|
On February 28 2012 07:57 Chocolate wrote: 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. 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.
I'm arguing that panicking can produce misleading results instead of being conclusive results. Anybody can panic at a case against them - especially newbies as you mentioned. A panicked response contains emotion. It does not necessarily have to be completely logical which is why it can produce misleading results. I don't see how any panicked response can be conclusive or at least indicative of mafia unless something very specific is mentioned. I think you're more likely to get a misleading result than a real one in my opinion.
FourFace had an entire case against him before you voted him. A case is more than enough pressure for a follow-up. If he didn't follow-up, then he probably wouldn't be standing in the brightest of lights with everyone else.
To be honest, I'm not going to go through more of that game personally - unless you want to bring up very specific points in the game and provide rationale. Late into the game is different from day 1. There's a lot more information on the table and several days worth of voting and action. I think your statement is out of context to the situation at hand in this game.
|
On February 28 2012 08:04 DoYouHas wrote: Anybody else think that this bandwagon is forming a little quickly on Chocolate? It wouldn't be so odd to me, but when I see a post like NightFury's which attacks Chocolate with points that are not very conclusive I start thinking that people are talking themselves into a Chocolate lynch instead of being objectively convinced. If you thought that he was our best lynch candidate because you found a few of thing things he said fishy and did not like his early lurking/middle of the road posts, that is one thing. But when you invent fairly invalid points to convince us that you aren't just sheeping the vote, it is very bad for town.
Right now I am very comfortable with my igabod vote. With how the conversation is being directed towards either a ghost lynch or a Chocolate lynch, I think igabod has a better chance of flipping scum than either of them.
Is there anything specific you want me to address or elaborate on? Which points do you believe are invalid?
|
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.
|
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
|
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!
|
Got home a little late from work. Here's what I'm thinking up to now!
Not too sure of what to make of the Janaan hit. As previously stated, trying to deduce what happened is probably WIFOM and should be left alone unless new and relevant content shows up.
On the gumshoe case. I find the statements being made in his case to be reasonable. I spent some time going through his filter and found something else of interest. In short: gumshoe is convinced that Alderan is town. If you look through his filter, I do not see an instance where gumshoe opts to pressure Alderan. Instead, gumshoe very frequently defends Alderan - either directly or indirectly.
I'd like to highlight some of his posts that support my statement (there are some fluff ones, I'll ignore those - feel free to examine them at your own free will though):
On February 28 2012 08:29 gumshoe wrote: I really don't like how drastically sloosh's style has shifted, even alderaan who seems like he's playing a convincing town hasn't changed that much in terms of tone from last game when he was scum, sloosh sounds like a different person and I would like to put pressure on him by attacking his potential proxy, ghost.
At this point in time, gumshoe believes Alderan is town based on his play (or at least a convincing town).
On February 29 2012 00:04 gumshoe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 23:26 phagga wrote:what about my second question, gumshoe? On February 28 2012 21:35 phagga wrote:On February 28 2012 11:27 gumshoe wrote: god I hate no lynches ) : like unless its analytically the right move(as was the case last game when we had a potential inactive townie) I feel like were just depriving ourselves of information
If chocolate flips green(which he probably will considering it looks like he's getting bussed, not gonna lie about that) i'll take responsibility. Why do you want to take responsibility for it? Because i wanted it to happenat the time more so than anyone else, that said i felt there was a good chance chocloate wasnt scum becaise it looked like he was getting bussed, to that end i knew someone would have to pay if he flipped green, i was willing to take on that responsibility to get information, but dyh sorta talked me out of it when he said lynching for info is bad, to sum it up as i said before i hate no lynches, i feel like they make town stagnate, that said i was aware that chocolate could be town, in which case if i was willing to lynch him for information i had to be willing to take the fall for it if he turned out to be a mistake. Thats how my thought process worked, i wanted it the most i had to be willing to take the heat for it, besides in my opinion everyone should fall under a bit of suspiciun early in the game so scum cant pull a " you know this guy mightve been playing us the whole time" stunt. Is that wrong? I dont know lynch me.
In isolation, I wouldn't know what to think of this one. With other evidence, I think gumshoe was soft defending Alderan (indirectly) as he put up the first accusations against Chocolate. The responsibility would be shared among all who voted for Chocolate.
On February 29 2012 13:54 gumshoe wrote: well now we know one thing, janaan was town, and I think alderaan is being framed. Could be the other way but Alderaan just doesn't seem like the kinda guy who would try and meta us by lynching his own suspect.
While thinking into the Janaan hit itself isn't worth the effort as of right now. The fact that gumshoe is still defending Alderan's innocence is worth noting - regardless if it's based in WIFOM.
I took a little time to look into how gumshoe and Alderan interacted. Please note that I may be mistaken as there may be more statements supporting or opposing this and I may have missed them - so feel free to correct me (long day at work).
I see that gumshoe always acts favourably towards Alderan. Alderan has shown both favourable and unfavourable actions towards gumshoe. I do not think this is enough to speculate if they're working together. It is worth noting though. A few examples:
On February 28 2012 11:16 gumshoe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 10:26 Alderan wrote: Is gum around? It's going to take mine and his votes as it stands now to get the majority. I'm here watcha need boss.
gumshoe acting favourably towards Alderan
On February 28 2012 11:24 Alderan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 11:22 gumshoe wrote: I like what ghost said about him and chocolate, we lynch igo meh, we lynch one of them we can back track and look at the history of pressure, willing to lean chocolate right now because ghost actually brought that to attention which I really appreciate. I'm leaning Chocolate as well over igabod. I'm trying to decide where "no lynch" falls in my preference order. .
Alderan working with gumshow (this is in reference to the day 1 lynch vote direction - there are more posts related).
On February 29 2012 04:42 Alderan wrote: Gumshoe- I think we need a case from Gumshoe soon, he's been active but not assertive, he needs to post an original case rather thanto continue to just evaluate others' cases.
Alderan pressuring gumshoe.
So the way I see it - gumshoe believes Alderan to be innocent and this can be applied to the recent cases involving both.
If gumshoe is green and believes Alderan is green (regardless of actual alignment) - I think he should be able to propose a reasonable argument why he thinks Alderan is green.
If gumshoe is red and knows Alderan is green - He knows Alderan's alignment and he is defending Alderan for some reason. It is possible to speculate that if Alderan flips green, he would use the fact he defended to support his defense. May not have evidence that to support Alderan being green (not a definite).
If gumshoe is red and Alderan is red - They're simply working together as mafia.
@gumshoe
Why are you convinced that Alderan is innocent? It may be critical for not just for your case, but may also help out with the Alderan case. I can see you being town if this can be explained adequately.
So there's a bit over a day left until the next vote deadline. I really want to hear about this. This will help everyone learn more about the current developments and possibly lead to lynching scum over a town.
And I'm just briefly going to comment on Chocolate. Please provide your own arguments or even your opinion on relevant matters. Your actions still say to me that you're a scummy lurker. To save space, ghost's case appears reasonable after a first read. Anything you can provide can be of help. There's a good chunk of time until the next lynch.
That's all for now. I am still suspicious of both gumshoe and Chocolate. Hearing more from them will be very useful. Despite me being a little tired this evening, I am up for discussion (I still need to do more reading though).
Questions/Thoughts/Opinions?
|
EBWOP:
Thank you Chocolate for posting something. I will be addressing your case shortly. I need food.
|
Seems like I have quite a bit to do now. Starting with Chocolate, I will be following up with DYH's case.
+ Show Spoiler +On March 01 2012 09:36 Chocolate wrote:I've been brooding on this case for a while. And that case is NightFury. I'll try to make this as objective as possible but if I die and flip green it should help a lot. First 16 or so posts aren't important; he discusses lurkers and lynch policy. + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 14:17 NightFury wrote:@Alderan I believe your case is good, but I feel it is slightly flawed. I'm not getting a very good town/scum read on Chocolate at this moment. While suspicious, I think he was overzealous with the mentality he had on the outset of the game and prone to a knee-jerk reaction. I'm unsure whether this is actually scummy or just reckless play. Also, out of curiosity, what does PBPA stand for? (Hope I don't butcher how TL handles quotes...) 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.
On March 01 2012 09:36 Chocolate wrote: 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.
I do not see where I said you are more scummy. I retained the same indecisiveness as before. I do believe your play was toxic to town - but that does not make you scum at that moment in time.
Due to formatting, cannot quite quote the correct section. In regards to your next point where I drop ghost in favour of you though:
Two reasons how that post came to be. 1) Seeing how ghost could at least address an issue was good to see and I had no further questions for him - I had nothing else to pursue with at the time. 2) For the reasons I stated, I found your play more scummy than his and directed my attention to you. Maybe since it was my first case where I think I had substance to it, I opted to leave ghost where he was for the time being. I was also a little bit excited to see how my first case would go.
On March 01 2012 09:36 Chocolate wrote: 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???
Just to be as clear and concise as I can. I understand the merit of making people talk due to pressure. I do not agree by the method you used which was dishonest. Like I said, case building may be a better way. I do not see a reason for town to be dishonest. Your dishonesty is what makes me think your specific method was scummy.
On March 01 2012 09:36 Chocolate wrote: 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.
Essentially the same answer as before. Dishonesty = scummy. Applying pressure in general to produce a response = has merit. The method is scummy, the intention may actually be good. The intention may not be to trick the whole town, but a low quality read based on panic can possibly be tricky (in my opinion).
On March 01 2012 09:36 Chocolate wrote: 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.
Funny how my gumshoe inquiry and your post essential coincided. I have glimpsed DYH's post and I feel you will find additional information there. If you have anything else to add, feel free to send it my way.
On March 01 2012 09:58 Chocolate wrote: 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.
Chocolate - Appears reckless and had a scummy policy. Not too much in terms of content. Extremely uncertain. Between null and leaning scum. Alderan - I'm null. I didn't like his lack of clarity earlier when making a case against Chocolate but he may be legitimately pressuring people and not making multiple targets. k2hd - Leaning scum. Has made a few suspicious comments and hasn't produced too much in content. ghost - Leaning scum. Apart from his recent post against Chocolate, I don't think he's said much in terms of content and his initial aggression is still suspicious. phagga - Leaning town. Arguments appear reasonable and acts pro-town. DYH - Leaning town. Arguments are reasonable and provides direction.
|
On March 01 2012 09:52 DoYouHas wrote:I believe NightFury is scum. NightFuryLet us meander what NightFury has done so far this game. 1. Debate policy and propose a stringent 2nd fake deadline where votes would be 'locked in'.
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. 1. Skating by through day1. 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: Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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: NightFuryP.S. Honorable mention goes to k2hd. Many of my scum standards applied to NightFury here also apply to him.
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.
|
On March 02 2012 06:23 Chocolate wrote: 2. Nightfury- still suspicious of him. see my previous analysis
@Chocolate
I know you still think I'm suspicious, but please elaborate on why. I replied to your case and asked if you had anything further you wanted to bring up. I'm interested if there's anything else you'd like to add. Otherwise, I'm beginning to think this is another empty accusation of yours.
On March 01 2012 09:54 gumshoe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 09:44 NightFury wrote:Got home a little late from work. Here's what I'm thinking up to now! Not too sure of what to make of the Janaan hit. As previously stated, trying to deduce what happened is probably WIFOM and should be left alone unless new and relevant content shows up. On the gumshoe case. I find the statements being made in his case to be reasonable. I spent some time going through his filter and found something else of interest. In short: gumshoe is convinced that Alderan is town. If you look through his filter, I do not see an instance where gumshoe opts to pressure Alderan. Instead, gumshoe very frequently defends Alderan - either directly or indirectly. I'd like to highlight some of his posts that support my statement (there are some fluff ones, I'll ignore those - feel free to examine them at your own free will though): On February 28 2012 08:29 gumshoe wrote: I really don't like how drastically sloosh's style has shifted, even alderaan who seems like he's playing a convincing town hasn't changed that much in terms of tone from last game when he was scum, sloosh sounds like a different person and I would like to put pressure on him by attacking his potential proxy, ghost.
At this point in time, gumshoe believes Alderan is town based on his play (or at least a convincing town). On February 29 2012 00:04 gumshoe wrote:On February 28 2012 23:26 phagga wrote:what about my second question, gumshoe? On February 28 2012 21:35 phagga wrote:On February 28 2012 11:27 gumshoe wrote: god I hate no lynches ) : like unless its analytically the right move(as was the case last game when we had a potential inactive townie) I feel like were just depriving ourselves of information
If chocolate flips green(which he probably will considering it looks like he's getting bussed, not gonna lie about that) i'll take responsibility. Why do you want to take responsibility for it? Because i wanted it to happenat the time more so than anyone else, that said i felt there was a good chance chocloate wasnt scum becaise it looked like he was getting bussed, to that end i knew someone would have to pay if he flipped green, i was willing to take on that responsibility to get information, but dyh sorta talked me out of it when he said lynching for info is bad, to sum it up as i said before i hate no lynches, i feel like they make town stagnate, that said i was aware that chocolate could be town, in which case if i was willing to lynch him for information i had to be willing to take the fall for it if he turned out to be a mistake. Thats how my thought process worked, i wanted it the most i had to be willing to take the heat for it, besides in my opinion everyone should fall under a bit of suspiciun early in the game so scum cant pull a " you know this guy mightve been playing us the whole time" stunt. Is that wrong? I dont know lynch me. In isolation, I wouldn't know what to think of this one. With other evidence, I think gumshoe was soft defending Alderan (indirectly) as he put up the first accusations against Chocolate. The responsibility would be shared among all who voted for Chocolate. On February 29 2012 13:54 gumshoe wrote: well now we know one thing, janaan was town, and I think alderaan is being framed. Could be the other way but Alderaan just doesn't seem like the kinda guy who would try and meta us by lynching his own suspect.
While thinking into the Janaan hit itself isn't worth the effort as of right now. The fact that gumshoe is still defending Alderan's innocence is worth noting - regardless if it's based in WIFOM. I took a little time to look into how gumshoe and Alderan interacted. Please note that I may be mistaken as there may be more statements supporting or opposing this and I may have missed them - so feel free to correct me (long day at work). I see that gumshoe always acts favourably towards Alderan. Alderan has shown both favourable and unfavourable actions towards gumshoe. I do not think this is enough to speculate if they're working together. It is worth noting though. A few examples: On February 28 2012 11:16 gumshoe wrote:On February 28 2012 10:26 Alderan wrote: Is gum around? It's going to take mine and his votes as it stands now to get the majority. I'm here watcha need boss. gumshoe acting favourably towards Alderan On February 28 2012 11:24 Alderan wrote:On February 28 2012 11:22 gumshoe wrote: I like what ghost said about him and chocolate, we lynch igo meh, we lynch one of them we can back track and look at the history of pressure, willing to lean chocolate right now because ghost actually brought that to attention which I really appreciate. I'm leaning Chocolate as well over igabod. I'm trying to decide where "no lynch" falls in my preference order. . Alderan working with gumshow (this is in reference to the day 1 lynch vote direction - there are more posts related). On February 29 2012 04:42 Alderan wrote: Gumshoe- I think we need a case from Gumshoe soon, he's been active but not assertive, he needs to post an original case rather thanto continue to just evaluate others' cases.
Alderan pressuring gumshoe. So the way I see it - gumshoe believes Alderan to be innocent and this can be applied to the recent cases involving both. If gumshoe is green and believes Alderan is green (regardless of actual alignment) - I think he should be able to propose a reasonable argument why he thinks Alderan is green. If gumshoe is red and knows Alderan is green - He knows Alderan's alignment and he is defending Alderan for some reason. It is possible to speculate that if Alderan flips green, he would use the fact he defended to support his defense. May not have evidence that to support Alderan being green (not a definite). If gumshoe is red and Alderan is red - They're simply working together as mafia. @gumshoe
Why are you convinced that Alderan is innocent? It may be critical for not just for your case, but may also help out with the Alderan case. I can see you being town if this can be explained adequately.So there's a bit over a day left until the next vote deadline. I really want to hear about this. This will help everyone learn more about the current developments and possibly lead to lynching scum over a town. And I'm just briefly going to comment on Chocolate. Please provide your own arguments or even your opinion on relevant matters. Your actions still say to me that you're a scummy lurker. To save space, ghost's case appears reasonable after a first read. Anything you can provide can be of help. There's a good chunk of time until the next lynch. That's all for now. I am still suspicious of both gumshoe and Chocolate. Hearing more from them will be very useful. Despite me being a little tired this evening, I am up for discussion (I still need to do more reading though). Questions/Thoughts/Opinions? The real reason I defend alderaan? because I think hes an active poster and i dont think he would lynch his primary suspect, also his style is totally different from last game where his mafia worked so well(and he was mafia last game so I could just be naive thinking he's town this time ) : I defend him because I think there are way worse players, lurkers finger pointers, people who wifom(like yours truly) and Alderaan seems to legitimately contribute. One thing I will say is that my lack of suspicion is a personal decision, if I flip green please don't consider him absolved of any of your qualms, an efficient town works in all directions, aldraan just dosent happen to be in mine, there are 4 mafia after all. I also don't like how much he's being tunneled and attacked by people who haven't provided there own cases on him, but more on that soon. I really appreciate you actually asking me a question instead of just accusing me night fury ( :
@gumshoe
Thank you for the reply. I can see where you're coming from on Alderan's play itself. However, a personal reason for your lack of suspicion isn't valid. The only way I can see you trusting him from a non-personal standpoint is that you know something we don't.
##Vote: gumshoe
I'm going to sift through filters now. Maybe I'll find something.
|
On March 02 2012 09:47 gumshoe wrote: e tu night fury? Out of curiosity do you intend to absolve him when when/If I flip green?
If you flip green, then it's the event where you could not have known his alignment. That is not basis alone to absolve him.
|
@Chocolate - I'm not completely certain what to make of your statements. If I'm interpreting them incorrectly, can you be more clear please?
On March 02 2012 11:04 Chocolate wrote: You didn't directly say that I'm more scummy. You said I'm the most suspicious and that i'm toxic- that's different from null.
I don't see a problem with this? I said you were most suspicious alongside Ghost relative to everyone else at that moment though. Not the most suspicious of everyone. I called your play toxic because at the time I did not believe randomly voting for individuals was a good method. In terms of method, we've been over it before.
On March 02 2012 11:04 Chocolate wrote: I could address issues too, no? I never saw why you thought I was scummier than him, all of a sudden you change from ghost being the most scummy to me after his explanation.
Two things. First, nowhere in my reasoning for you at this point did I say you couldn't address issues. Secondly, my reason for dropping Ghost in favour of you has nothing to do with addressing issues. I went after you for posting that you wanted to induce panic - which I strongly disagreed with at that time.
Question for you though. Why do you think phagga is scum? From your filter, all I can see is that he has been focused on you as your sole reason. I don't believe that's convincing for him being scum. Anything else you'd like to add?
That's unfortunate about gumshoe. Back to the drawing board.
I'm out for the night!
|
Okay, I'm back. I would like to present my case against ghost_403.
The primary basis for my case is that he a) speaks with a voice of authority and confidence in uncertain circumstances, b) tries to obtain information from townies that is beneficial to the mafia and c) some other miscellaneous things I found.
Part A: Authority and Confidence in Uncertain Circumstances.
On February 28 2012 11:03 ghost_403 wrote: 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.
Pretty well established that himself or Chocolate is scum. What is this supposed to mean? If ghost is green, then he would not know Chocolate's alignment despite the case on him in Day 1. If ghost is red, then his statement would be true. Now he could just be pushing Chocolate very hard at this moment and on its own may not be too much evidence.
On February 28 2012 11:36 ghost_403 wrote: If I remember correctly, all of the people that you have listed in that post had reasons that they voted for you. None of those reasons included "I am 100% sure of this persons alignment." If you think that they had bad reasons for voting for you, go back and point them out.
I believe this is in response to Chocolate mentioning how we'd get info off of the people who voted for him. I do recall ghost being the only one with 100% certainty of someone's alignment (that he or Chocolate was red). More confidence.
On March 02 2012 08:55 ghost_403 wrote: Yeah, we're lynching gumshoe. I'll post my reasoning in just a sec.
This was in response to Alderan asking if gumshoe was the only viable lynch on Day 2. This confidence is completely unfounded. At the time of posting, gumshoe only had 4 (5 including ghost) votes on him. How he could be so certain? That there were enough town votes on gumshoe that the mafia could send other votes over if needed or that they believed more town would just pile on naturally.
On March 02 2012 10:04 ghost_403 wrote: Behind you 100%, and he's tomorrow's lynch.
On March 02 2012 10:07 ghost_403 wrote: Don't worry, DYH. It will. Just not right now.
Here's that confidence again...
On March 03 2012 01:31 ghost_403 wrote: I agree with zelblade, a nttea lynch is not optimal town play. If nttea had ninja voted for gumshoe, I would be calling for his lynch right now. But he didn't; he threw it on a random player. As far as I can see, his vote had no benefit for the scum, without going into full WIFOM mode.
@k2hd Sorry I missed your post against me, I will address it when I get home.
On March 03 2012 02:14 ghost_403 wrote:@zelblade My earlier post on the matter was more of a gut reaction to what he had done. Given some time to think about it, it doesn't make any sense for scum to play that way. Without any other lynch candidates, I would probably vote to lynch nttea, but I think that focusing on him as our only candidate right now is bad play. As far as who I would like to lynch, I would like to take a look at DoYouHas (as you stated) and Chocolate. Both of them were giving off some bad vibes yesterday, which I pointed out here. I'll formalize my thoughts and opinions later.
... And then immediately backs off when it gets called out as bad play for town. Not sure if worth noting, but deflects his change in stance by wanting to look at something different.
Part B: Acquiring Information only useful to Mafia.
On March 02 2012 08:24 ghost_403 wrote: Okay gumshoe, got a question for you.
Let's pretend for a moment that you are a vigilante. It's the end of night 2, and you just know that you are gonna die. Mafia figured it out, and you're as good as dead. You have one shot.
Who do you shoot?
Hard mode: nttea and test are not valid responses.
This post had me extremely confused. And now that gumshoe has flipped green, it might be making some more sense now. Ghost was trying to see if there was a vigilante - who would he go after and would it be a concern to any of his fellow mafia. But why would a townie worry about a vigilante? Nobody knows if one is even in this game. And why give him the hard mode? I think he's just trying to gather real information in case gumshoe goes with a lurker-out to the question. And then he posts this to supplement his vote against gumshoe...
On March 02 2012 09:14 ghost_403 wrote:That's when I asked him this. + Show Spoiler +On March 02 2012 08:24 ghost_403 wrote: Okay gumshoe, got a question for you.
Let's pretend for a moment that you are a vigilante. It's the end of night 2, and you just know that you are gonna die. Mafia figured it out, and you're as good as dead. You have one shot.
Who do you shoot?
Hard mode: nttea and test are not valid responses. His response? Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 08:37 gumshoe wrote: It comes down to phagga or sloosh, but in the end I'd end going with phagga because I dont like how aggresive he is and how he tries to destroy his opponents regardless of wether they are lynched.
This response of his is based on nothing. Since the end of night 1, he has barely mentioned either of these players. There's no reason for this. I asked why. In his post, he has mostly personal reasons (sorry gumshoe ). I'll respond to his case in another post. Combine the fact that he dug himself into a hole yesterday, only wants to lynch people who aren't around to defend themselves, and the fact that when pressed he can't provide a proper opinion on a single scummy player in the game, and I you have a good enough reason for me to do the following. ##vote gumshoeAside: nttea, if you don't tell me why you voted, I'm lynching you tomorrow.
I actually think gumshoe's answer was valid. Why would he just want to feed potentially useful information to the mafia? Given the circumstances, gumshoe was 100% entitled to his opinion and ghost just wasn't happy that he didn't get the answer he wanted.
Part C: Miscellaneous:
- He has maintained his aggressive lynch stance from the beginning of the game. He jumps on people very quickly without second though. Like how he jumped on nttea (who has been lurking very hard) without second thought until someone else explains how it may be sub-optimal for town. He was ready to go after Alderan earlier on but then withdrew his statement when he couldn't make a case. As a whole, his mentality remains anti-town in addition to the other issues I mentioned above.
- At the beginning, he said this:
On February 28 2012 07:31 ghost_403 wrote: 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?
I don't know what to make of this really. But I think it's possible that he was trying to bait others into following this line of thought if it would be misleading.
So to summarize:
I feel ghost is very suspicious right now. His confidence in how certain topics are proceeding make me believe that he has the back-up available to make things go that way. He tried to gather information from a now confirmed townie that only benefits the mafia. His overall mentality and play has in general been anti-town.
##FoS: ghost_403
|
On March 02 2012 15:34 slOosh wrote: What do you think of the k2hd cases and k2hd himself? You said leaning scum last time someone asked you - has that changed over the course of this last day?
Alright, so I just wanted to keep this part separate from my case against ghost.
Since my opinion of k2hd was posted and leaning on scum, he has participated quite a bit more. At first glance (a more initial read) he is now leaning more away from my scummy read before. However, I haven't gone through all his posts in detail yet so this is not a formalized opinion yet. I will be reviewing his posts and hopefully be able to comment on them later on. I am a little bit busy tonight - so if not by tonight then tomorrow afternoon.
|
Small preamble to start off with. I know I said I’d be sharing my thoughts on k2hd previously and I also noticed ghost’s reply to my case. However, when going over k2hd and the game as a whole, I noticed something completely different. I haven’t forgotten the other things I need to do, but I feel this is an important issue.
There has been one theme this entire game: Produce Content.
Since the very beginning of the game, this theme has been on everyone’s minds. Of course, producing content is essential or else there’d be nothing. However, everyone’s been obsessed with the theme and I believe it is extremely detrimental. We have people who berate others for not producing original content and using that as basis for their cases. We also have people who are trying to produce content but may not be completely successful in the endeavour. We have people who belong to both groups and other sorts of categories.
If anyone takes a look at the entire thread I’m sure they’d agree that town is in a huge mess right now. I don’t think this mess is even the mafia’s doing. It has become this way due to the fixation on producing content. We are less than 30 hours away from the next lynch and things are going nowhere. What we need is some form of direction that can reorganize town (I am completely open to suggestions and trying to think of something).
In response to this huge mess, the mafia have been able to hide away in general. But I am willing to claim that the mafia aren’t really hiding out of sight. They’re amongst the people who are trying to force content out of people just for the sake of content. It sets up easy targets and given the mentality of the entire thread, it will draw attention to low producers and away from themselves.
We are probably at the most critical part of the game thus far. How the next lynch and night goes will probably set the tone for the rest of the game. The way things are going right now are not good and we need to rally to produce content that is actually productive and not just for the sake of making a post.
|
On March 04 2012 09:20 phagga wrote: Remind me, why is confidence a bad thing as townie? Should not every townie be confident, as he has no reason to hide anything and is just trying to do his best? That does not mean that mafia can't be confident too, but saying that a townie should NOT be confident is a strange understanding of the game mechanics.
I never argued that being confident as a townie was a bad thing. I was arguing that his confidence was unfounded and he was letting on more than he should know. His confidence sounded like he knew what was going to happen or that he knows something he couldn’t know at that point in time. It sounded to me that he had additional information that a townie should not have access to.
On March 04 2012 09:20 phagga wrote: How? Please explain me how you can find out with such a question if there is a vigilante? I always thought that I am good logical thinking, but I can't find a good reason why this shows that there is a vigilante.
Upon reflection, I do notice that my statement was not worded well. Allow me to clarify. Gumshoe flipped green and he could not have known if there was a vigilante present or not. Gumshoe also being green should mean that he should be targeting people who he thinks are scum (whether they are lurking or whatnot). So I don’t see a problem with gumshoe having his opinion. So why ask a vigilante question? Originally I thought this was to bait extra information out of him. At the time of phrasing the question, gumshoe already had 3 votes on him and the case against him was building up. If ghost knew at this point that gumshoe was going to be lynched, he could try to see who gumshoe thought was scum in addition to his usual accusations and use that information to help the mafia. From a gumshoe being green perspective, if he was suspicious of individuals he could just have made cases. No town would suddenly find anybody he mentions without evidence to be immediately more suspicious than gumshoe himself.
Now there are two things I would like to add. One being gumshoe’s mentality at that time may have not been ideal. He said he wanted to leave the game but could not. This may have influenced his day 2 actions such that he didn’t want to make additional cases when he was being accused. And two, ghost responded to my accusation and I did not consider that point of view when making my case. While I do believe there is rationale behind why he asked this question, I still have my doubts and will need to consider things at a later point in time.
On March 04 2012 09:20 phagga wrote: Why do you think that gumshoe's answer is valid? What potential useful information could gumshoe give away at that moment? (speak hypothetically, if you think it might give away something for mafia)
If gumshoe wanted to provide useful information to town, he could make cases. I don’t think anyone will just suddenly take up gumshoe’s answers to go after somebody else without good justification. The way the question was phrased was to allow gumshoe to claim who he thought was mafia without having to make a case. I don’t see how whatever he says is going to help town. But it could help mafia since it tells them who else may be acting suspicious according to gumshoe and if they need to re-evaluate something. And in the question, it indicates that gumshoe will be silenced soon after. So whatever gumshoe says is of no use to town. And if it was really no use to mafia, then why ask at all?
Now for that last part ghost did reply. As I said before, I did not consider that perspective to asking that question. However, I don’t see how ghost asking that question in the first place helps town in the slightest. Therefore, whatever gumshoe says is a valid response because there is no consequence in how he answers. He cannot persuade town without a case. He can answer however he wants.
Now while I am still suspicious of ghost, the worst thing we can do today is have a no-lynch. So depending on how the day unfolds and there is not much time left, I may need to put this on hold for the time being.
A no-lynch right now is just as bad as mislynching. Both of these ensures that all the mafia survive another day and prolong the game. Without a medic, their night hits are almost certain to go through at this point. If we no-lynch, we will probably wind up 6v4 on Day 4 which is a MYLO situation. If we mislynch, we will probably end up 5v4 on Day 4 which is LYLO. In both situations the game can end on Day 4/Night 4. However, if we go for today’s lynch instead of opting for a no-lynch we can potentially get a mafia which leaves us in much better condition on subsequent days.
Today seems to be focused on DYH and Alderan. I need to go through their filters and check out the cases against them in depth. As I said before, today is probably our most critical day.
|
This isn't very good at all. Not much has happened at all and it's getting extremely close to the deadline. I'm glad DYH came back and has posted. Alderan on the other hand has been completely missing in action and hasn't done anything to mitigate the case against him. As I mentioned before, a no-lynch is too similar to a mislynch in our circumstances.
##Vote: Alderan
|
I was extremely busy yesterday and will be at work for at least another 6 hours. I plan on being very active tonight and expect to hear from me.
Just wanted to say one thing before resuming work just from skimming. I really doubt there is a godfather this game. If we have a DT, I believe all your townie checks are reliable. The basis for this statement is the fact that we have a confirmed RoleBlocker. There is no reason for zel to claim he got RBed twice since he was town. If you look at numerous other mini mafia games (both newbie or otherwise), I have not found a single one that included more than one red role above mafia goon. Is it still possible that there is a godfather? Yes. Do I find it extremely unlikely? Yes.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 07 2012 01:52 NightFury wrote: I was extremely busy yesterday and will be at work for at least another 6 hours. I plan on being very active tonight and expect to hear from me.
Just wanted to say one thing before resuming work just from skimming. I really doubt there is a godfather this game. If we have a DT, I believe all your townie checks are reliable. The basis for this statement is the fact that we have a confirmed RoleBlocker. There is no reason for zel to claim he got RBed twice since he was town. If you look at numerous other mini mafia games (both newbie or otherwise), I have not found a single one that included more than one red role above mafia goon. Is it still possible that there is a godfather? Yes. Do I find it extremely unlikely? Yes.
EBWOP:
While I think the message was clear, I meant to say "There is no reason for zel not to claim he got RBed twice since he was town.".
Anyways, I'm back now. Reading the thread and will be posting in due time.
|
On March 07 2012 02:34 DoYouHas wrote: Seems the battle lines have been drawn. Me, k2hd, NightFury, Chocolate vs slOosh, Ghost, Phagga, Testsubject.
Jekyll, I don't know what you will end up deciding. But if I read the sides on this as clearly as I think I do, your decision is going to be the difference between an all townie lynching of scum and a bus.
##Vote: slOosh
This post has been the basis of my entire evening so far. In all honesty, I think it may come down to two sides going against each other. The thread is in total chaos and everyone can point fingers at just about everyone. I don't think there is a single person remaining in this thread who hasn't done something scummy in someone else's eyes. There is no objective way to tell. I still think that there has to be scum directing the thread. Given how dire the situation is, taking a stance like this provides the direction this game needs.
I've spent a lot of time now on filters trying to see if these two sides make sense. I'm inclined to believe that k2hd and DYH are town. Chocolate on the other hand I'm still having difficulty with (which I think I've been having this entire game).
K2hd has spent an ample amount of time defending Chocolate over time past Day 1. His views are clear and appear reasonable. DYH, you went from leaning town to a town read on Chocolate in the span of about 6 - 7 hours between these two posts:
+ Show Spoiler +On March 06 2012 03:44 DoYouHas wrote:I can't believe you are all willing to ignore the primary suspicion of 2 flipped townies. And ignore both of their town reads on me. And not be suspicious of slOosh who pushed HARD a case that attacked 2 townies. No, he gets away from that mess perfectly clean.... why? slOosh's immediate response to the 'realization' that he had just spearheaded another townie was to blame it on everyone else. And now even though he just incorrectly pegged Alderan, he is perfectly confident that in spite of his own bad scumhunting and Alderan's defense of me, the other half of his initial case must be right. How is anyone possibly buying this? Just as a fun exercise, let's look at slOosh's responses to mislynching in his previous games. + Show Spoiler [SNMM7] +On February 23 2012 01:06 slOosh wrote:Ok. I'm back and catching up with the thread as I have been busy IRL and will be till tomorrow. Hopefully it won't stop me from responding and contributing. My stance on Mattchew - Show nested quote +the difference between me and sloosh is when townies don't vote his way he calls them scum, i just call them stupid He is probably correct. I went off the assumption that everyone has the same logic as me and if they didn't do what I would do they would be acting illogical hence mafia. I did not consider that people can be inexperienced. I responded negatively to Mattchew because he didn't say why my case was bad and it looked to me that he was distracting my case. I still don't like the basis of his case, that he did some filter pickings and chose 4 people who avoided each other. However, I cannot argue with results - it has promoted discussion and the suspects are posting more content. Objectively he is producing pro town content, even though it is through antagonistic means. I have to say he is leaning town right now. However, I am still waiting for his own reads. Enough content has been flying around and I want to see him to present a good case. The goal isn't content but using it to strengthen a case and lynch the strongest mafia suspect. I'm also going to have to retract my read on Alderan. That was just OMGUS or paranoia, and I can see where he is getting his case on me (even though I strongly disagree with the logic he uses, but as I stated above I'm realizing that not using my kind of logic does not necessarily equate with scum). Following post will address Mattchew's 4. + Show Spoiler [NMM3] +On January 27 2012 14:12 slOosh wrote: After cooling off, I have to reluctantly agree. I don't think me getting tunnel vision and attacking zarepath is helpful to town when there are still so many lurkers in the game. I'm willing to back off in order to punish inactives/lurkers.
I do agree with MidnightGladius that Bromancipate is a good place to start. In both of these cases slOosh responds to mislynching by slowing down, reevaluating, and trying to get a better grasp on the game. Also, he tends to do this reevaluation by looking at other people's cases and putting his weight behind them. Does that look anything like his response to this mislynch? no. slOosh's biggest fear this game is that he loses it by tunneling the way he did in his 2 previous games. Does his response reflect that? no. He states that he tried his best to avoid it. Does he slow down? No, he instead throws suspicion on myself, chocolate, nightfury, and testsubject. Does he reevaluate? No, he comes after me with surprising certainty. Just the way he has handled his case against Alderan and me should be enough to get him lynched. But I know you will require more because you all love to frustrate me. So I will put together a bigger case on him.
zelblade. I pointed out the fake claim because before it was only your word, now it is fact. That is a very important difference. I really dislike how you seem to be taking cues from slOosh who you also seem to have a town read on. I am confident in my town reads on JekyllAndHyde and NightFury. I lean town with Chocolate as well but that is less certain. I agree with Alderan that k2hd is probably town based off how slOosh used him in his case against us both. That leaves the 4 mafia in this list. 1. slOosh 2. Ghost 3. zelblade 4. Testsubject 5. Phagga Pull your heads out of the sand and let's get to work.
+ Show Spoiler + On March 06 2012 10:17 DoYouHas wrote:There is a theme to slOosh's play. "Break down townies that are active or a threat and keep them from leading the town." Read his filter yourself, it is not that long. slOosh has focused all his aggression against Chocolate, Alderan, gumshoe, and myself. And no, his case on ghost doesn't count, even he states that it was a soft accusation, easily made and easily lifted. It carried no weight. That means that slOosh has spent this entire game trying to bring down 4 townies. I am confident in my scumlist, and almost all of them have come after Chocolate at some point. Either it is a long term bussing strategy or he is townie. The first is ridiculous, the second is highly probable. Even now slOosh and Ghost try to bury my comments and attack the value of them. Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 05:33 ghost_403 wrote: @doyouhas I disagree with you, therefore I'm scum. Brilliant logic. Calm down. I'll dignify that with a proper response when I get home. Oh yes, I am completely absent logic and he will deign to come enlighten my poor self when he gets home. Avoids the actual content of my post and belittles me in such a short post. Impressive really. Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 06:56 slOosh wrote:On March 06 2012 03:44 DoYouHas wrote: slOosh's immediate response to the 'realization' that he had just spearheaded another townie was to blame it on everyone else. And now even though he just incorrectly pegged Alderan, he is perfectly confident that in spite of his own bad scumhunting and Alderan's defense of me, the other half of his initial case must be right. How is anyone possibly buying this?
It's like he don't even read my posts. On March 05 2012 13:55 slOosh wrote: Since my last post (around 7 hours before deadline), I was busy as aforementioned and unable to read updates. I seriously did my best this game to hold back from tunneling this game, and put out something hoping people would input some objective third party perspectives on my case. What do I come back to? A bunch of people saying how they don't want to lynch Alderan but they somehow feel obligated to. You guys seriously disappoint me.
I was open to voting either one of DYH / Alderan. When I last posted it was 2-2. When I came back I find a 7-2 with 4 votes casted with absolutely no reasoning. He somehow thinks I bear total responsibility for the mislynch and that the four (of whom he is one) are absolved due to my "spearheading" with a total of 3 posts after my case. I want to lynch DYH for reasons other than those listed in the case: He keeps putting weight on things that actually have no weight. This is the newest addition to my case. He also is showing really poor reasoning and OMGUSing anyone who doesn't like him. These things happened before and are still continuing - don't think that my initial case is static - its been building with the new influx of information. Strangely, his response to me doesn't actually respond to anything I brought up. The heart of my post was that slOosh's worst fear this game is tunneling and mislynching a townie. That fear has become a reality, do slOosh's posts reflect that? no. He redirects blame onto the 4 of us that voted after him. What does he do when I point this out? Redirects back onto the 4 who voted after him. His wasn't the vote that clenched that majority, so clearly those who did are more to blame than him. Never mind that it was his suspicions and cases that pigeonholed the town into a choice between 2 townies. No, whatever way that lynch went, slOosh would have been the reason a townie got lynched. And as for those 4 that you want to throw the blame onto. I am one, I have town reads on Chocolate and Nightfury. So no, I don't think theirs were scum bandwagon votes. I think theirs were votes of someone who wanted a lynch in a less than ideal situation. "He keeps putting weight on things that actually have no weight." I hope that those of you out there who are actually townies do not buy this. You currently have 3 people out there who you know for certain that their motivations are townie. gumshoe, Alderan, and yourself. Ignoring their suspicions and posts is pure folly. slOosh claiming they have no weight is absurd. Man I hope slOosh gets shot tonight.
I checked what happened between those several hours and only found Chocolate defending himself from the usual onslaught. However, I didn't notice anything that struck me as town in his posts specifically. Only that he was defending himself from certain individuals. And the points brought up against him aren't farfetched either. What made you change your mind from leaning town to town read in those hours? As confusing as Chocolate's posts can be (they've been all over the spectrum)... I'm finding it a bit of a tough pill to swallow. And as much as I want to believe it, I don't think I can justify it based on what I want to believe.
As far as the Sloosh dialogue goes. I'm confused and not completely sure how to approach it. Sloosh does make sense in his defence to the Alderan lynch. However, I can still see how anyone can spin certain topics in certain manners to change how they can be viewed. It seems like Sloosh had more thoughts which he couldn't completely post at this moment and I'm willing to wait to see how he continues later tonight.
In the meantime, I will be spending time going through Jekyll's case against k2hd. Similar to Chocolate, I need to ensure that what I believe isn't just personal opinion.
|
|
|
|