|
On March 01 2012 12:45 Pandain wrote:I was going to go to sleep but I had to say it. Probulous stop spamming the thread. Your pulling a Pandain and making the whole thread a shitfest of spam. Why does it matter where people are? Why do you say a post to say "hey is anyone here?" If you keep spamming the thread, it creates a bad atmosphere that hurts the town. I'm too tired to explain but just stop posting if it doesn't have a real purpose, and never post if your just bored. + Show Spoiler +
On a separate note, have you played much mafia here?
Only contributes to spam. Keep outside conversations outside.
Do you want an answer to your questions or am I supposed to just stop posting? To answer your questions, Adam pointed out that some people are sleeping, hence knowing where people are based is useful to keep this in mind. Second I specifically pointed out that none of the vets are participating because it highlights that they won't be forgotten. I expect substance from you. Besides, it is a harmless one liner that received a response. I don't want anyone to skate by without contributing. As for asking about Misder's history, that is explained in my post above. I am not spamming with no purpose. I have to get people to post and this is how I do it.
|
On March 01 2012 12:52 Misder wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 12:47 Probulous wrote:On March 01 2012 12:36 Misder wrote:On March 01 2012 12:29 Probulous wrote:On March 01 2012 12:19 Misder wrote:
Awww, so slow...
1). I like lynch all liars. Lynch one lurker on Day 1 if needed- analysis takes care of the rest. I like analysis.
2). Doesn't the one preclude the other? I mean following any policy requires the suspension of analysis. Besides if you institute a policy such as lynching lurkers day 1 you get no information going into day 2. I mean a lurker by their very nature has no information to give. In addition mafia can just push the lynch onto a town lurker. I am much happier voting for someone who is trying to lurk or is pushing a scummy agenda than someone who is just not here. Hence why I don't like policy lynches. On a separate note, have you played much mafia here? I don't exactly know which policy you are referring to. Lynch all Liars is a good policy lynch (suspension of analysis as you call it). Any "analysis" becomes WIFOM and stupid. Lynch all Lurkers is a pretty bad policy lynch, and as such, the only time I would consider lynching a lurker without analysis would be on day 1. "Much" is relative (and I'm guessing by your standards, no), but I've been here for at least a year. On March 01 2012 12:29 Adam4167 wrote:
3:30am in Iceland and Ireland right now, probably a bit hopeful that Palmar and deconduo are on. The other two may be around, depending on which US states they're in.
Welcome back Misder, second wiggles game for both of us. If you're town again, do you plan on playing out the whole game this time? lol. I plan on not getting cocky and then getting depressed so much that I have given up. I agree "much" was not the right word to use. Though I was not implying that I have any great skill at this game. I just do my best. I just wanted to know whether you had had these discussions before. Often policies look good on the surface and so are supported by new guys. I just wanted to check whether you are a new guy. As for your main point, I don't like either policy. Liars or lurkers. Like I stated having a policy requires you follow it regardless of the circumstances, otherwise it isn't a policy. If you apply it based evidence other than the fact that the poster lied than it becomes analysis. Policies allow people to vote for a lynch without decent reasoning. They can abdicate their responsibility for logic by just saying "he lied, he must die". I don't like it. And then what. "But maybe he had a reason to lie! He could have been doing <insert WIFOM here> and actually been trying to help town!" Do you think it's going to be net beneficial for town to have to deal with this crap (excuse the language) than for the supposed reason to lie? I don't think so.
No you move on and based your decision on other actions. I agree that lieing hurts town and should be taken into account when pushing a lynch. But having a policy that straight up ignores how that person was playing when they weren't lying is stupid. I mean if a medic lied to stay alive but pushed good reads all game, you would lynch him without considering the rest of his play? You don't have to solve the lie. You are correct in that it leads to WIFOM, I merely use it as a piece of data in a larger case. No need for a policy.
|
On March 01 2012 12:57 Pandain wrote:
That took a long time to post. Are you hiding something?
I am trying to be clear. Like I said before the game started, I tend to write text walls and I am trying to improve on this. Making sure I am logical and concise helps everyone understand me better. Besides I have already had one stupid spelling/grammar mistake that bugs me.
|
@Toast, did you read my response?
|
@Misder
I am not advocating analysing a lie. We all agree that lieing is scummy. That is all I meant by using it as a piece of data. Town should not lie unless they absolutely have to and have damn good reasons for it. If you do, it should be counted as evidence towards you being mafia. That is all, just another brick in the wall so to speak. Your case should stand on its own regardless of the lie. If the liar can't show why they did it and they looked scummy already then yes they should be lynched, but be aware that is not a policy lynch.
|
On March 01 2012 13:39 TheToast wrote:I have now :D Pandain's point is valid none-the-less. We need to avoid getting sidetracked. That's all I was trying to say.
See this bugs me. It is the same for Pandain. I am trying to get people to post. I am actively pushing the thread along as best I can. What exactly do we have to avoid here? We are not on a track. I agree with Sandroba that policy talk is useless but it was brought up and I responded to those that asked me questions. However both of you guys are saying that I am spamming the thread with useless information. When I respond with my reasoning, neither of you acknowledge it. Pandain then ignores it and suggests that because I took "so long" writing it, I am hiding something.
How do those things go together? Pandain calls me out for posting too much, but I am hiding something? Does anyone else find this strange?
|
You said you agreed with Pandain, his accusation was that I am spamming. Hence you think I am spamming. What exactly are we getting sidetracked from? The only thing we can analyse is what people post. If people don't post, then we can't analyse. We don't have any defined targets, we have no direction, we have nothing right now.
As for Misder, I don't like policies, he did. We discussed it. We agreed to disagree. Problem? That is the only thing of substance in this thread so far.
Toast, I know you think logically. Do you find this post scummy?
On March 01 2012 12:57 Pandain wrote:
That took a long time to post. Are you hiding something?
|
Fair enough. I don't like how he was insinuating that I had something to hide when I responded to his accusation of spamming. He didn't have an issue with my reasoning (apparently) but he did have an issue with how long I took to reply (10 minutes, though I was responding to Misder at the time). You're right it is not enough to call someone scum, but it is worth noting.
Well work is over, I'll see you guys tomorrow. Happy scum hunting!
|
On March 01 2012 18:55 Palmar wrote:
like seriously, if sandroba or I turn out to be town, you should probably just do whatever we tell you to do.
You roll scum this game Palmar? If you were town, you would know it. You wouldn't "turn out to be town".
@rg. Ok you have felt me. Honestly what is a feeler? Call me when you're serious.
|
On March 02 2012 01:18 deconduo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 01:14 Palmar wrote:
There is nothing wrong with making a list, you guys are insane. Do you want me to show you how often scum make pointless lists in games? Its the most obvious filler you can make, because it a massive important looking post that adds absolutely nothing to the game. Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 01:15 Palmar wrote:On March 02 2012 01:14 deconduo wrote:On March 02 2012 01:12 Palmar wrote:
I think that analysis is surprisingly bad deconduo. Why is it so bad? Can you explain that to me? Dunno I'm going through filters so I might be missing the order in which things were posted. I'm just reading the game for the first time now. So you agree it's bad? No, I have no idea why YOU think its bad.
Decon, are you seriously saying that my list was the only thing I contributed to this game? Because that is the only way it could be used to drive an agenda. To make it look like I was contributing while actually posting nothing. Well so far I pointed out Pandain's scummy attempt to undermine me, Palmar's "scumslip" (I don't believe it, just needed a response) and I had the discussion with Misder which convinced you he was scum. How can you cast suspicion on me for hiding?
It should be clear to everyone that the list was made early game to help people be aware of timezones. That is all. How that is scummy I will never know.
|
On March 01 2012 20:27 Palmar wrote:
Do you think that's a valid question Probulous? Do you honestly think I would scumslip? The obvious (and correct) explanation was that I meant post-death. ie: if I get shot and flip, please re-read what I said and consider that I may have been right.
However, the fact that you jump on it is interesting to me, and why do you do it in such a soft way? Do you actually think that I might be scum because of this? Or are you just looking for an easy opportunity to discredit me?
Here is what you wrote.
On March 01 2012 18:55 Palmar wrote:
like seriously, if sandroba or I turn out to be town, you should probably just do whatever we tell you to do.
Note that you finish the sentence in present tense (bolded). How can you tell us anything after death? If that is what you meant the sentence doesn't make sense. Secondly the reason I asked in a soft manner is exactly because I don't think you would slip so easily. It's not an attempt at discrediting you, it was to get a reaction and a response. I like your follow up though
On March 02 2012 00:12 Palmar wrote:
Sandroba did you roll scum or are you just doing your bored townie impression?
Hypocrisy much? Same tone, same soft manner.
|
On March 02 2012 03:29 A Killer Cuppa Tea wrote:
EBWOP: also, the majority of his posts had been town-sounding mechanics/theory posts which are incredibly easy for scum to make to help themselves look a lot townier (it's a good strategy!), but very little in the way of actual scumhunting, so they don't have to worry about statements that can come back and haunt them later.
Certain things are always "correct" in a game of mafia. Lurking benefits mafia. No Lynching is bad. Etc... You can't fault a guy for saying something along them lines. But if he Coles out today and says "wow, X is so totally townie"'and X later flips scum, it'll be held against him. By actively posting "correct" mafia theories, it's easy townpoints to be gained.
Tea, in all your posts you have not been able even once to explain how my actions are mafia driven. You entire case is that I have been saying the right things. How does that make me mafia? You my friend have started with a conclusion and then made your argument based on it.
What scumhunting have you done? You sheeped RG's terrible analysis on me and have called me out for providing nothing. See my decon post for my rebuttal to that silly idea. You sir better shape up because right now you are being hypocritical and targeting me with aweful logic, both of those make you scum in my book.
|
Lest I forget
##vote AKillerCuppaTea
|
Whilst I am enjoying Toast being more "taciturn" this game you are correct in that it is a change of style. What he actually says makes sense though. I think he didn't enjoy getting pulled into a back and forth with me about stuff he didn't think was significant. That was my understanding when I dropped it.
Pandain, what do you think about the others that jumped on your suggestion that I was spamming? Specifically RG and AKCT (tea, whatever he wants to be called).
|
On March 02 2012 08:26 Pandain wrote:
AKCT hasn't done anything scummy. At least not anything that we can pinpoint definitively too. Right now your just clouded by the fact they both accused you, and you probably think anyone who supports you is town to. That's a dangerous, oftentimes wrong assumption to make. The_Toast, to the best of day1 analysis can go, is our best bet for right now.
I agree on RG. If you have courage take a look at Arkham City (Adam rolls his eyes). He claimed everything under the sun and looked scummy as hell but ended up being a regular vet. The fact that he put together an atrocious case on me and called it so makes him pretty much town in my eyes. Weird play but produced some interesting results.
Tea however jumped at the opportunity to call me scum when everyone else who pushed me, never did. RG clearly didn't believe I was scum or he would have pushed much harder but tea sheeps. Then he tries to explain his sheep with the worst possible logic available. He could be townie who doesn't know what is going on, but if that is the case why jump at me? He wants to look like he is contributing when he isn't.
I am fully aware that townies will target other townies. That happens all the time, that is why people's motivations for posting are important. From what I have seen from Tea he wants to look like he is contributing without contributing. Hence my suspicion. The fact that it was me is irrelevant.
|
On March 02 2012 08:55 TheToast wrote:
Pandain, right now I still don't think there is enough evidence against you to make a scum call; but it looks to me like you are desperately trying to focus attention off of yourself.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BPqVT.jpg)
|
On March 02 2012 09:18 Pandain wrote:
AKCT isn't actingi scummy. What was his first post? A vote of you with no explanation. Mafia would never ever EVER do that, that's so suspicious. Mafia are usually careful, and reticent in demeanor(part of why I think The_Toast is mafia).
Theres one thing I have suspicions about but as of yet I'm waiting to see what he does about it, and telling him will ruin it. As of now I feel any evidence regarding AKCT is speculative, while more conclusive evidence is elsewhere.
You're making some big assumptions there but that is your perogative. My vote stands until he produces something of worth. I don't see Toast as scum, you neither so I will be looking elsewhere.
My logic is simple really. You insinuated I was spamming/hiding something and but never followed it up. Hence it was a fish. Those that jumped on it are trying to push and discredit me, thus they go on my scummy list until they do something that redeems them.
Adam, you've been pretty quiet this game. Your thoughts on Palmar's response to you would be nice. I'm finding him hard to read.
Finally has anyone noticed a distinct lack of Jackal about? It's almost been 24hrs and nothing. It would suck if he couldn't play.
|
I have magic powers! I summon a Jackal and here he appears 
Seriously though just for clarity's sake, what exactly do you agree with from deconduo? That paperscraps is scum?
|
On March 02 2012 09:44 Pandain wrote:
Let's get this game rolling and focus on one person for now. If someone lurks in the meantime, they'll only hurt themselves later. By focusing on one, we get to see the reactions of all.
Can you explain why you don't view Toast as scum? You gave a vague reason but I'm sure you have more.
Well for one he has been pretty consistent.
The more fluff, random posts in the thread, the easier it is for scum to hide. Keep it focused.
We need to avoid getting sidetracked. That's all I was trying to say
I wasn't trying to specifically call you out. See the first word in that bolded sentence? "WE" As in ALL of us, together, need to avoid getting side tracked. I'm also unsure how you get me accusing you of "spamming" from me saying we need to avoid getting side tracked.
Then he got indignant when I was needling him. I admit that my reading of his accusation was weak, I was really just seeking clarity around what he meant by "sidetracked" but he got flustered. To me this reads like someone trying to avoid a stupid argument.
I wasn't trying to say you were spamming, I don't know why you are being so defensive about this. Pandain made a point about avoiding outside conversation in the thread, I agreed with that point. I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything. So no, I don't have a problem with it.
Given that was what he was trying to do from the start, it looks townie. Finally his response to your case is clear frustation. He isn't scared or submissive but rather frustrated that he can't seem to establish his innocence. It would have been much easier for him to target someone else but instead he attempts to clarify his position. His point about you quoting me looks like sarcasm.
All in all it doesn't read as scum to me.
|
On March 02 2012 10:46 A Killer Cuppa Tea wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 08:49 Probulous wrote:
Tea however jumped at the opportunity to call me scum when everyone else who pushed me, never did. RG clearly didn't believe I was scum or he would have pushed much harder but tea sheeps. Then he tries to explain his sheep with the worst possible logic available. He could be townie who doesn't know what is going on, but if that is the case why jump at me? He wants to look like he is contributing when he isn't.
Excuse me? thats bullshit. I saw something scummy and pointed it out, My reasoning is sound, and your misrepresentation of me does you no favours.
OK maybe you can explain this then, your first post (klicky) doesn'st actually state why you voted for me. I assume it is because of the list. Your point about policy has nothing to do with what you quoted hence my assumption. If you didn't like my policy discussions, as Adam pointed out why me? You even agree with my stance on policy.
On March 02 2012 03:23 A Killer Cuppa Tea wrote:
Also, I'm voting Probulous because of a hunch that basically arose from "we should lynch all lurkers" and then proceeding to spam it up. Looks like it could potentially be scum diverting attention from himself, like
...
EBWOP: also, the majority of his posts had been town-sounding mechanics/theory posts which are incredibly easy for scum to make to help themselves look a lot townier (it's a good strategy!), but very little in the way of actual scumhunting, so they don't have to worry about statements that can come back and haunt them later.
Certain things are always "correct" in a game of mafia. Lurking benefits mafia. No Lynching is bad. Etc... You can't fault a guy for saying something along them lines. But if he Coles out today and says "wow, X is so totally townie"'and X later flips scum, it'll be held against him. By actively posting "correct" mafia theories, it's easy townpoints to be gained.
I opposed LAL so I never said we should lynch lurkers. Your accusation is based on me spamming which I explained earlier, you just ignored that. So far nothing you have written has any substance. Then you say that I am pretending to be town by saying townie things. How that makes sense I have no idea. The only thing you have done this game is actively discredit me with no substance behind it.
I mean what was your actual reason for voting for me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
