| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Tutankoopa
United States145 Posts
Why FT? Do you have any reason to think he'll flip red? What is there in his filter that makes you think he's mafia? Is this some kind of policy thing.... meta maybe? I'm not sure what information you're using to justify lynching someone with has close to 0 posts as makes no matter, compared to picking a candidate out of people who have posted and can therefore analyzed. thx for staying in thread so long btw | ||
|
Tutankoopa
United States145 Posts
Your FT lynch is looking partly like a lurker lynch based on comments you made about lurkers, but why is this the right way to go about picking out a lurker? I am not against lurker lynches provided the lurker in question is playing scummy enough to warrant the risk of a mislynch and there are no other enticing candidates. At minimum you need to be able to explain why your lurker lynch is the best lurker lynch. | ||
|
Tutankoopa
United States145 Posts
| ||
|
Tutankoopa
United States145 Posts
| ||
|
Tutankoopa
United States145 Posts
On August 30 2013 19:57 raynpelikoneet wrote: I have already told you i do not want to ask you anything. I already tried that and it didn't work. I dislike going this route but in regards to all the questions you asked me at the start of the game, I was right and and you were wrong. I don't think you're going over my filter to see if my explanations line up with the thread. Here are some examples, try to read this from my perspective so you can realize how difficult you're being. One of the initial things you harped on for was me making that early post where I dropped Oats as a scum read. Your accusation was that I was scummy for saying shit about Oats without reading the thread. Guess what? I had read the thread in full before that post! How have you managed to remain oblivious to this? I've stated this numerous times. The whole thing is bollocks, because in a hypothetical world where your accusation was correct, there'd be no scum motivation for what I did. Another issue was the smurfing conversation. Here is your direct quote: On August 29 2013 20:26 raynpelikoneet wrote: The way i see it Tutan did attention drawing to his smufiness. That's how i would put it. Why, that's another question. I was drawing attention to it? You're the one who brought up it and kept pressing the issue after I said I didn't care to talk about it. Do you see what I'm talking about? | ||
|
Tutankoopa
United States145 Posts
| ||
|
Tutankoopa
United States145 Posts
Rayn if you can tell me why Oats is scum without meta then I'd rather hear that. I don't know how much I should be reading into things he did in the early game and him being afk makes him harder to read. As stated earlier he seems like a coinflip lynch. | ||
|
Tutankoopa
United States145 Posts
| ||
|
Tutankoopa
United States145 Posts
On August 30 2013 20:50 raynpelikoneet wrote: I am going to give one example of the Oats thingy i pointed out. And this will be the last time i am going to do it. This is what i ask you at first: The bolded part is the ultimate question i wanted you to answer. Your answer is: Is there anyone in the game who thinks that answers the bolded question? Let's break it down. Direct quotes. Rayne: Did you read Oats filter between writing the post?... etc... Why would you not read the whole thread before posting so you are on top of things and not need to change your opinion in the same post? Tutenkoopa: Yes I had read his filter and I changed my mind on a reread. ........ You ask if I'd read his filter. I said I had. Because I had read his filter, I cannot explain to you why I posted without reading his filter. Yet you keep asking about my motivations for declaring a scum read on Oats without reading his filter. What? On August 30 2013 21:00 raynpelikoneet wrote: So someone being unable / unwilling to explain his motives behind his actions makes them town. I clearly do not know how to play this game.. You're asking me to explain motivations for something I didn't do! | ||
|
Tutankoopa
United States145 Posts
Ok... so I said I had read the filter, but I did not specifically say that I had read the entire thread. That still doesn't justify you claiming that I'm scum for not reading, when that is something I never said or implied. Although it's not directly stated I think it's reasonable for someone to make the assumption that I was fully caught up at that moment. The frustrating part about this is that I don't see your point in a world where I'm wrong. Lets say I hadn't read the thread before starting the post. Where is the scum motivation for that? Most importantly, why would that scum motivation be more likely than believing that I changed my mind about Oats mid-post? If you feel like I wasn't cooperative earlier, it's because I was dealing with this guy (you) who I was town-reading, and he's delving into a pointless line of inquiry about something that didn't even happen. TLDR, FINAL ANSWER: Yes, I had read the thread before that post. I don't see why you were assuming that I hadn't read the thread. Evidence slightly pointed otherwise. I don't see why not reading would be scummy anyhow. Miscommunication is a real, observable phenomenon. Maybe we are both at fault? You lead off the entire line of inquiry by asking if I had read the filter. The question about a thread-read seemed tacked-on, like a restatement of the first question. In that particular circumstance "reading the whole thread" and "reading O's filter" aren't objectively different and don't merit two individual answers. You seemed to think that I was making reads on him without reading his filter, so I stated otherwise. Apparently you were mainly concerned if I had read the thread, but that's not a logical assumption for me to make given that we were talking about Oats and you led off with the question about his filter. Either you failed at writing a coherent series of questions, or I failed at figuring out what information you wanted from me and I'm not keen on starting a flame war over our respective reading comprehension skills. I'd say this whole thing comes down to you thinking I was ignoring your questions, and me thinking I had given you an adequate response. And with that..... I'm done talking about this. Not because I don't want to, but because there's not anything else that can be said. | ||
|
Tutankoopa
United States145 Posts
On August 30 2013 21:26 raynpelikoneet wrote: Can someone look at what i asked Tutan about his question to Hopeless? I did not understand anything he said and how that was relevant to my question. Am i just being stupid and not able to understand what people say? I'll talk about it if you want but I need a smoke break first. I'd rather have someone else do it because I think I was asking valid questions and I want to see if anyone else agrees before we start deconstructing them. | ||
|
Tutankoopa
United States145 Posts
uh... same goes for you...  | ||
|
Tutankoopa
United States145 Posts
| ||
|
Tutankoopa
United States145 Posts
On August 29 2013 09:06 Tutankoopa wrote: 1. Can you clarify what you found to be stupid about rayn's play? 2. When you saw my vote, did you think I was seriously going to push for rayn's lynch on D1? Also, you say rayn's play is stupid yet you also claim to not understand the policy lynch. Explain? Rayn, this is a perfect example of how being spammy can be bad, even if you're asking OK questions. You really shouldn't expect people to give you every single reasoning behind their every line of questioning. When I asked those questions I had specific goals in mind, and it is counterproductive for you to ask me to talk about things that I'd rather the mafia team not hear. Even when the theory I'm working with doesn't pan out, I'm still going to want to keep my motives under warp a while longer. As soon as someone fully explains a question, that question and similar strategies lose their scumhunting potential for the rest of the game. You couldn't even wait for Hopeless to respond before you interrupted and started asking questions. However, we're long past that point in the game so I'll give you a full explanation. Much of H's play was him being skeptical of the rayn voter(s). He says that rayn is being too stupid to be mafia. The full picture is that everything he posts and all of his accusations are based off of his page 2 Rayn town read. By asking those questions I was basically fishing for more evidence that Hopeless knew rayn's alignment. If Hopeless did not understand the "policy", why is it wrong for him to call my play stupid? Stupidity is a common target of policy lynchers. Hopeless doesn't have to agree with the policy, but surely if he think's you're being stupid he would be able to understand why people might want to policy lynch you.... or at least have a reasonable idea why. On August 30 2013 22:33 marvellosity wrote: Not really. Got a casual read on Sn0 lying around? Apologies if I missed you talking about him previously Way back in the game I saw him say something like "Nvm, I lied." I thought it was townie and haven't paid attention to him since then. No, it's not the best town-tell.... but it is what it is. | ||
|
Tutankoopa
United States145 Posts
On August 30 2013 22:43 yamato77 wrote: I have to find a lynch candidate before I sleep. give me bullet point on the case on hopeless, not going to reread to find it Hopeless quotes "Tutan was attempting to justify a sheep onto an unknown policy and has since changed his mind...I'm glad I sheeped Oats" "Your initial vote was not entirely damning." "3) I'd actually chalk that up to early trolling more than anything else." --- I think he's referring to my first vote. "My reasons for voting TK do not (nor have they ever) hinged upon the fact that he sheeped yamato's "policy" vote." I have no idea when or why he thought I was scum during any of that earlier stuff. At times it looks like he knows the early vote was nothing substantial, at other times he is insistent that I was pushing for a lynch. For further reading, I recently made a post about how all of his actions from page 2 onward are built on the assumption that rayn is town. That doesn't ring any alarms? | ||
|
Tutankoopa
United States145 Posts
| ||
|
Tutankoopa
United States145 Posts
| ||
|
Tutankoopa
United States145 Posts
On August 30 2013 23:12 raynpelikoneet wrote: Why would mafia!Hopeless not back off from the accusation (regarding your policy-vote) in the (3) point and/or in the point you bolded? Many people pointed out how dumb his accusation regarding your policy-vote was, many people pointed out he is becoming a suspect because of that, don't you think his scummates would have not told him to cut that off and say "yeah i can see that now, i was wrong"? I would have definitely done so if my scumbuddy did something that stupid. I think your second quote is taken out of context because Hopeless also gave other reasons for you to be mafia (your reads post which really was full of nothing). I also think Hopeless has clearly expressed he has a townread on me and reasons for it, why is this more suspicious than let's say sciberbia having a 95% town-read on me? He did in fact back down. He started at "TK is scummily pushing a policy lynch" and later ended up saying "My reasons for voting TK do not (nor have they ever) hinged upon the fact that he sheeped yamato's "policy" vote." It's not only him having a town rayn read on page 2. It's how that town read is the foundation for many of his actions. An easy way to make cases as mafia is to pick on people who are erroneously accusing other townies. I think I'm gonna sit back for a bit and see what's going on with the replacement. | ||
|
Tutankoopa
United States145 Posts
| ||
|
Tutankoopa
United States145 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
PiGosaur Monday
GSL Code S
Cure vs Zoun
Solar vs Creator
The PondCast
Road to EWC
Online Event
Clem vs ShoWTimE
herO vs MaxPax
HupCup
Road to EWC
Road to EWC
GSL Code S
GuMiho vs Bunny
ByuN vs SHIN
Road to EWC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
