In post 260, Something_Smart wrote:VOTE: Gamma
I honestly don't know where to start here so I'll start on the Mario wagon.
Looking back through Something Smart's posts I don't think this is genuine. He's been pointing out things he finds suspicious in his earlier posts, so I don't see how he could come in with no idea of where to start. Especially when you consider that his vote went on someone he already voiced suspicion on, it seems more like he wanted to place a vote with the safe and easy reason that the person was on the claimed Friendly Neighbor's wagon.
Townies do suspicious things all the time (and my vote is on one of the players I pointed out as being suspicious so I don't know what you expected).
Speaking of suspicious, I see you suspecting me using the safe and easy reason of suspecting me for using the safe and easy reason of having voted the claimed FN to suspect Gamma. (That was supposed to sound clever but instead it just sounds convoluted.)
I am awaiting the answer to this question. People who are not iDanyBoy may also answer it.
Something_Smart his vote seems random and it doesn't feel like his looking for scum
On the contrary I'm looking for scum because I don't think I've found scum yet.
Turning this question around, what is the scum motivation behind such a vote?
Your reasoning doesn't seem to work. Why would scum have more of a motivation to vote someone who later happened to be the FN? If someone was wrong on one vote that doesn't make them more likely to be scum by any more than a negligible amount.
You do have some other reasoning on Gamma though.
In post 170, Something_Smart wrote:Gamma goes from talking seriously about improving his town performance to being completely sarcastic and uninhibited, and it makes 20 feel not real. (Like he's trying to fake town emotion)
to do something. I feel that my current townplay is actually not half bad.
Detail irrelevant to my point. Can you talk a bit about your train of thought in those two posts?
Exactly how was Gamma's posting sarcastic and uninhibited? It seemed to be mostly a series of genuine questions (plus, at one point, talking about the difference between reasoning and justification).
"one of these days i'll read you correctly" - Transcend, Micro 714
In post 283, Something_Smart wrote:and my vote is on one of the players I pointed out as being suspicious
I know that and mentioned as much. The fact that you come in and act like you have no clue where to start when you had several suspicions to work with is what pings me, and the suspicion is strengthened by you voting Gamma with your "no idea where to start" thing when you had established suspicions of them. If you already had those to work then it tells me you were lying about not knowing where to start to try to keep your hands clean.
Townies do suspicious things all the time
Your point being?
My point is that I'm not going to call someone scum just for doing a few things that seem suspicious. (I need something more concrete which I haven't found this game yet.) And if I vote someone just for being suspicious, then I know from experience that that will inevitably lead to confbias.
I'd like to not be voting now but I felt like not enough was happening and when that's the case more vote changes is often a solution to that.
In post 260, Something_Smart wrote:VOTE: Gamma
I honestly don't know where to start here so I'll start on the Mario wagon.
Looking back through Something Smart's posts I don't think this is genuine. He's been pointing out things he finds suspicious in his earlier posts, so I don't see how he could come in with no idea of where to start. Especially when you consider that his vote went on someone he already voiced suspicion on, it seems more like he wanted to place a vote with the safe and easy reason that the person was on the claimed Friendly Neighbor's wagon.
Townies do suspicious things all the time (and my vote is on one of the players I pointed out as being suspicious so I don't know what you expected).
Speaking of suspicious, I see you suspecting me using the safe and easy reason of suspecting me for using the safe and easy reason of having voted the claimed FN to suspect Gamma. (That was supposed to sound clever but instead it just sounds convoluted.)
I am awaiting the answer to this question. People who are not iDanyBoy may also answer it.
Something_Smart his vote seems random and it doesn't feel like his looking for scum
On the contrary I'm looking for scum because I don't think I've found scum yet.
Turning this question around, what is the scum motivation behind such a vote?
Your reasoning doesn't seem to work. Why would scum have more of a motivation to vote someone who later happened to be the FN? If someone was wrong on one vote that doesn't make them more likely to be scum by any more than a negligible amount.
Because Mario seemed like an easy lynch and easy lynches that are town are prime places for scum to vote, especially when the overall state of the game is slow.
You do have some other reasoning on Gamma though.
In post 170, Something_Smart wrote:Gamma goes from talking seriously about improving his town performance to being completely sarcastic and uninhibited, and it makes 20 feel not real. (Like he's trying to fake town emotion)
to do something. I feel that my current townplay is actually not half bad.
Detail irrelevant to my point. Can you talk a bit about your train of thought in those two posts?
Exactly how was Gamma's posting sarcastic and uninhibited? It seemed to be mostly a series of genuine questions (plus, at one point, talking about the difference between reasoning and justification).
The post that I described as sarcastic and uninhibited was 20:
In post 20, Gamma Emerald wrote:WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE LET'S GET QUICKLYNCHED IN A MICRO AGAIN
Which feels like he might be trying to fake a town response to an early wagon.
Wouldn't uninhibited be towny though?
S_S you seem to be stretching your logic here.
The vote was initially for the weak-ass "vote on the town wagon" idea.
I know I've seen it before just not where exactly.
<Embrace The Void>
“A flipped coin doesn't always land heads or tails. Sometimes it may never land at all...”
I am still happy with my Flubber vote but I would like to hear some more reads from Dany. The sheepiness I mentioned earlier is honestly making me consider changing my vote but I want to wait to hear from him first.
In post 302, Something_Smart wrote:My point is that I'm not going to call someone scum just for doing a few things that seem suspicious. (I need something more concrete which I haven't found this game yet.) And if I vote someone just for being suspicious, then I know from experience that that will inevitably lead to confbias.
I'd like to not be voting now but I felt like not enough was happening and when that's the case more vote changes is often a solution to that.
So when the fuck do you plan on calling people scum? Do you just not scumhunt? And again, this still doesn't explain how someone with suspicions on players can claim they have no idea where to start when placing their vote.
VOTE: Something_Smart[/v]
I want this more than Flubber now, though I could switch back to flubber. Flubber does seem like he's trying to get his last thoughts out which is Towny, but I'm still wary because after I said accepting the lynch is more likely to come from Town with Gamma, I'm not going to say it's impossible scum could be trying to emulate that behavior.
In post 302, Something_Smart wrote:My point is that I'm not going to call someone scum just for doing a few things that seem suspicious. (I need something more concrete which I haven't found this game yet.) And if I vote someone just for being suspicious, then I know from experience that that will inevitably lead to confbias.
I'd like to not be voting now but I felt like not enough was happening and when that's the case more vote changes is often a solution to that.
So when the fuck do you plan on calling people scum? Do you just not scumhunt? And again, this still doesn't explain how someone with suspicions on players can claim they have no idea where to start when placing their vote.
If you plan on calling people scum then you're doing it wrong. (Or you're scum.) Just because it's been 10 days doesn't make the 13 pages of mostly pointless bickering this game is any easier to read and it doesn't mean everyone has a duty to have a strong scumread.
That said, the last paragraph of this post sets off alarm bells for me:
I want this more than Flubber now, though I could switch back to flubber. Flubber does seem like he's trying to get his last thoughts out which is Towny, but I'm still wary because after I said accepting the lynch is more likely to come from Town with Gamma, I'm not going to say it's impossible scum could be trying to emulate that behavior.
First sentence feels like scum keeping options open rather than town having organic read changes. Second sentence is incredibly shallow and feels very logical and robotic for somebody supposedly afraid of being pocketed. VOTE: Alchemist
Also, a weakened scumread isn't me keeping options open, it's me considering his newest posts in conjunction with his earlier ones. Logical and maybe even robotic doesn't seem too off the mark for my posts, but shallow? It's shallow to consider the possibilty of scum emulating what someone described as Town behavior earlier in the game?
I think you know what I meant though: you shouldn't just decide that "I should have some scumreads of X strength now" and then have them.
I didn't know what you meant. I don't think any other player would come up and say "Yeah I have these suspicions, but I'm going to ignore them because voting one of 2 people on a wagon is a better way of finding scum than following my suspicions."
I think you know what I meant though: you shouldn't just decide that "I should have some scumreads of X strength now" and then have them.
I didn't know what you meant. I don't think any other player would come up and say "Yeah I have these suspicions, but I'm going to ignore them because voting one of 2 people on a wagon is a better way of finding scum than following my suspicions."
It's not ignoring them, it's just like, if all you have are vague suspicions, they're more likely noise than signal. And the vote on Gamma was a vote to get the game moving (and possibly get reactions) rather than an actual vote based on a scumread.
And now I'm liking your responses so I feel like this one might be noise too
S_S's case on Alchemist fails to consider the Alchemist!town narrative.
S_S isn't scum based upon typing his sentence wrong although I guess I don't get the gamma vote either.
In post 320, Something_Smart wrote:ok I'm feeling more town on Alchemist and I don't like to sheep but I'm pretty sure this is like the perfect time to sheep so VOTE: iDanyBoy
You vote me for sheeping while sheeping?
I agree with a lot of what Alchemist is posting (280) and didn't have much to add onto that, this is also making me see him as a townie.
I'd like to know what changed your vote from Alchemist to me?
In post 302, Something_Smart wrote:Because Mario seemed like an easy lynch and easy lynches that are town are prime places for scum to vote, especially when the overall state of the game is slow.
What makes you think he was an easy lynch? He only had two votes on him at that time and I unvoted shortly after.
VOTE: SS
He switches his votes from people to people with very little reasoning and his responses' to Alchemist seem like scum.
Voting somethingsmart. Dany acting a little sheepy is one thing but sheeping on someone for sheeping is a whole other story. SS, if you have any reasons to vote for Dany besides him acting sheepy earlier please tell us.
"just got my hands in cooking! feel free to give me suggestions. So far completed: noodle in soup, noodle stuffed clam over noodle, red white and bluedle american noodle, hot brown noodle"
