|
Let's play a game... |
On June 01 2013 05:55 TomB4 wrote:
I agree that DrT looks considerably worse for having disappeared. I'm just not convinced he's scum based on what he's actually posted.
If my vote is needed I can switch it to DrT, since Troughton won't get lynched today.
Maybe DrT and Trout are both scum and we're smashing our heads in for no reason. I want DrT to be lynched first however and wait until Trout posts more. If he keeps his contributions that small for another day I'll be on board for his lynch though.
I disliked that you tried to display your reasons for going after trout as something else than policy. Care to expand on why you did that?
Then, what do you think of the points Davison mentions? Those were about you falling for a modified Kenpachi trap and withholding reads being scummy.
|
Because it's not policy. You're hung up on semantics instead of actually focusing on important and relevant things.
|
On June 01 2013 06:19 TomB4 wrote:
Because it's not policy. You're hung up on semantics instead of actually focusing on important and relevant things.
All I saw you writing was "lynch this guy cause what he does is detrimental to town and we don't want him in lategame".
The moment you wrote your first post against him he just had dropped his own post. And until now we had no way of knowing that he would keep not posting.
You started by wanting to lynch him for roleplaying/trolling, and just now we actually can say for sure that he's keeping his contributions low, for whatever reason.
I don't understand why you're denying that your vote was cast on him for his writing style, not for arguments that speak for him being scum.
You even left out that he voiced suspicion against a player in that post, and instead said he posted nothing worthwhile. Only later JP said that he's also scum for mentioning wrong reasons for H3 being scum (which isn't even a good argument by itself imo).
I'd much rather get PTroughton to say something worthwhile. I expect players in this game to avoid bullshitting and roleplaying given that it's a smurf game and it's in our best interest to get things organised rapidly. Trolling around is in direct opposition to that goal, particularly as we are at a huge disadvantage to a normal game in which we can use meta-analysis to determine whether behaviour of a certain type is to be expected.
##vote PTroughton2
|
No, my arguments were more based on his lack of content along with his roleplaying. It's one thing to troll and actually contribute-look at Foolishness writing limericks and still giving out worthwhile contribution. Perhaps I should have been more clear about this. Roleplaying is annoying at best if it's accompanied with actual contribution, but he was not only trolling, but not doing anything either.
He still hasn't said anything of value, and it's still unknown whether we can expect him to continue to be worthless because we don't know who he is. There are some players who, even if they troll without contributing, you might still consider keeping alive because that's just what they do. In this case we have no way of knowing that, and such behaviour is directly harmful to us.
|
Well, you seem very confident in everything you say, although there are still points that irk me. I look forward to your scumreads when the time is ripe to post them.
Now, if you would be so kind to make sure that we lynch today, could you put your vote on DrT please?
|
loll tom you gonna feel dumb when you find out you are wrong
|
I'd rather feel dumb than correct, since I am the minority in this case. It's better for us if I'm wrong.
##unvote
##vote DrTennant
|
Eccleston promised to deliver something in his second last post but so far I have seen only a post with a few questions to Hurndall3, who is apparently one of his scumreads.
I am eager to see what he thinks of so many people reading Hurn as town, in the meantime he's back in the red zone.
|
I've had a hellishly busy couple of days and regret not being able to be more active or useful. I've barely been able to keep up with the thread.
Anyway, I've been feeling better and better about this DrT lynch since the game started. smcc's original case was valid. I added on some points which I thought were pretty persuasive. And on top of this Mr. Spotlight has done the opposite of what he claimed he would do. He just vanished. So I'm happy with this lynch. Here's to a scum flip!
I've got to leave soon but I'll be checking in from my phone throughout the evening/night. Wouldn't want to miss the flip.
|
On June 01 2013 05:07 TomB4 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 04:34 Baker1986 wrote:On June 01 2013 04:08 TomB4 wrote:
If DrT is town and he dies, it's my fault?
wtf?
I'm one of two people who is trying to change the lynch, and all of you on that wagon are resisting the change immensely. There's no point in me saying anything more than "I think you guys are wrong and it's in the best interest of everyone to wait for the lynch if no opinions are going to change."
Results effect change in this game, unfortunately. Based on the reactions I got earlier and the time left in the day, if I have a correct read (and I think I do) it would only result in the scum being forewarned and changing behavior in the 48+ hours where they are basically immune to dying. I've seen it all too often before. This is really irrelevant to the problem at hand, but the point is that if you're somehow right and we're wrong, you still couldn't manage to convince town that you were right, so you're equally bad. It's equally awful to be wrong, and to be unable to convince people you're right. And it's about as useful. And the reason I want your reads is that it's incredibly scum favored to hide them, if you are scum that is. It's much harder to change a read when you have to provide legitimate reasons for it, instead of just saying "hey I thought about it all along". Maybe we should just last minute switch and kill you because you're bad and annoying. No it isn't scum favored to hold reads when they have no chance of being acted upon. You hold reads when you know they are in no position to be lynched because outting them would result in the scum changing behaviour. Town should operate on a need-to-know basis in this regard, it's often much better to observe and note things than simply spill everything out when it's not going to actually do anything. I'm scum because I couldn't convince you that you were wrong? Nah. If you are wrong and you don't listen to me it's your fault, not mine. I've already outlined clearly and emphatically why I disagree with the logic used for voting DrT. There is nothing left for me to argue against-I've already outlined everything in a previous post. If you disagree, then there is no choice for me but to wait for lynch because A.) the evidence is strong to me that you are not willing to sway your opinion based on the logic I use and B.) There isn't enough time for me to browbeat enough people into agreeing with me, not that I would want to, since it would require a herculean effort that would probably not be worth it in the end anyway.
this guy is probably town anyway. This is wrong, but it also displays a mindset where he is only willing to consider the action from the point of view that he's confirmed town. I didn't call you scum for that, just bad. The thing that's scummy is that you're withholding information that we can use to analyse you. From the point of view if you're confirmed town I could agree sometimes it's useful not to play all your cards, but playing all your cards as town forces scum to do the same, making it so much more difficult for them to stay on top of fake reads.
But as I said, I feel slightly better about your chances of being town.
and to be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if the scumteam was simply
PT
JP
DrT
|
and to be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if the scumteam was simply
PT
JP
DrT
Why should JP be the second to jump on the case against PT if they're scumbuddies? I feel similarly about Tom cause he seems so determinate in whatever he says, and JP asked me out a lot about Ecclestone in earlygame after my attention switched to DrT (I had the feeling JP tried to get me to talk about someone else than DrT).
So, if DrT and JP are both scum, I feel like I can rule out Trout for sure, Ecclestone likely, and the remaining one is either Tom who is playing a good scum game or someone else I didn't pay attention to yet.
|
Connection should never be a reason to not judge a player on an individual base though, it can easily lead to false conclusions, so take well salted what I just said, I will do that too.
|
|
|
Jeez why do I feel so elitist when I try hard. I must look like a huge narcissistic nerd.
Thanks for making this lynch possible dudes, DrT giving up on posting looks like a good sign.
Won't be around during deadline, but baker will serve you a nice and hot alien pie and make sure the doctor stays in the oven.
|
|
|
On June 01 2013 08:43 Baker1986 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 05:07 TomB4 wrote:On June 01 2013 04:34 Baker1986 wrote:On June 01 2013 04:08 TomB4 wrote:
If DrT is town and he dies, it's my fault?
wtf?
I'm one of two people who is trying to change the lynch, and all of you on that wagon are resisting the change immensely. There's no point in me saying anything more than "I think you guys are wrong and it's in the best interest of everyone to wait for the lynch if no opinions are going to change."
Results effect change in this game, unfortunately. Based on the reactions I got earlier and the time left in the day, if I have a correct read (and I think I do) it would only result in the scum being forewarned and changing behavior in the 48+ hours where they are basically immune to dying. I've seen it all too often before. This is really irrelevant to the problem at hand, but the point is that if you're somehow right and we're wrong, you still couldn't manage to convince town that you were right, so you're equally bad. It's equally awful to be wrong, and to be unable to convince people you're right. And it's about as useful. And the reason I want your reads is that it's incredibly scum favored to hide them, if you are scum that is. It's much harder to change a read when you have to provide legitimate reasons for it, instead of just saying "hey I thought about it all along". Maybe we should just last minute switch and kill you because you're bad and annoying. No it isn't scum favored to hold reads when they have no chance of being acted upon. You hold reads when you know they are in no position to be lynched because outting them would result in the scum changing behaviour. Town should operate on a need-to-know basis in this regard, it's often much better to observe and note things than simply spill everything out when it's not going to actually do anything. I'm scum because I couldn't convince you that you were wrong? Nah. If you are wrong and you don't listen to me it's your fault, not mine. I've already outlined clearly and emphatically why I disagree with the logic used for voting DrT. There is nothing left for me to argue against-I've already outlined everything in a previous post. If you disagree, then there is no choice for me but to wait for lynch because A.) the evidence is strong to me that you are not willing to sway your opinion based on the logic I use and B.) There isn't enough time for me to browbeat enough people into agreeing with me, not that I would want to, since it would require a herculean effort that would probably not be worth it in the end anyway. this guy is probably town anyway. This is wrong, but it also displays a mindset where he is only willing to consider the action from the point of view that he's confirmed town. I didn't call you scum for that, just bad. The thing that's scummy is that you're withholding information that we can use to analyse you. From the point of view if you're confirmed town I could agree sometimes it's useful not to play all your cards, but playing all your cards as town forces scum to do the same, making it so much more difficult for them to stay on top of fake reads. But as I said, I feel slightly better about your chances of being town. and to be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if the scumteam was simply
PT
JP
DrT
"playing all your cards" as town does not in any way force scum to do anything more than ensure they don't get lynched. That's laughably easy when they know all your reads.
Like most players on TL you have no idea how to play scum.
|
On June 01 2013 09:47 TomB4 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 08:43 Baker1986 wrote:On June 01 2013 05:07 TomB4 wrote:On June 01 2013 04:34 Baker1986 wrote:On June 01 2013 04:08 TomB4 wrote:
If DrT is town and he dies, it's my fault?
wtf?
I'm one of two people who is trying to change the lynch, and all of you on that wagon are resisting the change immensely. There's no point in me saying anything more than "I think you guys are wrong and it's in the best interest of everyone to wait for the lynch if no opinions are going to change."
Results effect change in this game, unfortunately. Based on the reactions I got earlier and the time left in the day, if I have a correct read (and I think I do) it would only result in the scum being forewarned and changing behavior in the 48+ hours where they are basically immune to dying. I've seen it all too often before. This is really irrelevant to the problem at hand, but the point is that if you're somehow right and we're wrong, you still couldn't manage to convince town that you were right, so you're equally bad. It's equally awful to be wrong, and to be unable to convince people you're right. And it's about as useful. And the reason I want your reads is that it's incredibly scum favored to hide them, if you are scum that is. It's much harder to change a read when you have to provide legitimate reasons for it, instead of just saying "hey I thought about it all along". Maybe we should just last minute switch and kill you because you're bad and annoying. No it isn't scum favored to hold reads when they have no chance of being acted upon. You hold reads when you know they are in no position to be lynched because outting them would result in the scum changing behaviour. Town should operate on a need-to-know basis in this regard, it's often much better to observe and note things than simply spill everything out when it's not going to actually do anything. I'm scum because I couldn't convince you that you were wrong? Nah. If you are wrong and you don't listen to me it's your fault, not mine. I've already outlined clearly and emphatically why I disagree with the logic used for voting DrT. There is nothing left for me to argue against-I've already outlined everything in a previous post. If you disagree, then there is no choice for me but to wait for lynch because A.) the evidence is strong to me that you are not willing to sway your opinion based on the logic I use and B.) There isn't enough time for me to browbeat enough people into agreeing with me, not that I would want to, since it would require a herculean effort that would probably not be worth it in the end anyway. this guy is probably town anyway. This is wrong, but it also displays a mindset where he is only willing to consider the action from the point of view that he's confirmed town. I didn't call you scum for that, just bad. The thing that's scummy is that you're withholding information that we can use to analyse you. From the point of view if you're confirmed town I could agree sometimes it's useful not to play all your cards, but playing all your cards as town forces scum to do the same, making it so much more difficult for them to stay on top of fake reads. But as I said, I feel slightly better about your chances of being town. and to be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if the scumteam was simply
PT
JP
DrT
"playing all your cards" as town does not in any way force scum to do anything more than ensure they don't get lynched. That's laughably easy when they know all your reads. Like most players on TL you have no idea how to play scum.
Herp derp.
I'm good at town though, and I'm good at picking out townies. One of the most useful thing for picking out townies is to see how their thought process is.
|
WHOS THERE?
SMcCoy (0): Hurndall3.
TheDavison (0): Hurndall3.
DrTennant (7): SMcCoy, Baker1986, MSmith1, HartnellWil, A McGann, Eccleston, Hurndall3, TomB4
Hurndall3 (2): PTroughton2, TheDavison
PTroughton2 (3): TomB4, JPertwee, DrTennant, Hurndall3
TomB4 (3): TheDavison
DrTennant is set to be lynched.
Votes without ## will not be counted
1 hour till Deadline
|
please add 1-2 more votes to the wagon to stop last-minute withdrawals and stuff.
|
We have 8, so a buffer of 1.
Still, one more would be nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
