Waiting for Percy's promised post and one from Parhelic's replacement.
I'm going to give
In all honesty, don't. If you try to look Town, it will come off as fake, because you are (in a sense) faking it.Iecerint wrote:I've never been scum on this site, and I always try to be hyper-conscious of how I represent myself.
Excellent point. His comment about Box's sig struck me as surprisingly attentive, but I hadn't equated it to scumminess.Seol wrote:[Neto] show that he was paying way more attention to Boxman than I'd expect.
I'm inclined to think that you would take anything Neto said and find it scummy. Not that you don't have any valid points, but I think it's unlikely thatSC wrote:Am I the only person reading this as Net going with the flow?
+MacIecerint, post 284 wrote:Waiting on Percy and/or BK.
He had already told me that he was referring to himself and not advocating policy lynching.elvis_knits wrote:I read that differently. I will reserve my interpretation of it until Neto clarifies, though, just in case.StrangerCoug wrote:This is the awful post I speak of as it implies support for lynching village idiots. Do that and scum has an easy win.Netopalis wrote:Well, a townie who always shows up as scummy isn't much help, are they? They just get in the way....
Neto... what did you mean?
I brought my own interpretation of the post into question because I felt it one of my weaker reads on him. That's why I was happy to simply take Neto countering me with the exact opposite—the answer to my question may very well be yes, I'm the only person interpreting the post that way.mathcam wrote:I'm inclined to think that you would take anything Neto said and find it scummy. Not that you don't have any valid points, but I think it's unlikely thatSC wrote:Am I the only person reading this as Net going with the flow?everythingNeto says is scummy, even if he is. Once I find myself thinking that way about someone's posts, I usually think it's time to start being conscious of my own confirmation bias.
While Iecerint's post is noted, I don't think it's all that scummy for him to say unless he's lying about a completed game.elvis_knits wrote:Also:
Iecerint wrote:I've never been scum on this site
How much have you played?
This feels really weasel-y to me.Iecerint wrote:I'd thought that the first "Confirm" was from some player other than SF and that MC was the first to slip up/joke about it, so I was prodding in that direction to see what would come up. As it is, he ignored me, so I guess it wasn't very effective. In any event, my current understanding that SF had already trivialized elvis's thread before that makes MC's perceived transgression all the more innocuous.
The famed I-have-no-idea-what-we're-doing tell.Netopalis, post 115 wrote:Honestly, I really hate D1...it doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.
Man, is Neto paying real close attention to Boxman. (I see that Seol made this point later.)Netopalis wrote:Well, I was watching Boxman's sig, and it didn't include this game until he posted on here, which lends credibility to the "Forgot about the game" thing.
IF Box==Town AND Neto==Scum THEN Elvis==Scum.elvis_knits wrote:IMO neto's reaction gets scummy mostly if boxman is scum.
If boxman is town, a scumNeto would probably not be trying to slow the wagon. I mean, maybe to earn town cred, or maybe because he thinks he would say that as town. But most of the time, if neto is scum and boxman is town, neto is not going to try to slow the boxman wagon. Right? I think so.
Yes, I could see town-cred points as a motivation. Everyone, including Neto, knows Box wasn't going to get lynched on that one post alone. I wouldn't say that this scenario is likely, but it's possible.elvis_knits wrote:But do you think Neto is could be scum if boxman is town?
I so rarely do too, but damn there are obvious connections in this game.Konowa wrote:Theory tangent, I personally do not like trying to match people together on D1. I find that I scumhunt better if I pursue the people I find the scummiest D1. After flips is when you will see me trying to connect the dots, so to speak.
Bwah ha ha! This is hilarious. The reason? Before I disappeared, I was at least somewhat original. As far as I can tell, the only people to point at Iec by my iso post 4 were Percy and me. And in my isos 5 and 7, I was theNetopalis wrote:MacavityLock has been on V/LA, but his posts really do show a willingness to go along with whatever everybody else has said. I'm willing to remove this suspicion later and cut him some slack due to the status, but I think it definitely should be noted.
On a closer read, this is actually wrong. Both Konowa and I had questioned Neto by 144. (Percy had as well, but in a more limited fashion.) Now, I have no idea what the difference is in our posts was that caused him to put the 3 of us in different sections. So, less of his OMGUS, and more of my OMGUS actually.MacavityLock wrote:By Neto's big player analysis post 144, had I provided substantially more, less, or different than either Percy or Konowa? If not, why are the 3 of us placed into 3 different sections of his scumlist? (Konowa: Neutral, Percy: Inactive, Me: Scum) If so, what was that difference? (Hint: I questioned Neto.)
elvis_knits 129 wrote:My current number two is Iecerint because of his behavior toward boxman/netopalis. He seems to vehemently support boxman wagon, yet never voted boxman, and instead votes/wagons netopalis for thinking the boxman wagon is too fast (or whatever netopalis is saying, too many votes too soon). Makes me question how genuinely he supports the boxman wagon. If he supports the boxman wagon, creating rival wagon is not really productive.
Iecerint 130 wrote:Why do you think I "vehemently support" the boxman wagon? Why do you think I'm voting Neto specifically because of his view of the speed of the wagon?
elvis_knits 131 wrote:I think you support boxman wagon because you're voting netoplais for wanting the wagon to slow. You also helpfully pointed out to people that boxman HAS been online, which is a point against him. Unless you meant it another way? If I misunderstand how you feel about boxman, please tell me your feelings on boxman.
Conclusion: Iecerint is indirectly supporting the Boxman wagon, and admitted as much. This is also pretty evasive play from Iecerint; quibbling over "vehemently" rather than addressing the substantive issues.Iecerint 133 wrote:There's a difference between me "supporting" the wagon and me "vehemently supporting" the wagon. The former I understand someone thinking, but the latter I do not. Elvis claimed the latter, which is relevant because there's no reason for a town player to overestimate another player's support for a wagon. I wanted to know why she did so. (For example, I may have missed a phrase of mine that implied "vehement support," she may have misread something, etc.) As is, I'm still not sure why she chose the word she did. All my "support" for the boxman wagon has been pretty indirect.
This post gives me strong townvibes. It accurately presents Netapolis' position - that he wanted to slow the wagon down - without misrepresenting his actions to hasten a wagon.Konowa 206 wrote:Netopalis, you have been trying to slow down the Boxman wagon since it took off. First, you call Seol's reasoning for his vote shaky. If this was endgame and that was the basis of Seol's vote, then I would be inclined to agree with you. However, it was page two, and based on that I believe that the reasoning behind Seol's vote was very solid. Next, you call the wagon questionable based on the speed. Bashing a wagon as a whole and being very vague about it is scummy to me. By addressing the wagon as a whole and not the individual voters on it, I believe this leaves you plenty of wiggle room to justify your actions after the fact.
I am not sure I am buying the whole "oops, I forgot" from Boxman. He confirmed on Thursday, random voted early Friday morning, and then his, effectively, "hi guys" post was late Friday evening. It is entirely possible that he forgot to put it in his watched topics as he said, but the fact that these three posts were made two separate days does not give much justice to him saying "oops".
I am not sure how I feel about cam's unvote of Boxman. My initial reaction was the same as Sens, in that I do not see how Boxman's two quick posts can lead to an unvote. cam's reasoning in 199 makes sense to me also though. It is entirely possible that I do not like the unvote based on differing opinions about game theory, but the unvote just does not sit well.
Here Iecerint is acknowledging the fact that discussing Netopalis' alignment requires discussing Box's alignment, but he doesn't follow up (even though elvis prompts him) with his opinions on the matter. This seems like an excuse to stay on the wagon rather than an explanation as to exactly why Iecerint is voting Neto. His buddying to SensFan is fairly ubiquitous.Iecerint 211 wrote:There are some other scummy things that Neto did along the way, like suggest that we discuss the set-up rather than reactions to the wagons. Could be that he somehow really thinks it's a good idea to do as much, though.
I think those voting Neto need to provide me with reasons as to why Boxman shouldn't go first.elvis_knits 216 wrote:I still think Neto's allignment is hugely tied to boxman's. Afterall, his reaction to the wagon is the main point against him.
But if boxman is town, I worry less about Netopalis.
I think boxman is scum since he came back to the game and didn't realy do anything or change his vote. (And if so, Neto very potential buddy).
But if Boxman is town, Neto was probably just some townie preaching caution.
I just think lynching neto first is backwards.
Then I would vote for him once someone gives me a reason to?SensFan 217 wrote:What if I think Neto is scummy regardless of Boxman's alignment?
I hope I made myself clear in this post, but I'll state them here to be concise.Konowa 140 wrote:What are your [Percy] opinions on both Boxman and Netopalis?
Bullshit.Percy wrote:SensFan is looking quite suspicious, weak scumread.
Elvis potentially misrepresenting my play = evidently, not a big dealPercy wrote: This is also pretty evasive play from Iecerint; quibbling over "vehemently" rather than addressing the substantive issues.
Welcome, BK. It looks like the main thing that bothers you about Neto's play is the disparity between his treatment of SF and BM. Do you think that Neto is only scummy if he is scum with BM, or do you think the disparity can be explained some other way?Iec, 241, wrote:Neto's been feigning ignorance at why SF would vote that way for pages now. (I say "feigning" because it's been explained to him so many times that I have difficulty believing that he really doesn't understand.) I don't have a problem with trying to end issues like that when they get out of hand.