|
Let's play a game... |
On June 08 2013 21:28 SMcCoy wrote:
If scum bussed early and it's Baker + HW shit will get serious though.
Seriously McCoy.
You need to stop with the conspiracy theories and taking wild guesses at the scum team.
Lets go back to basics, and figure out scum #2, lynch him; and then deal with finding scum #3.
As it stands, since around late Day2, you seem to latch onto anything that is remotely scummy.
For example, the above: Baker is not scum. He had very serious 'back n forth' posts with Dr.T, that were completely over the top for a bus scenario; and in addition, difficult to fake. I am not scum either; and if the best you can produce is a weak summary post that had already been explained in-game from A.McGann, then you have absolutely nothing on me either.
The *only* reason i still think you are confirmed // probably town, is due to the interactions shared with MSmith1. I don't say this to offend you; rather, I say this in hopes you realise how "wishy-washy" you have been recently.
Because frankly, your play has got progressively worse each day, in that you satisfy the "demotivated/disinterested" scum tactic down to a 'T'. Because of MSMith1, I choose to attribute this to the lurker frustrations in this game - which I fully share as well, so can understand.
As I said in Day2, and Day3; we need to work together. Figure this game out together. I have trust in your alignment; and if you read my filter, you should be able to have trust in mine. I really don't understand how you can have a firm town read on H3, but not me or Baker.
Consider this: You, Me, Baker are probable town.
That leaves two scum in this group (Eccleston, HartnellWill, PTroughton, Hurndall3).
Since Day4 started, HW + PT voted Eccleston.
I will state outright: it is outlandish to consider scum bussed in those early Day4 votes. There is just no benefit to it.
This means, scum is either HW + PT; or H3 + Eccleston.
Im betting my left nut: it is H3 + Eccleston.
But it doesnt matter, we can only lynch one person a cycle; and I would prefer to start with Eccleston.
I have produced a damn solid case based on scum motivation. I don't believe H3 rebutted the core of the case at all.
Further, Dr.T has a two page filter full of gold. We need to mine this to its full depth. Here is a quick example of 3 points.
Exhibit A
(Talking to Baker)
+ Show Spoiler +On May 30 2013 22:15 DrTennant wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 18:45 Baker1986 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 30 2013 11:12 DrTennant wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 10:30 Baker1986 wrote:On May 30 2013 10:08 DrTennant wrote:
Baker it appears from my perspective has just decided to sheep who i think is the towniest guy in mccoy and who might have the largest thread control. Baker never gave reasoning he just called mccoy smart and it looks like he is just trying to latch on to an early wagon. Actually I want to take this one step further. Explain in detail why this is the only viable conclusion you can reach from my posting up until the point you throw the suspicion on me. Explain the following. 1) Why does scum-baker sheep McCoy but town-baker doesn't. 2) Why does scum-baker call McCoy smart but town-baker doesn't. 3) Why would scum-baker join a wagon but town baker wouldn't. Assuming your "read" isn't utter bullshit, you must have valid explanations to these questions, or you wouldn't have come to the conclusion my behavior was scummy. wat i dont know what baker does maybe baker can enlighten us. all i see from you is just calling the person who i think must be town and sheeping his incorrect case. That is what i see and that is scummy because it seems like your just jumping on me with no reasoning to get a mis lynch. If I am sheeping a case, I cannot by definition be jumping on it with no reasoning. The reasons are literally there, in that case? I don't even understand what you're saying. On May 30 2013 12:11 DrTennant wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 11:41 A McGann wrote:
That really doesn't answer the question, DrTennant.
You said you found Bakers behaviour scummy. You need to explain why the actions you painted him as 'concerning' for are more likely to be scum motivated. If you can think of legitimate reasons why a townie would act in this manner, then your case has no merit. because it looks like to me hes just hoping on without reasoning. like he had very little interaction with me a big case comes and he just hops on. scum have a hard time explaining their actions so it seems like a good ploy to just sheep a townie with a wrong case hop on the wagon and probably just call me bad after i flip. I hate arguing with scum, but let me try to explain. I immediately disagreed with your reasons for calling out SMcCoy. I explained why his logic and conclusion was sound. Attacking a solid thought process like you did does not give me warm and fuzzy feelings about you. Slightly later, you and I agree that SMcCoy has established his innocence quite strongly in the thread, so I don't think that needs any further explaining to you. And it's not as if my suspicions of you were only brought on after McCoy's case. These posts were both made prior to it: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18745605http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18746042So what you have to demonstrate is why it's scummy for me to sheep a case given the following parameters. 1. I already have suspicions of you and I have already disagreed with you 2. The person writing the case is almost certainly town. Now explain to me why me sheeping this case makes me scum. You have to prove that if I was town I would have done something else, and only if I am scum I would have done what I did. If you cannot do that, which I know you cannot, you're full of shit. i didnt see that you had suspicions of me. Just that you disagreed with my point. town members cant disagree on a post? Or are you the one that is full of shit?
Just like when addressing you, he is overtly aggressive; and the full of shit comment is highly defensive.
Exhibit B
(Talking to Eccleston)
+ Show Spoiler +On May 30 2013 22:13 DrTennant wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 21:38 Eccleston wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Sorry for my absence. Have been busy. Baker, I like your post about DrTennants read being shit, however, I am curious as to why you agree with MSmith1's read on me, because I think what he brings up is trash. Is your thought process similar to Smith's or do you agree with his read but not with his reasoning?
Regarding DrTennant:McCoy's case on DrTennant isn't conclusive, but I think there's a fair chance of DrTennant being scum. The inconsistent suspicion toward ambiguous opinions and his defensive reactions could be scum indicators. I feel that point one would be a null tell if it wasn't for his strange justification about not being suspicious of me. It would be understandable if he said something like "Eccleston was asked to provide his opinion, but you were not." or that my post seemed less serious, but his "Yes eccelstone did have what could be interpreted as a wishy washy post but right before that he essential through out a town read for no reason. To me your post was devoid of actual content." sounds more like an after-the-fact justification (and a very bad one at that), especially since he said before that that my aggression was likely more of a town tell than a scum tell. Why didn't he touch on that again if that was what he thought? His recent posts about Baker being scummy and about thriving in the spotlight leave much to be desired. It's mostly rhetoric with little of essence. @DrTennantYou said that you thrive in the spotlight and it helped you make reads, but you've yet to share them with us. Do you think that all the mafia players are lurking? ive made reads you must not be reading my posts.
He is much more reserved here when addressing Eccleston, compared to Baker in Exhibit A.
Exhibit C
(Explaining to SMcCoy why he did not attack Eccleston for wishy-washy posts)
+ Show Spoiler +On May 29 2013 23:48 SMcCoy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 23:31 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 23:21 SMcCoy wrote:On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote: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. 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? It's a considerate post. At that point the majority of players didn't post, and I went by the assumption that scum doesn't post early. I voiced my opinion on Eccleston's excessive aggression, but it's not enough for me to make a judgment in light of the fact that scum might not even have posted yet. I think Ecclestone's posts might come from both a bad townie or scum. You call it ambiguous, expecting me to give a definite opinion. I would like you to tell me why you think that me voicing suspicion against a player is considered as saying nothing. Would you rather expect me to make a quick judgment this early in the game? Bolded your loaded question. Looks like faked hostility, doesn't reflect interest into finding out about my thought process. Well i don't know about you but i'm suspicious of everyone. i didnt take it as you saying you were suspicious of Eccleston i took as complete filler post that said absolutely nothing really and i took it as wishy washy and posting for the sake of posting by not taking a stance. I dont understand why making early judgements could be seen as bad i change my mind on things all the time based on new information and flip floping being scummy is a lie pushed by scum. Its only scummy when its convenient. So i dont understand your worry about making snap judgements. You didn't bring up Ecclestone after he told Smith that he doesn't know if he's angry villager or alien though. I'm curious why you didn't find his post to be filler content as opposed to mine. The bolded is essentially a statement about scumhunting method. Do you want me to make quick judgments? You seem like you're justifying quick judgments, then asking me why I'm worried about making them. If I'm worried about making them it's cause Ecclestone's posts didn't allow for a quick judgment, as already laid out. Now, why do you bring that up. Your posting went from telling me my post is wishy washy to justifying your own judgmental posting, is it to tell me that I should make quick judgments? I don't recall ever asking you to justify yourself for quick judgment, but you brought up a justification for it nonetheless. How is it relevant to you claiming that I am scum? Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 23:32 JPertwee wrote:On May 29 2013 23:21 SMcCoy wrote:On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote: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. 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? It's a considerate post. At that point the majority of players didn't post, and I went by the assumption that scum doesn't post early. I voiced my opinion on Eccleston's excessive aggression, but it's not enough for me to make a judgment in light of the fact that scum might not even have posted yet. I think Ecclestone's posts might come from both a bad townie or scum. You call it ambiguous, expecting me to give a definite opinion. I would like you to tell me why you think that me voicing suspicion against a player is considered as saying nothing. Would you rather expect me to make a quick judgment this early in the game? Bolded your loaded question. Looks like faked hostility, doesn't reflect interest into finding out about my thought process. McCoy, what do you think Eccleston's chances of being human are? I can understand your thought process on how you're reading Eccleston. The part I cannot understand is your reasoning on writing a post where I can only gather you're saying "he is null" because you don't even state whether you think he is more likely to be of either alignment. When you wrote that post, what was the explicit purpose of it? I already laid out that he could be both. Until he posts more I'll refrain from judging. Purpose of the post: Trigger an answer and change the posting style of a possible bad townie to a more constructive version. Communicate that I'm suspicious of him. + Show Spoiler +I think DrTennant is scum On May 29 2013 23:58 DrTennant wrote:
At the time that post was your only post in the thread. It looked like to me as just a big post to say nothing to me that's why it stood out to me over everything else.
Yes eccelstone did have what could be interpreted as a wishy washy post but right before that he essential through out a town read for no reason. To me your post was devoid of actual content.
Obviously you think it conveyed more than that but i didn't see it that way.
However looking at your recent posting it seems you have had an easy time explaining yourself which i think would be much harder for you if you were scum.
Firstly, I did not find SMcCoy post regarding Eccleton wishy-washy. I have explained this already; SMcCoy found Eccleston scummy, but in his experience rarely comes across scum this "quickly/easily" so in true towniness is putting this guy on watch, instead of jumping to conclusions. He voiced the concern to see if others had picked up on the same "bad vibes".
Dr.T tried to slam this as wishy-washy; whereas, it was actually Eccleston who was wishy washy and did not address MSmith1 question regarding alignment. All he did was call A.McGann friendly.. which Dr.T interpretted as giving out alignment (when it fact it does not) - Not that it matters anymore, but that was a genuine scum slip for Dr.T.
The point is: motive
(1) Why does Dr.T post "guns blazing" to SMcCoy in the first place
(2) Why does he ignore the 'wishy-washy' posts from Eccleston
(3) Why does he talk to Eccleston meekly compared to people like Baker/SMcCoy.
For me, it makes sense if Dr.T is a scum team with Eccleston. So far, sound reason has not disputed this.
Lets work as a team, lynch scum #2 (Eccleston); and only then consider scum #3
|
On June 09 2013 01:19 SMcCoy wrote:
As "wishy-washy" I might have been, I should not even have been in need of posting if I was scum, so take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. If I'm posting so much, and with so many suspects, it's surely not something I would have to do as scum since this town is perfectly capable of destroying itself without me. Yet, you call me scum for identical behaviour, when you cited A.McGann post.
You should be glad there's someone putting conspiracy theories out there, cause the alternative to it is be someone who doesn't do jack shit, like the majority of this game. I'm heavily pissed off, and that for a good reason. Are you really that jaded? Of course I am glad for the above, it is why I ensured I wrote I still think you are town. I am actually trying to communicate to you that you have itchy trigger fingers, and it is going to alienate you from the remaining town. (Alienate is not a word for scum, treat it literally please). We need to stick together McCoy. It is that simple.
You will lose your left nut cause H3 would have had to bus Eccleston since D1, and then switch to defend him only recently, which is one of the reasons for why I think that H3 is posting without a scum agenda. There's no way Eccleston and H3 are scum together. Dude, I wrote at the top of my post & the bottom. Concentrate on scum #2 first, and lynch him.
I dont care if we agree or disagree on H3.
What I care about is whether we agree on Eccleston
Its simple, can you dispute the logic I have put forth for Eccleston being scum?
If you can great, we move onto the next guy. But thus far, I think my approach at looking for scum motivation is *very* solid.
Remove HW from this game. Only stupid towns leave lurkers alive for this long. Yes, lurkers are an issue. But I would prefer to lynch a scum with excellent case behind, then a lucky dip lurker lynch. The score is 5-2. If we eliminate a town lurker, + NK; it become 3-2, and the game will essentially be over; the lurkers have proven they dont want to contribute, nor do they want to listen to the actives.
It is too late for a "policy lynch". We need to be cold, calculated and decisive.
It starts with Eccleston. Either you can rebut the case or you can not.
|
Firstly, H3 I am still waiting for a response:
On June 08 2013 19:52 TheDavison wrote:
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".
On June 09 2013 01:48 Hurndall3 wrote:
TD you are tunneled on Ecc right now. It happens to all of us. You need to step back and realize that your case against Ecc isn't good.
The logic is not conclusive.
And you are not tunneled?
All I have seen from you is Eccleston is town. Where is your "profound logic" for determining scum?
At this pivotal point in time, I am not voting for your scum target simply "because you say so". Produce proof and I will consider with open eyes.
On June 09 2013 01:48 Hurndall3 wrote:
I would characterize his response as quite aggressive actually. it doesn't look like how scum would talk to each other.
Right? Is this how you try and dispute the case(s) on Eccleston, by treating each point as stand alone? The entire concept was not whether he spoke to Eccleston aggressively. It was that it was significantly more reserved compared to Baker. It was written very clear cut, and even specified to refer to Exhibit A, yet here, you forget all this.
Regardless, your post is irritating and condescending. The whole point of my case with Eccleston is looking at the big picture. I have written several solid points, and you decide to meekly refute it all by saying "the logic is not conclusive".
Thats bullshit.
If you think the case is wrong and I am tunneled; respect the effort I have put in and break it down point by point; or let Eccle defend himself.
|
The Ver guide is a good one actually. hhmmph
I agree, it would have to be a pretty craft scum to conjure that.
I truly think scum team is either:
PT/HW or Ecc/H3.
With 5/2, we can afford to mislynch into one of the teams; and then during LYLO lynch into the other team to win.
Based on the Ver guide, I will vote for HW.
##Unvote
##Vote: HartnellWill
H3, the other reason Im doing this 180' is because I want to learn from my lesson with Tom.
Throughout the cycle he remained present, and everyone else disappeared.
PT or HW should have weighed in again since their votes.
|
I really thought the Baker / Dr.T stuff was genuine and laced with too much passive aggressive innuendo to be staged.
+ Show Spoiler [1] +On May 30 2013 10:22 Baker1986 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 10:08 DrTennant wrote:
Baker it appears from my perspective has just decided to sheep who i think is the towniest guy in mccoy and who might have the largest thread control. Baker never gave reasoning he just called mccoy smart and it looks like he is just trying to latch on to an early wagon. McCoy only has thread control because we allow him to have it. If I didn't think he was doing a good job I wouldn't let him lead. A very important part of mafia is not to figure out who is scum, but to figure out who is town. I agree with Mccoy's suspicions of you, and I specifically explained in detail here why I disagreed with you: Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 22:46 Baker1986 wrote:On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote: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. 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? The only thing I find interesting about McCoy is that he didn't feel the need to comment on anything else. I'm not saying that McCoy is town, but this post doesn't make him scum. Not having a firm opinion on players 1 page into the game is probably to be expected, so I'm not sure what you have a problem with here? He raises a point about Eccleston that's inconclusive but still worth reading. I agree with McCoy that Eccleston's approach leaves much to be desired, and he seems to be looking to pick a fight. Eccleston is not in the business of handing out information of his thought processes. This doesn't make Eccleston scum, but it certainly feels like a valid point to bring up for discussion. Please share more of your thoughts. (To Dr.T) Your latest post just makes you look even worse. Anyone who is reading the thread with any kind of attention should be able to tell I'm pretty towny, probably second to only McCoy. I don't think you're paying attention, I think your suspicion of me is based on nothing. There is nothing wrong with sheeping in mafia, and you're trying to make it out to be scummy. In fact, if you're not stupid, you should realize that my behavior could both be explained by town-baker and scum-baker. It's not strange for a town-baker to agree with someone I consider town, so why do you only look at one option? Are you lazy? bad? scum?
+ Show Spoiler [2] +On May 30 2013 10:30 Baker1986 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 10:08 DrTennant wrote:
Baker it appears from my perspective has just decided to sheep who i think is the towniest guy in mccoy and who might have the largest thread control. Baker never gave reasoning he just called mccoy smart and it looks like he is just trying to latch on to an early wagon. Actually I want to take this one step further. Explain in detail why this is the only viable conclusion you can reach from my posting up until the point you throw the suspicion on me. Explain the following. 1) Why does scum-baker sheep McCoy but town-baker doesn't. 2) Why does scum-baker call McCoy smart but town-baker doesn't. 3) Why would scum-baker join a wagon but town baker wouldn't. Assuming your "read" isn't utter bullshit, you must have valid explanations to these questions, or you wouldn't have come to the conclusion my behavior was scummy.
The other part is this, which actually goes some way towards clearing Eccleston as well.
On May 30 2013 10:08 DrTennant wrote:Smocoy i don't really care that you think im scum the only part that concerns me is the last part of your post where you say that your unlikely to change. + Show Spoiler +Now i think with your effort and you confidence that your most likely to be town. Misguided town but town nonetheless. And that all the information that i care about from your case. Now it seems like you have gone into tunnel mode with that last part of your post and i think thats insanely stupid one because im not scum and two a ton of people haven't posted.
For what its worth yes i do actually think town are more likely to thrown town reads out there. Scum are more worried about keeping a "story" straight so they are more reluctant to give out reads then be called out later if they flip flop. Mafia have an information advantage and usually are reluctant to give it out.
You seem to think that your post communicated a lot more than it did. I took as wishy washy and filler post and that is scummy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That said i dont really mind the spotlight i i thrive in it. And most importantly it helps to make reads. With a ton of people not posting i think there is a definite possibility of 1 or even 2 scum being completely inactive. Of the "active" posters the ones that concern me the most are eccleston and baker. Eccelston despite being active early seems to have just decided to fuck off while i been in the spotlight despite his hig activity early. He hasn't given an opinion on anything that has happened despite showing he was active early on. Baker it appears from my perspective has just decided to sheep who i think is the towniest guy in mccoy and who might have the largest thread control. Baker never gave reasoning he just called mccoy smart and it looks like he is just trying to latch on to an early wagon. He is trying to get off the hook so throws you some alternatives.
Eccleston + Baker.
I haven't seen a situation where a scum tries to save himself by throwing another scum into the mix (voluntarily). We already know Dr.T is a goon; which adds further credence that he suggested two townies.
Baker is pissing me off with the low activity, but the thing with this game is. We dont know if anyone is playing in two games at the same time (which could also explain the low activity?)
|
On June 08 2013 10:34 Hurndall3 wrote:
HW explain your townread of PT.
And vice versa. On June 08 2013 11:16 PTroughton2 wrote:
Remind me about this question if I forget to address it when I return from my familial engagement.
PT2000, still waiting for this one.
|
HW,
the above is not clear.
Who is your Are you stating the scum on your lynch is Baker or H3?
And why are you twisting my vote by saying "I avenge Tom".
The Ver guide point is very relative. Why are you ignoring it?
|
I obviously did not write clear.
HW stated: "There is definitely a scum sheeping my vote right now" [H3, TD, Baker] are possible candidates.
Then he orders them with towniest on the left [Baker, TD, H3].
However, when describing the candidates: the only one he references to sheeping is Baker. So which is, the scum sheeping; or the towniest?
|
Yeah im left pretty unimpressed with the post.
I also re-read PT2000 VCA post, and was also left hanging.
|
On June 09 2013 19:57 SMcCoy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2013 19:48 Hurndall3 wrote:
yup smcc keep thinking baker is scum. it might keep you alive tonight Constant effort is probably the hardest thing to fake as scum. Baker was under no pressure until now and he has precisely not shown any effort since the D1 lynch.
And neither has Eccleston.
SMcCoy, there ar 4 lurkers currently
PT2000 / HW / Eccle / Baker.
Only a maximum of two can be scum.
|
McCoy you said two things that stuck out.
1. You had massive thread influence.
I agree. Since day2 it has been dropping at an exponential rate. I wouldn't be so sure you will be nk`d at all. Especially the trail you still continue to give consideration as follows in point 2.
2. Eccle + pt or TD + baker.
Firstly, why is pt your strongest town read out of this five
did you actually read his vca post and felt it validated a vote on eccleston?..... If you can answer yes to this, we are going to have problems. That I promise.
Secondly, if the precursor for baker being scum is that I am scum. Then rest assured baker is not scum. You already made a very weak attempt to label me scum where you outlined heuristics you layer used to call yourself town.
Fact. Since day3 only 1.5 people gave a shit about this game.
Me and you as a half cos of vent.
Since day4 only 2 people give a shit about this game.
Me and H3.
You don't count cos you come in and throw some shit out every page that completely 180s with zero justification.
The only consistent force driving the the thread is me. Yet you want to call me scum?
I might have made a case of town tom, but you agreed with it and put your vote that sealed his fate.
Get off the high horse.
Your attitude of calling anyone and everyone scum is serving only to stop people from talking.
|
Ebwop
In hindsight when I said
Pt is your strongest town read in that group. That was a leading question/statement. I misread
|
Your a major reason of a shit atmosphere eccle.
You only come out of hiding when someone pulls McCoy into line.
Where were you when we needed answers?
|
My vote was taken off eccleston a long time ago.
Think eccle is tunneled and vey bad town.
I see no benefit to scum agenda by coming out to throw mud at you the way he did. I think je is so tunneled he considers yoy gejuine scum. As such he is showing town confidence posting jis suspicions.
Thats my take anyway
|
Fark.
We need baker or eccleston.
|
H3.
Is eccleston ensuring a no lynch occurs effect your town read?
Considering how votes him, and he responds by voting McCoy, I can o my gather he believes hw is town so is not omgus.
In his massive paragraphs do you recall he states hw is town?
|
|
|
Eccle it is clear whom you need to vote.
Make a stand.
Hartnell or eccleston.
|
I want to know why you wouldn't consider how originally, when he was the one leading *your* vote.
I already explained why its super unlikely McCoy is scum.
Msmith1 kept saying he had the exact same thought process as McCoy. That means McCoy is thinking like a townie, because he is a townie.
Eccleston, we all make bad calls. You have done it with McCoy. And I did it with tom. If you are town either vote Hartnell or explain why you won't.
|
On June 10 2013 10:45 Baker1986 wrote:
This doesn't quite feel right, but honestly whatever. There's a bunch of people in this game I can't read at all. so yeah...
Can you please expand?
What's tingling the senses for you?
Do you think eccleston might be on the money?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
