|
On August 20 2013 23:54 Alakaslam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 23:07 Holyflare wrote:
Who is to say that you could be town and he knew it so wanted to get on your side? There are a myriad of possibilities and I did not draw any conclusions from it other than his inconsistencies, I am pointing out the shit posts for other people to read. Whether you take from it that you are also scum is up to you, I do not give a shit. ... Chezinu. Sees me say  iVLosk repeatedly Lynch Wait dangerous looks bad Buddy up Buddy up to the one who knows the bamcis one, one more townie who won't lynch Deus defense thyself to move my vote is what is say but I'm headed to work. Therefore, deus, if you are town convince the rest unless I somehow get enough data reception to check up near deadline. ##Vote: DeusXmachina
You are just all over the place...
|
On August 20 2013 21:37 Holyflare wrote:DeusXmachinaLet's talk deus for a bit, barring the connections between people, I want to get to the nitty gritty bits. I want to point out his overall motives so far, his contributions and his inconsistences. You all basically know the story about him saying not to lynch all liars, but lurkers etc etc, it's the first thing in his filter so I will ignore it for now because I honestly do not think it is relevant at all. However, this is where we begin the journey into deus' mind. See this for example: + Show Spoiler +On August 16 2013 05:14 DeusXmachina wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 04:58 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:54 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 04:51 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:46 DeusXmachina wrote:
Liars? Highly unlikely that you would every catch scum lying. Lynch lurkers over liars. But is there any reason for town to lie? So in the unlikely situation that you DO catch someone lying, you'd still rather lynch a lurker? If town is lying why would we want to lynch them? Like I said, you probably won't catch scum lying. Lying won't really tell you much. Lurkers > Liars. Obviously lynching confirmed town because of a lie would be silly, but what about someone most have a weak scum read (or even null) on who's caught lying? Still prefer a lurker lynch over him? While we're on the topic of lurking, do you think there's any real difference between lurking and posting but being useless? Would you (policy) lynch someone who posts but doesn't have any real content? If you have a weak scum read on someone and they lie, well that might be evidence against them. I would try to understand the intentions behind the lie. Not crazy about the lynch liars policy. I don't know how to define lurking, but people who are being useless are equally as bad as lurkers. In fact, in some situations, I think spammers can be more detrimental to town than lurkers. I equate non-contribution to scum. I am glad you brought this up. I was thinking about this a lot in my last game. Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 05:04 iVLosK! wrote:
Yeah lynch all liars and no lurking! And anything else that sounds pro-town! C'mon guys. No fucking duh. I have a policy of lynching people who say stupid, obvious shit. What do you think of them apples, flare, deus, and LM? Well this is a newb game. Hopefully players can read some of the initial policy and learn what not to do. Lynching people who say stupid stuff got me into a lot of shit my last game. That being said, I am all for aggressive play and doing whatever it takes to weed out scum. . It has some policy crap still in it yes, but I'd like to draw your attention to where it says that he will lynch people that are detrimental to town, non-contributers, spammers and mentions how he likes aggressive play. Now this is around the time where I started to focus on IvLosK!, he hadn't given any contribution, was saying useless shit and wasn't helping us at all. I made my case against iV and then deus response was + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 09:38 DeusXmachina wrote:I am growing suspicious of iV. The way he handled holy's pressure seems scummy. He seemed more interested in discrediting Holy than actually contributing. + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 09:09 iVLosK! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 08:51 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 08:49 iVLosK! wrote:On August 17 2013 08:42 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 08:04 iVLosK! wrote:On August 17 2013 08:00 justanothertownie wrote:
Hm? I meant the posts he listed.
Relying on modkills for lurkers is really scummy btw. Good thing you say you would vote them if they keep lurking Holyflare. D' Oh. On August 17 2013 07:51 Holyflare wrote:
All his posts are pretty much non contributory. I genuinely think reps is afk if he hasn't posted yet, no idea about xzavier but it frustrates me, if they don't talk at all it's a double modkill and therefore we should focus on the people who are talking. I swear to god if another bs lurker happens like last game with a post a day I'm voting them off straight anyway
I think this is the post JAT is referencing above. I noticed it too. I like you drawing attention to this, oh it's scummy to avoid lurkers but then say you want to do the anti lurker thing, seriously? I mean what the hell i don't know if you two are trying to set me up but until the lurkers actually do something talking about them is 100% anti town by way of wasting time. Of course we will lynch lurkers if nobody is under any real suspicion do not be stupid. I'm not sure I ever said it was scummy to avoid lurkers. So you've lost me. JAT is saying it's scummy and you said "i noticed it too"? "I noticed it" =/= "this is scummy". It's sorta more like what you're doing. Putting together a case on me without actually voting me. Read D1 of my first game on this site. I don't like that shit and happily lynch people who do it. This is a good example. Attacks holy and contributes nothing to town. which is fair enough, it made sense at the time. This is when shit gets confusing, with all the pressure on IvLosK! what would a scum do, try and deflect on another person right? His SECOND post after talking about IvLosK! then draws random light suspicion on squibbles + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 13:36 DeusXmachina wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 01:16 Squibbles wrote:
I can see where the suspicion might lie and the implications of me being a lurker. I run PST and do work so my main times where I will be extremely active will be after 4:30, although I am reading up on all the posts throughout the day. If there are any questions of me feel free to ask, I am rather new so I getting use to all the terminology and what not. So far judging by the posts I am leaning town on deus but I cannot be certain and null for everyone else. It's too early for me to make an educated guess when the majority of people have yet to really reveal intentions. I'm thinking the larger players have been talked about a bit more, meaning they will always be under scrutiny, but that only helps them if they are scum. Only making that of note, not implying anything. I went back and read Squibb's posts and one line stuck out to me. This seems overly defensive. Slam passively called him a lurker but did not pursue it. There was not any real suspicion on Squibbs, yet he felt it necessary to defend himself. Squibb's could you elaborate on why you felt it was necessary to preemptively defend yourself, please. but that isn't the most shocking part, WITHIN 3 POSTS HE GOES AHEAD AND CHANGES HIS FUCKING MIND ON IVLOSK!???????? + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 13:55 DeusXmachina wrote:Last thing before I go to bed. I thought I would post my thoughts on day 1 so far. I peg iV for town because he seems aggressive, and antagonistic at times, and to me these are definitely town traits. In addition, I believe Slam is town because he is trying to promote dialog and cut down on spam. For example, + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 08:08 Alakaslam wrote:Ok at the computer is fun  Look the thread is only actually a few pages long- the game doesn't actually start until page 10. But here is what I notice, and think: iVLoski may be messing around some- I messed around a lot as town as well, so that's not enough for me but yes, I am aware he could be dangerous scum. I'm Watchin' him and Y'all should too. But I think your suspicion of him has brought out something interesting Holyflare; justanothertownie. look at this Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 07:02 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 06:51 justanothertownie wrote:
I'm around. JAT what is your opinion so far on ivlosk and also I'd like to hear your thoughts on lonemeow Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 07:24 justanothertownie wrote:
Why do you ask me about those 2 specifically?
Ivlosk: I said earlier I liked his first posts. There isn't anything else to say for me right now. No idea about his alignment.
LoneMeow: Sounds reasonable to me. He brought up the policy thing but someone has to start discussion somehow. K look at this- What are your reads JAT?!? Holyflare has asked you for your reads, this isn't the clearest thing in the world and seems pretty reserved. I mean, I understand, I can be reserved, but make a stand- if you are wrong, or someone points out it doesn't make sense, admit it and move on- But don't sheep! Make a position and defense it. (<3 WhiteRa) Speaking of which, Yes Holyflare- I will work on my read on Deus in a minute. On August 16 2013 14:17 Alakaslam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 14:08 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 14:02 Alakaslam wrote:On August 16 2013 13:05 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 12:56 Alakaslam wrote:On August 16 2013 05:14 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 04:58 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:54 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 04:51 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:46 DeusXmachina wrote:
Liars? Highly unlikely that you would every catch scum lying. Lynch lurkers over liars. But is there any reason for town to lie? So in the unlikely situation that you DO catch someone lying, you'd still rather lynch a lurker? If town is lying why would we want to lynch them? Like I said, you probably won't catch scum lying. Lying won't really tell you much. Lurkers > Liars. Obviously lynching confirmed town because of a lie would be silly, but what about someone most have a weak scum read (or even null) on who's caught lying? Still prefer a lurker lynch over him? While we're on the topic of lurking, do you think there's any real difference between lurking and posting but being useless? Would you (policy) lynch someone who posts but doesn't have any real content? If you have a weak scum read on someone and they lie, well that might be evidence against them. I would try to understand the intentions behind the lie. Not crazy about the lynch liars policy. I don't know how to define lurking, but people who are being useless are equally as bad as lurkers. In fact, in some situations, I think spammers can be more detrimental to town than lurkers. I equate non-contribution to scum. I am glad you brought this up. I was thinking about this a lot in my last game. On August 16 2013 05:04 iVLosK! wrote:
Yeah lynch all liars and no lurking! And anything else that sounds pro-town! C'mon guys. No fucking duh. I have a policy of lynching people who say stupid, obvious shit. What do you think of them apples, flare, deus, and LM? Well this is a newb game. Hopefully players can read some of the initial policy and learn what not to do. Lynching people who say stupid stuff got me into a lot of shit my last game. That being said, I am all for aggressive play and doing whatever it takes to weed out scum. Actually it was lynching the spammer- many of the things I said were trying to express my opinions, spamming was me trying to dick around. I promise not to do that anymore except maybe in spoilers if I can't help it. Therefore I am really glad you laid this out. There may be people like me who just get the juices flowing and go nuts, they will disregard you until they are the scummy one tunneling the wrong guy at Lylo- then they will have to fight not to become stimaddict 2.0, (sorry bout that but u know its true  ing one) so like I say- rock and a hard place with "don't spam don't lurk" for me- so gimme a little grace and I will try to help out. For now, I have this: Ivlosk! - town, he is bamcis for lookin so, especially so early, therefore keep an eye out for even more badass scum play later if I am wrong (and I am wrong often...) HolyFlare- kinda early. I'm null, in fact, I'm null on everyone but ivlosk! and myself. It's pretty early guys. "Speak up!" -Seige Tank Driver (selected, Starcraft 2) Fellows, pleeeze!! Okay, sounds good. Biggest scum reads so far, Xzavier and reps. Lol at reps if he becomes a day 1 lynch again. Why am I suspicious? Well, they are lurking, and as I previously mentioned, lurking will not be tolerated. Pretty much neutral on everyone. Although, I am leaning slightly town on JAT. Careful of posting pseudo lurker lists... Look. That is the easies thing for scum to do to try and look town, 1, and 2, if we have vigs, they can shoot into lurkers and we lynch other lurkers till there are none. So it is established that you can't lurk and get by this game. Stating their scumminess other than to explain a vote on them is now irrelevant, lets stick to discussion about actives. Then, before the deadline (close as you can get) vote for a lurker or someone you find scummy- who may have more of a chance turning out to be scum than someone who wanted blue or irl'ed or whatever causes people to do this stuff. By the way, we don't have vigs. Read the game setup. Your point is valid though, discussing lurkers (especially this early) is pretty pointless. Oh yeah, this isn't persona 4- herple diddly skerple xD Well then yeah like u said its what, half of one real day in. Give them some moar time. ... Yeah. But also, iVLosk not trying to stifle talk, trying to improve talk. Read deus filter anyone? Deus please elaborate, lurking > lying for scummy? Why should town bother with lies? On August 16 2013 14:17 Alakaslam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 14:08 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 14:02 Alakaslam wrote:On August 16 2013 13:05 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 12:56 Alakaslam wrote:On August 16 2013 05:14 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 04:58 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:54 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 04:51 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:46 DeusXmachina wrote:
Liars? Highly unlikely that you would every catch scum lying. Lynch lurkers over liars. But is there any reason for town to lie? So in the unlikely situation that you DO catch someone lying, you'd still rather lynch a lurker? If town is lying why would we want to lynch them? Like I said, you probably won't catch scum lying. Lying won't really tell you much. Lurkers > Liars. Obviously lynching confirmed town because of a lie would be silly, but what about someone most have a weak scum read (or even null) on who's caught lying? Still prefer a lurker lynch over him? While we're on the topic of lurking, do you think there's any real difference between lurking and posting but being useless? Would you (policy) lynch someone who posts but doesn't have any real content? If you have a weak scum read on someone and they lie, well that might be evidence against them. I would try to understand the intentions behind the lie. Not crazy about the lynch liars policy. I don't know how to define lurking, but people who are being useless are equally as bad as lurkers. In fact, in some situations, I think spammers can be more detrimental to town than lurkers. I equate non-contribution to scum. I am glad you brought this up. I was thinking about this a lot in my last game. On August 16 2013 05:04 iVLosK! wrote:
Yeah lynch all liars and no lurking! And anything else that sounds pro-town! C'mon guys. No fucking duh. I have a policy of lynching people who say stupid, obvious shit. What do you think of them apples, flare, deus, and LM? Well this is a newb game. Hopefully players can read some of the initial policy and learn what not to do. Lynching people who say stupid stuff got me into a lot of shit my last game. That being said, I am all for aggressive play and doing whatever it takes to weed out scum. Actually it was lynching the spammer- many of the things I said were trying to express my opinions, spamming was me trying to dick around. I promise not to do that anymore except maybe in spoilers if I can't help it. Therefore I am really glad you laid this out. There may be people like me who just get the juices flowing and go nuts, they will disregard you until they are the scummy one tunneling the wrong guy at Lylo- then they will have to fight not to become stimaddict 2.0, (sorry bout that but u know its true ing one) so like I say- rock and a hard place with "don't spam don't lurk" for me- so gimme a little grace and I will try to help out. For now, I have this: Ivlosk! - town, he is bamcis for lookin so, especially so early, therefore keep an eye out for even more badass scum play later if I am wrong (and I am wrong often...) HolyFlare- kinda early. I'm null, in fact, I'm null on everyone but ivlosk! and myself. It's pretty early guys. "Speak up!" -Seige Tank Driver (selected, Starcraft 2) Fellows, pleeeze!! Okay, sounds good. Biggest scum reads so far, Xzavier and reps. Lol at reps if he becomes a day 1 lynch again. Why am I suspicious? Well, they are lurking, and as I previously mentioned, lurking will not be tolerated. Pretty much neutral on everyone. Although, I am leaning slightly town on JAT. Careful of posting pseudo lurker lists... Look. That is the easies thing for scum to do to try and look town, 1, and 2, if we have vigs, they can shoot into lurkers and we lynch other lurkers till there are none. So it is established that you can't lurk and get by this game. Stating their scumminess other than to explain a vote on them is now irrelevant, lets stick to discussion about actives. Then, before the deadline (close as you can get) vote for a lurker or someone you find scummy- who may have more of a chance turning out to be scum than someone who wanted blue or irl'ed or whatever causes people to do this stuff. By the way, we don't have vigs. Read the game setup. Your point is valid though, discussing lurkers (especially this early) is pretty pointless. Oh yeah, this isn't persona 4- herple diddly skerple xD Well then yeah like u said its what, half of one real day in. Give them some moar time. ... Yeah. But also, iVLosk not trying to stifle talk, trying to improve talk. Read deus filter anyone? Deus please elaborate, lurking > lying for scummy? Why should town bother with lies? And finally, I like Holy for town, only slightly, because he was the first one to get some solid discussion going, other than the policy chat. That leaves 5 other people. Of which my favorite targets for scum and lynching day 1 are xzavier, reps, and squibbs. These lurkers on hindering discussion, they are not putting forth new ideas, and they are not scum hunting. I will continue my firm stance on this, lurking is scummy. Reps why did you poke in today but not really contribute? Xzavier why are you not posting? . YOU WANNA KNOW SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S FUCKING HILARIOUS? WITHIN 2 MORE POSTS THIS HAPPENS + Show Spoiler +On August 18 2013 02:48 DeusXmachina wrote:
[b]##Vote: iVLosK! Then the xzavier shit follows and you know the rest of that....
I just want to quickly mention that there isn't much original thought in this post. I mean iVLosk is wrong (this is no connection case although it makes iVlosk look bad in the long run) but almost all your points are already stated in my first case on Deus.
I know you made a second post about this so I won't draw conclusions before I read the whole thing but this stuck out to me.
|
United Kingdom30774 Posts
On August 21 2013 00:07 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 21:37 Holyflare wrote:DeusXmachinaLet's talk deus for a bit, barring the connections between people, I want to get to the nitty gritty bits. I want to point out his overall motives so far, his contributions and his inconsistences. You all basically know the story about him saying not to lynch all liars, but lurkers etc etc, it's the first thing in his filter so I will ignore it for now because I honestly do not think it is relevant at all. However, this is where we begin the journey into deus' mind. See this for example: + Show Spoiler +On August 16 2013 05:14 DeusXmachina wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 04:58 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:54 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 04:51 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:46 DeusXmachina wrote:
Liars? Highly unlikely that you would every catch scum lying. Lynch lurkers over liars. But is there any reason for town to lie? So in the unlikely situation that you DO catch someone lying, you'd still rather lynch a lurker? If town is lying why would we want to lynch them? Like I said, you probably won't catch scum lying. Lying won't really tell you much. Lurkers > Liars. Obviously lynching confirmed town because of a lie would be silly, but what about someone most have a weak scum read (or even null) on who's caught lying? Still prefer a lurker lynch over him? While we're on the topic of lurking, do you think there's any real difference between lurking and posting but being useless? Would you (policy) lynch someone who posts but doesn't have any real content? If you have a weak scum read on someone and they lie, well that might be evidence against them. I would try to understand the intentions behind the lie. Not crazy about the lynch liars policy. I don't know how to define lurking, but people who are being useless are equally as bad as lurkers. In fact, in some situations, I think spammers can be more detrimental to town than lurkers. I equate non-contribution to scum. I am glad you brought this up. I was thinking about this a lot in my last game. Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 05:04 iVLosK! wrote:
Yeah lynch all liars and no lurking! And anything else that sounds pro-town! C'mon guys. No fucking duh. I have a policy of lynching people who say stupid, obvious shit. What do you think of them apples, flare, deus, and LM? Well this is a newb game. Hopefully players can read some of the initial policy and learn what not to do. Lynching people who say stupid stuff got me into a lot of shit my last game. That being said, I am all for aggressive play and doing whatever it takes to weed out scum. . It has some policy crap still in it yes, but I'd like to draw your attention to where it says that he will lynch people that are detrimental to town, non-contributers, spammers and mentions how he likes aggressive play. Now this is around the time where I started to focus on IvLosK!, he hadn't given any contribution, was saying useless shit and wasn't helping us at all. I made my case against iV and then deus response was + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 09:38 DeusXmachina wrote:I am growing suspicious of iV. The way he handled holy's pressure seems scummy. He seemed more interested in discrediting Holy than actually contributing. + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 09:09 iVLosK! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 08:51 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 08:49 iVLosK! wrote:On August 17 2013 08:42 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 08:04 iVLosK! wrote:On August 17 2013 08:00 justanothertownie wrote:
Hm? I meant the posts he listed.
Relying on modkills for lurkers is really scummy btw. Good thing you say you would vote them if they keep lurking Holyflare. D' Oh. On August 17 2013 07:51 Holyflare wrote:
All his posts are pretty much non contributory. I genuinely think reps is afk if he hasn't posted yet, no idea about xzavier but it frustrates me, if they don't talk at all it's a double modkill and therefore we should focus on the people who are talking. I swear to god if another bs lurker happens like last game with a post a day I'm voting them off straight anyway
I think this is the post JAT is referencing above. I noticed it too. I like you drawing attention to this, oh it's scummy to avoid lurkers but then say you want to do the anti lurker thing, seriously? I mean what the hell i don't know if you two are trying to set me up but until the lurkers actually do something talking about them is 100% anti town by way of wasting time. Of course we will lynch lurkers if nobody is under any real suspicion do not be stupid. I'm not sure I ever said it was scummy to avoid lurkers. So you've lost me. JAT is saying it's scummy and you said "i noticed it too"? "I noticed it" =/= "this is scummy". It's sorta more like what you're doing. Putting together a case on me without actually voting me. Read D1 of my first game on this site. I don't like that shit and happily lynch people who do it. This is a good example. Attacks holy and contributes nothing to town. which is fair enough, it made sense at the time. This is when shit gets confusing, with all the pressure on IvLosK! what would a scum do, try and deflect on another person right? His SECOND post after talking about IvLosK! then draws random light suspicion on squibbles + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 13:36 DeusXmachina wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 01:16 Squibbles wrote:
I can see where the suspicion might lie and the implications of me being a lurker. I run PST and do work so my main times where I will be extremely active will be after 4:30, although I am reading up on all the posts throughout the day. If there are any questions of me feel free to ask, I am rather new so I getting use to all the terminology and what not. So far judging by the posts I am leaning town on deus but I cannot be certain and null for everyone else. It's too early for me to make an educated guess when the majority of people have yet to really reveal intentions. I'm thinking the larger players have been talked about a bit more, meaning they will always be under scrutiny, but that only helps them if they are scum. Only making that of note, not implying anything. I went back and read Squibb's posts and one line stuck out to me. This seems overly defensive. Slam passively called him a lurker but did not pursue it. There was not any real suspicion on Squibbs, yet he felt it necessary to defend himself. Squibb's could you elaborate on why you felt it was necessary to preemptively defend yourself, please. but that isn't the most shocking part, WITHIN 3 POSTS HE GOES AHEAD AND CHANGES HIS FUCKING MIND ON IVLOSK!???????? + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 13:55 DeusXmachina wrote:Last thing before I go to bed. I thought I would post my thoughts on day 1 so far. I peg iV for town because he seems aggressive, and antagonistic at times, and to me these are definitely town traits. In addition, I believe Slam is town because he is trying to promote dialog and cut down on spam. For example, + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 08:08 Alakaslam wrote:Ok at the computer is fun Look the thread is only actually a few pages long- the game doesn't actually start until page 10. But here is what I notice, and think: iVLoski may be messing around some- I messed around a lot as town as well, so that's not enough for me but yes, I am aware he could be dangerous scum. I'm Watchin' him and Y'all should too. But I think your suspicion of him has brought out something interesting Holyflare; justanothertownie. look at this Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 07:02 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 06:51 justanothertownie wrote:
I'm around. JAT what is your opinion so far on ivlosk and also I'd like to hear your thoughts on lonemeow Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 07:24 justanothertownie wrote:
Why do you ask me about those 2 specifically?
Ivlosk: I said earlier I liked his first posts. There isn't anything else to say for me right now. No idea about his alignment.
LoneMeow: Sounds reasonable to me. He brought up the policy thing but someone has to start discussion somehow. K look at this- What are your reads JAT?!? Holyflare has asked you for your reads, this isn't the clearest thing in the world and seems pretty reserved. I mean, I understand, I can be reserved, but make a stand- if you are wrong, or someone points out it doesn't make sense, admit it and move on- But don't sheep! Make a position and defense it. (<3 WhiteRa) Speaking of which, Yes Holyflare- I will work on my read on Deus in a minute. On August 16 2013 14:17 Alakaslam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 14:08 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 14:02 Alakaslam wrote:On August 16 2013 13:05 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 12:56 Alakaslam wrote:On August 16 2013 05:14 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 04:58 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:54 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 04:51 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:46 DeusXmachina wrote:
Liars? Highly unlikely that you would every catch scum lying. Lynch lurkers over liars. But is there any reason for town to lie? So in the unlikely situation that you DO catch someone lying, you'd still rather lynch a lurker? If town is lying why would we want to lynch them? Like I said, you probably won't catch scum lying. Lying won't really tell you much. Lurkers > Liars. Obviously lynching confirmed town because of a lie would be silly, but what about someone most have a weak scum read (or even null) on who's caught lying? Still prefer a lurker lynch over him? While we're on the topic of lurking, do you think there's any real difference between lurking and posting but being useless? Would you (policy) lynch someone who posts but doesn't have any real content? If you have a weak scum read on someone and they lie, well that might be evidence against them. I would try to understand the intentions behind the lie. Not crazy about the lynch liars policy. I don't know how to define lurking, but people who are being useless are equally as bad as lurkers. In fact, in some situations, I think spammers can be more detrimental to town than lurkers. I equate non-contribution to scum. I am glad you brought this up. I was thinking about this a lot in my last game. On August 16 2013 05:04 iVLosK! wrote:
Yeah lynch all liars and no lurking! And anything else that sounds pro-town! C'mon guys. No fucking duh. I have a policy of lynching people who say stupid, obvious shit. What do you think of them apples, flare, deus, and LM? Well this is a newb game. Hopefully players can read some of the initial policy and learn what not to do. Lynching people who say stupid stuff got me into a lot of shit my last game. That being said, I am all for aggressive play and doing whatever it takes to weed out scum. Actually it was lynching the spammer- many of the things I said were trying to express my opinions, spamming was me trying to dick around. I promise not to do that anymore except maybe in spoilers if I can't help it. Therefore I am really glad you laid this out. There may be people like me who just get the juices flowing and go nuts, they will disregard you until they are the scummy one tunneling the wrong guy at Lylo- then they will have to fight not to become stimaddict 2.0, (sorry bout that but u know its true ing one) so like I say- rock and a hard place with "don't spam don't lurk" for me- so gimme a little grace and I will try to help out. For now, I have this: Ivlosk! - town, he is bamcis for lookin so, especially so early, therefore keep an eye out for even more badass scum play later if I am wrong (and I am wrong often...) HolyFlare- kinda early. I'm null, in fact, I'm null on everyone but ivlosk! and myself. It's pretty early guys. "Speak up!" -Seige Tank Driver (selected, Starcraft 2) Fellows, pleeeze!! Okay, sounds good. Biggest scum reads so far, Xzavier and reps. Lol at reps if he becomes a day 1 lynch again. Why am I suspicious? Well, they are lurking, and as I previously mentioned, lurking will not be tolerated. Pretty much neutral on everyone. Although, I am leaning slightly town on JAT. Careful of posting pseudo lurker lists... Look. That is the easies thing for scum to do to try and look town, 1, and 2, if we have vigs, they can shoot into lurkers and we lynch other lurkers till there are none. So it is established that you can't lurk and get by this game. Stating their scumminess other than to explain a vote on them is now irrelevant, lets stick to discussion about actives. Then, before the deadline (close as you can get) vote for a lurker or someone you find scummy- who may have more of a chance turning out to be scum than someone who wanted blue or irl'ed or whatever causes people to do this stuff. By the way, we don't have vigs. Read the game setup. Your point is valid though, discussing lurkers (especially this early) is pretty pointless. Oh yeah, this isn't persona 4- herple diddly skerple xD Well then yeah like u said its what, half of one real day in. Give them some moar time. ... Yeah. But also, iVLosk not trying to stifle talk, trying to improve talk. Read deus filter anyone? Deus please elaborate, lurking > lying for scummy? Why should town bother with lies? On August 16 2013 14:17 Alakaslam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 14:08 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 14:02 Alakaslam wrote:On August 16 2013 13:05 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 12:56 Alakaslam wrote:On August 16 2013 05:14 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 04:58 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:54 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 04:51 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:46 DeusXmachina wrote:
Liars? Highly unlikely that you would every catch scum lying. Lynch lurkers over liars. But is there any reason for town to lie? So in the unlikely situation that you DO catch someone lying, you'd still rather lynch a lurker? If town is lying why would we want to lynch them? Like I said, you probably won't catch scum lying. Lying won't really tell you much. Lurkers > Liars. Obviously lynching confirmed town because of a lie would be silly, but what about someone most have a weak scum read (or even null) on who's caught lying? Still prefer a lurker lynch over him? While we're on the topic of lurking, do you think there's any real difference between lurking and posting but being useless? Would you (policy) lynch someone who posts but doesn't have any real content? If you have a weak scum read on someone and they lie, well that might be evidence against them. I would try to understand the intentions behind the lie. Not crazy about the lynch liars policy. I don't know how to define lurking, but people who are being useless are equally as bad as lurkers. In fact, in some situations, I think spammers can be more detrimental to town than lurkers. I equate non-contribution to scum. I am glad you brought this up. I was thinking about this a lot in my last game. On August 16 2013 05:04 iVLosK! wrote:
Yeah lynch all liars and no lurking! And anything else that sounds pro-town! C'mon guys. No fucking duh. I have a policy of lynching people who say stupid, obvious shit. What do you think of them apples, flare, deus, and LM? Well this is a newb game. Hopefully players can read some of the initial policy and learn what not to do. Lynching people who say stupid stuff got me into a lot of shit my last game. That being said, I am all for aggressive play and doing whatever it takes to weed out scum. Actually it was lynching the spammer- many of the things I said were trying to express my opinions, spamming was me trying to dick around. I promise not to do that anymore except maybe in spoilers if I can't help it. Therefore I am really glad you laid this out. There may be people like me who just get the juices flowing and go nuts, they will disregard you until they are the scummy one tunneling the wrong guy at Lylo- then they will have to fight not to become stimaddict 2.0, (sorry bout that but u know its true ing one) so like I say- rock and a hard place with "don't spam don't lurk" for me- so gimme a little grace and I will try to help out. For now, I have this: Ivlosk! - town, he is bamcis for lookin so, especially so early, therefore keep an eye out for even more badass scum play later if I am wrong (and I am wrong often...) HolyFlare- kinda early. I'm null, in fact, I'm null on everyone but ivlosk! and myself. It's pretty early guys. "Speak up!" -Seige Tank Driver (selected, Starcraft 2) Fellows, pleeeze!! Okay, sounds good. Biggest scum reads so far, Xzavier and reps. Lol at reps if he becomes a day 1 lynch again. Why am I suspicious? Well, they are lurking, and as I previously mentioned, lurking will not be tolerated. Pretty much neutral on everyone. Although, I am leaning slightly town on JAT. Careful of posting pseudo lurker lists... Look. That is the easies thing for scum to do to try and look town, 1, and 2, if we have vigs, they can shoot into lurkers and we lynch other lurkers till there are none. So it is established that you can't lurk and get by this game. Stating their scumminess other than to explain a vote on them is now irrelevant, lets stick to discussion about actives. Then, before the deadline (close as you can get) vote for a lurker or someone you find scummy- who may have more of a chance turning out to be scum than someone who wanted blue or irl'ed or whatever causes people to do this stuff. By the way, we don't have vigs. Read the game setup. Your point is valid though, discussing lurkers (especially this early) is pretty pointless. Oh yeah, this isn't persona 4- herple diddly skerple xD Well then yeah like u said its what, half of one real day in. Give them some moar time. ... Yeah. But also, iVLosk not trying to stifle talk, trying to improve talk. Read deus filter anyone? Deus please elaborate, lurking > lying for scummy? Why should town bother with lies? And finally, I like Holy for town, only slightly, because he was the first one to get some solid discussion going, other than the policy chat. That leaves 5 other people. Of which my favorite targets for scum and lynching day 1 are xzavier, reps, and squibbs. These lurkers on hindering discussion, they are not putting forth new ideas, and they are not scum hunting. I will continue my firm stance on this, lurking is scummy. Reps why did you poke in today but not really contribute? Xzavier why are you not posting? . YOU WANNA KNOW SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S FUCKING HILARIOUS? WITHIN 2 MORE POSTS THIS HAPPENS + Show Spoiler +On August 18 2013 02:48 DeusXmachina wrote:
[b]##Vote: iVLosK! Then the xzavier shit follows and you know the rest of that.... I just want to quickly mention that there isn't much original thought in this post. I mean iVLosk is wrong (this is no connection case although it makes iVlosk look bad in the long run) but almost all your points are already stated in my first case on Deus. I know you made a second post about this so I won't draw conclusions before I read the whole thing but this stuck out to me.
Like I told you before, this was all in my original big post, didn't want to post it earlier because I wanted to see other peoples reactions to the first bit. I added bits that were up to date only today. I've already written about ivlosk too
|
I'm gonna say some very mean things if we lose because you idiots lynched Deus.
|
Maybe you should say some things to Deus then? I did not vote him yet because I can't be objective about him and I don't want to mislynch a townie just because he tunnels me for stupid reasons but if he doesn't enter the thread with something better than "JAT is scum, I wont change my vote no matter what and I won't bother to post any other reads" I will have to.
|
Vote Count
DeusXmachina (3): OmniEulogy, Alakaslam, Holyflare, LoneMeow, Alakaslam
Justanothertownie (1): DuesXmachina
LoneMeow (1): iVlosK!
Not Voteing (2): Justanothertownie, alakaslam
DuesXmachina is set to be lynched.
Of there any mistakes let me know.
Voting is mandatory. Deadline is at Tuesday, Aug 20 6:00pm GMT (GMT+00:00) 2 hours from now
|
On August 21 2013 00:30 iVLosK! wrote:
I'm gonna say some very mean things if we lose because you idiots lynched Deus.
This basically summarizes my initial reaction upon waking up this morning. You guys are fools! If you lynch my you lose. So I will defend 1 by 1, for an hour and 9 minutes, because you know what I am fucking town, and I want to win this game.
|
On August 20 2013 21:37 Holyflare wrote:DeusXmachinaLet's talk deus for a bit, barring the connections between people, I want to get to the nitty gritty bits. I want to point out his overall motives so far, his contributions and his inconsistences. You all basically know the story about him saying not to lynch all liars, but lurkers etc etc, it's the first thing in his filter so I will ignore it for now because I honestly do not think it is relevant at all. However, this is where we begin the journey into deus' mind. See this for example: + Show Spoiler +On August 16 2013 05:14 DeusXmachina wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 04:58 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:54 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 04:51 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:46 DeusXmachina wrote:
Liars? Highly unlikely that you would every catch scum lying. Lynch lurkers over liars. But is there any reason for town to lie? So in the unlikely situation that you DO catch someone lying, you'd still rather lynch a lurker? If town is lying why would we want to lynch them? Like I said, you probably won't catch scum lying. Lying won't really tell you much. Lurkers > Liars. Obviously lynching confirmed town because of a lie would be silly, but what about someone most have a weak scum read (or even null) on who's caught lying? Still prefer a lurker lynch over him? While we're on the topic of lurking, do you think there's any real difference between lurking and posting but being useless? Would you (policy) lynch someone who posts but doesn't have any real content? If you have a weak scum read on someone and they lie, well that might be evidence against them. I would try to understand the intentions behind the lie. Not crazy about the lynch liars policy. I don't know how to define lurking, but people who are being useless are equally as bad as lurkers. In fact, in some situations, I think spammers can be more detrimental to town than lurkers. I equate non-contribution to scum. I am glad you brought this up. I was thinking about this a lot in my last game. Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 05:04 iVLosK! wrote:
Yeah lynch all liars and no lurking! And anything else that sounds pro-town! C'mon guys. No fucking duh. I have a policy of lynching people who say stupid, obvious shit. What do you think of them apples, flare, deus, and LM? Well this is a newb game. Hopefully players can read some of the initial policy and learn what not to do. Lynching people who say stupid stuff got me into a lot of shit my last game. That being said, I am all for aggressive play and doing whatever it takes to weed out scum. . It has some policy crap still in it yes, but I'd like to draw your attention to where it says that he will lynch people that are detrimental to town, non-contributers, spammers and mentions how he likes aggressive play. Now this is around the time where I started to focus on IvLosK!, he hadn't given any contribution, was saying useless shit and wasn't helping us at all. I made my case against iV and then deus response was + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 09:38 DeusXmachina wrote:I am growing suspicious of iV. The way he handled holy's pressure seems scummy. He seemed more interested in discrediting Holy than actually contributing. + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 09:09 iVLosK! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 08:51 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 08:49 iVLosK! wrote:On August 17 2013 08:42 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 08:04 iVLosK! wrote:On August 17 2013 08:00 justanothertownie wrote:
Hm? I meant the posts he listed.
Relying on modkills for lurkers is really scummy btw. Good thing you say you would vote them if they keep lurking Holyflare. D' Oh. On August 17 2013 07:51 Holyflare wrote:
All his posts are pretty much non contributory. I genuinely think reps is afk if he hasn't posted yet, no idea about xzavier but it frustrates me, if they don't talk at all it's a double modkill and therefore we should focus on the people who are talking. I swear to god if another bs lurker happens like last game with a post a day I'm voting them off straight anyway
I think this is the post JAT is referencing above. I noticed it too. I like you drawing attention to this, oh it's scummy to avoid lurkers but then say you want to do the anti lurker thing, seriously? I mean what the hell i don't know if you two are trying to set me up but until the lurkers actually do something talking about them is 100% anti town by way of wasting time. Of course we will lynch lurkers if nobody is under any real suspicion do not be stupid. I'm not sure I ever said it was scummy to avoid lurkers. So you've lost me. JAT is saying it's scummy and you said "i noticed it too"? "I noticed it" =/= "this is scummy". It's sorta more like what you're doing. Putting together a case on me without actually voting me. Read D1 of my first game on this site. I don't like that shit and happily lynch people who do it. This is a good example. Attacks holy and contributes nothing to town. which is fair enough, it made sense at the time. This is when shit gets confusing, with all the pressure on IvLosK! what would a scum do, try and deflect on another person right? His SECOND post after talking about IvLosK! then draws random light suspicion on squibbles + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 13:36 DeusXmachina wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 01:16 Squibbles wrote:
I can see where the suspicion might lie and the implications of me being a lurker. I run PST and do work so my main times where I will be extremely active will be after 4:30, although I am reading up on all the posts throughout the day. If there are any questions of me feel free to ask, I am rather new so I getting use to all the terminology and what not. So far judging by the posts I am leaning town on deus but I cannot be certain and null for everyone else. It's too early for me to make an educated guess when the majority of people have yet to really reveal intentions. I'm thinking the larger players have been talked about a bit more, meaning they will always be under scrutiny, but that only helps them if they are scum. Only making that of note, not implying anything. I went back and read Squibb's posts and one line stuck out to me. This seems overly defensive. Slam passively called him a lurker but did not pursue it. There was not any real suspicion on Squibbs, yet he felt it necessary to defend himself. Squibb's could you elaborate on why you felt it was necessary to preemptively defend yourself, please. but that isn't the most shocking part, WITHIN 3 POSTS HE GOES AHEAD AND CHANGES HIS FUCKING MIND ON IVLOSK!???????? + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 13:55 DeusXmachina wrote:Last thing before I go to bed. I thought I would post my thoughts on day 1 so far. I peg iV for town because he seems aggressive, and antagonistic at times, and to me these are definitely town traits. In addition, I believe Slam is town because he is trying to promote dialog and cut down on spam. For example, + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 08:08 Alakaslam wrote:Ok at the computer is fun Look the thread is only actually a few pages long- the game doesn't actually start until page 10. But here is what I notice, and think: iVLoski may be messing around some- I messed around a lot as town as well, so that's not enough for me but yes, I am aware he could be dangerous scum. I'm Watchin' him and Y'all should too. But I think your suspicion of him has brought out something interesting Holyflare; justanothertownie. look at this Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 07:02 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 06:51 justanothertownie wrote:
I'm around. JAT what is your opinion so far on ivlosk and also I'd like to hear your thoughts on lonemeow Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 07:24 justanothertownie wrote:
Why do you ask me about those 2 specifically?
Ivlosk: I said earlier I liked his first posts. There isn't anything else to say for me right now. No idea about his alignment.
LoneMeow: Sounds reasonable to me. He brought up the policy thing but someone has to start discussion somehow. K look at this- What are your reads JAT?!? Holyflare has asked you for your reads, this isn't the clearest thing in the world and seems pretty reserved. I mean, I understand, I can be reserved, but make a stand- if you are wrong, or someone points out it doesn't make sense, admit it and move on- But don't sheep! Make a position and defense it. (<3 WhiteRa) Speaking of which, Yes Holyflare- I will work on my read on Deus in a minute. On August 16 2013 14:17 Alakaslam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 14:08 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 14:02 Alakaslam wrote:On August 16 2013 13:05 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 12:56 Alakaslam wrote:On August 16 2013 05:14 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 04:58 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:54 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 04:51 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:46 DeusXmachina wrote:
Liars? Highly unlikely that you would every catch scum lying. Lynch lurkers over liars. But is there any reason for town to lie? So in the unlikely situation that you DO catch someone lying, you'd still rather lynch a lurker? If town is lying why would we want to lynch them? Like I said, you probably won't catch scum lying. Lying won't really tell you much. Lurkers > Liars. Obviously lynching confirmed town because of a lie would be silly, but what about someone most have a weak scum read (or even null) on who's caught lying? Still prefer a lurker lynch over him? While we're on the topic of lurking, do you think there's any real difference between lurking and posting but being useless? Would you (policy) lynch someone who posts but doesn't have any real content? If you have a weak scum read on someone and they lie, well that might be evidence against them. I would try to understand the intentions behind the lie. Not crazy about the lynch liars policy. I don't know how to define lurking, but people who are being useless are equally as bad as lurkers. In fact, in some situations, I think spammers can be more detrimental to town than lurkers. I equate non-contribution to scum. I am glad you brought this up. I was thinking about this a lot in my last game. On August 16 2013 05:04 iVLosK! wrote:
Yeah lynch all liars and no lurking! And anything else that sounds pro-town! C'mon guys. No fucking duh. I have a policy of lynching people who say stupid, obvious shit. What do you think of them apples, flare, deus, and LM? Well this is a newb game. Hopefully players can read some of the initial policy and learn what not to do. Lynching people who say stupid stuff got me into a lot of shit my last game. That being said, I am all for aggressive play and doing whatever it takes to weed out scum. Actually it was lynching the spammer- many of the things I said were trying to express my opinions, spamming was me trying to dick around. I promise not to do that anymore except maybe in spoilers if I can't help it. Therefore I am really glad you laid this out. There may be people like me who just get the juices flowing and go nuts, they will disregard you until they are the scummy one tunneling the wrong guy at Lylo- then they will have to fight not to become stimaddict 2.0, (sorry bout that but u know its true ing one) so like I say- rock and a hard place with "don't spam don't lurk" for me- so gimme a little grace and I will try to help out. For now, I have this: Ivlosk! - town, he is bamcis for lookin so, especially so early, therefore keep an eye out for even more badass scum play later if I am wrong (and I am wrong often...) HolyFlare- kinda early. I'm null, in fact, I'm null on everyone but ivlosk! and myself. It's pretty early guys. "Speak up!" -Seige Tank Driver (selected, Starcraft 2) Fellows, pleeeze!! Okay, sounds good. Biggest scum reads so far, Xzavier and reps. Lol at reps if he becomes a day 1 lynch again. Why am I suspicious? Well, they are lurking, and as I previously mentioned, lurking will not be tolerated. Pretty much neutral on everyone. Although, I am leaning slightly town on JAT. Careful of posting pseudo lurker lists... Look. That is the easies thing for scum to do to try and look town, 1, and 2, if we have vigs, they can shoot into lurkers and we lynch other lurkers till there are none. So it is established that you can't lurk and get by this game. Stating their scumminess other than to explain a vote on them is now irrelevant, lets stick to discussion about actives. Then, before the deadline (close as you can get) vote for a lurker or someone you find scummy- who may have more of a chance turning out to be scum than someone who wanted blue or irl'ed or whatever causes people to do this stuff. By the way, we don't have vigs. Read the game setup. Your point is valid though, discussing lurkers (especially this early) is pretty pointless. Oh yeah, this isn't persona 4- herple diddly skerple xD Well then yeah like u said its what, half of one real day in. Give them some moar time. ... Yeah. But also, iVLosk not trying to stifle talk, trying to improve talk. Read deus filter anyone? Deus please elaborate, lurking > lying for scummy? Why should town bother with lies? On August 16 2013 14:17 Alakaslam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 14:08 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 14:02 Alakaslam wrote:On August 16 2013 13:05 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 12:56 Alakaslam wrote:On August 16 2013 05:14 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 04:58 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:54 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 04:51 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:46 DeusXmachina wrote:
Liars? Highly unlikely that you would every catch scum lying. Lynch lurkers over liars. But is there any reason for town to lie? So in the unlikely situation that you DO catch someone lying, you'd still rather lynch a lurker? If town is lying why would we want to lynch them? Like I said, you probably won't catch scum lying. Lying won't really tell you much. Lurkers > Liars. Obviously lynching confirmed town because of a lie would be silly, but what about someone most have a weak scum read (or even null) on who's caught lying? Still prefer a lurker lynch over him? While we're on the topic of lurking, do you think there's any real difference between lurking and posting but being useless? Would you (policy) lynch someone who posts but doesn't have any real content? If you have a weak scum read on someone and they lie, well that might be evidence against them. I would try to understand the intentions behind the lie. Not crazy about the lynch liars policy. I don't know how to define lurking, but people who are being useless are equally as bad as lurkers. In fact, in some situations, I think spammers can be more detrimental to town than lurkers. I equate non-contribution to scum. I am glad you brought this up. I was thinking about this a lot in my last game. On August 16 2013 05:04 iVLosK! wrote:
Yeah lynch all liars and no lurking! And anything else that sounds pro-town! C'mon guys. No fucking duh. I have a policy of lynching people who say stupid, obvious shit. What do you think of them apples, flare, deus, and LM? Well this is a newb game. Hopefully players can read some of the initial policy and learn what not to do. Lynching people who say stupid stuff got me into a lot of shit my last game. That being said, I am all for aggressive play and doing whatever it takes to weed out scum. Actually it was lynching the spammer- many of the things I said were trying to express my opinions, spamming was me trying to dick around. I promise not to do that anymore except maybe in spoilers if I can't help it. Therefore I am really glad you laid this out. There may be people like me who just get the juices flowing and go nuts, they will disregard you until they are the scummy one tunneling the wrong guy at Lylo- then they will have to fight not to become stimaddict 2.0, (sorry bout that but u know its true ing one) so like I say- rock and a hard place with "don't spam don't lurk" for me- so gimme a little grace and I will try to help out. For now, I have this: Ivlosk! - town, he is bamcis for lookin so, especially so early, therefore keep an eye out for even more badass scum play later if I am wrong (and I am wrong often...) HolyFlare- kinda early. I'm null, in fact, I'm null on everyone but ivlosk! and myself. It's pretty early guys. "Speak up!" -Seige Tank Driver (selected, Starcraft 2) Fellows, pleeeze!! Okay, sounds good. Biggest scum reads so far, Xzavier and reps. Lol at reps if he becomes a day 1 lynch again. Why am I suspicious? Well, they are lurking, and as I previously mentioned, lurking will not be tolerated. Pretty much neutral on everyone. Although, I am leaning slightly town on JAT. Careful of posting pseudo lurker lists... Look. That is the easies thing for scum to do to try and look town, 1, and 2, if we have vigs, they can shoot into lurkers and we lynch other lurkers till there are none. So it is established that you can't lurk and get by this game. Stating their scumminess other than to explain a vote on them is now irrelevant, lets stick to discussion about actives. Then, before the deadline (close as you can get) vote for a lurker or someone you find scummy- who may have more of a chance turning out to be scum than someone who wanted blue or irl'ed or whatever causes people to do this stuff. By the way, we don't have vigs. Read the game setup. Your point is valid though, discussing lurkers (especially this early) is pretty pointless. Oh yeah, this isn't persona 4- herple diddly skerple xD Well then yeah like u said its what, half of one real day in. Give them some moar time. ... Yeah. But also, iVLosk not trying to stifle talk, trying to improve talk. Read deus filter anyone? Deus please elaborate, lurking > lying for scummy? Why should town bother with lies? And finally, I like Holy for town, only slightly, because he was the first one to get some solid discussion going, other than the policy chat. That leaves 5 other people. Of which my favorite targets for scum and lynching day 1 are xzavier, reps, and squibbs. These lurkers on hindering discussion, they are not putting forth new ideas, and they are not scum hunting. I will continue my firm stance on this, lurking is scummy. Reps why did you poke in today but not really contribute? Xzavier why are you not posting? . YOU WANNA KNOW SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S FUCKING HILARIOUS? WITHIN 2 MORE POSTS THIS HAPPENS + Show Spoiler +On August 18 2013 02:48 DeusXmachina wrote:
[b]##Vote: iVLosK! Then the xzavier shit follows and you know the rest of that....
Holy this is garbage. Other people already brought up inconsistencies in my early game play. Like I said my reads were changing. The comment on squibbles was doing a little bit of scum hunting.
|
I'm back for a bit
Help me vlosk, what is up. Can check again in a sec. Digging a hole.
##Unvote
Salome has goo data today, maybe I am the only one using atm
|
Ok, I just reread Deus filter. I urge everyone voting him now to do the same. That's the least you can do.
I am not convinced he is scum. As I reread I got the feeling everything up to his last post about me could be a townie who made a big mistake under pressure at the deadline Day1.
Before he made that big ass bullshit post on me I was about to consider him town again and I now know why again. It's this post that I liked:
On August 20 2013 04:00 DeusXmachina wrote:Just got up. Ill answer the questions directed at me 1 by 1. JAT's is first + Show Spoiler +On August 19 2013 19:46 justanothertownie wrote:
So Deus, you don't like it if I quote you - ok. I don't like to quote such an enormous post anyways.
So here is my answer to you but first:
I thought about the whole thing since yesterday and I will admit that the lynch conclusions alone are not enough to forge a solid read on someone. I got caught up in this because your voting was really stupid even if it wasn't scum motivated. If you read what I said you know that I already mentioned it doesn't make so much sense for scum to voteswitch like that if iVLosk is town. And iVlosk is right that this is kind of an association case and that they are bad.
Still I don't really like how you responded to my case on you and I will tell you why.
Yeah, I quoted a shitton if you want so say it like that but I always explained what's scummy about it if it doesn't speak for itself like your voting pattern. You don't even adress one point of my case directly instead you are saying I am scum for pushing you? Wow, now I am impressed. Thats's the scummy way to "defend" against a case.
You are absolutely right - a townie should change his reads if there is new information but did you really do that? What happened between your vote on iVlosk and your vote on Xzavier that changed your mind and if there is nothing why did you vote for iVLosk in the first place? If you can explain your thought process through yesterday to me instead of just claiming there is no way scum would do that I would consider changing my read on you. Also please explain to me why you didn't know it was plurality lynch when it was mentioned several times before the lynch (did you read the thread at all?).
So far I see your case on me is that I am agreeing with people on things + OMGUS. Yeah, great case.
Other than that:
I am suspicious of Omni myself. He is obviously right about me but if I understand him correctly he obsed before he replaced so it is easy to know who looks townie to people and who doesn't and scum likes to give townreads. It is easy for them to give strong reads because they know who is town and who isn't.
But what really gets me thinking about him is his reasoning. He doesn't even really consider iVLosk to be scum and still insists on you or slam being scum and I don't follow that.
There still is only one alive player who I really have a considerable townread on and it's not him.
I would really like you to keep being active Day2 and to keep posting reads. If this means you have to push me - do it.
The same goes for iVLosk who didn't contribute anything for a long time now. I don't want to call him scum for not defending himself before the lynch anymore because it was very shortly before the deadline that he got voted but still several people were suspicious of him and there was always the possibility of him getting lynched earlier. I don't know what to think of him.
It really sucks that slam is afk for half of the dayphase btw. On August 19 2013 07:35 justanothertownie wrote:Ok, I read Deus filter again and I really don't like it. He looked very motivated pre game and you describe him as an agressive, active townie in the last newbie game. I don't see that at all in this game. He started with some policy posts without saying anything. That's ok in itself but after that his activity really dropped down. He wasn't agressive instead he asked generic questions like this: Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 05:23 DeusXmachina wrote:
Analyzing peoples previous games to determine their role this game, good or bad in newbie? Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 06:36 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 06:32 justanothertownie wrote:On August 16 2013 05:26 iVLosK! wrote:
Using meta on noobies is usually useless, in my experience. So, how much experience do you have? I guess you played 1 game on TL... other sites? Why do you ask? After I mentioned that policy talk doesn't add that much he quickly backed off. Feels really defensive (although this post isn't that bad apart from that). Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 03:06 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 17 2013 01:30 justanothertownie wrote:On August 16 2013 20:37 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 20:30 justanothertownie wrote:
Because it was mentioned someone did it in one of the last newbie games and because there were 2 townies who fakeclaimed cop in the first game I played. Ok, I see. What do you think of this game so far, any reads? Not really. I didn't like some posts from Deus and the first one of Squibbles that much but this won't tell me anything. I'm just not a fan of this rather pointless policy discussions. People can talk alot about these things without adding any useful content. I won't read to much into early contentless posts though. Bad experience last game. Yeah scum could talk policy all day. Lets put all this lying, lurking, and what-have-you talk aside for now. I am going to vote reps or xzavier if they don't start posting. I want to push for a lynch day 1, and as of right now they are the best candidates. If reps/xzavier are tied for first then a close second would be, well.... everyone else. Although, I can't help be suspicious of holy. Last game he was pretty try-hard and this game he seems pretty detached. I won't press it for now though because he said he was busy. Anyway, I think our goal should be pressuring xzavier and reps to get them to participate. Lurkers won't be tolerated! His scumhunting pretty much only revolved around lynching lurkers. Easy thing to do as scum. Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 09:07 DeusXmachina wrote:
Lets entertain a scenario. Reps or Xzavier are completely aware that the game has started and are intentionally not posting. They don't feel any real pressure so they aim to do several things:
A) Contribute nothing to increase the chances of a no-lynch day 1
B) Contribute nothing to avoid mistakes or posts that could get them unwanted attention.
or the less likely
C) Play a lurker roll so their scum buddy can bus them.
How easy would it be to drop in and say, "oh sorry guys I couldn't post because.... blah.. blah.. blah...". Some of you are already assuming that they are just afk.
Why are we tolerating lurkers?
What seems weird to me is his stance on iVLosk. First he defends him. Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 07:45 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 17 2013 07:40 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 07:37 justanothertownie wrote:
I did filter dive although that's a weird term for less than a page of posts. Of course I don't care about his rap stuff. I liked his post concerning the policies and the one about metareads in newbies. There wasn't that much else at the time I made that statement. Do you not think what I wrote about him has any merit? Specifically the point about telling us not to write crap but then doing it himself? A few posts have happened since your last assumption. I don't think his hypocrisy is a reason to be suspicious. He probably just wanted to come in with flare, hence his aggressive first post (not counting rap). Holy would you rather focus on iV or reps/xzavier? Pressuring xzavier or reps might get them to start talking. Then he is suspicious of him: Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 09:38 DeusXmachina wrote:I am growing suspicious of iV. The way he handled holy's pressure seems scummy. He seemed more interested in discrediting Holy than actually contributing. + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 09:09 iVLosK! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 08:51 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 08:49 iVLosK! wrote:On August 17 2013 08:42 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 08:04 iVLosK! wrote:On August 17 2013 08:00 justanothertownie wrote:
Hm? I meant the posts he listed.
Relying on modkills for lurkers is really scummy btw. Good thing you say you would vote them if they keep lurking Holyflare. D' Oh. On August 17 2013 07:51 Holyflare wrote:
All his posts are pretty much non contributory. I genuinely think reps is afk if he hasn't posted yet, no idea about xzavier but it frustrates me, if they don't talk at all it's a double modkill and therefore we should focus on the people who are talking. I swear to god if another bs lurker happens like last game with a post a day I'm voting them off straight anyway
I think this is the post JAT is referencing above. I noticed it too. I like you drawing attention to this, oh it's scummy to avoid lurkers but then say you want to do the anti lurker thing, seriously? I mean what the hell i don't know if you two are trying to set me up but until the lurkers actually do something talking about them is 100% anti town by way of wasting time. Of course we will lynch lurkers if nobody is under any real suspicion do not be stupid. I'm not sure I ever said it was scummy to avoid lurkers. So you've lost me. JAT is saying it's scummy and you said "i noticed it too"? "I noticed it" =/= "this is scummy". It's sorta more like what you're doing. Putting together a case on me without actually voting me. Read D1 of my first game on this site. I don't like that shit and happily lynch people who do it. This is a good example. Attacks holy and contributes nothing to town. Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 10:01 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 17 2013 09:54 iVLosK! wrote:On August 17 2013 09:53 reps)squishy wrote:
I am sorry I don't see where I "fucked up".
Please point it out. On August 17 2013 09:49 reps)squishy wrote:I read all pages so far. I am suspicious of iV. He believes in lynch all liers and also stated town has plenty of reasons to lie. Is it me or does that seem a little scummy. Proof. 1. On August 16 2013 05:04 iVLosK! wrote:
Yeah lynch all liars and no lurking! And anything else that sounds pro-town! C'mon guys. No fucking duh. I have a policy of lynching people who say stupid, obvious shit. What do you think of them apples, flare, deus, and LM? 2. There are plenty of reasons to lie as town. Part of this game is misleading scum about what your own abilities and intentions are. I've bolded the obvious sarcasm for those unable or unwilling to keep up. Seems more egotistical than sarcastic. Shortly after that Losk is town suddenly: Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 13:55 DeusXmachina wrote:
Last thing before I go to bed.
I thought I would post my thoughts on day 1 so far.
I peg iV for town because he seems aggressive, and antagonistic at times, and to me these are definitely town traits.
But why don't vote for our townread, right? Then there is this: Followed by: Finally he claims not to have known this is plurality lynch which has been stated several times in the thread. He either doesn't read the thread or this is a bad excuse for his weird voting. Show nested quote +On August 18 2013 08:08 DeusXmachina wrote:
On August 18 2013 08:07 Holyflare wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2013 08:02 OmniEulogy wrote:On August 18 2013 07:49 Holyflare wrote:On August 18 2013 07:39 OmniEulogy wrote:On August 18 2013 07:02 Koshi wrote:On August 18 2013 07:02 OmniEulogy wrote:
what's up guys. I'm almost completely caught up Yeah it took me 5 minutes as well. Hahahaha yeah, unfortunately what I'm really going over right now is the massive clusterfuck at the end of D1. I agree with you completely when you say that nobody should vote for a guy with literally 0 posts. Town should NEVER lynch the "easiest" target which it seems like they did... that's complete scum mentality. Town lynch the scummiest players not the easiest ones -.- ... I'm also really upset that three people didn't even vote which makes it even harder to sort it out. so far I think I'm pretty happy with my reads right now though I think Slam really sticks out to me as scummy for jumping around on his votes so much, even to the point of voting for Xzavier on two seperate occasions, however he has been one of the most consistant contributors in the game albeit very spammy. I'm getting a newbie town feeling from him and with the amount he's posting if he is scum it wont take long for him to slip. For that reason I'm ok with him currently. I've never played with Deus but people say he's an aggressive townie. I'm not seeing any of that from this game. He's been asking really bad fluff questions which would be easy for scum to imitate to pretend to be contributing, his vote on Xzavier and his reason behind it were terrible or rather his lack of a reason. Then after the lynch on Xzavier he goes after Holy for something he was fine before and even said he thought Holy was town for. I'd say out of all the players he's my top scum read right now. And then Holy votes for Xzavier as a "place holder" never to take his vote off him. Very scummy behavior considering he goes for the easy lynch, and a way to avoid needing to actually come up with a reason to vote for somebody. As far as town reads go I had a newbie town read on Reps and so in turn I believe Koshi is town. JAT is my strongest town read in the game at the moment slight town read on iVLosK! and the rest are all neutral as I still have to go through the filters again. I'd really like to know why Slam jumped his vote around so much asap and why the hell all three of you (Holy, Deus, Slam) thought it was a good idea to lynch Xzavier. I like how you ignore everything I've said the entirety of the game just to focus on the person I put my vote on. It was my girlfriends birthday today (went out yesterday for it/party today) so I left my vote on the safest person so far. If he posted once and voted he'd be still in the game and I would NOT be alright with that, I would 100% not be alright with wasting 2 days just so we could fucking waste another day talking about him and wasting the day on him. That's a pretty massive issue.... the objective isn't to find the safest person to vote for and then do it as town..... Your reason of not wanting to get rid of somebody who might contribute doesn't work in this case. Xzavier had literally not made a single post, was very likely to be modkilled and you had stronger feelings against another player but you kept your vote on him because it was safer? Am I reading that right? Safer for what? Town on D1 doesn't need to worry about what the safe vote is. if you wanted to be safe why didn't you just ##Vote:No-Lynch instead of putting it on somebody who wouldn't defend himself. I'm fairly certain I just got that last part wrong, would a mod be kind enough to tell me/us what the correct format is to vote for a no-lynch? Thanks! I am confused why Xzavier WAS voted off though when the 2 votes were placed after the deadline........
We didn't even have enough votes against him. It wasn't a vote off. He was modkilled. They just said he got lynched in the end of day post. I really would like to hear his reasoning for all of this. Also he should be way more active Day2 if he is town because right now I am really worried about him. For starters, scum reads based on the xzavier lynch are extremelly unreliable, and I will try to explain that by detailing my thought process. Ill say this again, the xzavier lynch is a MASSIVE opportunity for scum to capitalize on. It's a gateway to mislynching a townie. There was some talk about my inconsistency. I wouldn't call the moments before the Xzavier lynch inconsistent. At least in my case, the better word is impulsive. So my thought process: The most impulsive thing I did that day was vote iV. Shortly after, I posted what I was thinking. + Show Spoiler +On August 18 2013 02:56 DeusXmachina wrote:
Sorry guys. I couldn't be around this morning. Read the thread. Although I don't completely agree with Holy stance against iV, everyone else seems convinced. Not sold on squibbs. I would rather vote Xzavier but that is clearly not going to happen. Fuck I might change my vote. iV seems to aggressive/antagonistic to be scum.
I got in right before the lynch. I pan through the posts. Wow people seemed convinced iV is the best lynch candidate. Vote iV. Wait a second, I don't really agree with that. He is way to antagonistic, and aggressive to be scum. I don't think this is right. Well how many votes against him, we need 5 right? (Yes I genuinly thought it was a majority lynch. No I didn't catch where it said plurality. Yes when slam responded right after saying plurality I discarded it because I thought wtf does that mean). Nope this isn't right he is not scum. Unvote, vote Xzavier. Why vote Xzavier? Yes I actually thought it was a majority (Guys do you really think scum would say something so stupid?). I thought, you know what, I am sticking to my guns this game. I don't want to tolerate lurking. Why such a strong stance against lurking? Well I had a major lurker in my last game who turned out to be scum. Another lurker, although not as bad, who turned out to be scum. Okay, so in retrospect Xzavier was beyond a lurker. He was a no poster. But I thought to myself, I don't think Squibbs is scum just yet, I don't think reps is scum just yet. So he is the only one I can vote for. I kick myself for not voting no-lynch. But don't you see! That inconsistency, that impulsiveness is not scummy. Who is more likely to be impulsive? A scum who is constantly thinking about the ramifications of his actions, or a townie who is interested in scum hunting, not constantly making sure he does not look suspicious. Look how much shit that Xzavier lynch got slam and I? That would be, like I said earlier, a massive misstep by scum. That's why talk of scum reads based on the Xzavier lynch are so silly. That's why I think Omni is trying to capitalize on the lynch. Ill respond to JAT's case point by point. The first little bit is based on my meta. I think that is a weak argument. He is talking about how I am not being as aggressive. Well different game different situation. Second point. Back off the policy talk was not defensive at all. I was heading your advice/agreeing with you. My scum hunting was based off of only lurkers? I didn't have anything else to scum hunt at the time. I didn't want to talk about inconsistencies in IV's play and over-analyze his first post, so I didn't chime in with Holy. After that is the best example of my inconsistency. My read on iV was changing, that's all that needs to be said. The rest I explained above. Overall it's still a weak case. My case on you was not just based on you agreeing with things.
It doesn't sound like an impossible scenario to me.
The only thing that really frustrates me about him is his tunneling against me. I already stated why his case is bullshit and I won't do this again here.
I don't understand why he attacks me and not Omni (I know he leans scum on him but he pushes me instead). I would absolutely attack Omni right now if I was him. He even stated several times that Omni is the one who is pushing an agenda with the Day1 lynch but instead he fucking votes me for laughable reasons.
I don't get it. But I also don't see why scum Deus would do this - it's just bad/stupid play. Also it weirds me out how everyone apart from iVLosk voted him without a problem. Either they are a very obvious scumteam (I won't call it impossible) or something doesn't add up here.
Any thoughts? I will see if I can find a better target for my vote for now.
|
On August 20 2013 23:54 Alakaslam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 23:07 Holyflare wrote:
Who is to say that you could be town and he knew it so wanted to get on your side? There are a myriad of possibilities and I did not draw any conclusions from it other than his inconsistencies, I am pointing out the shit posts for other people to read. Whether you take from it that you are also scum is up to you, I do not give a shit. ... Chezinu. Sees me say iVLosk repeatedly Lynch Wait dangerous looks bad Buddy up Buddy up to the one who knows the bamcis one, one more townie who won't lynch Deus defense thyself to move my vote is what is say but I'm headed to work. Therefore, deus, if you are town convince the rest unless I somehow get enough data reception to check up near deadline. ##Vote: DeusXmachina
K deus, vlosk,
Do you see where I'm coming from? Find a fallacy and then tell me who is better lynch and why. You'll probably say lonemeow, but WHY. Even if just restating the case putting it here on last page will help me as I am working and in case Salome data isn't this good forever.
|
Oh, you are here Deus. Please try to give some more reads this time if you have the time while defending yourself.
|
On August 21 2013 01:57 justanothertownie wrote:Ok, I just reread Deus filter. I urge everyone voting him now to do the same. That's the least you can do. I am not convinced he is scum. As I reread I got the feeling everything up to his last post about me could be a townie who made a big mistake under pressure at the deadline Day1. Before he made that big ass bullshit post on me I was about to consider him town again and I now know why again. It's this post that I liked: Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 04:00 DeusXmachina wrote:Just got up. Ill answer the questions directed at me 1 by 1. JAT's is first + Show Spoiler +On August 19 2013 19:46 justanothertownie wrote:
So Deus, you don't like it if I quote you - ok. I don't like to quote such an enormous post anyways.
So here is my answer to you but first:
I thought about the whole thing since yesterday and I will admit that the lynch conclusions alone are not enough to forge a solid read on someone. I got caught up in this because your voting was really stupid even if it wasn't scum motivated. If you read what I said you know that I already mentioned it doesn't make so much sense for scum to voteswitch like that if iVLosk is town. And iVlosk is right that this is kind of an association case and that they are bad.
Still I don't really like how you responded to my case on you and I will tell you why.
Yeah, I quoted a shitton if you want so say it like that but I always explained what's scummy about it if it doesn't speak for itself like your voting pattern. You don't even adress one point of my case directly instead you are saying I am scum for pushing you? Wow, now I am impressed. Thats's the scummy way to "defend" against a case.
You are absolutely right - a townie should change his reads if there is new information but did you really do that? What happened between your vote on iVlosk and your vote on Xzavier that changed your mind and if there is nothing why did you vote for iVLosk in the first place? If you can explain your thought process through yesterday to me instead of just claiming there is no way scum would do that I would consider changing my read on you. Also please explain to me why you didn't know it was plurality lynch when it was mentioned several times before the lynch (did you read the thread at all?).
So far I see your case on me is that I am agreeing with people on things + OMGUS. Yeah, great case.
Other than that:
I am suspicious of Omni myself. He is obviously right about me but if I understand him correctly he obsed before he replaced so it is easy to know who looks townie to people and who doesn't and scum likes to give townreads. It is easy for them to give strong reads because they know who is town and who isn't.
But what really gets me thinking about him is his reasoning. He doesn't even really consider iVLosk to be scum and still insists on you or slam being scum and I don't follow that.
There still is only one alive player who I really have a considerable townread on and it's not him.
I would really like you to keep being active Day2 and to keep posting reads. If this means you have to push me - do it.
The same goes for iVLosk who didn't contribute anything for a long time now. I don't want to call him scum for not defending himself before the lynch anymore because it was very shortly before the deadline that he got voted but still several people were suspicious of him and there was always the possibility of him getting lynched earlier. I don't know what to think of him.
It really sucks that slam is afk for half of the dayphase btw. On August 19 2013 07:35 justanothertownie wrote:Ok, I read Deus filter again and I really don't like it. He looked very motivated pre game and you describe him as an agressive, active townie in the last newbie game. I don't see that at all in this game. He started with some policy posts without saying anything. That's ok in itself but after that his activity really dropped down. He wasn't agressive instead he asked generic questions like this: Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 05:23 DeusXmachina wrote:
Analyzing peoples previous games to determine their role this game, good or bad in newbie? Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 06:36 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 06:32 justanothertownie wrote:On August 16 2013 05:26 iVLosK! wrote:
Using meta on noobies is usually useless, in my experience. So, how much experience do you have? I guess you played 1 game on TL... other sites? Why do you ask? After I mentioned that policy talk doesn't add that much he quickly backed off. Feels really defensive (although this post isn't that bad apart from that). Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 03:06 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 17 2013 01:30 justanothertownie wrote:On August 16 2013 20:37 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 20:30 justanothertownie wrote:
Because it was mentioned someone did it in one of the last newbie games and because there were 2 townies who fakeclaimed cop in the first game I played. Ok, I see. What do you think of this game so far, any reads? Not really. I didn't like some posts from Deus and the first one of Squibbles that much but this won't tell me anything. I'm just not a fan of this rather pointless policy discussions. People can talk alot about these things without adding any useful content. I won't read to much into early contentless posts though. Bad experience last game. Yeah scum could talk policy all day. Lets put all this lying, lurking, and what-have-you talk aside for now. I am going to vote reps or xzavier if they don't start posting. I want to push for a lynch day 1, and as of right now they are the best candidates. If reps/xzavier are tied for first then a close second would be, well.... everyone else. Although, I can't help be suspicious of holy. Last game he was pretty try-hard and this game he seems pretty detached. I won't press it for now though because he said he was busy. Anyway, I think our goal should be pressuring xzavier and reps to get them to participate. Lurkers won't be tolerated! His scumhunting pretty much only revolved around lynching lurkers. Easy thing to do as scum. Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 09:07 DeusXmachina wrote:
Lets entertain a scenario. Reps or Xzavier are completely aware that the game has started and are intentionally not posting. They don't feel any real pressure so they aim to do several things:
A) Contribute nothing to increase the chances of a no-lynch day 1
B) Contribute nothing to avoid mistakes or posts that could get them unwanted attention.
or the less likely
C) Play a lurker roll so their scum buddy can bus them.
How easy would it be to drop in and say, "oh sorry guys I couldn't post because.... blah.. blah.. blah...". Some of you are already assuming that they are just afk.
Why are we tolerating lurkers?
What seems weird to me is his stance on iVLosk. First he defends him. Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 07:45 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 17 2013 07:40 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 07:37 justanothertownie wrote:
I did filter dive although that's a weird term for less than a page of posts. Of course I don't care about his rap stuff. I liked his post concerning the policies and the one about metareads in newbies. There wasn't that much else at the time I made that statement. Do you not think what I wrote about him has any merit? Specifically the point about telling us not to write crap but then doing it himself? A few posts have happened since your last assumption. I don't think his hypocrisy is a reason to be suspicious. He probably just wanted to come in with flare, hence his aggressive first post (not counting rap). Holy would you rather focus on iV or reps/xzavier? Pressuring xzavier or reps might get them to start talking. Then he is suspicious of him: Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 09:38 DeusXmachina wrote:I am growing suspicious of iV. The way he handled holy's pressure seems scummy. He seemed more interested in discrediting Holy than actually contributing. + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 09:09 iVLosK! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 08:51 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 08:49 iVLosK! wrote:On August 17 2013 08:42 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 08:04 iVLosK! wrote:On August 17 2013 08:00 justanothertownie wrote:
Hm? I meant the posts he listed.
Relying on modkills for lurkers is really scummy btw. Good thing you say you would vote them if they keep lurking Holyflare. D' Oh. On August 17 2013 07:51 Holyflare wrote:
All his posts are pretty much non contributory. I genuinely think reps is afk if he hasn't posted yet, no idea about xzavier but it frustrates me, if they don't talk at all it's a double modkill and therefore we should focus on the people who are talking. I swear to god if another bs lurker happens like last game with a post a day I'm voting them off straight anyway
I think this is the post JAT is referencing above. I noticed it too. I like you drawing attention to this, oh it's scummy to avoid lurkers but then say you want to do the anti lurker thing, seriously? I mean what the hell i don't know if you two are trying to set me up but until the lurkers actually do something talking about them is 100% anti town by way of wasting time. Of course we will lynch lurkers if nobody is under any real suspicion do not be stupid. I'm not sure I ever said it was scummy to avoid lurkers. So you've lost me. JAT is saying it's scummy and you said "i noticed it too"? "I noticed it" =/= "this is scummy". It's sorta more like what you're doing. Putting together a case on me without actually voting me. Read D1 of my first game on this site. I don't like that shit and happily lynch people who do it. This is a good example. Attacks holy and contributes nothing to town. Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 10:01 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 17 2013 09:54 iVLosK! wrote:On August 17 2013 09:53 reps)squishy wrote:
I am sorry I don't see where I "fucked up".
Please point it out. On August 17 2013 09:49 reps)squishy wrote:I read all pages so far. I am suspicious of iV. He believes in lynch all liers and also stated town has plenty of reasons to lie. Is it me or does that seem a little scummy. Proof. 1. On August 16 2013 05:04 iVLosK! wrote:
Yeah lynch all liars and no lurking! And anything else that sounds pro-town! C'mon guys. No fucking duh. I have a policy of lynching people who say stupid, obvious shit. What do you think of them apples, flare, deus, and LM? 2. There are plenty of reasons to lie as town. Part of this game is misleading scum about what your own abilities and intentions are. I've bolded the obvious sarcasm for those unable or unwilling to keep up. Seems more egotistical than sarcastic. Shortly after that Losk is town suddenly: Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 13:55 DeusXmachina wrote:
Last thing before I go to bed.
I thought I would post my thoughts on day 1 so far.
I peg iV for town because he seems aggressive, and antagonistic at times, and to me these are definitely town traits.
But why don't vote for our townread, right? Then there is this: Followed by: Finally he claims not to have known this is plurality lynch which has been stated several times in the thread. He either doesn't read the thread or this is a bad excuse for his weird voting. Show nested quote +On August 18 2013 08:08 DeusXmachina wrote:
On August 18 2013 08:07 Holyflare wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2013 08:02 OmniEulogy wrote:On August 18 2013 07:49 Holyflare wrote:On August 18 2013 07:39 OmniEulogy wrote:On August 18 2013 07:02 Koshi wrote:On August 18 2013 07:02 OmniEulogy wrote:
what's up guys. I'm almost completely caught up Yeah it took me 5 minutes as well. Hahahaha yeah, unfortunately what I'm really going over right now is the massive clusterfuck at the end of D1. I agree with you completely when you say that nobody should vote for a guy with literally 0 posts. Town should NEVER lynch the "easiest" target which it seems like they did... that's complete scum mentality. Town lynch the scummiest players not the easiest ones -.- ... I'm also really upset that three people didn't even vote which makes it even harder to sort it out. so far I think I'm pretty happy with my reads right now though I think Slam really sticks out to me as scummy for jumping around on his votes so much, even to the point of voting for Xzavier on two seperate occasions, however he has been one of the most consistant contributors in the game albeit very spammy. I'm getting a newbie town feeling from him and with the amount he's posting if he is scum it wont take long for him to slip. For that reason I'm ok with him currently. I've never played with Deus but people say he's an aggressive townie. I'm not seeing any of that from this game. He's been asking really bad fluff questions which would be easy for scum to imitate to pretend to be contributing, his vote on Xzavier and his reason behind it were terrible or rather his lack of a reason. Then after the lynch on Xzavier he goes after Holy for something he was fine before and even said he thought Holy was town for. I'd say out of all the players he's my top scum read right now. And then Holy votes for Xzavier as a "place holder" never to take his vote off him. Very scummy behavior considering he goes for the easy lynch, and a way to avoid needing to actually come up with a reason to vote for somebody. As far as town reads go I had a newbie town read on Reps and so in turn I believe Koshi is town. JAT is my strongest town read in the game at the moment slight town read on iVLosK! and the rest are all neutral as I still have to go through the filters again. I'd really like to know why Slam jumped his vote around so much asap and why the hell all three of you (Holy, Deus, Slam) thought it was a good idea to lynch Xzavier. I like how you ignore everything I've said the entirety of the game just to focus on the person I put my vote on. It was my girlfriends birthday today (went out yesterday for it/party today) so I left my vote on the safest person so far. If he posted once and voted he'd be still in the game and I would NOT be alright with that, I would 100% not be alright with wasting 2 days just so we could fucking waste another day talking about him and wasting the day on him. That's a pretty massive issue.... the objective isn't to find the safest person to vote for and then do it as town..... Your reason of not wanting to get rid of somebody who might contribute doesn't work in this case. Xzavier had literally not made a single post, was very likely to be modkilled and you had stronger feelings against another player but you kept your vote on him because it was safer? Am I reading that right? Safer for what? Town on D1 doesn't need to worry about what the safe vote is. if you wanted to be safe why didn't you just ##Vote:No-Lynch instead of putting it on somebody who wouldn't defend himself. I'm fairly certain I just got that last part wrong, would a mod be kind enough to tell me/us what the correct format is to vote for a no-lynch? Thanks! I am confused why Xzavier WAS voted off though when the 2 votes were placed after the deadline........
We didn't even have enough votes against him. It wasn't a vote off. He was modkilled. They just said he got lynched in the end of day post. I really would like to hear his reasoning for all of this. Also he should be way more active Day2 if he is town because right now I am really worried about him. For starters, scum reads based on the xzavier lynch are extremelly unreliable, and I will try to explain that by detailing my thought process. Ill say this again, the xzavier lynch is a MASSIVE opportunity for scum to capitalize on. It's a gateway to mislynching a townie. There was some talk about my inconsistency. I wouldn't call the moments before the Xzavier lynch inconsistent. At least in my case, the better word is impulsive. So my thought process: The most impulsive thing I did that day was vote iV. Shortly after, I posted what I was thinking. + Show Spoiler +On August 18 2013 02:56 DeusXmachina wrote:
Sorry guys. I couldn't be around this morning. Read the thread. Although I don't completely agree with Holy stance against iV, everyone else seems convinced. Not sold on squibbs. I would rather vote Xzavier but that is clearly not going to happen. Fuck I might change my vote. iV seems to aggressive/antagonistic to be scum.
I got in right before the lynch. I pan through the posts. Wow people seemed convinced iV is the best lynch candidate. Vote iV. Wait a second, I don't really agree with that. He is way to antagonistic, and aggressive to be scum. I don't think this is right. Well how many votes against him, we need 5 right? (Yes I genuinly thought it was a majority lynch. No I didn't catch where it said plurality. Yes when slam responded right after saying plurality I discarded it because I thought wtf does that mean). Nope this isn't right he is not scum. Unvote, vote Xzavier. Why vote Xzavier? Yes I actually thought it was a majority (Guys do you really think scum would say something so stupid?). I thought, you know what, I am sticking to my guns this game. I don't want to tolerate lurking. Why such a strong stance against lurking? Well I had a major lurker in my last game who turned out to be scum. Another lurker, although not as bad, who turned out to be scum. Okay, so in retrospect Xzavier was beyond a lurker. He was a no poster. But I thought to myself, I don't think Squibbs is scum just yet, I don't think reps is scum just yet. So he is the only one I can vote for. I kick myself for not voting no-lynch. But don't you see! That inconsistency, that impulsiveness is not scummy. Who is more likely to be impulsive? A scum who is constantly thinking about the ramifications of his actions, or a townie who is interested in scum hunting, not constantly making sure he does not look suspicious. Look how much shit that Xzavier lynch got slam and I? That would be, like I said earlier, a massive misstep by scum. That's why talk of scum reads based on the Xzavier lynch are so silly. That's why I think Omni is trying to capitalize on the lynch. Ill respond to JAT's case point by point. The first little bit is based on my meta. I think that is a weak argument. He is talking about how I am not being as aggressive. Well different game different situation. Second point. Back off the policy talk was not defensive at all. I was heading your advice/agreeing with you. My scum hunting was based off of only lurkers? I didn't have anything else to scum hunt at the time. I didn't want to talk about inconsistencies in IV's play and over-analyze his first post, so I didn't chime in with Holy. After that is the best example of my inconsistency. My read on iV was changing, that's all that needs to be said. The rest I explained above. Overall it's still a weak case. My case on you was not just based on you agreeing with things. It doesn't sound like an impossible scenario to me. The only thing that really frustrates me about him is his tunneling against me. I already stated why his case is bullshit and I won't do this again here. I don't understand why he attacks me and not Omni (I know he leans scum on him but he pushes me instead). I would absolutely attack Omni right now if I was him. He even stated several times that Omni is the one who is pushing an agenda with the Day1 lynch but instead he fucking votes me for laughable reasons. I don't get it. But I also don't see why scum Deus would do this - it's just bad/stupid play. Also it weirds me out how everyone apart from iVLosk voted him without a problem. Either they are a very obvious scumteam (I won't call it impossible) or something doesn't add up here. Any thoughts? I will see if I can find a better target for my vote for now.
Check out lone for me ya? Now, brb.
|
On August 20 2013 21:39 Holyflare wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2013 14:23 DeusXmachina wrote:So the questions I want answered: Holy: 1. What are your reads, and why have you not been contribution to the town after day 1? 2. Why did you spend so much effort defending yourself? 3. Do you think Omni is scummy? 4. Are you dropping the case against iV? If so why? Omni 1. Why can you not come up with better reasons to suspect someone? 2. Why push hard against Holy and drop him? 3. How are you still hung up on the Xzavier vote being a reason to suspect someone? In conclusion: Holy: Slightly Town. Because of his initial aggression and contribution to town. Because if he is pushing an agenda he is doing a terrible job, by not contributing post day 1 lynch. Still wary of his actions. Omni: Scum. Seems to plausibly be pushing an agenda. Weak reads. Wary of his seemingly genuine contributions. iV: Neutral. Antagonistic grump who seems to be doing his own thing. IV. Lone and JAT JATWhy the hell do people have a town read on JAT? Lets look at what he has done so far. Where are his noticeable contributions? How can anyone be convinced that asking questions/giving advice is strong town. I think that reflects very poorly on Omni. Omni claims his strongest town read is JAT. W T F. Go filter dive this guy and look how many times he says, "I agree with that" or "I can't disagree there". It's silly. Here is his first big post, and first case against someone: + Show Spoiler +On August 19 2013 07:35 justanothertownie wrote:Ok, I read Deus filter again and I really don't like it. He looked very motivated pre game and you describe him as an agressive, active townie in the last newbie game. I don't see that at all in this game. He started with some policy posts without saying anything. That's ok in itself but after that his activity really dropped down. He wasn't agressive instead he asked generic questions like this: Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 05:23 DeusXmachina wrote:
Analyzing peoples previous games to determine their role this game, good or bad in newbie? Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 06:36 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 06:32 justanothertownie wrote:On August 16 2013 05:26 iVLosK! wrote:
Using meta on noobies is usually useless, in my experience. So, how much experience do you have? I guess you played 1 game on TL... other sites? Why do you ask? After I mentioned that policy talk doesn't add that much he quickly backed off. Feels really defensive (although this post isn't that bad apart from that). Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 03:06 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 17 2013 01:30 justanothertownie wrote:On August 16 2013 20:37 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 20:30 justanothertownie wrote:
Because it was mentioned someone did it in one of the last newbie games and because there were 2 townies who fakeclaimed cop in the first game I played. Ok, I see. What do you think of this game so far, any reads? Not really. I didn't like some posts from Deus and the first one of Squibbles that much but this won't tell me anything. I'm just not a fan of this rather pointless policy discussions. People can talk alot about these things without adding any useful content. I won't read to much into early contentless posts though. Bad experience last game. Yeah scum could talk policy all day. Lets put all this lying, lurking, and what-have-you talk aside for now. I am going to vote reps or xzavier if they don't start posting. I want to push for a lynch day 1, and as of right now they are the best candidates. If reps/xzavier are tied for first then a close second would be, well.... everyone else. Although, I can't help be suspicious of holy. Last game he was pretty try-hard and this game he seems pretty detached. I won't press it for now though because he said he was busy. Anyway, I think our goal should be pressuring xzavier and reps to get them to participate. Lurkers won't be tolerated! His scumhunting pretty much only revolved around lynching lurkers. Easy thing to do as scum. Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 09:07 DeusXmachina wrote:
Lets entertain a scenario. Reps or Xzavier are completely aware that the game has started and are intentionally not posting. They don't feel any real pressure so they aim to do several things:
A) Contribute nothing to increase the chances of a no-lynch day 1
B) Contribute nothing to avoid mistakes or posts that could get them unwanted attention.
or the less likely
C) Play a lurker roll so their scum buddy can bus them.
How easy would it be to drop in and say, "oh sorry guys I couldn't post because.... blah.. blah.. blah...". Some of you are already assuming that they are just afk.
Why are we tolerating lurkers?
What seems weird to me is his stance on iVLosk. First he defends him. Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 07:45 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 17 2013 07:40 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 07:37 justanothertownie wrote:
I did filter dive although that's a weird term for less than a page of posts. Of course I don't care about his rap stuff. I liked his post concerning the policies and the one about metareads in newbies. There wasn't that much else at the time I made that statement. Do you not think what I wrote about him has any merit? Specifically the point about telling us not to write crap but then doing it himself? A few posts have happened since your last assumption. I don't think his hypocrisy is a reason to be suspicious. He probably just wanted to come in with flare, hence his aggressive first post (not counting rap). Holy would you rather focus on iV or reps/xzavier? Pressuring xzavier or reps might get them to start talking. Then he is suspicious of him: Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 09:38 DeusXmachina wrote:I am growing suspicious of iV. The way he handled holy's pressure seems scummy. He seemed more interested in discrediting Holy than actually contributing. + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 09:09 iVLosK! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 08:51 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 08:49 iVLosK! wrote:On August 17 2013 08:42 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 08:04 iVLosK! wrote:On August 17 2013 08:00 justanothertownie wrote:
Hm? I meant the posts he listed.
Relying on modkills for lurkers is really scummy btw. Good thing you say you would vote them if they keep lurking Holyflare. D' Oh. On August 17 2013 07:51 Holyflare wrote:
All his posts are pretty much non contributory. I genuinely think reps is afk if he hasn't posted yet, no idea about xzavier but it frustrates me, if they don't talk at all it's a double modkill and therefore we should focus on the people who are talking. I swear to god if another bs lurker happens like last game with a post a day I'm voting them off straight anyway
I think this is the post JAT is referencing above. I noticed it too. I like you drawing attention to this, oh it's scummy to avoid lurkers but then say you want to do the anti lurker thing, seriously? I mean what the hell i don't know if you two are trying to set me up but until the lurkers actually do something talking about them is 100% anti town by way of wasting time. Of course we will lynch lurkers if nobody is under any real suspicion do not be stupid. I'm not sure I ever said it was scummy to avoid lurkers. So you've lost me. JAT is saying it's scummy and you said "i noticed it too"? "I noticed it" =/= "this is scummy". It's sorta more like what you're doing. Putting together a case on me without actually voting me. Read D1 of my first game on this site. I don't like that shit and happily lynch people who do it. This is a good example. Attacks holy and contributes nothing to town. Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 10:01 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 17 2013 09:54 iVLosK! wrote:On August 17 2013 09:53 reps)squishy wrote:
I am sorry I don't see where I "fucked up".
Please point it out. On August 17 2013 09:49 reps)squishy wrote:I read all pages so far. I am suspicious of iV. He believes in lynch all liers and also stated town has plenty of reasons to lie. Is it me or does that seem a little scummy. Proof. 1. On August 16 2013 05:04 iVLosK! wrote:
Yeah lynch all liars and no lurking! And anything else that sounds pro-town! C'mon guys. No fucking duh. I have a policy of lynching people who say stupid, obvious shit. What do you think of them apples, flare, deus, and LM? 2. There are plenty of reasons to lie as town. Part of this game is misleading scum about what your own abilities and intentions are. I've bolded the obvious sarcasm for those unable or unwilling to keep up. Seems more egotistical than sarcastic. Shortly after that Losk is town suddenly: Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 13:55 DeusXmachina wrote:
Last thing before I go to bed.
I thought I would post my thoughts on day 1 so far.
I peg iV for town because he seems aggressive, and antagonistic at times, and to me these are definitely town traits.
But why don't vote for our townread, right? Then there is this: Followed by: Finally he claims not to have known this is plurality lynch which has been stated several times in the thread. He either doesn't read the thread or this is a bad excuse for his weird voting. Show nested quote +On August 18 2013 08:08 DeusXmachina wrote:
On August 18 2013 08:07 Holyflare wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2013 08:02 OmniEulogy wrote:On August 18 2013 07:49 Holyflare wrote:On August 18 2013 07:39 OmniEulogy wrote:On August 18 2013 07:02 Koshi wrote:On August 18 2013 07:02 OmniEulogy wrote:
what's up guys. I'm almost completely caught up Yeah it took me 5 minutes as well. Hahahaha yeah, unfortunately what I'm really going over right now is the massive clusterfuck at the end of D1. I agree with you completely when you say that nobody should vote for a guy with literally 0 posts. Town should NEVER lynch the "easiest" target which it seems like they did... that's complete scum mentality. Town lynch the scummiest players not the easiest ones -.- ... I'm also really upset that three people didn't even vote which makes it even harder to sort it out. so far I think I'm pretty happy with my reads right now though I think Slam really sticks out to me as scummy for jumping around on his votes so much, even to the point of voting for Xzavier on two seperate occasions, however he has been one of the most consistant contributors in the game albeit very spammy. I'm getting a newbie town feeling from him and with the amount he's posting if he is scum it wont take long for him to slip. For that reason I'm ok with him currently. I've never played with Deus but people say he's an aggressive townie. I'm not seeing any of that from this game. He's been asking really bad fluff questions which would be easy for scum to imitate to pretend to be contributing, his vote on Xzavier and his reason behind it were terrible or rather his lack of a reason. Then after the lynch on Xzavier he goes after Holy for something he was fine before and even said he thought Holy was town for. I'd say out of all the players he's my top scum read right now. And then Holy votes for Xzavier as a "place holder" never to take his vote off him. Very scummy behavior considering he goes for the easy lynch, and a way to avoid needing to actually come up with a reason to vote for somebody. As far as town reads go I had a newbie town read on Reps and so in turn I believe Koshi is town. JAT is my strongest town read in the game at the moment slight town read on iVLosK! and the rest are all neutral as I still have to go through the filters again. I'd really like to know why Slam jumped his vote around so much asap and why the hell all three of you (Holy, Deus, Slam) thought it was a good idea to lynch Xzavier. I like how you ignore everything I've said the entirety of the game just to focus on the person I put my vote on. It was my girlfriends birthday today (went out yesterday for it/party today) so I left my vote on the safest person so far. If he posted once and voted he'd be still in the game and I would NOT be alright with that, I would 100% not be alright with wasting 2 days just so we could fucking waste another day talking about him and wasting the day on him. That's a pretty massive issue.... the objective isn't to find the safest person to vote for and then do it as town..... Your reason of not wanting to get rid of somebody who might contribute doesn't work in this case. Xzavier had literally not made a single post, was very likely to be modkilled and you had stronger feelings against another player but you kept your vote on him because it was safer? Am I reading that right? Safer for what? Town on D1 doesn't need to worry about what the safe vote is. if you wanted to be safe why didn't you just ##Vote:No-Lynch instead of putting it on somebody who wouldn't defend himself. I'm fairly certain I just got that last part wrong, would a mod be kind enough to tell me/us what the correct format is to vote for a no-lynch? Thanks! I am confused why Xzavier WAS voted off though when the 2 votes were placed after the deadline........
We didn't even have enough votes against him. It wasn't a vote off. He was modkilled. They just said he got lynched in the end of day post. I really would like to hear his reasoning for all of this. Also he should be way more active Day2 if he is town because right now I am really worried about him. First thing of note: He quotes a shit ton but doesnt give that much explanation. Weak case. Second thing of note: He argues that I am scummy because of my inconsistency. Let me just make something clear. Why is that scummy? Shouldn't town BE inconsistent. Reads are constantly changing, new information constantly surfacing, the game is fucking changing. Hell yes I am going to be inconsistent at time, especially at the beginning of the game. Weak weak weak argument. Remeber when I said scum will use the xzavier lynch as an opportunity to push and agenda? Well this is it folks. Targets me because I have come under recent suspicions, and makes a really shitty argument. His first real stance comes after the xzavier lynch on an easy target. JAT mimics other people. He bandwagons. This kid is scum. I can feel it. Main target for pressure these day 2. LoneAlthough I cannot say this with complete confidence, I believe Lone to be town. He asked some good questions, and seems genuinely invested in promoting discussion. Furthermore, he is playing moderately aggressive, is pointing fingers (like his case against JAT), and he is bold in his votes. I would like to hear in-depth analysis from Lone. I would like to see real town effort. Conclusion: JAT: Scum. This guys filter is BS. Not contributing. Weak stance. Bandwagon. Using Xzavier lynch to push agenda. Low key. Lone: Slightly town because of noticeable contributions and efforts to further discussion. V. Slam Slam is a weird one. He is goofy and hard to follow. I have a very tough time reading him. I don't think slam is scum but I will look into him in the days to come. He seems to be trying to improve his play, as Holy mentioned, and I think that is pro town. He is asking good questions, has actually taken stronger stances this game than I have seen in the past, and seemed genuinely confused about the iV situation. VI. Final thoughts I could see a possible scum team being JAT Omni. I plan on looking into Omni more in the days to come. I would like him to answer my questions. Because I am much more confident in JAT being scum I will vote him instead of Omni for now. We will see how things play out. -Sincerly A devoted townie you loons! ##Vote Justanothertownie I want you to actually just look at the overall structure of it, wall of text about me and omni, then 3 FUCKING LINES ON IVLOSK SERIOUSLY?????? not only that his second part of the post has 0 QUESTIONS TO HIM AT ALL??????????????????????????????? What more evidence do you want for this jesus christ.... His biggest scum read is JAT, his conclusion is that JAT is scum but JAT has contributed 100000x more than IvLosK at this point, total bs. but now that he doesn't think IvLosK! is guilty you know what, + Show Spoiler +On August 20 2013 04:27 DeusXmachina wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 20 2013 03:55 OmniEulogy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 03:10 justanothertownie wrote:
Ok.
Omni I would like you to make a summarized post on why you think Deus is scum. Try to stick to why scum Deus would do something instead of just pointing out contradictions please. sure thin, although I'll say now most of his contradictions do point to very scummy behavior. He starts off by saying town should be allowed to lie and we should lynch lurkers, this also means it's ok for scum to lie as he says town will never catch lying scum. Town's mindset is to catch scum lying because they NEED to lie to stay alive, not to ignore it and let anybody say what ever they want. The policy lynch for Lynch All Liars exists for that very reason. In a newbie game you don't need to fake claim your role, in fact by town lying you just add more confusion to the rest of town. Although this was just his policy talk I felt it was a very important start to his game. He goes on to say he wants to put all the policy talk away, and follows it up by saying he's voting for a lurker because they are lurking and haven't posted. I know he's played a few games before, he knows you don't claim to cast a vote for pressure. EVERY vote should have the intention to lynch behind it. As town you want to get lurkers to contribute but you don't say "hey, this is only a pressure vote but you better start contributing or maybe it'll become a real vote!" That is not a town oriented move. It's scum focusing on a "easy" target and being very non-committal about it on top of that. If we still had hardcore lurkers I'd bet he'd still be voting for them doing the exact same thing. he goes on to talk to Holy and asks this question, "Yes he hasn't contributed, but do you want to make a case against him because he hasn't contributed or because he is a hypocrite?". This isn't something town says... "yeah he hasn't contributed and he's going back on what he's saying BUT that's no reason to make a case on him!" actually... that's called scum hunting and it's exactly what town should be doing. Unfortunately this comment stops Holy and Deus effectively stops any potential attempt at town talking about it at all. Which he has done several times now. Again this is not how a townie behaves. You don't try to stop people from talking about the only leads they have to go on, you contribute and try to find something else that other people have missed. Scum try to stifle conversation and tell people that it's scummy to continue trying to scum hunt. He has constantly been trying to work out association cases based on nothing, which although many townies unfortunately were doing, scum loves this and tries to hop in with their own, because it's pointless but it makes them seem like they are contributing. Once people see an association case it becomes very difficult for them to think about it in another way which effectively shuts down their helpfulness. Deus was completely on board with doing just that. his vote has been covered, but again it's scummy and there is no town benefit for him voting for a modkill. It only adds confusion. He goes on to claim that the voting catastrophe is irrelevant to scum hunting which it certainly is not. Town tries to gather information from clusterfucks like that but he claims it's scummy to talk about it and we should just ignore it and pretend it didn't happen. Makes sense considering he made the jump to Xzavier from LosK first. Claims myself Holy and ivLosK have some sort of connection..... not really sure how. "There is so much that can be said about these individuals. 1 scum, 2 scum, or no scum? Are they connected? Why the attacks on each other?" Mmmmmmmm WIFOM bombing town is so helpful. After everything he says about thinking I'm scummy, he then claims I'm genuine and have been actively contributing and posting and then calls Slam town. - then says JAT and myself are the scum team. Can not even make up his mind in the same post. literally has 0 direction and claims I'm trying to mislead town. Let's see what he's said... "II. Omni, iV, and Holy There is so much that can be said about these individuals. 1 scum, 2 scum, or no scum? Are they connected?" and "VI. Final thoughts I could see a possible scum team being JAT Omni." one (two) large post which comes down to an association case based on nothing. Baffle them with bullshit guys! they won't see through the smoke. Townies don't do this crap. Scum try to lie and confuse us, they try to stop scum hunting, stop conversation, and try to convince town that everybody else is scum. so yes, I believe Deus is scum and actively trying to mislead town by throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks, he himself certainly has not stuck to one story even in the same post. The only thing he's stayed consistent on is that the Xzavier lynch should stop being looked at. - scummy. I don't say town should be allowed to lie. I say it is unlikely that you will catch scum lying, so I would rather focus on lurkers over liars. I don't really understand what you are saying in the next paragraph. I was trying to pressure lurkers. At that time no one had really contributed much, except for holy, so that wasn't a scummy tell in my mind. Holy didn't clearly communicate his main reason for being suspicious of iV. Not basing any cases of mine on connections. The most I said was I could foresee a connection between JAT and Omni. I am probably off base with that one. I have already addressed in detail why I think scum hunting based on the Xzavier lynch is detrimental to town. Like I said Scum will try to capitalize on that opportunity. You, holy, and iV have a connection as far as the thread goes. Arguing among each other. Again you go back to me talking about connections, that is weak. I admit, It was preemptive for me to say that you guys were connected, but that was not at all the focus of that post. It was a very small tidbit of information. Furthermore, both of you were building cases based on the Xzavier lynch. JAT to a lesser extent, but he did bring up the voting prior to the lynch in his case. I did stick to one story. Your argument is weak. You are trying to find evidence when there is none. Here is the story. I think you are pushing an agenda, capitalizing on the Xzavier lynch. I think you mimicked Koshi to a certain extent, and your arguments are super weak. I think you are scummy. But at the time of that post, my biggest read was JAT. I outlined all the reasons I thought JAT was scummy. Furthermore I said Holy has attributes that seem scummy and that seem townie, and I am leaning town. I said you "seemed" genuine, and have other townie traits, but I am leaning scum on you. NOW HE THINKS ME OMNI AND IV ARE CONNECTED?????????? There is literally no evidence at all other than me defending myself from omni's posts and me targeting ivlosk day 1 because he WAS scummy to me. To top it all off, he is pressuring Omni on why he took his suspicion off of me here + Show Spoiler +On August 20 2013 04:39 DeusXmachina wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 04:37 OmniEulogy wrote:
because the people I believed to be town while watching the game were not part of the vote, the only person on the edge but I still believe is just useless town is LosK so at least 1 person on Xzavier should be scum. possibly two. if I didn't have a town read on Meow or JAT then I wouldn't be so sure. Okay if you believe one person on the lynch is scum why are you not focusing on Holy anymore? and here + Show Spoiler +On August 20 2013 04:52 DeusXmachina wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 04:42 OmniEulogy wrote:
I think Holy's afk vote wasn't as bad as yours and Slam's. As I said earlier my case on him was pretty much revolving around how bad his vote was and that he wanted the "safe" option. I still think he's scummy just not my top scum read anymore. Why isn't Holy's vote as bad? It is substantially more under the radar (which is more scummy than attracting everyone's attention). It was done for equally as bad reasons. The fact that he went afk after does not mean that the vote is not scummy. Ok guys I really have to go. but he makes no case against me despite him thinking that my vote is scummy, instead he just focuses on JAT again and Alakaslam, only to say a big case against slam ending in him being town. For these inconsistencies, and distancing and pure wtf?ing I am going to vote right now. ##Vote DeusXmachina
Comparing JAT and iV is foolish. iV has made no attempts at blending in. JAT has. Both players have not made any big contributions, but atleast JAT has not been putting on a show. 0 questions to JAT because that would achieve nothing. I was focusing on You and Omni, I did not have any questions for JAT. How is that scummy? I never came to the conclusion that iV has contributed more. Please read what I write carefully. Connected? Someone already asked this, have you been reading the thread?, I said, or meant to say, connected in the sense that you guys were bickering back and forth, and I didn't think scum would bus each other in this way, which means at least one of you is town. I thought that would be a good way to approach things. I actually never said your vote was scummy. I don't know if you have been paying attention. I asked Omni why he thought your vote was not as bad as mine and Slams.
Hopefully everyone can see through this bs. His case basically mimicked what a lot of others have said. Nitpicking small inconsistencies is no way to find scum. If I had more time I would go find a ton in your filter just to spite you. Again, who is more likely to be inconsistent? A townie who is not constantly thinking about appearing suspicious, or a scum who is constantly thinking about the ramifications of his actions.
|
On August 21 2013 01:59 Alakaslam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2013 01:57 justanothertownie wrote:Ok, I just reread Deus filter. I urge everyone voting him now to do the same. That's the least you can do. I am not convinced he is scum. As I reread I got the feeling everything up to his last post about me could be a townie who made a big mistake under pressure at the deadline Day1. Before he made that big ass bullshit post on me I was about to consider him town again and I now know why again. It's this post that I liked: On August 20 2013 04:00 DeusXmachina wrote:Just got up. Ill answer the questions directed at me 1 by 1. JAT's is first + Show Spoiler +On August 19 2013 19:46 justanothertownie wrote:
So Deus, you don't like it if I quote you - ok. I don't like to quote such an enormous post anyways.
So here is my answer to you but first:
I thought about the whole thing since yesterday and I will admit that the lynch conclusions alone are not enough to forge a solid read on someone. I got caught up in this because your voting was really stupid even if it wasn't scum motivated. If you read what I said you know that I already mentioned it doesn't make so much sense for scum to voteswitch like that if iVLosk is town. And iVlosk is right that this is kind of an association case and that they are bad.
Still I don't really like how you responded to my case on you and I will tell you why.
Yeah, I quoted a shitton if you want so say it like that but I always explained what's scummy about it if it doesn't speak for itself like your voting pattern. You don't even adress one point of my case directly instead you are saying I am scum for pushing you? Wow, now I am impressed. Thats's the scummy way to "defend" against a case.
You are absolutely right - a townie should change his reads if there is new information but did you really do that? What happened between your vote on iVlosk and your vote on Xzavier that changed your mind and if there is nothing why did you vote for iVLosk in the first place? If you can explain your thought process through yesterday to me instead of just claiming there is no way scum would do that I would consider changing my read on you. Also please explain to me why you didn't know it was plurality lynch when it was mentioned several times before the lynch (did you read the thread at all?).
So far I see your case on me is that I am agreeing with people on things + OMGUS. Yeah, great case.
Other than that:
I am suspicious of Omni myself. He is obviously right about me but if I understand him correctly he obsed before he replaced so it is easy to know who looks townie to people and who doesn't and scum likes to give townreads. It is easy for them to give strong reads because they know who is town and who isn't.
But what really gets me thinking about him is his reasoning. He doesn't even really consider iVLosk to be scum and still insists on you or slam being scum and I don't follow that.
There still is only one alive player who I really have a considerable townread on and it's not him.
I would really like you to keep being active Day2 and to keep posting reads. If this means you have to push me - do it.
The same goes for iVLosk who didn't contribute anything for a long time now. I don't want to call him scum for not defending himself before the lynch anymore because it was very shortly before the deadline that he got voted but still several people were suspicious of him and there was always the possibility of him getting lynched earlier. I don't know what to think of him.
It really sucks that slam is afk for half of the dayphase btw. On August 19 2013 07:35 justanothertownie wrote:Ok, I read Deus filter again and I really don't like it. He looked very motivated pre game and you describe him as an agressive, active townie in the last newbie game. I don't see that at all in this game. He started with some policy posts without saying anything. That's ok in itself but after that his activity really dropped down. He wasn't agressive instead he asked generic questions like this: Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 05:23 DeusXmachina wrote:
Analyzing peoples previous games to determine their role this game, good or bad in newbie? Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 06:36 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 06:32 justanothertownie wrote:On August 16 2013 05:26 iVLosK! wrote:
Using meta on noobies is usually useless, in my experience. So, how much experience do you have? I guess you played 1 game on TL... other sites? Why do you ask? After I mentioned that policy talk doesn't add that much he quickly backed off. Feels really defensive (although this post isn't that bad apart from that). Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 03:06 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 17 2013 01:30 justanothertownie wrote:On August 16 2013 20:37 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 20:30 justanothertownie wrote:
Because it was mentioned someone did it in one of the last newbie games and because there were 2 townies who fakeclaimed cop in the first game I played. Ok, I see. What do you think of this game so far, any reads? Not really. I didn't like some posts from Deus and the first one of Squibbles that much but this won't tell me anything. I'm just not a fan of this rather pointless policy discussions. People can talk alot about these things without adding any useful content. I won't read to much into early contentless posts though. Bad experience last game. Yeah scum could talk policy all day. Lets put all this lying, lurking, and what-have-you talk aside for now. I am going to vote reps or xzavier if they don't start posting. I want to push for a lynch day 1, and as of right now they are the best candidates. If reps/xzavier are tied for first then a close second would be, well.... everyone else. Although, I can't help be suspicious of holy. Last game he was pretty try-hard and this game he seems pretty detached. I won't press it for now though because he said he was busy. Anyway, I think our goal should be pressuring xzavier and reps to get them to participate. Lurkers won't be tolerated! His scumhunting pretty much only revolved around lynching lurkers. Easy thing to do as scum. Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 09:07 DeusXmachina wrote:
Lets entertain a scenario. Reps or Xzavier are completely aware that the game has started and are intentionally not posting. They don't feel any real pressure so they aim to do several things:
A) Contribute nothing to increase the chances of a no-lynch day 1
B) Contribute nothing to avoid mistakes or posts that could get them unwanted attention.
or the less likely
C) Play a lurker roll so their scum buddy can bus them.
How easy would it be to drop in and say, "oh sorry guys I couldn't post because.... blah.. blah.. blah...". Some of you are already assuming that they are just afk.
Why are we tolerating lurkers?
What seems weird to me is his stance on iVLosk. First he defends him. Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 07:45 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 17 2013 07:40 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 07:37 justanothertownie wrote:
I did filter dive although that's a weird term for less than a page of posts. Of course I don't care about his rap stuff. I liked his post concerning the policies and the one about metareads in newbies. There wasn't that much else at the time I made that statement. Do you not think what I wrote about him has any merit? Specifically the point about telling us not to write crap but then doing it himself? A few posts have happened since your last assumption. I don't think his hypocrisy is a reason to be suspicious. He probably just wanted to come in with flare, hence his aggressive first post (not counting rap). Holy would you rather focus on iV or reps/xzavier? Pressuring xzavier or reps might get them to start talking. Then he is suspicious of him: Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 09:38 DeusXmachina wrote:I am growing suspicious of iV. The way he handled holy's pressure seems scummy. He seemed more interested in discrediting Holy than actually contributing. + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 09:09 iVLosK! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 08:51 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 08:49 iVLosK! wrote:On August 17 2013 08:42 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 08:04 iVLosK! wrote:On August 17 2013 08:00 justanothertownie wrote:
Hm? I meant the posts he listed.
Relying on modkills for lurkers is really scummy btw. Good thing you say you would vote them if they keep lurking Holyflare. D' Oh. On August 17 2013 07:51 Holyflare wrote:
All his posts are pretty much non contributory. I genuinely think reps is afk if he hasn't posted yet, no idea about xzavier but it frustrates me, if they don't talk at all it's a double modkill and therefore we should focus on the people who are talking. I swear to god if another bs lurker happens like last game with a post a day I'm voting them off straight anyway
I think this is the post JAT is referencing above. I noticed it too. I like you drawing attention to this, oh it's scummy to avoid lurkers but then say you want to do the anti lurker thing, seriously? I mean what the hell i don't know if you two are trying to set me up but until the lurkers actually do something talking about them is 100% anti town by way of wasting time. Of course we will lynch lurkers if nobody is under any real suspicion do not be stupid. I'm not sure I ever said it was scummy to avoid lurkers. So you've lost me. JAT is saying it's scummy and you said "i noticed it too"? "I noticed it" =/= "this is scummy". It's sorta more like what you're doing. Putting together a case on me without actually voting me. Read D1 of my first game on this site. I don't like that shit and happily lynch people who do it. This is a good example. Attacks holy and contributes nothing to town. Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 10:01 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 17 2013 09:54 iVLosK! wrote:On August 17 2013 09:53 reps)squishy wrote:
I am sorry I don't see where I "fucked up".
Please point it out. On August 17 2013 09:49 reps)squishy wrote:I read all pages so far. I am suspicious of iV. He believes in lynch all liers and also stated town has plenty of reasons to lie. Is it me or does that seem a little scummy. Proof. 1. On August 16 2013 05:04 iVLosK! wrote:
Yeah lynch all liars and no lurking! And anything else that sounds pro-town! C'mon guys. No fucking duh. I have a policy of lynching people who say stupid, obvious shit. What do you think of them apples, flare, deus, and LM? 2. There are plenty of reasons to lie as town. Part of this game is misleading scum about what your own abilities and intentions are. I've bolded the obvious sarcasm for those unable or unwilling to keep up. Seems more egotistical than sarcastic. Shortly after that Losk is town suddenly: Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 13:55 DeusXmachina wrote:
Last thing before I go to bed.
I thought I would post my thoughts on day 1 so far.
I peg iV for town because he seems aggressive, and antagonistic at times, and to me these are definitely town traits.
But why don't vote for our townread, right? Then there is this: Followed by: Finally he claims not to have known this is plurality lynch which has been stated several times in the thread. He either doesn't read the thread or this is a bad excuse for his weird voting. Show nested quote +On August 18 2013 08:08 DeusXmachina wrote:
On August 18 2013 08:07 Holyflare wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2013 08:02 OmniEulogy wrote:On August 18 2013 07:49 Holyflare wrote:On August 18 2013 07:39 OmniEulogy wrote:On August 18 2013 07:02 Koshi wrote:On August 18 2013 07:02 OmniEulogy wrote:
what's up guys. I'm almost completely caught up Yeah it took me 5 minutes as well. Hahahaha yeah, unfortunately what I'm really going over right now is the massive clusterfuck at the end of D1. I agree with you completely when you say that nobody should vote for a guy with literally 0 posts. Town should NEVER lynch the "easiest" target which it seems like they did... that's complete scum mentality. Town lynch the scummiest players not the easiest ones -.- ... I'm also really upset that three people didn't even vote which makes it even harder to sort it out. so far I think I'm pretty happy with my reads right now though I think Slam really sticks out to me as scummy for jumping around on his votes so much, even to the point of voting for Xzavier on two seperate occasions, however he has been one of the most consistant contributors in the game albeit very spammy. I'm getting a newbie town feeling from him and with the amount he's posting if he is scum it wont take long for him to slip. For that reason I'm ok with him currently. I've never played with Deus but people say he's an aggressive townie. I'm not seeing any of that from this game. He's been asking really bad fluff questions which would be easy for scum to imitate to pretend to be contributing, his vote on Xzavier and his reason behind it were terrible or rather his lack of a reason. Then after the lynch on Xzavier he goes after Holy for something he was fine before and even said he thought Holy was town for. I'd say out of all the players he's my top scum read right now. And then Holy votes for Xzavier as a "place holder" never to take his vote off him. Very scummy behavior considering he goes for the easy lynch, and a way to avoid needing to actually come up with a reason to vote for somebody. As far as town reads go I had a newbie town read on Reps and so in turn I believe Koshi is town. JAT is my strongest town read in the game at the moment slight town read on iVLosK! and the rest are all neutral as I still have to go through the filters again. I'd really like to know why Slam jumped his vote around so much asap and why the hell all three of you (Holy, Deus, Slam) thought it was a good idea to lynch Xzavier. I like how you ignore everything I've said the entirety of the game just to focus on the person I put my vote on. It was my girlfriends birthday today (went out yesterday for it/party today) so I left my vote on the safest person so far. If he posted once and voted he'd be still in the game and I would NOT be alright with that, I would 100% not be alright with wasting 2 days just so we could fucking waste another day talking about him and wasting the day on him. That's a pretty massive issue.... the objective isn't to find the safest person to vote for and then do it as town..... Your reason of not wanting to get rid of somebody who might contribute doesn't work in this case. Xzavier had literally not made a single post, was very likely to be modkilled and you had stronger feelings against another player but you kept your vote on him because it was safer? Am I reading that right? Safer for what? Town on D1 doesn't need to worry about what the safe vote is. if you wanted to be safe why didn't you just ##Vote:No-Lynch instead of putting it on somebody who wouldn't defend himself. I'm fairly certain I just got that last part wrong, would a mod be kind enough to tell me/us what the correct format is to vote for a no-lynch? Thanks! I am confused why Xzavier WAS voted off though when the 2 votes were placed after the deadline........
We didn't even have enough votes against him. It wasn't a vote off. He was modkilled. They just said he got lynched in the end of day post. I really would like to hear his reasoning for all of this. Also he should be way more active Day2 if he is town because right now I am really worried about him. For starters, scum reads based on the xzavier lynch are extremelly unreliable, and I will try to explain that by detailing my thought process. Ill say this again, the xzavier lynch is a MASSIVE opportunity for scum to capitalize on. It's a gateway to mislynching a townie. There was some talk about my inconsistency. I wouldn't call the moments before the Xzavier lynch inconsistent. At least in my case, the better word is impulsive. So my thought process: The most impulsive thing I did that day was vote iV. Shortly after, I posted what I was thinking. + Show Spoiler +On August 18 2013 02:56 DeusXmachina wrote:
Sorry guys. I couldn't be around this morning. Read the thread. Although I don't completely agree with Holy stance against iV, everyone else seems convinced. Not sold on squibbs. I would rather vote Xzavier but that is clearly not going to happen. Fuck I might change my vote. iV seems to aggressive/antagonistic to be scum.
I got in right before the lynch. I pan through the posts. Wow people seemed convinced iV is the best lynch candidate. Vote iV. Wait a second, I don't really agree with that. He is way to antagonistic, and aggressive to be scum. I don't think this is right. Well how many votes against him, we need 5 right? (Yes I genuinly thought it was a majority lynch. No I didn't catch where it said plurality. Yes when slam responded right after saying plurality I discarded it because I thought wtf does that mean). Nope this isn't right he is not scum. Unvote, vote Xzavier. Why vote Xzavier? Yes I actually thought it was a majority (Guys do you really think scum would say something so stupid?). I thought, you know what, I am sticking to my guns this game. I don't want to tolerate lurking. Why such a strong stance against lurking? Well I had a major lurker in my last game who turned out to be scum. Another lurker, although not as bad, who turned out to be scum. Okay, so in retrospect Xzavier was beyond a lurker. He was a no poster. But I thought to myself, I don't think Squibbs is scum just yet, I don't think reps is scum just yet. So he is the only one I can vote for. I kick myself for not voting no-lynch. But don't you see! That inconsistency, that impulsiveness is not scummy. Who is more likely to be impulsive? A scum who is constantly thinking about the ramifications of his actions, or a townie who is interested in scum hunting, not constantly making sure he does not look suspicious. Look how much shit that Xzavier lynch got slam and I? That would be, like I said earlier, a massive misstep by scum. That's why talk of scum reads based on the Xzavier lynch are so silly. That's why I think Omni is trying to capitalize on the lynch. Ill respond to JAT's case point by point. The first little bit is based on my meta. I think that is a weak argument. He is talking about how I am not being as aggressive. Well different game different situation. Second point. Back off the policy talk was not defensive at all. I was heading your advice/agreeing with you. My scum hunting was based off of only lurkers? I didn't have anything else to scum hunt at the time. I didn't want to talk about inconsistencies in IV's play and over-analyze his first post, so I didn't chime in with Holy. After that is the best example of my inconsistency. My read on iV was changing, that's all that needs to be said. The rest I explained above. Overall it's still a weak case. My case on you was not just based on you agreeing with things. It doesn't sound like an impossible scenario to me. The only thing that really frustrates me about him is his tunneling against me. I already stated why his case is bullshit and I won't do this again here. I don't understand why he attacks me and not Omni (I know he leans scum on him but he pushes me instead). I would absolutely attack Omni right now if I was him. He even stated several times that Omni is the one who is pushing an agenda with the Day1 lynch but instead he fucking votes me for laughable reasons. I don't get it. But I also don't see why scum Deus would do this - it's just bad/stupid play. Also it weirds me out how everyone apart from iVLosk voted him without a problem. Either they are a very obvious scumteam (I won't call it impossible) or something doesn't add up here. Any thoughts? I will see if I can find a better target for my vote for now. Check out lone for me ya? Now, brb.
I will but Lone isn't someone I would vote right now and I highly doubt this will change after reading his filter. You on the other hand did some very fishy vote and opinion switching again today...
|
On August 20 2013 22:02 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 17:50 DeusXmachina wrote:
I really wish I could do more, but for now I think it is best to focus on one person. Good night. Wow, sounds believable... I really don't know what to do with you. You are either very angry (because I made a case on you) retaliating town or scum. Your reasoning for calling me scum is so very very wrong it hurts. Let me show this to you: Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 17:50 DeusXmachina wrote:
At times he seems like he doesn't want to commit to anything, almost like he is fearful of being wrong, or saying something incriminating.
You state this and list a few posts whch I made very early Day1. Of course I am unsure at this point wtf! Please point me to your clear statements early Day1 if you want to accuse me of this. As far as I know the only thing you did at that time was discussing lurkers. Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 17:50 DeusXmachina wrote:
He starts off with this very reserved style. Not only does it hinder discussion, but it's a way to play unnoticed. He doesn't set himself apart from other players by taking an early aggressive stance as this would draw attention. He doesn't debate with anyone, say anything radical, or say anything that could come back to haunt him later. It's this reserved style that makes me think he is scummy.
Dude, show me one player who took a really agressive stance Day1 in this game. Apart from maybe iVLosk. Especially you did nothing like this. Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 17:50 DeusXmachina wrote:
This is the first bit of zest we see from JAT. To me it seems overly defensive, considering reps (who doesn't have the best track record), made a simple accusation.
So has he done any scum hunting at this point? No not really.
If someone raises a point against me I defend it. There is nothing scummy about that. And if you accuse someone of not scumhunting you better did a shitload of scumhunting yourself (hint: you did not). Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 17:50 DeusXmachina wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 22:32 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 16:12 LoneMeow wrote:
I really need reps)squishy and Squibbles to start participating more and that has to happen right now, otherwise I might have to start driving for lynching one of you. Post your top 2 scum reads with some reasoning, thanks. Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 18:37 LoneMeow wrote:
Ok, that's better. Careful with meta in newbie games though.
Now, Squibbles needs to start posting. Or I'll have him hung.
##Vote: Squibbles I have a question, sir. Why are you pushing these 2 while completely ignoring Xzavier who didn't post anything at all? Is this really scum hunting though? He asks a question, gets a reasonable answer, and doesn't pursue it. That did NOT contribute anything. Yes, it did. I asked to get a better read on Lone/to understand his reasoning and it worked. I ask people to get them to contribute and post reads/reasoning so I and other people can read them more easily. This contributes massively. You instead did almost nothing of value. You had your cute little policy talk at the beginning, long phases of afk some defense and this ridiculous OMGUS case on me while completely ignoring most other players. You are actively working towards a very limited discussion in the thread which means you are either stupid or scum. Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 17:50 DeusXmachina wrote:Then JAT bandwagons: + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 22:49 justanothertownie wrote:
Well, Squibbles should speak up then.
##Vote: Squibbles and again + Show Spoiler +On August 18 2013 02:43 justanothertownie wrote:
Yeah... he is the only one I would vote for besides the fucking afk people.
##Unvote: Squibbles
##Vote: iVLosK! In the moments before the conclusion of day 1 he says: On August 18 2013 02:53 justanothertownie wrote:
Man I don't like this... but interestingly doesnt bandwagon on the Xzavier vote. Hmmmmmmm. I ask myself why? Is it consistent with his play style? Absolutely fucking for sure it is. Has he done anything at this point that would make him stand out? No he has not. First and foremost: It isn't enough to just state I am bandwagoning. Your goal as town should be to find scum motivation behind it if you want to include this in your case. There isn't. I said I don't like this because there were many people who didn't even vote at that time and it was very possible for them to return like you did. At this point it felt to me like scum was just waiting and considering if they had to do some last minute shit. I did not bandwagon on Xzavier, true. Now you want to tell me this is scummy? wat? I think it was stated often enough that your voteswitch was utterly terrible and stupid and now you are telling me I am scum for not following you? I stayed on the only person I thought might be scum at that point while you voted a 0 poster. Please tell me more about how scummy I am for this... You proceed by quoting some posts where I agreed with people.Yeah, those posts themselves don't have that much content but you should include the context. Almost always there was some kind of discussion before. Why should I not state my agreement if someone convinced me of something? Also, I have quite a lot posts in this game of course there will be some posts that are not that useful. Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 17:50 DeusXmachina wrote:
The first big case he makes, literally the first noticable contribution, is is stance against me. It is weak argument, he feeds of others' ideas, and offers little analysis on how my actions are scummy.
This is just plain wrong. I don't really see anybody besides you who calls those arguments weak btw. (that because they aren't). Instead there were people who stated they liked this case. I guess they are all my scumbuddies then? I did not call you scum because you didn't answer every single point of the case. I called it scummy that you didn't even adress a single one. And it is scummy. Now to the stupidest point of your case: You think it's scummy that I tell people what I want them to do? It SCREAMS scum to you? The questions I posed and the directions I gave to people really started discussion in this thread several times when there wasn't anything going on. They ARE solid contributions. This helps people to to read others and it especially helps me because there always is a reason for the things I say. You even say it is bad how I am asking others questions? What the hell man? How am I supposed to get a read on someone if I don't get them to explain their reasoning to me. That's how I scumhunt (a thing you should maybe try someday because what you are doing right now is just OMGUS without thinking). If this is a really dominating scumtell to you then I don't understand you at all. A townie should not critisize another townie for creating discussion. You are either one of the blindest and OMGUSy players I have seen up to this point or you are scum.
Holy took an aggressive stance day 1, I took a some what aggressive stance day 1, iV did the same. My stance was Lurkers will not be tolerated! I said that post 1. When asked what your stance was you wouldn't give it. Focusing on lurkers day 1, was what I thought to be a great way to scum hunt. Last game if I focused on the lurkers day 1 we would have got a scum on the first lynch.
Being overly defensive could be scummy. Umasi last game was overly defensive and he was scum.
My case was not OMGUS. I analyzed your play and brought up points that I think are scummy. You don't contribute, you bandwagon, you say a lot of pointless stuff, you boss others around, all in the hopes you look town. That is a good case, because that is exactly how scum can act.
I say your bandwagoning because you join other people with little contribution of your own. Its not enough to just say, "okay lets see what squibbles has to say for himself" vote squibbles.
I think the fact that you didn't bandwagon on xzavier is interesting, because you so readily bandwagoned on squibbles and iv. God forbid you do anything that calls attention to yourself? Almost every major actions you have made can be interpreted as an attempt to stay under the radar. SCUM. Your arguments are weak. I think you are arguing against me because they are valid, but valid doesn't mean they are not weak. You offer little explanation for why something is scummy, and again you mimic what others have said.
You did call me scum because I did not answer every point in your post. People said I dodged it, so I went back and addressed it more thoroughly. Go read.
It is scummy to tell people what to do. I can guarantee they don't say, " Oh JAT wants me to give my reads, let me get right on that. They give their fucking reads because that is what town do, not because you tell them to. It is a pointless way to appear town.
You don't create discussion. A huge, analytic, post that takes a hard stance on someone creates discussion. Not your bull shit questions and orders.
|
On August 20 2013 22:11 OmniEulogy wrote:
"but interestingly doesnt bandwagon on the Xzavier vote. Hmmmmmmm." - Deus talking about JAT.
What. Would town ever actually say NOT getting on the Xzavier wagon is scummy at the end of D1? By this logic Slam is the most town person in the game. LOL I don't think so.
Because scum don't want to do anything that draw attention to themselves, like voting Xzavier.
|
On August 20 2013 22:41 Holyflare wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 22:39 iVLosK! wrote:On August 20 2013 21:37 Holyflare wrote:DeusXmachinaLet's talk deus for a bit, barring the connections between people, I want to get to the nitty gritty bits. I want to point out his overall motives so far, his contributions and his inconsistences. You all basically know the story about him saying not to lynch all liars, but lurkers etc etc, it's the first thing in his filter so I will ignore it for now because I honestly do not think it is relevant at all. However, this is where we begin the journey into deus' mind. See this for example: + Show Spoiler +On August 16 2013 05:14 DeusXmachina wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 04:58 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:54 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 04:51 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:46 DeusXmachina wrote:
Liars? Highly unlikely that you would every catch scum lying. Lynch lurkers over liars. But is there any reason for town to lie? So in the unlikely situation that you DO catch someone lying, you'd still rather lynch a lurker? If town is lying why would we want to lynch them? Like I said, you probably won't catch scum lying. Lying won't really tell you much. Lurkers > Liars. Obviously lynching confirmed town because of a lie would be silly, but what about someone most have a weak scum read (or even null) on who's caught lying? Still prefer a lurker lynch over him? While we're on the topic of lurking, do you think there's any real difference between lurking and posting but being useless? Would you (policy) lynch someone who posts but doesn't have any real content? If you have a weak scum read on someone and they lie, well that might be evidence against them. I would try to understand the intentions behind the lie. Not crazy about the lynch liars policy. I don't know how to define lurking, but people who are being useless are equally as bad as lurkers. In fact, in some situations, I think spammers can be more detrimental to town than lurkers. I equate non-contribution to scum. I am glad you brought this up. I was thinking about this a lot in my last game. Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 05:04 iVLosK! wrote:
Yeah lynch all liars and no lurking! And anything else that sounds pro-town! C'mon guys. No fucking duh. I have a policy of lynching people who say stupid, obvious shit. What do you think of them apples, flare, deus, and LM? Well this is a newb game. Hopefully players can read some of the initial policy and learn what not to do. Lynching people who say stupid stuff got me into a lot of shit my last game. That being said, I am all for aggressive play and doing whatever it takes to weed out scum. . It has some policy crap still in it yes, but I'd like to draw your attention to where it says that he will lynch people that are detrimental to town, non-contributers, spammers and mentions how he likes aggressive play. Now this is around the time where I started to focus on IvLosK!, he hadn't given any contribution, was saying useless shit and wasn't helping us at all. I made my case against iV and then deus response was + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 09:38 DeusXmachina wrote:I am growing suspicious of iV. The way he handled holy's pressure seems scummy. He seemed more interested in discrediting Holy than actually contributing. + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 09:09 iVLosK! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 08:51 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 08:49 iVLosK! wrote:On August 17 2013 08:42 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 08:04 iVLosK! wrote:On August 17 2013 08:00 justanothertownie wrote:
Hm? I meant the posts he listed.
Relying on modkills for lurkers is really scummy btw. Good thing you say you would vote them if they keep lurking Holyflare. D' Oh. On August 17 2013 07:51 Holyflare wrote:
All his posts are pretty much non contributory. I genuinely think reps is afk if he hasn't posted yet, no idea about xzavier but it frustrates me, if they don't talk at all it's a double modkill and therefore we should focus on the people who are talking. I swear to god if another bs lurker happens like last game with a post a day I'm voting them off straight anyway
I think this is the post JAT is referencing above. I noticed it too. I like you drawing attention to this, oh it's scummy to avoid lurkers but then say you want to do the anti lurker thing, seriously? I mean what the hell i don't know if you two are trying to set me up but until the lurkers actually do something talking about them is 100% anti town by way of wasting time. Of course we will lynch lurkers if nobody is under any real suspicion do not be stupid. I'm not sure I ever said it was scummy to avoid lurkers. So you've lost me. JAT is saying it's scummy and you said "i noticed it too"? "I noticed it" =/= "this is scummy". It's sorta more like what you're doing. Putting together a case on me without actually voting me. Read D1 of my first game on this site. I don't like that shit and happily lynch people who do it. This is a good example. Attacks holy and contributes nothing to town. which is fair enough, it made sense at the time. This is when shit gets confusing, with all the pressure on IvLosK! what would a scum do, try and deflect on another person right? His SECOND post after talking about IvLosK! then draws random light suspicion on squibbles + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 13:36 DeusXmachina wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 01:16 Squibbles wrote:
I can see where the suspicion might lie and the implications of me being a lurker. I run PST and do work so my main times where I will be extremely active will be after 4:30, although I am reading up on all the posts throughout the day. If there are any questions of me feel free to ask, I am rather new so I getting use to all the terminology and what not. So far judging by the posts I am leaning town on deus but I cannot be certain and null for everyone else. It's too early for me to make an educated guess when the majority of people have yet to really reveal intentions. I'm thinking the larger players have been talked about a bit more, meaning they will always be under scrutiny, but that only helps them if they are scum. Only making that of note, not implying anything. I went back and read Squibb's posts and one line stuck out to me. This seems overly defensive. Slam passively called him a lurker but did not pursue it. There was not any real suspicion on Squibbs, yet he felt it necessary to defend himself. Squibb's could you elaborate on why you felt it was necessary to preemptively defend yourself, please. but that isn't the most shocking part, WITHIN 3 POSTS HE GOES AHEAD AND CHANGES HIS FUCKING MIND ON IVLOSK!???????? + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 13:55 DeusXmachina wrote:Last thing before I go to bed. I thought I would post my thoughts on day 1 so far. I peg iV for town because he seems aggressive, and antagonistic at times, and to me these are definitely town traits. In addition, I believe Slam is town because he is trying to promote dialog and cut down on spam. For example, + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2013 08:08 Alakaslam wrote:Ok at the computer is fun Look the thread is only actually a few pages long- the game doesn't actually start until page 10. But here is what I notice, and think: iVLoski may be messing around some- I messed around a lot as town as well, so that's not enough for me but yes, I am aware he could be dangerous scum. I'm Watchin' him and Y'all should too. But I think your suspicion of him has brought out something interesting Holyflare; justanothertownie. look at this Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 07:02 Holyflare wrote:On August 17 2013 06:51 justanothertownie wrote:
I'm around. JAT what is your opinion so far on ivlosk and also I'd like to hear your thoughts on lonemeow Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 07:24 justanothertownie wrote:
Why do you ask me about those 2 specifically?
Ivlosk: I said earlier I liked his first posts. There isn't anything else to say for me right now. No idea about his alignment.
LoneMeow: Sounds reasonable to me. He brought up the policy thing but someone has to start discussion somehow. K look at this- What are your reads JAT?!? Holyflare has asked you for your reads, this isn't the clearest thing in the world and seems pretty reserved. I mean, I understand, I can be reserved, but make a stand- if you are wrong, or someone points out it doesn't make sense, admit it and move on- But don't sheep! Make a position and defense it. (<3 WhiteRa) Speaking of which, Yes Holyflare- I will work on my read on Deus in a minute. On August 16 2013 14:17 Alakaslam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 14:08 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 14:02 Alakaslam wrote:On August 16 2013 13:05 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 12:56 Alakaslam wrote:On August 16 2013 05:14 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 04:58 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:54 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 04:51 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:46 DeusXmachina wrote:
Liars? Highly unlikely that you would every catch scum lying. Lynch lurkers over liars. But is there any reason for town to lie? So in the unlikely situation that you DO catch someone lying, you'd still rather lynch a lurker? If town is lying why would we want to lynch them? Like I said, you probably won't catch scum lying. Lying won't really tell you much. Lurkers > Liars. Obviously lynching confirmed town because of a lie would be silly, but what about someone most have a weak scum read (or even null) on who's caught lying? Still prefer a lurker lynch over him? While we're on the topic of lurking, do you think there's any real difference between lurking and posting but being useless? Would you (policy) lynch someone who posts but doesn't have any real content? If you have a weak scum read on someone and they lie, well that might be evidence against them. I would try to understand the intentions behind the lie. Not crazy about the lynch liars policy. I don't know how to define lurking, but people who are being useless are equally as bad as lurkers. In fact, in some situations, I think spammers can be more detrimental to town than lurkers. I equate non-contribution to scum. I am glad you brought this up. I was thinking about this a lot in my last game. On August 16 2013 05:04 iVLosK! wrote:
Yeah lynch all liars and no lurking! And anything else that sounds pro-town! C'mon guys. No fucking duh. I have a policy of lynching people who say stupid, obvious shit. What do you think of them apples, flare, deus, and LM? Well this is a newb game. Hopefully players can read some of the initial policy and learn what not to do. Lynching people who say stupid stuff got me into a lot of shit my last game. That being said, I am all for aggressive play and doing whatever it takes to weed out scum. Actually it was lynching the spammer- many of the things I said were trying to express my opinions, spamming was me trying to dick around. I promise not to do that anymore except maybe in spoilers if I can't help it. Therefore I am really glad you laid this out. There may be people like me who just get the juices flowing and go nuts, they will disregard you until they are the scummy one tunneling the wrong guy at Lylo- then they will have to fight not to become stimaddict 2.0, (sorry bout that but u know its true ing one) so like I say- rock and a hard place with "don't spam don't lurk" for me- so gimme a little grace and I will try to help out. For now, I have this: Ivlosk! - town, he is bamcis for lookin so, especially so early, therefore keep an eye out for even more badass scum play later if I am wrong (and I am wrong often...) HolyFlare- kinda early. I'm null, in fact, I'm null on everyone but ivlosk! and myself. It's pretty early guys. "Speak up!" -Seige Tank Driver (selected, Starcraft 2) Fellows, pleeeze!! Okay, sounds good. Biggest scum reads so far, Xzavier and reps. Lol at reps if he becomes a day 1 lynch again. Why am I suspicious? Well, they are lurking, and as I previously mentioned, lurking will not be tolerated. Pretty much neutral on everyone. Although, I am leaning slightly town on JAT. Careful of posting pseudo lurker lists... Look. That is the easies thing for scum to do to try and look town, 1, and 2, if we have vigs, they can shoot into lurkers and we lynch other lurkers till there are none. So it is established that you can't lurk and get by this game. Stating their scumminess other than to explain a vote on them is now irrelevant, lets stick to discussion about actives. Then, before the deadline (close as you can get) vote for a lurker or someone you find scummy- who may have more of a chance turning out to be scum than someone who wanted blue or irl'ed or whatever causes people to do this stuff. By the way, we don't have vigs. Read the game setup. Your point is valid though, discussing lurkers (especially this early) is pretty pointless. Oh yeah, this isn't persona 4- herple diddly skerple xD Well then yeah like u said its what, half of one real day in. Give them some moar time. ... Yeah. But also, iVLosk not trying to stifle talk, trying to improve talk. Read deus filter anyone? Deus please elaborate, lurking > lying for scummy? Why should town bother with lies? On August 16 2013 14:17 Alakaslam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 14:08 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 14:02 Alakaslam wrote:On August 16 2013 13:05 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 12:56 Alakaslam wrote:On August 16 2013 05:14 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 04:58 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:54 DeusXmachina wrote:On August 16 2013 04:51 LoneMeow wrote:On August 16 2013 04:46 DeusXmachina wrote:
Liars? Highly unlikely that you would every catch scum lying. Lynch lurkers over liars. But is there any reason for town to lie? So in the unlikely situation that you DO catch someone lying, you'd still rather lynch a lurker? If town is lying why would we want to lynch them? Like I said, you probably won't catch scum lying. Lying won't really tell you much. Lurkers > Liars. Obviously lynching confirmed town because of a lie would be silly, but what about someone most have a weak scum read (or even null) on who's caught lying? Still prefer a lurker lynch over him? While we're on the topic of lurking, do you think there's any real difference between lurking and posting but being useless? Would you (policy) lynch someone who posts but doesn't have any real content? If you have a weak scum read on someone and they lie, well that might be evidence against them. I would try to understand the intentions behind the lie. Not crazy about the lynch liars policy. I don't know how to define lurking, but people who are being useless are equally as bad as lurkers. In fact, in some situations, I think spammers can be more detrimental to town than lurkers. I equate non-contribution to scum. I am glad you brought this up. I was thinking about this a lot in my last game. On August 16 2013 05:04 iVLosK! wrote:
Yeah lynch all liars and no lurking! And anything else that sounds pro-town! C'mon guys. No fucking duh. I have a policy of lynching people who say stupid, obvious shit. What do you think of them apples, flare, deus, and LM? Well this is a newb game. Hopefully players can read some of the initial policy and learn what not to do. Lynching people who say stupid stuff got me into a lot of shit my last game. That being said, I am all for aggressive play and doing whatever it takes to weed out scum. Actually it was lynching the spammer- many of the things I said were trying to express my opinions, spamming was me trying to dick around. I promise not to do that anymore except maybe in spoilers if I can't help it. Therefore I am really glad you laid this out. There may be people like me who just get the juices flowing and go nuts, they will disregard you until they are the scummy one tunneling the wrong guy at Lylo- then they will have to fight not to become stimaddict 2.0, (sorry bout that but u know its true ing one) so like I say- rock and a hard place with "don't spam don't lurk" for me- so gimme a little grace and I will try to help out. For now, I have this: Ivlosk! - town, he is bamcis for lookin so, especially so early, therefore keep an eye out for even more badass scum play later if I am wrong (and I am wrong often...) HolyFlare- kinda early. I'm null, in fact, I'm null on everyone but ivlosk! and myself. It's pretty early guys. "Speak up!" -Seige Tank Driver (selected, Starcraft 2) Fellows, pleeeze!! Okay, sounds good. Biggest scum reads so far, Xzavier and reps. Lol at reps if he becomes a day 1 lynch again. Why am I suspicious? Well, they are lurking, and as I previously mentioned, lurking will not be tolerated. Pretty much neutral on everyone. Although, I am leaning slightly town on JAT. Careful of posting pseudo lurker lists... Look. That is the easies thing for scum to do to try and look town, 1, and 2, if we have vigs, they can shoot into lurkers and we lynch other lurkers till there are none. So it is established that you can't lurk and get by this game. Stating their scumminess other than to explain a vote on them is now irrelevant, lets stick to discussion about actives. Then, before the deadline (close as you can get) vote for a lurker or someone you find scummy- who may have more of a chance turning out to be scum than someone who wanted blue or irl'ed or whatever causes people to do this stuff. By the way, we don't have vigs. Read the game setup. Your point is valid though, discussing lurkers (especially this early) is pretty pointless. Oh yeah, this isn't persona 4- herple diddly skerple xD Well then yeah like u said its what, half of one real day in. Give them some moar time. ... Yeah. But also, iVLosk not trying to stifle talk, trying to improve talk. Read deus filter anyone? Deus please elaborate, lurking > lying for scummy? Why should town bother with lies? And finally, I like Holy for town, only slightly, because he was the first one to get some solid discussion going, other than the policy chat. That leaves 5 other people. Of which my favorite targets for scum and lynching day 1 are xzavier, reps, and squibbs. These lurkers on hindering discussion, they are not putting forth new ideas, and they are not scum hunting. I will continue my firm stance on this, lurking is scummy. Reps why did you poke in today but not really contribute? Xzavier why are you not posting? . YOU WANNA KNOW SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S FUCKING HILARIOUS? WITHIN 2 MORE POSTS THIS HAPPENS + Show Spoiler +On August 18 2013 02:48 DeusXmachina wrote:
[b]##Vote: iVLosK! Then the xzavier shit follows and you know the rest of that.... I was going to read this post. But then I saw it was a connection theory between 2 unflipped players. Or pointing out shitty inconsistencies, not connections, I never said you 2 were connected scum at all.
Shitty inconsistencies is a terrible way to scum hunt. I say this again, who is more likely to be inconsistent, a townie who is not concerned with the consequences of his actions, or scum who is constantly concerned with the consequences. A very experienced friend gave me some advice my first game when I was town. He said play without fear.
|
Read Lones filter and still think most of his posts are pretty townie although he should contribute more. There is only one thing I don't really get.
On August 20 2013 06:35 LoneMeow wrote:
Deus' case on JAT is kind of OMGUS, but seems like a town reaction, if he was scum I'd expect him to push Alakaslam since he's obviously much more likely lynch than JAT.
Holyflare, your read on Deus?
iVLosK!, could you perhaps try to help us figure this game out and provide reads on Deus and Alakaslam?
On August 20 2013 23:31 LoneMeow wrote:
Also, right now I'm agreeing with lynching Deus.
##Vote: DeusXmachina
What happened between these posts, Lone?
|
Please vote JAT guys. I literally beg of you. For any townie that has voted me, you are being misled. Everything I have done has been from a townie perspective. I have done my best to give well though out reads. I have been scum hunting and contributing. The biggest cases against me are because I have been inconsitent and my vote switch. Don't buy into that garbage. It's scum trying to capitalize on an opportunity. Like I said before the Xzavier vote is a massive opportunity for scum. If you are scum and you are voting me, I want you to know that I world of shit will come down on you when I flip. Do you really think this is the best move? Omni if you are town unvote me. You instigated this whole thing, please understand that scum could have built off your case. Omni if you are town, think about yourself. When I flip town, you will come under fire. That will be another great opportunity for scum. Omni if you are scum, you fucked up man. Going after me was the wrong choice. Holy, I excpect so much more from you. I looked up to you last game. You had the honor of getting first night lynch. If you are town this game, don't do this. Think about it, really try to understand my actions, and you will see I am town. Slam I need you buddy. You have been quick to decide in the past, but take a firm stance now!. I need you! You said yourself JAT looked suspicious, so go with that. iV, We need a vote on JAT, not on Lone. He is in no danger of being lynched today, and that vote won't matter. Lone, I have a townie feel about you man. See through this bullshit. I am town, don't vote me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
