The Second Fortnight (Game Over)

[Quilford]

Another reason I think Aegor might be scum is because there

are

legitimate reasons for considering Banakai scummy, but he's not using any of them. In Aegor's posts about Banakai, he can't see the forest for the trees. He's concentrating on individual posts from Banakai, and taking issue with really very minor wording-related or other trivial issues with them, rather than looking at the big picture like for example T-Bone does in the post below. (This is one reason I think T-Bone is likely town.)

Why does everyone think I am scum with T-bone? I still think T-bone is scum and I will in fact join his wagon .

Hey buddy, so I looked through your ISO and surprise, surprise (not really), while you have said 'Bone is weird" you have nothing in there to suggest you thought I was scum. You told Prof Friday's you don't think scum would crumb being scum, and that was really the only thing you've said about me. Then you decided later "I want to put my vote on Bone". And then changed it for awhile to Bulge. But now that my wagon is at L-3, you so conveniently think I'm the best vote again...with little to no explanation. With absolutely no read progression at all. (This paragraph sums up his lack of read progression).

This is a very strong reason to consider Banakai to be scum.

Aegor's piffle about how Banakai's RVS posts are "vacuous" and show "discomfort" is not, and it's arguably incorrect piffle anyway.

[Aegor]

The fact that it was the first vote on him doesn't matter in the slightest. How on earth would that make a difference?

The fact that my vote was the first and there have been several since indicates that something is bothering players about Banakai's posting. I am not hopping on a bandwagon with weak reasoning; I am sure that even you can see the relevance of that fact.

Yeah, your elaborations were weak as hell. Vacuity? Discomfort? You're really reaching.

I do not think so. And I have not yet seen a stronger case on any other player. You are more than welcome to point to one.

Three more times. Banakai's made 33 posts total.

Of which most are void of interesting content. Would you like me to point all of those out just so I can pad my numbers?

Their votes aren't relevant.

Actually, they are. If not a single other person has justified his vote with reasoning that is much stronger then mine, then your entire case is undermined. In case the reason why is not apparent to you, I will explain. My reads, as do most others', reflect the every-growing posting corpora of the other players. My threshold for saliency is high; most of the games do not help me generate reads. I therefore can operate only with the posts I have and with what I notice, which is not everything, to be sure.

What reasoning would be

strong

reasoning to you? What players, and what posts specifically, contain

strong

reasoning? If you can identify one (or several), great. Your case stands. But I have seen many, many weak accusations being thrown around. That just tells me we are still at the stage where deeper cases are not able to be made.

It's the very fact that you've justified your vote more than they have that makes me want to vote you

because so much of your justifications are about trivial things.

This game has very little content. I do what I can with what I have.

[Quilford]

lol

[Quilford]

because so much of your justifications are about trivial things.

This game has very little content. I do what I can with what I have.

lol

[Quilford]

Yeah, your elaborations were weak as hell. Vacuity? Discomfort? You're really reaching.

I do not think so. And I have not yet seen a stronger case on any other player. You are more than welcome to point to one.

lol

[Quilford]

The fact that it was the first vote on him doesn't matter in the slightest. How on earth would that make a difference?

The fact that my vote was the first and there have been several since indicates that something is bothering players about Banakai's posting.

That doesn't mean they're right; it doesn't mean you're right; it doesn't mean your reasoning is not weak.

[hiplop]

Honestly I see where quilford is coming for. He's seemingly trying to blend in the background and appear protown without actually having to give his reads. Its class book mafia play

[Aegor]

So, your case is total bunk.

All you have to do is point me in the direction of whatever amazing case you think is up to your standards. Until you do so, then my assertion that your standards are unreasonable stands.

it doesn't mean your reasoning is not weak.

And my weak reasoning is irrelevant unless it can reasonably be expected that I have some strong reasoning. At this point in the game, I think my reasoning is fine.

[Quilford]

Did you even read post #450?

[Aegor]

No

[Prof Fridays]

Shit, did I not post my reads list? For some reason I thought I did. Welp. Tomorrow!

[Quilford]

No

Mmm

[Quilford]

Honestly I see where quilford is coming for. He's seemingly trying to blend in the background and appear protown without actually having to give his reads. Its class book mafia play

I don't know about that. Aegor has given reads, in as far as calling kanye's posts "awesome" and saying "I like T-Bone and do not think he is scum. Do not like Rob. Do not like DGB's boring post" can be considered giving reads.

It's just that for the one player he has gone into more detail about his reasoning is incredibly flawed, and for all these other players the reasoning isn't there at all.

[Aegor]

No

Mmm

Re-read Bana's ISO. I guess we just have to disagree, since I do not consider lack of trajectory or lack of read provision before voting scummy at all at this stage in the game. I actually find my problems with Banakai's posts way more compelling than anything T-Bone brought up.

But w/e, since I get my accusation regardless of how this day ends.

[Aegor]

It's just that for the one player he has gone into more detail about his reasoning is incredibly flawed, and for all these other players the reasoning isn't there at all.

It is not flawed. You just do not find it compelling. There is a huge difference.

[hiplop]

Apologies that was a phone post. Like he's taking the approach of "why don't all you guys find scum" so that he can sheep rather than looking himself. Usually even bad town dontbhave that sort of mindset

Fwiw tho I still see tbone as a bit worse

[hiplop]

I get the town reads from tbone but something just seems incredibly artificial

[hiplop]

Aegor if you're town, acting like you don't care about this game doesn't help anyone. Read what the guy posted, and actually contribute.

[Aegor]

Aegor if you're town, acting like you don't care about this game doesn't help anyone. Read what the guy posted, and actually contribute.

You must feel so good about yourself.

[Quilford]

It's just that for the one player he has gone into more detail about his reasoning is incredibly flawed, and for all these other players the reasoning isn't there at all.

It is not flawed. You just do not find it compelling. There is a huge difference.

No, it's flawed, for all the reasons I went into in #447 and more.

[INAUFTA]

VOTE: T-bone

Looks like bulge wagon is dead anyway so I might as well. If he flees tommorow...

You guys realise that if scum gets lynched today the partner loses too, so if T-bone was my partner then I would be helping myself lose.

I will personnally hammer his wagon though, seriously. Then after tomorrow if you still don't believe me you can accuse me.

Well Banakai's not scum with T-Bone.

He is probably scum with someone else then. Leaving the Bulge wagon because it died, so useful
VOTE: Banakai

[Aegor]

No, it's flawed, for all the reasons I went into in #447 and more.

You did not point out any logical flaws. You simply stated that you disagreed with my reasoning. Recognize the difference.

[INAUFTA]

Defend based on said meta.
Don't trust the meta read.

Yes that's how meta reads work for me, establish a hint of possible alignment during early game, throw in bin late game and go with whatever the result is from the current game's actual posts.
I guess there would be a hint of the metaread still somewhere leaning me on one side. Other people can use my hints of meta reads which i will post as they establish a slight lean one way, but it's never something to trust fully.

[Quilford]

No, it's flawed, for all the reasons I went into in #447 and more.

You did not point out any logical flaws. You simply stated that you disagreed with my reasoning. Recognize the difference.

Flawed. Not logically flawed, just flawed. It's an adjective. Learn the difference.

[Aegor]

Flawed. Not logically flawed, just flawed. It's an adjective. Learn the difference.

You did not point out any flaws either. You simply disagreed with what I think is scummy. Learn the difference.