\in
replacement is fine too.
Forum Index > TL Mafia |
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
\in replacement is fine too. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
Everyone, glhf. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
1) I am against a no-lynch day 1. 2) I am fine with lynching a lurker or two. I'll explain both of those when I get back. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
@fourface That's not how you apply pressure on someone to post. This is how you apply pressure on someone to post. ##vote JekyllAndHyde | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
It seems that most of the discussion on this thread has been built around the idea of a soft deadline and a no-lynch day 1. Here are my thoughts on both of those. A soft deadline isn't really needed. At all. If your concern is that people change their votes at the last minute and mess up votes, there is a simple solution to that: we lynch people who change their votes at the last minute and mess up votes. I would rather lynch scum over people who mess up votes, but I'm down with policy lynching. Townies, don't change your vote at the last minute and mess up votes. I will vote to policy lynch you. A no lynch day 1 is a bad idea. Pretty much, no matter who you are, a no lynch plays against your win condition, unless you're the Batman. As there is not the Batman in this game, no lynching goes against your win condition. Look at it this way: no matter your alignment, you win when there is no one else in the game. Period. Another way to look at that is if you are still left during day 3 after 2 mislynches. There are 6 townies and 4 scum. The scum are either (1) forced to work together to stay alive, and are pretty easy to spot or (2) are going to sacrifice one of their own. Unless something goes horribly, horribly wrong, the worst case scenario for day 4 is 5 townies to 3 scum. No problem. Responses to posts in thread: @chocolate If this wasn't a newbie game, I would lynch you for that post. @DoYouHas I think you're right on with that post. Not a big fan of the FOS thing, but whatever. I think it gives them room to run and hide. Instead, GO FOR THE KILL. @gumshoe See above. @fourface Start explaining yourself, or I'll start the bandwagon rolling. @phagga I stand by what I said. I would much rather lynch scum, but if I can't, I'll lynch lurkers. The town lost that game because they let Palmar double lynch every day. As far as those two specific cases, rgTheSchworz should have been modkilled, and I would have lynched Lanaia instead mderg if I had had the time that day. She had no case against him, and I would have pointed that out, regardless of my alliance in that game. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
Now to actually read your post. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
##vote fourface | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
My head still hurts. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
For me, personally, I don't use the FOS. If someone is acting scummy, I call them out on it. If I don't have a better lynch target, I vote for them. If your way of calling out people for being scummy is to use the FOS, by all means go for it. And I was laughing at the irony comment. I do appreciate good irony. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
HA! I saw what you did there. Lmao. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
Editing: Editing is not allowed for any reason. Editing will result in a warning. After that, you will be modkilled. This is the one part of the site where it is okay to be double posting, even triple-posting. While I ask for everybody to post as concisely as possible, post again if you have to edit anything. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
Let's say that everyone agrees to no-lynch day 1. Instead of arguing and creating content, everyone agrees and nothing happens. The deadline from day 1 comes and goes, and the mafia gets to kill one random townie for free. Day 2 starts, and we are left in the same position that we were in Day 1, only now we have one less townie. This outcome has no benefit for the town. Instead, let's say that we agree to lynch a lurker. (Obviously, scum would be better. This goes without saying.) Now, we have people arguing over who is the better lynch. The lurkers are forced to interact with the town. Sides are picked, fights are fought, and maybe we lose a townie over it. Night 1 comes and goes, and we start day 2, AT WORST, down two townies. Instead of having nothing to go on, we have pages of content that we can analyze for inconstancies and patterns. The mafia are most likely going to kill people who are on the right track, giving us clues as to who they are. The town may be down a player, but has so much more information to go on. Of course, one could make the argument of "Well, why don't we just pretend to lynch someone." Empty threats aren't going to force people to interact with the town. The follow-through is important. And that is why I support lynching a lurker (scum would be better) day 1. When I get home, I'll take another look at the thread and throw in an opinion on who might be a good day 1 lynch. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
By the way, earlier in the thread, people were asking about what times people are on, mine tends to be about 21:00 GMT (+00:00) to around 03:00 GMT (+00:00). I might stop by every once in a while, but that is the time when I'm most active. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
@alderan I called out chocolate in thread for doing that. At best, that argument is WIFOM. Also wrong, chocolate voted to lynch phagga first. @sloosh I don't like no-lynches. See #. Happy to readdress this if you don't feel that is sufficient. @janaan Again, see above. I think that no-lynches are more dangerous that mislynches. @phagga At the time, Hyde had not posted in thread, therefore he was a lurker. Since then, he has posted in thread, making him not a lurker. Now, according to my own logic, I need to prove that he is scum in order to lynch him. As I can't do that, I'm not going to vote for him. I don't see the problem here. @k2hd Again, that was premature, see comment for hyde. @phagga See above comment. @nightfury I think I've addressed most of your concerns already. If not, point out what you're not happy with. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
--UNLESS-- ...there are scum. Oh boy, are there scum in this thread. I'm not down with an Igabod lynch (at the moment. Igabod, post more.) simply because there are scummier targets. On February 28 2012 06:37 Chocolate wrote: Right now I'm looking at igabod because he has almost no posts, and because I'm not getting strong reads on anybody else at the moment. I'm looking at some of the people who seemed to be bandwagoning/sheeping on to me, but I do realize that you all want a lynch to gain info, and I may represent the best case to you. Tells us not to jump on the bandwagon. Immediately jumps on the bandwagon. Also, he's posted very little content up til now. His post history is "let's lynch lurkers, let's not lynch lurkers, let's lynch lurkers who don't post in the next hour, let's lynch phagga for lurking, sorry for jumping on the FourFace bandwagon, let's lynch Igabod." Chocolate's Filter And now, his most recent post is "Alderan used an OMGUS sort of, FourFace is fishy, and here's another lurker." Not impressed. Scummy lurker >> regular lurker. ##vote chocolate Just as an aside, did you know that out of the 14 people playing this game, only 4 of them agreed to a no-lynch on day 1? | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
@Janaan I second what alderan said. Who you voting for? | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
@Alderan Same goes to you. Who you voting for? | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
On February 28 2012 09:11 Qatol wrote: Also, FourFace's edits from earlier have been reverted. They should look like they did originally now. Huh. # and # for reference. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
On February 28 2012 10:04 DoYouHas wrote: Show nested quote + On February 28 2012 09:56 phagga wrote: On February 28 2012 09:47 DoYouHas wrote: We don't know igabod is getting modkilled. There is every chance that he will be replaced. Because of this I still think that he is our best lynch option. This argumentation is absolutely stupid. If igabod is getting replaced, then he was not playing the game at all. Therefore him lurking does not say anything at all about his alignement. He might even be a blue for all we know, and some real life matter keep him from playing. This is exactly the reason why we should NOT just lynch any lurker. So as long as igabod is not casting a vote, we should not try to lynch him. It is too late to swing a vote towards someone not Ghost/Chocolate/igabod or maybe Steve. I do not believe that Ghost/Chocolate should be lynched today. Yes, it is possible that igabod is not scum, we don't know. The reason we lynch igabod now is so that we don't go into day2 with a person we have absolutely no information on, which is not a situation I want to be in. That makes him a better lynch target than Chocolate or Ghost to me. I completely disagree with you there. The entirety of the game has built up to this moment. Lynching either of us will give the town a plethora of information. You can look back and see who pushed for what lynch, who supported them, who jumped on board, who jumped off... quite frankly, lynching someone other than the two of us is wasteful. Lynching a non-posting lurker at this point tells you about them. Lynching either me or Chocolate tells you about everyone in the town. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
We could vote to lynch Igabod. That's not even really a bad idea. He's been lurking hardcore. Kinda scummy if you ask me. And I don't like scummy. However, his flip doesn't tell us anything. Maybe, we'll get lucky and lynch a scum. Odds are about, what, 28%? You can do worse than that. Other option: You lynch either me or chocolate. I think it's pretty well established, one of the two of us is scum. If whoever gets lynched flips red, awesome! Lynched a scum! If not, guess who the first person on the chopping block is tomorrow. The guy who wasn't lynched. Either way, going into day 3, the town is down one scum. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
On February 28 2012 07:09 Alderan wrote: @Steveling have you been actively pursuing getting a replacement or no? @Chocolate aside from igabod who are you thinking is appearing scummy? Are you really getting a null read on everyone? To anyone who cares, I don't think Ghost_403 is that suspicious anymore. I realized that it is more likely that either Ghost or Chocolate are scum, Chocolate strikes me as someone riding the middle and keeping his head down. That's why. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
On February 28 2012 11:26 Chocolate wrote: You do realize that is basically a vote swing, which you state is bad? Stand by your words. If I get lynched we will get good info on alderan, gum, dyh, sloosh, Phagga, and night. What makes you say that? | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
On February 27 2012 07:18 ghost_403 wrote: A soft deadline isn't really needed. At all. If your concern is that people change their votes at the last minute and mess up votes, there is a simple solution to that: we lynch people who change their votes at the last minute and mess up votes. I would rather lynch scum over people who mess up votes, but I'm down with policy lynching. Townies, don't change your vote at the last minute and mess up votes. I will vote to policy lynch you. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
On February 29 2012 00:53 phagga wrote: (I am not sure which word you mean. If you mean mafia, why not just write it? It's not like you're reading the insignia of The One Ring and Sauron can hear you.) DON'T SPEAK OF SUCH THINGS. @gumshoe You claiming that a chocolate mislynch would be "your" fault is strange. Not sure what to make of that. Now, let's see what I missed. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
Just for future reference, I don't find people who vote at the last minute scummy. I find people who vote at any point without good reasons scummy. This includes the people who couldn't give me a good reason last night when I asked them, such as Janaan and Alderan. I didn't press those at the time being because I felt that it would be better for me to push people who were on the fence towards a Chocolate lynch, as opposed to pointing out scummy behavior. More on this when I get home tonight. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
SUPER VOTE GUMSHOE. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
On February 28 2012 10:02 Alderan wrote: I might have lied to you. I just went back to the voting thread and here is what I saw: igabod - 5 k2hd DoYouHas Chocolate Janaan Steveling Chocolate - 5 phagga JekyllAndHyde slOosh ghost_403 NightFury Of the 5 voting igabod I have suspicions of 4 of them. k2hd Chocolate Janaan Steveling Of the 5 voting for Chocolate I have town reads on 3 (and a half) of them. Obviously not going to list them. The way this looks to me, without one clear bus target is that we might be right. I think Chocolate may actually be scum. I think they are in a position where they have to stack on the inactive so as to save their team mate. Potentially changing my vote, what does everyone think? So, let me get this straight. Correct me where I'm wrong. 1) You think Chocolate is scummy and make a not terrible case against him. 2) He defends, adequately (according to you), and you decide that he might not be the best day 1 lynch. 3) You complain that people are busing against Chocolate, and change to a Steveling lynch. 4) You then go wishywashy in-between an Igabod lynch and a Steveling lynch, based on almost nothing. 5) You then make the above post saying that you think most of the people on the Chocolate lynch are townies and that they might be right. 6) Call Chocolate fishy. 7) Return to being wishy washy on the no lynch/lurker lynch thing. By the way, you were right on the Steveling thing. If I had been less sure that Chocolate was scum, I would have lynched him instead. Voting lurker? Not in my town. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
This post brings nothing new to the thread. Not impressed. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
ghost_403 narrows his eyes ...yet. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
Cue suspenseful music | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
On March 01 2012 02:21 Alderan wrote: - You say I'm just defending myself and that's where I'm generating content. If I'm correct I have posted more player analysis than anyone in this thread. Just because they are not "Super long, one post a day posts" (that I did last game when I was scum; that you are doing now) doesn't mean I'm not generating content. Quite a claim. I'll get back to you on that. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
As a note to everyone, I think that a gumshoe lynch is acceptable, but not optimal. If we are to believe him, that he is just a townie disinterested in playing the game (and I don't see a good reason not to), I think we are wasting a lynch at this point. I would much rather focus on weeding out other scum at the moment. Let's not just agree to lynch gumshoe and be done with it. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
My problem with him, in addition to the things that I brought up on Day 1, is that he brings nothing new to the game. He is the perfect example of a scummy lurker. His goal is to post enough in the thread to make himself look townie while providing nothing of value. Let's take a look at a couple of the posts that he's made. (Fun fact: these are in fact ALL of his posts since Night 1.) On February 28 2012 11:42 Chocolate wrote: Didnt like night because he was ambivalent until I told him I wanted people to panic a little. Phagga because he voted me because I was voting around w/o intentions of lynching. Can't figure out who he's talking to in this post. He basically says here that he doesn't like the people that voted to lynch him. On February 28 2012 11:54 Chocolate wrote: Show nested quote + On February 28 2012 11:52 ghost_403 wrote: @sloosh Here's what you missed. All (almost all) the people voting against Chocolate have held their ground, all the other people have hopped, skipped, and leaped all over the place, finally deciding on trying to lynch the guys who's going to get modkilled for not voting in order to force a no-lynch. I bet the other 2 will get replaced too Responds to me with a contentless post. Useless. On February 29 2012 07:53 Chocolate wrote: Show nested quote + On February 29 2012 06:58 Alderan wrote: Jekyll, what do you think about the current cases at hand, namely the ones against Chocolate, myslef, and k2hd. I'm still a case -.- Just read the thread, I think the cases of alderan and k2hd are pretty good. Show nested quote + On February 29 2012 03:54 Alderan wrote: The K2hd Case Why I found you suspicious the originally: - You had, prior to the very end of the day yesterday, exactly 1 productive post. - Your first point in said post was to say you didn't find FF very scummy. - Your second point was to find Ghost suspicious for the same thing that seemed to clear him for everyone else. - You soft agree with me about Chocolate. - You vote for a no lynch. You had no strong convictions, made no original cases, you simply agreed with other people sentiments, and then chose to vote for a no-lynch, the ultimate middle of the road move. Important note: Notice the fact that you voted for igadob is no where to be found in this reasoning. It's because that move is not inherently scummy, I found you and 3 others that were voting for igadob suspicious, which in turn lead me to believe that Chocolate could be scum. I had enough doubt however to choose to vote for either lynching the scummiest lurker in my mind, or no lynching. Why I find you more suspicious: - Opening sentence of your second meaningful post is "Now for those who are starting to suspect me." What a bizzarre way to start a post, I've never heard a towny be worried about being "suspected" - The rest of his post has absolutely no substance. - Spends 3 paragraphs saying he's going to be inactive a lot. - Says he couldn't make an informed enough decision to switch votes to get a lynch because of his inactivity. - Touts being the first to "bring igadob up. He was a lurker, you didn't do anything special, you just voted for a lurker. Who tries to make their actions look more meaningful than they are? Scum. - Agrees with Sloosh and Zelblade that I look suspicious. Makes 1 extra point about the case that was inherently flawed. You state that I was giving Janaan a pass. I wasn't. In case you did not notice all of those people were lurking really hard, except for Janaan, who was posting enough, just not making a stand on anyone, and that's what I was asking him to do. See what you guys think. The first part is a good find, he does seem to be contributing the bare minimum, not really doing anything productive but providing "safe" views. Agree with the bringing igabod up part. Agree with the fluff part. Now this is seperate but alderan brings up another good point this wishy washy stance is not beneficial for anyone but mafia. As for the alderan case, he does seem to be moving around a lot too, but at least he is driving discussion. Voting for steveling over igabod makes sense with his explanation. Basically those two points are the whole case? With those alone I'm not bought. TL;DR - I agree with Alderan, begin wishy-washy is bad, Steveling was a better lynch than Igabod (which Alderan already stated here). Next post, he defends himself from Phagga. Posts some thoughts, nothing profound. We have to note here that the only reason he did this was that he was provoked. Next three posts say nothing. On February 29 2012 11:03 Chocolate wrote: Show nested quote + On February 29 2012 09:07 NightFury wrote: Okay. Caught up with the thread. As for the no lynch - Can't say I'm 100% pleased with the decision. But I suppose people do have different priorities. All I know is that we have one extra day/night cycle. And since it has already come to pass, I see no reason to dwell on it. Really happy we have substitutions for the two inactives and one with questionable sanity. Hope this leads to productive discussions. As for the new cases proposed - I'm still trying to digest information on them. I don't have anything new or constructive to add at this moment in time. I do have one question for Chocolate. This is mostly for my understanding than anything else. I do understand your strategy on day 1 was to get people talking and I definitely see the merit in that. So I won't be beating that dead horse anymore. Why would you choose a dishonest strategy that basically involves empty threats to produce conversation over others (i.e. case building)? I cannot wrap my head around why you opted to do this. I did state previously that it could have just been reckless play and that could still be a possibility - but I need to know more information before I can return to that stance. Just for clarity - I remain in the opinion that your play has been scummy and that you are still a valid lynch candidate. I am heading out for dinner now. Will be back in a little while! I think the answers produced while under pressure would just be better, and people might actually feel the need to respond more. Responds to pressure, nothing new. On February 29 2012 21:36 Chocolate wrote: Then we should play out the day and see what presents itself -.- Also don't contribute just for the sake of contributing, contribute to try to find scum. I'm already getting bad vibes from you, nttea My favorite post. Yells at nttea for posting without saying anything. LOL. On March 01 2012 06:47 Chocolate wrote: I just got home . Not many people were on yesterday for me to talk to. Show nested quote + Also zell blade I would rather you never have stated that information at all, nothing good can ever come from discussing non hit night actions Ok first I'm going to be a hypocrite and tell you to stop talking about this, by talking about it Same goes for analyzing night actions, they are exercises in WIFOM and attempting to draw conclusions from them is stupid and scummy. Definitely agreeing with phagga here. In fact this is making me very suspicious of gumshoe. I wouldn't expect someone like him to try to do that at all, and the blue discussion with zell can't help town one bit. In addition, why wouldn't he claim RB? The only thing I can think of is if zell is mafia and is trying to make it seem like there is an rb, but I'd get suspicious if he kept claiming rb every day. In addition, if he gets lynched and flips red, any other players who have claimed RB would probably get lynched quickly. Zellblade's point on gum's posting habits is good. I dislike gum's choice to curb his posting, imo it seems to be an excuse to post less (think the amount I posted in II ) while still seeming town, because he has an excuse. I hope to see substantial posts from gum, and answering questions when needed. If he goes lurker mode I won't hesitate to lynch him. Tells us that the guy who thought about getting modkilled is kinda fishy. Profound thought here. Take a minute to go back and read through his filter. All of his posts thus far have been either, A) agreeing with other players, B) finding lurkers scummy, or C) defending himself. Chocolate has not brought anything new to this thread, and is therefore, a scummy lurker. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
After my fourth reading, it seems that you are most consistent than I previously believed. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
Post by DoYouHas You were wondering what I thought of your case? Meh. Your argument that he's busy is pretty week. Point 2 is meta. Point 3 is something that I argued for in Day 1. Nailed point 4. Point 5 is point 1 again. It's a weak case, but I like content. Post by k2hd I really like the fact that in this post, you bring up the fact that Chocolate made this post, saying that lynching him would give the town info, then bringing up this post, where I say the same thing, only earlier. For some reason, it's good enough to lynch me, but not him. Now onto reading some filters! Whoo! | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
On March 02 2012 07:44 Chocolate wrote: We definitely do need to post more NOW and not wait until an hour or two before the deadline. Thisis hypocritical coming from me though because I am going to be gone for 1:30 soon. Gum where do you stand on a nightfury lynch? an alderan lynch? I like how you ask about a nightfury lynch. You make a (weak) case against him, he responds, you ignore his response, and now you want someone else to weigh in on it instead of ever defending your case. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
That being said, you're right, phagga's vote doesn't make a lot of sense to me. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
Let's pretend for a moment that you are a vigilante. It's the end of night 2, and you just know that you are gonna die. Mafia figured it out, and you're as good as dead. You have one shot. Who do you shoot? Hard mode: nttea and test are not valid responses. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
On March 02 2012 08:40 gumshoe wrote: ##Vote: TestSubject893 | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
1) He asked for it. (Well, he took it back, but more on that in a sec.) 2) He hasn't brought anything new to the table. The first point is rather weak. While he did ask for it, he ended up taking it back. As I pointed out earlier, playing against your win condition is very, very bad. He offered a not terrible reason for this request, saying he didn't want to play. That's fine, mafia isn't for everyone. phagga (I think it was phagga) offered another explanation: he had managed to dig himself into a hole with the rolefishing (kinda/sorta/not really), and thought that he couldn't figure a way out. Playing scum in my last game, I felt the same way. It's not a bad argument to make. It wasn't enough to sell me though. The second point is the reason that I'm a lot more comfortable casting my vote on him. Scroll through page 36, and carefully read the dialog. All gumshoe really wants to do is lynch people not playing the game. nttea hadn't posted anything in two days when he made his post against him, showing me that he wasn't really playing. I consider him someone who should be modkilled, not a lurker. Honest mistake, but not the least bit helpful. He had a bit better case against test, but nothing earth shattering. That's when I asked him this. + Show Spoiler + On March 02 2012 08:24 ghost_403 wrote: Okay gumshoe, got a question for you. Let's pretend for a moment that you are a vigilante. It's the end of night 2, and you just know that you are gonna die. Mafia figured it out, and you're as good as dead. You have one shot. Who do you shoot? Hard mode: nttea and test are not valid responses. His response? On March 02 2012 08:37 gumshoe wrote: It comes down to phagga or sloosh, but in the end I'd end going with phagga because I dont like how aggresive he is and how he tries to destroy his opponents regardless of wether they are lynched. This response of his is based on nothing. Since the end of night 1, he has barely mentioned either of these players. There's no reason for this. I asked why. In his post, he has mostly personal reasons (sorry gumshoe ). I'll respond to his case in another post. Combine the fact that he dug himself into a hole yesterday, only wants to lynch people who aren't around to defend themselves, and the fact that when pressed he can't provide a proper opinion on a single scummy player in the game, and I you have a good enough reason for me to do the following. ##vote gumshoe Aside: nttea, if you don't tell me why you voted, I'm lynching you tomorrow. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
On March 02 2012 09:07 gumshoe wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2012 08:47 ghost_403 wrote: @gumshoe Over the last day, you have said next to nothing about either of those players, other than you think phagga is aggresive. Tell me why you're so eager to shoot him with your only bullet. 1because Ive been in no condition to attack them, I built my case around the person I was surest to lynch, sloosh is more a gut thing phagga basicaly said he was ok with a no lynch at the start of the game, saying we should only lynch scum, not lurkers 2phagga attacked chocolate earlier and hasnt let up despite the fact that at points chocolate had at least look as if he had improved, he always remaind suspicius of him, which leads me to bilieve it dosent matter to him if players improve he only cares about what mistakes theyve made 3I dont like how he contenuesley framed my pressuring zell as fishing for blue, I pressured zell because I dindint like that he gave us that information, 4I dont like that he placed his vote on chocolate and then said I was next, because what that basicaly means is that he postions himself perfectley to see a lynch through on either of us no matter what, sure enough as it seems im the more likely lynch things he switches to me. Also by saying im next he basicaly says theres no chance of me bieng town, which isnt a townie out look. 5Calls me pathetic ) : hurt my feelings,but also suggests that hes trying to destroy character regardless. Says he wont switch his vote no matter what and that towns only bet is me. 6Seems to be the most aggresive active poster and if I had to kill someone important it would be him. 1 Either bad play or desperation. I would expect a good town player to point out scummy play when they see it, not pretend that it was there all along when pressed. Unfortunately, bad play and scummy play are indistiguishable. 2 That means that phagga either is a jerk, or really thinks that Chocolate is scum. An opinion I happen to share. 3 That was (probably) very useful information, and I'm glad zelblade shared that. Of course, we can't confirm that the mafia has a roleblock until zelblade flips or a lot of people come forward, but still good info. Again, bad town play or scummy play on your part. 4 Again, that means he probably thinks you're scum. I would assume that he would change his mind if presented with a good argument made by you that you're town. 5 Sorry, that was a bit of a rude thing to do on his part 6 Lynching an active player who you're not sure is scum is a bad idea. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
Have you guys read the thread? I can throw a dart on page 38 and hit a post that paints gumshoe in a scummy light. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
@k2hd Sorry I missed your post against me, I will address it when I get home. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
As far as who I would like to lynch, I would like to take a look at DoYouHas (as you stated) and Chocolate. Both of them were giving off some bad vibes yesterday, which I pointed out here. I'll formalize my thoughts and opinions later. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On March 01 2012 19:39 k2hd wrote: I believe that chocolate is town. He's had a LOT of pressure put on him due to his sub-par posting on day 1, and had to defend himself left, right and centre for the rest of day 1. He's spent most of his time on defensive posts, and perhaps hasn't been able to focus on gathering much of his own evidence on other players. He is very aggressive in trying to force lurkers to post more by voting, but as was mentioned by DYH, this could just have been a poorly thought out way of fostering discussion. I understand that it may have been an easy way to avoid generating original content/cases of his own, but again, this is probably just the play style of a townie who is unsure of what to do, or who would rather not stick his head out too much. I did not check up on everyone's previous games, but from what I gather from what others have said, chocolate was mafia in his last game, had to tone down his posting because it was too aggressive, and hasn't played town before (unless he's had another game that I don't know about). There is also this post by chocolate: Show nested quote + On February 28 2012 11:26 Chocolate wrote: You do realize that is basically a vote swing, which you state is bad? Stand by your words. If I get lynched we will get good info on alderan, gum, dyh, sloosh, Phagga, and night. Why would he argue so confidently against a vote swing AWAY from him? Chocolate is also one of the first to start getting suspicious of alderan. After day 1, some of the heat was finally lifted off of him and focused on alderan by others. Following this, we have sloosh post a large case against alderan, followed by JekylAndHyde's case, and alderan is under more and more pressure. Instead of continuing his case against alderan, chocolate decides to launch a case against night fury of all people, who no one had posted any suspicions against yet. If he were mafia, why would he not join others in pressuring alderan (or the case that is piling up against gumshoe), and go for a target who would be harder to mislynch? I sincerely believe chocolate is town, and that some of those pressuring him hard are looking scummy to me. Those who voted chocolate on day 1: phagga, sloosh, NightFury, ghost I currently do not have as much info as I'd like on NightFury to say much about him. Sloosh's actions seem pro-town to me so far, and though he has not posted as much as others, his posts have generally been full of content. Now for the remaining two: Phagga has been trying very hard for a chocolate lynch the whole game. He takes a moment to call gumshoe out on why he didn't change his vote from ghost, and why he felt the need to "take responsibility" for voting chocolate if he flipped green, and then goes straight back to attacking chocolate. He is either getting tunnel vision with chocolate, or trying to get the mislynch on him. Have a look at this post. He accuses chocolate of relying on the arguments of others, and voting lurkers (a policy which he did state at the start), but ignores the fact that it is chocolate who first brought up a case against alderan (albeit a rather lackluster one) and states emphatically that he will vote chocolate again on day 2, presumably for not coming up with original cases/evidence, when there was still 48 irl hours for chocolate to contribute on day 2 (day 1 had not even ended yet). This early vote behaviour was the same thing we called nttea out for when he wanted a default alderan lynch. Then we have ghost. His last few posts have all been aimed at chocolate. here they are Ghost and phagga engage in banter that seems like bullying chocolate to me in the first post, and the second post is unnecessary, because although chocolate did not do anything like make a new case, it was still a valid point. Nttea should not be posting like that, and if he is as clueless as he says he is, chocolate was only helping him. The way he analyses the chocolate quotes in the third post is very condescending in tone. He could have done so without putting chocolate down, as others in the thread have done. I also do not trust this post made by ghost: Show nested quote + On February 28 2012 11:03 ghost_403 wrote: You see, this is how I see it. We could vote to lynch Igabod. That's not even really a bad idea. He's been lurking hardcore. Kinda scummy if you ask me. And I don't like scummy. However, his flip doesn't tell us anything. Maybe, we'll get lucky and lynch a scum. Odds are about, what, 28%? You can do worse than that. Other option: You lynch either me or chocolate. I think it's pretty well established, one of the two of us is scum. If whoever gets lynched flips red, awesome! Lynched a scum! If not, guess who the first person on the chopping block is tomorrow. The guy who wasn't lynched. Either way, going into day 3, the town is down one scum. Trying to gain the trust of the town by encouraging a chocolate or ghost lynch on day 1. If chocolate flipped green, suspicion may still have fallen off of ghost because mafia would presumably not make a post like this. I realise that this point is a bit WIFOM (I think I'm using the term correctly?). Basically, it seems to me that phagga and ghost are actively trying to discredit chocolate after his already shaky start, and possibly also get the mislynch on him. I don't really know what points you want me to address here. As far as pressuring chocolate, I think he's scum. If I didn't think he was scum, I wouldn't be pressuring him. He hasn't done anything to change my opinion of him since I posted my initial argument or the one thereafter. I've seen him time after time in this thread buddy up to DYH, who I also think is scummy. DYH's insistence on a policy lynch on Day 3 is downright dangerous to the town. As far as being condescending, you're right. I could have presented my arguments better, and for that, chocolate, I apologize. As far as that post you quoted, I stand by it. I think that we would have had a much more productive Day 2 with a lynch Day 1, regardless of whether Chocolate or I were lynched. Either of our flips would have given the town a lot of information. You're right, I made that post from a safer position, but that doesn't mean that it's any less true. If you feel I haven't addressed one of your points properly, point it out and I will. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
On March 03 2012 02:58 DoYouHas wrote: This will be the scummiest thing I say all game. I don't care what nttea's alignment is, I don't care how well intentioned he sounds right now. He lurked for an entire day, after replacing a modkill, and then ninja voted. That means he gets lynched, period. I will not suffer that kind of play in any game I am in. The is the one instance where I will policy lynch the hell out of anyone. I really don't like this post. At all. Punishing his behavior at the expense of the town is horrible play. (Also, saying it sounds scummy doesn't make it any less scummy.) We have no reason to believe that we have either a medic or a veteran in this game, meaning that we will almost certainly be losing a townie every night. If nttea is townie, that makes it 5 townies against 4 scum on Day 4. I don't like those odds. Of course, he could be scum, but I haven't seen anything from you or anyone else that would convince me of that. I'm not happy about the ninja vote either, but I'm afraid we might be throwing away the game with a policy lynch at this point. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
A) More or less, you nailed it. I don't see anything wrong with that. B) That's just wrong. C) I stand by what I said. To expand on that. A) Authoritative and confident Confident? Absolutely. I believe that any other posture weakens my position. How many people are going to follow my lead if I come out saying "Well, this might be right, but I might be wrong..." No one. No one is going to listen to me. That's why instead I am confident. I believe the things that I say, and I am going to stick to them. When I am wrong, I will admit it and go to the proper position. If you'd like, I would be more than happy to reference a few of my posts where I admit that I am wrong and correct myself. If you think I'm wrong, I expect you to point it out, then I will respond as appropriate. Authoritative? That's a stretch. Best of my knowledge, I have never in this game (or in my previous) told anyone how to vote. The two quotes that you mention here are simply extensions of my confidence. ... And then immediately backs off when it gets called out as bad play for town. Not sure if worth noting, but deflects his change in stance by wanting to look at something different. As far as this specific quote in concerned, I wrote that as a response to zelblade's specific question. If he hadn't asked for who I would like to lynch, I would have left that out. I was actually looking forward to explaining my reasoning behind my change in position on the nttea lynch. B) Acquiring information This section is just plain wrong. I posed this question specifically as a thought question for gumshoe. Before this point, his only lynch suggestions had been lurkers. I wanted to force him into thinking hard about who he wanted to lynch, without being able to hide behind the town. You ask someone who they want to lynch, they start considering the prevailing opinions of the town, and include feasibility in their argument. You ask someone to pretend to be a vigilante, and all they have to do is prove it to themselves. I wanted gumshoe to prove to me that he was critically analyzing this game, which he wasn't. If you believe that gumshoe's answer was good, that's fine. I didn't, and that's why I voted to lynch him yesterday. Why would he just want to feed potentially useful information to the mafia? Not sure if that's directed at me or not. If it is, I'm more than happy to discuss my views on zelblade telling us that he was roleblocked. C) Miscellaneous - I am aggressive. I will admit when I am wrong. I've done this three times in this game already. I don't see how that's a problem or anti-town. Passive towns lose at mafia. - I still hold that the no lynch on Day 1 was a bad idea. On the off chance that Chocolate was lynched and was scum, I was going to use that particular piece of information to pursue further lynches. FYI, Janaan was one of the ones who was onboard with the no lynch idea. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
Catching up on le thread. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
To respond to k2hd's comment about my Alderan post, I was going to build a case against him based on him flipping his position several times during day 1. After rereading his filter, I realized that he was consistent in his posting, leaving me with no case against him at the time. But! Now is no longer then, and now I have another chance to look through his postings. His steady decline in posting as of late is fishy for sure. I'll chime in on that in a bit. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
I don't like the fact that he posted that list of how scummy he finds everyone without presenting anything alongside his list. Even a "I think this person is most scummy because I saw him eat a puppy" would have been better than that. @test You seen pretty sure that DYH is scum. Tell me why. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
Alderan, on the other hand, has been acting scummy and is here to defend himself. He suffered a rather steep drop off in posts as of late with no explanation. In addition, he voted nttea during night 2, and hasn't been seen since. - You say I'm just defending myself and that's where I'm generating content. If I'm correct I have posted more player analysis than anyone in this thread. Just because they are not "Super long, one post a day posts" (that I did last game when I was scum; that you are doing now) doesn't mean I'm not generating content. And that kind of thing rubs me the wrong way, but that's a poor reason for me to vote against someone. @Alderan - Make good on your quote, and tell me who I should be trying to lynch. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
Also, lurkers, stop lurking. You're really hurting the town at this point. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
On March 04 2012 03:53 Chocolate wrote: EBWOP those bottom three people (phagga, nightfury, zellblade) are the ones i'm most suspicious of right now. I'll finish my scum team with tessubject803. I think I have at least two right, but I'm on the fence about ghost, the hydras (need to reread their posts because I have them confused a little), and sloosh. @Chocolate What makes you think that neither Alderan or DoYouHas is scum? | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
I really don't like lynching people while they aren't here. That being said, I'm probably going to end up voting for either Alderan or DoYouHas. Leaning towards Alderan at the moment. More on this as it develops. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
His voting pattern day 1 left a bad taste in my mouth, he refuses to stick to his guns, and I think he pushes weak cases to hide the fact that he's scum. That, and all the stuff that everyone else brought up. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
On March 06 2012 03:44 DoYouHas wrote: + Show Spoiler + I can't believe you are all willing to ignore the primary suspicion of 2 flipped townies. And ignore both of their town reads on me. And not be suspicious of slOosh who pushed HARD a case that attacked 2 townies. No, he gets away from that mess perfectly clean.... why? slOosh's immediate response to the 'realization' that he had just spearheaded another townie was to blame it on everyone else. And now even though he just incorrectly pegged Alderan, he is perfectly confident that in spite of his own bad scumhunting and Alderan's defense of me, the other half of his initial case must be right. How is anyone possibly buying this? Just as a fun exercise, let's look at slOosh's responses to mislynching in his previous games. + Show Spoiler [SNMM7] + On February 23 2012 01:06 slOosh wrote: Ok. I'm back and catching up with the thread as I have been busy IRL and will be till tomorrow. Hopefully it won't stop me from responding and contributing. My stance on Mattchew - Show nested quote + the difference between me and sloosh is when townies don't vote his way he calls them scum, i just call them stupid He is probably correct. I went off the assumption that everyone has the same logic as me and if they didn't do what I would do they would be acting illogical hence mafia. I did not consider that people can be inexperienced. I responded negatively to Mattchew because he didn't say why my case was bad and it looked to me that he was distracting my case. I still don't like the basis of his case, that he did some filter pickings and chose 4 people who avoided each other. However, I cannot argue with results - it has promoted discussion and the suspects are posting more content. Objectively he is producing pro town content, even though it is through antagonistic means. I have to say he is leaning town right now. However, I am still waiting for his own reads. Enough content has been flying around and I want to see him to present a good case. The goal isn't content but using it to strengthen a case and lynch the strongest mafia suspect. I'm also going to have to retract my read on Alderan. That was just OMGUS or paranoia, and I can see where he is getting his case on me (even though I strongly disagree with the logic he uses, but as I stated above I'm realizing that not using my kind of logic does not necessarily equate with scum). Following post will address Mattchew's 4. + Show Spoiler [NMM3] + On January 27 2012 14:12 slOosh wrote: After cooling off, I have to reluctantly agree. I don't think me getting tunnel vision and attacking zarepath is helpful to town when there are still so many lurkers in the game. I'm willing to back off in order to punish inactives/lurkers. I do agree with MidnightGladius that Bromancipate is a good place to start. In both of these cases slOosh responds to mislynching by slowing down, reevaluating, and trying to get a better grasp on the game. Also, he tends to do this reevaluation by looking at other people's cases and putting his weight behind them. Does that look anything like his response to this mislynch? no. slOosh's biggest fear this game is that he loses it by tunneling the way he did in his 2 previous games. Does his response reflect that? no. He states that he tried his best to avoid it. Does he slow down? No, he instead throws suspicion on myself, chocolate, nightfury, and testsubject. Does he reevaluate? No, he comes after me with surprising certainty. Just the way he has handled his case against Alderan and me should be enough to get him lynched. But I know you will require more because you all love to frustrate me. So I will put together a bigger case on him. zelblade. I pointed out the fake claim because before it was only your word, now it is fact. That is a very important difference. I really dislike how you seem to be taking cues from slOosh who you also seem to have a town read on. I am confident in my town reads on JekyllAndHyde and NightFury. I lean town with Chocolate as well but that is less certain. I agree with Alderan that k2hd is probably town based off how slOosh used him in his case against us both. That leaves the 4 mafia in this list. 1. slOosh 2. Ghost 3. zelblade 4. Testsubject 5. Phagga Pull your heads out of the sand and let's get to work. Okay. Let's take a moment to compare lists. Between you and phagga, the two of you have managed to list the entire town. I think it's pretty safe to assume that everyone in the town is not mafia. Now, quit posting useless lists and give me a reason to vote for someone. Sloosh has been actively working to focus the town and find scum. If you have a problem with his case against Alderan, or anyone else, point it out. Saying "People who find him fishy end up dead" is 100% WIFOM. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
On March 06 2012 05:06 DoYouHas wrote: Ok Ghost, thanks for making it clear that you are scum too. Your two posts reek of feeling threatened by my post. "slOosh has been actively working to focus the town and find scum." "I am 99% sure that one of the two of you is scum, and I haven't decided which one it is yet." "@sloosh Stop tunneling DoYouHas." Oh the contradictions. First you hard defend slOosh, saying that he has been very pro-town (meaning you have a town read on him). Then immediately change that stance by saying that 1 of us MUST be scum and you aren't sure which yet. And you give advice to slOosh to stop tunneling me. You don't give advice to someone you don't have a town read on. Or in your case, someone who isn't your scum buddy. You want to appear on the fence between me and slOosh, but it is abundantly clear where your loyalties lie. Our medic is gone. We have no guarantees that we have a vet. We are about to walk into LYLO. That means that in order to lynch scum, without scum bussing one of their own, every single townie will have to line up behind a scum candidate. That makes this on the fence stance of Ghost's exceptionally anti-town. I was already pretty confident that I had all 4 scum in my list. Your posting has just made me more so Ghost. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe that your case against me rests on a single point: "Oh the contradictions." you took the liberty of summarizing the offensive posts, but I would like to take a moment to direct the audience to the specific posts in question. Here they are. (I included a bonus one for free.) I submit to you, there are no contradictions in my posts from where I stand. First of all, my comment on your list. Between your list and the list that phagga presented earlier, nine people have been deemed scummy between the two of you. Chocolate is the only one missing between the two lists, and that's because phagga spent the previous post claiming that he was scummy. Congratulations! That portion of your post does nothing but spread confusion in the town. That is inherently scummy, but certainly not enough for me to vote to lynch you. We only have one chance to get this right, and I don't want to do anything to screw this up. (By the way, the only person that the two of you agree upon is NightFury.) "Hard defense of Sloosh" - yeah, no. Just because I think "Sloosh is working to focus the town and find scum" does not mean that he's a townie. My previous game, Werewolves 2, featured Palmar doing that exact same thing. He actually found out who the detective was first day and decided not to kill him the entire game to build town credit. I don't trust sloosh in the slightest. However, regardless of his alignment, if he's going to find scum, I'm going to let him. I just showed you my views on Sloosh, so reiterating them here doesn't make much sense. Trying to prove that DYH is scum instead of hunting the low hanging fruit at the moment is not the least bit helpful. As for my final comment, I stand by it. After tonight, unless we get crazy lucky (I'M NOT BLUE FISHING I SWEAR), we'll be down to 5 townies and 4 scum. What we need most right now is time. By staying calm and not jumping to conclusions, we can make sure we get a scum lynch tomorrow. Instead, you are accusing me of being scum when all I'm trying to do is trying to keep tomorrow from being DYH v Sloosh. I'm trying to buy the town more time. We need more time so we can get a series of successful lynches, and win this game. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
Two quick notes. First of all, this post is my favorite post in the thread this far. On March 07 2012 02:34 DoYouHas wrote: Seems the battle lines have been drawn. Me, k2hd, NightFury, Chocolate vs slOosh, Ghost, Phagga, Testsubject. Jekyll, I don't know what you will end up deciding. But if I read the sides on this as clearly as I think I do, your decision is going to be the difference between an all townie lynching of scum and a bus. ##Vote: slOosh I love it because it so perfectly paints me, phagga and test into the corner. So beautifully scummy. Second note: in my opinion, this is a scum slip on DYH's part. On March 07 2012 09:50 DoYouHas wrote: Show nested quote + On March 07 2012 08:36 slOosh wrote: Let me refresh everyone's minds of a recent post. On March 06 2012 10:17 DoYouHas wrote: "He keeps putting weight on things that actually have no weight." I hope that those of you out there who are actually townies do not buy this. You currently have 3 people out there who you know for certain that their motivations are townie. gumshoe, Alderan, and yourself. Ignoring their suspicions and posts is pure folly. slOosh claiming they have no weight is absurd. Conveniently ignored are any of zelblade's reads, even though he just flipped town. Seems like you like to advice people but not listen to your own. You just like manipulation of dead townie's reads to paint me scum. You forget Alderan was the first to post PBPA on Chocolate, forget that gumshoe's suspicion is solely a "gut feel" but keep asserting the authority of dead people's posts. Wow, you're really grasping at straws now considering the post you quoted happened before zelblade died. There is no 'convenient ignoring'. In fact, I am really amused that you are the one to bring up how zelblade's death hurts my arguments against you. This morning in the shower I was musing to myself that the first person who brought up how zelblade's death discredits me was probably mafia (sort of like in the godfather where the rat is the one who proposes the meeting). It is just perfect that you are the one to do it, slOosh. It fits perfectly with your MO of trying to discredit me. See, it is true that zelblade was suspicious of me. It is also true that zelblade was on my list of possible scum. With 1 hit the mafia have thrown doubt both on my scumlist and on my aggression towards slOosh. zelblade is the perfect hit for framing me as scum. It discredits my case on slOosh, discredits my scumlist, and removes a townie voice that was opposed to me. Why would I do that to myself if I am indeed scum? So that I can make this exact defense? That is a pretty low reward for drawing suspicion back onto myself. + Show Spoiler + Of course, you all could decide that this is speculation into why zelblade was hit and therefore WIFOM and moot. As for Alderan, he did post the first PBPA on Chocolate, but if memory serves, he was not the one that pushed Chocolate's lynch in the end. He was, however, the one who speculated that mafia would push the case of a townie over one of their own day1. And would ya look at that, 3/4 of the people I suspect to be mafia are on that list. I really should be thanking you slOosh, in your desire to discredit me, you narrowed my list to 4. Townies don't think like this. Townies wait until someone accuses them of being scum and use the night kill as part of their case against them to make the claim that they were framed. I don't remember that happening. Scum, on the other hand, sit around worrying about how the night kill looked to the town, worrying if it somehow implicated them. A final thought for free. I'm okay with a Chocolate lynch. Unlike DYH, I haven't deemed him a townie because other people think he's scum. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
If we lose, I blame the town. If we don't, whoo! I get a whole 'nother day to convince DYH not to lynch me. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
Should be back around 9. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
March 08 2012 03:09 GMT
#1005
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
March 08 2012 03:10 GMT
#1008
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
March 08 2012 03:11 GMT
#1013
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
March 08 2012 03:11 GMT
#1017
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
March 08 2012 03:13 GMT
#1022
Don't feel bad. I was vig this game, and couldn't find a single scum to kill. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
March 08 2012 03:16 GMT
#1028
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
March 08 2012 03:22 GMT
#1039
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
March 08 2012 03:33 GMT
#1053
| ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
March 08 2012 21:07 GMT
#1092
On March 09 2012 05:46 jaj22 wrote: In a 4-10 newbie game with a roleblocker, I think you can safely assume that there's a DT. You also have to assume that the DT is not a complete idiot, otherwise you're screwed anyway. Therefore if he's not claiming, it's because he thinks he doesn't need to. If you're playing a GMarshal non-newbie game there might be two vets and two vigs, sure Regardless, town were screwed unless all five townies were on one lynch. DYH, Chocolate and K2hd all looked pretty sure of their Sloosh votes, so unless you thought all of them were scum, the only choice was to vote Sloosh. The DT assumption just helps you out a bit with that decision. I could see all three of them being scum. It would have been super aggressive on their part, but with most of the town lurking, they probably could have pulled it off. Honestly, I thought sloosh's move to try to get a Chocolate lynch was him sacrificing his teammate for an extra night for himself. I figured sloosh was the RB. | ||
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
March 09 2012 13:20 GMT
#1098
On March 09 2012 06:13 EternaLSC2 wrote: Ghost, when i was looking over the game i noticed lots of people finding you suspicious... However, i didnt find you suspicious at all. I thought you played well except for not shooting, although it could have been a good move. Haha, thanks. Now, if only I didn't suck at finding scum... | ||
| ||
Next event in 4h 33m
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft 2 • Berry_CruncH132 StarCraft: Brood War• practicex 33 • Gussbus • IndyKCrew • Poblha • Migwel • aXEnki • Laughngamez YouTube • intothetv • LaughNgamez Trovo • Kozan League of Legends Other Games |
ESL Pro Tour
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
Reynor vs MaNa
GunGFuBanDa vs Spirit
Elazer vs Krystianer
SKillous vs MaxPax
Big Brain Bouts
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
hero vs Soulkey
AfreecaTV Pro Series
Reynor vs Cure
ESL Pro Tour
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
[ Show More ] BSL
Zhanhun vs DragOn
Dewalt vs Sziky
CSO Cup
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
ESL Pro Tour
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
Gypsy vs Bonyth
Mihu vs XiaoShuai
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
|
|