Ah, but I already gave my opinion about your Erg0 situation in this post. It seemed like a straw man of Erg0 to me and therefore it, too, didn't really amount to much in my opinion.Oman wrote:I can't believe you thought you'd get away with that. You didn't quote my erg0 situation or anything, you just quoted my 1 liners.Incog wrote:if you were town, even if you felt like your vote on opie was completely warranted you probably should have commented on the other developments that were going on.
I've tried hard to look at things from a neutral perspective today. I've tried to cut people slack for being mean and angry, and I dropped my argument against you being scummy yesterday after things seemed to settle between you and Guardian. I only brought it up again when you asked about it.Incognito wrote:Matt_S, so basically what your analysis boils down to is if you're nice, you're pro-town and if you're mean, you're anti-town? Rofl.
And now you can't recall me doing anything scummy from yesterday but you yourself mentioned yesterday that my reluctance to answer the questions Guardian posed for me was scummy?
Matt_S wrote:I only brought it up again when youand Patrickasked about it.
I tried typing out a couple of posts of bullshit, and gave up. I picked opie at random at the start and decided to get him lynched. I believe random lynches on day 1 in mini normals are more likely to be accurate than non-random lynches, but only if the voters don't know that they are part of a random lynch. Sorry opie.Matt_S wrote:
Adel
I never really understood why Adel was so sure that opie was scum, and so early on. However, I'll wait for Adel to give the promised explanation.
Mathematically, a random lynch only has to be more likely to get scum than the average results of actual games.Erg0 wrote:Mathematically, a random lynch is never going to be more likely to hit scum than town.
This is why the opie wagon looked even shadier to me at the end of the day than when it began. Hence, Oman is likely scum as is ChaosOmega (and maybe even Adel).Adel wrote:I didn't even remember his first post, but when I saw it his post history when I was collecting those quotes for you I figured I could fit it in pretty nicely. A good way to start or maybe not?
What I was writing was true, but it didn't really answer your question. I spent some time writing it so I didn't want to just throw it away when I examined why I was dodging the question. I don't think he was trying to "communicate" anything with his first post. My bad.
Yeah, I just reread it. It doesn't matter whether you find the nicer people or the meaner people to be scummy. Your view of what's scummy and what isn't seems very simplistic. The meanest person in the world could sometimes be aligned on the side of the town. My point is if you're just going to be judging people's play based on their demeanor, then how do you expect to actually find scum?Matt_S wrote:@Incognito: Is your most recent post referring to my suspicions today or my suspicions yesterday? At first I thought it was the latter, but I'm not sure. Because I'm suspicious of more nice people than mean people today.
if there any numbers to prove me wrong they would be found at: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 08&start=0Matt_S wrote:I don't have any numbers to prove you wrong.
It's not a big part today, but yesterday when I saw people acting angry and/or irrational I was tempted to see that as not being helpful, and thus scummy. But now that we've had a night there's a lot more available than just how sociable they were.Incognito wrote:Yeah, I just reread it. It doesn't matter whether you find the nicer people or the meaner people to be scummy. Your view of what's scummy and what isn't seems very simplistic. The meanest person in the world could sometimes be aligned on the side of the town. My point is if you're just going to be judging people's play based on their demeanor, then how do you expect to actually find scum?Matt_S wrote:@Incognito: Is your most recent post referring to my suspicions today or my suspicions yesterday? At first I thought it was the latter, but I'm not sure. Because I'm suspicious of more nice people than mean people today.
I thought she was backing down on the "he's communicating something to scumbuddies" point. I didn't see that as applying to the whole case. In fact I doubt she was doing what you said she is there, because she's claiming the people on the lynch had to be unaware that it was random.Incognito wrote:Why does this come as a surprise to everyone? She pretty much admitted that the case against opie was pure bullshit here:
yep, but not since September of last year.Erg0 wrote:Out of interest, have you ever run the numbers yourself?
totally scum.Patrick wrote:I thought she was backing down on the "he's communicating something to scumbuddies" point. I didn't see that as applying to the whole case. In fact I doubt she was doing what you said she is there, because she's claiming the people on the lynch had to be unaware that it was random.Incognito wrote:Why does this come as a surprise to everyone? She pretty much admitted that the case against opie was pure bullshit here:
Adel, what do you think of Oman?
Can I ask why?Adel wrote:totally scum.Patrick wrote: Adel, what do you think of Oman?
sometimes gambits work.Patrick wrote:I will laugh so hard if Adel turns out to be town and Chaos and Oman are both scumbags.
knife. I think is just as probable that the mod used two different kill types to mark the difference between a mafia kill and a vig kill as it could be for a sk kill and a mafia kill. Or we could have a mafia of knives and a mafia of guns. Either way with a dead tracker and a dead watcher there is no way there is also a cop. CO could be a sk or mafia, doesn't matter.Erg0 wrote:Which one do you think was the vig's target?