|
On December 28 2010 13:15 bumatlarge wrote:
I say we reverse it and get inactives later. Lets kill whoever is the most outspoken when there is really not much to be outspoken about.
We did this in pokemafia and killed 4 towns, and then ended the game with a tonne of inactives and no way to every figure out who was red.
Also, voting inactives can only help the town IF the inactives become active because we are accusing them. More voices > no one talking. Getting everyone talking gives the town a much better chance to find scum rather then going "well we have 10 guys who don't talk... lets kill some of them and hope they are scum yay!" if they were all talking then it turns into "well, we have 1 - 2 scummy posters, lets put some pressure on them and see how other people react".
Scenario 2 > Scenario 1 BY FAR.
I really think we need to spend some time getting everyone talking. We still have 25 hours left to go, lots of time to pick a good lynch.
Killing either LSB or annul is not a good idea... they are talking, but we don't know if they are a Green trying to pull attention to them selves, a vet trying to waste a mafia hit, or maybe they are mafia just trying to stir things up.
The thing is we aren't sure, and if they keep talking this much we will soon be able to tell if they are scum or not simply through the number of posts that they might mess up in.
Me, I think we need to look at the inactives and lurkers (1 post + vote, or only vote).
Inactives: Note, but don't vote for them. People who are just logging in and voting are either a normal townie board about not being a blue/mafia, or mafia trying to lurk.
Lurkers: We put pressure on them to be more active, get them to post and see who comes up scummy. Lurkers are most likely blue or a mafia simply trying to stay under the radar. They vote so as not to die, and post to look active but not enough to get looked at.
Heavy Posters: We have to analyse what they say, but we need to look at what they say over time, not just at one instance. People who talk a lot are trying to get looked at. A townie trying to get hit who is trying to pull hits from a possible blue. Or they are mafia trying to lead the town down the wrong path.
Now, I'm going to re-read the thread and try to find some lurkers to look at. But really... LSB and annul seem to just be two towns who are duking it out, there isn't enough info to definitly say red, but at least we have a lot of past behaviour to look at and work with.
|
Alright, I went through and looked at posts and here's what I found:
1. Brocket (If replaced, let me know, might of missed it)
2. GeorgeClooney (If replaced, let me know, might of missed it)
3. Orgolove |
4. ~OpZ~ |
5. ShoCkeyy ||
6. bumatlarge ||
7. Tevo ||
8. Soulfire ||
9. why |||
10. RebirthOfLeGenD |||
11. tree.hugger |||
12. Mr.Zergling ||||
13. deconduo ||||
14. Ryuu314 ||||
15. Insanious ||||
This is in decending order for number of posts, the |'s represent 1 post. Anyone with over 4 posts I thought that they had posted enough to not be 100% lurking.
As such, I think these 15 people (go go half of the game) need to start posting more (yes I realize I'm in the list too... but ya).
I haven't looked at WHAT people have posted, just how many times. So ya... with a little more activity, scum hunting will be a lot easier. So here's goes my random vote, going to be on Shockeyy, you were a lurking mafia in Pokemafia, and your lurking now. Post more, and lets prove your innocence  .
|
Just read the last 5 pages, and like many others, paid attention to the argument between Annul and LSB. BOTH come off as scummy, but to be totally honest I think it's a safer bet to go with a lurker, for the same reasons that many have said - the more talkative a scum is, the more likely he is to make a mistake and thus be lynched. We have NOTHING to go by other than very slight hints in posting style. Our best bet easily is to lynch a lurker because they may continue lurking later on, and we won't be able to gather any hints from them that may identify them as scum. However, Annul and LSB will both continue posting frequently, thus increasing the chance that they may make mistakes and reveal themselves. If they all of a sudden STOP posting frequently, that'd be out of the character developed on day 1 and would be a pretty strong hint that they're scum.
Just my 2 cents.
|
I'm active, and I'm a noob, so i'm just reading!
|
And sorry, going to contribute once I get his whole logic thing of mine going
|
On December 28 2010 14:06 Insanious wrote:Alright, I went through and looked at posts and here's what I found: 1. Brocket (If replaced, let me know, might of missed it) 2. GeorgeClooney (If replaced, let me know, might of missed it) 3. Orgolove | 4. ~OpZ~ | 5. ShoCkeyy || 6. bumatlarge || 7. Tevo || 8. Soulfire || 9. why ||| 10. RebirthOfLeGenD ||| 11. tree.hugger ||| 12. Mr.Zergling |||| 13. deconduo |||| 14. Ryuu314 |||| 15. Insanious |||| This is in decending order for number of posts, the |'s represent 1 post. Anyone with over 4 posts I thought that they had posted enough to not be 100% lurking. As such, I think these 15 people (go go half of the game) need to start posting more (yes I realize I'm in the list too... but ya). I haven't looked at WHAT people have posted, just how many times. So ya... with a little more activity, scum hunting will be a lot easier. So here's goes my random vote, going to be on Shockeyy, you were a lurking mafia in Pokemafia, and your lurking now. Post more, and lets prove your innocence .
Since you chose a person at random, why not vote for Opz? There are already three people voting for him to pressure him (also, he semi-lurked in HP mafia and ended up being mafia then). A fourth vote makes it more likely that there will actually be a response to the pressure, as one vote is easy to just ignore. If Opz posts, then we can pressure Shockeyy next I promise.
|
just an fyi
i post if i have something to say, i do not just post for the hell of it
i read the game and out of all of what i saw, LSB shined through very brightly to me, so i FOSed and analyzed him. in other words, i had something to say.
if i go silent, its because i have nothing i deem important enough to attract significant attention.
|
I will be more active tomorrow, I am really tired atm. I think annul has a good case though.
|
On December 28 2010 07:13 Insanious wrote:
I just want to throw this out there... but in Pokemafia we hit the active members of the game because well, they gave us something to talk about. We then badwaggoned on those people without thinking that no one was defending them. This turned into a game where all our active players were dead (town lynched them, and mafia killed them). At the end of the game we had few players that talked and mostly inactives.
This made it impossible to find the mafia. What I'm just trying to say is that the town helped kill the town by removing anyone who actually helped out and talked.
Inactives do absolutely nothing but hurt us, so I think we need to pressure inactives more than point fingers at active players.
On day 1, we have very little to work with, all we can do is pick someone to lynch and pray. We might as well kill someone who could be a lurking mafia or someone who will help kill us later in the game.
An active mafia is too smart to screw up on day 1 and die, as well an active mafia gives town a lot more material to work with once someone catches them with their pants down.
An inactive mafia looks like an inactive town.
To me, I would rather kill inactives (not don't post and don't vote, as in only vote and barely post) than kill someone who's actually talking.
In pokemafia we killed Kenpachi and Zeks since they were talkative and didn't speak like a perfect townie. On later analysis we saw that they didn't actually look like mafia, they just spamed a lot and we wanted that gone.
If we would of lynched inactives, we would of been able to find 4 of the 6 mafia, and would of saved 3 - 4 town. We would of won the game, but we focused on killing people that speak.
I mean, we can get rid of someone who isn't helping now, and then have our DTs check people while we do forum analysis. This helps us more later in the game, then a random lynch of an active townie helps us now.
Just my $0.02
Is it wrong I greatly support this post?
|
I'll be voting for LSB as well. He isn't a great asset to the town and he's the scummiest poster so far. Annul's case isn't bad as RoL said.
It's never "the safest bet" to lynch an inactive on day 1. Because there are too many to choose from it makes it way too easy for mafia to control where the hammer falls, it's basically saying "ok mafia you can pick which inactive townie dies today, because we're too scared to go after active mafia"
|
Oh my bad. I really just haven't had that much to say in the thread. LSB quit pming me, but I've been talking.
My opinions as of now are this, LSB and Annul are probably two townies. Too aggressive and center of attention for day one for the mafia to want to do. That's just how I feel.
I liked what RoL said about not being surprised if they both were scum, but who knows, RoL hasn't been saying much else. Dunno how I feel about Doc yet.
With regards to my vote on Pandain? I've been talking with Pandain, and just haven't moved it yet.
|
EBWOP:
(Conspiracy theory)
I liked what RoL said about not being surprised if they both were scum, but who knows, RoL hasn't been saying much else. Dunno how I feel about Doc yet.
|
I'm confused. Can someone point out my scummy posts?
I want to see if you all actually read what I wrote or just mouthing information from Annul.
As for the OpZ inactive lynch, he has posted a bit now. But he hasn't really said anything besides what other people had posted.
|
I know people are just pressure voting opz but I find it odd how many people signed up for that so quickly. Anyway I'm going to vote for LSB. Annul's analyis isn't that bad considering the game only just started and it seems pretty dumb for a mafia to be that vocal right off the bat. For me the first lynch is always more gut feeling then solid evidence because of how little we have to base our decision off of but in this case I'm feeling pretty good about lynching LSB. Especially since I'm not the only one who saw LSB as suspicious and felt something was off.
|
On December 28 2010 15:39 LSB wrote:
I'm confused. Can someone point out my scummy posts?
I want to see if you all actually read what I wrote or just mouthing information from Annul.
As for the OpZ inactive lynch, he has posted a bit now. But he hasn't really said anything besides what other people had posted.
Well, I've had nothing really new to discuss. I think Pandain needs to post more in the thread too. He's playing off again.
I liked Annuls original post against you LSB, but I can't really go from there. It isn't enough I'm willing to vote either of you on yet.
|
On December 28 2010 05:18 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:17 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:
LSB; while Annul doesn't have a very strong case against you, your defense was pretty pathetic. I've had a bad gut feeling about you for a while, it's not something I was planning on voting on but Annul did bring out all of the problems I had been having with your posts. I'm not voting you quite yet but I would like you to give more than one line answers whenever someone puts a fos on you. Consider this post a +1 for Annul's case against LSB. I'd like to see you take some time in defending yourself and not just brush it off because there were some good points in annul's post. Give me a point to address then.
Bump.
|
I think between annul and LSB it's actually quite likely that one of them is scum. In Haunted Mafia, DocH and Pandain continually re-iterated the same arguments against each other, making huge walls of text that consumed many pages, and diverted town discussion from important things for like two whole game days. In the end, Pandain was scum. The difference there was that there were no PMs that game, so it was more important to be able to follow the thread well. All the same, I'm sensing echoes of that here, especially since annul seems to want to continue to force the issue.
I'll also say that I find annul's posting to be much scummier than LSB's. The way he's posting reminds me a lot of the way he played Experimental Mini Mafia (which was an interesting experience, as I knew he was scum from the beginning  ), whereas LSB's defense and contribution seems a lot more like his posting in Pokemafia, where he was green.
For now, I'm putting my vote on annul.
I'm also going to be analyzing LunarDestiny, as I think his posting has been... strange, to say the least. Gonna work on that now.
|
On December 28 2010 16:40 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:18 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:17 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:
LSB; while Annul doesn't have a very strong case against you, your defense was pretty pathetic. I've had a bad gut feeling about you for a while, it's not something I was planning on voting on but Annul did bring out all of the problems I had been having with your posts. I'm not voting you quite yet but I would like you to give more than one line answers whenever someone puts a fos on you. Consider this post a +1 for Annul's case against LSB. I'd like to see you take some time in defending yourself and not just brush it off because there were some good points in annul's post. Give me a point to address then. Bump.
Why did you OMGUS vote annul when I'm sure you know that's a common scumtell?
|
On December 28 2010 16:42 Node wrote:I think between annul and LSB it's actually quite likely that one of them is scum. In Haunted Mafia, DocH and Pandain continually re-iterated the same arguments against each other, making huge walls of text that consumed many pages, and diverted town discussion from important things for like two whole game days. In the end, Pandain was scum. The difference there was that there were no PMs that game, so it was more important to be able to follow the thread well. All the same, I'm sensing echoes of that here, especially since annul seems to want to continue to force the issue. I'll also say that I find annul's posting to be much scummier than LSB's. The way he's posting reminds me a lot of the way he played Experimental Mini Mafia (which was an interesting experience, as I knew he was scum from the beginning ), whereas LSB's defense and contribution seems a lot more like his posting in Pokemafia, where he was green. For now, I'm putting my vote on annul. I'm also going to be analyzing LunarDestiny, as I think his posting has been... strange, to say the least. Gonna work on that now.
Just clearing this up, but you do mean Insane Mafia, not Haunted, right?
|
On December 28 2010 16:50 GGQ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 16:40 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:18 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:17 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:
LSB; while Annul doesn't have a very strong case against you, your defense was pretty pathetic. I've had a bad gut feeling about you for a while, it's not something I was planning on voting on but Annul did bring out all of the problems I had been having with your posts. I'm not voting you quite yet but I would like you to give more than one line answers whenever someone puts a fos on you. Consider this post a +1 for Annul's case against LSB. I'd like to see you take some time in defending yourself and not just brush it off because there were some good points in annul's post. Give me a point to address then. Bump. Why did you OMGUS vote annul when I'm sure you know that's a common scumtell?
... and why did you vote for him while you kept trying to make town look for inactives? Shouldn't you be trying to convince people to your case if you where certain enough to vote?
In pokemafia, you said "I was very protective of my Shockeyy lynch", when someone suggested another possible mafia lynch. Now you are fine with the town splitting up attention. How would you explain this change in play style?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
