Micro 648: Mystery Box Mafia - 't is gedaan!

gigabyteTroubadour · Post Post #275 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:54 am

In post 274, RyanK wrote:It would have been a better idea to let Expedience answer the questions concerning him as he should know best.

But House was specifically asking me about why I felt that way. Expedience can't answer 270.

NJAC · Post Post #276 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:59 am

In post 250, gigabyteTroubadour wrote:@NJAC, what's the benefit you get from asking someone if there was scum on an RVS wagon...? There's probably at least 1 scum in any arbitrary grouping of 4 people (or 3 in the wagoner's pov), that seems like a pointless question to ask.

I wanted to see who House would pick. It's not pointless because House (a scumread of me) would have to pick a name, and then I can get some associative info.

However I kinda like House's recent posts, so I'm revaluating my reads.

UNVOTE:

NJAC · Post Post #277 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:00 am

In post 264, RyanK wrote:Just like NJAC, he doesn't scum hunt at all. View his iso.

Maybe I'm understanding this wrong but, are you saying that I don't scum hunt?

RyanK · Post Post #278 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:02 am

When he posted it yes.

RyanK · Post Post #279 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:05 am

But I've got to admit, when I posted that, I overlooked your scumhunting.

RyanK · Post Post #280 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:09 am

In post 32, House wrote:...
Hunt scum and trust town to recognize their own.

So, house, hunting scum is good, but...

In post 244, House wrote:...
Why are you relying on the situation instead of your own reads?

Because only idiots and scum interfere with scumhunting.

I wonder which one you are.[/quote]
...scumhunting is not good.

RyanK · Post Post #281 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:11 am

EBWOP:

In post 32, House wrote:...
Hunt scum and trust town to recognize their own.

So, House, hunting scum is good, but...

In post 244, House wrote:
In post 216, RyanK wrote: Why are you relying on the situation instead of your own reads?
Because only idiots and scum interfere with scumhunting.

I wonder which one you are.

...scumhunting is not good.

gigabyteTroubadour · Post Post #282 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:14 am

In post 276, NJAC wrote:I wanted to see who House would pick. It's not pointless because House (a scumread of me) would have to pick a name, and then I can get some associative info.

i still disagree, there isn't really that much of a reason to believe that, say, Ryan's vote is scummier than guilty's vote. Plus, that wagon has most of my townreads on it (I'm townreading House the least out of the 3 other people on it but I still think he's town) so I'm having a hard time saying that anyone on it was scum. It's a weird restriction of people, too.

Expedience · Post Post #283 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:50 am

In post 245, House wrote:
In post 200, Expedience wrote:
In post 188, NJAC wrote: FTFY
" [discredit] nice scumclaim ✔ ✔ "

In post 219, Expedience wrote:...try using preview.

My read on House is gut =[

Also I changed my mind about NJAC, literally my entire problem with him is playstyle.

VOTE: gigabyteTroubadour
You think NJAC scumclaim, but vote Giggles?

What even the fuck?

No, what I meant is that he was asserting that you scumclaimed.

I decided not to vote NJAC because he did the leading question thing a lot in another game I read.

NJAC · Post Post #284 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 2:12 pm

In post 282, gigabyteTroubadour wrote:
In post 276, NJAC wrote:I wanted to see who House would pick. It's not pointless because House (a scumread of me) would have to pick a name, and then I can get some associative info.
i still disagree, there isn't really that much of a reason to believe that, say, Ryan's vote is scummier than guilty's vote. Plus, that wagon has most of my townreads on it (I'm townreading House the least out of the 3 other people on it but I still think he's town) so I'm having a hard time saying that anyone on it was scum. It's a weird restriction of people, too.

Still, I was interested on House's response.

For the sake of trying a different angle and given that you town read the whole wagon, from those who didn't vote Flames who do you think are scum and why?

Also, are you town reading Guilty only because of his claim, or is it because of something else?

House · Post Post #285 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 3:07 pm

In post 281, RyanK wrote:EBWOP:
In post 32, House wrote:...
Hunt scum and trust town to recognize their own.
So, House, hunting scum is good, but...
In post 244, House wrote:
In post 216, RyanK wrote: Why are you relying on the situation instead of your own reads?
Because only idiots and scum interfere with scumhunting.

I wonder which one you are.
...scumhunting is not good.

If anybody else can comprehend the logic in this post, please explain it to me.

Expedience · Post Post #286 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 9:33 pm

In post 285, House wrote:
In post 281, RyanK wrote:EBWOP:
In post 32, House wrote:...
Hunt scum and trust town to recognize their own.
So, House, hunting scum is good, but...
In post 244, House wrote:
In post 216, RyanK wrote: Why are you relying on the situation instead of your own reads?
Because only idiots and scum interfere with scumhunting.

I wonder which one you are.
...scumhunting is not good.
If anybody else can comprehend the logic in this post, please explain it to me.

He misinterpreted the way "with" was being used in the second quote as something like "because only idiots interfere by scumhunting"

House · Post Post #287 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 9:54 pm

In post 286, Expedience wrote:
In post 285, House wrote:
In post 281, RyanK wrote:EBWOP:
In post 32, House wrote:...
Hunt scum and trust town to recognize their own.
So, House, hunting scum is good, but...
In post 244, House wrote:
In post 216, RyanK wrote: Why are you relying on the situation instead of your own reads?
Because only idiots and scum interfere with scumhunting.

I wonder which one you are.
...scumhunting is not good.
If anybody else can comprehend the logic in this post, please explain it to me.
He misinterpreted the way "with" was being used in the second quote as something like "because only idiots interfere by scumhunting"

How did he interpret it?

RyanK · Post Post #288 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:10 pm

I interpreted it as helping to scumhunt is what idiots and scum do. Anyway, could you please seriously answer the question I asked rather than avoiding it with a joke reply?

House · Post Post #289 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:11 pm

In post 288, RyanK wrote:I interpreted it as helping to scumhunt is what idiots and scum do. Anyway, could you please seriously answer the question I asked rather than avoiding it with a joke reply?

Seriously? How could you possibly get that from me saying only idiots interfere???

RyanK · Post Post #290 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:13 pm

Because you said "interfere with scumhunting". What else could that phrase possibly mean?

House · Post Post #291 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:13 pm

In post 249, RyanK wrote:
In post 244, House wrote:...
Because only idiots and scum interfere with scumhunting.

I wonder which one you are.
Why is interfering with scumhunting so bad that only idiots do it?

Honestly, I'm doing both of us a favor by not giving this the response it deserves because I'd likely get banned and it wouldn't do your self-image any favors.

RyanK · Post Post #292 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:16 pm

All right then. I'll ask another question instead.

Why is interfering with scumhunting so bad that only scum do it?

House · Post Post #293 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:17 pm

In post 292, RyanK wrote:All right then. I'll ask another question instead.

Why is interfering with scumhunting so bad that only scum do it?

I'll ask a counter...

Define interfere.

Expedience · Post Post #294 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:20 pm

Ryan thinks that you said that scumhunting constituted interfering with the game. You meant:

Only idiots intefere with scumhunting

But ryan saw:

Only idiots interfere by using scumhunting to obstruct other things

And this isn't even a particularly weird viewpoint, he asked you about it before and this is the culmination of his confusion

Because Ryan read the "with" differently, it's like:

i played chess with brandy

And you can actually see it two ways because Brandy can also be a (ghetto) name

Not sure how much clearer I can be

Also I think Ryan is town.

RyanK · Post Post #295 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:21 pm

In post 293, House wrote:
In post 292, RyanK wrote:All right then. I'll ask another question instead.

Why is interfering with scumhunting so bad that only scum do it?
I'll ask a counter...

Define interfere.

Whatever you meant by interfere in post 244.

House · Post Post #296 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:29 pm

In post 294, Expedience wrote:Ryan thinks that you said that scumhunting constituted interfering with the game. You meant:
Only idiots intefere with scumhunting
But ryan saw:
Only idiots interfere by using scumhunting to obstruct other things
And this isn't even a particularly weird viewpoint, he asked you about it before and this is the culmination of his confusion

Because Ryan read the "with" differently, it's like:
i played chess with brandy
And you can actually see it two ways because Brandy can also be a (ghetto) name

Not sure how much clearer I can be

Also I think Ryan is town.

That's a twisted perspective. The statement is pretty clear or I'm sure Ryan wouldn't be the only one crowing about it.

I'm not calling him scum over it, I just couldn't conceive of the mindset behind his accusations.

I find it rather obvious why interfering with finding scum is either stupid or scummy.

RyanK · Post Post #297 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:45 pm

But I don't. Can't you tell me why since you do?

GuiltyLion · Post Post #298 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:45 pm

p r o d g e b o y s

will bring content tomorrow

House · Post Post #299 (ISO) » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:51 pm

Ryan. Please don't take this personally because it's truly not meant as being an insult in any way except maybe to myself.

I have difficulty trying to explain things that are blatantly obvious to me and always resort to inappropriate remarks that the other person does not deserve to receive.

As the meaning of my post seems to have been understood by others, I'm hoping one will be kind enough to explain it to you, as your likely perspective was so generously explained to me.