EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XXXVIII - Page 6
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On March 14 2013 11:47 Sn0_Man wrote: This is the bullshit that makes me want to lynch you... I understand your sentiment. I get that you don't like how I am typing/talking. Stop getting pissed about it and start thinking about what I'm saying. For "Thar be treasure at the ends of that dark Dead Sea." | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On March 09 2013 04:57 nobodywonder wrote: Chew, you're UK you don't have much time to respond. I'd really like you to explain yourself. Ok, you believe that pressuring lurkers is good, but you're hesitant, since it's early game. So valid, yet you never pressure anyone. You're just content to sit back. As town, why would you do so? As scum, it's a perfect justification for lurking and waiting. This is so wishy-washy, your logic is confounded by however this, however that. Make a stand 1. Lynch lurkers maybe bad 2. Vote lurker may put pressure, I agree 3. If pressured lurker replies, then good 4. you summarize: lurkers could be questioned for reads, opinions? with pt 4, I'm wondering why don't you pursue lurkers then. You should some of questioning for reads, opinions and voting. All these actions contrast with your sudden vote on me You reserved so much judgment about getting lurkers, yet you are so eager to simply follow, at that time's Taco's vote on me. Hardcore sheep. If you're town, the only explanation is that you're a noobie, but I doubt it because I believe if you're town, you would show your thought process. Against me your only evidence is that I am scummy because I complain about lurkers and I have no contributions. But you, yourself, reserved judgment lurkers and have few contributions. Why are you so against my complaining? 1. Your sudden reversal from no lynch but pressure lurkers to vote me feels scummy. I feel it's a too convienent way for you to stay away from attention with your reserved judgment on lurkers. That combined with your lack of following your own policy seems very contradictory and if not scummy, is poor town play. 2. You havent actively contributed, and have only replied to questions. As town, why? You need to be proactive and get going. Stick your neck out. 3. Attacking me is an easy and convenient way out and is not consistent with your 1) lurker policy 2) lack of active contributions 4. Lastly you poked me with a question, I answered it. That would have a great moment for you to contribute and say what you feel about my then scumread Krafla to show your towniness. Why would you ever avoid an opportunity to contribute to the discussion. and now you have fell off the face of the earth after this vote. Rainbow and Meat called you out on this. I call out you too, you are one of my top scumreads. Explain yourself ##Unvote ##ChewOnStu I think it's important that you read this because NW does a very good break down on why Chew was stupid/bad/inconsistent. If you want to make the argument that I'm scum from that then go ahead, but it's an important read to setup the Luneth case. On March 07 2013 17:26 MLuneth wrote: While I believe that nobodywonder's actions have been suspicious and that his case is less than stellar, I feel that it is foolish to lynch someone who has made an addition to the game (albeit at this point small) should not be lynched over a person that has simply lurked for 2 days straight. I feel I need to point out that Frogon, as well as Krafla and Matriarch (to a lesser extent) have all input a similar amount of information as nobodywonder. EBWOP Forgot to add TheRavensName to above list of people that have done little At this stage with so little info to go on I can only flip a coin on whether to vote Artic Daishi or bduddy Coin said ##Vote: Arctic Daishi This post (with the following edit post) is scummy for multiple reasons. 1. NW's case was a good one for which Chew to which should have responded because it laid out where Chew was being stupid and inconsistent 2. Luneth calls NW suspicious. Why? There's literally nothing in the short filter previous to that to make us think that Luneth was suspicious of NW. There's also no reason given for finding NW suspicious other than shitting on NW's case. 3. Luneth takes what I read as a lynch all lurkers stance. Again, lurker lynching is an easy stance to take from either side, but it's very hard to be consistent with. He points out 4 players who have added little but DOESN"T try to pressure them in any way. Luneth follows up on point 3 by saying: On March 08 2013 14:51 MLuneth wrote: At this time I was more interested in getting everyone talking. How is telling people that they're lurking in any way trying to interact or force them to de-lurk/start posting? That makes no sense. If you want to interact with lurkers, then you need to interact with them. If they refuse to interact, then you choose to let them be modkilled/replaced OR you lynch them. There is no in between. Calling lurkers out, especially en masse, does nothing. 4. Luneth refuses to try and pressure said 4 players instead opting to try and put a "pressure vote" on a complete lurker. How is this in any way consistent? I'll call out these people, but not those people. I'm interested in trying to pressure this guy, but not that guy. It feels nothing but non-committal to me and not trying to get a positive atmosphere where many players can be under pressure for various reasons. So at point 1 Luneth argues that NW's case on Chew was bad. At points 3 and 4 Luneth wants to lynch/pressure lurkers. Where is point 5? On March 07 2013 17:26 MLuneth wrote: At this stage with so little info to go on I can only flip a coin on whether to vote Artic Daishi or bduddy On March 08 2013 14:51 MLuneth wrote: My view on Arctic Daishi at the time of Voting for him: My vote on Diashi was a coin flip between Daishi/BDuddy/ChewOnStu because none had made posts at this point. Notice the subtle change? I did. I don't give a damn who the coin selected, but he goes on to slam NW for putting forth effort and making a reasonable case that should be responded to only to change his mind and include Chew in the "Lurkers who need to get the fuck off the couch and start putting effort in" category. THIS IS NOT A TOWNY TRAIT! I don't see any town reason for discouraging effort only to surmise that Chew was a reasonable target after all. 6. There's a very key thing that needs to be pointed out regarding Luneth's vote on MLuneth: On March 08 2013 14:52 MLuneth wrote: My view at the time was and still remains is that unless I am confident that there is a high chance of an active person being scum I will Vote for an inactive scummy Lurker Luneth had this in two posts (apparently mis-editing spoilering). This was Luneth's stance and made the point to bold it and make it seen. What does Luneth do? Not vote for the scummy lurker. Not only that, Luneth does nothing to actively try and push NW or create a case against NW. NW was far more townie looking and active than some. Additionally, Luneth has no interest in voting for either of the inactive scummy lurkers aka Arctic/Chew who had votes on them. 7. Let's talk about some real hypocrisy. On March 08 2013 16:29 MLuneth wrote: ##Vote: nobodywonder This vote is basically the result suspiciously targeting lurkers but more importantly the lack of an acceptable coherent defence. Rainbow, it strikes me as odd that while you have accused/pressured people to find out their position on certain matters but your position is not clear. In what circumstances would you lynch a lurker? So targeting lurkers is now suspicious? Wait, isn't that exactly what your points previous have been? Then on top of that ask about when/why another player would lynch a lurker? WTF? 8. The amount of OMGUS in Luneth is great. 9. There's been almost no actual scum hunting from Luneth, just plain sheeping other people's votes/opinions. Implied Guilt On March 07 2013 12:55 MLuneth wrote: Last post was a joke, if that wasn't clear I think that Rainbow stated this first, but I know that when I first read Luneth's </3 post with the vote on Rainbows I instantly took it for a joke and ignored that as a banter post. Needing to explain it as a joke doesn't seem like something town would feel the need to do at all to me. The real problem however is: On March 07 2013 15:11 MLuneth wrote: that was a throwaway vote more than anything Would be very surprised if it doesn't change As this reads to me as wanting to make sure that people knew not to suspect Luneth for a stupid joke vote. I don't have a problem with town keeping a light/jokey atmosphere, but feeling the need to explain a dumb vote twice feels scummy to me. He further follows up to try and explain his AD vote by: On March 08 2013 14:51 MLuneth wrote: My view on Arctic Daishi at the time of Voting for him: To put it simply my Vote was a pressure vote to try and get Arctic to speak up (I'm saying this now because I believe that Arctic Daishi will stay afk). My vote on Diashi was a coin flip between Daishi/BDuddy/ChewOnStu because none had made posts at this point. There's also this real gem of a post here which WoS makes off of a bduddy post regarding OE's soft defenses of Arctic. If you read the included set of quotes they are all by Arctic or Omni which should make the question as to who WoS is asking clear: On March 09 2013 07:45 WaveofShadow wrote: bduddy pointed you out soft defending Daishi. You keep saying we'd learn nothing if he flipped? Well we might learn something about you. We'd certainly also learn something about his voting patterns and we might be able to figure out if the people he was bandwagoning were scum or not. Yet somehow Luneth seems very confused by it when posting: On March 09 2013 07:51 MLuneth wrote: (quoted text) Who was this directed at? Why is Luneth so interested in who's this directed at? Isn't it obvious? The only reasoning that makes sense to me is if Luneth is concerned that WoS is calling out Luneth. Read that filter and read it in context it's really bad. After reviewing things, I feel far more confident in voting MLuneth than Omni. ##unvote ##vote MLuneth | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On March 14 2013 15:55 nobodywonder wrote: ^yee gl geript, nutter butter? yes plz On March 14 2013 15:55 nobodywonder wrote: If you're town, don't be a Taco. Get scumhunting, give us the best scumreads you have ever. seconded | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On March 08 2013 16:08 TheRavensName wrote: Its one of the few things that seems to carry over between versions of this game bduddy. On March 08 2013 16:40 bduddy wrote: You mean the "blue" thing? I get that, having looked at some other Mafia games. But it doesn't match your previous posting style in this game... and the many spelling mistakes you've been making don't match your posting style in general. Again, I think you've been playing dumb. Raven could you explain this to me. I wasn't in the last game that it seems like you and bduddy were in. Could you also detail who was town/scum in that game? | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On March 15 2013 03:51 TheRavensName wrote: I even think that given the amount of time he spends denying and pushing Krafia's blue claim that he could hve seen and pointed out the same braed crumbs I saw when I defende the blue claim, to the roleblocker and wanted to get Krafia lynhed so he cold move the roleblocker to hunting for our jailer. Since he's outed himself, could you point out the blue breadcrumbs because I'm not seeing them? The only ones I saw were in pre-game which don't mean anything to me. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On March 15 2013 04:54 TheRavensName wrote: This is where I mentioned it. PS: Oe your right both times, my bad. On March 10 2013 04:46 Krafla wrote: Good evening all, sorry for my period of absence over the lynch. Well done on catching a scum on Day 1! I'm going to go back and read what happened and then prepare a post for the start of Day 2, I don't see it being productive to share my thoughts in the middle of a night and offer scum something to think about! On March 10 2013 05:41 Krafla wrote: Yeah I realise how bad I look now, so I'm just going to have to try extra hard scum hunting in Day 2. You mean these? That seems especially tenuous at best. Especially considering: On March 10 2013 09:54 Krafla wrote: I did not breadcrumb, I didn't want to risk mafia finding it and I wasn't confident enough in my ability to hide something without it being obvious. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On March 14 2013 10:17 MLuneth wrote: Essentially, if OE is town Geript is very likely maf | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On March 14 2013 09:53 geript wrote: I've been thinking a while and I think this is the main reason why I'm suspicious of Omni. At the end of D1, Artctic was clearly the scummiest lurker around IMO by a wide margin. The points that Raven and WoS re: Arctic had made were pretty clear. Yet, throughout OE's filter even from early on he seems to be defending Arctic and deflecting to Taco. From a town perspective, I can understand why OE found Taco as many of us did, but what I cannot understand from a town perspective ESPECIALLY using 'scummiest lurker' as a guide is why OE would try to shift votes toward Taco who was FAR less scummy that Arctic. I can understand why, from a town perspective, he would want to question seemingly random votes. However I cannot understand why from that viewpoint he would seemingly focus more on random votes on Arctic more than other seemingly random votes. The last point that I can't understand from a town perspective is why he would stop pressuring a lurker to stop lurking once they posted a little bit. His premise is that lurkers are bad for town which is a simple and straight forward position to take from either side. Yet now he's completely lurks. If he (as town) really wants to push people to not lurking, then there is no reason to stop pushing them. From a town perspective with this basis he should be trying hard to fight against lurkers and pressuring them constantly. However, I don't see him doing that at all. While his filter is longer, it doesn't look to me that he's doing more than trying to appear active and helpful. This is the basis of scum: he doesn't follow through on his perceived 'town' agenda--This is scum mentality. He also doesn't try to push his 'town' agenda (scummiest lurker) against the obvious target--Arctic--because it goes against his actual agenda of keeping Scum alive. This makes him Scum. Vote OE. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
##Vote Omni eulogy | ||
| ||
