EPTWitchcraft Mini Mafia II
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
| ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
| ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
Fearing the spamfest that is rayn is not abnormal I would think  | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
| ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On November 04 2013 09:50 Vanesco wrote: I don't really like this. You don't really put effort in to even cross-check the players from the last game (of witchcraft) which is really simple to do. The only player to play in the last one is Thrawn who was shot night 1. But I think that is not very relevant since each game can turn out different. I think you should come to your own conclusions on how to play this themed game instead of hoping others tell you how to play. It just seems like your not willing to put the effort in to even try to solve this game for yourself. It's also very dangerous to discuss strategy because scum can see everything also and can use that against town. I'm of the opinion that everybody should play the way THEY think is the correct way to play. Relax there. Anyone who's played with me before nows I'm at work during these hours - though lazy on my part I don't have the time to extensively browse through the past to find all the information I want. In any case I wasn't asking "how to win guys", it was more of a "were there any traps which caused trouble for town that we should look out for" but since there's an entirely new cast of players pretty much there's not really any answers to give unless someone here obsed the last game and can remember it. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On November 04 2013 11:48 EchelonTee wrote: If you have the time to write that paragraph, you have time to answer my question. Why won't you discuss your thoughts on Witchcraft, and only spend time defending yourself? I disagree with people claiming actions, because if I voted someone as a blue and they avoided the blue-vig, I'd like to continue voting them. Oh, didn't notice your question - because themed games have unusual win cons on occasion (see: Desert Mini Mafia), the usual is the standard kill all scum win-con. You're putting the statement under the microscope too far if you're trying to find weird things from that though. Depending on how things go, my thought was that claiming actions isn't the greatest idea because then it's a guaranteed Witch Hunter snipe right? Never was a fan of people fake claiming either (in this case to bait the shot) since it just ends up causing so much confusion within the town (see: any time rayn tries that crap )@Rayn: Active me is the one to lynch if you look at my meta as scum :| | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On November 04 2013 13:10 hzflank wrote: WoS has only played scum once? Then wth was he doing coaching me in my first scum game. I even said before it started that having WoS as a coach was a handicap, and still they let this uni-scummer coach us. I think what Thrawn was getting at was this line: You are aware that scum sometimes jump on to something. The thing that you don't mention is that scum tend to do this if they think at least one town will also jump on it, as that allows them to place/leave their vote on the target for a longer period of time. I could certainly argue that Vanesco did this with his first post, but then one may also argue that you did the same. Basically, that sentence was a little bit hypocritical. Isn't that Umasi you'd be referring to as opposed to WoS then if we were to follow your train of logic? Umasi being the instigator and WoS being the townie who takes the bait? Seems like you're slightly misrepresenting WoS here, but you continue on later in the post to mention Umasi anyways in this post (though I don't really agree on the train of thought but thoughts on that below). In any case, your statement seems to be a flat way of looking at how scum play since different players play scum more passively or aggressively than others but in either case I don't really think you'd only make accusations or jump on things if you think it's going to follow through with townies. I've seen quite a few times where it's just thrown out there as a casual observation and people see this kind of activity as being townie because they are scum hunting. (this ended up being a random rant that serves no real purpose) On November 04 2013 13:10 hzflank wrote: Ofcourse, it is fair to point out that trying to look like town does not always make a person scum. But trying to look like town in your very first post makes someone (Umasi) look like uncomfortable scum. To me this looked like he was pressuring Vanesco to clear up his points because they were either ambiguous or could be interpreted scummily like the way Umasi said his last sentence about strategy looked. On November 04 2013 14:05 Umasi wrote: Elaborating on Vanesco here, I'll use this post as an example Main question for you here is: How could we ruin strategies by talking about them? For instance, how do scum fuck with this plan. How would you abuse this plan as scum? Would you? CAN YOU? what witchcraft discussion CAN scum abuse? Since blues are based on townreads ANYWAY, it's not like we're all blue hunting at all, so power discussion isn't something scum can abuse. Especially because they don't have roleblockers or anything, only blue vigis. although I don't think there's an important facet of strategy discussion to be had (otherwise I'd talk more about strategy,) your specific outlook on how to handle it is scummy. Also just to add on here, scum have bigger fish to fry than to plan how to foil our plans. Time constraints and what not means they'd rather go for mislynches than going all out on figuring a loophole in strategies suggested. That said, Vanesco does bring up a reasonable line of thought regarding overlapping blue players, and thus I guess the above applies more towards non-Witchcraft related posts. On November 04 2013 15:06 Vanesco wrote: So it seems that from all this negative feedback on me not voting that after thinking somebody is very scummy a vote is typical action. From my POV it seemed better not to vote because I don't like lurkers to just get a free ride by latching on, but after seeing the responses I have to agree with most of them and it was a bad play by me. Therefore: ##Vote: Umasi ??? A few people call you out on it and you fold and just sheep along - this makes you look worse probably than when you weren't voting simply because it's such an easy+lazy play. On November 04 2013 16:21 Vanesco wrote: When did I ever say that? Please show me exactly where I say that. And if I don't then why are you trying to make stuff up? This entire time from the start when Umasi voted on me I have been a large center of discussion and it's getting pretty irritating where even when I try to give my reads everybody just starts harping on me anyways for doing something that they don't like or aren't accustomed to. Just cause you think one way is the only way to play doesn't mean it actually is. To be fair, your only real reads have been a null read on me and a scum read on Umasi which was mostly a combination of what was previously mentioned by others before. On November 04 2013 13:44 Vanesco wrote: I don't get where this idea of my calling out Syl for not being firm is coming from. I just didn't like what he had to say and I decided that instead of people joking around I wanted to actually start the game, so I called him out. I didn't really take much of a stance because nothing in his response made me feel like he was scummy. I'm having a really big scum read on Umasi currently. As explained before, in his first post I think only consists of 1 real accusation which is that I do not like talking about strategy since scum can meta it. To me it seems that he wants town to discuss strategy which leads me to the two most likely conclusions. 1) He doesn't know what to do, usually means a weak town and can be tricked easily by scum, or 2) mafia that wants to know the towns plans and how to use it against them His only other post is him making a joke at somebody who thinks he's scum and then saying that I didn't pressure Syl hard (which I explain in the paragraph above). He then talks about how I don't like to talk about strategy which I explain why above. He mistakenly calls strategy "mechanics" when they are completely different things (in my opinion). I view mechanics as the rules of the game where strategy is how to play the game. I don't know if this is just me but it seems like he wants to blame that I'm not allowing people to discuss the rules of the game when infact I just don't like when people discuss the strategy they are going to use. Options 1/2 about strategy are fairly weak, as I mentioned above, there are biggest fish to fry than foiling strategies most of the time when playing scum (honestly, if scum timezones dont match up good luck with getting anywhere on that, but that's outside the scope of our investigations anyways), and I would've thought that discussing strategy would be a good thing since we can actually get an agreement on some things we should(n't) do, since we've already seen (from you nonetheless) that there are problems in the reveal at night X+1 strategy. Had we not discussed this, someone could've followed the train of thought that we've discussed and just gone through with it without thinking about the fact that scum can possibly realise they've been voted for again the following day. Irrelevant posts are generally null, and I don't really understand the last part about mechanics and strategy but it doesn't really make a case in my mind. I didn't really care for the cases before but after voting for Umasi and wording it as a sheep vote then complaining that you've been giving reads just doesn't sit that well with me, but I'm at the same time not entirely convinced you're scum yet, there's a high possibility of frustrated town. Wall of text catchup complete -_- | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
 | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
| ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On November 05 2013 08:02 Cephiro wrote: Aight. That was an interesting read. As for witchpowershiznit, I suggest we claim our votes only, 72 hours after. I've come up with an interesting idea as well. We will claim the votes in order, one at a time. I have an algorhithm based on certain actions in the game that make me very confident in the idea this will work. Also, vote me for blue. I'd like to hear more from players: raynpelikoneet, hzflank, thrawn, Sn0_Man + Myself. ##Vote: WaveOfShadow Have you actually read the thread? I'm sure you would've already dismissed your idea already because we already discussed revealing witchcraft votes and it was either too risky or there were problems in regards to the overlap of blues because we're not likely to change our votes that much between the days, so it's a simple blue shot no matter when we really reveal... I don't really buy the fact that there's an algorithm which would work in our favour 'depending on certain actions in the games' because there are so many things which can happen. Following on from that, why would it ever be a smart move to try gather WC votes so obviously when it just sets you up to be a vig target? The vote on WoS in your very first post sets you up here for a long long tunnel which I'm still currently getting through (though I've taken a skip over the wall of text for now) - if anything I feel like you decided to target WoS after seeing recent posts and then did the long filter dive process to back it up at a later point. This is obviously baseless conjecture but I can see that happening from a scum player. On November 05 2013 09:05 Cephiro wrote: Yes, I didn't intend to start off with a case, neither reason my vote on WoS more specificly. If there is someone you want my general or specific opinion on, just ask. I have several reads to a direction or another, as well as many nullreads. I just don't consider most of them to be worth sharing right now. Nevertheless I'm content with joining in like this, and I intend to make my thought process clear regarding my reads to the most extent, excluding possible thingamagics I have a tendency of pulling off. As for a more concise reply: It is because I wanted to not present all my thoughts in the open immediately. I can "fix" it by replying to any queries you might have. I will also be sharing more content when I find it necessary. How is actively choosing not to give reasoning behind your votes ever townie here? Especially when you make a 'serious' vote on the first post which means that literally no one knows that your train of thought has been before you voted? Choosing to present thoughts only when asked is basically allowing yourself to reveal as little about what you think as possible, which really only has scum motivation behind it since it reduces the likelihood of inconsistencies popping up in the future, no? Skimming over your case, half the points honestly seem like a stretch and rayn's covered pretty much my thoughts on that, I'll have to get back to your reply soon but honestly it's taken me an hour to hit this point because everyone seems to want to write essays these days :{ Conclusion: I don't really buy Ceph's case, and his entrance to me looks like a forced tunnel into WoS. That said, I still need to look at a few other filters before getting deeper reads but Ceph's on my radar at the moment. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On November 05 2013 12:37 Umasi wrote: I disagree with the aggression on WoS, how he's playing is pretty much in keeping with a town WoS. That said, don't be so angry wave, you're kind of overreacting. Regardless, would it piss everyone off to say I still think vanesco is the best lynch? He's still the best lynch. Has he done anything since last night to further strengthen your scum read on him? As I said before, I don't really agree with what he's said that much but I can see the train of thought behind it. The contributions which you've provided is just a weak case on Vanesco and continuing to push it. That said, ET's filter looks pretty horrendous as it can be summed up as so: Vanesco looks null to scummy because it didn't match Newbie Mafia L (weak) thrawn posted a list of players who had posted but wasn't advocating lurker lynch (weak) Nothing else has been said really... Tbh at the moment ET's filter is really sticking out like a sore thumb to me the more I think about it, since the rest of his posts look like really weak attempts at looking townie :| ##vote EchelonTee Continuing on to more reading... | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On November 05 2013 13:00 WaveofShadow wrote: So many people wish-washing towards a Sn0 lynch, including myself. Makes me feel really bad about it because SO many people have mentioned it I'm sure scum are among them. I think I will NOT be voting Sn0 today. Syl, welcome to the thread. Did you show up 'cause I mentioned you or was that a happy coincidence? Happy coincidence, I've been catching up and stuff for the past hour and a half now | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On November 05 2013 13:13 Cephiro wrote: Yes, I have read the thread. I still do not consider revealing witchcraft votes after the blues have been re-chosen. I do not consider it smart to keep choosing the same people over and over again, some changes will have to be done. As long as preferably 1 person at most overlaps between consequential nights, it is still very unlikely for scum to hit our blues with the additional information from our voting patterns. If we follow my plan of claiming in a certain order based on my algorhithm, it will be very likely we'll catch scum on that alone since they are forced to lie about their witchcraft votes, as they do not have any. As for why it would be smart to gather WC votes publically? How do you even know if I actually want the votes? What if I am just building a start for something to presenting myself as a possible target for the bullet to be wasted on? Or maybe I just really really like being a blue and doing stuff? Think about it. I fail to see how I am tunneling WoS. I have provided my opinions on several other players. There is not enough to convince me he is town currently. Is pressuring your most certain scumread, while actively discussing others tunelling in your opinion? Read the case before accusing me of making an useless wall of text. Because I was open to replying at any point, as shown in my answers to thrawn's queries. I also fairly quickly followed up with my reasoning. I present thoughts also when not asked, however I don't consider it useful for me to randomly ramble about how I'm unsure about person Y's alignment. Or do you really find it useful? When I have good content to share, I do. When I don't, I follow the thread, ask questions, and reply to questions. I do like that you are criticizing my play, however I hope my replies will show you why they are from a town perspective. What you're saying there is that we shouldn't choose our top X town reads to be our votes over the course of the days if they remain the same? Why? Regardless of whether or not I keep my top X the same, it's likely that other people are voting for them too because they are clearly being shown as townie. As the days go on, I'm assuming there'll be mislynches here and there we can't actually afford to switch up our votes that much before we start hitting scum with our votes. I doubt scum would shoot someone who calls for blue votes so openly, it's too much of a bait. Basically, I just questioned it because from my point of view it seemed like this: Town calling for blue votes - Bait / basically making the rest of town unwilling to vote for you because it's too much of a risk to have them killed by the blue vig for being too obvious Scum calling for the blue votes - Just a bonus if he actually gets it, never was a serious call for votes. It's a fairly weak point anyways, but I just think it's weird to do such an action. You were tunnelling him for the majority of the time, and gave Van a scum read through association from your points about WoS. You've given points about other players, I agree, I just thought at the time you were way too focused on WoS, since that filter dive post looks like you were being overly nitpicky over everything he's done. It's not a bad thing to nitpick, there's just a point though where I think you were reaching for points which didn't necessarily imply anything but you put it in a context where it tries to make him look scummy (The first point I found was where you said he was pointing out his own mistakes, which isn't really that implicating) I never said that you should ramble about how unsure you are about a player, but if you'regoing to vote for someone, why not just state why in the first place rather than make people question you? At least it becomes clear from the start where you are coming from. I can see that you answered when asked and you gave your reasoning fairly soon after, I just think it would've had the same effect with less questions about motive if you did it from the start. On November 05 2013 13:17 thrawn2112 wrote: haha that syl vote for ET is a doozy aint it ?? On November 05 2013 13:25 raynpelikoneet wrote: I think his posting before the last couple of posts is fine. I don't like his vote on ET - what it is based on, and how it happened. ET's posting Sylencia calls him out for was fine at that point he posted the case on thrawn. There is nothing wrong with it and while thrawn has imo made better posts now it seems like Syl is trying to say "look at this guy voting for a person many people think is town" and misrepresenting the vote based on circumstances that were present when ET actually made the vote. Also the vote happened after Sylencia called Cephiro "something to watch out for", then he goes reading filters and suddenly there is a vote on ET as a result of filter diving (in about 15 minutes, i doubt he read many filters..) and i don't like it at all. Ya, it was like the 3rd filter I read. Tbh I should be reading more but I've procrastinated, and only read like 1 more following that post. I am a bad man. On November 05 2013 13:33 Cephiro wrote: ^ Amazing points like the bolded. Please others, look into things like this. Then posts like this make me go ugh. Why do the two close out each other? Forcing mislynches while figuring out loopholes in strategies isn't that hard to do in my opinion. Feel free to disagree. If Sylencia truly think they are constrained by time and forced to concentrate on mislynches rather than anti-strategizing town, shouldn't we by that logic TRY to make up nice strategies as town, as it forces scum to account for more things, and "being restricted on time", have a hard time of dealing with both mislynches and strategy loopholes? Yet according to his own opinions, it seems that he is against the idea of strategizing further. (This is the vibe I got from your posting, correct me if I am wrong.) 1) Seems like a legit opinion, and he is actually trying to carry the conversation into something more useful, rather than going all "Nope that's useless" 2) I don't like how he says short actions that are appareantly weak, but doesn't tell why they are weak. (Not too hard to figure out if you think about, I assume the Van one is related to meta, and thrawn for pointing out something and not carrying on with it -> unnecessary filter). I just prefer townies to explain their reasons rather than keep the reader guessing. He has pro-town and pro-scum points quite evenly, but at the moment slightly based on my gut read and the way he presents himself, I am leaning slightly town on Syl. (In response to WoS's queries.) I thought it was apparent why they were weak... (I typed out the below before realising what you wrote in brackets LOL) 1) It's a meta read based on a single game, and no points have truly been raised about what he's said or done in the current game. Someone who isn't active or pressuring as the previous game isn't necessarily scummy. People have mentioned this, but just because rayn is not spamming and pressuring people as much doesn't necessarily make him scum. 2) For Thrawn he just agrees with vayn, and then just stops pretty much. hz: (too lazy to quote here) Yes, I implied it, I'm just not 100% confident about my own points so I pursued others whilewaiting for a response, since that would either explain something that I was mistaken about or futher imply someone's guilt. In this case, I don't think I got a solid response that necessarily says "Ok, I was wrong about Ceph", but there's enough there where I can say that I wouldn't give him my Witchcraft vote, but I probably wouldn't pursue him further for now becuase there are others who look worse. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
Catching up and making final post before going to bed, probably wont be around for the deadline. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On November 05 2013 14:23 WaveofShadow wrote: Alright my turn. This was what stuck out the most for me about Syl: I looked over this a couple of times and I'm not sure what conclusion to draw. Initially I thought 'Well here's a completely new point nobody has brought up regarding the Ceph case before. I disagree with the conclusion (same as Umasi) but it looks like he's legitimately diving and putting forth effort. Townie points.' The issue I'm finding now upon reading it again is, what mindset does it take to assume that Ceph's aggression is forced? Sylencia's assumption obviously wasn't a common thought amongst those people who tried to debunk Cephiro's case on me, otherwise it would have been brought up already. I think originally I had Sylencia as town but on second thought now I'm not so sure. It seems my thoughts may be more in line with hzflank. He calls his own idea of pre-targeting 'baseless conjecture,' and most importantly he calls it something he could see as scum being likely to do---but would a townie immediately consider this? I think it speaks of a scum mindset honestly. I have him just below null on the scum-o-meter and I will not be lynching him today; as was stated I don't think it will be too difficult to garner reads on him as we go forward. The point of my game though was to see who would engage freely and see which of the points I initially thought of when looking through Sylencia were brought up by others and why---again this can often be very telling as to where others' mindsets lie when performing analysis. As it stands right now I shared some of Umasi's and hzflank's thoughts enough that I am still fine in where my vote stands---on Onegu, who did not bother to address what was going on in thread, rather he chose to comment on my post defending his activity and throw out some other irrelevant reads for the moment. Eh, at the moment I'm more trying to interpret posts in the shoes of those who say it, and figure out their train of thought behind posting it. It's potentially more telling than just interpreting things at face value. That's why I said it was mostly baseless conjecture, because there is a ton of assumption put behind some of the points I bring up. On November 05 2013 14:45 EchelonTee wrote: That was the very beginning of the game. I wanted Syl to talk. It did not succeed because apparntly I am supposed to expect that Syl will not respond rationally to questions. When didn't I respond rationally? On November 05 2013 15:18 EchelonTee wrote: If I was scum, I would be pushing a mislynch on a poor-playing townie because it is extremely easy to do so. My last game as scum I do so ineffectively (but still do), but if you look at any of my previous scum games (liar game, jubjub mafia) you'll see. Since I am town, I am must less sure about my reads. Since the entirety of your case seems to be that I have weak opinions, which is true as it is Day 1, there's nothing more I have to say to you. It's just as easy for scum to sheep, in fact with Majority Voting it's better than they don't push mislynches and let town panic themselves to a mislynch. As for meta, it's mildly weak as a point of attack, but it's honestly crap when it's used as defense. If you're so aware of how you play as scum, it sets you up in the future to abuse that meta and claim you're playing differently. About Onegu's self vote: Hate it, but I can't see scum doing it though at the same time it is a problem whether or not he's scum because it's a vote we can't use to get a majority. If he's town we need 7 of 9 to vote scum (w/o bus), and that's kinda unlikely :| Rayn: That case is pretty spectacular. I like it. Sticking to my vote for ET tonight. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
IN any case, bbl | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On November 06 2013 03:41 Cephiro wrote: Aiight. I skimmed through the new posts, but going to read them with a proper thought now. One idea that I thought of is what I wanted to share though. 10 / 3 9 / 3 8 / 2 7 / 2 6 / 1 5 / 1 4 / 0 3 / 0 2 / 0 Amount of Town / Amount of Blues elected. Basically, I'm thinking we should no-lynch today. That way we are able to have a 3-blue election again tomorrow, providing none of today's get sniped. It also leaves us one more town player for scum to target during the night, making them a little less likely to hit blues. This will basically give us a +1 blue per cycle until snipe or mislynch. At the moment I'm considering it as a fairly good option, but for today only. (We're certainly not no-lynching multiple times as it's our only way of killing scum.) With everyone seemingly all over the place, swinging from target to target, as much as I'd like to believe I can't see us lynching scum today. No-lynch is better than mislynch. 1) We get +1 blue nominated per cycle until snipe or mislynch 2) Scum has 1 more target to choose who to kill and/or try to snipe, making it a little more hard for them to decide. 3) We will have more information to get a proper, scum lynch on D2 to start it off with. These benefits are made under the assumption that we are mislynching today, which unfortunately looks extremely likely to happen in my eyes. Give these points a thought. At this stage, town isn't in the best shape. I honestly don't think that a no-lynch is really an option because we needed information. Getting an extra witchcraft vote is absolutely useless if we can't take full advantage of them, since the chance of striking gold with a DT check is fairly low, and even then you can't actually reveal that easily for there'll be a blue vig waiting to revenge kill you if you do reveal. His reasoning of town swinging around and having no-lynch being better than lynching someone is both a way to try stifle discussion by making everyone take the lazy route, and him also trying to take the lazy way out of not having to commit to voting seriously. One has to note that since this is majority lynch, mislynching is almost always going to leave some scum exposed when flipped, so it's a fair play to try stop that from happening since they stop information from coming out and they get a free NK. On November 06 2013 06:45 hzflank wrote: I already explained it. Sylencia posted a several paragraph's about Cephiro's take on WoS. The entire point of what Syl posted can only possibly of existed if Syl thought that Ceph was scum, because Syl thought that it was an intentional tunnel upon entry to the game (only scum do that). Therefore, in Syl's mind Ceph must of been scum. Syl never played as if he thought that Ceph was scum, therefore what Syl wrote about Ceph was fake. No, I wasn't certain what I had said was exactly right and so I posted it out there to get someone's (ideally Ceph's) thoughts on it. During that time I looked at other people since that's more productive than hoping for an answer. I get how it looks shady though. About the lynch, is it not possible that we can agree on targets > 15 minutes before deadline? The last minute votes and switching makes it kind of difficult to interpret many of the players' intentions since so many are "here is my vote so we don't no-lynch" which is atrocious honestly. Then comes the hammer vote: On November 06 2013 06:59 Cephiro wrote: ##unvote ##vote: gumshoe I swear this is gonna end up badly. What happened to his reasoning above? No where does he ever say "actually, bad plan guys, let's lynch." He just hammers, even though he can see the town death coming. From my perspective, he was in a pretty rocky situation anyways: - Doesn't vote: He'd cop a bunch of backlash from the players who were active at the time, and it'd make him look suspicious for not hammering. - Does vote: Still looks shady because he's mentioned the above and completely backtracks and hammers. That said, if he truly believed what he wrote above he would've stuck with it but I'm guessing he forgot he even mentioned the plan and just went with the flow. On November 06 2013 07:06 Cephiro wrote: .... Yeah. Call me stupid for not stubbornly going against the majority. Well, at least I showed fellow town I'm ready to co-operate even if I don't completely agree on something. Not sure if that's a good or a bad thing to be honest. Also I'm gonna go sleep right now to get my rhythm fixed, I'm tired. I'll respond all the "lolcephhammer" -accusations that will surely come in the morning. 1st sentence: The point is you still did. 2nd sentence: LOL. Honestly I would've wanted to shoot him on the spot for that if I was a vig Following town like that 'despite what you think' is more of a scum play than a town play in most cases. You co-operate because it's convenient for you to kill off a townie.Not to mention if you look at Ceph's filter and search for mentions of gumshoe, it sounds like he has a more townish feel for gumshoe, and yet he kills him off. That's ridiculous. Of course, we don't know what his read was because he specifically said that he wouldn't reveal anything unless we asked but it's a bit late for that now. Basically I don't see a townie writing this. My predictions for scum group are: {Ceph, ET, Sn0, hzflank} - pick 3. I haven't covered the last 2 that much, but PoE and whatnot. I'm more worried about hzflank just because almost every game if you avoid the D1 lynch you'll get a free ride for a few days, which could explain last minute train on gumshoe. Skimming sn0 shows he was one of the lazy voters for the lynch, and hasn't really pushed for anyone except OO, but never votes him or makes a solid case against him. At this point I'd say he's more likely to flip scum than hz, but I need to properly read his filter at some point. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
Hopeless is someone I'd be wanting to lynch too because it's rather easy for him to worm his way out if he's scum from the mess ET left for him. It's pretty vital that that is kept in mind during the course of the day. Easy enough, nothing's changed since my post about him. OO's reads were pretty close to what I had as a list when he was alive too. In terms of what's happened during Day 2, stop trying to get at each others throats and go for the more probable targets. Rayn train is dumb imo, he's still townier than a lot of others. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
| ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
| ||
| ||
