|
CCKeane posted:Fits if you vote Anon I'll make out with you. the five minute summery of me reading anon's post history first couple of posts boring nothings AnonymousNarcotics posted:Sure I'll analyze this post of merk's. This post was made in an effort to seem like he's contributing to scum hunting without actually providing any content of his own. Even after this, his posts are mostly calling other people townie which is an easy way to look like you're participating without really saying anything couple of people including you vote and push her around for a bit AnonymousNarcotics posted:The votes on me are bad. Ughhhh I hate when I actually put effort in and people then think I'm scummy. The last time I posted what was on my mind instead of just lurking I got turboed in the last few min before deadline... And I was the loving cop. things pretty much continue down along the same road from there seems like what these annoying flustered new kids are like these days. i'm not sold, keane. you gotta do better than that
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
BottleKnight posted:Yes, I am refusing to volunteer to say what I think is wrong with my case. Because I think my read is solid and I think it's very likely you are scum. Go on. Are you worried that admitting it's not bulletproof will weaken your case? Are you worried it'll make you look bad? Are you worried me asking is some arcane scum trick?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
King of Bleh posted:Go on. Are you worried that admitting it's not bulletproof will weaken your case? Are you worried it'll make you look bad? Are you worried me asking is some arcane scum trick? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
BottleKnight posted:You haven't really mustered any support for anything, Opop. Ain't my job, man. I found a scum, I told people. Up to ya'll to trust my gut
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Quandary posted:What about this is scummy though? In my mind scum would do the exact opposite which is freak out when they get attention and start scum hunting. Trying to find scum is the only way you win as town, not doing that makes me think you have other priorities, sure scum would probably in that situation feel obliged to look like they are trying as well but if they aren't a confident player I could see them being more worried about exposing themselves further and so lurking instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
As I was page bottom, reposting: So not going to lie, I'm not 100% into this game and it's early enough (and I've done bupkis enough) that me being replaced is ideally an easy fix. However, I would like to lend my front line capabilities this evening and maybe go down fighting. So this is my official request to be placed on the front line FOR GLORY. No, I don't have any opinions on any of the cases. No, I probably won't be voting for anyone. Yes, Bowie dying was a major lovely bummer
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
WeLandedOnTheMoon! posted:I didn't admit anything, I used the example of voting to illustrate how stupid it would be to ask me to be open about who I am attacking. If you cared about your shot being effective you would just have shut up about it. If you were really worried about "stuns" you would not have mentioned it in the thread because keeping your target secret doesn't protect you against stuns. You are trying to gain some kind of advantage by talking about this action today. You claim it will help you prove yourself townie but mechanics don't do that and you put yourself in a position where you have a mechanics-based reason not to case your primary suspicion. I don't think that's a good step to proving yourself townie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Spoonsy posted:As I was page bottom, reposting: Just so we're clear, both of these players have showed up specifically to claim they're okay with no-lynching day one. Really hoping we get some replacements d2.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
kaschei posted:"because of reasons"? I disagree. Also, see you in three days when you decide to post again!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
King of Bleh posted:Just so we're clear, both of these players have showed up specifically to claim they're okay with no-lynching day one. Really hoping we get some replacements d2. Forums crapped out while posting but OpOp was obviously the other player I meant here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Opopanax posted:Narco's one of those players who just comes off as scummy, I've seen her get lynched for the same stuff too many times to muster much support for it today I thought the deadline was midnight EST so I'll shut up about wlotm for today and read about people with votes now
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Spoonsy at least vote for someone so we're in less of a risk of no-lynching, even if its just a random person with votes already. What is the case on Sinstral beyond just lurking?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Puntification posted:Trying to find scum is the only way you win as town, not doing that makes me think you have other priorities, sure scum would probably in that situation feel obliged to look like they are trying as well but if they aren't a confident player I could see them being more worried about exposing themselves further and so lurking instead. Isn't ANarc a relatively experience player though? I could see a newbie hiding when attacked, but an experience player I think would make a renewed effort to scum hunt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Quandary posted:Spoonsy at least vote for someone so we're in less of a risk of no-lynching, even if its just a random person with votes already. I guess just that mainly. Any other opinions on BK? I'm not really feeling strongly about any of these top 3.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Yo guys, I would really love to speculate some more on why I would openly claim. Anyone else want to throw out a reason before day 1 ends? Maybe another lurker would like to come out and comment?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
WeLandedOnTheMoon! posted:I disagree. Also, see you in three days when you decide to post again!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
King of Bleh posted:Forums crapped out while posting but OpOp was obviously the other player I meant here. I never said that at all
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
fits posted:seems like what these annoying flustered new kids are like these days. i'm not sold, keane. you gotta do better than that one note as i begin a brief look on ssv, from a game-y perspective it looks like anon is by far the least contributing of the three current vote leaders and that lynch likely removes someone who is going to be proto-lurking most of the game. so there's that. total crapshoot whethers its a scum lynch or not. i don't feel it
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Quandary posted:Isn't ANarc a relatively experience player though? I could see a newbie hiding when attacked, but an experience player I think would make a renewed effort to scum hunt. The thing about Narco is that was she even attacked? Like really attacked? Ignoring KoB, if you added up all the posts of the people voting her, you would have like 30 posts total.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
I would loooooove to lynch wlotm asap if we have people to do that
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Actually on a quick reread I'm ok with ##vote King of Bleh That's a pretty blatant, unambiguous misrepresentation of me
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
kaschei posted:Why did you propose the "I'll shoot who the thread votes for" thing? It doesn't read like a "this is obviously a dumb idea I'm proposing" in its original context but it is an obviously dumb idea and you seem to agree. Because everyone decided to get their panties in a bunch when I said that I decided to shoot someone that I find scummy... The alternative to just letting me do what I want is to tell me who to shoot which is dumb as all hell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Quandary posted:Spoonsy at least vote for someone so we're in less of a risk of no-lynching, even if its just a random person with votes already. For me it's similar to Narc, Sinistral has made several "cases" and responded to some stuff, but it all feels very detached and based on winning points with snarky "gotcha" exchanges. I'm not sensing any actual conviction or emotional engagement with discovering scum, just trying to score points on the political end of the "who's going to get lynched" side of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Opopanax posted:Actually on a quick reread I'm ok with ##vote King of Bleh lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
WeLandedOnTheMoon! posted:Because everyone decided to get their panties in a bunch when I said that I decided to shoot someone that I find scummy... The alternative to just letting me do what I want is to tell me who to shoot which is dumb as all hell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
I'm around and should be around for deadline. Reading up on KoB. Still think AN feels like frustrated town rather than scum, but will swap to prevent a no-lynch, and plan to re-read AN as well. My case for voting SSV is here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
##vote welandedonthemoon! The best case if we don't lynch wlotm! is tomorrow we have some idiot claiming a mechanics-based self-clear, the worst case is a second day where scum get a free daykill
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Hey anon remind me why you are voting merk
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
##unvote Alright, here the rest of the way, let me catch up
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
King of Bleh posted:Why, as scum, would I openly campaign for a strategy that benefits the scum?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
kaschei posted:wow this guy is my new number two over opop WLotM is not getting lynched today, vote me if you really feel this way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
kaschei posted:the alternative is to shoot someone and tomorrow say "I shot X, it was radical/dumb of me" Please explain to me the difference? My power is repeatable. I'll shoot someone tomorrow as well. The trade off to being open about it on day one (putting me in danger of being stunned) as opposed to doing what you are saying is that it got everyone talking and forming meaningful connections immediately. The damage that my day-attack does will not instantly kill anyone (I'd imagine). So the trade off in doing a minor bit of damage (versus getting the thread talking) was worth it to me. I'll be willing to acknowledge that my idea was a failure, but only in the sense that there are still like 7 people who haven't said gently caress-all, and I am sure that at least one or two of them are scum, so whenever I flip it wont really matter with regards to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
kaschei posted:##vote welandedonthemoon! Are you honestly voting someone who has no votes, an hour and a half before the deadline, based on their action?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
kaschei posted:##vote welandedonthemoon! This guy isn't reading the thread. Immediately after claiming I said that the shot wouldn't be enough to kill anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
I'd be willing to vote for Kaschei if we are voting to lynch a lurker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
King of Bleh posted:WLotM is not getting lynched today, vote me if you really feel this way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
King of Bleh posted:I think it's very likely that the majority of the scum team are lurking and hoping we run out of momentum early in this game. If the top 3-4 posters in the thread get knocked off quick this game is gonna stall hard. This post comes 2 hours after saying he's worried we're going to no-lynch today. A player who is worried we have too many distractions and lurkers to lynch anyone immediately talks about a lurker. His only justification is that 'he's setting up D2.' How is this not a scum player? Then he makes this post King of Bleh posted:Forums crapped out while posting but OpOp was obviously the other player I meant here. Opop is definitely doing nothing this game and throwing suspicion at him is not bad but this is his very first mention of opop as a player. He thinks Opop not voting a vote leader means he won't come in and vote for someone at deadline? This is a crazy misrepresentation, and yet again more shade at someone who is not a vote leader at all. More distractions. Vote King of Bleh, it is the right lynch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
King of Bleh posted:For me it's similar to Narc, Sinistral has made several "cases" and responded to some stuff, but it all feels very detached and based on winning points with snarky "gotcha" exchanges. I'm not sensing any actual conviction or emotional engagement with discovering scum, just trying to score points on the political end of the "who's going to get lynched" side of the game. I see what you're saying and it's not a terrible case, but I'm not huge on lynching a lurker d1. Would vote Sinstral if it came down to it but I wouldn't be thrilled.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
WeLandedOnTheMoon! posted:This guy isn't reading the thread. Immediately after claiming I said that the shot wouldn't be enough to kill anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
The only thing that ever specifically struck me about Sinistral is what is in bold below...Sinistral posted:I really don't like this post. How dare WLOTM put effort into this game and aggresively try to find scum. Surely no town would ever do that! It's not really enough to vote him, but I like it better than Narco, who I find to be actively townie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:46
|
|