890: Cults of Darkness and Shadow - Game over!
-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
I am back. Thoughts so far:
Regarding the page one posts not thinking it is a good idea to throw around incantations, I strongly disagree. Too many times I see people fence sitting or not backing up suspicions with votes and this mechanic helps force them to both put there vote somewhere and have to back it up. The random voting stage is not significantly better or worse in this game than it is in others.
The idea that random voting stage incants could be around when someone isn't here that leads to a lynch is ridiculous since there would have to either be an overwhelming support for that lynch of the random vote would be sitting there for a coupe weeks without ever having moved, which would be huge points against that player regardless. No one should be gone multiple weeks. Random voting wasn't dangerous. Everyone who is discouraging voting gets scum points from me. Voting is the town's main power and our only way to make kills.
We also don't want a no-lynch on day one. Ever.
@Seacore
Voting without explanation isn't necessarily scummy. You also defend you information over analysis as being helpful due to the odd setup. I don't see how you information helps progress or advance the favor of town at all. It is a distraction to actual scum hunting and is definitely information over analysis.
Seacore also has a lot of buddy-ing and "I agree" attitude.
Random bandwagons aren't bad at the beginning of a game, they provide a lot of information and help to bring out scummy people. Power role claims should be treated as they are in most other games. Somoene claiming cop in a normal game isn't just automatically assumed cop whether they are or not, why should we have trusted any power role claims here? Not any more or less trustworthy in my option. Pro town tells are not less helpful, just not all necessarily the same.Random bandwagons being bad
Power roles being evident of being "pro town" and thus less trustworthy
Pro town tells being significantly less helpful compared to scum tells in this game as opposed to normal games.
In fact, I would like to hear from other people on these points as well.
Faraday is right about his stance on these issues.
Players shouldn't hide behind an excuse not to vote. That is scummy. Put your vote somewhere.
@Seacore Post 70
You are defending the mindset of scum. It looks sympathetic to the scum agenda. Town should not defend an accusation of what the scum should or shouldn't do. That is scummy. Why do you think it is a good idea to defend the scum's ideal actions?
All this discussion of crafting a multi-lynch is bad. Let's just lynch whoever we find most scummy. If two players get lynched, great. If not, well then we lynched the most scummy person by majority. I am not going to try cooperating to try and get a double lynch, I m going to be voting for the player I find most likely to be scum.
re: DeathSauce vs. Faraday (and Faraday's opening vote)
I didn't see Faraday's vote as a random vote. I would have voted Snow_Bunny there too, and for the same reason.
@Magua
You weren't the only one to break the game Perhaps I'm not on your radar because I have be V/LA until today, seems like an odd oversight by you since I hadn't even posted.
@Chaco
Saying you are almost ready to incant someone is scummy. If you were almost ready to incant, what kept you from doing it?
@Seacore
Several of your more recent posts and defense appear as an appeal to emotion.
Incant: SeacoreI'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
I am a strong advocate of voting. In order for an under-majority lynch to even occur on the first day, 18 days must have gone by. That's nearly three weeks, which is pretty standard for a normal deadline in minis. We aren't losing anything by all having our votes somewhere. Having a lynch go off when only four votes are required instead of six or more is bad because less total people are accountable for a lynch and provides the town with much less information regarding stances. Letting the day go so long as to ensure we don't have a majority lynch is bad in my opinion.
Do you (or anyone else) intend to not vote for three whole weeks? Would you recommend players not vote for this period of time? If everyone votes for someone before 18 days has passed, then what difference did it really make by them not random voting?
To reiterate: If ANY lynch is reached before 18 days, it will be a majority lynch no matter what.
It is not possible to have a non-majority lynch before eighteen days have passed. Why are you so concerned about having too many votes out to cause an accidental lynch? This is an unrealistic concern.
I think forcing players to stick their vote somewhere else when they unvote someone is a good thing. It keeps them actively scum hunting and targeting their top suspects.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
Sitting back and holding onto your incantation is also bad because it either allows scum to manipulate a wagon first and thus potentially limit options for the town when it comes to voting in deadline type situations OR if you are scum it is a good way to hide behind other people's suspicions and hop onto a wagon you see others supporting.
semi-related to the above:
mipe's most recent post and vote smell bad. Scum points.
@mipe
Why do you find Seacore the most likely to be scum?I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
Why point out this about Datadanne but not mipe's most recent post?Seacore wrote:Yeah, I'm agreeing with SC on the suspicion here. Even if it's to jump to somebody that isn't me, I really don't like it when somebody appears for 5 minutes to agree with the crowd and then evaporate. If he's really intending to "postmoarl8er" (which is offensive to read, oh my god) then why not just wait til then to post, you know, after you've had a chance to explain to us your thoughts on the game so you don't look like a scummy bandwagoner?
To me it looks like both of them merely came in and made a vote on a bandwagon in a post with no real content.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
There are different modalities, degrees and types of buddying. Some are more scummy, some aren't so bad. Buddying in itself isn't scummy. Like many tells, pulling it out of the situation and looking at the context of both the buddying and current development of the game state help to determine potential motive behind the action rather than just looking at the action itself.
Seacore's buddying seemed somewhat opportunistic in my opinion, following more along the lines of parroting.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
Here it looks to me like buddying/agreeing/parroting off of Snow_Bunny's post just above yours. It is something you could have mentioned first, but didn't. The post had an off feel to me. Also your first post on this page didn't sit right with me, as already brought up in a previous post of mine.Seacore wrote:How am I parroting? I was the one who said that stuff first!
On review I don't think that the buddying of you and Chaco is particularly condemning to you, it's buddying over mechanics rather than content which is more or less null in my mind.
@mipe
Of course the mod is hiding things. He is hiding all of our alignments! If the Mod hid nothing from us it wouldn't be mafia.
Incant: mipe
Stop speculating about the game and setup and start looking for scum. Don't dangle information in front of the town in the fashion of "I know something the rest of you don't know, but I'm not going to tell you yet." Doing so is scummy at worst and distracting at best.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
semioldguy Post 170 wrote:Don't dangle information in front of the town in the fashion of "I know something the rest of you don't know, but I'm not going to tell you yet." Doing so is scummy at worst and distracting at best.
Did you ignore that bit on purpose? Why do you think it a good idea to do this? I have no reason to believe you are telling the truth.mipe Post 173 wrote:There are roles in the play that aren't on the first post.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
@mipe
What is your role name?
Are you reading the thread? There are several points questions posed to you which have either not been answered or have been only partially answered. Please fully answer the points brought up against you. Don't partially reveal information to the town. That is scummy. It allows you to make stuff up later so that it fits your claim rather than having your actions fit your claim as the game goes on.
Post 200 is scummy.
Also, if you had a role that wasn't in the rules post, then why did you even need to vote the mod to test if there would be hidden mechanisms? Why would the mod's no commenting make you feel there was something hidden in this game? You wouldn't need to test to know and his answers wouldn't have made you feel that way. Your role PM before the game even began would make you feel that way. You would have already known by the fact you had a role that wasn't part of the rules post that there were hidden mechanisms.
Doesn't add up.
Quite frankly, I don't believe you anyway.
I'm having a hard time getting past this.Percy wrote:There are no secret mechanics.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
My thoughts exactly. His role is made up of things that existing roles can already do, basically verbatim.Faraday wrote:It sounds like Mipe's scum partner is a Guardian, from reading between the lines.
I say that as I don't buy that claim atall.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
The only way I want two lynches to happen at once is if it happens naturally.
I don't like the idea of trying to craft a double lynch. I don't like the idea of people here saying things to the effect of "Yeah, I don't buy that claim, but I'm going to vote for ___ instead because I want two people lynched." That's a load of crap. Let's just lynch mipe.
If the majority of people want to lynch mipe, I don't see why a smaller minority should be the ones choosing to do the second lynch (most of whom are also presumably part of that mipe-hate). Why do a select few get to vote your second suspect and not your top suspect?
If everyone on the mipe wagon did this I doubt we would all also vote for the same second person. A second lynch isn't representative of a majority and isn't even representative of being on any sort of equal ground as mipe's wagon.
What gives some people the "privilege" to not vote mipe if he is their top suspect and use their vote somewhere else, but not allow others to do the same? It makes you less accountable for your suspicions overall since you are apparently allowed to spread them out more. That is scummy.
Furthermore it allows mipe's potential partners to lessen the blow or to have an excuse not to be voting their scum buddy.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
Chaco would be my second choice for my incantation. I don't support a Datadanne lynch, and disagree with policy lynches in general. I don't think he will be entirely useless nor do I think he will be impossible to read. Though I am not looking to run Chaco up for a double lynch either. He can be examined further and lynched tomorrow if he is the scummiest player tomorrow.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
I am against policy lynching. Policy lynches don't help the town. I will do what I can to keep them from happening (in this and any other game). Lynch someone because you think they are scummy, not because you don't like the way they play or because you don't think you can get a read from their play style.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
Let him play. He has to post something. If he doesn't than he will be auto-replaced. As he posts more it will give us more to gets reads from. Just because he plays in an anti-town manner doesn't mean we can't get scum or town reads off of him.
Policy lynches take nothing into account regarding possible role of the player, just the personality of the player regardless of his role. It doesn't make the player lynched any more or less likely to be scum. It discourages actual scum hunting. Policy lynching is also role-fishing.
If you have a case for why he is scummy, that's fine. Otherwise, voting him itself as a policy lynch is just as anti-town as he is.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
Don't lynch someone on an assumption of what they might do. If all he posts is that he will post more later, then you can see that as scummy. He hasn't done that yet. He posted it once. For all you know he might post a lot of good content later (or at least some).
The argument of it not wasting our lynch is a bad one. It IS wasting a lynch. An extra lynch we do now is one we don't have later in the game.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
1) Mostly agree that this can be seen as scummy.
2) Disagree about Lurking being scummy. Is not active elsewhere on site (though also not in other games).
3) Partially agree. Due to not being in thread it seems odd to both hold lurking and this against him since he hasn't been here to answer most of the questions. He has ignored some though, but this case can be made against other players too, why single out Datadanne for this?
Datadanne would either have to outright and seriously claim scum (or some role more ridiculous than mipe's). Other than that, what it would take for me to vote Datadanne is at least another day. I am voting mipe today, will be looking at Chaco tomorrow.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
(1) If I or someone else is actively planning or intending to disrupt a coordinated double lynch, it isn't likely they are going to just come forward and tell you and thus allow you to additionally plan for that. That would undermine their own purpose of intending to disrupt the lynch.
(2) How do you plan to account for the possibility of mipe and/or Datadanne trying to mess up you plans? Why would you count on their cooperation? Either of them can just move their vote off the other and come by and hammer when the time comes for them to do so, saving themselves. There is nothing you can do to ensure this doesn't happen unless they are both already voting each other and don't take it off.
(3) Even if you know I am not planning to disrupt the double lynch, it can go wrong in enough other ways that it really isn't a good idea to try coordinating. Lynching mipe without an attempt at a double lynch gives us a sure thing for lynching mipe.
This is more of why I don't want double lynches to be coordinated. It can't be ensured. If they happen naturally, okay, fine. But planning it is not good.
starttransmission is entirely correct that we should just lynch mipe now.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
So regarding number two. If you can't ensure it, then why are you trying to coordinate a double lynch?Everyone trying to coordinate this double lynch is allowing mipe an out for the day.That is scummy.
Furthermore, it doesn't make the other person totally scum if they save themselves. If they are town why should they just let themselves be lynched? I disagree that a townie should just accept that fate.
Even by your own reasoning that a townie should go along with this (which I disagree with)... if you think they should let themselves be lynched than the only way we pull off a coordinated double lynch in your eyes is if we are lynching two townies.
This double lynch coordination looks very scummy to me.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
And let's make mipe accept his fate by lynching him.
You've also got it backwards. As the incantations currently stand mipe is the one who can save himself right now, not Datadanne. mipe just has to hammer Datadanne right before your coordinated double lynch goes off and he saves himself.
By voting Datadanne are you saying that you are okay with giving mipe an out from the lynch today if he so chooses? Because that is what you are allowing. This is why EVERYONE should incant their FIRST suspect.
A double lynch is never going to benefit the town if the only people who accept the fate of the double lynch are townies. In EVERY scenario, it will take two days to kill the scum that saves himself. Here is a breakdown of scenarios under the assumption townies should be resigned to their fate in a double lynch:
2 Town:
They both get lynched. Minus two town. Bad news for town.
1 Scum, 1 Town:
Scum saves himself, town dies. We lynch scum day two, letting him potentially live an extra day. Bad for town.
2 Scum:
One of them is the lucky one who saves himself. It still takes the town two days to lynch them both. Normal for town.
So the best case scenario is if both of the players we are lynching are scum, in which case we obtain the same results by single lynching two days in a row. Only by doing it two days in a row we get a better idea of everyone's suspicions as they can't hide behind voting the second lynch because everyone is voting their top suspect.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
I don't see what town is gaining by this extra day time, waiting once we already found our lynch for the day. Unless enough people think we haven't found the lynch for the day, in which case we wouldn't be able to lynch anyway and there would be more to talk about.Seacore wrote:So your argument is that you're impatient? Okay. Its not actually costing us anything, because we'll still have that time to hunt when the day starts. I don't see how the scum are gaining anything from this extra day time.
So in other words, the sooner this time of not-scum-hunting ends, the less not-scum-hunting time we have to look back on or to distract us once day two and more actual-scum-hunting happens.
Does anyone with an incantation on Datadanne suspect him of being scum more than mipe?I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
My vote is to lynch sooner rather than later.
If he doesn't pick up his prod, he is going to get replaced anyway so we wouldn't need to wait.
If he does pick up his prod, there really isn't much else that's going to happen today anyway if we are set on a mipe lynch that he wouldn't also be able to address tomorrow.
Or he could die during the night, in which case waiting for him to check in or be replaced probably isn't going to help us much either way.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
If we also think either of the scum teams has a guardian, or that mipe has a partner that is a guardian, then we need to lynch those we think are most likely scum and not count on a night kill. Plus not lynching the most scummy player opens up a whole can of WIFOM for every night they survive.
We should lynch the player we find most scummy. It would be dumb to do otherwise.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
Chaco, there are several things that you said you'd do that you never did. Have a look back through your own posts and look at the things you said you'd discuss or answer but never did. Yes, this post is actively avoiding stating a case from me against you, I'd like you to adress this first before it gets further out of mind.
Here are a couple things for reference that I felt you never really got back to:
Chaco wrote:I'll reply tomorrow Semi, too long of post for my phone. But I think we missed each other. In terms of the posts.Chaco wrote:Incant: Mipe
The way he's acting, he needs to be incanted.
Sorry, I'll give more explanation later. but I really gotta go right now.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
@Magua
I don't think starttransmission to likely be scum buddies with mipe. If you are voting him because of a scum partner read with mipe, I don't think you should. He was one of the few players yesterday pushing more strongly for a mipe lynch by not dragging the day out and allowing for the travesty of a coordinated double lynch which could have let mipe save himself. Mipe's partner would most likely be for the double lynch in my opinion rather that actively seeking to avoid it.
If you find him individually scummy separate from whatever mipe-partner read you have, then that's different.
I'd bet that mipe's partner was either in the double/policy lynch camp or didn't speak up at all about the matter.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
You were incanting Chaco yesterday. What do you see as the case against Chaco, or your own case against Chaco that led you to incant him yesterday, and why is that not enough to earn an incantation from you today but was enough yesterday?Faraday wrote:Hmm I agree. I don't find the points expressed against Chaco to be very good. I find him quite scummy still, but when I look at it there doesn't seem to be an awful lot there, really.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
I think it relevant to look at the Data counter/double-wagon rather than the people not on the mipe wagon. It is very likely for scum of either alignment to be there. If dramonic flips scum at some point it may change the read on that wagon, but as of now I do not find dramonic to be scummy.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
As stated before, I am against policy lynching.
No, Datadanne was not policy lynch worthy. No one else will be either.
There has been a change between dramonic and Datadanne. Unlike Datadanne, I don't think dramonic will disappear for days at a time. In my numerous past games with him he keeps active and I'm sure as the game goes on I will be able to get reads on him. He has not yet done enough to be considered an asset or not to this town. Part of that answer depends upon the town and part of the answer will depend upon dramonic.
If you don't know what I mean by that, an example would be that some towns are more accepting of zwetschewasser while others aren't (though I am not comparing dramonic to zwets at all, just using an example of how sometimes it is the town that helps determine a player's value to the game)I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
Actually it does. I don't think that anyone is worthy of being policy lynched, which is why I am against policy lynches. I would find it very odd for someone to say that they are against policy lynches, but then also state that certain players are worthy of a policy lynch. That just makes no sense, how would you justify being against all policy lynching if you thought anyone was worthy of a policy lynch? That would be a huge contradiction.Chaco wrote:Whether or not you are against it, doesn't make them not worthy of a policy lynch.
I don't have a read on him. It isn't a neutral read, it isn't a pro-town read, and it isn't a scummy read. I did not claim his township, this is a misrepresentation by you. If you think I did I'd like you to point out where.Chaco wrote:So you're read on him is neutral? Or would it be a more pro-town read since you said you do not think he is scum? Or do you have enough info to derive a stance? If not, then why the claim of his township? If so, why not enough to prove he's an asset or not?
No, I do not currently think he is an asset to the town. My answers seemed pretty clear and straight-forward, that there wasn't enough for me to get a read on him yet.Chaco wrote:It's quite straightforward. In your opinion, do you feel that Dramonic is currently an asset to the town?
Why did you feel my post was in need of such extreme scrutiny when you haven't questioned any other post to this extent throughout the game so far? It seems that there would be far more important things to take note of and investigate than my post, which in all honesty was answered quite clearly by any literal means. It looks to me like you are trying to make something out of nothing.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
Seacore was not the one who looked worse in the Chaco-Seacore buddying. In fact, between those two it looked more like to me that Chaco was the one doing more buddying, not Seacore. The buddying I didn't like yesterday from Seacore was toward Snow_Bunny. Of course, I stated all this yesterday.
@Magua
Also I don't see where I am buddying to dramonic, would you mind directing me to where you get this notion?I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
If you don't have a read on someone how can you find them scummy? If I don't have a read on someone, it wouldn't be possible for me to read them as scummy. Not having a read also means that I don't find him town. Where is this ambiguity?Chaco wrote:Explain what you mean here then. You do not find him to be scummy, but you have no read? To much ambiguity there.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
"Not scummy" isn't a read. It is a lack of one. (that's what the "not" is for, it means that some) To be specific, it is a lack of a scummy read. "Not scummy" is a subset of "no read."Chaco wrote:You are saying that you have no read on him. You labeled him as not scummy to you. That sounds like a read to me. The ambiguity lies in your trying to cover up that lie.
The definition of not having a read is that I don't find a person to be scummy/town/third-party/anything! Not having a read means that I don't find a player to be any of those things. I don't understand what is so difficult to comprehend about this. Saying that someone is not scummy to me and that I have no read on that person are not conflicting things.
Chaco, do you ever find people to be scummy that you have no read on?I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
Out of curiosity, what points of mine did you find weak? I was only aware of one point I'd even brought up against Chaco by the time of your post, and it was in my very first post of the game. Don't attribute other people's cases as my opinions.startransmission wrote:I think Chaco is town. I find the points that semi and dramonic are using against him are weak.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
No, it doesn't. That's the way it is and the the way it always will be. By you seeing that I don't find someone scummy you are making the false assumption that I have a read on him him to be something else. Which is the wrong assumption.Chaco wrote:That's the thing, it is a conflicting view. You are saying you have NO read on him, saying that he isn't scummy to you requires a read.
Why wouldn't you expect it from me?Chaco wrote:I do not get why you deny this so. You ca n't just throw out a baseless "Oh he's not scummy to me." Well, you can. But I do not expect it from you, which is why I am pushing the fact so hard.
Again, no, it doesn't mean that. How can someone be scummy to me if I don't have a read on them? If I don't find someone to be scummy because I have no read on them, how is saying I don't find them to be scummy a lie?Chaco wrote:Saying someone isn't scummy to you, means that you have a read. Simple enough. It may not be leaning to two sides heavily, but it is in fact a read.
That just means we play differently. Just because you play with a certain ability or preference doesn't mean that I play with those same abilities or preferences.Chaco wrote:I rarely have no read, and when I do it is early on D1. Scum slips and tells change my read to scummy.
Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's wrong.Chaco wrote:What you are saying makes no sense.
Also, you dodged my question. Do you ever find people to be scummy that you have no read on? A yes/no answer will suffice (until my followup question). I don't need to know how you prefer to play or how long it takes you to get reads on players... that isn't what I was asking for. Do you ever find people to be scummy that you have no read on? Yes or no.
Even if I were lying about having no read on dramonic, which I am not lying about, why would that be scummy? you can't just say that an action is scummy, you need to know what makes it scummy given the context you find it in.
I don't understand why so many people on this site just look at an action and automatically declare it as scummy with no thought aboutwhyit is scummy. Town do "scummy" things all the time. Town can be hypocritical, they lie, contradict themselves, vote for no reasons, vote for bad reasons, buddy to others, lurk, fence-sit, post contentless garbage and a myriad of other things people label as "scummy." Yet as soon many people see one of these "scum tells" they hop onto it immediately without so much as a thought as to why it might or might not be scummy. Players in general need to stop playing on autopilot and do a little more thinking. These things need context or analysis to be considered scummy.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
Here are the options:
(1) Someone is not scummy.
(2) Someone is scummy.
There are no other options. Someone either is or they are not. Period. When I eliminate option (2), option (1) is all that remains. Any decision made on a read or lack of read on any player will fit into one of those two options.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
Because someone can't be read as scummy if you have no read on them. Is this seriously that difficult to grasp?Chaco wrote:
And you said you had no read on him, so how did your not scummy come about?semioldguy wrote:Here are the options:
(1) Someone is not scummy.
(2) Someone is scummy.
There are no other options. Someone either is or they are not. Period. When I eliminate option (2), option (1) is all that remains. Any decision made on a read or lack of read on any player will fit into one of those two options.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
It is that hard to grasp that it doesn't? I haveChaco wrote:Is it that hard to grasp that deeming someone not scummy requires a read?shownwhy it doesn't. You have explicitly ignored this. You have provided no counter-evidence or argument as to why I am wrong. You make no effort to either prove or disprove my point. You just saying something with absolutely nothing but your word to back it up does not make it true. I am not going to bother trying to explain this further to you since it is doing the town no good and you seem intent on repeating yourself while ignoring anything I write anyway.
Why does it require a read to not have a scummy read on someone? If you don't have any read at all, then don't you not have a scummy read?
Then you can be wrong too. I am not saying and never have said that the two are the same. Saying someone isSnow_Bunny wrote:I agree with Chaco on this one. You are contradicting yourself. Saying someone is "not scummy" is a read. Saying "I have no read" is a total different matter.scummy isn't a read. It is a lack of one.NOTThat what the word "NOT" means!!!When anyone calls someone not scummy, it means you are not able to find a scummy read. It isn't a read, it is not being able to find a read of scummy. Maybe you also find a different read, but also maybe you didn't.
(1) Not having a read on a player
(2) Finding someone not scummy
If (1) is true, then (2) will also always be true. However, (2) being true does not always mean that (1) will always be true.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
Anyone other than Chaco could probably just skip this post, there isn't really any content in this post, I just want Chaco to actually answer the questions I'm asking rather than giving me answers I'm not interested in to questions I'm not asking in their place.
Chaco, you seem to think that you answer questions when in fact, you are not directly answering the question being asked.
For example, if I asked "Do you ever play hockey on Sundays?" The answer to this question would be either "yes" or "no." If you answered "I play hockey all the time, it's a really fun sport." then you are not answering the question. While this may be nice information, I still wouldn't know whether or not you ever play hockey on Sundays.
Now let's use an example from our exchange:
semioldguy: Do you ever find people to be scummy that you have no read on?
Chaco: I rarely have no read, and when I do it is early on D1. Scum slips and tells change my read to scummy. What you are saying makes no sense.
Now, if I was asking any of "how often do you have no read?", "At what times do you have no read?", "what changes your reads to scummy?" or "Does what I'm saying make sense to you?" then you would have answered my question brilliantly. However, from your answer I still don't know whether you ever find people to be scummy when you have no read on them.
So I asked again. to get this response:
Chaco: And again I will say, I form an opinion. So I guess I'll say no because, once they do something scummy that attributes to a read.
Holy crap, you answered the question... kind of. Okay... so no,you don't find them scummy when you have no read on them. Great! Oh then you come with this gem:
Chaco: I explained the way I did it, that's better than a yes or no answer. Only using Yes or No limits my reply to only something you want to hear.
Better than a yes or no answer?!? While you gave me much more information than a yes or no would have given, only "yes" and "no" are answers to the question. (and maybe saying 'I never once in my life had no read on any player, ever" because it would get at something false within the question. however. this isn't the case as you admitted in your answer that you only rarely have no read, not never). While limiting it to "yes" and "no" actually does limit your reply to what I want to hear, the only thing I actually want to hear is an answer to the question. Unless, of course, not answering questions is considered better than answering them.
You didn't want to answer the question because your reply is only something I want to hear? Should I only ask questions that I don't want to hear the answer from? That wouldn't be very productive. I mean... I am only asking the question in the first place because what I want to hear is an answer. That's kind of the point of asking questions. Otherwise, why ask questions at all?
Now for the next question you've so expertly dodged:
semioldguy: Even if I were lying about having no read on dramonic, which I am not lying about, why would that be scummy?
I'm not really sure what exactly you thought was an answer, so I'll just lump all of it in there and show you why it isn't.
Chaco: Liars get lynched. Plus, I am trying to understand your "No read" + "He's not scummy to me" combination. They don't parallel. And as you said, I am trying to get to the context of it, but you're going into a turtle shell.
We'll just start with part one. Nice, you are trying to understand the combination, or at least are claiming to. What have you done to try? I have shown you a way that they do parallel, or at least I claim that they do. Then it goes to your turn. If you don't think they do, you need to show why my example doesn't parallel. You need to prove it wrong. Just saying it doesn't work gets everybody nowhere and proves nothing. Effort is needed. You don't keep your job by saying you'll show up to work on time every day, you keep it by proving that you do.
As for trying to get to the context... the context is already there. We are now past the context. To look at the context you must on your own examine the part of the game immediately surrounding my post and what my post means in conjunction with other posts made up through that point. Though maybe you're just confused with what I meant by context.
Let's get to part two....
Chaco: Town can do scummy things yes. So you're saying we can pass you off as town because you did something scummy? No, I'm trying to get to the bottom of something and you're shelling up on me with a wall of useless post whining because you're under scrutiny.
Hmm... I don't remember saying that I could be passed of as town for doing something scummy. Heck, I don't even think I did something scummy since I know I'm not lying. If anything I am supporting the opposite, that nothing should be passed off. That everything needs to be looked or thought further into to determine a judgment. Yes, and you are not whining at all in comparison to me and your wall posts are also not useless. That was sarcasm in case you were unaware. Our posting between each other has been equally useless to the town from both parties. However, I am attempting to use evidence and example to prove my side... oh, you aren't doing any of that? What are you trying to do in your posts again? Tell me I'm wrong? Well, if you won't give me a reason with examples or evidence that I am wrong, I am inclined to believe my own examples over you... uh... nothing.
After all, I know what I am thinking and you don't. So who are you to tell me how I think about stuff?I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
Hmm... in typing up another response, I may have found where the clash here is. Saying "Someone is not scummy" and saying "I find someone not scummy" are not the same thing. You all seem to be assuming the verb "to be" while that is not the verb I am using. I am using the verb "to find."
They aren't even the same sentence structure. With the verb 'to be,' 'not scummy is the part of the nominative (essentially the subject). With the verb 'to find,' 'not scummy' is the direct object (part of the predicate).I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
An verb example/comparison:
I say, "I did not find there to be any emeralds in that cave."
This could be the result of multiple scenarios. Suppose I elaborate more. "I found rubies to be in that cave instead." or "I didn't find there to be any gems in that cave."
Neither of these elaborations to my answer makes the original answer untrue. They could also be answers to the question themselves, since both elaborations show that I did not find any emeralds.
Maybe instead I say, "Emeralds are not in that cave."
By changing the verb, the meaning is changed. Now I am stating my knowledge that there are not emeralds in the cave. In the first situation there might be emeralds in that cave, we only know I haven't found any. Maybe I suck at finding emeralds, or maybe I hadn't even gotten to looking for gems in that cave, we just know I haven't found there to be any.
Now let's say that "gems" represent different kinds of reads and emerald is a particularly scummy gem. (emerald is a type of gem, scuminess is a type of read) Also let's say dramonic is the cave.
Now the conversation could go like this.
I say, "I did not find there to be any scuminess in dramonic."
This could be the result of multiple scenarios. Suppose I elaborate more. "I found towniness to be in dramonic instead." or "I didn't find there to be any reads in dramonic."
These all makes sense, yes? Neither of these elaborations to my answer makes the original answer untrue. They could also be answers to the question themselves, since both elaborations show that I did not find any scuminess.
Maybe instead I say, "Scuminess is not in dramonic."
By changing the verb, the meaning is changed. Now I am stating my knowledge that there is not scuminess in dramonic. In the first situation there might be scuminess in dramonic, we only know I haven't found any. Maybe I suck at finding scuminess, or maybe I hadn't even gotten to looking for reads in dramonic, we just know I haven't found there to be any.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
"to feel or perceive" are still not the same verbs, or even the same types of verbs as "to be."Chaco wrote:
Do not find him to be scummy. The "find" you are using is "to feel or perceive", so you do not feel he is scummy?semioldguy wrote:But as of now I do not find dramonic to be scummy.
Which goes back the very same thing. This is not a difference of English, as you wish to pass it off as.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
It is the verb thing. If I'm not feeling anything then I am definitely not feeling that he is scummy.Chaco wrote:The "find" you are using is "to feel or perceive", so you do not feel he is scummy?
Which goes back the very same thing. This is not a difference of English, as you wish to pass it off as.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
Also, statements retracted about your side and those agreeing with your side being wrong (at least up through post 420). Your points were right. We just weren't talking about the same thing. Which is probably why the communication for both sides was so frustrating.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
@Chaco
Um... you realize that feel/percieve fits just fine into all three sentences, not just the first two. Definition six is probably closest to actual meaning in all of the three.
The change you noticed is not the difference between meanings of the verb "to find," which is the same meaning in all, what you noticed as the difference between the third sentence and the first two is that scummy is an adjective and scuminess is a noun, which has no bearing on the meaning of the verb. Other differences are that the second sentence has an implied infinitive, the first opens with a prepositional phrase, it also is in present tense, while the third has a prepositional phrase with respect to the direct object. None of these things affect the verb "to find."I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009
It's hard to admit that I had a read on dramonic... probably because I didn't have a read on dramonic.
How do the first tworequirea read from their wording?
"But as of now I do not perceive dramonic to be scummy."
<sentence two snipped for irrelevance>
"I did not perceive there to be any scuminess in dramonic."
With the exception of the tense and preposition phrase "But as of now", sentences 1 and 3 are the same sentence.
**Incoming grammar lesson monologue. If you don't want to read about grammar, stop now. There is no game content found below. Though grammar is really interesting and if you do read on you'll probably learn something about grammar.
Let's first sync up the tenses and remove that prepositional phrase from contestsant number one for ease of comparison.
"I do not perceive dramonic to be scummy."
"I do not perceive there to be any scuminess in dramonic."
Now "I" is the subject/nominative of both sentences. Everything past "I" is part of the predicate.
"do" is the predicate or acting verb of both sentences coupled with the adverb of "not." The verb "to do" generally requires the partnership of an infinitive which is a helping verb, which here is not an exception, in this case that infinitive being "find/perceive," whichever you want to use at this point.
Next let's look at a couple direct object nouns. "Scuminess" and "dramonic" aren't the same nouns in a literal sense, but both sentences have a prediacte nominative as the direct objects, so the sentence structure between the two is still the same so far.(A 'prediacte nominative' is the acting subject of the prediacte phase. More on this later.)
When looking at the next infinitive, "to be," we have an additional pronoun, "there," in the second sentence. However, this pronoun is not acting like a pronoun. When joined, generally with the verb "to be," the word "there" acts as an introduction to a clause in which the verb is coming before it's subject. For example "There is no spoon." The word "there" has no real translatable meaning to the sentence here since "Is no spoon" is not proper english grammar (there are many other languages in which this grammar would be fine).
Think of the word "there" as a reflexive pronoun in this case. When you say "there is no spoon" you are essentially saying "There exists no spoon," which has the same translation as "no spoon exists," eliminating the word "there" entirely since the subject "spoon" is now at its place before the verb. Let's look at the clauses within each sentence's predicate separately for a moment (this is the clause following our verb and helping verb)
"I do not perceivedramonic to be scummy."
"I do not perceivethere to be anyscuminessin dramonic."
We can get rid of the pronoun "there" by rearranging the word order in the second phrase to "I do not perceiveany scumminess to be in dramonic" We then have the same exact verb in the prediacte, "to be." Nothing exciting there. So now we've whittled it down to:
"dramonicto be scummy."
"anyscumminessto be in dramonic"
I underlined both prediacte nominatives. What we do with the word "any" that seems to be poking out the front is more or less ignore it. The word "any" is an adjective to the direct object that expresses emphasis when in a sentence with a negative. Basically it emphasizes that the person saying the sentence is sure that there is no scuminess. It does not change the meaning. It could even be cut out.
The prediacte infinitive "to be" has the same use in both clauses, linking the predicate nominative to it's compliment. So "to be" also passes the identical test between the two sentences.
"dramonicto be scummy."
"scumminessto be in dramonic"
"scummy" and "in dramonic" are both complements. A complement follows a verb to let us know the meaning of a phrase. In both clauses these are acting as predicate adjectives, they modify the prediacte nominative so we know what's going on. Their actual part of speech is not important when dealing with complements.
"scummy" let's us know more about "dramonic" and "in dramonic" lets us know more about "scuminess." The part of speech which a word is does not affect the kind of complement it is within the sentence, so it does not matter that one complement is an adjective and the other is a prepositional phrase. Complements can also be nouns, verbs, adverbs, etc.
"I do not perceive dramonic to be scummy."
"I do not perceive there to be any scuminess in dramonic."
So looking back at the whole picture, both sentences have their nominatives (I), a negative (not), a verb with helping verb (do perceive), a direct object (dramonic/scuminess), a complement to the direct object(scummy/in dramonic), which are combined by a linking verb (to be).
Structurally they are the same sentence. They have all the same parts.I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.-
-
semioldguy Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: March 23, 2009