EPT/in
Glory Seeker Mini Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
mderg
Germany1740 Posts
/in | ||
|
mderg
Germany1740 Posts
But I don´t understand why he said that he´s convinced about steve being mafia. So far we´ve only got an explanation for not voting Vivax. | ||
|
mderg
Germany1740 Posts
| ||
|
mderg
Germany1740 Posts
| ||
|
mderg
Germany1740 Posts
On May 06 2014 00:34 Oatsmaster wrote: This is a totally uninformed and useless comment that is taking what I said and twisting it to suit his purposes. I was not twisting anything to suit my purposes. I just think it´s stupid to state something as a fact, if you don´t know it for fact. I also don´t think it´s useless to point something out that I strongly disagree with. Even if Holy was scum, your case had absolutely nothing to back it up. | ||
|
mderg
Germany1740 Posts
| ||
|
mderg
Germany1740 Posts
| ||
|
mderg
Germany1740 Posts
| ||
|
mderg
Germany1740 Posts
On May 06 2014 08:57 Oatsmaster wrote: booom boom boom. Mderg is scum too ok for sure. Vivax was metaing me and all that so Im meh. I dont think Im playing too different from my scum games though. Although he isnt saying that I wasnt lying, hes saying that I didnt explain myself in a 'townie' way. Im just baffled at the amount of nonsense you say to the thread apparently believing in it. lying to lynch someone is fine. I wouldnt lie as scum though, too easy to get caught out. I was about to post that I don´t agree with holy on you being scum, you made a bad case but in no way did you lie "to get a towny lynched by any means possible". I´d just call it a bad case based on wrong meta. Incidentally Holy made a case on me in cell mini mafia, also backed up with bad meta reasoning. He was town btw. I don´t like this post, though. What´s with "Mderg is scum too ok for sure."? Some explanation would be good. Lying to lynch someone is imo only fine in very few cases. Not with a weak case like yours, though. | ||
|
mderg
Germany1740 Posts
On May 06 2014 10:22 Holyflare wrote: Well I just did dare! Answer me fooool! Mderg... I'm not going to lie I have no fooking clue. He was lynchbait in Cell mafia when I played with him and his activity has been low in the games I checked of him previously and in Cell. I liked that he was on you for a bit but I am biased because it's me. I'm not sure I can reconcile these things together though: He goes from saying that you are just making things up, thinks your play is poop and doesn't know if you are scum -> doesn't agree with me that you are scum because suddenly it could just be bad meta...? If he was reading he'd know you said: and would realise you made the entirety of it up so it shows that at least he isn't reading but unless he posts more it's still just a murky nullish for me. Why do I even bother reading this thread, if you´re saying I don´t read it anyway? I was saying that he´s not 100% scum for his case on you, not that he´s town. Just because I don´t read things the same way as you it doesn´t mean that I don´t read this thread. You´re really pissing me off this game. I don´t like koshi´s play. On May 06 2014 06:30 Koshi wrote: Oats D1 is always good. Either alignment. He can be in your face on D1. In PYP he had like 10 pages filter D1 & D2 and then 2 page filter in the next 4 days. This sounds like wanting to policy lynch Oats when there are actual leads that go somewhere, there are reads in the thread, so I don´t like the post. Also, what´s thrawn doing right now, I want to hear more from him. | ||
|
mderg
Germany1740 Posts
On May 06 2014 22:24 Holyflare wrote: This is a major overreaction to what I was saying. Like super overreaction. I said oats didn't have a case his case was based on lies and mderg then said that oats probably wasn't scum because of bad meta....? Oats didn't use bad meta he flat out lied which is what i pointed out about mderg not reading but then he gets all super hardcore pissed at me because i pointed out something that doesn't add up...? Mderg you still need to explain this. Are you saying you don't think oats lied or what..? Previously you said you had NO reads on other players when me and oats had been posting so when and why did that change for oats? Yeah, he lied. But a lie that obvious does not mean he´s scum. What I meant was that I don´t agree with jumping all over Oats for his case on you. I didn´t say that he probably wasn´t scum, I said that his case doesn´t necessarily make him scum. What´s so difficult to understand about that. My read on Oats didn´t change. He might be scum, he might not be scum. I doubt we can figure it out, if we just ride on that one case he made on you. | ||
|
mderg
Germany1740 Posts
On May 06 2014 23:16 Steveling wrote: Poofter must be scumming again. Definitely possible, we should wait for him to post something before anyone makes up his mind about him. He said that he´ll be scumhunting later today/tomorrow (I am bad with American timezones). | ||
|
mderg
Germany1740 Posts
That´s a bad question. I am trying to figure it out. It´s just that the whole back and forth with you and holy made it more difficult for me. | ||
|
mderg
Germany1740 Posts
On May 07 2014 00:28 Holyflare wrote: Wait what...? The only way to figure it out is WITH the back and forth. I asked you AFTER the back and forth what you thought of oats and you said no opinion. Then you changed it to he might be scummy but not just based off that one thing. Then you posted saying you were going to disagree with me that oats was scum but oats was making it hard to do that with his posts and now it's MORE difficult to figure anything out with the same information you had before? The only way to figure out is not with THE back and forth. For me that was just throwing the same shit at each other multiple times. No opinion and he might be scum is the same for me! I said he might be scum, he might not be scum, how is that any different from saying that I don´t know his alignment, yet?. I was going to disagree with you that he is 100% scum and his post (Surprisingly one that wasn´t all about you) seemed slightly scummy to me. I didn´t say that it´s now harder to figure out his alignment, I said that the back and forth made it harder for me to figure out his alignment. It´s kinda pushing everything else that might be important out of vision. So far you´ve succeeded at either misunderstanding everything I´ve said or twisting everything I´ve said to fit your agenda. I´m hoping for the first option. | ||
|
mderg
Germany1740 Posts
On May 06 2014 09:12 mderg wrote: I was about to post that I don´t agree with holy on you being certain scum, you made a bad case but in no way did you lie "to get a towny lynched by any means possible". I´d just call it a bad case based on wrong meta. Incidentally Holy made a case on me in cell mini mafia, also backed up with bad meta reasoning. He was town btw. I don´t like this post, though. What´s with "Mderg is scum too ok for sure."? Some explanation would be good. Lying to lynch someone is imo only fine in very few cases. Not with a weak case like yours, though. I guess I forgot a word there. | ||
|
mderg
Germany1740 Posts
On May 07 2014 01:04 Holyflare wrote: So when I said you didn't read the thread properly that was in fact correct? You said oats : when I just proved that wasn't the case You said that I wasn´t reading the thread, nothing about "properly". That´s what pissed me off. I think there´s a difference between lying to get someone lynched and to get a townie lynched by any means possible. He said that he thought something was off about your play and lied to convince others to get you lynched. That´s not using any means possible for a misslynch. | ||
|
mderg
Germany1740 Posts
On May 07 2014 01:19 Holyflare wrote: Not reading properly is the same as not reading the thread. Arguably not reading properly is far worse because you start making up things you think to be true because you have a warped version compared to everyone else and then we reach this impass. If you can't convince someone to be lynched through normal means, resorting to lying is "using any means possible" that's not really a far stretch. Which is why it's more odd that you compare lying to using bad meta instead because the 2 are not equivalent at all. Unless you are implying they are. It´s not the same, one is intentional while the other isn´t. I agree with you that lying was uncalled for in that situation but imo "using any means possible" is exaggerated. On May 07 2014 02:21 Steveling wrote: Can you guys drop this, vivax is super towny. If he's scum he deserves to win. I can't read him as scum. Why is he towny? I agree with holy´s reasoning on Vivax. To me his play seems scummy. The Cav case seems baseless and I don´t like the reasoning behind it. | ||
|
mderg
Germany1740 Posts
I honestly can´t imagine why a townie would make these posts: On May 07 2014 19:48 Steveling wrote: Alright guys, let's do this. Let's prove how nonsensical this is. ##unbote ##vote:Vivax On May 07 2014 20:24 Steveling wrote: Come on guys, put your vote where your mouths are. Bote for bibax. On May 07 2014 20:25 Steveling wrote: Btw if we switch to oats I'll be very happy. Hard defending Vivax earlier is not really scummy, though the lack of reasoning for his vivax townread was strange. These posts however strike me as being incredibly indifferent about a townie being lynched. "Hammering" someone just to prove you were right just feels so wrong to me. The post after that also seems strange to me, if you´d be happy with an oats lynch, why not vote for oats? I don´t get the reasoning behind this. Am I right to assume that you went against your reads just to proof that we were wrong? The only thing speaking against steve being scum for me is that this is almost too obvious to be true. I´m also getting scummy vibes from koshi but I´m not sure why. Gonna go through his filter tomorrow to check that. | ||
|
mderg
Germany1740 Posts
On May 08 2014 07:19 Tehpoofter wrote: Mderg what do you think of Koshi this game? I got a slight scummy vibe from him before, he seemed pretty townie on the last pages, though. His steve defense is not alignment indicative in my opinion. I really like this post On May 08 2014 20:29 Koshi wrote: Yes, that and the point he refuses to cooperate are decent. But how come you can't seem to grasp the bigger picture this game? You jump from target to target to target and always it is 100% sure. What about what I wrote about Poofter? Why not comment on that? I alsoo agree with the guys koshi wanted copchecked, if one of me, steve or poofter turn out as checked scum it would change the game quite a bit in favor of town. (pretty obvious copchecks tbh) What I don´t really like is him saying that scum is within poofter, me and hf. Seems like too much focus on the steve situation regarding steve when his scumminess is plain obvious. I´m leaning town on koshi, though, after reading the past few pages. On May 08 2014 20:20 Koshi wrote: mderg and poofter had me as town I think and now that I make a comment on poofter & HF during night suddenly they both flip their reads on me? kk I didn´t have you as town, just so you don´t continue under wrong assumptions. I kinda get the feeling that steve is acting as scummy as possible right now. I don´t know why he would do it but it seems to be the case. Maybe trying to seem "too scummy to be scum"? I don´t know. Why would you want the lynch to be as fast as possible? I know steve gave a reason but town needs additional time way more than scum does. That play doesn´t make any sense Right now I´m unsure who the second scum is besides steve who I really hope is scum. It might be one of hf and poofter, they´ve been strangely buddying quite a bit. Oats is also still far from cleared. I´m slightly leaning town on koshi. Cav has kinda been under my radar so he didn´t seem scummy but also not particularly townie. | ||
|
mderg
Germany1740 Posts
On May 09 2014 06:26 Holyflare wrote: Mderg you think Steveling is mafia, pretty obvious at that. So then you also think that me and poofter could also contain scum because of buddying. That therefore means we are super hardcore bussing scum buddy Steveling then? Is that what you're suggesting? Or are you presenting an alternate theory or what? Yes, that´s what I´m suggesting. It´s not that unlikely considering how obvious steve´s scumminess is. | ||
| ||
