|
On October 06 2010 05:27 Pandain wrote:
I don't count Cynan as inactive and Nobody should vote for him because his actions thus far are in accordance with his previous play. That's not to say I'm not watching him(I am) but he's not that suspicious to me.
Whoa whoa... weird defense of cynan... the votes against him were just to bump him back into posting... which he did, so those should eventually fade away to other, more suitable targets. However, he's definitely not in enough danger for another townie to worry about him getting the chop. This makes a lot more sense if you're an anxious red protecting your buddy...
|
It's a hard choice for me, because there's so many layers meaning (if unclear read the Old Man and the Sea) behind every post. However, you, Mr. Kingjames seem to be trying a little too hard in my eyes to already single out a target and to shift blame elsewhere. I'm a little more skeptical of people who post a lot of accusative posts as opposed to just general conversation.
|
On October 06 2010 05:28 Divinek wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 05:04 SouthRawrea wrote:
At this point in time I would have to say that NuketheBunny's current strategy is pretty blatant and although I don't completely agree with how he's going about doing it, I would have to say I would like to get the more experience inactives to say something. I'm seeing some of the newer players being earnest in their attempt to play (ex: kingjames01) and this is a good sign. As they are much newer I wouldn't expect them to contribute as much.
We're only 3 pages into this game so far however and although I believe we're jumping the gun on the entire: lynch inactives. We are left with the problem of only 11 hours left in this game and plenty of inactives though so if we must come to an accord quickly for our lynch. Random Lynch is a good option in this game as we have many newer players which also explains the high number of inactives.
Oh god I'm terribly sorry about how unorganized this post is, I'm brain dead at the moment. :/
What I mean to say is that this day is short, we have lots of new players who are inactive, we should random lynch because many players haven't been given a proper chance to post as of yet. you're resorting to random voting with 6 hours left in the day? -_-;;;;;;;; cord worm i dont understand the system you're proposing, should everyone roll a random number? that'd be retarded, should everyone do it and then the person who gets the most similar RNGS be lynched? that's also bad because mafia can manipulate that. Even trying to scum hunt on very little information is alot better than being able to vote WITHOUT having to justify it, this is the way a scum would want to vote. we get NOTHING from today if everyone just RNG's their vote. But if you have to justify what you're doing (all be it most people would be like ' he's inactive lols' ) it gives you something to go off of, something to compare to future instances, some SUBSTANCE. If people are making small shitty posts to justify their votes, and then not removing them when the person is like HEY GUYS im here, and we should do this this and this. Then they look bad. But if they do this with your system you can just go LOL SRY I RNG'D. Or are you gonna re rng everytime someone speaks up? -___- it's a terrible system I know your play from many games south so i wont try to go too insane from one little thing like this but cmon man.
That's not how RNG works usually. A couple people will RNG rolls and the town will bandwagon  . Derp. Sorry my head wasn't all there when I was typing up that post.
|
On October 06 2010 05:04 SouthRawrea wrote:
At this point in time I would have to say that NuketheBunny's current strategy is pretty blatant and although I don't completely agree with how he's going about doing it, I would have to say I would like to get the more experience inactives to say something. I'm seeing some of the newer players being earnest in their attempt to play (ex: kingjames01) and this is a good sign. As they are much newer I wouldn't expect them to contribute as much.
We're only 3 pages into this game so far however and although I believe we're jumping the gun on the entire: lynch inactives. We are left with the problem of only 11 hours left in this game and plenty of inactives though so if we must come to an accord quickly for our lynch. Random Lynch is a good option in this game as we have many newer players which also explains the high number of inactives.
Oh god I'm terribly sorry about how unorganized this post is, I'm brain dead at the moment. :/
What I mean to say is that this day is short, we have lots of new players who are inactive, we should random lynch because many players haven't been given a proper chance to post as of yet.
Random lynching is almost never good... read my previous post about how voting inactive is far superior...
Past that... I'm going for cynanmachae because I got a lot of funny twinges from reading Pandains post. Besides the possible red link, where if Cynanmachae turns up red, Pandain should also... if Pandain turns out to be green, it "might" say good things about Pandain, since the likelihood of scum sticking up for a green in those circumstances is pretty small...
|
Mmmm tough situation right now. While in this situation I would love to just RNG between the inactives, if everyone does that it gives too much room for mafia to manipulate that and get an inactive townie lynched instead. So one of my goals of pushing this "inactives to be lynched" concept is that we can also start to see whos posts because they realize they need to post more, and who posts just to get enough without really contributing anything. That leaves Dr. H and Infun, and unfortunately I can't really access H's posts from previous games to decide upon him.
But Infun has only made this post, and it really adds no content of his own, while he "seems" to be contributing with roughly 2 decent paragraphs.
Here's the post:
On October 05 2010 04:39 Infundibulum wrote:You are correct, Element 91. But Amber is also right that there are ways for the detective to push lynches on reds he checks, without role-claiming. If you are a detective I suggest you get creative; only roleclaim if you feel it is necessary. If you are a detective, you should probably read this page (if you haven't already) just to get an idea of the ways in which other people (namely mafias and medics) will be trying to find you in the thread: http://mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=JEEP's_Tells_for_Finding_the_CopI think that's a pretty good comprehensive guide, but if there's any problems in it hopefully a more experienced player can point them out.
|
I'm not really convinced that Cynanmachae might be mafia but since he has a tenuous connection to Pandain, at least we'd get some information from his lynching.
I'm actually a bit torn between voting for Cynanmachae or one of the completely inactive players such as JeeJee. I think I'm gonna wait on this a bit. We need to be careful not to jump into big accusations this early, nothing good ever comes of it.
|
On October 06 2010 05:40 meeple wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 05:27 Pandain wrote:
I don't count Cynan as inactive and Nobody should vote for him because his actions thus far are in accordance with his previous play. That's not to say I'm not watching him(I am) but he's not that suspicious to me.
Whoa whoa... weird defense of cynan... the votes against him were just to bump him back into posting... which he did, so those should eventually fade away to other, more suitable targets. However, he's definitely not in enough danger for another townie to worry about him getting the chop. This makes a lot more sense if you're an anxious red protecting your buddy...
o.O
Forgive me then, I was under the (I now see) false impression that while the first vote was just to get him talking that the second post was either a quick bandwagon(doubt it thought) or more likely a townie who's just confused. I was worried that he might get bandwagoned just because we really don't have that many good choices. Rereading, its clear to me they were for that purpose.
However, I should point out that I did not say Cynan was innocent, rather that we don't have enough evidence to lynch him.
|
On October 06 2010 05:56 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 05:40 meeple wrote:On October 06 2010 05:27 Pandain wrote:
I don't count Cynan as inactive and Nobody should vote for him because his actions thus far are in accordance with his previous play. That's not to say I'm not watching him(I am) but he's not that suspicious to me.
Whoa whoa... weird defense of cynan... the votes against him were just to bump him back into posting... which he did, so those should eventually fade away to other, more suitable targets. However, he's definitely not in enough danger for another townie to worry about him getting the chop. This makes a lot more sense if you're an anxious red protecting your buddy... o.O Forgive me then, I was under the (I now see) false impression that while the first vote was just to get him talking that the second post was either a quick bandwagon(doubt it thought) or more likely a townie who's just confused. I was worried that he might get bandwagoned just because we really don't have that many good choices. Rereading, its clear to me they were for that purpose. However, I should point out that I did not say Cynan was innocent, rather that we don't have enough evidence to lynch him.
To be fair, we don't have enough "evidence" to lynch anybody really.
|
On October 06 2010 05:59 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 05:56 Pandain wrote:On October 06 2010 05:40 meeple wrote:On October 06 2010 05:27 Pandain wrote:
I don't count Cynan as inactive and Nobody should vote for him because his actions thus far are in accordance with his previous play. That's not to say I'm not watching him(I am) but he's not that suspicious to me.
Whoa whoa... weird defense of cynan... the votes against him were just to bump him back into posting... which he did, so those should eventually fade away to other, more suitable targets. However, he's definitely not in enough danger for another townie to worry about him getting the chop. This makes a lot more sense if you're an anxious red protecting your buddy... o.O Forgive me then, I was under the (I now see) false impression that while the first vote was just to get him talking that the second post was either a quick bandwagon(doubt it thought) or more likely a townie who's just confused. I was worried that he might get bandwagoned just because we really don't have that many good choices. Rereading, its clear to me they were for that purpose. However, I should point out that I did not say Cynan was innocent, rather that we don't have enough evidence to lynch him. To be fair, we don't have enough "evidence" to lynch anybody really.
That's the thing. Really the only person who still wouldn't have posted yet is either
1.Inactive Mafia
2.Inactive Townie.
3.Person who's going to post soon
I honestly expect at least 2, if not 3 modkills, and don't want to waste my vote on a modkill. So I've looked over the thread, and decided to pick the most suscipcious out of everyone who's posted. Infun is a decent if not good player, I would expect more out of him.
But your right, we really don't have any evidence(which is probably the main reason day 1 lynches are almost always off). But this is the most likely in my opinion.
Even though this might make me look more "suspicious"(and might get me lynched if he is mafia), we should not lynch Cynan. this is why I defended him. I don't want him to get bandwagoned. At least he's posted a bit, and while it may suggest info of my alignment based on his result, its definitely not certain.
|
On October 06 2010 05:42 drag_ wrote:
It's a hard choice for me, because there's so many layers meaning (if unclear read the Old Man and the Sea) behind every post. However, you, Mr. Kingjames seem to be trying a little too hard in my eyes to already single out a target and to shift blame elsewhere. I'm a little more skeptical of people who post a lot of accusative posts as opposed to just general conversation.
No, that's totally valid. However, I'm trying to play the game as best as I can with the little bit of information that has been revealed. Until I have more information, I think I will go with what I've got. Even if I'm wrong with what I'm saying, it invites a response so that we can learn more about what players are thinking, just like how it incited you to respond.
What I DO find interesting, however, is that you have only posted once previous to this message. Then, with this post you claim that you apparently don't like it when people try a "little too hard ... to already single out a target and to shift blame elsewhere [and are] skeptical of people who post a lot of accusative posts as opposed to just general conversation."
You came out of hiding just to point fingers and divert attention. Are you taking this game seriously enough to find a good reason to survive and win? If you are, then seriously consider what I have to say. If you can find a glaring logical error then say so. Don't insinuate with your slimy words just before the first vote and then disappear.
|
1. JeeJee
2. bumatlarge
3. Bill Murray
10.SINiquity
11.XeliN
12.kane]deth[
15.infinitestory
16.cSc
Here is the updated list of inactives. The only difference is Cynan and drag_ have been removed. cSc is still on tehre because while he has posted, it didn't really have enough content for anyone to get any sort of read off of.
Im not quite sure how to take Pandain's defense of Cynan. He is clearly a quite experienced player, and he does have a point that there is very little evidence condemning Cynan. At the same time we have a link between two players and that is the most information we really have at this point, so voting for one of them could help clear/incriminate the other. I have not decided, but there are clear merits for voting for Pandain or Cynan and as of yet I have yet to see any more compelling reasons to vote for anyone else.
|
Due to school, I can really only post around this time.
Just making a post to indicate my activeness, will edit or post again later with thoughts after reading the thread.
Edit: So I'm not sure what content I must post to be not lynched so I suppose I'll just give my opinion on the RNGing lynching of inactives. I think it'll be a good idea as long as we're not lynching any modkills for obvious reasons. I personally don't contribute much and might be considered inactive, but thats because of my inexperience. >: So I think that at least pressuring people to post more is a good idea.
|
On October 06 2010 06:05 kingjames01 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 05:42 drag_ wrote:
It's a hard choice for me, because there's so many layers meaning (if unclear read the Old Man and the Sea) behind every post. However, you, Mr. Kingjames seem to be trying a little too hard in my eyes to already single out a target and to shift blame elsewhere. I'm a little more skeptical of people who post a lot of accusative posts as opposed to just general conversation. No, that's totally valid. However, I'm trying to play the game as best as I can with the little bit of information that has been revealed. Until I have more information, I think I will go with what I've got. Even if I'm wrong with what I'm saying, it invites a response so that we can learn more about what players are thinking, just like how it incited you to respond. What I DO find interesting, however, is that you have only posted once previous to this message. Then, with this post you claim that you apparently don't like it when people try a "little too hard ... to already single out a target and to shift blame elsewhere [and are] skeptical of people who post a lot of accusative posts as opposed to just general conversation." You came out of hiding just to point fingers and divert attention. Are you taking this game seriously enough to find a good reason to survive and win? If you are, then seriously consider what I have to say. If you can find a glaring logical error then say so. Don't insinuate with your slimy words just before the first vote and then disappear.
This just furthers my point about you. You act as if my post was all part of your multiple phase plan, before completely changing the subject to you accusing me of lying in wait and singling you out with my 'slimy words'. Once again another clear shift of blame from yourself towards me and another accusative post.
|
On October 06 2010 06:25 kane]deth[ wrote:
Due to school, I can really only post around this time.
Just making a post to indicate my activeness, will edit or post again later with thoughts after reading the thread.
Just saw this and wanted to make sure you DON'T EDIT your post. Just make a new post. Welcome to the game! =)
|
On October 06 2010 06:26 drag_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 06:05 kingjames01 wrote:On October 06 2010 05:42 drag_ wrote:
It's a hard choice for me, because there's so many layers meaning (if unclear read the Old Man and the Sea) behind every post. However, you, Mr. Kingjames seem to be trying a little too hard in my eyes to already single out a target and to shift blame elsewhere. I'm a little more skeptical of people who post a lot of accusative posts as opposed to just general conversation. No, that's totally valid. However, I'm trying to play the game as best as I can with the little bit of information that has been revealed. Until I have more information, I think I will go with what I've got. Even if I'm wrong with what I'm saying, it invites a response so that we can learn more about what players are thinking, just like how it incited you to respond. What I DO find interesting, however, is that you have only posted once previous to this message. Then, with this post you claim that you apparently don't like it when people try a "little too hard ... to already single out a target and to shift blame elsewhere [and are] skeptical of people who post a lot of accusative posts as opposed to just general conversation." You came out of hiding just to point fingers and divert attention. Are you taking this game seriously enough to find a good reason to survive and win? If you are, then seriously consider what I have to say. If you can find a glaring logical error then say so. Don't insinuate with your slimy words just before the first vote and then disappear. This just furthers my point about you. You act as if my post was all part of your multiple phase plan, before completely changing the subject to you accusing me of lying in wait and singling you out with my 'slimy words'. Once again another clear shift of blame from yourself towards me and another accusative post.
This is a strong point. I don't really understand why you're being so aggressive kingjames especially this early in the game when we don't really have anything solid pointing to anyone being red or not. Our big goal with this day 1 lynch is to gain information on player connections while avoiding lynching a blue.
It's easy to overanalyze and assure yourself someone is mafia based on their posting this early but 99 times out of 100 it ends up NOT being the case.
|
On October 06 2010 06:31 kingjames01 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 06:25 kane]deth[ wrote:
Due to school, I can really only post around this time.
Just making a post to indicate my activeness, will edit or post again later with thoughts after reading the thread. Just saw this and wanted to make sure you DON'T EDIT your post. Just make a new post. Welcome to the game! =)
And I've just made a huge mistake >:
|
Personally, I don't see anything wrong about accusing on day 1. We all know that its really hard to find ev against people onday 1, but accusing generates responses, which is good.
|
On October 06 2010 06:26 drag_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 06:05 kingjames01 wrote:On October 06 2010 05:42 drag_ wrote:
It's a hard choice for me, because there's so many layers meaning (if unclear read the Old Man and the Sea) behind every post. However, you, Mr. Kingjames seem to be trying a little too hard in my eyes to already single out a target and to shift blame elsewhere. I'm a little more skeptical of people who post a lot of accusative posts as opposed to just general conversation. No, that's totally valid. However, I'm trying to play the game as best as I can with the little bit of information that has been revealed. Until I have more information, I think I will go with what I've got. Even if I'm wrong with what I'm saying, it invites a response so that we can learn more about what players are thinking, just like how it incited you to respond. What I DO find interesting, however, is that you have only posted once previous to this message. Then, with this post you claim that you apparently don't like it when people try a "little too hard ... to already single out a target and to shift blame elsewhere [and are] skeptical of people who post a lot of accusative posts as opposed to just general conversation." You came out of hiding just to point fingers and divert attention. Are you taking this game seriously enough to find a good reason to survive and win? If you are, then seriously consider what I have to say. If you can find a glaring logical error then say so. Don't insinuate with your slimy words just before the first vote and then disappear. This just furthers my point about you. You act as if my post was all part of your multiple phase plan, before completely changing the subject to you accusing me of lying in wait and singling you out with my 'slimy words'. Once again another clear shift of blame from yourself towards me and another accusative post.
actually, actively singling out people and trying to beat them into the ground invokes quite a strong defense from the person who is being attacked, which is exactly what we need. Though I don't really like the shove it down your throat approach this early in the game, I see little wrong with taking the spot light to try and get people like you to do nothing but fan flames.
The only issue that arises from this type of play is convincing yourself too easily that the person is mafia and then trying to make connections where there aren't really any. More so the idea is to place a FoS on the person and follow up the crusade in following days when more evidence has proven itself useful.
Trying to hard is much much better than not trying enough. Because if someone is red and they're putting out alot of content we'll know it. But if someone like you is posting only once they see a chance to put light on someone, it makes it alot harder to analyze their thought process and go through and see their goals as anything other than fanning ala flames.
I don't think you're acting poorly yet, but keep an open mind that just taking jabs at people for stuff like this is extremely weak, however it is fine day one as it does, just like scum hunting invoke a response BUT it is worse because while the person you're attacking generates content, you yourself really arent. Oh my god that sentence had wayy too many commas.
|
On October 06 2010 06:45 kane]deth[ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 06:31 kingjames01 wrote:On October 06 2010 06:25 kane]deth[ wrote:
Due to school, I can really only post around this time.
Just making a post to indicate my activeness, will edit or post again later with thoughts after reading the thread. Just saw this and wanted to make sure you DON'T EDIT your post. Just make a new post. Welcome to the game! =) And I've just made a huge mistake >:
One mistake is ok, don't let it happen again though :D
This should serve as a reminder to EVERYONE though: The only people editing posts in this thread should be me and Artanis. So, this will be the only edit I let slide, next one will be a warning followed by a modkill.
|
Hmm, Pandain's connection to Cynan is really interesting, but I doubt they would both be mafia. I doubt mafia would defend another member so heavily in the beginning because then it just makes the connection easier. The weird thing, though, is how that connection got established in the first place.
I also agree with drag_ that kingjames is being a bit overaggressive. It's still early in the game. I believe it's too early for accusations... but that also makes it hard for me to decide who to vote. >_<
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
