Kise wrote:M, what is this concern about me reacting poorly to being called a lurker? Are you speaking about my very 1st post in this thread?
U posted about bing concerned about bing called a lurker.
MissTake wrote:Just for future reference, I keep multiple tabs open. It may appear that I am online, when in fact, I am not.
Odd--i use Firefox. Whenever my browser closes, and reopens, it doesn't log me back in. And if i press log out in one of them, i am automatically logged out in all of them.
I'll be posting shortly.
Looking forward to it.
Have to deal with a few things.
Fine, just dont get too involved.
ConsM I'll reply to your post.
Yay!
---
Off-topic:
Lol. Noticed Kise's sig:
cateraction: "Let's pick a wagon."
---
Kise wrote:I read my posts in isolation.. don't see where I reacted 'poorly'.
Being worried about being called a lurker seems to count.
My 1st post was a simulpost with yours, M, and you had not listed me as a lurker at the time.
...i'll go check the time stamps. (It's not standard procedure 4 me. Ask many of the ppl who kno me. :/)
So in a pre-emptive move, I posted to declare myself non-lurking, yet it ended up being posted at the same time that you did label me a lurker.
1: If so, this is still hilarious, but...
2: Y the concern in the first place? :/
Or what, u'll vote me?
I dislike the first's attacks against me, the second hasn't contributed enough and the third...well, leaning pro-town but would prefer more content.
Y these picks, Porochaz?
Miss wrote:One long post breeds another.
Which breeds another, which is heaven for a person like Faraday.
You stated yourself that I have not seen you play before.
And then i explained y u were wrong.
Doesnt excuse u from ignoring my defense.
As you can tell, I am new to this particular board.
Yet it shouldve been painfully obvious my play's a null tell.
Your play style strikes me as particularly scummy because that is not a normal tactic.
Two words:
So. What.
Normal tactics r only normal bcause ppl liked them initially and decided 2 keep on doing them.
Eventually, they lose their taste. Become boring. Uninteresting. My tactic, normal 4 me, will eventually bcome boring and i'll move on 2 another.
It's not a scum tell. It's a null tell at worst.
If I really firmly believed that you were scum, I would have laid my vote down on you that instant.
Yet u r still making the accusation that i am scum, even if ur not voting off of it.
I'll be coming back with a more in depth look at everything tomorrow when I'm not exhausted.
Looking forward to it.
Yes master. Tomorrow. -__-
Ignoring counter-arguments is EXTREMELY scummy, about as scummy as hammering some1 w/o giving them the chance 2 post a counter-argument.
While I agree with that, I do not agree with the way that you did it.
That's the whole point--ppl will seriously suspect me bcause of the way it was done, i defend, counter-attack, we get discussion going. Thats what we're doing right now, 4 that matter.
If that is your particular play style,
It is.
that's fine;
If it's fine, then u shouldnt b making nething out of it.
that doesn't change the fact that I find it scummy.
If it is part of my playstyle (it is), then it's a null tell, hence, not scummy. (Anti-town? Sure, i can understand thinking that, tho i personally disagree. Scummy? No.)
In the matter in which you presented your question; yes, there is WIFOM.
There was no question. i stated a fact, not a question.
I believe your initial question (I'm too lazy to go back and check - correct me if I'm wrong) was why would scum want to push everyone out of RVS.
[/i] That was the OPPOSITE of what question i had asked. I said y WOULDN'T the scum want 2 push every1 out of the RVS, essentially.
If I was willing to hop on the bandwagon at that moment I would have laid a vote down then.
And y werent u? U seemed 2 disapprove of Mufasa's play...
The 'heh' was out of disapproval.
This was not made clear.
If you my other post you would have seen that I said I think it's a little scummy that Papa Zito is pushing so hard for a Mufasa lynch.
Oh, rly? Please show me where; i have no memory of this event.
There isn't a single person in this game that is playing in a way that makes me go, "ZOMG UR SOOOO TOWN."
Which is just as bad as not having ne1 make u go "ZOMG UR SOOOO SCUM."
THEREFORE, I'm not going to lay my boost down on someone until I'm absolutely sure.
There is NO way to be ABSOLUTELY SURE some1 is town (Except for scum, of course), EVER. There r times where it is probable, but there is never any guarantee.
I fail to see how this is particularly scummy.
Not having an opinion on who is town is as bad as not having an opinion on who's scum. And that's scummy, bcause u r not giving anything 4 the rest of the town 2 work with...
If I were scum, wouldn't I be tossing around boosts all willy-nilly?
No. U'd b worried that ur boosts on pro-town players would go through, harming ur team (the scum).
AND if you happened to read my other post you would have seen that I laid boosts down on Papa Zito and KMD.
Show me where; i do not see it.
I'm a computer nerd that has bare minimum 100 tabs in Firefox running at all times. I habitually save my sessions, so any time that I open up my browser, I'm going to be logged in. Sorry.
This is NOT the way Firefox works--
Guess what?
I use Firefox, too, and Someone counted
over fifty tabs
in my session. The thing is, whenever I save and quit, when I return,
I am NOT logged back in
!
Explain THAT.
Okay, so Kise and I both boosted Papa Zito... Because, he's playing a relatively pro-town game, and we both voted Mufasa because he's been doing the complete opposite...
The fact that u both did it back 2 back, tho, is suspicious. Last time i saw that, it was the last 2 scum in the game who had done it. (Lynch All Lurkers--look at the vote count analysis by Xyl; Poptajo and Emp voted together a lot)
...Did i mention u 2 are some of my top suspects?
There haven't been too many insanely active players on this game,
Yes. Yes, there have. Look at Zito's analysis of players posting and how much they've posted--
The numbers show MANY ppl actively posting.
so we're all working with "limited suspects."
This is scummy.
We should keep eyes on ALL the players in a game, ESPECIALLY the ones posting less.
It's to be expected that some of us have the similar voting structures.
Not in my eyes.
In my eyes, it's an effective scum-catching tool 2 notice these patterns.
KMD wrote:This is probably dangerous to say to you (XD), but elaborate.
1: What isn't dangerous to say to me?
2: More seriously, tho, i dont see y much elaboration is needed--
Zito's looking pro-town. (Then again, Zito ALWAYS looks pro-town.)
However, u--to me--were, at the time, neutral. I couldnt tell ur alignment. Now, it's worse; ur leaning towards the scum side, and r close to getting a successful boost.
What about the way you scumhunt (lurkerhunt)?
I scum hunt using everything at my disposal--
Looking at things in posts makes up the majority of my scum hunting, "lurker hunting" is just ONE of MANY tools to use in scum hunting.
What about it?
It's fine. There's nothing wrong with pointing out lurkers.
It avoids anyone who has their status on hidden and doesn't seem very accurate.
It nailed Semi, didn't it?
It made me suspicious of Kise, did it not?
It seems to work well enough. If ppl r on hidden, well, then i'll have 2 go by the Index tab of MS.net and see who's the last poster in each section of MS.net.
Semi and Kise are crap cases.
Semi
1: Lurked, with no history of having done so b4 (a HUGE scum tell),
and
2: Failed 2 respond 2 my concerns.
Kise apparently was worried about being called a lurker. Which i can definitely see scum worrying about more than town. Caution's a scum tell, u kno.
Mufasa and Wiirdo, I can agree on.
If u truly meant this, ur vote would b on 1 of them, not on me. :/
MissTake, I'm leaning town although it may be partially because I'm always suspicious of her and she's always town, so I've gotten cautious. XD
Friendship bias. Players who have played with each other in previous games are less likely to accept that player as scum.
You aren't scumclaiming, are you?
i was confused by your theoretical scenario where i am scum; ur conclusions seemed 2 b the opposite of what i'd think.
What makes you think Semi is lurking?
He logged on, 4 HOURS, and--2 my knowledge--said NOTHING. That's lurking.
Because he came online one time and didn't post?
Yes. Isnt that enough?
What about Kise's reaction was scummy?
Concern. Cation over being called a lurker.
Looking at every detail of the game,
AKA, showing scrutiny, ripping posts apart piece by piece, trying to find scum slips everywhere,
pointing out picky scummy actions by half the players in the game,
Which is the correct course of action; would u rather have me IGNORE scum tells? Yea, right.
and calling the lurkers
On players with NO PRIOR HISTORY OF LURKING, which is the correct course of action if u want 2 find scum.
of all people scum
If ppl do something scummy, they r more likely 2 b scum.
is NOT scumhunting.
Alright, then if what i am doing isn't scum hunting, if what i am doing isn't trying to find inconsistencies, trying to weed out the scum, trying to point out scummy comments, trying to point out flat-out scumslips, trying to point out voting patterns, trying to find lurkers who have no prior history of doing so...isn't scum hunting...
THEN WHAT THE FRAK IS?!?
No lynching and letting the boosted power roles do the work?
Exactly my concern.
But the thing is, ur not backing up this accusation with proof. I've stated my motivations:
Using every tool at my disposal to scum hunt.
Got a problem with that?
Then ask the scum to flat-out claim scum and give up.
More seriously, three words:
Live with it.
This is how scum r caught.
See, here's the "oh look at me, the TOWNIE" thing again.
1: Again, u deny it, but i see rolefishing.
2: I am town. If I were lynched, or night-killed, what would you do?
You'd kno my scum hunting attempts were legit.
What's the problem with stating that?
What's the problem with asking u what u'd do, then?
Not necessarily.
"Not necessarily" is NOT a denial of the fact. It is stating that it might not b 100%, but u r not stating that it isn't, now, r u?
I have seen several times where a player who is usually active lurks as town.
And goes hours w/o posting, WHILE LOGGED ON?!? <_<
In fact, this usually comes from town who has no time for the game.
If some1 doesnt have the time 2 play, THEY SHOULDNT B PLAYING AND SHOULD ASK 4 REPLACEMENT.
log on and conveniently not post newhere.
I've personally been in that situation before.
Link.
And I still don't see how Semi was lurking.
Logged on, NON STOP 4 HOURS, W/O SAYING NETHING, AND THEN DENYING HAVING BEEN ON THE WHOLE TIME. That ring any bells?
How's that NOT lurking, then lying about it?
Um. I already explained this. Townie as in town aligned. Not as in vanilla.
So u say...
Different issue if I'm not mistaken.
No. They are 1 and the same. They came from the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT that YOU made against me.
Yeah, it was the willingness to do what it takes to win thing. Something different from this..
Honestly believing that winning from a game never getting out of the RVS as scum being dirty, cheap, and practically cheating, by extent, implies that what i did was a null tell, because what i was doing was meant 2 get us out of the RVS, which u said that scum wouldnt want, at which point, i argued they would, at which point, u said it wouldnt b cheating, at which point, i said it would feel like cheating, at which point, u said it seemed like i honestly believed what i said, which implies that i honestly believe that winning a game that never leaves the RVS as scum would b practically cheating, which would mean that--even as scum--i would want 2 get out of the RVS, which would mean what i did was NOT intended 2 be pro-town, which would mean that my efforts were a null tell.
It's a huge circle of logic, sure, but it's the way i see it. U can't say that i honestly believe that winning a game that never left the RVS as scum would b a cheap, dirty tactic...without implying that i also believed my actions 2 b a null tell, because it was my intention from the actions 2 get us out of the RVS, a null tell.
And so on and so forth.
See the logic, now?
Ok, this is a deliberate TWIST OF WORDS here.
No, it is not. It is my interpretation of ur words.
There's a difference between the two.
Twisting words would b a deliberate course of action.
Interpreting them and stating said interpretation is showing u what i thought u were saying.
I said you genuinely believe that playing fair is the only satisfying way to win.
Okay, what I said:
ConsM wrote:Even if it violates your moral code?
Even if it'd be a cheap, dirty tactic?
Even if it'd be just above cheating?
No.
That's not how mafia is supposed to b played.
Mafia's full of deception, sure.
But some lines u just shouldnt cross.
And i was responding 2
KMD wrote:Play to win. Take the win any way you can get it.
And ur response was...
ConsM, yes, anything that isn't cheating is ok in a mafia game. I've used tactics here that SA considers cheating just because they are allowed here (T/D although it failed, toxx clauses several times, etc.) You seem to honestly believe that's wrong though, so I'm willing to drop it.
If i believe that taking a win any way u can get it is wrong--which never leaving the RVS would b--then me wanting 2 get out of it would b a null tell, not a town tell, not a scum tell.
Can u see the logic behind this?
I NEVER SAID that you genuinely believe EVERYTHING that you say.
But by saying I genuinely believed part of the argument, WHICH IS RELATED TO THE OTHER PART, u r essentially saying that i genuinely believed the other part of the argument as well.
ConsM wrote:
This makes no sense--
I'd say it (Getting out of the RVS) was pro-town 2 do...if i were pro-town?
That seems 2 b the opposite of the truth, in my mind.
Um? You aren't protown? Scumclaim? XD
I fail 2 see how. U said that I'd b saying that getting out of the RVS was pro-town to do if i were pro-town.
I said it seems like the opposite of the truth. My fault 4 not elaborating, in that it seems like that what would really happen is that saying it's pro-town to get out of the RVS would be the pro-scum thing to do, and not mentioning it at all would be the null to pro-town (depending on ppl's opinions) thing 2 do.
I've avoided posting in games for a few days at a time where I've been town.
U r not Semi. It is entirely possible that Semi's different, and is truly lurking as scum when having not done so as town.
If someone falls behind and is too lazy to catch up, it will happen.
THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS LURKING.
Lurking is watching the game thread, yet not posting. Being online for HOURS yet failing 2 post falls into this category.
Falling behind is falling behind, meaning that they're behind, and not up to speed. (Like a replacement, for example, is the number of pages the game is, pages behind when first starting to play.)
ConsM wrote:
"You are online, not posting, a lurker, and scum. *Vote*".
1: Again, proven this false b4.
2: If i saw some1 known 4 lurking online in this game (say, Killa seven logged on but not posting if K7 was playing this game), i would point it out, but note how they're known 4 doing it and that it's a null tell. This does NOT apply to the players who i've accused of lurking.
Are you saying you are known for lurking?
HOW THE HECK DID U COME TO
CONCLUSION?!?
I said that I had proven false your assumption of my attitude,
"You are online, not posting, a lurker, and scum. *Vote*".
And then moved onto my next point, explaining how if I saw someone known for lurking who is a player in our game logged on but not posting...I'd point it out, but note that they're known for doing it, that it's a null tell, albeit anti-town.
This did NOT apply to players who I accused of lurking, because they are NOT known 4 doing it. Kise is extremely active in his games (I made the accusation, but apparently, we simulposted. :/), and Semi has no previous history of lurking. Hence, they're not a player like Killa Seven, the example given, and do not get written off, instead, get attention drawn towards them.
I saw that as the most likely way to catch scum boosting their buddy.
It seems 2 have possibly caught u...
It's been shown as false anyway, but if you want to agree with my theory and show why it's true, feel free to suspect me for having greens on me.
I do.
But how is that a scumslip?
The fact that u said that green would b most likely scum boosting their buddy, and u have TWO green on u.
Would I really go "hey guys! I'm scum with Emp and BC!"
The DEFINITION of a scum slip is something that helps reveal to the town that a player is scum, through an accidental post. Even the best players on MS.net have been known 2 scumslip.
Players like DGB aren't immune to them.
No, u would not INTENTIONALLY go "hey guys! I'm scum with Emp and BC!". U might do it accidentally, via a scum slip, and this is what u appear 2 have done imo.
No. I wouldn't.
Intentionally? That's pretty much against practically any mod's rules.
Accidentally?
It's possible, via scum slips.
Because I came up with a Tajo/Sajin connection which I don't really believe too strongly,
Explain y not.
so I discredited most of it.
Y?
That's a lot of suspects...
i prefer more rather than less.
Prozac, opinions?
Y specifically Porochaz?
OGML wrote:Kise, Tajo make sense as ConsM scumpartners.
Interesting opinion, considering how i am attacking Kise...
Sometimes, i really want 2 kill Emp IRL, 4 being Emp. Stuff like this is incredibly anti-town in nature, but, well...is just Emp. :/
Porochaz wrote:I much prefer the Cons.M wagon, however whether thats because he's bugged me stupid the last 11 pages or he's actually scummy Ive yet to decide.
Say hello to scum suspect #9...
At least he redeems himself...
Still, i will b keeping my eye on Porochaz. (And a closer eye on Cateraction.)
Papa Zito wrote:First of all: Slayer's gambit
Hey! One of my favorite moves!
@Misstake: I'm not pushing his lynch, I'm pushing his wagon.
Uh, rnt the 2 one and the same? :/
OGML wrote:ConsM is legitimately scummy
Early-on?
Sure; thats intentional.
Later on?
Only if u listen 2 KMD's nonsense, which i just blew full of holes.
Kmd has explained why in clear terms
And i have clearly shot that down.
Give Mufasa some credit: The reasoning is better than the last vote.
...But still not good reasoning at all, in my opinion.
Zito wrote:since he's basically just going berserk.
Berserk? I am not a Viking. <_<
Mufasa is the scummiest to me so far, with Wiirdo a close second
Mufasa's second 2 me, Wiirdo's at 3rd.
Lurk more, Semi. It'll only confirm my suspicions of you.
A lack of response means it's true.
Poptajo wrote:Consonant is very likely town and his wagon is a joke.
They seem 2 b serious, but, really, come on...
Kise wrote:But KMD pretty much did him in with that last counter-post.
That would b due 2 the fact that u havent seen the counter-counter post. U need 2 hear both sides of the argument, u kno...
KMD wrote:I think I get OGML's stance on Mufasa. ConsM is pretty scummy.
Add buddying to the list of accusations against KMD.
Of course, the other option is that Mufasa is scum and ConsM is town. But it just doesn't read as bussing on Mufasa's part, so at least one of the two is town. ConsM is just so scummy that it makes Mufasa kind of townie.
This is a false dilemma fallacy.
He actually does seem to be posting some unrelated stuff
You have.
Kise has.
Miss Take did a little.
Who here HASN'T posted some unrelated stuff?
Who here NEVER posts unrelated stuff in their games?
Ur lying if u answer yes 2 the second 1.
EVERY1 posts some unrelated stuff from time to time.
It's the AMOUNT that counts.
and not scumhunting.
i am doing as much scum hunting as i can without using PBPA's. Want them, even at this stage in the game? (Read: Early-on day one, from ME of all ppl.)
Like I said before, he is only lurkerhunting
And as i have countered, "lurker hunting" is only PART of scum hunting; it is also metagaming (in Semi's case) and using a classic scum tell, fear.
And he did go inactive for a little while.
Two words:
So. What?
We ALL do.
Show me a poster who doesn't have at least some bursts of inactivity and i'll be amazed. It's not a scum tell. It's a busy-with-other-matters tell, a null tell.
but his behavior is scummy
Only if ppl listen 2 what ur saying w/o listening 2 my counter-arguments.
Caught up to Tajo's 295.
