|
On September 06 2012 10:39 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 10:24 Z-BosoN wrote:On September 06 2012 10:18 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On September 06 2012 10:15 Z-BosoN wrote:On September 06 2012 10:06 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On September 06 2012 10:03 Z-BosoN wrote:On September 06 2012 09:58 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
BC says the same thing i'm saying about how he lied about my arguments/activity level but I guess when he says it people agree
whatever
@boson my main case against ottox is him not pushing his reads and completely ignoring peoples arguments/logic while pushing his defense which is exactly what suggests that he has a preconceived agenda
no one is gonna listen to me in this game so ill keep doing what i'vebeen doing which is make a point, wait for BC to repeat it so that everyone suddenly agrees lol
Wtf?? He introduced a totally different argument!! Are you even reading right now? I got that from your post and I said those were supporting arguments but not enough to say omfg let's lynch him, due to my experience with SolarSail. However, the scumslip pointed out by BC is subtle and very VERY likely for a scum under pressure to make. the 5 mafia slip is the least important part of the whole thing because even I just assumed there were 5 scum, in fact idr if i posted it but i might have posted a scumteam guess that was exactly 5 Then why did you say that BC repeated your arguments and said the same thing you did? I clearly gave emphasis to the one he had just added. Well, we are just at a difference of opinion then, you think that his attitude and behavior is more lynch-worthy than him defending matt and this "scumslip". I insist yet again you read SolarSail on XXIV, here, it's pretty fast: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=359489&user=273717 It sums up why I think his behavior could be more bad play than scum play. At least now we both agree that without a doubt loloxtott must die. Also I did endorse all of what he said so drH saying I repeated it isn't a lie. I also added the bit that I see as a scumslip. It isn't a lie, but I felt he directed it at me, and I made reference specifically to the "scumslip" you pointed out, while ALSO having responded to his claims, not yours. I can see a townie being a belligerent asshole. It becomes harder for me to see a townie being a belligerent asshole who spent much time hard defending a scum and gave a possible scumslip. Also, Hapa does have a point regarding the count. I didn't realize it was before the matt lynch. If he was claiming that matt is town, then by his count, the mafia number is 4. Has there ever been a normal game with only four mafia? Fair, but I feel from reading that people to a degree really are ignoring his posts overall. I say the # is 5 because the only person they could be defending by shutting down the mattchew conversation is mattchew. By shutting it down and stopping thread from talking about it it would allow anyone to bring up another case and potentially force a misslynch. Keep in mind the arguments being done by otto that were being responded to were still for ages under the hypothetical situation that millers were self aware -_- As such in the case of "self aware millers" the only person being defended by happa / toad was mattchew. As dropping that discussion would let another potential lynch target be brought up. However they were arguing shit for awhile that didn't matter or wasn't possible given this setup. IE he names 2 reds, the person they were defending and 2 others given his horrible logic. I obviously am slightly bias'd as I think he's red and that screams scumtell to me.
How do you explain the plural use of "mates"? If Ottox thought Matt was town at the time, why would "me and toad" be defending Matt?
What makes more sense, is that he thought Matt was town, and we were defending our "2 lurker scumbuddies" by pressuring Mattchew so much.
|
On September 06 2012 10:42 Ottoxlol wrote:Ofc I don't give a shit about this game anymore when everyone ignores logic, even you failed to answer my question about why the scum would claim. @Darth I already answered it. It is stupid. You almost uniquely amongst the player realize my motivation but then Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 09:34 DarthPunk wrote:
Yet his behaviour is at stark and direct opposition with his stated intention. He has absolutely crapped up the thread and actively limited discussion and scum hunting throughout day one. When I went to sleep yesterday the main topic of conversation were several people repeating themselves Ad nauseum and the direct consequence of this is that other topics of conversation have been drowned out in the noise. Now people may look at Ox and say that he is just a bad player or whatever, but when someone's stated motivations are in direct contradiction to his behaviour I see scum.
His defense of mattchew was incredibly wishy-washy in that he never explicitly states that he believes him to be town. He talks in probabilities and shifts the burden of proof onto others by asking 'why is it more likely for scum to do this than town?' whilst ignoring all rational explanations for the current situation.
He has been incredibly effective in making discussion of anything other than mattchew impossible whilst stating that this is what he wants to avoid.
TLDR; Ox's behaviour is in direct contradiction with his stated motivations. He has crapped all over the thread in order to make any conversation but the one that was already resolved incredibly difficult. Kid is Scum. This. You fail to see that my behaviour made scum slip, made everyone talk more about why did they vote on Matt. Its exactly what my motivation was. I haven't been called kid in a while, it is offensive since you are the one incapable of understanding the most basic logic.
uh dude people talked about matt before you posted and even explained to you many times. I am only going into this once with you as this is part of my read of you. You clearly have no town inclinations. Why? Because you EVEN NOW are talking about someone who flipped. You never through that entire process tried to do anything other than talk about mattchew and BURY ALL OTHER DISCUSSION.
Everything related to mattchew had been discussed by multiple people explained to you and you kept pushing it. You're very early posts were not horrific. They were something a confused/bad/devils advocate townie could make. The continued play of it for as long as you did was horrific. You never helped discuss other reads you only sidetracked the thread.
The issue here isn't others understanding basic logic, in this case the issue really is you.
|
@ BC
What do you think about my post on DrH here?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=361826¤tpage=46#916
As a further addendum, I'd also like to point out that MiltonKram didn't do anything of significance to absolve himself of DrH's suspicion between his sudden change in reads. Milton only tunneled me a bit and then retracted his read shortly after confronted. None of this should make him "clearly town" after DrH suggested a VigiShot/TrackerAction on him.
|
On September 06 2012 10:42 Ottoxlol wrote:Ofc I don't give a shit about this game anymore when everyone ignores logic, even you failed to answer my question about why the scum would claim. @Darth I already answered it. It is stupid. You almost uniquely amongst the player realize my motivation but then Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 09:34 DarthPunk wrote:
Yet his behaviour is at stark and direct opposition with his stated intention. He has absolutely crapped up the thread and actively limited discussion and scum hunting throughout day one. When I went to sleep yesterday the main topic of conversation were several people repeating themselves Ad nauseum and the direct consequence of this is that other topics of conversation have been drowned out in the noise. Now people may look at Ox and say that he is just a bad player or whatever, but when someone's stated motivations are in direct contradiction to his behaviour I see scum.
His defense of mattchew was incredibly wishy-washy in that he never explicitly states that he believes him to be town. He talks in probabilities and shifts the burden of proof onto others by asking 'why is it more likely for scum to do this than town?' whilst ignoring all rational explanations for the current situation.
He has been incredibly effective in making discussion of anything other than mattchew impossible whilst stating that this is what he wants to avoid.
TLDR; Ox's behaviour is in direct contradiction with his stated motivations. He has crapped all over the thread in order to make any conversation but the one that was already resolved incredibly difficult. Kid is Scum. This. You fail to see that my behaviour made scum slip, made everyone talk more about why did they vote on Matt. Its exactly what my motivation was. I haven't been called kid in a while, it is offensive since you are the one incapable of understanding the most basic logic.
Sorry if calling you kid offended you. Just internet slang. My bad. But I would like to ask how do you resolve your stated intention of not limiting discussion through the matt lynch, with crapping up the thread, ignoring everyones response to you, lying by saying they have not responded and stifling the discussion you claim to promote?
|
On September 06 2012 10:58 Hapahauli wrote:@ BCWhat do you think about my post on DrH here? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=361826¤tpage=46#916As a further addendum, I'd also like to point out that MiltonKram didn't do anything of significance to absolve himself of DrH's suspicion between his sudden change in reads. Milton only tunneled me a bit and then retracted his read shortly after confronted. None of this should make him "clearly town" after DrH suggested a VigiShot/TrackerAction on him.
tbh it looks slightly off and I will have to go through drH's filter more extensively to see if its just one hiccup or a repeated thing but as a general meta read of drH from experience in the past with him this looks strongly like his town play and I could go into why I think his read could change that easily from a meta standpoint but unless I actually do a decent filter examination I can't be sure.
|
On September 06 2012 11:00 DarthPunk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 10:42 Ottoxlol wrote:Ofc I don't give a shit about this game anymore when everyone ignores logic, even you failed to answer my question about why the scum would claim. @Darth I already answered it. It is stupid. You almost uniquely amongst the player realize my motivation but then On September 06 2012 09:34 DarthPunk wrote:
Yet his behaviour is at stark and direct opposition with his stated intention. He has absolutely crapped up the thread and actively limited discussion and scum hunting throughout day one. When I went to sleep yesterday the main topic of conversation were several people repeating themselves Ad nauseum and the direct consequence of this is that other topics of conversation have been drowned out in the noise. Now people may look at Ox and say that he is just a bad player or whatever, but when someone's stated motivations are in direct contradiction to his behaviour I see scum.
His defense of mattchew was incredibly wishy-washy in that he never explicitly states that he believes him to be town. He talks in probabilities and shifts the burden of proof onto others by asking 'why is it more likely for scum to do this than town?' whilst ignoring all rational explanations for the current situation.
He has been incredibly effective in making discussion of anything other than mattchew impossible whilst stating that this is what he wants to avoid.
TLDR; Ox's behaviour is in direct contradiction with his stated motivations. He has crapped all over the thread in order to make any conversation but the one that was already resolved incredibly difficult. Kid is Scum. This. You fail to see that my behaviour made scum slip, made everyone talk more about why did they vote on Matt. Its exactly what my motivation was. I haven't been called kid in a while, it is offensive since you are the one incapable of understanding the most basic logic. Sorry if calling you kid offended you. Just internet slang. My bad. But I would like to ask how do you resolve your stated intention of not limiting discussion through the matt lynch, with crapping up the thread, ignoring everyones response to you, lying by saying they have not responded and stifling the discussion you claim to promote?
You forgot that he said he doesn't care about the game.
|
On September 06 2012 11:04 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:00 DarthPunk wrote:On September 06 2012 10:42 Ottoxlol wrote:Ofc I don't give a shit about this game anymore when everyone ignores logic, even you failed to answer my question about why the scum would claim. @Darth I already answered it. It is stupid. You almost uniquely amongst the player realize my motivation but then On September 06 2012 09:34 DarthPunk wrote:
Yet his behaviour is at stark and direct opposition with his stated intention. He has absolutely crapped up the thread and actively limited discussion and scum hunting throughout day one. When I went to sleep yesterday the main topic of conversation were several people repeating themselves Ad nauseum and the direct consequence of this is that other topics of conversation have been drowned out in the noise. Now people may look at Ox and say that he is just a bad player or whatever, but when someone's stated motivations are in direct contradiction to his behaviour I see scum.
His defense of mattchew was incredibly wishy-washy in that he never explicitly states that he believes him to be town. He talks in probabilities and shifts the burden of proof onto others by asking 'why is it more likely for scum to do this than town?' whilst ignoring all rational explanations for the current situation.
He has been incredibly effective in making discussion of anything other than mattchew impossible whilst stating that this is what he wants to avoid.
TLDR; Ox's behaviour is in direct contradiction with his stated motivations. He has crapped all over the thread in order to make any conversation but the one that was already resolved incredibly difficult. Kid is Scum. This. You fail to see that my behaviour made scum slip, made everyone talk more about why did they vote on Matt. Its exactly what my motivation was. I haven't been called kid in a while, it is offensive since you are the one incapable of understanding the most basic logic. Sorry if calling you kid offended you. Just internet slang. My bad. But I would like to ask how do you resolve your stated intention of not limiting discussion through the matt lynch, with crapping up the thread, ignoring everyones response to you, lying by saying they have not responded and stifling the discussion you claim to promote? You forgot that he said he doesn't care about the game.
He obviously does though.
|
On September 06 2012 11:06 DarthPunk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:04 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On September 06 2012 11:00 DarthPunk wrote:On September 06 2012 10:42 Ottoxlol wrote:Ofc I don't give a shit about this game anymore when everyone ignores logic, even you failed to answer my question about why the scum would claim. @Darth I already answered it. It is stupid. You almost uniquely amongst the player realize my motivation but then On September 06 2012 09:34 DarthPunk wrote:
Yet his behaviour is at stark and direct opposition with his stated intention. He has absolutely crapped up the thread and actively limited discussion and scum hunting throughout day one. When I went to sleep yesterday the main topic of conversation were several people repeating themselves Ad nauseum and the direct consequence of this is that other topics of conversation have been drowned out in the noise. Now people may look at Ox and say that he is just a bad player or whatever, but when someone's stated motivations are in direct contradiction to his behaviour I see scum.
His defense of mattchew was incredibly wishy-washy in that he never explicitly states that he believes him to be town. He talks in probabilities and shifts the burden of proof onto others by asking 'why is it more likely for scum to do this than town?' whilst ignoring all rational explanations for the current situation.
He has been incredibly effective in making discussion of anything other than mattchew impossible whilst stating that this is what he wants to avoid.
TLDR; Ox's behaviour is in direct contradiction with his stated motivations. He has crapped all over the thread in order to make any conversation but the one that was already resolved incredibly difficult. Kid is Scum. This. You fail to see that my behaviour made scum slip, made everyone talk more about why did they vote on Matt. Its exactly what my motivation was. I haven't been called kid in a while, it is offensive since you are the one incapable of understanding the most basic logic. Sorry if calling you kid offended you. Just internet slang. My bad. But I would like to ask how do you resolve your stated intention of not limiting discussion through the matt lynch, with crapping up the thread, ignoring everyones response to you, lying by saying they have not responded and stifling the discussion you claim to promote? You forgot that he said he doesn't care about the game. He obviously does though.
This - he might be playing wildly and showing a blatant disregard for reading, but he seems pretty emotionally invested.
Also, BC, I still really disagree with you on the "scumslip" thing (post below). I think it's pretty clear he was talking about 4 mafia, thus making it pretty unlikely that he knows the exact mafia total (given balance concerns)
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=361826¤tpage=47#921
|
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
I just woke up and read through.
Matt flipped red as everyone (bar Ottox) expected, so I'll be talking about him first.
To be honest I thought for a while that Ottoxlol is just bad townie, but having caught up with the thread, naaah he is 99% red. Hopefully a vig shoots him tonight, so he's gone.
Also Gravan has finally done some contribution beyond Mattchew stuff, but I am not impressed at all. It feels like it was a case for sake of writing a case on somebody to get off some pressure which has started on you. He should either be town kill at night or lynched tomorrow if it stays this way with all the points in thread already.
Ending the post with some comments on the cases we got this night so far. DYH brought up Hopeless1der as a candidate. Reading Hopeless' filter there is some merit to DYH's accusation, but I am not entirely sold on him being scum.
Hapa also brought out quite a switch from DrH/Blackmamba in opinion so I am interested in hearing his answer to it as well.
Looked a lot like his town play though so maybe he got some good explanation for it.
|
On September 06 2012 10:40 Toadesstern wrote:Screw this, got to wake my sis up in 2,5 hours anyway... might as well stay up those 2,5 hours and sleep afterwards :p About DYH: Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 10:08 DoYouHas wrote:
@BC and Toad - I disagree. If Matt wasn't red then Hopeless' actions no longer are an attempt to divert a bandwagon on scum. At least half my case is showing that he did exactly that. If Matt was green then Hopeless' case on Forumite becomes far more innocuous.
[...] That wasn't actually the reason I made a "?". You're case results in Matt being bussed by Hopeless1der and you said your case would be way weaker without Matt flipping red. The important part is not wether or not you think he got bussed (clearly he got bussed). The important part is your order of thought. - You think Hopeless1der bussed Matt
- Because you think Hopeless1der bussed Matt you do a case
- You consider your case strong because Matt flipped red.
That is a mafia approach to make cases. Hopeless1der bussing Matt is the conclusion you should get from making a case. It never is the reason to make a case. You saying that your case only holds true with matt's red flip shows that you did the case the wrong way.
Except this isn't my thought process behind the case. It looks much more like this
1. I think Matt is almost certainly scum.
2. If Matt is scum then I think it is likely someone from his team tried to divert the wagon while they had the chance (before Palmars post)
3. I find the person I think fits that the best. Hopeless does, and has been suspicious to me before.
4. I find that Hopeless also fits the mold for a lurky scum.
5. I find that Hopeless' voteswitch is suspicious.
6. I come to the conclusion that Hopeless bussed Mattchew, but only after indirectly stop the lynch.
I started from the assumption that Matt was scum, which is why I thought that it was essential to my case. (BC disagrees) I created a profile for what I was looking for with scum, and Hopeless fit the best.
- What part of my case made you think that I started with "You think Hopeless1der bussed Matt"? The way I see it you could construe any case on anyone who makes connections to Matt's alignment and voted Matt in the end (pretty much everyone) to be starting from the assumption that PlayerAccused bussed Matt. I'm curious what makes you bring it up.
|
On September 06 2012 11:11 DoYouHas wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 10:40 Toadesstern wrote:Screw this, got to wake my sis up in 2,5 hours anyway... might as well stay up those 2,5 hours and sleep afterwards :p About DYH: On September 06 2012 10:08 DoYouHas wrote:
@BC and Toad - I disagree. If Matt wasn't red then Hopeless' actions no longer are an attempt to divert a bandwagon on scum. At least half my case is showing that he did exactly that. If Matt was green then Hopeless' case on Forumite becomes far more innocuous.
[...] That wasn't actually the reason I made a "?". You're case results in Matt being bussed by Hopeless1der and you said your case would be way weaker without Matt flipping red. The important part is not wether or not you think he got bussed (clearly he got bussed). The important part is your order of thought. - You think Hopeless1der bussed Matt
- Because you think Hopeless1der bussed Matt you do a case
- You consider your case strong because Matt flipped red.
That is a mafia approach to make cases. Hopeless1der bussing Matt is the conclusion you should get from making a case. It never is the reason to make a case. You saying that your case only holds true with matt's red flip shows that you did the case the wrong way. Except this isn't my thought process behind the case. It looks much more like this 1. I think Matt is almost certainly scum.
2. If Matt is scum then I think it is likely someone from his team tried to divert the wagon while they had the chance (before Palmars post)
3. I find the person I think fits that the best. Hopeless does, and has been suspicious to me before.
4. I find that Hopeless also fits the mold for a lurky scum.
5. I find that Hopeless' voteswitch is suspicious.
6. I come to the conclusion that Hopeless bussed Mattchew, but only after indirectly stop the lynch. I started from the assumption that Matt was scum, which is why I thought that it was essential to my case. (BC disagrees) I created a profile for what I was looking for with scum, and Hopeless fit the best. - What part of my case made you think that I started with "You think Hopeless1der bussed Matt"? The way I see it you could construe any case on anyone who makes connections to Matt's alignment and voted Matt in the end (pretty much everyone) to be starting from the assumption that PlayerAccused bussed Matt. I'm curious what makes you bring it up.
the fact that you explicitly mention, that Matt needed to flip red for your case to make sense.
|
On September 06 2012 11:09 Hapahauli wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:06 DarthPunk wrote:On September 06 2012 11:04 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On September 06 2012 11:00 DarthPunk wrote:On September 06 2012 10:42 Ottoxlol wrote:Ofc I don't give a shit about this game anymore when everyone ignores logic, even you failed to answer my question about why the scum would claim. @Darth I already answered it. It is stupid. You almost uniquely amongst the player realize my motivation but then On September 06 2012 09:34 DarthPunk wrote:
Yet his behaviour is at stark and direct opposition with his stated intention. He has absolutely crapped up the thread and actively limited discussion and scum hunting throughout day one. When I went to sleep yesterday the main topic of conversation were several people repeating themselves Ad nauseum and the direct consequence of this is that other topics of conversation have been drowned out in the noise. Now people may look at Ox and say that he is just a bad player or whatever, but when someone's stated motivations are in direct contradiction to his behaviour I see scum.
His defense of mattchew was incredibly wishy-washy in that he never explicitly states that he believes him to be town. He talks in probabilities and shifts the burden of proof onto others by asking 'why is it more likely for scum to do this than town?' whilst ignoring all rational explanations for the current situation.
He has been incredibly effective in making discussion of anything other than mattchew impossible whilst stating that this is what he wants to avoid.
TLDR; Ox's behaviour is in direct contradiction with his stated motivations. He has crapped all over the thread in order to make any conversation but the one that was already resolved incredibly difficult. Kid is Scum. This. You fail to see that my behaviour made scum slip, made everyone talk more about why did they vote on Matt. Its exactly what my motivation was. I haven't been called kid in a while, it is offensive since you are the one incapable of understanding the most basic logic. Sorry if calling you kid offended you. Just internet slang. My bad. But I would like to ask how do you resolve your stated intention of not limiting discussion through the matt lynch, with crapping up the thread, ignoring everyones response to you, lying by saying they have not responded and stifling the discussion you claim to promote? You forgot that he said he doesn't care about the game. He obviously does though. This - he might be playing wildly and showing a blatant disregard for reading, but he seems pretty emotionally invested. Also, BC, I still really disagree with you on the "scumslip" thing (post below). I think it's pretty clear he was talking about 4 mafia, thus making it pretty unlikely that he knows the exact mafia total (given balance concerns) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=361826¤tpage=47#921
TBH dude I strongly believe my opinion so I will need time (aka whenever i sleep) and come back to it later and review. I do understand where you are coming from I just have it ingrained my interpretation is correct.
|
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
EBWOP:
I just woke up and read through.
Matt flipped red as everyone (bar Ottox) expected, so I'll be talking about him first.
To be honest I thought for a while that Ottoxlol is just bad townie, but having caught up with the thread, naaah he is like 99%
red. Hopefully a vig shoots him tonight, so he's gone.
Also Gravan has finally done some contribution beyond Mattchew stuff, but I am not impressed at all. It feels like it was a
case for sake of writing a case on somebody to get off some pressure which has started on you. He should either be a town
kill at night or lynched tomorrow if it stays this way with all the points in thread already.
Ending the post with some comments on the cases we got this night so far. DYH brought up Hopeless1der as a candidate. Reading Hopeless' filter there is some merit to DYH's accusation, but I am not entirely sold on him being scum.
Hapa also brought out quite a switch from DrH/Blackmamba in opinion so I am interested in hearing his answer to it as well.
Looked a lot like his town play though so maybe he got some good explanation for it.
Also shouldn't lvdr be modkilled by now? no posts at all.
|
On September 06 2012 11:23 ShiaoPi wrote:
Also shouldn't lvdr be modkilled by now? no posts at all.
There are no activity requirements.
|
On September 06 2012 11:23 DarthPunk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:23 ShiaoPi wrote:
Also shouldn't lvdr be modkilled by now? no posts at all.
There are no activity requirements.
Voting is mandatory.
|
On September 06 2012 11:24 Hapahauli wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:23 DarthPunk wrote:On September 06 2012 11:23 ShiaoPi wrote:
Also shouldn't lvdr be modkilled by now? no posts at all.
There are no activity requirements. Voting is mandatory.
Hmm no Idea then. I don't think it is beneficial to speculate however. If the mods were/are going to modkill we will know when we know.
|
Been keeping up on this, just nothing to add. I thought Matt would flip red, he did, so I'm suspicious of Otto still.
Until Otto is cleared or dead, I don't have much else to add. Great D1 though :-)
|
On September 06 2012 10:23 Hapahauli wrote:
But consider this hypothetical:
95% of the town thinks Player A is scum. Player A is confirmed scum. Hypothetical townie hard defends Player A. Does it make sense for this hypothetical townie to defend Player A when he's 100% sure to get lynched/shot the next day? I'm not discussing the numbers crap and the scumslip. However, this part of your post has been addressed by numerous folks. The explanation is the bit about how doing a scummy thing and then quickly backing down might have looked scummier, so he had to stick with it, which he proceeded to do vigorously.
As to your case on Steve Nash's teammate, I don't love it. I DO think that milton just got the times mixed up, that's a legitimate explanation from me. You can call it outright lying, but I just came from a game in which I thought 2 or 3 things had been said that weren't, and where one of our medics claimed to protect a dead person one night. I was town, he was town, we both "lied." It happens, and frankly, if you're talking about an actual fact (x happened before y), you're not talking about something scum can twist for their objectives, it doesn't really further scummy objectives when anyone can check the order and call you out. I think that's a legitimate reason to go into changing your read on someone, especially when almost 24 hours elapsed between the "vigis/trackers on this guy" post and the next mention. You can argue that if his read changed there should be a post when that happened, but...not enough for me to find Steve Nash's teammate scummy.
Moreover, he had one of those little quotes that sticks out to me as something that only a townie could have written:
On September 06 2012 07:51 BlackMamba24 wrote:
If you're unsure if someone is scum/assassin but have good reason to think they are scum, broadcast their case as an assassin so that assassins will hit the scum at night and help us win faster. That's not just an idea that should get you town cred, it's just a weird little thought thrown into a bigger post of his, and, in my mind, it's not what I'd come up with if I were just thinking about how to get townies to think I'm townie.
|
Can someone explain the basketball references? I am not American and really don't get it.
|
Guys, stop humoring Otto. He is just trying to drag town down at this point; he isn't even trying to hide how anti-town he is. Stop replying, he'll get shot or we'll lynch him.
Next:
On September 06 2012 10:45 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 10:39 Gravan wrote:On September 06 2012 10:31 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On September 06 2012 10:26 Gravan wrote:On September 06 2012 10:18 Z-BosoN wrote:On September 06 2012 10:16 Gravan wrote:I think Bill Murray is scum. Also, Hapahauli, what is your read on Gravan? Scum or town? I don't want you using the word Null. Pick one. Scum or town? Consider yourself having a Gun to your head. This is the first time he mentions me. At this point, he hasn't put forward any kind of read on me at all. In addition, many of his posts up until this point (not to mention quite a few afterward) are pointless one-liners, or just generally non-contributing. The next thing he does is tell austin to read my filter as if I was scum (again, not argument put forward on his part - he is talking as if me being scum is a forgone conclusion). + Show Spoiler +On September 06 2012 07:18 austinmcc wrote:
Show nested quote +
Looking through his profile, I see his only other game was LIII. So he's at least played, although not with me. But he knows that some of the people in this game played that game, he played with them, he knows they are competent individuals with functioning brains.
It's the first time I've ever seen someone cling to something absolutely wrong in this manner. I have posted paranoid rants in two games, stuck by them for a while as possibilities, gotten upset if people wouldn't consider them as possibilities, but I didn't get like this.
Right now (and if Matt flips scum I will be more certain of the read) I can't help but read the whole thing like this:
Matt got caught
Ottoxlol tried to save him, without realizing how bad an idea it was
Ottoxlol shortly realized how bad an idea it was
A decent scum player told him right after he got caught looking very odd that he couldn't back off his defense, because then he'd look even scummier
So he went full bore nuts, and that's why he won't listen to anyone or anything
It doesn't feel like he's just obtuse. At some point he'd get the message. It feels like he's clinging to this.
Do me a favor, and go read Gravan's filter as if he were a scum idiot Then he goes on to say that hap is on his scumlist for "coaching" me. + Show Spoiler +On September 06 2012 07:23 Hapahauli wrote:
Show nested quote +
Null. Deal with it.
His posts/logic right now could come from either mafia or bad-townie. I don't have enough information to make a decision since hasn't posted much. Fortunately we have 48 hours to make a read on him.
yeah youre on my scum list
so is gravan
you openly coached him Afterwards, he includes doyouhas in this list. + Show Spoiler +filter
On September 06 2012 07:27 imallinson wrote:
Show nested quote +
I'd say Gravan looks real scummy right now. He attempted the same thing as Ottox, defending Matt by saying he was probably an assassin, but much more quietly and backed away as soon as he realised it was a bad idea. If anything that looks more scummy than Ottox at the moment.
THANK YOU.
Go read Gravan's filter, and tell me if you don't find hapa coaching him?
2nd person I've caught him coaching that looks like scum with him (Doyouhas is the other) His next two posts that mention me go on to mention (offhandedly) the apparently obvious need to have me shot by a vig. Further, if you read his filter he is very non-comittal on the otto-defending-matt-and-generally-acting-scummy issue. His posts are passively worded and just softly agree with the flow of the thread at the time. This is the worst case I've ever seen. Typically, when one argues against another, a counter-argument has to be presented. Since it appears as though I am on some people's chopping blocks, some discussion could be useful. Just denouncing my case gets town no-where. You chose a poor person to analyze. Bm is like chezinu and incredibly hard to pin down normally. You typically have to rely on things like scumslips to catch either of them or take look at the overall effort they put into a game. Now given that. You're analysis is very lacking, and looks like cherry picking. You don't include examples or even a link to his filter to prove your case. It seems rushed and made by someone backed into a corner. If you are town you should have no reason to feel rushed, you have plenty of time to post your thoughts. First off, while I understand a player's meta is something to consider, I really have no idea what you are talking about with respect to how Bill plays or whoever this chezinu is. I included at least three examples. See those quotes/spoilers? All of them include quotes from Bill Murray. As to being rushed, well, I am just trying to not lurk. Apparently that is a bad thing to do - working on putting my thoughts out there and trying to stimulate discussion. Then actually hit the quote button on BM's posts. I should never have to enter a players filter to actually verify every post used as a reason against them when they are "quoted" in analysis. Any player who has played for years on this site (myself, drh, bm,) in this case for this game a giant amount of games for players to look at and compare our playstyles/meta's/trend our meta is changing. Not looking into this when making a case IMO looks badly on you as the person making the analysis. Knowing the players you are playing against if they are active and have a good set of history to compare to should be something everyone takes into consideration in cases. If someone has very few games behind them then yes, only gauging one game is fine given people change a f ton early on into their mafia career. Ignorance is not a defense imo. Making a quality post even if you only make like 4-5 a cycle isn't lurking if they are insanely solid posts. Its ones like your analysis that seem rushed to have an air of contribution that look bad.
I not truly claiming ignorance as a defense - I am just pointing out that I made the post without a full background check/years of experience. However weak my case may be, and however 'into his meta' Bill's posts are, I think my points still stand on their own two legs - he is trying to get me shot without arguing for it. I would like to hear Bill's response.
I am also interested to hear DrH's response to Hapa about his shifting views.
@Toad I think DYH explicitly mentioning his assumptions is a benefit towards his argument, not a detriment.
As a final note here, I am kinda on the same page as Rewok. I don't have much more to say without responses from Bill, DrH or without new info turning up after the night phase. Otto needs to be shot (to save us a lynch), and I don't have any suggestions for tracking/watching.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
