EPTNewbie Mini Mafia IV - Page 25
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
zelblade
Australia901 Posts
| ||
|
dreamflower
United States312 Posts
| ||
|
slOosh
3291 Posts
On February 28 2012 08:21 gumshoe wrote: Here he is the first person to attack ghost, he does so in a rather soft manner, taking a much less aggressive tone than weve seen out of him in the past. You then were the also first person to defend him He drops his suspicion of ghost for decent but not great reasons, last game steve eventually dropped his suspicion of me when no one else thought I was scum anymore, ghost could be just dropping his suspiciun of four face cause he saw how much heat he was getting for it. Sloosh then switches to chocolate who sloosh hasn't even really provided a case for, in fact the only reason sloosh really mentioned chocolate before was because he perceived that chocolate was interacting with ghost. Furthermore he doesn't even continue considering ghost as a suspect, he says he's null, last game we all had at least two suspects in the red, why does sloosh feel the need to drop ghost off his radar? I did call out ghost with a case. It was on the basis that he was aggressively pro-lynch, with the idea itself rather than pro-lynch against any specific people. I made a soft case, making the most of what I could with D1 knowledge, thinking something might have been there, as it seemed like he was pushing a reckless mindset onto town. He responded with a post clarifying himself, and I saw that he is logically consistent. On February 28 2012 06:12 slOosh wrote: For me this clears some of my initial suspicions and pushes ghost into null read. He provides decent reasoning once pressured - my current read is that he is perhaps overzealous with his stance on lynching, treating it like a 100% policy, and not adopting a helpful attitude for town. ghost, I hope to continue seeing quality posts like these without having to FOS / make cases against you. As for his actual stance: While I strongly disagree with the idea of "lynching for information", I do agree that a no lynch should be a last resort than an easy way out. Otherwise it can give mafia an avenue of being non commital, which is the essence of lurking anyways. Right now that leaves me with Chocolate, as he hasn't yet responded. I don't think his case is worth voting for yet, but it defeats the whole purpose of the soft deadline if all we do is FOS and vote last minute. (Thus my preliminary, not necessarily final, vote will be on) ##Vote: Chocolate I don't defend him, but change my stance on him. There is a difference, and I don't want facts to be misinterpreted as that will hurt town atmosphere. Null read does not mean I drop all my suspicions - it means I put the information aside to be able to take a comprehensive view of how D1 is unfolding. I know that in the last game, meta filled my mind with paranoia, leading me to tunnel so hard. I wish for none of that this game, from both myself or others, so please don't misconstrue me "dropping a case" when I'm actually putting it aside until more relevant information appears. Moving onto my vote on Chocolate - it is what I said it is. A preliminary vote. Why did we bother discussing the merits of soft deadlines and no lynching if we aren't even going to use it? I did not want to put my vote on igabod since 1) Putting it on Chocolate puts pressure on him to produce more content and reasoning, allowing us to have a better read of who he is, and true enough, he does. 2) Despite what people may think, I thought igabod was an easy way out. Having people voting for chocolate and providing their reasoning why can reveal more information than having people vote igabod and say "he hasn't posted". DYH picked up on it when he commented on how the bandwagon was rolling. Even with a no lynch there is much information to be gleaned, and going for igabod was not the way to do it. Will hopefully find time tomorrow to post my upcoming case. I expect to find time to do it in around ~14 hours. | ||
|
k2hd
Cayman Islands78 Posts
| ||
|
slOosh
3291 Posts
The Alderan Case: This case revolves in observing the context in which his actions occur in the thread. Analysis starts with his PBPA on Chocolate, who he thinks is "super scummy". + 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 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: 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: 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. There is some biased reads in this case, as it is very speculative in nature. With phrases like "even if it is the case", "I could see Chocolate's eyes (something about anime)", "Steve, how often ...". I first thought he was getting some confirmation bias and stayed quiet to see Chocolate's response. After this post, he throws up some speculation on ghost, based on his speculation on Chocolate. On February 27 2012 12:50 Alderan wrote: Also, if this reasoning stands I think Ghost is scum as well. Here's how I see this vote on Jeckyll going: - Ghost puts his vote on Jeckyll, cause you know they're pressuring lurkers and all. - Chocolate also puts his vote on Jeckyll, cause you know they're pressuring lurkers and all. - Ghost gets pissed in the scum qt by saying "dude back up off me, we don't need to get too associated with each other" - Chocolate is like "shit, how can I back out of this? Oh I got it! I'll say we need to diversify our pressure portfolio!!!!!11!!" - Chocolate votes on another random lurker. - Alderan figures it out. So he has his eyes on both Chocolate and ghost. When I post my case concurrently with his post on ghost, he refrains from responding to it saying On February 27 2012 13:16 Alderan wrote: I'm going to wait for him to respond to make a comment on your case. I've got a hunch. And later when Janaan want's to discuss ghost's actions, he does not discuss the matter at hand (ghost), but redirects focus onto Chocolate On February 28 2012 07:09 Alderan wrote: @Steveling have you been actively pursuing getting a replacement or no? @Chocolate aside from igabod who are you thinking is appearing scummy? Are you really getting a null read on everyone? To anyone who cares, I don't think Ghost_403 is that suspicious anymore. I realized that it is more likely that either Ghost or Chocolate are scum, Chocolate strikes me as someone riding the middle and keeping his head down. There is a clear leaning away from ghost and leaning toward Chocolate. The bolded post (which is without reasoning), sets up that only one of them is likely to be scum, and that is Chocolate. And yet when DYH provides some clear thinking into the situation, Alderan is all too quick to sheep him. On February 28 2012 08:29 Alderan wrote: 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. He instantly agrees with DYH, and drops his strong suspicions on Chocolate for "mildly sufficient answers". Its worth suspicion because soon after he picks it back up keeps trying to sway town to consider him. (I understand this is starting to look like a PBPA but it isn't. I'm trying to show how the development of his stance on Chocolate does not make sense within the context of the thread. There has been nothing on Chocolate between the time of his posts to either incriminate or absolve him (Chocolate). I recommend opening Alderan's filter and reading along with the actual thread to see how his posts align. Will continue analysis without posting quotes here.) Later on with his post with lists, and a couple of posts on Steveling, he shows preference again saying that since who he believes are townies are stacked against Chocolate, and since Steveling did not vote Chocolate, that both people should be lynched. His reasoning? Information - contradicting his openness to no lynch which is actually gives least information (in the sense that it does not give a 100% confirmed flip). Summary: Alderan has shown a great bias against Chocolate. He tries to focus people on him (such as Janaan when he posted about ghost) but is perfectly willing to drop it when DYH comes in to call out what is going on. Even so he picks it back up and tries to get people to look at it, and then tries to get something on Steveling started on the sole basis that he is involved with Chocolate. Conclusion: It could be a case of serious tunneling (which I doubt as he seemingly listened to DYH), but I find it more likely that he is casting confusion amongst town by setting up multiple suspects without good reason or case. | ||
|
k2hd
Cayman Islands78 Posts
| ||
|
k2hd
Cayman Islands78 Posts
| ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
 i don't have the ability or patience for such things! i read the whole thread though and i was thinking the same thing sloosh thought on Alderan... i don't understand why suddenly chocolate isn't getting lynched anymore, even if he had flipped green it would have given us a lot of help... Alderan switched from suspicious to not suspicious based on what? | ||
|
zelblade
Australia901 Posts
On February 28 2012 01:42 FourFace wrote: So people don't like lurkers, they don't want fluff, they can't stand statistics, they like to post when they'll be online, they don't like people jumping on bandwagons, they get or don't get oooohh OOOHHh oOOHHH scum vi-bratioooonns, they don't want to prove they are/can be/are eager to be/promise to be useful just for the hell of it or even write about why they said someone is suspicious in the heat of a FOS that should help confirm their suspicion (instead they ask who they WOULD vote for; would is not that important but I hyphened it like a boss) . My oh my this is a tough crowd so i'll just stop clowning at this point even before Day[1] ends .. get it Day bracket 9 bracket i mean 1 bracket? No..? I give up. From now on I have a real reason for posting every move I make. Feel free to interrogate me about my motives any time but know that scum is listening. Anyway I've hacked the Scum QT and it says: Mafia won't shoot me, instead they want to wait to see if there is a vigilante who plays by the book and kills liars. They'll force a lynch on me tomorrow and they know they don't even have to roleblock. I guess I was too transparent even with all that bs going on. They'll force a lynch on me tomorrow and they know they don't even have to roleblock. I guess I was too transparent even with all that bs going on On February 28 2012 02:22 FourFace wrote: EDIT: What I meant to say was They'll force a lynch on me tomorrow and shoot if it doesn't work out while knowing that they don't even have to releblock. I guess I was too ... etc etc transparent even with all that bs going on. Damnit guys I'm the DOC, now be nice to me .. vote for who I want you to vote and I will most likely save you. Medical care isn't free you know. As for who the DT is I have no idea but he sure is invisible .. or even a dark archon messing with my mind. Is there a pattern here? Do I get exponentially crazier after 2 am KST and get back to making a little sense starting around midnight? Damn I'm attention whoring hard, won't be long until someone lynches me solely for that reason. There's still hope though... Day 2 might be different if I live to see it. I'm getting tired of myself so you guys must be REALLY tired. Remember Doc needs you to be on his side for him to protect you. Aloha wtf | ||
|
phagga
Switzerland2194 Posts
Hi Testsubject893 (ha! that rhymed!) Catching up on the thread. Will write more later when work will allow it. | ||
|
zelblade
Australia901 Posts
I also dont agree with the soft deadline policy you guys put in place. With it, one effectively cuts off a large part of discussion, and having a lynch targert "locked" (look at what good it did for town in SNMMVII day 2) isnt always a good thing. I agree that last minute mass switches are really terrible though, but I dont believe that this is the right solution. Instead, people that last minute vote-switch (on shitty reasons) should be held accountable for their actions. I dislike the fact that so many decided to switch to igabod and eventually a no-lynch. I agree with sloosh that igabod can be considered the "easy way out", and I find it surprising that you guys actually think that he has a higher chance of flipping scum as opposed to choclate or ghost. He has posted nothing, and I dont see how you guys see that he is auto-scum. It is much more probable that he had some IRL issues or lost interest in the game, which says zlich about his alignment. Moving on. I feel that ghost is scummy, but not based on the factors that have already been listed. The cases on him seem to be purely based on his lynching stance. Said stance towards lynching can be easily explained from both a townie and a mafia perspective imo. What I dont like are these. @Janaan I second what alderan said. Who you voting for? @Alderan Same goes to you. Who you voting for? Here he appears to "pressure" Ald and Janaan. Ald ignores him though, and continues flip-flopping around with his vote towards the end of the day. Why did you drop your pressure so easily? This feels like you are calling people out for the sake of it, and you dont really want to follow up on it. Scum attempting to look like hes contributing by "pressuring"? Chocolates play from NMMIII where he was scum feels totally diffrent. In that game he lurklurklurk his way to the endgame where he got eliminated by process of elimination. This game he is alot more active and based off meta it is likely hes town. His filter though leaves much to be desired. Im also really tired now (had a pretty tiring day) and I need to take a short break from mafia. I may post more later but I think ill leave it to tomorrow where I can reread this with a clearer mind. | ||
|
phagga
Switzerland2194 Posts
On February 28 2012 11:20 gumshoe wrote: Just wanna say I really appreciate you saying this, I will take my vote off you. Unvote: Ghost(will do it in the thread) You did not unvote him, you only faked it. In the voting thread, your vote stayed on ghost_403. Why? On February 28 2012 11:27 gumshoe wrote: god I hate no lynches ) : like unless its analytically the right move(as was the case last game when we had a potential inactive townie) I feel like were just depriving ourselves of information If chocolate flips green(which he probably will considering it looks like he's getting bussed, not gonna lie about that) i'll take responsibility. Why do you want to take responsibility for it? | ||
|
k2hd
Cayman Islands78 Posts
I am also going to repeat again that the other part of this hydra account is unable to play at all because of some stuff that has come up, so she cannot post for me. All posts up until now have been by me; BassInSpace, and I will be continuing to post by myself for the rest of the game. Gumshoe, I know you asked me to change my vote from igabod, but as already stated above, I was not going to because I could not consider all the new posts that had been made. That 1 sentence post where I said I would change from voting no lynch (which I couldn't do) to igabod was made on my ipod in uni, where I had no time to check posts aside from the one post asking the hosts if it was possible to vote no lynch. Alderan, I want to ask you now, do you think I'm still suspicious for "stacking" my vote on igabod to potentially save chocolate? I see that you yourself changed your vote away from chocolate, so I'd like to hear what your case is against me now. I already stated why I voted igabod. I had suspicions regarding chocolate and ghost like everyone else (was leaning more towards ghost in fact), but did not want to vote for either one in case they posted some convincing arguments while I was gone, and still have my vote on one of them because I wasn't around to change it. I was the first to bring igabod up, and voted for him because I didn't want to affect the outcome of today's lynch as I figured that sure, he was lurking, but was that by itself enough to convince others to vote for him? Turns out he did almost get lynched, but hey, I missed out on a LOT while I was gone. Not that it matters now anyway. Hi to the new entrants btw Sloosh, I find your case against alderaan very interesting. And just to add to what zelblade has said, here's this post by alderan: + Show Spoiler + On February 28 2012 01:28 Alderan wrote: Obviously we need to hear more from everyone, but here is who I'm specifically looking forward to: - Igabod - Chocolate - Janaan (In that, I would like to hear who you want to vote for) - Ghost_403 - Steveling I still like Chocolate as the lynch candidate for today, but I'm going to hold out as I wait for a response. Also I have more reads on Ghost, but again, I'd rather wait for him to respond so as not to jump the gun with divulging information. A note on Steveling. Last game he played a very "I'm a noob town don't lynch me" game as stated in one of his first posts in the scum qt. He obviously can't do this again if he's scum, because he knows I'm town, and I'll call it out. After playing a game with him it seems like he is a person who would use a shtick as scum. Steveling I'm telling you now, if a lurker scum is your thing, I'll find you. He wanted to hear about what those 4 had to say, but janaan is exempt from explaining himself, he just has to tell him who he's voting for. He has now stated that janaan makes him suspicious (in alderan's post regarding those among igabod's voters who he found suspicious), so we will have to see how convincing a case he posts for janaan, or if he is going to post a weak case and let someone else tear it down because it is not concrete enough, thus absolving janaan of any guilt. I say all this because I have also started to get suspicious of janaan. However, I don't think I have enough yet to be any more than moderately suspicious of either at this point (would alderan really shove himself into the spotlight this much if he were mafia? It must be awfully hard to keep from any slips this way... But I'm new to mafia, so who knows). I would like to hear from both of them first before going further with this. I'd also just like to sleep on this too, I've spent hours looking at everyone's filters, having over 10 tabs open and trying to find what I want in each of those tabs. Also, I obviously want to see what the night brings along. I'd also like to read more from jekylandhyde, who hasn't really taken a firm stance on anyone. So far he's put what he called a "placeholder vote" on Chocolate, which he changed to another placeholder vote on DoYouHas. He didn't REALLY want to vote chocolate, he didn't REALLY want to vote DoYouHas, and he didn't want to vote igabod because replacements were coming in, so that he could pressure them. This is while he has had access to the thread more than me. It seems like he may be stalling if you ask me. I dislike the fact that so many decided to switch to igabod and eventually a no-lynch. I agree with sloosh that igabod can be considered the "easy way out", and I find it surprising that you guys actually think that he has a higher chance of flipping scum as opposed to choclate or ghost. He has posted nothing, and I dont see how you guys see that he is auto-scum. It is much more probable that he had some IRL issues or lost interest in the game, which says zlich about his alignment. zelblade, I voted igabod with plenty of time to go before the deadline, so he still had a chance to post after I voted. | ||
|
k2hd
Cayman Islands78 Posts
Again, all posts on k2hd account by BassInSpace. | ||
|
k2hd
Cayman Islands78 Posts
| ||
|
k2hd
Cayman Islands78 Posts
Yeah gumshoe says he'll take responsibility... Sorry for the typo. | ||
|
phagga
Switzerland2194 Posts
On February 28 2012 22:10 k2hd wrote: Phagga, I think ghost says he'll take responsibility because he was the first to FOS ghost I believe. It's about chocolate, not ghost. | ||
|
k2hd
Cayman Islands78 Posts
| ||
|
gumshoe
Canada3602 Posts
On February 28 2012 22:10 k2hd wrote: Phagga, I think ghost says he'll take responsibility because he was the first to FOS ghost I believe. As to why he didn't unvote ghost... Well that's quite interesting too, let's see what he has to say. I Did unvote ghost >_< Mustafa not shown up, I was leaning ghost so that I could see if sloosh was suspicious, but chocolate seemed like he was the only one who has going to get lynched and I hate no lynches(unless it is analytically the best move) as I said before there is no reason a healthy town should ever no lynch. I stand by that. | ||
|
gumshoe
Canada3602 Posts
On February 28 2012 15:13 slOosh wrote: + Show Spoiler + (Didn't want to stay up to do this, but also wanted as much feedback as possible ... so here it is) The Alderan Case: This case revolves in observing the context in which his actions occur in the thread. Analysis starts with his PBPA on Chocolate, who he thinks is "super scummy". + 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 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: 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: 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. There is some biased reads in this case, as it is very speculative in nature. With phrases like "even if it is the case", "I could see Chocolate's eyes (something about anime)", "Steve, how often ...". I first thought he was getting some confirmation bias and stayed quiet to see Chocolate's response. After this post, he throws up some speculation on ghost, based on his speculation on Chocolate. On February 27 2012 12:50 Alderan wrote: Also, if this reasoning stands I think Ghost is scum as well. Here's how I see this vote on Jeckyll going: - Ghost puts his vote on Jeckyll, cause you know they're pressuring lurkers and all. - Chocolate also puts his vote on Jeckyll, cause you know they're pressuring lurkers and all. - Ghost gets pissed in the scum qt by saying "dude back up off me, we don't need to get too associated with each other" - Chocolate is like "shit, how can I back out of this? Oh I got it! I'll say we need to diversify our pressure portfolio!!!!!11!!" - Chocolate votes on another random lurker. - Alderan figures it out. So he has his eyes on both Chocolate and ghost. When I post my case concurrently with his post on ghost, he refrains from responding to it saying On February 27 2012 13:16 Alderan wrote: I'm going to wait for him to respond to make a comment on your case. I've got a hunch. And later when Janaan want's to discuss ghost's actions, he does not discuss the matter at hand (ghost), but redirects focus onto Chocolate On February 28 2012 07:09 Alderan wrote: @Steveling have you been actively pursuing getting a replacement or no? @Chocolate aside from igabod who are you thinking is appearing scummy? Are you really getting a null read on everyone? To anyone who cares, I don't think Ghost_403 is that suspicious anymore. I realized that it is more likely that either Ghost or Chocolate are scum, Chocolate strikes me as someone riding the middle and keeping his head down. There is a clear leaning away from ghost and leaning toward Chocolate. The bolded post (which is without reasoning), sets up that only one of them is likely to be scum, and that is Chocolate. And yet when DYH provides some clear thinking into the situation, Alderan is all too quick to sheep him. On February 28 2012 08:29 Alderan wrote: 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. He instantly agrees with DYH, and drops his strong suspicions on Chocolate for "mildly sufficient answers". Its worth suspicion because soon after he picks it back up keeps trying to sway town to consider him. (I understand this is starting to look like a PBPA but it isn't. I'm trying to show how the development of his stance on Chocolate does not make sense within the context of the thread. There has been nothing on Chocolate between the time of his posts to either incriminate or absolve him (Chocolate). I recommend opening Alderan's filter and reading along with the actual thread to see how his posts align. Will continue analysis without posting quotes here.) Later on with his post with lists, and a couple of posts on Steveling, he shows preference again saying that since who he believes are townies are stacked against Chocolate, and since Steveling did not vote Chocolate, that both people should be lynched. His reasoning? Information - contradicting his openness to no lynch which is actually gives least information (in the sense that it does not give a 100% confirmed flip). Summary: Alderan has shown a great bias against Chocolate. He tries to focus people on him (such as Janaan when he posted about ghost) but is perfectly willing to drop it when DYH comes in to call out what is going on. Even so he picks it back up and tries to get people to look at it, and then tries to get something on Steveling started on the sole basis that he is involved with Chocolate. Conclusion: It could be a case of serious tunneling (which I doubt as he seemingly listened to DYH), but I find it more likely that he is casting confusion amongst town by setting up multiple suspects without good reason or case. glad to have you back ( : | ||
| ||
