|
On June 14 2012 06:38 Miltonkram wrote:roflwaffles55I'm suspicious of this guy based on two of his posts. First one is a response to s0Lstice/sciberbia: Show nested quote +Sure!
When it comes to lynching lurkers I would agree in that it shouldn't be the focus, and would prefer to lynch someone acting scummy day 1.
As to NL, I am firmly against it and if we can't get a clear majority on scummy-acting folks then we should at least lynch a lurker, especially on D1 and 2. Notice the eager to please tone of his post. I'm looking at it as a possible scumslip. His 2nd suspicious post: Show nested quote +I agree that I may have been a bit too aggressive right off the bat, but I implore you to look at my arguments and his, and take more from it then just an overzealous attempt on my part.
##unvote alan133
There you go, I'm still suspicious, but I may have underestimated the significance of a vote. Notice how self-conscious he is in this post, especially in that last line. I realize that several players weren't interested in his case, but there is absolutely no harm in keeping pressure on a player until they give you a satisfactory defense. Essentially he backs down from his pressure based on a tiny reprimand from Crossfire. It seems like he's trying to keep himself out of the spotlight. Obviously all these players can't be scum. I'll be looking through the thread more to see what I can do about narrowing down my list of suspicious players. Right now I'm leaning towards roflwaffles and MJ. I'm waiting to see if suki actually defends herself this time around.
You've defeated yourself in your own argument against me, with the explanation as to why I backed down on alan133. I backed down because I hadn't received any support towards my case. You also defeated yourself by saying that I'm trying to keep myself out of the spotlight, if I wanted that, I wouldn't have been the third person to post a case, let alone one I knew would net me a bunch of flak.
I made the case to put pressure on someone that was lacking any real opinion, whether because he felt that there wasn't enough data to form one, or because he was hiding from the spotlight himself.
The evidence or suspicions that you have brought up can be answered so easily I'm not sure why you didn't come up with them yourself.
|
On June 14 2012 03:50 alan133 wrote:@roflwaffles55 + Show Spoiler +Yes, I did vote you, but you forget that votes are easily removable, and the fact that you had to write a sensationalist paragraph in red text rather then just poke through the obvious logical holes in my cases convince me that you have something to lose, whether it be scum, blue, or just poor play. The red text was meant to emphasize on how easily I could've built a case against you if I were to use the same speculations and baseless assumptions. I also noticed you were focusing a lot on me, from asking my opinion to my opening post, proceeding to accuse me of supposedly leaking "scum-tells", and then voting me. I thought of your possible motives, and it made sense for both town and scum plays. (see summary) But enough of you, it is late over here so I think it is better for me to notify my leave as well as writing a summary. + Show Spoiler +I feel like there are still not enough post to build any case on. Maybe because of time difference everyone is sleeping while I am refreshing the page every 3 seconds. My standing on voting. + Show Spoiler + I know I might be talking votes too seriously as stated, but IMO townies should behave seriously and cast every votes (even if it is retractable) as if they are not allowed to retract, in other words, use ##FoS to declare an "eyeing" instead. Furthermore, I think it is beneficial to town if people cast votes seriously. Of course, I do agree on using it to apply pressure, but the effect diminishes if everyone just throws it around. @roflwaffles55 Current strategy seems to be "pressing one guy until he is dry", which make sense for both Scums and Town. Scum: + Show Spoiler +<pick one target> and hope (s)he is inexperience and find out if (s)he has a power role. If (s)he slips, proceed to pursue for a mislynch. Town: + Show Spoiler +There is very little activity right now. <target> seems most scummy, lets see what we can squeeze out of him, and even if I am wrong we can get people to talk more. @suki First started case based on false contradictions. Votes trackd00r. Retracts later and claims she thought the (non-existence) contradiction was not as severe as she thought. I find this slightly scummy but it is well within reason for a townie to behave this way (get discussions rolling, which no doubt is successful) That said, I sensed an organized "pattern". Sending two goons to + Show Spoiler +Reads post --> Throw out case (with weak evidence/logical support) --> vote --> see response/find ways to abuse. while one hiding in the dark. I think I might have read too much into it, and it was just 2 eager townies trying to get things rolling. I would like to hear opinions from other people. I took too long just to type out a post (constant googling, spell checking) I only listed two person here because they stood out more to me: I planned to write a summary for everyone but it is too late now. Living at the other side of the hemisphere from the rest of players kind of suck. Will be seeing you guys in 7 hours, off to bed.
Interesting that the first legitimate read that you come up with is a conspiracy between me and suki. Not only is it completely ridiculous, but you second guess it immediately, again leaving your options open so that you can't actually be held accountable for anything. Put yourself on the line, start contributing to the big picture and not just responding emotionally to me, and think logically about what you're going to post.
The biggest thing that keeps irking me about your play is your seeming avoidance of actual decision making, the fact that even when criticizing my play you can't say "I think this is scummy". You go all the way around it and put the possible motivations from both angles.
I would appreciate it if someone other then me looked at alan133's posts and formed their own independent opinion on him.
|
On June 14 2012 09:38 trackd00r wrote:Regarding rofl's case against alan: I don't think that case will get us somewhere. Rofl's is tunneling him and the response he's had don't tell to much. I wonder if you are going to continue the pressure to him. Half day has passed, so it would be wise to vote for him if you don't have any other clear option at the moment. I don't know if you are pushing this case any harder, or at least you are being kinda inconsistent with your thoughts. First you say you want to put down some pressure. Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 07:25 roflwaffles55 wrote:On June 14 2012 06:38 Miltonkram wrote:roflwaffles55I'm suspicious of this guy based on two of his posts. First one is a response to s0Lstice/sciberbia: Sure!
When it comes to lynching lurkers I would agree in that it shouldn't be the focus, and would prefer to lynch someone acting scummy day 1.
As to NL, I am firmly against it and if we can't get a clear majority on scummy-acting folks then we should at least lynch a lurker, especially on D1 and 2. Notice the eager to please tone of his post. I'm looking at it as a possible scumslip. His 2nd suspicious post: I agree that I may have been a bit too aggressive right off the bat, but I implore you to look at my arguments and his, and take more from it then just an overzealous attempt on my part.
##unvote alan133
There you go, I'm still suspicious, but I may have underestimated the significance of a vote. Notice how self-conscious he is in this post, especially in that last line. I realize that several players weren't interested in his case, but there is absolutely no harm in keeping pressure on a player until they give you a satisfactory defense. Essentially he backs down from his pressure based on a tiny reprimand from Crossfire. It seems like he's trying to keep himself out of the spotlight. Obviously all these players can't be scum. I'll be looking through the thread more to see what I can do about narrowing down my list of suspicious players. Right now I'm leaning towards roflwaffles and MJ. I'm waiting to see if suki actually defends herself this time around. You've defeated yourself in your own argument against me, with the explanation as to why I backed down on alan133. I backed down because I hadn't received any support towards my case. You also defeated yourself by saying that I'm trying to keep myself out of the spotlight, if I wanted that, I wouldn't have been the third person to post a case, let alone one I knew would net me a bunch of flak. And then, you start again: Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 07:35 roflwaffles55 wrote:On June 14 2012 03:50 alan133 wrote:@roflwaffles55 + Show Spoiler +Yes, I did vote you, but you forget that votes are easily removable, and the fact that you had to write a sensationalist paragraph in red text rather then just poke through the obvious logical holes in my cases convince me that you have something to lose, whether it be scum, blue, or just poor play. The red text was meant to emphasize on how easily I could've built a case against you if I were to use the same speculations and baseless assumptions. I also noticed you were focusing a lot on me, from asking my opinion to my opening post, proceeding to accuse me of supposedly leaking "scum-tells", and then voting me. I thought of your possible motives, and it made sense for both town and scum plays. (see summary) But enough of you, it is late over here so I think it is better for me to notify my leave as well as writing a summary. + Show Spoiler +I feel like there are still not enough post to build any case on. Maybe because of time difference everyone is sleeping while I am refreshing the page every 3 seconds. My standing on voting. + Show Spoiler + I know I might be talking votes too seriously as stated, but IMO townies should behave seriously and cast every votes (even if it is retractable) as if they are not allowed to retract, in other words, use ##FoS to declare an "eyeing" instead. Furthermore, I think it is beneficial to town if people cast votes seriously. Of course, I do agree on using it to apply pressure, but the effect diminishes if everyone just throws it around. @roflwaffles55 Current strategy seems to be "pressing one guy until he is dry", which make sense for both Scums and Town. Scum: + Show Spoiler +<pick one target> and hope (s)he is inexperience and find out if (s)he has a power role. If (s)he slips, proceed to pursue for a mislynch. Town: + Show Spoiler +There is very little activity right now. <target> seems most scummy, lets see what we can squeeze out of him, and even if I am wrong we can get people to talk more. @suki First started case based on false contradictions. Votes trackd00r. Retracts later and claims she thought the (non-existence) contradiction was not as severe as she thought. I find this slightly scummy but it is well within reason for a townie to behave this way (get discussions rolling, which no doubt is successful) That said, I sensed an organized "pattern". Sending two goons to + Show Spoiler +Reads post --> Throw out case (with weak evidence/logical support) --> vote --> see response/find ways to abuse. while one hiding in the dark. I think I might have read too much into it, and it was just 2 eager townies trying to get things rolling. I would like to hear opinions from other people. I took too long just to type out a post (constant googling, spell checking) I only listed two person here because they stood out more to me: I planned to write a summary for everyone but it is too late now. Living at the other side of the hemisphere from the rest of players kind of suck. Will be seeing you guys in 7 hours, off to bed. Interesting that the first legitimate read that you come up with is a conspiracy between me and suki. Not only is it completely ridiculous, but you second guess it immediately, again leaving your options open so that you can't actually be held accountable for anything. Put yourself on the line, start contributing to the big picture and not just responding emotionally to me, and think logically about what you're going to post. The biggest thing that keeps irking me about your play is your seeming avoidance of actual decision making, the fact that even when criticizing my play you can't say "I think this is scummy". You go all the way around it and put the possible motivations from both angles. I would appreciate it if someone other then me looked at alan133's posts and formed their own independent opinion on him. Are you really backing down? Maybe a vote or a FOS can make it up. Anyways, Alan133, you can't drop analysis like that. Try to give a good effort to show your thoughts before its too late. Austin, Have you taken la look to any of these current cases?
I'm currently waiting on Mouldy Jeb's and alan133's responses to the cases brought against them, until something convinces me otherwise, I still believe that alan133 is increasingly suspicious.
##FoS alan133
|
On June 15 2012 00:50 s0Lstice wrote:
Some housekeeping stuff first..
I am removing alan133 from my scum list. The main thing that had me suspicious was his strong-arm defense, but everything following that has been fine. I like that he is holding himself accountable for his style, and I want to see what he can do when not under pressure.
austin and suki have commented on crossfire99, and I have to say I agree. I was planning on wrighting a post similar to what suki has done. The cogent point is that he has long bouts of inactivity when he is both scum and town. He should get the same level of suspicion that every lurker gets, but nothing special beyond that I feel. His filter right now is pretty garbagey, and hard to get a read on. I wouldn't be upset if we lynched him, but I think we can do better.
Here is better: HeavOnEarth. Nothing has happened to change my initial opinion on him for the better. In fact, him buddying up to sciberbia in his latest post makes him look worse. Go read my case if you missed it. I'm not the only one to see him as suspicious, so I think there is plenty of traction here.
##vote HeavOnEarth
What exactly in alan133's play made you suddenly change your mind? He reworded his arguments and continued to attack the two people who are putting pressure on him. He still hasn't brought anything new to the table, except for try to expand on this conspiracy theory that he has running between me and suki. He improved his wording, and he says he changed his playstyle. However, all he did was become more aggressive towards me... and suki...
His play maintains relatively the same. It's increasingly suspicious, I got called out for changing my play when the public opinion seemed to want me to, and then he does the same thing.
I'll be posting my opinions on the rest of the cases brought against HeavOnEarth, Crossfire99 and suki shortly.
|
I'm going to post as though all of these people are scum, and the impact they have a chance to make if they are left alive. I think it will give a different way of thinking about it.
Crossfire99
Sciberbia posted a convincing case on him already, and several people have posted tidbits on him, however, nobody has put the focus on him (partially my fault). Therefore, if he is in fact following the thread and trying slide under the radar of suspicion while we focus on alan133, suki, and HeavOnEarth, he is going to get away with it.
His play was very lackluster and never brought fresh reads to the table. Out of everyone, if he is scum, he seems to be one of the most dangerous to let live.
alan133
I've already tunneled the crap out of him, and his defenses have been drastic and overly reactionary. If he were left alive, I honestly think he could do a fair bit of damage as scum, just because he defends very well and seems to have people convinced as to his innocence.
HeavOnEarth
His play is quite suspicious and his accusations and suspicions lackluster at best. He could just as easily be an awful townie as scum.
Overall he's been fairly ineffectual, but if he's hiding behind a mask of confusion and bad reads, he could be an annoyance as scum later on.
suki
It would be self-serving of me to defend suki, as she took my case against alan133 and improved it, I believe in her case. But for the benefit of the doubt, let's assume she's scum. The strength or lack thereof (trapd00r case) of her cases imply that she's trying to lead the vote towards those that aren't scum.
If she is scum, she could be quite dangerous later on.
All of that theorizing on what they "could" do if they were scum being done...
I believe that the most lynchable potential scum right now would be Crossfire99. I understand that there are already votes on HeavOnEarth, but if he really is that incompetent at bringing cases to the table, as a scum, why would he try to post them? He is suspicious to me, but not as suspicious as Crossfire. Unless he responds to the accusations in a convincing and collected manner soon, I strongly believe that he should be lynched.
##vote Crossfire99
|
Oh shit, forgot about Mouldy Jeb.. obviously he's an easy lynch to make, and if we can't come to a majority then we should just get rid of him barring some legitimate posts on his part.
|
On June 15 2012 03:23 Crossfire99 wrote:I'm just going to go down the thread and respond to people who have questions or suspicions addressed to me. Let me know if I miss your particular post. First up Austin: + Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 03:37 austinmcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 01:56 Crossfire99 wrote:As for my current thoughts: The bolded part of this post by austin makes me suspicious of him. + Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 22:23 austinmcc wrote:
I don't read those posts as contradictory, believe the second one clarifies the first and explains that, while he'd consider a NL, the standard is higher than "Town is lynching someone that isn't one of my top couple reads."
That said, even if the two statements are entirely contradictory, I don't really see anything scummy in that. More inclined to see contradictions concerning votes and reads as scummy, where someone has stated one thing but then has to take a party line, rather than super early statements concerning a no lynch. There's no agenda to push on that issue. Two completely contradictory statements without reasoning for the change is very suspicious. This is a good way to catch scum. They know the alignment of every person, so they have to make cases that they know are wrong (excluding bussing). This can lead to contradictory posts to make them better fit in with the current town mindset. Austin, why don't you think that contradictory statements are suspicious? They can be, depending on what they concern, and when they occur. See the italicized above, although I should have more explicitly qualified the bolded bit. If someone had barged into the thread yesterday saying "I love no lynches" and then "I hate no lynches" in the very next post, that's not scummy to me. There's no debate here (nobody is proposing we NL), it's not important at this time (start of day, no NL proposal). There's no scummy reason to swap between those two statements on that particular topic at this particular time. Thanks for qualifying your statement. I was confused why said it, but now I understand what you meant. I definitely agree with your italicized statement. Differences in voting behavior and reads are very important in finding scum. Next up Milton: + Show Spoiler + On June 14 2012 08:05 Miltonkram wrote:
@ roflwaffles
Ok, I see what you're saying. I thought you were completely backing off of alan even though you've made a decent case against him. I still don't like the fact that you took your vote off of him based on a wrist-slap from Crossfire, but I guess I misunderstood your intent. Since you're still pursuing your case on alan the unvote seems less scummy.
As far as alan133 is concerned I think you may have something. He's put very little pressure on anyone. When he does pressure he seems wishy-washy as hell.
Top two scumreads as of this moment: Mouldy Jeb and alan133.
@Crossfire, Golden, and HeavOnEarth
What do you think of these two players and the cases against them? Are there any scummy players you think we're missing? We need more activity out of you guys. Of the three of you, only heaven's put decent pressure on anyone and even that is difficult to take seriously because he hasn't followed up on his reads at all. Mouldy: If I can read the time right on his post (hopefully I can lol), he hasn't posted in a day even though he promised a case when he came back from work yesterday. So far he's just thrown around baseless accusations and hasn't contributed. He needs to post. Alan: I don't like his case on suki. I don't know how she has played in past games, but it seems like she is being open and contributing her own reads and putting in good work like going through my game history (props for doing that, I don't have time for that much research). I also don't like him trying to link people together so early. We know next to nothing so far. Don't make links between supposed "mafia" when no one has even flipped yet. Just find one person based on their scumminess and push to lynch them. This makes me feel a little suspicious of him. Respone to sciberbia: + Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 14:10 sciberbia wrote:As promised, here are my thoughts on crossfire and heavonEarth. crossfireThere isn't any one thing that looks super scummy, but nothing in his filter gives me a townie feel, and there are a handful of small things that suggest he is scum: his suspicions on austin + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +The bolded part of this post by austin makes me suspicious of him. + Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 22:23 austinmcc wrote:
I don't read those posts as contradictory, believe the second one clarifies the first and explains that, while he'd consider a NL, the standard is higher than "Town is lynching someone that isn't one of my top couple reads."
That said, even if the two statements are entirely contradictory, I don't really see anything scummy in that. More inclined to see contradictions concerning votes and reads as scummy, where someone has stated one thing but then has to take a party line, rather than super early statements concerning a no lynch. There's no agenda to push on that issue. Two completely contradictory statements without reasoning for the change is very suspicious. This is a good way to catch scum. They know the alignment of every person, so they have to make cases that they know are wrong (excluding bussing). This can lead to contradictory posts to make them better fit in with the current town mindset. Austin, why don't you think that contradictory statements are suspicious? This is exactly the kind of D1 case I would expect a scum to make. Austin makes the somewhat peculiar assertion that there is nothing scummy about contradicting yourself on policy during the early game. Whether or not you agree with this statement is irrelevant. The point is, what does a mafia Austin stand to gain by making a statement like this? Is he planning on contradicting himself later? No. It's very likely that he actually believes what he said so the fact that he said it isn't indicative of his alignment. I don't think Austin's statement is scummy at all. But, it is definitely a statement that a mafia could attack, because it seems illogical. It's easy to criticize. And that's what crossfire did. This is the kind of thing mafia do D1: attack people for seemingly illogical statements even though it isn't a scumtell. Like the mafia's attacks on Vivax from last game. his stance on Mouldy Jeb + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 03:38 Crossfire99 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 02:45 s0Lstice wrote:
Crossfire99, what do you think of what I said about Mouldy Jeb?
Roflwaffles55, same question. Yeah Mouldy is acting really weird. He needs to get active to explain himself. Everything he has said so far lacks good reasoning. s0Lstice, an influential player and good townie, calls Mouldy Jeb his #1 suspicion. s0Lstice then explicitly asks crossfire for an opinion on Mouldy. Crossfire does exactly what I would expect a mafia to do. Agrees with the influential player on his #1 scumread, reiterating what s0Lstice said. Mouldy Jeb would undoubtedly be an easy lynch today, and assuming that he is town, would take the pressure off mafia. And if crossfire is so suspicious of MJ, why didn't he say anything until s0Lstice prompted him? I grant that none of this is solid evidence and that a townie could plausibly act the same way, but crossfire's response is definitely consistent with mafia behavior. Otherwise is avoiding scumhunting + Show Spoiler +
Looking through the rest of his filter, he doesn't say much meaty stuff. In his first post, he rehashes a lot of what previous people had said. And after that, he talks a lot about policy issues such as when to vote and how to pressure people. Nothing too controversial in his entire filter.
Overall, I'd say crossfire looks a bit scummy. Yeah I questioned Austin because I found that one sentence suspicious. Isn't that the whole point of this game: to ask questions about suspicious behavior, so they respond and then you can learn more about their alignment. (I also responded to him above) Yeah I responded to solstice's question. There wasn't much original content that I could put forth at the time. I believe Mouldy had like 3 posts with little content, therefore I agreed with him because it made sense. Also, I had just woken up and responded to what were the hot topics at the moment and then started going through the thread and pointing out different things I saw and responding to questions like solstice's. Also, sciberbia, you have a lot of expectations about how mafia should play. They can play any way they want. Don't assume that they will play a certain way. Ask austin about anacletus from our game. He had way too many thoughts about how mafia should play and I don't think my mafia team played the way he assumed we would at all. Another one from Milton: + Show Spoiler + On June 14 2012 19:21 Miltonkram wrote:
Ok I've been thinking pretty hard since work and there are three players I would feel good about lynching: Crossfire, HeavOnEarth and MJ.
Crossefire99
His play has already been outlined by sciberbia, so I won't expand on it too much. I'm also really suspicious at the timing of his disappearance from the thread. He hasn't posted since his defense against s0Lstice's probing pressure. It seems like the perfect time to go lurkey if he's scum. He just made his post and then could have hoped that his defense would be enough to keep himself out of further discussion. Obviously it hasn't, but I can definitely see scum motivation in his decision to go silent at the time that he did.
Just to sum up, I feel pretty confident in a lynch of any of these three players. I'll gladly put my vote behind any of them.
In regards to suki, I'm really on the fence about her. My opinion keeps flip-flopping as I read through her filter. I'm no longer confident in my suspicion of her. I liked parts of her defense and then her later pressure on alan, but there are parts I didn't like too. I'm withholding judgement until I have more time to think on her play. I can't do anything about my posting times. I pop in, read some, and post when I have time. I can't make any promises about the exact times that this will be so...idk what else to say. On to Suki: + Show Spoiler + On June 15 2012 00:06 suki wrote:
Let me go over my reads of the other players.
Crossfire99:
I spent a lot of time trying to figure out if he is scum or not. Looking into the filter of his two previous games, I found that his posting style is more or less the same.
In game 1, he rolls blue and lurks quite hard. He states out of game reasons for lurking, but he plays more or less non-commital, pointing out suspicious behavior but not really heavily pressuring anyone.
In game 2 as mafia, he starts out the game by doing two things. First, he posts a defense of a townie that had come under scrutiny. Second, he immediately starts pointing out errors in one particular person's posts. He actually tunnels this person for the entire Day 1 and only just fails to get him lynched. He survives for the whole game without really being under fire and mafia wins the game.
In this game I see a lot of policy talk, a lot of guidance talk, and hardly any pressure at all. I find it quite different from his previously successful mafia play. In addition, his helpful tone is quite present in the mafia QT from the previous game, which makes me feel more inclined to think he's actually trying to help, despite his posts not really pressuring or helping town much.
Basically, his meta has changed from his last scum game, and it's changed in a confusing way, and he isn't using the tactics that lead him to a win in the previous game. I'm waiting for more contributions from him before deciding whether I think he's scum or not.
Impressive research. I hadn't even thought about my helpfulness until you pointed that out until. I'll let people make their own conclusions about this, so I'll leave it at that.
Your responses to s0lstice were clearly lacking, you said that you questioned austin on his sentence to extract some information, however you never actually followed up on your question. While that may have something to do with your posting schedule, it is still a problem. You can't expect to play the game and get away with posting no real cases and content without being lynched. As of yet, you still have not formed your own suspicions it seems, you're just giving your opinion on other people's suspicions.
The MJ question I'll let you off on because there's honestly nothing to talk about with him. As to s0lstice's third point, you never responded as to why you haven't been more actively scumhunting.
|
I noticed already that his play was scummy, however I felt like it was the easy way out, I was hoping to nail a more influential scum D1, but I guess that's just new player optimism... If he flips scum, I'm not sure what kind of information we're going to gain from it as his posts don't seem to link him to anyone.. and if he flips town then all we really know is that he was a poor townie.
I'll go with the flow because he's fairly blatant with his scumminess (real word?) but I'd like to keep an eye on Crossfire, as well as keeping Mouldy Jeb in mind for a D2 lynch.
##unvote Crossfire99
##vote HeavOnEarth
I'm not sure if I'll be on tonight, I'll do my absolute best to be on in case there's a swing of opinion.
|
On June 15 2012 03:52 s0Lstice wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 02:44 roflwaffles55 wrote:
I believe that the most lynchable potential scum right now would be Crossfire99. I understand that there are already votes on HeavOnEarth, but if he really is that incompetent at bringing cases to the table, as a scum, why would he try to post them? He is suspicious to me, but not as suspicious as Crossfire. Unless he responds to the accusations in a convincing and collected manner soon, I strongly believe that he should be lynched. What? This is a really, really odd question. Your question assumes that he thinks of himself as incompetent, and actively tries to compensate for it. You clear him on this basis: a scum HeavOnEarth would look in the mirror and be like 'boy are you incompetent, don't go posting any cases now!', whereas a townie HeavOnEarth would be blissfully unaware of his incompetence and post as he sees fit. Furthermore, it's obvious scum are going to make an effort to accuse people, they have to appear town... ##FoS: rofflwaffles55
You're right, it was more of a musing then a deliberate thought, I wasn't thinking from his perspective.
I do still believe that HeavOnEarth's play is extremely scummy, and I still am not satisfied with Crossfire's defenses.
|
Solid lynch guys! Time to continue the hunting!
|
Glad I died.. I really didn't want to be scum for my first game, I had no idea what to do after day 1 haha.
gg
|
Awesommmmeeee! Well done milton, you pulled it out! :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
