EPTI'm like to brag that the LSB scumdar is 100% accurate*
*Note, only counting large analysis posts.
TL Mafia XXXV - Page 7
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
I'm like to brag that the LSB scumdar is 100% accurate* *Note, only counting large analysis posts. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 17 2011 13:26 Pandain wrote: To be fair alot of the "veterans" really didn't do much :p. You were REALLY scummy day 1, and while I was really retarded in wanting to get you lynched so soon(but that just shows how scummy you were), your defense was pretty abysmal and your whole "Oh, I'm going to be confirmed, but I can't tell you guys!" just screamed scum. RoL did actually help but then got double shot. But seriously, that was one of the major mistakes. I told Opz NOT to hit RoL, I told him to hit darth. And then he shoots RoL. Why did you do that btw Opz? Impervious was decent, at least he wasn't as retarded as me. I wasn't scummy at all, Annul yelled a bunch of things that were not true and people didn't bother to actually read any posts at all and went with the "Hey, apparently omgus is a scumtell, so lets go with that" | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 17 2011 13:32 Pandain wrote: Actually the reasons I were suspicious of you weren't really even Annul. I thought Annul had explained it pretty poorly. There were a number of things you had done: 1.Your pms with me. You had this whole "I knew annul would accuse me, hoping no one would read it, because I never defend" which was just REALLY far fetched. 2.Nitpicking at small details. 3.Super defensiveness, which even u said was out of your norm. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=179009¤tpage=25#486 There was my analysis You're a bit naive about PMs, and it actually hurts your game First rule about PMs, don't ask for trust. Second rule about PMs, don't give trust Superdefensiveness? That something that Annul made up, go read the posts | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 17 2011 13:16 Pandain wrote: I actually feel at least somewhat more confident. I was suspicious of D3 because of his "contributing without really contributing", yet laid back on him because he was actually at least somewhat contributing whilst others weren't. This is a gigantic mafia tell. Read Ver's analysis of Salem mafia, or the lynch on Shockeyy, you should have hammered him for this So I have a question to post to everyone: Who is more suspicious: 1.Those who don't contribute. 2.Those who try to contribute but are just really really bad at it. 3.Those who try to contribute but it doesn't really say much. This is the problem, just because someone posts bad (ie Bill Murray), it doesn't mean that they are mafia. Firstly, what is a contribution. Contibution is new analysis or reasoning. All else is inactivity #1 is pretty suspicious. But you have to seperate "not contributing" from "Inactive" #2 is not suspicious at all, unless you can tell its intentional #3 is not suspicious at all. As long as they are contributing, activity is not an issue | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 17 2011 13:44 Pandain wrote: My PMs weren't about trust. I'm talking specifically on our pms, in which you had this whole far fetched theories which seemed like you were just grasping at straws. Not my fault that they were actually completly true And about trust, you screaming OMG CLAIM TO ME! Didn't really help your case And again, when I say super defensiveness, I just mean for you. Usually, as you said, you just let it go by. You said "Oh, it was just so horrible I had to respond," but it really wasn't that bad of an analysis. uhh, the analysis sucks. Go read it | ||
| ||
