I do seem to recall you, but I actually don't remember the game we were in. I could probably go find it... I used to be better about remembering everyone, but the years keep adding up!
I was force-replaced out of a game where I insulted you (and Texans in general). So yeah ...
What am I deflecting? Ask me straight-up what I haven't answered well enough and I'll be happy to share.
In post 167, Otolia wrote:and I don't see the difference between what I've done and what you've done.
Nowhere in my posts did I say: Oh yeah, I mean, uhh... I'm just voting because there's not really a better thing to do. So I guess one could argue that Collatz is acting suspiciously.
That's an imitation of what you did in #141. If you wanted to gather information from a vote you should be direct and to-the-point. The way you phrased that post in particular makes it seem like you're trying to avoid being held responsible for the vote.
In post 167, Otolia wrote:So in essence, either you needlessly nitpicking to pass as town or you're just pointing fingers at everything that moves in the hope that you can pounce on it.
This is interesting: do you think I am needlessly nitpicky in my play? Because I think I'm making perfectly valid points.
In some ways the latter statement is true—I do try to provoke responses—but that's a legitimate strategy. You're trying to paint me as scum. Why?
In post 144, Otolia wrote:Considering Collatz qualifies as a MS newbie, one could argue that DarkLightA is grasping at anything he can. I've got nothing better to do with my vote so VOTE: DarkLightA
what post do you feel like Dark is "grasping" at straws?
Otolia are you purposefully ignoring this? Answer or my vote won't move on policy.
The bunny knight reigns supreme!
Get to know me! Here! and now Here too!
Good to see you again RC. I looked over the game we met in semi-recently cause I swear I thought your avatar was so scummy that you couldn't possibly be scum. You won the game... ....barely...
In post 177, DarkLightA wrote:That's an imitation of what you did in #141. If you wanted to gather information from a vote you should be direct and to-the-point. The way you phrased that post in particular makes it seem like you're trying to avoid being held responsible for the vote.
I meant to elaborate on this and forgot. I read over Otolia's play in a game he played before leaving, about 2 years ago. Check out this, Otolia's second post of the game. It's a brilliant post. This was played as vanilla townie. This makes me think Otolia is holding back in this game.
In post 132, DarkLightA wrote:@Collatz, you make some fair points. Re: gathering information I see you mentioned it in #105 too. I missed that. I don't see how you talk about information gathering in #81 though.
This is what I meant by my gathering information. It's between the lines, but pretty clear:
I see what you're saying about the town vs scum divide on suspicious behavior, but you're wrong (you'll usually be wrong anyway). But that's okay, it's a learning process. You'll find that scum in almost all cases have more to lose from a lynch than town, and thus will be more hesitant to stand out.
I don't like the new "information gathering" explanation you've come up with, especially seeing as it was only something that came out after you were put under considerable pressure. It seems like this is something you've made up retroactively rather than the initial intentions in your actions. That's okay, but I'd like you to be honest if that's the case, because it's not looking too good the way you're portraying it now.
Your posts are increasing giving off a feeling of willingness to cooperate though, which I find pleasing.
Would it be fair if I accused you of trying to escape the responsibility of the unvote by setting yourself up a few post before ?
In post 167, Otolia wrote:and I don't see the difference between what I've done and what you've done.
Nowhere in my posts did I say: Oh yeah, I mean, uhh... I'm just voting because there's not really a better thing to do. So I guess one could argue that Collatz is acting suspiciously.
That's an imitation of what you did in #141. If you wanted to gather information from a vote you should be direct and to-the-point. The way you phrased that post in particular makes it seem like you're trying to avoid being held responsible for the vote.
I'm trying to avoid being held responsible by actively engaging with you ? W/E
In post 167, Otolia wrote:So in essence, either you needlessly nitpicking to pass as town or you're just pointing fingers at everything that moves in the hope that you can pounce on it.
This is interesting: do you think I am needlessly nitpicky in my play? Because I think I'm making perfectly valid points.
In some ways the latter statement is true—I do try to provoke responses—but that's a legitimate strategy. You're trying to paint me as scum. Why?
So what am I doing then ? I voted you, the same way you voted Collatz, and I'm trying to provoke answers from you (just like you did with him and are doing with me). Why do you hold me to a different standard than yourself ? Why do you base so much of your argumentation on ONE post where I voted, disregarding what I've done afterwards. Sure my vote wasn't the best vote I've ever done, fine. You extorted that much out of me. But the game has to start somewhere. And I believe that I'm doing the same thing in essence that you're doing.
Conclusion : UNVOTE: I think I've made my point. You're doing the same thing that I am. That's my peace offering, don't waste it.
In post 132, DarkLightA wrote:@Collatz, you make some fair points. Re: gathering information I see you mentioned it in #105 too. I missed that. I don't see how you talk about information gathering in #81 though.
This is what I meant by my gathering information. It's between the lines, but pretty clear:
I see what you're saying about the town vs scum divide on suspicious behavior, but you're wrong (you'll usually be wrong anyway). But that's okay, it's a learning process. You'll find that scum in almost all cases have more to lose from a lynch than town, and thus will be more hesitant to stand out.
I don't like the new "information gathering" explanation you've come up with, especially seeing as it was only something that came out after you were put under considerable pressure. It seems like this is something you've made up retroactively rather than the initial intentions in your actions. That's okay, but I'd like you to be honest if that's the case, because it's not looking too good the way you're portraying it now.
Your posts are increasing giving off a feeling of willingness to cooperate though, which I find pleasing.
Would it be fair if I accused you of trying to escape the responsibility of the unvote by setting yourself up a few post before ?
In post 167, Otolia wrote:and I don't see the difference between what I've done and what you've done.
Nowhere in my posts did I say: Oh yeah, I mean, uhh... I'm just voting because there's not really a better thing to do. So I guess one could argue that Collatz is acting suspiciously.
That's an imitation of what you did in #141. If you wanted to gather information from a vote you should be direct and to-the-point. The way you phrased that post in particular makes it seem like you're trying to avoid being held responsible for the vote.
I'm trying to avoid being held responsible by actively engaging with you ? W/E
In post 167, Otolia wrote:So in essence, either you needlessly nitpicking to pass as town or you're just pointing fingers at everything that moves in the hope that you can pounce on it.
This is interesting: do you think I am needlessly nitpicky in my play? Because I think I'm making perfectly valid points.
In some ways the latter statement is true—I do try to provoke responses—but that's a legitimate strategy. You're trying to paint me as scum. Why?
So what am I doing then ? I voted you, the same way you voted Collatz, and I'm trying to provoke answers from you (just like you did with him and are doing with me). Why do you hold me to a different standard than yourself ?
I don't. All I'm saying is that I make cases and ask questions and make statements and theories. I don't paraphrase people's actions in ways that make them look more scummy. If there's something I do that's scummy, tell me so. Don't paint it with adjectives.
In post 185, Otolia wrote:Why do you base so much of your argumentation on ONE post where I voted, disregarding what I've done afterwards. Sure my vote wasn't the best vote I've ever done, fine. You extorted that much out of me. But the game has to start somewhere. And I believe that I'm doing the same thing in essence that you're doing.
I've been engaging you for a while, and you're very wrong if you think I'm only focusing on that.
In post 185, Otolia wrote:Conclusion : UNVOTE: I think I've made my point. You're doing the same thing that I am. That's my peace offering, don't waste it.
So that brings me to this, which is very interesting indeed. I see what I'm doing as scumhunting, and I'd assume you would do the same. However, this statement suggests you feel like it's more of a person-to-person shit throwing contest. You're more than welcome to focus on someone else if you wish, but you're choosing to fight fire with fire, which doesn't exactly paint you in the best light.
: How you fail to see my PoV is beyond me. We are doing the exact same thing and yet you refuse to budge one inch from your position. I've tried to meet you halfway because I believed that since we were essentially doing the same thing, we must be both town and you unvoted so I just thought we could reach an understanding. But no. By the way, you said "Ask me straight-up what I haven't answered well enough and I'll be happy to share." and I answer "Well that" + a quote of a question, it OBVIOUSLY MEANS THAT IT'S SOMETHING YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED BUT THEN YOU DID WHILE I WAS WRITING MY POST.
I wish I knew myself. I was townreading him in my last post because I thought that he had the same reasoning but now that he is voting me again, it's like the case of Collatz suddenly makes sense. >< For now, he is back to null read like the rest.
In post 144, Otolia wrote:Considering Collatz qualifies as a MS newbie, one could argue that DarkLightA is grasping at anything he can. I've got nothing better to do with my vote so VOTE: DarkLightA
what post do you feel like Dark is "grasping" at straws?
I'm an obvious target because of my vote hopping, and he's taking full advantage of this to make a case against me without questioning whether it's actually a scumtell.
It's like he was waiting for someone to call him on it so he could pounce and start his case.
In post 178, Lucky2u wrote:Otolia are you purposefully ignoring this? Answer or my vote won't move on policy.
I'm an obvious target because of my vote hopping, and he's taking full advantage of this to make a case against me without questioning whether it's actually a scumtell.
It's like he was waiting for someone to call him on it so he could pounce and start his case.
Essentially, yeah, almost. But again you're making all my actions seem scummy even if they are perfectly reasonable. My initial play was (and still is to some degree) intended to provoke reactions. It doesn't constitute framing or entrapment for that reason. I'm not waiting for someone that will fall for my trap, rather, I'm seeing how people react and judge what seems the least like pro-town behavior.
In post 158, Reubus Swagrid wrote:What I've gathered so far minus null reads that have nothing of interest
Alchemist21- Probably my most sure townread at the moment for genuine sounding posts and #131
DarkLightA- Analysis is good, slight townread
Lucky2u- Innocent Child
CDK- Running with a policy vote until I set off his “spidey senses”, unsure as to why. I explained that last time I was faced with a situation like this the person was actually town, though that’s 1 out of 2 games on MS I’ve completed, which isn’t enough for me to actually read him either way, though in the situation that I provided I initially scumread him on D1, doing so helped move the game along and generally elevated our understanding of each other. I would also like to note in that game I was scumread by scum after scumreading that particular townie on D1. If I
had
to choose an alignment at the moment I would honestly be leaning scum, but at the moment I only find you a suspicious nullread
Random Migdet- I have no idea what to make of your brief ISO, null for now
Rest are nulls but without a doubt more is going to come to light, do with this as you will. I have a suspicion that some of the less posty players are more likely scum than CDK but we'll see
There are two things that bug me about this post.
The first is that I'm his surest Townread. Usually people who haven't played with me before null or lean-scum on me, or at best mildly townread me. It's usually scum or people I've played with before that put me as a top townread this early. Even I don't think my posts have been that Towny so far, so I want to know some specifics of what you like about my 131 (I'll accept the tone read as just that, but citing a post warrants specifics).
The other thing is that he's referencing his own past experience in regards to his vote on Collatz, but he seems to just shrug off his experience in favor of the vote, then when he gets called on it he unvotes. I'm not even sure if he's giving that scum-lean-but-officially-a-null-read status in this post to CDK or Collatz. The main question here is, "If he's seen what Collatz did from Town before, what made it scummy this time enough to warrant that vote?"
In post 193, Alchemist21 wrote:The first is that I'm his surest Townread. Usually people who haven't played with me before null or lean-scum on me, or at best mildly townread me. It's usually scum or people I've played with before that put me as a top townread this early.
I'm also suspicious of Reubus, but I really don't like this argument.
UNVOTE: VOTE: otolia
He's afraid of getting into a tunnel this early as he is scum. Seems to be trying to slip back under the radar.
Also Alchemist is your avi kirito?
![:]](./images/smilies/icon_smiling.png "Cheerful Smile"){kind=icon}
