Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:32 am
Page 36 of 49
Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:16 am
HOLD ME NOW.
WHOAAAAA HEAL MY HART.
WHOAAAAA HEAL MY HART.
Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 1:12 pm
This is probably the dumbest defense I've ever heard right after PV's "no one is giving reasons for my wagon."
Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 2:58 pm
"I can guide thee and illuminate the truth.
4th vote count of Day three
Ieccrint: 4 (VP Baltar, FourTrouble, Empking, ThAdmiral)
ThAdmiral: 1 (Iecerint)
Empking: 1 (Human Destroyer)
Not voting: 2 (Nachomamma8 leviathan93)
With
8
alive it will take 5
to lynch.Deadline for the end of the day is in (expired on 2013-04-05 21:30:00)
Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:58 pm
Empking may just be the last scum. I'm having a hard time seeing scum not bussing their bros at this point in a hail mary.
Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:57 pm
I want your opinion on hd from day one. Do you think he, as a partner to pere, would have stayed on his wagon like he did? That's the main thing making me question him as a scumspect.
Also four probably needs to be looked at closer. He's been sorta flying under the radar.
Also four probably needs to be looked at closer. He's been sorta flying under the radar.
Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:19 pm
Iecerant. the only reason i see you as possibly scummy right now is because you are voting Admiral who i believe to be kind of obviously town due to his entrance. i still see you as town in my eyes but in a weird way that is slowly slipping away.
Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:56 pm
I think your point about HD is completely legit and is really what's keeping me back from saying for sure he's the third scum. It's hard to see him bussing like that, when a player with seemingly more experience (Iec) made an effort to save PV.
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:31 am
Thad: Yeah, Four looked town in te first six pages and have mostly been skirting off that. The kills seem consistant with Four scum too; I haven't checked his interactions with Iece and Pere, however.
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:20 am
↑ leviathan93 wrote:Iecerant. the only reason i see you as possibly scummy right now is because you are voting Admiral who i believe to be kind of obviously town due to his entrance. i still see you as town in my eyes but in a weird way that is slowly slipping away.
ThAdmiral's entrance has done nothing to change my opinion about the slot. He has mainly restated pre-existing content and then supported the dominant perspective in the game upon catch-up.
If you can articulate why you think ThAdmiral is town, I will evaluate it, but I haven't seen anything so far.
Even if you think ThAdmiral is town, you should evaluate my alignment based on whether it makes sense for scum to do XYZ. The path of self-preservatoin would be for me to vote someone else at this point, probably HD, especially given that I've stated I suspect him. But I haven't done that because I think ThAd's slot is the scummiest.
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:49 pm
FourTrouble
has been prodded.Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:58 pm
Ok after rereading I still think nacho is a good chance of being icerint's last partner, but I think fourtrouble has an even better chance.
Your (vp) point about scum probably being on the wagon at this stage is sound, and looking back at his iso I noticed this exchange:
So to set the scene fourtrouble is voting icerint because he had previously voted four for some reason (framing something on peregrine in a scummy light or somesuch). Anyway, they argue for about 10 posts in a row. Icerint then votes levi...
It's a weird shift that goes from completely disagreeing with him to agreeing with him to the point that he is willing to follow him on to the levi wagon, and even sort of defend him against levi's accusations.
It also makes sense from a scum point of view - while they were voting each other to distance, they obviously didn't want to have to keep their votes on each other. As soon as an opportunity came up to switch votes off four took it.
Your (vp) point about scum probably being on the wagon at this stage is sound, and looking back at his iso I noticed this exchange:
So to set the scene fourtrouble is voting icerint because he had previously voted four for some reason (framing something on peregrine in a scummy light or somesuch). Anyway, they argue for about 10 posts in a row. Icerint then votes levi...
↑ Iecerint wrote:@ Leviathan - Your post's reasoning is facile and equivocal.
Pedit @ FT - Consider for a moment that someone posted pure rhetoric to support a perceived strawman argument. Would you find that scummy? I think that is how you should read my reaction.
If the strawman perception on my part was mistaken and/or the question was not rhetorical, my concern starts to go away.
↑ FourTrouble wrote:Alright, Iecerint gets a pass for now.
Unvote, Vote: Leviathan
Iecerint did not mean how simple/complex your reasoning was... he's talking about the lack of effort behind your post or the taking of strong stances. If you can't even bother to look up what strawman means (Wikipedia serves this purpose quite well), it further confirms the point.
It's a weird shift that goes from completely disagreeing with him to agreeing with him to the point that he is willing to follow him on to the levi wagon, and even sort of defend him against levi's accusations.
It also makes sense from a scum point of view - while they were voting each other to distance, they obviously didn't want to have to keep their votes on each other. As soon as an opportunity came up to switch votes off four took it.
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:53 pm
↑ VP Baltar wrote:↑ Human Destroyer wrote:
Oh hey, that was convenient, just decided to come back to this game
I think I've said he was a townread multiple times now, comes from an early period where I really liked his push on RestFermata.
I haven't really been paying attention to this game but unless I really missed something drastic I don't want him lynched.
This reasoning is really weak. He has all kinds of connections to confirmed scum, which I've been pointing out all game pretty much. Saying he's town with impunity based upon and "early period" push on RestFermata doesn't really hold water with me. What has he done recently that makes you think he's town? What do you think of his interactions with PV?
I told you I haven't really been paying that much attention to this game.
I could reread him if it
really
matters, but I'm generally fairly confident in my early reads.Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:03 am
Nacho should probably vote someone or otherwise show evidence of interest in his "this day isn't over yet" grandstanding.
Levi should vote someone, too. I don't care who, since he's already said he doesn't want to vote ThAdmiral for unclear reasons.
Otherwise, I am pretty tempted to self-hammer. This delay is obviously non-constructive. All that's happening is that ThAdmiral and others are struggling to draw lazy scum connections that will become irrelevant upon my flip.
Levi should vote someone, too. I don't care who, since he's already said he doesn't want to vote ThAdmiral for unclear reasons.
Otherwise, I am pretty tempted to self-hammer. This delay is obviously non-constructive. All that's happening is that ThAdmiral and others are struggling to draw lazy scum connections that will become irrelevant upon my flip.
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:28 am
VOTE: nacho
fine theres my vote.
fine theres my vote.
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:05 am
Sorry for the inactivity, I'm reading through the past couple pages now.
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:15 am
↑ Iecerint wrote:Even if you think ThAdmiral is town, you should evaluate my alignment based on whether it makes sense for scum to do XYZ. The path of self-preservatoin would be for me to vote someone else at this point, probably HD, especially given that I've stated I suspect him. But I haven't done that because I think ThAd's slot is the scummiest.
How does this make any sense? If you were town, wouldn't you prefer staying alive by voting HD? How does it make sense for town in your position to vote ThAd instead of seeking self-preservation by voting HD instead?
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:24 am
↑ ThAdmiral wrote:It's a weird shift that goes from completely disagreeing with him to agreeing with him to the point that he is willing to follow him on to the levi wagon, and even sort of defend him against levi's accusations.
It also makes sense from a scum point of view - while they were voting each other to distance, they obviously didn't want to have to keep their votes on each other. As soon as an opportunity came up to switch votes off four took it.
I disagreed with him regarding PV/myself, and agreed with him regarding Levi. How is it "weird" to disagree with someone on one topic while agreeing with the person on a different topic?
You're also reducing the entire situation to a very simplistic narrative there. Instead of asking whether it makes sense from a scum POV -- and a lot of stuff town do makes sense from a scum POV -- you should be asking if what I did and said makes sense from a town perspective.
We shouldn't end this Day yet. I don't like ThAd's posts so far, need to look into his slot closer.
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:32 am
↑ FourTrouble wrote:↑ Iecerint wrote:Even if you think ThAdmiral is town, you should evaluate my alignment based on whether it makes sense for scum to do XYZ. The path of self-preservatoin would be for me to vote someone else at this point, probably HD, especially given that I've stated I suspect him. But I haven't done that because I think ThAd's slot is the scummiest.
How does this make any sense? If you were town, wouldn't you prefer staying alive by voting HD? How does it make sense for town in your position to vote ThAd instead of seeking self-preservation by voting HD instead?
1. I am VT, so my mislynch is not as tragic as some other mislynches.
2. If I were equally sure about ThAd and HD, switching would make sense for the reason you mention, but I'm not equally sure, so switching doesn't make sense.
WCS for me is having an alternawagon be lynched and then to have that alternawagon flip town, as it just makes me that much more likely to be lynched D4 (= 2 mislynches rather than 1).
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:58 pm
↑ FourTrouble wrote:↑ ThAdmiral wrote:It's a weird shift that goes from completely disagreeing with him to agreeing with him to the point that he is willing to follow him on to the levi wagon, and even sort of defend him against levi's accusations.
It also makes sense from a scum point of view - while they were voting each other to distance, they obviously didn't want to have to keep their votes on each other. As soon as an opportunity came up to switch votes off four took it.
I disagreed with him regarding PV/myself, and agreed with him regarding Levi. How is it "weird" to disagree with someone on one topic while agreeing with the person on a different topic?
I think it's unusual to go from voting someone to voting with them. I don't think that's an unfair stance.
↑ FourTrouble wrote:You're also reducing the entire situation to a very simplistic narrative there. Instead of asking whether it makes sense from a scum POV -- and a lot of stuff town do makes sense from a scum POV -- you should be asking if what I did and said makes sense from a town perspective.
This is true, but you can second guess almost everything in this way. I am interested in catching scum right now - if I see behaviour that makes sense from a scum pov I'm not going to ignore it because it
could
also make sense from a town pov.↑ FourTrouble wrote:We shouldn't end this Day yet. I don't like ThAd's posts so far, need to look into his slot closer.
Please do.
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:20 pm
That is an unfair stance, in my experience players go from voting someone to voting with them all the time. Your thought process is one-dimensional, you're ignoring context and motivation.
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:25 pm
No, I'm specifically taking context and motivation in to consideration.
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:30 pm
So then explain how the specific instance where I voted for Levi is scummy?
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:51 pm
↑ ThAdmiral wrote:Ok after rereading I still think nacho is a good chance of being icerint's last partner, but I think fourtrouble has an even better chance.
Your (vp) point about scum probably being on the wagon at this stage is sound, and looking back at his iso I noticed this exchange:
So to set the scene fourtrouble is voting icerint because he had previously voted four for some reason (framing something on peregrine in a scummy light or somesuch). Anyway, they argue for about 10 posts in a row. Icerint then votes levi...
↑ Iecerint wrote:@ Leviathan - Your post's reasoning is facile and equivocal.
Pedit @ FT - Consider for a moment that someone posted pure rhetoric to support a perceived strawman argument. Would you find that scummy? I think that is how you should read my reaction.
If the strawman perception on my part was mistaken and/or the question was not rhetorical, my concern starts to go away.
↑ FourTrouble wrote:Alright, Iecerint gets a pass for now.
Unvote, Vote: Leviathan
Iecerint did not mean how simple/complex your reasoning was... he's talking about the lack of effort behind your post or the taking of strong stances. If you can't even bother to look up what strawman means (Wikipedia serves this purpose quite well), it further confirms the point.
It's a weird shift that goes from completely disagreeing with him to agreeing with him to the point that he is willing to follow him on to the levi wagon, and even sort of defend him against levi's accusations.
It also makes sense from a scum point of view - while they were voting each other to distance, they obviously didn't want to have to keep their votes on each other. As soon as an opportunity came up to switch votes off four took it.
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 10:23 pm
You're ignoring the reasoning behind any of my votes -- I voted Iece because his analysis looked superficial and contrived -- I then switched my vote to Levi because of Levi's 56 and Iece's response to it -- notice my 60 is an attempt to see whether Iece's reasoning for voting Levi matched my own (and thus checking whether I should keep pressure on Iece or move it to Levi).
How exactly are you taking context/motivation into account here? Correct me if I'm wrong, what I see is a categorical statement -- "it's unusual to go from voting someone to voting with them" -- without providing any analysis of the specific context in which said votes are occurring. For the record, I've seen town go from voting for someone to voting with them all the time. I can't imagine you've never seen that?
Are townies unable to change their opinions? What did you think of Iece's vote on Levi? Would you have followed him onto Levi at that point in the game?
How exactly are you taking context/motivation into account here? Correct me if I'm wrong, what I see is a categorical statement -- "it's unusual to go from voting someone to voting with them" -- without providing any analysis of the specific context in which said votes are occurring. For the record, I've seen town go from voting for someone to voting with them all the time. I can't imagine you've never seen that?
Are townies unable to change their opinions? What did you think of Iece's vote on Levi? Would you have followed him onto Levi at that point in the game?