|
Let's play a game... |
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?
|
On June 06 2013 04:42 HartnellWill wrote:
Goddamn I would have no problem sheeping that TomB4 case. I still feel Eccleston is scum though. Maybe both are. Lynch one and shoot the other?
HW, how do you feel about Tom's response to Davison's case? I feel like it's a very compelling defense. Between Tom and H3 I feel like H3 is the more likely to be scum, and the dichotomy is rather wide. You wrote that you felt H3's vote post after deadline was scummy, and he has explained that his inactivity is due to IRL activities. Could you expand on that for us? I've been attributing his playful tone and many of his posts as things he would say as town, but I have to say that both of you expressing what seems to be a preferred desire to sheep is wearing on me.
|
Davison you want convenient entrances to the thread?
You want scummy sheep votes?
Eccleston's last post is a great example for you. Note how he came up with NOTHING that he promised earlier in the post previous to that, but chooses to throw his vote on me and doesn't actually come up with anything he promised to come up with.
|
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.
You're tunneled.
Nothing more for me to say here.
|
On June 06 2013 08:45 TheDavison wrote:
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?
Pasting out part of your post without direct quotes:
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.
As with Tom, I am having a hard time believing there would be TWO protective roles in this game. It's a 13-player game, and would be out of this world imbalanced to have more than one protective role, especially without the possibility of a mafia vigilante or other type of KP (from the OP). Imagine two protective roles that would be used defensively night after night in such a small game that mafia KP has virtually no meaning. Yes, it's possible they would double cover, it's also possible they would simply protect two of the strongest town powers for the entire game and keep them alive long enough to solve the game handily. That doesn't jive with how most gave I've played or read are balance, and therefore I disagree with your propostition that there are further protective roles.
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.
and
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.
Eccleston has been a focus for many players so far this game. The original's posts and interactions were questionable and the current incarnation is barely here. However, to attribute the night shot or shots on MSmith means that, as he has explained and matches up with the gamestate, isn't a stretch at all. It's a point of evidence, not the sole evidence, against Eccleston.
If we rewind to Day1/2: You identified Eccleston as a probable town in this post
Are we not allowed to be wrong? His judgement was his own to make, that's why the game allows us to vote. He may not have interacted with Eccleston about it but coming to a possibly incorrect conclusion at the time doesn't make him scummy. Do you think it's fair to assume that he gave Eccleston the opportunity to present himself as town by seeking out potential town motivation for Eccleston's posts? Did he look like he was unable to be swayed about his read on Eccleston? I started with a scum read on Eccleston just from my first read through the game, does that mean I should not also allow Eccleston the opportunity to prove his innocence if he is capable of doing so? As Tom points out, the game is dynamic; and as a famous TL Mafia philosopher once said: "You have to build a case for a day and then, as you approach the lynch, do it all again from scratch to see if it makes sense".
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.
You are incredulous to the fact that anyone could possibly try looking for a town motive from Eccleston and then switch to a scum read once enough time has passed? How easy is it to communicate with someone who is barely even playing the game at that time? We have Eccleston here now, perhaps Tom is here and will be able to, as you request, engage him now that he has arrived.
|
like, what the hell kind of point is "you haven't tried to dialogue constructively with ecc 2.0"??
Why would I be the one who needs to ask him questions? He's been afk this entire time!
|
On June 06 2013 08:36 Eccleston wrote:Okay, I've honestly been feeling unmotivated and only just now finished my first readthrough. Ive decided that the way Tom is playing just doesn't hang right with me at all. He's really trying too hard to hunt scum! A lot of his posts are very "off" to me Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 08:52 TomB4 wrote:On May 31 2013 06:29 Baker1986 wrote:On May 31 2013 06:04 TomB4 wrote:
Would you be willing to bet your life in this game on DrT being scum, McCoy? Given your current language, I'd be willing to simply kill you if he flips town.
Explain this. I don't see the connection. McCoy's reads are based on solid logic that's easy to follow and hard to fake. Even if he is wrong, which I don't think he is, I still would consider him town. It's not solid logic, and it's actually super easy to fake. Based on McCoy's first post I didn't consider him strong town. What's troubling is his attitude regarding the lynch. We have so much time, there is no reason to pigeonhole our options so quickly. I could easily be wrong-my first impression is that they are both town. I mostly just asked that question to gauge his sincerity regarding the strength of his read. On May 31 2013 06:09 SMcCoy wrote:On May 31 2013 06:04 TomB4 wrote:
why are you saying that DrT is the only viable lynch for today? There are a full 29 hours left in the day. This foregone conclusion seems to have come almost immediately. In fact, your confidence doesn't even seem sincere to me.
Would you be willing to bet your life in this game on DrT being scum, McCoy? Given your current language, I'd be willing to simply kill you if he flips town.
Maybe you should find something better than your policy lynch, that might actually convince someone. What policy am I lynching him on? Lynch all trolls? Lol. I don't even know why you are trying to lynch DrT-at least my reasons are clear. Your reasons and confidence don't make any sense. hes definitely faking his confusion here, why would town do this? theres no explanation Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 03:51 TomB4 wrote:On May 31 2013 03:26 Baker1986 wrote:On May 31 2013 02:32 TomB4 wrote:
At best, you can argue that what Troughton has said is null, but even that is stretching. In a game like this, all of the town should be acutely aware of the fact that each player's presence is vital in attaining opinions and organising a good scumhunting effort. 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.
There is a big distinction between what players should do and what they do. I don't expect this game to be different at all. Yes, ideally everyone was contributing valuable input to the discussion, but you know what? That's not what actually happens most of the time. So? Are you saying that we should simply ignore people who are willingly not contributing? What a wonderful world we'd live in if we could just win games by letting the scum stand around and troll us all day and not actually lynch them for it. Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 06:04 TomB4 wrote:
why are you saying that DrT is the only viable lynch for today? There are a full 29 hours left in the day. This foregone conclusion seems to have come almost immediately. In fact, your confidence doesn't even seem sincere to me.
Would you be willing to bet your life in this game on DrT being scum, McCoy? Given your current language, I'd be willing to simply kill you if he flips town.
Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 07:32 TomB4 wrote:On June 06 2013 02:31 TheDavison wrote:On June 06 2013 02:06 TomB4 wrote: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. Are you thick? You think there are multiple defensive roles? If there was a veteran, he would have claimed a hit. So we can rule that out. If it was a jailkeeper, we would've known there was a roleblock. We can rule that out too. A medic flipped, he claimed to protect the guy on n1 who died on the night following his flip, In addition, if the delay was used then MSmith most probably got hit twice, because the medic was dead before the night started, and there almost certainly not two medics. It's just not balanced. On June 06 2013 04:04 TheDavison wrote: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. I don't understand what you're implying here. I think Eccleston is scummy primarily because of two reasons: 1.) He's within the only group of players that could possibly be scum at the moment. and more importantly, 2.) He was suspected quite consistently by MSmith, who most likely got shot twice. You think this is a coincidence? I don't.
Unfortunately, your actions suggest otherwise.
No, they don't. My actions are completely consistent with what I've been saying. I had a change of opinion about Eccleston based both on his replacement and based on the events that have happened. If you think that players' opinions are not supposed to change in light of occurrences then you are playing the wrong fucking game. If you can't accept that, you can go ahead and lynch me and then call me bad when I flip town. On June 06 2013 02:31 TheDavison wrote: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.
It makes him far more likely than almost anyone else in the game. You think that someone who in all probability got shot TWICE didn't have good reads, then by all means, don't kill Eccleston. Scum are not generally that afraid of a player unless it's by name basis, and we certainly don't know who anyone is in this game. The only other reasonable explanation is that MSmith was on the right track. On June 06 2013 02:31 TheDavison wrote:Herein lies my quandry.If we rewind to Day1/2: You identified Eccleston as a probable town in this postOn June 02 2013 16:10 TomB4 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
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:
So? I do think those are townish posts, but in light of the fact that he got replaced, his replacement so far has done nothing, AND to top it all off the MSmith connection stuff, most of that information is almost completely irrelevant. It's obsolete given the fact that we're not even dealing with the same player anymore. If you cannot understand that simple fact, then you are simply hopeless. On June 06 2013 02:31 TheDavison wrote:On June 06 2013 02:31 TheDavison wrote:On May 31 2013 19:25 Eccleston wrote: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 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 How on earth is Eccleston lynch bait? Clearly I was going to get resistance. I'm not a moron, I know that I called him town earlier. How the fuck would he be an easy lynch if I contradict myself so heavily? If I wanted an easy lynch I would have jumped on HW because it would not have called attention to myself. I still want to get HW lynched, but I do think Eccleston is the better choice today. If people don't agree with me, then we kill HW instead. Eccleston 2.0 so far has done nothing; he promised a case and a rebuttal but so far has fallen short of providing both. Surely if you've been reading the thread you can at least see that much. the fact he talks so much in questions to make statements instead of answers: this sits poorly with me. something is clearly up imo! he's putting on a big "show" of scumhunting when really he's not. he's over playing his part this is just my thought but Im willing to stand behind it for now. Im now rereading his filter for a more serious case. ##vote tom
Well now I definitely won't be voting for Tom.
|
##vote pt
until i put some time into filter reading
|
Just got home, be right back
|
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.
|
On June 06 2013 08:49 PTroughton2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 04:42 HartnellWill wrote:
Goddamn I would have no problem sheeping that TomB4 case. I still feel Eccleston is scum though. Maybe both are. Lynch one and shoot the other? HW, how do you feel about Tom's response to Davison's case? I feel like it's a very compelling defense. Between Tom and H3 I feel like H3 is the more likely to be scum, and the dichotomy is rather wide. You wrote that you felt H3's vote post after deadline was scummy, and he has explained that his inactivity is due to IRL activities. Could you expand on that for us? I've been attributing his playful tone and many of his posts as things he would say as town, but I have to say that both of you expressing what seems to be a preferred desire to sheep is wearing on me.
I feel like Davison is more believable, given that Tom's defense wasn't too compelling. It's full of spite for someone accusing him of being scum, and it treats Eccleston and Eccleston 2.0 as polar opposites.
|
On June 06 2013 10:29 HartnellWill wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 08:49 PTroughton2 wrote:On June 06 2013 04:42 HartnellWill wrote:
Goddamn I would have no problem sheeping that TomB4 case. I still feel Eccleston is scum though. Maybe both are. Lynch one and shoot the other? HW, how do you feel about Tom's response to Davison's case? I feel like it's a very compelling defense. Between Tom and H3 I feel like H3 is the more likely to be scum, and the dichotomy is rather wide. You wrote that you felt H3's vote post after deadline was scummy, and he has explained that his inactivity is due to IRL activities. Could you expand on that for us? I've been attributing his playful tone and many of his posts as things he would say as town, but I have to say that both of you expressing what seems to be a preferred desire to sheep is wearing on me. I feel like Davison is more believable, given that Tom's defense wasn't too compelling. It's full of spite for someone accusing him of being scum, and it treats Eccleston and Eccleston 2.0 as polar opposites.
I can understand his response, but I may be wrong about how compelling it is. I did qualify that it did look genuine to me. I'll look closer and hopefully have a verdict. I'm more confident on an Eccleston lynch than I am on a Tom lynch, more so now that Eccleston voted for him recently.
@Eccleston
You made three separate statements in his case on Tom.
1. You are/were unmotivated. This is unrelated to his discussion of Tom. It may explain why you are only focusing on Tom at this point, given that Tom is major factor of discussion. Fine. What's the reason for not feeling motivated though? You signed in to replace, you should have known what you were getting into and have been motivated to play properly. Something is off when a player is disinterested in playing the game right after they begin playing. No reasons cited.
Would like to hear from you a) why you are feeling unmotivated and b) why choose Tom over any other player of the recent discussions.
2. Tom was faking confusion about how people took his intent to vote for PT2. This is subjective and arguably incorrect. Tom seemed to have difficulty espousing the idea that he saw PT2's first post as a misdirection to derail conversation about DrT and that McCoy took PT2's first post to be trolling/RP or whatever. Tom was interested in scum hunting beyond the first major candidate for the day. It's easy to see this as a negative when you have the knowledge that DrT flipped mafia at the end of the day; that is, to see it as a misdirection from a perfect D1 lynch. He was arguably doing the right thing by not allowing the conversation to stagnate on one single candidate.
What is the scum motivation for keeping an open mind that there is more than 1 scum in the game on day one?
3. Tom talking in questions in his response to Davison's case. Do you not feel the incredulity from Tom just by the way that post reads when everything is a retort? He sounds angry. Rightfully so perhaps because Davison's case comes on full force not as questions, but as accusations coupled with inferred motivations.
When you read that post from the standpoint that Tom is not automatically scum, does it still read to you the same way?
|
On June 06 2013 10:25 TheDavison wrote:
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.
Okay, I see where you're coming from. You wanted to see Tom's thinking about Eccleston in the thread and it's not 100% there. That makes sense as an expectation, but it's not always going to be the case. Also keep in mind that over the course of the day/night people were doing most of the thinking and posting against Ecclestion on his behalf. It's difficult resist when you're faced with so many people of the opposite opinion, perhaps he just gave in to the wisdom of the crowd. I could see him settling for a scum read on Eccleston by day two or whenever, especially when it got to the point Eccleston had to be replaced.
Building a case to prove someone is town in the face of people calling him scum ALSO makes sense. It's town motivated to divert lynches you feel are incorrect, and Eccleston was getting himself on everyone's suspicions list in a relatively quick manner. That Tom made a case to show Eccleston's potential to be town just speaks for his conviction and zeal.
Hypothetical situation with McCoy?
Do you mean this?
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.
from this post? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18803935
If that's the post, from what I gather McCoy wasn't as much of a town read to Tom as MSmith was D1. This potentially explains why he was so quick to explain the night actions. The simplest answer is that he trusted MSmith more (also arguably explains why he would perceive that MSmith was shot N1 and subsequently saved). I would need to re-read that section to determine if they weren't getting along because of McCoy's disagreement over Tom voting for PT2. Let me know if that's the right hypothetical you were referencing.
|
Apologies. Still on phone so hard to quote.
The mccoy hypothetical is then first post on this page (30). And is the very last question.
It was basically a rehash of the tom/ecl scenario and is most likely redundant now.
As mentioned prior. When I have comp access. Say 12hrs.
I will reply in full to tom.
Reply in full to you.
I will not be making a defense for eccle though.
And I find it odd you think it is normal that tom did that. Not scummy odd. Just we differ in opinion.
For me.
The best way to stop a lynch on someone you think is town, is to provide an alternative wagon with sound logic.
Building a case to prove town in my personal opinion is a last resort. People still need to be allowed to defend themselves. As toadesstern used to say. It is easy for scum to give out town reads, as they don't have to lie. Making up reasons for scum is much more difficult and this is another area where tom falls short.
He is obviously well spoken and capable of deep thought. That is proven by his analysis of a town ecclw.
When it comes to why Hartnell or eccle are scum however. The analysis is blunt, fallacious and lacking conviction.
Over and out
|
On June 06 2013 11:27 TheDavison wrote:
Apologies. Still on phone so hard to quote.
The mccoy hypothetical is then first post on this page (30). And is the very last question.
It was basically a rehash of the tom/ecl scenario and is most likely redundant now.
As mentioned prior. When I have comp access. Say 12hrs.
I will reply in full to tom.
Reply in full to you.
I will not be making a defense for eccle though.
And I find it odd you think it is normal that tom did that. Not scummy odd. Just we differ in opinion.
For me.
The best way to stop a lynch on someone you think is town, is to provide an alternative wagon with sound logic.
Building a case to prove town in my personal opinion is a last resort. People still need to be allowed to defend themselves. As toadesstern used to say. It is easy for scum to give out town reads, as they don't have to lie. Making up reasons for scum is much more difficult and this is another area where tom falls short.
He is obviously well spoken and capable of deep thought. That is proven by his analysis of a town ecclw.
When it comes to why Hartnell or eccle are scum however. The analysis is blunt, fallacious and lacking conviction.
Over and out
There wasn't too terribly much to add regarding Eccleston being scum at the time, though. I'll try to see things your way while I re-read, and I can admit I had a gut town read on him from early on that may be coloring my perception of him.
P.S. Keyboard imba
|
There wasn't too terribly much to add regarding Eccleston being scum at the time, though. I'll try to see things your way while I re-read, and I can admit I had a gut town read on him** from early on that may be coloring my perception of him**.
**To clarify, by him I mean Tom. Pronouns are challenging.
|
No worries. I look forward to seeing how our chat goes once you do the reread
So far I'm finding this very productive though.
For example, you thought tom was town and decided to interject.
BUT, you did not state why you thought tom was town. Instead You chose to share why you thought the case was bogus.
I think this is a default town way to defend someone you think is town. You then did what I suggested before and provided a counter wagon. Again. Townie in motive.
When rereading, pls think why tom would write such a detailed analysis on eccle in the first place.
Yes, eccle was under scrutiny, so why not just address those "bogus" points? I find the detailed analysis out of place and is almost an excuse for a meaningless contribution. Dr.t was were important analysis was required, and with that tom tried to divert with a policy lunch on you (trout1).
Over and out
|
On June 06 2013 12:04 TheDavison wrote:
No worries. I look forward to seeing how our chat goes once you do the reread
So far I'm finding this very productive though.
For example, you thought tom was town and decided to interject.
BUT, you did not state why you thought tom was town. Instead You chose to share why you thought the case was bogus.
I think this is a default town way to defend someone you think is town. You then did what I suggested before and provided a counter wagon. Again. Townie in motive.
When rereading, pls think why tom would write such a detailed analysis on eccle in the first place.
Yes, eccle was under scrutiny, so why not just address those "bogus" points? I find the detailed analysis out of place and is almost an excuse for a meaningless contribution. Dr.t was were important analysis was required, and with that tom tried to divert with a policy lunch on you (trout1).
Over and out
Why do people play the game?
To solve it. I posted about Eccleston to give my thoughts and to spur discussion. No one discussed what I had to say. I've even invited people to talk and still no one does.
I like PT2 and he seems really reasonable. So far he's been pretty spot on regarding my thoughts on the game.
There are three simple facts you can consider right now.
I am here, and talking. Eccleston is not. In fact, no one aside from PT2 really is consistently around.
Eccleston, despite having been replaced by a second player, continues to do nothing. You have yet to comment on this. Are you that tunneled that you're going to refuse to consider this?
Third, even if you do not like Eccleston as a lynch, I am still by far worse than others in the game-notably, HW.
Look at what he's done recently. He seems to be skating by while we argue about pointless things. Notably:
On June 06 2013 10:09 HartnellWill wrote:
Just got home, be right back
On June 06 2013 10:29 HartnellWill wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 08:49 PTroughton2 wrote:On June 06 2013 04:42 HartnellWill wrote:
Goddamn I would have no problem sheeping that TomB4 case. I still feel Eccleston is scum though. Maybe both are. Lynch one and shoot the other? HW, how do you feel about Tom's response to Davison's case? I feel like it's a very compelling defense. Between Tom and H3 I feel like H3 is the more likely to be scum, and the dichotomy is rather wide. You wrote that you felt H3's vote post after deadline was scummy, and he has explained that his inactivity is due to IRL activities. Could you expand on that for us? I've been attributing his playful tone and many of his posts as things he would say as town, but I have to say that both of you expressing what seems to be a preferred desire to sheep is wearing on me. I feel like Davison is more believable, given that Tom's defense wasn't too compelling. It's full of spite for someone accusing him of being scum, and it treats Eccleston and Eccleston 2.0 as polar opposites.
That's his contribution to the discussion?
If anything this is HW poking at the fire with a stick from the sidelines, watching as it burns.
Both Eccleston and HW are doing this-you have to realize that this is exactly what scum would do in such a situation. I do think you are town, and so it is town vs town right now. Scum have no reasons to keep posting in that situation.
|
Tom, stop arguing with the scum, you're wasting your breath and you're not going to be able to convince him of anything.
Davison, you should have died on D2, but your predecessor used cheap replacement tactics to buy time.
That case against Tom is turds. Tom is town, you are scum. Very aggressive scum. My original case was solid. I let myself get talked out of my read, but that's not happening again. I am not moving this vote until he is dead or I am, so act accordingly.
##Vote: TheDavison
|
Tom,
I won't dispute that the activity of certain individuals is beginning to perturb me.
Especially when it is clear they are lurking, and only contribute if called out.
So yes,whilst activity alone is not an indicator of alignment; especially now that town needs to begin consolidating, activity is required.
To answer your question.yes, eccleston does need to weigh in ASAP.
However, so do hw, a.mcgann, baker, mccoy, and H3.
Now. We are both in agreement with PT2000. Not that he gets you, but rather, he is trying to critically evaluate what is being put forth. Further he is prompting others to help discern their alignment. Town needs more of this before the lynch.
Any who. I disagree with your rationale for the behaviour association that "poking sticks" makes hartnell scum.
In a classical game of Mafia, I would be inclined to agree with you.
However, this game is well within day3. And heuristics need to suit the current state of play.
Unfortunately town had a leader that was too strong, and to boot a relatively uncontested lynch. This allowed town to be lazy, and once it starts. Its hard to reverse.
The lessons I learnt from day1 were repeated in day2 and are being repeated again in day3.
I.e. The majority of the playing group prefer to avoid live discussion and instead throw Tidbits when it suits them. Further, their vote is not predictable. Somehow they are independent, but don't want to maintain any these presence.
Considering this pattern, the way day3 has transpired is actually normal for this playing group. I.e. is similar to day1 and day2 play.
As we both know. 2 scum remain and about 6 in total lurk. I.e. in the lurking group must be a majority of town.
If anything, this tendency to avoid discussion is a town tell for this group, and scum have chosen to adapt and be comfortable.
Considering heuristics need to tailored for each game microcosm, I just don't see how you can say hw behaviour to selectively delurk makes him scum on its own. Nor anyone else.
I.e. I'm saying, if u want to call some one scum based on motive. You need more than a cheap traditional scum tell. What you need is proof of a scum mindset indicative over a filter. I.e explicit behaviour over multiple events in the game.
You have not produced that with eccleston, and are still not producing this with Hartnell.
Over and out
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
