|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
On November 04 2011 11:08 wherebugsgo wrote:
lol @ this, kita names 2/3 of the player base as being possible scum and then doesn't explain why he conveniently excludes Forumite+prpl and Greymist+super.
They weren't convenient exclusions...I'm telling you guys which teams I wouldn't consider voting for at this point. We're trying to move towards a team we can agree to reach majority on, no?
On November 04 2011 11:08 wherebugsgo wrote:
I mean, really, what is your point? Why are prpl+forumite not possible scum? Or Grey+super?
supersoft because he shows he cares who is lynched on day one. He is sharing his opinion and playing transparently.
prpl because between all the one liners, he has a similar thought process as myself. The things he is questioning are things I also feel relevant.
On November 04 2011 11:08 wherebugsgo wrote:
For all we know, you could be scum. This "information" you provide is utterly useless.
I'm providing my opinion. Use it however you wish.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
On November 04 2011 11:10 sandroba wrote:I agree with you that supersoft is likely town, but I'm interested in your reasoning for forumite/prplhz. This particular post from forumite is pretty scummy to me: Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 09:11 Forumite wrote:On November 04 2011 07:52 prplhz wrote:
Well I'm sold, I hope Forumite feels the same way 'cause:
##Unvote
##Vote Team SS Sure, you can pick this lynch, I´ll pick the next one  Not only he shows that he is not concerned about who we lynch today, but also shows a certainty that he will be around longer. Why exactly do you believe they are town kita?
It also shows he is not concerned about playing safe. It supports the idea of a connection between two players, rather than a team of four. I'm not totally solid on the forumite half of the team, but there are others I'd rather see lynched day one.
On November 04 2011 11:10 sandroba wrote:
Also my post about no lynch (despite me agreeing with it) was a method to get reads from people. It's a controversial issue and I would expect a strong reaction from townies regarding that topic, but some consideration aswell. Some players raised good points most of which I agree with and some where impartial or aloof. Obviously I'm aware that I would become easy lynch bait for scum to pile on, but that doesn't bother me as I'm sure there are inteligent players here.
Have those "good points" swayed your opinions to not aim for a mislynch? What conclusions have you come to based upon the responses?
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
What are your thoughts on the GM/Crofty duo, Radfield?
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
First off, remove the pictures, flavor fluff, and irrelevent references to old games and that post would be much easier to read.
On November 04 2011 03:40 GMarshal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 09:19 kitaman27 wrote:
Also, we've all read our role pms. New discussion topic please. This is a wonderful post on two fronts: it seems pro-town as it looks to move away from a terrible topic of discussion, but doesn't offer an alternative. If kita wasn't on your radar yet, this post should have put him on there. Notice how he also doesn't come up with an opinion on the person proposing the plan, or propose another topic of discussion, he simply says "move on". This is a post that contributes without contributing, it shoots down a terrible plan, yes, but it does so with out adding anything to the discussion, or telling us anything about kita or those proposing the plan.
On the contrary I'm trying to prevent "contributing without contributing". People were discussing an irrelevant plan that was impossible to carry out at this point in the game and I didn't like where discussion was headed. I'm not trying to label that as a "contribution". If you really want to look at a "contributing without contributing" post, just look at your reaper post that you started the game off with.
On November 04 2011 03:40 GMarshal wrote:And then we reach the real gem, the post I was just *waiting* for, a post taking a null tell and spinning it to kita's advantage. The post in question is quoted below Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 03:44 kitaman27 wrote:On November 04 2011 02:43 GMarshal wrote:
Truly this is a Kurumi plan. On November 04 2011 02:43 GMarshal wrote:
your suggestion of no-lynching to "prolong the game" is retarded. On November 04 2011 03:40 GMarshal wrote:
I can understand Kurumi pushing this anti-town idiocy Since when does town GM bully people around like this? There are several things of note in this post, first is the fact that this fits kita's scum meta perfectly, he is going for the "low hanging fruit", finding something that is not in any way an indicator of alignment and spinning it as such. This is *exactly* what happened when kita "caught" redtooth lying about having smurfed in other mafia games in the past, he took a completely irrelevant piece of data and tried to spin it in such a way as to discredit and throw suspicion on a townie. Furthermore there is the lack of an actual case being built around this, if kita thinks I am scum (and this post seems to indicate that), why isn't he pushing for my lynch? Possibly because its not an easy lynch?
You were mocking kurumi and calling his ideas retarded and idiotic. I didn't like that. Don't try to warp this as a scum agenda.
On November 04 2011 03:40 GMarshal wrote:
Also interesting is that he takes the least controversial position, supporting lynching, and only after two other people have decided to support it. Certainly not hogging the spotlight, that's for sure.
Huh? I supported lynch because that was the correct decision. I saw a plan I didn't like and I argued against it. I'm not sure what you mean about only after two other people have decided to support it. I'm posting at the same time you are, not that its relavent. The math was setup discussion. I'm not claiming it as a sign that I'm town, I'm just sharing my opinion.
On November 04 2011 03:40 GMarshal wrote:
Dear god, this post. Lets he calls out lurkers, and posts that he thinks that 6/8 other people might be scum. Wow, what a wonderful contribution! How *useful*, especially when it includes such brilliant justifications. This is essentially kita publishing a list of two town reads, for no real reason, and lo and behold! Its another long, worthless post, that doesn't directly accuse anyone of being scum! It doesn't even point out why any of those might be scum. No townie with his head screwed on straight would post this. Kita is experienced enough to know that this is a terrible post, and I cannot ascribe any town motivation to writing it. Its a clear and blatant attempt at contributing without contributing.
You're the third person to attempt to twist my post as scummy. We need to consolidate the lynch. I posted which teams I would be unwilling to vote for based upon my town reads. I'm confident that the 2 scum teams are within the 6 teams I listed. That was 24 hours into the game. You know well enough that day one is about searching for town. I'm sharing my opinion and attempting to push the lynch away from those I see in a good light.
On November 04 2011 03:40 GMarshal wrote:
Kitaman is scum, becuse he fails toreally contribute, instead hiding behind apparent contributions, this lines up with his scum meta. Kita is simply failing to push his usual town objectives and actively hunt scum, and is instead fostering suspicion and being unhelpful
Here is what I've done so far:
-The very first thing I did was random vote the newbie in an attempt to generate discussion and gauge a reaction.
-I respond to you accusation of team viking that they are deliberately derailing town. You respond "look at their filter" and I continue to press you to provide a valid reason, which you ultimately drop.
-I argue against the "no-lynch plan" because it doesn't benefit town. I argue against the "follow the blue" plan because it doesn't benefit town.
-I push several players who promise to contribute later on to share their ideas.
-I develop two town reads and share that I'm not willing to lynch them
I'm at work at the moment, but during lunch I'll take another read of the thread. prp/forumite, what exactly is "good" about GM's case?
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
This isn't a coaching game chaoser.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
On November 05 2011 00:49 GMarshal wrote:
Wow kita, you completely fail to address the majority of my points, while focusing on the nitpicking, great job!
Nope, only the points that seemed relavent. If there is anything you want me to respond to, go ahead. Watch your tone mister. 
On November 05 2011 00:49 GMarshal wrote:
Yet you didn't offer another outlet for discussion, which is what I take issue with. Town kita would have given something else to work with, if just an accusation or a push against a player, you just said "lol, no" and left it at that, "lol, no, but...." is pro-town, "lol no." is anti-town. Don't muddle the issue.
At that point I'm at work skimming the thread for 60 seconds between loading screens.
My opening post already provided discussion topics:
-Majority lynch, don't hammer.
-No lynch isn't helpful
-Offensive jailkeeper
-Random vote
You mimic'd my points with your L-2 discussion and no-lynch discussion. You accuse me as taking a "safe" stand only after 2 others have already commented on the issue, yet I'm the one who brought it up in the first place.
On November 05 2011 00:49 GMarshal wrote:
No, you made a veiled accusation calling me scum and didn't push on it. You weren't saying "gm, be nice" or anything like that, you were implying that I was scum. Without going out and saying it. That's also not town behavior, if you thought my meta indicated I wouldn't do that as town, you should have elaborated, if you wanted me to back off, you should have said it. Instead you go with a veiled accusation. That's called seeding suspicion.
My vote was on you, I was questioning your posts, I was questioning why you are attacking peoples ideas as if you were Ace and I'm asking others their opinion about you. What makes you so sure that I'm not thinking you're scum?
On November 05 2011 00:49 GMarshal wrote:
As I said, scum love setup discussion. Its interesting that this is the only place you show a strong opinion
Sounds familiar. With the exception of the recent case against myself, your main focus has been discussing the no-lynch as well. You call me out for yelling at lurkers, yet you yourself say:
"As usual there is no excuse for lurking, don't do it and you won't have me lobbing for your lynch. Seriously, 2 players per team should mean a more than decent level of activity, you aren't going to get away with 2~3 posts per cycle unless they are an outstanding, wall of text, analytical set of three posts."
On November 05 2011 00:49 GMarshal wrote:
You know better than this. You never, ever post "I think this guy is town" or even imply it, as that makes them targets, instead you pick your top three scum candidates and push them. even if behind the scenes you are town hunting. You know this, you've played enough games.
Huh? Do I really have to go back through all your games and point out all the times you've pointed someone out as town? You state your opinion as if its a fact. If I want to steer the lynch away from certain players, I'm going to say I think they are town.
On November 05 2011 00:49 GMarshal wrote:
You are scum. Sure as day.
Quite confident based on less than 48 hours of information. Like I said, I'll reread the thread to look for a case for an alternate candidate. I'm openly sharing my opinions. Apparently that's scummy?
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
On November 05 2011 01:10 GMarshal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 01:05 redFF wrote:
in fact after filtering you i notice you haven't said a thing about team SS, the team leading in votes, all game. SCUMPARTNERS MUCH?
I said "I don't think sandroba is scum" several times. Learn to read.
Hey look, are you calling sandroba town? Didn't you just attack me saying that a town would never share a town read? And that I "should know better"?
On November 05 2011 01:14 redFF wrote:
you're fucking retarded.
By which he means, you're voting for vote for awful reasons.
I haven't discussed anything with red yet, but ignore the SS vote for now.
If sandroba gave the "ok" on the case, I'd like to hear his opinion as well.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
You're suspicious of prp's team, supersoft and myself? The three people I'm willing to trust. Either your reads are really off or you're intentially trying to break up any measure of trust that has been established on day one.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
There is no chance for you/prp to be around a computer sometime before the lynch? With 3 votes on ourselves, its going to be difficult to pull off the five votes needed, especially if we don't feel we want to push a case on on of the three voting for us.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
On November 05 2011 01:36 GreYMisT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 01:31 kitaman27 wrote:
You're suspicious of prp's team, supersoft and myself? The three people I'm willing to trust. Either your reads are really off or you're intentially trying to break up any measure of trust that has been established on day one. Kita, who is your lynch alternative for today? you have posted a list of people you think might be scum. Who among those is the scummiest in your eyes, and why?
Discussing it with red at the moment.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
Ok, its unfortunate that it has come to this, but we are the Parity Cop. Congrats :/
We are claiming for the following reasons:
The best case scenario at this point is a no-lynch with the afk prp/forumite vote and a tunneling GM. Even if we came up with a target like chaoser, he is obviously not going to vote for himself, nor is his scum buddy, so if we want to accomplish anything today, the claim is necessary. I'd rather give up our identity than throw away a lynch. We are claiming early enough in the day that there is still time to push a lynch. As for who that should be, we are still discussing that. We don't want Team Viking, which is what team chaoser seems to be pushing.
As I mentioned before, without protection and a series of mislynches, the parity cop only has about a 10% sucess rate. If there is a 66% there is a protection role in the setup, which helps our chances of staying alive.
On November 03 2011 07:30 kitaman27 wrote:
I think the most important thing to probably consider
As I mentioned in the ban thread earlier, its possible for blues to breadcrumb their roles with the first post, which is what I did. It's not absolute proof of the claim, but know that the claim was prepared from the start. What we can 100% confirm is that nobody else is the parity cop.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:01 hyshes wrote:kitaman, why would that be?
Because there is only one parity cop?
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:01 GMarshal wrote:
You just claimed, so I'm done accusing you till I reevaluate
Not a moment of questioning it? You're willing to buy the claim? For all you know, we could just be hoping that there isn't a PC. Or we could be trying to draw out the true parity cop.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
lol now you're just being silly -_-
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:15 wherebugsgo wrote:
Yo team red21, who would you check tonight and tomorrow night?
lol? None of your business.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
Are you playing the same game as us bugs? This is day 1....how exactly are we going to breadcrumb our night 1 check?
Revealing our checks gives the mafia an indication of who to shoot. How is it relavent to town who we will check?That's not happening.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
Scum absolutely hate to move their vote around multiple times a day. They want to find a lynch to jump on and stick with it. Is that your entire case?
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:24 wherebugsgo wrote:
Even if there is a PC and you aren't the real one, the real PC wouldn't counterclaim because that would out him to mafia!
Wrong. The real PC would 100% claim because they just identified 50% of the scum team. I'm still not sure why you want us to reveal our future checks bugs. We haven't checked anyone yet. This is day 1. Revealing our checks gives additional information to the mafia. They know if shooting a certain person will get them in trouble due to a difference in parity.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
Mafia know that the claim is the truth. Someone going out of their way to question it, rather than immediately accepting it gives them town points in my eyes even if the logic is really bad about wanting us to reveal the checks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
