Open 588 Pick Your Poison -- Game Over

[croboss]

Replace out

[SIR CYANIDE]

[House]

Some clarification, if needed:

"X posted in a thread (or 'other threads' or 'today') -- Not Okay.

This must be a mod rule, because it's been used in

several

games that I've played with nary a peep from the mod or other players.

[House]

Some clarification, if needed:

"X posted in a thread (or 'other threads' or 'today') -- Not Okay.

This must be a mod rule, because it's been used in

several

games that I've played with nary a peep from the mod or other players.

EBWOP

[House]

Some clarification, if needed:

"X posted in a thread (or 'other threads' or 'today') -- Not Okay.

This must be a mod rule, because it's been used in

several

games that I've played with nary a peep from the mod or other players.

EBWOP

x2... I need coffee.

[acryon]

Yeah yeah, I know, being inactive is not necessarily alignment-indicative. Wanna know a secret though? Fucking nothing at all is alignment-indicative. What you do is you take all the information you have and this should create an inner narrative; 'would scum do this? would town do this?' and then you should have a vague probability in your head about how likely someone is to be scum and if you're not delusional that probability should be close to 50%. Can anyone tell me here with a straight face that lurking to this extent is

NOT

pro-scum and

NOT

anti-town? Yeah, that's what I thought. Don't get me wrong, I agree that inactivity isn't as alignment-indicative as things with a similar level of pro-scuminess are, but I don't think anyone here can tell me that town and scum have a perfect 50/50 distribution of inactivity. Scum are more likely to exhibit that behavior.

Obviously "lurking" is bad for town, but I don't think that's what he was doing. Going beyond that is kind of a grey area, but I am skeptical of anyone who looked at the information available for him and decided he was definitely lurking.

[Riabi]

Obviously "lurking" is bad for town, but I don't think that's what he was doing. Going beyond that is kind of a grey area, but I am skeptical of anyone who looked at the information available for him and decided he was definitely lurking.

It would seem intuitive that scum have a higher level of lurking than town, but I have no hard evidence for that. That said, without going into detail for fear of talking about other games, I completely agree with acryon here.
VOTE: cyanide

[Count Dooku]

And what? It is ridiculous. Everything I say in one post have to be related?!

I mean generally, if the post is completely lacking in any sort of segue? YES. I don't buy your "It's so silly to assume that I meant JUST her" logic, this (and several subsequent posts) sounds like some serious backpedaling to me.

That is your problem. That was the truth. I meant her, and others. And actually I have never done anything that would prove the opposite. It is only you trying to make me look like a scum.

I want to stop this pointless discussion. I don't have anything more to say about it. Vote me, lynch me, stop it.

This, to me, clearly says he's giving up on arguing his point and is just going for the righteous-indignation stance instead of articulating his reasoning.

I have answered those silly questions sveral times, but they kept askig and asking them. It is pointless to spam pages with the same questions and answeres. But, it looks like you like to talk about the same topic again and agin and again, so if you want, I will answer all your questions about that topic. Ask them. If you want to spend more hours with that pointless discussion, then go ahead, and ask me.

How about c)
. His comment meant nothing to Rach.

Whether it meant something to her or not is largely irrelevant, it's more about whether he INTENDED it to mean something to her.

Yes, I intended to refer to Rach. But (I hate that I have to say the same things again and again, because you are asking the same bad and pointless questions again and again) not only to her, to others too, for example deathfisaro or croboss. And I told you it several times, but it looks like there is a problem with your grasp.

LOL

Again...seemingly out of arguments.

My respond to House's post was explained just like the post and the scumread was explained itself.

434 = shitposting

And again.

Thank you for showing us that you didn't even read the thread. Had you read post 439, you would have known that I was going to explain it today.

VOTE: Count Dooku

Nice scummy jump on the most recent wagon without stating anything real/genuine/original.

[Count Dooku]

You know what bothers me even more? He has posts in two different threads, made after his last post here, one of them has been maken today. He isn't avoiding this game because some irl stuff. Isn't it obvscum?

Official Warning: Talking about ongoing games (even in the abstract) is strictly against the rules.

Do not do this again.

Sorry.

Some clarification, if needed:

"X is *probably* avoiding this game; you might check it out..." -- Okay.

"X posted in a thread (or 'other threads' or 'today') -- Not Okay.

"X posted in all his other games except this one." -- So Bad. So very, very, Bad.

Questions gladly answered via PM.

Thank you!

[Count Dooku]

Yeah yeah, I know, being inactive is not necessarily alignment-indicative. Wanna know a secret though? Fucking nothing at all is alignment-indicative. What you do is you take all the information you have and this should create an inner narrative; 'would scum do this? would town do this?' and then you should have a vague probability in your head about how likely someone is to be scum and if you're not delusional that probability should be close to 50%. Can anyone tell me here with a straight face that lurking to this extent is NOT pro-scum and NOT anti-town? Yeah, that's what I thought. Don't get me wrong, I agree that inactivity isn't as alignment-indicative as things with a similar level of pro-scuminess are, but I don't think anyone here can tell me that town and scum have a perfect 50/50 distribution of inactivity.

Finally, someone understands me.
And it is not only the case when we talk about croboss. Nearly all of his posts were scummy AND then he lurked, and avoided specifically this game. But people don't understand this.

Replace out

Oh, I forgot to UNVOTE: .
That slot is still a scumread for me.

[Riabi]

Nearly all of his posts were scummy AND then he lurked, and avoided specifically this game. But people don't understand this..

Treading very carefully here. But, to anyone who thinks he specifically avoided this game, I suggest you look very carefully at things like timestamps. I don't think he was avoiding this game at all.

@Dukoo, for the record, I agree with people who claim your 354 is suspect. Whether you meant it that way or not, your post came across as applying at least MOSTLY to Rach.

[House]

Obviously "lurking" is bad for town, but I don't think that's what he was doing. Going beyond that is kind of a grey area, but I am skeptical of anyone who looked at the information available for him and decided he was definitely lurking.

It would seem intuitive that scum have a higher level of lurking than town, but I have no hard evidence for that. That said, without going into detail for fear of talking about other games, I completely agree with acryon here.
VOTE: cyanide

Your intuition needs a tune-up.

Truth is, lurking isn't alignment indicative. It's playstyle indicative. It

can

help determine a player's alignment based on that particular person's playstyle, but it's more of an individual tell than a stereotypical tell.

As an example, my activity is about the same regardless of my alignment (I run through my games and post), so trying to use activity as an alignment tell for players such as myself (one way or the other) would be foolish.

[acryon]

Truth is, lurking isn't alignment indicative. It's playstyle indicative. It

can

help determine a player's alignment based on that particular person's playstyle, but it's more of an individual tell than a stereotypical tell.

As an example, my activity is about the same regardless of my alignment (I run through my games and post), so trying to use activity as an alignment tell for players such as myself (one way or the other) would be foolish.

Listen to this guy people.

[Count Dooku]

And now:

434 = shitposting

I will tell you why is every word in 434 = shit, tomorrow, via PC.

@Victor
When we are closer to deadline, and nobody else does scummier things.

I don't think town's benefit from holding off a lynch when they have a scummy player. And if you think he's obvscum, why exactly wait and see if someone scummier emerges? That doesn't really make sense.

Why? Even you said, that the deadline is far away: It would be a silly mistake to lynch somoene, even when he is obvscum, because we have two weeks, and maybe he can "clarify" himself, or someone claims scum, etc. You know what doesn't really make sense? These three sentences from you.

When did I say that you, Victor, said that he is a newbie, so he cannot be scum. I said town, generally. For example Drezi.

You brought it up in 426 so I commented on it. I don't think anyone actually said he couldn't be scum because he's a newbie, unless I missed something.

No, of course nobody said that he cannot be scum, because he is a newbie. But the only thing that Drezi could say why doesn't he think croboss is scum, was "yes, he made a bunch of scummy things, BUT since he is a newbie I am not willing to scumread him, because all these things can come from newbtown" So he is pretty much not scumreading him only because he is a newbie. (See

Seems sitewide? Did you take a look at his profile?

Yes. You should take a look too.

I took. And it was obvious that he was avoiding specifically this game. Now, I see that there are some rl stuff (because I took a look at him again, when I saw that he replaces out).

[Count Dooku]

Truth is, lurking isn't alignment indicative. It's playstyle indicative. It

can

help determine a player's alignment based on that particular person's playstyle, but it's more of an individual tell than a stereotypical tell.

As an example, my activity is about the same regardless of my alignment (I run through my games and post), so trying to use activity as an alignment tell for players such as myself (one way or the other) would be foolish.

Listen to this guy people.

Please sheep more.

[acryon]

Truth is, lurking isn't alignment indicative. It's playstyle indicative. It

can

help determine a player's alignment based on that particular person's playstyle, but it's more of an individual tell than a stereotypical tell.

As an example, my activity is about the same regardless of my alignment (I run through my games and post), so trying to use activity as an alignment tell for players such as myself (one way or the other) would be foolish.

Listen to this guy people.

Please sheep more.

If telling people to listen to someone's correct perspective on something is sheeping, then I

will

continue to sheep.

[Count Dooku]

@Dukoo, for the record, I agree with people who claim your 354 is suspect. Whether you meant it that way or not, your post came across as applying at least MOSTLY to Rach.

33% Rach 33% deathfisaro 33% croboss
If you want, you can call it "mostly".
Also:

He probably remembered to say this after reading Rachmarie's post, thus the timing.

[House]

Truth is, lurking isn't alignment indicative. It's playstyle indicative. It

can

help determine a player's alignment based on that particular person's playstyle, but it's more of an individual tell than a stereotypical tell.

As an example, my activity is about the same regardless of my alignment (I run through my games and post), so trying to use activity as an alignment tell for players such as myself (one way or the other) would be foolish.

Listen to this guy people.

Please sheep more.

Nice doubtcasting.

I had my reservations when I read that post too, until I read his ISO. Considering he is reading me as town with reason, I find his reply to me to be consistent with that read.

Your post does strengthen my scumread on you, however.

[Riabi]

@Dukoo, for the record, I agree with people who claim your 354 is suspect. Whether you meant it that way or not, your post came across as applying at least MOSTLY to Rach.

33% Rach 33% deathfisaro 33% croboss

Perhaps that's how you meant it. But my point, which has been made by others, and that appears to be going over your head is that the timing of your post, and the fact that you quoted Rach in your most makes it

seem

like you were talking largely about her. Only you know for sure if that is the truth or not. But, nothing can change how some of the rest of us perceived your post at the time we saw it.

[Count Dooku]

@Dukoo, for the record, I agree with people who claim your 354 is suspect. Whether you meant it that way or not, your post came across as applying at least MOSTLY to Rach.

33% Rach 33% deathfisaro 33% croboss

Perhaps that's how you meant it. But my point, which has been made by others, and that appears to be going over your head is that the timing of your post, and the fact that you quoted Rach in your most makes it

seem

like you were talking largely about her. Only you know for sure if that is the truth or not. But, nothing can change how some of the rest of us perceived your post at the time we saw it.

It is not true that the rest of you perceived like that. For example Drezi and pisskop (and I think SC doesn't have a problem with it either) understood what I meant to say. Post 374 is pretty much describes what I wanted to say - yeah, it looks like Drezi can word it better than me.

[Riabi]

@Dukoo, for the record, I agree with people who claim your 354 is suspect. Whether you meant it that way or not, your post came across as applying at least MOSTLY to Rach.

33% Rach 33% deathfisaro 33% croboss

Perhaps that's how you meant it. But my point, which has been made by others, and that appears to be going over your head is that the timing of your post, and the fact that you quoted Rach in your most makes it

seem

like you were talking largely about her. Only you know for sure if that is the truth or not. But, nothing can change how

some of the rest of us

perceived your post at the time we saw it.

It is not true that the rest of you perceived like that. For example Drezi and pisskop (and I think SC doesn't have a problem with it either) understood what I meant to say. Post 374 is pretty much describes what I wanted to say - yeah, it looks like Drezi can word it better than me.

Do you even read? I bolded in red above what I said... SOME OF THE REST OF US. Not everyone. Your defensiveness on this issue is really suspect.

[House]

Dooku lynch go!

[Count Dooku]

@Dukoo, for the record, I agree with people who claim your 354 is suspect. Whether you meant it that way or not, your post came across as applying at least MOSTLY to Rach.

33% Rach 33% deathfisaro 33% croboss

Perhaps that's how you meant it. But my point, which has been made by others, and that appears to be going over your head is that the timing of your post, and the fact that you quoted Rach in your most makes it

seem

like you were talking largely about her. Only you know for sure if that is the truth or not. But, nothing can change how

some of the rest of us

perceived your post at the time we saw it.

It is not true that the rest of you perceived like that. For example Drezi and pisskop (and I think SC doesn't have a problem with it either) understood what I meant to say. Post 374 is pretty much describes what I wanted to say - yeah, it looks like Drezi can word it better than me.

Oh, well, I didn't notice that part, sorry... it is late here, and I am mad because I hate repeating the same things again and again.
Do you even read? I bolded in red above what I said... SOME OF THE REST OF US. Not everyone. Your defensiveness on this issue is really suspect.

[Count Dooku]

@Dukoo, for the record, I agree with people who claim your 354 is suspect. Whether you meant it that way or not, your post came across as applying at least MOSTLY to Rach.

33% Rach 33% deathfisaro 33% croboss

Perhaps that's how you meant it. But my point, which has been made by others, and that appears to be going over your head is that the timing of your post, and the fact that you quoted Rach in your most makes it

seem

like you were talking largely about her. Only you know for sure if that is the truth or not. But, nothing can change how

some of the rest of us

perceived your post at the time we saw it.

It is not true that the rest of you perceived like that. For example Drezi and pisskop (and I think SC doesn't have a problem with it either) understood what I meant to say. Post 374 is pretty much describes what I wanted to say - yeah, it looks like Drezi can word it better than me.

Do you even read? I bolded in red above what I said... SOME OF THE REST OF US. Not everyone. Your defensiveness on this issue is really suspect.

Oh, well, I didn't notice that part, sorry... it is late here, and I am mad because I hate repeating the same things again and again.
EBWOP

[Riabi]

Oh, well, I didn't notice that part, sorry... it is late here, and I am mad because I hate repeating the same things again and again.
EBWOP

I think it's possible that you're mad because someone called you on your scum slip.