Aah, I see how I missed those. I read them just fine, it's just that any posts made after my last D1 post were made before I got another chance to post. By the time I got back onto the forums, it was N1. N1 lasted about 2.5 days from when I got back on, so it was 3 days total before I was able to post. By that point I had totally forgotten about all the posts made at this time period or that I had never responded to any of them. Oops.
Mr.Person:
Why does it feel like you're defending Book here? For one thing, you're listing off his reasons, which should be impossible, given that you're not Book. Beyond that, it appears that your main argument is that Book's refusal to answer a "frivolous" question is ultimately unimportant. If that's your claim, then I would ask you what the point of the RVS is. Here I was thinking it was to ask frivolous questions until you start to suspect something. That's what happened here - Book's refusal to answer was enough to get someone's attention. What's wrong with pursuing after that?
Probably feels like I was defending Book since I was actually defending Book. You could even argue I was chainsaw defending him if you want. The argument is bullshit, though, it was and still is.
I can quite confidentially list Book's reasons there for several reasons. First off, I'm fairly good at reading people. Second, Book made his reasoning quite clear. It's crappy reasoning and I'm not even sure if I believe Book on it, but Book said out loud why he didn't answer.
It's not that Jim asked a frivilous question in RVS, it's that he didn't pursue Book at all. He just took Book's refusal to answer a question as an excuse to throw a vote and walk away.
I might have missed it if there were questions directed at me (I did a basic reread, but I'm exhausted so forgive me if I did).
Webadict is being suspiciously loud this game. I mean, he's always loud and, well, WUBA, but this game it feels as though he's trying too hard to defend himself before evolving into an attack on Jim. I expected the attack sooner, to be honest, and it felt as though he wasn't playing as he usually does as Town, though that's been abated a bit.
JTF...it's never easy for me to read JTF, but I feel like he's giving off a more Town vibe. His posts have been constructive and he's been voicing suspicions and pursuing scum. All in all, Town read.
Ottofar is being Ottofar, as Pandarsenic said. Out of all three, I'd have to say he's the most scummy to me: his claim was interesting, to say the least. However, from there, he's been more and more scattered, and not making all that much sense. He's also not pursuing scum at all; only answering questions and leaving it at that.
Your position on Web is really stupid since it seems to be "talking a lot = scum" which is laughably false. You're gonna have to prove he's scum via the things he says and not make blanket statements about how much he's saying.
What suspicions? What scum? I see none of those things when I look at JTF's posts. I see empty statements of character that can be read either way. I see no real pressure applied to anyone. I see no real vote or anything at all that makes me think JTF is town. I just see crappy questions that mean nothing.
In what way is Ottofar's claim suspicious? Don't even think of saying "kook=fakeclaim" since that's not allowed. At least come up with a real reason, even if it's Book's crappy reasoning.
I wasn't saying that talking a lot=scum, but thanks for trying to put a meaning in there. Interesting, too, considering that you're the one with the largest posts; trying to make us believe that talking a lot could never be scummy? But no, my opinion on Webadict has changed now. From what I've read, he's coming across as legitimately pissed off town, and not overly-chatty scum. Gut feeling, though.
As for JTF, while a lot of his posts may be passive - indeed, I'm more used to him being a hardliner - there have been points where I've read what he's saying and agreed, which would mean...what? That I'm subconsciously passive? No, it means that he has made a few points and ignoring them wholesale to agree with WUBA (even using WUBA's reasoning) is stupid. That said, I don't feel like Janus is Town anymore. I don't necessarily feel like he's scum, either, but I hesitate to say that I don't suspect him anymore. In fact, I do.
Where did I say his claim was suspicious? That's the most blatant attempt at putting words in my mouth that I've seen this game. I said interesting, a word that has none of the same connotation, on this or any board, and I would thank you to slow your goddam roll for a second and read what I actually wrote. Interesting, that is, bearing interest - his claim was a topic of discussion and personal reflection, and I never said one way or the other how I felt about it. Except, oh wait, yes I did. I explicitly said that it wasn't a tell, and that reading into it would be different for each person.
So tell me, do I still need a reason?
I love how you explicitly say I'm misunderstanding you and then fail to correct me on what you actually meant with Webadict up there. Your read may have changed, but I still want to figure out what you were saying. I honestly cannot figure it out, it sounds like you're saying Webadict was scummy for talking too much. And that's just from your "suspiciously loud" bit.
Passive, passive, passive. Once again you try to take both sides and fail at it. Did you think Janus was scummy or not? You eventually say he was, but not before waffling on the subject several times.
If you thought the claim was a null tell, why did you bring it up when you were explaining why you thought Ottofar was scum? When you say "interesting claim,
to say the least", you're implying you're understating what it actually is, which in this case would be that it's a scummy claim. You may not of said it was scummy out loud, but you were implying it was.
I'm going to claim now, however; to make up for my failure to move my vote and to prevent today from getting locked on Janus again, I shot him to lay the matter to rest. As you can see, he was NOT a vig and I probably should've shot Ottofar instead, but there you have it.
I hate your wording. Too town flag wavy for me. Killing JTF was a pro-town move but I don't know, you seem really eager to show it.
Let's just say I suspect you as a likely Exterminator candidate and move on.
Seriously, Pand explaining his pro-town move is scummy? How do things work over in opposite world? What do you want Pand to do, not explain his reasoning? Pand's exact reasoning was "Janus was going to get lynched tomorrow, I gave the town its lynch back. It was the right move" and you call that townie flag-waving? Pand didn't boast or say he was town because he killed Janus, he just said he killed Janus and it was correct to do so. So your argument is completely baseless and you have no evidence to suggest Pand is an extie. You're only trying to spread mistrust when there's no reason to do so. Nice attempt, scummy mcscum scum, but I already have maximum mistrust levels for Pand to begin with.
I already explained this to Pandarsenic.
Pandarsenic, because he waved his town flag over killing JTF. And then he appealed to authority over it when I brought it up instead of his own arguments.
We were in agreement that the move was correct. Your only argument was that I claimed vig to clear up any ambiguity about the kill, which was so pro-town it was scummy. I simply cited why that was stupid.
It's not so much what you did. It's the reasons you gave. You said, "I did this for you." instead of, "I did this for me." There are several very good reasons for why you did what you did, and I don't question them. But it's your generous attitude towards the rest of the town over it that personally makes me suspicious.
Given the opportunity, scum love doing things for the town and love letting everybody know about them. This is what I suspect Pandarsenic for.
So why aren't you talking to Pand? Why aren't you asking important questions such as "Why did you decide killing Janus was more important than hitting a player you thought was more likely to be scum?" By the way, Pand, go ahead and answer that.
Webadict lying about the statistics would be a great case, but the stats being wrong or even Webadict's analysis of them being wrong could just be Webadict being wrong. It's a null tell. And Webadict's stats are not wrong since they're empirical data.
I think the point has been overdone, so I'll be brief: I agree that if he was merely wrong, it'd be a null tell, but if he's purposefully lying, it'd be a scumtell. I say he has been purposefully lying about it (like when he said "but I know the truth" contradicting Meph), and using that lie as support for his case on Toaster and I. But he's been caught and knows it, so he's backtracking on that too now.
I agree that Meph is wrong. He didn't explicitly set there to always be a kook, but there's nearly always been one. That's just how it works. You could probably do the same thing with any low-weight role and get similar or identical role spreads. Meph might even be aware that kooks are too likely, but he'd still lie anyways just to dissuade people from using that evidence as proof one of the kooks is telling the truth. That's his job as a moderator, bend the truth or even lie to improve the game. Now I know you're talking to me right now, but you haven't provided a shred of evidence that Webadict is lying. Not a one.
Webadict's statistics are entirely valid. Observe. Seven Paranormals with kooks in them. One had no kooks, four had one kook, and two had two kooks. The evidence suggests that most Paranormals are going to have at least one kook in them. Combined with the fact we have two kook claimers and that scum probably aren't going to risk two kook claims, I think we can agree that at least one of the two kooks is town. If you don't, you can say so, but I feel 100% confident in saying at least one of the kooks is town.
Again, I'd rather not rehash this. But the core point is that wuba didn't say, as you have above, "most Paranormals are going to have at least one kook". He said all Paranormals must have at least one kook. There's a world of difference. When contradicted by Meph, he insisted he was right and Meph was wrong. The other point I don't dispute; for this particular game, I'm OK with the notion that at least one of the kooks is certainly town. I'm not sure which one, though, as both seem scummy to me at the moment.
Pay attention to this quote, kids. It becomes important later. So you agree that because of the kook claims, one of them is extremely likely to be town. Alright.
Webadict is the kind of guy that deals with certainties. He doesn't say "It's likely player X is town", he says "Player X is town".
You actually have a few points and a LOT of potential points to make, you're just passing them all up to make stupid points that nobody is taking seriously.
So, you think there are potential points about wuba that I'm not making, meaning that you've seen him do scummy things, but have not pointed them out... interesting. Why wouldn't you just point them out yourself, Person?
I don't think Webadict is scum. I could make a case for him being scum, but I'm not since I'd be painting a player I think is town to be scum. I could focus on Webadict's exact word usage, for instance. There's some mud to fling there. I could probably find a fault or two in Web's case against Janus. I dunno, I'm not really checking. The point was that your case is extremely stupid and you've done nothing to find a better one when your current evidence got ripped to shreds.
I still can't believe you're saying Toaster is scum for his "suspiciously early claim". You've held onto this bullshit for so long it's getting scummy. What exactly do you want a D1 claiming kook to do? Walk me through it. I want to see your thought process here.
I didn't say he's scum for his early claim. I said the timing and circumstances of his claim prompted me to not buy it, and the rest of his play seems scummy to me.
As to what a kook should do about claiming, that's easy: claim whenever he wants, however he wants, but be prepared for people not buying it. There's nothing a claimant can do to make sure everyone buys it, and that's as it should be, otherwise claiming would be the way to become a confirmed townie. I'm not saying claiming is scummy, I'm saying that it's a null tell, and should never make people convinced that the claimant is sincere, regardless of the circumstances of the claim.
But you just said one of the kook claimers was town. Now you say that not only is it a null tell, it's actually something to supect them over. AKA something scummy. That's a strange lie, Book.
I fail to see why you expect Toaster to comment on Web thinking he's town. Do you expect everyone to comment whenever anybody says anything about their alignment? No?
Yes! If I said "I'm convinced Person is town!" I'd expect you to at least ask "why?" or say "don't buddy/defend me". Sure, maybe not comment "whenever anybody says anything" about alignment, but a statement of
certainty? Definitely. Unless you aren't actually town and prefer to just sit back and allow the statement to sit unchallenged, as it's good for your image.
[/quote]
I've not responded once when people have called me town. There's no reason to do so, I don't care. It doesn't help me catch scum and it might convince them to start voting a townie. It's lose-lose.
Author
Topic: Paranormal Mafia Round 18 - Game Over (Read 124823 times)