| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On April 06 2013 04:18 jrkirby wrote: I'm here now. Right now you're my top scumread so I'm focusing on you. Like every post you make looks more and more scummy to me. So now you were voting for him but it wasn't a serious vote?If you like people talking a lot, why have you been so quiet thus far? | ||
|
phagga
Switzerland2194 Posts
VOTE COUNT: TheRavensname (0) Rainbows (3) Smancer (0) Saraf (1) Rainbows jrkirby (3) JarJarDrinks, Smancer, nobodywonder Note Voting: jampidampi, Saraf, TheRavensName, Obzy, jrkirby Rainbows is currently set to be lynched Deadline is in 28 hours. Voting is mandatory. If you see your vote (or anyone else') out of place please inform me or someone else on the hosting team so that we can correct it. | ||
|
jrkirby
United States1510 Posts
On April 06 2013 04:41 JarJarDrinks wrote: I'm here now. Right now you're my top scumread so I'm focusing on you. Like every post you make looks more and more scummy to me. So now you were voting for him but it wasn't a serious vote? What have I said that is scummy? The only piece of evidence you've put against me is that I "Voted for someone and then defended them." Is that all you've got? The fact that I made an unconfidant vote and then retracted it? | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 06 2013 02:18 Rainbows wrote: You can tell by the context that he thinks I'm probably town. Just look at the statement where he tells me what I should be asking myself this game as town. Regardless, he wants to lynch me despite my alignment which is not town-mindset at all. We can keep arguing syntax or lynch scum, kk? No you really can't tell that from the context. Sarafs post is an answer to your statement about policy. Everything that follows is written in a general term, the statement you mentioned included. Obzy: If I had to pick a scumread, at the moment, it would be Warent for his vote and justification - things may change, though. Could you at least explain why you disagree with my justification? If there are flaws in my logic, I really want them to be pointed out. jampidampi: Warrent, your filter still doesn't give information what you think about anyone other than Rainbows. I'm sure you must have opinions on others. Well, the thing is I really want to stay on this topic, at least until I get a believable explanation. If Rainbow had backed down, when you pointed out his misinterpretation in this post: + Show Spoiler + http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=405359¤tpage=8#153 Honestly I don't have any other reads (that doesn't depend on this one), opinions - yes - but no facts. What about you jampidampi, any reads? | ||
|
jrkirby
United States1510 Posts
| ||
|
Fishgle
United States2174 Posts
@Warent: You joined in much later than anyone else, and yet, you still choose to call out Rainbows? Doesn't anyone else stand as needing some scrutinizing? I mean, you can vote for and question rainbows and still investigating others. @Smancer, of everyone, I think your posts have been the most useful. Your points on jrkirby especially. He hasn't contributed much. And then he makes this post: There's actually someone else I've got my eye on now, but he hasn't shown any real evidence, it's just a hunch. how is that helpful at all? Either tell us who you're suspecting or i'll just assume you're lying. You've just been sitting back and mostly talking when people call you out.I too want to see some discussion about jampidampi. He's been jumping in and out, questioning people, but not really providing any opinions. Rather noncommital. Not only that, but he himself states people should be actively scumhunting, and doesn't do it himself. I don't like it. My scum reads at the moment are: jampidampi, jrkirby, and warent ##Unvote: Rainbows | ||
|
Fishgle
United States2174 Posts
##Unvote just wanted to point out that i'm not that suspicious of rainbows anymore. It's still a possibility that he's scum, of course, but i think most of the leads on him were badly reasoned, and he has created some good discussion overall. | ||
|
Obzy
United States525 Posts
I think smancer and jampi have been playing in a protown manner, and Saraf's few posts have seemed townie, but he really needs more of them :l (Posts, that is!) I haven't looked at Rainbows' filter carefully yet, but my initial thought on him lined up with smancer's comment - not a good lynch today, atm. (maybe that'll change once I read his filter - will comment if it does lol.) I don't think his vote on Saraf makes an enormous amount of sense, because reading from the beginning, Saraf's first post feels like it in no way attempts to call out Rainbows, and rain took it as a soft-accusation. In that light, Warent, the reason that I didn't like your vote and justification is because it felt like Rainbows was solidly somebody to not worry about today, and you came in late enough that the initial salvo of joke votes, random votes, thread-starters had already occurred. When you came in, Rainbows was the vote leader (somehow -_-; ), and it looked to me like you were jumping in and making a case on an active player who had votes, I disliked that thread entrance quite a bit. (Specifically, the line "And I'm not alone" sort of caught me. Why does it matter, as an opening post? If there was a wagon forming after much discussion - sure. I like the power of numbers and agreement and stuff. But at that timing.... enhnhnnn) uh, other thoughts... no real read on jarjar, just tunneling kirby. I'll have to read kirby before I know if this is okay or not ^^ | ||
|
Obzy
United States525 Posts
I don't know what to think of Raven. He hasn't really posted enough - only his last two posts have content I care about; Why does he think Saraf called Rain an asshole and an idiot? "even if the spammiest asshole is just some poor well-meaning fattie" - how is that implying Rain, unless it's taken for granted that Rain is a spammy asshole? >_>;;; Also, how did Rain interpret it to be calling him out? - -; w/e. I would like to see Raven post more. Raven, are you implying that nobodywonder is town (haven't read him yet, will form an opinion momentarily) with this post? On April 06 2013 03:06 TheRavensName wrote: Seeing as how this is the third game now where NW has been a scummy read day one... have we ever wondered if NW just isn't that bright/isn't that good? I think NW just isn't that great and just makes mistakes and poor judgements that never seem to go well for him. Just curious rainbows: Do you think Saraf or Nobodywonder has a higher chance of being scum, seeing as how right now the way I read it based off that wording is that you yourself are now voting for a guy you think might be town compared to a guy you think is scummy. You seem like you're trying to point out that Rain's vote on Saraf is suspect, but that Nobodywonder is just a newb and not scum, but _also_ that he should be looking towards Nobodywonder instead of Saraf, who you think is town? I don't like it :x Please post more hehe. - -; I'm not following your reasoning, and that's all you've got atm. (Continuing to read.) | ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
Rainbows, I'm surprised you're sticking to me as I really thought that was a joke vote. You might just be getting real defensive because you thought I wanted to lynch you at the time (you're misreading it, willfully or not) so I'm going to spell out the idea again, and this time I actually want your thoughts on it instead of tunneling me on a case so weak it honestly didn't look real. + Show Spoiler + Policy (and I really don't see how this is lulzy): In the absence of a strong scumread, lynch the spammiest asshole. ((Try reading this again in a vacuum, Rainbows, instead of imagining it is directed at you; I quoted your post about "don't talk policy" because I began by responding to the point about not talking policy)) Reasoning: Spam is anti-town, so lynching the spammiest asshole de-clutters the thread and makes scumhunting easier. Two possibilities exist: either the spammiest asshole is scum and becomes dead scum, or the spammiest asshole is a bad townie whose actions are hurting town. IF the spammiest asshole turned out to be a bad townie, then at least the bad townie will not be hurting town on N1 and D2. But, the spammiest asshole will never be a good townie. And, as I explained in my second post, actively scumhunting is not the same thing as spamming. Here are the primary things I'm still looking to get at: (1) Rainbows, I still want to see you actually respond to my policy suggestion; look at it again, note that the policy is not "policy lynch Rainbows", and tell my why you hate it. Since it's been thrown out, I haven't seen the thread getting shit up so as far as I'm concerned it's served its puprose. I also want to know why you included an entire paragraph about how I didn't suggest any policy when I very clearly did, and then followed it with a one-sentence minimalist retraction. If I clearly suggested a policy (which people weren't really talking about at the time anyway) why devote so much time (read: any at all) to saying I didn't? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt since you were the one who got discussion going (so I'm going to read it as a misread and OMGUS) but I really don't like that paragraph. (2) jrkirby, you'd best get to explaining your "mystery read" because keeping that to yourself doesn't help town and looks mighty shady. Whoever it is, pressure them and they'll either come away clean or fuck up, because saying "I have a secret read" is highly suspect. Bolded for emphasis. Also, re: Obzy, it seems like people don't want a policy for pretty well-founded reasons (and on a related note I really liked jampidampi's response to my policy). We should be lynching based on scumreads rather than based on policy, but having a policy in place can help keep a pro-town environment in place so we never have to actually use it. For instance, if people never spam the thread to shit we don't have to lynch a spammiest asshole, the fear that we might if there was is itself a deterrent. | ||
|
Smancer
United States379 Posts
On April 06 2013 06:12 Fishgle wrote: I too want to see some discussion about jampidampi. He's been jumping in and out, questioning people, but not really providing any opinions. Rather noncommital. Not only that, but he himself states people should be actively scumhunting, and doesn't do it himself. I don't like it. ] You actually have a really good point. Looking at his filter it is terrible. Almost every single post is posing a question to someone rather than actually contributing. I mean literally every single one is what do you think about X? Look at this: + Show Spoiler + On April 05 2013 15:52 jampidampi wrote: Does Rainbows behaviour make him scum in your eyes? On April 05 2013 14:05 jampidampi wrote: In what way do you like Obzy? On April 05 2013 14:20 jampidampi wrote: Moloch, in this post you calling Rainbows scum in a noncommital way (bolded by me). Do you think he is actually scummy for that post? On April 05 2013 14:38 jampidampi wrote: By that way, you are voting Rainbows. What makes hi scummy? On April 05 2013 14:54 jampidampi wrote: While Rainbows post does generate discussion, do you think it was a good way to start discussion? On April 05 2013 15:30 jampidampi wrote: Fishgle, does your post mean that you are going to sleep? Your posts so far have all been reagrding Rainbows. Any other opinions? On April 05 2013 16:08 jampidampi wrote: Warent, do you have opinions on someone not named Rainbows? | ||
|
Obzy
United States525 Posts
Moloch is absent. He needs to post more, and I dislike his rainbows vote. It's been 16 hours though, maybe he'll show up and provide some insight, reads, or justification of something or other. Nullish I guess lol. I don't even know what to say to him because he's not here and I dislike his vote - different from Warent, because when Moloch disappeared, he had already discussed voting Rainbows before Warent even showed up- and then Warent shows up and votes Rainbows? *shrug.* I would like to see him post more. | ||
|
Obzy
United States525 Posts
(What I mean by this is I don't have a problem with Jampi's filter _at the moment_, but that's assuming he changes his behavior. If his behavior remains unchanged, /shrug.) | ||
|
jrkirby
United States1510 Posts
| ||
|
Obzy
United States525 Posts
On Nobodywonder - Ehn. He's a bit harsher than others? (Although I haven't done a proper read of Rain yet! hehe.) He seems to be tossing out a lot of suspicion, but it may just be the posting style. Rain and Smancer at first, and then Kirby where his vote lies.. But what does he actually think about Rain or Smancer? it looked more like banter than anything, also some defensiveness when mentioned by Smancer but nothing actually said. (And the Kirby vote is totally out of left field.) When he comes back, I'd like to see what he has to say about everyone - particularly the three of them, since he managed to talk about the first two without a read, and the situation with Kirby has changed since he mentioned who his candidate was. Rainbows - the only two page filter! Yay! [although now that I checked, I just bled into two pages too - -;] Only his last five posts actually matter much, though - anybody drawing conclusions on him before those posts, I disagree with heh. -->>> ugh my phone just went off and I have to leave the internet for an undetermined time. I will finish my thoughts on Rain once I get back, and again, answer any questions and look over any new developments. Hope my thoughts help! =/ It's time consuming to do so if nobody wants me to do them I'd be just as happy to play games instead -_- My current guesses include fish/smancer townyish, saraf/jampi are townish but need to post more, slight scum lean to Warent and Raven. I think the explanations are above, but if somebody disagrees, feel free to yell at me and state your own opinion! That's largely what I'm looking for anyways :3 | ||
|
Fishgle
United States2174 Posts
However, the more i look at Warent's entrance though, the scummier it looks. He gets mad at Rainbows for questioning him and then casts an emotional vote, despite not having any evidence. I think Rainbows was just throwing out votes to create discussion. Warent however, seems dead set on lynching rainbows, and argues semantics. Now, there's an interesting back'n'forth between rainbow and warent. The most interesting thing about it is that while rainbows is defending his vote, warent instead is defending saraf. What I think happened is that rainbows blindfired, got a lucky hit on a skinny (saraf), and then warent came in to try to defend his skinny exercise buddy. It doesn't help that Saraf is so anti-"spam". Obzy has posted just as much as rainbows, and i don't see anyone complaining that he's "spamming". Discussion is useful. What are we supposed to do, chit chat about nothing while the skinnys kill us off? True, some of rainbow's posts have been less substantial than i would have liked, but he got some discussion going. I don't think that's anything to get lynched over. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
Hey warent, what's your read on me, and the people who voted on me? I just re-read everything, and I don't think the case against you is very strong. However you better elaborate some on that mystery read of yours. @Warent: You joined in much later than anyone else, and yet, you still choose to call out Rainbows? Doesn't anyone else stand as needing some scrutinizing? I mean, you can vote for and question rainbows and still investigating others. Okey, that's a bit unfair, I checked the thread before I went to bed and first thing when I woke up. Remember that we are in different timezones. Investigating and providing cases are different things, I am investigating other, but I don't have any other constructive cases. I Can't give you a more honest answer than that. Now return me the favor and tell me why you obviously disagree with my case against Rainbow? Warent, the reason that I didn't like your vote and justification is because it felt like Rainbows was solidly somebody to not worry about today, and you came in late enough that the initial salvo of joke votes, random votes, thread-starters had already occurred. When you came in, Rainbows was the vote leader (somehow -_-; ), and it looked to me like you were jumping in and making a case on an active player who had votes, I disliked that thread entrance quite a bit. (Specifically, the line "And I'm not alone" sort of caught me. Why does it matter, as an opening post? If there was a wagon forming after much discussion - sure. I like the power of numbers and agreement and stuff. But at that timing.... enhnhnnn) Alright, fair enough, you dislike that I entered late - and how I did it. You know why I entered late. And I'm not apologizing for providing a case. A case, which I still like to hear your opinion on. Oh, and in hindsight you are right about the "not alone comment", that was unnecessary. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 06 2013 08:01 Fishgle wrote: jarjar needs to stop lurking and explain his vote. i also want to see TheRavensName, jampidampi, and Moloch post more so I can get better reads on them. However, the more i look at Warent's entrance though, the scummier it looks. He gets mad at Rainbows for questioning him and then casts an emotional vote, despite not having any evidence. I think Rainbows was just throwing out votes to create discussion. Warent however, seems dead set on lynching rainbows, and argues semantics. Now, there's an interesting back'n'forth between rainbow and warent. The most interesting thing about it is that while rainbows is defending his vote, warent instead is defending saraf. What I think happened is that rainbows blindfired, got a lucky hit on a skinny (saraf), and then warent came in to try to defend his skinny exercise buddy. It doesn't help that Saraf is so anti-"spam". Obzy has posted just as much as rainbows, and i don't see anyone complaining that he's "spamming". Discussion is useful. What are we supposed to do, chit chat about nothing while the skinnys kill us off? True, some of rainbow's posts have been less substantial than i would have liked, but he got some discussion going. I don't think that's anything to get lynched over. I enter with a suspicion and I provided a case. As far as evidence go: I caught rainbow trying to to push towards a lynch based on a misinterpretation that has been pointed out to him several times - yet he argues that his interpretation is the correct one. Why are you ignoring what I wrote in that post? Cute theory. Need to sleep now. | ||
|
Fishgle
United States2174 Posts
we've got about 24 hours left, right? | ||
|
jrkirby
United States1510 Posts
Ok. Let me list my reads on everyone: JarJarDrinks: You vote for me for a not good reason, don't say much else. Kinda scummy. 45% scum. Smancer: I think he just misread me. Gettin good discussion, but not saying much irrelevant stuff. 25% scum. jampidampi: I think he's clever. Hasn't given any clues as to scummyness, but has done a good job of diverting attention everywhere else. I just kinda have a hunch he's scum, no evidence. 33% scum. My "Mystery read" if you can call it that. Warent: I'm really not sure on you. 27% scum. Saraf: Not enough content for a good read. 26% scum. TheRavensName: Needs to post more, and say more about his reads. 28% scum. Fishgle: Seems pretty reasonable, has a couple of insights. 23% scum. Moloch: Same as Raven. 28% scum. Obzy: Pretty clear headed, nothing out of the ordinary. 25% scum. nobodywonder: My read is probably biased because you voted for me and then left without much explaining. 32% scum. Rainbows: I've recently been leaning towards stupid townie, but I still can't understand your big deal with saraf. There isn't much either way with him IMO. 30% scum. (was higher a while ago) My reads aren't very clear, but it's the first day still and I don't have solid evidence. Hopefully after the night I can analyse who the mafia killed and who voted for who a bit better and get some solid reads. | ||
| ||
|
|
Kung Fu Cup
IntoTheiNu
 18Maestros of the Game
Classic vs Lambo
Clem vs Maru
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Maestros of the Game
Serral vs Rogue
herO vs SHIN
OSC
Replay Cast
Maestros of the Game
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
