|
On January 14 2012 11:46 Protactinium wrote:Ah an interesting roleclaim. However, there is much more to this than people are getting at. The PM debate is an old one. Everyone has their opinion on whether it is town or mafia favored, and even through out-of-game debates, this is a highly controversial topic. If it can' be solved out of game, there's absolutely no way we are going to come up with a consensus in game. BC defends his claim by saying that getting everyone to contribute on this polarizing topic will help us get early reads on players. But if we can't agree on anything out of game, you won't really be able to say that someone saying "PMs good!" or "PMs bad!" will tell us anything about their alignment. Anyone can pretty much say whatever they like since they are under no obligation or pressure to have an opinion one way or the other on this issue. While it is debatable whether PMs are "good" or "bad" for town, it shouldn't be too controversial to say that PMs are elitist. They inherently favor good players who can make use of the extra channel of communication. When you are talking to someone in PMs, always keep in mind what you think the other person wants from you. Are they trying to convince you of a certain point of view? Are they trying to get you to claim? As long as you can keep in mind that the PM initiator may be attempting to manipulate you and don't give away information loosely, PMs really aren't that scary. What exactly has BC been discussing? Primarily, he has divided his attention between defending his claim, responding to attacks on the potnetial that he is red, and asking for "discussion" while pushing a particularly biased point of view. More clearly stated, he proposes a seemingly open-ended question, and answers it himself to make it appear like there was a town consensus behind it. If you look at the thread, the only real contribution to the discussion that DOESN'T come from BC is sandroba's suggestion that all the masons roleclaim. And notice BC's bias when discussing the topic. In almost all his posts, BC paints PMs in a bad light. He only seriously acknowledges that town masons have the potential to catch scum, but in the same post, quickly says that "its harder than you think": Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 06:40 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Town masons have the potential to catch scum. Dts have the potential have finding scum. Vigi's have the potential to shooting scum. Jacks could do all 3.
Of the group, masons rely on their ability to read people and read posts to get a good view of someone. Catching someone in pms is not as easy as everyone thinks it is and historically towns have town far more retarded things there than good. But lets look at a section of what BC has to say a bout PMs in his guide "TL Town Breakdown/Analysis": Show nested quote +On January 28 2011 06:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Private Messaging
This feature has been in a fair number of TL games. It is also an amazing tool if used properly. However, if it is not used properly, the mafia will abuse it and potentially win. They are also a function if used improperly will cause people to feel left out and like they don’t matter as players. Pm’s can and do make people elitist in games. IF Pm’s are allowed in a game they should be used properly. Role fishing, small analysis groups, alignment testing.
Role fishing is straightforward so I will not go into it at this time. Small analysis groups. These groups need not be large, as you only need a few heads to flesh out analysis on people. It also means that if a red is in your group, it is easier to catch them, and it keeps the other groups safe from infiltration.
Alignment testing. This is posting in a way to let you carefully analyze reactions. Townies are more inclined to answer in one way and mafia/blues another. Sometimes this will be obvious such as catching someone lying to you in pm’s or lying in thread. Other times this will be noticing subtle word choices.
Regardless of how you opt to use the tool, if you do not feel comfortable in your ability to use them properly do not use them and play the game via the thread. Ask for detail from Ace on this, as he dislikes the PM feature.
Quite a contradictory opinion from what he states in game. The essence of BC's out of game stance is that: "PMs are like playing with fire. Could be insanely awesome if used correctly, but could burn you if you don't. If you don't feel comfortable, don't use them". This is quite a stark contrast to his position in this game, where he seriously downplays the usefulness of town PMs, and does a bit of fear mongering in emphasizing how the mafia can screw you over with PMs. Is it possible that BC has changed his stance? I doubt it, but it certainly is possible. So lets dig deeper here. How is BC pushing his opinion? He does it subtly, and attempts to dissociate it from his personal point of view. In the beginning of his campaign to discuss masons, BC heavily uses the word "discuss" or "discussion", asks how "we as a whole" want to deal with masons, emphasizes that this is a discussion everyone should be weighing in on, and attempts to get the community involved in the discussion. He doesn't outright present his personal point of view, and frames the discussion so that it appears free and open-ended. But pretty much injects his own opinion into the discussion whenver possible. His initial point is that mafia masons are dangerous and that town needs to have a plan to deal with that. When asked for an example of PMs in action, BC drags in an example where he manipulated VE to do pro-mafia actions in just 1-2 PMs. (Reinforcing his stance on "PMs are scary") When asked behind why he thinks a mass claim will interfere with the mafia masons, he proposes in the hypothetical that if town agrees to not use PMs, then it shuts down mafia masons. A few posts later, he reemphasizes that "by making the town decide, vocally, now, we force everyone to have an opinion." While this is fine and dandy, really he is the one calling the shots here. When Cyber_Cheese suggests that we let masons use their discretion and suggests that smart town masons could cause the mafia masons to backfire, BC counters with "Mafia masons have the experience of an entire team to work manipulate someone", subtly pushing his opinion that PMs should be shunned. Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 05:54 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On January 14 2012 05:52 VisceraEyes wrote: BC are you for or against a mass-mason claim? This is now the second time I've asked you. Please respond. I repeat, please respond to my query regarding the mass-mason claim. I am fine with either it, or having town just say "we ignore all pms that arent host pms"Making every mason accountable / making them useless to prevent manipulation seems the best play at the moment. making them all claim however is the optimal play, it may out the group of us, but it also prevents mafia from using their ability without being in the spotlight. When asked about his opinion on a mason claim, he says he's fine with it, but takes the opportunity to inject more of his "ignore all PMs" idea into the conversation (notice that nobody else has been saying "lets ignore PMs"). BC is pushing the anti-PM agenda, in a way that is quite subtle. He constantly brings in reference to "the town needs to decide", or "this is a very important discussion that everyone needs to weigh in on", while he is really the one dominating the conversation. In other words, he is injecting his mafia bias into the discussion while attempting to pass it off as a town discussion or collective town decision. Here's something BC didn't tell you. As he has told me in the past (out of game): "keep in mind as red i rarely pm", and "my heavy pm use is town play". Now what about the "spotlight factor" brought up by Meapak? BC putting himself in the spotlight is nothing unusual, both for his mafia and town play. If you've read past games, think of BC's style as much the same as Ace's. As stated above, red BC doesn't use a PM heavy style. He uses a style that focuses on thread control, shutting down serious opposition through arguments and generally trashing the thread. BC claiming mason does not give him any +town points in my book. The general heuristic of "mafia want to avoid the spotlight" doesn't apply to BC, who is an experienced mafia player and has proven that he is well capable of taking the spotlight as red. So what is the scenario for BC being red and pushing his mason claim? BC is in fact red, and can use the mason power (chooses it for himself early in the day). As a town mason would, BC picks a mason target and starts talking to them. Once he gets the town to agree to ban masons, he is off the hook, and doesn't have to worry about PMs anymore. More specifically, he doesn't have to worry about town PMs. Like stated before, mafia BC plays a powerhouse thread control style. By banning PMs, BC doesn't lose out on much (he admits he isn't a heavy PM user), and nerfs Foolishness, sandroba, and my abilities to play a PM centric game (which we are known for). And that's what is the difference between this game and XLII (the game he refers to when he says he dominates with only 1-2 PMs). Foolishness and I are playing in this game, and are real threats. BC wants to shut down PMs before it starts, and he doesn't have to give up much information or lie at all in order to do it. Furthermore, he has not followed up on his campaign promise: "I will question, analyze and call out all those who play in what I view as bad town/mafia like. (I have already done this with foolishness, he knows better)." Ok, so maybe he called out Foolishness yesterday, but where is the scumhunting today? Its non-existent, because BC is too busy derailing the thread with mason discussions instead of scumhunting. What is even more interesting is the timing of his initial claim post. It comes an hourish after my second post against Ciryandor, which conveniently most people except for sandroba and sheth have ignored. 1. BloodyC0bbler derailed today's discussion onto the irrelevant, highly controversial, and unsolvable PM debate. 2. Because the community is split over the PM debate, discussing it tells us nothing about alignment even if people contribute to the discussion. In other words, BC is overexaggerating the importance of this discussion. 3. BloodyC0bbler is masking his intentions and his clear anti-PM agenda, which is inconsistent with his previous (out of game) stance on PMs). 4. BloodyC0bbler is trying to frame the discussion as an open discussion, when he is clearly injecting his personal bias. 5. BloodyC0bbler's actions are completely consistent with his mafia style, which is to spread chaos and control the thread atmoshere and discussion. 6. BloodyC0bbler's actions are not consistent with his campaign promise to analyze and call out people. He has done none of that today
BloodyC0bbler is mafia. If you vote for me I will lynch him.
Hi incog, and as you didn't tag who you were I will say it again..
Hi [b] incognito
How do I know its you? I have never talked to mystlord.
I am glad your third game post of the thread is once again a "i am running on the campaign of lynch this player" it gives nothing on yourself and yet people think you are doing something commendable. You ignore all game discussion and opt to push your own agenda to off players. I am impressed good sir. However, you fail to realize that I am not being the lazy bored me, I am actually playing.
As for your analysis? Laughable. You make the claim of "bc has said he rarely pms as read and heavy pms as town" guess what? I have talked to opz before i wandered off to work, and the person I mason'd with Sandroba. As the only current way to talk to more is by having another mason mason me I am far more active than a mafia me would who would never use my ability to begin with.
I will now quote the bit of my own words you attempted to use against me.
On January 28 2011 06:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Private Messaging
This feature has been in a fair number of TL games. It is also an amazing tool if used properly. However, if it is not used properly, the mafia will abuse it and potentially win. They are also a function if used improperly will cause people to feel left out and like they don’t matter as players. Pm’s can and do make people elitist in games. IF Pm’s are allowed in a game they should be used properly. Role fishing, small analysis groups, alignment testing.
Role fishing is straightforward so I will not go into it at this time. Small analysis groups. These groups need not be large, as you only need a few heads to flesh out analysis on people. It also means that if a red is in your group, it is easier to catch them, and it keeps the other groups safe from infiltration.
Alignment testing. This is posting in a way to let you carefully analyze reactions. Townies are more inclined to answer in one way and mafia/blues another. Sometimes this will be obvious such as catching someone lying to you in pm’s or lying in thread. Other times this will be noticing subtle word choices.
Regardless of how you opt to use the tool, if you do not feel comfortable in your ability to use them properly do not use them and play the game via the thread. Ask for detail from Ace on this, as he dislikes the PM feature.
Notice the bolded section near the top, you know, the amazing tool if used properly? How about we continue reading to where i state it is not used properly and mafia abuse it to win.
You and I both know that discussions have occurred between yourself, myself, ver, qatol, fw, foolishness and others over a large course of time about how town fail at using pms. My ability to use the mechanic is not the issue at hand. I do not anyone outside of a small core group of players to properly use the function, as such pushing for it to be something not used in general or heavily scrutinized is by far the best play. Can you honestly say based on the current claims that you feel mathchew is a player who can competently maneuver around pms without proper guidance? (not meant at a real jab at you matt, but you are newer and as such not someone I personally would want wandering unattended in the pm land).
You and I both also know that reading people or catching people with pms is a skill that requires practice and takes time to learn. Only certain players on this site truly excel at them. Everyone else generally have proven over the last year that in most cases, town should not be in pm's period.
I do appreciate that you are gunning for people, but you know just as well as I do that masons who are only able to talk to 1 person once over 1 day cycle when unexperienced in that field is a detriment to the town, not a positive. If you refuse to admit to this then we both know your scum alignment.
As for subtle pushing against using masons? I can't decide for everyone. I have already said my bit and cant push this. By actively bringing it to the plate to even talk about I am forcing the issue
What I also find amusing is you concentrate on my mafia style play but ignore my town style play which is near identical (as you well know) where the differences are pushing mafia or town objectives. You claim that I must be mafia for I take thread control etc..
As a note incog. Are mafia really that afraid of me removing their tool from the game that they sent you of all people to deal with me? You know just as well as I do that pms in experienced hands are usually detrimental to the town and know that even with guides and performances of towns as a whole pms cause more trouble than good.
Anyone voting for protract at the moment needs to be seriously looked at.
|
On January 14 2012 16:17 ~OpZ~ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 16:12 Scamp wrote:On January 14 2012 16:08 Mattchew wrote: foolishness would have stuck with only bill murray had I not mason'd him. Now he pushes for me and bill because to him I am safe. With this post, you will not be getting my vote, unless you post something of substance really, really soon. Could not of said it better myself. But now that he mentions it, where the hell is BM? I'm not sold that any of the mayor candidate have a proper direction right now, and for all declaring they'd be active, they seem to be lacking.
I am moderately offended by this -_-
|
On January 14 2012 16:21 Mattchew wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 16:17 ~OpZ~ wrote:On January 14 2012 16:12 Scamp wrote:On January 14 2012 16:08 Mattchew wrote: foolishness would have stuck with only bill murray had I not mason'd him. Now he pushes for me and bill because to him I am safe. With this post, you will not be getting my vote, unless you post something of substance really, really soon. Could not of said it better myself. But now that he mentions it, where the hell is BM? I'm not sold that any of the mayor candidate have a proper direction right now, and for all declaring they'd be active, they seem to be lacking. Please read post above. I have spoken on every issue brought up (palmar, masons, who to lynch) and I don't understand this logic of Mayor running the town / game. You get 2extra votes and a lynch and immunity. You don't have to be the most vocal to be a good mayor you just have to make decent decisions and read well.
A mayor is someone players who surf by doing the bare minimum in thread follow at least early on. If you vote to off x then x will usually get sheeped.
The other major reason is the player who gets mayor is someone you want to be able to hold accountable. IE is that person going to push a lynch hard, or is he going to get feedback first before deciding to push a lynch target. Forcing discussion, actively pushing lynches, etc.. are the things commonly looked for in a mayor.
|
On January 14 2012 16:32 Mattchew wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 16:23 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On January 14 2012 16:21 Mattchew wrote:On January 14 2012 16:17 ~OpZ~ wrote:On January 14 2012 16:12 Scamp wrote:On January 14 2012 16:08 Mattchew wrote: foolishness would have stuck with only bill murray had I not mason'd him. Now he pushes for me and bill because to him I am safe. With this post, you will not be getting my vote, unless you post something of substance really, really soon. Could not of said it better myself. But now that he mentions it, where the hell is BM? I'm not sold that any of the mayor candidate have a proper direction right now, and for all declaring they'd be active, they seem to be lacking. Please read post above. I have spoken on every issue brought up (palmar, masons, who to lynch) and I don't understand this logic of Mayor running the town / game. You get 2extra votes and a lynch and immunity. You don't have to be the most vocal to be a good mayor you just have to make decent decisions and read well. A mayor is someone players who surf by doing the bare minimum in thread follow at least early on. If you vote to off x then x will usually get sheeped. The other major reason is the player who gets mayor is someone you want to be able to hold accountable. IE is that person going to push a lynch hard, or is he going to get feedback first before deciding to push a lynch target. Forcing discussion, actively pushing lynches, etc.. are the things commonly looked for in a mayor. A. You are wrong. I think the shear volume of posts about foolishness, palmar, L (who hasn't even posted) and other vets not trying for mayor proves this. People will listen to vets and those who are most vocal, regardless of whether or not they are mayor. Also, I don't care for the people trying to scrap by doing the bare minimum, fuck them, to quote flamewheel Show nested quote +Of special importance for this game though: if you tend to "lurk" or I see that you are not putting effort into this game, despite not being modkilled you will be unable to participate in my future games.
So please don't get modkilled and put a concerted effort into playing this. You are basically giving people an excuse to sheep the mayor. What the hell is that. My priority is getting 2 town elected officials. This is by far and away the best thing we can do on day 1. The mayor basically is a 3 power jack, with a dayvig shot, 2 extra votes and 2 bodyguards. Putting a scum member (regardless of how pro-town their campaign is) is terrible for town. This is why I have done everything logically under the sun to prove that I am town. And will vote for the person I believe to be most town running alongside me.
Giving people an excuse? I am stating mere observations about previous games. You can put in a warning of how people will be punished for being inactive jerkwads and they will still do it. Shit happens in peoples lives, they get a role they dont want and skirt by doing the minimum, etc... I am not giving an excuse for them I am stating a simple observation, people sheep. People tend to sheep those in power. Do people also listen to players such as myself, L, Palmar and the like if they aren't elected? Yes, but people typically elect these players to keep them alive longer. The skillset that a vet carries is why vets more typically run for elections. Long term those skillsets if on a townie player are a huge benefit to keep around, and if it is a red there is a higher chance of catching them as the mayor is expected to be active and a good player is expected to perform at a certain level. If the person running is unable to perform at the required level it is effectively giving a townie who will just follow someone elses choice powers that they shouldnt have. If they are heavily listening to the vets, give vets the extra shite. If you want to step up and stand on your own two feet do so. Think of being the mayor the leader of a country. You must have solid thread prescense.
Keeping yourself alive with your role (a role i firmly believe you should not be using after today), is not say as good as a newer player with a dt or med role getting it. I am not condoning either of those roles claiming but you get the idea. The mason role is something an experienced player theoretically could use effectively and warrant getting elected while possessing it but I personally believe no one should sit in pms. Mafia choose who on their team gets to be a mason, whereas hosts rng who got it for town. Regardless the mafia have 10 heads to properly work on who to mason and which approach to take while a newer player has his own thoughts.
|
On January 14 2012 16:41 Cyber_Cheese wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 16:38 bumatlarge wrote:On January 14 2012 16:33 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On January 14 2012 16:30 bumatlarge wrote:On January 14 2012 16:19 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On January 13 2012 15:57 bumatlarge wrote: Mason Favorite role, I kind of laugh when I see mafia masons, as they are not good at all. It's basically more work for mafia to convince people in the thread and then in PMs. Still be wary. There is a lot of mindgames in PMs, but nothing is as cool as being sure the other person is town. It's basically like a mini-game of mafia. Give each other analysis, and plan out what you will do with the other person. Better yet, mason me and we will a force to be reckoned with. On January 14 2012 04:52 bumatlarge wrote:I don't think people are understanding where BC is coming from, a town mason is more likely to just immediately get rights, but if you look at scum mason; Mason At the beginning of every cycle, you may send a PM to me detailing who you would like to Mason with during that cycle. You may PM with that person for the full cycle. You may not choose a person you have already Masoned with for the remainder of the game. The Mafia team will have a set number of people to choose as Masons. Mafia with other roles (Roleblocker, Framer, Godfather) can double up on Mason roles. They have to pick them. Do you think mafia right off the bat is going to grab the mason role and start yapping away? I think if BC is mafia, he is doing us a favor. I think masons should claim in thread, the faster the better. It forces mafia into an awkward position, or else they can't claim at all. Why and how did your opinion completely change? Well just because I think mafia masons are bad, doesnt mean they cant be useful. I think BC's plan does a good job of stopping their use, or severely attaching scum to one another. Nice try Monsieur cheese I'm pretty good in on-on-one situations, so I don't view mafia masons as good. But, oh yes, that is my "generic blue advice" no one needs to hear my genericly awesome mason reading powers. they'll just figure out everything I don't say on their own! Silly me. It also completely shuts down town masons, which you thought were excellent. Why are you willing to give up such an awesome protown role, where two townies could be 'a force to be reckoned with', just to cancel the abilities of the scum masons, which are 'not good at all'. Town masons claiming doesnt shut down town masons. They can get into contact with any individual they want? They are unrole-blockable, and they eventually have to release the information/analysis they find. I never say that anywhere. Did BC say that? BC was talking about ignoring PM's completely, and he's been wishy washy on whether he's keen on all the masons claiming.
On January 14 2012 05:54 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 05:52 VisceraEyes wrote: BC are you for or against a mass-mason claim? This is now the second time I've asked you. Please respond. I repeat, please respond to my query regarding the mass-mason claim. I am fine with either it, or having town just say "we ignore all pms that arent host pms" Making every mason accountable / making them useless to prevent manipulation seems the best play at the moment. making them all claim however is the optimal play, it may out the group of us, but it also prevents mafia from using their ability without being in the spotlight.
How about you read what I say and properly reflect it. I prefer ignoring pms and deciding that masons be ignored, but in the case no one agrees with that then mass claim so town knows who to heavily watch in pms. Everyone being on the same playing field is far more advantaegous than a minority playing with a different hand.
|
On January 14 2012 16:44 bumatlarge wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 16:41 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On January 14 2012 16:38 bumatlarge wrote:On January 14 2012 16:33 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On January 14 2012 16:30 bumatlarge wrote:On January 14 2012 16:19 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On January 13 2012 15:57 bumatlarge wrote: Mason Favorite role, I kind of laugh when I see mafia masons, as they are not good at all. It's basically more work for mafia to convince people in the thread and then in PMs. Still be wary. There is a lot of mindgames in PMs, but nothing is as cool as being sure the other person is town. It's basically like a mini-game of mafia. Give each other analysis, and plan out what you will do with the other person. Better yet, mason me and we will a force to be reckoned with. On January 14 2012 04:52 bumatlarge wrote:I don't think people are understanding where BC is coming from, a town mason is more likely to just immediately get rights, but if you look at scum mason; Mason At the beginning of every cycle, you may send a PM to me detailing who you would like to Mason with during that cycle. You may PM with that person for the full cycle. You may not choose a person you have already Masoned with for the remainder of the game. The Mafia team will have a set number of people to choose as Masons. Mafia with other roles (Roleblocker, Framer, Godfather) can double up on Mason roles. They have to pick them. Do you think mafia right off the bat is going to grab the mason role and start yapping away? I think if BC is mafia, he is doing us a favor. I think masons should claim in thread, the faster the better. It forces mafia into an awkward position, or else they can't claim at all. Why and how did your opinion completely change? Well just because I think mafia masons are bad, doesnt mean they cant be useful. I think BC's plan does a good job of stopping their use, or severely attaching scum to one another. Nice try Monsieur cheese I'm pretty good in on-on-one situations, so I don't view mafia masons as good. But, oh yes, that is my "generic blue advice" no one needs to hear my genericly awesome mason reading powers. they'll just figure out everything I don't say on their own! Silly me. It also completely shuts down town masons, which you thought were excellent. Why are you willing to give up such an awesome protown role, where two townies could be 'a force to be reckoned with', just to cancel the abilities of the scum masons, which are 'not good at all'. Town masons claiming doesnt shut down town masons. They can get into contact with any individual they want? They are unrole-blockable, and they eventually have to release the information/analysis they find. I never say that anywhere. Did BC say that? BC was talking about ignoring PM's completely, and he's been wishy washy on whether he's keen on all the masons claiming. Apparently I don't know how to read. Claiming doesn't turn off their abilities. BC what you smoking son?
It gives the mafia 2 choices. Use your mason(s) and risk being caught (as all masons would be known) or never use your power. It makes the chances of mafia being caught far higher as everyone knows which players to heavily analyze.
I prefer no one answer pms or send them unless they are to / from mods. This itself makes the role useless. If we decide "we arent going to use / participate in its use.
Its fairly straight forward.
|
On January 15 2012 02:32 VisceraEyes wrote: Unless I'm mistaken and fail at reading comprehension, BC has promised to out his mason partner "shortly" and has failed to do so in almost 24 hours...which is a long-ass time in a 48 hour day, not "shortly".
Anyone voting for BC needs to stop doing that. His alignment needs to be confirmed. Making him mayor is the worst choice town can make right now.
Also, someone has masoned me and I need to know what everyone thinks we should do about it. It feels like a mafia mason, but I'm inexperienced and don't want to make that call myself.
I'm still reading, just putting this stuff out there.
Does no one read my posts? I already outed who I mason'd with.
I specifically stated in an earlier post that I was masoned with Sandroba. It was in a giant block of text near the top that I responded to incog with.
|
|
to add to this, this post was near 11-12 hours ago, which if you also read the thread is written around the time I said I would be back in this game after my work shift.
For people FoSing me or telling people to unvote based on not reading my posts should be heavily scrutinized. As someone who pulled out of the elections, VE should be evenly more closely looked at.
He is now on my list of suspects.
|
On January 15 2012 03:00 VisceraEyes wrote: How does the fact that I pulled out of the elections make me more suspicious?
And did you completely ignore my plea for help regarding my mason situation? Or do you not care because now I'm suspicious?
You as a former candidate go out of your way to encourage people to withdraw votes based on a lie. You can say you misread my post which potentially believable due to its length I find unlikely. If people were actively waiting for a piece of information then my large posts theoretically should be read carefully for said information. You are not like jay who has been on my nuts all game.
Had you chosen to encourage people to not vote for me as I claimed mason and had solid reasons behind it then I would see you as more townlike, as it would also be discrediting another player with the same claim. By opting to instead cherry pick one candidate over the other I see an inconsistancy. I say this as you made mention before in thread that you had reservations of electing me before as my alignment with my role was not provable (minus a lynching obviously), however this issue would be near identical to another mason and had you kept with that line of thinking as two masons were in the running I would have understood.
Singling me out however, via incorrect information, is why you are on my list.
|
On January 15 2012 03:06 Mattchew wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2012 02:54 Cyber_Cheese wrote: Not to mention, BC declared his mason status 7 hours before you did, why are you a better choice than him, if the main thing confirming you as town is how quickly you declared your role? Because my posting, my logic, and the lack of cases against me (other than slippery slope highly unlikely situations) make me far more townie than BC is.
Incorrect.
We would be if nothing else equal playing ground. You used my initial claim to play off of foolishness to make a power play at an elected slot using your role. I have openly stated that I would not be surprised or expect to get in because of my claim. In short I expect if i was elected it would be off my ability, not my role. You run was purely something you did via "im a confirmed townie" because of your role.
The "cases" against you were that just because you are a mason does not make you confirmed town. You have been transparent with your pms yes, in which you have a townie who is helping you openly admit that bm is easily controllable and you are taking advice from him. IE you are also easily controllable. I am very hesitant to want someone elected that foolishness supports when his main reason admitted in a pm to you was an ability to control bm. Do you think he would support you if it was any different? Why would a vet player want someone in office he can manipulate/control instead of himself.
And jesus, I totally just stumbled across that thought in help of one of L's earlier posts. Does anyone have a solid reason why it is advantageous to have an elected official in office you can manipulate/control instead of running yourself? If you are controlling/manipulating wouldn't that suggest you are more sure of your own ability to play and should be running rather than ducking responsibility?
|
On January 15 2012 03:11 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2012 03:08 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On January 15 2012 03:00 VisceraEyes wrote: How does the fact that I pulled out of the elections make me more suspicious?
And did you completely ignore my plea for help regarding my mason situation? Or do you not care because now I'm suspicious? You as a former candidate go out of your way to encourage people to withdraw votes based on a lie. You can say you misread my post which potentially believable due to its length I find unlikely. If people were actively waiting for a piece of information then my large posts theoretically should be read carefully for said information. You are not like jay who has been on my nuts all game. Had you chosen to encourage people to not vote for me as I claimed mason and had solid reasons behind it then I would see you as more townlike, as it would also be discrediting another player with the same claim. By opting to instead cherry pick one candidate over the other I see an inconsistancy. I say this as you made mention before in thread that you had reservations of electing me before as my alignment with my role was not provable (minus a lynching obviously), however this issue would be near identical to another mason and had you kept with that line of thinking as two masons were in the running I would have understood. Singling me out however, via incorrect information, is why you are on my list. I just don't want you to be mayor! You're fucking scary! And you've claimed a role that if you're scum you can rape my asshole with (as proven!) Don't give me any of your "cherry-pick one candidate over another" bullshit! I know what you can do with PMs! You USED ME IN YOUR CAMPAIGN! You're NOT going to be mayor!
isn't this a complete contradiction to.
On January 14 2012 09:07 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 07:51 Foolishness wrote:On January 14 2012 00:50 Kurumi wrote: Why would someone create a campaign for someone else without seeing him post ever? If anyone is voting for someone partly with the reason of "he's a good player" then they are doing the same thing. Don't know why you choose to call me out instead of any of the other lackluster votes. At least I have a plan and reasoning. I found Foolish's campaign to be both hilarious and appropriate and will support either BM or BC today. I still think people should vote for me, but the general consensus seems to be that I'm not experienced enough, which is totally fair. I don't think I'm totally out of the running though, so I'm not going to withdraw quite yet...but expect me to withdraw if I don't get any more support by 12 hours to deadline.
near nothing new has appeared since this post aside from potentially incogs tunnel of me in which he incorrectly states an opinion. However, you never give your opinion on that post of his, just instead say your reading it and then reading my posts. Note how he never returned to even respond to me? There are two people on one name, and neither has appeared.
You're reason to then push against me was debunked. If you don't want someone in office build a real case, dont make fake ones.
|
On January 15 2012 03:15 Mattchew wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2012 03:12 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:On January 15 2012 03:06 Mattchew wrote:On January 15 2012 02:54 Cyber_Cheese wrote: Not to mention, BC declared his mason status 7 hours before you did, why are you a better choice than him, if the main thing confirming you as town is how quickly you declared your role? Because my posting, my logic, and the lack of cases against me (other than slippery slope highly unlikely situations) make me far more townie than BC is. No actually they don't. Your only reason for being mayor is that you're a mason and that foolishness trusts you. Given foolishnesses actions so far it's pretty clear he's trolling so that's really not an endorsement. And as for your mason claim, you're no more confirmed than BC is and he's done a lot more than you. imma quote myself from earlier Show nested quote +I want you to ask yourself, What are the real odds of about 13 hours after roles go out that a scum team elects me as mason over a vet, sends me at the best town player who already made a troll campaign, and comes up with a relatively elaborate plan to get me (A non-vet) into office.
Is it possible, yes. Is it 99% unlikely, yes.
why?
Heres a scenario for you.
Mafia sees that I out myself as a mason. They see that I am attempting to fubar the use of the mason role completely. Mafia goes "FUUUUUUUUUUUUU" then thinks, wait, maybe we can use this to our advantage. Mafia concocts a scheme to use one of their newer members as a mason and get him elected via his claim. Foolishness could be a red or green and go along with it because he thinks that he can control you?
Or, you are green, do this move and foolishness is red and goes "score and easier person for me to use than bm" and backs you to get you into office. Doing so would make him seem town in your eyes and would gain him a mayor who trusts him. A newbie mayor who would go to him for advice before making his own decisions -_-.
Either situation you could be red or green, and it doesn't matter. A mafia team putting forth a member to get elected on a role that once elected's alignment can only be determined via death, or a town candidate who is controlled like a puppet via the mafia are both good scenarios for them.
|
On January 15 2012 03:20 VisceraEyes wrote: You forgot about the part where you're suspicious of me for NOT READING SOMETHING HALF THE ACTIVE PLAYERS ON RIGHT NOW ALSO MISSED! FUCK, BC!!
So? They didn't try to discredit me like you did. You also at one point endorsed my campaign as one of the only two you would support.
I suspect incognito for dodging giving an opinion on a subject that I know he shares a similar view of while trying to discredit me for said opinion. He also appears in a timely manner to throw out a giant post to bash my chances of being elected and then vanishes into the wind, continuing a pointless debate on "bc's claim was scummy" as opposed to getting back on track for who should be mayor / giving an opinion on a discussion that could directly impact the game.
I suspect foolishness for wanting to control mayoral candidates rather than just actively post and contribute in a townlike manner.
Someone doing a sketchy action doesn't mean im going to auto push for you to die, it means your on a watch list.
|
On January 15 2012 03:26 Mattchew wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2012 03:23 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On January 15 2012 03:15 Mattchew wrote:On January 15 2012 03:12 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:On January 15 2012 03:06 Mattchew wrote:On January 15 2012 02:54 Cyber_Cheese wrote: Not to mention, BC declared his mason status 7 hours before you did, why are you a better choice than him, if the main thing confirming you as town is how quickly you declared your role? Because my posting, my logic, and the lack of cases against me (other than slippery slope highly unlikely situations) make me far more townie than BC is. No actually they don't. Your only reason for being mayor is that you're a mason and that foolishness trusts you. Given foolishnesses actions so far it's pretty clear he's trolling so that's really not an endorsement. And as for your mason claim, you're no more confirmed than BC is and he's done a lot more than you. imma quote myself from earlier I want you to ask yourself, What are the real odds of about 13 hours after roles go out that a scum team elects me as mason over a vet, sends me at the best town player who already made a troll campaign, and comes up with a relatively elaborate plan to get me (A non-vet) into office.
Is it possible, yes. Is it 99% unlikely, yes. why? Heres a scenario for you. Mafia sees that I out myself as a mason. They see that I am attempting to fubar the use of the mason role completely. Mafia goes "FUUUUUUUUUUUUU" then thinks, wait, maybe we can use this to our advantage. Mafia concocts a scheme to use one of their newer members as a mason and get him elected via his claim. Foolishness could be a red or green and go along with it because he thinks that he can control you? Or, you are green, do this move and foolishness is red and goes "score and easier person for me to use than bm" and backs you to get you into office. Doing so would make him seem town in your eyes and would gain him a mayor who trusts him. A newbie mayor who would go to him for advice before making his own decisions -_-. Either situation you could be red or green, and it doesn't matter. A mafia team putting forth a member to get elected on a role that once elected's alignment can only be determined via death, or a town candidate who is controlled like a puppet via the mafia are both good scenarios for them. scenario is broken because i pm'd foolishness before you outed yourself. I don't see Foolishness as a strong town read. I would lean towards town if a gun was to my head but I still want to hear a lot more from him.
without timestamps we have your word to take for that. Is that likely? Yes, however, your run for mayor was timed AFTER my claim. You're role + my claim in open prompted you to think of running for mayor.
This is mafia, any situation is possible. Just because you can say "well im new do you think I would do that?" You know what? If you have a good player or players on your team as scum, a new player isn't going to be that bad as they can coach said player while using the "im new card" to explain minor mistakes.
My argument is that you are no more confirmed town than I am.
|
note I didn't see the spoilered screenshot with timestamps, I correct myself on that point. You still did run for election after my claim based on your role.
|
On January 15 2012 03:29 Jayjay54 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2012 03:08 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On January 15 2012 03:00 VisceraEyes wrote: How does the fact that I pulled out of the elections make me more suspicious?
And did you completely ignore my plea for help regarding my mason situation? Or do you not care because now I'm suspicious? You as a former candidate go out of your way to encourage people to withdraw votes based on a lie. You can say you misread my post which potentially believable due to its length I find unlikely. If people were actively waiting for a piece of information then my large posts theoretically should be read carefully for said information. You are not like jay who has been on my nuts all game. Had you chosen to encourage people to not vote for me as I claimed mason and had solid reasons behind it then I would see you as more townlike, as it would also be discrediting another player with the same claim. By opting to instead cherry pick one candidate over the other I see an inconsistancy. I say this as you made mention before in thread that you had reservations of electing me before as my alignment with my role was not provable (minus a lynching obviously), however this issue would be near identical to another mason and had you kept with that line of thinking as two masons were in the running I would have understood. Singling me out however, via incorrect information, is why you are on my list. sup? first of all, I want to say sorry for saying the unvote thing. Regardless of what my read is of you, people should've unvoted you, if you didn't name your mason buddy. Which you did and therefore my statement was wront. I missed it, sorry! But it was well hidden. Normally such an anouncement is bold and on top of a post. But I guess, you have your reasons. Then, I was not on your nuts all game long. In the beginning, I actually was your biggest stan and saying your campaign is the best. Enter your roleclaim. As I stated like a billion times the motives behind it is still unclear to me. If you can describe me the upsides of your roleclaim, I will not think of you as scum again. Even more so, If you convince me your really town favoured, I will vote you again, since your campaign was the best and you're a good player. But since you kind of just nourished the discussion, but never thematized the timing of the roleclaim, you're scummy to me. The Hydra's case on you is pretty good IMO and is in line of what I believe. I try to be constructive, not just choose a player and piss him off.
Using the phrase "has been on my nuts all game" is more or less accurate. You are really the only person who has been against me for a decent period of time. You also have said your reasons why. Do i agree with them? No. I do understand them however. If you compare what you were doing to what VE did you would understand why he is on a radar now and you are currently not.
However, as for the upsides of my claim. Look at the specific post Incog (the hydra) quoted of mine from my town analysis thread that I believe i linked in a previous post. (if i didnt i can dig it up, its also somewhere on page 4-6 i believe of the mafia forum).
I stress that most people don't use pm's correctly. In a situation where only a few specific players have access to that domain, it gives the mafia an advantage. They will have 10 people able to work on manipulating a player. You can say "i am going to look for manipulation so it won't happen" but again. Ask what I did to VE. It was subtle and vile. All I did was plant an idea that I knew he would think on and run with, and he did it in a way I knew he would. Manipulation is not obvious and a good player will know exactly how to do it without being caught. Mafia will have 10 people making sure its done right. I know that I can freely romp in pm land, but no smart mafia is going to talk to me seriously if i mason them. Why? Because i could do to them what they would do to another player. As such I had to think. How likely is it that only top players got the mason role?
Unlikely as fw rng's roles. We are also a gimped mason as we lose contact with who we target after each cycle and can never use it on them again. This is inherently not helpful to town. Why? Because a townie benefits from bouncing ideas off one another in pms. However you need the time to build up a "trust" of sorts with the person to actually get a serious discussion on reads. People will naturally always suspect you at first when mason'd or at least they should. That is not alot of time to get by the distrust and have a discussion of who x and y think is scum. Then you have to go over all those pms and see if there is a hidden agenda there. PM's in the way we traditionally use them to "bounce ideas" or find scum are used over long periods of time with people mulling over information. As your ability to get reads is so short term they are unreliable and far more useful to manipulate or mislead which takes far less effort, and is doable in a much faster span of time.
As such I opted to want to discuss the role. However, I also knew that based on my decision to heavily push this point, I would be forced to claim my role as there would be no way I would be able to hide that fact for the game while pushing heavy on its discussion. Even if I could, it could lead masons to out and out claim and would look extremely bad if I didn't while essentially outing people in thread.
As such I did right from the get go.
|
On January 15 2012 04:04 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2012 03:44 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On January 15 2012 03:29 Jayjay54 wrote:On January 15 2012 03:08 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On January 15 2012 03:00 VisceraEyes wrote: How does the fact that I pulled out of the elections make me more suspicious?
And did you completely ignore my plea for help regarding my mason situation? Or do you not care because now I'm suspicious? You as a former candidate go out of your way to encourage people to withdraw votes based on a lie. You can say you misread my post which potentially believable due to its length I find unlikely. If people were actively waiting for a piece of information then my large posts theoretically should be read carefully for said information. You are not like jay who has been on my nuts all game. Had you chosen to encourage people to not vote for me as I claimed mason and had solid reasons behind it then I would see you as more townlike, as it would also be discrediting another player with the same claim. By opting to instead cherry pick one candidate over the other I see an inconsistancy. I say this as you made mention before in thread that you had reservations of electing me before as my alignment with my role was not provable (minus a lynching obviously), however this issue would be near identical to another mason and had you kept with that line of thinking as two masons were in the running I would have understood. Singling me out however, via incorrect information, is why you are on my list. sup? first of all, I want to say sorry for saying the unvote thing. Regardless of what my read is of you, people should've unvoted you, if you didn't name your mason buddy. Which you did and therefore my statement was wront. I missed it, sorry! But it was well hidden. Normally such an anouncement is bold and on top of a post. But I guess, you have your reasons. Then, I was not on your nuts all game long. In the beginning, I actually was your biggest stan and saying your campaign is the best. Enter your roleclaim. As I stated like a billion times the motives behind it is still unclear to me. If you can describe me the upsides of your roleclaim, I will not think of you as scum again. Even more so, If you convince me your really town favoured, I will vote you again, since your campaign was the best and you're a good player. But since you kind of just nourished the discussion, but never thematized the timing of the roleclaim, you're scummy to me. The Hydra's case on you is pretty good IMO and is in line of what I believe. I try to be constructive, not just choose a player and piss him off. Using the phrase "has been on my nuts all game" is more or less accurate. You are really the only person who has been against me for a decent period of time. You also have said your reasons why. Do i agree with them? No. I do understand them however. If you compare what you were doing to what VE did you would understand why he is on a radar now and you are currently not. However, as for the upsides of my claim. Look at the specific post Incog (the hydra) quoted of mine from my town analysis thread that I believe i linked in a previous post. (if i didnt i can dig it up, its also somewhere on page 4-6 i believe of the mafia forum). I stress that most people don't use pm's correctly. In a situation where only a few specific players have access to that domain, it gives the mafia an advantage. They will have 10 people able to work on manipulating a player. You can say "i am going to look for manipulation so it won't happen" but again. Ask what I did to VE. It was subtle and vile. All I did was plant an idea that I knew he would think on and run with, and he did it in a way I knew he would. Manipulation is not obvious and a good player will know exactly how to do it without being caught. Mafia will have 10 people making sure its done right. I know that I can freely romp in pm land, but no smart mafia is going to talk to me seriously if i mason them. Why? Because i could do to them what they would do to another player. As such I had to think. How likely is it that only top players got the mason role? Unlikely as fw rng's roles. We are also a gimped mason as we lose contact with who we target after each cycle and can never use it on them again. This is inherently not helpful to town. Why? Because a townie benefits from bouncing ideas off one another in pms. However you need the time to build up a "trust" of sorts with the person to actually get a serious discussion on reads. People will naturally always suspect you at first when mason'd or at least they should. That is not alot of time to get by the distrust and have a discussion of who x and y think is scum. Then you have to go over all those pms and see if there is a hidden agenda there. PM's in the way we traditionally use them to "bounce ideas" or find scum are used over long periods of time with people mulling over information. As your ability to get reads is so short term they are unreliable and far more useful to manipulate or mislead which takes far less effort, and is doable in a much faster span of time. As such I opted to want to discuss the role. However, I also knew that based on my decision to heavily push this point, I would be forced to claim my role as there would be no way I would be able to hide that fact for the game while pushing heavy on its discussion. Even if I could, it could lead masons to out and out claim and would look extremely bad if I didn't while essentially outing people in thread. As such I did right from the get go. If you feel like the role is gimped and less helpful for town in this fashion, what is there to discuss? How we should handle people who mason us? What was the conclusion that we've drawn from all this discussion that's been generated BC? NONE! Know how I know? Because I've been masoned and I specifically appealed to town for help in deciding how to handle it and NO ONE HAS EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED IT! Even you when I specifically asked you about it! So what good did the discussion you generated yesterday really do? But you know, fuck all because now I'm suspicious right? I don't deserve help, answers or even acknowledgment.
You do realize I agreed with the all masons should roleclaim and if they don't where the town says they should we auto bus them (not doing something the town as a whole agrees to is inherently scummy regardless of how someone wants to spin it). If town doesn't agree to this then we all agree to ignore all masons and play the game solely in thread. It is a gimped town tool that in its design favours mafia.
Read my posts again, where I said IGNORE MY SPECIFIC CLAIM, and discuss how to deal with masons in general. I already knew the shitstorm would and tried to stop it then, people focus'd on one aspect of my post. Apparently I was wrong and should have claimed after I made discussion, most likely got elected and dealt with people harassing me then.
|
On January 15 2012 04:16 Jayjay54 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2012 04:13 VisceraEyes wrote: Jayjay you're pushing yourself on the premise of "I've got good reads because I...correctly called out a townie"
...
...
You know that scum know when someone's townie, right? Why don't you correctly call out someone as scum and THEN talk about how good your reads are. Seriously... I did not say that because of my Mattchew read. That's not the point. I got confidence in my logic and in my game. The real point is, that I am TOWN. And I think I did give proof for that. People were already saying how bad it is to have a 25% chance of getting a scum mayor and that randomly giving it to somebody would be better because it's 20% then. Well guess what, I am 100% homegrown town and therefore a safe option.
to be fair, the chances of electing scum is dependent on the scum to town ratio of candidates. As in, if 2 townies run and 3 mafia run there is a 60% chance of electing a scum.
That math is dependent on the amount of candidates for each alignment running.
Based on the modkill I want foolishness to speak up and stop lurking, also incog or mystlord has to make an appearance. 3 posts over the first game day when two people are on an account is inexcusable.
|
On January 15 2012 04:46 Liquid`Sheth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2012 00:57 Toadesstern wrote:I'm visiting my sis so I'm out for a couple of hours. However I still have a couple of people I have no idea about. I'm just leaving you with a list of 5 or so names and if you see your name on that list I'd like to know who you want to vote for mayor and if you had to decide the first lynch who it would be. I'm only mentioning people I think might read this, so thx if you do: + Show Spoiler +5. risk.nuke 9. Kenpachi (you won't answer this right?) 11. EchelonTee 14. Liquid`Sheth 20. Ciryandor 49. Scamp turns out I got 6 names instead of only 5 but yeah that's it for now. I'm voting for Protactinium for Mayor at the moment. He has what I believe to have been the best case for Mayor. If I had to decide the first lynch, I'd probably make it a town affair and get everyone's opinions on who they wanted to lynch and then decide based on what that information gave me.
so the belief you have for deciding a lynch is via discussion and town consensus but you are voting for a player who has made 0 posts aside from saying he would kill ciryandor if elected or kill me if elected. so You are actually in favour of having someone lynched with 0 discussion as you are strictly following the most inactive of all the candidates who sole stance currently is lynching me.
contradiction
|
|
|
|