|
On February 13 2013 07:28 cDgCorazon wrote:
However, if you were veteran, you would act as such because you would be wanting to bait the scum attacking you and saving everyone from the N1 kill. Is that your plan?
It's the only blue role where I could see you trying to look townie ridiculously hard.
I'm back for the evening.
I was actually just going to ask at what point speculation about blue roles usually begins. Is this a post N1-D2 thing so we can see what went down on N1? In all honesty it's kind of nice there hasn't been much blue speculation so far to cloud up everyone's judgments like in NMM 36 D1.
Also since you're here, Cora what do you think of my scumreads, specifically in regards to the glurio/Sevryn scum dichotomy?
|
On February 13 2013 07:29 warbaby wrote:
I explained why I won't role claim, but why I'm happy to alignment claim. Scum does not know my role yet. If I'm VT, then scum can skip lynching me tonight, which gives them a higher chance of hitting a blue. Claiming blue now would be insane because it would guarantee my lynch tonight. How do you not understand this?
Honestly it almost seems like you're scum, and trying to trick me into claiming my role instead of just my alignment.
Because I assume you do understand the difference between a role and an alignment.
The problem is when you claim your "alignment", it means you are either VT or Blue.
If you are VT, you would've said it to avoid being killed.
If you are blue, you would not have tried to look so pro-town that the scum would try to kill you.
The problem is that I can't believe your alignment claim because anyone can go out and say that they are pro-town. It looks scummy when you are trying so hard too look town. You were trying too hard before my case, and now you aren't trying hard enough. You're having a hard time finding the balance between looking way too town and looking way too scum. This is why I am incredibly suspicious of you and why my vote is on you at this moment.
You put yourself in a position where you had to either back down or claim something, and you did neither one very convincingly.
|
On February 13 2013 07:29 warbaby wrote:
I explained why I won't role claim, but why I'm happy to alignment claim. Scum does not know my role yet. If I'm VT, then scum can skip lynching me tonight, which gives them a higher chance of hitting a blue. Claiming blue now would be insane because it would guarantee my lynch tonight. How do you not understand this?
Honestly it almost seems like you're scum, and trying to trick me into claiming my role instead of just my alignment.
Because I assume you do understand the difference between a role and an alignment.
BTW, this may be my favourite post to date from WB, except for the soft scum claim on Cora. Reeks of OMGUS.
|
On February 13 2013 07:34 cDgCorazon wrote:
If you are VT, you would've said it to avoid being killed.
If you are blue, you would not have tried to look so pro-town that the scum would try to kill you.
What? Scum does not know who is VT and who is blue yet. If I claim VT or blue, scum will gain information. As town (which scum already knows), I will not do anything to give scum information unless it helps town. Anyone claiming their role on D1 is not helping town. It's that simple.
|
On February 13 2013 07:35 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 07:29 warbaby wrote:
I explained why I won't role claim, but why I'm happy to alignment claim. Scum does not know my role yet. If I'm VT, then scum can skip lynching me tonight, which gives them a higher chance of hitting a blue. Claiming blue now would be insane because it would guarantee my lynch tonight. How do you not understand this?
Honestly it almost seems like you're scum, and trying to trick me into claiming my role instead of just my alignment.
Because I assume you do understand the difference between a role and an alignment. BTW, this may be my favourite post to date from WB, except for the soft scum claim on Cora. Reeks of OMGUS.
I'm not OMGUS'ing Cora, I'm trying to explain to him why claiming any sort of role on D1 is a terrible idea.
|
On February 13 2013 07:36 warbaby wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 07:34 cDgCorazon wrote:
If you are VT, you would've said it to avoid being killed.
If you are blue, you would not have tried to look so pro-town that the scum would try to kill you. What? Scum does not know who is VT and who is blue yet. If I claim VT or blue, scum will gain information. As town (which scum already knows), I will not do anything to give scum information unless it helps town. Anyone claiming their role on D1 is not helping town. It's that simple.
And that's not necessarily true, WB. Vet can force a N1 shot on him to protect town as was previously stated. Watcher or tracker could very easily do the same thing as they aren't really hard protect roles and baiting a N1 kill could gain winning information for the town if done properly. As this is a newbie game I don't really expect much of the former, but it is possible for an early blue claim to help town; you just have to be able to play around it.
|
EBWOP: I don't really expect much of [b] either[/]
|
If you're saying that claiming blue is a bad idea, you should've just backed down instead of saying "I'm not mafia rofl".
I don't believe the claim that you are "town oriented". It doesn't make sense to say that right out of the gate. Your emotional play afterwards really had me suspicious, along with sheeping onto every idea that came by. It has me suspicious.
Your play has completely contradicted your town claim, which is why I don't believe it.
|
Corazon, since you apparently haven't read my filter, maybe I can help.
+ Show Spoiler [links to posts] +
The point I'm making is that, while I've had to defend myself against silly attacks all game (just like last game), I've stood firm on my opinions about who are the scummiest lurkers, and who I'd be willing to lynch. I've given my thoughts on other people's "cases" against active players, without being inflammatory or derailing discussion. I'm not casting my vote around looking for a bandwagon, I'm evaluating who I think is lurking in a scummy way and voting for them. And my vote is staying where it is unless I or someone else can make a real scum case, or sylencia picks up his contributions.
|
On February 13 2013 07:36 warbaby wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 07:34 cDgCorazon wrote:
If you are VT, you would've said it to avoid being killed.
If you are blue, you would not have tried to look so pro-town that the scum would try to kill you. What? Scum does not know who is VT and who is blue yet. If I claim VT or blue, scum will gain information. As town (which scum already knows), I will not do anything to give scum information unless it helps town. Anyone claiming their role on D1 is not helping town. It's that simple.
Im back 
This is seriously suspect
You never took this line of reasoning UNTIL I outlined it here:
On February 12 2013 17:25 Mocsta wrote:Frankly, with the information we *had* I saw nothing wrong with Sylencia logic statement. Show nested quote +Fact is, soft-claiming VT is always a stupid play. People are not going to trust you; and it gives mafia someone *NOT* to hit (if seeking blue roles). In poker terms, the pot odds arent worth calling. If you re-examine with the information *POST-EVENT*; i still see nothing wrong with the assumptions Sylencia took. Show nested quote +VT is still a stupid play; and warbaby is a guy who doesnt want to be treated as stupid. So it means I rule this out of the equation. TL;DRI dont have a problem with Sylencia logic then, and I still dont. Claiming VT early is stupid, and creates less targets for scum to choose to eliminate blues. Hence, It really becomes: did he really soft-claim blue role; or did he make an all-in play based on his MVP last game.
|
On February 13 2013 07:29 warbaby wrote:
I explained why I won't role claim, but why I'm happy to alignment claim.
I'm back again, and I don't understand how alignment claims ever help. Seeing as how it'd either be town claiming town, or scum/3rd party claiming town. That gets us nowhere.
|
On February 13 2013 06:21 glurio wrote:
I'd prefer lynching one of the lurkier players, sevryn, syl or mandalor right now.
Glurio
Please detail why YOUR contributions are better than the three people listed above.
I am shocked that you would turn your back on your own kind; because as far as I am concerned:
YOU are a lurker, which is what I believe you are nominating the above three for.
*ironic* is it not?
|
On February 13 2013 07:58 warbaby wrote:
The point I'm making is that, while I've had to defend myself against silly attacks all game (just like last game), I've stood firm on my opinions about who are the scummiest lurkers, and who I'd be willing to lynch. I've given my thoughts on other people's "cases" against active players, without being inflammatory or derailing discussion. I'm not casting my vote around looking for a bandwagon, I'm evaluating who I think is lurking in a scummy way and voting for them. And my vote is staying where it is unless I or someone else can make a real scum case, or sylencia picks up his contributions.
OH REALLY?
On February 12 2013 00:38 zarepath wrote:
##Vote: WaveofShadow
On February 12 2013 00:45 warbaby wrote:
FoS WaveofShadow
I'm not voting until we've had more time for the remaining lurkers to report in, and Shadow can respond to zarepath.
I agree with zarepath that the people actually voting me aren't looking that scummy; compared to those just trawling for a convenient bandwagon.
On February 12 2013 01:02 Mandalor wrote:
##Vote: 9-BiT
On February 12 2013 01:16 warbaby wrote:
I prefer voting lurkers over scum D1. I don't like voting for null reads because null reads are not scum? Voting to pressure a null read is OK, but it helps if you back up your pressure vote with a decent case.
##Vote: 9-Bit
Normally I wouldn't tell anybody "do xyz and I'll unvote you" but in this case, simply make a few posts (that aren't blatantly scummy) and I'll unvote you.
|
On February 13 2013 08:02 Sylencia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 07:29 warbaby wrote:
I explained why I won't role claim, but why I'm happy to alignment claim. I'm back again, and I don't understand how alignment claims ever help. Seeing as how it'd either be town claiming town, or scum/3rd party claiming town. That gets us nowhere.
WaveofShadow claimed town as well:
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. Obviously the Day is still young but I expect more from my Town as the day progresses.
Why aren't you getting on his ass about it? Are you capable of making posts that aren't tunneling me?
|
Guys; the vote count is seriously split
This is my idea for the situation
Some camps want a lurker; others want the scummiest person
I recommend we have 2 lynch candidates
i.e. 1 agreed representative for the lurkers
1 agreed representative for the actives
I hope this will help to consolidate votes
Thoughts?
|
On February 11 2013 13:28 cDgCorazon wrote: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. Obviously the Day is still young but I expect more from my Town as the day progresses. I also like the soft town claim (I bolded it).
And you blame me for not reading your filter...
|
On February 13 2013 08:05 cDgCorazon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 07:58 warbaby wrote:
The point I'm making is that, while I've had to defend myself against silly attacks all game (just like last game), I've stood firm on my opinions about who are the scummiest lurkers, and who I'd be willing to lynch. I've given my thoughts on other people's "cases" against active players, without being inflammatory or derailing discussion. I'm not casting my vote around looking for a bandwagon, I'm evaluating who I think is lurking in a scummy way and voting for them. And my vote is staying where it is unless I or someone else can make a real scum case, or sylencia picks up his contributions.
OH REALLY?Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:45 warbaby wrote:
FoS WaveofShadow
I'm not voting until we've had more time for the remaining lurkers to report in, and Shadow can respond to zarepath.
I agree with zarepath that the people actually voting me aren't looking that scummy; compared to those just trawling for a convenient bandwagon.
Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 01:16 warbaby wrote:
I prefer voting lurkers over scum D1. I don't like voting for null reads because null reads are not scum? Voting to pressure a null read is OK, but it helps if you back up your pressure vote with a decent case.
##Vote: 9-Bit
Normally I wouldn't tell anybody "do xyz and I'll unvote you" but in this case, simply make a few posts (that aren't blatantly scummy) and I'll unvote you.
I unvoted 9-bit because I realized I didn't want to lynch a zero-post player. And I didn't think I was going to pressure him any further. I've voted for 2 people in 48 hours. That is hardly casting my vote about.
Would you please calm down? I'm responding to you calmly, and you're freaking out and tunneling me hardcore.
|
|
|
On February 13 2013 08:08 cDgCorazon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:28 cDgCorazon wrote: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. Obviously the Day is still young but I expect more from my Town as the day progresses. I also like the soft town claim (I bolded it). And you blame me for not reading your filter...
Dude, I was responding to sylvencia, not you. Please calm down.
|
I read most of warbaby's filter and I really don't see the case for lynching him besides a screwup where HE DIDN"T EVEN KNOW WHY WE THOUGHT HE CLAIMED BLUE and of course his terrible "I WAS MVP LAST GAME BOW TO ME" play which he dropped once he realized it was retarded. He won't get my vote today.
@cora you really don't (to me) look like you are trying too hard to improve off of last game.
I still want to lynch low-content semi-lurkers who simply aren't helping town (and therefore live in a space where they are more likely to be scum). The two that stand out to me are glurio and Sevryn.
Glurio has in the past little while managed to just enough for me to prefer a Sevryn lynch. With Sevryn's less-than-1 page filter, all he has managed is to attack (imo) the only other real lynch candidate: glurio. Even if he isn't scum, he isn't contributing enough for me to keep him around.
I will listen to anybody who wants me to lynch glurio, or else any REALLY CONVINCING cases on someobody else. However, with less than 2 hours to lynch I'd like to get my vote down now. Town needs to a) all vote and b) start consolidating please.
##Vote: Sevryn
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
