|
BottleKnight posted:And since the rest of your post is just calling my case bad, I'm just going to ignore it. you really shouldn't, if only because I'm not the only one who thought it was bad. Nobody has even supported it so far - maybe magnus, tacitly, but Magnus and SSV are both more peeved that I said there's a chance you're town, not because of your case. Your case is bad. It would do wonders if you could actually address my points why it's bad, since (especially if you're town) it gives you a chance to shore up its weak points, or (in my ideal world) you'd drop it altogether. BottleKnight posted:You are scummy because you say you have scum feelings but instead of posting cases on these people (ie scumhunting) you are going for this ecco gambit thing which allows you hide and hedge while maintaining a high post count. EccoRaven posted:Ironically if the real reason why you're voting for me is because I want to get rid of players like Magnus, then it is you who are voting for me for alignment-neutral reasons. And for the record this isn't actually the same case you started with. Remember your first case was because I called you scum "like five times!!!" without voting you, not because I am pursuing magnus in lieu of scumhunting entirely.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
This post was formulated in my head as I drove home: My feelings on the current state of play in this game - I have had similar reactions to Ecco to some posts that have cropped up in this game. Specifically, I let out an audible "Huh?" when trying to parse BK's post and then explanation about whatever he was talking about in relation to Ecco. Ecco is a blind spot for me in early games because they are a rather bombastic player and get right out there with opinions. - BK, if scum, should be jumping with joy at the thought of lunching MG, because that would honestly be an easy vote. He's not. That either means, to me, that BK is town and has reservations about essentially following along with lunching low content players (this has it's own issues early on) or BK is scum and MG is his scum buddy. I'm indecisive on these two players at the moment, but I also remember that MG2 was called out for pushing a case on Ecco for incredibly spurious reasons Day 1, and has not really delivered on what he promised after being called out. In fact, he has only really returned to this game to continue pushing Ecco without offering any other reads. Someone is going to yell that I'm advocating lunching MG2 for information. I sort of am, but also MG2's play so far in this game has warranted this: ##vote MG2
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Hey BK I hope this helps you: REASONS WHY MAGNUS MIGHT BE SCUM: - Non-entity all of day 1, posting frequently enough to not be a "lurker" and posting such that it looks like content but in truth was a lot of nothing. --- e.g. his case on me and merk being in a scumteam together was pulled out of thin air. When people asked him about it, he dodged explanations. When he finally confessed "it was a fake case to gauge reactions," he never said any of his thoughts on those reactions - like it was just done to pass the time rather than help the town. - He made a nonsense vote on me at the end of day 1 when he was the only vote on me and when the deadline was looming fast. Could easily be interpreted as him encouraging a no-hang by spreading out the votes. - He promised to reread and never came through, and it doesn't look like he ever will. - Day 2, he has not changed much. He made a case against me that's more "ecco is posting weirdly" than actually showing why it makes me scum, and considering I have been his biggest advocate for his execution it could also be interpreted as OMGUS. Why would scum be more likely to do this than town? Because scum generally don't want attention, but they want to be able to point to something they've done to deflect attention from themselves. If we all ignore Magnus to Day 4 or something, he could point to his day 1 posting and say "look, I had a case on merk and ecco being scum together," or some other phrasing that'll paint his contributions as positive to the game and help people look away from him. By also being so low-key, he avoids attention in the first place, allowing him to hide in the shadows. COUNTERPOINT: "Ecco, couldn't Magnus just be super disengaged generally? Couldn't Magnus just be not reading the thread regardless of his alignment, and only posting whatever thoughts suit him when he feels like it?" Very possible! But that's the thing with town liabilities. If Magnus is town, he's doing the rest of us a huge disservice by not engaging with the game and only posting nonsense when he does. No mafia would ever nightkill him. No town would ever vote for him for scumminess alone. A cop investigating him would be nice, but with the chance of a framer even if the cop gets a scum result it's still not open and shut. Our only real hope is we are in the setup with the vig who will use their one and only shot on him, but there's only a 25% chance of that being the case anyway. I don't like playing mafia games where it gets to be lategame (or even exlo) and the town has to choose between 3+ candidates, all of whom are lurkers, nonsense posters, or otherwise non-entities. I hate how towns vote for active posters (and scum generally nightkill them too), which has the double effect of both stagnating the game, AND tacitly rewarding non-entities by keeping them alive longer. It is far better for the town if we just voted them out now and save us all the trouble down the line. If nobody agrees with me (or I should say nobody but Jose), then I am fine dropping it for now, but I still think it's the better plan, and I think one will be hard-pressed to say I'm scum for thinking so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Hey now, I agree with you! I'm not nobody! But yeah, if there's one thing that soldiers game has taught me, it's that scum *love* active posters getting lynched. The more lurkers or low-content posters around at the end, the more targets the active posters have to pick from.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Coming off the last day of voting in my thread of the soldiers game, I also agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Max posted:- BK, if scum, should be jumping with joy at the thought of lunching MG, because that would honestly be an easy vote. He's not. That either means, to me, that BK is town and has reservations about essentially following along with lunching low content players (this has it's own issues early on) or BK is scum and MG is his scum buddy. to be fair, as scum, I looooove keeping players like Magnus around. Because they don't pay close attention to the game, they are easily persuaded; because they post so infrequently, they are always easy targets to pursue in lieu of a scumbuddy, especially late-game when enough has happened that a scum player can construct an actually-persuasive case against them; and because they don't post substantively, meaning at endgame they can't shake off those one or two townies voting for them, clearing the way for a scum hammer and victory. Magnus brought up the game a few years ago where merk and I were scum together; we fought tooth and nail for that victory, and we kept Dhaes alive until exlo, even though Dhaes knew we were both scum, only because we (correctly) knew we could get him voted out and lead us to victory. BK as scum (or anyone as scum for that matter) might have very reasonably made a similar calculation. Seeing me go after Magnus, if both Mags and me are town, gives BK maybe two days worth of executions queued up. If Magnus dies and flips town, scum-BK can say "told you so" and vote me with more credibility. If I die, BK can say later in the game "maybe Ecco was right???" and make a quick and easy case on Magnus. It makes sense from a scum perspective, especially since my stance is very unconventional, which makes it all the easier to sound sincere when one says "that's different and therefore scummy!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
I have considered this, but MG is essentially pulling what Chic did in your Soldiers game, and I can't get that out of my head. I realize every player is different, but yeesh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Max posted:I have considered this, but MG is essentially pulling what Chic did in your Soldiers game, and I can't get that out of my head. What did chic do in the soldiers game?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Endless posts of "Will do a read through and give thoughts."
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
I'm in the process of reading the last couple pages between Ecco and BK, and I don't think Magnus's latest angle on Ecco has any legs at all - I've read them as being open about their thought process during this entire back-and-forth. I'm not as sure about BK; I'm still not grasping where he's coming from with this case. Someone else that I'm starting to take a look at based on something that somebody said earlier in the thread is imgay; there's not much in the filter there except for defense and justification for his merk vote. I'd be curious to hear his thoughts on the last couple pages. Ecco, I didn't get the same reads on Quandary as you did. I reread his posts in opposition to JoseV's push for the imgay policy lynch and those felt very genuine to me especially in light of imgay...not posting like typical imgay. One last weird one - Hats jokevoted merk early and his only justification for the vote was "well, imgay's case sounds good". He's also been super disconnected all game long. It's definitely different than how he played in soldiers, but the way it's being played is really sketchy. The question of whether Hats would alter his scumplay over the course of one game is left as an exercise to the reader, but the "if I were scum" posts in his filter read as self-aware enough to me to make it at least plausible. Anyway, on to the main thrust of the post: At this point I'm generally assuming that Magnus's promised reads are not actually going to materialize. Max, you made a good characterization earlier that it feels a little like Chic's play in soldiers - I've asked questions about Mag's D1 content three times now and three times I've gotten (or, in the third case, JoseV eventually got after pressing again) evasive answers/delays. I voted him yesterday because I wasn't getting any answers about what I thought was a nonsense case and nothing's changed today, except for his reason for voting Ecco. If this wasn't a semi-open setup I'd think he was a lyncher; as it stands I think he's scum trying to buy as many reprieves as possible. ##vote MG2 Fair warning to the rest of the thread, that's -2 and we have like a day left before deadline, so...
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
FYI, Hats was super talkative in Soldiers and was scum. Take that how you will, this is a different game altogether.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
I like all the cases on Magnus, but I'm going to withhold my vote to avoid putting him at -1.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
I've changed my opinion on ecco, I think she's a misguided townie because I don't think she'd double down this hard on policy lynches as scum. ##unvote Also, ecco, I'm anti policy lynches always and have been in literally every game irrespective of alignment. Even in soldiers I was anti imgay policy lynch, even before I had a result.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Quandary posted:I've changed my opinion on ecco, I think she's a misguided townie because I don't think she'd double down this hard on policy lynches as scum. ##unvote you thought I was scum? you were voting jose...
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Hi everyone, who is scum?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
chaoslord posted:Hi everyone, who is scum? opop is a daycop and got a scum result on you
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:opop is a daycop and got a scum result on you Oh no 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:you thought I was scum? I...don't have a good answer for that one. I got confused because you both were advocating policy lynches and I forgot which policy lyncher I was voting. This is embarrassing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Back ##Vote Jose I woke up this morning and read the thread and knew I was voting based primarily on a scummy read on a policy lyncher, and reading through I got confused because Ecco was also advocating policy lynching, though reading I didn't think the way Ecco was advocating it was scummy. It makes way more sense why my gut says that because I never actually had a scum read on Ecco at all, it was on Jose. I'm happy with my vote still on Jose on re-read because he's advocating the imgay lynch until called out on it, at which point he backs off but continues to wafflely push it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Quandary posted:Back ##Vote Jose Actually I was advocating for his execution until I realized it was almost the deadline and it wasn't happening so I gave up. Every bit of posting about imgay today has been in response to you guys making a really big deal out of my desire to policy execute him. You are pretending that I pushed REALLY hard for it to happen with my three posts about it. Here they are: Jose Valasquez posted:Ecco had the right idea ##vote imgay Jose Valasquez posted:Not a joke vote btw Jose Valasquez posted:Have people forgotten that we haven't executed imgay yet? Because he's still alive for some reason. This is what you are making a big deal about as if I was making some huge push to execute him. Stop blowing this out of proportion Quandary, it's really weird how deep you are reading into it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Sorry I'm not going to post anything of worth today, I spent the afternoon with friends and need to prepare for an exam tomorrow. I'll strive to be more active tomorrow afternoon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
THere was also you complaining about him being a shitposter a lot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
SirSamVimes posted:THere was also you complaining about him being a shitposter a lot. That was all in response to other people asking questions/posting about those 3 posts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
The point is that you were doubling down on writing imgay off as just being a shitposter and someone who should be killed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
SirSamVimes posted:The point is that you were doubling down on writing imgay off as just being a shitposter and someone who should be killed. to be fair, imgay's posting this game has been a lot of bluster with no substance. day 1 was reasonably mostly reactive to Jose and me, but day 2 he's been a non-entity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:to be fair, imgay's posting this game has been a lot of bluster with no substance. day 1 was reasonably mostly reactive to Jose and me, but day 2 he's been a non-entity. e: lol yeah just reread imgay, it's like his normal shitposting but with an editor. his day 1 concern trolling is the vast majority of his posts this game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
I'm seriously done talking about my desire for a d1 policy execution on imgay. If you guys (SSV and Quandary) want to execute me for it go ahead but we are just talking in circles about it
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:Flying Leatherman - came for the clutch with a merk vote yesterday, gets points in my book. Why does this get town points? This has been a slow moving game and Leatherman had not posted in hours but saw a moment to swoop in and put the vote at -1 to hammer. I could be reading too much into things but it makes me lean the other way on him. Scum saw that the day was moving slowly and was easily heading toward a town lynch and decided to stay out of it as long as possible and then go "Welp it was that or no lynch ". At best, it's null for me.Related to that, I think it is more likely than not that MG2 will flip town based on how slow developing the lynch was yesterday. I do get your point about removing useless players, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
With that said, I'm gonna ##vote Bottleknight for now. Between pushing a bad case on MMT/me yesterday and now a bad case on Ecco, I think they are most likely to actually be scum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
As anytime I replace into games, if someone has something in the past they would like to get my thoughts on record for please ask. I have a hard time with stuff in the past and don't always know what is worth bringing up again or not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
I'd go for Bottle Knight too for today's lunch, but MG2 continuing to not really contribute after being called out a few times makes me feel pretty good about that vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
I'm sorry guys I got tired really early last night and went to bed, and I work long hours where I don't have access to a comp. Thought I'd be able to keep up on non work hours but I guess not. If y'all want to lynch me for not being around that's fine but I think ecco's a better lynch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
I was waiting for MG2 to respond, he did ##vote MG2 That's -1
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Max posted:- BK, if scum, should be jumping with joy at the thought of lunching MG, because that would honestly be an easy vote. He's not. That either means, to me, that BK is town and has reservations about essentially following along with lunching low content players (this has it's own issues early on) or BK is scum and MG is his scum buddy. This is scummy logic. Not only does it implicate me as scum if MG flips scum (that's the real bad part here, the chain lynching potential, not the lynch for activity part) but it also is bad logic, so it's still pretty easy to mark me as scum if he flips town. Basically, tying me to MG is really bad and manipulative. ##vote Max I'll abandon the Ecco vote for now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Actually, if Max were scum he would know who wasn't scum. I know that seems obvious but it kind of ruins my suspicion. I need to think more about this. ##unvote I do think it's really bad logic though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Not really. If he flips town I'd say that paints things in a better light for you. I'm not sure why you're claiming the opposite, when I clearly didn't say that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Max posted:Not really. If he flips town I'd say that paints things in a better light for you. I'm not sure why you're claiming the opposite, when I clearly didn't say that. Yeah but Ecco immediately made the logical conclusion that that makes no sense, scum would love keeping MG around. I don't think your reasoning is scummy anymore, though. Just wrong. Obviously I have more information about this (ie my alignment) than you but still.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
I dunno. I feel like there are enough players around that are just kinda there and haven't done much that scum would have the pick of the litter when it comes to deciding who to keep.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
Re-reading MG2 I think it's a pretty good vote and I'd be ok with. It feels like MG is here but failing to contribute, intentionally avoiding giving any real opinions. I'm not going to vote him because that would be hammer and I don't know its necessary to hammer this early. I still think Jose is a better lynch, but I'm not sure what I can do to convince people of that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:34
|
|