|
On November 05 2013 12:08 ObviousOne wrote:
Part of your duty to the coven is to be as readable as possible, which I mean in the most literal sense. A long stream of quotes with responses is semi-useful but it's also very challenging to get through from a eyes-to-screen standpoint. Use headings, perhaps spoiler the bigger quotes, and just in general make it more appealing to the eye because it was super easy to just start scrolling. There's nothing wrong with your style if you make your best effort to get it into a digestible form which might take a little extra work but you might see a lot less pushback to it that way. Just my 2 Loonies.
That is true. It would be more pleasant and easier to tackle if it was formatted better. If town wants me to, I can try to re-format that post in it's whole. Otherwise I'll just try to make my next one look better if I get totally into the thought process like this time. Mainly the moment I finished that I just pressed enter and was like "Fuck yes all done, let's share this." Rather than "Time to make it look pretty and more convinient for everyone".
Thank you for the feedback. So what do you think about my case on WoS? Do you think it has enough valid points to lynch him today, or are you still thinking his play looks too towny to be lynched today, and would rather lynch someone else today?
(Rather than obviously wanting to lynch Sn0)
|
On November 05 2013 12:27 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 12:02 Cephiro wrote:On November 05 2013 11:51 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Cephiro to answer to your example about WoS:
I don't think that's scummy at all. I had the same kind of train of thought about Vanesco that i see from WoS. Just because WoS did post his thought process in many parts does that make him scum? What's wrong in the thought process, i don't anything wrong with it - maybe i am biased because i thought basically the same at first and reached into similar conclusion than WoS did - but could you elaborate more on why the thought process can't come from a townie? I see your point. And I do not expect my read to be right based on one example only. It was an example only to get my point across to you. It's more about the amount of things that would be incredibly convinient for scum that happen, and the reactions of WoS that are in strong contrast with his own opinions of how a townie should play the game. Single thought processes of his could very well come from a townie yes, but looking at the whole history of his, I find it much more likely to be done from a scum perspective, for one reason alone the sheer amount of inconsistencies and his refusal to correct or address many of them. On November 05 2013 11:50 thrawn2112 wrote:
Cephiro perhaps I need to be a little more clear.
NOT ONLY do I not accept that scum are more likely to be inconsistent, I wouldn't be surprised if the complete opposite is true. Have you never missed a math question, have you never forgotten anything? Why would you expect someone who rolls town in an online forum game of mafia to be perfect? Townies aren't the ones who are constantly wondering if their story adds up, mafia are. You can point out as many inconsistencies in WoS's play as you like and I will never listen to you unless you can show me how the inconsistencies are specifically scum-motivated. You need to show a clear mafia agenda behind the fuck-ups, otherwise you've just gone and pointed out a bunch of things that can probably be found in every single filter in every mafia game.
The other reason of why I don't like your case is because of the strong town vibes I feel while reading WoS's posts. I sense nothing fake/reserved/malicious/secretive about them. Alright, I very well see your point. I certainly don't expect townies to play perfectly. I personally just consider it more likely for someone that is constant pressure about being caught in a lie to be inconsistent in their story (especially the longer the story becomes), rather than for a townie that is simply telling the story as his opinions move forward. (Basically for a honest townie, the only inconsistencies come from if he doesn't care about what he said earlier, or forgot and does a sudden change of mind without reasoning, which is rare in my opinion.) Thank you for providing the reasoning behind your point though. I'm not saying I'm right or you're wrong, but we'll have agree to disagree on this one it seems. At several points in the case (in my opinion), I provided good thoughts as for why the inconsistencies are especially scum-motivated. That can't be said for every point, as there are so many things to be considered ambigiously. But I tried my best to show why certain things are in my opinion clearly done from a mafia perspective. My refusal to correct inconsistencies? That's because THERE ARE NONE. Cephiro bring up one example of an inconsistency from your case right now and I will show you how it's not in one instant; I wouldn't be surprised if it's already in the thread.
Alright, let's start with this one.
On November 04 2013 15:51 WaveofShadow wrote:
Anyone is welcome to comment on Vanesco basically taking the out I gave him and running with it, because I still lean towny on him, but ughhhhhhhhh
Why would you give him a free out if you lean town on him, and THEN basically invite everyone to jump on it? It makes absolutely no sense from a town perspective. I can still understand giving a free out to someone you think is town to try and help them, but then pointing them out for taking it? I can't see this from a town perspective no matter how I look at it.
If I assume you are town doing this -> You're giving a free bone for scum to take up on. If you think Vanesco was town, there is absolutely no reason for you to do that, as if anything it makes him look worse.
Also the fact that you're asking someone else to do the job for you.
|
On November 05 2013 12:34 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Here's why i don't like your case Cephiro (yeah, i decided to read it after all).
First you point out general stuff like "Scum is under constant pressure, scum is also more likely to be inconsistent.". This is not true at all, scum are far more concerned about their image and keeping their story straight than townies are. You call out WoS for trying to look like town because scum try hard to look like town. Townies don't? Then you bring up examples but you do not tell why WoS' actions are scum-motivated rather than town motivated. Then you say this: "Why would one as town ever want to intentionally cause suspicion on himself along his comrades?". You just called you WoS for doing something you are arguing against here. That's the first 33% of your case.
Next is the Van thing i addressed already. You bring up many times "this could be scumplay or townplay". That's not convincing and i stop reading an argument that says so because you yourself debunk the argument. You do not tell why WoS "defending" Van must come from scum and cannot come from a townie. That's another 33%.
Last part is saying WoS does not have definite scumreads. Nobody does because it's 24h into the game. Just because he does not make a 1000 word case 24h into D1 and is not certain of who is scum does not make him scum, or if it does in your opinion, feel free to tell why because you sure are not telling that in your case. That's the last 33% of the case.
1% is spaces.
I can see your reasoning for the second point. I did give reasons why I think the defense is scum-motivated however. It does not mean that is necessarily the case, but I did provide my thoughts as for why I believe that to be the case.
Your first point I don't completely agree with. Townies aren't pressured to look town in the same way, they know themselves to be town. Of course they may be worried to be misinterpreted, but they can be confident that their reads are coming from a confirmed town perspective, which scum cannot. I do provide many examples why WoS's actions are more likely to be scum-motivated rather than town motivated. I also do not see how I'm arguing against my own point? I pointed out that WoS is intentionally looking himself look bad in the early post. I then tell why I don't see that a townie should be doing that under any circumstances. Thus logically -> Scum.
Repeat: Why would you ever want to look scummy intentionally, as town? He did exactly that, which is why I believe it was done by scum.
Third part: It is not only about having definitive scumreads. I can understand people not being extremely certain in their reads at this point in the game. What I am more concerned is that he constantly tells how he's providing content, and ASKING OTHERS TO DO STUFF, when he's barely giving any pressure to anyone himself.
I thank you for your feedback though, your second point is most valid. I still consider my case extremely well-considered, and those who haven't should read it.
|
On November 05 2013 12:42 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 12:38 Cephiro wrote:On November 05 2013 12:27 WaveofShadow wrote:On November 05 2013 12:02 Cephiro wrote:On November 05 2013 11:51 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Cephiro to answer to your example about WoS:
I don't think that's scummy at all. I had the same kind of train of thought about Vanesco that i see from WoS. Just because WoS did post his thought process in many parts does that make him scum? What's wrong in the thought process, i don't anything wrong with it - maybe i am biased because i thought basically the same at first and reached into similar conclusion than WoS did - but could you elaborate more on why the thought process can't come from a townie? I see your point. And I do not expect my read to be right based on one example only. It was an example only to get my point across to you. It's more about the amount of things that would be incredibly convinient for scum that happen, and the reactions of WoS that are in strong contrast with his own opinions of how a townie should play the game. Single thought processes of his could very well come from a townie yes, but looking at the whole history of his, I find it much more likely to be done from a scum perspective, for one reason alone the sheer amount of inconsistencies and his refusal to correct or address many of them. On November 05 2013 11:50 thrawn2112 wrote:
Cephiro perhaps I need to be a little more clear.
NOT ONLY do I not accept that scum are more likely to be inconsistent, I wouldn't be surprised if the complete opposite is true. Have you never missed a math question, have you never forgotten anything? Why would you expect someone who rolls town in an online forum game of mafia to be perfect? Townies aren't the ones who are constantly wondering if their story adds up, mafia are. You can point out as many inconsistencies in WoS's play as you like and I will never listen to you unless you can show me how the inconsistencies are specifically scum-motivated. You need to show a clear mafia agenda behind the fuck-ups, otherwise you've just gone and pointed out a bunch of things that can probably be found in every single filter in every mafia game.
The other reason of why I don't like your case is because of the strong town vibes I feel while reading WoS's posts. I sense nothing fake/reserved/malicious/secretive about them. Alright, I very well see your point. I certainly don't expect townies to play perfectly. I personally just consider it more likely for someone that is constant pressure about being caught in a lie to be inconsistent in their story (especially the longer the story becomes), rather than for a townie that is simply telling the story as his opinions move forward. (Basically for a honest townie, the only inconsistencies come from if he doesn't care about what he said earlier, or forgot and does a sudden change of mind without reasoning, which is rare in my opinion.) Thank you for providing the reasoning behind your point though. I'm not saying I'm right or you're wrong, but we'll have agree to disagree on this one it seems. At several points in the case (in my opinion), I provided good thoughts as for why the inconsistencies are especially scum-motivated. That can't be said for every point, as there are so many things to be considered ambigiously. But I tried my best to show why certain things are in my opinion clearly done from a mafia perspective. My refusal to correct inconsistencies? That's because THERE ARE NONE. Cephiro bring up one example of an inconsistency from your case right now and I will show you how it's not in one instant; I wouldn't be surprised if it's already in the thread. Alright, let's start with this one. On November 04 2013 15:51 WaveofShadow wrote:
Anyone is welcome to comment on Vanesco basically taking the out I gave him and running with it, because I still lean towny on him, but ughhhhhhhhh Why would you give him a free out if you lean town on him, and THEN basically invite everyone to jump on it? It makes absolutely no sense from a town perspective. I can still understand giving a free out to someone you think is town to try and help them, but then pointing them out for taking it? I can't see this from a town perspective no matter how I look at it. If I assume you are town doing this -> You're giving a free bone for scum to take up on. If you think Vanesco was town, there is absolutely no reason for you to do that, as if anything it makes him look worse. Also the fact that you're asking someone else to do the job for you. I didn't do it specifically TO give him the out. My case for him being town was an out by nature. It wasn't a bait to see how he'd react but it interested me nonetheless. In the end it seems as though he took ET's out rather than mine, even though they basically amounted to the same thing. After the point at which I decided he was town rather than scum I never wavered from that point. A free bone for scum to pick up on and do what? Try to fight against me? Like Umasi is still doing with his vote on Vanesco? Look at where it's landing him in my books right now. Come on, Ceph. As far as me making him look bad, Vanesco already looked really bad at that point; his play since that point has looked much better---he is actively looking everywhere to find scum, keeping an open mind and engaging in conversation. Anything else?
Alright. I see the point of your first paragraph. What I meant as a free bone for scum to pick is this: If you are town, and believe Van is town as well, you pointed out a flaw in Van's play (which assumingly you didn't want to pick up on yourself, since you wanted to protect him), if so, why point it out at all? And if you really wanted to see what others thought about that without blaming him yourself, did you not consider the possibility that it is essentially a free flaw pointed out that scum can use to push a mislynch on Van? That is what I meant with the point.
On November 04 2013 23:33 WaveofShadow wrote:
There have been very few votes actually placed so far this game, and a minute amount of suspicion on very few targets so it seems to me to be advantageous for scum to simply be satisfied with the status quo thus far and not move suspicion off of the targets who are already under question somewhat, both of whom I believe to be town presently.
Random thought/stream-of-consciousness (since I was reading hzflank's setup analysis which I liked): Would it ever be worth it to simply claim blue roles during the day? Yes we will lose someone immediately I suppose but is that an acceptable risk if it means we can track role usage (assuming no mis-elections I suppose)?
It may not be worth it I guess if we fuck up bad and elect multiple scum since they can lie about getting RBed and implicate a towny in a 2scum 1town election scenario---yeah come to think of it I think it all falls apart if we fuck up and elect scum since they can lie about checks as well, and the nature of the checks makes it a hell of a lot easier to lie (regarding something like Blaspheme, for example).
At this point in the game, you hadn't really done any pressuring towards players you may have been suspicious of. You tell how the situation at the time is very scum-favoured, but you don't do anything about it. This is not the only time you have pointed out things that should be acted upon but not done anything yourself. (I will admit your play looks a little better now later on, but at the time of this post that was certainly not the case, nor rightly after.)
Also while re-reading my case, I found one point which looks much better for you than I presented, I'm fairly sure you meant otherwise and misread it myself. (If anyone wonders, it's this one: )
It's not going to stop me from performing analysis but I worry a lot because I know my analysis can be wrong, hence me opening it up for others to comment on it and pick apart, like you are right now.
I had originally understood this wrong as not providing analysis (since he didn't), and telling why, when in fact he probably meant he is worried about his analysis being wrong, and that's why he wants others opinions on them. This is now a much more positive sentence in my eyes, even though I still do not like why he is worried about being wrong so much.
On November 04 2013 23:56 WaveofShadow wrote:
Like...I find it pretty ridiculous at this point that anyone could suspect me but that's just self-bias and ego talking right now I suppose. Logically I know I shouldn't be absolved of suspicion unless proven it should be so but I feel pretty damn good about my performance so far, so I just find it weird that I am anyone's #1 scumread considering I have double/triple the filter and content of most people in this game.
You couldn't find anyone better gumshoe?
This is where your main point of defending yourself is the amount of filter you have. You don't really provide much reasoning for other defense even after this even though you claim to. You also claim that "your filter and content was never the main defense", when this points out otherwise.
Please address these two points in a calm and fair manner. At the moment you are still the person I would like to be lynched the most. Address these points, and I'll leave you some time to share more of your own scumreads, and reasons for why they are scum, as I feel that will tell me more than constantly pointing out the flaws in your play over and over again.
|
On November 05 2013 12:56 Sylencia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 08:02 Cephiro wrote:
Aight. That was an interesting read.
As for witchpowershiznit, I suggest we claim our votes only, 72 hours after. I've come up with an interesting idea as well. We will claim the votes in order, one at a time. I have an algorhithm based on certain actions in the game that make me very confident in the idea this will work.
Also, vote me for blue.
I'd like to hear more from players: raynpelikoneet, hzflank, thrawn, Sn0_Man + Myself.
##Vote: WaveOfShadow Have you actually read the thread? I'm sure you would've already dismissed your idea already because we already discussed revealing witchcraft votes and it was either too risky or there were problems in regards to the overlap of blues because we're not likely to change our votes that much between the days, so it's a simple blue shot no matter when we really reveal... I don't really buy the fact that there's an algorithm which would work in our favour 'depending on certain actions in the games' because there are so many things which can happen. Following on from that, why would it ever be a smart move to try gather WC votes so obviously when it just sets you up to be a vig target? The vote on WoS in your very first post sets you up here for a long long tunnel which I'm still currently getting through (though I've taken a skip over the wall of text for now) - if anything I feel like you decided to target WoS after seeing recent posts and then did the long filter dive process to back it up at a later point. This is obviously baseless conjecture but I can see that happening from a scum player.
Yes, I have read the thread. I still do not consider revealing witchcraft votes after the blues have been re-chosen. I do not consider it smart to keep choosing the same people over and over again, some changes will have to be done. As long as preferably 1 person at most overlaps between consequential nights, it is still very unlikely for scum to hit our blues with the additional information from our voting patterns. If we follow my plan of claiming in a certain order based on my algorhithm, it will be very likely we'll catch scum on that alone since they are forced to lie about their witchcraft votes, as they do not have any.
As for why it would be smart to gather WC votes publically? How do you even know if I actually want the votes? What if I am just building a start for something to presenting myself as a possible target for the bullet to be wasted on? Or maybe I just really really like being a blue and doing stuff? Think about it.
I fail to see how I am tunneling WoS. I have provided my opinions on several other players. There is not enough to convince me he is town currently. Is pressuring your most certain scumread, while actively discussing others tunelling in your opinion? Read the case before accusing me of making an useless wall of text.
On November 05 2013 12:56 Sylencia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 09:05 Cephiro wrote:On November 05 2013 08:47 thrawn2112 wrote:On November 05 2013 08:43 Cephiro wrote:
I was simply curious of your opinion about ET. Even though I cannot be sure it's from a town point of view, it still helps to hear perspectives of others as well, to ensure one is not too tunneled with their own opinion, whether it's about thinking someone is town or scum. Even though a certain confidence in one's reads is a must. Ok. So what are your thoughts on this game? You've just now made your first post, but it's somewhat devoid of content which is surprising since you already know who you want to vote for. You've discussed some things with me without really talking about your own views on the game. So far, despite you making a serious vote and having a serious conversation with me about another player, I still have no clue how you're thinking about the game. Why is this and can you fix it? Yes, I didn't intend to start off with a case, neither reason my vote on WoS more specificly. If there is someone you want my general or specific opinion on, just ask. I have several reads to a direction or another, as well as many nullreads. I just don't consider most of them to be worth sharing right now. Nevertheless I'm content with joining in like this, and I intend to make my thought process clear regarding my reads to the most extent, excluding possible thingamagics I have a tendency of pulling off. As for a more concise reply: It is because I wanted to not present all my thoughts in the open immediately. I can "fix" it by replying to any queries you might have. I will also be sharing more content when I find it necessary. How is actively choosing not to give reasoning behind your votes ever townie here? Especially when you make a 'serious' vote on the first post which means that literally no one knows that your train of thought has been before you voted? Choosing to present thoughts only when asked is basically allowing yourself to reveal as little about what you think as possible, which really only has scum motivation behind it since it reduces the likelihood of inconsistencies popping up in the future, no? Skimming over your case, half the points honestly seem like a stretch and rayn's covered pretty much my thoughts on that, I'll have to get back to your reply soon but honestly it's taken me an hour to hit this point because everyone seems to want to write essays these days :{ Conclusion: I don't really buy Ceph's case, and his entrance to me looks like a forced tunnel into WoS. That said, I still need to look at a few other filters before getting deeper reads but Ceph's on my radar at the moment.
Because I was open to replying at any point, as shown in my answers to thrawn's queries. I also fairly quickly followed up with my reasoning. I present thoughts also when not asked, however I don't consider it useful for me to randomly ramble about how I'm unsure about person Y's alignment. Or do you really find it useful? When I have good content to share, I do. When I don't, I follow the thread, ask questions, and reply to questions.
I do like that you are criticizing my play, however I hope my replies will show you why they are from a town perspective.
|
On November 04 2013 19:28 Sylencia wrote:
I've seen quite a few times where it's just thrown out there as a casual observation and people see this kind of activity as being townie because they are scum hunting. (this ended up being a random rant that serves no real purpose)
^ Amazing points like the bolded. Please others, look into things like this.
On November 04 2013 19:28 Sylencia wrote:
Also just to add on here, scum have bigger fish to fry than to plan how to foil our plans. Time constraints and what not means they'd rather go for mislynches than going all out on figuring a loophole in strategies suggested.
Then posts like this make me go ugh. Why do the two close out each other? Forcing mislynches while figuring out loopholes in strategies isn't that hard to do in my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
If Sylencia truly think they are constrained by time and forced to concentrate on mislynches rather than anti-strategizing town, shouldn't we by that logic TRY to make up nice strategies as town, as it forces scum to account for more things, and "being restricted on time", have a hard time of dealing with both mislynches and strategy loopholes?
Yet according to his own opinions, it seems that he is against the idea of strategizing further. (This is the vibe I got from your posting, correct me if I am wrong.)
On November 05 2013 13:09 Sylencia wrote:
Has he done anything since last night to further strengthen your scum read on him? As I said before, I don't really agree with what he's said that much but I can see the train of thought behind it. The contributions which you've provided is just a weak case on Vanesco and continuing to push it.
That said, ET's filter looks pretty horrendous as it can be summed up as so:
Vanesco looks null to scummy because it didn't match Newbie Mafia L (weak)
thrawn posted a list of players who had posted but wasn't advocating lurker lynch (weak)
Nothing else has been said really...
Tbh at the moment ET's filter is really sticking out like a sore thumb to me the more I think about it, since the rest of his posts look like really weak attempts at looking townie :|
##vote EchelonTee
Continuing on to more reading...
1) Seems like a legit opinion, and he is actually trying to carry the conversation into something more useful, rather than going all "Nope that's useless"
2) I don't like how he says short actions that are appareantly weak, but doesn't tell why they are weak.
(Not too hard to figure out if you think about, I assume the Van one is related to meta, and thrawn for pointing out something and not carrying on with it -> unnecessary filter). I just prefer townies to explain their reasons rather than keep the reader guessing.
He has pro-town and pro-scum points quite evenly, but at the moment slightly based on my gut read and the way he presents himself, I am leaning slightly town on Syl. (In response to WoS's queries.)
|
EBWOP: Not to mentioned that I liked some of the points in his case, I actually very much share his mindset in the way he presents some of his opinions even if I do not agree with everything. The case on me seemed a bit hasty, but still given clear thought. (Feel like guy is scum -> Go into reading filter -> Feel the thought process flowing and make a case)
So yeah. I like Syl for now.
|
EBWOP2: Also I've done enough for now, gotta get a break. I will try to be online before deadline, but it is very likely that I won't show up until ~2 hours before. (Practice)
If you have any urgent questions for me, I'll reply them before I leave as long as you post them asap.
|
Aiight. I skimmed through the new posts, but going to read them with a proper thought now. One idea that I thought of is what I wanted to share though.
10 / 3
9 / 3
8 / 2
7 / 2
6 / 1
5 / 1
4 / 0
3 / 0
2 / 0
Amount of Town / Amount of Blues elected.
Basically, I'm thinking we should no-lynch today. That way we are able to have a 3-blue election again tomorrow, providing none of today's get sniped. It also leaves us one more town player for scum to target during the night, making them a little less likely to hit blues. This will basically give us a +1 blue per cycle until snipe or mislynch. At the moment I'm considering it as a fairly good option, but for today only. (We're certainly not no-lynching multiple times as it's our only way of killing scum.) With everyone seemingly all over the place, swinging from target to target, as much as I'd like to believe I can't see us lynching scum today. No-lynch is better than mislynch.
1) We get +1 blue nominated per cycle until snipe or mislynch
2) Scum has 1 more target to choose who to kill and/or try to snipe, making it a little more hard for them to decide.
3) We will have more information to get a proper, scum lynch on D2 to start it off with.
These benefits are made under the assumption that we are mislynching today, which unfortunately looks extremely likely to happen in my eyes. Give these points a thought.
|
Fuck, I dozed off. X_X
So suddenly people want a gumshoe lynch? I really don't like the idea of that tbh.
|
On November 06 2013 06:55 Umasi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2013 06:54 Cephiro wrote:
Fuck, I dozed off. X_X
So suddenly people want a gumshoe lynch? I really don't like the idea of that tbh. Do you prefer it over hzflank?
Nah, I'd like hzflank lynched even less atm. Don't like the lynch options going on right now at all. Not really in favor of voting to get a majority, but I will if the town wants.
|
##unvote
##vote: gumshoe
I swear this is gonna end up badly.
|
.... Yeah. Call me stupid for not stubbornly going against the majority.
Well, at least I showed fellow town I'm ready to co-operate even if I don't completely agree on something. Not sure if that's a good or a bad thing to be honest.
Also I'm gonna go sleep right now to get my rhythm fixed, I'm tired. I'll respond all the "lolcephhammer" -accusations that will surely come in the morning.
|
Just got back home (15 mins ago, took a shower as I came from practice.)
Is there anything really relevant I should know of right away? I believe I should easily catch up before the deadline, but don't count on any deeper analysis in that timeframe.
|
Will be around for deadline, returning in an hour or so. Never knew getting used to a smartphone could be this tricky.
Need to catch up the last few pages, not too many. I've got a fairly good grasp on the situation on hand. Lots of analysis is to be provided.
Syl, get off me, you're wasting your time. Find the real scum instead.
I'll address accusations and questions towards me presented in the thread as first priority, with analysis after. See you soon enough.
|
Aight, back. Had to do some last-minute shopping while they were still open. Blizzcon weekend and stuff, gotta eat too you know!
As to reply for thrawn on this page immediately, I don't really have a problem with being the hammerer. Someone has to take responsibility, and if that someone ends up being me then so be it. I did yesterday to ensure a lynch on a target the majority wanted, it's not like I couldn't do it again. (As long as the target is anyone but me!)
Either way the discussion being on has clarified quite some things for me. The deep dive is still under progress, but it will be fruitful.
Also thanks for those who believe in me based on my Day 1 play, your faith shall not be in vain.
|
##vote Onegu
Like dis?
Tbh, I'm quite surprised if some shenanigans won't come up before deadline.
|
That baby seal is so cute I almost squealed aloud when I heard it. >_>
#manlyman
|
Blizzcon. T_T
Also other blue please don't waste an action on me tonight. I tracked Syl N1, didn't visit anyone.
|
The vote claim thing?
A bit late for that. As well as the way our blues have actioned if my current theory is anywhere near the truth, revealing the votes might end up being more harm, since we don't have many town players left. I reckon there may still be some use if I modified it a little, but I don't see it as a game-changer at this point. There is a lot more to gain from analysis right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
