EPTNewbie Mafia XL
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
nobodywonder
United States848 Posts
| ||
|
nobodywonder
United States848 Posts
| ||
|
nobodywonder
United States848 Posts
##Vote: pandabearguy | ||
|
nobodywonder
United States848 Posts
| ||
|
nobodywonder
United States848 Posts
| ||
|
nobodywonder
United States848 Posts
time to read  | ||
|
nobodywonder
United States848 Posts
That said, I would like a response from Smancer, who went lurker mode after unvoting Rainbows about the state of the game. On April 05 2013 15:14 jrkirby wrote: Yeah, probably. Lurkers can kill huge lines of marines with splash damage. But we might want to throw down a couple of scans first, if you get my extended metaphor. On April 05 2013 15:22 jrkirby wrote: If we get all the guys to unburrow, we can see more easily if they're harmless drones or terrifyingly fit skinny lurkers. I'm not a fan of metaphors, because I don't really understand. | ||
|
nobodywonder
United States848 Posts
On April 05 2013 15:44 Obzy wrote: Fish - I see where you're coming from, but there's no way to know a person isn't mafia, you're just trusting your opinion or the opinions of others. The only way to get those opinions of others is by sharing reads. Even if scum are trying to herd people, keeping track of who is leading lynches is very important - Blazing mentioned it in XXXIX's mafia's QT that because there were only two votes on the day1 vote that mislynched, town wasn't able to draw any meaningful information from it. If scum are blatantly taking charge and leading the town directly into bad decision making, that should be a signpost to us that town isn't being led very well =P Also, my expectation is more in line that if we all play actively and intelligently, the scum's pointing at townies and calling them mafia will look... dumb and out of place >.>; If everyone in town has a townread on everyone else in town, what can scum do? Also, good night since you're apparently taking off ^^ I'm going to take off as well - I want to go get some dinner, and then going to go to bed unless somebody directs a question at me - I'll check the thread after eating but unless something really sticks out I am just gonna go to sleep lol. JarJar, Warent, come join us :0 Smancer, Ravens, nobody - share your thoughts when you have time to read and respond ^^ Anybody look good or bad? See you all tomorrow unless you have a specific question for me when I get back.~ That scenario isn't perfect, I agree townreads can be useful, t I hope they will all be valid, but a confirmation bias won't be good. Everyone needs scumreads too. I think scumreads will be important than townreads because it'll be important for the votes and the flips. | ||
|
nobodywonder
United States848 Posts
Rainbow votes Smancer. Then Rainbow unvotes, then talks about his policy that there should be no policy and that everyone has their own policy. Rainbow then brings up a policy scenario. Well, he states it isn't policy based. Well to me, it sounds like it is, since a policy defines a set of actions in response to certain behavior. I don't know that Rainbow would bring a policy question and call it not policy, seems like he's cautiously gauging townie response and the town meta. Honestly, I want a response from not only Rainbow but also Smancer, since to me, it's interesting that Rainbow voted Smancer, unvoted Smancer and then voted Smancer again. In response Smancer had voted Rainbows and then unvoted Rainbow. I just a lil' weirded out by the voting trend. + Show Spoiler + As a little meta thing, Rainbows seems to deviate a lot more from previous games, he did troll vote, but not to extent of this game. He also spams a lot more. | ||
|
nobodywonder
United States848 Posts
| ||
|
nobodywonder
United States848 Posts
On April 05 2013 23:37 Rainbows wrote: Warent A bunch of generic pro-town things being advocated. He provides a (bad) summary of events in the thread and... that's it. A really non-comittal read. Those are always the two obvious choices in a situation such as this. Warent wants to 'wait for my explanation', which there will be none. Instead of coming to thread and giving us something to work with, Warent decides to play the 'Suspicious guy is suspicious' card and do nothing while appearing to do something. Rainbows no like. Saraf It is obvious that Saraf is referring to me here. I'm spamming, I'm doing a bunch of nuisance-like things and he doesn't like it. He says he would like to lynch me; even if I'm probably town. Saraf seems to know I'm town, because he refers to me as such and tells me how I should be playing. Notice the hypocrisy in this underlined statement. Saraf wants policy talk. Awesome, go for it man... wait, what policy has he brought up -- none. He wants people to talk about policy but is doing nothing to drive the discussion. He's trying to come off all pro-town by being 'yeah, we should lynch a scummy spammer guy, and totally talk about policy because it generates discussion!". He completely ignores A) that discussion is already happening, and we can talk about that and B) He himself is not bringing up policy to talk about and "get information". I digress, he's brought up the policy to 'lynch the spammiest asshole', but that in itself people are already talking about because I'm the center of discussion. So antagonisitic. Nobodywonder NW gives a huge summary. and throws some shit. He meditates on the policy thing, which I told everyone wasn't policy. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW PEOPLE THINK AND POLICY JESUS CHRIST PEOPLE. Had to get out of the way. This post, and subsequently the spoiler, show no effort on NW's part to come to a conrete read on me. He simply says that I'm doing things. He seems really apprehensive about giving an actual read and just flops around. I want peoples opinions of NW. Saraf might just be a banality-spewing town; and I'm unsure if his lolpolicy was serious or not. But NW - that guy. He's scummy. You only want an opinion from the town on me? Why not Saraf too, you comment on his posts and seem to say that Saraf is scummy, but never really do. I find this strange because after all, you did vote for him earlier, But now you just seem to suggest that he is just a silly town. I don't like that youre giving Saraf a free pass. That said, I do fully welcome people to write opinions on me. It'll get more content out. On Warent, I leaning scum on him, since he was very non-committal on Rainbows and just not very active. Anyways I do want Warent to weigh in later now that Rainbows has replied. | ||
|
nobodywonder
United States848 Posts
On April 05 2013 15:00 jrkirby wrote: So I'm worried about rainbows. I feel like he might actually be a fatty, and is just acting stupid by accusing random people for no reason. But the way he's acting is just stupid, and only helps the skinnies. And since he's just helping the skinnies I feel like I have to vote for him, because no one is acting as stupid as him. I don't want to lynch all the lurkers just yet - partially because there's 3 of them and it's a crapshot - and rainbows is the only other guy giving off that scum vibe. So until something changes, or one of the scum making a foolish post, my vote is on rainbows. The mafia are (probably) gonna kill one of us tonight, so it would be good if we at least have a chance of killing one of them tonight. It might not be rainbows but I feel like the chances are better than even. On the subject of jrkirby, I really don't like his metaphors because it is subject to interpretation and thus we cannot really know what jrkirby is thinking. Also I feel his talk about lurkers was unnecessary at the time. We hadn't really mentioned lurkers in general. Overall his whole post gives him a way out to freely switch around, something that I don't like and to indicates a level of scumminess. That said he better be thorough when he switches, because otherwise I think that jrkirby is scum. | ||
|
nobodywonder
United States848 Posts
LOL you complain about me being useless and summarizing. What is this post I see, a summary of my posts... Wow so useful, I don't even... The things that you said can also be applied to you. I don't like how you sheeped onto the jrkirby vote. First you respond to JJD's vote by bringing up an association scenario and then vote jrkirby with a weak reason. Take your own advice, sir. (in bold) On April 05 2013 21:49 Smancer wrote: I'll point out also that Molock and jkirby both think Rainbows is scum in these two posts 3 minutes apart. My initial thought is that they are scum looking to get a bandwagon vote on Rainbows. + Show Spoiler + On April 05 2013 14:57 Moloch wrote: That was supposed to be a joke at that point. I didn't actually think he was scummy at that point. My original vote for him was a joke as well, since it was based upon him posting a lot early and not having enough time to eat pizza. But, I've kept my vote on him for a couple reasons. According to this post, he gets very defensive about about being called scum, whereas I interpreted Saraf's comment to not be calling out anyone in particular - just being the way he thought about stuff. (It's possible that I don't feel like anyone's been spammy so far affected how I interpreted it). I also don't like how he changed his vote from Smancer to someone else to quickly. He gave a reason he thought Smancer was a suspect, then just changed it to Saraf because he got overly defensive (but he had a couple posts in between Saraf labeling him and switching his vote, which makes me suspect that it wasn't a hasty vote-switch caused by emotion) I'm not certain about anyone, but Rainbows seems like the best bet at the moment. On April 05 2013 15:00 jrkirby wrote: So I'm worried about rainbows. I feel like he might actually be a fatty, and is just acting stupid by accusing random people for no reason. But the way he's acting is just stupid, and only helps the skinnies. And since he's just helping the skinnies I feel like I have to vote for him, because no one is acting as stupid as him. I don't want to lynch all the lurkers just yet - partially because there's 3 of them and it's a crapshot - and rainbows is the only other guy giving off that scum vibe. So until something changes, or one of the scum making a foolish post, my vote is on rainbows. The mafia are (probably) gonna kill one of us tonight, so it would be good if we at least have a chance of killing one of them tonight. It might not be rainbows but I feel like the chances are better than even. On April 05 2013 21:54 Smancer wrote: ##vote: jrkirby I'll vote him for now, because I feel he is acting scum and trying to point fingers at the one person who actually got the thread moving toward finding scum. @Rainbows what is your read on jrkirby. anyways I have class now won't be able to respond til many hours | ||
|
nobodywonder
United States848 Posts
What wtf? that doesn't make sense, you have an eye on someone but he hasn't shown any real evidence. Doesn't that mean that someone isn't a very good candidate. What? Why even bother to mention this? It doesn't make sense, this only serves to give you another out or freebie to bandwagon when someone acts stupid/scummy. Go get scumhunting, you noncommital person. I more I reread this, the more I dislike you. ##Vote: jrkirby now i gtg since class is too soon | ||
|
nobodywonder
United States848 Posts
Wow, so hi Raven, can you defense yourself and then make expansion on your thoughts. more scumhunting is more gg (good game). Moloch, you complain of Rainbow being spammy, but what do you think about his analysis, itself. maybe if valid, rainbows kinda does have right to be aggressive to kill scum and inform others? | ||
|
nobodywonder
United States848 Posts
| ||
|
nobodywonder
United States848 Posts
On April 06 2013 13:17 jrkirby wrote: hey NW, I posted all my reads. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=405359¤tpage=12#240 What do you think? So many percents, I prefer fractions /joke Honestly, I wouldn't call these reads, because they're more or less descriptions, because in half of them, you explicitly say that null read. They're also too general at times. And all the people are around mid or high 20% and only me and JDD are anywhere above 30%, and that's because we voted you... I really don't like your "reads." Although I am really intrigued by that mystery read on jamp. Care to elaborate? | ||
|
nobodywonder
United States848 Posts
| ||
|
nobodywonder
United States848 Posts
| ||
|
nobodywonder
United States848 Posts
that said, I will just note some stupid things going on the thread, before I go onto cases and shit. this is rather like a rant first just as a plea to all to improve the town atmosphere 1. lurking. i, myself, am guilty. but everyone needs to post stuff so scum fucks up and we kill them. come out jjd, moloch, and jrkirby and other guys 2. rainbows and raven. wtf are you guys doing? its a retarded feud. man up with some cases. with that blue claim, rainbows i want to see more of your opinion. but everything you do screams scummy to me. OTHERWISE KNOWN AS WTF IS RAINBOWS DOING On April 06 2013 15:59 Rainbows wrote: You don't understand why I claimed. I claimed because I give zero shits anymore. Half of the thread will vote me easily, and there's nothing stopping that. I could already tell everyone would be like "hmm, yeah just lynch Rainbows because he spammed that one time". Because Nobody actually is willing to do a little dirty work and scumhunt this game on other people than the most outspoken person. I have no scumbuddies. It should be obvious by now. this is an example of terrible town mentality, with a tantrum. now at this point, you have fucking blue claimed. i dont see why then you shy away from discussion when you definitely have more townie read at this pt. the thing i, raven and the other guys from mafia xxx are still wary of a potential lolwut teh fuck crazy role claim and other shit On April 09 2013 06:12 Rainbows wrote: I tried consolidating my thoughts in cases. People called me scum for it. So whatever. I intend to sheep you obzy, even if its on me (your vote) I don't want to hear this shit. no excuse for still scumhunting rainbows. i hate your mentality. even though others did shat on your opinion and previous reads, I think I will acknowledge your opinions. no sheep, plz | ||
| ||
