Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
How the **** is Soup anything beyond a null tell at best?Can't remember if I responded to this.
To be honest, the order in that null range isn't all that certain. I guess you could say you were true null, while Soup was leaning slightly slightly town, just because I don't think scum would allow their partner to play like such an idiot.
I know nothing about the flavor. I have no idea if it's even feasible for a JoaT to be in a 9 player game that has no indies, though at this point none of that matters.
That lines up with our reads for the most part. That leaves
I pretty much agree. Soup is null, then add the fact that if he were part of a scum team he probably wouldn't be acting so stupid, whether it's because he would not want to let his scummate down, or because his scummate would yell at him for it.
You. Are. ********.
I hate you so much.
What does that mean? What RVS crap? Where did I push blame on you for it? How is that scummy?
And you can't do it alone seeing as it is the last day of the phase and it's kind of important?
Let me get this **** out of the way.
K. What did that vote accomplish? What was my motivation behind making it? Where did I go afterword?
The vote accomplished making TSN looking townie. Voting TSN for that bad reason could have been for gauging reads (like CR said), which could be the motivation behind it. Afterwords you just became more scummy.
K. Is that a scum tell? Why/why not?
This was actually a joke -_-', although we kinda didn't like that you called someone out for buddying and then right afterwords you say "Hey, lets buddy!". Not a scum tell, really.
What are you saying here? Did you read the post and comprehend that I'm doing exactly the opposite of what I accused TSN of doing? Why are you implying that you've caught a contradiction?
You're calling things SvS instead of TvS? You both said that it could be S/TvS. You calling someone out for something like that (especially when its a null tell), and doing it right afterwords is not townie in the least.
Is that a request for an explanation, or are you going to continue spending this game talking around me instead of to me. It was in response to TSN's push. I posted it when I saw TSN's push. What are you implying? If you read further, or even look at a vote count, you'll see that Soup isn't on my town list.
Okay so we worded it wrong. You showing that you "want to put Soup on my town list." is what we were refering to. You felt that he was scummy, yet you said you wanted to put him on your town list because of the push from TSN. I'll admit that the push thing was dumb though.
So? It didn't look fake or over the top. It looked ********, but TSN through out a comment made to make it look like Soup was being deceptive when I didn't think so. He was trying to put a snake in Soup's boot, so I called him on it. I pointed out that I did something that was definitely fake, yet, even with that confirmation, he didn't come after me for it, but when Soup might have done it, it's damning.
Do you think Soup was being fake? Do you think "being fake" is a scum tell?
@ Question: Yep. Completely.
It looked extremely fake. He gave up all of the pressure on us just like that, and when asked a question about it, he said "I don't know, ask Ryker". Being fake like that is a scum tell as a whole, yes. Did you redirect a question to one of the other people on the push and unvote just like that? I don't think so.
.....
"So obviously what you're saying is all bull ****..."
At that stage, I cared that he was concerned with scum hunting. I cared that he was taking strides forward. I don't count on Soup to be right. God knows I never count on anyone else to be right. I care that, at a part of the game where it would be easy to fade into the background, Soup didn't. Why is that sentence the vote worthy offense? Why is what I'm saying so obviously bull ****? You make a baseless comment there by calling something scummy that is not. Explain why it's scummy or explain why you blew it up as the lynch worthy offense when it isn't scummy.
If you looked at his unvote post, you would notice that he wasn't scum hunting at all. He said he didn't want to do anything. He gave up the pressure on us just like that and even refused to answer a question on it. Thats not scum hunting. Thats scummy play. You did nothing to this degree, yet you still defend Soupa for it, since TSN isn't pressuring you as well. We don't like it at all, and it still looks scummy. Your awful vote, ignoring the content on the soupa push, and your conversation with TSN is why we want you lynched. That line was definetly the point where our vote needed to be on you, but thats not the only reason why we want you lynched.
Not looking at 96 right now. Quote it for me and I'll address this.
Why? What's positive about it?
It's like a wagon. It gets reads, reactions, and it gets the general thoughts from the person being tunneled and the person tunneling.
Whatever man. You're saying that my reasons are bull****, but you aren't debunking them. My read on Soup changed. There's no comfortable way to move it, so let me ask you this: what motivation would I have to go to the trouble of putting myself into an awkward flip as scum?
You didn't look at the thought process behind Soupa's read. If you did, you would notice that he thinks tunneling is not always a scum tell, that he really thinks ZB is town, and that the reasons he gave for his read were legit. Yet you voted him for those reasons. I don't see any reason why scum OR town would do this.
Look at the beginning. Look at the sidelining. Look at me pushing to get reads from him. Look at when they come out. I had to work to get them and I still have a problem with the hesitancy to give them and the backdoors he left with them. I don't like him, but I'm not voting him and have not voted him for a reason.
Right before you asked: One read out and thoughts on you attacking TSN(something current going on, could be seen as a null-scum read).
First time you asked: two more reads out and he calls you out as odd(could also be seen as a null-scum read).
Second time: all of the reads were out in the public(you're a null scum read...).
You didn't pry for jack ****. Asking him twice (second time with more force, saying he didn't share reads when he obviously did) is not pushing in a good way at all. He was obviously willing to share reads with us, and he was commenting on things going on at the time. He showed that he had distaste in you (which leads to a bad read) before you even asked, which gave us two null-scum reads from him. After you asked the first time, a null-town and a null read. Reads on 4 out of 8 players in the game. The fact that he commented on what was going on at the time and that he gave thoughts on the push he was going after before you ask for more shows that your push wasn't needed at all and that he was willing to help the town. He gave reads on what you asked for right away, and he gave all of his reads after you called him out for not giving any reads, which was a straight up lie.
Did you not even bother to read the rest of that post?
This is why we didn't list this as a scum tell in the condensed version. W know we made mistakes in the case, and thats whatever. Thats why we listed the reasons for why we think you're scum in a post below.
Fairly sure he ninja'd me on that one. I know he did at one point.
If this is the case, why did you go into detail about how hard it was to get the information out of him afterwards. All it took was asking once and we already had reads on half of the cast from him. Explain please.
Do you think GLG is scum based on that information? If so, why is your vote not there?
GLG is scummy, yes. Because your play is scummier.
.....
Except that I came out and stated that they were the same thing. I don't care if they looked different, I came out and said why they weren't and I was never shown why they were indeed different or why TSN didn't go equally on offense when I pointed it out.
I'M ATTACKING THE FACT THAT HE PUSHED SOUP OVER ME! I DON'T GIVE TWO ****S ABOUT SOUP'S LIFE AT THIS POINT!
You're dumb and wrong.
Thats all we got from this.
You're two different people, who unvoted in different ways, who unvoted for different reasons, and who played differently during the time as a whole. You didn't go "I don't have anything else to say. Unvote. Don't ask me that question. Ask Ryker." You didn't say you wanted to sit there and do nothing. Soupa's play is completely different from yours except the fact that you pushed the same person right after RVS, yet you think you should be voted and pressured just as much because you voted the same person right after RVS? Uhhh no? Your attack is wrong.
Desist with the defending Soup bull****. It's much more involved with attacking TSN's logic.
It looks like you were defending Soupa more than attacking TSN. That won't change.
They were perfectly welcome to come and say I was incorrect. To explain why they were voting me. To disprove my accusations. To push a case.
It never happened. Why?
They. Did.
Right before they called you out for Strawmanning. In the same post. That you referenced.
Beat the same drum over and over and it doesn't get any louder. I've already responded to both of these earlier in this post. You're trying to make your post bigger.
I put that there for convience for anyone reading the case, yet you want to call me scummy for it? Okaaaay. By the way, your response is exactly why I did that. I either have to remember what you said about this (you being ninja'd), or I have to go all the way back to the near top and figure out where you said this, possibly re-reading.
Please quote where so I can respond instead of making comments like that.
Below response. Bolded.
Your case is dumb and so are you. Was this Joey or Sword?
made it.
Me and Swords both agree'd that the case I made was poorly done, and it didn't focus on motivation. That's why we made the list afterwards instead of just telling CR to read the case again.
Ninja'd by myself, but yeah, no CC of role or character, and the character apparently lines up the best with JoaT. I'm supposed to be the one that always gets JoaT though, what is this.
WIFOMy indeed, but I can see your point.I pretty much agree. Soup is null, then add the fact that if he were part of a scum team he probably wouldn't be acting so stupid, whether it's because he would not want to let his scummate down, or because his scummate would yell at him for it.
Slightly WIFOMy, but that's why it's a very slight lean.
Good man. Glad someone else isn't crapping their pants over this.
No one would hydra with me... I guess I smell funny
Also why are you so eager to get rid of the nonhydras?
Two posts questioning PFP's RVS behaviour. Two ways to read these posts, and both lead to contradictions later:
This is in response to my asking why he is questioning PFP seriously, but not placing a vote. He dances around the question here. Additionally, he acknowledges that this is RVS. He says he does not want to participate, yet he is questioning the motivation behind PFP's RVS behaviour. Did he honestly expect to get anything other than "it was just rvs lol"? Unlike Ryker, who attacked PFP for being in RVS, GLG questions PFP for his votes, which will not produce any content. This all could be taken as GLG trying to seem active and serious without truly doing anything.
However, this is in response to a direct request by me for his stance on PFP. Note that no stance is really offered in this post. The closest to a stance is "i dont understand why you consider him town", which is essentially "null or scum" and is not strong at all. He was gearing up to apply pressure on PFP with his earlier posts, but now retracts that by saying he was just doing it "fortehlulz".
More defending himself... still not doing anything.
This is a weak attempt at pressuring PFP again. It's still reactive pressure, as it is made in response to PFP challenging one of the points against him.
Watch how carefully he is treading with this post. Says he thinks PFP is scum, but then steps back and says not enough to push a lynch. Says he doesn't see scumSoup (note he is again saying "not scum" as opposed to "town"), but then qualifies that with a dislike of Soup's 108. This post once again offers no stance at all.
Calls AW hypocritical (and wrongly so... Soup had outright refused to cooperate, whereas AW had just been absent... purposefully misrepresenting AW, or just bad logic?). Then once again avoids taking a solid stance and says "oh i might be just making a big deal out of nothing".
Subtle OMGUS, attempting to discredit us in an incredibly silly way. Calls our scumhunting faked, but provides no evidence for that claim. We can't even defend ourselves since it's such a weak case.
Still no solid stance. Implied that he has no read on Ryker, except for a slight lean towards town due to the attacks ON him. No comment on Ryker's actual posts or actions.
Retracts the only scum "read" he had up to this point. Cool.
There's a contradiction here contained completely within this paragraph. He acknowledges that TSN HAS made posts that incriminate Ryker, but still does not like TSN's vote on Ryker. How does that make any sense? "I see that you have reason to vote this player, but I don't like the fact that you voted him". Furthermore, he says there is evidence incriminating Ryker, yet the only thing he has to say about Ryker is that the attacks ON him make him seem town?
And then bam, out of nowhere.
So it doesn't matter? Is it a scum tell or not. Where do you go there?PFP said:
Then why the **** did you put that there? It was put down to look like it was a scum tell when it is not. You're padding your case.PFP said:
I'm not doing that. I'm doing the opposite. I'm making it clear that I'm not ruling out the possibility of TvS. It never said that it was SvS. It never implies that it was SvS. It says that it could be SvS, but I don't know there at all.PFP said:
I still don't get why this is a scum tell.PFP said:
Why is it a scum tell?PFP said:
After the fact doesn't matter at ****ing all. I voted Soup after the fact. What mattered about it was that wasn't the point that TSN was pushing.PFP said:
And all of that can't be accomplished without tunneling?PFP said:
Except that I was pushing the EXACT OPPOSITE. That tunneling is always a scum tell and that ZB wasn't a dead set town read.PFP said:
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I distinctly remember him not giving reads when asked, and then when I tried again, he gave himself a backdoor on the reads he did give. I remember later being ninja'd when I went to call him out again and seeing reads. What motivation does scum Ryker have for pushing for reads if he knew they were out there?PFP said:
Look above. Answer is up there.PFP said:
Yet you are the one who has to come out and say this. Hell, some of it happened after the fact and shouldn't be relevant. TSN never gave a satisfactory answer regardless of how I put the comparison up. It's a weak point. It's hella easily dealt with, but he never did it right. He never went into reasons as to why it's different after I put them on a level playing field he said, and I'm probably paraphrasing, "You're null and not worth looking into at the moment."PFP said:
OK, then why is defending Soup any more scummy than you defending TSN?PFP said:
Did I not respond to that? I'm fairly sure I responded to a strawmanning accusation saying that I really didn't care about the rest of the Soup case.PFP said:
In the middle of his defense against PFP, he comes out with these questions. These aren't even addressing the case on him anymore - it's a redirection back onto PFP, questioning PFP's vote placement. Pretty reaching defense imo.Ryker said:
:3. Whatevers easier for me to respond to. Especially if this quoting thing doesn't work >.>
What doesn't matter? Your post? If the vote you had was poorly made and used BS reasoning, then I don't see a reason to drop that despite of the mentality you had when you made said post.
Because... its a joke? >_> Adding jokes to my cases is something I personally do(even though its usually only one or two), and they're usually indicated/made obvious by starting them with "Lol". That won't change.
What? No seriously, what? You voted someone for saying they think that Soupa v PFP could be TvS, that being the ONLY REASON GIVEN, yet you say that Soupa v TSN could be SvS. This combined with the only reason given for voting TSN looks suspicious and scummy. The fact that you tried to defend it afterwards doesn't make it any better. Voting for a really bad reason is a scum tell, and this just makes the vote above look worse and more like a scum tell instead of dumb play or pressure, since it makes us feel that you don't believe in what you're shooting TSN for. Motivation: Attempting to paint TSN as scum instead of scum hunting.
It really isn't after thinking about it for a while. I said we were wrong about this anyways. I said why we thought it was suspicious, but I also said we were wrong.
If your play is extremely fake, if you're giving up pressure just like that, and if you're rebounding questions to another player on the push (showing that you had no interest in the push), then its simply the fact that hes not showing any signs of scum hunting at all, and it makes people feel that the whole push against me wasn't because he thought what we did was scummy or needed pressure, but simply just to look townie and pressure the person with the most power behind their wagon. To put it really simple: It shows that he could have been wagoning instead of scum hunting that whole time.
What? I give you the reasons for why he looked fake, and THIS is how you respond? Its like you're ignoring the reasons behind anyone thinking his scum hunting and push against me could have been fake. TSN brought up the unvote post for sure. When he did, you just continued with your whole attacking the weaker player and "why aren't you pressuring me as well" bull****.
After the fact? What? His push on us was fake and his unvote post was ****. That is what TSN was pushing at the start, yet you still spewed the "attacking the weaker player" and "I should be pressured as well" bull****.
So tunneling is always a scum tell because it can be accomplished through different ways? Wrong.
Thats not what I'm saying at all. The fact that Soupa doesn't view tunneling as a scum tell, and the fact that he didn't have ZB as null-scum like you, along with his attempts in scum hunting is more than enough to put him as a town read. Yet, since it doesn't agree with your thoughts (tunneling is always a scum tell, ZB wasn't a town read), you vote him for it. That's what it looks like from our PoV. The fact that you're attacking him so hard for this alone is a scum tell simply because it looks like an attempt to wagon instead of an attempt to scum hunt, since he is an easy target and the reasons you gave were BS. Motivation: Blend into the town, make it look like you're scum hunting.
Aaaand you're wrong. Gave 2 reads before you asked, gave 2 more after you asked once, then gave all of them after you asked twice. This point is null and I suggest you drop it completely. Motivation: Act like you're scum hunting, trying to get information from the town to determine who to night kill.
Kay.
It was obvious that you/Soupa were different when they said "I have you as a null" and that they were pushing Soupa as a scum read. I'm still lost at how you can even think that you should be pressured for doing one or two things that are similar to what he did. The fact that you went into this so much more when it was so un needed is just complete BS. It also looks like you were whiteknighting Soupa and it looked like an attempt to redirect pressure from him onto yourself, since you're asking you to be pressured for what he's doing, and it could be seen as an attempt to nullify pressure against him.
Lol. Redirecting pressure I see. Scum tell if it wasn't obvious.
What? You called him out for strawmanning, and that was his response. He said why you were wrong with your vote in the part we bolded, yet you ignore that and talk about strawmanning again? Not good. Ignoring the content of the push on yourself (this is what that looks like) is a scum tell.
Well DH, you now have my response to this I believe? Both sides treat each other in a way that's not consistent with the rest of their play. I would say it does work both ways, although scumRyker implying scumGLG is not as strong.
