|
On June 25 2013 01:39 Chromatically wrote:
No one has any opinions on hz?
Just got done reading it. I completely agree on your first point as I had a similar feeling. The one thing I've been liking out of him was his conversation with tofu. He really seems to be trying to push tofu and actually getting a good reaction out of him.
On June 24 2013 13:52 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 13:34 FirmTofu wrote:On June 24 2013 13:22 hzflank wrote:On June 24 2013 13:00 Chromatically wrote:
hz, do you have any scumreads? At the moment I am looking at FirmTofu. His chain of attack and defense looks like: Attack Chromatically Attack Xzavier Attack Hurricane Attack Spicy Defend Hurricane Defend Xzavier Attack Spicy For some reason the defenses seem a little out of place to me, especially the defense on Xzavier. On the other hand I believe Hurricane to be town as if he were scum then he is very brave to make the first post that he did. I am also very aware that I made an slightly extended attack on Spicy, who now seems to be FirmTofu's main target. I am wondering if he thinks Spicy is a good lynch target because he can count on my vote.(1) He has also said twice that we should only use information from this game and not previous games. I think town should have access to as much information as possible in order to lynch scum. Therefore to me, FirmTofu is currently the scummiest player.(2) You are taking an extremely simplified approach to analyze my actions. I am not "attacking" or "defending" anyone. I am stating my opinions on how various people are behaving. If you can't distinguish between the two, we have a serious problem here. You can't say that my "defenses" are out of place without even looking at the context of the situation. Read my quote, see if it makes sense to you, and form an opinion based on that. Furthermore, this post is as scummy as scummy gets. You state that you can side with me as I pursue a lynch on Spicy(see 1), but you also consider me to be the scummiest player(see 2). How are these two chain of thoughts compatible? Maybe you prefer the term Poking to Attacking, it makes no difference to me as I am an RTS player by nature and so I attack for information. I read your filter several times, so it is not a case of me being lazy with my reading. I did not say that you can count on my vote on Spicy. I will rephrase what I said to make it less ambiguous: I am wondering if Firm thinks that he can count on my vote on Spicy, and therefore thinks that Spicy is a good lynch target.
Got a null read atm.
|
On June 25 2013 01:23 Chromatically wrote:I've been feeling Tofu as town. His opinion about meta is really wierd, but I think it's town-based. Would scum be willing to stand out and draw so much attention to themselves for no reason by espousing an unpopular opinion? I don't think so. I don't like how conciliatory he is about his read on you ("I am not saying you are definitely scum or anything like that."), that feels like he's trying not to cause waves.In general though, he seems comfortable in-thread and he's freely posting. Also, Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 12:36 FirmTofu wrote:
I actually do believe Spicydinosaur is scummy, but not for the reasons that Hurricane Sponge states.
In all of his posts, he is extremely defensive. At the slightest mention of someone accusing him of anything, he flares up in his own defense. This could be due to his personality or it could be that he is extremely afraid of getting lynched. If it is indeed the latter, he is likely to be a powerful role, town or mafia. This is my preliminary assessment.
(It's funny that this real analysis is in agreement with my fluff analysis at the beginning of the game)
I think the first sentence shows a clear town urge to find scum. As scum, it would be easy to sheep Sponge's read on you. He feels that it's necessary to clarify his personal reasoning, though, which means that he's honestly thinking about who is scum.
The bolded part what bothers me. Trying not to make waves is a perfect way to go unnoticed in a game. Too much activity and everyones looking at you, too little and your a lurker who gets a big spotlight on you.
|
On June 25 2013 02:27 Alakaslam wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 02:12 Spicydinosaur wrote:On June 25 2013 01:23 Chromatically wrote:I've been feeling Tofu as town. His opinion about meta is really wierd, but I think it's town-based. Would scum be willing to stand out and draw so much attention to themselves for no reason by espousing an unpopular opinion? I don't think so. I don't like how conciliatory he is about his read on you ("I am not saying you are definitely scum or anything like that."), that feels like he's trying not to cause waves.In general though, he seems comfortable in-thread and he's freely posting. Also, On June 24 2013 12:36 FirmTofu wrote:
I actually do believe Spicydinosaur is scummy, but not for the reasons that Hurricane Sponge states.
In all of his posts, he is extremely defensive. At the slightest mention of someone accusing him of anything, he flares up in his own defense. This could be due to his personality or it could be that he is extremely afraid of getting lynched. If it is indeed the latter, he is likely to be a powerful role, town or mafia. This is my preliminary assessment.
(It's funny that this real analysis is in agreement with my fluff analysis at the beginning of the game)
I think the first sentence shows a clear town urge to find scum. As scum, it would be easy to sheep Sponge's read on you. He feels that it's necessary to clarify his personal reasoning, though, which means that he's honestly thinking about who is scum. The bolded part what bothers me. Trying not to make waves is a perfect way to go unnoticed in a game. Too much activity and everyones looking at you, too little and your a lurker who gets a big spotlight on you. Awesome point, work lull so SPICY AND ONEGU YOU ARE SCUMBUDDIES DEFENSE YOURSELFS + Show Spoiler + look at me everyone, LOOK at me and see that I am town! Press me, press me hard because 1. That's how I get better at town and 2. Because I am drawing suspicion as town which doesn't help town. And therefore, in the interests of town, if I am scum I am suiciding! THESE ARE MY TOWNREADS. DO AS THEY DO! Nonetheless, defend yourselves. You've both been attacked (especially you, spicy!). I have made a baseless claim of guilt on you two, nevertheless defend it. Why should I think what I do? Prove yourselves town, then lead it! LETS GO SEE YOU AFTER WORK
Pure spam. nothing here to respond to.
|
Tofu, I'm not going to quote your argument against me as there are too many quotes to deal with but I will refute it point by point.
1. You claim my first response was blown out of proportion and in the very next post i did i said i was joking back with him which you said was consistent. I clearly said i was busting him back so i dont see how this is an issue.
2. How is my quoting of hurricane a personal attack. Look at what he wrote. I deconstruct his post paragraph by paragraph and show how its mostly fluff and doesnt tell us anything. There was nothing new except for his theory on NN claiming. This wasnt a response to his posting of me but something i observed in the thread. Furthermore I discredited the theory in another post. So this is another example of you ignoring things i posted.
QUOTE]On June 24 2013 20:38 Spicydinosaur wrote:
Even if there is a NN are we guaranteed to have a watcher? Or vice versa? There is also the possibility of the SK (if we have one) claiming to be the NN. I still think the best thing we can do right now is NOT to have the NN claim. A confirmed (or at least believed NN) is just one less person for scum to worry about that night as others have said. Also if someone does claim it... would we actually want a watcher to waste a night confirming it?
[/QUOTE]
3. I dont see how i defended fyfy as i was more saying that stim's post made him more suspicious. This wasnt a major contention and just an observation.
4. We may agree to disagree on your meta argument but its still valid as you dont want to look at evidence that shows im defensive by nature.
5. As for the quoting of the player list, that wasnt because of the bbcode but because you were saying "hey look these guys arent posting" which everyone already knows.
6. I don't have my vote on you and never did. I don't know where you are getting this from. It seems you are so dead set now to get me lynched that you are making things up or simply imagining them.
7. Chrom did bring up some townie points on you and I dont have my vote on you because I wasn't convinced you were scum, otherwise it wouldn't be on it.
You seem to be trying to nitpick an argument while simultaneously attempting to make yourself look like some important role because I thought you were scummy. And you thought I was over defensive...this feels like a retaliation vote that is grabbing straw.
Also if you think someone is a blue, keep that to yourself. No good can come from saying so.
|
EBWOP: 7. Chrom did bring up some townie points on you and I dont have my vote on you because I wasn't convinced you were scum, otherwise it would be on it.
|
On June 25 2013 06:49 FirmTofu wrote:
@Spicy
2) You aren't deconstructing his argument paragraph by paragraph, you are just stating that he is full of shit without giving any explanation as to why. Where is the substance? Please point me to the post where you discredited his theory, because I think you might be making things up here.
I failed quoted it in my post i dont see how you missed it. Additionally whats there to discuss when he was simply restating what the roles were and what they did.
3) You defended fyfy while accusing me of not voting for Stim instead of fyfy. There was no reason to say that when both were perfectly good lurker targets that were largely interchangeable.
I stated exactly why there was a reason. because stim posted right at the start of d1 then lurked. I felt the lurkers were not equal at the time (before fyfy started posting) so it was a curious choice.
5) Sometimes someone needs to point out the obvious when no one is actually discussing it. If anything, this is a town move, not a scum move.
In the games ive played its always seen as a scum move even if done by a townie.
7) Okay sure, but this is still standard procedure for scum. Scum wouldn't want to be the driving force behind a lynch that they know to be town because they would have to deal with the consequences of the flip the following day.
If i thought you were scum i would have no hesitation to vote you first. Like i said before i found your play scummyish and this vote felt very retaliatory which isn't a scum move.
|
On June 25 2013 07:13 FirmTofu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 06:58 Spicydinosaur wrote:On June 25 2013 06:49 FirmTofu wrote:
@Spicy
2) You aren't deconstructing his argument paragraph by paragraph, you are just stating that he is full of shit without giving any explanation as to why. Where is the substance? Please point me to the post where you discredited his theory, because I think you might be making things up here. I failed quoted it in my post i dont see how you missed it. Additionally whats there to discuss when he was simply restating what the roles were and what they did.
3) You defended fyfy while accusing me of not voting for Stim instead of fyfy. There was no reason to say that when both were perfectly good lurker targets that were largely interchangeable.
I stated exactly why there was a reason. because stim posted right at the start of d1 then lurked. I felt the lurkers were not equal at the time (before fyfy started posting) so it was a curious choice.
5) Sometimes someone needs to point out the obvious when no one is actually discussing it. If anything, this is a town move, not a scum move.
In the games ive played its always seen as a scum move even if done by a townie.
7) Okay sure, but this is still standard procedure for scum. Scum wouldn't want to be the driving force behind a lynch that they know to be town because they would have to deal with the consequences of the flip the following day.
If i thought you were scum i would have no hesitation to vote you first. Like i said before i found your play scummyish and this vote felt very retaliatory which isn't a scum move. 2) That quote was referring to Aquanim's suggestion to get the NN to roleclaim, not Hurricanes'. Are you trying to deliberately mislead us? 3) My point is your reason is stupid. What difference does one line of posting make? Seriously? Accusing me of being scum based on one line that someone else wrote? 5) What...? Just...what? WHO CARES HOW IT'S ALWAYS SEEN!?!!? If a townie is known to do something like it, why in the world would you see it as a scum move??? If anything, you should see it as a neutral move because both scum and town are known to do it. 7) You aren't even responding to what I said. The fact that you didn't vote me is indicative of the fact that you are scum! To clarify, I'm not voting you because you accused me and didn't vote me. I'm voting you because of the reasons I have stated throughout this thread that suggest that you are scum. Whether you vote me or not is largely irrelevant, so trying to justify your actions isn't helping you at all.
Now you are going with personal insults that you claimed i did on someone else? The quote was talking about the same issue... ie NN.
As for fyfy...You claimed there was no difference in the lurkers, i pointed out that there WAS a difference now its a stupid reason? I didnt accuse u of scum off of one line, thats why it was included in a whole post of other reasons.
You voted for me when you thought i had voted you. you were wrong then. You cant go back and change your rational for voting me saying its now because i DIDNT vote you and the fact that i didnt vote you is somehow now irrelevent
The fact that you didn't vote me is indicative of the fact that you are scum! To clarify, I'm not voting you because you accused me and didn't vote me. I'm voting you because of the reasons I have stated throughout this thread that suggest that you are scum. Whether you vote me or not is largely irrelevant, so trying to justify your actions isn't helping you at all.
the bolded is contradictory and makes no sense.
The fact that you are not quoting 1/2 of my counterpoints from my original reply means you conceded them and it shows how weak your argument is on a whole. You are constantly changing what your argument is about me just to fit your narrative that you have in your head.
|
On June 25 2013 07:46 FirmTofu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 07:28 Spicydinosaur wrote:On June 25 2013 07:13 FirmTofu wrote:On June 25 2013 06:58 Spicydinosaur wrote:On June 25 2013 06:49 FirmTofu wrote:
@Spicy
2) You aren't deconstructing his argument paragraph by paragraph, you are just stating that he is full of shit without giving any explanation as to why. Where is the substance? Please point me to the post where you discredited his theory, because I think you might be making things up here. I failed quoted it in my post i dont see how you missed it. Additionally whats there to discuss when he was simply restating what the roles were and what they did.
3) You defended fyfy while accusing me of not voting for Stim instead of fyfy. There was no reason to say that when both were perfectly good lurker targets that were largely interchangeable.
I stated exactly why there was a reason. because stim posted right at the start of d1 then lurked. I felt the lurkers were not equal at the time (before fyfy started posting) so it was a curious choice.
5) Sometimes someone needs to point out the obvious when no one is actually discussing it. If anything, this is a town move, not a scum move.
In the games ive played its always seen as a scum move even if done by a townie.
7) Okay sure, but this is still standard procedure for scum. Scum wouldn't want to be the driving force behind a lynch that they know to be town because they would have to deal with the consequences of the flip the following day.
If i thought you were scum i would have no hesitation to vote you first. Like i said before i found your play scummyish and this vote felt very retaliatory which isn't a scum move. 2) That quote was referring to Aquanim's suggestion to get the NN to roleclaim, not Hurricanes'. Are you trying to deliberately mislead us? 3) My point is your reason is stupid. What difference does one line of posting make? Seriously? Accusing me of being scum based on one line that someone else wrote? 5) What...? Just...what? WHO CARES HOW IT'S ALWAYS SEEN!?!!? If a townie is known to do something like it, why in the world would you see it as a scum move??? If anything, you should see it as a neutral move because both scum and town are known to do it. 7) You aren't even responding to what I said. The fact that you didn't vote me is indicative of the fact that you are scum! To clarify, I'm not voting you because you accused me and didn't vote me. I'm voting you because of the reasons I have stated throughout this thread that suggest that you are scum. Whether you vote me or not is largely irrelevant, so trying to justify your actions isn't helping you at all. 1) Now you are going with personal insults that you claimed i did on someone else? The quote was talking about the same issue... ie NN. 2) As for fyfy...You claimed there was no difference in the lurkers, i pointed out that there WAS a difference now its a stupid reason? I didnt accuse u of scum off of one line, thats why it was included in a whole post of other reasons. 3) You voted for me when you thought i had voted you. you were wrong then. You cant go back and change your rational for voting me saying its now because i DIDNT vote you and the fact that i didnt vote you is somehow now irrelevent
The fact that you didn't vote me is indicative of the fact that you are scum! To clarify, I'm not voting you because you accused me and didn't vote me. I'm voting you because of the reasons I have stated throughout this thread that suggest that you are scum. Whether you vote me or not is largely irrelevant, so trying to justify your actions isn't helping you at all.
the bolded is contradictory and makes no sense. 4) The fact that you are not quoting 1/2 of my counterpoints from my original reply means you conceded them and it shows how weak your argument is on a whole. You are constantly changing what your argument is about me just to fit your narrative that you have in your head. 1) I think it's fairly obvious to a third party that you were referring to Aquanim's post when you quoted the quote and that you are trying to draw attention away from your response to Hurricane. 2) For fyfy, I still hold that there is no difference between the lurkers and you claimed that there is a difference. I think your reasons for claiming that there is a difference are stupid and make no sense because only one line separated one from the other. Why do you continue to defend fyfy? It's quite intriguing. 3) NO. I did not vote for you because I thought you voted for me. I voted you because you accused me. I was under the assumption that you had voted for me, but I have already acknowledged that that was a mistake. Remember this post, where you said, "Chrom did bring up some townie points on you and I dont have my vote on you because I wasn't convinced you were scum, otherwise it wouldn't be on it. " Then I said, "Okay sure, but this is still standard procedure for scum. Scum wouldn't want to be the driving force behind a lynch that they know to be town because they would have to deal with the consequences of the flip the following day." When I said that, I meant that it would still make sense for you to be scum when you have accused me but have not voted me because you want me dead, but don't want to be regarded as the cause of my death. Therefore, you being scum is perfectly compatible with you not voting for me. The fact that you have since backed off of your accusations against me is only furthering my suspicions that you are scum because you know that pursuing a lynch against me would lynch a townie and would ultimately end with your demise. In other words, all of your actions are still compatible with you being scum, so my vote remains. 4) What? I quoted everything and responded to everything you said. Now you are just plain lying to discredit me.
1. i stand by my response to hurricanes post, his was full of fluff and lacked content. what i said in reply to aqua applies to hurricane because he was the one who started talking about the whole NN issue. It's pretty clear.
2. you keep insisting that im defending fyfy when all i have ever said is that stim looked scummier. YOU are the one who keeps saying that im defending him.
3. This point has been done to death and you keep changing what you are saying about it. First im scum for voting you then im scum for not voting you then im scum and my vote on you never mattered.
4. In your original post where you voted me you had your case. I countered with my 7 points and then you only responded to a few and acknowledged you were wrong on at least one. The fact that you didnt talk about the others shows that you backed off them.
Now you are just plain lying to discredit me.
As i said before, for someone who thinks im scum because you think i went personal on someone else, you are throwing insults around a lot.
|
On June 25 2013 08:05 FirmTofu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 07:57 Spicydinosaur wrote:On June 25 2013 07:46 FirmTofu wrote:On June 25 2013 07:28 Spicydinosaur wrote:On June 25 2013 07:13 FirmTofu wrote:On June 25 2013 06:58 Spicydinosaur wrote:On June 25 2013 06:49 FirmTofu wrote:
@Spicy
2) You aren't deconstructing his argument paragraph by paragraph, you are just stating that he is full of shit without giving any explanation as to why. Where is the substance? Please point me to the post where you discredited his theory, because I think you might be making things up here. I failed quoted it in my post i dont see how you missed it. Additionally whats there to discuss when he was simply restating what the roles were and what they did.
3) You defended fyfy while accusing me of not voting for Stim instead of fyfy. There was no reason to say that when both were perfectly good lurker targets that were largely interchangeable.
I stated exactly why there was a reason. because stim posted right at the start of d1 then lurked. I felt the lurkers were not equal at the time (before fyfy started posting) so it was a curious choice.
5) Sometimes someone needs to point out the obvious when no one is actually discussing it. If anything, this is a town move, not a scum move.
In the games ive played its always seen as a scum move even if done by a townie.
7) Okay sure, but this is still standard procedure for scum. Scum wouldn't want to be the driving force behind a lynch that they know to be town because they would have to deal with the consequences of the flip the following day.
If i thought you were scum i would have no hesitation to vote you first. Like i said before i found your play scummyish and this vote felt very retaliatory which isn't a scum move. 2) That quote was referring to Aquanim's suggestion to get the NN to roleclaim, not Hurricanes'. Are you trying to deliberately mislead us? 3) My point is your reason is stupid. What difference does one line of posting make? Seriously? Accusing me of being scum based on one line that someone else wrote? 5) What...? Just...what? WHO CARES HOW IT'S ALWAYS SEEN!?!!? If a townie is known to do something like it, why in the world would you see it as a scum move??? If anything, you should see it as a neutral move because both scum and town are known to do it. 7) You aren't even responding to what I said. The fact that you didn't vote me is indicative of the fact that you are scum! To clarify, I'm not voting you because you accused me and didn't vote me. I'm voting you because of the reasons I have stated throughout this thread that suggest that you are scum. Whether you vote me or not is largely irrelevant, so trying to justify your actions isn't helping you at all. 1) Now you are going with personal insults that you claimed i did on someone else? The quote was talking about the same issue... ie NN. 2) As for fyfy...You claimed there was no difference in the lurkers, i pointed out that there WAS a difference now its a stupid reason? I didnt accuse u of scum off of one line, thats why it was included in a whole post of other reasons. 3) You voted for me when you thought i had voted you. you were wrong then. You cant go back and change your rational for voting me saying its now because i DIDNT vote you and the fact that i didnt vote you is somehow now irrelevent
The fact that you didn't vote me is indicative of the fact that you are scum! To clarify, I'm not voting you because you accused me and didn't vote me. I'm voting you because of the reasons I have stated throughout this thread that suggest that you are scum. Whether you vote me or not is largely irrelevant, so trying to justify your actions isn't helping you at all.
the bolded is contradictory and makes no sense. 4) The fact that you are not quoting 1/2 of my counterpoints from my original reply means you conceded them and it shows how weak your argument is on a whole. You are constantly changing what your argument is about me just to fit your narrative that you have in your head. 1) I think it's fairly obvious to a third party that you were referring to Aquanim's post when you quoted the quote and that you are trying to draw attention away from your response to Hurricane. 2) For fyfy, I still hold that there is no difference between the lurkers and you claimed that there is a difference. I think your reasons for claiming that there is a difference are stupid and make no sense because only one line separated one from the other. Why do you continue to defend fyfy? It's quite intriguing. 3) NO. I did not vote for you because I thought you voted for me. I voted you because you accused me. I was under the assumption that you had voted for me, but I have already acknowledged that that was a mistake. Remember this post, where you said, "Chrom did bring up some townie points on you and I dont have my vote on you because I wasn't convinced you were scum, otherwise it wouldn't be on it. " Then I said, "Okay sure, but this is still standard procedure for scum. Scum wouldn't want to be the driving force behind a lynch that they know to be town because they would have to deal with the consequences of the flip the following day." When I said that, I meant that it would still make sense for you to be scum when you have accused me but have not voted me because you want me dead, but don't want to be regarded as the cause of my death. Therefore, you being scum is perfectly compatible with you not voting for me. The fact that you have since backed off of your accusations against me is only furthering my suspicions that you are scum because you know that pursuing a lynch against me would lynch a townie and would ultimately end with your demise. In other words, all of your actions are still compatible with you being scum, so my vote remains. 4) What? I quoted everything and responded to everything you said. Now you are just plain lying to discredit me. 1. i stand by my response to hurricanes post, his was full of fluff and lacked content. what i said in reply to aqua applies to hurricane because he was the one who started talking about the whole NN issue. It's pretty clear. 2. you keep insisting that im defending fyfy when all i have ever said is that stim looked scummier. YOU are the one who keeps saying that im defending him. 3. This point has been done to death and you keep changing what you are saying about it. First im scum for voting you then im scum for not voting you then im scum and my vote on you never mattered. 4. In your original post where you voted me you had your case. I countered with my 7 points and then you only responded to a few and acknowledged you were wrong on at least one. The fact that you didnt talk about the others shows that you backed off them.
Now you are just plain lying to discredit me.
As i said before, for someone who thinks im scum because you think i went personal on someone else, you are throwing insults around a lot. 1. I don't think it's clear at all. You can keep saying that, but it simply isn't true. 2. Of course I'm the one saying you are defending him. Who else would say it? By saying Stim looks scummier, you imply that fyfy doesn't look scummy. That's a way of defending him. 3. You continue to misinterpret my position. You are scum for accusing me on flimsy evidence. You are scum for withdrawing only when I accuse you back. You are scum for not withdrawing when Chromatically posted his views on my alignment. You are scum for plenty of things, but voting me isn't one of them. Your vote on me would have mattered if you had the opportunity to remove it, but it doesn't matter because you never actually voted me. 4. I responded to 6 of the 7 points, because the first one had already been discussed. Then, you responded to about 4 of my points. I responded to all of those, and we exchanged blows from there. I don't think you can rightfully say I am picking and choosing my arguments.
1. going in circles now
2. how does that logic work? If i say that hitler was worse than stalin that doesnt imply that stalin was a good guy. All it says is that hitler is worse.
3. You are all over the place and are very selective were you think i should have voted for you or should have withdrawn. I'm allowed to change my view on anyone at anytime, i've done it before and ill do it again when i get new information.
4. you are pick and you are changing what you are saying.
I've said everything i need to defend myself and anyone looking at it will see how weak your argument is.
|
I'm not liking Xzavier as a D1 lynch but i see why others are voting him. Before chrom threw a vote down on him he did 0 scum hunting and his posts were just policy and/or fluff. With that i can clearly see a vote. However what he has done since the votes started piling on has convinced me he's town. An unproductive town before the vote, but a townie no less.
Insulting 1/2 the people in the thread is not the best way to stop a lynch on you, in fact its a good way to guarantee it. Then he throws a quick vote on aqua with a weak reason to back it up. The vote felt very reactionary like he was going for the first scummy thing he could find, not very calculated. I know some people dont like meta in newbie games, but here i feel Xzavier was just being a lot more cautious with his scum hunting after what happened last game which didnt go so well. I also feel that a scum xzavier would be more self conscious of his 0 scum hunting up to this point and would have put something down at this point.
On a lesser note, I'm very cautious of the first bandwagon (not necessarily of the person who started it) but because with the piling on its easier for scum to hide in it.
I'm going to look at those who jumped on xzavier and also look at the case on aqua next.
|
On June 25 2013 16:35 FirmTofu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 15:29 Xzavier wrote:On June 25 2013 15:16 FirmTofu wrote:
Hey Xzavier, what do you think about Spicy? Would you be willing to switch your vote onto him? Honestly not today. he did a really good jpb as town last game and gave some good insights. After going threw his filter it seems like he was forced into a defensive posting pattern due to pressure. he hasnt said much recently. Honestly i wouldnt mind lynching alakazam day 1. But ill giv him a chance to respond. Im really not liking chrom or auqa for their tunnelling me while ignoring logic and basing everything off of the fact that i havnt caught scum yet or made a case. The fact that you are willing to change your vote to Alakazam but not Spicy is rather arbitrary. When facing death, a townie would be willing to change his vote to anyone to stay alive. You have sealed your fate in my eyes with this response and have furthered confirmed my suspicions of Spicy. As it seems very few people agree with my suspicions of Spicy, I will defer to a sub-optimal lynch of you. ##Unvote: SpicyDinosaur##Vote: Xzavier
Your logic here is wrong. The two people who have the most votes are xzavier and aqua. If xzavier wanted to stay alive then he would keep his vote on aqua, otherwise his own chance of being lynched goes up if he takes it off. The fact that he's willing to take his vote OFF of the other major lynch candidate and onto another he thinks is scummy shows that he is scum hunting a little. Though were his vote ultimately ends up is the real indicator.
I also dont get how him not voting for me makes him scummier now. No one else in the thread bought your argument against me, yet Xzavier is the only one to receive your wrath for doing so? It looks like you are trying to make arbitrary reasonings to reinforce your vote like you did with me.
|
On June 25 2013 23:24 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 23:11 Spicydinosaur wrote:
I'm not liking Xzavier as a D1 lynch but i see why others are voting him. Before chrom threw a vote down on him he did 0 scum hunting and his posts were just policy and/or fluff. With that i can clearly see a vote. However what he has done since the votes started piling on has convinced me he's town. An unproductive town before the vote, but a townie no less.
Insulting 1/2 the people in the thread is not the best way to stop a lynch on you, in fact its a good way to guarantee it. Then he throws a quick vote on aqua with a weak reason to back it up. The vote felt very reactionary like he was going for the first scummy thing he could find, not very calculated. I know some people dont like meta in newbie games, but here i feel Xzavier was just being a lot more cautious with his scum hunting after what happened last game which didnt go so well. I also feel that a scum xzavier would be more self conscious of his 0 scum hunting up to this point and would have put something down at this point.
On a lesser note, I'm very cautious of the first bandwagon (not necessarily of the person who started it) but because with the piling on its easier for scum to hide in it.
I'm going to look at those who jumped on xzavier and also look at the case on aqua next.
I don't see how insulting half the thread indicates townieness to you at all. If he had in fact come back and shown half the thread they'd made a huge mistake, I'd be with you, but his posts after that didn't have anything mindblowing like that. It feels to me like he was just trying to intimidate people into not voting him, rather than having an actual plan - not a completely impossible reaction from town, but I think it makes more sense as a scum move. What about "going for the first scummy thing he could find" is in any way a reaction which can only be explained by Xzavier being town? In fact, how is this not more likely as a scum reaction? Show nested quote +
I also feel that a scum xzavier would be more self conscious of his 0 scum hunting up to this point and would have put something down at this point.
His vote for me was him trying to put something down at that point. Lastly, what about the first bandwagon do you think makes it easier to hide on, as opposed to later wagons? I can't see any difference.
What im getting at is that Xzavier's play doesnt feel calculated at all.
What i meant by the insult comment was that it wasn't smart from a scum perspective so it gives a townie vibe to me. Xzavier's quick reaction vote can be explained 100 different ways but to me felt like he thought "oh shit im getting votes, let me make a case quick." THAT can look objectively scummy as it does to many others but to me it doesn't. As for the bandwagons, there really is no difference between hiding. If there are two bandwagons going then scum could split. But usually in the games ive played, the first person to get a wagon going typically isnt scum. Like i said before not a huge point as more of a cautious observation.
|
EBWOP: by the first person getting a wagon going i meant the first person who is getting the votes on them
|
Im not convinced on the aqua vote either and ill post my thoughts on that later, but for now i want to get this out.
##Vote:Hurricane Sponge
The case:
Hurricane starts off with a big wall of text that was written pregame that mostly didnt tell us anything. It gave a summary of the roles and a whole lot of fluff. Plus he wanted the NN to claim already which was a horrible idea. Some found this useful but it really didnt tell us anything new.
On June 24 2013 11:46 Hurricane Sponge wrote:
Ugh, let's avoid the 'should we lynch lurkers talk' shall we?
I'm gonna go ahead and post the play I had written earlier this week analyzing this game from a pro-town perspective. If any of my analysis is off-base, please jump in and steer me back on track.
Pre-written segment starts now:
Alright, chums. First let me state that in NO WAY is the following message a call for a mass claim. If you are the Parity Cop (assuming you even exist), DO NOT SAY SO. In fact, if you're our town's parity cop, it's probably better if you appear to ignore what I'm about to say completely. Same goes for Trackers and Watchers. DO NOT CLAIM. But read carefully, because you are a big part of whether we succeed or fail (whether we follow my plan or not).
Now everyone, pay attention: Looking over the roles, the extremely juicy pro-town potential jumped right off the page at me, as I hope it did to many of you. Trackers can tell us if a person visits someone. Pretty good, but not nearly as good as the Watcher, who can pick a person and sees all who visit them. Obviously, this means we can try to guess the guy who's going to be mafia-killed, and we have a couple shots at seeing if he either gets visited, or manage to Track the mafia member who happens to be tagged to do the deed. Not great odds on either, but still better than nothing.
My plan utilizes each role to their maximum potential. Because we are not guaranteed to have a Tracker, Watcher, or even a Parity Cop, it's important that for the roles we DO get, we use them efficiently. The Watcher needs to guess the target they think will be mafia-killed tonight. This is up to your judgement, but I'll make a recommendation later today.
The fun part comes with the Tracker and the Nosy Neighbor (and by extension Parity Cop). The Tracker should secretly track the Nosy Neighbor. AGAIN, MR. OR MRS. TRACKER: DO NOT CLAIM NOW. If we have a Nosy Neighbor, they should claim IMMEDIATELY. Once the Tracker can confirm that the Nosy Neighbor is in fact moving around at night, but not visiting the person who got Mafia-killed, WE CAN ESTABLISH HIM AS TOWN. This is a big deal. The Parity Cop can then tag the confirmed Nosy Neighbor as Town and start measuring up suspects against them. If he gets a 'Different' claim, the other person is Scum. If he gets 'Same', they are town.
I can elaborate further, but I feel like you can all piece together whatever holes are out there without me holding your hand even further. This is an extremely pro-town set-up (assuming there aren't a bunch of red herrings in which case, Hi I'm sponge, and I just gave you all the book on me.) and I'd like to move fast before mafia can organize their thoughts in their private little forum. If we move fast, and force independent action, they lose one of their many advantages.
Next he is prompted to makes a couple of cases against me and xzavier based off of only a few posts. I already disagreed with his reasons for me but he made a couple good points about xzavier.
The problem is that this is his only scum hunting for the entire game. From this point forward all he talks about concerns the NN. He makes no new effort to ask questions about cases or constructs his own. It feels as though he made a quick early contribution with hunting and then hoped to sail the rest of D1 without truly contributing.
His remaining posts are mostly just rehashing and talking about the NN issue. His last post (as of this posting) is reposted below.
On June 24 2013 17:55 Hurricane Sponge wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 16:26 Aquanim wrote:On June 24 2013 16:09 FirmTofu wrote:
I know Aquanim wanted me to comment on Chromatically, but I would rather address his suggestion to have the NN roleclaim.
Let's have a look at how a roleclaim would play out for scum and town separately so it is easier to visualize.
Event: NN roleclaims
Scum Information Set: Know who the NN is with a rather high degree of certainty
Town Information Set: Could be an NN or could be scum faking NN. Learn absolutely nothing.
Just based on the information that each side gains, we can see that scum takes a clear lead instantaneously. They will choose to avoid the NN if they have a Tracker and can proceed to eliminate one person from the long list of priority targets.
Town remains confused as to the NN's alignment and ends up in a shitty situation.
If you can find a way to resolve this issue, Aquanim, I would love to hear it. Otherwise, I have you pegged as scum. First, scum is unlikely to claim NN day 1 for fear of being counter-claimed. Somebody who claims NN is obviously not confirmed town, but they're considerably more likely to be town. I have personally never seen a day-one miller claim (analogous to a NN, with different investigative rolls) end up being scum, and plenty end up being town. A miller/NN who is thus likely town and can thus play a strong, town-leading role is a HIGHER PRIORITY for scum to kill than a possible bluesnipe. Also, a day-one NN claim avoids two possibly disastrous situations later on: 1) An actual NN being seen visiting someone and being lynched for it. 2) Mafia fake-claiming NN after being seen visiting somebody. Auto-lynching any NN claim is bad for in the first case, treating NN as town is bad in the second case. A day one claim, before there's any desperate need for a scum to fake-claim it, fixes both of these. The gain in information which scum gets from a day-one NN claim IS NOT SIGNIFICANT. Even IF scum has a tracker, a NN claim reduces their pool of players to track by something like 10% (I haven't done the math but it's about that). And like I said, if the NN plays a good town game he becomes EVEN MORE IMPORTANT for scum to shoot. Scum knowing not to track the NN is less valuable than town knowing not to track him. I'm tired of trying to beat sense into y'all about this, and I'm tired of y'all calling me scum over a difference of opinion about game theory. Someone man up and vote me over this trash or start playing the game properly.On June 24 2013 16:15 Onegu wrote:On June 24 2013 16:09 FirmTofu wrote:
I know Aquanim wanted me to comment on Chromatically, but I would rather address his suggestion to have the NN roleclaim.
Let's have a look at how a roleclaim would play out for scum and town separately so it is easier to visualize.
Event: NN roleclaims
Scum Information Set: Know who the NN is with a rather high degree of certainty
Town Information Set: Could be an NN or could be scum faking NN. Learn absolutely nothing.
Just based on the information that each side gains, we can see that scum takes a clear lead instantaneously. They will choose to avoid the NN if they have a Tracker and can proceed to eliminate one person from the long list of priority targets.
Town remains confused as to the NN's alignment and ends up in a shitty situation.
If you can find a way to resolve this issue, Aquanim, I would love to hear it. Otherwise, I have you pegged as scum. I agree with this the first person who wrote about NN made me feel noob town, but the second person to post after hearing what was said against it is very odd/scummy. The other guy's plan was bad for other reasons. In this case, however, I am right, the rest of you are wrong, and I am trying to persuade you of that. I'm starting to feel like this is a waste of time though. My case. On Chromatically. Opinions please. I'll drop the whole NN thing if people feel like we're getting off-track with it, but it seems like we're in a holding pattern while we wait for inactives to defend themselves. Regarding the NN Claim: This is a part of the game I clearly don't understand the far-reaching implications of. Addressing point #2, specifically: "Mafia fake-claiming NN after being seen visiting somebody. A day one claim, before there's any desperate need for a scum to fake-claim it, fixes (this)." Is the value of preventing a mafia NN claim later in the game more than the benefit of having a real NN around to counter-claim it in the moment, catching the scum in the act? (This assumes the remaining townies have pegged the real NN as more town than the first claimant). Do not get discouraged- I would like to hear your thoughts on this subject, and it's important to emphasize that people make up their own minds on this matter as there is likely at least 1 scum trying to steer public opinion in the 'wrong' direction on this issue. You seem to have already convinced FirmTofu, and this is the kind of matter we can get Town Consensus on now in the early game.
Here hurricane senses that he's dragging out the NN talk for too long but then double downs on it by encouraging others to continue the discussion. This feels like scum trying to get others to continue on the conversation without him having to post more.
Furthemore in the above quote that hurricane quotes, aqua asks for thoughts on his chrom case, yet he passes over the opportunity to give his opinions out. I feel he is just waiting to see how wagons are rolling before he places his opinion down in the safest place possible.
|
On June 25 2013 23:43 Aquanim wrote:I don't see how insulting the thread is bad from a scum perspective. It gives the illusion that you're confident and whatnot (and thus town) without having to do any scumhunting or anything else useful. In fact, it sounds a lot like what I've heard about Ace's style. In any case, he did do it and it hasn't "guaranteed" his lynch by any means, so I can't see how it's a bad scum move. For that matter, if it was going to guarantee his lynch, there's nothing about His case on me, while bad, isn't inherently super-scummy in as of itself. If bad cases were a scumtell this game...  My problem with it (and with his play as a whole) is that he never did anything with it. Xzavier isn't pushing on me to improve his read, he isn't trying to convince anyone else to lynch me, he isn't looking at anyone else... he just dropped a lacklustre case and said "I'm done with scumhunting for the day, time to whinge about how everyone's being nasty to me and expecting me to play up to my meta".
I dont see how insulting others gives you confidence but that just might be subjective thing that people see differently.
Now im going try to respond to everyone's comment about my defense of xzavier here so there aren't 15 reply posts.
I acknowledge that not all scum are calculating and that this could be a panicking scum but it just doesnt feel like it in this case. Nothing is certain until the flip. Chrom, i agree he should be scum hunting as that would be the best way to convince others to not vote him. But he hasnt really, so why is that? If he were a truly panicked scum i would think he would listen to everyone and start making cases, not go crazy. It looks like he is thinking about voting Alakazam but he hasnt posted a case.
Lone, I see what you are talking about but i disagree. If a scum were to get a lot of votes you would think his reaction would be "oh shit" and not "1/2 of you are retarded". Like what has been said before, scum can insult.
Also at this point if he starts scum hunting will that change much? Its what he is expected to do so will that mean he is town or just trying to look town. Opinions probably won't change that much will they?
It just feels that Xzavier was trying to play a lot more cautious after last game and over did it early on here with not getting any scum reads out because he didnt feel confident.
|
@hurricane
This doesn't change my analysis and actually furthers my argument. You picked the sole lurker as your vote which is a huge cop out giving everyone else's level of activity and looks extremely scummy.
|
On June 26 2013 00:25 Chromatically wrote:Spicy It's one thing to be more cautious after a game, it's another to not scumhunt at all. Show nested quote + If he were a truly panicked scum i would think he would listen to everyone and start making cases, not go crazy.
The whole "If Xzav were scum, he would do x" argument is WIFOM. Maybe he would do that as scum. Maybe he's not and he's trying to trick us. Maybe he's not doing it anyway because he doesn't know how to. He might not be making cases because it's hard to scumhunt as scum. He might not be making cases so people think that it's a "genuine townie reaction". He might not be making cases so that you make the exact argument you're making now. There are a number of reasons why he would react the way he has, and it doesn't make him townier at all. That sort of argument is what makes up most of his defense and now your defense of him, which is why I found his defense thoroughly unconvincing.
Fair point the on WIFOM. For me it just comes down to the fact that i dont see this as a scum xzavier given his last game play and self reflection afterwards with his bad reads. I just don't buy a scum xzavier not having some type of read or questions about cases out by the time of the vote.
|
On June 26 2013 00:35 Hurricane Sponge wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 00:30 Spicydinosaur wrote:
@hurricane
This doesn't change my analysis and actually furthers my argument. You picked the sole lurker as your vote which is a huge cop out giving everyone else's level of activity and looks extremely scummy.
Wait, just one quick point. So if I had joined one of the other bandwagons, it looked scummy to you. But making a new case and bringing it forward also looks scummy? What were my options?
My whole issue with you is that you scum hunted a little in the beginning with extremely early posts, then just talked about NN for the remainder. You didnt question people about cases, you didnt make any of your own, and now you picked a lurker. If you jumped on a wagon now i would still be suspicious because it doesnt change the underlying reasons i think you are scum.
|
@hurricane
I am not wasting my vote, i am voting for someone who i believe is scummy. Would it be a waste if people switched onto you? I believe people should vote for who they think is scummy, its simple. I'm not voting xzavier for reasons stated and im sure as hell not going to vote for the late day bandwagon building switch to stim which looks to be forming as the aqua wagon is falling apart. My vote is parked comfortably were it is.
|
EBWOP: also hurricane my vote for you has nothing to do with your early scum view of me. As i have repeatedly stated that was your actions afterwards that warranted the vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
