|
Let's play a game... |
mccoy you are trying to shirk responsibility for my mislynch already... ;_; and nobody will believe me even after I flip...
|
Wait, Eccleston, give me a quick rundown of reasons for why you think I'm scum. It's important for me to see it.
|
okay mccoy... give me a moment if that is okay
|
On June 07 2013 04:20 Hurndall3 wrote:
PT has written a lot, but it's a lot of words and not a lot of content. Most of what he says is just summary.
for now
##vote PT
Just caught up with the thread, and I see you're leaving at this point so I don't know if you'll be around to respond to this, but I must ask if you truly read what I wrote or if it was too long for you to sit through. Most of your filter exhibits the traits of putting in as little effort as possible.
On May 29 2013 23:05 Hurndall3 wrote:
Yeah why is everyone talking all fancy and not natural? just because its a smurf game lol?
On May 30 2013 00:52 Hurndall3 wrote:
wow it is hard to play all smurf games. I can't keep people apart.
On May 30 2013 02:26 Hurndall3 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 00:57 Baker1986 wrote:On May 30 2013 00:54 Hurndall3 wrote:
also it doesn't help that the names are as generic as possible Think they're all doctor who things fuck i wish i watched that show it would make it so much easier... Um yeah I'm usually pretty useless d1 sorries.
Smurfing provides the rare opportunity for everyone to divert from our normal play. This means that we can experiment if we feel the need, say things more freely without the baggage held in the words we use to play as those words would apply to our names, truly escape our meta. I would wager that no effort has been made on your part to do anything different in this game. In fact based on your writing style you could potentially already be identified by players in the thread. Although we are not allowed to openly speculate about the identities behind the players, those players who play very similarly to their natural styles are easier to identify and reveal their own identities through their natural process through the game. In a way, this is a clue to help each of us determine the alignment of others when it is applicable
I do not believe you are making effort to diverge from your standard, no matter who you are. You seem to be playing a style that you are comfortable with. Without raising your standard, you even go so far as to call people out for playing differently in a smurf game (quote 1 above), as if the thought never crossed your mind why players would be acting differently in a game where they were free of the community-applied constraints of their standard play. This says to me that you have not even considered changing your approach to the game in favor of a style you are comfortable with and thus that you are either a) ignorant to the nature of this game, b) apply no special value to the game type when you can escape meta, or c) that you intentionally did not change your play for fear that it would out you should you divert from your standard "town" meta.
Quotes two and three are also applicable to this point: acting upon your town meta that you are leaning on as a crutch is to not expend much effort in pushing ideas in the thread, your check-in check-out style leaves you open to excusing yourself repeatedly
TL;DR (for you specifically because you have an issue with reading, apparently): I think you're scum because you're adhering to your previously established town meta despite that meta not applying in this game. Not to say that we know who you are or what your meta specifically is, but that you are adhering to your original style of play. Your lack of experimentation and insight into why people would play differently betrays that your thinking about the game is largely one dimensional and displays casual understanding and a largely disconnected approach.
|
##Unvote
##Vote TomB4
Actually, I should stick to my early reads, they are usually better, and Tom mostly disrupts suspicion but rarely channels it properly to the guys he claims to be his scumreads.
|
On June 07 2013 06:28 SMcCoy wrote:
##Unvote
##Vote TomB4
Actually, I should stick to my early reads, they are usually better, and Tom mostly disrupts suspicion but rarely channels it properly to the guys he claims to be his scumreads.
I still don't understand the points against Tom, I feel like a mind-reader when it comes to him and I can see the potential town motivation for just about everything he has done. If we are not voting for Eccleston I am reading up on H3 right now because he's pushed me to the limit with his garbage.
|
Yeah H3 or Tom are both fine for me, but what I see in Tom is subtle aggressiveness in his posts, the scummy sort, combined with him questioning a lot the assessments other make with offensive questions that try to plant doubts, but I hardly see him going for approaches that look like he's trying to understand the game, or explain what happened earlier, or post analysis.
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
Look at the 7:32 post Eccleston is quoting (in one of the spoilers), I think that is very indicative of what I'm talking about. When he explains his thought process, he finishes it with ad-hominems. When he speaks of Eccleston, he doesn't really post reasoning for why he's scum, he only tries to tell Davison that he is scummier than him. Similarly to how DrT flung poop at Baker and Eccleston when he was getting gunned, but without posting cases or analysis.
|
If you're town, you'll see guys who are likely scum, and when you get attacked you will try to explain your thought process, but given your innocence you will not feel as startled as a scum player, and when you speak of your scumreads, you will speak about the one you want to lynch the most and post reasons, without having to compare it to the reasons brought up for you being scum.
Instead, Tom has been proven by Davis to have thrown his Eccleston townread away rather quickly, and when questioned about it, he becomes aggressive and feels attacked. He states he wants to kill HW and Eccleston, but he spends 80% of his post defending himself rather than showing him why Eccleston is scum. Sure, there are defensive townies, but the defense itself looks scummy to me. I think Davis raised a really good case there, and Tom didn't like that one bit when he was writing that post.
|
Call my impression of that post subjective, but I would like to bring something from D1 to your attention, where Tom responded defensively when I called his Troughton lynch a policy lynch (and proved that I was right). Why should Tom deny that all the reasons he mentioned for lynching Troughton were: Roleplaying?
Do you really think that guy thought the guy to drop one post is scum just cause he's roleplaying? He called that exactly Trolling around in his first post against PT, and in his defensive post he said he didn't want to lynch him for that. I would expect a townie to remember the reasons for why he thinks someone is scum, not claim they were different when his lynch gets discredited for those reasons.
On May 31 2013 20:35 SMcCoy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 08:52 TomB4 wrote:
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. Your reasons so far have been policy, others have thrown in other reasons like: - didn't read thread - didn't comment on someone into the mix. You didn't. Here, let me summarize your reasons for going after him. IIRC you were the first to do that. Show nested quote +I'd much rather get PTroughton to say something worthwhile. I expect players in this game to avoid bullshitting and roleplaying given that it's a smurf game and it's in our best interest to get things organised rapidly. Trolling around is in direct opposition to that goal, particularly as we are at a huge disadvantage to a normal game in which we can use meta-analysis to determine whether behaviour of a certain type is to be expected.
##vote PTroughton2 Show nested quote +It's not null when he's done nothing else.
Is he Chezinu? Is he Foolishness? Is he Palmar? We don't know. Identity matters when someone does something like this.
Context matters, simply dismissing someone because of trolling is a great way to find yourself saying in lategame "if this guy is scum he deserves to win" and then losing to him. Everyone is worth analysing, and your dismissive attitude is disturbing in the sense that you don't seem to understand this. (not to mention you have simply ignored my question about DrT, or do not care enough to explain that position of yours I suppose?) Show nested quote +and for the record, I'm not suggesting we figure out who he is, I'm saying that because we don't know the identities of players in this game we absolutely cannot tolerate such behaviour.
Finding scum is that much harder when you have a player who is purposely an impedance to town efforts. Show nested quote +How is a "playful" post helpful to us? How is that at all indicative that he is town?
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. Show nested quote +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. Then you proceeded to threaten me for my confidence into DrT being scum, and now you deny that your reasons for wanting to lynch trout are policy. What's worse, you keep attacking the arguments used against DrT when he has not been doing that himself (he didn't respond to a multitude of them) and instead of waiting to see what he has to say, you prefer to take his spot and speak up for him, going all-in on your bet that he's town. You could be doing analysis on players who are a better lynch in your opinion, instead you try to sidetrack a strong wagon in the hope that people switch to a more-policy-than-not lynch. Your lack of suspicion of DrT is what's looking unnatural, when at least half the thread should have recognized that he is at the very least someone who deserves a lot of scrutiny. As such, your prime interest should lay into luring more information out of him, not do his work. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ I'll get to this point you were mentioning since it's relevant in the arguments against DrT . and you are trying to misrepresent it: Show nested quote +Oh please. Are you incapable of understanding context? McCoy calls him scummy for doing something that is not scummy. If you actually read the exchange you'd see that, while McCoy is probably more articulate than DrT, his response to DrT makes no sense. He bolded the rhetorical question and pushed the suspicion off himself onto DrT. DrT rightfully rebutted with the correct assessment that it's far more likely for townies to change their minds on a whim than scum, because scum are aware of the problems of changing their opinion, and are very wary of doing so because of the attention it draws. How many scum do you know are willing to openly admit they made a mistake and backtrack on something they said earlier? Generally when scum change opinions they purposely try to hide it-that's why finding contradictions is so useful. Something like that is not a contradiction nor a scum tell if the thought process is open and transparent or if the change in opinion is blatant and attention-grabbing. Represent what you're saying, with quotes and all, cause I don't think you will be able to. I bolded everything which is wrong. Bold #1: I called him scummy for multiple reasons, display the argument you think is not valid. Bold #2: Doesn't make sense. How is him arguing that quick judgments are townie a defense of his loaded question? I mentioned something entirely different which triggered that response. It's in this post. The last part of that post is about scum not being willing to change their opinion easily. What does that have to do with anything? What's the point of mentioning it? It neither helps your policy lynch nor is it a valid defense of what DrT did, he never has been accused of changing his opinion.
|
My confidence in anyone being scum is about this big
I'm currently rereading Tom and I can't deny that there are also bits that seem townie.
I don't mind policy lynching H3 or HW today actually. Let's have a nice VIGI DAY
|
On June 07 2013 06:40 SMcCoy wrote:Yeah H3 or Tom are both fine for me, but what I see in Tom is subtle aggressiveness in his posts, the scummy sort, combined with him questioning a lot the assessments other make with offensive questions that try to plant doubts, but I hardly see him going for approaches that look like he's trying to understand the game, or explain what happened earlier, or post analysis. Show nested quote +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 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 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. 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.
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 Look at the 7:32 post Eccleston is quoting (in one of the spoilers), I think that is very indicative of what I'm talking about. When he explains his thought process, he finishes it with ad-hominems. When he speaks of Eccleston, he doesn't really post reasoning for why he's scum, he only tries to tell Davison that he is scummier than him. Similarly to how DrT flung poop at Baker and Eccleston when he was getting gunned, but without posting cases or analysis.
I'm feeling pretty dense that I did not see the underlined clearly.
To summarize the key points against Tom, so I fully understand what the case against him is, and you can correct me if I am wrong:
- First major point is his defense of himself by deflecting to two players without cases. I finally grasp this point, it is very similar to the DrT method. I agree I can see a very weak attempt to push votes off of him to another wagon. At least up until this point, I have agreed that he looked less scummy to me than Eccleston.
- Second major point is the angry language. I can see two sides to this coin, scum-side being that he has no basis for calling the others scum when he has not done the due diligence to point out the actual reasons his other options are more scummy than he. Town-side being that he is incredulous that people are seemingly turning on him.
- Third point, he made a spectacle of himself in pushing for my wagon D1 and avoiding the DrT lynch. I have viewed this as attempting to keep things from going stagnant in an environment where D1 felt relatively solved. Your counter-point has been that he was proposing me as an alternative to obtain a mislynch over a DrT lynch. I would like to be frank with you that I would have made the case for the original PT2 on day 1 in someone else's shoes, but I'm not sure that voting him would have been the ideal situation. The crux of this point seems to be the vote, where he, by pushing the counter-wagon, wanted to potentially swing things away. It appears that Tom was the last to vote on the DrT wagon. I got curious about how he moved his vote, so here's his vote switch:
On June 01 2013 07:36 TomB4 wrote:
I'd rather feel dumb than correct, since I am the minority in this case. It's better for us if I'm wrong.
##unvote
##vote DrTennant
- Fourth point, he essentially used a dead confirmed town to push his read on another player without dynamically approaching it on his own. It makes sense to assume that the first night kill will potentially be someone on the right track, and I believe that Tom assumed this was the case rather than killing MSmith because of his prowess with analysis. Pushing for the dead town's reads when the latter is the case (the prowess) I can understand how you see this to be scum motivated. Kill the person on the wrong track, use their reads to further push your agenda by assuming and claiming the dead townie was on the right track.
|
I'm feeling pretty dense that I did not see the underlined clearly.
I bolded the example for you (although it's from another post). My opinion is that scum under pressure doesn't have real scumreads, they do not care who really is scum cause they will push any townie that makes himself vulnerable to pushes.
When they get attacked, they will be nervous (and possibly angry) and (my point) they will try to point to people scummier than them, regardless of their strongest fake reads. It's almost a way of complaining that they are targeted over someone who contributed less, and it doesn't show any conviction on who is really scum, only the intention to find people who look scummier than them in the current situation.
On June 06 2013 12:44 TomB4 wrote:Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 10:29 HartnellWill wrote: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.
|
okay, i'm back at home on a computer now so I can talk at length and try to explain myself. I think first off id like to say mccoy is not my top scumread, thats tom... but a couple things on my first readthrough of the game stood out to me as "off" about him... also i admit he really pushed DrT, and this give him credit for pushing a scum... people asked me, why would SMcCoy push on DrT so hard when instead he could not lynch DrT. I dont know.. but scum can do weird things. I give him credit though, okay? but scum also do bus, even a day one bus, because of the towncred it earns. this doeasnt mean i think its bad, just... always take everything with a grain of salt, ok?
the think SMcCoy said to me first that caught my attention before i read the thread... he said this:
On June 04 2013 13:38 SMcCoy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 13:37 Eccleston wrote:
Hi Im the new manager for Eccleston. Im not caught up on the thread but I'm working on it. If I read Oatsmasters most recent post correctly it is Night 3, 2 hours in. If people have questions for me about my previous actions I can do my best to explain but my guess is as good as yours. Since its Night Im going to spend catch up time and then write some reads down before end. What's your alignment bro.
and i know here he is making a joke... but i dont think this is a good attitude to hunt scum. it is a joke though so we let the joke slide, but think... none of you made this post... and he did. I think you can say "yes, i make a joke like this" though so its ok.
he cant be blamed though for D2 lynch.. i wouldnt believe medic claim..but there had to be scum on such a big wagon. now to talk about why i think he is scum... imagine you are a town player who pushed a lynch... and he claims medic, and you lynch him.. and he is the medic okay
now what do you do... you should say, okay, it was a mistake, we are hunting more scum... and maybe you are worried about being shot... so you do work. i give mccoy a moment and he says... On June 04 2013 11:04 SMcCoy wrote:
;_;
it is okay to say this, ;_; i feel ;_; sometimes and if its after a mislynch,,, this is ok.... but where is he after this? he makes one or two posts... and hes gone for a long time...
i know i cant make fun of someone for being gone... and maybe mccoy has a good reason, like I do. And maybe he is demoralized... but he is not the guy who gets demoralized, look how much he contributes, then he stops... and he talks about how he wants people to bounce ideas with... and thats all. hes back now, and he just made a bunch of good posts... i dont want to lynch him today... but it's very... "out of character" if that makes sense, for what he did for a while after the D2 lynch. Is he demoralized like i was? I could see that... but reading him things, he is very strident, moving forwards... doesn't fit. but he is doing good things today
I know its a wishy washy read and it scummy to be wishy-washy but this read is what i have on him, it is the truth... and i was asked so i respond because i might die today and people need to know what I thought.
|
hahahaha
it is okay to say this, ;_; i feel ;_; sometimes and if its after a mislynch,,, this is ok.... but where is he after this? he makes one or two posts... and hes gone for a long time...
This bit is hilarious, that really cheered me up dude.
Your case is wrong, but it's kinda funny.
|
now i feel really bad because you defend me and attack tom... and are making sense now. but this is the reasons i wrote for why initially when asked, i had you as a scumread. but you see why i dont weant to push you just on that... especially since you recent posting. now i feel like if it could go back id just say tom was my one and only scumread and not have to write all this and get people mad at me
|
Let's lynch Tom and Hurndall for justice.
When all the resistance against the DrT bandwagon has been wiped out, we will know HOW to look for scum if the two flip town. We will know if scum bussed, and we will know if they even attempted to sway the lynch. It's an information argument on top on the legit arguments, but it's not something that should be discarded regardless. Hurndall and Tom are the last two remaining resistances to DrT's lynch.
|
sorry I haven't paid much attention today.
I would absolutely lynch tom for lulz, will check in later and sheep the wagon I find the most townreads on.
|
On June 07 2013 07:27 SMcCoy wrote:I bolded the example for you (although it's from another post). My opinion is that scum under pressure doesn't have real scumreads, they do not care who really is scum cause they will push any townie that makes himself vulnerable to pushes. When they get attacked, they will be nervous (and possibly angry) and (my point) they will try to point to people scummier than them, regardless of their strongest fake reads. It's almost a way of complaining that they are targeted over someone who contributed less, and it doesn't show any conviction on who is really scum, only the intention to find people who look scummier than them in the current situation. Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 12:44 TomB4 wrote: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: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.
I think I can definitely agree with you on this. Tom has been more vocal about the candidates he himself has been pushing. For the most part, he's also been relatively stubborn about letting go of those reads, "sticking to his guns". I have awarded him some town credit for this attitude (not the hostile one, the aggressive and somewhat bullheaded one) based on how much conversation has been generated around his choice to begin his own policy wagon day one. My impression looking over day one was that he was very convinced that he was right, and I took that as misguided townie. However, he has never been under as much pressure as today and his actions today aren't matching up with how he was acting under very little to no pressure earlier in the game. I say little because I recall that many people expressed their reservations about Tom regarding his choice of a PT2 wagon. Today, we have seen mostly defense, and while defense is important he hasn't been pushing a counter-wagon in a serious manner.
Do you categorize his posts after the original Davison interaction to be death throes of mafia? Putting myself in his shoes for a moment, imagining I am him, he's got to be angry by this point because activity has fallen off quite a bit and he's one of the major candidates. He seems to have softened a bit on the hostility because Eccleston has majority, but that is explainable by Eccleston being one of his scum reads. The vote on HW, however, seems very throwaway. Ugh. It's not the same outspoken kind of case he started the game with, which he explains away citing others' loss of interest in the game.
|
On June 07 2013 07:49 SMcCoy wrote:
Let's lynch Tom and Hurndall for justice.
When all the resistance against the DrT bandwagon has been wiped out, we will know HOW to look for scum if the two flip town. We will know if scum bussed, and we will know if they even attempted to sway the lynch. It's an information argument on top on the legit arguments, but it's not something that should be discarded regardless. Hurndall and Tom are the last two remaining resistances to DrT's lynch.
Our conversation have convinced me that I didn't start paranoid enough about Tom's alignment based on how he played day one. Your proposition sounds reasonable.
##unvote Eccleston
##vote TomB4
|
What bothers me a lot is still the post with which HW joined the DrT bandwagon, since he kept himself the backdoor open to switch to Trout. If he was scum it was the obvious best choice for him to vote his scumbuddy first, and then switch when he'd have gotten any chance to.
To be honest I'd rather lynch H3 and HW first, Tom at least will surely keep posting something we can go with.
I apologize if I'm not very directional on this lynch but I detest that we have no vigi for the two and I would gladly use the lynch as such, they both are guilty of scummy things, they just don't have as many cause they keep their heads down on purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
