|
On April 16 2011 10:52 Shcoleosis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:42 VarpuliS wrote:He never accused misfit. Misfit accused him. Believe me, I've read every one of his posts. I love the hypocrisy here. a few short posts ago, you defended your changing opinion with I was looking at things from a different point of view in order to help all of us find out who is mafia scum. Then, after I thought about it, I changed my mind a little because I started to see the point. Since I am new to this game, I am trying my best to give my point of view Then, when Zorkmid comes through and accuses you based off of what he sees, then changes his suspicions based off of new evidence (twice), you say that he's scum because he changes his mind a little.
I've noticed something else about you. You're fickle in your accusations. One minute you're accusing someone of this, and the next you're accusing someone of that... Misfit, Sandroba, Shcoleosis....who is next, Zorkmid?... To me, that screams nothing but scum....a scum desperately trying to fit in.
So, you change your mind, and you're not scum. He does the same, yet he is scum? "great" logic... Despite this, Zorkmid still seems pretty suspicious. Not sure whether or not this is just two townies arguing or if one of you is actually scum. For now, I'll back down. To reiterate, I'm trying to force activity, not bandwagon the first guy who seems suspicious. ## Unvote Shcoleosis I'm only calling it like I see it. I changed my mind about how I believed the lynching should go, not about who I particularly thought was mafia scum.
hmmm... interesting. Doesn't change the fact that it's hypocrisy, but I digress. I'm going to go to sleep, hopefully the thread doesn't explode while I'm sleeping 
|
On April 16 2011 10:59 Eternalmisfit wrote:
Btw, just so that people don't fly under the radar, senj and elmizzit haven't posted anything of substance yet in this thread.
People need to see this. I just checked, and he's right: neither of these two have posted anything useful. I don't want to lynch a potentially active townie in Zorkmid/Shcoleosis if we've still got lurkers to deal with.
g'night all!
|
EBWOP: Ninja'd. I'm not counting the analysis of sandroba because it was just parroting what Zorkmid said.
|
Alright, I'm awake now. I guess I should vote, to avoid the modkill. IMO, both Scholeosis and Zorkmid might be scum, but both have been fairly active, so I'd much rather lynch a lurker.
My vote goes to Elmizzt, because not only has he not contributed anything meaningful, he also pretended to contribute by parroting one of Zorkmid's bullshit analyses about how sandroba and forumite are both mafia because forumite was afk and sandroba defended him.
I urge the people currently voting for active players to switch their votes to the lurkers, so that at least we can pressure them into activity.
##Vote: Elmizzt
|
Just checked, and Senj has a grand total of three posts, none of which have very much content, if any. His posts are:
+ Show Spoiler [post 1] +On April 15 2011 11:18 Senj wrote:
GL HF broskis. Not sure I agree Eternalmisfit, seeing as we're all relatively new to the mafia game. This is in response to Eternalmisfit's suggestion that we lynch an inactive. He says, in effect, we're all new, so lynching inactives is bad. Not only does this make no sense, but it nicely defends any scum that are just lurking. Either bad townie play or scum.
+ Show Spoiler [post 2] +On April 15 2011 12:41 Senj wrote:
Yeah, basically. I guess that's kind of the idea of keeping the thread active though, more posts mean more chances to slip up and divulge too much information.
Somewhat unrelated, but I just broke a 9 game lose streak. :D huuuuuge relief there. Now comes a 180, wherein he agrees with the majority who are in favor of an inactive lynch and then gives a valid reason why. This would be good town play, except that since then, he has made a grand total of 1 post. Seems a bit suspicious.
+ Show Spoiler [post 3] +On April 15 2011 12:54 Senj wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 12:52 elmizzt wrote:On April 15 2011 12:49 Zorkmid wrote:I for one am going to vote that we lynch the quiet most innocent seeming player  I might even do a character count! hmmm...how long until we can start eye-ing some of the inactive players and leaning on em a little? I'm already taking note that we have yet to see Forumite, Vain and Varpulis, however; I feel it's a little early yet. By the halfway mark on the first day I'll be suspicious if we haven't heard from them yet. This is a low content post. Here, he's noting the players who have yet to speak, (two of whom posted before the game began that they would be inactive early on due to IRL reasons) All that this post says is, "they haven't contributed yet, if they don't contribute soon, I'll be suspicious." This is saying something without actually saying something. It's a false contribution, and it indicates scum to me.
##Unvote: Elmizzt
##Vote: Senj
|
Eternalmisfit: I suggest changing your vote to Senj. This will prevent Shcoleosis and Zorkmid from being lynched, and put some real pressure on the lurker.
scenario 1: Senj/Elmizzt comes back, votes Shcoleosis, Shcoleosis gets lynched. BAD
scenario 2: Shcoleosis gets back first, votes Zorkmid, and Zorkmid gets lynched. BAD
scenario 3: With your vote on Senj, Zorkmid and Shcoleosis both need 2 more votes against them to be lynched, which is unlikely unless the mafia bandwagons, which will give us information about who the mafia is. GOOD
|
On April 17 2011 00:46 VarpuliS wrote:
Eternalmisfit: I suggest changing your vote to Senj. This will prevent Shcoleosis and Zorkmid from being lynched, and put some real pressure on the lurker.
scenario 1: Senj/Elmizzt comes back, votes Shcoleosis, Shcoleosis gets lynched. BAD
scenario 2: Shcoleosis gets back first, votes Zorkmid, and Zorkmid gets lynched. BAD
scenario 3: With your vote on Senj, Zorkmid and Shcoleosis both need 2 more votes against them to be lynched, which is unlikely unless the mafia bandwagons, which will give us information about who the mafia is. GOOD
EBWOP: It seems that Zorkmid is not in danger after all, after a ninja edit by Chaoser. I'd still like another vote on Senj though, to prevent a lynch on Sholeosis, who's as likely to be town as not, and is at least contributing.
|
Alright, I see your point. As the deadline approaches we'll see who starts talking/voting and who gets themselves modkilled, then we can make a more informed decision.
@mods: If the person with the most votes gets modkilled, do they still get lynched or does the person with the second highest amount of votes get lynched?
|
Great! So if we determine that somebody is likely to be modkilled for not voting, we can lynch them and avoid losing more townies day 1 to mislynch. If they're barely avoiding the modkill, they're not being active/helpful anyways, so they're a good lynch target anyways.
|
Elmizzt: Make sure you vote before the deadline. The last thing we need is a modkill.
|
And now but a single person has yet to vote. Hey Senj, we'd love to hear what you've got to say.
If you're not going to do it for us, do it for yourself, because you're lined up for a lynch and a modkill both at this point.
About now I'm starting to think about what we'll do next. Expect a post within the next few hours about where things stand, suspects wise.
|
EBWOP: by "suspects wise" I mean who's suspecting who, and why.
|
As promised, here is my post on the situation so far. Who has been accusing who? What are their reasons? Read on to find out.
Forumite
+ Show Spoiler +The only player suspicious of Forumite is Zorkmid, who noted his his post pre-game stating that he would not post much day 1 and saw it as a scumtell. On April 15 2011 23:03 Zorkmid wrote:This points to Forumrite. Show nested quote +Unfortunately I´m going to post slowly during the first day-phace, lots of things happening this weekend, but it should pick up next week. It doesn't matter that he posted this before he was even PM'ed.....if my assumption about sandroba holds true, than he has already revealed he AND Forumrite. How do you plead? Later on, Zorkmid realizes that this is ridiculous, and believes him to be a townie. Forumite
I initially cast suspicion on this player because he seemed to be one of the inactives I perceived Shcoleosis to be protecting.
Over time I have I grown to feel he is a townie, he has done what myself and Varpulis have done, pressuring lurkers and trying to get the posts flowing.
I have also felt that he has made too many references that try identify who the lurkers are, to me it just came off as trying to lynch a certain inactive that he may is a townie.
Eternalmisfit is unsure about Forumite's alignment, but has found a possible connection with Shcoleosis. Forumite
One thing I am confident is that if Forumite is mafia, Shcoleosis is mafia as well since he was only one who jumped to her defense. If Forumite was mafia and Scholeosis was not mafia, than it is unlikely that he will protect a townie as it seems a easy town lynch in that case. This clue doesn't have a bearing now but if it late game, if either of them do turn out to be mafia, then I would be very suspicious of the other.
Nevertheless, I cant find much scummy behavior from Forumite at this point.
VarpuliS
+ Show Spoiler +Multiple people note me as a lurker early day 1, despite my pregame post explaining the absence. I'm going to ignore them, because I can. Sandroba did claim that a post I made was scummy, and I'll quote his post here to prove that I'm not just ignoring any criticism of myself. On April 16 2011 07:33 sandroba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 07:10 VarpuliS wrote:
As it stands it's unlikely we can identify mafia day one. I think we should lynch a lurker day 1 and see who the mafia kills night 1 before trying any hardcore analysis. I've got no problem with the analysis that's been going on atm though, so keep it up guys!
I just looked though the thread, and pretty much 100% of Eternalmisfit's posts have been pushing for an inactive lynch day 1. He'd like to get everybody talking, but has yet to contribute in a meaningful way. If we're gonna lynch a lurker, it should either be him or Senj, who has been lurking since the beginning of the game, save a few posts about inactives. This is pretty contradictory. And you conviniently forgot about scholeosis who has 2 post of utter nothingness and scumtells. Senj really hasn't shown up much to give us his insight. Eternalmisfit seems to like me. Yay. VarpuliS
He has been making reasonable posts and has been making good analysis so he seems like a townie to me. So does Zorkmid. VarpuliS
He has been pressuring lurkers, as I have been. I feel like this is strong town play. Also, he has prodded other players to share their ideas. To me, he is doing as good a job as I am to get as many posts out there as possible for analysis, and this to me indicates strong town play.
Elmizzt
Note- Many players have been calling him Elmizzit. please stop, it makes my job harder.
+ Show Spoiler +Forumite suspects that Elmizzt is a lurking mafia working with Zorkmid in this post: On April 16 2011 22:11 Forumite wrote:
II´ve been tunneling on the Zorkmid and elmizzt connection, both of them calling me scum for not posting during the start of the first day, when I was asleep and had informed people of this beforehand. I have the feeling that Zorkmid was the talkative Mafia, elmizzt the quiet one. Elmizzt hasn´t really said anything except agreeing with lynching inactives and agreeing with a weird post with weak arguments from Zorkmid.
At one point, I notice that he's been lurking and put a vote on him. On April 17 2011 00:17 VarpuliS wrote:
My vote goes to Elmizzt, because not only has he not contributed anything meaningful, he also pretended to contribute by parroting one of Zorkmid's bullshit analyses about how sandroba and forumite are both mafia because forumite was afk and sandroba defended him.
##Vote: Elmizzt As of now, he seems less scummy to me than a couple others, my vote was mainly to pressure him out of lurking. Eternalmisfit picked up on his lurking a while back, and posted the following in his general analysis post: Elmizzit
He has been barely more active than Senj. So, he has been lurking a bit too. Same analysis as Senj. In his general analysis post, Zorkmid also expresses suspicion about Elmizzt Elmizzit (this guy has got me confused.) Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 23:03 Zorkmid wrote:
Show nested quote +
I'm suspicious that this means that sandroba is scum, and knows that that his scum buddy is going to be inactive.
This points to Forumrite.
Show nested quote +
It doesn't matter that he posted this before he was even PM'ed.....if my assumption about sandroba holds true, than he has already revealed he AND Forumrite.
How do you plead? This seemed retarded at first, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense.... It seems too convenient that forumite is afk at the start and that sandroba would make that statement. Plus, my gut tells me that the first person who breaks and makes an outright accusation is suspicious, and that was Sandroba as well. I'm a bit suspicious of this, he seems the only one to have outright agreed with my very first observation that Shcoleosis was scum, and therefore Forumite (inactive at that point) was too. Also, the post I quoted is his only post of substance. The rest were about trying to get inactives to talk (when he is very inactive himself). To me this could indicate either that he feels there isn't much to be said at this point, or that he doesn't want to slip up. To be fair, both Eternalmisfit and Zorkmid posted these analyses before Elmizzt made his post analyzing Sandroba, so he hasn't been lurking 100%, as these two posts would lead you to believe.
Senj
+ Show Spoiler +Senj has been really inactive, and is about to be has been both lynched. The first to notice/bring up his activity was Zorkmid. On April 16 2011 03:59 Zorkmid wrote:
I'm all up for scumhunting, and will defend myself at any point that I think it's necessary. Let's hear from the lurkers!
VarpuliS
Senj
Vain
Penny for your thoughts? Forumite agrees with this in posts that i'm not going to quote here for the sake of keeping this post under a page long. So does Sandroba, it seems (he votes for him randomly in a post about Zorkmid and Shcoleosis) So do I. I vote for him. everybody else bandwagons in the following order: On April 17 2011 01:44 Shcoleosis wrote:
##Vote: Senj On April 17 2011 02:09 Zorkmid wrote:
##vote Senj On April 17 2011 08:05 Eternalmisfit wrote:
## Unvote
## Vote : Senj On April 17 2011 08:24 elmizzt wrote:
I was hoping people would want to discuss a bit more, but it's getting close to that time!
## Vote : Senj For good measure, here are Eternalmisfit's and Zorkmid's analyses of Senj, respectively. On April 16 2011 21:36 Eternalmisfit wrote:
Senj
He has added nothing to discussion at this point and seems like a classic example of lurker. If I cannot find any strong candidates for being mafia by the end of the day, he will be my go-to vote to avoid killing an active townie. On April 17 2011 02:49 Zorkmid wrote:
Senj
He has added nothing to discussion at this point and seems like a classic example of lurker. If I cannot find any strong candidates for being mafia by the end of the day, he will be my go-to vote to avoid killing an active townie. (stolen from Misfit)
Unless something changes, this is my vote for day 1
sandroba
+ Show Spoiler +Once again, Zorkmid is the first to point the FoS at sandroba. On April 15 2011 23:03 Zorkmid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 20:52 sandroba wrote:On April 15 2011 11:27 Zorkmid wrote:On April 15 2011 11:12 Eternalmisfit wrote:
Btw I think we should lynch people who are inactive or lurking the boards as it is more likely that they are trying to stay under and radar and avoid suspicion on themselves by barely posting at all. I concur with this, there sure isn't any harm in losing inactive townies OR scum! GLHF! There is a lot of harm in losing any kind of townies. I'm suspicious that this means that sandroba is scum, and knows that that his scum buddy is going to be inactive. Elmizzt agrees with Zorkmid. On April 16 2011 02:34 elmizzt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 23:03 Zorkmid wrote:On April 15 2011 20:52 sandroba wrote:On April 15 2011 11:27 Zorkmid wrote:On April 15 2011 11:12 Eternalmisfit wrote:
Btw I think we should lynch people who are inactive or lurking the boards as it is more likely that they are trying to stay under and radar and avoid suspicion on themselves by barely posting at all. I concur with this, there sure isn't any harm in losing inactive townies OR scum! GLHF! There is a lot of harm in losing any kind of townies. I'm suspicious that this means that sandroba is scum, and knows that that his scum buddy is going to be inactive. This points to Forumrite. Unfortunately I´m going to post slowly during the first day-phace, lots of things happening this weekend, but it should pick up next week. It doesn't matter that he posted this before he was even PM'ed.....if my assumption about sandroba holds true, than he has already revealed he AND Forumrite. How do you plead? This seemed retarded at first, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense.... It seems too convenient that forumite is afk at the start and that sandroba would make that statement. Plus, my gut tells me that the first person who breaks and makes an outright accusation is suspicious, and that was Sandroba as well. Forumite disagrees. A good while later on, Elmizzt posts an analysis of sandroba, calling him scum + Show Spoiler [Elmizzt's analysis] +On April 17 2011 03:37 elmizzt wrote:OK. Here are my thoughts for scum: I think Sandroba has some qualities that are pretty suspicious. In his posting, here are the aspects I find to be suspicious: First, he keeps referencing material that he has read outside of the game: Show nested quote +Zorkmid chainsaw defense of scholeosis seems suspicous aswell, but if it is indeed a chainsaw defense then pressuring scholeosis should be able to reveal them both. To me, this screams someone who read a mafia wiki page or something and is leaning on these terms and outside information as a source of authority. He can sound much more confident and harder to attack by dropping these even without a leg to stand on.
Second, he keeps talking from the point of view of a mafia, which I feel is a slip as well: Show nested quote +this debate of me zorkmid and forumite throwing suspicion against each other is getting too confortable for the mafia This one especially, in response to zorkmid's accusation: I feel like this is a huge slip, as he's speaking as though he knows that the person he is responding to is town.
Couple other things that are suspicious, his argument rebuttles are always just fluff and dismissal: Show nested quote +And to say it doesn't matter if he posted that before or after he got PM'ed is just LOL Show nested quote +make a case of someone you think is scum (a decent one, not the nonsencical one you've posted) This makes it easy to shut down opinions quickly and that attitude makes it extremely hard to respond. Basically I feel like sandroba has been screaming for more analysis and more posts, but whenever anyone posts arguments, he tries to shut them down quickly or dismiss them as a joke. Finally, as usual, Eternalmisfit's and Zorkmid's analyses. On April 16 2011 21:36 Eternalmisfit wrote:
Sandroba
Not getting a strong scum/townie vibe from him. So he can be either. On April 17 2011 02:49 Zorkmid wrote:Sandroba+ Show Spoiler [analysis] +Has posted some pretty good analytical thoughts, has seemed very pro town. There is one mistake he made early on that I just simply cannot get past. And in the wake of what he has posted since, I just can't wrap my head around. I could be nothing, but I think everyone needs to see these two consecutive posts. 1. In response to my first idea that sandroba is scum because he knows that forumite was gonna be inactive and was trying to protect him. That makes no kind of sense whatsoever. How is me saying losing townies is a bad thing makes me scum? I'm obviously town. The idea of lynching inactives is really just to make sure everyone post enough so we can get a read on them.
Also attacking the one doing analisys on you is not good town play. That's called OMGUS from what I've read. If you really are town then you should either defend yourself or make a case of someone you think is scum (a decent one, not the nonsencical one you've posted) so you can actually help town.
I also have no connection with forumite and I fail to see how you could possibly have drawn this conclusion. And to say it doesn't matter if he posted that before or after he got PM'ed is just LOL.
You are looking more and more like scum to me. Whoa, I thought that was scholeosis posting that, and I was thinking we had a clear scum for day 1 lynch. Besides the analisys part, since I haven't done one on you, my point still stands. I don't think you are scum though, since you are actually trying to do analises, although not a good one. I don't know exactly what it means that he has a TOTALLY different idea about a post depending on who posted it, but it's weird.
Zorkmid
+ Show Spoiler +In response to Zorkmid's accusation against him, Forumite post the following: On April 16 2011 02:54 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 23:03 Zorkmid wrote:This points to Forumrite. Unfortunately I´m going to post slowly during the first day-phace, lots of things happening this weekend, but it should pick up next week. It doesn't matter that he posted this before he was even PM'ed.....if my assumption about sandroba holds true, than he has already revealed he AND Forumrite. How do you plead? I don´t understand your analysis at all. I´m in the game, posting, but unfortunately I can´t be online all the time. I will try to compensate by posting more when I can. -------- I see 2 things people should take note off. Please call me out if I misinterpret the situation, I WANT to hear your defence against these accusations. That I accuse Zorkmind immediately after he´s suspicious of me is bad form, but please check his posts if you don´t believe me. Zorkmind has posted that he is suspicious of Forumite (me), Ssandroba (twice) and Shcoleosis, all three who try to encourage analysis and debate and doesn´t want to lynch innocents. I feel this is scummy behavior because analysis and carefull lynching is what Town wants. On April 16 2011 03:51 Forumite wrote:
FoS: Zorkmid
For the reasons mentioned above in my post, and because Zorkmid hasn´t made any effort at all to change my mind.
On April 16 2011 04:05 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 03:59 Zorkmid wrote:
I'm all up for scumhunting, and will defend myself at any point that I think it's necessary. Let's hear from the lurkers! Why do you accuse those who want debate and analysis? Isn´t that a good way to find Scums? I want an answer from the lurkers too, especially if they are quiet tomorrow too, but the way you focused on them now, at the time that I want answers from you, feels more like you are trying to direct the heat to someone else. Forumite also posts waaaay later indicating that he still believes Zorkmid to be scum. On April 16 2011 19:26 Forumite wrote:
I´m going to go by my earlier suspicions, that Zorkmid is Mafia because of his random accusations and willingness to lynch for weak reasons. That his defence is to vote on the one the rest of Town wants to Lynch doesn´t speak in his favor IMO, he´s not defending, just shifting blame.
##Vote Zorkmid sandroba calls out Zorkmid for a chainsaw defense which wasn't actually a chainsaw defense, so that can be ignored. Fast forward to right after my big analysis post on Shcoleosis and the subsequent bandwagon against her. She defended herself with this post by showing how in her opinion, Zorkmid was scummier than her. On April 16 2011 09:51 Shcoleosis wrote:+ Show Spoiler [post] +After reading this thread entirely, here's what I think on the matter: In my opinion, one of the first to accuse is usually the guilty one. Automatically everyone’s opinions are immediately placed under suspicion as the game progresses. That being the case, a mafia member wouldn’t express his opinions as eagerly as he would if he were agreeing with someone else’s. He would, however, be quick to blame, because doing so would divert attention away from himself. On April 15 2011 20:53 Zorkmid wrote:My FoS is on Shcoleosis as well for the same reasons, and will also be on anyone that jumps on Misfit's argument about this Zorkmind person. Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 20:06 Eternalmisfit wrote:
Also, I think the way Zorkmind is subtly derailing the discussion by talking about less fun in this mafia thread makes me wonder if has a hidden motive. Zorkmid came up with the idea of lynching inactives and lurkers. That would work out greatly to his advantage if he were part of the mafia since it is more of an opportunity to blend, right? The more we accuse those of having a different opinion, the less of a suspect he seems to be. I am not the first to disagree with him. I am not the first to be accused because I disagreed with him. Notice how Zorkmid says he “will also be on anyone that jumps on Misfit’s argument about his Zorkmind person.” Why so defensive, Zorkmid? Perhaps he is afraid of everyone discovering how he is desperately trying to divert attention away from himself. He’s doing a great job of it. I had my suspicions about him early on because he's not only quick to agree with the majority, but he is also quick to blame. I didn't quote any other of his posts, but to me, he acts quite suspicious in most of them. She follows that post up with this: On April 16 2011 10:12 Shcoleosis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:03 Zorkmid wrote:On April 16 2011 09:51 Shcoleosis wrote:After reading this thread entirely, here's what I think on the matter: In my opinion, one of the first to accuse is usually the guilty one. Automatically everyone’s opinions are immediately placed under suspicion as the game progresses. That being the case, a mafia member wouldn’t express his opinions as eagerly as he would if he were agreeing with someone else’s. He would, however, be quick to blame, because doing so would divert attention away from himself. On April 15 2011 20:53 Zorkmid wrote:My FoS is on Shcoleosis as well for the same reasons, and will also be on anyone that jumps on Misfit's argument about this Zorkmind person. On April 15 2011 20:06 Eternalmisfit wrote:
Also, I think the way Zorkmind is subtly derailing the discussion by talking about less fun in this mafia thread makes me wonder if has a hidden motive. Zorkmid came up with the idea of lynching inactives and lurkers. That would work out greatly to his advantage if he were part of the mafia since it is more of an opportunity to blend, right? The more we accuse those of having a different opinion, the less of a suspect he seems to be. I am not the first to disagree with him. I am not the first to be accused because I disagreed with him. Notice how Zorkmid says he “will also be on anyone that jumps on Misfit’s argument about his Zorkmind person.” Why so defensive, Zorkmid? Perhaps he is afraid of everyone discovering how he is desperately trying to divert attention away from himself. He’s doing a great job of it. I had my suspicions about him early on because he's not only quick to agree with the majority, but he is also quick to blame. I didn't quote any other of his posts, but to me, he acts quite suspicious in most of them. I've just learned that you should always beware of the person that is the first to agree with a scum read. If I were a mafia I'd be looking for the first opportunity to form a bandwagon against a known townie. Misfit was the first to point the finger at me, and I wanted everyone to wait and watch for the second Question for you Scheleosis......what's your plan to survive tomorrow? I'd say your only bet is to claim blue. ##Vote Scheleosis "If I were a mafia, I'd be looking for the first opportunity to form a bandwagon against a known townie." Uh, Zorkmid, isn't that exactly what you're doing? Wait, isn't that also what you did to Sandroba?? Take a look at the pattern you're creating. Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 23:50 Zorkmid wrote:
Because of your slip, I no longer suspect Scholesis.
FoS sandroba
Why explain why your town play is bad and then cite a guide you read that explained it was bad? Exhibit A. And this: On April 16 2011 10:19 Shcoleosis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:15 Zorkmid wrote:On April 16 2011 10:12 Shcoleosis wrote:On April 16 2011 10:03 Zorkmid wrote:On April 16 2011 09:51 Shcoleosis wrote:After reading this thread entirely, here's what I think on the matter: In my opinion, one of the first to accuse is usually the guilty one. Automatically everyone’s opinions are immediately placed under suspicion as the game progresses. That being the case, a mafia member wouldn’t express his opinions as eagerly as he would if he were agreeing with someone else’s. He would, however, be quick to blame, because doing so would divert attention away from himself. On April 15 2011 20:53 Zorkmid wrote:My FoS is on Shcoleosis as well for the same reasons, and will also be on anyone that jumps on Misfit's argument about this Zorkmind person. On April 15 2011 20:06 Eternalmisfit wrote:
Also, I think the way Zorkmind is subtly derailing the discussion by talking about less fun in this mafia thread makes me wonder if has a hidden motive. Zorkmid came up with the idea of lynching inactives and lurkers. That would work out greatly to his advantage if he were part of the mafia since it is more of an opportunity to blend, right? The more we accuse those of having a different opinion, the less of a suspect he seems to be. I am not the first to disagree with him. I am not the first to be accused because I disagreed with him. Notice how Zorkmid says he “will also be on anyone that jumps on Misfit’s argument about his Zorkmind person.” Why so defensive, Zorkmid? Perhaps he is afraid of everyone discovering how he is desperately trying to divert attention away from himself. He’s doing a great job of it. I had my suspicions about him early on because he's not only quick to agree with the majority, but he is also quick to blame. I didn't quote any other of his posts, but to me, he acts quite suspicious in most of them. I've just learned that you should always beware of the person that is the first to agree with a scum read. If I were a mafia I'd be looking for the first opportunity to form a bandwagon against a known townie. Misfit was the first to point the finger at me, and I wanted everyone to wait and watch for the second Question for you Scheleosis......what's your plan to survive tomorrow? I'd say your only bet is to claim blue. ##Vote Scheleosis "If I were a mafia, I'd be looking for the first opportunity to form a bandwagon against a known townie." Uh, Zorkmid, isn't that exactly what you're doing? Wait, isn't that also what you did to Sandroba?? Take a look at the pattern you're creating. On April 15 2011 23:50 Zorkmid wrote:
Because of your slip, I no longer suspect Scholesis.
FoS sandroba
Why explain why your town play is bad and then cite a guide you read that explained it was bad? Exhibit A. There's a difference between explaining why bad play is bad, and explaining why good play is good. I've noticed something else about you. You're fickle in your accusations. One minute you're accusing someone of this, and the next you're accusing someone of that. You keep looking for someone to blame. Misfit, Sandroba, Shcoleosis....who is next, Zorkmid? The only reason you are sticking by your argument is because everyone is on your side. You quickly shifted the blame to the next person when you found that no one was backing up your accusation. Lucky for you, you are not the only one suspicious of me. I guarantee you that is the only reason you are sticking by your vote against me. If no one backed you up on this, you would have immediately blamed the next person. To me, that screams nothing but scum....a scum desperately trying to fit in. A little later, Eternalmisfit also posts some suspicion. On April 16 2011 10:59 Eternalmisfit wrote:
I do also have some suspicions on Zorkmid who seems to be too finger happy at pointing at others. But, it is hard to say whether this is his usual forum personality or whether he trying to parry away any attention. Sadly, since it is mostly new people here, it is hard to get a read on someone on the basis of posting habits.
At this point sandroba believes Zorkmid to be town. Eternalmisfit's analysis: + Show Spoiler [Eternalmisfit's analysis] +On April 16 2011 21:36 Eternalmisfit wrote:
Zorkmid
Zorkmid is suspicious of Shcoleosis to the point where he will lynch her before lurkers. It seems like an opposite relation of Forumite i.e. if one of the is mafia, then the other one is town. Some more thoughts in next post. On April 16 2011 21:53 Eternalmisfit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:03 Zorkmid wrote:On April 16 2011 09:51 Shcoleosis wrote:After reading this thread entirely, here's what I think on the matter: In my opinion, one of the first to accuse is usually the guilty one. Automatically everyone’s opinions are immediately placed under suspicion as the game progresses. That being the case, a mafia member wouldn’t express his opinions as eagerly as he would if he were agreeing with someone else’s. He would, however, be quick to blame, because doing so would divert attention away from himself. On April 15 2011 20:53 Zorkmid wrote:My FoS is on Shcoleosis as well for the same reasons, and will also be on anyone that jumps on Misfit's argument about this Zorkmind person. On April 15 2011 20:06 Eternalmisfit wrote:
Also, I think the way Zorkmind is subtly derailing the discussion by talking about less fun in this mafia thread makes me wonder if has a hidden motive. Zorkmid came up with the idea of lynching inactives and lurkers. That would work out greatly to his advantage if he were part of the mafia since it is more of an opportunity to blend, right? The more we accuse those of having a different opinion, the less of a suspect he seems to be. I am not the first to disagree with him. I am not the first to be accused because I disagreed with him. Notice how Zorkmid says he “will also be on anyone that jumps on Misfit’s argument about his Zorkmind person.” Why so defensive, Zorkmid? Perhaps he is afraid of everyone discovering how he is desperately trying to divert attention away from himself. He’s doing a great job of it. I had my suspicions about him early on because he's not only quick to agree with the majority, but he is also quick to blame. I didn't quote any other of his posts, but to me, he acts quite suspicious in most of them. I've just learned that you should always beware of the person that is the first to agree with a scum read. If I were a mafia I'd be looking for the first opportunity to form a bandwagon against a known townie. Misfit was the first to point the finger at me, and I wanted everyone to wait and watch for the second Question for you Scheleosis......what's your plan to survive tomorrow? I'd say your only bet is to claim blue.##Vote Scheleosis The bolded part makes me highly suspicious that Zorkmid is scum. There are multiple people who think that it is likely that Shcoleosis is scum. But none of them are strongly confident about it as there is no concrete evidence of her being mafia apart from a few scum looking posts. However, Zorkmid is so confident that Shcoleosis is mafia that he is taunting her with that statement. This seems quite scummy to be me as if Zork was mafia, he would know Shcoleosis is mafia or not and thus can make strong statements like this. This by itself can even suggest that Zorkmid is just an aggressive poster so is not sufficient by itself to give a strong mafia read. The second part of his statement is what gives a strong mafia read. He has been posting multiple times that he is reading guides/following other mafia threads. However, I doubt that claiming blue is suggested as a good idea anywhere on Day 1. It almost seems like Zork is trying to fish out whether Shcoleosis is blue or not which seems scum-like to me. I am going to tentatively post for Zorkmid until I hear his point of view. ##Vote Zorkmid
Shcoleosis
+ Show Spoiler +The first person to suspect Shcoleosis (I think, somebody may have done it before and simply misspelled the name, in which case i missed it) The post: On April 15 2011 20:46 sandroba wrote:Well, there's not much info right now, but my main suspicion right now is scholeosis. I want to get this thread going as soon as possible so here it goes: Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 11:17 Shcoleosis wrote:On April 15 2011 11:12 Eternalmisfit wrote:
Btw I think we should lynch people who are inactive or lurking the boards as it is more likely that they are trying to stay under and radar and avoid suspicion on themselves by barely posting at all. Yeah, that seem logical. We don't want to kill innocent townies, though...It's the mafia we want gone! I highly doubt any mafia would be lurking or inactive when they have chances to kill. But who am I to say...I'm still learning :/ First he states the obvious: we don't want to kill town, we want to kill scum. Then he says he's newbie and that's obvious too, as this is a newbie game, and from what I read from guides that's usually a scum tell trying to justify his current and future behaviour. Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 13:01 Shcoleosis wrote:On April 15 2011 12:40 Zorkmid wrote:On April 15 2011 11:41 Shcoleosis wrote:
I'm sure getting rid of the inactive would make the lynching process easier, but I can't help but question the idea of getting rid of people unnecessarily. I'm thinking about it more, and I'm realizing that there's a chance the one we lynch is scum and there's also a chance that he or she might not be scum....no way to tell right now. Hopefully we'll get lucky. Why are you trying to protect inactives? Either they're not helping to scumhunt, or they are mafia. Let's hang em all ! Not trying to protect the inactive. I guess I just didn't really understand your logic well. But, hey, if it takes lynching the inactive to get rid of the scum, LET'S DO THIS! Lol Here he talks about not trying to protect the inactive. Note that at this point there were 3 people inactive. Maybe he's claiming not trying to protect the inactive scum? That feels like a slip to me. Then in the last part of his post he claims he doesn't understand the clear logic of being active is pro-town as it gives us more information from which to analise. Zorkmid agrees. So does Vain, but he actually makes a substantial post about why: On April 16 2011 06:38 Vain wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 06:17 sandroba wrote:
Well, right now, I'm still waiting on some kind of response by scholeosis. And the other lurkers should come out of the shadows and post their opnion, or is the situation too confortable that the scum can sit back and realx? Well i'll come out of the shadows then and will mention there is not very much too say jet. You can only argue that some are more active then others but i don't think any obvious or major slips were made. Sure, Zorkmid has like 50% of the posts but doesn't really really fit the picture of scum(jet?). I think Shcoleosis has displayed an odd behaviour by at first saying I'm still learning :/ and switching from opinion that fast but an explanation for this could be that she really isn't really into this game jet and is just afraid of being hanged the first day. Still until she can give an explenation, my vote is still on her. As does Eternalmisfit: On April 16 2011 07:28 Eternalmisfit wrote:I am quite suspicious of Shcoleosis being scum. + Show Spoiler +
Most of the people in the town are in 2 camps: lynching lurkers or not lynching lurkers. And for the most, the people have strong opinions on the matter. Shcoleosis initially was quite against the idea at the start of the discussion. However, as my suggestion gained some support (as most of the people opposed to it posted later), she quickly jumped sides and was semi-pro for lynching inactives.
I think she is changing her opinion and trying a bit too hard to fit in which seems like scummy behavior. She has also been inactive since those posts.
Shcoleosis In response to this, I do a nice post-by-post analysis of Shcoleosis, culminating in me voting for her. On April 16 2011 08:05 VarpuliS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +...And as promised, here is my analysis of Shcoleosis' posts. First post is a response to Eternalmisfit's suggestion to pressure lurkers On April 15 2011 11:17 Shcoleosis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 11:12 Eternalmisfit wrote:
Btw I think we should lynch people who are inactive or lurking the boards as it is more likely that they are trying to stay under and radar and avoid suspicion on themselves by barely posting at all. Yeah, that seem logical. We don't want to kill innocent townies, though...It's the mafia we want gone! I highly doubt any mafia would be lurking or inactive when they have chances to kill. But who am I to say...I'm still learning :/ This bolded line is not scummy, it's just stupid. Mafia doesn't kill by talking, they kill by pm'ing GMarshal at night. Mafia needs to avoid drawing attention to itself to prevent themselves from getting lynched. This post in general is pretty worthless, ending with a line that is... strange. But who am I to say...I'm still learning :/ This is the first scumtell I can see. She basically says "don't listen to me, i'm new." Townies need to talk and be listened to, not ignored because this is their first game. Only mafia and blues benefit from being ignored, so unless he roleclaims, lets assume scum. Second post comes a little bit later. the post reads: On April 15 2011 11:41 Shcoleosis wrote:
I'm sure getting rid of the inactive would make the lynching process easier, but I can't help but question the idea of getting rid of people unnecessarily. I'm thinking about it more, and I'm realizing that there's a chance the one we lynch is scum and there's also a chance that he or she might not be scum....no way to tell right now. Hopefully we'll get lucky. This is a post which blends in. It says practically nothing, but appears to be a contribution. Blending in is not something a townie needs to do. +1 scum level. Finally, we've got lucky number 3: On April 15 2011 13:01 Shcoleosis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 12:40 Zorkmid wrote:On April 15 2011 11:41 Shcoleosis wrote:
I'm sure getting rid of the inactive would make the lynching process easier, but I can't help but question the idea of getting rid of people unnecessarily. I'm thinking about it more, and I'm realizing that there's a chance the one we lynch is scum and there's also a chance that he or she might not be scum....no way to tell right now. Hopefully we'll get lucky. Why are you trying to protect inactives? Either they're not helping to scumhunt, or they are mafia. Let's hang em all ! Not trying to protect the inactive. I guess I just didn't really understand your logic well. But, hey, if it takes lynching the inactive to get rid of the scum, LET'S DO THIS! Lol Here, Shcoleosis basically says: "you seem to disagree with me... fine, you're right!" Agreeing with everybody else is something that two kinds of players do: - unhelpful townies -because they're just being sheep - mafia -because they're trying to blend in I don't want either in my town come lategame. Based off of this analysis, I'd like to start putting some pressure on Shcoleosis. Until a better target surfaces or she comes up with some good posts later on, I'll put my vote on her. ## Vote Shcoleosis This starts a bit of a bandwagon. the following people subsequently vote for Shcoleosis in the following order: - sandroba -later changes vote to Senj before the bandwagon on him starts
- Vain
- Zorkmid -after analysis that I'll go over in a moment
Zorkmid's analysis of Shcoleosis: On April 16 2011 10:03 Zorkmid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 09:51 Shcoleosis wrote:After reading this thread entirely, here's what I think on the matter: In my opinion, one of the first to accuse is usually the guilty one. Automatically everyone’s opinions are immediately placed under suspicion as the game progresses. That being the case, a mafia member wouldn’t express his opinions as eagerly as he would if he were agreeing with someone else’s. He would, however, be quick to blame, because doing so would divert attention away from himself. On April 15 2011 20:53 Zorkmid wrote:My FoS is on Shcoleosis as well for the same reasons, and will also be on anyone that jumps on Misfit's argument about this Zorkmind person. On April 15 2011 20:06 Eternalmisfit wrote:
Also, I think the way Zorkmind is subtly derailing the discussion by talking about less fun in this mafia thread makes me wonder if has a hidden motive. Zorkmid came up with the idea of lynching inactives and lurkers. That would work out greatly to his advantage if he were part of the mafia since it is more of an opportunity to blend, right? The more we accuse those of having a different opinion, the less of a suspect he seems to be. I am not the first to disagree with him. I am not the first to be accused because I disagreed with him. Notice how Zorkmid says he “will also be on anyone that jumps on Misfit’s argument about his Zorkmind person.” Why so defensive, Zorkmid? Perhaps he is afraid of everyone discovering how he is desperately trying to divert attention away from himself. He’s doing a great job of it. I had my suspicions about him early on because he's not only quick to agree with the majority, but he is also quick to blame. I didn't quote any other of his posts, but to me, he acts quite suspicious in most of them. I've just learned that you should always beware of the person that is the first to agree with a scum read. If I were a mafia I'd be looking for the first opportunity to form a bandwagon against a known townie. Misfit was the first to point the finger at me, and I wanted everyone to wait and watch for the second Question for you Scheleosis......what's your plan to survive tomorrow? I'd say your only bet is to claim blue. ##Vote Scheleosis Eternalmisfit again posts his suspicion: On April 16 2011 10:59 Eternalmisfit wrote:
Just read the recent set of posts and Shcoleosis arguments. Although does she raise at least one point in her defense (i.e. she did not try to agree with what I was saying right away). Nevertheless, I am still a little suspicious of her trying to blend in (and then accusing Zorkmid of being mafia for the same reason).
His analysis: On April 16 2011 21:36 Eternalmisfit wrote:Shcoleosis
I was suspicious of her due to low activity and trying to fit in. But, she seems to be more active now. I am still not confident that she is town but I don't get any strong vibes of her being mafia as well now. Vain's reason for joining the Shcoleosis bandwagon: On April 17 2011 00:26 Vain wrote:
Hmm, the reason i voted for shcoleosis is that in my opinion her behaviour was very scummy like( switching sides, saying things like first time playing guys). Witch was pointed out earlyer by the other players before me. She did not post again untill after i voted for her. I may note that the posts after that were not so much scum behaviour, but i am still not really convinced we have a better alternative. Although zorkmid could be suspected due to throwing accusations out like there is no tomorrow, which could be his strategy but is drawing attention to him and would be very risky if he were to be scum. Nevertheless zorkmid would be my number two but only to him being profoundly accusing. I haven't really looked in the accusations of the others too much but i'll try to post an analysis of them later on. And once again, Zorkmid's analysis: On April 17 2011 02:49 Zorkmid wrote:Shcoleosis FoSI'm very suspicious of this player. She has been the first person to echo several ideas of other players.... Example Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 11:12 Eternalmisfit wrote:
Btw I think we should lynch people who are inactive or lurking the boards as it is more likely that they are trying to stay under and radar and avoid suspicion on themselves by barely posting at all.
Yeah, that seem logical. We don't want to kill innocent townies, though...It's the mafia we want gone! I highly doubt any mafia would be lurking or inactive when they have chances to kill. But who am I to say...I'm still learning :/ I also find it very scummy that when eyes are on her, she reminds us that she's new to the game, as if that had anything to do with anything.
Eternalmisfit
+ Show Spoiler + Eternalmisfit has been under suspicion of being scum a grand total of once. It was by me, a while before he started posting his good analysis. the post reads: On April 16 2011 07:10 VarpuliS wrote:
I just looked though the thread, and pretty much 100% of Eternalmisfit's posts have been pushing for an inactive lynch day 1. He'd like to get everybody talking, but has yet to contribute in a meaningful way. If we're gonna lynch a lurker, it should either be him or Senj, who has been lurking since the beginning of the game, save a few posts about inactives. It wasn't so much an actual suspicion, rather a way to get him talking. It worked, and he's been actively analyzing since then, so he's no longer under any suspicion from me, as of now. Zorkmid likes him too: On April 17 2011 02:49 Zorkmid wrote:EternalMisfit
Every post I have seen of his, has been thoughtful conversation starting analysis. I think that he has used his voting to spark even more conversation. We'll see how it goes in these last ~10 hours, but I think this mofo is town.
Vain
+ Show Spoiler + Vain hasn't been super active. The first person to notice this post-early day 1 when he was asleep is Zorkmid, who posts: On April 16 2011 03:59 Zorkmid wrote:
I'm all up for scumhunting, and will defend myself at any point that I think it's necessary. Let's hear from the lurkers!
VarpuliS
Senj
Vain
Penny for your thoughts? Forumite subsequently classifies him as a lurker. Because of his lurking, there's not much information about him to analyze. Thus, Eternalmisfit's analysis of him is: On April 16 2011 21:36 Eternalmisfit wrote:Vain
He has posted multiple times throughout the thread. So, he is not as inactive as Senj/Elm, but he has not posted much of substance either. This seems a little suspicious again. Forumite is also suspicious: On April 16 2011 22:11 Forumite wrote:
I get a bit of bad wibes from Vain, not because he´s a slow poster, but because I don´t see him posting his own reasons for jumping on the wagon against Shcoleosis. It didn´t take long for people to start voting once the first vote was in. Zork and Sandroba voted quickly, but they had allready stated they had FoS on Shcoleosis, while Vains voting felt more like he was just agreeing rather than making up his own mind. I´d like to see some more reasons from him.
his request for a reason is granted though, so that suspicion may now have been lifted. Zorkmid thinks that he's a townie, however: On April 17 2011 02:49 Zorkmid wrote:VainShow nested quote +Hmm, the reason i voted for shcoleosis is that in my opinion her behaviour was very scummy like( switching sides, saying things like first time playing guys). Witch was pointed out earlyer by the other players before me. She did not post again untill after i voted for her. I may note that the posts after that were not so much scum behaviour, but i am still not really convinced we have a better alternative. Although zorkmid could be suspected due to throwing accusations out like there is no tomorrow, which could be his strategy but is drawing attention to him and would be very risky if he were to be scum. Nevertheless zorkmid would be my number two but only to him being profoundly accusing. I haven't really looked in the accusations of the others too much but i'll try to post an analysis of them later on. Ok, so my logic for thinking Vain is a Townie is a bit convoluted, but here goes: I don't think that a mafioso would want to be perceived to suspect two people on opposite sides of the argument between Shcoleosis and myself. I think that Shcoleosis is scum, and I think that if Vain was scum he would be on one side or the other, defending me OR Shcoleosis. Not both of us.
If I left anything out, let me know. I focused on scum reads, as those are the most important, and for the most part didn't post any town reads other than those in the general analyses by Eternalmisfit and Zorkmid, because it was convenient for me.
|
The above post is not analysis. It is intended as a tool for analysts. Within the spoiler below each name are the people who suspect that person, and their reasons why. I made generous use of quotes, many of which I modified to remove fluff and keep concise. If you don't like how I messed with your quote, you can shove your complaint up your ass.
Well, I'm going to bed now. No doubt my previous post was riddled with mistakes, but there's nothing for it. I'll read through the responses tomorrow, but i hope this proves helpful to future analyses.
|
That monster post of mine was intended to summarize what other people are thinking. Because Zorkmid and Forumite asked me to, I'll make another list about what I think of everybody.
Forumite
I'm thinking that he's a townie at this point. He's been doing some nice analysis and promoting activity and discussion, which is good town play. Accusations against him have been groundless, so unless his posts get suspicious, I'm going to tentatively identify him as townie.
elmizzt FoS
I agree with your point Forumite: He's been lurking, his posts lack substance, and apart from his analysis of sandroba, which isn't very solid, he's contributed little to nothing. FoS elmizzt.
Senj
sandroba
Not sure where this guy stands, to be honest. He's posted some pretty good analysis, promoted activity, all that good stuff, but he's also done some suspicious stuff, i.e. having a totally different response to a post when he though Shcoleosis said it to when he thought Zorkmid said it, diverting discussions, and being overly dismissive. Pending further evidence, I'll put him on my "neutral" list.
Zorkmid
I'm getting a town vibe from him. He's just too active and open to be mafia. If he doesn't get hit in the 1st or 2nd night I'd get suspicious though, because his activity paints a gigantic target on his chest.
Shcoleosis
I'm still pretty damn suspicious of Shcoleosis. She avoided a lynch day 1 because we killed the inactive, but day 2 she's a priority lynch for me. scummy behavior and possible connections to other players make her lynch worthwhile even if she's town, because if she's not mafia, chances are some of the people arguing with her are.
Eternalmisfit
Eternalmisfit's been doing strong analysis and has made some key observations, and has overall been quite pro-town.
Vain FoS
Vain has been semi-active. I'm a little bit suspicious of him because he joined the Shcoleosis bandwagon without giving a reason until prompted to. Bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning is not great town play, and his logic and reasoning just haven't clicked with me. FoS, but not a priority.
|
Unfortunately, we've got no clue which blue roles (if any) are in the game. If we do have any blues, we've got one of each, which means that we need to use those abilities wisely. I've got two lists here, 1 for the medic, and 1 for the DT, assuming the best case scenario that we've got both.
Medic
Our medic needs to be protecting the most active pro-town posters. Prime targets for protection are
- Zorkmid
- Eternalmisfit
- Varpulis
- Forumite (less so)
note: If you get hit and saved claim it. We need to know that. Later on, the medic can verify your statement, and we'll have a confirmed townie.
note2: don't claim medic unless you really need to, i.e. to save yourself from a lynch. Mafia can and will just kill you the following night.
Detective
Our detective needs to be investigating the shady characters in our little town. Don't try to confirm the active townies. It's a waste of an action, and we don't have very many actions to waste.
The shady people who need checking are:
- Shcoleosis
- elmizzt
- sandroba
Remember: you are sane and there is no Godfather. 100% of your results are accurate.
|
oh, maybe it was just Zorkmid asking for my opinion. oh well. A post-by-post of Shcoleosis would be very useful, Forumite. I might reconsider my suspicion, but right now her defense isn't adequate for me.
|
If you'd like my analysis, i'll give you my analysis. Post-by-post, the same way I analysed you the first time.
If you think I'm scum, give some evidence. if you're demanding evidence from me, I'll demand evidence from you. Good luck finding it.
Lets see if I can get my analysis posted before Forumite does...
|
Shcoleosis
First things first, I'm going to quote my original analysis. Her early posts have been analysed once, I see no need to go over them again.
+ Show Spoiler [Previous analysis] +On April 16 2011 08:05 VarpuliS wrote:...And as promised, here is my analysis of Shcoleosis' posts. First post is a response to Eternalmisfit's suggestion to pressure lurkers Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 11:17 Shcoleosis wrote:On April 15 2011 11:12 Eternalmisfit wrote:
Btw I think we should lynch people who are inactive or lurking the boards as it is more likely that they are trying to stay under and radar and avoid suspicion on themselves by barely posting at all. Yeah, that seem logical. We don't want to kill innocent townies, though...It's the mafia we want gone! I highly doubt any mafia would be lurking or inactive when they have chances to kill. But who am I to say...I'm still learning :/ This bolded line is not scummy, it's just stupid. Mafia doesn't kill by talking, they kill by pm'ing GMarshal at night. Mafia needs to avoid drawing attention to itself to prevent themselves from getting lynched. This post in general is pretty worthless, ending with a line that is... strange. This is the first scumtell I can see. She basically says "don't listen to me, i'm new." Townies need to talk and be listened to, not ignored because this is their first game. Only mafia and blues benefit from being ignored, so unless he roleclaims, lets assume scum. Second post comes a little bit later. the post reads: Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 11:41 Shcoleosis wrote:
I'm sure getting rid of the inactive would make the lynching process easier, but I can't help but question the idea of getting rid of people unnecessarily. I'm thinking about it more, and I'm realizing that there's a chance the one we lynch is scum and there's also a chance that he or she might not be scum....no way to tell right now. Hopefully we'll get lucky. This is a post which blends in. It says practically nothing, but appears to be a contribution. Blending in is not something a townie needs to do. +1 scum level. Finally, we've got lucky number 3: Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 13:01 Shcoleosis wrote:On April 15 2011 12:40 Zorkmid wrote:On April 15 2011 11:41 Shcoleosis wrote:
I'm sure getting rid of the inactive would make the lynching process easier, but I can't help but question the idea of getting rid of people unnecessarily. I'm thinking about it more, and I'm realizing that there's a chance the one we lynch is scum and there's also a chance that he or she might not be scum....no way to tell right now. Hopefully we'll get lucky. Why are you trying to protect inactives? Either they're not helping to scumhunt, or they are mafia. Let's hang em all ! Not trying to protect the inactive. I guess I just didn't really understand your logic well. But, hey, if it takes lynching the inactive to get rid of the scum, LET'S DO THIS! Lol Here, Shcoleosis basically says: "you seem to disagree with me... fine, you're right!" Agreeing with everybody else is something that two kinds of players do: - unhelpful townies -because they're just being sheep - mafia -because they're trying to blend in I don't want either in my town come lategame. Based off of this analysis, I'd like to start putting some pressure on Shcoleosis. Until a better target surfaces or she comes up with some good posts later on, I'll put my vote on her. ## Vote Shcoleosis
and we now pick up with the next post she writes: On April 16 2011 08:55 Shcoleosis wrote:
Whoa, what? I leave for a few hours and I come back to everyone against me? The last thing I'm trying to do is be falsely accused of something I'm obviously not. I was looking at things from a different point of view in order to help all of us find out who is mafia scum. Then, after I thought about it, I changed my mind a little because I started to see the point. Since I am new to this game, I am trying my best to give my point of view and understand without everyone being paranoid of me. Think of it this way, though, if I were mafia scum, why would I want to disagree with you all? That would make it blatantly obvious that I am scum!
This is a bad defense. It's filled with fluff, states the obvious (first bolded line), makes excuses (second bolded line), and calls everybody else paranoid (third bolded line).
The actual defense is: "I changed my mind a little, and then decided to agree with you all because if I disagreed, I would stand out as scum."
According to this post, disagreeing with the town/not sheeping= scum To me, this is just as scummy as her previous posts. It promotes sheeping and makes lame excuses.
Next, she attempts to divert the suspicion to Zorkmid, with this post: On April 16 2011 09:51 Shcoleosis wrote:After reading this thread entirely, here's what I think on the matter: In my opinion, one of the first to accuse is usually the guilty one. The first to accuse you was sandroba, not Zorkmid. Automatically everyone’s opinions are immediately placed under suspicion as the game progresses. That being the case, a mafia member wouldn’t express his opinions as eagerly as he would if he were agreeing with someone else’s. He would, however, be quick to blame, because doing so would divert attention away from himself. I disagree. Mafia would be trying to blend in, by agreeing with the majority and not being conspicuous. Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 20:53 Zorkmid wrote:My FoS is on Shcoleosis as well for the same reasons, and will also be on anyone that jumps on Misfit's argument about this Zorkmind person. On April 15 2011 20:06 Eternalmisfit wrote:
Also, I think the way Zorkmind is subtly derailing the discussion by talking about less fun in this mafia thread makes me wonder if has a hidden motive. Zorkmid came up with the idea of lynching inactives and lurkers. no, he actually didn't. the first to post in support of lynching inactives was Eternalmisfit That would work out greatly to his advantage if he were part of the mafia since it is more of an opportunity to blend, right? except that he's been extraordinarily active and vocal about his opinions The more we accuse those of having a different opinion, the less of a suspect he seems to be. I am not the first to disagree with him. I am not the first to be accused because I disagreed with him. Notice how Zorkmid says he “will also be on anyone that jumps on Misfit’s argument about his Zorkmind person.” Why so defensive, Zorkmid? It's called a joke. people were misspelling his name Perhaps he is afraid of everyone discovering how he is desperately trying to divert attention away from himself. He’s doing a great job of it. I had my suspicions about him early on because he's not only quick to agree with the majority, but he is also quick to blame. I didn't quote any other of his posts, but to me, he acts quite suspicious in most of them.
My responses are in red. This post would be a valid defense, except that most of the evidence cited is false. Lying and bending the truth are not the actions of townies looking to identify scum. they are the actions of scum trying to raise suspicion on a townie.
Moving on.
Shcoleosis now get into an argument with Zorkmid, with each accusing the other of being scum.
On April 16 2011 10:12 Shcoleosis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:03 Zorkmid wrote:On April 16 2011 09:51 Shcoleosis wrote:After reading this thread entirely, here's what I think on the matter: In my opinion, one of the first to accuse is usually the guilty one. Automatically everyone’s opinions are immediately placed under suspicion as the game progresses. That being the case, a mafia member wouldn’t express his opinions as eagerly as he would if he were agreeing with someone else’s. He would, however, be quick to blame, because doing so would divert attention away from himself. On April 15 2011 20:53 Zorkmid wrote:My FoS is on Shcoleosis as well for the same reasons, and will also be on anyone that jumps on Misfit's argument about this Zorkmind person. On April 15 2011 20:06 Eternalmisfit wrote:
Also, I think the way Zorkmind is subtly derailing the discussion by talking about less fun in this mafia thread makes me wonder if has a hidden motive. Zorkmid came up with the idea of lynching inactives and lurkers. That would work out greatly to his advantage if he were part of the mafia since it is more of an opportunity to blend, right? The more we accuse those of having a different opinion, the less of a suspect he seems to be. I am not the first to disagree with him. I am not the first to be accused because I disagreed with him. Notice how Zorkmid says he “will also be on anyone that jumps on Misfit’s argument about his Zorkmind person.” Why so defensive, Zorkmid? Perhaps he is afraid of everyone discovering how he is desperately trying to divert attention away from himself. He’s doing a great job of it. I had my suspicions about him early on because he's not only quick to agree with the majority, but he is also quick to blame. I didn't quote any other of his posts, but to me, he acts quite suspicious in most of them. I've just learned that you should always beware of the person that is the first to agree with a scum read. If I were a mafia I'd be looking for the first opportunity to form a bandwagon against a known townie. Misfit was the first to point the finger at me, and I wanted everyone to wait and watch for the second Question for you Scheleosis......what's your plan to survive tomorrow? I'd say your only bet is to claim blue. ##Vote Scheleosis "If I were a mafia, I'd be looking for the first opportunity to form a bandwagon against a known townie." Uh, Zorkmid, isn't that exactly what you're doing? Wait, isn't that also what you did to Sandroba?? Take a look at the pattern you're creating. Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 23:50 Zorkmid wrote:
Because of your slip, I no longer suspect Scholesis.
FoS sandroba
Why explain why your town play is bad and then cite a guide you read that explained it was bad? Exhibit A.
Here, Shcoleosis calls Zorkmid's suspicion of sandroba an attempt to bandwagon him, and accuses Zorkmid of bandwagoning her even though he had been suspicious of her previously. Again, misinterpreting evidence to further her goals: This is scummy behavior, and still not a good defense.
In her final real post of the debate (people start to notice the lurkers at this point, and a bandwagon starts on Senj) On April 16 2011 10:19 Shcoleosis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:15 Zorkmid wrote:On April 16 2011 10:12 Shcoleosis wrote:On April 16 2011 10:03 Zorkmid wrote:On April 16 2011 09:51 Shcoleosis wrote:After reading this thread entirely, here's what I think on the matter: In my opinion, one of the first to accuse is usually the guilty one. Automatically everyone’s opinions are immediately placed under suspicion as the game progresses. That being the case, a mafia member wouldn’t express his opinions as eagerly as he would if he were agreeing with someone else’s. He would, however, be quick to blame, because doing so would divert attention away from himself. On April 15 2011 20:53 Zorkmid wrote:My FoS is on Shcoleosis as well for the same reasons, and will also be on anyone that jumps on Misfit's argument about this Zorkmind person. On April 15 2011 20:06 Eternalmisfit wrote:
Also, I think the way Zorkmind is subtly derailing the discussion by talking about less fun in this mafia thread makes me wonder if has a hidden motive. Zorkmid came up with the idea of lynching inactives and lurkers. That would work out greatly to his advantage if he were part of the mafia since it is more of an opportunity to blend, right? The more we accuse those of having a different opinion, the less of a suspect he seems to be. I am not the first to disagree with him. I am not the first to be accused because I disagreed with him. Notice how Zorkmid says he “will also be on anyone that jumps on Misfit’s argument about his Zorkmind person.” Why so defensive, Zorkmid? Perhaps he is afraid of everyone discovering how he is desperately trying to divert attention away from himself. He’s doing a great job of it. I had my suspicions about him early on because he's not only quick to agree with the majority, but he is also quick to blame. I didn't quote any other of his posts, but to me, he acts quite suspicious in most of them. I've just learned that you should always beware of the person that is the first to agree with a scum read. If I were a mafia I'd be looking for the first opportunity to form a bandwagon against a known townie. Misfit was the first to point the finger at me, and I wanted everyone to wait and watch for the second Question for you Scheleosis......what's your plan to survive tomorrow? I'd say your only bet is to claim blue. ##Vote Scheleosis "If I were a mafia, I'd be looking for the first opportunity to form a bandwagon against a known townie." Uh, Zorkmid, isn't that exactly what you're doing? Wait, isn't that also what you did to Sandroba?? Take a look at the pattern you're creating. On April 15 2011 23:50 Zorkmid wrote:
Because of your slip, I no longer suspect Scholesis.
FoS sandroba
Why explain why your town play is bad and then cite a guide you read that explained it was bad? Exhibit A. There's a difference between explaining why bad play is bad, and explaining why good play is good. I've noticed something else about you. You're fickle in your accusations. One minute you're accusing someone of this, and the next you're accusing someone of that. You keep looking for someone to blame. Misfit ..was never among those Zorkmid was suspicous of, Sandroba, Shcoleosis....who is next, Zorkmid? The only reason you are sticking by your argument is because everyone is on your side. You quickly shifted the blame to the next person when you found that no one was backing up your accusation. Actually, he changed his opinion based off of new evidenceLucky for you, you are not the only one suspicious of me. I guarantee you that is the only reason you are sticking by your vote against me. If no one backed you up on this, you would have immediately blamed the next person. To me, that screams nothing but scum....a scum desperately trying to fit in.
Once again, mistruths are abound. Two people is not a lot of accusations. The argument here seems... forced. The italicised part at the end has no content. It's just filler. Still not a good argument in my book.
This next post is in response to eternalmisfit's post regarding the argument between Shcoleosis and Zorkmid. On April 16 2011 11:26 Shcoleosis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:59 Eternalmisfit wrote:
Just read the recent set of posts and Shcoleosis arguments. Although does she raise at least one point in her defense (i.e. she did not try to agree with what I was saying right away). Nevertheless, I am still a little suspicious of her trying to blend in (and then accusing Zorkmid of being mafia for the same reason).
Apart from her, I do also have some suspicions on Zorkmid who seems to be too finger happy at pointing at others. But, it is hard to say whether this is his usual forum personality or whether he trying to parry away any attention. Sadly, since it is mostly new people here, it is hard to get a read on someone on the basis of posting habits.
Btw, just so that people don't fly under the radar, senj and elmizzit haven't posted anything of substance yet in this thread.
I am going to head to bed now and will read any new arguments made tonight before posting my initial vote tomorrow am.
Eh, everyone's a critic. I don't see how anyone wouldn't defend himself if he's being accused of all the wrong things. Besides, I would think blending in would call for a concession. I'm withholding my vote until I see some more action.
This post confuses me. Of course everybody would defend themselves when accused. You're defense just isn't very good. I don't follow the logic behind the bolded part. Could that be explained please?
This next post is a pretty clear scumtell to me. On April 17 2011 01:44 Shcoleosis wrote:
Not going to be on much today--It's a Saturday and I've things to do. It looks like I'm about to get lynched, and over the weakest of false reasons. I think my previous posts indicate why I would vote for Zorkmid. However, if Zorkmid, much to my dismay, ends up being anything other than scum, the pressure's going to automatically be on me. I've already had to defend my position as townie once.
Basically I'm doing this to save my ass.
##Vote: Senj
The bolded part is the scummiest line I've seen all game. Here, she says "this is why I think Zorkmid's scum" but declines to lynch him, due to the possibility that he could be town. TO me, this indicates a scum who knows that Zorkmid is town, and also knows that if Zorkmid gets lynched, she'll be next. She votes for Senj to avoid pressure and keep the suspicion away from her, because she doesn't want to defend her position. This is a scumtell if ever there was one, and isn't helping her "I'm not scum, Zorkmid is" argument.
This brings us to the last post to be analyzed. On April 18 2011 01:36 Shcoleosis wrote:
Regular town behavior can be interpreted as scummy behavior, and scummy behavior can be interpreted as town behavior. So far, I've seen most of you all basing your analysis off of what you assume to be town behavior or what you assume to be scum behavior. That's how this works, yes. We've got nothing to work with but our assumptions. your point? Weak assumptions are just going to get more green and blue people killed. If we want to catch and lynch the mafia, we have to think the way the mafia does. I mean, if you were part of the mafia, wouldn't you want to think like a townie in order to keep from being caught? WIFOM It's a suggestion, and hopefully it will bring us closer to who is and who isn't a townie. My analysis of everyone would probably look like a repeat, so I doubt that it's necessary for me to post. POST PLEASE! I agree that Varpilus definitely had the most thorough and seemingly accurate analysis. That still doesn't mean he couldn't be scum. OMGUS Just saying.
Right now, most of my suspicion is on Elmizzt, Sandroba, and Zorkmid.
I like how this post states the obvious, pretends to be insightful explains why she won't be adding to the analysis, calls the person suspicious of her scum, and agrees with everybody about who's suspicious, with Zorkmid tacked on. This is not strong town behavior, but it is clever scum behavior.
The only remaining post is a challenge to explain why I'm suspicious of her. Consider it answered.
|
On April 18 2011 02:48 Vain wrote:I would also like to point out how the voting went. This is some actual data we can use and not up for debate. But as always it is up for intepretation of us. It could very well be that one of the persons voted for we're scum and the mafia influenced the vote. There has been some swing in vote's which i find very suspicous. This is how the vote looked 10 hours before closing + Show Spoiler +On April 17 2011 00:38 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 22:31 Eternalmisfit wrote:
Mod: If someone doesn't vote, do they get modkilled? Yes they do get modkilledshcoleosis: 2Vain Zorkmid Zorkmid: 1Forumite Senj: 2sandroba Varpulis elmizzit: 1Eternalmisfit shcoleosis to be lynched on account of getting to 2 votes first
People who haven't voted yet: Shcoleosis, elmizzit, senj10 hours and 25 minutes remaining till the end of day And here the final vote: Show nested quote +On April 17 2011 09:27 chaoser wrote:
shcoleosis: 1
Vain
Zorkmid: 1
Forumite
Senj: 6
sandroba
Varpulis
shcoleosis
Zorkmid
Eternalmisfit
elmizzt
Senj to be lynched at 6 votes
Day ends in 1 hour 33 minutes So in a summarry. shcoleosis lost one vote on her senj gained SIX votes and Elmizzt lost one. We can conclude from this that there is some serous bandwagoning going on here and maby some influence of the mafia. Keep in mind that there are not one but two mafia members influencing the votes and that we can be sure that 2 of the votes are mafia ones. The mafia makes up already 25% of our population so do not rule out mafia influence out of this vote.
Agreed. People bandwagoned on Sen and there is definitely at least one mafia who voted for Senj. Note that the order that people are listed there is the order in which they voted.
Suspicious people who voted for Senj after my analysis of his posts (i.e. joined the bandwagon)
Eternalmisfit was the one who brought the lurking to my attention, so his vote is not a bandwagon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
