In post 573, Clumsy wrote:In post 571, Jake from State Farm wrote:or I could be town who doesn't care who you vote for
The issue is that you should care. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong if you can't get people to agree with you. If you have a case, make it.
In post 571, Jake from State Farm wrote:or I could be town who doesn't care who you vote for
In post 566, Maverick1102 wrote:Third, I find your unvote on me came due to pressure you were receiving from multiple players (nos/mav). This is misrepresentation. I never put any pressure on mh to remove his vote at all.
In post 582, Frozen Angel wrote:thats the point he was posting nothing and suddenly all he was posting was about something bs and according to him later on : not alignment indicative
In post 581, Jake from State Farm wrote:In post 566, Maverick1102 wrote:Third, I find your unvote on me came due to pressure you were receiving from multiple players (nos/mav). This is misrepresentation. I never put any pressure on mh to remove his vote at all.
Sorry I did want to respond to this. I never said people were pressuring him to remove his vote.
In post 521, Jake from State Farm wrote:
Third, I find your unvote on me came due to pressure you were receiving from multiple players (nos/mav).
In post 521, Jake from State Farm wrote:
Third, I find your unvote on me came due to pressure you were receiving from multiple players (nos/mav).
In post 581, Jake from State Farm wrote:
Sorry I did want to respond to this. I never said people were pressuring him to remove his vote.
In post 351, mhsmith0 wrote:In post 347, Jake from State Farm wrote:I amuse you? I make you laugh?
Do you happen to have an estimate for when you're going to start playing? Or will we be getting another 30 or so posts that are variations of "sorry guys it's just too early for me to be playing serious"? At least our other high-volume posters are mixing in content with the silliness. Will this help motivate you to start playing?
VOTE: Jake from state farm
More seriously, this is a LOT of posts to basically not be providing any actual content. If it's a scum plan to just look busy, it's a bad one because of how obviously ineffective it is, but sometimes scum simply don't have anything to say so they continue to speak without saying anything.
Other early reads:
Maverick: seems to be taking the game seriously. Asks questions of wide variety of posters, puts his opinions down on the thread, seems to be genuinely interested in sorting people. Obviously scum can fake this, but it doesn't feel fake to me. Town lean.
FA: Obviously a decent number of the posts were just random crap, but there was enough substance in here that I'm feeling good about her right now. Seems genuinely curious about sorting people, and consistently engages in a variety of discussions with a goal of pushing or sorting people. Town lean.
APF: I'm having a hard time sorting him because I can't tell when he's being serious and when he's just BS'ing / reaction testing / lazy (the discussion about 29 seems misguided in that regard because it felt like intentional BS to me). It feels like he's been more serious lately. I still think his reasoning in his vote for me was weak (and the vote / unvote / revote was odd, especially unvoting me because I "agreed" with his post on RC), but early votes tend to be on the weak side unless you've got really dumb scum or something. Null for now but it'd be nice to see a bit more seriousness so that I can actually read him.
Roshar: I'd agree that a decent number of her posts were more theory/mechanics than substance, but I'm not sure that this really stands out in this board (so far). I'm not going to vote her just because her theory stands at odds with people on the board. There's also a level of aggression I'm seeing lately that seems towny. Overall null, with maybe a really small town lean, and I'll +1 on Maverick liking her lately.
RC: I really don't have a sense of him right now. The temper flare-up around 164 was odd, but I'm not sure it's AI. Ditto all the talk about his meta.
Nos: Maverick was correct to point out the lack of content in her posts. Naked voting me as a "ok here now I'm providing content" was really weird. Possibly scummy but seems as likely to just be lazy or reactive than necessarily scummy. Lean scum but largely TBD depending on her content.
Clumsy/FL/Kain/Lowell: meh.
In post 371, mhsmith0 wrote:In post 368, Nosferatu wrote:I was exaggerating when I said wall. I just found it odd that you would vote someone because they didn't leap out of the gate with scumhunting, when they clearly previously stated that they didn't find the pre-game to have proper reactions. It just seems like gunning for easy pickings to me.
The lack of scum-hunting right off the bat didn't bother me so much as the bloated number of "I'm not trying, here's why I'm not trying" posts. It's a bit of a vote whip, I'll admit, but right now I think he NEEDS that whip. If he impresses me with his content, I'll unvote.
PS While we're talking about vote reasons, why did you vote me? Is it fair for me to suspect that you did it as a response to maverick's prompt to start doing stuff? Or was there a more tangible reason involved?
In post 372, Maverick1102 wrote:I also recall asking why I was town in Lowell's opinion too.
Ninja'd: Would still like to know what motivated it given that I really hadn't spoken much at that point.
Ninja-ja'd: I have to roll with Nos on that one. Whilst I'd like her to participate with more posts like the #368 you quoted, I can't help but want to know why you think that's scummy. I don't appreciate how Jake is acting, but playing so blatently anti-town just isn't something I can see scum doing so early into D1.
In post 372, Maverick1102 wrote: I don't appreciate how Jake is acting, but playing so blatently anti-town just isn't something I can see scum doing so early into D1.
In post 387, Maverick1102 wrote:I think the point of active lurking is to coast without drawing attention to yourself. Jake is doing plenty of that.
In post 368, Nosferatu wrote:I was exaggerating when I said wall. I just found it odd that you would vote someone because they didn't leap out of the gate with scumhunting, when they clearly previously stated that they didn't find the pre-game to have proper reactions. It just seems like gunning for easy pickings to me.
In post 379, Nosferatu wrote:I also think you're gunning for low-hanging fruit with jake, which is why I haven't moved it.
In post 379, Nosferatu wrote:
what's the proposed scum agenda behind jake's actions?
based on your readlist you had a better case on me than jake
In post 590, Lowell wrote:Growing scumlean on Jake. Normally I consider brashness to be a town tell, but I'm getting a bit of a panic-vibe.
In post 594, Jake from State Farm wrote:
SO 1 player is voting him, another is also questioning his voting me. That very looked like pressure to me and he backed off because of the two of your posts. The fact that he actually quoted one of your posts actually prove it imo.
oh and fyi, stop accusing people of being defensive like it actually means something. It doesn't. Town and scum both can be defensive.
In post 596, Nosferatu wrote:In post 590, Lowell wrote:Growing scumlean on Jake. Normally I consider brashness to be a town tell, but I'm getting a bit of a panic-vibe.
you're taking reads pretty lightly this game it seems
