Oats isn't a policy lynch, although he might look like cause he started behaving like a clown when the bandwagon started. Case
Clarity's entrance was horrible. 1 hour to read the thread, forced looking, hasty case at the end of the process?
On April 23 2013 11:27 Clarity_nl wrote:Trending topic is oats, and I honestly have no idea. From what I remember he didn't used to be trolly as either alignment. He could be a policy "you're a dick" lynch but there are better lynches out there, like....
SharrantOn April 22 2013 08:29 Sharrant wrote:On April 22 2013 08:17 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Sharrant let's end this incredibly useless shit about the policy lynch. I have told the thread why i'm voting for BM, and i'm expecting him to answer me regarding that. We are getting nowhere before we hear from him and this is really useless.
Call my vote a policy lynch vote or whatever, i really don't care before BM comes in and answers. I have only talked about policy lynch stuff when other people have brought that topic up.
No, I want to sort this out. If you answer this for me satisfactorily, I will give you a reprieve for a bit.
What is your exact reasoning for voting for BM. Give me one paragraph, with your thought process. If it's policy, tell me it's policy and the exact policy. If you have other reasoning for it, please detail that reasoning to the best of your ability.
I will be reading and cooking for a while. I know this is a Sunday, but I would really like more people to be active. There's 25 people in this game, and honestly it feels like a mini to me. Thank you to the people who are being active.
"If you give me the right answer I'll leave you alone"This irked me, this notion always irks me. If you're "pressuring" by saying exactly what someone should do to get you off their back, then you are not pressuring. This is an easy way for scum to appear to scumhunt with an easy out.
On April 22 2013 08:40 Sharrant wrote:On April 22 2013 08:33 raynpelikoneet wrote:Sharrant:What is your exact reasoning for voting for BM. Give me one paragraph, with your thought process. If it's policy, tell me it's policy and the exact policy. If you have other reasoning for it, please detail that reasoning to the best of your ability.
I think there is no reason for a townie to claim miller for the reasons i explained before. If BM was not in fact claiming miller, he should have a damn good reason why he decided to post what he did, because posting (joking?) that as town does not make any sense.
I see. I'll wait until Bill Murray is back in the thread before I say anything more about this then, if I feel the need to say anything more.
Let's give ourselves another topic then. Pick a player who you would like to discuss with me, and I will read their filter while I cook and eat. I would suggest Mr. Cheesecake, but I would prefer it if you picked the candidate for discussion.
So Sharrant gets his answer, with the answer being the obvious (and as rayn points out, already said before).
"I didn't like the miller claim" That's what Sharrant accept as a satisfactory answer? What other answer could there be? Asking questions that only have one answer, regardless of alignment, is useless. Yet it's easy to skim over these two posts and have it seems as if he contributed.
Who posts in a way that seems like they contribute, but don't? Scum do.
On April 22 2013 10:23 Sharrant wrote:
@VivaxOn April 22 2013 01:05 Hopeless1der wrote:On April 22 2013 00:52 Vivax wrote:On April 22 2013 00:43 Hopeless1der wrote:On April 22 2013 00:33 VisceraEyes wrote:
The idea is that anyone who posted before him is invested enough to at the very least look elsewhere - unless I'm missing something.
That's a terrible heuristic if it is that simple. Simply posting in the thread,
especially in the first ~2ish hours does not a townie make.
On April 22 2013 00:31 Vivax wrote:On April 22 2013 00:21 Hopeless1der wrote:@palmar's read on vivax:
+ Show Spoiler +On April 21 2013 19:36 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2013 18:28 Vivax wrote:
Well I don't care that you say no, I'll treat everyone who posted before me as confirmed town for a while.
I think the absurdity and yet strange value of this heuristic makes Vivax very likely to be town. To the point that almost nothing would make me want to lynch him today.
Discuss.
"Absurd" I agree with. "Strange value" however...could you expand on how his heuristic is useful at discerning OTHER people's alignment, because I don't see it.
I would like to know what motivates you to ask Palmar that question. Are you feeling uncomfortable with the fact that he's giving me a townread? Do you see scum motivation in doing so or do you think I'm scum?
Yes I am uncomfortable with him giving you a townread off of something I read as non-indicative. I also want to know why he suggests there is any value in the heuristic you used because it's nonsense imo.
What I regard as important about your question is that you seem to assume that scumPalmar would give me an easy townread, when it wouldn't serve any purpose for him, unless you know of one and want to talk about it.
Your question's whole purpose seems to be attacking Palmar's townread on me, which makes me curious. Cause town's goal is to find reasons for someone being scum, and not for heuristics to get townreads not being correct, that is mafia's goal cause it reduces the pool of people they could get lynched.
So unless you see me or Palmar as scummy for some reason you aren't citing, I see the question you're asking as something that looks like scum agenda, as you criticize someone for issuing a townread on another guy.
Then, why Palmar specifically? CC called everyone in the thread town at a certain point, and I called everyone posting before me town, yet you deem Palmar most interesting for issuing a single townread.
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.
This is the most bothersome quote in Hopeless' filter.
It reads to me as if he already knows Vivax is town, so he's not thinking about the play in every possible scenario.
If Vivax is town: The play is indeed somewhat reckless, but it also has some degree of accuracy. Mafia generally will float towards their QT at the beginning to check out their new toy, and coordinate. This is not fool proof, but is at least grounded in logic, and offers a decent way to focus your search during the first day.
If Vivax is mafia: The play is bad. He's given out several townreads (which always sticks in peoples mind as mafia oriented), and he potentially denies himself opportunities for easy mislynches or he has to go back on his town reads. Whether or not that makes him suspicious to everyone else is moot, because it will make him feel like he's being suspicious and less safe.
If Vivax is third party: This is pretty much the same as if he's town as his main goal is just survival, and scum hunting will help in that survival.
That Hopeless does not seem to ever figure out why Palmar can attach town value to Vivax's statement, and that he does not seem to have mentally played out each situation is suspicious.
There's a more I could write, but as is I would A) like to see more from him so I can see if he follows the same patterns I'm seeing B) I would prefer other lynches over him at this point. When I see more from him I will reevaluate again as to whether he should be more of a priority lynch.
I do consider him a good lynch, and likely mafia, but there are others I would lynch before him.
Here Sharrant is saying: "Hopeless is doing this thing that makes him scummy, I shall watch him and see if he keeps doing it"
Another easy out, telling the person you're "pressuring" exactly what they need to do (or not do in this case) to avoid being pressured more.
On April 22 2013 10:51 Sharrant wrote:
Bill Murray, please get in the thread. Right now almost every single read in this thread runs back to the incident that you sparked, so you best get back into the thread and tell us if you were serious about your claim or not so we can start working things out.
More empty threats and easy outs.
On April 22 2013 10:56 Sharrant wrote:On April 22 2013 10:44 ShiaoPi wrote:@ObviousOne:
Which post are you referring to? This one:
+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2013 14:20 ShiaoPi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 13:56 Ace wrote:
*looks at player list*
*shakes head in a bored way knowing he will lynch Bill Murray with ease Day 1*
but but....he is EVIL??!!!
or this one:
+ Show Spoiler +On March 25 2013 17:59 ShiaoPi wrote:I actually wanted to /in but then I saw grush and BM in the playerlist.....not again...never again.../obs or if you want a cohost with an East asian timezone, I'd be up for that too
Still got shittons of catching up to do, just saw that as I scrolled over the last page
ShiaoPi, at your earliest possible convenience I would like you to tell me how you feel about Raynepelikoneet, TheRavensName, Hopeless1nder, and one person of your choosing.
I'll accept as low as one sentence on the first 3, but whoever you choose I'd like you to write something of decent size about.
And more.... Not even indicating any read, just asking for reads from another player.
More of this:
On April 22 2013 11:28 Sharrant wrote:
Oatsmaster, who are your top 2 lynch candidates today and why?
On April 22 2013 11:30 Sharrant wrote:
Also, same thing with Yamato, which two people would you lynch right now?
Just scattershot. Ask everyone for their opinion and you'll get everyone's opinion.
It's not pressure, there is no direction or follow-up with these questions, it's simply a shallow attempt to seem involved.
One other thing I'd like to point out is his consistent "I'm here now, I'm leaving now" updates.
The comments about him cooking, the promises to look over players later or that he's waiting for more information, or this gem:
On April 22 2013 13:33 Sharrant wrote:On April 22 2013 13:26 Bill Murray wrote:On April 22 2013 00:30 raynpelikoneet wrote:Sup guys.
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?
TRN and Palmar are probably town.
i was making a joke about his stupid sounding name
it wasn't a serious claim whatsoever
this is why the internet is not good for tone.
And with that, I'm going to bed... Good night, everyone.
They all scream insecurity, which is in stark contrast with his "pressure" posts which have an air of misguided authority about them.
All his posts scream "look at me I'm active and contributing" without actually contributing, All his other posts scream insecurity. Sharrant is scum.##Vote Sharrant If you want to do something pro-town, lynch Oats. Thx.
EPT
