|
Hey Token Female is back! Hooray! Confirmed as well~
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
Magnus Gallant posted:You've never seen terminator? :O I've never seen Terminator either :\
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
bowmore posted:This is a hell of a player list, I feel like I might be out of my weight class. don't worry bowmore i am here we can flail together 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
I'm busy grading AP Music Theory tests tonight but QPQ's response is more suspicious than his original joke.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:Yes, my scum role is "dude who can do rational thought for two seconds" Lousy fake claim, scum would never have such a role!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
xopods posted:I'm not sure what post of his you think "negates" his previously scummy post, but I definitely read everything he had posted up to the point that I voted him. You are directly contradicting yourself. 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: Your initial post says PURELY "this post is the reason I am voting for him." But you say in your response to Magnus "I saw his response to KFC and I didn't like it." And yet you make no mention of it. Which is Magnus' point, and that negates your argument, and proves Magnus' point, exactly.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
merk posted:I've done all the work I intend to do this game day. I am voting Meinberg through deadline. I don't like that you are doing this.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted: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 don't follow. You've shown in defending your points in that point, in a "I meant what I said when I made that vote" way, that you meant what you said. But you are now, once again, insisting it was not intended to be serious? Which is it?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
KhyrosFinalCut posted:no. you're seeing it as weird and twisty cause for some reason you don't want to bother processing nuance. Hitting it on the head. I do not think Xopods' case and subsequent development against QPQ is in the interest of town members finding scum. Even if QPQ IS scum (and I think he is), I think Xopods made that case for his own personal gain.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
A LIST FOR YOU: Want to Hurt Everyone QPQ - reasons outlined Xopods - reasons outlined Maybe Not A Nice Person Junatio - one weird post that I disliked and that's it. merk - purely from a "I refuse to play right now" stance which rubs me the wrong way, completely. Rarity - pure gut, purely from a "i'm making a list and in retrospect rarity is acting kinda weird" People Are Probably Over Reacting Meinberg - his play is a little odd but I'm not convinced. Null Tells bowmore - play is consistant with the way he always plays Byers2142 - engaged but a few weird things. not sure yet. CapnAndy - engaged but tongue in cheek and not taking things seriously, not sure. DGK2000 - need to see more posts I Think They're Good Guys JakeP - funny but in a way that supports town, not trying to distract. KhyrosFinalCut - logic feels sincere, talking about stuff i wouldn't see scum thinking about Magnus Gallant - i like the way magnus is probing Token Female - asking good questions, want to see more but a good feeling! It's Me I Am The Town Quidnose Are They In This Game? Mikujin - ???? Zero posts. I thought this was a joke before but he's on the playerlist? tearshed - Yeah I guess he posted but it left no impact on me.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
##vote QPQ Quidnose out.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Actually that's not true I'll be paying attention to the thread while I shoot space wizards on my PS4.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
What other things do you want to talk about? I'm around, spitball at me.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
QPQ can you make a list in the fashion that I did?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
What's the deal with Mikujin, IDGI
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Also I am 100% not going to be available for the deadline tomorrow as I'll have 30 minutes of teaching left so I will be finalizing my vote tonight unless there's not a lot of activity I can read through on my lunch break. Just a warning erryone!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Juanito posted:not much to read, I don't get a scum vibe though Do you get a town vibe or is it a null tell?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Cap'n Andy can you recap your KFC case with some quote analysis from his post history because that is a good point you just made.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
why does no one comment on my page of posts WHY DO I EFFORT, QUIDNOSE. WHY. Byers how do you feel about QPQ?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 03:04
|
|