In post 476, Roden wrote:Anyone against running up Grandpa? They feel subdued and cautious, and normally would've been scum read by now.
Me, especially because you went from saying scum is passive to suggesting the one player who's actually had a confrontation
I said majority scum is passive, and Grandpa's play so far has been relatively passive anyway.
So who's being active to you if not Grandpa???? Also the other half of this is bs because you tacitly agree to the premise that you should be hunting within lower activity slots in 468 so don't try to worm out from that now
I didn't say anything about hunting within lower activity slots lol. Don't put words in my mouth.
Passive =/= lower activity and you should know the difference.
So are you gonna actually address my post or just point out that lower activity =/= passive?
In post 547, superbowl9 wrote:You keep dodging the actual thrust of what people are saying in favor of semantics. If you wanted me to replace every instance of "active" with "non-passive" in my post you're just being pedantic
I don't know why you want me specifically to point out who's being active though. I can copy/paste the activity overview if you really want but you're asking for info that contributes nothing and is easily accessible to you anyway. It absolutely isn't semantics either way because if we're talking about being passive I absolutely think you are, since at the time you posted this I really don't think you've done much to add to the game except joke around and be a contrarian.
In post 476, Roden wrote:Anyone against running up Grandpa? They feel subdued and cautious, and normally would've been scum read by now.
Me, especially because you went from saying scum is passive to suggesting the one player who's actually had a confrontation
I said majority scum is passive, and Grandpa's play so far has been relatively passive anyway.
So who's being active to you if not Grandpa???? Also the other half of this is bs because you tacitly agree to the premise that you should be hunting within lower activity slots in 468 so don't try to worm out from that now
I didn't say anything about hunting within lower activity slots lol. Don't put words in my mouth.
Passive =/= lower activity and you should know the difference.
So are you gonna actually address my post or just point out that lower activity =/= passive?
In post 547, superbowl9 wrote:You keep dodging the actual thrust of what people are saying in favor of semantics. If you wanted me to replace every instance of "active" with "non-passive" in my post you're just being pedantic
I don't know why you want me specifically to point out who's being active though. I can copy/paste the activity overview if you really want but you're asking for info that contributes nothing and is easily accessible to you anyway. It absolutely isn't semantics either way because if we're talking about being passive I absolutely think you are, since at the time you posted this I really don't think you've done much to add to the game except joke around and be a contrarian.
I think there's a chance you might actually be confused and not dodging so I'll say this: by activity I don't mean solely post count, I mean active contributions. Idc if you think I'm passive, I want to know who you think is NOT being passive (since you seem to equate active solely with post count - maybe I need to find another antonym for passive???). Once you tell me I can actually make my point, not that it will land anymore now that we've run around in circles over semantics.
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2021 8:37 am
by Roden
I don't seem aggressive because there's really not much to attack this game. There's no big personalities, no spicy takes, no town leaders, and nearly all the scum reads coming from everyone feel half-hearted.
In post 476, Roden wrote:Anyone against running up Grandpa? They feel subdued and cautious, and normally would've been scum read by now.
Me, especially because you went from saying scum is passive to suggesting the one player who's actually had a confrontation
I said majority scum is passive, and Grandpa's play so far has been relatively passive anyway.
So who's being active to you if not Grandpa???? Also the other half of this is bs because you tacitly agree to the premise that you should be hunting within lower activity slots in 468 so don't try to worm out from that now
I didn't say anything about hunting within lower activity slots lol. Don't put words in my mouth.
Passive =/= lower activity and you should know the difference.
So are you gonna actually address my post or just point out that lower activity =/= passive?
In post 547, superbowl9 wrote:You keep dodging the actual thrust of what people are saying in favor of semantics. If you wanted me to replace every instance of "active" with "non-passive" in my post you're just being pedantic
I don't know why you want me specifically to point out who's being active though. I can copy/paste the activity overview if you really want but you're asking for info that contributes nothing and is easily accessible to you anyway. It absolutely isn't semantics either way because if we're talking about being passive I absolutely think you are, since at the time you posted this I really don't think you've done much to add to the game except joke around and be a contrarian.
I think there's a chance you might actually be confused and not dodging so I'll say this: by activity I don't mean solely post count, I mean active contributions. Idc if you think I'm passive, I want to know who you think is NOT being passive (since you seem to equate active solely with post count - maybe I need to find another antonym for passive???). Once you tell me I can actually make my point, not that it will land anymore now that we've run around in circles over semantics.
I think mostly everyone has contributed in one way of another. Kop is the most notable exception, but I actually would say Galron is an exception as well. He is supposedly town by meta and his post count is decent, but I honestly can't remember anything that he's said or contributed.
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2021 8:45 am
by marcistar
In post 685, Roden wrote:I don't seem aggressive because there's really not much to attack this game. There's no big personalities, no spicy takes, no town leaders, and nearly all the scum reads coming from everyone feel half-hearted.
:shrug:
maybe u should try to do something and become the townleader then... or do u like this gamestate rn..?
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2021 8:49 am
by HockeyFan
thing im good with a new established town core of Salsa, Marci, superbowl and Roden.
Salsa- I like the content of thier posts + they just seem natrual town progression to me
Marci- Really like tone/vibes of her posts, + nothign seems off about them
Superbowl- Hes taking the game super lighthearted which i think is town +?
Roden- Town progression on reads
In post 685, Roden wrote:I don't seem aggressive because there's really not much to attack this game. There's no big personalities, no spicy takes, no town leaders, and nearly all the scum reads coming from everyone feel half-hearted.
:shrug:
maybe u should try to do something and become the townleader then... or do u like this gamestate rn..?
I don't think I'd be a good town leader due to my role.
Btw I guess I should probably say now that this game might be weighted towards scum, or at least set up in a way to give them a favorable end game. I say this due to the info my role provides + the current game state having little to no leads on scum.
In post 685, Roden wrote:I don't seem aggressive because there's really not much to attack this game. There's no big personalities, no spicy takes, no town leaders, and nearly all the scum reads coming from everyone feel half-hearted.
:shrug:
maybe u should try to do something and become the townleader then... or do u like this gamestate rn..?
I don't think I'd be a good town leader due to my role.
Btw I guess I should probably say now that this game might be weighted towards scum, or at least set up in a way to give them a favorable end game. I say this due to the info my role provides + the current game state having little to no leads on scum.
To clarify, I think scum have strong roles and/or town has weak roles with little potential to be swingy.
In post 685, Roden wrote:I don't seem aggressive because there's really not much to attack this game. There's no big personalities, no spicy takes, no town leaders, and nearly all the scum reads coming from everyone feel half-hearted.
:shrug:
maybe u should try to do something and become the townleader then... or do u like this gamestate rn..?
I don't think I'd be a good town leader due to my role.
Btw I guess I should probably say now that this game might be weighted towards scum, or at least set up in a way to give them a favorable end game. I say this due to the info my role provides + the current game state having little to no leads on scum.
...
...
...
...
i couldve already guessed the game would be weighted towards scum, i dont think the "no day chat" was added for no reason.
kinda lowkey didnt think u needed to do this.. but whats done is done.
In post 464, Roden wrote:I think scum is majority passive this time around since no one's making waves and nobody wants to make any controversial takes.
so then y arent u trying to dissect the people who fit under this more then..?
In post 476, Roden wrote:Anyone against running up Grandpa? They feel subdued and cautious, and normally would've been scum read by now.
Me, especially because you went from saying scum is passive to suggesting the one player who's actually had a confrontation
I said majority scum is passive, and Grandpa's play so far has been relatively passive anyway.
So who's being active to you if not Grandpa???? Also the other half of this is bs because you tacitly agree to the premise that you should be hunting within lower activity slots in 468 so don't try to worm out from that now
I didn't say anything about hunting within lower activity slots lol. Don't put words in my mouth.
Passive =/= lower activity and you should know the difference.
So are you gonna actually address my post or just point out that lower activity =/= passive?
In post 547, superbowl9 wrote:You keep dodging the actual thrust of what people are saying in favor of semantics. If you wanted me to replace every instance of "active" with "non-passive" in my post you're just being pedantic
I don't know why you want me specifically to point out who's being active though. I can copy/paste the activity overview if you really want but you're asking for info that contributes nothing and is easily accessible to you anyway. It absolutely isn't semantics either way because if we're talking about being passive I absolutely think you are, since at the time you posted this I really don't think you've done much to add to the game except joke around and be a contrarian.
I think there's a chance you might actually be confused and not dodging so I'll say this: by activity I don't mean solely post count, I mean active contributions. Idc if you think I'm passive, I want to know who you think is NOT being passive (since you seem to equate active solely with post count - maybe I need to find another antonym for passive???). Once you tell me I can actually make my point, not that it will land anymore now that we've run around in circles over semantics.
I think mostly everyone has contributed in one way of another. Kop is the most notable exception, but I actually would say Galron is an exception as well. He is supposedly town by meta and his post count is decent, but I honestly can't remember anything that he's said or contributed.
^just putting the whole context of this exchange here - is this not pinging anyone else? It seems like you're just throwing nice-sounding things out there because you've done nothing to push/hunt the "passive" slots you were in line to scout out - if you're actually town you don't seem to be such an active role model yourself.
pedit: apparently softing D1 for no reason is cool now???
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:24 am
by marcistar
In post 696, superbowl9 wrote:pedit: apparently softing D1 for no reason is cool now???
i was trying to think about this but im so confused.. the biggest flag is "i cant be a townleader because of my role" seems like bs to me LOL... just seems a bit of an excuse so he could continue to slide by being inactive.
it isn't cool at all, but im not sure how to proceed...
In post 696, superbowl9 wrote:pedit: apparently softing D1 for no reason is cool now???
i was trying to think about this but im so confused.. the biggest flag is "i cant be a townleader because of my role" seems like bs to me LOL... just seems a bit of an excuse so he could continue to slide by being inactive.
it isn't cool at all, but im not sure how to proceed...
I think it buys a day, if he's alive tomorrow he hardclaims and we go from there
