|
EBWOP:
I'm back from work and going through the thread now. I will call things out as they see them because otherwise it will end up being a gigantic wall of text.
This post and the next few are a wtf?! moment. BH, stop spamming the thread like this, even during slower times of the day.
On December 07 2011 05:04 Blazinghand wrote:
All my scumreads were mild, and I don't think we could have increased the probability that we'd lynch a mafia guy in any meaningful fashion by lynching someone different. I don't think anyone was really able to say "this guy here is a mafia" and be justified. We also demonstrated a willingness to lynch lurkers, and I'm sure we will continue to aggressively attack people for lurking in the future. This sets a dangerous precedent for mafia members, who feel pressured to both lurk and now to not lurk.
What if another townie starts lurking? Do we lynch him on day 2? Or do we give lurkers a free pass from now on, allowing the mafia to stay out of the spotlight?
On December 07 2011 06:30 Velinath wrote: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 nested quote +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
What are you on about? Thanks for picking just one of my posts on the issue, while ignoring the overall context. I was fighting on my own to lynch someone we had a proper case on for quite some time and only gave up a few hours before the deadline when it became obvious that the rest of you would rather lurk than join in the discussion.
And what makes this post even worse is that later in your analysis you make the same point on xsksc I made after he jumped on the Bbyte wagon.
|
On December 07 2011 10:13 Blazinghand wrote:
My Original Case for JB:
On December 07 2011 10:13 Blazinghand wrote:
THE NEW MATERIAL:
Your original case was good, your new material was herp-derp. I think I am okay with a Jay lynch for now but I have to re-read his posts first. I was planing to make an analysis of him yesterday, so he's on my to-do list for tonight with Velinath.
I am not happy with those jumping on the Jay lynch though. You know my case on Adam and Velinath is someone who warrants a good long look, considering his recent posts. Posting about how he's suspicious of people jumping on the Bbyte lynch (not to mention he didn't bother pointing out what actually happened in my case) and then jumping on the Jay bandwagon just like that:
On December 07 2011 11:33 Velinath wrote:
First off, I was roleblocked last night.
Secondly, yes, I agree with this lynch. Scummy posts after Night 1 and the analyses posted? No question. Hassy can be saved for tomorrow.
##Vote: jaybrundage
How about posting his own views before voting? He goes on to add some stuff later which sound okay but that's not enough.
|
On December 07 2011 16:09 Adam4167 wrote:
It IS everyone’s fault that Bbyte ended up dead. We had 6 people follow BH’s invoking of a lurker lynch almost blindly, that is their failings and as BH has pointed out since, its also the failing of everyone else that none of us had put forward a compelling enough case to keep Bbyte off the hangman’s noose.
Parroting what Veli said. Yes, it is everyone's fault that we couldn't consolidate on a proper case but no, we didn't have 6 people follow BH's invoking of a lurker lynch almost blindly. Sounds like mafia trying to make us think that this wasn't as bad of a loss as it was to me.
On December 07 2011 16:09 Adam4167 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2011 10:56 jaybrundage wrote:
Briefly looking over you new case its pretty shitty with no content.
Nice use of caps to make it seem like you have a point. Your "core of your argument. Is also dumb is stated multiple times i did not like the Bbyte case. I'm not gonna let you steamroll the townies into another mislynch.
Ill give people some time to read my case before i comment again. I was not expecting EB to get killed i was thinking either BH Veli maybe Grack even. I really wish he had posted his case on me instead of his empty comment that he thinks I'm mafia. Are you kidding? He’s spent hours looking at your filter and you “briefly look” at it. You might want to go back and examine the SHIT out of his case on you and start defending yourself properly. Calling his case “shit” is tantamount to saying “no u r”, it might have worked when you were 7, but its not flying here.
This is a great point (Jay either scumslipped really badly or he spends more time writing his own posts than analysing others, which is pretty bad), but Adam sure likes adding fluff to his arguments. All he needed was the bolded bit, everything else is completely pointless.
On December 07 2011 16:09 Adam4167 wrote:
Is this a slip? “I'm not gonna let you steamroll the townies into another mislynch.”. You are part of the town… shouldn’t this read “im not going to let you steamroll us into another myslynch”, unless of course you don’t consider yourself part of the town.
This is pretty bad. What is the right way to say it then? "I'm not going to let you steamroll me into mislynching myself"? I will revisit my suspicion from yesteyday when I thought that Adam might be bussing Jay.
|
On December 08 2011 04:15 ey215 wrote:
I'm not 100% sold that he's scum, but I'm sold his behavior has been anti-town.
##vote: jaybrundage
...
Town does not vote to punish bad play. Town votes to lynch mafia.
On December 08 2011 04:15 ey215 wrote:
Fuck, I can't believe I'm jumping on the bandwagon but at the moment I don't see a better lynch option.
...
How about making a case or pushing the discussion further with some analysis?
I know I said I'm going to look at Jay and Velinath like 10 minutes ago but I can't allow ey215 to stay under the radar like this for another day.
|
EBWOP: I can't allow ey215..... so I'm updating my case on him tonight instead.
|
BH and Velinath, I think you should take a step back from Jay. You've made a very extensive case on him and the last few pages have turned into a farce with all the shouting. Unless you come up with something good to add, it might be better if you encourage other people to post their views on the issue or get another discussion going.
|
On December 08 2011 06:06 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 04:56 xtfftc wrote:On December 08 2011 04:15 ey215 wrote:
I'm not 100% sold that he's scum, but I'm sold his behavior has been anti-town.
##vote: jaybrundage ... Town does not vote to punish bad play. Town votes to lynch mafia. Right, and right now the best case for scum I've seen is the one on jay. I don't think it's currently possible to be 100% sold on anyone at the moment town or scum. I've read the filters, and have nothing unique to add to the discussion so why clog the thread up even further? Am I supposed to be like, "FUCK YEAH WE'RE KILLING SCUM!" Besides BH, I don't think anyone is 100% sure on jay, but at the moment it's the best we've got. Hopefully it solidifies later in the day, or someone else catches something
You lynch your best read. You don't start looking for excuses for when the player you're voting for flips town.
Yes, because I did such a great job laying under the radar before. Let's see, pissing match with the most active/aggressive player in the thread. Check.
Getting myself warned for inactivity in big blue letters to point it out to everyone. Check.
Great job I'm doing staying under the radar.
You didn't want to get into the "pissing match" with BH, you were forced to by his aggressiveness. And using lurking as a proof that you haven't been staying under the radar is a pretty solid point if you're building a case against yourself.
You were out of the picture when every good mafia wants to be: during the last ~12 hours before the deadline, so you did a great job.
On December 08 2011 06:10 ey215 wrote:
I'd also like Starshard, xftttc, and Bluelightz to respond to by the accusations that EB made. I know it sucks for the replacements but there needs to be some response to it. He seemed pretty damn convinced he had the game won and then got offed by the mafia overnight.
I answered to him after he mentioned me and I don't see how his death changes anything.
What is there to be said about EB? His play was arrogant and trollish. He was obviously a veteran smurfing, who thought it would be fun to frustrate the townies (refusing to vote just when he was asked to the most active player in the game just because he felt like irritating us) and then giving us a great demonstration of how a town player has to prove his innocence when attacked. He posted a great case that lacked obvious flaws - and then he was happy to go inactive again. He came back to announce that he's found the whole mafia team - but didn't bother providing any analysis on two of the players he accused. And he also made sure to notify us that the Bbyte lynch was pushed easily...
Before the game started (and also in the Looking For Coaches thread) some veterans suggested that there should be some experienced players in this game to help teach the newbies how to play properly. Instead we get a cocky smurf. There was no way to make a good guess about his intentions, which is the reason why I'm not all over Hassy at the moment. EB was good enough to make us do anything he wanted to as long as he was interested in putting a serious effort in the game, and I have no reason to believe that his intentions were pro-town, even after his flip. Ask veterans such as Sandroba and Palmar and they will tell you that the first thing a townie should do is to establish his/her innocence. The first thing EB did was to frustrate town and lose us half a day. So what good would it do to town to focus on him again instead of doing our own analysis? All you're achieving with this is disruping the discussion.
|
I've discussed it with my coach (he even made a guess as to who EB actually is) but the opinions expressed are my own.
|
On December 08 2011 07:08 Tunkeg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 07:01 xtfftc wrote:
I've discussed it with my coach (he even made a guess as to who EB actually is) but the opinions expressed are my own. Hmm, maybe my fault for asking but be careful referencing any talks with your coach: 11. You may not reveal or hint about the identity of your coach. You may not refer to any idea, course of action, etc. as something that was suggested by your coach.Hopefully you won't get any trouble by the admins for it, but I had my reason for asking (not becasue I wanted to get you in trouble over rules).
Stupid me... I think I'll be alright as the opinions were my own indeed and all the records are available for review if necessary. I won't comment on this any further in the thread though.
|
ey215.
While personally I liked how EY posted a well written post at the very start of the game to put a stop to the idle chatting, this was a general post that set him up for a well-observed pattern in his play that BH nailed: EY's "contributions" are mostly general posts that say absolutely nothing of significance.
Look at his filter. Apart from the BH discussion (which he was forced to take a part in after his initial overreaction to BH pushing the town forward), his activity has consisted of:
- General gameplay/policy post
- Pushing BKE, that easiest target around
- General gameplay/policy post
- Responce to Jay's half-accusation
- General gameplay/policy post
- Responce to BH's post from earlier (BH had to push him for it before EY posted it), garnished with an attempt to appeal to people's emotions ("but by god if no one wants my opinion don't ask").
- A deeper comment regarding gameplay - which would be good if it wasn't pushing pro-mafia agenda + Show Spoiler +He tried to scare town that what BH was doing was likely to lead to lurking townies doing stupid stuff that would get them lynched. This is anti-town because we need as much information as possible. Analysing someone's temperamental post is better than gambling with lynching a lurker.
A lot of these things aren't bad on their own. There's nothing wrong with pushing a newbie a bit. But the pattern that can be observed is EY posting lots of general stuff without doing any analysis/actively looking for mafia.
I can go on but the same can be seen in so many of his posts that I would have to spend the whole night working on the case. So from now on I will l focus on some of the major points I've covered earlier and pointing out stuff I've missed before.
ey215's exchanges with BH from Day 1 are full of stuff to analyse. I have already discussed things such why no townie has a reason to react to BH's play like EY did... Or my personal favourite, "I'm also not sure browbeating everyone into posting is going to help us figure out the scum lurkers over the town lurkers." My responce: + Show Spoiler +On December 04 2011 21:23 xtfftc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 15:22 ey215 wrote:
I'm also not sure browbeating everyone into posting is going to help us figure out the scum lurkers over the town lurkers.
......what? So we all agree that lurking is bad for town. No one denies that. We need all townies to post, so that mafia are pressured into we're able to distinguish town from mafia. And then you express your concerns that if we somehow manage to get all townies to post, we would have trouble figuring out "the scum lurkers over the town lurkers"... If they don't lurk, we are going to have reads on them and figure out their alignment. No townie would suggest that this is a bad thing.
But there's a lot of other instances of scummy play. This bit, for example:
On December 04 2011 15:39 ey215 wrote:
It worked on me because it pissed me off. It may not do so with someone else. I just don't want some random intimidated townie getting lynched because you deemed a paragraph or two on the question on hand isn't enough and decided to throw out a ##vote on them.
Makes sense. He doesn't want townies to get intimidated into posting stupid things. But...
On December 04 2011 15:48 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 15:25 Velinath wrote:
I don't think that asking people to post is too much to ask. I see voting them (given the more than 40 hours till deadline) as an easy way to prod them into saying something. It's not as if the vote can't be removed once they post.
I just think it's dangerous and is how bandwagons get started, of course at some point someone is going to have to start voting on someone I just don't want another new player coming in and seeing ##votewhoever a couple of times while trying to catch up and think that obviously that must be the person to vote for. As long as the rest of us are careful to not let the bandwagon get going, then I'm fine with whatever. It is just really easy to let one person make the decisions through sure force of personality or constantly posting ( I would think in a newbie game especially) by getting a ball rolling. As long as we're vigilant and step i and say, "Hold the fuck on that doesn't make sense" then I'm fine with whoever doing whatever they think will help the town win. Just like I think I've been doing the last few posts with Blaze.
Oh, wait, he is actually concerned that his might end up with a bandwagon because one person switches his vote all the time...
At 15:39 he explains his opposition of BH with one argument, at 15:48 - with another. The problem with this is that he iis way too afraid to simply let the subject go; he did his best to "win" the argument.
I'm not even 1/4 through his filter... I will try to finish it at work tomorrow. In the meanwhile, I would like to encourage you to re-read his filter. It's been non-stop, up until the way he jumped on the Jay bandwagon while expressing his own disbelief for doing so just an hour ago (not to mention that he didn't provide a serious read on Jay either + Show Spoiler +On December 08 2011 04:15 ey215 wrote:On the Jay case: yes, he was hedging but there's a whole lot of hedging going on early in the game. Is it because he's trying to not take a definitive stand so he can't be held accountable for it later or is it because he truly doesn't know and is offering options? To me it felt like hedging, he's been pretty definitive in some of his other posts. Ok, this got posted while I was typing this and going through filters: Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 03:55 jaybrundage wrote:
LOl question then why didn't you claim responsibility before instead of blaming the town.
You know before i called you out
Look at me im Blazinghand i use fonts and different text to make my point instead of analyze I'm not 100% sold that he's scum, but I'm sold his behavior has been anti-town. ##vote: jaybrundageFuck, I can't believe I'm jumping on the bandwagon but at the moment I don't see a better lynch option.
There is more to come for those who are not convinced yet but I am nevertheless:
##Vote: ey215
|
On December 08 2011 07:49 Grackaroni wrote:
Ey215 has been on every one of your bandwagons so far from Adam----> EB -----> BByte -------> JayBrundage.
@BH : Why is Ey215 one of your main town reads? I think he is just sheeping your vote.
Nice to see that at least one person is interested in looking at EY* but I'm really disappointed that everyone else chose to ignore it. You don't have to agree with my case but we have to catch three mafia, not one. We have a lead on BKE if Jay flips mafia but we need to keep the conversation going. We don't know if Jay is going to flip town or mafia, only mafia does. If it turns out that he's just a dumb townie and considering that everyone tends to keep quiet during the night, we'll be left with pretty much nothing at a LYLO situation when it comes to scum hunting on Day 3 (unless we get lucky with the blues' night actions). Don't rely on the few active players to win the game.
* I don't count Bluesomething because he looks like he's a newbie townie who strugling to form his own opinions. I expect a lot more of him tomorrow though; he should be able to post more analysis after being in the game for 48 hours.
On December 09 2011 02:06 Tunkeg wrote:Probability lynchI think probability should be discussed more before going into a day 2 lynch. Some of you may call this WIFOM and just ignore it, and probably it is somewhat WIFOM, because it involves alot of speculating. The first thing I will speculate about is number of scum involved in the lynch on BByte. As I've mentioned before I belive the probability that 2 scums joined in on the lynch is the biggest: Show nested quote +On December 07 2011 07:24 Tunkeg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 07 2011 06:30 Velinath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2011 05:57 Tunkeg wrote:On December 07 2011 04:15 Velinath wrote:On December 07 2011 04:09 Blazinghand wrote:On December 07 2011 04:06 xtfftc wrote:On December 07 2011 03:55 Blazinghand wrote:
Tonight the mafia may have already made their decision, but if we can get the same info without exposing ourselves more by delaying an analysis post another hour, is that really a bad idea? One thought would be that we need as much information as possible, but I'm not saying we shouldn't have the info, just that a minor delay is good. Five hours is what we're talking about here. Yes, because it's not just about your own analysis. It's about your analysis and everyone else reacting to (or ignoring) it. An isolated read isn't as good as being able to analyse people's responces. Hm. That's true, the extra 24 hours may make the difference. On the other hand, it's worth noting that at the beginning of the day, we do receive another piece of information: assuming that either (a) there is no doctor or (b) the doctor guesses wrong, one of us dies and is a confirmed townie or blue. A dead confirmed townie or blue, but a confirmed townie or blue no less. This information might be unhelpful but it could also play a big role in terms of analysis. Going off your assumption that someone will end up dying tonight, why should we hold off on posting analysis? The more conversation that we can have before night ends, the more that the dead townie will be able to contribute before they die. Given this, I feel that we stand to gain more by posting analysis earlier so that we can discuss it with all of the town voices. For the sake of conversation what are you thoughts on the BByte lynch yesterday. You were the first one voting for him, what do you think of the rest of us that ending up voting for him. Any votes you find more suspicious than others? 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". 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". 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 basket (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. As I belive BH and Velinath is the most green out of these (as of now) I will leave them out. And I will also leave myself out. This leads me to believe that there is 2 scum out of xsksc, gracken, ey215 and xtfftc. Seeing that ey215 and xtfftc is attacking eachother, and the way they are attacking eachother I don't see it as likely that they both are scum. Seeing that Grackorini is somewhat joining in on xtfftc's analyses: Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 07:49 Grackaroni wrote:
Ey215 has been on every one of your bandwagons so far from Adam----> EB -----> BByte -------> JayBrundage.
@BH : Why is Ey215 one of your main town reads? I think he is just sheeping your vote. And therefor I don't think both of them are scum. xtfftc have been voting on xsksc and had him as one of those he suspects as scum throughout the game. I don't think both of them are scum. So this leads me to think that the most probable scum pairings of those in on the BByte lynch is: xsksc(Starshard)/Grackorini xsksc (Starshard)/ey215 Grackorini/xtfftc I say we should lynch anyone of these four, it would give us a high probability for actually killing a scum player.
I like parts of this post - especially the xsksc+EY bit, although I would have to seriously consider one of them being town if Jay and BKE are both red - but focusing exclussively on voting patterns is dangerous. Townies vote for various reasons, so if you're going to analyse the vote, you have to look at all the factors surrounding the decision. Even if the whole mafia team was on the Bbyte lynch (which is very much possible, although I wouldn't count on it), there's some townies on it as well. You don't take into consideration the reasons why those you have townie reads of voted for him, yet you use the vote on its own as a factor when narrowing your mafia list. Why is it perfectly fine for someone you consider to be town to vote for Bbyte, yet someone you are suspicious of is worth lynching for doing the very same thing?
Also, analysing the probabilities while excluding your own town reads and then pushing a lynch depending on the results doesn't help the rest of us.
|
Okay, I have limited time, so tell me who you want to me to have a more in-depth look at tonight (or you can have shorter analyses of two/three players, etc.). I consider Grackaroni to be town and I'm less and less suspicious of Veli. My view on the two of you (BH and Tunkeg) hasn't changed - I think you're both town (remind me to go over trusting players you consider to be town even if they're not confirmed if you want to hear why I'm doing it). I'm willing to give Starshard a break even though I would have lynched xsksc, and I'm expecting him to step up and contribute more during Day 3, just like Bluelightz. If Jay flips town, I'd say that EY, xsksc and Adam are the mafia team. If Jay flips red, I think that his partners are BKE and EY/xsk.
|
I've been looking at EY for a very long time now :D I can carry on with analysing his posts though; there's a lot of stuff to be looked at.
But the reason I think a lynch on one of those I find suspicious over the one I see as more townie is that I think the probability is bigger for succeeding in hitting scum.
Yeah but this defeats the whole purpose of your probabilities analysis. If you agree that lynching them for doing something a lot of people did, then you can simply reduce your argument to "there's bound to be mafia on the Bbyte lynch, so I'm going to exclude the ones I consider to be townies and will take a closer look at the rest."
I'm sure you can see why I have an issue with your logic: you value my vote on Bbyte the same as xsksc, even though I spend a lot of time fighting against it and xsk jumped on board in the blink of an eye. Of course, if I'm mafia I may have faked it in order to have an alibi for the Bbyte lynch - but in this case you should be analysing the reasoning I provided and not the actual vote.
|
Tunkeg, I consider spending time on analysing Jay inefficient now. And I can post my thoughts on why I consider some people to be town as well.
|
On December 09 2011 04:33 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 04:27 xtfftc wrote:
Tunkeg, I consider spending time on analysing Jay inefficient now. And I can post my thoughts on why I consider some people to be town as well. Ran through your filter to fetch what we know about your stance on JB. Here's a summary of xtfftc's statements re: JB http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=36#711Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 04:05 xtfftc wrote:On December 07 2011 10:13 Blazinghand wrote:
My Original Case for JB: On December 07 2011 10:13 Blazinghand wrote:
THE NEW MATERIAL: Your original case was good, your new material was herp-derp. I think I am okay with a Jay lynch for now but I have to re-read his posts first. I was planing to make an analysis of him yesterday, so he's on my to-do list for tonight with Velinath. I am not happy with those jumping on the Jay lynch though. You know my case on Adam and Velinath is someone who warrants a good long look, considering his recent posts. Posting about how he's suspicious of people jumping on the Bbyte lynch (not to mention he didn't bother pointing out what actually happened in my case) and then jumping on the Jay bandwagon just like that: On December 07 2011 11:33 Velinath wrote:
First off, I was roleblocked last night.
Secondly, yes, I agree with this lynch. Scummy posts after Night 1 and the analyses posted? No question. Hassy can be saved for tomorrow.
##Vote: jaybrundage How about posting his own views before voting? He goes on to add some stuff later which sound okay but that's not enough. Calls part of my case good, part of it bad. Said he's ok with a Jay lynch, but needs to re-read his post. Says he is not happy with those who are lynching him. Hedging. A page later: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=37#724Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 04:22 xtfftc wrote:On December 07 2011 16:09 Adam4167 wrote:
It IS everyone’s fault that Bbyte ended up dead. We had 6 people follow BH’s invoking of a lurker lynch almost blindly, that is their failings and as BH has pointed out since, its also the failing of everyone else that none of us had put forward a compelling enough case to keep Bbyte off the hangman’s noose. Parroting what Veli said. Yes, it is everyone's fault that we couldn't consolidate on a proper case but no, we didn't have 6 people follow BH's invoking of a lurker lynch almost blindly. Sounds like mafia trying to make us think that this wasn't as bad of a loss as it was to me. On December 07 2011 16:09 Adam4167 wrote:On December 07 2011 10:56 jaybrundage wrote:
Briefly looking over you new case its pretty shitty with no content.
Nice use of caps to make it seem like you have a point. Your "core of your argument. Is also dumb is stated multiple times i did not like the Bbyte case. I'm not gonna let you steamroll the townies into another mislynch.
Ill give people some time to read my case before i comment again. I was not expecting EB to get killed i was thinking either BH Veli maybe Grack even. I really wish he had posted his case on me instead of his empty comment that he thinks I'm mafia. Are you kidding? He’s spent hours looking at your filter and you “briefly look” at it. You might want to go back and examine the SHIT out of his case on you and start defending yourself properly. Calling his case “shit” is tantamount to saying “no u r”, it might have worked when you were 7, but its not flying here. This is a great point (Jay either scumslipped really badly or he spends more time writing his own posts than analysing others, which is pretty bad), but Adam sure likes adding fluff to his arguments. All he needed was the bolded bit, everything else is completely pointless. On December 07 2011 16:09 Adam4167 wrote:
Is this a slip? “I'm not gonna let you steamroll the townies into another mislynch.”. You are part of the town… shouldn’t this read “im not going to let you steamroll us into another myslynch”, unless of course you don’t consider yourself part of the town. This is pretty bad. What is the right way to say it then? "I'm not going to let you steamroll me into mislynching myself"? I will revisit my suspicion from yesteyday when I thought that Adam might be bussing Jay. This is actually a discussion of Adam's post, but he notes that JB scumslipped, and suspects Adam may be bussing him (which is to say, Adam suspects JB of being scum) Finally, talking to ey215 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=37#729Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 04:56 xtfftc wrote:On December 08 2011 04:15 ey215 wrote:
I'm not 100% sold that he's scum, but I'm sold his behavior has been anti-town.
##vote: jaybrundage ... Town does not vote to punish bad play. Town votes to lynch mafia. On December 08 2011 04:15 ey215 wrote:
Fuck, I can't believe I'm jumping on the bandwagon but at the moment I don't see a better lynch option. ... How about making a case or pushing the discussion further with some analysis? I know I said I'm going to look at Jay and Velinath like 10 minutes ago but I can't allow ey215 to stay under the radar like this for another day. It sounds like you don't think JB is mafia. You've admitted he scumslips, you suspect Adam is bussing him, and you found my initial case on him convincing. Where do you stand?
I've posted more on Jay, look at Day 1 but it's mostly one off remarks (such as pointing out how Jay justified not voting for a lurker by saying that we shouldn't lynch a lurker because a lurker isn't around to defend himself) and I don't see how the last quote was me suggesting that he is probably town. It was me pointing out the scumminess of EY's reasoning, and at that moment it was to be expected that mafia would jump on the Jay bandwagon.
At the moment I think that Jay is more likely to be scum because if he's not, we have EY, xsk, and Adam left, and I consider Adam to be the worst lynch out of the players I am suspicious of (Adam, Jay, EY, xsk, BKE)
|
On December 09 2011 04:35 Tunkeg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 04:21 xtfftc wrote:I've been looking at EY for a very long time now :D I can carry on with analysing his posts though; there's a lot of stuff to be looked at. But the reason I think a lynch on one of those I find suspicious over the one I see as more townie is that I think the probability is bigger for succeeding in hitting scum. Yeah but this defeats the whole purpose of your probabilities analysis. If you agree that lynching them for doing something a lot of people did, then you can simply reduce your argument to "there's bound to be mafia on the Bbyte lynch, so I'm going to exclude the ones I consider to be townies and will take a closer look at the rest." I'm sure you can see why I have an issue with your logic: you value my vote on Bbyte the same as xsksc, even though I spend a lot of time fighting against it and xsk jumped on board in the blink of an eye. Of course, if I'm mafia I may have faked it in order to have an alibi for the Bbyte lynch - but in this case you should be analysing the reasoning I provided and not the actual vote. Good, go for EY then 
Kk, I'll pick up from when I left my case yesterday.
|
Looking at him as an individual, he is one of the three scummiest (along with EY and xsk), so I consider him more likely to be mafia than not. Looking at him in the context of the potential mafia teams I see, I find his team (Jay, BKE, and one of xsk/EY) more likely than the alternative (xsk/EY/Adam).
|
Yes, albeit a short one that doesn't cover some bits. I feel uneasy about the way no one objects on lynching Jay. It feels like Day 1 all over again, which makes me wonder whether Jay might actually be town - even though mafia are probably just bussing him at this point. So my vote stays on EY to remind people that we have to catch the whole mafia team and not just one member of it.
|
On December 09 2011 05:31 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 05:24 xtfftc wrote:
Yes, albeit a short one that doesn't cover some bits. I feel uneasy about the way no one objects on lynching Jay. It feels like Day 1 all over again, which makes me wonder whether Jay might actually be town - even though mafia are probably just bussing him at this point. So my vote stays on EY to remind people that we have to catch the whole mafia team and not just one member of it. You mention there are some non-covered bits. Are those non-covered bits covered in this quote? Any particular bits you want to add? I understand that I'm badgering but you happen to be around and it's always good to get people's positions nailed down.
They are now.
Posting my update on EY in a minute, then I'm going offline for tonight.
|
Okay, I'm nowhere near finishing this, so I'm calling it a night. Enjoy:
ey215.
The part from yesterday
Let's continue:
On December 04 2011 15:53 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 15:43 Blazinghand wrote:
Also, you'll note I've been nothing but incredibly polite to everyone except for you, who has been incredibly dickish to me. I would assert that I am creating a tense atmosphere attempting to draw out the mafia, but any combativeness here is coming from you, who keeps on trying to escalate our difference of opinion in a flame war.
Prove me wrong about you, EY. Let's be friends. Fine be me, I do share some responsibility in the escalations and apologize. I felt like your first post on me was an attack and the following posts did not help. I have no problem working together to win this thing, I just fear a single personality taking over the discussion and will keep yo uin check if I think I need to. It's not a personal thing, just wanting what's best for winning this thing. I think as long as we both understand that we'll get along just fine.
Said he'll keep BH in check if he thinks he needs to, so that BH would take charge of the thread. Let's examine:
On December 05 2011 11:16 Blazinghand wrote:
The case for ElectricBlack
On December 05 2011 11:19 ey215 wrote:
##Unvote: Adam4167
##Vote: ElectricBlack
BH posted at 11:16, EY - 11:19
Next:
On December 06 2011 03:35 Blazinghand wrote:
##Vote BByte
On December 06 2011 06:43 ey215 wrote:
Ok, finally got back to the thread after a long day. I apologize that I haven't been back sooner.
On December 06 2011 07:08 ey215 wrote:
##Unvote: ElectircBlack
##Vote: BByte
This one caught EY while he was inactive for a long period of time. However, it only took him half an hour after coming back to catch up with what's been going on and to vote for Bbyte (6:43 - 7:08).
Next:
On December 07 2011 10:02 Blazinghand wrote:
##Vote: jaybrundage
On December 08 2011 04:15 ey215 wrote:Ok, back from my final. For those that might care I think it went well. (..........) ##vote: jaybrundage
Notice the pattern? Staying inactive > coming back to do whatever the most vocal player in the thread is proposing. + Show Spoiler +Please note that this particular post is one of my favourite and I've discussed it already and will discuss it again in the future.
There's other examples as well. True, BH has been pretty dominating at some points, and some players did try to do something to remind him to keep the discussion pro-town. I did, for example:
+ Show Spoiler +On December 08 2011 04:57 xtfftc wrote:
BH and Velinath, I think you should take a step back from Jay. You've made a very extensive case on him and the last few pages have turned into a farce with all the shouting. Unless you come up with something good to add, it might be better if you encourage other people to post their views on the issue or get another discussion going.
EY only felt that he had to keep BH in check while BH was on his back.
***
His "reads" on everyone. Basically he posted half a sentence on everyone describing what this player has been doing instead of analysing it - and also made sure to apologise prior to writing the list.
Ok, just got back to the thread and I'll respond to things as I see them. I agree that we've reached a consensus to get rid of a lurker. That means lurkers, it's your time to step up and contribute.
We never agreed on getting rid of a lurker. We agreed on getting rid of a lurker if we didn't have a strong enough case on someone active.
More about EY on lynching lurkers:
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.
I'm pretty sure I've been consistent since my first post that I think if we don't have a solid read we should lynch a lurker. Also that we shouldn't lynch a lurker if we do have a more solid scum read. I know it's a nuanced position but one that I think makes sense. My second post essentially says the same thing.
Again, EY acts as if he's agreeing with us on lynching a lurker if we don't have a proper case. However, here he is doing the same thing he did earlier: trying to twist the thing we agreed on (lynching lurkers if no better options are available) into an inevitable outcome for town (it is "hard as hell" to catch a mafia on Day 1, so we should get ready to lynch a lurker).
On December 05 2011 11:19 ey215 wrote:
While I'm not convinced Blazing didn't push him too hard and thus pushed him away I do notice a couple of times that ElectricBlack has said not to vote for people unless it's going to put pressure on them. Blazing's vote alone may not be enough, but I'm willing to switch mine to apply said pressure.
I'm fine with applying some pressure.
##Unvote: Adam4167
##Vote: ElectricBlack
You don't pressure people by telling them you're pressuring them. As soon as you say that something is just a pressure vote, you make it obvious that you don't plan to stick with it and thus you make your vote worthless. This is typical non-commital mafia play. Not to mention that EY makes sure to excuse himself from all possible blame before saying whatever he plans to.
While re-reading the thread, I found this very nice summary of EY done by Adam:
Note: the bold is from me
Ey215 has been pressed much like myself from the get-go and also reacted defensively. I cannot fault him for this as Blazinghand was being obnoxious towards him. The vote he places on me is understandable, but also unsupported. He claims to have no read on anyone at the moment and that I am probably the best candidate as a result (this is how bandwagons pickup speed..) (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=12591630). After the ElectricBlack incident he applies ‘pressure’ (his vote) to EB. His votes seem to come without a great deal of support behind them, other then the fact that “everyone else was doing it”, this really presents me with a null read as he’s either a mafia getting momentum on a wagon or a townie sheeping. He was willing to give me the benefit of the doubt for a while; I will afford him the same courtesy.
While Adam's conclussion - pointing out some major issues with EY's play and then deciding to give him "the benefit of the doubt" out of "courtesy" - is pretty bad, the summary itself is good.
+ Show Spoiler +As a side note - this seems to be a very pro-town post by Adam, I will have to do some more reading on him as well.
I'm about halfway through but I have to finish for tonight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
