|
On March 21 2012 07:22 Tobon wrote:
Hitting JCarl or Sandroba was a pretty obvious move. But why JCarl of the two of them? We may want to consider that JCarl was gut reading Nemesis.
I think it was probably that jcarl was less likely to be medic protected and thus a more sure kill. I don't think we can infer from this that he was on the right track, but it can't hurt to look over his filter.
|
Yeah I can agree with that. I'd like to hear arguments from everyone though, since I'm not very sure myself.
|
Last post was agreeing with VE about Nemesis/sloosh lynch.
|
On March 21 2012 00:31 slOosh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 00:17 Dirkzor wrote:
You were scared that Sandroba was mafia pushing for a mislynch? Sandrobe is at best confirmed town (and was) at worst easy to find scum later on due to his mason claim. So thats bull.
Hindsight is 20-20. I wasn't willing to blindly believe the mason claim as it could have been a gutsy mafia ploy - just because it was improbable doesn't mean it was impossible, and therefore I was wary of the possibility. Yes I was scared because it could have been a mislynch with net result 1 dead townie and no voting pattern information. Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 00:17 Dirkzor wrote:On March 20 2012 06:51 slOosh wrote:
Catching up and going through Jackal's filter, I don't see anything telling of scum.
Additionally, its been pointed out, but this bandwagon is forming really fast and people are just jumping on.
From what I understand from my experience w/ TL Mafia, jackal doesn't bother putting in effort D1 since he always dies / his early reads are poor (or at least that is what people say about him). Does it absolve him of lurking? Well, combined with St. Patrick Day, power outage and work I'm really leaning null.
And a no-lynch is better than a lynch on (someone who I think is) a null read, especially since this is a true bandwagon where the only true read is Sandroba's and mostly everyone is sheeping. Not gonna lynch someone who I don't think is scum, and can't even apply the faulty "we get information out of it" because we won't.
##Unvote Snarfs
##Vote no-lynch About this post. I disagree that it makes sloosh look scummier if jackal flipped town than if Jackal flipped scum. This post makes perfect sense if Sloosh knew Jackal allignment. We only had 7 votes on Jackal and this was 10 min before lynch. He only needed to convince 1 person to vote differently to get jackal off the hook. He spends most of this post explaining reasons why it is most likely that Jackal isn't scum. Then ends with: And a no-lynch is better than a lynch on (someone who I think is) a null read, especially since this is a true bandwagon where the only true read is Sandroba's and mostly everyone is sheeping. Not gonna lynch someone who I don't think is scum, and can't even apply the faulty "we get information out of it" because we won't.Which is gently telling people to take votes of because the lynch is bad without saying it outright. The post should also make sense if I was suspected the possibility of Sandroba being mafia and pulling off a mislynch with no repercussions, which I did. You are approaching this with confirmation bias. I didn't say Jackal isn't scum - I said I don't see him as scum, that I see him as null and that I don't think a null lynch is a good idea. And if you interpret my post to think I am subtly suggesting people take their votes off then I really don't know how to defend myself there because I just did what I thought best, and if it came off that way then what can I do? Inability to clearly express thoughts is a neutral tell - if you think I am intentionally obfuscating my posts than say so, but calling my ability to post clearly / play mafia as bad is just smearing mud on my name.
On March 20 2012 03:01 slOosh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 02:05 Snarfs wrote:
First off, I don't think Nemesis is going down today, and I liked how collected he was in responding to my vote so that's off. He didn't get overly emotional or respond irrationally, which is what I would have expected from scum in his position.
##Unvote Nemesis
I liked Nemesis and Probulous's votes on VE. I think since thoses votes we've seen a bit better VE.
Mentions that Nemesis lynch is unviable for today in his explanation of unvote and in the same sentence says that he likes Nemesis' response and vote on VE (from which I infer he is leaning town read?). You can unvote someone because you now think they are town or if you want to avoid no-lynch and vote another mafia but I don't see how you can do both. Plus town Sandroba is boss.
##Unvote: xsksc
##Vote: SnarfsProbulous can you weigh in on Snarfs' posting this game? I know you played with him in Wiggle's mini not too long ago as well.
Ok what, you were scared of sandroba being scum when you just said that you had a town red in there when you bandwagoned him with snarfs?
Also, your defense as to why you are playing differently this game is similar to this, which is a game where you rolled scum
On February 27 2012 13:02 slOosh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 10:50 JekyllAndHyde wrote:On February 26 2012 15:40 slOosh wrote:
Hi all. This will be my third newbie game.
Current thoughts so far:
I really like the idea of the soft deadline to avoid last minute switching, but I would only implement it day 1.
From personal experience (my 2nd game T.T), trying to enforce a soft deadline where everyone votes can be very detrimental to town as it has the possibility of stifling discussion / people rushing to make poorly built cases as Janaan mentioned.
As for this idea of lynching lurkers, how would it interact with the deadline?
Say we are at soft deadline and there are several lurkers. We vote one, and they happen to respond by producing good content and such. Then we would have to choose the next lurker, but that would bring us closer to the true deadline and thereby defeat the whole purpose. There isn't really a feasible way to choose lurkers with a comfortable cushion of time before the deadline.
I'd rather we just start keeping each other accountable and make sure everyone is contributing right away. I know that in the ObsQT from prior games people have pegged mafia day 1, and I think we should aim for that goal, pressuring inactives so that we don't have to worry about last minute lurker switches. Okay sloosh. You were pretty active last game, why did you go lurking all of a sudden? /Hyde I decided to take a slower approach to the game. Last game I came out guns blazing, argued with a townie and then tunneled another one hard, allowing mafia to lurk and get away with posting fluff. I really want to fight my tendencies to tunnel / confirmation bias so I'm taking it as slow as I can. But being mindful of a deadline, I'll try posting what I have progressively rather than waiting until the eleventh hour to post a big case. Hopefully this will quell paranoia and promote a healthy town atmosphere.My current suspicions are on: ghost_403I'm really not sure if this is unintentional anti-town play or soft pushing mafia agenda. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 02:32 ghost_403 wrote:
@alderan I really don't see any time where it would be advantageous to the town to not lynch. The town should first be lynching scum. If we can't find scum, we should instead lynch people who are not useful to the town. Lurkers fit the second criteria perfectly. By lurking, you are providing cover for the scum to hide, which is in every case bad for the town.
He seems to advocate, in the event we can't agree on a good mafia suspect, lurker lynches. Lurker lynches are good, but only to flush mafia out of hiding, as he says so himself. Right now this is a null post to me as I can see both town or mafia thinking this. However: Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 04:43 ghost_403 wrote:
@Janaan Nope. I would love to start lynching into the other non-posters and fluffy posters as well, but alas, I have only one vote. Although, I would expect more posting from a hydra. It seems between the two of them that at least one could post on here "Don't lynch me". His stance is consistent but questionable. He wants to lynch, not pressure to get people to post and produce content and thus flush out mafia. It's almost like he will policy lynch a lurker. Still null, but worth looking into. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 07:18 ghost_403 wrote:Just got back and I've seen a few things that I'm not too happy about  It seems that most of the discussion on this thread has been built around the idea of a soft deadline and a no-lynch day 1. Here are my thoughts on both of those. A soft deadline isn't really needed. At all. If your concern is that people change their votes at the last minute and mess up votes, there is a simple solution to that: we lynch people who change their votes at the last minute and mess up votes. I would rather lynch scum over people who mess up votes, but I'm down with policy lynching. Townies, don't change your vote at the last minute and mess up votes. I will vote to policy lynch you. A no lynch day 1 is a bad idea. Pretty much, no matter who you are, a no lynch plays against your win condition, unless you're the Batman. As there is not the Batman in this game, no lynching goes against your win condition. Look at it this way: no matter your alignment, you win when there is no one else in the game. Period. 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.
Responses to posts in thread: @chocolate If this wasn't a newbie game, I would lynch you for that post. @DoYouHas I think you're right on with that post. Not a big fan of the FOS thing, but whatever. I think it gives them room to run and hide. Instead, GO FOR THE KILL.@gumshoe See above. @fourface Start explaining yourself, or I'll start the bandwagon rolling. @phagga I stand by what I said. I would much rather lynch scum, but if I can't, I'll lynch lurkers. The town lost that game because they let Palmar double lynch every day. As far as those two specific cases, rgTheSchworz should have been modkilled, and I would have lynched Lanaia instead mderg if I had had the time that day. She had no case against him, and I would have pointed that out, regardless of my alliance in that game. There is a heavy fixation with lynching. It's no longer a means flush out lurking mafia from hiding. He threatens at least 3 active posters with the lynch. He emphasizes over and over that we have to lynch no matter the circumstances. Even if we don't have a good case, he is willing to lynch lurkers, unhelpful townies, and seemingly anything. I'm trying to see what motives a townie might have for needing to get lynches so badly, and I can't think of anything. ##FOS: ghost_403.(I'm ending it with FOS rather than a vote since I really want other people's input as I think that is the best way I don't go tunnel mode).
##Vote: slOosh
|
On March 21 2012 07:31 sandroba wrote:
Yeah I can agree with that. I'd like to hear arguments from everyone though, since I'm not very sure myself.
I'm leaning towards Nemesis being town. After my initial vote, he hasn't done anything to raise my suspicions, and as I stated before the day post I think his tunneling of one of the stronger players this game doesn't make much sense from a scum point of view.
|
I'll vote him now too, I also found him not sheeping me on jackal very weird.
##Vote: slOosh
|
Sandroba, you're going to have to analyze Nemesis...I'm going to be biased because he was tunneling me all day. I'll look at slOosh and Probulous if you can look deep into the soul of Nemesis.
|
Thank you guys.
##Vote: slOosh
|
|
|
On March 21 2012 07:40 Snarfs wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 07:31 sandroba wrote:
Yeah I can agree with that. I'd like to hear arguments from everyone though, since I'm not very sure myself. I'm leaning towards Nemesis being town. After my initial vote, he hasn't done anything to raise my suspicions, and as I stated before the day post I think his tunneling of one of the stronger players this game doesn't make much sense from a scum point of view.
This is my feeling too. I think Sloosh is mafia and Nemesis has been pushing Sloosh as well. I find it hard to believe that mafia would be bussing Day 2 given they lost Jackal with the first lynch. I'll take another look and see if I can find anything.
##Vote: Sloosh
|
EBWOP: Damn you with your weird spelling
##Vote: slOosh
|
Might as well let my actions follow my words:
##Vote slOosh
|
We have agreed to vote slOosh
##Vote: slOosh
|
That's enough votes to lynch. Again, with the fast bandwagon. (Although obviously it worked out well the first time.)
I'm concerned that both Probulous and Nemesis are on the vote list here. If we're looking at 2 of the 3 of them being likely scum, that would mean 1 scum bussing slOosh, which seems very unlikely.
|
Well I don't really think that reasoning is valid, if I was scum in this spot I'd definitely sheep whoever all town is voting in order to avoid further suspicion. It's unlikely they can stop whatever wagon we decide without risking outing themselves a lot. That's not to say sloosh must be scum because of this, but I'm convinced he is our best bet as of now and we will probably end up lynching him at a later date anyway if not now. Since mafia kp is fixed we might as well get this over with.
|
Okay yeah, after rereading slOosh, I'm comfortable voting him. Important things (in my opinion) that may have already been covered:
- finds xsksc suspicious for "grilling the newbie" but not me, the original "newbie griller"
- sheeps Sandroba on Snarfs, in spite of xsksc not really responding further to slOosh's accusations (sheep > my reads)
- does not sheep Sandroba on Jackal, "because Jackal was a null read to me" (my reads > sheep)
##Vote: slOosh
For the record, this might be the fastest wagon ever. Not that it matters much at this point - we're not likely to get much resistance to any wagon we create even if it's on scum.
|
On March 21 2012 08:25 sandroba wrote:
Well I don't really think that reasoning is valid, if I was scum in this spot I'd definitely sheep whoever all town is voting in order to avoid further suspicion. It's unlikely they can stop whatever wagon we decide without risking outing themselves a lot. That's not to say sloosh must be scum because of this, but I'm convinced he is our best bet as of now and we will probably end up lynching him at a later date anyway if not now. Since mafia kp is fixed we might as well get this over with.
You ninja. You a boss.
|
On March 21 2012 08:25 sandroba wrote:
Well I don't really think that reasoning is valid, if I was scum in this spot I'd definitely sheep whoever all town is voting in order to avoid further suspicion. It's unlikely they can stop whatever wagon we decide without risking outing themselves a lot. That's not to say sloosh must be scum because of this, but I'm convinced he is our best bet as of now and we will probably end up lynching him at a later date anyway if not now. Since mafia kp is fixed we might as well get this over with.
True. With you confirmed town it's going to be impossible to fight your wagon, so the votes today probably don't tell us very much.
## Vote slOosh
The other potential advantage to scum from a quick early bandwagon is we waste the rest of the day, though. So how do we keep from doing that? What else is there we ought to be talking about?
|
EBWOP: dang, forgot bold again
##Vote: slOosh
|
##vote: slOosh
facts are against you son
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
