|
11589 Posts
Now, I might be wrong, and you might just be shit on day 1, but I have yet to see any reason to doubt my read at the moment.
|
yamato do you think Clarity is mafia?
|
11589 Posts
He might be, it's hard to tell.
|
Based on what if i may ask?
|
Actually Vivax too, why is Clarity mafia in your reads-list?
|
On April 24 2013 04:58 raynpelikoneet wrote:
grush, why is yamato suddenly town?
because of how he defended himself after i left.
|
On April 24 2013 05:07 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 23:56 Palmar wrote:
BC's town meta is to be awful at day 1, then get lynched.
I'd like to not lynch him later.
VE is still scum. Palmar, do you consider BC's play so far to be awful?
yep, and I think he's crazy wanting to lynch yamato.
|
11589 Posts
On April 24 2013 05:31 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Based on what if i may ask?
The fact that he refused to take a real stance on me/Oats and made an "original" case on Sharrant.
|
On April 24 2013 05:33 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Actually Vivax too, why is Clarity mafia in your reads-list?
Read the thread, no, just my filter please. At least that. -.---------
On April 23 2013 20:05 Vivax wrote:Oats isn't a policy lynch, although he might look like cause he started behaving like a clown when the bandwagon started. Case here and hereClarity's entrance was horrible. 1 hour to read the thread, forced looking, hasty case at the end of the process? My earlier opinion on play like his: Show nested quote +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. His play: Show nested quote +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.
On April 23 2013 23:49 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 11:39 Clarity_nl wrote:On April 23 2013 11:34 Bill Murray wrote:On April 23 2013 10:34 Clarity_nl wrote:
I am here now and catching up, did not expect this game to start so soon, sorry. one hour later has read the entire game and made a case on sharrant? his case is really tunnely, and reaching, as well FoS Clarity Yeah okay I might have started reading and then figured I would read the last two pages and see palmar talking about possibly being the hammervote so figured I'd show my face. interested why you think my case is reaching, though. I find this quote interesting. Clarity apparently was afraid of not posting anything before the hammer fell, and here he is admitting that his case on Sharrant was something done in haste, and to "show his face", not cause he found the reasons good enough to post them so quickly.
On April 24 2013 00:13 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 00:09 Clarity_nl wrote:On April 23 2013 23:49 Vivax wrote:On April 23 2013 11:39 Clarity_nl wrote:On April 23 2013 11:34 Bill Murray wrote:On April 23 2013 10:34 Clarity_nl wrote:
I am here now and catching up, did not expect this game to start so soon, sorry. one hour later has read the entire game and made a case on sharrant? his case is really tunnely, and reaching, as well FoS Clarity Yeah okay I might have started reading and then figured I would read the last two pages and see palmar talking about possibly being the hammervote so figured I'd show my face. interested why you think my case is reaching, though. I find this quote interesting. Clarity apparently was afraid of not posting anything before the hammer fell, and here he is admitting that his case on Sharrant was something done in haste, and to "show his face", not cause he found the reasons good enough to post them so quickly. Hi Vivax. When you say interesting, what do you mean? Because pointing out something as interesting and seeing if anyone else jumps on it is interesting. Erm, yes I wanted to get a couple of posts in before day 1 ended, and I didn't just want it to be "I'm here guys", I do possess some self preservation. I figured if I showed my face maybe people would hold off on hammering and give me a chance to catch up. Turns out palmar wasn't even close to hammering but w/e, I wasn't sure. And I did find reasons, maybe the case isn't well worded or convincing but it is in essence why I believe he's scum. When I say interesting, I mean that you seemed to prioritize self-preservation and good-looking stuff over actual involvement and attempts at finding scum. Your case against Sharrant looks like you bought it at a fastfood-chain. I prefer people who honestly admit that they can't be up to date with the thread information instead of those who cook quick cases which look like they only had the purpose of self-presentation.
|
On April 24 2013 05:34 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 05:07 WaveofShadow wrote:On April 23 2013 23:56 Palmar wrote:
BC's town meta is to be awful at day 1, then get lynched.
I'd like to not lynch him later.
VE is still scum. Palmar, do you consider BC's play so far to be awful? yep, and I think he's crazy wanting to lynch yamato.
You've mentioned you didn't want to lynch him D1; what would it take for you to actually find him scummy and lynch-worthy?
Is it simply one of those cases where 'if he is alive past x days, he is scum?'
|
On April 24 2013 05:35 yamato77 wrote:The fact that he refused to take a real stance on me/Oats and made an "original" case on Sharrant.
Assuming you are town you know you are town. Oats was town. Those were the two wagons there were at the time. Why would in your opinion mafia!Clarity make a case on Sharrant and not agree with BC/Vivax on the cases (like many other people did)? How is it more beneficial to him, because he know he will be questioned about it? Why not just take an easy way out and vote for one of the townie candidates?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 24 2013 05:37 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 05:33 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Actually Vivax too, why is Clarity mafia in your reads-list? Read the thread, no, just my filter please. At least that. -.--------- Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 20:05 Vivax wrote:Oats isn't a policy lynch, although he might look like cause he started behaving like a clown when the bandwagon started. Case here and hereClarity's entrance was horrible. 1 hour to read the thread, forced looking, hasty case at the end of the process? My earlier opinion on play like his: 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. His play: 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. Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 23:49 Vivax wrote:On April 23 2013 11:39 Clarity_nl wrote:On April 23 2013 11:34 Bill Murray wrote:On April 23 2013 10:34 Clarity_nl wrote:
I am here now and catching up, did not expect this game to start so soon, sorry. one hour later has read the entire game and made a case on sharrant? his case is really tunnely, and reaching, as well FoS Clarity Yeah okay I might have started reading and then figured I would read the last two pages and see palmar talking about possibly being the hammervote so figured I'd show my face. interested why you think my case is reaching, though. I find this quote interesting. Clarity apparently was afraid of not posting anything before the hammer fell, and here he is admitting that his case on Sharrant was something done in haste, and to "show his face", not cause he found the reasons good enough to post them so quickly. Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 00:13 Vivax wrote:On April 24 2013 00:09 Clarity_nl wrote:On April 23 2013 23:49 Vivax wrote:On April 23 2013 11:39 Clarity_nl wrote:On April 23 2013 11:34 Bill Murray wrote:On April 23 2013 10:34 Clarity_nl wrote:
I am here now and catching up, did not expect this game to start so soon, sorry. one hour later has read the entire game and made a case on sharrant? his case is really tunnely, and reaching, as well FoS Clarity Yeah okay I might have started reading and then figured I would read the last two pages and see palmar talking about possibly being the hammervote so figured I'd show my face. interested why you think my case is reaching, though. I find this quote interesting. Clarity apparently was afraid of not posting anything before the hammer fell, and here he is admitting that his case on Sharrant was something done in haste, and to "show his face", not cause he found the reasons good enough to post them so quickly. Hi Vivax. When you say interesting, what do you mean? Because pointing out something as interesting and seeing if anyone else jumps on it is interesting. Erm, yes I wanted to get a couple of posts in before day 1 ended, and I didn't just want it to be "I'm here guys", I do possess some self preservation. I figured if I showed my face maybe people would hold off on hammering and give me a chance to catch up. Turns out palmar wasn't even close to hammering but w/e, I wasn't sure. And I did find reasons, maybe the case isn't well worded or convincing but it is in essence why I believe he's scum. When I say interesting, I mean that you seemed to prioritize self-preservation and good-looking stuff over actual involvement and attempts at finding scum. Your case against Sharrant looks like you bought it at a fastfood-chain. I prefer people who honestly admit that they can't be up to date with the thread information instead of those who cook quick cases which look like they only had the purpose of self-presentation.
Is this more likely to come from mafia!Clarity now that we know Oats flipped town? Why not just agree with your case on Oats?
|
11589 Posts
On April 24 2013 05:39 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 05:35 yamato77 wrote:On April 24 2013 05:31 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Based on what if i may ask? The fact that he refused to take a real stance on me/Oats and made an "original" case on Sharrant. Assuming you are town you know you are town. Oats was town. Those were the two wagons there were at the time. Why would in your opinion mafia!Clarity make a case on Sharrant and not agree with BC/Vivax on the cases (like many other people did)? How is it more beneficial to him, because he know he will be questioned about it? Why not just take an easy way out and vote for one of the townie candidates?
Because perhaps he felt it would look "scummy" if he came in and just plopped his vote down on me/Oats, knowing we are both town, when he's been un-involved the whole game.
He potentially looks better by "scumhunting" with his case, which has been picked apart endlessly since it was posted.
I feel that a town player would more likely than not take a stance on me/Oats, even if it was to say that we were likely town/likely mafia, and then case someone else. Clarity just sort of ignored the both of us, and didn't do a whole lot else.
|
On April 24 2013 05:40 raynpelikoneet wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 24 2013 05:37 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 05:33 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Actually Vivax too, why is Clarity mafia in your reads-list? Read the thread, no, just my filter please. At least that. -.--------- Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 20:05 Vivax wrote:Oats isn't a policy lynch, although he might look like cause he started behaving like a clown when the bandwagon started. Case here and hereClarity's entrance was horrible. 1 hour to read the thread, forced looking, hasty case at the end of the process? My earlier opinion on play like his: 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. His play: 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. Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 23:49 Vivax wrote:On April 23 2013 11:39 Clarity_nl wrote:On April 23 2013 11:34 Bill Murray wrote:On April 23 2013 10:34 Clarity_nl wrote:
I am here now and catching up, did not expect this game to start so soon, sorry. one hour later has read the entire game and made a case on sharrant? his case is really tunnely, and reaching, as well FoS Clarity Yeah okay I might have started reading and then figured I would read the last two pages and see palmar talking about possibly being the hammervote so figured I'd show my face. interested why you think my case is reaching, though. I find this quote interesting. Clarity apparently was afraid of not posting anything before the hammer fell, and here he is admitting that his case on Sharrant was something done in haste, and to "show his face", not cause he found the reasons good enough to post them so quickly. Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 00:13 Vivax wrote:On April 24 2013 00:09 Clarity_nl wrote:On April 23 2013 23:49 Vivax wrote:On April 23 2013 11:39 Clarity_nl wrote:On April 23 2013 11:34 Bill Murray wrote:On April 23 2013 10:34 Clarity_nl wrote:
I am here now and catching up, did not expect this game to start so soon, sorry. one hour later has read the entire game and made a case on sharrant? his case is really tunnely, and reaching, as well FoS Clarity Yeah okay I might have started reading and then figured I would read the last two pages and see palmar talking about possibly being the hammervote so figured I'd show my face. interested why you think my case is reaching, though. I find this quote interesting. Clarity apparently was afraid of not posting anything before the hammer fell, and here he is admitting that his case on Sharrant was something done in haste, and to "show his face", not cause he found the reasons good enough to post them so quickly. Hi Vivax. When you say interesting, what do you mean? Because pointing out something as interesting and seeing if anyone else jumps on it is interesting. Erm, yes I wanted to get a couple of posts in before day 1 ended, and I didn't just want it to be "I'm here guys", I do possess some self preservation. I figured if I showed my face maybe people would hold off on hammering and give me a chance to catch up. Turns out palmar wasn't even close to hammering but w/e, I wasn't sure. And I did find reasons, maybe the case isn't well worded or convincing but it is in essence why I believe he's scum. When I say interesting, I mean that you seemed to prioritize self-preservation and good-looking stuff over actual involvement and attempts at finding scum. Your case against Sharrant looks like you bought it at a fastfood-chain. I prefer people who honestly admit that they can't be up to date with the thread information instead of those who cook quick cases which look like they only had the purpose of self-presentation. Is this more likely to come from mafia!Clarity now that we know Oats flipped town? Why not just agree with your case on Oats?
Well, it's a possibly valid point but it's also connection based. If you're mafia and there are two bandwagons, let's assume both town, then nothing forces you to pick a side, but it makes you look better if you oppose both and go for something no one is going to lynch at that moment.
It's easy for mafia to look like they were on the right side during lynches. I'd prefer using other reasoning to infer if someone is scum than being right or wrong on wagons.
|
Clarity came in with the case and in his next post he basically said he hasn't read the whole thread. If you were scum and had been off for the first 36 or something hours of the game, what would be the first thing you would do when you are back?
I agree that Clarity's actions after that case are kinda... meh.. But i think the case he made in the manner he made that should not be a scumtell, at least for you yamato.
|
I'm curious about your motivation to defend clarity, Rayn.
Is there some really strong evidence for him being town that we aren't seeing, or do you feel he's at danger of getting lynched soon?
|
I'm not defending him. I think yamato has a decent chance of being mafia and i think you have a decent chance of being town. I disagree with you reasons for Clarity being mafia (especially yamato's), so i would like to see how a likely-town and likely-mafia player do think about this situation.
I think there is more town than mafia motivation for Clarity to enter the thread in a way he did (unless yamato is mafia), but there are other points that i would like to look into about him (especially his contributions after that, and his promises to read BC/GiygaS/ShiaoPi which are not fullfilled).
|
11589 Posts
Well, you're wrong. Mafia love to distance themselves from townie wagons. They do it all the time. The fact that he basically never took a stance on either of us is a point against him.
|
And i think if there are two wagons (assuming both town) why the hell would you (as mafia) create another one on a guy who is assumed being town from a lot of people (unless they are both scum, which i doubt). Why draw attention to you with a case on another townie (because you know you are wrong) when there is no need to do so.
|
TLDR; I'm saying that Clarity's case on Sharrant is not alignment indicative in my opinion. It could be made by town!Clarity just as easily as mafia!Clarity (i'm not sure why he would do that as mafia, as i certainly wouldn't, but that's possibility).
I just want to find out why you guys think that's important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
