Page 24 of 108
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:29 am
by TwoFace
plain and simple you are voting him for playing poorly.
either he is town and is a poor player or he is scum doing it on purpose.
That is exactly what a policy lynch is. Nobody said that policy lynches can be on scum.
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:32 am
by Gamma Emerald
OK
I'd prefer if you'd stop discrediting it by calling it a policy lynch though.
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:33 am
by TwoFace
who else besides creep would you lynch today and why gamma?
p.edit - but that's what it is. voting a person for playing poorly is what policy lynches were invented for
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:37 am
by Gamma Emerald
In post 577, TwoFace wrote:who else besides creep would you lynch today and why gamma?
p.edit - but that's what it is. voting a person for playing poorly is what policy lynches were invented for
Fitz or Hiraki.
I understand it's a policy lynch, but the way you talk about feels like discrediting.
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:52 am
by TwoFace
well yeah, and rightfully so. policy lynches suck. if you think he is scum, make a case and convince people off that. don't vote him because he's playing poorly. If he's town blacklist and wotc him going forward but let's at least make some meaningful lynches
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 1:46 pm
by Aristophanes
We have 20 hours left and 4 viable wagons. I'll check later tn, but I like my vote where it is. Hiraki doesn't feel scummy to me.
That's all I have time for atm.
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 1:48 pm
by Gamma Emerald
I think it's better for me to shift rn, I AM scumreading Hiraki, and if it's a PR we want to have some time to switch
VOTE: Hiraki
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 2:38 pm
by TwoFace
In post 580, Aristophanes wrote:We have 20 hours left and 4 viable wagons. I'll check later tn, but I like my vote where it is. Hiraki doesn't feel scummy to me.
That's all I have time for atm.
What 4 viable wagons?
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 2:54 pm
by Aristophanes
The 4 is a 2
Apparently I can't do numbers...
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:29 pm
by havingfitz
In post 562, TwoFace wrote:I am still waiting on you to explain in detail why you are town reading hiraki and tvd
You used gut earlier but gave no actual reasons.
I wall post responded to your post 420 consolidation of several questions to me. If I can't get you to answer a simple question in return as to why you suspect/are voting me then no further responses to you are warranted after this post. And there is no reason to explain in detail why on page 8 or 9 I have players who I lean town on. Especially to appease you who on more than one occasion in this game have dismissed providing reasons:
Here are some quotes from you on that subject:
143 - "you don't always have to justify your reads" (so no details required?)
149 - "doesn't need to give reasons for all his scum reads, especially early day 1". (So reasons for scum reads AREN'T required but are for players I say I lean town on?)
262 - "no strong reads....my vote is more of a gut thing atm". (no so details required?)
338 - "but gut is a legitimate reason to vote" (but not to believe someone is town?)
And I do not spend as much effort assigning people a town read when my focus is finding scum. I suspect you are scum. Hence my vote, with reasons, on you. I have expended more effort and provided more response for you than deserved. If you can't provide a case on me (concisely would be nice) then you have no business pushing it (whatever "it" is). ***Incentive for you...if you do a good enough job you might get my wagon rolling again.
In post 562, TwoFace wrote:Let's lock down some reasons so you can't backtrack later.
you know since that is what you thought I was going to do with my Misa read so it's only fair that you outline your reads with actual reasons so you can't do the same thing.
See detail comments above.
And it's not the same thing. You voting someone and giving several reasons for it and then just 3 posts later, and again later that day, saying your vote is gut (though gut was not one of the reasons you provided) is backtracking IMO. Me saying I think someone is town and then (if I were to) provide details later is 1) not backtracking....it's supporting my position, and 2) any reasons for thinking players are town (and reasons do exist btw) would not be "locked down." A town lean has as just as much chance of becoming suspect later in the game as a suspect (ex. Io and LUV) does at becoming a town read later.
In post 564, TwoFace wrote:@fitz - after you do than can we get some thoughts on Creeps. Obviously you aren't going to be voting hiraki which means creeps is most likely where your vote is going to go. I just want to see if you think he is scum and if so, why do you think he is.
Pay attention...I provided comment on Creeps already. Hit the #number link next in the isolation parentheses and do a search on Creeps.
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:37 pm
by TwoFace
In post 584, havingfitz wrote:If I can't get you to answer a simple question in return as to why you suspect/are voting me then no further responses to you are warranted after this post.
You asked me to answer a question I already answered way before you asked me. So how can you sit there and say I didn't answer you is mind boggling to me.
In post 584, havingfitz wrote:And there is no reason to explain in detail why on page 8 or 9 I have players who I lean town on.
Refuse to answer. Got it.
Let's lynch this guy now. I'm certainly not reading anything else he says anymore if he can't justify his town reads when asked.
Y'all do what you want but my vote is staying on this scumbag.
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:36 pm
by Aristophanes
Still got dueling wagons, so I'll check once more in the morning before work, but shit guys, can we figure this out please?
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:55 pm
by TwoFace
We got an extension and until we get a replacement deadline will probably be extended again. How about you do something useful for a change.
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:55 pm
by TwoFace
In post 551, Dierfire wrote:I'm seeking a replacement for Eric Rasputin.
The deadline has been extended 24 hours at this time; I will decide upon further extensions at a later time.
(expired on 2016-12-01 16:30:00)
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:13 pm
by Aristophanes
I didn't even see that post O.o
Fine, I'll go make a case or something.
Like, I didn't think there was enough time, and I also thought he had popped in, making a replacement unnecessary.
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 7:32 pm
by Dierfire
Hiraki (4): Lil Uzi Vert, MisaTange, Eric Rasputin, Gamma Emerald
Creeps20 (3): ScumDeersAreVeryTasty, Hiraki, Aristophanes
Lil Uzi Vert (1): TheseViolentDelights
TwoFace (1): havingfitz
ScumDeersAreVeryTasty (1): Creeps20
havingfitz (1): TwoFace
No Vote (2): FrankJaeger, Vedith
With 13 players living, 7 votes are required to lynch.
(expired on 2016-12-03 16:30:00)
Seeking replacement for Eric Rasputin
Seeking replacement for TheseViolentDelights
Deadline extended a further 48 hours at this time
Gamma Emerald V/LA until 16 December (normal activity/prod requirements will apply)
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:49 pm
by Vedith
VOTE: havingfitz
I haven't had a chance to raise the case yet, it will come.
Had to focus on priority onsite.
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 4:38 am
by FrankJaeger
Still too busy irl. Ive read quite a bit, but not enough to vote comfortably. Still not seeing hiraki as scum but idk
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:16 am
by Vedith
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:54 am
by havingfitz
In post 585, TwoFace wrote:You asked me to answer a question I already answered way before you asked me. So how can you sit there and say I didn't answer you is mind boggling to me.
I asked you to provide your case on me using points that haven't been shown to be false. You have not done so...before or after my question.
In post 585, TwoFace wrote:Refuse to answer. Got it.
Let's lynch this guy now. I'm certainly not reading anything else he says anymore if he can't justify his town reads when asked.
Why should I answer your questions when you refuse to answer mine? And as far as me justifying my town reads....stop being such a hypocrite. These are quotes from you:
143 - "you don't always have to justify your reads" (so no details required?)
149 - "doesn't need to give reasons for all his scum reads, especially early day 1". (So reasons for scum reads AREN'T required but are for players I say I lean town on?)
338 - "but gut is a legitimate reason to vote" (but not to believe someone is town?)
Since you do not want to update your case on me I'll assume you are sticking to your initial case which afaict was "Too many non ai or non truths being twisted into appearing bad." For those not paying attention here they are again
with my responses following.
In post 352, TwoFace wrote:
Early stat theory stuff is null since that was the conversation going on - to say otherwise is scum motivated imo unless you can explain how staying active in the conversation is bad which nobody can cause it's not.
- I didn't say staying active was bad. IMO talking about the statistical odds of hitting scum in a group of four players on P1 of D1 is completely worthless. And going on and on about it serves absolutely no value and just gives the impression of trying. If it's not doing that then it has no place in the game...therefore is not progressing the game at all...and I find that counterproductive...aka suspect.
Shade mason? Where? - pretty sure I didn't so possible misrep here
- I viewed your
Post 33 comments towards LUV as trying to plant seeds of suspicion (shade) on him.
I certainly didn't misrep ted. Misrep in your part
- you claimed Ted inferred Eric had to
~always justify his reads and that Eric
"gave no reasons" for his votes. And didn't give reasons for "all of his scum reads." All Ted said when he voted Eric in
Post 142 was that Eric was "throwing out reads with zero backing." "Reads" implies more than one read....not ALL reads. Throughout your debate with Ted he states he was referring to two scumreads in particular. Not ALL of Eric's reads as you attack him for. IMO this was misrepping Ted to garner unwarranted suspicions on him.
Naked votes aren't bad - you should know better than that
- I never said naked votes were bad. My comment was to indicate voting a mason was bad.
Defending a town read one who's most likely lynch bait - protown.
- I didn't say this was bad. I simply placed it there to look back on later if and when yours or Eric's alignments were known.
Vote on gut but gave reasons is somehow bad? No because gut is usually able to be explained by pointing to things. If you were a newb I could see you making this mistake but you aren't a newb
- you didn't vote on gut. You gave several reasons for your vote. It was backing off your reasons and saying your vote was gut afterwards that I find suspect..
My vote on misa was good imo, reiterating it isn't bad
- Voting town is never good. With the current knowledge that exists...that you were voting town...I can say in hindsight that vote was bad. Essentially VCA. You want to dismiss it because I'm using it against you in combination with other suspicions. Not on it's own...in combination with other suspicions.
Snarkiness - this is non ai, especially since it's my personality
So fitz is probably scum. Too many non ai or non truths being twisted into appearing bad. No way an experienced town player comes to this conclusion.
VOTE: fitz
So NO non-truths. And as far as AI...whether you the accused agree or not...in my opinion there are things AI. Ex. what I deem a misrep on Ted, backing off your Misa vote reasoning, and voting town.
In post 357, TwoFace wrote:the biggest problem I see with fitz post is he is discrediting people who voted for the masons, when nobody voted a known mason. Just because somebody voted somebody who later claimed mason doesn't mean their vote was bad.
At one point LUV's wagon was at 5 votes. You think there was no scum in those 5 votes?
You were the only person who voted Misa for what was eventually in your words....weak reasoning and gut. In hindsight is voting town bad?
Below are some quotes from a response from you to Deers:
In post 377, TwoFace wrote:
Go read the part where
he's basically calling anyone who voted the masons bad,
but he was scum reading one of the masons which means his basis for that assumption is bad. Also look at the example where he as town previously led a lynch on a town PR which also means HISTORICALLY his thought process is flawed.
This is a blatant lie. You are misrepping me to Deers and anyone else paying attention. In hindsight all of the votes on masons were bad because voting town is bad. I do not however ever say anyone who voted the masons is scum and I do not suspect anyone of being scum solely on the basis of the fact they voted a mason. It's just one factor to consider.
In post 377, TwoFace wrote:
A person votes a scummy person who later claims a pr, doesn't make everyone guilty.
That's how he's treating everyone though.
This is a blatant lie. You are misrepping me to Deers and anyone else paying attention. You even point out that I'm not treating everyone as guilty on more than one post.
Please explain how asking Eric a hypothetical question implies I know he is town? Because I asked him to "pretend to be scum?" Absurd.
In Summary....look at what TwoFace is accusing me of and make your own determinations. He hasn't made any valid case on me and his main objection is something he himself has shown to be false.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Other misc comments....
One thing I do agree with TwoFace on is that Vedith is simple minded. TF is in no way "town as shit." Vedith is either his scum buddy or blowing smoke up his ass to keep him off his. Ironic given that TF drove Vedith's predecessor bat shit crazy by misrepping him (though they consummated their spat with any votes).
This game has a serious case of the nobody gives a fcuks.
Frank needs force replaced....all he has done over the last 9 days is post 9 times making excuses or promises while not seeming to have the same problem in his other games.
Eric and TVD flaking sucks. At least Eric's replacement will come in with all that town cred Eric built up by being new to this site and coming across as a troll/VI. Because apparently no scum ever did that.
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:03 am
by TwoFace
At least one person has seen the light. More fitz votes please.
@frank if you're busy replace out cause you're not helping anyone being useless. At least sheep me and vote fitz scum
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:30 am
by MisaTange
I need to reread Hiraki's posts >_>
But anyway I think that comment on 143/149 is a misrep because he was talking about page 6. Very early day 1, which is imo okay to judge reads based on gut/tone and nothing more. If it was said right now (late day one, on the edge of night one), it would've been okay, but that was page friqqin six.
...did people talk about the "replacements = scum" thing beyond page one...? I saw that someone either voted or fosed Io's slot for it which was NAI, because it seemed like a genuine misunderstanding between RvS and statistic-related scumhunting.
TF needs to respond to the rest. If he wants to.
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:31 am
by TwoFace
Respond to what?
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:35 am
by TwoFace
What do the masons think of myself and fitz. Y'all been quiet. Uzi is unnecessarily quiet.
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:35 am
by TwoFace
Unusually not unnecessary