[/quote]
You know I've been told I can reduce the games you ask to go in to if I so desire. Don't press it any further.
[/quote]
Why is it that whenever DLA did something scummy you kept pointing out a game he was lynched and was the doctor but knowing how badly saber plays and has been pointed out you still want to lynch him?Netopalis wrote:Meh, I'm still keeping my vote on Saber. He's exhibited every scumtell in the book, far beyond the bounds of bad play. I played in a game recently with him, and while he was pretty bad...he wasn't THIS bad. I think we can distinguish the two games and say that he looks scummy anyway, but in games in which he actually is scum, he looks EXTREMELY scummy.
My theories are all independent of each other. I've taken great care not to associate my suspects with each other or else I might out masons. I was a mason once, in a game much like this one. Me and one of my partners, a new player at the time by the name of a papaya, were outed on Day 1. It's bad enough if scum figure out who the masons are without the masons having to actually come out and claim, dragging one of their partners with them because they did a bad job of hiding their relationship.SerialClergyman wrote:The biggest issue that I don't understand is why Albert isn't focusing on hewitt. It seems to me that his theories of the game are centered around one player that he no longer wishes to vote.
It can certainly mean that CSL was unsure of his scumbuddies' reaction to a town hewitt getting closer to lynch. Maybe his two partners are either on the wagon or threatening to hammer, and he wants to play the opposing side to not out the scum team. There are a lot of interpretations.SerialClergyman wrote:For example, your dissertation of what CSL secretly meant depended on hewitt being a scum buddy. If not, it reads like it should, a bad player trying to work out if hewitt's defence was genuine or if it was scum on the end of a hook. He goes with his gut, changes his mind, remains suspicious - he's reacting in the right ways, just explaining it in a hamfisted way. But rather than that being indicative of hewitt's alignment (your buddies don't know whether to bus you or not), Albert suddenly switches.
It's notSerialClergyman wrote:Rubbish. That is a townie who thinks he's just fucked up beyond repair and is demoralised into getting rid of himself. If he'd chosen to replace out himself you might have more of a case, but he was forcibly replaced - essentially, his final action was to give up in frustration and wish his own death.
Bad play and good play can be broken down and analyzed for short-term intention and long-term motive. Human beings aren't exactly logical creatures, but there are near-inescapable patterns that govern our communication and the thought process behind it. I am conditioned to reflexively suspect the series of posts that CSL made before he was replaced. The margin of error is low.SerialClergyman wrote:The essence of my argument is that self-voting hold no value for scum and town. It's anti-town if you're town and anti-scum if you're scum. It's stupid, not playing to your win condition and deserves a replacement. But it's not indicative of one alignment or the other, it's indicative of BAD PLAY.
It's not a policy, it's common sense. I think the scenario you mentioned is much more favorable to a situation where it's one elite scum player left with two rag players as town.Netopalis wrote:ABR's policy of going after the best players on D1 leads to the logical conclusion of a terrible, terrible endgame in which the worst players compete to see who looks the scummiest.
You are severely mistaken: I have accused three players. First Netopalis, because he accuses me of not providing evidence when, out of hypocrisy, he's not even building proper cases of his own. Second is hewitt, because he won't tell the abridged story of the twilight saga. Third is clergyman, because his secret identity is batman. Batman was scum. Everyone knows that.saberwolf wrote:I just ISOed ABR, and not anywhere did I see him say that anybody in the game as being town, and has accused just about everybody of being scum, so he's really no better than the rest of us.
I also noticed a fascinating post that said you would not mislynch me and a few others, good to know
you have also targetted farside, ellebreth, konowa and kik, as well as myself. oh, and DLA tooAlbert B. Rampage wrote:You are severely mistaken: I have accused three players. First Netopalis, because he accuses me of not providing evidence when, out of hypocrisy, he's not even building proper cases of his own. Second is hewitt, because he won't tell the abridged story of the twilight saga. Third is clergyman, because his secret identity is batman. Batman was scum. Everyone knows that.saberwolf wrote:I just ISOed ABR, and not anywhere did I see him say that anybody in the game as being town, and has accused just about everybody of being scum, so he's really no better than the rest of us.
I also noticed a fascinating post that said you would not mislynch me and a few others, good to know
It pains me that you don't read the game, saberwolf. It makes me cry in the shower at night. Only there will my tears be washed away and my manliness preserved in the cruel outside world.
hewitt wrote:That's because you clearly have not read this game.Ellibereth wrote:I don't see what's so pro-town about Neto...
I'll admit everything here is true except for the first sentence.SerialClergyman wrote: Ellibereth is scum. That is an epic case of hold on for the ride bandwagoning. His entire play has been 'I agree'.