|
The colonel is in.
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 21:15 |
|
|
##forage
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
Meinberg is posting exactly the way he was in another game where I thought he was being scummy and overwritten and I was wrong -- am suspicious but admit it's null. QuoProQuid posted:
QPQ how serious is this vote?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:
The point is, I like Byers' JakeP vote a lot more than QPQ's. I think JakeP was just making a joke about terminators and being not mechanical. I buy that it was a little forced but QPQ is ascribing a way more detailed thought process to that line than I think is reasonable and to whatever extent this vote is serious, and not trying to make some kind of joke, It's bad and scummy so: ##vote QPQ
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Magnus Gallant posted:I don't get it. I think that it's better/more plausible to vote jakep for being "forced" than for actually trying to have an agenda with that comment which has an obvious joke explanation.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Rarity posted:Hey guys, please may I have some fuel? Throw your matchup against poison mushroom in the next PPV and we'll talk.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Rarity posted:I would but I'm fighting Asiina instead Right right. Hrm... you were tag team partners this past ppv.... Maaaaybe I will do something nice for you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
merk posted:Beast here. What's up team? Gut here: You're in a game where it will be frowned on if you get mean, so giving yourself a flavorful reason to be flashily obtuse feels like it serves scum-merk meta agendas more than it does town-merk meta agendas. Remind us why you're voting for me?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Token Female posted:I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to say that you think that xopods is also scum with QPQ and he's trying to get on this bandwagon quick? 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 there's any evidence that they're scum together, if anything it's seeming to me more like a one of but not both situation. QPQ is my current frontrunner. I'm watching xopods more carefully.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Token Female posted:So it's more of a metagame/gut feeling about xopods? It's still weird to me that you are saying that you were thinking of making the case that xopods made on QPQ, but it's a case that you would make as scum. I know that this is not what you said, but I'm hearing you'd vote for QPQ as scum with a similar case as you are voting for him now, and it makes me feel like you are just throwing out a case for the sake of throwing out a case. No, not really tokes. If someone agrees with a case I make in a way that I think might show scummy motivations, I'm going to note it and there's no reason not to say it. It's D1, there's definitely room for multiple theories out there.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:The meinberg case is solid and I'll be happy to flip my vote to him if he's a viable lynch for today, but hey seriously, look at KFC: There's a difference between "he's not scum" and "what I understand people are citing as scummy behavior are not, coming from him, scumtells" I'm saying the latter. Please expand/recap the solid case you're seeing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Meinberg posted:I'm bad at Mafia, and I think it'd be better for town if I ate a dayvig, rather than someone useful. This.... yeah okay this is awful
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
##vote merk Please explain why you are on me and please render an opinion on at least one other player.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Rarity posted:Hang on Magnus, your claim makes zero sense. What's the point of adding an extra fuel if you're immediately going to dayvig one of the people who gets the fuel? Passing fuel is a night action so there's zero fuel gain for town. quote:6.1 Any player may claim 1 unit of FUEL by using the ##forage Day Action. They may then send a PM to the Moderator to name a player to receive the FUEL (this may be themselves). The way I interpreted this, the PM sent in 6.1 can be sent immediately, and is separate from the ability to send fuel referenced in 6.3.  yeah what byers said
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
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. I concede some of the semantics, but baseless vaguely personal standard mafia aggression is certainly a tool in merk's toolbox, even if it doesn't manifest itself in the way some other players get "mean" -- cultivating something else to draw from so you can be obtuse at will seems like it serves a scum agenda more than a town one.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:You're the third person to say that xopods was twisting things by not considering QPQ's later posts. What am I missing? xopods made a read that his early posting was needlessly ambiguous; while I disagree with it, I don't see how that point is invalidated by later posts to the point that he's scummy for making it. You misunderstand. I don't think xopods is scummy for that reason. The argument that QPQ's "non answer" of "it's as serious as it could be at that point" was maliciously crafted so that either interpretation could be hammered on as "the obvious one" later on is plausible but it just doesn't ring true to me. I still think QPQ is scummy for having any amount of serious in that vote and that's enough of a case for me. What I'm saying is that xopods' point is exactly the kind of thing I would say to fuel a fire on a townie getting steam built up on him -- I don't think he's twisting things by ignoring later posts, I'm just saying this point doesn't pass a smell test for me, but I wouldn't hesitate to make it if I was looking for something jump on a townie for.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:The phrase you used was twisting theories to suit facts. And only scum would be looking for something to jump on a townie for, so how are you not calling him scummy? I think he's scummy for making that point at all. the emphasis was on I don't think he's scummy for overlooking later posts.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
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. How hard were you trying to say nothing at all about his alignment?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Leaning town on Rarity feel pretty good about consistency of thought + based on the fuel rules confusion. When's deadline?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:Because he seems incapable of giving a straight answer to anything, but constantly hedges and throws in pre-built defenses for himself. Look at his last post: (my comments added in italics) no. you're seeing it as weird and twisty cause for some reason you don't want to bother processing nuance. Here is a short list of things I believe. 1. QPQ's JakeP vote was awful, and scummy especially once he asserted any degree of seriousness behind it. JakeP was clowning around. 2. Xopods agrees with my read on QPQ but bolsters it using a point that, while I considered making it, felt disingenuous to me. 3. Both of them are reading some level of scummy, but I don't think they're scum together. and I'm more sold on QPQ. Assume I believe these things and I hope you'll see that I've been quite consistent in explaining/supporting them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Juanito posted:Still best case so far. Have an opinion on something relevant please.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Juanito posted:Fine. I don't like how you were lurking and then showed up very shortly after a callout, but I actually like most of these thoughts even if I don't agree with all of them. Good Jorb.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
To elaborate: I don't agree with putting CapnAndy as firmly town, but can see where it's coming from. I want more content since we had our back and forth. I also feel like he's tunneled on me but hasn't actually weighed in on the substance of my positions, preferring to attack my style. CapnAndy -- what do you actually think of QPQ? Meinberg is an acceptable lynch on the grounds of removing dead weight, but not a great choice. How about voting QPQ? I'm really not swayed by his recent content, either.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
I had bad gut vibes on Token's initial questions and our earlier back and forth and dismissed them, but they're coming back/continuing with her hedging/halting moves towards a bowmore vote. She throws out some posts, then admits, "maybe she's not being fair to him" then votes him anyway. Feels padded. I want to lynch QPQ in part cause it constitutes for me a referendum on xopods. Would also vote Meinberg, xopods, or CapnAndy in the absence of more comments on other players.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:"Token gives me a bad feeling, except she doesn't, except she does again. I would like to lynch QPQ, meinberg, xopods, or andy, I'm not picky, any of them is fine, P.S. did you see me trying to sneak in advocating a chain-lynch there" Andy, other people don't see it because it DOESN'T EXIST. You keep painting the fact that I have feelings that have any nuance in them as "hedging." It's not, it's documenting my thoughts as they happened. What I said was, "I dismissed the earlier bad feelings I had about token, but she's done something to further/resurrect them, so I'm pointing it out, like you loving do in a mafia game, you post your thoughts." It's not scummy to list 4 people that you've commented on in a game of 17 as lynches you'd support -- that's a reasonable number of scum to exist, for one thing and I never said I'm not picky -- I listed very clear priority/preference for QPQ and have talked about the other players previously. perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I'll try to remedy that shortly. You're moving up in the list -- You're continuously misrepresenting my having thoughts with any degree of nuance as "going back and forth" completely seemed to overlook the last time I tried to clarify this for you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Re: chain lynch argument. Yes I think those two are not both scum. I stand by the sentiment that there's no way in hell xopods would make the point he made against QPQ at that stage of play as a bus. That's all I'm saying. If QPQ's town, I'll hold it against xopods, and I'll consider that valuable information. The chain lynch argument can be taken out and shot. I make NO attempt to hide that I'm going to draw conclusions from that interaction when one of them flips. Who wouldn't look at that angle?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Xopods, your case is terrible. Agreeing with me does not constitute a town-tell, especially when I think it's for a scummy reason. Re bandwagon, I said that you're following on in the way that I would follow on if I were scum that keeps pressure going -- I'm not relying on the spectre of the number of people in a bandwagon, I'm looking at the way you made the point. quote:(3) His stated reasoning is that he thinks I'm like him and that what I'm doing is something he likes to do as Scum. I hate to sound like a Lumpen, but that statement shows Scum mind. I'll admit this is probably the weakest point I'm making here, but I still think it's worth including. KFC's played two, maybe three games with me ever, certainly not enough to feel confident that our styles are so similar that he should be thinking about his own Scum meta in order to make reads on me. What can I say man, I think you and me are like kindred spirits. I don't quite have the game designer mindset, but I love playtesting and figuring out systems and strategies. And more importantly, it's not just my scum meta I'm comparing you to, it's extremely effective scum play. quote:(4) He says that my point about QPQ is one he thought about making, but decided it was disingenuous. Again, Scum mind. If you're Town and you think someone's Scum, any reason you come up with for why that person is Scum is sincere, no? You don't worry as Town about whether you really believe what you believe and whether other people will believe that you believe it... if something seems Scummy you say so. My town game in mafia, which may yet again end d1 here, is a testament to the fact that you SHOULD in fact give a poo poo about how you sound as town. If you will make equally stretchy/poorly thought out cases as town as you do as scum, you're, in my opinion "doing it wrong."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:It's just that, again and again and again. He (KFC) keeps on doing the same thing where he makes contradictory points, often in the same sentence. It's like he's constantly providing cover for himself so that he can go back and claim to have had any opinion he chooses. CapnAndy posted:KFC asked me to read QPQ and I have done so. I haven't paid very close attention to the case because I have my own case, goddammit, I like mine, so here is my unbiased read on him: 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:My eyes kept coming back to this post, and this paragraph. This is an indefensible attack, because it has nothing to do with xopods posts. KFC's not calling out anything specific to xopods; the evidence exists in other unspecified games as to why xopods play in this game is scummy. Nothing xopods can say will ever refute it, because it's so ethereal in nature; it's a great attack for scum to make and stick to. This is not correct. The evidence I'm citing is that it's good scum play is it's something that I would do as scum and I'm a good scum player -- it's not an evidence based thing. In some ways it's what I was accusing QPQ of -- it's reading malice and forethought into something that was most likely flip by saying something that's unassailably true about the words, but not very likely. If xopods is scum, he's just doing it better. ##vote xopods
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
Rarity posted:If he's scum? Bit of a weak opinion on the person you're voting. This is an unbecoming snipe, rarity. Also your case on me is very weak. How can you say there's no difference between byers' and QPQ's votes? for reference Byers2142 posted:##vote JakeP QuoProQuid posted:
One is mostly a tone read based on context, the other is attributing moderately extensive logic to what was much more likely a flip joke. Much more importantly why on earth would you only come out with that _NOW_ since it's been the crux of my argument on QPQ this whole time and a huge topic of discussion overall?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:Exactly my point; the evidence you're citing isn't evidence. It's impossible to refute, dispute, or defend against. It's an argument. Xopods argued against it. I think he's full of poo poo but you're just not making sense here Byers.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Rarity posted:Just because people use different methods to scum hunt it doesn't make their votes any less genuine. I'm not allowed to judge how plausibly honest someone is being by examining how they are claiming to hunt scum in the context of when they are claiming to do it? Are you SERIOUS?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
Rarity posted:Explain to me why logic is not a valid form of analysis in this situation. Because the MOST logical explanation for JakeP's post is that he is making a joke about needing smoothies rather than fuel because he is organic and not a machine because that's being silly and making a joke in jokephase like people loving do. Claiming that his follow on of not needing fuel is a serious attempt to achieve town cred or claim that only scum would want fuel are both wild leaps of logic that are not founded. I respect a tone read in this context more than the idea that a relatively non serious poster was machinating something that relied on unfounded assumptions during early d1.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Rarity posted:Except it seems to me that both Byers and QPQ are having the same reaction to Jake's post, they're just expressing it in different ways. I read them as consequentially different and I am baffled that you can call them the same. Yes they're both a negative opinion. There's a lot more there.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:If we're not gonna do KFC I'm okay with meinberg, but I'm gonna hold out for KFC for now. Perhaps you missed the point of my post about you. You accuse me of making contradictory points, sometimes within the same sentence. I then highlight how you do exactly that, bold representing one opinion, underline representing the other.The point CapnAndy, and anyone else listening to his case, should be taking away from this is that people making honest statements sometimes share their nuanced thought processes and how they get there which involves some back and forth and weighing possibilities. Frankly I think that Andy's post was a far worse example of creating something that can be spun either way eventually than anything he's tried to pin on me -- What was the point of citing and linking 3 examples of behavior you admit you think was scummy on QPQs part if your conclusion was that you aren't convinced? To go back and say you saw it sooner when the wind shifts?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
##unvote while I chew on claim... probably going to settle for meinberg.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
For the moment accepting the claim + frustration as likely genuine and not going to try to push uphill and contribute to a no. ##vote meinberg There is something of a case at least.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
I am a confirmed mason recruiter. I have the fuel I need for my role. I'm out drinking. Don't lynch me.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 21:15 |
|
|
gently caress you sideways mikujin. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 03:37
|
|