![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
KainTepes should always be lynched D1
VOTE: KainTepes
In post 61, Kop wrote:Is there a point towards those few posts, Creature, Kaintepes?
I don't see any agitation that your putting out there, KT.
In post 71, TheSoldier wrote:@GoodNight: Early thoughts on people other than Kain?
In post 79, Kop wrote:When was the last time you played with him?
In post 85, Masquerade wrote:@GNMG: What exactly strikes you as newbie from me?
In post 93, Masquerade wrote:In post 89, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:
In post 85, Masquerade wrote:@GNMG: What exactly strikes you as newbie from me?
Your perspective on the game.
It's not meant poorly; we were all new once, and Newbs can be and are just as good as anyone else.
I'm not new, but I don't consider myself a superawesome mafiaplayer either. So I'm curious what perspective you mean, I want to get better so I can actually be a superawesome mafiaplayer.
In post 112, Klingoncelt wrote:In post 102, Ranger wrote:{GoodNightMsGreen, TheSoldier}
{Nahdia}
{acryon}
{Reubus Swagrid, Willowmeadow}
{Kop, zefiend, KainTepes, Masquerade}
{Klingoncelt}
{Creature}
Top three are solidly town, bottom two are solidly scum. We might actually have lucked out and gotten a two-scum setup.
I dunno about Creature, but I'm about as Town as it gets.
Explain yourself, Ranger.
In post 131, Creature wrote:I want to know the reasonings so I can work with them.
In post 137, Creature wrote:Still, I don't feel it's enough. I have some opinions, but they're not very accurate.
I have a weird feeling on Kop, all his posts are questions, some might be scum hunting, others might be an aim for town cred.
TheSoldier has been mostly asking questions the entire game, but I don't see them as an attempt to get town cred.
I am not really sure on Nahdia, some of her posts seem to be aiming to please some of us.
KainTepes going silent very sudden is strange however.
I have no opinion on Masquere, although, some of his posts seemed town-intended, some not.
p-edit: I'll point what I feel about GoodNightMsGreen on my next post.
In post 141, acryon wrote:I agree on GoodNightMsGreen, especially seeing them all together.
In post 144, acryon wrote:In post 143, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:
It's interesting that you say you agree with Creature about our alignment when Creature never actually stated a point about our alignment.
His thoughts on your alignment seemed clear.
In post 160, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:Creature, please give us an exhaustive read on KainTepes, your accusations need to be backed by solid facts : please show us how you are not ignoring KainTepes by giving your reads on him.
~Blue
In post 159, Creature wrote:In post 143, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:Get a little more wishywashy, why don't you? Classic newbScum, Creature, I don't like it.
When you say something like that I always get a bad feeling.
tbh I'd like to know what wishywashy means.
Spoiler:
1. Then have him explain.
2. If you say
3. Then tell us why his lynch will be benefitial?
4. Still, not a reason to ignore him.
5.
a. "the teasing really reminds me of something I do as both alignments in Newbie games" So do you consider Ranger town for that?
b. Disagree on what?
c. Thought you were bothered on solving Ranger's "confident" reads.
d. You say you have a bad feeling on his tone.
6. Whatever.
7. This is why I have a bad feeling about this post. You just say "you are not even trying" out of nowhere.
In post 161, TheSoldier wrote:Klingon saying she's super town when she has no posts of substance reads like fake town bluster. How can anyone be confused that they're scumread when all of their posts are fluff?
Creature's case on GoodNight is weak. The PL point acts like wanting a policy lynch is a scumtell (it isn't). I'm not even sure what he means by "buddying" in 139. The rest is fluff put there to make the case seem more substantial. It's as if he started with a desire to scumread GoodNight and went through their posts looking for stuff to make them look bad - a manufactured read, in other words.
The case is bad to the point that I don't like Acryon buying into it so easily.
In post 162, Creature wrote:I already stated KainTepes' behavior seems different. If you want explanation, it's because his town self makes push votes even out of RVS, not the case here. I found it weird GoodNight first came wanting to just policy lynch KainTepes, but then wanting to completely ignore him.
In post 172, acryon wrote:78 reads really badly. Faux-content. 62 is also bad, and looks very much like buddying a townie or preemptively defending a scum-partner.
In post 173, Kop wrote:In post 155, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:Or he just said he was because he forgot why he was going to say he voted her.If he forgot why he voted for her, then he could clearly state that, since he didn't give a reason.
In post 157, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:He wasn't on my radar at the time.
He doesn't need to be on your radar for you to take a issue with it though, surely? Your reading the thread, you don't just think 'I'll not ask anything or talk about that post, he's not on my radar".
In post 71, TheSoldier wrote:PEdit: Why Creature
In post 172, acryon wrote:78 reads really badly. Faux-content. 62 is also bad, and looks very much like buddying a townie or preemptively defending a scum-partner.
In post 156, acryon wrote:Is this what you think? You didn't seem to have an issue with it at the time.
In post 185, Kop wrote:In post 155, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:Or he just said he was because he forgot why he was going to say he voted her.
I might have misinterpreted this, but I'm reading this like you said he said that, or at least was going to say that. My apologies if I have confused both your statement and mine.
In post 188, Masquerade wrote:(Just one thing msgreen, I'm an alt, certainly not a newb)
In post 190, Masquerade wrote:(It's funny you think that)
In post 191, acryon wrote:
I would expect a vote if you're implying what I think you are. Put your money where your mouth is.
In post 198, Ranger wrote:The acryon-GoodNightMsGreen fight is boring.
In post 205, acryon wrote:In post 204, Reubus Swagrid wrote:Anyway a case for Creature town would really help him out if you could put it to his voters ɀefiend
Burden of proof is on the accuser, especially day 1, where it is very hard to see who is town because there is less information/time available for scumhunting to work with.
In post 213, acryon wrote:In post 212, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:Like I said, very small sample, should be taken with a grain of salt. I have literally no time to chase down the data but maybe when I get back.
Well then you should know that your small sample is essentially useless and shouldn't be taken at all, even with a grain of salt. The only reason I'm being so harsh on this is because people shouldn't be buying into this counter-narrative when there just isn't the evidence to support it.
In post 205, acryon wrote:In post 204, Reubus Swagrid wrote:Anyway a case for Creature town would really help him out if you could put it to his voters ɀefiend
Burden of proof is on the accuser, especially day 1, where it is very hard to see who is town because there is less information/time available for scumhunting to work with.
In post 139, Creature wrote:
In post 62, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:In post 61, Kop wrote:Is there a point towards those few posts, Creature, Kaintepes?
I don't see any agitation that your putting out there, KT.
I think you can ignore him, he will always post like this. However he does try to win the game, in his own way I think ...
~BlueTrin
What? You'll now completely ignore KainTepes? This looks like a big trace of buddying.
In post 141, acryon wrote:I agree on GoodNightMsGreen, especially seeing them all together.
VOTE: GoodNightMsGreen
In post 213, acryon wrote:In post 212, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:Like I said, very small sample, should be taken with a grain of salt. I have literally no time to chase down the data but maybe when I get back.
Well then you should know that your small sample is essentially useless and shouldn't be taken at all, even with a grain of salt. The only reason I'm being so harsh on this is because people shouldn't be buying into this counter-narrative when there just isn't the evidence to support it.
In post 62, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:In post 61, Kop wrote:Is there a point towards those few posts, Creature, Kaintepes?
I don't see any agitation that your putting out there, KT.
I think you can ignore him, he will always post like this. However he does try to win the game, in his own way I think ...
~BlueTrin
In post 218, acryon wrote:In post 216, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:
It should be obvious why one would want KainTepes to be policy lynched from his posting style. For some reason, Creature can't see it.
I don't think Creature can't see it; he just appears to principally disagree with policy lynches, as do I.
In post 216, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:In post 139, Creature wrote:
In post 62, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:In post 61, Kop wrote:Is there a point towards those few posts, Creature, Kaintepes?
I don't see any agitation that your putting out there, KT.
I think you can ignore him, he will always post like this. However he does try to win the game, in his own way I think ...
~BlueTrin
What? You'll now completely ignore KainTepes? This looks like a big trace of buddying.
Now in the same post you accuse me of buddying him ??? WTF Creature, get a grip and stop fighting yourself !
This seems like a clear example of stream of consciousness posting hence the "now" from him in the second post. It indicates there is a state being changed.
In post 216, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:Acryon's ISO seems to be almost dedicated to defending Creature.
In post 213, acryon wrote:In post 212, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:Like I said, very small sample, should be taken with a grain of salt. I have literally no time to chase down the data but maybe when I get back.
Well then you should know that your small sample is essentially useless and shouldn't be taken at all, even with a grain of salt. The only reason I'm being so harsh on this is because people shouldn't be buying into this counter-narrative when there just isn't the evidence to support it.
This could as well apply to Creature points ?
Really? You were trying to push adata-basedpoint and I simply called you out for not having the data to push it. That's very different than simply trying to perpetuate a story based on anecdotes. Data-based claims are easily challenged and dismissed, anecdotal ones are not.
And to be clear, I don't actually feel one way or the other about Creature, but I attack bad wagons; it's what I do. I also try to look at these bad wagons and put some pressure on people strongly in favor of them, since at worst it helps us improve as a town and at best helps us out scum. I think what I've done has brought far more out than the initial push on Creature, which is great especially when information is so lacking, but you can thank me later for that.
In post 220, acryon wrote:In post 219, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:
I think you didn't read my post because I signed ~BlueTrin. I will let GM reply about her own data. I am not sure whether to thank you, because Creature is still evading the points of my posts above, maybe you want to oblige him ... you know ... so you can show that you are actually impartial and not buddy with him ?
Spoiler:
Is the point to simply get reactions out of Creature? Or out of everyone?
In post 266, pisskop wrote:Im not sure if Ive given this speel yet to you, but Im not here to be your friend. I know the rules and Im within my rights to antagonize you.
In post 366, Masquerade wrote:Ok heard back from mod. Will participate awaiting further word.
Give me a moment to get back into this. Will isoread and post reads later tonight.
I think Nahdia and Klingon both make good points. I agree very much with Nahdia that meta'ing someone when only one alignment is available isn't worth that much. There is nothing to compare with, at least not that we're allowed to talk about. However, I can understand someone could genuinely believe they caught scum based on only one aligment games like Klingon did. Or maybe Klingon exxaggerated to see how Nahdia responds (although that's not really what I'm seeing here so far) I know Klingon will scumslip if she's scum and right now I think Nahdia is more defensive than sne needs to be.
Now to everyone that has been scumreading me from before I said I wouldn't talk anymore (those after are lurk-reading me and lurking is not alignment indicative) please share with me why you think Im scum so I can properly defend against that if I hadn't done so already.
VOTE: Acryon
I will elaborate tonight when I do my readslist.
In post 376, Masquerade wrote:I want your reads, with explanations, on all the players.
In post 498, Ranger wrote:I am not. But to answer why: I recognize Klingoncelt usually votes players she does not know, but thepisskop wrote:You and klingy are always at each others throat, and my meta on klingy is a little stale.wayshe voted in 9 felt like it was an overjustification. It's also a lie to say she always does. (Not to mention, in 167, she says she doesn't know most of the players, so why did her wording imply GoodNightMsGreen was the only one she didn't know?) 76 felt fake. In 111, she also doesn't give any commentary on any of the other players on my list. She's not scumhunting at this point, when she should be if she's town. 112 is avoiding taking a firm stance on Creature. In 113, she sheeps the easy-to-follow opinion stated by Nahdia, when with her previous experience with me, she should know I do this every game. (See also: why I'm so ticked off at you. Except you're town, whereas she's not.) Her lack of content was pointed out by Willowmeadow (one of the reasons I townread Willow in the first place, actually), but her excuse in 165 was "I don't play strong early-on". This does not match my experience with Klingoncelt. Maybe her reads aren't accurate, but bluntly they're rarely above average, neither better nor worse than any run-of-the-mill player. Yet she has always gotten them all the same, even D1. So, sheshouldbe obviously town, but isn't.
Her reasoning for her play having shifted doesn't work for me, either. I fully believe she's a different player now that she's recovered from the trauma...but the things sticking out like a sore thumb have nothing to do with anything I can see having been attributed to trauma in the first place. I can see things such as, say, a lack of emotional outburst as being relevant meta shifts from this. But my problems with her come from things that should be identical: no obvtowning, no strong reads, nothing.
271 fits with past experience of Klingoncelt's scumgame as how she gives reads. And, for people who keep criticizingmefor a lack of reasons, they seem to conveniently have forgotten Klingoncelt also did this. The difference is: I always give no reasons. Klingoncelt gives reasons as town but often doesn't when scum.
Then, we enter into the Nahdia debate, where, again, Nahdia is completely correct: Klingoncelt is lying about her, and every attempt to justify the lie is simply restating the same (wrong) fact over and over again, in different wording, whereas Nahdia continues to build up the case against her using new points and new angles, which Klingoncelt continues to brush off with the same exact defense.
In post 525, Something_Smart wrote:In post 523, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:Quotewall are ok if you use the spoiler tags in the quotes themselves but in this case I think SS is just cherry picking and stretching arguments to avoid being lynched.
It feels like a random collection of quotes where you wanted from the start to look scummy and found random arguments to match your conclusion.
You have it backwards. Actually, these arguments are the reason I'm scumreading Ranger, and these posts illustrate the scummiest things she's done. Show me quotes of Ranger that contradict my arguments or stop making baseless accusations.
Going to ISO GoodNight and Ranger and see if this makes any sense as a chainsaw.
In post 528, Something_Smart wrote:You have yet to provide one shred of evidence for any of your accusations.
You say I'm cherry picking. Prove it. Quote posts of Ranger that contradict my claims.
You say I'm pushing a major wagon and therefore am desperate scum. While you are pushing me, the other major wagon (your partner's counterwagon).
Also you telling me to make a better case stinks of knowing my alignment, it's like you want more to fight over.
In post 530, Something_Smart wrote:Are you trying to convince me my own slot is scum? That's a classic scumtell. You get so caught up in the appearance of scumhunting you forget who you should be arguing to.
Would you like to actually answer my question and show me what posts of Ranger contradict my claims? Cherry picking is selecting pieces of evidence to support a misleading claim, so unless you can show why my claims are misleading, you're full of crap.
VOTE: GoodNightMsGreen this needs to go. We can lynch Ranger tomorrow when they flip scum.
In post 213, acryon wrote:In post 212, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:Like I said, very small sample, should be taken with a grain of salt. I have literally no time to chase down the data but maybe when I get back.
Well then you should know that your small sample is essentially useless and shouldn't be taken at all, even with a grain of salt. The only reason I'm being so harsh on this is because people shouldn't be buying into this counter-narrative when there just isn't the evidence to support it.
In post 226, Klingoncelt wrote:In post 206, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:VCA is terrible and that vote is terrible.
VCA is actually very useful if it's done correctly.
In post 235, acryon wrote:In post 227, Reubus Swagrid wrote:In post 205, acryon wrote:In post 204, Reubus Swagrid wrote:Anyway a case for Creature town would really help him out if you could put it to his voters ɀefiend
Burden of proof is on the accuser, especially day 1, where it is very hard to see who is town because there is less information/time available for scumhunting to work with.
Regardless would it not help?
Of course but I'm saying it likely doesn't exist, since it's generally easier to paint a scum-case than a town-one.
In post 239, pisskop wrote:oh wholly hell thats a complex setup.
In post 245, ɀefiend wrote:-- (similar vein) in response to acryon's vote on him, attacking acryon's repeated defense of Creature; deflecting questioning from acryon about his own 78 back to Creature's 137
In post 266, pisskop wrote:I know the rules and Im within my rights to antagonize you.
In post 291, Nahdia wrote:im not really sure what i meant by that
In post 331, Nahdia wrote:She made a logical leap that I don't believe a person with pure intentions would ever ever make.
In post 346, Klingoncelt wrote:So the Scums are among Nahdia, Ranger, Masquerade, and Kain Tepes.
gg.
In post 377, KainTepes wrote:how do i know ALL THE PLAYERS,, i can give READS only on the SCUM!!!!!!!!!!!! the others i dont care, I JUST NEED TO FIND THE SCUMS
In post 388, Klingoncelt wrote:In post 356, Nahdia wrote:like, you're blatantly dodging my request because you can't meet it.
I didn't dodge anything, I link directly to those games.
Do you understand the concept of meta? With meta, one takes in the whole body of a player's work, not a handful of quotes. One absorbs the big picture to get an understanding of the player's style.
In post 420, acryon wrote:Pressure without clear expectation will cause even townies to crack and look scummy, which happens all the time. I would rather catch actual scum.
In post 444, Reubus Swagrid wrote:Isn't most peoples meta ever-changing? Are there many players on the site that play very consistently in certain roles? As I understand peoples metagame would be ever changing. I just find it hard to believe that meta reading is a reliable way to read someone.
In post 453, acryon wrote:There is more you can do. If you are town and you think you've found scum, seems like your responsibility is to convince us that you've found it. You're not doing that.
In post 523, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:Quotewall are ok if you use the spoiler tags in the quotes themselves but in this case I think SS is just cherry picking and stretching arguments to avoid being lynched.
It feels like a random collection of quotes where you wanted from the start to look scummy and found random arguments to match your conclusion.
In post 528, Something_Smart wrote:You have yet to provide one shred of evidence for any of your accusations.
You say I'm cherry picking. Prove it. Quote posts of Ranger that contradict my claims.
In post 530, Something_Smart wrote:Are you trying to convince me my own slot is scum? That's a classic scumtell.
In post 568, pisskop wrote:we all claim to scumread masque.
In post 683, acryon wrote:In post 681, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:Acryon, you may disagree about the method, but it got creature and SS to talk.
Different people react differently, I don't think we would have gotten so much out of SS and Creature without us.
~BlueTrin
PS: we got a lot out of you as well
Yes but what you did before was much different than what you did now. There are right and wrong ways to push people in my opinion. You have done the right way in the past, and this is the wrong way. This way would make me want to just flake out/ignore you as town.
In post 687, acryon wrote:In post 686, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:
Well, I can't speak for GM, but I do not read much more the posts from SS because, for me, it is quite obvious he is scum from his defensiveness and the way he is trying to save his skin by any means.
And I get that, but I just wonder what the goal is? If S_S isn't talking today, who is?
In post 743, pisskop wrote:Btw, you guiz know I got a no result on SS, right?
In post 780, Masquerade wrote:Ranger. You took a wrong turn somewhere.
In post 793, Masquerade wrote:I don't feel comfortable talking about the setup. All I know is there are 3 mafia, maybe a SK as well, and we need to lynch them. We already have 2 down, 2 more scum to go.
In post 797, Kop wrote:In post 795, Nahdia wrote:what the heck is thisIn post 788, Kop wrote:I've read the last few pages, and Acryon can't have slipped up that easy, surely?
It's simple, I don't think such an experienced player like Acryon can slip up as easily as he appears too.
Does it not compute that this wagon has gained momentum quite quickly? and so easily?
In post 821, acryon wrote:Didn't expect to come back to this... I think the speed of this wagon should be evidence enough that I'm town, but give me a minute and I'll address some of the nonsense that I'm sure was said about me.
Also I'm VT.
In post 822, acryon wrote:In post 806, GoodNightMsGreen wrote:
I feel like I've already said in this game that momentum doesn't mean shit.
That's pretty clearly false for anyone who has played any decent number of games.
In post 888, Masquerade wrote:Ugh I should go look at Ranger vs Zefiend again but pretty sure Ranger is town and it's weirding me out Acryon keeps scumreading her because I'd think scum would have changed his scumread sigh. Opinions anyone?