Read up, and there's not a ton of content to comment upon as yet, but here are some things that I've made note of as I updated my game notes; i.e. the condensed version.
ABR:
no content yet due to VLA, therefore neutral.
Dragons:
In his first serious post (205) he voted Mina for her (2 day late) entrance post, in which she called out others for not posting when she herself had not yet posted at all. Valid points by Dragons. Neutral.
GK:
The rhyming makes it somewhat difficult to really get a good read, but in 137, he calls out Ray and kpaca for rolefishing, but I don't really see that as valid in re: Ray, while it's plausible in re: kpaca. Calling out Socio for lurking at the point in the game where he did, doesn't seem valid. The game was only hours old and there were several players who had not yet posted at that point. Neutral.
Iec:
As I mentioned previously, in his post 76, he referred to malp's "rolename" rather than his username which could have been a scumslip. Like GK, Iec calls out Socio for lurking at a point in time where it was far too early to do so. I'm interested in his post 154 in which he says that late confirming is actually scummy and “that particular tell performs WAY above chance -- better than just about anything else except for inconsistency.” Iec, please provide evidence in support of this claim. I'm not disagreeing with it; I'm just interested in seeing evidence of the stats that you have compiled.
I'm not enamoured of the level of hyperbole Iec utilizes in some of his posts. Examples: he claims that Socio is “fraudulently mischaracterizing his vote”, claims that his responses to votes on him are “bizarre” that he is “hysterical” and - in a subsequent post - that he is exhibiting "utterly bizarre behaviour." Excessive hyperbole such as this pings my scumdar. In this same post (154), Iec sucks up to the absent ABR (he does it again later, too, and I abhor sycophantic behaviour, although it's not necessarily a scum tell), and then seems to deflect from kpaca at the end of the post for no apparent reason (other than defending or buddying) that I can see.
In 170, right after the votecount comes out (when it shows that a couple of votes against kpaca didn’t count because they had not unbolded first) Iec votes kpaca [this could be opportunistic – i.e. after realizing that some of those votes didn’t count, Iec can jump on the wagon and look like he was on it earlier than he really was] but he leads into his vote with a stupid reason, “I feel naked without a vote out there” – which looks like he’s trying to minimize his vote at the same time that he’s casting it.
In 174, Iec asks who Mina is and suggests that maybe she didn’t notice that the game had started. This looks off to me because it's like Iec is giving Mina a built-in excuse for not posting, but that is inconsistent with Iec's calling out other players for not posting previously, and Iec says that inconsistency is the only scumtell that works for him. So, this pinged.
Leaning scum.
Kpaca:
blathering on about rhyming posts, the repetition looks like posting for the sake of posting and possibly rolefishing. In 88, he says to Ray, “Atm you appear to me to be a foolish newb scum, or a misguided townie trying to hard” which is pretty strange considering Ray has over 4000 posts here and this is kpaca’s first game here aside from the one in which he posted 3 times and then replaced out, 10 months ago. (I was in that game so I recognized his name and avatar here).
In 89, after Iec mentions Socio and his lack of posting, kpaca asks whether Socio is usually a high activity player, because if so then Iec’s “agitation may be warranted”. This could potentially be a left handed defence of Socio (i.e. if kpaca knows (say from scum chat) that Socio is known to be a lurker , he asks the question in a manner that suggests that Iec’s comments are not “warranted” unless Socio is a high activity player – i.e., defending the lurker partner), but when Iec responds, he just takes Iec’s word for it that Socio is a lurker and says “you can bet” (which is too much like, “trust me” for my liking) that he won’t let lurking slide by, etc. This exchange just seems fake and forced somehow.
In the 120s back and forth between kpaca and Mordy about post restrictions and lying about them, as soon as Mordy asks kpaca in 125 why he wouldn’t push someone for lying about a pr, kpaca backs off in 126, saying “well, normally I would push but…” [pleasing others – scum tell];
In his 133, kpaca calls my post about Iec’s “rolename” post “totally useless” because he didn’t notice the word “rolename” even though I bolded it in my post, and then in 135, he backed off saying that he “totally missed” that Iec said rolename instead of user name. [Query whether he's not paying attention despite his criticisms of others, or whether he too slipped on the word “rolename”?] In 139, he says “to be honest”, he didn’t even read my post to which he replied before calling it “totally useless” because he “thought he knew what it said.”
In 140, another "to be honest”, directed at GK, where kpaca says he didn’t see a problem with asking about prs as he did because where he plays, that doesn’t mean NKing. Playing the newb card after telling us how experienced he is. That's not right.
Scummy.
Malp:
omgus vote in 54; “trust me” in 71; votes kpaca in 168 without much reasoning (it didn’t count because he didn’t unvote); looks like a lurker all right. Needs watching.
Neutral, leaning scum because I don't like lurkers.
More to follow.
Regards,
Jazz
" I'd hoped the "NB" would serve to make my tone clear.