|
VisceraEyes Scum-List of Correctitude
Palmar - I liked Red's case on Palmar, and his attempt to discredit it by discrediting me is telling. Like, yeah...he thinks I'm bad...but my skill-level has nothing to do with Red's points or Palmar's posts. It's a ridiculous non-defense, and it's scummy as hell. SCUM.
Drazerk - His criticism of Radfield of his RNG vote caught my eye. Like, what's the point there? Does he think he's scum trying to appear to contribute? Does he think he knows how to play better than Rad? We don't know because he doesn't say. It looks to me like he's soft-defending prplhz...especially when he says things like "...you're not going to stick with Prplhz throughout the entire day and if you do you're tunneling him which has drawbacks"....it stinks of pre-knowledge. Not to mention the fact that he's posted several times and hasn't voted OR given his opinions on any players. SCUM.
We still have a lot of lurkers, I'd like to see content from everyone fastly.
|
On December 05 2011 02:57 redFF wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 02:56 Corrupt wrote:
Wow~
Some sick investigations going on! I think I'm getting paranoid already.. yet it's my first game. (and first post)
This is not going to be easy... so many suspicious people already. like who?
I pictured TruthBringer as one of the good guys, so I'm being suspicious about prplhz.. altho I must admit that what he said about TruthBringer also made sense. It just isn't based on much information and yet he claims it, so that's why it provoked me for being suspicious about him.
|
you said "so many suspicious people already" yet you now say you are only suspicious of prplz?
|
Just woke up, read through, and here are my thoughts.
On December 05 2011 00:21 Radfield wrote:
A zodiac list is a term coined many games ago. It refers to a list of players, typically the stronger vets, who are held to a high standard. I can't remember the specifics of the original plan, but it was a way to organize blue roles like detectives and medics by directing them either into or away from the zodiac list.
Technically I'm misusing the term here. All I am really talking about is a list of players who playstyles I am familiar with, and who I am going to be keeping a close eye on.
I don't like the idea of having this list. Lists last game just led to idiotic flamewars that didn't help us at all. I also don't think you can just expect us to trust you and your analysis of "players who playstyles I am familiar with". I think that's the kind of thing you should keep to yourself and just post your analysis. No need to pressure us with the fear that maybe we don't know their playstyle, so we should just follow you. Prplhz had me completely fooled day 1 because his post made me inherently trust him and his judgement because he appeared friendly and trustworthy. You're doing the same thing here.
Moving on.
On December 05 2011 00:39 Drazerk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 00:25 Radfield wrote:On December 05 2011 00:20 Drazerk wrote:
Sigh I hate zodiac lists they let players such as myself skate by too easily -.-
Also radfield is it really needed to establish a throw away vote so early on? Who said it was a throw away vote? Prplhz belongs to the class of players who have the potential to be strong players, yet are not well known enough to draw medic protection or dt investigations. I'm genuinely interested in his response and Day 1 contributions. I dislike randomly voting people at the start of day to spark discussion as it just allows the person to do a blind omgus rather than focusing on everyone. Your not going to stick with Prplhz throughout the entire day at any rate and if you do you will just be tunnelling him which has too many drawbacks.
One thing I learned from last game and Bloodyc0bbler's actions was that tunneling is not pro-town. Bringing up a single argument is fine and dandy, and calling people out on stuff is fine too, but going after someone relentlessly led to situations where our mayor and sheriff (who were both town) ended up going after each other and muddling up everything. Have to agree with Drazerk here.
On December 04 2011 23:21 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 23:18 Radfield wrote:
What about no lynching? That is an option in this set-up.
Where would you rank it? Worst possible option imo. a no-lynch would just make mafia get a couple of freekills while we end up being in the same position we had problems with on day1 with less townies left.
This is how I see it. A day 1 lynch is going off almost nothing, but not lynching is giving mafia a free pass into the night. We have like a 1 in 4 chance of blindly hitting mafia, so we need some sort of plan on how to manage to find them day 1. Last game, every single plan I saw got yelled at for directing people, though. And directing in almost any case seems to be bad. So just go with gut feelings? Lynch someone who's lurking? Lynch someone who's talking a lot but saying nothing?
|
lynch someone who looks scummy?
|
On December 05 2011 04:41 redFF wrote:
lynch someone who looks scummy?
QFT
|
United Kingdom31255 Posts
On December 05 2011 04:22 VisceraEyes wrote:
VisceraEyes Scum-List of Correctitude
Palmar - I liked Red's case on Palmar, and his attempt to discredit it by discrediting me is telling. Like, yeah...he thinks I'm bad...but my skill-level has nothing to do with Red's points or Palmar's posts. It's a ridiculous non-defense, and it's scummy as hell. SCUM.
Drazerk - His criticism of Radfield of his RNG vote caught my eye. Like, what's the point there? Does he think he's scum trying to appear to contribute? Does he think he knows how to play better than Rad? We don't know because he doesn't say. It looks to me like he's soft-defending prplhz...especially when he says things like "...you're not going to stick with Prplhz throughout the entire day and if you do you're tunneling him which has drawbacks"....it stinks of pre-knowledge. Not to mention the fact that he's posted several times and hasn't voted OR given his opinions on any players. SCUM.
We still have a lot of lurkers, I'd like to see content from everyone fastly.
It's not soft defending him, I will out right defend people getting voted for before they have posted in thread.
Do I need to give my opinions yet early day 1 is volatile I don't pick someone until later in the day.
|
On December 05 2011 03:31 Zephirdd wrote:
Because I don't throw votes away without proper thought. I'd rather see what they have for an answer before actually voting on them.
I believe the answer to a question tells me much more than the actual case made over someone.
On December 05 2011 03:49 Zephirdd wrote:Maybe that's why I don't like doing it, my first game was like that, and I raged at people just voting out of nothing(even if I was scum there). Meh, the hell with it. ##Vote CorruptI just realized his nickname is horrible also lol.
What? That makes no sense Zephyr. Unless this is a joke, and you're just using this as a placeholder.
On December 05 2011 04:22 VisceraEyes wrote:
VisceraEyes Scum-List of Correctitude
Palmar - I liked Red's case on Palmar, and his attempt to discredit it by discrediting me is telling. Like, yeah...he thinks I'm bad...but my skill-level has nothing to do with Red's points or Palmar's posts. It's a ridiculous non-defense, and it's scummy as hell. SCUM.
Drazerk - His criticism of Radfield of his RNG vote caught my eye. Like, what's the point there? Does he think he's scum trying to appear to contribute? Does he think he knows how to play better than Rad? We don't know because he doesn't say. It looks to me like he's soft-defending prplhz...especially when he says things like "...you're not going to stick with Prplhz throughout the entire day and if you do you're tunneling him which has drawbacks"....it stinks of pre-knowledge. Not to mention the fact that he's posted several times and hasn't voted OR given his opinions on any players. SCUM.
We still have a lot of lurkers, I'd like to see content from everyone fastly.
I disagree on Drazerk. I don't like the RNG vote either, I'm not going about it as strongly, but it just feels like a good way to start behind. It's a huge gamble. Your point about pre-knowledge makes no sense either. What I do agree with you on is that he hasn't given his opinion on other players directly, just implied. At this point why would you want to call people out directly? You could just end up looking like an idiot. There's nothing really to go off of other than analysis. Maybe meta? I haven't played but one game, and my read on Drazerk points to him as town. Last game he was completely useless, and he was mafia. I don't think he's useless here, so town read so far.
|
On December 05 2011 04:26 redFF wrote:
you said "so many suspicious people already" yet you now say you are only suspicious of prplz?
I had my doubts. Could say Palmar goes on second place.
|
|
|
On December 05 2011 04:22 Corrupt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 02:57 redFF wrote:On December 05 2011 02:56 Corrupt wrote:
Wow~
Some sick investigations going on! I think I'm getting paranoid already.. yet it's my first game. (and first post)
This is not going to be easy... so many suspicious people already. like who? I pictured TruthBringer as one of the good guys, so I'm being suspicious about prplhz.. altho I must admit that what he said about TruthBringer also made sense. It just isn't based on much information and yet he claims it, so that's why it provoked me for being suspicious about him.
You need to make cases. You can't just point at people and say, I have a gut feeling that he's scum. You have to say, I think he's scum because X. Then when someone disagrees with you, you have to either point out the flaws in their counterargument or present your case in a more logical manner. Using logic is extremely pro-town, just saying "oh scum" gets us nowhere.
|
On December 05 2011 04:48 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 03:31 Zephirdd wrote:
Because I don't throw votes away without proper thought. I'd rather see what they have for an answer before actually voting on them.
I believe the answer to a question tells me much more than the actual case made over someone. Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 03:49 Zephirdd wrote:we aren't playing a game where someone can be hammered Maybe that's why I don't like doing it, my first game was like that, and I raged at people just voting out of nothing(even if I was scum there). Meh, the hell with it. ##Vote CorruptI just realized his nickname is horrible also lol. What? That makes no sense Zephyr. Unless this is a joke, and you're just using this as a placeholder.
Context. Simplifying it, redFF convinced me it's not a big deal to throw a vote on someone you find scummy.
And I'm not regretting it at this point...
|
On December 05 2011 04:54 Zephirdd wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 04:48 Risen wrote:On December 05 2011 03:31 Zephirdd wrote:
Because I don't throw votes away without proper thought. I'd rather see what they have for an answer before actually voting on them.
I believe the answer to a question tells me much more than the actual case made over someone. On December 05 2011 03:49 Zephirdd wrote:we aren't playing a game where someone can be hammered Maybe that's why I don't like doing it, my first game was like that, and I raged at people just voting out of nothing(even if I was scum there). Meh, the hell with it. ##Vote CorruptI just realized his nickname is horrible also lol. What? That makes no sense Zephyr. Unless this is a joke, and you're just using this as a placeholder. Context. Simplifying it, redFF convinced me it's not a big deal to throw a vote on someone you find scummy. And I'm not regretting it at this point...
Oh derp, I just woke up my bad. I was like, did he seriously vote him because of his name???
|
EBWOP: I still think it was a little too hasty since he hadn't posted any justification for how he felt. I'm still interested in what he'll say as far as a case against Palmar and prplhz. I don't see anything damning on them yet at all.
|
On December 05 2011 04:51 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 04:22 Corrupt wrote:On December 05 2011 02:57 redFF wrote:On December 05 2011 02:56 Corrupt wrote:
Wow~
Some sick investigations going on! I think I'm getting paranoid already.. yet it's my first game. (and first post)
This is not going to be easy... so many suspicious people already. like who? I pictured TruthBringer as one of the good guys, so I'm being suspicious about prplhz.. altho I must admit that what he said about TruthBringer also made sense. It just isn't based on much information and yet he claims it, so that's why it provoked me for being suspicious about him. You need to make cases. You can't just point at people and say, I have a gut feeling that he's scum. You have to say, I think he's scum because X. Then when someone disagrees with you, you have to either point out the flaws in their counterargument or present your case in a more logical manner. Using logic is extremely pro-town, just saying "oh scum" gets us nowhere.
Thanks for the advice mate, I'll try to play properly from now on. Think I only got into trouble with my comments so far.
Guess I'll need a bit more time to observe and learn this thing.
Uhm.. by the way, is the deadline for votes coming any time soon?
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
Deadline is in 31 hours or so.
|
Checking in real quick. SORRY TO HAVE THIS LIKE FIRST REAL POST THIS LATE.
My comp is mid reformat/windows install. Give me a few more hours and I will be jumping into the game then.
If anyone would like me to comment or talk about any post/player/issue post so now and I will start with that.
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
VisceraEyes, care to direct me to a few of your previous games, preferably one where you were scum?
We need a whole lot more chatter in here:
1. StimilantE
6. Erandorr
16. kingjames01
18. Soap
19. Lanaia
22. vaderseven
24. Hier
You folks need to get in here and start talking.
3. Refallen
7. hyshes
10. Jackal58
11. sandroba
13. TruthBringer
23. Mattchew
and you guys need to talk more.
New discussion topic:
+ Show Spoiler [ Jackal's first post] +On December 04 2011 23:57 Jackal58 wrote:
Good morning. Role confirmed. Game on.
Random lynch on day 1 seems counterproductive to me. On day anything really. What would you perceive as a benefit to doing that Palmar?
Posting lists right out of the box about players who are likely on the scum team due to the hosts balancing reminds me a bit of Zodiac lists that have been posted in previous games. More often than not those lists were posted by scum. At least in the games I've seen them used in. You scum Palmar?
The only way to 100% establish your innocence is to die.
The last few games I've been trying to watch how scum players enter the thread. It's something I've always found a little difficult as scum. You have to somehow establish yourself in the thread, while simultaneously not draw attention... or at least that is the inclination.
This post jumped out at me, and I'm wondering if it jumped out at anyone else. The tone, the touching on every subject, the shifting of attention back onto Palmar(twice).
Anyone else or am I seeing things?
|
United Kingdom31255 Posts
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
Drazerk, what do you think of Jackal? What do you think of Visceraeyes? What do you think of Risen?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
