|
On October 20 2012 08:42 Douglas Quaid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 08:39 Jack Slater wrote:On October 20 2012 08:35 Douglas Quaid wrote:On October 20 2012 08:34 Jack Slater wrote:On October 20 2012 08:32 Douglas Quaid wrote:Also, I want y'all to read this by Jack: I would rather do everything in my power to try and lynch the active scum. If we can hit scum, and John Matrix is scum, he has to "shed his skin". If we do lynch scum, and there is no night kill, i say we no-lynch forcing scum into killing, because there is the chance they with hold a kill to push a john matrix mislynch. This doesn't make any sense from any town perspective I know of... What? The bolded part? If John is scum and we lynch scum, johns account will be killed with the night kill (that's how the nk mechanics work) Yeah, which is really fucking bad for town. Why would we want to have scum shed their account and give us no information? Also are you completely ignoring the fact that it revolves around us lynching scum day 1... Why would I acknowledge the alternative? You want to lynch me and I am town. If we lynch scum D1, it won't be me, and it won't be because of you.
My argument was about lynching scum (whoever that is) day 1... You can't take the argument out of context because my plan is to lynch you... It doesn't have anything to fucking do with you
|
On October 20 2012 08:48 Jack Slater wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 08:42 Douglas Quaid wrote:On October 20 2012 08:39 Jack Slater wrote:On October 20 2012 08:35 Douglas Quaid wrote:On October 20 2012 08:34 Jack Slater wrote:On October 20 2012 08:32 Douglas Quaid wrote:Also, I want y'all to read this by Jack: I would rather do everything in my power to try and lynch the active scum. If we can hit scum, and John Matrix is scum, he has to "shed his skin". If we do lynch scum, and there is no night kill, i say we no-lynch forcing scum into killing, because there is the chance they with hold a kill to push a john matrix mislynch. This doesn't make any sense from any town perspective I know of... What? The bolded part? If John is scum and we lynch scum, johns account will be killed with the night kill (that's how the nk mechanics work) Yeah, which is really fucking bad for town. Why would we want to have scum shed their account and give us no information? Also are you completely ignoring the fact that it revolves around us lynching scum day 1... Why would I acknowledge the alternative? You want to lynch me and I am town. If we lynch scum D1, it won't be me, and it won't be because of you. My argument was about lynching scum (whoever that is) day 1... You can't take the argument out of context because my plan is to lynch you... It doesn't have anything to fucking do with you
So your plan is to guarantee 100% a D1 scum lynch? Tell me your seekrit, I really want to know. It would make this game much easier for me.
|
This is the original point of argument... Notice it has nothing to do with you yet you warped this argument into being "you are talking about lynching me"On October 20 2012 08:32 Douglas Quaid wrote:Also, I want y'all to read this by Jack: Show nested quote +I would rather do everything in my power to try and lynch the active scum. If we can hit scum, and John Matrix is scum, he has to "shed his skin". If we do lynch scum, and there is no night kill, i say we no-lynch forcing scum into killing, because there is the chance they with hold a kill to push a john matrix mislynch. This doesn't make any sense from any town perspective I know of...
The point is still true, if we lynch scum today, and John matrix is the other scum, his account will die n1 when he has to night kill
|
On October 20 2012 08:33 Harry Tasker wrote:
Alan, given you're around enough to still be posting, why haven't you given us a more definitive read of Douglas yourself?
Yeah I'm kind of just checking in. But I'll do my best.
When doug goes after Alex the first time, Alex isn't inactive. He had recently posted before Doug started going on him.
When doug goes after jack slater the first time, jack had also posted relatively recently.
When doug goes after ben the first time, he had been inactive.
But overall I don't see a consistent pattern of going after inactive players.
That leaves me with the same stuff I was working on before - he jumps around a lot and sometimes for bad reasons.
|
On October 20 2012 08:51 Douglas Quaid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 08:48 Jack Slater wrote:On October 20 2012 08:42 Douglas Quaid wrote:On October 20 2012 08:39 Jack Slater wrote:On October 20 2012 08:35 Douglas Quaid wrote:On October 20 2012 08:34 Jack Slater wrote:On October 20 2012 08:32 Douglas Quaid wrote:Also, I want y'all to read this by Jack: I would rather do everything in my power to try and lynch the active scum. If we can hit scum, and John Matrix is scum, he has to "shed his skin". If we do lynch scum, and there is no night kill, i say we no-lynch forcing scum into killing, because there is the chance they with hold a kill to push a john matrix mislynch. This doesn't make any sense from any town perspective I know of... What? The bolded part? If John is scum and we lynch scum, johns account will be killed with the night kill (that's how the nk mechanics work) Yeah, which is really fucking bad for town. Why would we want to have scum shed their account and give us no information? Also are you completely ignoring the fact that it revolves around us lynching scum day 1... Why would I acknowledge the alternative? You want to lynch me and I am town. If we lynch scum D1, it won't be me, and it won't be because of you. My argument was about lynching scum (whoever that is) day 1... You can't take the argument out of context because my plan is to lynch you... It doesn't have anything to fucking do with you So your plan is to guarantee 100% a D1 scum lynch? Tell me your seekrit, I really want to know. It would make this game much easier for me.
My plan is to lynch someone who is scummy and not inactive... I would say there's around a 25 % chance of John matrix flipping scum... While IMO there is a much higher chance of you flipping scum (like 90%)
|
On October 20 2012 08:56 Alan Schaefer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 08:33 Harry Tasker wrote:
Alan, given you're around enough to still be posting, why haven't you given us a more definitive read of Douglas yourself? Yeah I'm kind of just checking in. But I'll do my best. When doug goes after Alex the first time, Alex isn't inactive. He had recently posted before Doug started going on him. When doug goes after jack slater the first time, jack had also posted relatively recently. When doug goes after ben the first time, he had been inactive. But overall I don't see a consistent pattern of going after inactive players. That leaves me with the same stuff I was working on before - he jumps around a lot and sometimes for bad reasons.
i don't give a shit about the inactive, i want a god-damn read
|
In an ideal world, I'd love to go for the "active scum." The problem is, John's inactivity forces our hand to lynch him due to the mechanics of the game.
1) John is scum (and secretly "active" in the QT). John simply sheds his skin and begins to post. We get no information from his flip.
2) John is town (but inactive). There's a really high chance of mafia NK'ing John (and just not posting), and we'll spend all of D2 wifoming ourselves thinking about the John lynch.
So if we lynch someone else, and John is scum or town, the consequences are bad either way. Add this to the fact that John very well could be scum (not asking for a replacement, etc), and I think he's the clear lynch for today.
|
On October 20 2012 08:56 Alan Schaefer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 08:33 Harry Tasker wrote:
Alan, given you're around enough to still be posting, why haven't you given us a more definitive read of Douglas yourself? Yeah I'm kind of just checking in. But I'll do my best. When doug goes after Alex the first time, Alex isn't inactive. He had recently posted before Doug started going on him. When doug goes after jack slater the first time, jack had also posted relatively recently. When doug goes after ben the first time, he had been inactive. But overall I don't see a consistent pattern of going after inactive players. That leaves me with the same stuff I was working on before - he jumps around a lot and sometimes for bad reasons.
Define posting relatively recently and respond to my post about his "reasons" for jumping around
|
On October 20 2012 08:57 Harry Tasker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 08:56 Alan Schaefer wrote:On October 20 2012 08:33 Harry Tasker wrote:
Alan, given you're around enough to still be posting, why haven't you given us a more definitive read of Douglas yourself? Yeah I'm kind of just checking in. But I'll do my best. When doug goes after Alex the first time, Alex isn't inactive. He had recently posted before Doug started going on him. When doug goes after jack slater the first time, jack had also posted relatively recently. When doug goes after ben the first time, he had been inactive. But overall I don't see a consistent pattern of going after inactive players. That leaves me with the same stuff I was working on before - he jumps around a lot and sometimes for bad reasons. i don't give a shit about the inactive, i want a god-damn read
the inactive was my reason for going in on him originally.
fuck it. gut check: I think he's town. I don't see the scum motivation for jumping around like that on purpose, especially given this setup. It feels more to me like a genuine thought process.
|
On October 20 2012 08:58 Douglas Quaid wrote:
In an ideal world, I'd love to go for the "active scum." The problem is, John's inactivity forces our hand to lynch him due to the mechanics of the game.
1) John is scum (and secretly "active" in the QT). John simply sheds his skin and begins to post. We get no information from his flip.
2) John is town (but inactive). There's a really high chance of mafia NK'ing John (and just not posting), and we'll spend all of D2 wifoming ourselves thinking about the John lynch.
So if we lynch someone else, and John is scum or town, the consequences are bad either way. Add this to the fact that John very well could be scum (not asking for a replacement, etc), and I think he's the clear lynch for today.
If we lynch john and he flips town we literally start all over again d2 but with even LESS town against scum... 1 wrong vote at ANYTIME can lose the game
|
On October 20 2012 08:58 Jack Slater wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 08:56 Alan Schaefer wrote:On October 20 2012 08:33 Harry Tasker wrote:
Alan, given you're around enough to still be posting, why haven't you given us a more definitive read of Douglas yourself? Yeah I'm kind of just checking in. But I'll do my best. When doug goes after Alex the first time, Alex isn't inactive. He had recently posted before Doug started going on him. When doug goes after jack slater the first time, jack had also posted relatively recently. When doug goes after ben the first time, he had been inactive. But overall I don't see a consistent pattern of going after inactive players. That leaves me with the same stuff I was working on before - he jumps around a lot and sometimes for bad reasons. Define posting relatively recently and respond to my post about his "reasons" for jumping around
When I look at the thread in "all posts" mode, and there's only three or four screens of posts between one of yours and the one where he starts going after you.
I think his reasons are bad. (or possibly, badly expressed.) But I don't feel like they're manufactured.
|
|
|
On October 20 2012 09:03 Alan Schaefer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 08:58 Jack Slater wrote:On October 20 2012 08:56 Alan Schaefer wrote:On October 20 2012 08:33 Harry Tasker wrote:
Alan, given you're around enough to still be posting, why haven't you given us a more definitive read of Douglas yourself? Yeah I'm kind of just checking in. But I'll do my best. When doug goes after Alex the first time, Alex isn't inactive. He had recently posted before Doug started going on him. When doug goes after jack slater the first time, jack had also posted relatively recently. When doug goes after ben the first time, he had been inactive. But overall I don't see a consistent pattern of going after inactive players. That leaves me with the same stuff I was working on before - he jumps around a lot and sometimes for bad reasons. Define posting relatively recently and respond to my post about his "reasons" for jumping around When I look at the thread in "all posts" mode, and there's only three or four screens of posts between one of yours and the one where he starts going after you. I think his reasons are bad. (or possibly, badly expressed.) But I don't feel like they're manufactured.
This defense is softer than baby shit
|
On October 20 2012 09:02 Jack Slater wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 08:58 Douglas Quaid wrote:
In an ideal world, I'd love to go for the "active scum." The problem is, John's inactivity forces our hand to lynch him due to the mechanics of the game.
1) John is scum (and secretly "active" in the QT). John simply sheds his skin and begins to post. We get no information from his flip.
2) John is town (but inactive). There's a really high chance of mafia NK'ing John (and just not posting), and we'll spend all of D2 wifoming ourselves thinking about the John lynch.
So if we lynch someone else, and John is scum or town, the consequences are bad either way. Add this to the fact that John very well could be scum (not asking for a replacement, etc), and I think he's the clear lynch for today. If we lynch john and he flips town we literally start all over again d2 but with even LESS town against scum... 1 wrong vote at ANYTIME can lose the game
Unfortunately that's a situation better than the alternative (not lynching John). As stated before, regardless of whether John is scum or not, we're in a really bad spot as town if we don't lynch him.
If we do lynch him, we either get rid of scum or a useless townie. We'll also have information from 1 scum member from the NK "shedding".
|
On October 20 2012 09:05 Jack Slater wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 09:03 Alan Schaefer wrote:On October 20 2012 08:58 Jack Slater wrote:On October 20 2012 08:56 Alan Schaefer wrote:On October 20 2012 08:33 Harry Tasker wrote:
Alan, given you're around enough to still be posting, why haven't you given us a more definitive read of Douglas yourself? Yeah I'm kind of just checking in. But I'll do my best. When doug goes after Alex the first time, Alex isn't inactive. He had recently posted before Doug started going on him. When doug goes after jack slater the first time, jack had also posted relatively recently. When doug goes after ben the first time, he had been inactive. But overall I don't see a consistent pattern of going after inactive players. That leaves me with the same stuff I was working on before - he jumps around a lot and sometimes for bad reasons. Define posting relatively recently and respond to my post about his "reasons" for jumping around When I look at the thread in "all posts" mode, and there's only three or four screens of posts between one of yours and the one where he starts going after you. I think his reasons are bad. (or possibly, badly expressed.) But I don't feel like they're manufactured. This defense is softer than baby shit
Oh please Mr. "I think Doug is scum but I'm too scared to vote him." Yeah. Please talk to me about "soft."
|
On October 20 2012 09:05 Jack Slater wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 09:03 Alan Schaefer wrote:On October 20 2012 08:58 Jack Slater wrote:On October 20 2012 08:56 Alan Schaefer wrote:On October 20 2012 08:33 Harry Tasker wrote:
Alan, given you're around enough to still be posting, why haven't you given us a more definitive read of Douglas yourself? Yeah I'm kind of just checking in. But I'll do my best. When doug goes after Alex the first time, Alex isn't inactive. He had recently posted before Doug started going on him. When doug goes after jack slater the first time, jack had also posted relatively recently. When doug goes after ben the first time, he had been inactive. But overall I don't see a consistent pattern of going after inactive players. That leaves me with the same stuff I was working on before - he jumps around a lot and sometimes for bad reasons. Define posting relatively recently and respond to my post about his "reasons" for jumping around When I look at the thread in "all posts" mode, and there's only three or four screens of posts between one of yours and the one where he starts going after you. I think his reasons are bad. (or possibly, badly expressed.) But I don't feel like they're manufactured. This defense is softer than baby shit
What? You'd rather I hard defend him?
I don't like his filter but I don't see scum motivation for it so I come down to a gut read which is that he's town.
That's the long and the short of it.
Given that starting point, how would you prefer I express it?
|
Yeah I'm furious and wanna see who is scum... Fuck it... Maybe I'll be the most wrong I've almost ever been and that would be awesome... Maybe I'm tunnel visioned out... Doug you are an asshole
Hammertime
##vote John Matrix
|
|
|
I've been informed that that the hammer dropped? Give me a few minutes to see what's going on.
|
Votecount:
John Matrix (4): Jack Slater, Harry Tasker, Alex Hesse, Douglas Quaid
Alex Hesse (2): Ben Richards, Alan Schaefer
Not Voting: John Matrix
John Matrix has been lynched by the town! Night post in a minute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
