|
On April 02 2012 03:55 layabout wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 03:46 Acrofales wrote:Ok Layabout, your posting is a bit contradictory. Here you say: On April 02 2012 01:34 layabout wrote:
Getting the item:
Going after the item would tie up a lot of the PoP's. Whilst there is a danger to the person being sent to get the item, anybody that pushed them over would likely be killed for doing so and so it would offer a 1:1 trade which would be good for town. If scum happen to have a hidden PoP then we risk losing the item, a townie and the PoP's for no gain.
This seemed to me pro-item-getting. In your follow-up you amended that. Fine, take yourself off the list, although I don't much like wishy washy behaviour. Maybe you can explain why you think my behaviour is "wishy washy" and why that is relevant. How is what i have written "pro item getting"? Somebody (bugs?) mentioned that it would be easy for scum to kill the person going after the item. I have written that if they do that they would either face a 1:1 trade or a free kill (if they have a hidden PoP like in Death factory). I also wrote that getting the item woud require a lot of PoP's. Please point out where the pro item getting part is.
I read that as in favour of getting the item, because a 1:1 trade is (usually) a town win (because more town than scum). It seemed to have the hidden mafia ability tagged on as an afterthought.
But why are you so uptight about it? You seem extremely eager to be taken off my scumlist. I was told last game (repeatedly) that overly defensive behaviour is a scum tell. Are you scum?
|
On April 02 2012 04:04 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 03:55 layabout wrote:On April 02 2012 03:46 Acrofales wrote:Ok Layabout, your posting is a bit contradictory. Here you say: On April 02 2012 01:34 layabout wrote:
Getting the item:
Going after the item would tie up a lot of the PoP's. Whilst there is a danger to the person being sent to get the item, anybody that pushed them over would likely be killed for doing so and so it would offer a 1:1 trade which would be good for town. If scum happen to have a hidden PoP then we risk losing the item, a townie and the PoP's for no gain.
This seemed to me pro-item-getting. In your follow-up you amended that. Fine, take yourself off the list, although I don't much like wishy washy behaviour. Maybe you can explain why you think my behaviour is "wishy washy" and why that is relevant. How is what i have written "pro item getting"? Somebody (bugs?) mentioned that it would be easy for scum to kill the person going after the item. I have written that if they do that they would either face a 1:1 trade or a free kill (if they have a hidden PoP like in Death factory). I also wrote that getting the item woud require a lot of PoP's. Please point out where the pro item getting part is. I read that as in favour of getting the item, because a 1:1 trade is (usually) a town win (because more town than scum). It seemed to have the hidden mafia ability tagged on as an afterthought. But why are you so uptight about it? You seem extremely eager to be taken off my scumlist. I was told last game (repeatedly) that overly defensive behaviour is a scum tell. Are you scum?
This is retarded. Defensive behaviour is not a scum tell. Just take a look at chaoser in the first Death Factory Mafia. Both town and scum of course don't want to get lynched, so people will get defensive no matter what their role is.
|
On April 02 2012 02:20 cascades wrote:
So, for example
##pull: palmar
Palmar should move from p19->p20
Simple roleclaim check. Also option of letting palmar get item still available. Personally, I view letting him get item as last resort. Not the best use of PoPs, but better than nothing.
What's with the hasty need to use a PoP on Palmar just to confirm his roleclaim? Especially since you helped him towards the item (or the lethal spots), when you yourself said that you do not want him to get the item unless as a last resort.
I don't like this at all, looks to me that you're trying to get away without responsibility for your PoP's. I don't think we were in that much of a need to confirm roleclaim, I am fairly sure we would've got it found out pretty soon anyway, for a more valid reason than yours. Thus, why are you dodging responsibility for your PoP's?
About a possible secondary voting system: I am not in favour of this. If the majority decides so however, I will try to be a teamworker as much as I can, provided the reasoning is good.
|
On April 02 2012 04:25 Nemesis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 04:04 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2012 03:55 layabout wrote:On April 02 2012 03:46 Acrofales wrote:Ok Layabout, your posting is a bit contradictory. Here you say: On April 02 2012 01:34 layabout wrote:
Getting the item:
Going after the item would tie up a lot of the PoP's. Whilst there is a danger to the person being sent to get the item, anybody that pushed them over would likely be killed for doing so and so it would offer a 1:1 trade which would be good for town. If scum happen to have a hidden PoP then we risk losing the item, a townie and the PoP's for no gain.
This seemed to me pro-item-getting. In your follow-up you amended that. Fine, take yourself off the list, although I don't much like wishy washy behaviour. Maybe you can explain why you think my behaviour is "wishy washy" and why that is relevant. How is what i have written "pro item getting"? Somebody (bugs?) mentioned that it would be easy for scum to kill the person going after the item. I have written that if they do that they would either face a 1:1 trade or a free kill (if they have a hidden PoP like in Death factory). I also wrote that getting the item woud require a lot of PoP's. Please point out where the pro item getting part is. I read that as in favour of getting the item, because a 1:1 trade is (usually) a town win (because more town than scum). It seemed to have the hidden mafia ability tagged on as an afterthought. But why are you so uptight about it? You seem extremely eager to be taken off my scumlist. I was told last game (repeatedly) that overly defensive behaviour is a scum tell. Are you scum? This is retarded. Defensive behaviour is not a scum tell. Just take a look at chaoser in the first Death Factory Mafia. Both town and scum of course don't want to get lynched, so people will get defensive no matter what their role is.
Heh, I thought the same as you last game, but I caught enough flak over my defensive response for most of D1 and a DT checked me out. Turned out I was really scum, so there might be something in it after all. I'm willing to give it a go this game.
Afaik the psychological reasoning behind it is something like: scum know they're guilty and are thus more insecure when called out on it: they will therefore get overly defensive, whereas townies are more secure in their safety and will be more rational. There's a difference between giving a reasoned response about why an attack is groundless and an emotional defense. I see more of the latter than the former in Layabout's defense here: he seems rather anxious to not be called scum.
|
On April 02 2012 03:12 Acrofales wrote:
I'm glad to see everybody is so busy scumhunting today! For the record, is being for the secondary vote scummy or townie? Just so I know, because honestly I cannot use pro or contra the voting system in any useful way as a scumtell.
MrZentor: I think you're basically right. Pushing (or actually pulling) Palmar (or anyone for that matter) is atm a high risk, low reward situation and we'd be stupid to do it. Atm the only reason to push someone right to the edge is because we want to lynch him.
Therefore, anybody proposing to get the item is scum.
Cascade, Nemesis, Palmar, Layabout and Mr.Wiggles: why are you pushing a scum agenda?
Getting the item has several advantages:
1. It gives town extra powers.
2. It lets us see if any players try to "accidentally" push someone off the edge(Pretty much instant scummy at that point)
But I guess right now, with the item being so far away, it might not be worth sacrificing 10 PoP just to get that extra power. We could try and get the item the next day instead then.
On April 01 2012 14:22 Bill Murray wrote:
Zentor is very protown, but it's hard to really get anything alignment breaking out of it on the first page, pardon my triple posting
BM, mind explaining why zentor is very protown?
|
cascades I really want to push you right now for that action
that was so anti town, if we wanted to go with the palmar/wiggles pushing plan
why would you waste that? I need to read the thread, and I have a friend over, so I will be doing it in a minute... I was skimming.
|
On April 02 2012 05:05 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 04:25 Nemesis wrote:On April 02 2012 04:04 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2012 03:55 layabout wrote:On April 02 2012 03:46 Acrofales wrote:Ok Layabout, your posting is a bit contradictory. Here you say: On April 02 2012 01:34 layabout wrote:
Getting the item:
Going after the item would tie up a lot of the PoP's. Whilst there is a danger to the person being sent to get the item, anybody that pushed them over would likely be killed for doing so and so it would offer a 1:1 trade which would be good for town. If scum happen to have a hidden PoP then we risk losing the item, a townie and the PoP's for no gain.
This seemed to me pro-item-getting. In your follow-up you amended that. Fine, take yourself off the list, although I don't much like wishy washy behaviour. Maybe you can explain why you think my behaviour is "wishy washy" and why that is relevant. How is what i have written "pro item getting"? Somebody (bugs?) mentioned that it would be easy for scum to kill the person going after the item. I have written that if they do that they would either face a 1:1 trade or a free kill (if they have a hidden PoP like in Death factory). I also wrote that getting the item woud require a lot of PoP's. Please point out where the pro item getting part is. I read that as in favour of getting the item, because a 1:1 trade is (usually) a town win (because more town than scum). It seemed to have the hidden mafia ability tagged on as an afterthought. But why are you so uptight about it? You seem extremely eager to be taken off my scumlist. I was told last game (repeatedly) that overly defensive behaviour is a scum tell. Are you scum? This is retarded. Defensive behaviour is not a scum tell. Just take a look at chaoser in the first Death Factory Mafia. Both town and scum of course don't want to get lynched, so people will get defensive no matter what their role is. Heh, I thought the same as you last game, but I caught enough flak over my defensive response for most of D1 and a DT checked me out. Turned out I was really scum, so there might be something in it after all. I'm willing to give it a go this game. Afaik the psychological reasoning behind it is something like: scum know they're guilty and are thus more insecure when called out on it: they will therefore get overly defensive, whereas townies are more secure in their safety and will be more rational. There's a difference between giving a reasoned response about why an attack is groundless and an emotional defense. I see more of the latter than the former in Layabout's defense here: he seems rather anxious to not be called scum.
Seeing as you are basing this off of the last game that you played played i suggest you go back to that game and see what happened on day1.
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=14041960
Then apologise to me.
Then admit that defensive behaviour is not a scum tell.
|
On April 01 2012 14:22 Bill Murray wrote:
Zentor is very protown, but it's hard to really get anything alignment breaking out of it on the first page, pardon my triple posting
BM, mind explaining why zentor is very protown?[/QUOTE]
sure, hold on
|
On April 01 2012 13:37 wherebugsgo wrote:
hi I'm a good toy.
Any questions?
On April 01 2012 13:39 MrZentor wrote:
Are you going to be as awesomely trollful as usual?
To me, even from the getgo, he felt like a "trolling blue"
It's the first line from him, though, so I don't want to suffer from CB, so I'll just wait him out.
On April 01 2012 13:57 MrZentor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2012 13:44 Mattchew wrote:
also, we should pop palmar to the blue item and then pull him back to safety. with syllogism and VE here it shouldn't be too hard to tell if he is a good toy or bad.
bedtime gn If we do that, we need to make sure it's really well planned out. We need to know who is going to vote for Palmar, so two people don't accidentally vote at the same time and push him over the edge.
this is a very protown post
On April 01 2012 20:52 Dirkzor wrote:
Weird claim by BM. Believing it would make myself or Zentor scum i guess? So lets kill zentor? =)
@dirkzor
How is this?
on the bolded, what?
on the italicized, can you explain what the word bussing means, dirkzor?
I have to post this
I have a new suspect, and potentially two caught here
|
Bill the pull sent Palmar towards the fire and would help any plan to grab the item. So it didn't ruin any potential for an item grab.
|
On April 02 2012 05:15 layabout wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 05:05 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2012 04:25 Nemesis wrote:On April 02 2012 04:04 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2012 03:55 layabout wrote:On April 02 2012 03:46 Acrofales wrote:Ok Layabout, your posting is a bit contradictory. Here you say: On April 02 2012 01:34 layabout wrote:
Getting the item:
Going after the item would tie up a lot of the PoP's. Whilst there is a danger to the person being sent to get the item, anybody that pushed them over would likely be killed for doing so and so it would offer a 1:1 trade which would be good for town. If scum happen to have a hidden PoP then we risk losing the item, a townie and the PoP's for no gain.
This seemed to me pro-item-getting. In your follow-up you amended that. Fine, take yourself off the list, although I don't much like wishy washy behaviour. Maybe you can explain why you think my behaviour is "wishy washy" and why that is relevant. How is what i have written "pro item getting"? Somebody (bugs?) mentioned that it would be easy for scum to kill the person going after the item. I have written that if they do that they would either face a 1:1 trade or a free kill (if they have a hidden PoP like in Death factory). I also wrote that getting the item woud require a lot of PoP's. Please point out where the pro item getting part is. I read that as in favour of getting the item, because a 1:1 trade is (usually) a town win (because more town than scum). It seemed to have the hidden mafia ability tagged on as an afterthought. But why are you so uptight about it? You seem extremely eager to be taken off my scumlist. I was told last game (repeatedly) that overly defensive behaviour is a scum tell. Are you scum? This is retarded. Defensive behaviour is not a scum tell. Just take a look at chaoser in the first Death Factory Mafia. Both town and scum of course don't want to get lynched, so people will get defensive no matter what their role is. Heh, I thought the same as you last game, but I caught enough flak over my defensive response for most of D1 and a DT checked me out. Turned out I was really scum, so there might be something in it after all. I'm willing to give it a go this game. Afaik the psychological reasoning behind it is something like: scum know they're guilty and are thus more insecure when called out on it: they will therefore get overly defensive, whereas townies are more secure in their safety and will be more rational. There's a difference between giving a reasoned response about why an attack is groundless and an emotional defense. I see more of the latter than the former in Layabout's defense here: he seems rather anxious to not be called scum. Seeing as you are basing this off of the last game that you played played i suggest you go back to that game and see what happened on day1. + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=14041960 Then apologise to me. Then admit that defensive behaviour is not a scum tell.
So your defense is a non-sequitur that you're innocent because you were lynched on D1 last game? Huh? How has this got anything to do with the topic at hand? Last game I actually thought town was rather insane for lynching you, but who was I to complain about town lynching one of their own?
I used the situation last game to clarify why overly defensive play is a scumtell, no more, no less. Are you trying to play onto my sympathies by referring to your D1 lynch? Why bring it up at all? /confused.
|
As an aside for BM: wow, it's easy to get in your good books. All you have to do is tell WBG he's trolling and make a brief post about policy.
|
On April 02 2012 05:33 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 05:15 layabout wrote:On April 02 2012 05:05 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2012 04:25 Nemesis wrote:On April 02 2012 04:04 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2012 03:55 layabout wrote:On April 02 2012 03:46 Acrofales wrote:Ok Layabout, your posting is a bit contradictory. Here you say: On April 02 2012 01:34 layabout wrote:
Getting the item:
Going after the item would tie up a lot of the PoP's. Whilst there is a danger to the person being sent to get the item, anybody that pushed them over would likely be killed for doing so and so it would offer a 1:1 trade which would be good for town. If scum happen to have a hidden PoP then we risk losing the item, a townie and the PoP's for no gain.
This seemed to me pro-item-getting. In your follow-up you amended that. Fine, take yourself off the list, although I don't much like wishy washy behaviour. Maybe you can explain why you think my behaviour is "wishy washy" and why that is relevant. How is what i have written "pro item getting"? Somebody (bugs?) mentioned that it would be easy for scum to kill the person going after the item. I have written that if they do that they would either face a 1:1 trade or a free kill (if they have a hidden PoP like in Death factory). I also wrote that getting the item woud require a lot of PoP's. Please point out where the pro item getting part is. I read that as in favour of getting the item, because a 1:1 trade is (usually) a town win (because more town than scum). It seemed to have the hidden mafia ability tagged on as an afterthought. But why are you so uptight about it? You seem extremely eager to be taken off my scumlist. I was told last game (repeatedly) that overly defensive behaviour is a scum tell. Are you scum? This is retarded. Defensive behaviour is not a scum tell. Just take a look at chaoser in the first Death Factory Mafia. Both town and scum of course don't want to get lynched, so people will get defensive no matter what their role is. Heh, I thought the same as you last game, but I caught enough flak over my defensive response for most of D1 and a DT checked me out. Turned out I was really scum, so there might be something in it after all. I'm willing to give it a go this game. Afaik the psychological reasoning behind it is something like: scum know they're guilty and are thus more insecure when called out on it: they will therefore get overly defensive, whereas townies are more secure in their safety and will be more rational. There's a difference between giving a reasoned response about why an attack is groundless and an emotional defense. I see more of the latter than the former in Layabout's defense here: he seems rather anxious to not be called scum. Seeing as you are basing this off of the last game that you played played i suggest you go back to that game and see what happened on day1. + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=14041960 Then apologise to me. Then admit that defensive behaviour is not a scum tell. So your defense is a non-sequitur that you're innocent because you were lynched on D1 last game? Huh? How has this got anything to do with the topic at hand? Last game I actually thought town was rather insane for lynching you, but who was I to complain about town lynching one of their own? I used the situation last game to clarify why overly defensive play is a scumtell, no more, no less. Are you trying to play onto my sympathies by referring to your D1 lynch? Why bring it up at all? /confused.
On April 02 2012 04:04 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 03:55 layabout wrote:On April 02 2012 03:46 Acrofales wrote:Ok Layabout, your posting is a bit contradictory. Here you say: On April 02 2012 01:34 layabout wrote:
Getting the item:
Going after the item would tie up a lot of the PoP's. Whilst there is a danger to the person being sent to get the item, anybody that pushed them over would likely be killed for doing so and so it would offer a 1:1 trade which would be good for town. If scum happen to have a hidden PoP then we risk losing the item, a townie and the PoP's for no gain.
This seemed to me pro-item-getting. In your follow-up you amended that. Fine, take yourself off the list, although I don't much like wishy washy behaviour. Maybe you can explain why you think my behaviour is "wishy washy" and why that is relevant. How is what i have written "pro item getting"? Somebody (bugs?) mentioned that it would be easy for scum to kill the person going after the item. I have written that if they do that they would either face a 1:1 trade or a free kill (if they have a hidden PoP like in Death factory). I also wrote that getting the item woud require a lot of PoP's. Please point out where the pro item getting part is. I read that as in favour of getting the item, because a 1:1 trade is (usually) a town win (because more town than scum). It seemed to have the hidden mafia ability tagged on as an afterthought. But why are you so uptight about it? You seem extremely eager to be taken off my scumlist. I was told last game (repeatedly) that overly defensive behaviour is a scum tell. Are you scum?
You originally called me scummy for saying that we should grab the item. This was false and i pointed that out.
You then called me wishy washy and pointed at the post that led you to infer that i wanted us to grab the item.
I pointed out that there was nothing in that post to lead you to infer that. I further asked you why you then decided to call me "wishy washy" and to explain how i was being "wishy washy".
You then do not explain yourself but instead you call me scummy for being overly defensive.
My response to this was to think "man this guy is an idiot".
You then make this post in which you explain that you were overly defensive as scum in your last game and try to use that to justify calling me scum.
I responded by pointing out that in that same game i was lynched day1.
I was hoping that you would realise that since i was lynched by 5/21 players for no good reason and flipped town that i might want to avoid that happening again and that, that might be why i am being defensive.
I was also hoping that you would realise that "scumtells" are pretty much complete garbage, and that somebody being defensive is an appalling basis for a scum read.
I realise now that i expected to much of you.
|
I'd like to kill Bluelightz today.
Syllogism, layabout, VE, Palmar: do you agree with me?
|
|
|
I can't believe I'm having such a hard time understanding post from people who have english as their native language... Anyway
On April 02 2012 05:19 Bill Murray wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2012 20:52 Dirkzor wrote:
Weird claim by BM. Believing it would make myself or Zentor scum i guess? So lets kill zentor? =)
@dirkzorHow is this? on the bolded, what? on the italicized, can you explain what the word bussing means, dirkzor? I have to post this I have a new suspect, and potentially two caught here
I misunderstood your claim. I understood it like you move 3 spaces and if you hit scum you would stop. So you moved 1 space and stopped. With me and zentor next in line one of us would be scum and since I'm not scum the logical thing was to assume zentor is scum.
But since you clearified how it worked I now know that this wasn't the case.
|
no, i latched onto 1 line. i could move up to 3. if i moved up to 3, if there were any scum in there, i wouldnt move whatsoever.
i moved towards the fire only because i could limit the people i checked that way, to get a good 50:50 town/scum trade if one was scum
neither were scum
it's like 2 detective checks on the first day, it's not that bad at all
flip me if you don't believe me
|
I had missed palmar's claim
I like his story adding up, even if I know role=/=alignment
I'm going to go with this
##pull: palmar
|
I think it goes without saying that we should be ignoring BM.
I have no clue why he would claim, but I have even less of a clue why he would use a pull on Palmar after Palmar's role was already confirmed and it was already established that we did not want to waste PoPs trying to get the item. Both of these actions now serve merely to detract town attention from scumhunting and are detrimental.
|
Give them time to post, then kill them if they don't.
What do you make of Acrofales?
Bluelightz has gone quiet after being put under pressure. Just like he did in c9++ as the mafia roleblocker. He should be back at his PC soon and when he is you guys need to make him post.
He should not be able to shirk off pressure by simply going afk.
He is the best kill we have so far.
it's not too late to post this:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Iy2BP.png)
