Then what "agenda" are you accusing Darryl of promoting?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Pokémon Mafia |OT| Gotta Catch Em Scum!
- Thread starter Burbeting
- Start date
I did find it rather interesting that I merely asked for his thoughts, and he got confrontational about it. Like yeah, I only know Scum CM. So I was hoping for more to go off of to see what "Town CM" looks like it.
Town CM had a strong game in HP, while scum CM looked scummy (to me, as a teammate) in both DR and PiR, so when CM seems scummy I trust my gut, although I don't remember any of his other games.
I admit I've never really looked over Harry Potter that well. Hmm...
His tunneling on me. He's throwing accusations and shifting the burden of proof over to me.
I know Darryl plays aggressively by going hard on people, but there's no natural evolution to his thoughts. He starts off with a premise and then just defends it. He's not adding to it with new thoughts and not discussing it with other people.
Looking over that last post by Darryl again it's just a continued justification for his attack on me.
I'm not using fluff as a filtering mechanism, I just asked him about why focus on me.Darryl said:
Anyhow, this is the only new point I saw brought up in that. I don't know what example he's talking about so I'll have to ask for a quote.
Still reads as... agenday with that last line. "Obvious sign."
Blargonaut
Banned
Lone_Prodigy
Member
I'm on Page 2 at the moment. Will get to Page 3 later.
Why draw attention to three players? Their levels of interaction are minimal at best.
It had its desired effect though, as Sawneeks immediately latches on.
And here is a non-committal backpedal. "Yeah maybe there's nothing there but here I am singling out some players so hopefully others run off with this and absolve me of any responsibility in drawing attention to them."
No, you're not getting away that easily.
VOTE: Unmasked Ferret
Yeah, what is up with that? Soft-claiming town isn't an excuse for spitballing and making non-constructive posts.
-nin knows that arguing for a no-lynch doesn't make him scummy so he might as well, right?
-CM decides he's going to sit back and wait for something to happen, but don't mind him, he's town
Come on.
Why draw attention to three players? Their levels of interaction are minimal at best.
It had its desired effect though, as Sawneeks immediately latches on.
And here is a non-committal backpedal. "Yeah maybe there's nothing there but here I am singling out some players so hopefully others run off with this and absolve me of any responsibility in drawing attention to them."
No, you're not getting away that easily.
VOTE: Unmasked Ferret
Yeah, what is up with that? Soft-claiming town isn't an excuse for spitballing and making non-constructive posts.
-nin knows that arguing for a no-lynch doesn't make him scummy so he might as well, right?
-CM decides he's going to sit back and wait for something to happen, but don't mind him, he's town
Come on.
Lone_Prodigy
Member
Blarg going to Blarg. I think the only somewhat useful post was the box one for grouping, but it looks like he just randomized it.
All of El Topo's posts. The last two were on this page, when we've gotten some traction. I've heard of coasting, but this is ridiculous. You might as well not post.
All of El Topo's posts. The last two were on this page, when we've gotten some traction. I've heard of coasting, but this is ridiculous. You might as well not post.
You think it might have just been because Ty brought up a Sophia-Darryl connection?
Either way, interesting.
Related, but I noticed Sawneeks still has her vote on Verelios after he responded to her. You still not feeling confident about him, Saw?
Lone_Prodigy
Member
Finally, we have on one side Gorlak, with a short but substantial post (this is good), and Royal_Flush hammering the multi-quote button and just replying with short insignificant sentences (this is not good).
Lone_Prodigy
Member
I must've overlooked that. The triangle comment stuck out more to me, as three are sufficiently large enough to possibly contain a scum member. Town like the better odds and will pick sides.
Ty must've seen Darryl post right after you, but you ignored his introductory post and queried Hyper instead, so he might have seen that as deliberate.
Basically. It seemed like a stealth "What did you think of Darryl's post?" in context.
I linked the two the moment Darryl made his post voting for me though. I read that post like three times not getting why he'd post that. Admittedly I haven't been targeted by Darryl before apart from maybe Volcano.
My thoughts were "It can't be that obvious" over and over again and I decided to post it knowing that the last time I kept it to myself it later hurt me (Mini Mafia).
Blargonaut
Banned
lover pls
I am Team Rocket
Heisenberg
Davy Jones
2 the depths
Kawlbot is dead weight
Blargonaut
Banned
I mean,
dead wait
hehehehe
get that reference
dead wait
hehehehe
get that reference
Blargonaut
Banned
speaking of not happening
I'm listening if you have a better expression.
Blargonaut
Banned
I have more posts than you, kiddo.
Ok. Not groundbreaking, but I'll take it.
Blargonaut
Banned
I'll also allow "agendastic" or "agendasty"
Bronx-man reacted almost exactly the same to you asking him for his thoughts, and both haven't contributed anything after that, unless you count CM not reading the OP. Apparently you are a scary person when prodding people?
Yeah but unlike you, LP is actually contributing.
Do you have anything actually meaningful to say?
Blargonaut
Banned
quality over quantity amirite
Bronx-man reacted almost exactly the same to you asking him for his thoughts, and both haven't contributed anything after that, unless you count CM not reading the OP. Apparently you are a scary person when prodding people?
Yup. It hasn't escaped my notice. Nin did something similar too, but at least Nin defended his "no lynch" decision a little bit.
Lone_Prodigy
Member
I see nothing of value. I do however see aggressive nonsensical bullshit that you jump to defend.
Let's start with the middle line. "I'm not using fluff as a filtering mechanism."
By saying that I'm not being town, you're saying that I'm acting like mafia. What logically follows the accusation is your argument as to why I'm acting scummy, which is about the fluffiness of my posts. If you're finding my behavior to be indicative of scum and the supportive evidence you're using is based off the fluffiness of my post (lol), then you're therefore using fluff as a filtering mechanism in order to find scum. All I'm doing is restating the obvious. A filter just means it's a way of separating town and scum and you've clearly used fluff as a filter to separate town and scum above.
I don't even know what you want me to say here. "All Darryl does is justify his attack on me!", like there's something else I'm supposed to do here. I've commented on your posts and I confront every post you make. I can't fabricate posts by you and then hope that'll help us find scum.
You don't even defend yourself, so I'm not provoked into elaborating. You attempt to counter-argue and deflect. If I didn't include this line right here, you guaranteed would've responded to this post with some variant of "but why haven't you answered my vague question about Sophia?", like pressuring me into some vague thoughts and feelings about Sophia right now is somehow going to be useful to you later on in the game. I could say that I think Sophia is town, I could say she's scum. Either way she or me flips, it'll be useless because it's a throwaway statement without any sort of commitment behind it. I have very little opinions about most players and I don't have any opinions on Sophia either.
I write out a huge post and I get you calling me "agenday", which you don't even exactly point out what kind of agenda I could possibly have. Other people are having to jump in to try to suss out coherency from you. You call my arguments weak but are you reading what you're typing here? Do you think you've built some lengthy explanation for why exactly I'm acting scummy, and what agenda I could possibly have? I have a vague bullet point above, with the fluff posting comment you made. Outside of that, though, you haven't explained it. I've actually read these posts and I know what we're talking about, too.
And the words "obvious"? Like there's something taboo about using the words "obvious"? To me it is really obvious that you're making this up as you go along (especially with the OMGUS counter-argument as shown above). I don't know what other word to use besides obvious. Blatant? Is that less agenda-y?
"Look, I post vague pointless readings on Day 1, I am contributing! I am not scum! I will point to this later to claim that I am an active and contributing member even though nothing I did provided any value!"
Blargonaut
Banned
It was meant to evoke feelings of, 'ooo, nasty' like 'oh, so ulterior, nasty'
"agendaring"
"agendaphoric"
Wut?
So someone like Blarg, who posts a lot but has said exactly 0 things of value, is better then someone that posts fewer, but actually contributes in those posts? Looking purely to post counts is a very bad way to play.
Accusing a coasting player of coasting is reasonable, regardless of your own #PostCount
Nothing of value?
He came out with a fairly decent observation of Unmasked Ferret that nobody else made, and called you out on your complete lack of substance (showing a slight willingness to scum hunt) while also providing some observations on Gorlak and Royal?
I'm not saying it's a lot, but it's showing an eagerness to engage in the conversation. Contrast to you who acts like an Innocent Child with your whole "I'm always town" shtick and have posted a whole lot of nothing.
So how the hell is that "nothing of value"?
Posting empty readings on Day 1 masquerading as contributing is worse. Blarg is just Blarg. Hard to read for town and scum, unless he happens to be the latter.
Blargonaut
Banned
"agendalicious"
No. It's nothing. It's the kind of stuff you post on Day 1 to seem engaged in the discussion. Same as those stupid reading lists people like to post.
Then if it's nothing, maybe you'd like to contribute with something?
Blargonaut
Banned
Blargonaut
Banned
UNVOTE: StanleyPalmtree
I love Exeggutor
I love Exeggutor
I don't see how the fundamental idea of a questionnaire is problematic, at least if everyone participates and provides sufficiently detailed answers. It sets a guideline on the behavior of the player and gives them a pre-emptive way to explain themselves, should someone (i.e. scum) later try to turn their posts against them. As I wrote back in the DP game, the one I posted wasn't really meant to be used, but was conceived late in the night.
The Rorschach test, as I explained in PiR, was just part of a gambit that didn't work.
stanleypalmtree (1)
christina mackenzie 48
blargonaut 179 (294)
nin1000 (0)
sophia 59 (74)
sophia (3)
ty4on 96
fireblend 232
*splinter 237
verelios (1)
sawneeks 97
ty4on (1)
darryl 123
*splinter (1)
melonrabbit 134
salvapot (0)
gorlak 197 (222)
roytheone (1)
gorlak 222
unmasked ferret (1)
lone_prodigy 259
lone_prodigy (1)
el topo 275
christina mackenzie 48
nin1000 (0)
sophia (3)
ty4on 96
fireblend 232
*splinter 237
verelios (1)
sawneeks 97
ty4on (1)
darryl 123
*splinter (1)
melonrabbit 134
salvapot (0)
roytheone (1)
gorlak 222
unmasked ferret (1)
lone_prodigy 259
lone_prodigy (1)
el topo 275
Ok, thats a much better reason to vote for someone then just vote counts, even though I disagree with your assessment of LP his post. Why didn't you immediately said that instead of focusing on his post count and only giving us the real reason for your vote after people called you out on the post count thing?
I was thinking of other people's post. I figured it was obvious from your post talking about not focusing of the fluff posted by other people, but I didn't catch that you were thinking I attacked you for being fluffy.
I wouldn't call your post fluffy, you're at the very least talking about something game related. I just feel like you were blowing your post up to make a weak point look stronger.
Why should I defend against an argument I don't understand?
IMO scum on scum interactions are the strongest tools in this game so obviously I want my biggest scum reads to interact.
Agenda is that I'm scum. Agenda-y because of how often and how are you're pushing that point. The word obvious by itself isn't scummy, but the way it's used is. It's as if you're more interested in amplifying a view than finding the truth.
1. Who said anything about voting for someone due to post counts? Please give a post for this claim.
2. Please explain yourself in detail on LP and his assessments. I see nothing of value and Sophia hasn't tried to explain her trust in LP either, instead resorting to hollow phrases like "He came out with a fairly decent observation". About as brilliant as when people in PiR thought they had caught a slip up by WAMD.
What are you talking about? A coasting comment barely into the first day is bullshit, even moreso when you are barely posting. It's embarassing that people even jump to defend it or even more to bring it up as an actual positive.
Lone_Prodigy
Member
Look, it takes a coaster to know a coaster. I'm not denying that.
But it's Day 1. Either you sit back and wait for something to happen (as CM pointed out), or you make something happen yourself. You might even say I got you into the game by quoting all your posts.
I presented two opening posts that differed in style. Do they both look like "empty readings" to you?