|
On March 23 2012 21:11 Mattchew wrote:
lol coming from littlefinger i dont suspect it will hold much weight
Unfortunately it does not, we don't know his sanity. If someone were to check you tonight and confirm then maybe it would.
On March 23 2012 20:00 Acrofales wrote:
Risen: wtf did you do to this thread. You posted an entire page of posts with largely useless analysis and ended up sheeping the Mattchew vote. While I agree with your final choice, your reasoning is completely out of wack. In your giant walls of text, you say I am more suspect than Mattchew, yet you vote for him. Why?
There seems a lot of too-dumb-to-be-mafia going around and I think it would be way too easy to hide in this crap as mafia. We should stop using that as an excuse for anybody. I know that I have used it, but I don't give a crap at this point, the thread is getting so full of stupid, useless fake analysis stuff that I am almost at the point of saying we should policy lynch Sinensis, Risen, DoYouHas or risk.nuke for posting such inane stuff. I am new here and even I can see that the cases you post are flinterthin. Do you even think before you post, or are you really just trying to fill your filter with something that seems useful, but really isn't.
Talking about lynching. We have 13 hours left and I think it's about time to start making a decision and stop casting votes in senseless directions. Luckily my senseless direction 15 minutes into the game seems to be a pretty good guess and we should lynch Mattchew, based on my earlier stated case. Anybody have a better idea?
Policy vote the guy who posted huge swaths of analysis on players and is contributing? K. I wasn't 100% on mattchew, and after reading this post it's pretty much confirmed that acrofales is scum in my mind (or he's just a townie who's harming us more than he's worth). If you had bothered reading anything after my initial analysis (which I'm sure you did, and then just decided to not pay attention to because it helps make you look like you're contributing) you would know why I voted for Mattchew.
After I posted my analysis on you, I posted this.
On March 23 2012 06:02 Risen wrote:EBWOP for acro analysis Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 05:58 Mattchew wrote:On March 23 2012 04:08 Acrofales wrote:Also @Mattchew: Chaoser asked you why you were tunneling on me and what your opinion was of other discussions in the thread, including what you thought of Greymist. Your answer:
EBWOP: The thread has talked about WBG (which is stupid), Gumshoe's "scumslip" (A common scum tactic to "catch" a townie on) and me/acro, what else would you like me to talk about? Retarded policy lynches of liars and lurkers OH BOY!
He then asked you why you put "scum slip" in quotes, and not just straight out? What was your reasoning for making it seem a fake scumslip, rather than an actual scumslip. Is gumshoe your scum buddie? Anyway, you have not answered that question. Talking about that, you defended gumshoe earlier as well by implying that either I or he was scum, but not both. Now that you think I'm town, do you think he's scum? As for MrZentor's question, he (indirectly) asked you why you accused Lyter, which you have only just replied with: you basically say it was a fake accusation. At the time it didn't seem fake. Also, you accuse me of being emotional, but this: On March 22 2012 23:54 Mattchew wrote:
Acrofales, please point me to the meaningful conversations that I people seemingly want me to take part in, I see almost NOTHING of value that I haven't commented on already. Otherwise you are just stealing others words and have no idea what you are talking about because no one has been able to bring up examples of these conversations, yet I am continually ignoring them? is more emotional than I ever was. All I see here is a giant OMGUS defense. Mattchew is Mafia. I put scum slip in quotes because thats what others were calling it. I don't believe it was a scum slip so I put it in quotes.
Talking about that, you defended gumshoe earlier as well by implying that either I or he was scum, but not both. Now that you think I'm town, do you think he's scum?
This is COMPLETELY untrue. I NEVER said that 1 of you had to be scum, I simply stated that I don't think its possible both of you are scum, there is a HUGE difference. I called lyter scum, a lot of people will call a lot of people scum, sometimes it means something, sometimes its just a half -hearted reaction. I never used OMGUS, I just pointed out the fact that you are repeating the same things and being vague in doing so. and I have yet to get emotionally invested in a mafia game, just annoyed (at like every single one) Hey look, it's the miraculous post that will change acro's mind.
Seems to be working in collusion with you, but you don't need him to be working with you in order for you to find a post that will allow you to change your mind.
Then I made this post.
On March 23 2012 13:45 Risen wrote:
Yeah sorry about that, wasn't thinking entirely. The rest of my analysis and anything further will be compiled into spoilers. Having said this, I'm going to place my vote on mattchew and suggest a vig hit on acro for now. This is by no means my final position. Mattchew just screams scum to me right now. Also, a different possible vig hit imo is Lyter, since all he is doing is lurking. Nicolas is out of the game, btw. Pretty clear to me that anyone who was scum wouldn't find the game boring, ergo he's almost confirmed town to me.
Going to sleep or something soon. Might pop back in later if I'm still awake. I'll be on in the morning, though for sure.
##vote Mattchew
With supporting evidence in the form of...
On March 23 2012 07:05 Mattchew wrote:
Hey Risen, once again you (like so many others) post vague things about people as if they have meaning. When you say something like "what he has posted is quality in my opinion" why don't you actually point out what is quality and why instead of just calling it quality.
btw i doubt that i am focusing on one guy when I never voted him, have made a case on someone else, and actually voted for a third person
Which, to me, looks like someone scrambling to discredit me. Then again, someone who is town would be just as freaked out. My vote would still be on him had you not made that horrible, HORRIBLE post. How about instead of saying, oh hey his analysis is weak, you say, oh hey his analysis is weak for X, Y, Z reasons? I'll tell you why, because you're scum just looking to discredit me quickly. Yeah, I shit up the thread with all my posts and should have spoilered them into one post, but you're construing that as mafia play? You're attempting to say that someone who is posting analysis (whether I went about it in the correct manner) is playing scummy? Then what is town to you? Policy lynch someone who is posting analysis that can easily be looked back at day2,3, etc? Or lynch someone who is contributing nothing useful and is just tunneling the shit out of Mattchew (then calling out people who vote for him with "shoddy reasoning" that he never points out)...
I was wrong earlier. You don't need to get off Mattchew, you just need to start up the wagon a little bit and then discredit anyone who agrees that Mattchew's play was scummy. I think Mattchew overreacted to your focus on him if he's town and he's going to have to be looked at by someone. You can sit back and say, "oh I don't like your reasoning. You're doing that for the wrong reason." etc, etc, etc and bully people off of him and onto another wagon. So Mattchew, maybe you're town and acro is using you as his "oh I contributed and I'm covering my tracks by calling the other people who vote for him bad" it's an OMGUS waiting to happen (he actually did OMGUS me with his mentioned post). Then again, maybe you're scum and acro's plan for people to get off you isn't going to work out and you're lynched. I don't want to help acro in either of those situations, I want him dead. I think mattchew is a prime target for checking tonight, but not for lynching. As always, feel free to point out why you disagree with this post with a reasoned analysis. You'll note that I haven't called a single person out in this thread when they were suspicious of me if they had their opinion backed up. I probably messed up somewhere in here, and you can point out where I did so, and I can respond with a reasoned post explaining more thoroughly anything you have issue with. That's how town plays, that's how town wins. We post and post and post and explain ourselves until we see someone who's fucked up their web of lies.
Acro, your posting doesn't have any substance. That makes this an easy decision for me since I never actually placed my vote on Mattchew.
##vote Acrofales
|
Looks like I'm the only one on Acrofales now, and this surprises me. There are votes everywhere and I don't see that much logical reasoning behind a lot of it. Post your reasons for voting, people. Discussion is pro-town, silence is scum play because it leaves us questioning you at a later point in time.
Town and vocal
We look back on your posting history and see a consistent thought process
Scum and vocal
Eventually you will slip and there will be inconsistancies
Scum and silent
Can't get a read on you, seem to be a sheeping town, but maybe you're lurking scum.
Town and silent
Same as above
The pro-town play is to be vocal and to keep discussion flowing. Get to it.
|
Risen you did a lot of analysis on players but left out evantrees and Xatalos (among many others not saying this was intentional), I would like your thoughts on them
also, there was no discredit in my post to you, just asking for further clarification on vague reasoning (which you haven't done). When you look through my filter do you still see me as tunneling Acro?
|
On March 23 2012 23:20 Mattchew wrote:
Risen you did a lot of analysis on players but left out evantrees and Xatalos (among many others not saying this was intentional), I would like your thoughts on them
also, there was no discredit in my post to you, just asking for further clarification on vague reasoning (which you haven't done). When you look through my filter do you still see me as tunneling Acro?
More recently, no, I do not. I think you took the line offered and got yourself away from crazy. If you go through my filter you'll see that I stopped with my massive analysis chain because it was destroying the thread. When I get back from class today I'll make a spoilered post of my opinions on the filters of everyone remaining.
I understand your point about my saying "X is quality". It is not reasonable for me to say, "Hey you have to point out what you think is unreasonable in arguments" and then post that I think something is a solid opinion without stating why.
|
Hey Alderan!
On March 23 2012 08:38 Alderan wrote:
Layabout who should we vote for if not for you?
On March 23 2012 10:26 Alderan wrote:
I have a social tonight, didn't realize earlier. I'll be out until late this evening or tomorrow morning. That said I'm putting my vote on Layabout for the time being. He's a huge detriment to town alive.
##vote: Layabout
On March 23 2012 22:35 Alderan wrote:
Ok posting what I can before class, and then I'll be traveling back home for most of the day today.
@ DoYouHas - Again, I think you're meta'ing me too hard. I agree I've been lurkish this game, I've been a little bit busier than I originally anticipated.
@ Anyone that is clearing Layabout of suspicion. What have you seen from him to sway you otherwise? I just don't get it. He hasn't posted ANYTHING of substance. (That's not an exaggeration, it's literally been nothing.)
Frankly I expected much more from SLJ, so much so in fact that I think I'm willing to say that their play has been scummy thus far. They have provided such little to the town and have been extremely ambiguous in their pressures (Chaoser namely).
Why did you vote for me again?
(I say "again" but you never provided reason in the first place)
You have provided nothing of substance to back up your vote.
The way i see it, the sandro half of SLJ decided to vote for me and you decided to sheep them.
You think the SLJ is scummy.
But you are sheeping them....
|
|
|
On March 23 2012 13:09 chaoser wrote:
Oberyn, I asked you some questions in my previous post, Can you please answer them?
I think I covered most of them in my previous long post, was there anything you wanted me to elaborate on?
You comment on risk.nuke's misrepresentation of GreYMisT's joke, but you don't comment on GreYMisT himself. Would you consider lynching him?
On March 23 2012 04:07 GreYMisT wrote:
I'm fine with lynching Oberyn or Gumshoe, though it seems I won't get my gummy wish today.
##Unvote: Gumshoe
##Vote: Oberyn
On March 23 2012 08:23 GreYMisT wrote:
One thing I am not comfortable with this game is the posting of Sandro/Syllo. Not enough for me to call for their lynch right off the bat, but come on guys, posting "X is town, Y is Scum" now "Z is Scum, X and Y are both town" are not good enough reasons for me, nor have they ever been.
Apparently it is more than good reason for you. How is what they did any different for you're statement? Not once do you explain why I am scum. There has been more than enough time for you to move your vote to a preferred lynch candidate, but you haven't offered us anything.
Here are your contributions this game:
-Make a joke about lynching wherebugsgo
-Explain that it was a joke
-Inform a player there isn't a mayor election
-Shoot down a blue fish that obviously was a poor idea
-Pointing out that ON hasn't posted
-Vote for myself without providing any reasoning
I see no evidence that you care about town.
##Vote: GreYMisT
|
i am 8 hours from being lynched (the mechanics of this game lynch the leader in votes) and the thread is silent? I guess you are all ok with this? Scum is already winning by the lack of activity and spreading of votes (making it super easy to lynch town without them all jumping on 1 player).
|
Lol Risen. I don't think I ever called you scum, I got irritated reading useless analyses. The policy-lynch on people spamming up the thread with throw-away analyses was only semi-serious and posted in frustration at the lack of useful content. I'd rather lynch Mattchew or Gumshoe, who I suspect of actually being scum, rather than useless townies.
I called out your analysis together with the rest, because despite not being bad like the others, it spams up an entire page and rather than encouraging conversation, stifles it. Instead of correcting with a good analysis you overreact hugely about my suggestion to lynch, and post a load of WIFOM.
Also, your response to WBG is fishy: not only do we not know his sanity, but we don't know whether he'd even tell the truth, or even whether he is a DT. The only correct way of dealing with WBG's random assertions is to ignore them.
The only way for us to know anything is to scumhunt (and use our own DTs and trackers) textually. Btw, if WBG actually contributed some useful scumhunting, he *might* be worth listening to, but so far he has trolled and posted random assertions.
|
On March 24 2012 01:04 Acrofales wrote:
Lol Risen. I don't think I ever called you scum, I got irritated reading useless analyses. The policy-lynch on people spamming up the thread with throw-away analyses was only semi-serious and posted in frustration at the lack of useful content. I'd rather lynch Mattchew or Gumshoe, who I suspect of actually being scum, rather than useless townies.
I called out your analysis together with the rest, because despite not being bad like the others, it spams up an entire page and rather than encouraging conversation, stifles it. Instead of correcting with a good analysis you overreact hugely about my suggestion to lynch, and post a load of WIFOM.
Also, your response to WBG is fishy: not only do we not know his sanity, but we don't know whether he'd even tell the truth, or even whether he is a DT. The only correct way of dealing with WBG's random assertions is to ignore them.
The only way for us to know anything is to scumhunt (and use our own DTs and trackers) textually. Btw, if WBG actually contributed some useful scumhunting, he *might* be worth listening to, but so far he has trolled and posted random assertions.
how do you plan on us using our own DTs and Trackers if you are calling out gumshoe for trying to out blues?
|
On March 23 2012 13:09 chaoser wrote:Risk.nuke's "big post" is scummy as fuck (happy SLJ?): Firstly, it's taking greymist's post about wanting to lynch WBG out of context and misrepresenting it. It also has this paragraph which makes no sense: Show nested quote +If you look through his filter here. GreYMist Filter. His continued posts are pretty worthless. He makes a few points like informing how a Mayor system works, shoots down a role-claim. Denying freepasses and punching Mattchews poor logic in the face. Whilst these are alright posts and by that I mean not straight out useless or fluff they aren't doing much to help town either. They are just the kind of replies someone was going to post and GreYMisT posted first. So in terms of "helpfull discussion" aka "lynch discussion" GreY still sits on a pretty solid nothing. Denying freepasses and arguing with mattchew's logic would fall under "helpful and lynch discussions". And greymist advocated lynching gumshoe so he's got a strong stance already and not just "sitting on a pretty solid nothing". And while you're leveling all this criticism at greymist, you yourself have not been doing much either. How is this worthless multiple paragraph post a case? It's just trash. Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:24 risk.nuke wrote:On March 22 2012 09:20 risk.nuke wrote:
I want to kill greymist and gumshoe about equally much. just to clarify, my original vote for greymist was pressure and I want to lynch him now for other reasons. Where was the pressure?! You literally vote for him and then post one liners about wanting to kill gumshoe. What pressure was there?!?!?! ##vote: risk.nukeNicholas' big post: I don't understand this post. First you say that risk.nuke has posted the most scummy post (which I agree) but then you say both him and gumshoe are scum buddies? When risk.nuke has been saying gumshoe is scum since the start of the game? You're totally misrepresenting their relationship especially given the fact that in that post, risk.nuke even uses red lettering for gumshoe...Are you saying he's halfheartedly bussing or something? Can you explain how you arrived at that conclusion? And then instead of voting for him, you keep your vote on gumshoe...if you think risk.nuke has the most scummy post, why not vote for HIM? and then you ask for a replacement in thread with a shitty reason...I remember Curu modkilled DrH when he did this in lotr and DrH had a much better reason than you...I doubt you're going to get replaced so I suggest you keep playing and respond to my questions. That or you're getting modkilled. Oberyn, I asked you some questions in my previous post, Can you please answer them? And to answer yours, obviously something that I thought was pushing scum agenda. Usually this means misrepresentation. (cough cough, risk.nuke, Nicholas) Right now he's still a null read to me, especially since he's started to contribute/post more. gumshoe, I'm confused. Can you explain why you're voting for layabout and not someone else? Wtf is, "he might be aggressive scum or reckless town but he's dangerous as scum so let's lynch". Why not just go find someone else that you think is more likely to be scum?! Finally, Risen destroyed page 19...please don't do post-by-post analysis anymore, especially if you're going to marathon post like that...condense your ideas into one or two big posts...else it's hard to read
Chaoser,First I love how you take a direct and full quote and call it out of context.
then
chaoser wrote:
Denying freepasses and arguing with mattchew's logic would fall under "helpful and lynch discussions". And greymist advocated lynching gumshoe so he's got a strong stance already and not just "sitting on a pretty solid nothing". And while you're leveling all this criticism at greymist, you yourself have not been doing much either. How is this worthless multiple paragraph post a case? It's just trash.
These kind of posts are helpfull sure, but they are the kind of posts that if greymist hadn't posted them there are probably atleast 4 other people in this thread that would had if grey hadn't been faster.
I'm just trying to emphasize that these are the kind of posts that look helpfull and are a very easy way to make yourself look alot more helpfull and contributing then you actually are. And I wanted to make that clear so the town don't look at those posts and thinks they are more helpfull then they are. Posting these types of posts pose almost zero danger to the scumteam in the way that discussing lynches do.
About pressuring grey. I voted for him, that IS pressure you... "insert disparaging intellectual comment here"
I tried to make him come out and post, but it was completely ignored which was another thing that beeped on my scumradar.
Gumshoe: He's close the top of my lynch list and people are calling me chainsaw defending him by attacking greymist. You need to get your heads examined.
You can't say I haven't posted a case on him. He posted like a scum in the thread. My respons to that was saying I want to lynch him for those posts and I asked town who else wanted to lynch him with me (which if everyone would had been so kind as to answer could had been a great source of information). I could had made a case on him when I made one on Grey but all that would had led to would be getting comments from other players about how that had already been posted and how I only stole other peoples cases"
This is day 1. The most important informationgain today is who wants to lynch who, not who could make the best damn lynchpost based on ONLY day 1 posts. Good lynchposts are just another currency for how hard you're trying to get someone lynched which translates into information.
And go relook GreYMisT talking about wbg, he wasn't joking. And his post led to a bunch of useless wbg discussion just like he must have known that type of post would cause. And discussiong wbg instead of lynches are anti-townplay.
After a few people raises their eyebrows at the post he tries to dismiss it as 'beeing sarcastic.' Note that he doesn't do that immediately. In his first reply to SLJ he doesn't say a thing about beeing sarcastic but rather asking him what else to discuss. Which one obvious answer to is lynchcandidates.
|
hi risk, how do you feel about me being lynched?
how do you feel about xatalos and evantrees?
|
On March 21 2012 23:07 Oberyn wrote:Lets trust this guy.
You also made a joke at the start of the game, this isn't scummy, just ironic.
Evidence against you was already stated in the thread, but I will be happy to provide it again if that is your wish.
+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 01:57 Oberyn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 01:35 SamuelLJackson wrote:On March 22 2012 01:20 GreYMisT wrote:
Guys I say we lynch Wherebugsgo, just to be certain.
Sand/Syllo can you guys sign you posts? It makes it a lot easier for the rest of us to keep track of who thinks what.
Xatalos, I'm interested on what you think about Wherebugsgo/littlefinger. How do you think we should go about interacting with him now that we know he is 3rd party?
Also i would like to assure everyone that even though I am hosting Aperture Mafia, the science will not keep me from being active here. What part of MODCONFIRMED UNLYNCHABLE/UNKILLABLE do you not understand? Next person that discusses wbg or engages in any useless conversation with him get's my vote. Consider it like he is not even playing in this game. /sandroba I definitely agree with this. We shouldn't allow players to pretend to contribute by speculating on a role that has little impact on the events of the first few days. If wherebugsgo wants to coordinate with town to somehow mutually achieve our goals, then that's fine, but otherwise it is best to ignore him. Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 01:50 gumshoe wrote:
moving on lets discuss policy(it'll only take a bit and we may as well get it over with early on) do we set a preliminary lynch deadline?(im leaning 8 hours in advance if we do) Do we policy lynch hardcore lurkers?(by hardcore I mean like 3 one liners a cycle, personally for this because lynching lurkers always helps clear the air a bit and they werent helping anyway so nothing really lost) are we going to elect a mayor?( I've never done this before so I dont know how that works) If you want to discuss policy, then why are you just giving a bunch of questions? You should share what your actual opinion is. A no-lynch should be out of the question as this person suggests: Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 23:39 Xatalos wrote:
Ah, damn it... No editing! However, I just thought that since you HAVE to vote every day, it might not be such a bad idea to throw random votes early. In my previous Mafia games it was common not to lynch anyone on the first day, and wait for clues on the second day. When people random lynched on the first day, it usually just meant an easier win for the Mafia. We don't accomplish anything and obtain no information if everyone gets a free pass on day one. Lurkers should be pressured to post, but the day one lynch shouldn't only be focused on people without posts since it is also tough to generate information. Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 23:06 Xatalos wrote:(At least we now get to see some interesting reactions, I hope! Acrofales had a quite interesting reaction, too, although it doesn't necessarily mean Mafia yet... Some people haven't said anything at all yet, and I can't wait to see what they say. At this rate there will be a huge amount of data to base lynch votes on  ) This is a sketchy post. What does "interesting" mean? Is it scummy? You should draw conclusions rather than tell us that you look forward to reading peoples posts.
A big post of nothing, the first 3/4ths of this post are you agreeing with people and saying "like what this person said" and then quoteing what they said. Only at the very end to you contribute, in a very weird way. You basically dont call Xatalos scummy with his sketchy post, you instead just respond in a null fashion, and don't pursue the matter further.
His next big post is in response to pressure, where he was accused of posting carefuly constructed posts with no content.
So he does so again.
Afterwards he makes a massive post on his thoughts on every player in the game, Which for some reason seems to have sated all of you. why? posts like that are easy for scum because They know everyone's alignment!
Of particular note is his section on mattchew, where he says he had a great case written up on him being scum, but then decided not to post it. Why would you not share this if you are town?
And finally his "analysis" against me, which basically amounted to I've been busy and its day 1. At this point he has noticed that he will not be lynched, so he throws a vote on me. And yet notice that he does not comment on Mattchew, the leader in votes, at all. Why? Did he not say he had a case written up on him being scum? if he thought that would help wouldn't he post it? If he now made a 180 and now thinks matt is town, why not try to dissuade us?
Guys, I don't know why all the pressure dropped from this guy, but whenver someone completely ceases to be the center of attention day 1, somethings up.
|
Risk you are dense If you think I wasnt joking. Guess what you are doing talking about it? oh right, focusing all discussion on a useless topic. interesting.
|
grey, you haven't commented on me either?
|
I think gumshoe's first response to my vote wasn't suspicious, but in my eyes, he has only become more and more suspicious during the game.
On March 23 2012 10:55 gumshoe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:41 wherebugsgo wrote:On March 23 2012 10:01 gumshoe wrote:On March 23 2012 09:38 wherebugsgo wrote:
Explain how layabout's posts are harmful? Just saying so does not make them so.
In addition, lynching someone because they're a "bigger threat" as scum is stupid unless you've got 2 confirmed scum to lynch from. And guess what, that pretty much never happens, and that probably means town has already won. Umm you cant just say somethings stupid without going into why, oh and I've already gone into how Layabout's posts are harmful, he attacks for silly reasons like"you wont believe how often people who talk abut setup are scum" and he's tunnelling someone I believe to be a vulnerable but helpful townie. Hes also only become active now that hes been accused. Thats why I suspect him. Also if you suspect two people equally, if one of them is both a bigger loss(as town) and a smaller gain(as scum) whats wrong with choosing to save that person and go after the other guy you think is scum? you lynch to lynch scum, not to lynch whoever's "more threatening.' Why? because you don't know what their alignment is.The only two people you know the alignment of are yourself and me. Of course, if you're scum youll know the alignment of 3 others...but whatever. What layabout has said isn't harmful. It's completely true that often the first person to doubt a claim (almost immediately after it occurs) is scum. Who is he tunneling? If you suspect two people equally, you're playing this game wrong. Also how is it weird to equally suspect your two highest suspects?
His mindset seems to be completely wrong. It looks like he doesn't focus on lynching a Mafia player, but rather a person who is "useless" (no matter if he's town). First he says that Acrofales is pretty much certainly a Mafia player... Then he says that Alderan is also most likely in Mafia. But who does he decide to vote for? Not for either of these (apparently Mafia) players, but rather for Layabout - his only basis for this seems to be "even if he's town, we don't lose much by lynching him". The goal of this game is not to preserve useful players or to kill useless players - it's to lynch Mafia! If gumshoe isn't following this logic, he must be pushing the agenda of Mafia, not town...
I'm still suspicious of Mattchew, but right now gumshoe is looking more suspicious to me. I'll change my vote to gumshoe, but I would still want somebody to investigate/vigi Mattchew. Acrofales isn't to be given a free pass either - investigate/track maybe? I have a small suspicion of risk.nuke, mostly because he held back his reasons for wanting to kill GreYMisT for so long, but I wouldn't probably vigi him yet...
##Unvote
##Vote gumshoe
I'm not sure when I'll be back online, but hopefully before the deadline! 
|
Can people start answering my questions please
On March 23 2012 20:37 Mattchew wrote:
Acro, when I flip town, you will be the first person that Mafia points fingers at, because they know that we are both town and can probably get 2 lynches out of our argument. Have you completely ignored my last posts because I believe there is a lot of content in them, including an original case.
On March 23 2012 22:42 Mattchew wrote:
Hey ald, what do you think of xatalos and evantrees?
On March 24 2012 01:07 Mattchew wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 01:04 Acrofales wrote:
Lol Risen. I don't think I ever called you scum, I got irritated reading useless analyses. The policy-lynch on people spamming up the thread with throw-away analyses was only semi-serious and posted in frustration at the lack of useful content. I'd rather lynch Mattchew or Gumshoe, who I suspect of actually being scum, rather than useless townies.
I called out your analysis together with the rest, because despite not being bad like the others, it spams up an entire page and rather than encouraging conversation, stifles it. Instead of correcting with a good analysis you overreact hugely about my suggestion to lynch, and post a load of WIFOM.
Also, your response to WBG is fishy: not only do we not know his sanity, but we don't know whether he'd even tell the truth, or even whether he is a DT. The only correct way of dealing with WBG's random assertions is to ignore them.
The only way for us to know anything is to scumhunt (and use our own DTs and trackers) textually. Btw, if WBG actually contributed some useful scumhunting, he *might* be worth listening to, but so far he has trolled and posted random assertions. how do you plan on us using our own DTs and Trackers if you are calling out gumshoe for trying to out blues?
On March 24 2012 01:29 Mattchew wrote:
hi risk, how do you feel about me being lynched?
how do you feel about xatalos and evantrees?
|
On March 24 2012 01:54 Mattchew wrote:
grey, you haven't commented on me either?
Because I feel like you have less of a chance of flipping scum than Obryn
|
On March 24 2012 01:56 GreYMisT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 01:54 Mattchew wrote:
grey, you haven't commented on me either? Because I feel like you have less of a chance of flipping scum than Obryn
i know i wont flip scum, and i feel like oberyn wont either. His post on everyone feels like he is reading the game and trying to get his thoughts together which I read as fairly towny. My vote is soon to be moved I am debating on voting xalatos or evantree... what do you think of them?
|
Any update on Nicolas rage-quiting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
