allmebaby wrote:jahuuudo if inhims read it like I did is it still UBERLYINGSCUMOMG because I don't think it is.
Jahudo wrote:That's your opinion then. I believe its more likely to come from scum because it doesn't require checking any facts and they can leap onto that gut string.Ojanen wrote:This is a PEDIT at the end of a longer post. 7 minutes after WLC post. It's a knee-jerk-reaction type vote post. It's a SCUMPUTER impulse post, not a "let me write a deliberate case" post. It's also incredibly obvious that WLC's post would tug many guts easily. It's completely believable.
Jahudo iso 11 wrote:
With the WLC wagon, I can understand why people will pressure someone who is not reading closely. You want to make sure they are putting time and effort into this game and not coasting. I can see how it leads to anti-town behavior but not scummy per say.
Jahudo wrote:I disagree with the WLC case. He never said TheLonging looked scummy, only that the “no lynch vote” was scummy so he isn’t actually keeping thelonging as a potential vote switch. The mix-up doesn’t make him look like scum becauseI would think scum are more focused on getting their facts straight than drawing conclusions from actions. And not talking about other subjects is pretty null because we don’t know who has enough time to far to read everything.
Jahudo wrote:Except he wasn't asking Espy about the defense. He was asking him about the original vote post. That is not a good excuse for ignoring the person you are voting.Ojanen wrote:asking this from espy and stating own exact post-answer stance would be conflicting strategies for information gathering. it's psychologically way more effective when people don't know exactly what you think when asking their stance on a specific thing.
Jahudo wrote:It was a sign of encouragement. He was advertising the wagon using chesskid's vote, that's as good as an endorsement.Ojanen wrote:First paragraph, what? Look at the inhIm lines. They are consistent. Second paragraph, again, what? inHim only ever said GIDDYAP to chesskid. inHim: "I didn't slip to chesskid's reasoning", not implying he agreed on reasoning but target. Jahudo: "why didn't say aloud that you agree, you scum."
Not in the vote post but later on he admitted that he did think that way from the start.Ojanen wrote:He never said WLC was not original or not.
So you would say it did in this case? Easy, sure. Side-lining, what? Rehashed, no.Ojanen wrote:A point can be original and still easy, side-lining, concerning old rehashed stuff, omitting all themes moving somewhere.
Jahudo wrote:I don't understand how a random vote ties someone to another person, I never look at random votes later in the game when players have been flipped and its time to look for connections. It has always seemed like an arbitrary move, and the part of it that scum are actively thinking about is how they can blend in given the unique situation of the game whether its focus on an early wagon or mechanics being discussed.
Espeonage wrote:Ok didn't do a reread. Someone want to give me some questions to answer and a rundown on what has happened?
Jahudo wrote:
Fluttershy wrote:if you vote no-lynch, that is just drawing more attention to yourself which just counters the purpose of hiding =/
I think you are being hypocritical here. How is that different than me not voting by page 5?
Ojanen wrote:
Btw:Who is in the Fluttershy hydra?
Jahudo wrote:Are there two inhim's in this game? Have I only seen the evil twin and you guys are hanging out with the good one? [/jokes]
We've already been through this. You should know this if you are reading. Its because inHim DID argue WLC was using a non-original point. Here is where he even admits it: That was untrue so its undermining that aspect of what is being argued. The rest of it, that WLC is doing boatloads of nothing is a separate issue altogether so it doesn't justify this action.Gammagooey wrote:a)why does not acknowledging it matter when wlc proceeded to do BOATLOADS OF NOTHING after that point (aka remained a good vote)
b)undermind the legit- okay no. Ignoring something is not I AM SECRETLY MAKING YOU LOOK WORSE KEKEKEKE
Fluttershy wrote:
Espeonage wrote:
Something feels wrong about the WLC wagon. Last game I was in with him scum tried to push his wagon every day when he wasn't really overly scummy and every day they failed. And he was town. This feels very similar.
Hmm...So, did WLC make bad cases as town in that other game? Can I have a look at that game please? Are you also denying there being any reason to vote him as well?
Equinox wrote:Guys, I'm confused by your reads of Mina.
Please walk me through it?
Gammagooey wrote:____________________________
>---->----``````````````````````````------------->
GUT PARK |`````````````|
--<---<--````````````````````````|
|```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````|
------>--------
______________________________
(yeah she hasn't said anything worthy of a solid read)
How could he have read it like you did if he admitted WLC was trying to "use that outdated reason". I still can't trust his clarification on that post after I called him out for it because scum could just make the clarification people want to hear. It shouldn't be an ordeal to get him to say what he really meant. So I take at face value what he said when his feet were to the fire and he wanted to explain his position. He said it was DAT OUTDATED REASON, which indicates he thought it was DAT LONGING REASON.Gammagooey wrote:jahuuudo if inhims read it like I did is it still UBERLYINGSCUMOMG because I don't think it is.
And then I said oatmeal, are you crazy?1-Oatmeal?
It took a page or two to realize he was going nowhere with that vote when it became even more obvious that he was not acknowledging the specifics of WLC.Ojanen wrote:Ha. You did NOT find it scummy originally.
I was referring to chesskid all along, he was the one that pointed out WLC talked about one person and voted another. He also showed good interrogation tactics earlier on with TheLonging, but inHim's comments back then were more like an observer.Ojanen wrote:And past the revision, that's a stance that is not based in the real world. That is a stance that will call common playstyles in todays' meta scummy. You have said you do not find chesskid's playstyle as such scummy.
I think scum are not as likely to vote someone they didn't intend to vote, because scum know who everybody is and sees them as viable or not viable targets. (BTW, where did you see me as scum?)Ojanen wrote:reasonable scum = scum that is very hard to attack with convincing arguments. you should know that, and that sentence shows you do know that - you're excellent at surviving as scum yourself.
That was after I called him out. In the moment he only said GIDDYAP, and since chesskid had stated his opinion and inHim had to have read it, that sounds like an opinion on it.Ojanen wrote:he said himself EXACTLY that he was encouraging the WAGON.
It's completely relevant! He was under the impression that WLC was voting for an old reason but the new reason was stated in WLC's vote post. So he votes someone but doesn't read the post he finds scummy. That's bad.Ojanen wrote:That was not relevant to his reasoning.
That's my opinion, but I also didn't say his opinion was invalid or scummy.Ojanen wrote:You are clearly thinking it's weak and from an arbitrary part of the game.
Its the part where he says "I was upset he was using that outdated reason". I'll explain why I don't like buy his clarification later.Fluttershy wrote:Unless you can bold where he said that, I don't think that is what he meant. He seems to make it clear in those points what he meant.
You didn't mention before that you are treating it as null, hence why I was under the impression you still thought that it was scummy not to vote before having a serious vote and why I found it opportunistic.Hmm, how I am being hypocritical? I think his theory about scum using the no-lynch is faulty. As for you not voting, I mentioned that it was scummy, but I know it should be treated as a null. You are not to first person I have seen like that.
Here is the qoute then:Here it is so you can read what he said after that point that Jahudo DOESN'T quote.
The "other behavior" is relating to TheLonging not understanding that it was a joke and how he dug into chesskid without weighing the plausibility of that being true. That was the point of the wagon on TheLonging and everypony has seemed to forget it and stopped talking about it. Now why in Equestria would WLC have to say anything more than he already did on that topic if he was already under the impression that the no lynch vote was not serious?inHim wrote:chesskid has posted more than that No Lynch vote, and I placed my vote on the reasoning that WLC's vote was made without considering the other behavior of chesskid/TheLonging/the person he was placing the vote on at that time.
Jahudo wrote:
How could he have read it like you did if he admitted WLC was trying to "use that outdated reason". I still can't trust his clarification on that post after I called him out for it because scum could just make the clarification people want to hear. It shouldn't be an ordeal to get him to say what he really meant. So I take at face value what he said when his feet were to the fire and he wanted to explain his position. He said it was DAT OUTDATED REASON, which indicates he thought it was DAT LONGING REASON.Gammagooey wrote:jahuuudo if inhims read it like I did is it still UBERLYINGSCUMOMG because I don't think it is.
jaaaaah wrote:And then I said oatmeal, are you crazy?1-Oatmeal?
