Spoiler:
In post 249, T S O wrote:...what?In post 139, Julatorium wrote:Wasn't looking for an apology, nor a discussion to prompt one. We've stated that it's a null-tell. It's your nature, so we can't use it to read you.In post 138, T S O wrote:Well, you can talk about it postgame, I guess - I have no intention of apologising for trolling, and although you seem to think it's outside "the spirit of the game"... I don't.In post 128, Julatorium wrote:1) To address the TSO post, we can talk about the "spirit of the game" nature of that play post-game.
You said it required post-game discussion, I said it didn't, you said you weren't looking for a discussion?
What are you even doing?
Your quote should have been about the content. I enjoy, however, the fact that you are a rank hypocrite. You complain about the levels where the troll named TSO lurks, then post a link to a discussion which you now admit had no relevance other to ...slander my name? Your attempts to take the high moral ground makes me laugh.In post 139, Julatorium wrote: Our quote wasn't about the content, or your vindication, it was about your nature. This is where you like to wallow. Therefore it can't be used.
Not particularly - I've never sold myself as a troll. You're the one who's pushing that I do.In post 139, Julatorium wrote:That's right, and the statement is one regarding KB's views, not yours. Your reaction seems disproportionate to us. I thought you had some measure of pride in your trolling efforts?TSO wrote:Wow, lots of words, but no read at all! Trolling =/= scum.In post 128, Julatorium wrote:We also don't agree with the statement from KB that TSO's demeanor changed at all, or that a perceived change even matters, because he had his role when he made the accusation. It would be different if he didn't have his role, made this play pre-roles, and acted different once the game started. Trolls be trolling.
Um, no. I never mentioned your daughter. You were the one who was flaunting how you feel the question is useless, before defeating the only purpose you could have for doing that by then participating in the question anyway.In post 139, Julatorium wrote:She is. We're proud parents.TSO wrote:Yes, yes, you're very smart.In post 128, Julatorium wrote:2) Flavor response
Our daughter is going to 3rd grade ACE classes next year, and the kids will have to vote on what subjects they are taught. This is a laughable exercise, because the choices are going to be like... Dinosaurs and Mythical Creatures, or Art and Music appreciation. The classes are inevitably chosen by how many boys and girls are in the class that year.
That said, We dissonantlychoose Abased on rock paper scissors (good ol' rock!).
My behaviour was inconsistent, yes, because that more "caustic tone" is not my usual. I adopted it solely for people who did and still do get on my nerves (shoutout to you, Julian!). It would be both unenjoyable for me and you if I were to continue to use it. You can simply use my meta to evidence the fact I'm generally a nice guy. I have mean-guy scumgames and towngames. I also have nice-guy scumgames and towngames.In post 175, Justin Playfair wrote:Do you think scum frame questions so as to avoid the area where they perceive themselves to be vulnerable? I do. And the heart of what Krystal seemed to be trying to get at (Krystal, please correct me if I'm wrong) was the much milder tone you adopted as soon as the game began, as opposed to your previous more caustic behavior. Now I'm pretty old school but I do like inconsistent behavior within the same game as a possible indication that someone is scum.In post 100, T S O wrote:Do you think that scum normally do nothing?
Do you think that the more you do, the less likely scum you are?
Am I good scum, though? Because if I'm bad scum, this argument falls to pieces.In post 175, Justin Playfair wrote:Sure, it could be that. It could also be taking an opportunity to throw chaff into the air in an attempt to skew accurate reads on your behavior. That's the sort of thing good scum might do.In post 121, T S O wrote:I was bored and decided to have some fun. It wasn't a reaction test, but it works better to say it's a reaction test than flat-out trolling. How would I reaction test people on something that's impossible?
You're welcome - it was enjoyable to show Julatorium why he was wrong. It still is.In post 175, Justin Playfair wrote:And TSO? Thank you for this post. I feel like I know you so much better now.
But, let's be honest for a second here and I'll cut my condescending bullshit. Julatorium is either a prick, an idiot, or scum. He brought in a topic about verbal abuse, where I was the only example cited, and I was cited from only one game, where I was scum. He saw the quotes of me on the first damn page. Then he comes back, knowing that I can be aggressive and nasty as scum, knowing I'm being aggressive and nasty here, and what does he fucking do? Calls it a null tell! Where's the paranoia? That should set off the alarm bells in his head, because he knows I'm playing to relatively recent scum meta. But he doesn't. If he used that as a Town player should, in an attempt to figure out my alignment, he should be proclaiming wariness of me. He's not. He's probably scum.
I disagree - motivation is the key to everything. Words are wind. Everything has a reason, everything is connected.In post 183, Krystal Bald wrote:you are wrong with that, speaking on nik's behalf >:ITSO wrote:You don't take motivation into account, and so your analysis is only surface-deep. Thus, people can easily fool you.
I would enjoy hearing how Nik scumhunts and pointing out how motivation could a) improve his method or b) factors in his method.
Town.
