In post 1029, House wrote:In post 1028, eyestott wrote: I mean, why should your style affect my alignment?
And you should have said as much in response to my vote.
Well, I have now, when I'm more aware.
In post 1029, House wrote:In post 1028, eyestott wrote: I mean, why should your style affect my alignment?
And you should have said as much in response to my vote.
In post 1033, House wrote:In post 1032, eyestott wrote:In post 1029, House wrote:In post 1028, eyestott wrote: I mean, why should your style affect my alignment?
And you should have said as much in response to my vote.
Well, I have now, when I'm more aware.
Would have meant more if you had done it before I called you out on it.
In post 1050, Titus wrote:Pasch and I are in thread Masons.
Eye, why are you acting entitled? 1026 is telling MTD "what he needs to do". It's not as if you're going to self vote if he does it. It reads of discrediting a case. If only he had done that, his scumread might be valid. Yet, you have been acting desperate not to be suspected all game.
In post 1051, Titus wrote:
Eyestott's case is shit. SK comes back as immune to investigation a lot. SK with gun flavor is not unheard of.
In post 836, MTD wrote:then switching to titus which seems like a wagon that isn't going to happen anyway
In post 1017, MTD wrote:Titus I don't like your townread on me.
In post 1069, MTD wrote:Vote stays.
In post 1074, MTD wrote:I will change vote if needed but rn no wagon has more than 4 votes.
In post 27, Mathdino wrote:From my role, which may or may not be a PR and may or may not be passive, I have high reason to believe this is multiball or an SK exists.
So definitely keep that in mind when you're scumhunting.
In post 1093, MTD wrote:ftr I will consolidate to Pasch over Titus.
Depending on what happens it is very well possible that I would be willing to lynch Titus tomorrow though.
In post 1091, MTD wrote:In post 1089, eyestott wrote:Titus has 4 votes, actually.
Only if you're a doublevoter
In post 1097, eyestott wrote:In post 1091, MTD wrote:In post 1089, eyestott wrote:Titus has 4 votes, actually.
Only if you're a doublevoter
This pinged me.
Just for future reference so either I can look at it tomorrow, or that people can look at it tomorrow if I happen to die.
I dont think I'm a likely scum kill, but Id bet that if there is an arson, Ill be the first target.
In post 829, Titus wrote:In post 827, eyestott wrote:You've given Literally next to no reasons.
Make an ika case or self vote. With deadline looming those are the only options. I will not be voting Om again.
In post 1141, House wrote:
This is the beginning of my scum read of him. Not the fact he didn't RVS, but the fact he felt it was necessary to point it out.
He addressed that, but I still don't like it.
I never said the information would be bad for the town. I said that It might benefit scum more than town. Like, claiming cop day 1. it gives info to the town, but it gives info to the scum that outweighs the town gain.
In post 24, eyestott wrote:I'm thinking of revealing a small piece of information I have about the setup.
I'm not too sure whether it would benefit town or scum more, though.
Since when is information bad for town? I'm not buying the thought process behind this post.
In post 29, eyestott wrote:I mean, I know of a specific (likely) antitown role that is almost definitely in the game.
In post 31, eyestott wrote:Not necessarily a mafia.
I'm an extinguisher.
Now, the arson could be town too, but I'm not so sure.
He could be a 3P.
When has arsonist ever been town?
I think he's the arsonist with conflicting emotions, wanting to play a town game but restricted by his win con.
I was trying to start discussion. You know that I tend to focus on role related stuff, and you know that I read people mainly through my interactions with me.
In post 38, eyestott wrote:You didn't use that logic last game.
Metal, care to comment on my reveal, and the implications?
In post 41, eyestott wrote:In post 40, Metal Sonic wrote:Holy shit om you are in this game too???
You gonna answer my question, kind sir?
Feels like he's concerned about whether town has an interest in outing the arsonist. Self-preservation?
No, I was saying that like how i put thought into whether i should reveal or not, he should too.
In post 58, eyestott wrote:Oh crap, yeah.
like with me, don't say anything that you think will be antitown to reveal.
If he is town, how could he possibly reveal anything more than he has that would make it anti-town?
The fact he's notpreventingfires, perhaps? (Unless he decides not to utilize his night actions, of course)
Explain. I'm trying too hard to stop futile discussion? is there a maximum amount of effort a player should put into something?In post 381, eyestott wrote:We need to stop fuelling the discussion of the lurker lynch. Either we do it, or we shut up about it and focus on real hunting.
I will not comment on this anymore unless specifically asked to.
Seems kinda tryhard.
I wasnt concerned. As i made the post, I was thinking that flubber would probably just reply with: "Like this: Vote:eye", so I just said that as a sort of inb4. Why would I be concerned of RVS as any alignment?
In post 405, eyestott wrote:In post 403, Flubbernugget wrote:Thinking about it I don't know how to start the game up again because it's basically rvs, lurker bitching, then brakes.
All those in favor of a second rvs by page 19 say I.
How would it work?
This is not an invitation to vwte me.
(Corrected for clarity)
Why would he be concerned if people put a vote on him during a 2nd RVS? He seems paranoid af... but not of scum.
It was a fluff post. I was being silly. Thats not scummy, or towny, or anything. All alignments can fluff. I voted, yes, but then immediately unvoted. In fact, I can show you a similar thing in another game, if you want.
In post 521, eyestott wrote:This is just purely for symmetry. UNVOTE: . Now its a 5 way tie!
VOTE: FuD.
Where's the town motivation for that post? Scum/3P don't really care who's lynched, as long as it isn't them. I get the feeling from eyestott's general behavior that he has that same mindset.
Because I wasnt placing emphasis on the reasons, just the reads. Also, I wanted an answer quickly. I didnt say I didnt want reasoning, just that it wasnt needed.
In post 690, eyestott wrote:In post 689, Om of the Nom wrote:In post 679, eyestott wrote:In post 638, Titus wrote:Why do you think Om is not active? He is to me.
The Om focus is to generate conflict and force people to take sides and make reads easier. I could have focused on anyone but getting details from Pasch helps me read both.
Why do you not want to discuss Om? What is your read on him?
Sorry, the other active players.
I never said I didnt want to discuss Om.
I'm not sure on my Om read anymore.
Ill have another look at the case on him, then ill make a decision.
you are making me so much happier with random's vote
at the height of the argument you change your views without reason
now that the tables are beginning to turn so do you
I will explain this.
First though, can you tell me your scum reads, your town reads, and your null reads?
Reasoning is not needed.
Why would he not want reasoning for another player's reads? Those that don't want to post reasons aren't going to anyway.
why?
In post 799, eyestott wrote:VOTE: ika
Either a self vote from mafia to try and look town, or a self vote telling us that even if we mislynch him, his role is not powerful enough to be extremely detrimental.
Seriously? This isn't town-think.
I like statistics and fun facts. This just seemed interesting, but not really indicative of anything. That's why I spoilered it.
Tries to disclaim his analysis while undermining his own wagon, in case someone calls shenanigans.
In post 1015, eyestott wrote:In post 1014, Randomnamechange wrote:In post 998, House wrote:You know what would be hilarious?
I think it would be hilarious if eyestott was the arsonist and there was no fireman in this setup at all.
I reckon eye is SK.
Why the hell would I claim a role like this? In fact, why would I have a role like this?
Because you're the arsonist.
----
I believe eyestott is 3P, not groupscum.
In post 1153, Om of the Nom wrote:In post 1125, eyestott wrote:We really dodged a bullet there. What could the Belligerent modifier mean?
this was what really tipped me over the edge to get on your wagon
the first part just fucking reeks like fake concern
also your whole play has been sketch as heck especially in ur interactions with yours truly
i have zero trust in you so it's basically a matter of what tips the iceberg and the quote is what did it
In post 1158, Om of the Nom wrote:i think you are faking concern
In post 1163, House wrote:In post 1144, Paschendale wrote:But there is firefighter, which is what that role is normally called.
Precisely. But he didn't know that, because he isn't one.
In post 1142, Paschendale wrote:I definitely see the paranoia from Eye. A lot of what he says involves asking for reassurance or agreement from everyone else. At least with regard to his role. On that subject, I think it's very interesting that no one was burned (unless FourTrouble was and the mod isn't differentiating kill types - otherwise I assume he was the regular night kill). Eye should be rather eager to reveal who he prevented from being burned or prevented from burning others, whichever his power does. If Eye were a 3P killer, I don't think he'd be shy about using his power, and no one counteclaimed him as an "extinguisher" or anything like that, so I don't think that he's an arsonist. If he's a 3P, then there probably is no arsonist and he'd be a regular SK. But again, only the one kill last night. It's a bit perplexing.
But I generally agree about the seeming not to be on anyone's side and trying to look like he is. He doesn't seem to have an overall goal (scumhunting, coordinating with allies, etc), and seems to just be trying to float along. It's definitely food for thought.
I seriously doubt that Om or Midget put much thought into their votes, though. I'm really not liking how eagerly they hurled themselves onto this wagon, without reasons, and when asked Om refused to give any. I distrust any wagon she's in favor of at this point.
In post 1182, ika wrote:In post 1180, eyestott wrote:what? I dont know what variant the arson is.
Please explain line 3.
P.edit: Well, look at the starting post.
line 3 refers to sc2 arson
In post 1181, eyestott wrote:
Don't try and outguess the mod.
Nowhere does CooLDoG say you can't self target.
I was more likely to prevent a night kill by arson by targeting myself, as if I were an arson, I would kill the firefighter/extinguisher if they outed themselves.
nowhere doe he say you can either...
your also missing that an asron has the power of .5 kills (due to the fact it takes at least 2 nights, one to douse and one to burn)
In post 1188, Randomnamechange wrote:I can't remember who said this, but I didn't jump on the eye wagon, I decided to vote him in the night phase.
Todayhe is trying to discredit his attackers and gain towncred.