|
@ArcticFox: What does ##FoS mean?
@Zealos: Did you ever end up answering the question about why a townie would be so disruptive?
@Maju: Nice post for a "total dunce/mafia" 
Why do you suspect imallinson over oneplus? Any particular reason?
@yomi:
On April 24 2012 12:11 yomi wrote:
Um...really? Where do I lie? Specifically quote for me what I said that's a lie. YOUR post is actually a lie because it is such a gross, obvious, intentional misrepresentation of what I've said.
Actions speak louder than words. That entire first post of yours reeks. You don't want to lynch... yet you start off with voting. You say you do this to see how Maju reacts...when there is no reason to suspect Maju (in fact, you do this because he is "an idiot". This struck me as trying to set him up for an easy lynch). When pressed about this, you say
On April 23 2012 10:13 yomi wrote:
You should all be voting, townies have no reason to fear voting. Mafia are afraid to take concrete stances. Everyone vote asap plz.
and later on
On April 24 2012 02:25 yomi wrote:
I'm genuinely voting for maju. Not just seeing his reaction.
I shall to defer to Dr3am here, who put this far more eloquently than I could:
On April 24 2012 03:37 ForTheDr3am wrote:
So, you genuinely voted for him, not just to see his reaction, and were going to sit on that vote until you got a reaction. Ok.
Emphasis mine.
You say you don't want a lynch, but your behavior, and the way you are trying to convince people to vote, and most importantly your genuine vote, speaks most clearly to me that you in fact do. And when you try and rationalize it, you...can't. All you do is assert that it isn't, if we just "think about it". And you also flame :/
This is all your lie. Not a mere quote, but an analysis of your actions.
On April 24 2012 12:11 yomi wrote:
what about this statement do you disagree with? what's "not good enough" about it? I think it's a perfectly legitimate rational for coming out strong and voting for someone.
Sure, it's a legitimate rationale for voting. The problem is that you don't actually do this
Again, here are the quotes from that post:
+ Show Spoiler +On April 23 2012 08:12 yomi wrote:
hey bros. I'm not 100% convinced that we should lynch day1. but if we do On April 23 2012 10:13 yomi wrote:
not much to explain, it makes perfect sense if you don't play like maniac day1 townies who read way too much into things. there's nothing contradictory or unusual about what I said. On April 23 2012 10:13 yomi wrote:
I'm not moving off maju atm he is a total dunce/mafia so not much lost if he ends up town anyway. On April 23 2012 11:31 yomi wrote:
I'm voting for you because you are stupid or mafia but you cannot be a good townie. On April 23 2012 15:36 yomi wrote:
i told you why I voted for you. btw you are annoying i'm not talking to you any more for the next 12 hours
This is not a discussion! This is you making pointless one-liners! In fact, the only time you sat down and made an attempt at a decent post, it was full of holes, as ForTheDr3am was so gracious to point out.
So yes, a great rationale. It is not, however, yours.
On April 24 2012 12:11 yomi wrote:
Sorry "one-liners" offend you so much. I'll be sure not to post when I have a single concise statement to make.
You forgot the key-word there. pointless
|
@Maju: Nice post for a "total dunce/mafia"
Why do you suspect imallinson over oneplus? Any particular reason?
I forgot to examine oneplus' filter I guess. You're right though, he has posted similarly to allin as he's only posted twice and protected someone who I strongly suspect is mafia. I guess oneplus is a candidate for mafia as well.
|
@Arctic, I don't fluff my post so it is always short and simple straight to the point, the more fluffy your post are the more scummy you are. Also, I think you didn't go through my post clear enough as you ask the question I have already answer which I said Zealos is a decent vote after trying to protect Yomi as his play is too aggresive to be mafia.
It's all good to read other players past games but it is really bad to use the past information to convince people in the current one. You has also started to bring your previous game information into this one where you had voted yomi as one of the evidence to vote yomi.
@Yomi, I am strongly against the use of past history to determine the game play for current one because it's not fair, you are trying to convince us with your previous game play which doesn't make sense and making you suspicious. I don't think you are a scum from voting Maju but the way you want everyone to bring out history has made me lost my confidence on you. You might be a town but I don't think you use the correct way for scumhunt when it's too much.
@Zealos, You are the most suspicious here because you are a 1 liner, you didn't contribute anything yet. Although there is no concrete evidence on you which proven you to be a scum but what have you contribued so far?
On April 24 2012 02:12 Zealos wrote:
Oh, and, I am happy to respond to case's against me, but at the moment I can't see any. All I see is people posting lots of other people's names and then going on to tell town what they've done so far in the game. It doesn't help. We can read.
It seems like it's gonna be pretty hard to find the mafia team when there's so many people posting terribly.
Saying this kind of demotivation post aren't helping, you will just make more people go against you. If you are a town I hope you can come out with some statement which is presuasive enough and stop defending yourself with more 1 line post.
|
@Maju, Nreekay got the same read as me on Yomi which he’s an idiotic towny playing scummy. We are not protecting him, we want to bring out the fact that this is a possibility on his play. We should think out of the box and evaluating all the possibility, it is too early to make comfirmation that "Yomi is a scum" yet in my point of view. I just want everyone to think twice before yomi.
Maju, suspecting someone who is not defending you is not a good town play.
|
This is my take thus far on my top suspects, and basis of my vote.
1) Maju:
Firstly he starts by offering both a question and a suggestion, "Should we lynch lurkers? I think we should." now that he has posted, it seems like a suspect way of trying to not let suspicion fall onto him, and reaching consensus, which he offers soon after. In fact stating it is more important that generating discussions. "Well the main purpose was to get a consensus on how things should be done, generating discussion is just another benefit."
Secondly he responds to Zealos offer, " He's right, no lynch = really bad.", with "I agree that we should lynch someone. The only person who's shown signs of being something other than vanilla townie so far is St. Daniel as I'm unconvinced that a townie would need help so early. I don't want to vote yet though as since its a newbie game he might just want general help and has shown no distinct signs of being mafia." (more on this below).
Thirdly when yomi votes for him, he immediately counter-accuses yomi, with this: "Yomi seems suspicious to me. He says he isn't sure about lynching someone then votes when no one else has. That makes it more likely someone will be lynched. Also, he gave no reasons as to why I should be lynched. This makes me think he's a mafia who just wants to get some townie lynched."
I see a problem with this on multiple levels. First off, he offers consensus as the most important thing, but doesn't register that yomi is willing to bow down for this very consensus if it is as such. He asks for reasonable things from yomi - things he himself does not offer in return, when it comes to st. Daniel for the weak reason of him asking for help in a newbie game, much like he even did before Daniel, and I am "dumbfounded" as to why he did this. Lastly, that on one hand he offers to Zealos that we should lynch someone, but then uses the exact same reasoning against yomi as suspect. If we should suspect yomi on these things, then it should be more so with Maju. At best Maju is hypocritical.
Soon after we find statements such as this: "Furthermore, you're pressuring people to lynch someone who you so far have proposed no case against and when many people have not yet posted. To me this hints at you being mafia as you just want to get someone who you know isn't mafia lynched as fast as possible.", "It is, I just wanted to get clarification on the source of Daniel's statement since it could help tell if dr3am is mafia.", "I just meant he might be mafia or he might be a detective or medic or something."(concerning lurkers, something he doesn't consider is on yomis mind), ": I realise I may have phrased that poorly earlier", "Yeah, I realise now that I didn't really think that through."
Maybe the best answers can be found here: "Yes, I guess I was posting defensively. I did this not because I was mafia, but because yomi's was the first vote, and Zealos, one of the only others who had posted at that point, was accusing me of being scummy. I was fearful that yomi's ideas may gain traction early on so I was trying to highlight that your vote had no substance.". Why would he be fearful 1) as a townie. 2) That yomis near no-reason posts would gain traction?
2) Yomi.
I am conflicted on yomi. On one hand he offers some of the same fears that I have with not giving away too much information, when it comes to roles, but more importantly it was this that caught my immediate attention on him: " it makes perfect sense if you don't play like maniac day1 townies who read way too much into things. there's nothing contradictory or unusual about what I said.", which is something I myself have tried to avoid, and thought was happening right off the bat.
The bad things are that like Maju, he is of little use at best, if he doesn't aid town in some way. He is constantly evasive, and reluctant to answer questions directly, ie "Can everyone post how many games they've played in (on this or other sites) and what they were in those other games (if it's just a few). And links to the games.", and him under the belief that day 1 doesn't provide any useful information/reading options. To it seems like he doesn't really care, if we catch scum or not.
And for the most part, we see him not willing to offer anything, on the contrary. I am not sure if I should put too much into him playing this way as scum, but it can't be a positive thing.
##Vote: Maju.
|
##Vote: Zealos
yomi's my number 2.
|
I genuinly don't know what I am defending myself from. Hence all the one liners.
Add to this the fact that we're at day 1 so there is not much to go on.
I don't think I have been particually desruptive myself, instead, the reactions from other players and me have cause this thread to become filled with useless discussion.
We as a town have to focus on scummy play, not just me being a bit silly at the start of the game. I posted my thoughts as soon as the popped into my head, and I will admit that it has caused a little bit of disruption. So I'm going to be posting more useful thoughts from now on. Starting with this:
##Vote: MajuGarzett
He startes by pointlessly discussing policy
Should we lynch lurkers? think we probably should. (Note, he can't even make his mind up 100% about this.
Then he stresses the fact he is new: Though as I haven't played before it may well lead to a poor town atmosphere as you suggested. This is something mafia do to try to hide their scummy play.
Then he makes this attack on yomi that makes very little sense to me Yomi seems suspicious to me. He says he isn't sure about lynching someone then votes when no one else has. That makes it more likely someone will be lynched. Also, he gave no reasons as to why I should be lynched. This makes me think he's a mafia who just wants to get some townie lynched.
Then, as a responce to an accusation, he attacks the very fact that someone accused him, as opposed to arguing the point Initially claiming you may not want to lynch anybody, then launching seemingly unfounded accusations, then pressuring everyone else to follow you blindly seems pretty scummy to me.
This is one of the most Scummy first day's I've seen in my 3 games so far.
So, he is my first choice, with Yomi at 2 (I understand I defended yomi in my accusation of Maju, however, I only said Maju's argument was flawed, no the conclusion.
|
On April 24 2012 10:15 ArcticFox wrote:
Doing your research is all part of the game. You should have already done this if you're town and trying to do meta-reads. Also quite the aggressive way to get people to do it.
trying to hide information
I'm not sure why you're trying to draw attention to the way people have played in the other games. You're posting is pretty close to how you acted in our last game (Newbie 8), where you were scum, and I also put my vote on you Day 1.
all true statements
Furthermore, posting metaplay in the main thread is distracting -- anyone who's interested has already done it, and if there's not a case being made based on it, it's pointless to bring it in without having a relevant discussion attached. It's entirely different if you're bringing up someone's filter from another game specifically to make a case. Without making cases, it's another way to fluff up your post count without actually contributing anything, plus it brings up easy ways to WIFOM and distract the thread into a meaningless discussion.
but you just made a meta argument yourself
Side note -- I'm loathe to do connection play this early, but I find it highly interesting that the only person so far to follow along with this idea of yours to post our game history is my 2nd strongest scumread right now. @Zealos, your filter still reads full of one-liners, a negative attitude, and a whole bunch of posting without saying anything. I'd like your best scum read so far, based on the information we have, and why?
but this IS a connection play
If you haven't read the newbie guide yet, go look up WIFOM and read about it. Talking about motivations leads you in circles.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think you get what this phrase "WIFOM" means. It doesn't mean you don't look at motivations. It means you don't confuse yourself with levels and levels of guessing games. "He knows that I know that he knows etc". The first one or two levels of guessing games are pretty much the only way to find mafia at all. Mafia will attempt to act in their best interest. Therefore if you identify a move you think benefits mafia, and someone makes that move, they are probably mafia. Do you agree with this reasoning? And if so how is it not "talking about motivations".
|
On April 24 2012 14:52 mutant wrote:
@ArcticFox: What does ##FoS mean?
It's shorthand for "Finger of Suspicion". It means I believe he's scum and I'm keeping an eye on him. There's a nice list of all the often used abbreviations in the newbie guides.
On April 24 2012 15:26 oneplus wrote:
@Arctic, I don't fluff my post so it is always short and simple straight to the point, the more fluffy your post are the more scummy you are. Also, I think you didn't go through my post clear enough as you ask the question I have already answer which I said Zealos is a decent vote after trying to protect Yomi as his play is too aggresive to be mafia.
It's all good to read other players past games but it is really bad to use the past information to convince people in the current one. You has also started to bring your previous game information into this one where you had voted yomi as one of the evidence to vote yomi.
I never said you needed to fluff up your posts. I said that so far your 2 short posts hadn't said anything, and I was right. I wanted you to contribute more, which you've started to do. As for the "it's bad to use past information" part, showing connections to how someone acted when they were town/scum in a previous game is an important skill to have, and if it strengthens your case, it can be helpful to link it or show it. But blindly just linking all your past games is just an easy way to say you're bringing in information without actually adding anything relevant. It's a complete scum move.
Now, with that out of the way -- my greatest concern this morning is that we have 3 people with votes on them, and the votes are all over the place. The lynch is an extended majority lynch, meaning with 12 alive, we'll need 7 votes to lynch anyone. The vote is in 10 hours. I would like us to get to a consensus on a good lynch target.
I wouldn't be opposed to a no-lynch if there were no suspects, but we have 4 legitimate targets, and the field needs to be narrowed down.
MajuGarrett -- The case has already been made against him, and I have my own opinions on it, but I'm far more interested in what he has to say in his own defense, so I want to see him post again before I jump to any conclusions.
Zealos -- A lot of issue was made (started by me, actually) about his negative seeming comments at the start of the game. His last couple of posts show some effort, but again, I want to see what Maju has to say about the case before I comment on it. He still seems red, not a bad lynch choice, but I think there are better.
yomi -- My case is clear, and has yet to be refuted. yomi's posting has become no better since then, and my vote remains here until I'm convinced otherwise.
imallinson -- If yomi isn't lynched, this is my 2nd choice. He's posted once, said nothing of substance, and disappeared. Could be disinterested town, but he's playing much more like a lurking scum so far.
We have 10 hours left, and we need more active discussion than what we've had. Let's step it up a bit. Specifically I'd like the people who haven't voted yet to place your vote somewhere so we can start narrowing down this list more.
I'd also like Maju to say what he thinks of Zealos' case against him.
I'd also like imallinson to say anything of substance.
|
On April 25 2012 01:00 yomi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 10:15 ArcticFox wrote:
Doing your research is all part of the game. You should have already done this if you're town and trying to do meta-reads. Also quite the aggressive way to get people to do it.
trying to hide information Show nested quote +I'm not sure why you're trying to draw attention to the way people have played in the other games. You're posting is pretty close to how you acted in our last game (Newbie 8), where you were scum, and I also put my vote on you Day 1. all true statements Show nested quote +
Furthermore, posting metaplay in the main thread is distracting -- anyone who's interested has already done it, and if there's not a case being made based on it, it's pointless to bring it in without having a relevant discussion attached. It's entirely different if you're bringing up someone's filter from another game specifically to make a case. Without making cases, it's another way to fluff up your post count without actually contributing anything, plus it brings up easy ways to WIFOM and distract the thread into a meaningless discussion.
but you just made a meta argument yourself Show nested quote +
Side note -- I'm loathe to do connection play this early, but I find it highly interesting that the only person so far to follow along with this idea of yours to post our game history is my 2nd strongest scumread right now. @Zealos, your filter still reads full of one-liners, a negative attitude, and a whole bunch of posting without saying anything. I'd like your best scum read so far, based on the information we have, and why?
but this IS a connection play Show nested quote +
If you haven't read the newbie guide yet, go look up WIFOM and read about it. Talking about motivations leads you in circles.
I don't think you get what this phrase "WIFOM" means. It doesn't mean you don't look at motivations. It means you don't confuse yourself with levels and levels of guessing games. "He knows that I know that he knows etc". The first one or two levels of guessing games are pretty much the only way to find mafia at all. Mafia will attempt to act in their best interest. Therefore if you identify a move you think benefits mafia, and someone makes that move, they are probably mafia. Do you agree with this reasoning? And if so how is it not "talking about motivations".[/QUOTE]
Let's break this down step by step:
1) I'm not trying to hide information. All the information is out there. I'm saying I shouldn't do your work for you because you can't be assed to do it. Posting my game history when all you have to do is hit my profile and look at my posting and you can see the mafia games I've played in seems like a pointless way to add unnecessary information to the thread.
2/3) As I said -- posting a list of prior games and tallking about "well it could be important later" is pointless, because it's obvious. Specifically picking out the fact that someone acted the same way in a previous game as they do to this game is making a case, therefore relevant and not just filling up the thread pointlessly. Can you see the difference?
4) Also as I said -- I don't like making connections this early, but it was an interesting fact, and something to keep in mind for later, as it was relevant to my 2 strongest scumreads at the time.
5) Thanks for making my point for me. He said that it was SO obvious of a scum play that scum would never do it. That's why it's WIFOM. If it's an obvious scum play, then it's an obvious scum play. Therefore, by countering his argument, you're saying that what you did is an obvious scum play.
Thanks for making my case stronger.
|
He lurked last game and was mafia. He's lurking this game and is probably mafia
##unvote
##vote: imallinson
|
@Dracolich70
Since you apparently like highlights so much, I will try to summarize our conversation to you. After your first post, I call out to you claiming that it is empty, and that town needs not be afraid of vivid accusations. I thought you would respond either by posting analysis of other players, with an actual case against me or with the newbie card. Instead, you actually answer by insisting that your post was fine. I do clarify about why "highlight" lists are pointless/scummy while asking a few more questions about your stance as well as for analysis. Your response is yet another defensive one absolutely insisting that your first post was fine, while evading all questions and trying to fling a bit more mud at me. A few quotes which I want to point out:
On April 24 2012 05:59 Dracolich70 wrote:The list was trying to draw a picture of how I feel the events thus far. Which is either guided by paranoia, or as a initiator for debate(?). I am not sure if this is the right way, as it can clutter the thread mightily quickly.
On April 24 2012 05:59 Dracolich70 wrote:The highlights are pretty accurate, I believe. Highlights don't muddy threads, but clearify. I bet mafia likes obfuscation, what do you think?
Inconsistency speaks for itself, and for me that shows that you did not want to "clearify" anything but rather struggled to find an explanation for writing it afterwards. To respond to your question, yes, mafia does like obfuscation. However, what mafia likes even more is an inactive thread where they barely ever have to defend themselves and everybody basically only lurks. They especially like a town that is afraid of making accusations, something that you still propose.
On April 24 2012 05:59 Dracolich70 wrote:Show nested quote +When you say manipulate, who will manipulate what? The mafia the general flow of the thread? Other people? Yes, scum will sometimes try to control the thread and always try to appear as town. Saying that is just as empty as your list. Do you just post to post? Town/"town" can play in a lot of different ways, as can mafia. I hope you realize the dynamism of people having played before. If you find it empty, then so be it. I think of it making people aware, especially when people accused, then got counter-accused. Right now you are trying to dictate how I should play. I am not in the know of what people know, as this is labeled newbie game.
Rather than clarify what exactly you are afraid of, you throw together another bunch of sentences that look like an answer. You still haven't said what it is exactly you are afraid of due to what I assume is meta-play. I don't even know what "I hope you realize the dynamism of people having played before." is supposed to mean. You claim you are making people aware - of what? That accusations are bad? Why would scumhunting be bad? Which is something I asked you already and you refused to answer.
On April 24 2012 05:59 Dracolich70 wrote:Show nested quote +Certainly, the fear of the thread going down in confusion from having too many people making too many accusations is a valid one - if that was actually happening. However, it isn't, and you preemptively tried to discourage people from making advances at a time where not too much has happened yet in first place. How, in your eyes, should town be productive at all if not by analyzing posts? If everybody posted like you did, we would have no suspects at the end of the day, no information to build on later. Why do you still refuse to put forth any sort of opinion apart from unsubtly hinting that I am cluttering up the thread? Can you make up your mind? If I pointed out this is what has transpired, and it is valid, then my posting is valid. I was the first to say it. If people have jumped onto the right track, then I have been of more use than you have thus far with your guns blazing at shadows. So far I have spent most time explaining a post that is pretty self explanatory in the first place - twice now. I have already given a name and accepted d1 lynch. I can still change it.
You do two things here. Firstly, you completely misunderstood (be it by purpose or owing to my overly creative writing style) my post. I said being afraid of confusion resulting in too many people pointing fingers is alright if that was happening (hypothetical scenario). At that point it wasn't happening and I read your post as an unnecessarily angstly one. Secondly, you claim you are the first one to point that out, but in your next post
On April 24 2012 05:59 Dracolich70 wrote:I am conflicted on yomi. On one hand he offers some of the same fears that I have with not giving away too much information, when it comes to roles, but more importantly it was this that caught my immediate attention on him: " it makes perfect sense if you don't play like maniac day1 townies who read way too much into things. there's nothing contradictory or unusual about what I said.", which is something I myself have tried to avoid, and thought was happening right off the bat.
you basically say that he said that first, assuming that the fear of too many accusations and of maniac townies is the same. You still did not answer how you think town should catch scum, if not by accusation and analyzing.
Next, you finally deign yourself to make an analysis, with your prime suspect being Maju (despite only mentioning yomi in an earlier post while Maju had already made basically all the relevant posts you build your case on).
On April 24 2012 05:59 Dracolich70 wrote:I see a problem with this on multiple levels. First off, he offers consensus as the most important thing, but doesn't register that yomi is willing to bow down for this very consensus if it is as such. He asks for reasonable things from yomi - things he himself does not offer in return, when it comes to st. Daniel for the weak reason of him asking for help in a newbie game, much like he even did before Daniel, and I am "dumbfounded" as to why he did this. Lastly, that on one hand he offers to Zealos that we should lynch someone, but then uses the exact same reasoning against yomi as suspect. If we should suspect yomi on these things, then it should be more so with Maju. At best Maju is hypocritical.
Firstly, wanting an consensus on lynch all lurkers is a few lightyears different from yomi "offering a consensus" by putting an unfounded vote into the room. He is asking yomi to at least give reasons (or anything more than half-flame oneliners) for the vote without giving reasons himself - because he wasn't the one randomly voting. When it comes to St.Daniel, I do agree that it was a questionable post, but what sort of reason would he need to give if the reason why he thought that St.Daniel might be suspicious is that he needed help that early in the game? You say that he is hypocritical for agreeing with the general fact that somebody should be lynched on day 1 while pointing out that yomi is putting an unfounded vote on him, making it more likely that someone is lynched - in the context that yomi said that he wasn't sure whether a day 1 lynch is good himself. Where is the issue?
On April 24 2012 05:59 Dracolich70 wrote:Maybe the best answers can be found here: "Yes, I guess I was posting defensively. I did this not because I was mafia, but because yomi's was the first vote, and Zealos, one of the only others who had posted at that point, was accusing me of being scummy. I was fearful that yomi's ideas may gain traction early on so I was trying to highlight that your vote had no substance.". Why would he be fearful 1) as a townie. 2) That yomis near no-reason posts would gain traction?
2) Yomi.
Let's play the "ask yourself that question" game. Why are/were you, too, fearful of accusations in general (while the thread is/was too inactive) and spent two posts being defensive by the means of insisting that your first post was fine? Justifying yourself is fairly natural even for a townie when being pressured (especially with a vote), but why would you use that as a case against Maju when you are doing that yourself? (While also saying that he is hypocritical.)
Your case against yomi isn't really a case, you agree with him on one fact, then say he is of little use while saying yourself before that
On April 24 2012 05:59 Dracolich70 wrote:If people have jumped onto the right track, then I have been of more use than you have thus far with your guns blazing at shadows.
the pointing out what you agreed with him on is at least potentially useful.
To me, all that reeks of inconsistency and scumminess. However, I am aware of the fact that I might be suffering from tunnel vision or confirmation bias, so I'd like to hear other people's response to this for now.
-------
@ArcticFox:
There is one thing I'd like you to clarify for me. What makes imallinson so different from other people who haven't posted a lot, such as insectoceanx or St.Daniel? Even mutant has basically only asked yomi questions that others have asked already.
|
Can we get a vote count as a frame of reference please? Thanks!
|
On April 25 2012 02:09 ForTheDr3am wrote:
@ArcticFox:
There is one thing I'd like you to clarify for me. What makes imallinson so different from other people who haven't posted a lot, such as insectoceanx or St.Daniel? Even mutant has basically only asked yomi questions that others have asked already.
Insect has at least put a case together and voted for someone. I'd like to see more from him obviously, but you have to pick your battles. nreekay's filter reads a little thin too. St.Daniel is on the list of people who haven't voted or said a whole lot of substance.
imallinson has posted 1 post showing what a few other people are doing, but since has disappeared and hasn't shown up in over 24 hours now. The difference to me is "little effort" vs. "no effort". He's just as likely to get modkilled/replaced though, so if your implication is that it would do us better to focus on people acting scummy, rather than those not acting at all, I can't argue against that.
The ability to lurk without pressure is what killed us last game though -- I do not want a repeat performance of that.
As mentioned, I would far prefer a yomi lynch. Zealos is a good choice too. And I seriously want Maju to show up and say something to the case brought against him.
|
EBWOP -- For clarification, I still have a first-time town read on Maju, but I still want him to react to his own case. With 2 votes on him that we need to have in other places due to the lynch system, I'd like him to post something solid to ease the minds of town.
|
On April 24 2012 14:52 mutant wrote:
You don't want to lynch
You say you don't want a lynch,
I asked you to quote when I say these things before and I'll ask you to do the same now.
oh oops YOU don't need to use "mere" quotes, your analysis will do us better.
This is all your lie. Not a mere quote, but an analysis of your actions.
derp? what is a "mere" quote? Please indulge me and quote where I said I don't want a lynch.
Mafia don't make the little "slips" you guys are looking for. You have to read into their actions and words. If you could get past your confirmation bias you would see how clear what I said is. You mean for the vote to be a contradiction of me saying I'm not sure we should. Actually it is showing that "not 100% sure" means, just what it sounds like. NOT 100%. How do you interpret not 100% sure as meaning less than 50% sure? Especially when the very next thing I do is vote for someone. Could "not 100% sure" mean "we probably should", but not "we definitely should"? You are so ridiculous and desperate.
the way you are trying to convince people to vote
In what way am I trying to convince people to vote?
And you also flame :/
And here we have the real reason most of you are voting for me. You confuse "suspicious" with "mean" or "I don't like like him". You have to think what would a mafia do? Is this a mafia play? Or is bandwagoning on to what appears to be a popular town lynch a mafia thing to do?
So yes, a great rationale. It is not, however, yours.
When did you catch on that I quoted you back to yourself? For those not following:
Mutant says:
I would like to reiterate ForTheDr3am's assertion that lynching on day 1 is crucial. First of all, if we hit scum, then we are way ahead of the game, as it is balanced around not killing scum day 1. Secondly, the two biggest sources of info in the game are who votes for who and the discussions that come out of discussing lynching. If we don't lynch day 1, we lose an entire day's worth of crucial information,
And then asks me this question in the same post
Why do you want town to start voting as soon as possible, before any real conversation has happened?
Isn't this more than a bit ridiculous?
Look at the information we're getting out of people's votes! And here we are discussing votes and why we are doing them. It would appear YOU feel you have gotten a lot of information out of this discussion because you believe you have found scum. When I vote and play aggressive it's scum behavior. But when you advocate it it's trying to get information. Could I be the one most aggressively trying to get information?
If you genuinely believed I was scum, why would you be so upset about me making a scum move? Notice AF's humorous but telling remark where he encourages a player he suspects to "keep acting summy". Yet you are enraged that a mafia would act in a mafia way. Is this genuine scum hunting?
##fos: mutant
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
My reads on everyone so far:
insectoceanx
Has barely posted apart from the case against Zealos. Can't get a good read on him yet.
St.Daniel
Posts a weak case against Dream then backs up on it later. His non-committal to anything seems a little suspicious.
Dracolich70
I'm finding the defence of yomi and attack on maju, following yomi and Zealos, fairly suspicious. He's my # 3 scum read behind yomi and Zealos.
MajuGarzett
Hasn't posted much content apart from the case against yomi. Not sure on my read of him yet.
oneplus
Makes a few weak cases against people but never says anything concrete. This seems a bit scummy to me.
nreekay324
Has made good cases against yomi and Zealos. Seems to be wanting to scumhunt which makes me think he is town.
mutant
The only real case he has made so far has been against yomi who is a fairly easy target at the moment. However his case is solid. I have a neutral read on him so far.
ArcticFox
He has been perfectly willing to post his thoughts about other people and make cases against the ones he thinks are scummy. Seems fairly town to me.
Zealos
Early on he complains about people looking like they are contributing while they aren't actually helping. The he proceeds to do just that. Then he makes a half hearted accusation of maju. The point about policy talk isn't important because apart from the one post suggesting it he leaves it be. The attacks against his case against yomi make very little sense to me because the points he brought up about yomi are perfectly valid yet Zealos dismisses them as nonsense. He strikes me as very suspicious but not enough yet to vote for him.
ForTheDr3am
He has posted good cases throughout the day and seems to want to help the town scum hunt. He seems fairly town in my eyes.
yomi
First off this post makes no sense
hey bros. I'm not 100% convinced that we should lynch day1. but if we do
##vote: majugarzett
This has been mentioned by everyone else and seems to be the main reason for people voting for him. While I agree that it makes no sense I don't think it makes him scummy. Honestly I can't see a reason why scum or town would jump on someone so early. Given just this post I'd put it down to bad play. However the random aggressiveness towards anyone calling him out on it makes me much more suspicious.
The asking everyone to post their previous games is strange. If you actually wanted to read through people's previous games you would just go and do it, especially given that the people in this game will have at most 2 other games. This seems to me to be trying to look like he is contributing.
He then tries to defend his vote for maju and doesn't do very well at it. "Why not" isn't a sufficient answer and I'm not buying the pressure vote excuse. It was such a baseless accusation that maju would never felt any real pressure. Again this feels like someone trying to look like he is contributing while not doing anything of the sort.
The case against Arctic is terrible and the case and vote against me is based entirely on one meta argument and is just a thinly veiled suggestion of a lynch all lurkers policy.
#FoS: Zealos
Vote: yomi
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
EBWOP:
Did that wrong.
##Vote: yomi
|
On Dracholich70's accusation
I see a problem with this on multiple levels. First off, he offers consensus as the most important thing, but doesn't register that yomi is willing to bow down for this very consensus if it is as such.
I think I may be misunderstanding you here, could you clarify this please?
He asks for reasonable things from yomi - things he himself does not offer in return, when it comes to st. Daniel for the weak reason of him asking for help in a newbie game, much like he even did before Daniel, and I am "dumbfounded" as to why he did this.
The only thing I asked for from yomi was for his reasons why he voted for me. I explained why I said what I did about Daniel, did not vote for him, and am now not at all suspicious of him being mafia.
Lastly, that on one hand he offers to Zealos that we should lynch someone, but then uses the exact same reasoning against yomi as suspect. If we should suspect yomi on these things, then it should be more so with Maju. At best Maju is hypocritical.
My case against yomi was that he stated he was unsure of lynching then proceeded to be the first one to vote, and then did not give reasons for his vote. I would have had no problems with his vote if he had given reasons.
Yes, I guess I was posting defensively. I did this not because I was mafia, but because yomi's was the first vote, and Zealos, one of the only others who had posted at that point, was accusing me of being scummy. I was fearful that yomi's ideas may gain traction early on so I was trying to highlight that your vote had no substance.". Why would he be fearful 1) as a townie. 2) That yomis near no-reason posts would gain traction?
To the first point, no one wants to die whether they are mafia or townie. Not only would dying be less fun on my part, dying on the first day would result in me losing experience in playing this game. Also, me dying as a townie would just be conducive to mafia victory. On the second point, two of the only people who had posted at that point were accusing me so I didn't want a bandwagon effect to occur. Because of this I pointed out yomi's lack of a substantial accusation as early as possible.
Soon after we find statements such as this: "Furthermore, you're pressuring people to lynch someone who you so far have proposed no case against and when many people have not yet posted. To me this hints at you being mafia as you just want to get someone who you know isn't mafia lynched as fast as possible.", "It is, I just wanted to get clarification on the source of Daniel's statement since it could help tell if dr3am is mafia.", "I just meant he might be mafia or he might be a detective or medic or something."(concerning lurkers, something he doesn't consider is on yomis mind), ": I realise I may have phrased that poorly earlier", "Yeah, I realise now that I didn't really think that through."
What was the point of listing my posts if you were'nt going to analyze them.
Actions of mine that you have used to say I am mafia have rightly been interpreted by others as my being an overzealous townie. I would also like to point out that Dracholich did not post any suspicions on me until I mentioned I was slightly suspicious of him and then proceeded to formulate a case against me.
On Zealos' voting for me
He startes by pointlessly discussing policy
Should we lynch lurkers? think we probably should.[/quote]
(Note, he can't even make his mind up 100% about this.
[/quote]
I posted this as I was eager to get started and from looking at other threads it seemed a reasonable way of starting converstion.
Then he stresses the fact he is new:
Though as I haven't played before it may well lead to a poor town atmosphere as you suggested.
[/quote]
This is something mafia do to try to hide their scummy play.
[/quote]
This statement was given in response to you saying that lurker lynches create a bad town atmosphere. I was just showing that I did not want to argue with you as I had no prior experience playing mafia.
Then he makes this attack on yomi that makes very little sense to me
Yomi seems suspicious to me. He says he isn't sure about lynching someone then votes when no one else has. That makes it more likely someone will be lynched. Also, he gave no reasons as to why I should be lynched. This makes me think he's a mafia who just wants to get some townie lynched.
[/quote]
Then, as a responce to an accusation, he attacks the very fact that someone accused him, as opposed to arguing the point [/quote]
I did question the fact that he was accusing me but I also question his reasons as to the vote. This was the only thing I could do to argue the point as yomi had given no reasons.
@oneplus: Yes I suppose I was wrong in accusing people of protecting yomi when we do not know yomi's position yet and since your explanation may well be true. I still suspect imallinson though because of his lurking.
|
Sorry for messing up the quotes, You might have to read Zealos' post to make sense of it now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
