|
Let's play a game... |
On June 01 2013 09:49 Baker1986 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 09:47 TomB4 wrote:On June 01 2013 08:43 Baker1986 wrote:On June 01 2013 05:07 TomB4 wrote:On June 01 2013 04:34 Baker1986 wrote:On June 01 2013 04:08 TomB4 wrote:
If DrT is town and he dies, it's my fault?
wtf?
I'm one of two people who is trying to change the lynch, and all of you on that wagon are resisting the change immensely. There's no point in me saying anything more than "I think you guys are wrong and it's in the best interest of everyone to wait for the lynch if no opinions are going to change."
Results effect change in this game, unfortunately. Based on the reactions I got earlier and the time left in the day, if I have a correct read (and I think I do) it would only result in the scum being forewarned and changing behavior in the 48+ hours where they are basically immune to dying. I've seen it all too often before. This is really irrelevant to the problem at hand, but the point is that if you're somehow right and we're wrong, you still couldn't manage to convince town that you were right, so you're equally bad. It's equally awful to be wrong, and to be unable to convince people you're right. And it's about as useful. And the reason I want your reads is that it's incredibly scum favored to hide them, if you are scum that is. It's much harder to change a read when you have to provide legitimate reasons for it, instead of just saying "hey I thought about it all along". Maybe we should just last minute switch and kill you because you're bad and annoying. No it isn't scum favored to hold reads when they have no chance of being acted upon. You hold reads when you know they are in no position to be lynched because outting them would result in the scum changing behaviour. Town should operate on a need-to-know basis in this regard, it's often much better to observe and note things than simply spill everything out when it's not going to actually do anything. I'm scum because I couldn't convince you that you were wrong? Nah. If you are wrong and you don't listen to me it's your fault, not mine. I've already outlined clearly and emphatically why I disagree with the logic used for voting DrT. There is nothing left for me to argue against-I've already outlined everything in a previous post. If you disagree, then there is no choice for me but to wait for lynch because A.) the evidence is strong to me that you are not willing to sway your opinion based on the logic I use and B.) There isn't enough time for me to browbeat enough people into agreeing with me, not that I would want to, since it would require a herculean effort that would probably not be worth it in the end anyway. this guy is probably town anyway. This is wrong, but it also displays a mindset where he is only willing to consider the action from the point of view that he's confirmed town. I didn't call you scum for that, just bad. The thing that's scummy is that you're withholding information that we can use to analyse you. From the point of view if you're confirmed town I could agree sometimes it's useful not to play all your cards, but playing all your cards as town forces scum to do the same, making it so much more difficult for them to stay on top of fake reads. But as I said, I feel slightly better about your chances of being town. and to be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if the scumteam was simply
PT
JP
DrT
"playing all your cards" as town does not in any way force scum to do anything more than ensure they don't get lynched. That's laughably easy when they know all your reads. Like most players on TL you have no idea how to play scum. Herp derp. I'm good at town though, and I'm good at picking out townies. One of the most useful thing for picking out townies is to see how their thought process is.
You don't need to know all of someone's reads to understand his or her thought process or perspective. In fact in a lot of cases only a few posts suffice to make a strong town read.
In this case DrT's early posts were fine-certain things he said were pretty well-reasoned. At this point though he might very well flip scum given how he's disappeared and chosen not to do anything, I could easily have been wrong. Alternatively he could have just become frustrated, and/or lost the time/will to play. Who knows? One hour to find out, I guess.
|
da fuk Oats
Learn to count please
Can't wait for this flip. Have a really good feeling about this.. stll anxious though X_X
|
I almost wanna stay up, but it's an awful idea I think.
|
|
|
cmonnn
flip him already. flip him like a flapjack
|
Night 1
DrTennant has been lynched
+ Show Spoiler +"Welcome to Smurf Mini Maifa I! You are a Derridian Infiltrator. You grew from a spore in a human world, and for ten years, you've lived under the name ""Jim Cantore"", researching ice and applying for grants, until eventually you landed exactly where you intended to go all along. You are the culmination of a plan years in the making, an insidious plot for revenge, and your heart is steady as the ice of this planet as you prepare to murder and decive to fulfill your goal. The will of the Derridian is your will.
"
Night is 24 hours long, PM both me and GMarshal night actions.
WHOS THERE?
SMcCoy (0): Hurndall3.
TheDavison (0): Hurndall3.
DrTennant (8): SMcCoy, Baker1986, MSmith1, HartnellWil, A McGann, Eccleston, Hurndall3, TomB4
Hurndall3 (1): PTroughton2, TheDavison
PTroughton2 (2): TomB4, JPertwee, DrTennant, Hurndall3
TomB4 (1): TheDavison
DrTennant is set to be lynched.
Votes without ## will not be counted
|
|
|
|
|
The wagon of justice that only just got over the line.
The focus should be on those not on this lynch, tomorrow.
|
|
|
Cool, I'm glad to be wrong.
I'm surprised that there was so little resistance to the lynch aside from myself and JP. I don't get the impression that JP is scum based on his tone. Scum must be very complacent, then.
I'll be posting my reads in detail right before deadline.
|
I'm inclined to agree.
I find it quite likely that we were pushing two scum today, with the third being TheDavidson. For someone who called DrTennant 'one scummy fucker', he never voted him and tried to open up a 3rd wagon on TomB4.
|
|
|
I'm not scum though TT.
I think we should look into H3 and TB4 most, those are the guys (TB4 more so) who were trying to puh counter wagons but ended up on the DrT wagon. That seems like the most likely place for scum to be in my mind, they would want to create a counter wagon on town and yet get the credit from a scum lynch.
TB4 still looks like scum to me, I don't like that no one tried to swing the lynch at all, I'd much prefer that we had a real possibility of a counter wagon to see where the votes ended up. With a tight race we'd have learned a lot more from a scum lynch. Ah well, it is what it is.
McGann, I disagree, it was clear to me at least that DrT was going to be the lynch no matter what. Barely over the line is totally false.
I'll write up a full case on TB4 within this night phase. In all seriousness though that shouldn't be needed, he is scum.
|
@ Tom
I need your exact reasoning for giving JP a townread. He's the next guy I would lynch. All the noise he has been making was always an attempt to shift the lynch away from DrT, I will show it in more detail.
@ TheDavison
I want to know why you're not considering JP, and I would like you to comment on the points written in favor of H3 so far. Multiple players have given him townreads, myself included.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Then, I don't like how this guy joined the wagon, he has basically no other posts of value, and keeps himself the option open to switch to trout should the counterwagon gain steam:
On May 31 2013 05:00 HartnellWill wrote:
##Vote DrTennant. Other than skimming the thread, Tennant's filter is surprisingly empty of anything that would contribute to town. Mostly asking others to do work for him while he sits and waits and gets his postcount up.
And while I'm reading PT2's case right now, it wouldn't be a surprise to see both of them role scum. DrT votes him without saying another word. Sheeping the wagon that isn't him because it isn't him that will get killed if it goes through.
Vigi should probably shoot Trout for uselessness, although I would speculate that he's town based on current information. Nonetheless it's better if we take him out of the equation. Hartnelwill might be another viable option cause he's a lurker.
|
btw I'll try to post a better explanation today when I have time to copy paste, but one of the things about JP that I don't like is his strange confidence. The way he portrayed his confidence in the PT lynch looked pretty unnatural to me, compared to how most players normally look confident.
|
Mind you, this is part of the defense written by JP:
Dr. Tennant was handed the perfect opportunity if he were scum, I dropped the case on Troughton. Now there's only two scenarios I can really see in this case because of his reactions:
Scenario 1: Dr. Tennant is town, Troughton is scum. Tennant sees the case on Troughton, is not completely convinced by it but it gets him thinking. After taking a minute to think about it, decides that the case is good enough that Troughton should be the lynch for today. The point here is that he takes the time to consider whether Troughton is right lynch for today.
Scenario 2: Dr. Tennant is scum, Troughton is scum. Dr. Tennant is given the option of himself swinging, or the inactive role player on his team swinging. His first instinct is to not be commital enough to kill his scum buddy despite the case. He realizes after a few minutes that it really is going to be him or his useless teammate, so he gets on the bandwagon for credit.
I noticed it just now, but he argues that DrT has been thinking only after JP dropped the case, which isn't true. DrT dropped his vote 6 minutes after JP dropped his case, and JP is trying to confuse the post timings here.
Here is why, it's rather simple : He doesn't care about finding arguments against DrT despite claiming that he has a decent chance of being scum, he goes through DrT's posts with the objective in mind "defend him" and this was one of the arguments he clamped onto and tried to use, but they are wrong and show that he was creating some bogus argument to defend the Dr.
Imagine you are JP and drop a case and 6 minutes later DrT hops onto it with no questions, and you say he's worth the noose. How likely are you to forget what he did there? And later you write a defense on how the guy worth of the noose was so cautious with jumping on the bandwagon.
Agenda, guys, agenda. JP's actions don't make sense from the perspective of a guy who would be ok with a DrT lynch, and he didn't vote for him for consolidation like he claimed he would either.
There's also something else to consider and is an argument in favor of trout being town: DrT was a goon, and as such, it's likely the other two mafia have roles. That makes DrT the guy who should be the first to die in a bus scenario, so it doesn't make sense for him to bus Trout like that if he is scum.
Like, idk about what the vigi thinks but I think Trout would be a bad target although he's the right target for a vigi, in theory.
|
Some more important points:
Very early in the game I started with my post on Eccleston, then I have been attacked by DrT for it, but it became evident that he should have attacked Eccleston based on the same argument. So I started questioning DrT.
When JP came into play while I was attacking DrT, he kept asking me questions about Eccleston and if I thought he was scum, and blablabla without commenting on what I was asking to DrT in this post. It's clear that JP was actively ignoring what DrT said despite having some conversation where they just agreed with each other:
+ Show Spoiler +On May 29 2013 22:56 JPertwee wrote:Pertwee, J, reporting for duty. Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum? Dr. Tennant, I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't see a reason for saying what he did, he just gave us a big bowl of word soup. He's assuming the aliens aren't going to be one of the first people to speak up, but then is going to take the time to give a little speech about how Smith could be or could not be an alien. McCoy, you state that Smith may just have differing methods to look for the alien, what are you suggesting they differ from? Is there anything in particular in Smith's posts that suggest an alien thought process to you? On May 29 2013 23:00 DrTennant wrote:
do you agree with my point on aggression as well? On May 29 2013 23:07 JPertwee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 23:00 DrTennant wrote:
do you agree with my point on aggression as well? I can agree, Dr. Tennant, but agression on it's own is more likely a tell that someone is an alien. It's properly channeled, thoughtful aggression that is a tell that someone is properly analyzing their fellow staff. As long as you make that distinction, Dr. Tennant, then yes, I fully agree with you. On May 29 2013 23:14 DrTennant wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 23:07 JPertwee wrote:On May 29 2013 23:00 DrTennant wrote:
do you agree with my point on aggression as well? I can agree, Dr. Tennant, but agression on it's own is more likely a tell that someone is an alien. It's properly channeled, thoughtful aggression that is a tell that someone is properly analyzing their fellow staff. As long as you make that distinction, Dr. Tennant, then yes, I fully agree with you. of course
Then, JP actually started asking DrT questions, and asked me if it was just his push that made me think he was an alien.
What follows are questions to DrT and his case against Trout:
On May 30 2013 00:03 JPertwee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 23:48 SMcCoy wrote:On May 29 2013 23:31 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 23:21 SMcCoy wrote:On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum? It's a considerate post. At that point the majority of players didn't post, and I went by the assumption that scum doesn't post early. I voiced my opinion on Eccleston's excessive aggression, but it's not enough for me to make a judgment in light of the fact that scum might not even have posted yet. I think Ecclestone's posts might come from both a bad townie or scum. You call it ambiguous, expecting me to give a definite opinion. I would like you to tell me why you think that me voicing suspicion against a player is considered as saying nothing. Would you rather expect me to make a quick judgment this early in the game? Bolded your loaded question. Looks like faked hostility, doesn't reflect interest into finding out about my thought process. Well i don't know about you but i'm suspicious of everyone. i didnt take it as you saying you were suspicious of Eccleston i took as complete filler post that said absolutely nothing really and i took it as wishy washy and posting for the sake of posting by not taking a stance. I dont understand why making early judgements could be seen as bad i change my mind on things all the time based on new information and flip floping being scummy is a lie pushed by scum. Its only scummy when its convenient. So i dont understand your worry about making snap judgements. You didn't bring up Ecclestone after he told Smith that he doesn't know if he's angry villager or alien though. I'm curious why you didn't find his post to be filler content as opposed to mine. The bolded is essentially a statement about scumhunting method. Do you want me to make quick judgments? You seem like you're justifying quick judgments, then asking me why I'm worried about making them. If I'm worried about making them it's cause Ecclestone's posts didn't allow for a quick judgment, as already laid out. Now, why do you bring that up. Your posting went from telling me my post is wishy washy to justifying your own judgmental posting, is it to tell me that I should make quick judgments? I don't recall ever asking you to justify yourself for quick judgment, but you brought up a justification for it nonetheless. How is it relevant to you claiming that I am scum? On May 29 2013 23:32 JPertwee wrote:On May 29 2013 23:21 SMcCoy wrote:On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum? It's a considerate post. At that point the majority of players didn't post, and I went by the assumption that scum doesn't post early. I voiced my opinion on Eccleston's excessive aggression, but it's not enough for me to make a judgment in light of the fact that scum might not even have posted yet. I think Ecclestone's posts might come from both a bad townie or scum. You call it ambiguous, expecting me to give a definite opinion. I would like you to tell me why you think that me voicing suspicion against a player is considered as saying nothing. Would you rather expect me to make a quick judgment this early in the game? Bolded your loaded question. Looks like faked hostility, doesn't reflect interest into finding out about my thought process. McCoy, what do you think Eccleston's chances of being human are? I can understand your thought process on how you're reading Eccleston. The part I cannot understand is your reasoning on writing a post where I can only gather you're saying "he is null" because you don't even state whether you think he is more likely to be of either alignment. When you wrote that post, what was the explicit purpose of it? I already laid out that he could be both. Until he posts more I'll refrain from judging. Purpose of the post: Trigger an answer and change the posting style of a possible bad townie to a more constructive version. Communicate that I'm suspicious of him. + Show Spoiler +I think DrTennant is scum You have to understand on this one, McCoy, that I can see both sides of your and Dr. Tennant's dispute. I can understand exactly where his suspicion of you came from in your entrance, but since then you've alleviated my fears. I might be biased on this because it seems I've followed a similar thought train to him. Is there anything specific in Dr. Tennant's play that you think make him an alien, or is it just this push?
Dr. Tennant, can you clarify what you mean about Eccleston? I can only think of one particular point in his favour for his wishy washy post, and no one has touched on it. I want to know exactly why Eccleston wasn't on your radar.
On May 30 2013 00:10 DrTennant wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 00:03 JPertwee wrote:On May 29 2013 23:48 SMcCoy wrote:On May 29 2013 23:31 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 23:21 SMcCoy wrote:On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum? It's a considerate post. At that point the majority of players didn't post, and I went by the assumption that scum doesn't post early. I voiced my opinion on Eccleston's excessive aggression, but it's not enough for me to make a judgment in light of the fact that scum might not even have posted yet. I think Ecclestone's posts might come from both a bad townie or scum. You call it ambiguous, expecting me to give a definite opinion. I would like you to tell me why you think that me voicing suspicion against a player is considered as saying nothing. Would you rather expect me to make a quick judgment this early in the game? Bolded your loaded question. Looks like faked hostility, doesn't reflect interest into finding out about my thought process. Well i don't know about you but i'm suspicious of everyone. i didnt take it as you saying you were suspicious of Eccleston i took as complete filler post that said absolutely nothing really and i took it as wishy washy and posting for the sake of posting by not taking a stance. I dont understand why making early judgements could be seen as bad i change my mind on things all the time based on new information and flip floping being scummy is a lie pushed by scum. Its only scummy when its convenient. So i dont understand your worry about making snap judgements. You didn't bring up Ecclestone after he told Smith that he doesn't know if he's angry villager or alien though. I'm curious why you didn't find his post to be filler content as opposed to mine. The bolded is essentially a statement about scumhunting method. Do you want me to make quick judgments? You seem like you're justifying quick judgments, then asking me why I'm worried about making them. If I'm worried about making them it's cause Ecclestone's posts didn't allow for a quick judgment, as already laid out. Now, why do you bring that up. Your posting went from telling me my post is wishy washy to justifying your own judgmental posting, is it to tell me that I should make quick judgments? I don't recall ever asking you to justify yourself for quick judgment, but you brought up a justification for it nonetheless. How is it relevant to you claiming that I am scum? On May 29 2013 23:32 JPertwee wrote:On May 29 2013 23:21 SMcCoy wrote:On May 29 2013 22:17 DrTennant wrote:On May 29 2013 18:40 SMcCoy wrote:
Hello.
I took note of Eccleston's aggressive entrance.
His latest post suggests that he doesn't know what to make of MSmith.
I have bad vibes about him. My first guess would have been to assume that scum did not post yet, they have no interest in driving discussion at early stages. That is what I assume.
Eccleston's strange paranoid behavior with subtle criticism suggests that he has differing methods of finding scum or that he is trying to look like he's scumhunting by voicing quick, exaggerated suspicions with not much reasoning behind them. At first criticizing very early posts and then proceeding to call someone's actions ambiguous without specifying why.
We might just differ in our methods but I will be observing this subject during our stay and beg him to keep posts as informative and objective as possible. This is actually the scummiest post in thread in my opinion super ambiguous and actually says nothing. Says he took note of whatever that means offers some reasion why eccleston's posts might be interpreted as scummy then leaves justification for why it might not be. Why so wishy washy? You scum? It's a considerate post. At that point the majority of players didn't post, and I went by the assumption that scum doesn't post early. I voiced my opinion on Eccleston's excessive aggression, but it's not enough for me to make a judgment in light of the fact that scum might not even have posted yet. I think Ecclestone's posts might come from both a bad townie or scum. You call it ambiguous, expecting me to give a definite opinion. I would like you to tell me why you think that me voicing suspicion against a player is considered as saying nothing. Would you rather expect me to make a quick judgment this early in the game? Bolded your loaded question. Looks like faked hostility, doesn't reflect interest into finding out about my thought process. McCoy, what do you think Eccleston's chances of being human are? I can understand your thought process on how you're reading Eccleston. The part I cannot understand is your reasoning on writing a post where I can only gather you're saying "he is null" because you don't even state whether you think he is more likely to be of either alignment. When you wrote that post, what was the explicit purpose of it? I already laid out that he could be both. Until he posts more I'll refrain from judging. Purpose of the post: Trigger an answer and change the posting style of a possible bad townie to a more constructive version. Communicate that I'm suspicious of him. + Show Spoiler +I think DrTennant is scum You have to understand on this one, McCoy, that I can see both sides of your and Dr. Tennant's dispute. I can understand exactly where his suspicion of you came from in your entrance, but since then you've alleviated my fears. I might be biased on this because it seems I've followed a similar thought train to him. Is there anything specific in Dr. Tennant's play that you think make him an alien, or is it just this push? Dr. Tennant, can you clarify what you mean about Eccleston? I can only think of one particular point in his favour for his wishy washy post, and no one has touched on it. I want to know exactly why Eccleston wasn't on your radar. i said what i thought of it in my previous post.
On May 30 2013 00:17 JPertwee wrote:
Sorry, I couldn't quite understand your post, Dr. Tennant.
Okay, so you don't think he is an alien because an alien wouldn't have said that McGann was friendly, even though that only somewhat implies he believes McGann to be town.
So you are saying you believe Eccleston to be town. Do you believe that McGann is town?
On May 30 2013 00:22 DrTennant wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 00:17 JPertwee wrote:
Sorry, I couldn't quite understand your post, Dr. Tennant.
Okay, so you don't think he is an alien because an alien wouldn't have said that McGann was friendly, even though that only somewhat implies he believes McGann to be town.
So you are saying you believe Eccleston to be town. Do you believe that McGann is town? What are you talking about? I was explaining why McCoy's post stood out to me more than eccleston. I dont have that much to say about the other two just that i dont agree that Eccleston early aggression is scummy.
Then follows a posting gap from both players, I write my case, and DrT writes the "I thrive in the spotlight" stuff.
No followup from JP on his questions, no commenting on the issue or what was being written against DrT at the time.
Instead he makes his comeback with the post where he says that DrT is a decent lynch for reasons mentioned by others, but he thinks that we should lynch trout based on his only post and later he even says he's 100 % sure that trout is scum.
On May 30 2013 23:42 JPertwee wrote:
I think Dr. Tennant would be a good lynch today for the reasons others have touched upon, but I do think there would be a better lynch for today.
PTroughton's first post says almost nothing, and the few things it actually says are wrong.
He starts by going after H3's manner of speaking (blunt, small posts) while saying that he's trying to avoid contact with the rest of the people in the thread. I read this entirely as the opposite, while his posts are small and blunt, they also read as genuine conversation from H3. He's certainly not hiding from the discussion at all.
Troughton then states that H3 is lurking. Where could he have possibly gotten this from? This is a complete lie about H3's activity. The best part: Troughton has only made 1 post halfway through day one, and is trying to get H3 lynched based on "lurking".
It would not take more than 5 minutes effort to make a case on H3 that actually holds up, at least at first glance, but Troughton couldn't even be bothered to do that. He goes after something that a lot of townies do these days, and then lies about his activity.
Dismissing all of the roleplaying he appears to be attempting, he is quite obviously scum. He tried using his roleplaying to cover up for the fact that he has not read the thread, and is not invested in the game.
PTroughton is quite obviously the best lynch today because he is scum. I will consolidate on Dr. Tennant if it comes to that, because there's a distinct possibility he is scum, but I believe Troughton is caught red handed.
It's up to you to decide if JP questioning DrT and agreeing with him on a few points looks genuine or is just a way for scum to distance from each other. His questions suggest an interest that isn't shown when JP is supposed to give an opinion on DrT, instead, a posting gap follows and when DrT is threatened by the lynch, he tries to push the counterwagon on trout despite claiming that DrT would be a good lynch.
What follows are scummy defenses of DrT's play and unnatural confidence that trout is scum, plus some points someone else touched upon in this pretty good post:
On May 31 2013 22:41 A McGann wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 21:56 Baker1986 wrote:On May 31 2013 21:42 SMcCoy wrote:
Can everybody read through JPertwee and give me their chances that he's scum please? JP is the hardest call in the game at the moment, probably along with eccleston. There's probably 2, if not 3 scum in this list DrT JP Eccleston PT Tom Hurn I just need to weed out the townies. I've liked what I've seen out of Eccleston as of late. His confusion and questioning of Hurndall's wagon hopping antics feels legitimate. This post in particular, I like. Having the presence of mind to admit when you're reaching and making a crappy post shows a more care-free nature than id expect from scum. I'd be comfortable taking him off the table. JPertwee on the other hand, I am not so sure. This post bothers me. JPertwee says that Dr. Tennant is a good lynch today for the reasons everyone else has brought forward, yet wants to derail that lynch in favour of killing the RP'er with a single post. Further on JPertwee backtracks his initial verdict on Dr.Tennant saying that the case on Dr.Tennant isn't a slam dunk and the points against Dr.Tennant are not exclusive to a scum mindset. I particularly don't like the way JPertwee states 'I'll consolidate on Dr.Tennant if it comes to that' - If the case has merit and you agree that he is a good lynch (as he seems to), then no one should have to twist your arm to get you to vote your scum read. I'm suspicious on the push on PTroughton. He looks like the kind of bait that scum usually latch onto and try to vilify as anti-town. That said, he could stand to voice some more opinions and preferably leave the flavour text to the hosts.
JP is with 99.99 % probability the best lynch for tomorrow. At the very least we should let him squeal as much as possible to squeeze out the scumsauce.
|
|
|
If anyone has a gun. I'd be okay with jp dying
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
