|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 25 2012 01:31 Ottoxlol wrote:
What? So we shouldn't look at what happened 3 days ago?
What happened 3 days ago: layabout called me out for one-liners
What happened since: I made more constructive posts and layabout heavily attacked BJ for maintaining his case.
Which do you think is more relevant to the current state of affairs?
I mean, feel free to try to read into layabout attacking me near the beginning of the game, I just don't understand what you're constructively hoping to achieve when events since superceded those.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 25 2012 01:40 Ottoxlol wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 00:57 Ottoxlol wrote:
I am thinking on the line of who should we lynch that gives us info. VE wagon seemed like a good start to look at, I made 3 pairs who seems to defend each other/attack the same persons. If we lynch anyone from that we can get information about the other half of the pair. This. Anyone have a better plan?
So who?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 25 2012 01:43 Mementoss wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 01:40 Ottoxlol wrote:On April 25 2012 00:57 Ottoxlol wrote:
I am thinking on the line of who should we lynch that gives us info. VE wagon seemed like a good start to look at, I made 3 pairs who seems to defend each other/attack the same persons. If we lynch anyone from that we can get information about the other half of the pair. This. Anyone have a better plan? Well this is a scum tell if I ever heard one. We lynch who we think is scum. If they are scum, that automatically gives us information. We don't lynch for information. You could easily be scum saying, if we lynch this guy it gives us information on this guy. Wasting 2 days of lynch into townies.
Agreed, but at this point I just want him to tell us who he thinks we should lynch and what the case on him is. Terrible connection-wifom cases aside
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 25 2012 01:44 Ottoxlol wrote:Show nested quote +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. Still BM.
Ok, so your stance is we should lynch BM because ... he's been lurking?
Do you have anything to say about the Zephirdd/Sentinel cases?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 25 2012 01:51 Mementoss wrote:
Ottoxlol: A Posting History
Gonzaw plan - posts a lot about it, explains game rules on multiple occasion. Easy conversation for scum to jump on without really having any risk to put opinions on anyone. Votes VE AFTER JK claim, easy wagon for scum to jump on cause all you have to say is herp bad claim. Which is basically what ottoxlol did. Then guess what, he conveniently dissapears until VE's death and for the whole night.
Im under attack!! - posts alot, in his defense, OMGUS vots BJ, attempts to make some sort of case against people but can't. Takes the easy way out for lynching lurkers. Also wants to lynch into WIFOM "pairs" for information. Names so many people that is really impossible to see his best stance atm.
Basically its two hurricanes of posting at which seems to be convenient timing.... coincidence? Maybe. You decide.
Note - I would like to hear from more than the same old players today eventually lol. Especially the lurking players.
Only me again, sowie. The problem I have with Ottoxlol at the moment is I'm finding it extremely hard to distinguish whether Ottoxlol is scum or just newbie town.
There have been really long and detailed cases on Sentinel and Zephirdd, his only real comments being "they're quite lurky", basically disregarding much of the cases on them.
And he wants to lynch BM because he is the most lurky. Added to this, his only other thoughts are on connections and information which I dislike.
The problem I'm having is that I'm struggling to reconcile myself to the idea that he would be so obtuse to basically give us nothing again and again and again despite being pushed on it.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 25 2012 02:15 Ottoxlol wrote:
Zephs defense was that he was afk thats why he did not contribute to d1 that much and voted that late. Why is that not lurking?
Sentinel doesnt post.
marv, you had a couple of posts today pressuring lurkers, why do you call me out for that?
? I really don't understand. Yes I've asked Brood to post and pointed out St. Daniel's iffyness, and I've asked MG for a response which I haven't yet had answered.
But I also made a case on Zephirdd, which you seem to think is just calling him out on lurking. Which you're soft-defending him on (like layabout, oddly) due to afk/indecisiveness Day 1, when the thrust of my case was his posting since, and the gist of the case was not lurking.
I don't get how you can't see the difference.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 25 2012 04:08 Mattchew wrote:
How many times would you like me to answer that
Until you make a case that is at least half as solid as the cases on those 2 perhaps?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 25 2012 04:27 Mattchew wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 21:35 Mattchew wrote:
He ninja voted the most well known scum hunter in the game... To me that's like saying hi I'm
Scum lynch me... And he hasn't said anything of value if you think he has you are reading something I'm not
Your ninja vote point is annoyingly compelling.
On April 22 2012 12:42 Bill Murray wrote:
##vote: VisceraEyes
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.
His excuse for voting him is non-existent. If you were pretty busy why leave your vote on a player that should never get lynched? That's ridiculous.
If you were so busy that you decided to lynch the guy who should never be lynched and not bothered to check the thread after, then you shouldn't have signed up, should you BM?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 25 2012 05:01 MidnightGladius wrote:
I'm exhausted and going to take a nap, but I want to say that Ottoxlol's play one these last 2 pages alone is really scummy. He's willing to push any of BM, Zeph, or Sent, again without any particular conviction. The excuse "they're all equally likely to be scum to me" is incredibly flimsy.
Post your case(s) on any one or more of those three, and then vote for your strongest scumread. You can even pursue your associative tells/pairs, as long as you then vote for your strongest scumread. That's all I ask.
Mattchew, I would argue that BM still doesn't make a good lynch today. Lack of posts and odd behavior don't give us much to work with, one way or the other, and we can't really make too many connections if he flips scum. I'm personally keeping my vote on johnny for now, but I will gladly vote for Zeph as well.
You still haven't responded to me about your VE voter weirdnesses. I would like it.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 25 2012 05:17 MidnightGladius wrote:
Are you arguing that I should have been more convinced of VE's innocence, despite his scummy play, and pushed people off of his lynch? Perhaps I could have, but hindsight is cruel, and I would have not wanted to have been led to a no-lynch. Like I said in the post you only partially quoted, I highly doubt that I could have convinced the people voting for VE to move off of him.
Would I have liked to have been perfectly certain and pulled a ton of pressure to move votes off of VE? Sure. Did I think it was the right, or feasible, idea at the time? No.
This is the problem. There's no consistent string. You called VE's play really scummy. Then you ask town how it could let the really scummy player get lynched. You are town. You let it happen too, what did you expect everyone else to do?
If you weren't certain on VE's innocence, why were you acting so incredulous and shocked that town let the lynch happen? Surely it was a distinct, and also according to you, reasonable, possibility if VE's play had been super scummy?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 25 2012 05:19 ghost_403 wrote:
Sentinel has two votes. I vote we lynch him today and Ottoxlol tomorrow. Sound good?
I would definitely prefer a Zephirdd lynch.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 25 2012 05:23 MidnightGladius wrote:
Marv, all I can say is that you're exaggerating how shocked I was at VE's flip. Can you think of any reason why ghost's suggestion makes sense from a town perspective?
Ok. I may or may not be overthinking it, but I'm just not quite... comfortable with how it read.
Re: ghost. He's made a case against Sentinel and he thinks he's scum which is fair enough.
But his last comment on Ottoxol is that he thinks he's newb town.
Has your opinion changed on that, ghost?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
The more Ottoxlol posts the more I'm going from newb town to newb scum.
His bit in italics there is bordering on criminal
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
Yes, this two lynch thing being scummy is a total red herring. We need to move on from it right now.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 25 2012 05:45 MidnightGladius wrote:
Very well, Mattchew, point taken. However, he didn't address my earlier post, noting that the reasoning he gave in that post was horrendously bad.
"Sentinel has 2 votes [when everyone else has 1]."
That single line screamed scum to me so loudly that I admit I haven't even gone through the rest of his filter yet. Or maybe I'm just sleep-deprived. I dunno, I'm going to take a nap and come back later.
This is ridiculous, ghost already pushed a hard case on Sentinel. If you think that line was his reasoning you're seriously misrepresenting him.
|
United Kingdom36161 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 just patently false.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
Alright, this has happened 3 times now, so I can't help but notice.
layabout soft or badly defending people.
Zephirdd:
On April 24 2012 09:06 layabout wrote:
He seemed unsure of himself.
At the time of voting VE i was unsure of myself because his play made next to no sense as either alignment*. It was his refusal to answer questions that was the eventual tipping point for me.
It seems that this was also the case for zeph.
*Also that is why i hate these it makes no sense as mafia arguments. It made no sense as town either, we shouldn't give a player the benefit of the doubt for being anti-town.
He completely ignores the main part of my case, while bringing up 'unsure' as a defence. He posts again on the issue where he quoted part of my case, ignoring where I flesh out further points and conclusions.
Sentinel:
On April 25 2012 05:23 layabout wrote:If the crux of your case is his lack of a contribution then i must inform you that, that is typical of him. his past games
Bill Murray:
On April 25 2012 06:14 layabout wrote:If you hadn't made it clear from the outset* that your decision to push BM was independent of BM's play then maybe people would take posts like this seriously. But you did, they don't, move on. + Show Spoiler [*] +On April 21 2012 09:15 Mattchew wrote:
So anyway should we policy lynch Bill Murray because
a. he is scum in like 99% of his recent games
b. he gets away with everything "because he's Bill Murray"
These encompass my 2 top scumreads (Sentinel/Zephirdd) and a quite potential scum (Bill Murray)
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 25 2012 06:37 Mattchew wrote:
when you say badly defending people, do you mean badly as in his reasoning and logic is bad, or do you mean bad because you think they are bad people to defend?
the soft defences were on BM/Sentinel
I meant badly as in reasoning/logic. On zephirdd, picking up on his pre-day 1 lynch behaviour, which as i made clear in my post was irrelevant. Followed by quoting half of my subsequent case where i was simply laying things out.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 25 2012 06:41 Mattchew wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 06:39 marvellosity wrote:On April 25 2012 06:37 Mattchew wrote:
when you say badly defending people, do you mean badly as in his reasoning and logic is bad, or do you mean bad because you think they are bad people to defend? the soft defences were on BM/Sentinel I meant badly as in reasoning/logic. On zephirdd, picking up on his pre-day 1 lynch behaviour, which as i made clear in my post was irrelevant. Followed by quoting half of my subsequent case where i was simply laying things out. the problem I have is i don't disagree with what layabout wrote about BM/Sentinel. I don't know about zeph cause thats more of a you and him issue, but his other 2 posts seem to not be soft defenses as much as his reason for disagreeing. I don't find them scummy
Alright, I'm willing to be wrong on this one. I'm going to keep it in my mind though because it jumped out at me.
At this point I think layabout has posted generally strongly, and he's not one of my scumreads. I just found what I posted to be odd.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 25 2012 07:04 layabout wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 06:43 Mattchew wrote:On April 25 2012 06:40 layabout wrote:On April 25 2012 06:17 Mattchew wrote:
into him ninja voting VE (not just some random), letting VE get lynched, yelling at others for lynching VE, and overall terrible posting. I think his town meta atleast has him say he'll try hard at somepoint If that is the evolution of your case, then i think that your case is about to become a victim of natural selection + Show Spoiler +In all seriousness The ninja vote in that context is not alignment indicative. Letting VE get lynch is something that only the people on BM did anything to stop. Terrible posting is a vague criticism and depending on the critic could be misapplied or applied to nearly anyone in the game. As far as i am aware he didn't yell at others for lynching VE, the closest post is here: 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. He says he put the vote on VE (which was before the claim) He says he was busy and was unable to come back and change his vote. The questionable part (unless you think he is a liar) is why he would put his place holder vote on a player that he thinks should never be lynched day1 one. But when do we stop saying "oh its BM" and say "lynch that scum" When we have a reason to. eg. we have analysis that demonstrates that he is scum or we have plenty of storng town reads and the pool of players that scum lie in is small enough to make him a good lynch. I am concerned about why Ottoxlol is suggesting that we try to link the alignments of players together on shaky grounds and then lynch into them to find scum. This is a recipe for mislynches aplenty* and looks worse when you consider that he did so under pressure, instead of giving us solid opinions about who he thinks is scum. + Show Spoiler [*] +Do i need to explain this? Because i love a little bit of theorycraft.
Is the fact that he's a total newb an excuse for this?
Or do you think it's gone beyond this excuse by now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
