He seems to be playing some sort of gambit to me. Townies don't have any reason to lie like that, If he was pro-town I can't see how he would have thought that would be helpful it just adds confusion (which doesn't help the town). Taking it back doesn't help, it just adds more confusion (Again, anti-town). There's also no way in hell an SK would pull that kind of stunt.NabakovNabakov wrote:Occult: I'm not sure I understand your post. Are you saying he's backing off the claim? He's not, he's just realizing it was a stupid move. Your vote reads more like OMGUS than anything else.
Mnowax: I'm not sure I understand your post. Elaborate please.
Occult wrote:what I meant to doisUnvoteVote silent speaker.
I personally think there is a slight possibility that he could be more then a recruit. Plus, confirmation of him being a recruit wouldn't exactly hurt the town either. If he turns out to be a recruit we can look back at the posts and perhaps get an idea of who he's with. It just seems to me he was trying to come up with something big (not exactly sure what that was as it was kinda muddled) and it felt like more than just a recruit attempting to save his ass.NabakovNabakov wrote:I think it's pretty clear to most people that Blaze is a recruit, the question is just whether or not he's worth lynching. That's what Vollkan was bringing up, but you seemed to think it was enough to prove he was a recruit in order to justify his lynch. It goes beyond that.
and now after he says, "well you got me, I'm in the cult." everyone suddenly drops their vote?Guardian wrote: Blazerunner [6] (the silent speaker, Greggo, armlx, mnowax, malthusis, vikingfan)
We have a very good lynch here, I say we look at the connections between Blaze and other players before we lynch him but I don't see how we can let Blaze live.Norinel wrote: Blazerunner [3] (mnowax, malthusis, Occult)
It won't "hurt" the town directly, but the wasted opportunity is a cost.Occult wrote: I personally think there is a slight possibility that he could be more then a recruit. Plus, confirmation of him being a recruit wouldn't exactly hurt the town either. If he turns out to be a recruit we can look back at the posts and perhaps get an idea of who he's with. It just seems to me he was trying to come up with something big (not exactly sure what that was as it was kinda muddled) and it felt like more than just a recruit attempting to save his ass.
If he has been recruited, somebody knows he is their recruit. Thus, we can look at somebody's reactions to blaze - and blaze's behaviour back.Occult wrote: We have a very good lynch here, I say we look at the connections between Blaze and other players before we lynch him but I don't see how we can let Blaze live.
I don't see one single unvote after he claimed. All the unvoting was before. The only shift is that now that Blaze is an acknowledged recruit, Occult has voted him -- when recruits are exactly what we don't want to spend our time lynching. (Yes, Blaze *could* be a Cult Leader, but Occult gives no reason for him to be more likely to be one than anyone else. In fact, Occult himself says that recruit is by far the more likely: "I personally think there is aI'm also just curious at the sudden drop off in interest to lynch him. I personally am finding it a bit ridiculous. He pulls a gambit and we seem to be letting it work. Before he claims, he is the perfect lynch to a good portion of the players:
Guardian wrote:
Blazerunner [6] (the silent speaker, Greggo, armlx, mnowax, malthusis, vikingfan)
and now after he says, "well you got me, I'm in the cult." everyone suddenly drops their vote?
the silent speaker wrote:Our lynch is Occult.
I don't see one single unvote after he claimed. All the unvoting was before. The only shift is that now that Blaze is an acknowledged recruit, Occult has voted him -- when recruits are exactly what we don't want to spend our time lynching. (Yes, Blaze *could* be a Cult Leader, but Occult gives no reason for him to be more likely to be one than anyone else. In fact, Occult himself says that recruit is by far the more likely: "I personally think there is aI'm also just curious at the sudden drop off in interest to lynch him. I personally am finding it a bit ridiculous. He pulls a gambit and we seem to be letting it work. Before he claims, he is the perfect lynch to a good portion of the players:
Guardian wrote:
Blazerunner [6] (the silent speaker, Greggo, armlx, mnowax, malthusis, vikingfan)
and now after he says, "well you got me, I'm in the cult." everyone suddenly drops their vote?slight possibilitythat he could be more then a recruit.")
Blatant falsehood and an action long shown to be not in alignment with the best interests of the town. Ergo, Occult is trying to drop his now useless asset like a hot potato.Vote: Occult
So I take it this means you have completed a statistical survey which reveals that people who don't post are scum? I'd love to see the results if you have an excel chart or something.Viking wrote: and yet stark has yet to post in this game major fos.
QFT.TSS wrote:
I don't see one single unvote after he claimed. All the unvoting was before. The only shift is that now that Blaze is an acknowledged recruit, Occult has voted him -- when recruits are exactly what we don't want to spend our time lynching. (Yes, Blaze *could* be a Cult Leader, but Occult gives no reason for him to be more likely to be one than anyone else. In fact, Occult himself says that recruit is by far the more likely: "I personally think there is a slight possibility that he could be more then a recruit.")
Blatant falsehood and an action long shown to be not in alignment with the best interests of the town. Ergo, Occult is trying to drop his now useless asset like a hot potato. Vote: Occult
vollkan wrote:Vollkan's Ground Rules
1)I use a % system to rank people.
- a: 0% means someone's behaviour is absolute confirmed town. 100% means someone's behaviour is absolute confirmed scum.
b: The rankings refer to behaviour unless otherwise stated. Someone that has claimed cop may still get a rating of 60% if their play has been worth 60%. I may also give them a probability ranking that factors in their claim.
c: Everybody starts at 50%.
d: Someone who has neither a preponderance of scumtells or towntells will receive 50%.
e: Any unreadable lurker will receive 50%
f: It is rare for me to give people a ranking below 50% (see section 2) below)2)I am exceptionally skeptical of "town tells". Recent experience in House Mafia has exacerbated this.
3)Any player who justifies a vote/FoS/declaration of 'suspicion'/etc. on one of the following:will receive a stern demand from me that they give objective reasons for their vote/FoS/declaration of 'suspicion'/etc. Should they fail to do so, my expectation is that the vote/FoS/declaration of 'suspicion'/etc. will be dropped. If not, then they can expect their % ranking to increase.
- a) 'Hunch';
b) 'Gut';
c) 'Feeling';
d) 'Belief'; or
e) Anything that has a meaning similar to those of the above
4)If you want to play in a chaotic fashion, that's fine. However, if I can't understand what you are doing I will demand an explanation and justification. If you don't provide me with one, your % rankingwillincrease.
5)Any person who accuses another person of being scum for one of the following:
- a) Over-reaction;
b) Lurking;
c) Aggression;
d) Bandwagoning (see section 6) below);
Can expect their % ranking to increase.
6)Bandwagoning is not a scumtell. Voting with crap reasons is a scumtell. I don't give a toss how many times you vote, but I care very deeply about your reasons for doing so.
7)I hate lurkers. If you do not post within a reasonable timeframe, I will bombard you with questions and, very likely, demand you provide a full scumdar with at least 2 sentences per person. If you choose not to do so, I will expect that you desist from posting and be replaced.
8)Reliance on conspiracy arguments, such as "I think X is scummy because he did Y which could help scum because Z" (keyword = "could") will merit a % increase.
9)If I make a mistake somewhere I will point out that I have made tremendous cock-ups as town in a number of games. If you choose to ignore these meta-references, your % ranking will rise.
10)If you are finding the game too 'difficult' or 'complex' either read up or replace out.
11)My posts will be as long as I feel like making them.
vollkan wrote:Vollkan's Ground Rules
1)I use a % system to rank people.
- a: 0% means someone's behaviour is absolute confirmed town. 100% means someone's behaviour is absolute confirmed scum.
b: The rankings refer to behaviour unless otherwise stated. Someone that has claimed cop may still get a rating of 60% if their play has been worth 60%. I may also give them a probability ranking that factors in their claim.
c: Everybody starts at 50%.
d: Someone who has neither a preponderance of scumtells or towntells will receive 50%.
e: Any unreadable lurker will receive 50%
f: It is rare for me to give people a ranking below 50% (see section 2) below)2)I am exceptionally skeptical of "town tells". Recent experience in House Mafia has exacerbated this.
3)Any player who justifies a vote/FoS/declaration of 'suspicion'/etc. on one of the following:will receive a stern demand from me that they give objective reasons for their vote/FoS/declaration of 'suspicion'/etc. Should they fail to do so, my expectation is that the vote/FoS/declaration of 'suspicion'/etc. will be dropped. If not, then they can expect their % ranking to increase.
- a) 'Hunch';
b) 'Gut';
c) 'Feeling';
d) 'Belief'; or
e) Anything that has a meaning similar to those of the above
4)If you want to play in a chaotic fashion, that's fine. However, if I can't understand what you are doing I will demand an explanation and justification. If you don't provide me with one, your % rankingwillincrease.
5)Any person who accuses another person of being scum for one of the following:
- a) Over-reaction;
b) Lurking;
c) Aggression;
d) Bandwagoning (see section 6) below);
Can expect their % ranking to increase.
6)Bandwagoning is not a scumtell. Voting with crap reasons is a scumtell. I don't give a toss how many times you vote, but I care very deeply about your reasons for doing so.
7)I hate lurkers. If you do not post within a reasonable timeframe, I will bombard you with questions and, very likely, demand you provide a full scumdar with at least 2 sentences per person. If you choose not to do so, I will expect that you desist from posting and be replaced.
8)Reliance on conspiracy arguments, such as "I think X is scummy because he did Y which could help scum because Z" (keyword = "could") will merit a % increase.
9)If I make a mistake somewhere I will point out that I have made tremendous cock-ups as town in a number of games. If you choose to ignore these meta-references, your % ranking will rise.
10)If you are finding the game too 'difficult' or 'complex' either read up or replace out.
11)My posts will be as long as I feel like making them.
You haven't played with me before, so I can understand you reacting this way.springlullaby wrote:vollkan wrote:Vollkan's Ground Rules
1)I use a % system to rank people.
- a: 0% means someone's behaviour is absolute confirmed town. 100% means someone's behaviour is absolute confirmed scum.
b: The rankings refer to behaviour unless otherwise stated. Someone that has claimed cop may still get a rating of 60% if their play has been worth 60%. I may also give them a probability ranking that factors in their claim.
c: Everybody starts at 50%.
d: Someone who has neither a preponderance of scumtells or towntells will receive 50%.
e: Any unreadable lurker will receive 50%
f: It is rare for me to give people a ranking below 50% (see section 2) below)2)I am exceptionally skeptical of "town tells". Recent experience in House Mafia has exacerbated this.
3)Any player who justifies a vote/FoS/declaration of 'suspicion'/etc. on one of the following:will receive a stern demand from me that they give objective reasons for their vote/FoS/declaration of 'suspicion'/etc. Should they fail to do so, my expectation is that the vote/FoS/declaration of 'suspicion'/etc. will be dropped. If not, then they can expect their % ranking to increase.
- a) 'Hunch';
b) 'Gut';
c) 'Feeling';
d) 'Belief'; or
e) Anything that has a meaning similar to those of the above
4)If you want to play in a chaotic fashion, that's fine. However, if I can't understand what you are doing I will demand an explanation and justification. If you don't provide me with one, your % rankingwillincrease.
5)Any person who accuses another person of being scum for one of the following:
- a) Over-reaction;
b) Lurking;
c) Aggression;
d) Bandwagoning (see section 6) below);
Can expect their % ranking to increase.
6)Bandwagoning is not a scumtell. Voting with crap reasons is a scumtell. I don't give a toss how many times you vote, but I care very deeply about your reasons for doing so.
7)I hate lurkers. If you do not post within a reasonable timeframe, I will bombard you with questions and, very likely, demand you provide a full scumdar with at least 2 sentences per person. If you choose not to do so, I will expect that you desist from posting and be replaced.
8)Reliance on conspiracy arguments, such as "I think X is scummy because he did Y which could help scum because Z" (keyword = "could") will merit a % increase.
9)If I make a mistake somewhere I will point out that I have made tremendous cock-ups as town in a number of games. If you choose to ignore these meta-references, your % ranking will rise.
10)If you are finding the game too 'difficult' or 'complex' either read up or replace out.
11)My posts will be as long as I feel like making them.Unvote, Vote: Volkan
If you are town, you have nothing to gain from such a post.
Now, if he was the Vig and he attacked blaze (and blaze didn't die) thatmnowax wrote:sorry about the down time from me. Like i sad before i know that blaze killed DGB. i cannot say why i know, but i can with relative certainty. He said something before that confirmed my suspicions and information and deductions that i have now.
1. 'Procedural way to find scum', really? What I see is a 'how to avoid my suspicion if you are scum' guide and a series of preemptive self-justifications.armlx wrote:Fos Springlullabyfor being anxious about a procedural way to find scum.
Two points:Spring wrote: 1. 'Procedural way to find scum', really? What I see is a 'how to avoid my suspicion if you are scum' guide and a series of preemptive self-justifications.
2. Tell me how is it beneficial to town to reveal said 'procedural way to find scum' in advance if one does indeed abide by it?
You'd think so, but it doesn't often play out like that for me. I've often encountered people who, in the process of attacking me for something they perceive as scummy, are actually attacking some theoretical aspect of my play. That means that, when I should be engaged in meaningful argument, things get sidetracked by the likes of, eg, criticism of my insistence that people supply reasons.Spring wrote: Volkan, I think your justification is poor; surely not ruining a game by theory debates is up to the player's attitude and has little to do with the player's belief.