popsofctown wrote:themanhimself wrote:I think what happened here was he read it as 'The Mod altered AntB to Neutral Survivor' since Eruci is the mod name in this game. I'm more suspicious of pops' reaction in that situation.
That's the same misread I made. I just didn't explain it in as much detail because I'm not as paranoid.
So does this mean you find CKD suspicious?
I like MOI's Post 476, particularly his arguments against Pops.
popsofctown wrote:MagnaofIllusion wrote:@MOD – Please confirm that Mafia members are prohibited from trying to pass a Cycling Power to a player they will use their Factional kill on.
@Pops
– I’ll be addressing your responses that started at 445 but as I addressed above a large part of your arguments about Diddin as scum eliminating the abilities I think are invalid. In 1040 when NoPoint as scum was passed the Vig power he was prevented from passing it to either myself or LMP (the Factional and Vig shots that night). I don’t see anything in Mod’s rules the demonstrate this process had changed. If I am correct in my thoughts than any argument that follows the line that 'we lynch Diddin if we think he is scum because he'll just pass the ability to a dead player' are invalid.
That's not anywhere in the rules of this game. I'll be rather upset if it's an "invisible" rule.
Why, maybe it is a scenario the mod overlooked? Wouldn't a ruling in that fashion be protown, so why be upset?
popsofctown wrote:Lurking is a weak scumtell and generally a promise not to be readable for the rest of the game. I will target a lurker if I don't find someone significantly scummier in the town. (They have to be significantly scummier, to overrule the other reason for lynching lurkers, that they tend not to be readable for the entire game).
My philosophy on lurkers is that 1) they are easy targets for scum to go after and 2) if they are town and lurking, chances are they are usually disinterested and will be replaced. So attacking lurkers early on in the game, like D1, seems either counter-productive, or scummy.
popsofctown wrote:We'll disagree then. I think connecting players before actually identifying them as scum is massively difficult and take no stock in it.
You disagree with me too then. Not saying that the game is in the bag with this technique, but even randomly lynching people we will stumble on a scum or two along the way. At that point, you have CONFIRMED INNOCENTS of anyone who passed a power to them, or got a power passed from them. This could be huge at endgame, and to take "no stock" in it feels scummy.
popsofctown wrote:You should go hang out with chkflip and read past games and wikis so you two can skip reading rules and lose games. You had pages and pages to clarify this point, and now your mistake has wasted a lot of time and energy.
The first sentence I find very scummy. Trying to discredit other players is a favorite tell I use to catch scum.
quadz08 wrote:IAI 244 wrote:Side note, I agreed with most of quadz's post 240, then some of the players he questions that I totally agreed with the line of questioning (EC, theman) were not in his top 3. A bit suspicious.
I didn't have anything else to say about my top 3 than what I had already said. Not much else to it.[/area]
Does this mean the expanded Top X list of yours would have included these players that you questioned in 240?
quadz08 wrote:diddin, IAI's catch on ckd is not a good catch. I think that's a completely understandable misunderstanding.
That is to still be determined. Let's just say I will be watching both he and Pops a little closer now.
quadz08 wrote:chkflip:
post 417 is a pretty solid post. Town points for that one.
Reading IAI's response post, perhaps it's not as strong as I first thought. Well done, IAI.
Thanks for the reminder. I went back and saw chkflip did post since my rebuttal to him, but said nothing about my response. Just voted for Pops on Page 19. A quick ISO shows nothing since either, just a counter argument to MOI.
Still catching up, will hopefully finish up tonight.
