|
RE: gonzaw
The same argument was said to off Sinensis and MrZentor. It's faulty logic, and is easily skewed towards a scum agenda. I don't know whether or not S.T. is scum or town/if he died tonight I wouldn't cry about it, but the manner in which you are approaching this is suspicious as hell.
How can you possibly think scum will kill you? People are suspicious of you, your reads haven't been proven right yet, and you're not a known town analyst. Your blue directing, and your absence during and dismissal of the Hassybaby counter-wagon look scummy as hell. I think you're just trying to WIFOM medics towards you; it worked in SOAF when BH medic'd you.
Mentioning the cccalf incident just shows how willing you are to bluff and bus. If me and VE spontaneously die, DO NOT IGNORE GONZAW.
|
On April 10 2012 13:20 MidnightGladius wrote:I've done a preliminary gloss of the votes. Three players (VE, johnny, michael) all voted first for Janaan, then switched to Hassy, then switched back to Janaan. That in itself is unusual enough to merit some discussion, but VisceraEyes moved his vote from Risen to Jackal to Tunkeg to Janaan to Hassybaby to Janaan, a total of 5 switches. Now, normally I don't like playing by meta, but I figured that this needed to be checked up on. In terms of Day 1 voting: In SoaF, town VE voted: Cyber_Cheese, EchelonTee, Cyber_Cheese (lynching town C_C) 2 switches In LII, [green]town VE[/town] voted: Caller (no lynch) 0 switches In C9++, town VE voted: johnnywup, Tobon, Jackal (lynching scum Jackal) 2 switches In Storm, SK VE voted: redFF, Dirkzor, redFF, (unvote), redFF, BloodyCobbler, Blazinghang, BloodyCobbler, (lynching town redFF) 7 switches In Arkham City, scum VE voted: kitaman, layabout, Sheth (lynching town C_C) 2 switches Unfortunately, the search results don't go any further than that. While I dislike making reads on meta alone, and I don't consider this sufficient evidence one way or the other, I do have to conclude that a town VE, on average, switches fewer times, while scum VE, on average, switches more times, and that at the moment, he has switched a notably high number of times. Now, let's look at his behavior, and we can see how he attempts to justify his actions: In his first post, VE advocates lynching a lurker, if no scummier alternatives are found. However, he soon revises his position to insist on a scum lynch. Why the change in focus? Remember, throughout this, he's been gently pushing Risen, and after announcing his change in lynch policy, more explicitly pushes for Risen and WBG, but still doesn't place his vote. When he does, however, he states: Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 05:00 VisceraEyes wrote:
Now, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to keep voting for you unless I'm convinced that you're being straight up with this ruse bullshit. Right now I think it's nonsense, but because you're suspicious of Bugs (someone I'm also suspicious of), I'm willing to entertain the idea that maybe THIS time town could actually be that dumb. Prove me wrong guy. (emphasis mine) This is followed up with: Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 10:56 VisceraEyes wrote:
Risen is the guy I'd kill today. 100%. It might be leftover rancor from JubJub and letting Caller get away, but his little bullshit earlier is basically a carbon-copy of the stupid shit Caller pulled and I'm not letting it fly this game.
I'm willing to consolidate at the end of the day, but if I had a bullet it would have Risen's name on it. However, he unvotes Risen, though Risen hadn't done much to respond to VE's bolded concerns above. VE then targets lurkers. Remember what he posted earlier about aiming for a scum lynch? Here it is, again. Apparently, they're on the radar again, and VE immediately votes for Jackal. Well, that's Switch #1. Switch #2 comes in his very next post, to Tunkeg (in the interests of consolidating). He even has a pre-emptive anti-bandwagoning warning in place, but there is absolutely no justification here. None at all. He then unvotes Tunkeg, again providing no reasoning. In the same post, despite pegging Hassy and Toad as scum with a great deal of conviction, he does Switch #3 and votes for Janaan, as a lurker. Despite saying that he wanted to lynch Hassy, he put his vote elsewhere, on another growing bandwagon, this time Janaan. VE was the 12th person to vote for Janaan. This is followed by quite a bit of pushing for Hassy, which VE even acknowledges is unlikely to swing enough votes onto Hassy in time. However, he does see this as an opportunity to commence with Switch #4, and place his vote on Hassy, encouraging all of the players to sheep with him and draw votes onto Hassy. Unsurprisingly, Switch #5 back onto Janaan follows after Hassy fails to gain more than a few votes. He defends this switch by claiming that he was okay with lynching Janaan as a lurker all along, again contradicting the policy in his very first post. Also note that the only post that refers to Janaan is the one that has Hassy and Toad in big red bold letters as scum, with barely any reasoning on Janaan. And that's that. I don't like what I see here. VE broke faith on two of his very first promises, giving up on the "atmosphere police" and waffling on his lurker lynching policies. He switched votes unusually frequently and (for the first three) without reason. His last vote switch would have achieved nothing but the threat of a no-lynch, and his attempts to defend his switch from and back to Janaan is unsupported by his actual posting patterns. VisceraEyes is scum.
Your "analysis" based on his vote switching doesn't determine anything, particularly because, as you mentioned, he only switched his vote twice in Arkham where he was scum. Just because there's one instance of him switching a lot in Storm (a game full of really stupid plays day 1) that doesn't carry anything over to this game.
All you've done in this post really is summarize VE's play...summarizing VE's play doesn't show us why he's scum.
In fact, his switch back to Janaan to ensure that we actually lynch someone is a pretty pro-town move, albeit one that CAN be made by both alignments. If he was scum I doubt he would have supported a Hassy counterlynch to begin with unless Hassy was also town (and that would have been a brilliant move by any scum)
|
You're disregarding the fact that he at one point stated that he wanted to lynch scum, not lurkers. His next two lynch votes (Jackal and Janaan) were both on the basis of being lurkers. He wanted Hassy dead in his own words, giving a 100% scum read on him, but didn't want to be the first to lead the way, opting to vote only after seeing that others had first done so? I don't like that at all.
|
On April 10 2012 13:13 VisceraEyes wrote:
3c was a lurker, not an argumentative prick. There's a marked difference.
The point is that I told a vig to shoot him and said it would be better, even if he was town.
I'm saying the same thing now about. However, just because I say some things as scum it doesn't mean I wouldn't say them otherwise.
Talking about lurkers, Katina, Zealos and zelblade haven't been around in a LONG time; they need to speak up soon.
Now that I read Hassy's filter, I don't see anything outright scummy with him.
His roleplaying can't be taken into account obviously, and I won't fall for that again. Although he stopped it so it's all good.
He hasn't contributed much, but I don't find the way he posted suspicious. I may look into him again later, and I want to see how he acts now that he won't put up his roleplaying.
On April 10 2012 13:21 EchelonTee wrote:
RE: gonzaw
The same argument was said to off Sinensis and MrZentor. It's faulty logic, and is easily skewed towards a scum agenda. I don't know whether or not S.T. is scum or town/if he died tonight I wouldn't cry about it, but the manner in which you are approaching this is suspicious as hell.
How can you possibly think scum will kill you? People are suspicious of you, your reads haven't been proven right yet, and you're not a known town analyst. Your blue directing, and your absence during and dismissal of the Hassybaby counter-wagon look scummy as hell. I think you're just trying to WIFOM medics towards you; it worked in SOAF when BH medic'd you.
Mentioning the cccalf incident just shows how willing you are to bluff and bus. If me and VE spontaneously die, DO NOT IGNORE GONZAW.
To be honest, if in Soaf Sinensis and MrZentor were vigged by vigilantes town would have been better off and would have probably lynched scum every day.
Well, they won't kill me now that some people (you, Tunkeg, etc) are going against me. I'm not in a very good mood right now, but I'm sure I'll step up my game tomorrow when I have more time and motivation. I don't think scum would like having me alive, not even if my read on Janaan was wrong.
Of course, medics have to WIFOM about it, since the objective of them is trying to stop scum's KP, which will most likely go into someone scum think is blue or is having good reads or is not deemed suspicious, etc.
|
On April 10 2012 13:30 MidnightGladius wrote:
You're disregarding the fact that he at one point stated that he wanted to lynch scum, not lurkers. His next two lynch votes (Jackal and Janaan) were both on the basis of being lurkers. He wanted Hassy dead in his own words, giving a 100% scum read on him, but didn't want to be the first to lead the way, opting to vote only after seeing that others had first done so? I don't like that at all.
lurkers and scum are not mutually exclusive. In fact, with the current state of TL mafia teams, I'd say at least half of the scum probably are actively lurking.
Neither Jackal nor Janaan were lurkers, so I don't really know what you're going on about here. Of course he would only vote for Hassy when there was clear support for it, even I knew it was very unlikely we would get much support when I did it. Certainly he could have tried, but not many players see the point when one player has a dozen plus votes and the one they're going after has none, particularly when the already-bandwagoned player is pretty scummy himself.
You might not like it, but to be honest I didn't see you do much until after the flip. Why are you on VE's back now as opposed to before the daypost? You didn't find his actions suspicious then?
Generally most people who wait until after a green flips to bring a case on someone are noobs who know no better or scum who are trying to set up the next day's lynch (or both)
|
also it should be noted that hassy now has an obligation to play and find scum because his excuse of "it's day 1" no longer applies. Needless to say that if I die and hassy disappears you guys should probably lynch his ass.
I'll expound upon a vig/DT list in a sec, since I think some direction will be good this game.
|
Now that the pressure of the lynch is off, what do you guys think about Toad?
Check my filter if you want to know what specific things to respond to.
|
On April 10 2012 13:35 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 13:30 MidnightGladius wrote:
You're disregarding the fact that he at one point stated that he wanted to lynch scum, not lurkers. His next two lynch votes (Jackal and Janaan) were both on the basis of being lurkers. He wanted Hassy dead in his own words, giving a 100% scum read on him, but didn't want to be the first to lead the way, opting to vote only after seeing that others had first done so? I don't like that at all. lurkers and scum are not mutually exclusive. In fact, with the current state of TL mafia teams, I'd say at least half of the scum probably are actively lurking. Neither Jackal nor Janaan were lurkers, so I don't really know what you're going on about here. Of course he would only vote for Hassy when there was clear support for it, even I knew it was very unlikely we would get much support when I did it. Certainly he could have tried, but not many players see the point when one player has a dozen plus votes and the one they're going after has none, particularly when the already-bandwagoned player is pretty scummy himself. You might not like it, but to be honest I didn't see you do much until after the flip. Why are you on VE's back now as opposed to before the daypost? You didn't find his actions suspicious then? Generally most people who wait until after a green flips to bring a case on someone are noobs who know no better or scum who are trying to set up the next day's lynch (or both)
Regardless of whether Jackal or Janaan were lurkers, VE's argument for voting them was:
On April 10 2012 01:27 VisceraEyes wrote:
First of all,
##Unvote: Risen
His posting has undeniably gotten much better and I'm willing to give him a pass for today. Obviously I'm keeping an eye on him, but he's not the lynch today.
Now, I kinda want to talk lurkers for a minute. Not inactives (people who have made between 0 and 1 post all game), lurkers. For now, I'm looking at zelblade, Jackal and katina. These players have been on a few times to comment on stuff, enough for me to remember that they're in the game, but not enough for me to know where they stand on some of the issues that have become important to the town. It is my belief that at least one scum can be found in the three names.
And I don't know which (if any) of them isn't scum. So we gotta kill 'em all.
##Vote: Jackal
I'll start at the top. Come in here and either find scum or hang Jackal. You bitch about "JubJubs always lynching you D1" and "Scum wanting to get rid of you"...but simultaneously you want to lurk and not contribute? Pull the other one guy.
Kill the white guy!!!
On April 10 2012 06:26 VisceraEyes wrote:
Now, as far as the current candidates are concerned, it's basically just "pick a lurker, pray". So I'm going to pick a lurker and pray, because as I stated early in the game, I'm in favor of lynching a lurker if no good candidate arises, and my biggest scumreads are not present candidates. If anyone wants to voice their consent with my targets however, I'd absolutely put effort into pushing a lynch…but we're about..what, 5.5 hours?…from lynch and we can barely consolidate on a lurker. I'm not holding my breath.
##Vote: Janaan
He clearly thought of them as lurkers when he voted for them.
And for me, I said earlier that I would be busy for much of the day. I couldn't put in any time then, so I decided to put in more effort when I could afford to sit down and read.
|
Oh I'm scum?
![[image loading]](http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1vknqkfDX1qeyt27o1_500.gif)
First of all, what does the fact that I was the twelfth person on the wagon have anything to do with my alignment? Janaan had a very low post count and I've been away from the thread for a while, this information is available right here in this very thread.
I vote for who I want to vote for because the vote is a tool to find scum. For some it's their only tool. When you have something that I consider to be an actual accusation, I'll respond properly.
|
At first, you said very clearly that you were okay with lynching lurkers.
Then, you said very clearly that you were not okay with lynching lurkers.
Then, you voted twice, alleging that your target was lurking. You also did not immediately vote for your #1 scumread.
Explain.
|
Ah fuck this I'll reread filters tomorrow, I'm too tired right now.
|
I tried to lynch scum Gladius. I pushed my ass off for a scum lynch. It didn't happen, so I voted for a lurker. What are you asking me to explain? My absence?
|
On April 10 2012 13:39 MidnightGladius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 13:35 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 10 2012 13:30 MidnightGladius wrote:
You're disregarding the fact that he at one point stated that he wanted to lynch scum, not lurkers. His next two lynch votes (Jackal and Janaan) were both on the basis of being lurkers. He wanted Hassy dead in his own words, giving a 100% scum read on him, but didn't want to be the first to lead the way, opting to vote only after seeing that others had first done so? I don't like that at all. lurkers and scum are not mutually exclusive. In fact, with the current state of TL mafia teams, I'd say at least half of the scum probably are actively lurking. Neither Jackal nor Janaan were lurkers, so I don't really know what you're going on about here. Of course he would only vote for Hassy when there was clear support for it, even I knew it was very unlikely we would get much support when I did it. Certainly he could have tried, but not many players see the point when one player has a dozen plus votes and the one they're going after has none, particularly when the already-bandwagoned player is pretty scummy himself. You might not like it, but to be honest I didn't see you do much until after the flip. Why are you on VE's back now as opposed to before the daypost? You didn't find his actions suspicious then? Generally most people who wait until after a green flips to bring a case on someone are noobs who know no better or scum who are trying to set up the next day's lynch (or both) Regardless of whether Jackal or Janaan were lurkers, VE's argument for voting them was: Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 01:27 VisceraEyes wrote:
First of all,
##Unvote: Risen
His posting has undeniably gotten much better and I'm willing to give him a pass for today. Obviously I'm keeping an eye on him, but he's not the lynch today.
Now, I kinda want to talk lurkers for a minute. Not inactives (people who have made between 0 and 1 post all game), lurkers. For now, I'm looking at zelblade, Jackal and katina. These players have been on a few times to comment on stuff, enough for me to remember that they're in the game, but not enough for me to know where they stand on some of the issues that have become important to the town. It is my belief that at least one scum can be found in the three names.
And I don't know which (if any) of them isn't scum. So we gotta kill 'em all.
##Vote: Jackal
I'll start at the top. Come in here and either find scum or hang Jackal. You bitch about "JubJubs always lynching you D1" and "Scum wanting to get rid of you"...but simultaneously you want to lurk and not contribute? Pull the other one guy.
Kill the white guy!!! Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 06:26 VisceraEyes wrote:
Now, as far as the current candidates are concerned, it's basically just "pick a lurker, pray". So I'm going to pick a lurker and pray, because as I stated early in the game, I'm in favor of lynching a lurker if no good candidate arises, and my biggest scumreads are not present candidates. If anyone wants to voice their consent with my targets however, I'd absolutely put effort into pushing a lynch…but we're about..what, 5.5 hours?…from lynch and we can barely consolidate on a lurker. I'm not holding my breath.
##Vote: Janaan
He clearly thought of them as lurkers when he voted for them. And for me, I said earlier that I would be busy for much of the day. I couldn't put in any time then, so I decided to put in more effort when I could afford to sit down and read.
So? You again fail to address why trying to lynch a lurker is a bad thing. Remember the first point I made? Lurking and being scum are not mutually exclusive. In fact, most scum tend to be less active than they would be if they were town!
It's just a common-sense correlation.
He even explained himself in the quote you yourself gave. He said that none of his strongest reads (I imagine Risen and Hassy qualified here) were good lynch candidates, so he chose to vote for Janaan. What's scummy about that?
Again, all you're doing is summarizing his play, then making a bad reference to his past games that shows absolutely nothing. So, VE switched twice you say? He switched twice in a bunch of games as town and once as scum!
We have a Schroedinger's VE here, he could be scum or town based on what you just said. We'll never find out till we kill him! Oh noes.
|
When I read through the thread and as I was writing my post, I had forgotten that Hassy had acquired a couple of votes. When I went to go make good on the votes I posted in-thread, I was reminded and I came back in to push what I view as a scum lynch.
|
|
|
On April 10 2012 13:48 wherebugsgo wrote:
You're disregarding the fact that he at one point stated that he wanted to lynch scum, not lurkers. His next two lynch votes (Jackal and Janaan) were both on the basis of being lurkers. He wanted Hassy dead in his own words, giving a 100% scum read on him, but didn't want to be the first to lead the way, opting to vote only after seeing that others had first done so? I don't like that at all.
lurkers and scum are not mutually exclusive. In fact, with the current state of TL mafia teams, I'd say at least half of the scum probably are actively lurking.
Neither Jackal nor Janaan were lurkers, so I don't really know what you're going on about here. Of course he would only vote for Hassy when there was clear support for it, even I knew it was very unlikely we would get much support when I did it. Certainly he could have tried, but not many players see the point when one player has a dozen plus votes and the one they're going after has none, particularly when the already-bandwagoned player is pretty scummy himself.
You might not like it, but to be honest I didn't see you do much until after the flip. Why are you on VE's back now as opposed to before the daypost? You didn't find his actions suspicious then?
Generally most people who wait until after a green flips to bring a case on someone are noobs who know no better or scum who are trying to set up the next day's lynch (or both)[/QUOTE]
Regardless of whether Jackal or Janaan were lurkers, VE's argument for voting them was:
On April 10 2012 01:27 VisceraEyes wrote:
First of all,
##Unvote: Risen
His posting has undeniably gotten much better and I'm willing to give him a pass for today. Obviously I'm keeping an eye on him, but he's not the lynch today.
Now, I kinda want to talk lurkers for a minute. Not inactives (people who have made between 0 and 1 post all game), lurkers. For now, I'm looking at zelblade, Jackal and katina. These players have been on a few times to comment on stuff, enough for me to remember that they're in the game, but not enough for me to know where they stand on some of the issues that have become important to the town. It is my belief that at least one scum can be found in the three names.
And I don't know which (if any) of them isn't scum. So we gotta kill 'em all.
##Vote: Jackal
I'll start at the top. Come in here and either find scum or hang Jackal. You bitch about "JubJubs always lynching you D1" and "Scum wanting to get rid of you"...but simultaneously you want to lurk and not contribute? Pull the other one guy.
Kill the white guy!!!
On April 10 2012 06:26 VisceraEyes wrote:
Now, as far as the current candidates are concerned, it's basically just "pick a lurker, pray". So I'm going to pick a lurker and pray, because as I stated early in the game, I'm in favor of lynching a lurker if no good candidate arises, and my biggest scumreads are not present candidates. If anyone wants to voice their consent with my targets however, I'd absolutely put effort into pushing a lynch…but we're about..what, 5.5 hours?…from lynch and we can barely consolidate on a lurker. I'm not holding my breath.
##Vote: Janaan
He clearly thought of them as lurkers when he voted for them.
And for me, I said earlier that I would be busy for much of the day. I couldn't put in any time then, so I decided to put in more effort when I could afford to sit down and read.[/QUOTE]
So? You again fail to address why trying to lynch a lurker is a bad thing. Remember the first point I made? Lurking and being scum are not mutually exclusive. In fact, most scum tend to be less active than they would be if they were town!
It's just a common-sense correlation.
He even explained himself in the quote you yourself gave. He said that none of his strongest reads (I imagine Risen and Hassy qualified here) were good lynch candidates, so he chose to vote for Janaan. What's scummy about that?
Again, all you're doing is summarizing his play, then making a bad reference to his past games that shows absolutely nothing. So, VE switched twice you say? He switched twice in a bunch of games as town and once as scum!
We have a Schroedinger's VE here, he could be scum or town based on what you just said. We'll never find out till we kill him! Oh noes.[/QUOTE]
You're misreading me, WBG. First off, VE switched 5 times, not twice. Twice would be on average for him, and wholly acceptable, but 5 is noteworthy. Additionally, I said that meta alone is not the basis of this case. It was simply unusually high, and I wanted to see if this was something he did regularly. Then I looked at his actual play.
Secondly, I'm not saying that lynching lurkers is bad, only that he has been remarkably inconsistent about it.
|
EBWOP:
I'm trying to respond quickly, and the formatting of the last post got messed up. Everything above
"You're misreading me, WBG. First off, VE switched 5 times, not twice. Twice would be on average for him, and wholly acceptable, but 5 is noteworthy. Additionally, I said that meta alone is not the basis of this case. It was simply unusually high, and I wanted to see if this was something he did regularly. Then I looked at his actual play.
Secondly, I'm not saying that lynching lurkers is bad, only that he has been remarkably inconsistent about it."
should be quoted under WBG
|
On April 10 2012 13:46 gonzaw wrote:
Ah fuck this I'll reread filters tomorrow, I'm too tired right now.
Take your time. I'll look at toad. We got a whole night ahead of us.
|
Part of the reason I won Storm is because everyone KNEW I was town Gladius, because of my play. Erratic voting is kinda my thing - I use my vote like a scum-o-meter. I'm sorry you don't like it, but it's just the way I play. You'll get used to it, I promise.
|
I have evidence that your typical Day 1 sees you with fewer than 2 votes cast on average. I'm not convinced that erratic voting to the magnitude of 5 votes is just kinda your thing.
Using Storm as a defense is not helping, either. You won because you fooled everyone by your play. Do you think that that will also be the situation here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
