/prodded; I honestly haven't had much to say up until now.
Since there seem to be outstanding questions...
Erg0 wrote:I assume you mean my post 68, in which case you apparently forgot to read the last paragraph.
Actually, that last paragraph was the scummiest - the first sentence is mafia theory (IIoA), and the second sentence looks like a veiled attack on Glork (especially since it seems to be a bit of a non-sequitur). I could be misinterpreting you, however: could you please show how the comment about "early FoS'es on weak evidence" justifies your comment about Glork making you uneasy? (At the very least, give some post numbers.)
MafiaSSK wrote:Tarhalindur wrote:/prodded (stupid finals), time to try to get this game moving.
I find Erg0's post 68 and Ether's post 73 to be scummy. Ether's 73 reads to me as a veiled attack on Erg0 (by claiming to find something scummy using weak language and backtracking immediately thereafter). Erg0's 78, however, is worse - it looks to me like Erg0's mainly summarizing other peoples' posts and discussing theory without actually showing much personal insight. That looks like IIoA to me (Tar Standard Tell), and at this point in the game it's enough to earn my vote.
r[/b]
Why is discussing theory without showing person insight scummy?
Take a look at the Tarhalindur Standard Tells page. It has the explanation you seek.
Patrick wrote:<snipped for irrelevance>
I'm having less success finding a place to put a serious vote. Tarhalindur's post 75 strikes me as about a mile off, but having played with him before I'm not sure I could call that scummy (which sounds crazy yes). Still, Tarhalindur, I thought my post immediately following Erg0's said almost the exact same thing contentwise, how come that didn't even get a mention? I even remember you attacking me in Farscape Mafia for repeating what someone else said almost exactly in one post.
<snipped for irrelevance>
Farscape was ages ago, and an abject lesson in just how bad I was at scumhunting at the time. Your 69 did not set off alarm bells because you were explaining the reasons for your actions in that post; likewise, Erg0 either failed to explain his own reasoning in 68 or did so very poorly. In particular, the first post of Erg0's 68 is primarily summarizing another player's reasoning, which is classic IIoA.
scotmany12 wrote:I'd say I have a protown read from both glork and ether. I took ether's early attack on Glork as protown. It might just be mainly gut for Glork, but he hasn't done anything that has appeared scummy in my eye.
Mizzy wrote:Quick update on my thoughts: After looking back over the few posts Ether has made so far, I get a pro-town read of her. She's acting (so far) like I would expect an Ethertown to act. Granted, we're only on page 4. But I don't think that her stretching on Glork makes her scummy, yet.
Much like patrick, those first two qualifiers don't bother me. The last one does. Ether might eventually do something else that makes her scummy, but still, I would think that the stretching on Glork would still not be considered a scum tell. The yet is unnecessary and worries me.
I guess right now I have the biggest problem with Tarhalinder. His attack on ergo just is wrong. He attacks ergo for summarizing and not making any opinions.
Erg0 wrote:hasdgfas' FoS on Ether probably was too strong, but I don't really see it as scummy.
Glork wrote:Yes, hascow, because nobody has ever badgered anybody else into voting somebody.
This could equally be applied to early FoSes on weak evidence - they're not exactly uncommon. I'm not particularly fond of the way that you're goading hasdgfas and Incog on from the sidelines.
I see opinions there. Also, I would like his opinion on Roland, who summarized in this post
rolandgarros wrote:Okay I'm here, I just reread the topic and I think I have an okay understanding of what's gone on so far... Theres the random or not random vote thing with Glork and Ether, and something about Hascow suspecting Ether and a page or so on that issue. Is there something I missed in between? AP Exams are done for this week so I'd figure that I do some catching up.
Is he also scummy? Also, I disagree with his FoS on ether. BTW, what does IIoA stand for tar?
Unvote, Vote: Tarhalindur
While this is not especially incriminating by itself, it is the best lead I have at the moment.
1) IIoA is Information Instead of Analysis, one of the Tarhalindur Standard Tells (see sig). It is a scumtell because it is often a symptom of scum trying to participate without scumhunting. (To kill two birds with one stone - the Standard Tells are my big hints that someone's scum, and I use them extensively. Now care to ask questions about something other than theory, Erg0?)
2) I really hadn't noticed that Roland was in the game due to his inactivity - he's been very under my radar. That probably needs to change - the post you just quoted looks like IIoA to me, which, given the game state, is enough to place him on my scumdar. I'll want to see what his replacement (presumably Farside) has to say before I act on this, though.
I'll need a quick reread before I decide where to put my vote. (Despite my appreciation for bandwagons, I don't really see the PokerFace bandwagon - his early requests for comments from other players looks town to me, and his explanation looks more like misguided town than scum.)
