Imma have to dip most of tomorrow because I have shit to take care of with school.
Omg thanks! I wasn't big on meta reading when I first played this game, so I never searched anyone.
In post 98, Keychain wrote:
PEdit:
@cy: huh okay. Give me a bit and I'll get to that, but in the meantime I'm interested - do you think I'm scum?
No. You're coming from a genuine town perspective. I don't think it's too solid of a scum read, but you've defended your point the same way each time, making it more solid imo. I'll address the other voting thing at the end of my second response.
In post 100, Keychain wrote:I'm still liking it
![:]](./images/smilies/icon_smiling.png "Cheerful Smile")
In post 96, cytheflyguy wrote:
Okay so:
A) You misquoted me. I said "If we're going by this logic, I think this would be a good place to start." Keywords: "If we're going by this logic". I thought other people would be going by this logic and decided to take a stab at it.
Yeah, my apologies, I should have put a disclaimer that it was my takeaway from the post, not a direct quote.
Can you explain what that logic was? Because from my POV it looks like you were assuming Transcend had a higher-than-random chance of rolling scum. I find that difficult to believe you accepted this premise, even more so that you would expect other people to do so, so please help me understand.
In post 96, cytheflyguy wrote:
B) So because half of the people appeared before Transcend, I should have grasped at straws with them first? I went with a small thing that I could just look at -- not even actually scumreading him. And I addressed some of the faulty logic, it's not like I followed it blindly.
See above regarding why I find it difficult to understand how you followed
any
of the logic.
But no. I mean... you started a game. Players were posting things. Players with alignments. Instead of looking at their posts to work out if they were scum or not, you instead decided to inquire into the meta of a player who hadn't even posted, so you had zero way to develop a read from that at that point. I would have expected it to give you some sort of opinion on UCV, but I see no evidence of that so far.
In post 96, cytheflyguy wrote:
C) What type of information? Like his previous games? How do I access that -- legit question. That'd be useful information down the road.
Yeah that was a legit question. When I'm doing background research I check wikis first (next to the PM button at the bottom left of each post) then the topic search Katyusha linked (go to profile of the player, bottom right of that). But you said you trying to get the game rolling, not that you were setting up for well down the track. Those are different things to me.
On another note: why are you voting Firaja?
A) My train of thought was not, "If I can trust this person, and Transcend has a higher than normal chance of being scum, then he should be prodded because he is more than likely scum in this game."
It was, "If I can trust this person, and Transcend has a higher than normal chance of being scum, he would probably have a higher chance of not playing because he is scum and does not want to play the same role once again, as he was the only person to not confirm." The reason I fell for the joke was because the statistics relied on behavior, especially the part about if someone replaced him. It's flimsy logic, yeah, but if you read my posts, I did not 100% agree with UC, I was just talking statistics so I could anticipate behavior.
B) I'm not going to pull the rookie card, but I will say that I felt it was easier to grasp at the first thing I saw and go from there rather than trying to read other's initial posts because I'm still a little baffled on the proper way of doing so
I hope you can have a better understanding of what my logic was at least.
C) Thank you for your explanation. Also, when I said down the road, I meant for future circumstances when the situation arises for me to meta read someone. Saying "down the road" in this case can also apply to something I wish I had known but didn't. It's still useful in the future, but it also could have been useful in the past, when I was trying to get the ball rolling.
Regarding the other note of why I'm voting Firaja: While your arguments were based around
that was faulty logic and you meta read a person not in the game when you should have focused on the players at hand and you're doing a poor job of explaining yourself
, his argument is
In post 37, Firaja wrote:
If anyhing i'd say cytheflyguy looks a little worse from it simply because his couple of comments on it is what made it into more of a thing and started the conversation on it. But as i said before because it's early on it is probably nothing, just something I'm keeping in mind for now.
Keywords: "made it into more of a thing and started the conversation on it." I fail to see how this is a logical argument.
In post 42, Firaja wrote:Right, however using something out of seemingly nothing is a little sketchy to me. Trying to take something seemingly irrelevant and potwbtially turn it into something else is what is runbing me the wrong way here as it may be a potential to cause misdirection.
Again this is all a bit of a reach as it is a bit early, but i do see your point as well of cy trying to find substance and add to the discussion.
Once again, he refuses to specify any points. At all. The difference between you and him is the fact that you use sources, you recall specific instances, and you fleshout your thoughts. Even in your first few points about the situation, you came across way more town they he did. That's why I townread you and scumread him.
Hope that helped!
