|
On December 05 2011 06:34 Grackaroni wrote:The thing that really seemed suspicious about Ey215 to me was this. Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 04:49 ey215 wrote:On December 04 2011 21:14 xtfftc wrote:On December 04 2011 12:52 xsksc wrote:On December 04 2011 12:35 xtfftc wrote:On December 04 2011 12:06 xsksc wrote: What do you guys think of policy lynches in general? Do you think they are a good idea, if so, why?
Personally I disagree with lynching a lurker JUST because they're lurking, in a game like this anyway. The risk of hitting a townie is way too high.
Lynch all liars is a great idea though. It discourages people from lying right from day 1, the only people with a good reason to lie are scum. Both sound great but in reality they don't work. Lynch All Liars.. People get lies and opinions mixed up all the time, and even when a lie is a lie, eventually you realise that there are different types of lies and lynching for some of them is a bit too much. Then comes the argument that if we lynch everyone caught in a lie, townies would stop lying, so we would not have to deal with all of this. But the reality is that you lynch a townie for lying, then you lose the game because of wasting a lynch in order to teach the liars a lesson, then you join another game and you realise that there's so many other players you have to teach that same lesson, and so on. If we start doing it in every single game, it might work after a while. But when you've invested a week in the game, you don't want to throw it away just because some townie attempted a stupid gamble. All you are focused on is lynching mafia. And townies tend to get lynched for lying all the time anyway, even without having the policy in place - simply becase when someone is caught lying, they are usually accused of being mafia. Agreeing upon whether someone is lukring or not is easier but simply lynching all lurkers is not optimal. What's important is that people realise that sometimes every active player is a townie. If your analysis leads you to the conclussion that the active players are townies, then you start lynching lurkers. That's the best we can do. I don't understand your part about lynch all liars. Think about it logically, if we say, "Lie and you're gonna get lynched" then no townie is going to lie, are they? It's not just to teach a lesson, scum benefit greatly from lies and deceit. I want lynch-all-liers in effect today. Also, on day 1 it's very easy for scum to post nonsense and get away with it, because day 1 can be such a mess, hell, sometimes the most active players are scum. Just because someone posts a lot doesn't make them town, lol. Look at the last newbie mini-game. Ciryandor was scum, and he posted more analysis than anyone, everyone assumed he was town and that was a big reason why town lost. If we say lynch all liars, townies will carry on lying like they always do. If we do lynch all liars, townies will eventually realise that they should stop. Activity doesn't prove that someone is a townie, of course. But if you have a town read on all the active players, lynching a lurker is great. On December 04 2011 13:01 ey215 wrote: On the lurker bit, I do think there's a time and place for lynching. If we don't have a case on someone it's better to lynch a lurker than someone active. If they're lurking then they're not contributing or giving us something to go on. Of course, if we've got a good case on someone it's better to lynch them. 100% agree, this was pretty much my point anyway. And there's a lot of similar views expressed later in the thread by others, so can we say that we've reached consensus? If we don't get a good case, we lynch a lurker. Ok, just got back to the thread and I'll respond to things as I see them. I agree that we've reached a consensus to get rid of a lurker. That means lurkers, it's your time to step up and contribute. I AM NOT LOOKING FOR A LURKER TO LYNCH, I wish every one of these players would start doing their part and contribute to town. My first priority is to analyze the active players and if as a town we cannot agree upon a scummy player then we should choose a lurker because they will remain a null read. Instead of looking at active players your first priority is to look for a lurker to lynch, which i consider just finding an easy lynch without having to justify why you actually think that the player is scum.
No one is looking for a lurker to lynch. Go back and read my filter I have argued that we need to be looking at quality of posts over quantity of posts. With that being said, it's hard as hell to have a solid scum read on anyone day one, and if I have to make a choice I'm choosing someone not posting, or posting hardly anything of consequence to lynch over someone that has been active.
You don't lynch for information, you lynch scum. Barring having a good read, we should get rid of someone not contributing since they're not doing anything to help the town anyways.
|
On December 05 2011 07:15 jaybrundage wrote: BKEXE Nice great to see some content from you i do agree with you on adam but for different reasons I also think your town reads are pretty spot on. What do you think about my reads they actually are pretty close ot yours. Im curious what you thinkg about ey he has posted alot and is not in your reads. He posted a his reads but mostly town.
And Ey if you had to choice a someone to vote for now who would it be. You said BKEXE. But i dont find him a viable vote imo I still think hes new townie unless i see a post that changes my mind about him anyone else on your radar
Until he posted his last post, BKEXE was probably where I'd throw my vote. For the moment, that's just enough to get by. I'd like to see him answer your questions well.
So now, if we were coming to deadline I'd probably vote for Adam4167. Feels like a lot of filler, and a couple of his points I haven't agreed with. I'm honestly not really solid on anyone at the moment.
|
On December 05 2011 08:16 BByte wrote:ey215: Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 04:49 ey215 wrote: Ok, just got back to the thread and I'll respond to things as I see them. I agree that we've reached a consensus to get rid of a lurker. That means lurkers, it's your time to step up and contribute.
Here you seem to state that we should get rid of a lurker. That seems to imply lynching, though it's not specified. Am I just misreading here? Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 07:00 ey215 wrote: No one is looking for a lurker to lynch. Go back and read my filter I have argued that we need to be looking at quality of posts over quantity of posts. With that being said, it's hard as hell to have a solid scum read on anyone day one, and if I have to make a choice I'm choosing someone not posting, or posting hardly anything of consequence to lynch over someone that has been active.
You don't lynch for information, you lynch scum. Barring having a good read, we should get rid of someone not contributing since they're not doing anything to help the town anyways.
And here you're both arguing against a lurker lynch and for it? I disagree with you on lynching a lurker in the current situation. I don't really even think we have real lurkers at this point. There are already enough posts to get reads on people, and there will be more before the lynch. Of course activity can still be a factor in the evaluation. Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 06:25 jaybrundage wrote: My question is what do you think of adam Bbyte One policy post and one (drunken? ) response to some finger pointing isn't too much to go on. His response is somewhat accusatory, but he gives seemingly straight answers to the questions. Not a scum read for me, but of course we're waiting to hear more from him.
The post you're referring to was answering one where it was talked about lynching a lurker without a proper read on anyone else.
QUOTE]On December 05 2011 05:34 xtfftc wrote:
On December 05 2011 04:06 Grackaroni wrote:In fact from what I've noticed is that people who are willing to outright make a connection with another player is usually town. (palmar/wbg in XLVII) Also Sandroba/Syllogism.
On December 05 2011 04:49 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 21:14 xtfftc wrote:On December 04 2011 12:52 xsksc wrote:On December 04 2011 12:35 xtfftc wrote:On December 04 2011 12:06 xsksc wrote: What do you guys think of policy lynches in general? Do you think they are a good idea, if so, why?
Personally I disagree with lynching a lurker JUST because they're lurking, in a game like this anyway. The risk of hitting a townie is way too high.
Lynch all liars is a great idea though. It discourages people from lying right from day 1, the only people with a good reason to lie are scum. Both sound great but in reality they don't work. Lynch All Liars.. People get lies and opinions mixed up all the time, and even when a lie is a lie, eventually you realise that there are different types of lies and lynching for some of them is a bit too much. Then comes the argument that if we lynch everyone caught in a lie, townies would stop lying, so we would not have to deal with all of this. But the reality is that you lynch a townie for lying, then you lose the game because of wasting a lynch in order to teach the liars a lesson, then you join another game and you realise that there's so many other players you have to teach that same lesson, and so on. If we start doing it in every single game, it might work after a while. But when you've invested a week in the game, you don't want to throw it away just because some townie attempted a stupid gamble. All you are focused on is lynching mafia. And townies tend to get lynched for lying all the time anyway, even without having the policy in place - simply becase when someone is caught lying, they are usually accused of being mafia. Agreeing upon whether someone is lukring or not is easier but simply lynching all lurkers is not optimal. What's important is that people realise that sometimes every active player is a townie. If your analysis leads you to the conclussion that the active players are townies, then you start lynching lurkers. That's the best we can do. I don't understand your part about lynch all liars. Think about it logically, if we say, "Lie and you're gonna get lynched" then no townie is going to lie, are they? It's not just to teach a lesson, scum benefit greatly from lies and deceit. I want lynch-all-liers in effect today. Also, on day 1 it's very easy for scum to post nonsense and get away with it, because day 1 can be such a mess, hell, sometimes the most active players are scum. Just because someone posts a lot doesn't make them town, lol. Look at the last newbie mini-game. Ciryandor was scum, and he posted more analysis than anyone, everyone assumed he was town and that was a big reason why town lost. If we say lynch all liars, townies will carry on lying like they always do. If we do lynch all liars, townies will eventually realise that they should stop. Activity doesn't prove that someone is a townie, of course. But if you have a town read on all the active players, lynching a lurker is great. On December 04 2011 13:01 ey215 wrote: On the lurker bit, I do think there's a time and place for lynching. If we don't have a case on someone it's better to lynch a lurker than someone active. If they're lurking then they're not contributing or giving us something to go on. Of course, if we've got a good case on someone it's better to lynch them. 100% agree, this was pretty much my point anyway. And there's a lot of similar views expressed later in the thread by others, so can we say that we've reached consensus? If we don't get a good case, we lynch a lurker. Ok, just got back to the thread and I'll respond to things as I see them. I agree that we've reached a consensus to get rid of a lurker. That means lurkers, it's your time to step up and contribute. The post I agreed with said " If we don't have a case on someone it's better to lynch a lurker than someone active". This is the crucial point for me. [/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure I've been consistent since my first post that I think if we don't have a solid read we should lynch a lurker. Also that we shouldn't lynch a lurker if we do have a more solid scum read. I know it's a nuanced position but one that I think makes sense. My second post essentially says the same thing.
|
|
I agree we need to get votes on record due to time zones.
For previously stated reasons:
##Vote: Adam4167
|
While I'm not convinced Blazing didn't push him too hard and thus pushed him away I do notice a couple of times that ElectricBlack has said not to vote for people unless it's going to put pressure on them. Blazing's vote alone may not be enough, but I'm willing to switch mine to apply said pressure.
He also stated in his first post that breadcrumbing is bad. While it is bad if it lets the mafia know that you're the blue role, it's important to get people's names into post so that if you're blue and get shot we can go back and figure out the people you've checked out.
I'm fine with applying some pressure.
##Unvote: Adam4167 ##Vote: ElectricBlack
|
On December 05 2011 11:17 BroodKingEXE wrote:Hey BH what is up with this? Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 10:46 Blazinghand wrote: To clarify, ElectricBlack CLAIMS to have good evidence/details to lynching HassyBaby, and not only does he refuse to give this information in a timely fashion for those of us in different time zones, he won't even vote. He has well earned my vote, and deserves yours as well. You neglected to mention this fact until after EB refused to vote. Are you holding back any other pieces of information?
Yeah, I'm missing this too. What the heck are you talking about BK?
ElecticBlack's post:
On December 05 2011 10:40 ElectricBlack wrote: I'd be much more comfortable lynching Hassybaby than any of the current candidates. I need to go to sleep now (it's well past midnight over here), I'll give details as for why this is in the morning.
He says he's more comfortable lynching Hassybaby than everyone else then doesn't vote (as most of us have). Isn't that what Blazing's calling him out for?
|
On December 05 2011 11:21 BroodKingEXE wrote: Oh Sorry I thought they were in two different posts.
Crap, too slow thread's moving a bit in the last few minutes.
|
Alright, bedtime. For those that aren't in college don't ever take a 7 AM class. Trust me, it's not fun. I may be able to post some from school or phone tomorrow but it's possible that I won't be back on until 3 PM Eastern or so after a doctor's appointment tomorrow.
G'night all.
|
On December 05 2011 20:54 ElectricBlack wrote: Yes.
Pressure is stupid. Either you're killing people or not. There should never exist no such thing as a pressure vote. But clearly we don't agree on that. I need to re-think my stance on you.
I am not willing to commit to a lynch candidate at this moment, I will however within a few hours explain and elaborate on my statement about hassybaby.
Ok, finally got back to the thread after a long day. I apologize that I haven't been back sooner. I'm going to respond to posts as I go through the thread so if anything I say gets contradicted later by someone else I want y'all to understand why.
On this post where you say you're either killing people or not, I'm more than willing to kill you tonight. I don't vote only for pressure, if I put a vote on someone I'm willing to let them hang.
|
On December 05 2011 22:20 ElectricBlack wrote:This is the reason I suspect Hassybaby: Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 00:26 Hassybaby wrote: Later on, I'm all for it. But not Day 1 imo, and especially not less than 24 hours since the start of the game.
The whole idea behind lynching lurkers is to use the day 1 lynch to get rid of one, this is simply because it's inevitable that town has worse reads on day 1 than any other day, so what you're sacrificing is a chance of catching scum, and the reward is better chance to hit scum in the later days. Statistically, the day 1 lynch is the least valuable one for town, because it has the least chance of hitting scum, so I think the idea of saving lurkers until later in the game is very bad. If we're going to use a lynch to teach lurkers a lesson, it'll be the day 1 lynch. I don't think we actually have a lurker in the game, so the discussion is irrelevant, but at the time HassyBaby was pushing an idea I can in no way see as town favored. Moving on.... Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 01:49 Hassybaby wrote:Firstly, I'm honoured that you think I'm a veteran, but you're totally wrong. I'm not a veteran in any way shape or form. This is my second game, and my first game was XLVII, and we all know how that went Why do you want people to think you're new and bad? What is the reasoning behind that? Isn't the optimal way to play as town to come across as good as possible, because that makes people more likely to listen to you and be convinced by you instead of not listening to you. Not only that, but you're also shredding responsibility. If you're new surely you can't be held accountable for using bad logic, having bad reads and not playing optimally. If someone said I was a "veteran", I'd run with it, because that helps me get my points across, and it forces me to play very well. There are two factions in mafia, only one of them likes being ignored and perceived useless. And that faction is not town. Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 01:49 Hassybaby wrote:
This goes especially to you Tunkeg, because right now it feels like you're playing the Serejai role from XLVII. Accusing everyone isn't going to help. In fact, it can easily get you ignored in the thread. Accusing people is fine, but do it within reason considering situations in the game.
Tunkeg is applying pressure by asking questions and analysing how people respond, Serejai just painted names red and gave no particular reason for it. Also, you seem to be assuming Tunkeg must be town? Interesting. Next post that caught my interest: Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 09:24 Hassybaby wrote: And people have posted since I last saw....
Veli, yeah I think I went over-defensive there. I misinterpreted Tunkeg's posts, and that's my bad. The post about BKEXE is a good catch. I'd again like to see what he says about that.
Meanwhile, for lack of a better vote right now, I'll be voting on BK. That is totally based on Veli's point, as I don't see strong cases against tohers right now. So odds are I'll change the vote tomorrow, especially if BK makes a good point.
##BroodKingEXE
And finally, even after all this time Hassybaby doesn't have as much to go on. He puts down a vote based on the reasonings of others, which obviously frees him of all responsibility for the lynch if it's wrong. And despite already having piggybacked onto someone else's reasoning instead of explaining his own thought process, Hassybaby decides to specifically state that the vote might be changed. There is no reason to do that, if he has a better scumread than BK at some point he can just explain that and change. Once again I feel like Hassybaby is attempting his best to not be responsible for his actions. If Hassybaby is town, he is doing his best to make sure no one listens to him, essentially making him useless. But the reasonable explanation is that he is scum. ##Vote Hassybaby
Again, haven't read the whole thread yet. I do like this case EB. I do take issue with your first quote of Hasseybaby. I think this may be a case of misunderstanding. I think he was saying he didn't want to lynch a lurker Day 1 of the two days that we had to make the decision not day 1 in game time.
I think he was saying day 1 real time as opposed to day 1 game time.
|
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 +On December 05 2011 07:28 xtfftc wrote:* Adam posted something rather anti-town earleir though: Show nested quote +I am all for lynching anyone who scum slips or is caught in an outright lie, as they're almost sure to be mafia. There's two problems with this quote. The first one is that this is exactly what mafia want. They want to focus on someone saying one stupid thing and lynch that person. Ask your coaches if you don't agree with me: lynching someone over a single "scumslip" tends to be main reason why towns lynch an innocent on Day 1. The second is that he mixes a "scum slip" and "an outright lie". We had a lot of talk about LaL and a lot of you disagree with me. You want a strict policy on it and although I think it favours mafia, it can also help town, so it's okay. What is not okay is trying to tie "scumslipping" to the same policy without holding a proper discussion on what we consider to be a scumslip and what we consider to be someone overreacting over bad wording. This is very pro-mafia as it gives them an easy way to push for lynches. On December 06 2011 02:30 xtfftc wrote:Answering to what's been directed at me for first, then I'll re-read today's posts more carefully. Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 23:48 Adam4167 wrote:On December 05 2011 17:59 xtfftc wrote: I'm on my phone at lunch, so I'll be brief for now. I think that Bke is the easy lynch at the momenand Ipm glad we have bettee targets now. Byte is my top lurker and he'd make an okay lynch if we end up looking at the lurkers. Xskc looks a bit beteer but he still hasn't lived up to his early play.
I'll make sure not to throw away my votw for an unlikely candidate by voting for someone who wont get lynched like I did in xlvii and I encourage everyone to do the sa,e. Also, remember that last minute changes tend to help mafia. Out of the two best candidates I find Adam's dwfence much better (he is at least giving usomethimg to analyse), so I'll probably go for BE. I missed this post earlier through all the xsksc/EB drama. Xtfftc, are you encouraging bandwagons with the section I have bolded? I cast my vote in Jaybrundage's direction, even though I am the only one that's taken even the slightest bit of interest in him besides Tunkeg, because to do otherwise would be at odds with my analysis and reads. Good townie's should not be casting their vote based on the probability that the person will get lynched, they should be voting on whomever they have scum reads on regardless of the current vote situation. Yes, Adam, you caught me: I'm encouraging bandwagons........................ Voting for someone who isn't going to get lynched is very pro-mafia behaviour. I did this in XLVII - I didn't like the main targets, so I tried to push some others (one of whom turned out to be mafia but that's was irrelevant at the time because he wasn't going to get lynched), then went to bed before making up my mind who of the main candidates to go for and basically ended up throwing away my vote. I got torn to pieces by the veterans after the game ended. WBG also tried to push for my lynch after the vote solely because of this - and he had every reason to. If you are mafia and you see that the main lynch candidates are town, it is very easy to vote for someone else in order to avoid being scrutinised after the flip. When you have to justify your vote for one of the main targets, you have to take sides, which allows others to have a better read on you. Also, if you're mafia in this situation, you can vote for one of your teammates to prepare yourself for later if he gets lynched. I wouldn't be surprised if it turnes out that you are bussing a teammate to gain some town cred, so I'll be looking closely at Jay as well. You just earned yourself a lot of red points. Not only for using terrible logic but also for trying to scare town for voting for someone who will get lynched. Just to clarify my terrible wording: "but also for trying to scare town for voting for someone who will get lynched" was a bit of an overreaction to him being unhappy with my original statement. I wrote "I'll make sure not to throw away my votw for an unlikely candidate by voting for someone who wont get lynched like I did in xlvii and I encourage everyone to do the sa,e." Adam responded with "Xtfftc, are you encouraging bandwagons with the section I have bolded?" This is very pro-mafia. Town has to consolidate their votes sooner or later because if we don't, mafia can easily swing the lynch one way or another. "Bandwagonning" sounds like a bad thing to do, so implying that not throwing away your vote is bandwagonning is a mafia thing to do. I'll check the thread again before going to bed.
What exactly is this "much stronger" case against me again?
|
Alright, having caught up a couple of things.
First, town we need to pull this together. Blazing and I did not exactly give y'all the best example to go off of early on in this game day and I think we both regret, have learned from that, and have moved on to try to help the town. We can disagree, even vehemently, and still be civil. Getting everyone worked up in a tizzy so that they just fling accusations at each other is not what's best for the town. Active civil discussion is. Try to keep it turned to 9 instead of 11.
Second, thank you to all that supplied lists of reads. I know this is not an easy thing to do day one and to some extent will have to go off of "gut" feelings and instincts. That we've come together, in general, to do this is a good stepping stone going into day two. These reads that many of us have supplied can be used later to help us scum hunt.
Third, I've stated the whole game I'd rather lynch a lurker if we don't have a better case, and tonight I think that is the best option. While there are a lot of cases floating around there's not a single one I feel comfortable voting on. I especially am wary of voting for someone that's been pretty active as without a solid scum read we could be lynching some of our best townies, and I'd really prefer not to do that.
Finally, after all that is said I will be moving my vote to BByte. I think we have some room to grow and move on, but we need active people to do that.
##Unvote: ElectircBlack ##Vote: BByte
|
And apparently I can't spell ElectricBlack to save my life. /sigh
|
On December 06 2011 07:11 jaybrundage wrote:ey are you planning on voting for hassybaby. So far bbyte is gonna get lynched regardless unless we have a change.I would still like to see his defense. But so far it doesnt look good. But honestly last minute switches always put me at unease. I still plan to stick to adam i would like to see what he has to say about whats going on so far. And EB if you think adam is not a good candidate plz state why this post. Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 05:45 ElectricBlack wrote: reconsider that, he's the worst candidate. Isn't going to change anything. Put in some content i would like to see more of your thoughts. But besides Hassybaby's case which was actually pretty good. And you arguing with xsksc which granted showed that you can post very well when you want too. Why give me this one liner it's not gonna change anything
I voted for BByte on the lurker/not contributing line of reasoning. I was really hoping we wouldn't have to use it, but if someone's inactive even if town they're not really doing us any good.
|
On December 06 2011 07:28 xtfftc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 07:18 ey215 wrote:On December 06 2011 07:11 jaybrundage wrote:ey are you planning on voting for hassybaby. So far bbyte is gonna get lynched regardless unless we have a change.I would still like to see his defense. But so far it doesnt look good. But honestly last minute switches always put me at unease. I still plan to stick to adam i would like to see what he has to say about whats going on so far. And EB if you think adam is not a good candidate plz state why this post. On December 06 2011 05:45 ElectricBlack wrote: reconsider that, he's the worst candidate. Isn't going to change anything. Put in some content i would like to see more of your thoughts. But besides Hassybaby's case which was actually pretty good. And you arguing with xsksc which granted showed that you can post very well when you want too. Why give me this one liner it's not gonna change anything I voted for BByte on the lurker/not contributing line of reasoning. I was really hoping we wouldn't have to use it, but if someone's inactive even if town they're not really doing us any good. ..................................... Town doesn't lynch people for being bad. Town lynches people for being mafia. It's not like we get free lynches for the useless and the lurkers; it's the mafia who managed to distract town well enough and they're getting a free kill tonight as a reward.
Again, absent a solid scum read I'd rather go for a lurker than someone active. Honestly, I don't have an even semi-solid read on anyone at the moment, so I'll take the lynch that could be right or if wrong not hurt us that much over the one that could be right or if wrong would hurt us greatly.
|
Ok, my apologies guys. I was under the impression that we didn't have to post/do anything during the night phase unless we were mafia/blue. I choose to study for my final in the morning instead of checking the thread.
I'd like to take the discussion in at least a mildly different direction and ask if we should be acting on the information we got by the mafia offing EB. Frankly, I was a little surprised they didn't go after Blazing unless they thought we'd have a medic and they'd be protecting him.
Also, do they want us lynching one of the three people (if I recall correctly) that EB had focused on or did they get rid of him to shut him up and keep him from persuading us?
I'm personally of the opinion that we should lynch the scummiest of jayb, xtf, or hassey and see where that leads us.
|
On a side note, off to bed. I'll be back on after my final.
|
Ok, back from my final. For those that might care I think it went well.
On the Jay case: yes, he was hedging but there's a whole lot of hedging going on early in the game. Is it because he's trying to not take a definitive stand so he can't be held accountable for it later or is it because he truly doesn't know and is offering options? To me it felt like hedging, he's been pretty definitive in some of his other posts.
Ok, this got posted while I was typing this and going through filters:
On December 08 2011 03:55 jaybrundage wrote: LOl question then why didn't you claim responsibility before instead of blaming the town.
You know before i called you out
Look at me im Blazinghand i use fonts and different text to make my point instead of analyze
I'm not 100% sold that he's scum, but I'm sold his behavior has been anti-town.
##vote: jaybrundage
Fuck, I can't believe I'm jumping on the bandwagon but at the moment I don't see a better lynch option.
Now that I've voted I do want to talk about the EB killing. I know it's WIFOM, but I keep going around about it and it just doesn't make sense unless he was on to something or a threat to BH (if he's scum). I'm not convinced he had Hasseybaby right, but I think one of the three he had listed is for sure scum. He just hadn't posted enough to be a huge threat and may have even been someone they could get a lynch going on.
At the moment, I'm willing to give BH the benefit of a doubt. After seeing how well he's baited jaybrundage into slipping I think, if town, he's a valuable resource.
It seems like we've got two mini battles going on right now xtsc(or replacement)/tunkeg and jaybrundage/BH. I notice that they both involve names that EB threw out. If jay flips town I think we look at lynching BH, if he's mafia he manipulated jay into slipping masterfully.
|
Wow that post is stream of consciousness, I'll clarify if anyone needs it.
|
|
|
|