|
Alright scott I don't see your posts as scummy. Could you comment on this list post of yours:
On June 13 2015 07:29 scott31337 wrote:
Who I'm liking so far -
Wave
Trfel
n00bKing
Damdred
Oats
Probably wouldn't lynch today -
Rels
Kickstart
Could Lynch -
Batsnacks
Geript
MoosyDoosy
Sulfurus
RuXxar
Could you please add justifications for the "could lynch" nominees ?
|
On June 13 2015 08:38 n00bKing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 08:25 Rels wrote:
Fuck I was making a case on you moosy but reading your filter a lot of my points are false. Like I was saying you kept repeating that you were newb. Actually it's not true.
I still have two things left in my suspicion of you, so could you please comment on them.
First point
You don't take any stand. Not against me nor anyone else. I guess he is sorta/kinda suggesting geript as a lynch? But if you think Moosy doesn't take any stands in this thread, he especially doesn't take any in the voting thread.
The light sort of kinda then.
|
On June 13 2015 08:40 Trfel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 08:35 MoosyDoosy wrote:On June 13 2015 08:25 batsnacks wrote:On June 13 2015 08:20 MoosyDoosy wrote:On June 13 2015 08:07 n00bKing wrote:On June 13 2015 07:56 MoosyDoosy wrote:On June 13 2015 07:54 batsnacks wrote:On June 13 2015 07:52 MoosyDoosy wrote:
While the case Trfel seems interesting, I'm not going to vote for you quite yet. It's simple for someone to just notice suspicious stuff while reading which explains the filler before you found the post from Plants. The rest of what Trfel says is interesting tho, so I'd still count you around as a possible Mafia. Wishy Washy very naughty. eh, not wishy washy. I initially thought that Rels was a townie and didn't suspect him. What Trfel says is very interesting and would be a very hard read on him but I don't feel it's concrete enough to vote for him right off the bat. It does raise some yellow flags around him tho. This is STILL wishy-washy. Side note: I think the fact that Rels jumped right into the thread and started responding to posts in order (without reading the entire thread first) is slightly Town-indicative. I don't think it's a GOOD habit to have, but I don't think it's something a Mafia player would do. And I could tell that's what he had done even before he admitted that's what he had done. Lol, if you think a slight change in opinion is wishy washy then I guess I can never change my opinion or stance in the future. No he is right for once. Your posts were wishy washy. You can un-wishy-wash them by pointing out what specifically is interesting about the case. Saying the case is interesting and that you could possibly, maybe, potentially, conditionally, vote Rels later but for now all you have are some vague yellow flags is wishy washy. Got you. Alright, I said this BEFORE n00bking as well, but I can read Rels as townie. Trfel's point that Rels' early posts were filler is false because Rels said he was making posts as he read. That makes that first post invalid. Trfel's second point that Rels spotted Plants as an easy target is something that I can agree with. Plants' post seemed like something a newbie would make so Rels might have been trying to take advantage of it. Trfel's third point is something that I disagree with. I'm pretty sure that ruXxar is an excited newbie unless he does something else really strange so I don't agree with the reasoning of the post. So overall, sure it might be worth looking at Rels, but definitely not worth voting for this round. Wait... what? 1. Of course Rels says he was making posts as he read. The fact is that we have no way to verify this, and that there is no good town motivation to do this. 2. I could understand if Rels had a scumread on ruXxar. I could understand if Rels had a townread on ruXxar. I could understand if Rels had a null read on ruXxar. I find it hard to see how Rels was unsure about ruXxar, and then ruXxar made a content-less post that showed that he can't defend himself, and then decided to townread him solidly.
OK Trfel. You made your case and it had good points. I'm not mafia though, and your arguments here are shit. You had a good case and it's wrong, that's it.
1. So it's NAI. So it's not a point in favor of me being mafia.
2. Maybe you missed this post:
On June 12 2015 16:39 Rels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2015 07:46 ruXxar wrote:On June 12 2015 07:41 Trfel wrote:On June 12 2015 07:36 ruXxar wrote:On June 12 2015 07:32 Trfel wrote:On June 12 2015 07:18 Kickstart wrote:
A friendly PSA: I don't like lurkers or liers or people who answer questions directed at other people. Why don't you like it when people answer questions directed at others? Usually you want to hear the reasoning of the person you're asking. If someone answers the question before him, you potentially open up for someone else to make a logical conclusion beforehand, and then the guy the question was directed at get an easy bandwagon onto that guys conclusions. At least that is what I think. ........ The "at least that is what I think" pushes it over the top. I could see it as a joke, but then there's no reason to include the last sentence. It's either inherently contradictory or unnecessarily cautious. Scum lean. [...] So far kickstart is a scumlean for me. How can you scumlean him for his first post. Show nested quote +On June 12 2015 08:04 ruXxar wrote:On June 12 2015 07:56 Trfel wrote:On June 12 2015 07:54 ruXxar wrote:On June 12 2015 07:50 Trfel wrote:On June 12 2015 07:46 ruXxar wrote:On June 12 2015 07:41 Trfel wrote:On June 12 2015 07:36 ruXxar wrote:On June 12 2015 07:32 Trfel wrote:On June 12 2015 07:18 Kickstart wrote:
A friendly PSA: I don't like lurkers or liers or people who answer questions directed at other people. Why don't you like it when people answer questions directed at others? Usually you want to hear the reasoning of the person you're asking. If someone answers the question before him, you potentially open up for someone else to make a logical conclusion beforehand, and then the guy the question was directed at get an easy bandwagon onto that guys conclusions. At least that is what I think. ........ The "at least that is what I think" pushes it over the top. I could see it as a joke, but then there's no reason to include the last sentence. It's either inherently contradictory or unnecessarily cautious. Scum lean. What I meant by the last sentence was that that was my number one assumption of why he made that statement. I won't pretend to be a mind reader, but I find it strange that he throws out unsubstantiated claims like that. So far kickstart is a scumlean for me. Wait.... So you are serious about your explanation for not answering a question directed at someone else, because it helps them answer the question if they are scum. But in saying this, you answered a question directed at someone else, your scum read? This explanation is going to be good. Yes my answer was serious. I see now how that actually denied us information from kick start. It was a mistake on my part to actually answer that question. Can you please clarify, why are you scumreading Kickstart? I didn't like his statement about not liking liars. This whole game is based on the concept of deception. If you don't like that aspect of the game, why are you here? You might claim that you like hunting lying mafia, But it's not a given beforehand what role you will be, so that doesn't make sense either. I have no prior info about any of the players here, so he might have some personal conviction for why he said that, but to me it didn't seem like a genuine well thought through statement. That is not a good reason.
I was unsure of him for having a scum lean at the start of the game for no good reason.
On June 13 2015 08:40 Trfel wrote:Also, why did you change your mind so quickly from this post: Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 07:52 MoosyDoosy wrote:On June 13 2015 07:46 Rels wrote:On June 13 2015 07:44 MoosyDoosy wrote:On June 13 2015 07:44 Rels wrote:On June 13 2015 07:41 MoosyDoosy wrote:On June 13 2015 07:38 Rels wrote:On June 13 2015 07:28 Trfel wrote:
MoosyDoosy, any thoughts about my case on Rels? Would love to know that as well. Rels, did you post while reading the thread or after you read everything? Why ? If you mean tonight, I read everything then I posted. I'm talking about when you first came into the read. Did you post while reading stuff or posted after reading everything? I read and posted as I found interesting posts. While the case Trfel seems interesting, I'm not going to vote for you quite yet. It's simple for someone to just notice suspicious stuff while reading which explains the filler before you found the post from Plants. The rest of what Trfel says is interesting tho, so I'd still count you around as a possible Mafia. Where you seem to feel that my case is fairly good, just that you weren't quite convinced enough to vote for Rels yet?
Funnily enough I agree with this part.
|
On June 13 2015 08:52 MoosyDoosy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 08:25 Rels wrote:Fuck I was making a case on you moosy but reading your filter a lot of my points are false. Like I was saying you kept repeating that you were newb. Actually it's not true. I still have two things left in my suspicion of you, so could you please comment on them. First pointYou don't take any stand. Not against me nor anyone else. More than that, a few hours ago, you discussed people you wanted to make a case on but you're still undecided. In particular what is this post: On June 13 2015 05:52 MoosyDoosy wrote:On June 13 2015 05:48 batsnacks wrote:On June 13 2015 05:44 Kickstart wrote:On June 13 2015 05:42 batsnacks wrote:On June 13 2015 05:40 geript wrote:
~7 hours batty Okay I can't dick around anymore. Please help me not get lynched, I require written instructions for how to get people to unvote me. Push someone who you think is actually scum then???????? Just a though~ What do I do if I don't have any scum reads? In a sense almost no one has scum reads because I'm town and the only people pushing stuff are pushing me. Here's would lynch: 3)MoosyDoosy 4)Sulfurus 7)Fake)Plants 2)batsnacks 3)Trfel here's idk can't form opinion: 6)damdred 1)Rels 4)WaveofShadow 5)geript 5)ruXxar Here's would not lynch: 2)n00bKing 1)Kickstart 6)Oatsmaster HELP Sulfurus looks easiest if you want to make a case. geript might pass but idk. They both have 1 vote so you just need to persuade 2 more. tbh, I'm deciding between either Sulfurus or geript so help me out by making a case. I hate that you are giving him targets on the basis of "you only need to convince two guys for those targets". Almost look like you want him to make a case, join him, and push the blame on him later. I also hate this sentence: "Sulfurus looks easiest is you want to make a case." Go make one yourself if you're so confident. Plus, you make this post to the guy voting you. Really, I liked your filter way than expected, but I hate this post. Second pointI find it weird that you say the following: newbie must be on mafia team, because otherwise they would have pushed on my first post. I find it weird that you felt the need to say it, against a super weak attack ("mafia should have pushed this post and didn't so moosy is mafia", more or less). Here are the posts I'm talking about: On June 12 2015 11:03 MoosyDoosy wrote:
Yo, also keep in mind a newbie might be Mafia which is why he's not jumping on my post. Seems like something Mafia should do from reading the guide. On June 13 2015 03:36 MoosyDoosy wrote:On June 13 2015 03:34 geript wrote:
Nah. It'd be pretty odd if there wasn't at least 1 veteran on the mafia team. I'm re-reading posts right now to make a list, but the veteran(s) had to be inactive at the start to not point it out. On the other hand, any newbie might be the Mafia. First Point The reason why I suggested Sulfurus and geript is because they had one vote apiece and had some points made against them. If batsnacks really wanted to make a case, he could make one off of either of them if he wanted to. btw, the only stand and case I'm making and have been making is against geript. You might be right in that I'm being overly cautious in my vote and how I'm not making too many cases against others, but I figure it's better to be safe than make irrational judgments. Also, let's get this straight. If you look at the voting thread, batsnacks is not voting for me and neither is geript. Just to let you know because you keep saying batsnacks and geript are voting against me. Second Point My reasoning was this: From other people's reactions, it seems that it's common to have Mafias jump on vague posts to get a mislynch in. This will most likely be something that a veteran Mafia would do if he had the chance, but it seems that it was skipped over. My conclusion from this was that the veteran Mafia must have come to the thread late and missed his chance. On the other hand, it's also likely that a newbie Mafia might have seen it but didn't try and mislynch me based on the post because he's a newbie. From this, my conclusion was that the newbie Mafia might have come to the thread early. I just felt it was a good start for us to try and narrow some people down.
OK. Why did you feel the need to help batsnacks ? What was your motivation behind that ?
|
On June 13 2015 08:52 MoosyDoosy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 08:25 Rels wrote:Fuck I was making a case on you moosy but reading your filter a lot of my points are false. Like I was saying you kept repeating that you were newb. Actually it's not true. I still have two things left in my suspicion of you, so could you please comment on them. First pointYou don't take any stand. Not against me nor anyone else. More than that, a few hours ago, you discussed people you wanted to make a case on but you're still undecided. In particular what is this post: On June 13 2015 05:52 MoosyDoosy wrote:On June 13 2015 05:48 batsnacks wrote:On June 13 2015 05:44 Kickstart wrote:On June 13 2015 05:42 batsnacks wrote:On June 13 2015 05:40 geript wrote:
~7 hours batty Okay I can't dick around anymore. Please help me not get lynched, I require written instructions for how to get people to unvote me. Push someone who you think is actually scum then???????? Just a though~ What do I do if I don't have any scum reads? In a sense almost no one has scum reads because I'm town and the only people pushing stuff are pushing me. Here's would lynch: 3)MoosyDoosy 4)Sulfurus 7)Fake)Plants 2)batsnacks 3)Trfel here's idk can't form opinion: 6)damdred 1)Rels 4)WaveofShadow 5)geript 5)ruXxar Here's would not lynch: 2)n00bKing 1)Kickstart 6)Oatsmaster HELP Sulfurus looks easiest if you want to make a case. geript might pass but idk. They both have 1 vote so you just need to persuade 2 more. tbh, I'm deciding between either Sulfurus or geript so help me out by making a case. I hate that you are giving him targets on the basis of "you only need to convince two guys for those targets". Almost look like you want him to make a case, join him, and push the blame on him later. I also hate this sentence: "Sulfurus looks easiest is you want to make a case." Go make one yourself if you're so confident. Plus, you make this post to the guy voting you. Really, I liked your filter way than expected, but I hate this post. Second pointI find it weird that you say the following: newbie must be on mafia team, because otherwise they would have pushed on my first post. I find it weird that you felt the need to say it, against a super weak attack ("mafia should have pushed this post and didn't so moosy is mafia", more or less). Here are the posts I'm talking about: On June 12 2015 11:03 MoosyDoosy wrote:
Yo, also keep in mind a newbie might be Mafia which is why he's not jumping on my post. Seems like something Mafia should do from reading the guide. On June 13 2015 03:36 MoosyDoosy wrote:On June 13 2015 03:34 geript wrote:
Nah. It'd be pretty odd if there wasn't at least 1 veteran on the mafia team. I'm re-reading posts right now to make a list, but the veteran(s) had to be inactive at the start to not point it out. On the other hand, any newbie might be the Mafia. [...] Also, let's get this straight. If you look at the voting thread, batsnacks is not voting for me and neither is geript. Just to let you know because you keep saying batsnacks and geript are voting against me. [...]
Didn't check that! Thanks (=
|
On June 13 2015 08:57 batsnacks wrote:
Trfel's case is still good but I'm now voting sulfur for misrepresenting my play last game (twice) and now voting me opportunistically.
##unvote
##vote Sulfurus
If it was any other person I would have agree with you about voting opportunistically.
But Sulfu played exactly like that last game. And I don't think he misreprented your plays. Last game D1 you didn't do a whole lot either if I remember correctly. In both game you also posted a nonsense post to gauge reactions.
|
OK that pushed me.
##Unvote
##Vote batsnacks
|
Alright it's getting super late here so good night everyone! I will leave you a list post so you can see where I am at while I'm not here. If you need justification on a name ask and I'll answer tomorrow.
Town
KS
noobking
WOS
Town lean
Trfel
Sulfu
Oats
ruxxar
Null
moosy
Damdred
scott
Mafia
BS
geript
|
On June 13 2015 09:03 batsnacks wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 09:00 Rels wrote:On June 13 2015 08:57 batsnacks wrote:
Trfel's case is still good but I'm now voting sulfur for misrepresenting my play last game (twice) and now voting me opportunistically.
##unvote
##vote Sulfurus If it was any other person I would have agree with you about voting opportunistically. But Sulfu played exactly like that last game. And I don't think he misreprented your plays. Last game D1 you didn't do a whole lot either if I remember correctly. In both game you also posted a nonsense post to gauge reactions. Yeah you're totally wrong and that is points against you. The only time I posted nonsense that game was at night and that's because I was the cop and did not want to get killed. My town play that game was magnificent. And why does the fact that it's me saying it mean anything at all? Words are words you either like the words or you don't it doesn't matter who says the words.
No I'm not talking about bad post. Last game you posted a long post that meant nothing, like this game on the philosophy of danger.
|
On June 13 2015 09:07 batsnacks wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 09:00 Rels wrote:On June 13 2015 08:57 batsnacks wrote:
Trfel's case is still good but I'm now voting sulfur for misrepresenting my play last game (twice) and now voting me opportunistically.
##unvote
##vote Sulfurus If it was any other person I would have agree with you about voting opportunistically. But Sulfu played exactly like that last game. And I don't think he misreprented your plays. Last game D1 you didn't do a whole lot either if I remember correctly. In both game you also posted a nonsense post to gauge reactions. You just voted me for saying something you agree with!!!
Yeah I would have agreed if someone else voted you like that. But Sulfu did that day 1 last game. On Breshke and SL.
Maybe the fact that you are pressured so much makes you not think. Did you hard vote Sulfu, or was that a OMGUS sort of vote ?
|
On June 13 2015 09:10 MoosyDoosy wrote:
@Rels, any comments on my posts? Still confused why you don't think I'm townie.
OK sorry in advance, but in my mind it's actually pretty good where you're at. I was so sure you were mafia with your first post that me imagining you at null read is a pretty good deal. When I made this post with the two points I was thinking I was going to destroy you. I think I was clouded by my first impression of you.
You won't ever be a town lean in my mind until you either make a case on someone and defend it, or sheep a case on someone and explain why. Not taking stances = I can't judge you 100%.
|
On June 13 2015 09:15 batsnacks wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 09:11 Rels wrote:On June 13 2015 09:07 batsnacks wrote:On June 13 2015 09:00 Rels wrote:On June 13 2015 08:57 batsnacks wrote:
Trfel's case is still good but I'm now voting sulfur for misrepresenting my play last game (twice) and now voting me opportunistically.
##unvote
##vote Sulfurus If it was any other person I would have agree with you about voting opportunistically. But Sulfu played exactly like that last game. And I don't think he misreprented your plays. Last game D1 you didn't do a whole lot either if I remember correctly. In both game you also posted a nonsense post to gauge reactions. You just voted me for saying something you agree with!!! Yeah I would have agreed if someone else voted you like that. But Sulfu did that day 1 last game. On Breshke and SL. Maybe the fact that you are pressured so much makes you not think. Did you hard vote Sulfu, or was that a OMGUS sort of vote ? It doesn't matter since you appear to agree with the vote??? And no sulfur didn't do anything like this last game sulfur was not on anyone's radar seriously until the end of the game.
What do you mean I agree with the vote ? Please explain 'cause I have the impression we're taking about different things.
About Sulfu, yes he is perceived differently this game. I am too. But I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the frequency and the way to post. That, I feel is similar to you.
|
And batsnacks, you have very few post worth reading with an enormous filter.
Though I have this feeling: that's weird that everybody is on you. Really, if you're mafia it means that scott, moosy or damdred almost have to be too.
But that doesn't matter atm. Make content and if someone is scummier than you I'll vote that person. That's it.
|
Alright really going to sleep now. See you all later (=
|
On June 13 2015 09:27 batsnacks wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 09:23 Rels wrote:
And batsnacks, you have very few post worth reading with an enormous filter.
Though I have this feeling: that's weird that everybody is on you. Really, if you're mafia it means that scott, moosy or damdred almost have to be too.
But that doesn't matter atm. Make content and if someone is scummier than you I'll vote that person. That's it. I have gotten more done than almost the entire game combined, certainly more than you. You have... pushed easy lynch plants and responded to Trfel's case and... that's about all. If I wasn't posting so much the game would be <25% of the current length. Also why damdred? I wish damdred were posting he would tell you to stop voting me because it is literally impossible for me to play this way as mafia.
Cool. Then tomorrow I'll reconsider.
|
On June 13 2015 16:47 n00bKing wrote:
Okay, one last post, then bed, and I'll see everyone in the morning.
What's the prevailing philosophy around here on whether (or when) Carl should roleclaim? Seems to me that if he remains hidden, there is all kinds of potential for disaster, and maybe even moreso in a Newbie game.
So does someone with that type of role usually roleclaim? If not, why not? And if so, is it usually done Day 1, or not until after Night 1 begins?
I can see some distinct advantages of him claiming during Day 1, instead of waiting for Night. If the claim goes uncountered (and comes from anyone that doesn't have a bunch of votes stacked up on them) then we have a largely confirmed Townie. Anyone who had previously voted against that player gets a small strike against them, for barking up the wrong tree. And Carl's vote in the batsnacks/Sulfurus debate takes on extra weight, because although Carl could still be incorrect, at least we could expect that he's not incorrect on purpose.
I feel like this topic should have probably been raised a while ago, but I kept waiting and waiting, to see who would bring it up, so that I could award them some Town Cred just for mentioning it. (Guess I have to give the Town Cred to myself now? w00t?)
Anyway, interested in hearing other opinions on this.
Thinking about it I agree with it. There is no good reason to stay hidden if you're Carl. My reasonning is:
- if you're a someone most people sees at townie, you take the risk of killing the doctor
- if you're someone people are suspicious of, you take the risk of killing the cop or the vigi
|
On June 13 2015 09:27 MoosyDoosy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 09:23 Rels wrote:
And batsnacks, you have very few post worth reading with an enormous filter.
Though I have this feeling: that's weird that everybody is on you. Really, if you're mafia it means that scott, moosy or damdred almost have to be too.
But that doesn't matter atm. Make content and if someone is scummier than you I'll vote that person. That's it. Reasoning for us three?
Just quote off my mind people not voting. What I wanted to exprim is this:
On June 13 2015 15:07 n00bKing wrote:
Situation: 11 players have votes in place, and 2 players are not voting. All 11 of the votes are on either batsnacks or Sulfurus. No one has a vote on anyone else.
At this stage of a Day 1, I'm more used to seeing a smattering of votes on some other miscellaneous players too. Maybe partially because the scum team doesn't want to have all their votes in one place, so they fan out some (and maybe a random Townie or two gets tunneled on their respective targets, and won't budge, even though no one else has any interest in following along).
Theory: This situation makes it pretty likely that one of the two players receiving votes is actually scum, and that we don't have a Town vs. Town situation for our two vote leaders. The scum team has not been able to fan out their votes, because they've needed "all hands on deck" to make sure that the scum player doesn't take a runaway lead in the voting.
Conclusion: Even though there's a lot of time left in the Phase, we may not want to introduce a third lynch target, and should instead stick to trying to pick between these two (since, if the Theory is correct, one of them would flip Red).
Thoughts? Does the Theory seem reasonable, or is the Situation more likely just an odd coincidence?
|
I went through batsnacks past games and I have two things to share with you all.
First thing
On June 13 2015 09:39 batsnacks wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 09:34 n00bKing wrote:On June 13 2015 09:03 batsnacks wrote:On June 13 2015 09:00 Rels wrote:
Last game D1 you didn't do a whole lot either if I remember correctly. In both game you also posted a nonsense post to gauge reactions. Yeah you're totally wrong and that is points against you. The only time I posted nonsense that game was at night and that's because I was the cop and did not want to get killed. Definitely not true. I expect he is talking about this steaming pile here, which was posted early in Day 1, and not at night: batsnacks wrote:
above is THE JOYOUS, LAKE
below is KEEPING STILL, MOUNTAIN
Influence. Success.
When a weak element is above (the lake) and a strong element is below (the mountain), their powers attract each other so that they unite. This brings about success, for all success depends on the effect of mutual attraction
Perseverance furthers.
By keeping still within while experiencing joy without, one can prevent the joy from going to excess and hold it within proper bounds. This is the meaning of, "Perseverance furthers."
To take a maiden to wife brings good fortune
Heaven and earth attract each other and thus all creatures come into being. From the attractions they exert we can learn the nature of all beings in heaven and on earth.
A lake on the mountain:
The image of influence.
Thus the superior man encourages people to approach him
By his readiness to receive them.
A mountain with a lake on its summit is stimulated by the moisture from the lake. It has this advantage because its summit does not jut out as a peak but is sunken. The image counsels that the mind should be kept humble and free, so that it may remain receptive to good advice. People soon give up counseling a man who thinks that he knows everything better than anyone else.
The influence shows itself in the calves of the legs.
Misfortune.
Tarrying brings good fortune.
In movement, the calf of the leg follows the foot; by itself it can neither go forward nor stand still. Since the movement is not self-governed, it bodes ill. One should wait quietly until one is impelled to action by a real influence. Then one remains uninjured. Your philosophical post about danger in this game looks a bit like a forced attempt to duplicate the same kind of nonsense you kicked off the last game with (since it was very recent, and people will remember you were Town). Meanwhile, you never answered my question about approximately how many times you've been assigned a scum role in these games. [...] Also I only provide iching commentary when I'm town so I thank you for bringing this up.
That's true. I found 3 games where I did something similar, all of them town. Posts in spoiler if you're curious.
+ Show Spoiler +
Second thing
On June 13 2015 08:23 batsnacks wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 08:18 Trfel wrote:On June 13 2015 08:14 batsnacks wrote:On June 13 2015 08:11 Trfel wrote:
First, my computer internet died, so I am on my phone.
Second, Moosy, I do think that ruX could be mafia, but I feel that Rels is more likely.
Though I might actually want to lynch bats instead. His quick agreement with me is unexpected, his play doesnt feel like his town meta. Your case is the best most compelling thing that has been posted yet??? Also you can't meta me remember what happened last time you tried? Last time I tried was the Ver game and I was right. I have learned a thing or two since my first game of mafia ever, thank you very much. You don't have to believe this is my normal town meta because it's not, but you can't believe my scum meta is to post this much. I am a 1 page per day scum poster not a post more than anyone else scum poster.
That's not as extreme as he's saying, but it is true. In particular, look at the size of the filters of these two games. In both he got lynched D1. Can you guess in which one he was scum ?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/474082-imperial-mafia?user=batsnacks
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/469267-fantasy-football-mafia-mini-2?user=batsnacks
If you don't wanna play the guessing game: he has two times more post in the first game, where he was town.
Conclusion
By meta I don't think BS is mafia this game.
##Unvote
|
On June 13 2015 18:17 Oatsmaster wrote:
Did you see the quality of those posts though. Cause in this game, there is quantity but practically no quality.
I agree. But quality is not the reason I'm unvoting him.
On June 13 2015 18:19 Oatsmaster wrote:
I think it's pretty unlikely we have a PGO.
Hey rels, what made you look through bats last few games?
Also, who do you want to lynch now?
Just Bats seems like the easy target so I wanted to look at him more. The two posts I quote are statements he made to defend himself, so I wanted to see if he was lying to defend.
No idea who I want to lynch. Two of my three town reads are voting sulfurus. I'm suspicious of Sulfu for two reasons:
- The "case" on KS on his first post doesn't exist
- The vote on BS is opportunist
But to me he's playing the same as last game I played with him. So I don't know.
Two suspicious people are geript and Damdred. Reasons for Damdred are easy, he didn't anything, so it's so weak. I'm reading geript's filter right now.
|
I read his filter and if we're voting BS for no quality post, geript's post are worse. Didn't find anything scummy per se, but there is the push on moosy for a weird reason ... and that's it. He doesn't even answer properly to questions.
WOS why did you stop voting him ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
23182
2117
4
EPT
