|
There are 9 people not voting. Lmao.
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 08:28 |
|
|
U mad 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Rascyc posted:Read pages 22-23, don't have time to post big post nor read more yet. Ras, just so this doesn't get buried in the latest discussion bonanza, I'd agree with your read in terms of how Ernie looks after he decided to single in on yuming and why, but not the content side. Ernie's jus one of several larger discussion that have happened. Someone said all scum are lurking, and while I think that there are probably one or two active scum, I'd agree that everything happening right now is letting some scum lay low.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
True and Real posted:There are 9 people not voting. Lmao. The other problem with a bigger game; just getting enough bloody people to vote.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Tremendous Taste posted:U mad f u bish
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:The other problem with a bigger game; just getting enough bloody people to vote. bring the deadline 24 hours forward, i guess
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
There's not enough people talking either. That isn't an issue with a big game as much as it is just SA Mafia nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Looking at the lurkers really quickly, these Meinberg posts are pretty scummy:Meinberg posted:My first reaction to Ernie's claim is that it's complete and utter bullshit. But on the other hand, if Ernie actually has that role, it's good that he claimed it this early. I would expand, but my thoughts are still in process, and I don't want to risk the possibility of exposing other town power roles to scrutiny due to me being accidentally correct in my random flailing. Meinberg posted:I see what you're saying with your Byers case, Wins, but I feel like it's a bit of a stretch. These posts say so much nothing that they almost say something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
So after a reread, here's what I see with merk. His cases? They aren't his cases.merk posted:This feels like a good vote. Around the whole Ernie claim thing, Byers happily dove into it and didn't really say much about anything else. This post is especially indicative of content that doesn't matter in the slightest: merk posted:Someone somewhere said yuming's vote on Ernie is scummy. It is. yuming's only content is only the Ernie claim. merk posted:##unvote; ##vote Rarity With the exception of his case on Diqnol, every case he has pushed forward today has been adding to or just agreeing with someone else's case. In many cases, he's now pointing at posts as scummy that he didn't not consider scummy when he first read them; as evidence, look at all of the sequences where he's quoting posts after the eventually identified "scummy" post. He did it with me, Rarity, and yuming. He was beyond them, but only calls them scummy afterwards because he's no looking for scum, he's just looking for cases to make. Also, he is asking a lot of question which, when answered, he then ignores the answers to. Particularly when that answer doesn't fit into the narrative he's constructing. For instance, just about me, he's asked questions such as... merk posted:Did you think Ernie was town when you made this post? merk posted:I don't think Byers ever intended to get Ernie lynched. Where did you get that read? ... and then ignored the answers given.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
How is adding onto content from other people scummy? I ask a lot of questions and don't remember all of the questions that I ask. If I saw a response that I wanted to get something from, I would probably say something about it. How is that scummy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
merk posted:There's not enough people talking either. That isn't an issue with a big game as much as it is just SA Mafia nowadays. I'd agree; lurking's starting to become the go-to scum habit, or what people do when they don't get a role they really like. Ernie. posted:bring the deadline 24 hours forward, i guess Too late at this point, I'd argue; you'd make it in seven hours. No way you can fairly get 11 votes together, giving scum even more power to shift the votes to a mislynch without being obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Does a case have to be original for it to be coming from a Town player?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
In some instances, like my vote on Rarity, I built the case off of responding to something that didn't even move the needle for me alignment-wise from another player. Is that scummy? How is that scummy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
You read through me and came up with stuff to support a theory that I'm scum that actually doesn't support any theory about my alignment in any way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
merk posted:How is adding onto content from other people scummy? It's the same problem with how you're building your cases; you pick and choose posts, you're picking posts that you know already have support as being seen as scummy, and you're picking response that support your prebuilt ideas without allowing the other responses to make you have to change your mind on something. You've known since Saturday who you want to vote, and there's nothing anyone can do to change it because you will ignore anything that goes against that vote order. Town should want to find scum, you came in predeclared. It smacks of foreknowledge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
I'm still catching up.Byers2142 posted:At the time you posted this, we were two days (roughly) into the game, and I'd been pursuing you and EP for half of that . Yeah, "a while now" seems warranted, and you continue to evade actually talking about yourself by trying to attack me. Diqnol asked bowmore and Punt a question on their claim, and you came after him for it. You called it trying too hard, when it was a single sentence. and when I tried to get something out of you about it, you explicit refused to answer the questions and said it was answered by a comment I made about Ernie's claim, which was unconnected to the matter at hand. At the time I made that post, it was Saturday the 24th and the first time you had mentioned me was that morning. Feel free to try and prove me otherwise. I don't need to avoid questions about my play because there aren't any. You're the only one who asked me anything and I was swift to answer what you've posted. What have I been avoiding? Please don't accidentally pull a muscle trying for this reaching case of yours.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Byers, you sound like a truther.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
merk posted:In some instances, like my vote on Rarity, I built the case off of responding to something that didn't even move the needle for me alignment-wise from another player. Is that scummy? How is that scummy? Help me parse that first sentence, but I think you're saying that the post didn't move you to consider alignment either way until someone else made a case on it. If on a reread you find it scummy, why wasn't it scummy on the first read? Look, I'm not saying that every cases needs to be fresh, that's insane, and I get seeing a post in a new light, but you have a pattern here of recasting posts as scummy to agree with the cases people are making. You're a serial recaster. It suggests that your first read through, you weren't consider whether a post made the person scum or not, because you know who the scum are. Instead, you're looking for cases you can make, and you're borrowing ones you think you can get behind after they're made.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:Help me parse that first sentence, but I think you're saying that the post didn't move you to consider alignment either way until someone else made a case on it. If on a reread you find it scummy, why wasn't it scummy on the first read? Look, I'm not saying that every cases needs to be fresh, that's insane, and I get seeing a post in a new light, but you have a pattern here of recasting posts as scummy to agree with the cases people are making. You're a serial recaster. It suggests that your first read through, you weren't consider whether a post made the person scum or not, because you know who the scum are. Instead, you're looking for cases you can make, and you're borrowing ones you think you can get behind after they're made. Someone pointed out the scum slip. I read Rarity in response to reading that post. I came up with my own conclusion about Rarity's alignment that had little to do, if any at all, with the scum slip. I said that conclusion in the thread. I put a vote into the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
merk posted:Byers, you sound like a truther. It's because nobody can believe that the posts you're quoting produce enough heat to melt steel beams.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
merk posted:Byers, you sound like a truther. Which one's are truthers again? Birther's are the "Obama's a Kenyan Muslim terrorist, and the lack of a birth certificate proves it," but I can't remember which crazies are the truthers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Byers posted:If on a reread you find it scummy, why wasn't it scummy on the first read? This can't be a serious question. Can we get rid of this guy please?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
merk posted:Someone pointed out the scum slip. I read Rarity in response to reading that post. I came up with my own conclusion about Rarity's alignment that had little to do, if any at all, with the scum slip. I said that conclusion in the thread. I put a vote into the thread. Is she your number 3 at this point, or am I?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:I have some time to play today so I'll try to make a good post about why I think Rarity is scum. You still planning to do this? Byers2142 posted:Which one's are truthers again? Birther's are the "Obama's a Kenyan Muslim terrorist, and the lack of a birth certificate proves it," but I can't remember which crazies are the truthers. 9/11 was an inside-jobbers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
merk posted:Someone pointed out the scum slip. I read Rarity in response to reading that post. I came up with my own conclusion about Rarity's alignment that had little to do, if any at all, with the scum slip. I said that conclusion in the thread. I put a vote into the thread. But you've done this same thing multiple times; why does it take other people to make you realize you think a post is scummy? True and Real posted:It's because nobody can believe that the posts you're quoting produce enough heat to melt steel beams. Oh, gently caress, it's the 9/11 is an inside job crew, isn't it? Not cool, merk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
True and Real posted:Is she your number 3 at this point, or am I? She might even be #2. I'm not really sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:But you've done this same thing multiple times; why does it take other people to make you realize you think a post is scummy? Get out of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
merk posted:She might even be #2. I'm not really sure. Burn!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
SO YOURE TELLING ME THAT YOU READ A POST THAT YOU HAD READ BEFORE AND CAME TO A ***NEW*** CONCLUSION AFTER READING IT? MERK IS SCUM
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
merk posted:This can't be a serious question. No, that's a 100% serious question. Why do you need to have posts pointed out to you before you think they are scummy? I'm saying it's because you're not reading to find scum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Byers on cross examination: Byers: So you read that first on Thursday, is that right? merk: That's right. Byers: Then you read that post again on Saturday, is that right? merk: That's right. Byers: And you're telling me that you came up with something new on Saturday that you didn't say on Thursday, is that right? merk: That's right. Byers: The prosecution rests, your honor. Move for a directed verdict.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
merk posted:Get out of the game. No, you first. ... See, Ecco, this is why I always need a gun. That was the perfect spot for a dayvig. ##unvote ##vote merk merk posted:Byers on cross examination: This isn't about one post, it's about a continued pattern of behavior. You changed you mind about every post you're now using to pursue your scum cases, with the possible exception of Diqnol because I don't know what your read on him is any more. it's very simple; you didn't consider posts as scummy because you weren't looking for scum. You weren't looking for scum because you know who the scum are by opening the scumdoc. You're trying to turn it into about one post because you're right, you can change your mind about posts. But how you approached the posts in total, that speaks to mentality you went into reading them, and it was a scum mentality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Ok this is that merk spazzing I was referencing
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
##vote merk
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
SA Mafia is boring nowadays. I am taking my ball and going home. My vote is on Byers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Tremendous Taste posted:Ok this is that merk spazzing I was referencing Yeah, but it's funny spazzing this time. Somb, read Yuming, Merk, and Byers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
What a waste of time reading those pages. I don't think Ernie is scum. I still think Byers is scum. Maybe I'll make a condensed case on Byers but for now I'll just say that considering I'm supposed to be one of Byers' top suspicions, I have never seen him actually state why he is suspicious of me, and he seems to forget about me when I am not directly addressing him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
merk posted:SA Mafia is boring nowadays. I am taking my ball and going home. My vote is on Byers. I'm rusty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
True and Real posted:I'm rusty. You and me both, man. You and me both.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 08:28 |
|
|
I agree with merk. Our unity in making these games fun stands divided. Why don't we all reward ecco for returning to moderating by ecco gambitting our way through the player list alphabetically?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:40
|
|