TL Mafia LIV

On May 03 2012 07:18 blubbdavid wrote:
Haha, we have two scumslips already.

Maybe you don't know but the role PM's for vanilla townie were sent in normal font.

On May 03 2012 08:00 Katina wrote:


You are pretty quick be calling people scum

On May 03 2012 08:50 marvellosity wrote:
O hai Blazinghand. Are we going to spread our suspicions around this game or tunnel another townie until he cries? (note: I did not cry. Probably.)

People are making too much out of blubbdavid, poor guy said one thing and everyone is interrogating him already.

On May 03 2012 10:15 papapanda wrote:
My guess is that grush is semi-lurker and just have been reading/agreeing/sheeping with what information that has/hasnot been posted by you.

At first I would've have passed off the blue/green slip from blubbdavid as misreading because I can imagine myself accidentally misreading/mis-pronouncing blue/green. But from his defensive post i have to be a little suspicious.



It is reasonable to vote for blubb if no one else comes out with major slip-ups, and the town has to lynch someone.
Otherwise I would sit back and wait for N1 or D2 when more information might be available.

Me is hardcore BLU!

On May 03 2012 10:15 papapanda wrote:
My guess is that grush is semi-lurker and just have been reading/agreeing/sheeping with what information that has/hasnot been posted by you.

At first I would've have passed off the blue/green slip from blubbdavid as misreading because I can imagine myself accidentally misreading/mis-pronouncing blue/green. But from his defensive post i have to be a little suspicious.



It is reasonable to vote for blubb if no one else comes out with major slip-ups, and the town has to lynch someone.
Otherwise I would sit back and wait for N1 or D2 when more information might be available.

Me is hardcore BLU!

On May 04 2012 00:34 Palmar wrote:
I want to look useful to the town without knowing what's going on. If I read the thread past Kenpachi's claim that might help.

On May 04 2012 01:25 Palmar wrote:


That's a dumb way to play the game.

On May 03 2012 08:04 layabout wrote:
I just want to warn all of the "area 53" guys that policy lynching is no better an option in this game than it ever was before. I know that a few of you are currently feeling like we should place all lurkers and confusing posters into the fire. But the majority of those players will be town and lynching into them is likely to kill (admittedly useless) townies.

We are going to be polite in this game.

We are going to vote at appropriate times.

We are going to act in town's interest's using methods that are simple and explainable.

And we are going to destroy red.

On May 04 2012 07:35 layabout wrote:
BH you are just bitter because you blew your own leg off after you tried to rocket jump with the wrong boots on.

I think killing something awesome could be a good move. If we still have no candidates when i get up then i think we should just lynch BM.

On May 03 2012 10:20 grush57 wrote:


You have 30 minutes to explain this or we will lynch you off your just made policy.

On May 04 2012 22:58 Mementoss wrote:
BH, I agree with most of your points on Nova Terra I actually had the same notes as you did. His response today was also lackluster. In the games I played/observed with when he was vanilla town he was all over the place trying to push discussion. I think his "im intimidated by vets" is just an excuse for him to lurk and post when it feels convenient. Not committed to saying anything solid, stuff like I don't think hes scum for sure, and I'll keep him in the back of my mind. It could be a situation where Nova rolled scum.

Grushes case is a strange one for sure. It's one of the only cases made in this game so far, and he just crumbled and gave in and played the pity me card. This could be a town or mafia trait, the only interesting thing to me is how hard it has been to get votes onto him, 4 in about a day, and the fact that a lot of people are just dropping one liners defending him without proper reason and jumping onto the next person. Still think there is a good chance he could be scum.

Here is our only inactive atm (plenty of lurkers right now):
Beneather

Also, Layabout what song are you listening to?

On May 04 2012 14:46 Nova_Terra wrote:
i resent the fact that many of the players here are well known and have much more sway because of it. I dont even feel like posting when someone will just as easily do something else and get followed.
And also there are other reasons for not posting much other than being scum.
Right now i think it would be correct to be shooting into the lurker crowd.

On May 05 2012 00:20 froggynoddy wrote:


why? Inactives and lurkers are killing this day 1, its allowign scum to hide amongst them. I'd almost be up for changing my vote onto him if it gets him to contribute.

I aso agree with Mementoss, Grush's case is weak but its the only case we have.

On May 05 2012 02:18 layabout wrote:
@ SomethingAwesome i feel like killing you because you were posting stuff like this and this.

You first post is totally unsubstantiated.

You were asked by multiple player to explain you second post but your explanation is very weak

Even though townies answer questions addressed to others all of the time.


Why would you try to analyse the contents of that quote?
How on earth could saying "Me is hardcore BLU" have any relation to that players alignment?

@ Mementoss i am listening to a song called "no brains"

since we still have no real candidate
##vote Bill Murray
reasons:
anti-town when town
anti-town when scum
lurks a lot
when he is active he is disruptive

This is a policy lynch.

On May 05 2012 05:26 layabout wrote:
point 1

i hope that this is your way of calling me scummy and not jsut saying that you have a personal dislike you me

point 2


well for one thing i wrote this yesterday:

time passed and no decent candidate emerged <------- the reason why it was a better option than it was at the very start of the day

so i voted for BM

point 3

You are just saying "because of what DYH said".
However, his point was that my post was not addressing what was going on in the thread and he speculates that this is because i was not confortable posting about blubs play. That was not the case, i did not add more to that discussion because it was baseless, fruitless, pointless and made my left eye weep.
see http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=14591633

point 4

see point 2

On May 05 2012 07:09 Blazinghand wrote:
Town: 0-1
Modkills: 2-1

Don't worry guys Kurumi's got us covered

On May 06 2012 05:37 slOosh wrote:

He spends some time with blubbdavid incident, concludes that what he did (asking powerrole) is scummy but then moves onto Grush, fosing him for "obvious reasons". Clearly pushing along BM wagon, with reasons like

not because he is scum. Could be residual stress from LIII so not totally conclusive.
Has responded unreasonably aggressively to pressure.

Conclusion: Probably scum.

On May 05 2012 23:03 BlackRaven wrote:
Yo jdub, mind telling me your thoughts now?



Still feel that way about credibility? Because that shoots yours out the window as well.

:3

On May 07 2012 03:32 blubbdavid wrote:

And I like you less and less. Considering that you are two persons, you have contributed laughably little content.
And what is up with this one:

?
Consolidating layabouts train?

On May 07 2012 00:56 SomethingAwesome wrote:
It was never a good idea to lynch BM. But it was also never a bad idea. Like I wrote during D1 I was indifferent whether BM died or not. So I consolidated and we lynched him. Who else was there? NT? Grush? No one was supporting my layabout lynch, not even my other head.

You are not a nullread to me. I just have to figure out whether you are town or scum... (Don't worry.. It makes sense)

Ghost: Looking forward to your input. Make it a good one, pretty please?

On May 07 2012 03:18 layabout wrote:

here:

This is a strange thing to assert when as a townie you do not know who scum are and if they thought that Katina was coming back or not.

Also when he votes for me he emphasises that it is to get me to answer his question.

He begins by saying that i am scum. If he believes this then surely that should be the reason for his vote. By saying that he wants a response he gives himself a way to back out of pushing me. If he truly believes that i am scum then he would have no reason to do this.

On May 06 2012 19:50 blubbdavid wrote:
I see, Blazinghand is switching cases so it looks like he doesn't sheep l10f.
Well, jdup has made a good post regarding layabout's behaviour


It took scum by surprise that Kat was modkilled.

Now to the harder part:

(btw don't talk about you in 3rd person, it is confusing)
[1]Why did layabout want to policy lynch BM, when there was an easy victim to gang up?
Will think about it during lunch.

On May 07 2012 14:05 DoYouHas wrote:
Part 1

I suppose I should start with far and away the scummiest of blubbdavid's posts and then tack on all the extras after to seal the deal.

1. This is awkwardly phrased considering SA had just said that he thinks blubb is scum.

2. Daring SA to try and lynch you? Where is this coming from? For someone who has played the "my bad, don't hold it against me" card as well as a "I give up" defense this is extremely out of character and scummy. Not only that, he states his read that SA is scum because SA doesn't want to vote for him yet which immediately makes his next statement absurd.

3. This is the part that really got me wanting to lynch blubb. Let us think about this ridiculous scenario that blubb has put forth between SA and layabout. Supposedly at this point blubb believes both SA and layabout to be scum, or at the very least highly suspicious. So in what world does it make sense that one scum(SA) is going to 'buddy' ANOTHER SCUM(laya), another scum who just happens to be under a fair bit of scrutiny atm. Even forgetting the scrutiny part it doesn't make sense. In blubb's attempt to defend against SA's claim that blubb seemed to know people's roles he slips again and gives us this buddying scenario. The only way that it can possibly make sense is if blubb KNOWS that layabout is town.

4. Didn't sheep the vote of layabout, true, but then there is this:
For someone who has been fixated on attacking others (mainly layabout) for pushing a BM lynch you were awful ready to jump on the train to secure the lynch.

---

Part 2


Seriously, obtaining information is more important than lynching scum D1 according to blubb. This is the reasoning he uses to say that BM was a bad lynch. This is just so incredibly wrong from a town POV. Lynch a lurker scum d1 you get all the info of the people fighting/pushing the lynch + the chance to get rid of a scum power + YOU JUST KILLED SCUM, CMON.



blubb quotes JW's good post on laya's behavior and then does what? Reinforce a point(s) he liked? no. Expand or provide further analysis? no. What we get is this statement, "It took scum by surprise that Kat was modkilled." What purpose does this serve? This statement isn't, "I also think it took scum by surprise that Kat was modkilled." or "If it took scum by surprise that Kat was modkilled then...". I think that the lack of relevance paired with the certainty on something that shouldn't have been able to go past speculation makes this likely to be a scumslip.

---

Part 3

Inconsistencies and WIFOM:


blubb calls out Katina which normally would mean that blubb would have taken note of Katina's past posts as well as be waiting for a response to this call out. Then we get this:

This is after I made my case and slOosh had switched his vote. A consistent blubb would already have been up to date on Katina and this comment would have been either been accepting, refuting, or critiquing my case instead of playing at being ignorant.

WIFOM:

There are a few more examples of each I could pull for this section, but I feel like I would just be diluting my argument.

---

TLDR: blubbdavid is scum, scumming scum

##Vote: blubbdavid

On May 06 2012 19:50 blubbdavid wrote:
I see, Blazinghand is switching cases so it looks like he doesn't sheep l10f.
--snipped--

On May 07 2012 03:27 blubbdavid wrote:
Do I truly believe that you are scum? No. Is there a high possibility that you are scum? Yes. And you dodged my question by writing three lines of that say all the same thing.

On May 07 2012 04:54 blubbdavid wrote:
SA, you didn't answer that question about layabout that has been bugging me. It's even something that makes him townier in my eyes (still scum though), and yet you are unable to build on it.

And action = vote, calling somebody scum several times and not voting is definitely NOT action. It's more like "i make the impression i am active but i better wait till a wagon forms".

On May 07 2012 17:49 Sinensis wrote:
I'm going to flip a coin. Heads is layabout, tails is NT:
.
..
...
Looks like it's Nova_Terra
##vote: Nova_Terra

On May 07 2012 14:05 DoYouHas wrote:
Part 1

I suppose I should start with far and away the scummiest of blubbdavid's posts and then tack on all the extras after to seal the deal.

1. This is awkwardly phrased considering SA had just said that he thinks blubb is scum.

2. Daring SA to try and lynch you? Where is this coming from? For someone who has played the "my bad, don't hold it against me" card as well as a "I give up" defense this is extremely out of character and scummy. Not only that, he states his read that SA is scum because SA doesn't want to vote for him yet which immediately makes his next statement absurd.

3. This is the part that really got me wanting to lynch blubb. Let us think about this ridiculous scenario that blubb has put forth between SA and layabout. Supposedly at this point blubb believes both SA and layabout to be scum, or at the very least highly suspicious. So in what world does it make sense that one scum(SA) is going to 'buddy' ANOTHER SCUM(laya), another scum who just happens to be under a fair bit of scrutiny atm. Even forgetting the scrutiny part it doesn't make sense. In blubb's attempt to defend against SA's claim that blubb seemed to know people's roles he slips again and gives us this buddying scenario. The only way that it can possibly make sense is if blubb KNOWS that layabout is town.

4. Didn't sheep the vote of layabout, true, but then there is this:
For someone who has been fixated on attacking others (mainly layabout) for pushing a BM lynch you were awful ready to jump on the train to secure the lynch.

---

Part 2


Seriously, obtaining information is more important than lynching scum D1 according to blubb. This is the reasoning he uses to say that BM was a bad lynch. This is just so incredibly wrong from a town POV. Lynch a lurker scum d1 you get all the info of the people fighting/pushing the lynch + the chance to get rid of a scum power + YOU JUST KILLED SCUM, CMON.



blubb quotes JW's good post on laya's behavior and then does what? Reinforce a point(s) he liked? no. Expand or provide further analysis? no. What we get is this statement, "It took scum by surprise that Kat was modkilled." What purpose does this serve? This statement isn't, "I also think it took scum by surprise that Kat was modkilled." or "If it took scum by surprise that Kat was modkilled then...". I think that the lack of relevance paired with the certainty on something that shouldn't have been able to go past speculation makes this likely to be a scumslip.

---

Part 3

Inconsistencies and WIFOM:


blubb calls out Katina which normally would mean that blubb would have taken note of Katina's past posts as well as be waiting for a response to this call out. Then we get this:

This is after I made my case and slOosh had switched his vote. A consistent blubb would already have been up to date on Katina and this comment would have been either been accepting, refuting, or critiquing my case instead of playing at being ignorant.

WIFOM:

There are a few more examples of each I could pull for this section, but I feel like I would just be diluting my argument.

---

TLDR: blubbdavid is scum, scumming scum

##Vote: blubbdavid

On May 08 2012 04:13 marvellosity wrote:


Hmm, my reads had them the other way round in that regard

On May 08 2012 04:15 SomethingAwesome wrote:

my reads side with grush

(i speak for me and dirk)

-mattchew

On May 08 2012 04:22 blubbdavid wrote:
So game continues I am pushing against layabout, then there comes the mind reading affair:
I am talking about how some actions of layabout make him less scummy. And what does SA do, who has buddied up with layabout? [1] Accuses me of being scum because I seem to know too much. Instead of being relieved that I, blubbdavid, one of the few who were pushing his buddy layabout, he accuses me of being scum instead. [2]Come, no one accuses someone as scum when said scum is reconsidering his tunneling. Except when you are a bad townie (SA) who is reading too much into the wrong person and too little into the right one.

But why do I think that SA is town? Because that guy is seriously convinced that I am scum. If he was scum, he would be pushing much more discreet, and that's where we land at layabout, who is abusing his naive townbuddy in pushing me hard.

On May 08 2012 04:54 blubbdavid wrote:

[1]semantics. don't get lost in semantics.
[2]nope, never reconsidered it, because his voting behaviour is not the only aspect of him. my suspicion on him is the sum of his posting, voting behaviour, general behaviour etc. You yourself have raised some very well points against layabout. But your suspicions against him somehow vanished miraculously.

Come, no one accuses someone as scum when said scum is reconsidering his tunneling

On May 08 2012 05:39 Eiii wrote:
Hmmmm. blubbdavid's convinced me, I'm gonna switch my vote over to him.

On May 08 2012 05:51 papapanda wrote:
Ugh. Didn't feel like I received a satisfactory reply from layabout, but it doesn't look like he is getting lynched today.