EPTSurprisingly Normal Mini Mafia IX - Page 15
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
| ||
|
BlueyD
Canada437 Posts
--- On Artanis and Seviro: I thought Artanis's case wasn't strong enough to consider a day 1 lynch, but I took notice of it. I'm not gonna clutter up the threat by repeating what he said, but Seviro hasn't shown a strong opinion all game that was really his. He seems to be able to appreciate other people's logic while never coming up with his own. I also didn't like that when he got voted on by Artanis, he just voted Artanis back. And I didn't like that he had a "pressure but no lynch" opinion on lurkers at first, but then switched his vote to Virtu for his period of inactivity, despite many ok Virtu posts before. "Flexible in opinion" is how I'd describe Seviro, and that's not a compliment... | ||
|
Seviro
Canada98 Posts
On March 25 2012 06:39 BlueyD wrote: And I didn't like that he had a "pressure but no lynch" opinion on lurkers at first, but then switched his vote to Virtu for his period of inactivity, despite many ok Virtu posts before. "Flexible in opinion" is how I'd describe Seviro, and that's not a compliment... This is what I meant by pressure but not necessarly lynch, I put my vote on him and then he came and posted his thought so I switched back. This is what I call pressure play. | ||
|
Mementoss
Canada2595 Posts
My thoughts on the Nova_Terra case vs BlueyD felt very weak and forced. I read the points and it felt like he was trying to put some scummy behaviour into posts that weren't scummy to begin with. Since when is taking leadership a scum trait, it's a very risky thing to do as scum unless you are good at it as it gives you more connections to more players and allows most posts for people to analyse. Also a couple of the posts were taken out of context of what was happening in the thread at the time, eg, I tried to force BlueyD for an initial vote, before he left. Cause the town needed votes, and vote were not happening. Also I would kinda like prelim votes to start as early as second 24 hours of the day. As at least it provokes discussion and allows plenty of time for defense/ change majority. As we all live in different time zones. Im going out tonight so I probably will not post, until tommorrow. | ||
|
Artanis[Xp]
Netherlands12971 Posts
On March 25 2012 06:43 Seviro wrote: This is what I meant by pressure but not necessarly lynch, I put my vote on him and then he came and posted his thought so I switched back. This is what I call pressure play. If there's no actual risk of them getting lynched there's no pressure. He was probably just planning to post anyway. If you indicate beforehand that you don't actually want to lynch lurkers then almost all of the pressure to add in a meaningful way dissipates very quickly. | ||
|
Mementoss
Canada2595 Posts
Here is pressure: Im going to put a strong case/analysis on you and vote/FoS you Here is not pressure: Im voting you to pressure you, but im not going for the lynch. | ||
|
BlueyD
Canada437 Posts
On March 25 2012 06:43 Seviro wrote: This is what I meant by pressure but not necessarly lynch, I put my vote on him and then he came and posted his thought so I switched back. This is what I call pressure play. You said that we should "we should put pressure on lurker but not lynch them to fast". That's a direct quote. Well, the fastest we can lynch a lurker was the day 1 lynch, so that seemed to imply you were against lynching on day 1. Once that opinion of yours is in the open, the pressure value of your vote goes down a lot, so I don't get why you would say that. | ||
|
Mementoss
Canada2595 Posts
| ||
|
Artanis[Xp]
Netherlands12971 Posts
On March 25 2012 06:46 Mementoss wrote: Why you want virtu to post while not mentioning people lurking harder than him? He at least had one good post, while sc2system and ninja4ever have none. Make them post too. My thoughts on the Nova_Terra case vs BlueyD felt very weak and forced. I read the points and it felt like he was trying to put some scummy behaviour into posts that weren't scummy to begin with. Since when is taking leadership a scum trait, it's a very risky thing to do as scum unless you are good at it as it gives you more connections to more players and allows most posts for people to analyse. Also a couple of the posts were taken out of context of what was happening in the thread at the time, eg, I tried to force BlueyD for an initial vote, before he left. Cause the town needed votes, and vote were not happening. Also I would kinda like prelim votes to start as early as second 24 hours of the day. As at least it provokes discussion and allows plenty of time for defense/ change majority. As we all live in different time zones. Im going out tonight so I probably will not post, until tommorrow. sc2system has posted plenty of bad posts, I'm fairly certain he won't improve on that any time soon. He's not going to be much use to the town imo. Ninja4ever mentioned he was going to be AFK today so I'll put pressure on him tomorrow. How come you didn't mention Gossemerr? Taking leadership without solid reasoning is a scummy thing to do. You're attempting to get people to follow what you say, and you can convince people by taking a position of authority, even if not earned. Posts can be taken out of context due to the filter option which is what people will usually use to analyze one person's posts, so an advice to anyone analyzing players; make sure to read the thread alongside it so you remember what was on the minds of town at the time. I'm good with the prelim votes starting as early as possible, as long as people will be present later too to change them should things develop. | ||
|
Seviro
Canada98 Posts
On March 25 2012 06:48 Artanis[Xp] wrote: If there's no actual risk of them getting lynched there's no pressure. He was probably just planning to post anyway. If you indicate beforehand that you don't actually want to lynch lurkers then almost all of the pressure to add in a meaningful way dissipates very quickly. + Show Spoiler + On March 25 2012 06:50 BlueyD wrote: You said that we should "we should put pressure on lurker but not lynch them to fast". That's a direct quote. Well, the fastest we can lynch a lurker was the day 1 lynch, so that seemed to imply you were against lynching on day 1. Once that opinion of yours is in the open, the pressure value of your vote goes down a lot, so I don't get why you would say that. Had he no post, I would have left my vote on him, the thing is he did and his post was satisfying in my eyes so I switched to someone else that was getting pressured hard but was not defending or anything. Also, I think that these kind of early vote are a good thing so that later in the game we can see a pattern if someone seems to be posting only when he is getting pressured/voted. | ||
|
Artanis[Xp]
Netherlands12971 Posts
On March 25 2012 07:02 Seviro wrote: + Show Spoiler + On March 25 2012 06:48 Artanis[Xp] wrote: If there's no actual risk of them getting lynched there's no pressure. He was probably just planning to post anyway. If you indicate beforehand that you don't actually want to lynch lurkers then almost all of the pressure to add in a meaningful way dissipates very quickly. + Show Spoiler + On March 25 2012 06:50 BlueyD wrote: You said that we should "we should put pressure on lurker but not lynch them to fast". That's a direct quote. Well, the fastest we can lynch a lurker was the day 1 lynch, so that seemed to imply you were against lynching on day 1. Once that opinion of yours is in the open, the pressure value of your vote goes down a lot, so I don't get why you would say that. Had he no post, I would have left my vote on him, the thing is he did and his post was satisfying in my eyes so I switched to someone else that was getting pressured hard but was not defending or anything. Also, I think that these kind of early vote are a good thing so that later in the game we can see a pattern if someone seems to be posting only when he is getting pressured/voted. So in fact you would be willing to lynch a lurker. Why didn't you just say that from the start? | ||
|
Seviro
Canada98 Posts
| ||
|
Mementoss
Canada2595 Posts
On March 25 2012 06:54 Artanis[Xp] wrote: sc2system has posted plenty of bad posts, I'm fairly certain he won't improve on that any time soon. He's not going to be much use to the town imo. Ninja4ever mentioned he was going to be AFK today so I'll put pressure on him tomorrow. How come you didn't mention Gossemerr? Taking leadership without solid reasoning is a scummy thing to do. You're attempting to get people to follow what you say, and you can convince people by taking a position of authority, even if not earned. Posts can be taken out of context due to the filter option which is what people will usually use to analyze one person's posts, so an advice to anyone analyzing players; make sure to read the thread alongside it so you remember what was on the minds of town at the time. I'm good with the prelim votes starting as early as possible, as long as people will be present later too to change them should things develop. Yeah that is true, but it doesn't make the play any less risky, but even so the posts he quoted had no real showing of taking leadership anyways. I missed that from ninja4ever, thanks for the correction. I mentioned the first two that came to my head, as far as I remember Gossemer posted after the night post correct? He said he had some thoughts on Nova so I'm interested in hearing those when he came back. Imo Night 1 is such an awkward night to discuss things and I find it hard figuring out what to say as you don't wanna put yourself in the spotlight. I'm still trying to figure out the most beneficial things to discuss and how to do it as town. Everything I underlined in your post is a good point and I agree with it. | ||
|
Seviro
Canada98 Posts
On March 25 2012 07:04 Artanis[Xp] wrote: So in fact you would be willing to lynch a lurker. Why didn't you just say that from the start? I did not say I was against lynching lurker, I said that we must pressure them hard so that they have no choice to post so that we know that they are really lurking Like asking for their opinion or whatever, make them participate so that we can make ourself a more precise opinion about them. We need to make sure that everyone is participating and not just mention someone only at the moment of the vote so that they don't have time to post anything. | ||
|
Gossemerr
United States195 Posts
Just checked the filters of everyone and noticed Gossemerr has posted almost no content either. First post was a joke vote on Mementoss, after that he's just gone after Rise of Fenix and sc2system as well. I'd like to see more content by him. Um okay? Im on a phone so this will short until tonight. What are you talking about? Read the thread in order. Who made the first case on fenix and the first vote. I also brought up some completely new evidence on sc2system. I can't look at your posts but the only "material that you have provided us with is a weak case on seviro. And a few REALLY scummy phrases. You seem really anxious to make others seem scummy. .. | ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
As Artanis just said, I do find the manner in which he tried to take leadership to be scummy. He has been guiding the town towards a certain lynch from this position, without being forced to post much analysis, which i think is a result of having made a couple posts that seemed to be from an authoritative position. Another thing that i did not like from this is that as he is seemingly capable, he isnt posting as much content as i think he could be, like what i should have noticed about you last game mementoss. Prelim votes is OK with me, but i think that as much of the town is relatively inactive getting a clear consensus right away will be a bit challenging. I also dont want people to leave a prelim vote and forget about it until relatively late in the day because of this inactivity. Please stay active! We cant just let scum lurk this out. | ||
|
BlueyD
Canada437 Posts
Rise of Fenix wrote: well, you posting first probably eludes you being mafia and drawing unneeded attention to yourself. That is not to say that this could be a fake out, but I am inclined to believe you are town. Who else would like to speak up? Gossemerr wrote: [Unvote Mementoss, vote Rise of Fenix here] I don't understand his only post. He contradicts himself by saving that BlueyD was probably mafia, but thinks he is town in the next sentence? Suspicious to me. He said I probably wasn't mafia in both sentences, but you misread him. So I'm not sure why you bring up being the first to call for Rise of Fenix when your logic was bad and when it turns out he was green, no less. | ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
"This means we have to start thinking about who to lynch if there's no convenient lurker." " Of course we'll modify our opinions based on night 1 and day 2, but for the moment I still think my case against sc2system remains reasonably strong, and if there were a 2nd vote right now I'm sure he would get lynched on the spot." I may be misreading the second one wrong, but even so, the fact that he has been allowed to maintain an authoritative posture without pressure isnt good. | ||
|
Nova_Terra
Switzerland1190 Posts
| ||
|
Mementoss
Canada2595 Posts
On March 25 2012 07:42 Nova_Terra wrote: Mementoss, what do you mean the posts i quoted didnt show much of taking leadership? for instance, 1 - "I'd like to see everyone at least post to confirm activity. Whoever doesn't start posting is already suspicious at worst, and useless at best. We don't want any mafia hiding among the lurkers. I'll personally support lynching an inactive unless something pretty big happens. " 2 - "This means we have to start thinking about who to lynch if there's no convenient lurker." 3 - " Of course we'll modify our opinions based on night 1 and day 2, but for the moment I still think my case against sc2system remains reasonably strong, and if there were a 2nd vote right now I'm sure he would get lynched on the spot." I may be misreading the second one wrong, but even so, the fact that he has been allowed to maintain an authoritative posture without pressure isnt good. Im pretty sure everyone in the thread has said 1 and 2 at the start of the game. 1 -> Be more active, inactives dont help scum hunting. 2 -> Lynch someone with a good case, if not lynch a lurker. 3-> A response to me saying, I dont want the the town getting hung up on day 1 opinions as better information to come, EG just cause we suspected RoF and sc2system, doesnt mean we should nessecarily lynch sc2system day 2. As better cases may come up. I didn't mean for this defense to stretch out for so long and so analysed, cause if he actually ends up flipping mafia my ass will be on the line. But I just think it was a weak case and I didn't really see where you were coming from, and usually on the good cases I do, without being like erm well that is possible I guess. Felt really forced. I;m not saying he's innocent. But this case hasn't made him more scummy in my eyes, no offense. | ||
| ||
