Well, your assurance is good enough for me.
*Devours the cookie in a distinctly non-lycanthropic, non-mafioso sort of fashion* Move along. Nothing to see here, just a badger with a cookie.
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.
A late confirmation is null tell. I know people have lives outside in the RL. If someone confirmed late it's for any reason and all reasons.Scien wrote:Good legitimate conversation already.
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.
That's why I chose the word 'odd' and not scummy. There is no way to derive meaning from this... so I can't attribute scum points for it.
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.
Just for record are you claiming that the late confirm is scummy? Or the fact that the random voter didn't mention the late confirm? (Yes, this is in addition to you claiming that me not pushing it is scummy too, I understand that.)
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.
Don't play mind games or twist my words sir. I don't not appriecate it.Scien wrote: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.
Your views are all over the place if I am reading this right. What was a good thought? How was it a good thought? If its a null tell, why do you want me to aggressively pursue it?
You are not making sense lady.
Here let me try and ask this question again since you missed it the first time:
Your previous posts made it sound like me mentioning it was a good thought that I should have pursued. Which thought? The thought about the late confirm? Or the thought about the random vote on a non-confirmed and not mentioning it? Please clarify what you are talking about so we know what to talk about.
I should have known better but it feels weird going back into mafia after being gone so long I feel green behind the ears and giggly like a school kid with my first kiss.Nikanor wrote: @farside: I'm glad to see you didn't play that newbcard you decided to give yourself. You would be my vote right now were it not for your attacks on Scien.
Oh hecks no, I Just Say No to scumminess. Townie 4 Life and all that.Maemuki wrote:@ Electric, so you're most definitely not a villain, right? xP
Erm...you're calling him out for not doing something you'd find scummy? This is even worse than Scien's vague suspicion thing.Nik wrote:@farside: I'm glad to see you didn't play that newbcard you decided to give yourself. You would be my vote right now were it not for your attacks on Scien.
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?
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.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 >.<
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.If my two phrases were weak, why do you suggest an aggressive case? What is the townie benefit of aggressively pushing a weak case?
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.
Please don't condescend me. I can do it too but I"m much more mean about it.Scien wrote: You didn't answer my questions... again. I know you are trying to keep the pressure up on me, but please do try and address my counter concerns if you truly are pro-town:
If my two phrases were weak, why do you suggest an aggressive case? What is the townie benefit of aggressively pushing a weak case?
This was said after your first comments.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.
Then you try the old Lets put words in someone's mouth trick: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.
Then you avoid comments I noticed. This all in the first 2 pages folks. Just in case you thought you had a lot to read.Just for record are you claiming that the late confirm is scummy? Or the fact that the random voter didn't mention the late confirm? (Yes, this is in addition to you claiming that me not pushing it is scummy too, I understand that.)
...rather than RVS? I think it's obvious. So why did you choose as you did, Scien?Scien wrote:What is the townie benefit of aggressively pushing a weak case?
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?
This sounded to me like hmmm why would someone vote random for someone who is not confirmed.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 >.<
Again you don't call it weak here. You call it WIFOM but you go and say that it's really WIFOM. Why would you bring up something you felt was WIFOM in the first place? Why would you casually throw it out their but then just again back off on it like it was nothing?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.
This made me LOL. If I have been condescending I appologize. I'm just finding things you say a bit flippant. As well as the fact you focas on one comment but you note I keep saying weak. You want to twist this like I was the one capatizling on a weak statement, which I did not. I asked why you were not aggressive on it.Scien wrote: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 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