EPTLast Newbie Game!
Newbie Mini Mafia XIII
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
Last Newbie Game! | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
 | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
 | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
You play well 3:1 on TL, I'm only 1:2 | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
On May 06 2012 07:14 Nova_Terra wrote: heh, thanks, my townie play is still awful though Whose isn't? Town play has been suffering for the past months, according to BH. | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
@Gummy Matt would've banned/modkilled them if they were playing badly. Don't need to give them a bad rap. | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
Lynching lurkers in the early game not a good idea. My reasoning is that people need to be able to post before we persecute them. Something to think about lurkers, Mafia will try to lurk, but their posts will have more intent behind each one. Why? Every post they make is going to push its own idea of an agenda, but the more they post the more the idea could be misinterpreted. Before we lynch a lurker let's look at the intent of the post: a Mafia agenda push or a helpful Townie post. | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
On May 10 2012 08:17 BioSC wrote: Sounds like a solid strategy. Basic, but solid. Getting rid of lurkers/low content players seems like a win/win. If they are lurking scum players, town gets a nice snipe. Should they be town, they would be just as bad as scum in that they wouldn't help town anyways. Seems like the first couple of hours will be spent waiting on the rest of the players to get here. Yay for idle chatter. Not true, lynching an inactive is a waste. Scum wants us to not lynch them. We can call lurkers out, and they have to respond. They don't respond, we start looking at them. Lynching, because they are lurkers is stupid. | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
On May 10 2012 08:36 FirmTofu wrote: Hi again dahdum! I hope you aren't mafia again >< I'm all for lynching a lurker, but we should definitely wait a bit for everyone to have a chance to post. What are you implying here? We should wait for everyone to post before coming to conclusions? That seems scummy to me, we should be analyzing peoples posts right now. You just created a reason for you not to post. Convince your not scum. ##Vote: Firm Tofu | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
On May 10 2012 23:41 Anacletus wrote: It was for a misspell. I don't understand what your line about FirmTofu is saying, it makes no sense. I doubt that the mafia would try to be hyper-aggressive day 1. I think that the people who aren't voting are suspicious. I think it makes more sense for the mafia to try and be passive in voting yet vocal in chat to try and rule who otherw vote for and keep their hands clean. No editing period. You can mess up your whole quoting system + Show Spoiler + like this[quote[quote[quote[] ]]] | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
On May 10 2012 16:06 Jailbreaker wrote: No, no, no, no! You misunderstand! I believe that some players have confused being "active" with "aggressive." Give players time to post their defense, the game just started after five days of signups. How would it feel to wake up to some shit storm with your name on it? I'm going to withhold my vote until later when everyone has a chance to post You can withhold your vote but you still need to scum hunt. | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
On May 11 2012 03:56 FirmTofu wrote: What... I said that purely in jest, teasing him about the newbie game that just completed. I didn't think you guys would go batshit insane over it. Crossfire put it best. dahdum was in a game before this and I just commented on how I hope he isn't scum again because he played well last game. I didn't think I was acting suspicious at all, but apparently it was? Regardless, we should switch up our votes onto some more scummy targets. There are certain people that are playing very pro-town right now, but may be doing so just to gain the town's trust. It's extremely hard to tell from just Day 1 behavior, so I think our best for a lynch would be to hunt those people who are genuinely acting scummy or playing poorly. Anacletus seems like the perfect target to start. This quote is suspicious, for reasons mentioned previously my numerous people. However, there is an interesting phrasing of words I find rather intriguing. See bold. What motive would anyone have to say that sentence. Is it not already a statement of fact? Why did he feel the need to reiterate something that is quite obvious to everyone that is playing: If we lynch Tofu and he's town, then we are in trouble. Well, no shit Sherlock. Generally when town people die, the mafia gets farther ahead. Here's my theory. Anacletus knows I am town, because I'm not on his mafia team. Therefore, he knows if and when I get lynched, I will flip town. That statement is guilt insurance and a scum tell because of it. He is trying to insure himself now so that later, he can say "Aw crap, well I was wrong, but look at my previous post where I admitted I might be wrong!" When town members vote people, they don't know whether they are right or wrong. When mafia vote people they know the exact alignment of the person they are voting. I believe this knowledge just leaked from Anacletus the mafia. ##vote:Anacletus This post makes sense, Anacletus' play has been pretty wierd. I need to hear a response from him before I vote though. | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
On May 11 2012 04:46 ShiaoPi wrote: Is that your defense? Seriously? BroodkingEXE if you believe me scum and starting a scumwagon, I would like to know the reasons how you came to that assumption. Your big post brings up a list of null reads. Its misleading due to its size when its content is a bunch of reiteration of events. Scum will make posts like this to make themselves seem useful. If you actually read your reasoning for voting for anacletus it is: he was not eager, a post lacking logic, and a bandwagon. The first two could be townie mistakes and bandwagons aren't very effective when people have strong objections to the canidate. On the other hand, you have voted with the person you first thought was scum and had dropped your suspicions based on...nothing. | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
On May 11 2012 06:32 ShiaoPi wrote: I do get what you mean by "misleading due to size", there are indeed many uncertainties inside, which you could consider as "null reads". Given the fact that we have day 1 and the low amount of posts we have from some people, not being able to give out a 100% read strikes me as being absolutely normal. Reiteration is also featured because I tried to be transparent in my thoughtprocess, you may say that these things devalue the usefullness of the post, but I believe they were needed. Do I have to repeat it again? My suspicions on hyaach are not dropped. Reread it again, I clearly state that he is still on my watchlist and also point out his lack of evidence/reason for the vote. Here it is:+ Show Spoiler + His later posts are better than his first as they are actually related to the current discussion. His vote on Anacletus seems reasonable as well given my argumentation above. Although it seems obvious why he is pressuring Anacletus a little bit of explanation of your reasoning would in my eyes go a long way to gain more credibility as a townie. His posts still lack analysis, length and depth, which makes him still kind of fishy. Now in rereading it myself I probably could have worded it a bit better. -His posts are now related to the discussion, which is sth. beneficial to us. -I did not say I vote with him, as in "he has convinced me", I state that I believe his vote to be understandable, since I am suspecting Anacletus myself for the reasons I posted. The next sentence is poorly phrased, I admit it. I should not have said that he could "gain more credibility as a townie" but instead said that it could move him away from the scumcamp, since he still appears fishy to me due to lacking analysis, length, depth. I did not want to make him into a "townie". My reasons to vote on Anacletus, could be worded in the way you did, but they can also be put as I did: mismatch in behaviour, posting a vote without reasons and contradiction of himself. Anacletus' last post is finally one which makes sense, after the ones before. Finally some explanation going on, I still believe that something is fishy about Anacletus and I am not the only one, you do so as well + Show Spoiler + This post makes sense, Anacletus' play has been pretty wierd. I need to hear a response from him before I vote though. Just needed explanation for your vote/post. This canidate seems really rushed though, people haven't looked at his latest posts for signs of scumminess. I agree that his past posts are suspicious, but we need to look at his current posts. Too much like a wagon for me to vote for him yet. | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
##Vote Anacletus @dahdum I'm not going to post a whole list of people like you, but I'll post my reads tommorow morning. I feel your list is a little skewed though, the people on the bottom have scummy aspects as well (according to you) so it makes it feel like you suspect everyone in town. | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
Jailbreaker. So far he has offered nothing to the conversation at all. He pointed out lurkers, defended himself, and gave a bunch of half-ass responses along with another unsupported scum list. He's trying to point fingers with no real direction, scum behavior to me. BioSC. His posts have for the most part been defensive. Even his big post against Darkfire was like that. He starts off saying that Dark is trying to push attention toward him, but then goes on to try and justify his past actions. The conviction seems more like a diversion to save his own hide than to lynch scum. + Show Spoiler + On May 11 2012 13:19 BioSC wrote: Alright, here goes. First, though, the guy's name is Anacletus. I'm going to assume the misspelling was simply a Freudian slip of the tounge >.< I'm suspicious of Darkfirex5. He seems to be trying to shift focus away from Anacletus, and this is why I think that. + Show Spoiler + On May 11 2012 10:58 Darkfirex5 wrote: Well though i still think Anecletus seems the scummiest, but he does make a... point i guess about BioSC id need more proof though than to change my vote to him, ill keep it in mind when reading his posts. I still find this a weak bandwagon forming as i stated before, does anyone want to respond to my post before? (feeling ignored D: ) He's already done this twice in this day, pointing out small flaws and meaningless details in my posts to try and get an argument started against me. My strategy to deal with it was to stamp it out. Just because I'm putting pressure on someone, though, doesn't mean I'm not looking for more reads. There are at least 4 mafia in this game, and town needs to find them all to win. By me saying I'm watching his posts, I mean exactly that. I'm trying to stay pretty crystal in my intentions in this game. Another I'm iffy about is Mufaa. He hasn't posted much, and has given a reason about jobs and shifts taking up a lot of time. His other posts are a question on when the end time for voting is (useless fluff, a mod post covered that), and a weak pressure on Ana. What I can't tell is if that is just shoddy town play, or mafia bussing. Either way, I need more posts from him to either change or strengthen my read on him. | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
On May 12 2012 01:32 austinmcc wrote: I think that Anacletus has contributed very little. And that's generous. If I were breaking down everything he's posted, a statement that he reads BioSC as mafia is the ONLY remotely pro-town thing he's posted, and he doesn't back that read up or post a case, so it has absolutely no value. His lack of a defense does seem weird to me. Weird, but not entirely scummy, for a few reasons.
So that's my reasoning. He got no help, even though a mafia lynch this early would be crushing to the scumteam. He kept giving poor responses to everything, which makes it seem like he didn't sit down and think. I'm not saying we remove the FOS. I'm just rather see what happens if we let him be for a little bit. Make it known that he has no town cred, and needs to stop, really dig into the thread, and give us some good reads and analysis (Make a real case against BioSC if you think he's scummy), which we might not even care about because he lost his cred. If he doesn't give us anything useful, he's a great candidate for tomorrow. I just want to see what he does, how he plays, when he's not getting voted or questioned every 15 minutes in thread. But in my gut, his play screams "bad" more than it screams "scum." Whereas with Broodking, his posts, his logic, and to the extent that we newbies have meta, his meta, DO scream scum to me. You can't keep a FoS on someone and be on the fence about them being scum. You obviously think he is town, but are setting yourself up so that it looks like you had suspicions on him. Hedging would allow you to say "I didn't think he was scum" if he flipped town. This strikes me as scummy. | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
On May 11 2012 22:38 austinmcc wrote: My thoughts on Anacletus: His play does not feel like good townie play. I brought that up earlier, we've all discussed it by now, and I think we all seem to come to the same conclusion. While I would support a lynch of Anacletus, I think we have better targets. I'll look through his responses more today, but for now I would prefer to look elsewhere, and see how Anacletus continues to play. Right now, "not good townie play" is my read, but I'm not convinced that his play is scummy and not just bad townie play. However, we've got a quarter of D1 left, and I want to throw this case out and push it a little, see what comes of it. My top scum read: BroodKingEXE. BroodKingEXE filter - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=334707&user=233869 Skip 2/3 of the first page. It's pregame. He's active, vocal, chatting a lot with everyone in the pregame. Doesn't really mean anything. First posts: + Show Spoiler + On May 10 2012 12:53 BroodKingEXE wrote: /confirm Lynching lurkers in the early game not a good idea. My reasoning is that people need to be able to post before we persecute them. Something to think about lurkers, Mafia will try to lurk, but their posts will have more intent behind each one. Why? Every post they make is going to push its own idea of an agenda, but the more they post the more the idea could be misinterpreted. Before we lynch a lurker let's look at the intent of the post: a Mafia agenda push or a helpful Townie post. + Show Spoiler + On May 10 2012 13:18 BroodKingEXE wrote: Not true, lynching an inactive is a waste. Scum wants us to not lynch them. We can call lurkers out, and they have to respond. They don't respond, we start looking at them. Lynching, because they are lurkers is stupid. + Show Spoiler + On May 10 2012 13:48 BroodKingEXE wrote: What are you implying here? We should wait for everyone to post before coming to conclusions? That seems scummy to me, we should be analyzing peoples posts right now. You just created a reason for you not to post. Convince your not scum. ##Vote: Firm Tofu These aren't entirely incompatible. Lynching lurkers bad, pressuring them good, let people post before we jump to conclusions. That seems townie, fine and dandy, but then he fires off the very first vote of the game on FirmTofu. Why? Because FirmTofu posted + Show Spoiler + On May 10 2012 08:36 FirmTofu wrote: Hi again dahdum! I hope you aren't mafia again >< I'm all for lynching a lurker, but we should definitely wait a bit for everyone to have a chance to post. Look at the bolded part of Broodking's first post. Now back to me. Now back to the bolded part of FirmTofu's post. Now back to me. Anything? That's the same exact thought process. And yet when FirmTofu vocalizes that, Broodking fires off the first vote of the game. I still don't agree with that vote at all, even if it was just to "pressure" someone, because there's absolutely no grounds for voting someone because they express a thought you just expressed slightly earlier. From then on out, it's a series of one-liner and response posts, but never really DOING anything. Last night (eastern time), BroodKing had one of the longest filters, and yet the only substantive post was him voting FirmTofu off the bat. For example: + Show Spoiler + On May 11 2012 03:30 BroodKingEXE wrote: You can withhold your vote but you still need to scum hunt. + Show Spoiler + On May 11 2012 04:01 BroodKingEXE wrote: This post makes sense, Anacletus' play has been pretty wierd. I need to hear a response from him before I vote though. This line stood out to me. BroodKing threw out of FIRST vote of the game on Tofu, before there was play to analyze and before Tofu responded to anything. Why does he need a response now to vote? After that, he starts giving responses to other people, specifically ShiaoPi's reads, but doesn't really add anything of substance. scummy + Show Spoiler + On May 11 2012 04:05 BroodKingEXE wrote: @Hyaach Why did you put your vote on Ancletus? You had just as much reasoning as him. That is none. On May 11 2012 04:33 BroodKingEXE wrote: WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH!!!! ShiaoPi are you defending Hyaach? A null read? He has provided zero evidence for his vote. Your whole list is terrible, it provides nothing more than a bunch "I'm leaning town, but you can never be sure reads". I smell a scumwagon. On May 11 2012 05:38 BroodKingEXE wrote: Your big post brings up a list of null reads. Its misleading due to its size when its content is a bunch of reiteration of events. Scum will make posts like this to make themselves seem useful. If you actually read your reasoning for voting for anacletus it is: he was not eager, a post lacking logic, and a bandwagon. The first two could be townie mistakes and bandwagons aren't very effective when people have strong objections to the canidate. On the other hand, you have voted with the person you first thought was scum and had dropped your suspicions based on...nothing. On May 11 2012 09:09 BroodKingEXE wrote: Just needed explanation for your vote/post. This canidate seems really rushed though, people haven't looked at his latest posts for signs of scumminess. I agree that his past posts are suspicious, but we need to look at his current posts. Too much like a wagon for me to vote for him yet. Note that at this point, ShiaoPi has just thrown out the first real list of reads we had from anyone. BroodKing posts a couple times concerning the list, but doesn't really add anything. While he gets information out of ShiaoPi, he doesn't really provide any himself. At no point in those posts does he agree with a read or disagree with a read, rather, he simply acknowledges that reads were made and ShiaoPi voted. This is also the first point we begin to move AWAY from the Anacletus discussion (which has run its course at this point), and BroodKing continues to ask for information based on ShiaoPi's vote for Anacletus. Finally, compare his filter from this game with his filter from Newbie VIII, where he was town. + Show Spoiler + There are some posts in a similar style to his posts here, but a LOT of @x and @y, what do you guys think about z. Lots of longer discussions, paragraphs, lists. SOME of that is because he was the lynch target D1 and so had to be active and defend himself. But his townie posts from VIII feel more robust and they contribute, whereas his posts so far in XIII do not. ------------------------------- + Show Spoiler [analectus] + Anacletus's play still feels more bad than scummy. I would like to let him live for now, and see if he starts to really contribute. Right now he has 0 town cred, so if he's mafia he can't actively muck up town discussion. If we back off the pressure, MAYBE he mounts a decent defense and provides some good reads, because...he's got to do that to get any cred back. If not? We lynch him later, or we see if we can get any information N1 from blue roles that push us forward. Compared to Anacletus though, BroodKingEXE looks actively scummy. So far he hasn't contributed anything of note except the first vote of the game, which made little sense. He's supports getting responses before voting, but then votes without a response from FirmTofu. He wants scumhunting and reasoning, but has provided none. Again, I'm not opposed to an Anacletus lynch, but I would prefer to lynch the player that seems scummiest, which is BroodKing. ##Vote BroodKingEXE ##FOS: Anacletus Dahdum, I'm especially interested in hearing your thoughts on this, as you read BroodKing to be scummy as well. I didn't really notice him until I looked through all the filters last night and realized he was my best scumread. Do you agree with my reasoning? Did you have different reasoning? The reason I have not addressed it is because it doesn't make me look scummy. I voted for Firm Tofu, because he implied that we should wait for everyone to get a post up before discussing. At least this is how I read into it. By lynching lurkers early, I mean we shouldn't lynch for being lurkers early. I'm not for lynching lurkers early because at least one person is going to point out a scum, and that scum will have to defend himself or other Mafia. If we can find that guy we can draw out the rest of the scum. Also, lynching scum lurkers don't provide any information as to the other scum members. Too many times I have seen lurker bandwagons based only on their lurker. I have been drawing information according to you, and that is my plan to call out others and form opinions on them so we can lynch scum. | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
On May 12 2012 05:26 austinmcc wrote: In the first bolded passage, you say it doesn't make you look scummy. Yet
That's 5 people. Not quite half of the players in the game. Most of the players who have been active today. And your response to all those people questioning you is to say the case "doesn't make you look scummy"? Clearly there's something there. If you really think that the case doesn't make you look scummy, then why does everyone else seem to think otherwise? As to the second post, you're going to "call out others." Great. When are you going to do that? I see that you tried, you posted two weak reads in hopes of shifting the discussion. What was the response to those reads? + Show Spoiler + On May 12 2012 04:42 ShiaoPi wrote: BroodkingExe on the other hand just disappeared, ignoring the case completely and if you examine the last two posts of his you will see the recurring things austinmcc mentioned in his case. He again shifts a bit of focus on other people who have not really been called out until now, but does not start his own case (see this:+ Show Spoiler + Okay I've looked at the filters and have come up with two other people I view as posting scummy. Jailbreaker. So far he has offered nothing to the conversation at all. He pointed out lurkers, defended himself, and gave a bunch of half-ass responses along with another unsupported scum list. He's trying to point fingers with no real direction, scum behavior to me. BioSC. His posts have for the most part been defensive. Even his big post against Darkfire was like that. He starts off saying that Dark is trying to push attention toward him, but then goes on to try and justify his past actions. The conviction seems more like a diversion to save his own hide than to lynch scum. You throw out a few names. Write a sentence or two. Really calling them out there. It didn't convince ShiaoPi; it doesn't convince me. You claim my case doesn't make you look scummy, but we all seem to disagree. You claim your plan is to call out others, but you never really do so. And most damning? You wait 5 or 6 hours to post that defense. Moreover, you posted during that time, so it's not like you were entirely away from the thread. You came back to post those comments about Jailbreaker and Bio, to respond to my FoS of all things, but you didn't take a moment to write out your defense? Why not? Waiting to form a decent response in scum QT? Am I not entitled to my own opinion? The things you have posted in your original case don't make me look that scummy. The thing that Tofu said and I said are different. He wants to lynch lurkers and I don't (at least not till a couple more days). I have called out others, do you see all those "useless one-liners"? They are calling out things I saw as potentially scummy. Do I have to wait and post a culmination of these posts all at once? For the most part you haven't actually looked at the majority of my posts for their content. Your final sentence doesn't make sense in terms of scum. Why would I not defend myself (as scum), when the town was obviously against me? Look at where waiting has got me, second-highest lynch canidate for day 1. It could just be I didn't see your post like I didn't see this response. | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
On May 12 2012 05:57 BroodKingEXE wrote: @Anac. The first one does make sense. I could be town and the Mafia could be letting you push me, because they know I am town. They don't even need to take ownership for their vote and could keep their vote on Analect. People who vote for me can be on either side. Bussing or wagoning are options for mafia. What about my response doesn't convince you? I meant austin. | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
On May 12 2012 06:43 Anacletus wrote: I'll be real with you man, I don't actually have *that* much of an inclination to believing that you are mafia. It's just that it feels like it's either you or me, so I'm trying to save my own neck. I am not without doubt of you - I just don't think that there's enough information for me to think it's worthy to hang you, but again, if it comes down to me or you, it's you... :/ I do think that others feel like you're mafia though, so that's why my vote is where it is. So you would push me even if you believe I am not mafia? Look at others if you dont think I am scum. The town can benefit you pushing a strong case, that would prove or disprove your innocence. | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
Mufaa, Anacletus, and dahdum Let's see. It looks like Mufaa is wagoning. He votes for me to get on the wagon, and be on the right side of things. He voted for Jail to keep suspicion off himself when the vote was close. I'm sure of it. Same thing with dahdum read his filter. At one point he supported me, then he turned away. I dug myself into a bad hole I think Shiao and austin are townies for sure they are making good amount of sense in their posts. Listen to them,but post your own info as to why you vote. Advice: keep your eyes open, don't tunnel like you did with me. If you do really suspect them look at what they are saying. Posting style is only an add-on to being scum, what they say is more important. | ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
BroodKingEXE
United States829 Posts
GG | ||
| ||
