|
On December 22 2012 20:27 OmniEulogy wrote:
...
The only thing that even slightly incriminates Chrom is that he asked me why I thought Mocsta was town, I gave my reason and I turned out to be right. Mocsta gets lynched while trying to investigate me. I sure as hell would not lynch somebody as they are forming my investigation. I haven't lied once all game, From the information we had and the fact that Cora claimed scum I assumed he couldn't be making that many bad decisions and was just scum under pressure. I was wrong. I've already gone over that. My vote on Spag I have already also gone over. The vote was pressure that I had meant to remove after clearing up his case and he poorly handled it and it led to his lynching. USE the information it gave us instead of continuing to go after people.
...
If this is your defense, it's not very convincing. You gave no reaoning from upgrading Corazon from "100% scum" to town other than "I looked it over".
Your Spag vote justification doesn't help cover up your slip. Spag had already posted his defense and you were convinced that he was scum, when you claimed VT. If you really thought Spag was scum, you wouldn't have expected to come under pressure and you wouldn't have claimed.
|
+ Show Spoiler +I'll start off with Corazon. After re-reading everything he's said a few times I believe I owe him an apology. As he defended Spag while the vote was on him I'm willing to say I believe he is town. He stuck with his vote on Theesr the entire time.
Considering I just asked you to read this and it was the very first thing said... But to expand further for you
1) Corazon did not make the case vs Spag
2) Spag was the only one who made a large defense for Corazon
3) Aqua made the case vs Spag
4) Corazon did not get on this wagon at any point - made cases for why we should NOT lynch Spag but instead Threesr. - points to his innocence. quite loudly.
As for Spags case and me claiming VT
1) I voted as pressure, not intending to keep my vote on him (said this like three times now)
2) + Show Spoiler +I've already thought about what happens if Corazon comes up innocent and shz and myself had a nice talk about that earlier.
3) So I claimed knowing that if I didn't I would be doing it in 20 minutes anyway, and look at that I was right. As I've said before On December 22 2012 01:53 OmniEulogy wrote:
ha you beat me to it but at least I understood what you meant and I agree. I still would have claimed as soon as you questioned me though.
I saw it coming and reacted before hand. As I've already said + Show Spoiler +On December 22 2012 02:21 OmniEulogy wrote:
because Spag made it his last case to try and convince somebody I was scum. He was town its not hard to assume I'll become a target.
|
Votecount:
OmniEulogy (2): Chromatically, Orangeremi
FatChunk (1): Aquanim
Not voting (7): Kickstart, OmniEulogy, threesr, shz, Sylencia, FatChunk, cDgCorazon
Currently, OmniEulogy is set to be lynched! ~33 hours remaining in day 1.
Please PM any of your friendly neighborhood hosts if your vote is counted incorrectly.
Remember that you have to vote.
Full version:
+ Show Spoiler +OmniEulogy (2): Chromatically, Orangeremi
FatChunk (1): Aquanim
Kickstart (0): cakepie,
Not voting (7): Kickstart, OmniEulogy, threesr, shz, Sylencia, FatChunk, cDgCorazon
|
On December 22 2012 22:40 OmniEulogy wrote:As for Spags case and me claiming VT 1) I voted as pressure, not intending to keep my vote on him (said this like three times now) 2) + Show Spoiler +I've already thought about what happens if Corazon comes up innocent and shz and myself had a nice talk about that earlier. Just because I believe somebody to be scum does not mean I'm not going to take precautions in the case that I am wrong. Even when I was 100% convinced Corazon was scum I still talked about the "what if" (absolutely none of his posts up to that point proved otherwise, it was actually his actions and not his posts that made me change my mind) 3) So I claimed knowing that if I didn't I would be doing it in 20 minutes anyway, and look at that I was right. As I've said before Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 01:53 OmniEulogy wrote:
ha you beat me to it but at least I understood what you meant and I agree. I still would have claimed as soon as you questioned me though. I saw it coming and reacted before hand. As I've already said + Show Spoiler +On December 22 2012 02:21 OmniEulogy wrote:
because Spag made it his last case to try and convince somebody I was scum. He was town its not hard to assume I'll become a target.
To point 1): It doesn't matter if you voted as pressure or intended to keep your vote on him. You did keep your vote on him until the end of the day.
Did you think that Spag was scum up until the flip?
|
This is not a post to defend OE or to try to get you guys to not lynch him, this is a post about increasing pressure on Orangeremi. His answers to my accusations have been ungraceful, indifferent, and incomplete. Let us take a look at all of the posts he has made since I have made accusations against him.
(Original Accusation post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=386911¤tpage=38#744)
When I wrote my post accusing OJR, I finished with these words:
+ Show Spoiler +On December 22 2012 09:15 cDgCorazon wrote:
I feel like OJR (which is what I’m calling he/she from now on, much easier to write) needs to step up his scum-hunting efforts in order to clear suspicion from myself. OJR has all the room to defend themselves, but until OJR picks it up, I am very suspicious of them.
Now, I was expecting OJR to defend himself from my attacks, prove to me that he was not hiding anything. + Show Spoiler +(Which Cakepie has done an excellent job of so far)
However, I am disappointed with the lack of a reaction by OJR so far.
1st Post After My Accusation:
+ Show Spoiler +On December 22 2012 12:30 Orangeremi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 06:49 Aquanim wrote:
@Orangeremi: What did you think of Spaghetticus' defence to my case? I wasn't swayed either way by it. Your case was a tough one to argue and he tried. I don't feel like he succeeded. When he answered my question about his defense it seemed to me even fluffier as well. At this point I think it's fairly obvious, unfortunately I woke up too late to detail a case myself. Most everything that could've been said about him has been. It will take a fair deal of convincing for me to change my mind before Day's end. ##Vote: OmniEulogy Did not even bother to read my post accusing him before immediately answering. Made a half-answer about how Spag was making a bunch of fluff, and that Spag’s case was not good enough to change OJR’s mind (which is fair enough). However, he also just gives his case that he had no other good reasons to vote Spag, saying that Aqua literally picked Spag apart so much that there was nothing else he could say. It could be true, or could he just be bandwagoning or sheeping to try and keep attention away from him. It’s a scummy play, and he needs to justify his vote for Spag, who claimed and flipped VT.
2nd&3rd Posts:
+ Show Spoiler +On December 22 2012 12:59 Orangeremi wrote:
Is there anything in specific you're looking for? All of your claims are valid, and you just asked me to step up my scum hunting. Not even trying to defend himself, just saying that I am right. Very suspicious play, but it’s hard to get anything from that. His third post is the most scummy post: On December 22 2012 13:26 Orangeremi wrote:
I don't like how Threesr is playing if he's town. He's helping very little and I could see him playing a reverse psychological scum the way he is acting.
I've got my eye on FC, but want to hold off on further judgements until I see him post this Day
I'm also waiting on more from Kickstart, I'm wary of how he's playing this game as opposed to his last one. His three reads are Threesr, FC, and Kickstart: All easy targets that have come under fire in Day 1 and during Night 1. His arguments are basic for all three, and are arguments that others have come up with (Threesr is playing suspicious, FC is playing suspicious, Kick has been lurking). Not only are these arguments brief and weak, but they are not even his. An explanation for this is that he is scum, and he is not able to make fabricated lies. This lack of effort in scumhunting is ridiculously suspicious, and his lack in any discussion at all in the past 24 hours is disturbing and suspicious as well.
4th Post:
+ Show Spoiler +On December 22 2012 14:01 Orangeremi wrote:
@cake I'm interested in his theory regarding you+OE+Chrom scum team, but I don't know how much credibility it has. This post is just a joke. I already asked Cake about the Cake/OE/Chrom scum team, and he had handled his answer with much grace. This is pressing someone else’s idea, not creating his own. This is textbook scum play, jumping on other’s idea without creating original content.
Conclusion:
OJR’s lack of response to my accusations, his weak reads on easy targets, his unoriginal accusations and his inability to answer simple accusations and questions suggests that he is scum, and he needs to step up his play 200% if he wants to prove to me that he is not scum.
@OJR: Respond to my accusations. Longer than 3 sentences. Take the time to analyze my posts and make good defenses. If you’re confused, look to Cake’s self-defense for some inspiration. I’m done messing around with this.
##Vote:Orangeremi
|
yes Chrom I did. I would have switched my vote back to Corazon if I didn't.
|
Votecount:
OmniEulogy (2): Chromatically, Orangeremi
FatChunk (1): Aquanim
Orangeremi(1) cDgCorazon
Not voting (6): Kickstart, OmniEulogy, threesr, shz, Sylencia, FatChunk,
Currently, OmniEulogy is set to be lynched! ~32 hours remaining in day 1.
Please PM any of your friendly neighborhood hosts if your vote is counted incorrectly.
Remember that you have to vote.
Full version:
+ Show Spoiler +OmniEulogy (2): Chromatically, Orangeremi
FatChunk (1): Aquanim
Kickstart (0): cakepie,
Not voting (7): Kickstart, OmniEulogy, threesr, shz, Sylencia, FatChunk, cDgCorazon
|
On December 22 2012 22:40 OmniEulogy wrote:... As for Spags case and me claiming VT 1) I voted as pressure, not intending to keep my vote on him (said this like three times now) 2) + Show Spoiler +I've already thought about what happens if Corazon comes up innocent and shz and myself had a nice talk about that earlier. Just because I believe somebody to be scum does not mean I'm not going to take precautions in the case that I am wrong. Even when I was 100% convinced Corazon was scum I still talked about the "what if" (absolutely none of his posts up to that point proved otherwise, it was actually his actions and not his posts that made me change my mind) 3) So I claimed knowing that if I didn't I would be doing it in 20 minutes anyway, and look at that I was right. As I've said before Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 01:53 OmniEulogy wrote:
ha you beat me to it but at least I understood what you meant and I agree. I still would have claimed as soon as you questioned me though. I saw it coming and reacted before hand. As I've already said + Show Spoiler +On December 22 2012 02:21 OmniEulogy wrote:
because Spag made it his last case to try and convince somebody I was scum. He was town its not hard to assume I'll become a target.
So you preemptively claimed VT to defend yourself against a case that would only hold any weight if he flipped town?
Think about this thought process for a minute:
- "I think Spag will flip scum, I'm voting for him"
- "If he flips town, I'll be under suspicion"
- "Even though I don't think he'll flip town, I should claim VT to defend myself on the off chance that he does"
That makes no sense.
Also, why did you know that you would be claiming after the flip?
|
On December 22 2012 21:18 Aquanim wrote:
@Sylencia: Who's your top scumread at the moment? If it's Omni, who's your second?
It'd have to be Kick atm but only because his play has been completely different, very lurky seemed like he sheeped onto the Spag vote and it was a critical vote too, since it pretty much pushed Spag into the guaranteed to be lynched zone.
I know that people have also been suspicious of FatChunk understandably, but I really want to hear a defense from him since he hasn't posted at all today - so none of that has cleared up at all.
|
On December 23 2012 00:52 Chromatically wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 22:40 OmniEulogy wrote:... As for Spags case and me claiming VT 1) I voted as pressure, not intending to keep my vote on him (said this like three times now) 2) + Show Spoiler +I've already thought about what happens if Corazon comes up innocent and shz and myself had a nice talk about that earlier. Just because I believe somebody to be scum does not mean I'm not going to take precautions in the case that I am wrong. Even when I was 100% convinced Corazon was scum I still talked about the "what if" (absolutely none of his posts up to that point proved otherwise, it was actually his actions and not his posts that made me change my mind) 3) So I claimed knowing that if I didn't I would be doing it in 20 minutes anyway, and look at that I was right. As I've said before On December 22 2012 01:53 OmniEulogy wrote:
ha you beat me to it but at least I understood what you meant and I agree. I still would have claimed as soon as you questioned me though. I saw it coming and reacted before hand. As I've already said + Show Spoiler +On December 22 2012 02:21 OmniEulogy wrote:
because Spag made it his last case to try and convince somebody I was scum. He was town its not hard to assume I'll become a target. So you preemptively claimed VT to defend yourself against a case that would only hold any weight if he flipped town? Think about this thought process for a minute: - "I think Spag will flip scum, I'm voting for him" - "If he flips town, I'll be under suspicion" - "Even though I don't think he'll flip town, I should claim VT to defend myself on the off chance that he does"That makes no sense. Also, why did you know that you would be claiming after the flip?
It makes perfect sense, he flips scum I've claimed VT, we have a ton of information from a successful hit on D1 and mafia won't know if I'm telling the truth or if I'm a blue trying to veil it as we pick off the rest of their members. It's not perfect but I thought it out and the risk vs reward worked either way. I already explained why I knew it would be happening in 20 minutes anyway. Spag tried to make me into scum. I might add after his entire case he didn't even FoS me or even say he was thinking about voting for me because he couldn't find anything to indicate that I was trying to hurt town in anything I had done.
If you mean how did I know more directly, because what other defense do I have other than all my posts, which I then would have to go back and admit I was wrong about my scum reads, and my role.
|
You said that you claimed because Spag was going after you. Now you're saying that you claimed to give town more information. Here's your original post with reasoning on why you claimed:
+ Show Spoiler +On December 22 2012 01:52 OmniEulogy wrote:
quick thing about claiming VT. You would have forced me to role claim about 20 minutes after I had made that original post. I saw it coming (not from you in particular but knew somebody was going to come after me after the lynch) so doing it 10 minutes before D1 ended or 10 minutes into N1 doesn't really make the largest difference. If I don't role claim early in that situation imo D2 I'm the easiest lynch at that point in time.
Anyway on to Corazon, as I mentioned in the quote you posted his starting game was bad, as I was going to sleep and reading everything over he was already becoming scum in my mind, I woke up and read through 6~ more pages of him making bad posts, excuses and no real answers to anything and then posts that he's mafia. I honestly just had a hard time anybody would be so nervous that even while being careful they would post so many scummy things.
as per what he means about the NK from what I take from it and the only thing that makes sense is that scum will avoid targeting me because they know I'm not blue. If that isn't what he meant about the NK then I don't know.
You never mention in there any other reason for your claim other than "people would force me to". That's the only reason you've presented so far for your claim, and now you're trying to justify it a different way. You're changing your story as you go.
And several times now, you've said that you "knew someone would come after you" or that you "knew you'd be forced to claim". If Spag flipped town, people come after you. If Spag flipped scum, no one comes after you. If you knew that you'd be forced to claim after the flip, then you knew that Spag would flip town.
|
you are misunderstanding pretty badly. Or intentionally trying to twist what I am saying.
I did not say that I claimed to give more information. I said that it makes sense to claim VT even if I thought he was scum because if he isn't I would be put into this position one way or the other. You argued how I'd know he is town, I replied by saying I didn't, I was pretty confident AND when he flipped scum the information we would gain would be far greater than scum learning my role.
I'm not changing any story I'm just giving you more information behind my thought process because you've asked the same question in different ways about 3 times. I have to go into more detail.
Nowhere in there do I say I claim to give town information.
##FoS: Chromatically This is twice you've tried to either twist my words or intentionally misunderstand to try and get your own agenda out. In the first sentence again no less.
|
EBWOP: I was pretty confident he was scum based on the arguments presented*
|
On December 23 2012 00:40 cDgCorazon wrote:This is not a post to defend OE or to try to get you guys to not lynch him, this is a post about increasing pressure on Orangeremi. His answers to my accusations have been ungraceful, indifferent, and incomplete. Let us take a look at all of the posts he has made since I have made accusations against him. (Original Accusation post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=386911¤tpage=38#744)When I wrote my post accusing OJR, I finished with these words: + Show Spoiler +On December 22 2012 09:15 cDgCorazon wrote:
I feel like OJR (which is what I’m calling he/she from now on, much easier to write) needs to step up his scum-hunting efforts in order to clear suspicion from myself. OJR has all the room to defend themselves, but until OJR picks it up, I am very suspicious of them.
Now, I was expecting OJR to defend himself from my attacks, prove to me that he was not hiding anything. + Show Spoiler +(Which Cakepie has done an excellent job of so far) However, I am disappointed with the lack of a reaction by OJR so far. 1st Post After My Accusation: + Show Spoiler +On December 22 2012 12:30 Orangeremi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 06:49 Aquanim wrote:
@Orangeremi: What did you think of Spaghetticus' defence to my case? I wasn't swayed either way by it. Your case was a tough one to argue and he tried. I don't feel like he succeeded. When he answered my question about his defense it seemed to me even fluffier as well. At this point I think it's fairly obvious, unfortunately I woke up too late to detail a case myself. Most everything that could've been said about him has been. It will take a fair deal of convincing for me to change my mind before Day's end. ##Vote: OmniEulogy Did not even bother to read my post accusing him before immediately answering. Made a half-answer about how Spag was making a bunch of fluff, and that Spag’s case was not good enough to change OJR’s mind (which is fair enough). However, he also just gives his case that he had no other good reasons to vote Spag, saying that Aqua literally picked Spag apart so much that there was nothing else he could say. It could be true, or could he just be bandwagoning or sheeping to try and keep attention away from him. It’s a scummy play, and he needs to justify his vote for Spag, who claimed and flipped VT.
I didn't vote for Spag. I'm not sure what else there is to say about this.
2nd&3rd Posts: + Show Spoiler +On December 22 2012 12:59 Orangeremi wrote:
Is there anything in specific you're looking for? All of your claims are valid, and you just asked me to step up my scum hunting. Not even trying to defend himself, just saying that I am right. Very suspicious play, but it’s hard to get anything from that. His third post is the most scummy post: On December 22 2012 13:26 Orangeremi wrote:
I don't like how Threesr is playing if he's town. He's helping very little and I could see him playing a reverse psychological scum the way he is acting.
I've got my eye on FC, but want to hold off on further judgements until I see him post this Day
I'm also waiting on more from Kickstart, I'm wary of how he's playing this game as opposed to his last one. His three reads are Threesr, FC, and Kickstart: All easy targets that have come under fire in Day 1 and during Night 1. His arguments are basic for all three, and are arguments that others have come up with (Threesr is playing suspicious, FC is playing suspicious, Kick has been lurking). Not only are these arguments brief and weak, but they are not even his. An explanation for this is that he is scum, and he is not able to make fabricated lies. This lack of effort in scumhunting is ridiculously suspicious, and his lack in any discussion at all in the past 24 hours is disturbing and suspicious as well.
I'd like to argue that the arguments are indeed mine, because I come to the conclusions on my own (as did other players, seeing as they're the same) although I agree they are brief and weak. In your original accusation you said that my lack of names implied either me being afraid of being put in the spotlight or I have not seen anything suspicious (which you doubted). While I'll say I don't like the spotlight, avoiding it hasn't been completely on purpose. But that isn't why. I wouldn't honestly say I don't have any suspicions, but that I don't have any convicting suspicions. That's why my 'reads' are the same as everyone else's and not in depth.
4th Post: + Show Spoiler +On December 22 2012 14:01 Orangeremi wrote:
@cake I'm interested in his theory regarding you+OE+Chrom scum team, but I don't know how much credibility it has. This post is just a joke. I already asked Cake about the Cake/OE/Chrom scum team, and he had handled his answer with much grace. This is pressing someone else’s idea, not creating his own. This is textbook scum play, jumping on other’s idea without creating original content.
I had actually typed up my post (as 'jokey' as it is) before I saw you had posted yours.
|
On December 23 2012 01:46 OmniEulogy wrote:
you are misunderstanding pretty badly. Or intentionally trying to twist what I am saying.
I did not say that I claimed to give more information. I said that it makes sense to claim VT even if I thought he was scum because if he isn't I would be put into this position one way or the other. You argued how I'd know he is town, I replied by saying I didn't, I was pretty confident AND when he flipped scum the information we would gain would be far greater than scum learning my role.
I'm not changing any story I'm just giving you more information behind my thought process because you've asked the same question in different ways about 3 times. I have to go into more detail.
Nowhere in there do I say I claim to give town information.
##FoS: Chromatically This is twice you've tried to either twist my words or intentionally misunderstand to try and get your own agenda out. In the first sentence again no less.
You've said that your reasoning for claiming, if Spag was town, is to defend yourself. This is your reasoning for claiming, if he was scum: "he flips scum I've claimed VT, we have a ton of information from a successful hit on D1". I assumed that the reason it was good to claim even in the instance of Spag flipping scum was to give town information. Is this incorrect? If so, why would you claim when you think he'll flip scum? I know I've asked this before but I still don't see your reasoning for doing so.
Why would you be put into this position one way or another? If he flips scum you're in no way forced to claim, because no one is suspicious of you.
I'm sorry to ask these questions over and over but I'm not getting answers.
|
On December 23 2012 02:02 Orangeremi wrote:
I'd like to argue that the arguments are indeed mine, because I come to the conclusions on my own (as did other players, seeing as they're the same) although I agree they are brief and weak. In your original accusation you said that my lack of names implied either me being afraid of being put in the spotlight or I have not seen anything suspicious (which you doubted). While I'll say I don't like the spotlight, avoiding it hasn't been completely on purpose. But that isn't why. I wouldn't honestly say I don't have any suspicions, but that I don't have any convicting suspicions. That's why my 'reads' are the same as everyone else's and not in depth.
No one is asking you to pull an OE and say you are 100% sure someone is scum, you just need to explain your suspicions more in-depth, and give us reads on people who aren't easy lynch targets so far.
|
I suppose Chrom but at that point with suspicion falling on me I didn't want to be having to spend the first half of D2 defending myself because of Spag. which seems to be happening anyway.
By the way nobody seems to have a problem with my post for the reads right?
##Vote: Threesr
My case on you btw is the fact that you don't post anything constructive, you have said nothing of merit, and claim you are too lazy to post or contribute. From the very start till now. Chrom has been the only person to defend you @Chromatically what are your thoughts about Threesr now? after an extra 48 hours and still nothing good to say other than + Show Spoiler +On December 20 2012 13:11 threesr wrote:
Well since no one is going to vote for this FC guy my plan is to hop on the Corazon train. Im still down for a Mocsta lynch if you guys wanna do that.
##unvote
##vote cDgCorazon On December 22 2012 07:51 threesr wrote:
Too lazy to do that atm, i dont care about your opinion of me at all just fyi. which was his 3rd post in over a day.
Wonders why we have almost all called him scum.
|
Anyway, ##Unvote
I get that townies do things that don't make sense to me sometimes, and your reaction feels very genuinely townie to me. Plus you're at least an active poster.
Threesr is basically completely unreadable. When he was posting actively, it didn't feel like scum because he wasn't careful enough. I still don't really think he's scum, a bored townie is more likely. I would only lynch him as a last resort, if no one else looked good.
I really don't like the feel of shz, and I hate that he completely dropped off the radar. Maybe this will summon him?
##Vote: shz
Probably will write a case today.
I'm also not liking Orange either.
|
shz
shz has been playing like classic scum. Real stances are nonexistant, real contribution is nonexistant, yet he manages to blend in and look like a contributor very well.
On December 19 2012 18:19 shz wrote:
Could not sleep, so I can be at least productive here.
I think we pretty much made it clear that we don't accept lurking as a playstyle for Town, so I don't think this will be much of a problem. If it is, we also made the consequences clear for everyone.
Our focus should be to find null- & unconstructive posts which don't help us at all. That would be a pretty good starting point to pressure and get some more information.
Corazon did indeed more or less only reacted to direct questions and was not that talkative in general. I don't think that is a huge tell, but why not investigate further?
The interesting thing is that he/she kinda defended lurking and lying. I don't agree with the arguments at all, as they seem a bit weak and pointless.
His first "contribution" is here. This looks like a good post at first: it's fairly long, it covers a lot of topics. However, all this is is a summary of what's happened so far. He doesn't take any stances on any of the issues of the time: look at the wishy-washiness on Corazon. He's afraid to take an actual stand, so he says things like "they seem a bit weak" instead of taking a position on it himself.
This is merely the first in a long line of posts of this type, taking no stances while writing long posts anyway:
+ Show Spoiler +On December 20 2012 02:57 shz wrote:As I did not get any sleep tonight, I caught some of it up until now. This is getting somewhere. So I'll start with answering my questions and then stating my thoughts. Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 23:21 cakepie wrote:
shz: Tried to provide a case on mocsta as an alternative to cDgCorazon. However, the fast town read was first pointed out by spaghetticus, and OmniEulogy was the one who first pointed to the questions about scum startegy. Not sure the case is viable at this point, but I agree that Mocsta seems a bit too eager.
Q: Evaluate my play. Does it look town, or does it look scum? Why? Your analysis is quite thought out and you point out three POIs and try to get something out of it by pressuring them. This is good. At the same time you still trying to get reads on most of the others by asking questions. I don't think these three are your only suspects. All in all I tend towards town as I don't see much evidence which would support you scumminess. I don't agree with your vote for Orangeremi at the moment though. Yes, he did not contribute until now, but I would give him some more hours before lynching him for that. @MocstaSo I'm scum because I said that my case against you wasn't waterproof? What would have happened if I acted so sure about you, as you act about everyone who attacks you? You getting quite defensive and jumping to, rather fast, conclusions about who is mafia and who is not. You changed your vote from me to threesr immediatly to countervote him and then spam a couple of posts saying "how easy it was", "he slipped", in big red bold latter. This is way over dramatized. To top that of you trying to martyr your way into town. I don't like that at all. I'm still not 100% conviced, but this is not helping you. For now my vote stands. And I think threesr, however fishy and rare his posts are at the moment, has a point. You seem quite conviced and at the same you are saying you are not. I don't have an opinion on FatChunk yet, as he did not contribute enough. If we don't find a conses by the lynch-deadline, we should lynch one of the lesser active players, for sure. Answers a question directed to him, defends himself a little against Mocsta, and still takes no stands. Noncommittal reads on Mocsta ("For now my vote stands"), threesr (leaving his options open by throwing a little suspicion his way), and FatChunk (doesn't have an opinion). On December 20 2012 08:45 shz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 04:36 cakepie wrote:On December 20 2012 02:57 shz wrote:
I don't have an opinion on FatChunk yet, as he did not contribute enough. If we don't find a conses by the lynch-deadline, we should lynch one of the lesser active players, for sure. Really? As opposed to Mocsta, who you have your vote on? If you had to lynch for inactivity and/or lack of serious contribution, how would you order the 3-4 candidates? Mocsta did contribute more than FatChunk before I voted him. It seems some of the players have awaken and contributed to the discussion, but some are lurking too much. 1. I'm really getting tired of threesr. Even if he/she isn't mafia he/she is creating so much chaos, only commentates snarky and very brief. He/She is dangerous whethere scum or not. 2. Kickstarter stated that he/she thinks lurking is bad, but lurks him/herself. 3. Orangerem is lurking too much. 4. Sylencia too, but that was announced, so we have to see how the next couple of play-days go. More noncommittal reads. Wants to lynch threesr even if he's not mafia and attacks Kickstart, Orange, and Sylencia for lurking (very easy for scum to do). On December 22 2012 01:58 shz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 00:04 Kickstart wrote:
@SHZ
Why did you jump on every bandwagon without giving any reasons at all for why you think those players are scummy? Do you have any current scum reads that you would be willing to push instead of sheeping? "Whatever bandwagon is popular right now" is not true. My mocsta vote was to push for an discussion and I did explain my Corazone vote before. If you want to quote, don quote out of context. + Show Spoiler [Corazone reasons] +On December 20 2012 11:19 shz wrote:
The question is, what information do we get if we lynch one of the current suspects.
Corazon
If Mafia:
- threesr most likely not scum.
- FatChunk unknown, but showing scummy tendencies as he/she did kinda defend Corazon and plans on voting to lynch threesr.
If Town:
- threesr not off the hook, but still not confirmed either.
- FatChunk unknown, but leaning towards town, for the same reason as stated before.
FatChunk
If Mafia:
- Corazone possible mafia, but not confirmed.
- threesr most likely not scum.
If Town:
- Corazone still possible mafia.
- threesr still possbile mafia.
threesr
If Mafia:
- Likely town: Mocsta, Corazon (Very likely town), and FatChunk
If Town:
- Corazone still possible mafia.
- FatChunk still possible mafia.
I'm starting to think that Corazon is indeed the best vote at the moment. On December 20 2012 12:53 shz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 11:50 Chromatically wrote:
@shz
We should be lynching the player who is most likely to flip scum, not based on any information we might gain. We can look at association stuff after the flip, but we want to focus on lynching scum before. Based solely on who will flip scum, who do you want to lynch and can you move your vote there? Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 12:48 Chromatically wrote:
@Spag
Our objective as town is to lynch mafia. What we should not be doing is lynching for information instead of lynching mafia. The information gained from a flip is not great enough that we should lynch a townier player. If you look at what shz's post actually says, there's very little actual conclusions that could be drawn. Most of it is just "x is possible scum". All of it is just worrying about the d2 lynch, which we should do on d2 instead of now.
I dislike your post saying that we should "expect a town lynch". Good towns can find scum d1. Good players can be correct in their reads with over "40%" certainty. We we will never be able to be sure, so we have to single some guys out, discuss, search for tells, and lynch one. And I think it is to our benifit to also include possible information we can get from it in our decisions. We will most certainly lynch town too, so better make it worthwhile in terms of information. This is not me saying we should lynch town for information, it is saying we should always keep in mind that our lynch can flip as town, so better take the safe bet and at least get some information out of, if the worst case will happen. I think all three are good (for the amount of information we have) picks. Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 11:56 OmniEulogy wrote:
That is true but I think he's saying all three of them are the top scum picks and then based on information we gain from each of them the one we benefit the greatest from is Corazon from his list. Excactly. But after I read the reasons to vote for Spaghetti, it made sense. Of course it didn't matter anyway because he was dead at that point, but whatever. At the moment I'm leaning forwards FatChunk. But not sure at all at the moment, and I'm busy as fuck so I don't think I can contribute more tonight, I am working on a post with my thoughs on anyone but I have to go now~~. Sorry for the lack of contributions. I will look into FatChunk and see if my suspicion holds true. And I still have the feeling that out of the big mass contributors, there is a scum somewhere.Chroma, Mocsta, etc. Do whatever you think of it. Leans toward FatChunk, but is not sure. Also points the finger at "the big mass contributors", which says nothing at all.
Next, let's examine his voting patterns:
On December 19 2012 18:33 shz wrote:
So if we need another wagon to jump, or not, to jump on:
##Vote: Mocsta
Why?
He/She did start a discussion, but I don't think that was all that useful, other than proving him being active and establish an alibi. Questions like the seafood one waste time and distract from substantial discussion. Also he/she is quite fast on "reading" someone as Town. Additionally he/she asked repeatedly about Mafia strategies.
This is no way a waterproof case, but I think its a start and something we could work with.
The first vote on Mocsta for some fairly lackluster reasons. I'm not going to say much about this, it could have town or scum motivation behind it, really no way to tell. I could see the scum motivation of discrediting an active townie and possibly pushing that as their mislynch if a mafia was in danger.
On December 20 2012 11:19 shz wrote:
The question is, what information do we get if we lynch one of the current suspects.
Corazon
If Mafia:
- threesr most likely not scum.
- FatChunk unknown, but showing scummy tendencies as he/she did kinda defend Corazon and plans on voting to lynch threesr.
If Town:
- threesr not off the hook, but still not confirmed either.
- FatChunk unknown, but leaning towards town, for the same reason as stated before.
FatChunk
If Mafia:
- Corazone possible mafia, but not confirmed.
- threesr most likely not scum.
If Town:
- Corazone still possible mafia.
- threesr still possbile mafia.
threesr
If Mafia:
- Likely town: Mocsta, Corazon (Very likely town), and FatChunk
If Town:
- Corazone still possible mafia.
- FatChunk still possible mafia.
I'm starting to think that Corazon is indeed the best vote at the moment.
He votes Corazon shortly after this post, but with no other justification. He's blatantly lynching for information and is not even paying remote attention to whether Corazon is actually scummy or not. This is the first time he's actually mentioned Corazon since his first (non)read. This was also during the phase of the competing threesr/Corazon wagons, so this is obviously an extremely safe vote.
On December 21 2012 01:57 shz wrote:
Before I'm on the road for most of the day before the lynch:
1. We should not assume someone is playing bad or good because of information from sources outside this game. I don't think this is very worthy of discussion. For all we know everybody could be a smurf, played with a smurf before, or just played somewhere else. Don't assume anything, look at their actions in this game.
2. It is too early to discuss possible SK. We don't know if this role is even in this game. We should stick to looking for scum for now.
3. New development!
- So, Carazon is on the verge of getting lynched today and Spaghetticus comes out of nowhere to help. What does that mean?
Either Carazon is Scum, Spaghetti is not, both are or neither is. If Spaghetti is scum, Carazon is too. Otherwise it does not make sense to help him/her out. But this does not help us very much. So the question is if we should change from Carazon to someone else?
What are the argument for not voting Corazon Spaghetti provided:
- Statistics: This does not matter at all. If there is a 75% propability for the wrong lynch in day it stays the same whether we Lynch Cora or anyonw else.
- Votes arent locked, wie can always change Thema before the deadline.
- There is still discussion going on. Cora defended, people analyized. We are not just stopping to post just because Cora is the target at the moment.
I'm not convinced by Spaghettis arguments. Art the Moment I can see him as scum too. I'm not ruling out voting him out.
- Aquanim changes his vote from Corazon to make a case against Spaghetti.
While I agree that Spaghetti is possible scum, the argument that rational posts = scum is dumb.
If anything overly emotional argumemts are Moore scum.
Here's his next big post, as the Spag case has been made, but before the wagon has really taken off. This is another post which looks informative at first, but actually has no content. There's literally no positions taken in this post at all. He has a paragraph about Corazon/Spag associations, but doesn't reach a conclusion. He shoots down a little of Spag's defense, but that's very easy for scum to do.
Note that he doesn't actually vote Spag at this time, even though the case was posted already.
On December 21 2012 07:25 shz wrote:
It seems like we have the strongest case against Spag at the moment. I will still keepmy eye on Cora, but for now:
##unvote
##Vote Spaghetticus
@Aqua:
If you did not argue that, then its all good. Of course rational not equals town, but its not equal mafia either. Its neutral.
Blatant sheep onto the wagon when it's finally clear that Spag is the lynch for today (6 on Spag v 3 on Cora). Zero justification is given at all for this vote, ever. Note that he only votes Spag after the wagon has taken off and it's clearly a safe vote.
Apart from that, that's it. shz has:
- sheeped onto Cora and Spag with no reasoning when the wagons took off
- posted long posts that look good, but take no stances at all
- lynched solely for information
- done nothing else
|
On December 23 2012 02:34 OmniEulogy wrote:
##Vote: Threesr
Wonders why we have almost all called him scum.
Why are you trying to push an easy lynch when you are under fire? Threesr has been the most suspicious player this entire game. I've been asked to not even discuss him.
I think you should spend your time hunting real threats instead of trying to build a case against Threesr. Why are you so quick to try and take pressure off of yourself?
Yes, I know it seems like I am defending Threesr, but I am using the same defense that Spag gave me: Either bad town or bad mafia, we should keep him in and worry about finding real threats.
Side Note: Orangeremi, I would still like to see you build more cases against other people who are not easy targets. You're on your way to earning my un-vote but you still have some way to go. Keep it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
