EPTOn June 08 2013 11:46 Hurndall3 wrote:
Unlike you, I have reasons for my townreads.
Unlike you, I have reasons for my townreads.
Doesn't mean they're good.
Smurf Mini Mafia - Page 42
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
Let's play a game... | ||
|
HartnellWill
40 Posts
Doesn't mean they're good. | ||
|
TheDavison
157 Posts
On June 08 2013 11:52 Hurndall3 wrote: ECC's townstory is consistent and believable. He did not read the game carefully enough to comprehend SmCC's towncred. Can't you see how someone saying "bad town is pissing me off I want them to die" can be construed as scummy? Because it looks like he wants to lynch people for being bad instead of being scum. Here is a question: Why would scum push SMcCoy at that time? Really there is no reason. there were plenty of other scummy townies (myself included) that would be better choices. Well yes, that is perhaps a valid reason. But it all hinges upon assuming Eccleston did not do his due dilligence when reading. Thats not really something we can quantify - at least meaningfully. Regardless, I thought I already gave a reason scum would try to push SMcCoy. He was vulnerable. Perhaps I am grasping at straws thinking scum could be bold enough to make that play. However, I will admit, his "vent" in conjunction with lowering thread presence made me start to question my read on him at the time. As I said before, I am going to do a thorough re-read of each day; and then I am going to do a thorough re-read of each dead players filter. Only then will I know who I want to vote for this cycle. Im sick of lurkers coming in, and laying down votes with weak justifications. I almost want to policy lynch someone this cycle - and hope I hit scum simultaneously. | ||
|
Eccleston
75 Posts
And then i was asked by PT, why is this a scumread on McCoy, and i cant ignore him because he posted a big post against me, a really big post with lots of questions... the posts before saying "look at what you did on D1/D2 etc" i cant respond to well... i look at them and i dont know what to say, that wasnt me, I dont know how i can reply to it... i mean ur guess is as good as mine... but the PT questioning me, he alone was asking me about the actions I make rather than the actions made by the previous person... so I respond when he asks me for more scumread... You say I "pounced" but i didnt pounce, I didnt want to "push" for a mccoy lynch... you keep on asking me about my read and I keep on responding, and then you say "look how much eccleston is talking about mccoy"... but the only thing I am doing is being open and responding. and I know i havnt responded to the cases against me, from my previous owner... but I respond to what I can... I knew I never should have shared my read, and now if I get lynched for it, what does that mean? I can say i have been honest and I shared someone when I was asked a direct question, what should I do? I guess what Ver said is right, that you shouldn't always share every thought... I should have made a better analysis first... but I cant ignore when someone wants to know, if someone wants to scumhunt, and wants to know what Im thinking its my obligation to respond to them because i want them to do the same and its what as a good townie youre supposed to do, even if you have thoughts or especially if you have thoughts people disagree with you will argue and ultimately it will come to an agreement, and new thoughts helping the discussion, and I understand why people are suspicious, but at least im trying to explain what im thinking and give reasons for what I do when others are just like "yes it is time to lynch eccleston"... I can look at the cases from D1/D2 even though I dont want to, if you want me to, and try to refute, but what can I say, id ont know what the previous guy was thinking, if there are logic in them that is flawed I can try to explain for you how it is flawed... | ||
|
Eccleston
75 Posts
| ||
|
Eccleston
75 Posts
| ||
|
TheDavison
157 Posts
Eccleston 2.0: I genuinely can not tell if English is your first language. My suggestion is this: If you want to maintain McCoy as a lynch candidate, then rebut these two points I made earlier. On June 08 2013 10:18 TheDavison wrote: Anyone who read the game will know SMcCoy is town for two highly specific reasons from Day1. (1) The back and forth with Dr.T is genuine and could not be faked. They were playing cat n mouse, and SMcCoy won. and more importantly (2) MSmith1, (who is confirmed town) kept saying he completely agreed with the points SMcCoy was raising. i.e. MSmcCoy is thinking EXAXTLY like a well-reasoned townie should. Regardless of lowering presence since Night 1, SMcCoy is town. If you can not do that, then I suggest you concentrate on finding out who the second scum is. Otherwise, I would imagine you will be majority voted regardless of whether town/scum. Ver is right as you pointed out, you can not share every thought. | ||
|
Hurndall3
237 Posts
| ||
|
TheDavison
157 Posts
From the first page I already know who to vote for. + Show Spoiler + ##Vote: Eccleston Ecclestons scummy openers have been done to death but I will outline my issues anyway. On May 29 2013 17:33 Eccleston wrote: Reporting in. Why do you prefer guessing at the scum team instead of trying to generate constructive discussion? This is just so damn aggressive, especially for a first post. I have been assuming that he acted like this because MSmith1 RNG'd him as scum. But when I think about it, as town you are confident.. you know you can prove yourself town. Therefore when name calling like that happens, you just brush it off. The only reason I think a townie would write that post, is if they are trying to alpha-male the town leadership. However, clearly Eccleston never aspired that far. Outcome: Leaning Scum On May 29 2013 17:41 MSmith1 wrote: ... What would you have preferred me to say three posts into the game? On May 29 2013 17:45 Eccleston wrote: Setup speculation, lynching policies ... something that you can reply to. Another weird response. Since when is discussing lynching policies conducive to scum hunting? Everyone that plays mafia beyond the newbies, understands that policy discussion is what scum *LOVE* to keep town focused on. They are guilt-free lynches, and you dont have to create fake cases. I don't think this post by itself is scummy; but it is very weird. Because he raises issues, but doesn't provide solutions. He could have easily said "lynching policy.. .how about this" (which A.McGann actually asks in the next post) Outcome: Very slightly leaning scum On May 29 2013 18:06 Eccleston wrote: From what I could see the setup is normal except for the KP delay function. It will not affect lynching until end game though, so I guess it doesn't. Mr. McGann seems friendly enough. As for you, I don't know... Are you an angry villager or a murderous italian? Your reactions look valid from both perspectives. Trivial Point, but he was aware of KP delay function instantly. Now, some people read the OP, others dont (including me). So i won't call him scum for knowing the scum specifics of play. But, if he is town and knows this.. why not create discussion around it? Especially because he called out others for not being constructive. Instead, he makes a blunt comment I dont understand.. "it will not affect lynching until end game".. and then tries to segue this into a useless a comment about A.McGann which says nothing AND MSmith1 where he avoids calling him town or scum (uses the words. villager/italian). Note, he was actually asked to share his thoughts on alignment. "Friendly" is not indicative of town or scum... Outcome: Null on its own, Very slightly leaning scum with the other points. Now, heres the pearler. And somehow, I dont understand how we all missed it. (Apologies if someone has raised it, I genuinely dont recall) On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote: Hello. I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance. His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith. I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume. Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why. We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote: This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum? Now: We all know Dr.T got lynched for this post. i.e. "Why so wishy washy? You scum?" We also know Dr.T was scum... so the question I asked myself was. Why would scum be motivated to make this post in the first place? Consider: early game, the objectives of scum are the same as town. (1) Establish your innocence (2) Blend in OR Assume town leadership It is ONLY after this phase that you start looking for "bad town" to setup as "scum". In his first post, Dr.T forgoes establishing innocence and throws out the artillery straight away. Not only aggressively attacking SMcCoy, but labelling him the "S" word (uscumbro). This is a big deal; as the post was not conducive to establishing the innocence of Dr.T, nor did it allow him to blend in. Secondly, the post was laced with too much aggression to try and establish a town leadership position. The key to Dr.Ts motives SMcCoy was confessing his confusion with Eccleston. i.e. He doesnt expect scum to be in the limelight early Day1.. yet everything Eccleston is doing doesnt add up as town. Its actually not wishy-washy at all. The reason Dr.T made an aggressive attack on SMcCoy as his first post To fling shit at SMcCoy and lower his credibility because he was suspicious of Eccleston. Its that simple. He was protecting a scum buddy. And decided to forgo establishing his innocence, which led to his demise. ##Vote: Eccleston | ||
|
Hurndall3
237 Posts
the only quote you point to that is "scummy" is just early game aggression...that is completely alignment indicative, leaning town actuallly. Your "pearler" is that DrT was protecting Ecc with that attack on smmc. Again I disagree. There is no way scum would feel the need to defend their scumteam against such an inconsequential attack. DrT identified town wishy washiness, and thought he could pass it off as a scumtrait and look like he was scumhunting. | ||
|
Hurndall3
237 Posts
| ||
|
SMcCoy
228 Posts
Congratz buddy. | ||
|
TheDavison
157 Posts
On June 08 2013 17:56 Hurndall3 wrote: *edwop early game aggression is NOT alignment indicative Disagree. As follows: + Show Spoiler [Motive] + Early game aggression may *NOT* alignment indicative during early game. However, as people are removed from the game, and alignments elucidated; early game aggression *does* become alignment indicative. Because you can start to figure out motive. As I pointed out in my case: scum have a typical modus operandi when the game starts. Blend in via establishing towniness, and then allow the bad townies to get lynched. This is the safe play that almost every game of mafia follows. Occasionally scum will try to assert themselves for town leaderships, which still requires them to establish towniess regardless. + Show Spoiler [Dr.T "Dirty Hands"] + Now Hurndall3, if what you say is true and Dr.T found "town wishy-washiness" with SMcCoy I am confident he would not have tried to ostracize SMcCoy so vehemently. Scum want to suggest "bad points" so others pick up the torch and do the pushing. i.e. Scum don't want to get their hands dirty and become accountable in any game of mafia But this did not happen.What we found this game is that Dr.T not only got his hands dirty, but he also became immediately defensive. We all know how this panned out: he was lynched. Because its so important, I shall repeat it one more time. Dr.T did not need to come out "guns blazing" to try and discredit SMcCoy. He could merely have pointed out an observation - which satisfies scum objectives so much more efficiently. It sows doubt, establishes that he cares -> towniness, and keeps his hands clean. A perfect trifecta. H3, even you noted Eccleston early game play as follows: On June 08 2013 08:29 Hurndall3 wrote: I think Dr.T noticed this as well, and felt the need to provide "cover fire" for Eccleston, hence the breakaway from scum safe play. ...Regarding Eccleston... his early game record looks really scummy . This actually then becomes a very good reason for why he became immediately defensive. (In his mind, its like.. WTF!! i just tried to divert attention from you, and now I am the prime suspect...) Hurndall3, what I want to know are two simple things. (1) Why do you feel compelled to answer on behalf of Eccleston constantly? Your last 2 pages of filter are regurgitating "Eccle is town", and not producing cases for scum. (2) Why is early game aggression indicative of "leaning town". | ||
|
TheDavison
157 Posts
On June 08 2013 19:42 SMcCoy wrote: Now I feel confident in giving H3 a townread. Congratz buddy. I hope this is a fuckn sarcastic post. Cos I have a case on H3 ready to go. All starts with this: On May 29 2013 23:01 Hurndall3 wrote: yup mccoys post is scummy as fuck. until he makes himself seem more town: ##vote smccoy (Ties in precisely when Dr.T came to Eccleston rescue) Lynch Eccleston, then H3. GG, no re. | ||
|
SMcCoy
228 Posts
Davison, why did you say that they tried to setup me with McGann's NK? | ||
|
TheDavison
157 Posts
I think H3 is last scum. but just want to focus on one guy I think my Eccleston stuff is conclusive. As for McGann NK.. cos my first thought was.. wtf, why is mccoy still alive. It made sense when H3 tried to use it as a "well it means Eccle is town" | ||
|
SMcCoy
228 Posts
That means I'm no threat for scum, so I should 180° all my reads maybe. You and Trout scum? | ||
|
TheDavison
157 Posts
Why dont you comment on my eccleston case. And if you think Im scum, then you deserve to be lynched/not killed. | ||
|
SMcCoy
228 Posts
Mentions JP for no reason as lynch choice, never posts anything else about him. When asked about it, he says he needs to reread. This shows he had no preconception of his own he could communicate to us, as to why JP is scum. Didn't deliver anything. | ||
|
SMcCoy
228 Posts
Your predecessor mentioned both Tom and JP as scumreads, but there was never any substance behind him saying that he's interested in flipping JP over others. When asked about JP, he had to reread and showed he didn't have any reasons to put him among those he would flip first, other than the fact that JP was guilty of pushing the counterwagon. Given my townread on H3, that means that scum's counterpush candidate during D1 wasn't Troughton, and the only guy who was being pushed during that day other than Troughton was Hurndall, and he was being pushed by you and Troughton, until you switched to TomB4 who was guilty of defending DrT. | ||
|
SMcCoy
228 Posts
On May 30 2013 14:15 Hurndall3 wrote: DrTennant is not a scumread and I think there are already a bunch of better lynch candidates out there: Eccleston PTroughton2 JPertwee On June 03 2013 07:53 Hurndall3 wrote: ya ecc or td id lynch either of those On June 04 2013 11:29 Hurndall3 wrote: truth is td and ecc were both way scummier than jp ever was On June 08 2013 10:22 Hurndall3 wrote: TD I am not done reading filters but I'm really sure Ecc is scum. Please keep an open mind to my upcoming posts. Also realize this: a town Ecc was demotivated as fuck and very disconnected from the game. So disconnected that he didn't realize Smcc is obv town like we do. I think it was simply a case of activity without intellect behind it. On June 08 2013 10:23 Hurndall3 wrote: edwop i'm really sure ECC is NOT scum Also, dear Davison, this is also the reason that a Hurndall + Eccleston team is almost impossible. Davison + Troughton should sound much better, but I'll provide the cases in time. | ||
| ||
