|
just woke up, skimmed what I've missed:
On April 03 2013 18:18 Lazermonkey wrote:
Also, don't hammer yet...
This. Today has a self imposed deadline, take every second of it that you can get. It is way more scum motivated to want to end the day early. I could understand if you're that confident I'm scum but nevertheless, don't hammer me, I want to get something meaningful into the thread.
Is day 1 a plurality lynch or do we still have to reach a majority before the 48 hours is up?
I don't have time to reread who's voting me and why etc right this minute, so give me a couple hours to get back please.
|
On April 03 2013 19:22 Lazermonkey wrote:
I think you are using meta in the wrong way, Axle. No, I haven't actually gone back to the games to find specific posts that match with this game but I don't feel I have to.
You have displayed that you don't think his play this game matches his town meta (first and foremost you only quote 2 posts, but lets ignore that for a sec) however, this is quite irrelevant. What we do want to know is if his meta matches his scum games, not if it doesn't match his town games.
My point is that hopeless have a history misslynches and I think there are better alternatives than him atm.
No you are right, it is true you don't have to, but your post directed me at an entire filter.
So I thought i would be polite and at least attempt to see if your point made sense to me.
I do want to be sure we lynch the best most likely candidate.
You failed to find difference between his play here and there, I thought I did.
I also admit I just added that bit in at the end, primarily my read/case was based on his play in just this game.
Also i see better alternatives is plural... do you have better alternatives or a better alternative?
|
Thinking of what axle wrote earlier about players most likely to get shot...
I think it's important to mention that we DO have a medic and scum DOESN'T have a RB. Thus scum might aim for a slightly suboptimal shot in order to get a guaranteed kill. Therefore it is of great importance that everyone have given out a couple of reads before we hammer because we cannot speak at night. Everyone (probebly not hopeless tho) may get killed.
|
@Axle: that should read better alternative!
|
Russian Federation140 Posts
ghor want kill sylencia very much, ghor think he look more scummy with each post.
So pretty much, I'm willing to hammer Hopeless here, but if it's town I still see this as looking horrible on Ghor. Not that he wasn't looking horrible to me anyways.
this look terrible terrible from sylencia. ghor facepalm, this more than just connection read, this connection justification for later bad push against ghor. whole play look terrible. ghor not need make case, sylencia filter is case. but ghor maybe try to make good case later, if town not convinced.
##Unvote
##Vote Sylencia
|
On April 03 2013 18:17 Lazermonkey wrote:
Sylencia: Explain WHY hopeless and Ghors actions make them scum.
Also, how did CC become town,suddenly? -.-
Because (more for Ghor) you can't try to call someone out for not voting someone they think is a bit sketchy when they don't do it themselves. Again, for Ghor, he's put a vote on me saying that I was too wishy washy on risk, didn't push anything that hard and yet he said risk was scum, I was defending him but he didn't want to vote for risk. I understand not ending the day early and now I see we seem to all be shying away from voting since we could be silenced at any moment but if he's a scum read you vote for him. Adding on to that is that the vote on me is more on association with said scum suspect (at the time). Why vote for the associated one when you could remove the root of the problem and then branch from there?
The same case then applies to Hopeless who goes for the associated scum rather than the one they are being associated with. Dumb lynch choices for town.
On April 03 2013 20:49 Ghor wrote:ghor want kill sylencia very much, ghor think he look more scummy with each post. Show nested quote +So pretty much, I'm willing to hammer Hopeless here, but if it's town I still see this as looking horrible on Ghor. Not that he wasn't looking horrible to me anyways. this look terrible terrible from sylencia. ghor facepalm, this more than just connection read, this connection justification for later bad push against ghor. whole play look terrible. ghor not need make case, sylencia filter is case. but ghor maybe try to make good case later, if town not convinced.
##Unvote
##Vote Sylencia
Go ahead and make a case, and I'll defend.
|
They are indeed hypocrites in that regard but why does that make them scum? Does scum apply bad logic more so than town in your opinion? Because I actually think the opposite ( though it would be terrible to call someone town because of him applying bad logic...).
And wtf happend with your CC read? You still haven't answered yet.
|
On April 02 2013 07:11 Hapahauli wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 07:06 Lazermonkey wrote:
Hi everyone!
I want to start things off by saying that this is my first time playing an instant majority lynch. While the first 48 hours obviously aren't instant majority, I still think we can start discuss some policy to get things going.
1.If we are about to kill someone, we should at least give the person 24 hours to be able to put up a solid defense.
2.Throw votes around all you want but if you hammer someone, you and everyone else on that wagon better provide good reasoning for that.
Everyone who fails at these stuff should get policy lynched right away imo. For clarification, Day 1 is instant majority. There is just a 48 hour time-limit on the day. So you could lynch someone before that time-limit.
as a reminder as there appears to be some confusion
|
On April 03 2013 21:48 iamperfection wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 07:11 Hapahauli wrote:On April 02 2013 07:06 Lazermonkey wrote:
Hi everyone!
I want to start things off by saying that this is my first time playing an instant majority lynch. While the first 48 hours obviously aren't instant majority, I still think we can start discuss some policy to get things going.
1.If we are about to kill someone, we should at least give the person 24 hours to be able to put up a solid defense.
2.Throw votes around all you want but if you hammer someone, you and everyone else on that wagon better provide good reasoning for that.
Everyone who fails at these stuff should get policy lynched right away imo. For clarification, Day 1 is instant majority. There is just a 48 hour time-limit on the day. So you could lynch someone before that time-limit. as a reminder as there appears to be some confusion
I meant what happens if the deadline passes and a majority is not reached? Is that a no-lynch or a plurality lynch?
|
Axle, if you're around, do you seriously believe I think there are 3 scum? You devoted a decent section of your case against me to something that literally cannot be true, unless Hapa is bastard modding
|
On April 03 2013 21:53 Hopeless1der wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2013 21:48 iamperfection wrote:On April 02 2013 07:11 Hapahauli wrote:On April 02 2013 07:06 Lazermonkey wrote:
Hi everyone!
I want to start things off by saying that this is my first time playing an instant majority lynch. While the first 48 hours obviously aren't instant majority, I still think we can start discuss some policy to get things going.
1.If we are about to kill someone, we should at least give the person 24 hours to be able to put up a solid defense.
2.Throw votes around all you want but if you hammer someone, you and everyone else on that wagon better provide good reasoning for that.
Everyone who fails at these stuff should get policy lynched right away imo. For clarification, Day 1 is instant majority. There is just a 48 hour time-limit on the day. So you could lynch someone before that time-limit. as a reminder as there appears to be some confusion I meant what happens if the deadline passes and a majority is not reached? Is that a no-lynch or a plurality lynch?
no lynch
|
PERFECTLY STRONG COUNT
risk.nuke ( 0): Mr. Cheesecake, VisceraEyes, RebirthOfLeGenD, Hopeless1der
VisceraEyes ( 0 ): RebirthOfLeGenD
Sylencia ( 2 ): AxleGreaser, Ghor, Lazermonkey, Ghor
Mr. Cheesecake ( 1 ): Sylencia, RebirthOfLeGenD
Ghor ( 1 ): Hopeless1der , Hopeless1der
Hopeless1der ( 3 ): VisceraEyes, risk.nuke, Mr. Cheesecake, Ghor
Not Voting ( 2 ): AxleGreaser, Sylencia
With 9 alive it takes 5 to lynch. This is instant majority lynch. If you see a mistake please notify us.
|
On April 03 2013 21:54 Hopeless1der wrote:
Axle, if you're around, do you seriously believe I think there are 3 scum? You devoted a decent section of your case against me to something that literally cannot be true, unless Hapa is bastard modding
No I don't seriously believe you think there are 3 scum in 9 player game.
Who is your top scum read?
|
On April 03 2013 22:08 AxleGreaser wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2013 21:54 Hopeless1der wrote:
Axle, if you're around, do you seriously believe I think there are 3 scum? You devoted a decent section of your case against me to something that literally cannot be true, unless Hapa is bastard modding No I don't seriously believe you think there are 3 scum in 9 player game. Who is your top scum read?
risk > ghor at the moment, but I haven't re-read ghor yet. working on a risk case now.
|
On April 03 2013 22:09 Hopeless1der wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2013 22:08 AxleGreaser wrote:On April 03 2013 21:54 Hopeless1der wrote:
Axle, if you're around, do you seriously believe I think there are 3 scum? You devoted a decent section of your case against me to something that literally cannot be true, unless Hapa is bastard modding No I don't seriously believe you think there are 3 scum in 9 player game. Who is your top scum read? risk > ghor at the moment, but I haven't re-read ghor yet. working on a risk case now.
How did your case on Ghor get started?
|
On April 03 2013 22:09 AxleGreaser wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2013 22:09 Hopeless1der wrote:On April 03 2013 22:08 AxleGreaser wrote:On April 03 2013 21:54 Hopeless1der wrote:
Axle, if you're around, do you seriously believe I think there are 3 scum? You devoted a decent section of your case against me to something that literally cannot be true, unless Hapa is bastard modding No I don't seriously believe you think there are 3 scum in 9 player game. Who is your top scum read? risk > ghor at the moment, but I haven't re-read ghor yet. working on a risk case now. How did your case on Ghor get started?
Hes a trolly jerkface who insulted my literacy skills. Also, relatively insistent that risk.nuke is scum, but wont hammer in order to find the "other scum". Upon finding said scum (sylencia), doesn't want to hammer risk.nuke anymore. Granted, I'm sailing the same boat but whatever..
|
On April 03 2013 21:46 Lazermonkey wrote:
They are indeed hypocrites in that regard but why does that make them scum? Does scum apply bad logic more so than town in your opinion? Because I actually think the opposite ( though it would be terrible to call someone town because of him applying bad logic...).
And wtf happend with your CC read? You still haven't answered yet.
The read disappeared when CC came back? I told you my point on him was that he left a vote and disappeared, he's come back, he's made points and he's not that high on my radar at the moment.
To your other questions, scum don't necessarily apply bad logic, they would more likely use actions others have done to justify something they didn't intend to do, run with it and hope it convinces enough people. So it's not really logic that I'm talking about there, just twisting other's actions would probably make for a better course of action. The problem I'd see with scum wanting to use logic is that it's easily backtracked and exposed, and that's why I don't see it being used as much of a point of attack as scum.
|
On April 03 2013 22:15 Hopeless1der wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2013 22:09 AxleGreaser wrote:On April 03 2013 22:09 Hopeless1der wrote:On April 03 2013 22:08 AxleGreaser wrote:On April 03 2013 21:54 Hopeless1der wrote:
Axle, if you're around, do you seriously believe I think there are 3 scum? You devoted a decent section of your case against me to something that literally cannot be true, unless Hapa is bastard modding No I don't seriously believe you think there are 3 scum in 9 player game. Who is your top scum read? risk > ghor at the moment, but I haven't re-read ghor yet. working on a risk case now. How did your case on Ghor get started? Hes a trolly jerkface who insulted my literacy skills. Also, relatively insistent that risk.nuke is scum, but wont hammer in order to find the "other scum". Upon finding said scum (sylencia), doesn't want to hammer risk.nuke anymore. Granted, I'm sailing the same boat but whatever.. So you confess that you are looking scummy or what?
|
On April 03 2013 22:24 Lazermonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2013 22:15 Hopeless1der wrote:On April 03 2013 22:09 AxleGreaser wrote:On April 03 2013 22:09 Hopeless1der wrote:On April 03 2013 22:08 AxleGreaser wrote:On April 03 2013 21:54 Hopeless1der wrote:
Axle, if you're around, do you seriously believe I think there are 3 scum? You devoted a decent section of your case against me to something that literally cannot be true, unless Hapa is bastard modding No I don't seriously believe you think there are 3 scum in 9 player game. Who is your top scum read? risk > ghor at the moment, but I haven't re-read ghor yet. working on a risk case now. How did your case on Ghor get started? Hes a trolly jerkface who insulted my literacy skills. Also, relatively insistent that risk.nuke is scum, but wont hammer in order to find the "other scum". Upon finding said scum (sylencia), doesn't want to hammer risk.nuke anymore. Granted, I'm sailing the same boat but whatever.. So you confess that you are looking scummy or what?
I always look scummy, you're the one who's been defending me on that concept.
|
Okay, back to why risk.nuke is scum:
Let me try again and actually explain why this shows a scum mentality.
On April 02 2013 08:44 risk.nuke wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 08:39 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On April 02 2013 08:37 risk.nuke wrote:
Worst vote ever. On the contrary, best vote ever. I would argue that putting your vote on a townie is greatly suboptimal.
1) Soft-claim town. He didn't say "I'M TOWN", he said voting a townie is bad.
2) Now, I'm making some pretty blanket statements here, but I would expect:
- Scum want to kill townies.
- Townies want to kill scum.
- Townies do not want to kill townies.
The assumption of this post is that CC is town and should not want other townies to die. <---This is what I am calling as the slip, risk knows CC is town.
+ Show Spoiler +[CONFIRMATION BIAS] On April 02 2013 08:48 risk.nuke wrote:
You want me to spoil the ending and hand you the key to the test? He has the answer key *hint hint* [/CONFIRMATION BIAS]
risk.nuke is the original proponent of the Kenpachi rule in this game. He did this for no other reason than an errant observation. No alignment indicative thoughts on it. VE made his point about it already:
+ Show Spoiler +On April 02 2013 10:15 VisceraEyes wrote:
I had a similar thought regarding risk.nuke. Why bring up the Kenpachi Rule at all if he had no intention of following it? My thoughts brought me to "He's scummy". He's either:
1) Scum trying to incriminate RoL innocuously by "joking" about Kenpachi Rule.
2) Town trying to trap someone into agreeing with his assessment and voting RoL.
I ruled out 2 by asking him if he thought RoL was scum because of it, and he doesn't, which leaves 1).
##Vote: risk.nuke
Conversely I'm very null on RoL. Abhorring my play-style is very NOT alignment indicative for that guy.
Something I notice reading risk's filter is he keeps trying to defend himself regarding his handling of the Kenpachi Rule, saying that people have different opinions and that he doesn't use methods like that to find scum.
However, when initially called out by VE, he insists that he was scumhunting
Its not so much a backpedal as it is him trying to "say the right things" to me.
Over the course of an hour, risk twice tells VE/RoL to stop tunneling
On April 02 2013 09:45 risk.nuke wrote:
VE, RoL. If you're going to tunnel-bitch-argue in the thread atleast argue about something remotely relevant.
On April 02 2013 10:46 risk.nuke wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 10:43 VisceraEyes wrote:
Can you point out where I've been talking about "the dangers of voting"? I'm pretty sure all I've talked about was how Lazer's and RoL's policies were retarded and unfair respectively. Will you please god damn stop tunneling? The thread have talked about it, I assume you read the thread?
But does nothing to steer the direction himself, just has a voice to tell them to stop whatever it is that they are doing (later on this was ganging up on him).
risk.nuke moves on to accuse me of not really being interested in finding scum, while at the same time calling EVERY NON-POSTING PERSON SCUMMY.
+ Show Spoiler +On April 02 2013 11:07 risk.nuke wrote:
Viscera. Tunneling isn't about time, it's about not having an open mind. You lashed out at me instantly and agressively for the smallest thing so clearly you're looking at me as if I am scum and are trying to find things things that are scummy about me to confirm that belief. Aka tunneling.
You want REAL scummy shit. Everyone that's not posting are scummier then those who are posting.
For 2, I personally think Hopeless1der look very uninterested in finding scum.
He goes to bed shortly after this, and upon waking up promises his "case" on meHAPA????. I mean, I guess that could happen if you'd just woken up, but still, that just irks me that he confuses his Scumread with the Host of the game. Nevertheless, he gets together his case on me:
On April 02 2013 20:58 risk.nuke wrote:Hopeless1der it started with this post.Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 10:07 Hopeless1der wrote:
ghor, are we going to be fighting a language barrier with you or are you just trolling? He's pretty much around but doesn't do anything or comments on anything of worth. His three posts tells us he was around and this is what he choose to comment on? Compare to other filters, dessertfruityHis other two posts one is a sheep-post where he talks briefly about hammers, which is fine but it doesn't really add anything. The second and last one is some cheap shots which mostly just serve to tell us he's not reading the thread and if he is he's just skimming through it without caring when we're 1½ pages.
Really, it started with my second post in the game? Bro, I had 3 posts at the time of this "case". Read my first 3 posts of both of those filters and compare them to my first 3 posts here. If you can honestly tell me I look 100% scummier in this game than those 2, then fuck it, hammer me right goddamn now.
On April 03 2013 14:27 risk.nuke wrote:
We're not lynching anyone other then hopeless. RoL you got to be joking if you think that we're going to lynch cheesecake first. While I agree with your posts and I had some thoughts in simmilar direction last night. It's still a weaker case then on hopeless. I don't like how you haven't talked about me since your vote and I would like you to comment further on me and hopeless.
Hopeless is obvious scum and has pretty much given up by now. This is not how he plays as town.
And Ghor's post are not hard to read. If you disregard the fact that he speaks in third person and often don't use capital letters they're actually very simple to read and even efficiently phrased.
Sylencia. Who do you want to kill?
I want to know how I play as town, risk. Please show me.
risk.nuke's scumread on me is very weak imo, and he cites my meta as his main argument without demonstrating how I've deviated from my town meta or adhered to my scum meta. He's just made the statement that I'm not playing my town game and that I'm obvious scum. This is an incredibly lazy stance to take, and I want to see it substantiated before I die if possible. Alternatively, I'd like to see risk.nuke swing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
