In post 69, Witness Protection wrote:But where is there to scum hunt (at the time of this post?), some casual conversation's a great place to start getting base line reads. Then we go from there. But I do want me some scum!
Now here's some other person i want dead just for being silly.
Like I can't even believe someone would say "Oh well we have nothing to scumhunt on, so we can't scumhunt, la la la~"
I'm not even gonna bother telling you "how to start scumhunting" you should do that on your own
~Sakura
PEdit:
Re-Gaiden: Do you think if he really thought that he wouldn't have just gone and made a normal vote instead of pseudovoting?
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:25 pm
by SXTLHGaiden
now i'm really tempted to start voting all the things
In post 69, Witness Protection wrote:But where is there to scum hunt (at the time of this post?), some casual conversation's a great place to start getting base line reads. Then we go from there. But I do want me some scum!
Now here's some other person i want dead just for being silly.
Like I can't even believe someone would say "Oh well we have nothing to scumhunt on, so we can't scumhunt, la la la~"
I'm not even gonna bother telling you "how to start scumhunting" you should do that on your own
~Sakura
PEdit:
Re-Gaiden: Do you think if he really thought that he wouldn't have just gone and made a normal vote instead of pseudovoting?
I think that he would have, although I don't feel this particularly strongly and I feel you know him better than I do so you can tell me if I'm being dumb or not.
I've liked most of his posts, they have a "figuring things out" tone. I don't think he pointed out obvious things on purpose in order to blend, I think he did it for his own sake.
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:29 pm
by ZeL1nK2
Whether intentional or not, you're misinterpreting what Witness Protection said.
I'm also getting more of a chuckle than I probably should out of seeing pieguy's votecounts.
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:34 pm
by White Narcissus
I like your point re:gaiden - I agree that he would probably vote despite everyone shouting not to vote. Not doing it and settling down to pseudovote could mean he's being careful.
~Wis
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:37 pm
by ZeL1nK2
In post 60, Thor and Loki wrote:I don't particularly have a town read on Shadowcat. Should I?
In post 51, White Narcissus wrote:Actually i just realized in the description of the mechanic it says that they can raise the darkening of
one or more
people.
Why did you guys even need to bring that up?
Also you've guys spent 2 pages already discussing deadlines and pseudovotes rather than actually scumhunting, save a couple, why? (Mostly directed at Zelink and Taly)
~Sakura
Honestly, all I've said so far as that we need an initiative to find a way to get answers from people effectively without doing damage. Zel has pretty much came up with the pseuedovotes and deadline idea, and I commended him for it. I even suggested the idea that an entire week is a possible timeframe for convenience and avoiding the marker of 48 hours leading to people getting a darkness point right when the day ends.
The other thing I've said is that none of us know how the scum can affect us via darkness. Leading to my suggestion of the timeline.
I also questioned Thor/Loki to see why they would just want to quicklynch someone who hasn't done anything. Don't misrep what I've done as useless because I'm adding in what I think is necessary.
It's the way Taly did it. He repeated lots of stuff already said or pretty obvious, like he wanted to share the town spotlight with the rest of the "cool guys".
Me seeing how our darkness is calculated, and raising attention on how to go about something. 39
>>>
Me verifying a new possibility of timeframe between lynches, and introducting the thought that scum can harm us on varying levels. Thor/Loki said that scum could get us at 100% darkness at night in 26, and I thought I could add on to that idea so people will understand how differently we may be affected.
Note: I also questioned them why they wanted to just lynch notscience.
Somehow, Skold found my previous post to cause concern....? So I continued and told him that what I brought up was valid since scums affecting us weren't specified particularly.
You have only seen
3/4 of my posts
that actually provided something new to the conversation, and here you are - who has already RVSed someone, saying that I haven't been scum hunting and therefore I must be a harm to the town?
You already put your pseudovote on me ater your 1v1 with Zel, without seeing my response to your assumptions?
What have you provided?
Then tell me, what reads do YOU have, since you have done nothing in this game that remotely resembles scumhunting.
~Sakura
Sorry, but what are
YOUR
reads?
It is quite too early to give elaborate reads, but my
town reads
are stated:
Zel, Witness Protection, Thor and Loki
Everyone else is neutral so far except for you,
WN
.
For now:
Pseudovote: White Narcissus
>>>>
As for other things,
Thor/Loki
, 63 seems noncommittal. What are you reads thus far?
did you miss the fact we are not fucking voting but using pseudovotes?
~Wis
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 2:00 pm
by Taly
In post 95, White Narcissus wrote:Our reads were given in 61 and 65. I'm not liking your overreaction to some minor suspicion on you.
~Wis
Overreaction? I was responding to the assumptions you made about me. Explaining and showing my side.
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 2:01 pm
by White Narcissus
@Taly: So you have a town read on someone you're questioning for having noncomittal posts?
Re-Bringing up how scum could affect us: So basically stating what the mod had mentioned in how the mechanic works is bringing something new?
And yet again, what in ANYTHING of those posts that you had made was there any scumhunting at all?
@notty: So you disagree with pseudovoting?
~Sakura
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 2:02 pm
by notscience
I'm not moving my vote until Taly dies so I don't care about pseudo voting.
