Panzerjager wrote:Sundy wrote:I know nobody liked the idea of a Panzerjager wagon last time, but I thought I would bring it up again.
Number 378: Requests self-vig from someone who would prove they are telling the truth by performing this vig
Number 386: Says that Elfen replacement cannot change what Elfen did, even though
earlier he said that there is no real evidence either way on Elfen
Number 395: Votes xvart saying, "did not even notice all that." notice what!? Hoppster made a long defensive post that basically reiterated what he already posted, so what new is there to gain? Called out on this by SK and Xvart, gives
weak defense
Number 447: FOS on Hiplop with some
weird views on meta & sample sizes
TO SUM UP
: did anyone really follow his train of thought with the votes on Xvart, CC, and now Hiplop??
1) Empking suggested the self-vig first. I went with it. That sorts out those fake vig claims really quick, especially from a player as scummy as Toro.
2) I don't like replacements in general. They are a necessary but heavy burden. Elfen was straight unreadable because he was an idiot. I don't care if fucking Yosarian or Glork replace in, they aren't gonna make Elfen less of an idiot, even if they play the straight up townest game one can play. The spot is still tainted. And If we choose to clear the idiocy, we could be giving the scum a pass and the game. This is an awkward view, but (since you are on about meta too) meta me. I think PBuG and most other players who have played with me(which is still most the game) can attest to the fact that I hold replacement spots as far more scummy then regular spots. Most people that replace out are either caught scum or someone who never showed up in the beginning. Also, we established that Toro should be shooting Jakesh.
3) I don't think those are weird views. You can't predict behavior based on such a small sample size. If I get in a fight when I'm drunk, it's unfair to assume I always fight when i'm drunk based on one incident. Why do you think psychologist use samples of 100s even 1000s in their studies? Because 1 incident doesn't mean there is a correalation. Also didn't we go over the weird=/=scummy thing before(this applies to 2 and 3)?
Also, is tunneling the only thing you stop lurking to do?
1) This makes no sense. The problem with self-vigging is obvious - if they are lying, they will not do it, and if they are telling the truth they SHOULDN'T do it. I also don't see why you bring up the fact that EK suggested it first. How is that at all relevant to your actions?
2) I agree with you here (see the fact that Elfen's replacement keeps ELfen's points).Though, I don't think you are really responding to Sundy's points which is that you "Says that Elfen replacement cannot change what Elfen did, even though...he said that there is no real evidence either way on Elfen".
Hiplop wrote:
Vollkan wrote: I don't get how you can not like meta and yet be prepared to make a meta argument based off only a couple of games. Normally, not liking meta would make you even more obsessed with getting a comprehensive set of data, but here you are judging panzer based on almost nothing...
I didn't make an argument about it though, i mentioned it quickly in one of my reads. The main things i was looking at were his posts, hes blowing things out of proportion.
Hiplop+5
Focusses on the semantics ("It wasn't an argument!") rather than on the main point - which is quite clearly that his attitude on meta is inconsistent.
(Also, FWIW, an argument is any set of premise/s leading to a conclusion. For example:
- Premise 1 : He plays a certain way as scum.
- Premise 2: He isn't playing that way here
- Conclusion: Therefore, he isn't scum here)
Xvart wrote:
Scum motivated behaviors you have exhibited:
1. Changing reads that coincide with wagon momentum;
2. Attacking the attacker and not the attack;
3. Justifying actions after the fact with information not available and unprovable;
4. Knowing someone's town alignment;
5. Directing a possible vig kill to a single individual; and,
6. Mismatched suspicions and voting (debatable).
What's puzzling me here is that your initial case convinced me, but Hoppster's rebuttal seemed clear enough. However, I am now worried that, not having the ability to keep up with your walls (I've been reading them, but it's just hard to follow), I am missing something important on hoppster. It especially concerns me because the sort of tells you are identifying are precisely the type that I consider most important as scumtells.
