EPTStudent Mafia (New/Newish players welcome)
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 04 2011 12:06 xsksc wrote: 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. 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. Then comes the argument that if we lynch everyone caught in a lie, townies would stop lying, so we would not have to deal with all of this. But the reality is that you lynch a townie for lying, then you lose the game because of wasting a lynch in order to teach the liars a lesson, then you join another game and you realise that there's so many other players you have to teach that same lesson, and so on. If we start doing it in every single game, it might work after a while. But when you've invested a week in the game, you don't want to throw it away just because some townie attempted a stupid gamble. All you are focused on is lynching mafia. And townies tend to get lynched for lying all the time anyway, even without having the policy in place - simply becase when someone is caught lying, they are usually accused of being mafia. Agreeing upon whether someone is lukring or not is easier but simply lynching all lurkers is not optimal. What's important is that people realise that sometimes every active player is a townie. If your analysis leads you to the conclussion that the active players are townies, then you start lynching lurkers. That's the best we can do. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 04 2011 12:52 xsksc wrote: I don't understand your part about lynch all liars. Think about it logically, if we say, "Lie and you're gonna get lynched" then no townie is going to lie, are they? It's not just to teach a lesson, scum benefit greatly from lies and deceit. I want lynch-all-liers in effect today. Also, on day 1 it's very easy for scum to post nonsense and get away with it, because day 1 can be such a mess, hell, sometimes the most active players are scum. Just because someone posts a lot doesn't make them town, lol. Look at the last newbie mini-game. Ciryandor was scum, and he posted more analysis than anyone, everyone assumed he was town and that was a big reason why town lost. If we say lynch all liars, townies will carry on lying like they always do. If we do lynch all liars, townies will eventually realise that they should stop. Activity doesn't prove that someone is a townie, of course. But if you have a town read on all the active players, lynching a lurker is great. On December 04 2011 13:01 ey215 wrote: On the lurker bit, I do think there's a time and place for lynching. If we don't have a case on someone it's better to lynch a lurker than someone active. If they're lurking then they're not contributing or giving us something to go on. Of course, if we've got a good case on someone it's better to lynch them. 100% agree, this was pretty much my point anyway. And there's a lot of similar views expressed later in the thread by others, so can we say that we've reached consensus? If we don't get a good case, we lynch a lurker. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 04 2011 13:20 Velinath wrote: 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 Policy or not, everyone should be doing this. Mafia are bound to slip and they will also be reluctant to talk about their teammates slipping, so this is very pro-town behaviour. If you see something you consider to be a lie, mention it. You might be wrong but it's important anyway. And it will also help differentiate between townies who are hunting for mafia and the mafia players who are trying not to attract attention. (I still think that pushing for heavy policies is pro-mafia though, it takes the pressure away from them by allowing them to follow some simple guidelines) 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 Town doesn't benefit from last minute lynches, mafia does. If you see someone suddenly pushing for a lynch near the deadline when there isn't enough time for a proper discussion, it is very likely that this person is mafia. On December 04 2011 14:55 ey215 wrote: As for you're statements about lynching all lurkers unless someone gives you a "DAMN GOOD REASON', well having a scumread is one. Am I good with lynching a lurker today, sure but let's not go talking about how you've got a good scum read on anyone that's posted once. Fuck, I can say you've hardly posted anything but baseless accusations therefore you're scum just trying to get the town fighting among themselves. Not to mention you're trying to get a bandwagon started on someone for either not posting because they're asleep or because of some assumed fluff. Dude, no need to be so defensive. Blazinghand is trying hard to organise the town. I don't agree with some of his ideas but they are stuff to be discussed. There is absolutely no need for a townie to react like you did. Blazing's play so far is great. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 04 2011 15:22 ey215 wrote: I'm also not sure browbeating everyone into posting is going to help us figure out the scum lurkers over the town lurkers. ......what? So we all agree that lurking is bad for town. No one denies that. We need all townies to post, so that mafia are pressured into we're able to distinguish town from mafia. And then you express your concerns that if we somehow manage to get all townies to post, we would have trouble figuring out "the scum lurkers over the town lurkers"... If they don't lurk, we are going to have reads on them and figure out their alignment. No townie would suggest that this is a bad thing. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 04 2011 21:21 xsksc wrote: That doesn't make sense. Lynch all liers is in effect. Every townie knows that lying will get them lynched now. You think a townie that is actually trying to win is gonna lie now? I don't think so. This is naive. But I've explained what the difference is already, so I don't see the point in repeating myself. Unless some new argument is added to the discussion, there is no point in going back to it until we catch someone lying. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 04 2011 21:37 xsksc wrote: No, it's logic. Give me a reason why a townie would lie when they know LaL is in effect. Because until we actually do it, it's just empty words. I'd be very surprised if you can you find me one game where LaL has been officially implemented and followed. It just doesn't happen. If you want it to work, we need to act on it, instead of just saying that we're going to act on it. Until then, some townies will continue lying simply because they think they can pull it off and be the hero who catches us some scum. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 05 2011 00:02 Tunkeg wrote: Of course. Some of the answers I have asked I have summarized in my opening post. But I will be more spesific about my thoughts on players alignment and who I at this moment would lynch if I had: + Show Spoiler + Alignment For a starter I don't think the scum players have been all that active yet. Adam4167 Neutral. Got to little info on him, only 2 posts. Abit scummy that he makes the first post after the game starts, and then do nothing (almost) when the discussions get going. Grackorini Neutral. Not a whole lot of posts here either. Mainly policy posts, but I agree on his point of view here. And I am leaning town here. Velinath Neutral. Leaning town. Alot of posts, some of them I see as pro town, but also alot of fillers whic I see as pro scum. xtfftc Neutral. Abit to many policy posts for my liking. The other posts are ok/good. Especially this last post where you called me out I see as very pro-town (Unless you are scum and think my ramblings are bad for town  )xsksc Scum. If I had to pick three scums right now xsksc would be my third pick, I'd say more based on a hunch and not so much reasoning. It is his way of gaining trust, while not really providing any pressure to anyone or other pro town activities. jaybrundage Scum. "Veteran", posts to little and with to little content, should know that thats anti-town. ey215 Town. Even though coming of as very defensive, his posts so far says town to me. He is balancing out Blazinghand. Blazinghand Town. Aggreessive play, scumhunting. May be spreading his votes around to much, but for now I see him as the most towniest. BroodKingEXE Neutral, leaning scum. He is posting far to little, but I think it is because he is new. Hopefully if more people challange him with direct questions it will be easier to get a read on him. He is the fourth scummiest though. ElectricBlack Neutral. One post, hard to say anything. Needs to post more or be considered a lurker. Hassybaby Scum. Another veteran, and this one have not posted yet. [b]Bbyte Neutral, leaning town. Not many posts yet. But seems open and are answering questions given to him. Trust and lynch At this point I trust no one, I know to little yet. For lynch I would go for either jaybrundage or Hassybaby at this point. They need to step up their game or GTFO. Okay, I like you. I agree on Blazinghand (although some of his stuff is a bit meh), I have no read on Hassy (he hasn't posted yet...), and I didn't like jay's first post (it was a first post though). I liked xsksc's straight to the point opening - no messing around being lazy or trying to blend in but directly kicking off a discussion. He hasn't done much since though. I didn't like how he jumped in defence of ey215 when what Blazing did was perfectly fine, and he sounds like he didn't want to understand my arguments about lal for some reason. I wouldn't call him mafia yet but he's on my FOS list. ey215 is my strongest mafia read for now though... Having to call out someone on scummy behaviour [b]two times just a few hours into a mini game doesn't bode well for that person. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 05 2011 04:06 Grackaroni wrote:In fact from what I've noticed is that people who are willing to outright make a connection with another player is usually town. (palmar/wbg in XLVII) Also Sandroba/Syllogism. On December 05 2011 04:49 ey215 wrote: Ok, just got back to the thread and I'll respond to things as I see them. I agree that we've reached a consensus to get rid of a lurker. That means lurkers, it's your time to step up and contribute. The post I agreed with said " If we don't have a case on someone it's better to lynch a lurker than someone active". This is the crucial point for me. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 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. It works but I think it's better if you have ¤tpage=All at the end of each link  | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
BKE hasn't been active enough and I still have him on my lurkers list, so I want more from him before I go behind a lynch. The others on it are Adam*, Bbyte, ElectricBlack. They all worry me but we've got good overall activity levels (to some extent thanks to Blazinghand), so they won't be able to stay in the dark for too long. All he's done is talk about the policies, refuse to see the counter-arguments, reprimand Blazinghand for putting some extra effort * Adam posted something rather anti-town earleir though: I am all for lynching anyone who scum slips or is caught in an outright lie, as they're almost sure to be mafia. There's two problems with this quote. The first one is that this is exactly what mafia want. They want to focus on someone saying one stupid thing and lynch that person. Ask your coaches if you don't agree with me: lynching someone over a single "scumslip" tends to be main reason why towns lynch an innocent on Day 1. The second is that he mixes a "scum slip" and "an outright lie". We had a lot of talk about LaL and a lot of you disagree with me. You want a strict policy on it and although I think it favours mafia, it can also help town, so it's okay. What is not okay is trying to tie "scumslipping" to the same policy without holding a proper discussion on what we consider to be a scumslip and what we consider to be someone overreacting over bad wording. This is very pro-mafia as it gives them an easy way to push for lynches. Uh, while I was writing this bit Grackaroni came up with a strong target (and he gains greeny points for doing so). I'll have to go through his, Adam's, and jay's posts again before I make up my mind on Adam though. ey215 I'm still not happy with and it wasn't just his defense that made me suspicious. But perhaps I am tunneling him a bit too much indeed. Unless he proves me wrong, he's going to be my main target on Day 2. My main lynch candidate for now is xsksc. While I am very suspicious of ey215, he is around and has put some effort to defend himself. xsk, however, posted some stuff at the start of the game and is happy to ride on the early town vibe he left in some of us without giving out any actual reads. On December 04 2011 21:12 xsksc wrote: Also, you make it sound like I've not been scum-hunting, which is a little unfair I think. I got the thread going, which gave us the content we need to analyse with. I've also noted how certain people are interacting, how people responded to pressure, how people feel about policies, etc etc. It will all be useful when it comes to deciding the lynch. Just because I haven't made a "dis guy hasn't posted 10 hours in so he must be scum" post, doesn't mean I'm not scum-hunting. Most of his posts are about lynching lurkers (and liars) and when being called out by Tunkeg for not doing any hunting he states that he's been doing analysis.... just not sharing his reads with us. This just won't do. ##Vote: xsksc | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
Could you elaborate on Hassy and Adam? Add some specific examples if possible. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
I'll make sure not to throw away my votw for an unlikely candidate by voting for someone who wont get lynched like I did in xlvii and I encourage everyone to do the sa,e. Also, remember that last minute changes tend to help mafia. Out of the two best candidates I find Adam's dwfence much better (he is at least giving usomethimg to analyse), so I'll probably go for BE. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 05 2011 23:48 Adam4167 wrote: I missed this post earlier through all the xsksc/EB drama. Xtfftc, are you encouraging bandwagons with the section I have bolded? I cast my vote in Jaybrundage's direction, even though I am the only one that's taken even the slightest bit of interest in him besides Tunkeg, because to do otherwise would be at odds with my analysis and reads. Good townie's should not be casting their vote based on the probability that the person will get lynched, they should be voting on whomever they have scum reads on regardless of the current vote situation. Yes, Adam, you caught me: I'm encouraging bandwagons........................ Voting for someone who isn't going to get lynched is very pro-mafia behaviour. I did this in XLVII - I didn't like the main targets, so I tried to push some others (one of whom turned out to be mafia but that's was irrelevant at the time because he wasn't going to get lynched), then went to bed before making up my mind who of the main candidates to go for and basically ended up throwing away my vote. I got torn to pieces by the veterans after the game ended. WBG also tried to push for my lynch after the vote solely because of this - and he had every reason to. If you are mafia and you see that the main lynch candidates are town, it is very easy to vote for someone else in order to avoid being scrutinised after the flip. When you have to justify your vote for one of the main targets, you have to take sides, which allows others to have a better read on you. Also, if you're mafia in this situation, you can vote for one of your teammates to prepare yourself for later if he gets lynched. I wouldn't be surprised if it turnes out that you are bussing a teammate to gain some town cred, so I'll be looking closely at Jay as well. You just earned yourself a lot of red points. Not only for using terrible logic but also for trying to scare town for voting for someone who will get lynched. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 06 2011 01:49 Grackaroni wrote: @He voted for xsksc earlier on the basis that he was not doing much scumhunting, your case is now fairly outdated and xsksc has been participating a lot in the thread. I'm curious if his recent posts have made you stick to your original feeling or changed your mind. On December 06 2011 01:50 Grackaroni wrote: EBWOP: @Xtfftc (lol) As I said earlier, he looks (looked) a bit better (beteer, lol at my spelling when using my phone) but not anymore, his OMGUS and sudden change to being very aggressive looks pretty desparate to me (especially considering that he reprimanded Blazinghand for being aggressive earlier). He's my main mafia read with Adam now (considering that EB did very well after he finally decided to play). Adam's defence earlier looked good but the post aI just replied to was veeeeery scummy. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 06 2011 02:46 xsksc wrote: xtfftc and blazing, I'd like your thoughts on Tunkeg if you have a chance soon, thanks. Tunkeg and Blazinghand are my town reads I am most comfortable with. BSE as well, I just can't imagine him being mafia. I am also pretty sure about EB being town now. However, his play screams "smurf", and that scares me. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
I've been very vocal about my views on policy lynches and starting another discussion on LAL won't do town any good, so I won't repeat myself. But I really think that it gives mafia an easy ride. Look at how happy xsk was to jump on it - and he's going to be asleep until the deadline, so he won't be changing his vote for a proper lynch. Obviously, I'm a minority on policies, so you can do it - but I have no reasons to consider Bbyte mafia and lynching mafia is my priority. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
I'll post on Adam in a bit. Also, I think that if you consider one of the lynch candidates to be mafia, you should go for him. If you think that we are unlikely to catch some mafia tonight, by all means do vote for Bbyte the lurker. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 06 2011 04:54 ElectricBlack wrote: I think you're scum too. What do you think about that? I think that staying away from the main discussion and calling out some people in such an offhand manner doesn't help town. I have been very open about my views and have been trying to catch mafia. If we lynch xsk or Adam and it turns out one of them is a townie, I'll be under extra scrutiny because I argued agaisnt lynching a lurker in favour of them. My reads are out there for everyone to analyse but you chose not to do so, which I am rather disappointed by.. I don't see how such arrogant play is good for town. You don't attempt to start a discussion about me and you don't join in ours. All you do is throw in some bold statements four hours before the deadline. There's more important things to do, so I'm just going to ignore you until you bother posting a case on me. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
Here's what I wrote on Adam earlier in case you're lazy and can't be bothered to check it out: + Show Spoiler + On December 05 2011 07:28 xtfftc wrote: * Adam posted something rather anti-town earleir though: There's two problems with this quote. The first one is that this is exactly what mafia want. They want to focus on someone saying one stupid thing and lynch that person. Ask your coaches if you don't agree with me: lynching someone over a single "scumslip" tends to be main reason why towns lynch an innocent on Day 1. The second is that he mixes a "scum slip" and "an outright lie". We had a lot of talk about LaL and a lot of you disagree with me. You want a strict policy on it and although I think it favours mafia, it can also help town, so it's okay. What is not okay is trying to tie "scumslipping" to the same policy without holding a proper discussion on what we consider to be a scumslip and what we consider to be someone overreacting over bad wording. This is very pro-mafia as it gives them an easy way to push for lynches. On December 06 2011 02:30 xtfftc wrote: Answering to what's been directed at me for first, then I'll re-read today's posts more carefully. Yes, Adam, you caught me: I'm encouraging bandwagons........................ Voting for someone who isn't going to get lynched is very pro-mafia behaviour. I did this in XLVII - I didn't like the main targets, so I tried to push some others (one of whom turned out to be mafia but that's was irrelevant at the time because he wasn't going to get lynched), then went to bed before making up my mind who of the main candidates to go for and basically ended up throwing away my vote. I got torn to pieces by the veterans after the game ended. WBG also tried to push for my lynch after the vote solely because of this - and he had every reason to. If you are mafia and you see that the main lynch candidates are town, it is very easy to vote for someone else in order to avoid being scrutinised after the flip. When you have to justify your vote for one of the main targets, you have to take sides, which allows others to have a better read on you. Also, if you're mafia in this situation, you can vote for one of your teammates to prepare yourself for later if he gets lynched. I wouldn't be surprised if it turnes out that you are bussing a teammate to gain some town cred, so I'll be looking closely at Jay as well. You just earned yourself a lot of red points. Not only for using terrible logic but also for trying to scare town for voting for someone who will get lynched. Just to clarify my terrible wording: "but also for trying to scare town for voting for someone who will get lynched" was a bit of an overreaction to him being unhappy with my original statement. I wrote "I'll make sure not to throw away my votw for an unlikely candidate by voting for someone who wont get lynched like I did in xlvii and I encourage everyone to do the sa,e." Adam responded with "Xtfftc, are you encouraging bandwagons with the section I have bolded?" This is very pro-mafia. Town has to consolidate their votes sooner or later because if we don't, mafia can easily swing the lynch one way or another. "Bandwagonning" sounds like a bad thing to do, so implying that not throwing away your vote is bandwagonning is a mafia thing to do. I'll check the thread again before going to bed. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 06 2011 06:02 jaybrundage wrote: xtffc you still havent told me why you think im mafia and again if you think adam is bussing me (really) then why would i try to buss him back its makes no sense comon give me something you too BH get on here and post I didn't say you're mafia, I said I'll have a closer look at and you'll be able to read about it when I'm ready with it. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
##Unvote: xsksc ##Vote: BByte | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 06 2011 07:18 ey215 wrote: I voted for BByte on the lurker/not contributing line of reasoning. I was really hoping we wouldn't have to use it, but if someone's inactive even if town they're not really doing us any good. ..................................... 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. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 06 2011 07:34 Blazinghand wrote: That's a fair point. On the other hand, BByte is so silent there's no way we'd ever know he's Mafia. He's not like an "omg I went afk for several days" lurker, he's a "I make like 3-4 no-content posts, spread out over the course of the day, and am trying to look active but really am not" lurker. I see two options here: 1) BByte is a lurking mafia guy 2) BByte is just a somewhat inneffective townie Now, granted, (2) is a possibility. And honestly I'd rather lynch a mafia guy than a non-mafia guy. But currently, I think BByte the lurker is more likely to be mafia than any of my existing reads. If you can convince me otherwise, then I'll vote for those guys. That being said, my vote stands. I'm trying to make the best out of a no/low information situation here. On December 06 2011 07:35 Velinath wrote: 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. I agree, which is why I voted for Bbyte already... It's frustrating though. Even if he flips town, it'll be a lucky lynch. :/ | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 06 2011 09:52 ElectricBlack wrote: Is no one but me concerned with the ease this wagon is being pushed. Can we please switch to Hassybaby, which is much more likely to be a good lynch. On December 06 2011 10:09 ElectricBlack wrote: And I think you're the last scum That's it, jaybrundage, xtf, hassy. Game solved. Next one? Look at these two posts. At first, EB is concerned about the Bbyte wagon being pushed too easily, and 17 minutes later he proclaimed that he has solved the game and accused jay, Hassy, and me. However, Hassy never posted on or voted for Bbyte; I've been arguing against lynching a lurker on the grounds that it is too easy for mafia all game long and did my best to get someone else's case going; and Jay sort of went against it (although with some dumb reasoning. Yes, a lurker isn't going to be around to defend himself... this is why he is getting lynched in the first place, because he hasn't been contributing enough). So EB says that he is concerned about the Bbyte wagon - and then proceeds in a completely different direction, ignoring his own statement from earlier. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
Also, why are the red points red points now but weren't red points 20 minutes ago? On December 07 2011 03:31 Blazinghand wrote: Basically, why come at me now for my position when, relative to you, my position has become closer? If anything, I moved form an unfavorable position (thinking we shouldn't post at night) to a favorable position (our night posts should be closer to the deadline). If it was reasonable to call me out for this, it became LESS reasonable in the 20 minutes between your two posts. On December 07 2011 03:33 Blazinghand wrote: UHN YEAH THATS RIGHT WHATCHA GONNA SAY NOW MR INCONSISTENT My first post wasn't directed at you but at everyone and in my second post I focused on your position on the issue and awared you your red points. I would like you to re-read my posts carefully and inform me if you still see any inconsistency. See, you've bolded the wrong part of my post. It shouldn't be On December 07 2011 03:01 xtfftc wrote: Just came back from work. Do you guys reckon I should post my new analysis now or closer to the deadline? Usually we would like to keep the discussion going but considering that pretty much everyone else is happy to lurk today, I wonder whether I should post close to the deadline to make it harder for the mafia to switch if they want to. Instead, it should be On December 07 2011 03:01 xtfftc wrote: Just came back from work. Do you guys reckon I should post my new analysis now or closer to the deadline? Usually we would like to keep the discussion going but considering that pretty much everyone else is happy to lurk today, I wonder whether I should post close to the deadline to make it harder for the mafia to switch if they want to. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 07 2011 03:42 Blazinghand wrote: On the other hand, he says we should talk at night so I guess that's Green points amirite Nope. It's red points if you use bad logic about something like this but it's not green points if you post pro-town on something as general because that's what good mafia are likely to do anyway. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 07 2011 03:50 Blazinghand wrote: You still haven't answered my question. Decent dodge though. Why didn't I earn red points previously? Why wait to call me out until my position became more moderate? I did answer it. I wrote "My first post wasn't directed at you but at everyone and in my second post I focused on your position on the issue and awared you your red points." I came back from work, posted my question, and went on to read the thread to look for stuff to analyse while waiting for people to react. You did, so I replied to you. Dunno how you see anything wrong with it. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 07 2011 03:55 Blazinghand wrote: Tonight the mafia may have already made their decision, but if we can get the same info without exposing ourselves more by delaying an analysis post another hour, is that really a bad idea? One thought would be that we need as much information as possible, but I'm not saying we shouldn't have the info, just that a minor delay is good. Five hours is what we're talking about here. Yes, because it's not just about your own analysis. It's about your analysis and everyone else reacting to (or ignoring) it. An isolated read isn't as good as being able to analyse people's responces. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 07 2011 04:02 Blazinghand wrote: Ah, ok. That's a fair point. The initial post was made not having read my post, and the second post was made not being aware of my position that it's up to you and that delaying has some advantages. What do you think of my defense of the "delay posting analysis" idea? So far you've said it's "Red Points" because it was suggested by V7, but that's not an adequate criticism. I think that one of the few things we can do to inhibit mafia information inflow is to delay night analysis posts until the end of the night. Does this reduce our info? no. But it inhibits the mafia. This is what I posted first (just before mentioning Vader): On December 07 2011 03:22 xtfftc wrote: The mafia love keeping quiet during the night because there's much less pressure to vote after the lynch - but if we engage in a discussion, they would be forced to do so. And also, the post just above this one where I clarified it again. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
This means that at night, we have no new info to work off of. Nightkills/blues' results/post-night claims are important new information but our main source of information is people's posts. This is why I put so much emphasis on discussion, even if we go in circles and re-analyse the same posts we've already analysed. And yeah, agreed with Grackaroni's last two posts. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 07 2011 04:17 Blazinghand wrote: That being said, I consider it unfair to call someone scum based on a difference opinion, but it's probably just a novice mistake on xft's part. I didn't call you scum, I just gave you some red points ^^ And the red points weren't about your opinion but about you not being logical enough on the issue in question. Overall I rated your town play so far as good, so when you said something that doesn't make a lot of sense (it does a bit but it ignores the bigger issue), it is much worse than it would have been if someone who's been playing as a bad townie says it. And the whole idea of the red and green "points" is that I expect townies to make some small mistakes that can be called scummy (which is one of the reasons why I argued against earlier was the "lynch all liars/scumslips" thing earlier). Especially with this being a newbie game... I'm going to the shop/do a work-out/take a shower and then I'll have a look at the thread unless I fall asleep in the meantime. Stay safe tonight! | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
This post and the next few are a wtf?! moment. BH, stop spamming the thread like this, even during slower times of the day. On December 07 2011 05:04 Blazinghand wrote: All my scumreads were mild, and I don't think we could have increased the probability that we'd lynch a mafia guy in any meaningful fashion by lynching someone different. I don't think anyone was really able to say "this guy here is a mafia" and be justified. We also demonstrated a willingness to lynch lurkers, and I'm sure we will continue to aggressively attack people for lurking in the future. This sets a dangerous precedent for mafia members, who feel pressured to both lurk and now to not lurk. What if another townie starts lurking? Do we lynch him on day 2? Or do we give lurkers a free pass from now on, allowing the mafia to stay out of the spotlight? [QUOTE]On December 07 2011 06:30 Velinath wrote: I must admit I didn't expect people to jump over and start voting BByte as easily as they did. A couple people even said that they had decent scumreads but "because nobody's going to vote for them, I'll just vote for BByte". This is a little bit of a matter for concern. I don't know whether it's just town complacency or actual suspicious behaviour, but either way people need to step up and push their reads. [spoiler][QUOTE]On December 06 2011 07:26 xtfftc wrote: I'm going to bed, so I'm voting for Bbyte. It's not ideal but it's better than some unpleasant last minute surprise. ##Unvote: xsksc ##Vote: BByte [/QUOTE] What are you on about? Thanks for picking just one of my posts on the issue, while ignoring the overall context. I was fighting on my own to lynch someone we had a proper case on for quite some time and only gave up a few hours before the deadline when it became obvious that the rest of you would rather lurk than join in the discussion. And what makes this post even worse is that later in your analysis you make the same point on xsksc I made after he jumped on the Bbyte wagon. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
I'm back from work and going through the thread now. I will call things out as they see them because otherwise it will end up being a gigantic wall of text. This post and the next few are a wtf?! moment. BH, stop spamming the thread like this, even during slower times of the day. On December 07 2011 05:04 Blazinghand wrote: All my scumreads were mild, and I don't think we could have increased the probability that we'd lynch a mafia guy in any meaningful fashion by lynching someone different. I don't think anyone was really able to say "this guy here is a mafia" and be justified. We also demonstrated a willingness to lynch lurkers, and I'm sure we will continue to aggressively attack people for lurking in the future. This sets a dangerous precedent for mafia members, who feel pressured to both lurk and now to not lurk. What if another townie starts lurking? Do we lynch him on day 2? Or do we give lurkers a free pass from now on, allowing the mafia to stay out of the spotlight? On December 07 2011 06:30 Velinath wrote: I must admit I didn't expect people to jump over and start voting BByte as easily as they did. A couple people even said that they had decent scumreads but "because nobody's going to vote for them, I'll just vote for BByte". This is a little bit of a matter for concern. I don't know whether it's just town complacency or actual suspicious behaviour, but either way people need to step up and push their reads. What are you on about? Thanks for picking just one of my posts on the issue, while ignoring the overall context. I was fighting on my own to lynch someone we had a proper case on for quite some time and only gave up a few hours before the deadline when it became obvious that the rest of you would rather lurk than join in the discussion. And what makes this post even worse is that later in your analysis you make the same point on xsksc I made after he jumped on the Bbyte wagon. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 07 2011 10:13 Blazinghand wrote: My Original Case for JB: On December 07 2011 10:13 Blazinghand wrote: THE NEW MATERIAL: Your original case was good, your new material was herp-derp. I think I am okay with a Jay lynch for now but I have to re-read his posts first. I was planing to make an analysis of him yesterday, so he's on my to-do list for tonight with Velinath. I am not happy with those jumping on the Jay lynch though. You know my case on Adam and Velinath is someone who warrants a good long look, considering his recent posts. Posting about how he's suspicious of people jumping on the Bbyte lynch (not to mention he didn't bother pointing out what actually happened in my case) and then jumping on the Jay bandwagon just like that: On December 07 2011 11:33 Velinath wrote: First off, I was roleblocked last night. Secondly, yes, I agree with this lynch. Scummy posts after Night 1 and the analyses posted? No question. Hassy can be saved for tomorrow. ##Vote: jaybrundage How about posting his own views before voting? He goes on to add some stuff later which sound okay but that's not enough. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 07 2011 16:09 Adam4167 wrote: It IS everyone’s fault that Bbyte ended up dead. We had 6 people follow BH’s invoking of a lurker lynch almost blindly, that is their failings and as BH has pointed out since, its also the failing of everyone else that none of us had put forward a compelling enough case to keep Bbyte off the hangman’s noose. Parroting what Veli said. Yes, it is everyone's fault that we couldn't consolidate on a proper case but no, we didn't have 6 people follow BH's invoking of a lurker lynch almost blindly. Sounds like mafia trying to make us think that this wasn't as bad of a loss as it was to me. On December 07 2011 16:09 Adam4167 wrote: Are you kidding? He’s spent hours looking at your filter and you “briefly look” at it. You might want to go back and examine the SHIT out of his case on you and start defending yourself properly. Calling his case “shit” is tantamount to saying “no u r”, it might have worked when you were 7, but its not flying here. This is a great point (Jay either scumslipped really badly or he spends more time writing his own posts than analysing others, which is pretty bad), but Adam sure likes adding fluff to his arguments. All he needed was the bolded bit, everything else is completely pointless. On December 07 2011 16:09 Adam4167 wrote: Is this a slip? “I'm not gonna let you steamroll the townies into another mislynch.”. You are part of the town… shouldn’t this read “im not going to let you steamroll us into another myslynch”, unless of course you don’t consider yourself part of the town. This is pretty bad. What is the right way to say it then? "I'm not going to let you steamroll me into mislynching myself"? I will revisit my suspicion from yesteyday when I thought that Adam might be bussing Jay. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 08 2011 04:15 ey215 wrote: I'm not 100% sold that he's scum, but I'm sold his behavior has been anti-town. ##vote: jaybrundage ... Town does not vote to punish bad play. Town votes to lynch mafia. On December 08 2011 04:15 ey215 wrote: Fuck, I can't believe I'm jumping on the bandwagon but at the moment I don't see a better lynch option. ... How about making a case or pushing the discussion further with some analysis? I know I said I'm going to look at Jay and Velinath like 10 minutes ago but I can't allow ey215 to stay under the radar like this for another day. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 08 2011 06:06 ey215 wrote: Right, and right now the best case for scum I've seen is the one on jay. I don't think it's currently possible to be 100% sold on anyone at the moment town or scum. I've read the filters, and have nothing unique to add to the discussion so why clog the thread up even further? Am I supposed to be like, "FUCK YEAH WE'RE KILLING SCUM!" Besides BH, I don't think anyone is 100% sure on jay, but at the moment it's the best we've got. Hopefully it solidifies later in the day, or someone else catches something You lynch your best read. You don't start looking for excuses for when the player you're voting for flips town. Yes, because I did such a great job laying under the radar before. Let's see, pissing match with the most active/aggressive player in the thread. Check. Getting myself warned for inactivity in big blue letters to point it out to everyone. Check. Great job I'm doing staying under the radar. You didn't want to get into the "pissing match" with BH, you were forced to by his aggressiveness. And using lurking as a proof that you haven't been staying under the radar is a pretty solid point if you're building a case against yourself. You were out of the picture when every good mafia wants to be: during the last ~12 hours before the deadline, so you did a great job. On December 08 2011 06:10 ey215 wrote: I'd also like Starshard, xftttc, and Bluelightz to respond to by the accusations that EB made. I know it sucks for the replacements but there needs to be some response to it. He seemed pretty damn convinced he had the game won and then got offed by the mafia overnight. I answered to him after he mentioned me and I don't see how his death changes anything. What is there to be said about EB? His play was arrogant and trollish. He was obviously a veteran smurfing, who thought it would be fun to frustrate the townies (refusing to vote just when he was asked to the most active player in the game just because he felt like irritating us) and then giving us a great demonstration of how a town player has to prove his innocence when attacked. He posted a great case that lacked obvious flaws - and then he was happy to go inactive again. He came back to announce that he's found the whole mafia team - but didn't bother providing any analysis on two of the players he accused. And he also made sure to notify us that the Bbyte lynch was pushed easily... Before the game started (and also in the Looking For Coaches thread) some veterans suggested that there should be some experienced players in this game to help teach the newbies how to play properly. Instead we get a cocky smurf. There was no way to make a good guess about his intentions, which is the reason why I'm not all over Hassy at the moment. EB was good enough to make us do anything he wanted to as long as he was interested in putting a serious effort in the game, and I have no reason to believe that his intentions were pro-town, even after his flip. Ask veterans such as Sandroba and Palmar and they will tell you that the first thing a townie should do is to establish his/her innocence. The first thing EB did was to frustrate town and lose us half a day. So what good would it do to town to focus on him again instead of doing our own analysis? All you're achieving with this is disruping the discussion. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 08 2011 07:08 Tunkeg wrote: Hmm, maybe my fault for asking but be careful referencing any talks with your coach: 11. You may not reveal or hint about the identity of your coach. You may not refer to any idea, course of action, etc. as something that was suggested by your coach. Hopefully you won't get any trouble by the admins for it, but I had my reason for asking (not becasue I wanted to get you in trouble over rules). Stupid me... I think I'll be alright as the opinions were my own indeed and all the records are available for review if necessary. I won't comment on this any further in the thread though. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
ey215. While personally I liked how EY posted a well written post at the very start of the game to put a stop to the idle chatting, this was a general post that set him up for a well-observed pattern in his play that BH nailed: EY's "contributions" are mostly general posts that say absolutely nothing of significance. Look at his filter. Apart from the BH discussion (which he was forced to take a part in after his initial overreaction to BH pushing the town forward), his activity has consisted of: - General gameplay/policy post - Pushing BKE, that easiest target around - General gameplay/policy post - Responce to Jay's half-accusation - General gameplay/policy post - Responce to BH's post from earlier (BH had to push him for it before EY posted it), garnished with an attempt to appeal to people's emotions ("but by god if no one wants my opinion don't ask"). - A deeper comment regarding gameplay - which would be good if it wasn't pushing pro-mafia agenda + Show Spoiler + He tried to scare town that what BH was doing was likely to lead to lurking townies doing stupid stuff that would get them lynched. This is anti-town because we need as much information as possible. Analysing someone's temperamental post is better than gambling with lynching a lurker. A lot of these things aren't bad on their own. There's nothing wrong with pushing a newbie a bit. But the pattern that can be observed is EY posting lots of general stuff without doing any analysis/actively looking for mafia. I can go on but the same can be seen in so many of his posts that I would have to spend the whole night working on the case. So from now on I will l focus on some of the major points I've covered earlier and pointing out stuff I've missed before. ey215's exchanges with BH from Day 1 are full of stuff to analyse. I have already discussed things such why no townie has a reason to react to BH's play like EY did... Or my personal favourite, "I'm also not sure browbeating everyone into posting is going to help us figure out the scum lurkers over the town lurkers." My responce: + Show Spoiler + On December 04 2011 21:23 xtfftc wrote: ......what? So we all agree that lurking is bad for town. No one denies that. We need all townies to post, so that mafia are pressured into we're able to distinguish town from mafia. And then you express your concerns that if we somehow manage to get all townies to post, we would have trouble figuring out "the scum lurkers over the town lurkers"... If they don't lurk, we are going to have reads on them and figure out their alignment. No townie would suggest that this is a bad thing. But there's a lot of other instances of scummy play. This bit, for example: On December 04 2011 15:39 ey215 wrote: It worked on me because it pissed me off. It may not do so with someone else. I just don't want some random intimidated townie getting lynched because you deemed a paragraph or two on the question on hand isn't enough and decided to throw out a ##vote on them. Makes sense. He doesn't want townies to get intimidated into posting stupid things. But... On December 04 2011 15:48 ey215 wrote: I just think it's dangerous and is how bandwagons get started, of course at some point someone is going to have to start voting on someone I just don't want another new player coming in and seeing ##votewhoever a couple of times while trying to catch up and think that obviously that must be the person to vote for. As long as the rest of us are careful to not let the bandwagon get going, then I'm fine with whatever. It is just really easy to let one person make the decisions through sure force of personality or constantly posting ( I would think in a newbie game especially) by getting a ball rolling. As long as we're vigilant and step i and say, "Hold the fuck on that doesn't make sense" then I'm fine with whoever doing whatever they think will help the town win. Just like I think I've been doing the last few posts with Blaze. Oh, wait, he is actually concerned that his might end up with a bandwagon because one person switches his vote all the time... At 15:39 he explains his opposition of BH with one argument, at 15:48 - with another. The problem with this is that he iis way too afraid to simply let the subject go; he did his best to "win" the argument. I'm not even 1/4 through his filter... I will try to finish it at work tomorrow. In the meanwhile, I would like to encourage you to re-read his filter. It's been non-stop, up until the way he jumped on the Jay bandwagon while expressing his own disbelief for doing so just an hour ago (not to mention that he didn't provide a serious read on Jay either + Show Spoiler + On December 08 2011 04:15 ey215 wrote: On the Jay case: yes, he was hedging but there's a whole lot of hedging going on early in the game. Is it because he's trying to not take a definitive stand so he can't be held accountable for it later or is it because he truly doesn't know and is offering options? To me it felt like hedging, he's been pretty definitive in some of his other posts. Ok, this got posted while I was typing this and going through filters: I'm not 100% sold that he's scum, but I'm sold his behavior has been anti-town. ##vote: jaybrundage Fuck, I can't believe I'm jumping on the bandwagon but at the moment I don't see a better lynch option. There is more to come for those who are not convinced yet but I am nevertheless: ##Vote: ey215 | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 08 2011 07:49 Grackaroni wrote: Ey215 has been on every one of your bandwagons so far from Adam----> EB -----> BByte -------> JayBrundage. @BH : Why is Ey215 one of your main town reads? I think he is just sheeping your vote. Nice to see that at least one person is interested in looking at EY* but I'm really disappointed that everyone else chose to ignore it. You don't have to agree with my case but we have to catch three mafia, not one. We have a lead on BKE if Jay flips mafia but we need to keep the conversation going. We don't know if Jay is going to flip town or mafia, only mafia does. If it turns out that he's just a dumb townie and considering that everyone tends to keep quiet during the night, we'll be left with pretty much nothing at a LYLO situation when it comes to scum hunting on Day 3 (unless we get lucky with the blues' night actions). Don't rely on the few active players to win the game. * I don't count Bluesomething because he looks like he's a newbie townie who strugling to form his own opinions. I expect a lot more of him tomorrow though; he should be able to post more analysis after being in the game for 48 hours. On December 09 2011 02:06 Tunkeg wrote: Probability lynch I think probability should be discussed more before going into a day 2 lynch. Some of you may call this WIFOM and just ignore it, and probably it is somewhat WIFOM, because it involves alot of speculating. The first thing I will speculate about is number of scum involved in the lynch on BByte. As I've mentioned before I belive the probability that 2 scums joined in on the lynch is the biggest: As I belive BH and Velinath is the most green out of these (as of now) I will leave them out. And I will also leave myself out. This leads me to believe that there is 2 scum out of xsksc, gracken, ey215 and xtfftc. Seeing that ey215 and xtfftc is attacking eachother, and the way they are attacking eachother I don't see it as likely that they both are scum. Seeing that Grackorini is somewhat joining in on xtfftc's analyses: And therefor I don't think both of them are scum. xtfftc have been voting on xsksc and had him as one of those he suspects as scum throughout the game. I don't think both of them are scum. So this leads me to think that the most probable scum pairings of those in on the BByte lynch is: xsksc(Starshard)/Grackorini xsksc (Starshard)/ey215 Grackorini/xtfftc I say we should lynch anyone of these four, it would give us a high probability for actually killing a scum player. I like parts of this post - especially the xsksc+EY bit, although I would have to seriously consider one of them being town if Jay and BKE are both red - but focusing exclussively on voting patterns is dangerous. Townies vote for various reasons, so if you're going to analyse the vote, you have to look at all the factors surrounding the decision. Even if the whole mafia team was on the Bbyte lynch (which is very much possible, although I wouldn't count on it), there's some townies on it as well. You don't take into consideration the reasons why those you have townie reads of voted for him, yet you use the vote on its own as a factor when narrowing your mafia list. Why is it perfectly fine for someone you consider to be town to vote for Bbyte, yet someone you are suspicious of is worth lynching for doing the very same thing? Also, analysing the probabilities while excluding your own town reads and then pushing a lynch depending on the results doesn't help the rest of us. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
But the reason I think a lynch on one of those I find suspicious over the one I see as more townie is that I think the probability is bigger for succeeding in hitting scum. Yeah but this defeats the whole purpose of your probabilities analysis. If you agree that lynching them for doing something a lot of people did, then you can simply reduce your argument to "there's bound to be mafia on the Bbyte lynch, so I'm going to exclude the ones I consider to be townies and will take a closer look at the rest." I'm sure you can see why I have an issue with your logic: you value my vote on Bbyte the same as xsksc, even though I spend a lot of time fighting against it and xsk jumped on board in the blink of an eye. Of course, if I'm mafia I may have faked it in order to have an alibi for the Bbyte lynch - but in this case you should be analysing the reasoning I provided and not the actual vote. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 09 2011 04:33 Blazinghand wrote: Ran through your filter to fetch what we know about your stance on JB. Here's a summary of xtfftc's statements re: JB http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=36#711 Calls part of my case good, part of it bad. Said he's ok with a Jay lynch, but needs to re-read his post. Says he is not happy with those who are lynching him. Hedging. A page later: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=37#724 This is actually a discussion of Adam's post, but he notes that JB scumslipped, and suspects Adam may be bussing him (which is to say, Adam suspects JB of being scum) Finally, talking to ey215 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=37#729 It sounds like you don't think JB is mafia. You've admitted he scumslips, you suspect Adam is bussing him, and you found my initial case on him convincing. Where do you stand? I've posted more on Jay, look at Day 1 but it's mostly one off remarks (such as pointing out how Jay justified not voting for a lurker by saying that we shouldn't lynch a lurker because a lurker isn't around to defend himself) and I don't see how the last quote was me suggesting that he is probably town. It was me pointing out the scumminess of EY's reasoning, and at that moment it was to be expected that mafia would jump on the Jay bandwagon. At the moment I think that Jay is more likely to be scum because if he's not, we have EY, xsk, and Adam left, and I consider Adam to be the worst lynch out of the players I am suspicious of (Adam, Jay, EY, xsk, BKE) | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
Kk, I'll pick up from when I left my case yesterday. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 09 2011 05:31 Blazinghand wrote: You mention there are some non-covered bits. Are those non-covered bits covered in this quote? Any particular bits you want to add? I understand that I'm badgering but you happen to be around and it's always good to get people's positions nailed down. They are now. Posting my update on EY in a minute, then I'm going offline for tonight. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
ey215. The part from yesterday Let's continue: On December 04 2011 15:53 ey215 wrote: Fine be me, I do share some responsibility in the escalations and apologize. I felt like your first post on me was an attack and the following posts did not help. I have no problem working together to win this thing, I just fear a single personality taking over the discussion and will keep yo uin check if I think I need to. It's not a personal thing, just wanting what's best for winning this thing. I think as long as we both understand that we'll get along just fine. Said he'll keep BH in check if he thinks he needs to, so that BH would take charge of the thread. Let's examine: On December 05 2011 11:16 Blazinghand wrote: The case for ElectricBlack On December 05 2011 11:19 ey215 wrote: ##Unvote: Adam4167 ##Vote: ElectricBlack BH posted at 11:16, EY - 11:19 Next: On December 06 2011 03:35 Blazinghand wrote: ##Vote BByte On December 06 2011 06:43 ey215 wrote: Ok, finally got back to the thread after a long day. I apologize that I haven't been back sooner. On December 06 2011 07:08 ey215 wrote: ##Unvote: ElectircBlack ##Vote: BByte This one caught EY while he was inactive for a long period of time. However, it only took him half an hour after coming back to catch up with what's been going on and to vote for Bbyte (6:43 - 7:08). Next: On December 07 2011 10:02 Blazinghand wrote: ##Vote: jaybrundage On December 08 2011 04:15 ey215 wrote: Ok, back from my final. For those that might care I think it went well. (..........) ##vote: jaybrundage Notice the pattern? Staying inactive > coming back to do whatever the most vocal player in the thread is proposing. + Show Spoiler + Please note that this particular post is one of my favourite and I've discussed it already and will discuss it again in the future. There's other examples as well. True, BH has been pretty dominating at some points, and some players did try to do something to remind him to keep the discussion pro-town. I did, for example: + Show Spoiler + On December 08 2011 03:25 xtfftc wrote: This post and the next few are a wtf?! moment. BH, stop spamming the thread like this, even during slower times of the day. On December 08 2011 04:57 xtfftc wrote: BH and Velinath, I think you should take a step back from Jay. You've made a very extensive case on him and the last few pages have turned into a farce with all the shouting. Unless you come up with something good to add, it might be better if you encourage other people to post their views on the issue or get another discussion going. EY only felt that he had to keep BH in check while BH was on his back. *** His "reads" on everyone. Basically he posted half a sentence on everyone describing what this player has been doing instead of analysing it - and also made sure to apologise prior to writing the list. Ok, just got back to the thread and I'll respond to things as I see them. I agree that we've reached a consensus to get rid of a lurker. That means lurkers, it's your time to step up and contribute. We never agreed on getting rid of a lurker. We agreed on getting rid of a lurker if we didn't have a strong enough case on someone active. More about EY on lynching lurkers: No one is looking for a lurker to lynch. Go back and read my filter I have argued that we need to be looking at quality of posts over quantity of posts. With that being said, it's hard as hell to have a solid scum read on anyone day one, and if I have to make a choice I'm choosing someone not posting, or posting hardly anything of consequence to lynch over someone that has been active. You don't lynch for information, you lynch scum. Barring having a good read, we should get rid of someone not contributing since they're not doing anything to help the town anyways. I'm pretty sure I've been consistent since my first post that I think if we don't have a solid read we should lynch a lurker. Also that we shouldn't lynch a lurker if we do have a more solid scum read. I know it's a nuanced position but one that I think makes sense. My second post essentially says the same thing. Again, EY acts as if he's agreeing with us on lynching a lurker if we don't have a proper case. However, here he is doing the same thing he did earlier: trying to twist the thing we agreed on (lynching lurkers if no better options are available) into an inevitable outcome for town (it is "hard as hell" to catch a mafia on Day 1, so we should get ready to lynch a lurker). On December 05 2011 11:19 ey215 wrote: While I'm not convinced Blazing didn't push him too hard and thus pushed him away I do notice a couple of times that ElectricBlack has said not to vote for people unless it's going to put pressure on them. Blazing's vote alone may not be enough, but I'm willing to switch mine to apply said pressure. I'm fine with applying some pressure. ##Unvote: Adam4167 ##Vote: ElectricBlack You don't pressure people by telling them you're pressuring them. As soon as you say that something is just a pressure vote, you make it obvious that you don't plan to stick with it and thus you make your vote worthless. This is typical non-commital mafia play. Not to mention that EY makes sure to excuse himself from all possible blame before saying whatever he plans to. While re-reading the thread, I found this very nice summary of EY done by Adam: Note: the bold is from me Ey215 has been pressed much like myself from the get-go and also reacted defensively. I cannot fault him for this as Blazinghand was being obnoxious towards him. The vote he places on me is understandable, but also unsupported. He claims to have no read on anyone at the moment and that I am probably the best candidate as a result (this is how bandwagons pickup speed..) (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=12591630). After the ElectricBlack incident he applies ‘pressure’ (his vote) to EB. His votes seem to come without a great deal of support behind them, other then the fact that “everyone else was doing it”, this really presents me with a null read as he’s either a mafia getting momentum on a wagon or a townie sheeping. He was willing to give me the benefit of the doubt for a while; I will afford him the same courtesy. While Adam's conclussion - pointing out some major issues with EY's play and then deciding to give him "the benefit of the doubt" out of "courtesy" - is pretty bad, the summary itself is good. + Show Spoiler + As a side note - this seems to be a very pro-town post by Adam, I will have to do some more reading on him as well. I'm about halfway through but I have to finish for tonight. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 09 2011 07:08 Blazinghand wrote: Overall this looks like a pretty solid case but I do have a difference of opinion here I caused enough people to flip out by pressuring them that I'm fairly sure it's effective, even if they know I'll unvote them if they do XYZ. It's not that simple. What you did was stand behind your early game plan: you expressed your support for lynching lurkers and you pressured them by going after each and every one of them systematically. Pressuring is okay but what EY did was to theatrically announce that he'll be pressuring someone by voting for him, which immediately removes the "pressure" element from his pressuring. On December 09 2011 07:18 ey215 wrote: At that point in Day 1, BH and I had our argument, got over it and moved on, then xtfftc comes around and decides that based off of being defensive and to make sure to hammer that point home cherry picks some quotes out of context and uses them six hours later to plant his seeds. + Show Spoiler + On December 04 2011 21:18 xtfftc wrote: Policy or not, everyone should be doing this. Mafia are bound to slip and they will also be reluctant to talk about their teammates slipping, so this is very pro-town behaviour. If you see something you consider to be a lie, mention it. You might be wrong but it's important anyway. And it will also help differentiate between townies who are hunting for mafia and the mafia players who are trying not to attract attention. (I still think that pushing for heavy policies is pro-mafia though, it takes the pressure away from them by allowing them to follow some simple guidelines) 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 Town doesn't benefit from last minute lynches, mafia does. If you see someone suddenly pushing for a lynch near the deadline when there isn't enough time for a proper discussion, it is very likely that this person is mafia. On December 04 2011 14:55 ey215 wrote: As for you're statements about lynching all lurkers unless someone gives you a "DAMN GOOD REASON', well having a scumread is one. Am I good with lynching a lurker today, sure but let's not go talking about how you've got a good scum read on anyone that's posted once. Fuck, I can say you've hardly posted anything but baseless accusations therefore you're scum just trying to get the town fighting among themselves. Not to mention you're trying to get a bandwagon started on someone for either not posting because they're asleep or because of some assumed fluff. Dude, no need to be so defensive. Blazinghand is trying hard to organise the town. I don't agree with some of his ideas but they are stuff to be discussed. There is absolutely no need for a townie to react like you did. Blazing's play so far is great. Am I supposed to be in the thread 24/7? I saw your post and I responded to it. Am I supposed not to analyse things just becase BH has moved on? What it is that I've "decided that based off of being defensive"? Maybe it's my fault but I don't understand see what it is that I have apparently decided. On December 09 2011 07:18 ey215 wrote: Then he gives this gem: If I’m such a strong read, why didn’t you push to lynch me at all Day 1? I put forth the theory that no one responded really latched onto the idea, and you didn’t want to go out of your way to stand out that early. You’ve been setting up this Day 2 attempt at a lynch since yesterday. At the time of posting this, early Day 1, you were my strongest read. Later on I built another case and had to choose who to vote for. Since that xsk turned inactive and I've given his replacement some time to read on the thread, you are the natural target now. On December 09 2011 07:18 ey215 wrote: Now, again I’d like to see xtfftc respond to some accusations about him without just brushing it off as trolling as he did with EB. Since EB was conveniently killed overnight, he wasn’t here to defend himself and xtfftc was let off scot free. Accuse me of something and I'll answer it. EB provided no analysis whatsoever, so there wasn't anything to respond to. Will post more after dinner. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 09 2011 09:56 Grackaroni wrote: His timing is wierd though If you look at my posts from the last five days (Monday to Friday), you'll notice a pattern called "having a new job and staying away from TL during working hours" ^^ On December 09 2011 10:16 Grackaroni wrote: Right here he is getting you off of Jay's back. Jay was not doing a good job of defending himself so maybe he thought if he could get people to stop focusing on him and he posted a big case on Ey215 he could change the lynch for the day. Did you see what was going on at the time? It was definitely not helping town. Mafia would want Jay waste the whole day after being caught. They would have had the very easy task to accuse Jay of something scummy (which is even easier for them since they have been talking with him all game long) and have an easy ride without doing any actual contribution. I asked BH and Veli to stop shouting and destroying the thread so that we would be able to do some scum hunting, and I think it worked as we had some more productive discussions afterwards. The mafia tries to manipulate people and this is way too open to be manipulation. Saying something such as "step away from our main target, he is dead anyway" isn't subtle or effective.. Unless you try to explain it with WIFOM, which doesn't work for a proper analysis. The whole "plan" would have only worked with a suicidal last minute switch that would have condemned the whole team for the sake of saving someone like Jay. Ey215, you were right when you said that your vote triggered his case on you. You should have given more reasoning in your post than that, but that said Xtfftc continues to follow his trend of soft-defending Jay. Read my case(s) on EY again, please. It's not just voting - although bandwagonning all game long was part of it - but about the way he didn't commit on calling Jay scum but called for his lynch for being "anti-town" (he is either scum and has to die or he is a bad, anti-town townie who should be ignored) and making a scene out of admitting that he's bandwagonning but not bothering to post some analysis before voting. I also think that you should look at my Day 1 again. I posted a lot on xsk, I called out a few others as well (Adam, for example), and you'll see a lot of disagreeing with people. This didn't happen during Day 2 because pretty much everyone was happy to focus on Jay instead of trying to catch more mafia. No one tried to defend Jay and there was very little analysis of other players, so there was pretty much nothing to disagree with. On December 09 2011 10:16 Grackaroni wrote: Here he even admits that Jay is more likely to be scum but his vote still remains on Ey215. . . I stated my reasons for keeping my vote on EY. Your reasoning is pure WIFOM in this case. Jay was obviously going to be lynched hours before I posted the bit you quoted, so what could a townie do in this situation? Vote for Jay and be accused of sheeping after BH and bandwagonning (remember Tunkeg and his analysis of the Bbyte lynch?) Or vote for someone else and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia. Let's also consider me being mafia for the sake of discussing my actions. Vote for Jay and get accused of bandwagonning, or don't and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia? It works both ways. Also, BH and I discussed my vote extensivelly and you can follow it pretty easily... No idea why you would chose to ignore it all but here's the end of it anyway: On December 09 2011 05:24 xtfftc wrote: Yes, albeit a short one that doesn't cover some bits. I feel uneasy about the way no one objects on lynching Jay. It feels like Day 1 all over again, which makes me wonder whether Jay might actually be town - even though mafia are probably just bussing him at this point. So my vote stays on EY to remind people that we have to catch the whole mafia team and not just one member of it. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 09 2011 23:43 Adam4167 wrote: xtfftc, you seem so sure that ey215 is red, are you willing to stake your own lynching on it, if he flips town? I am not entirely sold on your case on him, maybe that might change after its finished. Since Jay flipped mafia, I expect BKE to be mafia as well, and so the last spot on the team is for either EY or xsksc. I don't feel comfortable calling this one before xsk's replacement starts posting. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
Assume for a minute I'm town, now go do some cases similar to what you did on me to someone else and see if they look similar. I bet they will. Stop tunneling Okay, let me remind you that last night I asked who to focus on during my limited time and both BH and Tunkeg wanted me to continue building my case on you. Also, I did the same tunneling with Adam and called him out on his scummy posts and even put him on my shortlist for lynch on Day 1 but then I realised I was probably wrong. I did it with xsk and I still consider him a serious candidate for the last mafia spot but the inactivity has been a serious issue. This is how you play mafia. It's a team game, even if you're a townie. You look at people, you make town reads and mafia reads, then you try to confirm or refute your suspicion. You can't spend the same amount of time analysing everyone... And this is why I've been trying to facilitate discussion on a broaded range of targets since Day 1 - sheeping after one player is too risky, even if this player is town. Anyway, I won't be posting on you for a while after this post. I have done what I can on your case and it's the other players' responsibility to read and to make up their own minds. On December 10 2011 07:01 ey215 wrote: Also, I made a case about you/grackaroni go read the thread and respond Let's look at it again, shall we? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=42#821 + Show Spoiler + On December 09 2011 07:18 ey215 wrote: Ok, I was going to save this for tomorrow as I didn’t think I was going to need it today and was still doing the research, but Tunkeg’s probability lynching forced my hand. For the record, I do think Tunkeg is onto something. I’ll start that by saying that I understand why he left himself out, but it would be wise of the town to remember that he too voted for BByte and needs to be looked at just as strongly as the rest of us. I’m not making that case here, mainly because after reading his stuff I don’t think he’s scum, but some other eyes on it would be nice. The only thing that has me concerned about him at the moment is the way he’s grabbed onto xttfc’s case against me, then managed to put my name twice into his lists on the probability lynches and then mildly pushed BH to look at it deeper, therefore potentially getting a bandwagon rolling. For today, I’m not that worried about it but look in the future how these cases and lynches of townies developed. I have come to believe that the mafia started laying the groundwork for future cases on townies in Day 1 so as not to appear to just be switching from one day to another. At the time that this case started against me, I was looking like I’d be a counter weight to BH and therefore might have some persuasive power around here. It has not turned out that way, but remember the context when this starts. At that point in Day 1, BH and I had our argument, got over it and moved on, then xtfftc comes around and decides that based off of being defensive and to make sure to hammer that point home cherry picks some quotes out of context and uses them six hours later to plant his seeds. + Show Spoiler + On December 04 2011 21:18 xtfftc wrote: Policy or not, everyone should be doing this. Mafia are bound to slip and they will also be reluctant to talk about their teammates slipping, so this is very pro-town behaviour. If you see something you consider to be a lie, mention it. You might be wrong but it's important anyway. And it will also help differentiate between townies who are hunting for mafia and the mafia players who are trying not to attract attention. (I still think that pushing for heavy policies is pro-mafia though, it takes the pressure away from them by allowing them to follow some simple guidelines) Town doesn't benefit from last minute lynches, mafia does. If you see someone suddenly pushing for a lynch near the deadline when there isn't enough time for a proper discussion, it is very likely that this person is mafia. Dude, no need to be so defensive. Blazinghand is trying hard to organise the town. I don't agree with some of his ideas but they are stuff to be discussed. There is absolutely no need for a townie to react like you did. Blazing's play so far is great. Then he gives this gem: If I’m such a strong read, why didn’t you push to lynch me at all Day 1? I put forth the theory that no one responded really latched onto the idea, and you didn’t want to go out of your way to stand out that early. You’ve been setting up this Day 2 attempt at a lynch since yesterday. Also, while this is going on we get Grackaroni coming around and starts by giving this read on me: Then starts subtlety leading Tunked to me: So they let it go for the day and don’t really try to get the bandwagon going. Now look what happens today, we get the case against me followed almost immediately by a post by Grackaroni trying to get BH to take a look: The beauty of those two posts by Grackaroni is that they allow him to steer how other people my look at someone and get them to make the case on me, instead of he having to do it himself. He can let BH get or not get a bandwagon going, and no one remembers the actual post that started him down that road. I believe these two have been working together from the outset and the only side that could coordinate like that is mafia. Now, again I’d like to see xtfftc respond to some accusations about him without just brushing it off as trolling as he did with EB. Since EB was conveniently killed overnight, he wasn’t here to defend himself and xtfftc was let off scot free. Again, killing EB made no sense unless he was on to at least one scum in that list. I currently think it was two, Jay and xtfftc. I know you're asking yourself this townies, "But wait! You can't prove any of this unless you're town and we're not sure that you are!". Yes, I know that's why I expect that if the lynch goes through tonight you'll be able to use some of this on Day 3. So, my scum list: jaybrundage, xtfftc, Grackaroni Enjoy. Let's first cut all the unrelated stuff out. I'll mark them in bold and explain why in green. + Show Spoiler + On December 09 2011 07:18 ey215 wrote: Ok, I was going to save this for tomorrow as I didn’t think I was going to need it today and was still doing the research, but Tunkeg’s probability lynching forced my hand. blahblahblah For the record, I do think Tunkeg is onto something. for the record, blahblahblah I’ll start that by saying that I understand why he left himself out, but it would be wise of the town to remember that he too voted for BByte and needs to be looked at just as strongly as the rest of us. I’m not making that case here, mainly because after reading his stuff I don’t think he’s scum, but some other eyes on it would be nice. The only thing that has me concerned about him at the moment is the way he’s grabbed onto xttfc’s case against me, then managed to put my name twice into his lists on the probability lynches and then mildly pushed BH to look at it deeper, therefore potentially getting a bandwagon rolling. Some bits about Tunkeg voting for Bbyte but "not making a case here" (typical: not commiting, just saying something mildly critical in another player's general direction), something about Tunkeg agreeing with my case and so on... Not about me and Grack at all really, so what is it doing in our case? For today, I’m not that worried about it but look in the future how these cases and lynches of townies developed. filler I have come to believe that the mafia started laying the groundwork for future cases on townies in Day 1 so as not to appear to just be switching from one day to another. At the time that this case started against me, I was looking like I’d be a counter weight to BH and therefore might have some persuasive power around here. It has not turned out that way, but remember the context when this starts. At that point in Day 1, BH and I had our argument, got over it and moved on, then xtfftc comes around and decides that based off of being defensive and to make sure to hammer that point home cherry picks some quotes out of context and uses them six hours later to plant his seeds. + Show Spoiler + On December 04 2011 21:18 xtfftc wrote: Policy or not, everyone should be doing this. Mafia are bound to slip and they will also be reluctant to talk about their teammates slipping, so this is very pro-town behaviour. If you see something you consider to be a lie, mention it. You might be wrong but it's important anyway. And it will also help differentiate between townies who are hunting for mafia and the mafia players who are trying not to attract attention. (I still think that pushing for heavy policies is pro-mafia though, it takes the pressure away from them by allowing them to follow some simple guidelines) Town doesn't benefit from last minute lynches, mafia does. If you see someone suddenly pushing for a lynch near the deadline when there isn't enough time for a proper discussion, it is very likely that this person is mafia. Dude, no need to be so defensive. Blazinghand is trying hard to organise the town. I don't agree with some of his ideas but they are stuff to be discussed. There is absolutely no need for a townie to react like you did. Blazing's play so far is great. Nice long quote which mostly has nothing to do with him. The tiny bit that does he doesn't question.... He simply quoted me to proove that I wasn't impressed by him being overly defensive. If you look at the EY vs BH argument from Day 1, you will notice that EY agreed that he was overly defensive due to BH being a overly aggressive. I'd like to respond to the couple of people talking about me being defensive. Yes I was defensive, as a townie I don't want to get lynched and seeing my name go up as someone posting filler (which I don't agree was true) caused me to be defensive. This was specifically what I was talking about with Blazing's methods. It basically caused me to be defensive when there was no reason to be. (see, that's how you do it - you say something and you provide proof) Yet, for some reason if I point it out I'm "hammering the point" and "cherry picking quotes out of context" and "planting my seeds" and whatnot. Then he gives this gem: ey215 is my strongest mafia read for now though... Having to call out someone on scummy behaviour two times just a few hours into a mini game doesn't bode well for that person. If I’m such a strong read, why didn’t you push to lynch me at all Day 1? I put forth the theory that no one responded really latched onto the idea, and you didn’t want to go out of your way to stand out that early. You’ve been setting up this Day 2 attempt at a lynch since yesterday. Completely irrelevant. This was from way early in the game, before I posted on xsk and Adam and Jay. This quote is from 13 hours into the game, yet apparently I was supposed to completely ignore the other 3/4 of Day 1 and push for EY... If not, it's obviously a mafia conspiracy. From now on he focuses on Grackaroni. This is his whole case on our conspiracy to push for his lynch during Day 2. I can comment on the Grackaroni bits as well but I'm spending more than enough time on EY anyway, so I'll skip them. Also, while this is going on we get Grackaroni coming around and starts by giving this read on me: Then starts subtlety leading Tunked to me: So they let it go for the day and don’t really try to get the bandwagon going. Now look what happens today, we get the case against me followed almost immediately by a post by Grackaroni trying to get BH to take a look: The beauty of those two posts by Grackaroni is that they allow him to steer how other people my look at someone and get them to make the case on me, instead of he having to do it himself. He can let BH get or not get a bandwagon going, and no one remembers the actual post that started him down that road. End of Grackaroni bit I believe these two have been working together from the outset and the only side that could coordinate like that is mafia. More filler Now, again I’d like to see xtfftc respond to some accusations about him without just brushing it off as trolling as he did with EB. Since EB was conveniently killed overnight, he wasn’t here to defend himself and xtfftc was let off scot free. Again, killing EB made no sense unless he was on to at least one scum in that list. I currently think it was two, Jay and xtfftc. Now he's talking about EB for some reason, which is also not related to his case. Not to mention that there was no EB case for me to respond to anyway. I know you're asking yourself this townies, "But wait! You can't prove any of this unless you're town and we're not sure that you are!". Yes, I know that's why I expect that if the lynch goes through tonight you'll be able to use some of this on Day 3. Even more filler So, my scum list: jaybrundage, xtfftc, Grackaroni Enjoy. Next step: we remove the irrelevant bits: On December 10 2011 07:01 ey215 wrote: I have come to believe that the mafia started laying the groundwork for future cases on townies in Day 1 so as not to appear to just be switching from one day to another. At the time that this case started against me, I was looking like I’d be a counter weight to BH and therefore might have some persuasive power around here. It has not turned out that way, but remember the context when this starts. At that point in Day 1, BH and I had our argument, got over it and moved on, then xtfftc comes around and decides that based off of being defensive and to make sure to hammer that point home cherry picks some quotes out of context and uses them six hours later to plant his seeds. Yes, his whole "case" on me is two paragraphs long. Not to mention that these two paragraphs are not particularly convincing either. I have come to believe that the mafia started laying the groundwork for future cases on townies in Day 1 so as not to appear to just be switching from one day to another. At the time that this case started against me, I was looking like I’d be a counter weight to BH and therefore might have some persuasive power around here. It has not turned out that way, but remember the context when this starts. This bit is at least somewhat related to his case, which is better - but it uses terrible logic. BH has been very pro-town since early Day 1. Enter EY, who claims to be a counter weight to BH. If EY and BH are both town and EY is arguing with BH, why would mafia prepare to bus EY? They would want EY to stay around and waste BH's time. At that point in Day 1, BH and I had our argument, got over it and moved on, then xtfftc comes around and decides that based off of being defensive and to make sure to hammer that point home cherry picks some quotes out of context and uses them six hours later to plant his seeds. I didn't call you mafia based on this. I called you "dude". I was still under the impression that you're town because of your nice opening post, so it's also irrelevant actually... This makes it just the previous paragraph then. That's it, I'm done with EY. I'm so tired of analysing his play that I can't even be bothered to write half a sentence to summarise what I said. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
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. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 10 2011 10:49 BroodKingEXE wrote: I wrote this above post as the night ended. Did not realize adam died. Oh you... | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 10 2011 22:57 Tunkeg wrote: I belive it to be a good chance for BKE to flip red. If he do flip red who do you guys see as the third scum? EY and the two semi-inactives/lurkers (xsk+replacements and Hassy/Blue) are who worry me. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
*** On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: i need to take some time to try to understand Broodking 's post in the meantime i think that xtfftc: has made some glaring contradictions and that he owes and explanation Grackaroni highlighted this in an earlier post and i think you (xtfftc) need to expalin: you explicity state that you think Jay is the most likely to be scum and grack makes this point you call his "reasoning" (i see a simple statement of fact) "pure WIFOM" well where is the pure wifom in this? First of, nice to see you being active. Secondly - the answer to your question is in the very post you have quoted. It is pure WIFOM because the logic behind the vote I am accused for can apply to both mafia and town: On December 10 2011 06:23 xtfftc wrote: Your reasoning is pure WIFOM in this case. Jay was obviously going to be lynched hours before I posted the bit you quoted, so what could a townie do in this situation? Vote for Jay and be accused of sheeping after BH and bandwagonning (remember Tunkeg and his analysis of the Bbyte lynch?) Or vote for someone else and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia. However, how come you quoted just half of my explanation? This is the full one: On December 10 2011 06:23 xtfftc wrote: Your reasoning is pure WIFOM in this case. Jay was obviously going to be lynched hours before I posted the bit you quoted, so what could a townie do in this situation? Vote for Jay and be accused of sheeping after BH and bandwagonning (remember Tunkeg and his analysis of the Bbyte lynch?) Or vote for someone else and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia. Let's also consider me being mafia for the sake of discussing my actions. Vote for Jay and get accused of bandwagonning, or don't and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia? It works both ways. You have cut out my actual argument: it works both ways. *** On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read and yet in the above quote you do not do that To the contrary: this is precisely what I was doing in the above post: pushing my best mafia read. On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: here earlier you didn't you have a strong case on a player but you would rather not post it and you would rather vote for someone other than your best read? seriously? I did post it hours before posting the bit you quoted. Seriously. Now, I could have expanded it a lot but unless you expect me to spend 5-6 hours a day working on my cases, I'll never be able to analyse everything I find in-depth. If this is scummy behaviour, 3/4 of the town are playing much scummier than I am. On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: so you vote for BByte why? "its better than a last minute suprise" you just jump on a bandwagon I did write extensively on why town should not waste their vote and that I was concerned about the lack of resistance there had been to Bbyte's lynch. Plus, we agreed that last minute switches tend to benefit the mafia, so we had to ensure this didn't happen. And anyway, jumping on a bandwagon is another thing that 3/4 of the town is much guiltier than I am of, yet you only attack me for this. Why would you do such a thing? I was pretty much the only one to try to push for a lynch that was based on analysis, yet you target me for "jumping" on a bandwagon? On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: another contradiction it also doesn't make sense that "to remind people that we have to catch the whole mafia team" could be a reason for a vote Of course it does make sense. We had the whole town sheeping for Day 1 and Day 2, so it is necessary to have proper discussions from now on. And what it is that I am guilty of exactly? Are you suggesting that I was trying to somehow save Jay by refusing to vote for him, even though there were like 10 votes for him a few hours before the deadline? | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 11 2011 02:19 Grackaroni wrote: @ BKEXE: also if you are town you should be looking for 2 mafia not just one. Who is most likely to be Ey215's scumbuddy? [hipster]I did it before it was cool.[/hipster] But yeah, BKE, please continue posting. Town or mafia, you don't lose the game when you get lynched, so you still have time to help your team, no matter what it is. I don't think that you can save yourself but the information you give us can turn out to be valuable in the future. I am not sure what to make of the Tunkeg vs. layabout argument. Personally I find using numbers to solve a game of mafia boring and I'm not very good at it either, so I don't think that I can call out which one (or both) of them is using bad logic. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 11 2011 22:13 layabout wrote: why are you trying to add wifom logic? if jay was your best read which you said he was then you should have voted for him, you even said so the fact that you didn't and the fact that you had already said that players in general should lynch their best read is highly contradictory. how does that involve wifom? I never said that Jay was my best read. I said I consider a mafia team consisting of Jay, BKE, and EY or xsk more likely than the alternative. And I already explained the WIFOM perspective to you. i attack you because you were happy to be on a day1 bandwagon but on day two when their was a much stronger case for a player being mafia and when you openly stated that you that that player was probably scum and yet you decided to vote for somebody else. and one of the reasons you gave was to "avoid sheeping". yet you had already been on a andwagon. You are a liar. I wasn't happy to be on the Day 1 bandwagon and it is obvious from all the effort I put in my attempts to prevent it. And where is my motive for not voting for Jay? Seriously? If I'm mafia, what is my motive? Are you saying that I knew that someone was mafia and outright refused to vote for him in order to look more suspicious after the red flip? Did I try to save Jay by not voting? Anyone with half a brain would know that he was dead a few hours into Day 2 - and yet I decided not to switch to him for ~36 hours in order to gain absolutely nothing out of it? the bit i quoted was dated for me as "On December 06 2011 06:20 xtfftc wrote:" before then this is everthing you had to say on eye215: "Everything"? This isn't enough for early Day 1? I got called out for tunneling EY too much and you're acting like it was nothing. I had more on EY than other players had on all of us combined. As for the rest of your post, it's a gameplay opinion that I disagree with. But even though I think that you are wrong, I can see your point. All I have to add on the subject is that I explained my vote at the time and no one had an issue with it, so I think that the problem is in you - or you're trying to turn it into a problem because of your red alignment. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
But now that I refuse to play your game, you try to scare me into doing nothing else but defending myself. If you were town, you would have been happy to let me finish the BKE analysis because it is very important for us. Instead, you chose to be obtrusive, even though I already paid a lot of attention to you. It's not like I said I'm not going to answer you at all. I could have simply pretended I'm not checking the thread but only mafia are scared of some extra attention. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 12 2011 03:25 Grackaroni wrote: The quote where you vote for BByte once again connects with my earlier view. You're in favor of jumping on the BByte bandwagon because even though he's not your best scum read it's better than a last second surprise, OK that's fine but then you choose not to vote for Jaybrundage, who you do admit is your best scum read, and the only explanation you've given us so far is you're wifom defense of being accused of jumping on a bandwagon. I've explained this a few times already. I saw the Jay lynch as 100% confirmed and wanted to make a point about the way town was going. On Day 1 there was a chance of mafia jumping on one of the other cases and it wouldn't have been as suspicious because some people (EB and myself at least) argued against lynching the lurker. On Day 2, however, there was no argument, so mafia didn't have the option of doing a last minute switch without revealing their whole team. On December 12 2011 03:25 Grackaroni wrote: Why are you afraid of being called out for bandwagoning on Jay but not on BByte? Dude, how many times have I made the point that I fought vigurously against the Bbyte lynch? No one can accuse me of bandwagoning on Bbyte. The fact of the matter is that you still haven't explained why you didn't vote for JB, all you've given us so far is the WIFOM "I would have been accused of voting JB as bandwagoning or I would have been accused of not voting scum" You've shown that you're willing to vote for bandwagons on people you're not sure are mafia but you won't for people you do think are mafia. You're defense is weak, why did you not vote your greatest scum read? I did explain why I kept my vote on EY. Please read my filter before making statements such as this one. Here: On December 09 2011 05:10 xtfftc wrote: Looking at him as an individual, he is one of the three scummiest (along with EY and xsk), so I consider him more likely to be mafia than not. Looking at him in the context of the potential mafia teams I see, I find his team (Jay, BKE, and one of xsk/EY) more likely than the alternative (xsk/EY/Adam). On December 09 2011 05:12 Blazinghand wrote: I see. So you think he's solidly scummy, and you have some potential teams you think he is a part of. However, you consider ey215 to be scummier, which is why your vote is on ey215. Is this an accurate representation of your views? On December 09 2011 05:24 xtfftc wrote: Yes, albeit a short one that doesn't cover some bits. I feel uneasy about the way no one objects on lynching Jay. It feels like Day 1 all over again, which makes me wonder whether Jay might actually be town - even though mafia are probably just bussing him at this point. So my vote stays on EY to remind people that we have to catch the whole mafia team and not just one member of it. This was before the deadline. You posted two hours after me and said nothing about my vote. If it was such a concern, you should have pointed it out at the time. And you really have to start looking at the context. It's not just what someone said, it's the moment they said it and what others had posted prior to that. In this case BH asks me: "However, you consider ey215 to be scummier, which is why your vote is on ey215. Is this an accurate representation of your views?" I reply: "Yes, albeit a short one that doesn't cover some bits" and now you ask me: "You're defense is weak, why did you not vote your greatest scum read?" I did end up voting for my greatest scum read. I would have switched to Jay if I thought there was a chance of mafia manipulating the Day 2 vote but it was so obvious that they were bussing him (and who could blame them, considering his play?) that this wasn't necessary. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
Post too long! We're sorry, but the post you're trying to make is over 100000 characters long. No one wants to read that much text! If you think you have a valid reason for wanting to make a post this big, bring this issue up in the Website Feedback forum. (Note: if you're doing a copy/paste from somewhere else, just summarize and link to the original source.) Meh. Okay, PART 1: First of - the formatting is kind of fucked and I have already spent way too much time on this. I think I've managed to make it readable though. Secondly, this is very very long, so I've decided to post all the quotes on their own. My findings will follow soon. Also, I haven't included things such as the way Veli pusheed BKE a lot early Day 1 or BH's "LURKERLURKERLURKER" bit because they didn't actually express opinions. It was more of a general pressure that could have been either town or mafia. I haven't included dead players in this either; it took me quite some time anyway. I have, however, included even one liners because they can be a good indicator of how people's opinions change with time. So, here goes. Open the spoiler at your own risk. + Show Spoiler + Tunkeg was the first to properly analyse BKE: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=10#197 + Show Spoiler + On December 04 2011 22:41 Tunkeg wrote: In the spoiler below are all the post made by you BroodKingEXE, a total of 6. My own comments below in bold. I know it is early in the game and that some filler post will be made. But for both the towns sake and your own sake you need to start making more usefull posts. I want everyone to be more involved and instead of pressuring you I'll throw you a bone: Tell me your opinion on Velinath and Blazinghand's play, tell me what allignement you think they have, tell me why their play is beneficial to the town or not. + Show Spoiler + On December 04 2011 14:51 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? While not completely agreeing to your point, I think this is a ok first post. You come in and start discussing the policy lynch. 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 This one is what I consider a filler post. A post with no meaning really. 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. This is back on-topic, and somewhat usefull. Lynching people who clearly do scumslips I agree upon. Not people changing their minds though. 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. Still on topic, you answer the question Velinath gives you. On December 04 2011 15:13 BroodKingEXE wrote: Blazinghand, As long as the mob goes down you can do whatever you have to. A useless post On December 04 2011 15:15 BroodKingEXE wrote: jay is right that i am new. A more useless post Not to sure what to make out of it though. Calls him out for all the filler but seems to encourage him to post more? More from Tunkeg: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=11#203 + Show Spoiler + On December 05 2011 00:02 Tunkeg wrote: BroodKingEXE Neutral, leaning scum. He is posting far to little, but I think it is because he is new. Hopefully if more people challange him with direct questions it will be easier to get a read on him. He is the fourth scummiest though. Velinath http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=12#226 On December 05 2011 03:29 Velinath wrote: 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. Velinath again http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=14#269 On December 05 2011 08:53 Velinath wrote: 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. Hassy http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=14#278 On December 05 2011 09:24 Hassybaby wrote: And people have posted since I last saw.... Veli, yeah I think I went over-defensive there. I misinterpreted Tunkeg's posts, and that's my bad. The post about BKEXE is a good catch. I'd again like to see what he says about that. Meanwhile, for lack of a better vote right now, I'll be voting on BK. That is totally based on Veli's point, as I don't see strong cases against tohers right now. So odds are I'll change the vote tomorrow, especially if BK makes a good point. ##BroodKingEXE Veli http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=15#295 On December 05 2011 09:44 Velinath wrote: 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? Veli http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=15#298 On December 05 2011 10:09 Velinath wrote: 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. Hassy http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=15#296 On December 05 2011 09:59 Hassybaby wrote: I have to run, because I have work in the morning. One win though, is that I can follow the thread at work easily, since I don't do much during the day :D @BKEXE, I can see why your posts were rushed and defensive. But since coming back, you've WIFOMed as well as bandwagoned on Adam's vote. This doesn't feel town-like to me right now, so I'd quite like to see you address your vote, as well as a better reasoning behind your initial 2 posts. Veli http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=16#303 On December 05 2011 10:28 Velinath wrote: Thanks, that's enough justification for me. I appreciate the explanation, and what jaybrundage said goes right along with that. ##Unvote: BroodKingEXE Veli http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=16#312 On December 05 2011 10:47 Velinath wrote: 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. xsk http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=17#338 On December 05 2011 11:49 xsksc wrote: 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. (there were a lot of similar posts earlier in the game but they were before BKE had provided any actual thoughts, so I didn't include most of them) Adam http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=19#367 On December 05 2011 15:31 Adam4167 wrote: BroodKingEXE + Show Spoiler + BroodKingEXE is suspicious to say the least. He posts up a one-line analysis on half of the players present, not very much effort put in at all. Then 2 hours later, he fires a vote in my direction with no explanation given. At all (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=12592641). After being pressed a little he gives his thoughts on my larger post aimed at BH’s aggressive style. He takes issue with the fact that I apparently miscounted the number of votes BH has put out. BH did in fact only vote 4 times but the 2nd vote was a correction on a misspelling of the 1st vote. Honestly put, this is a piss-weak reason for me to earn his vote. He also takes issue with my lack of identifying a key player. I stated in the very post he quoted that BH was just flinging his vote in any direction and I felt they had no weight, why would I then go ahead and identify him, as a key player if I thought his vote was weightless? (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=12593121) xtf http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=19#372 On December 05 2011 17:59 xtfftc wrote: I'm on my phone at lunch, so I'll be brief for now. I think that Bke is the easy lynch at the momenand Ipm glad we have bettee targets now. Byte is my top lurker and he'd make an okay lynch if we end up looking at the lurkers. Xskc looks a bit beteer but he still hasn't lived up to his early play. I'll make sure not to throw away my votw for an unlikely candidate by voting for someone who wont get lynched like I did in xlvii and I encourage everyone to do the sa,e. Also, remember that last minute changes tend to help mafia. Out of the two best candidates I find Adam's dwfence much better (he is at least giving usomethimg to analyse), so I'll probably go for BE. xtf http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=23#456 On December 06 2011 03:06 xtfftc wrote: Tunkeg and Blazinghand are my town reads I am most comfortable with. BSE as well, I just can't imagine him being mafia. I am also pretty sure about EB being town now. However, his play screams "smurf", and that scares me. Blazinghand http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=23#458 On December 06 2011 03:35 Blazinghand wrote: Alright guys, So, I have a couple of minor scum reads: Adam4167, BKEXE, and JB. These are all very mild-- I'm not sure enough to cast votes at this moment on these guys, but if it came down to it, I'd vote for one of them. Veli http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=25#487 On December 06 2011 06:21 Velinath wrote: ... --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) BH http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=29#572 On December 07 2011 04:29 Blazinghand wrote: BTW I think you personally BKEXE should post your stuff just because I feel like your performance so far has been mildly underwhelming. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=29#575 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=29#577 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=30#584 (nothing of value in these two if you ask me but technically they still count as an opinion of BKE I guess) | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Veli http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=38#758 Spoilered for being enourmous + Show Spoiler + On December 08 2011 11:53 Velinath wrote: You poor souls. 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: 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). 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. 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. 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) "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. "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. "I'm a newbie! Again!" We get it...but I don't buy the reasoning. 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. 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. "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. 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. 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. Bluelightz: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=39#776 On December 08 2011 18:57 Bluelightz wrote: 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 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=39#772 (not included for ruining my formatting) xtf http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=40#790 On December 09 2011 04:05 xtfftc wrote: Okay, I have limited time, so tell me who you want to me to have a more in-depth look at tonight (or you can have shorter analyses of two/three players, etc.). I consider Grackaroni to be town and I'm less and less suspicious of Veli. My view on the two of you (BH and Tunkeg) hasn't changed - I think you're both town (remind me to go over trusting players you consider to be town even if they're not confirmed if you want to hear why I'm doing it). I'm willing to give Starshard a break even though I would have lynched xsksc, and I'm expecting him to step up and contribute more during Day 3, just like Bluelightz. If Jay flips town, I'd say that EY, xsksc and Adam are the mafia team. If Jay flips red, I think that his partners are BKE and EY/xsk. BH http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=40#792 On December 09 2011 04:08 Blazinghand wrote: The two players I'm most suspicious of are BKE and and xskxc aka Starshard. The problem is, Starshard has gone lurker on us. if he doesn't vote, he may be modkilled for inactivity. I don't have a good read on EY. Given that EY and xsksc is on both your lists, if you could take a look at them that would be great. I'd stick to EY though just because STarshard/xsksc might get replaced by yet another player and hasn't made many contributions recently. BH http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=41#812 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? Veli http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=41#815 On December 09 2011 06:17 Velinath wrote: 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. ey215 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=43#843 On December 09 2011 08:47 ey215 wrote: You really think it's going to be BKEXE tomorrow? I don't, I think it's going to be me. Xtfftc has pretty much persuaded at least one non mafia. Bluelightz http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=43#847 On December 09 2011 08:55 Bluelightz wrote: Since Grackaroni brought up the topic for the next day lynch, My guesses are BKEXE/jay any other guesses? Grack http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=44#880 On December 09 2011 09:57 Grackaroni wrote: In which case my scum team right now would be : JB BKEXE Xtfftc BH http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=46#908 On December 09 2011 12:31 Blazinghand wrote: OK, I'm home. I'm gonna start analyzing but before I do I just wanted to stop by and I want people to make cases for lynching people who aren't BKEXE. I'm like 99% convinced BKEXE is mafia. I'm gonna go after him pretty hard. If anyone can think of a better lynch than BKEXE I want you to make a super super good case for it, please. Also, keep on talking and arguing. The more stuff we argue about the more obvious the mafia will be. man i'm feeling good. Let's see if we can end this in the next two Days, gentlemen. Adam (he's dead but he has like 20 posts on BKE and he's contributed a lot to Veli's case, so I think there should be at least some reference to him) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=46#909 On December 09 2011 12:55 Adam4167 wrote: Agreed. I've had a couple of suspicions since day 1, and for the most part our reads seem to be similar. I am pretty sure I understand the meaning of your posts. I am going to read everyone's filter, then construct a single case against the person i find the scummiest, rather than posting a couple paragraphs on everyone as I have previously. Veli http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=46#911 On December 09 2011 13:31 Velinath wrote: I've already stated my case against BKEXE. I feel that Adam's contribution after that case was posted really helps solidify things, especially as he and JB were sticking up for each other for quite some time until JB really started getting pressured. My third read is still Hassybaby/Bluelightz. xtf http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=46#919 On December 10 2011 06:28 xtfftc wrote: Since Jay flipped mafia, I expect BKE to be mafia as well, and so the last spot on the team is for either EY or xsksc. I don't feel comfortable calling this one before xsk's replacement starts posting. Veli http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=47#938 On December 10 2011 10:25 Velinath wrote: Whoo, BH survived. Anyway, here's a little bit of thought. 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. EY http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=47#940 On December 10 2011 10:26 ey215 wrote: Based on Val's case, Adam's adding onto it, convincing myself after looking through Jay's posts: ##vote: BroodKingEXE Grackaroni http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=47#928 On December 10 2011 08:11 Grackaroni wrote: I'm sticking with the scumteam I was calling earlier. BKEXE labeling Ey215 scum now continues to reinforce my belief. (Ey215 wants to lynch xtfftc) JB BKEXE. Xtfftc. That's just my thoughts, there have been cases made earlier on both of these guys. Not going to do any analysis tonight though; have to study for a test. See you guys soon! (unless I die )Grackaroni http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=48#941 On December 10 2011 10:31 Grackaroni wrote: JB defended BKEXE several times throughout the game. (see Adam's earlier quotes) BH just showed how BKEXE tried to change the target away from JB's lynch. Most of BKEXE's defense is simply wifom. ##Vote: BroodKingEXE Bluelightz http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=48#942 On December 10 2011 10:45 Bluelightz wrote: BKEXE has been defending JB all game long so, ##Vote: BroodKingEXE BH http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=48#945 On December 10 2011 10:52 Blazinghand wrote: Honestly, the best way to help your case, if you're town, is to identify a mafia player and build a strong case against him. If you do this, you will help the town, and if I'm more convinced that say, Velinath, or whoever, is more likely to be mafia than you, i'll vote for him, as will the others. Defending yourself is important, but if you're innocent, make sure you actually find us a good lynch candidate. In theory, that's what everyone has been doing for the past 24 hours-- writing a good analysis. I'll read up on your EY analysis. I think it's worth your time to defend your EY analysis with quotes from EY and quotes from yourself, rather than just text-- refute using evidence. I want you to build a solid case. (which arguably you may have done). I want you to defend it with evidence. Act like a town player, and that will be your strongest exculpation. BH http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=48#947 On December 10 2011 10:52 Blazinghand wrote: Srsly go build a strong case on someone, or strengthen your existing cases. BH http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=48#949 On December 10 2011 11:08 Blazinghand wrote: Ah, ok, I think you're actually confused here. When EY says "I am not looking for a lurker to lynch", this is a semi-idiomatic expression in english. He doesn't mean he literally won't try to figure it who is lurking; he's saying that lynching lurkers is not his chief goal. He follows up that sentence with: "My first priority is to analyze the active players and if as a town we cannot agree upon a scummy player then we should choose a lurker because they will remain a null read. " So yeah I think you need to read a little more carefully. Veli http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=48#954 On December 10 2011 13:07 Velinath wrote: Man, format your 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. ey215 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=48#955 On December 10 2011 13:16 ey215 wrote: + Show Spoiler + Spoilered his horribly formatted post. I can't believe I'm responding to this. Apparently you weren't paying a lot of attention day one. I seem to recall BH and I getting into a pretty heated discussion, or in the colloquial a pissing match. No, staying under the radar would have been posting in that 24 hours at least once so as not to get warned. "Well this one kind of sums it up. He is not willing to defend his case, because he does not have anything unique to say. This is complete and utter BS. If you do not think it is worth the time to look for reasons to lynch the mafia, then I say you are mafia." Um, where did I say I wasn't looking? I said I didn't have anything unique to add to the case on Jay at that point. In fact, just above your red text I said: "I've read the filters, along with the thread to get it in context, multiple times and have yet to see anything unique that hasn't been said." You're cute BK, I like you. BH http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=48#956 On December 10 2011 13:19 Blazinghand wrote: BKEXE, I'd be more careful about how I post, were I you. I personally feel a great deal of frustration in my attempts to parse the tomato-stained spaghetti that you call "analysis", and I am one of the more patient folk here. Please, for the good of the town (if you are town) make your case in a legible fashion. Thank you. Tunkeg http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=49#965 On December 10 2011 22:28 Tunkeg wrote: I am all for a lynch on BroodKingEXE. His post aren't making mucch sense, and this have been the case from the beginning. At first I wanted to cut him some slack, because of newbiefactor. And I thought a lynch on him would be to easy, as in easy for scum to get a bandwagon on. After a passive first day, he came back on the secound day (the end of Day 1 ingame) posting more, as if he had been told by someone to step up his game. He have as you guys have said been defending jay, before he bussed him and took the opposite approach (this after seeing that jay was going to get lynched). And then comes the part that puts it over the top. He sees xtfftc's and my vote on ey215 and jumps on it, as a last resort to save himself. I belive BKE is scum, and he will have my vote. My vote on ey215 seems to be wrong, I may have put to much into my probability lynch case, and I really wanted a lynch on one of those four. Having some small scumreads on ey215 I went with it. As of now my entire probability lynch case seems pretty dead, I think BKE is scum, and jay flipped scum, therefor there can't be 2 scum among those 4. ##Vote BroodKingExe Veli http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=49#972 On December 11 2011 02:10 Velinath wrote: You intentionally misrepresented ey in your case by taking his posts out of order like you did. Explain why you did this. layabout http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=49#977 On December 11 2011 02:34 layabout wrote: we still have time do not martyr yourself now if you are town try to contribute and then the things you have said can be considered if you flip town or try to contribute and find us a scum or two to lynch instead there is also enough time for you to write a reasonable defence Grack http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=49#978 On December 11 2011 02:40 Grackaroni wrote: Sorry BKEXE but this is exactly what scum would do, you know that you're going to be lynched and after I asked you for who you thought Ey215's scumbuddy would be you post this. A town player would try to give as much information for the town as possible, so that even if it's no longer possible to defend himself from the lynch he could still assist the town and give them more to work off the next day. A scum player would want to leave the town with as little information possible after they get revealed. If you are scum you are making the right decision to shut up now but if you're town please keep talking. BH http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=49#979 On December 11 2011 05:33 Blazinghand wrote: I would really, really like to not ignore his lies, but I honestly don't know what they are. Do you want to know why I don't know what they are? The reason is, your posts are completely, unbelievably illegible. At this point, though, you have planted the seed of doubt in my mind. If you're a mafia player, you've done a really terrible job. But given how a terrible a job you did, it's not beyond comprehension that you are an unbelievably bad town player. I can't read your analysis posts. I ACTUALLY CAN'T READ THEM, MAN. God, this is either the best troll or the worst attempt to defend I've ever seen. If you're a town player I literally refuse to play any mafia games with you ever again. I'm completely serious about this. What the dicks is this? Why not actually be helpful? ._. I'm going to look into Grackaroni and Tunkeg, btw. Just to check them out. I'll have an analysis up sometime today. xtf http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=49#963 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. Tunkeg http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=49#966 On December 10 2011 22:57 Tunkeg wrote: I belive it to be a good chance for BKE to flip red. If he do flip red who do you guys see as the third scum? Veli http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=49#967 On December 11 2011 00:09 Velinath wrote: 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. Grack http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=49#974 On December 11 2011 02:19 Grackaroni wrote: @ BKEXE: also if you are town you should be looking for 2 mafia not just one. Who is most likely to be Ey215's scumbuddy? If you are town it is important that you get all of your thoughts out before the lynch. Right now you are exclusively pushing Ey215's case which is fine, but the more information you give us the better for town right? Please try to format your quotes correctly, it's really hard to follow who is saying what when the quotes are not done right. layabout http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=50#981 On December 11 2011 06:43 layabout wrote: i would like to post analysis before i vote and i still have plenty of time to do so but as it stands i don't feel like i can justify a vote for anybody over broodkingexe BKEXE if you are town please help!! because lynching a town today would really hurt our chances and people have so confidently voted for you they have barely been posting there has been very little discussion so far and so a mislynch would make today a huge waste of time that could have been spent scumhunting BH http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=50#998 On December 11 2011 16:45 Blazinghand wrote: If possible, could you post an updated version of your case against ey in which you remove the arguments of yours that turned out to be you misreading his posts, and you use the [quote[ feature legibly? It sounds like you have something worth saying, and if you're a town player, this is your last chance for real analysis. You still have 17 hours to live-- make them count. If you want something interesting to analyze, maybe take a look at the Grack/tunkeg fight. BH http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=50#982 On December 11 2011 06:47 Blazinghand wrote: to be fair, we should continue to try to root out the 3rd scum player even assuming that BKEXE is town or scum or whatever. An early start is awlays good. Tunkeg http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=50#983 On December 11 2011 07:37 Tunkeg wrote: If you have ever played poker for instance, this way of thinking is pretty normal. You make educated guesses based on previous actions from the player, based on your own hand at the time, based on the cards on the board and so forth. Early in the game it is harder to put players on spesific hands, but the further into the game the more reads you have on them. But still you put them on hands based on what you think is logical, based on the information at the time. This was fairly early in the game, and I have allready stated that I think I was wrong (not that my logic was wrong) seeing that jay flipped scum, and I think BKE is scum. But I called it as I saw it, and I made my play based on it. + Show Spoiler + AND I'M DONE WITH ALL THE QUOTES FINALLYAKLJSDF;LJKSDFAJ;LKSADFSDFJLKSDFAL MY FINGERS HURT SO MUCH AND MY EYES THE WHOL THREAD AGAIN ................................. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 12 2011 03:55 Grackaroni wrote: lol, you said that you fought vigorously against the BByte lynch? This is just an outright lie. before the lynch you make several statements such as: there's just one lurker in the game, so lynching Bbyte is somewhat okay. If you think that we are unlikely to catch some mafia tonight, by all means do vote for Bbyte the lurker. Then in your last post you even vote for him. "fought vigorously against the BByte lynch" is just complete and utter bullshit. You were completely willing to vote for him. So, I was again the Lynch All Lurkers policy from the very beginning. I hope there's no need to prove this at least but I will if someone is lazy enough to want me to. Post links and some quotes: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=24#463 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=24#465 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=24#465 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=24#480 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=25#484 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=25#499 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=26#511 The last one is particularly interesting. If you look at what I've replied to, you'll see Blazinghand and Veli trying to convince me that I should vote for Bbyte. Why would they be trying to convince me if I was "happy to be on the bandwagon"? Also, I would like to address this directly: If you think that we are unlikely to catch some mafia tonight, by all means do vote for Bbyte the lurker. This is, as most of your arguments, utterly out of context. This was taken from a post in which I made a case on xsk and in the midst of me trying to convince the town not to lynch the lurker. We had agreed to lynch a lurker if we could consolidate on a case. So, I presented my case and the alternative they should go for in case I am not convincing enough. And you ignore the bit on xsk and only take the very last sentence... | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
Hassy and Blue, his replacement, have both been sheeping when it comes to BKE, without saying much. This is, in a way, consistent for them as well, considering that they haven't been doing much but lurking and sheeping. When I was going through Day 1 earlier today, I realised that Hassy warranted a policy lynch as much as Bbyte did. Blue seriously has to step up with a case during Night 3/Day 4. EY - openly sheeping (as per usual) and turns into a meanie once BKE makes accuses him of being mafia. xsksc - mostly quiet. No proper justification until... xtf - mostly quiet as well. I've called him an easy lynch (which he was at the moment) and I've also said that "I just can't imagine him being mafia". Once the link between Jay and BKE was revealed, I have started including him in my warrantable scum teams. No proper justification. BH - for the beginning mostly "mild scumleads". I thought they were just part of his less obvious pressuring for lurkers. On Day 2 he talks about BKE being one of the players he is "most suspicious of" and he also bases it mostly on the "literal figurative smokescreen" in defence of Jay. No proper justification. Is being a bit mean. Grack - no proper justification, later mentioning the link between Jay and BKE. layabout starts with (sort of?) agreeing that BKE is the obvious lynch, I think. "as it stands i don't feel like i can justify a vote for anybody over broodkingexe". layabout, could you clarify this, please? Do you think that BKE is mafia or not? You can keep your vote on me but you have to give us your read of BKE. A few people have urged him to contribute even if he's getting lynched tonight. BH has been a bit of a strange figure while doing this - urging BKE to post, then using some colourful expressions that have obviously frustrated BKE and may have deterred him from posting more. After he posted on EY, me and Grack have urged him to come up with a second mafia read. 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. ##Vote: BroodKingEXE | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 12 2011 04:53 ey215 wrote: Enough, we get it you think I'm scum. BH specifically asked BKE to post on you again, so you don't get to complain. ^^ BKE, could you post more on your second read? On December 12 2011 05:11 ey215 wrote:I do however have an issue with him being worried about looking like he was jumping on a bandwagon. Don't worry about what it looks like when you vote, just try to make sure the vote makes sense and is highly likely to kill scum. If you're talking about my WIFOM example - it wasn't me being worried but an example of how what he accused me of doesn't make sense. If you're talking about something else, could you remind me of it because I don't see why I'd post anything like this. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
"more likely" = "best read"? To quote you again, "seriously?" you say you are uneasy about the lynch being easily decided but feeling uneasy when facing uncertainty is not a reason to not follow the obvious course of action. If you had genuine reservations about what was happening you should have tried to come up with a better alternative and you should not have tried to pursue a worse course of action because doing so is anti-town. So you're accusing me of not being able to come up with some super smart solution for town? I am pretty happy with what the results considering the situation. additionaly i have already explained that the wifom perspective is not relevant so an explanation of it is similarly worthless posting that looks like a contribution (which in itself is scum like). It's not my fault you don't get it. I won't waste more time explaining it to you. If anyone else has any questions about this, feel free to post them, but I don't see a way to explain it to layabout. it isn't a case!!!you have not shown why his actions would be anti town and why they would make him likey to be scum. Yes I did. You, however, make claims without providing any proof to back them up, and you also ignore the bits that don't suit you. I spend a lot of time to analyse and post on Day 1 but you somehow find it okay to accuse me for not spending even more. i fail to see how i have "lied" im not suggesting a motive i suggesting that your actions are anti town, trying to come up with a motive in this circumstance is unreliable and unhelpful So you're not actually accusing me of being mafia, you're just using your time to point out that I'm playing badly? Well, I don't see how I'm a bad townie. How did my actions hurt the town? Surely if they're so anti-town, you should be able to prove it. + 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 It's funny that you are actually drawing attention to how my actions were in no way anti-town without realising it. Everyone can check what happened during the last 10 hours of Day 1 and decide for himself/herself whether it was obvious that I was trying to prevent Bbyte's lynch. And everyone can go re-read Day 2 and decide for himself/herself whether it was possible for the mafia to switch from Jay without sacrificing their whole team and thus forfeiting the game. See, you are missing something important: on Day 1 we actually had alternative cases, so a switch was very much possible. On Day 2 pretty much everyone voted on Jay from the beginning. Any attempt to lynch someone else would have been identified immediately. the game play opinion is that you should act in the best interest of town and that you should vote for the player you th ink most likely to flip scum. my point is that YOU also said that this is how you SHOULD vote and yet YOU HAVE NOT done.so I did act in the best interest of town. I pushed my best mafia reads, I argued against lynching a lurker on Day 1 and I facilitated a discussion on Day 2. If I have done anything to hurt town, you should be able to prove it instead of simply making statements without backing them up. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
- tell us he can't imagine another lynch but BKE - a gigantic OMGUS (both me and Tunkeg - the players layabout has "analysed" - were on xsksc earlier) - try to push for a late switch I put him and EY as the third mafia member and I've stated that he has a lot to prove if he wants to prove xsk's innocence, so he knows he has to do something about it. But in the process he has revealed himself. This is quite a long post, so I've put the quotes in spoilers to make it more readable. - he deliberately quoted just half of my explanation of how Grackaroni was using WIFOM. Some of the other posts he quoted contained a lot of stuff that had nothing to do with his point and were very long and made his case harder to read - yet he didn't find it necessary to remove them. But he decided to cut out two very important lines and then use what's left to accuse me. Check out the actual quotes in the spoiler if you don't remember his post. + Show Spoiler + Example #1: Quoting a post that contains a lot of irrelevant information without bothering to cut it out. The bits in green are the bits that have nothing to do with what he is talking about that he decided to include anyway. The bits in red are what he is actually refering to. On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read Example #2: Cutting of half of my example. The bit in red is what Grackaroni posted and the green is what I wrote. Note that layabout didn't use the quote function - he simply marked what he wanted with his mouse. You will notice this clearly if you have a look at his original post (link, compare the second and the third quote). On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: you explicity state that you think Jay is the most likely to be scum and grack makes this point you call his "reasoning" (i see a simple statement of fact) "pure WIFOM" well where is the pure wifom in this? And here you can see the rest of my post; the bit in green is what layabout omitted. On December 10 2011 06:23 xtfftc wrote: I stated my reasons for keeping my vote on EY. Your reasoning is pure WIFOM in this case. Jay was obviously going to be lynched hours before I posted the bit you quoted, so what could a townie do in this situation? Vote for Jay and be accused of sheeping after BH and bandwagonning (remember Tunkeg and his analysis of the Bbyte lynch?) Or vote for someone else and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia. Let's also consider me being mafia for the sake of discussing my actions. Vote for Jay and get accused of bandwagonning, or don't and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia? It works both ways. - he quotes something and calls it as exactly the opposite + a scumslip? This is something new I just noticed, so you should definitely check it out. + Show Spoiler + On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read and yet in the above quote you do not do that In the "above quote" I was pushing for my best read - EY - and I voted for him 45 later. Moreover, this might even turn out to be a blatant scumslip. How does layabout know that I did not vote for mafia? I kept my vote on EY and did not switch to Jay. So, if EY is town, it appears to be true: I did not vote for mafia (Jay) but I did the opposite instead. Read it again: you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read and yet in the above quote you do not do that It can be just bad wording but it makes me very suspicious. - he is twisting facts This one may be a bit boring as I have to go through the thread post by post but I think it's worth reading. + Show Spoiler + On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: you have a strong case on a player but you would rather not post it and you would rather vote for someone other than your best read? seriously? He calls me out for this post and there's two interesting bits here. layabout posted "you have a strong case on a player but you would rather not post it and you would rather vote for someone other than your best read? seriously?" Yet I never voted for Adam and the post layabout quoted was me saying that I don't hjave a good case on Adam. Furthermore, I had posted my thoughts on EY throughout the day. There's 1 2 3 4 5 posts that have stuff on EY just from the first half of Day 1. This is lot for such a short period of time. Yet layabout tries to discredit me for not posting my case. In fact, I actually got called out for tunneling EY a bit too much (Grackaroni comes to mind but I think there were others as well), so I decided that it would be more productive if I focus on other players until the end of the day and I went after xsk and Adam. Eventually, I realised that my case on Adam wasn't good enough and I wrote "Pretty much all I have on Adam is based on two of his posts that push pro-mafia agenda. Now that I think about it, I have a much stronger case on ey215", so I stuck to what I had on xsk. Note that this was hours after I had decided not to go after EY until Day 2. Actually, it gets even better. See, what I did after moving away from EY was to build my case on xsk, the player layabout eventually substituted. layabout used a comparisson I made between two of my cases - on EY and Adam - to criticise me for switching from EY to xsk. So, to recap: - he quoted two posts that had more than 24 hours between them to prove that I did not focus on my main read (EY), while disregarding everything that happened in the meanwhile that made me focus on someone else (xsk); - layabout misrepresented the truth by accusing me of not posting on EY even though I clearly did; - used what I wrote on Adam to discredit me for voting for xsk, the player layabout replaced. - Lynch All Liars? On December 11 2011 22:13 layabout wrote:you were happy to be on a day1 bandwagon | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 13 2011 01:20 Grackaroni wrote: Both EB/Adam before they died were suspicious of xtfftc. I couldn't recall Adam being suspicious of me, so I decided to re-read his posts... All I found was him saying that "When I was reading xtfftc's analysis, I couldn't help but find myself unconvinced. I was wondering if it was because he himself was unconvinced, which by the sound of it, he is." Is this the evidence you are talking about? On December 13 2011 01:20 Grackaroni wrote: xtfftc was accusing EB of smurfing so it may help to explain EB's early death. Great logic... How about mafia realising that EB is a smurf and killing him for the same reason? Can this help to explain EB's early death? Or does the fact that I was open with my read on EB mean that I was the only one who could possibly read his posts and figure it out? On December 12 2011 10:40 Grackaroni wrote: Also a wierd fact. BKEXE/BByte/Adam4167/EB Were the people I considered the lurkers from the start of the game. All of them have flipped and they were all vanilla townies. It seems like lurkers tend to be bored townies more often than scum trying to avoid detection. I don't think that we can read anything into this though... There's mafia in the active players but this doesn't mean that Blue is necessarily town. Going over those who were in favour of lynching lurkers won't help either. Most townies love policies, including ineffective ones, and so it's easy for mafia to jump on something like Lynch All Lurkers and appear to be "pro-town". Ironically, even Bbyte himself was in favour of LaL. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 13 2011 09:12 layabout wrote: i don't mean you im just frustrated that since joining the game i have made a very large proportion of the posts the posts i have made have been largely unadressed, that after voting for BK people went quiet and that people really aren't offering opinions of the points raised or providing analysis or discussion. i joined a game 3 days ago and there have been 5 pages of posts. if town isn't active it is difficult to be productive and we need to be more focused. And yet you still want to lynch me for trying to get the town to discuss things... Go figure. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 09 2011 10:28 Zona wrote: Vote count for the Day 2 lynch jaybrundage (7): Blazinghand, Adam4167, Velinath, ey215, BroodKingEXE, Grackaroni, Bluelightz ey215 (2): xtfftc, Tunkeg Velinath (1): jaybrundage And you want to lynch me because I "wanted to lynch ey215 and didn't". On December 13 2011 14:47 Velinath wrote: I want to lynch you because of what layabout's actually brought up and you haven't addressed. I answered all of the accusations against me very extensivelly: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=50#1000 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=51#1007 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=51#1011 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=52#1021 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=52#1026 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=52#1035 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=52#1035 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=52#1036 + Show Spoiler + On December 11 2011 17:29 xtfftc wrote: *** First of, nice to see you being active. Secondly - the answer to your question is in the very post you have quoted. It is pure WIFOM because the logic behind the vote I am accused for can apply to both mafia and town: However, how come you quoted just half of my explanation? This is the full one: You have cut out my actual argument: it works both ways. *** To the contrary: this is precisely what I was doing in the above post: pushing my best mafia read. I did post it hours before posting the bit you quoted. Seriously. Now, I could have expanded it a lot but unless you expect me to spend 5-6 hours a day working on my cases, I'll never be able to analyse everything I find in-depth. If this is scummy behaviour, 3/4 of the town are playing much scummier than I am. I did write extensively on why town should not waste their vote and that I was concerned about the lack of resistance there had been to Bbyte's lynch. Plus, we agreed that last minute switches tend to benefit the mafia, so we had to ensure this didn't happen. And anyway, jumping on a bandwagon is another thing that 3/4 of the town is much guiltier than I am of, yet you only attack me for this. Why would you do such a thing? I was pretty much the only one to try to push for a lynch that was based on analysis, yet you target me for "jumping" on a bandwagon? Of course it does make sense. We had the whole town sheeping for Day 1 and Day 2, so it is necessary to have proper discussions from now on. And what it is that I am guilty of exactly? Are you suggesting that I was trying to somehow save Jay by refusing to vote for him, even though there were like 10 votes for him a few hours before the deadline? On December 11 2011 22:56 xtfftc wrote: I never said that Jay was my best read. I said I consider a mafia team consisting of Jay, BKE, and EY or xsk more likely than the alternative. And I already explained the WIFOM perspective to you. You are a liar. I wasn't happy to be on the Day 1 bandwagon and it is obvious from all the effort I put in my attempts to prevent it. And where is my motive for not voting for Jay? Seriously? If I'm mafia, what is my motive? Are you saying that I knew that someone was mafia and outright refused to vote for him in order to look more suspicious after the red flip? Did I try to save Jay by not voting? Anyone with half a brain would know that he was dead a few hours into Day 2 - and yet I decided not to switch to him for ~36 hours in order to gain absolutely nothing out of it? "Everything"? This isn't enough for early Day 1? I got called out for tunneling EY too much and you're acting like it was nothing. I had more on EY than other players had on all of us combined. As for the rest of your post, it's a gameplay opinion that I disagree with. But even though I think that you are wrong, I can see your point. All I have to add on the subject is that I explained my vote at the time and no one had an issue with it, so I think that the problem is in you - or you're trying to turn it into a problem because of your red alignment. On December 12 2011 00:28 xtfftc wrote: This might work with somebody else but not with me. I have addressed your questions but it's obvious that you want to waste my time now and to distract me the best you can. I am committed to providing more analysis and if you are so scared that you decide to shoot me or manage to somehow manipulate the town into lynching me, they will have a lot of information to work with after I flip green. As long as I continue contributing, my death wouldn't be that much of a problem for town, so I am not afraid of dying. But now that I refuse to play your game, you try to scare me into doing nothing else but defending myself. If you were town, you would have been happy to let me finish the BKE analysis because it is very important for us. Instead, you chose to be obtrusive, even though I already paid a lot of attention to you. It's not like I said I'm not going to answer you at all. I could have simply pretended I'm not checking the thread but only mafia are scared of some extra attention. On December 12 2011 03:44 xtfftc wrote: I've explained this a few times already. I saw the Jay lynch as 100% confirmed and wanted to make a point about the way town was going. On Day 1 there was a chance of mafia jumping on one of the other cases and it wouldn't have been as suspicious because some people (EB and myself at least) argued against lynching the lurker. On Day 2, however, there was no argument, so mafia didn't have the option of doing a last minute switch without revealing their whole team. Dude, how many times have I made the point that I fought vigurously against the Bbyte lynch? No one can accuse me of bandwagoning on Bbyte. I did explain why I kept my vote on EY. Please read my filter before making statements such as this one. Here: This was before the deadline. You posted two hours after me and said nothing about my vote. If it was such a concern, you should have pointed it out at the time. And you really have to start looking at the context. It's not just what someone said, it's the moment they said it and what others had posted prior to that. In this case BH asks me: "However, you consider ey215 to be scummier, which is why your vote is on ey215. Is this an accurate representation of your views?" I reply: "Yes, albeit a short one that doesn't cover some bits" and now you ask me: "You're defense is weak, why did you not vote your greatest scum read?" I did end up voting for my greatest scum read. I would have switched to Jay if I thought there was a chance of mafia manipulating the Day 2 vote but it was so obvious that they were bussing him (and who could blame them, considering his play?) that this wasn't necessary. On December 12 2011 04:31 xtfftc wrote: So, I was again the Lynch All Lurkers policy from the very beginning. I hope there's no need to prove this at least but I will if someone is lazy enough to want me to. Post links and some quotes: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=24#463 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=24#465 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=24#465 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=24#480 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=25#484 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=25#499 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=26#511 The last one is particularly interesting. If you look at what I've replied to, you'll see Blazinghand and Veli trying to convince me that I should vote for Bbyte. Why would they be trying to convince me if I was "happy to be on the bandwagon"? Also, I would like to address this directly: This is, as most of your arguments, utterly out of context. This was taken from a post in which I made a case on xsk and in the midst of me trying to convince the town not to lynch the lurker. We had agreed to lynch a lurker if we could consolidate on a case. So, I presented my case and the alternative they should go for in case I am not convincing enough. And you ignore the bit on xsk and only take the very last sentence... On December 12 2011 05:38 xtfftc wrote: Okay, time to address layabout's last post on me. "more likely" = "best read"? To quote you again, "seriously?" So you're accusing me of not being able to come up with some super smart solution for town? I am pretty happy with what the results considering the situation. It's not my fault you don't get it. I won't waste more time explaining it to you. If anyone else has any questions about this, feel free to post them, but I don't see a way to explain it to layabout. Yes I did. You, however, make claims without providing any proof to back them up, and you also ignore the bits that don't suit you. I spend a lot of time to analyse and post on Day 1 but you somehow find it okay to accuse me for not spending even more. So you're not actually accusing me of being mafia, you're just using your time to point out that I'm playing badly? Well, I don't see how I'm a bad townie. How did my actions hurt the town? Surely if they're so anti-town, you should be able to prove it. It's funny that you are actually drawing attention to how my actions were in no way anti-town without realising it. Everyone can check what happened during the last 10 hours of Day 1 and decide for himself/herself whether it was obvious that I was trying to prevent Bbyte's lynch. And everyone can go re-read Day 2 and decide for himself/herself whether it was possible for the mafia to switch from Jay without sacrificing their whole team and thus forfeiting the game. See, you are missing something important: on Day 1 we actually had alternative cases, so a switch was very much possible. On Day 2 pretty much everyone voted on Jay from the beginning. Any attempt to lynch someone else would have been identified immediately. I did act in the best interest of town. I pushed my best mafia reads, I argued against lynching a lurker on Day 1 and I facilitated a discussion on Day 2. If I have done anything to hurt town, you should be able to prove it instead of simply making statements without backing them up. On December 12 2011 05:38 xtfftc wrote: Okay, time to address layabout's last post on me. "more likely" = "best read"? To quote you again, "seriously?" So you're accusing me of not being able to come up with some super smart solution for town? I am pretty happy with what the results considering the situation. It's not my fault you don't get it. I won't waste more time explaining it to you. If anyone else has any questions about this, feel free to post them, but I don't see a way to explain it to layabout. Yes I did. You, however, make claims without providing any proof to back them up, and you also ignore the bits that don't suit you. I spend a lot of time to analyse and post on Day 1 but you somehow find it okay to accuse me for not spending even more. So you're not actually accusing me of being mafia, you're just using your time to point out that I'm playing badly? Well, I don't see how I'm a bad townie. How did my actions hurt the town? Surely if they're so anti-town, you should be able to prove it. It's funny that you are actually drawing attention to how my actions were in no way anti-town without realising it. Everyone can check what happened during the last 10 hours of Day 1 and decide for himself/herself whether it was obvious that I was trying to prevent Bbyte's lynch. And everyone can go re-read Day 2 and decide for himself/herself whether it was possible for the mafia to switch from Jay without sacrificing their whole team and thus forfeiting the game. See, you are missing something important: on Day 1 we actually had alternative cases, so a switch was very much possible. On Day 2 pretty much everyone voted on Jay from the beginning. Any attempt to lynch someone else would have been identified immediately. I did act in the best interest of town. I pushed my best mafia reads, I argued against lynching a lurker on Day 1 and I facilitated a discussion on Day 2. If I have done anything to hurt town, you should be able to prove it instead of simply making statements without backing them up. On December 12 2011 05:39 xtfftc wrote: I wanted to post these two bits separately because the first part is a responce to layabout's nonsence, while the second is analysis of his play. Consider what has layabout done since replacing xsk's replacement: - tell us he can't imagine another lynch but BKE - a gigantic OMGUS (both me and Tunkeg - the players layabout has "analysed" - were on xsksc earlier) - try to push for a late switch I put him and EY as the third mafia member and I've stated that he has a lot to prove if he wants to prove xsk's innocence, so he knows he has to do something about it. But in the process he has revealed himself. This is quite a long post, so I've put the quotes in spoilers to make it more readable. - he deliberately quoted just half of my explanation of how Grackaroni was using WIFOM. Some of the other posts he quoted contained a lot of stuff that had nothing to do with his point and were very long and made his case harder to read - yet he didn't find it necessary to remove them. But he decided to cut out two very important lines and then use what's left to accuse me. Check out the actual quotes in the spoiler if you don't remember his post. + Show Spoiler + Example #1: Quoting a post that contains a lot of irrelevant information without bothering to cut it out. The bits in green are the bits that have nothing to do with what he is talking about that he decided to include anyway. The bits in red are what he is actually refering to. On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read Example #2: Cutting of half of my example. The bit in red is what Grackaroni posted and the green is what I wrote. Note that layabout didn't use the quote function - he simply marked what he wanted with his mouse. You will notice this clearly if you have a look at his original post (link, compare the second and the third quote). On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: you explicity state that you think Jay is the most likely to be scum and grack makes this point you call his "reasoning" (i see a simple statement of fact) "pure WIFOM" well where is the pure wifom in this? And here you can see the rest of my post; the bit in green is what layabout omitted. On December 10 2011 06:23 xtfftc wrote: I stated my reasons for keeping my vote on EY. Your reasoning is pure WIFOM in this case. Jay was obviously going to be lynched hours before I posted the bit you quoted, so what could a townie do in this situation? Vote for Jay and be accused of sheeping after BH and bandwagonning (remember Tunkeg and his analysis of the Bbyte lynch?) Or vote for someone else and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia. Let's also consider me being mafia for the sake of discussing my actions. Vote for Jay and get accused of bandwagonning, or don't and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia? It works both ways. - he quotes something and calls it as exactly the opposite + a scumslip? This is something new I just noticed, so you should definitely check it out. + Show Spoiler + On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read and yet in the above quote you do not do that In the "above quote" I was pushing for my best read - EY - and I voted for him 45 later. Moreover, this might even turn out to be a blatant scumslip. How does layabout know that I did not vote for mafia? I kept my vote on EY and did not switch to Jay. So, if EY is town, it appears to be true: I did not vote for mafia (Jay) but I did the opposite instead. Read it again: you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read and yet in the above quote you do not do that It can be just bad wording but it makes me very suspicious. - he is twisting facts This one may be a bit boring as I have to go through the thread post by post but I think it's worth reading. + Show Spoiler + On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: you have a strong case on a player but you would rather not post it and you would rather vote for someone other than your best read? seriously? He calls me out for this post and there's two interesting bits here. layabout posted "you have a strong case on a player but you would rather not post it and you would rather vote for someone other than your best read? seriously?" Yet I never voted for Adam and the post layabout quoted was me saying that I don't hjave a good case on Adam. Furthermore, I had posted my thoughts on EY throughout the day. There's 1 2 3 4 5 posts that have stuff on EY just from the first half of Day 1. This is lot for such a short period of time. Yet layabout tries to discredit me for not posting my case. In fact, I actually got called out for tunneling EY a bit too much (Grackaroni comes to mind but I think there were others as well), so I decided that it would be more productive if I focus on other players until the end of the day and I went after xsk and Adam. Eventually, I realised that my case on Adam wasn't good enough and I wrote "Pretty much all I have on Adam is based on two of his posts that push pro-mafia agenda. Now that I think about it, I have a much stronger case on ey215", so I stuck to what I had on xsk. Note that this was hours after I had decided not to go after EY until Day 2. Actually, it gets even better. See, what I did after moving away from EY was to build my case on xsk, the player layabout eventually substituted. layabout used a comparisson I made between two of my cases - on EY and Adam - to criticise me for switching from EY to xsk. So, to recap: - he quoted two posts that had more than 24 hours between them to prove that I did not focus on my main read (EY), while disregarding everything that happened in the meanwhile that made me focus on someone else (xsk); - layabout misrepresented the truth by accusing me of not posting on EY even though I clearly did; - used what I wrote on Adam to discredit me for voting for xsk, the player layabout replaced. - Lynch All Liars? On December 12 2011 05:39 xtfftc wrote: I wanted to post these two bits separately because the first part is a responce to layabout's nonsence, while the second is analysis of his play. Consider what has layabout done since replacing xsk's replacement: - tell us he can't imagine another lynch but BKE - a gigantic OMGUS (both me and Tunkeg - the players layabout has "analysed" - were on xsksc earlier) - try to push for a late switch I put him and EY as the third mafia member and I've stated that he has a lot to prove if he wants to prove xsk's innocence, so he knows he has to do something about it. But in the process he has revealed himself. This is quite a long post, so I've put the quotes in spoilers to make it more readable. - he deliberately quoted just half of my explanation of how Grackaroni was using WIFOM. Some of the other posts he quoted contained a lot of stuff that had nothing to do with his point and were very long and made his case harder to read - yet he didn't find it necessary to remove them. But he decided to cut out two very important lines and then use what's left to accuse me. Check out the actual quotes in the spoiler if you don't remember his post. + Show Spoiler + Example #1: Quoting a post that contains a lot of irrelevant information without bothering to cut it out. The bits in green are the bits that have nothing to do with what he is talking about that he decided to include anyway. The bits in red are what he is actually refering to. On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read Example #2: Cutting of half of my example. The bit in red is what Grackaroni posted and the green is what I wrote. Note that layabout didn't use the quote function - he simply marked what he wanted with his mouse. You will notice this clearly if you have a look at his original post (link, compare the second and the third quote). On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: you explicity state that you think Jay is the most likely to be scum and grack makes this point you call his "reasoning" (i see a simple statement of fact) "pure WIFOM" well where is the pure wifom in this? And here you can see the rest of my post; the bit in green is what layabout omitted. On December 10 2011 06:23 xtfftc wrote: I stated my reasons for keeping my vote on EY. Your reasoning is pure WIFOM in this case. Jay was obviously going to be lynched hours before I posted the bit you quoted, so what could a townie do in this situation? Vote for Jay and be accused of sheeping after BH and bandwagonning (remember Tunkeg and his analysis of the Bbyte lynch?) Or vote for someone else and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia. Let's also consider me being mafia for the sake of discussing my actions. Vote for Jay and get accused of bandwagonning, or don't and be accused of not voting for the obvious mafia? It works both ways. - he quotes something and calls it as exactly the opposite + a scumslip? This is something new I just noticed, so you should definitely check it out. + Show Spoiler + On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read and yet in the above quote you do not do that In the "above quote" I was pushing for my best read - EY - and I voted for him 45 later. Moreover, this might even turn out to be a blatant scumslip. How does layabout know that I did not vote for mafia? I kept my vote on EY and did not switch to Jay. So, if EY is town, it appears to be true: I did not vote for mafia (Jay) but I did the opposite instead. Read it again: you have stated that you should only vote for mafia and that you should lynch your best read and yet in the above quote you do not do that It can be just bad wording but it makes me very suspicious. - he is twisting facts This one may be a bit boring as I have to go through the thread post by post but I think it's worth reading. + Show Spoiler + On December 11 2011 02:21 layabout wrote: you have a strong case on a player but you would rather not post it and you would rather vote for someone other than your best read? seriously? He calls me out for this post and there's two interesting bits here. layabout posted "you have a strong case on a player but you would rather not post it and you would rather vote for someone other than your best read? seriously?" Yet I never voted for Adam and the post layabout quoted was me saying that I don't hjave a good case on Adam. Furthermore, I had posted my thoughts on EY throughout the day. There's 1 2 3 4 5 posts that have stuff on EY just from the first half of Day 1. This is lot for such a short period of time. Yet layabout tries to discredit me for not posting my case. In fact, I actually got called out for tunneling EY a bit too much (Grackaroni comes to mind but I think there were others as well), so I decided that it would be more productive if I focus on other players until the end of the day and I went after xsk and Adam. Eventually, I realised that my case on Adam wasn't good enough and I wrote "Pretty much all I have on Adam is based on two of his posts that push pro-mafia agenda. Now that I think about it, I have a much stronger case on ey215", so I stuck to what I had on xsk. Note that this was hours after I had decided not to go after EY until Day 2. Actually, it gets even better. See, what I did after moving away from EY was to build my case on xsk, the player layabout eventually substituted. layabout used a comparisson I made between two of my cases - on EY and Adam - to criticise me for switching from EY to xsk. So, to recap: - he quoted two posts that had more than 24 hours between them to prove that I did not focus on my main read (EY), while disregarding everything that happened in the meanwhile that made me focus on someone else (xsk); - layabout misrepresented the truth by accusing me of not posting on EY even though I clearly did; - used what I wrote on Adam to discredit me for voting for xsk, the player layabout replaced. - Lynch All Liars? What did I miss talking about? And you never answered me: On December 13 2011 03:42 xtfftc wrote: Velinath, what do you think of my posts on layabout, especially the last one? Don't allow layabout to trick you. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
I am off to work, will post more when I'm back home in the afternoon. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 13 2011 21:31 ey215 wrote: Ad Hominem much? So instead of addressing issues you declare Vel's a "lazy townie" and ignore any points he has or had not made? To make sure I kept unbiased I tried to stay clear of layabout making a case against you and even defended you. The best you can come up with to a townie who obviously has been paying attention and active throughout the game is "lazy townie"? That's not an answer to the questions about you. That's trying to make it look irrelevant just because you deem it to be so. It's also scummy as all get out. 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... | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 14 2011 01:01 Velinath wrote: 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. On December 14 2011 01:03 Velinath wrote: ebwop: as tunkeg brought up on day 2 (and you would know if you were reading the thread) LAL isn't referring to faulty cases and you're trying to apply it here. wilfully ignoring what's been brought up already or just lazy, i'm not sure which 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. What I wrote: On December 09 2011 04:53 xtfftc wrote: I've posted more on Jay, look at Day 1 but it's mostly one off remarks (such as pointing out how Jay justified not voting for a lurker by saying that we shouldn't lynch a lurker because a lurker isn't around to defend himself) and I don't see how the last quote was me suggesting that he is probably town. It was me pointing out the scumminess of EY's reasoning, and at that moment it was to be expected that mafia would jump on the Jay bandwagon. At the moment I think that Jay is more likely to be scum because if he's not, we have EY, xsk, and Adam left, and I consider Adam to be the worst lynch out of the players I am suspicious of (Adam, Jay, EY, xsk, BKE) On December 09 2011 05:10 xtfftc wrote: Looking at him as an individual, he is one of the three scummiest (along with EY and xsk), so I consider him more likely to be mafia than not. Looking at him in the context of the potential mafia teams I see, I find his team (Jay, BKE, and one of xsk/EY) more likely than the alternative (xsk/EY/Adam). And yet layabout has insinuated that Jay was my best read. Comment on this at least. WIll you bother finding a post in which I call Jay my best read? And if you don't, what do we do with layabout, who does not admit that what he said was wrong? In case you wonder, this is the post he refers to: You want to lynch me for calling him a liar but it's okay when he does it? Double standard much? As for the rest - you've provided three sentences and that's all. Why you'd avoid analysing all that information if you really think that I'm mafia is beyond me. And layabout has provided yet another post with lots of statement and no evidence while waiting for Veli to vote first. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 14 2011 04:38 Velinath wrote: wait a minute, are you seriously saying that a QUESTION MARK excuses you trying to manipulate a false policy lynch? That's hilarious. I can't take you seriously anymore. (hint: I don't buy this crap at all, and now I really DO think you're lying) There's no double standard. He's said over and over and over that you aren't providing explanation - you aren't. You're outright refusing to participate in a discussion now... Even if you think I'm mafia, you should be trying to get me to talk in order to catch the last person on the team. [QUOTE]On December 14 2011 04:38 Velinath wrote: That's hilarious. I can't take you seriously anymore. (hint: I don't buy this crap at all, and now I really DO think you're lying) So before you DIDN'T think that I was lying? | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 14 2011 04:39 Velinath wrote: And I did comment on him omitting words earlier. Apparently you ignored that. What is this a responce to? Please quote the exact sentence/paragraph, so that it's clear what you're saying. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 14 2011 04:59 Velinath wrote: Lying re: this crap LAL argument you decided to try and push, because it doesn't make any sense at all. Perhaps it's just me but if anyone can explain it to me what it is that he's talking about, I'd be grateful. I'm especially curious about the "now I really DO think you're lying" bit. Veli studying for his finals means that he wasn't lazy - but I'm glad to know that I was right about him not spending enough time to read and analyse. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 14 2011 05:29 Velinath wrote: well that was a retardedly easy test this is what i'm talking about. "Hey let me invoke LAL on something that doesn't qualify as LAL". (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? On December 14 2011 05:29 Velinath wrote: i see in your quotes: "three scummiest" "more likely to be scum" "his team (...) more likely" (2)"three scummiest" does not equal "best read". (3)"more likely" does not equal "best read". Next? On December 14 2011 05:29 Velinath wrote: this implies that you sure as hell think he's scum. (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? On December 14 2011 05:29 Velinath wrote: layabout's already explained that your vote was 100% completely useless day 2. (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? On December 14 2011 05:29 Velinath wrote: why were you happy to go along with the BKEXE wagon on day 3 rather than "make a statement" again (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. 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? | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 14 2011 04:57 xtfftc wrote: So before you DIDN'T think that I was lying? 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. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 14 2011 06:14 Velinath wrote: you even said: 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. Read my post that you have quoted again. What I said was that his earlier posts made me believe that he was town ("As I was re-reading his earlier posts just now, I reached the same conclusion as before: bad townie"), just like with Jay, but later when he was forced to step it up I thought he was mafia ("But both couldn't keep it up when they were forced to provide their reads"). Him and Jay were the perfect example of newbie mafia who can only appear town if they lurk, and them buddying up made it even worse. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
For reasons stated many times before, ##Vote: layabout | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 14 2011 15:12 Velinath wrote: then why didn't you say that? you never directly stated that you thought BKEXE was scum. instead you said the mafia was "hiding amongst the quieter players". hell of a general statement. Because it is better for town if a player reveals his thought process. Why shouldn't I do it? And I did say that I thought BKE is mafia, plenty of times. Read your own arguments against me from earlier - the same posts you quote about me having EY as my "best read" also include me saying pretty much the same on BKE. But somehow this has left you with the impression that I claimed EY was 100% mafia without giving an opinion on BKE. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 14 2011 15:15 Velinath wrote: 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 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. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 14 2011 06:14 Velinath wrote: so you just didn't explain it well i guess, whatever "whatever" *sigh* i didn't say the words "best read" anywhere. you're putting words in my mouth. cute, but come on, try harder than that. 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". You could, but it would be preposterous, considering that at the time of the vote (and plenty of times afterwards) I explained that I considered Jay to be dead already and I wanted to make a point that we have to discuss other players as well. Moreover, Jay was dead already, xsk as afk/replaced (I mentioned not being able to advance my case on him until layabout starts posting a few times), there was a case on BKE already, and I said that was the least scummy out of my list, so who else but EY was I supposed to vote for? On the last page of the thread someone brought up the fact that layabout's vote was just as "wasted" as mine was the day before. How is this okay but mine isn't? 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 5) It did lead to a discussion. 6) Oh, so you agree but you didn't bother changing your position on 5... Not to mention that this is not the first time I've made this point, it's just you not bothering to read my posts carefully until I made you a point by point plan. 7) So all of my analysis since Day 1 meant nothing, it's the single vote that's going to make EY look more suspicious... that doesn't justify wagon sheeping a townie, which is what you did ..........................................................so I was supposed to somehow know that he was town? you could have just as easily said "hey these are my other reads" Not only did I share my reads, I provided plenty of analysis. But, in case you haven't noticed, this town loves lurking. So go ahead, lynch me for trying to do something about it. you even said: 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. I already addressed this this morning but just in case: I did not say he is town. Even just this one quote of you should be enough to put an end to your tunneling if there's any sense left in you. On December 14 2011 06:34 Velinath wrote: (his reasoning for lynching a townie - and even he says that he expects BKEXE to be a townie - day 3. Emphasis mine.) You are once again focusing on the part of my post that was discussing BKE's play on Day 1, while ignoring the rest that was about his play on Day 2 and 3. And this even after I explained it to you. On December 14 2011 06:16 Velinath wrote: 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 It's not about what I was talking discussing (LAL or whatever), it's about you admitting that you were attacking me for something before you thought that I was lying. If you say "now I really DO think you're lying", what did you really Do think before? Could you answer what it was that you did think and put it in bold or something, so that it's clear. Plus, you have no right to suggest how the rest of the players are reading my words, especially when no one has agreed with you in the thread. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 14 2011 06:52 ey215 wrote: I'm frankly not sure what has been brought up/not brought up re:xtfftc at this point but I do have a question about this vote. Wouldn't a last minute surprise be a good thing for the town in many cases? A last minute switch screams mafia. Just wondering on your logic. It depends. On Day 2 we had just one case and very limited discussion, so a switch that leads to a townie lynch would have been blatantly obvious. On Day 1 we had a few cases, so a switch could have been masked much better. As for bigger games, last minute switches almost always benefit mafia because there's more people voting and it's hard to distinguish between the lurking mafia and newbie townies. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 14 2011 23:22 ey215 wrote: Question for xtfftc: Do you still believe I am mafia and if so/not what has changed about your opinion over the last couple of days? I still do. You've hardly given any opinions since I stopped tunneling you (with the only real contribution being you mostly disagreeing/somewhat agreeing with layabout's initial posts on me and Tunkeg, but this is not enough - and it would be wise for the two of you to disagree in the thread anyway) , so the only way I could change my opinion is if someone else acts in such a scummy fashion that leaves no doubt. Let's go quickly through the list of possibilities: BH - town. We all agree, I think. Tunkeg - town. He hasn't contributed a lot but it's enough for a good read. I'm sure that if he was mafia, we would have found reasons to put him under more pressure. Velinath - as much as I hate to say it, town. I would love to call him mafia but it makes no sense. Him tunneling on me so ferociously while committing many factual mistakes fits his play: he focuses on just one player (first it was BKE and now it's me) and he builds up his case as he goes, so he gets things wrong. Studying for his finals has had impact on his analysis as well. And even from a purely theoretical perspective... why would mafia need him to go after me like this when he wasn't a main target? Bussing layabout would have made much more sense than going all out after me. Bluelightz - the only player I can imagine being mafia if you flip town. But he's a lurker, and lurkers simply ruin the game because they are always a gamble. Remember Day 1 and me arguing against everyone about policies in general and Lynch All Lurkers in particular? How I kept saying that it sounds good in theory but in reality it doesn't work? We lynched Bbyte based on the policy but this didn't scare the others into contributing. Bluelightz is the latest example and we can't do much about it. If he doesn't care the post, he doesn't care if he gets lynched as well. So he's putting the town into a very shitty situation. If he's town, he's way too lazy - and if he's mafia, he's playing way too dirty. I have no ideas but hoping for a DT to check him - but we don't even know if we have a DT and whether he'd be able to do it before he dies. So it just sucks. I must say that I feel that the questions you've been asking as of late have been very pro-town. Although this is also good mafia play (asking good questions and appearing to contribute without puting yourself out there as much), it helps town. If you're really not mafia, you should back it up with more analysis because the game is almost over, one way or another. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 15 2011 03:51 layabout wrote: so did day 1 or day 2 have better cases? Day 2 had better cases but Day 1 had better discussion. Who is your third mafia read in case I'm red? And if I flip green, who would be the second one? | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 15 2011 04:22 Velinath wrote: 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. You never did, this was the point of my criticism when I wrote "you did not bother to disagree with what layabout said". | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 15 2011 04:26 ey215 wrote: Actually, now that I've been thinking about it on BH, while I think we all agree he's town has anyone else found him to be less engaging since say the middle of day 3? Like he's almost stepped back a bit. I'm not sure why the change or if I'm just imagining it. He has. I think he may have decided to keep a lower profile because he felt that it's not good for town to sheep after him. The previous two days he put his vote on someone very early and this person got turbolynched, which discouraged discussion about others. Or maybe he's just busy or tired of the game or he's too busy laughing at our stupidity in the mafia QT or whatever ^^ | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 15 2011 18:40 Blazinghand wrote: Well, there's the QT. I guess that means you're definitely Mafia. I can drop the act, then. I am The Doctor. I was the one who kept me alive, by "asking" the doctor to keep me alive. After I became a mafia target I needed to lie to stay alive, and as a Blue, I am allowed to lie. I'm sorry to disappoint you but I decided not to kill you way before you asked for Doctor protection ^^ And I RB-ed you until Veli revealed himself because I had no blue reads whatsoever. Will post more over the weekend, won't have the time for a proper post-game rant at the moment. For the record, BL should be warned for lukring and banned for claiming imo. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 15 2011 20:06 Blazinghand wrote: A) Yes! It was fun. 2] Smurfing is important imo so the town can develop its own personality without relying on the vet. Ideally the vet should play as you did: be a good townie, do his thing, get killed off first night. III. I think a scum vet might have helped this game, but it's unclear. I feel like in newb games it's scum-favored, so maybe a single town vet who dies off quickly is ideal. The reason Palmar died was because he was a smurf though. If you check the mafia QT, you'll see that I wanted to kill him first about ten hours into the game, way before he posted on Hassy, Jay, and me. In order for the veteran to die early, it has to be obvious that he's a veteran, and thus it would be very easy for the doctor/tracker to prevent his death/gain info out of it. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
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. /QUOTE] And so the veteran becomes immune to lynch, thus for the game to be balanced he has to dumb down his play and thus the very point of having a veteran to serve as an example is lost. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 15 2011 21:29 Blazinghand wrote: I actually really appreciated the mods getting replacements rather than modkilling players, as well. That was good. Yeah, some modkills could have ruined the game (although we were unlucky because town got layabout who posted some great analysis - Palmar's case on Hassy was the only bit that was any better - and mafia got Bluelightz who didn't do much but lurk) | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 16 2011 03:28 Grackaroni wrote: I figured there was no way that Blue could be scum because mafia would help him post better than that. If the mafia plays as a team, yes. In this game we hardly had a team. Jay didn't listen and was doing his own thing but at least he tried playing, so it's okay. But Blue was lurking and would then come to the QT and say things such as "xtf don't jump on the EY bandwagon" when I was the person who started it in the first place... | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 16 2011 03:55 Grackaroni wrote: I didn't believe that you were a cop though so I jumped to the conclusion that you were scum. This was the post that really threw me off. "As a side note, I have some good news! Our blues are probably Doctor + DT/Watch, because there's no other reason I'd get roleblocked last night. They think I'm DT/Watcher, and as long as they keep roleblocking me our blues are free to do what they want (since they'll probably think I'm bluffing to get them to stop roleblocking me). " This doesn't really make you look less like a cop, you're practically screaming to scum that you didn't want to be roleblocked. (if you wanted to attract scum to roleblock you, you didn't have to say anything because they already believed you were a cop.) It made me think that you wanted people to believe you were a cop, which in a way I guess was accurate. For what it's worth, I didn't particularly care about whether BH was blue or not. He had a good effect on the town's play overall but I didn't feel like killing him on Night 2 or 3 would have changed that much, so I opted to go for others. Killing him on Night 1 would have been better but EB was the priority and there was no way I was going for anyone else. P.S. I just checked the times of posting and I realised that I wanted to lynch him after his first post in the game (this one). | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 16 2011 05:16 wherebugsgo wrote: This game was a good example of what happens when townies do what they're supposed to do. Standard scum play on TL is terrible, and it's because really no one knows what to do as scum. However, scum often still win (as in the last newbie game and in every normal game I've ever played in) by doing nothing because towns are worse. While town did well, you seem to forget that me and Jay were pretty active. It wasn't particularly good but we weren't doing the standard lurking play lazy maifa goes for, which made it much easier for town than half-lurking would have done. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
If he is scum, he's the first scum I've ever seen actually trying to push the town away from lynching lurkers on day 1. Also, considering that the post I quoted was on Veli who was town, I think that I get to be the first scum Palmar's ever seen actually trying to push the town away from lynching lurkers on day 1™. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 16 2011 09:16 Blazinghand wrote: I think it was somewhat unlucky for mafia team that Hassybaby went afk, then Bluelightz also went afk... and came back to play sub-optimally. It's really tough to sub in for another player especially for someone new who maybe wasn't entirely sure what was going on in the thread (Layabout can tell you how hard it is to pick up two batons at once, since sandshard ended up going afk as well-- I think he deserves some real credit for contributing to the town despite being thrown into the deep end rather harshly). Well, you did spend a couple roleblocks on me which let Veli find you I wouldn't call roleblocking the doctor a waste. But it was pure luck, I had no blue reads and just went with you in case you were DT. And layabout did great, without him Veli's night check on me could have easily been inconsequential. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 16 2011 09:24 Adam4167 wrote: The only hurdle I can see with giving both sides a vet is that the town vet is very likely to be shot on night 1. Now, the game has only the scum vet in it until the town gets its shit together and eventually hangs him (which will probably be last of all the scums, as hes the least likely to be caught saying or doing something stupid). Town vet dies > instalynch of the other vet since he's obviously mafia. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On December 16 2011 10:02 Blazinghand wrote: I think that's a fair case against vets smurfing in general. I'm not sure, though, that EB really helped the town a huge amount. Not to bag on palmar but basically he disagreed with me a bunch, flipped out, made some unsubstantiated (if correct) remarks, then got gunned down like a punk. Just having him in the game meant that he had to die night 1. So we couldn't pick a lynch that would accomodate our strategy - we had to kill him no matter what. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
| ||
