|
On December 13 2013 13:00 VayneAuthority wrote:
plutarch cannot be marv actually, timezone is way off. it's some one else
:D
|
|
|
I still can't get over that vig shot.
|
On December 13 2013 13:22 Corazon wrote:
How was HF obviously the medic?
And yeah, i didn't realize timezones. Only Marv has tunneled me this badly.
He was obviously town. And the medic.
|
On December 13 2013 13:29 Corazon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 13:28 Plutarch wrote:On December 13 2013 13:22 Corazon wrote:
How was HF obviously the medic?
And yeah, i didn't realize timezones. Only Marv has tunneled me this badly. He was obviously town. And the medic. Sorry I'm not all omniscent...
No you are just so self-absorbed that instead of trying to shoot one of the many good vig targets in the game, you shoot the clearly town medic that was making good cases against you.
Basically, if you shoot the same target as scum night one you are a failure of a vigilante.
|
What do you two think of LSB?
|
I think LSB is likely scum. I want to know what everyone else thinks
|
On December 13 2013 13:53 JarJarDrinks wrote:Going to bed now. I'll reread him tomorrow but I don't think I've found him scummy at all so far though. I do like his scumreads (which I believe are purple and sidesprung) Ur thoughts on Vayne?
not sure yet.
|
Who do you think is scum kush?
|
I find two things interesting about LSB's filter the first is the following post in which LSB clearly shows that he is operationally thinking with a scum mindset.
On December 10 2013 07:36 LSB wrote:
In my opinion natural scum play is to stay low, especially on day 1, the town tends to self destruct anyways day 1. This whole entire "starting shit" strat is actually pretty good, even though it is counterintuitive to the idea of trying to not draw attention. Thus I assumed this strat is not very obvious, especially since I personally never considered it.
The second interesting thing in his filter is the way he states in his first case how we need to worry about scum bandwagoning onto lynches.
On December 10 2013 13:35 LSB wrote:
What is important to keep an eye out are the bandwagoners.
The logic behind this is that very few townies would be willing to push a bad lynch, but a mafia would be willing to push many lynches on greenies regarless of the contents of the lynches.
I am seriously concerned about his willingness to support lynches without contributing much personal insights.
Which is kind of funny considering his terrible voting history.
On December 10 2013 06:43 LSB wrote:
##Vote: purpletrator
Scum are mafia pretending to be someone else.
Smurfs are players pretending to be someone else.
Smurfs = Mafia.
Flawless mafia. Lynch all Smurfs
On December 10 2013 09:00 LSB wrote:
##Unvote
##Vote: kushm4sta
On December 11 2013 00:32 LSB wrote:
I'm glad to see someone feels that Purpletrator is being overly defensive
Rather than being nonsensical I saw it as being paranoid and believing there was a serious case on him and a need to defend himself. He handled that far too poorly, I chalked it up as bad play at the time, but this paranoia does bother me.
##unvote
##Vote Purpletrator
On December 11 2013 12:04 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 12:02 bumatlarge wrote:
The sidesprang case is the bait and switch one right? He isn't too active, which is usually what you do if someone accuses you and they are right. He doesn't have alot to go on. LETS GET THIS WAGON GOING GAIS ##unvote##Vote: Sidesprang
On December 12 2013 05:40 LSB wrote:
Spaghetticus filter is just one giant mess of him trying to stir up activity, to me he is trying to show himself as being more active than he actually is.
Unfortunately between Spag and VA I am not confident about someone being scum, but Spag's filter suggests to me that he is more likely than not mafia
##Unvote
##Vote: Spaghetticus
On December 13 2013 06:21 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 06:20 Artanis[Xp] wrote:On December 13 2013 06:19 LSB wrote:
Can the vig claim? Can you read? Oh I see Well that solves the Corazon issue. ##Vote: Sidesprang
Calls out bad bandwagon votes for being scummy, proceeds to make bandwagon votes all game.
|
On December 13 2013 20:16 kushm4sta wrote:
the obvious people
corazon
artanis
that other scummy guy
Not good enough. Also corazon is the retarded vig. Which you would know if you read the thread at all.
|
I find two things interesting about LSB's filter the first is the following post in which LSB clearly shows that he is operationally thinking with a scum mindset.
On December 10 2013 07:36 LSB wrote:
In my opinion natural scum play is to stay low, especially on day 1, the town tends to self destruct anyways day 1. This whole entire "starting shit" strat is actually pretty good, even though it is counterintuitive to the idea of trying to not draw attention. Thus I assumed this strat is not very obvious, especially since I personally never considered it.
The second interesting thing in his filter is the way he states in his first case how we need to worry about scum bandwagoning onto lynches.
On December 10 2013 13:35 LSB wrote:
What is important to keep an eye out are the bandwagoners.
The logic behind this is that very few townies would be willing to push a bad lynch, but a mafia would be willing to push many lynches on greenies regarless of the contents of the lynches.
I am seriously concerned about his willingness to support lynches without contributing much personal insights.
Which is kind of funny considering his terrible voting history.
On December 10 2013 06:43 LSB wrote:
##Vote: purpletrator
Scum are mafia pretending to be someone else.
Smurfs are players pretending to be someone else.
Smurfs = Mafia.
Flawless mafia. Lynch all Smurfs
On December 10 2013 09:00 LSB wrote:
##Unvote
##Vote: kushm4sta
On December 11 2013 00:32 LSB wrote:
I'm glad to see someone feels that Purpletrator is being overly defensive
Rather than being nonsensical I saw it as being paranoid and believing there was a serious case on him and a need to defend himself. He handled that far too poorly, I chalked it up as bad play at the time, but this paranoia does bother me.
##unvote
##Vote Purpletrator
On December 11 2013 12:04 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 12:02 bumatlarge wrote:
The sidesprang case is the bait and switch one right? He isn't too active, which is usually what you do if someone accuses you and they are right. He doesn't have alot to go on. LETS GET THIS WAGON GOING GAIS ##unvote##Vote: Sidesprang
On December 12 2013 05:40 LSB wrote:
Spaghetticus filter is just one giant mess of him trying to stir up activity, to me he is trying to show himself as being more active than he actually is.
Unfortunately between Spag and VA I am not confident about someone being scum, but Spag's filter suggests to me that he is more likely than not mafia
##Unvote
##Vote: Spaghetticus
On December 13 2013 06:21 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 06:20 Artanis[Xp] wrote:On December 13 2013 06:19 LSB wrote:
Can the vig claim? Can you read? Oh I see Well that solves the Corazon issue. ##Vote: Sidesprang
Calls out bad bandwagon votes for being scummy, proceeds to make bandwagon votes all game.
Re posted for visibility
|
On December 13 2013 20:34 raynpelikoneet wrote:
I kinda want to lynch Plutarch for that post.
I called LSB out for his voting behavior on D!, especially asked you about it. NOW it's relevant. You are scum.
Did you? I just read his filter and that is what I saw. Don't see how that makes me scum though.
If you did post that day one then I agree with you, obviously.
|
On December 13 2013 20:35 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Like literally the exact same thing. IT was not a bog deal on D1.
##Vote: Plutarch
How does it make me scum that I arrived at the same conclusions as you?
|
On December 13 2013 20:38 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Yes i did. You are either not reading or scum. Leaning on scum because i even asked your opinion on it.
Both are bad.
Or I just forgot about a post you made several day's ago.
|
On December 13 2013 20:38 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Yes i did. You are either not reading or scum. Leaning on scum because i even asked your opinion on it.
Both are bad.
This still doesn't tell me why it makes me scum. Even if I had remembered your post, why does making a post arriving at the same conclusions make me scum? Why couldn't a townie do the same thing?
|
On December 13 2013 20:41 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 21:45 raynpelikoneet wrote:LSB what are you doing? You don't seem to give a shit about who's lynched. You're flip-flopping around purple/sidesprang and to me it looks like you are just trying to find something that sticks. Explain this wishy-washyness: + Show Spoiler +On December 10 2013 13:35 LSB wrote:General comments: purpletrator is being incredibly defensive and showing off as paranoid to me xatalos has been powerplaying quite hard day 1, and typically lynches of major town voices go badly day 1. Push PostPersonally I think the most important post so far is this Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 10:10 Holyflare wrote:On December 10 2013 09:42 sidesprang wrote:
Ok, so a lot of things going on. I agree we should not let lurkers stay silent, and should poke anyone that stays silent for to long. But there is a lot of value in not spamming down the thread if you are town, that will only make the scummy post harder to see. I'm mainly looking at you Xatalos, as you are on your third page in filter with like half of the post being oneliners. Even if town you will be detrimental to the town if you keep this up! There are others aswell, just used you as an example.
--------
About Cora there are a few things I did not like and caught my eye. His opening post is not good, and if he's mafia hes basically just buying himself an excuse to lurk for day 1 and then come out day 2 and bring chaos onto the town.
He also deflected a lot in his defence and basically just said "look at X he's scummier than me".
And lastly he asked for people to vote for him if they found him scummy, which is very Anti-Town.
I do not feel cora is mafia yet at least, but definetly worth to look at.
-------
@Kish, can anyone that have played with him earlier say something about how he plays. He is deffo playing the most anti town atm, but he's also doing it on purpose which is frustrating.
I really really do not like this post as an entry post: A) Sheeps everthing I have mentioned on Cora. B) Uses a big chunk of his entry post saying why cora is displaying mafia associated traits but won't vote him yet? C) Mentions Xatalos in a completely non-inquisitive manner, no justification on a read based on Xan's posts or anything. Sidesprang, what do you think of Xatalos so far? He has been pressured quite hard this game, were his responses more town alignment indicative to you? I've already mentioned how I felt the initial read of Cora was incredibly forced. This can easily attributed to Holyflare's overeagerness. What is important to keep an eye out are the bandwagoners. Or the "bait and switch" approach. Make a flimsy case, wait for someone to quickly jump on your plan, and finger the bandwagoner as mafia. The logic behind this is that very few townies would be willing to push a bad lynch, but a mafia would be willing to push many lynches on greenies regarless of the contents of the lynches. Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 11:13 sidesprang wrote:On December 10 2013 10:10 Holyflare wrote:On December 10 2013 09:42 sidesprang wrote:
Ok, so a lot of things going on. I agree we should not let lurkers stay silent, and should poke anyone that stays silent for to long. But there is a lot of value in not spamming down the thread if you are town, that will only make the scummy post harder to see. I'm mainly looking at you Xatalos, as you are on your third page in filter with like half of the post being oneliners. Even if town you will be detrimental to the town if you keep this up! There are others aswell, just used you as an example.
--------
About Cora there are a few things I did not like and caught my eye. His opening post is not good, and if he's mafia hes basically just buying himself an excuse to lurk for day 1 and then come out day 2 and bring chaos onto the town.
He also deflected a lot in his defence and basically just said "look at X he's scummier than me".
And lastly he asked for people to vote for him if they found him scummy, which is very Anti-Town.
I do not feel cora is mafia yet at least, but definetly worth to look at.
-------
@Kish, can anyone that have played with him earlier say something about how he plays. He is deffo playing the most anti town atm, but he's also doing it on purpose which is frustrating.
I really really do not like this post as an entry post: A) Sheeps everthing I have mentioned on Cora. B) Uses a big chunk of his entry post saying why cora is displaying mafia associated traits but won't vote him yet? C) Mentions Xatalos in a completely non-inquisitive manner, no justification on a read based on Xan's posts or anything. Sidesprang, what do you think of Xatalos so far? He has been pressured quite hard this game, were his responses more town alignment indicative to you? A) I might be blind but I dont see you mention everything I mentioned, but if I still find it scummy would I not be allowed to say it ? B) I don't see a reason for voting anyone yet, he is deffo looking scummy but It's still early in D1. C) The point about Xatalos was a plea to the Town that people should rather focus on more quality over quantity when posting. Can I not do that in a non-inquisitive manner? I said I just used him as an example. About Xatalos, I deffo dont like his opening. He goes after Cora and Kush which I think its fine, but also goes after Slam and Spag which had barely spoken and had not said anything scummy. So Artanis evaluation of him fits nicely, tho I wont say he is mafia because of it. He might just do it to start discussion, as he says he likes all the action happning here. I dont and will keep an eye on him. And his defence was kinda just meta, "saying that is how he plays", and I dont know the guy. Might be true might not be. I dont like meta defences and its another thing that will make me keep an eye on him. Indeed he continues his bandwagony attitude. Although there have only been two posts from him, bait and switch has a 100% success rate (n = 1), and I might as well go with it. I am seriously concerned about his willingness to support lynches without contributing much personal insights. ##unvote##Vote; sidesprang On December 11 2013 00:32 LSB wrote:Out of all the games I've played why are we talking about the one I am currently in. PM the host for obs if you really want to know my alignment in PYP that bad. I've already stated how I think the Corazon lynch is just a huge bandwagon, so I won't vote for him. I'm glad to see someone feels that Purpletrator is being overly defensive Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 17:47 raynpelikoneet wrote:EBWOP: Why we should lynch purpletrator:He votes for LSB based on this: On December 10 2013 07:33 purpletrator wrote:On December 10 2013 07:20 raynpelikoneet wrote:On December 10 2013 07:18 Alakaslam wrote:On December 10 2013 07:16 raynpelikoneet wrote:On December 10 2013 06:44 purpletrator wrote:On December 10 2013 06:43 LSB wrote:
##Vote: purpletrator
Scum are mafia pretending to be someone else.
Smurfs are players pretending to be someone else.
Smurfs = Mafia.
Flawless mafia. Lynch all Smurfs You could at least start in alphabetical order. What if I reveal my identity? Would you change your vote to a different smurf? Worst post in thread. ##Vote: purpletrator Kusplain? Hello sir, I promise not to get mad at you this game If purpletrator can reasonably explain what he is going to achieve with that post i'm going to unvote. Now i gotta sleep! cya tomorrow. Please don't be useless Alakaslam ok? You mean to tell me you have no concern over the erroneous logic LSB used to vote me? You honestly think my response is worse than "smurfs=mafia"? To actually answer your question, I'm wondering why LSB is wasting my time and wanted to see if he's actually trying to get a response or just trolling. When he ignored my response I chalked it up to 'just trolling'. Then you called me out, he noticed my response and now wants to fish for my identity. Now it looks scummy. On December 10 2013 07:18 LSB wrote:Missed this post On December 10 2013 06:44 purpletrator wrote:On December 10 2013 06:43 LSB wrote:
##Vote: purpletrator
Scum are mafia pretending to be someone else.
Smurfs are players pretending to be someone else.
Smurfs = Mafia.
Flawless mafia. Lynch all Smurfs You could at least start in alphabetical order. What if I reveal my identity? Would you change your vote to a different smurf? Ya, sure. Reveal please! It was a hypothetical. I'm not revealing my identity. Good to know you dont give a shit about the lynch. ##Vote: LSB First of all the first contribution is never going to achieve anything. What's LSB supposed to answer as town or as scum and how does purple gain something from it? There is no way it's going to do anything. Then he calls the question hypothetical, but still it somehow gives him a reason to vote for LSB. Why? And how does this tell him LSB "does not give shit about the lynch"? This whole interaction makes no sense from the beginning because there is no possible way purple is going to gain any sort of information on LSB by this. Then this happens: On December 10 2013 08:55 purpletrator wrote:On December 10 2013 08:53 Xatalos wrote:
By the way, purple, your filter is pretty lackluster so far. What have you been doing for all this time? Actively lurking? i went to look at LSB's old games, only actually looked at PYP which is still ongoing and decided I'd seen enough to unvote him. This is why he unvotes LSB. Does this look like a reason to unvote? Because "LSB does not read properly in either of the games". This makes him town how? Regardless of LSB's alignment in PYP game this certainly does not make him town because not reading properly is not alignment indicative and doing something in both of these games does not make LSB town here. On top of that, nobody is even allowed to agree/diagree with that "meta-read" because the PYP game is going on. The whole evolution of his LSB-read and interactions with him are completely nonsensical, can't possibly achieve anything and do not even have any sort of logic behind them. Rather than being nonsensical I saw it as being paranoid and believing there was a serious case on him and a need to defend himself. He handled that far too poorly, I chalked it up as bad play at the time, but this paranoia does bother me. ##unvote##Vote Purpletrator On December 11 2013 11:33 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 10:48 Holyflare wrote:On December 11 2013 10:36 VayneAuthority wrote:On December 11 2013 10:32 Holyflare wrote:On December 11 2013 10:24 LSB wrote:On December 11 2013 10:14 Holyflare wrote:On December 11 2013 09:06 LSB wrote:
Probably I should include a reasoning:
Should Alakaslam continue with his play it will be incredibly difficult to get a correct read from Alakaslam or any player he 'pressures'. I don't want to waste a DT check on him, nor do I want to have him at LYLO.
I am of the belief that unless a seriously good candidate comes up, the day one lynch is probably the best time to get rid of lurkers/noncontributors. Question. Would scum alakaslam continue posting in this manner despite thread saying he'd get lynched for it? What would be the net benefit to that kind of scum play? By that same logic would town alakaslam continue posting in the manner despite thread saying he'd get lynched for it? What would be the net benefit to that kind of scum play? He has chosen a way to play and hopefully we can discourage him from continuing with it That's what I'm getting at, since we called him out on hit he actually switched his playstyle to a more coherent one and contributed and then reverted back to the old play intertwined with it. I see that as more of a wanting to use a strategy to discover information than survival tactics. depends on how you look at it. He reverted out of it once he picked up 2 quick votes and people were talking about maybe voting for him. When everything breezed over he went back to trolling. It can be twisted anyway you want it to be. From the story I just told, that's survival tactics. Well I'd agree but the last 2 pages of his filter are coherent and thoughts, it is only that last post that was quoted that was an out of the blue revert but as LSB said that was to illicit a reaction out of someone (stop ruining plans lsb)! So, in actuality he is contributing - or more to the fact that he isn't being detrimental like he was at the start. I thought it was fine, come lynch sidesprang http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=436388¤tpage=20#389 On December 11 2013 11:34 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 10:16 Holyflare wrote:
Also, what happened to your sidesprang lynch? I take it that has disappeared if you are mentioning lynching slam over him? Dunno, no one was talking about it so I decided to pressure slam. I'd rather lynch sidesprang if we get the traction On December 11 2013 12:04 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 12:02 bumatlarge wrote:
The sidesprang case is the bait and switch one right? He isn't too active, which is usually what you do if someone accuses you and they are right. He doesn't have alot to go on. LETS GET THIS WAGON GOING GAIS ##unvote##Vote: Sidesprang You make a case on sidesprang. You don't try to convince anyone to lynch him and switch your vote based on my case. After this you seem to be wanting to push sidesprang lynch instead. But in the next post not really.. Your vote is not even on him. Then you put your vote back on him. I assume it's because the "bait and switch" strategy? Meaning "mafia did not hop on "easy" lynch therefore sidesprang is mafia" correct? I don't find this reason acceptable to lynch someone, especially as you have explained the "strategy" in your original post where you vote for sidesprang.. So, srsly, wtf? Explain your behavior. Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 22:26 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Yeah me too. What do you make of LSB's logic behind his votes? The post i made about his voting behavior. Do you think it makes sense because to me it really does not. Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 22:30 Plutarch wrote:
He moved his vote around a bit which I like. He doesn't make sense at all which I don't. Is that scummy though? I'm not so sure. So yeah. you gotta be scum.
Not really. That post was made at the beginning of day one when moving around your vote is a positive. I just Analyzed his filter carefully and with new information from the spag lynch and came up with a new conclusion. Doesn;t mjake me scum
Stop calling me scum and explain why it makes me scum.
Otherwise you are just making a lot of noise for no reason.
|
On December 13 2013 20:43 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Because it was not a big deal on D1. And now you tell it's scummy. You are arriving to different conclusions based on same information. duh..
Except it is different information. Half his votes came after that post of yours. And I analyzed his posting far more carefully this time than i did whilst reading your post.
|
Also my case is different than yours. I am saying he called bandwagoning easily and without reason scummy and then did that very thing all day 1 and into day 2.
You did not say that from the quoted posts you provided.
|
On December 13 2013 20:49 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Except 4/5 of the posts you quote are in wht i asked you to elaborate on. And the last one is consolidation.
4/6 and my main point is something you didn't mention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
