In post 1298, Snow2697 wrote:
Fancy said Kay was never voting. This is not true, she replied to this.
He said I am scum on far-fetched grounds. I replied to this. Seems like he simply missed at least some of my posts.
My point is clear and convincing. Shall I keep jumping on him?
With all due respect, it is our job to decide whether your point is "clear and convincing", not yours. And you don't need my permission to pursue a case on anyone.
Here you are essentially just sheeping Kay's defense of herself. What, then, of Fancy's response that her votes are generally RVS / on inactive people? Is that a valid point, in your mind?
"Nothing can be further than the truth!" -George W. Bush
"I used to think you had this elegant-trolly, minimalist playstyle. Then I realized the playstyle is ~Lazy~
The true enlightenment was realizing that they are the same thing."
~fferyllt
"who the fuck fakeclaims Tracker like that
WHO THE FUCK DOES THAT"
~Alisae
This whole cherry-picking thing makes no sense to me.
His position in summary is close to mine, apart from Drew and myself. What shall I argue with? That Jackson and GiF are potential scums, where I think they are controversial?
Some of his points are close to mine. He thinks Roland's self-vote is an anti-town move. Ok. Didn't I say that Roland should simply vote against Drew?
And when I read his position on scummy me, which is not just a gut feeling, but is put as result of his analysis or review, and it is clear that his analysis or review is simply incomplete, since he missed (or forgot) something. Shall I go through all his posts one by one to make an obvious point, esp. after Kay did the same? Or I just make an obvious point with an obvious example?
In post 1298, Snow2697 wrote:
Fancy said Kay was never voting. This is not true, she replied to this.
He said I am scum on far-fetched grounds. I replied to this. Seems like he simply missed at least some of my posts.
My point is clear and convincing. Shall I keep jumping on him?
With all due respect, it is our job to decide whether your point is "clear and convincing", not yours. And you don't need my permission to pursue a case on anyone.
Here you are essentially just sheeping Kay's defense of herself. What, then, of Fancy's response that her votes are generally RVS / on inactive people? Is that a valid point, in your mind?
You can and should decide. And I can decide for myself on how I defend against an attack of someone who did not read my posts.
I agree with Fancy's response, but his case on Kay was that "finally you never vote". This is incorrect. Fancy's response just proves this.
Btw I thought I was going to be fine with eliminating N_M, but I keep getting cold feet over the fact that nobody actively tried to interact with N_M when he actually gave responses when asked. I understand the tension around the time when Gob was being forced replaced and why people would just push for N_M policy, but that tension should’ve died down by now and it keeps giving me cold feet that N_M is a mislim.
"I used to think you had this elegant-trolly, minimalist playstyle. Then I realized the playstyle is ~Lazy~
The true enlightenment was realizing that they are the same thing."
~fferyllt
"who the fuck fakeclaims Tracker like that
WHO THE FUCK DOES THAT"
~Alisae
In post 1305, Snow2697 wrote:
I can decide for myself on how I defend against an attack of someone who did not read my posts.
Sure. And I can decide that when a guy comments on all the major cases in the game, and you ignore all of those and only take interest in the ones that involve you, that's a scummy tell from you.
I agree with Fancy's response, but his case on Kay was that "finally you never vote". This is incorrect. Fancy's response just proves this.
You seem to be hung up on him saying "you never vote" which is clearly hyperbolic speech. It's harder to sort out if hyperbolic speech is truly scummy or if it's just town getting the facts wrong or perhaps just overconfidence, so that's not necessarily inherently a scum tell.
To me it just seems really hard for FancyPants to have faked what he did just now, and I think you are giving him far, far too little credit for what he did. I got through that and thought "this is very thorough, useful, and very difficult for scum to fake".
"Nothing can be further than the truth!" -George W. Bush
In post 1306, GuyInFreezer wrote:
Btw I thought I was going to be fine with eliminating N_M, but I keep getting cold feet over the fact that nobody actively tried to interact with N_M when he actually gave responses when asked.
That's not true. When he gave his reads, I asked him to explain them, and he pretty much just told me "no".
"Nothing can be further than the truth!" -George W. Bush
ATM my order of not-want-to-lim are as follows:
N_M > Snow > Fancy > Drew
I explained about N_M, and Snow I think is one of those players with exotic my-way trajectories, and by that I mean kind of a player whose posts make little sense that I don’t see them coming from scum. I already mentioned the 3-scum thing. 3-scum doesn’t make sense from the balance point of view, and if he’s scum, then he should know that 3-scum ain’t it. Also the whole Solon thing and not following the readlist when it comes to voting, I think… it’s too blatant? Yeah, blatant. I think it sums up the whole Snow’s play. It is definitely part playstyle thing, but yeah.
Fancy isn’t really hitting the town notes for me. Like I don’t see anything particularly scummy, but nothing particularly towny either. Almost feels like he’s playing carefully?
I keep going back and forth with Drew. At first I thought he was being impactful, but then it has fallen off. And then there was this part recently when I called for Drew flashwagon, he didn’t react to it until after I called it off, except for asking what cfd is. I think he would’ve at least given me a snark reply after learning what cfd is, and I don’t think he is the type to skip on any opportunities like that.
"I used to think you had this elegant-trolly, minimalist playstyle. Then I realized the playstyle is ~Lazy~
The true enlightenment was realizing that they are the same thing."
~fferyllt
"who the fuck fakeclaims Tracker like that
WHO THE FUCK DOES THAT"
~Alisae
In post 1305, Snow2697 wrote:
I can decide for myself on how I defend against an attack of someone who did not read my posts.
Sure. And I can decide that when a guy comments on all the major cases in the game, and you ignore all of those and only take interest in the ones that involve you, that's a scummy tell from you.
I agree with Fancy's response, but his case on Kay was that "finally you never vote". This is incorrect. Fancy's response just proves this.
You seem to be hung up on him saying "you never vote" which is clearly hyperbolic speech. It's harder to sort out if hyperbolic speech is truly scummy or if it's just town getting the facts wrong or perhaps just overconfidence, so that's not necessarily inherently a scum tell.
To me it just seems really hard for FancyPants to have faked what he did just now, and I think you are giving him far, far too little credit for what he did. I got through that and thought "this is very thorough, useful, and very difficult for scum to fake".
Please don't distort my posts. I don't scumread Fancy and he is still high on my list.
What happens here is that player A calls player B scum because of argument C which is based on B's posts (not gut feeling), where A clearly did not read all of B's posts and missed at least some. And when B defends and points this out he is accused of cherry-picking.
Seems like Malachai keeps pursuing his "double standards" agenda, which I really dislike.
In post 1306, GuyInFreezer wrote:
Btw I thought I was going to be fine with eliminating N_M, but I keep getting cold feet over the fact that nobody actively tried to interact with N_M when he actually gave responses when asked.
That's not true. When he gave his reads, I asked him to explain them, and he pretty much just told me "no".
"I used to think you had this elegant-trolly, minimalist playstyle. Then I realized the playstyle is ~Lazy~
The true enlightenment was realizing that they are the same thing."
~fferyllt
"who the fuck fakeclaims Tracker like that
WHO THE FUCK DOES THAT"
~Alisae
In post 1150, Not_Mafia wrote:
I'll provide explanations if I think it's appropriate
Why did DownBad drop that low
Have been very underwhelmed by LaToya, looking back I think I was just reading gob's naturally obstinate nature as town
In post 1220, Not_Mafia wrote:
KayJay all of a sudden falling back on "uWu little old newbie me doesn't know what's going on" posting when we're actually trying to build a consensus and need to elim someone has them plummeting down my readslist
@GuyInFreezer
From what I can tell, these are the only two real "responses" / clarifications of his reads that he has delivered.
The first, "I'm underwhelmed by Jackson", what is there to reply to here? He's just delivering his opinion but didn't give us anything to latch on to, no evidence, no real case other than just his opinion. Like he wrote the thesis statement of his English paper and then decided to omit the body. It shouldn't bother you that nobody engaged with this.
The second is worded in a really insulting and off-putting way. It reads more like malice than an actual take. So again, I don't know why you'd wonder why it was left alone.
"Nothing can be further than the truth!" -George W. Bush
If you actually wanted a flashwagon on Drew, you needed to have actually made a case for it. We aren't going to jump on a wagon just because someone asked us to.
"Nothing can be further than the truth!" -George W. Bush
You read Fancy as town, you read Kay as scum, right? And Fancy is making a case for why he thinks Kay is scum, which you would support. So, given all of that:
1) What is the point of accusing Fancy's contributions of "lacking substance"
2) Why scrutinize what he's saying about Kay's votes, if you think she's scum anyway?
I just really struggle to understand why you are doing any of what you are doing right now.
"Nothing can be further than the truth!" -George W. Bush
IMO Kay's voting simply illustrates my "lack of substance and attention" point. THis does not change my TR of Fancy and SR of Kay. I concur with Fancy here.
In post 1317, Snow2697 wrote:
IMO Kay's voting simply illustrates my "lack of substance and attention" point. THis does not change my TR of Fancy and SR of Kay. I concur with Fancy here.
Great, so then what's the point of talking about it, if it doesn't change your reads?
"Nothing can be further than the truth!" -George W. Bush
Granted, I only asked him few questions, but he did answer all the questions I answered. Plus, I don’t personally think the N_M’s uwu newbie thing that offensive, but I can’t speak for others.
Re: Drew cfd, you missed my point. I made it obvious that it was a joke (I said for funsies after all), and my point was that Drew’s reaction to it was unnatural.
"I used to think you had this elegant-trolly, minimalist playstyle. Then I realized the playstyle is ~Lazy~
The true enlightenment was realizing that they are the same thing."
~fferyllt
"who the fuck fakeclaims Tracker like that
WHO THE FUCK DOES THAT"
~Alisae
In post 1320, GuyInFreezer wrote:
Granted, I only asked him few questions, but he did answer all the questions I answered. Plus, I don’t personally think the N_M’s uwu newbie thing that offensive, but I can’t speak for others.
Re: Drew cfd, you missed my point. I made it obvious that it was a joke (I said for funsies after all), and my point was that Drew’s reaction to it was unnatural.
Okey den. Would you say you support a Drew elimination above any other today?
"Nothing can be further than the truth!" -George W. Bush
"I used to think you had this elegant-trolly, minimalist playstyle. Then I realized the playstyle is ~Lazy~
The true enlightenment was realizing that they are the same thing."
~fferyllt
"who the fuck fakeclaims Tracker like that
WHO THE FUCK DOES THAT"
~Alisae
