|
Let's play a game... |
Eccleston is now up to 17 posts from 14. Let's rattle off his updated posts (from Eccleston 2.0) that weren't in my original case:
1 post introducing himself, 1 post claiming he is potentially blue but definitely not red (what does this prove? anyone can make this claim), and 1 post saying he's catching up. So now let's look at the 14 again:
On May 29 2013 11:28 Eccleston wrote:
this is also a post
The /in post written by GMarshal, nothing to see here. On to Posts 2-5:
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?
On May 29 2013 17:45 Eccleston wrote:
Setup speculation, lynching policies ... something that you can reply to.
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 19:26 Eccleston wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 18:34 MSmith1 wrote:+ Show Spoiler [Snip] +I'm not angry at all actually.. just playing the game and trying to determine alignments. I'm probably one of the most level-headed players on this forum.
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? Can you explain your motivation behind this post? I'm still wondering why you felt the need to criticize my play as opposed to perhaps generating some "constructive discussion" yourself. What were you looking to accomplish here? I was trying to stir the pot. Criticizing your play was more constructive than just having a wall of useless introductory posts. @Baker1986 What's the point of your post? You're talking, but you're not saying anything.
If he is scum, Eccleston wants people to discuss the setup straightaway in case the names weren't RNGed and there is some clue giving him away. Note that MS1 labelled him, Davison and H3 as scum. But this is innocent unto itself and I skimmed the first 8 pages of the thread. So this by itself is not indicative of anything + Show Spoiler +Or maybe the first 27. Who knows
Next two posts attempt to generate setup discussion. And then MS1 called him out having just as much evidence to accuse someone of shenaniganry as MS1 himself. Normal D1 discussion seeds by any account.
Post 6 has this gem:
McCoy's case on DrTennant isn't conclusive, but I think there's a fair chance of DrTennant being scum. The inconsistent suspicion toward ambiguous opinions and his defensive reactions could be scum indicators. I feel that point one would be a null tell if it wasn't for his strange justification about not being suspicious of me. It would be understandable if he said something like "Eccleston was asked to provide his opinion, but you were not." or that my post seemed less serious, but his "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." sounds more like an after-the-fact justification (and a very bad one at that), especially since he said before that that my aggression was likely more of a town tell than a scum tell. Why didn't he touch on that again if that was what he thought?
Note that "there's a fair chance of DrT being scum". It's not saying he is scum, in case he flips town, this post only looks like a foolish guess. If he flips scum (which he did), then Eccleston can look like he successfully found a scum without actually having the conviction to go through with it. And the second half looks needlessly drawn out.
Next is 7, 8, and 13:
On May 31 2013 03:05 Eccleston wrote:I think lynching PT2 at this time would be unwise. He's made one post and thrown a vote on Hurndall3 for being "brief and blunt", and suddenly, ten hours later, he's a prime suspect? I think you're stretching it when you say that Show nested quote +Being present but not caring about scumhunting is actually much worse than simply not being present at all, because there is standing evidence that a player has at least taken the time to read and post, but still is not contributing. That's far from "null" in my opinion. At the time of his post the thread was about three and a half pages long. It doesn't really take much effort to read that and then write a five paragraph RP post and throw a vote on someone. He could just as well be disinterested townie. I could understand it if you were pushing him as a policy lynch because you're not certain about DrT, but how he is "far from null" is beyond me. He has made one (half serious) post in the entire game. Has he been useless? Yes. Does that make him scum? No.
On May 31 2013 03:40 Eccleston wrote:
On second thought, I do find it quite strange that PT2 even bothered writing his mini case on Hurndall. If he is mafia trying to just skate by without doing anything, why make this stupid post instead of sheeping McCoy? I can think of two reasons:
1. DrT is mafia and PT2 doesn't want to add any more pressure on him.
2. DrT is town and PT2 doesn't want to be held accountable if he is to be lynched.
I can't see any pro-town motivation behind his post though... Maybe he doesn't find DrT scummy, but can't be bothered to voice his opinion? Because it's hard to believe that he really is that convinced on Hurndall... The guy had posted about 300 words at that time.
On May 31 2013 07:31 Eccleston wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 05:55 SMcCoy wrote:
@ Eccleston
I need to know who you want to lynch, will you join the DrT wagon? Is there any specific conclusion you draw from your musings about PT2's motivations to write that post? Yes, I agree with the case on DrT and I am on board with lynching him. ##Vote: DrTennantI have my doubts about Hurndall too. I think there's a good chance of him flipping scum. I think the conclusion you can draw from it is that his play is anti-town (which was already pretty apparent). Looking back, my second post on PT2 was pretty useless. I just started thinking about what his motivations might be and wrote the post, thinking I was onto something. I just overanalyzed it, and my first post on him was more sound than the second one. I will post more in the morning.
His only solid read this game was PT2 and even then he flip flopped. There's no pressure involved in this read and the speculation doesn't serve to advance the game since by constantly redacting his case he's just spinning around in circles.
Post 9 is simply a clarification of Post 8. 10-12 is accusing Hurn for sheeping PT2 and the friendly chat that follows:
On May 31 2013 05:06 Eccleston wrote:
What the fuck Hurndall, are you psychotic or just very confused?
And after sheeping DrT in Post 13, he does this:
On May 31 2013 19:25 Eccleston wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 11:20 Hurndall3 wrote:
##unvote
##vote DrT
k I think I can sheep this DrT shit now that I read the case thoroughly.
these are the points that convinced me to sheep.
1 DrT's overdefense
2 unnatural calmness
3 repeated appeal that scum is among the inactives
4 one dimensional scumreads Can you explain to me why you think that these points are exclusive to a scum mindset? For example, point three could be explained from a town perspective too; if DrT is a townie being tunneled, trying to shift the attention toward the lurkers is a perfectly valid thing to do if he thinks that the mafia are lurking. Before, you dismissed his "overdefense", as brought up by MSmith1 here (it's point two in his post), saying that "2 people are searching for something to talk about early game. This is true of both town and scum." What made you change your mind?
Soft defense of the dude he's voting for. Something I wouldn't do unless I was foolishly trying to buy some street cred for my scumbuddy before he gets lynched.
Time to /lurk
|
Thats a good case HW and I will respond to it after I finish writing my case, if thats ok w/ you. Since I havnt done anything yet since replacing in I cant really say Ive turned a new leaf since changing management, but Ill prove you wrong I promise
|
IMO the scum can only be within 4 possible players:
Eccleston
HW
PTroughton
Davison
MSmith almost certainly got shot twice-he clearly was threatening to scum in some way. I found this a bit surprising, as if I were scum I would have probably shot McCoy or even Baker, seeing as almost no one suspects them and McCoy led the day 1 lynch. However, in hindsight the shots make sense in light of JP's flip. McCoy being wrong and MSmith being right about something would definitely lead scum to shoot MSmith over McCoy. Seeing as MSmith's secondary read was Eccleston and McCoy's secondary read was JP, Eccleston looks very bad in light of the kill.
If anyone disagrees and thinks someone else should also be considered for lynch please speak up. It's imperative we have good discussion today, and I should have more time. I'll be around for an hour or two before bed and then I should be around for most of the day tomorrow.
##vote Eccleston
|
Yeah. Explain how you are certain of two shots.
|
BTW. Tomb4 your latest posts marries very well with my revised thought process.
I just finished re reading the game in full. And its changed my perspective greatly.
I was filter diving before, but the post gaps for some players meant that filter dives gave zero context, and hence inaccurate pictures. This is now resolved.
I believe I am mistaken with ptroughton and his entry into the game. I think it was merely poor timing. Especially after Dr.t tried to throw mud his way.
The discovery I found was that another player took the distraction role I thought pt did. And that player was in fact you.
I found your continual defences of Dr.t to be stereotypical Mafia jargon players of any alignment can spew. Kudos for you for manipulating discussion to suit your strengths.
I encourage everyone to re read the start of day2.
Tom gives his reads, which he actually promised during night1. In it, he outlines specifically why eccleston is probably town. Tomb4 gives a breakdsown of eccleston actions and states specifically this can only be from a town mindset.
He then buddies to McCoy by pushing both of his suspects JP and TD.
Whereas day1, Dr.t he continually fought McCoy.
Compare this with his post above, where he finds cheap reasoning to +1 eccleston. A full 180 and in the process throwing away his probable town read with very little reasoning. Why is he not adamantly defending eccleston like he did Dr.t? He never said he thought Dr.t was probable town, merely the reasoning was weak. What has changed tom?
Tomb4 is a damn good player. You can tell by how he approaches discussion. Why is it that I always feel with him he is demonstrating restraint?
I hope people are willing to discuss this further.
I will build a case if necessary, but first I encourage you all to re read day1.
##unvote
##vote: tomb4
|
##vote: Eccleston
Will discuss this later
|
I can understand ppl ignoring me.
My posts have flip flopped between targets as I have updated my thread understanding.
I should have shown more restraint, but the lack of posting from McCoy and smith motivated me to try to contribute more than I should have.
Regardless as stated before, I have caught up and just now have finished another reread.
I am firm on tomb4.
By process of elimination and odd references between each other. I have a high degree of certainty, a.mcgann is the remaining scum.
Naturally I suggest to lynch tom first.
Over and out. I will stop posting for 24hrs and see where the thread develops before deciding what course of persuasive action to take.
The vote is not changing though.
|
I don't trust my own reads at the moment.
Eccleston looked really bad very early in the game. My early reads tend to be my best reads, so I'm rolling with that.
Let's kill Eccleston.
|
|
|
This is regarding what HW wrote about Eccleston:
Note that "there's a fair chance of DrT being scum". It's not saying he is scum, in case he flips town, this post only looks like a foolish guess. If he flips scum (which he did), then Eccleston can look like he successfully found a scum without actually having the conviction to go through with it. And the second half looks needlessly drawn out.
Note the bolded. Why the hell is HW writing about this when it's clear that DrT is scum by now. It looks as if he's accusing Eccleston of an intention that can never have been there for scum. Hence HW is just trying to summon up as many arguments as he can to look like he's contributing.
Soft defense of the dude he's voting for. Something I wouldn't do unless I was foolishly trying to buy some street cred for my scumbuddy before he gets lynched.
When he wrote that, DrT was @ 7 votes. Eccleston said just before that it would be unwise to lynch PT2, so Eccleston had not really a wagon he could jump on instead of DrT, and what he's writing doesn't display that intention. All I see is him questioning H3 and his reasons, not a soft-defense.
This post by HW looks pretty bad. No lurker den for you, just a bear pit.
##Vote HartnelWill
|
SMcCoy,
I believe we can both agree that the HW "Eccleston" case contains several flaws;some more glaring than others.
Where we differ however, is the conclusion.
In short: I do not understand how the point(s) delivered above, justify a vote - in particular given your standing within this town.
This is where I become confused.
On one hand I would like Hartnel Will to step outside the den, and reply directly. This will help town in general paint a better picture of his alignment.
On the other hand, I am keen to better understand why you think this mindset is indicate solely of scum, and hence, a vote.
I will leave the decision on whether to respond in your hands.
|
On June 06 2013 00:56 TheDavison wrote:
SMcCoy,
I believe we can both agree that the HW "Eccleston" case contains several flaws;some more glaring than others.
Where we differ however, is the conclusion.
In short: I do not understand how the point(s) delivered above, justify a vote - in particular given your standing within this town.
I would like you to mention the flaws you're referring to by yourself. Your question regarding my conclusion out of the flaws I mention has already been answered.
|
On June 06 2013 01:17 SMcCoy wrote:
I would like you to mention the flaws you're referring to by yourself. SMcCoy
I would prefer not to defend people before they have a chance to respond.
Activity is low enough as it stands; requesting I respond on the behalf of others will only provide more excuses to lurk.
(i.e. the confusion I expressed earlier)
Before you yell "hypocrite".
Consider: I am not arguing with you on whether Hartnell is town or scum (directly at least, though I do understand it is implicit).
I am actually passing comment towards the validity of your logic. (I am not simply not seeing how A => B)
I believe this is a large distinction, and I expect you of all people to be able to appreciate that.
If you truly think my response is worth the ramification outlined above; then sure, let me know and I shall oblige accordingly.
Note:
I would have thought my stance on the HW "Eccleston" case is clear-cut anyways: given my position outlined prior with TomB4 and A.McGann.
Your question regarding my conclusion out of the flaws I mention has already been answered. I do not believe my question to you has been answered.
In my opinion (and perhaps the crux of this discussion): The points you raise are indicative of a myopic mindset.
As far as I am concerned, myopia applies to both town and scum.
The logical jump to categorise this as one or the other is missing for me.
Perhaps you are using other/older heuristics in conjunction with these points to label Hartnell, scum.
However, that was never expressed explicitly. Thus represents the essence of my query.
|
On June 06 2013 01:43 TheDavison wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 01:17 SMcCoy wrote:
I would like you to mention the flaws you're referring to by yourself. SMcCoyI would prefer not to defend people before they have a chance to respond.
Eh? Defend people? You agreed on HW having flaws in his play, when I ask you about them you say you don't want to defend him? Is this some scumslip or what has been going through your mind right there? Does it mean you only claimed to partially agree with what I said?
On June 06 2013 01:43 TheDavison wrote:Show nested quote +Your question regarding my conclusion out of the flaws I mention has already been answered. I do not believe my question to you has been answered. In my opinion (and perhaps the crux of this discussion): The points you raise are indicative of a myopic mindset. As far as I am concerned, myopia applies to both town and scum. The logical jump to categorise this as one or the other is missing for me. Perhaps you are using other/older heuristics in conjunction with these points to label Hartnell, scum. However, that was never expressed explicitly. Thus represents the essence of my query.
The arguments against HW is: He went linearly through a filter and tried to raise as many scummy points as he possibly could about Eccleston, and what he wrote displays that he tries to paint the stuff he finds consciously as scummy, and that his modality of thinking isn't townie, else he would never have said:
"Eccleston said this about his scumbuddy so it wouldn't look as bad after he flipped town".
or claim that his question to H3 was a soft defense, which I find stretched given that Eccleston took away his own options of swinging to the trout wagon by claiming that it's a bad lynch after voting for DrT.
|
On June 05 2013 13:30 TheDavison wrote:
Yeah. Explain how you are certain of two shots.
No one died n1, right? Our flipped medic claimed to have protected him-we obviously don't know if he got shot n1 but it's very likely given there were no kills.
Our medic dies d2 and then MSmith dies n2. Almost certainly he got shot twice.
|
On June 05 2013 13:43 TheDavison wrote:
Tom gives his reads, which he actually promised during night1. In it, he outlines specifically why eccleston is probably town. Tomb4 gives a breakdsown of eccleston actions and states specifically this can only be from a town mindset.
He then buddies to McCoy by pushing both of his suspects JP and TD.
Whereas day1, Dr.t he continually fought McCoy.
Compare this with his post above, where he finds cheap reasoning to +1 eccleston. A full 180 and in the process throwing away his probable town read with very little reasoning. Why is he not adamantly defending eccleston like he did Dr.t? He never said he thought Dr.t was probable town, merely the reasoning was weak. What has changed tom?
1. He got replaced.
2. JP died.
3. MSmith died.
It's really quite simple, reevaluating in light of deaths is very important. Eccleston's replacement really hasn't done much in the time since and the deaths have made him look quite bad.
|
Firstly,
We are having a clear misunderstanding.
I said: I agree there are flaws in HW case on Eccleston (primarily, that it is myopic = tunneled).
When I said "conclusion" I was referring to your decision to lay down a vote seemingly based on a poor case.
My following comment was in short: I am not here to defend Eccleston (by breaking down Hartnell case). Eccleston said he was going to do it, I need to let him do it. I am not also here to defend Hartnell (by initiating this convo). It is up to Hartnell to take issue with your vote.
Read it again SMcCoy: I have been transparent. I merely am questioning the validity of your logic conclusion.
Secondly,
I am quite disappointed you have thrown the comment "scumslip" around.
I surmise this to mean I have not sufficiently established my innocence.
This is a problem.
If you have qualms with my play, now would be the time to voice them.
Thirdly,
I have to tread lightly regarding your extension on Hartnell; as I do not want to give him ideas for a defense/retort.
I will leave it for now as "I agree to disagree".
i.e. I don't believe those two tells can only originate from the mindset of a scum player.
|
On June 06 2013 02:06 TomB4 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 13:30 TheDavison wrote:
Yeah. Explain how you are certain of two shots. No one died n1, right? Our flipped medic claimed to have protected him-we obviously don't know if he got shot n1 but it's very likely given there were no kills. Our medic dies d2 and then MSmith dies n2. Almost certainly he got shot twice.
I read it originally as double stacked.
Yes it is likely MSMith1 was shot over two consecutive nights.
However it is not almost certain. Considering there are other roles capable of preventing a NK than medic in this game.
|
TheDavison, if you're going to call me scum, at least give me something to reply to, "process of elimination" is garbage because it relies on all of your reasoning being correct, when I know it is not.
Your case against Tom is piffle, his fighting with McCoy d1 and then sheeping d2 is easily explainable by the day 1 flip. You say he's exercising restraint, even if I agreed, which I don't, how is that an exclusively scum habit and worthy of voting him over?
|
On June 06 2013 02:10 TomB4 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 13:43 TheDavison wrote:
Tom gives his reads, which he actually promised during night1. In it, he outlines specifically why eccleston is probably town. Tomb4 gives a breakdsown of eccleston actions and states specifically this can only be from a town mindset.
He then buddies to McCoy by pushing both of his suspects JP and TD.
Whereas day1, Dr.t he continually fought McCoy.
Compare this with his post above, where he finds cheap reasoning to +1 eccleston. A full 180 and in the process throwing away his probable town read with very little reasoning. Why is he not adamantly defending eccleston like he did Dr.t? He never said he thought Dr.t was probable town, merely the reasoning was weak. What has changed tom? 1. He got replaced. 2. JP died. 3. MSmith died. It's really quite simple, reevaluating in light of deaths is very important. Eccleston's replacement really hasn't done much in the time since and the deaths have made him look quite bad.
Perhaps, or perhaps not.
On June 05 2013 12:59 TomB4 wrote:
..
Seeing as MSmith's secondary read was Eccleston and McCoy's secondary read was JP, Eccleston looks very bad in light of the kill.
..
##vote Eccleston
OK. JP died, by lynch.
Eccleston didnt even vote.
7 voters out of 10, nominated JP.
Why does the JP lynch paint Eccleston in a bad light again?
OK. MSmith died.
If Eccleston was the secondary read; why is the primary read not being painted in bad light for you / discussed publically?
Perhaps you will now throw in, his primary wass Dr.T.
If that is the case, considering you threw out this before:
On June 01 2013 09:47 TomB4 wrote:
Like most players on TL you have no idea how to play scum.
I am sure you will agree, it is very weak scum play to NK people "onto" you.
Typically strong analysts are taken out first.
MSmith1 satisfied that role: and hence became a suitable candidate regardless of who his target was.
Now, if you want to consider we have "terribad" scum playing, then I'm surprised you didn't catch onto Dr.T earlier =P
So I ask again, what does the death of MSmith have to do with Eccleston bleeding red?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
