Surprisingly Normal Mini Mafia VII
Forum Index > TL Mafia |
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
This is my second game. I played in Newbie Mini Mafia III. I also have been participating in the observer quicktopic for Normal Mini Mafia I if you want to look at that after that game ends. | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On February 17 2012 10:09 MidnightGladius wrote: On the last occasion that the town faced unfavorable odds, Newbie Mini Mafia III, the lack of mafia power roles and relative abundance of innocent power roles helped to balance the setup, and I think that it will be the same here. Newbie Mini Mafia III was 4/9, that is very different from 4/11. I see the normal mafia to town ratio as being 1/4. As such I think we are pretty close and cannot speculate as to the number of roles or what roles are in the game. | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
FOS: EchelonTee | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
sl0osh, I dislike your attack on ET. Pointing out that both town and mafia can have motivation for the same action just looks to me like he is covering his bases so he can't be accused of not considering all the options later. And his calling you out was perfectly founded. You were an active poster in NMM3 who looked towards putting quality in the thread. If you suddenly went lurker on us it wouldn't be a stretch to think that you were organizing the mafia in their qt. | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
My current list of people I'm consdering voting for is sl0osh and MannerKiss sl0osh, he overreacted badly to a perfectly fine way of calling him out. Everything in his exchange was just an extended version of OMGUS (attacking the person who attacked you only because he attacked you). I think it is too easy to dismiss sl0osh's failure to see the reason behind ET's actions as his standard confirmation bias. Not acknowledging that ET's initial reference to him was purely to get him talking, not to frame him as mafia. I also thought that whole post about ET's tone was just a big pot of confirmation bias. MannerKiss, his fairly immediate response to me calling him out told me he was paying attention to the thread IE, actively lurking. The two explanations for which would be a new townie unsure of what to post, or a new scum unsure of what to post. The one-liner back at me and his lack of a response to me trying to call him out a second time make me feel it is more likely the latter. | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On February 18 2012 04:19 DoYouHas wrote: sl0osh, he overreacted badly to a perfectly fine way of calling him out. Everything in his exchange was just an extended version of OMGUS (attacking the person who attacked you only because he attacked you). 1. I think it is too easy to dismiss sl0osh's failure to see the reason behind ET's actions as his standard confirmation bias. Not acknowledging that ET's initial reference to him was purely to get him talking, not to frame him as mafia. 2. I also thought that whole post about ET's tone was just a big pot of confirmation bias. 1. This refers to you failing to see the reasons behind ET's pressuring of you. Your post about ET's attitude towards yourself and gumshoe is not based in that failing. 2. THIS refers to that post about attitude. A post which I thought was clearly founded in confirmation bias. They were 2 opinions about 2 sections of your exchange with ET. You treating them both as if they referred to the same thing is wrong. (You = sl0osh) | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On February 18 2012 05:44 gumshoe wrote: Definitley need to take the risk of a lurker lynch, there are three lurkers currently in the game, manner zell and one more I forget, theres a 75 percent chance one of them is mafia. A chance I think we need to take cause were one townie short. Could you explain this further? I don't follow the 75% chance. | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On February 18 2012 06:46 slOosh wrote: If you want to lynch me based on meta just say so. The reason why I started to banter with EchelonTee was to create discussion and also see how he (one of the more experienced members) would respond. Mission accomplished. I stopped when I felt like when it was going out of hand. I am dropping my case on sl0osh for now for 2 reasons. 1. His explanation that I bolded fits and is reasonable. 2. Other cases have been presented that are stronger than mine and I want to free both sl0osh and myself up to be constructive in that area. | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
gumshoe has done a number of things that are not helping the town. The have been pointed out quite a few times so I won't go into depth about them now. Things like derailing, cluttering, unclear-ness, lying, a few inconsistencies. Yet in spite of this my intuition keeps pulling me towards a townie read for him. Here are a few of the things that are informing this stance: First and foremost is gumshoe's reckless and active posting style. I just don't see him as someone who is checking his posts with team members or even as someone who is going to a mafia QT and discussing his moves. He strikes me as playing by the seat of his pants, which is something I would not expect of scum on day1. This is supported by the little inconsistencies in his posting (I am thinking specifically about the one trackd00r pointed out) Secondly, gumshoe has both continued to defend himself about the poll while admitting that it makes him look scummy. I would expect a couple things from a scum put in a similar situation. Either he would play it off as a ploy and a joke in order to get people talking (which he did somewhat) and then try to put it behind him, or he would take some early shots at throwing suspicion onto someone else. He did not try to put it behind him, he even says that you would be crazy not to be suspicious of him for the poll. He took a long long time to start throwing actual suspicions around which I think is a long time to wait when you are scum and in the spotlight early. Like I said at the start, this is a stance based on intuition, not solid logic. So feel free to pick at it. I'll leave you with a bit of information that I've been keeping track of. People who have been defending/supporting gumshoe (soft or otherwise): + Show Spoiler + struck out names are for those who have switched DoYouHas, Alderan, Janaan, TKHawkins, People who have been attacking/suspicious of gumshoe: MidnightGladius, blae000, ET, Steveling(kinda), trackd00r, sl0osh, Dimmuklok, jaj22, | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
I dislike that no one directly addressed my defense of gumshoe, with the exception of ET. I wrote it to be picked at and debated, but you all seem content hammering away at each other. Making big cases and walls of text is nice, but spending all your time on them is going to blind you. I know from personal experience. My schedule is going to be very busy tomorrow. I will be unavailable starting at 4-3 hours before the deadline and remain so for something like 8-9 hours. | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
The only way it has been discussed that I have seen is through statements similar to, "I can't believe people are ignoring gum's anti-town play". Moving on... On February 18 2012 15:52 gumshoe wrote: As a suggestion, for the upcoming votes, there seems to be two major posting suspects, me and Ech. I can almost assure you that were not both mafia. I posted that poll way too early in the game to organize a hostile response with Ech, so now the huge grand arching plan that Steveling accuses me of would have to include Ech running back and forth to pm me a few minutes before that poll went up and his response landed. Logically one of us is probably mafia and one of us is probably town, that or both of us are town which could spell the worst case scenario if one of us is lynched on the first day and the other is lynched on the second or murdered on the first night. I think as things stand the ideal move is to lynch one of us today, if the person lynched is mafia that will all but clear the other of suspicion. But if the one lynched is town then you guys need to approach the situation a bit more cautiously, because its very possible that you could end up lynching two townies. so the best options are either lynch me or ech because we were opposed to one another at the very start and were the most suspicious posters, or vote for hawk because he still hasn't posted. This is another bad plan gum -_-. I have already explained why I think you are town, and I am far from convinced of ET's scumminess. So from my perspective the only value in your plan is a lynch for information, which is dumb. There is still time on the clock to take apart all the cases that have been presented by quite a few people and really try and get a sense of what is going on. And should that fail I am actually pretty content with landing on someone like MannerKiss or another fluff poster. We need to lynch according to the most likely to be scum, I will try to make my case for who that is early tomorrow so there will still be time for voting. | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
MidnightGladius: He has been acting largely how I would expect him to. My questioning of gumshoe's probability was largely to draw MidnightGladius out after gum responded. I think that Midnight's attacks on gumshoe are not something I can use against him for right now when analyzing. The thing that I find strange about Midnight's play so far is the number of one-liners that come off as trying too hard to be fearless once he came under fire. On February 18 2012 09:45 MidnightGladius wrote: You're not even going to vote for me? Welcome back! The last we saw you, DYH was your first scumread. Now, he's "pretty strong townie"? Finally some excitement! Or are you just going to run some of that point-by-point analysis with the red numbers? You apparently think that nonsensical attacks should be taken seriously. If nothing else, vote with the proper formatting so that it will get counted properly. You're missing a colon at the moment. That's the kind of posting that I really don't to have to deal with in the lategame :S There are a couple I left out because I feel I've made my point. I'm just surprised that Midnight, who I see as a very analytical player, would not address the cases against him logically as a first reaction, but instead gave us a series of quips. TKHawkins: Not much to say here. I dislike his first post as it was just a conglomerate of posts others made before with a poor assumption about scum tagged on (an assumption that would exclude TKHawkins from the pool of possible scum of course). Then, in his last post he started following the format of listing everyone with basic reads on them. THIS NEEDS TO STOP. Posting lists is not nearly as helpful as posting thoughtful analysis on a few people. If posting lists becomes standard then we are giving scum an easy way of making long posts that stay shallow. Dimmuklok: Unlike Alderan, I was actually satisfied with much of Dimmuklok's defense of himself. The thing that makes me suspicious is that his weakest defense was of the post that I thought was most scummy. That was this post: On February 18 2012 05:19 DimmuKlok wrote: I've decided to change my stance on lynching lurkers. I was thinking it would be in towns favor to not lynch someone over lynching someone for being inactive, because there's not much to go off of. After reading everyone's response I'm convinced we should be looking for someone to lynch, but I do feel we should try to find a good reason to lynch someone before we target lurkers. I'm must suspicious of MannerKiss right now, like most of you. I'm surprised he threw out that one line response to DoYouHas and then never came back to defend himself. Another suspicion of mine is gumshoe. He's made a lot of posts so far, and most of them being him defending himself for making the poll in the beginning. From a scum perspective, this seems like a good idea. Opening with a useless poll gets your name out there while trying to make it seem like it had a purpose. From then you're able to clutter the thread with discussion over the useless poll, all the while falling back on being a new player as an excuse and some vague reasoning behind it(which might I add has changed several times). Even if gumshoe is not scum, I can't see this as pro-town behavior. Him going after the two most obvious targets is a little fishy, him failing to explain that part because he 'didn't understand Alderan's sarcasm' only makes it more so. However, his posting since has seemed genuine to me. I will be watching him closely, but I am unwilling to vote him today. sl0osh: It may be that sl0osh just has not had time to sit down and really work things out yet, but what he has posted so far still makes me suspicious of him. I already made my original post against him, and that has largely been dealt with. He provided an explanation, and I thought it was reasonable. What isn't reasonable is his extreme lack of taking a stance. I divide his responses into 3 things: responses to pressure, explanation of the game, expressing his own views under his own volition. It is VERY troubling to me how much of the content he has posted fits into those first two categories. Explanation of the game: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Responses to pressure: ET vs sl0osh (1) (2) (3) (4) Expressing his own views: (1) (2) (3) Take note that the only person he has expressed an opinion on that didn't first attack him is gumshoe, and even those opinions are non-committal. sl0osh has done almost exactly what ET has done, except he hasn't provided us with any stances that we can later use against him. I refuse to believe that with 4hours left in the day, sl0osh has no opinions or cases worth posting. He is just trying to slide by, I won't let him. ##Vote: sl0osh | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
@sl0osh, I will be very interested to read it, but unfortunately I'm going to be gone for a while (as I stated last night), and will not have the opportunity to change my vote. | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On a side note it doesn't look like Zbot recorded either my vote or Mattchew's. ##Vote sl0osh | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
##Vote: slOosh | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
Before I go back and get into a point by point defense I want to respond to a couple things. I was unwilling to vote for ANY of the 3 most likely candidates simply because we NEED to lynch someone. And as for switching to a lurker when a better case isn't available (which is what I first espoused), Mannerkiss has been replaced which most commonly happens to townies, so I was not going to vote him. TKHawkins was another lurker I was uncomfortable voting for, same as blae000 and Dimmuklok. So that took switching my vote to a lurker off the table. What does that leave me? To follow my own case and stick with it, even if it means a no-lynch. I was put in the position of either voting for people I thought were likely to flip town, or voting based on my own suspicions even if they didn't help the majority. As for zelblade's repeated accusation that the line "Find the majority without me" is nonchalant and that I'm treating my vote as if I didn't care about it is crap. There is nothing nonchalant about that statement. I was being pointedly stubborn towards slOosh who was trying to get my to change my vote off him for the sake of the majority. I put my vote where my suspicions were, there is nothing clearer than that. | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On February 19 2012 06:22 slOosh wrote: His first accusations are on me and MannerKiss. I've already shared how I don't like the logic he uses. His reasoning is that I am not playing to his expectations and therefore my subpar play indicates that I am mafia. Yes, the heart of my first accusation of slOosh was based in meta. I saw reasons for ET's actions that slOosh did not acknowledge, and then there was the confirmation bias filled post analyzing ET's attitude towards slOosh and gumshoe. Yet I left my case alone after slOosh provided a reasonable explanation for his posting. I was still keeping an eye on him, but I wasn't going to actively push him. On February 19 2012 06:22 slOosh wrote: His next posts talk about how he thinks gumshoe is town. Notice how he doesn't focus on finding mafia, but clearing town. That looks pro-town but it isn't. We want to agree and lynch the strongest scum suspect. He thinks gumshoe is town. Fine whatever, Why isn't he moving on and trying to find mafia? Why is he upset that we aren't discussing how gumshoe is town? Trying to stop a bandwagon onto someone I think is town is anti-town? Up until that point I had not made my stance on gumshoe clear. I posted my defense in the hopes that my stance would be clear, that hopefully people would agree with me and we could move from gumshoe on to more productive targets, or if not that at least through attacking my reasons for gumshoe being town the discussion could become more constructive than just hammering away at gumshoe himself. I was upset that my defense of gumshoe failed to get discussed because with Steveling and Midnight going after gumshoe, my defense was relevant to the discussion. Yet it was largely ignored. I don't like being ignored. I thought I brought up good points, but those who agreed with me didn't voice that opinion, and those who disagreed just ignored it. On February 19 2012 06:22 slOosh wrote: After throwing out some weak accusations on MidnightGladius, TKHawkins, Dimmuklok and slOosh (me), he ends by voting on me. Again, I see nothing in him that wants a successful lynch. His reasoning to lynch me is because "I will be harder to read later on, so it is best to lynch me now." First off, I was not throwing accusations at Midnight, TKHawkins, and Dimmuklok. I was pointing out things that I found while trying to make cases that I thought should be said even though I was not going to push for their lynch. Secondly, slOosh has incorrectly summarized the reasoning behind my pushing him. It is not, "I will be harder to read later on, so it is best to lynch me now." It is that I see slOosh as having studiously avoided posting things that would be useful in analysis of day 1 in respect of the information gained by a lynch. Instead he filled his filter with explanations and clarifications, not with stances and cases. (remember, this is before his case on me) On February 19 2012 06:22 slOosh wrote: And his response while I am typing this up seals the deal. He has no reads, and wants to lynch me but doesn't put any effort into it. I have no reads? I had a meta read on sl0osh early. I provided the original reasoning that put MannerKiss on everyone's radar. I had a town read on gumshoe, which I revealed and defended. I trusted my read on slOosh enough to vote for him and stick with it even if it meant a no-lynch. As for not putting in effort into my case on slOosh, that is wrong as well. One of the things I learned from NMM3 was that a PBPA with a wall of text tends to clutter your good points with your bad ones while simultaneously pulling you into confirmation bias. So when I made my case against slOosh, I tried to be concise, I tried to focus on a fundamental flaw in his day1 behavior, and I provided the posting evidence to back up my conclusion. I will respond to others if I must. But I feel I've addressed the most of the points against me in this post and the previous one. | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On February 19 2012 16:45 slOosh wrote: Not even addressing my points. It isn't defense of someone who you think that is town that is bad. It is the lack of trying to find scummier alternative suspects. These "explanations and clarifications" are to promote a healthy town atmosphere. I explained here why I haven't posted anything yet. So unless you think the things I said weren't to promote good town atmosphere you are trying to lynch me for a lack of stances. You also seem to forget the necessity of each player to vote, which would have forced a response from me anyhow. You had a meta read on me early, dropped it here for the purpose of finding other candidates, digressed into defending gumshoe whilst not offering any alternatives, points out some inconclusive stuff on Midnight, Hawkins and DimmuKlok, votes for me as his strongest scum read but has no desire to follow up and convince others to lynch me. You haven't addressed anything, and your evasive post isn't helping you either. Sleeping now. Please contribute people. Just because day 1 is over doesn't mean the lurker problem is gone. Contribute to town or you will be next on my scumhunt list. Grrrr, you KEEP twisting my words. When I dropped my meta read I said it was so that BOTH of us could be constructive in the cases that were happening around us as we had a back and forth. NOT solely for the purpose of me finding other lynch candidates. What is frustrating me so much is that you are throwing rocks while living in a glass house. You find the fact that I didn't quickly create cases against new people after dropping my original one on you scummy. Yet after you were freed from having to defend yourself did you do any of these things you expected of me? NO. When you defend your lack of cases and stances, you say it is because with 15 people in the game its harder to sift through the filters and come up with a strong case, did you EVER think to apply this reasoning to me? Nope. The only explanation for my inability to make a large strong case after dropping my meta one against you is that I'm scum. It is incredibly hypocritical. And again you seem to miss the point of my case against you. It is not what you have posted, it is what you haven't posted that raises my suspicion. And that is another thing that bothers me. I was not 100% on you being scum. I just did not want to lynch the available candidates and I thought that you would be much more likely to flip scum based on my own reasoning. But now I find myself pigeonholed into pushing you because defending my reasons for suspecting you is all I can do while multiple people are pushing me. What is this about me having no desire to follow up and convince others to lynch you? I gave plenty of notice about my schedule. I can't follow up on my case to further persuade people when I am not here. Both you and gumshoe seem to think I am somehow this mastermind that orchestrated a false absence in order to create a no-lynch. Which is absurd because a no-lynch isn't ideal for scum any more than it is ideal for town. While I seem to be in the ranting mood. Gumshoe, you are using the information of who is openly supporting who to decide your group of mafia which is really unlikely. You need to be looking for groups that work towards the same goals without trying to associate with each other. Scum naturally do not want to draw attention to their associations with each other, especially day 1, and will often be ambivalent towards each other in order to keep their options open. This isn't a hard rule, but it is far more likely than a group of 3 people all posting strong town reads on each other. Also, you are attacking me on the basis that a no-lynch is the worst outcome possible, which it isn't, a mislynch is. I don't like the idea of a no-lynch any more than the rest of you, but from my individual perspective, it was preferable to a high likelihood mislynch. And as for my case on MannerKiss? why didn't I push it? You have ignored that he was swapped for mattchew. Past experience and other people have told me that that makes MannerKiss most likely town. That is easily enough for me not to push him and let mattchew get involved on night1 and day2. | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
I will address your points more thoroughly when I get back trackd00r. And I will get more of my reads out there for you to look at. | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On February 20 2012 02:03 trackd00r wrote: My following thoughts are directed to DoYouHas. 1. I've changed my view on him. If you think that he has been contributing on the discussion, I think you need to take a look closer to his behavior. His play so far has mostly consisted of: 1) Convincing us that gumshoe is town 2) Responding to almost every sloosh's post and draw suspicion upon him. For the first part: 2. Why were you trying so hard to defend gumshoe? I don't see the point of proving he is green when you said before that he had little contribution. 3.1 Plus, posting lists of people going pro-against doesn't really give us a push as town to kill mafia. Specially when you later said that these kind of posting is not helpful: 3.2 The correlation of these two ideas seem very suspicious to me. What do you think? 4. Then you still kept track of gum's play. You point out his mistakes. I don't feel that you are doing it to help gumshoe to post better, but instead to appear to us as someone constantly watching him, like a babysitter. In reality, people did not addressed your defense of gumshoe because they are actually more interested in killing mafia, which is the goal of the game and what we should be really doing. I still wonder, why do you worry so much about gum? 5. When I read that bolded phrase in your quote, I was expecting to you to drop off a little bit about gum and talk about something else. But yet, you still kept talking about gum. 6. Now regarding to your play against sloosh, I thought for some time you are just being blinded for every thing he posts. You built up so many high expectations him that now every little inconsistency in his played leads to more and more attacks to him. To say something, your suspicion and posterior voting to him was because you wanted him to play in a way that you feel comfortable. You didn't like his attitude in his clash with ET, yet you lifted your suspicion against him. Then you went again. You haven't left a good analysis in any other player since then. It's been enough with sloosh. I highly doubt that you'll get a majority voting for him when if you don't back up your arguments not because why you don't like his play to your criteria, but rather you see his anti-town play. 6.1 He's promoted a case now (yours) and has already given opinions at this moment. I ask again: How is he hurting town? You have only made one post with your reads. I think that you are focusing in single targets to draw out suspicion while keeping discussion with them in order to show your town play, which is not what something that really help us. 1. It is unfair to overlook some of my plays. I FOS'd ET early to pressure him and try and make something constructive out of the early policy talk. I pressured MannerKiss specifically, and revealed he was actively lurking in the process. I tried to step in between slOosh and ET when I felt that their cases against each other weren't helping. I then pressured slOosh with my meta read, forcing an explanation from him. I also used gumshoe's posting of questionable statistics to simultaneously get him to expand on his thoughts and draw Midnight into taking a stand on gumshoe. This isn't even really a defense I just think you oversimplified my contributions so far. 2. Midnight had just jumped on gumshoe, and slOosh was threatening to do the same. I was trying to stop a bandwagon which I saw as having a high potential for forming. 3. As I mentioned in that post, I keep track of who is talking about who, whether those references are positive or negative, who quotes who, and who ignores who. (I sorely need to update it for the last 24hrs though.) I find this information useful for myself. So I decided to share some of it that was relevant to the discussion on gumshoe. If you did not find that information as helpful at all, then I don't blame you for thinking that it is scummy. As for the lists that I was arguing against, it was a completely different type. I was clearly pointing out posts where every player is mentioned and then a shallow read is given. I had seen 2-3 of them so far and it needed to stop. So to respond to your point, I don't think those 2 points correlate well, if only because I was arguing against a specific kind of list. If you read my reasons for posting that list and still think it is scummy then oh well, because that was my reasoning and I'm not going invent new ones to convince you. 4. Dealt with in my previous response. 5. This is hardly a strong point against me. The top post was me pointing out why I thought my defense of gumshoe should have been part of the conversation. I said moving on, then I moved on to a recent observation I had on one of gumshoes posts. They both deal with gumshoe, but they are different topics. So I don't see my saying 'moving on' as strange. 6. I maintain that while my suspicions were raised on slOosh because of meta. The core of my case against him is based on stepping back, looking at his posting as a whole and seeing what was lacking. I keep being accused of tunneling and being blind, which is possible. But if that is the case it is not because of tunneling myself into a PBPA like people seem to think. It would be because I was already looking at him as suspicious when I decided that his posts were lacking. 6.1 Here is where I actually agree with you trackd00r. I see parallels between how he has pursued his case against me and how he pursued his case against zarepath in NMM3, which has only raised my opinion of his play. I have been stuck defending why I thought he was scum back before my absence when I have been starting to come around to the idea of slOosh being null or town. I'm going to get into my reads and build a case or two next. If I spend all my time defending myself then I'm not really helping much. I think I'll follow the advice of the people who keep saying at me, "clearing town is a waste of time that is better spent scumhunting". | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On February 20 2012 09:36 EchelonTee wrote: This could be hindsight bias, but the fact that he was posting very constructively, while not butting heads with anyone and not posting TOO much makes it not unreasonable that Mafia thought he was blue. He would definitely have been on my short list for potential blues. I don't want to WIFOM myself out of a potential scum lynch, but shooting jaj, the guy who started the case on Midnight, and leaving me alive, the guy who wants to push MG, seems like really sloppy Mafia play to me. basically, if MG is scum, shooting jaj incriminates him more. Can you address my previous case on MG, and tell me whether or not you think it is valid? You previously stated that you do not think MG is scum. I have reread your case, and jaj22's case, and Midnight's responses. You made valid points, but I think jaj22's were a bit more damning. However, it is Midnight's responses to the cases that I am picking up on this time around. He never responded directly to jaj22's points, his actions following jaj22's case against him are as follows:
2. Redirect onto MannerKiss. 3. Belittle the analysis style of ET who just happened to be the first to agree with jaj22. 4. Attack ET, belittle jaj22's case again. 5. Redirect onto MannerKiss and gumshoe, attack ET, with a little more belittling of jaj22 thrown in for good measure. 6. And finally a response to a case against him, gumshoe's. Which was much weaker than jaj22's. In fact, the first time he addresses jaj22's case directly is in his response to ET's case against him. And even then it is to point out that jaj22's case was invalid because jaj22 didn't actively pursue and post another one. Which would be reasonable, if Midnight had ever dealt with the original case. He also asks the questions "What topics have I failed to address? What questions have I failed to answer?", which seem to have pretty clear answers as I type this post up. These points on top of my original observations that his one liners looked to me like he was trying too hard to appear fearless make me think this is entirely justified. ##FOS: MidnightGladius | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On February 20 2012 10:43 gumshoe wrote: DYH what do you think of my argument about Jaj being the best pick due to his death leaving so many conflicts intact, and what do you think of Hawk? The reason I ask the first question is because I think you and sloosh might have to drop your fight and I think I have to stop attacking Steveling as well, because I feel like the mafia took care to leave these flimsy conflicts intact so they could continue to create chaos, thats why I think they killed jaj despite the fact that the case for him being blue was not 100 percent(though as I mentioned earlier it did seem pretty strong from my perspective). That is unless Jaj posed the biggest threat regardless and just had to die. Which do you think was the bigger reason? conflict preservation or threat elimination? Oh and the second question about Hawk is just out of curiosity(SUSPICIOUS CURIOSITY!) I think it is convenient that killing jaj22 left those conflicts intact, but I agree with mattchew that trying to accurately ferret out all of the mafia's reasoning is going to be a useless exercise in WIFOM. I had my initial impression that jaj22 did nothing special to define himself as blue, but it is entirely possible that mafia picked up on something I didn't see, just like you have. As for Hawk, he is definitely one of the people I am looking into right now. As I write this post I'm fighting myself because I'm realizing that the easiest way to express where I'm at before I get into longer analysis is by posting a list, the exact kind of list that I have been arguing against. BAH, I'm going to do it, but I'm going to keep it short and I'm going to post solid analysis later to justify. My town reads are: trackd00r, ET, gumshoe, slOosh, and blae000. This leaves a pool of 8 people in which I think all mafia are present. That is where I am looking now, and that is who I am building cases on. | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
P.S. I seriously loled when you pointed out my fail counting. I didn't even realize that I was off until you spoke up. | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
I am going to start at the beginning, and this is going to be long. I will be repeating things from the cases ET and jaj22 posted. On February 17 2012 10:09 MidnightGladius wrote: It is such a pleasure to start another game: let the paranoia flow, and the productivity falter! Notes on the setup: Now that there are 15 starting players, the mafia:innocent ratio is rather uncommon, at 4:11, favoring the mafia, compared to 3 in Normal Mini Mafia I, 3 in Newbie Mini Mafia II, and 3 in Newbie Mini Mafia I. On the last occasion that the town faced unfavorable odds, Newbie Mini Mafia III, the lack of mafia power roles and relative abundance of innocent power roles helped to balance the setup, and I think that it will be the same here. Considering that the town gets a minimum of one extra mislynch compared to the standard setup, I think that the extra information will be especially helpful. Easy enough, right? No need for lurking, bashing, or spamming; I'm hoping for a great game. Trust in Bayes! This is from his first post. It was something that I lightly challenged him on at the time, and it has never sat right with me. His point is that the balancing of roles is going to be similar in a 4/11 setup to a 4/9 setup. Midnight wants to point out that the role balance likely changed in favor of the town since we have 11 members instead of 12, just like the role balance changed into the favor of town in the 4/9 setup of NMM3. I have 3 issues here, the first is that Midnight fails to ever follow up on this and actually speculate as to the degree of balance change between 4/11 and 4/12, which would be the only thing that gives his initial post any worth. The second is that he starts the game speculating about blues, which is wifom and unhelpful, a town perspective is just to let the blues do their jobs. At least during day1 before the blues have even become relevant. The third is that he starts this post stating that we are facing unfavorable odds, then spends the whole back half of it setting us to our ease, pointing out that we probably have lots of blue roles, and that we have an extra mislynch. On February 17 2012 10:43 MidnightGladius wrote: I've been told by veterans here that it's possible to use behavioral analysis to lynch mafia on the first day, but I honestly am not sure how to go about it. Hopefully, activity will be high enough to render this issue moot, but I have no regrets with lynching lurkers. He is lowering our expectations towards him as a person who has played before. On February 17 2012 13:23 MidnightGladius wrote: EchelonTee, you shouldn't be so upset You've had some experience, so I expect better pro-town play from you. And I will be watching. And raising our expectations on ET. Then there is this section: On February 17 2012 13:23 MidnightGladius wrote: If you claim that your "he's posting the scum QT" threat was a joke, then you're expecting us to let you get away with saying anything you want, as long as you say that you're not being serious. Secondly, you claim that you never accused sl00sh of being mafia, but there's no denying that he would be posting in the scum QT if and only if he were truly mafia. You're not looking too friendly at the moment, and I have to wonder what might be on your mind. Nowhere did ET claim that his threat was a joke, the only post of his that could be twisted that direction is this one: On February 17 2012 12:15 EchelonTee wrote: did you feel threatened? :D Which I never saw as a joke response, and it definitely doesn't claim that his original pressure was a joke. And since he never claimed his pressure was a joke, it is quite the leap to say, "you're expecting us to let you get away with saying anything you want, as long as you say that you're not being serious." Also, ET never did accuse slOosh of being mafia, he drew slOosh into posting through the use of a threat. That's all. I have become fairly convinced that Midnight used the same play on ET and gumshoe, which is to breadcrumb early suspicion, and then wait for an opportunity to jump on them. With gumshoe it was the posting of bad statistical analysis. With ET it was voting Midnight and then leaving without posting a case of his own. On February 18 2012 04:38 MidnightGladius wrote: As to who we lynch, I say that we put pressure on lurkers and threaten them with a lynch if they don't contribute. It establishes a basic precedent on the quality of content that we expect out of certain players, and then we can take their future posts and make some contrasts. The common argument against lynching a lurker is that mafia will only have to pretend to contribute, or stay just above the least active players. I say that that's fully acceptable, as both of those behaviors will be red flags in the days to come, especially if the town keeps up and stays consistent with activity levels. With that said, I'm going to put my vote on MannerKiss. He has done nothing for us. MannerKiss, here's your opportunity to show us that you have an interest in helping us win this game. Who is your #1 target so far? ##Vote: MannerKiss This post bothers me because his lead up into his pressure vote makes his vote practically worthless. First he explains that the vote is a pressure vote, easily removed. Then he lays out a road map for how MannerKiss can remove the vote. This is not inherently scummy, but it is at least troubling because it is an incredibly weak way of pressuring a lurker. Then we get to his vote change to gumshoe, I agree with ET here that it is strange that he would invoke FakePromise, a townie, while making his case against gumshoe. When you bring up someone from a past game like that, you are invoking all of their play from that game unless otherwise specified. The 2 breadcrumb posts of Midnight's on gumshoe before this focused on providing reasons against gumshoe, followed by an opinion that he was town in spite of the bad play. Then at the start of his case for switching his vote, he invokes another player who was townie in spite of his bad play. I think that is at least a little strange. Ok, now we get into his responses to the cases against him I already did a writeup of this here. The only thing I would like to add to that case is this point. If you think a case against you is invalid and/or full of holes, why is it that instead of taking 1 post to poke holes in jaj22's case or even just outright disprove it you embarked an a short campaign of arrogantly belittling the case, its writer, and its supporter? Attack the points, not the posters. I have a lot to talk about in this next post. On February 18 2012 12:32 MidnightGladius wrote: MannerKiss is actively lurking and needs to step it up or die. Some of the other lurkers are active candidates for modkills at this point, but he's not, and that means that we should pressure him. However, gumshoe's posting is actively hurting us, and while I'm not certain that he's mafia, I'm growing increasingly convinced. I would consider both of these votes to be pressure votes. I'd honestly rather pressure gumshoe to quiet down and concentrate than pressure MannerKiss to speak up :D My strongest other scumread lies on EchelonTee, for the reasons I mentioned earlier: His sequence of 1) being glad that there was activity 2) accusing me without a case 3) saying he would provide a case 4) telling DYH to support my lynch 5) not presenting a case 6) leaving the discussion seemed really suspicious to me. First of all, Janaan asked for Midnights reads, to which he only reiterated things he had previously said, MannerKiss, gumshoe, and ET. Nothing new. I find the bolded section extremely suspicious. He starts by saying that he thinks gum is actively hurting the town and is growing increasingly convinced that gum is scum. This is where his explanation of his voting does not mesh with his explanation of his suspicions. When he originally voted for gumshoe his explanation was that the level of anti-town activity from gumshoe was such that he could only assume malicious intent. That sounds as much like a vote for scum as a pressure vote to me. Then in this post he points out that if anything, gumshoe has only gotten worse in his eyes. Here is the catch, "I'd honestly rather pressure gumshoe to quiet down and concentrate". He sees gumshoe as malicious and scummy, he thinks that his case towards that end is only getting stronger as gumshoe continues to post. Why does he want gumshoe to quiet down? Why would he be advising gumshoe to concentrate? If you are becoming more comfortable with your scum read on gumshoe as he posts, why tell him to stop posting? He is making your job easier. In fact, the reasoning that you are expressing is very similar to my own. + Show Spoiler + On February 20 2012 02:32 DoYouHas wrote: The one point I will explain right now is how I have been acting towards gumshoe. I have been working under the assumption that he is town. So instead of using the flaws in his posts to build a case against him. I have been pointing them out with why they are wrong in hopes that he will learn quickly and become an asset to the town. This is something that I did multiple times to Simberto and slOosh in NMM3. It isn't scummy by any stretch of the imagination. As for how Midnight handled ET. His 6 point case: #1 is something you did as well + Show Spoiler + On February 18 2012 09:51 MidnightGladius wrote: Finally some excitement! He states that gumshoe is a pressure vote and that his strongest scum read is on ET, but his vote does not follow his strongest scum read until after zelblade, trackd00r, and blae000 all voted for him first. The rush to get a majority created chaos that makes it hard to find scummy bandwagons, but this post of Midnight's + Show Spoiler + On February 19 2012 08:33 MidnightGladius wrote: People who seem to be active right now: 1. Me 2. zelblade 3. jaj22 4. Mattchew 5. Janaan 6. gumshoe We need to make a decision. The town gains nothing from a no lynch. We have 30 minutes. Looking at the voting list, there's no way we can get a majority on anyone by EchelonTee or me. Make up your minds, or else Day 2 is going to be a mess. Strikes me as very similar to sinani's(scum) in NormalMM1. + Show Spoiler + On February 04 2012 09:15 sinani206 wrote: OK, I don't think you people understand. Get your fucking votes on Sentinel or Timeasis. We can't risk a NL on Day 1. In case you don't understand, THIS MEANS YOU: Bluelightz Vilonis TheToast BaronFel mderg Also @prplhz: lol ##Vote: MidnightGladius | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On February 21 2012 02:11 gumshoe wrote: DYH, you stand to be lynched very soon, if you really are town make some last contributions to help us out, you said you were suspicious of Hawk? Can you give us that case please before your lynched? Right now I am pretty convinced that you all are going to lynch me regardless of what I say, so I'm just going to try and get all my analysis out there by the end of the day. You are holding to another mislynch, and I can't argue you off it. I've tried and tried, and I'm tired of trying. So instead I'm going to pour my brain out into the thread so you will have as much DoYouHas analysis to look back at as possible. | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
TKHawkins + Show Spoiler + On February 17 2012 13:56 TKHawkins wrote: Welcome. First game on this forum. Anyway, I don't think Gumshoes poll is scummy. It's more likely he just thought "he I wonder if this idea would work." Clearly the answer is no and he didn't really think it through. Seems like more of newbie attempt at something more then anything else. I'm sure the obsever quick thread is already LOLing hard at us. I laughed too (and didn't vote since I hadn't known the game had started). As for the policy on Lurker hunting, it's obviously a bit early to call people lurkers since many people might not even know the game has started yet (though definately not too early to discuss how to handle lurkers). It is best not to go after lurkers right away. The mafia generally aren't going to be completely inactive at the start. Rather, they are going to try to blend in. Scum post a reasonable amount, but don't contribute. And finally, the Sl0osh vs Ech thing, I do think it's suspicious for Sl0osh to be acting defensive already. bolded-He echoes Midnight's sentiments and tells us about his lack of voting in the poll, which for the life of me I can't see a reason for explaining this. underlined- Then he proposes a policy of not going after lurkers early, which as I have previously mentioned, is convenient because he is one. But even beyond that, he provides some WIFOM reasoning as to why we should not go after lurkers which, as a number of you have pointed out, the scum could easily just read and act differently if we were to ever adopt this reasoning. He lurks for about 26hrs, then provides this weak analysis of Janaan+ Show Spoiler + On February 18 2012 16:25 TKHawkins wrote: Janaan 1. In that quote he basically accuses almost everybody who had posted in the thread at the time of being lurkers or scummy. Its not really helpful to spray such accusations without backing it up. He complains about "fluff" posts but does not include Gumshoe in his list of people who are posting fluffy. 2. He then kinda jumps onto a DimmuKlok bandwagon based entirely on Alderan's post. 3. He says all the right things but isn't really contributing. @Trackdoor, just a question. I seem to recall you being one of the few who didn't want to lynch lurkers. But your analysis seems to be mostly, this guy is posting a lot so he's town. Have you changed your policy on lynching lurkers or is this just your way to make them post? 1. That list accused exactly who it said it would be accusing, the people who only had a couple of posts in the game so far and had yet to really get past the fluffy policy talk at the start of the game. It doesn't make sense that gumshoe would be on that list, he had posted frequently, and even if those posts were lacking merit, he was a center of conflict in the thread. 2. He is trying to frame Janaan as someone who was letting Alderan doing his thinking for him. But that is clearly not the case if you read Janaan's posts relating to Dimmuklok. 3. I also think he is saying the right things, and I think it is because he is Town. + Show Spoiler + On February 19 2012 01:05 TKHawkins wrote: Gumshoe does not follow direction well though. I do not think he'd actually listen to scum telling him not to post like that. After all, people have already told him not to post like that here and he ignores everybody. He's definitely giving noob vibes. But a noob could be town or a noob could be mafia. The moderators assigning roles randomly don't care who gets what role. The idea of "he's acting too noob so he must be town because mafia would stop him" is a flimsy argument because he could just be a noob. I don't see how we are supposed to decide his innocence or guilty solely based on that. @Trackdoor. Alright, I get your explanation on the lurker thing. Hawk presents a similar reasoning to Midnight's regarding gumshoe then comes that underlined section. That first sentence is valueless. Then we get to his summary of the reasons that gumshoe could be town. Did anyone expect Hawk to decide gum's innocence or guilt based just on that? I certainly didn't, that wasn't my case. Now we get to his list of reads post, as I mentioned previously it is difficult to draw meaningful analysis out of a post like this, but I do have 2 thoughts. + Show Spoiler + On February 19 2012 02:45 TKHawkins wrote: Gumshoe Has had to spend most of the game defending himself. Looking at what else he's done besides that, he suspects Gladius for spending too much time on commenting on the set up. FOS's MannerKiss. Comments on how DimmuKlok made an accusation against "the most obvious runt" (Manner) and and the "second most obvious seeming runt" (himself). Later comments on how Ech and him are now the most obvious votes and pushes for Ech. These are the comments of somebody scrambling to stay alive, not scum. Blae Quality post with a new argument against Ech for being too aggressive. Gets ticked at lurkers. Sees trackd00r and Janaan as pro-town. Blae feels very pro town to me. Would love to see more, but with the Europe timezone difference I think I will end up playing phone tag with him on the weekdays. Alderan Pressuring lurkers to post. Makes a case against DimmuKlok, Neutral until I can see more. Ech Throws FOSs and Votes out very impulsively. Does not seem to have a plan, and could just be trying to cause unrest. Why say you had more to say about MidnightGladius being suspicious and then not say anything more? It's almost as if he voted for Midnight and then forgot why he was going to say he voted for him. Which a town would not do. Suspicious. DoYouHas Mostly bogged down with Gumshoe. Trying to tag sl0osh as a good player who wouldn't make such mistakes. It makes no sense to try to meta analyze a player with only one game of background. DoYouHas is jumping on perceived mistakes. Suspicious. MannerKiss There is a difference between lurking by not posting every 4 hours and lurking by actively reading the thread and then just not posting on it. Suspicious because is following the thread and not posting. Steveling Pushes a no lynch and then says he just got confused on the day length. Pushes the gumshoe, who is already getting a lot of heat. Suspicious because no lynch is anti town, even if we had no real leads and because he focuses us back on gumshoe. Trackdoor Pressuring lurkers to post. Makes reasonable statements about Ech. Isn't being super aggressive, but rather analytic. Pro-town read. Midnight I can't get a solid read on him. Slo0sh Still think he reacted too strongly to Ech and DoYouHas accusing him. Why feel guilty as town? Focuses discussion back on Gumshoe, possibly to distract us from his scum buddies. Suspicious. Janaan Had a good explanation for a bad early post I pointed out. Seems to be trying to get other people's reads, so looks pro-town. DimmuKlok Seems to be overly emphasizing that he is new to the game and busy. So am I, but I don't feel the need to state that every other post. Neutral. Zelblade Says Ech is mafia and... that's it? I don't see how he is contributing if he is only going to comment on one or two players. The stuff he says about Ech though is good. Pro-town, but lurking too much. jaj Says flashy and aggressive play are not scummy when talking about Ech. But that's also how he is playing. Convenient eh? Would like more of an explanation about why Midnight in particular deserves a pressure vote, when there are so many others that could have used that too. Every single one of us has earned a town/suspicious/null read from TKHawkins at this point, EXCEPT Midnight. He has since made the point that he is not the only person who had a hard time reading Midnight, which is true, I was one of them. However, I find it strange for 2 reasons. The first is that he managed to pull together a read on every other person, strange to me since I was having trouble with multiple persons. The second is that TKHawkins clearly had put a fair bit of thought into gumshoe, but didn't have an opinion on Midnight, who was highly involved with gum. Even I had at least looked at Midnight long enough to identify a few suspicious things in his play while I was preoccupied with slOosh. This is supposition, but I think there is a chance that TKHawkins tried to buddy trackd00r early. + Show Spoiler + On February 18 2012 16:25 TKHawkins wrote: @Trackdoor, just a question. I seem to recall you being one of the few who didn't want to lynch lurkers. But your analysis seems to be mostly, this guy is posting a lot so he's town. Have you changed your policy on lynching lurkers or is this just your way to make them post? Deferential tone. @Trackdoor. Alright, I get your explanation on the lurker thing. Agreement. Trackdoor Pressuring lurkers to post. Makes reasonable statements about Ech. Isn't being super aggressive, but rather analytic. Pro-town read. Strong pro-town read. Hawk's next 3 actions are to illicit blae's opinion on Midnight, defend Midnight by questioning jaj22's intentions, and vote ET, giving 1 weak reason of his own, and citing the reasoning that Midnight was using to put suspicion on ET. For someone who has no opinion on Midnight, I think TKHawkins has spent far to much time defending him and working towards the same ends as him. As for Janaan My opinion on him is pretty obvious if you read my points on TKHawkins. Janaan has been contributing, trying to pull information out of people, he pointed out that he made a mistake with his vote on ET instead of trying sweep it under the rug. And unlike a few of you, even though he is currently convinced enough to vote for me, he seems to be holding himself apart from the situation a bit to avoid tunneling, something that I appreciate. | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On February 21 2012 07:17 gumshoe wrote: Thank you for posting exactly what I expected out of you. The issue of Tk Hawkins and janaan are linked, Tk has been tunnelling janaan for a while now and I think his case has some basis, but only if your scum. You accuse Tk of buddying despite the fact that you have had what I consider one of the most notable buddyings with Janaan, plus while Hawk has stuck by his opinions so far janaan began distancing himself from you( though without condemning you) a while back when you first became suspicious. its really very simple, if you flip red we lynch Janaan, if you flip green we lynch Hawk, because the only thing hawk has done is really tunnel Janaan and I consider you and janaan linked so if you come up green then I support Janaan your opinion here on Janaan and I will suspect Hawk. i just wanted you to say Hawk was bad which would imply you think janaan is good. I appreciate you making things simpler for me. After DYH has been lynched I will provide an in depth case on why I think we should lynch janaan if DYH was red or hawk if DYH was green. One thing though, Hawk has had little to do with DYH just like Janaan, so this post by DYH may be an elaborate scheme to make us lynch janaan when DYH flips scum because he supported Janaan with this post and turned out to be scum, however I do not think there is even a remote chance that neither of these players are mafia. It is not very simple, if I flip red, then you cannot trust my cases period. You know that I already consider myself as going to be lynched. All my stances could be misinformation, either spreading suspicion on townies, or distancing myself from my team. The point is, you wouldn't know which because it is all WIFOM, and would have to end up relying on your own analysis again. Luckily, you won't have to worry about that because I'm going to flip green. But even after I flip green, all that tells you is that my cases and reads are coming from a townie, you will STILL end up having to rely on your own analysis again. The speculation in your post serves no purpose. You need to understand that. | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
I mean for this to be my last post unless I see something I really want to respond to, I will still be watching the game. slOosh - Remember: step back, take a breath, refocus, don't get timid. ET - You are absolutely right that I have not followed the meta that I established in NMM3. I have had fun this game toying with lots of different ways of posting. From analytical defenses to emotional defenses, from general behavior analysis to long PBPAs, and trying to be a part of the action instead of holding myself apart and only presenting well thought out cases. It is this scattered approach which I think has made me ring false with so many of you. I used this game to experiment instead of sticking to my rather narrow established meta, and I think the town has suffered because of it. I apologize for that. The Important Stuff mattchew - I think you nailed it. You made the case that I wanted to make. I'm positive you hit 2 mafia out of 4, pretty sure you hit 3, and I wouldn't be surprised if you got all of them with that case. As for those of you who don't think that his case proves anything, I think you are wrong. One of the hardest things for a scum team to do is to interact with each other in thread. They generally are not going to bus one another early for town cred, but they also don't want to be seen as supporting each other, lest the town catch on that they are connected. Similarly, incessant null reads on each other prove damning later if they start dying. The best way to avoid this is hard, which is to very intentionally plan interactions between members that seem legitimate. The worse way is much easier, and much more likely, especially with an inexperienced scum team, which is to avoid association with each other and/or stay very non-committal about their opinions on each other. Because it is difficult to avoid this behavior as scum, it makes it an extremely valid basis for analysis. Midnight brings up a decent point which is that most commonly this kind of analysis is brought out after 1 or 2 scum have been killed, and you can use their filter to incriminate the rest of the scum based on who they don't refer to. And while that is true and that situation is ideal. I think that makes mattchew's case even more impressive. He found cohesive evidence against Midnight, TKHawkins, zelblade, and trackd00r, without the convenience of having a confirmed scum to start from. I would like to add one observation of my own to your case against zelblade, matt. On February 19 2012 23:27 zelblade wrote: Im posting my reads in case I die tonight. I would have prefered posting this closer towards the end of night, but am posting it now as I have school tomorrow and need to go sleep now, and will not be online from around now to about 5.00 KST (+8). Why did zelblade feel the need to point out his fear about dying last night? If he is a townie then he should realize that he was not active, trusted, or influential enough to be anywhere near the top of the mafia's hit list at this point. This leaves me with 2 possibilities. The first is that he is overcompensating for his knowledge that he won't be hit by posting his fear. The second is that he is blue and slipped up. I wouldn't even post this analysis except for the fact that I think the former is much more likely than the latter atm. I need to die. Even if for some reason this last post convinced you of my innocence, still kill me. I will not have night2 and day3 plagued with discussion about how I wriggled out of a lynch today. Instead, the town needs to put me behind them, realize the truth of mattchew's case, and win this freaking game. Good Luck | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
Good Luck Town! (I'll save my gg for when we win this thing, HUZZAH!) | ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
Because I didn't have a clear view of the game when I was put on the spot to provide reads after I defended myself, I found myself scrambling to put cases together. So I ended up going after the easy targets instead of actually trying to pin down scum. At that point I really did think MG was probably scum, and I wasn't alone in that (read obsQT). But the first red flag that should have had me backing off for a second and reevaluating was that I was considering those cases as part of my defense to not get lynched. That put me in a biased starting point and makes my cases less valuable to town in the event I get lynched. So my response to you, slOosh, is this. You may have played poorly, but I sabotaged myself by trying a new style, by spending too much time brooding over the thread, and then I reacted poorly under pressure. | ||
| ||