Newbie Mini Mafia XVII
Forum Index > TL Mafia |
suki
Canada1159 Posts
| ||
suki
Canada1159 Posts
| ||
suki
Canada1159 Posts
i hope we're on the same team this time around T__T | ||
suki
Canada1159 Posts
It was really weird last game having ppl call me 'he'. Not a big deal but still weird. | ||
suki
Canada1159 Posts
| ||
suki
Canada1159 Posts
| ||
suki
Canada1159 Posts
If I understood correctly, it doesn't mean that I would stop any lynch that I didn't mention on my analysis. Just because I have a candidate for lynch, it doesn't imply that I discard any other possibility. It's something related to common sense. If any other cases are convincing enough, I'll throw my vote there in the case I can't get a majority. In the other hand, if we end up like RNG lynching (which is a bad idea), any other poster that could be doing silly mistakes, or even a player practically saying ''hey guys, I'm mafia, lynch me'' that's when it goes against my mindset. Any possibility is valuable, but if there is something absurdly wrong, I'll call it, even if that means a no lynch. This post screams to me that he's trying to be super cautious with his words, so that he'll have a safety net if/when he ever changes a vote or bandwagons on someone else. He throws out some 'obvious' examples of reasons of what wouldn't agree with him, and even mentions that he would follow through on a read, even if it that means a no lynch. BUT WAIT! Just ONE post previous to that he says this: I won't accept a NO LYNCH unless I believe we may have a serious mislynch coming. ... Dude. You try to take a firm stance against something, and then you do the most scummy wishy-washy-ness thing ever the very next post. You're clearly informed about mafia as you brought up the idea of a day 1 RNG lynch, and being against a no lynch is not a difficult or complicated policy to hold. I feel that such a simple logical slip only happens if you're trying to play it safe and keep your options open. ##vote trackd00r | ||
suki
Canada1159 Posts
I'll be pressing for a scum lynch over a lurker lynch on day 1. As we saw in newbie mafia XV, several of our players (the least active ones) were either replaced or modkilled over day 1 and day 2, yet a lot of the discussion was focused on whether or not to lynch them. Also related to XV, we should absolutely avoid a Day 1 NL. Me getting lynched on Day 1 provided most of the ammunition and clues that were used to nail heist on Day 3 and could have nailed Xatalos had he not played an excellent game after his Day 1 blunders. | ||
suki
Canada1159 Posts
##unvote trackd00r I thought at the very least I could rouse a response from trackd00r, however my case was too weak and I feel that no useful information can be gleamed from people simply agreeing on its flimsiness. Regarding miltonkram's vote of sciberbia, I personally think it's a joke referencing our previous game XV where he votes sciberbia within the first few posts of the game. I thought it was pretty funny myself. I feel that rofl's case on alan is not very convincing. First off, alan isn't bandwagoning on the lurker/inactive issue, at that point is split about 50/50 with half of the previous posters saying they want to focus on scumhunting and half leaning more towards a lurker lynch. Second, the game is so new that I disagree with the statement that his play is anti-town. He hasn't made any strong statements because there are few strong statements to make. My case on trackd00r was/is a flop, and up until your vote on alan no one has really pointed out anything suspicious about any other player (well, aside from those questioning my motivation to vote for trackd00r). Contributions are low but that's to be expected in the first hours of the game. I feel that there's not enough information out there yet to make an opinion on alan. | ||
suki
Canada1159 Posts
I felt golden's first post seemed a bit off as well compared to last game, but I was waiting for a few more posts from him before saying anything. @alan Don't stay neutral. Neutral doesn't help town. Making strong opinions and reads helps town. Off to work, I'll be back later. | ||
suki
Canada1159 Posts
Suki has been painting track's two posts as directly contradictory even though they aren't. This could be an overzealous town play but I don't think it is. What possible motivation could there be for a strong attack on someone with a controversial opinion? Firstly, there's the chance that the town might bandwagon on it. This would be the best possible scenario for suki if she is scum. She leads a bandwagon D1 and she gets a mislynch. Secondly, she gains town cred for appearing aggressive even if she doesn't get the lynch. It seems like a win/win scenario for scum unless of course someone makes the analysis I'm making now. In summary, the case on trackd00r is pure crap. Making a controversial statement is not a scumtell. I think suki is trying to cover her scumminess by appearing aggressive without making a good case. Apologies for not addressing you directly. Quite simply you (and several other people after you) answered your question. The motivation is to get the ball rolling some way, any way. I feel I failed a bit in that regard as my attack was so full of holes that there hardly was any discussion developed from it, but it was made with good intentions. Regarding Mouldyjeb, I agree that he is confusing, however his filter is also quite short. His words definitely are not pro-town, but in my opinion they aren't inherently scummy either, it could just as easily be poor town play. Now I've gone through a few people's filters, and only one person really sticks out at me: alan133 roflwaffle initiated pressure on him, and then loosened up after Crossfire and I argued in alan's defense. I did not find the case convincing before, but now alan's posted his defense, and now the case is a lot more stronger to me. As a quick rehash of rofl's initial case, he argued that alan made posts with little controversy, that he wasn't interested or willing to apply pressure on anyone, that he does some bandwagoning. All true, but possible for both town and scum play. However, with his defense posts, I feel that things are starting to add up. Looking even closer at the filter I feel I've caught some things that I missed before. + Show Spoiler + FMPOV, suki's case was most probably based on a misunderstanding, but (s)he could very well did it intentionally hoping for a bandwagon leading to a mislynch. Note that I am merely listing the possibilities, I do not FoS anyone yet, which can also mean that I do not trust anyone yet. His initial statement is very verbose and is pro-actively defensive. He's countering arguments to his words before they even come up. He's even countering counter arguments to his words. "...hoping for a bandwagon leading to a mislynch. [counter] Note I am merely listing the possibilities, I do not FoS anyone yet, [counter-counter] which can also mean I do not trust anyone yet". He also likes to use FMPOV and IMO a lot, further stressing how his words are subjective. It's very telling when someone is that self-conscious and defensive, because only mafia really have that motivation. When called out by waffle for not having suspicions, he gets extremely agitated. FMPOV, anyone can be scum, and having no FoS does not mean I do not suspect anyone. I merely state that I have no strong scum read as of currently, and in my context, strong means pretty much confirmed. IMO those who are decisive in throwing votes based on weak or insubstantial claims were somewhat suspicious. I think it is normal for townies to hold doubts and and being decisive as they were less informed. If anything, I just tried to keep an open mind. He spends a lot of words explaining his reasoning behind saying he doesn't have an FoS. He starts to really use red to emphasize his words, which he had used previously to point out inconsistencies and scummy lines, but not to add emphasis to his words. Notice that he is spending a lot of effort defending himself and justifying his past words. I feel a townie would be less threatened by such accusations, and instead start trying to apply pressure and otherwise prove their towniness. . Following what he feels is an adequate self-defense, he goes on the offensive. Also, is it me or you were trying to divert the attention AWAY from suki? I don't see how keeping the attention on suki is a bad thing, as you suggested. Well if you're complaining about not bringing up any of my thoughts, there you have it. I were trying to avoid throwing out suspicions with little to no proof, but if by not doing so is anti-town As a matter of fact, roflwaffles55 asked for my opinion replying to my opening post, and criticise it being a bandwagon, while forgetting he did the same. This is extremely extremely scummy to me. What he's saying here is essentially this: "If not giving throwing out suspicions is anti-town, then I will prove my towniness by throwing out suspicions.", followed by attacking the person who attacked him. He finishes the post by saying My policy is to stay as neutral as possible, accessing all the possibilities while passively waiting/reading what other people has posted. I do believe this is not a bad-town play, as I am trying to avoid town fighting town scenario while scums lurks and look at the drama while eating pop-corns. There is a mental disconnect here. 1. He feels throwing out suspicions is bad for town 2. He tries to prove his towniness by throwing out a suspicion at his attacker 3. He reinforces his belief that staying neutral is not bad town play If he really was town and he really believed that his way of playing was optimal, why would he have the need to go completely against his beliefs to prove his towniness? In his next post, the same trend continues. He spends time justifying his red text: The red text was meant to emphasize on how easily I could've built a case against you if I were to use the same speculations and baseless assumptions. but the interesting thing is.. if it was so easy for him to build a case against waffles, why didn't he? Of course, because he didn't have any. He was simply defending via attacking. And then there's the whole weird analysis that he does where he analyses my case and waffle's case, comes to the conclusion that: 1. waffles could be either scum or town (???) 2. somehow finds me slightly scummy even though he previously thought that my case was based on a misunderstanding (and went to extra lengths to state that he did not FOS anyone yet), 3. Some sort of mafia conspiracy theory out of left field what?? 4. Which he backs off saying 'I think I might have read too much into it." So, he finally makes analyses on people, but only the two most active and controversial ones, and doesn't come to any solid conclusions. He makes a really weird statement regarding mafia alterior motives that doesn't make any sense coming from a town's perspective, but comes naturally to a mafia who is trying to spin scum motivations on townies. Summary 1. He's pro-actively defensive 2. Justifies his own actions instead of trying to make pro-town actions 3. Defensive Aggression 4. Inconsistency regarding a neutral/suspicion-throwing playstyle 5. Attacks the two most controversial posters with a questionable theory for townies to think of that he just kind of throws out there. 6. Still no solid reads, analysis or suspicions despite (kind of??) conceding that not throwing out suspicions is anti-town. ##vote alan133 | ||
suki
Canada1159 Posts
I think a lot of your argument stems from the impression that I was absolutely sure trackd00r was scum. I definitely worded my post that way on purpose, in spite of knowing my case wasn't solid. I was genuinely surprised that my case was as weak as it was. Basically one good post from you was strong enough to let everyone basically say 'yeah, I agree.' My comment that 'at the very least I could rouse a response from trackd00r' was because I thought even if my case was really weak, I could aggravate an interesting reply from trackd00r, but it didn't. Regarding the contradiction, and the comment that the contradiction isn't as severe as I thought it was. It's simply not taking the time to really think about the topic, after reading the rebuttals and being disappointed. There is no contradiction, it was just me being careless with my choice of words. Actually, the offhanded and subtly confident way he deflected my attack is a townie point for him in my book, so as it stands I don't suspect trackd00r at all. Hmhm. I just posted a big thing on alan. I have been away all day and it took me forever to look at the thread and all the filters and make a post that really contributed to the thread. As for opening the game, I posted my policy post after the accusation because I wrote the accusation first. I did want to start the thread off boldly, I'll give you that. And now I've spent like three hours on these two posts and I have things to do before I sleep, so good night! I'll try to find time in the morning to contribute but I may not be able to until after work. | ||
suki
Canada1159 Posts
Crossfire99: I spent a lot of time trying to figure out if he is scum or not. Looking into the filter of his two previous games, I found that his posting style is more or less the same. In game 1, he rolls blue and lurks quite hard. He states out of game reasons for lurking, but he plays more or less non-commital, pointing out suspicious behavior but not really heavily pressuring anyone. In game 2 as mafia, he starts out the game by doing two things. First, he posts a defense of a townie that had come under scrutiny. Second, he immediately starts pointing out errors in one particular person's posts. He actually tunnels this person for the entire Day 1 and only just fails to get him lynched. He survives for the whole game without really being under fire and mafia wins the game. In this game I see a lot of policy talk, a lot of guidance talk, and hardly any pressure at all. I find it quite different from his previously successful mafia play. In addition, his helpful tone is quite present in the mafia QT from the previous game, which makes me feel more inclined to think he's actually trying to help, despite his posts not really pressuring or helping town much. Basically, his meta has changed from his last scum game, and it's changed in a confusing way, and he isn't using the tactics that lead him to a win in the previous game. I'm waiting for more contributions from him before deciding whether I think he's scum or not. About HeavOnEarth: HeavOn's attack against Golden is weak, and his offhanded comment on MouldyJeb is simplistic. His points against Crossfire are thought out and straightforward. While he has not taken a strong stance against anyone, he's also not been wishy washy. He's also kind of aggravating, mocking and provoking MJ and golden while waiting for their responses. He hasn't contributed much, especially in the way of the major cases of the day, which is a big point against him. I feel HeavOn isn't as suspicious as people are making him out to be, and am waiting for his response on topics such as me, alan113 and crossfire before making a decision. @Austin Since you seem to be awake now, can I hear your thoughts on who you think is suspicious? You haven't stated anything of the sort yet, despite writing a lot about the current cases. Since you dont like the cases presented, care to make one yourself? I've already posted my opinions on MouldyJeb, so I think that about covers everyone interesting at the moment. Tonight I'll go over the filters of the people who I haven't touched on and see if I can find something. Defense post incoming.. I wanna post this before I write the defense since they're two different topics. | ||
suki
Canada1159 Posts
His points on my defense is basically that I was being non-transparent. Another way to look at it is I used the wrong wording and I'm more concerned about scumhunting than pursuing and discussing moot topics. In any case, my defense is what it is. The part about looking bold is just WIFOM and not very helpful at this point. In any case, only he and alan have thought I looked suspicious. Let me talk about alan. His points against my case: Summary 1. He's pro-actively defensive I was tunneled by rolf, and I choose to confront it head on hoping it will clear myself. By pro-actively defensive, I mean he was defensive before any accusations against him occured (by being extremely careful with his words). The point still stands. 2. Justifies his own actions instead of trying to make pro-town actions How else am I going to defend myself other than justifying it? And you claimed I did not make "pro-town" actions. I beg to differ. I actively throw out all the possible motives. I believe later on day 2 when more solid facts are present (killing pattern/blue role have more ideas), we can rule out some of these motives to get a better picture. Right now, I am merely focusing on reading every player's patterns. Yes, defend yourself. What I want to point out is that alan has spent a lot of effort defending himsef, but hasn't done anything pro-town following the defense. His only suspicions lie on rofl and me, both who have accused him. Where is the focus on reading 'every player's patterns'? You've only looked at two. 3. Defensive Aggression You just repeated point 1. No, this is different. This is being aggressive to defend yourself. You attacked the person who is attacking you, and it seems like you do it for the sake of defending yourself, by pointing out the attacker's own inconsistencies. This is not good scum hunting, this is a knee-jerk defensive reaction. 4. Inconsistency regarding a neutral/suspicion-throwing playstyle If you are referring to the "red text mocked up case" I posted in defense of rolf's case by "proof by contradiction". That seems like a very sensational and ultimately unhelpful way of defending yourself. The fact that you do it in an aggressive rather than logical tone makes me feel like you wanted to get the heat off yourself as fast as possible. 5. Attacks the two most controversial posters with a questionable theory for townies to think of that he just kind of throws out there. How is rolf controversial? Also, I don't find my theory "questionable". I merely listed what happened. Please provide clear "questions" instead of vague accusation. rofl was controversial because his case against you was weak, and he was also getting questioned for backing off quickly. Your theory on me and rofl is questionable, because it feels like you're stretching to make some connections between the two people who are on your case the hardest. 6. Still no solid reads, analysis or suspicions despite (kind of??) conceding that not throwing out suspicions is anti-town. Throwing random "solid reads" without proofs or substantial supporting reason is just as well as filler. I did not throw "solid reads", instead I posted the possibilities, which because of (refer to reply to #2), I think it is not scummy or even anti-town. What I was focusing on was the fact that besides what you have wrote on me and rofl, you have not done any analysis at all on anyone else. You hide behind this excuse that you want to be neutral, but your posts have not been at all helpful to scumhunting. Let me reiterate the key points of my case on alan: 1. It's not that he is defensive. It's the way he's being defensive. He was extremely conscious of misinterpretations of his words in the beginning. He attacks his attackers. Despite feeling that throwing suspicions around was bad town play, he threw suspicions at roflwaffle to prove his towniness. I don't buy that his response was 'proof by contradiction', the tone is completely off. 2. He is inconsistent. He states that he doesn't like throwing out suspicions, that he thinks neutral play by town isn't bad for town. Yet he throws suspicions at those attacking him, and he continues to work with this idea that rofl and I are working together as a mafia ploy. Is that really the most suspicious part of this entire thread, are roflwaffle and me really the most suspicious people out of everyone else? I highly highly doubt it. He is inconsistent because he doesn't like throwing out suspicions (his reasoning for not commenting on anyone else it seems), yet he freely throws suspicions at his attackers. In addition, Alan's suspicions on rofl and I have more been about finding a way to make our play scummy, rather than pointing out scum motivations and tells. 3. He still hasn't done any analysis on any other players. Why? Has it not been made clear to you that your opinions are needed? Let me say it clearly: What are your opinions on everyone else? Do something productive for the town for once. And everyone else, what do you think of my case? I really don't think it's flimsy at all. | ||
suki
Canada1159 Posts
| ||
suki
Canada1159 Posts
alan hasn't changed his playstyle. He's still maintaining neutrality on everyone except me and roflwaffle. He's clearly had time to hunt for suspicious behaviour of me and rofl. I don't like how he is hiding behind this 'neutrality' premise to avoid commenting on anyone he doesn't feel like. I'm not OMGUSing him, I'm calling him out for not contributing to the town under the premise of 'neutrality'. I'm calling him out for failing to comment on any of the main players being discussed in the thread - HeavOnEarth, MouldyJeb, and Crossfire. Yes, you could argue newb townie motivation for neutrality, accusing his accusers and knee-jerk defense, but shouldn't there also be motivation for contributing his thoughts on current topics? | ||
suki
Canada1159 Posts
I am satisfied with the reads that alan's posted. He's clearly gone through people's filters and comes up with solid reads. In addition, I find his defense of my latest attack on him convincing. His initial defense of my case had a few holes, and I pressed him hard for those feeling that it might have been a way to brush off those points without addressing them. He has went over my points and answered them clearly, and I feel more comfortable attributing those holes to english not being his first language. My primary points of suspicion against alan (the key points after his rebuttal) were his method of defence, his inconsistency of play and his lack of commenting on other players. I can rule out being extra-careful of his words and using an overly aggressive tone as part of his difficulty with english. It also helps that he has not been pro-actively defensive or sensational in the newest post where he outlines his suspicions. As for his inconsistency of play and not pointing out scum motivations, he has now posted cases on a lot of players. I concede that given his most recent post, I no longer hold my case as valid. As the vote deadline is getting close I want to put in my thoughts now rather than waiting for later. Please excuse me if I'm a bit rushed in my analysis as I don't have much time during the day. s0lstice i like his play. Solid reads, very little fluff. A strong air of confidence that was also present in the previous game we played together. He posts his reads with conviction. Because of this, I have decided to give HeavOnEarth's filter another look. HeavOnEarth: Okay, something really really sticks out to me in Heavon's first post, and it's not about golden. It's this particular line: also id like to point out crossfire is completely inactive, whereas in past games he was a pretty talkative little townie. thoughts? Above, I posted my opinions on Crossfire, where I had gone through pretty much his entire filter in his two previous games, and the big thing I noted was that Crossfire LURKED very hard in his first game as blue, and somewhat lurked in the second game as red. HeavOn clearly is talking about Crossfire's game as blue, 'He was a pretty talkative little townie'. This is clearly wrong. He continues his case against Crossfire later after sciberbia brings it up. This has already been labelled as suspicious. It's a big point against him that he waited until someone else pointed fingers at Crossfire, when he had so early established a read on Crossfire - a fairly in depth read as he had even looked at Crossfire's filters from previous games. The thing is, the case HeavOn makes against crossfire disregards the previous game filters. Crossfire, as mafia, was assertive actively pushed cases against other players. He also lurked quite a bit. As for golden i admit my analysis was pretty damn bad LOL , but he didn't really have any other posts for me to provoke him with, and i still feel its a strong play to accuse lurkers of being scummy, just to get them to talk. The way he went about replying though felt really odd to me. For example, i don't really care if you're taking a few mins to write up a post. Why tell me about it(unless you're about to be majority lynched or something). Just feels off. HeavOn votes for Golden despite saying that his case against Golden is weak. He doesn't back off however, stating that the response was scummy and that the scummy thing about it was how golden was commenting on the time it would take to make his posts? Seems like a very strained argument to make. I see clear scum motivation in voting for golden. In my previous game as mafia, I harped on Miltonkram for his early vote against sciberbia. Even when my argument was convincingly rebutted, I continued to press my case against him finding any sort of scummy intent I could make up. Why? Because I didn't want to be wishy-washy. HeavOn's case against golden is that golden 'just feels off'. This makes Golden a 'solid lynch' to him. I'm out of time, but that's my insight into HeavOn. I feel that there can definitely be scum motivation behind his posts. I haven't had time to closely look at other people but for now HeavOn is clearly a scummier target than alan. ##unvote alan113 ##vote HeavOnEarth | ||
suki
Canada1159 Posts
..I've been feeling jittery all day. It's seriously more effective than any amount of caffiene >_<; | ||
suki
Canada1159 Posts
Hm.. On the one hand, missing the vote is definitely something a mafia would do if they thought they could get away with it, as it's easier to push a no lynch that way. I like how he just conveniently got in a car accident exactly before the lynch. It's possible that he's town, but I can definitely see scum motivation for this gambit. .... JUST KIDDING. I hope everyone is okay and things work out for you. I also hope he doesnt get modkilled cuz he has been contributing and sometimes shit just happens. | ||
suki
Canada1159 Posts
I've gone through everyone left, and let me say that one person really sticks out to me, more than anyone else. trackd00r The first thing that I did when looking for scum is see who targetted MouldyJeb, and Crossfire. Between those two and HeavOnEarth, these three made up the prime candidates for the day 1 lynch. Also keep in mind that HeavOnEarth targeted Mouldy, Crossfire and Golden as I go through trackd00r's history. To start, trackd00r posts a meh case on Mouldy early on but doesn't press it. Later on he posts that he's not convinced of Mouldy's case. He says that the most suspicious players on his list are me, crossfire and golden, and that he'd push a lynch on any of them. First, he totally forgets to post analysis on me. At this point three players (Milton, sciberbia and Alan) have stated their suspicions on me. It's really weird how he states that he's suspicious and doesn't back it up. He's willing to lynch me, which means he must have a strong opinion on my play. He posts big analysis on crossfire and golden but then forgets to justify his suspicions on me. This alone isn't suspicious but it questions the clarity of his thoughts, and its easier for mafia to get confused as they're constantly trying to spin things. He targets Crossfire. At this point Crossfire is under pressure by austin, roflwaffle, Milton, and sciberbia. Golden and I have been the ones backing crossfire up. trackd00r lists the things that Crossfire has done. He dislikes how Crossfire disappeared from radar and was just checking the thread, and how he didn't bring anything new to the table. He ends without a solid opinion, states that there's nothing to quote to show for evidence. Basically, his words amount to 'I dont like the way he is playing'. Yet he is willing to push a lynch on Crossfire. Following this he writes a case on Golden. He specifically states that Golden is 'very similar to crossfire, but acts in a much scummier way.' Bragging to much IMO about his task of writing stuff. He states that he wants write a summary for himself. Dude, you are not playing alone, you have 8 any other people doing the same thing, and the only way is by working togheter. His argument has nothing to do with, and doesn't label this, as scummy behaviour. Annoying, maybe(?) but not scummy. He also finds Golden's wall of text "quite disappointing" In some parts, where he clearly explains events, it's got the name of an opinion. I don't quite understand his words. I believe he's saying something along the lines of Golden explaining events clearly, and that it has something to do with an opinion... But regardless of the exact meaning, he isn't labelling this behaviour as scummy. Finally to end all this post, he FOS'd MouldyJeb with NO reasoning or whatsoever. He even took s0lstice analysis to back up his descsion, instead of using his unique arguments. Here, it clearly shows that his opinions are not more than a influence from other players. In just 6 minutes, CF passed from being okay for him, to ''omg might be suspicious''. And, where is his case against MJ anyways? Basically trackd00r is arguing that Golden brags about the task of writing stuff, that he explains events (maybe without making an opinion?? if i try to find an argument in his words, since golden doesn't really attack anyone in that post) and doesn't have unique arguments. In summary, Golden has been really inconsistent with his play The expectations I had from him are far from satisfactory, in function of what he has promised. In summary, he is willing to lynch three people, but he doesn't elaborate on why he thinks any of the three are suspicious. His arguments amount to not bringing anything to the table, and not playing satisfactorily. He votes golden, and makes a comment that if he comes back on time he'll vote to prevent a NL. He then does so, changing his vote to HeavOn. This was at the last minute, and HeavOn already had the majority, so the lynch was more or less set. He can't even argue that he didn't realize that HeavOn had the majority because prplhz had posted a list that clearly pointed this out just a few posts above. I've gone through trackd00r's play in detail, now I'd like to summarize the points and explain why each point is suspicious. 1. Soft aggression vs Mouldy early on but later says he's not convinced. Slightly important point because Mafia want to avoid all targetting the same people. 2. Goes after Crossfire and Golden. Crossfire was a sort of easy bandwagon since so many players were after him. The Golden push is suspicious because so few people targeted him, one of whom was HeavOnEarth. 3. Does not comment on HeavOnEarth at all until the very very end. Definitely scum motivation for avoiding this. trackd00r was around back when s0lstice first started his push on HeavOnEarth. That was when trackd00r was pushing his cases against Crossfire and Golden. 4. His cases are all weak. He never points out scummy play despite singling out the three people who he would push for a lynch. His arguments are weak and consist of not contributing and not playing 'satisfactorily'. There's no townie motivation that late in the day to simply target people for unsatisfactory play, as opposed to finding scummy play. There is plenty of scum motivation to try to find something, anything, to attack, while not putting themselves fully on the radar. 5. He bandwagons at the last minute on HeavOnEarth. A pointless move. His analysis is flaky. He says, "I must admit that he looks suspicious at this stage of the game." Trackd00r has been noncommital, he's been weakly targetting people for playing unsatisfactorily as opposed to playing scummy. He went for the easy target of Crossfire, and you can argue he tried to push a bandwagon on Golden with HeavOn. He refused to comment on HeavOn, and comes back at the last minute to appear like he's supporting town by voting against HeavOn as the last, and wholly unnecessary vote. I am posting this now because I have no life and I really should be doing something else but I'm here reading filters and writing extremely long posts instead. I figure I'll get this out there now and let people mull over my thoughts. I'm interested in other people's opinions of who might be scum. I (and I kid you not) quickly went through everyone's filters and I picked the most scummy looking person of the bunch to target. I wonder if someone can point out other scummy stuff that I missed. Cheers. | ||
| ||