|
On January 30 2012 06:23 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote:
He disappeared and nobody spoke out against his defence. Couldn't you say that this make it seem like he was a townie? It was not like we had caught him out and he was obvious scum that we lynched. There was limited discussion and it ended with him being lynched.
If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Are you going to proceed under the assumption that there are 3 scum left or 4? Are you going to be open to both possibilities? I'll play devil's advocate here, since you like that WIFOM.Lets assume WBG was mafia for a minute. Why would mafia speak out in defense for him? It would only draw suspicion onto them. WBG didn't even defend himself. As risk.nuke mentioned above people do weird stuff when under the gun, which is great because this is when scum make mistakes. Any self-respecting townie would at least try to defend themselves, role claim, anything other than lurk! or at least I would hope a townie would. Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote:
If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Also bussing is valid tactic for mafia. That is a scummy thing to say. It is not reasonable to assume anything of the mafia's plan, when they have a QT to discuss something delicate like a bus, before hand.
In a no flip game town has to assume the worst until PRs can give us something concrete, thus we will of course keep an open mind that 4 mafia could still remain.
fuck off with the "you like wifom shit."
I was merely pointing out that his absence is not something that we can draw conclusions from. risk had said it as if it meant he was scum so i responded by saying that i could similarly draw the opposite conclusion.
also prplhz i wanted people to post that they were in agreement/not in agreement with the balancing act proposal,. I only explained my stance on the lynch because i was asked to. If you look at the words about both topics in my first post today:
+ Show Spoiler +On January 29 2012 20:50 layabout wrote:First thing first: What an awful lynch. Second thing second: The plan seems to revolve around lots of players having 3 votes who then decide who to give their votes to. The balancing relies upon people with lots of votes giving some of them to people with only 1 vote. If people give it different numbers of votes then there will be a reduced number of players with 3 votes, and the number of players with 1 vote. I think that we should all be trading the same number of votes. (this should make it easier to confirm players votes as it makes things simpler). I think two votes is a risk but i think that it is acceptable. It keeps a larger number of vote in the game (which is good as it makes it harder for mafia to control the lynch). And mafia should not be able to hold on to all of their votes gained due to re-balancing. this is just wrong: Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 11:26 Paperscraps wrote:-snipped- On January 29 2012 09:52 LSB wrote:
Please give away two of your votes. This is for two reasons
1) Giving away two of your votes eliminates looses if you get nightkilled. Even if you don't think you are a high target, mafia could always bluesnipe.
2) People with 1 vote only are extreamly crucial during re-balancing. During Night 1, people with 1 vote are the ones who would receive votes from people with 3+ votes in order to ensure that the vote distribution stays roughly equal. So if you are left with only 1 vote Day 2, there is a high likelyhood that you would have 3+ votes Day 2. How many votes people give away should be factored by two things: 1. More votes if you think your read is very pro-town and less votes if you think your read is town,but still have some reservations about the read. (This is more applicable to late game)2. If you think you will die during the night, trading the most votes possible is best. If you know you are town you should not be giving more than 1 vote away without a good reason because you do not know the alignment of the player that you are giving votes to. You should not be giving out more or less votes depending on the strength of your read.
this should be evident.
Are you actually suggesting that the mafia would have bussed wbg yesterday? How is is scummy to think that that would be so stupid we should not consider it?
|
In case I wasn't clear in the OP and when I said it 10 hours ago. You are required to send votes at night. Currently there are several people who have yet to act and the day ends in a few hours.
|
On January 30 2012 06:23 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote:
He disappeared and nobody spoke out against his defence. Couldn't you say that this make it seem like he was a townie? It was not like we had caught him out and he was obvious scum that we lynched. There was limited discussion and it ended with him being lynched.
If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Are you going to proceed under the assumption that there are 3 scum left or 4? Are you going to be open to both possibilities? I'll play devil's advocate here, since you like that WIFOM. Lets assume WBG was mafia for a minute. Why would mafia speak out in defense for him? It would only draw suspicion onto them. WBG didn't even defend himself. As risk.nuke mentioned above people do weird stuff when under the gun, which is great because this is when scum make mistakes. Any self-respecting townie would at least try to defend themselves, role claim, anything other than lurk! or at least I would hope a townie would. Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote:
If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Also bussing is valid tactic for mafia. That is a scummy thing to say. It is not reasonable to assume anything of the mafia's plan, when they have a QT to discuss something delicate like a bus, before hand.
In a no flip game town has to assume the worst until PRs can give us something concrete, thus we will of course keep an open mind that 4 mafia could still remain.
This is an interesting argument. For the sake of the argument lets assume that WBG was mafia (and try to disprove it)
If WBG was mafia, mafia would attempt to defend him. Why? Because it is no flip and it is less risky defend players. In addition, there is less incentive to bus players because town will not be certain that the mafia you bused was actually mafia.
Therefore the No-flip sets up incentives for more straightforward-town scum play.
Now, to straight out say that there was no defense of WBG would ignore two things. Counterlynches.
At the end of the day there were three important lynches. And a valid tactic would be to try to attract attention to another lynch.
VisceraEyes- Lead by Palmar and Node
[UoN]Sentinal- Proposed by Me, supported by a few other people.
A few things, first of all the WBG counterlynch happened extreamly fast, he went from a few votes to magic majority in about 4 hours. By this time a few of the other lynches were abandoned, both me and Palmar switched to WBG.
The only person who put up a soft 'defence' of WBG was Node as Node was reluctant to lynch WBG. Currently I have a green read of Node.
From here I conclude that it is unlikely there was a mafia defense of WBG, even though there were very solid counterlynches. This could be explained because twoards the end it was less about persuasion, and more about trying to shove a lynch before the deadline. However a last minute push for one of the other two canidates is not impossible in that situation.
Because of this we should treat WBG as a green townie.
|
On January 30 2012 06:36 layabout wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 06:23 Paperscraps wrote:On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote:
He disappeared and nobody spoke out against his defence. Couldn't you say that this make it seem like he was a townie? It was not like we had caught him out and he was obvious scum that we lynched. There was limited discussion and it ended with him being lynched.
If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Are you going to proceed under the assumption that there are 3 scum left or 4? Are you going to be open to both possibilities? I'll play devil's advocate here, since you like that WIFOM.Lets assume WBG was mafia for a minute. Why would mafia speak out in defense for him? It would only draw suspicion onto them. WBG didn't even defend himself. As risk.nuke mentioned above people do weird stuff when under the gun, which is great because this is when scum make mistakes. Any self-respecting townie would at least try to defend themselves, role claim, anything other than lurk! or at least I would hope a townie would. On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote:
If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Also bussing is valid tactic for mafia. That is a scummy thing to say. It is not reasonable to assume anything of the mafia's plan, when they have a QT to discuss something delicate like a bus, before hand.
In a no flip game town has to assume the worst until PRs can give us something concrete, thus we will of course keep an open mind that 4 mafia could still remain. fuck off with the "you like wifom shit." I was merely pointing out that his absence is not something that we can draw conclusions from. risk had said it as if it meant he was scum so i responded by saying that i could similarly draw the opposite conclusion. also prplhz i wanted people to post that they were in agreement/not in agreement with the balancing act proposal,. I only explained my stance on the lynch because i was asked to. If you look at the words about both topics in my first post today: + Show Spoiler +On January 29 2012 20:50 layabout wrote:First thing first: What an awful lynch. Second thing second: The plan seems to revolve around lots of players having 3 votes who then decide who to give their votes to. The balancing relies upon people with lots of votes giving some of them to people with only 1 vote. If people give it different numbers of votes then there will be a reduced number of players with 3 votes, and the number of players with 1 vote. I think that we should all be trading the same number of votes. (this should make it easier to confirm players votes as it makes things simpler). I think two votes is a risk but i think that it is acceptable. It keeps a larger number of vote in the game (which is good as it makes it harder for mafia to control the lynch). And mafia should not be able to hold on to all of their votes gained due to re-balancing. this is just wrong: Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 11:26 Paperscraps wrote:-snipped- On January 29 2012 09:52 LSB wrote:
Please give away two of your votes. This is for two reasons
1) Giving away two of your votes eliminates looses if you get nightkilled. Even if you don't think you are a high target, mafia could always bluesnipe.
2) People with 1 vote only are extreamly crucial during re-balancing. During Night 1, people with 1 vote are the ones who would receive votes from people with 3+ votes in order to ensure that the vote distribution stays roughly equal. So if you are left with only 1 vote Day 2, there is a high likelyhood that you would have 3+ votes Day 2. How many votes people give away should be factored by two things: 1. More votes if you think your read is very pro-town and less votes if you think your read is town,but still have some reservations about the read. (This is more applicable to late game)2. If you think you will die during the night, trading the most votes possible is best. If you know you are town you should not be giving more than 1 vote away without a good reason because you do not know the alignment of the player that you are giving votes to. You should not be giving out more or less votes depending on the strength of your read. this should be evident. Are you actually suggesting that the mafia would have bussed wbg yesterday? How is is scummy to think that that would be so stupid we should not consider it?
I said it is not reasonable to assume anything of the mafia's plan. You have to take a step back and look at the big picture, see who is talking with who, examine voting patterns, look at peoples arguments for why they vote, look at justifications for the VP trade, sheeping, bandwagoning, etc... These things will find mafia, not WIFOM.
|
On January 30 2012 07:45 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 06:36 layabout wrote:On January 30 2012 06:23 Paperscraps wrote:On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote:
He disappeared and nobody spoke out against his defence. Couldn't you say that this make it seem like he was a townie? It was not like we had caught him out and he was obvious scum that we lynched. There was limited discussion and it ended with him being lynched.
If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Are you going to proceed under the assumption that there are 3 scum left or 4? Are you going to be open to both possibilities? I'll play devil's advocate here, since you like that WIFOM.Lets assume WBG was mafia for a minute. Why would mafia speak out in defense for him? It would only draw suspicion onto them. WBG didn't even defend himself. As risk.nuke mentioned above people do weird stuff when under the gun, which is great because this is when scum make mistakes. Any self-respecting townie would at least try to defend themselves, role claim, anything other than lurk! or at least I would hope a townie would. On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote:
If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Also bussing is valid tactic for mafia. That is a scummy thing to say. It is not reasonable to assume anything of the mafia's plan, when they have a QT to discuss something delicate like a bus, before hand.
In a no flip game town has to assume the worst until PRs can give us something concrete, thus we will of course keep an open mind that 4 mafia could still remain. fuck off with the "you like wifom shit." I was merely pointing out that his absence is not something that we can draw conclusions from. risk had said it as if it meant he was scum so i responded by saying that i could similarly draw the opposite conclusion. also prplhz i wanted people to post that they were in agreement/not in agreement with the balancing act proposal,. I only explained my stance on the lynch because i was asked to. If you look at the words about both topics in my first post today: + Show Spoiler +On January 29 2012 20:50 layabout wrote:First thing first: What an awful lynch. Second thing second: The plan seems to revolve around lots of players having 3 votes who then decide who to give their votes to. The balancing relies upon people with lots of votes giving some of them to people with only 1 vote. If people give it different numbers of votes then there will be a reduced number of players with 3 votes, and the number of players with 1 vote. I think that we should all be trading the same number of votes. (this should make it easier to confirm players votes as it makes things simpler). I think two votes is a risk but i think that it is acceptable. It keeps a larger number of vote in the game (which is good as it makes it harder for mafia to control the lynch). And mafia should not be able to hold on to all of their votes gained due to re-balancing. this is just wrong: Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 11:26 Paperscraps wrote:-snipped- On January 29 2012 09:52 LSB wrote:
Please give away two of your votes. This is for two reasons
1) Giving away two of your votes eliminates looses if you get nightkilled. Even if you don't think you are a high target, mafia could always bluesnipe.
2) People with 1 vote only are extreamly crucial during re-balancing. During Night 1, people with 1 vote are the ones who would receive votes from people with 3+ votes in order to ensure that the vote distribution stays roughly equal. So if you are left with only 1 vote Day 2, there is a high likelyhood that you would have 3+ votes Day 2. How many votes people give away should be factored by two things: 1. More votes if you think your read is very pro-town and less votes if you think your read is town,but still have some reservations about the read. (This is more applicable to late game)2. If you think you will die during the night, trading the most votes possible is best. If you know you are town you should not be giving more than 1 vote away without a good reason because you do not know the alignment of the player that you are giving votes to. You should not be giving out more or less votes depending on the strength of your read. this should be evident. Are you actually suggesting that the mafia would have bussed wbg yesterday? How is is scummy to think that that would be so stupid we should not consider it? I said it is not reasonable to assume anything of the mafia's plan. You have to take a step back and look at the big picture, see who is talking with who, examine voting patterns, look at peoples arguments for why they vote, look at justifications for the VP trade, sheeping, bandwagoning, etc... These things will find mafia, not WIFOM.
can you read?
|
On January 30 2012 06:52 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 06:23 Paperscraps wrote:On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote:
He disappeared and nobody spoke out against his defence. Couldn't you say that this make it seem like he was a townie? It was not like we had caught him out and he was obvious scum that we lynched. There was limited discussion and it ended with him being lynched.
If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Are you going to proceed under the assumption that there are 3 scum left or 4? Are you going to be open to both possibilities? I'll play devil's advocate here, since you like that WIFOM. Lets assume WBG was mafia for a minute. Why would mafia speak out in defense for him? It would only draw suspicion onto them. WBG didn't even defend himself. As risk.nuke mentioned above people do weird stuff when under the gun, which is great because this is when scum make mistakes. Any self-respecting townie would at least try to defend themselves, role claim, anything other than lurk! or at least I would hope a townie would. On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote:
If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Also bussing is valid tactic for mafia. That is a scummy thing to say. It is not reasonable to assume anything of the mafia's plan, when they have a QT to discuss something delicate like a bus, before hand.
In a no flip game town has to assume the worst until PRs can give us something concrete, thus we will of course keep an open mind that 4 mafia could still remain. This is an interesting argument. For the sake of the argument lets assume that WBG was mafia (and try to disprove it) If WBG was mafia, mafia would attempt to defend him. Why? Because it is no flip and it is less risky defend players. In addition, there is less incentive to bus players because town will not be certain that the mafia you bused was actually mafia. Therefore the No-flip sets up incentives for more straightforward-town scum play. Now, to straight out say that there was no defense of WBG would ignore two things. Counterlynches. At the end of the day there were three important lynches. And a valid tactic would be to try to attract attention to another lynch. VisceraEyes- Lead by Palmar and Node [UoN]Sentinal- Proposed by Me, supported by a few other people. A few things, first of all the WBG counterlynch happened extreamly fast, he went from a few votes to magic majority in about 4 hours. By this time a few of the other lynches were abandoned, both me and Palmar switched to WBG. The only person who put up a soft 'defence' of WBG was Node as Node was reluctant to lynch WBG. Currently I have a green read of Node. From here I conclude that it is unlikely there was a mafia defense of WBG, even though there were very solid counterlynches. This could be explained because twoards the end it was less about persuasion, and more about trying to shove a lynch before the deadline. However a last minute push for one of the other two canidates is not impossible in that situation. Because of this we should treat WBG as a green townie.
We could argue this back and forth all day, but that wouldn't be beneficial. I do agree to an extent that we should assume the worst for now(since it is no flip) that WBG could have been green.
On January 30 2012 07:52 layabout wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 07:45 Paperscraps wrote:On January 30 2012 06:36 layabout wrote:On January 30 2012 06:23 Paperscraps wrote:On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote:
He disappeared and nobody spoke out against his defence. Couldn't you say that this make it seem like he was a townie? It was not like we had caught him out and he was obvious scum that we lynched. There was limited discussion and it ended with him being lynched.
If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Are you going to proceed under the assumption that there are 3 scum left or 4? Are you going to be open to both possibilities? I'll play devil's advocate here, since you like that WIFOM.Lets assume WBG was mafia for a minute. Why would mafia speak out in defense for him? It would only draw suspicion onto them. WBG didn't even defend himself. As risk.nuke mentioned above people do weird stuff when under the gun, which is great because this is when scum make mistakes. Any self-respecting townie would at least try to defend themselves, role claim, anything other than lurk! or at least I would hope a townie would. On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote:
If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Also bussing is valid tactic for mafia. That is a scummy thing to say. It is not reasonable to assume anything of the mafia's plan, when they have a QT to discuss something delicate like a bus, before hand.
In a no flip game town has to assume the worst until PRs can give us something concrete, thus we will of course keep an open mind that 4 mafia could still remain. fuck off with the "you like wifom shit." I was merely pointing out that his absence is not something that we can draw conclusions from. risk had said it as if it meant he was scum so i responded by saying that i could similarly draw the opposite conclusion. also prplhz i wanted people to post that they were in agreement/not in agreement with the balancing act proposal,. I only explained my stance on the lynch because i was asked to. If you look at the words about both topics in my first post today: + Show Spoiler +On January 29 2012 20:50 layabout wrote:First thing first: What an awful lynch. Second thing second: The plan seems to revolve around lots of players having 3 votes who then decide who to give their votes to. The balancing relies upon people with lots of votes giving some of them to people with only 1 vote. If people give it different numbers of votes then there will be a reduced number of players with 3 votes, and the number of players with 1 vote. I think that we should all be trading the same number of votes. (this should make it easier to confirm players votes as it makes things simpler). I think two votes is a risk but i think that it is acceptable. It keeps a larger number of vote in the game (which is good as it makes it harder for mafia to control the lynch). And mafia should not be able to hold on to all of their votes gained due to re-balancing. this is just wrong: Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 11:26 Paperscraps wrote:-snipped- On January 29 2012 09:52 LSB wrote:
Please give away two of your votes. This is for two reasons
1) Giving away two of your votes eliminates looses if you get nightkilled. Even if you don't think you are a high target, mafia could always bluesnipe.
2) People with 1 vote only are extreamly crucial during re-balancing. During Night 1, people with 1 vote are the ones who would receive votes from people with 3+ votes in order to ensure that the vote distribution stays roughly equal. So if you are left with only 1 vote Day 2, there is a high likelyhood that you would have 3+ votes Day 2. How many votes people give away should be factored by two things: 1. More votes if you think your read is very pro-town and less votes if you think your read is town,but still have some reservations about the read. (This is more applicable to late game)2. If you think you will die during the night, trading the most votes possible is best. If you know you are town you should not be giving more than 1 vote away without a good reason because you do not know the alignment of the player that you are giving votes to. You should not be giving out more or less votes depending on the strength of your read. this should be evident. Are you actually suggesting that the mafia would have bussed wbg yesterday? How is is scummy to think that that would be so stupid we should not consider it? I said it is not reasonable to assume anything of the mafia's plan. You have to take a step back and look at the big picture, see who is talking with who, examine voting patterns, look at peoples arguments for why they vote, look at justifications for the VP trade, sheeping, bandwagoning, etc... These things will find mafia, not WIFOM. can you read?
Nope.
|
|
|
Ya ZBot says it's Dawn - my f5 key hates me 
|
Working on the daypost. It´ll be a few minutes yet.
|
Day 2
![[image loading]](http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/6082/milancathedralfrompiazz.jpg)
It was a wonderfull new morning. Noone was lying dead in their own vomit (apart from wherebugsgo, of course), but a shadow still lay over the city, and the Council had a heavy duty to perform.
One by one the fourteen remaining members congregated at the old cathedral, the most glorious testament to the power of the Guild. It had taken decades to build, the architects were the fathers and grandfathers of the council of that day, and the eyes of their ancestors were on them.
Noone died during the night.
Currently there are 42 votes in the game, it takes 22 votes to lynch a player.
Palmar (4)
Jackal58 (3)
chaoser (3)
LSB (2)
prplhz (6)
Dirkzor (2)
risk.nuke (3)
[UoN]Sentinel (2)
Paperscraps (4)
jaybrundage (2)
MeatlessTaco (2)
Node (2)
VisceraEyes (2)
layabout (5)
Day ends in 47 hours and 30 minutes, at 01:00 GMT (+00:00), or 10:00 KST
|
I was hit 1 time, but survived.
I was in addition roleblocked.
I attempted to give Paperscraps 2 votes, I have no idea if it actually went through or not, due to the roleblock.
If someone is roleblocked, is he unable to give votes away that night?
Until I know otherwise I'm going to assume I did not give my votes away, and I received 1 vote from someone. In addition I'm going to assume mafia shot me, but I was saved by a jailkeeper. (who also rb'd me)
|
|
|
from page 1
Node (2), Jackal58 (3), chaoser (3), prplhz (6), LSB (2), Palmar (4), jaybrundage (2), risk.nuke (3), [UoN]Sentinel (2), MeatlessTaco (2), Paperscraps (4), VisceraEyes (2), Dirkzor (2), layabout (5),
|
I sent 2 votes to layabout
I did this for a variety of reasons
1) I wanted to send my vote to someone I did not consider a vet/prominent in this game, I expected that they were more likely to receive votes, and by sending it to a new person might help with keeping things more balanced (Turns out I was wrong)
2) layabout's critique of my plans and his concerns about it in the rudimentary stages show genuine concern about the fate of the town. He has taken more controversial stances on positions so I have a green read on him.
|
I sent prphlz 2 votes due to trust.
|
I think Zbot didn't count multiple votes for some reason.
|
On January 30 2012 10:33 Palmar wrote:
I was hit 1 time, but survived.
I was in addition roleblocked.
I attempted to give Paperscraps 2 votes, I have no idea if it actually went through or not, due to the roleblock.
If someone is roleblocked, is he unable to give votes away that night?
Until I know otherwise I'm going to assume I did not give my votes away, and I received 1 vote from someone. In addition I'm going to assume mafia shot me, but I was saved by a jailkeeper. (who also rb'd me)
If a roleblocker town or mafia aligned were to use their roleblock on a player it would NOT affect vote trading.
|
Right now I am the most interested in who sent chaoser a vote.
Also layabout and prplhz massive vote surges. I want to hear additional reasoning behind these.
To be honest I expected me and palmar to recive alot of votes. We recived 3 combined.
|
Ok so I'm finally caught up (on start of Night 1) and my thoughts:
1) I realized that a lot of people spent way too much time on the concept of vote-trading when really there should have been a lot more looking or trying to start discussions about lynching and such. Palmar is pretty much townie in my eyes since he started off the game aggressive and then backed it up by actually following through with his baiting. In particular this post was beautiful: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=303505¤tpage=16#319
There were two ways to play the game circle trading (safe) and call trading (informative). I really didn't see the appeal of safe trading aside since, as Palmar said, we were giving away one of our avenues for information. Negative things happening is still information.
2) I don't understand why WBG was lynched, it seemed like the lynch was based around his meta more than anything else and that was stupid because there were more scummy people out there. On in particular, which no one really looked at was:
Dirkzor:
It starts off with a post that I thought was pretty useless, basically repeating sentinel's idea
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=303505¤tpage=11#208
and then he moves onto speculating about roles, another completely useless topic. WBG calls him out on it. His posts that follow afterwards call for others to scumhunt while he does nothing, only telling Palmar to get into the game. The play seemed very passive at this point so I wasn't that suspicious. It was when he called out prplhz that I started to wonder.
Free trade or circle trading. Giving as few votes as possible seems to be best. That way least amount of town votes can potentielly end up at scum. Why would I, when I know my own allignment, give votes to a potential scum? I won't! This statement is weird and I find it scummy.
The concept of giving away more or less votes doesn't establish and can't really be used to decide if someone is scummy or not. That's like using different people's preferences for the circle-jerk v the free trade idea as a measure of scumminess, with people who wanted a different plan from you being considered "scummy". Bad reasoning and this made it seem like he was grasping at something that wasn't there.
The italic part is also written from a scum perspective. The whole process of saying how the roles affect scum seems to be from someone who is on the recieving end of the power roles. While everyone could think this, I don't think a town person would write it and certainly not in this way.
This, once again, is bad logic. How can you tell if something is written from a scum perspective or not? Once again it seems like he's trying to suggest something that is not there at all.
This is kind of similar to VE's post here:
I'm going to be honest - I'm also starting to think Palmar is town, but it's not based on a belief that I think he's acting scummy to test reactions. It could be, but that's not why. I think Palmar is town based almost exclusively on the fact that scummy players like Paperscraps are defending the way he's playing.
which is also reaching for a connection that is not there.
I would be ok with lynching either one of them.
3) Aside from them, layabout also does the "write a long post about nothing" and then later on when the vote trading topic had died down a bit, brings it up again while bringing nothing new to the discussion.
4) I think paperscapes and LSB give me tonie vibes. paperscapes posts have been informative while also have shown that he is trying to create a positive town environment. Especially here, a good post to keep people on topic and recenter the debate about vote trading: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=303505¤tpage=12#229
LSB, as well, put forth a good vote plan though I disagree with it (I like the free-trade idea better)
|
For prplhz
1) He came to my defense,
2) After that bit of reasoning he's either really trustworthy or really good at lying, just need to see if he gives those votes back to know which.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
