indepth later because I'm busy", 4 hours later he posts, it's not hard to be more indepth than this.
I wonder if it's a coincidence that all the bandwagoned players are at the bottom?
Man is Haddock grasping at straws here. Seriously man, this case isn't lining up at all. Also note the soft defense of CES at bottom of list. The last part I've left to itself because I think its profound:
Did anyone notice the size of my wagon? It makes me more sure I've caught scum.
This is terrible logic. If the size of a bandwagon indicated towniness, then the town could never lynch anybody. Its just terrible and reeks of a scum defense.
One...more...post...
↑ Captain Haddock wrote:
What about Matias just joining existing bandwagons? Isn't that safevoting?
If you have time for that can you read my iso besides Matias' and comment? I even asked him his reason for voting CES and he didn't explain.
↑ Captain Haddock wrote:
He explained nothing. If you have the time try and read our ISO's quickly side by side.
↑ Regfan wrote:↑ Captain Haddock wrote:Did anyone notice the size of my wagon? It makes me more sure I've caught scum.
I'd like your reads and thoughts on other players than Matias though because right now you're tunneling on him and I'm pretty positive he's town.
These reads are mine, not the teams: Zachrules town, CES quite towny, Johnhog slightly towny. Singer was fairly scummy but I will have a better read on her later. Bub is scummy because he played with me as "confirmed town" scum and his reason for voting me is: I voted Matias becausehe might have a suspicion on me he's not pushing! Amrun is less scummy but still scummy, a bit for her reason and I didn't like Amrun's question.
Here:
He makes another weak point against Matias here. It seems like this is Haddock singular focus. Later in this post he makes some other reads but they're pretty much pushed to the side and not elaborated on at all.
If you have time for that can you read my iso besides Matias' and comment? I even asked him his reason for voting CES and he didn't explain.
Soft defense of CES.
These reads are mine, not the teams: Zachrules town, CES quite towny, Johnhog slightly towny. Singer was fairly scummy but I will have a better read on her later. Bub is scummy because he played with me as "confirmed town" scum and his reason for voting me is: I voted Matias becausehe might have a suspicion on me he's not pushing! Amrun is less scummy but still scummy, a bit for her reason and I didn't like Amrun's question.
Not expounded upon much at all, and we wouldn't have even gotten them if Regfan didn't ask. Notice how his main scum reads are on people who made cases against him (me and Amrun). Also note his town read on CES, which is questionable considering the very nature of CES' play. It seems weird that you could get a solid read like that on CES. Also a questionable town read on Johhog. Again, possibly evidence for a CES/Johhog/Haddock scumteam, but the link between Johhog and Haddock is much weaker.
Well that's it. TL;DR?
Haddock and CES are scum together.
I'm going to bed now.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 5:21 pm
Okay Bub, I've broke your entire thing down into sections to make it a lot easier to read and also because the massive amounts of quotes you had were hard to read. Before this turns into a you vs captain quote wall back and forth and kills the thread as well as wastes a lot of time I'd rather go through it and try and explain to you why I'm pretty sure you're wrong on him. A summarization of the reasoning is that Captain initially misunderstood one of Matias's posts or intentions and I believe earlier you stated that you thought that was possible too. Almost every single of his posts are based of or around this misunderstand and I find his actions or at least his case and belief of Matias being scum as genuine. I haven't looked into the CES/Captain linkages but I will later.
1. I see how this one can be read as a scum-tell however I'm of the believe that he completely misunderstood Matias's post and I think the genuiness behind how he believes in this in his other posts also points towards it just being a misunderstanding. Also "not going with the flow" or starting another wagon isn't a scum-tell.
2. This is explained in the others.
3. I find this section to be a town-tell, his calling of Amruns post as 'terrible' or 'bad' was merely a defense mechanism that comes from town when they're wagoned often. As for the rest of this, I see it this way; He found Matias's questioning of Zach about him as an attempt to subtly FoS him (It's not the case but it's what I garner he thought), he then saw a wagon form on him with Matias following up and voting him. This strengthens his belief that Matias was setting him up.
4. Okay, you have this whole thing wrong. Zach said avoiding a wagon is scummy, Matias asks Zach what he thought of Captain for avoiding the wagon. Zach says too early. Matias says he doesn't think it's too early. Haddock thinks that Matias was subtly FoSing him. Amrun finds his post to be a pre-emptive attack on his supects, votes him, you and Matias follow. Haddock believes that he's right about Matias due to it.
1. Don't disagree that he's self-centered, don't think it's a strong scum-tell though and can see why he'd ask it; Person voting you but not mentioning you is odd.
2. This is explained earlier.
3. Eh. I find this probably your best point out of all of them and even then I don't think it's a big scum-tell. Just an oddly phrased comment.
4. You have no idea how many times I've seen this logic presented by townies, even experienced players. It's the thought process of "I'm town, I'm getting run up so the people voting me are probably mafia, mafia are trying to vote me because I'm a threat so I must be right about my scum reads", the thought process is wrong. But it doesn't change the fact that it's a very common one from a town player.
5. He states a large amount of confidence on Matias being scum, thus his focus on him. You similarly have focused on Haddock as much. Tunneling or singular focus like that isn't a scum-tell.
6. This relates to 4. he believes that he's being pushed on by scum.
↑ Bub Bidderskins wrote:
1. (About Post 43): Haddock seems to jump at a shadow really. Matias wasn't even making a point about Haddock so much as zach. This looks like scum jumpiness, but it could be a misunderstanding as town. It's still scummy, though. One other note, this is the first vote on Matias. Haddock isn't going with the flow, he's essentially starting the wagon on Matias.
2. (About Post 167): Here, Haddock misunderstands Matias' point again. Zach said that early bandwagoning is townie. Matias asked zach what zach's thoughts were on Haddock, because Haddock was bandwagoning, too. Zach said it was too early, Matias didn't think so. There is no indication there that Matias was targeting Haddock, but Haddock still interpreted it as a threat. He also points to other people bandwagoning early.
3. (About Post 167): Anyway, this post again completely misunderstands both Matias and Amrun's points. Again, he thinks that Matias' posting was a veiled threat, while it clearly wasn't. He then light OMGUS' Amrun by saying that her post is bad. He also said that Matias hopped on to him, and that was part of Matias' initial "threat", which is silly.
4. He says that the "veiled threat" is scummy, and then gives as evidence the fact that Matias voted for him later. Clearly Matias' vote was in response to my (really Amrun's) point that Haddock was perceiving evils that weren't there. Its circular logic and hard to explain, so let me put it in easy to read format:
Zachrules: I think early bandwagoning is townie.
Matias: What do you think of Haddock; he bandwagoned early.
Zachrules: Meh, too early to be anything.
Matias: He was the third vote, that doesn't seem too early.
Haddock: OMG! He's trying to attack me, [votes Matias]
Amrun: Wow, that was scummy Haddock.
Me: Amrun's right.
Matias: Yeah
Haddock: See, Matias wants me dead!
1. I see how this one can be read as a scum-tell however I'm of the believe that he completely misunderstood Matias's post and I think the genuiness behind how he believes in this in his other posts also points towards it just being a misunderstanding. Also "not going with the flow" or starting another wagon isn't a scum-tell.
2. This is explained in the others.
3. I find this section to be a town-tell, his calling of Amruns post as 'terrible' or 'bad' was merely a defense mechanism that comes from town when they're wagoned often. As for the rest of this, I see it this way; He found Matias's questioning of Zach about him as an attempt to subtly FoS him (It's not the case but it's what I garner he thought), he then saw a wagon form on him with Matias following up and voting him. This strengthens his belief that Matias was setting him up.
4. Okay, you have this whole thing wrong. Zach said avoiding a wagon is scummy, Matias asks Zach what he thought of Captain for avoiding the wagon. Zach says too early. Matias says he doesn't think it's too early. Haddock thinks that Matias was subtly FoSing him. Amrun finds his post to be a pre-emptive attack on his supects, votes him, you and Matias follow. Haddock believes that he's right about Matias due to it.
↑ Bub Bidderskins wrote:
1. (About Post 219): Dismisses a case on Johhog. Individually, I do have a scumread on Johhog, so this could show more buddying, but IMHO the CES/Haddock link is much stronger. Also, note how self centered he is, asking other players for reads on himself. Scum want to know where they stand with the town.
2. (About Post 219): Again, pushes the idea that Matias sowed some sort of seeds of suspicion on Haddock, when that clearly wasn't the case.
3. (About Post 219): "I'm right because you haven't said I'm wrong yet". Also in this post: a complete misunderstanding what what OMGUS is.
4. (About Post 219): This is terrible logic. If the size of a bandwagon indicated towniness, then the town could never lynch anybody. Its just terrible and reeks of a scum defense.
5. (About Post 229): He makes another weak point against Matias here. It seems like this is Haddock singular focus. Later in this post he makes some other reads but they're pretty much pushed to the side and not elaborated on at all.
6: (About Post 229): Not expounded upon much at all, and we wouldn't have even gotten them if Regfan didn't ask. Notice how his main scum reads are on people who made cases against him (me and Amrun). Also note his town read on CES, which is questionable considering the very nature of CES' play. It seems weird that you could get a solid read like that on CES. Also a questionable town read on Johhog. Again, possibly evidence for a CES/Johhog/Haddock scumteam, but the link between Johhog and Haddock is much weaker.
1. Don't disagree that he's self-centered, don't think it's a strong scum-tell though and can see why he'd ask it; Person voting you but not mentioning you is odd.
2. This is explained earlier.
3. Eh. I find this probably your best point out of all of them and even then I don't think it's a big scum-tell. Just an oddly phrased comment.
4. You have no idea how many times I've seen this logic presented by townies, even experienced players. It's the thought process of "I'm town, I'm getting run up so the people voting me are probably mafia, mafia are trying to vote me because I'm a threat so I must be right about my scum reads", the thought process is wrong. But it doesn't change the fact that it's a very common one from a town player.
5. He states a large amount of confidence on Matias being scum, thus his focus on him. You similarly have focused on Haddock as much. Tunneling or singular focus like that isn't a scum-tell.
6. This relates to 4. he believes that he's being pushed on by scum.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 5:27 pm
Oh and Slaxx and I just agreed that Bub is pretty much definite town.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 7:13 pm
I literally could have predicted every single vote on this wagon pregame.
CES 'cause he always wagons and the others because players from last year's WF have made comments about how much I was obvious scum and should have gotten lynched all year. (Yes Singer it was a completely reasonable prediction by Matias)
So either scum were lurking / not eager to pile on or some of the people who were already going to vote me drew scum.
Amrun / Haddock / CES scum each help make the VCs feel about right (big wagons ~1 scum), factoring in towniness of the people they spent time on wagons with. I think the most telling wagon here is TSQ's. Votes sitting on a player who hasn't posted yet just DON'T DO ANYTHING, and I would not expect a player who loves bandwagons and believes in the power of votes to make useful things happen the way CES does to just let his vote sit around on a lurker. It's frustrating trying to get anything done when 3 votes are sitting uselessly on a player who isn't interacting yet and 2 more are out of commission because the slots are lurking.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 7:15 pm
How do you reconcile that that scumteam doesn't make sense from play?
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 7:27 pm
Each of you _individually_ would help the wagons make a bit more sense.
There isn't really any reconciliation necessary.
Particularly since wagon placement tells are usually more
'I feel good about my reads because they make decent wagonsense' than
'I am going to base my reads on what makes the most possible wagonsense'
There isn't really any reconciliation necessary.
Particularly since wagon placement tells are usually more
'I feel good about my reads because they make decent wagonsense' than
'I am going to base my reads on what makes the most possible wagonsense'
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 7:50 pm
Can you restate that entire post?
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 7:52 pm
Huh? Which one?
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 7:52 pm
286
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 7:56 pm
I was not saying that a team of Amrun + Haddock + CES would make the vote counts make sense.
I was saying that each of Amrun / Haddock / CES individually, by being scum, could make the vote counts make more sense.
Basically individual tell not team-tell, and not even a very strong one.
I was saying that each of Amrun / Haddock / CES individually, by being scum, could make the vote counts make more sense.
Basically individual tell not team-tell, and not even a very strong one.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 7:58 pm
The most useful thing I got out of looking at the wagons was thinking about how out of place CES' vote on TSQ is.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 8:01 pm
↑ Llamarble wrote:I was not saying that a team of Amrun + Haddock + CES would make the vote counts make sense.
I was saying that each of Amrun / Haddock / CES individually, by being scum, could make the vote counts make more sense.
Basically individual tell not team-tell, and not even a very strong one.
OK.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 9:05 pm
And your explanation is what?
Bud's case is silly.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 2:42 am
I was talking about my reason for voting you obviously but sheeping a vote on me, then setting yourself up for jumping on any other bandwagon is obviously not pushing.
Funny how your analysis leads to only "suspecting" easy lynches.
↑ Regfan wrote:↑ Captain Haddock wrote:He explained nothing. If you have the time try and read our ISO's quickly side by side.
Okay. Read through them.1.He did explain his reasoning for voting CES, that being that he thought CES's vote on Llarmable was an attempt to 'fit in' by scum.2.His reasoning for voting you is touched on in #58 where he states that he doesn't believe that you can have your stance if you've read all of his posts.3.To explain in more detail his #28 wasn't about getting reads from someone else on you so he could jump on but rather he noted a contradiction in Zachs logic and was questioning him about it; the contradiction being that Zach stated that he found 'avoiding bandwagons' which is what you do scummy but didn't have a scum read on you.
1.
That didn't clear up my confusion of the reason he gave for voting CES. 2.
His post about explaining things was in the context of my reasons for voting him, not his reason for voting me and nothing he's posted has contradicted what I've said. 3.
This has been discussed so I will just say this, has his analysis this game came up with any reason for voting anyone? His case on CES was made by Bub.NO, I pointed out he was tring to get a feel of the game in my first (real) post, and since then he's had no insight about who's scum, no oringinal scum reads. He's just sheeped and got ready to sheep. My case on him is only a misunderstanding if he's town and I don't see any reason to think he is.
I think Bub might not be scum, the case looks like it's just clueless.
↑ Bub Bidderskins wrote:
I know what you meant now but saying "early bandwagoning is scummy" isn't bandwagon analysis, what was your reason besides that? Because he wasn't the only one to do it.
Here, Haddock misunderstands Matias' point again. Zach said that early bandwagoning is townie. Matias asked zach what zach's thoughts were on Haddock, because Haddock was bandwagoning, too. Zach said it was too early, Matias didn't think so. There is no indication there that Matias was targeting Haddock, but Haddock still interpreted it as a threat. He also points to other people bandwagoning early.
Actually you're misunderstanding, he voted CES and said "Read my earlier post on my bandwagon analysis" and I didn't realise saying: "earlier bandwagoning is scummy" was analysis. "Haddock, because Haddock was bandwagoning, too", I "avoided" bandwagoning at the start.
↑ Bub Bidderskins wrote:↑ Bub Bidderskins wrote:Confirm vote: Captain Haddock
Why in the hell did he feel the need to defend CES's argument? Because CES is his partner, that's why. He jumped in and gave a justification for CES' post.
What arguement?
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 4:19 am
Walls happen.
Meanwhile Benmage continues to set off alarm bells in my head and TSQ continues to provide nothing of value.
Meanwhile Benmage continues to set off alarm bells in my head and TSQ continues to provide nothing of value.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 4:37 am
Why the hell is Johhog an "easy lynch"?
He's a player in this game that I'm currently interested in.
He's a player in this game that I'm currently interested in.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 5:04 am
The only discussion that the TSQ wagon has produced is that I've called it a frustrating waste of vote-time, and that could've been accomplished equally well by you and the other players on it not voting at all. I think TSQ lurking and posting in other threads is scummy, but he can be voted later once he shows up and is available to actually interact with his accusers / provide something for people to actually talk about. And I would expect you of all people to feel the same way.
This post is also CES' third "I'm going to dismiss this out of hand with no particular explanation."
I don't like all the defanging of stuff without offering a useful alternative. It makes the game more passive.
CES is all oneliners and no push this game.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 5:07 am
CES wrote:
Bud's case is silly.
This expansive argument of extraordinary logic is making me really doubt my case right now.
↑ Bub Bidderskins wrote:↑ Bub Bidderskins wrote:Confirm vote: Captain Haddock
Why in the hell did he feel the need to defend CES's argument? Because CES is his partner, that's why. He jumped in and gave a justification for CES' post.
What arguement?
That points out an interesting trend of CES not making real arguments, but I digress. CES responded to Llamarble's vote on you by saying "nope". Llamarble pointed out his reasons for voting me and then you stepped in and defended CES' position for him.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 5:09 am
@Regfan, I can see what you're saying about Haddock sticking to his genuine read, but personally I think this is evidence of scum doubling down. At this point, I don't think Haddock can back off his read of Matias, he's gone too far down the road with it.