On July 24 2012 10:26 VisceraEyes wrote:
I can't think of any reason for a townie to feel 'demotivated' by anything after a half-cycle in which three scum die in quick succession.

But you know...that's just me. Maybe it's because I like the game so much.

That's not demotivating. You being unnecessarily sarcastic is.

Last time I checked, "what are your reasons for calling someone scum, when the only one presented is setup gaming based on extremely incomplete information" was not an unreasonable question.

marvellosity

United Kingdom36161 Posts

July 24 2012 01:32 GMT

#2990

On July 24 2012 10:32 Foolishness wrote:
Okay, tomorrow we lynch either sloosh or gonzaw.

lol wat

marvellosity

United Kingdom36161 Posts

July 24 2012 01:34 GMT

#2993

On July 24 2012 10:31 Probulous wrote:

Show nested quote +

Marv, don't get drawn in. VE is being tricksy. We are in a good position (3 scum baby!) so we need to consolidate it. Given Palmar's flip can you take a look at MZ's filter fo me?

Quick pre-question then; given Palmar flipped non-executive, do you find it more likely that below CEO roles were randomised? Else there would be 2 players still left 'above' Palmar

marvellosity

United Kingdom36161 Posts

July 24 2012 01:38 GMT

#2997

On July 24 2012 10:35 austinmcc wrote:
marv man, read foolishness's role PM. He gets to post in thread once per cycle as a ghost.

The terrible thing is that I did read his role PM about an hour ago :///

marvellosity

United Kingdom36161 Posts

July 24 2012 01:39 GMT

#2999

On July 24 2012 10:38 marvellosity wrote:

Show nested quote +

The terrible thing is that I did read his role PM about an hour ago :///

wait what

marvellosity

United Kingdom36161 Posts

July 24 2012 01:59 GMT

#3006

On July 24 2012 08:07 marvellosity wrote:
Alright, as people are around and hopefully can answer me instead of shouting at me to read... I see plenty of people don't like slOosh's claim. If the claim is fake, what was its agenda in making it?

was there anything on this?

marvellosity

United Kingdom36161 Posts

July 24 2012 02:08 GMT

#3011

On July 20 2012 20:04 marvellosity wrote:

Show nested quote +

so with regards to this, the theory is that someone else picked up on what Chez wrote and made it into a PM for BH??

marvellosity

United Kingdom36161 Posts

July 24 2012 02:28 GMT

#3018

On July 24 2012 11:11 Probulous wrote:

Show nested quote +

My running theory is to distance himself as much as possible from his original Foolishness defense. Night 1 had no vigs so mafia assume there are no vigs, or they are delayed. Then when Foolishness flips they know someone will claim that shot, so they claim first. Remember this is a closed setup so we don't know if there are multiple vigs, his claims adds nothing to the discussion because we cannot verify it. All it does it give him a shot at town cred. Unfortunately for him, it was supersoft not someone like Zealos, who counter claimed.

The claim itself is my sticking point as well and anyway I look at it, I come up with a null. It doesn't say anything really. What does the rest of his filter say?

So hard when that post with pretty colours in is so demanding. Everything lines up so incorrectly, it's so hard to believe his read on Foolish flip-flopped so heavily. town-read -> confident enough to shoot? Initially neutral to the BM case, then wishes Foolish made something other than a BM case, and then HIMSELF goes on to look at BM. "I'm going to shoot you Foolish, but I am both going to agree and expand upon your case on this guy we agree is mafia". ???

My feeling then is that the claim was the play of someone who knew they might be in trouble for their reads previously so thought they may as well try something. I don't buy the validity of the "why would I do this" defence.

that said, i would be more confident in either a rastaban or zealos lynch atm. i am more sure with them.