Storm Mafia
Forum Index > TL Mafia |
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On February 20 2012 07:50 Toadesstern wrote: you're just scared to run into one of my bullets, aren't you? :p As long as Palmar isn't dick enough to make me compulsive vig no need to fear at all! Also there's an unwritten law that you can't lynch/policylynch people from europe in a game with euro-deadlines d1. That would be an even more dick-move than hosts giving me a gun. If you claim goon we are definitely policy lynching you | ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
+ Show Spoiler [Look No Further] + Should i? On February 06 2012 05:39 layabout wrote: can somebody please explain whatever it is about posting popcorn that causes such a kerfuffle? On February 06 2012 05:54 redFF wrote: On February 06 2012 05:59 layabout wrote: If i play a game with you in it i will be voting for you whenever the choice exists. | ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On February 21 2012 07:30 Blazinghand wrote: I'd rather explicitly try to lynch scum. Policy lynch is what you do if you can't make a good case D1. This happens fairly often but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. If you do not have a good case behind your vote today i expect you to go with a policy lynch. | ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On February 22 2012 02:39 Dirkzor wrote: I'll give my honest opinion so far... I can't wrap my head around this game. Right now I not certain of anything and thus is posting meek and useless shit. I know this. Been reading through filters but nothing really stands out to me (other then the stuff i posted earlier). I went to bed just as the games started last night and woke up to 8 pages of mudslinging. If I had to point at one player to lynch it would be chaoser. His post are just a wee bit to "jumping whoever everyone else think is scum" for me. He seems overly defensive. Can't make a real case since I'm at work. I honestly cannot beleive that we are a good 20 hours into the game and you have not even found 3+ scum. These excuses are beyond weak, and are far from what i have come to expect from Dirkzor the townie. In other news if anyone has any more shit to fling i would ask that you hold it like a man, or fling it quick so that we can clean ourselves up and catch scum. I am curious about Jackals apparent attempt to "start a bandwagon" by calling toad scum and not elaborating. For me the the town motivation for doing that would be to provoke reactions from players that he could analyse and perhaps find scum. For instance if somebody were to sheep him for no real reason, they would be more likely to be scum (since a townie shouldn't do that but getting away with a sheep vote would be good for mafia). I think that such an action is unnecessary as town but beneficial as Mafia. My problem with this play is that + Show Spoiler + I hate calling people scum for no reason, since it can convince players that people are mafia despite the complete absence of evidence. It is comparable to publicly announcing your town reads on day1, giving mafia additional reasons to shoot at players that you think are town or exploit your read(s) to manipulate you He could have been trying to get Toad lynched based off of nothing, by attempting to create a dumb bandwagon when the game had barely begun. This is all jackal has done (although we are not far in and he has a tendency to lurk) other than add to the childish bickering/insult hurling so far. | ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On February 22 2012 03:58 redFF wrote: Layabout you haven't posted a single read today, so ridiculing dirkzor is quite hypocritical Do you think blazinghand's current vote is backed up by a good case or do you still expect him to go with a policy lynch. Guess I'll do my own happy to lynch list. kita toad prplhz(where is he) layabout Post indicates that redFF is aware that i was being sarcastic when i said that dirkzor should have 3+ scum found early into day1. On February 22 2012 04:04 redFF wrote: I don't really care about chaoser at this stage, haven't paid much attention to him tbh. Layabout is bad because he berated dirkzor for not finding 3+scum and hasn't stated a read all game. Criticises me as if i was not being sarcastic but instead as if i was being serious about finding 3+ scum early on. Wants to lynch me for not posting a read during the time that i was asleep, or did not have computer access. To clarify my original post (below): + Show Spoiler + On February 22 2012 03:44 layabout wrote: I honestly cannot beleive that we are a good 20 hours into the game and you have not even found 3+ scum. These excuses are beyond weak, and are far from what i have come to expect from Dirkzor the townie. Dirkzor has been saying " I do not have any strong scum reads at the moment" is an entirely reasonable thing for him to say (it isn't very helpful however). He then says that the player he would currently lynch is chaoser but he has not called him scum with confidence.Instead it appears that Dirkzor feels pressured into trying to offer something and so gives his best (but weak) scumread. This again makes sense because having confidence in your reads this early on indicates either fantastic scumhunting ability or extreme foolishness. It may be necessary to appear confident in order to convince others to support you but your are unlikely to have enough information to actually be sure that you have caught scum. There is too much uncertainty. And yet ViceraEyes had Voted for Dirkzor and redFF said he felt he was a safe lynch target. I was being sarcastic by calling Dirkzor scummy on completely unreasonable grounds because i view the idea of lynching him now as similarly unreasonable. Why has Dirkzor been called scum you ask? click all to view the thread. hit Ctrl F and type dirkzor. Scroll through the absence of good reasons to lynch Dirkzor today. Kitaman wrote that Dirkzor used language that made him look scummy and chaoser said he made a criticism that he did not follow up on. Lynching based upon that would be utterly absurd. | ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On February 22 2012 03:58 syllogism wrote: I certainly have not found "3+ scum", have you? Give me your top 3 scum reads then. Of course, perhaps it's something you expect from dirkzor, but I'm not sure if that is grounded in reality either. Any thoughts on BC layabout? May have missed this: The point was that catching 3+ scum so early is highly unlikely. I also think that you could have worked out that i was being sarcastic and that this above comment(by you) is beneath you. + Show Spoiler + perhaps not the best choice of words but ima just roll with it BC seems very concerned about the trashy posting, the one liners, the policy lynch and the insults. In nearly all of his 7 posts he in some way comments on policy lynching or he adds to the bickering, while still saying that we need contribute. Yet he does not move discussion forward or present new ideas. It seems to me that BC does not wish to help the thread progress and that he was happy to see so much crap. BC wrote: Pushing what I will view as bad agendas or bad forms of play is something I near always comment on. I am going to go check whether or not this is true. On February 22 2012 05:03 syllogism wrote: Say what you mean and answer my question regarding BC I am not sure what you are referring to. | ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
Who in hell gets nearly an entire scum team 20 hours in when there are several players who have postscounts <4 and nearly all of the discussion has been policy/flaming? | ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
redFF Pretty much everything he has done so far has been to the detriment of town. If we were to follow his lead on a policy lynch that would be awful. Kitaman27 made a valid point that he was contradicting his old opinions and he responded very aggressively and unhelpfully. He has been spamming the thread with insults and one liners and he already has a 5 page filter. His claim is not a town-move. As a town tracker claiming on day1 with 24 hours til the deadline with only 5 votes is ridiculous. If mafia has a roleblocker they can block him. On February 22 2012 07:25 redFF wrote: heh, if i claimed roleblocked erryday then feel free to lynch me. If that happens, then he says we should lynch him. He also tries to defend himself by saying that we should not be lynching a blue power role, if he is scum then this gives him a free ride this for some time. Since he would know his team-mates actions he could easily provide a correct visit to verify his claim. This move makes no sense for town because scum would have a blue kill or that they could roleblock, and then get lynched for not being able to support his claim. Unless we get a good target lynching redFF look to be the best play. ##Vote redFF I have an 8 hour day tomorrow and i will not be on again until about 7:00 pm in the UK. This should be about 2-3 hours before the lynch. | ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
+ Show Spoiler [may contain quotes] + On February 21 2012 07:10 VisceraEyes wrote: ##Vote: RedFF He's going to spam this bitch into oblivion. Anti-town actions are anti-town. On February 21 2012 07:52 VisceraEyes wrote: -snip- Re: VI Tyran I'm a proponent of "innocent until proven guilty". If Tyran becomes a problem, and no clear scum candidate emerges, I can feasibly get down on a Tyran lynch...in the meantime, I won't support a lynch of Tyran for the reason of "you know, it's Tyran."...I have deep-seeded problems with Palmar for this very thing. All it does is introduce negative feelings into the game and drive away players. It's dumb. Like, you can play to win without doing it at the expense of others. -snip- On February 21 2012 08:13 VisceraEyes wrote: -snip Therefor, I'm upgrading you from a Spam Policy Lynch to a full-fledged Scum Lynch. Congratulations RedFF. Now die. On February 21 2012 08:53 VisceraEyes wrote: Well certainly not with that attitude. Any more questions anyone? Let's get this show on the road. Votes on redFF. On February 21 2012 11:59 VisceraEyes wrote: /salute What are your thoughts on redFF BC? I'm almost convinced that he's just bad and not scum, but I'd like your thoughts before I act on it. On February 21 2012 12:20 VisceraEyes wrote: You've done nothing this game that has made me think you're town except for the last line of this post. Everything else has been red as fuck to me (no pun intended). I was referring to WBG's quotes from other games when you were, in fact, actually town. The last line is exonerating enough, however, to earn my ##Unvote redFF ...so at least there's that. Please stop spamming. This is your only warning. Re: Jackal/ DAAAAYYYUUUUMMMM.... Nosrslytho, who's scum guy? I want drunk Jackal's opinion to compare it with sober Jackal's opinion later XD Possible Implications of this: VE might be an idiot. or VE really didn't think that redFF looked scummy but was still willing to try to start a bandwagon, despite being eager to unvote him for an unbelievably weak reason. On February 21 2012 14:06 VisceraEyes wrote: I'm not sure - I'm trying to figure out if I think they have the same alignments or different alignments based solely on the argument itself. On February 22 2012 03:30 VisceraEyes wrote: Okay, I'm happy lynching into redFF Dirkzor Tyrran We need to decide on a lynch and get this shit rollin. ##Vote Dirkzor But I can feasibly switch out anyone from my lynch list. gogo town lynchings!!! Did you know that this was VE's first comment about dirkzor? On February 22 2012 04:17 VisceraEyes wrote: That's a hell of a reminder red. Consider yourself off my lynch list. he was refrring to this: On February 22 2012 04:16 redFF wrote: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=313426&user=41447 at the time RoL's filter contained 2 posts "/in" and "HELLO EVERYONE!" That was what it took to remove redFF from VE's lynch list. Simply pointing out that another player had not been posting. That action is alignment neutral and is it is absurd that that could be enough to convince VE that a player he spent a lot of time calling "anti-town" and "scum" and analysing would not be worth lynching On February 22 2012 05:52 VisceraEyes wrote: I can feasibly get down on a BC lynch. Just sayin. On February 22 2012 06:01 VisceraEyes wrote: Guys - enough bickering. Can we see a lynch-list from everyone? Mine's trash and I'm going back through the thread now - but I'd like to see a list of dudes you guys are willing to lynch to see if we can make something happen. He is discrediting his own reads (it's almost as if he does not want us to listen to him but that he wishes to sheep instead). And he pleads for lynch lists from everyone so that we can "make something happen". Typical town play does not involve everyone posting their reads so that players can agree. It involves players making private reads and trying to convince others with evidence, arguments and analysis. If each player were to present a list of players that they were willing to lynch, surely that would help the mafia orchestrate or support a townie lynch, and it would not increase the chances of lynching scum. It could however benefit mafia. He gets involves in some squabling and come back with this shortly after redFF claim: On February 22 2012 07:10 VisceraEyes wrote: Don't forget this beaut that follows the posts you just quoted. I smell a freakin rat bro. On February 22 2012 05:55 redFF wrote: VOTE DIRKZOR THEN CHOWSER ##Vote: redFF but he doesn't vote for another 100 or so minutes, during which time he claims to have misread a post he "unvotes" and then attacks redFF for throwing a tantrum and votes for him. On February 22 2012 08:54 VisceraEyes wrote: Okay yeah, I went back and reread redFF's filter - I don't believe the claim. He's spent too long being wishy-washy about his reads, pushing a policy lynch he didn't even believe in and bickering for me to comfortably lynch anyone else. ##Vote: redFF He adds some reasons for him finding redFF scum and says that he cannot comfortably lynch anybody else. This implies that something very significant will have to happen in order for VE to change his vote. On February 22 2012 10:46 VisceraEyes wrote: [s]I mean, I guess I'm a little worried how little resistance this lynch has...anyone else getting this feeling? [s] I am worried that the person i want lynched might get lynched. *this quote may or may not have been edited to demonstrate that VE had no intention of trying to lynch redFF. On February 22 2012 11:19 VisceraEyes wrote: I'm kinda feeling this too prpl, but right now I can't analyze in-depth right now. Are you more down with a BloodyC0bbler lynch? Because I mean, it wouldn't take much convincing for me, as I'm less than impressed with his...what, 5 posts? Not much there. That's my main issue, but then, if we didn't lynch people who don't participate, scum would just sit there silent e'ry day. Ugh, I just need like, FIVE HOURS ALONE with the thread...that's all I need - I feel like a few scums have revealed themselves. :d "Prphz please make an effort to call somebody scum so that i can sheep you.Oh and did i mention that my reads are bad and that nobody should listen to me?" He also says that his main issue with BC was relative inactivity but as we all know activity=/=alignment. VE is again searching for a weak reasons to justify his actions. On February 22 2012 15:11 VisceraEyes wrote: Ya I did it. WUUUUUT? ##Unvote redFF ##Vote BloodyC0bbler so without adding anything he changes his vote. On February 22 2012 15:55 VisceraEyes wrote: And BC is your strongest read right now Syllo? Like, without question? Did you ever get around to looking at the whole WBG/chaoser thing sir? I feel like that exchange means something. chaoser's defense was solid, but I didn't mind WBG's attack either. However, chaoser still seems to be interested in finding scum, while WBG has only recently been calling red scum...he's been tunneled in on chaoser ever since that argument. I'm starting to get a red read on WBG. He tries to reinforce the idea that one of WBG and chaoser could be scum and mis-represents WBG's posting (he had not been tunneling chaoser), and then criticises him for calling red scum. VE has voted for redFF twice today and repeatedly called him scum. This re-read smell of... Bullshit. On February 22 2012 18:56 VisceraEyes wrote: VisceraEyes Lynch List of Storm's End BloodyC0bbler - My complaints echo the complaints of players such as DocH and Syllogism...he's had plenty of opportunity to come look for scum - he hasn't. He placed a vote on redFF without saying whether he thought he was scum or not. I was less than satisfied with his responses to my posts, and I've been unimpressed with his effort so far in the game. I voted for this guy in L, and while I was herpin and a derpin, he was finding scum and establishing his innocence. wherebugsgo - WBG has similarly not been interested in finding scum. He called chaoser scum lightly at the beginning of the day, but it looked more like an excuse to get into a conversation with him than anything. This is directly after he just got done buddying him in his introduction post. Followed up with calling redFF bad ad nauseum. Very clear to not say scum - only very bad. Suddenly this all changes after red sheeps after Jackal? Sheeping is something scum and town do in equal parts - verily, many a veteran townies count on a few sheep to push their agendas. Claims that most of what red has done can be explained 'with scum motivations'. Fails to elaborate or support this idea. Just throws it out there. RebirthOfLegenD - my weakest read - I'm really only interested in showing RoL rope if he doesn't start looking for scum. This redFF wagon essentially pushed itself, and he's making it his MISSION to make it happen. I don't even know if RoL thinks red is scum or not. But it's pretty clear that he wants red to die. TODAY. I can support a lynch of any of these three players, my preference is WBG, followed by BC, with RoL being my least favorite choice. He is keen to point out that he is just echoing the complaints of other players when he calls WBG scum. + Show Spoiler + also lol at he placed a vote on redF without saying if he was scum or not when VE did this exact thing in his first post and again voted (in this thread) for redFF after saying that he did not wish to lynch him and not calling him scum before the vote. He also defends the action of sheeping which is convenient since it seems to be his main goal in the thread. It is not a pro-town goal. Sheeping is something scum can do to avoid contributing, and avoid responsibility for their actions. On February 23 2012 03:11 VisceraEyes wrote: I'm just going to come out and say it - I don't see anything that indicates scum in prplhz filter. Unless you feel like his 'inactivity' is lynch-worthy, but he has more actual 'content' than players such as Blazinghand or Tyrran. Yeah, not feeling a prplhz lynch today gents. He hear belittles inactivity which was the only reason he gave at the time for voting, BC. On February 23 2012 03:14 VisceraEyes wrote: Actually, RoL can be safely removed from my lynch list and replaced by BH - this guy is active to a fault in games he rolls town - I haven't seen that at all this game. All I've seen is a bunch of mudslinging and sheep-voting. Not diggin it. Blazinghand relaced RebirthOfLegenD on my Lynch-List. He drops RoL from his lynch list because of sheeping, inactivity and mudslinging. Sheeping is the thing that VE has done all game and that he explicitly said is done by both town and mafia. Inactivity is the thing that that VE just said was an awful reason to vote somebody. Mudslinging is something that VE has done his fair share of. (i have not quoted it because it's all crap) On February 23 2012 03:35 VisceraEyes wrote: Okay guys, I'm switching to BH. I think he's scum too, and I can at least admit that we're losing less (no offense) being mistaken and lynching BH than we are being mistaken and lynching BC. So he switching off of BC because he thinks that in this case that he is wrong, we are better off losing BH than BC. This is not a strong way to convince players to switch, but it is a scummy way to make people switch, because it plays on fears. In addition if you have any faith in your reads the skill of the player in question should not be enough to make you change your vote.There are additional flaws with this type of thinking that i shall not explore. [B]On February 23 2012 03:50 VisceraEyes wrote: Well, he believably claimed tracker and (at least for my part) my scumreads want him dead. That's MY issue with the redFF lynch. VE has consistently told us to pay little attention to his scum reads. He wanted to vote reFF after redFF last post in the thread. He now cites that his issue with lynching redFF is that his scum reads want him dead. Based on your VE's own words we should pay little heed to those, they also were not very well supported with reasons. If VE beleived his tracker claim why would that be a factor now when redFF had made his claim and VE had responded to it and then voted for him earlier? Timing is a bitch I will add more to this when then is time, the first bunch of quotes were to illustrate a point but i have not yet written it. I think that after redFF flips scum we should be lynching/vigging ViceraEyes. | ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On February 23 2012 03:35 VisceraEyes wrote: Okay guys, I'm switching to BH. I think he's scum too, and I can at least admit that we're losing less (no offense) being mistaken and lynching BH than we are being mistaken and lynching BC. On February 23 2012 05:09 VisceraEyes wrote: @Toadesstern Treat BC as you'd treat anyone in this game. It's a semi-invite game. Most everyone here, by Palmar's estimation, should be able to handle this, a more difficult setup. If you think BC is scummy, vote him. Make him contribute. It's not even about pressure - if he's not willing to come show you that he's town, then he's scum and needs to die. ##Unvote: Blazinghand ##Vote: BloodyC0bbler Just like that. I know you think I'm scum. I can't figure out why, but I'm aware of it. What I'm saying transcends my alignment. If you're town, you need to do the town thing and vote for who you think is scum. lol | ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On February 23 2012 05:49 VisceraEyes wrote: <3 you laya. Vote for BC. A vote for BC is a vote for town victory! Sheeping you is a vote for hypocrisy. | ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On February 23 2012 05:54 VisceraEyes wrote: I'm not scum bro, you're completely mistaken. But you know, feel free to keep not making any sense. You don't even have a case against me, you quoted a bunch of my posts and said "timing is a bitch" which doesn't mean anything without context. Now shut up, vote BC or you die overnight. I'm 100% serious here. "or you die overnight. I'm 100% serious here." so you are either claiming scum, 3rd party with KP or vig. You are an idiot. | ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
Voting for BC right now is not only dumb due to how people have been behaving but it a terrible move. This was first pointed out to me in Purgatory. If there are two wagons the first wagon is significantly more likely to hit a scum because no counterwagon against a scum player would gain mafia support and the wagon would likely fail. So any successful counterwagon is much more likely to hit town than it is to hit scum because the wagon should only gain support from mafia if it is a townie.Barring a DT check, that is the only time that a counterwagon could be correct. | ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On February 23 2012 06:17 Blazinghand wrote: dude layabout we kind of need another vote and there's like 40 minutes left, get over here Go find a retard. | ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On February 23 2012 06:29 VisceraEyes wrote: Look again pal - I've counted layabout, Blazinghand and WBG all defending you so far. Saying VE is full of crap, his arguments suck and refusing to sheep VE and BH is not a defense of BC. | ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On February 24 2012 18:53 syllogism wrote: Layabout if blazinghand and RoL were the lynch options today, who would be your pick and why? The one who claims blue and seems towny I take it? Loaded question much? I would pick the scummy looking player that is being actively anti-town over the player that has an insubstantial case on them. I think your push against BC yesterday was built upon weak reasoning and that lynching him would have been awful. In contrast redFF had been scummy and anti-town. After getting 4-5 votes he claimed without good reason and left. There was direct and indirect resistance to his lynch and none of that swayed my opinion. For instance some players suggested that we do not lynch him simply because he had stopped posting or had claimed blue. Scum should not be able to avoid the lynch by doing that. As far as BH vs RoL goes, My natural bias says to lynch BH. My assessment of who is scummier says to lynch BH. I am concerned that RoL is essentially being pushed for inactivity and i think that that alone is not enough to justfy a lynch. My concern with lynching BH is that around the lynch he was trying to push a stupid last minute voteswitch based upon other people's votes and opinions, and not his own. He did this very thing is purgatory when he was town, however this time he seemed far less sure of himself. He switched between redFF and BC several times near to the deadline and that seems to be a very town-like (but awful) play. On the other hand BH has been repeating the opinions of others in an attempt to appear to contribute. He has been one of the players posting lot of ugly spam. This Post looks like a scumslip to me: On February 23 2012 06:58 Blazinghand wrote: AS a town player your goal is to not get mislynched, if you do it's your own fault. As it implies that BH thinks/knows that redFF is town. Meaning he is town and voted for a player he thought was town that had claimed tracker. OR he is scum and just pushed a mis-lynch on a player that he knew was not scum and that had claimed tracker. I will repeat that he has simply echoed the points of others and has avoided making his own contribution. His "parrot" case on BC and insta-unvote, is scummy to me. This is because i would expect a town player to stick to his convictions ( at least a little). In purgatory town BH tunnelled RoL relentlessly despite having reasons that were somewhere between contentious and false. He recently said we should still lynch BC or risk, which makes his immediate unvote harder to explain. Why would he unvote a player at a time nobody would expect him to, and then still say that we should lynch them? BH's interaction with risk nuke: On February 23 2012 02:21 Blazinghand wrote: I guess I should ask Jitsu what he asked Chaoser: Where's your case at bro note the timestamp On February 24 2012 10:07 Blazinghand wrote: I don't like risk.nuke. He did nothing but make some vague complaints about redFF, then nakedly voted BC with no explanation, and when questioned, was like: And has since disappeared from the thread. He's probably hanging out with his scumteam being like "hey guys check out this mad lurking skill" and lurking. ##vote: risk.nuke This vote is awful. It also comes a whole page after BC called risk nuke scum for quotes showing "anti town sentiment". Considering that BH's only case had been on BC, this vote makes his behaviour even more suspect. It make me wonder whether or not BH ever believed in "his" case. Clearly he was unwilling to stand by it, but to then call risk scum out of the blue just after his previous lynch target #1 did... well wtf? And while we are on the topic of inactivity. risk is frequently this active (or lurks like this) at the start of the game. risk has only ever rolled town. Voting him for lurking day1 is essentially voting him for fitting his town meta. On February 24 2012 13:57 Blazinghand wrote: We should just lynch risk and/or BC. Or risk. And yet, he is saying that we should lynch risk or BC. What does BH think? Why on earth does he think that? I think the answer is that he thinks both players are town. Because they are not on his team. Because he is scum. + Show Spoiler + maybe VE is worse... vote coming soon | ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On February 24 2012 23:30 syllogism wrote: The lynch was between a person who was almost certainly town and thus blue (redff) and a person who at least had a chance of flipping scum. Pretty disappointed by your play since student mafia if you are town in this game too Almost certainly town? Sounds like something that you should have explained if you believed it. this On February 22 2012 16:45 syllogism wrote: No, I'm saying that I believe redff is a tracker. I also believe that if there is a scum tracker, there is also a town tracker. Thus, if redff is scum, there is a town tracker out there who can counterclaim. If there is no counter claim, I believe redff is town purely based on that fact. It's not rock solid, but it is reasonable. Aside that, I personally think redff is town based on other evidence, but in case I'm wrong my suggestion helps. Further, if there is no counter claim and others find my logic reasonable, this would prevent us from lynching our tracker. Seem to rely on several assumptions that i would not be so quick to make. It also appear that you yourself were not almost certain that redFF was town, and so i must ask: why the increased certainty? Additionally if that was the case then any other player would have been a better candidate than redFF, and pushing BC would still have been bad, since you were voicing suspicions was based upon posts in the first few hours of the day that were not all that alignment indicative. As to your point about my performance, i feel that student was an easier and more enjoyable game to play in because players were actually putting in effort an making reasonable decisions. Since then every game i have played has featured vast amounts of anti-town play and baffling decisions by scum and town alike. There has been large proportions of disinterested and neutral posters. I am having difficulty accounting for play that makes very little to no sense to me and i have gotten frustrated because of this. I really don't see how i am supposed to play aswell in an environment in which logical play is regarded as a backup option, as i did when everybody had access to reasonable advice, where everybody put effort in, and there were very few lurkers. | ||
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On February 25 2012 00:04 syllogism wrote: Thanks for that explanation actually and I shouldn't just expect you to agree with me on everything, but I know redff and the hosts (and thus can deduce what kind of role setups are unlikely) better than you, so I just hoped you would pay at least some attention to what I'm saying, especially in the light of our previous discussions. The case against redff was basically that he voted and unvoted. I am paying attention to what you are saying. In fact i have constructed numerous posts that i did not feel were relevant enough that i have subsequently no posted to respond to you. Last time i followed you was purgatory, (lay scum syllo town) and it lead to me posting a huge case on risk nuke(partially based on meta), me following you onto Erandorr (totally based on meta) in a last minute switch to kill town. Then the next day going back to risk who flipped town. Whilst i was trying to play like town, following your lead and killing Erandorr was very costly for town as day2 was a early mislynch and an extended night devoid of discussion. In that case i felt there were more compelling reasons to follow your reads, and it did not turn out well. If i wish to improve then whilst i will definitely consider what more experienced or more skilled players say the only town i know will be me*, and i will have to make my own decisions, In this case it was to lynch redFF. The case on redFF was stronger than you are presenting it but it would be best not to dwell on that, unless you suddenly become certain of his alignment and we can better analyse the votes. *with obvious role-based exceptions | ||
| ||