He's gotta be a werewolf with this username.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Could well be read as: look how extremely and terribly aggressive I'm being right now. Ergo: I'm not scum.farside wrote: I notice that very few scum now how to be aggressive in the beginning of the game. They either followers, or they hem and haw or backtrack or make wishy washy comments. I don't go after the agressive person. typically scum watches, waits and doesn't do much else.
I have read the exchange well enough, thank you, and yes, I know this comment was triggered by you answering a question. However, it feels to me you used it to say "look here, look here, I'm not scum." It's a gut feeling, I feel like you, umm, "overexplained" with this post.farside wrote:I was asked from scien why I felt him not being aggressive was bad and I was answering the question. I get the impression reading your comments that you didn't read the exchange between us at all.
Not really, no. It's something to note, it may even be something to vote over to start discussion early in the day. It's not something to be annoyed over so much. farside seems overly emotional over this. Reading over the whole exchange makes me wanna go "jeez, come down..."Zazie wrote:The statement of being "royally pissed" was used to describe something else, namely the back and forth between Farside and Scien. Because what they are discussing the whole time is basically the same thing.
As for the head desk, do you disagree that when somebody points out something he sees as a possible lead, but doesn't persue it, deserves a head desk or something like that or not?
That's why I said "tunneling vibe". It's not strictly tunneling at this point, due to the lack of much else to talk about.Zazie wrote:Not liking this. There's barely any discussion besides the arguments between Scien and Farside. Heck, even you (ODDin) mentioned one thing besides this discussion.
What?Wulfy wrote:Something seems contradictory here.
There wasn't much to "read" in that post. All it said was:Wulfy wrote:*bites* You place me in a basket with someone I'm attacking? Did you even read my post or see the first line of my statement (involving dog acting) and just ignore it?FoS at the Octopus.
You wanna tell that doesn't look like a random vote? I'm not saying you're playing randomly right now. I'm just saying that that post was a random vote (or seemed very much like a random vote, seeing that it wasn't backed up by any argument, and there weren't any arguments on Maemuki for you to follow).Wulfy wrote:*barks*
Submited:Votes ugly bird Maemuki
But there were 2 headdesks in post 23, one of them regarding Scien. Here:farside22 wrote:The head desk was actually because of YJ and Maemuki exchange. It made me want to cry. Also note I'm very sarcastic person and it's just my nature to be sarcastic.
(Second headdesk bolded)farside22 wrote:I almost felt like smacking my head on my desk reading the exchange between YJ and Maemuki. Anyone care to explain if there is a past relationship between these two because frankly goofiness likes this just gives me a bad taste.
Next:Wow this is so weak. I mean really? Seriously you have a good thought and you feel like random voting?!!!Scien wrote:Vote: Hewitt
Why hello there.
Although I don't know what to think about the Wulfy not confirming thing, or the person going after him without mentioning this. No really, its a curiosity, and I haven't made up my mind if it actually means anything >.<
*smacks head on desk*
I feel better. Scien I don't get it. Your not being aggressive on this, your sitting back and just bringing it up but you don't want to press on it.
*alert*
*alert*
*alert*
unvote:
Vote: Scien
The only time I see people touch on a possible scummy thing and back off our typically scum. Your non aggression seems like something I see when people (scum) want to make a weak case but don't want to be agressive in it as it might look weak when it is.
I did not defend you. What I said was that what you said didn't change my standing regarding the argument against you, and thus I didn't comment on it. Farside's argument against you does have a point. Everything you said in reaction to it didn't change my opinion on it - it didn't make me feel "that's a good defence, I agree with Scien now", and it also didn't make me feel "Scien is nervous and cracking like scum, his words make me more suspicious of him".Scien wrote:On the contrary, well kind of, I am currently getting a weird vibe from it for different reasons. I find it hard to believe that anyone could be on my side now after all the spinning that has happened, and ODDin seems to be defending me... I think that is strange.
I'm not sure how comfortable I am with a player who doesn't read everything in the game. It's mafia. We post a lot here. This isn't even close to really big walls of texts.Maemuki wrote:Anybody can make a tl;dr version of Scien's posts? There's no way I'll read all that. I'm too lazy.
You see, to apply pressure you need to make clear that you're ready to lynch, sure. That said, you might pressure somebody without intending to lead it all the way to the lynch just there. Not every vote means that if everybody else votes right at that moment for that person you're going to be satisfied.Fuzzyman wrote:Is there anybody out there that disagrees with this?
Not yet, because I was busy with real life stuff and didn't have the time to yet. I will, though.ZazieR wrote:Farside has stated that this is natural behaviour from her. Have you checked if this is true? If not, why?
I was drawing attention to what might be the beginning of a trend. It seems like laying the groundwork for tunneling, in a way. I wanted the town to be aware of that, should it become more serious in the future.ZazieR wrote:Then why point it out?
I don't have that many games behind my belt, frankly, but I've seen both. I've seen lurking scum and I've seen very active and aggressive scum. I really can't say which I've encountered more.ZazieR wrote:Question: What's your impression of scum in your games? Are they mostly passive or mostly aggressive?
I think I said so in reply to farside's accusations of me pushing for a lynch over a weak argument, or maybe accusations by hewitt for being opportunistic, or both. I said it in defence of myself, basically, to explain that this vote is not, per se, "pushing for a lynch".ZazieR wrote:ODDin, why point out that your vote against Farside was a pressure vote?
I don't see your point. I read these two posts by me, and I don't see any contradiction. I do think her argument has merit. At the same time, I don't think it has enough merit to get all that excited and agitated over as she did. All the while I myself am currently voting based on a relatively weak argument - which is, basically, what she accused Scien of not doing.ZazieR wrote:And it was you who stated this about what Farside did:ODDin wrote:farside - of course I expect you to defend. I was replying to post 97, where you basically said that I voted you over a very weak argument. Yes, it's weak, but mind you, I don't think you can hold that against me at this point in the game. The beginning of the day is a good time to be voting and pressuring over all sorts of things to stir things up and get healthy discussion. You accused Scien of *not* doing that, after all.But in the first quote, it seems you agreed with Farside.ODDin wrote:On the farside / Scien exchange:
It seems to me farside is being extremely and overly aggressive. The argument against Scien does have a point, but it's not an overly strong point. Yes, it raises an eyebrow that he decided not to push it a bit further to get out of the RVS - but nothing more than that. It's a very, very weak scum tell at best. farside is, IMO, blowing it completely out of proportion.
I disagree. "Pushing for a lynch" means not only voting, but also actively advocating that you believe a certain person should, in fact, be lynched, and that it's the good and smart thing to do. It's not the same as voting.hewitt wrote:That's a pretty silly statement. Any vote on a player, regardless of intention, is pushing farther and farther towards a lynch because you can't control other players' actions and a pile-on isn't unheard of. Any vote on any player is always a push for a lynch.
I never, ever, said i think Scien is town. All I said was that his reaction to the argument didn't make me feel he's more (or less) scummy. I said this in post 151, although I think it should've been clear even before that. I also said several times that farside's argument against Scien has a point - that is, I think it gives Scien scum points, albeit not much.farside wrote:Finds scien's reaction town. I keep feeling there is a pairing here which really struck me with scien's first comment to now this one.
I think I've explained this several times already. You explained why scum aren't aggressive in games - a thing I don't really agree with, as I've seen scum playing aggressively in games - in a way that made me feel like you're attempting to imply "look, I'm playing exactly in the way in which, as I say, scum don't play". It's an interpretation. What you said could've been said in many ways, and from the way you worded it, it makes me feel like you were trying to get across the point of "look how town I am".farside wrote:Because I explained to someone why I find their nonagression scummy that makes is sound like I'm so towny? That makes no sense.
I've already answered to that huge post several times. Here above I've answered to a part of it again. Your post is mostly based around me twisting your words. I don't understand how saying "I think farside is lying" or "I think farside has ulterior motives" is called twisting your words. I don't say you said something else. I said that I *think* you *mean* something else, instead of or in addition to what you've actually said.farside wrote:I just made a huge post in which I show how I find you scummy. So far there is only 1 you really brought up to defend which I missed the scum part.
Wrong. I have said multiple times already that I think your argument on Scien is correct (I've explicitly said it has merit and that you have a point). When somebody says "X is scummy because of argument Y", and then I say "I think argument Y is correct" - don't you think it means I think X is scummy?farside wrote:Also I note it took me asking you to put your thoughts on scien and his actions to do so again it bothered me that you seem to neglect his actions.
Why did you remember to say this only now? That comment hung there for a pretty long time now. Why didn't you say it was wrong before?Nikanor wrote:I can see you haven't played in a while.farside wrote:
I notice that very few scum now how to be aggressive in the beginning of the game. They either followers, or they hem and haw or backtrack or make wishy washy comments. I don't go after the agressive person. typically scum watches, waits and doesn't do much else.In other words, this is totally, totally wrong. I see overaggressive scum more than I see overaggressive town.
"pend" is a wrong usage of the verb. Read it as "awaits" - remains hanging until I get down to actually read that meta.Wulfy wrote:Side note: pends should be "pings" write[sic]?
1. Um...is this a claim that being angry over details is scummy? Wouldn't then every minamalist who gets angry be scum? This point is pathetic.
2. Wait...so you're suggesting town wouldn't make an attempt to prove they are town? Are you saying town posts would be inherently scummier than scum posts? Why do I see a too townie argument forming...
3-1. Would you please point that double standard out with citations or examples?
4-2. ...Omgus argument doesn't exist...
Nvrmind on 3-1, Farside admitted it, so I have noted that. Her excuse of "not reading back [well enough]" doesn't fly with me.
Again, I know it came in the context of answering a question. However, from the way it was worded, it made me feel like you're trying to get a certain point across which wasn't really part of strictly answering the question. This is actually the first thing I thought of when I read that (although you are, of course, free to think I'm lying - and I might be, for all you know, of course.)farside wrote:I see it this way. I was asked a question, i aswered the question. Another player pulls that answer out and automatically pulls the "look at me I'm aggressive I must be scum/town" comment out which is not the case in my mind all I did was anwser a question asked to me.
As it has been pointed out it could be interputted either way but he is taking the I must be scum approach which I find an interperuptation and not actual scum hunting and hence scummy.
[1]"All of your points" is cute, but you only really had a single pretty weak point - the original accusation of Scien. Plus, as I've already said, the fact alone that you bring up a point which I find valid doesn't mean you're less scummy in my eyes. Given the two scum factions, scum can be actively and efficiently scumhunting.farside22 wrote:[1]When a comment like I made can be skewed to be a interptation of hey look I'm agressive so I must be town or scum and you point to it as scum while saying all my points I made had merit but you find my aggression scummy because of another game I find you not to be scum hunting but using excuses to buy a vote.
Finally I was asked to make as case I was explain to explain comments I made and I did as such. [2]Why do you seem to call it much ado about nothing when others ask should I just sit there and say nothing as 4 others have done so far?
Any reasons, or are you just happy to jump on a possible bandwagon?Riceballtail wrote:That said, ODD is definitely scum. Farside/Scien cannot be in the same faction, but could still both be scum.
VOTE:ODDin
And yet you didn't bother to say anything until it was dug up by others and became the crux of the discussion. Interesting.Wulfy wrote: I was around.
It is impossible to prove somebody is lying in most situations. Yhere are cases when the lies are obvious and happen in the thread itself, but that's a minority. Most of the time whether somebody is lying is a matter of interpretation based on psychology and other things.Wulfy wrote: 4. For your argument to be legitimate, you would have to actually go back and prove that no reasons exists (or are not arbitrarily fabricated) so that you can reason that it is truly an OMGUS vote. Damn, you think people would learn this in novice games.
1) Show me where I was coaching Fuzzy.Riceballtail wrote:Fuzzy was lurking until he started gathering votes. Then pulls out an AtE, which is a huge scumtell. ODD is scum for his clear and blatant coaching of Fuzzy, and thanks for continuing to confirm it with your defense of him.
What I mean is, you've missed a good opportunity to potentially catch me, if I'm scum. And you don't know whether I'm scum or not. For all you know, I may be scum - by answering my arguments instead of me, you're potentially giving me a good defense which might not have thought of (if, indeed, I'm scum, and have to fabricate my defense instead of simply saying the truth).Nikanor wrote:Sorry? It's nice for you to acknowledge that I am scumhunting and not falsescumhunting, though.
What I'm saying is that it can be a veiled assertion of towniness.EB wrote:This is a misrepresentation. Farside's comment was a response to a question, not an unprovoked claim. Although extrapolation from it is interesting, it's largely WIFOM; pushing it this hard as a scum tell is bad. Condemning farside for being too aggressive countering your hard push of a weak argument is hypocrisy.
It's not connected to the game per se, that's why I said it's tangential. I just want to know how to refer to somebody in third person. I know that people can be annoyed if they're referred to as being of the wrong gender, so I prefer to ask. That's all.Canada wrote:I’m not sure I see the relevance of this – it doesn’t seem to be even remotely connected? Can you explain how it matters? Is it just so you can call him/her a him or a her?
From your post, I've understoodMaemuki wrote:You would prefer to have a no-lynch?
That is, you want to lynch people who want to impede a no-lynch. Which, the way I understand it, means you do want a no-lynch.Maemuki wrote:Anybody to impede a no-lynch. Seriously.Fuzzyman wrote:Who is your deadline vote?
We can't know that, and you can't prove that - just like what you've said to Scien.hewitt wrote:I wasn't there so much near the end of the lynch period and if I had been I probably would've said something then instead of just pushing who I wanted to be lynched.
Seriously? I think I've explained that several times already. I was pushing the issue of the "trying to look town", and then there were some other issues, but I think these were later in the game.Benmage wrote:So why did you VOTE: ?
Preference, I guess. I like using FoSs. Of course, they should be backed up by stuff. But I find them helpful in gauging people's standing on various issues.Benmage wrote:They [FoSs] dont explain shit anymore than saying someone is "scummy"/"acting scummy"
I simply don't understand what you mean by this. Care to rephrase?Benmage wrote:Word. Good point.. Terrible accidental bus tho.. You're buddy, EB, the claimed protagonist of lynch lurkers, hasnt mentioned them...tsk tsk.
I was trying to get the game out of the mud and understand what people think on various issues. I don't necessarily have to follow up on question immediately afterwards. But if farside/scien die at some point, the answers to these questions will be quite useful.Benmage wrote:Asking 10 go nowhere questions isn't making you look town..you fail to followup on questions you ask anyways. If you actually want genuine responses where there can be a back n forth...dont ask so many.