|
BottleKnight posted:tbh my meta read on you is that your scum game is lurkey and bad so even though your posting is still awkward I'm leaning town on you. Backhanded compliments are my fetish
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
ljtrigirl posted:Yeah... I kind of want to kill you just because I think I'm going to think you're evil regardless of whether or not you are. But I'll probably leave assessing you to people that have played with you more. Town Meinberg is awkward, verbose and wishy-washy. Scum Meinberg is awkward, verbose and lurky. ljtrigirl posted:Is there a reason that QPQ is using kid gloves with Meinberg? Do they have some weird meta that I am unaware of? Meinberg gonna Meinberg ljtrigirl posted:##unvote What reasons?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:##vote TMM Fair enough I can live with that vote.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Samfucius posted:I voted him because ~I'd fight you and you would lose but I don't wanna~ is just so bad in every way. He's disappeared, and I agree that it could very well be to draw heat away. It is kinda working, because in his absence I am starting to swing rarity. Not that diqnol is becoming less scummy, rarity is just eclipsing him. Why?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
AnonymousNarcotics posted:Sorry hal, I said I would do it tomorrow (which is now today) and I just woke up! How about you fill me in since you did read. ANarc you're being terrible. Stop being terrible 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Hal Incandenza posted:QPQ gives me bad vibes. Interesting, care to go into detail?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Samfucius posted:I voted him because ~I'd fight you and you would lose but I don't wanna~ is just so bad in every way. He's disappeared, and I agree that it could very well be to draw heat away. It is kinda working, because in his absence I am starting to swing rarity. Not that diqnol is becoming less scummy, rarity is just eclipsing him. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:I can see the argument for TMM, but on the flipside in the same breathe it looks like he's waiting for content to jump on. Instead of just being passive he's trying to get people to post and get poo poo going, constantly referencing post counts like a tosser to criticize people into This, combined with this: Gamerofthegame posted:##vote TMM Is mega scummy. Gamer is letting a vote sit on TMM while simultaneously defending him. He can walk this back as a prod if momentum builds and whatnot. I don't like it! Do you know what I do like? That's right. Chains to rattle *rattles chains spookily*
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:Why? My post does not exist in a vacuum. Rarity making some worthless calls and defending them to hell and back was bad, their weird defense-of-setup-spec-but-not to drive the tmm thing also bad. I have already posted about both of these things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
merk posted:Let's discuss Diqnol for a moment. If you're not voting him, why not? What is your read on him? I feel like he's not posting today to try to see if the heat on him goes away. Both of you are being blustery and it's making me roll my eyes more than giving me a read on either of your alignments right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Samfucius posted:If you read the tmm post he is quoting, rarity seems to be defending setup spec while saying it is still a lynchable offense. I wasn't saying anything about whether setup spec is a lynchable offence (it can be, just like anything else in mafia), the point was all about TM trying to play defensively. Also, the majority of D1 lynches are town, that's just maths. Also also, I'm a lady 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Rarity posted:I wasn't saying anything about whether setup spec is a lynchable offence (it can be, just like anything else in mafia), the point was all about TM trying to play defensively. Also, the majority of D1 lynches are town, that's just maths. This is an interesting post and section. BECAUSE IT'S CALLED MATH YOU LUNATIC
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
CCKeane posted:This, combined with this: I can think an action isn't scummy while holding someone to claims of content at the same time!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Hal Incandenza posted:Oh that hang on let me get my response ready... ##unvote . . . . . . . . . . . ##vote Hal
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Rarity posted:I wasn't saying anything about whether setup spec is a lynchable offence (it can be, just like anything else in mafia), the point was all about TM trying to play defensively. Also, the majority of D1 lynches are town, that's just maths. Sorry ma'am. Going out of your way to mention it is self-serving if you're scum. Also the weak implication that D1 lynches are completely random is no bueno and implies that you think D1 scumhunting is not possible. It's an excuse/discouragement to the rest of the thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:I can think an action isn't scummy while holding someone to claims of content at the same time!! Hmmm yes, yes. Gamer if you don't provide content I shall make the walls of your home bleed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
merk posted:POTENTIAL SETUP SPEC SCUM RIGHT HERE ##vote TMSCUMMAN Bad joke that later turned into an exchange between TMM and him that ends up with merk unvoting the moment TMM questions the vote. Even if merk did mean this as a joke, why did he feel the need to remove his vote? Why didn't he keep it on after TMM reacted to it? I would expect a town merk to use that opportunity to probe TMM some more. Instead, merk just slides off. merk posted:##unvote; ##vote Bottleknight merk posted:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3734881&userid=140542 Ah, the Bottleknight case. What a sack of crap case this is. In merk's first "real" vote of the day, he takes a known faux mafia truism and applies it to an entire poster's post history on early d1. I don't think I need to tell anyone how ridiculous it is (but I still will) to cite an entire poster's post history (saving lurkers with less than 5 posts, perhaps) as evidence as it is asking you to draw your own conclusions rather than having the person who has the "catch" show you what they actually see, but more importantly he is asking you to read those posts in isolation rather than within the context of the thread. It's lazy and bad and screams scum to me. A town player would show you what it is they saw. merk posted:Are you telling me that in one minute you read Bottleknight in isolation and came to the conclusion that my callout on him was awful? merk posted:...or I don't know.. maybe you knew his alignment before you called my callout awful? merk posted:##unvote; ##vote GIUSSEPPE PIZZAPIE This is where it really hammered in for me that merk is scum, though. I would have been thoroughly disappointed in merk for the earlier case but believed it if he were town in the end, but this...this can't be the move of a town member. Note that he did not give me time to respond to any of this but rather came to his own rushed conclusions. He followed one post into another after making assumptions and leapt on me. It is important to remember the context of me having just said previously that I was going to prove merk was scum to him, too. Look at how in the first quoted post he is angry that I dismissed his case out of the gate for being based on a weak premise (you'll note he never acknowledges that stance going forward, either). He was hoping that the first "real" case of the game would give him some goodwill perhaps or that it would be considered serious content. Somebody slapping it down from the getgo is a serious impediment to that. The second quoted post seems like something said tongue in cheek yet in his followup post he asserts he was totally serious. A post like that is absolutely meaningless as everybody is constantly under suspicion of being scum. That was merk turning it on me as best he could. That is the only reason for that post - he saw me honed in on him and decided he would try to turn it against me. A genuine member of the town would not make that post knowing it was not actually adding anything to the discussion. This is a maneuvering post. When we arrive at the actual vote on me, look at the irony of his return attack on me in that all three of these posts are within a single minute and how he chastises me for "not doing any work myself" while simultaneously coming to the conclusion that I am scum (even to this game day, I'll have you all know!) within that minute. But lets look at what he is actually saying in this post, shall we? quote:Someone coming in and saying they don't understand the vote, maybe asking for more information? That is completely fine. So as a town member, I am supposed to only say I do not understand a vote or ask someone to elaborate on it. He asserts that it is inherently scummy to dismiss a case that can easily be observed to be faulty considering only its premise. Notice the wording he uses, that I am not trying to understand him. Reworded, what he is saying is this: "Someone coming in and saying that the vote is awful without accepting the premise of my case? That is scum." Keep in mind that this is something is is so invested in being right in that he is still voting me now over other people he seemingly wants to vote for. Does that seem like something conclusive to you? It sure as hell doesn't to me and, if you aren't familiar with him, merk is a pretty good mafia player. He's better than that. Don't let him fool you. merk posted:If you're town, you're calling me 'bad at this game' based off of one Here he is not accepting a definition of bad that does not mean wrong. I would like to think I made it clear that his case was bad because of the way in which he decided BK was scummy and the evidence he put forward to support his claim. I had said he was bad at this game regardless of alignment because as town, he jumped from a bad case to an even worse one because he cannot understand other mindsets OR as scum, he did a very bad job of convincing me of the former. It is fair to say that if he is town, I, too, am not good at the game of mafia. merk posted:Yeah, I'm locked in. Another bad post in which he does not respond to what I've said before but rather doubles down. It's quite weak. Note that later he does actually switch votes off of me onto samfucius and switches back to me probably because he recalled making this post later. That, too, belies a scummy mindset of trying to appear consistent. I realize I am already voting for merk, but I will ##unvote ##vote merk for emphasis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Samfucius posted:I voted him because ~I'd fight you and you would lose but I don't wanna~ is just so bad in every way. He's disappeared, and I agree that it could very well be to draw heat away. It is kinda working, because in his absence I am starting to swing rarity. Not that diqnol is becoming less scummy, rarity is just eclipsing him. I think this is a rather scummy post, though. He's hedging very hard and in light of his earlier posts, I would vote for Samfucius.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
GUISSEPPE PIZZAPIE posted:I think this is a rather scummy post, though. He's hedging very hard and in light of his earlier posts, I would vote for Samfucius. What exactly am I hedging?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Samfucius posted:What exactly am I hedging? "Diq is scummy. He is currently doing a thing, hiding to dispel heat, that I find even more scummy. vote rarity."
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Samfucius posted:What exactly am I hedging? You're keeping me open as a potential vote candidate so you can plausibly vote for either Rarity or I at your leisure. Your earlier posting was pinging me too but I don't have examples on hand. Give me a minute and I'll see if I can find those posts again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
diqnol's case on merk is... actually pretty solid? Didn't see that one coming.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Samfucius posted:My post does not exist in a vacuum. See the problem with your previous posts about these things is they are bad posts and using them as your justification is bad justification Samfucius posted:Okay I am dredging this back up as I reread but jesus this is bad. It's d1, any content is good content. That second sentence is some weird thing to post without a vote. Samfucius posted:If you read the tmm post he is quoting, rarity seems to be defending setup spec while saying it is still a lynchable offense. TMM had been called out by diqnol to make some d1 setup spec after that was already a topic of discussion, TMM had already mentioned he did huge setup spec before. Nothing in the post Rarity made seems to hint at it being a lynchable offense unless: Rarity posted:It seems like you're trying to make excuses to avoid getting lynched for something that got you lynched in the past. Somehow implies that? Pretty weak argument IMO. ##unvote ##vote Samfu
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Rarity posted:diqnol's case on merk is... actually pretty solid? Rude.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
GUISSEPPE PIZZAPIE posted:Merk, I want you to know that if I felt like I could handle it right now, I could maneuver around you without a sweat. I see what it is you're doing. I'm just not in a good place to do it right now so you're just going to be proven scum through your play. GUISSEPPE PIZZAPIE posted:*stuff* 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Rarity posted:diqnol's case on merk is... actually pretty solid? What do you find solid about the case? What point is the strongest point?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
merk posted:What do you find solid about the case? What point is the strongest point? He's put a lot of effort into it, he explains all of his points in a logical way and shows why they are scummy and the points themselves I agree with. Particularly: GUISSEPPE PIZZAPIE posted:Ah, the Bottleknight case. What a sack of crap case this is. In merk's first "real" vote of the day, he takes a known faux mafia truism and applies it to an entire poster's post history on early d1. I don't think I need to tell anyone how ridiculous it is (but I still will) to cite an entire poster's post history (saving lurkers with less than 5 posts, perhaps) as evidence as it is asking you to draw your own conclusions rather than having the person who has the "catch" show you what they actually see, but more importantly he is asking you to read those posts in isolation rather than within the context of the thread. It's lazy and bad and screams scum to me. A town player would show you what it is they saw. It's not about the accusation itself, it's about how the accusation is made.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
I'm not really sure I understand what you're saying about his case then: Do you think I'm scum from it or do you think he's town for making it? I think you're saying the latter, but I'm not sure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Admittedly, I just skimmed it so far. I haven't tried to put myself in his shoes and see if I think he actually believes it or not yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
GUISSEPPE PIZZAPIE posted:You're keeping me open as a potential vote candidate so you can plausibly vote for either Rarity or I at your leisure. Your earlier posting was pinging me too but I don't have examples on hand. Give me a minute and I'll see if I can find those posts again. That's a lot of words to say "you are capable of suspecting two people at once".
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
merk posted:Admittedly, I just skimmed it so far. I haven't tried to put myself in his shoes and see if I think he actually believes it or not yet. Merk please do not put yourself in my shoes. I assume you have size 16 feet and you would stretch them out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
In other news, chaoslord and anonymous narcotics have less than 15 posts combined.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Samfucius posted:In other news, chaoslord and anonymous narcotics have less than 15 posts combined. and
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Samfucius posted:In other news, chaoslord and anonymous narcotics have less than 15 posts combined. Now we are at 15 combined 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
And I would like to hear from them, they are lovely people
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
GUISSEPPE PIZZAPIE posted:so invested in being right  I don't like your case because it makes a lot of assumptions about what merk was thinking that I did not get out of the posts you quoted. And it speaks to his motivations without giving me an actual idea of how it benefits him as scum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
BottleKnight posted:
Interpret things badly if you want but it absolutely helps him to discredit someone looking to hang him and an OMGUS is designed to do exactly that. Staying consistent with his vote on me helps him to keep his lies straight and to make him appear confident in his earlier statements so you're more likely to listen to him. It also makes him look like he's contributing while he actually distracts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Keane, I dare you to read my big post.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
GUISSEPPE PIZZAPIE posted:Keane, I dare you to read my big post. Can I choose truth instead?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
CCKeane posted:Can I choose truth instead? Very well. After reading my big post, what is your opinion of merk's alignment?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 21:25
|
|