On October 31 2014 12:01 Circumstance wrote:
First game on TL, using TL's systems, thank God I'm town, makes things a lot easier.
(Question: If someone votes in the separate thread, is that vote binding for the day?)
Bad entrance. Downgrades his play (hi guys, I'm new on TL) and forced town claim (I'm town lololol makes things easier(?)). Doesn't look like a natural town writing style to me. As I said before, scum has a hard time trying to put himself in the game. Their writing style is mostly forced.
On October 31 2014 12:18 Circumstance wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2014 12:13 Damdred wrote:On October 31 2014 12:11 Circumstance wrote:On October 31 2014 12:09 Damdred wrote:On October 31 2014 12:07 Circumstance wrote:On October 31 2014 12:05 Damdred wrote:
Circumstance what do you think about the discussion so far
If ritoky's picture of GB (which I presume stands for GlowingBear) is accurate, then being Jewish, I kinda have to be suspicious of him.
That made me laugh, so what about the other prevalant conversation especially the scum read that's being discussed
It's Day 1, you're gonna have to be a little more specific than "the scumread". Do you mean the joke thing? Because I've never seen any particular differentiation on that in my previous online Mafia experiences.
well what do you think about glowings post then?
I think it's jumping to conclusions a bit quickly - the game had a clearly defined starting time, so if you didn't post pretty quickly, you'd look suspicious in that you were laying low. Seems like an innocent misread.
You see, he doesn't compromises himself here in any position.
He says people seems forced to post and that was an null tell from Kirby, BUT he also thinks that my push on him is also null. An innocent misread. So both of us were null at that time.
I don't believe this.
In a jokey atmosphere, when someone does what I did, there is clearly a motivation behind it.
Which means
1) I'm town trying to bring serious discussion to the topic
2) I'm town having a scumread
3) I'm scum trying to look townie
4) I'm scum trying to pick on a bad post from town.
That's what you can understand from my post. There is no space for "innocent misread".
On October 31 2014 12:23 Circumstance wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2014 12:20 Damdred wrote:On October 31 2014 12:18 Circumstance wrote:On October 31 2014 12:13 Damdred wrote:On October 31 2014 12:11 Circumstance wrote:On October 31 2014 12:09 Damdred wrote:On October 31 2014 12:07 Circumstance wrote:On October 31 2014 12:05 Damdred wrote:
Circumstance what do you think about the discussion so far
If ritoky's picture of GB (which I presume stands for GlowingBear) is accurate, then being Jewish, I kinda have to be suspicious of him.
That made me laugh, so what about the other prevalant conversation especially the scum read that's being discussed
It's Day 1, you're gonna have to be a little more specific than "the scumread". Do you mean the joke thing? Because I've never seen any particular differentiation on that in my previous online Mafia experiences.
well what do you think about glowings post then?
I think it's jumping to conclusions a bit quickly - the game had a clearly defined starting time, so if you didn't post pretty quickly, you'd look suspicious in that you were laying low. Seems like an innocent misread.
Why does it have to be a misread? Does scum not do what he did? Why are you so certain of a misread?
Because I'm not ready to call out potential scum this early in, and the subject matter is pretty innocuous. Plus, I've dealt with a fair number of games where someone from town made these kind of quick claims that did not always pan out.
Translation: I don't want to bring attention.
On October 31 2014 12:51 Circumstance wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2014 12:45 Oatsmaster wrote:On October 31 2014 12:33 liancourt wrote:On October 31 2014 12:29 Oatsmaster wrote:
the absolute most boring fluffy start of day 1 ever.
Ever.
Who was the most fluffiest ?
everyone, i dont care, im not reading that shit.
Just making things clear - if you didn't read portions of the thread, then what makes you say it's all fluff?
"Just making things clear" = I'm not calling you scum for that, I just want clarification. Please don't be angry at me.
On October 31 2014 13:45 Circumstance wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2014 13:42 ritoky wrote:On October 31 2014 13:36 jrkirby wrote:On October 31 2014 13:33 ritoky wrote:On October 31 2014 13:30 jrkirby wrote:On October 31 2014 13:28 GlowingBear wrote:On October 31 2014 13:25 jrkirby wrote:
Well, this is news. I think analysing GB would probably be best, but since there's no takebacks of the vote, I'll wait a bit. to analyse him.
You think I'm scum?
No, I have a null read on you. I think you getting analysed would give more information about other players than anyone else getting analysed.
so do you know what analyzing does? and how do you know it will be beneficial? cuz i sure as shit dunno what it means.
Due to the word,
analyse, it should give some clue as to what character they are from heartchstone, which should give a clue to their alignment.
If you're so certain that is what it does, then why wouldn't you volunteer yourself so that you are confirmed town for everyone?
You do realize the it's kel'thuzad's cat, and in warcraft mythos kel'thuzad is an evil lich...so ummmmmm...
But the post specifically stated a goal of eliminating the Horde, which someone (don't remember who) suggested would be the Mafia. So what I'm wondering is, was Mr. Bigglesworth a sort of game event, or is there a Kel'Thuzad role?
Useless WIFOM. Disconnected conclusions. "Horde may be mafia, therefore... IS THE CAT A SORT OF EVENT OR THERE IS A KEL THUZAD ROLE?"
On October 31 2014 15:15 Circumstance wrote:
I don't know enough about explanaition posts to try and write soomething super-detailed, and there isn't all too much just yet to go off of, so I'm just gonna give a brief explanation for my first formal action.
The early suspicion for me is on Oats. A quick filter seems to show him being rather "floaty" - posting often enough to be seen as active, replying to discussion posts enough to be seen as involved, but not contributing to those same discussions enough to be seen as the originator of any idea. It seems like he's going out of his way not to initiate or develop any reads, not to move discussions forward, but merely to antagonize, to take existing discussions and say "this is bad, this is wrong, you don't know what you're doing". I can't tell if it's meant as a way to gain the trust of other players or something else entirely, but ATM, this doesn't feel like the way someone acts if they want the town to be moving towards any meaningful conclusion.
Seuss, I understand where you're coming from on GB, but for my money, I think we might be learning more if we
##Analyze: Oatsmaster
"EARLY" suspicion. Translation = "this is not going to hold water for long"
Analyze Oats. Do not vote for him.
NOW, THE MOST ILLUSTRATIVE POST:
On November 01 2014 09:42 Circumstance wrote:
So, we have GB as a call for the D1 backup, and some people seem to be jumping onboard for risk.nuke. I've read the case for lynching risk.nuke, and I'm not yet completely sold. I don't have a solid read on him yet, so can anyone give me a reason we should lynch someone else INSTEAD of risk.nuke?
So, after being afk, he comes to the thread, HE IS OK WITH THE RNG LYNCH AS PLAN B, but he is NOT SOLD ON NUKE'S CASE and ASKS FOR ANOTHER ONE?
Wow. He still has no scumread. He is not convinced of lynching anyone. And he does not take any stance.
In this post, he is:
1) Mostly ok with lynching anyone
2) Not ready enough to sheep a case (still avoiding getting attention)
3) Never taking stances
On November 01 2014 10:47 Circumstance wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2014 10:26 ritoky wrote:On November 01 2014 10:16 GlowingBear wrote:On November 01 2014 09:42 Circumstance wrote:
So, we have GB as a call for the D1 backup, and some people seem to be jumping onboard for risk.nuke. I've read the case for lynching risk.nuke, and I'm not yet completely sold. I don't have a solid read on him yet, so can anyone give me a reason we should lynch someone else INSTEAD of risk.nuke?
This post is also bad.
what strikes me as odd is that wasn't it circ who came in to hard defend jrkirby early on when he was being pressured? then once again jrkirby starts to take interest in a gb lynch and now circ is
suddenly around and interested? there's something funky goin on between these two.
Do you want me to explain my schedule to you? I will if you want.
As for GB's question, my current reads aren't strong enough to lay out on the table right now, and frankly, I don't know how much it matters at this stage. We've got some clear targets that are slowly beginning to get multiple votes placed on them. If we don't consolidate, we run the risk of a no-lynch, which doesn't benefit anyone. I don't WANT to lynch you right now, GB, because I'm not a fan of RNG and you keep discussions going. But before I place my vote on risk.nuke, I want to hear the argument against it, assuming there is one, to see if it holds water.
He doesn't want to bring attention, again. Like, lol, "my opinion isn't relevant, so I'm not giving it" lolololol.
EPT
