im tempted to say screw it and put mallow at L-1... lol but im sure several people would have a stroke going 'ZOMG he is so impatient, he must be scum!' bah.
wake me up when something happens
*falls asleep*
millar13 wrote:yes...generally only think scum dispute something that much
??TeeJay wrote:Wow, defensive rather quickly. Considering that this is only the second page, I find it disturbing that you were so quick to become defensive.
wow, what a cheesy line...TeeJay wrote:Keep on going if you'd like, but you are digging your grave rather quickly.
What??TeeJay wrote: I don't think anything was 'serious' until you reacted the way you did.
Contradicting yourself? In this post, you implied that something serious had occurred. Now you imply otherwise. Explain.TeeJay wrote:When I say serious, I mean lynching serious, not out of RVS serious.
Whether or not disputing something a lot is a scumtell, isn't really the point (although i doubt many people would agree that it is). The point is that I made ONE response to the accusation that gonnano made against me... and millar thought that i was excessively disputing it. Comment on this, please.TeeJay wrote: Millar thinks that "'generally' only scum dispute something that much". What do I think of that? I wouldn't say that it's a scum tell, but that's just me.
What does timing and the number of votes on me have to do with whether or not something is a legitamate/BS reason?TeeJay wrote: The fact that he voted because of it doesn't send any flags up due to the facts that a) that is the only vote against you, and b) It's early in the game.
1/2. - i dont have a problem with people voting me if they have a legitimate reason. if i think those reasons are BS, then naturally i would point that out. if i feel those reasons are scummy, then i may place a vote. what's so scummy about that?TeeJay wrote: 1.) You have immediately gotten defensive after one vote was cast your way. At the very least that your antsy.
2.) On top of that, you had a text book example of an OMGUS vote toward millar.
3.) You attempt to draw attention away from yourself by asking my opinion of millar's actions.
Uhhh... well no crap... if it was a RVS vote. The whole point of this is that he specifically said it wasn't.TeeJay wrote:A lot, case in point, RVS.podium123456 wrote: What does timing and the number of votes on me have to do with whether or not something is a legitamate/BS reason?
I don't care whether you have something to say about it or not. I asked you a question/to comment, and would like an answer.TeeJay wrote: Also, Podium, please quite telling me to comment on things, if I have something to say, I'll say it. I don't need you forcing me to give a word.
sigh... yes... like i said. i felt your assessment of me was incorrect... to show that, i have to discuss millars actions with you. so it's not like i just refused to discuss your allegations against me and tried to shift the subject. but since you fail to comprehend that, you keep making it a catch-22 situation for me. whatever.TeeJay wrote: Your response to the third... regardless, you were attempting to draw attention away from yourself.
Who cares about the context... heTeeJay wrote: Considering the context, I still believe the vote was semi-RVS.
Wait a minute... so if you are saying that you consider non-RVS votes to be serious, then you just contradicted your statement that 'nothing was 'serious' until i reacted'.TeeJay wrote: I would also like to point out that I don't think the post was contradictory at all. I used the word serious in quotes, intending to imply that I still didn't think it was too serious. And just for the future, let me expand my definition of serious: Any vote that is not RVS or weighted by other votes.
*facepalm*ODDin wrote:
That being said, podium is being a little too defensive here. His reaction to millar was understandable, but his reaction to teejay is less so.
Ok.gonnano wrote:Yeah, that's basically what my definition is saying, but what I mean by it is that it wasn't a lose-lose situation. The way for you to "win" would have been to not overreact to teejay. You seemed to be saying that there was nothing you could say that ODDin would not use against you, but that's not the case.
You believe that this is an extreme reaction?ODDin wrote: It's behavioural. Yes, I agree with you on the basic notion that teejay was wrong. However, how you react to his accusation - even though I think it's a wrong accusation - seems too extreme to me. I get the feeling you're scared.
Yes, but that's because of what i discussed here.ODDin wrote:Taken together with posts 49 and 51, yes, it feels rather extreme.
What are you referring to?Sawyer wrote:Podiums defense seems awfully weak
Teejay now says that he considers a non-RVS vote to be 'serious'. Yet in this post, he implies that nothing serious had occurred...Sawyer wrote: and seemed to try and force a contradiction that wasn't there.
Podium, TJ did say it was serious, but as he said in post 50, he was talking about a different extent of seriousness (which was even in the part you quoted, so you certainly didn't miss it)
You are leaving out important details.TeeJay wrote: I don't think the vote was serious enough to warrant the reaction you gave. You over reacted. Furthermore, I still believe that the vote against you was slightly RVS, after all, policy votes are hardly worth any weight. The post you continue to quote has a serious with quotes on it, like this: 'serious'. Recognize it?
Dont gloss over that last post of mine... respond to what i asked of you. Where did i get emotional/heated/flipped-out with you? Show me.ODDin wrote:It's not only what you say, it's how you say it.
See... this is EXACTLY what i mean. People are pointing to the END of my conversations and saying 'oh you over-reacted'... but the exasperation at that point was due to me having to re-explain what i felt was a very basic situation. Look at the FIRST response i made to you here. Does that look like an overheated/over the top response?ODDin wrote:Okay then.
You being emotional and heated in response to me is mainly showed in this line:podium123456 wrote:What was i supposed to do?Nottry to get him to understand it? And allow his incorrect criticism to stand? ???
you are reading way too much into 3 question marks. i usually go with the roll eyes smiley, but thought that might be a little too rude.ODDin wrote: This line reads to me in a broken, crying voice, mostly with the help of the 3 question marks at the end and the emphasised "not". Lots of question marks on the whole represent higher tones and more emotion put into the statement. (These are used in many other posts as well)
Again... another example of what i have been saying. And this goes back to the VERY first post i made to you... you still arent getting what im saying. if teejay had understood what i meant in my first post, then everything would be cool. he didn't. i HAD to keep arguing the point, unless i wanted the incorrect observation to stand. then you say 'oh, yeah but look how many times you did it... you are just overreacting (paraphrasing)'.ODDin wrote: The facts in the end are, well, very interestingly phrased. Interestingly to the point of being an argument against you on their own right. This, especially:No matter how you look at it, you didn't make one post to teejay. You made five. Yes, I know you said in the parentheses you "repeated" it, but it's a very awkward way to put it.podium123456 wrote:I made ONE post to teejay regarding his accusation (which i had to repeat because he didn't understand)
i just went over that thread closer... since it has been over a year (and it was my first forum game).ODDin wrote: Almost no instances of multiple question marks
Trying to drop the issue several times
Saying things along the lines of "well, I've said what there is to say so do whatever you want with it"
Saying "*shrug*"
This post is garbage.mallowgeno wrote:Now that you mention it ODDin, he has been AtEing a lot:
Lol I found this one very funny:
Overall analysis: Scum
You're wrong. Flat out wrong.ODDin wrote:I didn't read the game until the end, I read about 5 pages and got a certain very consistent impression. You have handled an attack on you in a very cool and controlled manner, while the way you handle it here doesn't seem cool and controlled.
The fact that you insist on this is seriously ridiculous. It's an impression I got. It's a subjective thing. I can't pinpoint every single phrase and every single smiley that makes me think this or that. It's an overall impression.
The correct townie response should have been to say "well, I'm not really that upset, I dunno" and let it be. Not continue discussing with me whether or not you're upset.
Regarding the last two paragraphs: You're an idiot, and I hope you didn't just kill the game for good.
Said July 2010:podium123456 wrote: i've said ALL i can say about who i think is scum, and NO ONE is following. what am i supposed to do? stamp my feet and remain on him until the internet explodes?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxpodium123456 wrote: I did my little random vote thing... what the hell do you want me to do... start crying until everybody votes my random vote?
podium123456 wrote:Huh???
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxpodium123456 wrote:What??
podium123456 wrote: Wow. I feel like i'm in the twilight zone... i keep specifically explaining the scenario i gave as a reason, and people apparently either aren't reading it or don't understand it.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxpodium123456 wrote: this is stupid. am i in the twilight zone?... Is it my fault i had to repeat myself?
podium123456 wrote: Not disdain... exasperation from having to repeat myself so much.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxpodium123456 wrote: but the exasperation at that point was due to me having to re-explain what i felt was a very basic situation.
Does this not mirror the attitude i have given here, that i am about to be lynched over? And look at his description of me... he is not describing someone that is just dropping stuff because of indifference.podium123456 wrote:Hey, well make sure you aren't annoyed with the guy that attacked and inaccurately described my gameplay to spark the exchange, and that admitted that our discussion was not furthering the game... yet continued to keep arguing.J_Slr wrote:As it stands though, I am getting really annoyed with Podium and his theory and the arguments that have been had since then. Its really drawing a lot of attention, for absolutely no reason and it makes reading the thread painful.
By all means, direct your annoyance fully on me.
It was my mistake for defending myself, i should have just let him say whatever he wanted.
You asked me for meta where i acted in a SIMILAR way as town. THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS. I provided them to you, and now you are ignoring them. I've pointed you to a more recent example, and you completely refuse to look at it. It's because you never really cared about the meta (you only read 5 pages), and really just wanted to appear like you were giving me a proper and thorough analysis. Well, your conclusions dont hold up to the TRUTH.DDD wrote: Podium: Suffered from the same problem that I did in wanting to argue over whatever issue was at hand instead of finding scum.
The problem isn't with me, dude. I detailed how your conclusion isn't logically sound, yet you are prepared to move forward with it. It isn't logical, there is no debating that.ODDin wrote: Learn from this and get better for future games.
Can you give me an example of me responding to a perceived personal attack? That's kind of a vague description.gonnano wrote:I got a similar impression reading the linked game... like the argument was the most important part, not some sort of percieved personal attack against him.
I'd like to know what Sawyer and millar think about the comments that have been made recently.
I was wrong, here i'll even specifically point you to it... the DDD argument starts on page 6 when he makes a comment that my logic and arguments have been poor -- nothing more. I then spend 3 pages attempting to prove him wrong, with behavior similar to what i had shown here, and involving similar situations (even RVS subjectivity). EVEN INCLUDING YOUR HOLY GRAIL OF MULTIPLE QUESTION MARKS.ODDin wrote: I will read the whole of that game if you insist there's a major difference there.
Ugh. What a horrible chain of events was started when i made this post.podium123456 wrote:eh i dont know... i just wanted to say something.
what approach am i taking, and why would it mean a pointless game?
The logic aspect was only brought into the discussion when i made this post, discussing the flawed logic of your approach to the analysis.ODDin wrote: What you're failing to understand is that it isn't logic what we're talking about.
Right. I have pointed this out several times.ODDin wrote: It's perfectly okay for two people to read the same text so that one will think it's heated and emotional and the other one will think it isn't. There isn't a distinct right and wrong here.
I have tried to show that my reactions were similar, using posts dripping with attitude/emotion, along with the unique punctuation that you highlighted.ODDin wrote: The fact that you continue trying to "disprove" my subjective interpretation is truly magnificent.
And it's not only the multiple question marks, you know. I mentioned them in an attempt to analyse my own interpretation and why I thought what I did.
The other game has the same type of question mark use appearing all through the game, but especially during the two arguments i am comparing to this one. You wont even concede that those posts areLots of question marks on the whole represent higher tones and more emotion put into the statement. (These are used in many other posts as well)
I found nothing of substance to comment on. teejay's post was made in a comical fashion. i couldn't tell if you were serious or joking in your response... and frankly didnt care. it was the scenario i had predicted would occur, in my first post in the game.ODDin wrote: BY THE WAY, here's something I said long ago and you never answered or addressed in any way:I wrote:I don't really like podium's behaviour prior to the lock. He talked as if there was no discussion and no thing to talk about and it was still RVS. However, there was a little exchange between teejay and myself, so if podium thought it's so bad there's no discussion and that we really need to generate some discussion, he could've at least express some opinion on that issue.
Yeah... I am very logic driven, and rather semantic when it comes to debating. I try to remain civil, but as you can see, there is a sharpness to my tongue. When i feel i am right, and that logic/facts are on my side, i can getgonnano wrote: However, they are now starting to become more reasonable -- especially the post that I just quoted. Not sure whether this redeems you or not, but there it is.
I should have specified that i was referring to my posts that occurred prior to oddin making that accusation. There's no question that my posts today have been extreme.gonnano wrote:I think that your posts have been extreme, yes.podium123456 wrote:A. Do you think 'flipping out/extreme' is an accurate description of my responses in this thread? Or is that possibly an (dare i say it?) overreaction on his part?
Again i need to clarify what i was asking. I am only concerned with the emotional aspect in this comparison... not the amount of reason or AtE. When contemplating how emotionally charged these posts are, which would you say is more heated? Or do you believe they are equal?gonnano wrote:The first linked post seemed to me to be the more collected one of the two. Mostly in that post you got your facts together and presented them, with only a little sarcasm and maybe a few more capital letters than I personally would have expected in a response. When you look at the relative amounts of reason and AtE in each of those two examples, the first one wins.podium123456 wrote: B. Do you consider this post to be made by someone that is non-emotional/calm and collected?
How does that compare to this post, in your opinion? Similar, harsher, or weaker
In that case, i would direct you to the AtE quotes i highlighted earlier from both threads. Since you take meta into consideration, do you feel that the AtE's in that game are similar to the ones i have made here?gonnano wrote: What I was referring to by "percieved personal attack" were comments like the one where you said you were in a catch-22, basically saying that you had been trapped into something. In retrospect, AtE might be closer to the mark of what I was trying to say.
There's no need for a claim. 2 of the people voting me have only made 3 posts in this entire game. The third hasn't contributed much more. Are you really prepared for our first lynch to head to the gallows based on those votes, and a hammer?TeeJay wrote: Podium, please claim.
There are a couple of things intertwined here, but i am suggesting that oddin's characterization of my reaction is, in fact, an overreaction. Does 'flipping out' or 'extreme' accurately describe that post, in your opinion? This doesn't concern whether or not it is an overreaction... only if it is indicative of someone that is 'flipping out' or acting extreme?gonnano wrote:1. I wouldn't consider that link (your post 48) to be excessive if I were reading it by itself, but in context it does seem like an overreaction.
Actually, I asked for your opinion specifically because i feel oddin is being disingenuous with his answers. Yes, it is concerning a subjective area... but i feel the examples are distinct enough to determine if his answers seem out of the ordinary.gonnano wrote: 2. I'll answer the rest of your post all at once:
Obviously the side-by-side examples of AtE that you gave were very similar, but how many posts did the examples from the other game span?
With a very short response here, i just want to say that you have to keep in mind that you are examining an entire game there, and comparing it to the first big argument here. If you were to cut off your comparison at page 5 in that thread, you would find that the behavior is quite consistent.gonnano wrote: I think the relevant idea here is not the amount of emotion in each game, but rather the proportion of emotion in each game. I would say that from what I've read theamountsof emotion in the examples you gave were similar, but in your other game there was much more reasoning and pro-town play to act as a counterbalance.
You have clarified that you meant 'AtE's' when you said 'perceived personal attacks'. What are you alleging occurred in this game? That i made frequent AtE's? If not, then what.gonnano wrote:I got a similar impression reading the linked game... like the argument was the most important part, not some sort of percieved personal attack against him.
I'd like to know what Sawyer and millar think about the comments that have been made recently.
gonnano wrote: Your response to millar DID seem excessive to me (which is why I considered TeeJay's point a valid one) , because you became very defensive and tried to shift the blame to me. I'm not denying that I was at fault, but it seems like someone who is trying to look for scum would have said something like "What is your opinion of the part that gonnano played in the situation that you voted me for?", whereas your post came off as "Nononono get your vote off me and put it on gonnano, he did it!"
TeeJay made what seemed to me to be a valid point, and your response came off as trying too hard to make it seem invalid.
So you are saying that people dont respond to a scum accusation until they have about three votes? Sorry, i dont believe that. As a matter of fact, from my experience, NOT responding to it would result in people accusing the accused of avoiding the issue.TeeJay wrote:Now that I reread your post, my thoughts:
The bulk of your scumminess lays in the mood of your posts. Angry reactions in Mafia are actually quite common, I am not concerned so much about your reaction as I am about how quickly you reacted. Typically, I see people who react the way you did after the about three votes on them, whereas you only had one. The fact that you gave an OMGUS vote doesn't help the case.
Again with the question marks... sheesh.ODDin wrote:Podium, regarding the question marks, in case there was a misunderstanding: what I meant was multiple question marks coming TOGETHER as a single punctuation sign, such as "??" and "???", not just many sentences ending with a single question mark.
Compare:
What is wrong with you? <- fairly calm
What is wrong with you??? <- bordering on hysterical
Ok, well in my opinion you are going back on your word. You asked me (three times) to provide examples of a game in which i reacted similarly. I provided you with a game in which during the first argument, i responded in a heated/emotional/hysterical manner. You have confirmed this. Why are you not honoring your word? Was it because it was a lie when you said it?ODDin wrote:I mentioned them again because I thought you didn't understand what I meant.
The post you linked to now does look heated and emotional, and it didn't escape my attention when I read the thread. But it was basically the only one in that vein. The rest, or most of the rest, were much calmer.
I'll be posting more later tonight, but wanted to say this now.Sawyer wrote: What is this? Page 4,millar and I made 1 or 2 relevant posts each and it's become a back and forth between TJ, ODDin and Podium and you're willing to hammer depending on the claim? +scumpoints for you.
Mostly to give some idea of why i was so flustered... that was a LOT of stuff hitting me from all directions at once. And to show that, while it appeared like everyone in the thread wanted me gone, there were a lot of people that justified the actions i made... they just got lost in the mix.Sawyer wrote:I didn't think much of Podiums rehash of the thread, as I didn't see where he was going with it. Maybe I just missed the point entirely.
Ill take this into consideration.TeeJay wrote: I was willing to hammer. I had gotten done reading a heavily heated debate between Oddin and you and was caught up in the excitement of it all.
Pertaining to getting you to claim, again, this was said in the context of a heated debate, ruled by emotion rather than logic.
(repeated)TeeJay wrote:Now that I reread your post, my thoughts:
Typically, I see people who react the way you did after the about three votes on them, whereas you only had one.
You critcize teejay for something you are basically doing... it's just that instead of the excuses he gave, you came up with that crazy story. And dont act like just because you didnt specifically say you would hammer, that you weren't sending out similar signals. L-1 is NOT the time to fuel the fire with language like 'before we hammer'... it's the time to back off and reveal your ploy... which is all part of why i dont believe you.ODDin wrote: 2) I really don't like how teejay played through this. First he says he's ready to HAMMER, on page 4! But then he sees the wagon is waning and the wind is blowing elsewhere, and suddenly he buckles. Suddenly it's too early to lynch. It really looks like teejay is trying to go with what's popular.
Surely you understand how this looks from someone elses perspective. It doesn't make sense that if it was a ploy, and things had died down... for you to still continue to press ME...ODDin wrote: And basically I kept it going until everyone responded. Specifically, I wanted sawyer's and millar's responses, which only came on page 6 (last thing I said against you was on page 5). I had a specific goal I wanted to reach, I didn't stop until I reached it.
First of all, numbers can influence players. Secondly (back to my main point) if you were town, you would have known that me claiming was the WRONG move for town at the time... even more so since you didn't want me lynched. Town reacts like sawyer did, you did exactly the opposite... twice.ODDin wrote: As for the claim, it might have been too much, but you would be wise to notice that I wasn't the first to say ask for it. In my experience, after a claim has been asked for, it doesn't really matter how many more people ask for it - you either agree to claim or you don't.
See the problem is that you made a big deal about multiple question marks. Not counting that first post, there are at least 4 other places in the thread where i used '??' or '???'. By your own definition that is bordering on hysteria.ODDin wrote: By the way, I wouldn't say you've really broken my case - I was self-consistent throughout. Specifically in regards to post 125, there is only ONE post in that other discussed game which looks heated, while the rest of the argument on the same issue (why you voted somebody, I think raj) was handled by you in a way which was more or less cooler than how you talked here.
I had questions open to teejay, concerning his play, when i made that comment. Could have been either of you.ODDin wrote:P.S.That was pretty obvious.podium123456 wrote:p.s. you were the mystery person i was referring to in my previous post.
More fail. If you are town, and dont feel the person at L-1 should be lynched... then you SAY something. You did exactly the opposite. You egged it on... sent out the signal. So what happens... someone holding back sees that other players are calling for the hammer, and they post and hammer.ODDin wrote: P.P.S. Of course I was insinuating I was ready for the hammer to fall and sending similar signals. That was the whole idea.
Uhhh... yeah. I think i made this pretty clear. Whatever little scheme you were working on wouldn't take priority over an unneccessary claim. The only people that really benefit from claims are scum... as only they know the truth. You act like you were on a top secret mission for the FBI and couldnt risk blowing your cover, so you had to go along and ask for a claim. Puleahse.ODDin wrote: If what you're saying is that I should've discarded that whole effort just to prevent you from claiming - perhaps, but I still think we gained a lot of info that way.
Of course a gambit could be useful... i never said that it wouldnt, or that i didnt understand the concept. The point is everything i pointed out is behavior even a gambit'ing townie wouldn't do (yes yes, imo... but still i think it would fit lots of people's opinion). Logically, and risk-wise. Anyway i'm not going to change your mind, and you aren't mine. I simply dont buy it. And if you are town, i think you should rethink your gambit'ing strategy.ODDin wrote: But you could at lest try to understand how such a ploy should have worked in theory, in the hipothetical case it was actually there (which is what I'm claiming).
No offense, but based on your input here (as well as your own admission that you are poor at scumhunting) i'm not going to put much stock into your analysis of things. Especially when what i am talking about requires a good grasp of town/scum gameplay... to be able to cut through what's presented on the surface, and analyze the underlying motivations.mallowgeno wrote: I do think that ODDin was legit when he said he didn't intend on lynching you Podium. I feel that he is town with the way that he posts. I still think that Podium could be scum.
The only thing i did was respond to the accusation (like you said is acceptable), and place a vote. (other players have said the vote/reaction was justified/normal).TeeJay wrote: I am not saying that people should ignore accusations. I never said that nor would I. What I am saying is that most people would not react thewayyou did.
mallowgeno wrote:I would like to, however this game for me just seems to be ODDin vs Podium vs TeeJay