Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:09 am
Page 25 of 82
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:12 am
Hi Squirrel Girl. Thanks for the feedback.In post 597, Squirrel Girl wrote:@Wake - You did answer the correct question via 1A. That said, I don't think you actually answered it. I hear you talking about a theoretical lack of expressed thoughts. I don't see you actually managing to show how MY actions lacked individual thought or how it was bad, which is what you were on about. You talk a lot, but you don't actually answer the real question, you answer a different question.
As was said earlier, the act of sheeping is inherently thoughtless, because you're following someone else's vote without providing much if any reasoning as to why you're casting your vote. If you do have some thoughts you'd like to express regarding your two sheepings, please provide them here and we'll go over it. I for one would like to betteru nderstand why you would deliberately sheep twice, when sheeping hurts Town. Real questions would be great, but we can spend some time mulling through this issue at our leisure. Do you think sheeping doesn't hurt Town?
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:14 am
During RVS I think it blatantly helps town. Outside of RVS I think it is a null action that depends on the quality of the town read you are sheeping. I still don't think you've even established that it is anti-town much less that it is scummy and even less so that I did it in an unthinking way that hurt town in any form at all.In post 601, Wake1 wrote:Hi Squirrel Girl. Thanks for the feedback.In post 597, Squirrel Girl wrote:@Wake - You did answer the correct question via 1A. That said, I don't think you actually answered it. I hear you talking about a theoretical lack of expressed thoughts. I don't see you actually managing to show how MY actions lacked individual thought or how it was bad, which is what you were on about. You talk a lot, but you don't actually answer the real question, you answer a different question.
As was said earlier, the act of sheeping is inherently thoughtless, because you're following someone else's vote without providing much if any reasoning as to why you're casting your vote. If you do have some thoughts you'd like to express regarding your two sheepings, please provide them here and we'll go over it. I for one would like to betteru nderstand why you would deliberately sheep twice, when sheeping hurts Town. Real questions would be great, but we can spend some time mulling through this issue at our leisure. Do you think sheeping doesn't hurt Town?
Your posts are huge and say nothing.
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:22 am
It doesn't, SG, because the less original reasoning and content provided by players, the less Town as a whole is helped. Because the very act is thoughtless by its nature, what you did was a thoughtless act that in no way facilitates meaningful discussion. I'm sorry, but it doesn't help, and is the reason I never try to sheep anyone in Mafia. It's better to come up with your own reasons to cast your vote. This game requires us to really think and to understand, and the act of sheeping, like the very sheep themselves who don't think, is counter-productive to everything Town is trying to achieve.In post 602, Squirrel Girl wrote:During RVS I think it blatantly helps town. Outside of RVS I think it is a null action that depends on the quality of the town read you are sheeping. I still don't think you've even established that it is anti-town much less that it is scummy and even less so that I did it in an unthinking way that hurt town in any form at all.In post 601, Wake1 wrote:Hi Squirrel Girl. Thanks for the feedback.In post 597, Squirrel Girl wrote:@Wake - You did answer the correct question via 1A. That said, I don't think you actually answered it. I hear you talking about a theoretical lack of expressed thoughts. I don't see you actually managing to show how MY actions lacked individual thought or how it was bad, which is what you were on about. You talk a lot, but you don't actually answer the real question, you answer a different question.
As was said earlier, the act of sheeping is inherently thoughtless, because you're following someone else's vote without providing much if any reasoning as to why you're casting your vote. If you do have some thoughts you'd like to express regarding your two sheepings, please provide them here and we'll go over it. I for one would like to betteru nderstand why you would deliberately sheep twice, when sheeping hurts Town. Real questions would be great, but we can spend some time mulling through this issue at our leisure. Do you think sheeping doesn't hurt Town?
Your posts are huge and say nothing.
Past this, I do appreciate your spirited feedback. Thanks.
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:30 am
I showed that I had a town read on ICE and that I was willing to lynch who I was voting. That seems to actually be as much or more information than a number of RVS votes. Why is it less info than a 'hate your avatar' vote?In post 603, Wake1 wrote:It doesn't, SG, because the less original reasoning and content provided by players, the less Town as a whole is helped. Because the very act is thoughtless by its nature, what you did was a thoughtless act that in no way facilitates meaningful discussion.
And, with ICE's third vote I didn't sheep it and expressed disagreement with it - so clearly I was only sheeping so long as I was okay with his reasoning. Let's say a Cop claims and votes scum, and someone says 'I believe the cop' and votes scum. Am I obligated to then come up with a new and unique reason to vote the scum as opposed to sheeping the cop? No, my reasoning can be identical and still be fine, just so long as I appear to apply my own reasoning, which you have failed to show that I don't. You're actually arguing a playstyle point and trying to pretend you're doing something. You are very scummy.In post 603, Wake1 wrote:I'm sorry, but it doesn't help, and is the reason I never try to sheep anyone in Mafia. It's better to come up with your own reasons to cast your vote. This game requires us to really think and to understand, and the act of sheeping, like the very sheep themselves who don't think, is counter-productive to everything Town is trying to achieve.
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:38 am
@ Garmr, Bard, Regfan, and Fitz.
What do you guys think of this post? It's baffling, and makes little to no sense at all.
Regarding Bard's reads on Herself, I'm not sure what to make of it.
Bard does make a fair point about Herself defending SG, and it'd be great if both of them could provide their responses to that, please.
Players should provide their own reasons for why they do things, especially in a game that's so focused on analysis. Usually it's bad play when one player speaks for another, because in a game sans Masons it really makes people wonder why that's going on. Just as people should provide their own reasoning, they should also defend themselves and take the initiative in starting wagons on other players. Herself(Des) does mention that he wants to defend his townreads and not have them fight each other, but I think the matter is really about the danger of being deceived into defending townreads who are Scum.Herself(Des): "There is a zero chance of us getting lynched ever." (508)
When statements like this are made, it's going to stir up questions. This kind of play could be interpreted in a myriad of ways. So, I'm weighing whether or not it'd be helpful to Town to pursue your statement. Also, I'm not entirely sure what to make of the Herself/Bard fandango. They could both be Scum, but I'm getting slight Town reads from each of them.
I thought Eek was gone. He's not though, and is showing that he too can provide his own insightful contributions to this game.In post 604, Squirrel Girl wrote:I showed that I had a town read on ICE and that I was willing to lynch who I was voting. That seems to actually be as much or more information than a number of RVS votes. Why is it less info than a 'hate your avatar' vote?In post 603, Wake1 wrote:It doesn't, SG, because the less original reasoning and content provided by players, the less Town as a whole is helped. Because the very act is thoughtless by its nature, what you did was a thoughtless act that in no way facilitates meaningful discussion.
And, with ICE's third vote I didn't sheep it and expressed disagreement with it - so clearly I was only sheeping so long as I was okay with his reasoning. Let's say a Cop claims and votes scum, and someone says 'I believe the cop' and votes scum. Am I obligated to then come up with a new and unique reason to vote the scum as opposed to sheeping the cop? No, my reasoning can be identical and still be fine, just so long as I appear to apply my own reasoning, which you have failed to show that I don't. You're actually arguing a playstyle point and trying to pretend you're doing something. You are very scummy.In post 603, Wake1 wrote:I'm sorry, but it doesn't help, and is the reason I never try to sheep anyone in Mafia. It's better to come up with your own reasons to cast your vote. This game requires us to really think and to understand, and the act of sheeping, like the very sheep themselves who don't think, is counter-productive to everything Town is trying to achieve.
Reasoning for his Town reads on SG and ICE would be nice.
Input on Herself would also be swell. Unfortunately his bit about my large posts is easily dismissed, because he mentioned nothing about Regfan's large walls, which means his bit was either selective or he hasn't really been reading the thread. That too deserves an explanation. I agree with him a bit about TvK leaning Scum. Also, his reasoning about T S O replacing out because he overreached and was in 11 games is sound, in my opinion, because I had been in ten games at once and was overwhelmed with it and everything pertaining to real-life. T S O is not scummy for replacing out due to biting off more than he could chew.TvK your read on me would be appreciated; it was left out in (564).
The problem with that SG is that it's as vapid and unhelpful as random votes, although that kind of voting does have a very certain use. Random voting is pretty much only used in the very beginning of the game, in order to stir up discussion, and after a handful of pages it ends. Sheeping, on the other hand, has no such ephemeral use. That, and it's a thoughtless action that requires little to no thought from the person doing so. The fact that you thought ICEninja was Town when you sheeped means nothing, unfortunately. Sheeping without original reason is bad enough, but lynching without reason is far worse. The RVS is more useful than sheeping, and past the RVS, brainpower and original posts and reasons will always be far more helpful to Town than the alternative.In post 604, Squirrel Girl wrote:I showed that I had a town read on ICE and that I was willing to lynch who I was voting. That seems to actually be as much or more information than a number of RVS votes. Why is it less info than a 'hate your avatar' vote?
Your very first sentence here is wrong, because it doesn't take into account that sheeping by itself is always unhelpful to Town whether you agree with the vote you are sheeping or not. The Cop scenario is far different, because if the person claiming to be the Cop is not counterclaimed, and he/she has a "guilty" on someone else, then there is compelling reason to vote with the Cop. And, if the claimed Cop is lying, he or she is to be lynched with all due haste. ICEninja din't claim to be a Cop with a guilty result, so your reasoning here is inherently flawed. While your feedback is appreciated, your actions appear to betray your innocence. I'll be having more questions for you in a little while.In post 604, Squirrel Girl wrote:And, with ICE's third vote I didn't sheep it and expressed disagreement with it - so clearly I was only sheeping so long as I was okay with his reasoning. Let's say a Cop claims and votes scum, and someone says 'I believe the cop' and votes scum. Am I obligated to then come up with a new and unique reason to vote the scum as opposed to sheeping the cop? No, my reasoning can be identical and still be fine, just so long as I appear to apply my own reasoning, which you have failed to show that I don't. You're actually arguing a playstyle point and trying to pretend you're doing something. You are very scummy.
*Cocks *
Annihilator Beam
*BLAM*
(x19)
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:49 am
1. Basically it didn't work because the three of us who were townies had the other two's as scum. F16's slot was far more convincing than the rest, and Tamuz slot equally the far most scummy IMO. When Tamuz, Nacho and me then went into a tunnelwar on eachother it ended as it had to.In post 561, Street Hassle wrote:It's not a question of belief or disbelief, but of understanding your method, Which is why I asked how it works. I think I have the gist now from this as well as other posts you've made. I don't know why, but the format of your newbie post didn't appear to be the same process. Maybe it's because points weren't explicitly assigned.In post 505, The Silver Bard wrote:If you did read post #855 in that game you see that I did. And the following discussions between me and Nacho was him not believing that my list was genuine.In post 469, Street Hassle wrote:I checked to see if you used this approach to scumhunting in your completed MS newbie game. It looks like you didn't. You replaced into that game, as well, and into a fairly dire LYLO situation.In post 463, The Silver Bard wrote:So I have been reading up on this game since I got the go ahead to replace in about 2-2.5 hours ago. I play mafia by creating lists of what I find scummy and what I find townie while I go through the game. Reading this many pages in 2,5 hours may have cause me to miss somethings, and I generally find the last pages hard to read with as much details as the first (this is also so for this game).
For now I will post the ones I got the most “scumpoints” on and the ones I got the most “townpoints” on.
The runaway winner for most points awarded is Herself, and all of those are scumpoints. So she/he/it is basicly my biggest scumread.
My number two scumread is Squirrel Girl.
Number 3 is TvK.
For town I got ICEninja as my biggest townread, and Street Hassle as my second biggest scumread.
I will leave you with this for now, I will come back later, or tomorrow with a better post with better analysis. I will need to do some ISO’ing then, and try to battle my confirmation bias (don’t bet on me being able to do this, the bias is strong in this one!)
Is this something new you are trying out? How does it work?
Still this don't give you anything to work on. I would 100% do this as scum as well (I will try to emulate my townplaystyle as scum). In fact I read through the entire thread and made my reads before reading my PM.
The question then is if you believe me. If you don't and you believed I looked at my PM my reasoning should be poor enough and my reads should not seem genuine for you to see that I am scum (if I did roll scum).
Do you have thoughts about why your method didn't work too well in the Newbie game?(1)
Who are you asking about in the above paragraph?If you do believe me the question is: If he rolled scum, did he alter his reads after figuring out who his scumbuddies are? If I had all my scumbuddies on my scummylist I probably would, but if they are on my townlist or neutral I would just carry on and post my reads as they were.(2)
2. The he in the "If he rolled scum, did he alter his reads after figuring out who his scumbuddies are?" is me.
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:10 am
1. Why I think Herself is scum I have already written once, no need to reply to you on this.In post 563, TvK wrote:Thanks for correcting this and not addressing the most important part of my post, namely why you are thinking Herself is scum.In post 538, The Silver Bard wrote: This is what I talk about when I said wordtwisters. Annoying to argue with, because all they want to do is try to misrepresent. I'll correct one thing in your post because it is so ridiculously wrong:
What if ICE would walk in right now and vote Street? Or the other way around? Then they would be instascum, right?
WRONG. As I have said numerous times a single post doesn't make someone instant scum or instant town. It is the sum of it. If one of those came in and voted the other I would put a point on the scumside of one of them, and perhaps try to understand why he suddenly was thinking this.
Keep coming at me with wordtwisting arguements though. I have you as likely scum anyways...(1)Everything you have against Herself is either "scum because their opinion is not the same as mine" or "i don't like because what they say does not align with something that one of my townreads said". Also, the biggest part of your reasoning could easily fall apart if your other reads were wrong (for example agreeing with SG would seem scummy in your eyes, because SG is scum in your book), and believe me or not, it is possible to have wrong reads. Your case might look really good to yourself, but you'll have to do a lot better to convince the players in here.(2)
Then, now that SG is "rubbing you the right way". Will you have to reconsider your reads? Do SG's scumreads get extra scumpoints? Do people who agree with her get extra townpoints?(3)
What about me? You have me as your third biggest scumread, probably second biggest by now. Can you please point out to me what made you think this way? And at the end of the day, the two people that disagree with you are "even worse than yesterday". You can already give me an extra scumpoint, because I am disagreeing with you again.(4)
2. I agree that my reasoning can't be used to convince others. But then again that wasn't what I was trying to do, I was trying to explain why I saw/see Herself as scum. I wish I was better at writing convincing arguements and being able to persuade others, but I am not. But you guys can read and form your own opinions you don't need a good convincing case to vote for someone. But you can agree and disagree, and by that see if my reasoning is far away from your own, and that is something you can use to make up your mind about me.
3. SG is still in the neutral corner, but I like her more and more. I do review my reads at certain points. For instance SG going back to neutral means that my arguements which rely on Herself and SG being scumbuddies needs to be reviewed. You don't get townpoints for agreeing with people I see as town, you get them from agreeing with me
4. I can write down the 3 posts I put on the scummy side on you, and the comments I made when writing them down. I haven't reviewed those though, and haven't got the time now to start ISO'ing you atm.
65 Where did Street Hassle ask TvK questions, and then why haven't TvK answered it? Scumpoint (maybe I missed it while reading, but found this strange)
107 Nonsensical. Also tries to portray Herself as town. Is there a connection here?
178 Still don't agree with his posts, might just be that we have different opinions on what is good townplay.
You didn't look worse for disagreeing, you looked worse by the way you are argueing, the wordtwisting and focus on misrepresenting, rather than focus on the arguements.
And no, this post don't give you a scumpoint. Because it is actually productive (the most of it at least, even though you are misrepresenting me here and there).
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:21 am
The point isn't that T S O bit off more than he can chew. The point is in post 338 he explicitly states that he wants to play this game and that he's going to be dropping other games. Then for quite a few posts he continues to play this game. Right when the heat is turned up on him to a noticeable degree is exactly when he disappears, without anything.. No "sorry I tried but I just can't keep up" or excuse about being too busy IRL or anything.Wake wrote: T S O is not scummy for replacing out due to biting off more than he could chew.
As I said before, he knew he was goosed and got out.
But no one except fitz seems to recognize that so I guess we're lynching Eek (or fitz, but I definitely prefer Eek).
Also Bard, you seriously need to learn how to only quote relevant sections of a post.
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:28 am
Re post 605
I think it is an unfair and inaccurate statement. This because I think your questions is doing a good job in providing information. But she got a point, and that is you haven’t given us much reads up until this point. In your 605 you take some stances on some players, but I would like a more detailed list (as I requested from you earlier).@ Garmr, Bard, Regfan, and Fitz.
In post 602, Squirrel Girl wrote:Your posts are huge and say nothing.
What do you guys think of this post? It's baffling, and makes little to no sense at all.
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:56 am
I can do that Bard, but it'll be a big post.
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:09 pm
HF, calling my read on you parroting herself is blatantly innacurate and shows you havent been paying attention to the case at all. I brought original content forward as to why you were scum, including not seeming to care about anything but defense rather than actually pushing a lynch. And even if your response flew with me, you still aren't pushing my lynch now. You aren't doing anything productive. and its hilarious you ask Garmr for a bulleted list of points against you when you spent about three sentences on your three scum reads. "You need a case to lynch me" literally right after you say "I don't cheerlead my wagons, they speak for themselves" right after you spend two sentences on my slot''s scumread and then about two thirds of a sentence reiterating why.
I am not buying it at all. My main problem with you is if you spent half the time progressivly pushing the game forward and less time defending yourself and worrying about how you look to people you could easily be cheerleading for two or three lynches.
I am not buying it at all. My main problem with you is if you spent half the time progressivly pushing the game forward and less time defending yourself and worrying about how you look to people you could easily be cheerleading for two or three lynches.
And this is just utter bull. I haven't even been in the game long enough to be inconsistent. And I'm not lining up anything. I'm straight up voting you. You're trying to do whatever you can to discredit people who vote you and at this point its painfully obvious and slightly pitiful.I view their play as inconsistent today and they are lining themself up for a vote on me tomorrow or later today. And I have yet to see why. I.e. not obvious.
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:13 pm
As a side note, MME completely ignoring the case against fitz is really bad. But I believe Reg took care of that already.
I'll post updated reads on people later tonight. Thank you Wake for dropping the robot gimmick.
I'll post updated reads on people later tonight. Thank you Wake for dropping the robot gimmick.
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:33 pm
My response is 'she chose to do it, and I had no control over whether she chose to do it or not, therefore her reactions there are nothing I can comment on. If it is just her swatting at reads she thinks are bad is bugging you then many players in this game are guilty of that, I know I have. I also don't think that's scummy.In post 605, Wake1 wrote:Bard does make a fair point about Herself defending SG, and it'd be great if both of them could provide their responses to that, please.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you appear to now have agreed that sheeping is no better or worse than RVS during RVS.In post 605, Wake1 wrote:The problem with that SG is that it's as vapid and unhelpful as random votes, although that kind of voting does have a very certain use. Random voting is pretty much only used in the very beginning of the game, in order to stir up discussion, and after a handful of pages it ends. Sheeping, on the other hand, has no such ephemeral use. That, and it's a thoughtless action that requires little to no thought from the person doing so. The fact that you thought ICEninja was Town when you sheeped means nothing, unfortunately.
Okay.
Please tell me about all my sheep votes outside of RVS that bothered you?
In post 605, Wake1 wrote:Your very first sentence here is wrong, because it doesn't take into account that sheeping by itself is always unhelpful to Town whether you agree with the vote you are sheeping or not.
In post 605, Wake1 wrote:While your feedback is appreciated, your actions appear to betray your innocence. I'll be having more questions for you in a little while.
Do you have experience with TSO vamoosing when being caught scum? Or is it just something you are assuming he would do? That would seem to eally effect how strongly we should take that replace out I think.In post 608, ICEninja wrote:As I said before, he knew he was goosed and got out.
But no one except fitz seems to recognize that so I guess we're lynching Eek (or fitz, but I definitely prefer Eek).
I would note that you agree with me even while saying I'm being unfair. Questions only provide information from the people being asked the questions, it provides nothing from Wake. That is the point. He's asking questions and walling up these huge data posts and then doing nothing with it. I do not think my call is remotely unfair on that point.In post 609, The Silver Bard wrote:I think it is an unfair and inaccurate statement. This because I think your questions is doing a good job in providing information. But she got a point, and that is you haven’t given us much reads up until this point. In your 605 you take some stances on some players, but I would like a more detailed list (as I requested from you earlier).
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:34 pm
*Tail stands at attention*In post 612, LolWagons wrote:As a side note, MME completely ignoring the case against fitz is really bad. But I believe Reg took care of that already.
Is this a changing of a read on Eek? Because it sounds like the changing of a read to me.
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:23 pm
You're absolutely right. That's what I get for using memory and trying to get a post in while I have limited time. More on this later.In post 611, LolWagons wrote:HF, calling my read on you parroting herself is blatantly innacurate and shows you havent been paying attention to the case at all.
I wasn't talking about you...I was referring to Garmr.In post 611, LolWagons wrote:And this is just utter bull. I haven't even been in the game long enough to be inconsistent. And I'm not lining up anything. I'm straight up voting you.
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:27 pm
In post 592, Squirrel Girl wrote:@Fitz - can you explain to me why you think Wake is town? I actually don't think Wake has really advanced a read yet, am I being nutty or are you?
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:36 pm
I haven't played with him. I don't like using meta. It shouldn't matter, though, he said he wanted to play in this game and he obviously did until he started being strung up.Squirrel wrote: Do you have experience with TSO vamoosing when being caught scum?
Eek is definitely my favorite lynch who hasn't been replaced though. I still shudder when I read the reasons for her list of reads, they're awful.
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:38 pm
Why would being strung up change his mind about wanting to play in the game?In post 617, ICEninja wrote:I haven't played with him. I don't like using meta. It shouldn't matter, though, he said he wanted to play in this game and he obviously did until he started being strung up.
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:38 pm
Hey, my final exams tomorrow afternoon so I'm just going to cram a bunch of last minute study in.
I'll probably swing by an internet cafe after my exam and catch up on this game then. Sorry I'm not being more helpful at the moment though.
I'll probably swing by an internet cafe after my exam and catch up on this game then. Sorry I'm not being more helpful at the moment though.
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:16 pm
No no no no Bard does not make anypoints I brought this up in post 58. In fact his slot Orestes is also guilty of defending squirrel girl but he failed to bring that up which makes him even more suspicious. Also hersef and SG and me have already been down this line. That's when I released I misread her comment and I felt stupid.In post 605, Wake1 wrote:Bard does make a fair point about Herself defending SG, and it'd be great if both of them could provide their responses to that, please.
I fucking told you why I suspect you also I think eek is more likely to be scum than you. I easily see you being scum. Also your questioning me allot why aren't you voting me.In post 596, havingfitz wrote:In post 593, Garmr wrote:
In post 590, havingfitz wrote:
@Garmr wrt Post 573...it's a crap case but that's a matter of opinion (backed up by fact and knowledge). The way I omgus? First off...whenever I am town I take pushes towards me to be potentially scum driven. I.e scum like to mislynch town so when I am town...those trying to mislynch me come across as scum. And i will never vote anyone (other than perhaps in RVS) strictly for OMGUS. Omgus just adds to any suspicions I might have had. And why would I "go for Orestes" if I suspected someone else more and wanted more content from that slot before further developing an opinion? That makes absolutely no sense. And yes...flips are good. Thanks for that pointer. Also...you still haven't explained your case on me.
Sigh fitz. I agree with herself and there's not much else since herself has pretty much tore you apart post by post. That's why eek is my top vote and not you.
Don’t give me that “sigh fitz”crap. That’s just avoiding the question. Why do you suspect me? Even if it’s just parroting herself I’d like to see the reasons you are using. And Herself hasn’t torn anything apart...if they had I would think I’d have been lynched by now. And HTF does your opinion that Herself has “torn me apart” = Eek being your top vote??? Also…didn’t you recently express some reservations about herself? If by some miracle Herself was town I could very well see this being scum trying to slide on to a mislynch.
Sorry I meant people who have suspicions on you that's my bad. But guess what your still scummy.In post 596, havingfitz wrote:In post 593, Garmr wrote:
It also seems all your scum reads are people who voted you
No…you and LoL are among my top three suspicions and neither of you were voting me when I indicated my suspicions towards you. Lol has voted me after I had voted his slot and you have yet to vote me. And Street and Regfan are fairly low on my list of suspicions…despite actually voting me. :idea:
How about you list why they are town I hate there recent posting.In post 596, havingfitz wrote:In post 593, Garmr wrote:
and your leaning town reads (eek and reasons silver) are my scum reads and they haven't done anything to be warranted as town.
What have they done that is scummy? I’ve liked their recent posts.
but because your a hypocrite here's some quick points.
Eek-post 405 is not a good way to come into the game. Seriously if he was reading it he could of easily just thrown a quick thought in there. But he he did the scum thing to to do and bided his time and waited to come in. Eek post 530 was meh i don't see how it nets him any town points and I didn't really feel any pressure at all when he tried to interrogate me. He dropped it in post 550 and it was over before it even started and then tried to get other people to vote me by saying why i am in their meh pile. His trying to get me lynched but his not being firm about it.
Silver bard- I pretty much explained why I thought Orestes is scum. But Silver lets see post 463 strikes me as inconsistent already and gave me a first bad impression but after I looked at his recent posting in iso his post after that seem to be ok and some even are little towny. But I still don't like the fact he didn't bring up Orestes defend SG as well so I will put him at null for now.
Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:02 am
We've got less than 4 days and town is no where even near consensus. This is driving me nuts. SCUM I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND IT WON'T WORK.
But seriously guys, don't let scum get away with this stalling shit. I'm going to remember vote count 17 tomorrow, and look at all those players on their L-6 votes (and Wake who isn't even voting). I would be willing to bet the game that there is 1 (probably 2) scum in that group of 6 people stalling this out.
If we run up a claim at the last second we are going to regret it. Don't let it happen.
But seriously guys, don't let scum get away with this stalling shit. I'm going to remember vote count 17 tomorrow, and look at all those players on their L-6 votes (and Wake who isn't even voting). I would be willing to bet the game that there is 1 (probably 2) scum in that group of 6 people stalling this out.
If we run up a claim at the last second we are going to regret it. Don't let it happen.
Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:24 am
SG...Quadraxis was a non-entity. Once Wake finally appeared...shortly before my most recent catch up...as I read through he post I liked the effort I was seeing. He was asking a lot of questions I like. He's active and I think his content up to this point has been pro-town. When I got done reading up and was sorting out my thoughts on players the thoughts on Wake all pointed to him being town.
UNVOTE: LolWagons because they are better than T S O, at least providing a lot of content, and combined with a lack of support I need to look over again anyway.
VOTE: Herself for previous reasons. Plan B would be Garmr.
UNVOTE: LolWagons because they are better than T S O, at least providing a lot of content, and combined with a lack of support I need to look over again anyway.
VOTE: Herself for previous reasons. Plan B would be Garmr.
Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:25 am
I do agree with you about the slow folks though.In post 618, Squirrel Girl wrote:Why would being strung up change his mind about wanting to play in the game?In post 617, ICEninja wrote:I haven't played with him. I don't like using meta. It shouldn't matter, though, he said he wanted to play in this game and he obviously did until he started being strung up.
Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:26 am
So he's mostly there for asking questions? That feels weak considering how little he's done with them. Do you think he's done anything with the questions?In post 622, havingfitz wrote:SG...Quadraxis was a non-entity. Once Wake finally appeared...shortly before my most recent catch up...as I read through he post I liked the effort I was seeing. He was asking a lot of questions I like. He's active and I think his content up to this point has been pro-town. When I got done reading up and was sorting out my thoughts on players the thoughts on Wake all pointed to him being town.