The Second Fortnight (Game Over)

[Quilford]

No, I explained why your reasons for thinking Banakai's posts were scummy were wrong. e.g. Banakai's post contained no nervousness, vacuity isn't alignment indicative, neither is casting suspicion on a wagon while voting someone else, etc

It would follow from them being wrong that your case on Banakai is flawed.

[Rob14]

Ummm no. You have made excuses, so let's not pretend you haven't. Citing site-meta as a defense to your reads is not a defense. Site-meta has nothing to do with this game. It especially has nothing to do with this game because of the way the set-up is. Your motivations behind the reads were to not make any waves, and to push through the most likely lynch candidates. Your lack of perception astounds me. Since you're an experienced player with 1+ years, you should have enough awareness to know what your reads look like to other players. It's just so convenient for you to come into the thread and scumread the players getting the most heat. No it's not our fault that you are choosing to call the players scum that everyone else is without your own original progression to those reads. No it's not site-meta's fault that your reads look safe. That's all on you.

Uh, no. It's actually not on me. Those are me reads, and they are what they are. I'm not going to fake my reads to avoid a shitty tell that people need to stop using. Sorry I didn't post earlier before other people read them that way, I guess?

I'm not saying site meta is responsible for my reads. I'm saying site meta is responsible for your shitty fake scumhunting.

farside, please explain your town read of Aegor since you're chainsaw defending him.

I didn't see what was wrong with aegor's reasons for voting banak.
That is not chainsaw defending. It's asking what the fuck was wrong with what aegor said.

Seriously learn what chainsaw defending means.

I don't like that last sentence. Doesn't sound very genuine to me.

Aegor is probably town now. Quilford's dislike is more playstyle than alignment, I think, although Quilford moves towards strong town for that line of attack - I don't see it coming from scum.

Oh, wait wait wait. Aegor's defense in #451 is basically "Well, the game is still in RVS practically, so everything I've done doesn't matter", which is prettttty bad. Nevermind on that town thing, knocked back down to null.

[Aegor]

No, I explained why your reasons for thinking Banakai's posts were scummy were wrong. e.g. Banakai's post contained no nervousness

In your judgment. In mine, it did. Please do not confuse your opinion with some objective reality against which others' opinions should be measured.

vacuity isn't alignment indicative

In my judgment, it was alignment-indicative in this case.

neither is casting suspicion on a wagon while voting someone else, etc

In my judgment, Bana's casting suspicion on a wagon while voting someone else was alignment-indicative.

Nothing is inherently alignment-indicative. In my judgment, Bana made those posts with scum intent, and that manifested itself in his posts in the ways I describe. If you disagree, fine. But saying that my case is flawed while supporting an argument based on lack of trajectory, which is itself not alignment-indicative either, is, shall we say, flawed.

It would follow from them being wrong that your case on Banakai is flawed.

Then I have nothing to worry about, since they are not wrong.

[Quilford]

Please do not confuse your opinion with some objective reality against which others' opinions should be measured.

I'm going to go ahead and do that until you explain what you saw as nervousness in Banakai's posts, why you thought vacuity was alignment-indicative, and why you thought casting suspicion on a wagon while voting someone else was alignment-indicative.

If you don't do that, you're simply asserting that Banakai has committed scumtells without providing evidence that he did so or even explaining why they are even scumtells, and therefore you are not substantiating your arguments. So your case is flawed.

[Aegor]

I'm going to go ahead and do that until you explain what you saw as nervousness in Banakai's posts

You are more than welcome to ISO me for the word "nervous," or even the stem "nerv." You will not find anything; you were and are putting words in my mouth.

why you thought vacuity was alignment-indicative

It was used to justify fence-sitting on kanye. Read my posts.

and why you thought casting suspicion on a wagon while voting someone else was alignment-indicative.

Because it was a scummy push for several reasons:
1) Naked vote on T-Bone
2) No explanation of why T-Bone is more vote-worthy than The Bulge
3) No explanation of why T-Bone is a stronger scumread than The Bulge
4) Preparation for a future vote on The Bulge is such a wagon developed...
5) Which happens in 177, with no explanation or anything in between.

Which is nothing more than a fleshed-out explanation of what I said in the first place.

If you don't do that, you're simply asserting that Banakai has committed scumtells without providing evidence that he did so or even explaining why they are even scumtells, and therefore you are not substantiating your arguments. So your case is flawed.

Unsubstantiated does not mean flawed. Learn the difference. And anything that is not a statement of fact is ultimately epistemically unjustifiable, but that is certainly a philosophical rabbit hole.

[T-Bone]

Ummm no. You have made excuses, so let's not pretend you haven't. Citing site-meta as a defense to your reads is not a defense. Site-meta has nothing to do with this game. It especially has nothing to do with this game because of the way the set-up is. Your motivations behind the reads were to not make any waves, and to push through the most likely lynch candidates. Your lack of perception astounds me. Since you're an experienced player with 1+ years, you should have enough awareness to know what your reads look like to other players. It's just so convenient for you to come into the thread and scumread the players getting the most heat. No it's not our fault that you are choosing to call the players scum that everyone else is without your own original progression to those reads. No it's not site-meta's fault that your reads look safe. That's all on you.

Uh, no. It's actually not on me.

Those are me reads, and they are what they are.

I'm not going to fake my reads to avoid a shitty tell that people need to stop using. Sorry I didn't post earlier before other people read them that way, I guess?

I'm not saying site meta is responsible for my reads. I'm saying site meta is responsible for your shitty fake scumhunting.

That's legit the first time in this discussion that you defended your reads (even if it's not really a defense). Every other time I've been saddled with irrelevant excuses. Honestly had you just tried to justify your reads within the context of this game you wouldn't be so obviously scum. Site meta isn't responsible for shit this game, yet you continue to go to that well as if it means something.

[Quilford]

I'm going to go ahead and do that until you explain what you saw as nervousness in Banakai's posts

You are more than welcome to ISO me for the word "nervous," or even the stem "nerv." You will not find anything; you were and are putting words in my mouth.

No, I wasn't; originally I said "discomfort", it got mixed up with "nervousness". Where do you see discomfort in Banakai's RVS post?

why you thought vacuity was alignment-indicative

It was used to justify fence-sitting on kanye. Read my posts.

Literally nowhere in that post do you say explicitly or even insinuate anything of the sort, lol

and why you thought casting suspicion on a wagon while voting someone else was alignment-indicative.

Because it was a scummy push for several reasons:
1) Naked vote on T-Bone
2) No explanation of why T-Bone is more vote-worthy than The Bulge
3) No explanation of why T-Bone is a stronger scumread than The Bulge
4) Preparation for a future vote on The Bulge is such a wagon developed...
5) Which happens in 177, with no explanation or anything in between.

None of that explains why casting suspicion on a wagon while voting someone else is scummy.

If you don't do that, you're simply asserting that Banakai has committed scumtells without providing evidence that he did so or even explaining why they are even scumtells, and therefore you are not substantiating your arguments. So your case is flawed.

Unsubstantiated does not mean flawed. Learn the difference. And anything that is not a statement of fact is ultimately epistemically unjustifiable, but that is certainly a philosophical rabbit hole.

If an argument is unsubstantiated, it is flawed. I'm going by flawed as 'having or characterized by a fundamental weakness or imperfection' and having no evidence with which to support an argument certainly seems like a fundamental weakness to me.

[Rob14]

No, I explained why your reasons for thinking Banakai's posts were scummy were wrong. e.g.

Banakai's post contained no nervousness

In your judgment. In mine,

it did.

You are more than welcome to ISO me for the word "nervous," or even the stem "nerv." You will not find anything; you were and are putting words in my mouth.

So which is it? Did you think he was nervous or not? Because you seem to defend your idea that he's nervous, then go back and say "Oh wait, I never said that", which suggests you didn't even remember what your case on T-Bone was.

Re: T-Bone

Why would I defend my reads when you haven't attacked them? You never attacked my reads themselves or the rationale behind them. You attacked the timing of my reads. The ONLY reason you considered them scummy, as far as I can tell, was because they came after others provided similar reads. That is strictly a "Rob was asleep when this game got going" tell. There's nothing to defend, so I didn't bother. Now, if you want to attack my reads themselves, be my guest and I'd be happy to defend my logic or rationale. But you haven't done that. Why defend what isn't under attack?

What you've seen so far and will continue to see as long as you push your current awful case is my assertion that "timing tells" are bad if you don't analyze rationale behind the reads, which you've so far failed to do at all.

[farside22]

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

This makes no sense.
First you have a town read on t-bone, you don't trust meta and then you say this next:

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.

You defended t-bone based on that meta. You called him town based on that meta.
Now he's not scum with banak so you vote for banak.

Oh hells no

VOTE: Inaufta

[farside22]

Rob:

I don't like that last sentence. Doesn't sound very genuine to me.

Aegor is probably town now. Quilford's dislike is more playstyle than alignment, I think, although Quilford moves towards strong town for that line of attack - I don't see it coming from scum.

Oh, wait wait wait. Aegor's defense in #451 is basically "Well, the game is still in RVS practically, so everything I've done doesn't matter", which is prettttty bad. Nevermind on that town thing, knocked back down to null.

I have a long hateful history with the term chainsaw defense. I said the term with destain.


@aegor: what are your scum reads like besides banak?

[INAUFTA]

You defended t-bone based on that meta. You called him town based on that meta.
Now he's not scum with banak so you vote for banak.

The read on banakai (probably scum - not with T-Bone) is a completely different read that my defence of T-Bone based on a one-game hydra game.
Unless you're expecting me to be able to produce an functional meta read from one game (and I still wouldn't even trust my meta reads from more than one game for a period of time, I don't see where you're going.

[INAUFTA]

So which is it? Did you think he was nervous or not? Because you seem to defend your idea that he's nervous, then go back and say "Oh wait, I never said that", which suggests you didn't even remember what your case on T-Bone was.

When he hasn't had a case on T-Bone, is that actually surprising?

[Banakai]

>mfw someone actually realises aegos vote is bad

[zoraster]

Day 1

Aegor ( 2 )

DrippingGoofball

Quilford

[/color]

(L - 7 )

Banakai ( 5 )

Aegor

The Bulge

Untrod Tripod

Rob13

INAUFTA

[/color]

(L - 4 )

INAUFTA ( 1 )

farside22

[/color]

(L - 8 )

kuribo ( 1 )

Marquis

[/color]

(L - 8 )

Metal Sonic ( 1 )

kanyeknowsbest

[/color]

(L - 8 )

Prof Fridays ( 1 )

kuribo

[/color]

(L - 8 )

Rob13 ( 1 )

T-Bone

[/color]

(L - 8 )

T-bone ( 4 )

Prof Fridays

hiplop

Metal Sonic

Banakai

[/color]

(L - 5 )

No Lynch ( 0 )

UNAVAILABLE

Not Voting ( 0 )

Total Votes ( 16 )

Needed to Lynch [ 9 ]

Deadline

Deadline is August 7 at 22:26 EDT --- Time Until Deadline: (expired on 2014-08-07 22:26:00)

kanye has been prodded.

[Metal Sonic]

Only 4 Pages?

Shame on this thread!

VOTE: banakai

this is to express that I find you rather scummy.

[Metal Sonic]

yea, bulge has town responses

I was masons with Bulge in a game recently. he seems considerably more self-conscious and nervous here.

I wanted to reply to this:

the change in behaviour is extremely forgivable and can be explained logically:

The difference in game mechanics in this game as opposed to normal games will inevitably result in a change of behavior from the norm.

This is because of the increased need for scumhunting, the significant lack of time/deadline, and the pressure of having many experienced players also in this game.

Thus, all these will create stress, nervousness and/or extreme determination which deviates from normal play.

A slight change in behavior or personality in this game as compared to normal games is okay.

[DrippingGoofball]

Marquis only has 6 posts, 4 fewer than the mod.

[Marquis]

sorry for inactivity, i've been playing marathons since friday and neglecting everything else semi-busy today, but bbl

[Rob14]

When he hasn't had a case on T-Bone, is that actually surprising?

I meant Banakai.

Re: DGB - The push on lurkers is bad and will continue to be bad. Town and scum both lurk, and it's not really alignment indicative, especially in the middle of a Marathon weekend. If they continue lurking after the weekend's over, sure, string them up, but why not comment on people who are actually here and can be pressured?

[DrippingGoofball]

Town and scum both lurk

We don't have an eternity and we need material to be able to judge one from the other.

Why, am I shaking up your lurkerbuddy?

[DrippingGoofball]

sorry for inactivity, i've been playing marathons since friday and neglecting everything else semi-busy today, but bbl

And sorry but this is scum

Would speedlynch to avoid a flee

[T-Bone]

SNIP

Maybe it got lost in translation, but yes I felt your entire reads were weak, and that you were making them because they were popular. It's not about timing. It's about that in that post, your thoughts were just parroting what others were saying. Then you went into the whole "well it's their fault everyone thinks these 3 players are scummy"....and the defense based on site-meta (in this set-up especially) is BS. I have been attacking you because the rationale behind your reads were nonexistent, and that your reads from MY perspective look like they were made to appease the more vocal players, rather than because you legit had these reads.

[T-Bone]

Speaking of your reads are probably outdated Rob, (with 15 pages of new information), so let's have some of those too.

[Rob14]

And what's your evidence of that, other than the fact that my reads were similar to players who gave reads before me? What in the rationale I provided led you to believe that it came from a scum motivation, including everything that has now come after it that you can now incorporate in your read? Because if the only evidence you have for your read is "BUT THEY WERE SOOOO SIMILAR", then yes, it is a timing read, and yes, it's bad.

Re: DGB - It's not scumhunting to poke at lurkers to the exclusion of all else, which is what you appear to be doing for the most part. Since you voted a lurker, you've responded to people who asked you direct questions and pushed more ... on people who aren't even here.

@Mod - Prods on kanye and Bulge (in an hour) please.

[Rob14]

I've provided updates several times, T-Bone, once with a new list and several times by saying X is town, etc. I'll get to it soonish when I feel my reads have changed enough to warrant compiling a new list, but it's all in my ISO.