EPTDid I do it right?
Student Mafia (New/Newish players welcome)
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
Did I do it right? | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 03 2011 07:52 HarbingerOfDoom wrote: If anyone signs up and isn't active, I'll find you. Just a friendly reminder ^_^ I'll be good, I promise! | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 04 2011 11:26 jaybrundage wrote: Sweet lets get this ball rolling. Although to be honesty i never know what to do day one. Yeah, that's about how I feel. Hard to make any progress when nobody's posted anything yet, heh. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
Okay, so from the games I've read, I've noticed a few things. First, lynching lurkers has actually lost a couple of the games I've read. If people are actively scumhunting, we should be able to find better targets than lurkers. That said, if we have no good lynch candidates by, say, two hours before the day ends I'm not opposed to a lurker lynch, as I see lurkers as more likely to be scum (from some articles I've read, lurking is apparently a viable scum strategy). Lynching liars, though, I 100% agree with. I read some articles about when townies have a reason to lie, and none of them swayed my opinion on this - honesty is absolutely the best policy for town-aligned players. Any gambits involving lying to gain information seemed to have a huge potential to backfire and end up having repercussions for multiple townies, and the risk involved isn't worth the possible reward. I'll go ahead and throw this out there for everyone - if you get caught in a lie, you should expect to be lynched the same day. Something that wherebugsgo said earlier in the thread (before the game started) really stood out to me. If someone claims a blue role and another person counterclaims, we should absolutely be lynching them both. Although I don't agree with the strategies he laid out (there are some counters I could see to the listed strategies), I do agree that lynching both a claimant and a counterclaimant provides almost a 100% chance of getting one scum out of it. (Would this count as a policy lynch)? | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 04 2011 12:26 xsksc wrote: If we happen to get it wrong and kill the blue, we get a guarenteed scum lynch the next day, so it's not the end of the world Yeah, this was what I was trying to say. I guess I didn't word it too well. On December 04 2011 12:35 xtfftc wrote: Both sound great but in reality they don't work. Lynch All Liars.. People get lies and opinions mixed up all the time, and even when a lie is a lie, eventually you realise that there are different types of lies and lynching for some of them is a bit too much I disagree. I feel like if we simply implement this as a policy lynch now, we will be able to go into the middle of the game and be able to build more effective cases on people given that town would have no reason to create contradictions in their posts. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
Let's implement Lynch All Lurkers conditionally. If we have a case on someone else in the thread, we should use those lynches above a lurker lynch. If we have no good cases on anyone who's been actively posting, THEN lynch a lurker. Yes, lurking is anti-town, but we should be more focused on scumhunting from posts in the thread. Lynching people who are actively trying to misdirect the town should be a better option, right? (Given that, we may want to look at lynching a lurker today, if any remain by tomorrow (that's tomorrow in real time, by the way). I doubt we'll have any strong cases built by the end of day 1.) | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 04 2011 13:11 BroodKingEXE wrote: Hey guys! Great to be joining. I think that when we vote we should make sure people did not mispeak. I think that we all need to figure out what we want to do as a group. What do you think? Hi, I assume that when you're talking about people not misspeaking you're referring to Lynch All Liars. What do you think about Lynch All Lurkers as a policy? | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
I would like to add that if you see what you think is a lie, it's probably best to bring it to the attention of the thread. I feel that if we implement Lynch All Liars, the posters in this thread will be good judges of what's a lie and what's a misunderstanding. Given that, we can probably safely implement a Lynch All Liars policy. I think we have, what, 3 or 4 people currently in favor of this? If we get three or four more, we can consider this policy implemented, as that will give us an unshakable majority. jaybrundage, what do you think of my modification to Lynch All Lurkers at the bottom of the last page? | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
Blazinghand, I completely agree with your idea here. If we lack a case on a poster in the thread, lurkers are, regardless of alignment, anti-town, and they should be lynched in preference to a no-lynch. Given that, ##Vote: Bbite Let's hear from another nonposter. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 04 2011 13:27 xsksc wrote: You guys have to remember, it's 4.26am (fuck sleep I'm playing Skyrim) in some timezones right now, the game only started a few hours ago. Oh, I know I figure it's okay to get some pressure started early, though. I can always rescind this vote later if they post in the thread - we've got 48 hours, after all! | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 04 2011 13:35 Adam4167 wrote: We cannot have no-lynches in this game due to the voting rules. Thanks, I spaced on that. I swear I read that earlier! On December 04 2011 13:35 Blazinghand wrote: Another guy with literally 1 post that says nothing. obvious we shouldn't lynch people for misspeaking. And... of COURSE we need to figure out what to do as a group. We VOTE on the lynch. What do I think? I think you're either absurdly unhelpful or a mafioso doing a bad job of blending in. You're the same as the people who haven't posted yet, because YOU HAVEN'T POSTED ANYTHING YET. This is exactly how I feel about this guy as well. It's why I asked him earlier about his opinion on Lynch All Lurkers, and I still haven't heard back on that. It's the one post in the thread that has felt truly scummy to me so far. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
##Vote: Bbyte | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
As such, I'm dropping my vote (assuming I'm formatting properly!) and will put it back on if one of our four "lurkers" hasn't posted in the next 12-16 hours. ##Unvote: BByte | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 04 2011 14:20 Blazinghand wrote:I want to hear what you have to say. Don't flop around like you did in your first post. Be a man. Do the right thing. On December 04 2011 14:36 BroodKingEXE wrote: Hey Blazinghand sorry if I came around to be a little shady. I was just trying to feed into the conversation, about the voting. How do we want to plan the lynching with the time zone difference? I feel like this will be a major roadblock as it will be 12 AM for our friends in the UK. As for my earlier comment I just wanted to say hi. Did not mean to get off on the wrong foot Hi, this also feels noncontributive. I feel like what Blazinghand was looking for was more of an opinion on one of the matters we've been discussing in the thread. If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to hear what you have to say about the Lynch All Lurkers policy discussed a couple of pages back. Adding questions but no answers isn't really posting content, at least not in my eyes. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 04 2011 13:11 BroodKingEXE wrote: I think that when we vote we should make sure people did not mispeak. What changed your mind, or is this a misstatement? | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 04 2011 15:01 ey215 wrote: I'd just like to point out that Blazinghand is calling out people for giving their opinions. I guess if it's not groundbreaking then it's fluff. While I agree with you that just posting a question isn't enough, giving an opinion that agrees with others shouldn't be considered not participating. If we're going to win, the town needs to work together and discouraging newer townies to post by slapping them around when they do is probably not the right answer. What's your opinion on BKEXE right now, considering his third post? While I agree that any content (even agreement) is good content at this point, do you consider his posts contributory? | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 04 2011 15:04 xsksc wrote: Blazinghand, don't be so trigger-happy. Day 1 always starts like this, we have nothing to talk about so we create discussions. People aren't posting because there's no meangingful discussion going on. I got some going about policy lynches, we've discussed that to death though. Nobody is "lurking" right now because there is no meaningful discussion going on. Yes, we've discussed it to death among the players who have really given opinions, but that's only half the game. Having other people weigh in on these topics as they check into the game can only be helpful, can't it? | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 04 2011 15:15 BroodKingEXE wrote: jay is right that i am new. This is my first game as well (believe it or not), and I'm still contributing (at least, I think so). I feel like we could stand to hear more from you. As jaybrundage said, try to give some opinions. At the moment you're the best scumread I have, and given that, I'd like to hear what you have to say more than what I've heard so far. On December 04 2011 15:18 ey215 wrote: However, we need to be careful about what we define lurking as. If it's just they never post, that's easy. If it's they post, but only a couple lines then that's more of an decision to be made through analysis. I'd rather see a few posts a day that are failry well thought out and longer than a bunch of one liners that don't mean anything. I agree, and I think the town will be able to see that especially as we start building cases. Filtering and seeing one-liners is something that raises a red flag in my eyes. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 04 2011 15:22 ey215 wrote: I didn't think Blazing was trying to do anything but scum hunt. However, I don't fully agree with his methods. Creating a contentious atmosphere in a game full of newbies who are likely intimidated is probably not the best way to get the town working together. Did it get me to post more, sure. Will it everyone else? I'm not totally convinced. I'm also not sure browbeating everyone into posting is going to help us figure out the scum lurkers over the town lurkers. 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. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 04 2011 15:31 ey215 wrote: You took that part out of context. My full post: I was obviously continuing a thought on how calling out me for posting what you've defined as fluff when it was an opinion on the subject matter being discussed, and one that was at least mildly thought out makes it just as easy for someone to call you out for baseless accusations. Yes, to some extent that's all we have at the moment, but by god if no one wants my opinion don't ask. I was not calling you scum, but pointing out a hypothetical next time I label it more clearly so you can understand. Something I should have said earlier: I think both you and Blazinghand are overreacting to a point he made that may differ in interpretation. What you see as lynching all lurkers EXCEPT for a "damn good reason", I think all 3 of us can agree that a good scumread, especially one supported by a case, is a fairly good reason. Lurkers are obviously second priority to obvscum. I don't think your post is fluff, I just think you and BH are saying the same thing in different ways. I'll try and summarize our two major points here: 1) Lynch all Liars as confirmed as lying (and not misstatements) by the thread. 2) Lynch all Lurkers, but secondary to lynching scum as supported by existing cases and post history. Would that be fair? | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 04 2011 15:39 ey215 wrote: 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. I just don't think an combative atmosphere this early on is the way to go, and I think you're creating one. I don't think BH is saying this. Right now we have nothing on lurkers. If they throw out one-liners, as you said, it's a red flag. If they throw out well reasoned responses, that's not. It seems like you're assuming the town will follow BH's lead if he makes a judgment call, and that's not necessarily true. It's still early in the game, and the votes are only meant to provoke discussion right now. The threat of being lynched is far more effective than a simple "Hey, X, come post!" Neither you nor BH are helping the atmosphere of the town with what you're saying. I think both of you should step back for a second and think about how we're all trying to work for the good of the town here. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 04 2011 15:48 ey215 wrote: 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. I completely agree here. We have voices of moderation in this town, obviously - I don't think it'll be easy to get incorrect bandwagons started given that we have some very vocal posters that are not necessarily willing to lynch on a whim (you being one of them). While one person can make decisions through personality (Palmar in 46 springs to mind), I feel like we've got a pretty vocal group that is able to balance each other out leading the town right now. If someone new steps in and votes blindly, I don't think it's out of line to ask them to justify their vote - the grou pthat we have right now will probably do a good job of discouraging sheeping, from what I've seen so far. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 04 2011 15:56 xsksc wrote: Agreed on the above. However I want you guys to be very careful not to be too trusting. Do not assume the mafia will just be the lurkers posting 1 liners. It wouldn't suprise me if we have a scum member in this "voices of moderation" group, as you call it. All I'm saying is don't trust anyone, and use your heads. Oh, absolutely. While I think that anyone who is willing to stick their neck out and be vocal about a given player is less likely to be mafia (as mafia has no interest in contributing to constructive discussion), I definitely agree that leading the town down an incorrect path is certainly a viable strategy and one that the mafia may be employing here. That said, there's nothing in the posts from any of our active posters so far that screams "scum" to me - and so far our policy decisions are furthering a town agenda, IMO. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 04 2011 23:23 Tunkeg wrote: You are the number one poster quantitywise in this thread, you are also one of those who have voted early. You are also perhaps the one I consider to be most likely (as of now) to get a bandwagon started on someone (either as number one voter or two). Based on that, my question is: Are you trying to give yourself an alibi with the statement above? No. I feel like you missed my intent with wording here. I was referring to the people that would defend other people against bandwagons (hence the discussion about voices of moderation that you quoted). I guess it's kinda WIFOM, but I feel like it's less likely for scum to vocally defend other scum when a bandwagon gets started, since they would tend to be under scrutiny if the lynch goes through. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
Blazinghand: Feels very Townie to me. Posting reasonable content and post analysis already. Willing to take actions on his stances. Softclaimed Vanilla Townie http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=8#152 Bringing lurkers out, which can ONLY help town. I approve. Call it 90% town. Also, his discussion with ey215 looked good, and convinced me further of his townieness. BroodKingEXE: Empty post. Worries me.Feels scummy but could be a noob. Amend: Six posts that don't sit right with me, but again, could be new player. xkskc: Leaning town for now. Started our policy discussion. Discussion is good. While he disagrees with BH's methods, I clearly feel like he's playing a townie game right now. Different methodolgy, same goal. To note, he pointed out that there may be mafia in the group leadership., which should be something to keep in mind. Question is whether it's sowing suspicion or genuine pro-town, and I haven't figured that out yet. xtfftc: Null read. He argued against LAL and LALurkers, and I don't wanna go with that. Let's look again once he posts again. (Amend: Looked through his filter to update this post, and I really liked his post here. Still a null read, but this feels positive to me.) ey215: Pointed out some good things. He sees Blazinghand's methods as creating tension within the town, and that's fine - he's entitled to opinion. Like xkskc, he disagrees with methods but seems to be working towards the same goal. Their discussion, while heated, really brought out to me that they both seem very town-aligned, and willing to take positions and defend them. EB: Makes good points. At this point I'm leaning town, simply because he's pro-discussion this early. That said I'd love to see more posts here. Tunkeg: Posted his reads, and is encouraging discussion. I think this is a good thing, and might peg him as one of the influential voices in the town soon. Largely a null read, but I'm starting to lean town. BByte: I'm not totally impressed yet. One post about breadcrumbs (which is more about the game in general than a content post) and one post about a couple of the players. That post was good, and I agree that we shouldn't be intimidated by one person, but I'd like to see more. jaybrundage: Neutral for now, but a lack of content disturbs me. We've still got like 30 hours though. Adam4167: Two posts, neither of which hugely impress me. I liked how he went through and stated a clear opinion on BH's play. While I disagree with his opinion, I think that the way he put things is pro-town in that post. I'd love to see more content here, but so far looks pretty good. Hassybaby: Disagrees with early targets, and I can see why. I think he is overly defensive towards Tunkeg - not an OMGUS vote, but definitely that kind of idea. Not sure what to think, but this early just a null read. Grackaroni: Posted reads, but before that there's a bunch of policy posts. Not that I haven't made a ton of policy posts too, but I'll wait for more content. Null read. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 05 2011 05:28 ey215 wrote: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&hl=en_US&key=0An_BMZ9t6APFdHJQZktwcEo3a1dfNURxbDk1TWE1VWc&output=html Can someone click on this and confirm I did it right? I would like everyone to be able to use it if they wish, but I don't do much with google docs. Looks like it's working to me. Thanks for putting it together. I'll be back later today - going out with some friends - and will post some more impressions then. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
I was rereading through Hassybaby's filter, and I'm going to revise my opinion of him a little. I think while he did react too defensively to the very light pressure that was being applied, he still reacted in a basically townie manner. The one thing that struck me over the last few pages is that BKEXE's posting style changed a lot between last night's posts and his post today. I don't know if it's just a time-of-day thing or what, but when a post tone changes that much, it tells me either A) it's done with coach input or B) it's a collaborative post from the mafia. Consider this: + Show Spoiler + On December 04 2011 13:11 BroodKingEXE wrote: Hey guys! Great to be joining. I think that when we vote we should make sure people did not mispeak. I think that we all need to figure out what we want to do as a group. What do you think? + Show Spoiler + On December 05 2011 07:06 BroodKingEXE wrote: For all of you who are getting a bad read on me, I want to confirm that I am a newbie. While I respect that Blazinghand has been pusing to prevent lurkers my reponses were obivouisly to defend myself. I feel that it is still a strategy that will work to get reads on the mafia, even if it has put me in the red. In the early stages of the game I feel that there is no way I would be able to get any proper reads as a newbie, but right now I am leaning to: Mafia: Adam - his critism of Blazinghand's style comes right after a compliment showing that he is defininetly trying to kiss up to him. Hassy - he also critized Blazinghand's style in that he accuses him of targeting people early. His votes were clearly for getting people to talk, not at all to decide who to lynch. Townies: Blazing - has been contributing to the discussion and trying to get others to talk. Velinath - I am kind of borderline on this as he has been contributing, but he seems to be following Blazing as opposed to creating comments of his own. Turnkeg - I think he has been pressuring a little, trying to get a read,but I will go for townie. Grackoroni - I will put him here because in one of his comments he left his own name on Turneg's read list and did not comment. I feel like this would have been something that he could have used to push his case. As for the rest I feel like I have not got enough infomation. I am going to be off for the next few hours as I have a project due, but I will be sure to take a break to put my vote in. It feels way different to me, anyway. For now it seems suspicious to me - I'll wait to hear more before I put my vote in, but for now it feels like scum. On Adam4167: So far, two posts. I can see why everyone's suspicious of him - he made a mistake in attacking the most vocal (and, in some people's minds, most pro-town) player. That said, I feel like it could be just defensiveness to BH's style. I'll have to wait for more posts, but for now he's just made my watchlist. On xkskc: I noted some people have been thinking that he might be scum. I think he needs to post his reads. Until then we don't have anything to go on, and that's not a good situation. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
##Vote: BroodKingEXE - for reasons posted in my last post. The inconsistent post style doesn't sit right with me. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 05 2011 09:36 BroodKingEXE wrote: Venilath You have good reason to be suspicious of me changing my tone, but BH's style forced me to be hastily defensive in the first few posts I made. These posts put me in even more trouble, so I am focusing more on well thought out posts. You can read in to the first posts all you want, but they are defininetly not an accurate representation of the mob. If I were really in the mob, even as a newbie, do you think I would really be that hasty in my posts not bothering to think of the repurcussions? Besides the obvious WIFOM, here's my question: if you realize that well thought out posts are a good way to clear your name and help the town, why not give well thought out posts early? You're right that your posts felt rushed and reactive, but why did you post like that in the first place? | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 05 2011 10:03 BroodKingEXE wrote: You mention that you are a newbie, yet you have read up on other games before this one. Well not everyone does that, so this is truly the first game I have experienced. After my posts I took a step back and looked at them and I saw that they were terribly thought out. In the heat of the moment a newbie would obviously falter. Thanks for the post there. I still think it's WIFOM, but now there's something else that strikes me as strange. You haven't provided any reasoning at all for your vote, unless you're relying on your analysis post earlier. If you could go over why you voted for Adam (assuming there's more to it than just bandwagoning), please do. Adam's definitely my second choice for scum, but you haven't given me enough reason to stop suspecting you yet. My vote stands as listed. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 05 2011 10:21 BroodKingEXE wrote: Hassy if you need evidence read this: Thanks, that's enough justification for me. I appreciate the explanation, and what jaybrundage said goes right along with that. ##Unvote: BroodKingEXE | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 05 2011 10:43 Blazinghand wrote: Actually, this delay is more anti-town than Adam's amazing inactivity. It's anti-worthful, rather than just worthless. ##Vote ElectricBlack Vote or die. I disagree with this. He's made a stance, and he'll post information when he has time. I'm okay with that. If he doesn't post his reasoning, then I'll be concerned, but for now I'm willing to wait for that. My point is that he has said who he'd be comfortable voting for. As to who I'm voting for, I'm going to be tossing a ##Vote: Adam4167 because he's the best available candidate of our current suspects. While I'm still not entirely sold on BKEXE and am certainly not sold on Hassybaby, both have contributed more than Adam to the thread, especially now that BKEXE has explained why he voted. I may change this later because I haven't had time to re-filter everyone, but for now I'll put my vote here. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
Hassybaby: The main issue I think people has is that he hasn't really posted any serious reads. His vote (currently on BKEXE) is there solely because of my reasoning, because "there just isn't a strong enough case on anyone else". While he says he'll change the vote tomorrow, and that's all well and good, I wish there were more reasoning than just "someone else said so". On top of that, I think we're all waiting for some constructive commenting from him. The defensiveness on Tunkeg early is at least something to consider, but I'd like to see what he thinks about some of the active posters in the thread. He asks for analysis from some posters (Adam, for one), but doesn't give any himself. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
@Adam: What's your opinion on the main posters so far? You said you were back to post some content, so I'm excited to see what you have to say. After reading EB's last two posts, it's past "I don't have time" and into the realm of "I'm going to deliberately obstruct the town". I want an explanation. If you're town aligned, what's the motive behind withholding information/a case from the town because you are having a disagreement with one person? Regardless of how he flips, at the moment there had better be a damn good reason not to have voted and helped to generate discussion, past "Blazinghand pissed me off" - because that's simply not good enough. ##Unvote ##Vote: ElectricBlack Does this mean Adam's off my list? Not a chance. He's the next suspicious person on my list. Characterizing aggression designed to draw out lurkers as "reckless" seems like far too much of a generalization, and honestly his reaction to Tunkeg's light pressure worries me. It seems a little over the top, even if he did try to explain why he put it that way in his last post. I want to hear more from BByte. Here's what we've got so far: + Show Spoiler + On December 05 2011 09:20 BByte wrote: My strongest scum read so far is Velinath. He has been active (very much so actually), but what has he contributed? Some policy discussion, a bit of finger pointing (mostly to spark activity), some fluff. Mostly he has been following other people's ideas, not making his own calls. All of this is something scum could easily do with very little risk. Then there are a couple of posts of light analysis. His "reads post" sums it up best: + Show Spoiler + On December 05 2011 03:29 Velinath wrote: Whee, time to copy in my reads. Keeping a spreadsheet is going to be quite helpful, I think. Blazinghand: Feels very Townie to me. Posting reasonable content and post analysis already. Willing to take actions on his stances. Softclaimed Vanilla Townie http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=8#152 Bringing lurkers out, which can ONLY help town. I approve. Call it 90% town. Also, his discussion with ey215 looked good, and convinced me further of his townieness. BroodKingEXE: Empty post. Worries me.Feels scummy but could be a noob. Amend: Six posts that don't sit right with me, but again, could be new player. xkskc: Leaning town for now. Started our policy discussion. Discussion is good. While he disagrees with BH's methods, I clearly feel like he's playing a townie game right now. Different methodolgy, same goal. To note, he pointed out that there may be mafia in the group leadership., which should be something to keep in mind. Question is whether it's sowing suspicion or genuine pro-town, and I haven't figured that out yet. xtfftc: Null read. He argued against LAL and LALurkers, and I don't wanna go with that. Let's look again once he posts again. (Amend: Looked through his filter to update this post, and I really liked his post here. Still a null read, but this feels positive to me.) ey215: Pointed out some good things. He sees Blazinghand's methods as creating tension within the town, and that's fine - he's entitled to opinion. Like xkskc, he disagrees with methods but seems to be working towards the same goal. Their discussion, while heated, really brought out to me that they both seem very town-aligned, and willing to take positions and defend them. EB: Makes good points. At this point I'm leaning town, simply because he's pro-discussion this early. That said I'd love to see more posts here. Tunkeg: Posted his reads, and is encouraging discussion. I think this is a good thing, and might peg him as one of the influential voices in the town soon. Largely a null read, but I'm starting to lean town. BByte: I'm not totally impressed yet. One post about breadcrumbs (which is more about the game in general than a content post) and one post about a couple of the players. That post was good, and I agree that we shouldn't be intimidated by one person, but I'd like to see more. jaybrundage: Neutral for now, but a lack of content disturbs me. We've still got like 30 hours though. Adam4167: Two posts, neither of which hugely impress me. I liked how he went through and stated a clear opinion on BH's play. While I disagree with his opinion, I think that the way he put things is pro-town in that post. I'd love to see more content here, but so far looks pretty good. Hassybaby: Disagrees with early targets, and I can see why. I think he is overly defensive towards Tunkeg - not an OMGUS vote, but definitely that kind of idea. Not sure what to think, but this early just a null read. Grackaroni: Posted reads, but before that there's a bunch of policy posts. Not that I haven't made a ton of policy posts too, but I'll wait for more content. Null read. How does half town, half null reads with a couple of unsures thrown in help the town in any way? Even those unsure reads are off people who have been previously called out by others. Everything seems very non-committal. #Vote Velinath This is his only real post of substance. To defend myself, before I start making any semblance of a case, it was so early in the game that there simply wasn't enough information for me to really start forming opinions. 3 of his 8 posts so far in the game are dedicated to trying to put a vote on me (due to formatting errors). Even that seems a little off to me, given I'm actually posting and furthering discussion - but my point is there's just not a lot of information that he's contributed. I want to see more posts. A post about breadcrumbing, some sketchy analysis on Adam and ey, and a weak case on me just isn't enough for me; I want to hear more. Why should I be lynched? What don't you like about the EB or Adam4167 cases, if anything? He said he'd post thoughts on the lynch discussion but I haven't heard anything yet (maybe a time zone thing, but we've talked a lot since his last post and he's been silent). Not that this does anything, but FoS: BByte. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
I'm on and reading the thread at this time, and should be in the future as well. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 05 2011 20:34 ElectricBlack wrote: Velinath agreed with BH's reasoning that I must be scum because I decided not to vote, He already has shown himself to be willing to be critical of the situation, so I'm not worried about him. Once he realizes my choice of not voting was actually optimal in the situation (as explained when I first started responding to the cases built while I slept), I think he will find something more productive to do. Hi! I never said you were scum. I said you were playing anti-town. There's a key difference - check out ... oh, shoot, I can't remember if it was Kenpachi or Coagulation in 46. One (or both) of them was lurking extremely hardcore, promised analysis "tomorrow" that never got there, posted a few one-liners here and there - and then they flipped town. The players in 46 didn't necessarily assume that they were scum - just not playing to the best interests of the town. I thought the same thing about you here. Now, that said, both the reasoning you posted for why you didn't post and your case on Hassy are quite good. I think if you had just said "Hey, it's 1 am here, I'll post some thougts in the morning" I think that would have been fine - time zones are things we can understand. What's happened has happened, though.##Unvote Now, some questions. Tunkeg posted some good content early, and now he's completely disappeared. I'd like to hear more from him, because right now he's gone from being a helpful member to lurking pretty hard for a while now. BByte still hasn't checked in despite both myself and, later, xtfftc mentioning him. I want to hear from him - he's provided minimal content including a very half-assed case on me and some sketchy analysis on ey215. This could just be lazy play but it's starting to worry me, since after voting me (posts doing so comprise almost half of his filter!) he's disappeared. I would be happy to see him lynched, especially since the two people I previously had worries about content generation have stepped up in a big way and helped out. ##Vote: BByte Adam and EB have both stepped up and provided some good analysis (and I was really impressed by EB's case. I'm going to take a closer look at Hassybaby. Calling someone "Serejai" after watching 47, even if not voting them, reeks of OMGUS as I said earlier in the thread, and is an overreaction to light pressure - plus, the bandwagoning is, as noted here in addition to your case, a matter for some concern. Headed to class but I should be able to keep an eye on the thread. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
I missed one of BByte's posts, but it didn't say a whole lot anyway. A wishy-washy "well, the cases look good, but that might change when they post" isn't really content. I'd posit that when accusing someone of not having content in your posts, you should probably have some yourself. I'll stay on his case until he defends himself from my vote. I would support a Hassybaby lynch as well, considering what multiple people have said about him. His vote reasoning is beyond weak. Tunkeg, I'm not so sure about. His early posts were decent and he did apply some effective pressure, but I agree that changing his reads twice in such a short frame of time is suspicious. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 06 2011 01:31 xsksc wrote: I would like to know everyone's opinion on Tunkeg's case. Honestly, it's not great. It's a very weak case built on a shoddy foundation. What I find far more interesting is your OMGUS response to it. I'll break things down point by point when I have time, but this is what I see right now. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 06 2011 00:27 Tunkeg wrote: Back from work guys. Have read up on the thread now. First I would like to say, we can not lynch a easy target lurker today, unless you feel you have absolutely no read on anyone. While I was away xsksc have done quite abit of posting. And that is great, cause his postings have made me more certain he is scum. And thats not only because he labels me suspicious, but thats part of it. Here is my analyze of xsksc and why he should get lynched today. Schizo From beeing mr helpful and mr smileyface yesterday:: + Show Spoiler + On December 04 2011 12:06 xsksc wrote: For those of you playing your first game, hi! There are a couple of things you may want to know. Don't lie. As town, lying is almost never going to help, it'll probably just end up with you getting lynched. Don't be too quick to mindlessly jump on every bandwagon. Keep an open mind and vote for someone you believe there is a strong case on, or if you want to start your own case, write some good analysis on who you think is scum. Don't be a sheep. Try hard not to lurk, if townies are lurking it's a lot easier for scum to lurk with you. Just post whatever your thoughts are, let us know how you feel about X's post or Y's suspicious behavior. Let's get some discussion going! What do you guys think of policy lynches in general? Do you think they are a good idea, if so, why? Personally I disagree with lynching a lurker JUST because they're lurking, in a game like this anyway. The risk of hitting a townie is way too high. Lynch all liars is a great idea though. It discourages people from lying right from day 1, the only people with a good reason to lie are scum. On December 04 2011 12:26 xsksc wrote: Well, with something like a counter-claim, we have to decide who's telling the truth and who's not, breadcrumbs are useful for this later in the game. If we happen to get it wrong and kill the blue, we get a guarenteed scum lynch the next day, so it's not the end of the world Don't get the wrong idea here blues, we do NOT want you to claim now cause you'll just get shot, it's just a hypothetical situation. On December 04 2011 13:13 xsksc wrote: Ok I'm going to clarify for those unsure. Changing your past opinnion about someone or being wrong about something is not gonna get you lynched for lying. A misunderstanding is not a lie. Telling us you got roleblocked or medic saved etc when nobody visited you that night, that's a lie. Making a fake dt claim to try and lynch someone you think is scum, that's a lie. It's ok to be wrong, just don't straight up lie He have become mr aggressive and fuck-you guy today: + Show Spoiler + On December 05 2011 18:57 xsksc wrote: No, you're not supposed to read it like that. I said what you did was really anti-town, and it was dumb whatever your alignment is. If you're town, don't ever do something out of spite, it's stupid. If you're mafia, it's dumb too for obvious reasons. If you are a townie, the responsibility is on YOU to not do dumb shit like that. It's your job to not get lynched. I'm not pressuring you because you're an easy lynch, if you read my filter I've been transparent all game, I don't want town doing dumb stuff. If you're under pressure from someone, don't make an FU post and leave, it really doesn't make you look good. On December 05 2011 19:20 xsksc wrote: It looks like you really don't understand how voting works in mafia. I can unvote you AT ANY TIME. My vote on you is not final. It's called pressure, and it's working. Pressure voting is very common in mafia games, it makes people uncomfortable and it gets responses out of people. Am I voting you because I have a 100% sure reason to believe you're mafia? Lol, of course not, I don't need to give you a list of evidence as to why you're scum, that's ridiculous. It's a pressure vote, nothing more nothing less, and it certainly seems to be working. I've said this 3 fucking times now, maybe you'll finally get the message. DOING SOMETHING OUT OF SPITE IS ANTI-TOWN. That's why you got my vote. Anti-town = bad. The way you are over-reacting to the pressure is interesting though, and it's something I'll definitely take note of. On December 05 2011 19:41 xsksc wrote: Are you actually reading what I'm saying? Fuck me man, seriously. On December 05 2011 20:08 xsksc wrote: I've told you. I've told you four fucking times and I'm starting to lose my patience here. "Now I'm not gonna vote him until the morning just to spite you." This is so incredibly anti-town. It wouldn't have been a big deal if you just had to go and posted your analysis in the morning, but withholding JUST to spite him? If you think that's okay then I don't know what to say. It's dumb regardless of alignment. I never said I have strong evidence that you are scum. I said I was PRESSURE voting you, to see how you respond. Anti-town = / = Scum This is not about me trying to find an easy bandwagon. Please just think logically for a second, there were 2 votes on you and 5 on adam, which one looks like the easier bandwagon to you? This isn't even about me wanting you lynched. Prior to this incident we had a very small ammount of your posts to analyze. Now we have a LOT more to work with. Do you see now? It's not about lynching you, it's about getting you talking, getting your reactions to pressure, and you seeing how you defend yourself. Why is that? Did someone call him out yesterday, and now he need to change his playstyle? Well, this is scummy to me, going from nice guy to ass over the night is strange. No, it's not. He was making a point to EB, and was obviously frustrated in that argument. I'd react exactly the same way. On December 06 2011 00:27 Tunkeg wrote:Easy kills He made his general analysis in the post shown in spoiler below. Where he have greened out the "safe bets" Velinath and Blazinghand, who have been doing alot of posting, but who neither one have put him under the spotlight. He proceeds to red out all the easy targets like Adam4167 (got alot of votes on him at the time), BroodKingEXE (maybe scum he writes, a player who easily could get lynched for beeing a lurker) and ElectrickBlack. All these lynches are easy lynches for scum! No one will suspect any scums for beeing responsible for these lynches if they turn up green. Am I saying that all of them are green, NO, I know to little about them. But what I do know is that scum will benifit from a misslynch on one of those (at least at the time of xsksc's post, he changed his view on ElectricBlack, which I will discuss further down). + Show Spoiler + On December 05 2011 11:49 xsksc wrote: This is my list of reads/thoughts/general opinnions about people for the first half of day 1. Adam4167 Possible lynch Looks like a major candidate for the lynch at the moment. I wouldn't strongly disagree with this, his small ammount of posts don't bode well for him. I do have trouble believing a noobie scum would actively pick a fight with 2 of towns leading figures, that doesn't make sense to me. BByte Unsure He has only 4 posts with a decent ammount of content, not a lot to go on. Velinath seems a bit of a weird target to go after though, and BByte's case on him seems a bit half-assed. Velinath's posts are a a little fluffy, but I'm not getting a scum read on him, at least not from your case. I don't think Velinath is a good day 1 lynch, at least not for the moment. Blazinghand Leaning town Blazinghand so far has been very aggressive, which is good for town. He started out a little over-the-top, attacking europeans who were at that time asleep. He has since made much more sense, forced the lurkers to unburrow, got some active discussion going, which is all pro-town. Nobody is confirmed town until they flip, but I think he's working hard to be pro-town. BroodKingEXE Town lurker/Maybe Scum A lot of one liners and a list. Really, not a lot to go on with this guy either -_- Possible candidate for a lurker-lynch, if we go down that path. ElectricBlack Scum This guy would be a GREAT lynch. He claims to be happy lynching Hassybaby, but when the pressure is put on him to put action behind words, he get's pissed off and doesn't vote to SPITE town? That's so fucking incredibly anti-town. He better have a good defence ready when he wakes up. ey215 Town? First post of his to take note of is this : He's very defensive at the slightest pressure, which is interesting, but by itself isn't scummy. His later posts look pro-town I haven't seen anything really suspicious or scummy out of him. On my townie list for now. Grackaroni Hassybaby Jaybrundage xtfftc Neutral These guys all seem to fall under the same category. They aren't looking incredibly pro-town, but there's not much scummy about them either. I'll leave them here for now. Tunkeg Suspicious This guy jumps straight into the thread, with his first post being a list of reads. 4 posts later.... Suddenly I go from "town educator" in your first list to being on your scum list based off a hunch. Between the time of your two read posts, what did I post to change your mind so drastically? Where did you get this "hunch"? This is what I find suspicious, in a short ammount of time your reads change for almost no reason, with nothing to back it up, please provide more reasoning and analysis as to why you came to those conclusions in the future. Velinath Leaning town It's been mentioned that this guy seems to be echoing what others have already said. I wouldn't disagree with this, but I'm not putting him on my scum list just because he posts fluff. At least he IS posting a large ammount, which gives us more stuff to work with on day 2 than the guys with 5-10 posts. He's active, and he's trying to be pro-town. I'll put him on the townie list for now. I think that's everyone, so far the game has been good for town I think, plenty of discussion and pressure. Your reasoning is suspect here. If a candidate is a good lynch target, or is acting suspicious, of course they'll be mentioned in posts like this. What do you want to be said, that people who act suspicious should be ignored in lynch discussion? Easy targets are easy for a reason - they act suspicious. When independent reasoning is provided, as xkskc did, it's fine if they're then voted for. If you're accusing him of going after easy targets why is he going after you? Other than OMGUS, there's no reason to pressure you as an "easy target" - your pressure on a couple of players earlier in the game (I can't go get the post quote right now) means that there will probablybe some resistance to a lynch wagon on you. On December 06 2011 00:27 Tunkeg wrote:Discredit In his post shown above he also discredits me, and label me as suspicious. But he won't act on it, he is setting me up for a later lynch, or maybe just portray me as a fool. Why oh why? Besides xtfftc I have been the only one really getting on his case. For the town to disregard me is a good thing for him as a scum. He says my scumlist is what is suspicious. Again, the scumlist came after I was asked a question on where I put the allegiance of the different players. Yes, I did use colours, and maybe some will say I used to much colours based on the current reads, but it got the red ones talking. Other than that what I consider the most suspicious about my play is that I have been abit all over the place. Poking alot, maybe not beeing good enough with the follow-up. But that I think is a sound strategy in the beginning of day one. Now, as we close in on the first lynch I will scope it down. What is most suspicious about your play is your inconsistency on reading xkskc. Is he educating or is he scum - and why change your mind within four posts? If your "scumlist" was only your second post, then why even post the first list of players if not to act as preliminary alignment reads? Side note, although it isn't completely relevant: xkskc did take that stance of voting you after the case was posted. Food for thought. On December 06 2011 00:27 Tunkeg wrote:Applying pressure, but on the wrong terms xsksc have been applying pressure on ElectricBlack because EB said he would not put down his vote on spite. He goes over the top on something as unimportant as that, trying to pin ElectricBlack as a poor townie for it, feeding into his easy target redlist before. He eventually backs down when he see it won't take him anywhere. That's a pressure play on an anti-town move. It was absolutely the correct call - when someone says they have information and then don't share it, that's unreasonable. After EB explained himself, xkskc backed off because EB made sense. On December 06 2011 01:02 xsksc wrote: Tunkeg, your case on me is shit. You say I haven't done anything useful? I've participated and created more discussion than anyone in the game, apart from Blazinghand. Also, your read did change drastically, all of a sudden you had this hunch that I'm scum, that for some reason you didn't have a couple of posts back? Bullshit! It's a lot harder to make a case on someone when you're scum. I was scum in my first game and I remember how difficult it is to fabricate evidence on someone innocent. This is what it looks like you're trying to do right now, you haven't got anything solid on me and suddenly you're trying to make town think I'm a good lynch. Every point of your case against me is weak and half-assed. I mean seriously, you expect people to believe I'm scum because I'm not being so welcoming and friendly to the newbies today? As for the easy kills part, I actually said I think an Adam lynch would be a good idea. I pressured EB sure, not because he was an easy target, but because he posted something blatantly anti-town. Do you disagree with this, if so, why? The discredit part is what amuses me the most though. I pointed out a major inconsistancy in your post, so what? Finding inconsistant statements is a great way to find scum! ##vote: Tunkeg I can't say much here. This insane OMGUS response seems either like you're overreacting to a weak case or you're getting way too involved in the thread after the argument with EB earlier. [B]On December 06 2011 01:52 xsksc wrote: Are you actually taking it seriously? I said there are some people I'd like to lynch but it would be a bad idea to do so. This obviously means there are people I'm annoyed with or have feelings about, but there's no actual reason to lynch them. What do you mean I can't "back it up"? How do you expect me to back up a sentence like that? Who are those people, why are you annoyed with them, what have they done in this game to merit that? Okay, off to work, I'll be back. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
I think Adam made a mistake saying what he said regarding bandwagons. I'm not sure how I missed this post earlier, but not having strong majorities = chances for the Mafia to swing votes later game. Remember 47? The Mafia vote-switched at 11:59 and managed to kill Palmar and almost got BloodyC0bbler as well. This is absolutely a matter for concern, and I think we should think about this - having a clear single candidate minimizes this possiblity. I may not have made this point clearly enough in my last post (rebuttal of a shaky case from Tunkeg was the majority of said last post), but I am seriously worried by the OMGUS from xkskc towards Tunkeg. It's definitely a concern for me, but for now I don't think it should be something to pursue on Day 1. I don't know why Hassybaby has fallen by the wayside, but I still think he's a viable lynch candidate as well. --Establishes himiself as "new"/trying to make room for mistakes --Defensive - while he doesn't vote for Tunkeg, the whole "Serejai" spiel came off as an OMGUS post espcially after reading 47. --Hops on my early vote for BKEXE without significant reasoning. (BKEXE is still on my radar, though - he's been crazy quiet recently and only seems to come out to defend himself rather than providing serious analysis) However, I still think that BByte is our optimal lynch candidate. He hasn't stepped in to defend his case yet, he hasn't made any significant analysis, and he hasn't done what he promised to do - that is, give his thoughts on the current lynch discussion. Lurking this hard, even after being called out? That's insanely anti-town. Even if I can't be 100% that he's scum, he's not playing in the town's best interests. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 06 2011 07:28 xtfftc wrote: ..................................... Town doesn't lynch people for being bad. Town lynches people for being mafia. It's not like we get free lynches for the useless and the lurkers; it's the mafia who managed to distract town well enough and they're getting a free kill tonight as a reward. I guess the question is whether or not you think the town can reach a clear consensus on the candidates we've been debating as scum today. If we can't - and I don't think we can - it's best to have a clear majority on a candidate to, as you said, prevent any late-night surprises. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 07 2011 04:09 Blazinghand wrote: 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. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 07 2011 05:57 Tunkeg wrote: 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". + 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. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
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 | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 07 2011 11:45 Blazinghand wrote: Because JB is scum, and now that the pressure on he's scumslipping hella hard. Ii thought this was fairly clear. Yes, I'm clear on that. I want to hear what he has to say about it anyway. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 07 2011 11:58 jaybrundage wrote: Why would you claim right now your giving mafia information that we dont want them to have. And secondly if you dont post a case on me WITH YOUR OWN THOUGHTS we gonna have another mislynch with BH leading it. You gotta stop sheeping Veli if you wanna give me your case give me YOUR case Who said anything about claiming? Read the OP, ANYONE is told they get roleblocked if they get targeted by the roleblocker, even if they are a vanilla townie. I am not giving scum ANY information here. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
If I am sheeping BH why was I the first one to post content on Hassybaby and the first one to vote BByte? Yes it was a mislynch but given the evidence I stand by the decision to vote him as he was the most solid lynch target right now. As I said I want to hear from Hassy's replacement first before I consider him as a lynch target. His replacement hasn't really had a chance to post yet and there isn't enough content to justify a lynch yet. You, on the other hand? You were scumslipping all over the place at the beginning of today, your posts after the last night post were unconvincing at best and scummy at worst...I don't really know what more to say. If you really want me to put together a case, I will once I have a free moment - headed to class in 5 minutes or so, but I should be able to get one done today. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
He posted a case on Veli and was soon voted for by BH and ofc Veli followed like he always does Again, I voted BByte before BH did. Your case is full of lies and mischaracterizations. BByte posted a weak case and didn't justify it for quite some time. He didn't provide thoughts on the debate like he said he was going to, and he lurked all day. You argue that I'm sheeping. Have you been reading the last half of the thread where I've been providing discussion points and reasoning for other mislynches? If you're basing what you're saying off of BByte's case, keep in mind that other people have already pointed out that I've been providing good post content since that case was posted. This just feels like a scummy attempt to deflect attention from yourself. If you don't think my vote was justified before it certainly is now. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
@jaybrundage Come at me, bro. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
So why'd you vote me then? Also why'd you lie in your case to try and get a townie lynched? Scum. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 08 2011 01:09 Velinath wrote: So why'd you vote me then? Also why'd you lie in your case to try and get a townie lynched? Scum. Oh I see what you're saying. Why am I not following you then? I'm going after my accuser (and good job with that last post dodging my questions from before). | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
And he gets tagged team by the duo of Veli and BH. He tries to post to defend himself. Tries to show that what he did wasn't scummy. He posted his reads more then some of the people in this thread. After he knows that he is gonna get lynched he posts this. He MIGHT have pulled off more reads than Hassybaby but that's about it. I didn't tagteam him after that post, the lynch was essentially locked in at that point and I stated that lurking was antitown. He posted a case on Veli and was soon voted for by BH and ofc Veli followed like he always does. The reason that adam got off the hook was because he did not continue pursuing BH and Veli. I voted BByte before BH did, this is just s straight up lie and he should be lynched for this alone. The reason that adam got off the hook was because he did not continue pursuing BH and Veli. I defended Adam in an earlier post, check your facts Veli follows like he always does. With no real content of his own. The funniest part is that he even states im not his strongest scum read. "like he always does" - that's why I voted BByte before BH started a wagon on him. that's why I defended Adam when he was getting a bunch of votes. Pathetic. Lynch the liar. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 08 2011 01:30 Tunkeg wrote: This is not lynch all liars. Lynch all liars are confirmed liars. People who have roleclaimed and then the role dies are confimed liars. Remember this before going any further, because else all your arguements become useless. Sorry, I overstepped a little. It's not a policy lynch but the fact stands that he lied in his case against me. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 08 2011 01:55 BroodKingEXE wrote: Velinath, You need to include the whole quote the context that these quotes are in could be very different from the quote itself Here is an example: "All cows are green" Whole Quotes: "All cows are green in my imagination stories" Go read Jay's post and tell me if I left out any context that detracts from my point. I would say that no, I did not, especially coupled with my previous posts on the subject. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 08 2011 02:00 jaybrundage wrote: Veli tell me this do you usually follow BH's lead. Why did you vote for me if you said you best scum read was hassybaby. oh wait BH voted for me no wonder. If you can honestly say you have not been adhering to most of BH's decisions ill hang my self I voted for you because you're also a strong scumread for me for reasons stated previously and are confirmed scum to me at this point. You're also the one actively misleading town thus more important to lynch. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
You can go ahead and lynch yourself now. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 08 2011 02:12 Velinath wrote: @jaybrundage Had to move my computer. Answer: YOU'RE NOT LISTENING. I voted BByte before BH did, I was building my case on him before BH did, I WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO TALK ABOUT BH. How is that a sheep vote? You can go ahead and lynch yourself now. Well, if you could. Which youcan't. Which means your last post was more evidence of you being terrible because you're making deals you can't keep. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
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. Noted, and as per my last post I am switching focus once I have the time to do a full case writeup tonigth | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
My proposed scumteam: Hassybaby/Bluelightz, BroodKingEXE, jaybrundage BKEXE: I'm hoping to get my other two cases up by the end of Day 2, but it's kind of dependent on some stuff. Currently working on a term paper that's eating my life. My premise here is that BKEXE has consistently generated content-low posts with a few key missteps that have led me to conclude that he is scum. I've gone over his filter again and don't see anything that supports another conclusion. His first three or four posts are all composed of filler and inconsistency: On December 04 2011 13:11 BroodKingEXE wrote: Hey guys! Great to be joining. I think that when we vote we should make sure people did not mispeak. I think that we all need to figure out what we want to do as a group. What do you think? Two obvious points. We should not be lynching over misspeech (as opposed to lying) - and we need to make a majority decision (self-apparent from how the game works). On December 04 2011 14:36 BroodKingEXE wrote: Hey Blazinghand sorry if I came around to be a little shady. I was just trying to feed into the conversation, about the voting. How do we want to plan the lynching with the time zone difference? I feel like this will be a major roadblock as it will be 12 AM for our friends in the UK. As for my earlier comment I just wanted to say hi. Did not mean to get off on the wrong foot Not really much to say here. Time zones might be a problem, but he completely dodges the question I asked him about policy right after his first post. On December 04 2011 14:51 BroodKingEXE wrote: Hey guys, Well I think that Lynching any inconsistent comments is definitely a good idea. We need to be sure that any information we are getting is consistent and to keep the amount of strategies that the mob could be using low. As for the lurkers I agree that when in doubt we should vote for the lurkers. The information that they have could be useful or they could just be neglecting to play the game, which means they should not be playing at all. After a little more prodding, he says this. This is, again, pretty self evident, but I find it interesting that he says "lynching any inconsistent comments is a good idea" here, and "we should make sure people did not mispeak" earlier. Two different things - and the second is far more beneficial to scum. On December 04 2011 15:10 BroodKingEXE wrote: Velinath, I said to check for inconsistent statements and you did. The fact that I said to check for mistakes in their inconsistent statements still stands though, as you point out through asking me about my inconsistent comment. I asked him which one he meant and he came back with this...which doesn't make any sense to me, STILL. (skipping 2 worthless filler posts, one of which is just a confirmation that Jay is soft-defending him for being new) On December 05 2011 07:06 BroodKingEXE wrote: For all of you who are getting a bad read on me, I want to confirm that I am a newbie. While I respect that Blazinghand has been pusing to prevent lurkers my reponses were obivouisly to defend myself. I feel that it is still a strategy that will work to get reads on the mafia, even if it has put me in the red. In the early stages of the game I feel that there is no way I would be able to get any proper reads as a newbie, but right now I am leaning to: Mafia: Adam - his critism of Blazinghand's style comes right after a compliment showing that he is defininetly trying to kiss up to him. Hassy - he also critized Blazinghand's style in that he accuses him of targeting people early. His votes were clearly for getting people to talk, not at all to decide who to lynch. Townies: Blazing - has been contributing to the discussion and trying to get others to talk. Velinath - I am kind of borderline on this as he has been contributing, but he seems to be following Blazing as opposed to creating comments of his own. Turnkeg - I think he has been pressuring a little, trying to get a read,but I will go for townie. Grackoroni - I will put him here because in one of his comments he left his own name on Turneg's read list and did not comment. I feel like this would have been something that he could have used to push his case. As for the rest I feel like I have not got enough infomation. I am going to be off for the next few hours as I have a project due, but I will be sure to take a break to put my vote in. "I'm a newbie and here are some of my reads. And I'm a newbie." Hammer that point home, BKEXE! Plus this post sounds way different in tone than his previous ones. NOW, THAT SAID: this could be because he took some time to think about this one, so I won't read too much into that point. On December 05 2011 09:36 BroodKingEXE wrote: Venilath You have good reason to be suspicious of me changing my tone, but BH's style forced me to be hastily defensive in the first few posts I made. These posts put me in even more trouble, so I am focusing more on well thought out posts. You can read in to the first posts all you want, but they are defininetly not an accurate representation of the mob. If I were really in the mob, even as a newbie, do you think I would really be that hasty in my posts not bothering to think of the repurcussions? "blah blah WIFOM blah blah I'm a newbie, also more WIFOM" (Skipping two filler posts one of which is an EMPTY VOTE WITH NO REASONING). Also, at this point I'd like to note that he still hasn't put in too much input on anyone else's reads or anything to that nature. On December 05 2011 10:03 BroodKingEXE wrote: You mention that you are a newbie, yet you have read up on other games before this one. Well not everyone does that, so this is truly the first game I have experienced. After my posts I took a step back and looked at them and I saw that they were terribly thought out. In the heat of the moment a newbie would obviously falter. "I'm a newbie! Again!" We get it...but I don't buy the reasoning. On December 05 2011 10:21 BroodKingEXE wrote: Hassy if you need evidence read this: Alright, some reasoning. Unfortunately, I feel like that first red sentence (which is BKEXE's insertion into the paragraph, explaining reasoning) is just straight up bad - and the second one isn't much better. The first - well, I mean...it's just one vote, BH was still the most active voter, I don't see a problem here. Adam said his piece and it's not really taken away from by a difference of one vote, when BH had already voted so many times. The second, BKEXE misread and thought that Adam meant that BH wasn't an active town figure when Adam was actually talking about xkskc. Ends up being shaky reasoning. On December 05 2011 11:17 BroodKingEXE wrote: Hey BH what is up with this? You neglected to mention this fact until after EB refused to vote. Are you holding back any other pieces of information? More misinterpretation that only serves to cast false (by the reasoning he uses, anyway) aspersions on another player. He notes that he was wrong in the next couple posts after he gets called out on it. Next post is really long and I don't feel like quoting it, so: reiteration of the same incorrect reasoning on Adam from a few posts ago, with some kind of weird stuff afterwards about how being drunk or sober affects...something. Next post after that is another filler post. On December 07 2011 04:25 BroodKingEXE wrote: Hey guys, The concert went great, but I am still worried about what BH said earlier. I have some information, but I feel that if I post it the mob might get a lot more information. I feel like it is important that we be careful what we say, because the mob needs to figure out who knows who the mafia members are. "I have reasoning, but let's not talk about things during the night post." Don't suppress conversation during night, if you die with your reasoning, you can't tell people what you think. (yes, this means that I was slightly suspicious of BH for trying to suppress night talk). Next post is another erads post. It's better than the last one, but he leaves out two people. TWO people. There are three mafia. Maybe a slip, maybe not, who knows? If it is, he left out Tunkeg and jaybrundage. Tunkeg's not one of my scumreads right now, but jay sure as hell is. A couple posts about bandwagons, posting the two reads he forgot about, etc. He says bandwagons are a bad idea. I disagree due to scum being more able to influence more split votes. On December 08 2011 00:57 BroodKingEXE wrote: FUCK!!I just realized that we could have figured out EB was a townie from this post, saving us from lots of trouble. Also he said this quote before saying he was not going to vote. He had already established that he was not going to give details until the morning. BH used this argument against him a little hastily. QUOTE]On December 05 2011 10:50 Blazinghand wrote: He said he's comfortable voting for Hassybaby, but he's obviously not-- he didn't take the 2-3 seconds to type in his vote. He's leading us by the nose. He's hiding behind the excuse of sleep to avoid an explanation, which I might buy. But to avoid slapping down a simple vote? No, this isn't normal. this is anti-town and I will not stand for it. Think about it-- if he's town, his actions don't make sense at all. Why not slap down the vote? If he's mafia his actions make perfect sense. This quote also can be named as non useful as people get angry if you do not put down a vote. In all I feel like we need to have more analysis of the people we are getting scum reads on as a town. I will continue to look over EB's posts to figure out why they killed him. At the moment though I have come up with some hypothetical situations. 1) The mafia is dumb and voted for the player that was rated by the town as the worst townie ever. 2)EB had a read or opinion that the mafia did not like (xtfftc, xsksc, Turnkeg, jay, Velinath) the problem I think here though is that EB's claims were unsubstantiated in the case of jay a player that we already are looking to lynch. He also mentioned following breadcrumbs were a bad idea, so maybe the mafia wants us to follow breadcrumbs. 3)The mafia is just trying to throw us off with this vote. This is the worst case scenario, it means that the mafia felt safe enough to not take out players that they think the town needs to figure them out. This would mean that the majority of our reads are not strong enough or just plain wrong. [/QUOTE] Hi! Let's talk about dead people and why they died, because we can't WIFOM this to death or anything. It's an attempt to get the town caught up in talking about things that are, ultimately, largely irrelevant. On December 08 2011 01:29 BroodKingEXE wrote: I am going to agree with BH on the fact that jay is scum. Looking back over his posts I realize that you have half filler and the other half stuff like this: I call this bussing. He reads initially that "jay is probably a misunderstood townie!" - and then goes to here right after the shitstorm with me, jay, and BH. "Let's hop on the bandwagon before anyone suspects me!" He also manages to say all of this and not vote On December 08 2011 01:55 BroodKingEXE wrote: Velinath, You need to include the whole quote the context that these quotes are in could be very different from the quote itself Here is an example: "All cows are green" Whole Quotes: "All cows are green in my imagination stories" He whines about context (Soft defend the person that he just said was scum), but apparently he missed the part where anything in the post he was referencing was impossible to take out of context and was just straight up lies. Meh. Both of his last two posts are urging everyone to talk about EB's death some more, because obviously talking about WIFOM reasoning gets us places - even after we've explained why it's a bad idea. BKEXE's tried to pass himself off as a newbie using WIFOM reasoning, tried to misdirect attention off of his scumbuddies, and in general has been inconsistent. He posts limited analysis, much of it nonsensical, in an effort to misdirect the town. He's willing to bus his scumbuddy jaybrundage, but unwilling to lay the vote down - and then softdefends him anyway. He insists that we talk ad nauseum about EB's death - an activity that is ultimately pointless due to WIFOM. I only had time for this one tonight, although I think I've made my position on both jaybrundage and Hassybaby clear in past posts. If you'd like me to post more regarding both of them and/or sum up what posts I find particularly scummy, I can do so; otherwise, please refer to ElectricBlack's case as well as my post EARLIER IN THE THREAD referencing the same points on Hassybaby, and refer to the last 5 pages of this thread for scum evidence on jaybrundage. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 08 2011 13:37 Adam4167 wrote: I don't see what you see at all. I see BKEXE quote BH's book that he wrote on jay, ramble on about policy (a bit late in the piece for this really..), then dump his vote on jay after calling him an idiot. Oh and don't forget declaring how new he is... again. Your case on BKEXE was exactly where I was heading with the next day (assuming I survive the night.). It was well done and did a good job of highlighting exactly how BKEXE has been playing thus far, however I am going to highlight something you missed: BKEXE and jay have been defending each other this entire game: Here Here Here Here Here BKEXE's more recent posts aimed at jay are nothing more than distancing because we have shifted focus onto them. It is just a smokescreen, do not buy into this nonsense. Yeah, it's a lot easier to see with the formatting that he added, it looked a lot more like original work in the first post of those 3. Thanks for the supplement. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
I'm not sure if it's really eneded, but I'll justify my vote on jaybrundage now - as I've said before, the suspicions from his posting style after the Night 1 post gave me cause for concern, and coupled with the previous cases on him I felt that he was a better lynch target for today especially given his tendency to be vocal (unlike the largely lurking hassybaby, who was much less likely to misdirect the town). Following my vote, JB scumslipped quite hard against both myself and Blazinghand, and outright lied to try and distract everyone from the evidence against him, thus solidifying my opinion of him as scum. I would also like to point to something that I believe Tunkeg pointed out recently, that jaybrundage and BKEXE (another of my current scum suspects) have been defending each other all game. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 09 2011 04:47 Tunkeg wrote: It wasn't me it was Adam: Thanks Tunk, been a bit in and out and hadn't had time to find the post. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 09 2011 05:48 Blazinghand wrote: So what do you think of BKEXE's largely illegible posts? I initially believed that they were a literal figurative smokescreen to push my analysis off of the front page and make it hard for people to find my summary post. However, they're so poorly formatted it's possible he just couldn't find the preview button. Still, I think he was scum trying to literally cover JB. Good analysis or bad, and why? Two things. First, I don't think he was trying to push your analysis off, as he ended up quoting quite a bit of it. Now, that said, I do think that the content itself (after finally being able to tell what part of his post was actually his) was extremely lacking. It feels in keeping with his other recent posts - as a weak attempt to bus JB to fit in with the town. No matter how you slice it, BKEXE feels scummy. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 09 2011 10:32 Blazinghand wrote: Hey JB i was wondering if you could clarify your position on velinath plz. I have avoided noticing this night post somehow + Show Spoiler + Hahaha you just made my day. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
My third read is still Hassybaby/Bluelightz. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
BKEXE's case on ey215 is hella contrived. Two other people have already pointed this out, but he's cherry picking his quotes and putting them out of order to try and construct points - something that he was accusing me of doing before. Given my case earlier combined with the more recent stuff posted since then: ##Vote: BroodKingEXE I had a chance to do some filtering over the night. I've got a very strong town read on ey215 after his more recent posts especially, but I'm still not sure what to make of xkskreplacementfest. Once layabout starts posting a bit more, I'll be interested to see how that shapes up. I'm doing a quiz for one of my classses but I'll be posting some analysis on Bluelightz's posts after he took over from Hassybaby soon. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
ey215's been posting pro-town. I'm still waiting on you to come up with a defense to my case, BKEXE. I'm still waiting for a defense to Adam's note of you defending JB forever. Let's go. Defend yourself or make a more plausible case. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 10 2011 17:20 xtfftc wrote: Morning everyone. I plan to post a lot over the weekend because I have very limited time during workdays. I have put enough time into EY, so I'll be leaving him alone for now unless I find something very convincing. Everything points to BKE being our best lynch today, so I won't dwell too much on why he is mafia. I will, however, analyse his relationships with the other players, because this would help us for next week. Apart from that, I'm not sure what to focus on. I really hope that layabout steps it up because xsk+Starshard have been having a very easy time. I think we need to come up with some sort of a plan. Just like yesterday with Jay, I don't think that focusing too much on BKE will do us a lot of good. If he's town, he has to do his best to catch mafia, but if he's town, he'll be happy to waste our time like Jay did (BKE, there's two mafia players alive, so you need two cases, not one.). We need to discuss at least two more things: - do we still want to lynch a lurker if there's no good case (lynching a lurker later in the game is much better than earlier as we have more town reads)? - if we have a DT, should he investigate the lurkerish players? These are not for today but for the next few days. If you think there's anything else important to discuss for the late game, don't hesitate to bring it up. In response to your questions, I feel that at this point it does indeed become beneficial to lynch lurkers. Assuming BKEXE flips scum (which, at this point, is nearly certain to me), we have 1 scum left - which means we can afford to use a lynch or two on people who haven't been participating. Right now that's xkstarshayabout and Hassybluelightz, both of which I'm not totally sure about. At least Bluelightz has been posting a bit, but again, expect some analysis from me later today on that. That said, I feel like our DT should be focusing more on active players that seem suspicious to them, rather than lurkers. If we're going to be looking at lynching lurkers, then we'll get the last scum if they're lurking anyway. If there's any active poster that seems like they're suspicious, then that's a better investigation target. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 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. You intentionally misrepresented ey in your case by taking his posts out of order like you did. Explain why you did this. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
Here are my thoughts on Bluelightz - and you can filter him to see this - but literally every single one of his posts has been bandwagoning hard since he replaced in. + Show Spoiler + On December 08 2011 18:57 Bluelightz wrote: Above Post Should Not Be Read because it is so messy xD Hmm My scumreads right now BroodKingEXE Leaning Scum - He has been filling the thread with some post's trying to "distance" him and jay as you can see in Adam's and BH's observation. Also, if JB flips scum we wil have a strong case on BKEXE Next, ey215 is leaning scum, when he says but then, I quote Grackaroni BH, has provided a good enough discussion so, ##Vote: Jaybrundage All of this had already been discussed to death. Bluelightz hopped on the bandwagon late, and then...provided...something? about ey215. Everyone's going to represent themselves as town. -_- (side note: I still think that ey215 is town-aligned.) Next 3 posts are parroting others' reasoning on BKEXE without adding anything new. Both of his votes have been simply bandwagoning with no original reasoning - he hasn't added anything of substance to the discussion. Bluelightz - build a case on someone. Please. We're still looking for a third scum and right now you're top on my list of suspects. (You can check EB's case on Hassybaby for the first half of the discussion). | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
What do you guys think about what layabout's put together on xtfftc so far, and xtfftc's reaction to that? | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 13 2011 02:30 layabout wrote: @ the thread - please be active and contribute i think at this stage it is reasonable to state that blues (cop and tracker) may have some information and that there is a considerable chance that you might get shot tonight (2blues out of 6 town) i hope that you realise that if you die sitting on information then town does not benefit from it. i think that it is worth thinking about claiming immediately before the nightpost (please use common sense) How do you know blues are cop and tracker this game? | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 13 2011 02:49 Grackaroni wrote: I don't really agree with them claiming, if they had information its probably been bread crumbed. Cop/tracker are the only blues who could have information to claim. (no doc saves) It would be really bad if a doctor claimed. kk, it just seemed awkwardly worded | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 13 2011 14:38 xtfftc wrote: And yet you still want to lynch me for trying to get the town to discuss things... Go figure. I want to lynch you because of what layabout's actually brought up and you haven't addressed. Weak justifications - those with WIFOM logic - responding to some legitimate concerns? Your voting pattern has yet to be adequately explained to me, and layabout's case on you does indeed concern me - to the point of me being extremely suspicious. I think you're scum at this point. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
##Vote: xtfftc | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
You bring up WIFOM in your explanation of Grack's posts, but you also use it in your defense. (Let's keep in mind that Grack flipped town, and if you know enough to pick WIFOM on him you should know not to use it). You actually bring up WIFOM multiple times and should know better than to use it: "Let's also consider me being mafia for the sake of discussing my actions". You try to invoke Lynch All Liars when that's not what it's used for (see Tunkeg's response to me Day 2. I derped but it's a reasonable point nonetheless). What do I think of your posts on layabout? Either it's an elegant bus (which I doubt, with only 2 scum left) or he's got a good read on you and you're trying to get out of it. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 13 2011 16:49 xtfftc wrote: Make up your mind already? You are either a lazy townie who hasn't put in the time to even read the thread - or a mafia who decided to go all-in after BH went after him. I am off to work, will post more when I'm back home in the afternoon. I'm a lazy townie because I posted teh wrong name once, then corrected myself after I realized I mixed up your votes. Yep, that accusation doesn't reek of scum or anything. My vote stands. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
Have you read the thread? Or paying too much attention to the scum QT? | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 14 2011 00:52 xtfftc wrote: I have already addressed all of the points he's made. His questions are a demonstration that he hasn't bothered reading my posts on layabout. He also refused to answer my question, even though I reminded him about it (unless you consider his fluffy "Either it's an elegant bus (which I doubt, with only 2 scum left) or he's got a good read on you and you're trying to get out of it." satisfactory. I don't.) Some of the townies have been way too lazy to engage in a discussion and provide analysis all game long - but when the posts in questions are literally in the last 2-3 pages of the thread, ignoring them like this is insulting. I even posted him links to everything relevant on this very page. How am I supposed not to get frustrated? If he wants to write a case on me or anything, great, go for it. If he has any questions, I'll answer them. But repeating things that I have already answered to that clearly indicated that he hasn't bothered putting the work in... fine you are misusing LAL you nitpick him cherrypicking your quotes except that what he left out was just more wifom logic that nobody should be paying attention to anyway there's one part of your response that MAY have merit and that's the last part regarding adam4167 but yeah no i'm not impressed. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
There's no double standard. He's said over and over and over that you aren't providing explanation - you aren't. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
Not that I should be shocked because if you ignore it it means you get to spam up the thread more | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
Going to go take a final but I'll be back later tonight | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 14 2011 03:54 xtfftc wrote: There's a question mark in "Lynch All Liars?" for a reason. I raised a point for everyone to discuss: would a town player really try to twist "more likely" said in a certain context into "best read". Like always, I was trying to facilitate a discussion. See, we're not talking about a case in this situation. We are talking about deliberately taking one's words and turning them into something else. I provided quotes to demonstrate what he did but you still haven't commented on it. Here, I'll post it for you again. this is what i'm talking about. "Hey let me invoke LAL on something that doesn't qualify as LAL". i see in your quotes: "three scummiest" "more likely to be scum" "his team (...) more likely" this implies that you sure as hell think he's scum. layabout's already explained that your vote was 100% completely useless day 2. why were you happy to go along with the BKEXE wagon on day 3 rather than "make a statement" again | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 14 2011 06:01 xtfftc wrote: (1)I did not invoke LAL. It was a response to layabout being childish in the thread ("liar liar liar", and with bold even). This is just the way you are reading it. Next? so you just didn't explain it well i guess, whatever (2)"three scummiest" does not equal "best read". (3)"more likely" does not equal "best read". Next? i didn't say the words "best read" anywhere. you're putting words in my mouth. cute, but come on, try harder than that. (4)In this very same post I mentioned the five people I was suspicious of at the time (Jay, EY, xsk, BKE, Adam). Clearly I did not indicate that I was "sure as hell". Next? I could use the same reasoning to ask why you voted ey215 then. (5)And I have already addressed this plenty of times, even before layabout joined the game: it was to make a point. (6)My vote would have been equally useless on Jay as he was dead at the time. (7)And neither of you has provided any reason why would placing my vote on EY instead of Jay benefit me as mafia. Next? 5) a point that didn't mean anything, as layabout said the vote was completely useless, you could have accomplished just as much by just reminding us of the need for scumhunting without the excess voting 6) i'll pass on this one because you finally made a reasonable point 7) cast suspicion on ey215, a town player by my reads and filtering (8)The point I made on Day 2 was that we need to discuss other candidates than the main lynch target. At the time when I voted on Day 3 there was a serious discussion going on already. that doesn't justify wagon sheeping a townie, which is what you did This is 8 points you have to address. Could you please answer all of them and use quotes if necessary. And for everyone else reading the thread, ask yourselves this question (if you haven't already): how does voting/not voting for someone who is 100% sure to be lynched change anything? If not voting for Jay is a reason to call someone mafia, doesn't this make it way too easy for mafia to blend in by simply doing what the rest of the town does? you could have just as easily said "hey these are my other reads" you even said: In conclusion, most of the town has sheeped on BKE (with Veli, Adam and to a lesser extent Tunkeg being the exceptions). I feel like there wasn't a proper attempt to change the direction of the lynch until late Day 3 and I agree that the third mafia player may have simply abandoned Jay and BKE to save himself/herself. As I was re-reading his earlier posts just now, I reached the same conclusion as before: bad townie. After Bbyte's lynch he finally stepped it up and started posting stuff and it became obvious that he was struggling to come up with his analysis. This was similar to Jay, with the main difference being that Jay posted much more filler during Day 1. But both couldn't keep it up when they were forced to provide their reads. I have yet to post on how BKE himself has posted on the other players but for now I don't see many promising leads. I'd sayu that the mafia is hiding amongst the quieter players but perhaps I'm seeing things this way simply because those who have posted a lot on BKE are my town reads anyway. WHY WOULD YOU VOTE FOR SOMEONE YOU BELIEVE TO BE TOWN. No word twisting here. You simply said "Hey, I think he's a townie, but here's my vote on him anyway". That is in no way a good idea. Ever. In fact the only reason to lynch a townie knowingly is if you are scum. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 14 2011 06:02 xtfftc wrote: And I'm still waiting on: This makes it 9. I'm done for tonight and you seem to have done well at your test, so I''m sure you'll have enough time to address all of my concerns. already explained this. it's even on this page. it's like i have to scream at you to make a point. that was SPECIFICALLY in reference to your LAL stuff. which you FINALLY got around to explaining how you meant it in a clear enough manner that it would make sense to anyone else in the thread. irrelevant now, i suppose, but just goes to show how much attention you're paying | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 08 2011 04:56 xtfftc wrote: Town does not vote to punish bad play. Town votes to lynch mafia. (he says, to a vote that lynched a mafia) As I was re-reading his earlier posts just now, I reached the same conclusion as before: bad townie. After Bbyte's lynch he finally stepped it up and started posting stuff and it became obvious that he was struggling to come up with his analysis. This was similar to Jay, with the main difference being that Jay posted much more filler during Day 1. But both couldn't keep it up when they were forced to provide their reads. I have yet to post on how BKE himself has posted on the other players but for now I don't see many promising leads. I'd sayu that the mafia is hiding amongst the quieter players but perhaps I'm seeing things this way simply because those who have posted a lot on BKE are my town reads anyway. (his reasoning for lynching a townie - and even he says that he expects BKEXE to be a townie - day 3. Emphasis mine.) | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 14 2011 07:32 ey215 wrote: It's a contradiction he needs to give an answer to the town for. I however don't think it's a definitive scum tell. I'd like to see his answer before drawing a specific conclusion. My vote may be based on how he answers those allegations. If he's scum number two who do you think is the third? Third scum might be Bluelightz (who still hasn't contributed - and it seems that EB's case on Hassybaby from Day 1 has fallen by the wayside, despite it being a fairly good case). I have nearly zero post content to draw from for Bluelightz though.. I don't think it's layabout because bussing with only 2 scum left in the game would be utterly retarded, and I feel that Tunkeg has played a town game thus far. As I have stated I have a strong town read on you and I also believe BH to be town based on filter. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
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. Not going to lie, I'm not happy to see this "let's OMGUS off the deep end" thing from you. Look over what's been said on xtfftc - specifically his obvious contradictions - and I'd like to hear from you on what you think of those. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 14 2011 09:44 Bluelightz wrote: sorry  just didnt feel like posting (>_<)you do realize you're judged on your posting in this game right, and lurking makes you look TERRIBLE? | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 14 2011 15:12 xtfftc wrote: BH, I don't believe that Tunkeg is mafia. If you want me to, I'll post a proper explanation in the afternoon but I'm sure I've talked about it before. And if it's up to lynching him and me, it would be better to go for me and then layabout after I flip. Lynching him would leave us in a similar situation tomorrow as we are today. For reasons stated many times before, ##Vote: layabout Tunkeg trying to distract attention from someone I believe to be scum by OMGUSing his original accuser and making it into "Vote him or me" seems scummy to me | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 14 2011 15:18 xtfftc wrote: Wait, am I the scum OMGUSing layabhout?! I was on xsk FROM DAY 1. He was even my vote until I switched on Bbyte. The only person OMGUSing is layabout: this is the very thing he did in this thread, an OMGUS on me and Tunkeg. tunkeg is OMGUSing, go read the last page | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
So in other words, I think I've solved the game. Let's lynch you, then we're down to 1 scum. Cop investigates Tunkeg, posts results in thread next day, town wins. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 14 2011 15:57 Bluelightz wrote: sorry BH, didnt notice your case till now so, ##Vote: Tunkeg BH, is there any other of his posts that make you have a scumread on him? also, after looking @ BHs case m mind is decided for this day Bluelightz, please provide some original reasoning for a vote you put forward. Voting blindly based on one post is silly. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
That's cheap, really cheap. In this post you replied to my explanation as to how "more likely" does not equal "best read" with the words "i see in your quotes: "three scummiest" "more likely to be scum" "his team (...) more likely"this implies that you sure as hell think he's scum." You did not bother to disagree with what layabout said and you've been supporting him all day long, so excuse me for not remembering that you never used these exact words. And once again, this is a double standard: layabout twisting my words into "best read" and refusing to admit he had no right to is perfectly acceptable but me losing track of all your accusations deserves a response such as "cute, but come on, try harder than that". Because I definitely also twisted your words into "best read". That makes sense. Okay. So I'm supposed to feel ashamed because you're accusing me of saying something I didn't? You're breaking my brain now. I also never addressed the issue with what layabout said. I never took into account the words "best read". Stop insinuating that I did. If you're going to whine about getting your words twisted by someone else, don't twist mine. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 15 2011 06:33 layabout wrote: the players on the weakest case need to move. + Show Spoiler + btw that is the case on me, i see no real credible analysis against me Yeah, that won't happen...one scum and one chainsaw defense vote on you. They're not going anywhere. I anticipate a last minute vote switch by a scum to avoid having xtfftc lynched. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 15 2011 07:02 Blazinghand wrote: I'll head it off at the pass, then-- with 3 votes on him, xtfftc will need to convince me to unvote him to survive, or get ey215 to come back and unvote bluelightz. in the event of a draw, who got 3 votes first is the one who dies. ##Vote xtfftc When he flips scum, I would take a very close look at Tunkeg. This article points out an interesting tell that I would be somewhat concerned about. To quote: "a player who defends another player by attacking the other player's attacker is very probably scum". | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
 | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
It's night four, we're at 5 town and one scum right now. What do you guys think about roleclaims at this point? Since we have two blues, it miiiight be a good idea - if the DT claims (assuming we have one!), he basically gets a free investigate night (protect or watch = he's immune). What are your thoughts - or should we wait a little longer? | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
Anyway, regarding final mafioso, for reasons I have mentioned previously I feel that Tunkeg's OMGUS on layabout was a bit of a scumtell. While Bluelightz is still suspicious, Tunkeg is currently top on my scum list. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 15 2011 15:37 Bluelightz wrote: Hey guys I have a confession LONG LIVE THE MAFIA gg, BH too gud what the hell | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
This was also the reason I was suddenly so very very confident that ey215 was town for the last two days. I felt the suspicions on him were somewhat well-founded, but him coming up town meant that I could at least try and give something that I could refer back to later in the thread. Meh. Well played, all. A little bit unsatisfying conclusion, but c'est la vie I suppose. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
ey night 2 xtfftc night 3 | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 15 2011 19:20 Palmar wrote: To those who didn't already know, I was playing in this game as the smurf "ElectricBlack". This was of course done with the approval of the hosts: + Show Spoiler + I would like to know how the new players in this game felt about the presence of a veteran in the game. I used this article: http://mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Being_a_good_IC as a guideline on how to handle my play this game, I tried to be less aggressive than I usually am, without cutting off that edge that makes me successful as mafia. Unfortunately the game started on a night I was out with the wife for several hours so I only got plenty of posting in later in the day. The reason for using a smurf was because I did not want the game to become about me. With all the coaches knowing me and my play, I feel an unreasonable amount of weight would've been put into my posting. I tried to call out incorrect play wherever I could, and lead by example with the case on HassyBaby. I don't think I did a magnificent job, but I think I did alright. I would very much like feedback from the players of this game, both town and scum, on how and if we should continue introducing veteran players in newbie games to help create a more useful town atmosphere. For what it's worth, the townies of this game should really be commended for creating the most awesome scumhunting atmosphere I have ever seen in a TL mafia game. Seriously, this town was better at looking town than almost any other town I've played with. Mad props to you all. Some of you may have noticed I did finger all three mafia on day 1: This is not because I'm some kinda awesome scumhunter, or because they all fucked up. What really happened this game is that the town played such a transparent, useful and good game, that simply through process of elimination I could find all the mafia. Veteran towns can learn a lot from you guys, I am thoroughly impressed with your play. When all townies look town, it's much, much easier to pick the mafia out from the rest. Can you guys please answer these questions: Did you like having a veteran in the newbie game? Would you prefer the veteran did not smurf? Would you prefer giving both factions a veteran? The bottom line from this game is that you guys, as complete newbies, managed to create the most healthy town discussion I have ever seen on day one. I can't overstate how impressed I am with it. Good Job. 1) In retrospect, it's a lot clearer that you were a veteran. I honestly missed it until after you got lynched. I think that it's a good idea in a game like this if the town is less directed, to actively get things moving - however, in this case, as you stated, town played pretty well day 1. 2) Smurfing's reasonable, especially if you're randomly assigned a role. A newbie game shouldn't be one with the opportunity to metagame lynch people too. It's also more interesting to find out who it actually was after the game 3) Not in a coached game. I feel that having a veteran to help the town out in early play especially balances out the "informed minority" in what might be a more difficult (for town) game. Again, this game is quite the exception in that I felt that we actually did play pretty well. | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
In addition, thanks to Forumite and Zona for doing such a great job of hosting. I really liked the theme of the game, and I think the moderation was quite good! | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 16 2011 02:53 Blazinghand wrote: Honestly I'm not even sure we would have won for sure if bluelightz could keep suspicion off of himself-- though it would be very tough once xtf was down. Maybe if he bussed him before I cast my vote? I was just surprised velinath never got killed for being helpful, or that nobody realized I was the doctor desperately trying to keep myself alive. Every night I was like 100% sure that this night the mafia would realize I was the doctor and just kill me. Especially since they were roleblocking me. I was targeting Bluelightz for investigation on Night 4, as I figured if he cleared Tunkeg would likely be the last scum. Since ey was already cleared for me we could have afforded a mislynch there if Bluelightz cleared that night - which I believe would leave you as the only player I didn't check (I figured you were town from Day 1, heh). | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 16 2011 03:24 Blazinghand wrote: Bear in mind that I plan to play in a similarly aggressive style should I be a town OR scum player in future games. I like talking. As you can see (Bbyte, BKEXE) my style is just as good at getting bandwagons rolling on town players as it is on mafia players-- although it may make sense not to draw too much attention as mafia, what's more suspicious to you-- Blazinghand being loud or Blazinghand being quiet? Several players suspiciously noted my low posting during days 3 and 4 and some observers even fingered me as scum playing a long con with some amazing "bus JB day 2" strategy, just based on my change of style (which came on due to final exams). Also, I feel like BL would have targeted you after your aggressive very Blue play on day 4. You basically soft-claimed Cop by going after xtf in such an aggressive fashion and THEN producing evidence. The mafia noticed it right away if you check out their QT. I still think town had a big advantage, I just don't think it was unwinnable. Bluelightz slipped pretty hard with the flagrant sheeping though-- as a general rule as Mafia, try to imagine what a Town version of you would do in that circumstance-- you wouldn't try to abdicate responsability for your actions. I immediately thought something was wrong after that post. In retrospect, I should have just roleclaimed to ensure the lynch. 5-1 with the suspicions town had for the next two days would have won the game | ||
|
Velinath
United States694 Posts
On December 16 2011 03:58 Blazinghand wrote: Indeed. I made that post specifically to tell our Cop the clock was ticking, I was the Doctor, and I was getting roleblocked. See, Veli read that post and immediately realized what was happening-- he's the DT, so he knew immediately that it was DT/Doctor and that I was being roleblocked consistently. The mafia read that post and said "lawl noob cop trying to get us not to roleblock him" It also kept me alive. EDIT: Hopefully. It's unclear whether he figured out I was the Doctor. It's hard to indicate you're the Doctor to the DT without indicating it to the mafia. The only information that Veli had that the mafia didn't was that I *wasn't* the DT. So by acting blue, to the mafia it appears i'm the DT, and to him it appears i'm the Doctor. EDIT EDIT: Not that any of this actually mattered. Yeah, I figured it out. I'm not sure what good it did, I mean, I was already kind of investigating players who I was "on the fence" about. (Without that investigation, I would never have voted xtfftc, for instance). | ||
| ||
)
