|
On March 21 2013 13:37 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 13:35 TranceStorm wrote:On March 21 2013 13:34 WaveofShadow wrote:On March 21 2013 13:32 TranceStorm wrote:
Holy hell. Where were you to post that case a few hours ago Wiggles? Its certainly the best case I've seen yet for this lynch -> Ace has done next to nothing this game besides post a few vague suspicions and jump onto the VE lynch. The most damning evidence I've seen yet, as Wiggles points out, is the fact that Ace says "We aren't going to stop scumhunting: that would be dumb.", but does no analysis or anything else during the entire day! Voting for VE certainly cannot have been too taxing on his part, why not help the town out? This is the scummiest shit I've ever seen. I am convinced no one in this game knows how to play town or something. Really? How is Ace defensible? What's wrong with Wiggles' case against him? It had nothing to do with Ace being defensible or Wiggles' case, it's your shameless +1 without adding anything at all. 'HAY GUYS DIS CASE RL GOOD I SHOW U WHY' and then you literally repeat what is in Wriggle's post. Which of you guys was it who found TS scummy again? I can't keep track of anything anymore in this thread.
It was me.
& I agree, this is the same rationale
|
On March 21 2013 13:38 TestSubject893 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 13:29 Mocsta wrote:On March 21 2013 13:23 TestSubject893 wrote:On March 21 2013 13:19 Mocsta wrote:
DP
another way of looking at the vote is this
Town are looking to vote scum *always*
Scum ideally are looking fro *safe* votes..
safe is based on thread sentiment, and can imply starting, joining or hammering the bandwagon
To me, GM posts were townie, until the martyring.. the combination of lurking + martyring, gave credence to a vote on GM. Based on how shitty/leaderless Day1 was, i can understand a vote on GM. This is simply not true. Tons of people saw his posts as scummy, including myself. The fact that your entire push for me is based on this shows that the whole thing is flawed. Disagree.. Your Day1 filter has more posts relating to gk than GM. you show no interest in the GM push till after the martyr. I dont see how can you say what i said is not true. GM flipped town/blue. And my opinion was, GM was pretty fuckn town until the martyr episode.. the combination of that + lurking, to me would give me consideration to vote him given the candidates on the table. So get off your high horse.. you saw an easy opportunity to have ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY and took it. Kenpachi +1'd, Testsubject +1'd, Wos +1'd. kenpachi i got no idea bout . another then i heard hes a troll This is WoS martyr follow up vote On March 18 2013 13:18 WaveofShadow wrote:
As for GM, he holds something in common with zare, in that he also brings up suspicion against me, calls me scummier than DarthPunk, doesn't back it up, and then ignores me completely. His AHA! post reeks of bad towny play (stupid gambit is stupid), but isn't Grey supposed to be a mafia veteran? That kind of 'trap' is something that zare tried to spring on the rest of the town AS a townie in NMM 37 but it only ended up muddling up the whole thread for that day and accomplishing nothing. Greymist's trap seems like an easy way to hide behind the fact that he couldn't be assed to contribute in a positive way and to jump on the first person to call him out for being gone (whether for legit reasons or not) as others have pointed out.
##Vote GreYMisT Whilst i disagree with the conclusion..(and so did the flip) it is still a *reasonable* mindset to have on the situation. I dont see a problem with this vote. Contrast with TestSubject On March 18 2013 12:52 TestSubject893 wrote:
Alright, so I finally got caught up. Here's what I've got to say.
GreYMisT seems to be doing the martyr thing we saw vivax and prome do in LX. Its a scummy play and I think its our greatest evidence against anyone right now, so I'll be voting for him.
##Vote: GreYMisT This is a guy who doesnt give a shit.. wants to blend in.. and throws in some "sounds good at first glance" reasoning to feel all safe... Kenpachi is low on time.. but his vote is blunt and to the point.. it shows confidenceOn March 18 2013 12:07 Kenpachi wrote:
So i guess the goodkarma wagon is no more. In that case, i will vote for Greymist instead of zarepeth. Im not getting that with TestSubject.. the vote is meek.. the vote has a flawed premise (which i believe is intentional).. and the vote comes at a time where TestSubject will not be scrutinised. As proven by Day2 play... TestSubject loves to de-lurk when called out.. and he is playing SAFE. Mentality that is all aligned with scum play. You think this is me playing safe? Did you see last game? You're pressuring me more in this post than everyone last game did combined, and I did it all while avoiding getting killed at night too. This is not my "safe" game play. [By safe. i mean ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY Guess what? "ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY" isn't very safe now is it? Here we are fighting about it. Does my play last game not show you that I understand what will get scrutiny and what won't? You're seeing what you want to see. Its clear there's no talking you off this. How is that a retort?
If anything your last game, completely shows you are aware... i actually give you credit for the 3rd party win.. for 2 reasons
(1) you managed to blend in perfectly
(2) you doused ppl that were not likely to be lynched OR shot.. this shows hyper-awareness for thread sentiment.
Yes, i was going to kill you, which is prob why you ignited.. but whatevs.. u earnt the win.
and i cant believe you are trying to argue zero accountability is not safe.
its fuckn safe.. cos you trying to blend in again.. im calling you out cos im the only one who has noticed.
no1 has actually refuted my points. Including you.
|
Look. I read through all of the cases, and with all of them there is some doubt as to how true they might be. I cannot see any reason why not to vote for Ace. Everyone else who hasn't voted for him gives some skimpy reason for not doing so. For example, Mocsta argues that Hopeless1der didn't appear to be that scummy. That doesn't matter, if someone appears to be town on D1, but really scummy on D2 that shouldn't mean that you should withhold your vote.
|
Even if wiggles case on Ace reads well...
quite a few had a scum read on him
how can you proceed to vote for your scum reads case; and not even scrutinise either the case itself, or wiggles agenda?
Best case scenario:
We lynch scum Ace.. does Wiggles become confirmed town?
Worst case scenario:
We lynch mislynch Ace.. what happens to Wiggles? you guys didnt critique the case, he gets to walk away scot-free.
|
On March 21 2013 13:47 TranceStorm wrote:
Look. I read through all of the cases, and with all of them there is some doubt as to how true they might be. I cannot see any reason why not to vote for Ace. Everyone else who hasn't voted for him gives some skimpy reason for not doing so. For example, Mocsta argues that Hopeless1der didn't appear to be that scummy. That doesn't matter, if someone appears to be town on D1, but really scummy on D2 that shouldn't mean that you should withhold your vote.
OK, reason with me
Why is my TestSubject case, less valid than Ace
My case is predicated on in-game behaviour.. that captures scum mentality.
Wiggles case is meta.. on a guy, who rarely plays anymore, and is more than capable of "changing it up"
|
Half of these conversations are literally leading nowhere. Lets just cut them out.
Here are the wagons I'm seeing:
1. Ace based on being un-Ace-like, not following through on scum hunting and recognizing/assuming 3P. Iirc VE said it was 3P before the logs and the logs looked to indicate 3P to me.
2. Cosmic for no scum hunt, random 180 and no follow up on VE case.
3. Test for martyring is scummy, emotionally detached and safe votes. Martyring should be a policy lynch from here forth but can be done from either side.
4. GK for no scum hunt and meta (although disagreement)
5. VE as possible 3p, making town to nuts, etc.
None of these cases are great IMO. Not a single one of them. There are clearly opportunistic reasons to attack or defend against all of them and there's very little to be gained from analyzing much of any of how the opinions are going here. At this point, I really think that I still think that the best lynch is VE for a few reasons:
1. It tells us a lot about the PMs between BH and VE
2. It gets rid of possible scum/3P dependent on what the mirror is exactly
3. It gives us more information for moving forward as then we get to either dismiss all the VE bs or follow up on his looks at wiggles, BH and Ace
|
Well, I have to leave now to go sleep, but I'd like to wake up to Ace flipping red.
The push-back to the case has been weird, with people saying that it's a strong case, but it's too late to vote for him, when there's now 4 votes on him, and several people have been swapping votes or trying to bring up other counter-wagons at the same time.
Remember to think critically about it though, and not just sheep. I want people to vote with me because they agree with the case, not because it becomes some popular bandwagon.
Sweet dreams.
|
On March 21 2013 13:47 TranceStorm wrote:
Look. I read through all of the cases, and with all of them there is some doubt as to how true they might be. I cannot see any reason why not to vote for Ace. Everyone else who hasn't voted for him gives some skimpy reason for not doing so. For example, Mocsta argues that Hopeless1der didn't appear to be that scummy. That doesn't matter, if someone appears to be town on D1, but really scummy on D2 that shouldn't mean that you should withhold your vote.
This may be the worst reasoning for a vote I have ever heard.
First of all, can you name all the people who haven't voted for Ace and their skimpy reasoning?
You know what, I'll help you out: me.
My reasoning was that Wriggle made the case and I don't trust him after contributing nothing all day and saving it all up to blow his load and fuck with thread sentiment right before deadline. You say if someone appears town but scummy on D2 I shouldn't withhold my vote...well that's precisely what I thought of Wriggle this entire day. Should I vote for him?
What's YOUR reason for voting Ace? Not Wriggle's not Mocsta's not mine, not Vivax's, YOURS. Don't tell me why it's dumb other people aren't voting for him, and especially don't give shitty reasons as to why it's dumb. For fuck sakes you YOURSELF had a scumread on Wiggle and you turn it around without a second thought?
|
On March 21 2013 13:45 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 13:38 TestSubject893 wrote:On March 21 2013 13:29 Mocsta wrote:On March 21 2013 13:23 TestSubject893 wrote:On March 21 2013 13:19 Mocsta wrote:
DP
another way of looking at the vote is this
Town are looking to vote scum *always*
Scum ideally are looking fro *safe* votes..
safe is based on thread sentiment, and can imply starting, joining or hammering the bandwagon
To me, GM posts were townie, until the martyring.. the combination of lurking + martyring, gave credence to a vote on GM. Based on how shitty/leaderless Day1 was, i can understand a vote on GM. This is simply not true. Tons of people saw his posts as scummy, including myself. The fact that your entire push for me is based on this shows that the whole thing is flawed. Disagree.. Your Day1 filter has more posts relating to gk than GM. you show no interest in the GM push till after the martyr. I dont see how can you say what i said is not true. GM flipped town/blue. And my opinion was, GM was pretty fuckn town until the martyr episode.. the combination of that + lurking, to me would give me consideration to vote him given the candidates on the table. So get off your high horse.. you saw an easy opportunity to have ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY and took it. Kenpachi +1'd, Testsubject +1'd, Wos +1'd. kenpachi i got no idea bout . another then i heard hes a troll This is WoS martyr follow up vote On March 18 2013 13:18 WaveofShadow wrote:
As for GM, he holds something in common with zare, in that he also brings up suspicion against me, calls me scummier than DarthPunk, doesn't back it up, and then ignores me completely. His AHA! post reeks of bad towny play (stupid gambit is stupid), but isn't Grey supposed to be a mafia veteran? That kind of 'trap' is something that zare tried to spring on the rest of the town AS a townie in NMM 37 but it only ended up muddling up the whole thread for that day and accomplishing nothing. Greymist's trap seems like an easy way to hide behind the fact that he couldn't be assed to contribute in a positive way and to jump on the first person to call him out for being gone (whether for legit reasons or not) as others have pointed out.
##Vote GreYMisT Whilst i disagree with the conclusion..(and so did the flip) it is still a *reasonable* mindset to have on the situation. I dont see a problem with this vote. Contrast with TestSubject On March 18 2013 12:52 TestSubject893 wrote:
Alright, so I finally got caught up. Here's what I've got to say.
GreYMisT seems to be doing the martyr thing we saw vivax and prome do in LX. Its a scummy play and I think its our greatest evidence against anyone right now, so I'll be voting for him.
##Vote: GreYMisT This is a guy who doesnt give a shit.. wants to blend in.. and throws in some "sounds good at first glance" reasoning to feel all safe... Kenpachi is low on time.. but his vote is blunt and to the point.. it shows confidenceOn March 18 2013 12:07 Kenpachi wrote:
So i guess the goodkarma wagon is no more. In that case, i will vote for Greymist instead of zarepeth. Im not getting that with TestSubject.. the vote is meek.. the vote has a flawed premise (which i believe is intentional).. and the vote comes at a time where TestSubject will not be scrutinised. As proven by Day2 play... TestSubject loves to de-lurk when called out.. and he is playing SAFE. Mentality that is all aligned with scum play. You think this is me playing safe? Did you see last game? You're pressuring me more in this post than everyone last game did combined, and I did it all while avoiding getting killed at night too. This is not my "safe" game play. [By safe. i mean ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY Guess what? "ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY" isn't very safe now is it? Here we are fighting about it. Does my play last game not show you that I understand what will get scrutiny and what won't? You're seeing what you want to see. Its clear there's no talking you off this. How is that a retort? If anything your last game, completely shows you are aware... i actually give you credit for the 3rd party win.. for 2 reasons (1) you managed to blend in perfectly (2) you doused ppl that were not likely to be lynched OR shot.. this shows hyper-awareness for thread sentiment. Yes, i was going to kill you, which is prob why you ignited.. but whatevs.. u earnt the win. and i cant believe you are trying to argue zero accountability is not safe. its fuckn safe.. cos you trying to blend in again.. im calling you out cos im the only one who has noticed. no1 has actually refuted my points. Including you.
What I'm saying is that if I was trying to blend in I wouldn't skimp on explaining myself because I'd be likely to regret it later. Last game I made sure my reasoning was always sound from attacks like this, hence why I survived til the end. This game I don't care about surviving til the end, only about killing scum, so frankly I don't feel the need to explain myself as much because I don't mind people relooking at my posts because I can always explain them later. Apparently my explanation didn't count as "actually refuting" but at this point I'm not sure anything will.
|
On March 21 2013 13:49 geript wrote:
Half of these conversations are literally leading nowhere. Lets just cut them out.
Here are the wagons I'm seeing:
1. Ace based on being un-Ace-like, not following through on scum hunting and recognizing/assuming 3P. Iirc VE said it was 3P before the logs and the logs looked to indicate 3P to me.
2. Cosmic for no scum hunt, random 180 and no follow up on VE case.
3. Test for martyring is scummy, emotionally detached and safe votes. Martyring should be a policy lynch from here forth but can be done from either side.
4. GK for no scum hunt and meta (although disagreement)
5. VE as possible 3p, making town to nuts, etc.
None of these cases are great IMO. Not a single one of them. There are clearly opportunistic reasons to attack or defend against all of them and there's very little to be gained from analyzing much of any of how the opinions are going here. At this point, I really think that I still think that the best lynch is VE for a few reasons:
1. It tells us a lot about the PMs between BH and VE
2. It gets rid of possible scum/3P dependent on what the mirror is exactly
3. It gives us more information for moving forward as then we get to either dismiss all the VE bs or follow up on his looks at wiggles, BH and Ace
My case on Ace is based on him promising to scumhunt while failing to do so and simultaneously derailing the town away from scumhunting by focusing them elsewhere. He also doesn't question The Mirror being third party at all, while using that as the basis for his push to kill VE. You'd think he'd at least provide an argument for why The Mirror must be an actual recruiter and can't just be mafia.
The meta part is just extra, and the case stands on its own without it.
|
On March 21 2013 13:50 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
Well, I have to leave now to go sleep, but I'd like to wake up to Ace flipping red.
The push-back to the case has been weird, with people saying that it's a strong case, but it's too late to vote for him, when there's now 4 votes on him, and several people have been swapping votes or trying to bring up other counter-wagons at the same time.
Remember to think critically about it though, and not just sheep. I want people to vote with me because they agree with the case, not because it becomes some popular bandwagon.
Sweet dreams.
The case reads great
my problem is.. you have chosen one game.. out of the ?i dunno hundred+? games ace has played to highlight the meta inconsistency
That doesnt cut it.. Players with his game count, will have a game that highlights a specific behaviour set.. they change it up.
I think Ace needs more time to establish his agenda... i didnt like his pushes on VE yesterdya, in fact, a lot of the quotes you posted, were in response to me calling him out.
So yes, the case reads great.. but i want to still see more.. its like sandroba. great player, and should be allowed a full cycle in the game.
|
Think about it. Why all of a sudden is lynching VE a priority? EVEN IF I joined some 3rd party cult why would lynching me take priority over lynching scum? That doesn't even make sense, because scum tried to KILL ME last night. Why would killing the person scum tried to kill N1 take priority over lynching OR EVEN DISCUSSING scum? Where is Ace? Who does he think is scum OUTSIDE of the whole VE thing?
|
how's the megacase coming VE
|
On March 21 2013 13:49 geript wrote:
3. Test for martyring is scummy, emotionally detached and safe votes. Martyring should be a policy lynch from here forth but can be done from either side.
Dude.. if im being tunneled. i will take a breather and come back
Your the psychology guy.. do you really think the things i poitned out on test, could come from either alignment?
Test didnt martyr either, so i get the impression perhaps you have not read my case in detail.
|
On March 21 2013 13:49 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 13:47 TranceStorm wrote:
Look. I read through all of the cases, and with all of them there is some doubt as to how true they might be. I cannot see any reason why not to vote for Ace. Everyone else who hasn't voted for him gives some skimpy reason for not doing so. For example, Mocsta argues that Hopeless1der didn't appear to be that scummy. That doesn't matter, if someone appears to be town on D1, but really scummy on D2 that shouldn't mean that you should withhold your vote. OK, reason with me Why is my TestSubject case, less valid than Ace My case is predicated on in-game behaviour.. that captures scum mentality. Wiggles case is meta.. on a guy, who rarely plays anymore, and is more than capable of "changing it up"
Ok, I'll reason with you.
Your TestSubject case, while compelling has a couple of assumptions that might be flawed. For example, you articulate that TestSubject's vote on GM was based on scummy reasoning: "all martyrs are scum -> GM is scum". However, I don't think that bad reasoning equates to scummy reasoning, hell, there has been plenty of bad reasoning throughout the entire day, and both you and I have been guilty of it. I fail to see the 'scummy agenda' behind the vote.
Whereas in Ace's case - there is no debate needed about scummy reasoning or what not. Forget about the meta arguments. The mere fact that Ace has done nothing else in the game, no reads, no pushes on anyone, nothing besides the easy job of targeting VE is more scummy than TestSubject's justification for voting for GM.
|
On March 21 2013 13:55 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 13:49 geript wrote:
3. Test for martyring is scummy, emotionally detached and safe votes. Martyring should be a policy lynch from here forth but can be done from either side. Dude.. if im being tunneled. i will take a breather and come back Your the psychology guy.. do you really think the things i poitned out on test, could come from either alignment? Test didnt martyr either, so i get the impression perhaps you have not read my case in detail.
Are you serious? Your case is based on one paragraph I wrote on day 1. Of course scum could make it.
|
EBWOP: nevermind I misread that, sorry.
|
On March 21 2013 13:53 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
My case on Ace is based on him promising to scumhunt while failing to do so and simultaneously derailing the town away from scumhunting by focusing them elsewhere. He also doesn't question The Mirror being third party at all, while using that as the basis for his push to kill VE. You'd think he'd at least provide an argument for why The Mirror must be an actual recruiter and can't just be mafia.
The meta part is just extra, and the case stands on its own without it.
I dont think it does.
I queried him on most of this last night.
He gave his reasons for not scum hunting.
And i cant have a go at him for posting without readin gthe thread.. that would be hypocritical.
He doesnt question the mirror being 3rd party? half the thread online at the time didnt question it..
These are all "worst case scenario' points.. and to me.. do not explain a mafia mentality.
so to me. the case doesnt hold without the "one-off" meta example.
|
On March 21 2013 13:57 TranceStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 13:49 Mocsta wrote:On March 21 2013 13:47 TranceStorm wrote:
Look. I read through all of the cases, and with all of them there is some doubt as to how true they might be. I cannot see any reason why not to vote for Ace. Everyone else who hasn't voted for him gives some skimpy reason for not doing so. For example, Mocsta argues that Hopeless1der didn't appear to be that scummy. That doesn't matter, if someone appears to be town on D1, but really scummy on D2 that shouldn't mean that you should withhold your vote. OK, reason with me Why is my TestSubject case, less valid than Ace My case is predicated on in-game behaviour.. that captures scum mentality. Wiggles case is meta.. on a guy, who rarely plays anymore, and is more than capable of "changing it up" Ok, I'll reason with you. Your TestSubject case, while compelling has a couple of assumptions that might be flawed. For example, you articulate that TestSubject's vote on GM was based on scummy reasoning: "all martyrs are scum -> GM is scum". However, I don't think that bad reasoning equates to scummy reasoning, hell, there has been plenty of bad reasoning throughout the entire day, and both you and I have been guilty of it. I fail to see the 'scummy agenda' behind the vote. Whereas in Ace's case - there is no debate needed about scummy reasoning or what not. Forget about the meta arguments. The mere fact that Ace has done nothing else in the game, no reads, no pushes on anyone, nothing besides the easy job of targeting VE is more scummy than TestSubject's justification for voting for GM.
At least you admit the reasoning from testsubject is bad.
Im not accusing him of bad reasoning though.
I am saying he is blatantly misrepresenting reasoning as vote justification... the key point is that he was just in a game where town martyred.. yet he conveniently leaves this out.. how is that *bad*??
As for Ace.. basically u are advocating a "low activity" lynch... are you really suggesting here that TL finest scum.. who even wrote a guide on how to play adaptive scum, will proceed to just lurk; and be caught so easily?
|
On March 21 2013 13:47 Mocsta wrote:
Even if wiggles case on Ace reads well...
quite a few had a scum read on him
how can you proceed to vote for your scum reads case; and not even scrutinise either the case itself, or wiggles agenda?
Best case scenario:
We lynch scum Ace.. does Wiggles become confirmed town?
Worst case scenario:
We lynch mislynch Ace.. what happens to Wiggles? you guys didnt critique the case, he gets to walk away scot-free.
Why are you using hypothetical scenarios as a determining factor in THIS lynch? Why can't we judge Wiggles further play and decide based on that whether he's scum or not after lynching Ace based on Wiggles case if you think it's good?
It's a good case, and I fully endorse it. Ace is scum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
