|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On September 20 2012 05:15 Ange777 wrote:Okay, so I am trying to understand this case against austin. Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 22:39 marvellosity wrote:austin: yeah, I think I most of all want to lynch austin. Some of it's gonna be a rehash, but it's important for the whole thing. The reason people jumped on austin in the first place: On September 18 2012 06:55 austinmcc wrote:On September 18 2012 06:50 Blazinghand wrote:
Hey pudding-munchers stop arguing about that and read my case I don't know how anyone can munch on pudding. I DO kind of like that observation. It feels almost TOO obvious but...man it's kind of damning. Pretty much generally agreed that this was scummy, so won't delve too much. Where shit starts to diverge is on the response, which people read as townie. There's important time issues to look at. BlazingHand first pushes him to elaborate on it, and we get this as a response: On September 18 2012 07:16 austinmcc wrote:On September 18 2012 07:09 Blazinghand wrote:On September 18 2012 06:55 austinmcc wrote:On September 18 2012 06:50 Hapahauli wrote:
If mafia would like to keep hypothetical townie-marv alive to the endgame because of my "policy lynch," then awesome! Mission accomplished! Though in all seriousness, I've read through quite a few of his recent games. He never lives as town past N3 (barring Mad Men Mafia where he was a replacement) in his recent games. If he's alive a long time, there's a very high chance (IMO basically guaranteed chance) of him flipping red.
<3 everyone at all, but you need to look further. He's generally not being killed off for supersexy scumhunting, but because he comes off as very townie and is generating a lot of discussion/activity from others. His early reads, although I haven't read recent games, are not generally a big threat to mafia.
On September 18 2012 06:50 Blazinghand wrote:
Hey pudding-munchers stop arguing about that and read my case I don't know how anyone can munch on pudding. I DO kind of like that observation. It feels almost TOO obvious but...man it's kind of damning. Elaborate. Now. Elaboration on the second half - Pudding is soft. Munching feels like it requires chewing, crunching. Can't do that with pudding. As to the obvious bit, obvious is the wrong word. I like...neat observations like that. It says something, unsure what, about you that you could pull out the starts to prplhz's game just like POOF. Like, I key in on the initial question more than the actual scummy stuff, because there's a chance that prplhz doesn't realize he's started scum games like that. But ... he has to, right? I gotta leave work, but the thought process is convoluted here. Pudding blabla not satisfactory at all. His 'townie' explanation that follows only comes after me, Hapa, and BH apply further considerable pressure.On September 18 2012 08:03 austinmcc wrote:On September 18 2012 07:21 Blazinghand wrote:
The "it's way too scummy, he must be town" argument is dumb on its head. What are you even saying
On September 18 2012 07:23 marvellosity wrote:
austin, you're not playing with grush.
speak plainly or die like a little bitch. It's not that it's too scummy to be town. Because the part of your post that I key in on is that prplhz, in two other scum games, and in none of the games he's played as town (out of what you reference), opens in a similar manner. I think you are stretching when you say that the questions are scummy. Yes he can go look the guy up. Yes, he might ought to at least remember that the guy played in a game he hosted. But it's not like...asking a question about who someone is is scummy on its face. There's no scumhunting heuristic for "opens games asking questions about a particular player." It MAY be scummy as applied to prplhz, but it's not like every player who opens like that is probably scum. So then . . . working off that. If it's not scummy on its face, but might be scummy to prplhz, why? There's no objective pushed there, it's not like starting off a game with that post helps a mafia objective. If prplhz is scum and happens to start all his scum games this way, it's just something he does without knowing it. There's no objective pushed. Then finally, if starting games that way as scum is just something prplhz does without knowing it, not to push an objective, then . . . it's almost null? Not getting there in the same way "small sample size" gets there. The train of thought is... (1) This is a thing that prplhz has done in scum games (2) This is a thing that does not further mafia objectives, or actively DO anything really (3) Therefore, it's likely he's just doing it subconsciously (4) If he's doing it subconsciously, then it's not really a tell. Could argue that he only does it subconsciously as scum, but then you get the sample size discussion and there's no real proof either way. So obvious was really the wrong word choice, when I fully go through this. It's not a bad explanation as it goes, and I can see why people viewed it as townie. But the fact is that it only came after his previous, poor explanation. In other words, he had to give a good explanation because he knew a large part of town was hounding him for it. In this context, I believe it loses some of its 'townieness'. I bold the final line as well for a reason. Obvious was the wrong word choice, eh? Look at how austin usually posts - longwinded, carefully thought out. Yet in this instance he'd thrown out his 'obvious' and 'too damning'. It looks like austin is justifying his scummy words after the fact. austin has a few posts subsequently, but they are all focused on his own defence rather than any other scumhunting. Why is he so worried about how others view his defence? Why is he only talking about his own defence rather than being proactive elsewhere? Because he's worried that he needs to appear as town. After these posts, austin has been markedly absent from any of the considerable goings-on in this thread. We don't have an opinion on anyone or anything, except his own defence. His play is marked by being worried by how he appears, rather than finding scum. ##Vote: austinmcc Why does him posting a very poor first explanation before delivering a satisfying reasoning for his behaviour makes him lose "townieness"? Shouldn't the fact that he made such a bad explanation make him more townie as apparentely he was not worried about defending himself when he first made that post? Seeing his recent vastly improved posting (especially his defense and scum-hunting whilst under pressure) I don't think austin is scum.
You'll have to explain to me why giving a weak explanation on a weak comment makes him townie, Ange. My train of thought was that he was waffling in his defence to the post, hoping to brush it under the carpet, instead of straight out explaining why he made the vote in the first place. The fact that he needed to be further pressured to clarify his comment makes him lose townieness, because by this point he is forced to make a good explanation or face being lynched.
That said, austin's concerns on my company on him are legitimate. iamperfection is giving absolutely no reasoning, and he completely correct that I asked fuba for thoughts on austin, WHO HE IS FUCKNIG VOTING, and he gave me thoughts on Mementoss instead. Arg.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
Do you have nothing to say about my play since you committed to your vote on me, prplhz?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
I would lynch fuba right now if we could get all the votes for it.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
you best answer me prplhz, because I want you to be accountable for this read on me.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
seriously, can't we lynch fuba? :/
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On September 20 2012 05:36 Zephirdd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 05:36 prplhz wrote:On September 20 2012 05:31 marvellosity wrote:
Do you have nothing to say about my play since you committed to your vote on me, prplhz? no and it doesn't matter right now so i don't care about it JESUS CHRIST
yeah, i know right.
IT DOES MATTER BECAUSE YOU ARE ONE OF THE MAIN CANDIDATES
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
##Unvote
##Vote prplhz
best get talking, prplhz.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On September 20 2012 05:39 Mementoss wrote:
are we seriously going to let a no lynch happen
thanks for this, very helpful
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On September 20 2012 05:40 Ange777 wrote:@iamperfectino: Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 05:23 iamperfection wrote:On September 20 2012 05:16 austinmcc wrote:On September 20 2012 05:14 iamperfection wrote:
Raise your hand if you are here Explain your vote if you are here On September 20 2012 04:51 Ange777 wrote:On September 20 2012 04:47 iamperfection wrote:On September 20 2012 04:38 marvellosity wrote:
sounds like some epic phone posting gone wrong You know me to well. I meant to say it is reasonable for me to follow my town reads because they are usually right So you are not voting austin because you think he is scummy but because you hope that your town reads found scum? I did you didn't like the explanation. And I'm starting to not like my explanation What's this? @marv: Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 05:30 marvellosity wrote:On September 20 2012 05:15 Ange777 wrote:Okay, so I am trying to understand this case against austin. On September 19 2012 22:39 marvellosity wrote:austin: yeah, I think I most of all want to lynch austin. Some of it's gonna be a rehash, but it's important for the whole thing. The reason people jumped on austin in the first place: On September 18 2012 06:55 austinmcc wrote:On September 18 2012 06:50 Blazinghand wrote:
Hey pudding-munchers stop arguing about that and read my case I don't know how anyone can munch on pudding. I DO kind of like that observation. It feels almost TOO obvious but...man it's kind of damning. Pretty much generally agreed that this was scummy, so won't delve too much. Where shit starts to diverge is on the response, which people read as townie. There's important time issues to look at. BlazingHand first pushes him to elaborate on it, and we get this as a response: On September 18 2012 07:16 austinmcc wrote:On September 18 2012 07:09 Blazinghand wrote:On September 18 2012 06:55 austinmcc wrote:On September 18 2012 06:50 Hapahauli wrote:
If mafia would like to keep hypothetical townie-marv alive to the endgame because of my "policy lynch," then awesome! Mission accomplished! Though in all seriousness, I've read through quite a few of his recent games. He never lives as town past N3 (barring Mad Men Mafia where he was a replacement) in his recent games. If he's alive a long time, there's a very high chance (IMO basically guaranteed chance) of him flipping red.
<3 everyone at all, but you need to look further. He's generally not being killed off for supersexy scumhunting, but because he comes off as very townie and is generating a lot of discussion/activity from others. His early reads, although I haven't read recent games, are not generally a big threat to mafia.
On September 18 2012 06:50 Blazinghand wrote:
Hey pudding-munchers stop arguing about that and read my case I don't know how anyone can munch on pudding. I DO kind of like that observation. It feels almost TOO obvious but...man it's kind of damning. Elaborate. Now. Elaboration on the second half - Pudding is soft. Munching feels like it requires chewing, crunching. Can't do that with pudding. As to the obvious bit, obvious is the wrong word. I like...neat observations like that. It says something, unsure what, about you that you could pull out the starts to prplhz's game just like POOF. Like, I key in on the initial question more than the actual scummy stuff, because there's a chance that prplhz doesn't realize he's started scum games like that. But ... he has to, right? I gotta leave work, but the thought process is convoluted here. Pudding blabla not satisfactory at all. His 'townie' explanation that follows only comes after me, Hapa, and BH apply further considerable pressure.On September 18 2012 08:03 austinmcc wrote:On September 18 2012 07:21 Blazinghand wrote:
The "it's way too scummy, he must be town" argument is dumb on its head. What are you even saying
On September 18 2012 07:23 marvellosity wrote:
austin, you're not playing with grush.
speak plainly or die like a little bitch. It's not that it's too scummy to be town. Because the part of your post that I key in on is that prplhz, in two other scum games, and in none of the games he's played as town (out of what you reference), opens in a similar manner. I think you are stretching when you say that the questions are scummy. Yes he can go look the guy up. Yes, he might ought to at least remember that the guy played in a game he hosted. But it's not like...asking a question about who someone is is scummy on its face. There's no scumhunting heuristic for "opens games asking questions about a particular player." It MAY be scummy as applied to prplhz, but it's not like every player who opens like that is probably scum. So then . . . working off that. If it's not scummy on its face, but might be scummy to prplhz, why? There's no objective pushed there, it's not like starting off a game with that post helps a mafia objective. If prplhz is scum and happens to start all his scum games this way, it's just something he does without knowing it. There's no objective pushed. Then finally, if starting games that way as scum is just something prplhz does without knowing it, not to push an objective, then . . . it's almost null? Not getting there in the same way "small sample size" gets there. The train of thought is... (1) This is a thing that prplhz has done in scum games (2) This is a thing that does not further mafia objectives, or actively DO anything really (3) Therefore, it's likely he's just doing it subconsciously (4) If he's doing it subconsciously, then it's not really a tell. Could argue that he only does it subconsciously as scum, but then you get the sample size discussion and there's no real proof either way. So obvious was really the wrong word choice, when I fully go through this. It's not a bad explanation as it goes, and I can see why people viewed it as townie. But the fact is that it only came after his previous, poor explanation. In other words, he had to give a good explanation because he knew a large part of town was hounding him for it. In this context, I believe it loses some of its 'townieness'. I bold the final line as well for a reason. Obvious was the wrong word choice, eh? Look at how austin usually posts - longwinded, carefully thought out. Yet in this instance he'd thrown out his 'obvious' and 'too damning'. It looks like austin is justifying his scummy words after the fact. austin has a few posts subsequently, but they are all focused on his own defence rather than any other scumhunting. Why is he so worried about how others view his defence? Why is he only talking about his own defence rather than being proactive elsewhere? Because he's worried that he needs to appear as town. After these posts, austin has been markedly absent from any of the considerable goings-on in this thread. We don't have an opinion on anyone or anything, except his own defence. His play is marked by being worried by how he appears, rather than finding scum. ##Vote: austinmcc Why does him posting a very poor first explanation before delivering a satisfying reasoning for his behaviour makes him lose "townieness"? Shouldn't the fact that he made such a bad explanation make him more townie as apparentely he was not worried about defending himself when he first made that post? Seeing his recent vastly improved posting (especially his defense and scum-hunting whilst under pressure) I don't think austin is scum. You'll have to explain to me why giving a weak explanation on a weak comment makes him townie, Ange. My train of thought was that he was waffling in his defence to the post, hoping to brush it under the carpet, instead of straight out explaining why he made the vote in the first place. The fact that he needed to be further pressured to clarify his comment makes him lose townieness, because by this point he is forced to make a good explanation or face being lynched. That said, austin's concerns on my company on him are legitimate. iamperfection is giving absolutely no reasoning, and he completely correct that I asked fuba for thoughts on austin, WHO HE IS FUCKNIG VOTING, and he gave me thoughts on Mementoss instead. Arg. My point is that giving a weak explanation fits a town player who should not be scared of being accused as scum. Being town there is no need to write your posts carefully which could lead to a weak first explanation before a satisfying second one. I see your point of view but I don't agree with it.
I can understand how it can be viewed both ways. But given the context of his whole play at the time, the only thing he'd done is post about 10 times on defending himself, and not at all at hunting scum.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On September 20 2012 05:41 prplhz wrote:
@hapa you best get in here and change your vote
brb 17 mins
lol yeah, this guy can die.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
The mind boggles that one of the two leading candidates can say his view on his only read doesn't matter.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On September 20 2012 05:46 Mementoss wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 05:40 marvellosity wrote:On September 20 2012 05:39 Mementoss wrote:
are we seriously going to let a no lynch happen thanks for this, very helpful cool I'd like to point out 3/6 pages of your unhelpful filter right now but I won't also this lol + Show Spoiler +On September 17 2012 20:58 marvellosity wrote:
Before this starts - gonna try to be somewhat less posty and more thinky this game. Let's see if I succeed. you failed. At least we have the 7 votes now for the first time since the start of the game. The resistance on this lynch has been incredible all cycle.
it is overmatched by the rest of my filter with helpful input, unlike yours.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On September 20 2012 05:48 Hapahauli wrote:
Why the fuck are we lynching prplhz?
because he refuses to be held accountable for his read on me by answering anything to do with my play since he committed his vote on me.
This in addition to his weak swap to vote on austin.
All we're left with on prplhz is a non-case on Ange and his refusal to elaborate on his only scumread.
That's why
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
hapa explain yourself fucking right now.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
hapa are you fakeclaiming to save a townread?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On September 20 2012 05:56 prplhz wrote:
people not unvoting just confirms how you're all morons
no it doesn't because there's two conflicting claims.
what do you make of hapa's mason claim on you? quick
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On September 20 2012 06:01 prplhz wrote:
too late anyway hapa my mason buddy sorry for being a total moron but jesus christ so were you
i can't believe you just did this. wow
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
