@Guardian:
Concerning the inconsistency in your posts regarding intentions towards darko.
First you say that you like wagons on scummy players, but then you tone it down and say that you only wanted him pressured
As I said, pressure =/= bandwagon
You either claim that you want to pressure him with your vote, in which case you don't allow a quicklynch to happen, you don't allow a bandwagon to form, because pressure is asking for information, which cannot be gained if the player is dead, right?
Or you claim that you just want to bandwagon him because you think he's scummy already, which doesn't leave much room for interpretation and negotiation.
Concerning the "revolutionary" ideas.
Off the top of my head:
- shorter days ftw
- not defending yourself as town
- pushing for quick results
Guardian wrote:I agree -- however, you didn't seem to take my post 316 into account in this analysis -- right?
No, I didn't. That post was made while I was writing the analysis, therefore it didn't show up. The conclusion you quoted is drawn from your activity up until... page 12 if I'm not mistaken.
Guardian wrote:You attacked me earlier in this post for "setting up" Sir Tornado vis a vis darko -- I said that if darko came up scum, Sir T deserved a looking over. You said this was scummy, and that town can defend scum too:
It seems you are doing the same thing you just called me scummy for -- setting up NabNab for lynch if I am lynched and turn up scum (which I won't ftr). Would NabNab not be scummy if I turned up town? How is this statement at yours at all different from the statement of mine you attacked me for -- are you not being hypocritical//scummy here?
The difference is this: the connection you had made between SirT and darko was weak, at best. You "paired" them based on what you perceived to be a defense of darko, when, in fact, it was a slowing down of the bandwagon. We've talked about this at least twice before, and you agreed with me that SirT had, indeed, supplied a valid reason for his so called defense.
Now, the connection I made between you and NabNab is based on the following things: I've considered you both suspicious/scummy, so, to me, it wouldn't be farfetched to think of you two as scum together. Furthermore, the interaction between you, namely NabNab's conflicting position on you looks to me like scum trying to protect scum in a not so obvious way.
In the end, if you turn up scum, the odds of NabNab being scum too are higher than that of being town. I also suggested we take a long, hard look, which isn't quite the same with "setting up the next lynch". Because if there are no other scumtells from NabNab other than his curious behaviour towards you, then we can't really string him up, can we?
I may be subjective in this and you may, indeed, be right to call it an inconsistency on my behalf (although I think I did the right thing). Which is why I'm willing to ask other players to chip in on what they think of your observation.
Guardian wrote:but his suspicions show that he does NOT know the setup of the game (a town tell) and not that he knows the setup of the game (a scum tell)
Errr... I disagree with this. Knowing the setup of the game should also be a prerogative of the townies. Playing oblivious of the bigger picture is kind of bad if you ask me.
Guardian wrote:Post 379 of Sacred's I find suspicious, because of what isn't there. She is addressing NabNab's 375, point by point, and doesn't address this:
Sacred addresses the point right above and below this but not this. Why, Sacred?
Err.... I honestly don't understand why you ask this :-/
Let's go back and look at the exchange between me and NabNab.
I accuse NabNab of stuff in post 326.
He replies in post 333, saying stuff like: "I admit to the sin (in my book) of Undue Confidence." ; "I feel silly too. I admit to the sin (in my book) of Passion." ; "I lapsed, and the best I can do is beg forgiveness."
To which I reply with: "Ok, so you admit that your play was suspicious/curious enough to warrant my previous post. And maybe not just mine. Right?"
So when he comes back with: "Yes, I admit to playing poorly/scummily. To deny it would be stupid, it's right there in the thread."
Of course I wasn't going to reply to it,
again
, since that was actually him confirming my previous statement, which had all started by asking something similar to the quote you say I missed.
So I didn't really miss it, I simply skipped it since it had been already discussed.
Guardian wrote:Also, I find it somewhat interesting that you address this after Sacred missed it.
I trust you've now realized how this is wrong.
I also note the subtle subscription to the "Zindaras/Sacred connection" theory.
Guardian wrote:Sacred: I didn't like her inconsistency, and I think she is a good player, and I am getting bad vibes.
Thank you for the appreciation. However, I hope that I've now addressed the "inconsistency" in a satsifactory manner, especially since I think it's kind of a stretch to say that you're getting bad vibes simply because of an inconsistency which I hadn't even talked about.
NabNab wrote:Right now, I'm just a little bit surprised at how both Zindy and Sacred chose to break down every little detail of the post I made about their connections (which was by Sacred's request).
1. Of course I requested it. You were talking about a connection between me and Zindaras when I could see none.
2. The reason why I broke down your post was because it was so completely wrong. Had it been correct, I wouldn't have had what to comment on it, would I?
Zindaras wrote:Well, I shouldn't say too many good things about her, she has a big enough ego as is. >.>
Pot. Kettle. 'Nuff said
