EPTPTP3 - Pikachu's Revenge
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 20 2012 08:59 grush57 wrote: Come on, how are you helping at all right now? You're wasting time with a useless player. Anyways I've proven that I'm town. How have you done that? Also, in keeping with the spirit of the thread, spam spam spam | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 20 2012 09:00 Mr. Wiggles wrote: How have you done that? Also, in keeping with the spirit of the thread, spam spam spam On August 20 2012 09:02 grush57 wrote: See look at wiggles, he asks me a legit question. Plus, he continues my tradition  To answer the question, breadcrumb, and meta. Plus I'm town. Now, we must find scum. I must stop posting so scum can start posting and then we catch them. Cool trick. Too early for meta, and the breadcrumb means nothing. Look, you were the second to do it! On August 20 2012 08:44 kitaman27 wrote: Hey look, a bunch of individuals are clearly breadcrumbing the town role pm! How clever! But wait a minute, everyone knows this is against the rules.  So what are the odds that the mafia team also has the town role pm or happened to pick up on the crumb and has decided to use it gain town cred? Sneaky sneaky! Lynch bugs first? Maybe we should kill all the people with the bad breadcrumbs? I mean, it's even in the OP! Oh dear, that does pose a problem, doesn't it? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 20 2012 09:08 kitaman27 wrote: What is your opinion wiggles about the people who are breadcrumbing role pms when they know its against the rules. Do you think it was just a harmless mistake or that some of them are using it for personal gain? Well, it is against the rules, but it doesn't mean anything to me, since the colours are in the OP! So, you see, it only reveals treachery. For personal gain, to spare them the pain, of acting like a good little townie. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 20 2012 08:59 grush57 wrote: Come on, how are you helping at all right now? You're wasting time with a useless player. Anyways I've proven that I'm town. On August 20 2012 09:02 grush57 wrote: See look at wiggles, he asks me a legit question. Plus, he continues my tradition To answer the question, breadcrumb, and meta. Plus I'm town. Now, we must find scum. I must stop posting so scum can start posting and then we catch them. Cool trick. On August 20 2012 09:10 grush57 wrote: Well u c, SOME of us said town and colored it blue, but u can tell cuz its blue in the day1 post. Not really breadcrumbing at all. If you solely think that your town from that, thats a no-no. Too bad he's banned. I always hate when people throw around the word "confirmed". I think I'm going to promote policy lynches on those people in the future. Also, I don't think we should reveal too much at this point in the game. Even something as simple as trying to tell someone your pokemon type can be disastrous. Say someone can do 0.5 KP in damage, but they're a fire type and know you're a grass type. Now they can just kill you if they want, instead of only damage you, because it will be super-effective. So, I'm going to say that if you're smart, it's a god idea to not breadcrumb things about your role/pokemon/type. First, it does nothing to support your claim later, and second, it can give scum an advantage against you. This isn't to say don't crumb things like checks, just things related to flavour or role abilities, because it will only hurt. It doesn't help in normal games, and with these mechanics, it will cause harm. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 20 2012 10:19 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Whoever said third time is the charm is a horrible liar. Also people stop role speculating. Previous PtP games have seen really amazing ideas thought up and ones that lack any sort of creativity. What people should instead be concentrating is scum and people trying to push scumish ideas. As Kurumi made the statement of role cops being the best form of cop he is obviously scum. Now lets continue finding the rest of his team as it appears they are going to out themselves easily. Why do you feel the need to tell people to stop role speculating when no one's been doing it for the last several pages, and it's already been pointed out and addressed? On August 20 2012 08:33 Toadesstern wrote: I'll decide on wether or not I want to blast drazerk away tomorrow. Need some sleep. For now, stop the bullshit speculations please. It's PTP after all. It's already hard enough to make set-up speculations in normal games although it's very much possible. In PTP it's ridiculously hard to a point that it's almost impossible. See you tomorrow. "look at how helpful I was being, I clearly cannot be scum" | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 20 2012 11:39 BloodyC0bbler wrote: considering there was a post what? 3 maybe 4 above mine that was a chain of exactly that. Not a pointless mention given that the discussion continued. Also, no one pushed the "stop the speculation train." Mentioning it while not trying to actually stop it is how do we say, useless. That was one post, that if anything looks like a joke. His next post is a comment on the setup. Also, what's the difference between Toad's post and yours? stop the bullshit speculations please Also people stop role speculating So how are you doing something that isn't "useless", when what you say follows directly along the same lines as what toad said? Firstly, it wasn't a problem when you posted. People were talking about it, Toad made a post about it, and it mostly stopped. So, what's the motivation behind repeating it? Now you're saying that what Toad did was useless, while insinuating that what you did was actually trying to stop it in comparison to him when you repeated the same thing the same way. You're trying to buy yourself cred in a way that doesn't actually add anything to the town. You also say that we should focus our discussion on finding scum, but don't really do that much to help there either. You call two people scummy, but without any sort of actual reasoning as to why, or some sort of concrete pressure like voting for them and pushing their lynch, it's just fluff. I'm not liking your posting so far.On August 20 2012 13:12 JingleHell wrote: This is a bad case. It's basically up to chance. You don't lynch people for being bad, you lynch people for being scum. If you want to make a case for Grush being scum, go ahead, but making a case for lynching him because you don't like him is silly. My case on grush is simple. If he's scum, we want him dead. If he's town, he's not exactly a candidate for most productive. Leaving him alive makes him a liability, making him dead makes him dead. If we don't have a better target, I'm more than happy to go with that. If you hate meta, how do you feel about analyzing motive of a post, since that's not purely based in "what has already been posted"? Are you saying we should only lynch people who jump up and down screaming that they're scum? On August 20 2012 13:51 Chezinu wrote: Your right... Look what I discovered: They joined the game at the exact same time. The must be Mafia! You dastardly fiend, you've discovered the secret to my plan! But, you didn't count on one thing: On August 17 2012 15:06 Chezinu wrote: /in You're also a member of Rocket People! You're our sleeper agent. You know it too. That's why you're subconsciously claiming scum. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 21 2012 14:03 VisceraEyes wrote: Something feels off about this game. Why aren't more people jumping my shit for the policy lynch talk? I admit - it's a GREAT idea. But like...I expected fully to be insta-voted by at least 4 people. Wiggles, where do you stand on a grush lynch? You put forth what I feel is a decent D1 case on the guy and do NOT punctuate it with a vote. And then accuse BC of...what, making generalized blanket statements designed to "appear pro-town", while you devolve into feeding the trolls? I am disappoint, son. That's funny, because I'm pretty disappointed in you too. I'm not lynching Grush right now. I pointed out a contradiction he made, to see what he would say in response to it. He can respond when he gets back. I don't think I have enough out of him to form a strong scum read, so I'm going to wait for him to start playing again. I think your reasoning for his lynch is crap though. Besides the fact that it isn't any better than RNG for catching scum, it also lets you off the hook completely for having to find scum or contribute to the thread. For example, this is the biggest cop-out from scumhunting I've ever seen: On August 21 2012 07:14 VisceraEyes wrote: If there's no support for it, then I'll entertain the cases put forth. There isn't much more to say on the matter, and anyone who dwells on this should be put under scrutiny. It's a vote like any other vote, I've given my reasoning for it - it's up to you guys to convince me that your read on random player is better than my seething hatred for grush' playstyle. I can tell you without a doubt that attempting to bully me for it is not going to work. The problem with this is that it isn't about finding scum. As a townie, you're supposed to look at all available information and decide who is most likely to be scum. You don't say, "I don't like this guy, so I'm voting him and it's up to you to convince me to kill scum instead of him". You're taking any responsibility for having to do anything on Day 1 away from yourself and putting it onto other players. I'm surprised all the people voting for All-In Tim for deferring his opinion to the judgement of others aren't on you for the same thing. ##Vote: VE I'm putting my vote on you until you can show me you care about killing scum or I find a better lynch target. @Draz: If you could single-handedly choose the lynch right now (choose a player to kill), who would it be, and why? Please give me your reasoning for who you chose. @BC: Hey, what did you think of what Draz said earlier about always appearing scummy? For reference, this post: On August 20 2012 10:44 Drazerk wrote: Theres no real way for me to stop looking like scum with my play style and its why you will need to kill me (I said kill not lynch) before Lylo other whys ill make an awful call at a critical situation and lose town the game or you will all suspect me and lose town the game. I might have missed it, but are we allowed to divulge information about the roles we created? Can we claim what we made or reveal role mechanics? Thanks. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
Role != Alignment. If you want to randomly shoot someone, you claim your shot. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
If you could single-handedly choose the lynch right now (choose a player to kill), who would it be, and why? Please give me your reasoning for who you chose. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
Town had absolutely no direction on Day 1, and no strong town leaders emerged. This shows that scum weren't trying hard to seize thread control, and that scum were content with the way things were going. They didn't feel like they had to have any of their players act very pro-active and try to misdirect the town overtly. Meaning, that scum didn't feel threatened So what does it mean that scum didn't feel threatened? It means that they didn't feel like they were in any danger of actually being killed/lynched. So, this tells us that either both major candidates were town, or that if Dirk is scum, mafia didn't think he would die. That's pretty obvious though, as those are the only two possibilities, so here's my interpretation of the situation. There wasn't really any concrete push to kill imallinson as compared to Dirk. A lot of the people voting for them were saying they were fine with either dying, and there weren't really any large arguments comparing the merits of killing Dirk vs. imallinson. Both of the lynch trains developed in a way that was insular from the other. This means that who got lynched more or less would just come down to which wagon sheeping townies decided to hop on. This isn't a good situation for mafia because if they hope for chance it might mean that their own member gets bandwagoned to a point where they can't bring it back, or at least to a point where bringing it back puts them under a lot of suspicion. So in that situation, they would make a case for why lynching the townie was better than lynching their scum buddy to prevent the wagon from going the wrong way. But, no one did that. That implies to me that scum didn't care which person got lynched which further implies that both candidates were town. Further supporting that, is the earlier observation that we didn't really get anything done on Day 1, no strong leaders emerged, and no direction was given. Scum are doing good just by having that happen, and it looks like they didn't feel the need to do anything else, because everything was going their way in terms of the bandwagons. They didn't have to fight for their buddy, because he wasn't up for the lynch. In my opinion, at least one of the wagons was started by scum (BC/WBG). As well, I find it likely that the scum team split their vote between the two candidates for the most part in order to help prevent people from pointing out one of the lynches as a scum bandwagon, as well as to set themselves up as opposing each other to stop associative tells. Right now I'm just waiting for the night to end, because kills and vig shots should hopefully clear the air a little and make things more transparent. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 23 2012 10:19 BloodyC0bbler wrote: I still like dirk as red, and wiggles has done absolutely nothing to help town period this game. He however has managed to find time to criticize people and claim they must be red with 0 case. (see bugs' post a few pages ago on wiggles to see what I mean). So, this post stuck out to me, because of the misdirection it's pushing. It's funny, because he says I claim people are red, when all I said is I think that at least one of BC and WBG are red. There wasn't a declaration about which I thought was red, just that I thought there was red between them. However, BC reacts very defensively here. His reasoning for me being a scum candidate is that I'm criticizing people and claiming "they must" be red without a case. But the fun part is I didn't call either him or WBG red directly, I just said one of them were red. So, why the defensiveness and near-OMGUS? If for example, I had said that there was at least one red among all the players still alive, no one would care. It would be fallacious to say that I was saying all of them must be red without a case. So then why the difference when I limit it to a small pool of players? Now the next fun part is that besides saying I'm claiming some people must be red when all I did was say that I thought at least one bandwagon was started by scum (which is a reason, by the way), BC criticizes me for doing so without making a case on either one. He also uses this to support the conclusion that I'm scum. This would be fine coming from another player, but not from BC, or at least not if you've read his filter. Let's take a look, shall we? + Show Spoiler [The Terrible Terrible Contradiction Re…] + On August 20 2012 10:19 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Explanation came 6 hours later.Whoever said third time is the charm is a horrible liar. Also people stop role speculating. Previous PtP games have seen really amazing ideas thought up and ones that lack any sort of creativity. What people should instead be concentrating is scum and people trying to push scumish ideas. As Kurumi made the statement of role cops being the best form of cop he is obviously scum. Now lets continue finding the rest of his team as it appears they are going to out themselves easily. On August 21 2012 04:33 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Explanation came 5 hours later.Man, I think dirk just claimed scum with this post. hurrah On August 20 2012 10:34 BloodyC0bbler wrote: No case.Then you should really stop playing so scummy. Playing as you are now reaks almost as distinctly red as mr kurumi over there. He smells bad. On August 21 2012 05:38 BloodyC0bbler wrote: No case.Chezinu has not yet tried to make a new house called the chezinu house, fake claimed a role, or said hes brown. Guy is mafia yo. On August 22 2012 07:43 BloodyC0bbler wrote: No case on Bum, and flimsy reasoning on Mementoss.Well as you called me scum, and sheeped onto a now confirmed town player as well as lied in the bolded section. Guess what duder, I was putting heat and pressure on both draz + dirk before a case on allinson was EVER MADE. Now obviously thats only a minor lie, but given that I had out right said Dirk Scumclaimed well before that its still a lie. Also given how people voted. Dirk/mementoss/bumatlarge for likely reds. On August 22 2012 11:32 BloodyC0bbler wrote: No case here either.How is dirk helping? I would like a detailed response on that. I will agree that hopeless is likely scum at this point though. On August 23 2012 10:22 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Reasoning is based on activity...All of them? no, but clear ignorance of people who should still be in the spotlight is ridiculous. Of that list only wbg to me is a town read and the other three are null's. Misder is likely scum based on similar level to his scum levels but hes also notorious for lurking period. On August 23 2012 10:24 BloodyC0bbler wrote: you do realize you just claimed scum here right? On August 23 2012 10:35 BloodyC0bbler wrote: First time BC has called someone red and then actually made any kind of quick follow up with actual reasoning for it. He was still asked for his reasoning before he gave it though.Because he has done nothing useful (so far) to help the town in any way. To come out and say "i found blah as town and I think blah is town" is great. You know who likes finding town? or more specifically, differentiating town from third party or town from mafia? Not fucking townies. Saying your green reads is awesome, but if you don't state your red cases with actual reasons and instead just hop on wagons / spout green reads you are likely not town. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!!! So all in all, according to BC , we have a 9-person scum team of: Kurumi Drazerk Dirkzor Chezinu Mementoss Bumatlarge Hopeless1der Misder Mattchew Only one of these accusations had any sort of case or reasoning to go along with it when he posted it. Two of them had cases posted many hours after the actual accusation. So, that's either 8 or 6 people he has called scum without any kind of case or reasoning to back it up. But in the post I have quoted up at the top, BC says that one of the reasons I'm looking bad is that I called out "people" without a case. That's hypocrisy and contradiction at it's finest. In addition, the very fact that BC has called out so many people without any reasoning is alarming as well. He likes to call people out as not being useful to town or helping the town at all, which is funny when you look at his own posts. Basically, they consist of three things: -Making accusations with no case/reasoning -Role/setup speculation and general advice -Backing up his accusations only when asked Besides the couple cases he has actually bothered to explain, I wouldn't call his posts very "helpful". If you look through his posts without treating his posting as a whole, you might be tricked into thinking he's helping the town or actively scumhunting, but all he's doing is posting accusations that accomplish nothing and do nothing to help us kill scum. Now, the last thing to note is the general attitude with which BC has been treating his cases, particularly the one on Dirkzor today. He doesn't sound like he cares that much about lynching his target. This is a jarring distinction from the way he addresses the players he's accusing. In several posts, BC has claimed that Dirk has claimed scum, says that he's "clearly" acting anti-town, and makes another post where he just calls him mafia plainly. Basically, he says with complete confidence that Dirkzor is 100% scum. However, there aren't really any posts in his filter where he asks for other people to vote for Dirkzor, or challenges their choice of lynch target. So, he's not actively pushing people to lynch Dirk, which is weird considering his posts say that he knows he's scum. Next, is his change in tone after the Day 1 Dirkzor lynch failed: On August 22 2012 07:43 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Well as you called me scum, and sheeped onto a now confirmed town player as well as lied in the bolded section. Guess what duder, I was putting heat and pressure on both draz + dirk before a case on allinson was EVER MADE. Now obviously thats only a minor lie, but given that I had out right said Dirk Scumclaimed well before that its still a lie. Also given how people voted. Dirk/mementoss/bumatlarge for likely reds. On August 23 2012 13:31 BloodyC0bbler wrote: regardless at this time I still feel that dirk or wiggles are better lynches then mattchew so I am voting there. Vote: dirkzor On August 23 2012 13:37 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Honestly the only vibes I get from mattchew are bad townie at the moment. Could that mean red? yes but i feel its less likely. I am fine with a wiggles or dirk situation with current preference to dirk only given that he has done far more to get on my radar. You at least have a reason to not want to kill dirk though which is more than most have. Now Dirkzor has gone from being 100% scum to being "likely scum". Also, his two posts addressing him today are saying that he's "fine" with a dirk lynch, or that he's a better lynch than mattchew. This is different from saying that he thinks Dirkzor is the best lynch, or the person we should for sure kill today. Notice the tentativeness compared to how he acted on Day 1. It's a complete departure from how he was treating him before, and he doesn't give a reason for such a change in his posts. Indeed, he even continues to press Dirkzor into Night 1. So, why the caution and tentativeness from him now? It's because he's sounding out the lynch. He can't just abandon Dirkzor, because of how hard he pressed him on Day 1. As well, there was an anti-Wiggles sentiment that began during Night 1, and now he's saying he'd like to lynch me possibly. However, he doesn't make a strong push one way or the other. His posts are saying that he could go either way, and that he's OK with either one of us being lynched. It's because he's trying to sound out the way town sentiment is running, and wants to leave himself outs in case he comes under opposition. He's setting himself up to keep tunneling Dirkzor without doing anything to really get him killed, while also keeping open the possibility of switching to me if it turns out that's how people want to run Day 2. Therefore: ##Vote: BloodyC0bbler I've outlined what I think of him and his play above. The guy is scum, and he's who we should be lynching today. He's trying to get by with superficial "contributions", and has been playing in a self-contradictory and hypocritical manner since he's first started posting. We need to kill him today, or else he's going to just float by as people give him a pass for doing a minimal amount of anything. + Show Spoiler [Free Bonus Content] + On August 23 2012 10:35 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Because he has done nothing useful (so far) to help the town in any way. To come out and say "i found blah as town and I think blah is town" is great. You know who likes finding town? or more specifically, differentiating town from third party or town from mafia? Not fucking townies. Saying your green reads is awesome, but if you don't state your red cases with actual reasons and instead just hop on wagons / spout green reads you are likely not town. On August 23 2012 10:22 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Besides the fact that finding town helps find scum through the process of elimination and helps give people "cred", these posts by BC are another example of the terrible "contributions" he makes and why I think he's scum. He calls out Mattchew for calling people town. Mattchew says here that he thought S&B was town (who was flipped), and that he finds VE to be town. BC proceeds to flip out at him and call him scum because he lists VE as a green read. Not exactly "spout[ing] green reads", as BC puts it. Funny is that 13 minutes before that BC made a post of his own saying he has a green read on WBG, which is the same level of pointing out greens that Mattchew was guilty of. Also funny, because Mattchew has posted suspicions and reads and BC claims he has done none of that in favour of pointing out tons of greens. As well, there's another condemnation of calling people red without a case. Hilarious stuff.All of them? no, but clear ignorance of people who should still be in the spotlight is ridiculous. Of that list only wbg to me is a town read and the other three are null's. Misder is likely scum based on similar level to his scum levels but hes also notorious for lurking period. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
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? Based on how Day 1 went down, I don't think he is mafia. Based on his posting, I don't see him as being as scummy as his detractors say he is. So, I guess that makes him more likely to be town than mafia. BC is much more likely to flip red than he is though, so I don't really care about him until I can secure that lynch first. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 23 2012 16:01 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Set trap, bait, trap sprung. You caught a wiggles. Now wiggles whats awesome is that I was never sure if you were just being lazy, or just red. Easiest way to do that is to set out some bait to see who jumps on me. Given the death of Chez and Toad already for your team, you knew you'd have to take out one of the more well known players fast or risk being slaughtered. Thankfully I knew how to draw out some scum. You see wiggles, by forcing you to justify your earlier post by giving you the "weaker" target to jump at I knew you'd target me. You know, just like your team opted to try and drop VE day 1 and failed? This time I put myself in the shoes of the person who would be attacked as I like the spotlight. "Look guys, I set a trap for scum! I will not explain what that trap is in any clear or logical manner, but trust me, it existed! It was clever and useful and since I said there was a trap, it means that I was just being a scummy bugger for my trap, and so I must really be town!" ![[image loading]](http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb58378/yugioh/images/c/cc/SolemnJudgmentSDLS-EN-C-1E.png) Also me and my team totally tried to kill VE off! That's why I made one post calling him out on his bullshit, went to bed, woke up, saw all the bullshit still going on in the thread, and instead of spending my day uselessly arguing went and did something else instead! It was the most effective scum push to lynch VE ever! Please note the complete lack of evidence or reasoning behind this claim, characteristic of BC's play this game. I mean, seriously, is that your retort? That you purposefully played like scum to get attacked? Now to start with your horrific case in which I will refute it, then toss the ball back in your scummy court. Hey, want to know why your post is defensive and WBG's really isn't? Hint: it's not based on fucking word-count. Also, 10 lines of text is not giant, I don't get where everyone got that idea from, nice rhetoric though.You start by saying that you only said "you believe one of my and bugs must be scum" You then say i am acting defensively, although I only barely mention you in passing, while the person who made a giant post to attack your play (which only appeared after you called two people out mind you) was ignored. Considering you so obviously cherry picked the case you would find easier to make it is obvious you would ignore the person who was obviously more "defensive". Anyone who has played with me before will recognize based on largess of posts and tone of posts on if im on the offensive or defensive. Nice try lying though. So, here's why you were "obviously" more defensive than WBG. First, WBG actually took the time to read and reflect upon what I wrote. He agreed with my analysis of how the voting happened. Then he pointed out that he disagreed with the assumption that one of the bandwagons were started by scum and questioned my motivations behind it. He didn't use terrible rhetoric meant to completely gloss over the post and try to misrepresent what was said. His post was discussional in nature. Yours was meant solely to discredit and attempt to undermine me. So, the intents of the posts revealed who was truly more defensive. WBG posted in opposition to my post, you posted in opposition to me, the poster. As for my reason on why I believe you are scum? I told people to look at bugs' post that he had already made on you. As you ignored that bit I will toss it in here for all to read. Refresh my memory, which game was this? You don't try to counter what I said in that scum were a driving force behind one of the bandwagons and likely started one. Instead you again try to misdirect into an attack against me by claiming that I did the same thing as scum. If you don't like that I think one of the bandwagons was started by scum, argue why they weren't. This kind of posting is why it's clear you're scum.Now his points on you are exactly why I believe you are scum. You see, you and I were on a mafia team once where you and I did exactly what bugs outlined in that post. Exactly to a fucking tee. You know you are caught, and you know I have already bagged another of your team and now you are running scared. Next we have you attempting to throw mud at me for wait, what? Day 1 early game posts? You know, when people were trolling and being faggots? Anyone reading would know those are my early reads based on how people are playing. If they had been solid reads backed up by more than a gut feeling you would have seen me build cases and push their lynch as I did dirkzor. You did notice I spent the majority of the day pushing one target right? Or are you opting to try and cover the fact that I have forced people into posting, pushed my best read, and even *gasp* put pressure on people for bad play. Anyone is free to look through my filter, then they can open and compare to yours. Well, besides the fact that many of those posts claiming people are scum continued well past early Day 1, and even into Night 1 and Day 2, you don't seem to understand very well how pressure works. You did nothing to pressure anyone into anything. Quoting a post and saying "You just claimed scum" does nothing to pressure that player. Hell, for most of those, no one had a fucking clue what you were going on about, which is evidenced by the following posts of confused people asking you to explain your incoherent accusations. As well, you're good enough a player to know that just pointing at someone and saying, "You're scum!", doesn't really do anything to them. You aren't calling them out on specifics of their play, you aren't pointing out for everyone the stupid stuff they're doing, and you sure as hell aren't making them afraid of the lynch, because there's nothing concrete to back up anything you're saying, so they're in no danger. If every mafia shat his pants when someone called them scum in one post, this game would be solved on Day 1. Next, as I already pointed out, all you did was tunnel Dirk, but do very little to actually try to kill him. You didn't try to swing the vote his way, you didn't try to rally support for killing him, and you didn't do anything to shift the momentum towards him. Just making posts at your target calling them scum isn't enough to get them lynched. Again, you're a good enough player to know this. It's why just making an analysis on a scum isn't enough to get them lynched. You have to campaign and convince people to vote for the person. You know this, so the fact you didn't do it speaks volumes about how little you actually cared about seeing Dirk dead. you have 13 posts as I am writing this (ignored your /in post) Post count is indicative of what? Shitty pointless spam? Splitting up posts instead of keeping them together? Activity? When does activity equal alignment? That you're even trying to use that as some kind of argument for why you're town and I'm scum shows that you're red. You've played more than enough games to know that post count isn't indicative of alignment. This kind of misdirected attack is again demonstrative of your anti-town posting.I have 41. I pushed my best read all day 1, I have called people out for being red. Yes I have called out many people based on random gut feelings or horrific play done by said player. Given that one of those gut reads was accurate and so far only 1 confirmed wrong I am doing fairly well. Who do you think is red wiggles? Me? Who else, lets see in all those 13 posts you You accuse myself and VE. In two game days, and all the content posted and given deaths of players and flips You have found two suspects. Yet you spend more time early on trying to link me to players like toad, make mention that you dislike my posting but rather than attempting to do anything about it you swap over to VE saying that you won't lynch grush until he answers your questions to verify his alignment basically. Yet hes back, hes been back for awhile. You know what you haven't done? What you said you were going to do. Once again, there's a difference between calling a player out on his bad play, and saying "lol u scum bro". As far as I can see, you barely called out anyone on their play, and the only time you even explained your numerous accusations is when other people pressed you to do so. Here's another piece of terrible fallacy from you. I don't need to catch the entire scum team at once. I don't need to make shitty lists of reads. I just need to be methodical and focus on one person at a time, because that's all I can kill at once. So now I'm starting with the deceit spewing head of the snake, you. This is also the reason I don't care about Grush right now. I've got bigger fish to fry. you also said this as your main argument to lynch VE Day 1 Note the bolded Parts Then go back and look at the section of bugs post above that I bolded. You directly are calling out two players for two bandwagons forming (no shit typically 1-2 people start analysis on someone that gets a vote rolling) However you specify the no strong leaders emerged while you yourself have done nothing til this point to help direct the town in any way. Thus you are putting onus on myself and bugs as you state one of us must be scum while leaving out the fact that you did absolutely nothing to stop the days actions. If you didn't agree or believed this while it was going on you as town would have put a stop to it rather than "summarizing the day" You also did exactly what you called VE out for as your primary reason to vote for him. Cute that you like inconsistencies. You claim that I am pushing misdirection off one post when you made one yourself doing the same (in regards to myself and bugs) you then do the exact same thing that you called out and voted to lynch someone for yet its ok for you to be hypocritical. I didn't know that you don't understand how to draw conclusions from observations. I said no strong leaders emerged. That's an observation, not a condemnation. Unlike 90% of players, I don't have a veteran fetish and need them to do everything in the game. So, the fact that no strong leaders emerged, if a fault of anyone, is a fault of all the town players in the game. But, that's also dismissing the fact that scum can be town leaders just the same. So, that was simply the initial observation from which I drew some results about how the scum were playing the game. It had nothing to do with the later point about you and WBG. I wasn't around long enough on Day 1 to have the thread presence to stop it, and when I was around slightly before the deadline, I really didn't care enough to point it out. I'd rather wait and come back later to see how people voted and if there was any kind of change from what I thought was happening. Next, you don't seem to understand what I called VE out on doing. I didn't say anyone else had to find the scum for me and that I'd just sheep along with their stupid ideas. As you can see, I'm not waiting for other people to find scum for me, I'm doing it myself. That's how I nailed you. Anyone can compare our filters. It is fairly obvious that I am around and as things happen I post on them. Be it lengthy or not is a moot point. Spotting someones scum tells/bad plays and calling them out don't require large post by post analysis, nor do they need indepth behavioural analysis when all you do is put heat on someone for said behaviour. Given that you are misrepresenting my posts, and have waited in the shadows to cherry pick while misrepresenting my posts shows how desperate your team is at this moment. Regardless you have outed yourself as scum and will die for it either by lynch or bullet. Its now merely up to the town. This is fun. "Be it lengthy or not is a moot point." Proceeds to compare filter length So full of inconsistencies. Now, like I've said, you haven't called out anyone. Calling someone scum and completely leaving them does fuck all to put pressure on them, but does do a lot to get idiots to think you're helping the town. Also, I never said you had to make lengthy analysis on everyone you comment on, you pulled that out of your scummy ass. It's a simple matter of writing anything in support of your crappy accusations. You don't put heat on someone for their behaviour, when you do nothing to show that you're trying to pressure them for their behaviour. Now, here's a fun thought experiment we can try. Let's say we have to be of different alignments. That is, either I'm town and you're scum, or I'm scum and you're town. Now, let's look at how much sense it makes to accuse you. If I'm scum and you're town, you say I'm desperate. But, if I was desperate, why would I accuse you? You've shown that you don't have enough influence or presence to lead a lynch as shown by your complete failure to kill Dirkzor on Day 1. As well, you accusing someone doesn't mean anything, because you've rarely backed it up with reasons, and in addition, with how many people you've accused, people are less likely to take you seriously because you're getting to a point where you've pointed out half of the people playing as scum. So, you're in no way a threat to me. There's no scum motivation to accuse you instead of someone who's actually dangerous to scum. Now, if I'm town and you're scum, my accusation makes a lot of sense. All of the noobs will be too scared to try to lynch you. Right now, you're not under pressure because no one has called you out on your bullshit. I see you as scum. So, it makes the most sense to get rid of the threat you pose to the town as early as possible. Otherwise, people will be content to just let you slide along in the game, until it got to a point where they might actually start listening to you and let you run the show a bit more. All these people, they just loooooooooove to sheep. So, you kill me, you kill WBG, you kill whoever else who isn't on your scum team and can exert any kind of influence. Then who's left to lead the flock? Why, BC of course! And from there it's an easy victory for you as you march along to the sound of bahs. There's the town motivation to accuse you. To kill you before you can get a grasp over all the impressionable players. Also I would like to draw everyones attention to how he analyzed me. He took an insane care to talk about my case on dirkzor as minutely as possible. Keeping in mind I have spent more time talking about that lynch of all my reads than any of the others (thus my most comfortable read). Yet he ignores my longer posts and instead concentrates on the posts that are designed to initiate dialogue or minor pressure people. Why would someone who is so sure he is correct on his read not attempt to discredit my dirk case or find flaws in those posts as to why I am red? Simple. If he was town doing a post by post method he would opt to find the faulty logic or the like from where I had most invested myself rather than random small posts. As such he is banking on people not actually re reading day 1, or even both our filters to figure out how full of shit he is. Everyone should at this point in time be lynching dirkzor or mrwiggles Both will bleed red. Here's a cool (old) idea: Post-by-post is shit Post-by-post sucks ass. It's a lot better to just go through a player in his entirety, and then identify trends in his play, inconsistencies, contradictions, see what overall strategy he is try to adopt, and determine his motivations. You know what? I don't even really care what you wrote about Dirkzor in your analysis. I don't agree with it, but that doesn't matter. Just because your analysis is bad or you're wrong doesn't mean that you're scum. Instead, it was much more illuminating to look at the tone and certainty with which you accused Dirk earlier, and contrast it to how you're acting now. Same thing with going through how you (didn't) push his lynch. I looked at your motivations and your attitude, because they say much more than what kind of (bad) logic you accused Dirk with. Also it's great how you keep lying through your teeth. Go back to my case. Notice how about half of it deals with the cases you made with a focus on the one on Dirkzor. Go figure. Here's another thing for everyone to look at. Read through BC's response to me. Do you notice that he's not actually responding to the points I made against him? He doesn't defend himself against the contradictions I pointed out, he doesn't explain how his shitty accusations actually pressure people or accomplish anything, he doesn't point out how he really did try to get Dirkzor lynched. Instead, he spends all of his time trying to discredit me. His entire response it built out of a series of ad hominems and he doesn't even bother trying to address the case I made against him. Instead he points out useless and irrelevant things to try to make himself look good and make me look worse. More than half of it isn't even about what's good for town or scummy, as evidenced by including things like post count or activity. BC's very style of argument reeks of being scum. Lynch him. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
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. Because if people sheep him and I get lynched, then it will be WBG's fault that a town player flipped. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 24 2012 09:40 Mattchew wrote: so since everyone wants to ignore my question i am pikachu, a blue pokemon, who can do .5 kp of damage every night and I shot wiggles night 1 and he never said anything about being shot which i find weird. I also think Dirk is scum so I would like to lynch him and finish my shots on wiggles but meh whatever. the amount of connection theory scum hunting going on is disgusting by the way. I never got any notification of taking damage. Also, here's a question for you. On Day 1, you have one passing mention of thinking I'm scummy. As well, your vote was on Dirkzor. Today you wrote: On August 23 2012 13:30 Mattchew wrote: in a weird twist, i would only rather lynch wiggles if it is either me or him. i would much much rather lynch dirk So why did you shoot me and not Dirkzor? Your filter reads as though you are much more sure of your read on Dirkzor than your read on me, so why shoot at me over him? On August 24 2012 02:28 VisceraEyes wrote: 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. I posted on Day 0-1/2. Then I went fishing the entire next day. I got back at 10 pm, and I stayed up until 2 am reading the thread and making my post on you. The next morning I got up and read the thread a bit. I decided I was too lazy and had better things to do, so I went out and got back after the flip. Last night, I made my post on BC. My last post of the night was made at 3 am my time. I'm not sure if you expect me to stay up the entire night of what, but I do a majority of my posting in the evening, which means I post and go to bed. If this looks like I'm "disappearing" to you, well that's too bad. Mafia isn't a day job, it's a game. Activity isn't an indicator of alignment. I'm town. I even wrote a song for you about it. + Show Spoiler + I wanna be the very best, Like no one ever was! To catch them is my real test, To lynch them is my cause! I will read my way through the thread, Searching far and wide Each mafia to understand The scummy that's inside! Mafia, it's you and me! I know it's my destiny! Mafia, oh, you're my best friend In our town we must defend! Mafia, a heart so true! Analysis will pull us through! You're scummy and I'll lynch you, Mafia, gotta lynch 'em all! On August 23 2012 19:25 wherebugsgo wrote: funniest post in the thread BC's reaction is indeed rather suspicious. I'm going to hold judgment for now as I need to reread carefully (in particular BC's past games as well) because A.) I think Mattchew is still a very strong lynch and B.) I'm supremely curious as to why BC is using my name to defend his opinions when I haven't actually agreed with him yet. I think Wiggles is trying to say that BC is trying to frame my post as an attack on Wiggles. I wasn't attacking Wiggles, but for it to be construed as such means either BC isn't reading carefully (as town) or BC has an agenda. BC's not dumb so it's certainly very likely at this point that he's scum. In other news I think WBG is more likely to be town right now because of this post. I don't see the scum motivation for saying that you think someone is scum and then going ahead and having your team shoot them right afterwards (I think the shot was from scum, because if that was a town shot, it's one of the worst ones I've seen). It would be better to just shoot BC without the post, because then it puts more suspicion on me as pretty much the only one pushing BC. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 24 2012 10:12 Mattchew wrote: oh and that second quote was written during day 2. cause i wanted to finish my shooting of you night 2, but now i realize that may not work like that I know it was from Day 2. I just assumed you wouldn't flip-flop from wanting to kill Dirk to wanting to kill me to wanting to kill Dirk that fast, so it was representative of wanting to kill Dirk more than me. I'm still deciding who I want to lynch now. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
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 =/ | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
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? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 25 2012 04:26 Mattchew wrote: 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. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 25 2012 10:44 HiroPro wrote: Hi wiggles you still havent answered my question 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. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
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! | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 27 2012 05:30 austinmcc wrote: 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. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
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: 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. 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 | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 28 2012 04:24 Mementoss wrote: 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. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 28 2012 05:12 Kurumi wrote: 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? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 27 2012 08:55 Mr. Wiggles wrote: 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?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. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 28 2012 05:26 austinmcc wrote: 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? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
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? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
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? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
Day 1 he hops onto Imallinson third after WBG and Bum. He claims WBG ninja'ed his case, but it wasn't exceptionally long, so that claim is unverifiable at best, as it could have easily been written up in the time period between WBG's case and when he posted his own. His case is very similar to WBG's as well. Day 2 he follows the Mattchew train with only a 1-liner of reasoning. He then switches to Hopeless with 1 line of reasoning when people start to vote that way and switch off Mattchew. Day 3 he votes for me, which is where a lot of the lynch sentiment was going towards, but after I make some posts and people start acting a little more tenuous towards my lynch, he backs off. It's also weird how he attacks VE, but I didn't really look hard at Hiro at the time and noticed it: On August 27 2012 07:31 HiroPro wrote: hm, wiggles sounds legitimately annoyed. Can't decide whether to kill biosc or misder, drrrr. ##Unvote Here he says he's going to try to kill either biosc or misder. Then out of nowhere he comes in with a VE case. In his filter, there wasn't really any mention of VE being scum. The closest is a little bit of Day 1 pressure on him that wasn't followed up on. This looks weird, because it doesn't match up with the previous votes of following after several people were already voting for someone. However, I had posted that cycle that I though VE was scum, so it might have been a preemptive move predicting that's how I would vote. I'm not sure though. What do you think? Then again this continues with Hiro hopping onto my bandwagon with actually zero reasoning for voting for me, following other player's examples. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 30 2012 09:29 HiroPro wrote: im confirmed town. i wouldn't treat bio as confirmed town. mattchew is only leaning town  And frankly I wouldn't be surprised if you were third party lol.im leaning town on grush. draz is difficult for me to read - I'm only slightly leaning town on him. otherwise my thoughts are fairly similar. How are you confirmed? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
That means there's a town check on Mattchew now as well. I have no idea who Draitini is. One of Kenpachi, you, Hiro, Draz, and Austinmcc. If anyone made a frame/cover/GF/miller role, that would be nice to know too. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 31 2012 02:39 BioSC wrote: Sorry... I'm not lying. I did protect those guys, and nowhere does it say in my PM that people are notified of recieving a shield. I honestly just picked people who were making sense at the time to protect. I didn't go awol either... Just my sleeping schedule is all fucked up atm. Isn't Jinglehell saying he was notified he received a shield though? Also, no check Night 1, Draitini Night 2, Pikachu Night 3. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 31 2012 03:01 Mattchew wrote: wiggle why no check night 1 Magic! Like I said, my role has weaknesses. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
In the future, please discuss your cases, it's dumb talking to brick walls who just sheep. GL HF. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
| ||
