podium wrote: Sheesh exilon, i was just paraphrasing what it came across like to me.
All you had to do was explain what you meant. No worries, i see what you meant now.
sheesh? --' That's pretty nice and all, and it could be a good way to strive away from any attention, (an "apology"?) but why did you quote a part of the post which had nothing addressed directly to you? In fact, there was a part of it addressed to you, but you didn't even refer it, or answered anything pointed in there.
Here, I'll get it for you; at least what I want to see answered, and that also gets tied with what you said:
Podium wrote: Now, Podium, compare those two sentences, having in mind what I have just said.
No one would say “I’ll also try to be a little bit more relaxed while THIS GAME is still warming up” reflects the same idea as “and im going to try to lurk more in THESE GAMES” (
and does one try to lurk? How do you even do that?
).
Podium, you practically misquoted me, and you didn’t care to check what I actually said. The sentence you constructed also seems a little sloppy, which hints to the fact that you weren’t paying much attention to it.
Underlined is something I would really like an answer to.
You were paraphrasing what you thought it looked like, right? Then explain me the thought process behind the paraphrasing process so I can understand how exactly you translated each word and expression / idea into that final sentence of yours. If it makes sense, then I don't have anything else to point.
Anyway, let it be known (if it wasdn't already by the FoS) that I'm not really liking a vast part of your reasoning. I feel as if you sidestep some points. One example:
podium wrote:I'm sorry... is there a threshold that must be met before someone can give an opinion on someone's status? I was merely jotting down a few tidbits as to how i viewed everyone thus far... obviously nothing was set in stone.
I based my observation on you off of your post 77. It appeared to be a mini rundown of your thoughts on some players, and (since you have mentioned you dont have much internet access) i thought it might be the most we see from you for a bit. So, i read everything... didn't see any holes or flawed reasoning.... thought it sounded town... said so.
But lets follow your line of reasoning - i wonder why you come after me so hard, yet ignore hiphop, if it's 'really' something that irks you.
I gave an 'opinion' in my player-by-player rundown, based on your summarization post, and it becomes a large part of your reason for voting me. Yet Hiphop actually placed a vote on someone, when that person had provided absolutely NO serious input thus far...
That don't jive.
I mean really, look at it -- hiphop places a serious vote based on little to no info, and you label it a null tell... i give an opinion based on an informative post and you label it a scum tell.
There are several things I find that seem to be wrong here. First of all, esurio pointed out TWO people that you said looked town.
You only pointed out reasoning to call one of them TOWN - Esurio. The other one was Hiphop, but you said nothing about him that could pontentially explain your reasoning that led to you labelling him (even if initially) as town.
Yet, in this exact same quote, you seem to provide another view of Hiphop, by comparing him, to you. You start this by saing you're going to follow esurio's line of reasoning to come after you... and then end up on Hiphop?
The fact is... it's a false analogy. One thing would be to say "let's use your criteria for going after people, esurio", but you don't know what method she is using, and she doesn't even state it. She provides two reads of two different people, and for hiphop, she even gave a reason why it was null instead of more suspicious than you, as you tried to state. Yet, I don't see any reference in your post to that justification- only the result.
You also make it sound like he actually placing a vote has much more scummy meaning than what you did, but in all actuality, is it scummy for him to vote to apply pressure? (which is an explanation which makes much more sense).
Let me say this as a breakdown, because I know I can be a little choppy with explanations:
You point out things that she never pointed out in her post that, according to you, makes him look more suspicious than him. You use arguments she didn't actually use, and mix them up with your own, and label it "following her reasoning", which isn't true, since it's not in her post. On the other way around, you don't make any reference to a reason she actually did state. ("too early to be scum.")
But, if everything you said makes him look more suspicious than you, how the heck did you, in your first post, say he was town? What led you to that conclusion, seeing as how there was so much there that you now point out as reasons for suspicion?
And to prove this there's your final conclusion, which isn't right according to her own reasoning, stated in her post:
podium wrote:I mean really, look at it -- hiphop places a serious vote based on little to no info, and you label it a null tell... i give an opinion based on an informative post and you label it a scum tell.
This doesn't follow her reasoning. She never stated that "voting based on no info" = null tell, she says the context of it ("too early to be scum") makes it label the whole post as a null tell.
And you gave an opinion, true - but you never stated your reasons for that same thing. Are we supposed to guess? You only stated your reasoning for it in THAT POST. She didn't lael your opinion based on an informative post a scum tell. What she labeled was the opinion, because she didn't know your reasoning at that time.
Your whole conclusion is off. This is what one can actually conclude by reading her post:
"Hiphop places a serious vote based to little on no info early in the game, so it's labeled a null tell. Podium states two town opinions when there was little information on those players and never elaborates on it on that post, so she labels it as scum"
HEY LOOOK! When you see it like this, it actually seems like you're THE ONE who has something to explain. You distort a lot.
*please have in mind that when I'm implying "suspicion" on this analysis, I'm referring to reasons for someone to go after someone else. The two terms are connected, but I still felt it was necessary to point this out.
For now, there isn't much else I feel the need to point out or comment on (mainly because I want a little more development- if you need any further information, though, I'm more than willing to answer, of course. I still have to build up some opinion on the events going around and because I've written a lot. It seems I can only totally focus on one or two players at the time, which is quite of a disadvantage. I need more practice.)
As usual, if there's anything that seems out of place or a little bit more incoherent, please point it out and I'll try to explain it better. (Also I blame it on being a little sleepy now, but ignore this part)
Feels like I've been here before.
i am going to read through the last page or so and then post in a few minutes 
brb 
