|
The other thread is full of hot garbage post(er)s but they do have fun stuff like the non-player trolling with a MGS gimmick and the catapultist most-likely-fakeclaim.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 09:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Metal Gear?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 09:58
|
|
|
Ok, here I am. It's been a rough few days. Haven't participated as much as I wanted yet. Anyone have anything I should look at immediately? Otherwise I'm just going to dive in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
AnonymousNarcotics posted:You don't know me, I'm always whining when I get picked on as town. It actually turned me off playing mafia for awhile. Now I'm remembering why. Tell us who you think is scum and why that person is scum. Your vote is on me, and you still haven't explained it very well at all. You also haven't re-analyzed my new content.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
King of Bleh posted:This is not the first time this game you've declined to engage in actual discussion bc you're too cool to play the game. BottleKnight for my #3 candidate. Who is your #2 candidate?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Votecount for Day 1  SirSamVimes (4): WeLandedOnTheMoon!, imgay, AnonymousNarcotics (4): tuckfard, BottleKnight (3): imgay, fits, tuckfard merk (1): The Ninth Layer, AnonymousNarcotics, The Lord of Hats (1): Opopanax Quandary (1): Jose Valasquez, SirSamVimes, Meinberg (1): merk, tuckfard (1): QuoProQuid, Sinistral, BottleKnight, Opopanax (1): BottleKnight imgay (0): Sinistral, WeLandedOnTheMoon! (0): kaschei, tuckfard, Verr (0): QuoProQuid, Sinistral (0): imgay, tuckfard, King of Bleh, QuoProQuid (0): King of Bleh, CCKeane (0): QuoProQuid, chaoslord (0): fits, Not Voting (8): kaschei, Meinberg, Quandary, SirSamVimes, Spoonsy, The Lord of Hats, Tremendous Taste, VerrWith 25 alive, it's 13 votes to lynch. The current deadline is January 11th, 2016 at 8 p.m. EST -- that's in about 1 day, 8 hours.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:How do we know that Moon is telling the truth that he targeted someone? I don't understand this vote.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Puntification posted:Seems unlikely scum would do it so openly and honestly, so I feel like effectively you're making excuses to vote town and not for the first time, even if the first was allegedly a "joke". Good enough for a starting punt imo ##vote ssv Compare it to this vote right before it, which I understand and think is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
imgay posted:bing bang boog whose ready to play the fued Who do you think is scum now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
fits posted:your original vote on tuckfard is poo poo. Looking back, I think this was a good vote at the time and mostly ignored by the thread. Everyone should go back and read fits' post here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Combo breaking merk's posts. My name is kaschei
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
fits posted:bottle knights original vote on tuckfard that im talking about; it feels like hes jumping in trying to be super pro townie early in the game (it was bks third post, but all within a few minutes) jumping on tuckfard posts that earlier uppage other people already jumped on. it felt like cheap and easy content and now hes coasting on it with the "well i still like that vote" bullshit Further justification here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
merk posted:Compare it to this vote right before it, which I understand and think is pretty good. Do you mean KoB's vote on sinistral here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Puntification posted:Do you mean KoB's vote on sinistral here? nvm I thought you were asking me to do something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
chaoslord posted:So I think ##vote meinberg is the scum. Merk nailed it when they voted for Meinberg after that bad post. I just can't believe he didn't get more votes outside of merk. And even then merk has since felt they need to move their vote elsewhere. But seriously, just look at how many people have read meinberg's content and more or less said it was scummy: The Meinberg case is a good one, but he's not here. I find it unlikely that we actually lynch him with him being gone the whole weekend. At this point I'm content to let him coast today and come back to this point tomorrow if he's still around. Puntification posted:Do you mean KoB's vote on sinistral here? No, your vote on SSV I think is good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Opopanax posted:Hey, that's a real bad post you got there What is the Opo gut telling you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
This is my working list: Anon Meinberg SSV / Bottleknight I might build a case on Anon here. Going to see if my read changes while I try to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
fits posted:your original vote on tuckfard is poo poo. This is okay. I don't disagree. That is my lukewarm take.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Merk, what's your feel on bleh, especially with regard to him "defending" you (from anarc, I think)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Tremendous Taste posted:Merk, what's your feel on bleh, especially with regard to him "defending" you (from anarc, I think)? I'm concerned that he's playing a present scum game. He's posting a lot without saying all that much. It's why I want more information on his #2 candidate, whoever that is. There's no way I lynch him on day 1 for that though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Full disclosure: I'm likely voting ANarc through deadline unless she comes back with some really good content about alignment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
merk posted:I'm concerned that he's playing a present scum game. He's posting a lot without saying all that much. It's why I want more information on his #2 candidate, whoever that is. I agree. Thanks~
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
All of these votes falling on Anon are making me suspicious all of a sudden. I bet somewhere in the last 2-3 people to agree about Anon one is scum. Jose, please contribute or at place your vote somewhere valuable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
King of Bleh posted:##unvote It's this one I don't like this vote. I would vote KoB. He spends a ton of posts, but none of them really say anything and the ones that do are pretty wishy washy. His vote on Anon really bothers me though - before this post he comes in and lays down his suspicions but they're weak and feel opportunistic, but he doesn't lay a vote. 8 hours later he comes down and drops this vote without comment. To me it feels a lot like a scum opportunistic vote where it flet like a 'safe' vote and he didn't put much thought into it, but he posted just enough to not get jumped on. I'd still be fine with an AnonNarco lynch, but I think I would prefer KoB.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Quandary posted:It's this one I don't like this vote. I've seen the "not really saying anything" point come up re: me a couple times in this game now and I'm not really sure where people are getting that from. I'm not the most verbose poster, but I think I've been pretty consistently responding to other players and posting my own reactions to stuff going on in the thread. You say "wishy washy" but I think you could easily scan through my post history and reconstruct all my alignment reads, and that they would all be pretty explicit in terms of which way I was feeling and how sure I was. In terms of the vote, I made the case in the post that I quoted, and directly stated at that time that I wasn't by a computer all day but would follow through with a vote when I was. I concede you could call it "opportunistic" in that I was deliberately moving from a target who I saw couldn't be lynched to one who I thought could be, but we're coming close enough to the deadline that that is what all players OUGHT to be doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
merk posted:Who is your #2 candidate? I realize you were skimming but come on, in the post directly above the one you quoted I say I will imminently change my vote to Narc (#1) but still think sinistral is scum (#2).
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Sorry for being away yesterday. Catching up now. I don't like how BK gets called out for having no original ideas, then fails to scumhunt and his posts become solely replies to accusations. The closest he gets is a weird back and forth with Opop over Opop not being more aggressive after this vote:Opopanax posted:##vote Lord of Hats
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Actually, scratch that. This is now page 17 and Opop never goes back to discuss his original lurker vote at all. Lord of Hats has given enough content where that vote does deserve more of a justification after being directly asked 'Why are you still voting for Lord of Hats', and Opop gives no reason at all. Opop: explain your current vote on Hats beyond 'he started off lurking'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
tuckfard posted:You know what, I looked at Meinberg too because I don't remember anything about what he's said. Well, it's because he's said nothing. He's apparently gone for the weekend LARPing, which is probably worth a vote right there, but I agree that his post on WLOTM was shady, and everything else he's posted is worthless. Something feels off. tuckfard's content here is pretty poor and lacks original contribution. Page 12, and he comments on a 'lurker feeling off' (and prods Spoonsy), and throwing a vote on BK mostly due to other's cases. I would like to see more original ideas from tuckfard and some post analysis, especially if his own content consists of prodding lurkers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Atoramos posted:Actually, scratch that. This is now page 17 and Opop never goes back to discuss his original lurker vote at all. Lord of Hats has given enough content where that vote does deserve more of a justification after being directly asked 'Why are you still voting for Lord of Hats', and Opop gives no reason at all. I believe you misread, I'm not calling him a lurker, I'm voting for him because he was calling out lurkers way too early. It feels like fake content
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Votecount for Day 1 SirSamVimes (4): WeLandedOnTheMoon!, imgay, AnonymousNarcotics (4): tuckfard, BottleKnight (3): imgay, fits, tuckfard merk (1): The Ninth Layer, AnonymousNarcotics, The Lord of Hats (1): Opopanax Quandary (1): Jose Valasquez, SirSamVimes, Meinberg (1): merk, tuckfard (1): QuoProQuid, Sinistral, BottleKnight, Opopanax (1): BottleKnight imgay (0): Sinistral, WeLandedOnTheMoon! (0): kaschei, tuckfard, Verr (0): QuoProQuid, Sinistral (0): imgay, tuckfard, King of Bleh, QuoProQuid (0): King of Bleh, CCKeane (0): QuoProQuid, chaoslord (0): fits, Not Voting (8): kaschei, Meinberg, Quandary, SirSamVimes, Spoonsy, The Lord of Hats, Tremendous Taste, Verr With 25 alive, it's 13 votes to lynch. The current deadline is January 11th, 2016 at 8 p.m. EST -- that's in about 1 day, 3 hours.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Atoramos posted:tuckfard's content here is pretty poor and lacks original contribution. Page 12, and he comments on a 'lurker feeling off' (and prods Spoonsy), and throwing a vote on BK mostly due to other's cases. I would like to see more original ideas from tuckfard and some post analysis, especially if his own content consists of prodding lurkers. You know that I'm not very good at this game but aside from that What does original even mean? Do I have to make up a case on someone that no one has talked about just because? My thoughts can't be similar to anyone elses?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
This day 1 is lasting forever uuuuuugh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Yeah, eccogames have really long day 1s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Opopanax posted:I believe you misread, I'm not calling him a lurker, I'm voting for him because he was calling out lurkers way too early. It feels like fake content You are correct, I misread that as you yourself calling out a lurker. That said, there's been a good number of posts by Hats since then. Care to build out that read? Verr posted:because I am a beautiful free spirit. also its nice to know what people have posted. Verr posted:alright, alright, I'm leaning AnonNarco because her* statement about battle is both unspecific and but asking for inclusion. that's a battle-scummy move. unless AnonNarco wants to specify (within the limits of the rules) her role? I don't like this at all. Verr has obviously been paying close attention to the thread, considering he posted a compilation of battle posts. But gives a single read on a player, and that read amounts to 'give us more information on your role'. Where's the scumhunting, you're obviously reading the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
I don't like Sinistral but someone else has posted why.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
tuckfard posted:You know that I'm not very good at this game but aside from that Yeah, honestly I would like some guidance on this too--I have a hard time picking up on particularly scummy activity, so it typically isn't until I see someone else point something else out that I feel like "Okay, I have a thing to look for, let's reread that person's posts to see if I can spot it", but if I just outright say "Yeah, I agree with so-and-so", that turns into a declaration of low-content scumposting--although day 1 doing pretty much anything gets you that--is it really just a matter of going person-by-person through the thread to get a read?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Day 1 is about people making small cases seem bigger than they are, people argue, and then someone gets bandwagoned at the last minute.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Atoramos posted:You are correct, I misread that as you yourself calling out a lurker. That said, there's been a good number of posts by Hats since then. Care to build out that read? Nah, I'm good with what I've got. Tinkering is only confuse things, I trust my gut
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Quandary posted:All of these votes falling on Anon are making me suspicious all of a sudden. I bet somewhere in the last 2-3 people to agree about Anon one is scum. ##unvote
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 22:40
|
|
