|
On September 21 2012 05:57 kushm4sta wrote:
Just read through remedy's filter. Don't see how this guy can be anybody's "biggest read."
Your two main arguments against him.
1 He sheeped on my retarded scumteam notion.
I don't like this read because it seems like the case here is stupidity = scum. Not everyone is as enlightened as you about the uselessness of association cases. Are they bad? Yes I agree with that but I don't think making them is a scumtell.
2 His useless vote for me.
I don't see the scum motivation in this, since both our bandwagons were town. He is not following the town plan of consolidating our bandwagon, but we never made that plan concrete really.
He didn't believe in the sharrant case. He has been consistently against lynching lurkers, so that's why he wouldn't vote for cubu.
The scumteam thing is not about stupidity = scum, it's about him going along with a a dumb idea that will end up lynching at least 2 confirmed town. Judging by your last post I don't think you think I'm town but that has nothing to do with my personal read on him because I know my alignment. And his vote for you accomplishes nothing at all. There was absolutely no way you were getting lynched so even if he was town and didn't want to lynch a lurker why wouldn't he pick his scummiest read out of the people that could possibly have been lynched? He was also absent during all the confusion near vote deadline, and came in after the mislynch talking about how it was dumb. That looks scummy because he wasn't around during the confusion to help town out, yet he is there 9 minutes afterwards talking about how the lynch didn't go well.
So what's your biggest scumread? Earlier you said it's debears and that you'd read his new posts but you haven't said anything about that since then.
|
People that aren't around during a very confusing and hotly debated mislynch and come in immediately after the mislynch talking about how dissappointed they are look scummy. That's the main reason I looked at his filter to begin with.
|
On September 21 2012 06:19 kushm4sta wrote:
In my eyes the drazak mislynch was not hotly debated. Sharrant was hotly debated. drazak was just a desperation lynch.
Not talking about drazak specifically, the whole thing in general. It really started to get as you say 'desperate' once sharrant claimed cubu as mason and remedy was not posting during that time. He was lurking in the thread, but not contributing. The lurking read is based off of how quickly he posted after the lynch.
|
Kush those points againt me are either meaningless or huge misrepresentations of what actually happened. I'll post my response in a bit. You either haven't grasped the logic of a lot of my cases (specifically the remedy which till now you'e ignored my request for you to give a read on him) or you're scum.
|
On September 21 2012 07:40 kushm4sta wrote:#fos thrawnK guys I did the legwork on this monster of a filter. Tell me what you think. 1 Being active when he said he'd be lurkingShow nested quote +On September 14 2012 07:26 thrawn2112 wrote:
i do have internet, i just have to walk/ride a long ass time to get it. Thrawn was quite reluctant to join this game. Before the game started he warned us that he would be lurking more than usual. Except that hasn't happened. In fact, he has been extremely active. Imagine this, thrawn, in his 4th game, finally gets mafia, the role he has dreamt of ever since he learned about the game. That is something that could spur activity. Obviously regardless of my alignment I am in a position to be posting up the same amount that's been my meta so far. I did not think I would have computer access this game but that has changed. Your argument is basically that before the game even started I lied about how much posting I could do somehow knowing or hoping against odds that I would be mafia and I could use that to trick people into making a false meta read.2 His multitude of paper thin cases.These are his accusations throughout the game so far. 1 fos sonic for making a survey That happened at the very start of the game. Of course any accusation at that point is going to be weak. The accusation was based on me seeing a simialar action from when he was scum in our last game. I didn't see the point of the surveys. Last game as scum he proposed that people make read lists which I thought that was a scummy tactic. He was scum that game leading me to think he was doing a similar thing in this one.2 fos killing for saying he doesn't like FOS I didn't fos him for him saying he didn't like FOS. I fos'd him for coming into the thread at a point when people were alread makking and sharing reads and he made a fluff post.3 vote sharrant for saying a bunch of different stupid shit bunch of stupid shit = making a vote for debears based on a paragraph of reasoning and saying he wants to force debears to role claim. Later I stuck to my vote because he was talking about a secret plan that he wasn't willing to share with us. I assumed he was suggesting he was a blue role and I even tried to think through what possible things a blue player could do in that situation and I came up with nothing so his claim that he had a plan seemed like a complete lie.Yet debears does not earn an fos even though he gives them out like candy... then d2 4 fos debears for copying his arguments (d1 it was ok d2 it's not?) First you say i am supicisous for not fosing debears and when I do it makes me suspicious?5 atreides he tells me I need to look at for being confused about no lynch I don't see what's scummy about that6 remedy who is suddenly out of no where his TOP scumread. Thrawn's case: he made a commented on a stupid scumteam thought I had. Also he didn't vote for a bandwagon d1. And that's his "biggest read"... I've already told you that my case on remedy isn't because he agreed with a stupid post. here and also read my post right after it.Here is him yelling at killingtime for making a thin case: Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:06 thrawn2112 wrote:On September 19 2012 01:56 KillingTime wrote:
I like sonic's last post on Debears though - For now my feeling is that Debears is mafia trying to blend into the thread. Debears who do you think is scum?
For now:
##Vote:debears Killing are you for real? You make a post devoid of content which I call you out for, then in your next post you actually start talking about current discussion but then you make a vote for someone based on a single sentence of justification? But less than an hour earlier thrawn makes a case also based on only 1 sentence of justification: Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 01:16 thrawn2112 wrote:On September 19 2012 00:35 KillingTime wrote:
I don't understand the point of FoS'ing on day 1 ##Fos KillingTimeNice contribution to the thread. Do you really think that's something worth talking about when there are already lots of other discussions going on? Yes it's hypocritical but that doesnt mean scum3 His total lapse of logic after sharrant role claims.Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 06:57 thrawn2112 wrote:
So, I don't know if I should trust this mason claim or not, but what does everyone think about this plan:
So maybe we should lynch cubu, and if cubu flips mason well then at least we have a confirmed town player (sharrant) and we haven't lost a useful poster. If Cubu doesn't flip mason then we atuo lynch sharrant D2.
What does everyone think about this plan huh? Well what I think is that you are fishing to see if town will follow this madness. Cubu is basically confirmed town and you want to lynch him anyway. I didn't try to push it much further than that. I think it was stutters who pointed out what the worst possible outcome of that plan was and I dropped it after that and started contributing to the lurker lynch discussion4 the real story of d1Thrawn is on my ass about a redirection of a killing lynch onto drazak. Well that did not happen. The real redirection, which no one has even talked about, is from debears to sharrant. Where did I accuse you of redirecting from killing to drazak?Debears had a majority vote. Thrawn defends debears, pushes sharrant, and suddenly sharrant has the majority vote. That's an association case so it's assuming that at bare minimum, debears is confirmed scum in order for me to be scum.
|
for the record, I got a pm from marv saying I was roleblocked
|
On September 21 2012 12:25 RemedySC wrote:
Thrawn, you haven't replied to a single post I made about you. Do you have a response to any of my concerns?
Also, was that role block from mafia?
On September 21 2012 09:19 RemedySC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 09:15 thrawn2112 wrote:
for the record, I got a pm from marv saying I was roleblocked What are you implying with this post?
I saying a got a message saying exactly "you were roleblocked." Thought I'd post it so that A) if the roleblock came from a town player they will know I'm at being honest and B) If it came from a mafia then town will have more information. In either case it gives everyone more info to work with. Maybe not now but at some point in the future.... in my first game mafia started making up a bunch of fake "I got roleblocked" claims and town was able to see through them because people had been saying the exact times they got roleblocked throughout the game. I don't see why I would get roleblocked though. Sonic the JK could have done it but I don't think so because I think he had a town read on me. That leaves only the possibilities that there's a town roleblocker who did it or the mafia did it but I have no information or theories about that so kinda useless to speculate further.
On September 21 2012 09:42 RemedySC wrote:
Okay, I don't think mafia got lucky in killing a blue.
Looks like other than the Sharrant read, Sonic's biggest read was Atreides-, Debears, and Killing.
All three have had good arguments made against them. Possibly they they thought Sonic might have more info.
Remedy this post sets off my scum alarms. I son't have any evidence (and neither do you) why mafia would have killed sonic other than that he was really townish and I don't think anyone suspected him. So when you start talking about how they might have killed him because of his reads it just makes me think there's some manipulation going on behind his nightkill and your post.
On September 21 2012 08:40 RemedySC wrote:This post by Thrawn to me screams mafia if you think of drazak as a town. Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 14:45 thrawn2112 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 18 2012 13:49 drazak wrote:
I'm already accused of being trashy town? Really Kush? Man, you're prejudiced right off the bat. I know you can post while you're at work and stuff, but I can't post in class and I can't post when I'm tutoring people. If you'd like I can sleep-post and it'll be really bad. Sorry if my posts last game weren't up to your posting standard kush.
For the record, I might not post consistently at different times, and maybe I'll push agressively against someone, my reasons will usually be good. I'd ask that people use their own logic after reading my posts, look at the evidence provided and use your logic. Last game we had a lot of people not thinking for themselves, I'll be going to bed soon so don't expect another post from me. I'll probably post in the morning, and I think I'll post before tutoring, but I don't think I'll be posting until maybe this time tomorrow again after that. My thoughts while reading this: "man this guy is going out of his way to defend himself when there's no need to" And that's a scum trait....so drazak, I'm watching you buddy. I don't see why you'd ask everyone to be fair and "use their own logic" and "look at evidence" when reading your future posts... obviously those things are what everyone is trying to do. It looks a little suspicious that you're already defending criticisms of your posts that haven't even happened yet. If it's all because kush pissed you off then too bad you should ignore that, he does it from time to time. Why get worked up over this post by drazak, when he was replying to Kush? He is very capable of defending himself.
You're saying I was defending drazak or kush or something? I can't really tell what you're accusing me of here. I wasn't defending anybody I was putting out a scummy thing that drazak said.
On September 21 2012 08:40 RemedySC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:53 thrawn2112 wrote:On September 19 2012 05:51 kushm4sta wrote:
@thrawn you say I made a straight up lie and that's not an accusation I take lightly.
if anything it was an exaggeration and not a lie.
I don't want to spend a lot of time discussing my scumteam theories, because while I think they help in looking for cases, they do not constitute a case.
but I don't like being called a liar so here goes.
drazak is connected by saying killing is more suspicious than debears. he says they can't both be mafia so therefore debears isn't mafia. That is the classic mafia defense..defending a teammate by attacking the attacker.
and you have defended debears.
So that was the basis for that comment. Is it a real case against you? no. Is it a lie though? also no. Uh, saying that drazak and I defended each other is a lie. In fact it's the exact opposite of the truth. Scum slip? That sentence totally contradicts itself.
What's the contradiction? Kush said drazak debears and I all defended each other and I said it's a lie and the truth is the opposite of kush's claim. Kush claim = we defended each other and the truth/opposite of what kush said = I had been suspicious of drazak.
Was there anything else I think got all your direct questions
|
On September 21 2012 13:01 RemedySC wrote:
You know, I could see sonic role blocking you. His power also allows him to save someone, if his strongest town read was you, then he would use it on you.
If the reasoning behind that is that he is trying to save his strongest town read then it would have gone to either of the 2 confirmed masons. Anyway there are tons of possible explanations of the roleblock and no reason to believe any of more than any other so I'd rather not speculate about it.
|
Quick question to atreides, nobody else answer please. Do you remember why you mixed up the vote deadline?
|
Rethos you got anything to say? I just noticed you haven't posted since your D1 vote.
On September 21 2012 14:43 RemedySC wrote:Just re-read this post and want to address it. Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 06:09 thrawn2112 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 21 2012 05:57 kushm4sta wrote:
Just read through remedy's filter. Don't see how this guy can be anybody's "biggest read."
Your two main arguments against him.
1 He sheeped on my retarded scumteam notion.
I don't like this read because it seems like the case here is stupidity = scum. Not everyone is as enlightened as you about the uselessness of association cases. Are they bad? Yes I agree with that but I don't think making them is a scumtell.
2 His useless vote for me.
I don't see the scum motivation in this, since both our bandwagons were town. He is not following the town plan of consolidating our bandwagon, but we never made that plan concrete really.
He didn't believe in the sharrant case. He has been consistently against lynching lurkers, so that's why he wouldn't vote for cubu.
The scumteam thing is not about stupidity = scum, it's about him going along with a a dumb idea that will end up lynching at least 2 confirmed town. I acknowledged an idea, that is all. Nothing ever came of it afterwards. Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 06:09 thrawn2112 wrote:
Judging by your last post I don't think you think I'm town but that has nothing to do with my personal read on him because I know my alignment . Of course you know your alignment. Why do you even have to say that.
He wasn't understanding that part of my case against you. It wasn't that you agreed with something stupid, it was that you agreed with something that would (now in hindsight after drazak's flip) put suspicion on at least 2 town players. Also I don't see why you would have agreed with him if you had been paying attention and had noticed what the interactions were between me and drazak. Looks less like a mafia eager to push anything that casts suspicion on town players.
On September 21 2012 14:43 RemedySC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 06:09 thrawn2112 wrote:
And his vote for you accomplishes nothing at all. There was absolutely no way you were getting lynched so even if he was town and didn't want to lynch a lurker why wouldn't he pick his scummiest read out of the people that could possibly have been lynched? I made my case against Kush, that is why I voted for him. I had no one I felt as confident about to vote against. I'm not going to just bandwagon onto someone unless I have good evidence. Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 06:09 thrawn2112 wrote:
He was also absent during all the confusion near vote deadline, and came in after the mislynch talking about how it was dumb. That looks scummy because he wasn't around during the confusion to help town out, yet he is there 9 minutes afterwards talking about how the lynch didn't go well. Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never once said it was dumb. I stated the obvious and said it didn't go too well. Big deal? Also I mention in another post what I was doing near lynch time. Read it.
This is why that original post looks so scummy. A massive clusterfuck of confusion, role claiming, cubu not being around to vote, and last minute vote switching occured during the last few hours of day 1. I just looked it up again and your post actually came 6 minutes after the lynch instead of 9..... which strongly suggests that you were lurking during the lynch and came in afterwards with a post about how "it didn't go well" in order to make yourself look more town. You came out and confirmed that you were in fact lurking and here is your excuse:
"Okay, I was around reading the thread for the last 30-40 minutes before lynch time. I honestly didn't know what I could say to have an impact on the vote. It was clear to me that drazak was going to be lynched, and I didn't see any way for me to change that."
So you come after all the craziness and lurk for 30-40 minutes and can't think of anything to say? Not buying that.
|
edit: should have been "looks more like mafia instead of "looks less like"
|
Lol jacob I'm here if you're feeling lonely.
Like debears said we've got the same set of people going back and forth and kinda just making the same arguments over and over because lots of people aren't giving fresh input... so there's not tooo much to talk about atm until we get more reads from everyone else. I'm pretty confident in my remedy read but I don't wanna let that give people an excuse to keep lurking. Unfortunately there's not a good way to get lurkers to post because by their nature they for whatever reason don't like posting or are unable to post. So all you lurkers: just remember that you guys are who we're gonna look at if our reads fall flat so you need to change that by getting in here and saying what you're thinking.
|
On September 21 2012 17:24 rethos wrote:
Believe it or not I was actually making a test to see how much leniancy lurkers get in this game. It seems to me that it's a lot. I mean how much did people take to realize that I was not posting ANYTHING?
My opinions are as follows:
1) The hit on SDM is surprising. If I were mafia I would definetly try and get that confirmed townies out instead. That really irks me a lot. It means that SDM was more of a threat that having a confirmed town. I do not think that they actually got a read on him a blue. He was way to active and open, him flipping blue must have been a surprise for them as well as for us.
My opinion on talking about who mafia night killed and why: mafia players are more likely to do it than town players. First because they have perfect information as to exactly why the night kill happened wheras town has 0 information except for a wide range of unprovable theories, and second it can be a tool to mislead the town as to the true reasons for why the night kill happened. You say you don't think mafia got a read on sonic as a blue... why do you think this? You say it would have been a big surprise for mafia and town that he was blue... why the surprise? What made you previously think that he was most likely green instead of blue?
On September 21 2012 17:24 rethos wrote:
2) Lynching an active player seems bad if we don't have a good reason. Right now the feeling I get is that mafia is laughing from the sidelines as some townies fight each other. Again back to the lurker idea. That means putting pressure on people to post.
3) Obviously the mason claim seems very fool proof. It all fits back way to good. The only way it's not true is if Sharrant was planning it all along when there was no pressure and tricked us all into accusing him. (very unlikely - if so... well played sir well played). Obviously also it's a bad risk/reward thing since now if something happens, we have two confirmed mafia.
I'm not sure what read you're giving. "Fool proof" makes me think you arew suggesting maliciuos intent behind the mason claim but the rest of that makes me think you believe the claim to be true. So just for clarity you're saying you believe the claim right?
On September 21 2012 17:24 rethos wrote:
My biggest problem right now is number 2. I am guilty of it as well but I was actually doing it on purpose. What are the other guys's reasons? Everybody that is not posting, can you tell us why are you not? (I have given my reason, if you need me to go into more detail about it please ask).
Also this post looks pretty fluffy, you didn't commit to scumreads so what is your scumread? I refresh the page and see you say: "This is my actual read for now: there is a significant part of mafia hiding amongst lurkers." You're gonna have to put forth more than that. Your read is that there is a significant part of mafia among lurkers, who out of the lurkers do you most suspect? And do you have any thoughts and the reads people have been making during N1?
What seems strange about you saying that you intentionally lurked (which to me sounds like a really strange plan for a town player to both think of and carry on for so long) is that you say it right after debears, myself, and jacob talk about being frustrated with lurkers. So my gut instinct tells me your post is you making up that intentional lurking idea to try and excuse your lurking. So right after we start calling people out for lurking you make a big post saying why you've been lurking and you talk a bunch about night kill theories that can't really be proven and your read is that there is an unspecifed mafia amongst the lurkers. Looks defensive and scummy. Regardless of all that, thanks for posting and please follow through and don't lurk any more.
|
I don't see how this:
On September 21 2012 17:45 rethos wrote:
To be clear my defense against lurking is not "hey I did it on purpose", it's "hey I will not be lurking anymore now"
makes sense after you saying this:
On September 21 2012 17:24 rethos wrote:
Believe it or not I was actually making a test to see how much leniancy lurkers get in this game. It seems to me that it's a lot. I mean how much did people take to realize that I was not posting ANYTHING?
..........
I am guilty of it as well but I was actually doing it on purpose.
|
On September 21 2012 18:11 rethos wrote:
Actually no.. I am sorry to all of you. But it really seems that playing mafia is really not for me. I got bored and did not want to post any more. Now I am trying to catch up and can't get bring myself to it. Yes I lied about having this weird plan of lurking intentionally. I lurked because I did not have motivation to do anything.
Again I am really really sorry. I will ask for a replacement.
Lol which one of your mason buddies in the qt told you to write this post?
My vote today was going to be remedy but this series of posts from rethos makes me consider lynching him regardless of him asking for a replacement.
|
I'm looking through your filter and I don't see boredom. You do stuff like ask mods to fix killings filter, you make a post saying "don't let conversation die down" and you do a manual vote count. Also before the game you were so interested in playing that you drew that badass picture of a cat. I don't see boredom showing through in any of your posts. Were you bored the whole game or did it happen after the lynch? Because IMO the first lynch is when the game really starts getting interesting.
|
In your final post you say that you lied about having a lurking plan and that you quit because you were bored. I already made a post about your D1 posts and how I don't see boredom in those, so now here's what I think about this one. I'm going to bold all the things that look like you aren't bored and have an interest in continuing the game.
On September 21 2012 17:24 rethos wrote:
Believe it or not I was actually making a test to see how much leniancy lurkers get in this game. It seems to me that it's a lot. I mean how much did people take to realize that I was not posting ANYTHING?
My opinions are as follows:
1) The hit on SDM is surprising. If I were mafia I would definetly try and get that confirmed townies out instead. That really irks me a lot. It means that SDM was more of a threat that having a confirmed town. I do not think that they actually got a read on him a blue. He was way to active and open, him flipping blue must have been a surprise for them as well as for us.
2) Lynching an active player seems bad if we don't have a good reason. Right now the feeling I get is that mafia is laughing from the sidelines as some townies fight each other. Again back to the lurker idea. That means putting pressure on people to post.
3) Obviously the mason claim seems very fool proof. It all fits back way to good. The only way it's not true is if Sharrant was planning it all along when there was no pressure and tricked us all into accusing him. (very unlikely - if so... well played sir well played). Obviously also it's a bad risk/reward thing since now if something happens, we have two confirmed mafia.
My biggest problem right now is number 2. I am guilty of it as well but I was actually doing it on purpose. What are the other guys's reasons? Everybody that is not posting, can you tell us why are you not? (I have given my reason, if you need me to go into more detail about it please ask).
First why make such a long post if you were bored? The first 2 bolded statements show emotion which suggests interest in the game. The third one (as well as the whole post) shows that you have an interest in pressuring lurkers which suggests an interest in future game developments.
Am I reading too much into this? There might be some confirmation bias going on but after looking at his entire filter I do not get the impression that he was bored from any of his posts.
|
On September 21 2012 18:47 JacobStrangelove wrote:
I don't see comfirmation bias in that, in the space of about 4 posts he has lied several times. One he lies about being bored. Two he lies about his defense not being based on intentinal lurking and he admits to lying about having the plan in this first place.
Scum have plenty of reason to lie, town don't. Just say he was town.. he wouldn't see himself as more a target than anyone else who is lurking. I think guilt gave him away. Also if he is town and lies.... then he is playing the game very wrong...
It does look he was feeling very guilty. He gets called out for lurking and then says he was lurking intentionally to test the strength of the lurker policy. Well why does that need to be tested in the first place? How will that help catch scum? Then you question him about that plan, he says his defense wasn't that he had a lurking plan after clearly stating that he did, then when I quote him on that he goes back to his first claim saying that he wass trying to call attention to lurkers, then finally he says he was lying about the lurker plan and that he's bored with the game. Him being bored is definitely not what I saw in his D1 posts and in this new series of posts.
His post at the top of the last page has several other scummy things in it that I pointed out so
##Vote rethos
|
for formatting just in case: ##Vote: rethos
|
On September 21 2012 19:11 KillingTime wrote:I sort of feel he is breaking the rules here and messing up the game. Saying explicitly with like 36hrs of a day left that you are going to get replaced in thread - when the first post explicitly says that you should PM the mod and that you can't get modkilled to help you team - seems to violate the spirit of those rules if not the exact letter for me. Meh I guess that is a mess for the mods to sort out and not us. But this is not cool 
there's a difference in being modkilled and being replaced but yeah it's not for us to talk about while the game is still going
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
