|
On February 27 2013 03:02 thrawn2112 wrote:
so there is a lot of talk about what adam has done, and adam's meta, but everyone is brushing over talking about keir. remember that regardless of how you rate his point against adam.... that point is all he's talked about the whole game. he's also said that thrawn's scum because of meta... not a very hard statement to make. he has done absolutely nothing all game yet somehow lots of you have townreads on him? if you are one of the people who have a town read an keir, pls explain
You always talk about yourself in the third person?
|
On February 27 2013 03:16 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 03:11 thrawn2112 wrote:
i might switch to double lynch if some of the adam voters will too Err, it's instant majority, so unless you won't be around to hammer Keir if he approaches the 8 votes needed to lynch, you can safely make that statement by unvoting. Mind explaining how unconcerned you seemed about the duel? You were around at the time, so give us your story. Did the duel come out of the blue? It did for me as I was reading it. You seem pretty calm: Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 16:45 thrawn2112 wrote:
##Vote: Keirathi
adam mind explaining why you had to call for the duel right now? Mind explaining your thought process at the time?
This tunneling on the idea of the double lynch is incredibly scummy. Let it go, there's no way we're double lynching today, stop dissuading people from placing votes...
I like the idea of a scumhunt challenge, just wish it was actually happening.
|
On February 27 2013 03:36 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 03:19 Alderan wrote:On February 27 2013 03:16 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2013 03:11 thrawn2112 wrote:
i might switch to double lynch if some of the adam voters will too Err, it's instant majority, so unless you won't be around to hammer Keir if he approaches the 8 votes needed to lynch, you can safely make that statement by unvoting. Mind explaining how unconcerned you seemed about the duel? You were around at the time, so give us your story. Did the duel come out of the blue? It did for me as I was reading it. You seem pretty calm: On February 26 2013 16:45 thrawn2112 wrote:
##Vote: Keirathi
adam mind explaining why you had to call for the duel right now? Mind explaining your thought process at the time? This tunneling on the idea of the double lynch is incredibly scummy. Let it go, there's no way we're double lynching today, stop dissuading people from placing votes... I like the idea of a scumhunt challenge, just wish it was actually happening. Interesting. Why is it scummy to want to double lynch?
Got off on a rant the first time I answered this question and accidentally closed the tab. Do you really need to explain to you why lynching twice on the first day is less effective than lynching once?
|
On February 27 2013 04:10 yamato77 wrote:
The first lynch is the least informed lynch, and you want to make two of them.
This. Oh and night actions could be valuable tonight. Oh and having a vote count gives more information. Oh and lynching both doesn't force either of them to make good arguments that could be helpful.
Terrible play. Worse than Adam's duel imo.
|
On February 27 2013 05:14 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 04:05 Alderan wrote:On February 27 2013 03:36 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2013 03:19 Alderan wrote:On February 27 2013 03:16 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2013 03:11 thrawn2112 wrote:
i might switch to double lynch if some of the adam voters will too Err, it's instant majority, so unless you won't be around to hammer Keir if he approaches the 8 votes needed to lynch, you can safely make that statement by unvoting. Mind explaining how unconcerned you seemed about the duel? You were around at the time, so give us your story. Did the duel come out of the blue? It did for me as I was reading it. You seem pretty calm: On February 26 2013 16:45 thrawn2112 wrote:
##Vote: Keirathi
adam mind explaining why you had to call for the duel right now? Mind explaining your thought process at the time? This tunneling on the idea of the double lynch is incredibly scummy. Let it go, there's no way we're double lynching today, stop dissuading people from placing votes... I like the idea of a scumhunt challenge, just wish it was actually happening. Interesting. Why is it scummy to want to double lynch? Got off on a rant the first time I answered this question and accidentally closed the tab. Do you really need to explain to you why lynching twice on the first day is less effective than lynching once? No. You need to explain why it's scummy to want it.
It sets the town back a lynch. Period. To advocate setting the town back a night is scummy. I feel like I'm getting trolled, it seems so obvious that a double lynch is a bad idea right now.
You are the ONLY one who believes that they BOTH are extremely scummy. If I'm having a hard time trying to pick one to vote for, we're not killing them both.
|
I have to be getting trolled..... like.... you have to be fucking me....
Lets do this slow.
It is scummy because it advocates these ends:
- less time for discussion
- increased deaths at the time of least information
- dilutes voting and makes patterns more difficult to spot
- decreases motivation for duelers to present cases
Those are all facts. Double lynching does all of the things above. This has to do with what's in the towns best interest, and none of those things are in the towns best interest, thus I don't think it is a good idea.
I'm done with this. We won't be double killing tonight.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:40 Acrofales wrote:
Okay, you finally answered how you think it is scum-motivated. You're completely wrong, but at least you answered why you think no-voting is scum motivated.
It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch.
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa.
Anyway, I'm happy to let this rest, as the discussion has served its purpose: to clarify to me your thought process.
No you're wrong, and you're not even close.
It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch.
Let's assume it take 40 hours to get to a decision. Then we lynch one, get more information. Then we have a mandatory 24 hour night period. Then we get more information. Then we have a 24 selection period (or if Adam is still alive a 3 minute selection period). Then we have another 48 hours to discuss all new information and assess our situation instead of jumping to that point right now.
+ Show Spoiler +
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
Adding an extra voting category allows scum to hide among all 3. Also why would we add a category that would be so beneficial to scum? We set up a double lynch option and its extremely attractive if they know both are town. Allowing people to not vote one way or another is allowing them to lurk which hurts everyone. By even allowing the option for a double lynch we have dispersed our votes even more, making a coherent mafia that much more effective.
It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa.
The motivation should be there regardless. If a guaranteed town is not motivated enough to defend themselves they sure as hell don't give a shit about someone else going down with them. Any added benefit it might have does not compensate the option of a double town loss.
I'm done talking about it. I'm pretty sure I hate a double lynch in every scenario, but I'll be playing it by ear every round. That said this round a double lynch would be inexcusable.
|
Tic toc tic toc.
Adam, Keirath, I need a write up on scum so I can make a decision. Just need some analysis, your best analysis, to keep you alive in the game.
|
On February 27 2013 06:13 Acrofales wrote:More about double lynch, because I feel like arguing and Alderan clearly doesn't get it: + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:59 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:40 Acrofales wrote:
Okay, you finally answered how you think it is scum-motivated. You're completely wrong, but at least you answered why you think no-voting is scum motivated.
It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch.
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa.
Anyway, I'm happy to let this rest, as the discussion has served its purpose: to clarify to me your thought process.
No you're wrong, and you're not even close. Show nested quote +It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch. Let's assume it take 40 hours to get to a decision. Then we lynch one, get more information. Then we have a mandatory 24 hour night period. Then we get more information. Then we have a 24 selection period (or if Adam is still alive a 3 minute selection period). Then we have another 48 hours to discuss all new information and assess our situation instead of jumping to that point right now. Except that double-lynching doesn't magically stop the rest of the game from playing out. This whole thing you bring up is only relevant if double-lynching decreases the mislynches we can make. In the *most standard* situation, this is not the case. + Show Spoiler +
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
Adding an extra voting category allows scum to hide among all 3. Also why would we add a category that would be so beneficial to scum? We set up a double lynch option and its extremely attractive if they know both are town. Allowing people to not vote one way or another is allowing them to lurk which hurts everyone. By even allowing the option for a double lynch we have dispersed our votes even more, making a coherent mafia that much more effective. You realize it's instant majority, right? Therefore unless it goes up to 6-6, there could be up to 5 players who don't vote without stating any opinion at all in your "ideal" scenario. If it's extremely attractive to vote for a double-lynch, then you should be jumping at the opportunity of giving scum that option, shouldn't you? It'll catch them all out! If they both flip town you just lynch down the list of apathetic double-lynchers for the win! Show nested quote +It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa. The motivation should be there regardless. If a guaranteed town is not motivated enough to defend themselves they sure as hell don't give a shit about someone else going down with them. Any added benefit it might have does not compensate the option of a double town loss. I'm done talking about it. I'm pretty sure I hate a double lynch in every scenario, but I'll be playing it by ear every round. That said this round a double lynch would be inexcusable. Player X is voting for lynch candidate A: he clearly wants him dead far more than lynch candidate B. Player Y is voting for neither and has stated he thinks both are scum, with a slight preference for lynching candidate B. Which of these two players do you think is more easily swayed into voting for candidate B? I think player Y. Therefore, which of these two players is giving the candidate MORE motivation to be scumhunting and actively proving he's townie? The one that he has a hope of swaying? Or the one who has made up his mind and is just waiting to kill him?
Let's get a little different convo going.
If I vote double lynch, and we make it happen, and it ends up being 2 town, will you agree to duel Dienosore as soon as the next selection period starts?
|
On February 27 2013 06:29 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 06:16 Alderan wrote:On February 27 2013 06:13 Acrofales wrote:More about double lynch, because I feel like arguing and Alderan clearly doesn't get it: + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:59 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:40 Acrofales wrote:
Okay, you finally answered how you think it is scum-motivated. You're completely wrong, but at least you answered why you think no-voting is scum motivated.
It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch.
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa.
Anyway, I'm happy to let this rest, as the discussion has served its purpose: to clarify to me your thought process.
No you're wrong, and you're not even close. Show nested quote +It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch. Let's assume it take 40 hours to get to a decision. Then we lynch one, get more information. Then we have a mandatory 24 hour night period. Then we get more information. Then we have a 24 selection period (or if Adam is still alive a 3 minute selection period). Then we have another 48 hours to discuss all new information and assess our situation instead of jumping to that point right now. Except that double-lynching doesn't magically stop the rest of the game from playing out. This whole thing you bring up is only relevant if double-lynching decreases the mislynches we can make. In the *most standard* situation, this is not the case. + Show Spoiler +
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
Adding an extra voting category allows scum to hide among all 3. Also why would we add a category that would be so beneficial to scum? We set up a double lynch option and its extremely attractive if they know both are town. Allowing people to not vote one way or another is allowing them to lurk which hurts everyone. By even allowing the option for a double lynch we have dispersed our votes even more, making a coherent mafia that much more effective. You realize it's instant majority, right? Therefore unless it goes up to 6-6, there could be up to 5 players who don't vote without stating any opinion at all in your "ideal" scenario. If it's extremely attractive to vote for a double-lynch, then you should be jumping at the opportunity of giving scum that option, shouldn't you? It'll catch them all out! If they both flip town you just lynch down the list of apathetic double-lynchers for the win! Show nested quote +It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa. The motivation should be there regardless. If a guaranteed town is not motivated enough to defend themselves they sure as hell don't give a shit about someone else going down with them. Any added benefit it might have does not compensate the option of a double town loss. I'm done talking about it. I'm pretty sure I hate a double lynch in every scenario, but I'll be playing it by ear every round. That said this round a double lynch would be inexcusable. Player X is voting for lynch candidate A: he clearly wants him dead far more than lynch candidate B. Player Y is voting for neither and has stated he thinks both are scum, with a slight preference for lynching candidate B. Which of these two players do you think is more easily swayed into voting for candidate B? I think player Y. Therefore, which of these two players is giving the candidate MORE motivation to be scumhunting and actively proving he's townie? The one that he has a hope of swaying? Or the one who has made up his mind and is just waiting to kill him? Let's get a little different convo going. If I vote double lynch, and we make it happen, and it ends up being 2 town, will you agree to duel Dienosore as soon as the next selection period starts? Why you want that to happen immediately? Isn't one of the reasons you don't want a double-lynch because it will eat up discussion time? Why do you want to throw away another 24 hours of it? Other than that, if Dieno doesn't start pcking up his game I have no problem with him dying, although he's far from my strongest scum read (still Thrawn, and Sylencia promoted to second).
I have 0 intention of doing it, wanted to see how you responded.
Do you not have any worries the Thrawn thing has been too easy, and if it wasn't for Adam he would have been almost unanimously sent to the duel?
|
On February 27 2013 06:53 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 06:32 Alderan wrote:On February 27 2013 06:29 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2013 06:16 Alderan wrote:On February 27 2013 06:13 Acrofales wrote:More about double lynch, because I feel like arguing and Alderan clearly doesn't get it: + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:59 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2013 05:40 Acrofales wrote:
Okay, you finally answered how you think it is scum-motivated. You're completely wrong, but at least you answered why you think no-voting is scum motivated.
It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch.
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa.
Anyway, I'm happy to let this rest, as the discussion has served its purpose: to clarify to me your thought process.
No you're wrong, and you're not even close. Show nested quote +It doesn't decrease time for discussion. In fact, it increases it, we have to wait for the full 48 hours to get a no-lynch. Let's assume it take 40 hours to get to a decision. Then we lynch one, get more information. Then we have a mandatory 24 hour night period. Then we get more information. Then we have a 24 selection period (or if Adam is still alive a 3 minute selection period). Then we have another 48 hours to discuss all new information and assess our situation instead of jumping to that point right now. Except that double-lynching doesn't magically stop the rest of the game from playing out. This whole thing you bring up is only relevant if double-lynching decreases the mislynches we can make. In the *most standard* situation, this is not the case. + Show Spoiler +
Doesn't dilute voting either, unless you think when two players flip, you can't learn anything from the fact that people voted for BOTH of them.
Adding an extra voting category allows scum to hide among all 3. Also why would we add a category that would be so beneficial to scum? We set up a double lynch option and its extremely attractive if they know both are town. Allowing people to not vote one way or another is allowing them to lurk which hurts everyone. By even allowing the option for a double lynch we have dispersed our votes even more, making a coherent mafia that much more effective. You realize it's instant majority, right? Therefore unless it goes up to 6-6, there could be up to 5 players who don't vote without stating any opinion at all in your "ideal" scenario. If it's extremely attractive to vote for a double-lynch, then you should be jumping at the opportunity of giving scum that option, shouldn't you? It'll catch them all out! If they both flip town you just lynch down the list of apathetic double-lynchers for the win! Show nested quote +It INREASES motivation for duelers to present cases. We CANNOT no-lynch, so the best they can hope for is that "the other one" gets lynched. If people start leaning towards lynching Adam, then Keirathi is suddenly under very little pressure. As long as there's a serious chance he'll get lynched, he is in deep shit and should be convincing us to let him off the hook and JUST lynch Adam. Same goes for vice versa. The motivation should be there regardless. If a guaranteed town is not motivated enough to defend themselves they sure as hell don't give a shit about someone else going down with them. Any added benefit it might have does not compensate the option of a double town loss. I'm done talking about it. I'm pretty sure I hate a double lynch in every scenario, but I'll be playing it by ear every round. That said this round a double lynch would be inexcusable. Player X is voting for lynch candidate A: he clearly wants him dead far more than lynch candidate B. Player Y is voting for neither and has stated he thinks both are scum, with a slight preference for lynching candidate B. Which of these two players do you think is more easily swayed into voting for candidate B? I think player Y. Therefore, which of these two players is giving the candidate MORE motivation to be scumhunting and actively proving he's townie? The one that he has a hope of swaying? Or the one who has made up his mind and is just waiting to kill him? Let's get a little different convo going. If I vote double lynch, and we make it happen, and it ends up being 2 town, will you agree to duel Dienosore as soon as the next selection period starts? Why you want that to happen immediately? Isn't one of the reasons you don't want a double-lynch because it will eat up discussion time? Why do you want to throw away another 24 hours of it? Other than that, if Dieno doesn't start pcking up his game I have no problem with him dying, although he's far from my strongest scum read (still Thrawn, and Sylencia promoted to second). I have 0 intention of doing it, wanted to see how you responded. Do you not have any worries the Thrawn thing has been too easy, and if it wasn't for Adam he would have been almost unanimously sent to the duel? No. If he's scum, then both Marv and I were gunning for him correctly. Scum has to be very careful of defending that.
That's enough buddying Marv for one day, big dog.
|
On February 27 2013 07:27 Acrofales wrote:
Alderan, do you think I'm scum?
I had suspicions on you early, but I those have kind of subsided. I'm certainly not putting you in the confirmed list, more null, but you're asking question I want answered so no reason to push you right now. You were just the only one talking in the thread, and like I said, I'm not completely sold.
|
Ok catching up on the thread, I'm going to respond to stuff as I see it.
On February 27 2013 23:47 Acrofales wrote:Time for some math: Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 22:36 HiroPro wrote:Duel 1 Vote Count Adam4167 (4): yamato77, Sylencia, cDgCorazon, Dienosore Keirathi (2): thrawn2112, Hapahauli 7 votes needed to lynch. If a majority is not reached in 18 hours by 07:40 GMT (+00:00), both duelists will die.
I added gonzaw and Vivax's filters in the "Important Posts" spoiler. Add Zarepath to the Keirathi side of things, he claims he's just not voting because he doesn't want a lynch before all due diligence is done. Double Lynch (3): Acro, Iamp, Oats No vote: Alderan, Snarfs Alderan: you have not taken a stance at all, except to fight VERY hard against a double lynch. Why are you so vague about who you think is scum? Snarfs: your conclusion seems to be that Keirathi needs to die. Why is your vote not where your mouth is?
Regardless, the temporary conclusion is that a double lynch is going to happen. To prevent that you're going to have to convince a minimum of 2 people: people on the other candidate that they are voting the wrong way. people voting for a double lynch that the other candidate is town. Get to it. I'm happy with the outcome as it is right now. Lets see what this discussion brings us!
TBH I don't think either are scum. I've been trying to make heads or tails of it, and waiting on the analysis post from each. Adam posted his and it largely seems pretty good analysis. Yes it's disappointing that it took this long, but doesn't make him seem scummy.
That said I'm purposely holding my vote and I'm placing it wherever will prevent a double lynch. I don't think its a good idea, I don't have a decent scum read on either, I'd rather have Adam still alive probably but if its him or both dead, I'm choosing him.
I just don't know how you all can be that on board with a double lynch. That is a horrendous policy, why am I the only one talking about it?
|
On February 28 2013 00:59 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 00:53 zarepath wrote:On February 28 2013 00:50 Oatsmaster wrote:
Wait, Cora so what do you think about Adam saying that he would do it again?
Do you think that scum would EVER say that??? He has stated, in no uncertain terms, that he KNOWS it was horribly anti-town. Why would a townie EVER say that?
A townie would say that, scum wouldn't.
|
On February 28 2013 01:03 zarepath wrote:
Alderan, will you vote for Keirathi then? Adam looks more town than Keirathi does.
I will vote for whoever my vote would kill.
On the one hand if we kill Adam we set a precedent that early out of line duels make you appear more scummy and thus people won't want to do them.
But then on the other hand Adam's reads have been better than Keirathi's imo.
Again, number one goal is that they both don't die.
|
On February 28 2013 01:07 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 01:05 Alderan wrote:On February 28 2013 00:59 Acrofales wrote:On February 28 2013 00:53 zarepath wrote:On February 28 2013 00:50 Oatsmaster wrote:
Wait, Cora so what do you think about Adam saying that he would do it again?
Do you think that scum would EVER say that??? He has stated, in no uncertain terms, that he KNOWS it was horribly anti-town. Why would a townie EVER say that? A townie would say that, scum wouldn't. A townie would say "What I did was anti-town, but I will do it again without hesitation"? Anyway, this seems to imply you have a town read on Adam, yet are completely happy lynching him and are just waiting to hammer whoever is hammerable. Explain your town read on Keirathi, or die next cycle.
I don't know who you think you are taking on the leader of the town position, because your play thus far has been so anti town it's ridiculous.
First off, I believe he's entirely too disinterested to be playing scum. It's always been my experience that scum early game are usually deliberate, you don't see a lot of afk time from when they are under pressure because it's easy enough to get your scum mates to write a couple responses you can just throw up. Just wreaks of a townie that's given up.
On the other hand he has offered absolutely nothing in the way of analysis, which is exactly why I said I would rather Adam live. It's not a complicated situation, I have townish reads on both, thus don't want both to die, if I had to chose it'd be Keirathi. The fact that we can't even choose who we want to kill because you've muddied up the waters so much with the fucking double lynch talk is absolutely asinine.
|
On February 28 2013 01:14 zarepath wrote:
EBWOP: Forgot that Alderan is voting for nobody right now. I still think he should vote Keirathi.
Yeah I'll move it to Keirathi and I'll just be ready to switch if need be.
##Vote: Keirathi
|
On February 28 2013 01:19 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 01:10 zarepath wrote:On February 28 2013 00:59 Acrofales wrote:On February 28 2013 00:53 zarepath wrote:On February 28 2013 00:50 Oatsmaster wrote:
Wait, Cora so what do you think about Adam saying that he would do it again?
Do you think that scum would EVER say that??? He has stated, in no uncertain terms, that he KNOWS it was horribly anti-town. Why would a townie EVER say that? I can't find that statement anywhere... I found a statement where he suggests people will give him a hard time post-game. Which means he knows he did something wrong, doesn't it? Now what did he do wrong? Well, that's in the post he quotes (quoted by me, and I quoted it from CT): Show nested quote +
I find scum rarely do this, as they would rather just pounce on the person without actually giving them a chance to explain their behaviour, just in case the person has a reason for what they're doing, then the scum has to go find someone else to fabricate a case on. This is fake-able as scum, yes, but giving people a chance to explain themselves makes your job much harder.
This means he knows it was wrong. AKA anti-town. And yet, he is unrepentant and warns that he will do it again.
So Acrofales you believe Keirathi is town then?
|
On February 28 2013 01:55 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 01:49 zarepath wrote:
Adam MAY be an evil 3P, and that's based on speculation. I'm not entirely against mentioning the possibility, but potentially mislynching two townies Day 1, the day we have the least amount of information, BASED on the possibility of a third party when the OP doesn't even mention any specific third party roles, is idiotic.
Do you know what's even more idiotic? Complaining about how awful Adam's early duel was, how much info/work it lost for town, etc., and then declaring a policy duel against anybody who asks you for your reads. That makes you just as anti-town as Adam if you were to fulfill that -- that would be two days in a row that town is robbed of deciding, together, who needs to be up for lynch. You think town can survive that? That's a HORRIBLE policy, and it's honestly just as bad as your horrible double-lynch. Nowhere do I say I will duel them the second I can. Anyway, you know how townies can avoid getting policy lynched? By doing what townies should do and reading the thread. You realize that not reading the thread is a sign you are not trying to figure the game out? Guess who isn't trying to figure the game out? Yeah, that's right! ScumI had said about 5 times that I thought Adam was 3P, yet you didn't read it. Are you sure you're town?
Stop fucking theory crafting about some bull shit 3rd party at the expense of the town.
Thrawn that was absolutely the scummiest thing that has been posted in this game.
|
Yamato should come back and switch. He was very against a double lynch as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
