EPT##Vote: xtfftc
Student Mafia (New/Newish players welcome) - Page 55
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
##Vote: xtfftc | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 09 2011 10:28 Zona wrote: Vote count for the Day 2 lynch jaybrundage (7): Blazinghand, Adam4167, Velinath, ey215, BroodKingEXE, Grackaroni, Bluelightz ey215 (2): xtfftc, Tunkeg Velinath (1): jaybrundage And you want to lynch me because I "wanted to lynch ey215 and didn't". On December 13 2011 14:47 Velinath wrote: I want to lynch you because of what layabout's actually brought up and you haven't addressed. I answered all of the accusations against me very extensivelly: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=50#1000 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=51#1007 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=51#1011 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=52#1021 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=52#1026 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=52#1035 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=52#1035 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=52#1036 + Show Spoiler + On December 11 2011 17:29 xtfftc wrote: *** First of, nice to see you being active. Secondly - the answer to your question is in the very post you have quoted. It is pure WIFOM because the logic behind the vote I am accused for can apply to both mafia and town: However, how come you quoted just half of my explanation? This is the full one: You have cut out my actual argument: it works both ways. *** To the contrary: this is precisely what I was doing in the above post: pushing my best mafia read. I did post it hours before posting the bit you quoted. Seriously. Now, I could have expanded it a lot but unless you expect me to spend 5-6 hours a day working on my cases, I'll never be able to analyse everything I find in-depth. If this is scummy behaviour, 3/4 of the town are playing much scummier than I am. I did write extensively on why town should not waste their vote and that I was concerned about the lack of resistance there had been to Bbyte's lynch. Plus, we agreed that last minute switches tend to benefit the mafia, so we had to ensure this didn't happen. And anyway, jumping on a bandwagon is another thing that 3/4 of the town is much guiltier than I am of, yet you only attack me for this. Why would you do such a thing? I was pretty much the only one to try to push for a lynch that was based on analysis, yet you target me for "jumping" on a bandwagon? Of course it does make sense. We had the whole town sheeping for Day 1 and Day 2, so it is necessary to have proper discussions from now on. And what it is that I am guilty of exactly? Are you suggesting that I was trying to somehow save Jay by refusing to vote for him, even though there were like 10 votes for him a few hours before the deadline? On December 11 2011 22:56 xtfftc wrote: I never said that Jay was my best read. I said I consider a mafia team consisting of Jay, BKE, and EY or xsk more likely than the alternative. And I already explained the WIFOM perspective to you. You are a liar. I wasn't happy to be on the Day 1 bandwagon and it is obvious from all the effort I put in my attempts to prevent it. And where is my motive for not voting for Jay? Seriously? If I'm mafia, what is my motive? Are you saying that I knew that someone was mafia and outright refused to vote for him in order to look more suspicious after the red flip? Did I try to save Jay by not voting? Anyone with half a brain would know that he was dead a few hours into Day 2 - and yet I decided not to switch to him for ~36 hours in order to gain absolutely nothing out of it? "Everything"? This isn't enough for early Day 1? I got called out for tunneling EY too much and you're acting like it was nothing. I had more on EY than other players had on all of us combined. As for the rest of your post, it's a gameplay opinion that I disagree with. But even though I think that you are wrong, I can see your point. All I have to add on the subject is that I explained my vote at the time and no one had an issue with it, so I think that the problem is in you - or you're trying to turn it into a problem because of your red alignment. On December 12 2011 00:28 xtfftc wrote: This might work with somebody else but not with me. I have addressed your questions but it's obvious that you want to waste my time now and to distract me the best you can. I am committed to providing more analysis and if you are so scared that you decide to shoot me or manage to somehow manipulate the town into lynching me, they will have a lot of information to work with after I flip green. As long as I continue contributing, my death wouldn't be that much of a problem for town, so I am not afraid of dying. But now that I refuse to play your game, you try to scare me into doing nothing else but defending myself. If you were town, you would have been happy to let me finish the BKE analysis because it is very important for us. Instead, you chose to be obtrusive, even though I already paid a lot of attention to you. It's not like I said I'm not going to answer you at all. I could have simply pretended I'm not checking the thread but only mafia are scared of some extra attention. On December 12 2011 03:44 xtfftc wrote: I've explained this a few times already. I saw the Jay lynch as 100% confirmed and wanted to make a point about the way town was going. On Day 1 there was a chance of mafia jumping on one of the other cases and it wouldn't have been as suspicious because some people (EB and myself at least) argued against lynching the lurker. On Day 2, however, there was no argument, so mafia didn't have the option of doing a last minute switch without revealing their whole team. Dude, how many times have I made the point that I fought vigurously against the Bbyte lynch? No one can accuse me of bandwagoning on Bbyte. I did explain why I kept my vote on EY. Please read my filter before making statements such as this one. Here: This was before the deadline. You posted two hours after me and said nothing about my vote. If it was such a concern, you should have pointed it out at the time. And you really have to start looking at the context. It's not just what someone said, it's the moment they said it and what others had posted prior to that. In this case BH asks me: "However, you consider ey215 to be scummier, which is why your vote is on ey215. Is this an accurate representation of your views?" I reply: "Yes, albeit a short one that doesn't cover some bits" and now you ask me: "You're defense is weak, why did you not vote your greatest scum read?" I did end up voting for my greatest scum read. I would have switched to Jay if I thought there was a chance of mafia manipulating the Day 2 vote but it was so obvious that they were bussing him (and who could blame them, considering his play?) that this wasn't necessary. On December 12 2011 04:31 xtfftc wrote: So, I was again the Lynch All Lurkers policy from the very beginning. I hope there's no need to prove this at least but I will if someone is lazy enough to want me to. Post links and some quotes: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=24#463 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=24#465 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=24#465 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=24#480 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=25#484 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=25#499 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=26#511 The last one is particularly interesting. If you look at what I've replied to, you'll see Blazinghand and Veli trying to convince me that I should vote for Bbyte. Why would they be trying to convince me if I was "happy to be on the bandwagon"? Also, I would like to address this directly: This is, as most of your arguments, utterly out of context. This was taken from a post in which I made a case on xsk and in the midst of me trying to convince the town not to lynch the lurker. We had agreed to lynch a lurker if we could consolidate on a case. So, I presented my case and the alternative they should go for in case I am not convincing enough. And you ignore the bit on xsk and only take the very last sentence... On December 12 2011 05:38 xtfftc wrote: Okay, time to address layabout's last post on me. "more likely" = "best read"? To quote you again, "seriously?" So you're accusing me of not being able to come up with some super smart solution for town? I am pretty happy with what the results considering the situation. It's not my fault you don't get it. I won't waste more time explaining it to you. If anyone else has any questions about this, feel free to post them, but I don't see a way to explain it to layabout. Yes I did. You, however, make claims without providing any proof to back them up, and you also ignore the bits that don't suit you. I spend a lot of time to analyse and post on Day 1 but you somehow find it okay to accuse me for not spending even more. So you're not actually accusing me of being mafia, you're just using your time to point out that I'm playing badly? Well, I don't see how I'm a bad townie. How did my actions hurt the town? Surely if they're so anti-town, you should be able to prove it. It's funny that you are actually drawing attention to how my actions were in no way anti-town without realising it. Everyone can check what happened during the last 10 hours of Day 1 and decide for himself/herself whether it was obvious that I was trying to prevent Bbyte's lynch. And everyone can go re-read Day 2 and decide for himself/herself whether it was possible for the mafia to switch from Jay without sacrificing their whole team and thus forfeiting the game. See, you are missing something important: on Day 1 we actually had alternative cases, so a switch was very much possible. On Day 2 pretty much everyone voted on Jay from the beginning. Any attempt to lynch someone else would have been identified immediately. I did act in the best interest of town. I pushed my best mafia reads, I argued against lynching a lurker on Day 1 and I facilitated a discussion on Day 2. If I have done anything to hurt town, you should be able to prove it instead of simply making statements without backing them up. On December 12 2011 05:38 xtfftc wrote: Okay, time to address layabout's last post on me. "more likely" = "best read"? To quote you again, "seriously?" So you're accusing me of not being able to come up with some super smart solution for town? I am pretty happy with what the results considering the situation. It's not my fault you don't get it. I won't waste more time explaining it to you. If anyone else has any questions about this, feel free to post them, but I don't see a way to explain it to layabout. Yes I did. You, however, make claims without providing any proof to back them up, and you also ignore the bits that don't suit you. I spend a lot of time to analyse and post on Day 1 but you somehow find it okay to accuse me for not spending even more. So you're not actually accusing me of being mafia, you're just using your time to point out that I'm playing badly? Well, I don't see how I'm a bad townie. How did my actions hurt the town? Surely if they're so anti-town, you should be able to prove it. It's funny that you are actually drawing attention to how my actions were in no way anti-town without realising it. Everyone can check what happened during the last 10 hours of Day 1 and decide for himself/herself whether it was obvious that I was trying to prevent Bbyte's lynch. And everyone can go re-read Day 2 and decide for himself/herself whether it was possible for the mafia to switch from Jay without sacrificing their whole team and thus forfeiting the game. See, you are missing something important: on Day 1 we actually had alternative cases, so a switch was very much possible. On Day 2 pretty much everyone voted on Jay from the beginning. Any attempt to lynch someone else would have been identified immediately. I did act in the best interest of town. I pushed my best mafia reads, I argued against lynching a lurker on Day 1 and I facilitated a discussion on Day 2. If I have done anything to hurt town, you should be able to prove it instead of simply making statements without backing them up. On December 12 2011 05:39 xtfftc wrote: I wanted to post these two bits separately because the first part is a responce to layabout's nonsence, while the second is analysis of his play. Consider what has layabout done since replacing xsk's replacement: - tell us he can't imagine another lynch but BKE - a gigantic OMGUS (both me and Tunkeg - the players layabout has "analysed" - were on xsksc earlier) - try to push for a late switch I put him and EY as the third mafia member and I've stated that he has a lot to prove if he wants to prove xsk's innocence, so he knows he has to do something about it. But in the process he has revealed himself. This is quite a long post, so I've put the quotes in spoilers to make it more readable. - he deliberately quoted just half of my explanation of how Grackaroni was using WIFOM. Some of the other posts he quoted contained a lot of stuff that had nothing to do with his point and were very long and made his case harder to read - yet he didn't find it necessary to remove them. But he decided to cut out two very important lines and then use what's left to accuse me. Check out the actual quotes in the spoiler if you don't remember his post. + Show Spoiler + Example #1: Quoting a post that contains a lot of irrelevant information without bothering to cut it out. The bits in green are the bits that have nothing to do with what he is talking about that he decided to include anyway. The bits in red are what he is actually refering to. On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read Example #2: Cutting of half of my example. The bit in red is what Grackaroni posted and the green is what I wrote. Note that layabout didn't use the quote function - he simply marked what he wanted with his mouse. You will notice this clearly if you have a look at his original post (link, compare the second and the third quote). On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: you explicity state that you think Jay is the most likely to be scum and grack makes this point you call his "reasoning" (i see a simple statement of fact) "pure WIFOM" well where is the pure wifom in this? And here you can see the rest of my post; the bit in green is what layabout omitted. On December 10 2011 06:23 xtfftc wrote: I stated my reasons for keeping my vote on EY. Your reasoning is pure WIFOM in this case. Jay was obviously going to be lynched hours before I posted the bit you quoted, so what could a townie do in this situation? Vote for Jay and be accused of sheeping after BH and bandwagonning (remember Tunkeg and his analysis of the Bbyte lynch?) Or vote for someone else and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia. Let's also consider me being mafia for the sake of discussing my actions. Vote for Jay and get accused of bandwagonning, or don't and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia? It works both ways. - he quotes something and calls it as exactly the opposite + a scumslip? This is something new I just noticed, so you should definitely check it out. + Show Spoiler + On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read and yet in the above quote you do not do that In the "above quote" I was pushing for my best read - EY - and I voted for him 45 later. Moreover, this might even turn out to be a blatant scumslip. How does layabout know that I did not vote for mafia? I kept my vote on EY and did not switch to Jay. So, if EY is town, it appears to be true: I did not vote for mafia (Jay) but I did the opposite instead. Read it again: you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read and yet in the above quote you do not do that It can be just bad wording but it makes me very suspicious. - he is twisting facts This one may be a bit boring as I have to go through the thread post by post but I think it's worth reading. + Show Spoiler + On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: you have a strong case on a player but you would rather not post it and you would rather vote for someone other than your best read? seriously? He calls me out for this post and there's two interesting bits here. layabout posted "you have a strong case on a player but you would rather not post it and you would rather vote for someone other than your best read? seriously?" Yet I never voted for Adam and the post layabout quoted was me saying that I don't hjave a good case on Adam. Furthermore, I had posted my thoughts on EY throughout the day. There's 1 2 3 4 5 posts that have stuff on EY just from the first half of Day 1. This is lot for such a short period of time. Yet layabout tries to discredit me for not posting my case. In fact, I actually got called out for tunneling EY a bit too much (Grackaroni comes to mind but I think there were others as well), so I decided that it would be more productive if I focus on other players until the end of the day and I went after xsk and Adam. Eventually, I realised that my case on Adam wasn't good enough and I wrote "Pretty much all I have on Adam is based on two of his posts that push pro-mafia agenda. Now that I think about it, I have a much stronger case on ey215", so I stuck to what I had on xsk. Note that this was hours after I had decided not to go after EY until Day 2. Actually, it gets even better. See, what I did after moving away from EY was to build my case on xsk, the player layabout eventually substituted. layabout used a comparisson I made between two of my cases - on EY and Adam - to criticise me for switching from EY to xsk. So, to recap: - he quoted two posts that had more than 24 hours between them to prove that I did not focus on my main read (EY), while disregarding everything that happened in the meanwhile that made me focus on someone else (xsk); - layabout misrepresented the truth by accusing me of not posting on EY even though I clearly did; - used what I wrote on Adam to discredit me for voting for xsk, the player layabout replaced. - Lynch All Liars? On December 12 2011 05:39 xtfftc wrote: I wanted to post these two bits separately because the first part is a responce to layabout's nonsence, while the second is analysis of his play. Consider what has layabout done since replacing xsk's replacement: - tell us he can't imagine another lynch but BKE - a gigantic OMGUS (both me and Tunkeg - the players layabout has "analysed" - were on xsksc earlier) - try to push for a late switch I put him and EY as the third mafia member and I've stated that he has a lot to prove if he wants to prove xsk's innocence, so he knows he has to do something about it. But in the process he has revealed himself. This is quite a long post, so I've put the quotes in spoilers to make it more readable. - he deliberately quoted just half of my explanation of how Grackaroni was using WIFOM. Some of the other posts he quoted contained a lot of stuff that had nothing to do with his point and were very long and made his case harder to read - yet he didn't find it necessary to remove them. But he decided to cut out two very important lines and then use what's left to accuse me. Check out the actual quotes in the spoiler if you don't remember his post. + Show Spoiler + Example #1: Quoting a post that contains a lot of irrelevant information without bothering to cut it out. The bits in green are the bits that have nothing to do with what he is talking about that he decided to include anyway. The bits in red are what he is actually refering to. On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read Example #2: Cutting of half of my example. The bit in red is what Grackaroni posted and the green is what I wrote. Note that layabout didn't use the quote function - he simply marked what he wanted with his mouse. You will notice this clearly if you have a look at his original post (link, compare the second and the third quote). On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: you explicity state that you think Jay is the most likely to be scum and grack makes this point you call his "reasoning" (i see a simple statement of fact) "pure WIFOM" well where is the pure wifom in this? And here you can see the rest of my post; the bit in green is what layabout omitted. On December 10 2011 06:23 xtfftc wrote: I stated my reasons for keeping my vote on EY. Your reasoning is pure WIFOM in this case. Jay was obviously going to be lynched hours before I posted the bit you quoted, so what could a townie do in this situation? Vote for Jay and be accused of sheeping after BH and bandwagonning (remember Tunkeg and his analysis of the Bbyte lynch?) Or vote for someone else and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia. Let's also consider me being mafia for the sake of discussing my actions. Vote for Jay and get accused of bandwagonning, or don't and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia? It works both ways. - he quotes something and calls it as exactly the opposite + a scumslip? This is something new I just noticed, so you should definitely check it out. + Show Spoiler + On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read and yet in the above quote you do not do that In the "above quote" I was pushing for my best read - EY - and I voted for him 45 later. Moreover, this might even turn out to be a blatant scumslip. How does layabout know that I did not vote for mafia? I kept my vote on EY and did not switch to Jay. So, if EY is town, it appears to be true: I did not vote for mafia (Jay) but I did the opposite instead. Read it again: you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read and yet in the above quote you do not do that It can be just bad wording but it makes me very suspicious. - he is twisting facts This one may be a bit boring as I have to go through the thread post by post but I think it's worth reading. + Show Spoiler + On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: you have a strong case on a player but you would rather not post it and you would rather vote for someone other than your best read? seriously? He calls me out for this post and there's two interesting bits here. layabout posted "you have a strong case on a player but you would rather not post it and you would rather vote for someone other than your best read? seriously?" Yet I never voted for Adam and the post layabout quoted was me saying that I don't hjave a good case on Adam. Furthermore, I had posted my thoughts on EY throughout the day. There's 1 2 3 4 5 posts that have stuff on EY just from the first half of Day 1. This is lot for such a short period of time. Yet layabout tries to discredit me for not posting my case. In fact, I actually got called out for tunneling EY a bit too much (Grackaroni comes to mind but I think there were others as well), so I decided that it would be more productive if I focus on other players until the end of the day and I went after xsk and Adam. Eventually, I realised that my case on Adam wasn't good enough and I wrote "Pretty much all I have on Adam is based on two of his posts that push pro-mafia agenda. Now that I think about it, I have a much stronger case on ey215", so I stuck to what I had on xsk. Note that this was hours after I had decided not to go after EY until Day 2. Actually, it gets even better. See, what I did after moving away from EY was to build my case on xsk, the player layabout eventually substituted. layabout used a comparisson I made between two of my cases - on EY and Adam - to criticise me for switching from EY to xsk. So, to recap: - he quoted two posts that had more than 24 hours between them to prove that I did not focus on my main read (EY), while disregarding everything that happened in the meanwhile that made me focus on someone else (xsk); - layabout misrepresented the truth by accusing me of not posting on EY even though I clearly did; - used what I wrote on Adam to discredit me for voting for xsk, the player layabout replaced. - Lynch All Liars? What did I miss talking about? And you never answered me: On December 13 2011 03:42 xtfftc wrote: Velinath, what do you think of my posts on layabout, especially the last one? Don't allow layabout to trick you. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
You bring up WIFOM in your explanation of Grack's posts, but you also use it in your defense. (Let's keep in mind that Grack flipped town, and if you know enough to pick WIFOM on him you should know not to use it). You actually bring up WIFOM multiple times and should know better than to use it: "Let's also consider me being mafia for the sake of discussing my actions". You try to invoke Lynch All Liars when that's not what it's used for (see Tunkeg's response to me Day 2. I derped but it's a reasonable point nonetheless). What do I think of your posts on layabout? Either it's an elegant bus (which I doubt, with only 2 scum left) or he's got a good read on you and you're trying to get out of it. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
I am off to work, will post more when I'm back home in the afternoon. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
ey215
United States546 Posts
On December 13 2011 16:50 xtfftc wrote: BH went after Tunkeg. Lazy townie then. Ad Hominem much? So instead of addressing issues you declare Vel's a "lazy townie" and ignore any points he has or had not made? To make sure I kept unbiased I tried to stay clear of layabout making a case against you and even defended you. The best you can come up with to a townie who obviously has been paying attention and active throughout the game is "lazy townie"? That's not an answer to the questions about you. That's trying to make it look irrelevant just because you deem it to be so. It's also scummy as all get out. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 13 2011 16:49 xtfftc wrote: Make up your mind already? You are either a lazy townie who hasn't put in the time to even read the thread - or a mafia who decided to go all-in after BH went after him. I am off to work, will post more when I'm back home in the afternoon. I'm a lazy townie because I posted teh wrong name once, then corrected myself after I realized I mixed up your votes. Yep, that accusation doesn't reek of scum or anything. My vote stands. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
Have you read the thread? Or paying too much attention to the scum QT? | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 13 2011 21:31 ey215 wrote: Ad Hominem much? So instead of addressing issues you declare Vel's a "lazy townie" and ignore any points he has or had not made? To make sure I kept unbiased I tried to stay clear of layabout making a case against you and even defended you. The best you can come up with to a townie who obviously has been paying attention and active throughout the game is "lazy townie"? That's not an answer to the questions about you. That's trying to make it look irrelevant just because you deem it to be so. It's also scummy as all get out. I have already addressed all of the points he's made. His questions are a demonstration that he hasn't bothered reading my posts on layabout. He also refused to answer my question, even though I reminded him about it (unless you consider his fluffy "Either it's an elegant bus (which I doubt, with only 2 scum left) or he's got a good read on you and you're trying to get out of it." satisfactory. I don't.) Some of the townies have been way too lazy to engage in a discussion and provide analysis all game long - but when the posts in questions are literally in the last 2-3 pages of the thread, ignoring them like this is insulting. I even posted him links to everything relevant on this very page. How am I supposed not to get frustrated? If he wants to write a case on me or anything, great, go for it. If he has any questions, I'll answer them. But repeating things that I have already answered to that clearly indicated that he hasn't bothered putting the work in... | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 14 2011 00:52 xtfftc wrote: I have already addressed all of the points he's made. His questions are a demonstration that he hasn't bothered reading my posts on layabout. He also refused to answer my question, even though I reminded him about it (unless you consider his fluffy "Either it's an elegant bus (which I doubt, with only 2 scum left) or he's got a good read on you and you're trying to get out of it." satisfactory. I don't.) Some of the townies have been way too lazy to engage in a discussion and provide analysis all game long - but when the posts in questions are literally in the last 2-3 pages of the thread, ignoring them like this is insulting. I even posted him links to everything relevant on this very page. How am I supposed not to get frustrated? If he wants to write a case on me or anything, great, go for it. If he has any questions, I'll answer them. But repeating things that I have already answered to that clearly indicated that he hasn't bothered putting the work in... fine you are misusing LAL you nitpick him cherrypicking your quotes except that what he left out was just more wifom logic that nobody should be paying attention to anyway there's one part of your response that MAY have merit and that's the last part regarding adam4167 but yeah no i'm not impressed. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
everthing i am summarising can be found in his filter or the past few pages in quotes or things he himself has said on day 1 xtfftc indicated that he had a strong case on eye215 (very early in the game he has said he finds eye215 scummy, i would argue that he thought this too early and that if his case was genuine and strong then eye215 should be dead) on day 1 he vocally oppossed lynching Bbyte on day 1 he joined the "bandwagon" on Bbyte + Show Spoiler + he claimed to have a strong case (early in day1) on eye215 making him his best read, he later switched to xcksc possibly making him his best read, and he also said that adam may have been a good lynch. but he didn't vote for any of them???the reasoning of voting to prevent a voteswitch is almost acceptable but he later takes a very different stance at a point day 2 he did say that jay was his strongest read he tried to move discussion away from jay + Show Spoiler + he did not do it because he was proposing a better case or to find scum for the next day lynch but acted in a way that potentially could have saved jay he proposed a case on eye215 (based primarily on analysis of day1 he justified voting for him because he didn't wish to be accused of bandwagoning he left his vote on eye215 to remind people that we have to lynch the whole mafia team (which makes no sense whatsoever) he did not vote for jay + Show Spoiler + at the start of day 2 there was a strong case on a member of the mafia team (town didn't know he was mafia) xtfftc has previously called jay suspicious but he then decided that voting for a player he thought was scum could lead to him being accused of bandwagoning and that the risk of being accused of bandwagoning was not worth commiting to voting for jay.only scum fear being accused, and bandwagoning is something that by definition you do with other people so it simply isn't a good reason for at lynch at all, he may get increased attention which a town player should use to support their innocence. He also stated that he would switch his vote back if it looked like a voteswitch could happen, which contradicts the only reasonable explanation for his day1 actions. he voted in a way that could have lead to a voteswitch off of a player he thought was probably scum this makes a lot more sense if he is mafia himself on day 3 he voted for BK i asked him to justify his previous behaviour + Show Spoiler + what happened to his case on eye215 i wonder? he has not explained these actions satisfactorily see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanation he has evaded explaining how these mafia are reasonable town actions he has attempted to twist the things i had previously said + Show Spoiler + he criticised me for quoting (in a spoiler) an entire post and highlighting the key bit, he also accused me of cherry picking when i left out irrelevant information that had nothing to do with my point and did not put his statements into better context he denied saying that jay was his best read (a lie) + Show Spoiler + he propsed a LAL against his accuser (me) because i said he was happy to be on the Bbyte lynch, and yet he was on it. he has OMGUS'd against me by calling me scum without properly justifying his doing so he has forced wifom logic into situations in which it should not be applied to confuse and defsnd himself he has linked a lot to previous posts but he has not explained himself, posting so much without answering what you claim you are answering has cluttered the thread and is not helpful to town (if he is town, which he is not) he has also stated that as town you have lynch to kill mafia, and that you have to lynch your strongest scum read (this pops up in vers XXX analysis in which a player (tree hugger)does almost exactly what he has done) he words and his actions do not match the only players that would have motivation to act the way he has are Mafia ##Vote: xtfftc | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
if a town was roleblocked they should share the information (town can benefit from information) and if mafia is stupid then by claiming roleblock they could be counter claimed and town could trade 1 for 1 if mafia claims to have been roleblocked to ensure they cannot be counter claimed they must not roleblock a town. no matter who claims the only outcomes benefit town | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 14 2011 01:01 Velinath wrote: fine you are misusing LAL you nitpick him cherrypicking your quotes except that what he left out was just more wifom logic that nobody should be paying attention to anyway there's one part of your response that MAY have merit and that's the last part regarding adam4167 but yeah no i'm not impressed. On December 14 2011 01:03 Velinath wrote: ebwop: as tunkeg brought up on day 2 (and you would know if you were reading the thread) LAL isn't referring to faulty cases and you're trying to apply it here. wilfully ignoring what's been brought up already or just lazy, i'm not sure which There's a question mark in "Lynch All Liars?" for a reason. I raised a point for everyone to discuss: would a town player really try to twist "more likely" said in a certain context into "best read". Like always, I was trying to facilitate a discussion. See, we're not talking about a case in this situation. We are talking about deliberately taking one's words and turning them into something else. I provided quotes to demonstrate what he did but you still haven't commented on it. Here, I'll post it for you again. What I wrote: On December 09 2011 04:53 xtfftc wrote: I've posted more on Jay, look at Day 1 but it's mostly one off remarks (such as pointing out how Jay justified not voting for a lurker by saying that we shouldn't lynch a lurker because a lurker isn't around to defend himself) and I don't see how the last quote was me suggesting that he is probably town. It was me pointing out the scumminess of EY's reasoning, and at that moment it was to be expected that mafia would jump on the Jay bandwagon. At the moment I think that Jay is more likely to be scum because if he's not, we have EY, xsk, and Adam left, and I consider Adam to be the worst lynch out of the players I am suspicious of (Adam, Jay, EY, xsk, BKE) On December 09 2011 05:10 xtfftc wrote: Looking at him as an individual, he is one of the three scummiest (along with EY and xsk), so I consider him more likely to be mafia than not. Looking at him in the context of the potential mafia teams I see, I find his team (Jay, BKE, and one of xsk/EY) more likely than the alternative (xsk/EY/Adam). And yet layabout has insinuated that Jay was my best read. Comment on this at least. WIll you bother finding a post in which I call Jay my best read? And if you don't, what do we do with layabout, who does not admit that what he said was wrong? In case you wonder, this is the post he refers to: You want to lynch me for calling him a liar but it's okay when he does it? Double standard much? As for the rest - you've provided three sentences and that's all. Why you'd avoid analysing all that information if you really think that I'm mafia is beyond me. And layabout has provided yet another post with lots of statement and no evidence while waiting for Veli to vote first. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
And layabout has provided yet another post with lots of statement and no evidence while waiting for Veli to vote first. hahahahahahaha the evidence is all over the thread that was a clear summary to avoid confusion and a formatting hell for myself almost everything in there has been raised as an issue before and that your next post ignores my arguements and does not answer the issue. yet again you have made a big post and given precisely fuck all to the thread. "waits for veli to vote first?" the nightend/daystart post was at 3am for me, i got up at 8:am and went to study at 8:30, i got back home at 4pm and i was tutoring someone from 4pm - 5:30 pm besides not being the 1st to vote for you is a no tell that has next to no bearing on my alignment, it is a piece of information with monumental uselessness. Scum would be more likely to make a point like than than town would (because town saying as such should realise that it holds no value whilst mafia just want to deflect attention/scumhunting from themselves onto others). It is desperate. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
There's no double standard. He's said over and over and over that you aren't providing explanation - you aren't. | ||
| ||
