|
Let's play a game... |
Okay, there's a bunch of scattered stuff to respond to, and I only have a few minutes now that I have power back.
I prefer keeping town reads close to my chest, sue me.
MSmith may as well be confirmed town at this point.
McGann follows as the second most likely town. He was always sitting quite townie but the post he made from his phone pushed him over the edge.
McCoy is very likely to be town as well, now of my town reads if there's one that has any chance of being scum it would be this guy here. His constant misreading and misinterpreting of my statements made me quite suspicious of him. It's entirely possible this is biased because it is MY posts he was misreading, so take that with a grain of salt.
Davison is very likely town. No doubts on this one, the way he went back and forth with Dr. Tennant reads as genuine to me, and it was simply because I was tunnelled on pushing the read onto Troughton that I had doubts about him before.
Hurndall is very likely town, carefree posting, and obviously interested in the game. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a scum that could fake what Hurndall is doing this game.
Who does that leave us with?
Eccleston, Baker, Hartnell, Troughton, and TomB4.
Baker stands a good chance of being town, there's lots of signs pointing towards it, and he was on a scum lynch on day one, but the constant touting of McCoy just rubs me the wrong way. Unless he slips he shouldn't be looked at until LyLo.
Hartnell is a bit of a curious case. Regardless of his alignment I'm relatively sure he did just miss all of day one. For that reason his vote on Dr. Tennant doesn't particularly count for much. He was also suspicious of Troughton, however which is a plus in my eyes. However, he never follows up with Troughton on day 2. Drops his vote on Davison, then drops a case on Eccleston.
No real analysis in the case, just a summary, and no explanation of why it makes Eccleston scummier than Davison, or if he still thinks Davison is scum at this point. It's honestly making me doubt my read on Eccleston at this point because of how bad it looks.
TomB4: Was the only one really pushing for Troughton's lynch with me yesterday, so I didn't really look into him too much. The ratio of defending Tennant to pushing Troughton is a little too high, however this could easily come with Troughton's lack of content to go after. But what content there is is about as damning as it comes. I'm much less sure of Tom's alignment after rereading the day with the flip in mind. I don't think he's a particularly good lynch for today, but I can see that there's a distinct possibility he's town, and that Troughton isn't.
Eccleston reads very much like he's stuck between two scum bandwagons, and doesn't know what to do, but is just trying to save either of them. In my mind this is corroborated by the fact that Tennant has already flipped scum, and Troughton (while I'm a little more doubtful now) is still entirely likely to flip scum. I touched on it during my phone post, but the way he just goes back and forth between the two, trying to save whichever one is less likely to get lynched looks very bad. And his last second defense of Tennant even when he has his vote on the guy really rubs me the wrong way.
Troughton: Enough has been said about why this guy is scum. The new post seems fine, I don't see anything particularly alignment indicative of it. That he's going after Eccleston as well puts more doubt in my head. I think he's entirely worth lynching off his predecessors post, but that obviously isn't happening. For whoever asked me why not push Troughton today: That should be fairly obvious, I'm not in the position to get a rallying cry going and get him lynched. I've laid out why his first post could not come from a town player, and was not able to get him lynched. With the added likelihood of a mod kill or (now confirmed) replacement, the chances of getting anybody interested hovered around 0.
As far as not voting for Tennant yesterday, I think a few of you have called me out on it, when it should be fairly obvious that the best you can say is that it's a null point. I wasn't here to vote him, it's as simple as that. Sucks, but it's true. As either aligment I would have voted for him if I were here, that should be obvious to everyone. That I didn't just indicates the same thing that my whole filter indicates: I haven't had as much time as I would like to simply be able to play the game.
|
On June 03 2013 22:24 A McGann wrote:
Yeah, now that I've had a chance to get some sleep and re-read day 2, I am not at all happy with JPertwees play today.
I start the push on Davison. He jumps on as the 4th vote and labels it "without a doubt the best lynch". McCoy starts pushing back, and he jumps off the lynch with 'lol didn't read'. Push starts on Eccleston, he jumps on posting a 'case' based entirely in theory. I don't like the push on Eccleston, I posted as much at the time.
##Unvote
##Vote JPertwee
I feel more confident in this now that we've had a good look at multiple people.
Yeah, I read your case, and I felt that it was a great case so I sheeped it. Then I went back and actually looked at some of the things Davison did, and I realized there was no way he was scum with Dr. Tennant. It's as simple as that. You made a great sounding case, and I was convinced. I was convinced right up until the point where someone mentioned the interactions between Tennant and Davison, and after looking through his filter I could not see them as scum together.
|
On June 03 2013 22:59 JPertwee wrote:
sue me.
Way ahead of you buddy.
You were found to be guilty and your punishment will be to be hanged at dusk.
|
On June 03 2013 23:03 Baker1986 wrote:Way ahead of you buddy. You were found to be guilty and your punishment will be to be hanged at dusk.
It's nice to see that you can be given all of that info, and still find nothing to say. I'm not hanging today, because I'm not guilty.
|
On June 03 2013 23:25 JPertwee wrote:
It's nice to see that you can be given all of that info, and still find nothing to say. I'm not hanging today, because I'm not guilty.
This is a fallacy.
I am confident you will hang today. Your stance on "Guilt" has no bearing.
+ Show Spoiler +
This should solve the majority issue.
Quick question for you JP.
On May 30 2013 00:03 JPertwee wrote:+ Show Spoiler [*snip*] +On May 29 2013 23:48 SMcCoy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 23:31 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 23:21 SMcCoy wrote:On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum? It's a considerate post. At that point the majority of players didn't post, and I went by the assumption that scum doesn't post early. I voiced my opinion on Eccleston's excessive aggression, but it's not enough for me to make a judgment in light of the fact that scum might not even have posted yet. I think Ecclestone's posts might come from both a bad townie or scum. You call it ambiguous, expecting me to give a definite opinion. I would like you to tell me why you think that me voicing suspicion against a player is considered as saying nothing. Would you rather expect me to make a quick judgment this early in the game? Bolded your loaded question. Looks like faked hostility, doesn't reflect interest into finding out about my thought process. Well i don't know about you but i'm suspicious of everyone. i didnt take it as you saying you were suspicious of Eccleston i took as complete filler post that said absolutely nothing really and i took it as wishy washy and posting for the sake of posting by not taking a stance. I dont understand why making early judgements could be seen as bad i change my mind on things all the time based on new information and flip floping being scummy is a lie pushed by scum. Its only scummy when its convenient. So i dont understand your worry about making snap judgements. You didn't bring up Ecclestone after he told Smith that he doesn't know if he's angry villager or alien though. I'm curious why you didn't find his post to be filler content as opposed to mine. The bolded is essentially a statement about scumhunting method. Do you want me to make quick judgments? You seem like you're justifying quick judgments, then asking me why I'm worried about making them. If I'm worried about making them it's cause Ecclestone's posts didn't allow for a quick judgment, as already laid out. Now, why do you bring that up. Your posting went from telling me my post is wishy washy to justifying your own judgmental posting, is it to tell me that I should make quick judgments? I don't recall ever asking you to justify yourself for quick judgment, but you brought up a justification for it nonetheless. How is it relevant to you claiming that I am scum? Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 23:32 JPertwee wrote:On May 29 2013 23:21 SMcCoy wrote:On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum? It's a considerate post. At that point the majority of players didn't post, and I went by the assumption that scum doesn't post early. I voiced my opinion on Eccleston's excessive aggression, but it's not enough for me to make a judgment in light of the fact that scum might not even have posted yet. I think Ecclestone's posts might come from both a bad townie or scum. You call it ambiguous, expecting me to give a definite opinion. I would like you to tell me why you think that me voicing suspicion against a player is considered as saying nothing. Would you rather expect me to make a quick judgment this early in the game? Bolded your loaded question. Looks like faked hostility, doesn't reflect interest into finding out about my thought process. McCoy, what do you think Eccleston's chances of being human are? I can understand your thought process on how you're reading Eccleston. The part I cannot understand is your reasoning on writing a post where I can only gather you're saying "he is null" because you don't even state whether you think he is more likely to be of either alignment. When you wrote that post, what was the explicit purpose of it? I already laid out that he could be both. Until he posts more I'll refrain from judging. Purpose of the post: Trigger an answer and change the posting style of a possible bad townie to a more constructive version. Communicate that I'm suspicious of him. + Show Spoiler +I think DrTennant is scum You have to understand on this one, McCoy, that I can see both sides of your and Dr. Tennant's dispute. I can understand exactly where his suspicion of you came from in your entrance, + Show Spoiler [*snip*] +but since then you've alleviated my fears. I might be biased on this because it seems I've followed a similar thought train to him. Is there anything specific in Dr. Tennant's play that you think make him an alien, or is it just this push?
Dr. Tennant, can you clarify what you mean about Eccleston? I can only think of one particular point in his favour for his wishy washy post, and no one has touched on it. I want to know exactly why Eccleston wasn't on your radar.
Now that Dr.T has flipped scum. Do you still think you "can understand exactly where his suspicion" came from?
For Oatsmaster/GM: ##Vote: JPertwee
|
On June 03 2013 23:25 JPertwee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 23:03 Baker1986 wrote:On June 03 2013 22:59 JPertwee wrote:
sue me.
Way ahead of you buddy. You were found to be guilty and your punishment will be to be hanged at dusk. It's nice to see that you can be given all of that info, and still find nothing to say. I'm not hanging today, because I'm not guilty.
yes you are!
Also sorry about the info, I mistook it for a wall of nothing.
|
On June 03 2013 22:59 JPertwee wrote:
however this could easily come with Troughton's lack of content to go after.
If he lacks content to go after how could you have been so insanely sure he was scum?
|
JP if you're still here, I'd like to rob you of some of your time to ask you a few questions.
First of all, what was the point in favor of Eccleston you mentioned early in D1 while asking DrT why he didn't call him out instead of him?
Then, I was writing some stuff about Eccleston yesterday but didn't really conclude it, I want your opinion on what you see, and if possible on more than what's written here, since you claim that Eccleston should be lynched and are supposed to convince us:
DrT called my post wishywashy but not Eccleston's despite sharing some similarities, he attacked my post after I commented rather negatively on Eccleston, this is also one of the points that pointed to DrT being scum.
On May 29 2013 23:31 DrTennant wrote:
Well i don't know about you but i'm suspicious of everyone. i didnt take it as you saying you were suspicious of Eccleston i took as complete filler post that said absolutely nothing really and i took it as wishy washy and posting for the sake of posting by not taking a stance.
This is the post DrT called a townread from Eccleston to defend the fact that he called me out for Wishywashyness but not Eccleston. DrT needed to justify a townread on Eccleston at that point to be able to justify that he didn't comment on him.
On May 29 2013 18:06 Eccleston wrote:
From what I could see the setup is normal except for the KP delay function. It will not affect lynching until end game though, so I guess it doesn't.
Mr. McGann seems friendly enough. As for you, I don't know... Are you an angry villager or a murderous italian? Your reactions look valid from both perspectives.
On May 29 2013 23:58 DrTennant wrote:
At the time that post was your only post in the thread. It looked like to me as just a big post to say nothing to me that's why it stood out to me over everything else.
Yes eccelstone did have what could be interpreted as a wishy washy post but right before that he essential through out a town read for no reason. To me your post was devoid of actual content.
On May 30 2013 00:22 DrTennant wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 00:17 JPertwee wrote:
Sorry, I couldn't quite understand your post, Dr. Tennant.
Okay, so you don't think he is an alien because an alien wouldn't have said that McGann was friendly, even though that only somewhat implies he believes McGann to be town.
So you are saying you believe Eccleston to be town. Do you believe that McGann is town? What are you talking about? I was explaining why McCoy's post stood out to me more than eccleston. I dont have that much to say about the other two just that i dont agree that Eccleston early aggression is scummy.
Up to this point, he defended Eccelston. When he got under pressure, he started attacking him.
On May 30 2013 10:08 DrTennant wrote:
For what its worth yes i do actually think town are more likely to thrown town reads out there. Scum are more worried about keeping a "story" straight so they are more reluctant to give out reads then be called out later if they flip flop. Mafia have an information advantage and usually are reluctant to give it out.
Eccelston despite being active early seems to have just decided to fuck off while i been in the spotlight despite his hig activity early. He hasn't given an opinion on anything that has happened despite showing he was active early on.
He said he ignored Eccleston at the beginning cause he threw out a townread, now he claims that townies are more likely to do that, nonetheless he switches stance on Eccleston.
Now, let's remember that whatever DrT did, he was fully aware that it had the potential of making someone look back. It's up to us now to decide if it's too obvious to be a valid connection.
|
Wtf Davison, you wrote *snip* into your spoilers, that's so nerdy
I prefer keeping town reads close to my chest, sue me.
This is something commonly said, but if everyone followed this we would probably be lynching Davison now. No one should keep it a secret when they think that someone is a mislynch.
Other question, JP. At the start of the game where you asked me questions about Eccleston and questions to DrT regarding some of the points against him, you have shown no follow up on them. Can you tell me what you deduced from their answers that you didn't share with us before you came back with your troughton post?
|
POASTING IN BLUE BECAUSE I CAN!
V V VOTECOUNT
jpertwee (6): baker1986, smccoy, msmith1, tomb4, a mcgann, thedavison
thedavison (1): a mcgann, hartnellwill, jpertwee, hurndall3
eccleston (2): hartnellwill, jpertwee
|
On June 04 2013 00:01 SMcCoy wrote:JP if you're still here, I'd like to rob you of some of your time to ask you a few questions. First of all, what was the point in favor of Eccleston you mentioned early in D1 while asking DrT why he didn't call him out instead of him? Then, I was writing some stuff about Eccleston yesterday but didn't really conclude it, I want your opinion on what you see, and if possible on more than what's written here, since you claim that Eccleston should be lynched and are supposed to convince us: DrT called my post wishywashy but not Eccleston's despite sharing some similarities, he attacked my post after I commented rather negatively on Eccleston, this is also one of the points that pointed to DrT being scum. Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 23:31 DrTennant wrote:
Well i don't know about you but i'm suspicious of everyone. i didnt take it as you saying you were suspicious of Eccleston i took as complete filler post that said absolutely nothing really and i took it as wishy washy and posting for the sake of posting by not taking a stance. This is the post DrT called a townread from Eccleston to defend the fact that he called me out for Wishywashyness but not Eccleston. DrT needed to justify a townread on Eccleston at that point to be able to justify that he didn't comment on him. Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 18:06 Eccleston wrote:
From what I could see the setup is normal except for the KP delay function. It will not affect lynching until end game though, so I guess it doesn't.
Mr. McGann seems friendly enough. As for you, I don't know... Are you an angry villager or a murderous italian? Your reactions look valid from both perspectives. Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 23:58 DrTennant wrote:
At the time that post was your only post in the thread. It looked like to me as just a big post to say nothing to me that's why it stood out to me over everything else.
Yes eccelstone did have what could be interpreted as a wishy washy post but right before that he essential through out a town read for no reason. To me your post was devoid of actual content.
Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 00:22 DrTennant wrote:On May 30 2013 00:17 JPertwee wrote:
Sorry, I couldn't quite understand your post, Dr. Tennant.
Okay, so you don't think he is an alien because an alien wouldn't have said that McGann was friendly, even though that only somewhat implies he believes McGann to be town.
So you are saying you believe Eccleston to be town. Do you believe that McGann is town? What are you talking about? I was explaining why McCoy's post stood out to me more than eccleston. I dont have that much to say about the other two just that i dont agree that Eccleston early aggression is scummy. Up to this point, he defended Eccelston. When he got under pressure, he started attacking him. Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 10:08 DrTennant wrote:
For what its worth yes i do actually think town are more likely to thrown town reads out there. Scum are more worried about keeping a "story" straight so they are more reluctant to give out reads then be called out later if they flip flop. Mafia have an information advantage and usually are reluctant to give it out.
Eccelston despite being active early seems to have just decided to fuck off while i been in the spotlight despite his hig activity early. He hasn't given an opinion on anything that has happened despite showing he was active early on.
He said he ignored Eccleston at the beginning cause he threw out a townread, now he claims that townies are more likely to do that, nonetheless he switches stance on Eccleston. Now, let's remember that whatever DrT did, he was fully aware that it had the potential of making someone look back. It's up to us now to decide if it's too obvious to be a valid connection.
The point in Eccleston's favour early on, was this post:
On May 29 2013 17:33 Eccleston wrote:
Reporting in. Why do you prefer guessing at the scum team instead of trying to generate constructive discussion?
He's trying to push the conversation off of that "guess the scum team" moment that was happening, and into something that would open into more discussion. It was the only real townie point in his favour, though not a very strong one because of how negatively worded it was.
I do think that was a slip by Tennant in the start of the game. I can't think of a person off the top of my head who thinks town have an easier time identifying town reads than scum have making them. Scum 100% know that someone is town, so it's the one part of the game that's easier (and thus suspicious) about early town reads. This felt like reasoning that came after.
Thus I believe the initial connection is entirely a genuine slip he tried to cover up. The peculiar activity from Eccleston involving Tennant from that point seals the deal for me. Their reads seem very synchronized to me, as if they're trying to coordinate them back stage. A Tennant/Troughton/Eccleston team makes sense with everything I've seen from the early game. They all have strange behaviour touching on the other members. Troughton avoids talking about Eccleston/Tennant when they were the centre of discussion. Tennant skips over Eccleston's early wishy washy post, implyies a light town read and then turning it into a scum read when he's guaranteed to be the day's lynch. Eccleston's defense/attack flipping back and forth between Troughton and Tennant as they change between who is more likely to get lynched.
On June 04 2013 00:12 SMcCoy wrote:Wtf Davison, you wrote *snip* into your spoilers, that's so nerdy This is something commonly said, but if everyone followed this we would probably be lynching Davison now. No one should keep it a secret when they think that someone is a mislynch. Other question, JP. At the start of the game where you asked me questions about Eccleston and questions to DrT regarding some of the points against him, you have shown no follow up on them. Can you tell me what you deduced from their answers that you didn't share with us before you came back with your troughton post?
No one I had as a town read was in any danger of being lynched, so I didn't feel any need to let my town reads be known. Most people generally shared similar town reads, with a few people suspicious of H3 unreasonably, but there was no way he was getting lynched, so there was nothing gained or lost by not talking about them.
The questioning for you and Tennant was quite different. I questioned you because I had a town read on you, and wanted to know the specific things (at that point in the game) that made Tennant scummy to you.
My questioning for Tennant was to try and understand his thought process, so I could determine his alignment, without being accusatory and putting him on the defense. I have a very hard time reading defensive people, I can sympathize too much with the feeling of being an accused town and wanting to clam up.
His answer did not inspire confidence in his being town, but it wasn't a point that was particularly strong as a talking point. His post-hoc reasoning of "town more likely to give town reads" is something that while I believed at the time was false, it is not something that is demonstrably false. I could argue it all day long, but it's entirely possible that some people do think that way. Thus while it makes ME think he's scum, it was a point I was not sure I would be able to adequately convey to everyone else. That's why I didn't touch on it, but in my next post called him likely scum.
If I missed anything you wanted a response to, let me know and I'll answer. Otherwise if you're still here let's get some forward discussion going on here. There's still two scum left in the game and neither of them are leading the lynch so let's correct that.
|
Oh, and to answer you, Davison. Obviously there's no suspicion in what Tennant was saying, so no, I can't. But I can say I was suspicious of his entry post. McCoy's post was very high on the words, very low on stances taken. I feel confident at this point to say that's just part of his play style, and that he wants his thought process to be clear. But with most players a post with that much wordiness that ends in no conclusion is a likely indicator that they are scum. So yeah, having no information on him at that point that post was absolutely suspicious.
|
okay so if you flip town we're looking into eccleston and PT
I'm fine with that.
|
As I reread day 1, I can confidently put this 'Baker is sheeping scum' conspiracy theory to rest.
On May 30 2013 10:30 Baker1986 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 10:08 DrTennant wrote:
Baker it appears from my perspective has just decided to sheep who i think is the towniest guy in mccoy and who might have the largest thread control. Baker never gave reasoning he just called mccoy smart and it looks like he is just trying to latch on to an early wagon. Actually I want to take this one step further. Explain in detail why this is the only viable conclusion you can reach from my posting up until the point you throw the suspicion on me. Explain the following. 1) Why does scum-baker sheep McCoy but town-baker doesn't. 2) Why does scum-baker call McCoy smart but town-baker doesn't. 3) Why would scum-baker join a wagon but town baker wouldn't. Assuming your "read" isn't utter bullshit, you must have valid explanations to these questions, or you wouldn't have come to the conclusion my behavior was scummy.
On May 30 2013 18:45 Baker1986 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 11:12 DrTennant wrote:On May 30 2013 10:30 Baker1986 wrote:On May 30 2013 10:08 DrTennant wrote:
Baker it appears from my perspective has just decided to sheep who i think is the towniest guy in mccoy and who might have the largest thread control. Baker never gave reasoning he just called mccoy smart and it looks like he is just trying to latch on to an early wagon. Actually I want to take this one step further. Explain in detail why this is the only viable conclusion you can reach from my posting up until the point you throw the suspicion on me. Explain the following. 1) Why does scum-baker sheep McCoy but town-baker doesn't. 2) Why does scum-baker call McCoy smart but town-baker doesn't. 3) Why would scum-baker join a wagon but town baker wouldn't. Assuming your "read" isn't utter bullshit, you must have valid explanations to these questions, or you wouldn't have come to the conclusion my behavior was scummy. wat i dont know what baker does maybe baker can enlighten us. all i see from you is just calling the person who i think must be town and sheeping his incorrect case. That is what i see and that is scummy because it seems like your just jumping on me with no reasoning to get a mis lynch. If I am sheeping a case, I cannot by definition be jumping on it with no reasoning. The reasons are literally there, in that case? I don't even understand what you're saying. Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 12:11 DrTennant wrote:On May 30 2013 11:41 A McGann wrote:
That really doesn't answer the question, DrTennant.
You said you found Bakers behaviour scummy. You need to explain why the actions you painted him as 'concerning' for are more likely to be scum motivated. If you can think of legitimate reasons why a townie would act in this manner, then your case has no merit. because it looks like to me hes just hoping on without reasoning. like he had very little interaction with me a big case comes and he just hops on. scum have a hard time explaining their actions so it seems like a good ploy to just sheep a townie with a wrong case hop on the wagon and probably just call me bad after i flip. I hate arguing with scum, but let me try to explain. I immediately disagreed with your reasons for calling out SMcCoy. I explained why his logic and conclusion was sound. Attacking a solid thought process like you did does not give me warm and fuzzy feelings about you. Slightly later, you and I agree that SMcCoy has established his innocence quite strongly in the thread, so I don't think that needs any further explaining to you. And it's not as if my suspicions of you were only brought on after McCoy's case. These posts were both made prior to it: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18745605http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18746042So what you have to demonstrate is why it's scummy for me to sheep a case given the following parameters. 1. I already have suspicions of you and I have already disagreed with you 2. The person writing the case is almost certainly town. Now explain to me why me sheeping this case makes me scum. You have to prove that if I was town I would have done something else, and only if I am scum I would have done what I did. If you cannot do that, which I know you cannot, you're full of shit.
On May 30 2013 11:12 DrTennant wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 10:30 Baker1986 wrote:On May 30 2013 10:08 DrTennant wrote:
Baker it appears from my perspective has just decided to sheep who i think is the towniest guy in mccoy and who might have the largest thread control. Baker never gave reasoning he just called mccoy smart and it looks like he is just trying to latch on to an early wagon. Actually I want to take this one step further. Explain in detail why this is the only viable conclusion you can reach from my posting up until the point you throw the suspicion on me. Explain the following. 1) Why does scum-baker sheep McCoy but town-baker doesn't. 2) Why does scum-baker call McCoy smart but town-baker doesn't. 3) Why would scum-baker join a wagon but town baker wouldn't. Assuming your "read" isn't utter bullshit, you must have valid explanations to these questions, or you wouldn't have come to the conclusion my behavior was scummy. wat i dont know what baker does maybe baker can enlighten us. all i see from you is just calling the person who i think must be town and sheeping his incorrect case. That is what i see and that is scummy because it seems like your just jumping on me with no reasoning to get a mis lynch.
This exchange is not Scum/Scum, I am positive.
|
Hartnell is a bit of a curious case. Regardless of his alignment I'm relatively sure he did just miss all of day one. For that reason his vote on Dr. Tennant doesn't particularly count for much. He was also suspicious of Troughton, however which is a plus in my eyes. However, he never follows up with Troughton on day 2. Drops his vote on Davison, then drops a case on Eccleston.
Well you can be sure I'll keep asking you a lot of things.
1) The above quote is summarizing inconclusive, what's keeping you from lynching Hartwell? You mentioned him as lynch choice earlier IIRC.
2) The amount you post is increasing with every vote. It might just be an unlucky coincidence, but there is no one to confirm that it's just you being busy, and it's something anyone can say. How much time will you be able to spend on the game the next days?
3) I feel like there is few initiative from your side and that's something I see as scumtell, you respond to a lot of things, claim you want to lynch Eccleston, but you only mention arguments when I ask you about them. You don't give me the impression of a guy who has resigned to his lynch, so that's in contrast to your current posting. This isn't really a question and I don't expect you to reply to it but maybe you can think of a reason of why you play like that or give that impression.
4) Eccleston didn't post yet. It looks like he might get modkilled or replaced. You claimed that he soft-defended DrT, I think, yet I see nothing of that in his filter. Could you point it out or do you mean the part where he starts posting some musings about Trout?
5) If you think Eccleston is scum with trout, how is that in any way compatible with him starting to post about Trout after saying that DrT has a decent chance of being scum?
|
On June 04 2013 01:26 A McGann wrote:As I reread day 1, I can confidently put this 'Baker is sheeping scum' conspiracy theory to rest. Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 10:30 Baker1986 wrote:On May 30 2013 10:08 DrTennant wrote:
Baker it appears from my perspective has just decided to sheep who i think is the towniest guy in mccoy and who might have the largest thread control. Baker never gave reasoning he just called mccoy smart and it looks like he is just trying to latch on to an early wagon. Actually I want to take this one step further. Explain in detail why this is the only viable conclusion you can reach from my posting up until the point you throw the suspicion on me. Explain the following. 1) Why does scum-baker sheep McCoy but town-baker doesn't. 2) Why does scum-baker call McCoy smart but town-baker doesn't. 3) Why would scum-baker join a wagon but town baker wouldn't. Assuming your "read" isn't utter bullshit, you must have valid explanations to these questions, or you wouldn't have come to the conclusion my behavior was scummy. Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 18:45 Baker1986 wrote:On May 30 2013 11:12 DrTennant wrote:On May 30 2013 10:30 Baker1986 wrote:On May 30 2013 10:08 DrTennant wrote:
Baker it appears from my perspective has just decided to sheep who i think is the towniest guy in mccoy and who might have the largest thread control. Baker never gave reasoning he just called mccoy smart and it looks like he is just trying to latch on to an early wagon. Actually I want to take this one step further. Explain in detail why this is the only viable conclusion you can reach from my posting up until the point you throw the suspicion on me. Explain the following. 1) Why does scum-baker sheep McCoy but town-baker doesn't. 2) Why does scum-baker call McCoy smart but town-baker doesn't. 3) Why would scum-baker join a wagon but town baker wouldn't. Assuming your "read" isn't utter bullshit, you must have valid explanations to these questions, or you wouldn't have come to the conclusion my behavior was scummy. wat i dont know what baker does maybe baker can enlighten us. all i see from you is just calling the person who i think must be town and sheeping his incorrect case. That is what i see and that is scummy because it seems like your just jumping on me with no reasoning to get a mis lynch. If I am sheeping a case, I cannot by definition be jumping on it with no reasoning. The reasons are literally there, in that case? I don't even understand what you're saying. On May 30 2013 12:11 DrTennant wrote:On May 30 2013 11:41 A McGann wrote:
That really doesn't answer the question, DrTennant.
You said you found Bakers behaviour scummy. You need to explain why the actions you painted him as 'concerning' for are more likely to be scum motivated. If you can think of legitimate reasons why a townie would act in this manner, then your case has no merit. because it looks like to me hes just hoping on without reasoning. like he had very little interaction with me a big case comes and he just hops on. scum have a hard time explaining their actions so it seems like a good ploy to just sheep a townie with a wrong case hop on the wagon and probably just call me bad after i flip. I hate arguing with scum, but let me try to explain. I immediately disagreed with your reasons for calling out SMcCoy. I explained why his logic and conclusion was sound. Attacking a solid thought process like you did does not give me warm and fuzzy feelings about you. Slightly later, you and I agree that SMcCoy has established his innocence quite strongly in the thread, so I don't think that needs any further explaining to you. And it's not as if my suspicions of you were only brought on after McCoy's case. These posts were both made prior to it: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18745605http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18746042So what you have to demonstrate is why it's scummy for me to sheep a case given the following parameters. 1. I already have suspicions of you and I have already disagreed with you 2. The person writing the case is almost certainly town. Now explain to me why me sheeping this case makes me scum. You have to prove that if I was town I would have done something else, and only if I am scum I would have done what I did. If you cannot do that, which I know you cannot, you're full of shit. Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 11:12 DrTennant wrote:On May 30 2013 10:30 Baker1986 wrote:On May 30 2013 10:08 DrTennant wrote:
Baker it appears from my perspective has just decided to sheep who i think is the towniest guy in mccoy and who might have the largest thread control. Baker never gave reasoning he just called mccoy smart and it looks like he is just trying to latch on to an early wagon. Actually I want to take this one step further. Explain in detail why this is the only viable conclusion you can reach from my posting up until the point you throw the suspicion on me. Explain the following. 1) Why does scum-baker sheep McCoy but town-baker doesn't. 2) Why does scum-baker call McCoy smart but town-baker doesn't. 3) Why would scum-baker join a wagon but town baker wouldn't. Assuming your "read" isn't utter bullshit, you must have valid explanations to these questions, or you wouldn't have come to the conclusion my behavior was scummy. wat i dont know what baker does maybe baker can enlighten us. all i see from you is just calling the person who i think must be town and sheeping his incorrect case. That is what i see and that is scummy because it seems like your just jumping on me with no reasoning to get a mis lynch. This exchange is not Scum/Scum, I am positive.
So I'm confirmed town now?
|
No one gets to be confirmed town unless the mod confirms it so (hence the term 'confirmed town').
A couple of people have brought you up today, which I consider a waste of time. My reread only reinforced that.
|
there's varying degrees of confirmed
for example mccoy's like triple confirmed
if he got mod-confirmed I'd probably give him quintuple-confirmed
|
Confirmed isn't a sliding scale, its binary. Yes or no.
We're all no, as far as I know.
But people like yourself, McCoy and Smith get to go in the "Super, duper unlikely scum, most probably town, ill take everything they say at face value" bracket.
|
On June 04 2013 01:46 A McGann wrote:
Confirmed isn't a sliding scale, its binary. Yes or no.
We're all no, as far as I know.
But people like yourself, McCoy and Smith get to go in the "Super, duper unlikely scum, most probably town, ill take everything they say at face value" bracket.
GET OUTTA HERE WITH YOUR SCIENCE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
