|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On December 14 2012 05:29 austinmcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 05:22 Clarity_nl wrote:
I have a really hard time seeing who to lynch. I would be most comfortable with a Dieno lynch but am I convinced he's scum? Not really. He's just playing a bit off compared to chrono but it's his second game so it could be anything.
I personally had a townread on randombum before he suddenly wanted to lynch austin, but that was a really weird moment and I can't see a motivation for any alignment for him to act that was so I'm going with it was fault logic.
But this whole world can't possibly all agree that Foolish and Keirathi were the two scum in this world? Those two are my best guess but in no way are they set in stone. I don't think we should just no-lynch, assuming Foolish and Keirathi were the two scum. I was less certain of Foolishness's scumminess than this thread, because ... the whole thing was just kind of weak. If he were scum, I'd expect some kind of defense because it was sitting right in front of him. Palmar wanted to know why Foolishness was doing what he was doing, and it would have been plenty easy for Foolishness to figure out the "town" answer and give that. He didn't. So I wasn't left being sure about his scumminess.
seriously, what the fuck is all of this.
Foolishness did scummy thing. He was questioned on it. He didn't or couldn't give a satisfactory answer. Therefore Foolish probably not scummy.
|
lol did the meaning of lurker change over the last 3 months
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On December 14 2012 08:03 slOosh wrote:
marv, like I said I'm here on and off.
I'm not seeing where you are getting at with austin. Are you saying that town austin is usually paranoid about you and therefore would have no doubt included you in the check? I don't see much reason for scum to come in when town has no idea what to do after their main scum lynch was taken away, and then fake claim to offer up lynching guidance the way he did it.
I'm leaning Kenpachi as a lurker / unreadable lynch.
yes, I would absolutely expect him to include me on a check. In fact you were co-host in LV when I played around with austin in Toad's mason chat, and he's never trusted me since, and we've played many games together. austin is always paranoid of my alignment
to the bold, why not?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
@Kei, I'll take a look right now, thanks.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
bleh. Dieno, what about what I said about austin do you like in particular?
|
On December 14 2012 08:06 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 08:03 slOosh wrote:
marv, like I said I'm here on and off.
I'm not seeing where you are getting at with austin. Are you saying that town austin is usually paranoid about you and therefore would have no doubt included you in the check? I don't see much reason for scum to come in when town has no idea what to do after their main scum lynch was taken away, and then fake claim to offer up lynching guidance the way he did it.
I'm leaning Kenpachi as a lurker / unreadable lynch. yes, I would absolutely expect him to include me on a check. In fact you were co-host in LV when I played around with austin in Toad's mason chat, and he's never trusted me since, and we've played many games together. austin is always paranoid of my alignment to the bold, why not?
I don't have a DT check. I have an objection. The best way to use that is to narrow down the pool of people on this side of the game, because Foolishness was basically the only option yesterday and then he got swapped. Is it perfect? No. But at the very least I can get us to "there is someone we need to lynch in these 3" or "there is not someone we need to lynch in these 3."
Between the two, getting "there is not someone we need to lynch in these 3" is the best outcome, because it's definite. Here are 3 people I can trust, we can trust. We KNOW that none of those folks need lynching.
If I check 3 people and get a false, that there IS someone in the group I checked that is scum, that's a MUCH less preferable answer. We don't know if 1 scum, 2 scum, 3 scum. It gives us a small pool to lynch into if we want, but it doesn't tell us when to stop.
If I'm going to check multiple people then, I'd rather carve an entire section of this world OUT. None of them are anti-town, and moreover, we can trust Palmar and slOosh's posts, which is something I value. That's ANOTHER bonus from checking a group comprised of only people I think are town.
And...ta da! I found 3 townies, or 3 "not anti-town"ies. That is so far and away preferable to using the objection to check a group of people that I'm NOT sure on. If I check you and 2 others, and I get "oh shit dawg, there's some anti-town up in this bitch" then what do I do. We know you can't ALL be trusted, we know SOME of you are anti-town, but not which.
I can understand you thinking that I'd check you, but the role is best used not as a check. The role is best used to get a group of people I have townreads on, and carve them away from the rest. That is a much more definite and beneficial use of asking about a group.
|
Brunei Darussalam622 Posts
We lost our top read and the town was floundering. This sounds like the perfect time for a scumball to step in and start to influence people's opinions without looking too suspicious. What better way than create some vague detective check that no one can really confirm. It also creates the opportunity to give town cred to some names of his choosing.
I didn't feel comfortable voting for Kenpachi anyway. Even less once you guys mentioned he has a history of lurking. On the chance that I'm wrong about Austin and he does flip town, then we have three pretty much confirmed townies. If we are right and Austin is scum, then hurray scumball in a great position of power is down.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
you never said you were sure on any of them. You checked Palmar because you said he would be useful later if he were town.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On December 14 2012 08:17 Dienosore wrote:
We lost our top read and the town was floundering. This sounds like the perfect time for a scumball to step in and start to influence people's opinions without looking too suspicious. What better way than create some vague detective check that no one can really confirm. It also creates the opportunity to give town cred to some names of his choosing.
I didn't feel comfortable voting for Kenpachi anyway. Even less once you guys mentioned he has a history of lurking. On the chance that I'm wrong about Austin and he does flip town, then we have three pretty much confirmed townies. If we are right and Austin is scum, then hurray scumball in a great position of power is down.
This does make it exceedingly tempting, yes.
|
To Hassy in the other world,
Yes, some of my reasoning is downright retarded. If foolishness flips, I'll look all wishy washy on some dude that flipped scum, but I don't really care. I'm both wishy washy in a lot of games, and marv is both right that I'm paranoid about him, but should also stick an addendum on there that I'm often paranoid about people he goes after 1 on 1 (Palmar in Rock Band, WBG in ... Paranoia, don't think there's more than that).
It's one reason I find this whole thing funny. I was also defending Palmar oddly in Rock Band, when marv was going after him, and Palmar flipped scum. It's not 1:1, and yes, me talking about foolish here is some weird wishy washy throwaway half-assed defense-ish post. But...I actually do that a lot? I'm always surprised not to get mislynched for being wishy washy quite often.
Anywho, as long as my reasoning comes through, that's usually what I rely on for people to see that I'm townie. I'm quite, quite worried about scum getting control of a world because we gave you guys scum, and nobody else (At least here) seems to be. Boo on that.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
it's not wishy washy, it's just downright nonsensical
Foolishness being unable to explain his scumminess DOES NOT MAKE HIM LESS LIKELY TO BE SCUM
|
On December 14 2012 08:18 marvellosity wrote:
you never said you were sure on any of them. You checked Palmar because you said he would be useful later if he were town.
OF COURSE I wasn't sure about them.
Yes, I say: That is so far and away preferable to using the objection to check a group of people that I'm NOT sure on
but I also say:The role is best used to get a group of people I have townreads on, and carve them away from the rest. I'm not actually implying that i was SURE they were town, but they were my townreads.
If you read my stuff on Palmar:On December 14 2012 00:03 austinmcc wrote:Palmar reads oddly invested to me at parts of this day, although hopefully that's a good thing. Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 01:26 Palmar wrote:On December 13 2012 01:04 Crossfire99 wrote:
Marv and Palmar, do you really think Foolish is scum because of his vote on marv? Idk anything about foolish except that he is on the balance team, which I assume means he must be pretty good. Even if he did this bad vote as scum previously, do you think he would do it again? Personally, I don't feel comfortable voting for him just based on that. I think Foolishness is a really good player. While I am completely aware that marv hasn't exactly been a shining beacon of green, he's not done anything I can see that warrants Foolishness calling him scum at that point. So, Foolishness is trolling, scum, or seeing something I don't see. I'm waiting for him to come back and actually give me a legitimate reason to consider his early call that marv is scum. If he doesn't have a solid reason for it, I'm inclined to think he's scum, as I don't often see Foolishness troll, although he's notoriously lazy on day one. Palmar could respond that Foolishness is mafia, shuddup and sheep the vote. Could give some crappy reason. Instead, he actually types out a full response as to what he thinks Foolishness might be doing, and why Foolishness might be scum given what he's doing. I'm not used to seeing complete thoughts like this from Palmar to random questions. Palmar also heavily telegraphed how Foolishness's response would shape his read, whether honest or not, which feels a bit strange though. If Palmar's read is truly going to be influenced by Foolishness's response, then he wouldn't go telling Foolishness how to respond. I dunno, when I first read this post I liked it a lot, found it very townie, but the more I think about it the more it feels a bit out of character - fully formed response to a question, giving out a thought process that's invalid once you put it into thread.
On December 14 2012 05:10 austinmcc wrote:
I wanted to check Palmar because he felt kind of townie, and it's both useful to EVERYONE if we know he's pro-town and trust his stuff, and also now he can be a dick or whatever he wants to do and we'll at least know he's not anti-town while doing so.
slOosh was a strong town read for me, but he was also a bit slow out of the gate, reminding me somewhat of Liquid City. I generally find his posts easy to read and well thought out, and added him specifically to help myself. I want to be able to read and trust what he says, and I figured he would pop up town.
Crossfire99 made some townie comments about past games of his, and those struck me as town. I wanted to throw in one player who was less well known/less active, because if I could hit a townie person in that group it means that we hopefully don't mislynch them ever and it means one less ? towards the end of the game.
Went with 3 players because the more I add, the harder it is to draw any kind of conclusion from the check (1 anti-town, 2, more?). The double-swap also threw a wrench into the works, because it's POSSIBLE that all anti-town elements on this side of things got swapped to the other side. If that happened, nothing I can do about it right now. 3 felt like a number that I could have correct reads on, and takes enough people off the table (and specifically some people that I want to hear from off the table) that I think we can work together and get a solid lynch today.
I say he feels townie to me, and I give one reason, which is that he actually responded to Crossfire about what was going on. It felt ODD for Palmar, but in a good way. Then I ALSO think that it's a useful check to have if the read is right, because we can trust him and he can be a dick but will be a townie when he does so.
|
GreY's Votecount
Palmar (1): Randombum
Crossfire99 (0): SlOosh
Kenpachi (0): Dienosore
SlOosh (2): SlOosh
Dienosore (1): Kenpachi
austinmcc (2): marvellosity, Dienosore
No one to be lynched
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
@other world
I'd quite like sandroba's input right now. I would say Foolishness but he seems totally uninterested in who we might lynch over here.
fu, clarity, srsly.
|
On December 14 2012 08:24 marvellosity wrote:
it's not wishy washy, it's just downright nonsensical
Foolishness being unable to explain his scumminess DOES NOT MAKE HIM LESS LIKELY TO BE SCUM
If there's an easy answer to give that says "I had a townie reason for doing this" and someone DOESN'T TAKE IT, that's townie to me.
Not gigantically so, I say I'm "less certain of Foolishness's scumminess than this thread" and "I wasn't left being sure about his scumminess." THAT is wishy washy as hell. Those aren't reads at all.
But I completely agree with me that when there's low-hanging "Hey gaiz, I had a townie reason for doing x" fruit and you don't pick it, it makes you less likely to be scum. Scum can just pick the fruit and be done with it.
|
On December 14 2012 08:06 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 08:03 slOosh wrote:
marv, like I said I'm here on and off.
I'm not seeing where you are getting at with austin. Are you saying that town austin is usually paranoid about you and therefore would have no doubt included you in the check? I don't see much reason for scum to come in when town has no idea what to do after their main scum lynch was taken away, and then fake claim to offer up lynching guidance the way he did it.
I'm leaning Kenpachi as a lurker / unreadable lynch. yes, I would absolutely expect him to include me on a check. In fact you were co-host in LV when I played around with austin in Toad's mason chat, and he's never trusted me since, and we've played many games together. austin is always paranoid of my alignment to the bold, why not?
There's no incentive to. The thread was totally stagnant and he could easily feign interest and activity the way he did before hand. It is less likely that he make up a scum claim, and then work to direct the lynch in such a manner when he could have just sat back and let town die. Only reason to direct a lynch is to misdirect it off a scum fellow, and there wasn't anything building up on anyone to need to go to fake claim land.
|
On December 14 2012 07:55 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:49 austinmcc wrote:
Voting kenpachi, then headed home quick.
##Vote (GreY): kenpachi
marv's return is funky to me, but in my head scum would prefer not to flip me and have 3 people confirmed not-anti-town, which should be putting me as reading him townie. in general, I think that he should be reading me as town if he were town, but I'm not certain of that one. Oh well.
dienosore's vote is...what it is. i see so many random votes on me every game that i get so used to it and i forget what to say. A) You're terrible B) lols C) wanna die? D) All of the above E) explain your vote pls
You and dienosore are our legitimate options.
dienosore is...odd. And the fact that he just jumped in with a vote on me was so odd that it made me feel townie momentarily, so you got my vote!
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
austin your play is eternally illogical
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
in austin's world, if you do something scummy, as long as you don't have to explain it you're gonna be ok
|
On December 14 2012 08:29 marvellosity wrote:
austin your play is eternally illogical
This is the first time where I actually entirely don't care. Paranoia gets close, but this is way better cuz I haven't mislynched WBG by being an idiot AND I've confirmed 3 people.
Even if you mislynch me, I think I did fine using mah powers, AND I got them out of the way so I could play this game like a friggin' normal person (until I get swapped twice and become retarded again).
Here's what I'd ask:
(1) Do you agree or disagree with my reasoning on wanting to check a small group of townreads being better than checking a group of players that I'm less certain on?
(2) Do you agree with my worries that, if the other side got swapped 1-2 scum, things are Bad and we should Do Something About That.
(3) If you want sandroba's thoughts, you can at least find them somewhat, in that I went from being a scumread of his to a townread, or went from whatever I was to him not wanting to lynch me. I'll make this a question?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
