oro:
Answering for another player I consider defending another player. TM can go after Q himself and make his defense and posts on his own. If he FAILS to do so, then that is information/read. Why? Because if he doesn't defend against Q but just goes after Zwet instead of trying to defend himself at all then that is scummy to me, and hey, wow, look at that, It is EXACTLY what he is doing. Ignoring Q, and going after Zwet. Why? Oh, maybe because YOU are defending him. And he is moving on to talk about lynch probability but NOT Q at all. Why? etc. etc.
So yes, I find it suspicious of both of you.
--------------
Corvuus (368) wrote:2. Blatantly saying things which shouldn't be said unless you are advising scum.
What are these?
Oro: It is obvious. Read your post again and think about it. To say more is just giving out info.
--------------------
Corvuus (368) wrote:3. apparently this is all based on your belief that scum couldn't have verified each other, and thus there is no buddying to worry about and you think the fact that you blatantly buddy must somehow mean that you are rebel and so is TM since guard/king wouldn't be so obvious??
I'm not saying scum haven't verified one another, ironically at this point I'm feeling increasingly strongly that the king knows who one of his guards (at least) is. That doesn't mean no-one else has picked up on it, though. What I object to is your position in 342 that "WELL YOU DONT' KNOW, they might have found some AMAZINGLY CLEVER way of cross-confirming each other while the townies are oblivious to it." Again I ask you to describe any way this could actually be done in practice e.g.; or in fact I will go you one better. Do you think random voting the king would be a good way to subtly telegraph your role as a guard? Do you think breadcrumbing something strange about the king would be a good way to subtly telegraph your role as a guard? If not how do you suggest, they are going to do so with no risk of being caught?
Oro: If you think you know who a guard is then say it. Otherwise, your post is quite stupid since you said to 'me' before to prove that they have not confirmed/know each other at all and now you say that you think they have so who is it and what was said. The rest, I don't know how much to say since I didn't say that they did a AMAZINGLY CLEVER WAY of confirming each other but that it could be REALLY stupid but obvious to them and not to us. If they did RVS vote the king, then that is really stupid. If it is a breadcrumb that is strange, then it is findable upon re-read and will end up being really stupid. So what is your read and your suggestion?
-------------------------
Corvuus (368) wrote:i.e. you and TM's actions are suspicious, yet your 'defense' is that it is so BLATANT and 'stupid' for scum to do that it is not suspicious at all.
How are
my
actions suspicious? We've already seen yourself and Qanqan's justification for TM's actions being suspicious. I think it's poor, but you don't need to go there again. Just tell me why
I'm
scummy.
Oro: I did. Heck, you ignoring it is scummy in itself but maybe that is just how you play. If you don't find yourself defending/buddying with TM suspicious at all, then what do you think is scummy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corvuus (368) wrote:
I couldn't careless if we lynch Zwet today, but I find it INCREDIBLY ironic that a defense for Zwet is as simple as "posting nonsense 1 liners, blah blah, joke, blah, crap" is so BLATANTLY scummy that he can't possible be scum since scum wouldn't do that.
and yet, the argument for TM and yourself Oro is pretty much exactly the same, yet it is ok when you and TM do it?
I don't understand what you are arguing here. TonyMontana is attacking zwet. You are saying you find zwet scummy. Yet you find TM scummy also???? And someone in all of this is apparently defending zwet- it's not me though. Who are you talking about?
Oro: Since this will answer your other points as well. I will tell you my meta or what I think and I mentioned this in my previous post.
First off, several players say I am 'most townie'. I DO find this suspicious. Either they think so, or they are guards just 'saying so' to buddy me or get my voting to be along with them or to mislynch me upon their flip.
How do I determine this? I decided to be AGGRESSIVE and EXTREME and see what people say about me then. I go after different players ( i will come to everyone in due time) to get a reaction out of them *AND* for the players who said "Corvuus is so townie", I will get a read off of them when they think I've gone 'less townie', etc.. I don't trust them or you 100% at all for 'saying i am most townie' and I actually trust you (oro) least since
1. You said you thought I was most townie in your post #15
2. Q said someone else (EMPKing) and you said you thought me instead in your post #16.
I could have just said "yay, i am most townie, i will just sit back and watch people die and hope that town gets it right". Instead, I interpret that my best optimum play is to USE this to my advantage in getting reads/info out of people and I can also test reads on people who said "corv is most townie", especially if they are guards and I do something that they don't like. Just because I don't explicitly mention you (since i would say your post would make you my biggest supporter back then oro) doesn't mean I didn't see what was going on, didn't like it and what I think about it.
I don't believe any of you who 'voted me most townie' mean you will stick with me 100% all the way through, but scum may not know that and heck if scum are in it and I go after a guard, then they will change their reaction and response as well. Whether you agree with me or not, "if corvuus is most townie, and he votes someone, then others vote with him, etc. etc", I can get reactions out of those who didn't 'pick me' and of those 'who did pick me'. I get information and reads and all I have to do is go after someone extremely and see how people respond.
I've chosen TM for this. You can argue whether I should have gone after someone else, but frankly, it didn't matter. He happened to say something and it was after I was 'said to be townie' and I decided to choose this path (I realized I would be almost impossible to lynch since I wouldn't self-vote). If you think I am town (as you stated) and you aren't scum and have NO info on TM's alignment, then why not wagon him for information/reads? Instead, your action defends him and he ignores it. Why? He has nothing further to say about Q or me but goes after Zwet? Why? He has nothing to say about Q (while you do) and still goes after Zwet. WHY?
I have no problem with seeing Zwet and TM as scummy and as buddies, and heck, for all I know TM may be King, Zwet and You (oro) are his guards and you are busing a guard to verify the King and playing it out that way.
Your play is scummy and you didn't answer or respond about it at all.
----------
If you didn't get it from my above points/post, as a Rebel, i play a solo-hand. I could have chosen to say that the ones who said I am town are 'suspicious' but I chose my way to do things and test things out and I am fine with it since hey, look at that, my 'biggest supporter' of me being town now finds me scummy, what a great reversal. I won't worry about you flipping guard and me getting mislynched based on that.
I gave a reason for why I thought Trumpet was townie. You can disagree with me, i couldn't careless. My reason was more detailed than yours or Q's so I find it scummy that you say "it is interesting" when your case is worse. Hypocrite much?
Q said he has pro-town vibe from me, and as I said above and before, I will get responses/reactions out of him as the game progresses. I see him as neutral since his play isn't horribly scummy to me but he also named me most townie and I don't know why yet (genuine or manipulation) so as I said, neutral.
But hey, if we want reads on mine, TM and Q's alignment, then maybe we can go ahead and lynch you Oro and find out
.
Corvuus
P.S. you didn't answer any of my points in your post. please try.
