|
On December 30 2010 14:54 Insanious wrote:
Meapak_Ziphh you, just like RoL make a huge mistake. I was not 100% sure LSB was blue. I was 100% sure he was either blue or red...
Either he proves he's blue. He lives. He doesn't, he dies.
This could of happened on night 3, wouldn't of hurt the town at all. It could of only helped by saving a blue for more nights, or saved a blue for the rest of the game.
Litterally no down side for the town... so we should of waited. I would of killed him instantly on day 3 if I wasn't 100% sure he was blue.
Waiting helped the town, killing him gave us nothing.
This is what I was saying... there was no point where I KNEW he was blue. And there was no point that I said I was 100% sure he was blue until after he died... Read my posts, and don't put words in my mouth.
Just to correct his right now. This is false logic. It gave us information. a LOT of information. Redirecting a lynch last second gives us absolutely nothing except for knowing who a bunch of impulsive townies and a couple of mafia are. Like I said, look at the (day3?) lynch in Salem where they switched to Darth, Darth never defended himself or anything just the entire town switched the vote and got nothing for it. Watching that happen was terrible, considering they were about to actually lynch a mafia.
As another note, holding off a lynch is rarely a good idea. Most of the time pushing off a lynch leads to the town completely forgetting or constantly pushing off that lynch. Look at pandain in Insane mafia. He was so obviously scum and they ALMOST killed him a few times constantly pushing it off. Pandain ended up being the only player alive at the end, winning the game for the mafia. Deal with shit now, especially when there is no 100% way to confirm someone that isn't completely ass backwards retarded. The first half of my post on Seraph where I outline the importance of blue roles was a farce. I do not believe for a second we need blue roles to win this game. My creed is that behavioral analysis is the be all and end all of mafia, you either analyze and win or you don't and you lose. Blue roles can help, but at the end of the day who gives a shit about a DT check when there is a framer/miller/godfather in the game. I just wanted to try to see what the response was to that post, while outlining an analysis on a suspicious player. Unfortunately I was at work shortly after I got around to posting that so I wasn't able to see the results until I got home after 10PM when the Day was over, but I still think it served its purpose which is why I attacked you and Seraph.
|
RoL makes a lot of sense. Twitch voting near the end of the day doesn't really help for a few reasons.
1. It gives the mafia and confused townies a new bandwagon to jump on and pulls attention away from suspects who were discussed, rendering a whole day's worth of discussion virtually wasted.
2. New targets that get voted don't get enough discussion and often appears random. This has the negative effect of making the accusers look scummy trying to save their mate.
Amber + d3 + lsb started a mini wagon on shockeyy at the end of a day phase in pokemafia at the end of the day phase and they had to explain themselves extensively. This was when we had plenty of discussion on zeks/gabe and they just ignored all of it on a hunch.
But I have to disagree about DT checks. Sure they aren't 100% reliable with the miller/framer in town to make people look like mafia but you can be reasonably sure a townie result should be alright (barring godfather obviously) and is a valuable result.
|
TheMango and Shockeyy mind posting your reasons for your votes? Just for later reference.
|
On December 30 2010 16:23 why wrote:
If red, we wouldn't be hurt that much by having a red in the town for a couple more days, especially since we could then analyze his behavior and voting more.
higher KP
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
Rehashing what moves were made during the first day is productive, but defending them with the help of hindsight is not particularly useful. I think Insanious has a point, LSB was much more likely a role than is Annul, although you can't really peg anything down too securely at this point.
Annul however exposed himself greatly in tunneling on LSB, which wasn't really a necessary move so early on, even if Pandain (the vote leader at the time) is mafia. That's not really mafia behavior, that's townie v. townie early game shenanigans. Does this mean that Annul is definitely a townie? Of course not, I could easily be wrong.
The mistake made in the first day was to bite on the analysis. If somebody is tunneling in on someone with mere innuendo and perceived evidence the town's role should be to break this mental lock, not buy into it. When you get into the situation where "He's defending himself angrily! Just like scum" and "He's not defending himself very much! Just like scum!" are the two options, then we need to back up and re-evaluate what the evidence is.
A couple people pm'd me about who I suspected. Hell if I know. I have a list, but that doesn't mean my list is better than anyone else's. But here's what needs to happen.
1. Publicly list your FoS. It's not enough to say "I don't think X is mafia" or spend your posts debating the previous day. A successful town is a town that isn't afraid to put people on the spot. We can't just get lucky, the more people we can put on the spot, the better.
For example, Pandain is leading the voting so far, I think. A convincing reason why would be nice. As for me, I'd like to hear from George Clooney, who's full posting history consists of
On December 28 2010 14:33 GeorgeClooney wrote:
I'm active, and I'm a noob, so i'm just reading!
On December 28 2010 14:33 GeorgeClooney wrote:
And sorry, going to contribute once I get his whole logic thing of mine going On December 29 2010 21:14 GeorgeClooney wrote:
I'm properly going to vote Paindrain when day begins, cause he won't make up his mind. I thought lynching ESB was a retarded move, he would have roleclaimed after, and for god sakes he was a Vet. He could of established a town circle, nor was he scummy after the other guy (forgot his name) decided to bit his ass and not let go.
Lets hope its not another blue lol.
By the way, I want to start a town circle. Ofcourse i'm not going to lead this, but I ain't mafia, and I want to win a game lol. Straight forward.
Anyone else for a town circle?
Not good enough.
2. Call out inactives. There are mafia among the inactives. There are always mafia amid the inactives. If we force inactives to post, we stand a better chance of cutting down mafia KP early on. The DT can check the active players without an issue. The inactives deserve town attention.
|
Fuck, I've got work tomorrow and over here it would be new years. Right now I'm going to vote for myself. Why? Although for some strange reason I think its Paindrain, I have analysed the post enoguh to know its him for certain. And if I think its not him afterwards the analyses then I can always change my vote to someone else. I would vote for him IF he had limited votes on him already, but for some reason there's quite a lot of votes on him already, so i'll lay off just incase I'm too wasted on NYE to change it.
|
Well I`d like to respond to this, so I`ll put my responses in Green.
+ Show Spoiler +On December 30 2010 14:10 Node wrote:Well, I said that I'd keep my vote on Pandain unless a better case comes up... well, I think I found one. Someone I'm much more comfortable with lynching has presented themselves. Analysis of Mr. Wiggles: (my comments in blue)Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:50 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On December 27 2010 11:49 Jackal58 wrote:
Mangos hang from trees.
Naturally. Clever. Almost, too clever. Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:54 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
And I have perfect timing, posting directly under the post advocating for not posting 1-liners and spamming. Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 12:20 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
Ok, that sounds good. Like I said, 1st game, so I was just a little lost that there was no direction haha. Bunch o' spam at the beginning.That it was, my bad.Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 12:35 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
Maybe he thinks I'm spamming? That could be a probable reason for him voting for me, based on his post there. Or else he hasn't noticed I've been posting in here, no matter how short the replies may have been up to this point.
If he is of the belief I'm spamming, I've just been posting somewhat short responses because there hasn't really been anything worth discussing up to this point.
He said we should post the semi-inactives to begin with, those who post without really contributing anything, which I guess is pretty much everyone here up until now.
But then again, if he said he's going to pressure vote people into writing longer, more meaningful post instead of one-liners, I guess it's mission accomplished as far as I'm concerned. Is forced to post something when Pandain throws a vote on him. Mentions that he's going to make longer, more meaningful posts.Hit the nail on the head.Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 12:50 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On December 27 2010 12:37 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 12:35 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
If he is of the belief I'm spamming, I've just been posting somewhat short responses because there hasn't really been anything worth discussing up to this point.
What do you feel about lynching inactives / spammers? What do you feel that the blues should do? Like I've said, I don't have a ton of mafia experience so most of this is just my opinion: As far as what blues should do is concerned, there isn't really much they can do right now, besides try to blend in, and wait until it's easier to figure out who's who. Right now their actions are going to be more or less random, though they should try to base their actions a bit on what's been posted in the thread, though as I repeat, it's not going to be the most useful information when there isn't a ton of discussion going on. I feel inactives are either people who aren't very interested in the game, or people who are trying to lay low and hide, so they should be looked at, and possibly lynched because we really have no way to analyze them besides their lack of participation. Spammers are people who are trying hard to prove that they are active. So this could be someone trying to blend into the town or something and again, they should be looked at and considered as lynching candidates. However, if I recall correctly, this game has several new people who have not played mafia before, so some spamming from newer players may be either nervousness, or an irrational fear of being considered inactive. (Kind've of like what I did). So to summarize: 1. I have no idea what blues should do, besides try to make the best of the limited information they have this early into the game. 2. We should look at both inactives and spammers as candidates for lynching, because they may be either trying to hide or they are nervous and trying very hard to fit in. (Though we shouldn't exclude other suspicious people as candidates). At least, this is my unqualified opinion. :p Is questioned on what he feels we should do, and responds in length. This post says a lot without saying anything (no actual names are mentioned), but then it is still early in the game, so it's a bit much to ask for more.I was responding to LSB's discussion question. If I remember correctly, this was before many of the players had even checked into the game, so there were not really any people to talk about specifically. I was also asked a general question about inactives/spammers, and then blues, not my thoughts on any players, so that is what I gave.Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:13 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I think my vote was a bit of a hair trigger reaction brought on by fear and the desire for self protection. I think your very early votes to pressure people into posting more is going to cause the same sort of reaction in a lot of people. What you are doing, while having the potential to be helpful, can also be seen as very aggressive play. Like tree.hugger said, it's going to be pretty polarizing. If nothing comes of this, or a better candidate arises, I'll probably move on and change my vote. Justifies his initial vote on Pandain after being called out on it. Note that he dislikes polarization, which is a tactic that is viewed as pretty pro-town.I'm not sure where you got the notion I was against polarization from this post. I was simply stating that I thought pandain's pressure was going to be polarizing, which it almost somewhat was (a bandwagon forming on him early in the game).Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:20 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
Also, to add on to what I said earlier, and it pertains to my post above as well, newer players are going to be a lot more unpredictable and more easily influenced, so they're going to be likely to jump on bandwagons when there isn't much guidance. This is also going to cause some obfuscation when people are trying to figure things out. Further justifies his vote by pulling out the "I'm a new guy" card.Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 16:44 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I think it was a bit of a hasty overreaction, I wouldn't be too worried now.
I'm not sure how to use PM's, if I should trust the people who PM me, disregard them completely, just be acquiescent, I'm just not too sure.
Now as for Pandain's plan, should everyone start pressuring, or will that turn into a disorganized mess? Should we coordinate with someone and pressure together, or just let you do it to one person at a time? Asks how PMs should be used (perfectly legitimate question for a newbie) and addresses Pandain's plan of pressuring inactives. He doesn't actually take a stance on it, though.I didn't make it abundantly clear, but if you read the last block of text, you can see I am asking how to go about Pandain's plan, which would infer my agreeance with it. (Though I never really ended up pressuring anybody I admit, the whole annul/LSB deal distracted me and derailed the idea somewhat)Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 01:01 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
Should we also watch out for people who are sporadically active?
What I mean is that they would post a lot one day, then not very much for a span of time, then post a lot in a short period, repeat.
Would inconsistency in posting frequency reveal anything about a person? It could show someone who wants to post a lot to not be considered inactive or anything, but then lay low and hide once that activities been established.
By this I don't mean someone who starts posting more when it's relevant, like they're being accused of something and need to defend themselves, but rather they post a lot in one day, then almost disappear for the next two. This could also be a blue trying to gather information though, so I don't know.
What's normal procedure for a sporadic poster like this? Another question. Doesn't actually point out anybody who may be following what he's asking, but seeks guidance for the future.This is very early into the game, and my questions here deal with people's posting habits over long periods of time (2-3 days), so this could not be established for anyone in particular, as we are only now coming up to that point. I'm not even sure if looking at long period posting habits is even valid or not.Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 03:02 Mr. Wiggles wrote:The problem with that though, is that it almost defeats the purpose, it's a lose-lose situation for the town. Either the DT says what they check correctly, and the mafia will home in on them, or else they lie to keep them off their trail. The problem arises when they start to lie. If they are killed, then we would ideally go back and look at what they said peoples roles are, but if they start faking it, we won't know which are real and which are fake, unless there is already an established mouth who comes out and tells us. But then you might get multiple people claiming different things about what the DT told them, which make the DTs claims near useless, as we won't be able to discern truth from falsities. Unless there's something I"m missing, or don't know about how the game is played, this doesn't look like it'll help that much in the end. If this is actually a tried and true method and I look really stupid right now, please let me know. Thanks.  This post addresses LSB's plan of managing DTs. He dislikes it, but doesn't take a hard stance.Agreed, I thought it would hurt town more than it would help if detectives had the potential to be killed early for information that could be gathered a different way.Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 08:11 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On December 28 2010 07:42 annul wrote:On December 28 2010 07:34 LunarDestiny wrote:I am following debates between Annul and LSB. There are something I don't get. Annul's conclusion in his first post about why LSB should be lynched. in conclusion, LSB has been making pure nonposts and/or pure informative posts without analysis, with the two exceptions being his insistence on the "kill inactives" theme and his defenses of pandain and mr. wiggles. yet he has like 30 posts up while saying almost absolutely nothing.
my vote is on LSB now. Annul, your conclusion for lynching LSB is because he have about 30 posts. All 30 posts, except 2, are posts that means nothing and pure informative posts without analysis? LSB, are your reasons for lynching Annul in page 17? -1. Giant wall of text that pretends to be contributing -2. He doesn't want to do anything about inactives -3. He makes a faulty analysis that is forced -4. Annul posts without brining anything new I will say what I think of this later, but I want to get these two points straight. my conclusion is that, yes, PLUS his insistence on going after inactives instead of scumhunting. it would be very easy for a mafia to know his team all happen to be active and then say "hey kill inactives over all else EVEN IF scummy targets exist" I'm not sure what to make of this annul vs. LSB business. Annul says that LSB may be mafia and knows his team is active, so he wants to divert attention away from them towards the inactives. But to play devil's advocate, one could say that annul may be mafia and knows that his team is inactive and laying low, and would rather portray someone else as scummy and divert attention away from the inactives. I'm of the opinion that if there's a clear target for lynching we should go for it, and if not, pick off one of the inactives, but this whole situation just seems murky. This whole argument seems to be very polarizing and I can already see divisions being made. =/ Actually addresses what the thread is concerned with instead of vague plans on how to play. Good, but, again, no stance is taken -- his eventual conclusion is that the situation is "murky". Again, dislikes the fact than an issue is "polarizing".I may have used polarizing in a different sense here. I agree that it is beneficial for the town if we have multiple lynch candidates, as then we can gather more information based on who people vote for than if they all agreed. But I saw this as a different polarization. This wasn't between two people who we thought were scum and was a polarized vote, this was between who agreed with annul, and who agreed with LSB. It's easy to see the repercussions of this division that formed right now. Those who strongly agreed with annul are still calling LSB's defenders scum, while they think the same of them. This was based on their defense of each player, and I'm not sure if it's been helping very much. There's almost too much emotional involvement on each side. Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 09:27 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
Just a correction to your post above, I've retracted my vote from Pandain to myself, not DrH. I'm not sure who I'm voting for at the moment. Shows some indecisiveness with his vote after removing it from Pandain, but it's not a big deal at this point since nobody wants to lynch Pandain anymore. This was in the middle of the annul and LSB debate, so this is correct.Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 08:54 Mr. Wiggles wrote:I honestly don't feel that strongly that either LSB or annul are mafia. This started out as annul's analysis of LSB based on a gut feeling. + Show Spoiler +On December 29 2010 07:43 annul wrote:
i do not play this game RNG. if this game was entirely RNG then what is the point of playing at all, of analysis, etc?
i do not have a 6/30 chance of feeling correctly. my "feelings" are not RNG-based. Granted annul's analysis can make sense, and I initially agreed with it, I did not agree with his conclusions of LSB being mafia based on spamminess and some advice he gave. I don't think there is strong enough a case to take out LSB now, and annul's tunneling of him and his aggression hasn't really done much to sway my own opinion. I think we should find someone else to lynch right now, and come back to LSB if he cannot " prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that he is blue once day 2 starts. Other people we may want to consider: Seraph based on RoL's analysis. Brocket based on the strategy of going for lurkers day 1 I'm also not sure what to think of pandain right now based on his recent posts pertaining to the LSB and annul situation. (I'm not sure why, but my [ blue ] tag quit working here) Ah, finally, a clear opinion is reached. Wiggles decides that the whole annul v LSB thing is bull (though he says he agreed with annul's analysis though he never indicated as such earlier). He mentions Seraph and Brocket (candidates put forth by other people), but doesn't reach any clear conclusion regarding who to lynch in this post. Eventually, he ends up moving his vote to Brocket as the last person on that bandwagon. BUT THEN: after voting Brocket, he switches his vote to LSB just before the lynch ends with literally nothing backing it up. Why the hell did he switch to LSB 18 minutes before the vote ended when he thought LSB was town? Why did he switch from Brocket who fit what he was looking for? So many questions, so little answers.I will explain this later.Show nested quote +On December 30 2010 13:12 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I'm of the belief that we should start looking closely at some of the inactives/lurkers, and see what they've said so far in the thread, and how they've voted.
It looks like the mafia are targeting either experienced players, or people who have been contributing and posting a lot.
While we should look at the people who have been posting a lot, they shouldn't be the only focus of analysis and discussion. I think we should somehow continue to pressure some of the inactives to start posting, so that we have more material to work with.
If not many people post, most of the focus is going to be solely on those who have been posting frequently in the thread. This is basically what happened day 1. Annul analyzed LSB because he was one of the few players up to that point with a decent number of posts. Then we had a large discussion sparked about the LSB/annul argument. However, this discussion was mostly made up of a small number of people posting a lot, and the majority either posting once, shortly, or very seldom.
Now look at where we are. We have all of our most active players pointing fingers at each other for being mafia. Though I'm sure the chances are decent enough that at least one of the active posters or experienced players are mafia, we need to widen our selection of players, until we are able to narrow it down confidently to a few candidates. We're starting some kind of vicious circle, where there are a few players who post a lot, and want to do analysis. But they don't really have anything to analyze, so they have to look at the other frequent posters. That's when the accusations fly and we get situations like annul/LSB, with the frequent posters discussing that. Then when they want to do more analysis, there's nothing to analyze but the discussion to the situation at hand, made by the same people always.
Summary: We need to get more people posting so we have more to analyze. As it is, there are few people posting, so they tend to analyze each other for lack any other content. Then they target each other. If this continues, I fear that all our most active and experienced players are just going to pick each other off one by one, leaving the rest of us to the mercy of the mafia and whichever experienced players survive and happen to be red. Mr. Wiggle's most recent post is a classic example of posting a wall of text while saying absolutely nothing. He says we need to look at lurkers and inactives, yet proposes nobody that fits that criteria. He says that we can't lynch active players, despite the fact that he voted for LSB. He summarizes our current situation and what is wrong with it, but proposes nothing specific that could get us out of it.
I never mentioned not lynching active players if they seem scummy. What I was trying to do was open up discussion of how we could address some of these problems. Like you say, this is my first game, so I do not know every strategy available to us to flush out lurkers.
The only thing that's holding me back from calling him guaran-fucking-teed scum is that he's a new player, and maybe doesn't know how to actually present analysis or is too afraid to have an opinion. However, he falls back on the "I'm a new guy" position enough that it raises my suspicion even more. If this were on anybody who had played at least one game of mafia, I would have absolutely 0 doubt that Wiggles is red. As it is I feel much more comfortable about this than with any players actually contributing, so my vote is on Wiggles for now.This is actually what I'm talking about in my last post. You targeted me for analysis. Why? Because I have actually posted in this thread and given something to you to work with. We need to get more players doing that, so we can turn the analysis on them too.Now as for my switch of votes to LSB. I regret that now, and almost feel I should not have changed it. I was pressured by Pandain when I voted for Brockett, and he was pushing for me to vote LSB. I changed because looking back after being prompted by Pandain, it seemed that he had been very inconsistent in his defence, and insubstantial.I wasn't completely sure what he was, but his erratic post content convinced me he mightn't have been good for the town, and the annul/LSB argument would continue and stop us from discussing anything else.Here is the full PM chain with Pandain: + Show Spoiler +
To: Pandain [ Profile | Buddy ]
Subject: Re: ah
Date: 12/29/10 11:06
I think I may change my vote. LSB seems to be very inconsistent with what he has been saying, and that is a cause for concern. He seems too self-contradictory and insubstantial. I'm still not sure if he's a confirmed red or not, but I don't know if keeping him will help out that much, just on the basis of his posting this game, unless he does turn out to be blue.
-----------------------------------------
Original Message From Pandain:
i would've preffered d_3 being lynched, but since brockett is the only other option, and that is obviously a bandwagon, its LSB.
see my long analysis for reasons why
-----------------------------------------
Original Message From Mr. Wiggles:
That's what I don't like about voting brockett, because he could be a lurking mafia, but he could also be an inactive green.
My question is, what do we do with the information we get from LSB's lynching?
1. He's green, he's a liar, w/e
2. He's red. We should check into Insanious, for his defence of LSB. Trust annul more.
3. He's blue. This is what I'm worried about. If he turns up blue, and we lynched him, it's going to immediately throw several people under suspicion, including you and annul, and cause a lot of chaos. This is the worst case scenario.
I'm not above changing my vote, but what can you show me that can convince me that LSB is beyond a doubt red? Most of the votes against him are based on annul's gut feeling and a bandwagon. LSB's defense of himself wasn't that great, but neither were annul's replies to his defense. I almost think that they're both town.
Why do you think so much that LSB is red, that you won't risk keeping him one more day?
-----------------------------------------
Original Message From Pandain:
he won't. Cause he's an inactive, not a lurker. And him not showing up just helps prove that.
Furthormore LSB has refused to share his plan when really no one, and i mean no one, can think of what this could be. We don't even see what his role would be or what he would do.
Voting brockett is horrible because it's basically, as someone said, abstaining. He's inactive, not a lurker.
-----------------------------------------
Original Message From Mr. Wiggles:
I'm not entirely convinced about the whole annul vs. LSB deal. LSB has come off a little scummy, but I'm not sure if he is mafia or not. I'm also slightly suspicious of annul, because of how aggressive he is against LSB, and how he's latched on and just won't let go in any way. I'm not sure if that's how he plays or if something's up.
In the end I'd rather not vote for LSB or for annul today. I'm also interested to see what LSB's "proof" is. If it's nothing convincing I'm voting him next, unless something else kills him before then.
So I'm voting brockett as a third choice, unless he shows up soon and does something to warrant a change.
-----------------------------------------
Original Message From Pandain:
why vote brockett
If I've been carefully avoiding any kind of limelight, my defense is going to put me in it now. I've been talked about since the game began with Pandain's voting of me, and then in analysis of LSB his posts pertaining to that were mentioned quite a bit. I have not really been voting all over the place, a OMGUS vote for pandain, then a placeholder vote on myself until the LSB and Brockett votes. I maybe should not have switched, but in reality it didn't change the results, and apparently only served to bring attention down on myself, which does not fit in very well with "carefully avoiding any kind of limelight".I am a very indecisive person, and that will probably be my downfall. I am not afraid to have an opinion, and only wish to help the town, but am unsure how to do so.
So here's what I think:We need to look closely at Pandain. It seems he is pressuring many different people on many different votes, and is role fishing. We need to find out just how many people he has been doing this to, and why.
Insanious and RoL should almost back off each other a bit. It looks like it might turn into another annul/LSB.
Our most active players are all accusing each other of being scum because there is no one else to analyze.
We need to pressure inactives. All we've been doing is looking at active and semi-active players, while anyone who wants to check the inactives is usually called out on it and the idea derailed. Besides very early in the thread, no one has really been pressuring inactives unless it's been through PM we don't know about. We have many people who've barely posted or have just made excuses, and anyone who's made an attempt to do something about it has always been disrailed or disregarded. I find this very suspicious.
Thus stands my defense, I hope it satisfies you. As for my opinions, they may be wrong, and you may disagree, hell, you might even agree with them, but the point is I've been accused of not taking a stance on anything, so there it is, enjoy.
|
Alright. So I am tired of this town being wishwashy so much. Tomorrow before I go to work I am going to decide on a lynch target. We are going to kill them, if I am wrong you guys can kill me if you so wish it. The thing is I will chose my target, I will push them relentlessly, and I will be right. I will most likely choose one of the three mentioned before, but it is going to be large analysis followed by a relentless attack until I get my way. I see three candidates going out right now with some shitty stupid reasoning. I will examine every person being suggested right now and decide which one is best. I welcome all who oppose me.
|
Well I did my job and got myself killed instead of a blue.
Good luck guys 
|
On December 30 2010 12:12 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
alright everyone vote insanious or my previously outlined reasons.
OK.
On December 30 2010 12:35 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
Who would you propose we lynch? I am pretty sure about all 3 of you, right now I would prefer to go after Annul but I feel to get the backing on that would require very hard analysis. Tonight's hits make me think Annul is likely mafia and I can explain why. I still think you are most likely mafia but I can hold off on that judgment in favor of him.
OK
On December 30 2010 16:23 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2010 14:54 Insanious wrote:
Meapak_Ziphh you, just like RoL make a huge mistake. I was not 100% sure LSB was blue. I was 100% sure he was either blue or red...
Either he proves he's blue. He lives. He doesn't, he dies.
This could of happened on night 3, wouldn't of hurt the town at all. It could of only helped by saving a blue for more nights, or saved a blue for the rest of the game.
Litterally no down side for the town... so we should of waited. I would of killed him instantly on day 3 if I wasn't 100% sure he was blue.
Waiting helped the town, killing him gave us nothing.
This is what I was saying... there was no point where I KNEW he was blue. And there was no point that I said I was 100% sure he was blue until after he died... Read my posts, and don't put words in my mouth. Just to correct his right now. This is false logic. It gave us information. a LOT of information. Redirecting a lynch last second gives us absolutely nothing except for knowing who a bunch of impulsive townies and a couple of mafia are. Like I said, look at the (day3?) lynch in Salem where they switched to Darth, Darth never defended himself or anything just the entire town switched the vote and got nothing for it. Watching that happen was terrible, considering they were about to actually lynch a mafia. As another note, holding off a lynch is rarely a good idea. Most of the time pushing off a lynch leads to the town completely forgetting or constantly pushing off that lynch. Look at pandain in Insane mafia. He was so obviously scum and they ALMOST killed him a few times constantly pushing it off. Pandain ended up being the only player alive at the end, winning the game for the mafia. Deal with shit now, especially when there is no 100% way to confirm someone that isn't completely ass backwards retarded. The first half of my post on Seraph where I outline the importance of blue roles was a farce. I do not believe for a second we need blue roles to win this game. My creed is that behavioral analysis is the be all and end all of mafia, you either analyze and win or you don't and you lose. Blue roles can help, but at the end of the day who gives a shit about a DT check when there is a framer/miller/godfather in the game. I just wanted to try to see what the response was to that post, while outlining an analysis on a suspicious player. Unfortunately I was at work shortly after I got around to posting that so I wasn't able to see the results until I got home after 10PM when the Day was over, but I still think it served its purpose which is why I attacked you and Seraph.
OK
On December 30 2010 18:57 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
Alright. So I am tired of this town being wishwashy so much. Tomorrow before I go to work I am going to decide on a lynch target. We are going to kill them, if I am wrong you guys can kill me if you so wish it. The thing is I will chose my target, I will push them relentlessly, and I will be right. I will most likely choose one of the three mentioned before, but it is going to be large analysis followed by a relentless attack until I get my way. I see three candidates going out right now with some shitty stupid reasoning. I will examine every person being suggested right now and decide which one is best. I welcome all who oppose me.
OK then,
Wishy washy much?
Right now you have my vote.
|
Apparently I've killed everybody. I win. :p
|
On December 31 2010 01:47 Jackal58 wrote:
Apparently I've killed everybody. I win. :p
SCUM TELL!!!!!!!!!!!1111111oneoneoneone
KEEL HIM!
|
Discussion just died, no way we are getting anywhere like this.
On December 30 2010 18:57 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
Alright. So I am tired of this town being wishwashy so much. Tomorrow before I go to work I am going to decide on a lynch target. We are going to kill them, if I am wrong you guys can kill me if you so wish it. The thing is I will chose my target, I will push them relentlessly, and I will be right. I will most likely choose one of the three mentioned before, but it is going to be large analysis followed by a relentless attack until I get my way. I see three candidates going out right now with some shitty stupid reasoning. I will examine every person being suggested right now and decide which one is best. I welcome all who oppose me.
I'm not sure we need another all out war between 2 players now, even if you have been right in other games - to be honest this is the first time I have seen you alive by day 2 as town in the 2 games I've played with you.
I'm not entirely sure what the rationale behind voting Insanious is, he was very active throughout yesterday, and would a mafia really have an incentitive to put themselves in the spotlight that much for an innocent? Same reasoning kinda rules out Pandain as scum for me, why would he be so wavering to defend a blue?
I'd like to get some more people's opinion on these targets. LSB's aim was to lure out lurkers, before he got sidetracked by the debate between himself and annul. Honest opinions will atleast give us something to work with.
|
On December 31 2010 02:12 Barundar wrote:Discussion just died, no way we are getting anywhere like this. Show nested quote +On December 30 2010 18:57 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
Alright. So I am tired of this town being wishwashy so much. Tomorrow before I go to work I am going to decide on a lynch target. We are going to kill them, if I am wrong you guys can kill me if you so wish it. The thing is I will chose my target, I will push them relentlessly, and I will be right. I will most likely choose one of the three mentioned before, but it is going to be large analysis followed by a relentless attack until I get my way. I see three candidates going out right now with some shitty stupid reasoning. I will examine every person being suggested right now and decide which one is best. I welcome all who oppose me. I'm not sure we need another all out war between 2 players now, even if you have been right in other games - to be honest this is the first time I have seen you alive by day 2 as town in the 2 games I've played with you. I'm not entirely sure what the rationale behind voting Insanious is, he was very active throughout yesterday, and would a mafia really have an incentitive to put themselves in the spotlight that much for an innocent? Same reasoning kinda rules out Pandain as scum for me, why would he be so wavering to defend a blue? I'd like to get some more people's opinion on these targets. LSB's aim was to lure out lurkers, before he got sidetracked by the debate between himself and annul. Honest opinions will atleast give us something to work with.
I don't see Insanious or Pandain as scum atm either.
I still think TheMango and Brockett are red. I'm also leaning towards ROL now after his moment of flailing about. Also Tevo has been non existant and well under the radar.
|
I was sick so I was not posting, I did refresh the thread to see want happened on night 1 though...
I didn't switch my vote off of LSB even I said I don't see good evidence of LSB being mafia is because the people voting for LSB are mostly experience players and people voting for Brocket are mostly newer players except LSB. At that time, I don't believe that mafia are stacked with those experience players who are voting to lynch LSB so I assume at least there was not a huge mafia bandwagon to save LSB. I was also afraid of the mass mafia bandwagon voting for a lurker like Brocket in order the save LSB. This is the reason I didn't switch my vote.
I don't believe that Insanious is mafia. Insanious was super active throughout later part of day1 to explain why lynching LSB is a bad idea. He was still giving out explanation when the vote was LSB 10 and Brocket 8. I like to think that LSB is like a cake that the mafia really want to have. It would be stupid for a mafia to save LSB to make himself look good. Also, since mafia know LSB is not red, they know it is likely that LSB is a Blue like he claimed. This is another reason why mafia don't want to save LSB just to make one of them look good.
|
I just finished reading all of Annul's posts and I feel a little ashamed of myself.
|
I feel that I should reveal this information since mafia already knows it; I was roleblocked last night.
I just read through the entire thread again and here are my thoughts:
-Pandain doesn't seem like scum to me, just a flip-flopping townie.
-Brockett narrowly avoided a lynch and still hasn't contributed anything. Much fewer posts and different posting style than his townie play in Pokemafia
-I'm still suspicious of TheMango but don't have solid reasoning for it
-I am pretty confident that ROL is town, but I dont necessarily agree with all his picks for mafia
-Insanious doesn't seem scummy to me. People keep saying that he was 'so sure' LSB was blue, but if you actually read his posts, that's not what he was saying
-I'm on the fence about annul. I always thought his tunneling on LSB was stupid, but that doesn't make him mafia. He certainly could be, though
-I'm most suspicious atm of Seraph (as ROL pointed out) and Mr Wiggles. While reading, I noticed that all of Mr Wiggles posts are riddled with uncertainty, fear, and unwillingness to commit. He may be a newer player, but it still makes me very susicious of him. My vote goes on him for now
|
Also, I forgot to propose Double Lynch.
With 4 highly experience town died already, we really need to take advantage of double lynch. I fear that more experience town will die on night 2. I don't want double lynch to benefit the mafia in the late game when there is an inactive, indecisive town.
|
Alright sup ya'll. Tonight was good, and bad. It was good because we didn't lose any blues and I didn't die, but it was bad because we lost alot of really good people. But right now what we have to be doing is getting all these inactives to talk. Until these people post a good post, or start to really help, FoS on them.
Opz
George CLooney
Shockkey
Ryu/DArthien\
Brockett(another)
Orgolove
Right now I'm going to be voting Orgolove, but these people we should especially keep an eye on Why Orgolove? HE claims he's been busy during the holidays but not posting, but really, he's way TOO quiet. I mean, he's always super spammy/agressive, and even the holidays he wouldn't have been this busy. Let's see his posts:
On December 27 2010 16:02 orgolove wrote:
Oh wow. This started fast.
I hardly think the sudden bandwagon against Pandain less than an hour after the game started was appropriate.
States the obvious, already said.
On December 28 2010 12:53 orgolove wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 11:42 LSB wrote:Let's refocus on inactives. There are two lurkers/inactives that have voted so far. 6. TheMango- I consider him a lurker as he hasn't offered insight on anything. 30. ~OpZ~- Hasn't done much in thread. He has PMed me, but I don't know if he is actually active. If why/Brocket/GeorgeClooney gets around to voting/posting, we could switch the lynch. But currently we should push to lynch the people who actually aren't in danger of being modkilled. People probably with say that I have a conflict of interest with TheMango since he voted for me. So I'm find with voting off ~OpZ~ On December 28 2010 11:41 LSB wrote:
##unvote
##vote ~OpZ~ I hardly feel that focusing on inactives, especially on Day 1, is a good idea at this point. I highly doubt mafia will be inactive on day 1, exactly to deflect the kind of suspicions you are raising. It's much more likely, probability wise, for there to be mafia among the people who already posted, compared to the inactives. hell, I know I'd be more inclined to post and make time during the holidays if I was red 0.0 I'm getting really suspicious of the people who keep trying to refocus the town on lynching inactives instead of HUNTING REDS. i.e. why, LSB, ilovejonn. I'm especially looking at LSB right now, given his past track record and his current behavioral patterns.
Accuses people who try to get people to talk. Note that Orgo says we should be focusing on trying to find red's, but orgolove hasn't done ANYTHING.
On December 29 2010 12:32 orgolove wrote:Oh.  I failed terribly. Sorry LSB.
This is all he says. A short while after LSB died. Now, what does this post do? First of all orgolove barely did anything, and he's immediately apologizing for getting it wrong. This is a very obvious scum tell if I'm correct, and he still hasn't really contributed.
He has obviously had time to read the thread, at different points during the day. There is no reason why he should not be contributing more unless he was red.
|
GGQ
4. Meapak_Ziphh
5. Brocket
6. TheMango
7. Mr.Zergling
8. why
15. ShoCkeyy
17. ilovejonn
19. Orgolove
23. GeorgeClooney
24. d3_crescentia
25. Tevo
27. Soulfire
29. Ryuu314 DarthThienAn
30. ~OpZ~
These are the people who need to contribute more. Lyching Insanious is a horrible idea. For one, why would mafia redirect a lynch away from a blue. Now, gaining town cred is important, but why would Insanious not just go afk during that period, which would've been far better. Furthormore, he has been posting ALOT, constatnly trying to generate discussion. Mafia don't want that, they want discussion to stagnate. Finally we don't want to lynch the super actives just yet, especially when we don't think they're scum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
