|
On August 25 2012 02:24 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 02:06 thrawn2112 wrote:On August 24 2012 17:54 kushm4sta wrote:
Wow guys everyone wants to kill me because I'm annoying or something and everyone hates me?? Reading this thread makes me want to cry. Honestly I will try harder but if you kill me let me just say that would be a huge mistake beacuse I am no ordinary townsperson. I am the jailkeeper so yeah you really shouldn't kill me. For now I'm going to ignore the jailkeeper claim, because it fits the idea of you being town and pissed that everyone is jumping all over you and you don't know what to do and are claiming JK from desperation. It also fits your agenda if you are mafia and trying to scare people into not voting for you. Shady thinks that the 2nd option is more likely I don't have a reason to believe one or the other. You're gonna have to show that you're town by giving some reads with well explained thought processes. So on that point, who do you think is scum and why? Shady, you put an FOS on lvdr so that topic's gonna be my next post. Also WeeTee, I asked you for your read on lvdr because I think it's relevant to your post about Alsn. This is the 4th time I've asked you for that read and you've posted in the thread 4 times since I originally asked for it. Can you please provide it? How can you ignore the JK claim? Either way, it's a play of some sort, and the most significant thing to happen in the thread so far.
Yeah it is the most interesting thing said so far but I it matches both positions taken against him in this thread. You yourself pointed out the town/scum reasons for him to claim JK but I disagree that the JK claim is more likely to be either a town/scum motivation. Of course a scum player might fake roleclaim but some people including myself can see it as him just playing poorly. I'm ignoring it for now because it doesn't tip me off in any direction more than the other.
On August 25 2012 02:24 Shady Sands wrote:Also, I don't get why you still want to offer Kush an out in terms of having him build cases. We asked him to build cases pages and pages ago, and he didn't. Why would he start now when his towncred is even lower?
Are you really saying that we shouldn't allow him the opportunity to make cases? The best thing an accused player could do is to show that they are scumhunting.
|
lvdr
His first 4 posts are about lurker policy. Nothing to see there, policy talk is pretty much standard.
On August 24 2012 09:20 Lvdr wrote:
Right now my eyes are on Kush and WeeTee. Yes it is their first games, but thats no excuse to just sheep onto others ideas. Get out there! Don't use your newbiness as an excuse!
People have said this post is suspicious, but it happened right after this post:
On August 24 2012 09:14 Shady Sands wrote:
Ok Lvdr, you were the last one in, and I know you're an experienced player, so I'm going to ask you for a scum read now. Who do you read as scummy based on their posts so far, and why?
Shady asked lvdr to give scumreads, right there on the spot. What lvdr said about kush and weetee was completely valid. Based on what had been said in the thread so far it was perfectly reasonable to suspect kush/weetee of not contributing, because they weren't. I think it was kush who actually referenced this post of looking suspicious but on its own and in context of shady's question it seems completely reasonable.
Now on to shady's points, which I think are actually quite good:
On August 24 2012 23:33 Shady Sands wrote:
He goes into the thread, asks questions to generate discussion, accuses someone of fluff, and then leaves after FoSing the fluffy poster (mkfuba) and the obvious lynch (kush). This behavior is inconsistent: why push so hard for scumhunting and activity, but then disappear (and leave himself plenty of outs) once the shooting starts? Answer: because, if he is scum, this is exactly what he wants to do: stir up discussion, and then be the second or third person to hop on a mislynch wagon.
On top of that, I know what he's capable of in terms of scumhunting and making votes based on reasoned cases. So far, he hasn't lived up to that. Because of both reasons,
FoS Lvdr
During the time that lvdr was posting, I did not suspect him of being scum. I actually got a town vibe from him because he was one of the few people asking for reads and opinions. But the thing that sticks out to me as scummy behavior is what shady pointed out... his sudden disappearance after FOS'ing kush for the 85% post. I agreed with the FOS but I dont think a FOS is justifiable because of one specific post. He made the FOS and after that many other people joined in on the kush bandwagon, but lvdr himself didn't add anything else to the discussion. I find it hard to believe that a town lvdr would make his first FOS, and then afk from the thread and so I'm going to say that lvdr and weetee are my current top scumreads. (weetee for making shitty posts and repeatedly ignoring my questions)
What I would like to see from lvdr:
- his current scumread and a case to go along with it
- what he thinks about his FOS suspects (weetee and kush)
|
Why fos on shady? You haven't said anything that makes send why you'd you go from your "shady is town because he's matching his town meta" to an fos.
|
|
|
On August 25 2012 04:50 kushm4sta wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 02:42 Shady Sands wrote:
I don't believe the JK claim. That's why I voted Kush. If you don't believe the claim, then you should pretty much auto-vote him. But that doesn't mean I think there's more to talk about with Kush than there is with Lvdr. Does that make sense? So basically you started accusing lvdr after he began to accuse you. I see this as you just trying to save yourself and again turn the focus on others. Tell me who to save and I will do it to prove that I am jk.
Flaw in your logic there.... if we tell you who to save, we have no way of actually knowing that you did it. There's nothing to be proven by stating that you are going to save someone when we have no idea what the mafia's night actions are.
Also, does this "So basically you started accusing lvdr after he began to accuse you. I see this as you just trying to save yourself and again turn the focus on others" mean you think that shady is scum?
|
Alright. We're into the 2nd 24hr period, which means the vote deadline is coming up soon. It's time we start putting our cards on the table by throwing some votes out.
##Vote WeeTee
Here are the first things he says that aren't part of the standard lurker policy discussion.
On August 24 2012 07:57 WeeTee wrote:
Thrawn you intimidate me with your confidence already, but I think that you'll be good to learn the game from! On August 24 2012 09:45 WeeTee wrote:Shady mentioned that you had experience in the game already so could you analyse some of the content at a better standard than 'you didn't write much'.
Help us all get the ball rolling!
The first quote, on its own, can easily just be explained as friendly chit-chat at the start of the game. However the 2nd quote comes after kush going into defensive mode, and it seems strange that WeeTee would not comment on kush or anything related to kush. He uses his 2nd post instead to reiterate his lurker policy position, and then directly asks another player to start scumhunting for him. Already in his first two posts he has indicated that he wants other people to get most of the town's attention as far as presenting reads, while up to that point he hadn't given a read on what everyone else who posted was talking about (kush.)
Next he is asked to give his read on shady, and he responds with the following: On August 24 2012 10:23 WeeTee wrote:
I hear on the grape vine that posting lots makes you look like town....
But then damn you meta comes into play!
In my opinion Shady is neither town or scum.
He gives reasons why shady could either be town or scum, he doesn't assign a likelihood to either of them and concludes that he doesn't have a read on shady. Yet another post where he offers nothing of substance.
His next post, after being asked to further explain his null read on Shady: On August 24 2012 10:47 WeeTee wrote:
I just feel like he can read the meta well, Shady is clearly fluent in his play style and capable of leading us in a particular direction.
Thinking about the meta is retarded so I wont speculate aloud any more.
On me and my style, clearly i'm not as precise as some of you but there's no reason that everyone must conform to full fledged suspicions. Having a few cents is an influential position in any social scene.
Perhaps I will blossom with content when I see a read that I believe and something more than the pokes and prods i'm getting.
Once again he doesn't commit to any position and this post, and all of his posts up to that point, indicate that he doesn't want anyone to take him seriously. Note that so far despite having the Kush issue to talk about he doesn't talk about it and only gives his wishy washy null reads when asked to by another player.
His next post is the first one where he commits to non-null read: On August 24 2012 15:06 WeeTee wrote:Hi all, sorry for not regularly posting I have Uni commitments and such. I have read through the current content, and every ones filters. It seems to me that everyone has taken a disliking to kushm4sta's quote "Lvdr is 85 percent mafia in my mind though. We should lynch him." Even for a newbie like me I was like .... But I think that a real scum wouldn't reveal information in this clumsy manner and I know i'm not directing any suspicion there as kush is too easy of a target to pick off. I did however notice that Alsn did put a FOS on Kush; to me this seems like Alsn nibbled at the bait, sensing his opportunity to take a weak player down. Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 11:33 Alsn wrote:On August 24 2012 11:02 kushm4sta wrote:
Also thrawn...this dude is just appointing himself town leader with his epically long posts with quotes etc, also intiating all topics of discussion. It seems like he is trying to make himself essential so no one will suspect him.
Why would anyone care as much about the minutiae of lurker policy as thrawn? Because his scum strategy is to not be a lurker and provide justication to lynch any innocents that might be lurking. (Emphasis mine) I like that you are starting to contribute to the discussion. I don't, however, agree with your conclusion. If you look at the following post(long, so spoilered it): + Show Spoiler +On August 24 2012 09:34 thrawn2112 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 09:03 Lvdr wrote:
Shady this is like the third game I've played with you in the last few days. If you don't know my lurker policy you must be thick as a brick.
Policy: LYNCH LURKERS. Hopefully there are no lurkers and we can vote scumreads. If it comes down to voting for a strong scumread and one of several lurkers, I'd rather go with the scumread. Being too focused on lurkers caused me to play poorly in my last game. If I make a strong case against a player I am definitely going to vote for them. Excluding that, lynching a lurker is the backup plan. Your experience of how mafia players lurk during newbie games is something I don't have so I don't share your commitment to a flat out "only lynch a lurker during D1" plan. Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 08:55 Spaghetticus wrote:
@Thrawn
If the worst outcome of lurking is to not get lynched, I don't see how town can possibly eventuate victorious. Lurking is an aspect of scum behaviour, or of poor play, and should be treated as such. You seem to propose it as some sort of tie breaking mechanism, but I believe this to be an over-simplification.
In day 1, there will be extremely little information to go by. Lurking will almost certainly be the biggest tell as to the value/alignment of a player. I don't think that "worst outcome of lurking is to not get lynched" but I don't think that D1 is the time to do it. Of course there are always exceptions...such as the player who has 4 posts at the end of D1, he's sheeping the popular cases, and never offers any original reasoning for his votes. But yeah, hopefully lurking won't be an issue. I expect all this talk about lurker policy will help achieve that. And this disagreement isn't that big of an issue to me, because if I have a case worth lynching someone over then it should be a strong enough case to convince everyone else. Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 09:27 Shady Sands wrote:On August 24 2012 09:25 Lvdr wrote:
Wait has everyone posted already? I think so. Right now I'm concerned about Kush. His post at the very best is completely useless to town. That post also caught my eye and I suggested that he comment on the current discussion but so far there's been nothing. Kush it's not too big a deal this early on but the longer you wait the worse it's going to look. In this post thrawn argues with Lvdr about the lyrker lynch policy and makes clear and concise arguments and in fact comes to the conclusion that the policy post did it's job in that it put focus on starting discussion. Something which is good for town. You then immediately jump to the conclusion that he must be scum that wants to look like town. I feel this is overly aggressive on your part and while it's entirely possible that you are just feeling attacked right now and reacting a bit emotionally, please understand that things are not personal. If you are in fact a townie trying to cast blame on someone you suspect as scum, you should use clearly articulated points with a clear explanation of the basis of your argument. So until you prove to me otherwise, I feel I must suspect you for being overly defensive about your posting. FoS kushm4sta I will put a FoS on Alsn for this But it is undeniable that kushm4sta is rubbing everyone the wrong way. Let me know what you think about Alsn Fos-ing Kush, Does Alsn see an easy opportunity to take someone out? and why is he the only one that chirped up for the obvious?
His thoughts on the kush discussion are just as wishy wahsy as the rest of his posts have been. He gives both reasons for why he could think that kush is town or scum and then drops the topic without committing to a read. This is the behavior of a scum who wants to pretend to be active in discussions without having to actually commit to anything.
Then he puts a FOS on Alsn for being "the only one that chirped up for the obvious" in regards to Kush's "85% sure" post. This was a false statement, as I and others pointed out. His first actual read was based on a false premise, so he either had paid no attention to the thread even though he just said he "read through the current content, and every ones filters" or he is scum pushing a weak case. After this post I asked him for a read on lvdr, which is my next point.
He has repeatedly ignored my request for a read on lvdr. I say "repeatedly" because he posted in the thread multiple times after I asked for the read. Originally I asked him for the read as I thought it was relevant to his incorrect post about Alsn, but him ignoring my question while continuing to post just furthers my suspicion that he wants to remain below everyone's radar.
His next post is a response to a post from Alsn.
Alsn's post: On August 24 2012 15:13 Alsn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 15:06 WeeTee wrote:
I will put a
FoS on Alsn for this
But it is undeniable that kushm4sta is rubbing everyone the wrong way.
Let me know what you think about Alsn Fos-ing Kush,
Does Alsn see an easy opportunity to take someone out?
and why is he the only one that chirped up for the obvious? First I would like to point out that I have not been the only one to criticize kush as you claim, several people jumped on the bandwagon(for good reason, I might add) when he first started accusing people. I would also like you to see my latest post where I explicitly say that we should stop worrying about kush for now as I think it's taking up too much of our attention. I have every intention of forgiving kush's mistakes, if he can start acting like that's what they are, instead of coming up with convoluted explanations as to why he feels the way he does. If you do not consider my latest post on kush to satisfy your suspicions against me, could you explain to me why that is?
WeeTee's post:On August 24 2012 15:22 WeeTee wrote:
@Alsn
I like you response verrry smooth.
I must have started writing before you posted so sorry for that.
Are you willing to say that kush is in the clear then? or do you think there is something underlying still?
I guess throwing around FoS can mean next to nothing, especially if you change your mind so fast.
I wonder now you have stopped leading the bandwagon if someone will pick it up again. Kush is an easy target.
I bolded Alsn's question and WeeTee's response to it. Alsn asks WeeTee if WeeTee is satisfied with Alsn's latest post about kush, and if not then why not. WeeTee does not actually answer that question, instead he probes Alsn to speculate on if there is "something underlying still." This is yet another post where WeeTee does not commit to a read and instead asks others to give their reads instead. Then he throws out the line "I wonder now you have stopped leading the bandwagon if someone will pick it up again. Kush is an easy target." Still he says nothing of substance while commenting on how other players might give their reads.
In his next post he addresses how I have called him out for making a poor case against Alsn: On August 24 2012 15:35 WeeTee wrote:
Leaders be leaders.
@dandel
I'm not interested in your negativity. I'm simply making my point.
My first quote had my message
"I did however notice that Alsn did put a FOS on Kush; to me this seems like Alsn nibbled at the bait, sensing his opportunity to take a weak player down."
I see my mistake in saying "the only one that chirped up", which thrawn just pointed out.
please disregard that comment.
Still I find it amazing how instead of just answering a question we need to nit pick.
Super encouraging.
Here he admits to making a poor case, which is fine, but what strikes me as suspicious is the "please disregard that comment" part. Sorry buddy we don't just disregard cases, even if we originally accept that you presenting the case was an honest mistake.
His next post is more of the same stuff he's been doing all game, which is to not commit to a read and pushing others to give reads for him.
On August 24 2012 15:38 WeeTee wrote:
Alsn I totally agree,
Id love to see where the discussion goes over the next few hour because i'm not convinced on anyone as of yet.
We need some new POI.
If we need a new POI then provide one yourself.
His final post: On August 24 2012 15:50 WeeTee wrote:
Alsn I see the err of my ways. noted.
It could be him admitting to an honest mistake, but I'm inclined to believe it's just more of him posting to appear active without giving reads.
Summary: He doesn't commit to reads and instead asks people to present new cases and to speculate further on cases. His strongest commitment so far was a case based upon an inaccuracy. He hasn't obliged my request for a read on lvdr while he continues to post in the thread.
|
my comments are in red
On August 25 2012 13:16 WeeTee wrote:
Alrighty.
I am always busy and think the content you guys put up is (sometimes)utter crapola.
Im glad that iv been called out so that I can comment.
Ok, you say our content is crap, I say your content is definitely some of the worst. You are glad that you've been called out so that you can have something to say? As in, you wouldn't have anything to say if you hadn't been called out?
I have no reads on anyone at the moment and am happy for any outcome of the first day to happen.
What an incredibly scummy statement. No reads, and you don't care about the outcome of the lynch.
I have trouble articulating what I want to say so I might be brash enough to put my #FoS on thrawn,
because he just never ever places a FoS and is always non committal.
Non committal? I have aggressively gone after you and kush, and I just posted a huge wall of text on why I think you're scum. I'm also one of the first people to vote.
I know I make a target of myself for being clumsy but for me to participate and get better i'm going to have to ignore the criticism I get and just put it out there.
Continuing on with my FoS its clear that thrawn is so active, probably overactive in the sense.
I have a case that chugging the bandwagon against me is a well timed push,
experienced even.
So I'm scum because I'm super active, and because I am bandwagoning onto a case against you? I have been calling you all the whole game.
Building a case on me in my absence based on the fact that I am absent is not convincing enough to suspect me,
if it was then a FoS is surely sufficent.
You having not posted recently had nothing to do with my case against you, it was entirely about your actions while you were posting. On that note, you still have not answered the question that I've asked you over and over again.
Yet I recieved a vote from thrawn.
Just over the top imo.
I urge you all to read thrawns filter and see how passive his playstyle is.
And then make up your minds.
|
Town started off pretty well in terms of people posting but now half of you have gone into lurker mode. There is plenty to discuss and I will be suspicious of those of you that don't participate in scumhunting and later bandwagon onto popular lynch candidates.
@WeeTee
You say I'm baiting or hunting you? Why are "baited" and "hunted" your choice of words? Is it because of how long my post was?
Does this:On August 25 2012 14:01 WeeTee wrote:shady really.. if your intelligent you wouldn't join this bandwagon too mean you think shady is town? You initially gave super weak null reads on shady and I want to know why you now think he is town.
|
On August 25 2012 18:16 WeeTee wrote:Hey thrawn & all, I really want to make an effort to improve my posts to a higher level, I certainly don't want to fall into this path that I am heading down. I don't believe my actions display any anti town behaviors other than my incompetence, and I also think that in someways if I were scum that I would be more obviously bad in that negative direction. This I will en devour to improve. The reason I had a read on thrawn being scum is that he didn't put a FoS on anybody during the D1 period(except for agree with other FoS's), and I was willing to begin a case on that. However after thrawn voted for me out of the blue I was concerned that he was using his credibility to vote for me when he could have potentially pinned anyone he wanted. Why me? Why risk his town credibility for a result that he cannot be sure about and a result I can assure should get you suspected if i'm lynched. And it really was a risk I mean a VOTE is more powerful than a FoS in my opinion. @shady Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 13:19 Shady Sands wrote:On August 25 2012 13:16 WeeTee wrote:
Alrighty.
I am always busy and think the content you guys put up is (sometimes)utter crapola.
Im glad that iv been called out so that I can comment.
I have no reads on anyone at the moment and am happy for any outcome of the first day to happen.
I have trouble articulating what I want to say so I might be brash enough to put my #FoS on thrawn,
because he just never ever places a FoS and is always non committal.
I know I make a target of myself for being clumsy but for me to participate and get better i'm going to have to ignore the criticism I get and just put it out there.
Continuing on with my FoS its clear that thrawn is so active, probably overactive in the sense.
I have a case that chugging the bandwagon against me is a well timed push,
experienced even.
Building a case on me in my absence based on the fact that I am absent is not convincing enough to suspect me,
if it was then a FoS is surely sufficent.
Yet I recieved a vote from thrawn.
Just over the top imo.
I urge you all to read thrawns filter and see how passive his playstyle is.
And then make up your minds. So... you are FoSing Thrawn because he doesn't FoS anyone else and is therefore noncommital? But he just voted you. My read on thrawn was looking in a different direction to the what the group is discussing, It was an observation that I made and wanted to elaborate for some extra input, much like any of the content so far. As I mentioned above I was building to the case and just lacked the confidence to make it at this point. I can see my timing was all off. I think it could be worth noting that thrawn certainly did go hard in by voting. To me this is why my case has substance. Thrawn's Quote: "You having not posted recently had nothing to do with my case against you, it was entirely about your actions while you were posting. On that note, you still have not answered the question that I've asked you over and over again." This quote cements that your case about me is based on my quality, and I really hope to improve my posting and ask that I am not target anymore based on this if I improve. The action of not putting a read on shady for you thrawn is that I can't formulate a good read, I am not sure if I have permission to decline but I can assure you that I will have a look and examine it and post more for a better result.
First of all I want to say that this post is the highest quality of a post that I've seen from you so far, so that is a step in the right direction. However my case against you wasn't based on the quality of your posts. You have a history of avoiding giving reads, and when someone asks you for a read you give reasons why you think they could be town or scum but don't commit to either side. That was the main point of my case... that you give weak null reads and suggest/ask other people to start discussion/ make reads instead of you. Also, the vibe I got from a lot of your posts is that you don't want the town to take your opinions seriously, which is a good indication that you are scum. A good way to establish yourself as town is to be direct and decisive. This doesn't mean you can't change your reads, it just means you shouldn't constantly give wishy-washy null reads without any indication to which side (town/scum) you believe to be most likely. Thanks for saying that you will give a read on shady but you need to make sure and follow through. One thing that sticks out to me is that you never gave me your read on lvdr when I asked for it a few pages ago in relation to your FOS on Asln. I asked you multiple times within a short period and you continued to post without answering me. Over time I became less concerned with what your read on him was and more concerned that you hadn't answered me. In fact, you still have not done so.
I'm sticking with my vote on you because of all the things I said in my case against you I still strongly believe to be true and one post doesn't change that. I also want to make sure you and everyone else know that my case against you isn't about the quality of your posts, it's about the scum-motivations behind those posts and how you constantly ignored my question after I asked it several times while you were posting. Reread my original case and you will see what I mean. Your latest post is a step in the right direction because you explained your reasoning behind your FOS on me better than you did initially, but I think that since we're only half a day away from the vote deadline people should start voting and being very transparent and direct with their reads. Are you confident enough in your read on me to vote for me? If not then it's time that you decide who is your top scum candidate and outline a case and vote for them.
|
going to sleep, i'll be back in the thread a few hours before the night post
|
@spaghetti
So you're saying that I should set aside my suspicions of WeeTee and see his behavior as poor play? I am more willing to do this for Kush because I think he more accurately fits the profile you outlined of someone who doesn't know what to do. Kush did commit very heavily too reads, in fact it was his 85% post that gave him the most attention. WeeTee didn't commit to reads, and when asked for reads he gave a reason why a player might be mafia, and reason why they might be town, and then dropped the subject without saying which he thought was more likely. Also, I can't ignore how he has still refused up to this point to give a read on lvdr. When he made that post where he FOS'd Alsn for being the only one to "chirp up" at kush's 85% statement, I looked at the thread and noticed that lvdr had strongly called out kush for that post. I asked WeeTee for his read on lvdr, and he did not give it. He continued posting in the thread so I asked him again. I continued asking him up until I went to sleep, and when I woke up he had still not responded. Even now, after making it part of my case against him, he still hasn't answered the question. Am I supposed to ignore this? I have called him out on it multiple times, it's been over 24 hours since I originally did it, and still he doesn't answer. I honestly can't think of any reason why a town-WeeTee would do that. I do not believe that he hasn't read the question. I asked him multiple times while he was still active during the beginning of the game, and I made it a major point of my case against him, and in his post where he says he is going to improve his play (top of the page) I included the question again as part of my response. He posted a 2nd time after that and even then he didn't even address the question or the fact that he had ignored it.
|
On August 26 2012 01:22 Lvdr wrote:WeeTee says he has no reads and then comes at thrawn with You have refused to make a case and then OMGUS'ed someone for actually making a case against you. This is not even an argument, just an emotional appeal.
Just for clarification purposes:
I was confused about that post for awhile. I think the post is addressed to shady and not me because shady was the one who FOS'd WeeTee without much of an explanation, while I skipped the FOS and went straight to a vote for WeeTee when I made my case against him.
|
We need 5 votes to lynch right?
|
On August 26 2012 01:47 Lvdr wrote:
@spags + anyone else that wants to comment
I don't like Shady as a d1 lynch for these reasons:
1. I think there is a legit meta case for shady being town. His aggression and tunneling so far does match Newbie Mafia IV where he got mislynched d1 as an overeager townie.
2. He has been active enough that I think that if he is mafia we will be able to catch him later based on stances he has taken.
3. As a general rule, lynching active but contriversial players D1 leads to mislynches.
Yeah. I read spags case against shady, but pretty much everything spags interpreted as scummy behavior are things that shady did in NMMXXIV as a townie and a lot of those things were directed specifically at me. The nitpicking, flippant use of FOS's, being overly aggressive in trying to get people to agree with him, and the non-falsifiable reads were all things town-shady did that game and it made everyone suspicious of him and he got mislynched. My read on shady is that he's in line with his town meta during the game I played with him. Based on my experience in newbie game 24 I don't think lynching shady for spag's reasons is a good idea.
|
On August 26 2012 02:46 mkfuba07 wrote:
Also, does anyone have any comments on my case on Lvdr? I'd like any feedback at all from someone who isn't myself or Lvdr.
@Dandel Ion, Alsn, kushm4sta
Please get a vote in soon. Scum already have the advantage during the lynch, so we need all of the information we can get asap. We know your vote may change, but who is your strongest scumread at the moment?
I'll respond to some things that stick out. He accused your post of being fluffy and I do agree with that accusation. It was your 2nd post of the game and it happened 6 hours after your first post and didn't contain any reads so I see why he'd call you out on it. And you say that he hasn't participated that much in scumhunting but since that claim he's definitely ramped up his efforts. I'm gonna go with town read.
Shady what are your thoughts on the cases? A lot has happened since you last posted.
Concerning Dandel lon, I looked at his filter and correct me if I'm wrong but I can only see 1 time when he commits to a read. Does look like a scummy lurker. He'll be my #2 vote behind WeeTee. It's getting really close to the deadline and people that haven't voted are making it harder to make this decision. Once all the votes are in I will decide to go with my top scum read or the lurker scumread. I'm not in favor of a no lynch when my options are my top scumread and a viable lurker lynch.
|
On August 26 2012 03:21 Lvdr wrote:
@Thrawn and Mkfuba
At this point I REALLY think Dandel is a much higher quality lynch than WeeTee. WeeTee is playing poorly, But Dandel is playing Scummy.
Scummy>bad
Spag's argument is that weetee/kush are just playing badly and that's why they're getting all the attention. I'm gonna quote my response to spag's post:
On August 25 2012 22:33 thrawn2112 wrote:
@spaghetti
So you're saying that I should set aside my suspicions of WeeTee and see his behavior as poor play? I am more willing to do this for Kush because I think he more accurately fits the profile you outlined of someone who doesn't know what to do. Kush did commit very heavily too reads, in fact it was his 85% post that gave him the most attention. WeeTee didn't commit to reads, and when asked for reads he gave a reason why a player might be mafia, and reason why they might be town, and then dropped the subject without saying which he thought was more likely. Also, I can't ignore how he has still refused up to this point to give a read on lvdr. When he made that post where he FOS'd Alsn for being the only one to "chirp up" at kush's 85% statement, I looked at the thread and noticed that lvdr had strongly called out kush for that post. I asked WeeTee for his read on lvdr, and he did not give it. He continued posting in the thread so I asked him again. I continued asking him up until I went to sleep, and when I woke up he had still not responded. Even now, after making it part of my case against him, he still hasn't answered the question. Am I supposed to ignore this? I have called him out on it multiple times, it's been over 24 hours since I originally did it, and still he doesn't answer. I honestly can't think of any reason why a town-WeeTee would do that. I do not believe that he hasn't read the question. I asked him multiple times while he was still active during the beginning of the game, and I made it a major point of my case against him, and in his post where he says he is going to improve his play (top of the page) I included the question again as part of my response. He posted a 2nd time after that and even then he didn't even address the question or the fact that he had ignored it.
|
Can we get an updated vote count?
|
On August 26 2012 03:44 Lvdr wrote:
Can i get a sound off of who is here?
I'm here at least until the night post
|
On August 26 2012 04:01 Lvdr wrote: Dandel's vote here is essentially 'I pick the more scummy of kush vs. WeeTee.' This also SCREAMS mafia.
I'm not seeing it, where did you get that from?
|
On August 26 2012 04:10 kushm4sta wrote:
Ahhh sorry guys I was sleeping. Yup I'm going to vote for WeeTee because I defended him then he voted for me??
That is an awful reason to vote for him. Your vote needs to be based on more than you being pissed off. At some point you're going to HAVE to start being more reasonable or you will eventually get lynched.
##FOS kushm4sta
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
