Umbrage wrote:Now who's misrepresenting? I cut out those lines to avoid confusion, so my argument would be clear. I was concerned with clarity, not showing the quotes in their entirety.
You cut out lines for clarity, yes.
But what about those mahoosive bolded text inside quotes?
That's certainly not cutting for clarity.
I've seen other people do the bold inside quotes thing before, and I think it's an easy and convenient way to respond while keeping the entire conversation intact. If you think it's too hard to read, I can stop, but nobody's complained yet.
I'll explain it to you. You have to get someone else to understand it for you.
Umbrage wrote:If you think it's too hard to read, I can stop, but nobody's complained yet.
smargaret wrote:Umbrage, the way you're formatting your posts makes it hard to tell which bits are yours, and impossible to reply to just your responses. Would you consider ending the quote where you feel the need to reply and then re-quoting for the next bit of text please?
But putting that to one side
Umbrage wrote:I've seen other people do the bold inside quotes thing before, and I think it's an easy and convenient way to respond while keeping the entire conversation intact.
Umbrage wrote:I cut out those lines to avoid confusion, so my argument would be clear. I was concerned with clarity, not showing the quotes in their entirety.
Why are you sometimes concerned with clarity and brevity (cutting lines) and sometimes keeping the entire quote? Inconsistent posting style could be indicative of nefarious motives behind your responses which impacts on how you shape them. I'll be looking at these deviations and see if I can detect any secret scum reasons behind the decisions in each case. Dun dun dunn.
Weigh-in on vanilla townie possibility: If this is a standard setup of 3 mafia/1 cop/1 doc, then the odds are in favor of Jack being a vanilla townie. That's why it seems plausible to me. I don't see why Jack would be cop or doc if he is town. The famous character doesn't just get to be a power role by default. Anyway, since there is no way of verifying the claim and Shadow's posts seem scummy to me, my vote will remain in place.
What's up. I'll need a couple days layover time due to a busy schedule, but I'll read during that time and try to come in with a bang by Sunday. I'll at least try to make one big post by tonight, though.
when I said that in some places you included the entire quotewall whereas in others you cut lines out.
It seemed odd since you were claiming to cut lines for a purpose (
other than
misrepresentation of the person you were quoting), but you had been happy to include a massive quotewall in previous responses. Actually, this feeds into the accusation (I think it was Britstep said it originally) about you missing parts out of Shadow/Nero Cain's response to MC near the start of the game.
I haven't had the time to comb through your posts yet, but I expect where you've cut it's been to spin something in your favour - so actually working against clarity. We'll see.
This game has stalled
should I just hammer shadow to get it moving again?
Papa Zito - "Your signature has been blanked...we remove signatures at a users request if said signature references them, or if it quotes from a thread in the Speakeasy, which is not allowed without permission of the poster"
Papa Zito - "Your signature has been blanked...we remove signatures at a users request if said signature references them, or if it quotes from a thread in the Speakeasy, which is not allowed without permission of the poster"
I've made it to page 10. As of then, my observations:
1. chesskid is scum
Reasoning: He always plays like this. I have two games of meta with him. In one he played just like this vice the mass nameclaim pushing, and was town.
2. NC is town
Reasoning: In LOTR Mafia he was SK and lurked the shit out of the game. He's actually taking positions in this one, instead of going after easy targets.
3. chesskid and Umbrage are opposite alignments
Reasoning: I don't think chesskid is good enough to pull off distancing that looks that good. If one flips scum the other is town IMO and vice versa.
Notice: THese views are subject to change, hence why I am not voting yet.
wait so
pushing mass nameclaim
makes me scum because i've never done it before?
EXCUSEEEEEEEEEEEEE ME?
Papa Zito - "Your signature has been blanked...we remove signatures at a users request if said signature references them, or if it quotes from a thread in the Speakeasy, which is not allowed without permission of the poster"
@chess: No matter how easily a name can be linked to a role in any game, massclaiming in any way D1 is not advantageous to the town. Only scum need to look for PRs.
I've got to page 13. New observations:
1. +scumpoints to chesskid. Shadow made a good criticism of his play, meaning, avoiding questions/accusations/meaningful content and relying on personal attacks as "activity."
2. Shadow and Umbrage having the same kind of idea makes me lean on them both being town. It better demonstrates a split between chesskid's and everyone else's play.
Chess's meta defense on page 15 is bad. Shadow calls him out on it sensibly and chess responds with a personal attack and restatement of the meta defense. It fits the theory I had formed early on, soon after I saw his request for a mass nameclaim: chess is scum playing to his meta. He redirects and deflects all accusations made against him as well as smokescreening with personal attacks disguised as "content." When all his deflections are exhausted he falls back to his meta-defense.
