|
I wanted to post these two bits separately because the first part is a responce to layabout's nonsence, while the second is analysis of his play. Consider what has layabout done since replacing xsk's replacement: - tell us he can't imagine another lynch but BKE - a gigantic OMGUS (both me and Tunkeg - the players layabout has "analysed" - were on xsksc earlier) - try to push for a late switch
I put him and EY as the third mafia member and I've stated that he has a lot to prove if he wants to prove xsk's innocence, so he knows he has to do something about it.
But in the process he has revealed himself. This is quite a long post, so I've put the quotes in spoilers to make it more readable.
- he deliberately quoted just half of my explanation of how Grackaroni was using WIFOM. Some of the other posts he quoted contained a lot of stuff that had nothing to do with his point and were very long and made his case harder to read - yet he didn't find it necessary to remove them. But he decided to cut out two very important lines and then use what's left to accuse me. Check out the actual quotes in the spoiler if you don't remember his post.
+ Show Spoiler +Example #1: Quoting a post that contains a lot of irrelevant information without bothering to cut it out. The bits in green are the bits that have nothing to do with what he is talking about that he decided to include anyway. The bits in red are what he is actually refering to. On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 06:45 xtfftc wrote:On December 08 2011 06:06 ey215 wrote:On December 08 2011 04:56 xtfftc wrote:On December 08 2011 04:15 ey215 wrote: I'm not 100% sold that he's scum, but I'm sold his behavior has been anti-town.
##vote: jaybrundage ... Town does not vote to punish bad play. Town votes to lynch mafia. Right, and right now the best case for scum I've seen is the one on jay. I don't think it's currently possible to be 100% sold on anyone at the moment town or scum. I've read the filters, and have nothing unique to add to the discussion so why clog the thread up even further? Am I supposed to be like, "FUCK YEAH WE'RE KILLING SCUM!" Besides BH, I don't think anyone is 100% sure on jay, but at the moment it's the best we've got. Hopefully it solidifies later in the day, or someone else catches something You lynch your best read. You don't start looking for excuses for when the player you're voting for flips town. Yes, because I did such a great job laying under the radar before. Let's see, pissing match with the most active/aggressive player in the thread. Check.
Getting myself warned for inactivity in big blue letters to point it out to everyone. Check.
Great job I'm doing staying under the radar. You didn't want to get into the "pissing match" with BH, you were forced to by his aggressiveness. And using lurking as a proof that you haven't been staying under the radar is a pretty solid point if you're building a case against yourself.
You were out of the picture when every good mafia wants to be: during the last ~12 hours before the deadline, so you did a great job.On December 08 2011 06:10 ey215 wrote: I'd also like Starshard, xftttc, and Bluelightz to respond to by the accusations that EB made. I know it sucks for the replacements but there needs to be some response to it. He seemed pretty damn convinced he had the game won and then got offed by the mafia overnight. I answered to him after he mentioned me and I don't see how his death changes anything.
What is there to be said about EB? His play was arrogant and trollish. He was obviously a veteran smurfing, who thought it would be fun to frustrate the townies (refusing to vote just when he was asked to the most active player in the game just because he felt like irritating us) and then giving us a great demonstration of how a town player has to prove his innocence when attacked. He posted a great case that lacked obvious flaws - and then he was happy to go inactive again. He came back to announce that he's found the whole mafia team - but didn't bother providing any analysis on two of the players he accused. And he also made sure to notify us that the Bbyte lynch was pushed easily...
Before the game started (and also in the Looking For Coaches thread) some veterans suggested that there should be some experienced players in this game to help teach the newbies how to play properly. Instead we get a cocky smurf. There was no way to make a good guess about his intentions, which is the reason why I'm not all over Hassy at the moment. EB was good enough to make us do anything he wanted to as long as he was interested in putting a serious effort in the game, and I have no reason to believe that his intentions were pro-town, even after his flip. Ask veterans such as Sandroba and Palmar and they will tell you that the first thing a townie should do is to establish his/her innocence. The first thing EB did was to frustrate town and lose us half a day. So what good would it do to town to focus on him again instead of doing our own analysis? All you're achieving with this is disruping the discussion. you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read Example #2: Cutting of half of my example. The bit in red is what Grackaroni posted and the green is what I wrote. Note that layabout didn't use the quote function - he simply marked what he wanted with his mouse. You will notice this clearly if you have a look at his original post ( link, compare the second and the third quote). On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote:you explicity state that you think Jay is the most likely to be scum and grack makes this point Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:16 Grackaroni wrote: Show nested quote +
Here he even admits that Jay is more likely to be scum but his vote still remains on Ey215. . .
I stated my reasons for keeping my vote on EY. Your reasoning is pure WIFOM in this case. Jay was obviously going to be lynched hours before I posted the bit you quoted, so what could a townie do in this situation? Vote for Jay and be accused of sheeping after BH and bandwagonning (remember Tunkeg and his analysis of the Bbyte lynch?) Or vote for someone else and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia. you call his "reasoning" (i see a simple statement of fact) "pure WIFOM" well where is the pure wifom in this? And here you can see the rest of my post; the bit in green is what layabout omitted. On December 10 2011 06:23 xtfftc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:16 Grackaroni wrote:I've posted more on Jay, look at Day 1 but it's mostly one off remarks (such as pointing out how Jay justified not voting for a lurker by saying that we shouldn't lynch a lurker because a lurker isn't around to defend himself) and I don't see how the last quote was me suggesting that he is probably town. It was me pointing out the scumminess of EY's reasoning, and at that moment it was to be expected that mafia would jump on the Jay bandwagon. At the moment I think that Jay is more likely to be scum because if he's not, we have EY, xsk, and Adam left, and I consider Adam to be the worst lynch out of the players I am suspicious of (Adam, Jay, EY, xsk, BKE) Here he even admits that Jay is more likely to be scum but his vote still remains on Ey215. . . I stated my reasons for keeping my vote on EY. Your reasoning is pure WIFOM in this case. Jay was obviously going to be lynched hours before I posted the bit you quoted, so what could a townie do in this situation? Vote for Jay and be accused of sheeping after BH and bandwagonning (remember Tunkeg and his analysis of the Bbyte lynch?) Or vote for someone else and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia. Let's also consider me being mafia for the sake of discussing my actions. Vote for Jay and get accused of bandwagonning, or don't and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia? It works both ways.
- he quotes something and calls it as exactly the opposite + a scumslip? This is something new I just noticed, so you should definitely check it out.
+ Show Spoiler +On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 06:45 xtfftc wrote:On December 08 2011 06:06 ey215 wrote:On December 08 2011 04:56 xtfftc wrote:On December 08 2011 04:15 ey215 wrote: I'm not 100% sold that he's scum, but I'm sold his behavior has been anti-town.
##vote: jaybrundage ... Town does not vote to punish bad play. Town votes to lynch mafia. Right, and right now the best case for scum I've seen is the one on jay. I don't think it's currently possible to be 100% sold on anyone at the moment town or scum. I've read the filters, and have nothing unique to add to the discussion so why clog the thread up even further? Am I supposed to be like, "FUCK YEAH WE'RE KILLING SCUM!" Besides BH, I don't think anyone is 100% sure on jay, but at the moment it's the best we've got. Hopefully it solidifies later in the day, or someone else catches something You lynch your best read. You don't start looking for excuses for when the player you're voting for flips town. Yes, because I did such a great job laying under the radar before. Let's see, pissing match with the most active/aggressive player in the thread. Check.
Getting myself warned for inactivity in big blue letters to point it out to everyone. Check.
Great job I'm doing staying under the radar. You didn't want to get into the "pissing match" with BH, you were forced to by his aggressiveness. And using lurking as a proof that you haven't been staying under the radar is a pretty solid point if you're building a case against yourself. You were out of the picture when every good mafia wants to be: during the last ~12 hours before the deadline, so you did a great job. On December 08 2011 06:10 ey215 wrote: I'd also like Starshard, xftttc, and Bluelightz to respond to by the accusations that EB made. I know it sucks for the replacements but there needs to be some response to it. He seemed pretty damn convinced he had the game won and then got offed by the mafia overnight. I answered to him after he mentioned me and I don't see how his death changes anything. What is there to be said about EB? His play was arrogant and trollish. He was obviously a veteran smurfing, who thought it would be fun to frustrate the townies (refusing to vote just when he was asked to the most active player in the game just because he felt like irritating us) and then giving us a great demonstration of how a town player has to prove his innocence when attacked. He posted a great case that lacked obvious flaws - and then he was happy to go inactive again. He came back to announce that he's found the whole mafia team - but didn't bother providing any analysis on two of the players he accused. And he also made sure to notify us that the Bbyte lynch was pushed easily... Before the game started (and also in the Looking For Coaches thread) some veterans suggested that there should be some experienced players in this game to help teach the newbies how to play properly. Instead we get a cocky smurf. There was no way to make a good guess about his intentions, which is the reason why I'm not all over Hassy at the moment. EB was good enough to make us do anything he wanted to as long as he was interested in putting a serious effort in the game, and I have no reason to believe that his intentions were pro-town, even after his flip. Ask veterans such as Sandroba and Palmar and they will tell you that the first thing a townie should do is to establish his/her innocence. The first thing EB did was to frustrate town and lose us half a day. So what good would it do to town to focus on him again instead of doing our own analysis? All you're achieving with this is disruping the discussion. you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read and yet in the above quote you do not do that In the "above quote" I was pushing for my best read - EY - and I voted for him 45 later. Moreover, this might even turn out to be a blatant scumslip. How does layabout know that I did not vote for mafia? I kept my vote on EY and did not switch to Jay. So, if EY is town, it appears to be true: I did not vote for mafia (Jay) but I did the opposite instead. Read it again: you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read and yet in the above quote you do not do that It can be just bad wording but it makes me very suspicious.
- he is twisting facts
This one may be a bit boring as I have to go through the thread post by post but I think it's worth reading.
+ Show Spoiler +On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote:Show nested quote + On December 06 2011 06:20 xtfftc wrote: Pretty much all I have on Adam is based on two of his posts that push pro-mafia agenda. Now that I think about it, I have a much stronger case on ey215, even though I decided to leave him for day 2. I don't have enough to convince Adam on my own and it seems that most of the others are happy to lurk or to vote for lynching Bbyte.
Here's what I wrote on Adam earlier in case you're lazy and can't be bothered to check it out: + Show Spoiler +
I'll check the thread again before going to bed.
you have a strong case on a player but you would rather not post it and you would rather vote for someone other than your best read? seriously? He calls me out for this post and there's two interesting bits here. layabout posted "you have a strong case on a player but you would rather not post it and you would rather vote for someone other than your best read? seriously?" Yet I never voted for Adam and the post layabout quoted was me saying that I don't hjave a good case on Adam. Furthermore, I had posted my thoughts on EY throughout the day. There's 1 2 3 4 5 posts that have stuff on EY just from the first half of Day 1. This is lot for such a short period of time. Yet layabout tries to discredit me for not posting my case. In fact, I actually got called out for tunneling EY a bit too much (Grackaroni comes to mind but I think there were others as well), so I decided that it would be more productive if I focus on other players until the end of the day and I went after xsk and Adam. Eventually, I realised that my case on Adam wasn't good enough and I wrote "Pretty much all I have on Adam is based on two of his posts that push pro-mafia agenda. Now that I think about it, I have a much stronger case on ey215", so I stuck to what I had on xsk. Note that this was hours after I had decided not to go after EY until Day 2. Actually, it gets even better. See, what I did after moving away from EY was to build my case on xsk, the player layabout eventually substituted. layabout used a comparisson I made between two of my cases - on EY and Adam - to criticise me for switching from EY to xsk. So, to recap: - he quoted two posts that had more than 24 hours between them to prove that I did not focus on my main read (EY), while disregarding everything that happened in the meanwhile that made me focus on someone else (xsk); - layabout misrepresented the truth by accusing me of not posting on EY even though I clearly did; - used what I wrote on Adam to discredit me for voting for xsk, the player layabout replaced.
- Lynch All Liars?
On December 11 2011 22:13 layabout wrote:you were happy to be on a day1 bandwagon
|
And that's it, I'm done for tonight. Will be back tomorrow afternoon when I finish work.
|
On December 13 2011 01:20 Grackaroni wrote: Both EB/Adam before they died were suspicious of xtfftc. I couldn't recall Adam being suspicious of me, so I decided to re-read his posts... All I found was him saying that "When I was reading xtfftc's analysis, I couldn't help but find myself unconvinced. I was wondering if it was because he himself was unconvinced, which by the sound of it, he is."
Is this the evidence you are talking about?
On December 13 2011 01:20 Grackaroni wrote: xtfftc was accusing EB of smurfing so it may help to explain EB's early death. Great logic... How about mafia realising that EB is a smurf and killing him for the same reason? Can this help to explain EB's early death? Or does the fact that I was open with my read on EB mean that I was the only one who could possibly read his posts and figure it out?
On December 12 2011 10:40 Grackaroni wrote: Also a wierd fact. BKEXE/BByte/Adam4167/EB Were the people I considered the lurkers from the start of the game. All of them have flipped and they were all vanilla townies. It seems like lurkers tend to be bored townies more often than scum trying to avoid detection. I don't think that we can read anything into this though... There's mafia in the active players but this doesn't mean that Blue is necessarily town. Going over those who were in favour of lynching lurkers won't help either. Most townies love policies, including ineffective ones, and so it's easy for mafia to jump on something like Lynch All Lurkers and appear to be "pro-town". Ironically, even Bbyte himself was in favour of LaL.
|
Velinath, what do you think of my posts on layabout, especially the last one?
|
On December 13 2011 09:12 layabout wrote: i don't mean you im just frustrated that since joining the game i have made a very large proportion of the posts the posts i have made have been largely unadressed, that after voting for BK people went quiet and that people really aren't offering opinions of the points raised or providing analysis or discussion. i joined a game 3 days ago and there have been 5 pages of posts. if town isn't active it is difficult to be productive and we need to be more focused. And yet you still want to lynch me for trying to get the town to discuss things... Go figure.
|
Velinath, have you been reading the thread at all? I kept my vote on EY.
On December 09 2011 10:28 Zona wrote: Vote count for the Day 2 lynch
jaybrundage (7): Blazinghand, Adam4167, Velinath, ey215, BroodKingEXE, Grackaroni, Bluelightz
ey215 (2): xtfftc, Tunkeg
Velinath (1): jaybrundage
And you want to lynch me because I "wanted to lynch ey215 and didn't".
On December 13 2011 14:47 Velinath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 14:38 xtfftc wrote:On December 13 2011 09:12 layabout wrote: i don't mean you im just frustrated that since joining the game i have made a very large proportion of the posts the posts i have made have been largely unadressed, that after voting for BK people went quiet and that people really aren't offering opinions of the points raised or providing analysis or discussion. i joined a game 3 days ago and there have been 5 pages of posts. if town isn't active it is difficult to be productive and we need to be more focused. And yet you still want to lynch me for trying to get the town to discuss things... Go figure. I want to lynch you because of what layabout's actually brought up and you haven't addressed. I answered all of the accusations against me very extensivelly:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=50#1000 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=51#1007 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=51#1011 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=52#1021 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=52#1026 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=52#1035 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=52#1035 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=52#1036
+ Show Spoiler +On December 11 2011 17:29 xtfftc wrote:*** Show nested quote +On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote:i need to take some time to try to understand Broodking 's post in the meantime i think that xtfftc: has made some glaring contradictions and that he owes and explanation Grackaroni highlighted this in an earlier post and i think you (xtfftc) need to expalin: I've posted more on Jay, look at Day 1 but it's mostly one off remarks (such as pointing out how Jay justified not voting for a lurker by saying that we shouldn't lynch a lurker because a lurker isn't around to defend himself) and I don't see how the last quote was me suggesting that he is probably town. It was me pointing out the scumminess of EY's reasoning, and at that moment it was to be expected that mafia would jump on the Jay bandwagon. At the moment I think that Jay is more likely to be scum because if he's not, we have EY, xsk, and Adam left, and I consider Adam to be the worst lynch out of the players I am suspicious of (Adam, Jay, EY, xsk, BKE) you explicity state that you think Jay is the most likely to be scum and grack makes this point On December 09 2011 10:16 Grackaroni wrote: Show nested quote +
Here he even admits that Jay is more likely to be scum but his vote still remains on Ey215. . .
I stated my reasons for keeping my vote on EY. Your reasoning is pure WIFOM in this case. Jay was obviously going to be lynched hours before I posted the bit you quoted, so what could a townie do in this situation? Vote for Jay and be accused of sheeping after BH and bandwagonning (remember Tunkeg and his analysis of the Bbyte lynch?) Or vote for someone else and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia. you call his "reasoning" (i see a simple statement of fact) "pure WIFOM" well where is the pure wifom in this? First of, nice to see you being active. Secondly - the answer to your question is in the very post you have quoted. It is pure WIFOM because the logic behind the vote I am accused for can apply to both mafia and town: Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 06:23 xtfftc wrote: Your reasoning is pure WIFOM in this case. Jay was obviously going to be lynched hours before I posted the bit you quoted, so what could a townie do in this situation? Vote for Jay and be accused of sheeping after BH and bandwagonning (remember Tunkeg and his analysis of the Bbyte lynch?) Or vote for someone else and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia. However, how come you quoted just half of my explanation? This is the full one: Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 06:23 xtfftc wrote: Your reasoning is pure WIFOM in this case. Jay was obviously going to be lynched hours before I posted the bit you quoted, so what could a townie do in this situation? Vote for Jay and be accused of sheeping after BH and bandwagonning (remember Tunkeg and his analysis of the Bbyte lynch?) Or vote for someone else and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia.
Let's also consider me being mafia for the sake of discussing my actions. Vote for Jay and get accused of bandwagonning, or don't and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia? It works both ways. You have cut out my actual argument: it works both ways. *** Show nested quote +On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote:On December 08 2011 06:45 xtfftc wrote:On December 08 2011 06:06 ey215 wrote:On December 08 2011 04:56 xtfftc wrote:On December 08 2011 04:15 ey215 wrote: I'm not 100% sold that he's scum, but I'm sold his behavior has been anti-town.
##vote: jaybrundage ... Town does not vote to punish bad play. Town votes to lynch mafia. Right, and right now the best case for scum I've seen is the one on jay. I don't think it's currently possible to be 100% sold on anyone at the moment town or scum. I've read the filters, and have nothing unique to add to the discussion so why clog the thread up even further? Am I supposed to be like, "FUCK YEAH WE'RE KILLING SCUM!" Besides BH, I don't think anyone is 100% sure on jay, but at the moment it's the best we've got. Hopefully it solidifies later in the day, or someone else catches something You lynch your best read. You don't start looking for excuses for when the player you're voting for flips town. Yes, because I did such a great job laying under the radar before. Let's see, pissing match with the most active/aggressive player in the thread. Check.
Getting myself warned for inactivity in big blue letters to point it out to everyone. Check.
Great job I'm doing staying under the radar. You didn't want to get into the "pissing match" with BH, you were forced to by his aggressiveness. And using lurking as a proof that you haven't been staying under the radar is a pretty solid point if you're building a case against yourself. You were out of the picture when every good mafia wants to be: during the last ~12 hours before the deadline, so you did a great job. On December 08 2011 06:10 ey215 wrote: I'd also like Starshard, xftttc, and Bluelightz to respond to by the accusations that EB made. I know it sucks for the replacements but there needs to be some response to it. He seemed pretty damn convinced he had the game won and then got offed by the mafia overnight. I answered to him after he mentioned me and I don't see how his death changes anything. What is there to be said about EB? His play was arrogant and trollish. He was obviously a veteran smurfing, who thought it would be fun to frustrate the townies (refusing to vote just when he was asked to the most active player in the game just because he felt like irritating us) and then giving us a great demonstration of how a town player has to prove his innocence when attacked. He posted a great case that lacked obvious flaws - and then he was happy to go inactive again. He came back to announce that he's found the whole mafia team - but didn't bother providing any analysis on two of the players he accused. And he also made sure to notify us that the Bbyte lynch was pushed easily... Before the game started (and also in the Looking For Coaches thread) some veterans suggested that there should be some experienced players in this game to help teach the newbies how to play properly. Instead we get a cocky smurf. There was no way to make a good guess about his intentions, which is the reason why I'm not all over Hassy at the moment. EB was good enough to make us do anything he wanted to as long as he was interested in putting a serious effort in the game, and I have no reason to believe that his intentions were pro-town, even after his flip. Ask veterans such as Sandroba and Palmar and they will tell you that the first thing a townie should do is to establish his/her innocence. The first thing EB did was to frustrate town and lose us half a day. So what good would it do to town to focus on him again instead of doing our own analysis? All you're achieving with this is disruping the discussion. you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read and yet in the above quote you do not do that To the contrary: this is precisely what I was doing in the above post: pushing my best mafia read. Show nested quote +On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote:here earlier you didn't On December 06 2011 06:20 xtfftc wrote: Pretty much all I have on Adam is based on two of his posts that push pro-mafia agenda. Now that I think about it, I have a much stronger case on ey215, even though I decided to leave him for day 2. I don't have enough to convince Adam on my own and it seems that most of the others are happy to lurk or to vote for lynching Bbyte.
Here's what I wrote on Adam earlier in case you're lazy and can't be bothered to check it out: + Show Spoiler +
I'll check the thread again before going to bed.
you have a strong case on a player but you would rather not post it and you would rather vote for someone other than your best read? seriously? I did post it hours before posting the bit you quoted. Seriously. Now, I could have expanded it a lot but unless you expect me to spend 5-6 hours a day working on my cases, I'll never be able to analyse everything I find in-depth. If this is scummy behaviour, 3/4 of the town are playing much scummier than I am. Show nested quote +On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote:so you vote for BByte On December 06 2011 07:26 xtfftc wrote: I'm going to bed, so I'm voting for Bbyte. It's not ideal but it's better than some unpleasant last minute surprise.
##Unvote: xsksc
##Vote: BByte
why? "its better than a last minute suprise" you just jump on a bandwagon I did write extensively on why town should not waste their vote and that I was concerned about the lack of resistance there had been to Bbyte's lynch. Plus, we agreed that last minute switches tend to benefit the mafia, so we had to ensure this didn't happen. And anyway, jumping on a bandwagon is another thing that 3/4 of the town is much guiltier than I am of, yet you only attack me for this. Why would you do such a thing? I was pretty much the only one to try to push for a lynch that was based on analysis, yet you target me for "jumping" on a bandwagon? Show nested quote +On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote:On December 09 2011 05:24 xtfftc wrote: Yes, albeit a short one that doesn't cover some bits. I feel uneasy about the way no one objects on lynching Jay. It feels like Day 1 all over again, which makes me wonder whether Jay might actually be town - even though mafia are probably just bussing him at this point. So my vote stays on EY to remind people that we have to catch the whole mafia team and not just one member of it. another contradiction it also doesn't make sense that "to remind people that we have to catch the whole mafia team" could be a reason for a vote Of course it does make sense. We had the whole town sheeping for Day 1 and Day 2, so it is necessary to have proper discussions from now on. And what it is that I am guilty of exactly? Are you suggesting that I was trying to somehow save Jay by refusing to vote for him, even though there were like 10 votes for him a few hours before the deadline? On December 11 2011 22:56 xtfftc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2011 22:13 layabout wrote: why are you trying to add wifom logic?
if jay was your best read which you said he was then you should have voted for him, you even said so
the fact that you didn't and the fact that you had already said that players in general should lynch their best read is highly contradictory. how does that involve wifom? I never said that Jay was my best read. I said I consider a mafia team consisting of Jay, BKE, and EY or xsk more likely than the alternative. And I already explained the WIFOM perspective to you. Show nested quote +i attack you because you were happy to be on a day1 bandwagon but on day two when their was a much stronger case for a player being mafia and when you openly stated that you that that player was probably scum and yet you decided to vote for somebody else. and one of the reasons you gave was to "avoid sheeping". yet you had already been on a andwagon. You are a liar. I wasn't happy to be on the Day 1 bandwagon and it is obvious from all the effort I put in my attempts to prevent it. And where is my motive for not voting for Jay? Seriously? If I'm mafia, what is my motive? Are you saying that I knew that someone was mafia and outright refused to vote for him in order to look more suspicious after the red flip? Did I try to save Jay by not voting? Anyone with half a brain would know that he was dead a few hours into Day 2 - and yet I decided not to switch to him for ~36 hours in order to gain absolutely nothing out of it? Show nested quote +the bit i quoted was dated for me as "On December 06 2011 06:20 xtfftc wrote:" before then this is everthing you had to say on eye215: "Everything"? This isn't enough for early Day 1? I got called out for tunneling EY too much and you're acting like it was nothing. I had more on EY than other players had on all of us combined. As for the rest of your post, it's a gameplay opinion that I disagree with. But even though I think that you are wrong, I can see your point. All I have to add on the subject is that I explained my vote at the time and no one had an issue with it, so I think that the problem is in you - or you're trying to turn it into a problem because of your red alignment. On December 12 2011 00:28 xtfftc wrote: This might work with somebody else but not with me. I have addressed your questions but it's obvious that you want to waste my time now and to distract me the best you can. I am committed to providing more analysis and if you are so scared that you decide to shoot me or manage to somehow manipulate the town into lynching me, they will have a lot of information to work with after I flip green. As long as I continue contributing, my death wouldn't be that much of a problem for town, so I am not afraid of dying.
But now that I refuse to play your game, you try to scare me into doing nothing else but defending myself. If you were town, you would have been happy to let me finish the BKE analysis because it is very important for us. Instead, you chose to be obtrusive, even though I already paid a lot of attention to you. It's not like I said I'm not going to answer you at all. I could have simply pretended I'm not checking the thread but only mafia are scared of some extra attention. On December 12 2011 03:44 xtfftc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 03:25 Grackaroni wrote: The quote where you vote for BByte once again connects with my earlier view. You're in favor of jumping on the BByte bandwagon because even though he's not your best scum read it's better than a last second surprise, OK that's fine but then you choose not to vote for Jaybrundage, who you do admit is your best scum read, and the only explanation you've given us so far is you're wifom defense of being accused of jumping on a bandwagon. I've explained this a few times already. I saw the Jay lynch as 100% confirmed and wanted to make a point about the way town was going. On Day 1 there was a chance of mafia jumping on one of the other cases and it wouldn't have been as suspicious because some people (EB and myself at least) argued against lynching the lurker. On Day 2, however, there was no argument, so mafia didn't have the option of doing a last minute switch without revealing their whole team. Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 03:25 Grackaroni wrote: Why are you afraid of being called out for bandwagoning on Jay but not on BByte? Dude, how many times have I made the point that I fought vigurously against the Bbyte lynch? No one can accuse me of bandwagoning on Bbyte. Show nested quote +The fact of the matter is that you still haven't explained why you didn't vote for JB, all you've given us so far is the WIFOM "I would have been accused of voting JB as bandwagoning or I would have been accused of not voting scum" You've shown that you're willing to vote for bandwagons on people you're not sure are mafia but you won't for people you do think are mafia. You're defense is weak, why did you not vote your greatest scum read? I did explain why I kept my vote on EY. Please read my filter before making statements such as this one. Here: Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 05:10 xtfftc wrote: Looking at him as an individual, he is one of the three scummiest (along with EY and xsk), so I consider him more likely to be mafia than not. Looking at him in the context of the potential mafia teams I see, I find his team (Jay, BKE, and one of xsk/EY) more likely than the alternative (xsk/EY/Adam). Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 05:12 Blazinghand wrote: I see. So you think he's solidly scummy, and you have some potential teams you think he is a part of. However, you consider ey215 to be scummier, which is why your vote is on ey215. Is this an accurate representation of your views? Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 05:24 xtfftc wrote: Yes, albeit a short one that doesn't cover some bits. I feel uneasy about the way no one objects on lynching Jay. It feels like Day 1 all over again, which makes me wonder whether Jay might actually be town - even though mafia are probably just bussing him at this point. So my vote stays on EY to remind people that we have to catch the whole mafia team and not just one member of it. This was before the deadline. You posted two hours after me and said nothing about my vote. If it was such a concern, you should have pointed it out at the time. And you really have to start looking at the context. It's not just what someone said, it's the moment they said it and what others had posted prior to that. In this case BH asks me: "However, you consider ey215 to be scummier, which is why your vote is on ey215. Is this an accurate representation of your views?" I reply: "Yes, albeit a short one that doesn't cover some bits" and now you ask me: "You're defense is weak, why did you not vote your greatest scum read?" I did end up voting for my greatest scum read. I would have switched to Jay if I thought there was a chance of mafia manipulating the Day 2 vote but it was so obvious that they were bussing him (and who could blame them, considering his play?) that this wasn't necessary. On December 12 2011 04:31 xtfftc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 03:55 Grackaroni wrote:On December 06 2011 04:20 xtfftc wrote: I think we have two good targets: xsk and Adam (and possibly Jay) but at least there's just one lurker in the game, so lynching Bbyte is somewhat okay.
I've been very vocal about my views on policy lynches and starting another discussion on LAL won't do town any good, so I won't repeat myself. But I really think that it gives mafia an easy ride. Look at how happy xsk was to jump on it - and he's going to be asleep until the deadline, so he won't be changing his vote for a proper lynch.
Obviously, I'm a minority on policies, so you can do it - but I have no reasons to consider Bbyte mafia and lynching mafia is my priority. On December 06 2011 05:49 xtfftc wrote: So, I want to lynch xsk for reprimading Blazinghand when Blazinghand was pushing the town forward; for switching from calling out Blazinghand on being too aggressive to being really aggressive himself with no proper reason (and without pushing the town agenda forward); for "pressuring" people but making sure they know that he is happy to unvote them; for jumping on the Bbyte lynch (the easy lynch at the time) after he saw that no one is happy with going after one of the players who looks a lot like town, Tunkeg. I didn't like how he defended himself yesterday (claiming that it's unfair to accuse him of not chasing mafia because he's been doing analysis... just not sharing it with us) but what followed was even worse: tunneling on EB, trying to discredit Tunkeg, and then going after the lurker. Where are his other reads?
I'll post on Adam in a bit.
Also, I think that if you consider one of the lynch candidates to be mafia, you should go for him. If you think that we are unlikely to catch some mafia tonight, by all means do vote for Bbyte the lurker. On December 06 2011 07:26 xtfftc wrote: I'm going to bed, so I'm voting for Bbyte. It's not ideal but it's better than some unpleasant last minute surprise.
##Unvote: xsksc
##Vote: BByte
lol, you said that you fought vigorously against the BByte lynch? This is just an outright lie. before the lynch you make several statements such as: there's just one lurker in the game, so lynching Bbyte is somewhat okay. If you think that we are unlikely to catch some mafia tonight, by all means do vote for Bbyte the lurker. Then in your last post you even vote for him. "fought vigorously against the BByte lynch" is just complete and utter bullshit. You were completely willing to vote for him. So, I was again the Lynch All Lurkers policy from the very beginning. I hope there's no need to prove this at least but I will if someone is lazy enough to want me to. Post links and some quotes: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=24#463http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=24#465http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=24#465http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=24#480http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=25#484http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=25#499http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=26#511The last one is particularly interesting. If you look at what I've replied to, you'll see Blazinghand and Veli trying to convince me that I should vote for Bbyte. Why would they be trying to convince me if I was "happy to be on the bandwagon"? Also, I would like to address this directly: Show nested quote +If you think that we are unlikely to catch some mafia tonight, by all means do vote for Bbyte the lurker. This is, as most of your arguments, utterly out of context. This was taken from a post in which I made a case on xsk and in the midst of me trying to convince the town not to lynch the lurker. We had agreed to lynch a lurker if we could consolidate on a case. So, I presented my case and the alternative they should go for in case I am not convincing enough. And you ignore the bit on xsk and only take the very last sentence... On December 12 2011 05:38 xtfftc wrote:Okay, time to address layabout's last post on me. Show nested quote +On December 11 2011 23:41 layabout wrote:I never said that Jay was my best read.
I said I consider a mafia team consisting of Jay, BKE, and EY or xsk more likely than the alternative.
And I already explained the WIFOM perspective to you 've posted more on Jay, look at Day 1 but it's mostly one off remarks (such as pointing out how Jay justified not voting for a lurker by saying that we shouldn't lynch a lurker because a lurker isn't around to defend himself) and I don't see how the last quote was me suggesting that he is probably town. It was me pointing out the scumminess of EY's reasoning, and at that moment it was to be expected that mafia would jump on the Jay bandwagon. At the moment I think that Jay is more likely to be scum because if he's not, we have EY, xsk, and Adam left, and I consider Adam to be the worst lynch out of the players I am suspicious of (Adam, Jay, EY, xsk, BKE) liar liar liar "more likely" = "best read"? To quote you again, "seriously?" Show nested quote +you say you are uneasy about the lynch being easily decided but feeling uneasy when facing uncertainty is not a reason to not follow the obvious course of action. If you had genuine reservations about what was happening you should have tried to come up with a better alternative and you should not have tried to pursue a worse course of action because doing so is anti-town. So you're accusing me of not being able to come up with some super smart solution for town? I am pretty happy with what the results considering the situation. Show nested quote +additionaly i have already explained that the wifom perspective is not relevant so an explanation of it is similarly worthless posting that looks like a contribution (which in itself is scum like). It's not my fault you don't get it. I won't waste more time explaining it to you. If anyone else has any questions about this, feel free to post them, but I don't see a way to explain it to layabout. Show nested quote +This isn't enough for early Day 1 it isn't a case!!!you have not shown why his actions would be anti town and why they would make him likey to be scum. Yes I did. You, however, make claims without providing any proof to back them up, and you also ignore the bits that don't suit you. I spend a lot of time to analyse and post on Day 1 but you somehow find it okay to accuse me for not spending even more. Show nested quote +You are a liar. I wasn't happy to be on the Day 1 bandwagon and it is obvious from all the effort I put in my attempts to prevent it.
And where is my motive for not voting for Jay? Seriously? If I'm mafia, what is my motive? Are you saying that I knew that someone was mafia and outright refused to vote for him in order to look more suspicious after the red flip? Did I try to save Jay by not voting? Anyone with half a brain would know that he was dead a few hours into Day 2 - and yet I decided not to switch to him for ~36 hours in order to gain absolutely nothing out of it? i fail to see how i have "lied" im not suggesting a motive i suggesting that your actions are anti town, trying to come up with a motive in this circumstance is unreliable and unhelpful So you're not actually accusing me of being mafia, you're just using your time to point out that I'm playing badly? Well, I don't see how I'm a bad townie. How did my actions hurt the town? Surely if they're so anti-town, you should be able to prove it. Show nested quote ++ Show Spoiler +On December 06 2011 07:26 xtfftc wrote: I'm going to bed, so I'm voting for Bbyte. It's not ideal but it's better than some unpleasant last minute surprise.
##Unvote: xsksc
##Vote: BByte
its "really obvious" that you "really tried" to prevent it what with you being on it. the argument that you didn't want to waste you vote and that a late vote switch is not a bad one but i cannot accept it from you when you through your actions tried to push a day 2 lynch on a player a few hours before the deadline or simply wasted you vote which could have accommodated a last minute vote switch (you + tunkeg had voted a couple of voteswitches could have easily changed the lynch). Your actions are polar opposites. It's funny that you are actually drawing attention to how my actions were in no way anti-town without realising it. Everyone can check what happened during the last 10 hours of Day 1 and decide for himself/herself whether it was obvious that I was trying to prevent Bbyte's lynch. And everyone can go re-read Day 2 and decide for himself/herself whether it was possible for the mafia to switch from Jay without sacrificing their whole team and thus forfeiting the game. See, you are missing something important: on Day 1 we actually had alternative cases, so a switch was very much possible. On Day 2 pretty much everyone voted on Jay from the beginning. Any attempt to lynch someone else would have been identified immediately. Show nested quote +As for the rest of your post, it's a gameplay opinion that I disagree with. But even though I think that you are wrong, I can see your point. All I have to add on the subject is that I explained my vote at the time and no one had an issue with it, so I think that the problem is in you - or you're trying to turn it into a problem because of your red alignment. the game play opinion is that you should act in the best interest of town and that you should vote for the player you th ink most likely to flip scum. my point is that YOU also said that this is how you SHOULD vote and yet YOU HAVE NOT done.so I did act in the best interest of town. I pushed my best mafia reads, I argued against lynching a lurker on Day 1 and I facilitated a discussion on Day 2. If I have done anything to hurt town, you should be able to prove it instead of simply making statements without backing them up. On December 12 2011 05:38 xtfftc wrote:Okay, time to address layabout's last post on me. Show nested quote +On December 11 2011 23:41 layabout wrote:I never said that Jay was my best read.
I said I consider a mafia team consisting of Jay, BKE, and EY or xsk more likely than the alternative.
And I already explained the WIFOM perspective to you 've posted more on Jay, look at Day 1 but it's mostly one off remarks (such as pointing out how Jay justified not voting for a lurker by saying that we shouldn't lynch a lurker because a lurker isn't around to defend himself) and I don't see how the last quote was me suggesting that he is probably town. It was me pointing out the scumminess of EY's reasoning, and at that moment it was to be expected that mafia would jump on the Jay bandwagon. At the moment I think that Jay is more likely to be scum because if he's not, we have EY, xsk, and Adam left, and I consider Adam to be the worst lynch out of the players I am suspicious of (Adam, Jay, EY, xsk, BKE) liar liar liar "more likely" = "best read"? To quote you again, "seriously?" Show nested quote +you say you are uneasy about the lynch being easily decided but feeling uneasy when facing uncertainty is not a reason to not follow the obvious course of action. If you had genuine reservations about what was happening you should have tried to come up with a better alternative and you should not have tried to pursue a worse course of action because doing so is anti-town. So you're accusing me of not being able to come up with some super smart solution for town? I am pretty happy with what the results considering the situation. Show nested quote +additionaly i have already explained that the wifom perspective is not relevant so an explanation of it is similarly worthless posting that looks like a contribution (which in itself is scum like). It's not my fault you don't get it. I won't waste more time explaining it to you. If anyone else has any questions about this, feel free to post them, but I don't see a way to explain it to layabout. Show nested quote +This isn't enough for early Day 1 it isn't a case!!!you have not shown why his actions would be anti town and why they would make him likey to be scum. Yes I did. You, however, make claims without providing any proof to back them up, and you also ignore the bits that don't suit you. I spend a lot of time to analyse and post on Day 1 but you somehow find it okay to accuse me for not spending even more. Show nested quote +You are a liar. I wasn't happy to be on the Day 1 bandwagon and it is obvious from all the effort I put in my attempts to prevent it.
And where is my motive for not voting for Jay? Seriously? If I'm mafia, what is my motive? Are you saying that I knew that someone was mafia and outright refused to vote for him in order to look more suspicious after the red flip? Did I try to save Jay by not voting? Anyone with half a brain would know that he was dead a few hours into Day 2 - and yet I decided not to switch to him for ~36 hours in order to gain absolutely nothing out of it? i fail to see how i have "lied" im not suggesting a motive i suggesting that your actions are anti town, trying to come up with a motive in this circumstance is unreliable and unhelpful So you're not actually accusing me of being mafia, you're just using your time to point out that I'm playing badly? Well, I don't see how I'm a bad townie. How did my actions hurt the town? Surely if they're so anti-town, you should be able to prove it. Show nested quote ++ Show Spoiler +On December 06 2011 07:26 xtfftc wrote: I'm going to bed, so I'm voting for Bbyte. It's not ideal but it's better than some unpleasant last minute surprise.
##Unvote: xsksc
##Vote: BByte
its "really obvious" that you "really tried" to prevent it what with you being on it. the argument that you didn't want to waste you vote and that a late vote switch is not a bad one but i cannot accept it from you when you through your actions tried to push a day 2 lynch on a player a few hours before the deadline or simply wasted you vote which could have accommodated a last minute vote switch (you + tunkeg had voted a couple of voteswitches could have easily changed the lynch). Your actions are polar opposites. It's funny that you are actually drawing attention to how my actions were in no way anti-town without realising it. Everyone can check what happened during the last 10 hours of Day 1 and decide for himself/herself whether it was obvious that I was trying to prevent Bbyte's lynch. And everyone can go re-read Day 2 and decide for himself/herself whether it was possible for the mafia to switch from Jay without sacrificing their whole team and thus forfeiting the game. See, you are missing something important: on Day 1 we actually had alternative cases, so a switch was very much possible. On Day 2 pretty much everyone voted on Jay from the beginning. Any attempt to lynch someone else would have been identified immediately. Show nested quote +As for the rest of your post, it's a gameplay opinion that I disagree with. But even though I think that you are wrong, I can see your point. All I have to add on the subject is that I explained my vote at the time and no one had an issue with it, so I think that the problem is in you - or you're trying to turn it into a problem because of your red alignment. the game play opinion is that you should act in the best interest of town and that you should vote for the player you th ink most likely to flip scum. my point is that YOU also said that this is how you SHOULD vote and yet YOU HAVE NOT done.so I did act in the best interest of town. I pushed my best mafia reads, I argued against lynching a lurker on Day 1 and I facilitated a discussion on Day 2. If I have done anything to hurt town, you should be able to prove it instead of simply making statements without backing them up. On December 12 2011 05:39 xtfftc wrote:I wanted to post these two bits separately because the first part is a responce to layabout's nonsence, while the second is analysis of his play. Consider what has layabout done since replacing xsk's replacement: - tell us he can't imagine another lynch but BKE - a gigantic OMGUS (both me and Tunkeg - the players layabout has "analysed" - were on xsksc earlier) - try to push for a late switch I put him and EY as the third mafia member and I've stated that he has a lot to prove if he wants to prove xsk's innocence, so he knows he has to do something about it. But in the process he has revealed himself. This is quite a long post, so I've put the quotes in spoilers to make it more readable. - he deliberately quoted just half of my explanation of how Grackaroni was using WIFOM. Some of the other posts he quoted contained a lot of stuff that had nothing to do with his point and were very long and made his case harder to read - yet he didn't find it necessary to remove them. But he decided to cut out two very important lines and then use what's left to accuse me. Check out the actual quotes in the spoiler if you don't remember his post. + Show Spoiler +Example #1: Quoting a post that contains a lot of irrelevant information without bothering to cut it out. The bits in green are the bits that have nothing to do with what he is talking about that he decided to include anyway. The bits in red are what he is actually refering to. On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 06:45 xtfftc wrote:On December 08 2011 06:06 ey215 wrote:On December 08 2011 04:56 xtfftc wrote:On December 08 2011 04:15 ey215 wrote: I'm not 100% sold that he's scum, but I'm sold his behavior has been anti-town.
##vote: jaybrundage ... Town does not vote to punish bad play. Town votes to lynch mafia. Right, and right now the best case for scum I've seen is the one on jay. I don't think it's currently possible to be 100% sold on anyone at the moment town or scum. I've read the filters, and have nothing unique to add to the discussion so why clog the thread up even further? Am I supposed to be like, "FUCK YEAH WE'RE KILLING SCUM!" Besides BH, I don't think anyone is 100% sure on jay, but at the moment it's the best we've got. Hopefully it solidifies later in the day, or someone else catches something You lynch your best read. You don't start looking for excuses for when the player you're voting for flips town. Yes, because I did such a great job laying under the radar before. Let's see, pissing match with the most active/aggressive player in the thread. Check.
Getting myself warned for inactivity in big blue letters to point it out to everyone. Check.
Great job I'm doing staying under the radar. You didn't want to get into the "pissing match" with BH, you were forced to by his aggressiveness. And using lurking as a proof that you haven't been staying under the radar is a pretty solid point if you're building a case against yourself.
You were out of the picture when every good mafia wants to be: during the last ~12 hours before the deadline, so you did a great job.On December 08 2011 06:10 ey215 wrote: I'd also like Starshard, xftttc, and Bluelightz to respond to by the accusations that EB made. I know it sucks for the replacements but there needs to be some response to it. He seemed pretty damn convinced he had the game won and then got offed by the mafia overnight. I answered to him after he mentioned me and I don't see how his death changes anything.
What is there to be said about EB? His play was arrogant and trollish. He was obviously a veteran smurfing, who thought it would be fun to frustrate the townies (refusing to vote just when he was asked to the most active player in the game just because he felt like irritating us) and then giving us a great demonstration of how a town player has to prove his innocence when attacked. He posted a great case that lacked obvious flaws - and then he was happy to go inactive again. He came back to announce that he's found the whole mafia team - but didn't bother providing any analysis on two of the players he accused. And he also made sure to notify us that the Bbyte lynch was pushed easily...
Before the game started (and also in the Looking For Coaches thread) some veterans suggested that there should be some experienced players in this game to help teach the newbies how to play properly. Instead we get a cocky smurf. There was no way to make a good guess about his intentions, which is the reason why I'm not all over Hassy at the moment. EB was good enough to make us do anything he wanted to as long as he was interested in putting a serious effort in the game, and I have no reason to believe that his intentions were pro-town, even after his flip. Ask veterans such as Sandroba and Palmar and they will tell you that the first thing a townie should do is to establish his/her innocence. The first thing EB did was to frustrate town and lose us half a day. So what good would it do to town to focus on him again instead of doing our own analysis? All you're achieving with this is disruping the discussion. you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read Example #2: Cutting of half of my example. The bit in red is what Grackaroni posted and the green is what I wrote. Note that layabout didn't use the quote function - he simply marked what he wanted with his mouse. You will notice this clearly if you have a look at his original post ( link, compare the second and the third quote). On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote:you explicity state that you think Jay is the most likely to be scum and grack makes this point Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:16 Grackaroni wrote: Show nested quote +
Here he even admits that Jay is more likely to be scum but his vote still remains on Ey215. . .
I stated my reasons for keeping my vote on EY. Your reasoning is pure WIFOM in this case. Jay was obviously going to be lynched hours before I posted the bit you quoted, so what could a townie do in this situation? Vote for Jay and be accused of sheeping after BH and bandwagonning (remember Tunkeg and his analysis of the Bbyte lynch?) Or vote for someone else and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia. you call his "reasoning" (i see a simple statement of fact) "pure WIFOM" well where is the pure wifom in this? And here you can see the rest of my post; the bit in green is what layabout omitted. On December 10 2011 06:23 xtfftc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:16 Grackaroni wrote:I've posted more on Jay, look at Day 1 but it's mostly one off remarks (such as pointing out how Jay justified not voting for a lurker by saying that we shouldn't lynch a lurker because a lurker isn't around to defend himself) and I don't see how the last quote was me suggesting that he is probably town. It was me pointing out the scumminess of EY's reasoning, and at that moment it was to be expected that mafia would jump on the Jay bandwagon. At the moment I think that Jay is more likely to be scum because if he's not, we have EY, xsk, and Adam left, and I consider Adam to be the worst lynch out of the players I am suspicious of (Adam, Jay, EY, xsk, BKE) Here he even admits that Jay is more likely to be scum but his vote still remains on Ey215. . . I stated my reasons for keeping my vote on EY. Your reasoning is pure WIFOM in this case. Jay was obviously going to be lynched hours before I posted the bit you quoted, so what could a townie do in this situation? Vote for Jay and be accused of sheeping after BH and bandwagonning (remember Tunkeg and his analysis of the Bbyte lynch?) Or vote for someone else and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia. Let's also consider me being mafia for the sake of discussing my actions. Vote for Jay and get accused of bandwagonning, or don't and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia? It works both ways. - he quotes something and calls it as exactly the opposite + a scumslip? This is something new I just noticed, so you should definitely check it out. + Show Spoiler +On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 06:45 xtfftc wrote:On December 08 2011 06:06 ey215 wrote:On December 08 2011 04:56 xtfftc wrote:On December 08 2011 04:15 ey215 wrote: I'm not 100% sold that he's scum, but I'm sold his behavior has been anti-town.
##vote: jaybrundage ... Town does not vote to punish bad play. Town votes to lynch mafia. Right, and right now the best case for scum I've seen is the one on jay. I don't think it's currently possible to be 100% sold on anyone at the moment town or scum. I've read the filters, and have nothing unique to add to the discussion so why clog the thread up even further? Am I supposed to be like, "FUCK YEAH WE'RE KILLING SCUM!" Besides BH, I don't think anyone is 100% sure on jay, but at the moment it's the best we've got. Hopefully it solidifies later in the day, or someone else catches something You lynch your best read. You don't start looking for excuses for when the player you're voting for flips town. Yes, because I did such a great job laying under the radar before. Let's see, pissing match with the most active/aggressive player in the thread. Check.
Getting myself warned for inactivity in big blue letters to point it out to everyone. Check.
Great job I'm doing staying under the radar. You didn't want to get into the "pissing match" with BH, you were forced to by his aggressiveness. And using lurking as a proof that you haven't been staying under the radar is a pretty solid point if you're building a case against yourself. You were out of the picture when every good mafia wants to be: during the last ~12 hours before the deadline, so you did a great job. On December 08 2011 06:10 ey215 wrote: I'd also like Starshard, xftttc, and Bluelightz to respond to by the accusations that EB made. I know it sucks for the replacements but there needs to be some response to it. He seemed pretty damn convinced he had the game won and then got offed by the mafia overnight. I answered to him after he mentioned me and I don't see how his death changes anything. What is there to be said about EB? His play was arrogant and trollish. He was obviously a veteran smurfing, who thought it would be fun to frustrate the townies (refusing to vote just when he was asked to the most active player in the game just because he felt like irritating us) and then giving us a great demonstration of how a town player has to prove his innocence when attacked. He posted a great case that lacked obvious flaws - and then he was happy to go inactive again. He came back to announce that he's found the whole mafia team - but didn't bother providing any analysis on two of the players he accused. And he also made sure to notify us that the Bbyte lynch was pushed easily... Before the game started (and also in the Looking For Coaches thread) some veterans suggested that there should be some experienced players in this game to help teach the newbies how to play properly. Instead we get a cocky smurf. There was no way to make a good guess about his intentions, which is the reason why I'm not all over Hassy at the moment. EB was good enough to make us do anything he wanted to as long as he was interested in putting a serious effort in the game, and I have no reason to believe that his intentions were pro-town, even after his flip. Ask veterans such as Sandroba and Palmar and they will tell you that the first thing a townie should do is to establish his/her innocence. The first thing EB did was to frustrate town and lose us half a day. So what good would it do to town to focus on him again instead of doing our own analysis? All you're achieving with this is disruping the discussion. you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read and yet in the above quote you do not do that In the "above quote" I was pushing for my best read - EY - and I voted for him 45 later. Moreover, this might even turn out to be a blatant scumslip. How does layabout know that I did not vote for mafia? I kept my vote on EY and did not switch to Jay. So, if EY is town, it appears to be true: I did not vote for mafia (Jay) but I did the opposite instead. Read it again: you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read and yet in the above quote you do not do that It can be just bad wording but it makes me very suspicious. - he is twisting facts This one may be a bit boring as I have to go through the thread post by post but I think it's worth reading. + Show Spoiler +On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote:Show nested quote + On December 06 2011 06:20 xtfftc wrote: Pretty much all I have on Adam is based on two of his posts that push pro-mafia agenda. Now that I think about it, I have a much stronger case on ey215, even though I decided to leave him for day 2. I don't have enough to convince Adam on my own and it seems that most of the others are happy to lurk or to vote for lynching Bbyte.
Here's what I wrote on Adam earlier in case you're lazy and can't be bothered to check it out: + Show Spoiler +
I'll check the thread again before going to bed.
you have a strong case on a player but you would rather not post it and you would rather vote for someone other than your best read? seriously? He calls me out for this post and there's two interesting bits here. layabout posted "you have a strong case on a player but you would rather not post it and you would rather vote for someone other than your best read? seriously?" Yet I never voted for Adam and the post layabout quoted was me saying that I don't hjave a good case on Adam. Furthermore, I had posted my thoughts on EY throughout the day. There's 1 2 3 4 5 posts that have stuff on EY just from the first half of Day 1. This is lot for such a short period of time. Yet layabout tries to discredit me for not posting my case. In fact, I actually got called out for tunneling EY a bit too much (Grackaroni comes to mind but I think there were others as well), so I decided that it would be more productive if I focus on other players until the end of the day and I went after xsk and Adam. Eventually, I realised that my case on Adam wasn't good enough and I wrote "Pretty much all I have on Adam is based on two of his posts that push pro-mafia agenda. Now that I think about it, I have a much stronger case on ey215", so I stuck to what I had on xsk. Note that this was hours after I had decided not to go after EY until Day 2. Actually, it gets even better. See, what I did after moving away from EY was to build my case on xsk, the player layabout eventually substituted. layabout used a comparisson I made between two of my cases - on EY and Adam - to criticise me for switching from EY to xsk. So, to recap: - he quoted two posts that had more than 24 hours between them to prove that I did not focus on my main read (EY), while disregarding everything that happened in the meanwhile that made me focus on someone else (xsk); - layabout misrepresented the truth by accusing me of not posting on EY even though I clearly did; - used what I wrote on Adam to discredit me for voting for xsk, the player layabout replaced. - Lynch All Liars? Show nested quote +On December 11 2011 22:13 layabout wrote:you were happy to be on a day1 bandwagon On December 12 2011 05:39 xtfftc wrote:I wanted to post these two bits separately because the first part is a responce to layabout's nonsence, while the second is analysis of his play. Consider what has layabout done since replacing xsk's replacement: - tell us he can't imagine another lynch but BKE - a gigantic OMGUS (both me and Tunkeg - the players layabout has "analysed" - were on xsksc earlier) - try to push for a late switch I put him and EY as the third mafia member and I've stated that he has a lot to prove if he wants to prove xsk's innocence, so he knows he has to do something about it. But in the process he has revealed himself. This is quite a long post, so I've put the quotes in spoilers to make it more readable. - he deliberately quoted just half of my explanation of how Grackaroni was using WIFOM. Some of the other posts he quoted contained a lot of stuff that had nothing to do with his point and were very long and made his case harder to read - yet he didn't find it necessary to remove them. But he decided to cut out two very important lines and then use what's left to accuse me. Check out the actual quotes in the spoiler if you don't remember his post. + Show Spoiler +Example #1: Quoting a post that contains a lot of irrelevant information without bothering to cut it out. The bits in green are the bits that have nothing to do with what he is talking about that he decided to include anyway. The bits in red are what he is actually refering to. On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 06:45 xtfftc wrote:On December 08 2011 06:06 ey215 wrote:On December 08 2011 04:56 xtfftc wrote:On December 08 2011 04:15 ey215 wrote: I'm not 100% sold that he's scum, but I'm sold his behavior has been anti-town.
##vote: jaybrundage ... Town does not vote to punish bad play. Town votes to lynch mafia. Right, and right now the best case for scum I've seen is the one on jay. I don't think it's currently possible to be 100% sold on anyone at the moment town or scum. I've read the filters, and have nothing unique to add to the discussion so why clog the thread up even further? Am I supposed to be like, "FUCK YEAH WE'RE KILLING SCUM!" Besides BH, I don't think anyone is 100% sure on jay, but at the moment it's the best we've got. Hopefully it solidifies later in the day, or someone else catches something You lynch your best read. You don't start looking for excuses for when the player you're voting for flips town. Yes, because I did such a great job laying under the radar before. Let's see, pissing match with the most active/aggressive player in the thread. Check.
Getting myself warned for inactivity in big blue letters to point it out to everyone. Check.
Great job I'm doing staying under the radar. You didn't want to get into the "pissing match" with BH, you were forced to by his aggressiveness. And using lurking as a proof that you haven't been staying under the radar is a pretty solid point if you're building a case against yourself.
You were out of the picture when every good mafia wants to be: during the last ~12 hours before the deadline, so you did a great job.On December 08 2011 06:10 ey215 wrote: I'd also like Starshard, xftttc, and Bluelightz to respond to by the accusations that EB made. I know it sucks for the replacements but there needs to be some response to it. He seemed pretty damn convinced he had the game won and then got offed by the mafia overnight. I answered to him after he mentioned me and I don't see how his death changes anything.
What is there to be said about EB? His play was arrogant and trollish. He was obviously a veteran smurfing, who thought it would be fun to frustrate the townies (refusing to vote just when he was asked to the most active player in the game just because he felt like irritating us) and then giving us a great demonstration of how a town player has to prove his innocence when attacked. He posted a great case that lacked obvious flaws - and then he was happy to go inactive again. He came back to announce that he's found the whole mafia team - but didn't bother providing any analysis on two of the players he accused. And he also made sure to notify us that the Bbyte lynch was pushed easily...
Before the game started (and also in the Looking For Coaches thread) some veterans suggested that there should be some experienced players in this game to help teach the newbies how to play properly. Instead we get a cocky smurf. There was no way to make a good guess about his intentions, which is the reason why I'm not all over Hassy at the moment. EB was good enough to make us do anything he wanted to as long as he was interested in putting a serious effort in the game, and I have no reason to believe that his intentions were pro-town, even after his flip. Ask veterans such as Sandroba and Palmar and they will tell you that the first thing a townie should do is to establish his/her innocence. The first thing EB did was to frustrate town and lose us half a day. So what good would it do to town to focus on him again instead of doing our own analysis? All you're achieving with this is disruping the discussion. you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read Example #2: Cutting of half of my example. The bit in red is what Grackaroni posted and the green is what I wrote. Note that layabout didn't use the quote function - he simply marked what he wanted with his mouse. You will notice this clearly if you have a look at his original post ( link, compare the second and the third quote). On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote:you explicity state that you think Jay is the most likely to be scum and grack makes this point Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:16 Grackaroni wrote: Show nested quote +
Here he even admits that Jay is more likely to be scum but his vote still remains on Ey215. . .
I stated my reasons for keeping my vote on EY. Your reasoning is pure WIFOM in this case. Jay was obviously going to be lynched hours before I posted the bit you quoted, so what could a townie do in this situation? Vote for Jay and be accused of sheeping after BH and bandwagonning (remember Tunkeg and his analysis of the Bbyte lynch?) Or vote for someone else and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia. you call his "reasoning" (i see a simple statement of fact) "pure WIFOM" well where is the pure wifom in this? And here you can see the rest of my post; the bit in green is what layabout omitted. On December 10 2011 06:23 xtfftc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 10:16 Grackaroni wrote:I've posted more on Jay, look at Day 1 but it's mostly one off remarks (such as pointing out how Jay justified not voting for a lurker by saying that we shouldn't lynch a lurker because a lurker isn't around to defend himself) and I don't see how the last quote was me suggesting that he is probably town. It was me pointing out the scumminess of EY's reasoning, and at that moment it was to be expected that mafia would jump on the Jay bandwagon. At the moment I think that Jay is more likely to be scum because if he's not, we have EY, xsk, and Adam left, and I consider Adam to be the worst lynch out of the players I am suspicious of (Adam, Jay, EY, xsk, BKE) Here he even admits that Jay is more likely to be scum but his vote still remains on Ey215. . . I stated my reasons for keeping my vote on EY. Your reasoning is pure WIFOM in this case. Jay was obviously going to be lynched hours before I posted the bit you quoted, so what could a townie do in this situation? Vote for Jay and be accused of sheeping after BH and bandwagonning (remember Tunkeg and his analysis of the Bbyte lynch?) Or vote for someone else and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia. Let's also consider me being mafia for the sake of discussing my actions. Vote for Jay and get accused of bandwagonning, or don't and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia? It works both ways. - he quotes something and calls it as exactly the opposite + a scumslip? This is something new I just noticed, so you should definitely check it out. + Show Spoiler +On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 06:45 xtfftc wrote:On December 08 2011 06:06 ey215 wrote:On December 08 2011 04:56 xtfftc wrote:On December 08 2011 04:15 ey215 wrote: I'm not 100% sold that he's scum, but I'm sold his behavior has been anti-town.
##vote: jaybrundage ... Town does not vote to punish bad play. Town votes to lynch mafia. Right, and right now the best case for scum I've seen is the one on jay. I don't think it's currently possible to be 100% sold on anyone at the moment town or scum. I've read the filters, and have nothing unique to add to the discussion so why clog the thread up even further? Am I supposed to be like, "FUCK YEAH WE'RE KILLING SCUM!" Besides BH, I don't think anyone is 100% sure on jay, but at the moment it's the best we've got. Hopefully it solidifies later in the day, or someone else catches something You lynch your best read. You don't start looking for excuses for when the player you're voting for flips town. Yes, because I did such a great job laying under the radar before. Let's see, pissing match with the most active/aggressive player in the thread. Check.
Getting myself warned for inactivity in big blue letters to point it out to everyone. Check.
Great job I'm doing staying under the radar. You didn't want to get into the "pissing match" with BH, you were forced to by his aggressiveness. And using lurking as a proof that you haven't been staying under the radar is a pretty solid point if you're building a case against yourself. You were out of the picture when every good mafia wants to be: during the last ~12 hours before the deadline, so you did a great job. On December 08 2011 06:10 ey215 wrote: I'd also like Starshard, xftttc, and Bluelightz to respond to by the accusations that EB made. I know it sucks for the replacements but there needs to be some response to it. He seemed pretty damn convinced he had the game won and then got offed by the mafia overnight. I answered to him after he mentioned me and I don't see how his death changes anything. What is there to be said about EB? His play was arrogant and trollish. He was obviously a veteran smurfing, who thought it would be fun to frustrate the townies (refusing to vote just when he was asked to the most active player in the game just because he felt like irritating us) and then giving us a great demonstration of how a town player has to prove his innocence when attacked. He posted a great case that lacked obvious flaws - and then he was happy to go inactive again. He came back to announce that he's found the whole mafia team - but didn't bother providing any analysis on two of the players he accused. And he also made sure to notify us that the Bbyte lynch was pushed easily... Before the game started (and also in the Looking For Coaches thread) some veterans suggested that there should be some experienced players in this game to help teach the newbies how to play properly. Instead we get a cocky smurf. There was no way to make a good guess about his intentions, which is the reason why I'm not all over Hassy at the moment. EB was good enough to make us do anything he wanted to as long as he was interested in putting a serious effort in the game, and I have no reason to believe that his intentions were pro-town, even after his flip. Ask veterans such as Sandroba and Palmar and they will tell you that the first thing a townie should do is to establish his/her innocence. The first thing EB did was to frustrate town and lose us half a day. So what good would it do to town to focus on him again instead of doing our own analysis? All you're achieving with this is disruping the discussion. you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read and yet in the above quote you do not do that In the "above quote" I was pushing for my best read - EY - and I voted for him 45 later. Moreover, this might even turn out to be a blatant scumslip. How does layabout know that I did not vote for mafia? I kept my vote on EY and did not switch to Jay. So, if EY is town, it appears to be true: I did not vote for mafia (Jay) but I did the opposite instead. Read it again: you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read and yet in the above quote you do not do that It can be just bad wording but it makes me very suspicious. - he is twisting facts This one may be a bit boring as I have to go through the thread post by post but I think it's worth reading. + Show Spoiler +On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote:Show nested quote + On December 06 2011 06:20 xtfftc wrote: Pretty much all I have on Adam is based on two of his posts that push pro-mafia agenda. Now that I think about it, I have a much stronger case on ey215, even though I decided to leave him for day 2. I don't have enough to convince Adam on my own and it seems that most of the others are happy to lurk or to vote for lynching Bbyte.
Here's what I wrote on Adam earlier in case you're lazy and can't be bothered to check it out: + Show Spoiler +
I'll check the thread again before going to bed.
you have a strong case on a player but you would rather not post it and you would rather vote for someone other than your best read? seriously? He calls me out for this post and there's two interesting bits here. layabout posted "you have a strong case on a player but you would rather not post it and you would rather vote for someone other than your best read? seriously?" Yet I never voted for Adam and the post layabout quoted was me saying that I don't hjave a good case on Adam. Furthermore, I had posted my thoughts on EY throughout the day. There's 1 2 3 4 5 posts that have stuff on EY just from the first half of Day 1. This is lot for such a short period of time. Yet layabout tries to discredit me for not posting my case. In fact, I actually got called out for tunneling EY a bit too much (Grackaroni comes to mind but I think there were others as well), so I decided that it would be more productive if I focus on other players until the end of the day and I went after xsk and Adam. Eventually, I realised that my case on Adam wasn't good enough and I wrote "Pretty much all I have on Adam is based on two of his posts that push pro-mafia agenda. Now that I think about it, I have a much stronger case on ey215", so I stuck to what I had on xsk. Note that this was hours after I had decided not to go after EY until Day 2. Actually, it gets even better. See, what I did after moving away from EY was to build my case on xsk, the player layabout eventually substituted. layabout used a comparisson I made between two of my cases - on EY and Adam - to criticise me for switching from EY to xsk. So, to recap: - he quoted two posts that had more than 24 hours between them to prove that I did not focus on my main read (EY), while disregarding everything that happened in the meanwhile that made me focus on someone else (xsk); - layabout misrepresented the truth by accusing me of not posting on EY even though I clearly did; - used what I wrote on Adam to discredit me for voting for xsk, the player layabout replaced. - Lynch All Liars? Show nested quote +On December 11 2011 22:13 layabout wrote:you were happy to be on a day1 bandwagon
What did I miss talking about?
And you never answered me:
On December 13 2011 03:42 xtfftc wrote: Velinath, what do you think of my posts on layabout, especially the last one?
Don't allow layabout to trick you.
|
Make up your mind already? You are either a lazy townie who hasn't put in the time to even read the thread - or a mafia who decided to go all-in after BH went after him.
I am off to work, will post more when I'm back home in the afternoon.
|
BH went after Tunkeg. Lazy townie then.
|
On December 13 2011 21:31 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 16:50 xtfftc wrote: BH went after Tunkeg. Lazy townie then. Ad Hominem much? So instead of addressing issues you declare Vel's a "lazy townie" and ignore any points he has or had not made? To make sure I kept unbiased I tried to stay clear of layabout making a case against you and even defended you. The best you can come up with to a townie who obviously has been paying attention and active throughout the game is "lazy townie"? That's not an answer to the questions about you. That's trying to make it look irrelevant just because you deem it to be so. It's also scummy as all get out. I have already addressed all of the points he's made. His questions are a demonstration that he hasn't bothered reading my posts on layabout. He also refused to answer my question, even though I reminded him about it (unless you consider his fluffy "Either it's an elegant bus (which I doubt, with only 2 scum left) or he's got a good read on you and you're trying to get out of it." satisfactory. I don't.) Some of the townies have been way too lazy to engage in a discussion and provide analysis all game long - but when the posts in questions are literally in the last 2-3 pages of the thread, ignoring them like this is insulting. I even posted him links to everything relevant on this very page. How am I supposed not to get frustrated? If he wants to write a case on me or anything, great, go for it. If he has any questions, I'll answer them. But repeating things that I have already answered to that clearly indicated that he hasn't bothered putting the work in...
|
On December 14 2011 01:01 Velinath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 00:52 xtfftc wrote:On December 13 2011 21:31 ey215 wrote:On December 13 2011 16:50 xtfftc wrote: BH went after Tunkeg. Lazy townie then. Ad Hominem much? So instead of addressing issues you declare Vel's a "lazy townie" and ignore any points he has or had not made? To make sure I kept unbiased I tried to stay clear of layabout making a case against you and even defended you. The best you can come up with to a townie who obviously has been paying attention and active throughout the game is "lazy townie"? That's not an answer to the questions about you. That's trying to make it look irrelevant just because you deem it to be so. It's also scummy as all get out. I have already addressed all of the points he's made. His questions are a demonstration that he hasn't bothered reading my posts on layabout. He also refused to answer my question, even though I reminded him about it (unless you consider his fluffy "Either it's an elegant bus (which I doubt, with only 2 scum left) or he's got a good read on you and you're trying to get out of it." satisfactory. I don't.) Some of the townies have been way too lazy to engage in a discussion and provide analysis all game long - but when the posts in questions are literally in the last 2-3 pages of the thread, ignoring them like this is insulting. I even posted him links to everything relevant on this very page. How am I supposed not to get frustrated? If he wants to write a case on me or anything, great, go for it. If he has any questions, I'll answer them. But repeating things that I have already answered to that clearly indicated that he hasn't bothered putting the work in... fine you are misusing LAL you nitpick him cherrypicking your quotes except that what he left out was just more wifom logic that nobody should be paying attention to anyway there's one part of your response that MAY have merit and that's the last part regarding adam4167 but yeah no i'm not impressed.
On December 14 2011 01:03 Velinath wrote: ebwop: as tunkeg brought up on day 2 (and you would know if you were reading the thread) LAL isn't referring to faulty cases and you're trying to apply it here. wilfully ignoring what's been brought up already or just lazy, i'm not sure which
There's a question mark in "Lynch All Liars?" for a reason. I raised a point for everyone to discuss: would a town player really try to twist "more likely" said in a certain context into "best read". Like always, I was trying to facilitate a discussion. See, we're not talking about a case in this situation. We are talking about deliberately taking one's words and turning them into something else. I provided quotes to demonstrate what he did but you still haven't commented on it.
Here, I'll post it for you again.
What I wrote:
On December 09 2011 04:53 xtfftc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 04:33 Blazinghand wrote:On December 09 2011 04:27 xtfftc wrote: Tunkeg, I consider spending time on analysing Jay inefficient now. And I can post my thoughts on why I consider some people to be town as well. Ran through your filter to fetch what we know about your stance on JB. Here's a summary of xtfftc's statements re: JB http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=36#711On December 08 2011 04:05 xtfftc wrote:On December 07 2011 10:13 Blazinghand wrote: My Original Case for JB: On December 07 2011 10:13 Blazinghand wrote: THE NEW MATERIAL: Your original case was good, your new material was herp-derp. I think I am okay with a Jay lynch for now but I have to re-read his posts first. I was planing to make an analysis of him yesterday, so he's on my to-do list for tonight with Velinath. I am not happy with those jumping on the Jay lynch though. You know my case on Adam and Velinath is someone who warrants a good long look, considering his recent posts. Posting about how he's suspicious of people jumping on the Bbyte lynch (not to mention he didn't bother pointing out what actually happened in my case) and then jumping on the Jay bandwagon just like that: On December 07 2011 11:33 Velinath wrote: First off, I was roleblocked last night.
Secondly, yes, I agree with this lynch. Scummy posts after Night 1 and the analyses posted? No question. Hassy can be saved for tomorrow.
##Vote: jaybrundage How about posting his own views before voting? He goes on to add some stuff later which sound okay but that's not enough. Calls part of my case good, part of it bad. Said he's ok with a Jay lynch, but needs to re-read his post. Says he is not happy with those who are lynching him. Hedging. A page later: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=37#724On December 08 2011 04:22 xtfftc wrote:On December 07 2011 16:09 Adam4167 wrote: It IS everyone’s fault that Bbyte ended up dead. We had 6 people follow BH’s invoking of a lurker lynch almost blindly, that is their failings and as BH has pointed out since, its also the failing of everyone else that none of us had put forward a compelling enough case to keep Bbyte off the hangman’s noose. Parroting what Veli said. Yes, it is everyone's fault that we couldn't consolidate on a proper case but no, we didn't have 6 people follow BH's invoking of a lurker lynch almost blindly. Sounds like mafia trying to make us think that this wasn't as bad of a loss as it was to me. On December 07 2011 16:09 Adam4167 wrote:On December 07 2011 10:56 jaybrundage wrote: Briefly looking over you new case its pretty shitty with no content.
Nice use of caps to make it seem like you have a point. Your "core of your argument. Is also dumb is stated multiple times i did not like the Bbyte case. I'm not gonna let you steamroll the townies into another mislynch.
Ill give people some time to read my case before i comment again. I was not expecting EB to get killed i was thinking either BH Veli maybe Grack even. I really wish he had posted his case on me instead of his empty comment that he thinks I'm mafia. Are you kidding? He’s spent hours looking at your filter and you “briefly look” at it. You might want to go back and examine the SHIT out of his case on you and start defending yourself properly. Calling his case “shit” is tantamount to saying “no u r”, it might have worked when you were 7, but its not flying here. This is a great point (Jay either scumslipped really badly or he spends more time writing his own posts than analysing others, which is pretty bad), but Adam sure likes adding fluff to his arguments. All he needed was the bolded bit, everything else is completely pointless. On December 07 2011 16:09 Adam4167 wrote: Is this a slip? “I'm not gonna let you steamroll the townies into another mislynch.”. You are part of the town… shouldn’t this read “im not going to let you steamroll us into another myslynch”, unless of course you don’t consider yourself part of the town. This is pretty bad. What is the right way to say it then? "I'm not going to let you steamroll me into mislynching myself"? I will revisit my suspicion from yesteyday when I thought that Adam might be bussing Jay. This is actually a discussion of Adam's post, but he notes that JB scumslipped, and suspects Adam may be bussing him (which is to say, Adam suspects JB of being scum) Finally, talking to ey215 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=37#729On December 08 2011 04:56 xtfftc wrote:On December 08 2011 04:15 ey215 wrote: I'm not 100% sold that he's scum, but I'm sold his behavior has been anti-town.
##vote: jaybrundage ... Town does not vote to punish bad play. Town votes to lynch mafia. On December 08 2011 04:15 ey215 wrote: Fuck, I can't believe I'm jumping on the bandwagon but at the moment I don't see a better lynch option. ... How about making a case or pushing the discussion further with some analysis? I know I said I'm going to look at Jay and Velinath like 10 minutes ago but I can't allow ey215 to stay under the radar like this for another day. It sounds like you don't think JB is mafia. You've admitted he scumslips, you suspect Adam is bussing him, and you found my initial case on him convincing. Where do you stand? I've posted more on Jay, look at Day 1 but it's mostly one off remarks (such as pointing out how Jay justified not voting for a lurker by saying that we shouldn't lynch a lurker because a lurker isn't around to defend himself) and I don't see how the last quote was me suggesting that he is probably town. It was me pointing out the scumminess of EY's reasoning, and at that moment it was to be expected that mafia would jump on the Jay bandwagon. At the moment I think that Jay is more likely to be scum because if he's not, we have EY, xsk, and Adam left, and I consider Adam to be the worst lynch out of the players I am suspicious of (Adam, Jay, EY, xsk, BKE)
On December 09 2011 05:10 xtfftc wrote: Looking at him as an individual, he is one of the three scummiest (along with EY and xsk), so I consider him more likely to be mafia than not. Looking at him in the context of the potential mafia teams I see, I find his team (Jay, BKE, and one of xsk/EY) more likely than the alternative (xsk/EY/Adam).
And yet layabout has insinuated that Jay was my best read. Comment on this at least. WIll you bother finding a post in which I call Jay my best read? And if you don't, what do we do with layabout, who does not admit that what he said was wrong? In case you wonder, this is the post he refers to:
On December 11 2011 23:41 layabout wrote:Show nested quote +I never said that Jay was my best read.
I said I consider a mafia team consisting of Jay, BKE, and EY or xsk more likely than the alternative.
And I already explained the WIFOM perspective to you Show nested quote +'ve posted more on Jay, look at Day 1 but it's mostly one off remarks (such as pointing out how Jay justified not voting for a lurker by saying that we shouldn't lynch a lurker because a lurker isn't around to defend himself) and I don't see how the last quote was me suggesting that he is probably town. It was me pointing out the scumminess of EY's reasoning, and at that moment it was to be expected that mafia would jump on the Jay bandwagon. At the moment I think that Jay is more likely to be scum because if he's not, we have EY, xsk, and Adam left, and I consider Adam to be the worst lynch out of the players I am suspicious of (Adam, Jay, EY, xsk, BKE) liar liar liar You want to lynch me for calling him a liar but it's okay when he does it? Double standard much?
As for the rest - you've provided three sentences and that's all. Why you'd avoid analysing all that information if you really think that I'm mafia is beyond me.
And layabout has provided yet another post with lots of statement and no evidence while waiting for Veli to vote first.
|
On December 14 2011 04:38 Velinath wrote: wait a minute, are you seriously saying that a QUESTION MARK excuses you trying to manipulate a false policy lynch? That's hilarious. I can't take you seriously anymore. (hint: I don't buy this crap at all, and now I really DO think you're lying)
There's no double standard. He's said over and over and over that you aren't providing explanation - you aren't. You're outright refusing to participate in a discussion now... Even if you think I'm mafia, you should be trying to get me to talk in order to catch the last person on the team.
[QUOTE]On December 14 2011 04:38 Velinath wrote: That's hilarious. I can't take you seriously anymore. (hint: I don't buy this crap at all, and now I really DO think you're lying) So before you DIDN'T think that I was lying?
|
On December 14 2011 04:39 Velinath wrote: And I did comment on him omitting words earlier. Apparently you ignored that.
What is this a responce to? Please quote the exact sentence/paragraph, so that it's clear what you're saying.
|
On December 14 2011 04:59 Velinath wrote: Lying re: this crap LAL argument you decided to try and push, because it doesn't make any sense at all.
Perhaps it's just me but if anyone can explain it to me what it is that he's talking about, I'd be grateful. I'm especially curious about the "now I really DO think you're lying" bit.
Veli studying for his finals means that he wasn't lazy - but I'm glad to know that I was right about him not spending enough time to read and analyse.
|
On December 14 2011 05:29 Velinath wrote:well that was a retardedly easy test Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 03:54 xtfftc wrote: There's a question mark in "Lynch All Liars?" for a reason. I raised a point for everyone to discuss: would a town player really try to twist "more likely" said in a certain context into "best read". Like always, I was trying to facilitate a discussion. See, we're not talking about a case in this situation. We are talking about deliberately taking one's words and turning them into something else. I provided quotes to demonstrate what he did but you still haven't commented on it.
Here, I'll post it for you again.
this is what i'm talking about. "Hey let me invoke LAL on something that doesn't qualify as LAL".
(1)I did not invoke LAL. It was a response to layabout being childish in the thread ("liar liar liar", and with bold even). This is just the way you are reading it. Next?
On December 14 2011 05:29 Velinath wrote: i see in your quotes: "three scummiest" "more likely to be scum" "his team (...) more likely"
(2)"three scummiest" does not equal "best read". (3)"more likely" does not equal "best read". Next?
On December 14 2011 05:29 Velinath wrote: this implies that you sure as hell think he's scum. (4)In this very same post I mentioned the five people I was suspicious of at the time (Jay, EY, xsk, BKE, Adam). Clearly I did not indicate that I was "sure as hell". Next?
On December 14 2011 05:29 Velinath wrote: layabout's already explained that your vote was 100% completely useless day 2. (5)And I have already addressed this plenty of times, even before layabout joined the game: it was to make a point. (6)My vote would have been equally useless on Jay as he was dead at the time. (7)And neither of you has provided any reason why would placing my vote on EY instead of Jay benefit me as mafia. Next?
On December 14 2011 05:29 Velinath wrote: why were you happy to go along with the BKEXE wagon on day 3 rather than "make a statement" again (8)The point I made on Day 2 was that we need to discuss other candidates than the main lynch target. At the time when I voted on Day 3 there was a serious discussion going on already.
This is 8 points you have to address. Could you please answer all of them and use quotes if necessary.
And for everyone else reading the thread, ask yourselves this question (if you haven't already): how does voting/not voting for someone who is 100% sure to be lynched change anything? If not voting for Jay is a reason to call someone mafia, doesn't this make it way too easy for mafia to blend in by simply doing what the rest of the town does?
|
And I'm still waiting on:
On December 14 2011 04:57 xtfftc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 04:38 Velinath wrote: That's hilarious. I can't take you seriously anymore. (hint: I don't buy this crap at all, and now I really DO think you're lying) So before you DIDN'T think that I was lying?
This makes it 9.
I'm done for tonight and you seem to have done well at your test, so I''m sure you'll have enough time to address all of my concerns.
|
I've skimmed the thread during breakfast, so I can't address everything at the moment. Veli, I will reply to everything you've written when I read it, don't freak out. The only bit I'm going to address for now is the bolded part
On December 14 2011 06:14 Velinath wrote:you even said: Show nested quote +In conclusion, most of the town has sheeped on BKE (with Veli, Adam and to a lesser extent Tunkeg being the exceptions). I feel like there wasn't a proper attempt to change the direction of the lynch until late Day 3 and I agree that the third mafia player may have simply abandoned Jay and BKE to save himself/herself.
As I was re-reading his earlier posts just now, I reached the same conclusion as before: bad townie. After Bbyte's lynch he finally stepped it up and started posting stuff and it became obvious that he was struggling to come up with his analysis. This was similar to Jay, with the main difference being that Jay posted much more filler during Day 1. But both couldn't keep it up when they were forced to provide their reads. I have yet to post on how BKE himself has posted on the other players but for now I don't see many promising leads. I'd sayu that the mafia is hiding amongst the quieter players but perhaps I'm seeing things this way simply because those who have posted a lot on BKE are my town reads anyway. WHY WOULD YOU VOTE FOR SOMEONE YOU BELIEVE TO BE TOWN. No word twisting here. You simply said "Hey, I think he's a townie, but here's my vote on him anyway". That is in no way a good idea. Ever. In fact the only reason to lynch a townie knowingly is if you are scum. Read my post that you have quoted again. What I said was that his earlier posts made me believe that he was town ("As I was re-reading his earlier posts just now, I reached the same conclusion as before: bad townie"), just like with Jay, but later when he was forced to step it up I thought he was mafia ("But both couldn't keep it up when they were forced to provide their reads"). Him and Jay were the perfect example of newbie mafia who can only appear town if they lurk, and them buddying up made it even worse.
|
BH, I don't believe that Tunkeg is mafia. If you want me to, I'll post a proper explanation in the afternoon but I'm sure I've talked about it before. And if it's up to lynching him and me, it would be better to go for me and then layabout after I flip. Lynching him would leave us in a similar situation tomorrow as we are today.
For reasons stated many times before, ##Vote: layabout
|
On December 14 2011 15:12 Velinath wrote: then why didn't you say that? you never directly stated that you thought BKEXE was scum. instead you said the mafia was "hiding amongst the quieter players". hell of a general statement. Because it is better for town if a player reveals his thought process. Why shouldn't I do it?
And I did say that I thought BKE is mafia, plenty of times. Read your own arguments against me from earlier - the same posts you quote about me having EY as my "best read" also include me saying pretty much the same on BKE. But somehow this has left you with the impression that I claimed EY was 100% mafia without giving an opinion on BKE.
|
On December 14 2011 15:15 Velinath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 15:12 xtfftc wrote: BH, I don't believe that Tunkeg is mafia. If you want me to, I'll post a proper explanation in the afternoon but I'm sure I've talked about it before. And if it's up to lynching him and me, it would be better to go for me and then layabout after I flip. Lynching him would leave us in a similar situation tomorrow as we are today.
For reasons stated many times before, ##Vote: layabout Tunkeg trying to distract attention from someone I believe to be scum by OMGUSing his original accuser and making it into "Vote him or me" seems scummy to me Wait, am I the scum OMGUSing layabhout?! I was on xsk FROM DAY 1. He was even my vote until I switched on Bbyte. The only person OMGUSing is layabout: this is the very thing he did in this thread, an OMGUS on me and Tunkeg.
|
On December 14 2011 06:14 Velinath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 06:01 xtfftc wrote:On December 14 2011 05:29 Velinath wrote:well that was a retardedly easy test On December 14 2011 03:54 xtfftc wrote: There's a question mark in "Lynch All Liars?" for a reason. I raised a point for everyone to discuss: would a town player really try to twist "more likely" said in a certain context into "best read". Like always, I was trying to facilitate a discussion. See, we're not talking about a case in this situation. We are talking about deliberately taking one's words and turning them into something else. I provided quotes to demonstrate what he did but you still haven't commented on it.
Here, I'll post it for you again.
this is what i'm talking about. "Hey let me invoke LAL on something that doesn't qualify as LAL". (1)I did not invoke LAL. It was a response to layabout being childish in the thread ("liar liar liar", and with bold even). This is just the way you are reading it. Next? so you just didn't explain it well i guess, whatever
"whatever"
*sigh*
Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 06:14 Velinath wrote:On December 14 2011 05:29 Velinath wrote: i see in your quotes: "three scummiest" "more likely to be scum" "his team (...) more likely" (2)"three scummiest" does not equal "best read". (3)"more likely" does not equal "best read". Next? i didn't say the words "best read" anywhere. you're putting words in my mouth. cute, but come on, try harder than that.
That's cheap, really cheap. In this post you replied to my explanation as to how "more likely" does not equal "best read" with the words "i see in your quotes: "three scummiest" "more likely to be scum" "his team (...) more likely"this implies that you sure as hell think he's scum." You did not bother to disagree with what layabout said and you've been supporting him all day long, so excuse me for not remembering that you never used these exact words.
And once again, this is a double standard: layabout twisting my words into "best read" and refusing to admit he had no right to is perfectly acceptable but me losing track of all your accusations deserves a response such as "cute, but come on, try harder than that".
Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 05:29 Velinath wrote: this implies that you sure as hell think he's scum. (4)In this very same post I mentioned the five people I was suspicious of at the time (Jay, EY, xsk, BKE, Adam). Clearly I did not indicate that I was "sure as hell". Next? I could use the same reasoning to ask why you voted ey215 then. You could, but it would be preposterous, considering that at the time of the vote (and plenty of times afterwards) I explained that I considered Jay to be dead already and I wanted to make a point that we have to discuss other players as well. Moreover, Jay was dead already, xsk as afk/replaced (I mentioned not being able to advance my case on him until layabout starts posting a few times), there was a case on BKE already, and I said that was the least scummy out of my list, so who else but EY was I supposed to vote for?
On the last page of the thread someone brought up the fact that layabout's vote was just as "wasted" as mine was the day before. How is this okay but mine isn't?
Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 05:29 Velinath wrote: layabout's already explained that your vote was 100% completely useless day 2. (5)And I have already addressed this plenty of times, even before layabout joined the game: it was to make a point. (6)My vote would have been equally useless on Jay as he was dead at the time. (7)And neither of you has provided any reason why would placing my vote on EY instead of Jay benefit me as mafia. Next? 5) a point that didn't mean anything, as layabout said the vote was completely useless, you could have accomplished just as much by just reminding us of the need for scumhunting without the excess voting 6) i'll pass on this one because you finally made a reasonable point 7) cast suspicion on ey215, a town player by my reads and filtering
5) It did lead to a discussion. 6) Oh, so you agree but you didn't bother changing your position on 5... Not to mention that this is not the first time I've made this point, it's just you not bothering to read my posts carefully until I made you a point by point plan. 7) So all of my analysis since Day 1 meant nothing, it's the single vote that's going to make EY look more suspicious...
Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 05:29 Velinath wrote: why were you happy to go along with the BKEXE wagon on day 3 rather than "make a statement" again (8)The point I made on Day 2 was that we need to discuss other candidates than the main lynch target. At the time when I voted on Day 3 there was a serious discussion going on already. that doesn't justify wagon sheeping a townie, which is what you did
..........................................................so I was supposed to somehow know that he was town?
Show nested quote +This is 8 points you have to address. Could you please answer all of them and use quotes if necessary.
And for everyone else reading the thread, ask yourselves this question (if you haven't already): how does voting/not voting for someone who is 100% sure to be lynched change anything? If not voting for Jay is a reason to call someone mafia, doesn't this make it way too easy for mafia to blend in by simply doing what the rest of the town does? you could have just as easily said "hey these are my other reads" Not only did I share my reads, I provided plenty of analysis. But, in case you haven't noticed, this town loves lurking. So go ahead, lynch me for trying to do something about it.
you even said: Show nested quote +In conclusion, most of the town has sheeped on BKE (with Veli, Adam and to a lesser extent Tunkeg being the exceptions). I feel like there wasn't a proper attempt to change the direction of the lynch until late Day 3 and I agree that the third mafia player may have simply abandoned Jay and BKE to save himself/herself.
As I was re-reading his earlier posts just now, I reached the same conclusion as before: bad townie. After Bbyte's lynch he finally stepped it up and started posting stuff and it became obvious that he was struggling to come up with his analysis. This was similar to Jay, with the main difference being that Jay posted much more filler during Day 1. But both couldn't keep it up when they were forced to provide their reads. I have yet to post on how BKE himself has posted on the other players but for now I don't see many promising leads. I'd sayu that the mafia is hiding amongst the quieter players but perhaps I'm seeing things this way simply because those who have posted a lot on BKE are my town reads anyway. WHY WOULD YOU VOTE FOR SOMEONE YOU BELIEVE TO BE TOWN. No word twisting here. You simply said "Hey, I think he's a townie, but here's my vote on him anyway". That is in no way a good idea. Ever. In fact the only reason to lynch a townie knowingly is if you are scum. I already addressed this this morning but just in case: I did not say he is town. Even just this one quote of you should be enough to put an end to your tunneling if there's any sense left in you.
On December 14 2011 06:34 Velinath wrote:Show nested quote +As I was re-reading his earlier posts just now, I reached the same conclusion as before: bad townie. After Bbyte's lynch he finally stepped it up and started posting stuff and it became obvious that he was struggling to come up with his analysis. This was similar to Jay, with the main difference being that Jay posted much more filler during Day 1. But both couldn't keep it up when they were forced to provide their reads. I have yet to post on how BKE himself has posted on the other players but for now I don't see many promising leads. I'd sayu that the mafia is hiding amongst the quieter players but perhaps I'm seeing things this way simply because those who have posted a lot on BKE are my town reads anyway. (his reasoning for lynching a townie - and even he says that he expects BKEXE to be a townie - day 3. Emphasis mine.) You are once again focusing on the part of my post that was discussing BKE's play on Day 1, while ignoring the rest that was about his play on Day 2 and 3. And this even after I explained it to you.
On December 14 2011 06:16 Velinath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 06:02 xtfftc wrote:And I'm still waiting on: On December 14 2011 04:57 xtfftc wrote:On December 14 2011 04:38 Velinath wrote: That's hilarious. I can't take you seriously anymore. (hint: I don't buy this crap at all, and now I really DO think you're lying) So before you DIDN'T think that I was lying? This makes it 9. I'm done for tonight and you seem to have done well at your test, so I''m sure you'll have enough time to address all of my concerns. already explained this. it's even on this page. it's like i have to scream at you to make a point. that was SPECIFICALLY in reference to your LAL stuff. which you FINALLY got around to explaining how you meant it in a clear enough manner that it would make sense to anyone else in the thread. irrelevant now, i suppose, but just goes to show how much attention you're paying It's not about what I was talking discussing (LAL or whatever), it's about you admitting that you were attacking me for something before you thought that I was lying. If you say "now I really DO think you're lying", what did you really Do think before? Could you answer what it was that you did think and put it in bold or something, so that it's clear.
Plus, you have no right to suggest how the rest of the players are reading my words, especially when no one has agreed with you in the thread.
|
|
|
|