|
Okay, until those items arrive to you, I´ll keep my vote on WBG. I doubt he´s lying, but it´s so easy to make sure.
----
Leaving that for now, I have Lucidity in my sights, probably a bit UMGUS because of his early vote on me, but his play since doesn´t help in dispelling that first impression.
Not Scumtells: Pushing the first pony to look scummy (Me), not wanting to confirm Jackal+tnkted by lynching one of them.
Scumtells: Wanting to discuss ponies D0. Discrediting metaanalysis on self. Push DF with WIFOM. Soft FoS on Curu for no reason. Short posts except on DF and when defending himself. Wasting his vote by leaving it on me D1.
|
On September 19 2011 00:34 tnkted wrote:
Okay, I got em.
Affirmative.
##Unvote
##Vote: Lucidity
|
On September 19 2011 00:33 sinani206 wrote: all this mason and honesty shit makes me glad i got lynched early Scum!
|
On September 19 2011 02:59 wherebugsgo wrote:
Tnkted did you get both pieces? On September 19 2011 00:34 tnkted wrote:
Okay, I got em.
|
Tnkted, Jackal, Forumite, Curu and Nisani201 has told us their names. I think they are the only ones.
|
Just a namecheck is a bit disappointing...
|
tnkted (0)
1-Nisani201
2-wherebugsgo
wherebugsgo (2)
3-Jackal58
11-Nisani201
12-Forumite
14-Lucidity
Jackal58 (1)
4-wherebugsgo
7-Nisani201
8-Sevryn
Nisani201 (1)
5-Greymist
6-wherebugsgo
Forumite (2)
9-tnkted
10-Cyber_Cheese
13-Curu
Lucidity (2)
15-tnkted
16-Forumite
MODKILLS
dreamflower
GreYMisT
Jackal58
|
Lucidity, why would WBG give up a piece of harmony if he´s scum?
|
WBG didn´t know that the power was weak, because I didn´t know that the power would be that weak. I knew it was something, and expected Honesty to be a full rolecheck power for the rest of the game, but that was apparently too much to hope for.
|
On September 19 2011 04:56 Jackal58 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 04:41 Forumite wrote:
Lucidity, why would WBG give up a piece of harmony if he´s scum? Because we would have lynched him if he didn't. Same as we would have lynched you if you didn't.
Noone knew that I and WBG had a piece each. If he was scum, why did he reveal the existance of his piece at all?
|
Missed the votechange D1, okay, ignore that.
Your FoS on dreamflower day 1: + Show Spoiler +On September 14 2011 19:55 Lucidity wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 00:18 dreamflower wrote:
At the moment, I am more in favor of lynching an inactive, because town lurkers still don't help the town if they're not sharing their thoughts or giving us information and Mafia lurkers are, well, Mafia. I am currently unconvinced by the cases so far, as they tend to be based on post-by-post analyses of posts made on Day 1, when most of us were unsure of what we should be discussing or trying to accomplish. Generally, I tend to be skeptical of post-by-post analysis, as they often are just nitpicking at small contradictions or confusing phrases in posts that perhaps the poster just didn't think through clearly and they seem to assume that Mafia will give themselves away a little in every post, which they usually don't. Right now, the cases made against Forumite and Greymist strike me as being more like townies accusing townies, so I'm hesitant to vote for a lynch based on those cases.
I did think it was a little odd that Forumite asked for a DT check on Jackal. But it seems like Jackal is a pretty well-known player, so I suppose it makes sense that he is subject to the scrutiny that well-known players tend to receive, like Ver or Ace. Jackal himself also seems quieter than I expected, though perhaps that is only because it is so early in the game.
So, I would much prefer lynching a lurker right now. The lurkers that stand out most to me are Sevryn and DroneAllDay. Of these two, the latter has specifically stated that he is very new and will be lurking a lot, which on one hand could be an honest statement of confusion but on the other hand could be a Mafia trying to look like a clueless newbie. The former, Sevryn, has made only a few game-related, non-pony-discussing posts, most regarding the Day post and how it'll give us more to talk about. Yet, he himself hasn't said anything substantial after the Day post except "Oh yay Day post. So, what are the Elements of Harmony?" I would very much like to hear from these two players sometime soon. I also wouldn't mind hearing about everyone's thoughts regarding the merits and flaws of lynching inactives versus lynching someone in particular. Essentially this post served two purposes: - Introducing the idea of really attempting to lynch a lurker today. Getting a feel for our willingness to follow such a strategy with the last sentence.
- Discrediting the cases brought forward so far.
Lynching lurkers should be a last resort. Going after lurkers (and by lurkers she actually means INACTIVES) allows scum to not offer any opinions and simply sheep onto an easy vote. This is not an ideal situation to say the least. She discredits the cases against Forumite and Greymist, by simply saying that she doesn't like post by post analysis and that she thinks townies are accusing townies. Could you explain why you think townies are accusing townies dreamflower? You offer no reason to doubt the case based on actual discussion points. Simply "oh I'm unconvinced". Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 00:25 dreamflower wrote:
Bah. And now that I posted, Sevryn has posted and even voted for Forumite. -_- I'm still a little cautious about the case on Forumite, as people seem to be basing it mostly on that one post and making him defend his ideas. I agree that his defense has also been inept, but I don't think it necessarily means he is Mafia.
For now, I guess I will just vote for DroneAllDay. And learn to refresh the page a lot better while I'm posting.
##vote DroneAllDay Note the displeasure when she sees that someone else voted Forumite. So instead of waiting for other's opinions on the LaL strategy she proposed, she goes ahead with it to try and divert attention away from real scum hunting by voting for DroneAllDay. Look at the reasoning in that post. She is visibly upset with another vote on Forumite.
She thinks his defense is inept.
But somehow he does not deserve any attention.
Instead she "guesses" she'll vote for DroneAllDay. Point? She's defending Forumite with no real reasoning. She puts her vote on an inactive, not a lurker. Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 02:23 dreamflower wrote:On September 14 2011 00:32 Jackal58 wrote:
Dreamflower lynching inactives is counter productive. Inactives are most likely going to be mod killed. Lurkers on the other hand are a different animal. There is a difference between the two. When you said inactives I'm pretty sure you were still referring to lurkers. Ah, true. Yes, I was referring to lurkers when I said inactives. My apologies. A lot of my thinking still dates back to the olden days before inactivity modkills or the Ban List, so please excuse me if I phrase things oddly like that. I also agree about OriginalName, whom I'm a little annoyed about not noticing myself. I also noticed that DroneAllDay's statement of Mafia newness came very soon after he signed up and long before roles were sent out, so that pretty much rules out his being a Mafia trying to masquerade as a newbie. My mistake there. OriginalName's one contribution to the thread after the Day post has been to call Forumite's post "a huge pile of fluff," but after that he hasn't said anything else at all. That does look more like lurking than outright inactivity.To add my own opinion on the merits of lynching lurkers, I think it is a good idea early on, when we don't have much information to work with. I agree that lynching lurkers doesn't yield much information afterward, but I don't think going after "real" targets always does either. The people who argue for a townie to be lynched or vote for their lynch are not necessarily Mafia themselves. So, I don't think either approach can give us much in the way of useful information. The part highlighted in red essentially explains why ON is where her vote should be. DroneAllDay is an inactive, which she doesn't want to go for. She wants lurkers, and ON is one. Yet her vote stays on DroneAllDay. She dedicates an entire paragraph to explaining why DAD is a bad vote, and then doesn't change it. Then she goes on to try and push the LaL objective. We shouldn't be lynching for information. DEFINITELY not on Day 1. We should be hunting scum. Lynching lurkers (inactives) is not scum hunting. It doesn't give us any information, which you think is important? Yet you still advocate lynching lurkers. Going after "real" targets actually DOES offer us information ito voting patterns, defenses e t c . Not that, that is our first priority, but it blows your LaL policy out of the water. tl;dr Defends Forumite and greymist with no reasoning. Pushes anti-town objective of lynching inactives instead of scum hunting. (Note that she really means inactives when she says lurkers, even though she indicated otherwise. Her posts make that clear enough.)
Just checking, you are saying that with your vote on WBG and posting today, you purposefully act scummy, to draw out votes from us and Town? Seriously?
|
Below is the reflexive FoS that Lucidity did on Curu. It and the FoS on DF came right after eachother.
On September 14 2011 20:03 Lucidity wrote:
I'll delve into that Curu/sinani/nisani shitstorm later.
Curu has scarred me with his brilliant Mafia play in XLIII(IV)? No matter how town he looks I'm always going to be doubting him now -_-
|
You say it was a bait, I just see a FoS without any substance behind it, after getting WBG more or less confirmed, at least in my eyes. Scum would want to discredit any correct attempt to confirm Town, which makes pushing WBG at that time scummy. Of course I think you look scummy for it.
I´ve read your case on WBG, skimmed it at least.
Him forgetting when he got his piece, does it make him more scum? N1 makes less sense, as it must have come from Sinani, as Sinani wouldn´t have kept his piece when he was getting lynched and WBG didn´t look like the best one to send it to. The thing is, that when he got it doesn´t make him Scum, wether or not he lied about it might, if for example another Scum got it and that Scum told him the wrong day. Is that what you think?
What looks weird is him pushing for more info from Jackal, even though he allready knew what they were talking about. He should have accepted earlier. That´s the part of your case on him I can agree with, at least before he gave up his piece.
|
On September 19 2011 06:36 tnkted wrote:@ WBG, Forumite: what powers did the shards of honesty have before they were combined?
If I'm reading this correctly, either both forumite and WBG are scum and lying about the time they got their items (which doesn't make any sense since I DID recieve both shards, so weren't lying about having them) or neither of them are lying about the timing (which doesn't make any sense since virtually everyone else in the game with an item got it on n1). We got us a pickle here.
I'm thinking we might have to lynch one of them to find out which I'm loath to do, but I can't see another way out of this mess.
The piece didn´t have any power at all, no mason-circle, nothing.
My theory on timings is that Chaos13 had the other piece, and when he died the next night, it was either randomized to Town, all players, or among Scum. Since we can´t really know which, I´m thinking he´s Town since he gave up the piece.
Lucidity, while WBG could have been lying about when he got the piece, why was it better to say N1 than D1? Scum lie, but they usually need a reason to lie, why didn´t he just say D2 immediately?
|
EBWOP
Lucidity, while WBG could have been lying about when he got the piece, why was it better to say N1 than D2? Scum lie, but they usually need a reason to lie, why didn´t he just say D2 immediately?
|
On September 19 2011 06:58 Lucidity wrote:
Because it didn't match up with the N1 claims of tnkted and Jackal.
I refuse to believe that he forgot when he got the item. It is inconceivable.
WBG saying he got it N1 because the others got it then, which made me look bad, until people believe and Nisani201 claimed, at which point it looked less scummy if he got it D2 instead of N1. It does look scummy, if he was hoping to get me lynched. I don´t know, it felt like a weak case then, but perhaps it would have gone to a lynch if it wasn´t for Nisani201.
Okay, WBG did look scummy then, but he gave up his piece in the end.
|
On September 19 2011 07:10 Lucidity wrote:
He had no choice but to give up his piece at that point.
I didn't notice that he only said it was Day 1 after Nisani confirmed your claim. That makes it even more scummy.
Ah, missed that, I thought he said he got it D2. So he got his piece when I got mine, not later on D2 when Chaos13 died. Changing to fit what looks best, that´s bad. The lack of breadcrumbing would work if he got his D2, but I would think he´d at least try to get the attention of someone if he got it D1.
Could it have been a gambit to lure out an element, perhaps trick me into giving him my piece?
|
On September 19 2011 07:14 tnkted wrote:
And @ Jackal: if there are really 12 pieces in the game, then that means everybody but lucidity got one, which means that when siani and chaos died their pieces were RNG'd which means two people got an extra shard, which means that they should claim so.
There are probably 10-12 pieces in the game, but we only know for sure that 4 have been distributed, Loyalty on N1 and Honesty on D1, the other 6-8 are probably waiting to be sent out, or perhaps 2 have been sent out but the owners are keeping quiet.
|
On September 19 2011 07:21 tnkted wrote:
Am I imagining things, or did Curu and nisani and somebody else claim to all be in a mason circle on quicktopic? Don't they have shards as well?
Curu, Nisani and I have a quicktopic, but it´s not connected to pieces of Harmony, it´s due to us being,
CUTIE MARK CRUSADERS, YEAH!
|
tnkted (0)
1-Nisani201
2-wherebugsgo
wherebugsgo (2)
3-Jackal58
11-Nisani201
12-Forumite
14-Lucidity
Jackal58 (1)
4-wherebugsgo
7-Nisani201
8-Sevryn
Nisani201 (1)
5-Greymist
6-wherebugsgo
Forumite (2)
9-tnkted
10-Cyber_Cheese
13-Curu
Lucidity (3)
15-tnkted
16-Forumite
17-Greymist
Sevryn (1)
18-Jackal58
MODKILLS
dreamflower
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
