|
On April 23 2013 01:48 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Yes and right after:
"If it wasn't, he needs to explain this:"
You didn't give a shit when you voted him
On April 22 2013 01:16 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 01:11 Vivax wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 22 2013 01:06 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 00:30 raynpelikoneet wrote:On April 22 2013 00:08 Vivax wrote:
Not sure what to make of BM "claiming" snape like that. If I were to make a crazy guess, he's checking whether the real snape shows up contesting the claim, then say he posted some random shit cause he was drunk (cause that's what his posts look like ). And if the real snape doesn't show up, he will claim he's snape.
That'd be pretty ballsy, but effective scumplay. Let's see what BM has to say regarding this. What's in your opinion the point of doing this as we can't know how many of each roles are in the game? If there is someone who claims snape, why can't BM be another one? Vivax could you answer this? I don't think there can be two self-aware millers. Don't see much point in discussing that atm, why does it concern you at this point? BM didn't even answer yet. Because the OP clearly states there can be multiple number of same roles, so discussing if there are one or more self-aware millers in stupid in the first place. Anyone who claims miller on D1 should be lynched.##Vote: Bill Murray
Note that your vote post cites a lynch all miller claims as a policy for your vote.
raynpelikoneet, Do you disagree? This is a 'yes' or 'no' question specifically referencing whether or not you used a policy to justify your initial vote on Bill Murray.
|
Hopeless, can I ask
To me, early game:
Palmar's explanation for why he gave you a townread doesn't make sense to me and I want to question it. No one is confirmed fuck-all until they flip, but you throw it around based on the fact that they posted in the thread before you. I'd call that as you being reckless. Not scum, not town. Palmar disagrees and has cited some kind of reasoning. I wish to hear it.
About me, lately in big post:
Palmar, based on the plethora of information from Vivax's two posts, the first ones in the game, declares Vivax to be unlynchable. Just like that. And that was alright because I felt similar about it. I mean I'd still have an open mind, but Vivax's post did put me onto a townier side of Vivax. My problem with Palmar's post was that he called something really fucking stupid a valuable towntell heuristic.
why first you say my post was null, and then say it puts me on the townier side of things, all the while arguing against the heuristic?
|
Btw, saw some movement in the replacement thread (3 are concerned), so we should probably pick our lynch target with care, if we policy lynch.
|
On April 23 2013 02:06 Vivax wrote:Hopeless, can I ask To me, early game: Show nested quote +
Palmar's explanation for why he gave you a townread doesn't make sense to me and I want to question it. No one is confirmed fuck-all until they flip, but you throw it around based on the fact that they posted in the thread before you. I'd call that as you being reckless. Not scum, not town. Palmar disagrees and has cited some kind of reasoning. I wish to hear it.
About me, lately in big post: Show nested quote +
Palmar, based on the plethora of information from Vivax's two posts, the first ones in the game, declares Vivax to be unlynchable. Just like that. And that was alright because I felt similar about it. I mean I'd still have an open mind, but Vivax's post did put me onto a townier side of Vivax. My problem with Palmar's post was that he called something really fucking stupid a valuable towntell heuristic.
why first you say my post was null, and then say it puts me on the townier side of things, all the while arguing against the heuristic?
You had two posts that were being referenced. The first was that everyone before you was town. That was nonsense and the reckless part I refer to. The flippant response to ShiaoPi gave me a similar vibe to what Palmar cited.
My issue with Palmar's post was that it did not seem well thought out and was actively putting on blinders regarding your alignment. He supported his read with some throwaway reasoning and it read as sketchy buddying to me. VE pointed out that it is unlikely to come from Palmar, but that's how I viewed it and wanted to see what was up. As a general feel, I can see how someone might believe that scum are more likely to lurk in their qt at first, but...just no. Not true at all, especially in the way that you used it and in the way that Palmar supported your foolishness.
At the end of all this it scarcely matters because Palmar remains on my "look at when he's still alive day 3" list.
|
On April 23 2013 02:01 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 01:57 TheRavensName wrote:On April 23 2013 01:32 Vivax wrote:I'll probably take hopeless out of my scumspects for now. Not every bad idea is necessarily a scum agenda, meh. I do hold in high regard that he actually goes against Rayn, as he's another guy I'd lynch. On April 23 2013 01:25 TheRavensName wrote:On April 23 2013 01:15 Vivax wrote:
CC, let's talk a little. Who do we lynch? I do like ShiaoPi as lynch as well, so do we start making cases and stuff or do you think we should stick to a policy? What policy are you advocating/open to exactly? A lurker lynch or did I miss anoth er policy that wasn't the miller claim one? Either Drazak for excusing himself out (ask for replacement if you can't play the game), or people showing up late in the day without some damn good contributions. A damn good contribution isn't a huge post with a vote at the end, like RyuSuzaku in The game™, who rolled scum. Ah I see. And your active scumspect is Ray? My lab is about to start so I can't really glance through all the lurkers right now but personally I would rather lynch someone more scummy and active, so many lurkers that its such a crap shoot on hitting a right one. D1 lynches are often a crapshoot. If you think we shouldn't lynch a lurker, then bring ahead a better option. Mislynching lurkers doesn't hurt town outside of numbers and actually reduces the pool of insecurities, mislynching actives does pretty much always hurt town. ilurker lynching is, in my mind, too. easy for scum ito hop on aand active scum hurt town so so much if they can actually establish an influence, so I like the gamble. Anyways my lab is starting so I will name smancer and WoS if he doesn't give me a response to my questions AGAIN but I also really hate the 3 useless spamers that have only spammed useless crap and gotten away without even semi analysis and would be good for lynching them over a lurker or if my other two reads convince me they are town
|
On April 23 2013 02:12 Hopeless1der wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 02:06 Vivax wrote:Hopeless, can I ask To me, early game:
Palmar's explanation for why he gave you a townread doesn't make sense to me and I want to question it. No one is confirmed fuck-all until they flip, but you throw it around based on the fact that they posted in the thread before you. I'd call that as you being reckless. Not scum, not town. Palmar disagrees and has cited some kind of reasoning. I wish to hear it.
About me, lately in big post:
Palmar, based on the plethora of information from Vivax's two posts, the first ones in the game, declares Vivax to be unlynchable. Just like that. And that was alright because I felt similar about it. I mean I'd still have an open mind, but Vivax's post did put me onto a townier side of Vivax. My problem with Palmar's post was that he called something really fucking stupid a valuable towntell heuristic.
why first you say my post was null, and then say it puts me on the townier side of things, all the while arguing against the heuristic? You had two posts that were being referenced. The first was that everyone before you was town. That was nonsense and the reckless part I refer to. The flippant response to ShiaoPi gave me a similar vibe to what Palmar cited. My issue with Palmar's post was that it did not seem well thought out and was actively putting on blinders regarding your alignment. He supported his read with some throwaway reasoning and it read as sketchy buddying to me. VE pointed out that it is unlikely to come from Palmar, but that's how I viewed it and wanted to see what was up. As a general feel, I can see how someone might believe that scum are more likely to lurk in their qt at first, but...just no. Not true at all, especially in the way that you used it and in the way that Palmar supported your foolishness. At the end of all this it scarcely matters because Palmar remains on my "look at when he's still alive day 3" list.
Well, what gave me reason for concern was your motivation behind that attack, not if you were right on the heuristic, cause that (and you also questioning somebody else's townread on VE) gave me the impression that your goal in this game is to antagonize townreads, not argue why somebody is scum, which is something you clearly were doing, and doesn't seem like something a townie would feel like doing, since you would be attempting to reduce confusion about people's alignments and persuade others about them, not trying to keep alive the confusion by arguing over townreads.
Not sure if it was just bad play, since it could easily be scumplay too. But if you want to do something more useful than stopping others from getting townreads, then point us towards your scumreads please.
|
As you can imagine by now, I would hardly be so weird to pull through what I said earlier, which was more in the category of early game derping. I am suspicious of ShiaoPi, and I could also see myself lynching yamato for his unusual play, who both were early posters.
|
On April 23 2013 02:23 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 02:12 Hopeless1der wrote:On April 23 2013 02:06 Vivax wrote:Hopeless, can I ask To me, early game:
Palmar's explanation for why he gave you a townread doesn't make sense to me and I want to question it. No one is confirmed fuck-all until they flip, but you throw it around based on the fact that they posted in the thread before you. I'd call that as you being reckless. Not scum, not town. Palmar disagrees and has cited some kind of reasoning. I wish to hear it.
About me, lately in big post:
Palmar, based on the plethora of information from Vivax's two posts, the first ones in the game, declares Vivax to be unlynchable. Just like that. And that was alright because I felt similar about it. I mean I'd still have an open mind, but Vivax's post did put me onto a townier side of Vivax. My problem with Palmar's post was that he called something really fucking stupid a valuable towntell heuristic.
why first you say my post was null, and then say it puts me on the townier side of things, all the while arguing against the heuristic? You had two posts that were being referenced. The first was that everyone before you was town. That was nonsense and the reckless part I refer to. The flippant response to ShiaoPi gave me a similar vibe to what Palmar cited. My issue with Palmar's post was that it did not seem well thought out and was actively putting on blinders regarding your alignment. He supported his read with some throwaway reasoning and it read as sketchy buddying to me. VE pointed out that it is unlikely to come from Palmar, but that's how I viewed it and wanted to see what was up. As a general feel, I can see how someone might believe that scum are more likely to lurk in their qt at first, but...just no. Not true at all, especially in the way that you used it and in the way that Palmar supported your foolishness. At the end of all this it scarcely matters because Palmar remains on my "look at when he's still alive day 3" list. Well, what gave me reason for concern was your motivation behind that attack, not if you were right on the heuristic, cause that (and you also questioning somebody else's townread on VE) gave me the impression that your goal in this game is to antagonize townreads, not argue why somebody is scum, which is something you clearly were doing, and doesn't seem like something a townie would feel like doing, since you would be attempting to reduce confusion about people's alignments and persuade others about them, not trying to keep alive the confusion by arguing over townreads. Not sure if it was just bad play, since it could easily be scumplay too. But if you want to do something more useful than stopping others from getting townreads, then point us towards your scumreads please.
Yeah, my motivation is that Palmar could have been buddying you and his townread was based on next to nothing. At the moment, i'm waiting to see if rayn can handle a simple yes or no question, but he's my scumread.
|
On April 22 2013 12:59 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:
Ugh, all I've got are feel reads. I wouldn't mind lynching me a Hopeless or Giygas (idc how you spell it) today. No reasoning given, just the feels. Hard evidence is difficult to come by unless I'm purposely trying to lynch townies as mafia t.t /complain.
I feel like sharrant is town, for the record. Ray is probably town. Yamato I'm disappointed hasn't been shouting at people so I could easily discern his alignment, but unfortunately he has just been threatening to kill people. Icantbelievehesnullbro.
Shiaopi i think would be a decent target as well.
Could someone just yell at me in all caps so I feel like I'm being pressured? Like seriously it's how I get my best reads -- on those who pressure me.
Since you believe Rayn is town, I would like to see you convince Rayn that Sharrant is town. How you can make him feel your feel-read is up to you. Maybe use words. Questions are tasty too. I want to have my Cheesecake and eat you too.
|
Will inactivity modkills be flipped or hidden?
If they'll be flipped then forget about 'em. Nuke them from orbit and let the Flying Spaghetti Monster sort them out.
If their flips won't be revealed, then and only then would I be down for a no-content lurker lynch today.
|
+ Show Spoiler [huge text by hopeless] +On April 23 2013 02:03 Hopeless1der wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 01:48 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Yes and right after:
"If it wasn't, he needs to explain this:" You didn't give a shit when you voted him Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 01:16 raynpelikoneet wrote:On April 22 2013 01:11 Vivax wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 22 2013 01:06 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 00:30 raynpelikoneet wrote:On April 22 2013 00:08 Vivax wrote:
Not sure what to make of BM "claiming" snape like that. If I were to make a crazy guess, he's checking whether the real snape shows up contesting the claim, then say he posted some random shit cause he was drunk (cause that's what his posts look like ). And if the real snape doesn't show up, he will claim he's snape.
That'd be pretty ballsy, but effective scumplay. Let's see what BM has to say regarding this. What's in your opinion the point of doing this as we can't know how many of each roles are in the game? If there is someone who claims snape, why can't BM be another one? Vivax could you answer this? I don't think there can be two self-aware millers. Don't see much point in discussing that atm, why does it concern you at this point? BM didn't even answer yet. Because the OP clearly states there can be multiple number of same roles, so discussing if there are one or more self-aware millers in stupid in the first place. Anyone who claims miller on D1 should be lynched.##Vote: Bill Murray Note that your vote post cites a lynch all miller claims as a policy for your vote. raynpelikoneet, Do you disagree? This is a 'yes' or 'no' question specifically referencing whether or not you used a policy to justify your initial vote on Bill Murray.
Hopeless I will discuss Rayn with you for a moment, mainly because I have already talked to Rayn a bit and it's your turn.
+ Show Spoiler [summary crap] +As with what seems like several players here, I was under the impression that his original vote was a policy lynch on self-aware miller claims. I asked about it, and it later was clarified that BM saying 'sheverus shnape' was reason to call him scum. Then we talk about how it wasn't really a miller claim after all, and Rayn stayed on BM's nuts for it past the point of good reason. BM does what BM does.
Rayn switch from null BM to town Sharrant puts him in a bad light. What makes me think Rayn is scum is how desperately long he was calling BM scum when the matter was still up in the air, like he had attached to a read and wouldn't let go of it for anything. I also disagree that the specific things in his original case on Sharrant make Sharrant likely to be scum.
Why the fuck would miller claims = auto lynch, by the way? I don't vote for claims, especially ones that are unique to town, based solely on the claim. I can claim Testicular Nodule and that doesn't help my case at all, even though it's just as believable. Lynch players for scummy behavior, not bullshit claims on D1.
Dear Policy Lynchers,
BEAT THE PLAYERS NOT THE SETUP FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOTDOGS WITH MUSTARD.
With great adoration and some purring,
ObviousOne
P.S.
##Vote Raynpelikoneet
|
On April 23 2013 02:03 Hopeless1der wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 01:48 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Yes and right after:
"If it wasn't, he needs to explain this:" You didn't give a shit when you voted him Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 01:16 raynpelikoneet wrote:On April 22 2013 01:11 Vivax wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 22 2013 01:06 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 00:30 raynpelikoneet wrote:On April 22 2013 00:08 Vivax wrote:
Not sure what to make of BM "claiming" snape like that. If I were to make a crazy guess, he's checking whether the real snape shows up contesting the claim, then say he posted some random shit cause he was drunk (cause that's what his posts look like ). And if the real snape doesn't show up, he will claim he's snape.
That'd be pretty ballsy, but effective scumplay. Let's see what BM has to say regarding this. What's in your opinion the point of doing this as we can't know how many of each roles are in the game? If there is someone who claims snape, why can't BM be another one? Vivax could you answer this? I don't think there can be two self-aware millers. Don't see much point in discussing that atm, why does it concern you at this point? BM didn't even answer yet. Because the OP clearly states there can be multiple number of same roles, so discussing if there are one or more self-aware millers in stupid in the first place. Anyone who claims miller on D1 should be lynched.##Vote: Bill Murray Note that your vote post cites a lynch all miller claims as a policy for your vote. raynpelikoneet, Do you disagree? This is a 'yes' or 'no' question specifically referencing whether or not you used a policy to justify your initial vote on Bill Murray.
If you call it a policy that is attached only to this particular situation (meaning this game, with this setup where we do not know how many of the roles are in play) then no, i don't disagree. I hate that this discussion has come to the point if my understanding of a "policy lynch" is the same or different than for other people and if you are really going to lynch me for that i suggest, when i flip town, that you take a deep look in the mirror and think about who was arguing about semantics without looking into my explanation for my vote, and who did actually look at it and still went with this stupid shit.
I'm done with this issue, i'm not going to expain over and over again for my reasons for voting BM in the first place. If you lynch me for it, fine. If you don't, i hope you never bring this point up again so i can do something productive instead.
Vivax:
I don't like lynching Hopeless anymore. His explanation about his behaviour early in the game is well enough justified for me. I'm okay with lynching Oats or yamato. Oats does not look anything like his usual town play and yamato is not doing shit. I would not oppose GiygaS either.
|
Yeah Sharrant is prolly not scum, just being wrong about me.
##Unvote: Sharrant
|
|
|
Also this list is ~85% accurate i'd say.
+ Show Spoiler +On April 23 2013 00:31 Palmar wrote:
List of probably town:
Bill Murray
getmoript (QT thing)
Vivax
slot machine dude
hopeless
list of maybe town:
Ace
grush
cheesecake
kush
Sylencia
TheRavensName
list of who knows:
WaveofShadow
Tube
Drazak
Clarity_nl
Sharrant
Yamato77
ShiaoPi
list of bloodycobblers:
BloodyCobbler
list of somewhat scummy fuckers (based on absolutely nothing):
DoctorHelvetica
ObviousOne
Oatsmaster
giggles
I disagree with BM (would put him on "who knows"), TRN (probably town), geript (reasons, i think he's town), and i dunno where is VE, if he is giggles i'd put him up to "who knows". I have no idea about grush.
|
11589 Posts
VE is mafia.
##Unvote
##Vote VisceraEyes
|
11589 Posts
For the record, I would also lynch Oats for being a snarky ass on the sidelines and not actually being involved like I know town Oats to be.
Ace is lynchable because his reasoning for throwing suspicion on me is ass and he's been posting bullshit the entire game.
BC is nullish, despite my earlier proclamation. He could have made that post as either alignment. More information is necessary to lynch him.
CC is too quiet to be town CC. His "tunnel me" charade is a copycat from Nomination where he replaced in day 1. His shitty null reads are also indicative of him being mafia; town CC calls people mafia and gives no fucks about being wrong.
And VE is mafia because his reasoning for being suspicious of me is ass, just like Ace. Only VE is even worse because he should know better. Unfortunately, however, a VE that blindly follows thread sentiment is a scum VE. Lynch him.
|
On April 23 2013 03:09 ObviousOne wrote:+ Show Spoiler [huge text by hopeless] +On April 23 2013 02:03 Hopeless1der wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 01:48 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Yes and right after:
"If it wasn't, he needs to explain this:" You didn't give a shit when you voted him Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 01:16 raynpelikoneet wrote:On April 22 2013 01:11 Vivax wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 22 2013 01:06 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 00:30 raynpelikoneet wrote:On April 22 2013 00:08 Vivax wrote:
Not sure what to make of BM "claiming" snape like that. If I were to make a crazy guess, he's checking whether the real snape shows up contesting the claim, then say he posted some random shit cause he was drunk (cause that's what his posts look like ). And if the real snape doesn't show up, he will claim he's snape.
That'd be pretty ballsy, but effective scumplay. Let's see what BM has to say regarding this. What's in your opinion the point of doing this as we can't know how many of each roles are in the game? If there is someone who claims snape, why can't BM be another one? Vivax could you answer this? I don't think there can be two self-aware millers. Don't see much point in discussing that atm, why does it concern you at this point? BM didn't even answer yet. Because the OP clearly states there can be multiple number of same roles, so discussing if there are one or more self-aware millers in stupid in the first place. Anyone who claims miller on D1 should be lynched.##Vote: Bill Murray Note that your vote post cites a lynch all miller claims as a policy for your vote. raynpelikoneet, Do you disagree? This is a 'yes' or 'no' question specifically referencing whether or not you used a policy to justify your initial vote on Bill Murray.
Hopeless I will discuss Rayn with you for a moment, mainly because I have already talked to Rayn a bit and it's your turn. + Show Spoiler [summary crap] +As with what seems like several players here, I was under the impression that his original vote was a policy lynch on self-aware miller claims. I asked about it, and it later was clarified that BM saying 'sheverus shnape' was reason to call him scum. Then we talk about how it wasn't really a miller claim after all, and Rayn stayed on BM's nuts for it past the point of good reason. BM does what BM does. Rayn switch from null BM to town Sharrant puts him in a bad light. What makes me think Rayn is scum is how desperately long he was calling BM scum when the matter was still up in the air, like he had attached to a read and wouldn't let go of it for anything. I also disagree that the specific things in his original case on Sharrant make Sharrant likely to be scum.
Why the fuck would miller claims = auto lynch, by the way? I don't vote for claims, especially ones that are unique to town, based solely on the claim. I can claim Testicular Nodule and that doesn't help my case at all, even though it's just as believable. Lynch players for scummy behavior, not bullshit claims on D1.
Dear Policy Lynchers, BEAT THE PLAYERS NOT THE SETUP FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOTDOGS WITH MUSTARD. With great adoration and some purring, ObviousOne P.S. ##Vote Raynpelikoneet
You are scum for what I bolded.
|
11589 Posts
Why could only a mafia player make that statement?
|
On April 23 2013 04:39 yamato77 wrote:
Why could only a mafia player make that statement?
Simple, its setting up a situation in which a miller can claim to get himself not lynched. Guess what? if you are someone who gets red checks on you, you get lynched or shot. If I claim self aware miller and town accepts it, whats to stop mafia from doing it once? Whats to stop them from doing it period and hope to god a ton of other people don't claim? If you accept bullshit claims like that then it auto confirms people for no reason other than players are stupid. If you are someone who gets a red check when checked you die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
