Porochaz (2) <-~ farside22, Zachrulez
Sotty7 (3) <-~ Locke Lamora, Porochaz, Jack
Charlie (1) <-~ ChannelDelibird
MagnaofIllusion (1) <-~ imkingdavid
Zajnet (1) <-~ MagnaofIllusion
Jack (2) <-~ Sando, Sotty7
Sando (1) <-~ Charlie
Porochaz wrote:I haven't liked a thing sotty has said so far.
unvote vote sotty
my head hurts and cries all in oneSotty7 wrote:It's not an RVS vote, why would you think that? I clearly asked you a serious question about being serious. You seriously replied and I seriously voted.
...Seriously.
How is A scummy exactly? Why would scum try this and make themselves known?Sotty7 wrote:If you want to point out exactly how IKD was rolefishing I'm willing to listen, but right now you are either:
A) Seriously making a mountain out of a molehill, which is scummy and earns my vote.
or
B) Playing some kind of early gambit to draw votes.
AgreedSotty7 wrote:My issue with Poro at the moment is how long it took for him to vote me. He mentions a couple of times that he doesn't like me but it takes awhile for him to shift his vote over. Almost as if he was testing the waters.
However, the reason I'm not voting for him right now is because his view of events is plausible, in that he could have genuinely not understood my reasoning surrounding my Jack Vote. He could have been confused.
How is it being defensive? It's the truth. Also being defenssive isn't a scum tell.Jack Post 72 wrote:"right now I don't have a better place for my vote" <--SCUM BEING DEFENSIVE
Pretty sure I haven't complained about the pressure on me. But I am surprised by the negative reaction some pressure on you considering the silly rolefishing claim you made that is now all but forgotten.Jack Post 72 wrote:"what's the big deal with a little pressure" <-- Look at all of sotty's excuses for her vote and how it isn't a big deal, and then see how they apply 10x better to the people pressuring her. But scum take things personal like that.
If I really wanted to shift pressure I would have voted him. I wanted his scum meta in this thread so if I die and he lurks there is some reference that should provide pressure.Jack Post 72 wrote:"I'd like to point out that zach is lurking" <-- AKA "LET'S SHIFT ATTENTION OFF OF ME PLEASE, HOW ABOUT SOME PRESSURE ON THE PAGE 3 LURKERS"
How?Jack Post 72 wrote:"rest of sotty's posts"<-- SCUM TIPTOEING
I'd like to think he wouldn't make it that easy for me, right? He is up on my list right now though.MagnaofIllusion Post 73 wrote:So you call out Zach for lurking as Scum Meta and then undercut your own argument?
It's scummy if Jack was seriously trying to produce a bandwagon on Sando for the whack rolefishing claim. Scum play the game like the rest of us, some try and stay under the radar, some lurk, some are right in your face. I'm not going to dismiss something just because it seems too outrageous, especially not when it fits the personality of said player.farside22 Post 76 wrote:How is A scummy exactly? Why would scum try this and make themselves known?
In your next post you need to show me a game where Zach is scum and is active. When I say active I mean Zachrulez active in that he posts constantly about everyone and everything, not waiting to be called out.Locke Lamora Post 78 wrote:Sotty's 'look over here, Zach's lurking' post feels off to me. It's not that she isn't right about Zach-scum (in my experience, anyway), it's the way she was almost apologetic about bringing it up this early. I think I'll leave my vote there.
Yes it does lack a Shotty vote since he isn’t playing this game. It also lacks a Sotty vote. I’m not one to vote-hop like a pinball machine. Thus my vote on zajnet is going to sit there until I have a firm suspicion I want to apply pressure to.Jack wrote:magna that post lacks a shotty vote. Why do you still have your vote parked on zajnet?
Why only bring Zach’s scum meta to the discussion? Is he the only one that has an easily identifiable meta? And why if you die would he be the obvious culprit?Sotty wrote:I wanted his scum meta in this thread so if I die and he lurks there is some reference that should provide pressure.
Can you show examples of said games that ‘disprove’ the scum meta read that Sotty is presenting? No, I’m not going to hunt through your Wiki for them.Zach wrote:Also I have had active scum games, granted they are not common. I have also had less active town games, granted they are also not common.
I realize it is a tough break for you seeing as I know your habits personally, but I don't have such inmate knowledge of anyone else. Would be nice if the others post more but your probably the one player I can get a really good read on as long as I don't second guess myself. Poking you early will help me figure this out.Zachrulez wrote:Anyway you seem quite focused on me when it comes to lurking, but I should point out that you've pretty much ignored everyone else who didn't really post all that much yesterday.
Anyone else reading this as a fluff post that was said at least 3 times in this game by others?Locke Lamora wrote:Sotty's 'look over here, Zach's lurking' post feels off to me. It's not that she isn't right about Zach-scum (in my experience, anyway), it's the way she was almost apologetic about bringing it up this early. I think I'll leave my vote there.
I think Poro's view of Sotty's vote on Jack is fair. I see where he's coming from and I don't think it's scummy.
Porochaz wrote: Sotty doesn't have a good post thus far. Particularly the first 3, a vote with no explanation, a seriously gimmicky serious post and a stupid question.
I'm trying not to reread that post that hurt my head but this was his original reasoning which is lacking wouldn't you say?Porochaz wrote:I haven't liked a thing sotty has said so far.
unvote vote sotty
Well I guess that puts things in a clearer light. This is why I don't like being on the dark about these sorts of things.Sotty7 wrote:Manga, Zach and myself are married, maybe that will answer your question. Basically he is the only one who's meta read I can trust, that is until he stabs me in the back with it.
Off the top of my head. Newbie 846, 859, and 885 are games where I was active as scum. Mini 734 and Open 124 are games I recall being lurky as town. It's a pretty small blip in the game record as a whole.MagnaofIllusion wrote:
Can you show examples of said games that ‘disprove’ the scum meta read that Sotty is presenting? No, I’m not going to hunt through your Wiki for them.
Ummm, what? I'm accusing him of doing the EXACT OPPOSITE. You say he does things that look scummy, I'm saying he's doing things in a deliberate attempt to look town.Farside wrote:You obviously never played with Jack. I dubbed him the person to always do something scummy for reaction purposes. It's why I like playing with him. He gets the game going that way.
Did you read locke's comment about your vote? He stated he liked your reason my point is more on what he stated.Porochaz wrote:Farside, do you feel on page 3, I should have extensive reasoning to my votes?
I would say based on the few votes from others that some don't agree with your view on that.sando wrote: Ummm, what? I'm accusing him of doing the EXACT OPPOSITE. You say he does things that look scummy, I'm saying he's doing things in a deliberate attempt to look town.
For the reason's that Jack stated I would say it was rediculous. The votes on him and reasoning was by far more scummy and a stretch hence my questions and comments towards others that voted for Jack.Sando wrote:So you're saying that accusing someone of rolefishing really early in the game is in fact normally seen as scummy, and therefore fits within Jacks meta?
Sando wrote:Wait, you're saying that people had to 'stretch' to accuse someone of scumminess when you yourself say his reasoning was 'rediculous'...
Uh huh.
I'm voting Jack and have provided reasoning. I assumed I was included in your very general comment.Farside wrote:For the reason's that Jack stated I would say it was rediculous. The votes on him and reasoning was by far more scummy and a stretch hence my questions and comments towards others that voted for Jack.