|
Let's play a game... |
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
|
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
|
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
|
Keep throwing the ad hominems tom.
I can agree the task is difficult. I can also agree mentalities like that are detrimental to end game town.
However, I'm not going to forgo what I deem to be a valid scum lynch, to chase a 50/50 read. This is a rhetorical statement, as you surely can not disagree with this in principle.
The best I can offer is two parts.
1. I will continue to re read your defense with an open mind
2. I will listen very carefully to anyone who constructively opposes your lynch.
I'm done till I get a comp. I just can't express without quotes what I want to say. Over and out.
|
Eccleston
I can vouch the servers went down multiple times.
I even commented on it when I made me post regarding withholding kp.
Personally I didn't think you were scum before that, and now I certainly do not think you are scum. So at least take solace in that.
Have you caught up with the thread?
Regarding tom, the next question is weird i admit. But please be honest.
Did u sheep vote because you believe in the case, or because it allowed u to OMGUS?
I ask because if it was based on omgus/easy sheep.. Now that you are back I would appreciate some fresh critical eyes run over it.
I look forward to hearing more from you. Please don't despair.
|
Ebwop
I should have said. Since my detailed rereads, i did not think you were scum.
|
Eccleston
Please keep in mind, that just as you have been demotivated. So has McCoy.
Do u think his vent 12hes ago to HW/H3 was forced?
Either way its good to have another poster. I look forward to your future contributions.
Are u planning to rebutt the day3 cases against you
|
Tom. I will admit.
Eccleston commenting on McCoy has agitated me. But to make that play, makes no sense to me as scum (or town).
I listened to what you said before: and read the filter of MSmith1 in detail.
He did outline some convincing points against Eccleston.
I am still weighing up the scum points (MSmith1) vs the town points (Tom/McGann) vs the weird points (him wanting to lynch McCoy). One thing I have to keep in mind is that when MSmith1 wrote his analysis on Eccleston; he also accused JP of being scum. We all know now that was not the case at all.
|
On June 06 2013 23:41 TheDavison wrote:
I am still weighing up the scum points (MSmith1) vs the town points (Tom/McGann) vs the weird points (him wanting to lynch McCoy). One thing I have to keep in mind is that when MSmith1 wrote his analysis on Eccleston; he also accused JP of being scum. We all know now that was not the case at all. On June 06 2013 23:52 TomB4 wrote:
Are you going to disregard everyone else's opinion because they were all wrong about JP too?
Your logic makes so little sense. People being right on day 1 does not validate their opinions anymore than people being wrong on day 2 invalidates them. You can't have such a glaring double standard, because each player is an individual case. Luckily I am back to a keyboard.
Firstly, This is very aggressive for a post where I am indicating openness to what you suggested prior?
Secondly, I have a very valid point:
You/McGann commented on Eccleston 1.0 as town.
MSmith1 analysed the same comments on Eccleston 1.0 and declared scum.
I am trying to decide whose analysis is less tunneled and well-reasoned before coming to my own conclusion.
So yes, MSmith1 getting JP wrong is critical because the core of this read was tied to interactions with Dr.T and VCA.
This is similar to the core of his read with Eccleston. Thus there is a high likelihood he simply got it wrong twice.
If we look at your original reasons for voting Eccleston:
On June 06 2013 07:32 TomB4 wrote:
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.
Point 1 I agree with.
Point 2 I think is a stretch.
Your gist: MSmith1 identified Eccleston as scum; MSmith1 was potentially shot twice; Eccleston *must* be scum.
i.e. MSmith1 was only a NK target *BECAUSE* he was after Eccleston.
(a) That is information I don't have access to (i.e. scum QT)
&
(b) Is quite disrespectful towards MSmith1.
I would contest that he was the most important townie in this game. Including Day1.
- Not only did he easily establish his towniness;
- he also acted as a facilitator for the Dr.T lynch,
- and in Night 1 proved he was capable of deep analysis.
- An added bonus was that McCoy was the "auto assume" medic protect, due to being the "leader".
What I am saying is: MSmith1 could have been killed for a variety of completely valid reasons. It was a solid choice, and if I was scum I would shoot MSmith1 first as well.
Therefore, there is no corollary between MSmith1 thinking Eccleston is scum; and MSmith1 dying, which is what you are purporting. Simply, he was valid for Night 1, and with a confirmed medic dead, why not finish the job Night 2.
|
H3
The candidates for this lynch are:
TomB4, Eccleston and Hurndall3.
You need to step up; because that vote on PT earlier was a load of bullocks.
Are you going to vote Tom or not.
|
On June 07 2013 00:34 SMcCoy wrote:
But in none of this you ever point to H3.
Yes, and TomB4 never points out A.McGann either.
You do realise, A.McGann was also stalling to join the Dr.T wagon?
He merely hid it behind "I''m waiting for him to respond first" even though i agree with your case.
|
PT2000, I promised I would reply when I had access to a comp. Here goes.
On June 06 2013 09:12 PTroughton2 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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:
However it is not almost certain. Considering there are other roles capable of preventing a NK than medic in this game.+ Show Spoiler +
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.
Firstly, my case never weighed in on this very trivial point.
Tom actually was the one who inserted it in his case rebuttal.
Lastly, I never stated the conclusion you interpreted.
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.+ Show Spoiler +
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.
I have to disagree that MSmith1 suspecting Eccleston; and MSmith1 subsequently dying is indicative of Eccleston being scum.
I have outlined this in more detail here
If we rewind to Day1/2: You identified Eccleston as a probable town in this post+ Show Spoiler +
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".
We already touched on this point.
I complete support reads changing, but the process needs to be organic.
My whole issue is that TomB4 had a very strong town read on Eccleston.
He 180's on this "very strong read" based on what I deem to be weak long that is easily broken down.
Further he made no effort to discuss his issues with his "very strong read", which I think is bizarre.
The gist of TomB4 rational to vote Eccleston, is the dearth of MSmith1. This is 100% speculation and can not be proven - only assumed.
Thus for a townie looking for scum: this should not be the basis of reverting a firm town read.
I will give credit to TomB4 that he has stuck to his guns this whole time; but the counter to that is, he hasnt received votes to pressure him either. A case is only scary if the votes follow.
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.+ Show Spoiler +
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.
I think this point is covered above.
This is not a case of reverting a "leaning town" to "leaning scum" without dialogue.
This is about reverting a "probably town" to "probably scum" lets vote, without dialogue.
|
On June 07 2013 01:08 TomB4 wrote:
quadpost time:
I'm really rapidly losing interest in this game. If there's no pick up in activity soon honestly I don't really have the time nor patience to keep posting and arguing in circles. The number of replacements, the complete lack of activity, and the general apathy have made a game that I thought would be pretty fun and nice really dull and frustrating. Day 1 had some of these elements but to me it was okay because we hit scum. Day 2 was just horrible.
I'm sorry to the hosts for what they've had to deal with this game, but really as a player it just drains you when you see that more players in the game are afk than trying.
Personally I agree with this in full.
I hate using this type of logic, but, the main reason I would consider lynching Eccleston is a taboo point.
The fucker didnt vote, and GM still gave him a replacement.
(1) If Dr.T was lynched Day1, and MSmith was indeed correct.. I can picture scum being very demoralised... Essentially making one of Davison / PTroughton / Eccleston scum.
(2) If scum lost a member to modkill, the game would be effectively over.
Look like I said, this is taboo, so i dont know why im posting it. Its prob more of a vent, because Im just as frustrated.
I quit mafia a while back, and came back solely for this game. It has been a very disappointing experience. (Nothing to do with GM though). I really cant be fucked posting anymore between now and deadline.
Tom, my vote is going to stick on you. I just hope town can secure a majority lynch.It seems impossible currently.
|
My problem is.
I been putting in effort for 24hrs to get a Tom lynch.
and its for nothing.
Eccleston is majority lynch.
|
On June 07 2013 01:37 Hurndall3 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 00:42 TheDavison wrote:
H3
The candidates for this lynch are:
TomB4, Eccleston and Hurndall3.
You need to step up; because that vote on PT earlier was a load of bullocks.
Are you going to vote Tom or not. I dont like any of those lynches though! Haven't looked into Tom real close but his activity looks pretty town just from glancing at it. Why not PT ;_;
On June 04 2013 11:29 Hurndall3 wrote:
truth is td and ecc were both way scummier than jp ever was
....
|
right
OK.. I like mccoy reasoning on a.mcgann
Im happy with a team of H3 / TomB4
|
i dont care H3.
McCoy.. im gonna disappear and come back at lynch deadline.
i dont care who is voted between tom or H3.
|
Back flip? LOL
I said from the start, Tom was my focus.
and by process of elimination at the time, you were my 2nd choice.. and i havnt pushed you. Thats staying true to my intention.
OK, you are not convinced by Tom, yet you haven't challenged a single item I raise.
|
We need baker or mcgann or hw onto tom
ANd soon
|
I dont discard H3.
Tom is my primary and has 5 votes. Why try to move elsewhere when we can obtain consolidation.
FRankly I am not sold on hartnell. I think his case on eccle is easy to write as a tunneled townie. I am choosing to treat him as bad town. And I felt the points u raised against him arentn valid because as a townie I could picture myself making simlar connections he did in a tunneled state.
There has already been analysis which showsnhe coild have affected the dr.t lynch. Instead he chose to sreengthen it.
I refuse to believe scum bussed so early.
So in that regard both tom and H3 fit the bill.
Tom is vote leader so stick with him is my suggestion
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
