|
@ Mav
Read this:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=361826¤tpage=54#1080
There's no rational reason why town BKE would make such a wild 180 in such a short time. When the bandwagon was starting on Mattchew, he expressed reservations and didn't vote him to protect his teammate. He explicitly stated that he didn't think a hypothetical fake-claim was a good enough reason to vote Mattchew.
THEN, he votes Mattchew 5.5 hours after the confirmation with only the word "wow." It's pretty clear that he's treating it as a mega-scumslip from Mattchew now. No rationale, no reasoning - all of a sudden when everyone votes Mattchew, he consents to it in a way completely inconsistent with his previous actions.
It's pretty clear that BKE forgot about his previous post and bussed Mattchew to blend in. Also, fun fact: he never voted Mattchew in the voting thread - he had his vote on Toadsstern officially the whole time.
|
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
I was asking for clarification on your stances, now I got sth. That I would say results in a null read on me by you am I right? As you can see i am posting at the moment although it is freaking 4 AM here, do where do you go from here? How am I derailing a thread by asking you questions on your reads?
|
That's awesome news then.
I'm struggling because of the timing of his posts... And I'm not able to check them now... I'm concerned that people are using the "hindsight is 20/20" logic.
Such as- well now that we know Matt is scum... Anyone who associated with him scum. So I guess looking at the time will be important.... That being said- I want to see how much
Back to training ill clarify later.
|
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
Ebwop: null read leaning scum is what I wanted to write...tired...
|
@ Z - Why are we defending Mattchew?
He flipped red.
|
On September 08 2012 04:46 Maverick32x wrote:
That's awesome news then.
I'm struggling because of the timing of his posts... And I'm not able to check them now... I'm concerned that people are using the "hindsight is 20/20" logic.
Such as- well now that we know Matt is scum... Anyone who associated with him scum. So I guess looking at the time will be important.... That being said- I want to see how much
Back to training ill clarify later.
This is not my argument at all. In fact, BKE doesn't interact with Mattchew much at all. It's his attitude towards Mattchew's lynch that's proof of his alignment.
And in mafia, "hindsight is 20/20" is actually a pretty good way to go about things. In mafia, you always make inferences from the past. Every time we get more information (alignments, flips, etc), we can infer more and more information from past posting.
|
oh, didn't see that "fakeclaim does not mean insta-lynch" comment.
|
|
|
On September 08 2012 03:33 Hapahauli wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 03:12 BroodKingEXE wrote:On September 07 2012 11:37 Hapahauli wrote:Before I go to bed for the night: BroodKingEXEHe has two very suspicious posts regarding two confirmed players: Mattchew and Ottoxlol.
A bit before Mattchew is scum-confirmed (right around when a few players start voting for Mattchew), Broodking posts this unbelievably wishy-washy opinion on Mattchew. On September 04 2012 16:20 BroodKingEXE wrote:
About Mattchew (who I think is town):
Here's my breakdown of the situation : Matt's roleclaimed and given two reasons he claimed to avoid mislynch and/or draw a mafia shot. At first glance the roleclaim seemed like a great idea, but as I thought about it there were just too many holes. My initial thought was that it was a good idea and that could have been Matt's (based on the reasoning too). Another problem I find with lynching him is that what he has done (roleclaim) isn't verifiable until he is lynched. Right now its a coinflip and I haven't seen anything else that suggests he is scum. Fakeclaims aren't good basis for a lynch, they're not even able to be confirmed until the lynch, so I cant vote for him unless his posting sounds scummy. Look at the logic - he first thinks its a great idea, then there are "too many holes." He doesn't want to lynch him because his "roleclaim isn't verifiable until he is lynched" - the hell? He said he's town originally, then says "its a coinflip" Then he says "Fakeclaims aren't good basis for a lynch" and wants to wait until "mattchew sounds scummy". Again, the fakeclaim is the entire reason everyone voted for him. But wait! Two pages after the fakeclaim (and before Mattchew posted anything in the interim): On September 05 2012 00:12 BroodKingEXE wrote:
Unvote
##Vote: Mattchew
Wow. After stating earlier that the fakeclaim wasn't enough to lynch Mattchew, he votes Mattchew for that very reasoning.
His viewpoints on Ottoxlol are the nail in the coffin: Goes from top scumread: No, his response was belivable based on posts he made after his sloosh interaction. Ottox has replaced him [ed note: Broodking's scumread on Toad due to the fact that he is pushing a "Matt is an assasin/townie scheme" instead of pushing his scum read toad. Then proceeds to push cases against Miltonkram, Shadysands, and Gravan while Ottox is his top scumread: Then says strange things about potentially townie Ottox while keeping a scumread on him. filter
My 2 cents about the Ottox thing. I played with him in Area 53 and he's as stubborn as a mule. I could see him trying to derail a lynch from a town perspective. I just don't get why as town he wont push a lynch canidate (in all seriousness his isn't doing much to push toad or hapa). That's why Im keeping a scum read on him. Then SOFT DEFENDS OTTOX when talking to DrHOn September 06 2012 16:03 BroodKingEXE wrote:It was later in the game from what I remember, just that he doesn't really listen (or ignores) others logic.
BroodKingEXE is scum!##Vote BroodKingEXE I've got a break to post. The reason I didn't like the idea of voting for a fake-claim is because short of Mod-confirmation, we wouldn't have any way to confirm BC's theory 1. I switched my vote because the fake-claim was confirmed and Mattchew had made no attempt to explain the fake-claim from a town perspective 2. 1: That's pretty clearly a misrepresentation of your post. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=361826¤tpage=21#412Firstly, you weren't even thinking about the mod confirmation. Your quote below proves this: Show nested quote + ...Another problem I find with lynching him is that what he has done (roleclaim) isn't verifiable until he is lynched... You explicitly state that his roleclaim isn't viable unless he dies. You very clearly weren't thinking of mod-confirmation. 2: Misrepresentation again. Palmar confirmed the lie 5.5 hours before your ##Vote post. You're telling me that you only gave Mattchew 5.5 hours to address his fakeclaim before you were convinced he was scum? You played off the entire thing as a mega-scumslip. Also, you explicitly mentioned that you weren't going to vote him based on the fakeclaim, and only if his posting was scummy. Show nested quote +Fakeclaims aren't good basis for a lynch, they're not even able to be confirmed until the lynch, so I cant vote for him unless his posting sounds scummy. In what way does 5.5 hours of Mattchew's silence describe this complete 180? It doesn't.
Why, would I expect mod-confirmation if my nosy neighbor question hadn't been answered for more than 4 days(clicky)? I assumed Palmar wasn't going to give out that info. Since I thought that he wasn't going to give out the information, I didn't consider it an option to verify the fake-claim.
You need to read what you bolded more carefully. Fake-Claims are not good reasons for a lynch, because they are not able to be verified. Therefore I need to look at his posting to figure out his alignment. But since it was confirmed, it is a good reason for a lynch and thus a good reason for a lynch.
|
About the Ottox thing, Ottox is a stubborn townie and people need to know that. If they don't he's going to be considered scummy for the wrong reason. I saw a lot of people piling on Ottox for a trait that he has as town (his ignorant stubborness), so I presented another thing I saw he wasn't doing (scumhunting) as a better reason.
|
BKE, Your post:Fakeclaims aren't good basis for a lynch, they're not even able to be confirmed until the lynch, so I cant vote for him unless his posting sounds scummy.
can be broken out into the following.
Fakeclaims aren't good basis for a lynch,1
they're not even able to be confirmed until the lynch,2
so I cant vote for him unless his posting sounds scummy.3
2 is a supporting argument for 1
3 is the conclusion of why 1 and 2 are not reasons to vote, but you went ahead and voted because of 1 and 2.
You're Scum
|
EBWOP:
Your post at the extremes would read:
"I would NEVER vote a fakeclaimer, even if it was confirmed. I only vote scummy things."
|
@ BKE - Make a case against someone else - who should the town consider lynching instead of you?
|
Ok, I think Hapa is right about Brood.
On September 04 2012 16:20 BroodKingEXE wrote:
About Mattchew (who I think is town):
Here's my breakdown of the situation : Matt's roleclaimed and given two reasons he claimed to avoid mislynch and/or draw a mafia shot. At first glance the roleclaim seemed like a great idea, but as I thought about it there were just too many holes. My initial thought was that it was a good idea and that could have been Matt's (based on the reasoning too). 1. Another problem I find with lynching him is that what he has done (roleclaim) isn't verifiable until he is lynched. Right now its a coinflip and I haven't seen anything else that suggests he is scum. 2. Fakeclaims aren't good basis for a lynch, they're not even able to be confirmed until the lynch, so I cant vote for him unless his posting sounds scummy.
1. - This bit is fine. Not wanting to lynch just to verify a roleclaim makes sense.
2. - This is where it crosses the line into scum territory. In the space of one sentence Mattchew has gone from a roleclaim to a fakeclaim. It could be construed that what he is saying here is that the belief that someone has fakeclaimed and lynching them to confirm it is not a good enough reason. However, that isn't what he actually said. He said, "Fakeclaims aren't a good basis for lynch". That makes the contradiction Hapa pointed out both plain and valid. I also don't like how Brood left himself a way out with "so I cant vote for him unless his posting sounds scummy".
This explanation about Ottox is wrong.
On September 08 2012 05:10 BroodKingEXE wrote:
About the Ottox thing, Ottox is a stubborn townie and people need to know that. If they don't he's going to be considered scummy for the wrong reason. I saw a lot of people piling on Ottox for a trait that he has as town (his ignorant stubborness), so I presented another thing I saw he wasn't doing (scumhunting) as a better reason.
It makes no sense to defend your top scumread. Who gives a crap if someone is backing you up for the wrong reason? You make note of that and use it against them later. You don't try and convince them to not pressure the person you think is scummiest. This looks like BS to me. Also, I'm surprised you cite his lack of scumhunting as the only valid reason because earlier you posted this, directed at Toad:
On September 05 2012 00:34 BroodKingEXE wrote:
You can understand my fustration though right? Right now I see you as a player that's asking questions but not paying attention to the answers. Scummy in my book.
So for Toad it was scummy but for Ottox it was completely innocuous? It seems far more likely that you were caught hedging than having this explanation be true.
##Vote: BroodKingEXE
|
|
|
On September 08 2012 05:57 DoYouHas wrote:Ok, I think Hapa is right about Brood. Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 16:20 BroodKingEXE wrote:
About Mattchew (who I think is town):
Here's my breakdown of the situation : Matt's roleclaimed and given two reasons he claimed to avoid mislynch and/or draw a mafia shot. At first glance the roleclaim seemed like a great idea, but as I thought about it there were just too many holes. My initial thought was that it was a good idea and that could have been Matt's (based on the reasoning too). 1. Another problem I find with lynching him is that what he has done (roleclaim) isn't verifiable until he is lynched. Right now its a coinflip and I haven't seen anything else that suggests he is scum. 2. Fakeclaims aren't good basis for a lynch, they're not even able to be confirmed until the lynch, so I cant vote for him unless his posting sounds scummy. 1. - This bit is fine. Not wanting to lynch just to verify a roleclaim makes sense. 2. - This is where it crosses the line into scum territory. In the space of one sentence Mattchew has gone from a roleclaim to a fakeclaim. It could be construed that what he is saying here is that the belief that someone has fakeclaimed and lynching them to confirm it is not a good enough reason. However, that isn't what he actually said. He said, "Fakeclaims aren't a good basis for lynch". That makes the contradiction Hapa pointed out both plain and valid. I also don't like how Brood left himself a way out with "so I cant vote for him unless his posting sounds scummy".
This explanation about Ottox is wrong. Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 05:10 BroodKingEXE wrote:
About the Ottox thing, Ottox is a stubborn townie and people need to know that. If they don't he's going to be considered scummy for the wrong reason. I saw a lot of people piling on Ottox for a trait that he has as town (his ignorant stubborness), so I presented another thing I saw he wasn't doing (scumhunting) as a better reason. It makes no sense to defend your top scumread. Who gives a crap if someone is backing you up for the wrong reason? You make note of that and use it against them later. You don't try and convince them to not pressure the person you think is scummiest. This looks like BS to me. Also, I'm surprised you cite his lack of scumhunting as the only valid reason because earlier you posted this, directed at Toad: Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 00:34 BroodKingEXE wrote:
You can understand my fustration though right? Right now I see you as a player that's asking questions but not paying attention to the answers. Scummy in my book. So for Toad it was scummy but for Ottox it was completely innocuous? It seems far more likely that you were caught hedging than having this explanation be true. ##Vote: BroodKingEXE
Was that post from BKE before or after Palmar's?
|
That post was before Palmar's post, lets see if he disappears after.
|
On September 07 2012 21:29 Hapahauli wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 14:48 Bill Murray wrote:
id love to lynch maverick or hapahauli
why are people voting BKE?
can i get a summary of the case? BKE "Fail-Bussed" MattchewRead the bolded segment below (occurs right before Palmar confirms the Mattchew fakeclaim). Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 16:20 BroodKingEXE wrote:
About Mattchew (who I think is town):
Here's my breakdown of the situation : Matt's roleclaimed and given two reasons he claimed to avoid mislynch and/or draw a mafia shot. At first glance the roleclaim seemed like a great idea, but as I thought about it there were just too many holes. My initial thought was that it was a good idea and that could have been Matt's (based on the reasoning too). Another problem I find with lynching him is that what he has done (roleclaim) isn't verifiable until he is lynched. Right now its a coinflip and I haven't seen anything else that suggests he is scum. Fakeclaims aren't good basis for a lynch, they're not even able to be confirmed until the lynch, so I cant vote for him unless his posting sounds scummy. BKE states that fake-claiming isn't enough to lynch Mattchew. Hell the entire post is wishy-washy for reasons I pointed out in the case earlier. It's a very scummy post overall, but the "fake-claiming" bit is the most important, because BKE turns around two pages later after the mod confirmation and does this: Mattchew hadn't posted anything in the interim to, as BKE put it, "sound scummy." BKE went from not wanting to lynch Mattchew for a fake-claim, and then when everyone jumped on Mattchew, treated the fake-claim like a huge scum-slip. That's all you need to know really. It's indefensible.
He said that it wasn't enough to lynch because it wasn't confirmed.After Palmar confirmed him not knowing then he voted for him, like everyone else.
|
On September 08 2012 06:18 grush57 wrote:
That post was before Palmar's post, lets see if he disappears after.
What?
|
On September 08 2012 06:23 DoYouHas wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 06:18 grush57 wrote:
That post was before Palmar's post, lets see if he disappears after. What?
Was looking through his filter. Unlike 5 people, he still posts after the Palmer situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
