Things I've learned.
1. It's just a game, have fun.
2. Don't waste time on people who think you are scum. Ignore them and keep scum hunting.
3. Don't take everything so personal.
4. Tunneling sucks (unfortunately I can't seem to stop)
Things I've learned.
1. It's just a game, have fun.
2. Don't waste time on people who think you are scum. Ignore them and keep scum hunting.
3. Don't take everything so personal.
4. Tunneling sucks (unfortunately I can't seem to stop)
Things I've learned.
1. It's just a game, have fun.
2. Don't waste time on people who think you are scum. Ignore them and keep scum hunting.
3. Don't take everything so personal.
4. Tunneling sucks (unfortunately I can't seem to stop)
In post 670, Jal wrote:Mostly because he is usually useless in every game I've been with him in until the last day or so. Not intentionally "misrepresenting" when it looked like you were being a sarcastic ass. Also, no one was going to fight. What would they fight about regarding that argument? Whatever whatever. This is useless.
and iono your background, but I'm used to phrases like :
In [url=http[list=]://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4604650#p4604650]post 659[/url], Jal wrote: you and your faux internet sensitivities can fuck off.
[/list]
in addition to calling someone an ass and saying they're a horrible replacement being fightin' words. I'm not pissed, but it definitely crossed my mind that you may have wanted me to be for strategical reasons.
vote lurker
I don't have anything to put here because my normal signature is images. Weeeeee.
Your "faux-sensitivities" happened before all of that. So how would I be starting an argument beforehand?
Added relevant quote.
In post 668, TehBrawlGuy wrote:By the by, the reason for my 'faux internet sensitivities' is because this is mafia. You misrepped me by speaking for me, and additionally, Scum benefit much more from inciting an argument. Once two people start fighting, it stops having to do with t
In post 682, Jal wrote:Your "faux-sensitivities" happened before all of that. So how would I be starting an argument beforehand?
Added relevant quote.
In post 668, TehBrawlGuy wrote:By the by, the reason for my 'faux internet sensitivities' is because this is mafia. You misrepped me by speaking for me, and additionally, Scum benefit much more from inciting an argument. Once two people start fighting, it stops having to do with t
What else do you expect to happen by telling someone whom you think is sensitive to fuck off?
I don't have anything to put here because my normal signature is images. Weeeeee.
Ok, as promised last year, here's my take on Baby vs Jal.
It begins here with Baby's #101:
Spoiler:
In post 101, Baby Spice wrote:Firstly, 72% of the first wagon to get to four votes in a game has scum on it. (Using the vote count posts to determine when that four votes occurred)
So
{Agent Ireland, Jal, Mogadishu Jones, Xisiqomelir} At least one scum in there.
@lurker: regarding post #44, why did you feel the need to announce you weren't moving your vote?
In post 96, Xisiqomelir wrote:I'm curious as to where this Lurker wagon will take us. In fact, I'm willing to help it along.
<snip>
So we have an obvious RVS vote, Bull shit misrepresentation as justification for a vote, blatant sheeping with a vague question to try and hide the sheeping, and blatant wagoning.
Leaving aside the sheeping/wagoning for the moment which are in the slightly scummy field of activities, Jal's post and vote just scream scum.
Unvote
Vote Jal
Jal asks where the scummy is in #103:
In post 103, Jal wrote:
If it screams scum, it should be no problem to tell me how it does then.
If it screams scum, it should be no problem to tell me how it does then.
My favorite way that people try to put down reasons they don't like. Skip quoting the reason and ask what it is.
In post 101, Baby Spice wrote:Bull shit misrepresentation as justification for a vote
I don't enjoy this post. The quoted #101 is not actually a reason. It would be, were it supported by evidence but as it is it's just an assertion. Additionally, there's the duck of the statistics issue. Also, the annoyance seems feigned. Scumpoints to baby.
Jal's #111 is a restated request about the stat topic and a clarification of the "bull shit misrepresentation" point.
In post 105, Baby Spice wrote:Jal, as the post itself should indicate, by going back through the completed mini game queue.
If the wagon is on scum, then history shows about 50% of the time it has scum on it.
Just the first wagon mind you. I never checked the others that occurred day 1.
I'd like to see these stats compiled. You keep throwing around different sort of stats. Is there a post on this or what? You haven't answered the rest of my questions regarding this also.
In post 105, Baby Spice wrote:My favorite way that people try to put down reasons they don't like. Skip quoting the reason and ask what it is.
That's great, I see that. How is it mispresenting Lurker? How is saying...
In post 66, Jal wrote:I'm glad you read four posts after your last one and decided you didn't need to play the game anymore.
"bull shit misrepresentation" and please don't tell me you took the "read four posts" thing as being literal other than the meaning being he has deliberately chosen not to engage in meaningful conversation. How does this scream scum?
Townpoints since clarity is pro-town.
Baby's #145 (Jal quotes truncated):
In post 145, Baby Spice wrote:
Well for starters, I really, really doubt that Lurker decided that he didn't need to play the game anymore and in no way indicated that he thought that, and with a vote immediately following that comment of yours, how are we not supposed to take it seriously?
Not admitting error here is peculiar, but not scummy (I've only just mislynched town for that in an ongoing).
In post 145, Baby Spice wrote:Well for starters, I really, really doubt that Lurker decided that he didn't need to play the game anymore and in no way indicated that he thought that, and with a vote immediately following that comment of yours, how are we not supposed to take it seriously?
You're a numbskull or you're scum hoping you got on something special.
Take your pick.
Waiting on those official numbers.
More number-requesting. The casual possible insult is townie, as I mentioned previously re: Moga.
In post 111, Jal wrote:I'd like to see these stats compiled. You keep throwing around different sort of stats. Is there a post on this or what? You haven't answered the rest of my questions regarding this also.
I've thrown around two. One reliable, (the 72%), one not so, (the 50/50). One in one post and the other in answer to a direct question.
You're one of these vague generalizers aren't you Jal?
Questions, lol. The only one I didn't answer is my read on Lurker, which is still fairly null. Being Null I didn't think it that worth mentioning.
and if you want to see the stats compiled, work them out yourself.
(I skipped mini 1367 as they took a long time to actually get a wagon past two votes, and counted SK's as scum since from a town point of view they are)
First, I don't see why this post, which deals with the first point in Jal's #111, came after #145 instead of being combined with it or coming before. Secondly, and critically, bolded is an
onus probandi
dodge and scummy. Thirdly, underlined is an absurd accusation to make given the specificity of Jal's questions.
Not directly Baby/Jal, but pertinent, is Baby's #151 in response to Mehdi:
I keep trying to ctrl-c out of the old paper note book I use for these types of things, but it doesn't seem to work.
I jump and change a lot between computers and mobile devices, and not even my own computer since my laptop died. Paper notes for me.
I will accept webcam of these notebook pages as evidence of their existence, otherwise this is simply an excuse. It's also very implausible that someone with computer access would perform a statistical computation on pencil-and-paper and not use software tools.
Baby's #381:
Spoiler:
In post 381, Baby Spice wrote:I really should be unpicking that quilt now that I can see colour again. (tired eyes)
But:
Jal, since you're too lazy to bother doing any research, or too scummy to want to:
Quick precis of the most recent four mini theme's
Mini 1388, scum on wagon, wagon on town
Barkley mini theme, scum on wagon, wagon on scum.
Mini 1380 SK on wagon, wagon on town
mini 1371 no scum on wagon, wagon on town.
That took all of five minutes.
Strange that you couldn't take the five minutes that that would require, since even if I did put up everything you would need to take a few minutes to verify it anyway.
Strange that you took the comment about Mhork being an easy target at face value.
Strange that you wont attempt to show why the reason for your vote isn't blatant misrepresentation. You bitched about it, but didn't try and show it.
Simply put, your reactions are scummy, your reasonings for the vote was scummy, and you resort to everything but defending your actions, which is scummy.
Wow, I really should make sure these things go through before I walk away from the computer
These are statistics of 4 completed Minis. This is not enough to prove statistical significance (which Baby Spice acknowledges), but I'm more concerned about the bolded. The Mhork comment is a qualitative statement, and has to be assessed qualitatively. The 72% figure is a quantitative measurement of probability, and therefore should naturally be held to a higher standard of proof.
In post 381, Baby Spice wrote:Jal, since you're too lazy to bother doing any research, or too scummy to want to:
Quick precis of the most recent four mini theme's
Mini 1388, scum on wagon, wagon on town
Barkley mini theme, scum on wagon, wagon on scum.
Mini 1380 SK on wagon, wagon on town
mini 1371 no scum on wagon, wagon on town.
That took all of five minutes.
Strange that you couldn't take the five minutes that that would require, since even if I did put up everything you would need to take a few minutes to verify it anyway.
Burden of proof is on you, deary. You have never denied that fact. If it just took all of 5 minutes, why did it take you
days
just to do this now? I have been asking you since the first time you posted this, which happened before you got busy so that can't be an excuse. You made it looked like it took some serious work with a pencil and paper to do your research that, but I guess only 5 minutes huh?
I still see you're trying to hide behind stats. As I have pointed out, if you really thought my post was "bull shit" misrepresentation, you only needed to vote me on that. Instead, you brought statistics into the game to help propel your vote further. You're still scummy scum.
In post 381, Baby Spice wrote:Strange that you took the comment about Mhork being an easy target at face value.
How is it supposed to be interpreted. I am interested.
Thoughts on everything else going on in the game, please.
Bolded here is a good point. Misrepresentation on its own, especially "bull shit misrepresentation" would be tantamount to lying and worth voting on its own merit. The use of a statistic of questionable validity to justify what would be an acceptable vote anyway is peculiar.
Burden of proof is on you, deary. You have never denied that fact. If it just took all of 5 minutes, why did it take you
days
just to do this now? I have been asking you since the first time you posted this, which happened before you got busy so that can't be an excuse. You made it looked like it took some serious work with a pencil and paper to do your research that, but I guess only 5 minutes huh?
I still see you're trying to hide behind stats. As I have pointed out, if you really thought my post was "bull shit" misrepresentation, you only needed to vote me on that. Instead, you brought statistics into the game to help propel your vote further. You're still scummy scum.
In post 381, Baby Spice wrote:Strange that you took the comment about Mhork being an easy target at face value.
How is it supposed to be interpreted. I am interested.
Thoughts on everything else going on in the game, please.
Well, actually, as I said, you would still need to go check on what I posted, so the fact that you wouldn't seems strange.
Simply, if you don't take what I said at face value, you wont take me providing anything to support it at face value.
That you still haven't bothered to check, that you must be relying on someone else's checking without actually saying so speaks badly for you.
Five minutes for those four. Well a lot less actually, I checked what the most recent games were and looked them up in the notes I had made. half a minute more like. But none of that changes the basic point. Had I provided the lot you would still need to check it for yourself or take all of it on face value.
I'm not trying to hide behind stats. You're trying to make it look like that's all I'm using, whereas what I did was decide to use a simple fact to decide where I would start to look for scum.
It's strange that you decided that of "72% of mini games will have at least one scum on the first wagon to get to four votes judging by the vote count posts" and "Lord Mhork would be one of those easy targets", one was acceptable at face value and one wasn't. If you didn't believe me on one surely you would not believe me on the other. But it appears that that's what happened.
Especially given as it was the basis for where to start looking for scum, not as an actual reason for you to be scum.
Since you asked.
Scum: Jal
Leaning scum: Agent I, Xis *****
Null: Jake* Medhi, Mog ***
Vig bait: Mhork, NS & NumberQ ****
Leaning town: Lurker** Robert** SC
Town:
*I did have Jake as leaning scum until recently
**Not sure scum would mention getting Community chests cards so quickly, otherwise was null.
*** Not sure if he's leaning town or just faking so null.
**** Needs to post or be replaced. Vig bait due to LAL
*****Really didn't like Xis' entrance or early votes. Easy target and bandwagoning. Add in way under posting.
Bolded here is inaccurate. Evidence to support an assertion would be unquestionable by Jal, or anyone for that matter. No comment on the reads list and I believe I've already discussed relative acceptability of quantitative and qualitative assertions.
Next comes the "NO U" which goes in this order until the unvotes at the end:
I don't think this warrants extensive commenting, but....the unvotes do, especially after this torrent of verbiage.
@Jal, Babyspice
: Current read on Babyspice/Jal? Any relations to your current vote?
TL;DR: I like Jal more than Baby, Jal's pretty Town, Baby's into mildly scummy territory (will become townier if we see that notebook). Still not moving my SC vote though.
Also not seeing the Mehdi hate. Incoherent vote-hopping is a personal towntell.
Next post: Catchup, featuring TBG vs Jal and the hilarious Watcher/Tracker game.
In post 683, TehBrawlGuy wrote:What else do you expect to happen by telling someone whom you think is sensitive to fuck off?
No.
Let's look at your post again:
In post 668, TehBrawlGuy wrote:By the by, the reason for my 'faux internet sensitivities' is because this is mafia. You misrepped me by speaking for me, and additionally, Scum benefit much more from inciting an argument. Once two people start fighting, it stops having to do with t
You were upset by me speaking on your behalf. I called this "faux sensitivity" and I called you out later for your comments afterward. My replies to you after calling you a jackass aren't relevant to your post. Given your comment here, you can only be referring to me calling you a jackass about the SC case. So, explain to me how calling you a jack ass would create an argument.
Xis, I was starting to lean town until I looked up Annarchie's post history which doesn't contain what Baby Spice said it would, such as their use of "strange" and statistics. I'm waiting for that reply.
In post 683, TehBrawlGuy wrote:What else do you expect to happen by telling someone whom you think is sensitive to fuck off?
No.
Let's look at your post again:
In post 668, TehBrawlGuy wrote:By the by, the reason for my 'faux internet sensitivities' is because this is mafia. You misrepped me by speaking for me,
and additionally, Scum benefit much more from inciting an argument. Once two people start fighting, it stops having to do with t
You were upset by me speaking on your behalf. I called this "faux sensitivity" and I called you out later for your comments afterward. My replies to you after calling you a jackass aren't relevant to your post. Given your comment here, you can only be referring to me calling you a jackass about the SC case. So, explain to me how calling you a jack ass would create an argument.
Oh, I get it. The underlined was mostly referring to the 'fuck off' part. The reason I put that in the same sentence is that you called me an ass completely unprompted. Given your posts which followed it and hindsight, the first post looks a lot like you trying to start something. At the time I thought it was just you being a crankypants.
You get me?
I don't have anything to put here because my normal signature is images. Weeeeee.
Yay for RL complications. I'm gonna try and get to this tomorrow. Sorry for being all useless and whatnot. >.<
Also, lurker, I think I noticed a couple of inconsistencies with your tl;dr of the game. Im gonna check when I have a computer, but it looks sketch as fuck.
In post 624, Jal wrote:I'll get back to Baby after I look at their alt and when I am less tired.
When did she say who her alt was?
In post 656, Lurker wrote:
I Countervote saying joke is "weak reasoning"
This didn't happen.
I say we are still in RVS, as I think that the discussion is still weak. #44
This didn't really happen... At least not like that. You just said that we were in RVS still. No reasoning. Reasoning would have been pro town. What you did was a cop out.
Jal makes case on me here, says I am bailing out by leaving my vote from RVS (Or something like that) #66
That looks a lot like discrediting and misrep. "Oh yeah she made some case about me not RVSing or something. It's not really important enough to go into detail over."
Jake from state farm Randomly Says Sup #154
This is relevant?
#257 I AM AT L-1 !!!! Things start getting heated. ( He "Sheeped"(according to me) off of Mhork's defense on page 9.)
Way to discredit me completely.
I claim #276 VInilla Townie with a Railroad card, saying I have cards in addition.
In post 276, Lurker wrote:Ok, I see I am Near being lynched, L-1, nearly at the end of my rope and the like.
I am A vanilla townie.
I have A Railroad Card, But It Doesn't do anything yet.
Does anyone else have a railroad card?
Something is off here. Also I cannot believe I missed the blatant role fishing. >.<
#307 I say the eletric company is 1-shot Tracker.
Come again?
Unvoting and argument ensues due to the staggered nature of my claim.
That's one way to describe what happened...
Yeah. There are a couple of holes in your testimony, pal. Hang on...
In post 624, Jal wrote:I'll get back to Baby after I look at their alt and when I am less tired.
When did she say who her alt was?
In post 656, Lurker wrote:
I Countervote saying joke is "weak reasoning"
This didn't happen.
I say we are still in RVS, as I think that the discussion is still weak. #44
This didn't really happen... At least not like that. You just said that we were in RVS still. No reasoning. Reasoning would have been pro town. What you did was a cop out.
Jal makes case on me here, says I am bailing out by leaving my vote from RVS (Or something like that) #66
That looks a lot like discrediting and misrep. "Oh yeah she made some case about me not RVSing or something. It's not really important enough to go into detail over."
Jake from state farm Randomly Says Sup #154
This is relevant?
#257 I AM AT L-1 !!!! Things start getting heated. ( He "Sheeped"(according to me) off of Mhork's defense on page 9.)
Way to discredit me completely.
I claim #276 VInilla Townie with a Railroad card, saying I have cards in addition.
In post 276, Lurker wrote:Ok, I see I am Near being lynched, L-1, nearly at the end of my rope and the like.
I am A vanilla townie.
I have A Railroad Card, But It Doesn't do anything yet.
Does anyone else have a railroad card?
Something is off here. Also I cannot believe I missed the blatant role fishing. >.<
#307 I say the eletric company is 1-shot Tracker.
Come again?
Unvoting and argument ensues due to the staggered nature of my claim.
That's one way to describe what happened...
Yeah. There are a couple of holes in your testimony, pal. Hang on...
Truant: "[...] scum can play really well and only make one mistake. That's all that is necessary as not every post will be scummy. All you need is one solid slip and you can find scum.
Things I've learned.
1. It's just a game, have fun.
2. Don't waste time on people who think you are scum. Ignore them and keep scum hunting.
3. Don't take everything so personal.
4. Tunneling sucks (unfortunately I can't seem to stop)
NEXT TIME ON DRAGONBALL Z!
ShowThings I've learned.
)ShowSeven Deadly Sins. Six thrilling chapters. One epic adventure.
