|
On July 31 2012 18:41 Obvious.660 wrote:
@Ange777: What do you make of alan133? Seems like two distinct writing styles are emergent in his last few posts.
What do you mean by writing style? I re-read his last posts again and tried to compare it to his filter in general but I really don't know what you are hinting at. Reading his filter alone just gives me a null read, I have to see how he interacts with others.
|
I'll be out for a few hours. For now I am putting my vote on Zorkmid for:
- semi-lurking
- playing inconsistently: he previously stated that he believes Shady to be suspicious and goodkarma seems to be on his scum list as well but now he says
On July 31 2012 04:47 Zorkmid wrote:
I don't have any strong scum reads at this point at all, and the whole Golbat thing leaves me gun shy to start pushing up on another active poster.
- waiting for others to start cases in order to sheep them
On July 31 2012 04:47 Zorkmid wrote:
Unless I reach some epiphany soon, or am convinced by someones case, my next vote will likely fall upon a lurker.
We have ~9 hours till deadline so I want to see something good coming from you Zork!
##Vote Zorkmid
|
On July 31 2012 19:39 Ange777 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 18:41 Obvious.660 wrote:
@Ange777: What do you make of alan133? Seems like two distinct writing styles are emergent in his last few posts.
What do you mean by writing style? I re-read his last posts again and tried to compare it to his filter in general but I really don't know what you are hinting at. Reading his filter alone just gives me a null read, I have to see how he interacts with others.
I solved the mystery of this for myself, actually. alan133 lives in Malaysia and I just now realized the implications. For reference, if I were to read this out loud:On July 31 2012 14:23 alan133 wrote:
I re-read your filter and realize I might be locked on you around conformation bias. I do notice your cases on a few people when I wrote my case on you, but I read you were merely rehashing what other people has done and you were very non-committal. Upon closer inspection the cases were actually based on cold hard facts instead of WIFOM, and you did indicate if these actions by other players were scummy or not. Your argument about compiling all evidence into one post starts to make sense and I do see townie motivation now. the underlined parts stick out as grammar errors. They are infrequent though, which misled me into believing that it could be multiple authors. However, I am just an ignorant adolescent living in the USA and thus, my argument is void.
When I read that I say "realized" and "did" in place of those words and it makes total sense.
|
I'm sticking to my vote for Shady Sands today.
##VOTE Shady Sands
Night1:
On July 29 2012 14:39 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 13:19 Obvious.660 wrote:
In regards to my activity, should be able to pick it up by Monday if I haven't been decimated. Going for quality over quantity til the wedding stuff (not my wedding) is finished. (double spacing to keep things grouped) Weird, why didn't he mention he had a wedding to attend in any of his earlier posts in the thread? This seems like a pretty strange after-the-fact excuse for any strange patterns of activity. One thing that is important for everyone in town to start watching for now is activity patterns and posting patterns. Scum will tend to post with an identifiable ringleader and others following in their footsteps... and they will often all make excuses about IRL commitments to assuage any doubts about odd patterns in their collective posting histories. Show nested quote +So here's what I'm putting together from all of this:
Shady Sands' play is rather deliberately confusing and time wasting:
1) Bringing in statistics without identifying exactly how they were obtained, ergo they were not easily identifiable as a lie
>>>>Lots of time is wasted on people focusing on the stats, trying to verify them, instead of spending time looking at what is more readily confirmed: anything in the thread.
2) Trying to understand what he meant by what flips reveal about the surviving town members, before any other deaths occured
>>>>This will end up being a bunch of circular logic on Day 1 given that no other information is known to plain old town members. Delays relevant conversation away from today's discussion and focuses on tomorrows.
3) Being willing to let someone who he considers definitely scum survive the night
>>>>No. We always kill scum, potentially removing scum power roles in the process.
4) While in the process of writing this, Shady has claimed that I voted for Golbat.
>>>>This is wrong, as my vote was on Shady. More misdirection/confusion. 1) Again, sorry for bringing in statistics without sourcing them properly, but that's at least something substantive to debate on 2 and 3) The discussion was on whether to lynch Mordanis or Golbat. We lynched Golbat because he looked the scummiest. The added light Golbat could share on Mordanis was just a bonus, and the discussion never said that it was anything except that. 4) That was an honest mistake--thought Obvious switched to Golbat by the end. Even so, though, my original point still holds: Why would he jump into the thread right after Golbat got lynched, but not before, even though he voted against the Golbat lynching? I would imagine that he'd be interested in persuading other people of the merits of your vote, but he didn't do so. That seems pretty scummy/strange to me.
1: Forgivable in a vacuum...
2/3: I have to correct you on this: he was the "easiest to label scum" not necessarily the scummiest. Not everyone voted for Golbat so you can't say he was the scummiest without the 10 (as in all except himself and MrMedic who failed to vote) active votes on him.
4: The easiest out for an Obvious.660 scum would have been to agree that Golbat's play was definitely scum for constantly changing his mind and dropping a list of a bunch of town reads on the table, while ignoring the fact that this is a newbie game where (though we aren't supposed to bring it up, lest we be smote) we're going to make newbie mistakes. As I already explained, the timing of the post holds no mystery; that's the moment when I got finished catching up on the thread.
Day2:
All but one of his posts before his unexpected departure in the night were related to the game mechanics.
>>>>Null points: Role conversation
>>>>Pro-town points: his clarification posts that there are not necessarily three scum in the game.
Shady's last content post:
On July 31 2012 00:39 Shady Sands wrote:
Darth, I'm getting really bad vibes about Promethelax's "town circle"/"town leadership" ideas as well. No idea why he would choose to lurk D1 and then immediately start to argue for something like this so quickly.
Promethelax has explained this and noted he will be going back to his D1 habits because work. This hasn't done anything to promote positive town developments, so my read hasn't shifted towards green. An otherwise quiet ~36 hours.
Promethelax said it best:
On July 27 2012 21:49 Promethelax wrote:Show nested quote +By committing publicly to this sort of strategy, we can judge Mord the following way: if Mord continues to play loud and does not get quiet over the next few days, then Mord will either burn out quickly and scumslip or prove that he is not scum. If Mord quiets down after Day 1, then his above post basically consigns him to becoming an easy lynch just replace Mord with Sands and you see the truth of the statement. He has to keep going and, as Keir well knows, loud scum are easy to find.
Don't know if I'll make it back before lynch time. I'll try to get up sooner than later to check on our status before deadline arrives.
|
I'm happy to have a vote against me on a basis other than activity!
It does kinda suck waking up everyday to 50 new posts when I was watching the thread all day yesterday and like 6 or 7 posts popped up, none of any value, but I guess everyone can't be on the same schedule.
Schedule today: It's 8:30, I'm at work until 5 (might be another post or two out of me if I get some time), I think I'm going to be around the house afterwards, but I need to mow the lawn and stuff. Might be some evenings posts out of me.
As for this:
On July 31 2012 20:24 Ange777 wrote:I'll be out for a few hours. For now I am putting my vote on Zorkmid for: - semi-lurking - playing inconsistently: he previously stated that he believes Shady to be suspicious and goodkarma seems to be on his scum list as well but now he says Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 04:47 Zorkmid wrote:
I don't have any strong scum reads at this point at all, and the whole Golbat thing leaves me gun shy to start pushing up on another active poster. - waiting for others to start cases in order to sheep them Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 04:47 Zorkmid wrote:
Unless I reach some epiphany soon, or am convinced by someones case, my next vote will likely fall upon a lurker. We have ~9 hours till deadline so I want to see something good coming from you Zork! ##Vote Zorkmid
I honestly just forgot about SS, but your accusation has led me to go back through his filter. I've noticed that he has never addressed my accusation about him.
+ Show Spoiler +On July 27 2012 13:29 Shady Sands wrote:
When you look at all that, and the weak logic against Keir, then what you see is the following pattern:
Mordanis first claims that Keir is the likeliest candidate for lynching because he a likely candidate to be red. Then he backs off and claims that Keir could go red or green. Then he argues that we should lynch controversial candidates first. The point is, lynching controversial candidates would be fine, if it were not for the fact that Mordanis is the only one stirring up controversy about Keir. This totally smacks of a Red finding out his original tactic for generating a bandwagon has failed, acknowledging that he is the only one arguing for a lynch, and then stating that because he is the only one arguing for a lynch, the person is "controversial" and should be lynched.
What? I see this as a GIANT leap of reasoning, and I still see Mordanis's case as an attempt (albeit a clumbsy one) to get the ball rolling in XXII.
I don't know if he didn't see this, or didn't feel he had to defend himself from it. He was under attack from Ange, and Prom around this same time.
The other thing that I notice is that since the night post, the only posts that he has made have concerned:
1. Speculation about what night actions happened.
2. C9++ format possibilities
3. Posted massive quote walls with a useless sentence at the end.
This is in stark contrast to his heavy activity earlier in the game. This could mean that he is part of the mafia, and that the medic save/roleblock in night 1 has confused the reds to the point where they haven't figured out how to proceed. It could also mean that Shady is mafia switching up strategies because he had so much heat on him day 1, and he wants to duck it by being more selective about what he
If I vote for MrMedic and he is Modkilled does that mean my vote is wasted?
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
Logically yes 
I have PMed MrMedic about his activity. If he does not post/vote today, I will attempt to replace him. If I cannot find a replacement by the end of night 2, I will modkill him.
Edit: This comes up in various newbie games, so: you absolutely cannot infer anyone's alignment by how the hosts treat a player. Up until the end of the 2nd cycle I always do my best to not modkill where possible.
|
Quick note: please forgive formatting. Trying to run through this fast before going to bed...
I'd like to check in and make a few comments regarding what Prox has to say against me in his explanation for his vote.
First, I'm a little unsure how someone spends the time and energy to put together 27 pages of work in his vote post only to leave out any discussion of everything I've said in my defense to his original arguement. If Prox is truely "pro-town," then I would have thought he would have addressed everything I've brought up in my defense so town could be well-informed of all of the arguements and facts involved in this case. I know that he has read it, because it is a nested quote in his vote post. And instead of addressing any of my arguements, all he says is: "I really like my case."
And then we have his "new evidence" that he has tacked on:
On July 31 2012 18:33 Promethelax wrote:Since this case he has continued to play in a way that makes him seem scummy to me. IN this post which follows on the lack of NK he says Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 06:22 goodkarma wrote:ghost, you gave me such a heart attack lol. When I first read your post I thought I was dead... Great story though. Five stars  . which is odd given that he had been playing as if he was sure he would live to the morning and this is a really subtle way to say to people “I'm town too, I'm scared of dying” without coming out and saying that you are town. He follows that up with + Show Spoiler +On July 30 2012 07:58 goodkarma wrote:
Okay. I'm putting together my notes and writing my long-promised suspect list.
Wouldn't usually waste a post stating this, but one-line fluff posts seem to be all the rage.. -_- (MrMedic and Zorkmid...)
Tbh it shouldn't really matter exactly how no one died last night. Now that Golbat has flipped, and day two has begun, let's not waste any time getting our cases put together.
So, first you believe showing relief to still be alive would be suspicious for a townie to do when his name is spelled out in the night post like that?
And then you believe it would be suspicious for a townie to tell people to stop worrying about details that cannot presently help them and go back to scumhunting?
To be completely honest, I'm really not sure a response to this is "additional analysis" is deserved since it feels like a complete stretch to me that someone would add these quotes at all to "a case on goodkarma." Again your case feels hastily constructed, especially since you consider those two quotes to be "since your case" when in fact they are hours before you posted your case. A small detail, but one I don't take lightly. It suggests to me that you are going out of your way to try to make a straw case for me, and desperately try to find anything that could stick. I would imagine an investigative town would put more time into double-checking the facts.
And what bothers me most is I'm having trouble determining your motive. You claim I "look scummy" to you, and you have some points as to why. I demonstrate to you and the rest of this forum that your points are flat-out wrong. Your esteemed buddy, Keir has analyzed my defense, and because I don't try to conceal points of discussion as you seem to I leave my entire posted response for everyone to see and judge for themselves.:
+ Show Spoiler +On July 30 2012 18:00 goodkarma wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 15:58 Keirathi wrote:On July 30 2012 15:29 Promethelax wrote:
Keir: since you are here what do you think of GK's case? Since you and I agree that he looks scummy how do you think he has done with his new case?
His response to your first point about the lurkers was a pretty solid defense. Defense of your second point about Golbat wasn't quite as solid. The "In retrospect" point only applies if he never thought about the possibilities beforehand, which seems unlikely. Saying "Mafia could do all these things, but I find it highly unlikely that they would, especially in a newbie game where I figure first-time Mafia would prefer to play more cautiously to avoid being exposed than to jump into the spotlight like that." before the "in retrospect" point, and the fact of the statement alone, seems to indicate some previous thinking on the subject. What I mean is, that sentence isn't something I feel like you would just randomly think about after a flip since its so important to how you scumhunt on day1. Aside from that, he makes some rather weak points when specifically building a case on you: the "a instead of my" thing is silly, the posting outside of thread contention I can understand a bit but still feel like you posting for short periods of time in other threads is alignment telling. Not much to say about the townie-town-town thing. You brushed it off as a joke but I had already jotted it down just in case I ever decide that you are scummy enough to pursue a case again  I will say that I'm glad he has posted a case though. It's something to think about. Yes, the mafia part, too, was in retrospect. I'm only going to say this once, and I know the mafia gods will cry when I do (as it's been said here "noobiness is not an excuse"), but this is my first game. As I'm playing, I started with a one-dimensional view of how to do things based off a few guides I've read and have been growing and developing an idea of how the game is played as I go. If you are truely curious where I was inspired to "lynch lurkers" on day one, here it is. Go at it. You might also see in the thread they don't take the end of a lurker that happens to flip town as the world's worst thing. And NO, I'm not claiming vigi or cop, this just happens to be where I got the idea from (specifically, the vigi part). http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=232671I took general advice, and I forged it into my own general policy. I had some idea of things that are "scummy:" inaction, indecisiveness, "blending in with the crowd," redirection, etc., but that didn't mean I was going to trust any first impression or "read" I might get at the first few posts in the thread. As the game has progressed I feel I've gotten a better feel for how I'm supposed to play. The post you're referring to is entirely in retrospect. It's a "I learned something today" - type post intended to not only shine light into how town can avoid lynching a Golbat in the future and why, but also as a kind of introspective look at how I can play better. In it I talk about one aspect of play that I still feel strongly about, and that's empathy. If you are to look at my pursuits on day one they are all towards my one policy. If you look at day 2 you see one rather long and lengthy post that is a complete pain to read through. This is my first real attempt at making a case "based on reads." I intend to improve on this and get better as I go. But what you should see is a developing player that is unafraid to stand by his convictions and make mistakes. I ask that you assess my actions. I'm confident you, and the rest of our forum friends will find play completely consistent with a town player. I'm honestly seeing the case against me as more of a referendum of my unpopular day one policy than a legitimate case. I'm starting to put together cases as I go in my head (putting them on paper is still really hard for me though), and that should be more than enough right now. I honestly don't know what more town could ask of me, especially given I feel I'm contributing more than the majority of this forum is right now. If you truely think I am mafia, and "loud mafia are easy to spot," then you can rest easy knowing that I'm going to be an easy future lynch. I don't plan on backing off into the lurky abyss now. I plan to continually provide new analysis and discussion. All that I ask is that all of you provide a good critical eye so I might improve along the way. I know Prox has asked about a "mystery suspect," and unfortunately a significant portion of that was based off of the "objectionable evidence" of out-of-forum history. I do have a list of different people I find suspicious. I would appreciate some understanding here, as each case I make will probably be a long, flowery post until I learn how to make my cases a little more succinct and readable. Such flowery cases take lots time. And there's also the matter that I'm not done with my case with Prox yet, and until I am I don't feel the need to name more suspicious individuals. That just leaves wiggle-room for mafia. What's more I'm not convinced by what Prox has said so far about town leaders. I would like to hear from him more about why having a few town leaders is a good thing for town, and how he feels he would be in a trustworthy position to assume such a role. The difference between his posting now and his posting even a day back is night and day, and why he chooses now to try to make his first real case leaves me confused, especially considering it's immediately after he was considered to be a person of suspicion by (and I'm basing all of this off the history posts that the two of you have talked about here) the person he holds in this game with the highest esteem as a mafia player (Keir). It feels like a play of redirection. I am not ready to back off of my case against him until I hear a little more from him. Last post of the night. Good night all .
And to keep everyone up to speed, Keir also expressed concern about not posting my impressions on scum suspects night one. That discussion can be found here:
+ Show Spoiler +On July 31 2012 11:41 goodkarma wrote:
@Keirathi:
It clearly states in the thread that I was following Alan's advice. I was afraid that by posting something wrong and dieing, I would be leading the town into another mislynch. Alan has since then brought up the point that it wasn't that impressions were posted, but rather that the people in his game who were night-killed had tunnel vision and were only pursuing single suspects.
In other words, yes. Not posting my impressions at night was a mistake, and I realize that now.
Nowhere in your post do you talk about any of this, yet these points would undoubtedly need to at least be addressed if you're "pro-town" and you're going to say "I really like and stand by my case." You're entitled to your opinion, but when two postings directly contradict each other, how can you just repost your arguement and pretend nothing happened?
And then there's your "summary of my case," where you try your best to discredit my case against you. I agree with you on two points: that you were right about discussion of outside-forum activities, and that my post is very very long. However, I don't understand what "pro-town" motive you would have in omitting points in your summary that were important components of my arguements and telling others, "Don't worry about reading this here's the summary from me." Some points you "conveniently" neglected to mention: 1) the convenient timing of your original case against me, and how I considered its construction a suspicious attempt at redirection of the attention on you. 2) Concern that you were suddenly trying to wedge yourself into a position of town leadership from relative day 1 obscurity. This is a concern that others have also expressed.
So what I'm trying to understand is motive. You claim to be trying to look "pro-town" right now, and you are pushing really hard on this case. Yet, as far as I can tell, all of your points have been discredited and you really haven't come up with anything new. On top of that, you have gone out of your way to omit my defense and make up your own summary of my case against you to put yourself in a more favorable light. I am tempted to consider this an OMGUS move, but honestly, with your experience I would expect you would play better than that (and maybe that's just me being naiive).
Your omission of arguements and facts clearly doesn't make you pro-town. There is a hidden motive at work here, as nothing I see in your case against me has not been addressed, and yet you don't even discredit it, you ignore it. What I'm seeing is not a townie looking to expose the truth, but someone looking for blood. Until you post a really convincing arguement highlighting your motives for pursuing me with such zeal and haste that you don't even double-check simple facts before posting your case against me, your actions are the scummiest read I have to go off right now. You have earned my vote.
##Vote Prox
That being said, I will still try to take a look at this thread before the deadline and provide my thoughts on the other people being accused. And that being said, please forgive me if I oversleep. I'm tired and going to bed. Good night.
|
About this:
On July 31 2012 22:28 goodkarma wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 18:33 Promethelax wrote:
Since this case he has continued to play in a way that makes him seem scummy to me.
IN this post which follows on the lack of NK he says Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 06:22 goodkarma wrote:ghost, you gave me such a heart attack lol. When I first read your post I thought I was dead... Great story though. Five stars . which is odd given that he had been playing as if he was sure he would live to the morning and this is a really subtle way to say to people “I'm town too, I'm scared of dying” without coming out and saying that you are town. So, first you believe showing relief to still be alive would be suspicious for a townie to do when his name is spelled out in the night post like that?
|
About this:
On July 31 2012 22:28 goodkarma wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 18:33 Promethelax wrote:
Since this case he has continued to play in a way that makes him seem scummy to me.
IN this post which follows on the lack of NK he says Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 06:22 goodkarma wrote:ghost, you gave me such a heart attack lol. When I first read your post I thought I was dead... Great story though. Five stars . which is odd given that he had been playing as if he was sure he would live to the morning and this is a really subtle way to say to people “I'm town too, I'm scared of dying” without coming out and saying that you are town. So, first you believe showing relief to still be alive would be suspicious for a townie to do when his name is spelled out in the night post like that?
I also think that your "relief post" is strange. It's sort of WIFOM, but I don't think that as a green or blue I would ever post something like that. It's just yelling out "I'm A TOWNIE huehuehue". I wouldn't post it because it reeks of redness
|
EBWOP sorry about that first one, I hit post instead of preview.
|
HI guys! just got back from batman. Movie is long. First up some resolution to the retardedness between obvious and myself.
On July 31 2012 18:50 Obvious.660 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 18:29 DarthPunk wrote:On July 31 2012 18:26 Obvious.660 wrote:On July 29 2012 04:35 DarthPunk wrote:
With that being said at the moment we are headed towards a no lynch which I am certainly not in favour of. I am willing to alter my vote to ensure this does not happen. Hopefully this gets resolved shortly as I would love to get some sleep. The correction would read: On July 30 2012 18:57 Obvious.660 wrote:
DarthPunk also explained that he would be willing to change his vote from Mordanis to Golbat to avoid a mislynchNO LYNCH 'mislynch' replaced by 'no lynch', do you still take issue with the intent here? Yes. please read above post. Let me see if I'm following you. You want me to clarify that you would have voted for anyone, not just specifically Golbat, but anyone, if it was coming close to crunch time with no clear successful lynch in sight, in order to obtain a lynch (also known as avoiding a no-lynch), no matter who it was? Is that it? If this doesn't answer it, I'm just going to have to ask someone else: Anyone who is not DarthPunk please tell me what he's talking about? You seem really worried about being associated with the Golbat case, btw.
Yes. I have explained this before. You put words in my mouth in order to facilitate some 'analysis' that does not stand up without the flagrant misrepresentation of what I said. I thought that the first time I addressed I addressed this I was very clear how retarded the post in which you did that was.
I thought the issue was resolved but then you directed others to the post in which you fundamentally altered my words with no mention of the previous conversation when I correct the flagrant error. Honestly I am surprised it took this long for you to understand the problem in your post and I don't see why you seem to be frustrated that I have followed this up.
If someone had posted 'analysis' that was based on something you didn't say and then after correcting them on it continued to lead people to that 'analysis' I am sure you would want to make sure that people were aware of the situation.
I don't know why this is so difficult to understand or took so long to resolve.
|
On July 31 2012 22:48 DarthPunk wrote:HI guys! just got back from batman. Movie is long. First up some resolution to the retardedness between obvious and myself. EBWOP: Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 18:50 Obvious.660 wrote:On July 31 2012 18:29 DarthPunk wrote:On July 31 2012 18:26 Obvious.660 wrote:On July 29 2012 04:35 DarthPunk wrote:
With that being said at the moment we are headed towards a no lynch which I am certainly not in favour of. I am willing to alter my vote to ensure this does not happen. Hopefully this gets resolved shortly as I would love to get some sleep. The correction would read: On July 30 2012 18:57 Obvious.660 wrote:
DarthPunk also explained that he would be willing to change his vote from Mordanis to Golbat to avoid a mislynchNO LYNCH 'mislynch' replaced by 'no lynch', do you still take issue with the intent here? Yes. please read above post. Let me see if I'm following you. You want me to clarify that you would have voted for anyone, not just specifically Golbat, but anyone, if it was coming close to crunch time with no clear successful lynch in sight, in order to obtain a lynch (also known as avoiding a no-lynch), no matter who it was? Is that it? If this doesn't answer it, I'm just going to have to ask someone else: Anyone who is not DarthPunk please tell me what he's talking about? You seem really worried about being associated with the Golbat case, btw. Yes. I have explained this before. You put words in my mouth in order to facilitate some 'analysis' that does not stand up without the flagrant misrepresentation of what I said. I thought that the first time I addressed I addressed this I was very clear how retarded the post in which you did that was. I thought the issue was resolved but then you directed others to the post in which you fundamentally altered my words with no mention of the previous conversation when I correct the flagrant error. Honestly I am surprised it took this long for you to understand the problem in your post and I don't see why you seem to be frustrated that I have followed this up. If someone had posted 'analysis' that was based on something you didn't say and then after correcting them on it continued to lead people to that 'analysis' I am sure you would want to make sure that people were aware of the situation. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand or took so long to resolve.
|
|
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
Hey cuties, Vote Count!
goodkarma (1): Promethelax
Zorkmid (1): Ange777
Shady Sands (1): Obvious.660
Promethelax (1): goodkarma
Yet to vote: Keirathi, MrMedic, DarthPunk, aRyuujin, alan333, Mordanis, Shady Sands, Zorkmid
With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch! Currently no-one is set to be lynched. Deadline in 6h 45m.
|
On July 31 2012 18:45 Promethelax wrote:
@DarthPunk
My day two play is how I play the game when I have enough time. I'm glad you found my day one helpful and I'll try to replicate the strength of the cases I built but you'll note that d1 I had my SS case and since that point I have made others which are at least as strong (in my eyes stronger).
I honestly don't feel that I am jumping up and down saying “oooh me I'm green! I'm green!” I am explaining the reasons for my play and my actions. As I said there are three goals that I have as a townie.
The bolded section of this quote is the MOST flagrant example of saying "oooh me I'm green! I'm green!" that I can imagine. This comes after questioning GK's "relief claim" after the flavored night post (which I agree, is not something I'd do if I were green or blue)
Darthpunk's attack on you doesn't hold any weight if your posting history is free from a green claim post like that. But it does now.
We as town do win through living and having more obvious townies is a huge asset that is why Mason is an incredibly strong role.
Add to this that you're now doing the same thing and sounds like you're probably planning on claiming Mason, given your upcoming explanation.
I have an explanation for the buddying thing that you are unhappy with that I will reveal before the end of the night cycle. It has a good motivation and I promise town that I will explain it before the end of n2.
I hope that it's a good one. Let's see your "spreadsheet".
If you're claiming Mason, there are going to have to be some other claims to back this up.
##VOTE: Promethelax
|
On July 31 2012 18:45 Promethelax wrote:
@DarthPunk
My day two play is how I play the game when I have enough time. I'm glad you found my day one helpful and I'll try to replicate the strength of the cases I built but you'll note that d1 I had my SS case and since that point I have made others which are at least as strong (in my eyes stronger).
I honestly don't feel that I am jumping up and down saying “oooh me I'm green! I'm green!” I am explaining the reasons for my play and my actions. As I said there are three goals that I have as a townie.
We as town do win through living and having more obvious townies is a huge asset that is why Mason is an incredibly strong role.
I'm going to stop harping on about my work and real life, when I'm here I am here and will be posting in a way that helps town you will have to decide for yourself if there is a scum agenda or a town one in my posts.
As long as you promise to read over everything I say with no confirmation bias I welcome your FoS. Keep an eye on me and my actions should prove my alignment to you.
I have an explanation for the buddying thing that you are unhappy with that I will reveal before the end of the night cycle. It has a good motivation and I promise town that I will explain it before the end of n2.
OK so you have not answered anything to my satisfaction and have in fact just repeated the same kind of thing you have been throughout day two.
Time is not an excuse for the complete shift in your playstyle from day one to day two. The only thing that should change with more time is more analysis more activity in the thread. This does not account for the way your play has changed as you are implying.
I honestly don't feel that I am jumping up and down saying “oooh me I'm green! I'm green!”
Really? It is all you have posted about for the majority of the past cycle. Even in this post which is supposed to address the concerns I have raised over you you just repeat that you are town ad nauseum.
there are three goals that I have as a townie.
We as town do win through living and having more obvious townies is a huge asset (implying yourself)
when I'm here I am here and will be posting in a way that hel[ps town
Keep an eye on me and my actions should prove my alignment to you.
This last point is ridiculous looking through your posts all we hear from you is "I'm town, I'm town" and a large concerted effort by yourself to establish yourself not only as town but as a both THE town leader and THE town analyst. And all we have in response to suspicion is that your alignment will reveal itself. and this: On July 31 2012 18:45 Promethelax wrote:I have an explanation for the buddying thing that you are unhappy with that I will reveal before the end of the night cycle. It has a good motivation and I promise town that I will explain it before the end of n2.
I mean what is this? You are heavily implying a blue claim but won't reveal the information until after the voting cycle. Could you be any more obvious in what you are trying to achieve? People are questioning you buddying keirathi, and your response is that there is a reasonable explanation but you can only tell us after we don't lynch you. and the fact you are implying a claim lays confusion at those who had read you as scum and a possible explanation for buddying keirathi.
OK look at this:
On July 31 2012 17:52 Promethelax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 17:40 Ange777 wrote:@Promethelax:On July 31 2012 17:16 Promethelax wrote:
I still think that SS and GK are the scummiest players in this game and will be voting for one of them. I am going back over their filters now to decide which of them to vote.
I'll be around for a little while so lets get this discussion going. In your last post you just unvoted goodkarma for explaining his reasoning: On July 31 2012 06:48 Promethelax wrote:
GK: Since you have explained your reasoning ##: Unvote
If he was still scummy enough to be one of your top scum why unvote? Because that was a pressure vote to get him to reveal his reads. I unvoted him when he gave me the read he had been hiding but I still find him scummy. I'm working on part two of my case on him.
Proms explanation for unvoting GK. seems pretty straight forward right. Note the last sentence and bear with me.
Since this case he has continued to play in a way that makes him seem scummy to me. IN this post which follows on the lack of NK he says Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 06:22 goodkarma wrote:
ghost, you gave me such a heart attack lol. When I first read your post I thought I was dead...
Great story though. Five stars . which is odd given that he had been playing as if he was sure he would live to the morning and this is a really subtle way to say to people “I'm town too, I'm scared of dying” without coming out and saying that you are town. He follows that up with Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 07:58 goodkarma wrote:
Okay. I'm putting together my notes and writing my long-promised suspect list.
Wouldn't usually waste a post stating this, but one-line fluff posts seem to be all the rage.. -_- (MrMedic and Zorkmid...)
Tbh it shouldn't really matter exactly how no one died last night. Now that Golbat has flipped, and day two has begun, let's not waste any time getting our cases put together. where he adds fluff to the thread because it is “all the rage” he also talks about the lack of night kill in a way that reminds me of my MTG game where scum tried to both emphasize and ignore the lack of a night kill. (this second point is essentially a gut feeling).
These are the additional points he brings to the Goodkarma case and the reason to go from an unvote to a vote.
The first point holds absolutely no value in my mind. The second is adding fluff to the thread. Prom added huge amounts of fluff to the thread with the keirathi tangent. yet this is a reason for him to go from unvoting someone to voting for that very person.
He conveniently mentions it was long to read (subtly encouraging people not to read it) then summarises goodkarmas case on him like this:
I know it is obscenely long don't worry. It is easy to simplify. There are three points.
1 the use of 'a' instead of 'my'
2 I told him not to do something that is actually against the rules
3 my overuse of the word town
and
4 OMGUSOMGUSOMGUS
Now I have read Goodkarmas case on Prox (as well as mord's which was excellent) and to be honest the above assessment was unfair there were a lot of good points made in his post and instead of defending it with the respect it deserves he belittles it as if to make it seem trivial and unimportant.
He also avoided actually defending adequately my FoS and for these reasons I have decided to
## Vote: Promethelax
|
@Zorkmid:
On July 31 2012 22:02 Zorkmid wrote:I'm happy to have a vote against me on a basis other than activity! It does kinda suck waking up everyday to 50 new posts when I was watching the thread all day yesterday and like 6 or 7 posts popped up, none of any value, but I guess everyone can't be on the same schedule. Schedule today: It's 8:30, I'm at work until 5 (might be another post or two out of me if I get some time), I think I'm going to be around the house afterwards, but I need to mow the lawn and stuff. Might be some evenings posts out of me. As for this: Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 20:24 Ange777 wrote:I'll be out for a few hours. For now I am putting my vote on Zorkmid for: - semi-lurking - playing inconsistently: he previously stated that he believes Shady to be suspicious and goodkarma seems to be on his scum list as well but now he says On July 31 2012 04:47 Zorkmid wrote:
I don't have any strong scum reads at this point at all, and the whole Golbat thing leaves me gun shy to start pushing up on another active poster. - waiting for others to start cases in order to sheep them On July 31 2012 04:47 Zorkmid wrote:
Unless I reach some epiphany soon, or am convinced by someones case, my next vote will likely fall upon a lurker. We have ~9 hours till deadline so I want to see something good coming from you Zork! ##Vote Zorkmid I honestly just forgot about SS, but your accusation has led me to go back through his filter. I've noticed that he has never addressed my accusation about him. + Show Spoiler +On July 27 2012 13:29 Shady Sands wrote:
When you look at all that, and the weak logic against Keir, then what you see is the following pattern:
Mordanis first claims that Keir is the likeliest candidate for lynching because he a likely candidate to be red. Then he backs off and claims that Keir could go red or green. Then he argues that we should lynch controversial candidates first. The point is, lynching controversial candidates would be fine, if it were not for the fact that Mordanis is the only one stirring up controversy about Keir. This totally smacks of a Red finding out his original tactic for generating a bandwagon has failed, acknowledging that he is the only one arguing for a lynch, and then stating that because he is the only one arguing for a lynch, the person is "controversial" and should be lynched.
What? I see this as a GIANT leap of reasoning, and I still see Mordanis's case as an attempt (albeit a clumbsy one) to get the ball rolling in XXII. I don't know if he didn't see this, or didn't feel he had to defend himself from it. He was under attack from Ange, and Prom around this same time. The other thing that I notice is that since the night post, the only posts that he has made have concerned: 1. Speculation about what night actions happened. 2. C9++ format possibilities 3. Posted massive quote walls with a useless sentence at the end. This is in stark contrast to his heavy activity earlier in the game. This could mean that he is part of the mafia, and that the medic save/roleblock in night 1 has confused the reds to the point where they haven't figured out how to proceed. It could also mean that Shady is mafia switching up strategies because he had so much heat on him day 1, and he wants to duck it by being more selective about what he If I vote for MrMedic and he is Modkilled does that mean my vote is wasted?
You say you have simply forgotten about Shady. Which I am inclined to believe for now for the apparent reason that Shady is just not active at all. You are right about his lack of analysis during day 2. Still all these points by you were already stated in Obvious' case against Shady so I am not completely happy with your own scum hunting.
On July 31 2012 22:46 Zorkmid wrote:
I also think that your "relief post" is strange. It's sort of WIFOM, but I don't think that as a green or blue I would ever post something like that. It's just yelling out "I'm A TOWNIE huehuehue". I wouldn't post it because it reeks of redness
I actually don't think that this is scummy behaviour at all. If it had been my name, the post would have scared the hell out of me as well so I see nothing wrong with that particular post.
On July 31 2012 23:53 Zorkmid wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 18:45 Promethelax wrote:
@DarthPunk
My day two play is how I play the game when I have enough time. I'm glad you found my day one helpful and I'll try to replicate the strength of the cases I built but you'll note that d1 I had my SS case and since that point I have made others which are at least as strong (in my eyes stronger).
I honestly don't feel that I am jumping up and down saying “oooh me I'm green! I'm green!” I am explaining the reasons for my play and my actions. As I said there are three goals that I have as a townie.
The bolded section of this quote is the MOST flagrant example of saying "oooh me I'm green! I'm green!" that I can imagine. This comes after questioning GK's "relief claim" after the flavored night post (which I agree, is not something I'd do if I were green or blue)
This however sounds valid. Especially in combination with the fact that Promethelax himself doubts goodkarma based on something similar. I am going to reread Promethelax' filter to see what I can find.
In light of your activity and effort ##Unvote Zorkmid
|
I noticed Zork also voted prom whilst I was compiling my case on him. Has anyone got any contributions to make. It is almost 2 am and it seems as if nothing is happening. I will watch the thread on my Laptop while I am in bed but I may fall asleep.
|
Ange, I'm curious if you could elaborate about why you think that GK's "relief post" isn't scummy.
The flavor post might have seemed to GK like a good chance to make a post like that, sort of a fake breadcrumb.
The post would have scared the shit out of me too, but I would still absolutely would not post about it.
|
Because this is a post that I might have posted if it had been my name. I would not have thought that it might be seen as scummy. Please keep in mind that I also don't get a town vibe from that post. It's just a fluff post after a flip which sometimes happens in other games as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
