(July 21st, 2013, 04:00)Fat Rose Wrote: Why don't you ask that then Agnes? Obviously you did understand why Edith found that vote scummy, you just have a different view on it, because you don't feel that the way Percival and Muriel are confrontational are equally genuine. What I think could be discussed, as Percival obviously is deliberately writing in a certain style that he should expect to annoy people. Does he do it to be viewed as confrontational and therefore unlikely wolf though (meaning he is a wolf)? You seem to believe that (not clear from your post) and therefore find Richards vote understandable. But I could also see the different view, that his style is more likely to get him lynched, simply because others are annoyed by it, what a wolf would try to prevent. WIFOM.
I'm not really sure what to make of Percy in general, I get the feeling that he is deliberately being confrontational and intends to drop it once he gauges reactions - or possibly just using anonymous to change styles. Again, unsure.
Quote:Anyhow, why do you instead of asking how she interprets his style write:
Quote:I don't quite get what you're driving at here - why is percival being voted by short Richard scummy?
You perfectly understood why his vote was viewed as scummy, so your question did not really make sense before you elaborated on it imo. And I don't understand what's the point of being deliberately unclear in your questions to others.
Ah didn't realise id missed what I was specifically referring to. This bit
Quote:2nd Sir Percival (another one who is too confrontational to be scum :rolleyes which makes Short Richard voting for him a bit strange (add another point to Short Richard).
Is what I wasn't sure about. The opening of it seems incomplete, as it looks like the mention of confrontationism is merely a side note to what's actually being said, a connecter to the previous paragraph and then actually talking about what's going on. Thus I didn't think the confrontation was the actual reason for the suspicion, hence I asked for clarification (can anyone else see this, or do i need to explain more?)
Quote:As for what kind of problem I have with what you are doing. It is that you seem to be overly eager to contribute. I thought first that you didn't take the time to understand the posts but obviously you do and you just don't take the time to phrase your questions in an understandable way. The only time I remember that from myself was when I was playing wolf. Because it was so hard to come up with something I had to post quickly as soon as I found something to confront someone with, often not clearly phrasing my questions or misreading the other.
Apart from the mistake in communication there, I'm not seeing where I've failed to make my questions understandable. And yeah, I am a bit eager this game, as I find I'm really enjoying the anonymous part, and the separation from the usual meta.
Do you take that as a general wolf tell? Because I've played wolf before, and have rarely struggled to think of something to say, and certainly not simply reacting (and nor do I think that what I've done here - rather, I've actually been online a lot (as I've been very sick the past two days) and have been able to react to posts as they come and post my feelings and reactions) to what has been said.
In regards to Percy in general: I never like it when someone is deliberately rude. If that is done to gauge reactions or just for RP-reasons I don't really care and I don't see it as a tell (I can see villager and wolf doing that), I just don't find it very kind to those being the target.
(And yes, I know that isn't adding much to the actual wolf-hunt, but I still felt the need to post it.)
Regarding your question if I see overeagerness as a general wolf-tell: No, I don't. If I would I probably would have voted for you (still need to place it, but would like to hear Old Toms answer to my question first). But it is something that makes me raise my eyebrows and what I try to get a feel for. Basically, I'm asking myself if the eagerness feels "natural" or forced. I have a hard time explaining how I tell the difference though. Its kinda how you tell the difference at Christmas if your wife is really happy about the present you gave her or if she is just acting like it. Only I know my wife much better than I know you guys
(July 20th, 2013, 22:05)Friar Andrew Wrote: This weekend is actually rather awkward for me, had very little time free. Will have time tonight to have a more detailed look, but from skimming:
While Elizabeth may not be completely cleared by the meta, I'd say she definitely shouldn't be a Day 1 target. I find those pressing her to be somewhat suspicious because of this.
Initial impressions of the attacks on Muriel was rather poor - they seemed baseless joke votes that then had a case fabricated behind them. Don't have time to go through recent posts in detail, though, and they look to be relevant to developing an opinion on the matter. Though more about Muriel's status than that of the people initially attacking her.
Sir Percival is giving an appearance of disliking the way he's chosen to restrict his speech almost as much as the rest of us do
I haven't had much time either but finding this post suspicious, because it's such a vague argument regarding the people voting both Liz and Muriel. It looks like a filler post that's more to say "I'm here" than anything else, and I think that's a typical thing wolves do.
@FatRose: Early Day 1, not much to go on, your post seemed scummy to Old Tom. It certainly may be your style of sentence construction (or lack thereof)
minor rant:
but while on that topic. Old Tom finds this particularly hypocritical :
Quote: I thought first that you didn't take the time to understand the posts but obviously you do and you just don't take the time to phrase your questions in an understandable way.
Old Tom has to re-read almost every sentence you write 3-4 times to try to divine some meaning. It could easily be colouring Old Tom's impressions of your posts. Old Tom is old enough to remember when they actually cared about teaching grammar in American schools. (for example: LE/Courage not knowing the difference between first person and third person)
Old tom will drop the third person - its kind of annoying to type that way anyway
I agree I dont read the over-eagerness as a wolf tell. The rest of your recent post explains how i read your initial wot as scummy - its a feel game to start. Not to harp on it, but again with the hypocrisy: You need a firm explanation for my reading/feel, but in your next post you dodge giving one?
Saul - what was the tipping point that made you feel your exchange with Slow Muriel was a villager=on=villager action? I didn't really see evidence of that. Your post to that effect seemed to materialize out of nowhere. I don't want to let a day1 scum catch slip away like in previous games.
@cross-post ScarJohn - agreed with points about the helpful Friar. (and not just because I am a Muriel voter)
(July 20th, 2013, 17:36)Easy Sarah Wrote: This message is via carrier pigeon, please forgive lack of quotes, spelling, etc.
"Hand waving:" this is the phrase I chose to describe that I still found discussion of LE warranted. I could have said "I have something to say" or "as for LE." Just an opening hook. Easy Sarah is accustomed to more action than hand waiving, anyway.
LE: courage pointed out that name claiming Benefits the town and then he name claims. But, Claiming your or anyone else's own name doesnt prove your alignment. He knows this. But why point out only the first part or the business about counter-claims? And even with counter-claims, why not wait for someone to fake claim, however unlikely that is, to reveal? It doesn't make sense to me to point out the first and do the second.
Combined with the soft claim, I found this mildly scummy.
OK so these were your reasons for voting Courage. I find them weak, but that's not the point. The question is rather - why did you ignore the evidence in favour of Courage's innocence?
(July 21st, 2013, 02:29)Young Will Wrote: edith, why would you vote for courage if you didn't think he was scum?
I didn't care if she is scum or not. It was a vote to show my absolute disgust of her post. A vote on principle and for political reasons.
About my "disappearing": You will have to accept that I'm not browsing this forum 24/7 (sleep , private business and a nice shiny summerday ).
(July 21st, 2013, 02:38)Agnes The Orphan Wrote: I dislike your case Edith, because it seems to be relying too much on interactions between people, which seems to be pre supposing both as scum.
For instance:
Quote:2nd Sir Percival (another one who is too confrontational to be scum ) which makes Short Richard voting for him a bit strange (add another point to Short Richard). But it also makes the exchange between Perci and the Friar interesting. A little sparring to show that they are not connected? (1 point of scumminess for both of them)
I don't quite get what you're driving at here - why is percival being voted by short Richard scummy? And what's suspicious of Percival/Friars conflict suspicious when others are not?
The vote from Richard is scummy because it looks to me as a contradiction to his "xy is too confrontational to be scum" which was just his last post 30 mins before. In short if you don't vote for a player because he is too confrontational and then turn around and vote for an equal confrontational player because of his ramblings it feels wrong to me.
But I concede I botched the formatting here (timepressed as I was) and jumped to fast from Perci to Richard.
Perci is for me dubious because of his offensive style he uses towards everyone not a poor widow. It is an act and given past experience acting rather helps scum. The dialog between Perci and the friar is so weird that it gives me uneasy feelings. And it was IMO unique. Example Muriel and the Doctor had a discussion and came to the conclusion they are both villagers. Me and Will have a discussion and think each other rather scummy. But Perci and the Friar had no discussion at all. It went - A: you scum; P: FO; A: you village - . That's as unhelpful as it gets. And while it rather indicates the Friar it is possible that it was an act in case one of them gets caught
Agnes, I didn't try to egg anyone on. But I thought Doctor Saul was being weirdly receptive to my arguments compared to a more hard-nosed stance against Muriel.
(July 21st, 2013, 06:20)Fat Rose Wrote: In regards to Percy in general: I never like it when someone is deliberately rude. If that is done to gauge reactions or just for RP-reasons I don't really care and I don't see it as a tell (I can see villager and wolf doing that), I just don't find it very kind to those being the target.
OOC: Any insults or rudeness is purely in character towards the other characters. It's not directed at the person behind the character.
which makes Short Richard voting for him a bit strange (add another point to Short Richard).
