WelcomeFugitive wrote:Sup bitches?
Will read thread tomorrow. Just checking in for now.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Do you think I will be terrified by such an argument?el simo wrote:Empking wrote: Yeah I'm finding it hard to disagree, ignoring all of the diddly squat that has happened between me and CQ I'm willing to call him the third man in the party just based on how hard he seems to be trying to not vote SW.
??TheLonging wrote:CQ: those 3 quotes? I never wrote them.
1-1. I didn't like that you called it parroting, but I can understand why you feel it might've been parroting. The other issue (my vote) was fairly self-explanatory, as it was a random vote with a little joke tacked on.CrazyQuestions wrote:@Shadow
1. Since you simply deny the parroting without any particular argument and avoid the other issue, I cannot comment.
2.. I already covered that in my analysis. Since you do not analyze it, I cannot comment.ShadoWolf wrote: I am interested in slow play, as it's easier to analyse.
3. Since you simply deny the parroting without any particular argument, I cannot comment.If you find one of my posts confusing, please mention which. I will rewrite it.ShadoWolf wrote:Your posts are sometimes quite confusing to read. No offence intended.1. Why do you feel compelled to comment this post? If you have decided to "scumhunt" or "participate", you better start with the dozens of posts before this, as obviously, isolated posts do not tell much.ShadoWolf wrote: While I can appreciate the works of Nietzsche just as much as the next man, this is so irrelevant it pains me to respond to it. Try to keep on topic, CQ.
2. It is not irrelevant. It is very relevant because I basically considered alpha-IS (god) dead in terms of our particular tennis game.
1-3. Once again, I just feel that you're trying to misrepresent me here, by calling it parroting. Also, you didn't respond to this:You call my argument "Extreme" and "Ridiculous", but Empking did actually say that he thought he had found scum in his post, roughly 10 pages in.
2-1. I will certainly take you up on that next time I see one I don't understand.I didn't try to defend lurkers, I just think that certain players are/were trying to push a lynch on lurkers, which is an easy lynch to push, and rarely finds scum this early in the game.
Since you simply provide no particular argument about absence of parroting in your contributions, I cannot comment.SW wrote: 1-1. I didn't like that you called it parroting, but I can understand why you feel it might've been parroting. The other issue (my vote) was fairly self-explanatory, as it was a random vote with a little joke tacked on.
I interpreted Empking as hyperbolic much before he pointed out. His own words fit with such description. Your argument is therefore extreme as you equate hyperbole to reality and attack him.SW wrote: 1-2. You didn't address my first point of this line of thinking:You call my argument "Extreme" and "Ridiculous", but Empking did actually say that he thought he had found scum in his post, roughly 10 pages in.
Since you simply provide no particular argument about absence of parroting in your contributions, I cannot comment.SW wrote: 1-3. Once again, I just feel that you're trying to misrepresent me here, by calling it parroting. Also, you didn't respond to this:I didn't try to defend lurkers, I just think that certain players are/were trying to push a lynch on lurkers, which is an easy lynch to push, and rarely finds scum this early in the game.
The post is random only if you do not read the previous ones.SW wrote: 3-1. I commented that post because it seemed so random and crazy that I just had to bring this up.
[/quote]SW wrote: 3-2. Why did you have to use metaphor in such a confusing way? Why didn't you just say why you "consider him dead"
I felt we were still in RVS at that point, so I made a random vote.CrazyQuestions wrote:Since you simply provide no particular argument about absence of parroting in your contributions, I cannot comment.SW wrote: 1-1. I didn't like that you called it parroting, but I can understand why you feel it might've been parroting. The other issue (my vote) was fairly self-explanatory, as it was a random vote with a little joke tacked on.
Since you do not discuss the fact that you combine a random vote after an accusation in the same post, I cannot comment.
I didn't interpret his reads as hyperbole, I took them totally seriously. There was no reason not to.I interpreted Empking as hyperbolic much before he pointed out. His own words fit with such description. Your argument is therefore extreme as you equate hyperbole to reality and attack him.SW wrote: 1-2. You didn't address my first point of this line of thinking:You call my argument "Extreme" and "Ridiculous", but Empking did actually say that he thought he had found scum in his post, roughly 10 pages in.
Since you simply provide no particular argument about absence of parroting in your contributions, I cannot comment.SW wrote: 1-3. Once again, I just feel that you're trying to misrepresent me here, by calling it parroting. Also, you didn't respond to this:I didn't try to defend lurkers, I just think that certain players are/were trying to push a lynch on lurkers, which is an easy lynch to push, and rarely finds scum this early in the game.
Why do I need to respond to such an argument? I have not said anywhere that you defended lurkers.
Sure looks like you said I defended lurking.CrazyQuestions wrote:3. When pressured to participate after lurking, he mixes a "defence" of lurking as null-tell with an attack to the player who favours wagoning lurkers (Grey) at the same time that Grey has disfavoured the player with whom Shadow is discussing (Empking).
Now you're accusing me of not reading the thread?The post is random only if you do not read the previous ones.SW wrote: 3-1. I commented that post because it seemed so random and crazy that I just had to bring this up.
Your quote contributed nothing to the thread except beginning this line of questioning, which isn't helpful to anyone.My quote is much more accurate than your words. Thus I used my quote.SW wrote: 3-2. Why did you have to use metaphor in such a confusing way? Why didn't you just say why you "consider him dead"
He basically took his initial observation on Grey to signal Strike, Grey and You. You used big capital letters to transform his observation into a big shouting. He obviously replied with a different version provoking you. It was clearly a hyperbole...ShadoWolf wrote: I didn't interpret his reads as hyperbole, I took them totally seriously. There was no reason not to.
How DEFENCE OF LURKING AS NULL-TELL looks like DEFEND LURKERS??SW wrote: Sure looks like you said I defended lurking.
You catalogue my post as random. I clarify it is not, and I interpret why you call it random. It is a very reasonable interpretation, especially after you said "You're right, TL, I've been letting some RL stuff get me down, so I'm not putting myself fully into this game. I'm sorry, and I will endeavour to try much harder in this game from now on. My sincerest apologies, everyone." I find you just glanced to the new posts without reading the past ones in detail, and decided to answer a bit the latter ones.SW wrote: Now you're accusing me of not reading the thread?
If the line of questioning does not help anyone, why did you start it?SW wrote:Your quote contributed nothing to the thread except beginning this line of questioning, which isn't helpful to anyone.
CrazyQuestions wrote:He basically took his initial observation on Grey to signal Strike, Grey and You. You used big capital letters to transform his observation into a big shouting. He obviously replied with a different version provoking you. It was clearly a hyperbole...ShadoWolf wrote: I didn't interpret his reads as hyperbole, I took them totally seriously. There was no reason not to.
That's his quote. I didn't transform his observation in any way. Stop trying to misrep me.Sub, Grey and SW calling it now.
Who lurks? Lurkers. By that logic, I defend lurking, I defend lurkers. I didn't defend them, I just said that it was a null-tell, and that we shouldn't analyse lurkers yet, as it was too early in the game to do so.How DEFENCE OF LURKING AS NULL-TELL looks like DEFEND LURKERS??SW wrote: Sure looks like you said I defended lurking.
I have been reading the thread, but I can see where you're coming from.You catalogue my post as random. I clarify it is not, and I interpret why you call it random. It is a very reasonable interpretation, especially after you said "You're right, TL, I've been letting some RL stuff get me down, so I'm not putting myself fully into this game. I'm sorry, and I will endeavour to try much harder in this game from now on. My sincerest apologies, everyone." I find you just glanced to the new posts without reading the past ones in detail, and decided to answer a bit the latter ones.SW wrote: Now you're accusing me of not reading the thread?
You started it by using a quote that seemed totally irrelevant. I questioned it, you explained it. I still think the quote was unnecessary though.If the line of questioning does not help anyone, why did you start it?SW wrote:Your quote contributed nothing to the thread except beginning this line of questioning, which isn't helpful to anyone.
a) He basically took his initial observation on Grey to signal Strike, Grey and You. (POST 16)ShadoWolf wrote: I didn't transform his observation in any way. Stop trying to misrep me.
b) You used big capital letters to transform his observation into a big shouting. (POST 18)empking wrote: Sub, Grey and SW calling it now.
c) He obviously replied with a different version provoking you. It was clearly a hyperbole... (POST 19)SW wrote: Read this as:simulatedEmpking wrote: EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS MAFIA!!!
Where did I MISREP you????empking wrote: A better quote would be.simulatedEmpking wrote: GREY AND EVERYONE WHO TRIES TO DEFEND GREY IS MAFIA!!!
a) POST 132SW wrote: Who lurks? Lurkers. By that logic, I defend lurking, I defend lurkers. I didn't defend them, I just said that it was a null-tell, and that we shouldn't analyse lurkers yet, as it was too early in the game to do so.
SW wrote: What's the benefit of lynching a lurker?I've always found lurking to be a null-tell. Both sides do it equally.
SW wrote: Now you're accusing me of not reading the thread?How does a quote start a line of questioning?? The person who questions the quote is the one who starts "the line of questioning". My quote was part of a different line of debate. You took it and started a line of questioning about its relevance. I still think you were paying much attention.SW wrote: You started it by using a quote that seemed totally irrelevant. I questioned it, you explained it. I still think the quote was unnecessary though.
---
The answers are highly unsatisfactory. I almost thought he was giving bad answers to fake a false debate with me. This is probably just a present for IS. I hardly think we can get more, though I yet want to hear SAPORO and STRIKE before somebody decides this was enough and hammers.
Vote: Shadow
Happy to know. Let's see why.Fugitive wrote: I'd like to say that I'm not seeing a CQ town.
Which of my questions are "random" ?Fugitive wrote: Seems like a lot of random questions to appear helpful and over-analysis to the max.
Your only observation on me is a psychological trait and style, so I think you should have done some meta. Otherwise, I do not see where the scumminess may come from. I am not any big name player. It is my first of these games after a couple of newbies, and I am pretty sure that I can easily be seen as an analytical player with hardly a basic knowledge of theory and standards in the game.Fugitive wrote: I'm not really sure on the meta behind her, but I take it she's a fairly big name player
No because then my expectation would be 1/100 My Lynches.GreyICE wrote:Pretty sure we'll be lynching town here, folks. Not at all comfortable with Shado's posts, but this has happened before, and frankly he's too goddamn incompetent to fake his incompetent behavior that got him killed last time so he can point and say "look, I always act like this as town and get lynched for it."
I'm sure IS or EMP will call me out for this, but frankly, whatever. Were I a gambling man, I would bet he flips town.
Would you bet your lynch on him flipping scum, EMP?
well jesus I think he's scum but don't insultGreyICE wrote:incompetent