EPTWe can potentially lynch 3 if we're confident today but I think a double lynch would be best.
Steamship Liquidia (TL Mafia 46) - Page 2
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
We can potentially lynch 3 if we're confident today but I think a double lynch would be best. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
For the same reason he doesn't make a good day 1 lynch because if he's not scum, then scum will want to shoot him. On November 16 2011 16:26 sinani206 wrote: This is completely stupid because some people have more than one read at a time. Why focus when you can divide (your attention) and conquer? No. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
I have no idea how Coag plays, but he's a well=known name around here. At this moment in time we should be pressuring lurkers into responding but there's not a huge point in focusing on them. Many players like kenpachi routinely lurk day 1 and there's almost nothing you can do to change that other than simply killing them. Of course, that's not feasible since trying to lynch 5-6 people would be really bad. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
For now, he's just another lurker. I forgot to address this following quote by chaoser. Let me do that now: + Show Spoiler + On November 16 2011 10:40 chaoser wrote: I didn't fabricate analysis though. Forumite built a shitty case on LSB out of nothing. The difference between him and I is that I didn't try to hide my case behind long paragraphs and shitty reasoning. I just went "lawl scum *vote*" But back onto the topic of pressuring: In XXXIX redtooth makes a bullshit case on Irish_Punk with no real reason and I followed up on his vote. There is no "leading the whole thread" in that game at all because the natural reaction to a bullshit vote is to go "wtf?", especially when clearly there was no real case in the first place. Who is going to be lead along by "lawl scum, *vote*" as the only reason for voting someone? No one, as was true in that game (people ended up voting Kurumi off 6 votes compared to the 2 on Irish) Anyway, due to the random no reasoning pressure, Irish overreacts and responds in a crazy manner. This then created discussion; At my expense though =[. More importantly, because of how he responded to the situation and how the rest of the players responded to his response of the situation, I was able to get a solid read on about half the thread and ended up pinning two other players as being mafia. My day two read/suspicious/vote was on amber was completely based around the fact that he was very flaky between voting Kurumi and being suspicious of Irish. Then I directed a vigi shot at GGQ due to how he handled the Amber lynch. Alright... First part: On November 16 2011 10:40 chaoser wrote: I didn't fabricate analysis though. Forumite built a shitty case on LSB out of nothing. The difference between him and I is that I didn't try to hide my case behind long paragraphs and shitty reasoning. I just went "lawl scum *vote*" I don't think I was quite clear; I meant that scum can take bad and unreasoned votes like yours on scummy townies and then fabricate a case or "analysis" afterward and it will be difficult to tell whether they are being genuine or not. They'll slip by, too, unless we are active about punishing them for it. People voting others with relatively little, if any reason, is detrimental to town. We need to know why people are getting votes, otherwise nothing's stopping people from just casting one liner votes that don't further our purpose. We need information to work with, and even if you happen to vote scum, unless you have reasoning or unless you can create a reaction, they'll often just ignore the vote or be more wary and be less likely to slip. Personally I prefer building at least a small case before voting, since gathering of information is so vital. If one thinks that someone is scum then by all means they need to get voted to see how they (and other players) react, but I don't feel that way about any of your votes. If you simply vote them as soon as you have the slightest suspicion, how are we going to better our own position and ensure that we are, indeed, lynching scum? This is why things like read lists at this stage of the game are pointless. Simply disseminating that information, like haphazard voting, is an inefficient way to attack scum, IMO. They are forewarned of suspicion and thus will act differently because they are aware of the attention. But back onto the topic of pressuring: On November 16 2011 10:40 chaoser wrote: In XXXIX redtooth makes a bullshit case on Irish_Punk with no real reason and I followed up on his vote. There is no "leading the whole thread" in that game at all because the natural reaction to a bullshit vote is to go "wtf?", especially when clearly there was no real case in the first place. Who is going to be lead along by "lawl scum, *vote*" as the only reason for voting someone? No one, as was true in that game (people ended up voting Kurumi off 6 votes compared to the 2 on Irish) Anyway, due to the random no reasoning pressure, Irish overreacts and responds in a crazy manner. This then created discussion; At my expense though =[. More importantly, because of how he responded to the situation and how the rest of the players responded to his response of the situation, I was able to get a solid read on about half the thread and ended up pinning two other players as being mafia. My day two read/suspicious/vote was on amber was completely based around the fact that he was very flaky between voting Kurumi and being suspicious of Irish. Then I directed a vigi shot at GGQ due to how he handled the Amber lynch. That's all wonderful, but honestly, who cares? You know that someone like sinani is never going to respond if he gets voted. Even as town all he does is troll. So, if you expect some sort of reaction out of your target to be useful, I can guarantee you that good scum won't bite. They'll ignore your vote on them and they'll give you the same reaction you would expect out of a townie. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On November 16 2011 18:00 Cyber_Cheese wrote: The top part of my previous post was in response to Harbringer. We can't differentiate between lurkers too heavily based purely on meta. If someone is lurking and being useless, they should be a valid candidate for lynch, especially if they are good and should have known better. Killing someone that is renowned to be a good player sends out a stronger anti-lurker message, which is the whole point in doing it. This is why Coag is a great choice for lynch at the moment, as opposed to someone like Sinani. Giving people a free pass on reputation leads to stupid things like Palmar managing to win in LotR mafia as third party while basically not even trying. Speaking of Palmar: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=282366&user=87086 Useless mass of one liners. So, leaving someone alive who has no potential to be of any use (sinani) is favorable to leaving someone alive who has great potential for use? (Coag)? Either way if they're still useless by tomorrow they need to die. The difference between sinani and Palmar/Coag is that sinani never does anything, and Palmar/Coag are actually useful as town. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
I agree that history of lurking is no excuse for lurking, but then if we're going to actually lynch a lurker today we need to figure out which one that is. The other thing I want to stress is that focusing on lurkers is going to distract us from the scum who aren't lurking. Hell, if we are fervent enough about punishing lurkers a lot of them will probably just become active and lose a lot of suspicion. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On November 16 2011 18:48 Cyber_Cheese wrote: Are you saying that Coag is in absolutely no danger of being lynched even if he continues to lurk? That seems to defeat the point of threatening to lynch lurkers. By bringing up the good players as the best choices, we can get them to stop lurking day 1, and prove why they are indeed worth keeping. Add to that the mafia might choose to pick them off for being good in meta, not wanting them around to actually pick up their game. The whole point in lynching lurkers is to discourage other lurkers. What incentive do these 'good' people have to stop lurking if they know they are safe because other lurkers will die first? I will not support a day 1 coag/palmar/whoever lynch unless they are actually doing things other than lurking that further a scum agenda. This includes other lurkers as well. When the players are otherwise equivalent, if I have to I will support lynching players like sinani over Coag, on day 1 at least. It just doesn't make sense to lynch someone who is not consistently bad just because they aren't active. You lynch people if they are scum or if they are being detrimental to town. Merely lurking falls into neither of these categories, which is why we have to be careful of how we implement lurker lynching. As I said earlier, if a player like Coag has done nothing by day 2 then that probably means we should get rid of them then. Until that time, other players take priority (for me) in the lurker lynch order. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
I see that you more or less agreed with my post about chaoser. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
| ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
Chaoser the difference between you and Coagulation is that you are not a lurker right now. You are scum. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
| ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
Cyber you don't vote chaoser because of LaL. Chaoser has not yet been confirmed to lie. I really don't understand what your agenda is atm, and that's not good. My best reads at this point of the game are chaoser/bum. I'm not going to bother voting Lanaia for at least a day or two, since I can't make head nor tail of what the anti-vote business was about. Also Lanaia this is really bothering me, but for whatever reason I feel inclined to use female pronouns whenever I refer to you. It's completely irrelevant to the game but unless you have a preference I'm just going to keep calling you by your name lol. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On November 17 2011 09:48 chaoser wrote: Or you'll be eating your words when lanaia, me and kenpachi all flip town. WTF is the point of that post? I thought we already discussed the difference between a winning decision and a smart decision in Team Melee Mafia. I'd rather lynch hiroruby, a smart choice than kenpachi, a bad choice. Seriously go fuck yourself, I'm done playing TL mafia; after this game I'll be co-hosting/hosting only. yo chaoser I realize you are mad, but if you are town please don't rage quit at this stage in the game. I missed the whole kenpachi business, which is annoying me right now, but we need to find scum. You think bum is scum. Who is your best read? You have like five votes, only three of which I can remember. We need to consolidate on scum and it's easiest if we just stop screwing around and actually start focusing. Stop this LaL and lynch lurkers business, it's clear more than half of you don't understand what they mean. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
##vote Lemonwalrus Reason: On November 17 2011 09:24 Lemonwalrus wrote: Reasoning please? I've been toying with that vote since page 15 or so, but I'd like to hear why you did it. On November 17 2011 09:54 Lemonwalrus wrote: ##Vote: bumatlarge Be the batman that this steamship deserves. Sorry, but I can't let away with you calling out another player for an unreasoned vote and then pulling an unreasoned vote yourself. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
Chaoser you spelled Palmar's name wrong. Your vote doesn't count. Coag you can't vote yourself and your format is wrong. Please don't act dumb or we will be forced to kill you. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
yeah I'm dumb too get over it | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
Lemon wanted chaoser to provide reasons for voting, yet voted bumatlarge with no stated reason. Even now he deflects the question by saying he intended to vote that way before. That's fine, but that's not a reason. Intent and motivation are different things, and any person with the capability to understand the two definitions should know that. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
that was @ Kibibit | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On November 17 2011 10:35 Coagulation wrote: ##Vote Kenpachi LAL + hes pretty much distracting town completely. He needs to die for town to progress Im not sure about chaoser yet but im gonna keep reading up on him and his accusers. Also Im starting to see why everyone hates you wherebugsgo. you're dumb, kenpachi has already been hammered. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On November 17 2011 10:37 Lemonwalrus wrote: I wanted to hear why chaoser was voting bum because I too had suspicions about bum, and wanted to see if his were the same as mine. I posted with a reference to my reasoning which had been discussed openly on the preceding pages. Honestly I can't point to a specific post of bum to give you my reasoning because he hasn't been making them. That in itself is my reason for voting him when you take the fact that he usually is so outspoken into account. At least now he will have to respond if more people start voting him and we can get some sort of information out of him. So...you're saying your reasoning is the same as chaoser's? | ||
| ||
