|
On February 28 2012 09:19 gumshoe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 09:03 Chocolate wrote: I would encourage you to vote on steveling, if igabod doesn't post in the next hour I'll change my vote to Steve. Chocolate what the smuch do you think of ghost? I agree with some of his views on lurkers, i.e. if we can't find anyone scummy we should lynch them. However, I disagree with If we can't find scum, we should instead lynch people who are not useful to the town. Lurkers fit the second criteria perfectly. because we shouldn't kill them for not being useful, but for possibly being hiding scum.
FourFace, I have no idea what game you're playing here. Your rants about insanity are baffling to me even on repeat readings. The only thing worse than scum in a game are townies that waste other peoples time while they are looking for scum. Instead, we have to identify and ignore your madness, which is insanely counter productive. As far as your trap, still don't know what you're going for there. Once the game starts, people have a responsibility to actually be playing. If they can't make it, they tell the GM and he replaces them; not a big deal.
My head still hurts. Agree
As I said before, I am happy to lynch lurkers... --UNLESS-- ...there are scum. Oh boy, are there scum in this thread. I'm not down with an Igabod lynch (at the moment. Igabod, post more.) simply because there are scummier targets.
On February 28 2012 06:37 Chocolate wrote: Right now I'm looking at igabod because he has almost no posts, and because I'm not getting strong reads on anybody else at the moment. I'm looking at some of the people who seemed to be bandwagoning/sheeping on to me, but I do realize that you all want a lynch to gain info, and I may represent the best case to you.
Tells us not to jump on the bandwagon. Immediately jumps on the bandwagon.
Also, he's posted very little content up til now. His post history is "let's lynch lurkers, let's not lynch lurkers, let's lynch lurkers who don't post in the next hour, let's lynch phagga for lurking, sorry for jumping on the FourFace bandwagon, let's lynch Igabod." Chocolate's Filter
And now, his most recent post is "Alderan used an OMGUS sort of, FourFace is fishy, and here's another lurker." Not impressed.
Scummy lurker >> regular lurker.
##vote chocolate
Just as an aside, did you know that out of the 14 people playing this game, only 4 of them agreed to a no-lynch on day 1? Kinda hypocritical, he "Tells us not to jump on the bandwagon. Immediately jumps on the bandwagon." The bolded part isn't entirely true, voting for someone that early and w/o evidence does not equate to lynching. Also criticizes me for wanting to lynch igabod, but he is happy to lynch lurkers. Dismisses my own cases.
If push comes to shove I would vote for him to avoid my own lynch or a no-lynch, but if I had my druthers I would lynch someone else.
|
still no post, switching to steve. Steve, could you please post any and all reads you have at the moment?
|
That's odd alderan, I have null-worse reads on my accusers. Why won't you list the ones you think are town?
|
On February 28 2012 10:04 Alderan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 10:02 Chocolate wrote: still no post, switching to steve. Steve, could you please post any and all reads you have at the moment? Me being someone you find suspicious, I find it odd that you switched to my target so quickly. I said an hour ago I was going to switch
|
On February 28 2012 10:08 DoYouHas wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 10:06 Qatol wrote: It has come to my attention that the original edit for one of the posts was not included. It should be there now along with the first edit. I'll also confirm that he has not hacked the mafia QT. But apparently you will confirm that he is town... He's saying that if he's town, he has not found their qt. He could be mafia still.
|
On February 28 2012 11:03 ghost_403 wrote: You see, this is how I see it.
We could vote to lynch Igabod. That's not even really a bad idea. He's been lurking hardcore. Kinda scummy if you ask me. And I don't like scummy. However, his flip doesn't tell us anything. Maybe, we'll get lucky and lynch a scum. Odds are about, what, 28%? You can do worse than that.
Other option: You lynch either me or chocolate. I think it's pretty well established, one of the two of us is scum. If whoever gets lynched flips red, awesome! Lynched a scum! If not, guess who the first person on the chopping block is tomorrow. The guy who wasn't lynched. Either way, going into day 3, the town is down one scum. I don't think we are necessarily on different teams. In fact, I'm reasonably sure we are both town since if I get lynched, I will flip green. If you were mafia you wouldn't say this, knowing I'm town, because you are setting up your own lynch. So if I do get lynched and am green I wouldn't say you are mafia.
Have to go to bed in 10min, should I go igabod, steve, or other?
|
You do realize that is basically a vote swing, which you state is bad? Stand by your words. If I get lynched we will get good info on alderan, gum, dyh, sloosh, Phagga, and night.
|
I'm going to try to stay up till the deadline but might have to get off.
Hi new guy
|
Didnt like night because he was ambivalent until I told him I wanted people to panic a little. Phagga because he voted me because I was voting around w/o intentions of lynching.
|
On February 28 2012 11:52 ghost_403 wrote: @sloosh Here's what you missed. All (almost all) the people voting against Chocolate have held their ground, all the other people have hopped, skipped, and leaped all over the place, finally deciding on trying to lynch the guys who's going to get modkilled for not voting in order to force a no-lynch. I bet the other 2 will get replaced too
|
On February 29 2012 06:58 Alderan wrote: Jekyll, what do you think about the current cases at hand, namely the ones against Chocolate, myslef, and k2hd. I'm still a case -.-
Just read the thread, I think the cases of alderan and k2hd are pretty good.
On February 29 2012 03:54 Alderan wrote: The K2hd Case
Why I found you suspicious the originally: - You had, prior to the very end of the day yesterday, exactly 1 productive post. - Your first point in said post was to say you didn't find FF very scummy. - Your second point was to find Ghost suspicious for the same thing that seemed to clear him for everyone else. - You soft agree with me about Chocolate. - You vote for a no lynch.
You had no strong convictions, made no original cases, you simply agreed with other people sentiments, and then chose to vote for a no-lynch, the ultimate middle of the road move.
Important note: Notice the fact that you voted for igadob is no where to be found in this reasoning. It's because that move is not inherently scummy, I found you and 3 others that were voting for igadob suspicious, which in turn lead me to believe that Chocolate could be scum. I had enough doubt however to choose to vote for either lynching the scummiest lurker in my mind, or no lynching.
Why I find you more suspicious:
- Opening sentence of your second meaningful post is "Now for those who are starting to suspect me." What a bizzarre way to start a post, I've never heard a towny be worried about being "suspected" - The rest of his post has absolutely no substance. - Spends 3 paragraphs saying he's going to be inactive a lot. - Says he couldn't make an informed enough decision to switch votes to get a lynch because of his inactivity. - Touts being the first to "bring igadob up. He was a lurker, you didn't do anything special, you just voted for a lurker. Who tries to make their actions look more meaningful than they are? Scum. - Agrees with Sloosh and Zelblade that I look suspicious. Makes 1 extra point about the case that was inherently flawed. You state that I was giving Janaan a pass. I wasn't. In case you did not notice all of those people were lurking really hard, except for Janaan, who was posting enough, just not making a stand on anyone, and that's what I was asking him to do.
See what you guys think.
The first part is a good find, he does seem to be contributing the bare minimum, not really doing anything productive but providing "safe" views.
Agree with the bringing igabod up part. Agree with the fluff part.
Now this is seperate but alderan brings up another good point Janaan, who was posting enough, just not making a stand on anyone this wishy washy stance is not beneficial for anyone but mafia.
As for the alderan case, he does seem to be moving around a lot too, but at least he is driving discussion. Voting for steveling over igabod makes sense with his explanation. Basically those two points are the whole case? With those alone I'm not bought.
|
On February 29 2012 07:47 phagga wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 07:57 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 07:31 ghost_403 wrote:As I said before, I am happy to lynch lurkers... --UNLESS-- ...there are scum. Oh boy, are there scum in this thread. I'm not down with an Igabod lynch (at the moment. Igabod, post more.) simply because there are scummier targets. On February 28 2012 06:37 Chocolate wrote: Right now I'm looking at igabod because he has almost no posts, and because I'm not getting strong reads on anybody else at the moment. I'm looking at some of the people who seemed to be bandwagoning/sheeping on to me, but I do realize that you all want a lynch to gain info, and I may represent the best case to you. Tells us not to jump on the bandwagon. Immediately jumps on the bandwagon. Also, he's posted very little content up til now. His post history is "let's lynch lurkers, let's not lynch lurkers, let's lynch lurkers who don't post in the next hour, let's lynch phagga for lurking, sorry for jumping on the FourFace bandwagon, let's lynch Igabod." Chocolate's FilterAnd now, his most recent post is "Alderan used an OMGUS sort of, FourFace is fishy, and here's another lurker." Not impressed. Scummy lurker >> regular lurker. ##vote chocolateJust as an aside, did you know that out of the 14 people playing this game, only 4 of them agreed to a no-lynch on day 1? I want igabod to post more, is that so bad? Votes are not set in stone. As I said I'd be up for all the people I previously outlined, but igabod is the most scummy to me because of his lack of posts. My "lurker policy" hasn't been the greatest, and hasn't produced good results. Do you honestly think I would keep my vote on those people though? 1 I don't even remember when I was against lynching lurkers, but if you're referring to my 2nd post during the game I didn't say I was for or against lynching them , only that they were the most likely lynch candidates. I don't see anything wrong with my most recent post. I'm not going to wildly say SLOOSH IS MAFIA, and find things to justify my point. I will find things and base my point off them, and those are the people who have garnered my suspicion. Show nested quote +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. 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 Panicking can produce results. If someone panics it makes me think of them as mafia, because it shows that they may not be able to think up a good defense, whereas town should be able to make good decisions based on the current information (remember, scum has to be careful not to reveal their private information). It targets newbies but mafia are more likely to panic to me. I voted for 4face to get him to post more. 2 If I hadn't voted for him there wouldn't have been sufficient pressure on him to get him to post. The vote causes that. If it were the end of the day I wouldn't have voted for him, simply because there wasn't too much to go off. Read more of that mafia game. SS was town and I was mafia, but from an objective view I think late into the game he was very scummy. I wanted people to panic because i thought mafia would be more likely to panic. Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 07:37 Alderan wrote: Do you find no one else suspicious besides lurkers and 4F?
We're trying to build as many cases as possible and put pressure on every one we find suspicious.
The hypothetical Jeckyll vote thing was just something that popped into my head when making my case on you and I used it to push you both and see how you respond.
Sorry if you think I tried to make you look dumb, that was not my intention. It's fine. I did say I found you suspicious, and you aren't really lurking. I'm inclined to think all the people voting for me are suspicious too, but I don't know. 3 I just hope if I die that you all look in to some of them, especially votes 4-7. 1 Why should I take your vote seriously then? If you are flipflopping with your vote, you are not pressing anyone. 2 So you voted him to make him post even more? I mean, you said yourself that he was already posting (see bolded part here + Show Spoiler +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. ), so you just cast a vote on someone to make him post even more? That is just ridicoulus. 3 Do you think they are suspicious or not? If they are suspicious, why? Give us some arguments to work with, not that maybe-crap. + Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 10:06 Chocolate wrote: That's odd alderan, I have null-worse reads on my accusers.4 Why won't you list the ones you think are town? 4 Same as number 3. Wild accusations, but no arguments or facts. + Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 11:14 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 11:03 ghost_403 wrote: You see, this is how I see it.
We could vote to lynch Igabod. That's not even really a bad idea. He's been lurking hardcore. Kinda scummy if you ask me. And I don't like scummy. However, his flip doesn't tell us anything. Maybe, we'll get lucky and lynch a scum. Odds are about, what, 28%? You can do worse than that.
Other option: You lynch either me or chocolate. I think it's pretty well established, one of the two of us is scum. If whoever gets lynched flips red, awesome! Lynched a scum! If not, guess who the first person on the chopping block is tomorrow. The guy who wasn't lynched. Either way, going into day 3, the town is down one scum. I don't think we are necessarily on different teams. In fact, I'm reasonably sure we are both town since if I get lynched, I will flip green. If you were mafia you wouldn't say this, knowing I'm town, because you are setting up your own lynch. So if I do get lynched and am green I wouldn't say you are mafia. 5Have to go to bed in 10min, should I go igabod, steve, or other? 5 This is only going WIFOM, bad try to make you look green. In all your posts you have not presented a single reason beyond "he's lurking!" why someone should be lynched. You are blindly casting votes on people that are being suspected by others already. You deliver no arguments why people are suspicious, but already hinted 3 times that you have a list of people that you think are suspicious. You have not tried to make a case against anyone, you are hiding behind arguments of others. As soon as the new day starts, I will vote for you again. 1. It was the beginning of day1, you tell me why you would take my vote seriously?? They aren't meant to be definitive votes.
2.I wanted him to post more after his first "crazy" post to get a read on him. He had already posted, but that was only one post. I did want him to post more, and he did, but I couldn't get anything from them.
3. I think you mean this? On February 28 2012 07:27 Chocolate wrote:I said I wasn't getting strong reads, not null reads. My reads are currently on Show nested quote +Alderan- 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. I never voted for jeckyll to begin with. I don't even think I've even mentioned him so far. If you're implying that 1-4 all took place in a scum qt, all there is ostensibly is me voting on a lurker, making the only connection both me and ghost voting on lurkers. I also dislike you painting me as stupid or unintelligent, because it is common to portray dumb people as using !!111!!!. This is an underhanded tactic to try to get people to dislike me. Another reason I'm suspicious of you is simply because you got on my case when I felt like I didn't do anything wrong, although I probably should've explained more why I was voting on FF. Fourface- not too sure about this guy but I think he may just be scum acting out, trying to act so boldly that nobody thinks he's scum. I hope he gets replaced or shapes up, if he doesn't I'd be fine with voting on him. Steveling- he posted day 1 about lynch policy, otherwise has done absolutely NOTHING That's it for now I suppose. I'd be up for lynching them plus igabod. Crap I messed up the formatting, oh well. I stated that they're suspicious and why.
4. How is that an accusation? I dislike them because i know I'm town (of course I'm going to say that, obviously) and I was getting pushed to get lynched basically for moving votes around early on in day1.
5. But if I do flip green (my death was a possibility then) I would say he is town.
I feel like I'm reiterating my points over and over again but if you have anything more you want me to post about please say so.
|
On February 29 2012 08:09 ghost_403 wrote:@phagga Why did you do that. Now we have to listen to him pass off other peoples arguments as his own for the next few days. This post brings nothing new to the thread. Not impressed. Yeah he didn't ask anything new.
|
Because you were asking me to... I didn't want to ignore it, but I didn't want to link you my old posts because that would imply that you didn't read them. Hopefully consolidating them in one place will help.
|
On February 29 2012 08:36 phagga wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 08:30 Chocolate wrote: Because you were asking me to... I didn't want to ignore it, but I didn't want to link you my old posts because that would imply that you didn't read them. Hopefully consolidating them in one place will help. Ok, I think we are talking about 2 different things here... ghost_403 linked this post and said there was nothing new in it. When you then answered with "yeah, I know", I thought you meant the same post. But now I think you did not? Because I can't find a post where anyone has asked you to reply to Alderans Post. Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 08:30 TestSubject893 wrote: Sorry if this is a really newbie question, but what should we be trying to accomplish during this night phase? I want to contribute, but I feel a bit directionless right now. I feel like I should be making a case, but I can't come up with a lot that's conclusive. Is it just a waiting game until we see the results of the night actions and then work from there? IMO there is not to much pressure to actually contribute a lot through the night. I just had a few thoughts I wanted to get rid off, which is why I posted several things. I guess the main activity will be during the 48 hours of day. I'm off to bed now. Hopefully see you in the morning of day 2. Well for when you're up again I responded to his post (I guess you mean the initial one? that started the accusations?) Here
|
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! I think the answers produced while under pressure would just be better, and people might actually feel the need to respond more.
|
Then we should play out the day and see what presents itself -.- Also don't contribute just for the sake of contributing, contribute to try to find scum. I'm already getting bad vibes from you, nttea
|
I just got home . Not many people were on yesterday for me to talk to.
Also zell blade I would rather you never have stated that information at all, nothing good can ever come from discussing non hit night actions Ok first I'm going to be a hypocrite and tell you to stop talking about this, by talking about it Same goes for analyzing night actions, they are exercises in WIFOM and attempting to draw conclusions from them is stupid and scummy. Definitely agreeing with phagga here.
In fact this is making me very suspicious of gumshoe. I wouldn't expect someone like him to try to do that at all, and the blue discussion with zell can't help town one bit. In addition, why wouldn't he claim RB? The only thing I can think of is if zell is mafia and is trying to make it seem like there is an rb, but I'd get suspicious if he kept claiming rb every day. In addition, if he gets lynched and flips red, any other players who have claimed RB would probably get lynched quickly.
Zellblade's point on gum's posting habits is good.
I dislike gum's choice to curb his posting, imo it seems to be an excuse to post less (think the amount I posted in II ) while still seeming town, because he has an excuse. I hope to see substantial posts from gum, and answering questions when needed. If he goes lurker mode I won't hesitate to lynch him.
|
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...) 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. 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.
Show nested quote +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. 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
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. I don't really see how this quelled everyone's suspicion. He says that he doesn't like no-lynches and just apologized for voting 4face. Also corrects others' mistakes. So that's ghosts "exceptional" defense, according to nightfury. 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:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 08:59 DoYouHas wrote:+ 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) 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.
|
Nightfury what do you think about
Chocolate Alderan k2hd ghost phagga DoYouHas
Short snippets are fine, I just want to hear about more people from you.
|
|
|
|