|
On December 08 2010 12:27 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
ok if i got a result like this:
ace team rocket
ver team rocket
bloodycobbler team rocket
fishball team rocket
amber team rocket
kingjames team rocket
obviously that's no fair
no point in analysing it really. sometimes i want to see specific people be certain roles before the game starts and there is no way anyone could really predict that
Lol, if they are playing, count me in.
If not, still count me in.
/in
|
Hey, sorry for the inactivity, I was avoiding TL so I wouldn't be spoiled on the Jinro Ro4 game, and didn't see the "starting" PM till now. Perfect timing. Reading up now. (Also, wow. 10 pages?)
|
Spam in spoiler.
+ Show Spoiler +BROWN BEAR! I never even got to play with you in Salem! But I'm super excited for no reason anyways! WOO HOO!
|
Alright, so here’s my first offering. LSB has said that analysis is the key to us winning this thing, and so I figured I’d start with an analysis of him. Here’s my analysis of each of his 25 or so posts:
On December 10 2010 07:37 LSB wrote:All right, in many games there was an uneventful first day. Lets not make this one of those games. A few things to talk about: - Should we lynch an inactive day one? Assuming of course, there is no good alternative
- Plans for the roles
I'll offer my opinions in the next post, but I want to keep this post clean
This looks pro-town right off the bat. He’s trying to get the town to talk about stuff. Good for analysis. However, he suggests that we talk about lynching inactives. Inactives are the one source of nothingness that we can’t analyse! The only discussion that this will bring up is arguing within the town, something that will make it hard for real analysis to be done! Point and case: what has the majority of the posting focused on so far? Lynching inactives.
On December 10 2010 07:43 LSB wrote:I'll just use posts made before Inactives:Show nested quote +A big problem in every mafia game is inactivity. I don't want another drag_ being able to squeak by with barely any posts. We should immediately show it is not okay to be inactive.
Inactive players hurt the town as they waste lynches down the road as the town will need to try to separate the mafia from the inactives.
We should therefore lynch an inactive day one. This will force the assassins to discuss and not be able to turtle, increasing the chance they will slip up. PlanFirstly. DO NOT CLAIM DO NOT CLAIM Good now that we got that out of the way, some other ideas. One plan that would work is to use the blue roles to promote activity in the town. The Alakazam should check the inactive people and the lurkers, as it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between a bored townie and a lurking mafia. The Chansey's should protect active players, this way the mafia won't be able to take out the people who are contributing the most to town, so people won't be scared of trying to put forth their opinions.
Lol. YES. DO NOT CLAIM. Having taken part in Salem, I cannot agree more. Here he starts suggesting that the blues start checking the inactives. A bad plan unless you are mafia, imo. The way the town wins is by analysis, and the people in the way of that are not the inactive mafia players, they are the actives mafia spamming the forum, stirring up arguments!
On December 10 2010 07:48 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 07:42 Oceanic wrote:
Doesn't it say in 1 of the guides posted that lynching an inactive day 1 is not something you should do? Although generally lynching an inactive won't net a mafia. (There are a few close exceptions). Inactives hurt the town as in later days as we have to waste lynches trying to separate them from lurking mafia If someone slips up and is scum, yes we should go after them. However, activity is always important
Ok, so we wouldn’t be wasting lynches by sorting through them now? Shouldn’t we be working on lowering the mafia’s KP? (You say this later!) Agreed on the activity thing though.
On December 10 2010 07:56 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 07:47 Kenpachi wrote:
Pikachu - Townie
Raichu - Miller
Chansey - Medic
Cloyster - Veteran
Alakazam - Detective
Electrode - Mad Hatter
Mew - Special Detective
Gengar - God Father
Koffing - Mafia Grunt
Weezing - Mafia Shrink
Mewtwo - 3rd Party Vigilante
notice how our only way of killing at night is Mad Hatter and 3rd party.. 3rd party is technically against us and will probably kill town over mafia due to immunity and their goal is to be last alive. We shouldn't rely on night KP though. Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 07:46 Amber[LighT] wrote:On December 10 2010 07:42 Oceanic wrote:
Doesn't it say in 1 of the guides posted that lynching an inactive day 1 is not something you should do? Lynching an inactive typically results in lynching an apathetic townie. Everyone should be posting frequently to discuss who should die for day 1. There are no PM's so everything should be out in the open. We should really worry less about how the blues should play. Thinks like role checks won't be overly reliable, and saving people cannot be discussed in the thread. It probably would be a good idea for the electrodes to think about where to place voltorbs and pick up on good scum tells. Having a general system for how blues play is pretty important. We need to establish a good town environment where the most pro-town players won't find themselves dead. We need to establish a place where everyone is active. Sure, we could leave everything to RNG, but we could do so much more with the blues.
Agreed on the somewhat obvious point on town’s night KP.
Having a good public system for blues? I agree with Amber here. We should stop focusing on Blues, and focus on Scum.
On December 10 2010 09:40 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 09:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:
Also @LSB: I don't think we should say "we need to lynch inactives". While it may pressure scum to come out from hiding, I have seen it hit town more often than not. I think we need to deal with who is out and talking and giving us things to analyze rather than just blindly shooting into a room with a shotgun. How do you propose we deal with inactives/lurkers then? We can't just 'leave it for another day'. It's going to be a problem, and if we have no good leads day one, we should do this early, rather than late. Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:53 jcarlsoniv wrote:
@LSB: While trying to coordinate blues seems good, I have to say, the more games I play, the more I hate to see people directing blues in thread. On Day 1, I think they need to do what they think needs to be done without influence from the thread. Any direction from the thread can also be seen by scum, and thus they will be clued in as well. No, obviously, I know that the blues don't need to listen to what is said in the thread, but they will be influenced by what is said. Let's hope we have good blues this time around. So your saying that plans are bad? Interesting. Take my plan, what's bad about it?
LSB continues to fan the flames of the argument that is taking up much of the town’s time. More spam leading to more spam leading to less discussion useful analysis.
On December 10 2010 09:49 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 09:43 Oceanic wrote:
Can someone explain how inactives are harmful for the town? I know it's an extra person for the detective to check but isn't it also an extra person scum needs to kill? The scum will just choose to let the inactives live, because inactives don't threaten them. Also a lot of the times, inactive are mafia. For Example: TL Micro Mafia IV: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=161868. Drag_ the mafia makes like 5 posts throughout the whole game and is able to skip out of the public eye. The issue is that it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between inactive mafia and inactive town. Lynching inactives hopefully allows us to not worry about trying to guess between the two.
Uh…that last statement is totally self contradictory. You can’t tell the difference between them, so you don’t have to worry about guessing? How would you not be guessing?
On December 10 2010 09:53 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 09:48 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 09:40 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 09:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:
Also @LSB: I don't think we should say "we need to lynch inactives". While it may pressure scum to come out from hiding, I have seen it hit town more often than not. I think we need to deal with who is out and talking and giving us things to analyze rather than just blindly shooting into a room with a shotgun. How do you propose we deal with inactives/lurkers then? We can't just 'leave it for another day'. It's going to be a problem, and if we have no good leads day one, we should do this early, rather than late. On December 10 2010 08:53 jcarlsoniv wrote:
@LSB: While trying to coordinate blues seems good, I have to say, the more games I play, the more I hate to see people directing blues in thread. On Day 1, I think they need to do what they think needs to be done without influence from the thread. Any direction from the thread can also be seen by scum, and thus they will be clued in as well. No, obviously, I know that the blues don't need to listen to what is said in the thread, but they will be influenced by what is said. Let's hope we have good blues this time around. So your saying that plans are bad? Interesting. Take my plan, what's bad about it? I agree that we should point to inactives if we have no other leads, but I'm saying to not just say "ok, let's find the inactives" right away. We have 48 hours to find candidates for lynch, no reason to dismiss the possibility of finding one right off the bat. I didn't say your plan was bad, seeing as you didn't really post a plan, nor did I say the word "plan" I was merely pointing out my own observations. What you had posted was good, it was vague, and a good general direction. Getting anymore specific than that at this point can be dangerous. On December 10 2010 09:40 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 09:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:
Also @LSB: I don't think we should say "we need to lynch inactives". While it may pressure scum to come out from hiding, I have seen it hit town more often than not. I think we need to deal with who is out and talking and giving us things to analyze rather than just blindly shooting into a room with a shotgun. I rather start the blind shoot into this small room with a shotgun. We are not getting analysis going too far away day one. Picking the right guy at the right time is picking a dead weight at first. How can you possibly say this? The game literally just started, and we have 48 hours to scumhunt. Again, I am going to say, there is no reason to dismiss the idea of finding a lynch candidate Day 1. You must understand. In order to make sure that people are active, we have to decide early that we going to punish people who are inactive. This way, people are going to be warned and hopefully people won't be inactive. Best case scenario we won't have to lynch an inactive person in the first place since everyone will contribute to the town. I notice you avoided discussion on my 'general direction.' Do you support it? Why? Do you now think we should give general directions to blues?
Here he explains a reasoning behind lynching inactives. Still a weak plan imo, but I can accept clarification.
On December 10 2010 10:11 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:02 d3_crescentia wrote:
48 hours is not a long time to find scum. Let's start now.
LSB's blue plan is pretty meh. It's not a good plan of attack for our Zams to check lurkers and inactives; they should be checking people who could be scum, including whoever is contributing the most. Keep in mind that all the mafia needs to do is to distract and confuse the town enough so that they make poor decisions.
Remember, the town's best weapon is analysis. By checking the inactives, we flush out the mafia to the limelight where they easily could be found. We want the mafia to attempt to distract the town, this way we can catch onto what they are doing. The town has to be vigilant to guard against these attempts + Show Spoiler +Discussing a plan is one of the best ways to generate activity and catch a scum btw
BOOM! The man says it himself: Analysis is the key! “But LSB! Where’s this analysis you are so rightly endorsing?” You say the we have to be vigilant to keep people from distracting us? Ironic that this is the post that made me go back a look at you closer. You seem to fit your own description. Huh.
On December 10 2010 10:12 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:06 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 09:40 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 09:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:
Also @LSB: I don't think we should say "we need to lynch inactives". While it may pressure scum to come out from hiding, I have seen it hit town more often than not. I think we need to deal with who is out and talking and giving us things to analyze rather than just blindly shooting into a room with a shotgun. I rather start the blind shoot into this small room with a shotgun. We are not getting analysis going too far away day one. Picking the right guy at the right time is picking a dead weight at first.
How can you possibly say this? The game literally just started, and we have 48 hours to scumhunt. Again, I am going to say, there is no reason to dismiss the idea of finding a lynch candidate Day 1.
Game started long before first day post. Interesting that you still defy chances: mafia takes some time to get in contact. Maybe you want to propose a lynch candidate right now? I actually have one right in front of me. Edit to pretify Btw, in the future, don't edit. Just double post. This way you can reach zealot faster!
On December 10 2010 10:14 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:10 jcarlsoniv wrote:
You want to propose me as a lynch candidate because I am trying to generate discussion instead of being like "Oh yeah, ok, let's just jump on the plan to lynch inactives. See you guys in 2 days." No.
I don't get this.
This was actually just really confusing to me. What don’t you get?
On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:11 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:02 d3_crescentia wrote:
48 hours is not a long time to find scum. Let's start now.
LSB's blue plan is pretty meh. It's not a good plan of attack for our Zams to check lurkers and inactives; they should be checking people who could be scum, including whoever is contributing the most. Keep in mind that all the mafia needs to do is to distract and confuse the town enough so that they make poor decisions.
Remember, the town's best weapon is analysis. By checking the inactives, we flush out the mafia to the limelight where they easily could be found. We want the mafia to attempt to distract the town, this way we can catch onto what they are doing. The town has to be vigilant to guard against these attempts + Show Spoiler +Discussing a plan is one of the best ways to generate activity and catch a scum btw I'd rather we just kill the inactives. I think checking them is a waste. The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check. Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP.
Ha! Weren’t you just saying that we should lynch inactives, even though you have repeatedly said that the chances of hitting a inactive townie are high, and that it is “Difficult if not impossible” to tell the difference between the two?
On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:11 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:02 d3_crescentia wrote:
48 hours is not a long time to find scum. Let's start now.
LSB's blue plan is pretty meh. It's not a good plan of attack for our Zams to check lurkers and inactives; they should be checking people who could be scum, including whoever is contributing the most. Keep in mind that all the mafia needs to do is to distract and confuse the town enough so that they make poor decisions.
Remember, the town's best weapon is analysis. By checking the inactives, we flush out the mafia to the limelight where they easily could be found. We want the mafia to attempt to distract the town, this way we can catch onto what they are doing. The town has to be vigilant to guard against these attempts + Show Spoiler +Discussing a plan is one of the best ways to generate activity and catch a scum btw I'd rather we just kill the inactives. I think checking them is a waste. The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check. Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP. At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives?
Looking to keep the spam argument alive.
On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:11 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:02 d3_crescentia wrote:
48 hours is not a long time to find scum. Let's start now.
LSB's blue plan is pretty meh. It's not a good plan of attack for our Zams to check lurkers and inactives; they should be checking people who could be scum, including whoever is contributing the most. Keep in mind that all the mafia needs to do is to distract and confuse the town enough so that they make poor decisions.
Remember, the town's best weapon is analysis. By checking the inactives, we flush out the mafia to the limelight where they easily could be found. We want the mafia to attempt to distract the town, this way we can catch onto what they are doing. The town has to be vigilant to guard against these attempts + Show Spoiler +Discussing a plan is one of the best ways to generate activity and catch a scum btw I'd rather we just kill the inactives. I think checking them is a waste. The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check. Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP. At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check?
Wait. What? Totally agreed here.
On December 10 2010 10:34 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:31 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:28 tube wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:11 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:02 d3_crescentia wrote:
48 hours is not a long time to find scum. Let's start now.
LSB's blue plan is pretty meh. It's not a good plan of attack for our Zams to check lurkers and inactives; they should be checking people who could be scum, including whoever is contributing the most. Keep in mind that all the mafia needs to do is to distract and confuse the town enough so that they make poor decisions.
Remember, the town's best weapon is analysis. By checking the inactives, we flush out the mafia to the limelight where they easily could be found. We want the mafia to attempt to distract the town, this way we can catch onto what they are doing. The town has to be vigilant to guard against these attempts + Show Spoiler +Discussing a plan is one of the best ways to generate activity and catch a scum btw I'd rather we just kill the inactives. I think checking them is a waste. The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check. Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP. At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? yeah i still think we shouldn't kill them yet like i said, the inactives would be more likely to be the ones who have just started playing, and either ended up not really caring or just not having anything to say due to inexperience or something basically, there are 48+ hours left, if we do decide something about inactives, we should do it later, when more people have had a chance to not simply be labeled "inactive" i don't get how after 33 games of tl mafia somehow we now decide to be going into deep discussion over what should be done about inactives This kind of happens every game. Discussion is always good. That's why I start off every game with suggesting we lynch inactives and (hopefully) a plan
Discussion is only good if is benefits the town. Spamming the forum with tons of discussion on topics that are bound to turn into useless arguments is hurtful to the town. I suppose it lets us find those who are creating the arguments…
On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:11 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:02 d3_crescentia wrote:
48 hours is not a long time to find scum. Let's start now.
LSB's blue plan is pretty meh. It's not a good plan of attack for our Zams to check lurkers and inactives; they should be checking people who could be scum, including whoever is contributing the most. Keep in mind that all the mafia needs to do is to distract and confuse the town enough so that they make poor decisions.
Remember, the town's best weapon is analysis. By checking the inactives, we flush out the mafia to the limelight where they easily could be found. We want the mafia to attempt to distract the town, this way we can catch onto what they are doing. The town has to be vigilant to guard against these attempts + Show Spoiler +Discussing a plan is one of the best ways to generate activity and catch a scum btw I'd rather we just kill the inactives. I think checking them is a waste. The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check. Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP. At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want.
As others have said, this sounds like a waste of a DT check. The active mafia players, the ones stopping meaningful discussion from happening, those are the ones I’d look for.
On December 10 2010 10:47 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:35 Hesmyrr wrote:On December 10 2010 10:25 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:23 Hesmyrr wrote:
Moreover D1 lynches are always crapshoot. It is good and fine to publicly discuss and prod one's suspects, but at least waiting until D2 so one have more actual data to support the case on him/her seems just better. This is a large setup so we cannot just afford to let all the lurkers pass-by. They're always crapshoot because we have players that go about finding scum in a crappy way. I suggest that everyone else vote for you as well. Chances of finding scum D2 > Chances of finding scum D1 always just purely on the basis that amount of information available will increase as the game progresses. Although lynching inactives is always a start, we shouldn't discount the power of day one analysis I've seen it many times actually. Kenpachi/Coagulation (Almost, but we switched)- Deconduo's Don't lose your village game Me/Pyrr- TLMMM 2 Masq- Haunted Mafia Bill Murray (Almost, but Ace made us switch x.x)- Penalty Mafia And many others...
Agreed. You’ve already stated that Analysis is the key to town victory. So why aren’t you doing it? There’s 10 pages of discussion. If that’s not enough to analyze, I don’t know what is.
On December 10 2010 11:06 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:55 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:07 LSB wrote:
##Vote:Infundibulum Why? Some of us (me) carry friendly grudges (my first mafia game) ^^
Spam. But funny spam.
On December 10 2010 11:08 LSB wrote:
Na, I voted for him before he even posted in the thread. Autovote Ftw!
Answering questions, explaining lack of reasoning. Meh. Unhelpful imo.
On December 10 2010 11:11 LSB wrote:
Oh.
By Inactive, I mean someone who is lurking, maybe making one token post in the thread that isn't anything new and doesn't attempt to contribute anything at all, but still votes every day.
These are the uninterested townies, the lurkers, and the people studying for finals.
A clarification. I’m fine with this. I wish he’d made it clearer in his earlier posts, but w/e.
On December 10 2010 11:42 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:22 Infundibulum wrote:On December 10 2010 11:11 LSB wrote:
Oh.
By Inactive, I mean someone who is lurking, maybe making one token post in the thread that isn't anything new and doesn't attempt to contribute anything at all, but still votes every day.
These are the uninterested townies, the lurkers, and the people studying for finals. Oh i see, we were kinda using different contextual definitions. Yeah by inactive i was thinking of the people that just never show up, not the 1 post 1 vote lurkers. In my experience most modkills happen during Day 1 or Day 2, a period during which it is difficult to distinguish true inactives from lurkers since they both exhibit similar behavior (i.e. very little). Lynching an 'inactive' Day 1 is always a nice neutral ground, but I feel that many people offer it as an excuse since they don't know what else to do (the same reason RNG always comes up, which is IMO worse than lynching inactives). I think of discussing lynching inactives as a jumping point for town discussion. Most people complain that nothing happens day 1, and I want the thread to be filled with activity. Activity is needed to find scum. Speaking of inactivity, everyone should say something! Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:37 Amber[LighT] wrote:
I don't know if the inactive plan is really going to be good. This is why I figured the DT's should be smart enough to make their own decisions and post only when they come across something ground breaking. Its up to the DTs to decide. But the key point of this plan is that it flushes out the mafia. If we get general town agreement, even if the dts don't actually check the inactives, the mafia will be pressured to be more active.
Uh…”Know your enemy” I don’t see this as scum tell, but w/e. When I played Salem, I learned a lot more about how to hunt scum by figuring out how they played than I did learning about how “I(town)” played. I thought this was pretty obvious, did it need to be said?
On December 10 2010 13:01 LSB wrote:
Give it some time, at least when 24 hours has past.
In the meanwhile. What do you think about lynching inactives dinmsab?
Still pressing that old argument. Really?
On December 11 2010 03:20 LSB wrote:For the DocH, + Show Spoiler +On December 10 2010 10:48 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
and BrownBear in salem!
i started that wagon ;o That didn't count, as far as I know it was Ghrur who switched the vote for you guys! If Kenpachi was scum on the other hand... Gabriel. The key thing we have to look at Gabriel is why he decided to Accuse Kenpachi. Is this because he is honestly trying to scumhunt, or is he pressured and wants to redirect the lynch Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:12 Gabriel wrote:
I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box.
Show nested quote +I have a half decent target in the "im new guys" list. However right now i really want to flip Infundibulum  because A) He came out of nowhere to dismiss lynching inactives (and that is really nonsense for a player that has played a lot of games) B) I cant believe jcarsoniv just posted a single Why? to LSB vote. The Kenpachi push looks like he is seeing someone that is lurking and wants to figure out what he is. The key point that points me is that he wants to DT check, not lynch Kenpachi (Whoops I gtg brb)
Uh…Couldn’t you post this later, instead of leaving us with half of your thoughts?
w/e…
On December 11 2010 04:28 LSB wrote:
The problem isn't that his post came early. 5 hours is a lot of time and enough to get a feel for how people act
He pointed out that Kenpachi's posts were spammy and didn't contribute to the town at all.
The problem is now, why the bandwagon the bandwagon against Gabriel took place.
(i'll look into it later, right now I'm hard pressed for time)
Same problem as last post. You repeat what he said, without adding anything other than that the Gabriel bandwagon is confusing. The bandwagon on him could have been for a variety of reasons. He was attacking people. He was spamming. I may not agree with all of them, but it doesn’t actually strike me as odd.
Overall he looks like he’s contributing, but I think that he has lead to the waste of the greater part of the day. He has spammed the forums with so much stuff that has already been said, or didn’t need to be said that it takes forever to find the useful stuff.
LSB. If you want to show that you aren’t scum, you need to step up your game. Less spam. More analysis. Nuff said.
|
Oh, and that's why I'm voting LSB. In case that wasn't clear.
|
On December 11 2010 17:18 tree.hugger wrote:
Please don't put your entire posts in green. Makes it impossible to read. Your post was noticable enough because of it's length, and green text has a purpose, so don't abuse that.
Agreed. Sorry about that, I wanted to edit it right after I posted it. I work on large posts in MS Word so I don't see the color till I post. Guess I should preview more...
|
On December 12 2010 02:27 Kenpachi wrote:
##vote tree.hugger
Care to explain? Tree.Hugger may have accused you, but a reactive vote like this doesn't help your case imo.
|
I agree with Insainous's analysis of Kenpachi. I still suspect LSB, but he has posted a few things that leave him less suspicious than before, and I don't want to split the votes out that far.
As far as kenpachi goes, has anyone played with him as scum? Cause I agree that he usually looks scummy, even when Medic in Salem, but what a perfect cover if he actually is mafia... It's not a strong argument, and it's not the only reason I'm switching my vote, but It's something to be considered.
I don't have time to search his games atm, but if anyone has been in a game with Ken, where he was scum, I'd like to hear your thoughts.
|
On December 12 2010 16:18 Gabriel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 16:02 Eiii wrote:On December 10 2010 15:31 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:On December 10 2010 15:22 Insanious wrote:
So now we have 4 people voting for Gabriel with little to no explanation... actually I think like only 1 person explained why they were voting for Gab and the other three didn't even say they were voting for him or why... bandwagon on an active, outspoken player? Me no likey... Most people gave a reason, Gabriel took an extremely hostile stance towards several players, gave shaky reasons for his actions and bandwagoned shamelessly and then became extremyl defensive and rage quit when people questioned him. Until someone comes along and acts scummier I'll be keeping my vote on who I feel is the best lynch. Honestly, gabe's play has been distracting and inconsistent at best and scummy at worse. I mean, look at this: On December 10 2010 09:40 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 09:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:
Also @LSB: I don't think we should say "we need to lynch inactives". While it may pressure scum to come out from hiding, I have seen it hit town more often than not. I think we need to deal with who is out and talking and giving us things to analyze rather than just blindly shooting into a room with a shotgun. I rather start the blind shoot into this small room with a shotgun. We are not getting analysis going too far away day one. Picking the right guy at the right time is picking a dead weight at first. He goes from saying "We're not going to be able to analyze anyone day 1, let's just lynch an inactive and hope it removes some dead weight" to... On December 10 2010 11:20 Gabriel wrote:Interesting: my half good "im new" shot is now voting for me. Kenpachi care to explain A) your vote B) your deep posts? On December 10 2010 07:11 Kenpachi wrote:
oh shit.. i cant really imagine Professor Oak dead D: On December 10 2010 07:47 Kenpachi wrote:
Pikachu - Townie
Raichu - Miller
Chansey - Medic
Cloyster - Veteran
Alakazam - Detective
Electrode - Mad Hatter
Mew - Special Detective
Gengar - God Father
Koffing - Mafia Grunt
Weezing - Mafia Shrink
Mewtwo - 3rd Party Vigilante
notice how our only way of killing at night is Mad Hatter and 3rd party.. 3rd party is technically against us and will probably kill town over mafia due to immunity and their goal is to be last alive. On December 10 2010 07:50 Kenpachi wrote:
yea claiming is a no no. and i hate lynching inactives. doesnt work at all. On December 10 2010 08:01 Kenpachi wrote:
how many people can Mafia target per night? On December 10 2010 08:12 Kenpachi wrote:On December 10 2010 08:11 Eiii wrote:There always seem to be posts about how we all need to establish a 'pro-town environment', which is obvious of course  I (and I'm sure lots of other newer players) have no clue what that *means* though, especially when we can't PM each other. (That might turn out to be more of a blessing than a curse though.) So... can someone enlighten me? basically, where we can point out scum easily without confusing them as town.. i think On December 10 2010 08:14 Kenpachi wrote:On December 10 2010 08:13 KtheZ wrote:
Do we have a limited amount of double lynches? I think its 2.
Trying really really hard to paint ken as scum. And he doesn't even have any decent basis for it! One quote is a throwaway reaction to the day 1 post, one quote is asking about rules of the game, and the rest are useless but harmless posts. Like I said before, if he had taken even a second to look at ken's play in salem he would have seen that ken spammed like crazy even though he was medic. He might be active but he's certainly not helpful, and I think he knows it.
Personally, I *do* think good analysis can be done day one. My vote's with gabe for now. Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 23:58 Node wrote:As weird as Gabriel's play is -- I still highly doubt that he's mafia, there's no way scum would draw so much attention to themselves -- I agree completely with his analysis of zeks. I'm still curious about the "infun slip ups" line, which has yet to be clarified. Also, I think the "stop overreacting" and "don't go apeshit" lines were excellent catches, as they were put down after zeks deflected pressure. For those who don't know, a classic scumtell is defending oneself and acting guilty when there aren't people attacking you. Scum, after all, has something to be guilty about while townies do not. I'd also like to draw everybody's attention to Eiii, who has been posting in an incredibly scummy fashion. On December 11 2010 16:58 Eiii wrote:
...gabes posts are so blatantly bad I'm actually starting to have a hard time believing they could possibly be authored by scum. o_O On December 11 2010 17:10 Eiii wrote:
holy shit
Gabriel Mafia: The game where it doesn't matter that your arguments are logically consistent, or that they're accurate, or even that they make any sense at all! As long as you have a long post to make so it looks like you're trying really really hard, congrats! You're absolved of potentially being mafia. Next suspect! What, exactly, are these supposed to contribute? They do absolutely nothing as far as actually refuting gabriel's arguments, but instead continue to pile shit on him by calling his posts bad. It does zero for the actual discussion at hand. To me, it screams scum attempting to deflect a lynch. For now, I'm going to be putting my vote on zeks. If he turns up scum, I think we have been given excellent candidates for the lynch on day 2. Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 11:19 Eiii wrote:Alright, so as much as I don't like his posts gabriel seems to pretty clearly be a townie at this point. Looks like actual discussion makes him put out decent content instead of just blindly lashing out, so hopefully that keeps up :D
I'm switching my vote to ken. He's already been analyzed to death, but what I really don't like is this:On December 12 2010 04:10 Kenpachi wrote:On December 12 2010 03:39 DCLXVI wrote:
Thank you insanious and tree.hugger, I hope to see more people post like that. I don't understand why people are letting Kenpachi off the hook for bad posting. So what if he has a history of being less than stellar for the town. We cannot allow him to spam and distract the town because even if he isn't mafia, this helps the mafia. He is playing in a way that benefits the mafia, so even if he isn't (though I think he is), he is dangerous for the town. I really don't like the defense used by darth and meepak of "oh, well this is just how he normally plays". Townies don't intentionally hurt the town by doing what kenpachi is doing.
I'll hopefully be back in a bit before the vote ends, but I feel safe in putting my vote on Kenpachi. Every vote on him is a vote to clean up the town. youre dumb. what if i happened to be DT or Medic? Zero response to DC's attacks, just semi-claims to be blue to avoid a lynch. Obviously he takes it back a post later, but I just can't get over how disruptive a move this is. You are so mafia it hurts my eyes sir. Last voter on Kenpachi too. To put it in a few words: 1 Eiii puts the pressure on Gabriel to justify a badwagon. Note that he states clearly that my reasoning for calling KENPACHI OUT is wrong based.2 Just as Node describes: when I post about lynching zeks and why he is the best behavior lynch he comes out with two rather personal attack posts (and he didnt even cared to read about zeks analysis). Another thing to note: dodging Nodes call out. Not even a word. Period. 3 Three posts later im the cleanest guy in the town. Throw me a bone here please. 4 Remember point 1? lol now Kenpachis analysis is good (after it came from tree.hugger). Now im asking anyone to re read the actual case from treehugger and get the name of all those quotes inside his post calling Kenpachi (hint: they are mine). Can you actually explain how you pass from "(Gabriel is) Trying really really hard to paint ken as scum. And he doesn't even have any decent basis for it!" to "I'm switching my vote to ken. He's already been analyzed to death" (by Gabriel and tree.hugger mostly)?And how you pass from: "...gabes posts are so blatantly bad I'm actually starting to have a hard time believing they could possibly be authored by scum. o_O" + "holy shit: Gabriel Mafia: The game where it doesn't matter that your arguments are logically consistent, or that they're accurate, or even that they make any sense at all! As long as you have a long post to make so it looks like you're trying really really hard, congrats! You're absolved of potentially being mafia. Next suspect!" to "Alright, so as much as I don't like his posts gabriel seems to pretty clearly be a townie at this point. Looks like actual discussion makes him put out decent content instead of just blindly lashing out, so hopefully that keeps up :DIm calling you out sir. Right here, right now.
Oh....kay. Firstly, i agree that Eiii has been looking scummy. Not for the reasons that you posted though. Look, most of your argument refers to the fact that he has changed his position on your alignment. When someone is so blatantly scummy, it's hard to believe that they are actually mafia, because they would be afraid to post like that. I had the same switch of opinion, I thought you were mafia, but then you got so bad that I realized you are much more likely to be a bad townie.
That being said, I have no idea what he was talking about when he said you put out some decent content....=D (Ok, well, perhaps he was refering to your analysis of Zeks, because a few people said they liked that, but it IS still strange)
On December 13 2010 05:43 Gabriel wrote:Previous data from players is useless. Half decent players are able to get away with different playstyles. Im sure TL veterans dont look previous games unless there is a contradictory post from the accused in the active game (refered to the old game).
LOL WUT? Uh...No. On of the most useful things a veteran has, is history. This helped alot in Salem, and VER says that it's one of the most useful techniques in analysis.
In any case, I think we have enough information after the lynch to start analyzing people. I suggest we analyse a few of the more suspicious people each day and work a lynch from that. I'll submit that i want to see these people analysed more fully:
Zeks (I want to see more than Gab and Treehugger contribute on this)
Reason: Summy posting, as has been pointed out by others.
Eiii (I think I'll look into this, but I'm not the best analyser so...)
Reason: No content, somewhat less obvious (and thus more suspicious) scummy posting.
I want Deconduo more thuroghly analysed, but theres not really anything to analyse.
Reason: Also voted last minute for ken, without posting a reason that I saw. (Sorry if I missed it)
I also want to know more about Kitman27, but he has also posted little. Three posts, one of which had content.
Anyone else have a short list of people we should focus on?
|
Oh, and one thing I forgot to mention was that Kitaman27 said in his (first?) post that he was done with finals, and it was "Mafia Party Time". This would imply that you are planning on being active, but you've been anything but. Just a little suspicious.
|
On December 14 2010 09:41 Hesmyrr wrote:
Hey guys, so I don't know what's going on, but a voltorb that was on me apparently exploded at 12/13/10 15:05 (because mod fails). Fortunately my unwitting wit and shell has saved me, but no longer I boast that powerful shell that guaranteed my survival.
So...
I am Cloyster, voltorb exploded on me and my extra night live was removed because tree.hugger is FAILURE
Hmm. This is very interesting, because I was under the impression that Voltorbs couldn't be countered by Medics, and Shells. Perhaps this was a conception carried over from Salem though...
DrH, could you clarify?
|
I'm voting Gabe.
The three lynch candidates (Gabe, Zeks, and ShoCkeyy) are very close in vote counts. This is going to make it VERY easy for the mafia to swing the vote. I'm very suspicious of those who started up the quick ShoCkeyy bandwagon. It is a very anti-town move, but I'd be a hypocrite if I voted Amber because of it. I'll post more on this later.
I think that Gabe and Zeks are both look scummy. Equally. However, I need to vote for one over the other, and imo, Gabe has done more damage to the thread than Zeks has thus far. That's why I'm voting Gabe. If you want a more thurough reasoning, I'll be happy to post it up, but it seems like people are in a panic to vote, and I want to get my vote, and my reasoning out quickly, in case I misunderstand the deadline.
|
One quick note. I was(am) writting up an analysis of this day's voting, and I'd like to remind people that we do have two double lynches.
I actually think that we should use one right now, but if it get the town to stop bickering about Zeks and Gabe, then perhaps it will be of benefit. What do you guys think? Do we have a strategy for double lynches?
|
Ok, so I’d like to point out a few things here: (Note, I left out any quotes because they would make this even longer. Sorry about any biased paraphrasing)
1: Town lynching strategy:
The plan is to lynch a Mafia here. Pretty simple. The problem is that the mafia can influence the vote, because they are in communication with each other. This looks suspicious if there’s a huge swing though, so they have to do it subtly. The way that we make it hard for the mafia to move the vote around, is to give them very few people to target. The smaller number of targets for the lynch, the less powerful the mafia become.
So with that in mind, let’s look at what just happened here: We had two people that we were looking at lynching. Most of the discussion was about them, and they were both looking pretty scummy. Suddenly (less than 5 hrs before lynch), Amber[Light] Posts an analysis of ShoCkeyy, and votes him. I actually agree with Amber’s post, it’s a decent analysis. However, it’s a horrible time to post it! It’s splitting votes near the end of a day, and has the potential to cause confusion, confusion during which the mafia can get away with swinging a vote! What a perfect cover! It’s an actually good analysis, so he must be town, right? WRONG.
When you analyse people you have to look at what makes sense. “Does it make sense for a Green to post this?”; “Does it make sense for a Blue to post this?”; “Does it make sense for a Red to post this?”. Look at them all. Here’s what I see: There is NO reason for someone to split the votes like this as a town. An experienced player knows this, and Amber is certainly experienced. So why post it? Well, looking at it if he’s mafia, it makes sense. If the Mafia has a man (or two) on the chopping block, they’d throw up a third person. They might be able to sway enough to save one or both of them.
Next, two people actually hopped on the ShoCkeyy vote. Why? “Cause Amber posted a good analysis”. Again, this is excellent cover for the mafia, even if they post their reason for voting ShoCkeyy, they are still splitting the vote, something no good townie would ever do.
Last minute switches cause confusion, something that the mafia will thrive in. Amber, LSB and D3 should all know this.
A note on my vote here: I voted Gabe, not because I think that he is the most likely player to be mafia right now, I voted him because I was late on reading up on the forum, and didn’t have a chance to put up my alternative early enough for people to evaluate it. I didn’t want to do the very thing that Amber did, so I voted for the most harmful of the two that were on the block.
2: Town Discussion:
So far the town discussion has been dominated by Gabe vs Zeks arguments, and it’s not helping the town. The retaliatory blaming, and ego based fighting needs to stop. It’s working really to give the mafia cover. Most of the analysis thus far has concentrated on two people, and that’s not good. Here’s my thoughts on this:
Day: (First 24hrs)
This is the time that should be spent discussing everyone’s thoughts on who should be lynched. I would advocate that no votes should be posted during this time. Just a big open discussion, where everyone can voice as many people as they want.
Day: (Second 24hrs)
This is the time that should be spent discussing the most suspicious players from the previous discussion. NO MORE THAN 2-3 AT THE MOST! This is the point where the most suspicious people get more attention, suspects give their defense, and people vote.
Night: (All 24 hrs)
I actually have less of a plan for this time. Some time should be spent analyzing the voting from the previous day, but I’ve seen a lot of players advocate silence. I personally disagree with this, but I’m not that experienced a player, so I may have missed the reason behind this.
This is just an idea, and I’d love to hear everybody else’s plan on how we might be able to utilize the time we have better than we have.
3: My suspicions
LSB:
I have already pointed out my suspicion of LSB, and posted an analysis. I later said that he’d posted a few things that made him look less scummy, but I was suspicious still, and am more suspicious now, after the vote.
Amber[light]:
Most of my suspicion is based off of little contribution that I’ve noticed, and splitting the vote to Shockeyy. I’ve yet to go back and analyze this properly, so I’m leaving it at a suspicion. I’ll work on reasons later. (Again, I have not checked this well, so don’t expect me to defend it. I’ll work on it as soon as I get time. Take this as a given for all my suspects.)
Eiii:
Hasn’t contributed a lot, acted somewhat scummy in general. Not a strong suspicion, but someone I’m keeping my eyes on. Again, I’d like to have someone analyze him.
BrownBear:
Unexplained voting, and general lack of participation. Fits my profile for a lurking mafia player. Can anyone who has played with BrownBear give us an idea of how he normally plays?
D3:
Same reasons as Amber[light]
ShoCkeyy:
Like I said earlier, I agree with Amber[light]’s analysis of ShoCkeyy. I’m not as sure that he is mafia, but he is definitely on my suspects list.
I’ll be going over these players, and if I get enough time, I’ll bring up the ones that look the most suspicious to me by the beginning of Day 3, hopefully with an actual analysis. Again, this are my suspects, and a brief explanation as to why.
4: A few final notes:
Unfortunatly, writing takes time, and some things have happened since I started that I want to respond to:
Amber: There was a point when the votes where tied 3-3-3, so it fits my definision of a bandwagon, though you said something about ShoCkeyy having to be ahead, so I suspect we are working off of different definitions. I just mean a concerted push for someone to get lynched.
Infund and D3: Thanks, I’ve never played with double lynch, that makes sense. I agree that we shouldn’t use the double lynch yet. (Tho, it’s weird how deleyed it is. I’d think it’d be hard to make it work out right, but w/e)
DTA: Yes, I’d like others to be on stand, but I’ve seen bad things happen with quick lynch switches before, so I don’t support them. If people had been more active earlier in the day, I don’t think this would have been a problem.
I’d like to hear from those people as well. I see Oceanic has posted something anyways. Where’s the other three? The fact that they aren’t on my suspect list is a little concerning to me. I’ll have to look at them and see why I didn’t think of them…Hmm.
Aaaaannnnd….I just realized that the day ends at 12:00, not 10:00 TL time. So there’s more to this day than I thought. Hmm. I think that this mellows a lot of what I said against Amber. Just mellows, though.
Tl;dr:
1: Don’t split votes late in the day.
2: Stop fighting. It’s harmful to the town.
3: I’m looking at LSB, Amber, Eiii, Brownbear, D3, and ShoCkeyy as suspects right now.
4: Various responses to people.
|
As promised, my analysis of Amber[light]. While not the most scummy looking to me, he is somewhat of a leader in the town, and that gives him priority in my analyses.
On December 10 2010 07:46 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 07:42 Oceanic wrote:
Doesn't it say in 1 of the guides posted that lynching an inactive day 1 is not something you should do? Lynching an inactive typically results in lynching an apathetic townie. Everyone should be posting frequently to discuss who should die for day 1. There are no PM's so everything should be out in the open. We should really worry less about how the blues should play. Thinks like role checks won't be overly reliable, and saving people cannot be discussed in the thread. It probably would be a good idea for the electrodes to think about where to place voltorbs and pick up on good scum tells.
Ok, so here’s some general town advice, and an answer to a question. While I may disagree to some extent on the advise given, I’ve heard other pro-town players give this advice before, so I’m not going to call it scummy because I disagree with it.
This post makes sense for: Green, Blue, Red
On December 10 2010 07:47 Amber[LighT] wrote:
*Things like role checks.
I agree with LSB as well, no role claiming strategies. They almost never work.
A correction, and an agreement on a strategy. While I think that the agreement was unneeded at that point, it’s not all that scummy.
On December 10 2010 11:37 Amber[LighT] wrote:
I don't know if the inactive plan is really going to be good. This is why I figured the DT's should be smart enough to make their own decisions and post only when they come across something ground breaking.
A somewhat non-committal disagreement with the Inactive Lynch plan. I wish he would give an alternative instead of just disagreeing with the plan though. This is lightly scummy.
On December 10 2010 23:22 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 15:22 Insanious wrote:
So now we have 4 people voting for Gabriel with little to no explanation... actually I think like only 1 person explained why they were voting for Gab and the other three didn't even say they were voting for him or why... bandwagon on an active, outspoken player? Me no likey... Gabriel did out himself pretty early as a big voice in this game. This could split one of 2 ways. Mafia could want to shut him up (Gabriel = Pro-Pokealliance), hence the votes, or he's hoping that if he barks loud enough the town will bend to his will later on (Gabriel = Pro-Team Rocket. People like to jump on power players when they're not "known" in these games, so the votes aren't completely at a surprise. I'm iffy about Gabriel. I looked at his posting history and he did play in BC's game early this year. He was a vigilante and was quiet, didn't spark controversy, and eventually died by like Night 2 or something. Now he's being loud, so I'm encouraged to believe he's a vocal pikachu, or a team rocket member. Don't forget Gengar is more-or-less the Godfather, but based upon what his role description says, he can manipulate role checks. This makes him a sort of godfather with less power, so Gengar probably won't be vocal in the thread, unlike SouthRawrea in Salem mafia.
According to your first paragraph, there are only two possibilities for Gabe’s bandwagon: He’s posting good material, so the mafia want to kill him, OR, he’s Mafia trying to control the town. This excludes the most obvious third way that I saw this falling: Gabe is posting scummy, and the town is bandwagoning him. Look at what has happened since: He’s escaped two lynches, both of which he was a strong target for. If the mafia had wanted him dead, they could have done it pretty easily the first day. Conclusion? The mafia wants him alive, because he’s either mafia, or he’s doing such a great job of screwing the town over that they’d rather he stay alive for now. An interesting oversight on your part.
The second paragraph comments on a few obvious points, and then gives some background information on him. The information isn’t all that helpful, but it’s good to know. This could have been an effort by you (mafia) to keep him alive, or an effort by you (town) to shed more light on the situation.
On December 11 2010 04:11 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 23:22 Amber[LighT] wrote:On December 10 2010 15:22 Insanious wrote:
So now we have 4 people voting for Gabriel with little to no explanation... actually I think like only 1 person explained why they were voting for Gab and the other three didn't even say they were voting for him or why... bandwagon on an active, outspoken player? Me no likey... Gabriel did out himself pretty early as a big voice in this game. This could split one of 2 ways. Mafia could want to shut him up (Gabriel = Pro-Pokealliance), hence the votes, or he's hoping that if he barks loud enough the town will bend to his will later on (Gabriel = Pro-Team Rocket. People like to jump on power players when they're not "known" in these games, so the votes aren't completely at a surprise. I'm iffy about Gabriel. I looked at his posting history and he did play in BC's game early this year. He was a vigilante and was quiet, didn't spark controversy, and eventually died by like Night 2 or something. Now he's being loud, so I'm encouraged to believe he's a vocal pikachu, or a team rocket member. Don't forget Gengar is more-or-less the Godfather, but based upon what his role description says, he can manipulate role checks. This makes him a sort of godfather with less power, so Gengar probably won't be vocal in the thread, unlike SouthRawrea in Salem mafia. Ignore this I was incorrect about how I thought Gengar functioned in this game.
On December 11 2010 09:02 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 08:58 KtheZ wrote:
How much longer do we have to vote? Around a day, right? Tomorrow night
Corrections, and a question. A legitimate question given the confusion with the long day 1. Nothing scummy here.
On December 11 2010 22:45 Amber[LighT] wrote:
I'm more inclined to believe Kenpachi is TR vs. Zeks being TR. His playstyle has been really ambiguous and, for a lack of better words, poor. There's no reason to make posts like the one above (see tree.huggers spoiler) unless you weren't ready to commit to something.
I was thinking about the game last night and trying to figure out how each side will play. Unfortunately for Team Rocket they have a lot to worry about in this game. They need to make sure they can lynch Mewtwo. Not only is he a 3rd party vigilante, but he's immune to night hits. Team Rocket will need to align with//manipulate the town on this one. When a hit fails, it would be a good idea for one team rocket member to step forward and claim for the team that a hit didn't follow throw. This will help Team Rocket keep their anonymity but will eliminate a threat to both the pokealliance and themselves. Consider the idea, Team Rocket.
I'm also inclined to believe that Team Rocket will need to assimilate themselves into the pokealliance's plans, so it just seems weird that Gabriel, Zeks, and Kenpachi are posting how they are posting. It doesn't seem suspicious when you consider the fact that they need to avoid an extra threat as well.
“Unfortunately for Team Rocket” LOL, WUT? Don’t you mean “Fortunetly”? How did I miss this before? This whole second paragraph is rather odd… Look, as far as I can tell, Mewtwo is trying to hit townies. So why would the mafia be afraid of that? I looks like Mewtwo is going to be helpful to the mafia for the first half of the game, and an enemey for the second half. Also, towards the end, you are negotiating with terrorists. Sending a message to TR? Trying to remove suspicion says I.
On December 11 2010 22:46 Amber[LighT] wrote:
i love the word "inclined," it helps describe my feelings better. (didn't mean to repeat)
Meh. Spammy, but short. Not really scummy.
On December 13 2010 12:28 Amber[LighT] wrote:
So where's the 4th hit?
And it would be safe to assume that whoever Tree.Hugger put his voltorb on was mewtwo. He didn't leave much of a paper trail on that though.
Questions. Fine. You didn’t consider that the Voltorb was on a Vet, but I’m not going to hold that against you. That time was all rather confusing.
On December 13 2010 12:29 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 12:27 BrownBear wrote:
Youch. So tree.hugger either voltorb'd one of the two other deaths (probably jcarlson) or he forgot to place one.
Well, that sucks. Based upon the description for Electrod he should only be able to place one Voltorb per night.
Uh… He never said that he placed two. SPAM. A little scummy.
On December 13 2010 12:29 Amber[LighT] wrote:
*Electrode
I only include stuff like this so that it’s a totally unbiased picking of posts.
On December 15 2010 04:54 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 04:34 ShoCkeyy wrote:On December 14 2010 23:47 d3_crescentia wrote:The relative silence of the town bothers me, because it's just what mafia needs to win. The contribution of members named KtheZ, chaoser, deconduo, Insanious, ShoCkeyy, serApH, DCLXVI, Oceanic is virtually nil. We need to spend our time finding by rooting through the list of semi-lurking voters and figure out which ones we want to kill and/or check. Gabriel's insistence on a zeks vote today is distracting, but the votes on him thus far aren't very well-explained either. LSB and Shockeyy need to explain themselves on this. Actually, Shockeyy needs to explain himself, period. He only has ONE post thus far in the thread: + Show Spoiler +On December 12 2010 05:51 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 04:35 tree.hugger wrote:On December 11 2010 17:41 tree.hugger wrote:My hunch is that he's not going to be able to commit fully to anything, no matter how much we prod.
On December 12 2010 02:30 Kenpachi wrote:
asdf. even when i post, i get pointed scum On December 12 2010 02:35 Kenpachi wrote:
okay so yea my posts were bad but what can i say? i couldnt offer anything there and there. So i voted Gabriel for blatant bandwagon. Then he reacts and i defend. On December 12 2010 02:27 Kenpachi wrote:
##vote tree.hugger On December 12 2010 04:10 Kenpachi wrote:On December 12 2010 03:39 DCLXVI wrote:
Thank you insanious and tree.hugger, I hope to see more people post like that. I don't understand why people are letting Kenpachi off the hook for bad posting. So what if he has a history of being less than stellar for the town. We cannot allow him to spam and distract the town because even if he isn't mafia, this helps the mafia. He is playing in a way that benefits the mafia, so even if he isn't (though I think he is), he is dangerous for the town. I really don't like the defense used by darth and meepak of "oh, well this is just how he normally plays". Townies don't intentionally hurt the town by doing what kenpachi is doing.
I'll hopefully be back in a bit before the vote ends, but I feel safe in putting my vote on Kenpachi. Every vote on him is a vote to clean up the town. youre dumb. what if i happened to be DT or Medic? On December 12 2010 04:13 Kenpachi wrote:On December 12 2010 04:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 12 2010 04:10 Kenpachi wrote:On December 12 2010 03:39 DCLXVI wrote:
Thank you insanious and tree.hugger, I hope to see more people post like that. I don't understand why people are letting Kenpachi off the hook for bad posting. So what if he has a history of being less than stellar for the town. We cannot allow him to spam and distract the town because even if he isn't mafia, this helps the mafia. He is playing in a way that benefits the mafia, so even if he isn't (though I think he is), he is dangerous for the town. I really don't like the defense used by darth and meepak of "oh, well this is just how he normally plays". Townies don't intentionally hurt the town by doing what kenpachi is doing.
I'll hopefully be back in a bit before the vote ends, but I feel safe in putting my vote on Kenpachi. Every vote on him is a vote to clean up the town. youre dumb. what if i happened to be DT or Medic? Are you claiming DT or medic? no i am not Word. I suppose we'll get treated to angry defending eventually, as he's in the lead right now, but hey, that might be too committed. Alright, I feel like kenpachi is getting way to agressive here. All his post have been aggressive and not helpful in anyway. + Show Spoiler +A) 4 hours does not judge that. what if i went on TL tomorrow for the first time in the past 3 days? B) Anyone who posts would want to look active.. Why would they post if they want to look inactive? C) Why are you assuming i read the rules? how do you know i didnt just assume the KP? D) It doesnt. shh E) ?? its enlightenment F) I dont agree with you voting for Infundibulum. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174831¤tpage=14#270When he starts saying, that why do people assume that he reads the rules, makes me question him. Everyone reads the rules and we know this because that's part of the game. If he's saying he doesn't that just seems phishy to me imo. I also feel like, he posted the DT or Medic theory in order to try and get some people off of his case cause he can possibly be a TR member. I've seen this happen plenty of times where they pull out the "I might be a DT or Medic" and they end up not being it. My two cents, maybe I am wrong, but this is what I've been able to read off of. I'll be back in the evening, so don't go anywhere. Well my reasoning on voting for Gabriel was because in the first round he dodged my vote by the way kenpachi was acting, but then seeing jcarl go now and both of them being Gabriels prime targets in the beginning kinda made me switch over to them. Either way, I find it funny that you only target a quite few of us when actually there is A LOT of people missing that are not posting at all. To name some more, Amber[Light], Tube?... Why don't you target them as well? I don't understand why would you just target a select few of us instead of them and then JUST target me right after wards. I've been busy and reading up on what I could and making my voice count when needed and voting when I needed to. Lol you're terrible scum. You sit around throwing names around after inactivity to make it look like a contribution. You picked me out because I'm not the most active person in the thread, yet I've been confident with most of my posts. I corrected any mistakes or misinterpretations I originally had. Kenpachi was the right choice. There's nothing more to discuss. I think we're analyzing too much on the night actions. I believe Hesmyrr so I'm going to believe Pandain when he takes his place, if anything. Vote for obvious scum. Vote for ShoCkeyy
I’ve already stated that Shockeyy looked scummy, but the post was at the wrong time. I actually wrote a lot about this post, so I won’t repeat it. If you want to see it, check my post on page 33. SCUMMY.
Note: the following was incorrectly formatted by Amber, so there was a lot of confusion as to what was actually said. He never came back and fixed it, which looks a little scummy. If something is worth saying, it’s worth coming back and fixing.
I’ve tried to format it for about 30 min, and failed, so I’m just putting it here. My comments will be in blue for the rest of the post.
[QUOTE]On December 15 2010 07:57 Amber[LighT] wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 15 2010 07:50 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Want to bandwagon against me? Well heres your chance to now redeem yourselves from what I'm about to post.
Analysis for Day 1:
Already agreeing with each other, but hey this isn't enough yet.
+ Show Spoiler +On December 10 2010 07:43 LSB wrote:I'll just use posts made before Inactives:Show nested quote +A big problem in every mafia game is inactivity. I don't want another drag_ being able to squeak by with barely any posts. We should immediately show it is not okay to be inactive.
Inactive players hurt the town as they waste lynches down the road as the town will need to try to separate the mafia from the inactives.
We should therefore lynch an inactive day one. This will force the assassins to discuss and not be able to turtle, increasing the chance they will slip up. PlanFirstly. DO NOT CLAIM DO NOT CLAIM Good now that we got that out of the way, some other ideas. One plan that would work is to use the blue roles to promote activity in the town. The Alakazam should check the inactive people and the lurkers, as it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between a bored townie and a lurking mafia. The Chansey's should protect active players, this way the mafia won't be able to take out the people who are contributing the most to town, so people won't be scared of trying to put forth their opinions. On December 10 2010 07:47 Amber[LighT] wrote:
*Things like role checks.
I agree with LSB as well, no role claiming strategies. They almost never work. On December 10 2010 10:03 d3_crescentia wrote:
Hesmyrr with the insubstantial "I agree" post. Let's watch out for him.
d3, why don't you also watch out for your team mates? or are you trying to confuse the town as well. Here's some more agreeing by LSB, BUT CONTRADICTING. First d3 says meh to LSB plan, but then later on agrees to LSB plan.
+ Show Spoiler +On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:
LSB's blue plan is pretty meh. It's not a good plan of attack for our Zams to check lurkers and inactives; they should be checking people who could be scum, including whoever is contributing the most. Keep in mind that all the mafia needs to do is to distract and confuse the town enough so that they make poor decisions. On December 10 2010 10:11 LSB wrote:Remember, the town's best weapon is analysis. By checking the inactives, we flush out the mafia to the limelight where they easily could be found. We want the mafia to attempt to distract the town, this way we can catch onto what they are doing. The town has to be vigilant to guard against these attempts + Show Spoiler +
Discussing a plan is one of the best ways to generate activity and catch a scum btw
On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:
I'd rather we just kill the inactives. I think checking them is a waste.
Some more agreeing from d3 to LSB
+ Show Spoiler +On December 10 2010 10:32 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:
Wait. What?
Lynch is less important than a DT check? Seconded. That is kind of bullshit.
Something a townie once said, which is quite true. Why would you go into a game already telling what people to do? Why do you constantly force your opinion to be "the voice of reasoning"
+ Show Spoiler +On December 10 2010 08:53 jcarlsoniv wrote:
@LSB: While trying to coordinate blues seems good, I have to say, the more games I play, the more I hate to see people directing blues in thread. On Day 1, I think they need to do what they think needs to be done without influence from the thread. Any direction from the thread can also be seen by scum, and thus they will be clued in as well. No, obviously, I know that the blues don't need to listen to what is said in the thread, but they will be influenced by what is said. Let's hope we have good blues this time around. On December 10 2010 09:59 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 09:53 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 09:48 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 09:40 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 09:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:
Also @LSB: I don't think we should say "we need to lynch inactives". While it may pressure scum to come out from hiding, I have seen it hit town more often than not. I think we need to deal with who is out and talking and giving us things to analyze rather than just blindly shooting into a room with a shotgun. How do you propose we deal with inactives/lurkers then? We can't just 'leave it for another day'. It's going to be a problem, and if we have no good leads day one, we should do this early, rather than late. On December 10 2010 08:53 jcarlsoniv wrote:
@LSB: While trying to coordinate blues seems good, I have to say, the more games I play, the more I hate to see people directing blues in thread. On Day 1, I think they need to do what they think needs to be done without influence from the thread. Any direction from the thread can also be seen by scum, and thus they will be clued in as well. No, obviously, I know that the blues don't need to listen to what is said in the thread, but they will be influenced by what is said. Let's hope we have good blues this time around. So your saying that plans are bad? Interesting. Take my plan, what's bad about it? I agree that we should point to inactives if we have no other leads, but I'm saying to not just say "ok, let's find the inactives" right away. We have 48 hours to find candidates for lynch, no reason to dismiss the possibility of finding one right off the bat. I didn't say your plan was bad, seeing as you didn't really post a plan, nor did I say the word "plan" I was merely pointing out my own observations. What you had posted was good, it was vague, and a good general direction. Getting anymore specific than that at this point can be dangerous. On December 10 2010 09:40 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 09:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:
Also @LSB: I don't think we should say "we need to lynch inactives". While it may pressure scum to come out from hiding, I have seen it hit town more often than not. I think we need to deal with who is out and talking and giving us things to analyze rather than just blindly shooting into a room with a shotgun. I rather start the blind shoot into this small room with a shotgun. We are not getting analysis going too far away day one. Picking the right guy at the right time is picking a dead weight at first. How can you possibly say this? The game literally just started, and we have 48 hours to scumhunt. Again, I am going to say, there is no reason to dismiss the idea of finding a lynch candidate Day 1. You must understand. In order to make sure that people are active, we have to decide early that we going to punish people who are inactive. This way, people are going to be warned and hopefully people won't be inactive. Best case scenario we won't have to lynch an inactive person in the first place since everyone will contribute to the town. I notice you avoided discussion on my 'general direction.' Do you support it? Why? Do you now think we should give general directions to blues? I don't not support it (if that makes any sense). I am going under the assumption that our blues are at least halfway competent players, and will be able to think for themselves to use their roles effectively. This may be very naive though. I think general direction right now is fine for now, as long as we don't get too specific, especially Day 1. The last thing I want is for blues to be sniped right away. In this sense, I definitely agree with you that everyone should keep their roles secret for now.
Tube Calling out LSB after LSB tried to "Defend" himself from Kav
+ Show Spoiler +On December 11 2010 14:39 tube wrote:Also, before you defend LSB you should take another look at the manners in which hes been posting Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 12:55 LSB wrote:
Kav, you completely misinterpreted what I did in the game.
Take a look at my posts with Jcarlsoniv. They are not spam, they serve a specific purpose. If you want me to explain, sure... but it's quiet36the point where he does not have to explain them. (or can't?)
Day 2 Coming soon.
You should probably also note in your smear campaign that the post you quoted from me wasnt a simple agree. I had another post that you neglected:
[QUOTE]On December 10 2010 07:46 Amber[LighT] wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 10 2010 07:42 Oceanic wrote:
Doesn't it say in 1 of the guides posted that lynching an inactive day 1 is not something you should do?[/QUOTE]
Lynching an inactive typically results in lynching an apathetic townie. Everyone should be posting frequently to discuss who should die for day 1. There are no PM's so everything should be out in the open.
We should really worry less about how the blues should play. Thinks like role checks won't be overly reliable, and saving people cannot be discussed in the thread. It probably would be a good idea for the electrodes to think about where to place voltorbs and pick up on good scum tells.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Defense. Meh, expected from anyone.
Note: the following was incorrectly formatted by Amber, so there was a lot of confusion as to what was actually said. He never came back and fixed it, which looks a little scummy. If something is worth saying, it’s worth coming back and fixing.
[QUOTE]On December 15 2010 08:13 Amber[LighT] wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 15 2010 08:06 ShoCkeyy wrote:
But you certainly agreed with jumping on the "ShoCkeyy" bandwagon with d3 after me just naming you. I never pointed you out as scum, I basically just said that there's other people to be pointing at as well that he never mentioned. Then all the sudden after d3 and you voted for me, here comes LSB voting for me as well, when all three of you don't even have any form of analysis or clues as to why I am scum. You just "assumed" I am scum, all three of you that have been backing each other up for a while now in this game. [/QUOTE]
There was no bandwagon. I don't understand where you got this thought from. If there was a bandwagon you would be ahead in votes. [/QUOTE]
I already addressed this as well. There is likely a difference in definitions. I see this as a little bit of a dodge, which is lightly scummy. Personally, I think that there is an interesting correlation between you guys, but I don’t see that as scum right away.
[QUOTE]On December 15 2010 22:12 Amber[LighT] wrote:
Okay guys thanks for listening to me. Shockeyy should be eliminated come Day 2. Medics should NOT protect themselves if they can. They should be blue-hunting. If you suspect someone is a pika/raichu then ignore them and move on.[/QUOTE]
Hmm. I believe you were of the opinion that blues shouldn’t be directed earlier. An interesting change of opinion. Also, this could be a little deciveing. Yes, Medics should be blue hunting, but they are the ONLY ones who should be. Even then, they need to participate in the Red Hunt. I repeat, this game is not about blue hunting, it’s about RED hunting. Scummy post here.
[QUOTE]On December 15 2010 22:12 Amber[LighT] wrote:
 ay 3
Voting Zeks was a silly bandwagon. Hence why I never even discussed it or spoke about it.[/QUOTE]
Hmm. And yet a silly bandwagon carried all the way through, and wasted the town’s lynch for the day. Perhaps you should re-evaluate the things that you should post on. Cause if you are mafia, it makes sense to let a “silly” zeks wagon go on. Scummy.
[QUOTE]On December 15 2010 23:22 Amber[LighT] wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 15 2010 23:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 15 2010 22:12 Amber[LighT] wrote:
Okay guys thanks for listening to me. Shockeyy should be eliminated come Day 2. Medics should NOT protect themselves if they can. They should be blue-hunting. If you suspect someone is a pika/raichu then ignore them and move on.[/QUOTE]
Yes vote for me... you still haven't even given a good excuse to the town as to why to vote for me. . At least i actually gave input as to what i think about and proved you, lsb, and d3 are scum....[/QUOTE]
You've been tripping all over your own posts, leaving things out, neglecting other posts, taking things out of context. Without a doubt this is scum-play, and bad scum-play at that.[/QUOTE]
I think that you are right about some things, but your blowing them out of proportions a bit. I can understand the lash back after being attacked, but making your language more extreme doesn’t help your argument. This strikes me as a nervous person, which equals a scummy person.
[QUOTE]On December 15 2010 23:31 Amber[LighT] wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 15 2010 23:27 Brocket wrote:
I am more interested in defenders of Gabriel and players FoSing Shockey than Gabriel and Shockeyy now. I'm not feeling as intense on Gabe as I felt over day 2 but I'm thinking that's cos he hasn't been talking much. Maybe if he posts more it'll reignite my burning passion to lynch him out.
People springing to mind:
LSB (really quick change vote from gabe to shockey and muddied the anti gabe arguments, didn't offer much on zeks even though zeks earned compelling arguments).
Oceania &Seraph (said to death, lack of posts and jumping on teh wagon. I don't think much about posters like these but even I noticed a lack of posts from Oceania and Seraph. It's way too easy to sit back and vote, you got to get in the game if you want to stay).
Amber (really quick on voting Shockeyy, way too quick especially when we were already divided about zeks and gabriel. d3 has distanced himself from you and i think lsb will plan to as well.)
But I'm going to let other people talk now. I feel like my posts have made some people shy away from posting their ideas/opinions which isn't good. Please post something you think has happened or looks strange.
As far as me voting myself: I will vote myself if suspicion falls on me and you guys want to confirm I'm a townie. I already said that I believed zeks/gabe were mafia and I'm already half wrong.
[/QUOTE]
D3, LSB, and I have no real connection. I didn't even know that D3 voted for ShoCkeyy, I was just ready to get a good lynch target on the map. I was waiting for the right person to start FoSing, and Shockeyy fell right into it. It could have been anyone, but an inactive that makes posts without substance and posts of straight-out lies makes him an obvious target.[/QUOTE]
More expected defense. Sorry, but could you point out the straight-out lies? I agree that he’s a target, but you seem over confident. Are you mafia trying to jump on a player that looks suspicious? Lightly scummy.
So my overall thoughts on Ambers posts are that he looks scummy, but not overly so. I honestly am not sure what to think of him. He fits my profile for a Blue that's not paying alot of attention to the game, and a Red that's doing a pretty good job of hiding. He’s posted some stuff that has helped the town, and some stuff that looks scummy to me. I’m going to withhold judgment on him for now, but I urge the town to keep their eye on him. I will say that he’s certainly not a strong lynch yet, so I don’t plan on voting him, unless something else comes out…
Also, Iol. This spoiler tag is auto generated...So confusing. Amber, please clean up your post?[/spoiler]
|
Can we get the Role list updated? (And can we get a final tally of votes from the previous day?)
|
On December 16 2010 12:49 d3_crescentia wrote:
No more FoS. At this rate the discussion isn't going to get anywhere if we just keep pointing FoS at each other and do NOTHING with our votes. My current candidates to consider for TR, in no particular order, are:
DCLXVI
Infundibulum
Kavdragon
Brownbear
Uhg. And I wanted to spend my night doing something OTHER than building a big analysis for once.
That being said, I just previewed all your posts.So many things i want to say... Analysis incoming.
|
On December 10 2010 10:03 d3_crescentia wrote:
Hesmyrr with the insubstantial "I agree" post. Let's watch out for him.
Second post he made is criticizing another person. I think that it’s funny that
On December 10 2010 10:25 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:23 Hesmyrr wrote:
Moreover D1 lynches are always crapshoot. It is good and fine to publicly discuss and prod one's suspects, but at least waiting until D2 so one have more actual data to support the case on him/her seems just better. This is a large setup so we cannot just afford to let all the lurkers pass-by. They're always crapshoot because we have players that go about finding scum in a crappy way. I suggest that everyone else vote for you as well.
And so the Bash fest starts. Why not suggest a less crappy way of going about finding scum D1?
On December 10 2010 10:32 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:11 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:02 d3_crescentia wrote:
48 hours is not a long time to find scum. Let's start now.
LSB's blue plan is pretty meh. It's not a good plan of attack for our Zams to check lurkers and inactives; they should be checking people who could be scum, including whoever is contributing the most. Keep in mind that all the mafia needs to do is to distract and confuse the town enough so that they make poor decisions.
Remember, the town's best weapon is analysis. By checking the inactives, we flush out the mafia to the limelight where they easily could be found. We want the mafia to attempt to distract the town, this way we can catch onto what they are doing. The town has to be vigilant to guard against these attempts + Show Spoiler +Discussing a plan is one of the best ways to generate activity and catch a scum btw I'd rather we just kill the inactives. I think checking them is a waste. The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check. Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP. At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? Seconded. That is kind of bullshit.
Do you really need to say this? It seems totally unnecessary, and harmful to the town to bash people like this.
On December 10 2010 10:43 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:35 Hesmyrr wrote:On December 10 2010 10:25 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:23 Hesmyrr wrote:
Moreover D1 lynches are always crapshoot. It is good and fine to publicly discuss and prod one's suspects, but at least waiting until D2 so one have more actual data to support the case on him/her seems just better. This is a large setup so we cannot just afford to let all the lurkers pass-by. They're always crapshoot because we have players that go about finding scum in a crappy way. I suggest that everyone else vote for you as well. Chances of finding scum D2 > Chances of finding scum D1 always just purely on the basis that amount of information available will increase as the game progresses. So let's increase the amount of information available now. Why aren't you a good lynch candidate? You've contributed virtually nothing to the thread and are encouraging us to take a passive role in finding scum.
Um… At this point you’ve not contributed anything great to the thread either. Your first post had some non-comittal plans, but was mostly just a disagreement with LSB. Why don’t you follow your own advice?
On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:11 LSB wrote:[quote] Remember, the town's best weapon is analysis. By checking the inactives, we flush out the mafia to the limelight where they easily could be found. We want the mafia to attempt to distract the town, this way we can catch onto what they are doing. The town has to be vigilant to guard against these attempts + Show Spoiler +Discussing a plan is one of the best ways to generate activity and catch a scum btw I'd rather we just kill the inactives. I think checking them is a waste. The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check. Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP. At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out.
Hey look! More disagreements, without giving a alternative….Huh. That accusation sounds familiar…
On December 10 2010 11:04 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:
[quote]
The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check.
Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP. At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box. I have no idea what that last line means. Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town.
Another short unhelpful post. Why don’t you add some info to the town, eh? Seriously, you’ve called for “more info” multiple times, but haven’t added anything thus far…
On December 10 2010 11:05 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:00 zeks wrote:
Lynch inactives or eventually they'll burn us in the ass in the end when we're fighting amongst each other
6 scum + 1 third party = 7 / 31 = 22% chance of sniping someone. I haven't played for a couple months but most the player list looks relatively foreign to me so I'm assuming theres quite a number of new players (over half?)
From what I've seen from past games newb scum tend to lurk (correct me if I'm wrong) so we shouldn't give a free pass to inactives. And with new players we don't have any material from past games to work with. And why don't you put your money where your mouth is and vote for an inactive instead of jumping on the bandwagon some clown started?
LOL. Same to you my friend, Same to you. (Minus the whole jumping on a bandwagon part…) Also, your bashing the person who started it. Why not articulate your complaint against that person, instead of just calling them a clown?
On December 10 2010 11:20 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:12 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:04 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:
[quote]
Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box. I have no idea what that last line means. Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town. I have a half decent target in the "im new guys" list. However right now i really want to flip Infundibulum because A) He came out of nowhere to dismiss lynching inactives (and that is really nonsense for a player that has played a lot of games) B) I cant believe jcarsoniv just posted a single Why? to LSB vote. With a game of 31 people and a little more than half the people having posted recently it's just dumb to blindvote someone for "just showing up." What do you read into the line about efficiency that I don't?
Ok, again, want to suggest an alternative? Seriously dude, how did I miss your hypocritical bashing before now?
On December 10 2010 12:12 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 12:11 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 12:01 Oceanic wrote:On December 10 2010 11:57 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:44 Kenpachi wrote:On December 10 2010 11:40 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:34 Kenpachi wrote:On December 10 2010 11:20 Gabriel wrote:Interesting: my half good "im new" shot is now voting for me. Kenpachi care to explain A) your vote B) your deep posts? + Show Spoiler +On December 10 2010 07:11 Kenpachi wrote:
oh shit.. i cant really imagine Professor Oak dead D: On December 10 2010 07:47 Kenpachi wrote:
Pikachu - Townie
Raichu - Miller
Chansey - Medic
Cloyster - Veteran
Alakazam - Detective
Electrode - Mad Hatter
Mew - Special Detective
Gengar - God Father
Koffing - Mafia Grunt
Weezing - Mafia Shrink
Mewtwo - 3rd Party Vigilante
notice how our only way of killing at night is Mad Hatter and 3rd party.. 3rd party is technically against us and will probably kill town over mafia due to immunity and their goal is to be last alive. On December 10 2010 07:50 Kenpachi wrote:
yea claiming is a no no. and i hate lynching inactives. doesnt work at all. On December 10 2010 08:01 Kenpachi wrote:
how many people can Mafia target per night? On December 10 2010 08:12 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:11 Eiii wrote:There always seem to be posts about how we all need to establish a 'pro-town environment', which is obvious of course I (and I'm sure lots of other newer players) have no clue what that *means* though, especially when we can't PM each other. (That might turn out to be more of a blessing than a curse though.) So... can someone enlighten me? basically, where we can point out scum easily without confusing them as town.. i think On December 10 2010 08:14 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:13 KtheZ wrote:
Do we have a limited amount of double lynches? I think its 2. what would posting history 4 hours into the game show you? A) You dont want to be active posting B) You want to "look" active C) You read the rules but you actually dont know mafia KP? That was rare. D) You dont want to lynch inactives because that doesnt work. E) You want enlightment. F) You vote for me out of literally nowhere. I mean: i post to flip Infundibulum and you come right after me. Care to explain at least? A) 4 hours does not judge that. what if i went on TL tomorrow for the first time in the past 3 days? B) Anyone who posts would want to look active.. Why would they post if they want to look inactive? C) Why are you assuming i read the rules? how do you know i didnt just assume the KP? D) It doesnt. shh E) ?? its enlightenment F) I dont agree with you voting for Infundibulum. A) Well you just wrote 7 one liners and have yet to post something relevant. B) But you are NOT. It is not about how you look. Come on that is not an argument, so you post one liners to look active? what is that? Sparta? C) Well you actually read the rules because you posted the pokemon/classicmafia relation. I wonder why you just couldnt look for the mafia KP, and insisted to look clueless asking for it. D) It doesnt? well you were pretty much inactive and so was Infundibulum. Maybe it does.E) You think too much. You have again 2 posts where you "think" about this "think" about that, when it is clear that those post refer to info available in the opening rules. This heavily smells like "im not too sure, i dont know" plot. F) So you agree that you are protecting infundibulum by voting me: More reason to flip him!. This logic is flawed since the game just started. So they didn't post right at the start and their first post was later then a lot of people's. So they were inactive til their first post? What about all the other people that haven't posted yet. When they make their first post are you going to say the same thing about them? After all, they were even later and therefore must be even more suspicious? Note that Kenpachi was actually posting since the start of the thread. People is inactive because we are just starting the game but nonsense has to be pinned down as soon as it comes out. I find hilariously weird that a guy posting one liners comes right after i vote Infundibulum (with a reason that may or may not be strong for other players) and simply votes Gabriel because he doesnt like my vote on Infundibulum. What do you think? Is that normal? He didnt even posted that. So is this your first game?
More bashing. Totally unhelpful.
On December 10 2010 13:52 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 12:19 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 12:12 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 12:11 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 12:01 Oceanic wrote:On December 10 2010 11:57 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:44 Kenpachi wrote:On December 10 2010 11:40 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:34 Kenpachi wrote:On December 10 2010 11:20 Gabriel wrote:Interesting: my half good "im new" shot is now voting for me. Kenpachi care to explain A) your vote B) your deep posts? + Show Spoiler +On December 10 2010 07:11 Kenpachi wrote:
oh shit.. i cant really imagine Professor Oak dead D: On December 10 2010 07:47 Kenpachi wrote:
Pikachu - Townie
Raichu - Miller
Chansey - Medic
Cloyster - Veteran
Alakazam - Detective
Electrode - Mad Hatter
Mew - Special Detective
Gengar - God Father
Koffing - Mafia Grunt
Weezing - Mafia Shrink
Mewtwo - 3rd Party Vigilante
notice how our only way of killing at night is Mad Hatter and 3rd party.. 3rd party is technically against us and will probably kill town over mafia due to immunity and their goal is to be last alive. On December 10 2010 07:50 Kenpachi wrote:
yea claiming is a no no. and i hate lynching inactives. doesnt work at all. On December 10 2010 08:01 Kenpachi wrote:
how many people can Mafia target per night? On December 10 2010 08:12 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:11 Eiii wrote:There always seem to be posts about how we all need to establish a 'pro-town environment', which is obvious of course I (and I'm sure lots of other newer players) have no clue what that *means* though, especially when we can't PM each other. (That might turn out to be more of a blessing than a curse though.) So... can someone enlighten me? basically, where we can point out scum easily without confusing them as town.. i think On December 10 2010 08:14 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:13 KtheZ wrote:
Do we have a limited amount of double lynches? I think its 2. what would posting history 4 hours into the game show you? A) You dont want to be active posting B) You want to "look" active C) You read the rules but you actually dont know mafia KP? That was rare. D) You dont want to lynch inactives because that doesnt work. E) You want enlightment. F) You vote for me out of literally nowhere. I mean: i post to flip Infundibulum and you come right after me. Care to explain at least? A) 4 hours does not judge that. what if i went on TL tomorrow for the first time in the past 3 days? B) Anyone who posts would want to look active.. Why would they post if they want to look inactive? C) Why are you assuming i read the rules? how do you know i didnt just assume the KP? D) It doesnt. shh E) ?? its enlightenment F) I dont agree with you voting for Infundibulum. A) Well you just wrote 7 one liners and have yet to post something relevant. B) But you are NOT. It is not about how you look. Come on that is not an argument, so you post one liners to look active? what is that? Sparta? C) Well you actually read the rules because you posted the pokemon/classicmafia relation. I wonder why you just couldnt look for the mafia KP, and insisted to look clueless asking for it. D) It doesnt? well you were pretty much inactive and so was Infundibulum. Maybe it does.E) You think too much. You have again 2 posts where you "think" about this "think" about that, when it is clear that those post refer to info available in the opening rules. This heavily smells like "im not too sure, i dont know" plot. F) So you agree that you are protecting infundibulum by voting me: More reason to flip him!. This logic is flawed since the game just started. So they didn't post right at the start and their first post was later then a lot of people's. So they were inactive til their first post? What about all the other people that haven't posted yet. When they make their first post are you going to say the same thing about them? After all, they were even later and therefore must be even more suspicious? Note that Kenpachi was actually posting since the start of the thread. People is inactive because we are just starting the game but nonsense has to be pinned down as soon as it comes out. I find hilariously weird that a guy posting one liners comes right after i vote Infundibulum (with a reason that may or may not be strong for other players) and simply votes Gabriel because he doesnt like my vote on Infundibulum. What do you think? Is that normal? He didnt even posted that. So is this your first game? You are not good at reading my friend ⇓. I thought you were a better mafia player on your old account. What happened to that?
More criticism. Still no actual content.
On December 12 2010 08:03 d3_crescentia wrote:
Hasn't it been 48 hours already since Day 1 post?
Valid question.
On December 13 2010 17:21 d3_crescentia wrote:
My read on last night's events:
Last nights deaths make sense from the context of ridding the town of leadership and/or bluesniping. Tree.hugger had already established himself as a strong town player despite his misread on Kenpachi. I imagine his blue-ness was icing on the cake for mafia. Similarly for jcarlsoniv, who contributed to discussion. RoL is a dangerous player to have for anyone around, and his relative activity makes sense for a blue read (for me, anyway).
Who took the 4th hit? Step up and claim. If you do NOT, then it leaves room for Gengar to sneak in.
I'm having a hard time coming up with more leads at this point in time. With mafia targeting active townies they're looking more to destroy whatever organization we're getting and feed us whatever lies they want us to believe. LSB and Hesmyrr seem likely to me, as does Gabriel. The Eiii/zeks is something I'm not entirely sure on, because I never bought into Gabriel's analysis of zeks too strongly.
Yes! Finally you contribute something more than a one liner! Ok. So an actual analysis of what happened. I think that it’s mostly commenting on somewhat obvious points, but hey, I’ll give you some slack, it’s your first analysis. Also, not that this says a lot, but everyone on your suspect list that has died has flipped town. Just wanted to point that out.
On December 13 2010 17:22 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 17:15 Brocket wrote:
I was reading through the roles again. I get why there was only voltorb because electrode only gets to place 1 voltorb per night or switches 1 voltorb per night (not both).
But what seems odd to me is the rule that if mew is checked by alakazam, mew will appear as alakazam. What's the point of that if there is only 1 alakazam in the game?
I kind of get that gengar can appear as alakazam too. I guess that's a given that gengar will always choose to apper as alakazam.. to appear as mew? Honestly I would have just made it mew appears as mew, and gengar can appear as mew. There is probably more than 1 Alakazam in the game.
Hmm. Something I was just thinking about. A fair thing to point out, not going to lie…
On December 14 2010 23:47 d3_crescentia wrote:The relative silence of the town bothers me, because it's just what mafia needs to win. The contribution of members named KtheZ, chaoser, deconduo, Insanious, ShoCkeyy, serApH, DCLXVI, Oceanic is virtually nil. We need to spend our time finding by rooting through the list of semi-lurking voters and figure out which ones we want to kill and/or check. Gabriel's insistence on a zeks vote today is distracting, but the votes on him thus far aren't very well-explained either. LSB and Shockeyy need to explain themselves on this. Actually, Shockeyy needs to explain himself, period. He only has ONE post thus far in the thread: + Show Spoiler +On December 12 2010 05:51 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 04:35 tree.hugger wrote:On December 11 2010 17:41 tree.hugger wrote:My hunch is that he's not going to be able to commit fully to anything, no matter how much we prod.
On December 12 2010 02:30 Kenpachi wrote:
asdf. even when i post, i get pointed scum On December 12 2010 02:35 Kenpachi wrote:
okay so yea my posts were bad but what can i say? i couldnt offer anything there and there. So i voted Gabriel for blatant bandwagon. Then he reacts and i defend. On December 12 2010 02:27 Kenpachi wrote:
##vote tree.hugger On December 12 2010 04:10 Kenpachi wrote:On December 12 2010 03:39 DCLXVI wrote:
Thank you insanious and tree.hugger, I hope to see more people post like that. I don't understand why people are letting Kenpachi off the hook for bad posting. So what if he has a history of being less than stellar for the town. We cannot allow him to spam and distract the town because even if he isn't mafia, this helps the mafia. He is playing in a way that benefits the mafia, so even if he isn't (though I think he is), he is dangerous for the town. I really don't like the defense used by darth and meepak of "oh, well this is just how he normally plays". Townies don't intentionally hurt the town by doing what kenpachi is doing.
I'll hopefully be back in a bit before the vote ends, but I feel safe in putting my vote on Kenpachi. Every vote on him is a vote to clean up the town. youre dumb. what if i happened to be DT or Medic? On December 12 2010 04:13 Kenpachi wrote:On December 12 2010 04:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 12 2010 04:10 Kenpachi wrote:On December 12 2010 03:39 DCLXVI wrote:
Thank you insanious and tree.hugger, I hope to see more people post like that. I don't understand why people are letting Kenpachi off the hook for bad posting. So what if he has a history of being less than stellar for the town. We cannot allow him to spam and distract the town because even if he isn't mafia, this helps the mafia. He is playing in a way that benefits the mafia, so even if he isn't (though I think he is), he is dangerous for the town. I really don't like the defense used by darth and meepak of "oh, well this is just how he normally plays". Townies don't intentionally hurt the town by doing what kenpachi is doing.
I'll hopefully be back in a bit before the vote ends, but I feel safe in putting my vote on Kenpachi. Every vote on him is a vote to clean up the town. youre dumb. what if i happened to be DT or Medic? Are you claiming DT or medic? no i am not Word. I suppose we'll get treated to angry defending eventually, as he's in the lead right now, but hey, that might be too committed. Alright, I feel like kenpachi is getting way to agressive here. All his post have been aggressive and not helpful in anyway. + Show Spoiler +A) 4 hours does not judge that. what if i went on TL tomorrow for the first time in the past 3 days? B) Anyone who posts would want to look active.. Why would they post if they want to look inactive? C) Why are you assuming i read the rules? how do you know i didnt just assume the KP? D) It doesnt. shh E) ?? its enlightenment F) I dont agree with you voting for Infundibulum. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174831¤tpage=14#270When he starts saying, that why do people assume that he reads the rules, makes me question him. Everyone reads the rules and we know this because that's part of the game. If he's saying he doesn't that just seems phishy to me imo. I also feel like, he posted the DT or Medic theory in order to try and get some people off of his case cause he can possibly be a TR member. I've seen this happen plenty of times where they pull out the "I might be a DT or Medic" and they end up not being it. My two cents, maybe I am wrong, but this is what I've been able to read off of. I'll be back in the evening, so don't go anywhere.
Huh. Didn’t you say earlier that DT’s need to focus on the active people? Why wouldn’t we follow the same advice? Your plan seems backwards. Townies work off of analysis, so it’s pretty hard to get a good read on a lurker. They have nothing to analyze. So why tell the town to do the thing that they are worst at, and tell the DT’s to check the very people that the town can check the easiest? This is pretty scummy to me…
On December 15 2010 08:59 d3_crescentia wrote:
Shockeyy, I was going to call out Amber, but then I read his early game posts and found no problem with them. Whereas for you... I read one post. If you don't want to be of suspicion contribute more... and make it so that it isn't just you defending yourself or revenge voting against us. As for LSB, I don't think he has enough attention on him as he advocated things I didn't really agree with overall. Please don't take my posts out of context to do make us seem like bed-buddies.
I seriously SERIOUSLY disagree with double lynching tomorrow. Do we have good candidates yet? I might reconsider if we can confirm at least ONE.
If you’re going to read through all his posts, why not post an analysis? “If you don’t want to be suspicious, contribute more.” You said it yourself. Unless bashing is considered “contributing” then you’ve got a lot to answer for…
On December 15 2010 09:06 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 08:46 Infundibulum wrote:On December 15 2010 08:32 BrownBear wrote:
I am here, voting for myself again because I'm not superconvinced by any arguments so far. That said, having Hesmyrr as a (mostly) confirmed town voice is nice. That is seriously all you have to say? What is not convincing? Do you have any better alternatives?? Let's vote BrownBear instead. Y/N?
Totally unhelpful, adds nothing to the town. Just quotes someone and suggests a lynch. Even if it was a joke, you’re adding spam to the board, something that you’ve been doing a lot of.
On December 15 2010 12:25 d3_crescentia wrote:
@Kavdragon, I would agree with your analysis of Amber, except that *I* started with a Shockeyy vote. At that point in time we had a total of exactly FIVE votes. You might consider it late in the day, but I'm not satisfied with a town vote on one candidate. Of course it troubles me that my actions could split the vote so late, but what was even more troubling is that we had an entire town willing to go with Zeks based entirely on Day 1 discussion, and very little to go on for Day 2. Someone has to take the lead here.
Secondly, Zeks might very well turn out green and if we have 100% of town voting them, there's absolutely nothing to analyze. As it stands it looks more likely that Gabriel is scum, not me, as he seemingly dodged another lynch today. Are my actions indicative that I did so to derail his wagon, considering only a few people followed? Maybe you should consider the other 9+ people voting on Zeks right now instead.
Oh? I hadn’t noticed you voted before amber’s analysis. So you voted Shockeyy without even bothering to share your explination…The hell? How did the town miss this? And you accused others of jumping on a bandwagon unexplained…Really?
On December 15 2010 12:33 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 11:46 LSB wrote:ShoCkey Previous Game Analysis Caller's Red Army Mafyia: Role: Medic Posted 99% one liners. Got angry and warned for flaming. Mafia XVI: Role: Townie: Takes positions, especially on Xelin. Defends himself mostly civily. Mostly one-liners. + Show Spoiler +On January 21 2010 08:41 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2010 08:34 QuickStriker wrote:On January 21 2010 08:21 ShoCkeyy wrote:On January 21 2010 08:17 QuickStriker wrote:On January 21 2010 08:14 ShoCkeyy wrote:
O_o we haven't started yet right? Uhh... yes we did??? And like no one is around to discuss and talk about the game in contrast to the other mafia game where it's way more active.... =/ Well I posted in the voting thread already since I couldn't find it till now ._. Hmm... well welcome!!! Glad to have at least one more active member of our little town.... it seems the mafias have put some poison gas or some sort of gas which is why everyone is silent or sleeping right now.... o.O Well QuickStriker, I will support you in this. I don't think you're the Mafia. Show nested quote +On January 20 2010 17:01 XeliN wrote:On January 20 2010 12:52 no_re wrote:Well hi everyone, my first mafia game, not entirely sure how it works so bare with me if Im doing it wrong, however relating to the "clues" posted everyday here is what I got from the above entry. My first thought when dissecting the post was this rather obvious quote: With a quick attack, the Sheriff Ace collapsed to the ground. A quick attack? Well with a player named QuickStriker in the game this looks like a kind of obvious clue. Also he was the first to respond to the first Sheriff Candidacy anouncement of Fulgrim, drawing attention to himself being "amused" by Fulgrim's "I'm not a mafia" comment. This intruiged me. I think that analysis overall was extremely good, from reading up on some earlier Mafia games it seems that the host often likes the come up with elaborate or entertaining deaths. This in itself makes the " With a quick attack " stand out far more in my eyes, and somewhat exonerates the other as possibly just being a whimsical choice by the host. In all honesty this by itself is enough to make me fairly suspicious and Quickstriker I am still more suspicious when I see some of what you have typed. In particular your reaction to no_re's non-serious accusation where you are essentially saying we must "hold off any action untill the DT comes forward and leads us through the valley of death and into the promised land" - I paraphrased, This however, as far as I can tell is an exceptionally bad strategy, the point of electing a mayor or sherrif is someone who seems active, discerning and importantly decisive, and your suggestion of sit and wait reeks to me on manipulation at an early stage. p.s. am i doin it rite? I think Xelin is the Mafia. He's already accusing you of being mafia even though the game hasn't started. Not only that, he's trying to submit himself as the Mayor, trying to find his way around from being lynched off. He knows that if he is able to be the mayor, then we're screwed. On January 21 2010 09:38 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Hmm, I don't like this whole vote for me thing. Seems fishy, and especially the way he words it. He tries to win you over, so he can make sure he wins. I like his style no lie. But I won't be able to vote for him. Laaan, sorry, but my vote remains the same.
All you out of towners better stay in ya'll wreckin area. We don't like you hippie folks round hea. On January 22 2010 00:30 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Ok, so I see some of you think I should be lynched. Well for one, I'm typing off my phone, so bare with me. Second, I voted for quikstriker, cause he seems like the right canidate for the mayor position out of everyone else here who is trying to be mayor. I rather choose some one who didn't impose themselves into trying to be mayor. Brings me to my reason as to why I would want xelin lynched.
Xelin saw that quikstriker was being the most helpful in this thread. He didn't like that, so he quickly picks quikstriker to be lynched. Then soon after post that he wants to be mayor, the reason as to why I don't want to vote for some one that says "I'm running for mayor." They seem more fake than anybody else here. Now I can tell you, I vote for xelin to be lynched 75% of the way.
The other 25% go to those who are quietly coming in that have watched us argue about who to lynch first. I feel like they watched us bicker to see and now that we have some what of an idea who we're going to lynch first. Now the mafia come in to back them up so we an lynch a townie. Which brings me to my other conclusion. Decafchicken I'm watching you. And one more that Shockeyy left out TL Mafia XVIII: Role: Mafia: Shockey was under heavy clue suspicion. He responded mostly civilly. However, most noticeably Shockey has essentially only one post that isn't either spam or defending himself (included below). Shockey shys away from taking any positions, besides defending himself. + Show Spoiler +On February 28 2010 07:30 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I think it's pretty clear right now that the town should not be voting to kill Scamp. He is right in that at best all L has is some shaky clue analysis. In fact, most of L's clue analysis is directed at other players (Chez, johnny, me) and not at Scamp, go read his posts if you don't believe me.
Something I've noticed is that Scamp has actually taken the time to legitimately defend himself. I remember when we were going to lynch Mystlord, he hardly said a thing and most of what he said only incriminated him more. Right now the only thing incriminating Scamp is L. Also when QS was going to be lynched he came up with the stupid modkill plan that had no way working. Scamp hasn't tried to pull anything of that caliber. It seems to me he's arguing as a townsperson.
To the town, L has already convinced you to lynch our Mayor/medic. What's going to happen when Scamp turns up innocent? We'll be in a bigger mindfuck than we are right now. tree.hugger is clearly the safer vote right now. It's no doubt that if Scamp does not get lynched, L will continue to incriminate him. If Scamp is indeed mafia, he's going to slip up somewhere. Do you agree? Or any objections? For context, was Scamp on his team? Were they in a losing position? A winning position? This doesn't actually say shit until we know what the history was in that game.
Bashing of useful information to the town.
On December 15 2010 12:48 d3_crescentia wrote:
Day should end now so I can go to sleep ^_^
On December 15 2010 13:13 d3_crescentia wrote:
but it's not gonna so I'm going to sleep >_<
Spam.
On December 15 2010 20:55 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 18:25 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
I just wanna say I'm delighted at how not spammy this game has been. I'm not. Means that there isn't adequate discussion or finger-pointing to get anywhere.
I must say sir, you’ve contributed marvelously to the conversation you are so keen to point out. [/sarcasm]
On December 15 2010 21:20 d3_crescentia wrote:
Zeks voters where you at? Oh right, below:
zeks
Gabriel
DCLXVI
GGQ
kitaman27
Insanious
DarthThienAn
Infundibulum
chaoser
Oceanic
Eiii
KtheZ
Node
ghrur
Gabriel
Brocket
ShoCkeyy
dinmsab
deconduo
Kavdragon
Shockeyy
d3_crescentia
Amber[LighT]
LSB
Brownbear
Brownbear
SerapH
SerapH
Pandain?
tube
LSB
Cross-examine with yesterday's vote list:
Hesmyrr 1
d3_crescentia
LSB 1
tube
Gabriel 1
dinmsab
Stormtemplar 1
zeks
ghrur 1
ghrur
Zeks 11
Gabriel
KtheZ
Infundibulum
Node
DarthThienAn
Meapak_Ziphh
chaoser
Hesmyrr?
Kenpachi
GGQ
Oceanic
kenpachi 12
tree.hugger
deconduo
Insanious
Brocket
LSB
jcarlsoniv
DCLXVI
Kavdragon
ShoCkeyy
seRapH
Amber[LighT]
Eiii
kitaman27 1
kitaman27
BrownBear 1
BrownBear
Please note that RoL did not vote Day 1 and is now dead. Analysis inc
PS I think my tags are screwy.
Hey look at me! It’s a big long list with NOTHING SAID.
On December 15 2010 22:25 d3_crescentia wrote:
Important things to note on this list:
Inactives/single votes
There is absolutely no way we can continue voting in onesies because it makes analysis too hard. Of these on Day 1 we have: Brownbear, kitaman27, ghrur, dinmsab, and tube. Their actions on Day 2: Brownbear, tube (also note that in the above list tube should be voting for LSB, not the other way around), dinmsab with no change. Brownbear's inactivity is terrible and his presence isn't good for the town at all. As for the other two, dinmsab has voted for Gabriel twice and the same for tube -> LSB. If either of these two strongly believe in their votes then they should be in the thread actively promoting their viewpoint instead of sitting back passively; otherwise they might as well be scum.
The meat: Zeks
You might note that the Zeks list is virtually identical between Day 1 and 2, with the exception of Hesmyrr/Pandain and kitaman27/Insanious/Eiii jumping ship from elsewhere. Insanious wasted a lot of time sticking his neck out in a tree-hugger analysis; Eiii is not necessarily scum given his last-minute vote on zeks Day 1; kitaman27 played fairly aggressive pro-town in the beginning but has fallen silent since. For now, we shouldn't care too much about these people.
The rest of the list (and a brief summary of posts):
DCLXVI - not much contribution here as far as targets; just a bunch of fluff
GGQ - makes a few points wrt Zeks (I found them uncompelling, but maybe that's hindsight)
chaoser - some early game discussion and defense of Kenpachi; has cited finals
Oceanic - early defense of infundibulum/anti-Gabriel; has cited finals
KtheZ - early agreement/defense of Gabriel and then vanished
Node - points out LSB, agrees with Gabriel wrt Zeks, believes Hesmyrr's (now Pandain's) roleclaim
ghrur - agreement with Node on LSB
I'm going to take the other three (Gabriel, DarthThienAn, Infundibulum) separately and get back to it tonight. Stay tuned for one more post...
Hmm. This one almost had me. It looks like you are contributing a little, because it’s not a one liner, but then I read it. You give off a list of people with tiny (and inaccurate, imo) mini analyses, that often make no sense at all. Way to go, you’ve just made it look like you’re adding to the town, without actually adding. A classic mafia move.
On December 15 2010 22:49 d3_crescentia wrote:
I don't pretend I'm good at analysis; in fact I'm probably trash terrible at it. Shortened because I have to go to work soon -_-
Here's what I noticed about the Zeks list in particular:
- Much of the voting comes from Gabriel's early game analysis of Zeks. While Gabriel himself could be whatever, at least one of his supporters IS scum. Let's work on analyzing Gabriel and his early-game followers.
- The discussion between DCLXVI and chaoser wrt to Kenpachi is particularly telling. Chaoser's defense is along the lines of "Kenpachi just posts that way" while DCLXVI's responses are "yeah but if he WERE mafia it'd be so easy for him to hide!" Something about this just doesn't strike me as particularly innocent on DCLXVI's part, as he seems to be posting an unnecessary defense of himself when Kenpachi died, and a lot of "we should do/have done X" statements recently. His vote for zeks isn't particularly well-justified; in fact it's a bit of a 180-degree turn as he suddenly shifted from "Kenpachi is scum" to "scum must have bandwagoned Kenpachi in the end to save zeks!" (Post on this sometime tonight as well)
Okay, off to work. Hope that's enough for you guys to chew on for tomorrow. Someone else come up with a night plan? In general, Gabriel might be good to check; DTA/Inf as well; DCLXVI cuz I think so. Medics protect who you can/find most compelling.
This is the first try at an actual analysis, imo. But I’d tend to agree with you. It’s not that great. You paraphrase things with a major bias, and you end up with a weak argument that doesn’t help the town. Then you act like you just contributed a bunch of information for the town to “chew” over. LOL, at the end you tell medics to heal whoever they think is the most compelling, something that you criticized someone earlier for doing. Scummy inconsistencies…
On December 15 2010 22:49 d3_crescentia wrote:quiet you
Spam
On December 16 2010 09:43 Amber[LighT] wrote:I believe this is what the quote in question was supposed to mean. I have made a number of post edits and it seemed to be getting spammy. Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 07:50 ShoCkeyy wrote:Want to bandwagon against me? Well heres your chance to now redeem yourselves from what I'm about to post. Analysis for Day 1: Already agreeing with each other, but hey this isn't enough yet. + Show Spoiler +On December 10 2010 07:43 LSB wrote:I'll just use posts made before Inactives:Show nested quote +A big problem in every mafia game is inactivity. I don't want another drag_ being able to squeak by with barely any posts. We should immediately show it is not okay to be inactive.
Inactive players hurt the town as they waste lynches down the road as the town will need to try to separate the mafia from the inactives.
We should therefore lynch an inactive day one. This will force the assassins to discuss and not be able to turtle, increasing the chance they will slip up. PlanFirstly. DO NOT CLAIM DO NOT CLAIM Good now that we got that out of the way, some other ideas. One plan that would work is to use the blue roles to promote activity in the town. The Alakazam should check the inactive people and the lurkers, as it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between a bored townie and a lurking mafia. The Chansey's should protect active players, this way the mafia won't be able to take out the people who are contributing the most to town, so people won't be scared of trying to put forth their opinions. On December 10 2010 07:47 Amber[LighT] wrote:
*Things like role checks.
I agree with LSB as well, no role claiming strategies. They almost never work. On December 10 2010 10:03 d3_crescentia wrote:
Hesmyrr with the insubstantial "I agree" post. Let's watch out for him. d3, why don't you also watch out for your team mates? or are you trying to confuse the town as well. Here's some more agreeing by LSB, BUT CONTRADICTING. First d3 says meh to LSB plan, but then later on agrees to LSB plan. + Show Spoiler +On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:
LSB's blue plan is pretty meh. It's not a good plan of attack for our Zams to check lurkers and inactives; they should be checking people who could be scum, including whoever is contributing the most. Keep in mind that all the mafia needs to do is to distract and confuse the town enough so that they make poor decisions. On December 10 2010 10:11 LSB wrote:Remember, the town's best weapon is analysis. By checking the inactives, we flush out the mafia to the limelight where they easily could be found. We want the mafia to attempt to distract the town, this way we can catch onto what they are doing. The town has to be vigilant to guard against these attempts + Show Spoiler +
Discussing a plan is one of the best ways to generate activity and catch a scum btw
On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:
I'd rather we just kill the inactives. I think checking them is a waste. Some more agreeing from d3 to LSB + Show Spoiler +On December 10 2010 10:32 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:
Wait. What?
Lynch is less important than a DT check? Seconded. That is kind of bullshit.
Something a townie once said, which is quite true. Why would you go into a game already telling what people to do? Why do you constantly force your opinion to be "the voice of reasoning" + Show Spoiler +On December 10 2010 08:53 jcarlsoniv wrote:
@LSB: While trying to coordinate blues seems good, I have to say, the more games I play, the more I hate to see people directing blues in thread. On Day 1, I think they need to do what they think needs to be done without influence from the thread. Any direction from the thread can also be seen by scum, and thus they will be clued in as well. No, obviously, I know that the blues don't need to listen to what is said in the thread, but they will be influenced by what is said. Let's hope we have good blues this time around. On December 10 2010 09:59 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 09:53 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 09:48 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 09:40 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 09:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:
Also @LSB: I don't think we should say "we need to lynch inactives". While it may pressure scum to come out from hiding, I have seen it hit town more often than not. I think we need to deal with who is out and talking and giving us things to analyze rather than just blindly shooting into a room with a shotgun. How do you propose we deal with inactives/lurkers then? We can't just 'leave it for another day'. It's going to be a problem, and if we have no good leads day one, we should do this early, rather than late. On December 10 2010 08:53 jcarlsoniv wrote:
@LSB: While trying to coordinate blues seems good, I have to say, the more games I play, the more I hate to see people directing blues in thread. On Day 1, I think they need to do what they think needs to be done without influence from the thread. Any direction from the thread can also be seen by scum, and thus they will be clued in as well. No, obviously, I know that the blues don't need to listen to what is said in the thread, but they will be influenced by what is said. Let's hope we have good blues this time around. So your saying that plans are bad? Interesting. Take my plan, what's bad about it? I agree that we should point to inactives if we have no other leads, but I'm saying to not just say "ok, let's find the inactives" right away. We have 48 hours to find candidates for lynch, no reason to dismiss the possibility of finding one right off the bat. I didn't say your plan was bad, seeing as you didn't really post a plan, nor did I say the word "plan" I was merely pointing out my own observations. What you had posted was good, it was vague, and a good general direction. Getting anymore specific than that at this point can be dangerous. On December 10 2010 09:40 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 09:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:
Also @LSB: I don't think we should say "we need to lynch inactives". While it may pressure scum to come out from hiding, I have seen it hit town more often than not. I think we need to deal with who is out and talking and giving us things to analyze rather than just blindly shooting into a room with a shotgun. I rather start the blind shoot into this small room with a shotgun. We are not getting analysis going too far away day one. Picking the right guy at the right time is picking a dead weight at first. How can you possibly say this? The game literally just started, and we have 48 hours to scumhunt. Again, I am going to say, there is no reason to dismiss the idea of finding a lynch candidate Day 1. You must understand. In order to make sure that people are active, we have to decide early that we going to punish people who are inactive. This way, people are going to be warned and hopefully people won't be inactive. Best case scenario we won't have to lynch an inactive person in the first place since everyone will contribute to the town. I notice you avoided discussion on my 'general direction.' Do you support it? Why? Do you now think we should give general directions to blues? I don't not support it (if that makes any sense). I am going under the assumption that our blues are at least halfway competent players, and will be able to think for themselves to use their roles effectively. This may be very naive though. I think general direction right now is fine for now, as long as we don't get too specific, especially Day 1. The last thing I want is for blues to be sniped right away. In this sense, I definitely agree with you that everyone should keep their roles secret for now. Tube Calling out LSB after LSB tried to "Defend" himself from Kav + Show Spoiler +On December 11 2010 14:39 tube wrote:Also, before you defend LSB you should take another look at the manners in which hes been posting Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 12:55 LSB wrote:
Kav, you completely misinterpreted what I did in the game.
Take a look at my posts with Jcarlsoniv. They are not spam, they serve a specific purpose. If you want me to explain, sure... but it's quiet obvious
Secondly, you are taking all of the posts out of context. Most of them are responses to other people. Look at his defense against Kav's [long] list of suspicions. He tries to answer for all of his posts by merely responding that they were all taken out of context. Nor does he even say what "specific purpose" any of those posts had. If those purposes were to answer questions, they had more of an effect of making him look like hes trying hard to come off as town. Though apparently we should see his purposes as "quiet obvious" to the point where he does not have to explain them. (or can't?) Day 2 Coming soon. You should probably also note in your smear campaign that the post you quoted from me wasnt a simple agree. I had another post that you neglected:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 07:46 Amber[LighT] wrote:On December 10 2010 07:42 Oceanic wrote:
Doesn't it say in 1 of the guides posted that lynching an inactive day 1 is not something you should do? Lynching an inactive typically results in lynching an apathetic townie. Everyone should be posting frequently to discuss who should die for day 1. There are no PM's so everything should be out in the open. We should really worry less about how the blues should play. Thinks like role checks won't be overly reliable, and saving people cannot be discussed in the thread. It probably would be a good idea for the electrodes to think about where to place voltorbs and pick up on good scum tells.
YES! Your first analysis! Good job! A little late to start though, SCUM.
On December 16 2010 10:39 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 10:35 LSB wrote:
If I die, check out Shocky, D3, and Brocket I'm pretty sure I'm not TR. The other two might be worth a look though.
Spam.
On December 16 2010 12:36 d3_crescentia wrote:
I took the fourth hit.
This confirms nothing. Mafia could have stacked hits, and then had you claim to take a hit. It’s an interesting claim though.
On December 16 2010 12:49 d3_crescentia wrote:
No more FoS. At this rate the discussion isn't going to get anywhere if we just keep pointing FoS at each other and do NOTHING with our votes. My current candidates to consider for TR, in no particular order, are:
DCLXVI
Infundibulum
Kavdragon
Brownbear
Wheren’t you just complaining to DrH that there wasn’t enough FoS to analyse?
On December 16 2010 12:58 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 12:49 DCLXVI wrote:On December 16 2010 10:19 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 16 2010 03:28 DCLXVI wrote:On December 15 2010 22:49 d3_crescentia wrote:
I don't pretend I'm good at analysis; in fact I'm probably trash terrible at it. Shortened because I have to go to work soon -_-
Here's what I noticed about the Zeks list in particular:
- Much of the voting comes from Gabriel's early game analysis of Zeks. While Gabriel himself could be whatever, at least one of his supporters IS scum. Let's work on analyzing Gabriel and his early-game followers.
- The discussion between DCLXVI and chaoser wrt to Kenpachi is particularly telling. Chaoser's defense is along the lines of "Kenpachi just posts that way" while DCLXVI's responses are "yeah but if he WERE mafia it'd be so easy for him to hide!" Something about this just doesn't strike me as particularly innocent on DCLXVI's part, as he seems to be posting an unnecessary defense of himself when Kenpachi died, and a lot of "we should do/have done X" statements recently. His vote for zeks isn't particularly well-justified; in fact it's a bit of a 180-degree turn as he suddenly shifted from "Kenpachi is scum" to "scum must have bandwagoned Kenpachi in the end to save zeks!" (Post on this sometime tonight as well)
Okay, off to work. Hope that's enough for you guys to chew on for tomorrow. Someone else come up with a night plan? In general, Gabriel might be good to check; DTA/Inf as well; DCLXVI cuz I think so. Medics protect who you can/find most compelling. Might as well pull a shockeyy and start defending myself heavily. Next time I would like to see you quote my posts instead of summarizing them tinted heavily from your perspective. If I truly act scummy then there is no need for you to change what my posts say. I voted for kenpachi because he acted scummy and was useless for the town. I said that the defense "well he normally acts scummy" is a terrible defense and we should still lynch him because he acts scummy. Umm, I flipped and thought zeks was highly likely to be scum because I found out that I was wrong day 1 and kenpachi was green? You never have to revise your views of people when we get more information? I didn't think gabe was red (and still don't) and I really didn't like your last minute bandwagon on shockeyy with lsb and amber. That sort of play just screams scum to me. Okay, I get it. You're just a trash poster, scum or not. WTF? Did you read what I posted? I accuse you of changing the meaning of my posts and you call me a trash poster? How does this have any relevance to what I posted? On December 10 2010 15:09 DCLXVI wrote:
Alright just read the thread. All I have to say is fuck you Team Rocket, Oak is the best character in the game. How did TR even manage to sneak up on him? Oak can tell from halfway around the world when you get on a bike, but he can't see a few clumsy TR members?
Seriously though, I am confused by gabriel. he makes some decent points about hesmyrr looking active but no content and infund's poor logic, but then he supports his points terribly. He attacks everyone who responds to him and then ragequits. Then the people he attacked + brocket vote him. Not sure if brocket is a newbie or is scum jumping on a free bandwagon. I need to read though the thread a few times more to get a clear view of what is going on, but I would like to hear some more posts on why gabriel/brocket/hesmyrr/infund are posting the way they are, not just people jumping on one side or the other. Early in the game - a call for more discussion. This isn't particularly scummy yet. another "trashy" post of course On December 12 2010 03:39 DCLXVI wrote:
Thank you insanious and tree.hugger, I hope to see more people post like that. I don't understand why people are letting Kenpachi off the hook for bad posting. So what if he has a history of being less than stellar for the town. We cannot allow him to spam and distract the town because even if he isn't mafia, this helps the mafia. He is playing in a way that benefits the mafia, so even if he isn't (though I think he is), he is dangerous for the town. I really don't like the defense used by darth and meepak of "oh, well this is just how he normally plays". Townies don't intentionally hurt the town by doing what kenpachi is doing.
I'll hopefully be back in a bit before the vote ends, but I feel safe in putting my vote on Kenpachi. Every vote on him is a vote to clean up the town. Restatement of what tree.hugger/Insanious said; no real contribution of his own. Do you just read the first line of what I post and then ignore the rest? Because that is the only way I can understand what you are talking about. On December 12 2010 15:21 DCLXVI wrote:On December 12 2010 14:44 chaoser wrote:
Guys...for everyone who played Salem...that's just how he plays -_- he was playing the exact same way he did in Salem, if he was mafia there would have been slight differences -_-. No comment. I did my best, I have no regrets Seriously though, I do not regret voting Kenpachi. He was distracting the thread from focusing on possible scum and was posting no relevant information. This does not help the town at all, and we were lucky that he was not a blue. Just because he normally acts scummy does not give him the right to post scummy. It would have been so easy for him to hide behind your terrible defense of him if he was mafia, and we cannot allow that to happen. @Meepak - Why do you want to vote for zeks or gabriel? Do you suspect mafia bandwagoned Kenpachi to save a teammate? Which one of them do you suspect more and why? Please answer these sorts of questions instead of posting accusatory one liners all the time. I was ready to write up a nice long post about the different people who defended kenpachi, but now that he has flipped green I need to rethink my arguments. Sorry for the lack of activity recently, let me sleep and in the morning I'll start pointing some fingers. Post-death justification when one was NOT NEEDED. We all knew Kenpachi was a trash poster in the first place (or at least I did) and that his death would not be missed. No one accused you of anything, so why bother to defend yourself? Because of some inner need to appear innocent at all times, perhaps? NOT NEEDED but asked for, notice I quoted someone who questioned the lynch. I'm sorry for further explaining my rationale behind voting, perhaps next till I will just randomly vote people off a list like you do: On December 14 2010 23:47 d3_crescentia wrote:
##vote: Shockeyy On December 15 2010 05:23 DCLXVI wrote:
With the number of swing votes that happened last time, I think that it is very likely that some scum jumped on the kenpachi bandwagon to save zeks. Not that Gabriel is posting any better, but I think that it is more likely that zeks is scum.
@amber
I don't think we analyzed the night actions enough. We barely covered the possibilities of what happened, and didn't bother to speculate which player was killed by mewtwo. That in itself could prove helpful to finding mewtwo, as well as finding scum connected to the other players who died.
and I loled at one inactive accusing another. And for those of us that have some BRAINS we realized that Zeks fell into the same category of posting as Kenpachi - trash terrible, but nonetheless a waste of a lynch. Also, if you bothered to do any THINKING at all you'd realize that it's in the best interest of Mewtwo to play town-aligned in the early game. Why are you interested in finding Mewtwo unless you were RED and worried about yourself? Maybe if you had some FORESIGHT you could've prepared better for losing mew. Now it will be even harder for us to find mewtwo, especially since people like you try to stop any town discussion like this. Notice the town cannot win with mewtwo alive, so while it might be in M2's best interest to appear townie, the town still needs to kill him. Why are you so scared of us finding mewtwo? Is that your role? On December 15 2010 05:39 DCLXVI wrote:On December 15 2010 05:31 Brocket wrote:
I guess if a detective (alakazam or mew) wants to check me out that could be productive. I'll show up as either a true townie or a gengar pretending to be one. Chansey's honestly should just use their prevention on whoever they want to keep in and if they decide that they themselves are the most valuable then so be it. Give gabe/zeks a scan too if they survive the day vote and future night attacks.
I could be a blue. Or a townie pretending to be a blue. Would it matter too much to the town if I was killed off by mafia? I sort of think of it as taking one for the team so the blues can get a night off.
I could be mafia. I think I'd like to be just a koffing. I wouldn't know who to sleep as a weezing. I talk a lot as you can see but I try to be productive without any hard evidence (then again who does?).
As far as mewtwo is concerned, he's just a wild card that confuses the night attacks and he's more likely to kill townies than mafia the first few nights until our numbers sufficiently dwindle. Sad but true.
tl,dr; Hey guys I'm trying to confuse the town and withhold information but that's ok because I'm town or maybe I'm not but thats fine maybe blues should do what I tell them but maybe not because that could be bad and maybe mewtwo is bad for us now but good later so lets not worry aboutanything. Nice, finally some condescension. Too bad it isn't an actual push for a lynch. If you're not scum you're still being too fucking lazy about this, and if you are - well, that's the perfect level of sneerage to detract from your own posting. Maybe if you had some BRAINS you could've noticed the sarcasm in the post, pointing to the uselessness of brocket's post. I guess things like this are too subtle for players of your caliber. On December 15 2010 15:54 DCLXVI wrote:@LSB While I like your idea of forming up a list of all the inactive/scummy players and then using dt's (or mad H's) on them, I don't think that it is a viable strategy now. A list like that would have to include around 85% of the players. In fact I'll whip one up right now: + Show Spoiler +1. deconduo
2. BrownBear
3. Eiii
4. GGQ
5. LSB
6. DarthThienAn
7. RebirthOfLeGenD (Pikachu, Night 1 Kill)
8. Amber[LighT]
9. dinmsab
10. jcarlsoniv (Pikachu, Night 1 Kill)
11. DCLXVI
12. Ghrur
13. Kenpachi (Pikachu, Day 1 Lynch)
14. Node
15. KtheZ
16. tube
17. chaoser
18. Oceanic
19. Gabriel
20. Insanious
21. Meapak_Ziphh (Pikachu, Night 1 Kill)
22. Shockeyy
23. seRapH
24. Kavdragon
25. tree.hugger (Electrode, Night 1 Kill
26. Infundibulum
27. Pandain
28. Brocket
29. kitaman27
30. d3_crescentia
31. zeks Right now I am trying to get more active, but as far as I see there are about 5 seriously active players. That is why we cannot have the medics self protect like you asked tonight. Night one mafia+M2 took out 3 of the most active players, and I would bet that they will continue that trend tonight. We desperately need every last active player, so unless the medics themselves are high priority targets for the mafia, they should not self protect. I am not trying to open up the medics to be hit, but lets be reasonable. What motive does the mafia have to try to hit random lurking blues over the few active players? Not to mention if they hit mew, they are pretty much screwed. Medics please decide who you want to live and lead our scum hunting tomorrow, Dts follow your gut, same with electrodes. Vets just be tough It would be nice to have some dt's give us information in 2 days (three night checks) so that we know about 1/2 of the alignments with some room for error with millers / GF / fake claims. We could hope for ~2 scum revealed this way, with maybe one fake claimed scum. (all numbers estimated in my head with my assumptions, check yourself) However I think we need to see how desperate our plight is come that time, maybe it will not be necessary then. On the other hand, Double lynching is becoming increasingly necessary. With our multiple bandwagons forming and splitting each vote, it looks like the mafia is having an easy time pulling votes off their team and sending townies to the noose. If we lose to many more townies tonight we won't be able to control the lynch very well in the coming days. We need to take advantage the DL to try and catch back up against the mafia's kills. That is something we seriously need to consider and vote on tomorrow depending on the night kills and the level of town activity come tomorrow morning. I want to see the night kills before I comment on potential scummy players tomorrow. Good night, and make sure you are well prepared for any multiples of trouble. Nice general advice. Doesn't really say much except "Maybe on Day 5 DTs should reveal all they know," not accounting for the fact that the Mafia will target those that the DTs check. Maybe the DTs will check inactive players, but what's to stop the mafia from counterclaiming with their own fake DT and sowing more chaos? There needs to be a better plan than just "in 3 days let's reveal." Of course, I realize that you yourself don't have much confidence in this plan of yours, seeing as how it's just plain terrible for town. Or you might just be TR putting thoughts in our mind. So step up and defend yourself, or I'll be putting my vote on you first thing come Day. Yeah I guess I don't say much besides criticizing LSB's plan and commenting on the double lynch benefits and outline a decent plan for the medics to follow (which they didn't, and now we lost more active townies  ). I guess I should post more like you: On December 16 2010 10:39 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 16 2010 10:35 LSB wrote:
If I die, check out Shocky, D3, and Brocket I'm pretty sure I'm not TR. The other two might be worth a look though. And you call my posts trashy. All of my posts at least have a reason behind them, as I, unlike you, don't feel the need to spam to seem active and townie. So in an effort to be a better townie should I go back and summarize your posts however I like, call you an idiot, and then try to start a bandwagon on you? Because that seems like one of the scummiest plans I can think of, but you manage to pull it off and people think you are one of the towniest of us all. Congratulations on returning fire; don't you feel GREAT about yourself now that you've contributed a post that amounts to a "NO U"? I'm sorry, "medics protect who you think you should" isn't telling them anything they don't know already. Post some real content for fuck's sake, because criticism and disagreement means jack shit unless you provide alternatives. If you haven't noticed, I'm trying to get town back on the right track, whereas all you do is whine about how I've mischaracterized you instead of contributing. Go analyze some other people, unless you're too scared to out your scum buddies.
Wow. You’ve summed up my comments to you pretty well.
People, read it for yourselfs. Vote Scum. Vote D3. Does anyone else see this?
(Sorry if I was a bit brief on the last few posts. I’m on a bit of a time crunch.)
|
PLEASE DISREGARD MY UNSPOILED ANALYSIS OF D3. IT CONTAINS VARIOUS ERRORS, WHICH HAVE BEEN LOOKED OVER AND CORRECTED HERE.
On December 16 2010 23:23 LSB wrote:
All right, I'll look over the analysis but next time dont quote spam... Or at least spoiler it
Sorry. I was a little over zealous. I usually take every post made by someone, so that they can't say "But you left out all of my good posts". I agree that that was excessive in this case.
To be fair to D3, he actually had a first post that I left out. I it was not a one liners, but he still only disagreed with a plan by LSB, and then gives a reason for inactives being harmful to the town.
Here's a spoilered, and checked version. (I had a few errors in my rush to finish)
+ Show Spoiler +On December 10 2010 10:03 d3_crescentia wrote:
Hesmyrr with the insubstantial "I agree" post. Let's watch out for him. Second post he made is criticizing another person. I think it's funny that he points out an insubstantial post with what is, imo, another insubstantial post. On December 10 2010 10:25 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:23 Hesmyrr wrote:
Moreover D1 lynches are always crapshoot. It is good and fine to publicly discuss and prod one's suspects, but at least waiting until D2 so one have more actual data to support the case on him/her seems just better. This is a large setup so we cannot just afford to let all the lurkers pass-by. They're always crapshoot because we have players that go about finding scum in a crappy way. I suggest that everyone else vote for you as well. And so the Bash fest starts. Why not suggest a less crappy way of going about finding scum D1? On December 10 2010 10:32 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:11 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:02 d3_crescentia wrote:
48 hours is not a long time to find scum. Let's start now.
LSB's blue plan is pretty meh. It's not a good plan of attack for our Zams to check lurkers and inactives; they should be checking people who could be scum, including whoever is contributing the most. Keep in mind that all the mafia needs to do is to distract and confuse the town enough so that they make poor decisions.
Remember, the town's best weapon is analysis. By checking the inactives, we flush out the mafia to the limelight where they easily could be found. We want the mafia to attempt to distract the town, this way we can catch onto what they are doing. The town has to be vigilant to guard against these attempts + Show Spoiler +Discussing a plan is one of the best ways to generate activity and catch a scum btw I'd rather we just kill the inactives. I think checking them is a waste. The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check. Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP. At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? Seconded. That is kind of bullshit. Do you really need to say this? It seems totally unnecessary, and harmful to the town to bash people like this. On December 10 2010 10:43 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:35 Hesmyrr wrote:On December 10 2010 10:25 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:23 Hesmyrr wrote:
Moreover D1 lynches are always crapshoot. It is good and fine to publicly discuss and prod one's suspects, but at least waiting until D2 so one have more actual data to support the case on him/her seems just better. This is a large setup so we cannot just afford to let all the lurkers pass-by. They're always crapshoot because we have players that go about finding scum in a crappy way. I suggest that everyone else vote for you as well. Chances of finding scum D2 > Chances of finding scum D1 always just purely on the basis that amount of information available will increase as the game progresses. So let's increase the amount of information available now. Why aren't you a good lynch candidate? You've contributed virtually nothing to the thread and are encouraging us to take a passive role in finding scum. Um… At this point you’ve not contributed anything great to the thread either. Your first post had some non-comittal plans, but was mostly just a disagreement with LSB. Why don’t you follow your own advice? On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:11 LSB wrote:[quote] Remember, the town's best weapon is analysis. By checking the inactives, we flush out the mafia to the limelight where they easily could be found. We want the mafia to attempt to distract the town, this way we can catch onto what they are doing. The town has to be vigilant to guard against these attempts + Show Spoiler +Discussing a plan is one of the best ways to generate activity and catch a scum btw I'd rather we just kill the inactives. I think checking them is a waste. The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check. Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP. At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. Hey look! More disagreements, without giving a alternative….Huh. That accusation sounds familiar… On December 10 2010 11:04 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:
[quote]
The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check.
Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP. At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box. I have no idea what that last line means. Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town. Another short unhelpful post. Why don’t you add some info to the town, eh? Seriously, you’ve called for “more info” multiple times, but haven’t added anything thus far… On December 10 2010 11:05 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:00 zeks wrote:
Lynch inactives or eventually they'll burn us in the ass in the end when we're fighting amongst each other
6 scum + 1 third party = 7 / 31 = 22% chance of sniping someone. I haven't played for a couple months but most the player list looks relatively foreign to me so I'm assuming theres quite a number of new players (over half?)
From what I've seen from past games newb scum tend to lurk (correct me if I'm wrong) so we shouldn't give a free pass to inactives. And with new players we don't have any material from past games to work with. And why don't you put your money where your mouth is and vote for an inactive instead of jumping on the bandwagon some clown started? LOL. Same to you my friend, Same to you. (Minus the whole jumping on a bandwagon part…) Also, your bashing the person who started it. Why not articulate your complaint against that person, instead of just calling them a clown? On December 10 2010 11:20 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:12 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:04 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:
[quote]
Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box. I have no idea what that last line means. Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town. I have a half decent target in the "im new guys" list. However right now i really want to flip Infundibulum because A) He came out of nowhere to dismiss lynching inactives (and that is really nonsense for a player that has played a lot of games) B) I cant believe jcarsoniv just posted a single Why? to LSB vote. With a game of 31 people and a little more than half the people having posted recently it's just dumb to blindvote someone for "just showing up." What do you read into the line about efficiency that I don't? Ok, again, want to suggest an alternative? Seriously dude, how did I miss your hypocritical bashing before now? On December 10 2010 12:12 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 12:11 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 12:01 Oceanic wrote:On December 10 2010 11:57 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:44 Kenpachi wrote:On December 10 2010 11:40 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:34 Kenpachi wrote:On December 10 2010 11:20 Gabriel wrote:Interesting: my half good "im new" shot is now voting for me. Kenpachi care to explain A) your vote B) your deep posts? + Show Spoiler +On December 10 2010 07:11 Kenpachi wrote:
oh shit.. i cant really imagine Professor Oak dead D: On December 10 2010 07:47 Kenpachi wrote:
Pikachu - Townie
Raichu - Miller
Chansey - Medic
Cloyster - Veteran
Alakazam - Detective
Electrode - Mad Hatter
Mew - Special Detective
Gengar - God Father
Koffing - Mafia Grunt
Weezing - Mafia Shrink
Mewtwo - 3rd Party Vigilante
notice how our only way of killing at night is Mad Hatter and 3rd party.. 3rd party is technically against us and will probably kill town over mafia due to immunity and their goal is to be last alive. On December 10 2010 07:50 Kenpachi wrote:
yea claiming is a no no. and i hate lynching inactives. doesnt work at all. On December 10 2010 08:01 Kenpachi wrote:
how many people can Mafia target per night? On December 10 2010 08:12 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:11 Eiii wrote:There always seem to be posts about how we all need to establish a 'pro-town environment', which is obvious of course I (and I'm sure lots of other newer players) have no clue what that *means* though, especially when we can't PM each other. (That might turn out to be more of a blessing than a curse though.) So... can someone enlighten me? basically, where we can point out scum easily without confusing them as town.. i think On December 10 2010 08:14 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:13 KtheZ wrote:
Do we have a limited amount of double lynches? I think its 2. what would posting history 4 hours into the game show you? A) You dont want to be active posting B) You want to "look" active C) You read the rules but you actually dont know mafia KP? That was rare. D) You dont want to lynch inactives because that doesnt work. E) You want enlightment. F) You vote for me out of literally nowhere. I mean: i post to flip Infundibulum and you come right after me. Care to explain at least? A) 4 hours does not judge that. what if i went on TL tomorrow for the first time in the past 3 days? B) Anyone who posts would want to look active.. Why would they post if they want to look inactive? C) Why are you assuming i read the rules? how do you know i didnt just assume the KP? D) It doesnt. shh E) ?? its enlightenment F) I dont agree with you voting for Infundibulum. A) Well you just wrote 7 one liners and have yet to post something relevant. B) But you are NOT. It is not about how you look. Come on that is not an argument, so you post one liners to look active? what is that? Sparta? C) Well you actually read the rules because you posted the pokemon/classicmafia relation. I wonder why you just couldnt look for the mafia KP, and insisted to look clueless asking for it. D) It doesnt? well you were pretty much inactive and so was Infundibulum. Maybe it does.E) You think too much. You have again 2 posts where you "think" about this "think" about that, when it is clear that those post refer to info available in the opening rules. This heavily smells like "im not too sure, i dont know" plot. F) So you agree that you are protecting infundibulum by voting me: More reason to flip him!. This logic is flawed since the game just started. So they didn't post right at the start and their first post was later then a lot of people's. So they were inactive til their first post? What about all the other people that haven't posted yet. When they make their first post are you going to say the same thing about them? After all, they were even later and therefore must be even more suspicious? Note that Kenpachi was actually posting since the start of the thread. People is inactive because we are just starting the game but nonsense has to be pinned down as soon as it comes out. I find hilariously weird that a guy posting one liners comes right after i vote Infundibulum (with a reason that may or may not be strong for other players) and simply votes Gabriel because he doesnt like my vote on Infundibulum. What do you think? Is that normal? He didnt even posted that. So is this your first game? More bashing. Totally unhelpful. On December 10 2010 13:52 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 12:19 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 12:12 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 12:11 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 12:01 Oceanic wrote:On December 10 2010 11:57 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:44 Kenpachi wrote:On December 10 2010 11:40 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:34 Kenpachi wrote:On December 10 2010 11:20 Gabriel wrote:Interesting: my half good "im new" shot is now voting for me. Kenpachi care to explain A) your vote B) your deep posts? + Show Spoiler +On December 10 2010 07:11 Kenpachi wrote:
oh shit.. i cant really imagine Professor Oak dead D: On December 10 2010 07:47 Kenpachi wrote:
Pikachu - Townie
Raichu - Miller
Chansey - Medic
Cloyster - Veteran
Alakazam - Detective
Electrode - Mad Hatter
Mew - Special Detective
Gengar - God Father
Koffing - Mafia Grunt
Weezing - Mafia Shrink
Mewtwo - 3rd Party Vigilante
notice how our only way of killing at night is Mad Hatter and 3rd party.. 3rd party is technically against us and will probably kill town over mafia due to immunity and their goal is to be last alive. On December 10 2010 07:50 Kenpachi wrote:
yea claiming is a no no. and i hate lynching inactives. doesnt work at all. On December 10 2010 08:01 Kenpachi wrote:
how many people can Mafia target per night? On December 10 2010 08:12 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:11 Eiii wrote:There always seem to be posts about how we all need to establish a 'pro-town environment', which is obvious of course I (and I'm sure lots of other newer players) have no clue what that *means* though, especially when we can't PM each other. (That might turn out to be more of a blessing than a curse though.) So... can someone enlighten me? basically, where we can point out scum easily without confusing them as town.. i think On December 10 2010 08:14 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:13 KtheZ wrote:
Do we have a limited amount of double lynches? I think its 2. what would posting history 4 hours into the game show you? A) You dont want to be active posting B) You want to "look" active C) You read the rules but you actually dont know mafia KP? That was rare. D) You dont want to lynch inactives because that doesnt work. E) You want enlightment. F) You vote for me out of literally nowhere. I mean: i post to flip Infundibulum and you come right after me. Care to explain at least? A) 4 hours does not judge that. what if i went on TL tomorrow for the first time in the past 3 days? B) Anyone who posts would want to look active.. Why would they post if they want to look inactive? C) Why are you assuming i read the rules? how do you know i didnt just assume the KP? D) It doesnt. shh E) ?? its enlightenment F) I dont agree with you voting for Infundibulum. A) Well you just wrote 7 one liners and have yet to post something relevant. B) But you are NOT. It is not about how you look. Come on that is not an argument, so you post one liners to look active? what is that? Sparta? C) Well you actually read the rules because you posted the pokemon/classicmafia relation. I wonder why you just couldnt look for the mafia KP, and insisted to look clueless asking for it. D) It doesnt? well you were pretty much inactive and so was Infundibulum. Maybe it does.E) You think too much. You have again 2 posts where you "think" about this "think" about that, when it is clear that those post refer to info available in the opening rules. This heavily smells like "im not too sure, i dont know" plot. F) So you agree that you are protecting infundibulum by voting me: More reason to flip him!. This logic is flawed since the game just started. So they didn't post right at the start and their first post was later then a lot of people's. So they were inactive til their first post? What about all the other people that haven't posted yet. When they make their first post are you going to say the same thing about them? After all, they were even later and therefore must be even more suspicious? Note that Kenpachi was actually posting since the start of the thread. People is inactive because we are just starting the game but nonsense has to be pinned down as soon as it comes out. I find hilariously weird that a guy posting one liners comes right after i vote Infundibulum (with a reason that may or may not be strong for other players) and simply votes Gabriel because he doesnt like my vote on Infundibulum. What do you think? Is that normal? He didnt even posted that. So is this your first game? You are not good at reading my friend ⇓. I thought you were a better mafia player on your old account. What happened to that? More criticism. Still no actual content. On December 12 2010 08:03 d3_crescentia wrote:
Hasn't it been 48 hours already since Day 1 post? Valid question. On December 13 2010 17:21 d3_crescentia wrote:
My read on last night's events:
Last nights deaths make sense from the context of ridding the town of leadership and/or bluesniping. Tree.hugger had already established himself as a strong town player despite his misread on Kenpachi. I imagine his blue-ness was icing on the cake for mafia. Similarly for jcarlsoniv, who contributed to discussion. RoL is a dangerous player to have for anyone around, and his relative activity makes sense for a blue read (for me, anyway).
Who took the 4th hit? Step up and claim. If you do NOT, then it leaves room for Gengar to sneak in.
I'm having a hard time coming up with more leads at this point in time. With mafia targeting active townies they're looking more to destroy whatever organization we're getting and feed us whatever lies they want us to believe. LSB and Hesmyrr seem likely to me, as does Gabriel. The Eiii/zeks is something I'm not entirely sure on, because I never bought into Gabriel's analysis of zeks too strongly. Yes! Finally you contribute something more than a one liner! Ok. So an actual analysis of what happened. I think that it’s mostly commenting on somewhat obvious points, but hey, I’ll give you some slack, it’s your first analysis. On December 13 2010 17:22 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 17:15 Brocket wrote:
I was reading through the roles again. I get why there was only voltorb because electrode only gets to place 1 voltorb per night or switches 1 voltorb per night (not both).
But what seems odd to me is the rule that if mew is checked by alakazam, mew will appear as alakazam. What's the point of that if there is only 1 alakazam in the game?
I kind of get that gengar can appear as alakazam too. I guess that's a given that gengar will always choose to apper as alakazam.. to appear as mew? Honestly I would have just made it mew appears as mew, and gengar can appear as mew. There is probably more than 1 Alakazam in the game. Hmm. Something I was just thinking about. A fair thing to point out, not going to lie… On December 14 2010 23:47 d3_crescentia wrote:The relative silence of the town bothers me, because it's just what mafia needs to win. The contribution of members named KtheZ, chaoser, deconduo, Insanious, ShoCkeyy, serApH, DCLXVI, Oceanic is virtually nil. We need to spend our time finding by rooting through the list of semi-lurking voters and figure out which ones we want to kill and/or check. Gabriel's insistence on a zeks vote today is distracting, but the votes on him thus far aren't very well-explained either. LSB and Shockeyy need to explain themselves on this. Actually, Shockeyy needs to explain himself, period. He only has ONE post thus far in the thread: + Show Spoiler +On December 12 2010 05:51 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 04:35 tree.hugger wrote:On December 11 2010 17:41 tree.hugger wrote:My hunch is that he's not going to be able to commit fully to anything, no matter how much we prod.
On December 12 2010 02:30 Kenpachi wrote:
asdf. even when i post, i get pointed scum On December 12 2010 02:35 Kenpachi wrote:
okay so yea my posts were bad but what can i say? i couldnt offer anything there and there. So i voted Gabriel for blatant bandwagon. Then he reacts and i defend. On December 12 2010 02:27 Kenpachi wrote:
##vote tree.hugger On December 12 2010 04:10 Kenpachi wrote:On December 12 2010 03:39 DCLXVI wrote:
Thank you insanious and tree.hugger, I hope to see more people post like that. I don't understand why people are letting Kenpachi off the hook for bad posting. So what if he has a history of being less than stellar for the town. We cannot allow him to spam and distract the town because even if he isn't mafia, this helps the mafia. He is playing in a way that benefits the mafia, so even if he isn't (though I think he is), he is dangerous for the town. I really don't like the defense used by darth and meepak of "oh, well this is just how he normally plays". Townies don't intentionally hurt the town by doing what kenpachi is doing.
I'll hopefully be back in a bit before the vote ends, but I feel safe in putting my vote on Kenpachi. Every vote on him is a vote to clean up the town. youre dumb. what if i happened to be DT or Medic? On December 12 2010 04:13 Kenpachi wrote:On December 12 2010 04:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 12 2010 04:10 Kenpachi wrote:On December 12 2010 03:39 DCLXVI wrote:
Thank you insanious and tree.hugger, I hope to see more people post like that. I don't understand why people are letting Kenpachi off the hook for bad posting. So what if he has a history of being less than stellar for the town. We cannot allow him to spam and distract the town because even if he isn't mafia, this helps the mafia. He is playing in a way that benefits the mafia, so even if he isn't (though I think he is), he is dangerous for the town. I really don't like the defense used by darth and meepak of "oh, well this is just how he normally plays". Townies don't intentionally hurt the town by doing what kenpachi is doing.
I'll hopefully be back in a bit before the vote ends, but I feel safe in putting my vote on Kenpachi. Every vote on him is a vote to clean up the town. youre dumb. what if i happened to be DT or Medic? Are you claiming DT or medic? no i am not Word. I suppose we'll get treated to angry defending eventually, as he's in the lead right now, but hey, that might be too committed. Alright, I feel like kenpachi is getting way to agressive here. All his post have been aggressive and not helpful in anyway. + Show Spoiler +A) 4 hours does not judge that. what if i went on TL tomorrow for the first time in the past 3 days? B) Anyone who posts would want to look active.. Why would they post if they want to look inactive? C) Why are you assuming i read the rules? how do you know i didnt just assume the KP? D) It doesnt. shh E) ?? its enlightenment F) I dont agree with you voting for Infundibulum. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174831¤tpage=14#270When he starts saying, that why do people assume that he reads the rules, makes me question him. Everyone reads the rules and we know this because that's part of the game. If he's saying he doesn't that just seems phishy to me imo. I also feel like, he posted the DT or Medic theory in order to try and get some people off of his case cause he can possibly be a TR member. I've seen this happen plenty of times where they pull out the "I might be a DT or Medic" and they end up not being it. My two cents, maybe I am wrong, but this is what I've been able to read off of. I'll be back in the evening, so don't go anywhere. Huh. Didn’t you say earlier that DT’s need to focus on the active people? Why wouldn’t we follow the same advice? Your plan seems backwards. Townies work off of analysis, so it’s pretty hard to get a good read on a lurker. They have nothing to analyze. So why tell the town to do the thing that they are worst at, and tell the DT’s to check the very people that the town can check the easiest? This is pretty scummy to me… On December 15 2010 08:59 d3_crescentia wrote:
Shockeyy, I was going to call out Amber, but then I read his early game posts and found no problem with them. Whereas for you... I read one post. If you don't want to be of suspicion contribute more... and make it so that it isn't just you defending yourself or revenge voting against us. As for LSB, I don't think he has enough attention on him as he advocated things I didn't really agree with overall. Please don't take my posts out of context to do make us seem like bed-buddies.
I seriously SERIOUSLY disagree with double lynching tomorrow. Do we have good candidates yet? I might reconsider if we can confirm at least ONE. If you’re going to read through all his posts, why not post an analysis? “If you don’t want to be suspicious, contribute more.” You said it yourself. Unless bashing is considered “contributing” then you’ve got a lot to answer for… On December 15 2010 09:06 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 08:46 Infundibulum wrote:On December 15 2010 08:32 BrownBear wrote:
I am here, voting for myself again because I'm not superconvinced by any arguments so far. That said, having Hesmyrr as a (mostly) confirmed town voice is nice. That is seriously all you have to say? What is not convincing? Do you have any better alternatives?? Let's vote BrownBear instead. Y/N? Totally unhelpful, adds nothing to the town. Just quotes someone and suggests a lynch. Even if it was a joke, you’re adding spam to the board, something that you’ve been doing a lot of. On December 15 2010 12:25 d3_crescentia wrote:
@Kavdragon, I would agree with your analysis of Amber, except that *I* started with a Shockeyy vote. At that point in time we had a total of exactly FIVE votes. You might consider it late in the day, but I'm not satisfied with a town vote on one candidate. Of course it troubles me that my actions could split the vote so late, but what was even more troubling is that we had an entire town willing to go with Zeks based entirely on Day 1 discussion, and very little to go on for Day 2. Someone has to take the lead here.
Secondly, Zeks might very well turn out green and if we have 100% of town voting them, there's absolutely nothing to analyze. As it stands it looks more likely that Gabriel is scum, not me, as he seemingly dodged another lynch today. Are my actions indicative that I did so to derail his wagon, considering only a few people followed? Maybe you should consider the other 9+ people voting on Zeks right now instead. Oh? I hadn’t noticed you voted before amber’s analysis. So you voted Shockeyy without even bothering to share your explination…The hell? How did the town miss this? And you accused others of jumping on a bandwagon unexplained…Really? On December 15 2010 12:33 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 11:46 LSB wrote:ShoCkey Previous Game Analysis Caller's Red Army Mafyia: Role: Medic Posted 99% one liners. Got angry and warned for flaming. Mafia XVI: Role: Townie: Takes positions, especially on Xelin. Defends himself mostly civily. Mostly one-liners. + Show Spoiler +On January 21 2010 08:41 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2010 08:34 QuickStriker wrote:On January 21 2010 08:21 ShoCkeyy wrote:On January 21 2010 08:17 QuickStriker wrote:On January 21 2010 08:14 ShoCkeyy wrote:
O_o we haven't started yet right? Uhh... yes we did??? And like no one is around to discuss and talk about the game in contrast to the other mafia game where it's way more active.... =/ Well I posted in the voting thread already since I couldn't find it till now ._. Hmm... well welcome!!! Glad to have at least one more active member of our little town.... it seems the mafias have put some poison gas or some sort of gas which is why everyone is silent or sleeping right now.... o.O Well QuickStriker, I will support you in this. I don't think you're the Mafia. Show nested quote +On January 20 2010 17:01 XeliN wrote:On January 20 2010 12:52 no_re wrote:Well hi everyone, my first mafia game, not entirely sure how it works so bare with me if Im doing it wrong, however relating to the "clues" posted everyday here is what I got from the above entry. My first thought when dissecting the post was this rather obvious quote: With a quick attack, the Sheriff Ace collapsed to the ground. A quick attack? Well with a player named QuickStriker in the game this looks like a kind of obvious clue. Also he was the first to respond to the first Sheriff Candidacy anouncement of Fulgrim, drawing attention to himself being "amused" by Fulgrim's "I'm not a mafia" comment. This intruiged me. I think that analysis overall was extremely good, from reading up on some earlier Mafia games it seems that the host often likes the come up with elaborate or entertaining deaths. This in itself makes the " With a quick attack " stand out far more in my eyes, and somewhat exonerates the other as possibly just being a whimsical choice by the host. In all honesty this by itself is enough to make me fairly suspicious and Quickstriker I am still more suspicious when I see some of what you have typed. In particular your reaction to no_re's non-serious accusation where you are essentially saying we must "hold off any action untill the DT comes forward and leads us through the valley of death and into the promised land" - I paraphrased, This however, as far as I can tell is an exceptionally bad strategy, the point of electing a mayor or sherrif is someone who seems active, discerning and importantly decisive, and your suggestion of sit and wait reeks to me on manipulation at an early stage. p.s. am i doin it rite? I think Xelin is the Mafia. He's already accusing you of being mafia even though the game hasn't started. Not only that, he's trying to submit himself as the Mayor, trying to find his way around from being lynched off. He knows that if he is able to be the mayor, then we're screwed. On January 21 2010 09:38 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Hmm, I don't like this whole vote for me thing. Seems fishy, and especially the way he words it. He tries to win you over, so he can make sure he wins. I like his style no lie. But I won't be able to vote for him. Laaan, sorry, but my vote remains the same.
All you out of towners better stay in ya'll wreckin area. We don't like you hippie folks round hea. On January 22 2010 00:30 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Ok, so I see some of you think I should be lynched. Well for one, I'm typing off my phone, so bare with me. Second, I voted for quikstriker, cause he seems like the right canidate for the mayor position out of everyone else here who is trying to be mayor. I rather choose some one who didn't impose themselves into trying to be mayor. Brings me to my reason as to why I would want xelin lynched.
Xelin saw that quikstriker was being the most helpful in this thread. He didn't like that, so he quickly picks quikstriker to be lynched. Then soon after post that he wants to be mayor, the reason as to why I don't want to vote for some one that says "I'm running for mayor." They seem more fake than anybody else here. Now I can tell you, I vote for xelin to be lynched 75% of the way.
The other 25% go to those who are quietly coming in that have watched us argue about who to lynch first. I feel like they watched us bicker to see and now that we have some what of an idea who we're going to lynch first. Now the mafia come in to back them up so we an lynch a townie. Which brings me to my other conclusion. Decafchicken I'm watching you. And one more that Shockeyy left out TL Mafia XVIII: Role: Mafia: Shockey was under heavy clue suspicion. He responded mostly civilly. However, most noticeably Shockey has essentially only one post that isn't either spam or defending himself (included below). Shockey shys away from taking any positions, besides defending himself. + Show Spoiler +On February 28 2010 07:30 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I think it's pretty clear right now that the town should not be voting to kill Scamp. He is right in that at best all L has is some shaky clue analysis. In fact, most of L's clue analysis is directed at other players (Chez, johnny, me) and not at Scamp, go read his posts if you don't believe me.
Something I've noticed is that Scamp has actually taken the time to legitimately defend himself. I remember when we were going to lynch Mystlord, he hardly said a thing and most of what he said only incriminated him more. Right now the only thing incriminating Scamp is L. Also when QS was going to be lynched he came up with the stupid modkill plan that had no way working. Scamp hasn't tried to pull anything of that caliber. It seems to me he's arguing as a townsperson.
To the town, L has already convinced you to lynch our Mayor/medic. What's going to happen when Scamp turns up innocent? We'll be in a bigger mindfuck than we are right now. tree.hugger is clearly the safer vote right now. It's no doubt that if Scamp does not get lynched, L will continue to incriminate him. If Scamp is indeed mafia, he's going to slip up somewhere. Do you agree? Or any objections? For context, was Scamp on his team? Were they in a losing position? A winning position? This doesn't actually say shit until we know what the history was in that game. Bashing of useful information to the town. On December 15 2010 12:48 d3_crescentia wrote:
Day should end now so I can go to sleep ^_^ On December 15 2010 13:13 d3_crescentia wrote:
but it's not gonna so I'm going to sleep >_< Spam. On December 15 2010 20:55 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 18:25 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
I just wanna say I'm delighted at how not spammy this game has been. I'm not. Means that there isn't adequate discussion or finger-pointing to get anywhere. I must say sir, you’ve contributed marvelously to the conversation you are so keen to point out. [/sarcasm] On December 15 2010 21:20 d3_crescentia wrote:
Zeks voters where you at? Oh right, below:
zeks
Gabriel
DCLXVI
GGQ
kitaman27
Insanious
DarthThienAn
Infundibulum
chaoser
Oceanic
Eiii
KtheZ
Node
ghrur
Gabriel
Brocket
ShoCkeyy
dinmsab
deconduo
Kavdragon
Shockeyy
d3_crescentia
Amber[LighT]
LSB
Brownbear
Brownbear
SerapH
SerapH
Pandain?
tube
LSB
Cross-examine with yesterday's vote list:
Hesmyrr 1
d3_crescentia
LSB 1
tube
Gabriel 1
dinmsab
Stormtemplar 1
zeks
ghrur 1
ghrur
Zeks 11
Gabriel
KtheZ
Infundibulum
Node
DarthThienAn
Meapak_Ziphh
chaoser
Hesmyrr?
Kenpachi
GGQ
Oceanic
kenpachi 12
tree.hugger
deconduo
Insanious
Brocket
LSB
jcarlsoniv
DCLXVI
Kavdragon
ShoCkeyy
seRapH
Amber[LighT]
Eiii
kitaman27 1
kitaman27
BrownBear 1
BrownBear
Please note that RoL did not vote Day 1 and is now dead. Analysis inc
PS I think my tags are screwy. Hey look at me! It’s a big long list with NOTHING SAID. On December 15 2010 22:25 d3_crescentia wrote:
Important things to note on this list:
Inactives/single votes
There is absolutely no way we can continue voting in onesies because it makes analysis too hard. Of these on Day 1 we have: Brownbear, kitaman27, ghrur, dinmsab, and tube. Their actions on Day 2: Brownbear, tube (also note that in the above list tube should be voting for LSB, not the other way around), dinmsab with no change. Brownbear's inactivity is terrible and his presence isn't good for the town at all. As for the other two, dinmsab has voted for Gabriel twice and the same for tube -> LSB. If either of these two strongly believe in their votes then they should be in the thread actively promoting their viewpoint instead of sitting back passively; otherwise they might as well be scum.
The meat: Zeks
You might note that the Zeks list is virtually identical between Day 1 and 2, with the exception of Hesmyrr/Pandain and kitaman27/Insanious/Eiii jumping ship from elsewhere. Insanious wasted a lot of time sticking his neck out in a tree-hugger analysis; Eiii is not necessarily scum given his last-minute vote on zeks Day 1; kitaman27 played fairly aggressive pro-town in the beginning but has fallen silent since. For now, we shouldn't care too much about these people.
The rest of the list (and a brief summary of posts):
DCLXVI - not much contribution here as far as targets; just a bunch of fluff
GGQ - makes a few points wrt Zeks (I found them uncompelling, but maybe that's hindsight)
chaoser - some early game discussion and defense of Kenpachi; has cited finals
Oceanic - early defense of infundibulum/anti-Gabriel; has cited finals
KtheZ - early agreement/defense of Gabriel and then vanished
Node - points out LSB, agrees with Gabriel wrt Zeks, believes Hesmyrr's (now Pandain's) roleclaim
ghrur - agreement with Node on LSB
I'm going to take the other three (Gabriel, DarthThienAn, Infundibulum) separately and get back to it tonight. Stay tuned for one more post... Hmm. This one almost had me. It looks like you are contributing a little, because it’s not a one liner, but then I read it. You give off a list of people with tiny (and inaccurate, imo) mini analyses, that often make no sense at all. Way to go, you’ve just made it look like you’re adding to the town, without actually adding. A classic mafia move. On December 15 2010 22:49 d3_crescentia wrote:
I don't pretend I'm good at analysis; in fact I'm probably trash terrible at it. Shortened because I have to go to work soon -_-
Here's what I noticed about the Zeks list in particular:
- Much of the voting comes from Gabriel's early game analysis of Zeks. While Gabriel himself could be whatever, at least one of his supporters IS scum. Let's work on analyzing Gabriel and his early-game followers.
- The discussion between DCLXVI and chaoser wrt to Kenpachi is particularly telling. Chaoser's defense is along the lines of "Kenpachi just posts that way" while DCLXVI's responses are "yeah but if he WERE mafia it'd be so easy for him to hide!" Something about this just doesn't strike me as particularly innocent on DCLXVI's part, as he seems to be posting an unnecessary defense of himself when Kenpachi died, and a lot of "we should do/have done X" statements recently. His vote for zeks isn't particularly well-justified; in fact it's a bit of a 180-degree turn as he suddenly shifted from "Kenpachi is scum" to "scum must have bandwagoned Kenpachi in the end to save zeks!" (Post on this sometime tonight as well)
Okay, off to work. Hope that's enough for you guys to chew on for tomorrow. Someone else come up with a night plan? In general, Gabriel might be good to check; DTA/Inf as well; DCLXVI cuz I think so. Medics protect who you can/find most compelling. This is the first try at an actual analysis, imo. But I’d tend to agree with you. It’s not that great. You paraphrase things with a major bias, and you end up with a weak argument that doesn’t help the town. Then you act like you just contributed a bunch of information for the town to “chew” over. LOL, at the end you tell medics to heal whoever they think is the most compelling, something that you criticized someone earlier for doing. Scummy inconsistencies… On December 15 2010 22:49 d3_crescentia wrote:quiet you Spam On December 16 2010 10:19 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 03:28 DCLXVI wrote:On December 15 2010 22:49 d3_crescentia wrote:
I don't pretend I'm good at analysis; in fact I'm probably trash terrible at it. Shortened because I have to go to work soon -_-
Here's what I noticed about the Zeks list in particular:
- Much of the voting comes from Gabriel's early game analysis of Zeks. While Gabriel himself could be whatever, at least one of his supporters IS scum. Let's work on analyzing Gabriel and his early-game followers.
- The discussion between DCLXVI and chaoser wrt to Kenpachi is particularly telling. Chaoser's defense is along the lines of "Kenpachi just posts that way" while DCLXVI's responses are "yeah but if he WERE mafia it'd be so easy for him to hide!" Something about this just doesn't strike me as particularly innocent on DCLXVI's part, as he seems to be posting an unnecessary defense of himself when Kenpachi died, and a lot of "we should do/have done X" statements recently. His vote for zeks isn't particularly well-justified; in fact it's a bit of a 180-degree turn as he suddenly shifted from "Kenpachi is scum" to "scum must have bandwagoned Kenpachi in the end to save zeks!" (Post on this sometime tonight as well)
Okay, off to work. Hope that's enough for you guys to chew on for tomorrow. Someone else come up with a night plan? In general, Gabriel might be good to check; DTA/Inf as well; DCLXVI cuz I think so. Medics protect who you can/find most compelling. Might as well pull a shockeyy and start defending myself heavily. Next time I would like to see you quote my posts instead of summarizing them tinted heavily from your perspective. If I truly act scummy then there is no need for you to change what my posts say. I voted for kenpachi because he acted scummy and was useless for the town. I said that the defense "well he normally acts scummy" is a terrible defense and we should still lynch him because he acts scummy. Umm, I flipped and thought zeks was highly likely to be scum because I found out that I was wrong day 1 and kenpachi was green? You never have to revise your views of people when we get more information? I didn't think gabe was red (and still don't) and I really didn't like your last minute bandwagon on shockeyy with lsb and amber. That sort of play just screams scum to me. Okay, I get it. You're just a trash poster, scum or not. Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 15:09 DCLXVI wrote:
Alright just read the thread. All I have to say is fuck you Team Rocket, Oak is the best character in the game. How did TR even manage to sneak up on him? Oak can tell from halfway around the world when you get on a bike, but he can't see a few clumsy TR members?
Seriously though, I am confused by gabriel. he makes some decent points about hesmyrr looking active but no content and infund's poor logic, but then he supports his points terribly. He attacks everyone who responds to him and then ragequits. Then the people he attacked + brocket vote him. Not sure if brocket is a newbie or is scum jumping on a free bandwagon. I need to read though the thread a few times more to get a clear view of what is going on, but I would like to hear some more posts on why gabriel/brocket/hesmyrr/infund are posting the way they are, not just people jumping on one side or the other. Early in the game - a call for more discussion. This isn't particularly scummy yet. Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 03:39 DCLXVI wrote:
Thank you insanious and tree.hugger, I hope to see more people post like that. I don't understand why people are letting Kenpachi off the hook for bad posting. So what if he has a history of being less than stellar for the town. We cannot allow him to spam and distract the town because even if he isn't mafia, this helps the mafia. He is playing in a way that benefits the mafia, so even if he isn't (though I think he is), he is dangerous for the town. I really don't like the defense used by darth and meepak of "oh, well this is just how he normally plays". Townies don't intentionally hurt the town by doing what kenpachi is doing.
I'll hopefully be back in a bit before the vote ends, but I feel safe in putting my vote on Kenpachi. Every vote on him is a vote to clean up the town. Restatement of what tree.hugger/Insanious said; no real contribution of his own. Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 15:21 DCLXVI wrote:On December 12 2010 14:44 chaoser wrote:
Guys...for everyone who played Salem...that's just how he plays -_- he was playing the exact same way he did in Salem, if he was mafia there would have been slight differences -_-. No comment. I did my best, I have no regrets Seriously though, I do not regret voting Kenpachi. He was distracting the thread from focusing on possible scum and was posting no relevant information. This does not help the town at all, and we were lucky that he was not a blue. Just because he normally acts scummy does not give him the right to post scummy. It would have been so easy for him to hide behind your terrible defense of him if he was mafia, and we cannot allow that to happen. @Meepak - Why do you want to vote for zeks or gabriel? Do you suspect mafia bandwagoned Kenpachi to save a teammate? Which one of them do you suspect more and why? Please answer these sorts of questions instead of posting accusatory one liners all the time. I was ready to write up a nice long post about the different people who defended kenpachi, but now that he has flipped green I need to rethink my arguments. Sorry for the lack of activity recently, let me sleep and in the morning I'll start pointing some fingers. Post-death justification when one was NOT NEEDED. We all knew Kenpachi was a trash poster in the first place (or at least I did) and that his death would not be missed. No one accused you of anything, so why bother to defend yourself? Because of some inner need to appear innocent at all times, perhaps? Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 05:23 DCLXVI wrote:
With the number of swing votes that happened last time, I think that it is very likely that some scum jumped on the kenpachi bandwagon to save zeks. Not that Gabriel is posting any better, but I think that it is more likely that zeks is scum.
@amber
I don't think we analyzed the night actions enough. We barely covered the possibilities of what happened, and didn't bother to speculate which player was killed by mewtwo. That in itself could prove helpful to finding mewtwo, as well as finding scum connected to the other players who died.
and I loled at one inactive accusing another. And for those of us that have some BRAINS we realized that Zeks fell into the same category of posting as Kenpachi - trash terrible, but nonetheless a waste of a lynch. Also, if you bothered to do any THINKING at all you'd realize that it's in the best interest of Mewtwo to play town-aligned in the early game. Why are you interested in finding Mewtwo unless you were RED and worried about yourself? Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 05:39 DCLXVI wrote:On December 15 2010 05:31 Brocket wrote:
I guess if a detective (alakazam or mew) wants to check me out that could be productive. I'll show up as either a true townie or a gengar pretending to be one. Chansey's honestly should just use their prevention on whoever they want to keep in and if they decide that they themselves are the most valuable then so be it. Give gabe/zeks a scan too if they survive the day vote and future night attacks.
I could be a blue. Or a townie pretending to be a blue. Would it matter too much to the town if I was killed off by mafia? I sort of think of it as taking one for the team so the blues can get a night off.
I could be mafia. I think I'd like to be just a koffing. I wouldn't know who to sleep as a weezing. I talk a lot as you can see but I try to be productive without any hard evidence (then again who does?).
As far as mewtwo is concerned, he's just a wild card that confuses the night attacks and he's more likely to kill townies than mafia the first few nights until our numbers sufficiently dwindle. Sad but true.
tl,dr; Hey guys I'm trying to confuse the town and withhold information but that's ok because I'm town or maybe I'm not but thats fine maybe blues should do what I tell them but maybe not because that could be bad and maybe mewtwo is bad for us now but good later so lets not worry aboutanything. Nice, finally some condescension. Too bad it isn't an actual push for a lynch. If you're not scum you're still being too fucking lazy about this, and if you are - well, that's the perfect level of sneerage to detract from your own posting. Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 15:54 DCLXVI wrote:@LSB While I like your idea of forming up a list of all the inactive/scummy players and then using dt's (or mad H's) on them, I don't think that it is a viable strategy now. A list like that would have to include around 85% of the players. In fact I'll whip one up right now: + Show Spoiler +1. deconduo
2. BrownBear
3. Eiii
4. GGQ
5. LSB
6. DarthThienAn
7. RebirthOfLeGenD (Pikachu, Night 1 Kill)
8. Amber[LighT]
9. dinmsab
10. jcarlsoniv (Pikachu, Night 1 Kill)
11. DCLXVI
12. Ghrur
13. Kenpachi (Pikachu, Day 1 Lynch)
14. Node
15. KtheZ
16. tube
17. chaoser
18. Oceanic
19. Gabriel
20. Insanious
21. Meapak_Ziphh (Pikachu, Night 1 Kill)
22. Shockeyy
23. seRapH
24. Kavdragon
25. tree.hugger (Electrode, Night 1 Kill
26. Infundibulum
27. Pandain
28. Brocket
29. kitaman27
30. d3_crescentia
31. zeks Right now I am trying to get more active, but as far as I see there are about 5 seriously active players. That is why we cannot have the medics self protect like you asked tonight. Night one mafia+M2 took out 3 of the most active players, and I would bet that they will continue that trend tonight. We desperately need every last active player, so unless the medics themselves are high priority targets for the mafia, they should not self protect. I am not trying to open up the medics to be hit, but lets be reasonable. What motive does the mafia have to try to hit random lurking blues over the few active players? Not to mention if they hit mew, they are pretty much screwed. Medics please decide who you want to live and lead our scum hunting tomorrow, Dts follow your gut, same with electrodes. Vets just be tough It would be nice to have some dt's give us information in 2 days (three night checks) so that we know about 1/2 of the alignments with some room for error with millers / GF / fake claims. We could hope for ~2 scum revealed this way, with maybe one fake claimed scum. (all numbers estimated in my head with my assumptions, check yourself) However I think we need to see how desperate our plight is come that time, maybe it will not be necessary then. On the other hand, Double lynching is becoming increasingly necessary. With our multiple bandwagons forming and splitting each vote, it looks like the mafia is having an easy time pulling votes off their team and sending townies to the noose. If we lose to many more townies tonight we won't be able to control the lynch very well in the coming days. We need to take advantage the DL to try and catch back up against the mafia's kills. That is something we seriously need to consider and vote on tomorrow depending on the night kills and the level of town activity come tomorrow morning. I want to see the night kills before I comment on potential scummy players tomorrow. Good night, and make sure you are well prepared for any multiples of trouble. Nice general advice. Doesn't really say much except "Maybe on Day 5 DTs should reveal all they know," not accounting for the fact that the Mafia will target those that the DTs check. Maybe the DTs will check inactive players, but what's to stop the mafia from counterclaiming with their own fake DT and sowing more chaos? There needs to be a better plan than just "in 3 days let's reveal." Of course, I realize that you yourself don't have much confidence in this plan of yours, seeing as how it's just plain terrible for town. Or you might just be TR putting thoughts in our mind. So step up and defend yourself, or I'll be putting my vote on you first thing come Day. YES! An actual analysis! Good job! A little late to start though, SCUM. On December 16 2010 10:39 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 10:35 LSB wrote:
If I die, check out Shocky, D3, and Brocket I'm pretty sure I'm not TR. The other two might be worth a look though. Spam. On December 16 2010 12:36 d3_crescentia wrote:
I took the fourth hit. This confirms nothing. Mafia could have stacked hits, and then had you claim to take a hit. It’s an interesting claim though. On December 16 2010 12:49 d3_crescentia wrote:
No more FoS. At this rate the discussion isn't going to get anywhere if we just keep pointing FoS at each other and do NOTHING with our votes. My current candidates to consider for TR, in no particular order, are:
DCLXVI
Infundibulum
Kavdragon
Brownbear Wheren’t you just complaining to DrH that there wasn’t enough FoS to analyse? On December 16 2010 12:58 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 12:49 DCLXVI wrote:On December 16 2010 10:19 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 16 2010 03:28 DCLXVI wrote:On December 15 2010 22:49 d3_crescentia wrote:
I don't pretend I'm good at analysis; in fact I'm probably trash terrible at it. Shortened because I have to go to work soon -_-
Here's what I noticed about the Zeks list in particular:
- Much of the voting comes from Gabriel's early game analysis of Zeks. While Gabriel himself could be whatever, at least one of his supporters IS scum. Let's work on analyzing Gabriel and his early-game followers.
- The discussion between DCLXVI and chaoser wrt to Kenpachi is particularly telling. Chaoser's defense is along the lines of "Kenpachi just posts that way" while DCLXVI's responses are "yeah but if he WERE mafia it'd be so easy for him to hide!" Something about this just doesn't strike me as particularly innocent on DCLXVI's part, as he seems to be posting an unnecessary defense of himself when Kenpachi died, and a lot of "we should do/have done X" statements recently. His vote for zeks isn't particularly well-justified; in fact it's a bit of a 180-degree turn as he suddenly shifted from "Kenpachi is scum" to "scum must have bandwagoned Kenpachi in the end to save zeks!" (Post on this sometime tonight as well)
Okay, off to work. Hope that's enough for you guys to chew on for tomorrow. Someone else come up with a night plan? In general, Gabriel might be good to check; DTA/Inf as well; DCLXVI cuz I think so. Medics protect who you can/find most compelling. Might as well pull a shockeyy and start defending myself heavily. Next time I would like to see you quote my posts instead of summarizing them tinted heavily from your perspective. If I truly act scummy then there is no need for you to change what my posts say. I voted for kenpachi because he acted scummy and was useless for the town. I said that the defense "well he normally acts scummy" is a terrible defense and we should still lynch him because he acts scummy. Umm, I flipped and thought zeks was highly likely to be scum because I found out that I was wrong day 1 and kenpachi was green? You never have to revise your views of people when we get more information? I didn't think gabe was red (and still don't) and I really didn't like your last minute bandwagon on shockeyy with lsb and amber. That sort of play just screams scum to me. Okay, I get it. You're just a trash poster, scum or not. WTF? Did you read what I posted? I accuse you of changing the meaning of my posts and you call me a trash poster? How does this have any relevance to what I posted? On December 10 2010 15:09 DCLXVI wrote:
Alright just read the thread. All I have to say is fuck you Team Rocket, Oak is the best character in the game. How did TR even manage to sneak up on him? Oak can tell from halfway around the world when you get on a bike, but he can't see a few clumsy TR members?
Seriously though, I am confused by gabriel. he makes some decent points about hesmyrr looking active but no content and infund's poor logic, but then he supports his points terribly. He attacks everyone who responds to him and then ragequits. Then the people he attacked + brocket vote him. Not sure if brocket is a newbie or is scum jumping on a free bandwagon. I need to read though the thread a few times more to get a clear view of what is going on, but I would like to hear some more posts on why gabriel/brocket/hesmyrr/infund are posting the way they are, not just people jumping on one side or the other. Early in the game - a call for more discussion. This isn't particularly scummy yet. another "trashy" post of course On December 12 2010 03:39 DCLXVI wrote:
Thank you insanious and tree.hugger, I hope to see more people post like that. I don't understand why people are letting Kenpachi off the hook for bad posting. So what if he has a history of being less than stellar for the town. We cannot allow him to spam and distract the town because even if he isn't mafia, this helps the mafia. He is playing in a way that benefits the mafia, so even if he isn't (though I think he is), he is dangerous for the town. I really don't like the defense used by darth and meepak of "oh, well this is just how he normally plays". Townies don't intentionally hurt the town by doing what kenpachi is doing.
I'll hopefully be back in a bit before the vote ends, but I feel safe in putting my vote on Kenpachi. Every vote on him is a vote to clean up the town. Restatement of what tree.hugger/Insanious said; no real contribution of his own. Do you just read the first line of what I post and then ignore the rest? Because that is the only way I can understand what you are talking about. On December 12 2010 15:21 DCLXVI wrote:On December 12 2010 14:44 chaoser wrote:
Guys...for everyone who played Salem...that's just how he plays -_- he was playing the exact same way he did in Salem, if he was mafia there would have been slight differences -_-. No comment. I did my best, I have no regrets Seriously though, I do not regret voting Kenpachi. He was distracting the thread from focusing on possible scum and was posting no relevant information. This does not help the town at all, and we were lucky that he was not a blue. Just because he normally acts scummy does not give him the right to post scummy. It would have been so easy for him to hide behind your terrible defense of him if he was mafia, and we cannot allow that to happen. @Meepak - Why do you want to vote for zeks or gabriel? Do you suspect mafia bandwagoned Kenpachi to save a teammate? Which one of them do you suspect more and why? Please answer these sorts of questions instead of posting accusatory one liners all the time. I was ready to write up a nice long post about the different people who defended kenpachi, but now that he has flipped green I need to rethink my arguments. Sorry for the lack of activity recently, let me sleep and in the morning I'll start pointing some fingers. Post-death justification when one was NOT NEEDED. We all knew Kenpachi was a trash poster in the first place (or at least I did) and that his death would not be missed. No one accused you of anything, so why bother to defend yourself? Because of some inner need to appear innocent at all times, perhaps? NOT NEEDED but asked for, notice I quoted someone who questioned the lynch. I'm sorry for further explaining my rationale behind voting, perhaps next till I will just randomly vote people off a list like you do: On December 14 2010 23:47 d3_crescentia wrote:
##vote: Shockeyy On December 15 2010 05:23 DCLXVI wrote:
With the number of swing votes that happened last time, I think that it is very likely that some scum jumped on the kenpachi bandwagon to save zeks. Not that Gabriel is posting any better, but I think that it is more likely that zeks is scum.
@amber
I don't think we analyzed the night actions enough. We barely covered the possibilities of what happened, and didn't bother to speculate which player was killed by mewtwo. That in itself could prove helpful to finding mewtwo, as well as finding scum connected to the other players who died.
and I loled at one inactive accusing another. And for those of us that have some BRAINS we realized that Zeks fell into the same category of posting as Kenpachi - trash terrible, but nonetheless a waste of a lynch. Also, if you bothered to do any THINKING at all you'd realize that it's in the best interest of Mewtwo to play town-aligned in the early game. Why are you interested in finding Mewtwo unless you were RED and worried about yourself? Maybe if you had some FORESIGHT you could've prepared better for losing mew. Now it will be even harder for us to find mewtwo, especially since people like you try to stop any town discussion like this. Notice the town cannot win with mewtwo alive, so while it might be in M2's best interest to appear townie, the town still needs to kill him. Why are you so scared of us finding mewtwo? Is that your role? On December 15 2010 05:39 DCLXVI wrote:On December 15 2010 05:31 Brocket wrote:
I guess if a detective (alakazam or mew) wants to check me out that could be productive. I'll show up as either a true townie or a gengar pretending to be one. Chansey's honestly should just use their prevention on whoever they want to keep in and if they decide that they themselves are the most valuable then so be it. Give gabe/zeks a scan too if they survive the day vote and future night attacks.
I could be a blue. Or a townie pretending to be a blue. Would it matter too much to the town if I was killed off by mafia? I sort of think of it as taking one for the team so the blues can get a night off.
I could be mafia. I think I'd like to be just a koffing. I wouldn't know who to sleep as a weezing. I talk a lot as you can see but I try to be productive without any hard evidence (then again who does?).
As far as mewtwo is concerned, he's just a wild card that confuses the night attacks and he's more likely to kill townies than mafia the first few nights until our numbers sufficiently dwindle. Sad but true.
tl,dr; Hey guys I'm trying to confuse the town and withhold information but that's ok because I'm town or maybe I'm not but thats fine maybe blues should do what I tell them but maybe not because that could be bad and maybe mewtwo is bad for us now but good later so lets not worry aboutanything. Nice, finally some condescension. Too bad it isn't an actual push for a lynch. If you're not scum you're still being too fucking lazy about this, and if you are - well, that's the perfect level of sneerage to detract from your own posting. Maybe if you had some BRAINS you could've noticed the sarcasm in the post, pointing to the uselessness of brocket's post. I guess things like this are too subtle for players of your caliber. On December 15 2010 15:54 DCLXVI wrote:@LSB While I like your idea of forming up a list of all the inactive/scummy players and then using dt's (or mad H's) on them, I don't think that it is a viable strategy now. A list like that would have to include around 85% of the players. In fact I'll whip one up right now: + Show Spoiler +1. deconduo
2. BrownBear
3. Eiii
4. GGQ
5. LSB
6. DarthThienAn
7. RebirthOfLeGenD (Pikachu, Night 1 Kill)
8. Amber[LighT]
9. dinmsab
10. jcarlsoniv (Pikachu, Night 1 Kill)
11. DCLXVI
12. Ghrur
13. Kenpachi (Pikachu, Day 1 Lynch)
14. Node
15. KtheZ
16. tube
17. chaoser
18. Oceanic
19. Gabriel
20. Insanious
21. Meapak_Ziphh (Pikachu, Night 1 Kill)
22. Shockeyy
23. seRapH
24. Kavdragon
25. tree.hugger (Electrode, Night 1 Kill
26. Infundibulum
27. Pandain
28. Brocket
29. kitaman27
30. d3_crescentia
31. zeks Right now I am trying to get more active, but as far as I see there are about 5 seriously active players. That is why we cannot have the medics self protect like you asked tonight. Night one mafia+M2 took out 3 of the most active players, and I would bet that they will continue that trend tonight. We desperately need every last active player, so unless the medics themselves are high priority targets for the mafia, they should not self protect. I am not trying to open up the medics to be hit, but lets be reasonable. What motive does the mafia have to try to hit random lurking blues over the few active players? Not to mention if they hit mew, they are pretty much screwed. Medics please decide who you want to live and lead our scum hunting tomorrow, Dts follow your gut, same with electrodes. Vets just be tough It would be nice to have some dt's give us information in 2 days (three night checks) so that we know about 1/2 of the alignments with some room for error with millers / GF / fake claims. We could hope for ~2 scum revealed this way, with maybe one fake claimed scum. (all numbers estimated in my head with my assumptions, check yourself) However I think we need to see how desperate our plight is come that time, maybe it will not be necessary then. On the other hand, Double lynching is becoming increasingly necessary. With our multiple bandwagons forming and splitting each vote, it looks like the mafia is having an easy time pulling votes off their team and sending townies to the noose. If we lose to many more townies tonight we won't be able to control the lynch very well in the coming days. We need to take advantage the DL to try and catch back up against the mafia's kills. That is something we seriously need to consider and vote on tomorrow depending on the night kills and the level of town activity come tomorrow morning. I want to see the night kills before I comment on potential scummy players tomorrow. Good night, and make sure you are well prepared for any multiples of trouble. Nice general advice. Doesn't really say much except "Maybe on Day 5 DTs should reveal all they know," not accounting for the fact that the Mafia will target those that the DTs check. Maybe the DTs will check inactive players, but what's to stop the mafia from counterclaiming with their own fake DT and sowing more chaos? There needs to be a better plan than just "in 3 days let's reveal." Of course, I realize that you yourself don't have much confidence in this plan of yours, seeing as how it's just plain terrible for town. Or you might just be TR putting thoughts in our mind. So step up and defend yourself, or I'll be putting my vote on you first thing come Day. Yeah I guess I don't say much besides criticizing LSB's plan and commenting on the double lynch benefits and outline a decent plan for the medics to follow (which they didn't, and now we lost more active townies ). I guess I should post more like you: On December 16 2010 10:39 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 16 2010 10:35 LSB wrote:
If I die, check out Shocky, D3, and Brocket I'm pretty sure I'm not TR. The other two might be worth a look though. And you call my posts trashy. All of my posts at least have a reason behind them, as I, unlike you, don't feel the need to spam to seem active and townie. So in an effort to be a better townie should I go back and summarize your posts however I like, call you an idiot, and then try to start a bandwagon on you? Because that seems like one of the scummiest plans I can think of, but you manage to pull it off and people think you are one of the towniest of us all. Congratulations on returning fire; don't you feel GREAT about yourself now that you've contributed a post that amounts to a "NO U"? I'm sorry, " Medics protect who you can/find most compelling." isn't telling them anything they don't know already. Post some real content for fuck's sake, because criticism and disagreement means jack shit unless you provide alternatives. If you haven't noticed, I'm trying to get town back on the right track, whereas all you do is whine about how I've mischaracterized you instead of contributing. Go analyze some other people, unless you're too scared to out your scum buddies. Wow. You’ve summed up my comments to you pretty well. "don't you feel GREAT about yourself now that you've contributed posts that amounts to a "NO U"? I'm sorry, " Medics protect who you can/find most compelling." isn't telling them anything they don't know already. Post some real content for fuck's sake, because criticism and disagreement means jack shit unless you provide alternatives. If you haven't noticed, I'm trying to get town back on the right track, whereas all you do is whine about how I've mischaracterized you instead of contributing. Go analyze some other people, unless you're too scared to out your scum buddies. People, read it for yourselfs. Vote Scum. Vote D3. Does anyone else see this? (Sorry if I was a bit brief on the last few posts. I’m on a bit of a time crunch.)
|
On December 17 2010 02:42 LSB wrote:
Consider this question.
What is scummy? What is bad play?
In my opinion, Scummy play is play that benefits the Mafia, but not the town. Bad play is play that benefits the Mafia, AND the town. Good play is play that benefits the town, and not mafia.
This asks the next question. What benefits the mafia, and Town?
Town benefits from good analysis and discussion of suspects, with some emphasis on civility.
Mafia benefits from everything that gets in the way of good discussion and analysis. (I.e, Spam, Bashing, etc...)
I'd like to hear other's opinions though. Especially yours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
