|
Misconseptions
On September 23 2010 21:01 SouthRawrea wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2010 12:10 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
@ this whole LSB vs. Incognito thing
Incog and SR seem to be locked in on LSB because he is supposedly too passive. He's not close to the most passive person here. BrownBear hasn't done much except advocate a no lynch. More importantly, BC hasn't done shit.
I don't believe BC has an "I don't care mode." I see his name pop up on MSN often enough. I called him out for his placeholder vote on Foolishness and he didn't ever come back around to move it. RoL, is of course active this game, but that's even weirder than an inactive BC.
vote team 6 Nah it has nothing to do with being passive. He comes out with a strong accusation against my team and then fails to followup or explain himself properly. I'm having quite a dilemna right now because I know very well that it's obviously considered anti-town behaviour to not post much at all and so I'm looking to the inactive teams. The problem I have is that I can't shake the feeling that the mafia may be an active team as well. I've got to go for now but I'm going to look over Team 6 when I get back from school.
Just saying, that was not a strong accusation at all. I then retract myself mid post. If it was an accusation, I would have ended my post with a vote.
On September 24 2010 03:57 meeple wrote:Also the people that accused BM/Ace LSB + Show Spoiler +On September 22 2010 08:20 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 17:36 Incognito wrote:
Its not just his actions, its his mindset. If you read over LSB's posts, all his posts are neutral and he never takes a stand. Its not easy for anyone to pinpoint what LSB supports because he doesn't support anything. And that's the point. Mafia don't want to take an active stance because then they have to defend it. Mafia would like to sit on the fence so that nobody can hold them responsible for their actions while subtly working to subvert town goals. Town has nothing to lose by taking sides. Now looking at LSB's past games, he takes sides as town. He is decisive and actively contributes to the town while openly attempting to convince others of his view. On the other hand, this game LSB does not take sides. He is not decisive, and only points out flaws. Is he attempting to convince others to follow his point of view? No, he doesn't have one. LSB is not interested in the town's welfare. He wants to create the appearance of pro-town activity by pointing out the flaws in my plan while using neutral language and doing nothing to help town. As for the things I'm supporting 1) No lynch. 2) Bum's medic plan Show nested quote +This post attempts to derail the focus on LSB's scumminess by setting up straw men and refusing to directly refute my accusations. LSB says he didn't make a plan because the game setup is not exploitable. While this may be true, this does not address the motives behind LSB's actions. LSB is refuting the planning aspect of his play. I am attacking the motives behind his play, namely that as town he takes stances and tries to work for the town's benefit. The thing is, if I was mafia, I would be supporting an erronous plan, trying to get the town to take part of a plan that is easily exploitable. A great way to do that is to support your plan! Your plan has problems. Strangely you haven't address these problems. Right now you are saying, "LSB seems skummy, so therefore I don't need to worry about the holes in my plan". That isn't logic, that's misdirection. Show nested quote +The erroneous logic is in the
"oh no what happens if a DT/medic doesn't exist" question, not the no lynch issue. Stop trying to appear all innocent and beating around the bush. I'll repeat myself: We should use the DT and the Medic in the places where they will be most effective. The Medic should focus on making sure that someone doesn't die. And the DT should be used to try to investigate targets. I don't like the list idea, since it tells the mafia what to stay out of. Again, please address this problem. Tell me why I am wrong, don't just make a long post on why I'm supposed mafia to distract others from seeing that your plan has a problem. Show nested quote +If there are no fixes, you junk the plan an move on. Valid. But you didn't move on. You junked the plan, and promptly disappeared. The most plausible reason why you did that is because you are mafia.
I don't have this list of possible plans in my pocket and try to use them. If I think of something, I'll use it sure. I moved on of course, chiefly no lynch once we figured out that it could be used. Show nested quote +To say those posts were serious accusations that deserved input would be flat out lies Again, I'm not saying your statement was a lie. I'm saying that the motiviations for your post are shaky. Everyone reading this post should be looking at the subjective question of why LSB is posting the way he is. Reading LSB's posts at face value isn't going to get us anywhere. Its not a matter of lie or truth. Its a matter of what seems realistic given the mindset of the poster. What I am saying is that your accusations twist my words. You admit that you can't read my posts at face value because if you do, you'll find that I'm a townie. You now are relying on the fact that I haven't taken any positions? What positions are you accusing me of not taking on? Planning: You claim that I haven't made a plan. Therefore I am Mafia. Thats just silly. I'm not going to make a plan unless I think of one. Ace/BM is scumYou said that I didn't give enough input into the Ace/BM lynch. Well, I don't feel like I should. Because I think there're town Rastaban/Foolishness is scum: You said that I didn't give enough input into the Rastaban/Foolishness lynch. Well, I don't feel like I should. So you expect me to 1) Pull out plans or die, or 2) Accuse random people. <sarcasm>Sounds townie to me </sarcasm> Show nested quote +
LSB's recent "analysis" on Team 2 cannot be considered a natural pro-town sign since he only posted it under pressure from 3 people. So don't use this as an excuse for why you're town. It won't work.
I would have liked more time to see what Bum would do, and how SR would play this game. But like you said, people wanted me to post. So I did, and I said that I didn't really think that they were mafia since new posts didn't fit with my general theory. Conclusions: I think we should examine some of the players that bandwagoned on Team 1... especially Team 2 since we know BM had some serious concerns about them.
Don’t misquote me please
Ace/BM is scum:You said that I didn't give enough input into the Ace/BM lynch. Well, I don't feel like I should. Because I think there're town
Miscellaneous
On September 23 2010 14:02 BrownBear wrote:
Well, mildly predictable. I was half-expecting team incog, to be honest, but this is also a solid hit by mafia.
(im assuming they were vanilla town)
So where to today?
Yeah, ACE/BM was vanilla town (their names were in green)
2nd post coming soon
|
I am against the Meeple lynch
On September 23 2010 16:24 Incognito wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2010 10:59 meeple wrote:
odd choice for mafia... people seem to have a grudge against them
Now comes the analysis of their posts knowing that they were town. Wow. This coming from you is hillarious. As if you're trying to downplay the fact that Ace was suspicious of you. Its not an "odd" choice for you to kill the team that agreed with the scumminess of YOUR team and Team 1. I'm 100% positive you didn't miss the part where Ace accused you. Notice how meeple says "Now comes the analysis of their posts knowing that they were town", while doing nothing to analyze them. Analyzing a dead person's post is easy. Meeple, however, doesn't want to do this because he has no interest in exposing the fact that Ace agreed with my reads. Meeple is not walking the talk. This should raise red flags for everyone.
I don’t believe you gave him that much time.
Meeple did do analysis of Ace, after your post. He possibly could be busy and needed to do something else.
So I dug through the posts where Ace mentioned Yellowink and Meeple
And I found a post
+ Show Spoiler + On September 22 2010 09:33 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2010 06:43 YellowInk wrote:
At this point I believe that the mafia are among teams 1, 3, 5, and 6. I do not know precisely who, but at this stage of the day, hanging team 1 still makes sense. Ace, I was getting the same feeling initially about the bandwagoning onto team 1, but then I looked carefully at who was and wasn't on board with the team 1 vote and realized that just about everyone who was on the team 1 vote I already had a feeling of being pro town. The most suspect people have pushed the no lynch.
The recent argument made against no lynch was under the assumption of no medic saves. Consider what occurs if you have 1 medic save: we gain an entire day! In a typical game, a single medic save does not gain us a day. Using the no lynch here would lose us the day that a medic save could gain us.
No lynch is for endgame situations only. Hang team 1. No it isn't. This post is blatantly misleading. No lynching is for when you can't conclude someone is scummy enough to lynch. Like I've said, the town does not have to lynch every day. So most of the time it's in your best bet to No lynch unless you are in a situation where there is clearly going to be a benefit. Being in the end game does not matter for a No lynch, all it means is that you're decision has a more immediate consequence but it's also easier. Towards the end of the game it is actually much rarer to have a No lynch. Remember what I said? It's in your best bet to avoid a lynch when you aren't sure someone is scum or there is no clear benefit. At the end of the game you have so much information between votes, player interaction, the knowledge of what roles have been revealed and your own ties to players that it's really not often you'll be No lynching then. In a typical game a single medic save gaining you a day is false. Saving a player and them possibly being confirmed innocent is a pretty big deal don't you think? It may not directly add more days to your win condition but adding more players to the likely pro-town pool, that TWO players know about is pretty heartbreaking for scum once it's revealed. Using a No Lynch now would actually be the best bet...if this were 10 hours ago and this was a normal setup with infinite No Lynches. Clearly though, LSB has been posting god knows what and well I'm a little intrigued by this post of yours. I thought you were a good player so how could you actually believe this nonsense you just posted? The only thing worrying me is that Incognito seems to have pegged both your teams also which shows his scumdar is operating on great batteries like mine, or he's just good at picking off easy townies. So I'm going to ask you this one time: Let's assume you were a detective. What team would you investigate tonight and why?
I don’t see an accusation of scummyness from Ace, all I see is say ridiculing YellowInk for being a “bad player”
Ace said he was unsure on whether or not Incog was right. Ace didn’t agree with Incog yet.
Killing Ace/BM is convenient if Team 1 and Team 7 are mafia. Mafia killing Ace/BM is equal to killing a less vocal and aggressive version of me/Infundibulum. It eliminates the only Team who agreed with me that Team 1 and 7 are scum right now. Which means I lose a supporter and need to work even harder to try to accomplish my goals. I think everyone would agree that I would be more likely to receive a medic prot than Ace. I'm guessing mafia took this into consideration and decided it was easier and safer to effectively cripple my steamrolling machine by sniping the quieter supporter. Now I have to find yet another vote to help me get them lynched. Real convenient, huh?
Team 7 is mafia. Analysis coming up in a few.
Again, you assume that Ace agreed with you. What Ace said is that either
1) Incog is good at finding mafia.
Or 2) Incog is mafia and good at killing townies, by painting them as scum from a 'slipup'
On September 23 2010 18:52 Incognito wrote:A few posts back, I noted Pyrr's defense of YellowInk: Show nested quote +On September 22 2010 05:52 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:On September 22 2010 05:39 Incognito wrote:This post is interesting. YI wants to avoid a situation where town is divided with votes? That's interesting, since usually town gains more information from close votes...note how he splits his vote from his own team mate. I think he is worried because if the votes are split between two teams it is likely the mafia will be able to save the guilty one, if one of the two are guilty. My original post states that YellowInk's behavior is "interesting". My comment also implies that this "interesting" behavior is suspicious. In this post, Pyrr is being apologetic about YellowInk's behavior and is trying to justify it. Why is this weird? First of all, Pyrr hasn't really been directly defending people other than himself. In this post, he defends YellowInk directly, theorizing why YI would behave in such a way. Pyrr hasn't been defending anyone directly (although he has been saying we should give people time to respond before accusing aggressively (which in essence is its own type of defense)), yet pops up out of the blue to defend YellowInk. The most plausible reason why Pyrr did this is because YI is his other mafia teammate. Furthermore, in my original post, I merely stated that YI's behavior was "interesting". But Pyrr feels a need to defend YI preemptively. The are other possible reasons why Pyrr did this (like, he wanted to clarify a possibility), but these possibilities are improbable. Pyrr hasn't really been the clarifying type this game. He has had a far greater role raising questions about other teams: namely, Teams 2 and 6, and all of a sudden he pops up to clarify what someone was thinking? This is an out of place defense and certainly warrants heavy suspicion. Finally, the circumstances under which Pyrr defended YellowInk are out of place. Look at the posts of Pyrr and YellowInk and their relation to one another. On page 17, YellowInk says that he agrees with what people (presumably me?) had to say about Team 1's scumminess. He follows that with a vote on Team 1. He never changes that vote. Two pages later is Pyrr's post defending YellowInk. Pyrr is defending YellowInk even though YellowInk is voting for him. Now just think about that for a moment. Why would you defend someone who has voted for you? It doesn't make sense to defend someone who voted for you if you were a townie. The only reason why you would do that is if BOTH PLAYERS ARE MAFIA. Pyrr's defense of YellowInk confirms my suspicion that YellowInk didn't really want to lynch Pyrr and used meeple's no-lynch to effectively neutralize his vote. Pyrr wants to support YellowInk but overlooks the fact that YellowInk voted for him. Oh well, I'm happy with two easy mafia. [Vote]Team 7Main Point: 1) Pyrr slipped up. He defended someone out of the blue when there was no direct attack involved. He defended someone who voted for him. 2) Team 1 is mafia3) Team 7 is mafia
Um that’s not a defense. That’s a possible explanation. Pyrr explained it quite well
+ Show Spoiler +On September 23 2010 20:19 Divinek wrote:
totally buy the argument. Especially for team 7, what else is there to say other than it makes overwhelming sense. There's all kind of WIFOM shit people can throw into this but that slip up is pretty LOL. Cause i know i hate people that vote for me, or even attack me ie LSB, and so on so it's quite easy reasoning to follow
baa baaa
##vote team 7
Bandwagoning?
|
On September 24 2010 07:35 LSB wrote:MisconseptionsShow nested quote +On September 23 2010 21:01 SouthRawrea wrote:On September 23 2010 12:10 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
@ this whole LSB vs. Incognito thing
Incog and SR seem to be locked in on LSB because he is supposedly too passive. He's not close to the most passive person here. BrownBear hasn't done much except advocate a no lynch. More importantly, BC hasn't done shit.
I don't believe BC has an "I don't care mode." I see his name pop up on MSN often enough. I called him out for his placeholder vote on Foolishness and he didn't ever come back around to move it. RoL, is of course active this game, but that's even weirder than an inactive BC.
vote team 6 Nah it has nothing to do with being passive. He comes out with a strong accusation against my team and then fails to followup or explain himself properly. I'm having quite a dilemna right now because I know very well that it's obviously considered anti-town behaviour to not post much at all and so I'm looking to the inactive teams. The problem I have is that I can't shake the feeling that the mafia may be an active team as well. I've got to go for now but I'm going to look over Team 6 when I get back from school. Just saying, that was not a strong accusation at all. I then retract myself mid post. If it was an accusation, I would have ended my post with a vote. Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 03:57 meeple wrote:Also the people that accused BM/Ace LSB + Show Spoiler +On September 22 2010 08:20 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 17:36 Incognito wrote:
Its not just his actions, its his mindset. If you read over LSB's posts, all his posts are neutral and he never takes a stand. Its not easy for anyone to pinpoint what LSB supports because he doesn't support anything. And that's the point. Mafia don't want to take an active stance because then they have to defend it. Mafia would like to sit on the fence so that nobody can hold them responsible for their actions while subtly working to subvert town goals. Town has nothing to lose by taking sides. Now looking at LSB's past games, he takes sides as town. He is decisive and actively contributes to the town while openly attempting to convince others of his view. On the other hand, this game LSB does not take sides. He is not decisive, and only points out flaws. Is he attempting to convince others to follow his point of view? No, he doesn't have one. LSB is not interested in the town's welfare. He wants to create the appearance of pro-town activity by pointing out the flaws in my plan while using neutral language and doing nothing to help town. As for the things I'm supporting 1) No lynch. 2) Bum's medic plan Show nested quote +This post attempts to derail the focus on LSB's scumminess by setting up straw men and refusing to directly refute my accusations. LSB says he didn't make a plan because the game setup is not exploitable. While this may be true, this does not address the motives behind LSB's actions. LSB is refuting the planning aspect of his play. I am attacking the motives behind his play, namely that as town he takes stances and tries to work for the town's benefit. The thing is, if I was mafia, I would be supporting an erronous plan, trying to get the town to take part of a plan that is easily exploitable. A great way to do that is to support your plan! Your plan has problems. Strangely you haven't address these problems. Right now you are saying, "LSB seems skummy, so therefore I don't need to worry about the holes in my plan". That isn't logic, that's misdirection. Show nested quote +The erroneous logic is in the
"oh no what happens if a DT/medic doesn't exist" question, not the no lynch issue. Stop trying to appear all innocent and beating around the bush. I'll repeat myself: We should use the DT and the Medic in the places where they will be most effective. The Medic should focus on making sure that someone doesn't die. And the DT should be used to try to investigate targets. I don't like the list idea, since it tells the mafia what to stay out of. Again, please address this problem. Tell me why I am wrong, don't just make a long post on why I'm supposed mafia to distract others from seeing that your plan has a problem. Show nested quote +If there are no fixes, you junk the plan an move on. Valid. But you didn't move on. You junked the plan, and promptly disappeared. The most plausible reason why you did that is because you are mafia.
I don't have this list of possible plans in my pocket and try to use them. If I think of something, I'll use it sure. I moved on of course, chiefly no lynch once we figured out that it could be used. Show nested quote +To say those posts were serious accusations that deserved input would be flat out lies Again, I'm not saying your statement was a lie. I'm saying that the motiviations for your post are shaky. Everyone reading this post should be looking at the subjective question of why LSB is posting the way he is. Reading LSB's posts at face value isn't going to get us anywhere. Its not a matter of lie or truth. Its a matter of what seems realistic given the mindset of the poster. What I am saying is that your accusations twist my words. You admit that you can't read my posts at face value because if you do, you'll find that I'm a townie. You now are relying on the fact that I haven't taken any positions? What positions are you accusing me of not taking on? Planning: You claim that I haven't made a plan. Therefore I am Mafia. Thats just silly. I'm not going to make a plan unless I think of one. Ace/BM is scumYou said that I didn't give enough input into the Ace/BM lynch. Well, I don't feel like I should. Because I think there're town Rastaban/Foolishness is scum: You said that I didn't give enough input into the Rastaban/Foolishness lynch. Well, I don't feel like I should. So you expect me to 1) Pull out plans or die, or 2) Accuse random people. <sarcasm>Sounds townie to me </sarcasm> Show nested quote +
LSB's recent "analysis" on Team 2 cannot be considered a natural pro-town sign since he only posted it under pressure from 3 people. So don't use this as an excuse for why you're town. It won't work.
I would have liked more time to see what Bum would do, and how SR would play this game. But like you said, people wanted me to post. So I did, and I said that I didn't really think that they were mafia since new posts didn't fit with my general theory. Conclusions: I think we should examine some of the players that bandwagoned on Team 1... especially Team 2 since we know BM had some serious concerns about them. Don’t misquote me please Show nested quote + Ace/BM is scum:You said that I didn't give enough input into the Ace/BM lynch. Well, I don't feel like I should. Because I think there're town
MiscellaneousShow nested quote +On September 23 2010 14:02 BrownBear wrote:
Well, mildly predictable. I was half-expecting team incog, to be honest, but this is also a solid hit by mafia.
(im assuming they were vanilla town)
So where to today? Yeah, ACE/BM was vanilla town (their names were in green) 2nd post coming soon
Oops sorry about that... did a search of various team 4 scum terms and that popped up... retracted
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
This post is about how Team 7 is mafia, and in particular, meeple. I will be analyzing his posts this game because I believe he hasn't done anything worthy of being on the town side. In summary, he's been asking a lot of questions, he's failed to provide any of his own thoughts (for the most part), he has been restating already said thoughts in an effort to make it look like he's contributing, and he has been a victim of the typical "hesitant mafia syndrome". Let's take a look:
On September 21 2010 05:08 meeple wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 04:49 BrownBear wrote:On September 21 2010 04:43 SouthRawrea wrote:
So you're saying I'm posting nothing when really what I'm doing is making a post that shows that there is really no plan that we can come up with? Then pray, tell me what sort of content-filled posts you can make this early in the game? @Pyrr When you read the thread, it should become obvious what is content and what isn't. What you post isn't content. What Incognito posts is. It's like night and day. Also, [Vote]No Lynchrasta and LSB have very good points, so I'll stick with this plan for now. I know it's a reversal of my earlier position, but I believe their logic is sound. We only get a single "No Lynch" if I understand correctly... you really think we should waste it on the first day?
Good question, but he failed to provide any of his own thoughts about this matter, while most other people had no problem voicing their own opinion.
On September 22 2010 04:33 meeple wrote:
Well... even though I'm hesitant to use our only no-lynch this early... in a game this small we will need every scrap of information we can get... that bandwagon on team 1 seems interesting too...
unvote Team 6
vote: No lynch
Hesitant mafia is abound here. Still he brings up a good point about the bandwagon, but doesn't say anything else.
On September 22 2010 05:06 meeple wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2010 04:52 Infundibulum wrote:
Actually an addendum:
YellowInk has a point that it would be stupid to use our no lynch today, when we don't need to, when we could potentially end up in a missed lynch = loss situation later in the game. I think this is the strongest argument against lynching Day 1. Is there something amiss with this logic that i'm not grasping? I think the general thoughts are that: Pros: - Prevents a somewhat uneducated decision, hoping for some better information tommorow Cons: - We only have one, we waste it now and we're screwed later - We go into Day 2 with just a little less information than we would if we lynched and found out someone's alignment. I think normally most people would go with the lynching day 1, if not only to get the info... but with such a small game every mislynch is a huge blow.
A seemingly fine post, but he's one of the last people to comment on at this time. By the time he's made this post, I've already detailed out why we should no lynch while countering every other argument. All he's done is restated arguments made by everyone else. Also notice his last sentence, he says "most people would go with the lynching day 1" yet he himself has already voted to No Lynch. Indeed this is quite suspicious.
On September 22 2010 05:32 meeple wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2010 05:08 SouthRawrea wrote:
Oops I meant to bold the very last part and finish my train of though. All other scenarios are quite even but in the situation where we get no medic saves and choose to NL on day 1, we miss out on 1 potential lynch even though we survive for an equal amount of days. We have a maximum of 3 lynches in any scenario except no save + no lynch in which we have only 2. (This is of course assuming that our medic isn't a godly one. Hold on... so we only get 2 lynches if we have a no lynch and no save scenario... balls to the walls... wait... Assuming we use our no lynch now and assuming that we have no medic saves... Today:_______________6 v 2 Tommorow____________5 v 2 Day 3:_______3 v 2______or_______4 v 1 Day 4:__town lose or 2 v 1____2 v 1 or town win Day 5: town win or town lose in both cases What am I missing... this gives a 50% chance of town win, based on total randomness and no saves.
Now I suspect that he doesn't actually read the thread, since I already did this math in an earlier post.
On September 22 2010 05:34 meeple wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2010 05:30 Foolishness wrote:On September 22 2010 05:06 meeple wrote:
Pros:
- Prevents a somewhat uneducated decision, hoping for some better information tommorow
Cons:
- We only have one, we waste it now and we're screwed later
- We go into Day 2 with just a little less information than we would if we lynched and found out someone's alignment.
Give me a scenario where we use No Lynch today and we end up screwed later. Remember no medic saves. Well... technically can't we use a No lynch in a 3 v 1 scenario to prolong the game into a 2 v 1 with a higher chance of catching the last guy...
Which is great except I explained why that's a meaningless argument many many times.
I'm also very skeptical of his constant use of ellipses (...), as that further shows how hesitant he is. His use of these show that he's trying not to draw attention to himself by making himself seem less threatening. It seems like he's trying not to take sides on the issue at hand, and instead just bringing up what other people think. Just like a bad politician, he doesn't want to take a firm stance on an issue so he can't be held accountable later on. This is what mafia try to do, they don't want to take sides so as not to create possible enemies in the future.
On September 22 2010 05:51 meeple wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2010 05:39 Incognito wrote:This post is interesting. YI wants to avoid a situation where town is divided with votes? That's interesting, since usually town gains more information from close votes...note how he splits his vote from his own team mate. Like Pandain, the only weird votes I see are coming from Divinek and YI. Otherwise its just two teams voting for Team 1. On September 22 2010 04:33 meeple wrote:
Well... even though I'm hesitant to use our only no-lynch this early... in a game this small we will need every scrap of information we can get... that bandwagon on team 1 seems interesting too...
unvote Team 6
vote: No lynch If town, meeple and YI should be coordinating votes. While both voted for team 6 previously, one switched to Team 1 while one switched to no lynch. No real reason to split your votes if you're town...this 1-1 split vote makes it interesting because meeple effectively negates YI's vote. The thing is, why is this bandwagon interesting? I don't see anything interesting about it except what your partner voted. Meeple, how are we screwed later if we "waste" our no lynch today? The only reason I can see is if a medic makes a save. And that is a terrible reason. On September 22 2010 04:41 Foolishness wrote:On September 19 2010 18:44 Incognito wrote:
I'm going to count on Team 3 and 6 for some strong analysis within the next 24 hours. Please do not disappoint.
On September 21 2010 17:43 Incognito wrote:
At this point we have enough information to lynch. I believe that all the mafia are out there in the open.
Foolishness needs to analyze the information we have now instead of rotting away while insisting we need more time to get information before lynch. There is plenty information out there. Anyone claiming otherwise is just too lazy to read the information here. There is no reason to wait. So let's see, I'm running through all my past mafia games, and counting the number of mafia I nailed because they said things like this. I'm at 3 so far. I'm very excited to see you be the fourth. Aww, this is disappointing. You only start fishing for info now? Pretty pathetic, I might say. *** I get why people want to no lynch. In a 1 KP game town always wants to lynch when there are an odd number of townies and don't want to lynch when theres an even number. The reason why we probably won't get any information from this lynch is because of the nolynch. Not that hard for anyone to policy no lynch when theres an even number of townies. There's nothing fishy about this lynch. The general apathy in this game is astonishing in its ability to do that. I'd rather there be something fishy about this lynch, but apparently we won't be graced with that information. Eh you're right, me and YI aren't really coordinating that much... probably should be. I never agreed with a Team 1 vote... About the wasting our no lynch... I was just summarizing the reservations I picked up... could've been misinterpreted though. I thought that saving our No lynch could possibly avoid a situation where we are forced to lynch but don't have a good target and as a result we lose. In any case, I don't mind using it now, since we don't really have alot of evidence or solid leads.
This is just more of the same meeple as before. Notice how Incognito indirectly called him out and meeple gets defensive in a typical mafia style. Meeple explains his actions but doesn't want to make it appear like he's against Incognito and doesn't want to make an enemy. As before we see him being hesitant, especially in his last sentence. Remember in his earlier post he said most people would probably want to lynch day 1 in order to get the information out of it, yet here he says he doesn't want to lynch since we don't have much evidence or solid leads. Sure, everyone changes their mind about things as the game progresses, but this is just wishy-washy behavior.
On September 23 2010 10:59 meeple wrote:
odd choice for mafia... people seem to have a grudge against them
Now comes the analysis of their posts knowing that they were town.
Of course he has yet to say anything about them. Incognito pointed out this fact, and meeple delivered.
On September 24 2010 03:57 meeple wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Alright, the analysis... yeah its delayed and I roasted for not posting it earlier... BM:+ Show Spoiler +On September 20 2010 19:39 Bill Murray wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 15:30 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
That's all SR ever posts. I don't think he posts any better when townie. I think he thinks he is contributing a lot but... he just manages to state the obvious and make it mind bangingly esoteric. Very unnerving. @pyrrexcuse me? are you admitting he is your scumbuddy? @everyone else If pyrrhuloxia is mafia, southrawrea could be as well. It might be null, but I feel like that could be a slip. I am liking pro-town discussion of Incognito and Foolishness, and are not really suspicious of teams 8 and 3 as a result. Incognito is capable of spotlighting as scum, so I'm not saying he is cleared, but I have played with him where he is scum, and this does not feel quite the same. Due to meta, and his amazingly pro-town play, I would definitely not be ok with his lynch at this juncture. I am not fully convinced Pyrrhuloxia's team is a mafia slot, though, and am going to reserve my vote for the moment as such a small setup can be volatile. I would be happier with a lynch on team 2, as I found SouthRawrEas post to be all fluff and no content. @mod votecount please ##vote: team 2 Expresses doubt about South's greenness due to fluff posting... says that he enjoys Incog and Foolishness's analysis, but adds a caveat about Incog's ability to spotlight as red. + Show Spoiler +On September 21 2010 05:59 Bill Murray wrote:LSB's admission is only icing on the cake@LSB: how would you be so CERTAIN they're scum? You have a scumlist, buddy? Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 04:43 SouthRawrea wrote:
So you're saying I'm posting nothing when really what I'm doing is making a post that shows that there is really no plan that we can come up with? Then pray, tell me what sort of content-filled posts you can make this early in the game? @Pyrr This makes me confident in my earlier read he is appealing to pyrr's authority. Scummy, scummy, scummy. @meeple: I find it funny you ask me to justify my vote when I voted SR on fluff, then make a secondary reason as for voting being fluff yourself. I also dislike you speculating that I was 100% pyrr/SR are the scumteam.... if that was the case, I would have been putting a second vote on Pyrr's team. I didn't. I'm voting SR because I am unsure if Pyrr actually made a slip. The way SR is acting now, though, in the above post, makes me believe that my initial reaction to who I'm voting is actually wrong. I needed to stack on pyrr because his team is way more important as I'm feeling both SR's team #2 with bumatlarge and divinek are scum with Pyrrhuloxia's team #1. My reasoning and justification are how SR is acting towards pyrrhuloxia. I will also give justification in relation to why we should lynch vs a no lynch day 1. I am not saying "let's not ever no lynch", but that we could use it day 2 if we don't lynch scum day 1.
day 1 lynching scum:6 v 1 night kill day 2 5v1 <- possible win here mislynch + night kill day 3 3v1 (mylo) <- obvious no lynch unless 100% certainty night kill day 4 2v1 (LYLO) if we DON'T mislynch now, and no lynch later, we can save it for a MyLo potentially. That's why we need to take a chance on lynching scum today.this is assuming we fuck up later, but we rocked on day 1. I'm not even really worried about this is Pyrrhuloxia's team #1 flip scum, which I expect them to do based upon SouthRawrEa being a newer player who is a dead giveaway. Though I am more sure of SR based upon his posting, AtA, and my not liking bumatlarge's posting earlier, I feel like they implicate team #1 through SR, and there being a vote on a slot that I find scum is enough for me to want to wagon said slot. ##unvote: pyrrhuloxia/LSB
##vote: SR, bumatlarge, and divinek States that SR is a new player and a scum giveaway and they implicate team 1. + Show Spoiler +On September 21 2010 17:06 Bill Murray wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 21 2010 08:56 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 07:33 BrownBear wrote:On September 21 2010 05:59 Bill Murray wrote:
I will also give justification in relation to why we should lynch vs a no lynch day 1. I am not saying "let's not ever no lynch", but that we could use it day 2 if we don't lynch scum day 1.
day 1 lynching scum:
6 v 1
night kill
day 2 5v1 <- possible win here
mislynch + night kill
day 3 3v1 (mylo) <- obvious no lynch unless 100% certainty
night kill
day 4 2v1 (LYLO)
if we DON'T mislynch now, and no lynch later, we can save it for a MyLo potentially.
That's why we need to take a chance on lynching scum today.
this is assuming we fuck up later, but we rocked on day 1. I'm not even really worried about this is Pyrrhuloxia's team #1 flip scum, which I expect them to do based upon SouthRawrEa being a newer player who is a dead giveaway. Though I am more sure of SR based upon his posting, AtA, and my not liking bumatlarge's posting earlier, I feel like they implicate team #1 through SR, and there being a vote on a slot that I find scum is enough for me to want to wagon said slot. Let's get South to post more before we make decisions. Also, we need his team to start posting as well, all of them haven't really been very helpful. As it stands, this is probably our best bet, but we have the time, might as well get the information before deciding for sure. Alright, I am going to be addressing both BM and BB with this, since this seems to be using faulty logic. BM you are arguing that we achieve the same result by no lynching day one or two, this is wrong because on Day 2 we have more information to work with PLUS we have higher percent of just randomly offing a mafia simply because there is one less team in the game. Completely faulty logic. As the game progresses our information increases so saying day 1 = day 2 no lynching is completely wrong, even if it is mathematically the same in regards to WHEN the day ends. Also BM you assume that we are rocking out day 1 and fucking up rest of the time? That's such an unlikely scenario considering as the game progresses information increases. BB inactivity is an easy mafia ploy to pull off day one claiming little to no reason or content to post, so its a given that they SHOULD be posting and if it continues it is very scummy and antitown, in the current set up I am willing to let it slide and not lynch of inactivity Day 1, but come down on it hard Day 2. Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 06:20 Ace wrote:Also I'm highly supportive of no lynching ONLY if those other conditions are met, because honestly having 1 shot of a No Lynch in a game this small is a very scary thing  And to make things clear for why some people generally want to lynch all the time: Chance of hitting Mafia with a lynch: some %, in this case 25% Chance of hitting Mafia with a No Lynch: 0% This is the justification that some people use in arguing for Lynching every day. Of course I don't usually support this because I'd rather lynch someone I'm highly sure is Scum than rest on a 25% chance of hitting red. Also this 25% doesn't show you that if you miss, the 75% chance of hitting a helpful player can deal more damage than the loss of one team. Losing a leading pro-town player and/or power role can have near-game ending effects. So if we are seriously going to lynch someone today, we better get some good discussion going. Which is why we I think Team 2's (LSB) accusation that Team 1 is certainly scummy needs a stronger argument. I would disagree with the we-should-lynch mentality, simply because no-lynching day 1 actually gives us an extra day. Obviously if we're 100% sure we have a scum we should lynch, but failing that we should no lynch, because then we have an extra day of analysis and a nightkill target. Get the cop (if he exists) to rolecheck team 1 or 2 tonight, and if he finds a scum, have him claim and get the medic (if HE also exists) to protect him. This obviously assumes blue roles exist, but since we have a 3/4 chance that they do, I think it's pretty safe to assume there's at least 1 blue in the game (if we get lucky, we get two!) I do agree with the fact that we need to get good discussion going, and that we need to get LSB to 'splain himself further about his accusation. This entirely reeks of shit to be blunt. It starts with kind of what I was saying but dissolves into the most retarded plan I have ever read. The whole DT CAN CHECK SOMEONE THEN SAY WHAT HE CHECKED AND THEN MEDIC PROTECTS HIM = GG is retarded. You are basing SO MUCH off of the chance its a 1/4 scenario where we lucked out and got both a medic and a DT. When deciding what to do we have to see what would benefit us the MOST in every possible scenario, which I believe is clearly day 1 no lynching (in our current predicament) Obviously if we have a strong suspect we should ALWAYS go for it, but quite simply the reasoning that you are justifying no lynch is nonsensical.
Now, to get some discussion going: What do you guys think of the possibility of having cop (if cop exists) claim day 2? Obviously he shouldnt claim now, because if he exists there's only a 1/3 chance that medic also exists and can protect his ass tonight. However, I'm assuming that since cop is more than 1 person, and this game is mostly talented players, the rolecheck tonight should turn up something good. I think it would absolutely be worth it to trade cop for 1 of the mafia.
Obvious flaw with this: If there's no cop, and mafia fakeclaims, who's gonna counterclaim?
Still, I'd love to hear other peoples' opinion.
DT should only claim if he feels a good enough reason to. Personally I think as soon as the DT confirms someone as red he should claim. Trading mafia for DT in a small game like this seems beneficial. The only reason NOT to do that is if that individual is getting lynched anyway for whatever reason, but if the vote is close I would still claim as a DT and make sure a mafia got killed.
Besides that claiming for the sake of claiming is stupid.
I disagree. If team 2 are mafia, and I get team 2 lynched, it is 100% likely on both days they will flip mafia. I don't look at it "randomly", I look at who is fucking mafia and who isn't fucking mafia. That being said, over the past couple of pages, I have been really happy with SR and Divinek. I was happy with bumatlarge until he started using really odd language. bumatlarge, explain the ending of your most recent post, as seen here: Show nested quote +Main Points:
1. Laxin medic goes hippy when they make war not love
2. Incog is fear nothing happenstance benefit
3. My vote wit no apologies because apologies get me in trouble apparently ...What? Basically, I am fine with no lynch at this point. I was pretty sure I had caught scum, but I am admittedly not so sure now. vote: no lynch Expresses doubts about his previous convictions and changes his vote to no lynch + Show Spoiler +On September 21 2010 19:28 Bill Murray wrote:
Foolishness trendily lurks until D2
too bad if he doesnt die N1 he is likely mafia, as he likes to lurk D1 as mafia just like he does as townie or blue so that is very, very, very null from him. I cannot emphasize this more. The funny thing is, though, mafia could choose to not hit him and use it as an argument. "Foolishness didn't die, he is mafia, get him" on day 2. That's the problem with his high level of play if it goes unchecked, it makes all arguments pretty WIFOMy which is why I like to pressure people who lurk
I like to do that more on day 2, or forward, though.
I like a lynch on D1 vs a No Lynch, so I am tempted to wagon. If I wagon, would you guys take it the wrong way? I like wagons as town these days, but I don't like mislynches, and I haven't seen anything glaring at me saying "this player is scummy as fuck" like I had originally thought I had.
It's funny everyone is dead set on a team I initially thought was scum. The minute I back off, people start believing. The world works in mysterious ways.
I am going to vote simply to consolidate my vote with my partner's, and
Vote: Team 1
Tomorrow we can pressure people based around their posts, and our general suspicions on teams 7 and 2 if they flip red. If they flip townie, then I'll have to look at a couple certain teams, too, so I'm actually happier with this lynch than teams 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and possibly even 2. Votes Team 1 to with Ace, and still expresses concerns about teams 2 and now 7 Ace:+ Show Spoiler +On September 21 2010 17:40 Ace wrote:
Ah damn I was somewhat supporting your post until you said We need this lynch for information.
What information are we getting from a lynch besides his alignment flip?
LSB is still the scummiest person so far in my book though. On September 21 2010 18:40 Ace wrote:
actually I dont think your case by itself is really that strong, it just seems convenient.
LSB's accusation of Team 2 and his weak explanation, which didn't even seem to answer my concern is still my prime motive for leaning towards them.
I'll rethink this again later for sure but for now ## vote Team 1 States suspicions about LSB and votes for him + Show Spoiler +On September 22 2010 03:03 Ace wrote:
this is such a terrible lynch. Just way too many easy voters. Bill Murray unvote them, this lynch just doesn't seem legit at all.
##unvote Team 1 Gets anxious about the easy votes and unvotes Team 1 + Show Spoiler +On September 22 2010 09:33 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2010 06:43 YellowInk wrote:
At this point I believe that the mafia are among teams 1, 3, 5, and 6. I do not know precisely who, but at this stage of the day, hanging team 1 still makes sense. Ace, I was getting the same feeling initially about the bandwagoning onto team 1, but then I looked carefully at who was and wasn't on board with the team 1 vote and realized that just about everyone who was on the team 1 vote I already had a feeling of being pro town. The most suspect people have pushed the no lynch.
The recent argument made against no lynch was under the assumption of no medic saves. Consider what occurs if you have 1 medic save: we gain an entire day! In a typical game, a single medic save does not gain us a day. Using the no lynch here would lose us the day that a medic save could gain us.
No lynch is for endgame situations only. Hang team 1. No it isn't. This post is blatantly misleading. No lynching is for when you can't conclude someone is scummy enough to lynch. Like I've said, the town does not have to lynch every day. So most of the time it's in your best bet to No lynch unless you are in a situation where there is clearly going to be a benefit. Being in the end game does not matter for a No lynch, all it means is that you're decision has a more immediate consequence but it's also easier. Towards the end of the game it is actually much rarer to have a No lynch. Remember what I said? It's in your best bet to avoid a lynch when you aren't sure someone is scum or there is no clear benefit. At the end of the game you have so much information between votes, player interaction, the knowledge of what roles have been revealed and your own ties to players that it's really not often you'll be No lynching then. In a typical game a single medic save gaining you a day is false. Saving a player and them possibly being confirmed innocent is a pretty big deal don't you think? It may not directly add more days to your win condition but adding more players to the likely pro-town pool, that TWO players know about is pretty heartbreaking for scum once it's revealed. Using a No Lynch now would actually be the best bet...if this were 10 hours ago and this was a normal setup with infinite No Lynches. Clearly though, LSB has been posting god knows what and well I'm a little intrigued by this post of yours. I thought you were a good player so how could you actually believe this nonsense you just posted? The only thing worrying me is that Incognito seems to have pegged both your teams also which shows his scumdar is operating on great batteries like mine, or he's just good at picking off easy townies. So I'm going to ask you this one time: Let's assume you were a detective. What team would you investigate tonight and why? Accuses Yellowink (Team 7)
Now lets see... Amongst the people that are included in the "easy votes" on Team 1 are: bumatlarge Divinek Infundibulum YellowInk SouthRawrea Incognito Also the people that accused BM/Ace YellowInk - albeit halfheartedly + Show Spoiler +On September 19 2010 14:22 YellowInk wrote:
I think we should hang Ace and Bill Murray. LSB + Show Spoiler +On September 22 2010 08:20 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 17:36 Incognito wrote:
Its not just his actions, its his mindset. If you read over LSB's posts, all his posts are neutral and he never takes a stand. Its not easy for anyone to pinpoint what LSB supports because he doesn't support anything. And that's the point. Mafia don't want to take an active stance because then they have to defend it. Mafia would like to sit on the fence so that nobody can hold them responsible for their actions while subtly working to subvert town goals. Town has nothing to lose by taking sides. Now looking at LSB's past games, he takes sides as town. He is decisive and actively contributes to the town while openly attempting to convince others of his view. On the other hand, this game LSB does not take sides. He is not decisive, and only points out flaws. Is he attempting to convince others to follow his point of view? No, he doesn't have one. LSB is not interested in the town's welfare. He wants to create the appearance of pro-town activity by pointing out the flaws in my plan while using neutral language and doing nothing to help town. As for the things I'm supporting 1) No lynch. 2) Bum's medic plan Show nested quote +This post attempts to derail the focus on LSB's scumminess by setting up straw men and refusing to directly refute my accusations. LSB says he didn't make a plan because the game setup is not exploitable. While this may be true, this does not address the motives behind LSB's actions. LSB is refuting the planning aspect of his play. I am attacking the motives behind his play, namely that as town he takes stances and tries to work for the town's benefit. The thing is, if I was mafia, I would be supporting an erronous plan, trying to get the town to take part of a plan that is easily exploitable. A great way to do that is to support your plan! Your plan has problems. Strangely you haven't address these problems. Right now you are saying, "LSB seems skummy, so therefore I don't need to worry about the holes in my plan". That isn't logic, that's misdirection. Show nested quote +The erroneous logic is in the
"oh no what happens if a DT/medic doesn't exist" question, not the no lynch issue. Stop trying to appear all innocent and beating around the bush. I'll repeat myself: We should use the DT and the Medic in the places where they will be most effective. The Medic should focus on making sure that someone doesn't die. And the DT should be used to try to investigate targets. I don't like the list idea, since it tells the mafia what to stay out of. Again, please address this problem. Tell me why I am wrong, don't just make a long post on why I'm supposed mafia to distract others from seeing that your plan has a problem. Show nested quote +If there are no fixes, you junk the plan an move on. Valid. But you didn't move on. You junked the plan, and promptly disappeared. The most plausible reason why you did that is because you are mafia.
I don't have this list of possible plans in my pocket and try to use them. If I think of something, I'll use it sure. I moved on of course, chiefly no lynch once we figured out that it could be used. Show nested quote +To say those posts were serious accusations that deserved input would be flat out lies Again, I'm not saying your statement was a lie. I'm saying that the motiviations for your post are shaky. Everyone reading this post should be looking at the subjective question of why LSB is posting the way he is. Reading LSB's posts at face value isn't going to get us anywhere. Its not a matter of lie or truth. Its a matter of what seems realistic given the mindset of the poster. What I am saying is that your accusations twist my words. You admit that you can't read my posts at face value because if you do, you'll find that I'm a townie. You now are relying on the fact that I haven't taken any positions? What positions are you accusing me of not taking on? Planning: You claim that I haven't made a plan. Therefore I am Mafia. Thats just silly. I'm not going to make a plan unless I think of one. Ace/BM is scumYou said that I didn't give enough input into the Ace/BM lynch. Well, I don't feel like I should. Because I think there're town Rastaban/Foolishness is scum: You said that I didn't give enough input into the Rastaban/Foolishness lynch. Well, I don't feel like I should. So you expect me to 1) Pull out plans or die, or 2) Accuse random people. <sarcasm>Sounds townie to me </sarcasm> Show nested quote +
LSB's recent "analysis" on Team 2 cannot be considered a natural pro-town sign since he only posted it under pressure from 3 people. So don't use this as an excuse for why you're town. It won't work.
I would have liked more time to see what Bum would do, and how SR would play this game. But like you said, people wanted me to post. So I did, and I said that I didn't really think that they were mafia since new posts didn't fit with my general theory. Conclusions: I think we should examine some of the players that bandwagoned on Team 1... especially Team 2 since we know BM had some serious concerns about them.
Yeah okay, LSB, I know he delivered, but what analysis did he really do? He compiled their posts (at least the important ones) and gives a one line summary of a few of them. That's not analysis, that's contributing without contributing.
I give him credit in that he wants to look at the bandwagon against team 1, as that's pertinent information to the game. However he mentioned this point in an earlier post of his (see above), and didn't do anything then. All he did this time was look at who voted for him, and which players voted and/or were suspicious of BM/Ace (which doesn't mean anything).
I also realized that his list of those against team one was comprised of the entire team 2. I don't find this strange at all, given that early day before No Lynch had been thoroughly discussed, team 1 and team 2 had all the heat on them. It would only make sense that team 2 would vote for them as they don't want to get killed themselves.
On September 24 2010 04:05 meeple wrote:
Also
Vote: Team 6
Okay look: this post came immediately after meeple's previous 'analysis' post. Meeple made no mention (as I can see) about team 6 or anyone on it. He says that we should be focusing on team 2, because BM had issues with team 2. That's a good point indeed, yet instead he tosses his vote on team 6 without any analysis or reason. YellowInk immediately follows in this manner.
A note to meeple and YellowInk: I think that team 6 is pretty suspicious as they've hardly done/said anything all game. I could easily be convinced that they are mafia. But none of you have done any analysis on them (in fact, nobody has), and instead you blindly throw your votes on them.
Vote: team 7
If you ask me, everyone on team 2 seems like a bored townie. I haven't thoroughly analyzed them though.
********
Summary:
1) Vote for team 7, meeple and YellowInk, because:
2) meeple has yet to contribute any of his own thoughts, he's only been restating already said arguments
3) meeple has been taking a very hesitant stand so far, as if he's trying to draw attention away from himself and not create enemies. This is mafia behavior.
4) These arguments coupled with Incognito's post about team 7 (YellowInk in particular) show that this team is outside the bounds of "bored townies". They are hiding something.
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
I'd also like to say that Incognito's analysis of the link between teams 1 and 7 is pretty damning. My suggestion and current feeling is that we lynch team 7 today, and if they turn up red our first target for next lynch should be team 1. If they turn up green (team 7 I mean) we'll have to start from square one again.
|
On September 24 2010 08:31 Foolishness wrote:
I'd also like to say that Incognito's analysis of the link between teams 1 and 7 is pretty damning. My suggestion and current feeling is that we lynch team 7 today, and if they turn up red our first target for next lynch should be team 1. If they turn up green (team 7 I mean) we'll have to start from square one again.
This is extremely dangerous, simply because if we fail we essentially enter into LYLO.
|
With that said, though, Team 7 is emerging as probably the best lynch candidate for me. However, I want to wait until they post more before making my decision.
|
Intresting... I agree its strange how Team 7 is accusing team 6. It's probably their trying to draw the heat off of themselves.
Anyways I haven't played with Meeple before, so I can't say much, but I went through this game
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128918
Meeple was townie, and he wasn't a big contributor and didn't make much (if any) stands
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On September 24 2010 08:35 BrownBear wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 08:31 Foolishness wrote:
I'd also like to say that Incognito's analysis of the link between teams 1 and 7 is pretty damning. My suggestion and current feeling is that we lynch team 7 today, and if they turn up red our first target for next lynch should be team 1. If they turn up green (team 7 I mean) we'll have to start from square one again. This is extremely dangerous, simply because if we fail we essentially enter into LYLO.
Yes I know, but they have ample time to defend themselves and/or to tell us why team 6 is mafia (or anyone else for that matter).
|
Why do people seem to think that dead people have all the answers? Just because they thought a certain person was mafia before they had passed away, it doesn't mean that they wouldn't have changed their mind or that they had a good reason.
|
On September 24 2010 08:35 BrownBear wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 08:31 Foolishness wrote:
I'd also like to say that Incognito's analysis of the link between teams 1 and 7 is pretty damning. My suggestion and current feeling is that we lynch team 7 today, and if they turn up red our first target for next lynch should be team 1. If they turn up green (team 7 I mean) we'll have to start from square one again. This is extremely dangerous, simply because if we fail we essentially enter into LYLO.
No matter who it is, if we misslynch it goes to LYLO, why do you feel that this plan is more dangerous than any other?
|
On September 24 2010 00:53 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
I love how I am supposedly defending Yellowink just because I gave a more likely explanation of what he was trying to say than what you were bringing up.
I did the exact thing for SouthRawrea and everyone thought we were mafia buddies for the next five pages. Now incognito is characterizing it as an attack on SouthRawrea along with half the town, while the other half is saying that I am defending some mafia buddy. All I was saying was that SouthRawrea has made similar posts while mafia and while not and that a tell was probably not to going to be found from its mere presence, as some had believed.
All I'm trying to do is give my perspective on what people are trying to say when people blow it out of proportion.
On September 23 2010 11:50 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
I was trying to explain what I thought he was trying to say, which didn't seem as suspicious to me as it did to you, so yeah I suppose it is a defense.
A case of the pandering politician. Using vague/wishy washy words to soften the impact of your words. You're so terrible at defending yourself that I'm not sure what to think at this point. Stop contradicting yourself. Plain and simple, you were defending YellowInk.
At this point its not my job to convince the victim that he is scummy. Its my job to clarify to the town why my victim is scummy. So in the interest of clarity, town should ignore statements like these:
But when your whole fucking case is "Pyrr is mafia for sure, he is defending Yellowink, and therefore Yellowink is mafia" it is not very persuasive to me, given that I am not mafia, I wasn't defending Yellowink so much as giving my interpretation on what Yellowink was saying, and I've "defended" several other players the same way.
If yellowink is mafia because I defended him, then I suppose Team 2 is mafia because meeple accused Bill Murray of fluff posting for his vote on Team 2.
These statements are faulty logic and simply aren't true. Any sensible townie can read my case to see exactly why this connection is very suspicious. Don't be misled by Pyrr's misinterpretations of what my argument truly is.
|
On September 24 2010 03:57 meeple wrote:Alright, the analysis... yeah its delayed and I roasted for not posting it earlier... BM:+ Show Spoiler +On September 20 2010 19:39 Bill Murray wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 15:30 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
That's all SR ever posts. I don't think he posts any better when townie. I think he thinks he is contributing a lot but... he just manages to state the obvious and make it mind bangingly esoteric. Very unnerving. @pyrrexcuse me? are you admitting he is your scumbuddy? @everyone else If pyrrhuloxia is mafia, southrawrea could be as well. It might be null, but I feel like that could be a slip. I am liking pro-town discussion of Incognito and Foolishness, and are not really suspicious of teams 8 and 3 as a result. Incognito is capable of spotlighting as scum, so I'm not saying he is cleared, but I have played with him where he is scum, and this does not feel quite the same. Due to meta, and his amazingly pro-town play, I would definitely not be ok with his lynch at this juncture. I am not fully convinced Pyrrhuloxia's team is a mafia slot, though, and am going to reserve my vote for the moment as such a small setup can be volatile. I would be happier with a lynch on team 2, as I found SouthRawrEas post to be all fluff and no content. @mod votecount please ##vote: team 2 Expresses doubt about South's greenness due to fluff posting... says that he enjoys Incog and Foolishness's analysis, but adds a caveat about Incog's ability to spotlight as red. + Show Spoiler +On September 21 2010 05:59 Bill Murray wrote:LSB's admission is only icing on the cake@LSB: how would you be so CERTAIN they're scum? You have a scumlist, buddy? Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 04:43 SouthRawrea wrote:
So you're saying I'm posting nothing when really what I'm doing is making a post that shows that there is really no plan that we can come up with? Then pray, tell me what sort of content-filled posts you can make this early in the game? @Pyrr This makes me confident in my earlier read he is appealing to pyrr's authority. Scummy, scummy, scummy. @meeple: I find it funny you ask me to justify my vote when I voted SR on fluff, then make a secondary reason as for voting being fluff yourself. I also dislike you speculating that I was 100% pyrr/SR are the scumteam.... if that was the case, I would have been putting a second vote on Pyrr's team. I didn't. I'm voting SR because I am unsure if Pyrr actually made a slip. The way SR is acting now, though, in the above post, makes me believe that my initial reaction to who I'm voting is actually wrong. I needed to stack on pyrr because his team is way more important as I'm feeling both SR's team #2 with bumatlarge and divinek are scum with Pyrrhuloxia's team #1. My reasoning and justification are how SR is acting towards pyrrhuloxia. I will also give justification in relation to why we should lynch vs a no lynch day 1. I am not saying "let's not ever no lynch", but that we could use it day 2 if we don't lynch scum day 1.
day 1 lynching scum:6 v 1 night kill day 2 5v1 <- possible win here mislynch + night kill day 3 3v1 (mylo) <- obvious no lynch unless 100% certainty night kill day 4 2v1 (LYLO) if we DON'T mislynch now, and no lynch later, we can save it for a MyLo potentially. That's why we need to take a chance on lynching scum today.this is assuming we fuck up later, but we rocked on day 1. I'm not even really worried about this is Pyrrhuloxia's team #1 flip scum, which I expect them to do based upon SouthRawrEa being a newer player who is a dead giveaway. Though I am more sure of SR based upon his posting, AtA, and my not liking bumatlarge's posting earlier, I feel like they implicate team #1 through SR, and there being a vote on a slot that I find scum is enough for me to want to wagon said slot. ##unvote: pyrrhuloxia/LSB
##vote: SR, bumatlarge, and divinek States that SR is a new player and a scum giveaway and they implicate team 1. + Show Spoiler +On September 21 2010 17:06 Bill Murray wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 21 2010 08:56 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 07:33 BrownBear wrote:On September 21 2010 05:59 Bill Murray wrote:
I will also give justification in relation to why we should lynch vs a no lynch day 1. I am not saying "let's not ever no lynch", but that we could use it day 2 if we don't lynch scum day 1.
day 1 lynching scum:
6 v 1
night kill
day 2 5v1 <- possible win here
mislynch + night kill
day 3 3v1 (mylo) <- obvious no lynch unless 100% certainty
night kill
day 4 2v1 (LYLO)
if we DON'T mislynch now, and no lynch later, we can save it for a MyLo potentially.
That's why we need to take a chance on lynching scum today.
this is assuming we fuck up later, but we rocked on day 1. I'm not even really worried about this is Pyrrhuloxia's team #1 flip scum, which I expect them to do based upon SouthRawrEa being a newer player who is a dead giveaway. Though I am more sure of SR based upon his posting, AtA, and my not liking bumatlarge's posting earlier, I feel like they implicate team #1 through SR, and there being a vote on a slot that I find scum is enough for me to want to wagon said slot. Let's get South to post more before we make decisions. Also, we need his team to start posting as well, all of them haven't really been very helpful. As it stands, this is probably our best bet, but we have the time, might as well get the information before deciding for sure. Alright, I am going to be addressing both BM and BB with this, since this seems to be using faulty logic. BM you are arguing that we achieve the same result by no lynching day one or two, this is wrong because on Day 2 we have more information to work with PLUS we have higher percent of just randomly offing a mafia simply because there is one less team in the game. Completely faulty logic. As the game progresses our information increases so saying day 1 = day 2 no lynching is completely wrong, even if it is mathematically the same in regards to WHEN the day ends. Also BM you assume that we are rocking out day 1 and fucking up rest of the time? That's such an unlikely scenario considering as the game progresses information increases. BB inactivity is an easy mafia ploy to pull off day one claiming little to no reason or content to post, so its a given that they SHOULD be posting and if it continues it is very scummy and antitown, in the current set up I am willing to let it slide and not lynch of inactivity Day 1, but come down on it hard Day 2. Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 06:20 Ace wrote:Also I'm highly supportive of no lynching ONLY if those other conditions are met, because honestly having 1 shot of a No Lynch in a game this small is a very scary thing And to make things clear for why some people generally want to lynch all the time: Chance of hitting Mafia with a lynch: some %, in this case 25% Chance of hitting Mafia with a No Lynch: 0% This is the justification that some people use in arguing for Lynching every day. Of course I don't usually support this because I'd rather lynch someone I'm highly sure is Scum than rest on a 25% chance of hitting red. Also this 25% doesn't show you that if you miss, the 75% chance of hitting a helpful player can deal more damage than the loss of one team. Losing a leading pro-town player and/or power role can have near-game ending effects. So if we are seriously going to lynch someone today, we better get some good discussion going. Which is why we I think Team 2's (LSB) accusation that Team 1 is certainly scummy needs a stronger argument. I would disagree with the we-should-lynch mentality, simply because no-lynching day 1 actually gives us an extra day. Obviously if we're 100% sure we have a scum we should lynch, but failing that we should no lynch, because then we have an extra day of analysis and a nightkill target. Get the cop (if he exists) to rolecheck team 1 or 2 tonight, and if he finds a scum, have him claim and get the medic (if HE also exists) to protect him. This obviously assumes blue roles exist, but since we have a 3/4 chance that they do, I think it's pretty safe to assume there's at least 1 blue in the game (if we get lucky, we get two!) I do agree with the fact that we need to get good discussion going, and that we need to get LSB to 'splain himself further about his accusation. This entirely reeks of shit to be blunt. It starts with kind of what I was saying but dissolves into the most retarded plan I have ever read. The whole DT CAN CHECK SOMEONE THEN SAY WHAT HE CHECKED AND THEN MEDIC PROTECTS HIM = GG is retarded. You are basing SO MUCH off of the chance its a 1/4 scenario where we lucked out and got both a medic and a DT. When deciding what to do we have to see what would benefit us the MOST in every possible scenario, which I believe is clearly day 1 no lynching (in our current predicament) Obviously if we have a strong suspect we should ALWAYS go for it, but quite simply the reasoning that you are justifying no lynch is nonsensical.
Now, to get some discussion going: What do you guys think of the possibility of having cop (if cop exists) claim day 2? Obviously he shouldnt claim now, because if he exists there's only a 1/3 chance that medic also exists and can protect his ass tonight. However, I'm assuming that since cop is more than 1 person, and this game is mostly talented players, the rolecheck tonight should turn up something good. I think it would absolutely be worth it to trade cop for 1 of the mafia.
Obvious flaw with this: If there's no cop, and mafia fakeclaims, who's gonna counterclaim?
Still, I'd love to hear other peoples' opinion.
DT should only claim if he feels a good enough reason to. Personally I think as soon as the DT confirms someone as red he should claim. Trading mafia for DT in a small game like this seems beneficial. The only reason NOT to do that is if that individual is getting lynched anyway for whatever reason, but if the vote is close I would still claim as a DT and make sure a mafia got killed.
Besides that claiming for the sake of claiming is stupid.
I disagree. If team 2 are mafia, and I get team 2 lynched, it is 100% likely on both days they will flip mafia. I don't look at it "randomly", I look at who is fucking mafia and who isn't fucking mafia. That being said, over the past couple of pages, I have been really happy with SR and Divinek. I was happy with bumatlarge until he started using really odd language. bumatlarge, explain the ending of your most recent post, as seen here: Show nested quote +Main Points:
1. Laxin medic goes hippy when they make war not love
2. Incog is fear nothing happenstance benefit
3. My vote wit no apologies because apologies get me in trouble apparently ...What? Basically, I am fine with no lynch at this point. I was pretty sure I had caught scum, but I am admittedly not so sure now. vote: no lynch Expresses doubts about his previous convictions and changes his vote to no lynch + Show Spoiler +On September 21 2010 19:28 Bill Murray wrote:
Foolishness trendily lurks until D2
too bad if he doesnt die N1 he is likely mafia, as he likes to lurk D1 as mafia just like he does as townie or blue so that is very, very, very null from him. I cannot emphasize this more. The funny thing is, though, mafia could choose to not hit him and use it as an argument. "Foolishness didn't die, he is mafia, get him" on day 2. That's the problem with his high level of play if it goes unchecked, it makes all arguments pretty WIFOMy which is why I like to pressure people who lurk
I like to do that more on day 2, or forward, though.
I like a lynch on D1 vs a No Lynch, so I am tempted to wagon. If I wagon, would you guys take it the wrong way? I like wagons as town these days, but I don't like mislynches, and I haven't seen anything glaring at me saying "this player is scummy as fuck" like I had originally thought I had.
It's funny everyone is dead set on a team I initially thought was scum. The minute I back off, people start believing. The world works in mysterious ways.
I am going to vote simply to consolidate my vote with my partner's, and
Vote: Team 1
Tomorrow we can pressure people based around their posts, and our general suspicions on teams 7 and 2 if they flip red. If they flip townie, then I'll have to look at a couple certain teams, too, so I'm actually happier with this lynch than teams 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and possibly even 2. Votes Team 1 to with Ace, and still expresses concerns about teams 2 and now 7 Ace:+ Show Spoiler +On September 21 2010 17:40 Ace wrote:
Ah damn I was somewhat supporting your post until you said We need this lynch for information.
What information are we getting from a lynch besides his alignment flip?
LSB is still the scummiest person so far in my book though. On September 21 2010 18:40 Ace wrote:
actually I dont think your case by itself is really that strong, it just seems convenient.
LSB's accusation of Team 2 and his weak explanation, which didn't even seem to answer my concern is still my prime motive for leaning towards them.
I'll rethink this again later for sure but for now ## vote Team 1 States suspicions about LSB and votes for him + Show Spoiler +On September 22 2010 03:03 Ace wrote:
this is such a terrible lynch. Just way too many easy voters. Bill Murray unvote them, this lynch just doesn't seem legit at all.
##unvote Team 1 Gets anxious about the easy votes and unvotes Team 1 + Show Spoiler +On September 22 2010 09:33 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2010 06:43 YellowInk wrote:
At this point I believe that the mafia are among teams 1, 3, 5, and 6. I do not know precisely who, but at this stage of the day, hanging team 1 still makes sense. Ace, I was getting the same feeling initially about the bandwagoning onto team 1, but then I looked carefully at who was and wasn't on board with the team 1 vote and realized that just about everyone who was on the team 1 vote I already had a feeling of being pro town. The most suspect people have pushed the no lynch.
The recent argument made against no lynch was under the assumption of no medic saves. Consider what occurs if you have 1 medic save: we gain an entire day! In a typical game, a single medic save does not gain us a day. Using the no lynch here would lose us the day that a medic save could gain us.
No lynch is for endgame situations only. Hang team 1. No it isn't. This post is blatantly misleading. No lynching is for when you can't conclude someone is scummy enough to lynch. Like I've said, the town does not have to lynch every day. So most of the time it's in your best bet to No lynch unless you are in a situation where there is clearly going to be a benefit. Being in the end game does not matter for a No lynch, all it means is that you're decision has a more immediate consequence but it's also easier. Towards the end of the game it is actually much rarer to have a No lynch. Remember what I said? It's in your best bet to avoid a lynch when you aren't sure someone is scum or there is no clear benefit. At the end of the game you have so much information between votes, player interaction, the knowledge of what roles have been revealed and your own ties to players that it's really not often you'll be No lynching then. In a typical game a single medic save gaining you a day is false. Saving a player and them possibly being confirmed innocent is a pretty big deal don't you think? It may not directly add more days to your win condition but adding more players to the likely pro-town pool, that TWO players know about is pretty heartbreaking for scum once it's revealed. Using a No Lynch now would actually be the best bet...if this were 10 hours ago and this was a normal setup with infinite No Lynches. Clearly though, LSB has been posting god knows what and well I'm a little intrigued by this post of yours. I thought you were a good player so how could you actually believe this nonsense you just posted? The only thing worrying me is that Incognito seems to have pegged both your teams also which shows his scumdar is operating on great batteries like mine, or he's just good at picking off easy townies. So I'm going to ask you this one time: Let's assume you were a detective. What team would you investigate tonight and why? Accuses Yellowink (Team 7)
Now lets see... Amongst the people that are included in the "easy votes" on Team 1 are: bumatlarge Divinek Infundibulum YellowInk SouthRawrea Incognito Also the people that accused BM/Ace YellowInk - albeit halfheartedly + Show Spoiler +On September 19 2010 14:22 YellowInk wrote:
I think we should hang Ace and Bill Murray. LSB + Show Spoiler +On September 22 2010 08:20 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 17:36 Incognito wrote:
Its not just his actions, its his mindset. If you read over LSB's posts, all his posts are neutral and he never takes a stand. Its not easy for anyone to pinpoint what LSB supports because he doesn't support anything. And that's the point. Mafia don't want to take an active stance because then they have to defend it. Mafia would like to sit on the fence so that nobody can hold them responsible for their actions while subtly working to subvert town goals. Town has nothing to lose by taking sides. Now looking at LSB's past games, he takes sides as town. He is decisive and actively contributes to the town while openly attempting to convince others of his view. On the other hand, this game LSB does not take sides. He is not decisive, and only points out flaws. Is he attempting to convince others to follow his point of view? No, he doesn't have one. LSB is not interested in the town's welfare. He wants to create the appearance of pro-town activity by pointing out the flaws in my plan while using neutral language and doing nothing to help town. As for the things I'm supporting 1) No lynch. 2) Bum's medic plan Show nested quote +This post attempts to derail the focus on LSB's scumminess by setting up straw men and refusing to directly refute my accusations. LSB says he didn't make a plan because the game setup is not exploitable. While this may be true, this does not address the motives behind LSB's actions. LSB is refuting the planning aspect of his play. I am attacking the motives behind his play, namely that as town he takes stances and tries to work for the town's benefit. The thing is, if I was mafia, I would be supporting an erronous plan, trying to get the town to take part of a plan that is easily exploitable. A great way to do that is to support your plan! Your plan has problems. Strangely you haven't address these problems. Right now you are saying, "LSB seems skummy, so therefore I don't need to worry about the holes in my plan". That isn't logic, that's misdirection. Show nested quote +The erroneous logic is in the
"oh no what happens if a DT/medic doesn't exist" question, not the no lynch issue. Stop trying to appear all innocent and beating around the bush. I'll repeat myself: We should use the DT and the Medic in the places where they will be most effective. The Medic should focus on making sure that someone doesn't die. And the DT should be used to try to investigate targets. I don't like the list idea, since it tells the mafia what to stay out of. Again, please address this problem. Tell me why I am wrong, don't just make a long post on why I'm supposed mafia to distract others from seeing that your plan has a problem. Show nested quote +If there are no fixes, you junk the plan an move on. Valid. But you didn't move on. You junked the plan, and promptly disappeared. The most plausible reason why you did that is because you are mafia.
I don't have this list of possible plans in my pocket and try to use them. If I think of something, I'll use it sure. I moved on of course, chiefly no lynch once we figured out that it could be used. Show nested quote +To say those posts were serious accusations that deserved input would be flat out lies Again, I'm not saying your statement was a lie. I'm saying that the motiviations for your post are shaky. Everyone reading this post should be looking at the subjective question of why LSB is posting the way he is. Reading LSB's posts at face value isn't going to get us anywhere. Its not a matter of lie or truth. Its a matter of what seems realistic given the mindset of the poster. What I am saying is that your accusations twist my words. You admit that you can't read my posts at face value because if you do, you'll find that I'm a townie. You now are relying on the fact that I haven't taken any positions? What positions are you accusing me of not taking on? Planning: You claim that I haven't made a plan. Therefore I am Mafia. Thats just silly. I'm not going to make a plan unless I think of one. Ace/BM is scumYou said that I didn't give enough input into the Ace/BM lynch. Well, I don't feel like I should. Because I think there're town Rastaban/Foolishness is scum: You said that I didn't give enough input into the Rastaban/Foolishness lynch. Well, I don't feel like I should. So you expect me to 1) Pull out plans or die, or 2) Accuse random people. <sarcasm>Sounds townie to me </sarcasm> Show nested quote +
LSB's recent "analysis" on Team 2 cannot be considered a natural pro-town sign since he only posted it under pressure from 3 people. So don't use this as an excuse for why you're town. It won't work.
I would have liked more time to see what Bum would do, and how SR would play this game. But like you said, people wanted me to post. So I did, and I said that I didn't really think that they were mafia since new posts didn't fit with my general theory. Conclusions: I think we should examine some of the players that bandwagoned on Team 1... especially Team 2 since we know BM had some serious concerns about them.
On September 24 2010 04:05 meeple wrote:
Also
Vote: Team 6
This is absolutely hillarious.
This is not analysis, it is mere compilation of posts followed by one liner summaries. Nothing really pro-town about this at all. Then, meeple decides to be suspicious of everyone on the Team 1 lynch and tells us that we should examine him. This looks familiar...First he says "
Now comes the analysis of their posts knowing that they were town" without any followup. Then he says "I think we should examine some of the players that bandwagoned on Team 1", again without followup. Meeple just wants to run us around in circles telling us what we should analyze. But doesn't do any analysis himself. Seems like a reoccurring theme here.
To make this even more strange, he doesn't even vote for someone who "bandwagoned" Team 1. He decides to vote for Team 6. Out of the blue. Yep. Definitely doesn't care about the town, and definitely doesn't put his vote where his mouth is. And definitely doesn't walk the talk.
|
On September 24 2010 07:50 LSB wrote:I am against the Meeple lynch Show nested quote +On September 23 2010 16:24 Incognito wrote:On September 23 2010 10:59 meeple wrote:
odd choice for mafia... people seem to have a grudge against them
Now comes the analysis of their posts knowing that they were town. Wow. This coming from you is hillarious. As if you're trying to downplay the fact that Ace was suspicious of you. Its not an "odd" choice for you to kill the team that agreed with the scumminess of YOUR team and Team 1. I'm 100% positive you didn't miss the part where Ace accused you. Notice how meeple says "Now comes the analysis of their posts knowing that they were town", while doing nothing to analyze them. Analyzing a dead person's post is easy. Meeple, however, doesn't want to do this because he has no interest in exposing the fact that Ace agreed with my reads. Meeple is not walking the talk. This should raise red flags for everyone. I don’t believe you gave him that much time. Meeple did do analysis of Ace, after your post. He possibly could be busy and needed to do something else.
When I posted about meeple's odd behavior, it was already 5 hours after meeple posted that we need to analyze Ace/BM's behavior. Look at my latest post. Meeple doesn't even give analysis when prompted. It probably didn't take more than 15 minutes to write that "analysis". And I didn't give him enough time when he had 5 hours to post it? That's just pathetic. Meeple doesn't give an "analysis" of Ace after, he gives a summary of his posts and posts a grand total of FOUR of Ace's posts.
On September 24 2010 07:50 LSB wrote:So I dug through the posts where Ace mentioned Yellowink and Meeple And I found a post + Show Spoiler + On September 22 2010 09:33 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2010 06:43 YellowInk wrote:
At this point I believe that the mafia are among teams 1, 3, 5, and 6. I do not know precisely who, but at this stage of the day, hanging team 1 still makes sense. Ace, I was getting the same feeling initially about the bandwagoning onto team 1, but then I looked carefully at who was and wasn't on board with the team 1 vote and realized that just about everyone who was on the team 1 vote I already had a feeling of being pro town. The most suspect people have pushed the no lynch.
The recent argument made against no lynch was under the assumption of no medic saves. Consider what occurs if you have 1 medic save: we gain an entire day! In a typical game, a single medic save does not gain us a day. Using the no lynch here would lose us the day that a medic save could gain us.
No lynch is for endgame situations only. Hang team 1. No it isn't. This post is blatantly misleading. No lynching is for when you can't conclude someone is scummy enough to lynch. Like I've said, the town does not have to lynch every day. So most of the time it's in your best bet to No lynch unless you are in a situation where there is clearly going to be a benefit. Being in the end game does not matter for a No lynch, all it means is that you're decision has a more immediate consequence but it's also easier. Towards the end of the game it is actually much rarer to have a No lynch. Remember what I said? It's in your best bet to avoid a lynch when you aren't sure someone is scum or there is no clear benefit. At the end of the game you have so much information between votes, player interaction, the knowledge of what roles have been revealed and your own ties to players that it's really not often you'll be No lynching then. In a typical game a single medic save gaining you a day is false. Saving a player and them possibly being confirmed innocent is a pretty big deal don't you think? It may not directly add more days to your win condition but adding more players to the likely pro-town pool, that TWO players know about is pretty heartbreaking for scum once it's revealed. Using a No Lynch now would actually be the best bet...if this were 10 hours ago and this was a normal setup with infinite No Lynches. Clearly though, LSB has been posting god knows what and well I'm a little intrigued by this post of yours. I thought you were a good player so how could you actually believe this nonsense you just posted? The only thing worrying me is that Incognito seems to have pegged both your teams also which shows his scumdar is operating on great batteries like mine, or he's just good at picking off easy townies. So I'm going to ask you this one time: Let's assume you were a detective. What team would you investigate tonight and why? I don’t see an accusation of scummyness from Ace, all I see is say ridiculing YellowInk for being a “bad player” Ace said he was unsure on whether or not Incog was right. Ace didn’t agree with Incog yet.
Relevant section of Ace's post here: The only thing worrying me is that Incognito seems to have pegged both your teams also which shows his scumdar is operating on great batteries like mine, or he's just good at picking off easy townies.
Key word also. This means Ace pegged your teams too. Ace shows his cards here. He agrees that Team 1/7 are scummy. The way he phrases it shows that he independently arrived at his conclusion too and is not just sheepishly agreeing with me. I'm not assuming anything. I'm just stating facts. The facts are: Ace pegged your teams. Ace's death makes perfect sense when you see this fact.
Again its a defense. Looks like you like selectively reading your partner's quotes too.
On September 23 2010 20:19 Divinek wrote:
totally buy the argument. Especially for team 7, what else is there to say other than it makes overwhelming sense. There's all kind of WIFOM shit people can throw into this but that slip up is pretty LOL. Cause i know i hate people that vote for me, or even attack me ie LSB, and so on so it's quite easy reasoning to follow
baa baaa
##vote team 7
Bandwagoning?
[/QUOTE]
As a veiled attack on Team 2 this is atrocious. Gonna accuse anyone who votes for your scumbuddy as bandwagoning? The evidence is pretty clear at this point.
|
On September 24 2010 16:42 Incognito wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 00:53 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
I love how I am supposedly defending Yellowink just because I gave a more likely explanation of what he was trying to say than what you were bringing up.
I did the exact thing for SouthRawrea and everyone thought we were mafia buddies for the next five pages. Now incognito is characterizing it as an attack on SouthRawrea along with half the town, while the other half is saying that I am defending some mafia buddy. All I was saying was that SouthRawrea has made similar posts while mafia and while not and that a tell was probably not to going to be found from its mere presence, as some had believed.
All I'm trying to do is give my perspective on what people are trying to say when people blow it out of proportion. Show nested quote +On September 23 2010 11:50 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
I was trying to explain what I thought he was trying to say, which didn't seem as suspicious to me as it did to you, so yeah I suppose it is a defense. A case of the pandering politician. Using vague/wishy washy words to soften the impact of your words. You're so terrible at defending yourself that I'm not sure what to think at this point. Stop contradicting yourself. Plain and simple, you were defending YellowInk. At this point its not my job to convince the victim that he is scummy. Its my job to clarify to the town why my victim is scummy. So in the interest of clarity, town should ignore statements like these: Show nested quote +But when your whole fucking case is "Pyrr is mafia for sure, he is defending Yellowink, and therefore Yellowink is mafia" it is not very persuasive to me, given that I am not mafia, I wasn't defending Yellowink so much as giving my interpretation on what Yellowink was saying, and I've "defended" several other players the same way. Show nested quote +If yellowink is mafia because I defended him, then I suppose Team 2 is mafia because meeple accused Bill Murray of fluff posting for his vote on Team 2. These statements are faulty logic and simply aren't true. Any sensible townie can read my case to see exactly why this connection is very suspicious. Don't be misled by Pyrr's misinterpretations of what my argument truly is.
There's not much I can do when you are irrationally locked into me. I'm really not liking how you are twisting peoples' words around. I make it clear that I don't think Yellowink's post was suspicious, but it doesn't exonerate him of anything either, and say that it could be considered a defense relative to your accusation. Rather than allow for any consideration of nuance, you continually quote things away from their context and lock into the most suspicious possible interpretation.
In your second set of quotes, it is obvious that "your whole fucking case is [etc]" is hyperbole but it is damn close to the truth nonetheless. It also directly contradicts your idea that I am operating under the strategy of using "vague/wishy washy words to soften the impact of your words." I'm not really paying attention to the way I phrase things because the substance is more important but you are constantly disregarding this.
This is the same thing Foolishness is doing with meeple when he jumps on him with this quote
Also notice his last sentence, he says "most people would go with the lynching day 1" yet he himself has already voted to No Lynch. Indeed this is quite suspicious.
In context, meeple was saying that IN A DIFFERENT GAME, WITH MORE PLAYERS AND A DIFFERENT RULESET, most people would go with the lynching day 1. But in this game, in which meeple helped us understand that no lynching is a good idea, meeple voted no lynch and, indeed, most of us ended up voting no lynch.
Why do Foolishness and incognito keep stripping statements of their context in order to push lynches? I am much more suspicious of incognito and infundibulum, though. When Bill Murray totally misread my post about SR and jumped on it as some sort of monumental slip up on my part (the whole post is about SR in previous games, in which we have been on mafia teams together, which means we are both mafia this game...?), rastaban cooly explained the obvious.
Infundibulum, though, is more suspicious. He was against the no lynch, and very slow to change his opinion even when it was logically explained. Then he also was for medic claiming even though he also said mafia claims are very powerful.
"just precursory thoughts are that if the medic makes a save, he should probably claim - i get the feeling mafia fakeclaims are potentially very powerful in this game"
This is the best of both worlds for mafia - medic claims to give them more info, and then people are led to be scared of any claim that occurs. If you think mafia wouldn't be able to fake claim very well, then you should be more likely to support medic claiming, and vice-versa.
|
On September 24 2010 08:26 Foolishness wrote:This post is about how Team 7 is mafia, and in particular, meeple. I will be analyzing his posts this game because I believe he hasn't done anything worthy of being on the town side. In summary, he's been asking a lot of questions, he's failed to provide any of his own thoughts (for the most part), he has been restating already said thoughts in an effort to make it look like he's contributing, and he has been a victim of the typical "hesitant mafia syndrome". Let's take a look: Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 05:08 meeple wrote:On September 21 2010 04:49 BrownBear wrote:On September 21 2010 04:43 SouthRawrea wrote:
So you're saying I'm posting nothing when really what I'm doing is making a post that shows that there is really no plan that we can come up with? Then pray, tell me what sort of content-filled posts you can make this early in the game? @Pyrr When you read the thread, it should become obvious what is content and what isn't. What you post isn't content. What Incognito posts is. It's like night and day. Also, [Vote]No Lynchrasta and LSB have very good points, so I'll stick with this plan for now. I know it's a reversal of my earlier position, but I believe their logic is sound. We only get a single "No Lynch" if I understand correctly... you really think we should waste it on the first day? Good question, but he failed to provide any of his own thoughts about this matter, while most other people had no problem voicing their own opinion.
I expressed my thoughts later on... in fact you quoted some of the other things I had to say about using the no-lynch... this was just to start off discussion on the matter
Show nested quote +On September 22 2010 04:33 meeple wrote:
Well... even though I'm hesitant to use our only no-lynch this early... in a game this small we will need every scrap of information we can get... that bandwagon on team 1 seems interesting too...
unvote Team 6
vote: No lynch Hesitant mafia is abound here. Still he brings up a good point about the bandwagon, but doesn't say anything else.
There wasn't anything to say about the bandwagon... in itself it isn't incriminating, just to keep in the back of everyone's minds who is eager beaver jumping on the boat.
Show nested quote +On September 22 2010 05:06 meeple wrote:On September 22 2010 04:52 Infundibulum wrote:
Actually an addendum:
YellowInk has a point that it would be stupid to use our no lynch today, when we don't need to, when we could potentially end up in a missed lynch = loss situation later in the game. I think this is the strongest argument against lynching Day 1. Is there something amiss with this logic that i'm not grasping? I think the general thoughts are that: Pros: - Prevents a somewhat uneducated decision, hoping for some better information tommorow Cons: - We only have one, we waste it now and we're screwed later - We go into Day 2 with just a little less information than we would if we lynched and found out someone's alignment. I think normally most people would go with the lynching day 1, if not only to get the info... but with such a small game every mislynch is a huge blow. A seemingly fine post, but he's one of the last people to comment on at this time. By the time he's made this post, I've already detailed out why we should no lynch while countering every other argument. All he's done is restated arguments made by everyone else. Also notice his last sentence, he says "most people would go with the lynching day 1" yet he himself has already voted to No Lynch. Indeed this is quite suspicious. Show nested quote +On September 22 2010 05:32 meeple wrote:On September 22 2010 05:08 SouthRawrea wrote:
Oops I meant to bold the very last part and finish my train of though. All other scenarios are quite even but in the situation where we get no medic saves and choose to NL on day 1, we miss out on 1 potential lynch even though we survive for an equal amount of days. We have a maximum of 3 lynches in any scenario except no save + no lynch in which we have only 2. (This is of course assuming that our medic isn't a godly one. Hold on... so we only get 2 lynches if we have a no lynch and no save scenario... balls to the walls... wait... Assuming we use our no lynch now and assuming that we have no medic saves... Today:_______________6 v 2 Tommorow____________5 v 2 Day 3:_______3 v 2______or_______4 v 1 Day 4:__town lose or 2 v 1____2 v 1 or town win Day 5: town win or town lose in both cases What am I missing... this gives a 50% chance of town win, based on total randomness and no saves. Now I suspect that he doesn't actually read the thread, since I already did this math in an earlier post.
The math wasn't new, its a restatement in response to SouthRawrea's comment that we only get 2 lynches if we use our no lynch... did you read the quote?
Show nested quote +On September 22 2010 05:34 meeple wrote:On September 22 2010 05:30 Foolishness wrote:On September 22 2010 05:06 meeple wrote:
Pros:
- Prevents a somewhat uneducated decision, hoping for some better information tommorow
Cons:
- We only have one, we waste it now and we're screwed later
- We go into Day 2 with just a little less information than we would if we lynched and found out someone's alignment.
Give me a scenario where we use No Lynch today and we end up screwed later. Remember no medic saves. Well... technically can't we use a No lynch in a 3 v 1 scenario to prolong the game into a 2 v 1 with a higher chance of catching the last guy... Which is great except I explained why that's a meaningless argument many many times. I'm also very skeptical of his constant use of ellipses (...), as that further shows how hesitant he is. His use of these show that he's trying not to draw attention to himself by making himself seem less threatening. It seems like he's trying not to take sides on the issue at hand, and instead just bringing up what other people think. Just like a bad politician, he doesn't want to take a firm stance on an issue so he can't be held accountable later on. This is what mafia try to do, they don't want to take sides so as not to create possible enemies in the future.
I always use elipses, mafia or not... just take a look through my posts... it's just a reaction to a pause in my head. I've taken solid stands on alot of things, I was against team 1 lynch and still am convinced that Team 6 isn't doing anything pro-town. The only issue I wasn't totally for/against was the no-lynch.
Show nested quote +On September 22 2010 05:51 meeple wrote:On September 22 2010 05:39 Incognito wrote:This post is interesting. YI wants to avoid a situation where town is divided with votes? That's interesting, since usually town gains more information from close votes...note how he splits his vote from his own team mate. Like Pandain, the only weird votes I see are coming from Divinek and YI. Otherwise its just two teams voting for Team 1. On September 22 2010 04:33 meeple wrote:
Well... even though I'm hesitant to use our only no-lynch this early... in a game this small we will need every scrap of information we can get... that bandwagon on team 1 seems interesting too...
unvote Team 6
vote: No lynch If town, meeple and YI should be coordinating votes. While both voted for team 6 previously, one switched to Team 1 while one switched to no lynch. No real reason to split your votes if you're town...this 1-1 split vote makes it interesting because meeple effectively negates YI's vote. The thing is, why is this bandwagon interesting? I don't see anything interesting about it except what your partner voted. Meeple, how are we screwed later if we "waste" our no lynch today? The only reason I can see is if a medic makes a save. And that is a terrible reason. On September 22 2010 04:41 Foolishness wrote:On September 19 2010 18:44 Incognito wrote:
I'm going to count on Team 3 and 6 for some strong analysis within the next 24 hours. Please do not disappoint.
On September 21 2010 17:43 Incognito wrote:
At this point we have enough information to lynch. I believe that all the mafia are out there in the open.
Foolishness needs to analyze the information we have now instead of rotting away while insisting we need more time to get information before lynch. There is plenty information out there. Anyone claiming otherwise is just too lazy to read the information here. There is no reason to wait. So let's see, I'm running through all my past mafia games, and counting the number of mafia I nailed because they said things like this. I'm at 3 so far. I'm very excited to see you be the fourth. Aww, this is disappointing. You only start fishing for info now? Pretty pathetic, I might say. *** I get why people want to no lynch. In a 1 KP game town always wants to lynch when there are an odd number of townies and don't want to lynch when theres an even number. The reason why we probably won't get any information from this lynch is because of the nolynch. Not that hard for anyone to policy no lynch when theres an even number of townies. There's nothing fishy about this lynch. The general apathy in this game is astonishing in its ability to do that. I'd rather there be something fishy about this lynch, but apparently we won't be graced with that information. Eh you're right, me and YI aren't really coordinating that much... probably should be. I never agreed with a Team 1 vote... About the wasting our no lynch... I was just summarizing the reservations I picked up... could've been misinterpreted though. I thought that saving our No lynch could possibly avoid a situation where we are forced to lynch but don't have a good target and as a result we lose. In any case, I don't mind using it now, since we don't really have alot of evidence or solid leads. This is just more of the same meeple as before. Notice how Incognito indirectly called him out and meeple gets defensive in a typical mafia style. Meeple explains his actions but doesn't want to make it appear like he's against Incognito and doesn't want to make an enemy. As before we see him being hesitant, especially in his last sentence. Remember in his earlier post he said most people would probably want to lynch day 1 in order to get the information out of it, yet here he says he doesn't want to lynch since we don't have much evidence or solid leads. Sure, everyone changes their mind about things as the game progresses, but this is just wishy-washy behavior.
Yup, don't know what you're on about here... wasn't defensive... I admitted to not coordinating with YI, which was true and has been rectified... Incog didn't really call me out... he had some specific concerns that I responded to and why the hell would my response be to be "against" Incog. Should I stop responding to this accusation and start attacking you?
I'm not against Incog... I'm not convinced he's green, but he's also been very active in this game... calling people out on inconsistencies and getting them to respond is a good thing for the town, no reason for me to dislike that.Show nested quote +On September 23 2010 10:59 meeple wrote:
odd choice for mafia... people seem to have a grudge against them
Now comes the analysis of their posts knowing that they were town. Of course he has yet to say anything about them. Incognito pointed out this fact, and meeple delivered.
Pretty sure I said something about them...
Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 03:57 meeple wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Alright, the analysis... yeah its delayed and I roasted for not posting it earlier... BM:+ Show Spoiler +On September 20 2010 19:39 Bill Murray wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 15:30 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
That's all SR ever posts. I don't think he posts any better when townie. I think he thinks he is contributing a lot but... he just manages to state the obvious and make it mind bangingly esoteric. Very unnerving. @pyrrexcuse me? are you admitting he is your scumbuddy? @everyone else If pyrrhuloxia is mafia, southrawrea could be as well. It might be null, but I feel like that could be a slip. I am liking pro-town discussion of Incognito and Foolishness, and are not really suspicious of teams 8 and 3 as a result. Incognito is capable of spotlighting as scum, so I'm not saying he is cleared, but I have played with him where he is scum, and this does not feel quite the same. Due to meta, and his amazingly pro-town play, I would definitely not be ok with his lynch at this juncture. I am not fully convinced Pyrrhuloxia's team is a mafia slot, though, and am going to reserve my vote for the moment as such a small setup can be volatile. I would be happier with a lynch on team 2, as I found SouthRawrEas post to be all fluff and no content. @mod votecount please ##vote: team 2 Expresses doubt about South's greenness due to fluff posting... says that he enjoys Incog and Foolishness's analysis, but adds a caveat about Incog's ability to spotlight as red. + Show Spoiler +On September 21 2010 05:59 Bill Murray wrote:LSB's admission is only icing on the cake@LSB: how would you be so CERTAIN they're scum? You have a scumlist, buddy? Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 04:43 SouthRawrea wrote:
So you're saying I'm posting nothing when really what I'm doing is making a post that shows that there is really no plan that we can come up with? Then pray, tell me what sort of content-filled posts you can make this early in the game? @Pyrr This makes me confident in my earlier read he is appealing to pyrr's authority. Scummy, scummy, scummy. @meeple: I find it funny you ask me to justify my vote when I voted SR on fluff, then make a secondary reason as for voting being fluff yourself. I also dislike you speculating that I was 100% pyrr/SR are the scumteam.... if that was the case, I would have been putting a second vote on Pyrr's team. I didn't. I'm voting SR because I am unsure if Pyrr actually made a slip. The way SR is acting now, though, in the above post, makes me believe that my initial reaction to who I'm voting is actually wrong. I needed to stack on pyrr because his team is way more important as I'm feeling both SR's team #2 with bumatlarge and divinek are scum with Pyrrhuloxia's team #1. My reasoning and justification are how SR is acting towards pyrrhuloxia. I will also give justification in relation to why we should lynch vs a no lynch day 1. I am not saying "let's not ever no lynch", but that we could use it day 2 if we don't lynch scum day 1.
day 1 lynching scum:6 v 1 night kill day 2 5v1 <- possible win here mislynch + night kill day 3 3v1 (mylo) <- obvious no lynch unless 100% certainty night kill day 4 2v1 (LYLO) if we DON'T mislynch now, and no lynch later, we can save it for a MyLo potentially. That's why we need to take a chance on lynching scum today.this is assuming we fuck up later, but we rocked on day 1. I'm not even really worried about this is Pyrrhuloxia's team #1 flip scum, which I expect them to do based upon SouthRawrEa being a newer player who is a dead giveaway. Though I am more sure of SR based upon his posting, AtA, and my not liking bumatlarge's posting earlier, I feel like they implicate team #1 through SR, and there being a vote on a slot that I find scum is enough for me to want to wagon said slot. ##unvote: pyrrhuloxia/LSB
##vote: SR, bumatlarge, and divinek States that SR is a new player and a scum giveaway and they implicate team 1. + Show Spoiler +On September 21 2010 17:06 Bill Murray wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 21 2010 08:56 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 07:33 BrownBear wrote:On September 21 2010 05:59 Bill Murray wrote:
I will also give justification in relation to why we should lynch vs a no lynch day 1. I am not saying "let's not ever no lynch", but that we could use it day 2 if we don't lynch scum day 1.
day 1 lynching scum:
6 v 1
night kill
day 2 5v1 <- possible win here
mislynch + night kill
day 3 3v1 (mylo) <- obvious no lynch unless 100% certainty
night kill
day 4 2v1 (LYLO)
if we DON'T mislynch now, and no lynch later, we can save it for a MyLo potentially.
That's why we need to take a chance on lynching scum today.
this is assuming we fuck up later, but we rocked on day 1. I'm not even really worried about this is Pyrrhuloxia's team #1 flip scum, which I expect them to do based upon SouthRawrEa being a newer player who is a dead giveaway. Though I am more sure of SR based upon his posting, AtA, and my not liking bumatlarge's posting earlier, I feel like they implicate team #1 through SR, and there being a vote on a slot that I find scum is enough for me to want to wagon said slot. Let's get South to post more before we make decisions. Also, we need his team to start posting as well, all of them haven't really been very helpful. As it stands, this is probably our best bet, but we have the time, might as well get the information before deciding for sure. Alright, I am going to be addressing both BM and BB with this, since this seems to be using faulty logic. BM you are arguing that we achieve the same result by no lynching day one or two, this is wrong because on Day 2 we have more information to work with PLUS we have higher percent of just randomly offing a mafia simply because there is one less team in the game. Completely faulty logic. As the game progresses our information increases so saying day 1 = day 2 no lynching is completely wrong, even if it is mathematically the same in regards to WHEN the day ends. Also BM you assume that we are rocking out day 1 and fucking up rest of the time? That's such an unlikely scenario considering as the game progresses information increases. BB inactivity is an easy mafia ploy to pull off day one claiming little to no reason or content to post, so its a given that they SHOULD be posting and if it continues it is very scummy and antitown, in the current set up I am willing to let it slide and not lynch of inactivity Day 1, but come down on it hard Day 2. Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 06:20 Ace wrote:Also I'm highly supportive of no lynching ONLY if those other conditions are met, because honestly having 1 shot of a No Lynch in a game this small is a very scary thing And to make things clear for why some people generally want to lynch all the time: Chance of hitting Mafia with a lynch: some %, in this case 25% Chance of hitting Mafia with a No Lynch: 0% This is the justification that some people use in arguing for Lynching every day. Of course I don't usually support this because I'd rather lynch someone I'm highly sure is Scum than rest on a 25% chance of hitting red. Also this 25% doesn't show you that if you miss, the 75% chance of hitting a helpful player can deal more damage than the loss of one team. Losing a leading pro-town player and/or power role can have near-game ending effects. So if we are seriously going to lynch someone today, we better get some good discussion going. Which is why we I think Team 2's (LSB) accusation that Team 1 is certainly scummy needs a stronger argument. I would disagree with the we-should-lynch mentality, simply because no-lynching day 1 actually gives us an extra day. Obviously if we're 100% sure we have a scum we should lynch, but failing that we should no lynch, because then we have an extra day of analysis and a nightkill target. Get the cop (if he exists) to rolecheck team 1 or 2 tonight, and if he finds a scum, have him claim and get the medic (if HE also exists) to protect him. This obviously assumes blue roles exist, but since we have a 3/4 chance that they do, I think it's pretty safe to assume there's at least 1 blue in the game (if we get lucky, we get two!) I do agree with the fact that we need to get good discussion going, and that we need to get LSB to 'splain himself further about his accusation. This entirely reeks of shit to be blunt. It starts with kind of what I was saying but dissolves into the most retarded plan I have ever read. The whole DT CAN CHECK SOMEONE THEN SAY WHAT HE CHECKED AND THEN MEDIC PROTECTS HIM = GG is retarded. You are basing SO MUCH off of the chance its a 1/4 scenario where we lucked out and got both a medic and a DT. When deciding what to do we have to see what would benefit us the MOST in every possible scenario, which I believe is clearly day 1 no lynching (in our current predicament) Obviously if we have a strong suspect we should ALWAYS go for it, but quite simply the reasoning that you are justifying no lynch is nonsensical.
Now, to get some discussion going: What do you guys think of the possibility of having cop (if cop exists) claim day 2? Obviously he shouldnt claim now, because if he exists there's only a 1/3 chance that medic also exists and can protect his ass tonight. However, I'm assuming that since cop is more than 1 person, and this game is mostly talented players, the rolecheck tonight should turn up something good. I think it would absolutely be worth it to trade cop for 1 of the mafia.
Obvious flaw with this: If there's no cop, and mafia fakeclaims, who's gonna counterclaim?
Still, I'd love to hear other peoples' opinion.
DT should only claim if he feels a good enough reason to. Personally I think as soon as the DT confirms someone as red he should claim. Trading mafia for DT in a small game like this seems beneficial. The only reason NOT to do that is if that individual is getting lynched anyway for whatever reason, but if the vote is close I would still claim as a DT and make sure a mafia got killed.
Besides that claiming for the sake of claiming is stupid.
I disagree. If team 2 are mafia, and I get team 2 lynched, it is 100% likely on both days they will flip mafia. I don't look at it "randomly", I look at who is fucking mafia and who isn't fucking mafia. That being said, over the past couple of pages, I have been really happy with SR and Divinek. I was happy with bumatlarge until he started using really odd language. bumatlarge, explain the ending of your most recent post, as seen here: Show nested quote +Main Points:
1. Laxin medic goes hippy when they make war not love
2. Incog is fear nothing happenstance benefit
3. My vote wit no apologies because apologies get me in trouble apparently ...What? Basically, I am fine with no lynch at this point. I was pretty sure I had caught scum, but I am admittedly not so sure now. vote: no lynch Expresses doubts about his previous convictions and changes his vote to no lynch + Show Spoiler +On September 21 2010 19:28 Bill Murray wrote:
Foolishness trendily lurks until D2
too bad if he doesnt die N1 he is likely mafia, as he likes to lurk D1 as mafia just like he does as townie or blue so that is very, very, very null from him. I cannot emphasize this more. The funny thing is, though, mafia could choose to not hit him and use it as an argument. "Foolishness didn't die, he is mafia, get him" on day 2. That's the problem with his high level of play if it goes unchecked, it makes all arguments pretty WIFOMy which is why I like to pressure people who lurk
I like to do that more on day 2, or forward, though.
I like a lynch on D1 vs a No Lynch, so I am tempted to wagon. If I wagon, would you guys take it the wrong way? I like wagons as town these days, but I don't like mislynches, and I haven't seen anything glaring at me saying "this player is scummy as fuck" like I had originally thought I had.
It's funny everyone is dead set on a team I initially thought was scum. The minute I back off, people start believing. The world works in mysterious ways.
I am going to vote simply to consolidate my vote with my partner's, and
Vote: Team 1
Tomorrow we can pressure people based around their posts, and our general suspicions on teams 7 and 2 if they flip red. If they flip townie, then I'll have to look at a couple certain teams, too, so I'm actually happier with this lynch than teams 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and possibly even 2. Votes Team 1 to with Ace, and still expresses concerns about teams 2 and now 7 Ace:+ Show Spoiler +On September 21 2010 17:40 Ace wrote:
Ah damn I was somewhat supporting your post until you said We need this lynch for information.
What information are we getting from a lynch besides his alignment flip?
LSB is still the scummiest person so far in my book though. On September 21 2010 18:40 Ace wrote:
actually I dont think your case by itself is really that strong, it just seems convenient.
LSB's accusation of Team 2 and his weak explanation, which didn't even seem to answer my concern is still my prime motive for leaning towards them.
I'll rethink this again later for sure but for now ## vote Team 1 States suspicions about LSB and votes for him + Show Spoiler +On September 22 2010 03:03 Ace wrote:
this is such a terrible lynch. Just way too many easy voters. Bill Murray unvote them, this lynch just doesn't seem legit at all.
##unvote Team 1 Gets anxious about the easy votes and unvotes Team 1 + Show Spoiler +On September 22 2010 09:33 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2010 06:43 YellowInk wrote:
At this point I believe that the mafia are among teams 1, 3, 5, and 6. I do not know precisely who, but at this stage of the day, hanging team 1 still makes sense. Ace, I was getting the same feeling initially about the bandwagoning onto team 1, but then I looked carefully at who was and wasn't on board with the team 1 vote and realized that just about everyone who was on the team 1 vote I already had a feeling of being pro town. The most suspect people have pushed the no lynch.
The recent argument made against no lynch was under the assumption of no medic saves. Consider what occurs if you have 1 medic save: we gain an entire day! In a typical game, a single medic save does not gain us a day. Using the no lynch here would lose us the day that a medic save could gain us.
No lynch is for endgame situations only. Hang team 1. No it isn't. This post is blatantly misleading. No lynching is for when you can't conclude someone is scummy enough to lynch. Like I've said, the town does not have to lynch every day. So most of the time it's in your best bet to No lynch unless you are in a situation where there is clearly going to be a benefit. Being in the end game does not matter for a No lynch, all it means is that you're decision has a more immediate consequence but it's also easier. Towards the end of the game it is actually much rarer to have a No lynch. Remember what I said? It's in your best bet to avoid a lynch when you aren't sure someone is scum or there is no clear benefit. At the end of the game you have so much information between votes, player interaction, the knowledge of what roles have been revealed and your own ties to players that it's really not often you'll be No lynching then. In a typical game a single medic save gaining you a day is false. Saving a player and them possibly being confirmed innocent is a pretty big deal don't you think? It may not directly add more days to your win condition but adding more players to the likely pro-town pool, that TWO players know about is pretty heartbreaking for scum once it's revealed. Using a No Lynch now would actually be the best bet...if this were 10 hours ago and this was a normal setup with infinite No Lynches. Clearly though, LSB has been posting god knows what and well I'm a little intrigued by this post of yours. I thought you were a good player so how could you actually believe this nonsense you just posted? The only thing worrying me is that Incognito seems to have pegged both your teams also which shows his scumdar is operating on great batteries like mine, or he's just good at picking off easy townies. So I'm going to ask you this one time: Let's assume you were a detective. What team would you investigate tonight and why? Accuses Yellowink (Team 7)
Now lets see... Amongst the people that are included in the "easy votes" on Team 1 are: bumatlarge Divinek Infundibulum YellowInk SouthRawrea Incognito Also the people that accused BM/Ace YellowInk - albeit halfheartedly + Show Spoiler +On September 19 2010 14:22 YellowInk wrote:
I think we should hang Ace and Bill Murray. LSB + Show Spoiler +On September 22 2010 08:20 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 17:36 Incognito wrote:
Its not just his actions, its his mindset. If you read over LSB's posts, all his posts are neutral and he never takes a stand. Its not easy for anyone to pinpoint what LSB supports because he doesn't support anything. And that's the point. Mafia don't want to take an active stance because then they have to defend it. Mafia would like to sit on the fence so that nobody can hold them responsible for their actions while subtly working to subvert town goals. Town has nothing to lose by taking sides. Now looking at LSB's past games, he takes sides as town. He is decisive and actively contributes to the town while openly attempting to convince others of his view. On the other hand, this game LSB does not take sides. He is not decisive, and only points out flaws. Is he attempting to convince others to follow his point of view? No, he doesn't have one. LSB is not interested in the town's welfare. He wants to create the appearance of pro-town activity by pointing out the flaws in my plan while using neutral language and doing nothing to help town. As for the things I'm supporting 1) No lynch. 2) Bum's medic plan Show nested quote +This post attempts to derail the focus on LSB's scumminess by setting up straw men and refusing to directly refute my accusations. LSB says he didn't make a plan because the game setup is not exploitable. While this may be true, this does not address the motives behind LSB's actions. LSB is refuting the planning aspect of his play. I am attacking the motives behind his play, namely that as town he takes stances and tries to work for the town's benefit. The thing is, if I was mafia, I would be supporting an erronous plan, trying to get the town to take part of a plan that is easily exploitable. A great way to do that is to support your plan! Your plan has problems. Strangely you haven't address these problems. Right now you are saying, "LSB seems skummy, so therefore I don't need to worry about the holes in my plan". That isn't logic, that's misdirection. Show nested quote +The erroneous logic is in the
"oh no what happens if a DT/medic doesn't exist" question, not the no lynch issue. Stop trying to appear all innocent and beating around the bush. I'll repeat myself: We should use the DT and the Medic in the places where they will be most effective. The Medic should focus on making sure that someone doesn't die. And the DT should be used to try to investigate targets. I don't like the list idea, since it tells the mafia what to stay out of. Again, please address this problem. Tell me why I am wrong, don't just make a long post on why I'm supposed mafia to distract others from seeing that your plan has a problem. Show nested quote +If there are no fixes, you junk the plan an move on. Valid. But you didn't move on. You junked the plan, and promptly disappeared. The most plausible reason why you did that is because you are mafia.
I don't have this list of possible plans in my pocket and try to use them. If I think of something, I'll use it sure. I moved on of course, chiefly no lynch once we figured out that it could be used. Show nested quote +To say those posts were serious accusations that deserved input would be flat out lies Again, I'm not saying your statement was a lie. I'm saying that the motiviations for your post are shaky. Everyone reading this post should be looking at the subjective question of why LSB is posting the way he is. Reading LSB's posts at face value isn't going to get us anywhere. Its not a matter of lie or truth. Its a matter of what seems realistic given the mindset of the poster. What I am saying is that your accusations twist my words. You admit that you can't read my posts at face value because if you do, you'll find that I'm a townie. You now are relying on the fact that I haven't taken any positions? What positions are you accusing me of not taking on? Planning: You claim that I haven't made a plan. Therefore I am Mafia. Thats just silly. I'm not going to make a plan unless I think of one. Ace/BM is scumYou said that I didn't give enough input into the Ace/BM lynch. Well, I don't feel like I should. Because I think there're town Rastaban/Foolishness is scum: You said that I didn't give enough input into the Rastaban/Foolishness lynch. Well, I don't feel like I should. So you expect me to 1) Pull out plans or die, or 2) Accuse random people. <sarcasm>Sounds townie to me </sarcasm> Show nested quote +
LSB's recent "analysis" on Team 2 cannot be considered a natural pro-town sign since he only posted it under pressure from 3 people. So don't use this as an excuse for why you're town. It won't work.
I would have liked more time to see what Bum would do, and how SR would play this game. But like you said, people wanted me to post. So I did, and I said that I didn't really think that they were mafia since new posts didn't fit with my general theory. Conclusions: I think we should examine some of the players that bandwagoned on Team 1... especially Team 2 since we know BM had some serious concerns about them. Yeah okay, LSB, I know he delivered, but what analysis did he really do? He compiled their posts (at least the important ones) and gives a one line summary of a few of them. That's not analysis, that's contributing without contributing. I give him credit in that he wants to look at the bandwagon against team 1, as that's pertinent information to the game. However he mentioned this point in an earlier post of his (see above), and didn't do anything then. All he did this time was look at who voted for him, and which players voted and/or were suspicious of BM/Ace (which doesn't mean anything). I also realized that his list of those against team one was comprised of the entire team 2. I don't find this strange at all, given that early day before No Lynch had been thoroughly discussed, team 1 and team 2 had all the heat on them. It would only make sense that team 2 would vote for them as they don't want to get killed themselves.
Summarizing posts and accusations is useful, it gives an idea for people who aren't willing to go through all their posts and find it out. Again, being on a bandwagon isn't totally incriminating, there's no reason for me to call red because they voted for someone I only suspect of being green.
Okay look: this post came immediately after meeple's previous 'analysis' post. Meeple made no mention (as I can see) about team 6 or anyone on it. He says that we should be focusing on team 2, because BM had issues with team 2. That's a good point indeed, yet instead he tosses his vote on team 6 without any analysis or reason. YellowInk immediately follows in this manner.
I followed YellowInk... part of the whole cohesive team strategy... I've posted my thoughts about Team 6 before and they haven't done anything to change them. I said that we should consider Team 2 because of the bandwagon and BM's suspicions of them, which we know to be genuine. However, I didn't totally agree with his reasoning and being green doesn't mean he's right.
A note to meeple and YellowInk: I think that team 6 is pretty suspicious as they've hardly done/said anything all game. I could easily be convinced that they are mafia. But none of you have done any analysis on them (in fact, nobody has), and instead you blindly throw your votes on them.
Vote: team 7
If you ask me, everyone on team 2 seems like a bored townie. I haven't thoroughly analyzed them though.
********
Summary:
1) Vote for team 7, meeple and YellowInk, because:
2) meeple has yet to contribute any of his own thoughts, he's only been restating already said arguments
3) meeple has been taking a very hesitant stand so far, as if he's trying to draw attention away from himself and not create enemies. This is mafia behavior.
4) These arguments coupled with Incognito's post about team 7 (YellowInk in particular) show that this team is outside the bounds of "bored townies". They are hiding something.
That's all really misleading... I have stated my own thoughts on a number of occasions... if we are mafia, why would we go after a team that has previously had no real suspicions put upon them by anyone else... instead of simply following the crowd and gone after someone with the heat on. There's no reason for me to make enemies, townie or red...
When I get time, and if it isn't done already by my partner YellowInk, I'll get into that more comprehensive analysis of team 6.
|
On September 24 2010 09:39 SouthRawrea wrote:
Why do people seem to think that dead people have all the answers? Just because they thought a certain person was mafia before they had passed away, it doesn't mean that they wouldn't have changed their mind or that they had a good reason.
It's not about having the right answers, its that their suspicions are known to be genuine, so they should hold a bit more substance...
|
USA5860 Posts
Alright sorry for the massive delay in this, I have been meaning to write this up for a while but kept getting distracted and lazy. I have a few teams I suspect, two are major and the other is very minor.
Team 7: Mepple, YellowInk
YellowInk
I swear to god you are the most negative least constructive poster in this game. I generally assume stupid content-less posts are mafia, you are without a doubt the least content, least thought post. If you make an accusation, provide reasoning. If you make an argument, provide backing, not just a stance. I don't give a fuck what you think, I care how you came to that conclusion.
Lets go over some gems now.
On September 21 2010 06:41 YellowInk wrote:
So there has been some good discussion occurring. As is typical, there are plenty of flaws in arguments. The key here is to figure out where people are trying to be productive (granted, a difficult task on day 1) and where people are trying to look like they're being productive or otherwise staying out of the line of fire.
I am satisfied with Incognito's further discussions.
I would like to hear more from BloodyC0bbler and RebirthOfLeGenD. BC has not had much to say, and I don't feel RoL has contributed very effectively.
I love the people who ask for more people to contribute even when they are saying basically nothing. Its like a feign at activity. This is like his 5th post the three prior were two 1 liners and a lets kill bill post.
On September 21 2010 13:39 YellowInk wrote:
Alright. I'm pretty convinced. The short version: No lynch is bad. This team's posting has been either unproductive or supporting anti-town ideals.
##Vote: Team 6, BloodyC0bbler and RebirthOfLeGenD
Current thoughts on blues: If I were a medic, I'd probably cover either myself, team 4, or team 8. Not sure who I'd poke at if I were a DT yet.
This is probably the first thing that really struck me as what the fuck? Because quite literally I posted a few up saying why I supported the day one no lynch and YI contributes by simply saying he has formulated an opinion, implying he was convinced that no lynch was bad even though there were no arguments for it. Then voting for a team out of no where claiming they are anti town over quite literally nothing.
Alright it was Day 1, I took note but let it slide, maybe he just wanted to get us to post. Day one inflammatory posts are a relatively common tactic.
On September 21 2010 22:44 YellowInk wrote:So I am presented here with a problem. I still find it more likely that Team 6 is mafia than Team 1, though I agree with what most people have had to say about Team 1. After my last post, it was my intention to go into greater detail about why I believe what I do about Team 6 after a few hours and got some reactions. However, it is far more important that a lynch occurs that I would be 'ok' with than a no lynch than to potentially divide the town among targets and allow a no lynch to occur. Therefore: ##Unvote Team 6
##Vote Team 1, LSB and PyrrhuloxiaWith respect to RebirthOfLeGenD's amazing rebuttal, here is why no lynch is bad. + Show Spoiler +As has been previously stated, it is critical to scum hunt, not protect innocents. On this premise alone, the default correct action is to hang. We cannot expect to make any significant informational gains from day 1 to day 2. The only hard and useful information we could gain is if a blue takes a successful action and conveys this information to the town in a convincing fashion. This assumes both that the blue exists and that the blue takes the successful action. Otherwise, the only knowledge we even get is who it is that the mafia choose to kill. This information is rarely useful in actually tracking down mafia since they will often simply choose a target because it is most ripe - one which they think is relatively unlikely to hang and relatively unlikely to be protected by a medic.
Consider as an alternative how useful it might be if we could extend day 1. Post analysis is the only way to track down scum in the beginning. The truth is that this carries on to day 2 in almost every game. As in almost any game of mafia, the town does not have the luxury of waiting until they feel super secure that team X is mafia. Unfortunately we do not have the option of extending day 1 to draw out more information, but we cannot choose to give up a lynch.
The purpose of a no lynch is for specific endgame situations. These have been outlined previously, but I will include them here for completeness. Suppose you have 3 town, 1 mafia, and no blues. Choosing no lynch here does not really hurt the town since if the town mislynches, the town loses, but on the no lynch you will be left with 2 town and 1 mafia. Now add in to the mix that the town has a blue among their 3. In this case the no lynch is very town positive. There's a chance the medic could successfully protect or the DT could find the scum. This argument can be extended out to similar endgame situations a day earlier as well.
Consider also that medic saves sometimes buy us an extra day. If we use a no lynch early (giving up a kill to the mafia 'for free'), this is like the reverse of a medic save. If we end up with an even number in the endgame because we used a no lynch in the early game, we have gained nothing from our use of no lynch.
Day 1 no lynch is very bad.
1. Why wait on your justification for us? Whatever.
2. Pretend no lynch is good with faulty reasoning? Check.
3. Suck at math and ignore what foolishness pointed out like twice.
4. Doesn't counter any previous arguments.
Cool.
He posts around 4-5 non contributing posts that really don't say much. Not bothering to quote it.
At the beginning of the next day he starts up with his accusation of me and BC again
On September 24 2010 03:15 YellowInk wrote:
##Vote Team 6, BloodyC0bbler and RebirthOfLeGenD
Review their posts to see their contributions. It won't take you long.
Yes, read my posts, there is around 8 of them at that point. I can't really speak for BC I usually only get him on aim for a few minutes a day, hes been busy lately. But seriously? You make a retarded accusation without ANY supporting post? Its just annoying and not even constructive.
On September 24 2010 05:22 YellowInk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 04:59 SouthRawrea wrote:
What on earth? That is the worst attempt I've seen at redirecting suspicion. Just because some people seem to have some odd ideas, I'll respond to this. I'm not redirecting suspicion. The accusations made against me are laughable. I want people to look at T6 and give it some thought. I believe the difference to be sufficiently stark that the evidence speaks for itself. Currently, I see a few different likely combinations of potential mafia teams. Most of the sensible combinations I've figured include T6. Hence, my vote.
Didn't even say anything and is just redirecting accusations at his team.
Summary No content, Not explaining or support accusations or statement, supporting anti town ideas.
Verdict=mafia
Meeple
Really really a lot of no content posts, a few rule game questions and another no lynch is bad and using faulty logic.
On September 22 2010 05:06 meeple wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2010 04:52 Infundibulum wrote:
Actually an addendum:
YellowInk has a point that it would be stupid to use our no lynch today, when we don't need to, when we could potentially end up in a missed lynch = loss situation later in the game. I think this is the strongest argument against lynching Day 1. Is there something amiss with this logic that i'm not grasping? I think the general thoughts are that: Pros: - Prevents a somewhat uneducated decision, hoping for some better information tommorow Cons: - We only have one, we waste it now and we're screwed later - We go into Day 2 with just a little less information than we would if we lynched and found out someone's alignment. I think normally most people would go with the lynching day 1, if not only to get the info... but with such a small game every mislynch is a huge blow.
Beat to death already, posts about it around 2-3 times.
On September 19 2010 11:40 meeple wrote:
So... any plans on rooting out red?
I'm wondering if Korynne would put Southrawrea into a group of reds... I don't think she picked that group by random and also wondering if having a group of three is more or less "powerful" than having a group of 2. Personally I'm leaning to weaker, seeing as now its three people who have to play the part of a single role. More chances for discrepancies and tells...
Ask for plan, speculates on Korynnes 3man team, rather pointless. Does a back and forth with Ace on it.
On September 21 2010 01:23 meeple wrote:Making a medic list at this point is useless other than just to play mindgames with the mafia, since they don't know if the medic will actually follow it or not... I agree though that they should be protecting the most active people... since even if that person ends up being mafia, the papertrail will be huge. @BM Why the vote? Can you explain...other than just fluff posting... I doubt that the quote is actually a slipup, but if it was that's clever. @Incog Can you really characterize a person's play by a single game... I know myself I played very differently my first game than my second, usually you're really excited the first game eager to contribute but that calms down after a while. I'm sure it's hard for you to remember your first game :p I do agree that neither have been really pro-town but that's a common characteristic Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 16:04 Incognito wrote:Also Korynne, as a good host you really should answer reasonable questions and be consistent in your answers. As much as its cute to answer in story mode, its just a headache if you don't tell people the rules. Not to mention unfair. Especially if you are clarifying rules in PM land. On September 20 2010 09:35 Pandain wrote:
P.S. in addition, I'd like Korynne to confirm medics can protect themselves. Also the no-lynch thing: A no-lynch should be allowed. Depriving the town of that option is pro-mafia and is nonsensical especially in a small game. In 30 player games, a single lynch doesn't hurt all too much, but being forced to lynch in an 8 person game is brutal. Especially since you have to lynch when there are an odd number of players left. Last edit: 2010-09-20 16:07:20 Why the edit?? And after all that high talk about what a good game host should do... tsk Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 16:08 Ace wrote:
I was pretty much out of it all day. What did I miss? Cmon I know you can do better than that... Vote: Team 6BC's only real post is this: Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 05:06 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
Ok as this is a super super super small style of game. Team game so technically very few players in terms of lynches we have to be extremely careful. To start with we need to generate discussion and yes I have seen some of this going on already woo we need to sit down and seriously think things through.
Lynching based off inactivity remember kills a team not just one specific member but the team itself. IF an entire team is inactive maybe we can opt for them. Opting on inactivity lynches based solely off one player in a team however seems like a bad idea, especially for the trio we have.
As for a general start past this
RVS [vote] rastaban/foolishness
Both are normally fairly active players and outside of one spam post, both are afkish. Plus no one decent to vote for.
For a verteran player, this says absolutely nothing... I mean he says lynching off inactivity is bad, and makes a RVS vote, saying repeatedly that its a nothing vote and he doesn't want to be held accountable for it... As for RoL, we find the same lack of commitment except he adds in some fluff about whether or not there is medics in this game... Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 15:52 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
lol wow I just caught up and that SR post is retarded.
Well a couple of things I saw. Foolishness Medic lists are useful because of the psychological implications of it. Will a medic follow it, will a medic protect themselves, etc. I am really wondering if a medic protects an ENTIRE team or just one of the individuals on it, that will definitely show how strong a medic is. Since this is basically everything x2 I would assume most roles are the same and have entire team implications. IE: DT check effects both members of a team (since no reason it shouldn't) therefore a medic protection should cover an entire team.
Although if that is the case, I sincerely doubt medics can protect themselves. It will be really OP if a medic could just hoard protections on themselves all game since the mafia couldn't possibly kill them. On the other hand if they can only protect half a person they are a useless role. So medics either suck, are OP or aren't in the game. I'd lean towards not being in this set up especially since Korynne remained vague on the answer. I assume the logic is the same as when one of the mafia games had 6 variations of detectives but only 4 were authentic. The point in that was to add more to think about and take into consideration, but in reality it wasn't practical at all because it would break the game.
On that note, I will just go with my team mate and vote for Rasta/Foolishness for picking at incognitos post and ignoring the validity of medic protection list (even though I think medics probably aren't in this game, or at LEAST can't protect themselves)
To summarize because I like Incognito's idea about that.
1. For the moment I am leading towards foolishness/Rasta just because we have nothing better to go on.
2. Really doubt there is a medic role since it seems like it would be really OP, or really shitty depending on how Korynne decided to balance it, and her unwillingness to clarify in thread makes me think its not important.
3. Vote for Foolishness/Rasta just to make it clear.
Its day one though, so I reserve my right to completely change my mind for little to no reason :D
I will assume him and YI were just trying to get us to post a little more. I know I really suffer trying to think of what the fuck to post Day 1 in such a generic set up.
On September 23 2010 10:59 meeple wrote:
odd choice for mafia... people seem to have a grudge against them
Now comes the analysis of their posts knowing that they were town.
http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Tarhalindur_Standard_Tells
"Well, that sucks" very mild version of it.
On September 24 2010 03:57 meeple wrote:Alright, the analysis... yeah its delayed and I roasted for not posting it earlier... BM:+ Show Spoiler +On September 20 2010 19:39 Bill Murray wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 15:30 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
That's all SR ever posts. I don't think he posts any better when townie. I think he thinks he is contributing a lot but... he just manages to state the obvious and make it mind bangingly esoteric. Very unnerving. @pyrrexcuse me? are you admitting he is your scumbuddy? @everyone else If pyrrhuloxia is mafia, southrawrea could be as well. It might be null, but I feel like that could be a slip. I am liking pro-town discussion of Incognito and Foolishness, and are not really suspicious of teams 8 and 3 as a result. Incognito is capable of spotlighting as scum, so I'm not saying he is cleared, but I have played with him where he is scum, and this does not feel quite the same. Due to meta, and his amazingly pro-town play, I would definitely not be ok with his lynch at this juncture. I am not fully convinced Pyrrhuloxia's team is a mafia slot, though, and am going to reserve my vote for the moment as such a small setup can be volatile. I would be happier with a lynch on team 2, as I found SouthRawrEas post to be all fluff and no content. @mod votecount please ##vote: team 2 Expresses doubt about South's greenness due to fluff posting... says that he enjoys Incog and Foolishness's analysis, but adds a caveat about Incog's ability to spotlight as red. + Show Spoiler +On September 21 2010 05:59 Bill Murray wrote:LSB's admission is only icing on the cake@LSB: how would you be so CERTAIN they're scum? You have a scumlist, buddy? Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 04:43 SouthRawrea wrote:
So you're saying I'm posting nothing when really what I'm doing is making a post that shows that there is really no plan that we can come up with? Then pray, tell me what sort of content-filled posts you can make this early in the game? @Pyrr This makes me confident in my earlier read he is appealing to pyrr's authority. Scummy, scummy, scummy. @meeple: I find it funny you ask me to justify my vote when I voted SR on fluff, then make a secondary reason as for voting being fluff yourself. I also dislike you speculating that I was 100% pyrr/SR are the scumteam.... if that was the case, I would have been putting a second vote on Pyrr's team. I didn't. I'm voting SR because I am unsure if Pyrr actually made a slip. The way SR is acting now, though, in the above post, makes me believe that my initial reaction to who I'm voting is actually wrong. I needed to stack on pyrr because his team is way more important as I'm feeling both SR's team #2 with bumatlarge and divinek are scum with Pyrrhuloxia's team #1. My reasoning and justification are how SR is acting towards pyrrhuloxia. I will also give justification in relation to why we should lynch vs a no lynch day 1. I am not saying "let's not ever no lynch", but that we could use it day 2 if we don't lynch scum day 1.
day 1 lynching scum:6 v 1 night kill day 2 5v1 <- possible win here mislynch + night kill day 3 3v1 (mylo) <- obvious no lynch unless 100% certainty night kill day 4 2v1 (LYLO) if we DON'T mislynch now, and no lynch later, we can save it for a MyLo potentially. That's why we need to take a chance on lynching scum today.this is assuming we fuck up later, but we rocked on day 1. I'm not even really worried about this is Pyrrhuloxia's team #1 flip scum, which I expect them to do based upon SouthRawrEa being a newer player who is a dead giveaway. Though I am more sure of SR based upon his posting, AtA, and my not liking bumatlarge's posting earlier, I feel like they implicate team #1 through SR, and there being a vote on a slot that I find scum is enough for me to want to wagon said slot. ##unvote: pyrrhuloxia/LSB
##vote: SR, bumatlarge, and divinek States that SR is a new player and a scum giveaway and they implicate team 1. + Show Spoiler +On September 21 2010 17:06 Bill Murray wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 21 2010 08:56 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 07:33 BrownBear wrote:On September 21 2010 05:59 Bill Murray wrote:
I will also give justification in relation to why we should lynch vs a no lynch day 1. I am not saying "let's not ever no lynch", but that we could use it day 2 if we don't lynch scum day 1.
day 1 lynching scum:
6 v 1
night kill
day 2 5v1 <- possible win here
mislynch + night kill
day 3 3v1 (mylo) <- obvious no lynch unless 100% certainty
night kill
day 4 2v1 (LYLO)
if we DON'T mislynch now, and no lynch later, we can save it for a MyLo potentially.
That's why we need to take a chance on lynching scum today.
this is assuming we fuck up later, but we rocked on day 1. I'm not even really worried about this is Pyrrhuloxia's team #1 flip scum, which I expect them to do based upon SouthRawrEa being a newer player who is a dead giveaway. Though I am more sure of SR based upon his posting, AtA, and my not liking bumatlarge's posting earlier, I feel like they implicate team #1 through SR, and there being a vote on a slot that I find scum is enough for me to want to wagon said slot. Let's get South to post more before we make decisions. Also, we need his team to start posting as well, all of them haven't really been very helpful. As it stands, this is probably our best bet, but we have the time, might as well get the information before deciding for sure. Alright, I am going to be addressing both BM and BB with this, since this seems to be using faulty logic. BM you are arguing that we achieve the same result by no lynching day one or two, this is wrong because on Day 2 we have more information to work with PLUS we have higher percent of just randomly offing a mafia simply because there is one less team in the game. Completely faulty logic. As the game progresses our information increases so saying day 1 = day 2 no lynching is completely wrong, even if it is mathematically the same in regards to WHEN the day ends. Also BM you assume that we are rocking out day 1 and fucking up rest of the time? That's such an unlikely scenario considering as the game progresses information increases. BB inactivity is an easy mafia ploy to pull off day one claiming little to no reason or content to post, so its a given that they SHOULD be posting and if it continues it is very scummy and antitown, in the current set up I am willing to let it slide and not lynch of inactivity Day 1, but come down on it hard Day 2. Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 06:20 Ace wrote:Also I'm highly supportive of no lynching ONLY if those other conditions are met, because honestly having 1 shot of a No Lynch in a game this small is a very scary thing And to make things clear for why some people generally want to lynch all the time: Chance of hitting Mafia with a lynch: some %, in this case 25% Chance of hitting Mafia with a No Lynch: 0% This is the justification that some people use in arguing for Lynching every day. Of course I don't usually support this because I'd rather lynch someone I'm highly sure is Scum than rest on a 25% chance of hitting red. Also this 25% doesn't show you that if you miss, the 75% chance of hitting a helpful player can deal more damage than the loss of one team. Losing a leading pro-town player and/or power role can have near-game ending effects. So if we are seriously going to lynch someone today, we better get some good discussion going. Which is why we I think Team 2's (LSB) accusation that Team 1 is certainly scummy needs a stronger argument. I would disagree with the we-should-lynch mentality, simply because no-lynching day 1 actually gives us an extra day. Obviously if we're 100% sure we have a scum we should lynch, but failing that we should no lynch, because then we have an extra day of analysis and a nightkill target. Get the cop (if he exists) to rolecheck team 1 or 2 tonight, and if he finds a scum, have him claim and get the medic (if HE also exists) to protect him. This obviously assumes blue roles exist, but since we have a 3/4 chance that they do, I think it's pretty safe to assume there's at least 1 blue in the game (if we get lucky, we get two!) I do agree with the fact that we need to get good discussion going, and that we need to get LSB to 'splain himself further about his accusation. This entirely reeks of shit to be blunt. It starts with kind of what I was saying but dissolves into the most retarded plan I have ever read. The whole DT CAN CHECK SOMEONE THEN SAY WHAT HE CHECKED AND THEN MEDIC PROTECTS HIM = GG is retarded. You are basing SO MUCH off of the chance its a 1/4 scenario where we lucked out and got both a medic and a DT. When deciding what to do we have to see what would benefit us the MOST in every possible scenario, which I believe is clearly day 1 no lynching (in our current predicament) Obviously if we have a strong suspect we should ALWAYS go for it, but quite simply the reasoning that you are justifying no lynch is nonsensical.
Now, to get some discussion going: What do you guys think of the possibility of having cop (if cop exists) claim day 2? Obviously he shouldnt claim now, because if he exists there's only a 1/3 chance that medic also exists and can protect his ass tonight. However, I'm assuming that since cop is more than 1 person, and this game is mostly talented players, the rolecheck tonight should turn up something good. I think it would absolutely be worth it to trade cop for 1 of the mafia.
Obvious flaw with this: If there's no cop, and mafia fakeclaims, who's gonna counterclaim?
Still, I'd love to hear other peoples' opinion.
DT should only claim if he feels a good enough reason to. Personally I think as soon as the DT confirms someone as red he should claim. Trading mafia for DT in a small game like this seems beneficial. The only reason NOT to do that is if that individual is getting lynched anyway for whatever reason, but if the vote is close I would still claim as a DT and make sure a mafia got killed.
Besides that claiming for the sake of claiming is stupid.
I disagree. If team 2 are mafia, and I get team 2 lynched, it is 100% likely on both days they will flip mafia. I don't look at it "randomly", I look at who is fucking mafia and who isn't fucking mafia. That being said, over the past couple of pages, I have been really happy with SR and Divinek. I was happy with bumatlarge until he started using really odd language. bumatlarge, explain the ending of your most recent post, as seen here: Show nested quote +Main Points:
1. Laxin medic goes hippy when they make war not love
2. Incog is fear nothing happenstance benefit
3. My vote wit no apologies because apologies get me in trouble apparently ...What? Basically, I am fine with no lynch at this point. I was pretty sure I had caught scum, but I am admittedly not so sure now. vote: no lynch Expresses doubts about his previous convictions and changes his vote to no lynch + Show Spoiler +On September 21 2010 19:28 Bill Murray wrote:
Foolishness trendily lurks until D2
too bad if he doesnt die N1 he is likely mafia, as he likes to lurk D1 as mafia just like he does as townie or blue so that is very, very, very null from him. I cannot emphasize this more. The funny thing is, though, mafia could choose to not hit him and use it as an argument. "Foolishness didn't die, he is mafia, get him" on day 2. That's the problem with his high level of play if it goes unchecked, it makes all arguments pretty WIFOMy which is why I like to pressure people who lurk
I like to do that more on day 2, or forward, though.
I like a lynch on D1 vs a No Lynch, so I am tempted to wagon. If I wagon, would you guys take it the wrong way? I like wagons as town these days, but I don't like mislynches, and I haven't seen anything glaring at me saying "this player is scummy as fuck" like I had originally thought I had.
It's funny everyone is dead set on a team I initially thought was scum. The minute I back off, people start believing. The world works in mysterious ways.
I am going to vote simply to consolidate my vote with my partner's, and
Vote: Team 1
Tomorrow we can pressure people based around their posts, and our general suspicions on teams 7 and 2 if they flip red. If they flip townie, then I'll have to look at a couple certain teams, too, so I'm actually happier with this lynch than teams 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and possibly even 2. Votes Team 1 to with Ace, and still expresses concerns about teams 2 and now 7 Ace:+ Show Spoiler +On September 21 2010 17:40 Ace wrote:
Ah damn I was somewhat supporting your post until you said We need this lynch for information.
What information are we getting from a lynch besides his alignment flip?
LSB is still the scummiest person so far in my book though. On September 21 2010 18:40 Ace wrote:
actually I dont think your case by itself is really that strong, it just seems convenient.
LSB's accusation of Team 2 and his weak explanation, which didn't even seem to answer my concern is still my prime motive for leaning towards them.
I'll rethink this again later for sure but for now ## vote Team 1 States suspicions about LSB and votes for him + Show Spoiler +On September 22 2010 03:03 Ace wrote:
this is such a terrible lynch. Just way too many easy voters. Bill Murray unvote them, this lynch just doesn't seem legit at all.
##unvote Team 1 Gets anxious about the easy votes and unvotes Team 1 + Show Spoiler +On September 22 2010 09:33 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2010 06:43 YellowInk wrote:
At this point I believe that the mafia are among teams 1, 3, 5, and 6. I do not know precisely who, but at this stage of the day, hanging team 1 still makes sense. Ace, I was getting the same feeling initially about the bandwagoning onto team 1, but then I looked carefully at who was and wasn't on board with the team 1 vote and realized that just about everyone who was on the team 1 vote I already had a feeling of being pro town. The most suspect people have pushed the no lynch.
The recent argument made against no lynch was under the assumption of no medic saves. Consider what occurs if you have 1 medic save: we gain an entire day! In a typical game, a single medic save does not gain us a day. Using the no lynch here would lose us the day that a medic save could gain us.
No lynch is for endgame situations only. Hang team 1. No it isn't. This post is blatantly misleading. No lynching is for when you can't conclude someone is scummy enough to lynch. Like I've said, the town does not have to lynch every day. So most of the time it's in your best bet to No lynch unless you are in a situation where there is clearly going to be a benefit. Being in the end game does not matter for a No lynch, all it means is that you're decision has a more immediate consequence but it's also easier. Towards the end of the game it is actually much rarer to have a No lynch. Remember what I said? It's in your best bet to avoid a lynch when you aren't sure someone is scum or there is no clear benefit. At the end of the game you have so much information between votes, player interaction, the knowledge of what roles have been revealed and your own ties to players that it's really not often you'll be No lynching then. In a typical game a single medic save gaining you a day is false. Saving a player and them possibly being confirmed innocent is a pretty big deal don't you think? It may not directly add more days to your win condition but adding more players to the likely pro-town pool, that TWO players know about is pretty heartbreaking for scum once it's revealed. Using a No Lynch now would actually be the best bet...if this were 10 hours ago and this was a normal setup with infinite No Lynches. Clearly though, LSB has been posting god knows what and well I'm a little intrigued by this post of yours. I thought you were a good player so how could you actually believe this nonsense you just posted? The only thing worrying me is that Incognito seems to have pegged both your teams also which shows his scumdar is operating on great batteries like mine, or he's just good at picking off easy townies. So I'm going to ask you this one time: Let's assume you were a detective. What team would you investigate tonight and why? Accuses Yellowink (Team 7)
Now lets see... Amongst the people that are included in the "easy votes" on Team 1 are: bumatlarge Divinek Infundibulum YellowInk SouthRawrea Incognito Also the people that accused BM/Ace YellowInk - albeit halfheartedly + Show Spoiler +On September 19 2010 14:22 YellowInk wrote:
I think we should hang Ace and Bill Murray. LSB + Show Spoiler +On September 22 2010 08:20 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 17:36 Incognito wrote:
Its not just his actions, its his mindset. If you read over LSB's posts, all his posts are neutral and he never takes a stand. Its not easy for anyone to pinpoint what LSB supports because he doesn't support anything. And that's the point. Mafia don't want to take an active stance because then they have to defend it. Mafia would like to sit on the fence so that nobody can hold them responsible for their actions while subtly working to subvert town goals. Town has nothing to lose by taking sides. Now looking at LSB's past games, he takes sides as town. He is decisive and actively contributes to the town while openly attempting to convince others of his view. On the other hand, this game LSB does not take sides. He is not decisive, and only points out flaws. Is he attempting to convince others to follow his point of view? No, he doesn't have one. LSB is not interested in the town's welfare. He wants to create the appearance of pro-town activity by pointing out the flaws in my plan while using neutral language and doing nothing to help town. As for the things I'm supporting 1) No lynch. 2) Bum's medic plan Show nested quote +This post attempts to derail the focus on LSB's scumminess by setting up straw men and refusing to directly refute my accusations. LSB says he didn't make a plan because the game setup is not exploitable. While this may be true, this does not address the motives behind LSB's actions. LSB is refuting the planning aspect of his play. I am attacking the motives behind his play, namely that as town he takes stances and tries to work for the town's benefit. The thing is, if I was mafia, I would be supporting an erronous plan, trying to get the town to take part of a plan that is easily exploitable. A great way to do that is to support your plan! Your plan has problems. Strangely you haven't address these problems. Right now you are saying, "LSB seems skummy, so therefore I don't need to worry about the holes in my plan". That isn't logic, that's misdirection. Show nested quote +The erroneous logic is in the
"oh no what happens if a DT/medic doesn't exist" question, not the no lynch issue. Stop trying to appear all innocent and beating around the bush. I'll repeat myself: We should use the DT and the Medic in the places where they will be most effective. The Medic should focus on making sure that someone doesn't die. And the DT should be used to try to investigate targets. I don't like the list idea, since it tells the mafia what to stay out of. Again, please address this problem. Tell me why I am wrong, don't just make a long post on why I'm supposed mafia to distract others from seeing that your plan has a problem. Show nested quote +If there are no fixes, you junk the plan an move on. Valid. But you didn't move on. You junked the plan, and promptly disappeared. The most plausible reason why you did that is because you are mafia.
I don't have this list of possible plans in my pocket and try to use them. If I think of something, I'll use it sure. I moved on of course, chiefly no lynch once we figured out that it could be used. Show nested quote +To say those posts were serious accusations that deserved input would be flat out lies Again, I'm not saying your statement was a lie. I'm saying that the motiviations for your post are shaky. Everyone reading this post should be looking at the subjective question of why LSB is posting the way he is. Reading LSB's posts at face value isn't going to get us anywhere. Its not a matter of lie or truth. Its a matter of what seems realistic given the mindset of the poster. What I am saying is that your accusations twist my words. You admit that you can't read my posts at face value because if you do, you'll find that I'm a townie. You now are relying on the fact that I haven't taken any positions? What positions are you accusing me of not taking on? Planning: You claim that I haven't made a plan. Therefore I am Mafia. Thats just silly. I'm not going to make a plan unless I think of one. Ace/BM is scumYou said that I didn't give enough input into the Ace/BM lynch. Well, I don't feel like I should. Because I think there're town Rastaban/Foolishness is scum: You said that I didn't give enough input into the Rastaban/Foolishness lynch. Well, I don't feel like I should. So you expect me to 1) Pull out plans or die, or 2) Accuse random people. <sarcasm>Sounds townie to me </sarcasm> Show nested quote +
LSB's recent "analysis" on Team 2 cannot be considered a natural pro-town sign since he only posted it under pressure from 3 people. So don't use this as an excuse for why you're town. It won't work.
I would have liked more time to see what Bum would do, and how SR would play this game. But like you said, people wanted me to post. So I did, and I said that I didn't really think that they were mafia since new posts didn't fit with my general theory. Conclusions: I think we should examine some of the players that bandwagoned on Team 1... especially Team 2 since we know BM had some serious concerns about them.
On September 24 2010 04:05 meeple wrote:
Also
Vote: Team 6
Left fucking field. Your post and analysis has NOTHING to do with your accusation and I can't even say hes trying to get us to talk again, since the day had just ended where I posted a decent amount. Its just stupid.
Summary Fluff/BS posting giving away some minor mafia tells, random accusations, false logic.
Verdict=mafia
Team 1: LSB, Pyrrhuloxia
The team was under a lot of scrutiny day one and I feel like we strayed off a lot and want to reinforce my thoughts and our previous thoughts on them. LSB had a LOT of slipups Day 1 and pyrr wasn't much better, but they cleaned up later in the day, the night, and today but I still don't think it clears them entirely.
LSB
Early day minor content, criticize infundi's plan, nothing special. We will skip to mid day basically.
On September 20 2010 03:50 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 02:32 Pandain wrote:
LSB, does pyrr know hes in this game lol? He hasn't posted at all.
XD Yeah I talked to him a bit, but the game just started. I'll yell at him to post next time I catch him. Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 02:53 YellowInk wrote:On September 20 2010 02:02 LSB wrote:On September 19 2010 14:22 YellowInk wrote:
I think we should hang Ace and Bill Murray. Why? Bill Murray frequently plays in a way that is destructive to town productivity when he is town. Among all the histories of those I know playing, he gives me the greatest reason to hang given a blind choice. However, I do agree with Ace. Ace's question needs to be answered and Bill Murray needs to show that he'll help the town. Then we'll see how things go. kk. Just remember, we don't have enough room for policy lynches.
On September 20 2010 06:32 LSB wrote:
Lets see, two accusations going right now
Ace/BM: This isn't a real accusation. More like Bill Murray Foe on Sight
Rastaban/Foolishness: Based on the Premise that they are more inactive than usual. Foolishness pops out and disproves that.
Neither one I like
Flagrant neutrality and not really taking sides.
On September 21 2010 03:58 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 16:00 Incognito wrote:
First off, LSB. In TL Mafia XXX we saw LSB the planner. Throughout all the discussion from day 1, multiple plans get proposed and shot down. LSB participated in the discussion and tried to come up with a better plan. It turns out that the town used his plan in the end. While it was flawed, this game shows that LSB as town actively contributes to the town discussion and tries to move the game forward/improve the town's situation. In PYP2, LSB didn't take such a pronounced role in the town, but still supported Radfield's plan/stated why it was fairly solid even though there could be some flaws. LSB ended up picking traitor that game, but since he was town before the role picks it cannot be assumed that he was playing the game with a mafia mindset. Okay, obviously you haven’t played with me much. Mafia XXX was my rookie game, and it had some exceptional circumstances. First of all, it had lots of varied blue roles. That way planning was possible. On the other hand, Kor is following E9+1 townie. This setup is made so it isn’t able to be broken. It is slightly town favored. Simply put, there is no plan that is optimal because we do not know the existence of blue roles. Secondly, PYP I supported the plan because it was solid. I did not support your plan because it’s mafia favoredAlso, what happened to my Penalty mafia, and my RAM mafia games? To call me a planner in those games is laughable. Show nested quote +
In this game, LSB's activity is way down. Looking at his first substantial post, he speculates on why South could have been put on divinek/bum's team. The second post is more telling. First sentence he immediately casts doubt upon my proposal. Really, that first sentence isn't a problem with my plan, as I have addressed the non-existence of a DT/medic already. The sentence in itself doesn't necessarily say anything about alignment. Once I point out this erroneous logic however, he says he really did read my post and switches what he claims is the "main problem". This time, instead of pointing to the non-existence of DT/medic, he says blue actions will be wasted and that DT/medic won't follow the plan so its all circular logic and won't work. A valid criticism, but different from the previous criticism.
First, could you answer this question? Show nested quote + I really like the DT/Medic Idea, I'm just wondering, do you have any other games where you tried out this plan? I want to read other games where this plan works. I don’t know how you got this to be stir the pot. What part of Show nested quote +Also, in reality, if we mess up, we might only have one night. Two days of mislynch would make us lose. If the medic is able to protect one person, that buys us another day. Shouldn't the list be hidden so the medic has a better chance of protecting someone? Do you not get? Where is the erroneous logic? I admit, the DT I thought of later, that is why I turned against your plan. Because it really is mafia favored. Show nested quote + In both of these posts, what does LSB propose to fix these? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. In both posts, he criticizes the plan and expresses his "concern" for the flaws. This is definitely not typical LSB behavior. LSB asks if I have an example game where this idea has been used. Relevance? I think there's none. LSB is just trying to stir the pot here. Since when have I proposed fixes for broken plans? There are no fixes, we junk the plan and move on. Your acting like a baby, crying that your toy is broken, throwing a tantrum because other people can’t fix it Show nested quote + Another interesting post is when LSB states the two accusations that have been made and then says he doesn't like either of them. Its a neutral statement that says nothing. Very uncharacteristic for someone who often gives input and opinion when innocent. To say those posts were serious accusations that deserved input would be flat out lies
On September 21 2010 04:08 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 02:15 BrownBear wrote:There's a bit of an interesting dynamic starting to come out here. On September 20 2010 15:30 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
That's all SR ever posts. I don't think he posts any better when townie. I think he thinks he is contributing a lot but... he just manages to state the obvious and make it mind bangingly esoteric. Very unnerving. This could be a slip, or it could be Pyrry trying to gently suggest SR as mafia to us. This early in the game, I would be astonished if Pyrry slipped up that spectacularly, so I think he's trying to plant the SR-scum idea in our heads (inception?). That's not a slip up. We are pretty certain that team 2 is mafia. I just want a few more posts from them.
You are pretty certain that team 2 is mafia based off of too few posts on day one? That is absurd, almost as absurd as the level of confidence in the accusation. Combine that with an over the top defense for a mild accusation is a big what the fuck.
On September 21 2010 10:14 LSB wrote:Overview: The entire Divinek/Southrawrea/Bumatalarge team was incredibly unhelpful. This isn’t like Zeks, who just lurks all the time. Divinek, Southrawrea, and Bumatalarge usually at least make the effort to help. It’s strange why none of them are doing that right now. Addon: Bumatalarge’s second post is actually pretty helpful. Conclusion: Not as sure as before, before I was going off of the "This can't be a coincidence. Once is a accidence, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action". This could just be South and Divinek. If Bum didn't make his second post, I would have immediatly voted for him. Anyways, I'll still post my thoughts Divinek + Show Spoiler +Firstly I'm looking at Divinek's actions actions in Callers game. (He is anti-town, dunno the full story yet) Did a few accusations, nothing major. Was more of a bandwagoner The main thing is, he doesn't defend himself much. He just tries to laugh things off. He also ignored my accusations in Penalty mafia (He was mafia). Likewise in Penalty mafia he was a bandwagoner. So look for: Laugh accusations off, bandwagons The main thing is, it seems that he is jumping to defend himself at the littlest things now, small accusations that are extremely far fetched. On September 19 2010 11:40 meeple wrote:
I'm wondering if Korynne would put Southrawrea into a group of reds... I don't think she picked that group by random and also wondering if having a group of three is more or less "powerful" than having a group of 2. ^random speculation On September 19 2010 14:38 Divinek wrote:
i have no idea why he's on our team tbh, im assuming it has something to do with the power of greyskull. Divinek immediately jumps on this, and does his laugh it off defense. Also another defense On September 20 2010 01:57 Pandain wrote:
In addition, who do we lynch today? Well, i'm starting to think we should lynch one of South, Divinek, or Bumatlarge. Lynching one will confirm the two others, helping us in future scum hunting and decision. If mafia try to take these confirmed out, its alright, because they aren't exactly "vets" and it'll take two turns for mafia to finish them off. However, I sort of doubt they'll go for them as they'll probably go for the vets themselves. I immediately shot that idea down On September 20 2010 01:59 LSB wrote:
Just FYI, we lynch a team, rather than just one person. And I felt that conversation should have ended right there. To my surprise, Divinek suddenly posts On September 20 2010 05:49 Divinek wrote:
what do you mean lynching one of us will confirm us lol? if you kill one person of a team im pretty sure alignment doesnt flip, if that's even what you're getting at because you don't make it clear, that'd be pretty ridiculous. I've got my eye on you as always pandain!
I can't find it in the rules, but that's how it's been in the past...
Divinek should know that the whole team gets killed. He was lynched day two in the first TMM game. Obviously this idea has been destroyed already, since I pointed out that it wouldn’t work as per the rules, but why does Divinek suddenly try to offer a random explanation? I can only think that he is paranoid. Now, you might say that town defend themselves and this doesn’t mean anything. But these are the only posts that Divinek makes. He hasn’t contributed anything at all.That also mean that Divinek hasn’t been attempting to bandwagon people yet, but that’s because there has been no real attacking post yet. Divinek 2 + Show Spoiler +Later on Divinek makes this post On September 21 2010 05:38 Divinek wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 04:54 Infundibulum wrote:On September 21 2010 04:08 LSB wrote:On September 21 2010 02:15 BrownBear wrote:There's a bit of an interesting dynamic starting to come out here. On September 20 2010 15:30 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
That's all SR ever posts. I don't think he posts any better when townie. I think he thinks he is contributing a lot but... he just manages to state the obvious and make it mind bangingly esoteric. Very unnerving. This could be a slip, or it could be Pyrry trying to gently suggest SR as mafia to us. This early in the game, I would be astonished if Pyrry slipped up that spectacularly, so I think he's trying to plant the SR-scum idea in our heads (inception?). That's not a slip up. We are pretty certain that team 2 is mafia. I just want a few more posts from them. What makes you think so? I'm curious, because Team 2 isn't on my radar right now for mafia. The way I see it - Bumatlarge seems drunk, Divinek made one post where he completely misunderstood how the game works, and SR talked about the merits of lynch vs no lynch. none of this says 'mafia' to me. yeah pandain had me confused into thinking players got lynched instead of teams lol. It's probably his scum jedi mind tricks at work. Bum wasn't drunk that's just his accent coming through in his posts. And SR has always been really good at posting really poorly. I would be all in favour of no lynching day 1, i mean why not use it on the day where we have the least information to go on? We'll still gain something as there will be a nk, or a medic protect to stop it or maybe even a DT check or something. But instead of throwing around wild allegations (which alot of people seem to be doing) i would much rather not kill an innocent today, which is what 95% to happen on day1? and go with a no lynch so ##vote no lynch This seems consistent, he’s defending himself. Also, since Team 2 is the team that’s getting the most votes right now, he can’t bandwagon that, he’ll go for the next best option, no lynch SouthRawrea + Show Spoiler +Okay, as town, he is pretty hard to understand. I played with him in PyP, and I just ignored his posts because they took to long to read through, and then I find that he’s making lots of assumptions At the same time though, he always put his two cents in. On September 20 2010 09:32 SouthRawrea wrote:
So this is a really basic game of mafia. If the scenario is 2 mafia 6 townies, we're best of lynching from day 1, no buts or ifs. If we have only have a doctor the scenario is the same, lynch from day 1. The only difference is that we have a better chance of survival. The thing about a cop only scenario is that if mafia claims cop and the real cop counterclaims, we'll end up in a scenario where we'll have 1 mafia, 3 townies with the cop most likely dead. We'll most likely have 1 confirmed, 2 townies and 1 mafia at the end in which case we have a 1/3 shot at winning. Now what the mafia has to be careful of is if we have both a cop and a doctor in which case our chances of winning rise significantly because we'll be able to protect the confirmed cop after we realize that we were duped by the mafia fakecop. Now our two possible options are: 1) Lynch right away or 2) Wait a day for a possible guilty report and proceed to lynch regardless if cop outs himself. If we lynch right away for a scenario where we have a cop, we have a slight chance of outting our cop but it's nothing significant. In the end because we end the game on a mylo, it won't make a difference. However if we wait a day in a situation where we do not have a cop, it'll reduce our chances of winning. It doesn't really matter what we choose to do because we don't the setup of the game.
TL;DR We can choose NL or Lynch but it all depends on which of the game setups we have. Since we don't know which one it is, it doesn't matter which we pick. Translation: It doesn’t matter what we do. This is very unhelpful. He makes a long post just to say nothing at all. On September 20 2010 10:04 SouthRawrea wrote:
I'd like to echo Foolishness's point and say that my take on this game is that it's almost 100% scumhunting. There's a 50% shot at there being a cop and Korynne is unwilling to release any information not included in the OP. (Usually though, medics can't protect themselves) This limits any plans that we may have especially because we don't know the setup and we may not be able to investigate.
Alternatively, Korynne may be setting up a game where we can look for clues with his/her posts to perhaps find the mafia or who's innocent.
Also: EBWOP for my earlier post. I didn't realize that we couldn't NL. I overlooked Korynne's post.
Anyhow, posting is good because we actually have nothing to work with other than posts at this point in time and possibly for the entire game. Again, he doesn’t say anything besides we should play as normal This isn’t putting his two cents in. This is simply just posting random stuff so it looks like he’s active On September 21 2010 04:43 SouthRawrea wrote:
So you're saying I'm posting nothing when really what I'm doing is making a post that shows that there is really no plan that we can come up with? Then pray, tell me what sort of content-filled posts you can make this early in the game? @Pyrr Okay, now he explains his posts, he’s saying that it’s impossible to make a plan. At the same time though, Incogs plan already declared that the existence of a cop is moot, all we need is the intimidation factor. Although I don’t agree with Incog’s plan, SouthRawrea’s post completely ignores this. At the same time, to try to prove that we can’t make a plan? That seems incredibly anti-town. A good plan wins the town games. To try persuade us that we can’t make a plan seems pretty scummy. Bumatlarge (Now seems pro town) + Show Spoiler +On September 21 2010 04:52 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 04:08 LSB wrote:On September 21 2010 02:15 BrownBear wrote:There's a bit of an interesting dynamic starting to come out here. On September 20 2010 15:30 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
That's all SR ever posts. I don't think he posts any better when townie. I think he thinks he is contributing a lot but... he just manages to state the obvious and make it mind bangingly esoteric. Very unnerving. This could be a slip, or it could be Pyrry trying to gently suggest SR as mafia to us. This early in the game, I would be astonished if Pyrry slipped up that spectacularly, so I think he's trying to plant the SR-scum idea in our heads (inception?). That's not a slip up. We are pretty certain that team 2 is mafia. I just want a few more posts from them. If you're certain why aren't you trying hard to convince the rest of us they are scum? I wanted to see what Bum would write. He really hasn’t posted anything. And there’s no way to tell if he’s busy, or if he is lurking. Bum then posts a pretty pro town post On September 21 2010 08:20 bumatlarge wrote:
I only had a minute to throw a post out, and I'd rather not stay quiet. Dont think I said much game-breaking stuff.
Uh medic can protect themself? Would it be possible to get them to claim, since mafia really doesnt want to risk a mis-hit. If medic claims, RNG's protecting themselves or someone else we could get some info, and Im not really sure mafia would be willing to false-claim by chance we have a medic team, and then we are guaranteed a scum lynch by day 2. It kinda confirms them... no? But we should set up an exact tiem for them to roleclaim so we dont have some gimmicky 'oh i didnt see im medic lol. If no one says anything, we know we dont have a med, or they choose to keep quiet.
Thoughts? I like the idea, basically we get a tree stump, that can vote, and someone is confirmed. That could clear up a lot of confusion. I don’t see a better role for the medic. As to answer Pandian, I’d like to see a confirmed townie more than a random chance of the medic protecting themselves. Math wise, the mafia has a 33% chance of hitting the medic during the two nights. And I don't count on stuff with less than half a chance of success
When the assault comes in from other poster his confidence drops like 10x in his accusation and claims he was trying to draw bum to posting T_T
On September 22 2010 07:59 LSB wrote:
I'm sorry if you guys thought I had this perfectly worked out. But it was more of on how people are acting, and I was getting this wierd vibe once I was looking into the posts.
The reason why I didn't want to make a giant post that early was that I wanted to hear from Bum. But a lot of people wanted to hear what I said, so I just posted what I had.
As you can see with my post, I then changed my thoughts. I was thinking that Bum was intentionally lurking, but with his 2nd post, I'm not so sure that he is.
I was really concerned that the entire team was acting strangely. I’m still watching them of course, but Bum kindof disproves that idea.
I really like Bum's plan and support it. Medic should protect themselves.
The main problem is what if we accidentally accuse the medic?
There are two solutions:
1) Medic claims beforehand. This way we automatically know who is medic
2) Medic claims after he is accused. The problem is what if mafia claims too? There is no way we would know if that the medic is mafia or not.
Solution: Medic should claim Day2, because that’s when we are going to start the lynching. By doing a no lynch day 1, the medic has a chance of taking a hit.
Antitown, more antitown.
|
USA5860 Posts
I am never writing posts on TL forum again, I just scared the shit out of myself thinking I deleted all of that then realized it just totally fucked up the format. I will fix it because its not even readable atm and finish it up in a separate post.
|
On September 21 2010 22:44 YellowInk wrote:
However, it is far more important that a lynch occurs that I would be 'ok' with than a no lynch than to potentially divide the town among targets and allow a no lynch to occur.
On September 22 2010 05:52 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2010 05:39 Incognito wrote:This post is interesting. YI wants to avoid a situation where town is divided with votes? That's interesting, since usually town gains more information from close votes...note how he splits his vote from his own team mate. I think he is worried because if the votes are split between two teams it is likely the mafia will be able to save the guilty one, if one of the two are guilty.
And I'm the one word twisting? You have an issue with selective reading. And sorry, you are not just "giving [your] interpretation on what Yellowink was saying", you're giving a reason for something other than he stated.
In your second set of quotes, it is obvious that "your whole fucking case is [etc]" is hyperbole but it is damn close to the truth nonetheless.
More selective reading. You obviously haven't read my accusation if you think that I am saying "Pyrr is mafia for sure, he is defending Yellowink, and therefore Yellowink is mafia". Here's what I'm actually saying: "Pyrr is defending YellowInk even though YellowInk is suspicious of Pyrr and accused him. Therefore both are mafia."
"If yellowink is mafia because I defended him...". No. YellowInk is mafia because of my above statement. I'll take this opportunity to quote you here:
I'm really not liking how you are twisting peoples' words around.
Seems fitting, huh?
It also directly contradicts your idea that I am operating under the strategy of using "vague/wishy washy words to soften the impact of your words." I'm not really paying attention to the way I phrase things because the substance is more important but you are constantly disregarding this.
Nah, it doesn't contradict. You need to look at this in context. Mafia is wishy-washy when they're trying to hide from the town and stay under the radar. Its obvious that they won't be wishy-washy when accused. Just imagining the defense "well, I could be mafia, but then again I couldn't be" is pretty laughable. Your posts are trash regardless of your alignment. You are known to twist posts even when town. Your pro-clarity and anti-word twisting stance I find very ironic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
