Hindu wrote:Nikanor's opening posts in the game are absolute fucking garbage. Re: Opening vote on UN, the easy target. Meow meow meow for his sig. A bunch of blank nothing from a player who can do more. Re: FoS Alchemist because he's mad/reataliating; a dumb post. Re: Question to Ludi to add to the FoS. A summation of his posts: Vote: Easylynch, FoS:for fun, blank, blank, blank, blank.
I voted UberNinja for his earlier posts (p68 in particular). I actually find LLD slightly scummy for her posts re: UN, especially p209.
As for Alchemist... have you read his posts? Go through his iso, ignoring the picture (glorified iioa btw), and tell me how you don't find him scummy.
I was going to hold off on switching my votes for a bit to avoid the whole "he's switching his vote because he's getting flak for it!" bullshit that's inevitably going to erupt from
somebody
's mouth before I realised that I don't give a fuck.
Mentioning this means that nobody's going to use it against me right right?
In post 307, dramonic wrote:Oh.
That's the amount of dead people, it's for the Eternal War mechanic.
Or it's very similar to the giant blue number in the corner of the ETERNAL WAR map in the game that increases everytime someone dies.
Technically once we've killed enough people we're gonna go into total chaos, Ashera is gonna awaken and we're gonna all make peace to go whoop her ass.
But that's probably not what's gonna happen here.
But yeah, it's PROBABLY a corpse counter.
Actually, I thought something similar, but more related to the Micaiah win condition of eliminating certain roles, to at least help us know how many of the 'special roles' scum have eliminated.
Not much point to that other than to cause anxiety (which may be what Vi wants).
I'm sure it'll make sense once we have Mass Outrage explained.
Another thing I wanted to mention is that the scum probably have one or two fakeclaims that could be considered targets. Kurthnaga and Skrimir come to mind.
Probably going to take shit for saying this but we shouldn't write off a lynch just because somebody claims Tibarn or something.
Considering Kurth is on Micaiah's side, that seems unlikely <<
I'm a hoot
Stream: twitch.tv/dramonic
-If you stick your ear close enough to the game thread you can actually hear dram suffer in real life.-Beeboy
-Being obtuse is not a consequence of being a mod, it's a prerequisite. I think you may just have overestimated my intelligence before.-Korts
Thought it was weird the first time around, still think it is weird now. Probably not scum with Quilford, and I know Haze tends to be pretty cautious, but why remark on the reads list this way and potentially destroy any genuine reactions Quilford might want to get? Why the fence? If you're
not sure
and you actually want to
know
, ask.
'Kay, I will, next time I'm in a new game. >_>
Just that I got yelled at for being retarded for missing a reaction test in a game that just started and I didn't want that to happen...doesn't look like it worked well either. Try to please everyone and I end up pleasing no one. Whatevs.
@Dram: yeah sorry until Glork's #159 I had no freaking idea what was going on with intersecting vows. =(
So.
UN doesn't seem all that scummy to me, #258 seems real enough. Not sure why people are still piling on the wagon.
Yeah bad vote. I'm also inclined to suspect Glork & Spyrex, Spy especially so for contradicting attitude/action but for now.
UNVOTE: VOTE: ToastyToast
Also not inclined to believe scum would want to clarify things for town like Glork.
Haze, that post isn't cutting the mustard. You spend a few sentence poking around at seemingly unconnected and trivial things, then lay down a vote on Toasty without any semblance of why.
In post 273, ToastyToast wrote:
However, I shift to UN for that whole "TAMMY"S" town BS. Too much. People who voted UN for his first posts have poor reasoning, but the tammy-un thing is vote worthy.
The only person voting UN for his early post was LLD.
After Dram pointed out the contradiction Glork & Spyrex switched.
So here Toast is completely mistaken/confused abotu why he might be voting UN.
Also Toast please clarify tammy-un.
UN cals tammy town despite voting her. UN's reason for voting Tammy (the comment to spyreX about how his persuasion could convince her to even vote herself--which sounds like a combination between flattery and a "don't trust spyrex's silver tongue!") ignores other parts of her game thus far. His later unvote just sounds like an "oops" post. And I don't think its a town "oops."
So not much here other than an objective disagreement about how UN's post can be read.
there is some sort of connection here, and its definitely worrisome.
More important is this^
Extreme vagueness with little expressed intent to find out. Reads fake.
Not that I'm sold one way or the other on toast's alignment, but to get this straight, you see someone (TT) voting someone else (UN) over something you proclaim as 100% contradictory, and you take issue with the reasoning for a vote? Isn't, generally, someone committing a "100% contradictory" action, worthy of a vote.
Why should a neutral join you on toasty? What about it is optimistic?
Edit prev post: Also Toast please clarify what you mean by the "tammy-un thing"
Cheers.
@331:
Also I find that somebody's scumread on me is hardly trivial Magister. Gamma claims to have caught me, I'd like to know what the evidence is.
I refer to the meta-discussion a little but I'm not really interested as most of it is detracting from actual attempts to scumhunt which is the root of all of Tammy's rage anyways.
Where'd all the posters go?
PEdit:lol Typo. *Opportunistic. Not Optimistic.
As for why I think the contradiction isn't worthy; I think it was a mistake. Like I said, it's how I read UN's post.
Also as you can see from my derpiness I empathise with mistakes quite well.
Neutral voters?
Main reason is the vote for UN. If you look at how the post is structured UN is voted first off the "tammy-un thing." His opinion on UN's mistake is a policy argument purely adjusted to reach the end he desires.
Also large amounts of vagueness.
ML why do you go out of your way to make it clear that you don't lean either way on toasty? Why are you trying to detach yourself from this in some way? Would you vote Toasty?
Sigh. PEdit 2:
I'm not sure about Tammy, think she's leaning town and certainly don't disagree that all the meta discussion was cloggin up the thread.
In post 339, Haze wrote:ML why do you go out of your way to make it clear that you don't lean either way on toasty? Why are you trying to detach yourself from this in some way? Would you vote Toasty?
Probably not right now considering I have a few other people I'm more interested in. I didn't think I especially wen't out of the way or anything, I just gave you my read on him.
Also large amounts of vagueness.
I ask you to take a look at Alchemist than and potentially lay down a vote, if this is a criterion for scum.
ugh so fucking annoyed. Just posted a longass response to everyone who asked questions of me, and, of course, my fucking browser decides to delete it all.
@Tammy: yeah, I get the sarcasm in the statement. the "spyreX compliment?" thing was a "herpderpy wtf did I mean by that?" statement. My larger concern is how you seemed to spike in order to match this self-meta of you being bitchy. Yet to be determined whether or not this is just a play or not. In other words, sarcastic statement soon after people point out that you are not actually being very sarcastic = wierd. Also, anything resembling "i'd vote me," sarcastic or not, rubs me the wrong way.
@Haze: 1) I happen to think my vote is significantly more justified than other UN votes. I do not believe it was sincere. This is where we differ. Its a difference of opinion not a scumtell. I also mentioned UN's "explanation" within my explanation and said that it felt more like scum trying to cover his ass than town saying "oops." So, I already addressed this.
@Tierce: I know nothing of UN's past games (or Tammy's, for that matter. Going to check that out next). Also, unwillingness to defend someone with a slight townread, regardless of past game experience, falls upon the scummy side. Why the whole "you could do better" thing with Tammy? What are you trying to gain by saying this?
PEDIT: @Haze: I already explained the connection (Look at what I said right b4 "this worries me"; connect the dots) but I'll give more detail. All three were in argument with one another, and distanced themselves via past experiences/other statements. Tierce doesn't like Tammy's play but takes a "you should be playing better" angle. Tierce won't vote UN but apparently can't stand him. Now, Tierce has a slight town read on UN, but won't defend him. UN votes Tammy but calls her town. Even if it is a mistake, its still soon after and has no real explanation for the change in attitude. Tammy sheeps onto Tierce. Also, re-reading shows Tammy disliking Tierce's meta defense, even though Tammy herself is using meta. Not to mention the fact that meta discussions are really just distracting from the actual game.
There is a connection. I don't think I was being vague about it.
"A train robbery is where you take a train to your destination, make your move, and take a train back, right?"-Isaac
yeah haze vote was for commenting on quil's list without actually taking a stand on it, asking what's up with a player/post instead of having an opinion on it themselves tends to be scum more often than town.
his post on toasty is decent though. there's probably someone better to vote right now but that isn't happening til tomorrow.
@Toasty
So you're suggesting that the crap they were giving each other is bussing startin from page 2? 0_o
Also I think you're wrong to classify the meta Tammy was using as the same as what Tierce was doing. Tammy was questioning why Tierce raised meta preemtively, Tammy used it as an explanation to her RAEG.
Also do you find a need to defend players you have a
slight
town read on?
The connection itself seems rather speculative; not withstanding the fact that having 3 scum out of the (single?) team go out of their way early day 1 to give each other crap and start really big wagons (6,7+ people) on each other seems rather unlikely.
@Spy
Thanks for teh clarification, not too sure if they make her seem more scum though.
Sigh.
