|
On May 06 2014 10:22 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 10:18 austinmcc wrote:On May 06 2014 10:13 Ace wrote:
Lynch Palmar In addition to Foolishness? As opposed to Foolishness? Correct me if I'm way off here but is there any reason Foolishness is Scum that has anything to do with not being related to a QT? I've skimmed this thread and that's one of the dumbest reasons to lynch someone ever. BH was scum, so Foolishness was in a QT with him = Foolishness scum?
It's nice that you are actually in the thread posting but maybe you should read the thread and not skim? That's absolutely not why Foolishness is going to get lynched.
|
On May 06 2014 10:23 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 10:20 Alakaslam wrote:On April 29 2014 13:49 Ace wrote:
yamato never flipped how would you know you made a mistake oooooooooooooooh ^^ Damn, look at that. This clearly illustrates a "statement made as if you scum slipped" and you could even see me laughing when I wrote it. Even got people to sheep it without ever following up on it. Pro.
In fact, you did- a number of folks immediately sheeped it. I even had a few votes- but of course curse of alakaslam
|
Tell me why he's getting lynched then ( I don't have time to read everything)
|
On May 06 2014 10:25 Ace wrote:
Tell me why he's getting lynched then ( I don't have time to read everything)
Take a look into my filter or maybe you are lucky and austin makes a summary for you. My time is really limited until tomorrow evening.
|
On May 06 2014 10:25 Ace wrote:
Tell me why he's getting lynched then ( I don't have time to read everything)
Because vet sheep + vet fear
|
But JaT.
You had this post where you said he contradicted himself
On May 06 2014 07:19 justanothertownie wrote:So, I went through Foolishness' filter again. I still don't like it and things like this just make no fucking sense: Show nested quote +On April 30 2014 19:42 Foolishness wrote:
We must be playing a different game JAT. Because I could have sworn you said you wanted to kill Oats (probably a good idea) and yet are voting me for my correct analysis about what happened day 1 (clearly a bad idea).
He is contradicting himself in 1 (!) sentence. Good job. He is not trying to defend himself by contributing something and instead just tries to ridicule the accusations against him by misrepresenting them in the process like he does here for example: Show nested quote +On May 02 2014 11:28 Foolishness wrote:
"Foolishness is scum! He pushed a mislynch day 1 and is pushing a mislynch on day 2!"
*Oatsmaster flips mafia*
"Foolishness is scum! He clearly bussed his own teammate with his scumbuddy blazinghand!"
He isn't trying to convince me that he is town by working with me ALTHOUGH HE SAYS I AM TOWN - he is just hoping that everyone will ignore me since I am so hellbent on killing him. He has not made a single genuine, insightful case or even post all game. He went after RoL (town) for days now until scum shot him (almost certainly unintentionally) without making a real case on him after his terrible day1 case on SnB (town). It seems like he didn't discuss his TOP SCUMREAD RoL in the qt at all. He is going for lurkers above all else. Foolishness if you are town I expect from you that you do a new analysis of how the day1 lynch went down now that we know some key alignments (oats, BH, RoL...). Day2 would also be good (I don't think there is much to gain by analysing the day3 lynch). If you don't come up with good contributions today you will die one way or the other.
Here, but the statement you made red has nothing to do with what you say it says
|
And when you are being tunneled the only defense after the initial proofs is to ridicule the person tunneling you. Especially if nothing to refute is given.
|
On May 06 2014 10:29 Alakaslam wrote:But JaT. You had this post where you said he contradicted himself Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 07:19 justanothertownie wrote:So, I went through Foolishness' filter again. I still don't like it and things like this just make no fucking sense: On April 30 2014 19:42 Foolishness wrote:
We must be playing a different game JAT. Because I could have sworn you said you wanted to kill Oats (probably a good idea) and yet are voting me for my correct analysis about what happened day 1 (clearly a bad idea).
He is contradicting himself in 1 (!) sentence. Good job. He is not trying to defend himself by contributing something and instead just tries to ridicule the accusations against him by misrepresenting them in the process like he does here for example: On May 02 2014 11:28 Foolishness wrote:
"Foolishness is scum! He pushed a mislynch day 1 and is pushing a mislynch on day 2!"
*Oatsmaster flips mafia*
"Foolishness is scum! He clearly bussed his own teammate with his scumbuddy blazinghand!"
He isn't trying to convince me that he is town by working with me ALTHOUGH HE SAYS I AM TOWN - he is just hoping that everyone will ignore me since I am so hellbent on killing him. He has not made a single genuine, insightful case or even post all game. He went after RoL (town) for days now until scum shot him (almost certainly unintentionally) without making a real case on him after his terrible day1 case on SnB (town). It seems like he didn't discuss his TOP SCUMREAD RoL in the qt at all. He is going for lurkers above all else. Foolishness if you are town I expect from you that you do a new analysis of how the day1 lynch went down now that we know some key alignments (oats, BH, RoL...). Day2 would also be good (I don't think there is much to gain by analysing the day3 lynch). If you don't come up with good contributions today you will die one way or the other. Here, but the statement you made red has nothing to do with what you say it says
Yes, it does because in the post in question his day1 analysis was that the day1 lynch was town driven and mafia sat back which doesn't go together with a scumread on the second wagon oatsmaster.
|
On May 06 2014 10:22 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 10:18 austinmcc wrote:On May 06 2014 10:13 Ace wrote:
Lynch Palmar In addition to Foolishness? As opposed to Foolishness? Correct me if I'm way off here but is there any reason Foolishness is Scum that has anything to do with not being related to a QT? I've skimmed this thread and that's one of the dumbest reasons to lynch someone ever. BH was scum, so Foolishness was in a QT with him = Foolishness scum? The only reasons are non-QT related. QT stuff matters almost zero, BH adding him matters zero.
- The SnB case doesn't read like town-foolishness
- Sandro scummy on Foolishness
- Foolishness made 0 attempt to ... lead take/take over/post much in the way of reads
- That same point x2 given how passive some of our days have been
- Scummy on oats, but doesn't think mafia worried about the D1 lynch (which was almost oats at one point), and instead of pushing oats pushes RoL. Goes through past games of SnB, prplhz, RoL, WoS, everyone except....oats. Just says oats is mafia for not posting, when MULTIPLE players say oats is not scummy, he's just oats-y. Foolishness, ye olde lover o' past games and meta reads, declines to comment AT ALL basically on oats's past games, whether this is oats-y behavior, and just half-ass wants to lynch him, except not as much as RoL, even when oats is being discussed heavily.
- Foolishness has essentially pushed SnB, prplhz (ish), oats, RebirthOfLegend, very very very likely Cephiro, and pretty likely JAT.
- Granted I think it was the first mislynch on him evah, but in Shadow Game Foolishness was ... pretty defensive. When folks turned their gaze on him hard, he was making cases, reading a bunch of past games of half the game, trying actively to solve things. Here, there's been mid-level scumspicion on him the whole time and he's done...not much/any of that, again, really 0 interest in trying to round people up and lead town really.
- Kinda just never ever PUSHING his reads. He's willing to consolidate on anyone D2, rather than actively trying to get any support for RoL. On D3 he drops one post on BH/Slam, and then there's nothing else.
- This is smelly only in hindsight, and only if Foolishness flips mafia, and really isn't scummy but it's just kind of neat if he's mafia
On May 03 2014 09:39 Foolishness wrote:
I'm definitely not giving away anything about the mason QT unless it's necessary to confirm someone's alignment/behavior or until the traitor is dead. Mechanics about it only helps mafia/traitor who may have extra information regarding peoples' roles.
Cephiro, do you know how your parity checks work in relation to the traitor? e.g. say you check the traitor night 1 and a town night 2, do you get a different result? Does it depend on if the traitor's been recruited (and if so when)?
Those are my reasons. JAT has also posted a couple things that I hadn't been looking at, a couple inconsistencies in his posting, like saying he wasn't going to claim QT stuff until the traitor died --> BH dies, flips traitor --> I'm not claiming QT stuff.
The ONLY QT-related reasons to lynch him are basically that he's also not trying to wrangle up any control there, and while he and BH chatted a good bit on D1, he's not really trying to push BH towards RoL D2, not trying to push him towards Oats, really just ... not interested in arguing his reads within the QT, and lately not very interested in discussing anything.
If that changes and we get to yappin', I'll say so.
|
projected chance of convincing ace to lynch fool over palmar: 0%
|
ace will come in here and say that there is literally not a single thing pointing at fool being mafia
|
|
|
Grats prplhz. Ace you ARE lucky, because there's at least what I would use as a summary.
|
austinmcc: posting it twice so Ace doesn't have to read it once.
|
On May 06 2014 10:39 prplhz wrote:
ace will come in here and say that there is literally not a single thing pointing at fool being mafia
![[image loading]](http://www.yardbarker.com/media/f/b/fb30b9aec33a41c8d4cddf3f9f515f3189d34237/xl/89119853.jpg)
|
On May 06 2014 10:46 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2014 10:39 prplhz wrote:
ace will come in here and say that there is literally not a single thing pointing at fool being mafia More like
![[image loading]](http://theclassical.org/sites/default/files/donald-sterling.jpg)
|
al roker and terry gilliam?
|
First 4 points are garbage. Don't show him being scum at all.
Oats point is somewhat convincing if true. Going through past games of everyone else except the guy who is Scum, that's tangible.
Foolishness has essentially pushed SnB, prplhz (ish), oats, RebirthOfLegend, very very very likely Cephiro, and pretty likely JAT.
Dangerous thinking here. Has he pushed these people for lynching, or just accused them of being Scum? When you say push, I assume you know what it means - actually trying to get wagons rolling on them. If this isn't the case, then this point doesn't hold water.
Granted I think it was the first mislynch on him evah, but in Shadow Game Foolishness was ... pretty defensive. When folks turned their gaze on him hard, he was making cases, reading a bunch of past games of half the game, trying actively to solve things. Here, there's been mid-level scumspicion on him the whole time and he's done...not much/any of that, again, really 0 interest in trying to round people up and lead town really.
Useless. What he did another game means absolute shit. (This is the real reason you should be lynching Foolishness - looking at past games to drum up cases on people. Oh well.)
Kinda just never ever PUSHING his reads.
So what, doesn't make him scum.
He's willing to consolidate on anyone D2, rather than actively trying to get any support for RoL. On D3 he drops one post on BH/Slam, and then there's nothing else.
Good! This is more like it. That's scummy. Although it contradicts what you said earlier (he can't be pushing reads and not trying to gather support on RoL) the bolded is possibly scum behavior. Note trying to consolidate on a lynch in a majority rules setup is something anyone with a brain on either alignment will do in a game with day killing roles.
Those are my reasons. JAT has also posted a couple things that I hadn't been looking at, a couple inconsistencies in his posting, like saying he wasn't going to claim QT stuff until the traitor died --> BH dies, flips traitor --> I'm not claiming QT stuff.
Good point. Did he post why he changed his stance? Town doesn't need to know everything, but if he said he would before and flipped he should have given a reason.
|
Nono, we lynched scum on D2 and D3, while you just said to lynch Palmar. Who, granted, may be scum this game.
It's less critique-the-summary time and more I'm-ace-and-I-think-the-following-about-Foolishness time, or something like that.
That said, I'll play the game cuz it's fun.
Drop the word pushed hereFoolishness has essentially pushed SnB, prplhz (ish), WoS, oats, RebirthOfLegend, very very very likely Cephiro, and pretty likely JAT. These are the folks he's been scummy on. We'll add WoS there, who was thrown into a reads post. So far it's a lot of incorrect reads. It's not about the pushing, it's about the number of green/likely green folks. Foolishness doesn't have to be magically right on everything, but if he's WRONG on SnB, then WRONG on RoL, probably wrong on Cephiro, and thinks JAT is town despite thinking he was scummy earlier, then you've got a Foolishness who has been very wrong about the game, and is not attempting to correct that. Some folks were "pushed" for lynching, but mainly in a single post, possibly 2-3. For the most part, he followed up his reads with about as much effort as you put into pushing Palmar.
The word pushed can be removed and the point is the same, pushed was just poor wording.
Dunno on the QT contradiction stuff. I don't believe there was any post. He's got a filter that you can find and look for a change in reasoning though <3
As far as the first 4 reasons, meh. Him not reading the same as town foolishness ain't garbage, it's just not anything you can really present to another person as convincing evidence (at least in that format above)
|
Foolishness can answer that when he gets back. If not or the answer is trash I'll vote him tomorrow. Not gonna filter dive when there are basketball games to watch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
