- ein
- Registered User
-
Member for 15 years, 4 months, and 28 days
Last active Thu, Jan, 30 2014 10:04:51
- 0 Followers
- 795 Total Posts
- 28 Thanks
-
Mar 16, 2009ein posted a message on 3:14 DisappointmentHuh? The first several songs sound like they are throwbacks to the Kiss Me/Disintegration/Wish era. 'Underneath the Stars' and 'The Only One' particularly, are VERY Cure songs (and are reminiscent of the late 80's/early 90's Cure).Posted in: Small Utopia, where things happen
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As Some One has just said, this holds no water. A smart scum will use the fact that townies deny the possibility of something being true against them. A smart scum playing in a game with you should try and do exactly this thing because you have already removed the possibility to consider it a scum tactic. The precise reason to play that way is because people assume that you won't. That you've seen two scum try this is no reason to decide they never again will.
Your statement is, however, a way for you to try and make us look elsewhere. How really do I know that you are, as scum, not trying to do this exact thing and telling me no scum would do it? I have no way of knowing, and so I will keep my eyes and ears open to ALL possibilities.
I am also a little annoyed that you keep using the fact that you are offended with people as an apparent defence against their attacks. You are throwing that phrase around in such a way that I would be unsurprised to see you say you are offended that someone has voted for you. Appealing to emotion is not a valid defence.
From post #149:
From post #167:
Since you have stated previously that your post containing the Skander vote was after you had transitioned to the serious part of the game, these two statements directly contradict each other, don't they? Anyone you vote for is 100% scum in your eyes (according to the first), but you will willingly vote for someone to see how that person and others react (according to the second)? Were you 100% sure Skander was scum, or were you interested in his reaction?
I am a bit confused. Can you clarify this for me? You don't see many places (i.e. you've deliberately looked for them) where a post by you would be helpful/needed, and yet are you saying I, or someone else, is accusing you of lurking deliberately?
I would say that the accusation is in fact not baseless, at minimum based on the way you've stated this sentence.
So a post must be meaningful and unique to be made? I agree that one wouldn't want to just barn people the whole game, though the more you let the game progress without you, the more there will be that's said that you can't post as unique to you. This strategy effectively cuts you off from ever having to make posts, since you can just say, "well, everything I would say has been said, so I won't say anything."
Do you agree with everything in this thread then? All 137 (well, 138 after I post this one) posts that aren't yours?
It isn't helpful to the town at all to not know where you stand. If you are town, you run a significant risk of being mislynched because you have put such restrictions on what is acceptable for you to post, and thus don't post any content. This undermines our ability to catch scum. If you are scum, it's also a pretty bad strategy since you are starting to stick out like a sore thumb.
So how do you propose I figure out where you stand on events and people?
Regarding kpaca's recent play:
I read his more recent posts as a direct response to the pressure applied to him earlier in the game. By this I mean that he has taken what I would consider a less pressuring posture. His posts are more responsive rather than aggressive. I think in part he does not want a repeat of the early pressure on him. This could be for several reasons:
1) he is town, and didn't like being at the center of the firestorm of the early game
2) he is scum and sensed that people might catch him if he kept posting like he was
3) regardless of alignment, it felt like everyone was attacking him (maybe personally? - not sure about this one) and he just wanted the heat off
If I look at some of his more recent posts, these are the ones that stick out to me:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=3348327&postcount=74
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=3348209&postcount=71
These two are in the transitionary period to his more recent posting style. I like them from the standpoint that he isn't really singling out one person for try and shift the towns focus, he's spreading his interactions around.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=3348466&postcount=80
This one... the way he phrases the “actually, I think that....” makes me think that he's really working to come up with any information at all that will justify his claim of being an aggressive player.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=3348555&postcount=85
This post seems like the full transition to the newer playing style. His response to Ace confirms what I thought when I read the previously quoted post (just above).
I am not sure why he doesn't just vote for Ssbm Rocks1 here. I am also unsure why he wouldn't believe Rook about reading games. It's like he defaults to disbelief. I think his statement about Sephiroth Owa is good in that it adds clarifying information.
kpaca's game has tightened up considerably of late. I am not sure yet if this means anything significant; I'm not ready to say I'm a fan of his.
----------------------------------
Agreed. I also find this interesting, though with so few posts ITT up until this point, I am not sure it's telling of anything.
But! Then Infinis says this:
It seems clear to me from his posts that he doesn't quite have his forum mafia legs yet, but this suggests to me that he has role information/extra knowledge (for instance, being scum) that Ace is town.
----------------------------------------
I realize there is a ton of information floating around in the thread now, but really? No opinion on anything? I don't really like it that he's deliberately trying to stay in the background, while still posting in the thread.
You need to try and give us thoughts on stuff, even if it's only in small doses. Like for instance, I think you're not posting much because you are trying to not get say anything that would incriminate you. Of course to defend yourself, you will have to post, and thereby lessen my thought that you are trying to hide, but you need to say something.
----------------------------------------
The Waffle King posts bothers me the most I think, with Infinis second.
I will vote: The Waffle King
Is this common for newbie scum though? I mean more common for newbie scum (as opposed to newbie town) that it can be considered a tell?
So any thoughts on the other things happening in the thread? There have been some interesting back-and-forth posts between kpaca and a number of us. Thoughts?
I am not sure I like your jump-to-the-conclusion-he's-obviously-bad view of Rook. I read his post as adding his view and opinion on a topic I posted about, and telling me exactly why he disagrees with me. Also, this finger of suspicion seems like you think you have kpaca dead to rights, but based on essentially barning me. I realize that you don't like his vote on skander, but you are taking what information I have uncovered to the extreme worst case scenario, without appearing to consider other conclusions (I will note here that between your FOS and vote, an entire page went by without a meaningful post from you on this topic).
-------------------------------------
I am going to quote a post you made later:
Apparently, attacking someone's playing capabilities is only acceptable when it is not being done to you?
Also, I am curious as to your accusation that because someone is a lurker/has been a lurker, they are incapable of evaluating someone's play who was in a game with them. Can you expound upon this thought further for me?
And what if he says all of them? Will you believe him?
My case? My apologies if you took my interacting with you, asking you questions, and trying to understand your motivation for making the posts you make as “aggressively” laying out a “case”. I consider that seeking understanding.
I notice you are still voting for Skander. He's posted a lot since you voted for him, do you still think he's your number one target? Did you read his response here to your query?
----------------------------------
In completely other news: where is mandolin_summer and Infinis (who, I believe, has not posted in this thread yet at all)?
-----------------------------------
I am okay with Skander and Sephiroth Owa right now. I am neutral on Edghyatt, Rook, The Waffle King, Lordpenguin, and Ace right now. I am less impressed with kpaca, and to some extent Ssbm Rocks1. Finally, our heavy lurkers need to get in here and post.
Followed by this:
and:
--------------------------
What to make of this? kpaca suggests this is his normal posting style, yet two others who've played with him, or read games with him in them have a very different view of his normal play style. Is this normal for people to have different views of their play style than those they play with, or is he trying to cover for playing differently this game by saying it's normal? I've had no prior interaction with him (playing or reading), so I cannot answer this question.
I suppose I need help, then, getting the "full serious" from a post that opens with a statement that the most recent votecount didn't include your shoe.
Please point out where I said it was "impossible" to determine scummy behaviour in the joke phase.
Well, that's great and all, but you didn't tell anyone you'd changed, and used the fact that you had, secretly, all of a sudden become serious. It would be like me putting you in jail, and then telling you a day later, "oh by the way, that thing you did two weeks ago? I just decided that was against the law."
And this is the Lordpenguin post I assume you are referring to:
I am not sure that means what you think it means.
-----------------------------
I am noting here that you only stated you were out of that phase after you posted your rant.
Also, saying you don't want to participate in a certain, special way in the joke part of the game makes you scum? Is that what you're saying? Because if so, oh noes! I am sure to be labeled as scum in every game I play then!
I am indeed saying that very little can be ascertained from that phase. How do you determine exactly what is valuable? Unless someone is a terrible player, how do you determine if what they say is a joke, or actually serious? The signal to noise is so bad, it would seem that placing real weight on anything said there is a bit presumptuous. It might be useful on day two or three in hindsight, but if that's all you've got to go on, meh.
Huh? Clearly you are being selective/not reading the thread, or you will have noticed that others did not participate in the inane "random vote phase". By your logic, you have thus wrapped up most of the scum. This play is very aggressive (as it is an overly-sensitive-towards-one-player reaction based on something that happened during the joke phase of the game), and I don't like it.
Again... a very aggressive play based on joke phase material. You may be out of the joke phase, but you don't have the ability to decide when everyone is out of that phase unilaterally.
Trigger happy, much?
Unilateral decisions of the game state, overly sensitive and aggressive play... maybe it is you who are scum and trying to push us around?
The post was edited to bold the vote after the votecount was put up.
Ha ha! Thanks to a typo in the player list, I have avoided your trap.