Yes. Using meta is garbage in general. His conclusions were wrong and didn’t really make sense plus people enter rvs different each game. Changing your entrance isn’t AI.In post 96, Hawk wrote:Meta diving and then defending his argument is scummy?
It wouldn’t really though cause that’s the beauty of mafia. You can change your mind when new evidence is presented. What he said could come from either alignment.In post 97, rb wrote:I think presuming innocence in grey-areas is unlikely to come from scum, bc that would create a lot of work backtracking laterIn post 74, Apple Jack wrote:Based off what exactly?In post 68, rb wrote:Sky Paladin probably town though
will see how sky develops but its townlean rn
I agree with this.In post 99, humaneatingmonkey wrote:As town, can you see that your first reaction to this post is to metadive the fuck out of it? Note that he didn't even vote it at first, only when he was under pressure and forced to do something with it. I'm not seeing that as organic town process.
I told you that I had given him sketch points for it based on the fact that it was only 2 scum games that I could use for my read and conclusions. I didn't actually vote until afterwards when he gained more sketch points for purposely lying and saying he was only scum in 1 game, and his subsequent posts which got progressively scummier to me. Once he hit my threshold for a vote, I placed a vote there.In post 99, humaneatingmonkey wrote:As town, can you see that your first reaction to this post is to metadive the fuck out of it? Note that he didn't even vote it at first, only when he was under pressure and forced to do something with it. I'm not seeing that as organic town process.
I only disagree with the using meta is garbage. I get where you're coming from but I feel like you're making assumptions based off things you shouldn't know. How can his conclusions be wrong if we don't know 2IAM alignment this game?In post 100, Apple Jack wrote:Yes. Using meta is garbage in general. His conclusions were wrong and didn’t really make sense plus people enter rvs different each game. Changing your entrance isn’t AI.In post 96, Hawk wrote:Meta diving and then defending his argument is scummy?
So he’s basically grasping at something to use which is very scummy
People being like but what's the reason. He gave 4 reasons here. I don't think he expected this to pan out the way it did.In post 19, PsykoSavant wrote:I'm on break from school, I have nothing better to do with my time. I hate RVS so I went looking for data on something I found weird. For the shiggles.In post 16, humaneatingmonkey wrote:Also interested in how fast you found it important to metadive TIAM lmao
VOTE: PsykoSavant
Take your pick of reasons.
It's preview edit!! right? Or PE: Something like that.In post 110, humaneatingmonkey wrote:Psyko, do you think he was purposely lying there? Do you seem him now as someone you would like to lynch?
Hawk, just post what you need to post lmao that's what I do
Because I honestly see a pattern even if ya'll don't see it.In post 106, Hawk wrote:I only disagree with the using meta is garbage. I get where you're coming from but I feel like you're making assumptions based off things you shouldn't know. How can his conclusions be wrong if we don't know 2IAM alignment this game?In post 100, Apple Jack wrote:Yes. Using meta is garbage in general. His conclusions were wrong and didn’t really make sense plus people enter rvs different each game. Changing your entrance isn’t AI.In post 96, Hawk wrote:Meta diving and then defending his argument is scummy?
So he’s basically grasping at something to use which is very scummy
Grasping is scummy. Defending when pressured is not. He literally got called a liar page one.
I can agree it seems inorganic but he hasn't made any other posts since, so I remain to be unconvinced it's more scummy than town but maybe I'm missing something...
Psycho posted: Why did you decide to defend your metadived rather than retract and say the argument was weak? anything besides him lieing (making a mistake)
He said "truly random." I don't like that he felt the need to point out it really is random, feels like over-justification and sent up flags. See prior reasons about being bored to tears etc. The progression of him voting, continuing to pressure me to see if the wagon would form, and then unvoting when he realized a) he wasn't gaining the quick traction he was looking for and b) I'm actually making a good argument is scummy. I do think he was either purposely lying or hoping that we wouldn't find the game that just closed.In post 107, Apple Jack wrote:But it makes no sense to meta dive him based on his entry. I just don’t understand why you as town would do that. I could see why you as scum would.
Are you even reading my posts?In post 117, Hawk wrote:Now I'm more uncertain than before.
I don't see why you would think he would be purposefully lying. Also I don't see arguments for why he was scummy I see arguments that he has a meta and was following it... which is fine... for like drawing information out but not AI to this game... like meta is only AI on completed games because it can be manipulated. It is a useful tool for drawing things out of people but you're focusing way less on that and more on the metaread itself....
I'll explore more when I get to take my lunch getting to work now.
Till then UNVOTE: Though I highly doubt that scum could have hammered you at L2 elegantly enough for us not to be suspicious of people voting you.
But to the point of meta diving? Just doesn’t seem like the logical progressionIn post 116, PsykoSavant wrote:He said "truly random." I don't like that he felt the need to point out it really is random, feels like over-justification and sent up flags
You understand that the reason I thought he was lying was that one of my scum games had just finished less than 24 hours after he posted about it and we are not supposed to discuss ongoing games. I had not been made aware that it was over and it was an extremely short game so I wasn't checking up on it as often and was expecting it to last longer. You are not understanding the situation it seems.In post 98, Hawk wrote:In post 26, TwoInAMillion wrote:Now that I think about it that's a blantant lie so more votes pls.The second post after the first before unvoting is what I meant by shade. Like you're saying he still looked scummy for what he said even tho he didn't lie and your initial was yeah that was a lie scum!In post 35, TwoInAMillion wrote:"More often" still implies more than twice.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your tone in 35 but it sounds like something you'd say if you still thought what someone did was scummy. Like "You lied" "Oh, you explained, well to me it sounded like you said more than that so still a lie"