All of this applies to acfan as well.1) His attack on Toom basically comes AFTER the wagon had started, but then he goes back and basically bases his page 10 vote on page 1/2 posts. If he actually saw those as scummy he would have said something about it when that was occurring instead of later
2) He is really keeping options open. Notice that Varsoon gets wagoned as a counter, and he immediately thinks that Varsoon is a decent lynch. This is NC getting ready to jump there when needed. Varsoon on the other hoof has the town reaction.
OK this is the first reasoning that I've seen that I can somewhat sympathize with.A claim like that where you cant actually prove it in any way is not something that you automatically avoid lynching. Its simply a mild reason not to lynch him (im hesitant to actually call it a towntell) in the situation. However, part of the claim I like quite a bit from having a (whole lot) more experience here than you do. Ive been a part (player/mod) of at this point probably over 100 games here, almost EVERY time I see a player claim a limited shot role, ESPECIALLY a non-information limited shot role, they are either town or scum with that exact role.
Him claiming one shot is enough for me to put that wagon on pause. You have decent enough reasoning, but as Jake has said the way the wagon formed, especially when you compare it to the NC wagon, doesn't feel right. The only time a wagon just blitzes to L-1 its on scum? Ehhh... probably not. Its more of extra things instead of a good/bad case that make ac a bad lynch. Yes even though you are going to complain about it - he is a bad lynch. A cop probably shouldn't claim tomorrow or investigate him, but he still is a bad lynch because scum are either going to have to make a more suboptimal kill or take some other course of action.
This I don't understand at all. I've played many games myself (albeit on other sites), and I've seen no such correlation. In my experience, these convenient, "neatly-packaged" claims are almost always scum. I find that townie-claims are often much more sloppy, emotional, and crazy. AC fan strolled in and made a nice little post with all of his reads, and then "Oh BTW, I'm the 1-shot doctor." That doesn't sound natural or genuine to me at all.However, part of the claim I like quite a bit from having a (whole lot) more experience here than you do. Ive been a part (player/mod) of at this point probably over 100 games here, almost EVERY time I see a player claim a limited shot role, ESPECIALLY a non-information limited shot role, they are either town or scum with that exact role.
Howabout NC? Do you think that scum would be under that much suspicion and scrutiny throughout the entire 2-week cycle? In fact it is the "gradual" accumulation of votes on NC that makes me terribly suspicious of it. In an active town, I wouldn't mind it as much, but in an apathetic town full of lurkers and lack of initiative by players, I'm skeptical of any wagon that people just "acquiese" to gradually over 2 weeks.The only time a wagon just blitzes to L-1 its on scum? Ehhh... probably not. Its more of extra things instead of a good/bad case that make ac a bad lynch.
I only looked through his town-games. He had a scum-game where he mentioned something about voting anti-town, but I didn't look at it very carefully since he replaced out on Day 1. Inconclusive game.In post 414, hapahauli wrote:How is this justification for not killing scum?
Though did you see if he had this mentality of going for anti-town lynches in scum games, I only recall you linking town.
In post 432, hapahauli wrote:Cheery, what is your read on me?
Have I? Perhaps skeptical of yourIn post 432, hapahauli wrote:You've been "hinting" skepticism at my motives, and I want to be clear what you think.
I don't know what part of the issue is being talked around. Whether to vote ac1983fan or not to vote him seems to be the issue. I'm in the second camp. I wouldn't say the onus is on me to pick apart your case, that's more for ac1983fan himself to do. However, I believe the strength of your reasons has come through a meta mentality, yet removing that leaves a lot of WIFOM. And there's a claim to take into consideration.In post 432, hapahauli wrote:And you're still talking around the issue here. There are many non-meta reasons with for which AC fan is scum, and you consistently refuse to address each and every one of them.
I can! He was at me for only responding to things directed at me, which I really wasn't. I found that funny, cause he actually was in his last post. The irony was captivating.In post 399, NicCage wrote:I don't do read lists, I think they're scummy and anti-town. Not that they're always scummy, but it won't be of any benefit to you if I make one.
I am willing to poop out a few reads though. I'll need some more time to think.
Could someone explain to me what dyslexicon was referring to here?In post 253, Dyslexicon wrote:I was about to correct you, but you have autocorrect. Jumpy move though, especially considered your post 231. Your initial translation of my vote was not correct either. I don't see it readily fit with your conservative voting, but I must admit I do love a unique style.In post 251, ac1983fan wrote:Oh, that's my error. I though scott's 215 was directed at Dyslexicon b/c of how it was quoted. DERP. ~ignore me~
I thought he was really dodgy in the beginning. But something about the way he said he screwed up at some point looked genuine and eased my suspicion. Lately he's dropping by and droppinge votes, trying to please town or something? Out of you popular folks, you, Scott and Toomai, he is the one I'm least suspicious of as for now. But I must admit I've been paying more attention to you and Scott, but then, there is a reason for that.In post 401, NicCage wrote:Hey dys, what do you think of Toomai?
Ok. What's the difference? If you're suspicious of me, tell it to my face so I don't have to deal with your random "badgering" comments.In post 433, Cheery Pie wrote:In post 432, hapahauli wrote:Cheery, what is your read on me?
Mmmm, don't really feel like filling a self-appraisal request.
Have I? Perhaps skeptical of yourIn post 432, hapahauli wrote:You've been "hinting" skepticism at my motives, and I want to be clear what you think.actions.
If you are not voting ac1983fan, the onus is on you to explain why. Or do you seriously think Varsoon is a better candidate at this point?I don't know what part of the issue is being talked around. Whether to vote ac1983fan or not to vote him seems to be the issue. I'm in the second camp. I wouldn't say the onus is on me to pick apart your case, that's more for ac1983fan himself to do. However, I believe the strength of your reasons has come through a meta mentality, yet removing that leaves a lot of WIFOM. And there's a claim to take into consideration.In post 432, hapahauli wrote:And you're still talking around the issue here. There are many non-meta reasons with for which AC fan is scum, and you consistently refuse to address each and every one of them.
Yes, because claiming 1-shot doctor is totally not a convenient easy-to-claim unverifiable PR at all.
It's somewhat associative. Basically if ac1983fan is scum, his actions towards NC heavily imply that NC is town.
I think this might as well be ac19 wanting to be a good townie and be suspicious about who almost everyone else is suspicious about, whitout having to vote. I think it's likely he thought NC would be lynched, and then could point to everywhere he agreed that it was a good lynch the next day. This was before the attention was on ac19, he probably thought he was safe. This I could very well see happening if both ac19 and NC is scum, which I'm actually inclined to believe at this point. I don't think ac19 being scum clears NC in any way. I'd actually be willing to lynch either at this point.In post 438, hapahauli wrote:It's somewhat associative. Basically if ac1983fan is scum, his actions towards NC heavily imply that NC is town.
I talked about it here a bit:
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 3#p4956013
Basically, he was earlier in the game skeptical of the quickness of the NC wagon, and then completely forgets about his rationale and is completely OK with it right now. He's soft-pushing the NC wagon while sitting on Varsoon.
We can lynch him tomorrow if he's still acting scummy. Let him use his ability (if he's telling the truth) tonight. Lynching him today is a scummy decision.In post 437, hapahauli wrote:Yes, because claiming 1-shot doctor is totally not a convenient easy-to-claim unverifiable PR at all.
So if we're not lynching him today, when are we lynching him? There's no way to verify him short of having a cop claim (which is ridiculous), so what's the point in not lynching someone you think is scum today?
Blind, thoughtless, policies.
The difference in questioning your actions and not your motives is that I'm not casting suspicion on your alignment, rather where you are putting your energy: vis a vis making the cases on 1 post wonders, eagerness for ac1983fan lynch and so on. Right now it'd be very difficult to construe your posting as scummy and that's not what I'm doing. I also don't see how this is "badgering" or random. That seems to imply it's out of place or that you have some sort of suspicions on what I'm doing. Dealing with questions towards your actions comes with the territory, I'd say it's no different from what you've been doing to others. However, if you feel it is, please elaborate why that's the case.In post 436, hapahauli wrote:Ok. What's the difference? If you're suspicious of me, tell it to my face so I don't have to deal with your random "badgering" comments.
Right, well I thought I gave a rough indication, but a couple of simple points:In post 432, hapahauli wrote:If you are not voting ac1983fan, the onus is on you to explain why. Or do you seriously think Varsoon is a better candidate at this point?
That's silly.In post 440, GoodCopBadCop wrote:@HapaWe can lynch him tomorrow if he's still acting scummy. Let him use his ability (if he's telling the truth) tonight. Lynching him today is a scummy decision.In post 437, hapahauli wrote:Yes, because claiming 1-shot doctor is totally not a convenient easy-to-claim unverifiable PR at all.
So if we're not lynching him today, when are we lynching him? There's no way to verify him short of having a cop claim (which is ridiculous), so what's the point in not lynching someone you think is scum today?
Blind, thoughtless, policies.
- GC