I wish I didn't know. I was disappointed.lord_hur wrote:@Egg : yes, there are nice things in this post. Thanks for participating.
Waiting for Archer's defense before I provide comments.
Also, who are you the alt of?
Archer wrote:@AntB - spam attack that allowed you to post in several other games but not this one? Bit strange to say the least
@looker - you're on the fence wrt Egg? Sure, he may be a rather useless townie due to lack of, well, everything, but he did out scum when batt false RC'd. So how can you be unsure of him? Surely if Egg is lying then after the batt lynch the real real jailkeeper would've come forward so that we could likely lynch another scum?
Egg wrote:Archer obviously buss'd as a last ditch effort to look town when Batt was going to be lynched. No mentions until the wagon had already formed, followed by a "review" of the wagons (which we never saw the results of), and a vote without any real explanation.
Looker to/about Jesse/Batt:
A lot. Forget Looker was on my likely buddy list.
Unvote, Vote Archer
He's obvBattbuddy and we'll find the last scum in Smashbro/Broken/Farside/Bella/Andrew for sure. I'd bet my cat if I had one. I'm allergic to cats, so I'd probably want to lose that bet. I'd bet something valuable though.
This pretty much confirms you as town to me. I find it hard to see scum thinking they could get away with pushing doubt on a JK claim after that claim lead to their buddy getting lynched.Looker wrote:Archer wrote:@AntB - spam attack that allowed you to post in several other games but not this one? Bit strange to say the least
@looker - you're on the fence wrt Egg? Sure, he may be a rather useless townie due to lack of, well, everything, but he did out scum when batt false RC'd. So how can you be unsure of him? Surely if Egg is lying then after the batt lynch the real real jailkeeper would've come forward so that we could likely lynch another scum?
- You're absolutely right; I didn't think of that. Thanks.
This is also insufficient and/or stupid voting. Nice job, Looker.Looker wrote:
- Bella's response to andrew's answer is also off-putting...off-putting, exaggerated, and harsh. Her exploitation of the WIFOM induced by Nachomamma's final rundown is also off-putting...off-putting, opportunistic, and scummy. UNVOTE: VOTE: Bella
You didn't do a very good job of looking then. I never vote when it is demanded of me and there are definitely several games where I've been bugged about not voting enough. If you try looking again, I'd look at more recent games than not recent games, because I've really hardened against the notion that you should have your vote on someone at all times over the last 6-12 months or so.farside22 wrote:2 more down.
@Bella: Why did you not want to place a vote after reading the game? I looked into your alt in as scum or town you never withheld a vote before. I was wondering what brought on this stubborness.
I hate when people do this, mostly because I can't recall a case when someone has said this and then one of them is actually scum.AntB wrote:Caught up as much as I'm going to.
Andrew is scum, if not then kill me.
Pay attention. He was pushed to explain himself and people have reacted to his explanation. How is this not "pulling him" on it?AntB wrote:behold the epic-ness:why has nobody pulled him on this? Other than "tagging for later"? DavidParker gains a +1 at this point.andrew94 wrote:antb, i dont care.
vote antb
I find myself in agreement with this.lord_hur wrote:You're wrong. If cases were not made, nobody would post anything and mafia would be a game of dice. Cases need to be made to obtain exploitable reactions. But if you have to "manufacture" a case, it's not a case. A case isn't a completely (or mostly) artificial construct. You get town points for this, though, as it's very consistent with some earlier posts from you.Archer wrote:farside I'm trying to stand back a little so that I dont manufacture reasons like that game. Made me completely lose sight of actual scum and being so loud and attacking made things way too easy for scum. Well thats the lesson I learned at least. I find your case a bit reaching - making a meta call based on a single previous game.
Recent experience has been that this sort of thinking is currently prevelent on MS in my experience and thus scum teams are currently comfortable enough to make the night kill of the guy who suspects them knowing that someone will point out the WIFOM and muddy the waters.Looker wrote:
- I think jumping right in using WIFOM induced by Nacho's scumlist is scummy. "Nacho said X was scum and Y was town and then scum killed him so he must be right." Seems like an easy setup.
I do agree with this to an extent. Why ask if you don't intend to do it? It doesn't make Egg scum because the uncountered claim is pretty compelling, although it's not entirely unheard of for people to avoid counter-claiming in order not to out themselves.Looker wrote:[*]RE:Egg's refusal to claim his night action[/list]
- If you had no intention of claiming in the first place, why ask everybody? I'm on the fence about you.
I agree with this post up to the point where David says he thinks it comes more from scum than town. It's textbook "town who thinks he has an awesome read that nobody else is going for", and in my experience it's primarily townie-on-townie crime.DavidParker wrote:I realize my content has been lacking of late, even my lasts posts have sucked. I'll definitely be able to post more soon I have the weekend off work.
@lord_hur: well.. Obvious reasons. For one thing, we lynch Andrew and he flips town... Will antb actually sacrifice himself at that point? no. So the post is a lie for a start. It's just a way of AntB saying, "Hey I am 80-90% sure andrew is scum". But he's posted in such a way that it is really ATE because he knows he is a likely lynch candidate so he is getting desperate at this point to put the lynch on anyone but himself. I see it more likely to come from scum than town, as there's more motive for scum to say "lynch this guy and if he flips town then lynch me" from a slot that has a probable lynch candidate. Essentially, I can see antb trying to get a mislynch before his own lynch, rather than seeing himself lynched today, then andrew appearing town because of a scum-flip on himself.
I don't see why town-AntB would have posted as such.
Well, despite the reservations I have because of past experience with the ATE stuff, AntB is still my favorite scum-choice. While I disagree withthe characterisation David has with regards his ATE, I do see how it might be a scum tactic, and that would be consistent with his other play. Plus, there's this whole "I was dealing with a spam attack" when he was posting in other games that doesn't help his cause, although I know that sometimes when you're busy and dealing with other stuff, you can catch up with some games and neglect the same one again.farside22 wrote:@smash: Who else do you find scummy and why?
@Bella: I would like the same from you. It's day 2 no excuses.
Do you have links where you were stubborn like this? What changed your views on voting over the last 6-12 months?You didn't do a very good job of looking then. I never vote when it is demanded of me and there are definitely several games where I've been bugged about not voting enough. If you try looking again, I'd look at more recent games than not recent games, because I've really hardened against the notion that you should have your vote on someone at all times over the last 6-12 months or so.
Ah well usually except, antb is coming from a top-lynch slot, so using hte "lynch this guy then me" argument can be seen as coming from scum. If he's coming from a completely town slot/perspective then its likely tonw on town, or town on scum, but it's not.bella wrote:I agree with this post up to the point where David says he thinks it comes more from scum than town. It's textbook "town who thinks he has an awesome read that nobody else is going for", and in my experience it's primarily townie-on-townie crime.dp wrote: I realize my content has been lacking of late, even my lasts posts have sucked. I'll definitely be able to post more soon I have the weekend off work.
@lord_hur: well.. Obvious reasons. For one thing, we lynch Andrew and he flips town... Will antb actually sacrifice himself at that point? no. So the post is a lie for a start. It's just a way of AntB saying, "Hey I am 80-90% sure andrew is scum". But he's posted in such a way that it is really ATE because he knows he is a likely lynch candidate so he is getting desperate at this point to put the lynch on anyone but himself. I see it more likely to come from scum than town, as there's more motive for scum to say "lynch this guy and if he flips town then lynch me" from a slot that has a probable lynch candidate. Essentially, I can see antb trying to get a mislynch before his own lynch, rather than seeing himself lynched today, then andrew appearing town because of a scum-flip on himself.
I don't see why town-AntB would have posted as such.
Archer wrote:@bella - I find it really strange that you would agree (with farside) on what I term a really poor reason to suspect me - meta based suspicions that come from a single game. I'd like to know how you justify this. Trying to figure you out I noticed you often agree with farside so far D2. Not the most scummy thing, after all a good case is a good case, but when you start agreeing with (imo) poor reasons thats when I get interested.
They're both very good votes for that point of the game and nothing happened in between those posts that changed anything about the game. Plus, my reasoning isn't identical to hers, it just has a lot of overlap on account of the fact that AntB has been pretty scummy and all.
Agreeing that someone should take a pro-town action when they ask what they should do is scummy now? Plus, I'm not the only one who agreed with farside.
This is not scum hunting first offAntB wrote:I've read up and checked my other suspects (looker, sots), nothing for a case so I'm holding on to my andrew vote.
A spam attack can happen at any time on any website, the person in question created several account, spammed over 400 posts and comments on the saves which myself and the only other moderator online at the time had to fight through, I can provide an image from one of the tools at our disposable to trace multiple accounts if needed.
I think your reasoning is flawed. While doing this on purpose as scum is indeed idiotic, there is no reason for town to do it either. It can only be explained by a mistake, and scum have about the same chance as town to make mistakes about roles, since they have no better knowledge than town about it.brokenscraps wrote:This pretty much confirms you as town to me. I find it hard to see scum thinking they could get away with pushing doubt on a JK claim after that claim lead to their buddy getting lynched.Looker wrote:Archer wrote:@AntB - spam attack that allowed you to post in several other games but not this one? Bit strange to say the least
@looker - you're on the fence wrt Egg? Sure, he may be a rather useless townie due to lack of, well, everything, but he did out scum when batt false RC'd. So how can you be unsure of him? Surely if Egg is lying then after the batt lynch the real real jailkeeper would've come forward so that we could likely lynch another scum?
- You're absolutely right; I didn't think of that. Thanks.
AntB wrote: I will happily die (and even self hammer) if my flip will provide sufficient information, and even as scum if I feel it will throw the trail off my scumbuddies. However, my death now will provide nothing but a lot of "meh!"
Just because every example I've experienced has been town-on-town crime doesn't meanit's always teh case. In this game, there's more than enough of a case against AntB that the scum-possibility is left open.andrew94 wrote:bella, in 580 you heavily contradict yourself. at the davidparker place you say 'town-town action', then you said antb is scum
"The possibility is left open"? You don't sound like you believe in your own case very much. What changed between when you voted him, and now?Bella wrote:Just because every example I've experienced has been town-on-town crime doesn't meanit's always teh case. In this game, there's more than enough of a case against AntB that the scum-possibility is left open.andrew94 wrote:bella, in 580 you heavily contradict yourself. at the davidparker place you say 'town-town action', then you said antb is scum
Why the hell would you say this now, and not keep it carefully stashed away, to whip it at his face when/if he claims? I only see two logical answers to this :farside22 wrote:I want to remind people in case AntBscum tries to fake claim what he said earlier in the game.
AntB wrote: I will happily die (and even self hammer) if my flip will provide sufficient information, and even as scum if I feel it will throw the trail off my scumbuddies. However, my death now will provide nothing but a lot of "meh!"
Explain your use of this smiley, please (and yes, it's important to me).Bella wrote:That's not a major part of my case against him, or really any part of it. andrew94's point was that my opinion of the type of AtE he engaged in was inconsistent with my opinion that AntB is scummy. The point you quoted explains why it is not necessarily an impediment to AntB being scum. It's never been part of my case against him, which you can find clearly stated earlier.
This really made me lol. First off, its the conclusion that may or may not get invalidated, not the data. And with a small sample size, zero accurate conclusions can be made. To claim otherwise is silly. I also do not recall using the newb excuse, so why have you brought it up?Bella wrote:Just because you have a small sample size doesn't invalidate the data. In this case, the fact that you've played a better game demonstrates that you're capable of playing in a more productive manner and thus you lose the newbish excuse for your play thusfar.
@farside - why the reminder of that post? Plus its taken out of context imo. The way I read it it serves as a reason for you to push the AntB lynch no matter what AntB says from now on. What were your intentions with it?farside22 wrote:I want to remind people in case AntBscum tries to fake claim what he said earlier in the game.AntB wrote: I will happily die (and even self hammer) if my flip will provide sufficient information, and even as scum if I feel it will throw the trail off my scumbuddies. However, my death now will provide nothing but a lot of "meh!"
Well, I reread what I wrote, and I can't really add anything that would clarify it... The best I can do is reformulating : warning possible scum of a trap is inferior in every way to waiting for him to all in it, because the act of falling for it (that would be prevented by this warning) marks him as scum. I think scum is more likely to make such a mistake (the warning), because their goal is not to efficiently catch scum, but to appear to be scum-hunting, so they don't think as much about their plans. Or (but it's more far-fetched), it could be farside22-scum helping AntB-scum with his claim.Archer wrote:lord_hur - I dont quite get how you got to those two possibilities you listed (since I drew a much different conclusion). Please explain?
Archer wrote:This really made me lol. First off, its the conclusion that may or may not get invalidated, not the data. And with a small sample size, zero accurate conclusions can be made. To claim otherwise is silly. I also do not recall using the newb excuse, so why have you brought it up?Bella wrote:Just because you have a small sample size doesn't invalidate the data. In this case, the fact that you've played a better game demonstrates that you're capable of playing in a more productive manner and thus you lose the newbish excuse for your play thusfar.
@AntB - you have played very differently when compared to D1. D1 you were not afraid of coming out all guns blazing, D2 you seem to be happy coasting along despite all the votes. However, RL does indeed get in the way sometimes. I'm 50/50 on whether this is truly the case in this instance.
@farside - why the reminder of that post? Plus its taken out of context imo. The way I read it it serves as a reason for you to push the AntB lynch no matter what AntB says from now on. What were your intentions with it?farside22 wrote:I want to remind people in case AntBscum tries to fake claim what he said earlier in the game.AntB wrote: I will happily die (and even self hammer) if my flip will provide sufficient information, and even as scum if I feel it will throw the trail off my scumbuddies. However, my death now will provide nothing but a lot of "meh!"
lord_hur - I dont quite get how you got to those two possibilities you listed (since I drew a much different conclusion). Please explain?
I shall protect you!!