EPTOn GGQ well it's an weird, because I say he seems scummy for in a way supporting you by diverting attention and because he said he supported the plan even calling out that if people have a problem they should point to one of the steps... then he didn't actually call you or jackal out, the interesting thing is I think he got the same red read off of you that I did and that's why he helped you, so what you are doesn't actually matter to the read on GGQ. He could have seen what I saw, thought what I thought, then because he's scum reacted differently.
Sleeper Cell Mafia II - Page 10
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Navillus
United States1188 Posts
On GGQ well it's an weird, because I say he seems scummy for in a way supporting you by diverting attention and because he said he supported the plan even calling out that if people have a problem they should point to one of the steps... then he didn't actually call you or jackal out, the interesting thing is I think he got the same red read off of you that I did and that's why he helped you, so what you are doesn't actually matter to the read on GGQ. He could have seen what I saw, thought what I thought, then because he's scum reacted differently. | ||
|
vaderseven
United States2556 Posts
Lets try to get a bit more on track than debating something insanely useless like that. I actually find Navillus a bit squirmy but I have never played with him and thats like the barest of gut reads on the last few posts of his. I hate day 1. | ||
|
Meapak_Ziphh
United States6789 Posts
On January 26 2012 12:22 Radfield wrote: /confirm First things first, please do not do this. Consider: Mafia do not know who their partners are. Therefore, high up on the priority list of the mafia is figuring out who the other members are. We need to not let this happen easily. The mafia have access to several pieces of information we do not, most specifically the number of mafia in the game. Players popping out and saying they think there are X amount of mafia are immediately getting a note in my scum book. Why? It's one way for a mafia player to indicate he is mafia to the rest of the crew, without raising suspicion. Makes sense? So no speculation on mafia numbers please, at least not right now. Second, mafia have very limited forms of communication this game, and from the looks of the Inception agent role, we can assume that town has some way to view their messages. This means mafia have to be extremely careful with what they write, so blatant things like lets kill X tomorrow are probably out. So mafia need a means to try to indicate to their brethren who should be getting hit. Imagine I am scum, I want to make sure that my buddies don't accidently send in hits on players I think are scummy, I want them to send in the hits on people I think seem like sure town. So what am I going to do? I'm going to repeatedly hammer it home in thread that I think Player Z is sure town. If there is general consensus among the group that player Z is town, he is a great target for mafia to lump in on. We need to ensure this does not happen. Therefore I propose that NO ONE call anyone else town. Players are either scummy, very scummy, definitely scum, OR not scum. That is all. If you think someone is almost for sure town, you still just have to call them 'not scum'. Benefits: Stops mafia from finding clear night-kill targets, and increases the chance of them shooting themselves. Cons: Possibly leaves us low on town leaders. Certain players may spend too much time going after obvious townies. Likewise, we should not be making medic lists. If you think a particular player should receive protection, that's probably cool, but no listing 3 or 4 people. In this game, that's just giving mafia a clear list of targets to shoot at, which is exactly what they need(a list). Medics in this scenario should be protecting whomever is most likely to die anyways, as there is no WIFOMing your medic protect around. Third, and this is straight out of resistance mafia, no talking about mafia strats. We simply do not talk about optimal mafia moves, or likely moves, as that is simply a way for mafia to galvanize their actions together. In a game with minimal mafia interaction, we need to ensure that they cannot use the thread to disseminate information So this game we talk about townie strats and townie moves, not mafia ones. On the flip side we do not call people likely town or town, we call them not scum or varying degrees of scum. Thoughts? Agreement or Disagreement? LOLOL couldn’t you have hidden it better? For those who don’t see it, paragraph in red is basically a massive warning to fellow scum. Of course a scum post wouldn’t be complete without an obvious contradiction and rad doesn’t disappoint with his little ending bit about not giving advice to mafia. Let’s start the day off right ##Vote: Radfield | ||
|
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
I do agree with meapak, that one glaring middle section in radfield's post is suspicious, I think it's more of him over-emphasizing his point to a degree that he actual talks about the exact strat he is trying to prevent. I think the major offender is this: "We need to ensure this does not happen. Therefore I propose that NO ONE call anyone else town. Players are either scummy, very scummy, definitely scum, OR not scum. That is all. If you think someone is almost for sure town, you still just have to call them 'not scum'." It makes the whole warning completely void when you push that, rather then simply not discussing your town reads. | ||
|
Cwave
Netherlands313 Posts
| ||
|
Meapak_Ziphh
United States6789 Posts
Back to what you said Bum, I'm never trying to find a townie. I'm always trying to find scum. If I happen to feel someone is acting protown that's great, one less person for me to worry about. However unless it's a mayor election (not present here) I really don't see a need to specifcally call someone out for playing protown. This doesn't preclude agreeing with people, it just means I don't need to go make lists of people I think are town. There I just said what Radfield tried to say in like a fifth of the space and none of the scum directions. | ||
|
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
On January 26 2012 18:13 Meapak_Ziphh wrote: "I've always been a fan of not saying who I think is town, and just saying who I think is scum. I think that's what radfield is trying to say." I agree with this Bum, and I think most people here are good enough players that they would agree as well. However it's the way Radfield phrases it that is the problem, he goes so counter to what he later states it's almost comical. He is basically directing red roles through this post. I mean that entire red section could have been omitted or reworded but the way it was written leaves a very scummy feel throughout the post which only gets worse when he flat out contradicts himself. Back to what you said Bum, I'm never trying to find a townie. I'm always trying to find scum. If I happen to feel someone is acting protown that's great, one less person for me to worry about. However unless it's a mayor election (not present here) I really don't see a need to specifcally call someone out for playing protown. This doesn't preclude agreeing with people, it just means I don't need to go make lists of people I think are town. There I just said what Radfield tried to say in like a fifth of the space and none of the scum directions. He did seem to go out of his way to phrase it awfully. I'll sleep on it. | ||
|
Refallen
452 Posts
Started a little earlier than I would have liked, would be a bit less active these few days. I will still make it a point to read and post though. What is this arguing about semantics about calling people town/not scum? Wtf is this? I think what Radfield is trying to say is to not publicly call out people as townish, and rather focus on calling people out as scum. Focusing on negative posts than positive posts, that's what it is. And rad, meapak has a very good point. It seems like you're warning your fellow scum, how do you respond to that? | ||
|
Barbiero
Brazil5259 Posts
First things first, I'm keeping track of voting count(although I find it useless to keep track of unvoting): + Show Spoiler [votecount] + Radfield(1): Meapak_Ziphh redFF(3): bumatlarge, Blazinghand, Navillus Navillus(1): redFF Maybe I should care about this only close to the end of day. whatever Meapak makes some good points regarding Radfield's post, however I don't think that's a real scumslip. First he denies the best option for mafia to out townies and coordinates their shots; That's not an advice to Mafia, that's an advice to Town. That option isn't an optimal mafia move more than it is the most intuitive way for scum to coordinate themselves. His post makes a lot more sense from a Town POV than from a Scum POV. People are so eager with voting so early on the day! | ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
People are so eager with voting so early on the day! Is there something wrong with that?Also unvote me bum | ||
|
Barbiero
Brazil5259 Posts
 | ||
|
Cwave
Netherlands313 Posts
| ||
|
Jackal58
United States4264 Posts
redFF- Why do you call Radfield town in your first post and then vote him in your second? Wtf is up with that? I have no problem with voting Rad - I got scum vibes from his first post - but what you did red looks like you're trying to talk to a scumbuddy. | ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
On January 26 2012 22:47 Jackal58 wrote: I agree with the assertion that we shouldn't label somebody as definite town. I disagree with Radfields ploy of calling town "not scum" That's what I called stupid. And I stand by that. It's stupid. It's a semantics game. redFF- Why do you call Radfield town in your first post and then vote him in your second? Wtf is up with that? I have no problem with voting Rad - I got scum vibes from his first post - but what you did red looks like you're trying to talk to a scumbuddy. It was a joke based on him telling us not to call people town. Hence the "ololol" | ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
On January 26 2012 21:56 Cwave wrote: Why not vote him then? Although Radfield's his posts screams scum i agree on the point that someone who get's a label town from us all is just very likely to get votes from the scumteam. We all have to prevent that, more so early on. Later on, we hopefully get some reads from our DT on scum. olawd | ||
|
Barbiero
Brazil5259 Posts
Rather, what he asks is for us to call people "not scum", which can be at most a null tell. This is a way to stop town from labeling their strongest green reads, the ones that the scum team wants to kill the most. This is what I got from it. | ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
| ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
My paragraph was not meant to be a warning(though I suppose it is to some degree if there are braindead mafia), it was me trying to make a point that we want to avoid talking about the varying degrees of how pro-town a player is. Notice that even with all the explantion I put in, MULTIPLE people have not understood what I was talking about and think I'm making some sort of semantical argument. Apparantly unlike you Meapak, I ALWAYS search for townies, especially early game. So does Foolishness, Palmar, syllogism and I'm sure many others. Mafia is a process of elimination for me: find the townies so I can narrow down my potential suspects, then focus hard on whomever is left over to determine who are scum. In almost ever game I play I post my reads of how townish certain players are, my whole point was that we shouldn't do that this game. On January 26 2012 17:26 bumatlarge wrote: I've always been a fan of not saying who I think is town, and just saying who I think is scum. I think that's what radfield is trying to say. I do agree with meapak, that one glaring middle section in radfield's post is suspicious, I think it's more of him over-emphasizing his point to a degree that he actual talks about the exact strat he is trying to prevent. I think the major offender is this: "We need to ensure this does not happen. Therefore I propose that NO ONE call anyone else town. Players are either scummy, very scummy, definitely scum, OR not scum. That is all. If you think someone is almost for sure town, you still just have to call them 'not scum'." It makes the whole warning completely void when you push that, rather then simply not discussing your town reads. Again, I don't really follow here. Why is that quote the major offender? The reason I take time to write in paragraphs and explain things multiple times with examples is because no one listens to you if you don't. Go read any game where Sandroba has played, he has consistant solid advice, yet gets ignored because he writes it down once without explaining it in depth. This happens less now that he has a reputation for consistent solid advice, but look at the game iGrok claimed balrog: Sandro broke down in about 2 sentances why leaving him alive made zero sense(because mafia could roleblock his kill etc blah blah), but not a single person listened to it because it just got spammed off the page and he didn't do a good enough job explaining the WHY's of what he was posting. There is no point having good advice if you can't get people to understand you. (And people still don't understand what I was writing there) Anyways, On January 26 2012 21:56 Cwave wrote: Although Radfield's his posts screams scum i agree on the point that someone who get's a label town from us all is just very likely to get votes from the scumteam. We all have to prevent that, more so early on. Later on, we hopefully get some reads from our DT on scum. Just to recap here Cwave, you think my post is super scummy, yet you fully agree with the points I was making? Also, please explain why you wrote the last sentence. On January 26 2012 22:47 Jackal58 wrote: I agree with the assertion that we shouldn't label somebody as definite town. I disagree with Radfields ploy of calling town "not scum" That's what I called stupid. And I stand by that. It's stupid. It's a semantics game. redFF- Why do you call Radfield town in your first post and then vote him in your second? Wtf is up with that? I have no problem with voting Rad - I got scum vibes from his first post - but what you did red looks like you're trying to talk to a scumbuddy. You STILL don't understand Jackal. It has nothing to do with semantics, it has to do with people not coming out with lists like this(which I and many other people do each game): Almost Certainly Town X Y Z Likely Town A B C Leaning Town 1 2 3 Null H-P Scummy Fee Fie Foe Fum Likewise, it is also about stopping people from saying things like: "Hey Jackal, what do you think about Meapak" "I'm almost sure he's town at this point" Instead you simply say, "I don't think he's scum", or if you prefer, "I think he is town". You leave out the degree to which you think a player is town. Get it? + Show Spoiler + I'm going to stop talking about this now, because it's not productive. | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On January 26 2012 20:50 Refallen wrote: /confirm Started a little earlier than I would have liked, would be a bit less active these few days. I will still make it a point to read and post though. What is this arguing about semantics about calling people town/not scum? Wtf is this? I think what Radfield is trying to say is to not publicly call out people as townish, and rather focus on calling people out as scum. Focusing on negative posts than positive posts, that's what it is. And rad, meapak has a very good point. It seems like you're warning your fellow scum, how do you respond to that? Hi Refallen, don't go so soon. Why did you bring up the point about people arguing semantics? No one is arguing, some people are simply misunderstanding my post. But you seemed to understand my post, so it should have been apparent to you that there was no argument here. I think you were just trying to flesh out your post. Also, you phrase your last sentence as 'your fellow scum' which indicates to me you think I am scum. Do you think there is a decent chance I am scum based off that 'warning'? I responded to Meapak's questions, how do you feel about my response? | ||
|
Cwave
Netherlands313 Posts
That doesn't mean i don't agree with one of the points you raised(about outing our confirmed town). | ||
| ||
