Ok since some people asked, here's what I'm thinking.

I agree that BKEXE's initial posts were a tad scummy. But what gave it away to me was that after casualman voted for him, both Mattchew and BKEXE immediately returned the favour and voted for casualman to be lynched. Both without any explanation other than saying "Wtf is this". And then later, both went MIA for quite a while instead of explaining their votes or trying to defend BKEXE.

You may ask why would casualman throw his vote at BKEXE so early. It could be he is either just noob, or it could be he read BKEXE as scum (like many people are now) but just before a lot of people had the chance to.

As for other players: I find many people are soft defending BKEXE and in their posts trying to put suspicion onto others (with little reason). I see these as scummy moves.

drwiggl3s

Canada167 Posts

July 02 2012 06:17 GMT

#689

So here's what should be learned from day 1.

BKExe gained first suspicions. Votes were put on him. His posting increased at a rapid rate where he wasn't so much as defending himself as he was putting suspicion on others. There was also a increase of posting by a few others who were soft defending him while pointing fingers at others.

mkmkmk get read as scum by numerous people. All while being pretty much just missing in action. Votes are pushed to him as an easy D1 lynch.

Somehow (I have no clue how his posts were read as scum), people hint and drop Fox's name as a possible scum candidate. After testing the waters, a bandwagon is launched on him and it get's the votes. This lynch not only killed a fellow town, but it also netted 0 information on who else could be scum.

I'd like to throw suspicion on those who are actively throwing suspicion onto others. As the people they are reading as scum are giving me no sense of scumminess at all. While the people who do appear scummy seem to have a team of like minded individuals backing up their claims and dismissing others.

For the love of town, if you're town, don't settle for these mislynches. If we were going to lynch someone, it should have been someone that actually had people defending them. At least this way their death (in vain or not) would give us some valuable information on the people posting in this thread. Any lynch that doesn't support this idea, is a lynch that is proposed by the mafia, and we should look to those who propose it as our next targets.

drwiggl3s

Canada167 Posts

July 02 2012 07:01 GMT

#690

Also, to Mattchew:

PS. @ Mattchew

Foxtrot by all means did NOT deserve the noose he got. He posted late, and said sorry for being busy. Is that an obvious "scum post"? Yes. So obvious that any scum with any sense would NOT post it. Any read on him being scum tells more about the person pointing fingers than it does on Foxtrot himself.

Also, why should we noose twelve next? Did he push the bandwagon any more than you when it came to Foxtrot? No.

Do you simply want to noose him or discredit him because he made some very good arguments in the past against you and towards the idea that BKEXE is scum?

I'll let my fellow town member answer that last one themselves.

drwiggl3s

Canada167 Posts

July 02 2012 08:36 GMT

#695

mkmkmk lynch never made sense to me, and unless you give me some justification for it, anyone pushing for this is giving me a scum read.

The only justification I can think of for the Foxtrotter wagon, was that there was a tie between BroodKingExe, Foxtrotter, and mkmkmk. Since they couldn't push enough votes onto mkmkmk to ensure BroodKingexe wouldn't get ninja lynched by some last minute votes, they sprung a new bandwagon on Foxtrotter.

I do agree with Bill Murray in that some people who pushed for the Foxtrotter wagon need to be lynched. Although I'm curious as to who he thinks would be a good target. To me, the best target is already apparent. But since I have no good town read or scum read on Bill, I'd like to hear what he thinks.

drwiggl3s

Canada167 Posts

July 02 2012 08:41 GMT

#696

Also (sorry for some spam here) @ Mandalor. You say we should lynch someone listed in Mattchew's analysis. Yet in the same post you say his analysis is "hilariously bad". I propose that his list is all town.

See how it excludes BKexe for example?

drwiggl3s

Canada167 Posts

July 02 2012 08:47 GMT

#698

If you want the most information out of a lynch. Then when the sun rises tomorrow - we kill Mattchew.

If he's scum, everyone on that list is town. And we have 5 (6th person would have been foxtrott) people who can be labelled confirm town for the rest of the game.

drwiggl3s

Canada167 Posts

July 02 2012 08:55 GMT

#705

Yes there was alot that happened in D1. If I ignored it in my posts it's because I attributed it to people pointing fingers trying to leech votes off those who were more scummy and had the votes to begin with.

And yes mkmkmk was in the lead but that was only at vote count. Prior to one of the vote counts someone mentioned it was 7/7/7 (mkmkmk, bkexe, foxtrott). Leaving it as anyone's game to determine who would be lynched. And if one of those 3 are Mafia, than that's something to spur some last minute vote changes and bandwagoning.

I'd like to lynch whoever will give us the most information next. If you disagree with this, or see someone as SOOO scummy that it would be more beneficial to lynch them, than please feel free to try to dissuade me.

drwiggl3s

Canada167 Posts

July 02 2012 08:59 GMT

#710

On July 02 2012 17:55 kingdedede wrote:

Show nested quote +

Even if Mattchew is scum you're horribly wrong. Want to see how pro Mattchew is at bussing his teammates? Go look at holy roman. Every single one of his lynch targets was scum with him.

I don't believe in taking peoples past actions and using them as some sort of meta in this game. Chances are if he made mistakes in previous games, he'd correct them in this one. If he made good memorable plays in other games, he'd use them to trick people into believing him this game.

There's 26 people left in this game. If we can't lynch a red (we can't.. he's gotta be a half lurker at this point), we lynch who gives us the most information.

drwiggl3s

Canada167 Posts

July 02 2012 09:06 GMT

#713

The "clearly stated reason" was that he posted late. Was sorry for lack of posting. And that his reason for voting mkmkmk was weak (he quoted mkmkmk's post). Did you hear that last bit? His reason to vote mkmkmk was weak. Do you see how hilarious that is? Let me remind you that many of the people who were pushing for Foxtrott to be lynched also so easily voted for mkmkmk earlier.

@ ET. Can you please add something constructive to our discussion here?

drwiggl3s

Canada167 Posts

July 02 2012 09:11 GMT

#715

^

If your town, please post and discuss this with us. Else this is just going to be washed out by all the Mafia's random finger pointing / speculating / useless crap posts.

drwiggl3s

Canada167 Posts

July 02 2012 09:13 GMT

#717

Please read my above post. FT said mkmkmk was a comfortable vote to make. Many people also voted mkmkmk for the same reasons. Yet these same people all happily bandwagoned onto FT for making the same sort of vote that they placed earlier.

drwiggl3s

Canada167 Posts

July 02 2012 09:15 GMT

#719

Whether or not Mattchew is scum is up for interpretation. But one thing that isn't, is that if we lynch him, and he turns as scum, then that will net us the most information. More then any other lynch that could be made right now.

drwiggl3s

Canada167 Posts

July 02 2012 09:19 GMT

#723

That's fine. Come up with a better vote then Mattchew, and I'd love to hear it. Anything that involves voting for a lurker, a noob, a troll, or whatever, is not one I'm interested when we can vote for someone who absolutely loves to spur confusion, and band wagoning, as well as soft defending someone I believe is scum (bkexe).

If we lynch Mattchew, it will give us the most possible information that a lynch can give us.

That's the point I'm making here.

drwiggl3s

Canada167 Posts

July 02 2012 09:20 GMT

#725

I believe Mattchew is scum. I thought that was clear from my earlier posts.

@ Acrofales, I have no clue how you can say ET Is making sense here. All he's doing is trying to shut down our suspicions, and here you are trying to branch onto a completely different topic.

drwiggl3s

Canada167 Posts

July 02 2012 09:22 GMT

#726

In this thread, mafia supporting mafia in misguiding train of thought that will lead to lynching mafia.

I'm done here for now. If your town, please read and consider my posts.

drwiggl3s

Canada167 Posts

July 02 2012 09:32 GMT

#729

You guys talking about "rereading" someone later. About who you have "feelings" about. Are these not just walking the thread in circles?

1. He WAS a driving factor behind the Fox lynch. Him putting Fox on his list spurred the push to have Fox lynched.

2. This is possible, but if he was scum before, and made a list before, don't you read his making a list again as a possible tell that he could be scum again? Do you not agree that lynching him would give us the most information possible? and would be a good lynch, despite how strong your "reads" may feel to you?

3. The case on him, is that he was defended, softly, by a few people when he was put in hot water. Where as mkmkmk and FT (confirmed town now) were both not defended at all, yet had people bandwaggoning them like crazy (the same people who soft defended bkexe).

drwiggl3s

Canada167 Posts

July 02 2012 09:39 GMT

#731

And now here you two are, defending Mattchew. Providing no real content in your posts. Just trying to move the topic of discussion off it's point.

In this thread, mafia supporting mafia in misguiding train of thought that will lead to lynching mafia.