In post 1045, wgeurts wrote:Yeah those aren't cases, I can make individual in-depth cases. That was just a load of mental crap that I made as a result of me getting back into this game. If you hadn't realised, your on the town side of my reads and I can explain that if you wish.
So as long as you town read me, I should hand wave away the problems I have with your posting right now? Not a fucking chance.
Took a break at Page 22. So I should be caught up by tomorrow.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
In post 1045, wgeurts wrote:Yeah those aren't cases, I can make individual in-depth cases. That was just a load of mental crap that I made as a result of me getting back into this game. If you hadn't realised, your on the town side of my reads and I can explain that if you wish.
So as long as you town read me, I should hand wave away the problems I have with your posting right now? Not a fucking chance.
Nope that would be dumb if you did, do you want me to explain why you're town or not? That post was not a case why you were town or not, it's just my brain spaghetti as I was reading everyone's ISO's.
@ fish: this may not make sense.
I have a lot of people tell me my reasons don't read well and are hard to understand. But here is the best I can explain my reason.
In post 1007, wgeurts wrote:I'm sorry my day 2 play has been absolutely rubbish, my holidays nearly are starting so I've got time to make a more extensive analysis of each individual.
I used these as examples because when gerts talked about flubber and anka I recalled feeling the same way about both players in regards to there play.
Most of the sum of Flubber is nothing but fluff. At best Flubber is trollie, which I keep thinking of our last game together how much he wasn't mr. Fluff and fold.
With anka I talked about the amy read with anka.
I think the only thing I don't get is why anka is so high on the scum list after what he posted.
I've done iioa before when I get lost as a reminder to myself of players I forget about when there's been flips. I just don't post them all.
Sarcasm is just a way of saying how stupid you think someone is but in a more polite way.
I have given several wagons Dino
I have given several cases
How do you feel about animem
"...probably the worst player I have had the pleasure of playing with in the last ten years..."
"i dislike this guy immensely"
"the worst townie that ever I have ever had the misfortune to play with, by a long shot"
In post 1003, Mathdino wrote:So because I dont feel like policying lynchbait, Im appeasing Venrobs slot? I dont understand what youre trying to say.
It was a standard replacement reaction test. GC surpassed expectations.
Alchemist's 1001 is appeasing your 999.
And having a reaction test with 0 creativity and being able to go "yup town" from it is not a townie thing to do.
Also VOTE: alchemist. He and adrian are scum but at least alchemist is here to party.
wat
So a more creative reaction test would've helped here? It's not like it was outside of the realm of reason to think a cop outed someone in this setup on D2.
On a sidenote, you seem like a mafia hipster. Congrats.
I'm going 'yup town' since I have scumreads elsewhere and I had a nagging suspicion that Venrob was lynchbait and he was correct in that he always plays like that (furthermore people kept voting him for lurking when he clearly had issues with his tech). So I confirmed that suspicion.
1001 and 999 are people working together in mafia. Is this strange to you? I'm townreading Alchemist now and he appears to be townreading me.
Also you have no case on anyone, so prove why it's not just 2 townies working together and talking over things.
"I just want to play mafia, not Economics Wonderland." - cytheflyguy
Yes a more creative reaction test would have worked. Fake dayvig's don't work because everyone knows about them. The only way a reaction test works is if the testee hasn't seen it before, which usually means having to create a new one. But I have a nagging suspicion you know all of this because 1062 is the first time I remember seeing ad-homenim from you. This isn't even covering how fake your evaluation of GC's reaction looked.
I'm not sure how challenging a vote and the seeing scum have to cover up their cognitive dissonance as teamwork but this is a "yes-no" battle not worth fighting.
Ad hominem is not "You're wrong, therefore you're stupid." That's just an insult. A useless one in this game, but an insult nonetheless.
Ad hominem is "You have an IQ of 42, therefore you're wrong."
Ad hominem is not "You're disregarding a common reaction test, therefore you're a hipster."
Regardless, just because it's common doesn't mean it doesn't work. The only way it wouldn't work is if you believe GC read the thread and confirmed it was a reaction test before claiming his role. Otherwise he had no way of knowing it was a reaction test.
"I just want to play mafia, not Economics Wonderland." - cytheflyguy
Ad hominem is not "You're wrong, therefore you're stupid." That's just an insult. A useless one in this game, but an insult nonetheless.
Ad hominem is "You have an IQ of 42, therefore you're wrong."
Ad hominem is not "You're disregarding a common reaction test, therefore you're a hipster."
Regardless, just because it's common doesn't mean it doesn't work. The only way it wouldn't work is if you believe GC read the thread and confirmed it was a reaction test before claiming his role. Otherwise he had no way of knowing it was a reaction test.
I think this is possible. I don't see why with your wifom talks you dismiss it.
Also making shitty cases is a null tell. I could list many players sitewide that can't make a case worth a crap.
Sarcasm is just a way of saying how stupid you think someone is but in a more polite way.
Ad hominem is not "You're wrong, therefore you're stupid." That's just an insult. A useless one in this game, but an insult nonetheless.
Ad hominem is "You have an IQ of 42, therefore you're wrong."
Ad hominem is not "You're disregarding a common reaction test, therefore you're a hipster."
Regardless, just because it's common doesn't mean it doesn't work. The only way it wouldn't work is if you believe GC read the thread and confirmed it was a reaction test before claiming his role. Otherwise he had no way of knowing it was a reaction test.
I think this is possible. I don't see why with your wifom talks you dismiss it.
Also making shitty cases is a null tell. I could list many players sitewide that can't make a case worth a crap.
He's not COMPLETELY cleared of course but the premature claim along with the droog comment really sells it if he's scum.
I dismiss it for now because I wasn't a fan of the Venrob wagon in the first place as it was practically a policy lynch. I mean the dude provided examples of his play sucking in the majority of his games AND starting games off with talking about how his play sucks, along with the fact that he had reasons for not being around.
The entirety of his play should be null. Then GC walks in with one of the towniest possible responses to a reaction test.
So yeah, I'm going with town for now.
"I just want to play mafia, not Economics Wonderland." - cytheflyguy
