|
Do you actually believe your defense though Hopeless?
It's basically:
-Look at how he (didn't) breadcrumb his shot!
-I bet he misunderstood the mechanics! (something you can't know)
-His claim that does nothing to reveal his alignment is justified!
-BC said he was town! Sheep BC!
It was never a particularly good defense to begin with =/
|
Misder, why do you think Jinglehell would claim his role even though as you say yourself, "Although as scum, there really wouldn’t be any point in telling us that he used his ability on Mattchew"? The reasoning you provide after doesn't hold up, because there was no pressure on him to reveal anything. There was no indication Toad was killed by Matt, it could have been any electric type move. As well, I could easily have been mediced, jailed, bussed, a vet, etc., to explain why I wasn't dead. So if there wasn't pressure on him to claim, why would he do it?
|
On August 25 2012 04:20 Mattchew wrote:
would a med saved person be alerted they were saved?
and would someone be alerted they were shot, even if they are a vet
and wiggles why has no one claimed the hit on toad then?
What are you talking about?
|
On August 25 2012 04:26 Mattchew wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 04:23 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On August 25 2012 04:20 Mattchew wrote:
would a med saved person be alerted they were saved?
and would someone be alerted they were shot, even if they are a vet
and wiggles why has no one claimed the hit on toad then? What are you talking about? I am talking about me being pikachu and shooting toad. If it wasn't me, why has no one claimed it.
I didn't say it wasn't you, I said that at the time that Jingle claimed, there was no indication that it was you, and thus no pressure on him to claim. His claim didn't come out of pressure, it came out of wanting to clear up confusion, a town motivation.
Also, in a theoretical world where it wasn't you who killed toad, they probably wouldn't claim for the same wrong reasons 90% of people don't claim their vig shots.
|
On August 25 2012 04:32 Mattchew wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 04:30 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On August 25 2012 04:26 Mattchew wrote:On August 25 2012 04:23 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On August 25 2012 04:20 Mattchew wrote:
would a med saved person be alerted they were saved?
and would someone be alerted they were shot, even if they are a vet
and wiggles why has no one claimed the hit on toad then? What are you talking about? I am talking about me being pikachu and shooting toad. If it wasn't me, why has no one claimed it. I didn't say it wasn't you, I said that at the time that Jingle claimed, there was no indication that it was you, and thus no pressure on him to claim. His claim didn't come out of pressure, it came out of wanting to clear up confusion, a town motivation. Also, in a theoretical world where it wasn't you who killed toad, they probably wouldn't claim for the same wrong reasons 90% of people don't claim their vig shots. wait so what do you think of me
I'm leaning town on you now. I don't really see a scum motivation in your posts, and your play doesn't seem malicious. So, I don't want to lynch you right now.
I'm going to decide who I'm voting for between misder/hopeless shortly.
|
Yeah, I'm going to vote for Hopeless. I tried to pull the same thing in LV where I made a big defense post of a townie people were intent on mislynching because he appeared really scummy (though his motivations and attitude said he wasn't). It was pretty much the exact same method too, wait until near the deadline, then make some defense of him and tell people to switch their vote. Unfortunately for Hopeless, people caught what he was doing early.
Scum really need to make some kind of power moves right now and build up cred for the late game, or else they're going to get rolled over by all the blues. His play makes sense in that framework. Scum can't just sheep along of they're going to lose to DTs or something, haha.
|
On August 25 2012 10:44 HiroPro wrote:Hi wiggles you still havent answered my question Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:29 HiroPro wrote:
Wiggles, why did you leave your vote on VE even after the shot and when it was clear that he wasn't up for lynch?
Because I'm not very invested in the game. I was gone for a majority of Day 1, and how people were playing put me off somewhat.
I'm town, but at this point, I'm not very interested or motivated because people like to bandwagon and not read, so I don't have much faith in living. Dying is probably better because it will force you to play the game yourselves. The game's going to come down to a bunch of non-"vets" having to figure out who the scum are among themselves. VE is scum and useless to the town, and Kenpachi won't be able to carry you and should be vigged before the end-game barring any strong mechanic reasons to not do so (Not just a DT check or something equally weak). So, let's turn this into a learning experience where there won't be anyone to sheep and you have to find the scum yourselves. I don't have much faith in you, but maybe people will learn about why their current paradigms for finding scum aren't working.
|
I split this up for the people who don't like to read and think anything longer than 5 lines is massive, so a shout-out to you!
Here's the first challenge. Someone has to explain why being inactive is a sign of being scum. They also have to explain why not being invested in the game or not caring is a sign of being scum. Anyone who mistakes active lurking for inactivity loses the game. Please speak in general terms and not in terms of specific players, since I've seen this applied over and over again with terrible results.
Go!
|
On August 27 2012 05:30 austinmcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 05:06 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I split this up for the people who don't like to read and think anything longer than 5 lines is massive, so a shout-out to you!
Here's the first challenge. Someone has to explain why being inactive is a sign of being scum. They also have to explain why not being invested in the game or not caring is a sign of being scum. Anyone who mistakes active lurking for inactivity loses the game. Please speak in general terms and not in terms of specific players, since I've seen this applied over and over again with terrible results.
Go! To the extent that you're saying that inactivity isn't necessarily scummy, you're correct and I agree with you. At this point though, not all your votes are due to a generic "inactivity = scummy" rule. Some may be, and some may be pure sheep votes. BC mentioned that specific to you, the way you're playing this game was similar to your scumplay in past games. I know that, to me, the way you're playing this game feels similar to your scumplay in LV. At least some of the accusations in general are not an indictment of inactivity in general, but specific to your play. While you want someone to defend that heuristic "in general terms and not in terms of specific players," not everyone is indicting you in general terms. Moreover, if the accusation is no good when put in general terms, how is your counterargument, which seems to be a good counter? If you don't like the general rule because it's not specific, don't give a general defense. Plenty of inactive players have flipped town, but that doesn't somehow negate the fact that inactive players can also flip scum.
Ok, cool, we've established that using activity as the reason to call someone scum is silly. I propose we start policy lynching for it in future games. Just one point about your last sentence though, is that I'm not saying all inactive players are town, I'm saying that general activity isn't and shouldn't be used as, an indicator of alignment. Moving on.
Let's talk about meta now that you've brought it up. Here's the second challenge. Describe my scum play from LV, including appropriate motivations for it, as well as the general state of the game as my play existed in it. Next, describe the state of this game, and how my play resembles my play when I was scum, including similar motivations.
So far, the people trying to apply meta to me (including BC) have yet to provide an adequate explanation of my play in previous games as scum, and how it is similar to this game. Simply stating something does not make it so, and if you wish to use meta, you should take the time to explain yourself and demonstrate how it applies. Simply saying that someone's play reminds you of their play in another game when they were scum isn't enough to make an accusation based on meta. Doing so is the same misuse of meta that causes some people to believe that meta is useless or even detrimental in scum hunting. Meta is very useful, but only if you can substantiate it and adequately explain it.
|
On August 28 2012 04:10 BioSC wrote:Whelp. As it turns out, MLG weekend + TI2 Weekend plus lots of procrastinated homework means one inactive Bio. Combine that with a general "woe is me" about my reads in general makes it hard to put forth the effort. Well, here we go again. My 2 choices are misder or VE. Misder for his active lurking + the play around the time of yesterday's lynch. VE, because the case by HiroPro + Show Spoiler +On August 27 2012 09:03 HiroPro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 07:34 Mementoss wrote:On August 27 2012 07:31 HiroPro wrote:
hm, wiggles sounds legitimately annoyed. Can't decide whether to kill biosc or misder, drrrr.
##Unvote What are your thoughts on VE /dirkzor I haven't really read much since Toad died, so fresh look and all lol. Dirkzor I think is town. His early play I think was mostly just because of how much pressure he was under from BC and I think he's actually trying to contribute. I think VE is scum now for a couple of reasons. First, the thing with grush still strikes me as really uncharacteristic of town VE. VE is someone who throws out policy lynches as town, but it's almost always "if we have no strong scum reads, we should lynch a lurker". For him to push a policy lynch on a person for their play in other games is just mind-boggling. VE has always emphasized that there is no such thing as an "useless townie" because they're still a member of town to count against the mafia wincon, yet now his views have suddenly flipped. If you look at the LVI postgame (the last game with VE and grush in it), there's nothing to suggest that VE was unduly mad. Yes, I know he made some comment pregame about how grush would likely just lurk and troll, but at least before VE pushed the policy lynch, grush had seemed ok in activity and was at least responding to others. Next looking at the whole Wiggles-BC feud: Beforehand VE had said that he thought Wiggles was scum. But then when the cases come out, literally the only thing VE has to say about those two cases is a mild dislike of one of BC's points. Otherwise he just says afterward " BC died trying to get Wiggles lynched" and "Then he's absent for half of today, only to build a case against one of town's stronger scumhunters and disappear again.". That doesn't look like VE analyzing someone's play and reaching a conclusion based on that. It looks like him making a preconceived judgement and fitting what happens around it. Show nested quote +On August 23 2012 17:50 VisceraEyes wrote:
Why does BC keep referencing Bugs' post as if Bugs is accusing Wiggles? He's said it twice I think now, and I don't think Bugs was accusing Wiggles at all. Show nested quote +On August 23 2012 18:20 VisceraEyes wrote:
But it won't be - Bugs is alive to say "no guy, I think Wiggles is town (as my post indicates), LTR"
That's my point - it won't be Bugs' fault at all. Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 02:03 VisceraEyes wrote:
What in the...was that shot not claimed AGAIN? Scum must really be getting desperate.
Was that a blue flip? It looked like it, but everything has been colored blue so I wanted to make sure...
I'm down with a Wiggles lynch guys. BC died trying to get Wiggles lynched, and I think we should oblige him.
##Vote: Wiggles Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 02:28 VisceraEyes wrote:On August 24 2012 02:16 Kurumi wrote:On August 24 2012 02:11 grush57 wrote:On August 24 2012 02:09 Kurumi wrote:On August 24 2012 02:03 VisceraEyes wrote:
What in the...was that shot not claimed AGAIN? Scum must really be getting desperate.
Was that a blue flip? It looked like it, but everything has been colored blue so I wanted to make sure...
I'm down with a Wiggles lynch guys. BC died trying to get Wiggles lynched, and I think we should oblige him.
##Vote: Wiggles Nah, Wiggles attacking bc is a null tell in my opinion. Look at the timing of this hit, if they wanted to kill bc they would do it faster, it smells like a frame to me. Yeah I considered that aswell, but wiggles has been scummy HMMMMMMMMMMMM idk man also biosc where u been at man! Wiggles scummy ? He seems the only person devoting his time to this game. Some guys dont have enough time , yadda yadda. Although his theory on the lynch sounds wrong... Well I think Dirk is scum based on one post... I did not vote him because of my doubts (his points about viscera were good) it is hard to reread the thread on the phone, eh. Is this a joke? First of all, Wiggles posted like ONE time D1, and that was to vote me and DISAPPEAR. He had NO inclination to affect the lynch yesterday and, as Bugs and Wiggles will tell you, scum seemed to be perfectly content with the way the wagons were going too. Then he's absent for half of today, only to build a case against one of town's stronger scumhunters and disappear again. In what way is Wiggles "devoting his time to this game"? This is strikingly similar to his play in LV - vote, disappear, return to build a case, vote, disappear. I'm voting Mr.Wiggles because I think he's scum. I hope you guys will join me. Then, the amount of times VE promises thoughts and reads but then when he comes back has pretty much nothing useful to say. I know someone is going to bring up the shot done by Toad, but frankly I think it could just be separation. Toad knew it was only 0.5 KP and not going to pose a threat to VE actually dying. Maybe I'm being an idiot right now in ignoring BC lol, but it's not like I've been doing anything this game for some time now. ##Vote VisceraEyes Makes sense to me. And the more I go through cases and stuff, the less confident I am about them. Great. Tell you what. I'm going to go sheep the veteran flipped townie. My reads are shit and I know it. ##Vote Wiggles
Ahahahahahahahaha
|
On August 28 2012 04:24 Mementoss wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 04:23 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On August 28 2012 04:10 BioSC wrote:Whelp. As it turns out, MLG weekend + TI2 Weekend plus lots of procrastinated homework means one inactive Bio. Combine that with a general "woe is me" about my reads in general makes it hard to put forth the effort. Well, here we go again. My 2 choices are misder or VE. Misder for his active lurking + the play around the time of yesterday's lynch. VE, because the case by HiroPro + Show Spoiler +On August 27 2012 09:03 HiroPro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 07:34 Mementoss wrote:On August 27 2012 07:31 HiroPro wrote:
hm, wiggles sounds legitimately annoyed. Can't decide whether to kill biosc or misder, drrrr.
##Unvote What are your thoughts on VE /dirkzor I haven't really read much since Toad died, so fresh look and all lol. Dirkzor I think is town. His early play I think was mostly just because of how much pressure he was under from BC and I think he's actually trying to contribute. I think VE is scum now for a couple of reasons. First, the thing with grush still strikes me as really uncharacteristic of town VE. VE is someone who throws out policy lynches as town, but it's almost always "if we have no strong scum reads, we should lynch a lurker". For him to push a policy lynch on a person for their play in other games is just mind-boggling. VE has always emphasized that there is no such thing as an "useless townie" because they're still a member of town to count against the mafia wincon, yet now his views have suddenly flipped. If you look at the LVI postgame (the last game with VE and grush in it), there's nothing to suggest that VE was unduly mad. Yes, I know he made some comment pregame about how grush would likely just lurk and troll, but at least before VE pushed the policy lynch, grush had seemed ok in activity and was at least responding to others. Next looking at the whole Wiggles-BC feud: Beforehand VE had said that he thought Wiggles was scum. But then when the cases come out, literally the only thing VE has to say about those two cases is a mild dislike of one of BC's points. Otherwise he just says afterward " BC died trying to get Wiggles lynched" and "Then he's absent for half of today, only to build a case against one of town's stronger scumhunters and disappear again.". That doesn't look like VE analyzing someone's play and reaching a conclusion based on that. It looks like him making a preconceived judgement and fitting what happens around it. Show nested quote +On August 23 2012 17:50 VisceraEyes wrote:
Why does BC keep referencing Bugs' post as if Bugs is accusing Wiggles? He's said it twice I think now, and I don't think Bugs was accusing Wiggles at all. Show nested quote +On August 23 2012 18:20 VisceraEyes wrote:
But it won't be - Bugs is alive to say "no guy, I think Wiggles is town (as my post indicates), LTR"
That's my point - it won't be Bugs' fault at all. Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 02:03 VisceraEyes wrote:
What in the...was that shot not claimed AGAIN? Scum must really be getting desperate.
Was that a blue flip? It looked like it, but everything has been colored blue so I wanted to make sure...
I'm down with a Wiggles lynch guys. BC died trying to get Wiggles lynched, and I think we should oblige him.
##Vote: Wiggles Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 02:28 VisceraEyes wrote:On August 24 2012 02:16 Kurumi wrote:On August 24 2012 02:11 grush57 wrote:On August 24 2012 02:09 Kurumi wrote:On August 24 2012 02:03 VisceraEyes wrote:
What in the...was that shot not claimed AGAIN? Scum must really be getting desperate.
Was that a blue flip? It looked like it, but everything has been colored blue so I wanted to make sure...
I'm down with a Wiggles lynch guys. BC died trying to get Wiggles lynched, and I think we should oblige him.
##Vote: Wiggles Nah, Wiggles attacking bc is a null tell in my opinion. Look at the timing of this hit, if they wanted to kill bc they would do it faster, it smells like a frame to me. Yeah I considered that aswell, but wiggles has been scummy HMMMMMMMMMMMM idk man also biosc where u been at man! Wiggles scummy ? He seems the only person devoting his time to this game. Some guys dont have enough time , yadda yadda. Although his theory on the lynch sounds wrong... Well I think Dirk is scum based on one post... I did not vote him because of my doubts (his points about viscera were good) it is hard to reread the thread on the phone, eh. Is this a joke? First of all, Wiggles posted like ONE time D1, and that was to vote me and DISAPPEAR. He had NO inclination to affect the lynch yesterday and, as Bugs and Wiggles will tell you, scum seemed to be perfectly content with the way the wagons were going too. Then he's absent for half of today, only to build a case against one of town's stronger scumhunters and disappear again. In what way is Wiggles "devoting his time to this game"? This is strikingly similar to his play in LV - vote, disappear, return to build a case, vote, disappear. I'm voting Mr.Wiggles because I think he's scum. I hope you guys will join me. Then, the amount of times VE promises thoughts and reads but then when he comes back has pretty much nothing useful to say. I know someone is going to bring up the shot done by Toad, but frankly I think it could just be separation. Toad knew it was only 0.5 KP and not going to pose a threat to VE actually dying. Maybe I'm being an idiot right now in ignoring BC lol, but it's not like I've been doing anything this game for some time now. ##Vote VisceraEyes Makes sense to me. And the more I go through cases and stuff, the less confident I am about them. Great. Tell you what. I'm going to go sheep the veteran flipped townie. My reads are shit and I know it. ##Vote Wiggles Ahahahahahahahaha Now that your here who do you think are scum.
VE is scum.
Day 1 he came out posting about policy lynching Grush. His reasons were not based on alignment. He put the onus of scumhunting onto other people, telling them it was their responsibility to convince him to lynch someone other than grush. Not convince him that their targets were scummier than grush, because his policy lynch wasn't based on grush being scummy, just that it would be better to try to lynch scum than a random person.
After he was rightfully called out on his posting, VE pulled a 180. Some kind of sentiment that VE was town was created, as he very quickly jumped in between three different targets, with only one of them being somewhat original. What puts me off about this, is how quick of a turn-around it was and how badly it reeked of wanting to appease the people out for his blood. First, VE didn't defend his policy lynch on Grush, he just jumped to accusing other people after being accused. As well, VE didn't just accuse one person and attempt to get them lynched, he made a big show of jumping in-between three different targets and saying that he thought all of them were scum. This looks a lot like he was trying to go, "Hey, look at me! I'm scumhunting!", especially when contrasted with his play earlier. So, it looks as though the sudden spurt in apparent scum hunting and effort was made to avoid pressure, which makes sense, since after Day 1 the pressure dropped and so did the contributions from VE.
After Day 1, the "scumhunting effort" from VE stopped. His play from then on has consisted of sheeping the lynch sentiment against myself and Misder while adding nothing of value to the cases against either of us. As pointed out by others, VE has been making promises of contribution, but has not been keeping them. Notably, making a case against either myself or Misder. As well, he failed to comment on either my case against BC or BC's defense and case against me while BC was alive. VE makes this post:
On August 23 2012 16:03 VisceraEyes wrote:
Before I comment on your case Wiggles, what do you think of Dirkzor? You derped around and kept your vote on me all day while a townie got lynched, and today you don't even mention the counterwagon except as a footnote in your case on someone else. Do you think Dirkzor is town?
Saying he will comment on my case. However, even though he was in the thread for the next two or so hours, he never comments directly on the case either by myself or BC, even though he has clearly read them. He avoids taking a side in the conflict between us, which supports VE's general play this game of laying low and avoiding attention, especially if his team was already planning on using their shot on BC.
After BC dies, VE comes back and uses the death of BC to put a vote on me. However, read the post where he did so:
On August 24 2012 02:03 VisceraEyes wrote:
What in the...was that shot not claimed AGAIN? Scum must really be getting desperate.
Was that a blue flip? It looked like it, but everything has been colored blue so I wanted to make sure...
I'm down with a Wiggles lynch guys. BC died trying to get Wiggles lynched, and I think we should oblige him.
##Vote: Wiggles
In this post, VE does not make mention of BC having a good case, or even agreeing with the case BC made against me. Instead he insinuates that the death of BC was a result of trying to get me lynched, and uses the fact that BC has flipped town as a point for people to sheep to in support of him. The point of this post isn't to say that BC made a good case and town should lynch for it, it's to try to manipulate people into voting me because BC wanted to. It relies on an appeal to authority and the assumption that because BC was town, he was correct. Coming from a player with as much experience as VE, this isn't a simple mistake in logic. It's an attempt to cash in on an emotional response to BC dying and flipping town to try to push a mislynch.
As for supporting meta, VE usually plays somewhat aggressively and is very outspoken, to the point where he is often lynched early into the game as he forces focus and attention towards himself. This is markedly different from how he has been playing this game, where he has played very passively and avoided attention. This difference could be explained with role considerations giving VE a reason to act as he is, but VE is not playing in a way that he is contributing to the town while maintaining a low profile, he is instead playing in a way that he only does enough to keep people off his back before sinking into passivity again.
Altogether, this makes him scum.
|
On August 28 2012 05:12 Kurumi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 05:10 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On August 28 2012 04:24 Mementoss wrote:On August 28 2012 04:23 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On August 28 2012 04:10 BioSC wrote:Whelp. As it turns out, MLG weekend + TI2 Weekend plus lots of procrastinated homework means one inactive Bio. Combine that with a general "woe is me" about my reads in general makes it hard to put forth the effort. Well, here we go again. My 2 choices are misder or VE. Misder for his active lurking + the play around the time of yesterday's lynch. VE, because the case by HiroPro + Show Spoiler +On August 27 2012 09:03 HiroPro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 07:34 Mementoss wrote:On August 27 2012 07:31 HiroPro wrote:
hm, wiggles sounds legitimately annoyed. Can't decide whether to kill biosc or misder, drrrr.
##Unvote What are your thoughts on VE /dirkzor I haven't really read much since Toad died, so fresh look and all lol. Dirkzor I think is town. His early play I think was mostly just because of how much pressure he was under from BC and I think he's actually trying to contribute. I think VE is scum now for a couple of reasons. First, the thing with grush still strikes me as really uncharacteristic of town VE. VE is someone who throws out policy lynches as town, but it's almost always "if we have no strong scum reads, we should lynch a lurker". For him to push a policy lynch on a person for their play in other games is just mind-boggling. VE has always emphasized that there is no such thing as an "useless townie" because they're still a member of town to count against the mafia wincon, yet now his views have suddenly flipped. If you look at the LVI postgame (the last game with VE and grush in it), there's nothing to suggest that VE was unduly mad. Yes, I know he made some comment pregame about how grush would likely just lurk and troll, but at least before VE pushed the policy lynch, grush had seemed ok in activity and was at least responding to others. Next looking at the whole Wiggles-BC feud: Beforehand VE had said that he thought Wiggles was scum. But then when the cases come out, literally the only thing VE has to say about those two cases is a mild dislike of one of BC's points. Otherwise he just says afterward " BC died trying to get Wiggles lynched" and "Then he's absent for half of today, only to build a case against one of town's stronger scumhunters and disappear again.". That doesn't look like VE analyzing someone's play and reaching a conclusion based on that. It looks like him making a preconceived judgement and fitting what happens around it. Show nested quote +On August 23 2012 17:50 VisceraEyes wrote:
Why does BC keep referencing Bugs' post as if Bugs is accusing Wiggles? He's said it twice I think now, and I don't think Bugs was accusing Wiggles at all. Show nested quote +On August 23 2012 18:20 VisceraEyes wrote:
But it won't be - Bugs is alive to say "no guy, I think Wiggles is town (as my post indicates), LTR"
That's my point - it won't be Bugs' fault at all. Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 02:03 VisceraEyes wrote:
What in the...was that shot not claimed AGAIN? Scum must really be getting desperate.
Was that a blue flip? It looked like it, but everything has been colored blue so I wanted to make sure...
I'm down with a Wiggles lynch guys. BC died trying to get Wiggles lynched, and I think we should oblige him.
##Vote: Wiggles Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 02:28 VisceraEyes wrote:On August 24 2012 02:16 Kurumi wrote:On August 24 2012 02:11 grush57 wrote:On August 24 2012 02:09 Kurumi wrote:On August 24 2012 02:03 VisceraEyes wrote:
What in the...was that shot not claimed AGAIN? Scum must really be getting desperate.
Was that a blue flip? It looked like it, but everything has been colored blue so I wanted to make sure...
I'm down with a Wiggles lynch guys. BC died trying to get Wiggles lynched, and I think we should oblige him.
##Vote: Wiggles Nah, Wiggles attacking bc is a null tell in my opinion. Look at the timing of this hit, if they wanted to kill bc they would do it faster, it smells like a frame to me. Yeah I considered that aswell, but wiggles has been scummy HMMMMMMMMMMMM idk man also biosc where u been at man! Wiggles scummy ? He seems the only person devoting his time to this game. Some guys dont have enough time , yadda yadda. Although his theory on the lynch sounds wrong... Well I think Dirk is scum based on one post... I did not vote him because of my doubts (his points about viscera were good) it is hard to reread the thread on the phone, eh. Is this a joke? First of all, Wiggles posted like ONE time D1, and that was to vote me and DISAPPEAR. He had NO inclination to affect the lynch yesterday and, as Bugs and Wiggles will tell you, scum seemed to be perfectly content with the way the wagons were going too. Then he's absent for half of today, only to build a case against one of town's stronger scumhunters and disappear again. In what way is Wiggles "devoting his time to this game"? This is strikingly similar to his play in LV - vote, disappear, return to build a case, vote, disappear. I'm voting Mr.Wiggles because I think he's scum. I hope you guys will join me. Then, the amount of times VE promises thoughts and reads but then when he comes back has pretty much nothing useful to say. I know someone is going to bring up the shot done by Toad, but frankly I think it could just be separation. Toad knew it was only 0.5 KP and not going to pose a threat to VE actually dying. Maybe I'm being an idiot right now in ignoring BC lol, but it's not like I've been doing anything this game for some time now. ##Vote VisceraEyes Makes sense to me. And the more I go through cases and stuff, the less confident I am about them. Great. Tell you what. I'm going to go sheep the veteran flipped townie. My reads are shit and I know it. ##Vote Wiggles Ahahahahahahahaha Now that your here who do you think are scum. VE is scum. Day 1 he came out posting about policy lynching Grush. His reasons were not based on alignment. He put the onus of scumhunting onto other people, telling them it was their responsibility to convince him to lynch someone other than grush. Not convince him that their targets were scummier than grush, because his policy lynch wasn't based on grush being scummy, just that it would be better to try to lynch scum than a random person. After he was rightfully called out on his posting, VE pulled a 180. Some kind of sentiment that VE was town was created, as he very quickly jumped in between three different targets, with only one of them being somewhat original. What puts me off about this, is how quick of a turn-around it was and how badly it reeked of wanting to appease the people out for his blood. First, VE didn't defend his policy lynch on Grush, he just jumped to accusing other people after being accused. As well, VE didn't just accuse one person and attempt to get them lynched, he made a big show of jumping in-between three different targets and saying that he thought all of them were scum. This looks a lot like he was trying to go, "Hey, look at me! I'm scumhunting!", especially when contrasted with his play earlier. So, it looks as though the sudden spurt in apparent scum hunting and effort was made to avoid pressure, which makes sense, since after Day 1 the pressure dropped and so did the contributions from VE. After Day 1, the "scumhunting effort" from VE stopped. His play from then on has consisted of sheeping the lynch sentiment against myself and Misder while adding nothing of value to the cases against either of us. As pointed out by others, VE has been making promises of contribution, but has not been keeping them. Notably, making a case against either myself or Misder. As well, he failed to comment on either my case against BC or BC's defense and case against me while BC was alive. VE makes this post: On August 23 2012 16:03 VisceraEyes wrote:
Before I comment on your case Wiggles, what do you think of Dirkzor? You derped around and kept your vote on me all day while a townie got lynched, and today you don't even mention the counterwagon except as a footnote in your case on someone else. Do you think Dirkzor is town? Saying he will comment on my case. However, even though he was in the thread for the next two or so hours, he never comments directly on the case either by myself or BC, even though he has clearly read them. He avoids taking a side in the conflict between us, which supports VE's general play this game of laying low and avoiding attention, especially if his team was already planning on using their shot on BC. After BC dies, VE comes back and uses the death of BC to put a vote on me. However, read the post where he did so: On August 24 2012 02:03 VisceraEyes wrote:
What in the...was that shot not claimed AGAIN? Scum must really be getting desperate.
Was that a blue flip? It looked like it, but everything has been colored blue so I wanted to make sure...
I'm down with a Wiggles lynch guys. BC died trying to get Wiggles lynched, and I think we should oblige him.
##Vote: Wiggles In this post, VE does not make mention of BC having a good case, or even agreeing with the case BC made against me. Instead he insinuates that the death of BC was a result of trying to get me lynched, and uses the fact that BC has flipped town as a point for people to sheep to in support of him. The point of this post isn't to say that BC made a good case and town should lynch for it, it's to try to manipulate people into voting me because BC wanted to. It relies on an appeal to authority and the assumption that because BC was town, he was correct. Coming from a player with as much experience as VE, this isn't a simple mistake in logic. It's an attempt to cash in on an emotional response to BC dying and flipping town to try to push a mislynch. As for supporting meta, VE usually plays somewhat aggressively and is very outspoken, to the point where he is often lynched early into the game as he forces focus and attention towards himself. This is markedly different from how he has been playing this game, where he has played very passively and avoided attention. This difference could be explained with role considerations giving VE a reason to act as he is, but VE is not playing in a way that he is contributing to the town while maintaining a low profile, he is instead playing in a way that he only does enough to keep people off his back before sinking into passivity again. Altogether, this makes him scum. tl;dr I made a case before but decided to post it 1 hour before the deadline why also claim now
I didn't make it before, I just wrote it. It took me 45 or so minutes.
Also, you should read it, or are you incapable?
|
Hey austin, do you want to be a good townie and make a decent case for once?
On August 27 2012 08:55 Mr. Wiggles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 05:30 austinmcc wrote:On August 27 2012 05:06 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I split this up for the people who don't like to read and think anything longer than 5 lines is massive, so a shout-out to you!
Here's the first challenge. Someone has to explain why being inactive is a sign of being scum. They also have to explain why not being invested in the game or not caring is a sign of being scum. Anyone who mistakes active lurking for inactivity loses the game. Please speak in general terms and not in terms of specific players, since I've seen this applied over and over again with terrible results.
Go! To the extent that you're saying that inactivity isn't necessarily scummy, you're correct and I agree with you. At this point though, not all your votes are due to a generic "inactivity = scummy" rule. Some may be, and some may be pure sheep votes. BC mentioned that specific to you, the way you're playing this game was similar to your scumplay in past games. I know that, to me, the way you're playing this game feels similar to your scumplay in LV. At least some of the accusations in general are not an indictment of inactivity in general, but specific to your play. While you want someone to defend that heuristic "in general terms and not in terms of specific players," not everyone is indicting you in general terms. Moreover, if the accusation is no good when put in general terms, how is your counterargument, which seems to be I've seen this applied over and over again with terrible results a good counter? If you don't like the general rule because it's not specific, don't give a general defense. Plenty of inactive players have flipped town, but that doesn't somehow negate the fact that inactive players can also flip scum. Ok, cool, we've established that using activity as the reason to call someone scum is silly. I propose we start policy lynching for it in future games. Just one point about your last sentence though, is that I'm not saying all inactive players are town, I'm saying that general activity isn't and shouldn't be used as, an indicator of alignment. Moving on. Let's talk about meta now that you've brought it up. Here's the second challenge. Describe my scum play from LV, including appropriate motivations for it, as well as the general state of the game as my play existed in it. Next, describe the state of this game, and how my play resembles my play when I was scum, including similar motivations. So far, the people trying to apply meta to me (including BC) have yet to provide an adequate explanation of my play in previous games as scum, and how it is similar to this game. Simply stating something does not make it so, and if you wish to use meta, you should take the time to explain yourself and demonstrate how it applies. Simply saying that someone's play reminds you of their play in another game when they were scum isn't enough to make an accusation based on meta. Doing so is the same misuse of meta that causes some people to believe that meta is useless or even detrimental in scum hunting. Meta is very useful, but only if you can substantiate it and adequately explain it. Please answer the fucking question. You're using meta as the largest basis for your case, so please explain the meta, or are you just lying through your teeth?
|
On August 28 2012 05:24 JingleHell wrote:
Just the fact that Grush is voting Wiggles should say a bit. Even if you don't think he's scum (although he DID revert to trolling and not talking after he got called out on not matching his town meta) he's still not exactly what I consider a role model.
Who's trolling, me? I'm just trying to get people to build a better case against me than, "BC said he was scum, and he hasn't been around much, and meta-stuff".
If people don't want to make a better case, that's their own prerogative, either as scum or bad townies.
|
On August 28 2012 05:26 austinmcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 05:14 Mr. Wiggles wrote:Hey austin, do you want to be a good townie and make a decent case for once? On August 27 2012 08:55 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On August 27 2012 05:30 austinmcc wrote:On August 27 2012 05:06 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I split this up for the people who don't like to read and think anything longer than 5 lines is massive, so a shout-out to you!
Here's the first challenge. Someone has to explain why being inactive is a sign of being scum. They also have to explain why not being invested in the game or not caring is a sign of being scum. Anyone who mistakes active lurking for inactivity loses the game. Please speak in general terms and not in terms of specific players, since I've seen this applied over and over again with terrible results.
Go! To the extent that you're saying that inactivity isn't necessarily scummy, you're correct and I agree with you. At this point though, not all your votes are due to a generic "inactivity = scummy" rule. Some may be, and some may be pure sheep votes. BC mentioned that specific to you, the way you're playing this game was similar to your scumplay in past games. I know that, to me, the way you're playing this game feels similar to your scumplay in LV. At least some of the accusations in general are not an indictment of inactivity in general, but specific to your play. While you want someone to defend that heuristic "in general terms and not in terms of specific players," not everyone is indicting you in general terms. Moreover, if the accusation is no good when put in general terms, how is your counterargument, which seems to be I've seen this applied over and over again with terrible results a good counter? If you don't like the general rule because it's not specific, don't give a general defense. Plenty of inactive players have flipped town, but that doesn't somehow negate the fact that inactive players can also flip scum. Ok, cool, we've established that using activity as the reason to call someone scum is silly. I propose we start policy lynching for it in future games. Just one point about your last sentence though, is that I'm not saying all inactive players are town, I'm saying that general activity isn't and shouldn't be used as, an indicator of alignment. Moving on. Let's talk about meta now that you've brought it up. Here's the second challenge. Describe my scum play from LV, including appropriate motivations for it, as well as the general state of the game as my play existed in it. Next, describe the state of this game, and how my play resembles my play when I was scum, including similar motivations. So far, the people trying to apply meta to me (including BC) have yet to provide an adequate explanation of my play in previous games as scum, and how it is similar to this game. Simply stating something does not make it so, and if you wish to use meta, you should take the time to explain yourself and demonstrate how it applies. Simply saying that someone's play reminds you of their play in another game when they were scum isn't enough to make an accusation based on meta. Doing so is the same misuse of meta that causes some people to believe that meta is useless or even detrimental in scum hunting. Meta is very useful, but only if you can substantiate it and adequately explain it. Please answer the fucking question. You're using meta as the largest basis for your case, so please explain the meta, or are you just lying through your teeth? I'm voting for you. I'm pushing for you. And I've made terrible cases in the past. But I've also made some good ones. For right now though, I'm not going to post a big ol' meta analysis on you. If you don't get lynched, I may. But I respect your ability to defend yourself and distance yourself from teammates (Rereading LV made me notice how well you'd done that early), and for now I'm more inclined to find you scummy and see what you do on your own, rather than being the first mover and setting you up to respond. If you're 100% intent on having a miniature proper-use-of-meta debate, it can happen postgame or in the general thread. But I picture it gumming up discussion here.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
For someone who's using meta as part of their case, and it's a recurring theme in the posts where you say I'm scum, going "His play reminds me of LV!", you aren't doing a very good job of explaining yourself. Basically, you seem to be clapping your hands over your ears going, "Lalalalalalalala, I can't hear you!", because you think that if you talk about my meta in detail I'll argue you into the ground. You don't think that if I wanted to shit up the thread I couldn't do that already based off the couple of bad posts you made calling me scum? Like it's really easy to talk a lot about nothing, I did it as scum in PTP:1 where all the town talked about on Day 2 was whether I was bussed and framed because I didn't shut up about it and drew people into argument with me. So, if I really wanted to, do you think I wouldn't be shitting up the thread right now? I mean come on, seriously? Is that's why you won't talk to me?
I also don't want a "big ol' meta analysis", but you did a bad job of explaining my meta when you used it as part of your case. But here, let me do it for you:
In LV, I had a team that consisted completely of newer players. I had none of the "big names" of the game on my team. Marv wasn't part of my team until later in the game. So, my plan was to make Day 1 completely useless for town by taking away their mayor/pardoner role. I did that, and lynched someone that would give them no information. Night 1, almost every one of our shots was blocked, which was horrible considering our situation, and a real morale crusher. After Day 1 though, my play did look like it dropped off somewhat. This wasn't a conscious choice though, it was more because every townie I identified as playing in a scummy way that made them vulnerable to a mislynch was already picked out by another townie before I could get a chance to start a case against them. So, I just laid back and let the town rip itself apart piece by piece, because I didn't have to do anything myself. The town did it for me by making bad cases against townies who made mistakes. The town was full of confusion, and everything got buried in argument. How else do you think I lived until Day 7 when I was under pressure from Night 1? It's because the town kept catching the scent of blood and going in for the kill without thinking. I didn't have to do much.
Now, how is that similar to this game? There are no town leaders. There aren't many active players all attacking each other and trying to get each other lynched. I can't just sit back and let people lynch stupidly, because people are incapable of putting together a convincing case and pushing a lynch in a way that directs all focus towards it. Hoping no one points the finger at you from among all the scummy and hard to read players doesn't benefit scum compared to misdirection. So in what way am I in a similar situation trying to accomplish similar goals as scum in this game, beyond a superficial and cursory way?
|
On August 28 2012 05:54 VisceraEyes wrote:
I killed BC. Would scum tell you that?
Why not claim after you did it?
Why kill BC then?
|
On August 28 2012 05:55 VisceraEyes wrote:
Kurumi it means mislynch. Kill Wiggles.
Except I'm town. :O
Did you learn nothing from Toad's shot? I still think you're scum.
|
On August 28 2012 05:57 VisceraEyes wrote:
I can - it's why I didn't claim.
So, you can't claim a shot without claiming your entire role? That makes sense.
|
On August 28 2012 05:57 VisceraEyes wrote:
There is a reason. One I'm not disclosing.
In short, I did it to get Wiggles lynched.
So, you killed someone not because they were scum, but because killing the person who would most convince people to lynch me would be a better way to convince people to lynch me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
