because i don't get stuck on one person Day 1 like Kevin apparently has done. i try to get a feel for all of the players before i start latching down unless something strikes me as obvious
Then my point still remains the same.
If you move on so quickly, then you don't actually apply pressure. If you don't apply pressure I wonder how you're supposed to get a "feel" for "all of the players". I still think it's poor play. You also mention it in posts below [no worries I don't skip anything from your post] so let's look at that first now:
then you dislike my approach, but it's consistent with how i do things. i'm not attempting to latch my vote onto one single person and keep it there for an eternity. i don't have the leisure to do that when we have so many people being inactive. i've told you before that the most important thing to me Day 1 is information and if i cant get everyone talking so i can start feeling people out then i have a difficult time finding scum (unless it's Kevin).
by pressure i mean get them to speak more than they normally do or already have been doing. the only thing i can up to their neck is getting the noose for being inactive/unhelpful but if no one was doing that im positive the majority of them would continue their inactivity spree.
And do you think you've actually succeeded? Last time I checked, Omis hasn't done more recently than he did earlier in this game when he was worth a vote for you. Chibo speaking up was inevitable because he was at MLG Raleigh and Kevin was V/LA too apparently.
But do you feel like Omis and mentosman are talking that much more now that your "pressure" successfully provoked them to into talking? I don't think that's the case - neither player looks a lot more active and helpful than they did before, despite your "pressure".
i didn't ask if you think his points are clear. my question was do you agree or disagree with his points? if so, which points and why?
No, I don't agree with him. I think your play of pressuring inactives is very weak for a player of your experience but I don't think it's scummy.
it's increidbly unhelpful. what i found scummy was explained in my response post:
- incorrect accusations
- piggybacking ideas
- stimulating a case that focuses more on my continuous play rather than my play when he first deemed me as the play
if i say you're the play within 2 pages and justify myself using your actions from the 3rd page and forward there's a problem with that. im not sure why you dont recognize this
Quite honestly, I think he's simply playing the same game you do - just a lot more effective. Because - unlike you - by playing this way he
does get the people talking that he actually
wants to talk. I'm sure by your reactions he learned a lot more about you then you've learned about Omis, Mentosman and Kevin himself.
This is the point where you can't deny anymore that you're "pressure" was completely ineffective. You have not learned anything from Omis and Mentosman that you didn't know before and Chibo / Kevin were simply V/LA and bound to contribute anyway upon their comeback. None of your votes gave us a notable read on the players you were voting for.
Like it or not but the same can not be said about Kevin because he immediately got the player he wanted to talk and if you take the fact into account that up until recently you've been mainly talking about inactives and "pressuring" them, then he actually has a logically sound reason to pressure you as well. He just doesn't make as much noise about it.
Kevin has been playing far more successful game than you did - despite a lot less posts coming from him.
which is the point of grilling them when they do come in
If saying "mentos can die too" and leaving Omis alone alltogether is "grilling" to you, then you did a great job. But that doesn't match my own - or most people's - definition of "grilling" them. I'd like to see where you actually grill somebody in this game.
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11100215&postcount=219
tell me why you don't have any issues with our exchange based off this response. because based off what i read i found very conflicting statements and a lot of scummy type statements. the fact that you have no issues with the kevin/me exchange makes me wonder if we're even reading the same thing
I'm reading the same thing, no worries.
A lot of things can be interpreted as scummy, especially when directed at the own person you're inclined to do so. In the end however, I have gotten more insight to you, your reactions and how you play than you could ever make available from all the players you were "grilling" all game.
If I were like you and tried to paint things in a bad light, I could also interpret your non-existent "pressure" as a scummy attempt to look active, while remaining safe by exclusively attacking the most inactive player. When somebody like Kevin [rightfully] questions your motives you proceed to attack him because of course your entire play was "beyond any doubt" pro-town [which is what you try to make everybody believe all game]. But you didn't actually give us anything we could work with before Kevin started to provoke you.
It's more pro-town in my eyes, then anything you did so far.
Gheb, if you're getting scum vibes from me point out why. You put an FoS on me from agreeing with Jungle's perspective on two different things on Chibo. I was talking about Chibo's activity, where as Jungle was talking about why he was scummy to him. I said Chibo could die because of he's in this perpetual catch up game where hes never going to, and Jungle said because he is selectively quoting.
I agree with the Chibo hate because Omni is dead on this is why that type of inactivr is bad. They never catch up and don't try too. It's a maybe 10 minute read when reading in depth. Multiquote as you go and just quote everything you thinks important. Then make a wall post and not take a month to catch up.
I'm well aware that you mainly mentioned his inactivity but that's not the origin of the "Chibo hate" so my accusation that you read selectively remains. If you really took note of the "Chibo hate" then there's no way that his inactivity could be your only concern because everybody who read his posts agreed that his selective reading and the deflective nature of his posts was far more troublesome than his lack of activity.
I also disagree with your general idea that Omni moving around to different suspects is anti-town. Tunneling has it's place, but widening your scope to interact and judge other players is never a bad thing. I'm not saying it makes omni Townie, but his approach is definitely not hindering town, nor will it hinder our ability to gauge his intentions and alignment.
When did I say it was anti-town? I said it's ineffective and poor play, which I will by all means stand by until the rest of the game.
. I just don't have a problem with Omni's style.