EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XXXVII - Page 66
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
ObviousOne
United States3704 Posts
| ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On February 16 2013 07:07 zarepath wrote: I'm in favor of cases now versus cases later. Gives people time to digest and react appropriately, instead of insanely. The let's hear it Zare. What do you have? We have 72+ hours before the next lynch we have to make. I think that is plenty of time. However if you want to see cases now, please practice what you preach. | ||
|
TestSubject893
United States774 Posts
| ||
|
ObviousOne
United States3704 Posts
On February 15 2013 10:08 ObviousOne wrote: ##VOTE: Mandalor Can't think of a reason not to. | ||
|
TestSubject893
United States774 Posts
On February 15 2013 23:11 Mocsta wrote: Testuser: I am not sure if we are reading the same thread here? warbaby
However; if you want to assume corazon and I are a team; I am going to have to stop you right there.. Firstly, the only reason association was brought up was because you were looking into corazon; and found it odd I did not want to concentrate on him. This has now been explained twice Again, why is that scum-alignment indicative? You are working off associations founded upon assumptions. Mafia is about flipping one player and then making the associations. Lets work through the logic. Corazon flips town; then what? The entire association case falls apart; unless you are warbaby, then I become de facto scum. Anyone that targets warbaby is scum right... Corazon flips scum; again, then what? How does my interaction today prove I am in a scum team? (Simply, that evidence on it own does not; and fuck me if I am going to have my first mislynch under this condition) The same logic applies with me as the lynch candidate. Fact: One interaction does not make two people scum. If you were not 'essentially' confirmed town; I could say you and Sn0_Man are a scum team because of the glowing review you gave him.... But I didn't (and neither did others), because that is an illogical stance to assume - just like the situation present. Secondly, the only reason this item of association was re-raised was due to the misrepresentation of warbaby Do you want to know why this is an example of misrepresentation?
In reality; I did not mention corazon much throughout Day1. Just as there are others that did not catch my attention. This is the way of a game of forum-mafia. I can go into anyone's filter and find people they have not questioned. What is the point, and why is this alignment indicative - without a red flip I do feel like I must be reading a different thread because not only can no one get my username right, but it seems like half the time people don't even notice when I post something directed at them~ Seriously though, the thing that's scummy about your interaction with Corazon is the way you're doing it, not the interaction itself. Like I said twice, I'm not confident enough with the association to take any actions on it, its just something I was noting; therefore I pointed it out to others as well. Secondly, the only reason this item of association was re-raised was due to the misrepresentation of warbaby This simply isn't true. It has nothing to do with why I thought those actions were suspicious. I don't know why people keep thinking I said things I didn't. Maybe its the different thread things again.... On February 15 2013 23:28 Mocsta wrote: TestUser, can you please clarify who "we" is. I assume you imply town; if so, I am genuinely surprised by this; as I thought I was a proponent of town continuing scum hunting. Further, I am confused by the statement in general, even though it is written plain and simple. Are you inferring: that you disagree with the above comments I directed to warbaby? If you think his questions are reasonable fine; I believe I addressed a majority of them regardless. However: What is concerning to me TestUser; is that you do not seem to notice (or case) warbaby is actually the one who blatantly ignores any criticisms/comments directed his way. I simply do not understand how when two people react, and exhibit the same behaviour; one is reasonable, the other becomes 'something else'? "We" in that post is the town. The reason I treat WB and Cora differently is because they are clearly playing differently. WB has tons of errors in all his posts, posts as if he doesn't read the thread half the time, and everyone has a scum read on him already. Cora does not do those things. As a result, I analyze them differently. + Show Spoiler [Corazon quotes] + On February 16 2013 00:50 cDgCorazon wrote: Testsubject, I literally have two things to say to your pressure on me: 1. Stop using association cases (and getting confirmation bias on everything since the association case) 2. I've already explained why I voted for Glurio. If you have any questions about that post, I'd be happy to answer them. On February 16 2013 00:52 cDgCorazon wrote: Cause I'm trying to deal with an emotional WB and TestUser trying to ask me things I've answered 15 times... On February 16 2013 01:52 cDgCorazon wrote: I just want to say to TestSubject as well: 1. Stop making the same reads as Geript and bring something original to the table. 2. Just because you are confirmed town does not mean you can start making stupid cases and not actually trying. Corazon is just a broken record at this point. All he can say is "I already addressed everyone's concerns, so no one can rightfully be suspicious of me." and "TestSubject is untrustworthy because of confirmation bias". I've said 3 times already that the timing of his vote and the context/wording of will is enough evidence for me to keep him high on my list no matter what his reasoning was. Apparently this is grounds to try and slander the only confirmed town for him, because it seems that's what he's trying to do. He also still hasn't responded to me calling him out for putting words in my mouth and misusing termonoly in an attempt defame me. Despite my how much Corazon's play is annoying me right now, zare is right. We need to stop giving the lurkers so much slack let's focus some effort there and stop beating up on the people who actually post for a little while. | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
I did not say anything about you being "untrustworthy", I said your case on me did not have any merit because of the association crap. I don't understand your logic behind the difference between Warbaby and I is that I act calm under pressure and WB doesn't. Why would a town not act calm under pressure if they have nothing to hide? You have some backwards logic here. Being all nervous under pressure= You have something to hide Not being nervous under pressure= You either don't have something to hide or you are really good at keeping calm It's a null point that invites a whole bunch of WIFOM. | ||
|
TestSubject893
United States774 Posts
On February 16 2013 08:20 cDgCorazon wrote: TS you need to tell me what you want me to answer from my reasoning behind voting Glurio. You're not giving me any room to defend myself. The reason I'm sounding like a broken record is because you won't give me any room to defend myself. Do you want me to keep requoting my justification post? I don't think so. Ask me specific questions about my vote. Saying you don't like it and then not asking me further questions is a scummy case. I did not say anything about you being "untrustworthy", I said your case on me did not have any merit because of the association crap. I don't understand your logic behind the difference between Warbaby and I is that I act calm under pressure and WB doesn't. Why would a town not act calm under pressure if they have nothing to hide? You have some backwards logic here. Being all nervous under pressure= You have something to hide Not being nervous under pressure= You either don't have something to hide or you are really good at keeping calm It's a null point that invites a whole bunch of WIFOM. How many times do I have to say it? I don't care what your say your reasoning was, your actions were suspicious to me. There's nothing really to discuss. I have no questions; your actions spoke for themselves. Mocsta asked why I treated you and WB with different standards. The answer is that you two play differently. I was just answering his question. | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On February 16 2013 08:39 TestSubject893 wrote: How many times do I have to say it? I don't care what your say your reasoning was, your actions were suspicious to me. There's nothing really to discuss. I have no questions; your actions spoke for themselves. Mocsta asked why I treated you and WB with different standards. The answer is that you two play differently. I was just answering his question. Why is it "damned if you do, damned if you don't"? That's the same stuff I did that took all of the momentum out of the WB case... | ||
|
warbaby
United States510 Posts
On February 16 2013 08:12 TestSubject893 wrote: Despite my how much Corazon's play is annoying me right now, zare is right. We need to stop giving the lurkers so much slack let's focus some effort there and stop beating up on the people who actually post for a little while. Agreed. I'm done making accusations against active players for the time being. Shockingly, we need to hear more from mandalor, sylencia, and (less so) sevryn. It's actually pretty great that sevryn made some posts on page 65, and I think they were higher quality than those of sylencia on page 59. But I think all 3 are still lurking to an unacceptable degree. Reading all of their filters the thing that most stands out to me is sylencia's claim to have been roleblocked. Why would a lurking scum suddenly pop up to fake claim a roleblock, especially given the probability someone would counter his claim, and then make him look really scummy? I'm not ready to just give sylencia town cred for his claim, but I'd be interested to know what others think of his claim (besides speculation on RB vs JK). | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On February 16 2013 09:01 warbaby wrote: Agreed. I'm done making accusations against active players for the time being. Shockingly, we need to hear more from mandalor, sylencia, and (less so) sevryn. It's actually pretty great that sevryn made some posts on page 65, and I think they were higher quality than those of sylencia on page 59. But I think all 3 are still lurking to an unacceptable degree. Reading all of their filters the thing that most stands out to me is sylencia's claim to have been roleblocked. Why would a lurking scum suddenly pop up to fake claim a roleblock, especially given the probability someone would counter his claim, and then make him look really scummy? I'm not ready to just give sylencia town cred for his claim, but I'd be interested to know what others think of his claim (besides speculation on RB vs JK). Umm...confirmation bias? | ||
|
warbaby
United States510 Posts
| ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
Why are you assuming Syl is lurking scum? | ||
|
warbaby
United States510 Posts
No, it was a hypothetical explaining why I think his claim could be real. | ||
|
warbaby
United States510 Posts
On February 16 2013 09:03 cDgCorazon wrote: I'm sorry, I need to explain that more. Why are you assuming Syl is lurking scum? I'm not, I was using it as part of a hypothetical scenario to explore whether or why he might fake claim. | ||
|
ObviousOne
United States3704 Posts
| ||
|
warbaby
United States510 Posts
| ||
|
ObviousOne
United States3704 Posts
| ||
|
warbaby
United States510 Posts
Sylencia - So very little effort in his filter. roleblock claim might just be a lazy uncaring scum tactic to gain town cred. Doesn't follow up at all why he should get town cred, though, which I guess looks good. Sevryn - Seems to be that he puts a little more effort into his posts. Posts like this show that sevryn may actually be interested in moving the discussion forward, instead of speculating on stuff that hasn't happened yet. Mandalor - His filter seems to have the most effort behind it. When he does make posts, they seem to be on point and at least somewhat helpful to the greater discussion. There's still a lot of time left before we need to lynch anybody on D3. It's hard to lead a discussion on a void, but hopefully we get some more posts from these three to work with over the 72+ hour period before D3 end. | ||
|
ObviousOne
United States3704 Posts
 | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
| ||
| ||
