[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Undefined array key 7452482 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Trying to access array offset on value of type null Blitz 12: Double Trouble! (Game Over) - Mafiascum.net
Post
Post #284 (isolation #6) » Wed Dec 09, 2015 3:11 pm
Postby texcat »
In post 273, Errantparabola wrote:
1) Squirrelly is one of those folks that's easily townread by the group this game. Basically sheeping a townread, so no town points to wanderer here.
2) I'm curious about the townread on Yakko. I really want Wanderer to explain this because it's contributing to Yakko getting away with staying on the sidelines and potentially letting Yakko go unpressured for a good time.
3) Scumlean on Always and Dom are both easy targets and Wanderer preemptively tries to alleviate suspicion on this by admitting it and I don't like that.
4) Phantom is also an easy target (which doesn't make him town btw) and Wanderer continually, in her explanation tries to mitigate her gently pushing along a lynch that's been gaining momentum by providing excuses for wanderer.
Thanks. I agree that it's a weak post by Wanderer. I still wonder if that's what AI meant by not "trusting". If you were curious about the townread on Yakko, why didn't you ask?
Post
Post #464 (isolation #9) » Sat Dec 12, 2015 5:16 pm
Postby texcat »
In post 442, Squirrelly wrote:Here is why I don't believe Titus and her claim.
She attacks do to one death but acts like it should be clear with her vote it could be protective.
Her scum read is based on lynching pc, we weren't on the wagon so that is crap and not a single post seems to go on the assumption of protecting, which is what a town protective role would think too.
I'm pretty sure Titus said that her scum read was due to your initial reaction to her claim. If you had started out saying thanks for protecting me, Titus would have said you're welcome and backed off.
Post
Post #640 (isolation #13) » Mon Dec 14, 2015 5:50 am
Postby texcat »
I don't like the way he's come in and jumped on whatever bandwagon has been convenient at the time. His reads don't seem to have consistency. He seems to be just going along with the crowd.
Post
Post #644 (isolation #14) » Mon Dec 14, 2015 7:03 am
Postby texcat »
Yes, but re-ISOing.
Errant starts by commenting on Fire. He says he doesn't like her posts, but later claims that he is explicitly not scumreading her. Agreeing, but not agreeing with the current wagon. This would have a major impact for me if either Errant or Fire flips scum, but as is, I just dislike the fence sitting.
Firebringer wrote:Just looking at that vote count on me.
I am impresssed, who else besides maybe titus would have this many votes on them this early?
I amaze myself, I haven't even done anything
This is not a reaction that makes me very confident in fire being town
In post 53, Errantparabola wrote:there's no town motivation for making it.
Fire made a post that talked about himself. How does that move the game forward?
I also have extremely minor problems with the cavalier attitude (is it faked?) but that can be ignored for now because that could be just playstyle.
that I am town, but I have not said or done anything yet that could lead to a reliable townread. In fact, some people seem to be suspicious of me, so why does she townread me?
Titus you say you have AI as a scumread. How opposed are you to voting here?
I disliked the above post. A lot. Titus did vote you, but later unvoted and you ended up a townread for her. And suddenly,
In post 265, Errantparabola wrote:A quick skim over the past few pages and AI is actually looking townier by the second. Let me do a full reread but for now UNVOTE:
In post 540, Errantparabola wrote:AI, I'll respond to your question with: are you opposed to voting flubber?
Post
Post #690 (isolation #15) » Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:32 am
Postby texcat »
In post 646, AlwaysInnocent wrote:Or do you mean Titus townreading me? I am not sure if she did before D2, but I may just be overlooking it.
This. Although looking back, I'm not sure she was townreading you on D1, but she did lose interest in voting you. I probably have some confirmation bias at work here.
119 Errant asks Titus to vote AI since Titus has a scumread on AI. 122 Titus votes AI.
In post 153, Titus wrote:Ok, I will meet you half way. I take Dwelee as innocent. You take AI as innocent.
Your move.
158 Titus unvotes. 164 AI is on Squirrel's town list.
PC wagon builds up. 265 Errant unvotes.
Post
Post #849 (isolation #20) » Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:49 am
Postby texcat »
VOTE: Errant
This is the third day I've voted him.
And how did Ranger suddenly turn into conftown? Errant was voting for her and suddenly overnight she has turned into conftown. Am I missing something again? I was still thinking that Ranger and Errant are on opposing scum teams.
And it wouldn't surprise me to find another one of Wanderer's team on the tail endish of his wagon. Yakko and Dom.
Post
Post #857 (isolation #21) » Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:49 am
Postby texcat »
Errant, scum. Went from buddying up to Titus and voting Ranger to buddying up to Ranger and voting me.
Ranger, scummy. Less sure about this. I would want to re-read before voting here.
Dom, Yakko, Flubber. Possible scum in this group. I have a feeling that none of this group has read the thread carefully or kept up. Perhaps they are trying to fly under the radar. I could easily see Dom or Yakko bussing Wanderer.
Insincere?? I assure you that it was not insincere. I'm not sure why you're characterizing it that way.
I can see how you think I was emphasizing consistency, but what I was feeling was more like, Please can we lynch Errant already??
In post 877, Ranger wrote: Yes, we have these incriminating interactions in addition to texcat fitting the same posting profile as ABR and Wanderer: focusing only on specific players and not providing much reason behind their pushes, with a low post count.
If that isn't enough for you, then I'm sorry, you need to seriously rethink how you play; it's rock-solid evidence.
"Not providing much reason"? As opposed to you, who provides readlists with no reasons?
Post
Post #920 (isolation #23) » Mon Dec 21, 2015 6:44 am
Postby texcat »
In post 914, Errantparabola wrote:
texcat. answer my damn question. what do you think about yakko as vampire considering wanderer's terrible townread on them?
Why are you pretending that I haven't answered this already.
In post 849, texcat wrote:VOTE: Errant
This is the third day I've voted him.
And how did Ranger suddenly turn into conftown? Errant was voting for her and suddenly overnight she has turned into conftown. Am I missing something again? I was still thinking that Ranger and Errant are on opposing scum teams.
And it wouldn't surprise me to find another one of Wanderer's team on the tail endish of his wagon. Yakko and Dom.
In post 857, texcat wrote:Errant, scum. Went from buddying up to Titus and voting Ranger to buddying up to Ranger and voting me.
Ranger, scummy. Less sure about this. I would want to re-read before voting here.
Dom, Yakko, Flubber. Possible scum in this group. I have a feeling that none of this group has read the thread carefully or kept up. Perhaps they are trying to fly under the radar.
Post
Post #928 (isolation #24) » Mon Dec 21, 2015 8:39 am
Postby texcat »
In post 922, Errantparabola wrote:I assume that since I'm buddying ranger, you think ranger is town. So at least you have a few things right.
why did you feel the need to point out that you were voting me 3 days in a row?
No, I'm still leaning scum on Ranger, as I also said earlier. Ranger does not have to be town for you to buddy up with her. It doesn't matter what I think, or even what Ranger actually is. It says something about you, but not much about Ranger for you to be buddying her.
Insincere?? I assure you that it was not insincere. I'm not sure why you're characterizing it that way.
I can see how you think I was emphasizing consistency,
but what I was feeling was more like, Please can we lynch Errant already??
In post 877, Ranger wrote: Yes, we have these incriminating interactions in addition to texcat fitting the same posting profile as ABR and Wanderer: focusing only on specific players and not providing much reason behind their pushes, with a low post count.
If that isn't enough for you, then I'm sorry, you need to seriously rethink how you play; it's rock-solid evidence.
"Not providing much reason"? As opposed to you, who provides readlists with no reasons?
Am I the only one who thinks that Errant is just pretending to scum hunt?
Post
Post #982 (isolation #26) » Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:52 am
Postby texcat »
** sigh **
Will I ever be able to convince anyone on Errant?
VOTE: Flubber
L-1
In post 967, Ranger wrote:When I gave my readslist, that was me giving a spreadsheet of the whole game. When you've given not much reasoning, you've...done so on a select few players. One or two. You're refusing to take stances on more players. Combine that with a low post count and low activity, and you've got why you are scum.
This is just
not true
. When AI asked nicely for a reads list, I gave it. As the game has gone on, my reads have developed. My post count may be low, but I don't think that my activity is low. I just don't post a lot of one line throw away posts. You, on the other hand, went from complete read list based on RVS(!) to a Texcat tunnel. You
say
that you might find other people scummy, but are totally unwilling to compromise and vote for one of your other scum candidates.
Post
Post #1055 (isolation #35) » Tue Dec 22, 2015 1:00 pm
Postby texcat »
In post 1032, hi im Yakko wrote:Texcat will either omgusnor vote flubber or say nothing in hopes of a no lynch. If votes flubber we can all vote flubber if we want.
I made it perfectly clear that I would be back to vote Flubber. Why are you questioning this?
Post
Post #1297 (isolation #41) » Thu Dec 31, 2015 4:29 am
Postby texcat »
Pisskop, I think the actions and the NK need to be locked in at the same time. With that hour in between, the werewolves could always change the NK and we had no possible way to react to it.
