|
Quidthulhu posted:It seems a bit odd to me that other stuff has happened in thread and DC's still your strongest gut-read. Nothing else? How do you feel about b- and myself being terrible at reading comprehension? i dont like this post because i dont get why you care what AA thinks of me. you dont know my role/aligrnement and i dont know yours. let me defendmyself
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:35 |
|
|
AA do me
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
AA how an argument is presented is just as important as the argument itself. You can't pretend that assigning numbers has any actual meaning when you just arbitrarily shift them based on personal preference. Like you're assigning objective value to the subjective to begin with, but then you're not even sticking with that. You call me out for my binus callout and then also he's your top scum contender? can you see how that feels contradictory? I appreciate that you're getting your thoughts out there and generating content, but your thoughts should be organized towards 'hey this is person is scum, here's why, now let's kill them.'
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
NevergirlsOFFICIAL posted:AA do me AA do me more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
PLAYER: Dancer TOWN RATING: 0.5 (Newer Player Buff) SCUM RATING: 0.0 Dancer posted:Dear diary, Dancer posted:I do have privilege. I have the privilege of being a cog in the Executioner crumb? Dancer posted:(Welp gently caress I was legit unaware that you already had 2 votes) The vote on Kash and subsequent unvote upon realizing it was third vote is weird, but a newer player to be funny with 3rd vote shenanigans in this community may not be so weird. +0.5 S.R. Dancer posted:Care to elaborate? "statistics" sounds like something a CIA spook would use to destabilize a democratically elected government. +0.5 T.R. Obv, genuine question which prompted explanation of Bee Man rolling scum indefinitely. Dancer posted:Case on me This honestly makes me feel better about them. I'm getting very genuine vibes from Dancer so far this game. +1.0 T.R. Dancer posted:BTW, of all things you will or will not accept newbie-justification for, please accept it for me asking this question. I would like some more experienced players' input. Am I correct in assuming that, if a tie is formed with like 30 seconds left, and I see it formed, I should step in to break it? +0.5 T.R. Dancer posted:In the grand scheme of things, I think I find Dead Cow slightly more suspect than you (part of the reason is that he voted for you, in a fashion that might be opportunistic (? can't tell for sure), another part of the reason is that I accept brain-farts happen). BUT it occurs to me that, with this plurality thing, if there's a tie, scum can too easily just select their target. So, on the off-chance that there's exactly 1 scum between the two of you, I'd rather go for the coinflip that it's you, instead of just letting scum choose. Dancer posted:##vote dead cow I don't want a tie, tyvm. This explanation and vote have contradicting logic. +2 S.R. PLAYER: Dancer TOWN RATING: 3.0 SCUM RATING: 2.0 New player Buff puts them at 3 from 2.5, but that contradiction in logic seems really bad. If you had a reason to believe DC was more suspicious, and were holding a vote on me at the time, while still again, comparing the active lynch leaders, why do you need to rely on the clarification of tie breaking, and voting to break a tie. It feels like you are using your newness, since it has been directly been questioned by Somber, to your advantage to appear innocuous on your DC vote. It really strikes me as weird, and makes me want to revisit my early suspicion on that self-aware unvote you made. BUT I know what it's like to be new here so for now I must think about this. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:AA how an argument is presented is just as important as the argument itself. You can't pretend that assigning numbers has any actual meaning when you just arbitrarily shift them based on personal preference. Like you're assigning objective value to the subjective to begin with, but then you're not even sticking with that. Again, what you are arguing against is irrelevant. The method in which I arrive at my conclusions deserves to be explained, and I've done so (more or less), but it shouldn't be the reason you dismiss or fault my casework. Also scum "bussing" one another is a known tactic. I've not played a game with a functional mafia 'team' where it didn't happen. So no, I do not believe calling you out there is contradictory as it is from the context of your own play. I'm evaluating you at that point in time, and if what you're putting forth: A. Makes sense B. Flows logically from thread direction, or your own previously substantiated points C. Seems legitimate. (Tone evaluation isn't a great thing, but it can come in handy, especially in the earlier part of the game) Less C, more A and B.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
NevergirlsOFFICIAL posted:AA do me PLAYER: NevergirlsOFFICIAL TOWN RATING: 0.5 SCUM RATING: 1.0 No deep investigation required. I have meta reasons to believe you are more of a lurking/self-admitted lazy mafia player. That lends to your 0.5 T.R. I can only fault you on relying on the B- meta case, and not putting anything else forward or making any effort. You're more null-leaning suspicious at this point, but low on the radar because this is familiar play from you. See Pera's/Podima's Anime School Girl 3 Part Mafia for reference. I was scum pushing you as scum for being a lazy lurker, but I don't want to rely on that meta as a pass for you. So while I expect it, I'll be looking more for what you do put forward in terms of "content".
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
b-minus1 posted:your rating system is p flawed. +1 for saying yeah im scum lol My rating system probably is flawed to a degree, but your own play validates my high scum assessment of you. We were just scum together so I know more is going on behind your posts than the breezy hot takes you seem to offer. Purely from the context of your own posts, I think I need to vote you out tomorrow. Not because of meta for rolling scum, but because your play seems inconsistent, self-serving, and unclear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
Given how DGK replaced into the game, I can't really say too much to fault them, but given that Lumpen made no game posts after the game started and DGK basically assumed the spot from the start of the game, I find their three posts a bit underwhelming given the robotic picking apart and scum calling out they did in Westworld. +0.5 T.R. for replacing +1.0 S.R. for a lack of anything across two IRL days. People do get busy, or in general have a bad time with things so I'm fine keeping both these ratings lower. Null-leaning-suspicious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
b-minus1 posted:i dont like this post because i dont get why you care what AA thinks of me. you dont know my role/aligrnement and i dont know yours. let me defendmyself I don't care that a player in this game went from 0 to 100 on someone who became the vote leader, and who has now flipped town, and yet was looking at two people doing essentially the same thing and: 1. had no opinion on their fuckups 2. then zero'd in totally on one of them, based on his asking "why don't you think both of us are also scummy" to which he replied "lol scum" Like, I don't think AA is scum rn, just wrong, but why wouldn't that be a reasonable thing to ask? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:I don't care that a player in this game went from 0 to 100 on someone who became the vote leader, and who has now flipped town, and yet was looking at two people doing essentially the same thing and: This is a poorly worded post and I don't want to ninja it 8000 times lol What I mean is: 1. AA said "Dead Cow's light amount of content looks faked" 2. B- and I both missed that DGK had replaced Lumpen. That traditionally can be because scum aren't paying attention and are faking content 3. AA had no real opinion on us loving up in that manner, didn't see it as scum motivated. But they're...kinda the same thign? It's reasonable for me to ask AA why there was the discrepancy. It forces him to explain himself and back up his opinion on Dead Cow, B-, and myself. That's standard mafia. What in this questioning is anti-town on my part, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 00:49
|
|
|
I know people don't like walls of text so a summary of my assessments: Quidthulhu T.R.: 0.5 S.R.: 2.5 Hal Incandenza T.R.: 0.0 S.R.: 1.5 I'm going to lower the scum rating by 0.5 for known lurker meta. b-minus1 T.R.: 0.75 S.R.: 3.00 Honestly, looks bad. Somberbrero T.R.: 1.0 S.R.: 2.0 Dancer T.R.: 3.0 S.R.: 2.0 My most conflicted read. NevergirlsOFFICIAL T.R.: 0.5 S.R.: 1.0 DGK T.R.: 0.5 S.R.: 1.0 B- > Quid > Somber > Dancer(Conflicted) Hottest scum reads.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
Also AA"s casework on me is really bad because everything he's posting is a stretch read and it misses a key potentiality: That I was teaching today and have checked the forums very little beyond me trying to engage with the thread in the morning, taking a shower, seeing the deadline had moved, going in to work with the intention of engaging more, and then forgetting. Half of the things he has said about me I can attach to his own posts: PLAYER: AA SCUM RATING: 0 TOWN RATING: 0 Anomalous Amalgam posted:##vote Dancer NULL. Obv. Joke Phase Post. Anomalous Amalgam posted:Trying to impersonate a true blue American with that fake action. Anomalous Amalgam posted:What is there to expand on really? Mostly a gut feel about DC's call-out. Feels forced. I think that's worse than Dancer's play. AA's response to this not only comes across as disingenuous, but uninvolved. +1 S.R. Obviously as I go on it turns into more and more stretching casing on my part as well. With such a light content day, I think it's...weird to be hard casing everyone and microanalyzing everything they say? Like, I get that he's super excited and he thinks he's caught scum, but the case is Not Good. Sorry AA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
And to be clear, I think that this IS probably AA's town game, because he historically goes hard on people in odd ways and gets dunked D1 because of it. But I am worrying that since he is leading the charge here and so very clearly wrong about me that you combine that with an incredibly apathetic D1 and we're gonna be down a shitton of town going into D3 simply because scum will be content to sit back and let him lead a group of town who are content to shrug and go "sounds good I guess."
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
That sentence was more of a run-on than I initially intended.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
Anomalous Amalgam posted:PLAYER: NevergirlsOFFICIAL This is also bad because the last time I played with NEVERGIrls he lurked as scum and offered zero content! I don't see how you're basically null on him when this is his post history: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3851057&userid=53507 Popping in after dunk to chastise the town for a misflip when he was sitting on what amounted to a joke vote on B- and then engaged very little with what was being discussed at all is a giant red flag. How is that not even mentioned in your analysis, AA?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
quid the reason that post pinged me is because ypm made a similar post when he was scum in the dbz game when someone put him and xad at the top of a scum list and his response was "Hello why are me and xad scum" . I just wasn't sure why you felt like you needed to defend me when realistically you shouldn't know anything about my alignment at this point in the game (unless you're scum of course). But your explanation makes sense and I admit I was reading too much into your post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
My defense was less about helping you out and more about gauging AA's reaction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:Also AA"s casework on me is really bad because everything he's posting is a stretch read and it misses a key potentiality: That I was teaching today and have checked the forums very little beyond me trying to engage with the thread in the morning, taking a shower, seeing the deadline had moved, going in to work with the intention of engaging more, and then forgetting. I get what you're trying to do, and honestly I like it, but in your mocking critique you've played yourself. If you're going to use my own casing against me, at least have it make sense. The post you cite in no way is disingenuous or uninvolved. I made a case, you asked about it, I responded to you. I think cynical mockery as a means of discrediting a player's work is a good tactic as scum, one I definitely try to employ as scum, but like you are doing now, when I make the attempts, it just looks silly. Quote this stretching, and explain how it is stretching.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:My defense was less about helping you out and more about gauging AA's reaction. Yeah I see that now
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:05
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:This is also bad because the last time I played with NEVERGIrls he lurked as scum and offered zero content! I don't see how you're basically null on him when this is his post history: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3851057&userid=53507 I thought they were chastising merk for not mentioning in OP that night was open. The timing of it seems to fit that line of thought.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:05
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:This is also bad because the last time I played with NEVERGIrls he lurked as scum and offered zero content! I don't see how you're basically null on him when this is his post history: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3851057&userid=53507 I will say, if what you are saying is true about NGO, then they are always lurking, and lurking is null to their alignment rating overall. That would push them higher on the scum chart, but last time I played with them they were lurking, apathetic town and I spent several game days trying to get the killed, but this was detrimental to me overall.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
Anomalous Amalgam posted:I get what you're trying to do, and honestly I like it, but in your mocking critique you've played yourself. Of course it isn't; that was the point. I hadn't even read your cases on me, I went "this is probably not a really good way to case people" and then quoted you, tossed it in a word document, looked at your post history, and then matched quotes to your statements about me to make it work. It is 100% faked. Which means it's not a good system to use for you to prove your towniness to us, as it is, as Somber said, pretty arbitrary and based on personal opinion and frankly a lot of Meta connections rather than interactions in thread and reads about people here. Like I'm not trying to be a dick and I think you, as scum, would not be doing what you are doing right now, but I don't want people to just go "AA's SOLVED THE GAME" and have us limp to a scum sweep.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
Anomalous Amalgam posted:I will say, if what you are saying is true about NGO, then they are always lurking, and lurking is null to their alignment rating overall. Again, I think you're relying far too much on purely meta reasons for your stuff right now. People change up their meta all the time. Meta can be helpful in the larger context of a ton of content in a game, but right now it's like...all your reads are. I just don't think this is helpful case work, and since I DO think you're town, I want you to be awesome with us!! In full disclosure I am still catching up with the thread and I'm seeing Somber has said essentially the same thing, and I probably wouldn't have made such a big deal about pointing out how unhelpful this is if I had seen that first. I just saw you going hard for me end of day and then casing me with a rating system using really bad reasons and I went into Quidnose Defense Mode as per euge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:Of course it isn't; that was the point. 1. I hadn't even read your cases on me, I went "this is probably not a really good way to case people" and then quoted you, tossed it in a word document, looked at your post history, and then matched quotes to your statements about me to make it work. 2. It is 100% faked. Which means it's not a good system to use for you to prove your towniness to us, as it is, as Somber said, 3. pretty arbitrary and based on personal opinion and frankly a lot of Meta connections rather than interactions in thread and reads about people here. I'd like to talk to you for a moment about phrasing. I've bolded the bits where you exaggerate or demonstrate a lack of town-oriented behavior, because it would take too long to and probably only come out cumbersome to explain in full why you are just wrong, and bad here. Instead, I'll shortly address the bolded bits in a few words. 1. A willingness to ignore content and discussion 2. A direct misinterpretation of what the ratings are about. It's not about me, it's about you and anyone else assessed, quite obviously. 3. This is just mostly false and outright foolish. Most everything I've posted is based on the context of what has been created in this thread alone. Meta has only come into play to add or detract from a player's rating in a very marginal way. I've tried to keep my assessments in line with objectively scummy behavior: Contradictions, Bad Votes, Lack of Conviction, Unwarranted Conviction, etc. I couldn't do 3 in a few words, because your point there was just that bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
Anomalous Amalgam posted:I'd like to talk to you for a moment about phrasing. Also why would anyone think AA's solved the game and act like mindless drones allowing a "scum sweep" as you've put it... Heavy handed assumptions you're making.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:15
|
|
|
Here are my "what I think about the thread having not really reread a ton" thoughts: Anomalous Amalgam – earnestly casing people and really wants to find scum; doesn’t seem like scumplay. b-minus1 – 50/50. He seems to be wanting to engage with people and have them understand him, but a lot of D1 was sort of defeatist. This is probably a dumb reason but B-, why aren’t you more excited about being town and surviving D1? You HAVE rolled scum a ton lately, and you were potentially being dunked and managed to get out of it. You still seem pretty defeatist in tone? What’s up? Dancer Deadbeat Dad – Some of his reads felt a little off to me but I am chalking that up to him being rusty / needing to adjust to where people are in their posting styles than it is him being scum. DGK2000 – no idea. Has he posted? Flerp – need to read more, I like that he’s here-ish. I think I actually have gotten pretty good at reading flerp so I’m gonna dig more into that Hal Incandenza – I will always be suspicious of Hal, so, my opinion here is probably not helpful. Jonathan Fisk – need to read more. Kashuno – has he posted any content? Whoever said “Kashuno is hardcore lurking and that’s scummy for him” might be right here. NevergirlsOFFICIAL – also think this looks potentially like his scum game, his content is non-existent essentially. Quidthulhu – it’s me I’m the town Somberbrero – Somber is probably my strongest town read right now, but that may be because I basically have agreed with everything he’s said. I hope you’ll have more time to post tomorrow bud. Now I'ma read the thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
Anomalous Amalgam posted:PLAYER: NevergirlsOFFICIAL Welp you got my number. Anyway I think it's funny that you put in more work than me and reached the same conclusion (re b-). So who's the real winner here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:Again, I think you're relying far too much on purely meta reasons for your stuff right now. People change up their meta all the time. Meta can be helpful in the larger context of a ton of content in a game, but right now it's like...all your reads are. I just don't think this is helpful case work, and since I DO think you're town, I want you to be awesome with us!! As already explained, you probably haven't had a chance to read it. Meta in context with my scores at most is a 1/2 point adjustment, and these scores will undoubtedly change over the course of the game, but I think this is a good approach for me to express my opinions in a manner that offers a bit more than the derivative suspicion lists I would typically put forth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
NevergirlsOFFICIAL posted:Welp you got my number. I play mafia because I'm a dweeb who thinks spewing words over the internet is fun. So indeed who's the real winner? *sobs quietly*
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:18
|
|
|
Anomalous Amalgam posted:I'd like to talk to you for a moment about phrasing. I'd like to talk to you a little bit about intent as town. Why would I come out and put on a big dog and pony show telling you, in a nuanced fashion and with complete transparency, about exactly what I was thinking and doing? Why would I announce to the thread that I was faking content, period, rather than just trying to talk my way out of it? I haven't read your ratings beyond your initial post on me, because I looked at your conclusion on me, combined it with your initial casework on me and a few posts from your rating system, and went "this...doesn't seem like the best way to be doing this, especially since his assumptions about me are totally wrong." The follow up thought to that was "man, if he's going to do this for everyone and this town is that lazy, we're in trouble." At which point I went "I wonder if I could make AA's own case on me work with the statements he's made over D1" and then set to work at seeing if that was the case, to prove my point. I agree it's not great town play because it literally requires me faking cases, but I'm being transparent about that. Someone waaaaaay back in the day cased himself in order to show how wrong I was, saying "See, if you wanted to call me out for being scum, you SHOULD be making these three points." He and I were both town in that instance too. I am still catching up on your stuff and will read more of your ratings but your read on me is wrong, and your read on Never was based on Meta that completely ignored his content in thread, of which there is none. You should be looking at content. That's two examples of you being real off base. Yes, maybe your case on me wasn't totally based on meta, but your Nevergirls case was, and it was also a real bad conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:I'd like to talk to you a little bit about intent as town.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
NGO has very little, but the S.R. earned is completely in context with this thread. I feel like you keep conveniently skimming over that stuff and latching onto any meta justifications made despite them having a marginal effect on my overall view of the player.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
I'm talking about YOUR reasons for essentially labeling NGO as a Null Read. You literally open your case on him by saying "well this isn't gonna be hard because I know your meta."
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
Alright, I've gotta' do things. See y'all later. (maybe) *Gallops out of thread into sunset*
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
I mean what you're essentially asking right now AA about everyone you've rated is "Can I case this person successfully as scum?" and that's the problem. That's what scum do to fake cases. I also do this a lot and it's why my casework is bad a lot 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:I'm talking about YOUR reasons for essentially labeling NGO as a Null Read. You literally open your case on him by saying "well this isn't gonna be hard because I know your meta." Just because it opened that way doesn't mean I don't call them out for behavior in thread. Quit ignoring that. Every meta call out has little impact on the overall assessment. It's there for everyone to read as well so it seems weird to keep relying on, "AA is making meta arguments!" as a means of discrediting what I'm saying, when the in thread argument is usually a line of text away in the same cases you're calling out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
Anomalous Amalgam posted:Alright, I've gotta' do things. See y'all later. (maybe)
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
Anomalous Amalgam posted:Just because it opened that way doesn't mean I don't call them out for behavior in thread. Quit ignoring that. Every meta call out has little impact on the overall assessment. If you open your analysis with "this is a waste of time because I've already got your number" I'm not gonna take much stock in what you say afterwards. I'd like to talk to you about messaging
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:35 |
|
|
reading me is easy because i always roll town
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:28
|
|
