|
When I said 'do my best' I'm going to do a real shitty job because Zarepath's case is pretty solid. He essentially pointed out to me my own mistakes in posting early on and I will attempt to do a better job now that I'm around.
On February 12 2013 00:38 zarepath wrote:Wave of Shadow, though, is a whole other matter. His first post: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:40 WaveofShadow wrote:
/confirm
I thought we had to wait until 20:00 but I guess since others are posting...
I'm completely against RNG lynch I'd much rather to lurker if possible if we need a Day 1 strategy.
Mocsta I saw in a game you were recently in (i'm kinda busy to check right now) someone suggested RNG lynch and everyone immediately dumped all over him for scum. Why should this game be any different? Theory talk, and then soft-calls Mocsta scum, the person who has at that point looked the most Mayorly. Notice that he doesn't really follow up on this.
Enough with the Mayorly business. If I was really trying to control everyone's thoughts and actions (as THREE people have now addressed, one of which, Corazon, didn't even bother to address when I refuted it) I would have been around to do so. The soft-call on Mocsta was to prevent him from continuing to shit up his filter, which for the most part didn't work I can see. I don't really have a read on him.
Second post: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 11:21 WaveofShadow wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, early game banter based on taking offense to others cheap shots or picking apart grammar is useless and should just be ignored.
I'm fairly sure at this point enough people have declined the RNG vote so the topic should be dropped by everyone.
Can the scumhunting begin now? A few things here. WaveofShadow takes upon himself the mantle of being the Reasonable Break-It-Up! Guy, even though people have already moved on. It's not Being Town, it's Acting Town. Also note the insinuation that nothing in the thread so far has been worthy of contribution -- the scumhunting hasn't started yet, according to him. He simultaneously puts himself up as Pro-Town and everyone before him as Anti-Town. It's all posturing, zero substance.
Once again, breaking it up because Mocsta shit filter. I'm serious when I say I want to get scumhunting going, I guess it was just too early in the day and I had nothing to go on to contribute.
Third post is super scummy: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 11:29 WaveofShadow wrote:
Alright, I will begin so that people don't assume I'm just waiting for others to start so that I can dip back into the shadows.
We don't have a lot to go on as there are still people in the thread who haven't even posted since the start of D1 (more than half, so no point listing them yet) so I'm going to be ballsy and let Mocsta know that I have my eye on him for filter burying. That being said it's really because it's way too early to have a solid scumread at this point, so unless more people come out of the woodwork (and we can get a soild read on them) I will be voting to lurker lynch D1. Wait -- why is he posting? Only so that people don't assume he wants to dip back into the shadows. The number one motivation for this post is to NOT LOOK SCUMMY, by his own admission. But what about content? He basically says that there is nothing going on and that there's nothing to see here until the lurkers post. Does that sound like a productive Day 1 for town? Hardly. The main thing that's a contribution here is that he has his eye on Mocsta for filter-burying, pretty much the absolutely easiest and most obvious "read" to make in this thread. So in sum, this post contributes nothing and is made solely for the purpose of not looking like mafia. And has he never heard of Mocsta before, or what? (And even though his eye's on him, he says in the same post he's going to vote for a lurker. So there's really not any pressure put on Mocsta if he actually thinks he's scum.)
Fourth: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:04 WaveofShadow wrote:
Yay for active lurking!
I have to agree with Mocsta here, at the very least lurker removal D1 can be a useful strategy, but I can't say I'm in favor of removing those who are performing the bare minimum (read: have actual 'qualitative additions,' as geript put it) when there will be scum actively trying to disrupt our hunting efforts.
If it comes to pass that those who are performing the bare minimum ARE the scum who are detracting from our efforts, then that's another story, but I feel like we should be slightly more certain of this than a regular lurker lynch, and I would also argue that this kind of thing would have to happen after D1.
Once again, making my position very clear: if you are inactive or do not contribute to the hunt D1, then you are my target. Weird theory crap -- I still don't understand if he's saying that lurkers are more likely to be scum or poor contributors. It kinda sounds like both. In the end, he makes his position "very clear." Uh, what? Fifth post, super scummy: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:37 WaveofShadow wrote:Put it this way: if there is an extremely strong scumread on someone that is nigh irrefutable, then great, I can get on board. Otherwise LAL, but as I said, we shall see how the day progresses. Also regarding the soft claim (I feel I should address it) wouldn't I say the same thing if I were scum?  Um, if there's an irrefutable scum read on someone, and that's the only time when you'll get on board, there's a term for that -- it's called busing. The last part of the post is the best, though. Did he just call himself scum using WIFOM? And more importantly, why would town ever use WIFOM? As a very wise man who hadn't received his role PM once said: Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 05:22 WaveofShadow wrote:
Except that WIFOM doesn't get you anywhere more often than not and only serves to muck people up, so why bother using it if town? Sixth post, weird defensiveness against others addressing him: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:54 WaveofShadow wrote:I'm trying to say don't look too much into it. There are more important things to be done like scumhunt; determining as to my town alignment should become obvious by my future actions, not by my words. On February 11 2013 13:44 warbaby wrote:
WaveOfShadow, this is not your town. It's not my town, and it's not Mocsta's town.
It is the town, and it's members shall think for themselves and analyze the thread before doing stupid things. Please. Warbaby, this sure as hell is my town as I'm a part of it and I care about it. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm telling or leading people not to think for themselves or that I'm doing something stupid. "Don't look too much into it." "Don't worry, don't read what I say, you'll know that I'm town soon enough, don't even bother thinking about me as mafia." What kind of townie says "don't analyze me in any way, please!"? Also, kind of overemphatic about his town-alignment claim here.
My WIFOM post (which was the one I immediately regretted) was only to try and get people not to focus on me because IT IS A WASTE OF TIME. I stand by absolutely everything I have said thus far, I figure I should have just phrased most of it better.
Final post: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 14:12 WaveofShadow wrote:
Jeez you guys are sensitive. In no way did I insinuate that I am the leader or that I own you guys, nor am I or have I ever bossed anyone around thus far in the game; people need to stop looking for things to be offended about when there is nothing. Makes you look scummy.
Alright no more posting until I get something RL-related done but I leave with this final thing.
Warbaby, if you are soft-claiming blue, I would have thought you had learned from previous NMM; blue claim is really not a good idea this early into the game. People calling him out means that they are super-sensitive, not that there's something wrong with his posting? And in return, he calls those people scummy, outright, but doesn't back it up. Oh, by the way, has to go to RL now. And his final thought is hopping onto the Warbaby bandwagon, but in kind of a compromised way -- he's not calling him scum, he's insinuating bad blue. In sum Wave of Shadow has done nothing but promote to me the idea that he is scum, and while I can see a warbaby acting the way he has because of stress/pressure of people mislynching two days in a row, there's no town motivation for what Wave of Shadow has posted. ##Vote: WaveofShadow
I'm not hopping on any bandwagon, I was basing my 'advice' on what I had seen from warbaby in a previous game (which I can see most people have done to him already and have sent him off the deep end to no benefit). Zarepath I admire your scumhunting skills, and you make a very strong case, but honestly the strength of your case simply relies on bad town and nothing more. I will hopefully improve going forward and we can get something real done.
Now as far as I'm concerned, LAL. Glurio basically fitting to his MO from last game rings alarm bells for me much more strongly than a 9-bit or Macheji lynch, I must admit. There are others however, who have not even done the bare minimum in my eyes, namely Sylencia who jump on the warbaby train and disappears, and Sevryn who has contributed nothing worthy of note so far.
In my LAL spirit though, until I see something, I'm going to stick with it.
##Vote: Macheji
|
On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
@Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name.
I don't really expect my name to be cleared by my defense; I essentially deserve the accusations against me due to shitposting. All I can hope for is for people to stop looking in the wrong direction as scumreads become stronger and I prove myself.
On February 12 2013 05:48 zarepath wrote:
I think it's telling that your main defense for each of my points was "I immediately regretted it" or "I now come to regret it." You say that you are bad town, but that is exactly how mafia want to be seen.
I also see your very committal vote onto someone who hasn't even posted yet. My vote remains and we'll see how the rest of the day unfolds.
Fair.
Now I've been looking at Sylencia's filter and he was one of the only people who came up with the best reason to turn down an RNG lynch (it mathematically favours scum) and performs and interesting analysis on warbaby's blue/maybe-not-blue claim but has contributed absolutely nothing else, short of a weak noncomittal accusation of warbaby.
I was interested by his analysis though, and I'd like to see some more from him.
|
On February 12 2013 05:48 geript wrote:
Ummm what? So, you're seeing alarm bells and aren't interested in putting pressure on them. Instead you're more interested in deflecting towards anyone else? You have clearly no interest in trying to make a case whatsoever or in doing any analysis.
##change vote waveofshadow
Just did, would you like me to put pressure onto absolutely everybody I currently suspect-of-maybe-being-scum-but-they-haven't-done-much-so-we'll-see?
I'm not deflecting, I'm sticking to my guns, and if I did anything else, you all would call me out on it.
|
On February 12 2013 06:04 zarepath wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 05:59 cDgCorazon wrote:
However, I'll hold off on the WIFOM
Eh, go ahead and WIFOM, I can't blame you for it [/b]
But you can blame me?
|
On February 12 2013 07:12 glurio wrote:
So wait i posted when i had time, RL kicks in and i'm suddenly lurking? Sorry but sometimes shit comes up which really doesn't allow me to be here 24/7 even midday.
sn0: So wait i was scum last game and lurked and town the game before and lurked, how is it you only point out the scum game?
I'll have some more stuff to finish, after that expect my case on sn0. And no it's no OMGUS.
Glad to be hearing from you, glurio.
The strength of your case will essentially decide for me whether or not I should bother keeping my eye on you for D1, so make it a good one. Also interested to see how you're going to avoid OMGUS since I'm pretty sure Sn0 has avoided any suspicion thus far. (Except maybe WB early?)
Also what are people's stances on lurker lynching re: 'semi-active' lurking v complete lurking?
Those that fall into the first category being glurio and Sylencia (though I'm debating adding Sevryn to that list. Sevryn shares my stances on lurkers it seems though hasn't committed to anything or laid any cases down.)
The second category being 9-bit and Macheji.
As of now I'm still sticking with lynch of second category being more useful but those in the first had better contribute more than they have.
|
EBWOP: The second category being 9-bit and Macheji.
|
On February 12 2013 07:26 Sn0_Man wrote:
In case what I'm saying isn't clear, I feel that low-content posters are worse than 0-posters.
See this is what I'm starting to realize as they day has gone on. I still don't like the idea of the 0-posters escaping, but the low content (both qualitatively and quantitaively) posters seem like they would be good candidates as well.
I'm very interested as to the rest of the town's ideas on this, because as was pointed out to me, a 0-post count lurker lynch this early may not make a lot of sense.
|
On February 12 2013 07:48 cDgCorazon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 07:23 WaveofShadow wrote:On February 12 2013 07:12 glurio wrote:
So wait i posted when i had time, RL kicks in and i'm suddenly lurking? Sorry but sometimes shit comes up which really doesn't allow me to be here 24/7 even midday.
sn0: So wait i was scum last game and lurked and town the game before and lurked, how is it you only point out the scum game?
I'll have some more stuff to finish, after that expect my case on sn0. And no it's no OMGUS. Glad to be hearing from you, glurio. The strength of your case will essentially decide for me whether or not I should bother keeping my eye on you for D1, so make it a good one. Also interested to see how you're going to avoid OMGUS since I'm pretty sure Sn0 has avoided any suspicion thus far. (Except maybe WB early?) Also what are people's stances on lurker lynching re: 'semi-active' lurking v complete lurking? Those that fall into the first category being glurio and Sylencia (though I'm debating adding Sevryn to that list. Sevryn shares my stances on lurkers it seems though hasn't committed to anything or laid any cases down.) The second category being 9-bit and Macheji. As of now I'm still sticking with lynch of second category being more useful but those in the first had better contribute more than they have. Where does Mandalor fit into this? It's funny how he makes a post saying that at least one lurker has been scum over past games and yet decides to lurk himself...
I was debating adding Mandalor to my list despite his FoS on me since he seems to have the right idea, but you're right. It's been almost 24 hours and we need to see more from him as well if he doesn't want to be included in his own definitions of lurking.
|
On February 12 2013 08:46 glurio wrote:Let's take a look at sn0, shall we? He has a total of 26 posts since the game started. I'll now spoiler all posts with actual content that isn't discussing the english language or talking about lurkers. (Why i don't count these i'll explain later). + Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 00:19 Sn0_Man wrote:
Warbaby looks scummy, but I don't see how you lynch somebody this active day 1. FWIW he looked something like this last game (although he was doing a lot more "scumhunting" and a lot less "plz don't lynch me I townie for sure")
For what it's worth mocsta I think that you too are looking kinda similar to the last game I played with you (minus a key difference in a post a while back about lynching lurkers and scum vs bad town). And we know what that entails.
What I really want are introductory posts from our remaining players 9-bit, severyn and macheji. Well, that and for warbaby to lose his victim card somewhere so that he stops playing it. On February 12 2013 01:55 Sn0_Man wrote:
Personally, I think geript is getting a bit of a free ride with a bunch of low-content posts designed to look "active" without really helping town or pushing much of an agenda. Long post to follow once I finish it (be warned). On February 12 2013 02:21 Sn0_Man wrote:My review of geript: At the start of the game (utterly disregarding pre-game), geript leads with some lighthearted banter-style posts, pretty much continuing the pre-game: + Show Spoiler [Fluff Posts] +On February 11 2013 09:38 geript wrote:
/confirm
/this time for realz
Both geript and warbaby are self admitted to be terrible. In the interest in addition through subtraction, I suggest people make an argument as to which is better to keep.
##vote warbaby On February 11 2013 09:47 geript wrote:
@Warbaby, did Mr. Bimble tell you to post that? That out of the way, geript proceeds with some "content" posts. These are short posts that seem primarily aimed at, well, establishing a non-fluff presence in town. They seem pretty null to me. + Show Spoiler [warning: this one is decently large] +On February 11 2013 09:51 geript wrote:
Mocsta: four people one way or another have responded in the negatory to RNG vote. That in the least is enough to negate the usefulness of RNG vote. Please cease your discussion of RNG as it is more likely to be a waste of time (both posting and rereading) at this point. On February 11 2013 09:58 geript wrote:
@Cora can we please keep the tone constructive. Turning people directly towards an emotional response is worthless right now.
@Mcosta please reread my post. I did not say it was a majority at all, just that it was enough to negate any perceived value of RNG. On February 11 2013 10:29 geript wrote:
My point was thus: should everyone else adhere to RNG, 4 votes represents a voting majority in most cases. This it is better to ignore RNG as the benefits it has/may have (dependent on viewpoint) are negated by an outside majority. /done with talking about RNG. On February 11 2013 12:00 geript wrote:
@Sn0_man. If the English discussion/correction was irrelevant, why post it? On February 11 2013 12:30 geript wrote:
I find it to be a rhetorical question in that things irrelevant to the game aren't worth discussing.
My WB vote is just an opening I wanted to try out that got outpaced by RNG. I for one am fine with addition by subtraction as a policy as I feel it is the basis for both the Lynch All Lurkers policy--in that lurkers add little to nothing-- and is the basis of scum hunting--in that they tend to actively try to detract from discussion through inaction, burying and misdirection. On February 11 2013 12:46 geript wrote:
I mean that the general concept of it: make the town better by removing the person(s) with the least qualitative additions. We are either removing detractors (thus net gain) or removing scum (actual gain).
## change vote unvote On February 11 2013 13:22 geript wrote:
I would argue that removing room to hide is important as it forces scum to constantly be better than the guy in last place. If scum can in fact beat the curve so to speak, then it's the bottom end's fault for not making their role/side clear. I wouldn't blame to top end for voting out scummiest/least town-like in that case. I would argue least qualitative = least town-like; note that's qualitative not quantitative. Bare minimum does not automatically equal least qualitative. Having established his interest in "Addition by Subtraction" (a legitimate idea, though poorly explained), he moves on to his one big post (also his first post today). + Show Spoiler [Geript's big post] +On February 12 2013 01:11 geript wrote:I do think warbaby is town. On points 1 and 2: While this is a newbie game, I don't think that taking his townie claim or referencing 36 as anything other than a null read. Sorry, but I'm not seeing the point you're making in 4 either. As I read: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:54 warbaby wrote:
Since we've both posted plenty, how about we not post for a while? more as trying to get the town as a whole involved rather than have Mcosta posting incessantly as he has been. While I agree on point 3, that warbaby hasn't really partaken in scum hunting, I don't think that this is a good measure of town v scum 6 hours into D1. To be honest, your case feels more like a gag. My concern would moreso be Mocsta. 1. He seems unconcerned as to who to throw towards the vote While some may read it as him aggressively trying to test the town, I read his posts and various switches and tests as just trying to see where he can gain traction. As well, he jumps on the first person having any real traction. 2. He doesn't even read his own posts First, he calls Warbaby's generic opening scummy when it's null at best. Next he tacks on his own important notes, and finally he calls Warbaby's initial post null. 3. He has diarrhea of the keyboard Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:55 Mocsta wrote:
Post consolidation definitely important. No need to hear every thought. But this is no excuse for lurking either. Additionally, he brings ups the post consolidation point which he actively avoids. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:52 Mocsta wrote:
Did not realise 4 people represented a majority in this game.
Why dont you give others a chance to post their own thoughts instead of trying to forcefully influence them before they have spoken.
Are you trying for a dictatorship here or something? Here he's accusing me, in effect, of running for mayor all while pushing his RNG agenda heavily. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 14:15 Mocsta wrote:\
I thought you said you were going to take a break from posting anyways.... Blames warbaby for coming back to post 2 times after 'taking a break' when Mocsta has posted 8. At best, all this comes off as unintentional bad play. At worst it's an overexcited scum player. I find the latter more believable and either way I feel better about lynching him currently than lynching a lurker. A few things to highlight in the post above: 1) A town read on warbaby. While he gives OK reasons for a null read, I didn't really see any justification for "I do think warbaby is town". 2) A target that is distinctly not "addition by subtraction" based. Mocsta isn't a low-content poster. Sure most of his posts are bleh but at least he is making them. 3) Most of geript's points are based on ad-hominem attacks on mocsta and his style rather than on his play and contributions. I mean, I don't like Mocsta or his style either, but I think this game he has begun making real contributions to town. Rather than outline stuff that is scummy, geript is focusing on more peripheral stuff. Basically, I thought that yesterday, geript said a bunch of nothing while trying to look active, then today he made a big bullshit case trying to look like he was contributing. Not really clear scum, but not enough good things to deserve the easy ride he has had. I'm not voting him because I don't see the value in voting 30+ hours pre-deadline, and I thing "FoS"s are retarded, but I will say that geript has my attention. PS: geript's entire filter is in there minus his most recent fluff post. just btw. On February 12 2013 05:12 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 04:57 geript wrote:
@sn0_man
What do you think are Mocsta's town contributions? What are the 'scummy things' Mocsta has done that you think I'm avoiding? Thats a long-ass filter you just asked me to read. The short version: He made a post a while back about the difference between lynching bad town and scum, which was spot on and actually was quite opposite of what scum would be telling noobs. Plus I think that he could easily have gotten away with a much more deceptive, scum motivated theory that I don't think town would have properly analysed. Plus he has avoided making super-ultra-ridiculously BS cases (something he did a lot of last time I played with him). It isn't that I have a strong town read, but I'm definitely leaning town here. Plus I still want to lynch a lurker today and slim this down to a game where everybody is contributing. BTW Glurio is squarely on my list of lurkers right now at 2 posts (no better than the 0-posters). On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
@Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name. Thats a total of 5 out of 26 If you include the one liner #2. Now let's look at some of his posts. Heres one quoted for your convenience. + Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 05:12 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 04:57 geript wrote:
@sn0_man
What do you think are Mocsta's town contributions? What are the 'scummy things' Mocsta has done that you think I'm avoiding? Thats a long-ass filter you just asked me to read. The short version: He made a post a while back about the difference between lynching bad town and scum, which was spot on and actually was quite opposite of what scum would be telling noobs. Plus I think that he could easily have gotten away with a much more deceptive, scum motivated theory that I don't think town would have properly analysed. Plus he has avoided making super-ultra-ridiculously BS cases (something he did a lot of last time I played with him). It isn't that I have a strong town read, but I'm definitely leaning town here. Plus I still want to lynch a lurker today and slim this down to a game where everybody is contributing. BTW Glurio is squarely on my list of lurkers right now at 2 posts (no better than the 0-posters). I bolded the odd part. Why wouldn't scum tell the town what exactly they should be looking for and just avoid exactly these things? Since Sn0 spotted the seemingly non-scum-motivated theory how come he thinks he wouldn't have spotted the much more deceptive scum-motivated theory? Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
@Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name. So I would up my game if i roll scum again, but i'm not so i'm a scummy lurker? What? That doesn't even make sense. If I up my game now am i scum? If i won't i'm a scummy lurker? WIFOM Now let's get to all the lurker posts, i won't quote them all, just read the filter it's most of his posts. It's the easiest thing in the world to point to lurker. Be it the no-post lurker or the few-post lurker which, according to sn0, are actually worse then the no-post lurker. Everyone can do it. I can just look into the thread every hour, post something about the guy with the lowest post count, tell everyone he only has X posts. After that i start pointing out the other lurkers, because hey don't forget about them. And then theres always the thing about recent games where at some point of the game one of the scum players lurked. If you really want me to do that, it wouldn't be a problem, but i try to actually contribute something with my posts. Not bury my filter in useless posts about lurkers.
Honestly glurio, I don't think your case really holds water, I appreciate the analysis though.
You talk about how it's the easiest think in the world to point to a low or no-post lurker but you make a case about how only 5 of Sn0's posts are useful? Wouldn't that make him an active lurker?
Then you accuse him of WIFOM, and frankly I'm ready to just ignore all WIFOM cases brought up because it really gets us nowhere. More likely in this case to be a factor of bad town than scum (see my case as example). It looks as though his WIFOM was on accident and was really just looking for a way to paint you as scummy. This is null.
As for his lurker posts, maybe I'm biased because I agree with him somewhat, but I don't see how bringing up points about low post count lurkers is not contributing. If anything massive wall-of-text posts drawing attention away from important targets and baseless accusations are more likely to be distractions since they are more difficult to follow and require much more analysis. In short, I don't see anything overly scummy about Sn0's play so far, though I appreciate the effort. As this to me seems like a pretty weak case (didn't detect TOO much OMGUS but I guess it's a possibility?) I expect more from you, and preferably something a little more valuable.
With your claims that posting about lurkers are useless, will you be lynching an active poster today?
|
Mandalor and Sylencia it seems as though pressure works, doesn't it?
Waiting to hear something besides game theory from you, Sylencia. Mandalor has at least made a commitment which sits well with me, though I'd still like to see more from him eventually.
|
On February 12 2013 11:01 warbaby wrote:
You asked me a question, so I answered you. My stance on you is null, so of course I have the ability to change my stance later. That's not a back door, that's called making up my mind when I have sufficient evidence.
The way you're analyzing my response is... bizarre. You need to chill out and think rationally, not come up with the most tenuous of associations and strained explanations for motivations when people do simple things like answer your questions directly.
If you want my general opinion on geript, well it's only like 24h into the game. So far his contributions aren't stellar, but neither are anybody else's (including yourself). I'm certainly not going to claim he's scum based on the available evidence this early in the game (like you seem so eager to do, to anybody, which could be a bit scummy).
I think voting Sylencia makes more sense right now than anybody else.
Why?
|
On February 12 2013 11:05 warbaby wrote:
Reasons I think sylencia is "scummy": his posts are minimal and blendy. But he has more than zero posts, so it could be possible to say we're lynching him as a lurker. There is still 50% of D1 left, so I want to see what more he posts. Sevryn and (less so) Mandalor are in the same category right now, IMO.
All these accusations of active players being scum around aren't completely bad, but none of them are really making sense to me right now in D1.
Problem with this is, warbaby, is you're really just echoing exactly what I and other members have been saying for hours already. You have contributed nothing new to the thread and upon viewing your filter, you jump on whatever bandwagon seems best to you at the time.
Zarepath makes a case on me? FoS.
(Then you go on to talk about 'false dichotomies' and I don't even know what you were talking about. You either think I'm suspicious or you don't.)
LA comes up? Vote 9-bit.
Except of course you contradict yourself right after:
You're right, we shouldn't consolidate LAL votes until much closer to the deadline. But what is even the point of putting 1 vote on each lurker? It's not going to make them feel much pressure if there's (at that time) no chance of them actually being lynched.
Anyway, you are right that we shouldn't consolidate now. I didn't think of that -- I'm trying to get work done today and I'm not paying 100% attention to the game right now (I work Mon-Fri 9-5 EST).
I want to see a case from you; at the very least something more concrete then following everything everyone else has already laid the groundwork for. Be your own man!
Note that I'm pressuring you because I want to see something positive come out of you; I'm inclined to agree with Mocsta's analysis of bad town. Stop focusing on defending yourself because you only make yourself look worse.
|
|
|
Warbaby you still haven't addressed my concerns from last page.
I'm pretty sure that this would come a long way in changing Mocsta's opinion of you, but the longer you go without addressing this, the harder it is for me to deny that maybe Mocsta is right.
On other news, geript's last post was a thorough defense of himself from Mocsta's assault, yet he has said nothing more regarding his vote on me. The last things he pointed out regarding me were weak affirmations of everything zarepath already pointed out, and his only original point was
His last post is more of the same. While I still don't like Mocsta so far, your case is better and his last post nails it in for me. Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 05:31 WaveofShadow wrote:
Now as far as I'm concerned, LAL. Glurio basically fitting to his MO from last game rings alarm bells for me much more strongly than a 9-bit or Macheji lynch, I must admit. There are others however, who have not even done the bare minimum in my eyes, namely Sylencia who jump on the warbaby train and disappears, and Sevryn who has contributed nothing worthy of note so far.
In my LAL spirit though, until I see something, I'm going to stick with it.
Ummm what? So, you're seeing alarm bells and aren't interested in putting pressure on them. Instead you're more interested in deflecting towards anyone else? You have clearly no interest in trying to make a case whatsoever or in doing any analysis. ##change vote waveofshadow
I've already made my choice to put pressure on the no-post lurker I have chosen. Would you rather I flip-flop voting in the span of an hour like you just because someone brought up a superior case and you can hide behind it? I have done plenty of analysis since then
+ Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 08:58 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 08:46 glurio wrote:Let's take a look at sn0, shall we? He has a total of 26 posts since the game started. I'll now spoiler all posts with actual content that isn't discussing the english language or talking about lurkers. (Why i don't count these i'll explain later). + Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 00:19 Sn0_Man wrote:
Warbaby looks scummy, but I don't see how you lynch somebody this active day 1. FWIW he looked something like this last game (although he was doing a lot more "scumhunting" and a lot less "plz don't lynch me I townie for sure")
For what it's worth mocsta I think that you too are looking kinda similar to the last game I played with you (minus a key difference in a post a while back about lynching lurkers and scum vs bad town). And we know what that entails.
What I really want are introductory posts from our remaining players 9-bit, severyn and macheji. Well, that and for warbaby to lose his victim card somewhere so that he stops playing it. On February 12 2013 01:55 Sn0_Man wrote:
Personally, I think geript is getting a bit of a free ride with a bunch of low-content posts designed to look "active" without really helping town or pushing much of an agenda. Long post to follow once I finish it (be warned). On February 12 2013 02:21 Sn0_Man wrote:My review of geript: At the start of the game (utterly disregarding pre-game), geript leads with some lighthearted banter-style posts, pretty much continuing the pre-game: + Show Spoiler [Fluff Posts] +On February 11 2013 09:38 geript wrote:
/confirm
/this time for realz
Both geript and warbaby are self admitted to be terrible. In the interest in addition through subtraction, I suggest people make an argument as to which is better to keep.
##vote warbaby On February 11 2013 09:47 geript wrote:
@Warbaby, did Mr. Bimble tell you to post that? That out of the way, geript proceeds with some "content" posts. These are short posts that seem primarily aimed at, well, establishing a non-fluff presence in town. They seem pretty null to me. + Show Spoiler [warning: this one is decently large] +On February 11 2013 09:51 geript wrote:
Mocsta: four people one way or another have responded in the negatory to RNG vote. That in the least is enough to negate the usefulness of RNG vote. Please cease your discussion of RNG as it is more likely to be a waste of time (both posting and rereading) at this point. On February 11 2013 09:58 geript wrote:
@Cora can we please keep the tone constructive. Turning people directly towards an emotional response is worthless right now.
@Mcosta please reread my post. I did not say it was a majority at all, just that it was enough to negate any perceived value of RNG. On February 11 2013 10:29 geript wrote:
My point was thus: should everyone else adhere to RNG, 4 votes represents a voting majority in most cases. This it is better to ignore RNG as the benefits it has/may have (dependent on viewpoint) are negated by an outside majority. /done with talking about RNG. On February 11 2013 12:00 geript wrote:
@Sn0_man. If the English discussion/correction was irrelevant, why post it? On February 11 2013 12:30 geript wrote:
I find it to be a rhetorical question in that things irrelevant to the game aren't worth discussing.
My WB vote is just an opening I wanted to try out that got outpaced by RNG. I for one am fine with addition by subtraction as a policy as I feel it is the basis for both the Lynch All Lurkers policy--in that lurkers add little to nothing-- and is the basis of scum hunting--in that they tend to actively try to detract from discussion through inaction, burying and misdirection. On February 11 2013 12:46 geript wrote:
I mean that the general concept of it: make the town better by removing the person(s) with the least qualitative additions. We are either removing detractors (thus net gain) or removing scum (actual gain).
## change vote unvote On February 11 2013 13:22 geript wrote:
I would argue that removing room to hide is important as it forces scum to constantly be better than the guy in last place. If scum can in fact beat the curve so to speak, then it's the bottom end's fault for not making their role/side clear. I wouldn't blame to top end for voting out scummiest/least town-like in that case. I would argue least qualitative = least town-like; note that's qualitative not quantitative. Bare minimum does not automatically equal least qualitative. Having established his interest in "Addition by Subtraction" (a legitimate idea, though poorly explained), he moves on to his one big post (also his first post today). + Show Spoiler [Geript's big post] +On February 12 2013 01:11 geript wrote:I do think warbaby is town. On points 1 and 2: While this is a newbie game, I don't think that taking his townie claim or referencing 36 as anything other than a null read. Sorry, but I'm not seeing the point you're making in 4 either. As I read: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:54 warbaby wrote:
Since we've both posted plenty, how about we not post for a while? more as trying to get the town as a whole involved rather than have Mcosta posting incessantly as he has been. While I agree on point 3, that warbaby hasn't really partaken in scum hunting, I don't think that this is a good measure of town v scum 6 hours into D1. To be honest, your case feels more like a gag. My concern would moreso be Mocsta. 1. He seems unconcerned as to who to throw towards the vote While some may read it as him aggressively trying to test the town, I read his posts and various switches and tests as just trying to see where he can gain traction. As well, he jumps on the first person having any real traction. 2. He doesn't even read his own posts First, he calls Warbaby's generic opening scummy when it's null at best. Next he tacks on his own important notes, and finally he calls Warbaby's initial post null. 3. He has diarrhea of the keyboard Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:55 Mocsta wrote:
Post consolidation definitely important. No need to hear every thought. But this is no excuse for lurking either. Additionally, he brings ups the post consolidation point which he actively avoids. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:52 Mocsta wrote:
Did not realise 4 people represented a majority in this game.
Why dont you give others a chance to post their own thoughts instead of trying to forcefully influence them before they have spoken.
Are you trying for a dictatorship here or something? Here he's accusing me, in effect, of running for mayor all while pushing his RNG agenda heavily. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 14:15 Mocsta wrote:\
I thought you said you were going to take a break from posting anyways.... Blames warbaby for coming back to post 2 times after 'taking a break' when Mocsta has posted 8. At best, all this comes off as unintentional bad play. At worst it's an overexcited scum player. I find the latter more believable and either way I feel better about lynching him currently than lynching a lurker. A few things to highlight in the post above: 1) A town read on warbaby. While he gives OK reasons for a null read, I didn't really see any justification for "I do think warbaby is town". 2) A target that is distinctly not "addition by subtraction" based. Mocsta isn't a low-content poster. Sure most of his posts are bleh but at least he is making them. 3) Most of geript's points are based on ad-hominem attacks on mocsta and his style rather than on his play and contributions. I mean, I don't like Mocsta or his style either, but I think this game he has begun making real contributions to town. Rather than outline stuff that is scummy, geript is focusing on more peripheral stuff. Basically, I thought that yesterday, geript said a bunch of nothing while trying to look active, then today he made a big bullshit case trying to look like he was contributing. Not really clear scum, but not enough good things to deserve the easy ride he has had. I'm not voting him because I don't see the value in voting 30+ hours pre-deadline, and I thing "FoS"s are retarded, but I will say that geript has my attention. PS: geript's entire filter is in there minus his most recent fluff post. just btw. On February 12 2013 05:12 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 04:57 geript wrote:
@sn0_man
What do you think are Mocsta's town contributions? What are the 'scummy things' Mocsta has done that you think I'm avoiding? Thats a long-ass filter you just asked me to read. The short version: He made a post a while back about the difference between lynching bad town and scum, which was spot on and actually was quite opposite of what scum would be telling noobs. Plus I think that he could easily have gotten away with a much more deceptive, scum motivated theory that I don't think town would have properly analysed. Plus he has avoided making super-ultra-ridiculously BS cases (something he did a lot of last time I played with him). It isn't that I have a strong town read, but I'm definitely leaning town here. Plus I still want to lynch a lurker today and slim this down to a game where everybody is contributing. BTW Glurio is squarely on my list of lurkers right now at 2 posts (no better than the 0-posters). On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
@Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name. Thats a total of 5 out of 26 If you include the one liner #2. Now let's look at some of his posts. Heres one quoted for your convenience. + Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 05:12 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 04:57 geript wrote:
@sn0_man
What do you think are Mocsta's town contributions? What are the 'scummy things' Mocsta has done that you think I'm avoiding? Thats a long-ass filter you just asked me to read. The short version: He made a post a while back about the difference between lynching bad town and scum, which was spot on and actually was quite opposite of what scum would be telling noobs. Plus I think that he could easily have gotten away with a much more deceptive, scum motivated theory that I don't think town would have properly analysed. Plus he has avoided making super-ultra-ridiculously BS cases (something he did a lot of last time I played with him). It isn't that I have a strong town read, but I'm definitely leaning town here. Plus I still want to lynch a lurker today and slim this down to a game where everybody is contributing. BTW Glurio is squarely on my list of lurkers right now at 2 posts (no better than the 0-posters). I bolded the odd part. Why wouldn't scum tell the town what exactly they should be looking for and just avoid exactly these things? Since Sn0 spotted the seemingly non-scum-motivated theory how come he thinks he wouldn't have spotted the much more deceptive scum-motivated theory? On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
@Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name. So I would up my game if i roll scum again, but i'm not so i'm a scummy lurker? What? That doesn't even make sense. If I up my game now am i scum? If i won't i'm a scummy lurker? WIFOM Now let's get to all the lurker posts, i won't quote them all, just read the filter it's most of his posts. It's the easiest thing in the world to point to lurker. Be it the no-post lurker or the few-post lurker which, according to sn0, are actually worse then the no-post lurker. Everyone can do it. I can just look into the thread every hour, post something about the guy with the lowest post count, tell everyone he only has X posts. After that i start pointing out the other lurkers, because hey don't forget about them. And then theres always the thing about recent games where at some point of the game one of the scum players lurked. If you really want me to do that, it wouldn't be a problem, but i try to actually contribute something with my posts. Not bury my filter in useless posts about lurkers. Honestly glurio, I don't think your case really holds water, I appreciate the analysis though. You talk about how it's the easiest think in the world to point to a low or no-post lurker but you make a case about how only 5 of Sn0's posts are useful? Wouldn't that make him an active lurker? Then you accuse him of WIFOM, and frankly I'm ready to just ignore all WIFOM cases brought up because it really gets us nowhere. More likely in this case to be a factor of bad town than scum (see my case as example). It looks as though his WIFOM was on accident and was really just looking for a way to paint you as scummy. This is null. As for his lurker posts, maybe I'm biased because I agree with him somewhat, but I don't see how bringing up points about low post count lurkers is not contributing. If anything massive wall-of-text posts drawing attention away from important targets and baseless accusations are more likely to be distractions since they are more difficult to follow and require much more analysis. In short, I don't see anything overly scummy about Sn0's play so far, though I appreciate the effort. As this to me seems like a pretty weak case (didn't detect TOO much OMGUS but I guess it's a possibility?) I expect more from you, and preferably something a little more valuable. With your claims that posting about lurkers are useless, will you be lynching an active poster today?
+ Show Spoiler + On February 12 2013 11:18 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 11:05 warbaby wrote:
Reasons I think sylencia is "scummy": his posts are minimal and blendy. But he has more than zero posts, so it could be possible to say we're lynching him as a lurker. There is still 50% of D1 left, so I want to see what more he posts. Sevryn and (less so) Mandalor are in the same category right now, IMO.
All these accusations of active players being scum around aren't completely bad, but none of them are really making sense to me right now in D1. Problem with this is, warbaby, is you're really just echoing exactly what I and other members have been saying for hours already. You have contributed nothing new to the thread and upon viewing your filter, you jump on whatever bandwagon seems best to you at the time. Zarepath makes a case on me? FoS. (Then you go on to talk about 'false dichotomies' and I don't even know what you were talking about. You either think I'm suspicious or you don't.) LA comes up? Vote 9-bit. Except of course you contradict yourself right after: Show nested quote +You're right, we shouldn't consolidate LAL votes until much closer to the deadline. But what is even the point of putting 1 vote on each lurker? It's not going to make them feel much pressure if there's (at that time) no chance of them actually being lynched.
Anyway, you are right that we shouldn't consolidate now. I didn't think of that -- I'm trying to get work done today and I'm not paying 100% attention to the game right now (I work Mon-Fri 9-5 EST). I want to see a case from you; at the very least something more concrete then following everything everyone else has already laid the groundwork for. Be your own man! Note that I'm pressuring you because I want to see something positive come out of you; I'm inclined to agree with Mocsta's analysis of bad town. Stop focusing on defending yourself because you only make yourself look worse.
so I'm interested to see if you still find me inherently scummy and why.
|
On February 12 2013 13:03 Sylencia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 12:23 warbaby wrote:
Someone with 2 or 3 crappy posts is scummier to me than the current active posters. You can't seriously say that considering the posts I made were targetting you. You don't have an objective view when it comes to things regarding you and your attitude towards anyone who accuses you of anything is the worst. I'm not going to argue against the quantity of posts or my lack of discussion so far but your attitude is pissing me off.
Wait....what?
Did I miss something?
Uh...welcome back Sylencia but wtf did that come from? When did he ever say you were targeting him??
Boy oh boy here I thought you posting might remove your aura of scumminess...
|
On February 12 2013 15:02 geript wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 14:53 Mocsta wrote:
Evaluating day1 play is scum hunting too in my mind because its about discussng refinement AND is an opportuntiny for those less confident in making cases to chip in and start thinking logically.
As long as evaluation doesnt stop pressure from occuring. Thumbs up from me Considering your and Cora's attitudes, I don't think either of you believe that at all.
Well looky who's back ladies and gentlemen!
Care to address this?
On February 12 2013 12:51 WaveofShadow wrote:Warbaby you still haven't addressed my concerns from last page.I'm pretty sure that this would come a long way in changing Mocsta's opinion of you, but the longer you go without addressing this, the harder it is for me to deny that maybe Mocsta is right. On other news, geript's last post was a thorough defense of himself from Mocsta's assault, yet he has said nothing more regarding his vote on me. The last things he pointed out regarding me were weak affirmations of everything zarepath already pointed out, and his only original point was Show nested quote + His last post is more of the same. While I still don't like Mocsta so far, your case is better and his last post nails it in for me. On February 12 2013 05:31 WaveofShadow wrote:
Now as far as I'm concerned, LAL. Glurio basically fitting to his MO from last game rings alarm bells for me much more strongly than a 9-bit or Macheji lynch, I must admit. There are others however, who have not even done the bare minimum in my eyes, namely Sylencia who jump on the warbaby train and disappears, and Sevryn who has contributed nothing worthy of note so far.
In my LAL spirit though, until I see something, I'm going to stick with it.
Ummm what? So, you're seeing alarm bells and aren't interested in putting pressure on them. Instead you're more interested in deflecting towards anyone else? You have clearly no interest in trying to make a case whatsoever or in doing any analysis. ##change vote waveofshadow I've already made my choice to put pressure on the no-post lurker I have chosen. Would you rather I flip-flop voting in the span of an hour like you just because someone brought up a superior case and you can hide behind it? I have done plenty of analysis since then + Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 08:58 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 08:46 glurio wrote:Let's take a look at sn0, shall we? He has a total of 26 posts since the game started. I'll now spoiler all posts with actual content that isn't discussing the english language or talking about lurkers. (Why i don't count these i'll explain later). + Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 00:19 Sn0_Man wrote:
Warbaby looks scummy, but I don't see how you lynch somebody this active day 1. FWIW he looked something like this last game (although he was doing a lot more "scumhunting" and a lot less "plz don't lynch me I townie for sure")
For what it's worth mocsta I think that you too are looking kinda similar to the last game I played with you (minus a key difference in a post a while back about lynching lurkers and scum vs bad town). And we know what that entails.
What I really want are introductory posts from our remaining players 9-bit, severyn and macheji. Well, that and for warbaby to lose his victim card somewhere so that he stops playing it. On February 12 2013 01:55 Sn0_Man wrote:
Personally, I think geript is getting a bit of a free ride with a bunch of low-content posts designed to look "active" without really helping town or pushing much of an agenda. Long post to follow once I finish it (be warned). On February 12 2013 02:21 Sn0_Man wrote:My review of geript: At the start of the game (utterly disregarding pre-game), geript leads with some lighthearted banter-style posts, pretty much continuing the pre-game: + Show Spoiler [Fluff Posts] +On February 11 2013 09:38 geript wrote:
/confirm
/this time for realz
Both geript and warbaby are self admitted to be terrible. In the interest in addition through subtraction, I suggest people make an argument as to which is better to keep.
##vote warbaby On February 11 2013 09:47 geript wrote:
@Warbaby, did Mr. Bimble tell you to post that? That out of the way, geript proceeds with some "content" posts. These are short posts that seem primarily aimed at, well, establishing a non-fluff presence in town. They seem pretty null to me. + Show Spoiler [warning: this one is decently large] +On February 11 2013 09:51 geript wrote:
Mocsta: four people one way or another have responded in the negatory to RNG vote. That in the least is enough to negate the usefulness of RNG vote. Please cease your discussion of RNG as it is more likely to be a waste of time (both posting and rereading) at this point. On February 11 2013 09:58 geript wrote:
@Cora can we please keep the tone constructive. Turning people directly towards an emotional response is worthless right now.
@Mcosta please reread my post. I did not say it was a majority at all, just that it was enough to negate any perceived value of RNG. On February 11 2013 10:29 geript wrote:
My point was thus: should everyone else adhere to RNG, 4 votes represents a voting majority in most cases. This it is better to ignore RNG as the benefits it has/may have (dependent on viewpoint) are negated by an outside majority. /done with talking about RNG. On February 11 2013 12:00 geript wrote:
@Sn0_man. If the English discussion/correction was irrelevant, why post it? On February 11 2013 12:30 geript wrote:
I find it to be a rhetorical question in that things irrelevant to the game aren't worth discussing.
My WB vote is just an opening I wanted to try out that got outpaced by RNG. I for one am fine with addition by subtraction as a policy as I feel it is the basis for both the Lynch All Lurkers policy--in that lurkers add little to nothing-- and is the basis of scum hunting--in that they tend to actively try to detract from discussion through inaction, burying and misdirection. On February 11 2013 12:46 geript wrote:
I mean that the general concept of it: make the town better by removing the person(s) with the least qualitative additions. We are either removing detractors (thus net gain) or removing scum (actual gain).
## change vote unvote On February 11 2013 13:22 geript wrote:
I would argue that removing room to hide is important as it forces scum to constantly be better than the guy in last place. If scum can in fact beat the curve so to speak, then it's the bottom end's fault for not making their role/side clear. I wouldn't blame to top end for voting out scummiest/least town-like in that case. I would argue least qualitative = least town-like; note that's qualitative not quantitative. Bare minimum does not automatically equal least qualitative. Having established his interest in "Addition by Subtraction" (a legitimate idea, though poorly explained), he moves on to his one big post (also his first post today). + Show Spoiler [Geript's big post] +On February 12 2013 01:11 geript wrote:I do think warbaby is town. On points 1 and 2: While this is a newbie game, I don't think that taking his townie claim or referencing 36 as anything other than a null read. Sorry, but I'm not seeing the point you're making in 4 either. As I read: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:54 warbaby wrote:
Since we've both posted plenty, how about we not post for a while? more as trying to get the town as a whole involved rather than have Mcosta posting incessantly as he has been. While I agree on point 3, that warbaby hasn't really partaken in scum hunting, I don't think that this is a good measure of town v scum 6 hours into D1. To be honest, your case feels more like a gag. My concern would moreso be Mocsta. 1. He seems unconcerned as to who to throw towards the vote While some may read it as him aggressively trying to test the town, I read his posts and various switches and tests as just trying to see where he can gain traction. As well, he jumps on the first person having any real traction. 2. He doesn't even read his own posts First, he calls Warbaby's generic opening scummy when it's null at best. Next he tacks on his own important notes, and finally he calls Warbaby's initial post null. 3. He has diarrhea of the keyboard Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:55 Mocsta wrote:
Post consolidation definitely important. No need to hear every thought. But this is no excuse for lurking either. Additionally, he brings ups the post consolidation point which he actively avoids. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:52 Mocsta wrote:
Did not realise 4 people represented a majority in this game.
Why dont you give others a chance to post their own thoughts instead of trying to forcefully influence them before they have spoken.
Are you trying for a dictatorship here or something? Here he's accusing me, in effect, of running for mayor all while pushing his RNG agenda heavily. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 14:15 Mocsta wrote:\
I thought you said you were going to take a break from posting anyways.... Blames warbaby for coming back to post 2 times after 'taking a break' when Mocsta has posted 8. At best, all this comes off as unintentional bad play. At worst it's an overexcited scum player. I find the latter more believable and either way I feel better about lynching him currently than lynching a lurker. A few things to highlight in the post above: 1) A town read on warbaby. While he gives OK reasons for a null read, I didn't really see any justification for "I do think warbaby is town". 2) A target that is distinctly not "addition by subtraction" based. Mocsta isn't a low-content poster. Sure most of his posts are bleh but at least he is making them. 3) Most of geript's points are based on ad-hominem attacks on mocsta and his style rather than on his play and contributions. I mean, I don't like Mocsta or his style either, but I think this game he has begun making real contributions to town. Rather than outline stuff that is scummy, geript is focusing on more peripheral stuff. Basically, I thought that yesterday, geript said a bunch of nothing while trying to look active, then today he made a big bullshit case trying to look like he was contributing. Not really clear scum, but not enough good things to deserve the easy ride he has had. I'm not voting him because I don't see the value in voting 30+ hours pre-deadline, and I thing "FoS"s are retarded, but I will say that geript has my attention. PS: geript's entire filter is in there minus his most recent fluff post. just btw. On February 12 2013 05:12 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 04:57 geript wrote:
@sn0_man
What do you think are Mocsta's town contributions? What are the 'scummy things' Mocsta has done that you think I'm avoiding? Thats a long-ass filter you just asked me to read. The short version: He made a post a while back about the difference between lynching bad town and scum, which was spot on and actually was quite opposite of what scum would be telling noobs. Plus I think that he could easily have gotten away with a much more deceptive, scum motivated theory that I don't think town would have properly analysed. Plus he has avoided making super-ultra-ridiculously BS cases (something he did a lot of last time I played with him). It isn't that I have a strong town read, but I'm definitely leaning town here. Plus I still want to lynch a lurker today and slim this down to a game where everybody is contributing. BTW Glurio is squarely on my list of lurkers right now at 2 posts (no better than the 0-posters). On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
@Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name. Thats a total of 5 out of 26 If you include the one liner #2. Now let's look at some of his posts. Heres one quoted for your convenience. + Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 05:12 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 04:57 geript wrote:
@sn0_man
What do you think are Mocsta's town contributions? What are the 'scummy things' Mocsta has done that you think I'm avoiding? Thats a long-ass filter you just asked me to read. The short version: He made a post a while back about the difference between lynching bad town and scum, which was spot on and actually was quite opposite of what scum would be telling noobs. Plus I think that he could easily have gotten away with a much more deceptive, scum motivated theory that I don't think town would have properly analysed. Plus he has avoided making super-ultra-ridiculously BS cases (something he did a lot of last time I played with him). It isn't that I have a strong town read, but I'm definitely leaning town here. Plus I still want to lynch a lurker today and slim this down to a game where everybody is contributing. BTW Glurio is squarely on my list of lurkers right now at 2 posts (no better than the 0-posters). I bolded the odd part. Why wouldn't scum tell the town what exactly they should be looking for and just avoid exactly these things? Since Sn0 spotted the seemingly non-scum-motivated theory how come he thinks he wouldn't have spotted the much more deceptive scum-motivated theory? On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
@Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name. So I would up my game if i roll scum again, but i'm not so i'm a scummy lurker? What? That doesn't even make sense. If I up my game now am i scum? If i won't i'm a scummy lurker? WIFOM Now let's get to all the lurker posts, i won't quote them all, just read the filter it's most of his posts. It's the easiest thing in the world to point to lurker. Be it the no-post lurker or the few-post lurker which, according to sn0, are actually worse then the no-post lurker. Everyone can do it. I can just look into the thread every hour, post something about the guy with the lowest post count, tell everyone he only has X posts. After that i start pointing out the other lurkers, because hey don't forget about them. And then theres always the thing about recent games where at some point of the game one of the scum players lurked. If you really want me to do that, it wouldn't be a problem, but i try to actually contribute something with my posts. Not bury my filter in useless posts about lurkers. Honestly glurio, I don't think your case really holds water, I appreciate the analysis though. You talk about how it's the easiest think in the world to point to a low or no-post lurker but you make a case about how only 5 of Sn0's posts are useful? Wouldn't that make him an active lurker? Then you accuse him of WIFOM, and frankly I'm ready to just ignore all WIFOM cases brought up because it really gets us nowhere. More likely in this case to be a factor of bad town than scum (see my case as example). It looks as though his WIFOM was on accident and was really just looking for a way to paint you as scummy. This is null. As for his lurker posts, maybe I'm biased because I agree with him somewhat, but I don't see how bringing up points about low post count lurkers is not contributing. If anything massive wall-of-text posts drawing attention away from important targets and baseless accusations are more likely to be distractions since they are more difficult to follow and require much more analysis. In short, I don't see anything overly scummy about Sn0's play so far, though I appreciate the effort. As this to me seems like a pretty weak case (didn't detect TOO much OMGUS but I guess it's a possibility?) I expect more from you, and preferably something a little more valuable. With your claims that posting about lurkers are useless, will you be lynching an active poster today? On February 12 2013 11:18 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 11:05 warbaby wrote:
Reasons I think sylencia is "scummy": his posts are minimal and blendy. But he has more than zero posts, so it could be possible to say we're lynching him as a lurker. There is still 50% of D1 left, so I want to see what more he posts. Sevryn and (less so) Mandalor are in the same category right now, IMO.
All these accusations of active players being scum around aren't completely bad, but none of them are really making sense to me right now in D1. Problem with this is, warbaby, is you're really just echoing exactly what I and other members have been saying for hours already. You have contributed nothing new to the thread and upon viewing your filter, you jump on whatever bandwagon seems best to you at the time. Zarepath makes a case on me? FoS. (Then you go on to talk about 'false dichotomies' and I don't even know what you were talking about. You either think I'm suspicious or you don't.) LA comes up? Vote 9-bit. Except of course you contradict yourself right after: Show nested quote +You're right, we shouldn't consolidate LAL votes until much closer to the deadline. But what is even the point of putting 1 vote on each lurker? It's not going to make them feel much pressure if there's (at that time) no chance of them actually being lynched.
Anyway, you are right that we shouldn't consolidate now. I didn't think of that -- I'm trying to get work done today and I'm not paying 100% attention to the game right now (I work Mon-Fri 9-5 EST). I want to see a case from you; at the very least something more concrete then following everything everyone else has already laid the groundwork for. Be your own man! Note that I'm pressuring you because I want to see something positive come out of you; I'm inclined to agree with Mocsta's analysis of bad town. Stop focusing on defending yourself because you only make yourself look worse. so I'm interested to see if you still find me inherently scummy and why.
I believe there are other outstanding opinions against you currently and I'm also interested to see how you respond to those, if you are indeed returning and not lurking. MAYBE FINALLY SOMEONE WILL RESPOND TO MEEEE
Also for the record, Sn0, don't make sound so desperate, 'cause I'm pretty sure my post history proves otherwise.
|
If he responds soon that would be nice as I'm going to bed soon, and have an insanely busy day tomorrow. I'll try to pop in intermittently but I'm not going to be nearly as active as I was today, just sayin'. Would also be nice if we heard from glurio, Sylencia, and maybe a little more outta Sevryn but I'm not getting my hopes up.
I'm 100% certain that of those three and the two no-shows at least one is mafia.
|
On February 12 2013 15:24 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 15:21 WaveofShadow wrote:
If he responds soon that would be nice as I'm going to bed soon, and have an insanely busy day tomorrow. I'll try to pop in intermittently but I'm not going to be nearly as active as I was today, just sayin'. Would also be nice if we heard from glurio, Sylencia, and maybe a little more outta Sevryn but I'm not getting my hopes up.
I'm 100% certain that of those three and the two no-shows at least one is mafia.
Sarcasm not intended. If you have 2 guys who have 1 post to their name. Are you planning to RNG to determine who gets your vote?
My vote's already on someone, no need to.
The question remains as to whether I change it at some point tomorrow. I know some people are all gung-ho about lynching scumreads day 1 but I don't see anything strong enough in anyone to risk lynching an active townie.
I was also thinking this earlier on in the day and I figure now's a good time as any to bring it up.
Zarepath provided excellent analysis right from the get-go on me and then shortly after he disappeared. I know he's not being counted towards lurkers right now, and in all likelihood he will come back, but something strikes me as scummy about providing analysis on easy pickings for the town to jump all over and then disappear as the bandwagon forms and discussion takes things elsewhere.
I don't doubt his analysis was good, in fact as I have stated he picked a lot of mistakes in my play I will learn from, but (at least earlier on today) I was a safe vote considering how scummy I looked. He could accuse me and then leave it up to me to prove my innocence or the rest of the town to pick me apart.
Just some food for thought; I will leave no stone unturned despite my vote currently being where it is.
|
Honestly the thought of zarepath as scum terrifies me because nobody has mentioned him at all today. I REALLY hope he is town.
|
God damn it zarepath I knew that case was too easy.
Regarding your points about geript and WB; I came to similar conclusions earlier on in the day.
+ Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 12:51 WaveofShadow wrote:Warbaby you still haven't addressed my concerns from last page.I'm pretty sure that this would come a long way in changing Mocsta's opinion of you, but the longer you go without addressing this, the harder it is for me to deny that maybe Mocsta is right. On other news, geript's last post was a thorough defense of himself from Mocsta's assault, yet he has said nothing more regarding his vote on me. The last things he pointed out regarding me were weak affirmations of everything zarepath already pointed out, and his only original point was Show nested quote + His last post is more of the same. While I still don't like Mocsta so far, your case is better and his last post nails it in for me. On February 12 2013 05:31 WaveofShadow wrote:
Now as far as I'm concerned, LAL. Glurio basically fitting to his MO from last game rings alarm bells for me much more strongly than a 9-bit or Macheji lynch, I must admit. There are others however, who have not even done the bare minimum in my eyes, namely Sylencia who jump on the warbaby train and disappears, and Sevryn who has contributed nothing worthy of note so far.
In my LAL spirit though, until I see something, I'm going to stick with it.
Ummm what? So, you're seeing alarm bells and aren't interested in putting pressure on them. Instead you're more interested in deflecting towards anyone else? You have clearly no interest in trying to make a case whatsoever or in doing any analysis. ##change vote waveofshadow I've already made my choice to put pressure on the no-post lurker I have chosen. Would you rather I flip-flop voting in the span of an hour like you just because someone brought up a superior case and you can hide behind it? I have done plenty of analysis since then + Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 08:58 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 08:46 glurio wrote:Let's take a look at sn0, shall we? He has a total of 26 posts since the game started. I'll now spoiler all posts with actual content that isn't discussing the english language or talking about lurkers. (Why i don't count these i'll explain later). + Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 00:19 Sn0_Man wrote:
Warbaby looks scummy, but I don't see how you lynch somebody this active day 1. FWIW he looked something like this last game (although he was doing a lot more "scumhunting" and a lot less "plz don't lynch me I townie for sure")
For what it's worth mocsta I think that you too are looking kinda similar to the last game I played with you (minus a key difference in a post a while back about lynching lurkers and scum vs bad town). And we know what that entails.
What I really want are introductory posts from our remaining players 9-bit, severyn and macheji. Well, that and for warbaby to lose his victim card somewhere so that he stops playing it. On February 12 2013 01:55 Sn0_Man wrote:
Personally, I think geript is getting a bit of a free ride with a bunch of low-content posts designed to look "active" without really helping town or pushing much of an agenda. Long post to follow once I finish it (be warned). On February 12 2013 02:21 Sn0_Man wrote:My review of geript: At the start of the game (utterly disregarding pre-game), geript leads with some lighthearted banter-style posts, pretty much continuing the pre-game: + Show Spoiler [Fluff Posts] +On February 11 2013 09:38 geript wrote:
/confirm
/this time for realz
Both geript and warbaby are self admitted to be terrible. In the interest in addition through subtraction, I suggest people make an argument as to which is better to keep.
##vote warbaby On February 11 2013 09:47 geript wrote:
@Warbaby, did Mr. Bimble tell you to post that? That out of the way, geript proceeds with some "content" posts. These are short posts that seem primarily aimed at, well, establishing a non-fluff presence in town. They seem pretty null to me. + Show Spoiler [warning: this one is decently large] +On February 11 2013 09:51 geript wrote:
Mocsta: four people one way or another have responded in the negatory to RNG vote. That in the least is enough to negate the usefulness of RNG vote. Please cease your discussion of RNG as it is more likely to be a waste of time (both posting and rereading) at this point. On February 11 2013 09:58 geript wrote:
@Cora can we please keep the tone constructive. Turning people directly towards an emotional response is worthless right now.
@Mcosta please reread my post. I did not say it was a majority at all, just that it was enough to negate any perceived value of RNG. On February 11 2013 10:29 geript wrote:
My point was thus: should everyone else adhere to RNG, 4 votes represents a voting majority in most cases. This it is better to ignore RNG as the benefits it has/may have (dependent on viewpoint) are negated by an outside majority. /done with talking about RNG. On February 11 2013 12:00 geript wrote:
@Sn0_man. If the English discussion/correction was irrelevant, why post it? On February 11 2013 12:30 geript wrote:
I find it to be a rhetorical question in that things irrelevant to the game aren't worth discussing.
My WB vote is just an opening I wanted to try out that got outpaced by RNG. I for one am fine with addition by subtraction as a policy as I feel it is the basis for both the Lynch All Lurkers policy--in that lurkers add little to nothing-- and is the basis of scum hunting--in that they tend to actively try to detract from discussion through inaction, burying and misdirection. On February 11 2013 12:46 geript wrote:
I mean that the general concept of it: make the town better by removing the person(s) with the least qualitative additions. We are either removing detractors (thus net gain) or removing scum (actual gain).
## change vote unvote On February 11 2013 13:22 geript wrote:
I would argue that removing room to hide is important as it forces scum to constantly be better than the guy in last place. If scum can in fact beat the curve so to speak, then it's the bottom end's fault for not making their role/side clear. I wouldn't blame to top end for voting out scummiest/least town-like in that case. I would argue least qualitative = least town-like; note that's qualitative not quantitative. Bare minimum does not automatically equal least qualitative. Having established his interest in "Addition by Subtraction" (a legitimate idea, though poorly explained), he moves on to his one big post (also his first post today). + Show Spoiler [Geript's big post] +On February 12 2013 01:11 geript wrote:I do think warbaby is town. On points 1 and 2: While this is a newbie game, I don't think that taking his townie claim or referencing 36 as anything other than a null read. Sorry, but I'm not seeing the point you're making in 4 either. As I read: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:54 warbaby wrote:
Since we've both posted plenty, how about we not post for a while? more as trying to get the town as a whole involved rather than have Mcosta posting incessantly as he has been. While I agree on point 3, that warbaby hasn't really partaken in scum hunting, I don't think that this is a good measure of town v scum 6 hours into D1. To be honest, your case feels more like a gag. My concern would moreso be Mocsta. 1. He seems unconcerned as to who to throw towards the vote While some may read it as him aggressively trying to test the town, I read his posts and various switches and tests as just trying to see where he can gain traction. As well, he jumps on the first person having any real traction. 2. He doesn't even read his own posts First, he calls Warbaby's generic opening scummy when it's null at best. Next he tacks on his own important notes, and finally he calls Warbaby's initial post null. 3. He has diarrhea of the keyboard Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:55 Mocsta wrote:
Post consolidation definitely important. No need to hear every thought. But this is no excuse for lurking either. Additionally, he brings ups the post consolidation point which he actively avoids. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:52 Mocsta wrote:
Did not realise 4 people represented a majority in this game.
Why dont you give others a chance to post their own thoughts instead of trying to forcefully influence them before they have spoken.
Are you trying for a dictatorship here or something? Here he's accusing me, in effect, of running for mayor all while pushing his RNG agenda heavily. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 14:15 Mocsta wrote:\
I thought you said you were going to take a break from posting anyways.... Blames warbaby for coming back to post 2 times after 'taking a break' when Mocsta has posted 8. At best, all this comes off as unintentional bad play. At worst it's an overexcited scum player. I find the latter more believable and either way I feel better about lynching him currently than lynching a lurker. A few things to highlight in the post above: 1) A town read on warbaby. While he gives OK reasons for a null read, I didn't really see any justification for "I do think warbaby is town". 2) A target that is distinctly not "addition by subtraction" based. Mocsta isn't a low-content poster. Sure most of his posts are bleh but at least he is making them. 3) Most of geript's points are based on ad-hominem attacks on mocsta and his style rather than on his play and contributions. I mean, I don't like Mocsta or his style either, but I think this game he has begun making real contributions to town. Rather than outline stuff that is scummy, geript is focusing on more peripheral stuff. Basically, I thought that yesterday, geript said a bunch of nothing while trying to look active, then today he made a big bullshit case trying to look like he was contributing. Not really clear scum, but not enough good things to deserve the easy ride he has had. I'm not voting him because I don't see the value in voting 30+ hours pre-deadline, and I thing "FoS"s are retarded, but I will say that geript has my attention. PS: geript's entire filter is in there minus his most recent fluff post. just btw. On February 12 2013 05:12 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 04:57 geript wrote:
@sn0_man
What do you think are Mocsta's town contributions? What are the 'scummy things' Mocsta has done that you think I'm avoiding? Thats a long-ass filter you just asked me to read. The short version: He made a post a while back about the difference between lynching bad town and scum, which was spot on and actually was quite opposite of what scum would be telling noobs. Plus I think that he could easily have gotten away with a much more deceptive, scum motivated theory that I don't think town would have properly analysed. Plus he has avoided making super-ultra-ridiculously BS cases (something he did a lot of last time I played with him). It isn't that I have a strong town read, but I'm definitely leaning town here. Plus I still want to lynch a lurker today and slim this down to a game where everybody is contributing. BTW Glurio is squarely on my list of lurkers right now at 2 posts (no better than the 0-posters). On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
@Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name. Thats a total of 5 out of 26 If you include the one liner #2. Now let's look at some of his posts. Heres one quoted for your convenience. + Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 05:12 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 04:57 geript wrote:
@sn0_man
What do you think are Mocsta's town contributions? What are the 'scummy things' Mocsta has done that you think I'm avoiding? Thats a long-ass filter you just asked me to read. The short version: He made a post a while back about the difference between lynching bad town and scum, which was spot on and actually was quite opposite of what scum would be telling noobs. Plus I think that he could easily have gotten away with a much more deceptive, scum motivated theory that I don't think town would have properly analysed. Plus he has avoided making super-ultra-ridiculously BS cases (something he did a lot of last time I played with him). It isn't that I have a strong town read, but I'm definitely leaning town here. Plus I still want to lynch a lurker today and slim this down to a game where everybody is contributing. BTW Glurio is squarely on my list of lurkers right now at 2 posts (no better than the 0-posters). I bolded the odd part. Why wouldn't scum tell the town what exactly they should be looking for and just avoid exactly these things? Since Sn0 spotted the seemingly non-scum-motivated theory how come he thinks he wouldn't have spotted the much more deceptive scum-motivated theory? On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
@Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name. So I would up my game if i roll scum again, but i'm not so i'm a scummy lurker? What? That doesn't even make sense. If I up my game now am i scum? If i won't i'm a scummy lurker? WIFOM Now let's get to all the lurker posts, i won't quote them all, just read the filter it's most of his posts. It's the easiest thing in the world to point to lurker. Be it the no-post lurker or the few-post lurker which, according to sn0, are actually worse then the no-post lurker. Everyone can do it. I can just look into the thread every hour, post something about the guy with the lowest post count, tell everyone he only has X posts. After that i start pointing out the other lurkers, because hey don't forget about them. And then theres always the thing about recent games where at some point of the game one of the scum players lurked. If you really want me to do that, it wouldn't be a problem, but i try to actually contribute something with my posts. Not bury my filter in useless posts about lurkers. Honestly glurio, I don't think your case really holds water, I appreciate the analysis though. You talk about how it's the easiest think in the world to point to a low or no-post lurker but you make a case about how only 5 of Sn0's posts are useful? Wouldn't that make him an active lurker? Then you accuse him of WIFOM, and frankly I'm ready to just ignore all WIFOM cases brought up because it really gets us nowhere. More likely in this case to be a factor of bad town than scum (see my case as example). It looks as though his WIFOM was on accident and was really just looking for a way to paint you as scummy. This is null. As for his lurker posts, maybe I'm biased because I agree with him somewhat, but I don't see how bringing up points about low post count lurkers is not contributing. If anything massive wall-of-text posts drawing attention away from important targets and baseless accusations are more likely to be distractions since they are more difficult to follow and require much more analysis. In short, I don't see anything overly scummy about Sn0's play so far, though I appreciate the effort. As this to me seems like a pretty weak case (didn't detect TOO much OMGUS but I guess it's a possibility?) I expect more from you, and preferably something a little more valuable. With your claims that posting about lurkers are useless, will you be lynching an active poster today? On February 12 2013 11:18 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 11:05 warbaby wrote:
Reasons I think sylencia is "scummy": his posts are minimal and blendy. But he has more than zero posts, so it could be possible to say we're lynching him as a lurker. There is still 50% of D1 left, so I want to see what more he posts. Sevryn and (less so) Mandalor are in the same category right now, IMO.
All these accusations of active players being scum around aren't completely bad, but none of them are really making sense to me right now in D1. Problem with this is, warbaby, is you're really just echoing exactly what I and other members have been saying for hours already. You have contributed nothing new to the thread and upon viewing your filter, you jump on whatever bandwagon seems best to you at the time. Zarepath makes a case on me? FoS. (Then you go on to talk about 'false dichotomies' and I don't even know what you were talking about. You either think I'm suspicious or you don't.) LA comes up? Vote 9-bit. Except of course you contradict yourself right after: Show nested quote +You're right, we shouldn't consolidate LAL votes until much closer to the deadline. But what is even the point of putting 1 vote on each lurker? It's not going to make them feel much pressure if there's (at that time) no chance of them actually being lynched.
Anyway, you are right that we shouldn't consolidate now. I didn't think of that -- I'm trying to get work done today and I'm not paying 100% attention to the game right now (I work Mon-Fri 9-5 EST). I want to see a case from you; at the very least something more concrete then following everything everyone else has already laid the groundwork for. Be your own man! Note that I'm pressuring you because I want to see something positive come out of you; I'm inclined to agree with Mocsta's analysis of bad town. Stop focusing on defending yourself because you only make yourself look worse. so I'm interested to see if you still find me inherently scummy and why.
WB sort of addressed my issues, but geript has not, instead resorting to threatening to be replaced and growing weary under Mocsta's attacks of him and claiming he doesn't want to defend himself anymore. He mentioned he was going to re-read into it but never did, and now that you've changed your vote I'm wondering if he thinks it's too late to change for fear of it looking scummy or....?
Also I don't even know what to say about glurio anymore. So unbelievably scummy.
I think Mocsta had it earlier when he mentioned this:
So yes, if LAL is enforced I think u just became my recommendation.
I think in a few hours the issues are going to come down to which townies want to vote lurker and which townies want to vote active? Not trying to sound mayor-y here (WE WOULDN'T WANT THAT NOW WOULD WE) but I feel like as a town we should be organized and come to a consensus on this, because there are plenty of lynch choices from either camp imo to gain D1 info.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
