|
bowmore posted:JakeP is town because...?
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:44 |
|
|
Gut feeling
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
I might be wrong
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
JakeP posted:so just so we are clear the fuel thing does basically confirm me as town No, it doesn't. Not according to flavor, and not according to what we know of the game. Terminators don't run off diesel in the movies; I never saw Ahnold stopping at a Citgo to top off. Players with FUEL may be able to utilize it, but not all roles may need FUEL. CaptAndy said his night action doesn't need FUEL, and it's bad game design to limit town or scum PRs based on if they were available to post at the beginning of the day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
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:QuoProQuid posted:About as serious as any vote can be less than a page after the official game start. This feels like a non-answer to give him maximum leeway to either stick with his vote ("I said I was serious") or change it ("Guys, it was one page into the game") later. ##vote QPQ
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
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: In the second scenario are you imagining that JakeP flipped town after the lynch and QPQ would be getting flack for it? I have a hard time extrapolating that far out, seeing as JakeP is nowhere near lynched. I could agree with it being scummy setting that up if it was closer to deadline or if this vote was thrown in with a bunch of other votes in quick succession. As it is QPQ has expanded on that vote here and, to me, that reasoning doesn't sound forced or made up to legitimize the original vote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
Xopods, I think you're omitting a large portion of QPQ's history to make your point, and I think you're better than that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:No, it doesn't. Not according to flavor, and not according to what we know of the game. child please
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
JakeP posted:child please child at heart, maybe... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
Magnus Gallant posted:Xopods, I think you're omitting a large portion of QPQ's history to make your point, and I think you're better than that. I get your first post, but not this one. xopods might be wrong in his QPQ read, but it doesn't seem like he did so maliciously, which is what you're implying here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
KFC What do you think of this vote? It came before QPQ's and it's for basically the same reason.Byers2142 posted:##vote JakeP
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
Magnus Gallant posted:KFC What do you think of this vote? It came before QPQ's and it's for basically the same reason. You've asked him this already, haven't you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
Magnus Gallant posted:Xopods, I think you're omitting a large portion of QPQ's history to make your point, and I think you're better than that. 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. Magnus Gallant posted:In the second scenario are you imagining that JakeP flipped town after the lynch and QPQ would be getting flack for it? I have a hard time extrapolating that far out, seeing as JakeP is nowhere near lynched. I could agree with it being scummy setting that up if it was closer to deadline or if this vote was thrown in with a bunch of other votes in quick succession. 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."
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:I get your first post, but not this one. xopods might be wrong in his QPQ read, but it doesn't seem like he did so maliciously, which is what you're implying here. He doesn't mention QPQ's explanation post to say he doesn't agree with it. He's omitting it, either through laziness (not re-reading QPQ's history) or in order to paint QPQ as scummier than he thinks they actually are (by omitting a, in my opinion, townie post that directly negates the one point Xopods is using to paint them as scummy).
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
Magnus Gallant posted:He doesn't mention QPQ's explanation post to say he doesn't agree with it. He's omitting it, either through laziness (not re-reading QPQ's history) or in order to paint QPQ as scummier than he thinks they actually are (by omitting a, in my opinion, townie post that directly negates the one point Xopods is using to paint them as scummy). It doesn't negate it, though. xopods said that QPQ stayed ambiguous in his initial posting to give him leeway to adjust later; the post you're talking about is later.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:It doesn't negate it, though. xopods said that QPQ stayed ambiguous in his initial posting to give him leeway to adjust later; the post you're talking about is later. That's true. Hmmmm. . . I need to meditate on this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
I don't think JakeP's early posts were bad, and I think people attempting this early bandwagon on him are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
In other news I got a major scum read on Meinberg, revel in how forced these posts read:Meinberg posted:Good morning folks. The fuel question is very interesting! I really don't have any need for fuel myself, but should I put myself on the line in order to open the pool for the dayvig? It's an interesting conundrum. Meinberg posted:I will agree that Magnus probably shouldn't use his ability on D1. There's too much of a risk of hitting town with the dayvig. As the game goes along and he starts getting more developed reads, then I'd be more okay with its usage. Meinberg posted:Yay! ##vote meinberg
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
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 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." Byers2142 posted:It doesn't negate it, though. xopods said that QPQ stayed ambiguous in his initial posting to give him leeway to adjust later; the post you're talking about is later. Aren't you doing the same thing that you accuse Magnus of here? You are characterizing my post as malicious. 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.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:Aren't you doing the same thing that you accuse Magnus of here? You are characterizing my post as malicious. 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. Personally, I didn't think Jake was serious initially when he said that he was confirmed town for not taking FUEL, but voted him because even joking, his post had the feel of a forced scum post. He's since doubled down on his confirmed scum claims, and that is scummy. I agree with your case on JakeP. I disagree with Magnus's case on xopods.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:He's since doubled down on his confirmed scum claims, and that is scummy. mafia edit: ...his confirmed town claims...
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:It doesn't negate it, though. xopods said that QPQ stayed ambiguous in his initial posting to give him leeway to adjust later; the post you're talking about is later. To me though, when building a case on someone, you have to look at the entirety of their posting. This causes me a lot of problems when I try to build cases because I'll do what xopods did, find a post I think is scummy, then continue reading the persons post history and find that initial scumminess negated by subsequent posts. This leads to me building cases then abandoning them half-way through when I realize they are wrong. Xopods did not do this. He did not, that I can tell, consider the post history as a whole when building his case. Doing this in the early game when post histories are so short this seems scummy. Especially since the post that Xopods is voting over occured a couple pages ago and therefore had to be dug up in order to be highlighted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Magnus Gallant posted:To me though, when building a case on someone, you have to look at the entirety of their posting. This causes me a lot of problems when I try to build cases because I'll do what xopods did, find a post I think is scummy, then continue reading the persons post history and find that initial scumminess negated by subsequent posts. This leads to me building cases then abandoning them half-way through when I realize they are wrong. Xopods did not do this. He did not, that I can tell, consider the post history as a whole when building his case. Doing this in the early game when post histories are so short this seems scummy. Especially since the post that Xopods is voting over occured a couple pages ago and therefore had to be dug up in order to be highlighted. If you start from xopods read of those initial posts, how does the subsequent posts QPQ made negate his interpretation? He said that QPQ left himself ambiguity in the early posts to be more definite in later posts without being committed one way or another, and you're pointing to a later post where he's more definite. There's no evidence that he didn't read the posts, he just left them out since they weren't relevant. I think he's wrong in his case, but I don't agree that the way he framed his case was, itself, scummy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:If you start from xopods read of those initial posts, how does the subsequent posts QPQ made negate his interpretation? He said that QPQ left himself ambiguity in the early posts to be more definite in later posts without being committed one way or another, and you're pointing to a later post where he's more definite. There's no evidence that he didn't read the posts, he just left them out since they weren't relevant. Because I think that QPQ's reasoning for making that vote read as genuine- not something that was created on the spot. Maybe Xopods feels differently about that post, but if he did then you'd think it would only help to bolster his case against QPQ. How do you feel about my case on meinberg? Do you agree those posts feel forced?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Magnus Gallant posted:Because I think that QPQ's reasoning for making that vote read as genuine- not something that was created on the spot. Maybe Xopods feels differently about that post, but if he did then you'd think it would only help to bolster his case against QPQ. Not forced, more vacuous me too, but yeah, they're bad. Meinberg's been the quintessential lurker thus far, and even those he's made have been agreeing with the posts of others and hot air.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:12
|
|
Byers2142 posted:Not forced, more vacuous me too, but yeah, they're bad. Meinberg's been the quintessential lurker thus far, and even those he's made have been agreeing with the posts of others and hot air. This is accurate. I'm still trying to catch the feel of things, so when I do a reread I'll be better prepared to make meaningful statements.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
I need advice for my night action. Without going into details, I see two ways I can use it. One is somewhat safer and a more defensive move, one is more dangerous but a decidedly offensive move. Given I don't plan on living long, do y'all favor a risky offense or trying to set up a bit of defense? Majority choice informs which way I go. The responsibility still rests with me since I'm still picking the targets, I'm just looking for advice on how to pick my targets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Well since this game abides by the Queensbury Rules, you should not be offensive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:46
|
|
Byers2142 posted:I need advice for my night action. Without going into details, I see two ways I can use it. One is somewhat safer and a more defensive move, one is more dangerous but a decidedly offensive move. Given I don't plan on living long, do y'all favor a risky offense or trying to set up a bit of defense? Is there any particular reason that you don't think you'll be around for long?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:I need advice for my night action. Without going into details, I see two ways I can use it. One is somewhat safer and a more defensive move, one is more dangerous but a decidedly offensive move. Given I don't plan on living long, do y'all favor a risky offense or trying to set up a bit of defense? I feel like this heavily depends on how strongly you feel about your reads when you end the day. If you feel strongly, go with offensive. If you feel wishy-washy go with defensive. You could also WIFOM it and go with defensive to try and catchascumintheact (tm).
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
##vote 100Yrs We learned nothing yesterday because somb decided to fakeclaim Survivor. Today is day 1 again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
##unvote Whoops, wrong game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Still best case so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Meinberg posted:Is there any particular reason that you don't think you'll be around for long? Byers: "Hi, guys, I've got a cool power that I need FUEL for that I'm openly talking about in the thread. I've ensured I have FUEL tonight, and I'm obviously planning something." Scum: "Yes, there's a man that we should just ignore."
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
##vote Khyros
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
Magnus Gallant posted:KFC What do you think of this vote? It came before QPQ's and it's for basically the same reason. I don't think it's a towering intellectual feat of scumhunting, or that it's even accurate, but I think it's more plausibly geniune than QPQs. Re: meinberg -- I'll try to find the citation for the last game I thought this later, but I already commented. He's been a bit vacuous and overwritten but this has not meant scum in the past for him. QuoProQuid posted: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. This is not a correct reading. Xopods' thoughts are entirely cogent -- he asserts that your non-answer was crafted so that you could hammer on either end of it as the obvious interpretation no matter which way the wind was blowing. It makes me wish I had a better read on xopods because I think he and I have similar playstyles except he's more explicitly big on game theory, and hammering on QPQ's response in [i]exactly{/i} that way is how I would have kept pressure/train building as scum. In this case, I formed the thought but it didn't quite pass a smell test and so I didn't hit it that way when I voted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
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." I've correctly identified scum based on their confirmation post
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:mafia edit: ...his confirmed town claims... yes that is me confirmed town beast
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:I need advice for my night action. Without going into details, I see two ways I can use it. One is somewhat safer and a more defensive move, one is more dangerous but a decidedly offensive move. Given I don't plan on living long, do y'all favor a risky offense or trying to set up a bit of defense? Juanito posted:Well since this game abides by the Queensbury Rules, you should not be offensive. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:44 |
|
|
Beast here. What's up team?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:24
|
|