|
Ye, I asked for replacement.
|
On February 28 2012 08:26 Janaan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 07:55 Alderan wrote:
Janaan where would you place your vote if deadline was in 5 minutes? Right now, I'd say it has to be between Chocolate and igabod. Igabod since he's lurking heavily and it'd send a message not to lurk. Chocolate, of all the people with cases against them seems the most scummy to me, and I can't quite put my finger on why exactly. But it doesn't make him scum. I think DYH makes a good point about how it's coming together a little too nicely when I can see all of Chocolate's posts from a town perspective. Unless something else comes up, I think I'll be sticking with ##Vote: igabod
Janaan I ask that you consider voting for ghost,
I really don't like how drastically sloosh's style has shifted, even alderaan who seems like he's playing a convincing town hasn't changed that much in terms of tone from last game when he was scum, sloosh sounds like a different person and I would like to put pressure on him by attacking his potential proxy, ghost.
|
On February 28 2012 08:04 DoYouHas wrote:
Anybody else think that this bandwagon is forming a little quickly on Chocolate? It wouldn't be so odd to me, but when I see a post like NightFury's which attacks Chocolate with points that are not very conclusive I start thinking that people are talking themselves into a Chocolate lynch instead of being objectively convinced. If you thought that he was our best lynch candidate because you found a few of thing things he said fishy and did not like his early lurking/middle of the road posts, that is one thing. But when you invent fairly invalid points to convince us that you aren't just sheeping the vote, it is very bad for town.
Right now I am very comfortable with my igabod vote. With how the conversation is being directed towards either a ghost lynch or a Chocolate lynch, I think igabod has a better chance of flipping scum than either of them.
I almost made literally the exact same post. The Chocolate thing is coming along too easily, I would have expected at least a case made against someone else. That in combination with his mildly sufficient answers have me reconsidering my vote.
I would love for a case to come a long that was better, which is why I was asking everyone to come up with an opinion?
I think Steveling is acting very suspiciously. I've found that after playing as scum, town is much more relaxing and less time consuming. I find it strange that he finds it the opposite.
|
On February 28 2012 08:28 Steveling wrote:
Ye, I asked for replacement.
Why is that steveling? Don't feel like playing scum again? Oh and if you don't mind could you drop all your reads by the door on your way out  ?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 08:29 Alderan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 08:04 DoYouHas wrote:
Anybody else think that this bandwagon is forming a little quickly on Chocolate? It wouldn't be so odd to me, but when I see a post like NightFury's which attacks Chocolate with points that are not very conclusive I start thinking that people are talking themselves into a Chocolate lynch instead of being objectively convinced. If you thought that he was our best lynch candidate because you found a few of thing things he said fishy and did not like his early lurking/middle of the road posts, that is one thing. But when you invent fairly invalid points to convince us that you aren't just sheeping the vote, it is very bad for town.
Right now I am very comfortable with my igabod vote. With how the conversation is being directed towards either a ghost lynch or a Chocolate lynch, I think igabod has a better chance of flipping scum than either of them. I almost made literally the exact same post. The Chocolate thing is coming along too easily, I would have expected at least a case made against someone else. That in combination with his mildly sufficient answers have me reconsidering my vote. I would love for a case to come a long that was better, which is why I was asking everyone to come up with an opinion? I think Steveling is acting very suspiciously. I've found that after playing as scum, town is much more relaxing and less time consuming. I find it strange that he finds it the opposite.
beat you to it read me post.
|
Reason I don't vote for igabod is as of now he stands to be modkilled, correct?
|
will be back, gotta walk the dog.
|
On February 28 2012 08:32 Alderan wrote:
Reason I don't vote for igabod is as of now he stands to be modkilled, correct?
If he doesn't show up in the next 3.5 hours and votes, yeah, he'll get modkilled or replaced.
|
On February 28 2012 08:32 Alderan wrote:
Reason I don't vote for igabod is as of now he stands to be modkilled, correct?
Yeah, he has to vote. I don't want him to vote at the last second and get away with it though.
|
So, folks, I will be offline for the night in about 20 minutes. So far my vote stays on Chocolate. I have read a few interesting things about others (specially steveling), but so far nothing could convince me to switch my vote to another person. I still think Chocolate is our best lynch.
|
On February 28 2012 08:34 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 08:32 Alderan wrote:
Reason I don't vote for igabod is as of now he stands to be modkilled, correct? Yeah, he has to vote. I don't want him to vote at the last second and get away with it though.
If he is going to do that, we will just lynch him Day 2. I will vote for him then (unless there is a more dangerous scum identified). But for now, don't waste your vote on someone who might get modkilled.
|
Steveling is a possibility, but right now, it's just a WIFOM argument about why he doesn't want to play. I think if we have better ideas it would be better to wait for his replacement to come in and just watch the replacement carefully.
|
On February 28 2012 08:29 gumshoe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 08:26 Janaan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 07:55 Alderan wrote:
Janaan where would you place your vote if deadline was in 5 minutes? Right now, I'd say it has to be between Chocolate and igabod. Igabod since he's lurking heavily and it'd send a message not to lurk. Chocolate, of all the people with cases against them seems the most scummy to me, and I can't quite put my finger on why exactly. But it doesn't make him scum. I think DYH makes a good point about how it's coming together a little too nicely when I can see all of Chocolate's posts from a town perspective. Unless something else comes up, I think I'll be sticking with ##Vote: igabod Janaan I ask that you consider voting for ghost, I really don't like how drastically sloosh's style has shifted, even alderaan who seems like he's playing a convincing town hasn't changed that much in terms of tone from last game when he was scum, sloosh sounds like a different person and I would like to put pressure on him by attacking his potential proxy, ghost.
The problem that I have with this is that if SlOosh and Ghost were both scum, I doubt that SlOosh would be the first to call Ghost out. Maybe it's a bit WIFOM to say that, but all it did was bring more scrutiny to Ghost on Day 1, which is something that no scum team would want to inflict to themselves.
I do agree with SlOosh's change in posting style, though. It's a pretty big change from his previous two games. I can understand him wanting to be a bit less aggressive this game, but it does seem a bit out of character.
|
EBWOP: I'll be gone for about 30-40 minutes, gotta go make some dinner. But I'll be back in plenty of time before the deadline.
|
On February 28 2012 08:42 Janaan wrote:
Steveling is a possibility, but right now, it's just a WIFOM argument about why he doesn't want to play. I think if we have better ideas it would be better to wait for his replacement to come in and just watch the replacement carefully.
I wouldn't necessarily say it's WIFOM in the strictest use of the term. WIFOM refers to circular reasoning like "Player A disliked/accused/pushed player B. Player B died last night, flipped town. Therefore A is mafia. But mafia may want him to be lynched." We are speculating but it's not wifom, and I think we can deduce a bit about steve's situation.
|
Please post your votes in the voting thread. We don't use ZBot, so it is a real hassle for us to find your votes if you only post them here.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 07:33 NightFury wrote:I'm back at home. @ghost: After looking into your statement, you have addressed my concerns already. While I do not necessarily agree with your initial play style - you are being active and can address statements and inquiries. Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 06:32 Chocolate wrote:Hi guys I'm back. Hopefully I can format this correctly + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Note: this didn't start as a PBPA but it ended that way because literally everything he has done is scummy. Chocolate is super scummy to me right now.
Says things like "our vote will probably end up being a lurker"... Who says this? Even if it is the case you're giving mafia free reign to post a couple BS posts and get out of the thread. He later goes on to say Show nested quote +I'll give them until ~6 EST to post but if they still haven't by them we should vote one. Pretty adamanent about this lurker idea, right? Wrong.NOT 3 POSTS LATER he's off his lurker train now, and onto the easiest target, namely, Fourface. Fourface, for reasons stated above is very likely not scum, but I could see Chocolate's beady little eyes now getting as wide as an anime characters in joy when he saw that Fourface made one of the most "interesting" (as to avoid getting in trouble) posts I've ever seen. Oh and this: Show nested quote +We should probably spread out our votes, don't need two people on one lurker yet imo I don't get this either. Why would you split your votes up? If it's for pressure here is a newsflash: Votes DO NOT = Pressure Pressure is cases, pressure is discussion, a one liner and vote in the vote thread doesn't cut it. Period. Then there's: Show nested quote +That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. I got off the "lurker idea" because obviously it wasn't that good. I just wanted people to perhaps panic and get them to start posting. My idea was that votes DO=pressure, because noobs tend to panic a little when they see they are getting voted on. I said our vote will probably end up on a lurker because frankly that's what happened in my most previous game: most of the people lynched were either lurkers or scum, and most of the cases were on either lurkers or scum. I switched to fourface because I wanted him to keep posting, to see if I could get a good case on him. Obviously, he has continued, but hasn't adressed my points. I think he'll get replaced though so I'm going to hold off on voting for him for now. I'll try to make a case against someone shortly. That's my schedule, there isn't much to say about it. I'm in HS, and my parents make me get off the computer and my phone at 9 on weeknights, so I won't be online for the last hour of voting. + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 14:17 NightFury wrote:@Alderan I believe your case is good, but I feel it is slightly flawed. I'm not getting a very good town/scum read on Chocolate at this moment. While suspicious, I think he was overzealous with the mentality he had on the outset of the game and prone to a knee-jerk reaction. I'm unsure whether this is actually scummy or just reckless play. Also, out of curiosity, what does PBPA stand for? (Hope I don't butcher how TL handles quotes...) Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
Says things like "our vote will probably end up being a lurker"... Who says this? Even if it is the case you're giving mafia free reign to post a couple BS posts and get out of the thread. His full post goes more like this: Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 12:23 Chocolate wrote:
It could be possible that someone makes a big scumslip but from the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post, and since the pressure is on them the vote momentum is on them. Usually the lurkers are also new and some of their defenses are just based on OMGUS or accusing their accuser, instead of making insightful posts and contributing to prove their innocence.
I'm not sure we will lynch a lurker on Day1, but it is the most likely outcome in my eyes. A few things about this. - This was posted on the very outset of the game. This irks me because he's already making predictions on previous games he's played. Also the fact that it's not later on since it could possibly be valid if we had no cases and a bunch of lurkers. - I'm interested in his previous two games here. He mentioned that "...the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post...". I haven't looked at his previous games yet but I'm not sure if that's even a valid statement. If he's only played 2 games here then that's not a large sample size or it's possible that he has experience elsewhere and it's just a trend he's noticed. I will come back to this later after some analysis... also he mentions for us not to look. - He establishes the "vote to pressure" mentality early. This does come back later. - This was in response to an earlier statement by him since Janaan questioned why he thought the early deadline would likely target a lurker. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:He later goes on to say I'll give them until ~6 EST to post but if they still haven't by them we should vote one. Pretty adamanent about this lurker idea, right? - He's maintaining his "vote to pressure" mentality. Namely he was looking at people who have yet to post listed by gumshoe. - At this point there hasn't been any significant cases. FF has already posted and some discussion has arisen... but no case when he posted. - As far as I can tell, he's just sticking to his ideology at this point. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Oh and this: We should probably spread out our votes, don't need two people on one lurker yet imo I don't get this either. Why would you split your votes up? If it's for pressure here is a newsflash: Votes DO NOT = Pressure Pressure is cases, pressure is discussion, a one liner and vote in the vote thread doesn't cut it. Period. - The case on FF hasn't been posted yet. - He's still sticking to his ideology of pressuring lurkers via votes. - I'm willing to be think that he just has a poor plan with "vote to pressure" at this point. So prior to his sudden switch to targeting FF (which hasn't happened yet)... I don't think he realized that "vote to pressure" wasn't a good idea. I'm not sure if anyone even tried to tell him this? Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
Wrong.
NOT 3 POSTS LATER he's off his lurker train now, and onto the easiest target, namely, Fourface.
Fourface, for reasons stated above is very likely not scum, but I could see Chocolate's beady little eyes now getting as wide as an anime characters in joy when he saw that Fourface made one of the most "interesting" (as to avoid getting in trouble) posts I've ever seen. - In short, this is also irks me. He went from adamant lurkers to FF. - He did mention that he would ditch lurkers if there was a huge scumslip or something of that nature. - However he may think it was a scumslip or something as a knee-jerk reaction. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Then there's: That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. - This may have been a taken out of context. I think he was referring to my second deadline suggestion (no quotes or @me, but he already commented on the first soft deadline and this follows my post). - Since it does not appear we are going to use a second deadline system, he can't use this as a defense priming technique if we don't use the second deadline. @Chocolate: Why would you vote for someone just for being weird? Or was there something especially scummy about it? As discussed in the thread, FF may not be scum just from his insanity defense alone. Voting to pressure actually kinda worked in my previous game. If you take the time to look back on it you'll notice sacredsystem taking votes very harshly. When I switched to FF,as I said earlier, I was trying to get him to post more. It didn't work, because he hasn't posted any real content since then. + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 14:22 Janaan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:06 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 13:59 Janaan wrote:One thing that stands out most to me about Ghost's posting is this gem right here Show nested quote +Another way to look at that is if you are still left during day 3 after 2 mislynches. There are 6 townies and 4 scum. The scum are either (1) forced to work together to stay alive, and are pretty easy to spot or (2) are going to sacrifice one of their own. Unless something goes horribly, horribly wrong, the worst case scenario for day 4 is 5 townies to 3 scum. No problem.
He seems to think that it's perfectly fine for us to go 3 days without lynching a mafia, which would put us in a MYLO situation. Not exactly what I'd call a pro-town position to be in. His justification for saying this is pretty weak I think. 1. If the game gets to this point, scum obviously haven't been easy to spot, and it doesn't really get much easier. Sure, the "odds" might be more in your favor, but if you're in this situation, scum probably are pretty good at hiding in plain sight. 2. Yeah, scum might sacrifice one of their own. But 5 town/ 3 scum is still MYLO. I don't see how a townie could say that this is "no problem". Janaan, talk to me about Chocolate. I agree that Chocolate does seem a little wishy washy, saying stuff like then he seems to say at least slightly differently in his next post It seems to me that for the most part, though, his posts are fairly consistent with the idea of lynching lurkers in mind. I don't really know what Show nested quote +That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. was about, and it does seem like he could be just trying to cover for himself so he can justify not being active near the voting deadline. Particularly when he did say that he'd most likely be online . 17-21 EST is the hours before the deadline, so he may've contradicted himself there. There's not really enough for me to call him scum right now, but he looks like he could be potentially. Saying something is probable and that I'm not sure of it doesn't seem contradictory to me at all. Isn't that what you mean when you say probably? 17-21 EST is right before the deadline except the last hour, so I'm notcontradicting myself. Honestly if your case on me is because of these that's pretty fishy, either you're sheeping or you're voting along with the mafia (possibly both). If there's anything I missed please point it out to me so I can address it. Okay. Why do you want people to panic and start posting? Getting people to panic is not a great idea because it can easily cause a lot of confusion. A townie panicking can make themselves appear suspicious and draw a lot of attention. Building a case off of panic doesn't make sense since the information you obtain may not be reliable. Yes, you could possibly cause scum to panic and get something - but how do you differentiate this from a townie? Also you mention this is to target newbies? How does experience dictate which role they have? I feel this strategy to begin with is extremely flawed and should not be a viable option. In hindsight, going after FourFace with that strategy was a bad idea (maybe his insanity defense was just a panic defense). But you don't even listen to your own philosophy. You wanted to build a case against him by making him post more. But you don't even present a case of your own - you just outright vote for him. I did take a look just now at your previous game with SacredSystem (only looked around Day 1 btw). Once again, the plan didn't even work. I would like you to explain how this plan worked in your eyes. He wasn't inactive. The vote wasn't even against him - he started off against someone's analysis about random lynching. He was town! Same thing with the person you immediately voted for because he didn't mention anything (he claimed he was at school, perfectly fair). Also, you were mafia in the previous game. I don't necessarily want to try to use posting meta in this game but now this is a bit too much. If you're mafia, the idea of causing someone to panic and gather a lot of attention benefits the mafia team. It leads the town down a useless path unless the person can defend themselves well... but a newbie panicking may not perform that too well. The big question I have for you: why are you using the same strategy to cause newbies to panic if you're truly town? How can you differentiate townie panic versus mafia panic? As of right now given the new circumstances - I do not believe you are town. ##Unvote: Ghost_304##Vote: Chocolate
NightFury, you wanted to know what I thought was invalid in your post.
If I read this correctly your main point here is the pressuring someone with a vote causes panic which leads the town to make poor reads on a person. Sometimes true, but not always true. A panicking player's quality of post will probably go down, but you also are more likely to get posts that reveal their motivation, making pressure very very useful. You are using something that a townie would quite reasonably do to convince yourself of Chocolate's guilt.
(In hindsight "invent" was a poor choice of words)
|
On February 28 2012 08:32 Alderan wrote:
Reason I don't vote for igabod is as of now he stands to be modkilled, correct?
We will try to find a replacement for him before straight up modkilling him.
|
If we think that igabod is going to be modkilled, then I will move my vote to someone else. Let me go over the thread again quickly and decide my next best lynch candidate.
|
I would encourage you to vote on steveling, if igabod doesn't post in the next hour I'll change my vote to Steve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
