EPTWe're gonna drift into that lovely situation where town's gonna lynch me although no-one really thinks I'm scum, and everyone will be like "well, that kinda sucks, but hey ho whatcha gonna do"
Wheel of Fortune Mini Mafia - Page 14
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
We're gonna drift into that lovely situation where town's gonna lynch me although no-one really thinks I'm scum, and everyone will be like "well, that kinda sucks, but hey ho whatcha gonna do" | ||
|
SamuelLJackson
223 Posts
On April 24 2012 05:36 marvellosity wrote: I knew the end of the day would go this way. Every single Day 1 I've had I've looked bad; apparently this is something I'm seriously going to have to work on - I just haven't mastered the knack of manufacturing content when there is little material yet. We're gonna drift into that lovely situation where town's gonna lynch me although no-one really thinks I'm scum, and everyone will be like "well, that kinda sucks, but hey ho whatcha gonna do" Come on with posts like On April 24 2012 04:21 marvellosity wrote: s&b's effort on Snarfs is the best I've seen so far, and due to my own failure to make good scum-reads, that will be where my vote will rest atm. ##Vote: Snarfs it really isn't looking good for you because you look really weird. I don't think you're the best lynch for today but you're basicly refusing to do something yourself. Look at zentor for example. That guy is terrible but I'm not going to lynch him (at least not today). It's not the fact that you're not posting. According to VE that's the reason you're up for the lynch but there's stuff within your posts (just like i mentioned) tmaking you a way better lynch than people like Sbrubbles. And it just feels odd what you're showing. Not as odd and as much of a farce as forumite is pulling on, but I'm fine with what I'm seeing here. --- Toad | ||
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
| ||
|
phagga
Switzerland2194 Posts
On April 24 2012 05:32 prplhz wrote: @phagga Why are you buddying me? Especially, you complain when marvellosity voted for Snarfs because he did so on bad reasonable, but I never ever put any reasonable at all and you didn't complain about that. WTF where I have been buddying you? So because I did not realize that you made the same terrible move that he did I'm suddenly buddying you? If you think everyone is your friend who is ignoring you then you have strange concept of buddies. | ||
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
On April 24 2012 05:56 phagga wrote: WTF where I have been buddying you? So because I did not realize that you made the same terrible move that he did I'm suddenly buddying you? If you think everyone is your friend who is ignoring you then you have strange concept of buddies. In your posts. Yea, kinda. I don't even understand that last sentence. You seem to be overreacting a bit here. | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 24 2012 05:55 prplhz wrote: @marvellosity Why are you acting all indignant? What makes you think that town is just apathetically and inevitably going to lynch you? Where was the indignation? I'm just looking at the flow of the game and the votes objectively. I've not been terribly productive because I've not found anything to be terribly productive about. I've been transparent that I've had null scum reads. I've asked on separate occasions what the cases were on VE and on Radfield to try to get a handle on anything, but I wasn't responded to. I voted for Snarfs because s&b's case seemed coherent, and like I said Snarfs' defence seemed to be meta and he wasn't backed up on it. I admitted my Day 1s were bad, because clearly my Day 1s are bad. This is just the way things are the way I see it at the moment. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On April 24 2012 05:08 VisceraEyes wrote: a) If you can give me a good reason scum would want to enter the game voting for themselves, then you go ahead and chalk this one up to you. There's NO reason scum would do that, and that's why I call it an "advanced scum move"...because I would never think scum would do that. If Zentor is scum and doing that, then kudos to him...but I don't think that's the case. b) My problem with Ace has to do with the fact that he's not interested in helping out with TODAY'S LYNCH AT ALL. It has nothing to do with his setup speculation, it has to do with the fact that he's not trying to help find scum HERE, NOW. You and Radfield feel free to "give him the benefit of the doubt". I'm willing to not vote for him today too, but I think he's scum. It's just a matter of when town will get behind me. c) I'll admit your activity makes you look better now, but I wasn't trying to "shift focus" to lurkers - I was trying to FOCUS TOWN ON LURKERS because TOWN HAD NO FOCUS. d) Rad never accused me, I lightly accused Rad for this - which he's now responded to (sufficiently imo for D1). Anything I'm missing? Because you have literally no case on me, so I just wanted to make sure before you unvote that I answer any other suspicions you have. Now that's a bit better. a) There's no reason for anyone to vote for themselves, scum or town. If such a move is a good towntell, scum would consider doing it and if this is the only reason you read him as town, I think you could be very wrong. b) Ok, we're nearing the last hour, Ace he should at the very least post his vote and his reasoning. I'm willing to look at Rad again in the future. c) Fine, but changing the subject, do you agree with strongandbig's case on Snarfs? I'm reading null on Snarfs. d) Well, I read his posts and his vote as an accusation, but now he claims it was just to get you out to answer. I'm going to go with a marv lynch now. He wasn't playing actively and now that he is, he's on, he doesn't care enough to make a read of his own and has assumed a defeatist attitude. If lynching him is not possible, I'd rather go with a no-lynch today. I'm unsure of my other reads right now. ##unvote ##vote: marvellosity Prplhz, you've voted for Snarfs, but didn't comment at all on it. Care to share? | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
| ||
|
phagga
Switzerland2194 Posts
I just read through your filter again, what differs from marv's filter is that you actually put some effort into the game throughout the day. You participated in discussions about how people behaved and who could be scum. Yes, the fact that you just voted snarf without reasoning is rather bad (I also did not like that Rad did it), but there is at least some substance in your filter (as is in rads) while marv has none. The last sentence was an exaggeration. I did not actively look out for you, so I do not understand how you think I was buddying you. This is why I implied that you seem to think everyone is buddying you if they ignore you. Just ignore it. | ||
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
On April 24 2012 05:59 marvellosity wrote: Where was the indignation? I'm just looking at the flow of the game and the votes objectively. I've not been terribly productive because I've not found anything to be terribly productive about. I've been transparent that I've had null scum reads. I've asked on separate occasions what the cases were on VE and on Radfield to try to get a handle on anything, but I wasn't responded to. I voted for Snarfs because s&b's case seemed coherent, and like I said Snarfs' defence seemed to be meta and he wasn't backed up on it. I admitted my Day 1s were bad, because clearly my Day 1s are bad. This is just the way things are the way I see it at the moment. How are they clearly bad? Do you often find yourself in this situation? | ||
|
phagga
Switzerland2194 Posts
| ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 24 2012 06:06 prplhz wrote: @Sbrubbles Yea, I don't really know who's scum and I was feeling frustrated with it all. The case seemed kind of alright and it still does. How are they clearly bad? Do you often find yourself in this situation? In Newbie VI I played pretty badly for the first couple of days, and right at the endgame, the final townie left his vote until one minute from the final deadline before finally siding with me, as my 2nd half had finally made up for my first half. Take a look at the ongoing Mafia LIII for something else, although I can't talk about it. Take a look at this game. Then take a look at Mafia LI where everybody generally agreed I played decently and appeared clearly townie. There I replaced in at the start of Day 2. | ||
|
MrZentor
United States1648 Posts
Forumrite and Prphlz are being stupid for attacking me even though it's obvious that I'm innocent. I have a feeling scum would switch over to an easier lynch such as Marv or Sbrubbles. Everybody who keeps repeating how innocent I am is annoying for being ridiculously ridiculously redundant. I feel at this point talking about how innocent I am is like talking about what the masons should do. We need to do four things. 1. Decide if we have a lynch or not- I feel we should because of what somebody said about it not helping us all if we don't lynch somebody, because we'll end up losing on the same day anyways. 2. Decide if we want to lynch a lurker or an active person- I would like to lynch a lurker, because currently there isn't any solid case on any active person, and I would prefer to lose a lurker over an active person. 3. Lower the number of possible lynch victims- I believe right now 6 different people are being voted for. That means scum have complete control of the lynch; we need to have 1-2 suspects, or we're not going to get a good lynch. 4. We need to decide who to lynch. I'll be back soon with a suitable lurker to lynch. | ||
|
SamuelLJackson
223 Posts
On April 24 2012 06:03 marvellosity wrote: I would like to note that there has been no opposition to the growing bandwagon of my lynch when clearly scum has had the options to direct the vote almost anywhere with a maximum of 2 votes on any one person. I still think VE is suspicious however I think he's not the best lynch for today and I want to read more of him. That being said he posted a list of lurkers telling people to lynch into Sbrubbles and when asked about you he basicly said nothing but "yeah I agree marv is as much of a nullread as sbrubbles is, so I would have no issue voting him or zentor [did he actually mention zentor or was that someone else?] as well". Well it was something along those lines. That's an incredible amount of nothing while soft-defending you because frankly he tells people to lynch Sbrubbles instead of you, for no particular reason as far as I can see and only agrees to lynch you when being forced / asked about it. Also what about yourself. You're one of the lurkers, yet you are one of the guys who barely got a mention (if at all) through the first 1,5 days. According to Sandroba that makes you somewhat more likely to be mafia, because frankly, mafia love to point out lurkers or scummy behavior but noone was talking about you. Also I don't see VE voting you although he said he doesn't want a no-lynch and is willing to get you lynched as well. --- Toad | ||
|
phagga
Switzerland2194 Posts
marv: 4 votes snarf: 3 votes Zentor: 2 votes the rest is 1 vote or less. I'm off to bed in about 10 mins, need to get out early again tomorrow. | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
I'm willing to no-lynch in this situation. In my opinion a no-lynch is better than a mislynch in this situation and I'm not confident enough in any of the lurkers anymore - there has been a lot of activity here toward the end, and it's hard to tell if it's because there's a scum candidate or because no one wants a no-lynch or what. What do you think Toad? Do you think we should lynch a lurker or no-lynch? I'm okay with no-lynching to be frank. | ||
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
If you are town, you admittedly did dumb shit to attract attention and now you're all crazy about the fact that it got you some. If you are scum then we're quite right. You're in no way innocent, people are just being narrow minded about this. They all think you're innocent because you voted yourself and that's really a flaky reasonable. Now, will you tell me why you decided to be all piss and vinegar in the beginning of this game? Because I'm really interested in that. The lynch is in 45 minute and you are not likely to accomplish any of what you just wrote about. Also, Ace is about to get modkilled for not voting. | ||
|
SamuelLJackson
223 Posts
On April 24 2012 06:20 VisceraEyes wrote: Rad made me rethink voting marv - I went back and reread the beginning of his newbie game that I read and he did find himself the victim of early suspicion. I'm willing to no-lynch in this situation. In my opinion a no-lynch is better than a mislynch in this situation and I'm not confident enough in any of the lurkers anymore - there has been a lot of activity here toward the end, and it's hard to tell if it's because there's a scum candidate or because no one wants a no-lynch or what. What do you think Toad? Do you think we should lynch a lurker or no-lynch? I'm okay with no-lynching to be frank. Marv is the way to go if you want a lynch happening. I'm generally in favor of a lynch happening if I think we have a somewhat scummy option and marv is scummy. Just think of what we were talking about in LI in our mafia QT or irc about a no-lynch. Do you want that because you're not 100% certain although you've got a good guess? I'd say he's a decent Plan-B lynch if we can't get Plan-A to work and surely we can't get Plan-A working. Man where's Sandroba when you need him  --- Toad | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
| ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
Objectively the way this lynch is going down is making it pretty clear this is going to be a mislynch. | ||
| ||
