EPTShitty one-liners and refuses to explain anything. Either very arrogant or wants to pretend he is actually contributing.
Liquid City Mafia - Page 14
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Z-BosoN
Brazil2590 Posts
Shitty one-liners and refuses to explain anything. Either very arrogant or wants to pretend he is actually contributing. | ||
|
Kreb
4834 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On October 01 2012 12:42 Z-BosoN wrote: I don't get why people are thinking his trolliness is scummy. He mentioned he was gonna be a troll before he got his role PM. His "all is as was planned" reaction afterwards is the most ridiculous thing he's ever posted imo and just makes me want to punch him. + Show Spoiler + On September 30 2012 13:54 Shady Sands wrote: Yes! Thank goodness the gambit worked. The whole plan was either to troll hard and have some fun, or enjoy a serious, non-troll game of Mafia by inciting the mod to explicitly threaten a modkill for trolling and scare all the trolls into the straight and narrow. Shiao, you can thank me after the game is over. With that being said, I find the easy rando-vote at the beginning highly suspicious. ## Unvote ## Vote Z-Boson Explain your rando-vote without trolling as a factor. I don't see how that's scum-motivated, I'd like someone to explain this to me. At best, it makes him a snot I want to punch. Coags latest post however: Strikes me as much scummier. He didn't feel the need to say why SS seems scummy, as if it were crystal clear as to why he is scum. I also don't like that kingjames fellow. His posts are almost all useless, and don't add basically anything. + Show Spoiler + On October 01 2012 03:17 kingjames01 wrote: If we want lurkers to post more, then we all have to contribute meaningfully. This will force scum to come out of hiding in order to fit in. They're going to try to post from the perspective that they're Town but it's pretty hard to do so. At that point we can work on who actually cares about scum hunting and who is just pretending. On October 01 2012 01:33 kingjames01 wrote: What? I didn't say that it was contrived. I said it seemed contrived. The point was that it seemed contrived. And his "interrogation" of shady sands, which I don't clearly see the purpose of: One more thing that I don't like is VisceraEyes's case history. Spends a billion posts tunneling annul, based on a "trying to spot clues" (?) read. Then suddenly feels that his emotions got the better of him, and reconsiders. Which is funny, because VE started the attacks. It's not like he was attacked and got emotinal. Then in this post: He finally addresses shady sands and proposes to vote on him. Now look at how he addresses kingjames. In this same post, he goes from a "not a scum read", to a "someone I want dead". At first I thought it was understandable because he was referring specifically to KJ's input on scumhunting in an inactivish environment. However, it's the bolded underlined part that gets to me. What I understood here is that if KJ only had the one post, he would be better than those who haven't posted at all. But then he goes to say that KJ is not commenting on stuff going on in the game (when, ironically, he himself had only just addressed shady sands, which is the first big issue) plus a bunch of other confusing stuff I don't follow, thus putting KJ as a bigger scum read than the rest. I'd like him to clarify this. This concludes the people I don't like so far. Out of those, VE seems the scummiest to me, because his play doesn't make sense for me from a town perspective, his conflict with annul seemed too fake. ##FOS VE I largely agree. I dont see the scum motives behind Shadys "gambit", and he also posted it before the game started. Coagulation is moving up the scummyness ladder with pretty useless posts, the difference between him and kingjames seem to be that kingjames tries to make it look like he's contributing while Coag just posts random shit. Im not sure which one is more scummy but leaning towards KJ in that case. VE's post I dont think is as scummy as you try to make it sound though. He doesnt go from "not a scum read", to a "someone I want dead" but rather from "not a scum read", to a "willing to lynch" and theres a difference there. Though even if theres a difference, its somewhat contradictory and it would be nice with an explanation from VE. I'll put down my vote on kingjames for now, its still the best we have so far in my opinion. ##Vote kingjames01 | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On October 01 2012 03:38 kushm4sta wrote: From this quote it seems strategically beneficial for scum to be semi lurkers. Unrelated and seemingly contradicting what I just said, ##FOS Risen. Why are you even thinking about what playstyle will keep you from getting lynched? Because apparently that's how you should play as town. I've been doing it wrong since day 1. The point isn't to win, it's to avoid getting lynched as town. Also, I feel like I'm invisible... | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
| ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On October 01 2012 12:19 kushm4sta wrote: I'm not going to lose any sleep over a shady lynching. He's basically turned into a hardcore lurker, which is even worse considering all the pressure he is under. Not worse as in more scummy but more lurkery, Some people are suggesting that it was part of some scum strat. Have you guys even read his filter? Before the game ever started: Lynch him fine but don't say it's because you think he's scum. Because he'd be the first person in the history of mafia to give himself an out pre-game if he drew scum. | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On October 01 2012 12:25 Keirathi wrote: Why is parking your vote on someone you don't think is scum a good idea? It isn't. Anyone who's "happy" with a town lynch day 1 is more likely scum than anyone else (at least that's the card I always try to play. "he deserved it for his bad play, hopefully it teaches him a lesson") | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On October 01 2012 14:30 Z-BosoN wrote: ##FoS Coagulation Shitty one-liners and refuses to explain anything. Either very arrogant or wants to pretend he is actually contributing. I disagree with this FoS. Looks like my play from my last game when I was town. I'm going to sleep now. Sorry I kept hitting post instead of consolidating. I'm tired. Won't happen again. | ||
|
risk.nuke
Sweden2825 Posts
On the KingJames situation. You guys sure can take some grass and call it a forest. Or misrepresenting and lying as the factual terms are. I dislike defending people unless I'm heavily certain they are town but I mean spouting bullshit on how he's been fake-contributing day1 while half the thread have barely said a word strikes me as heavily weird. More suspicious still the people praising it as legit case. You can't all be scum so are you deliberately ignorant? | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On October 01 2012 16:53 risk.nuke wrote: ##Vote Shady On the KingJames situation. You guys sure can take some grass and call it a forest. Or misrepresenting and lying as the factual terms are. I dislike defending people unless I'm heavily certain they are town but I mean spouting bullshit on how he's been fake-contributing day1 while half the thread have barely said a word strikes me as heavily weird. More suspicious still the people praising it as legit case. You can't all be scum so are you deliberately ignorant? The answer is yes. | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
| ||
|
Kreb
4834 Posts
On October 01 2012 16:53 risk.nuke wrote: ##Vote Shady On the KingJames situation. You guys sure can take some grass and call it a forest. Or misrepresenting and lying as the factual terms are. I dislike defending people unless I'm heavily certain they are town but I mean spouting bullshit on how he's been fake-contributing day1 while half the thread have barely said a word strikes me as heavily weird. More suspicious still the people praising it as legit case. You can't all be scum so are you deliberately ignorant? Yes, because fake-contributing is more scummy than not contributing at all. It should be quite common to have both town and scum hiding among the low post count and little contribution posters. But there is no reason for a town to fake contribute ever (even though new town players probably often feel that way). There are motives for both town and scum to lurk, but there are no (good) motives for town to fake-contribute. Not only do you seem unaware/ignorant of this, your post also raises other questions/concerns: 1) Point me towards the "spouting bullshit" parts. You make it sound like you're disagreeing he is fake-contributing. Is that correct? Whats your take on his posting in that case, if you dont see it as fake-contributing? 2) You vote person A and spend time writing why you didnt vote person B. You havent said a word to back up your Shady vote, and the only thing your filter contains is a suggested Kush-vote. So why did you vote Shady? 3) Are you sitll in favor of a Kush-vote? If so, why? | ||
|
Kreb
4834 Posts
On October 01 2012 16:48 Risen wrote: Because he'd be the first person in the history of mafia to give himself an out pre-game if he drew scum. Even if that was the purpose of his post, how does giving yourself an out pre-game increase the chances of him being (randoming) scum? God thats some silly argumenting. | ||
|
Node
United States2159 Posts
Now, kush on the other hand has been talking a lot about absolutely nothing. Seeing as he considers his vote on Shady absolutely inconsequential so far ("My vote for Shady had nothing to do with a scumread of any sort"), he's sure spent an awful lot of time discussing it. Weirdly enough, he justifies his current vote by saying he doesn't have any scum reads, yet has also thrown a few FoS's around. So, we see his vote that doesn't matter (yet) on someone he doesn't care about, instead of actually pushing the rather perfunctory cases he's made so far, possibly just so he can look like he's actually contributing. So, I'll actually put my vote where my mouth is. ##vote kushm4sta On October 01 2012 14:30 Z-BosoN wrote: ##FoS Coagulation Shitty one-liners and refuses to explain anything. Either very arrogant or wants to pretend he is actually contributing. Bolded for emphasis. This is pretty much exactly how Coagulation plays every game. If he's town, in a day or two he'll come up with a handful of proper scum reads to tunnel for the rest of the game, about half of which will be correct. | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
Mind doing stuff? Do you still want to lynch Z-boson? If so why? What makes you think that there are smurfs? Anything you want to share from reading the filters? In regards to KJ: Reading his filter it just looks messy and kind of contradictory as many already pointed out. I am not so sure if he is scum though, for all this talk of "fake"-contributions, he has done more than many other players (me included) until now. If you look at his thoughtprocess from his point of view it kind of makes sense.....Conclusively said I would point him as nullish now, need more from him to read him better. @KJ: Who do you want to lynch and why? | ||
|
risk.nuke
Sweden2825 Posts
On October 01 2012 17:25 Kreb wrote: Yes, because fake-contributing is more scummy than not contributing at all. It should be quite common to have both town and scum hiding among the low post count and little contribution posters. But there is no reason for a town to fake contribute ever (even though new town players probably often feel that way). There are motives for both town and scum to lurk, but there are no (good) motives for town to fake-contribute. Not only do you seem unaware/ignorant of this, your post also raises other questions/concerns: 1) Point me towards the "spouting bullshit" parts. You make it sound like you're disagreeing he is fake-contributing. Is that correct? Whats your take on his posting in that case, if you dont see it as fake-contributing? 2) You vote person A and spend time writing why you didnt vote person B. You havent said a word to back up your Shady vote, and the only thing your filter contains is a suggested Kush-vote. So why did you vote Shady? 3) Are you sitll in favor of a Kush-vote? If so, why? Fist things first. Now you don't have the first clue about what fake-contribution is which makes it difficult to discuss the subject. A person fake-contributing is someone floating around, have proven to be active + Show Spoiler + otherwise they must fall into the lurker category untill they reach a certain amount of posts which has nothing whatsoever do to with their posts/day ratio) Meaning they can be both lurkers and fake-contributers but not for a couple of days. As for most fake-contributing posts they are not some sort of evil posts in disguise only visible to your lens of truth. They are simply general posts and most often helpful to a lesser degree. Most importantly what you don't grasp is both townies and scum do them and are because of this null-tells. I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you say townies have absolutely no purpose fake-contributing. It's purified dumb. 1 Having now explained the term fake-contributor I can answer your post. It's bullshit to call someone a fake-contributor day 1 almost without exception because it's in generally to early to tell the persons agenda. 2 I voted for shady because it's down to him versus KingJames. Additionally I agreed and considered Shady being scummy even as I suggested the kush lynch. Which was done because I didn't want to sheep others the first thing I did (because there is little value in that) and because I wanted to discuss other candidates then shady (which was shutdown asap by marv, but nevertheless told me something about marv) As for why I choose kush the filters weren't implied so I picked the first suspicious filter I found. 3 A kush lynch i don't see happening and a voteswitch to kush now I'd disagree with because my suspicion against a successful late bandwagon switch would be greater then my suspicion against kush. (Node. you're late to the party.) If you rephrase the question. Am I still suspicious against kush I will tell you I think kush is scummier now then I did at the time I suggested the vote on him. | ||
|
Kreb
4834 Posts
On October 01 2012 19:13 risk.nuke wrote: Fist things first. Now you don't have the first clue about what fake-contribution is which makes it difficult to discuss the subject. A person fake-contributing is someone floating around, have proven to be active + Show Spoiler + otherwise they must fall into the lurker category untill they reach a certain amount of posts which has nothing whatsoever do to with their posts/day ratio) Meaning they can be both lurkers and fake-contributers but not for a couple of days. As for most fake-contributing posts they are not some sort of evil posts in disguise only visible to your lens of truth. They are simply general posts and most often helpful to a lesser degree. Most importantly what you don't grasp is both townies and scum do them and are because of this null-tells. I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you say townies have absolutely no purpose fake-contributing. It's purified dumb. 1 Having now explained the term fake-contributor I can answer your post. It's bullshit to call someone a fake-contributor day 1 almost without exception because it's in generally to early to tell the persons agenda. 2 I voted for shady because it's down to him versus KingJames. Additionally I agreed and considered Shady being scummy even as I suggested the kush lynch. Which was done because I didn't want to sheep others the first thing I did (because there is little value in that) and because I wanted to discuss other candidates then shady (which was shutdown asap by marv, but nevertheless told me something about marv) As for why I choose kush the filters weren't implied so I picked the first suspicious filter I found. 3 A kush lynch i don't see happening and a voteswitch to kush now I'd disagree with because my suspicion against a successful late bandwagon switch would be greater then my suspicion against kush. (Node. you're late to the party.) If you rephrase the question. Am I still suspicious against kush I will tell you I think kush is scummier now then I did at the time I suggested the vote on him. Great, that actually answers a lot of things. Though I will disagree that "its down to him vs KJ". If you have some solid scum-read on anyone you should share it, theres plenty of time to switch votes. Taking the approach "well its down to guy A or guy B so Im only gonna consider those two" when its like 18 (?) hours left and more than half the players havent even voted sounds kinda lazy. If thats what "early" votes causes to happen I really regret putting down my own vote as early as I did, heh. Anyway, whats your thought on Z-Bosons cases on VE and Coagulation? | ||
|
Mementoss
Canada2595 Posts
On October 01 2012 13:18 kushm4sta wrote: He's a lynch I can feel good about even if he flips green. ##Vote: Kushm4sta Pretty self explanatory. | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On October 01 2012 20:43 Mementoss wrote: ##Vote: Kushm4sta Pretty self explanatory. Except I don't think he's scum at the moment. He's managing to be surprisingly unargumentative and I don't think he has the self-control to pull that off as a lie. His town games are littered with big scumslips, and I've watched/coached/hosted every single one of his newbie games. Coag and VE are playing like coag and VE is the sum of what's been said about them. Z-Bo, as I tried to explain (perhaps poorly), it was the explanation for Shady's trolling and his subsequent lurking that I particularly disliked, but you seem to be representing it otherwise. On October 01 2012 11:39 kingjames01 wrote: So what we're shifting towards is whether Shady's 'plan' to preempt trolling was legitimate or a cover-up? That should not be the focus of our first day. Instead, I'd like Shady to come back to the thread and give us something more concrete. Shady: what do you think about the assertion that I was being wishy-washy? Also, tell us if you have a spy read on anyone yet, who and why. Bla bla bla bla. What do you think, about, you know, anything? | ||
|
risk.nuke
Sweden2825 Posts
VE seems like a usual VE to me. The conflict with annul I don't see as fabriced. Z-Boson claims VE goes from not suspecting KJ to wanting to kill him in the same post but what I read is he said "I find nothing scummy about KJ's input on scumhunting". Which isn't the same thing. Maybe I'm ill informed about this since I'm reading it out of context so correct me if there is more. | ||
|
kushm4sta
United States8878 Posts
| ||
| ||
