EPTK2 I'm really glad to see you posting. Keep it up
Newbie Mini Mafia IV - Page 3
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
K2 I'm really glad to see you posting. Keep it up | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
1. nttea- HE HAS POSTED 3 TIMES. First being about how he read through the thread and his thoughts on it, agrees with sloosh, cast suspicion on alderan. Second asking a default lynch on someone (stifles posting dramatically if everyone agrees to lynch one person at the outset of the day). third post defending himself with noobishness, still wants a default lynch because he didn't think we had any cases. If he doesn't get modkilled and is voted on by others my vote stays on him. ## vote: nttea 2. Nightfury- still suspicious of him. see my previous analysis 3.gumshoe- moment he comes under fire he says he's going to stop posting as much. Seemed to be blue fishing and was trying to deduce something from night actions (bad idea). 4. Phagga- tunnel visioning me, has since stopped but still on my radar 5. Alderan- not too sure, drove my case but near the end didn't want me to get lynched. Maybe scum not trying to look guilty? 6. k2hd- don't want him lynched, but will vote for him only if necessary. I generally agreed with his most recent analysis post. Last resort 7. ghost- not sure but seems to be in collusion with phagga maybe?? I feel confident I have at least 2-3 of 4 scum on this list. Dreamflower, the player list w/ filters is messed up on page 1 (test subject's) Final point for now is that I'm starting to find it a bit odd that DoYouHas has been agreeing with nearly every thing I said. Maybe trying to buddy me? | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
Gum where do you stand on a nightfury lynch? an alderan lynch? | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
NF I will post a better reasoning at home but basically I thought the fact that you dropped ghost because he defended himself but not me was scummy. Especially considering his short post. You talked about this but I still think it's scummy. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On March 02 2012 09:56 ghost_403 wrote: @chocolate chime in on Gumshoe, right now. You want my opinion? I'll vote on him if necessary but my #1 vote goes to nttea. He has done nothing at all but isnt going to get modkilled. I'd much rather lynch him. On my phone right now by necessary I mean if it makes the difference between a nolynch and a lynch | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
First you defended me a lot when nobody else was that willing to do it. Like here That's fine. I posted this. Next page you posted this. Similar I posted a nightfury case, you quickly posted your own. It helped the case but it made me wonder if it was merely coincidence or if you were trying to expand upon my ideas. I call wifom, you call wifom here here in my defense on point2. And now you want to vote nttea. I don't know if we are just two very like-minded people or if you are trying to associate yourself with me if you want to go out with a bang (as scum). At this point I'm very nervous that if you flip scum I could be incriminated as a result. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
| ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On March 01 2012 11:39 NightFury wrote: Seems like I have quite a bit to do now. Starting with Chocolate, I will be following up with DYH's case. + Show Spoiler + On March 01 2012 09:36 Chocolate wrote: I've been brooding on this case for a while. And that case is NightFury. I'll try to make this as objective as possible but if I die and flip green it should help a lot. First 16 or so posts aren't important; he discusses lurkers and lynch policy. + 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...) His full post goes more like this: 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. - 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. - 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? - 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. - 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. Basically notes Alderan's comments. States he had a null read. + Show Spoiler + On February 28 2012 05:06 NightFury wrote: Alright. I'm at work so I'll be keeping this fairly short since I'm here a bit past the soft deadline, I just want to get this out. The day has calmed down a bit so I think I will be able to keep up with the thread now. Chocolate: I still cannot tell if his play was actually scummy or just poor play/mentality. I still want to hear from him about his adamant lurker policy into jumping on FF though. Cannot tell if he's in collusion with ghost since they both have different approaches. Ghost: Similar to chocolate but with an adamant lynch someone policy. Pushing a lynch on anyone comes off more scummy to me than chocolate, but they're both up there. Likewise, cannot say if those two are in collusion. Would also like to hear from him about his aggressive lynching. Igabod: Hasn't really done anything and just lurking. Would really like to see him start participating. FourFace: Not worth the time and effort right now given how he has been posting. Ghost and chocolate are the most suspicious in my opinion based on their actions. I'd favour lynching ghost over chocolate as I think chocolate has just been playing poorly and ghost comes off more scummy. I really hope that either of them can adress the cases against them since it may clairify the situation. Igabod is just straight up lurking from what I can tell. So what it comes down to is that we should go after a definite lurker or one of the other two suspicious players. I think ghost's aggressive lynching mindset is more toxic to the town and scummy than the alternatives. Igabod, while a viable candidate, isn't going to slip off anyone's radars for his inactivity. Nor will people just suddenly warm up to him if he comes back without extremely good reasoning and/or contributions. I'd personally rather lynch an individual who may be negaitively influencing the town over someone who is just being inactive and not directly influencing town. Chocolate's play was somewhat toxic, but I'm not convinced it was genuinely scummy. ##Vote: ghost_403 Unless an exceptional defense comes up shortly, I am unlikely to change my vote. Now I'm more scummy. I haven't posted anything between the last two posts but his opinions have changed. I have become an option to lynch over ghost, although he states he will almost certainly stay on ghost. Not convinced I'm scummy. Drops ghost, thinks he has an adequate explanation. Ghost's post + Show Spoiler + On February 28 2012 06:28 ghost_403 wrote: @hyde Voting to lynch FourFace because of that post was short sighted of me. Probably should not have been so hasty. The other possible outcome was evil genius using drunken boxing. Can't ever be too sure. @alderan I called out chocolate in thread for doing that. At best, that argument is WIFOM. Also wrong, chocolate voted to lynch phagga first. @sloosh I don't like no-lynches. See #. Happy to readdress this if you don't feel that is sufficient. @janaan Again, see above. I think that no-lynches are more dangerous that mislynches. @phagga At the time, Hyde had not posted in thread, therefore he was a lurker. Since then, he has posted in thread, making him not a lurker. Now, according to my own logic, I need to prove that he is scum in order to lynch him. As I can't do that, I'm not going to vote for him. I don't see the problem here. @k2hd Again, that was premature, see comment for hyde. @phagga See above comment. @nightfury I think I've addressed most of your concerns already. If not, point out what you're not happy with. Dislikes me for tyring to pressure in a "dishonest way. Understandable. Thinks panic is not good for town, but in my opinion it is good if it's not out of hand. + Show Spoiler + On February 28 2012 10:04 NightFury wrote: Yes, you read my main point correctly. And I do agree - applying pressure is a great way to reveal motivations. I do not agree with Chocolate's method though and it comes off as scummy (in my opinion). My concern is that there may have been better ways to achieve this result. Pressuring someone by developing a case is one way. Pressuring a lurker by asking them questions is good. Just voting for someone to get a response can work too... but how useful is it? He claimed that his method targets newbies by making them panic. That's fair. He also claims that mafia are more likely to panic as well. Now I see two variables that may confound the read. I do agree that even this way can get someone posting. However, he believes that his method can draw out scumtells when it doesn't strictly probe affiliation - contrary to what he said (not saying it cannot though, just unreliably). So yes, I do see there is some merit in what he did after some thought. However, how he performed this doesn't sit well with me at this moment. For example: He said he voted for FourFace to try to develop a case against him. He also said that FourFace never addressed his points and just kept on posting eventually. I looked at Chocolate's filter and I could not see what points he brought up. He basically tells him he is going to vote for him for acting weird and will not unvote him until he has explained himself. I don't think asking someone to explain themselves is a point... just a broad topic. It doesn't facilitate the idea to reveal motivation without giving the individual something specific to work with (in my opinion). Also saying that he will not unvote him unless he does so was an empty threat since he later stated there wasn't enough to go off of. Well there wasn't anything to go off of since he didn't propose any specific points. I don't see why Chocolate had to lie/make an empty threat. It comes off scummy. Anyways, I am off for dinner. I will not be back for some time (probably around the deadline). My vote remains the same. Now he thinks my pressure policy could have worked but was scummy. I guess he thinks it's underhanded, but I don't see how scum can benefit from something. He sees the merit in my idea, just doesn't like it??? + Show Spoiler + On February 29 2012 09:07 NightFury wrote: Okay. Caught up with the thread. As for the no lynch - Can't say I'm 100% pleased with the decision. But I suppose people do have different priorities. All I know is that we have one extra day/night cycle. And since it has already come to pass, I see no reason to dwell on it. Really happy we have substitutions for the two inactives and one with questionable sanity. Hope this leads to productive discussions. As for the new cases proposed - I'm still trying to digest information on them. I don't have anything new or constructive to add at this moment in time. I do have one question for Chocolate. This is mostly for my understanding than anything else. I do understand your strategy on day 1 was to get people talking and I definitely see the merit in that. So I won't be beating that dead horse anymore. Why would you choose a dishonest strategy that basically involves empty threats to produce conversation over others (i.e. case building)? I cannot wrap my head around why you opted to do this. I did state previously that it could have just been reckless play and that could still be a possibility - but I need to know more information before I can return to that stance. Just for clarity - I remain in the opinion that your play has been scummy and that you are still a valid lynch candidate. I am heading out for dinner now. Will be back in a little while! His most recent post (!). Only substance is the one question. Claims my methods are scummy, but previously states he sees merits in them. He claims they are dishonest. Now while my methods seem dishonest I don't see how that is scummy. They are not attempts to trick town as a whole, only pressure individual people in the town. In summary his case isn't the strongest but he is one to watch out for. Almost all his posts have been focused on ghost and me. We are the only people who have seemed scummy to him. He was only suspicious of ghost while the general suspicion was on him, then backs down while he said it was very likely that he wouldn't. Then he focuses on me, the most suspicious person since ghost. He might be someone to watch for as additional lynch candidates are exposed, to see if he bandwagons onto them and off them, and if he posts good cases against them. So far he has made no "cases" only provided general reads and has asked me some questions. Phew, glad that's done. I do not see where I said you are more scummy. I retained the same indecisiveness as before. I do believe your play was toxic to town - but that does not make you scum at that moment in time. Due to formatting, cannot quite quote the correct section. In regards to your next point where I drop ghost in favour of you though: Two reasons how that post came to be. 1) Seeing how ghost could at least address an issue was good to see and I had no further questions for him - I had nothing else to pursue with at the time. 2) For the reasons I stated, I found your play more scummy than his and directed my attention to you. Maybe since it was my first case where I think I had substance to it, I opted to leave ghost where he was for the time being. I was also a little bit excited to see how my first case would go. Just to be as clear and concise as I can. I understand the merit of making people talk due to pressure. I do not agree by the method you used which was dishonest. Like I said, case building may be a better way. I do not see a reason for town to be dishonest. Your dishonesty is what makes me think your specific method was scummy. Essentially the same answer as before. Dishonesty = scummy. Applying pressure in general to produce a response = has merit. The method is scummy, the intention may actually be good. The intention may not be to trick the whole town, but a low quality read based on panic can possibly be tricky (in my opinion). Funny how my gumshoe inquiry and your post essential coincided. I have glimpsed DYH's post and I feel you will find additional information there. If you have anything else to add, feel free to send it my way. Chocolate - Appears reckless and had a scummy policy. Not too much in terms of content. Extremely uncertain. Between null and leaning scum. Alderan - I'm null. I didn't like his lack of clarity earlier when making a case against Chocolate but he may be legitimately pressuring people and not making multiple targets. k2hd - Leaning scum. Has made a few suspicious comments and hasn't produced too much in content. ghost - Leaning scum. Apart from his recent post against Chocolate, I don't think he's said much in terms of content and his initial aggression is still suspicious. phagga - Leaning town. Arguments appear reasonable and acts pro-town. DYH - Leaning town. Arguments are reasonable and provides direction. You didn't directly say that I'm more scummy. You said I'm the most suspicious and that i'm toxic- that's different from null. 1) Seeing how ghost could at least address an issue was good to see and I had no further questions for him - I had nothing else to pursue with at the time. 2) For the reasons I stated, I found your play more scummy than his and directed my attention to you. Maybe since it was my first case where I think I had substance to it, I opted to leave ghost where he was for the time being. I was also a little bit excited to see how my first case would go. I could address issues too, no? I never saw why you thought I was scummier than him, all of a sudden you change from ghost being the most scummy to me after his explanation.Rest of it is you saying dishonesty is scummy. My strategy wasn't too dishonest but this is really a matter of opinion. Disproves my last point. He was making a big analysis post on gum. Two things to point out about the end. Phagga being town is pretty contradictory to my belief, he focused on me for a good part of the game. DYH is town with solid arguments but was defending my a good deal Day1. Overall I'm not as suspicious as before but he's an option for me. I'd be interested to see how he and phagga interact, especially if one dies. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On March 02 2012 10:59 DoYouHas wrote: As for why nobody is posting, that is obvious. The people on gumshoe have already won. Both Chocolate and I have admitted that we will move over to gumshoe if that becomes necessary. So they have no incentive to move over to k2hd. gumshoe is practically a lock for today's lynch. That is why I started this back and forth between us Chocolate. There is nothing left to talk about in reference to our lynch, so I'm moving on. Yeah, it sucks. If gum flips green I'm looking at the old crew: phagga, nf, ghost, test maybe? Maybe even sloosh? | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
Chocolate, do you want a NL? Why are you voting nttea who doesn't have any other votes on him/her? I said I was going to vote for him. Don't make baseless accusations please. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
Another question: Why would you push for a lynch on alderan if you think he is the best at finding scum? If he is scum he wouldn't cast so much doubt on scum on day1 unless they weren't actually scum right? Prove to us that lynching you would be a big mistake, show us. Don't just tell us because we won't believe you. I continue to be suspicious of phagga because he was interested in lynching me on day 1 and lynched a town on day2 | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
Won't link/quote because i'm too lazy, will use number of his posts since he has 2 pages. Not everything is bad. 4. Suspicious of fourface. Thinks he is bad town. 5. starts on me. Dislikes what I'm doing because in #2 he was against lynching lurkers. Thinks me throwing votes around is suspicious and an attempt to get an early bandwagon rolling. 6. wishy washy on fourface, ghost, and igabod. I am the most suspicious for going after easy targets. If he believes I could get a random bandwagon going on a lurker then he is just naive. The only actual target I have gone after is fourface. 7. Doesn't want to vote fourface, suspicious of ghost. Says I disappeared, which is understandable because I did due to my schedule. This is all completely understandable up till now except maybe his position on ghost. He leaves him open to lynch (I don't think I want him lynched) but says he is toxic. The posts between 6-7 by ghost include - telling 4 face not to edit - saying we should lynch someone, preferably scum but otherwise a lurker - what time he'll be on - just got home from work. I think this is pretty suspicious. I want to do a case on ghost before the night is over too. 9. Keeps his vote on me after I made my defense. I can kinda understand this because he said he wanted a lynch no matter what on day1. 19. Still going after me. 1 isn't even a point for why I'm mafia. 2 isn't valid because fourface wasn't making substantial posts like I wanted him to. 3 is a good point but I've since remedied that. 4 is the same. 5 is good but I was afraid to lynch ghost because I thought he was green due to the wifom argument, leaving me only lurkers to lynch. I've expanded my suspicious arsenal since then, however. 20. 1 says he doesn't want to lynch lurkers, his opinion. He is trying to force his opinion on doyouhas though, not a good way to deduce scum. 2 says what I just said 21-23 completely misunderstood at first. they're fine 24. completely agree 25. see above 26. votes on me again. doesn't buy my arguments. 27. agree, 2 is wifom though 28. disagrees with me 29. says I am suspicious without reasoning, presumably doesn't buy any of my defense posts. 30. votes on gumshoe 32. goes to bed 33. completely agree Most of my suspcion of him is how little he has brought to the table, especially on d1. He hasn't done any pbpa and as far as I can tell hasn't started suspicion on anyone either. He His votes come at good times for pressure but also seem to be bandwagon-ish. I want him to contribute more. Finally, he has lynched gumshoe, town, and pushed very hard on me. He goes after each of us right after we become candidates. I want to see a pbpa from him soon. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
 . Going to be gone for most of the remaining time of the night. Look forward to more contributions phagga in the near future. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
slOosh - 25% phagga - 25% NightFury - 20% zelblade - 10% why are these people who haven't contributed that much least likely to be scum? I pointed out this in my summary (lol) but phagga really hasn't done too much. Nor has nightfury. Nor has sloosh. Zellblade has been active recently but before his DYH case he didn't post much content either. And dyh is at the top of the list... are you trying to just make zellblade happy or do you honestly believe this? | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
| ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
I haven't been posting that much because the mafia is basically running the town now. I was thinking of getting myself modkilled to show you all my alignment so you would finally lynch my suspects, but I think it would be cheating because it's against my win condition, although it could help. Tomorrow I may do that if we really need to start lynching mafia. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
| ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
| ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
| ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
| ||
| ||
