|
On July 01 2012 06:27 AmericanUmlaut wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 06:25 JingleHell wrote:
Well, I was right. Analfetus was innocent. GG.nore, my friend.
Perhaps we should contemplate who looks shady now, in light of the new information. I think we should save discussion for morning. Posting our thoughts during the night just gives the PBUs more information to consider when picking their night hit.
They already have us over a barrel. Besides, if it goes anything like the day did, they're probably too busy laughing in /r/ablmafia about the incompetent Nazi modding happening.
I mean, let's face it, most of the discussion sounded like a Failsafe blog.
|
Holy shit wazzle!
We fucked up big.
I was so excited all day to come back from work and see that we had gotten a scum but instead we lynched our own JK?? This blows. I feel like the case against him was strong but I don't understand why he didn't caim to try to save himself, I bet he wishes he had two lvies now. I wish he did too.
So, we messed up big time here. Its okay, we can still recover and make a big comeback. I have been re-reading Anacletus' filter and I suggest you all do the same. Remember, everything he said was said by a confirmed townie. He may not have been right but at least we know his motivations.
This is what I have found of his:
On June 29 2012 07:12 Anacletus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 07:10 JingleHell wrote:On June 29 2012 07:05 Anacletus wrote:On June 29 2012 06:48 JingleHell wrote:
So, does anyone besides me even want to make suggestions? Should we go in alphabetical order until someone actually posts?
If that's the case, Anacletus, explain your actions! You've been inconsistent, claiming a role that isn't in the game, without knowing what it is or if one is in the game!
Why would you false roleclaim? Why does your name look like Analfetus? The FoS shall rest upon YOU for now, until people decide to actually post! Bah, you always know how to hit me where it hurts! I regrettably admit to taking a rusted bike chain and strangling the sheriff. But if there's one thing that I didn't do, I didn't shoot the god damn deputy. See, that's the sort of thing that makes me wonder more seriously. You could easily be trying to pre-establish an alibi for any scum behavior. You let me take the lead, but when I started pushing for participation, you jumped in with a weak suggestion, and now this. It's obviously rather weak as far as tells go, but it's more than I have on any of the people who aren't posting. And Myles, what could I possibly be distracting from at this point? I'm the only one wanting to find these scum and get rid of them. Anacletus suggested we just start hunting, so I started hunting. If you want to contribute, maybe you should chime in on policy, or announce yourself, or do basically anything besides a low content post that won't help the situation. JingleHell makes some extremely valid points. Myles, why are you suddenly trying to defend me? Are you trying to set up and alibi for yourself for if I get killed and turn town?
to begin with we find this little tidbit, I hadn't remembered this exchange but I find it interesting. Myles did exactly what Anacletus said and now we see that Anacletus was town...something to think about certainly.
And here we get a town read from a confirmed townie, well done JH
On June 29 2012 12:36 Anacletus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 12:27 Promethelax wrote:On June 29 2012 12:17 Anacletus wrote:On June 29 2012 12:14 JingleHell wrote:On June 29 2012 12:13 Anacletus wrote:On June 29 2012 12:10 JingleHell wrote:On June 29 2012 12:00 Anacletus wrote:On June 29 2012 11:57 Hopeless1der wrote:Anacletus you're actively refusing to participate. Not even neglecting to do so (which I was also doing by joking around), but literally saying On June 29 2012 11:41 Anacletus wrote:
I am not sharing my thoughts as of yet, I don't think that that is in my best interest to do so. Dumb jokes aside, that is garbage and scummy behavior for anyone in this game. You would be better off lurking and pretending you weren't here, and even that could be considered suspicious. Our goal this early should be making whatever little reads we can and start building cases. Unfortunately we cannot do that with joke posts. Are you planning on giving us any reads? Right now, you have at best 1 post so far that I don't consider a complete write-off. Everyone has to start somewhere... I'm not actively refusing to participate. I just don't want to throw around accusations because I think that that will be aggressive and more like scum play. I think I'll wait for a few more people to post before I post any reads. This isn't a court of law, it's more like Jerry Springer. You talk to people, you lead into questions that get the discussion going the right way, and you start looking for things to poke at. Waiting for someone else to make a case and then bandwagoning looks pretty scummy too, so you're not doing yourself any favors. I'd be poking in other directions more, except there's damn few directions to poke right now. Yeah I know, I've played mafia before. It's just that refusing to participate is pretty serious and is mentioned in the rules. He wasn't suggesting that type of refusal, he's talking about not working with us, despite these reads, and pages of notes you claim to have. If you're not helping us look for scum, you're hindering the hunt. If you're not with us, you're against us. From what I generally see in mafia, the town is the most active in posting when the game starts, while the mafia generally don't post and lurk a while. I've been posting a lot and I really think it's too early to start calling out scum.
+ Show Spoiler +I said I had 8 pages of notes, that was obviously a joke, I don't know shit, bro! While the bolded may be true it is never too early to start hunting for scum. Share your reads with us. What do you think about JingleHell? Anyone else? If you don't have any notes why have you been filling the thread with trash about your notes? Just babbling helps scum. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=347856¤tpage=8#155If you actually thought that this was true... I think JingleHell is playing aggressively which leads me to believe that he is a townie. I only made the one about any supposed notes, the thread has 10 pages. So no, I am not filling the thread with trash about notes.
Here are his scum reads:
On June 30 2012 05:23 Anacletus wrote:Yeah, I'm not mafia. You guys are mainly voting for me because I said I had reads that I wasn't sharing. I did share what I thought later, I think that the people who talk a lot early are mainly townies, however those that come in to bandwagon voting seem very suspicious to me. Both of them really haven't supplied much information at all and just voted for me after several others did.
Intact and Fencer I'm watching you. Mostly you Fencer, mostly you.
Those are all of his reads with analysis in them. I think we should take a good hard look at what he has to say, remember, he may not be right but his motives were.
@Anacletus: I'm sorry man. Happy birthday and don't worry, we'll still win this.
|
EBWOP: in the first real paragraph I meant to write claim and lives
|
Promethelax, go back to the case you and I made against Hopeless.
He placed his vote on Fencer (who has been under vague suspicion quite a bit, including by the dearly departed), but only after the vote on Anacletus was nearly secured, and ended the day as the ONLY vote on Fencer.
That ties in to the case we were already making about his scummy play. What do you think?
|
NrGmonk will be replaced.
|
On July 01 2012 07:59 JingleHell wrote:
Promethelax, go back to the case you and I made against Hopeless.
He placed his vote on Fencer (who has been under vague suspicion quite a bit, including by the dearly departed), but only after the vote on Anacletus was nearly secured, and ended the day as the ONLY vote on Fencer.
That ties in to the case we were already making about his scummy play. What do you think?
I'll go back and look at it, it isn't fair to you to call it our case though. I noticed and mentioned the stupid play, you made a real case.
I would urge you to go back and re-read my case on Fencer, I think it is even stronger now that Anacletus has flipped green.
I'll post my thoughts about the wonder when I have re-read your case and his filter.
|
United States5162 Posts
So I guess we're not going to wait until day to discuss stuff?
|
On July 01 2012 08:00 ghost_403 wrote:
NrGmonk will be replaced.
But I thought that replacements were for chumps.
Who is joining in?
@whoever joins: start posting some real things: Monk hasn't given us anything and we need more people posting, whether town or scum. We can't win if everyone decides to lurk.
|
On July 01 2012 08:04 Myles wrote:
So I guess we're not going to wait until day to discuss stuff?
Why would we? Sorry if this got talked about earlier when I get home from work I do my best to catch up but I could have easily missed this.
|
United States8477 Posts
|
United States5162 Posts
^
On July 01 2012 06:27 AmericanUmlaut wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 06:25 JingleHell wrote:
Well, I was right. Analfetus was innocent. GG.nore, my friend.
Perhaps we should contemplate who looks shady now, in light of the new information. I think we should save discussion for morning. Posting our thoughts during the night just gives the PBUs more information to consider when picking their night hit.
Because of what this guy wrote.
|
On July 01 2012 08:03 Promethelax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 07:59 JingleHell wrote:
Promethelax, go back to the case you and I made against Hopeless.
He placed his vote on Fencer (who has been under vague suspicion quite a bit, including by the dearly departed), but only after the vote on Anacletus was nearly secured, and ended the day as the ONLY vote on Fencer.
That ties in to the case we were already making about his scummy play. What do you think? I'll go back and look at it, it isn't fair to you to call it our case though. I noticed and mentioned the stupid play, you made a real case. I would urge you to go back and re-read my case on Fencer, I think it is even stronger now that Anacletus has flipped green. I'll post my thoughts about the wonder when I have re-read your case and his filter.
I still think Fencer is scummy, too, which is why I mentioned the Hopeless vote on him, as it makes one of them look less scummy if the other flips, but was done in a way that it didn't overcommit the vote, either.
However, if I have to take two people who are similarly scummy, I'm going to end up dropping a vote on the one who seems more dangerous, which currently feels like Hopeless.
|
On July 01 2012 08:07 Myles wrote:^ Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 06:27 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On July 01 2012 06:25 JingleHell wrote:
Well, I was right. Analfetus was innocent. GG.nore, my friend.
Perhaps we should contemplate who looks shady now, in light of the new information. I think we should save discussion for morning. Posting our thoughts during the night just gives the PBUs more information to consider when picking their night hit. Because of what this guy wrote.
Oooh, look who deigns to "contribute".
Who's worried about it? For one, it's N1, they can't have rolechecked yet if they have a checker. For two, regardless of when we talk, there's two options without them having a check yet. They can either shoot someone to shut them up, or shoot someone so we think they wanted them shut up.
We won't know which it was either way, so why sweat it?
The scum have a very huge lead on information at this point. We win based on getting perceptions and communicating, along with superior numbers. We can meta-game ourselves to the point of manic paranoia, or we can do what needs to be done and nail these scum to the wall.
|
United States5162 Posts
Well then I guess I'll post my thoughts.
First I think we should look at bandwagoners. I’m sure I’m under suspicion, or more so than before since I got the eye from some posters, for being part of the lynching, but I hope I explained my position enough that I get some BotD. A number of other people barely explained themselves at all before voting.
Blind-rawr hopped on the bandwagon without much discussion and voted pretty early, but his subsequent posts explained his position.
Intact did pretty much the same, just with a fewer number of posts.
Fencer is tied at the top for most suspicions now imo. His overall behavior, combined with his hopping on the bandwagon really early, hopping off when he got some attention, then hopping back on seems really scummy.
BobTheLob is right there with him. Lurker who used the same arguments as Fencer, hopped on the bandwagon with no reasoning, and the few posts he has made contributed nothing.
The others who voted for Anacletus seem like they had a reasonable position. And while I can’t say we know for sure that those who didn’t vote for him are town, I think it’s really likely because the FoS went so quickly on Anacletus . He didn’t do much to convince us of his innocence, so if they were PBUs it’d be some serious metagaming to start backing off and potentially drawing attention when there was so much support.
|
On July 01 2012 08:16 Myles wrote:
Well then I guess I'll post my thoughts.
First I think we should look at bandwagoners. I’m sure I’m under suspicion, or more so than before since I got the eye from some posters, for being part of the lynching, but I hope I explained my position enough that I get some BotD. A number of other people barely explained themselves at all before voting.
Blind-rawr hopped on the bandwagon without much discussion and voted pretty early, but his subsequent posts explained his position.
Intact did pretty much the same, just with a fewer number of posts.
Fencer is tied at the top for most suspicions now imo. His overall behavior, combined with his hopping on the bandwagon really early, hopping off when he got some attention, then hopping back on seems really scummy.
BobTheLob is right there with him. Lurker who used the same arguments as Fencer, hopped on the bandwagon with no reasoning, and the few posts he has made contributed nothing.
The others who voted for Anacletus seem like they had a reasonable position. And while I can’t say we know for sure that those who didn’t vote for him are town, I think it’s really likely because the FoS went so quickly on Anacletus . He didn’t do much to convince us of his innocence, so if they were PBUs it’d be some serious metagaming to start backing off and potentially drawing attention when there was so much support.
When the vote was secured on a townie, or close to it, why WOULD scum be voting on Anacletus? Maybe some did, but certainly not all of them.
In fact, given your general level of suspicious behavior, the fact that you tried to get people to stop posting at night while Hopeless was under the radar, and your conspicuous lack of discussion on my read of Hopeless, I'm really starting to think you're scummy.
And since you pointed at Fencer as top on suspicion, I'm dropping him to a notch below Hopeless on my Scum-o-meter.
|
EBWOP: Yes, I know you can point out that I didn't end the day on Anacletus either. I'm going to let my reasoning I did throughout the day stand for itself on that, and hope my discussion and logic can stand on their own two legs.
|
On July 01 2012 08:07 Myles wrote:^ Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 06:27 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On July 01 2012 06:25 JingleHell wrote:
Well, I was right. Analfetus was innocent. GG.nore, my friend.
Perhaps we should contemplate who looks shady now, in light of the new information. I think we should save discussion for morning. Posting our thoughts during the night just gives the PBUs more information to consider when picking their night hit. Because of what this guy wrote.
Well that is dumb, more information is always better for town. Seriously why would anyone say that? He isn't scummy enough for me too make a case on him but if we have a DT that wouldn't be a bad night check just to make sure he is dumb and not scum.
On July 01 2012 08:09 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 08:03 Promethelax wrote:On July 01 2012 07:59 JingleHell wrote:
Promethelax, go back to the case you and I made against Hopeless.
He placed his vote on Fencer (who has been under vague suspicion quite a bit, including by the dearly departed), but only after the vote on Anacletus was nearly secured, and ended the day as the ONLY vote on Fencer.
That ties in to the case we were already making about his scummy play. What do you think? I'll go back and look at it, it isn't fair to you to call it our case though. I noticed and mentioned the stupid play, you made a real case. I would urge you to go back and re-read my case on Fencer, I think it is even stronger now that Anacletus has flipped green. I'll post my thoughts about the wonder when I have re-read your case and his filter. I still think Fencer is scummy, too, which is why I mentioned the Hopeless vote on him, as it makes one of them look less scummy if the other flips, but was done in a way that it didn't overcommit the vote, either. However, if I have to take two people who are similarly scummy, I'm going to end up dropping a vote on the one who seems more dangerous, which currently feels like Hopeless.
I think you are right about Hopeless, he does seem scummy. I'm just not sure that he seems more scummy than Fencer. I'm not too comfortable with how hard it was to get the ball rolling on the fencer case, he seemed really scummy and as momentum built only Hopeless joined in the case. He seems like he was trying to get in there early enough to seem town but was real happy to not nail Anacletus.
Thinking about this more I wonder if a Fencer+Hopeless+someone else scumteam is possible? What are your thoughts?
If that is true the third scum is almost 100% in the Anacletus voters, of those I would look hardest at Intact since that is who Anacletus voted for. I don't think it would be Umlat since he mad the first vote and called out Fencer on his flippy floppy, and I know it is not me. I think it is more likely to be one of the middle guys: BLinD-RawR, BobTheLob, Intact and iamperfection. I would look long and hard at Bob as well, he hasn't posted a damn thing.
ARGH! I'm just frustrated now, I was so sure we had scum when we lynched Anacletus.
|
Promethelax: A tip, hit refresh before posting, and if there's a new page, copy, go to it, and paste into the box. Then you can update your post for the latest post.
Since I answered those questions already. I'm currently looking at Hopeless, Myles, and Fencer.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 01 2012 08:20 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 08:16 Myles wrote:
Well then I guess I'll post my thoughts.
First I think we should look at bandwagoners. I’m sure I’m under suspicion, or more so than before since I got the eye from some posters, for being part of the lynching, but I hope I explained my position enough that I get some BotD. A number of other people barely explained themselves at all before voting.
Blind-rawr hopped on the bandwagon without much discussion and voted pretty early, but his subsequent posts explained his position.
Intact did pretty much the same, just with a fewer number of posts.
Fencer is tied at the top for most suspicions now imo. His overall behavior, combined with his hopping on the bandwagon really early, hopping off when he got some attention, then hopping back on seems really scummy.
BobTheLob is right there with him. Lurker who used the same arguments as Fencer, hopped on the bandwagon with no reasoning, and the few posts he has made contributed nothing.
The others who voted for Anacletus seem like they had a reasonable position. And while I can’t say we know for sure that those who didn’t vote for him are town, I think it’s really likely because the FoS went so quickly on Anacletus . He didn’t do much to convince us of his innocence, so if they were PBUs it’d be some serious metagaming to start backing off and potentially drawing attention when there was so much support.
When the vote was secured on a townie, or close to it, why WOULD scum be voting on Anacletus? Maybe some did, but certainly not all of them. In fact, given your general level of suspicious behavior, the fact that you tried to get people to stop posting at night while Hopeless was under the radar, and your conspicuous lack of discussion on my read of Hopeless, I'm really starting to think you're scummy. And since you pointed at Fencer as top on suspicion, I'm dropping him to a notch below Hopeless on my Scum-o-meter.
I think the scum would keep on Anecletus to not draw attention to themselves and keep the heat on him. I would agree that is possible one didn't vote for him, I just don't just have a heavy scum read on any of you.
I talked about your read of Hopeless when AmericanUmlaut asked me about it, and AmericanUmlaut suggested we not post at night and I thought his reasoning was valid.
|
Yeah, my bad. This thread is usually so inactive it doesn't matter (let's work on that guys, we can't win if we lurk and there must be town among the lurkers)
Though I don't like to limit my options those three seem scummy, I'm happy to start digging.
Off to filter land I go. Also to grab a bite to eat, I'll be back in a minute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
