EPTMy actions to the contrary, don't waste tonight. I will be contributing when I return. I'm just a little burnt out atm and I need to fix that.
Newbie Mini Mafia IV - Page 3
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
My actions to the contrary, don't waste tonight. I will be contributing when I return. I'm just a little burnt out atm and I need to fix that. | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On February 27 2012 01:21 Alderan wrote: When I play mafia I HATE defining anything in absolutes, for example "we should NEVER no lynch", "X player is definitely town" etc. In my mind there are very real reasons we would want to no-lynch Day 1, namely, if there is a DEFINITIVE lack of reasonable cases at the end of the voting period, which we will have to determine. Also a Day 1 early vote deadline for me serves little to no purpose. I'd bet someone a dollar that by that time there will be someone who still has not posted yet, and there will be 2-4 people with only one introductory post. I liked this part of Alderan's first post, until he became the person who was scrambling the hardest to get a lynch at the end of the day. I'm curious what Alderan would define as "a DEFINITIVE lack of reasonable cases at the end of the voting period" if what we dealt with yesterday wasn't it. None of the cases against chocolate were all that reasonable, and the other two had posted practically nothing. He then tempers his initial statement with this post: On February 27 2012 02:45 Alderan wrote: I mean, look, I get it, if there's a hardcore lurker then we should lynch them, I'm fine with that. If there's not, and there are no adequate cases on who is scum I don't think it's worth it. Disclaimer: It is much more likely that we have an adequate lynch target than we don't. My point is that we don't rule the possibility out. This leads me to another curiosity. There wasn't that much to distinguish Steveling and igabod yesterday. Steveling did give us a few more posts and actually put in a request to be replaced instead of being modkilled->replaced. However, Alderan gives 2 reasons for his vote switch to Steveling: On February 28 2012 09:51 Alderan wrote: I honestly get the feeling Steveling is more likely to be scum than igabod, It's only on't a gut feeling, but let's be real, we're lynching lurkers, we don't have much else. ##vote: Steveling On February 28 2012 10:20 Alderan wrote: I think a good compromise between my last post and the people on igadob/ We vote Steveling, we're killing a lurker that we don't know, and he's voting with the others that I find suspicious. The first post doesn't make much sense until you look at it with the second post. I see this as a sort of reverse of my feelings towards a Steveling lynch. I didn't trust Alderan, so I was unwilling to switch to the lurker of his choosing. He even states that he finds multiple people voting igabod to be suspicious. So why is he trying to convince that same group of people to switch over to Steveling? Why does he direct his efforts in an area almost guaranteed to not achieve his goal? With 4 of us on igabod, and at least 2 he finds supicious, he would have to convince people on the chocolate vote as well to get a lynch done. My point is this, for someone who started the game admitting there are real reasons we would end up at a no-lynch Alderan seemed afraid to admit the possibility that, at the end of the day, a no-lynch was our best option. Alderan's end of the day actions don't quite sit right with me. I wrote this a while back: On February 28 2012 02:51 DoYouHas wrote: I find myself agreeing with you fairly often, Alderan. But I've been burned by you before, so I'm keeping an eye out. I was clearly touchy about the possibility of Alderan buddying me. I found myself spotting many of the same things that Alderan pointed out on my first read through. He even echoed some of my logic from last game: On February 27 2012 15:17 Alderan wrote: Because I think you might be town I'm trying to help you set up your post so you will be taken seriously and given even an ounce of attention. As it stands now you are just being a nuisance. This is coming from someone who finds Janaan suspicions. I recognized that Alderan's initial case on Chocolate was not very strong. I was surprised when he posted this: 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. This set off the warning bells for me because he 'might' be trying to buddy me. Also, I was of the opinion that Alderan was one of the chief people directing our conversation towards Ghost and Chocolate. So I found it strange that he would so readily agree with a post that infers him having scummy motivation. Alderan, you will notice that similar to my FF case, this one isn't conclusive on you being scum. What I need from you is transparency. Don't waste your time defending yourself on the points I just made (unless something I said was completely untrue). Instead, I want you to write significant posts on what you think about me, slOosh, gumshoe, Janaan, and phagga. I know you do not like giving town reads, but I need to be reassured so I can start looking elsewhere for scum. I already stated that I think we are generally on the same wavelength this game, if I can trust you on top of that then we can go to work on this thread. | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On February 29 2012 06:55 phagga wrote: Dude, seriously? You'd rather risk lynching an inactive townie instead of waiting for the next day when a new guy approaches that might actually help us? Why? He is not running away. When we lynch someone who is actually playing the game, we get so much more information and benefit out of it. -_-, You seem to want me to justify lynching lurkers to you. That is a waste of typing and I'm not going to bother. I thought I made my position pretty clear last night. On February 28 2012 10:21 DoYouHas wrote: Moving on then, Gumshoe, I think we might be in extraordinary enough circumstances to go for a no-lynch today. With at least 2 people being replaced/modkilled and possibly 3(FourFace). We are in a pretty bad place to be deciding our lynch, especially when 2/4 of the people we are considering lynching are among the ones being replaced/killed. I just don't think we should take the chance of a mislynch, a modkill, and a night hit leaving us 3 townies down at the start of day2. My opinion, igabod or no-lynch. I didn't trust Alderan so I wasn't going to vote Steveling. (Although objectively, Alderan is correct. Steveling was the better lynch.) And I was not going to vote Chocolate. So, igabod or no-lynch. Lynch lurker or no-lynch. Of the two I was advocating the no-lynch harder. Phagga, if you find my play suspicious, present a case. Stop throwing the fact that you don't like lurker lynching in my face. I don't like it either, but that is just where yesterday landed us. | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
I was largely absent for most of the night. That stops now. I'm going to put in the time to come up with a convincing case today and we are going to lynch us some scum. | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
Tomorrow when I delve into filters and such I will try to do so independent of that kind of thinking. I fell into it last game with MidnightGladius. It wasn't helpful then, it won't be helpful now. | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
In a very general sense I think that we can draw a few bits of information out of this. The first is that it is pretty safe to assume that the mafia spread their votes over multiple people. This was something Alderan made a point of when he was scum in SNMM7. And it makes sense, without an overwhelming bandwagon, of course scum are going to split their votes up. The second thing is that because we were so desperate for cases and content to debate over, I bet that there are at least 2 mafia that spent most of day1 just skating by. Either lurking, playing very safe, or following others' lead. Lastly, I'm looking for players who were trying to nudge others into action. With how yesterday developed I think that just like SNMM7, the town was often heading in the wrong direction. Because of this, I think that at least a few of the mafia spent their time nudging townies further down the path of their incorrect reads. It is time we provide large, convincing cases against people. Cases that you feel passionate about, and will create real debate. Lets go to work people. | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
NightFury Let us meander what NightFury has done so far this game.
2. Support Alderan's case against Chocolate. 3. Support slOosh's case against Ghost. (At least that better have been what it was, because if it wasn't then his own points do not justify this statement, "Unless an exceptional defense comes up shortly, I am unlikely to change my vote.") 4. Switch back to Chocolate with some additional weak reasoning. 5. Debate the value of voting for pressure with me and Chocolate. 6. Come back after Chocolate recently. Now let's review things that I am looking for in scum atm.
2. Nudging other players along. 3. Pigeonholing Ghost and Chocolate as our lynch targets for day1. 4. Posting empty of helpful content. 5. Posting that shows they feel the need to apologize or feel under pressure (that isn't actually there). NightFury is guilty of all 5 of those things. 1. NightFury skated through day1 with a fairly short filter, and managed to not give any solid opinions on anyone except Chocolate and Ghost. He also bothered me with this: On February 28 2012 10:04 NightFury wrote: Anyways, I am off for dinner. I will not be back for some time (probably around the deadline). My vote remains the same. He says he will be back in around 10 hours (which is the deadline) but his next post is this one: On February 29 2012 06:28 NightFury wrote: Back from work. Going to catching up on the thread and posting my thoughts/opinions on current events. First order of business though: Greetings to all the new players. :D Which is a little over 10 hours past the deadline. I find it strange that he actively lurked and offered nothing to the thread when so much was happening in those hours leading up to the deadline. I get it that he had work and dinner and sleep and all sort of things. But I sincerely doubt that he did not check the thread in those 20 hours. And if he did check the thread, he has been so good about telling us when he is here and when he is absent, why didn't he post. There was tons to post about. 2. NightFury nudged me along an unhelpful path by suggesting a further deadline, which if I had agreed with would have wasted the town's time as the issue drew too much attention. He also nudged Alderan along with his support and tweaking of Alderan's case on Chocolate. He also nudged slOosh and Alderan along with their suspicions on Ghost. And it may just be me, but I think the way that NightFury pursued his case against Chocolate is remarkably similar to what zelblade did to me in SNMM7. 3. Not much needs to be said here. NightFury stayed on point with Ghost and Chocolate, and was definitely one of the voices getting them to be our top candidates. 4. I'm going to look past the early posts that all dealt with policy because it is too easy to point at those and say, "no real content". Instead lets look at the posts after that. His posts break down into essentially 4 things after he gets past policy. "I like Alderan's case", "I don't like that Chocolate is referring to past games", "I don't like Chocolate voting to apply pressure", and "I don't like that Chocolate switched to FF without quality reasoning". 5. NightFury is constantly updating us on him just getting back or him having to leave, or telling us when he won't be around. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10) At first this didn't stick out to me, but after I noticed how pervasive these comments were in his posting I started thinking about some of the reasons he would be doling out so many updates to us. 1. He is overeager and just wants us to know when he is around/not around. 2. He wants to make us feel like we can account for him at all times so that we don't get suspicious about him not posting much. 3. Same as 2, but it is caused by a desire to cover up the time he is spending in a scumQT, and therefore unintentional. I see all these little unnecessary updates he has given us as little apologies or signs that he feels pressured by the town even though we haven't said anything. ##Vote: NightFury P.S. Honorable mention goes to k2hd. Many of my scum standards applied to NightFury here also apply to him. | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On March 01 2012 12:43 NightFury wrote: I will be addressing your points in order. However, you do mention that I do not provide real content or opinion as well. I will be address that after the other details in your post as it pertains my to entire game experience up until now. 1. In regards to my absence. I was actually gone for the entire duration of ~20 hours. By off for dinner I was actually heading out with company. I did not return until much later than expected and immediately went to bed. I had a busy day at work and was not able to sit down in front of a computer. Was only able to do so when I got home. In terms of not commenting on the previous events, see below. 2. I believed that a secondary deadline would have been a good idea - locking in would prevent "last minute vote switches" if people went with it. Apart from some people either agreeing or whatnot, it effectively generated no discussion. And I believe it was Janaan who said it could have caused chaos, but I provided my rationale before. As for the Alderan tweak. I did support his case in general but I also stated that it was flawed (it lacked clarity). At that time, while Chocolate did seem scummy for the switch, I wanted to bring up the possibility that it may have just been reckless play. I don't see that as a nudge more as something to be re-evaluated. 3. No problems here I'm assuming? 4. I would like to address this entire point below. 5. I started this because it appeared everyone else would be doing it too. With reflection, you're assessment that I am overeager is accurate. As I mentioned in response to Chocolate, I am capable of getting excited. This was the motivation behind trying this. However, I know I have not been able to always perform it due to not always being at a computer and things do come up. I did not anticipate this action could be viewed in such a manner. In regards to not generating real content. This is my very first game of TL mafia (and of forum mafia to begin with). My #1 priority this game is to have a good learning experience. I've been playing solo this game as there are no coaches and I didn't know about hydras until the game was underway. I've been trying to post whatever I could to see if I could help generate discussion. But I have clearly not been able to do such. This may be due to what I think would be useful (second deadline, clarifying Alderan's case, pushing my case on Day 1...) has actually been useless? The problem I have is that I get swept under the rug whenever I do this. I only find myself being quoted by Chocolate (and for good reason) and the occasional other post. So I find myself reading over posts and thinking of what to contribute - but find a lot of things I did find out to already be stated. I do not see how quoting someone and saying "I agree" without any content is useful. I have no issue posting, but anything original just gets swept under the rug. Even you brought up how part of my case on Chocolate was useless and I was trying to determine why. But again, no discussion was generated. I'm at a point where I do not know how to generate discussion since my attempts have come and gone. I do feel being prompted (like right now) is good since it has a focus. Wow, that post struck me as... earnest. Very well, I'll switch my vote to k2hd. I'll present a more thorough reasoning as to why a little later. ##Unvote: NightFury ##Vote: k2hd | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
Ghost and Phagga, do you agree with how I handled NightFury? Who is your greatest suspicion right now? slOosh, what is your current stance on alderan? on k2hd? does one effect the other? zelblade, you said that you agreed with slOosh that igabod was the easy way out. Who on the list of people who voted igabod do you find most scummy and why? Gumshoe, if we were to lynch someone, who would provide the most information? What are the conflicts currently in the game as you see them? How do you think the scum are behaving this game to bring us to this point? | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On March 01 2012 20:58 phagga wrote: 2 The question you should ask yourself here is: Is this something a townie would do? And if so, is it also something scum would do? I doubt scum would want to stay in the spotlight like that. Also, If you are town, and you feel strongly about someone being scum, what are you gonna do? - Try to push a lynch on that person even if people will not listen to you - let the person of the hook because noone listens to you, and pick another target I would be stupid to push his lynch so hard if I was scum and knew he was town. When he would get lynched and flipped green, everyone would be on my heels. You do not want that as scum, specially not so early in the game. This is wrong. It is equally as possible that mafia would tunnel someone that hard. Tunneling someone into a lynch, on a green flip, makes it very hard for the town to determine whether it was just bad town play or scummy play. It is an easy way for a scum to get into and out of the spotlight without offering anything more than a null read on them. It also lowers the town's expectations for them for the rest of the game. Similarly, being willing to back off a case is just as often a trait of a townie who has changed their mind as it is a scum who wants a bandwagon. WIFOM my friend, WIFOM. I also find myself oddly comfortable with either a k2hd, gumshoe, or Alderan lynch. I think they all have good reasons to be lynched, but I will wait a little longer to see what people think before I make my preference clear. | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On March 01 2012 06:26 DoYouHas wrote: I'm digging through filters atm, but something I want to throw out there while I'm working on cases is a general view on how yesterday developed. When I look at yesterday, I see a lot of parallels between it and SNMM7. The main things being that there were a few cases that did not convince a majority, general confusion going into the deadline, and the threat of a no-lynch (in our case the threat became real). In a very general sense I think that we can draw a few bits of information out of this. The first is that it is pretty safe to assume that the mafia spread their votes over multiple people. This was something Alderan made a point of when he was scum in SNMM7. And it makes sense, without an overwhelming bandwagon, of course scum are going to split their votes up. The second thing is that because we were so desperate for cases and content to debate over, I bet that there are at least 2 mafia that spent most of day1 just skating by. Either lurking, playing very safe, or following others' lead. Lastly, I'm looking for players who were trying to nudge others into action. With how yesterday developed I think that just like SNMM7, the town was often heading in the wrong direction. Because of this, I think that at least a few of the mafia spent their time nudging townies further down the path of their incorrect reads. It is time we provide large, convincing cases against people. Cases that you feel passionate about, and will create real debate. Lets go to work people. I am particularly interested in Alderan's thoughts on what I said. If I am right and yesterday developed similarly to SNMM7, then Alderan should be able to give us an insider's perspective on scum, as well as identify 2-3 scum who are following a similar pattern to what they did in SNMM7. So Alderan, what do you think? | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On March 02 2012 08:45 slOosh wrote: I'm really inclined not to. Why? I gave consideration to it because I thought DYH had a case and wanted some feedback. It is less than 4 hours to the lynch deadline and still no explanation for his vote. I don't have as strong a read on him as I do gumshoe, so there really isn't reason to switch over unless people can give me reason to. Oh crap, I forgot I promised to make that case. ugh.... sorry everyone. I really do see k2hd as a better lynch than gumshoe atm, but as I mentioned before gum is on my list of acceptable lynches for today. The main thing is we don't no-lynch again. I'll try and type up a quick side by side comparison of those two ASAP, but I need to finish the dishes first. | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
However, the reason I think k2hd is the better choice for us to lynch today is because gumshoe's play does not look planned or careful, it does not look like he is playing to an agenda. I accept the fact that gumshoe has a certain style, and it is entirely possible that he is using that to mask his scum play. That is why I'm willing to vote for him if it comes down to it. But the gumshoe of this game looks a lot like the gumshoe of SNMM7. I don't see him as acting particularly anti-town with the exception of dealing with zelblade and asking for a replacement. k2hd on the other hand makes a few posts every so often. They do have the sense of being planned and careful. He fits the profile for me of someone who is staying off the radar, while spreading lots of weak suspicion around. I also really don't like how he treated his vote in this post + Show Spoiler + On February 27 2012 21:08 k2hd wrote: Right then. First off, FourFace. His posts sound like a town player who is very enthusiastic about playing things his way, and having fun with his writing style, hence the kooky posting, so I agree that we should take the heat off of him just for now... As for chocolate and ghost, I must say I have my suspicions regarding them as well. I'm not going to quote too much because I think others have done enough of that already while I've been away. Ghost seems VERY insistent on lynching. He's even against using FOS and wants to straight out lynch anyone he considers suspicious, as some have already pointed out. Then, when FourFace places a vote on jekyl just to "pressure" them, ghost posts this: It doesn't really say much about WHY FourFace is doing it wrong, and conveniently places another vote on jekyl. Then, FourFace presents himself as a better, and more possible target for a mislynch. Ghost accuses FourFace of scummy/crazy play, and it seems to me like he is out to get the easy mislynch again. Does he actually just think that FourFace is playing a very weird and seemingly nonsensical style? Maybe, but he has yet to unvote FourFace in the voting thread. Now for chocolate. I don't have as much to go on for chocolate aside from what's already been said, but I think it's interesting that he is voting for FourFace with ghost as well, perhaps hoping to start some sort of bandwagon? This part of his post: I'm going to vote for you for the time being because that was really weird. If you sufficiently explain yourself and start to make sense I will unvote you. Seems like a way of joining ghost in starting the bandwagon, while at the same time giving him the option of pulling out if the bandwagoning fails. I'm just not sure why you would actually put your vote into the voting thread at this stage, instead of just posting the thought and leaving it at that till FourFace actually DID post more so he could decide. To be fair to him though, he (seemingly) hasn't had the chance to read why posters such as alderaan and jekylandhyde don't think FourFace is scum yet. For now, I will remain suspicious of these 2 without voting yet, for reasons that will be explained below. I'm also very curious though to know why everyone is ignoring igabod. Up until now, his contributions have been these 2 posts: All he has done is agree with what has been said so far (without even bothering to put it into his own words, or back his agreement up with his own logic), and since then we have heard nothing from him. Now I should say that this will likely be my last post from now until the voting deadline (the real one) because I have to head off to bed soon for class tomorrow, and will be in uni when the deadline is up. I have pretty much no breaks tomorrow either in between classes. Because of this, I will vote for a no lynch for today only. Since I will be away for so long, I'd rather not vote for a lynch on someone who posts a proper defense when they wake up, or if a better target presents themself and I'm not available to change my vote. Just to confirm, can I ACTUALLY vote for a no lynch, or does that only occur when there is no majority? I will actually probably come online tomorrow during a lecture just to check this post (and change my vote if I have to), wouldn't want to be modkilled for a stupid mistake like this Just fyi, If I cannot vote for a no lynch, I will be voting for igabod no matter what, because I won't have time to go through posts properly in a lecture to consider what everyone has to say. It seems like a safe enough option for now because I am sure I will not get a majority on him anyway at this stage, so this vote shouldn't have an effect on tomorrow's lynch. I'll be able to post more as I have Wednesday and Thursday off (GMT +11). ##vote: no lynch | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
##Vote: nttea | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
##Vote: k2hd | ||
| ||
