EPTSrsly go build a strong case on someone, or strengthen your existing cases.
Student Mafia (New/Newish players welcome) - Page 12
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
Srsly go build a strong case on someone, or strengthen your existing cases. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On December 10 2011 11:02 BroodKingEXE wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 05 2011 07:00 ey215 wrote: First he says no one is looking for a lurker to lynch, but in the last sentence he says we should get rid of someone for not contributing. Okay, let's not look for lurkers, but still be able to lynch them for not contributing! There is no way to figure out if someone is lurking without paying attention to who is lurking! No one is looking for a lurker to lynch. Go back and read my filter I have argued that we need to be looking at quality of posts over quantity of posts. With that being said, it's hard as hell to have a solid scum read on anyone day one, and if I have to make a choice I'm choosing someone not posting, or posting hardly anything of consequence to lynch over someone that has been active. You don't lynch for information, you lynch scum. Barring having a good read, we should get rid of someone not contributing since they're not doing anything to help the town anyways. This is my reasoning, where was EY's?. Ah, ok, I think you're actually confused here. When EY says "I am not looking for a lurker to lynch", this is a semi-idiomatic expression in english. He doesn't mean he literally won't try to figure it who is lurking; he's saying that lynching lurkers is not his chief goal. He follows up that sentence with: "My first priority is to analyze the active players and if as a town we cannot agree upon a scummy player then we should choose a lurker because they will remain a null read. " So yeah I think you need to read a little more carefully. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On December 10 2011 11:08 Blazinghand wrote: Ah, ok, I think you're actually confused here. When EY says "I am not looking for a lurker to lynch", this is a semi-idiomatic expression in english. He doesn't mean he literally won't try to figure it who is lurking; he's saying that lynching lurkers is not his chief goal. He follows up that sentence with: "My first priority is to analyze the active players and if as a town we cannot agree upon a scummy player then we should choose a lurker because they will remain a null read. " So yeah I think you need to read a little more carefully. That, or you're scum and you think nobody would actually read the stuff you quote. You know, it could go either way. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
Thank you. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On December 10 2011 13:49 BroodKingEXE wrote: What about it makes it hard to read? You know what, if you think your posts are legible, then by all means, please continue. Don't let me stop you from your lucid and easily-understood discussion. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On December 10 2011 15:30 BroodKingEXE wrote: BH, I really do not get what you mean. My other post was too long so I put the quotes in spoilers is that making it hard to read?. I kind of get what you are saying about the red, I will use bold. Good Night. No, that's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about the fact that you have a ~30% success rate in successfully using [ Quote] tags, and you apparently have yet to notice this fact. The most egregious recent example: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=48#953 | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On December 11 2011 01:45 BroodKingEXE wrote: BH, Are you saying that you will ignore EY's lies based on my illegible posts? I have yet to see anyone comment about EY bandwagoning on two of the votes. While I was wrong about Adam others were wrong about Bbyte too. It seems like everyone says I have been defending Jay the whole game from this post: Here Okay, I gave my read on him and defended him...once. On the vote against him I looked at his posts and gave info, others agreed with the vote (like EY) and gave no information whatsoever. I would really, really like to not ignore his lies, but I honestly don't know what they are. Do you want to know why I don't know what they are? The reason is, your posts are completely, unbelievably illegible. At this point, though, you have planted the seed of doubt in my mind. If you're a mafia player, you've done a really terrible job. But given how a terrible a job you did, it's not beyond comprehension that you are an unbelievably bad town player. I can't read your analysis posts. I ACTUALLY CAN'T READ THEM, MAN. God, this is either the best troll or the worst attempt to defend I've ever seen. If you're a town player I literally refuse to play any mafia games with you ever again. I'm completely serious about this. On December 11 2011 02:29 BroodKingEXE wrote: I do not have anymore time to defend myself as I need to study for finals. I urge everyone to come up with a plan when I do not turn up mafia. I say do not blame the players that created the case against me, but blame the people who used their cases and did not check for errors. I need to develop my skills about gathering evidence in the game and was not active enough in the scum hunt. I know that the case against me was pretty solid though, as I was not good in double checking my evidence. Well,GG BroodKingEXE What the dicks is this? Why not actually be helpful? ._. I'm going to look into Grackaroni and Tunkeg, btw. Just to check them out. I'll have an analysis up sometime today. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On December 11 2011 06:43 layabout wrote: there has been very little discussion so far and so a mislynch would make today a huge waste of time that could have been spent scumhunting to be fair, we should continue to try to root out the 3rd scum player even assuming that BKEXE is town or scum or whatever. An early start is awlays good. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On December 11 2011 16:18 BroodKingEXE wrote: ey: I see that some of his posts have lies, but I have misread some of his posts too. While some of my evidence is bad, I still see lies in his posts that make me think he is scum. If possible, could you post an updated version of your case against ey in which you remove the arguments of yours that turned out to be you misreading his posts, and you use the [quote[ feature legibly? It sounds like you have something worth saying, and if you're a town player, this is your last chance for real analysis. You still have 17 hours to live-- make them count. If you want something interesting to analyze, maybe take a look at the Grack/tunkeg fight. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
There's NO WAY you miss the preview button. The fact of the matter is, he didn't add anything of value via analysis, and in fact actively hindered town debate with his posting, until the last 24ish hours. Honestly, in the past day since people have piled onto him he (despite some initial anti-town sentiment) has made several posts, some of which had lies and/or "misreading" in them, and some of which may have value, and some of which suffered from "quote tag syndrome" whereby the entire post is illegible. My case on him is long and is not, in fact, based entirely off of his defending JayBrundage-- if you take a look, the vast majority of the analysis is on stuff he did before he made a singular post defending JB. For the most part, I'm noting that he's posting lots of fluff but no analysis, not helping the town, headnodding, and trying to stay low-- and when he gets called out for this a couple times, he makes crappy retorts and waits until something else springs up and ignores counterarguments. Even without his statements on JB, BKEXE is our best lynch today. ----- As a side note, I have some good news! Our blues are probably Doctor + DT/Watch, because there's no other reason I'd get roleblocked last night. They think I'm DT/Watcher, and as long as they keep roleblocking me our blues are free to do what they want (since they'll probably think I'm bluffing to get them to stop roleblocking me). I guess we'll know at the end of tonight. At this point, I just want to see the BKEXE flip so I can either be extremely pleased or extremely mad. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
Anyways, I delayed my actual vote action in order to get people to bandwagon less, talk more. Man, BKEXE, we hardly knew ye. Don't be so sad; it seems you figured out how to format posts, near the end there. Onwards then-- go into the blackness, past the precipice of death that is like unto shadow fading to darkness. Care not for us then, for when darkness gives way to void, and void to abyss, what will be left of these earthly wants? Nothing. ##Vote: BKEXE If he's scum, we've basically got this wrapped up. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On December 12 2011 10:34 Grackaroni wrote: Blazinghand is going to be pissed lol. Yes. I am very upset. I will be having some very, very choice words with BKEXE after this game, should I be scheduled to encounter him in another. There's nothing to be gained from be badmouthing BKEXE at this point, though. On December 12 2011 10:40 Grackaroni wrote: Also a wierd fact. BKEXE/BByte/Adam4167/EB Were the people I considered the lurkers from the start of the game. All of them have flipped and they were all vanilla townies. It seems like lurkers tend to be bored townies more often than scum trying to avoid detection. So it seems. If the doctor could bail me out again tonight that would be great. Maybe he's busy, though, so I'm going to crank out some analysis. Assuming our doctor is shitty, after tonight, we'll be at 5 townies 2 mafia. If we still have both blues we should be looking reasonably solid, but we need a good lynch tomorrow. If the doctor is shitty/dead, we'll drop down to 3 townies, 2 mafia, and then we need hella solid lynching. Let's get it right tomorrow, guys. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
I have a final in an hour and a half and am unable to do the analysis I'd like to between now and the day post. I hope I don't get killed. Be back in a bit. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On December 13 2011 09:02 layabout wrote: did you know that it is optimal play for town to not post? oh wait... Say it straight or don't say it at all. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On December 13 2011 09:03 Blazinghand wrote: Say it straight or don't say it at all. Like, I'm completely serious. I have final exams, and it turns out that this particular one is a bit more taxing than I thought it would be. If you're gonna call me mafia, come out and say it. If you're going to say "this posting habit is sub-optimal", come out and say that. If you beat around the bush you're a) being a dick and b) not actually helping me, or the town. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On December 14 2011 06:52 layabout wrote: i couldn't find a minimum activity requirement but @Zona is Bluelights getting modkilled/replaced for inactivity? his filter in the last 5 days he has posted at these times December 09 2011 08:55. a line of text December 10 2011 10:45. line + vote December 12 2011 01:23 2 lines worth of text + quotes December 12 2011 01:34 1 liner December 12 2011 01:34 comment on typos December 12 2011 02:14 2 lines of text my timestamp for velinaths last post December 14 2011 06:34 Yeah I was wondering about this as well. Whereas layabout has been active, it seems like in the case of Bluelightz we have traded one lurker for another. I'm going to talk for a bit about Tunkeg, who I believe to be largely unhelpful in his "statistical" analysis. On December 07 2011 07:24 Tunkeg wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 07 2011 06:30 Velinath wrote: Hi! As far as where I stand on the BByte lynch, despite the flip I think it was the best option we had. As a town I felt that we were somewhat divided between a couple of scumreads from different people, and, given that, it would be too easy for scum to swing a lynch one way or another in that situation. BByte, as a policy lynch, was a good call - lurking is and will always be anti-town play. I wish he would have gotten back earlier to defend himself and avert the lynch, but as it stands it was the right call. I must admit I didn't expect people to jump over and start voting BByte as easily as they did. A couple people even said that they had decent scumreads but "because nobody's going to vote for them, I'll just vote for BByte". This is a little bit of a matter for concern. I don't know whether it's just town complacency or actual suspicious behaviour, but either way people need to step up and push their reads. + Show Spoiler + On December 06 2011 04:00 xsksc wrote: Okay, I'll go with your judgement on this one. He seems like a decent lynch I guess, I'd prefer Tunkeg but that doesn't look like it's happening today. ##vote: BByte Going to sleep now, will be back and active early tomorow morning. This one stood out to me - "it's not my best lynch choice, but it's not a bad one - and I can be more sure that my vote will help cement a lynch". + Show Spoiler + On December 06 2011 05:13 Grackaroni wrote: I'm willing to vote for BByte because he has not contributed to the game so far and his lynch target was stupid. HassyBaby could still be a good lynch for today. Similar thing here. "This guy's a good lynch. Here's another option, but hey, I can actually get BByte lynched". + Show Spoiler + On December 06 2011 07:26 xtfftc wrote: I'm going to bed, so I'm voting for Bbyte. It's not ideal but it's better than some unpleasant last minute surprise. ##Unvote: xsksc ##Vote: BByte Similar to the last couple. What it came down to for a lot of people was "who can I vote for that will be a safe bet to avoid last-minute surprise vote switches?". BByte was a safe lynch. Not the best, perhaps, but safe. His behaviour was scummy, but we could have done some more analysis on other people and maybe gotten a better candidate. EB's case on Hassybaby springs to mind as a pretty impressive case, I think if we had had the time to discuss that he would have maybe made a better lynch target. Now that we have another day ahead of us, we need to start looking less at policy lynching and more at scum reads. While there was a reasonable amount of scumhunting yesterday, we were unable to act on those reads. After filtering the voters on BByte, I can't really see anything suspicious. Every vote was based off of Lynch All Lurkers, meaning it's really hard to distinguish between which voters were motivated by policy and which were scum. Despite my voting first, I really feel like BH led the bandwagon here, and that should merit some scrutiny. As has been said in the last two pages, players thinking for themselves is a good thing. Forming your own reads will always be better than going off of someone else. That said, I find one thing suspicious. xkskc's post stood out to me as just jumping on a bandwagon and really helping to get it rolling. At the time, BH had just gotten things started. An informed mafia would be able to switch votes after seeing as visible a bandwagon as BH got rolling, and allay suspicion. "Yeah, I would prefer we lynch X, but that's not happening so I'll just go along with Y". Seems weird to me, but like anything in this game we could WIFOM it to death. Tomorrow, I think it might be a good move to focus on Hassybaby more. EB posted an interesting case yesterday, and I think I posted some stuff slightly before that. One of the big points there is his complete sheep vote on BKEXE based solely on my reasoning, and then disappearing from the thread. Something to look into. While I don't want to policy lynch him for lurking, his play so far does seem scummy. Thank you for answering. I agree with your thoughts here. It is pretty hard to say anything about which votes are more suspicious. But if I am allowed to speculate I would think at least 1 scum was in on the lynch of BByte, and more likely 2 scums to secure it. 0 and 3 would be very unlikely IMO. 0 is unlikely because I think scum wanted to secure the lynch of a townie. 3 unlikely because then they would put all their eggs in one baasket (if all 3 jumped in early), and a change in lynchtarget would mean that at least 2 of them would have to switch to secure themselves (that would cause suspicion). If not all 3 jumped in early it would be no point in jumping in late for a third scum unless the vote weren't secured (for a secound scum, yeah, for a third no). So my view on the lynch yesterday is that there is likely to be two scums among the 7 who voted for BByte: Velinath, Blazinghand, xsksc, Grackorini, ey215, xtfftc and Tunkeg. And one among the rest. This is all speculations though, and probably not very usefull. I view this entire statistical thing as bad. It's obvious WIFOM and I don't like it. The fact of the matter is, the entire mafia could have wagoned or anti-wagoned or who knows what! It makes more sense to take a look at people's individual reasoning behind their votes and find people that way. This is not a good strategy. On December 14 2011 08:11 Tunkeg wrote: My case against you is not great. But it is the only way for me to proceed in this game. I can't play this game with you in it. To be frank I don't care wheather you are mafia or town at this point, I can't play this game with you in it. So basicly town needs to get rid of one of us. If we are both town, well then we fucked this game up together. And yeah I am insulting, cause I am an asshole to other assholes. It is ok to apply pressure, and it is ok to be playing an aggressive game, going total asshole is not ok IMO. The only support I am going to provide for my vote is that I want you out of the game, scum or no scum. Of course if someone have a great case on someone, or if a uncontradicted blue comes up with a scum to lynch I will vote for them. I will not sabotage town. And this is where you actually earn my vote. "I dont' care whether you are mafia or town at this point" That is straight-up anti town. "the only support I am going to provide for my vote is that I want you out of the game" are you serious? This is so anti-town it's blowing my mind. ##Vote Tunkeg | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
| ||
| ||
