| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
Coupled with trying to sway townies so much over the course of this thread, I feel no shame in voting VE. ##Unvote: ghost_403 ##Vote: VisceraEyes St. Dan is next on my list. As for Brood, his last post was fluff but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
Also switched my vote in the thread because apparently I forgot to do that  | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
Welp, here goes. Dramatic music playing in my head while we see how VE flips... | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
| ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On April 23 2012 09:19 MidnightGladius wrote: ..... I can't believe we just let that happen. slOosh marvellosity Bill Murray Ottoxlol VE layabout Sentinel Zephirdd In order of voting time. I wonder how many scum were on VE's lynch? Tomorrow, we're taking a long hard look at Zephirdd. I was before VE - I forgot to change it on the other thread On April 22 2012 22:01 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Ok. What the hell is a "non-cooperative Jailkeeper"? Coupled with trying to sway townies so much over the course of this thread, I feel no shame in voting VE. ##Unvote: ghost_403 ##Vote: VisceraEyes St. Dan is next on my list. As for Brood, his last post was fluff but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. On April 22 2012 23:48 VisceraEyes wrote: K this game is no longer interesting to me. I'm not interested in defending myself. ##Unvote: Bill Murray ##Vote: VisceraEyes For anyone concerned about me "playing to my win-condition", D1 discussion is ruined and I can accept my part in that. Lynch me, flip me, and do what you will with the information. You'll win with it. And therefor, I'll win. I'm playing to my win-condition. gg Proof of timestamp. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On April 24 2012 08:50 Mattchew wrote: posting reads before deadline... have to shit real bad so brb in like 20 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kUoLq.jpg) Wait... how the hell do you brand Risen green because of "town meta"? I think his aggressive-defensive bipolarity kinda ruined that aspect. If anything makes him green is that he backed VE till the end. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
| ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
| ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
| ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
+ Show Spoiler [My defense vs. Gonzaw] + On April 24 2012 12:18 gonzaw wrote: Is it against the rules to talk in this time?  No, but thanks for helping me read less text. Anyways, I seem to be falling into the red again, so let's get to business. On April 24 2012 09:16 gonzaw wrote: Sentinel I think he's scum. Here is his first "important" post: (All the ones before that one were just useless filler.) <<My first important post>> He just posts this to defend himself. All the 1st points of this posts are him making excuses and defending himself against accusations. Can't argue with that. That's actually the reason I came out of the woodwork in the first place. He suspects sloosh for some arbitrary reason (sloosh saying "I like Ottoxlul"). Notice how he never mentions his thoughts about sloosh again in the whole game This is my thought process at the time: 1. Read filters, including sloosh's. 2. Observe that sloosh's is starting out bad because post is scummy. 3. Sloosh makes pretty good argument vs. VE. I buy it and not care about sloosh again. His next point is an OMGUS against ghost. His reasoning for voting ghost is that ghost thinks he's scum and didn't post "reasoning" behind it, which is bogus since ghost did offer some reasoning behind it here: <<reasoning behind it here>> You know what else happens in that post? Just like I told many other players, he completely ignores the current discussion at hand He ignores everything about VE, the cases made against him, or the discussion about my "scumslip" and shit. He ignores the Mattchew vs Paqman deal, and he ignores the BH vs marv deal as well. His only motivation for making that post is to: -Defend himself -Offer a shitty vote on a player that has NOTHING to do with the current discussion You call that reasoning? I call it a pretty stupid idea to lynch me. I didn't think enough of VE to address him. All I said is that sloosh's case looks pretty good. Marv (and St. Dan and Brood) I actually get to. And of course I'm going to defend myself, because that's what you're supposed to do when you're under suspicion. His post only serves to disrupt, misdirect discussion and respond to accusations so he's not in the spotlight. His next posts are filler too, he doesn't contribute anything worthwhile. He then starts arguing with ghost, yet he never states if he thinks ghost is scum or not in those posts He just argues against ghost for the sake of arguing and defending himself, he's not scumhunting AT ALL, not even against those that he supposedly thinks is scum. (For example, these posts: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=329128¤tpage=23#443 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=329128¤tpage=23#454 ) At that point I was more pissed off at ghost than willing to support the town. Otherwise I can't argue with that. This is the FIRST post in the whole game where he actually discusses the current events: Is wishy washy regarding marv, and here is where the fun begins: In the next few posts, Sentinel starts into a "suspicion-spree", spouting names of players and players and how he finds them slightly suspicious or is wishy washy regarding them Here are the posts: BH: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=329128¤tpage=23#457 Daniel: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=329128¤tpage=23#459 Brood: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=329128¤tpage=23#460 Dan and Brood had shit posts but I gave them the benefit of the doubt since they had so little, and by calling them out for that I would be a hypocrite. Red but redeemable. He's wishy washy about them or suspicious about them, but doesn't mention them at all later (he only mentions Daniel and Brood one more time, nothing else), or pressure them, or discuss them, or posting more thoughts about them. He just soughts suspicion on those players and then forgets about them. His initial suspicion of sloosh falls in this category as well. Erm, sloosh was in my first post? I actually mentioned them again in my vote on VE: Now comes his vote on VE: Really? Here is his reasoning for voting VE: Notice how this is the first time in the game he mentions VE He never mentioned when VE called me out and started his "lynch gonzaw!" crusades, I wasn't here for that and skimmed the thread nor mentioned him when I and sloosh posted cases against him, I wasn't here for that and skimmed the thread or when other people mentioned him. He mentions him only after he claims, and what does he say? Almost nothing. His "What the hell is a..." statement is useless since it doesn't state anything about his opinion on the matter. I thought it was pretty obvious that I was indignant at his claim and didn't believe it. His "Coupled with......" statement is just very vague and doesn't really say anything about VE's alignment. Apart from that he doesn't say anything else about VE, he doesn't post more thoughts about VE, or about other current discussions about VE either. You can bust me for lack of content but I think the message was pretty clear. "Bullshit, you're scum and I'm voting you for it. Do I really need to work on my word choice that much? Oh, yeah he also mentioned my case about Risen a little bit: ...but is completely wishy washy about it, fails to make an actual opinion on it, and only serves to "ask" about Risen's past games. Then when layabout actually goes through the effort of linking to said games, Sentinel doesn't mention it at all nor mentions Risen at all. Do you want me to start posting "Oh. Ok. Yeah, that make sense, carry on." every time I've felt that way in the thread? Because really on a lot of things, all I can really start saying is "Yeah, I agree with this." because they've pretty much got the whole subject covered. Conclusion: [list] [*]Sentinel is just posting to avoid the spotlight. When he posts he either just defends himself against accusations, he posts fluff and filler about useless things (like that "QT=/=PM" post), or posts wishy-washy stances on other players Yeah, I'm guilty of doing that. Can't say anything about that. [*]He ignores all current discussions and posts things that are irrelevant to them. He talks about players that have nothing to do with the discussion (and like said before in a wishy-washy manner), he talks about current events way too late and doesn't provide any new (or even remotely useful) content regarding it [*]Starts fighting with ghost to disrupt the thread, starts FoSing him but after they keep fighting he fails to take a stance on the ghost subject, he just argues with him for the sake of arguing. Again, I was pissed. If I was scum I wouldn't be pissed because ghost would be telling the truth and I would be only bullshitting. [*]He is "suspicious" and wishy washy about a lot of players and never makes the effort of mentioning them again or contributing more thoughts about them. My total was three? [*]He votes VE without any reasoning and only based on VE "trying to sway townies", and nothing else Yadda yadda yadda end of argument Now that I've done my defense post, time to make arguing. I've read through a lot of filters and I have the easiest time seeing Otto as scum. His first two pages are semi-solid (lots of one-liners but some of them actually move the thread along), but when suspicion starts crawling his way his posts degenerate into retarded one-liners: On April 24 2012 22:34 Ottoxlol wrote: So your case is that I can't make a case? Please make a case before calling me out. So let's look at one of his remaining solid posts in this part of the filter: On April 24 2012 22:21 Ottoxlol wrote: I believe that there is at least one scum on that list, I read them all. I couldn't come up with a case that's strong. Bm contributed zero, it is really hard to analyse someone with zero posts. Marvellosity been attacked d1 with a very weak case, I did not find anything suspicious there layabout he was on my d1 list because I felt his opinion switches were a bit suspicious but d2 he's been posting some very good things, i think he's town Sentinel wasn't too involved in the debates, the case against him is semi decent, but if we punish someone because he did not got involved it should be the one with the least contribution Zephridd's defense is that he was afk too. We have 3 players who did some afking Sent BM Zeph from the VE crowd, Sentinel and Zeph tried contributing so I would vote rather BM then those other 2. He's getting votes and called out why don't he post and he's still just lurking around. BM please get into the game and show us you are town, or else I feel you'll get lynched. Back up Zeph and Sent? I'd actually say this is bad reasoning Otto. Your main analyses consist of people who are lurkers and "I didn't find things suspicious so I'm not voting these people." It seems like you convince yourself tentatively that BM is scum. Also, when VE died you had some weird pointers as to who to investigate. So I'm going to chalk it all up to fluff. They lurk too, but less then BM. I'm fine with any of them lynched. And thus your last solid position disappears. And more fluff. And one liners. You have an awful lot of them. On April 25 2012 03:15 Ottoxlol wrote: @mattchew My first bigger post about VE http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=329128¤tpage=18#343 My vote http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=14438199 After that I engaged with the debate, see my filter @ghost I am getting frustrated, you accuse me, I respond, you do not read my posts. shall I start making up cases too? This is ok. clear reasoning, but all the other accusations has been answered already. Get off my back and read my posts. I did read your posts. I think that you've got nothing to contribute but you don't want to get caught with your pants down and have to defend yourself. Conclusion: Your posts are one liners with quotes. Sometimes you put the quote and then put a one-line response in another post. The first page was decent, and you could have passed for an affable newbie, but then you lost it and now you have no argument. And when you do make arguments they have the consistency of water. I want two things from you: A) A solid case on someone we should lynch. And use your own information this time. 2) A good defense on why you shouldn't be lynched. Until then, ##Vote: Ottoxlol | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On April 25 2012 05:34 Ottoxlol wrote: I will post as soon as I figure out. I already told you I have no clear reads so lurkers are fine with me. Pressuring me to take a stand, then when i say i have no strong reads so right now I would lynch lurkers. And thats scummy because I dont take a stand. Or I dont have strong reads. Oh wait thats impossible, we have so good cases everyone rallied to lynch the scum of the day. Not all lurkers are scum. The reason you're scummy is that you don't actually post a lot on anyone. You just offer watery arguments and then pretend you did something. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On April 25 2012 05:41 Ottoxlol wrote: @Sentinel I already answered most of these accusations, read my posts. One new point however, the one liners. When ppl doesnt reply or their accusations lack content and/or I already explained it several times why do you want a wall of text? Please indicate me where you have replied. You do this thing where you don't use the quote button or quote separately from your reply, and reading your filter is harder than normal. However I've found that BM is even worse at what you're doing than you are. On April 24 2012 14:50 Bill Murray wrote: I would be pretty hypocritical to vote him for that. I don't see it. It is really easy to mistake someone who is nervous with a Doctor or Jailkeeper role as being mafia... It's something we can't help. VE's vote for me was more like a placeholder. I was pretty busy during the time period. I didn't expect to get wagonned by mafia and for him to actually die. VE is a great player that shouldn't ever be lynched on D1. We should have lynched someone like Paqman on policy, though I'm glad we didn't now. His "we could have 3 vigs" comment cracked me up. Everything is either fluff or one-liner posts. And he never actually takes a stand on any single candidate... or has a single post longer than one paragraph. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
| ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On April 25 2012 06:03 Ottoxlol wrote: @Sentinel Your main argument is that I did nothing and I post a lot of one liners. I did push gonzaws plan, pressured VE, you. then after he claimed I made a case against him and defended it. D2 I had a plan, no one liked it. I have no strong reads so I don't have a case right now, but the majority of ppl doesnt have neither. This is your pressure: [quote] I would wait till he put more on the table before we jump to conclusions, I disagree with that plans always benefiting mafia. He's talkin more in general terms, so maybe if he states his case more clearly we'll get more information. [quote] All you said was I'm wrong because GF's can't shoot and then that. You don't even attack it head-on, more like "this guy had a bad post but if he corrects it then everything is a-ok" Your pressure on VE was marginally better. You did not pressure anybody because they were scum at that point. Not until page 2 did you vote on VE. Your justificatioin on VE's vote was decent but then your second vote was a reactionary lynch for being called out on VE (and BJ ended up being aggressive townie) [QUOTE]On April 24 2012 20:37 Ottoxlol wrote: LOL I don't understand your case. You say the reason I'm scum because the way i voted VE. First I made a case about why VE is playing badly about the massvigclaim plan, then when he claimed, I stated my reasoning why he shouldn't have, and because you guys said he's the best player ever it's obvious that he is scum. I stated why a scum VE would claim and asked him why did he think the claim was good play. He did not respond, started accusing every second player and yelling, then rqd. I blame my vote on VE's bad play and lack of interest. You still did not respond why is this strong enough to switch from tunneling marv. Stating my posts are worthless, when you did not help town at all (not defending VE when you claim it was obv he's town, not stating a single good case that would rally ppl from VE), is the nail in your coffin. #vote BlazingJitsu[/QUOTE] | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On April 25 2012 06:28 Ottoxlol wrote: Of course defending myself is pro-town, what is this question i don't even. The second part is very nice of your post. Maybe I am the helicopter! 1) Please quote your posts for future reading. 2) Defending yourself isn't pro-town. Only if you're town is it some semblance of towniness, but even then scum can defend himself too so that doesn't count. Finding scum is pro-town. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On April 25 2012 06:33 Ottoxlol wrote: So you would rather have me not posting then try to prevent a misslynch? No, I'd rather have you looking at people's filters and seeing who's scum or not. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On April 25 2012 09:09 Risen wrote: I just posted a giant case and spoilered it, but it seems no one is going to read it b/c it's spoilered. Do I need to repost it in all its massive glory so that someone will respond? Wtf :/ Nah, I read it and I agree with it. I havent finished reading everything, but so far I had an idea I thought I will write down the VE voters relationships maybe we can figure something out. Sentinel attacked BM Ottox did not attack anyone from this grp marv attacked Zeph BM defending Zeph and marv laya attacking marv, defending zeph Zeph attacking BM, and marv I think this will not make a strong read, but I try If Sentinel is scummy, we should investigate Zeph and vice versa If laya is scummy we should investigate Zeph and vice versa If marv is scummy we should investigate BM and vice versa . So my read is there are 0 or 2 scums in the VE voter group, maybe we can use this later This post in particular I just couldn't wrap my mind around and I thought I was missing something that you guys discussed because it made no sense. Looks like I'm not alone. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
| ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On April 22 2012 14:45 Janaan wrote: I will say this, VE's claim fits his critique of Gonzaw's plan perfectly. At this point, I have no reason to doubt his claims. Paqman, it's like you're purposely misunderstanding Mattchew about VE's claim, I understood exactly what he meant the first time he said it. Either that, or you just don't want to believe that Mattchew is actually making sense, which leads me to believe that you're tunneling him a bit too hard. Please, try to step back and objectively read what Mattchew is saying. At the moment, none of the cases are terribly convincing for me. I also hate the fact that we're well over half through with day 1 and there are still players who haven't said a single word since the game started. I don't know if scum is among them or not, but at this point, it's impossible to tell. The one vote that does make sense to me right now is Bill Murray. He's proven that he's in the thread, he's posted a few times, but he really doesn't seem to care at all. All his posts are entirely void of content, which makes me think that either he's scum trying to get away with not saying anything or he's a townie who just doesn't care about the game. Bill, if you DO care, start being more useful please. ##Vote: Bill Murray I won't be on for another 14 hours or so, I'll be back in the thread around then if anything happens. to this: On April 25 2012 02:55 Janaan wrote: At work so I don't have much time. Ottoxlol, my question to you is this: You say you want to lynch to gain information. Ok, fine. That's not a good mindset, but I'll accept that you think it's a good idea for a minute. What I don't understand is why that makes BM the best lynch. He himself hasn't given any firm stances, and as far as I can tell, there hasn't been anyone who hasn't at least questioned him for lurking, and NO ONE has defended him. So exactly what information will we gain from lynching him that makes it the best choice? Working from the mindset that lynching for information is a good idea, it would make more sense to me to lynch a more controversial target. Namely how he went from BM being his one true stance to saying we shouldn't lynch BM because he's so scum nobody would drop information or give intel. Otherwise, he just seems to agree with the general mood of the thread on everything. So he's either decent town or clever scum. I'd be betting the former at this point because I have nothing to accuse him of. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
Bill Murray - 2 votes Mattchew [UoN]Sentinel Risen - 1 Vote Paqman johnnywup - 1 Vote Ottoxlol Zephirdd - 2 Vote johnnywup Janaan Ottoxlol - 4 Votes Mementoss Risen Bill Murray Zephirdd [UoN]Sentinel - 1 Vote ghost_403 Ottoxlol is currently to be lynched (and I'll switch back my vote to him if we can agree on it) | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs TBD
Online Event
Sparkling Tuna Cup
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs TBD
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
