|
Let's play a game... |
H3 It all depends on who is "we" of course. I think scum are in a very good position to close this game out.
Lastly, I am tired of your excuse: "I dont have time right now" a recurring theme since I replaced in.
Thus far, there have been 3 replacements. Davison, PT2000, Eccleston.
If you magically are town; and sincerely are time restricted to play the game properly. Do us and GM a courtesy and seek a replacement. Otherwise; your current modus operandi suits the scum agenda perfectly.
|
Unfortunately, Right now. Having re-read the start of the game.
I think your interactions with Dr.T are in the same vein as with JPertwee.
So when you say "shit tier town", I think I am inclined to agree.
This leaves on the chopping block, PTroughton, TomB4 & Eccleston
If you are planning to filter dive. Can you please give a spiel on which of those three we should focus on.
|
On June 05 2013 06:50 Hurndall3 wrote: but being mad at me for playing bad and thinking im scum are two totally different things, and it looks like you are trying to combine them H3 this is spot on.
Reading the diarrhea diatribe from PT2000 made me think of the following: Fake Spiteful in tone Pushing bad town points Not accusing you outright of being scum
In short. Passive aggressive and Lacking any conviction.
In fact. The way PT2000 manouvered the conversation reminds me of Dr.t in day1 looking to overcompensate what he deemed as "bad play".
Perhaps we should honour the wishes of our marine guard, JP. And seek vengeance on troughton.
PT, do you disagree with the above?
|
There's a distinct difference between try hard and non-genuine.
Your rebuttle is still heavily loaded with a spiteful passive aggressive undertones. Henceforth, you fill the non-genuine category.
Thank you for taking the time to respond regardless.
P.S. You didn't actually address my points. You avoided them the same way Dr.t avoided smccoy case.
P.p.s. The way PT2 entered the thread came at a pivotal time.
Dr.t had just been hooked and was trying to wrangle off.
Who comes to the rescue?
PT2 with his roleplay post. "I must save the town"..
Just so we are clear. When the night is over. If I am around. You have my vote instantly.
|
pT2000. You did it again.
The diatribe laced with passive aggressive innuendo.
If only I wasn't phone posting, then I could serve true justice to this discussion.
Mr trough ton, I have indeed considered both sides of the slots. In fact, OK find your behaviour in general indicative of scum.. And it was that behaviour that inspired me reread the original pt2 actions. Thank you for agreeing they contain sinister vibes.
Best of luck day3.
|
Gg msmith
U played great
##vote:ptroughton
|
Eccleston and ptroughton are my two leads.
So I'm comfdoetable with that Hartnell.
I don't like how dr,.t handled the eccleston situation day1
|
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
|
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.
|
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 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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
SMcCoy, it is clear you are agitated today.
I still think you are the key to rallying this town together, but i suggest you take a breather and clear your mind.
I am about to unleash a case on TomB4 based on his latest response. I truly feel this holds more certainty than your Day1 case on Dr.T.
I would appreciate if you (and all other town) can review this case and if it holds, join my vote.
|
On June 06 2013 03:06 TomB4 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 06 2013 02:47 TheDavison wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 02:10 TomB4 wrote: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. Show nested quote +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? Process of elimination. Like I said earlier in the game and even earlier today, Based on who I think is likely to be town, scum must be within a small group of 3-4 players. JP's flip makes that group smaller and by extension makes everyone in the group look worse. If only that was the answer to the question.
First the easy part: You have subtracted "assume town" players from the remaining pool of players.
Where you proceed to lose me is when you tie the following two statements.
(1) JPs flip makes that group smaller & (2) The JP lynch paints Eccleston in a bad light.
As I mentioned, Eccleston did not vote. With your logic: whilst Eccleston may hang with the low fruit; he must certainly not be the lowest hanging fruit.
Unfortunately, your actions suggest otherwise.
On June 06 2013 03:06 TomB4 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 06 2013 02:47 TheDavison wrote: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: Show nested quote +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? Really, you're grasping at straws so hard here. Yes, obviously their primary reads on DAY 1 were DrT. Almost everyone had that read aside from, primarily, JP and myself. Also, no, it is NOT a weak scum play to kill someone who is "onto" you, particularly if it avoids other issues. Townies don't always go back and reread. I was the only person who reported on what I found in MSmith's filter after he died. How many times in endgame have you seen good townies come back and say "you should have looked in my filter after I died"? It happens all the time. So if they were shooting purely based on analysis why did McCoy not get shot? There are three reasons that could possibly be, and I'm betting on a combination of them. We can agree that good analysts are scary to scum, but we need to differentiate the shot here. McCoy maybe would have been perceived more likely as being a protect target than MSmith. There's one reason. The second reason (and just as plausible) is that McCoy's secondary reads were not as scary as MSmith's. Scum often shoot those who are on the correct track if they are the only ones they think have the potential of catching them. I spoilered what you wrote because it is all pertains to discussion over theory. Hence, each of our opinions are valid in their own context.
As I am sure you are aware. I am a practical man. Theory only extends so far, and thus, your point holds very little credence. It certainly is not a precursor for a vote when isolated.
If i choose to indulge this "theory". MSmith1 was chasing Eccleston & MSmith1 dies.
This outcome does not make Eccleston scum.
You know this TomB4. Cause and causality are very hard to "reverse engineer", yet you claim to have done so? I smell fallacious posting.
Even if you want to treat this "theory" as 'icing on the cake", the rest of your reasoning does not even equate to the eggs in the cake mix. The point is moot.
Herein lies my quandry.
If we rewind to Day1/2: You identified Eccleston as a probable town in this post
On June 02 2013 16:10 TomB4 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +EcclestonBased on what I've read of Eccleston's posts I think he's probably the most likely to be town out of the entire lot. In fact, I think he's quite likely to be town. He's made very specific observations that are quite hard for scum to make. I do not, for example, think that the average TL scum player would say anything like these: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? How often do scum reference posts and actually question the logic of someone else on such a specific level? Generally scum find it hard to fake the "figuring out" process because they've already been given the alignments of everyone in the game. It's almost impossible to fake this kind of specific questioning process-if questioning is faked by scum, it's usually more general or nebulous. 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. This post reflects Eccleston's initial thought process regarding my opinion of PT yesterday. What's interesting is not necessarily this post itself, because I think the average scum could probably reasonably fake something like this. What's most interesting are his followup posts that demonstrate that he was thinking about this. IMO most scum would not put in the effort to think about what another player has written and said about someone else because they don't have to-they don't know how to fake the process, and so they only show the results of that process. This is partly also, IMO, why scum are so reluctant to swap votes. It's hard for scum to realistically be able to fake a decision-making process when their ulterior goal is to blend in. Eccleston doesn't display any of those tendencies. He's almost certainly town IMO.If anyone can find instances where I am wrong about what I've said above, I'd love to hear it. The only thing that could possibly be held against Eccleston, IMO, is his relatively low recent activity, but given the context of the game I do not think it is a point worthy of consideration unless his inactivity persists. Let me summarise the key quotes:
Eccleston
- Based on what I've read of Eccleston's posts I think he's probably the most likely to be town out of the entire lot. In fact, I think he's quite likely to be town. He's made very specific observations that are quite hard for scum to make. I do not, for example, think that the average TL scum player would say anything like these.
- It's hard for scum to realistically be able to fake a decision-making process when their ulterior goal is to blend in. Eccleston doesn't display any of those tendencies. He's almost certainly town IMO.
- The only thing that could possibly be held against Eccleston, IMO, is his relatively low recent activity, but given the context of the game I do not think it is a point worthy of consideration unless his inactivity persists.
A very strong analysis, backed with a VERY strong opinion. (Eccleston *is* certainly town) You go on to add the caveat: this opinion even holds credence with low activity.
If we fast forward to now: You have 180'd on Eccleson with weak logic (already broken down above), and to boot, you have cited his low activity as an issue!
Surely I dont have to remind you it is normally scum that are able to backpedal reads so flippantly.
If you dont want to respond to that one, its OK. Lets try the next point.
HartnellWilliam. Below are opinions you have chosen to share publicly of HW throughout Day1 to now.
On June 02 2013 02:30 TomB4 wrote: I'll let JP speak for himself, but I find it more likely that... HW or PT are scum than him. ... On June 03 2013 04:13 TomB4 wrote: IF there is some scum on the DrT votelist it's probably HW.
He's pretty much just coasting along. On June 04 2013 07:07 TomB4 wrote: JPertwee claiming medic.....
There's still so few posts...I'd be down to kill JP or HW but with no one posting there's almost no way to tell who's scum and who's just afking as town. In short: Since Day1 HW has hovered as a low hanging fruit according to your filter.
So what happens Day3. Your low hanging fruit writes a "big" case on Eccleston. The man you adamantly proclaimed as almost confirmed town.
What do you do? You decide to side with your low hanging fruit (HW); throw around cheap reasoning (already dispelled), and discard that *certain* town read. Not only calling Eccleston scum, but proceed to use a townies strong weapon against scum on him. Your vote.
That is a sequence of logic that is incomprehensible for a townie. In this sequence of actions, you exhibit no desire to follow up with Eccleston to ascertain his alignment. This is the absolute least a man of your intellect can do for a former "confirmed' townie.
Your behaviour satisfies all the criteria for trademark scum motive. You saw an opportunity to pounce on lynch bait (Eccleston), and took it. In process you not only threw away a hard town read. But you also decided to vote *with* a scum reads target. This all occur without you trying to prod for more information.
This is all scummy behaviour from simply Day2 and Day3. SMcCoy has already summarised a bunch of points to why your Day1 antics were scummy.
Ironically as a corollary. Your post identifying JP as medic: is so blase regarding JP being lynched, that surely even you qualify for your own criteria for low hanging fruit on the JP wagon.=P
Town: Join me in eradicating scum. Vote for TomB4
|
Well interesting response tomb4
FYI, Your style becomes very cramped when you are under perceived pressure.
It is the first I have noticed you throw ad hominem after ad hominem. its nice to see scum sweat
I will reply to your questions when I have computer access. In short. I'm finding your responses beginning to be selectively myopic. And you are stretching quotes between concepts in the same vein you did with McCoy and the trout policy issue. You are definitely one slippery scum player.
That being said. I only have two things to continue discourse over.
Firstly. Eccleston may have been replaced but the alignment stays the same. The point? You have identified points you love about ecc 1.0 And points you despise about ecc 2.0.
I know it was clear before, however the point is important enough to warrant a repeat. You have made no attempt to dialogue constructively with ecc 2.0 If you were truly looking for scum, as a townie does. Your sequence of actions would be very different. Your addendum reasoning still does not cut the mustard or provide a satisfactory motive. This is exacerbated by your willingness to drop eccleston for he.
Point 2
You had a list of four people. Myself included. Where are you trying to decipher which of the four are the apparently remaining two scum? Where is your curiosity to decipher my alignment disappeared? That you can jump from ecc to hw in a heartbeat without sound reasonings depicts the real truth on your care factor for this lynch. I.e. you don't actually care. For anyone who was still unsure about you; this should be the nail in the coffin.
In short. A Scummy response from a scum player.
|
Trout.
I am more than happy for you to challenged my logic with tomb4.
It can only lead to finding scum.
As for mcgann, I would prefer to work on one target at a time. I hope you can respect that. I am merely one person and already entrenched with tom.
Going back to tom. You identify you think his response is genuine and my reasoning is perhaps, misinterpretation. Can you please detail where you think I have gone astray.
Lastly. If McCoy had a super town read on PT2, and then you replace on as PT2000. Do you not think it is odd if mccoy calls u scum without exchanging any conversation with you?
|
Trout.
Thank you for replying clearly and transparently.
I think I have sourced the crux of our difference in opinion.
When I have comp access I will reply in full.
Here are Two points for consideration betwwen now and then
One. There is nothing wrong with evolving reads. Its good play. The key is to transparently evolve reads. I dont see how you can argue tomb4 organically evolved his read on Eccleston. And I dont see how you can argue it is natural to jump from certain town to so scummy I will vote with no interaction or inclination to find out more.
Tom didnt just call eccleston town. He built a case to prove beyond doubt he was town.
Yes A slot replaces in and doesnt post. Yes i want him to post more as well. However Since when is activity an indicator of alignment. If you still disagrwe. And Activity is indeed scummy. Half of the remaining players would be scum categorically..
TWo I Am still awaiting a response from you regarding a hypotehtical situation with mccoy.
|
|
|
|