|
On September 22 2010 08:20 LSB wrote: 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.
Sorry, but "my plan" isn't easily exploitable as mafia. Yeah, the people not on the DT/Medic list will be considered "safe" from mafia POV, but I'd rather lose someone useless than someone useful. You're also missing the point. You're crying because you want me to address my "plan". Let me quote you again,
There are no fixes, we junk the plan and move on. Remember saying that? Thought so. Why is it that all of a sudden you want to refocus on my plan? Not going to fall for that one, buddy.
On September 22 2010 08:20 LSB wrote: 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.
Lololol this is hillarious. I'm distracting others by accusing you of being mafia? Lololol. Let's get this straight. Mafia is about finding and killing scum. I'm doing nothing wrong by trying to get you lynched. You, on the other hand, want to switch my focus from lynching scum to addressing "my" flawed "plan". You seem to be missing the point that the "plan" was just to get conversations going. Originally you wanted to "junk" the plan and move on, but now you want to go back to talking about the plan because you're now on the hot seat?
On September 22 2010 08:20 LSB wrote: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.
You supported that after I voted for you and accused you. So your "support" of the no lynch isn't all too pro town when examined in context.
On September 22 2010 08:20 LSB wrote: 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.
I am not twisting your words. I never admitted that I'm twisting your words. The fact is, you don't find mafia by reading everything at face value. Mafia want to run around wearing a mask that says "I'm a townie!" on it. You're never going to get anywhere by saying, "if it looks like a townie, it is a townie!" That's a recipe for disaster.
On September 22 2010 08:20 LSB wrote: 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>
You are setting up a straw man here. Your "positions" are not meaningful. I am not accusing you for your lack of planning per se, but your lack of pro-town mindset. Your posts show apathy. Your posts say "hi I'm contributing" even though its clear you're not. You don't want to say anything about the Ace/BM lynch because you think they're town? Why didn't you say that? All you said was "Ace/BM: This isn't a real accusation. More like Bill Murray Foe on Sight". Sorry, but I don't read "I think they're town" into that statement. You don't want to say anything about Foolishness/Rasta? Why? Instead of saying "these lynches are stupid", a townsperson would be trying to create discussion. In your case, you are just trying to kill it.
Wrong again. I don't expect you to do either of those necessarily. I expect you to be pro-town and generate content, stimulate discussion, take a stand, and try to get the ball rolling. Trying to make plans fits into those categories. Sitting around doing nothing does not. Its not that "oh noes LSB isn't plan making thus he is mafia!", its that "LSB normally shows interest in moving the town forward and generating discussion, this game he's not, and thus he is mafia!". See the difference? Take interest in moving the town forward. You've done none of that this game unless under pressure. A lot of the day 1 accusations are baseless. We don't stop people from discussing them because we need stuff to talk about. Its fine if you try to cut off that discussion point, but only if you provide something else better.
On September 22 2010 08:20 LSB wrote: 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.
No, you posted that you were certain Team 2 was mafia after I accused you. You may have honestly been waiting to see what Bum would do, but I can't prove that. Context tells me that its more plausible you just pulled that out of a hat to divert attention from yourself. I don't think any straight thinking townie is going to take your accusation at face value at this point.
If you really want to look pro-town, start doing some straight up analysis. It has to be good analysis too. It has to be so good, that I'd rather lynch your target over you.
|
On September 23 2010 09:11 Foolishness wrote: Incognito and Infundibulum are an internecine ingerence. They invaginate incondite, inchoate ingannations, that inquinate inimical ideas in infaust innocents. Their iniquity causes ingerence, so inly instruments to interpose their ingravescent inveighs only makes their interference inexpugnable. For infinity, they indite inopinate, inconscient inconsistencies, that incommode us insouciance innocents. Indeed, indiscriminatory interlude is inescapable. Indispensable intelligence is imperative, that these indign imbeciles be inculpated for their incontestably invictive interchanges. Their impregnable indecency is not imprevious to the induction of the innumerable innocents that inhabit this enterprise. Indubitably, Incognito and Infundibulum intention to insidiate us incontrovertibly interlocks them as mafia.
I'm still waiting on content from you. Real content that is. Unless your contribution is that you like to play word games and take shots at people from the shadows while not really caring about actively convincing everyone that I'm mafia. I'm not at all opposed to seeing what you have to say about me being mafia. So by all means, bring on the accusations. Once I present my case against Team 7 we can all decide which seems more plausible. Kapiche?
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.
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.
|
A few posts back, I noted Pyrr's defense of YellowInk:
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.
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 7
Main 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 mafia 3) Team 7 is mafia
+ Show Spoiler +*Note* This is supplementary information should you not be convinced by my unspoilered argument. This section is spoilered merely so that it does not distract people from my main point which is unspoilered above. PyrrOn 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 The only reason why LSB isn't passive is because he's popping up to defend himself. BrownBear has generated more real content than LSB. The most notable thing he said was: On September 21 2010 02:15 BrownBear wrote:There's a bit of an interesting dynamic starting to come out here. Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 15:30 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:On September 20 2010 14:15 BrownBear wrote: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. This was a really long, elegant way of saying absolutely jack shit. 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?). On a related note, you claim here that SR is always a cryptic useless babblemouth. This is not a true statement. Look at TL Mafia XXX. SR is pretty concrete and understandable here, even if he posts a lot of one liners. He actively gives input, questions, theorizes, and states his opinion. That game he was townie. So either you're intentionally inaccurately portraying someone, like BrownBear said, or its another honest mistake. In any case, BrownBear bringing this point up is generating content. And BC does have his I don't care moments. I've seen plenty of games where BC just messed around or didn't take the game seriously. Most of them are in the middle of TL mafia history after he gets vanilla townie a bunch of times in a row. For an example, check out Mafia XV. Or the beginning of TL Mafia XXX where he was smurfing as Vayesh Moru. As for RoL, you either have a bad memory, or you don't care about having a good one. Check out TL Mafia XV. RoL is plenty active in that game. The vast number of gross misrepresentations that I have pointed out here is astonishing. Memory is a weird thing, so I can't really say much about this except that its bad play. Your play this game doesn't match anything from your past two games which have samples of both mafia and town play. I would buy the idea that you are trying to change up your style. The thing is, this game, the style you have chosen to switch to is not just bad play, its pro-mafia play. Memory is a weird thing, so I won't say you're mafia because of your horrid misinterpretations of others' posts, but that fact cannot be ignored. Its hard to believe that all the incorrect statements that I've outlined here are just coincidence. Lets take a look at Pyrr's post history this game. Bashing my plan Stating you have no suspicions Making non-committal prod statements against Ace/BM Misrepresentative statement about SR Defense of LSB Refuting the statement "SR is appealing to Pyrr's authority" More wishy-washy statements about SR Says we should be investigating people who are not Team 1,2,7 who were the most suspicious people at that point. A post that is illogical for a townie to make. A NL post A poke on Team 6 Chatter on medics/DT Pyrr is posting like LSB. An overall characteristic of Pyrr's posts is that he either posts neutral statements, defends against an accusation, or joins in on non-essential (non-scum hunting) conversation. No pro-town direction at all. Pokes out Team 6 for some shoddy reasoning. Mysteriously avoids getting suspicious of Team 7 and actually defends Team 7 directly. In this post, he starts crying and saying that he's trying to switch from the blame game (which failed him miserably last game), to a more cautious playstyle. Then he claims that he is unfairly perceived as scummy because he "points the finger" too much or "doesn't take a stance on anything". The finger pointing is only bad when based on bad logic and when it is actively pursued in a way that floods the thread so much that other people's voices are not heard. Which is what Pyrr did in TL Mafia XXX. So yes, the suspicion for these behaviors is warranted. Pyrr tries to get pity points by using two extreme examples of playstyle in an attempt to make me look like a triggerhappy. This is not the case. Pyrr is thinking in absolutes. There is more than a "finger pointing" style and a "neutral/no-stance" style. Namely, thoughtful analysis followed by a confident support of the conclusions of your analysis. (Read Ver's TL Mafia XXX review/guide to see how Pyrr's "analysis" in that game really wasn't very good). Another pro-town activity would be discussions of suspicions, but NOT to the point of spamming the thread. Its not that pointing out a lot of suspicions is bad. You have to rely on the quality of the suspicions and the quality of the discussion that follows. Pyrr's "finger pointing" is more than finger pointing. Its aggressive finger pointing with shoddy evidence. In this post, Pyrr is asking for pity and is using appeal to emotion and faulty logic to shrug off accusations on the basis that I'm trigger happy. Main Points: 1. Pyrr's complaint that I'm being unreasonable by attacking his vicious finger pointing and his "neutral" stance + uselessness is absolutist and absurd. 2. Pyrr's posts spread doubt and do not draw informative conclusions. 3. Pyrr's posts are useless, don't show direction, and fit the motive of a mafia wanting to spread doubt while staying low profile and preventing town from going in the right direction. 4. While LSB's posts are scummy, Pyrr's posts are too. There is little doubt that Team 1 is mafia. + Show Spoiler +I was going to post some motive analysis on Team 7, but got side tracked with Pyrr and his unnatural defense of YellowInk. I now feel that a complete analysis of Team 7 is unnecessary at this point, but I will post that tomorrow IF AND ONLY IF people don't buy my above argument. I'm too tired to post it now.
|
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. + Show Spoiler +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 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.
|
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.
Simple. You think Team 6 is the most scummy team that isn't you or your scumbuddy. You have every incentive as mafia to go after a new team (Team 6), especially since the other option (Team 1) isn't so palatable from your point of view. Team 6 is pretty inactive, and you're going to have to save yourself somehow, so no reason not to vote Team 6. There are plenty of reasons to be suspicious of Team 6. The reasons just arent as good as the reasons for you or Team 1.
I'll agree that a lot of Foolishness's "analysis" is sketchy and is a stretch. But there are some good points there. To all those saying Meeple never takes any stands, check out ALL of meeple's posts in TL Mafia XXVII. Not just the first 10 or so. He definitely contributes his thoughts about lynch targets/other characters. Here's a few excerpts:
On June 15 2010 11:23 meeple wrote: I trust Ludwig with almost no doubts... much more than moocow... and I trust them both more than some other people.
There's a slight chance of there being mafia amongst our dts... but like radfield said, its questionable whether this is a good time to start offing claimed blues.
flamewheel's willingness to undergo a check makes me hesitate to push a check on him... but it doesn't put him in the clear obviously. I would try for a redtooth alignment check tonight... or Chez...
On June 15 2010 11:33 meeple wrote: Ludwig has been active... but he's just active at a different time... totally offset from North American time.
I never said you were suspicious... I just said that I trust Ludwig... mostly because if he was mafia there's no way he would've stepped in before. His trusting of L isn't suspicious, tons of people followed L's plan...
His reactions when Chez was shooting people was genuine I felt... he was just confused, as was I, at what the hell was going on.
I have no reason to distrust you, and for sure you're low on the list of suspects...
On June 15 2010 02:00 meeple wrote: I'm down with RoL more than Vivi57... there's little/no case to be made for/against Vivi since he's so inactive.
On June 15 2010 02:06 meeple wrote: Having said that and then going through his posts... RoL is pretty damn inactive too...
I'll have to think more about which one is more deserving
On June 13 2010 04:07 meeple wrote: I don't agree with lynching Chez on the grounds of inactivity though. If I have some time to go through posts I'll come up with more suspects.
On June 17 2010 08:26 meeple wrote: Ludwig is most definitely the roleblocker... that's the only way he can hold up his claims to be a dt...
Also... Radfield is the last mafia I beleive... too many close inexplicable ties with Ludwig then last minute trying to push away.
I trusted Ludwig because I was being impulsive about his defense of me early on and took a risk (and a rather stupid one)... but when I didn't die I thought that it kinda proved that he wasn't red... since who wouldn't take a lovely medic dangled in front of you like that. I didn't really trust Radfield... was kinda forced into it by Ludwig...
Anyways... tommorow's lynch of radfield should clinch the game for us...
Meeple states his trust, states who to rolecheck, agrees/disagrees on lynching certain targets, and gives more input on the situation with the last quote. Notice how he consistently doesn't like lynching on inactivity. Notice how that contrasts with this game, where he wants to lynch BC based on uselessness/inactivity...
Lastly,
On June 16 2010 11:28 meeple wrote:Alright so... first things first... I'm the medic... The mafia knows it by know and so should the town. Obviously I claimed watcher because there was a shitload of greens and it was simply more believable. I had been in PM contact with Ludwig a little and later claimed medic to him since he had defended me in the thread... through him I also had PM contact with Radfield, who also knew me as the medic (through Ludwig... not my decision to tell him) Now... not too long after I claimed to be watcher and had "found" the medic, Foolishness PMs me wondering why I hadn't contacted him yet and claims watcher and tells me (to prove that he's a watcher) that tree.hugger also visited Ludwig last night. Of course, I couldn't have known that, but regardless I was just so fucking elated that we had a medic/watcher pair, since now we can coordinate. Things proceed, now with me thinking I had a solid base with a watcher by my side... until I get a PM from L, asking me if Foolishness is the medic... I respond somewhat vaguely, but give him a strong indication that Foolishness is indeed the medic... knowing that if they went after him I could always protect him. Then L flips Godfather and the shit hits the fan and I knew that L would've told the rest of the reds to go after Foolishness. So tonight we schemed... I protected Foolishness, and he watched himself to see who hit him. AND IT WAS MOTHER FUCKING + Show Spoiler +The same friggin dude that I had supported and backed like a moron... Anyways... we lynch him today and we're down to 1 red...
meeple was involved in a blue roles scheme. I know we don't have as complex blue roles this game, but meeple was certainly contributing in the other game. On the other hand, meeple has zero useful contributions this game. And no thoughts on lynch targets either. Except for team 6.
|
Pandain/BrownBear have been completely inactive today. What is up?
Also RoL please vote!
|
On September 24 2010 19:22 meeple wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 18:50 Incognito wrote: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. Simple. You think Team 6 is the most scummy team that isn't you or your scumbuddy. You have every incentive as mafia to go after a new team (Team 6), especially since the other option (Team 1) isn't so palatable from your point of view. Team 6 is pretty inactive, and you're going to have to save yourself somehow, so no reason not to vote Team 6. There are plenty of reasons to be suspicious of Team 6. The reasons just arent as good as the reasons for you or Team 1. I'll agree that a lot of Foolishness's "analysis" is sketchy and is a stretch. But there are some good points there. To all those saying Meeple never takes any stands, check out ALL of meeple's posts in TL Mafia XXVII. Not just the first 10 or so. He definitely contributes his thoughts about lynch targets/other characters. Here's a few excerpts: On June 15 2010 11:23 meeple wrote: I trust Ludwig with almost no doubts... much more than moocow... and I trust them both more than some other people.
There's a slight chance of there being mafia amongst our dts... but like radfield said, its questionable whether this is a good time to start offing claimed blues.
flamewheel's willingness to undergo a check makes me hesitate to push a check on him... but it doesn't put him in the clear obviously. I would try for a redtooth alignment check tonight... or Chez... On June 15 2010 11:33 meeple wrote: Ludwig has been active... but he's just active at a different time... totally offset from North American time.
I never said you were suspicious... I just said that I trust Ludwig... mostly because if he was mafia there's no way he would've stepped in before. His trusting of L isn't suspicious, tons of people followed L's plan...
His reactions when Chez was shooting people was genuine I felt... he was just confused, as was I, at what the hell was going on.
I have no reason to distrust you, and for sure you're low on the list of suspects... On June 15 2010 02:00 meeple wrote: I'm down with RoL more than Vivi57... there's little/no case to be made for/against Vivi since he's so inactive. On June 15 2010 02:06 meeple wrote: Having said that and then going through his posts... RoL is pretty damn inactive too...
I'll have to think more about which one is more deserving On June 13 2010 04:07 meeple wrote: I don't agree with lynching Chez on the grounds of inactivity though. If I have some time to go through posts I'll come up with more suspects. On June 17 2010 08:26 meeple wrote: Ludwig is most definitely the roleblocker... that's the only way he can hold up his claims to be a dt...
Also... Radfield is the last mafia I beleive... too many close inexplicable ties with Ludwig then last minute trying to push away.
I trusted Ludwig because I was being impulsive about his defense of me early on and took a risk (and a rather stupid one)... but when I didn't die I thought that it kinda proved that he wasn't red... since who wouldn't take a lovely medic dangled in front of you like that. I didn't really trust Radfield... was kinda forced into it by Ludwig...
Anyways... tommorow's lynch of radfield should clinch the game for us... Meeple states his trust, states who to rolecheck, agrees/disagrees on lynching certain targets, and gives more input on the situation with the last quote. Notice how he consistently doesn't like lynching on inactivity. Notice how that contrasts with this game, where he wants to lynch BC based on uselessness/inactivity... Lastly, On June 16 2010 11:28 meeple wrote:Alright so... first things first... I'm the medic... The mafia knows it by know and so should the town. Obviously I claimed watcher because there was a shitload of greens and it was simply more believable. I had been in PM contact with Ludwig a little and later claimed medic to him since he had defended me in the thread... through him I also had PM contact with Radfield, who also knew me as the medic (through Ludwig... not my decision to tell him) Now... not too long after I claimed to be watcher and had "found" the medic, Foolishness PMs me wondering why I hadn't contacted him yet and claims watcher and tells me (to prove that he's a watcher) that tree.hugger also visited Ludwig last night. Of course, I couldn't have known that, but regardless I was just so fucking elated that we had a medic/watcher pair, since now we can coordinate. Things proceed, now with me thinking I had a solid base with a watcher by my side... until I get a PM from L, asking me if Foolishness is the medic... I respond somewhat vaguely, but give him a strong indication that Foolishness is indeed the medic... knowing that if they went after him I could always protect him. Then L flips Godfather and the shit hits the fan and I knew that L would've told the rest of the reds to go after Foolishness. So tonight we schemed... I protected Foolishness, and he watched himself to see who hit him. AND IT WAS MOTHER FUCKING + Show Spoiler +The same friggin dude that I had supported and backed like a moron... Anyways... we lynch him today and we're down to 1 red... meeple was involved in a blue roles scheme. I know we don't have as complex blue roles this game, but meeple was certainly contributing in the other game. On the other hand, meeple has zero useful contributions this game. And no thoughts on lynch targets either. Except for team 6. That was an awesome game... but taken out of context you can't say that I need to act the same every game. Behavioral analysis can only go so far... I was a power role then, and as such I acted differently from when I'm a townie, as in this game. I haven't taken stands because as far as I'm concerned there's no stands to take... I haven't been really confident yet... although one is starting to develop. You seem to have developed quite the following... when you cast a vote you have a couple buddies that nod along and sheep with you. Are you confident enough in your analysis to say that you should be next when we flip green?
Apparently you underestimate or misunderstand behavior analysis.
There are plenty of stands to take. The only problem is, you just say "we need to do this" while not doing it. The other stands you probably don't want to take. Notice your partner ditching you here and going off to vote Team 1 again. That's the second switchup from Team 6 to Team 1 in two days.
Oh, poor you. Haven't been confident yet. But you're starting to develop it? Well show me, because I don't see it.
Whether town or mafia, good mafia players are able to influence people to their point of view. No matter how good an analyst you are, you aren't going to get anywhere if you can't convince anyone.
That last question is irrelevant. If you lynched Ace for pegging both of your teams, you'd kill an innocent. Being wrong doesn't say anything about alignment. You should be lynching scummy people, not people who get innocents killed. Of course, getting an innocent killed is definitely grounds for investigation. By all means, I'll encourage people to analyze my votes if you flip green. I just don't think they'll find anything that scummy about me though.
Judging by your vote for Team 6 and your lack of hostility against me, I'm going to guess you don't think I'm that scummy. If you're green, you might as well do an analysis on me before you die.
|
I have stated that I will keep an eye out if Divinek starts to bandwagon. Guess what? He did.
Of course, you're not at all concerned about your bandwagoning...
I can't really tell about the BC thing, I'll take Pyrr's word on it. But I've heard that he is a a really good player and it is really strange why he wouldn't be doing much.
Divinek's reasons for voting Team 7 are wayyyyy better than your reasons for voting Team 6. Just because you use more words than him doesn't mean your words have more substance and thought behind them.
Apparently Pandain didn't read my post here.
Voting Team 1 is almost the same (not exactly, but close enough) as voting Team 7. But the way its going now I'm sticking to Team 7. We'll know in a bit whether to lynch Team 1 or look elsewhere.
|
On September 25 2010 06:08 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 17:10 Incognito wrote: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. You ignored the second half of the sentence.
You ignored the connecting part of the sentence.
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.
The first part of the sentence is a fact. The second part after "which shows" states Ace's concern. Ace pegged your teams. He's just worried because he doesn't think highly of me, so he's alarmed that I came to the same conclusions as him. Since he doesn't really think I'm a good player, he's wondering whether we're both wrong and I'm just misleading him/everyone and picking off easy townies.
I thought people were taught how to read in school. Apparently not. I guess I'll forgive you for selectively reading if you're mafia. If not, we'll probably need a how to read guide for TL mafia. Really, its that embarrassing.
|
Dang I'm good at being pro-mafia. I'm too disheartened to defend myself, so go ahead and lynch me. I will still be voting for Team 1, although nobody is in the clear at this point. This is our last chance to lynch a mafia, and nobody's really done a good job at looking pro-town at this point.
|
|
|
Its pretty sad I guessed wrong both times.
Night 1 it was between Ace and our team, tonight it was between Pandain/BB and Team 2. Guessed wrong both times and someone died. Actually my fault, since there were slightly more interesting reasons to protect both Ace + Pandain/BB. Not thinking T_T
|
Think I'm trying to psych you out, don't you...
|
Lololololol really? Mafia giving themselves away so quickly at this point in time is so unnecessary that its puzzling.
I was gonna vote Team 1 instead of Team 6, since I'd rather lynch on some substance than pure inactivity, but there's a medic counterclaim. I know that's a lie obviously. And if you compare my posting to RoL's posting, it's clear who's scum here. I have pretty much been the driving force behind this game. Without me town has little to no information. There's no incentive for me to be this aggressive in a game where mafia can sit back and let the town rot. I've posted the most this game. My analysis showed the most dedication to the game out of everyone. As mafia it would have been so easy for me to agree with everyone and say we need more information and complain about the lack of information while providing none myself. Instead, I took a stand and attempted to lead the town when nobody was willing to take that job. Yes, its true that I was wrong on the last lynch. But every townie is going to be wrong at some point. Mislynching (once) doesn't make me automafia. And one person's vote doesn't make a lynch.
RoL and BC, on the other hand, have been inactive the whole game. There is nothing pro-town that has redeeming value for Team 6. RoL's "analysis" just mimics whatever was already said. BC has been almost completely inactive the entire game. RoL claims he self protected twice in a row (rofl?) which makes almost no sense. RoL's medic claim doesn't fit. Its extremely scummy.
Originally, I was going to post to switch my vote to Team 1, since I'd prefer to lynch someone concretely scummy as opposed to just an inactive, but that counterclaim does it for me. To me, its a 100% red. No reason to save a fake claiming lurker medic.
***
There is no "sudden" switch to Team 7. I pointed out Team 7 midway through day 1, and I also switched votes to Team 7 before the deadline on day 1. I've been suspicious of Team 7 almost from the beginning of this game. Why did I switch to Team 7? On day 1, Foolishness said he wasn't sold on Team 1, but would gladly lynch Team 7. Since I was confident that they both were mafia, I gladly switched to Team 7 if it meant something would get done. Given my link between Team 1 and Team 7, I figured Team 1 == Team 7 in terms of which one to lynch. Nothing suspicious about a lynch I supported from half a day prior.
I did not apologize profusely. A post expressing discouragement is not a scum tell. If you said it is a psychological tool, I could agree, but this definitely says nothing either way. If you're the only person who is actively trying to help the town win and you've invested so much time into the game then you find out you're wrong, its a big blow. As for the medic claim, it was a sort of end game comments before the game ends sort of thing. Really, I'm sad I got it down to two prots both nights and missed on both. My recent string of posts doesn't really say anything about my alignment. I really didn't expect someone to come out and counterclaim me. I expected it to be the end and that I'd just follow the hand motions until the end of the day where we lost.
Like I said before, analyze me all you want. You won't find anything scummy about me. Both of our track records speak for themselves. Your medic claim is coming straight out of the blue.
Think about the medic prots from my point of view. Day 1. I'm obviously not protecting teams 1/7. Nobody wants to kill Team 2 or 6 because they're inactive. Foolishness is acting a bit weird and not contributing too much. Pandain/BB don't really make an impression. Its down to Ace/me. If I die, the thread is pretty much dead, so I figure theres much more to lose if I die. Team 6's claim of self-prot isn't really all that pro-town. All this self-protting to protect the only 100% townie is BS. There's no reason why mafia want to kill team 6. They've done nothing and come under suspicion from Team 1/7. No incentive for the mafia to kill them. Self-prot doesn't make sense here.
Day 2. Two dead townies. From my point of view, this means nobody is in the clear. I still suspected Team 1, and started to get some weird vibes from Team 3. Look back at my posts to see that I was a bit surprised at Foolishness's relatively weak analysis of meeple. Given that Day 1 Foolishness would agree to lynch team 7 but not Team 1, I was beginning to worry that it was a ploy to divert attention off Team 1. Team 6 is still suspicious and isn't going to draw any mafia hits. Mafia really doesn't have to kill me, as given the nature of towns, its easy to get the head of a mislynch lynched. So its between Team 2 and 5. At this point, the clear choice for hit should be team 5. I would've protted them if I had read their posts thoroughly, but was disconcerted by their lack of posting by the time I had pointed it out previous to the end of the lynch. By this time, I was already quitting on the game, so in haste I picked team 2.
I'd like Team 6 to explain their choices for medic prots. I really don't think anyone would have cared if an inactive scummy medic team who was under suspicion died. I also don't think any mafia would have cared to hit them. Maybe you're just selfish, but this reeks of scummy play. Nothing pro-town about that at all.
From my point of view, I have pretty solid medic prot choices. A little off, but a lot better than what Team 6 claims to have done.
***
Something is interesting here. Foolishness accuses me as mafia halfway through the game, makes another posts where he accuses me of being mafia using a bunch of words starting with "i", and says he's going to push for my lynch if meeple flips green. But he hasn't done it yet. If he were mafia, it would be relatively easy to push my lynch right now. But it isn't happening.
***
Looking back, there's no reason for Foolishness to divert attention from Team 1 to Team 7. We know that one of RoL/me is mafia. If Foolishness is mafia, Team 1/7 are innocent. Foolishness as mafia has no reason to want Team 7 lynched instead of team 1, given that I had posted a lot of analysis on Team 1 and none on Team 7 (just a call out). No reason for him to go out of his way to support the lynch of a player with no analysis yet when Team 1 was a fine option. The only reason that is plausible is that Foolishness is town and genuinely thought Team 7 to be more scummy than Team 1 based on his own analysis. Foolishness is Town. Its down to Team 1/2/6.
|
Oops I guess I forgot
[Vote]Team 6
|
I'm not entirely sold on Team 2 being mafia. I've made many enemies this game, such as Team 1 and Team 7. And now Team 6. As it stands right now, Team 1/6 are voting for me in (almost) full force.
The Team 2 thing makes sense given they're also inactive in a game where mafia doesn't need to be active. However, I'm not sure Team 1's vote accusing is the be all end all because no lynch was the dominant option on day 1.
Really, if Team 2 is mafia, the game is already over. Its split between Team 6/8 2 teams and 2 teams. Team 2 is the deciding vote, so if they're mafia, why haven't they wagonned me yet?
|
|
|
|