EPTIn isolation I agree with you about that post entirely, just the rest of the filter... bleh I dunno. I'll re-read him.
Your Clothes, Give them to me. [mafia] - Page 11
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
In isolation I agree with you about that post entirely, just the rest of the filter... bleh I dunno. I'll re-read him. | ||
|
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
Alan Schaefer Alex Hesse Alan Schaefer Ben Richards Ben Richards John Matrix Alex Hesse Harry Tasker Not voting: Douglas Quaid John Matrix Jack Slater e: if there are still problems with that, PM me and I'll fix it. | ||
|
Douglas Quaid
92 Posts
I'm against lynching Ben Richards for now I took a look at Alex's read on Ben and largely agree with it. Ben just isn't thinking as if he was mafia. His NK comment seems absurd for mafia to post, and suggesting Harry's posting style is easy to emulate strikes me as very town. It's not what mafia would think. Combined with his first post (which I still read as "try-hard"), I think he's town. My top two reads are Jack and John John for not posting (duh). Jack for what was a very unsatisfying response to my initial query: On October 19 2012 11:45 Jack Slater wrote: @Alex, why are you all of a sudden apathetic about the lynch, changing your mind about John after vehemently arguing against the idea of lynching him. Why do you have a town read on Ben Richards. @Ben, can you please elaborate on your Alex scumread and any other reads you have? @Alan and DQ would you both be willing to vote Ben? Also, DQ, I think my initial read on you was hastey and it clouded my judgment. Upon re-reading I have moved you back to the neutral zone Firstly, I don't like how he's "testing the waters" in regard to voting Ben. Why should it matter if we're willing to vote Ben? If he's suspicious of him, he should be throwing down his vote. Secondly, he didn't even respond to the question I asked him and completely dodged it. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=374903¤tpage=7#135 He was suspicious of me in that post, yet he FOS'd Ben instead. What his read is now has no bearing - I'm interested in the logic of that post, and he still hasn't responded to it. | ||
|
Alex Hesse
72 Posts
Yea I changed my opinion on Douglas Quaid because of this post. Him and Alan Schaefer are my scum reads for today. Gotta say I'm not too hot on this no-deadline-no-activity-requirements thing. | ||
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
So... this cycle has been very frustrating for me, because as of right now I feel like I've been on the wrong track with stuff. I've been waiting to hear back from Douglas what he thought about Ben, and he didn't do what was perhaps the obvious scum thing to do, which was agree with the near-universal town read (I think?) on him - me. So I'm kinda backing off Douglas right now. Relatedly, after Alex's comments I went back and re-read and re-read and re-read the parts of the posts he was talking about, and I did find it very hard to rationalise/picture from a scum perspective. I think maybe I got too caught up in the fact I really vehemently disagreed with his Thread Consolidation point, and the NK thing... maybe just fucking weird and not necessarily scummy? Also at the moment I just don't want to lynch Alex. Maybe he's scum manipulating me, but ugh, I just don't think so. This leaves me lynching into Alan Schaefer, John Matrix, and Jack Slater. Due to busyness I've not re-read Alan's filter yet, but I will read his and Jack's this evening and see if I can come to a conclusion. | ||
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
On October 20 2012 01:55 Douglas Quaid wrote: A couple of things: I'm against lynching Ben Richards for now I took a look at Alex's read on Ben and largely agree with it. Ben just isn't thinking as if he was mafia. His NK comment seems absurd for mafia to post, and suggesting Harry's posting style is easy to emulate strikes me as very town. It's not what mafia would think. Combined with his first post (which I still read as "try-hard"), I think he's town. My top two reads are Jack and John John for not posting (duh). Jack for what was a very unsatisfying response to my initial query: Firstly, I don't like how he's "testing the waters" in regard to voting Ben. Why should it matter if we're willing to vote Ben? If he's suspicious of him, he should be throwing down his vote. Secondly, he didn't even respond to the question I asked him and completely dodged it. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=374903¤tpage=7#135 He was suspicious of me in that post, yet he FOS'd Ben instead. What his read is now has no bearing - I'm interested in the logic of that post, and he still hasn't responded to it. This is unbelievably hypocritical, though. Ugh. | ||
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
| ||
|
Alex Hesse
72 Posts
##Vote Douglas Quaid | ||
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
| ||
|
Alan Schaefer
42 Posts
On October 20 2012 02:52 Harry Tasker wrote: This is unbelievably hypocritical, though. Ugh. It's not just hypocritical - it's flat-out wrong, and possibly anti-town. Jack Slater is, IMO, trying to start organizing a move towards a consensus lynch, which is what we should all be doing a better job of at this point in the game. But Douglas characterizes that as "testing the waters", being non-committal. Quite bad. | ||
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
| ||
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
On October 20 2012 03:06 Alan Schaefer wrote: It's not just hypocritical - it's flat-out wrong, and possibly anti-town. Jack Slater is, IMO, trying to start organizing a move towards a consensus lynch, which is what we should all be doing a better job of at this point in the game. But Douglas characterizes that as "testing the waters", being non-committal. Quite bad. Quite bad? possibly anti-town? Scummy or not? | ||
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
What do you make of this? | ||
|
Douglas Quaid
92 Posts
On October 20 2012 02:47 Alex Hesse wrote: It seems totally arbitrary to go for Jack Slater over Alan Schaefer. Alan Schaefer is "testing the waters" a lot more than Jack Slater is doing in that quote. Jack Slater ignoring you isn't a scum tell at all. Both of your lynches seem like semi-policy lynches and still you don't have the guts to actually do anything. Two people voting John Matrix, he's your scum read (don't know how he can be a read when he hasn't said anything though), around 4 hours until deadline, but you're still not voting. What's it take? Yea I changed my opinion on Douglas Quaid because of this post. Him and Alan Schaefer are my scum reads for today. Gotta say I'm not too hot on this no-deadline-no-activity-requirements thing. Firstly, there's no goddamn deadline. Secondly, you can say whatever the hell you want about "guts" but I'm torn between two scumreads and I'm not sure which one I want to lynch over the other. Lastly, for emphasis: Two people voting John Matrix, he's your scum read (don't know how he can be a read when he hasn't said anything though), around 4 hours until deadline, but you're still not voting. What's it take? DAFUQ son? You were voting for John at the time of this post. GTFO with that hypocritical shit, and I'll have to take another look at you as well. | ||
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
On October 20 2012 03:13 Douglas Quaid wrote: Secondly, you can say whatever the hell you want about "guts" but I'm torn between two scumreads and I'm not sure which one I want to lynch over the other. On October 19 2012 08:39 Douglas Quaid wrote: John Matrix - For not posting. If John continues to not post into tomorrow, he has to be lynched. There's simply no excuse for not posting in a game that you PM'd the host to enter. | ||
|
Douglas Quaid
92 Posts
On October 20 2012 03:06 Alan Schaefer wrote: It's not just hypocritical - it's flat-out wrong, and possibly anti-town. Jack Slater is, IMO, trying to start organizing a move towards a consensus lynch, which is what we should all be doing a better job of at this point in the game. But Douglas characterizes that as "testing the waters", being non-committal. Quite bad. I disagree with what you're characterizing Jack's post as. How is it consolidating? He had a scumread on Ben up until that point, and presumably Ben is his only current scumread. So why isn't he voting? Why is he looking to consolidate when there's only 1 candidate he want's to vote for? I'd sympathize if he was torn between multiple reads (like myself), but he's not. There's nothing "consolidating" about his request - he's reluctant to vote his only scumread. That's scummy. | ||
|
Douglas Quaid
92 Posts
On October 20 2012 03:16 Harry Tasker wrote: Douglas, why are you undecided at all? You were quite adamant about what had to be done yesterday Two reasons 1) I think my suspicions on Jack have more merit than my other two at the time of my previous post (on Alex and Ben) 2) I still want to give John some time to post. We have a couple of hours until the 72 hour mark. | ||
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
| ||
|
Douglas Quaid
92 Posts
On October 20 2012 03:20 Harry Tasker wrote: And if he hasn't posted in a couple of hours? You said John has to be lynched if he doesn't post. If he doesn't post by the 72 hour mark, I'll policy lynch him. Agreeable? | ||
|
Douglas Quaid
92 Posts
| ||
| ||
