Jack (1) <-~ Ythan
Ythan (1) <-~ Jack
vollkan (2) <-~ Sando, jasonT1981
Not voting (3) <-~ Locke Lamora, Porochaz, Zajnet
Jack wrote:Oh jason. If I hadn't mislynched you once before.
jasonT1981 wrote:Actually... reading over supreme court, he played similar there to his early play in this game.
unvote: Jack
Can someone explain the "HUGE difference" between these to me?MagnaofIllusion wrote:I’m going to agree. My experience with Jack shows exactly this behaviour.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.
This is magna's description of my quote. Why is my bringing up supreme court a reference to "a game that has no bearing on jason's alignment"? That's an outright dismissal of meta.“I mislynced you once in another game that has no bearing on your alignment here, so you must be Town”
In the alternative vote game which you linked to his was mislynched day 1 (not by me, I was voting scum).magna wrote:You didn’t reference other games where Jason plays the same. Just a single outlier. Have you played in other games where Jason was mislynched playing like he is?
Jack in stardust mafia wrote:Will post again soon explaining why magna is scum.
I was defending zang-scum for bad meta reasons at that point in the game too, the "this person isn't as scummy as they think he is because he's often scummy ------ mentally putting them in the town pile" is a bit of a mental trap that I can fall into.Jack in stardust mafia wrote:It's possible that magna is town and simply jumps on the rhetoric-train for no good reason.
What? My post quite clearly states that HE had said the he had caught up.Vollkan wrote:Prozac had been abundantly clear that he was RL-busy. Yes, he should have caught up properly by that. But he clearly hadn't, at least to the point of being able to post. That sucks, it's anti-town, and it simply spreads the cancer that is lurking, etc etc - but it isn't scummy.
This post is today, wednesday.Zajnet wrote:Whoops, got prodded. Time flies when I'm taking 16 hours of honors courses >.> speaking of which, gotta run to one of them. I'll post a catch-up post and some analysis later tonight.
But he obviously isn't busy with coursesjasonT1981 wrote:I dont dispute him being busy with courses, I know how busy you can get when doing stuff like that. My final year nearly everything was sacrificed to get it done, social life... games etc. I had little time to do anything else.
How recent was Trader mafia though? Maybe he has just taken on too many games and is suffering for that.
Looked at Zachrulez and he inned to IC on August 23rd. Read his post before you call out liarsjasonT1981 wrote:I caught this earlier, but didnt post as I wanted to check somethings out first before posting anything concrete.farside22 wrote:
I really don't know why zach replaced. He's in other gamesand it bothers me when I see someone being pressured who replaces out of the blue
Hmmm this is actually a lie designed to make the role I have replaced in, look even scummier. Zachrulez is not actually involved in any active games. the only games he is in... is a hydra account with Sotty herself. However, the Zachrulez account IS NOT currently playing any games. So this is a barefaced lie.
Major FOS: Farside
My catch-up read focussed, as should be obvious, on posts that I found scummy, that I found interestnig, or that I wanted to mark for possible scum-link purposes.Jason wrote: In his catch up read through, I would think he would have noticed my day 1 suspicion of Jack. As well as continued suspicion on Day 2 early on when I questioned him for his roleclaim.. and a possible retraction of the claim. I am not sure if his post was an actual retraction or not.. His declaring Charlie Obv town at start of day2 but did nothing on day 1 to say that.
That made no sense to me. If you had other reasons for voting Jack, fine, but my default assumption is that each voting post will either be clearly linked to earlier suspicion or contain the basis for the suspicion within it. Yours had neither and I didn't have your background suspicion in my head. Having done what for me is a relatively fast read, I wasn't au fait with anything that I hadn't specifically committed to memory in my notes (ie attacked).Jason wrote: Jack, I will vote when I am good and ready to vote, not when you demand it... alright? good.
Also, if Jack is pushing me so much? why is his vote not on me?
don't buy it
vote:Jack
How so?Jack wrote: Yeah I think those are very valid criticisms of vollkan's catchup posts, and signs of fakery. fos:vollkan
You'll notice throughout my read I make notes of possible scumlinks. That was one (because of there being an argument between you two that made little sense to me from Jason's end and resulted in a vote that made little sense; it seemed confected).Jack wrote: You have me at the lowest, right? But Jasons vote looks like distancing?
Because individually I don't find you scummy. What is it that you find problematic about the idea that I can not suspect you as an individual but also be looking out for possible signs of scumlinks between you and others?Jack wrote: So why am I at 50?
The case against Prozac as I see it is basically that he is being 'inactive'. He's raised valid RL issues. As somebody who has become inactive/passive in many games over his time because of RL committments, I have a firm position that somebody in a situation like Prozac's is NOT scummy. Farside, the fact that you can post despite having issues of your own is relevant for your meta, but entirely irrelevant to the question ofFarside wrote: 3) I don't know volkan's play style per say. I don't understand the final number and how porochaz is so low. I don't care about RL issues I have my own and I can still come on and scum hunt
His post said he had "caught up", but he also said he didn't have scumreads. In a situation where you know as a matter of FACT that he is busy, it is ridiculous to think that he should therefore have proper suspicions formed. It's very easy to read a game, without having all the benefits that come from being an active player, and not be able to find anybody scummy, particularly where, as was clearly the case with Prozac, you are otherwse busySando wrote:What? My post quite clearly states that HE had said the he had caught up.Vollkan wrote:Prozac had been abundantly clear that he was RL-busy. Yes, he should have caught up properly by that. But he clearly hadn't, at least to the point of being able to post. That sucks, it's anti-town, and it simply spreads the cancer that is lurking, etc etc - but it isn't scummy.
Saying you are caught up, but have no opinion, is scummy.
He's slacking off in this game. His "attacks" on others are highly questionable to downright lazy or at the very least not full of anything worthwhile.The case against Prozac as I see it is basically that he is being 'inactive'. He's raised valid RL issues. As somebody who has become inactive/passive in many games over his time because of RL committments, I have a firm position that somebody in a situation like Prozac's is NOT scummy. Farside, the fact that you can post despite having issues of your own is relevant for your meta, but entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Prozac is scum in this game. I don't like the way he is playing and I wish he would post more, but that doesn't make it scummy.
Where did Jason say he has RL issues?farside22 wrote:He's slacking off in this game. His "attacks" on others are highly questionable to downright lazy or at the very least not full of anything worthwhile.The case against Prozac as I see it is basically that he is being 'inactive'. He's raised valid RL issues. As somebody who has become inactive/passive in many games over his time because of RL committments, I have a firm position that somebody in a situation like Prozac's is NOT scummy. Farside, the fact that you can post despite having issues of your own is relevant for your meta, but entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Prozac is scum in this game. I don't like the way he is playing and I wish he would post more, but that doesn't make it scummy.
At the end of day 1 he stated he reread the game and had no scum suspect.
Put the fact that RL issues is find and dandy I have had to replace do to RL issues but my main issue with Poro is his lack of scum hunting or offering anything of value which is why he is still on my scum list.
Those defending him while attacking others who state they are busy with RL issues (looks to Jason) gives me a connection I'm not backing off of.
So, uh, where did I accuse Poro of lurking like you claimed I did?Vollkan wrote:His post said he had "caught up", but he also said he didn't have scumreads. In a situation where you know as a matter of FACT that he is busy, it is ridiculous to think that he should therefore have proper suspicions formed. It's very easy to read a game, without having all the benefits that come from being an active player, and not be able to find anybody scummy, particularly where, as was clearly the case with Prozac, you are otherwse busy
If by "lurking" you mean "not posting", then you didn't accuse of him of that. And I've been clear in all my elaboration posts that my problem was with you attacking him for actively lurking. An attack on active lurking isn't necessarily scummy, but it is (at least to the tune of +1) where it is on a player who quite clearly been not playing properly for legitimate reasons.Sando wrote:So, uh, where did I accuse Poro of lurking like you claimed I did?Vollkan wrote:His post said he had "caught up", but he also said he didn't have scumreads. In a situation where you know as a matter of FACT that he is busy, it is ridiculous to think that he should therefore have proper suspicions formed. It's very easy to read a game, without having all the benefits that come from being an active player, and not be able to find anybody scummy, particularly where, as was clearly the case with Prozac, you are otherwse busy