Edit: Gah
Edit Edit: Gah, gah!
I feel like this begs explanation. I don't think he's done anything indicative of alignment. What am I overlooking?In post 22, mozamis wrote:Rufflig looks town.
In post 95, Josh_B wrote:Sheeping is convenient. -for scum. How about I promise to vote exactly opposite on every one that you vote for except for the times that I come to the conclusion on my own that I should vote on the same person that you are voting for. And even then, it will be voting in opposition.
I was the one bantering with him - did my banter seem nervous and/or forced?In post 113, mozamis wrote:His early posts, particularly this one:In post 26, Squirrel Girl wrote:I feel like this begs explanation. I don't think he's done anything indicative of alignment. What am I overlooking?In post 22, mozamis wrote:Rufflig looks town.
all felt quite relaxed and "bantery". Doesn't seem at all nervous or forced.In post 17, The Rufflig wrote:It was a reference to the show called "The Awesomes" (catch it on Hulu - it's quite good), Aronis. The main character of which is Professor Doctor Jeremy "Prock"Awesome.
I must bow to Squirrel Girl's superior knowledge of comic book minutiae.
I don't think I have been. The game has been open for about three days. Not counting this post I have 10 posts, meaning I'm posting about 3.5 posts a day. I am the 5th most active player in the game from post count according to the little counter thing meaning there are 19 people I'm being more active then and making me top 25% for activity. I think you're actually just being silly or paranoid in thinking I'm quiet - or are applying unreasonable standards to how active I normally am.In post 131, Nero Cain wrote:Why are you so quiet this game Squirrel?
How did I seem spammy? In this game, at the point you called me out, I had 10 posts in 3 days. Last game we played together I took 8 days to get 10 posts. Looking at my habits I appear to post, on average, about 2-3 comments a day unless I get into something. That is all exactly in line with what I'm doing here. So, again, where are you getting this vibe from,a nd is there any actual value in it in your opinion? Or is it a fake presentation you're pushing on me?In post 134, Nero Cain wrote:In our last game you seemed sorta spammy. Talk to me about Yates and Piggey.
That's probably why I was voting one of them at that time, sweetie-poo dearie, and had done so quite quickly as soon as the opportunity presented itself.In post 150, Aunt Jemina wrote:You could have fixed this, deary, by voting one of the players already voted at that point in time.In post 36, Squirrel Girl wrote:It's amazing how far one can go in the RVS with people 'randomly' not managing to place a second vote on a given player.
I'mma gonna be in trouble this game.In post 156, ThAdmiral wrote:I know it sounds like a stupid point but it actuallydoeshave too many smilies and its disconcerting. It feels false/trying to appease.
No, I don't find pointing out the hyper meta to be scumhunting. Functionally you were attacked and defended yourself. Defense isn't scumhunting. I don't find this act scummy either, defending from an attack is pretty null, but it's not scumhunting. You rolled in and defended yourself and then spent some time trading barbs.In post 162, Yates wrote:So... noticing that someone is trying to hyper-meta and subsequently pointing that out isn't scum hunting to you? Conversely, care to share which of pidgey's posts looks like scum hunting to you? I checked his ISO. It's short. It's also pretty devoid of anything I recognize as scum hunting so it really begs the question about how you arrived at this determination...
It is to scum's advantage to push wagons that are not on them or their team.In post 165, ZZZX wrote:It is to scum's advantage to push wagons?
I'm aware that one person made a comment that they found excessive smilies to be a scumtell and said I'd be in trouble. A glance at any of my other games should show that my "smilie usage amount" is pretty consistent and constant, and I was making a joke about that. I am not aware of anyone calling 'excessive friendliness and terms of endearment' to be scummy. If the former...well, that person is probably just a sad person. And if the latter then they'll lynch the syrup lady long before they lynch me, so at least I'll have warning about it and can change my ways.In post 168, Umbrage wrote:so you understand that emoticons, excessive friendliness, and terms of endearment like "sweetie-poo dearie" will be seen as scummy, yet you amp it up and make a mention of how you're going to be in trouble this game
You're drawing attention to yourself, so then you can say "oh no I'm not scummy, that's just the way I post". Why? To get people off of pidgey?
One thing's for sure, what you're doing is anti-town, and it seems delibrate. Explain yourself please.
I can understand that's your stance. I disagree with you.In post 169, Yates wrote:Except if you actually read the posts, you'll see that my beef it isn't a defense - it's noticing meta. I would have said pretty much the same thing if he did this to about three other people off the top of my head. So, again, you're just wrong.
Okay...let's be specific for you then.In post 169, Yates wrote:I "cherry picked" the front half because you said he was scumhunting "right out the gate" and his first 4 posts [you know - the ones "out the gate"] were zero content and an RVS vote. We also obviously define scumhuntingquite differently. Giving reads without context is not the same as advancing the game. And I'm not saying this because I have a scum read [or any read] on pidgey but specifically because you are making claims that do not hold up under scrutiny. This is pertinent because this is what ACTUAL scum hunting looks like and I was afraid you wouldn't recognize it.
Further, I asked you point blank for specific posts that indicated pidgey "scum hunting" to you and you failed to do so. There are only two qualified statements in his entire ISO, in fact, and those are simply qualifying a read on displaced. So how you quantify that as "50% scumhunting" remains a mystery.
I feel you're more excited to attack me than to try to figure out what I'm thinking. I believe this is shown in your theatrics and cherry picking. Like, take the "out of the gate" thing. You apparently decided that could only mean his first 3 posts for some reason...why? What lead you to that? There's no reason to believe that and 'out of the gate' hardly means I couldn't be assessing all of his posts (which were all made in one day in a short span of time) as his out of the gate posting. But you didn't even care to ask me what I meant, you drew your own conclusion for what I meant and attacked it immediately - and even the attack. i have called Pidgey null with a very slight town lean as compared to another null read.In post 169, Yates wrote:I don't care about the reads right now - I just want to know how you claim to have arrived at them. I want to know because I'm not following your purported logic. Any statements you have made that I have inquired about are problematic for me because I don't understand your posts or motivation. If I don't understand those two very important things then I can't read you. If I can't read you AND I disagree with your reads? I want you dead. Because like any good Renaissance Man, I fear what I do not understand. That's just how I roll.
Again, let's clarify that only one item on your list of three is possible for me to be treating in this way - and I find it odd you're not defending your stance or agreeing with mine on that point. Secondly, people think wagoning is scummy - I still wagon. People think asking too many questions is scummy - I still ask a lot of questions. People think posting pictures is scummy - I still post pictures. Just because I'm aware that people have issues with something doesn't meant hat I agree with them nor that I will immediately adjust my play for them, because my play does seem to work (except for getting people to listen to me - apparently ).In post 174, Umbrage wrote:I know you don't think it's anti-town or scummy. But you know that other people do think that. So why would you want to draw attention to it? I can't think of any town motivation.
I feel you ignored the bulk of the rest of that post, wherein I did not express much agreement with Yates or what he was doing. If you go back and read that I tink the progression will make a lot more sense to you. Let me know if it doesn't and I'll point out things for you to help you understand why I think he's scum.In post 174, Umbrage wrote:also I love the progression from this:
to this:I can understand that's your stance. I disagree with you.In post 169, Yates wrote:Except if you actually read the posts, you'll see that my beef it isn't a defense - it's noticing meta. I would have said pretty much the same thing if he did this to about three other people off the top of my head. So, again, you're just wrong.
from "you're wrong but I see why you would think that" to "you're scum" in two posts.Squirrel Girl wrote:Vote: Yates
And I'm here now too.
In post 184, Yates wrote:As of this post I will have 12 posts. They are all written in English and fairly succinct for the amount of information they each posses. Feel free to read them and arrive at your own conclusions. I don't mean to be a prick but if I'm going to run up and down squirrel's back for having poor reads, and I'm going to call into question the efficacy of pidgey's scum hunting without providing reasons for reads, I certainly can't provide you with any more information than what I have already presented you with in order to enable you to come to your own conclusions.
I agree, that would have been weird as heck for me to do.In post 199, pidgey wrote:I pretty much agree that squirrel girl calling me a super scum hunter for my first posts is weird
Yeppers!In post 212, Nero Cain wrote:Do you still have a scumread on Moz?
That is true. I think I became someone else at that stage though. Frankly, I'm not sure if there's a female on site that I haven't been called, denied being that player, and then have the accusser decide to read me as that player regardless and start asking me to defend how I'm not playing to my main's meta.In post 239, UnfriendlyNeighbors wrote:At least I stopped them from calling you sakura!
Basically using double standards in his reads. i don't actually think he's doing that, mind, I think he's faking reads - which gives the appearance of double standards because he's just tossing out things to justify stances. But calling it 'double standards' basically gets across what I mean.In post 241, Nero Cain wrote:k y?In post 228, Squirrel Girl wrote:Yeppers!In post 212, Nero Cain wrote:Do you still have a scumread on Moz?
1. Okay.In post 244, Yates wrote:- The main crux of my problem with you is that I didn't think you were being consistent with YOUR standards.
- You claim you saw pidgey scum hunting out of the gate.
- I challenged you on that.
- You were unable to adequately justify your stance because you were just tossing out posts that you claim indicated pidgey was scum hunting.
- Pidgey has since come in and basically said, "I have not yet begun to scum hunt." [click spoiler for exact words]Spoiler:
- So pidgey wasn't scum hunting [by his own admission], I was and continue to be scum hunting, and you appear to have faked reads on my slot and pidgey's slot.
THAT is where we are at. Ball is in your court.
I disagree with this. Please do me a favor - go read the spoilered text in Yate's last post and then read what he says it says. Then come back and tell me if you think he's dealing straight with his stated stance on what it's saying. I don't think it's an issue with definitions, I think it's a pretty obvious presented mistruth, but would like your thoughts on it.In post 257, pappums rat wrote:Lets not. The pissing matches between you and Yates and Nero and Yates are primarily semantic and definition-based in your case
Actually, maybe that doesn't include 'weird town reads' just generically town reads. So I recalled that wrong. I don't find Umbrage's town call for XXCYD any more or less thin than any of his other town calls though - just as a compare/contrast consideration.In post 192, Josh_B wrote:Umbrage tends to give early town reads that cause him trouble later in the games. It looks like he seriously cares about mislynching and is reducing the number of wagonable suspects.
In post 264, pappums rat wrote:pidgey essentially had said that he thought your assessment of him being a "super scum hunter" was inaccurate, and Yates had said that he had said that he wasnt scumhunting. This is an inaccurate statement based on what pigdey had said but it is the kind of exaggeration that I expect from Yates when he is frustrated based upon my previous games with him.
Just for reference - this is what I actually said, and this is what Yates took exception to.In post 140, Squirrel Girl wrote:I don't particularly have any read on Yates or Pidgey. I would call them both null. I don't agree with the scum case on Yates, but I don't think he's done anything townish either. I don't have much of anything to off Pidgey on, but will admit to a slight gut townish on him moreso than Yates simply because he appears to be trying to scumhunt right out the gate which Yates did not.
In post 267, ThAdmiral wrote:I read the rest of the post but would still like you to explain the progression of your thoughts.In post 182, Squirrel Girl wrote:I feel you ignored the bulk of the rest of that post, wherein I did not express much agreement with Yates or what he was doing. If you go back and read that I tink the progression will make a lot more sense to you. Let me know if it doesn't and I'll point out things for you to help you understand why I think he's scum.
I feel like this is a total tone reverse of how you were talking to me earlier.In post 271, ThAdmiral wrote:I can follow. I completely agree with your point about him strategically misrepping you, but I could possibly see that from overzealous town trying to push a case. However your follow up point that he wasn't interested in where you were coming from but was rather just interested in attacking/slandering you makes me lean towards scum on him.
I'm don't want to move my vote currently, but yates is definitely in my suspect pile.
I was going to actually quote stripe this wall, but on getting to this point I realized debating you is of no value.In post 286, Yates wrote:2. Of course I picked the first four on purpose. It made your argument look as silly as possible. That's the point.
How do you draw the distinction between what he did and what I did?In post 289, mozamis wrote:I don't really get this. He looked town for his style. He stood out, you didn't.
Here is Yates other reply about the cherry picking. He admits to no cherry picking at all and is DEFENDING that his "out the gate" deal qualifies them as valid quotes.In post 169, Yates wrote:I "cherry picked" the front half because you said he was scumhunting "right out the gate" and his first 4 posts [you know - the ones "out the gate"]
Are you serious? Like, you don't understand what I've said you misrepresented? Didn't you just admit to doing the misrep (oh, I'm sorry, 'functional counter debate point') in your last post?In post 300, Yates wrote:I will ask you again - what specifically did I misrepresent?
In post 300, Yates wrote:If your argument was "Pidgey and Yates are null" we wouldn't have had a problem.But that wasn't your argument, was it?You said Pidgey is Town because he did X and Yates is not Town because he didn't do X.
In post 140, Squirrel Girl wrote:I don't particularly have any read on Yates or Pidgey. I would call them both null.I don't agree with the scum case on Yates, but I don't think he's done anything townish either. I don't have much of anything to off Pidgey on, butwill admit to a slight gut townish on him moreso than Yatessimply because he appears to be trying to scumhunt right out the gate which Yates did not.
In post 300, Yates wrote:Stubborn refusal to yield to facts? Scum.
What about theIn post 306, Umbrage wrote:SERIOUSLY WHY THE FUCK ARE PEOPLE VOTING YATES
HE'S WRONG AS SHIT BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE HIM SCUM
I've quoted what I said multiple times. If you can get a quote of me calling you town then I'll defend the accusation that I called you town. I know Yates *wishes* to present that as what I said, but it's provably another mistake/lie/misrep on his part to try to spread misinformation.In post 318, pidgey wrote:THAT SAID, i do still find it a bit weird SG called me town (though apperantly she didnt, or at least she is saying i was null back then now)
I don't think so. He chose to attack over a null read to the point of calling it faked - that's because he thought it looked easy to exploit. The way he's going about exploiting it is, I believe, more playstyle, and I'll agree it's blatant and not normal, but I bet it's normal for Yates. But the core logic of why he launched the attack? That's actually pretty subtle and manipulative - and that's the scum mentality at work. the rest is just evidence that it is scum mentality over town mentality.In post 337, Chandra Nalaar wrote:Is it not too blatantly scum thinking, though?
I have.In post 338, Josh_B wrote:Ok, So changing the subject, I'm still a little hung up on this guy. Are there some people here who have played with him before?
It really looks like he's flying under the radar here compared to his more active play in other games.
I feel that I have described on more than one occasion why I believe it to be intentional. Indeed, my previous post (339 - the one right before yours) has me explaining why I believe it is intentional. Feel free to call my logic bad and stupid, but don't act like I'm not even saying it!In post 340, Umbrage wrote:you keep on saying it's intentional bad behaviour, when there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that
In post 365, ThAdmiral wrote:Yates is right about one thing: you do say some weird shit.
You went from 'that's a good pickup that ol' SG is having a weird switch in her thoughts' all the way to 'totally follow SG's line of thought'.In post 365, ThAdmiral wrote:What is the tone change?
I actually agree with Pidgey. I think his two comments look quite workable as the same line of thought and don't see the change that Ruffling is talking about. What are your thoughts on this?In post 366, Umbrage wrote:lookit dat omgus
I don't even think it's a change.In post 373, Chandra Nalaar wrote:I happen to think it's not nearly as dramatic a change as it's being made out to be.
It's like he's almost sort of admitting to being wrong, and is trying to get a semi-truce called. No deals.In post 409, Yates wrote:Because you are scum. Or because you are pedantic. I'm going to read you based on your performance going forward since apparently [and inexplicably] I'm the only one that makes a distinction between giving reads and scumhunting and that doesn't discount defenses as scumhunting. *shrug*In post 407, Squirrel Girl wrote:Why does everyone always ignore me?
Can you suggest any extra-curricular reading for me to let me see town Yates at play doing similar stuff?In post 419, pappums rat wrote:Honestly, from what I remember of playing with Yates, this is exactly the kind of play I expect from him. I understand from your viewpoint this probably looks differently, but I do have a townread on him.
My thoughts on this interaction remain the same.In post 428, mozamis wrote:Catching up, but saw this and have to say if there is a major wagon on rufflig then I think that's a mistake.In post 425, Chandra Nalaar wrote:Oh, Rufflig was supposed to be on my scumread list as well, but then I forgot.
VOTE: Rufflig, only major wagon I support.
Can you describe what made his banter stand out or mine boring?In post 434, mozamis wrote:No, I just thought he looked town and you didn't really stand out at that stage.
Yeah, but that's the point though. i think all I did was basically re-state what was already contained in that post, and you didn't even seem to buy half of it, but suddenly your demeanor went from 'can lynch SG' to 'pals with SG' it didn't feel like a legit mental shift considering the interaction. That's why I called it out.In post 444, ThAdmiral wrote:Are you forgetting the whole part where you explained your train of thought? Do you think you did a bad job and that I shouldn't be able to follow your train of thought? In any case I didn't/don't agree with everything you said.In post 369, Squirrel Girl wrote:You went from 'that's a good pickup that ol' SG is having a weird switch in her thoughts' all the way to 'totally follow SG's line of thought'.In post 365, ThAdmiral wrote:What is the tone change?
You don't think you shifted stances at all?
I'll drop it after we drop you from a gallows.In post 446, Yates wrote:Don't press your luck. I'm willing to admit that I don't know wtf you people are thinking saying giving reads = scumhunting while disproving points - even in defense - is not. I also like how you missed the Nero quote where HE claims defending is scumhunting when it was pressed on him in another game but in this one he's pretending like my doing it isn't. So in the interests of sparing this game more of this BS, I'm moving on. You probably should too.In post 435, Squirrel Girl wrote:It's like he's almost sort of admitting to being wrong, and is trying to get a semi-truce called
Silly is an opinion - it should still be able to be supported if it has validity. Yates is not calling it silly, other people are. I didn't say the people calling it silly were scum or town for calling it silly, I complained that they were unhelpful to me and the gamestate.In post 471, PeregrineV wrote:Silly is an opinion. Yates calling the conversation silly doesn't mean it is silly, nor does it mean he's scum.In post 407, Squirrel Girl wrote:I'm bugged that people are choosing to dismiss how I caught Yates by just calling the conversation "silly" without actually providing any validity to the claim that it's silly.
I CAUGHT SCUM! Why does everyone always ignore me?
And I've been debating this, but I suppose my answer is - yes, yes it does make me think you might be scum. Mostly because it doesn't feel like a logical mental shift, which makes me feel like the presented stances from you are false because they don't flow logically. I also feel like you're being evasive in this discussion.In post 553, ThAdmiral wrote:K. I mean does it make you think I'm scum or not. If not I don't really see the point in bringing it up.In post 454, Squirrel Girl wrote:Yeah, but that's the point though. i think all I did was basically re-state what was already contained in that post, and you didn't even seem to buy half of it, but suddenly your demeanor went from 'can lynch SG' to 'pals with SG' it didn't feel like a legit mental shift considering the interaction. That's why I called it out.
I don't think I made anything unreadable, and if I did you can just skip it. It's like you are skipping it, because he never called it silly and I never said he did, and I just made a post clarifying this fact that you decided to take time out of your day to suggest was poor play on my part while clearly not reading it - I guess because I make things unreadbale.In post 562, Josh_B wrote:You got into a flame war with Yates and made the important stuff in the DP nearly unreadable, and at the bear minimum really, really hard to look up.
You shouldn't get into flame wars, or continue the flame war with Yates. (I don't care if he did call it silly). There is more in the DP than his opinion of your opinion about whether or not he was or wasn't scum hunting.
Null, town, town.In post 575, Josh_B wrote:OK. How do you feel about KidA, chandra and rufflig
If I had to try to put it in words it's the way the wagon on him formed and how Yates decided to start supporting it from the sidelines while still voting me while also saying he was moving past me and ignoring what I'm saying - but still leaving his vote sit.In post 589, Nero Cain wrote:how the hell do you have a town read on ruffling?
In post 600, ThAdmiral wrote:coolIn post 561, Squirrel Girl wrote:And I've been debating this, but I suppose my answer is - yes, yes it does make me think you might be scum. Mostly because it doesn't feel like a logical mental shift, which makes me feel like the presented stances from you are false because they don't flow logically. I also feel like you're being evasive in this discussion.In post 553, ThAdmiral wrote:K. I mean does it make you think I'm scum or not. If not I don't really see the point in bringing it up.In post 454, Squirrel Girl wrote:Yeah, but that's the point though. i think all I did was basically re-state what was already contained in that post, and you didn't even seem to buy half of it, but suddenly your demeanor went from 'can lynch SG' to 'pals with SG' it didn't feel like a legit mental shift considering the interaction. That's why I called it out.
It would be a defense of Pidgey, not Ruffling - you saying Ruffling has no value in what he's saying and attacking him as useless during a wagon build on him is support from the sideline.In post 608, Yates wrote:You know what? Before I lose my crap, why don't you tell me how I supported the Ruffling wagon from the sidelines. Because, again, I think we have VERY different interpretations. I'm assuming you mean post 569, yes? The post where I jumped square in the middle of the ring and refereed? If so, I think you'd have an easier time mischaracterizing that as a defense/buddy post. Just saying.In post 599, Squirrel Girl wrote:how Yates decided to start supporting [the Ruffling wagon] from the sidelines
Post 652.In post 662, Chandra Nalaar wrote:Bulba, you are the best, thank you for that.
@BC: I'll get to you later.
I don't know how this is possible.In post 661, Squirrel Girl wrote:I have Ruffling as town now.