Posted: Thu May 21, 2020 5:23 pm
Is Hoctac an experienced player pretending to be dumb with an alt? I'm confused.In post 207, DkKoba wrote:VOTE: hoctac
I just noticed the gimmick account. I will hardtunnel people with dumb gimmicks 9/10 because its not a valid way of covering up town vs scum play
You joke claimed and then took it back and I don't know what to do about that.In post 224, HoldenGolden wrote:I asked awkward in what way, not where was I awkward. Can you explain what pinged you about that post then?In post 143, ceejayvinoya wrote:This one.In post 90, HoldenGolden wrote:Also awkward in what way?In post 69, ceejayvinoya wrote:My vote on Holden stays. Most awkward guy so far.
Dont be shy. I'm apperently the socially awkward one.
In post 39, HoldenGolden wrote:Haha that was a gambit son. You just got gambitted. That role doesnt even exist in this set up! Only a moron would claim it!In post 37, Tuxedo Mask wrote:Beautiful.In post 35, Hoctac wrote:How do I look?? Be honest.
I CC, let's lynch this scum.In post 36, HoldenGolden wrote:Hardclaiming insane novice macho cop/doc watcher btw
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Tuxedo Mask
Do you agree with Phoenix Human Right's comment about me "WIFOM'd too much".
Arguments mostly, if they make sense to me.In post 268, Tuxedo Mask wrote:How do you determine a good candidate to sheep? Is based on their arguments, or having a prior town read on them?
Arguments mostly, if they make sense to me.[/quote]In post 268, Tuxedo Mask wrote:How do you determine a good candidate to sheep? Is based on their arguments, or having a prior town read on them?
To simplify the questions.In post 218, DkKoba wrote:I dont scumread anyone at this stage of the game. To do so requires a blatent scumslip.
With your vote still on Roses does that mean you're not convinced by their defense, if so why not? What does it mean for your strategy when the person you sheep moves their vote? Are you just waiting for another argument you like?In post 279, ceejayvinoya wrote:Arguments mostly, if they make sense to me.In post 268, Tuxedo Mask wrote:How do you determine a good candidate to sheep? Is based on their arguments, or having a prior town read on them?
Strongly disagree. You are pushing us on something that your slot is guilty of to a worse extent.In post 179, Kilgamayan wrote:Basically, for all your posting, I don't actually know what you think about the alignments of anyone in the game, whereas even with my current low volume of posts, I think I have some pretty obvious positive/negative opinions of a few players.
where's the Kilgamayan townread coming from?In post 193, clidd wrote:Ok, im done reading. Kilgamayan and Dkkoba are likely town, I have a TL on them (maybe I'll change my mind If see something on Kilga's meta)
I would like to know Ceejay's opinion about the pushs on his wagon and why his focus is still on Night 3 Roses, and not on the accusers.
In post 198, Hoctac wrote:Datisi, is there a reason you unvote before placing your vote on ceejay? If the reason is to show us you were voting for someone prior, I do not understand the logic as you did not include the person's name with the unvote. Strange.
is it strange to being nice?In post 1, GeorgeBailey wrote:Unvotes are nice but not required
I don't think you really know who you are dealing with here if you think that either -D or me cares about how we look. And that's as either allignment.In post 203, Kilgamayan wrote:not contributing is generally a scummy thing, but I am more wary of someone that's actively trying to look good without actually contributing than someone's that not trying to look good while also not actually contributing.
I don't understand your take and conclusions here. If something can come from scum just as easily as town, how are you scumreading it? You literally just said it's NAI yourself.In post 215, Kilgamayan wrote:Like, I still think your earlier performance is a mildly scummy approach - "you're assuming i'm trying to look good" and "i was posting because i felt like posting" are things one could just as easily say falsely as scum as truthfully as town, and while yes, town and scum can behave in similar manners and do similar things, there are some town behaviors and actions that are easier to do as scum than other town behaviors and actions, and I think your earlier play falls in the first category there - but your responses have felt more like "slightly offended townie" than "defensive scum", so I'm willing to shelve it for the time being. Particularly given recent happenings. (Also I somehow completely missed the bottom of your 165. Terribly sorry for that.)
i townread DK, this feels like a very natural response to that omgusIn post 216, DkKoba wrote:nice omgus buddy. mad i called your gimmick out?In post 208, Hoctac wrote:VOTE: DKkoba
For a pillow push and changing their warrant once questioned.
does this mean you scumlean us or are you just disagreeing with the "theory"?In post 243, Hoctac wrote:I disagree with this, clidd. Anti-OMGUS is actually a slight scumtell, though context is king of course. However, I am pleased to hear that you refrain from exhibiting OMGUS as town.In post 236, clidd wrote:Spoiler:
I like the"your reasons for suspecting me look bad, but I think you're town"mentality. It's the kind of thing that I find myself applying in every game as town.
I feel that a scum mentality is more inclined to apply omgus in this situation on the pretext that the accuser is acting in bad faith.
why did you ask for it then?In post 239, clidd wrote:Don't worry, I think it's even better for me to analyze you without established prejudices of your scumgame.
It's a impression. I skipped the text I would normally do in this case and went straight to the conclusion.In post 285, Night 3 Roses wrote:where's the Kilgamayan townread coming from?In post 193, clidd wrote:Ok, im done reading. Kilgamayan and Dkkoba are likely town, I have a TL on them (maybe I'll change my mind If see something on Kilga's meta)
I would like to know Ceejay's opinion about the pushs on his wagon and why his focus is still on Night 3 Roses, and not on the accusers.
Not super confident. But I believe fatigued is real. But I just have a gut feeling that he wouldn't treat this like the rest of the games if he is scum here.In post 213, Hoctac wrote: This seems a little confident a conclusion to draw from that alone! Are you basing this on the meta of 1 game, and have you considered the fact clidd is simply feeling fatigued, and thus wants to put in less effort regardless of alignment?
I ditto Kilga's point on this. What specifically triggered you to vote at this point?In post 214, Hoctac wrote: Happy to explain! They pushed Holden for "too much WIFOM". Once their reasoning was questioned, they altered their original grounds to be that "they were reaction testing". Flailing is not good.
Additionally, they implied they disliked Holden's defensiveness, yet switched their vote to me too quickly, indicating they were unhappy with pursuing that push since it was drawing questions into their alignment and motives.
Was there no similarity between his scum game and his game here? Why TL based just similarity between town games. Maybe he play the same way as scum?In post 233, clidd wrote: I was not able to absorb much of your scum game, but I intend to keep the TL based on the resolutive similarity between your towns games and here.
Saw this post. But my previous question is still valid. Do you think similarity between one meta town game and the game here gives you more townread on Kilga.In post 292, clidd wrote:I asked for a scumgame to have a basis on how his scum behavior manifested itself and see whether there was any deviation in conduct compared to the current game. Considering that I was not able to absorb the content of these games very well to profile Scum!Kilgamayan, and also the fact that I do not have a previous experience with this player, I concluded that the real-time evaluation would be more accurate.
To put it bluntly, you (or your slot, or whatever) were in the thread and posting, I wasn't. Obviously I can't prove this now, but had I been active in the thread to that degree, I would have at least tried to post a few alignment-discerning things. Had I been as active in the thread as your slot was while avoiding posting things that were attempts to discern alignments, then I would absolutely concede that point to anyone that called me out on that behaviour.In post 283, Night 3 Roses wrote:Strongly disagree. You are pushing us on something that your slot is guilty of to a worse extent.In post 179, Kilgamayan wrote:Basically, for all your posting, I don't actually know what you think about the alignments of anyone in the game, whereas even with my current low volume of posts, I think I have some pretty obvious positive/negative opinions of a few players.
If you have those opinions, they ain't in your iso and they definitely weren't at the tim of your push on us. So I don't understand how it's natural for you to have that scumread.
Like I said, there are some town behaviors and actions that are easier to do as scum than other town behaviors and actions. I saw an action that could qualify as townie behavior but was on the easier end of the spectrum for scum to be doing instead, so I voted it. It was hardly a slam-dunk thing, but for ED1? Sure.In post 288, Night 3 Roses wrote:I don't understand your take and conclusions here. If something can come from scum just as easily as town, how are you scumreading it? You literally just said it's NAI yourself.In post 215, Kilgamayan wrote:Like, I still think your earlier performance is a mildly scummy approach - "you're assuming i'm trying to look good" and "i was posting because i felt like posting" are things one could just as easily say falsely as scum as truthfully as town, and while yes, town and scum can behave in similar manners and do similar things, there are some town behaviors and actions that are easier to do as scum than other town behaviors and actions, and I think your earlier play falls in the first category there - but your responses have felt more like "slightly offended townie" than "defensive scum", so I'm willing to shelve it for the time being. Particularly given recent happenings. (Also I somehow completely missed the bottom of your 165. Terribly sorry for that.)
At least the reassessing and trying to solve here is a +.