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 >.<
I don't see how it is possibly scummy. I think it is odd that he hasn't confirmed yet and no one mentioned it, especially for people random voting, but its just a poof of WIFOM really, and there is no real reason to try and push it as a real case.Farside wrote:The only time I see people touch on a possible scummy thing and back off our typically scum.
I have a good thought? One that you simultaneously say is also a null tell? But you are criticizing me for not being aggressive over it?Farside wrote:Seriously you have agood thoughtand you feel like random voting?!!! [...] Your not being aggressive on this, your sitting back and just bringing it up but you don't want to press on it. [...] A late confirmation is null tell. [...] If someone confirmed late it's for any reason and all reasons.
I am directly quoting you and not twisting anything. I don't see the mind games. Nice try on both counts though.Farside wrote:Don't play mind games or twist my words sir. I don't not appriecate it.
Because I agree it was weak. That is why I said it didn't mean anything to me yet. Weak points do not a case make.Farside wrote:Your the one who brought up the fact wolfy had not confirmed. You found it yourself to be odd but did not pounce on it as anything more then a eh comment with a random vote.
I thought it was worth mentioning that we had a 'random' vote on what was a person who had not checked in the game yet. It's WIFOM to have suggested anything else about it, and it wouldn't have helped town. However it is something worth noting. Combined with future actions, it may give sight to motives involved.Farside wrote:If you did not find it so worthwhile then why mention it in the first place?
Okay, so both phrases I mentioned in the post that you are complaining about you think are weak? Thanks, that helps a bit. Why not pursue something that is small? Can that small thing be scummy? I'm not so sure it is. I am looking for scum... I am not looking for small things that can excuse my vote.Farside wrote:It was the whole comment I found very peculiar. Why waste a random vote on something you found whether small or not on a vote? Why random vote at that point if you found it odd and not persue it further?
I will answer this by quote:Farside wrote:Now your saying it's weak after I said it was a null tell but seeing the first post it looks frankly like your trying to bring something to a random vote but flutter off into nothing for no reason. No where do you say it's weak.
That BTW was my second post.Scien wrote:I don't see how it is possibly scummy. I think it is odd that he hasn't confirmed yet and no one mentioned it, especially for people random voting, but its just a poof of WIFOM really, and there is no real reason to try and push it as a real case.
[1] No. It was an observation.Farside wrote:[1]Is this a weak attempt at finding something? [2] Was this attempt at anything and why did you wait till I said it was a null tell and weak to say it was weak yourself?
Oh? So I was making a case now? That's news to me.Farside wrote:I see weak case and I'm going to question your motive. I see an attempt at a weak comment with a random vote and pounce on it wondering if your vagueness is a slight buss, or if it means more.
You aren't doing it? I've definitely been getting that vibe. I can assure you on my end, that it is unintentional. I just want my questions answered as well. You can beat up on me all you want, but I'm not going to stop looking around because of it.Farside wrote:Please don't condescend me. I can do it too but I"m much more mean about it.
I disagree. The reason I didn't draw conclusions is because it was a weak observation. Something my second post suggests.Farside wrote:1) you didn't see it as a weak case first post. Looking just at the first post.
[1] I'm not sure I fully understand. Are you saying that I tried pushing that WIFOM twice? Where did I do anything other than mention it and get jumped right away? I honestly don't think I tried to 'push' anything even once. I know that is the cause for some of this grief, but I am not going to push an observation that if regarded as scummy was weak at best. It would not have helped town, and would have hurt me no matter what alignment I am. I don't understand how you are saying that if I pushed it I would not be attacked for pushing a weak case.Farside wrote:[1] you seemed to meantion in a second time as a muse then blow if off as nothing. [2] I sense you trying to see if you were going to get a bite off of such a comment which it didn't then tried to fish some more to see if anyone else would bite.
[3] Either (a) this is a trap or (b) a scum trying to build a weak case off crap and hoping others will fallow and screw up.
I'm trying to see which category you are in. [4] Since you seem to be aggrevisely harping on me for finding your analysis irksome and weak I go with (b) as a townie looking to trap someone would have not backtracked and found my inquiry on your weak comment something to make catty comments about or twist into something not there.
[5] Since you want to look at comments and can't seem to really put together everything I said without spinning it I like my vote where it stand.
However I did say in the original comment that I hadn't decided if it meant anything. If it wasn't weak, it would have been an easy decision to make. Instead I just throw it out and don't attack anyone over it. Yes, you claim that is scummy, but it also suggests that that observation was not strong enough for me to get a good read off of it.Farside wrote:You didn't say anything about it as weak till I did here
You then quote my SECOND post in the game. This discussion has been going on for a long while now, and you seem to be suggesting that I was holding that my observation was not weak all along. I am trying to tell you this is not the case, and even when I posted it I thought it was weak. Yes, I didn't explicitly say it was weak, but my actions, and second post suggest that I was treating it with the weakness it deserved.Farside wrote:You didn't say anything about it as weak till I did here
No, I'll fall for your trap. I didn't put words in your mouth there. Here let me grab the quotes for you:Farside wrote:Then you try the old Lets put words in someone's mouth trick:
You say this in response:Scien wrote: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 >.<
I assume that by "good thought" you mean there was something in what I said that was strong enough to pressure over, meaning that you thought something in there was not weak (which surprised me, because I didn't think there was anything in there strong). So I respond with a question to determine which of the things you thought was strong enough to push a case on:Farside wrote:Wow this is so weak. I mean really?Seriously you have a good thought and you feel like random voting?!!![...]
My thought there was mainly, "Hey, you are complaining because I didn't push my observation hard enough, how could I when it would have been immediately criticized as a null tell at best."Scien wrote:For you to be legitimately concerned about my play, you must think something about the late confirm or random vote was acutally scummy and not just a curiosity, and are wondering why I didn't think so as well.
I did?Farside wrote:Then you avoid comments I noticed.
It has been suggested that I should have tried to push that observation as a case. Let's just take a second to see what would have happened.Badger wrote:I think it's obvious. So why did you choose as you did, Scien?
I don't think that observation was strong enough to be considered evidence. We are certainly out now, heh, although that was not the plan with that statement.Badger wrote:As a first post, having ANY evidence is great - the goal is to get out of RVS as soon as possible.
I knew it would be spun that way, but it is also the in the interest of town to avoid suspicion. Avoiding suspicion is a null tell, both alignments want to do it.Badger wrote: Refusing to put pressure on other players out of fear of being attacked comes across as very anti-town: it reflects the scum motive of being more concerned about staying alive than finding villains.
Ouch. I assure you it could have been a whole lot worse. I was starting to get mad there for a bit.Badger wrote:Either a bad play as over-conservative town
They couldn't. Hence me not pursing either Wulfy or ODDin on the grounds that I thought it was scummy.ZazieR wrote:Questions:
-Why could one of the mentioned actions have scum motivations behind them? (Wulfy not confirming and ODDin not mentioning this when voting)
-You're saying here that you don't know if either means a thing. Yet in the case it could have meant something about the allignment, wouldn't it have been better to vote one of Wulfy or ODDin, instead of your random vote? If you agree, why didn't you do so?
[1] It's not really. I never really held that it was.ZazieR wrote:[On my initial comment] [1] So why is it odd to him then that nobody pointed it out?
[2] Secondly, saying the bolded. Then why point it out?
I disagree. You can fault me for one or the other but you can't fault me for both. You can't say "Hey, you didn't use your logic to push a strong case against them" and simultaniously say, "Hey, that logic is too weak to use in a case, so why did you bring it up." I can understand why people have griefs with either of them, but having griefs with both of them doesn't make sense. (Yes I know I am paraphrasing here, but that is what I was reading into as two parts of the case against me, weak points, and not using those weak points in an aggressive case)ZazieR wrote:No, what she's saying makes a lot of sense.
Future actions? Actions in the game later in the day... I assume you mean who would have been making them? Anyone. People attacking the point, people using the point, people mentioned in the point. They were going to give views based on the point, those views have motives. When you combine the reactions everyone is having now, with claimed views and actions they have later, you can look back and see things more clearly.ZazieR wrote:[C]an you elaborate on what you mean with 'future actions' in this case?
Also, from this post (Post 37), I get the impression you're suspicious of Farside. If this is true, why no vote?
First of all you are reading that out of context, I explicitly stated there that if we play this game of "what if I pushed that weak case", I would have voted one over it and the resulting case would been weak. My point is, that would have lead to an attack on me as well, for "Pushing a weak case as strong, and fabricating suspicion."ZazieR wrote:First of all, you're stating that you'd see whom of Wulfy and ODDin you'd have wanted to presure more. If you wanted to pressure one of them, why no vote? Secondly, it's noted that you thought that much about yourself.
As I have said before, I never really wondered if it was scummy, I never thought it was. I mentioned it just to see what others would say. I never treated that statement as an attack, and yes I understand that doesn't mean anything because I caught flack for it immediately. I would still challenge you to show me where I said that statement showed anyone was scummy.ZazieR wrote:I don't see why you wondered if confirming late could be scummy when you state here that you think it's a nulltell. Please explain this. This reinforces my earlier statement as well that you stated it was odd that it didn't get mentioned, while you state that it's a nulltell.
Also, can you link to your last scum game and your last town game?
I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I would like to point out, I understand what you guys are saying about aggression and that's not what I asked you. I asked you why you think I should have aggressively pushed an extremely weak case. I would like to point out the difference since it is still something I don't understand.Farside wrote:I was asked from scien why I felt him not being aggressive was bad and I was answering the question.
On those grounds, I can't say anything at this point, because you happened to post after my first post. Here is my argument as it stands since you won't let me do that:Farside wrote:I call it a null tell. He says later if it's a null tell why be aggressive.
Basically everything I said he says he meant later.
[1] Did I ever treat it as more than a musing?Farside wrote:[1] I called it a null tell that wulfy had not confirmed but Scien was the one to bring it up as a musing. [2] Then backs off when questioned further on it. [3] Then attacks me for questioning his lack of aggression.
Nice, no emotional attacks there.Farside wrote: He backtracked, attacked, then conceded and cowered.
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.Farside wrote:Am I the only one noticing Oddin pointing out my flaws and reaction but neglecting to mention scien at all and his reactions to being called out?
Bam?Badger wrote:You attacked Scien because he cast a random vote rather than pursue a weak lead (wulfy not having confirmed).
You attacked me because I cast a vote for a weak reason (Nik not posting) rather than a random one.
Bam?ODDin wrote: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.
* Simultaneously pointing out that me making weak statements that sound accusatory is scummy, and the fact that I didn't generate a big aggressive case from them in my first post is also scummy. Its a play I don't understand, and due to that misunderstanding it sounds like flipping any part of my play is convenient at that specific part of your arguments against me.Farside wrote:Also @ Scien: What part of my accusations on you seem scummy and why?
No. This is more of an overall play thing at this point. I have been explaining my positions and decisions to the best of my ability. I am asserting that what you are looking at as scummy play could have townie motives. This is disregarded. I know that assuming people to have scummy motives is the norm and I should be complaining, but that is exactly what is happening here and it frustrates me. I can not give a defense that you can't attack with any of these statements:Farside wrote:As for disregarding your comment can you show where[...]
You haven't. In any case you have changed the question through misunderstanding or manipulation, and answered the derivative.Farside wrote:[...] please letnot rehash the same question I feel I've answered [...]
OMG... I asked you about this in page one, and was met with refusal to answer and counter accusations. Dang... As for your question, no, I didn't see it above.Farside wrote:As for looking at it in a negative did you see the part I put in bold to you with your mussing about Oddin?
Something else I was trying to ask about as far back as page 1 or 2. If its weak how can there be substance, there couldn't be. I could have made a case about it but it would have immediately been torn down as WIFOM, weak, and scummy to suggest. The middle was WAS the best. Not raise a case, wait for comments.Farside wrote:[...] there was something I felt was almost a substance. [...]
Yep. Getting comments helps. So what if it is a null tell, people bit it. Some people claimed they saw logic in it, some people might have said they thought it was WIFOM, the reaction of ODDin and Wulfy would have been informative as well. So what if I asked for your opinion and later said that the initial comment was a null tell? What are you implying here?Farside wrote:You questioned me aobut wolfy being nonconfirmed but you, yourself ever said in was a null tell.
Yep, I agree.Farside wrote:Agressive townie to me is someone who targets a player they felt made and error and relentless questions the motives and actions.
Again, knew this was coming back again. I think its possible that this is what you are doing. I think there was a damned if you do damned if you don't case there. Every attempt to show townie motives was met with a 'you can't show that's what you were really thinking' which means you are accusing me of WIFOM defense. I can claim the same of that element of your attack because you can't prove that your WIFOM of 'usually when someone doesn't attack based on weak points in RVS, they are scum' is true.Farside wrote:Well this is a bit more difficult but I would say someone who is manipulative scum is spinning something that is not there and making it a case. Or finding something small and twisting it into something worse.
I can see your wheels spinning already but I didn't not put words into your mouth Scien. You took the words and comments I made and said it was what you meant. How do I know what you meant? How do I not know you were trying to look productive and hoped to spin it into a conversation piece into just a muse for distraction?
You don't. How do I know that you're willingness to ignore any pro-town motive I suggest on grounds that it is WIFOM, is aggressive townie?Farside wrote:How do I not know you were trying to look productive and hoped to spin it into a conversation piece into just a muse for distraction?
That is exactly what I did, until you started attacking me heavily for having weak observations and not pushing them. You saying "you didn't do that", when you came out immediately and griefing me about not using it as a case. My response was 'it was weak it wasn't meant for a case, it was meant for others to comment on'. This complaint is silly. The moment you started attacking me on it, no one had any desire to comment further on it, they wanted to stay out of the crossfire.Farside wrote:Having a musing about something and just siting on it to see if convo happens is one thing but you didn't do that.
The place I said I was "not sure" was in the initial post. If I came out and said "Hey, it's actually a null tell" in the initial post, people coming in to comment about it would have not bitten. It's not really a contradiction, it was bait.ODDin wrote:Scien does contradict himself somewhat in this: at first he said he wasn't sure if his observations on Wulfy and myself meant anything. "Not being sure" means allowing the possibility that it does, in fact, mean something. Later he says he knew for certain it didn't mean anything and knew it weren't scum tells.
Not curious at all. On my reread, I noticed two people trying to suggest connections between people. Now, preemptively, I'm not suggesting it is ever a good idea to build this kind of connections, it is a good idea to get the parties to comment on each other. It gives them less wiggle room later if they are indeed scum.EB wrote:@Scien - Very curious that all your questions revolve around me. Any particular reason? What's your read on me so far?
Nikanor wrote:Vote: YamiJoey for his double standards regarding EB and Wulfy.
Well crap. In my building a post I screwed up my questions. But my desire to get current feelings in writing still stands in the cases where we haven't yet.Maemuki wrote:@ Everyone, I like the fact that EB attacked Nik + Fuzzy for lurking, but if hewitt is doing the lurking, then it's a-ok!
Meh, not really at this point. I'm worried that me commenting on Farside will result in more flame wars, we just aren't getting through to each other. But since you asked, I'll give short opinions below. But first...Wulf wrote:This is scummy. [...] explain what you think of Farside's questions. Someone else, in answering yours, noted potential manipulation in your question phrasing. Do you see anything similar or anything of worthy note in Farside's questions? More importantly, could you clarify (with complete sentence that include parts of the question [/teacher-esque-ness]) your statements in post 214?
I was immediately attacked for having weak points that I believed in. When I say immediately, I mean before my second post. If I laid down my first post in hopes that someone would comment on it and overextend: one, how could I have provided my feelings on my questions in that first post and still get people to comment; two, how can you be sure that I am following someone's reasoning as their own rather than following my own; three, how could it have played out any differently if I was attacked immediately rather than waiting for me to dig a hole?Farside wrote:"I still don't like scien but I can see the hypocrissy comment but I still, still don't like when someone ask questions to me without answering the questions first and then following my reasoning as their own. If makes me feel all sorts of scum vibes. "
Thanks for the explanation on my misunderstanding, first of all.Farside wrote:As for the rest and just really a last question on the subject for now Scien. How long was I supposed to wait till you stated that your first message was weak? If no one has said anything to you about it would you even have brought it up yourself?
This is in response to me saying, "IMO, I think a fuzzy lynch would give us more information over a RBT lynch. I think I am sticking with my vote."Fuzzy wrote:Scien, why am I the best info lynch? I'm not opposed to going down for the team, but it'd be nice to know why.
Ya, horribly scummy to beg for a lynch with only 8 minutes to spare. It would be much more pro-town to just sit back and let a no-lynch happen.Hewitt wrote:I found Scien asking for someone to hammer at the end on RBT was incredibly scummy, especially looking in hindsight as he flipped town. I never really understood the wagon on him to begin with I thought it was pretty damn crappy and forced.
As I said before... the case on her was better than you are pretending. And even if it wasn't, I would have been pushing for a lynch with eight minutes left before deadline. Info is king.Hewitt wrote:It's not the fact that it was begging for a no lynch it was the fact that you were begging for a lynch on a crappy ass case. I think it was clear that she did it to start conversation which is a tactic that a lot of players do to start convo.
Fine:Farside wrote:Calling it another battle and more WIFOM is just a way to down play the scum move.
Both the person I was voting when you say I was 'wanting to avoid a townie lynch', and the person I was trying to push a case along on, was Fuzzy. The person that flipped town in the night.Farside wrote:So far I see first trying to avoid what he knows to be a townie lynch to flip flopping to lynch said townie.
What makes you think that? What evidence do you have that your assumption of my motives is correct. (This is what I was talking about WIFOM BTW).Farside wrote:Fuzzy's case was valid. Hell his own mason buddy thought he was scum and who wouldnt' based on how he played.
You fliped onto RBT after trying to distance yourself. There is a big difference.
You haven't caught up to that point yet I don't think. Hewitt claimed Fuzzy as a partner a bit before day end. Right before RBT voted for Fuzzy (pretty much right after the claim IIRC).Benmage wrote:Whattt?? We have a claimed mason, and a fuzzy flip? Who?
No. I explained already. I was going try and convince people that Fuzzy was the better info lynch of the two. When I was going back and formulating my post, I thought a bit more about math, and thought that RBT would be the better target from the two since she was not claiming to be in a M/M pair (due to statistics). I said this way back when, in the post where I switched my vote. You claiming I didn't is odd.Farside wrote:You have yet to explain [moving your vote] instead you throw up this wall of "well either way I was on a town wagon so your point is invalid" I stated the fuzzy case as valid. He was acting scummy you thought RBT was town then switched.
Keep in mind that this statement is now proven false for future information. There can only be one scum role within a given M/M group.Benmage wrote:Hewitt wrote:I think it might be correct in assuming that just because one Mason flips scum does not mean the other is confirmed town.
One of the parts of that statistics stuff I keep bring up with Farside is the fact that the mod came in and cleared this up not long before I started thinking about statistics again. If a standard player has a 4 chances to get an anti-town role, a given M/M has less than 2 chances. (Less because if their buddy already got one of the anti-town roles they qualified for, they were an invalid target). Given a Fuzzy, RBT lynch either or near end day, I would have went with the non-claimer anyway.Mod wrote:There cannot be 2 scumroles in the masons and monks groups, there could, however be one.
Scien wrote:I want to hear from RBT about why she thought the mass claim was a good idea in day one.
I also want to hear the reasoning why she is gung-ho about lynching what appears to be outed masons.
Scien wrote:Compare that to RBT. A) She is anti-town, and that explains her apparent (although non-concrete) desire to hit m/m groups. B) She is town, and that apparent desire is weird, but gives us no motives.
Oh ya, I never said I had griefs with RBT. Sigh. Outright lies this time. Vote tiem.Scien wrote:If RBT is town, I can't see her having that desire. I know she is saying she doesn't, but given what Farside suggested, I think it is probably likely. Plus she would have a good motive to want to blanket lynch a m or m group if she has the opposite anti-town alignment.
Also, the m/m groups should have slightly less chances to be scum due to being invalid for two of the positions, and possibly 3 of the 4 if their partner got one. I know it isn't a blanket card that should save them. But pure statistics should suggest that a given m/m would be less likely scum than any other person.
So I guess I changed my mind. But I still am looking at you. You have been fairly unproductive today (pot calling kettle black I am sure, but my concern stands)