|
Ottox - it isn't just you not pushing a case... it's about you not doing anything to pursue your reads.
Also, "I suggested to talk about Matt" is a pretty laughable description for the actions in your filter - you didn't suggest a conversation, you've been not-reading and pretty much ignoring every argument for Mattchew for insane reasoning. Why are you picking fights with people who are actively telling you why Mattchew is mafia?
You said you were suspicious of...
Those who started focusing on Gravan but ignored me.
Those who voted Matt with a one liner.
What part about your actions have pursued these people? They haven't.
|
On September 06 2012 05:58 Hapahauli wrote:Ottox - it isn't just you not pushing a case... it's about you not doing anything to pursue your reads. Also, " I suggested to talk about Matt" is a pretty laughable description for the actions in your filter - you didn't suggest a conversation, you've been not-reading and pretty much ignoring every argument for Mattchew for insane reasoning. Why are you picking fights with people who are actively telling you why Mattchew is mafia? You said you were suspicious of... Show nested quote +Those who started focusing on Gravan but ignored me.
Those who voted Matt with a one liner. What part about your actions have pursued these people? They haven't.
OHH so thats your problem, I write posts in english but you only speak italian, its much more clearer now. Srsly, why do you claim to read my filter when you come out with such stupid lies?
|
@ MiltonKram
On September 05 2012 17:31 Miltonkram wrote:@ Hapahauli Just catching up on the thread after work. Figured I should respond to this. Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 07:42 Hapahauli wrote:
So I take it you don't think of me as scum anymore? If so, then who else do you find suspicious? I haven't seen you comment on any other player yet.
What do you think of Bill Murray? He actually called your case a "good observation." You're a nullish read to me. There are things about your play that I'm not fond of, but after thinking on them I'm no longer convinced they are scummy. I don't understand the point BM is trying to make against you here Show nested quote +---snip
new FoS presented: Hapahauli. Milton catches him using the word scummy in a way you'd not want to use as town. Admitting something you've done is scummy is one thing, like I did, but the way Hapa used this makes me want to scream scum. His interaction with my 1st suspect Doyouhas is also pretty bad. or here Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 05:51 Bill Murray wrote:On September 05 2012 05:48 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On September 05 2012 04:20 Miltonkram wrote:On September 04 2012 20:59 Hapahauli wrote:On September 04 2012 19:29 Miltonkram wrote:Now that we're 99% sure Mattchew is scum I'd like everyone to turn their attention to Hapahauli. On September 04 2012 10:26 Hapahauli wrote:As for an early-game scumread, I'm suspicious of DarthPunk. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=361826¤tpage=15#285In his only substantial post, he's very critical of the early-game play of two players. He calls mattchew's vote "retarded" but doesn't attempt to say if it's scummy or not. He doesn't ask questions about their motives - he's just critical, and that seems scummy to me. ##Vote DarthPunk He chainsaw defends Mattchew after Mattchew recieves pressure from DarthPunk. All the while he avoids actually commenting whether he thinks Mattchew seems guilty or not. Then he spends time needling the conversation to a point where DarthPunk is willing to unvote Mattchew until BC comes in and blows that shit up (like a bauss). Other than that he's been plenty forthcoming with town reads, but he has yet to seriously pursue a scum read. I'd like everyone to turn to Miltonkram for straight up lying about post history. This would be the biggest pile of crap I've seen in the thread if it wasn't for the Mattchew fake-claim. Scum coming in late and trying to make the best of a bad situation IMO. Then he spends time needling the conversation to a point where DarthPunk is willing to unvote Mattchew until BC comes in and blows that shit up (like a bauss). At that point in the game, DarthPunk hadn't voted for mattchew yet. DarthPunk never votes until Palmar confirms the lie. Looks like we have scum #2 - using misinformation to make a key component of his "case" stronger. Or I just thought DarthPunk had voted for Mattchew already. My mistake. He had put pressure on Mattchew though and thus I would call Hapahauli's attack on DarthPunk a chainsaw defense. If you look at the back and forth between Hapa and Darth you see that Hapa backs off only when Darth starts backing off from Mattchew. On September 04 2012 11:12 DarthPunk wrote:On September 04 2012 10:51 Hapahauli wrote:
Okay this is getting nowhere fast. Howbout this - other than being "retarded", does it make you lean one way or another toward Mattchew's alignment? As to Mattchews alignment. He claimed Nosy neighbour. As far as I am concerned if he is not a nosy neighbour it will become apparent over time if he was lying. So I would like to take a wait and see approach. I don't feel like his posts are pro town. Perhaps I am missing things and it is going over my head. But clarity and Transparency are preferable to what has been going on during the last few pages. That's fair. Your responses seem townie enough - I'd ##unvote if votes in this thread actually counted =P This sticks out to me because it tells me that Hapa's goal was not to pressure Darth, but to take pressure off of Mattchew. What had Darth done to deserve the BOTD from Hapa? I may be blind here, but where did Darth seriously push mattchew? I see him point out voting for someone who distrusted the claim as retarded and happa jump on him for it. Would that mean everyone who called me a liar for calling mattchews claim bullshit chain saw defending him? I honestly do not see this case you are seeing, I see two people moderately arguing over a choice of wording being in this case "retarded". Everything I can see (maybe my dyslexia is kicking in here) is that they argued over poor word choice and darth never stood down from his opinion, nor did happa. They commented on word choice, it was explained out by both people and once discussed they moved on. I honestly think unless you can provide me any real analysis here a new case as I just do not see or comprehend what you do here. I see. See, what is happening here is both distancing and trying to divert the wagon. Hapahauli also has scummy interaction with Doyouhas in the said suspicious post. Doyouhas's vote on me early reeks of scum pushing policy on town feels like a bus... Hapahauli has bad language use which makes him look like scum. @ BM Any chance you can clarify what you were trying to say in these two instances?
You still haven't provided us with a single scumread. Also, when I asked you for thoughts on BillMurray, I was hoping you'd actually take a stance instead of passively questioning him.
I'm kinda disappointed that you didn't take any initiative whatsoever here - I asked you for scumreads and an opinion on BillMurray. All you did was passively question BM without anything else.
You're not interacting with players in the thread, nor are you providing reads. I still find you highly suspicious.
|
@ Ottoxlol
Care to elaborate on "lies"? Or really address anything in y post? Evidently my English skills are too poor to comprehend your immaculate writing style.
|
On September 06 2012 05:58 Hapahauli wrote:Ottox - it isn't just you not pushing a case... it's about you not doing anything to pursue your reads. Also, " I suggested to talk about Matt" is a pretty laughable description for the actions in your filter - you didn't suggest a conversation, you've been not-reading and pretty much ignoring every argument for Mattchew for insane reasoning. Why are you picking fights with people who are actively telling you why Mattchew is mafia? You said you were suspicious of... Show nested quote +Those who started focusing on Gravan but ignored me.
Those who voted Matt with a one liner. What part about your actions have pursued these people? They haven't.
This post I print and put out on my fridge.
|
@Ottox:
First:
On September 06 2012 04:53 Ottoxlol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 04:41 BroodKingEXE wrote:On September 06 2012 03:57 Ottoxlol wrote:On September 06 2012 03:49 Z-BosoN wrote:
@goodkarma
Just because he is up on my suspicion bar does not mean that he is scum. He could very well be a bad townie.
If he is, the only motivation he has for defending matt and attacking toad is that he actually thinks that toad is more suspicious than matt, and if so, he's doing a shitty job at explaining himself.
Also, him being obnoxious doesn't contribute to his defense. At least I am not that retarded to attack someone on the ground of their first post that was clearly a joke. I already explained my motivation two post ago. If you need some help understanding it you can ask for it nicely You dont joke about scum reads. You're scum, because you are trying to derail a lynch and not trying to bring up another canidate. Real townie would create a case and present a new option, but scum dont want to give away to much and wont do that. They'll try to plug an easy lurker after a derail. You are wrong. A joke is fine when the game is just started and there is nothing. You say scum dont want to give away much. Thats my main concern too, no one has to add anything to why they vote Matt, thats why i am trying to get ppl to talk about it.
The problem with joking is that when you say something and then go back and say "just kidding," people don't know if you're a scum trying to cover up a blunder, or a townie who really is joking. That's why "joke" posts really aren't a good idea, as they do nothing to scumhunt. And if you're town, it's a fast track to getting suspicion placed on you all game long...
Second:
On September 06 2012 03:54 Ottoxlol wrote:
Toad, I asked about the vote on Matt and he told me a bunch of things but dodged the question for 8-9 times.
Those who started focusing on Gravan but ignored me.
Those who voted Matt with a one liner.
I asked for your top scumread, and this doesn't cut it. Blanket accusing everyone who focused on Gravan but not you, as well as those who made one-line cases for Mattchew is not constructive. Like why is it that those who focused on Gravan alone are suspicious? You've never discussed this at all, and it requires further explanation.
And if you're going to discuss Toad as a top scumread, then please take more than one line to elaborate on it.
|
On September 06 2012 06:22 goodkarma wrote:@Ottox:First: Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 04:53 Ottoxlol wrote:On September 06 2012 04:41 BroodKingEXE wrote:On September 06 2012 03:57 Ottoxlol wrote:On September 06 2012 03:49 Z-BosoN wrote:
@goodkarma
Just because he is up on my suspicion bar does not mean that he is scum. He could very well be a bad townie.
If he is, the only motivation he has for defending matt and attacking toad is that he actually thinks that toad is more suspicious than matt, and if so, he's doing a shitty job at explaining himself.
Also, him being obnoxious doesn't contribute to his defense. At least I am not that retarded to attack someone on the ground of their first post that was clearly a joke. I already explained my motivation two post ago. If you need some help understanding it you can ask for it nicely You dont joke about scum reads. You're scum, because you are trying to derail a lynch and not trying to bring up another canidate. Real townie would create a case and present a new option, but scum dont want to give away to much and wont do that. They'll try to plug an easy lurker after a derail. You are wrong. A joke is fine when the game is just started and there is nothing. You say scum dont want to give away much. Thats my main concern too, no one has to add anything to why they vote Matt, thats why i am trying to get ppl to talk about it. The problem with joking is that when you say something and then go back and say "just kidding," people don't know if you're a scum trying to cover up a blunder, or a townie who really is joking. That's why "joke" posts really aren't a good idea, as they do nothing to scumhunt. And if you're town, it's a fast track to getting suspicion placed on you all game long... Second: Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 03:54 Ottoxlol wrote:
Toad, I asked about the vote on Matt and he told me a bunch of things but dodged the question for 8-9 times.
Those who started focusing on Gravan but ignored me.
Those who voted Matt with a one liner. I asked for your top scumread, and this doesn't cut it. Blanket accusing everyone who focused on Gravan but not you, as well as those who made one-line cases for Mattchew is not constructive. Like why is it that those who focused on Gravan alone are suspicious? You've never discussed this at all, and it requires further explanation. And if you're going to discuss Toad as a top scumread, then please take more than one line to elaborate on it.
I was not the only one joking in the first half an hour, grush, Hapa, Toad made jokes too.
So about Toad, he was active a lot but failed to make a case on why is he voting Matt. You can see our conversation in our filters,
This is why I ask the same question again and again to get scum answer too. You guys are blinded by scum talking bs in the thread.
|
Ottox still hasn't understood the difference between intention and what ended up happening. That's the whole deal here.
He is saying it makes no sense for mafia to claim like that because it failed, therefore it was bad.
As town it would / could have worked out according to him.
That's his whole reasoning and he's not unterstanding that everyone is talking about the intention and not what ended up happening.
|
On September 06 2012 06:28 Ottoxlol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 06:22 goodkarma wrote:@Ottox:First: On September 06 2012 04:53 Ottoxlol wrote:On September 06 2012 04:41 BroodKingEXE wrote:On September 06 2012 03:57 Ottoxlol wrote:On September 06 2012 03:49 Z-BosoN wrote:
@goodkarma
Just because he is up on my suspicion bar does not mean that he is scum. He could very well be a bad townie.
If he is, the only motivation he has for defending matt and attacking toad is that he actually thinks that toad is more suspicious than matt, and if so, he's doing a shitty job at explaining himself.
Also, him being obnoxious doesn't contribute to his defense. At least I am not that retarded to attack someone on the ground of their first post that was clearly a joke. I already explained my motivation two post ago. If you need some help understanding it you can ask for it nicely You dont joke about scum reads. You're scum, because you are trying to derail a lynch and not trying to bring up another canidate. Real townie would create a case and present a new option, but scum dont want to give away to much and wont do that. They'll try to plug an easy lurker after a derail. You are wrong. A joke is fine when the game is just started and there is nothing. You say scum dont want to give away much. Thats my main concern too, no one has to add anything to why they vote Matt, thats why i am trying to get ppl to talk about it. The problem with joking is that when you say something and then go back and say "just kidding," people don't know if you're a scum trying to cover up a blunder, or a townie who really is joking. That's why "joke" posts really aren't a good idea, as they do nothing to scumhunt. And if you're town, it's a fast track to getting suspicion placed on you all game long... Second: On September 06 2012 03:54 Ottoxlol wrote:
Toad, I asked about the vote on Matt and he told me a bunch of things but dodged the question for 8-9 times.
Those who started focusing on Gravan but ignored me.
Those who voted Matt with a one liner. I asked for your top scumread, and this doesn't cut it. Blanket accusing everyone who focused on Gravan but not you, as well as those who made one-line cases for Mattchew is not constructive. Like why is it that those who focused on Gravan alone are suspicious? You've never discussed this at all, and it requires further explanation. And if you're going to discuss Toad as a top scumread, then please take more than one line to elaborate on it. I was not the only one joking in the first half an hour, grush, Hapa, Toad made jokes too. So about Toad, he was active a lot but failed to make a case on why is he voting Matt. You can see our conversation in our filters, This is why I ask the same question again and again to get scum answer too. You guys are blinded by scum talking bs in the thread.
Wtf. How is that:
On September 05 2012 00:45 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 00:29 strongandbig wrote:On September 04 2012 23:52 Maverick32x wrote:
I voted for Matt due to the lying- but I would be curious to hear if he has a defense of some kind?? lol. If matt was going to defend himself he would have said something by now other than "hey guys maybe I'm a VT trying to draw scum shots lol". I've played a bunch of games with Mattchew recently and based on those, I think this is him as scum. For example, if I were going to fakeclaim miller as scum, I would do it very differently. However, you have to remember a couple things about Mattchew: - he's lazy as fuck as scum, except in themed games - he's pretty aggressive as town a lot of the time. The example I was thinking about was from him in TL Mafia LV, where he and I were both town. He lied about taking a shot, and then when I suggested that it made no sense for him to take a scum shot and he might have been vigged, he attacked me like a moron for the rest of the game. Unlike that, in this game his lie doesn't have any follow-up. If it was a planned-out pro-town lie, which I imagine is what he'll pretend it is, he would have been all over the first few people to attack him. Instead he just disappeared. It seems much more likely that what he did was the same thing I did in deathnote - claimed miller without first asking the hosts whether millers are self-aware, and got caught for it. The difference is, I did it in a game with a closed setup. ##vote: mattchew yeah Matt really is someone who's really in your face both as a townie and a mafia. He's incredible aggressive and / or borderline insulting if people don't think the same way he does. As mafia he's telling people to shut up and that he doesn't need to explain his reads a bit because people are to retarded to understand it anyways when he knows he's right about something, e.g. when he's bussing a buddy, defending a townie to get towncred or geniunely meant something another way and people are misinterpreting what he said due to a type or something like that. As Town he does the same when he heavily think's he's right or when someone misunderstands him. His calm and almost not existing involvement here defenitly is not what matt does when somethings "wrong" according to him. That either means he acknowledges that he screwed up as a town or that he acknowledges that he screwed up as a mafia and doesn't think it's going to help anymore. As already mentioned I don't see a reason at all for a town to fakeclaim like this and combine that with him "giving up" and you're good to go.
+
On September 04 2012 23:21 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 22:55 Ottoxlol wrote:
Why so many people jump to vote Matt?
Whatever is his alignment he fucked up. Does this makes him scum?
Matt thought Noisys are aware of themselves. He has some kind of role. This is all we know.
If he's blue he could have done it to protect himself from scum.
If a scum would fakeclaim I think he would discuss it with his team first and do you all think every scum missed this thing? I highly doubt it. If anything Matt is a blue or assa.
This just provides an easy wagon to jump onto and removes d1 discussion as a whole, no town benefit from that.
Just because he did not play well it doesnt mean he's scum. a blue doctor, jailkeep, Tracker, Watcher or Vigi however has no reason to be afraid. Maybe a Mad Hatter would be hard to explain but I'd doubt someone would want to fakeclaim as miller like that as a Mad Hatter. Picture the situation you're in as a blue: We have trackers and Watchers. What happens is that at some time someone could say "Hey guys, Matt visited X at night Y". If he's a doctor, tracker or a watcher that's no problem at all because the target in question didn't die. We want to know who visited people who ended up being dead. If he's a doc there's actually a chance he ended up saving someone and that someone could even confirm that. If he is a tracker or a Watcher he is able to claim the results, something Mafia is not able to do. So a Doc, Tracker or a Watcher are all perfectly fine and there's no reason to fakeclaim like this. A Jailer can somewhat confirm himself as well as the target he visited ended up being roleblocked every single night. It's only "somewhat" because a mafia RB is possible as well but after all if he's a Jailer he's again only going to visit people who ended up surviving the night. A vig is somewhat tricky as it's an extremly easy fakeclaim for mafia to do but as long as you claim prior to the deadline everyone's going to be fine with that. A Mad Hatter is, like a vigi somewhat tricky but as everything else you visited people. That in itself is not a reason to be suspicious of someone and the Mad Hatter is most likely going to visit people who ended up surviving as well unless either the Hatter decides to go after townish looking people for whatever reason or mafia decides to go after bad looking townies for whatever reason. tl;dr: There's not a single scenario in which a fakeclaim as a blue makes sense. At least I can't think of one because you won't end up being tracked to a kill in pretty much all the cases. On top of that noone is going to be stupid enough to out someone who visited a guy who's still alive because that's basicly outing medics / tracker / watcher in most of the cases. However there are a bunch of good reasons to fakeclaim this as mafia if you forgot that millers / NN are usually not self-aware in 90% of the games and just did it because he recently played a game with self-aware millers. I think Bang-Bang mafia was one of those for example. So there's a shitton of explanations from a mafia point of view. The only possible explanation from a town point of view would probably be "reversed psychology" although you're making yourself a target doing so, which isn't what a blue wants to do either unless he's a Hatter d2 or later.
+
On September 05 2012 02:09 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 02:01 Ottoxlol wrote:On September 05 2012 01:50 Toadesstern wrote:
People who know how to play post things, including fakeclaims as mafia all the time without checking with their buddies and they slip from time to time.
If this was some random noob, fine but it's not, it's Mattchew. He most of the time knows what he's doing and certaintly doesn't need to check back with his buddies all the time.
Additionally in the most recent games I played as mafia I figured that a lot of mafia teams really only rely on the QT and really seldomly use other means of communication like IRC or skype which slows down communication A LOT. So in the most recent games I played as mafia pretty much everyone just did their own thing and you would only end up discussing things like who to kill at night or wether or not it's fine if you bus each other.
Again, if this was some random dude with 100 posts in his 3rd or 5th game of mafia fine, I'd agree he'd ask his buddies before doing something like this but Mattchew is not a random noob.
I could maaaaaaybe see him fakeclaim as tracker on purpose IF he knew millers are not self-aware to lure out additional fakeclaims but I don't really see that giving his answers. And if that really was the case it'd be the most stupid kind of play I've ever seen.
That's literally the most retarded thing you could come up with but it's at least something I could come up with while the scenarios for a mafia who just slipped make a whole lot of sense My problem with this reasoning is why blue/assa bad play is more probable then scum bad play? Even if you think Matt is not likely to discuss it with his team, he can so why is it more likely? If he's scum he misread the rules then fakeclaimed without discussing it with his mates or they fucked up too. If he's a tracker/assa, he misread the rules then fakeclaimed. in hope of some probable targets (thinking the other assassin would likely claim or maybe even scum) Why is the first scenario is more likely by 19 people? :D I just don't see it. Tell me what I miss Because there's no reason to fakeclaim as tracker. As a mafia you blend in as a townie.
not explaining why I'm voting Matt?
Stop lying dude
|
Toad is lying again, I explained it multiple times what I think yet he writes
"He is saying it makes no sense for mafia to claim like that because it failed, therefore it was bad."
No. I am saying it makes no sense for mafia to claim because it is bad. BC tried to tell me why, but when I answered he disappeared. Strange. Why do you keep talking about me when you are clearly not capable of understanding what I am writing?
|
You did not answered why is it more probable to do this as scum then as assa or blue. You are still dodging it. You write a lot of spam but contribute negative, try to stop the discussion.
|
On September 06 2012 06:35 Ottoxlol wrote:
Toad is lying again, I explained it multiple times what I think yet he writes
"He is saying it makes no sense for mafia to claim like that because it failed, therefore it was bad."
No. I am saying it makes no sense for mafia to claim because it is bad. BC tried to tell me why, but when I answered he disappeared. Strange. Why do you keep talking about me when you are clearly not capable of understanding what I am writing?
That's just another of your lies. Multiple people HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED, with links to the game or at least telling you the name of the game that fakeclaiming miller/NN is a good strategy for mafia and it happened in the past, ending up wasting cycles for town because noone lynched the guy in question BECAUSE of the lynch.
Just READ the game.
|
On September 06 2012 06:36 Ottoxlol wrote:
You did not answered why is it more probable to do this as scum then as assa or blue. You are still dodging it. You write a lot of spam but contribute negative, try to stop the discussion.
I'm not going to just let you get in here and completly lie about what happened and tell people trying to make it look like something happened that never happened when in fact you're still not willing to read the game lol.
You're telling me that I should ignore you but you're going on about how I'm supposed to be a liar. That's the most hypocritical thing I've ever read.
|
Oh god, not this again.
Can we just ignore ox?? It's pointless arguing with him.
|
On September 05 2012 21:19 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 14:38 Bill Murray wrote:
No, Forumite. I don't see how you get that whatsoever. I see you as being scum with Mattchew for not jumping on voting him there. Isn´t that a different accusation? Before you accuse me of trying to get Matt to claim (meaning that you thought I was scum and Matt town), and now you say I´m scum together with Matt. To answer why I didn´t vote Matt early, at the time I was weighing on what Matt was and engaged him in conversation to get a better read, but until Palmar confirmed how Nosy Neighbors works, there wasn´t enough on Matt for me to throw down a vote. Matt was suspicious for claiming NN, but there were no proof that he was really lying at the time. Why should I vote someone who claims a town role unless I have a good reason to think he´s lying?
you're jumping to conclusions
you could be coaching him into a tracker claim as his scumbuddy (what i thought) because he fucked up, and you were trying to salvage the situation. You're playing dumb, here, which is another scum indicator.
I understand engaging in conversation to get a better read of the situation, but to me it felt like you weren't sure whether or not to bus him.
How did you not know how nosy neighbors worked? We've used this setup before.
Proof he was lying? see my last statement
.... he was fucking lying.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On September 06 2012 06:36 Ottoxlol wrote:
You did not answered why is it more probable to do this as scum then as assa or blue. You are still dodging it. You write a lot of spam but contribute negative, try to stop the discussion.
Seriously. For the last fucking time. That has been answered by toad and multiple other people in the thread. Just because you somehow have completely missed it doesn't stop it from being there. You are the one adding a shit ton of spam by not reading the responses to the questions you keep asking over and over again.
|
Sorry, next time try not to bend reality to your needs, maybe I wont call you a liar. And I answered why would it be stupid as scum to claim miller EVEN if it was self-aware miller.
|
On September 06 2012 06:34 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 06:28 Ottoxlol wrote:On September 06 2012 06:22 goodkarma wrote:@Ottox:First: On September 06 2012 04:53 Ottoxlol wrote:On September 06 2012 04:41 BroodKingEXE wrote:On September 06 2012 03:57 Ottoxlol wrote:On September 06 2012 03:49 Z-BosoN wrote:
@goodkarma
Just because he is up on my suspicion bar does not mean that he is scum. He could very well be a bad townie.
If he is, the only motivation he has for defending matt and attacking toad is that he actually thinks that toad is more suspicious than matt, and if so, he's doing a shitty job at explaining himself.
Also, him being obnoxious doesn't contribute to his defense. At least I am not that retarded to attack someone on the ground of their first post that was clearly a joke. I already explained my motivation two post ago. If you need some help understanding it you can ask for it nicely You dont joke about scum reads. You're scum, because you are trying to derail a lynch and not trying to bring up another canidate. Real townie would create a case and present a new option, but scum dont want to give away to much and wont do that. They'll try to plug an easy lurker after a derail. You are wrong. A joke is fine when the game is just started and there is nothing. You say scum dont want to give away much. Thats my main concern too, no one has to add anything to why they vote Matt, thats why i am trying to get ppl to talk about it. The problem with joking is that when you say something and then go back and say "just kidding," people don't know if you're a scum trying to cover up a blunder, or a townie who really is joking. That's why "joke" posts really aren't a good idea, as they do nothing to scumhunt. And if you're town, it's a fast track to getting suspicion placed on you all game long... Second: On September 06 2012 03:54 Ottoxlol wrote:
Toad, I asked about the vote on Matt and he told me a bunch of things but dodged the question for 8-9 times.
Those who started focusing on Gravan but ignored me.
Those who voted Matt with a one liner. I asked for your top scumread, and this doesn't cut it. Blanket accusing everyone who focused on Gravan but not you, as well as those who made one-line cases for Mattchew is not constructive. Like why is it that those who focused on Gravan alone are suspicious? You've never discussed this at all, and it requires further explanation. And if you're going to discuss Toad as a top scumread, then please take more than one line to elaborate on it. I was not the only one joking in the first half an hour, grush, Hapa, Toad made jokes too. So about Toad, he was active a lot but failed to make a case on why is he voting Matt. You can see our conversation in our filters, This is why I ask the same question again and again to get scum answer too. You guys are blinded by scum talking bs in the thread. Wtf. How is that: Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 00:45 Toadesstern wrote:On September 05 2012 00:29 strongandbig wrote:On September 04 2012 23:52 Maverick32x wrote:
I voted for Matt due to the lying- but I would be curious to hear if he has a defense of some kind?? lol. If matt was going to defend himself he would have said something by now other than "hey guys maybe I'm a VT trying to draw scum shots lol". I've played a bunch of games with Mattchew recently and based on those, I think this is him as scum. For example, if I were going to fakeclaim miller as scum, I would do it very differently. However, you have to remember a couple things about Mattchew: - he's lazy as fuck as scum, except in themed games - he's pretty aggressive as town a lot of the time. The example I was thinking about was from him in TL Mafia LV, where he and I were both town. He lied about taking a shot, and then when I suggested that it made no sense for him to take a scum shot and he might have been vigged, he attacked me like a moron for the rest of the game. Unlike that, in this game his lie doesn't have any follow-up. If it was a planned-out pro-town lie, which I imagine is what he'll pretend it is, he would have been all over the first few people to attack him. Instead he just disappeared. It seems much more likely that what he did was the same thing I did in deathnote - claimed miller without first asking the hosts whether millers are self-aware, and got caught for it. The difference is, I did it in a game with a closed setup. ##vote: mattchew yeah Matt really is someone who's really in your face both as a townie and a mafia. He's incredible aggressive and / or borderline insulting if people don't think the same way he does. As mafia he's telling people to shut up and that he doesn't need to explain his reads a bit because people are to retarded to understand it anyways when he knows he's right about something, e.g. when he's bussing a buddy, defending a townie to get towncred or geniunely meant something another way and people are misinterpreting what he said due to a type or something like that. As Town he does the same when he heavily think's he's right or when someone misunderstands him. His calm and almost not existing involvement here defenitly is not what matt does when somethings "wrong" according to him. That either means he acknowledges that he screwed up as a town or that he acknowledges that he screwed up as a mafia and doesn't think it's going to help anymore. As already mentioned I don't see a reason at all for a town to fakeclaim like this and combine that with him "giving up" and you're good to go. + Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 23:21 Toadesstern wrote:On September 04 2012 22:55 Ottoxlol wrote:
Why so many people jump to vote Matt?
Whatever is his alignment he fucked up. Does this makes him scum?
Matt thought Noisys are aware of themselves. He has some kind of role. This is all we know.
If he's blue he could have done it to protect himself from scum.
If a scum would fakeclaim I think he would discuss it with his team first and do you all think every scum missed this thing? I highly doubt it. If anything Matt is a blue or assa.
This just provides an easy wagon to jump onto and removes d1 discussion as a whole, no town benefit from that.
Just because he did not play well it doesnt mean he's scum. a blue doctor, jailkeep, Tracker, Watcher or Vigi however has no reason to be afraid. Maybe a Mad Hatter would be hard to explain but I'd doubt someone would want to fakeclaim as miller like that as a Mad Hatter. Picture the situation you're in as a blue: We have trackers and Watchers. What happens is that at some time someone could say "Hey guys, Matt visited X at night Y". If he's a doctor, tracker or a watcher that's no problem at all because the target in question didn't die. We want to know who visited people who ended up being dead. If he's a doc there's actually a chance he ended up saving someone and that someone could even confirm that. If he is a tracker or a Watcher he is able to claim the results, something Mafia is not able to do. So a Doc, Tracker or a Watcher are all perfectly fine and there's no reason to fakeclaim like this. A Jailer can somewhat confirm himself as well as the target he visited ended up being roleblocked every single night. It's only "somewhat" because a mafia RB is possible as well but after all if he's a Jailer he's again only going to visit people who ended up surviving the night. A vig is somewhat tricky as it's an extremly easy fakeclaim for mafia to do but as long as you claim prior to the deadline everyone's going to be fine with that. A Mad Hatter is, like a vigi somewhat tricky but as everything else you visited people. That in itself is not a reason to be suspicious of someone and the Mad Hatter is most likely going to visit people who ended up surviving as well unless either the Hatter decides to go after townish looking people for whatever reason or mafia decides to go after bad looking townies for whatever reason. tl;dr: There's not a single scenario in which a fakeclaim as a blue makes sense. At least I can't think of one because you won't end up being tracked to a kill in pretty much all the cases. On top of that noone is going to be stupid enough to out someone who visited a guy who's still alive because that's basicly outing medics / tracker / watcher in most of the cases. However there are a bunch of good reasons to fakeclaim this as mafia if you forgot that millers / NN are usually not self-aware in 90% of the games and just did it because he recently played a game with self-aware millers. I think Bang-Bang mafia was one of those for example. So there's a shitton of explanations from a mafia point of view. The only possible explanation from a town point of view would probably be "reversed psychology" although you're making yourself a target doing so, which isn't what a blue wants to do either unless he's a Hatter d2 or later. + Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 02:09 Toadesstern wrote:On September 05 2012 02:01 Ottoxlol wrote:On September 05 2012 01:50 Toadesstern wrote:
People who know how to play post things, including fakeclaims as mafia all the time without checking with their buddies and they slip from time to time.
If this was some random noob, fine but it's not, it's Mattchew. He most of the time knows what he's doing and certaintly doesn't need to check back with his buddies all the time.
Additionally in the most recent games I played as mafia I figured that a lot of mafia teams really only rely on the QT and really seldomly use other means of communication like IRC or skype which slows down communication A LOT. So in the most recent games I played as mafia pretty much everyone just did their own thing and you would only end up discussing things like who to kill at night or wether or not it's fine if you bus each other.
Again, if this was some random dude with 100 posts in his 3rd or 5th game of mafia fine, I'd agree he'd ask his buddies before doing something like this but Mattchew is not a random noob.
I could maaaaaaybe see him fakeclaim as tracker on purpose IF he knew millers are not self-aware to lure out additional fakeclaims but I don't really see that giving his answers. And if that really was the case it'd be the most stupid kind of play I've ever seen.
That's literally the most retarded thing you could come up with but it's at least something I could come up with while the scenarios for a mafia who just slipped make a whole lot of sense My problem with this reasoning is why blue/assa bad play is more probable then scum bad play? Even if you think Matt is not likely to discuss it with his team, he can so why is it more likely? If he's scum he misread the rules then fakeclaimed without discussing it with his mates or they fucked up too. If he's a tracker/assa, he misread the rules then fakeclaimed. in hope of some probable targets (thinking the other assassin would likely claim or maybe even scum) Why is the first scenario is more likely by 19 people? :D I just don't see it. Tell me what I miss Because there's no reason to fakeclaim as tracker. As a mafia you blend in as a townie. not explaining why I'm voting Matt? Stop lying dude
Ottox has no idea what he is doing or he is scum.
|
On September 06 2012 06:44 grush57 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 06:34 Toadesstern wrote:On September 06 2012 06:28 Ottoxlol wrote:On September 06 2012 06:22 goodkarma wrote:@Ottox:First: On September 06 2012 04:53 Ottoxlol wrote:On September 06 2012 04:41 BroodKingEXE wrote:On September 06 2012 03:57 Ottoxlol wrote:On September 06 2012 03:49 Z-BosoN wrote:
@goodkarma
Just because he is up on my suspicion bar does not mean that he is scum. He could very well be a bad townie.
If he is, the only motivation he has for defending matt and attacking toad is that he actually thinks that toad is more suspicious than matt, and if so, he's doing a shitty job at explaining himself.
Also, him being obnoxious doesn't contribute to his defense. At least I am not that retarded to attack someone on the ground of their first post that was clearly a joke. I already explained my motivation two post ago. If you need some help understanding it you can ask for it nicely You dont joke about scum reads. You're scum, because you are trying to derail a lynch and not trying to bring up another canidate. Real townie would create a case and present a new option, but scum dont want to give away to much and wont do that. They'll try to plug an easy lurker after a derail. You are wrong. A joke is fine when the game is just started and there is nothing. You say scum dont want to give away much. Thats my main concern too, no one has to add anything to why they vote Matt, thats why i am trying to get ppl to talk about it. The problem with joking is that when you say something and then go back and say "just kidding," people don't know if you're a scum trying to cover up a blunder, or a townie who really is joking. That's why "joke" posts really aren't a good idea, as they do nothing to scumhunt. And if you're town, it's a fast track to getting suspicion placed on you all game long... Second: On September 06 2012 03:54 Ottoxlol wrote:
Toad, I asked about the vote on Matt and he told me a bunch of things but dodged the question for 8-9 times.
Those who started focusing on Gravan but ignored me.
Those who voted Matt with a one liner. I asked for your top scumread, and this doesn't cut it. Blanket accusing everyone who focused on Gravan but not you, as well as those who made one-line cases for Mattchew is not constructive. Like why is it that those who focused on Gravan alone are suspicious? You've never discussed this at all, and it requires further explanation. And if you're going to discuss Toad as a top scumread, then please take more than one line to elaborate on it. I was not the only one joking in the first half an hour, grush, Hapa, Toad made jokes too. So about Toad, he was active a lot but failed to make a case on why is he voting Matt. You can see our conversation in our filters, This is why I ask the same question again and again to get scum answer too. You guys are blinded by scum talking bs in the thread. Wtf. How is that: On September 05 2012 00:45 Toadesstern wrote:On September 05 2012 00:29 strongandbig wrote:On September 04 2012 23:52 Maverick32x wrote:
I voted for Matt due to the lying- but I would be curious to hear if he has a defense of some kind?? lol. If matt was going to defend himself he would have said something by now other than "hey guys maybe I'm a VT trying to draw scum shots lol". I've played a bunch of games with Mattchew recently and based on those, I think this is him as scum. For example, if I were going to fakeclaim miller as scum, I would do it very differently. However, you have to remember a couple things about Mattchew: - he's lazy as fuck as scum, except in themed games - he's pretty aggressive as town a lot of the time. The example I was thinking about was from him in TL Mafia LV, where he and I were both town. He lied about taking a shot, and then when I suggested that it made no sense for him to take a scum shot and he might have been vigged, he attacked me like a moron for the rest of the game. Unlike that, in this game his lie doesn't have any follow-up. If it was a planned-out pro-town lie, which I imagine is what he'll pretend it is, he would have been all over the first few people to attack him. Instead he just disappeared. It seems much more likely that what he did was the same thing I did in deathnote - claimed miller without first asking the hosts whether millers are self-aware, and got caught for it. The difference is, I did it in a game with a closed setup. ##vote: mattchew yeah Matt really is someone who's really in your face both as a townie and a mafia. He's incredible aggressive and / or borderline insulting if people don't think the same way he does. As mafia he's telling people to shut up and that he doesn't need to explain his reads a bit because people are to retarded to understand it anyways when he knows he's right about something, e.g. when he's bussing a buddy, defending a townie to get towncred or geniunely meant something another way and people are misinterpreting what he said due to a type or something like that. As Town he does the same when he heavily think's he's right or when someone misunderstands him. His calm and almost not existing involvement here defenitly is not what matt does when somethings "wrong" according to him. That either means he acknowledges that he screwed up as a town or that he acknowledges that he screwed up as a mafia and doesn't think it's going to help anymore. As already mentioned I don't see a reason at all for a town to fakeclaim like this and combine that with him "giving up" and you're good to go. + On September 04 2012 23:21 Toadesstern wrote:On September 04 2012 22:55 Ottoxlol wrote:
Why so many people jump to vote Matt?
Whatever is his alignment he fucked up. Does this makes him scum?
Matt thought Noisys are aware of themselves. He has some kind of role. This is all we know.
If he's blue he could have done it to protect himself from scum.
If a scum would fakeclaim I think he would discuss it with his team first and do you all think every scum missed this thing? I highly doubt it. If anything Matt is a blue or assa.
This just provides an easy wagon to jump onto and removes d1 discussion as a whole, no town benefit from that.
Just because he did not play well it doesnt mean he's scum. a blue doctor, jailkeep, Tracker, Watcher or Vigi however has no reason to be afraid. Maybe a Mad Hatter would be hard to explain but I'd doubt someone would want to fakeclaim as miller like that as a Mad Hatter. Picture the situation you're in as a blue: We have trackers and Watchers. What happens is that at some time someone could say "Hey guys, Matt visited X at night Y". If he's a doctor, tracker or a watcher that's no problem at all because the target in question didn't die. We want to know who visited people who ended up being dead. If he's a doc there's actually a chance he ended up saving someone and that someone could even confirm that. If he is a tracker or a Watcher he is able to claim the results, something Mafia is not able to do. So a Doc, Tracker or a Watcher are all perfectly fine and there's no reason to fakeclaim like this. A Jailer can somewhat confirm himself as well as the target he visited ended up being roleblocked every single night. It's only "somewhat" because a mafia RB is possible as well but after all if he's a Jailer he's again only going to visit people who ended up surviving the night. A vig is somewhat tricky as it's an extremly easy fakeclaim for mafia to do but as long as you claim prior to the deadline everyone's going to be fine with that. A Mad Hatter is, like a vigi somewhat tricky but as everything else you visited people. That in itself is not a reason to be suspicious of someone and the Mad Hatter is most likely going to visit people who ended up surviving as well unless either the Hatter decides to go after townish looking people for whatever reason or mafia decides to go after bad looking townies for whatever reason. tl;dr: There's not a single scenario in which a fakeclaim as a blue makes sense. At least I can't think of one because you won't end up being tracked to a kill in pretty much all the cases. On top of that noone is going to be stupid enough to out someone who visited a guy who's still alive because that's basicly outing medics / tracker / watcher in most of the cases. However there are a bunch of good reasons to fakeclaim this as mafia if you forgot that millers / NN are usually not self-aware in 90% of the games and just did it because he recently played a game with self-aware millers. I think Bang-Bang mafia was one of those for example. So there's a shitton of explanations from a mafia point of view. The only possible explanation from a town point of view would probably be "reversed psychology" although you're making yourself a target doing so, which isn't what a blue wants to do either unless he's a Hatter d2 or later. + On September 05 2012 02:09 Toadesstern wrote:On September 05 2012 02:01 Ottoxlol wrote:On September 05 2012 01:50 Toadesstern wrote:
People who know how to play post things, including fakeclaims as mafia all the time without checking with their buddies and they slip from time to time.
If this was some random noob, fine but it's not, it's Mattchew. He most of the time knows what he's doing and certaintly doesn't need to check back with his buddies all the time.
Additionally in the most recent games I played as mafia I figured that a lot of mafia teams really only rely on the QT and really seldomly use other means of communication like IRC or skype which slows down communication A LOT. So in the most recent games I played as mafia pretty much everyone just did their own thing and you would only end up discussing things like who to kill at night or wether or not it's fine if you bus each other.
Again, if this was some random dude with 100 posts in his 3rd or 5th game of mafia fine, I'd agree he'd ask his buddies before doing something like this but Mattchew is not a random noob.
I could maaaaaaybe see him fakeclaim as tracker on purpose IF he knew millers are not self-aware to lure out additional fakeclaims but I don't really see that giving his answers. And if that really was the case it'd be the most stupid kind of play I've ever seen.
That's literally the most retarded thing you could come up with but it's at least something I could come up with while the scenarios for a mafia who just slipped make a whole lot of sense My problem with this reasoning is why blue/assa bad play is more probable then scum bad play? Even if you think Matt is not likely to discuss it with his team, he can so why is it more likely? If he's scum he misread the rules then fakeclaimed without discussing it with his mates or they fucked up too. If he's a tracker/assa, he misread the rules then fakeclaimed. in hope of some probable targets (thinking the other assassin would likely claim or maybe even scum) Why is the first scenario is more likely by 19 people? :D I just don't see it. Tell me what I miss Because there's no reason to fakeclaim as tracker. As a mafia you blend in as a townie. not explaining why I'm voting Matt? Stop lying dude Ottox has no idea what he is doing or he is scum.
I am trying to get ppl to talk about why they voted Matt. So far I got Toad as scum from that. What have you done mate?
|
On September 06 2012 06:31 Toadesstern wrote:
Ottox still hasn't understood the difference between intention and what ended up happening. That's the whole deal here.
He is saying it makes no sense for mafia to claim like that because it failed, therefore it was bad.
As town it would / could have worked out according to him.
That's his whole reasoning and he's not unterstanding that everyone is talking about the intention and not what ended up happening.
I think the problem is that Ottox isn't rational. I think he's just trolling at this point, and we should be ignoring him. There should be enough information in his filter to decide whether he's scum or horrifically-bad townie. I think the first is much more plausible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
