|
xopods posted:As much as I'd like to agree, I'm not sure it is. He basically latched onto Meinberg right away, whereas I'm used to seeing him poke people until he finds someone he can get a rise out of and then latch on (usually to me). It's possible he just doesn't want to do that here because we're supposedly being nice, and is therefore sitting back until someone commits an unforced error, but so far it just seems to me like he finds the game uninspiring. I don't see how he could find it uninspiring because I think this is probably the most scumhunting this early in a game I've seen in a while
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 04:21 |
|
|
Rarity posted:That is the exact post I linked to, yes. Yes but it's lacking the condescension.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Magnus Gallant posted:Yes but it's lacking the condescension. We're being nice to people, remember!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Rarity posted:We're being nice to people, remember! I was saying my version was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Rarity posted:I would kindly recommend with the utmost respect that you read the thread in future to prevent needing to ask unnecessary questions. Think of the time you will save!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Magnus Gallant posted:Yes but it's lacking the condescension. Oh, now I get it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Rarity posted:Oh, now I get it. Sorry, not trying to be a dick
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
xopods posted:As much as I'd like to agree, I'm not sure it is. He basically latched onto Meinberg right away, whereas I'm used to seeing him poke people until he finds someone he can get a rise out of and then latch on (usually to me). It's possible he just doesn't want to do that here because we're supposedly being nice, and is therefore sitting back until someone commits an unforced error, but so far it just seems to me like he finds the game uninspiring. Unlikely. He's pretty easy to catch as scum. As town, he tunnels and hammers away. As scum, he tries to find a lovely case to push or just throw a vote and let it sit. I caught him last game I was in with him because he did that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:His early posting was nothing but white noise or a little me tooing of my comments around Magnus's role. Magnus called him out as forced, I said that it was more vacuous, and literally minutes later he starts posting more content. Said content is almost exclusively about how bad his is at the game and how he'll have more when he has time to get into the game. I agree with Byers on this issue. The only players I generally see advocating for their own lynch are new players, and Meinberg isn't a new player. A little confused by merk's questioning of Byers and his motives in voting for Meinberg, despite merk's vote staying on Meinberg the entire time. His questions (1), (2) seem a little dumb and don't add much to the game. DGK2000 posted:##vote Merk typical Merk scumplay. How serious is this vote?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:How serious is this vote?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Token Female posted:This is nothing by itself, but this is after bowmore says that jakep is town. Byers asks why, bowmore says gut but then adds in another post the quote above. Seems unnecessary. Why need to further hedge your bet? I don't like it. my gut still says JakeP is town
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
bowmore posted:about as serious as a vote with a three word explanation can be >:-O
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:>:-O
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Magnus Gallant posted:I don't see how he could find it uninspiring because I think this is probably the most scumhunting this early in a game I've seen in a while Yeah, but merk's idea of a good Mafia game is a bunch of people who are willing to listen to merk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:How serious is this vote? As serious as a three word explanation. I do feel good about it though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
DON'T WORRY GUYS THAT PATENTED QUIDNOSE SCUMHUNTING TECHNIQUE STARTS NOW
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
So just to recape where I was last time I posted: I was initially feeling like KFC was coming down way too hard on QPQ and maybe trying too hard but then QPQ responded with this really weird defense of his actions:QuoProQuid posted:My reasoning was that not collecting fuel is a way to make oneself look superficially townie. Based on the OP, fuel is required for night actions so by not collecting it, one implies that they are vanilla townie or less of a threat. It is suspicious for Jake to make a post about how he does not need fuel right on the heels of discussion over Magnus's role. Drawing attention to his decision not to collect fuel is something I would expect scum to do, especially if such a post can be dismissed as a joke. I mean if I was town not caring about what I did I'd be like "Whatever this isn't worth my time, it was a joke that I was half serious about because it's D1, let's move on." Rereading this now after remembering this is where I was like "hurm maybe KFC was right," this looks very fake. Let's begin our latenight re-read and question town. *jingle music* o/ Quidnose here to staaaayyy...take me all the waaayyyy to scumhunting townah! (Dee! Dee! Dee! button.) o/
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:~~~my night action~~~ doesn't need fuel Don't like this, a soft "well I AM A POWER ROLE" while using that leverage to make QPQ look bad. Not sure what Cap was trying to accomplish.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:No, it doesn't. Not according to flavor, and not according to what we know of the game. This seem unnecessary given the fuel comments because jakep is clearly trolling (except for where he said 'i actually didn't read the op' i believe that, cause i did the same thing and was all "why does everyone seem to know what the fuel does huh  until i reread the op, whoops!). It feels weird and forced to try to add to the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
xopods posted:My gut says KFC might be right about QPQ. In particular, I didn't like the way he answered KFC's question about how serious he was: I agree with this sentiment but the way Xopods sticks his neck in to buddy up to KFC without prior warning is odd. Why point out that KFC is an awesome dude rather than just saying "yeah I don't like this response," that's strange.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
xopods posted:I'm not omitting it. I said "in particular." His vote on JakeP seemed a little scummy to begin with, and I don't like his "i always think too much about stupid things" post much either. I'm not building a full case on him at this point, just suspicious, but figured I'd point out the worst thing he's done to cause that suspicion. Aha. Here xopods responds to Magnus' point by doing exactly what he called QPQ out for in his initial vote: refusing to commit. This is a really quick backdown at Magnus' hard pressure and easily give him the ability to further down the line say "that wasn't really an actual case, I just brought it up." Strike 1!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
xopods posted:No, I don't think he's thinking things through that far either. It's just that KFC tried to get him to say whether he's just throwing a vote out there or really thinks JakeP is scum, or somewhere in between, and instead QPQ responds "as serious as one can be one page in," which isn't an answer, because opinions vary widely on how strongly one can make a read early D1. It seems intentionally ambiguous in that he can later claim he meant "quite serious based on the evidence available at that time," or "obviously not very serious because nothing had happened yet." I'm sorry for breaking this up because it's in the same post as what I just quoted, but this is amusing because Xopods is literally harping on QPQ for what he just did a paragraph earlier himself. Strike twooooo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Juanito posted:I don't think JakeP's early posts were bad, and I think people attempting this early bandwagon on him are. Juanito posts this when literally the only people who have voted for JakeP are Byers and QPQ. What's the deal with this, Juan?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Magnus Gallant posted:In other news I got a major scum read on Meinberg, revel in how forced these posts read: Magnus the last thing you said was "let me ruminate on what I've been saying about Xopods and the fact that my order of events might be wrong and coloring my vision of him," and then you turn around a case meinberg out of nowhere. Can you explain your thought process that got you there, because I definitely don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:I'm not sure I understand you. In what way can a case made on the first page, based on one post, be strong? The intended implication was that "of course I'm not committed to this case, but its first page so no one is expecting cases to be foolproof." Ok now I'm back to QPQ because either this is a hardcore contradiction or I'm not understanding you. You are saying that you never intended to be committed to that case because, by nature, first page cases are shots in the dark. And yet your response to the pressure is: QuoProQuid posted:My reasoning was that not collecting fuel is a way to make oneself look superficially townie. Based on the OP, fuel is required for night actions so by not collecting it, one implies that they are vanilla townie or less of a threat. It is suspicious for Jake to make a post about how he does not need fuel right on the heels of discussion over Magnus's role. Drawing attention to his decision not to collect fuel is something I would expect scum to do, especially if such a post can be dismissed as a joke. QuoProQuid posted:Unless Magnus dispenses a barrel, then a vanilla townie should always forage for fuel because it puts them in control over where fuel goes. They can then pass it along to the player whom they think is most townie. By not collecting a barrel, you're basically randomizing the barrel's end location. That's balls to the wall "I meant what I said." So why are you now playing the angle of "you can't say I was being wishy washy because I never intended it to be serious," when you very clearly did. That makes you wishy washy. Especially when your follow up in the very same post is: quote:The objection that Magnus has with xopods' post is that he's focusing on only one post in my history and ignoring the rest. This censorship allows him to better support his case, because it makes it seem like I left a vague vote on Jake and never explained it. That is not the case. "It wasn't a vague vote, I was being concrete." That's continuing to be wishy washy by going back on what you just said, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:No, I'm explaining why your later post is irrelevant to the case xopods made, and therefore it wasn't scummy for xopods to ignore it in his comments. Byers answered my question, I understand why you injected yourself into the fray now more. I forgot you were one of the initial votes on Jake. I like this reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
KhyrosFinalCut posted:I'm saying that I still think QPQ is scummy as articulated. It is also true that Xopods made a point against QPQ that is the kind of point I would definitely have made as scum if there was steam going on a townie. I considered making exactly xopods' point but I couldn't convince myself that it was on the right side of twisting theories to suit facts vs. the other way around. I don't think KFC would be talking about his thought process as "potentially scum" if he were scum here. I like this post, and if he's scum setting up himself to look analytical townie he's doing an excellent job of setting up the long game on it so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:why are you claiming any role at all I don't like this. What were you trying to accomplish by chastising byers here?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Quidnose posted:Ok now I'm back to QPQ because either this is a hardcore contradiction or I'm not understanding you. You are saying that you never intended to be committed to that case because, by nature, first page cases are shots in the dark. And yet your response to the pressure is: The case was not intended to be strong in the sense that it was supported by much evidence. I tried to make this fact clear when I was first asked about the case. It was as "serious as any case can be on the first page," which is to mean not very serious but necessary to get the game started. While the case against Jake wasn't strong, I didn't pick him randomly. A "weak" case should not be misconstrued as a "shot in the dark." I did have reasons for attacking JakeP, reasons I elaborated on in subsequent posts, but the case was never meant to be really serious. It was, again, page one. Not a ton of information to go off of, but more than nothing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:Xopods' argument is cogent and I would not normally object to posts like it, except that it came after a subsequent explanation. Excepting a vote by you, I was not under any pressure to explain myself. In fact, the discussion had moved away from myself to a general joking chat about JakeP's playstyle in general. It would be in my best interest to move on as scum. Instead, I addressed your concern and clarified the issue. Feels insincere and overly wordy. quote:Xopods' case has merit if the ONLY thing I had posted was about the seriousness of my vote. Between my post and his, however, I had made several subsequent explanations. There's more information to go on that xopods' dismissed. He's either unaware that anything happened, and consequently inattentive, or ignoring data to support his case, in which case he's dishonest. Right now, I lean toward the latter based on his follow-up: Has Xopods even posted since he originally made his case on you and you responded? I don't think he did. That's a little early to accuse him of "ignoring your points." I don't think he'd returned to the thread. quote:He's drawing in a second post that supports his suspicions and claiming that it was part of the reason he voted on me, despite no mention of it in his initial vote (1). He's only collecting information that supports him while failing to address posts that seem to contradict his vote. He says that he is "pointing out the worst thing he's done," but that doesn't seem like an honest way to build a case. I also don't think this is right. Magnus asked him about a post he omitted, then xopods responded to that. He didn't bring it up randomly? quote:I also don't like how xopods is apparently trying to distance himself from a bandwagon that he helped start. He is basically drawing attention to issues in the hopes that other people will support them so that he doesn't look committed in the event that I am lynched. Flat out false. Xopods was the only person who had voted for you AFTER KFC's initial vote. There was no bandwagon, at all. In fact I think most people were question Xopods, not you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
JakeP posted:Probably a magneto hahahahahahahaa.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:i havent seen that movie either These combined together really feel like QPQ trying to: a. distract with humor, which he's been doing the entire time. Look back over his posts, he has a ton of throwaway buddyup posts, and this wouldn't be odd in general but they're in almost every serious post he makes. THAT'S strange. b. continue to disparage and goad Meinberg after what I really feel is a bad callout that looked desperate initially. I actually really liked Meinberg's response and felt that "I had these reasons, but you're right, I need to reread the thread, and will" is incredibly sincere and worth saying "sweet deal, see you soon." To continue to harp on him for it seems desperate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
I am really enjoying reading JakeP this game 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Rarity posted:Andy's tone in this game is super-emotive with little solid analysis. It's pinging my gut because I know he's a smart guy capable of good logical thinking. I think he's hiding behind emotive language on purpose to excuse himself from serious scum hunting. I don't like this reasoning, solely because you quotes are all him defending himself. Is he supposed to do Jake's legwork for him if he feels he's being misrepresentative? He's not hiding behind emotive language, he's defending himself. You can't scum hunt while you're on the defense. Take it from me, I am the expert at getting stuck defending yourself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
xopods posted:Terminator claim ITT Ok this is crazy gut talking but I think xopods and QPQ are scum together and that xopods came in and bussed QPQ, and screwed it up (which is what Magnus called him on.) This is his first entry back into the game, which is a weird buddying joke (to whom I don't actually know), and then he completely ignores the issue and talks with Rarity about Magnus' doing his fuel thing, and THEN several posts later FINALLY says "oh yeah and about me and QPQ, if you don't see what I was doing  "There's been so much discussion re: QPQ and people talking about xopods initial post, this is not the way you come back in unless you want to look good for initially finding a scum and then have something to point back to as you slowly move away from it as deadline approaches. This is a perfect setup for a later followup of "maybe you guys were right, I've been feeling kinda noncommittal about QPQ."
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Quidnose posted:Don't like this, a soft "well I AM A POWER ROLE" while using that leverage to make QPQ look bad. Not sure what Cap was trying to accomplish. Also I'm playing mind games with the scum why am I softclaiming a power role, scum do I want you to come at me or am I bluffing!!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:Contrary to popular belief, merk isn't really that mean. He will call out bad play, bad logic, but rarely makes personal insults. He can play nice, so he doesn't need to play the way he has to avoid being mean. Merk was plenty mean to me in the last game we played together 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Maybe there's mines all around my enclave? Come find out!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
Votecount for Day 1  CapnAndy (2): JakeP, Rarity xopods (2): QuoProQuid, Magnus Gallant merk (2): JakeP, Meinberg (2): Rarity, Magnus Gallant, Byers2142, KhyrosFinalCut (1): CapnAndy, merk, QuoProQuid (1): KhyrosFinalCut, xopods, JakeP (0): Byers2142, QuoProQuid, Mikujin (0): xopods, Byers2142 (0): DGK2000, Not Voting (7): bowmore, Juanito, Meinberg, Mikujin, Quidnose, tearshed, Token FemaleWith 17 alive, it's 9 votes to lynch. The current deadline is September 18th, 2014 at 10:30 p.m. GMT -- that's in about 1 day, 17 hours.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 04:21 |
|
|
Rarity posted:merk is more than capable of implying your inferiority and idiocy without resorting to direct attacks and if he wanted to bring it out in this game then he easily could. He works hard to present himself in an "I'm better than you" manner that's designed to intimidate. My read on merk right now is that he wants us to think he doesn't really give a poo poo so that when he does start to play we see him as coming along to save us and thus we end up following him to lynch the people he wants lynched. Why are you white-knighting merk so hard?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:50
|
|