|
I'm going to say right off the bat that I disagree with the VE case. He's one of my town-reads. I don't see why him opposing Toad being elected into office makes him scum. As well, I don't really see why what he's posting makes him scum.
Instead, I think we should go with lynching Gambit today. The case on him has already been made, and it's pretty solid based on the information we have. As well, calling him scum actually looked pretty polarizing at first, and there were a couple people who soft-defended him:
+ Show Spoiler +On May 30 2012 09:53 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 09:48 wherebugsgo wrote: Shut up Toad you're not worth a mafia bullet. You cause so much disruption regardless of alignment it's no wonder everyone calls you hypnotoad.
We kill gambit man today. He ninja voted ET yesterday and he's said nothing. Eat shit and die, scum.
##vote Gambitx32 Whoa there buddy, we don't lynch lurkers here...we shoot scummy lurkers with holy bullets of townie fury....not hang them. How about we lynch someone who's posting so we can get information with our lynch? Ya? No? I like your target other than the fact that his lynch will net us no new information. On May 30 2012 10:02 strongandbig wrote: Gambit's two posts sound a lot like newer mafia posting noncommital lists of reads and then not following them up.
However, I'd rather wait to vote until we've got a bit more information rather than during the first hour or two after the night post.
I'm also still waiting to hear an answer to my questions for stofu, his posts look similar to me. On May 30 2012 10:07 austinmcc wrote: I'd prefer targets other than Gambit. When you called him out yesterday, you said he hadn't voted and had posted two unhelpful walls of text. The walls weren't helpful at all, but he DID vote.
That plus a claimed hit is the extent of the case on Gambit.
If we're lynching players for lurking and looking scummy when they don't, everyone seems pretty set that Zealos looks actively scummy. Why should we lynch Gambit based off your claimed hit and poor posting, when Zealos has had poor posting and seems less likely to modkill himself out of the game?
Which could give us some decent information and leads if/when he flips scum. They all look odd to me, since none of them actively address whether they think gambit is scum or not. Instead, they're "We don't lynch lurkers", "I'd rather wait" (Why?), "You made a mistake about the voting. Lynch this other lurker instead!". Notice that none of them actually defend Gambit as town, they just try to find excuses not to lynch him. I find this interesting, since I could particularly see strongandbig or austinmc making a mistake like that as scum as they seem more inexperienced.
|
And so it's in here too: ##Vote: GambitX32
|
On May 31 2012 03:05 Toadesstern wrote: I'm not going to vote gambit unless he refuses to give me the name of his char and I'd say a lynch on that guy is like flipping a coin. Why? Just saying that you don't like the lynch doesn't help us determine if the lynch is actually bad. If you don't want to see him lynched, you'll have to explain why.
|
On May 31 2012 12:29 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2012 18:22 Mr. Wiggles wrote: If you want to lynch someone, I expect you to actually come up with reasons why it's best to do so, and not just blatant sheeping. Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 03:01 Mr. Wiggles wrote: Instead, I think we should go with lynching Gambit today. The case on him has already been made, and it's pretty solid based on the information we have. In your own words Wiggles, could you explain to me why Gambit is a better lynch than the alternatives? Also, why the drop-off in activity since your election? I've been more busy in the last couple days than I was when I ran. I only had an hour and a bit of free time today so far after the morning and ended up playing Dota, haha. :p
I guess I'll answer your other post at the same time, since they're pretty much asking the same thing. + Show Spoiler +On May 31 2012 03:18 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 14:31 Mr. Wiggles wrote: Right now I'm trying to determine who I think is scummiest/want to lynch from kitaman/supersoft/zealos/gambit. How did you come to decide it should be gambit from that list? I decided to go for Gambit, since the soft-defenses of him made me pretty suspicious, and the original analysis was good as well. His name as scum came pretty suddenly, because it's not like people were pressuring him too hard before-hand. Instead, it was more of a surprise and the case on him appeared very quickly. The case on him made sense. After it popped up, several people entered the thread and all defended against his lynch. However, they didn't do it in such a way that they called him town, or not scum, they did it in such a way that it looked a lot more like they were making excuses as to why we shouldn't lynch him. That's not the proper way to defend someone from a lynch, from a town perspective. So, I already agreed with what WBG had said about Gambit, and then a bunch of people soft-defended him scummily. Therefore, I decided he would be a good lynch, since he seemed likely to flip scum from the analysis made, and then he could provide us with further leads on three separate players. Especially strongandbig and austinmc seemed like they'd be healthy leads if gambit flips scum, since I could definitely see them reacting like that if they saw a scum-buddy suddenly accused with no warning. Their posts and VE's looked like knee-jerk reactions to WBG.
On May 31 2012 07:29 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 07:18 VisceraEyes wrote:On May 28 2012 18:34 Zealos wrote: Right so, here are my thoughts: SnB - He's seemed "Fishy" this game so far, and I would be happy to FoS him, however, I don't think there is enough there to say it is a good lynch. I'd like to see him post more thoughts though.
Thoughts on Mayor: If possible, would the best mayor be the one that chooses the day1 lynch based off of a vote from town? Seems like this would be the most pro-town play?
Pardoner: Whoever agree's not to use the power ever seems to be the best bet. Yes, in some select scenario's it might be good to use it, but that seems to just be giving an excuse to any mafia player that could convince people that make him pardoner to use the power.
Now some of my reads: Toad - Seems to be very town provided he can prove it using his "mason" powers. If not, we can lynch him tomorrow. BE - Leaning on town. His arguments earlier were annoying, but nothing that led me to think he's scum. Hyaah - ???? Lurker, could well be scum, want to hear what he has to say about the game so far.
If I were to kill someone now: Sinesis - Been said before, but he's tunnelling very hard and doesn't seem willing to add anything to conversation except kill Grush. Who are your other scumreads? Who are you voting for as mayor and why?
I'd also like to note - I'm pretty lurky Day1 atm, I'm pretty busy, however, I'll have finished my last exam come midway through day2, and will become a lot more active then. Bugs I want your thoughts on this post, the bolded in particular. Here are mine. There's a cognitive disconnect between the "Toad seems to be very town" and "provided he can prove it using his 'mason' powers." The first part seems to indicate that he thinks Toad is town based on how he's posting (" looks very town"), while the second part seems to indicate that he does NOT think that Toad looks town and requires the proof of Toad's mason-target claim would provide (" provided he can prove it using his mason powers"). What do you think? Actually, Wiggles I'd REALLY like your opinion...you're firmly in the Gambit-For-Lynch camp, yeah? What do you think about this post by Zealos? While I think Zealos looks pretty bad, I don't think the bolded plays into it at all. I think he's just saying that he thinks Toad will look town if he proves that he's a mason, if not, he's scum of some kind. That was the general opinion in the thread then too, so it looks like he's just echoing that.
|
On May 31 2012 14:44 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 14:41 VisceraEyes wrote: I don't care if you're angry. I post a lot. Sue me.
I'm town, I'm a vig and you're all trying to kill me.
What now guys? What now? Where do we go from here? I'm sorry you disagree with my playstyle. I am. But this is how I play.
It appears Palmar was right after all. I really am just a displeasure to play with. *sigh* You're always a pleasure to play with VE <3 So you're a vig who shot night one, but didn't call your shot? That's actually a good point. Why didn't you claim your shot before the day post, VE?
Also why have you been flip-flopping on your read on Kita so much? I'd read you as town before, but I've taken pause after the weird switches on who you want to lynch, and who you think is town or scum.
|
Ninja'ed! Can you quote it?
|
Hey, I'm going to be out of town today, so I'm giving a heads up that I might not be back before the lynch.
I'm going to be switching my vote to VE. I thought he was town after his day 1 play, but the constant flip-flopping to try to look good and the nonsensical role-claim and breadcrumb have changed my mind. Basically, it looked like he kept changing his read due to pressure in the thread, and it ended up with him contradicting himself multiple times as he tried to wiggle out of the pressure. Then add on the claim that's very convenient and easy to fake as scum (along with a "breadcrumb" that shows nothing), and you have the reasons for my switch of opinion. I guess I was wrong about VE being town, as his play today has shown. =/
##Unvote: Gambit ##Vote: VisceraEyes
|
On June 01 2012 11:50 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 11:40 MajuGarzett wrote:What scum did you personally find? Everyone suspected Zealos. He was actually one of the first. Between super and Forumite, the day 1 Zealos wagon started. I don't like his play since then but I have to give him credit for that. Ok having had a stroll through the voting list against VE here are the lurkers who had really bad reasoning for voting for VE. The others look relatively townie to me so I won't include them in my list. Ange777His reason was seriously non-commital ( Klicky) but it is other posting that makes me suspicious. Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 05:08 Ange777 wrote: I would prefer voting Gambit over Zealos. A Zealos lynch won't give us much info. If the possibility of him being mason is the only reason against it, I'd still vote for Gambit. Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 05:31 Ange777 wrote:On May 31 2012 05:09 marvellosity wrote:On May 31 2012 05:08 Ange777 wrote: I would prefer voting Gambit over Zealos. A Zealos lynch won't give us much info. If the possibility of him being mason is the only reason against it, I'd still vote for Gambit. Do you think Gambit's posts have been scummier? What information do you expect to glean from a Gambit lynch? To be honest, I think both are at a same scummy level. Posting a big list with names and commenting on them seems like a nice way to fake a townvibe. They don't really address any follow up questions (especially Gambit with his two posts only). Wiggles quoted some people soft defending Gambit which could give us some information if we lynch Gambit. For a lack of a better lynch target I am willing to give a Gambit lynch a try. Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 05:35 Ange777 wrote:On May 31 2012 05:21 marvellosity wrote: P.S. - I want a good reason why people aren't voting Zealos. Why is Gambit a stronger lynch? Why is Zealos a stronger lynch in your opinion? All soft-defending Zealos. Next up ManasonHe is the opposite in that his filter looks OK (weird stuff about Kita) but then BOOM random vote for VE Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 15:43 Manason wrote: Sorry VE, but theres a lot of evidence making you look bad. ##Unvote: Kitaman ##Vote: VisceraEyes
However I still do look forward to what you have on Kita, If it's good enough you might have a chance to not get lynched. He also never reappears to evaluate the VE case on Kita. If people want to know why I have left someone specific off, just ask. I agree that Ange looks like he's soft-defending zealos there.
I disagree somewhat with what you say about manason there though. He just says that he's looking forward to seeing what VE writes about Kita, he doesn't promise to comment on it later, so that's not something he can really be held to. I say somewhat though, because I find his choice of wording odd, as well as the decision to not include anything he could be held to. Why say "If it's good enough you might have a chance to not get lynched."? I would think he would say something more along the lines of "If it's good enough I'll take my vote off you", or "If it's good enough I'll reconsider my read". Instead, he says he's looking forward to what he writes, and then doesn't say anything he can be held to after it. What he says implies that he'll share no personal opinion on it or take personal action over it, but instead just follow along with what the majority think. Basically, blatant sheeping and shirking having to actually do anything in response. What do you think?
Also, in case it isn't clear, if there's another vigi out there, you should be shooting Gambit. If we have to lynch him tomorrow, we'll end up with a day of minimal discussion and everyone just piling votes on him as he's very likely to be scum.
|
BH, did you really believe you could get 14 other people to vote-switch with you within 5 minutes?
|
On June 02 2012 04:02 Blazinghand wrote: Yeah wiggle-dawg has been kinda lurking since his D1 helpfulness. I haven't been lurking, I just haven't been around and have been busy the last couple days. I can't post when I'm not home, or doing something else.
On June 02 2012 02:57 Mr. Wiggles wrote: BH, did you really believe you could get 14 other people to vote-switch with you within 5 minutes? On June 02 2012 03:01 Blazinghand wrote: I voted for scum. Somehow, during D2 I got distracted from my tried-and-true tactic of tunnelling scum and thought "oh these people have legitimate arguments" but I will not listen to dumb ideas any more. Nothing will stop me from lynching G32 tomorrow. I have nothing more to say on the topic of the VE mislynch. You didn't answer my question. You nearly ended up causing a no-lynch, so I'm wondering what was going through your head at the time. There's no way you'd actually get enough people to switch within 5 minutes to be able to kill Gambit, but you still posted this, egging people on to switch with you:
On June 01 2012 07:55 Blazinghand wrote: ##UNVOTE ##VOTE GAMBITX32
LYNCH HIM
LYNCH HIM NOW BEFORE HE GETS AWAY
HURRY So I'm wondering what exactly were you trying to do? Just make a statement? What? Obviously he wasn't going to die, so what else were you trying to accomplish? The only thing it could have ended with is a no-lynch, was that what you were shooting for?
|
On June 02 2012 04:38 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2012 04:23 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On June 02 2012 04:02 Blazinghand wrote: Yeah wiggle-dawg has been kinda lurking since his D1 helpfulness. I haven't been lurking, I just haven't been around and have been busy the last couple days. I can't post when I'm not home, or doing something else. You know as well as I do the problem with this kind of explanation. Obviously, it's possible you have been busy. Maybe you were. But if you are a lurking scum there's nothing preventing you from making the explanation, right? And wasn't a plank of your candidacy for mayor the fact that you'd be active? I think it's a fair statement that you're lurking more than would be expected. Show nested quote +On June 02 2012 04:23 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On June 02 2012 02:57 Mr. Wiggles wrote: BH, did you really believe you could get 14 other people to vote-switch with you within 5 minutes? On June 02 2012 03:01 Blazinghand wrote: I voted for scum. Somehow, during D2 I got distracted from my tried-and-true tactic of tunnelling scum and thought "oh these people have legitimate arguments" but I will not listen to dumb ideas any more. Nothing will stop me from lynching G32 tomorrow. I have nothing more to say on the topic of the VE mislynch. You didn't answer my question. You nearly ended up causing a no-lynch, so I'm wondering what was going through your head at the time. There's no way you'd actually get enough people to switch within 5 minutes to be able to kill Gambit, but you still posted this, egging people on to switch with you: On June 01 2012 07:55 Blazinghand wrote: ##UNVOTE ##VOTE GAMBITX32
LYNCH HIM
LYNCH HIM NOW BEFORE HE GETS AWAY
HURRY So I'm wondering what exactly were you trying to do? Just make a statement? What? Obviously he wasn't going to die, so what else were you trying to accomplish? The only thing it could have ended with is a no-lynch, was that what you were shooting for? On principle I will not stand for G32's kind of play. He is scum and he will die like scum. And honestly, if I ended up causing a no-lynch, then we'd still have our vigilante who handn't shot his gun yet. Yeah ok maybe it wasn't optimal play given what I knew at the time, but I did the right thing. I should have never unvoted G32, and I never will again so long as he's alive. No, I don't think I said anything about activity in my mayoral campaign. I can't help if I'm not here, and I'm not going to hedge or sacrifice things I need to do outside of the game to appease how much people want me to post. That's all I'm going to say about that, since it's unconfirmable and doesn't have much bearing on the game. I can say I'm not lurking though, since I'm not just sitting around posting whenever my name comes up or it suits my goals to post, and that's verifiable from the thread. That's the difference between inactivity and lurking.
Also, thanks for the answer. And, to answer Hyaach, I wanted to see if Blazinghand made up some excuse about how VE flipped town so it would have been good if we no-lynched, or that no-lynching would have saved VE, or something along those lines. Yes, it's true, but that explanation would be pandering to us based on the result of the flip. At the time, it wasn't clear that VE was town, so appealing to our guilt that VE flipped town as a way to exonerate himself for his actions means that he's probably scum. He did that somewhat, but he added that "maybe it wasn't optimal play given what I knew at the time", meaning he agrees that it was probably a bad move at the time, so he passed the test.
|
On June 02 2012 11:23 Hyaach wrote: Toad whose your new mason? Why did you ask that? It's a good thing Toad didn't answer yet, because he probably shouldn't, not unless there's an actual need to.
Also, as much as I would like to potentially flip Kita today, I am more sure of Gambit being scum at the moment. So, I would rather take the opportunity to lower mafia KP, than lynch someone who I see as having less surety of flipping scum. For the people voting for kitaman right now, why are you voting for him as compared to Gambit? What makes you think kita's surer to flip red than him? I'm actually surprised that a lot of people have piled votes on kita, while Gambit has been generally ignored. I'll only consider changing my vote to Kita if there's no support for a Gambit lynch and that's the alternative, but there should be support, because Gambit's scum.
##Vote: Gambit
I'm going to spoiler my response to Kitaman for length. + Show Spoiler [My response to Kitaman's case] +I don't think Kitaman's case is very well thought out. Besides the fact that it's wrong, because I'm town, it also does a good job of misrepresenting events as they happened. On June 02 2012 11:52 kitaman27 wrote:It's time we take a look at our mayor Mr. Wiggles. While Wiggles was voted into the leader position, he has displayed little interest in leading the town the first two cycles. While individuals such as myself and Meapak have put in effort to push our prefered lynch candidates, Wiggles has sat in the background jumping on others cases. His posts have been lengthy and well-written, but they are also incredibly safe. In his initial campaign post, Wiggles announces that he is running for office, but prefers to be elected vice-leader. He explains how the pardoner is the more important of the two roles and that he wants it for himself because he knows his own alignment. With the voting seperated by only a couple of individuals, he easily could have ensured that he obtained the pardoner role with a simple request in the thread to rearrange a few votes. However, his only legitimate opponent, EchelonTee, has expressed suspicion of Zealos and a strong anti-Zealos movement has started to gain strength hours before the deadline. Rather than trusting the lynch in EchelonTee's hands and securing the pardoner position, which his campaign was based upon, he drops his initial plan and ensures himself that he is elected mayor. While he does vote for EchelonTee himself, he only does so with less than an hour remaining into the day, where his victory is nearly certain. Kitaman tries to create a narrative here where seeing that a zealos lynch is gaining huge support and that ET is one of those supporters, I ensured that I became mayor by not posturing for the role of pardoner. As well, he paints me as having my campaign simply based upon obtaining the role of pardoner, thus making me becoming mayor seem even worse. However, in reality, this is not the case. Firstly, my campaign was never based solely upon becoming the pardoner. + Show Spoiler [My initial campaign post] +On May 27 2012 18:22 Mr. Wiggles wrote:So, I'm going to start off by saying that I'm running for Leader/Vice-Leader. I'd prefer if I can hit the vice-leader spot out of the two, and I'll explain why further on. I'm not going to go too deep into my past performance since I've always felt it's a waste of time and doesn't really say anything. It doesn't matter what you've done in past games, it matters what you're doing in this game. But, for those who really want it, I'm a decent enough scum-hunter, I'm town, and I hope I'll be able to demonstrate those to you and get elected. I don't have a kill target right now, but if I'm in line to be elected leader, I will let the town know what I'm thinking with some advance notice, so as not to surprise anyone with my choice for the lynch. I'm going to play out Day 1 as normal, and as soon as I develop a decent scum read, I'll let the town know, and we can discuss it. In the end, I'm hoping we can base the game around actual discussion of scum targets instead of the trend I've seen lately of someone making a case, no one commenting on it, and then people just calling others scum with no reasoning to back it up. If you want to lynch someone, I expect you to actually come up with reasons why it's best to do so, and not just blatant sheeping. As well, if you disagree with a lynch, actually speak up. I don't even care if you're wrong, because the point of discussion is to discard the bad or wrong ideas and move forward with the good ones. If I get elected as Leader and so obtain extra votes, on further days I'll just use them to apply additional pressure to who I want to lynch. I don't want you to sheep me just because I got elected to leader. If you agree with my ideas, great, if you don't then that's good for you, but hopefully you actually discuss why you don't, than turn into a brick wall. However, like I said at the beginning of my post, I'd prefer to actually be elected to the position of vice-leader, since I believe that position can be abused much more by scum being elected to it, and has the potential to generate a ton of confusion. I also don't even trust most townies to it, since lots of people will misuse the role and cause as much confusion as if scum had it. The role of vice-leader is much more powerful than leader, and I believe it's the position we should actually be focusing on today. The leader picks the day 1 lynch, which will hopefully be influenced by town, and after that they only have 1 extra vote. The vice-leader on the other hand, has the ability to waste an entire day, cause an extra round of night actions to go through (which is bad for us in most cases), and also generates lots of confusion. If they use their power in an anti-town way, it means we potentially have to spend two extra days just to lynch the vice-leader and the person we were trying to lynch in the first place. This ties up our primary KP for a long time, and we get the additional WIFOM of if the pardoner pardoned his scum buddy or not, and whether the pardoner is actually scum or just a stupid townie. Basically, the pardon ability causes a ton of trouble that we won't want most of the time. As vice-leader, I promise not to use my power in 99% of cases. Basically, the only exception I can come up with off the top of my head would be a MYLO situation where I was going to be lynched as town, and pardoning myself means we don't auto-lose. Outside of a situation like that though, I really don't see a reason where I would ever want, or need, to use the pardon. So, I want to be elected, because I know my own alignment, and can trust myself not to frivolously use the pardon, or use it against the good of the town. I can't trust others to do that, since I can't know you're not scum, and beyond that, even with a town read, lots of people have the capacity to do something silly because they're convinced that it's a good play. However, this normally results in more bad than good, and in the mislynch of the player who did it, which isn't a desirable outcome. I'm planning to play the same regardless of which position you put me in, or if you elect me at all. However, I believe I can use the Leader position effectively, but would prefer to be able to safekeep the position of Vice-leader, to keep it away from not only scum, but also compulsive townies. I'd like it if you vote for me, but you should also consider a second person you would like to be elected along with me, since for whichever role, we still need to have either a vice-leader or leader to go along with it. Now, as for myself, I'm going to vote in a candidate based on who I think is most likely to be town, who I can trust to be the most transparent with what they're thinking, who has the best reads, and who won't go Rambo at the end of Day 1 and cause a huge mess for Day 2. Those four things are the criteria by which I will determine who I support as the other candidate for office. I'll keep you updated with what I think once most of the candidates come out and make their posts and we get past super early game posting. The pardon question has already been asked and answered: Show nested quote +On May 27 2012 11:34 GreYMisT wrote:On May 27 2012 10:47 GambitX32 wrote: Can the Vice-Leader pardon the Mayor's Day 1 lynch? If the Vice-Leader is killed before using his/her pardon, is said power just lost? Since the Mafia/Irken's KP is based on their faction size, does that mean any surviving Irken has the power to designate the use of the KP, or can only Goons use the KP; can the KP be roleblocked? Will both role, character name, and alignment be revealed on death? Will it be revealed immediately following death or at the start of the next day/night? Who is Ben; I don't recall him in the show?
Before it starts: gl hf 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Not telling you who can fire, But the KP can be roleblocked 4. there is full imidiate alignment reveal 5. Ben is a minor character in an episode Also, it's 3 a.m. here, so I'm going to bed now. However, Blazinghand, do you actually think it's the best day 1 play to just lynch someone you think is bad rather than someone you think is scum? Maybe if you had no scum reads by the end of Day 1, but you make it sound like you'll go through with it regardless... My campaign was based upon running for both positions, but with a preference to pardoner. As I said in the thread, by the end of Day 1, I had a good enough town-read on ET that I was fine with him obtaining the role of pardoner instead of myself, and decided to let the votes fall as people actually wanted, instead of trying to manipulate them near the dead-line to become pardoner. As well, myself and ET had different lynch targets in mind, so it would be disingenuous to ask my voters to switch onto ET when they were voting me in part for who I was going to lynch. Now, what "strong anti-zealos movement" are you talking about? There wasn't a strong movement against him, so much as 3 or 4 people commenting on him near the deadline. Additionally, the actual case on zealos by forumite didn't even come until 30 minutes after the deadline, whereas I had sent in my choice for lynch 5 or so minutes before the deadline. Additionally, it wasn't clear at all that ET would be lynching zealos. These are the posts made by ET before the deadline about who he'd like to lynch. In both of them, he makes it clear that strongandbig would be his target, and he doesn't take too hard of a stance on wanting to lynch zealos: + Show Spoiler +On May 29 2012 06:00 EchelonTee wrote:While I think Zealos/Mattchew are scummy for a few reasons, I'd rather hold off on them for a few reasons. You guys better step up your play if you're town. RE: StrongandbigThis case is late (which will be sure to set of Wiggles' alarm bells :p) and ninja'd for the most part, but here are my reasons for wanting to lynch SnB. His campaign post has been already pointed out as strange. Why state "I am running for mayor b/c blue role is fun"? It appears that he doesn't care to run for mayor to help town; even when townies run for mayor off of bad reasoning, they at least appear focused in some aspect. SnB's campaign feels like a small conglomarate of generic reasons ("I will make cases. I will use pardoner role if I think it's ok but I will discuss it") that could easily be faked by a newbie scum. While generally I would think newbie scum (he has had around 4 games now though? he's breaking out) would be reluctant to go for a role, note that his original election campaign was only for the pardoner. The pardoner role has much less accountability (no lynch, no extra vote), while still having some sway. I could see his vet scum buddies not wanting to go for election b/c no bodyguards, and instead let SnB go for it.
The majority of his filter is filled with posts like this, posts that don't really talk about much. While it is true that I have a long filter chock full of setup speculation, talking about general shit, etc., since I have a higher post count, I have the time to both post about that stuff, and post reads/opinions. In SnB's case, with his limited posting he has only posted one case, but worse so, he has posted very little opinions about anybody. He states that he thinks me and Wiggles look townie. Thanks bro, but that's about it. He states that he thinks supersoft is scummy, builds case. While his case isn't bad, it consists of "this turn by supersoft is not logical, therefore he is scum". Read this last paragraph from his case. + Show Spoiler +This reads to me either like SS and Toad are scum buddies trying to distance themselves and got too far, or (more likely) like a scum SS saw an opportunity to gain town cred by making an actual good case on a player who was not being towny but wasn't on his scum team, then backing off when he realized that the presence of third parties like a lyncher hurts town and probably helps scum. It doesn't take much to see that the logic there is pretty convoluted. "looks like a scum SS saw he could make town cred, but backed off when he realized toad could be lyncher"? ... And even now, when given an opportunity to take a stance on someone (Sinensis), he is still waffly. No me gusta.
Filter analysis seems to corroborate his scumminess. His filter from Wheel of Fortune. He talks about setup speculation in an extensive manner along with a plan (that code thing). Has opinions on several people D1. His filter from Space Station. Doesn't take stances on almost anyone, doesn't build much cases. Disclaimer: one of his first games.
Lastly, the case doesn't feel too "easy". This is more of an abstract thing, but when a lynch seems to be proceeding too easily (tons of people agreeing easily except for one or more so mavericks), then it feels like a mislynch. Think Janaan from TL Mafia LI; who actually opposed that lynch? SnB has had some people indicate that they see SnB as "null" or "not scummy enough" to lynch atm. However, since the progenitors of the case are people that I currently trust, I have reason to believe that the resistance is healthy, and the case is strong. I will kill SnB if elected. Alternatively, if Wiggles is elected I hope he will pick SnB over Sinensis. On May 29 2012 07:30 EchelonTee wrote: I posted a case, Forumite. Tell me what you think of it.
The reason why I don't particularly want to lynch Mattchew atm is because he is probably just busy. He has played active scum games before, so him just lurking =/= scum. Uncharacteristic though, for sure.
I would be ok with a Zealos lynch, but it doesn't have much grounding atm. If I was elected, Zealos would probably be my 2nd choice.
I don't agree with a Sinensis lynch because I don't think he is scum, but it stands that he is not very contributive and his death wouldn't be as bad as whiffing a lynch on say, Toad, but I don't agree with the lynch.
So, how could I have made a decision to not try to obtain the pardoner role in response to ET possibly lynching zealos, when ET had never took a hard stance of wanting to lynch zealos Day 1? In fact, the first time ET mentions that he would be lynching zealos if elected is 3 minutes after voting had ended. On May 29 2012 08:03 EchelonTee wrote: I agree with you supersoft, I made a post on the same points you said before I read yours.I hear corroboration without prior knowledge is a good sign or something.
I think I'll lynch Zealos over SnB, if elected, since SnB's response was not too bad.
During the entire day one cycle, Zealos never considers or even references Wiggles as mayor. As one of the two main candidates, why wouldn't he take a moment to comment on his candidacy? Between Wiggles two day one lynch candidates, we have two townies. While being wrong isn't necessarily scummy, his case against Sinensis took advantage of a poor day one plan, and made it appear as if he was pushing a scummy agenda. Furthermore, he fails to address any of the concerns against his case for why Sinensis would be a poor day one lynch. I didn't make sinensis appear as though he was pushing a scummy agenda, he was pushing a scummy agenda. I lynched him for it, and I'm not going to apologize for it. As well, a lot of the weak opposition to the sinensis lynch was just people saying they were null on him, or thought strongandbig was the better lynch, with little or no reasoning, so there wasn't anything to address. Going back and re-reading, I might not have addressed concerns about why sinensis would run for mayor himself instead of just supporting BH, but at the time, I thought that would just open up a can of WIFOM and conjecture that would be impossible to prove one way or the other. As for zealos' behaviour, I can't explain the posting of a dead scum player, so I'm not going to waste time trying. Day two is where Wiggle's play really starts to drop off. Rather than actively perticipating in discussion, he jumps on 2-post Gambit, without providing any reasoning, except there was a solid case. Only after questioned, does he actually provide a case for his vote. In addition, he makes the following statement about VE: Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 03:01 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I'm going to say right off the bat that I disagree with the VE case. He's one of my town-reads. I don't see why him opposing Toad being elected into office makes him scum. As well, I don't really see why what he's posting makes him scum. While he explains that his opinion on VE has changed after his flip-flopping on the lynch and his late vote switch, he never addresses why the town-tells he found on day one no longer apply. In addition, he only supports the VE lynch after it has gained a large amount of support. While his mayoral double vote is necessary to ensure the mislynch, he makes sure to remind the town that he had a town read on VE initially: Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 01:49 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I guess I was wrong about VE being town, as his play today has shown. =/ I don't see where you're getting that I didn't provide any reasoning for wanting to lynch Gambit. I found the initial case on him solid, and instead of rehashing what had already been posted by other players several times before, I simply stated my support of it as it stood. As well, I gave additional reasoning for why I thought he would make a good lynch. In fact, what you're saying is inconsistent. To show this, these are the two posts I made regarding gambit: + Show Spoiler +On May 31 2012 03:01 Mr. Wiggles wrote:I'm going to say right off the bat that I disagree with the VE case. He's one of my town-reads. I don't see why him opposing Toad being elected into office makes him scum. As well, I don't really see why what he's posting makes him scum. Instead, I think we should go with lynching Gambit today. The case on him has already been made, and it's pretty solid based on the information we have. As well, calling him scum actually looked pretty polarizing at first, and there were a couple people who soft-defended him: + Show Spoiler +On May 30 2012 09:53 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 09:48 wherebugsgo wrote: Shut up Toad you're not worth a mafia bullet. You cause so much disruption regardless of alignment it's no wonder everyone calls you hypnotoad.
We kill gambit man today. He ninja voted ET yesterday and he's said nothing. Eat shit and die, scum.
##vote Gambitx32 Whoa there buddy, we don't lynch lurkers here...we shoot scummy lurkers with holy bullets of townie fury....not hang them. How about we lynch someone who's posting so we can get information with our lynch? Ya? No? I like your target other than the fact that his lynch will net us no new information. On May 30 2012 10:02 strongandbig wrote: Gambit's two posts sound a lot like newer mafia posting noncommital lists of reads and then not following them up.
However, I'd rather wait to vote until we've got a bit more information rather than during the first hour or two after the night post.
I'm also still waiting to hear an answer to my questions for stofu, his posts look similar to me. On May 30 2012 10:07 austinmcc wrote: I'd prefer targets other than Gambit. When you called him out yesterday, you said he hadn't voted and had posted two unhelpful walls of text. The walls weren't helpful at all, but he DID vote.
That plus a claimed hit is the extent of the case on Gambit.
If we're lynching players for lurking and looking scummy when they don't, everyone seems pretty set that Zealos looks actively scummy. Why should we lynch Gambit based off your claimed hit and poor posting, when Zealos has had poor posting and seems less likely to modkill himself out of the game?
Which could give us some decent information and leads if/when he flips scum. They all look odd to me, since none of them actively address whether they think gambit is scum or not. Instead, they're "We don't lynch lurkers", "I'd rather wait" (Why?), "You made a mistake about the voting. Lynch this other lurker instead!". Notice that none of them actually defend Gambit as town, they just try to find excuses not to lynch him. I find this interesting, since I could particularly see strongandbig or austinmc making a mistake like that as scum as they seem more inexperienced. On May 31 2012 14:31 Mr. Wiggles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 12:29 kitaman27 wrote:On May 27 2012 18:22 Mr. Wiggles wrote: If you want to lynch someone, I expect you to actually come up with reasons why it's best to do so, and not just blatant sheeping. On May 31 2012 03:01 Mr. Wiggles wrote: Instead, I think we should go with lynching Gambit today. The case on him has already been made, and it's pretty solid based on the information we have. In your own words Wiggles, could you explain to me why Gambit is a better lynch than the alternatives? Also, why the drop-off in activity since your election? I've been more busy in the last couple days than I was when I ran. I only had an hour and a bit of free time today so far after the morning and ended up playing Dota, haha. :p I guess I'll answer your other post at the same time, since they're pretty much asking the same thing. + Show Spoiler +On May 31 2012 03:18 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 14:31 Mr. Wiggles wrote: Right now I'm trying to determine who I think is scummiest/want to lynch from kitaman/supersoft/zealos/gambit. How did you come to decide it should be gambit from that list? I decided to go for Gambit, since the soft-defenses of him made me pretty suspicious, and the original analysis was good as well. His name as scum came pretty suddenly, because it's not like people were pressuring him too hard before-hand. Instead, it was more of a surprise and the case on him appeared very quickly. The case on him made sense. After it popped up, several people entered the thread and all defended against his lynch. However, they didn't do it in such a way that they called him town, or not scum, they did it in such a way that it looked a lot more like they were making excuses as to why we shouldn't lynch him. That's not the proper way to defend someone from a lynch, from a town perspective. So, I already agreed with what WBG had said about Gambit, and then a bunch of people soft-defended him scummily. Therefore, I decided he would be a good lynch, since he seemed likely to flip scum from the analysis made, and then he could provide us with further leads on three separate players. Especially strongandbig and austinmc seemed like they'd be healthy leads if gambit flips scum, since I could definitely see them reacting like that if they saw a scum-buddy suddenly accused with no warning. Their posts and VE's looked like knee-jerk reactions to WBG. Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 07:29 VisceraEyes wrote:On May 31 2012 07:18 VisceraEyes wrote:On May 28 2012 18:34 Zealos wrote: Right so, here are my thoughts: SnB - He's seemed "Fishy" this game so far, and I would be happy to FoS him, however, I don't think there is enough there to say it is a good lynch. I'd like to see him post more thoughts though.
Thoughts on Mayor: If possible, would the best mayor be the one that chooses the day1 lynch based off of a vote from town? Seems like this would be the most pro-town play?
Pardoner: Whoever agree's not to use the power ever seems to be the best bet. Yes, in some select scenario's it might be good to use it, but that seems to just be giving an excuse to any mafia player that could convince people that make him pardoner to use the power.
Now some of my reads: Toad - Seems to be very town provided he can prove it using his "mason" powers. If not, we can lynch him tomorrow. BE - Leaning on town. His arguments earlier were annoying, but nothing that led me to think he's scum. Hyaah - ???? Lurker, could well be scum, want to hear what he has to say about the game so far.
If I were to kill someone now: Sinesis - Been said before, but he's tunnelling very hard and doesn't seem willing to add anything to conversation except kill Grush. Who are your other scumreads? Who are you voting for as mayor and why?
I'd also like to note - I'm pretty lurky Day1 atm, I'm pretty busy, however, I'll have finished my last exam come midway through day2, and will become a lot more active then. Bugs I want your thoughts on this post, the bolded in particular. Here are mine. There's a cognitive disconnect between the "Toad seems to be very town" and "provided he can prove it using his 'mason' powers." The first part seems to indicate that he thinks Toad is town based on how he's posting (" looks very town"), while the second part seems to indicate that he does NOT think that Toad looks town and requires the proof of Toad's mason-target claim would provide (" provided he can prove it using his mason powers"). What do you think? Actually, Wiggles I'd REALLY like your opinion...you're firmly in the Gambit-For-Lynch camp, yeah? What do you think about this post by Zealos? While I think Zealos looks pretty bad, I don't think the bolded plays into it at all. I think he's just saying that he thinks Toad will look town if he proves that he's a mason, if not, he's scum of some kind. That was the general opinion in the thread then too, so it looks like he's just echoing that. As you can see, the second post isn't providing reasoning that wasn't already present in the first post. Instead, the second post is an elaboration of what I had originally said. All I did was go into more detail about my reasoning, not make a case that I didn't already mention. So, which is it? Did I provide a case for my vote, or did I not provide any reasoning? Both posts contain the same reasoning, only the second is in greater detail, so if the first post has no reasoning, neither does the second, and if the second makes a case, then so does the first, so which one is it? Now, as for VE, I never said that what made me think he was town no longer applied. However, if we only judged players by how they were acting before they did something to give you reason to think they were scum, we wouldn't get anywhere. My read didn't change on the basis of changing my opinion about VE's Day 1 play, it changed on the basis of what he was doing on Day 2. Notice that I don't bring up anything from Day 1 for why I though VE was scummy. I thought he was scummy based on how he reacted to pressure in the thread, contradicted his votes, and flip-flopped like a fish out of water. Also, that post was just me sort of hitting myself over the head for thinking that VE was town, whereas at that point, I was convinced he was scum. Wiggles completely drops his prefered lynch, gambit, without any push. Instead, he jumps on his second lynch bandwagon based on a case he didn't contribute to. Throughout the game, Wiggles has shown little signs of actual scum hunting. He has shared his opinion on occassion, but lacks the assertive attitude towards pushing a pro-town agenda that I would expect, which makes me believe he is scum. There are a large number of people who seem to agree that Wiggles is mafia, but never has he been considered for an actual candidate.
##Vote: Mr. Wiggles By the time I had switched to VE, it was pretty clear that there wasn't as enough support for a Gambit lynch. So, rather than push for a gambit lynch I had supported before my read on VE changed, I decided to help ensure VE's lynch instead. I felt that he was scum, and was happy to lynch him. I don't see how that makes me scummy in turn.
|
On June 03 2012 06:42 jaj22 wrote:Yo Wiggles: Show nested quote +On June 03 2012 05:54 Mr. Wiggles wrote: Now, what "strong anti-zealos movement" are you talking about? There wasn't a strong movement against him, so much as 3 or 4 people commenting on him near the deadline. Additionally, the actual case on zealos by forumite didn't even come until 30 minutes after the deadline, whereas I had sent in my choice for lynch 5 or so minutes before the deadline.
Were you required to put your lynch choice in before the deadline? Did you have an opportunity to change it after the deadline? I put it in five minutes early in consideration of the hosts. They didn't tell me if I could change it or not after the deadline, but I assumed once I made my choice and the deadline had passed, it would be final.
|
Yeah, I don't think it says anything about the people in your circle one way or the other. What do you think of Hyaach pushing to know who's in your circle though? It doesn't seem like it's really something we need to know about, at least not until there's a specific reason to, like you think someone is scum based on what they posted in PM land.
I'm reading austinmcc to follow up on his soft-defense of Gambit. I'll let you know what I think of him after the deadline if I'm still alive.
|
So, I read over austin, and have come to the conclusion that he seems pretty townie. Besides his weird pseudo-defense of Gambit, he hasn't really done anything to give me reason to want to kill him for being scum. So at this point, I'm not going to push for his lynch.
On June 05 2012 08:19 EchelonTee wrote:Hrmm. Well we should go one lynch at a time anyways; no need to see big grand mafia connections, especially when you never know if a crafty scum player has been hiding long time. I know I keep on repeating that, but just saying; the intent of scum is to escape notice, so it's possible that one of our entrenched "townies" could just be an especially good scum player. AKA, don't ignore me+others just because it seems like we're town or whatever. Wiggles, opinion on today's lynch? Kita, Show nested quote +On June 05 2012 06:23 Meapak_Ziphh wrote: Kita do you honestly think kenpachi is scum?
Are you going to continue to push for wiggles tomorrow?
What is your opinion of ET? I was going to say Kita, but after his claim, I need to re-assess. Breadcrumbs don't do anything for me, so I'm going to base what I think on the basis of his posting, and how likely I think it is that there's a non-claiming medic if MZ doesn't turn out to be a vet.
On June 05 2012 12:24 kitaman27 wrote: Something else that I forget to mention is that I know 100% that Meapak wasn't saved by a veteran passive ability. Reads to come in about an hour or two. How do you know that?
Also, if you are town, what do you think of ET and Kenpachi?
Why did you just claim today instead of trying to argue against what people have said against you, or alternatively just push for the lynch of someone you think is scum? One of the things that's making me more reticent about your claim is that you didn't push for anyone else first, and you underplay the value of the medic, which seems weird considering you become more likely to make a save as the game goes on and those saves become more devastating to the mafia.
|
On June 05 2012 13:49 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2012 13:34 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On June 05 2012 12:24 kitaman27 wrote: Something else that I forget to mention is that I know 100% that Meapak wasn't saved by a veteran passive ability. Reads to come in about an hour or two. How do you know that? How else would I know this? Because I saved him. Just to be clear, are you supporting the "medic should counter-claim if they exist" plan or the "lynch kita plan"? We need to clear me so no player has an excuse to keep their vote on me today and cause a no-lynch or mislynch. Show nested quote +On June 05 2012 13:34 Mr. Wiggles wrote: Why did you just claim today instead of trying to argue against what people have said against you, or alternatively just push for the lynch of someone you think is scum? One of the things that's making me more reticent about your claim is that you didn't push for anyone else first, and you underplay the value of the medic, which seems weird considering you become more likely to make a save as the game goes on and those saves become more devastating to the mafia. As I said before, I felt I would be unable to argue against this today. The entire cycle yesterday was wasted by me having to defend myself and no one was willing to listen to my response. Keeping my identity safe is important, however, not as important as an entire day's discussion and the threat of a mislynch and night hits. If I'm the clear easy lynch target, then we have two days in a row where players are no required to share their opinion, which is awful for late game. I could have waited until later in the cycle to claim, but with the inactivity displayed by the players yesterday, I had no faith that we would be able to accomplish anything in a 10 hour period. I'll comment on ET and Kenpachi later, but I'd really like to hear from you first. The entire game I feel you have been gauging where the town seems to be going and then showing up later in the cycle to share your opinions. Is there a reason why you aren't the one who is leading the lynch? I think that if there's a medic who saved MZ or MZ is a vet, they should claim. The thing is, I've played with some people who don't really like to play out situations optimally, with stuff like not claiming their vig shots, or if they took a hit or RB, or whatever. So, even if I tell them to claim (which I am now), there's still the possibility that they think their role is more valuable than just outing you, especially if they think we'll lynch you anyways, so I need to weigh against the possibility of that as well.
And no, there's no particular reason I'm not leading the lynch, I'm just not. I'm doing prep for a test I'm taking next week in the afternoon and early evening, and I eat dinner around the deadline as well, so that could be creating the sense that I'm hanging out for a while before posting if that's what you mean.
|
On June 06 2012 04:38 austinmcc wrote: I won't give a bullshit response, although I had one typed out as well. It ensures that you and MZ aren't scumbuddies. The reason I asked whether scum could hold a KP is to determine whether MZ is 100% confirmed or not.
MZ is confirmed because he took a shot N1 and nobody else claimed. If scum can hold shots, he's not 100% confirmed. Without a third member to confirm you're a mason, you can fakeclaim, he can claim to have been shot and been masoned, and you can both skate through the rest of the game as confirmed townies by holding back a single KP on one night. Pretty good bargain. I want to be absolutely sure as we push into late game that you guys are actually both confirmed.
Now is the perfect time to do so, because if you're worried about someone in the circle getting shot: (1) Mafia hasn't fired on you despite knowing you were a mason since D1, (2) Mafia hasn't fired on MZ since knowing he was masoned D2, (3) we have a claimed medic and cop which make juicier targets than a third member of the circle. Therefore, the downside in the third member outing himself is extremely low. Do you think Kita is scum as well?
|
On June 06 2012 04:56 austinmcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 04:48 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On June 06 2012 04:38 austinmcc wrote: I won't give a bullshit response, although I had one typed out as well. It ensures that you and MZ aren't scumbuddies. The reason I asked whether scum could hold a KP is to determine whether MZ is 100% confirmed or not.
MZ is confirmed because he took a shot N1 and nobody else claimed. If scum can hold shots, he's not 100% confirmed. Without a third member to confirm you're a mason, you can fakeclaim, he can claim to have been shot and been masoned, and you can both skate through the rest of the game as confirmed townies by holding back a single KP on one night. Pretty good bargain. I want to be absolutely sure as we push into late game that you guys are actually both confirmed.
Now is the perfect time to do so, because if you're worried about someone in the circle getting shot: (1) Mafia hasn't fired on you despite knowing you were a mason since D1, (2) Mafia hasn't fired on MZ since knowing he was masoned D2, (3) we have a claimed medic and cop which make juicier targets than a third member of the circle. Therefore, the downside in the third member outing himself is extremely low. Do you think Kita is scum as well? Last night, I was leaning scum on Kita. + Show Spoiler +On June 05 2012 08:42 austinmcc wrote: wbg's protection N1 was definitely from jailing, don't remember N2 specifically. So if blues stayed on the same targets each night, with supersoft dead he was vulnerable.
Gonna start the game day with the breakfast of champions, a vote for kita. On June 05 2012 10:02 austinmcc wrote:Went to go looking for something but quote, but you're right. I hadn't spoken up on that. However, I started off yesterday the same way. You had my vote until G32 came back and posted. + Show Spoiler +On June 03 2012 23:49 austinmcc wrote: Going to put my vote on kita at the moment. Happy to switch it later if needed. Despite nobody coming forward and thinking Gambit is town, nobody (except Kita) has really come forward and said that about kita either.
It's not a big preference on my part, but I don't want to swing everything to Gambit too early. All/most of our very low volume posters have popped in and voted Gambit, which makes me want to sit on the other side at this point.
I did disagree with VE's case on you. Perhaps it's me being new, but I'm not a big fan of meta-based cases. Going to assume it's more difficult to play different from one's meta than I imagine, but for now I'd prefer a case made off of in-game actions. Part 1 of VE's case was pure meta, Part 2 was based on certain aspects of your interaction with Toad's candidacy and the possibility of him being lyncher. So I wasn't going to vote for you off of VE's case, because (1) I had scummier reads and (2) didn't find VE's case in particular compelling. However, VE isn't the only player to have spoken up, to some extent, I suppose I'm sheeping on this one. Prob posted a case that felt more compelling than VE's, particularly in the way he expanded upon the Toad/lyncher interaction and followed it further into the game. Furthermore, it just doesn't look great in general when townies keep dying with you as one of their main scum reads. While you can say that's just mafia setting you up for a mislynch, you've been a serious lynch candidate for days now and so it's not like they've been aiming shots to make you look scummy, you looked scummy to a lot of the thread before the shots went out. As far as voting for you over my top suspects from earlier - i put out a list of 7 filters that I read. Not everyone in the game, and it wasn't supposed to be all my thoughts, just some filters I'd freshly read. Haven't been contributing as much as I'd like, so I put those out there. You weren't included because you were being actively discussed for the last few days, and I was digging through some other filters. I do still believe manason and papapanda look scummy, but part of manason's looking scummy is the way he brought you and zealos up as scummy with no cases. So yeah, this vote does look more out of left field than I thought it would. I voted for you yesterday but didn't push that. I disagreed with VE's case, but not because I found you particularly towny, only because the case on you didn't convince me more than the case on him. With the claim, it's a little more murky. This is a major turning point in the game though, whether Kita is actually the medic or no, and I want to make sure I've got as much information as possible to decide where I come down on that. No, I'm asking because there's almost no consistent way to think that MZ is scum and Kita's a medic. If MZ is scum, Kita is too. Grey said that medics are notified when they make a save, so if Kita is a medic, then he got a notification saying he saved MZ from a shot. So, MZ can't be scum and Kita a medic unless:
a) Mafia actually shot their own member and gambled he'd be protected, which is retarded b) A vig shot MZ (why?) and didn't claim (why?) and we have a missing shot. This is very unlikely.
So, you can't say that Toad and MZ are scum, unless you believe Kita is as well. In that case, you're claiming you just caught the entire scum team.
|
The people on Kita should move their votes, because it's not happening.
Maju is the better lynch out of him and Manason. First, I'll explain why I don't agree with the case on Manason, and then I'll explain why I think Maju is scum (Hint: It's not just about content or whatever he's saying).
I don't agree with the case on Manason, because the read I personally get going through his filter is that he's just a newbie town. This is his first game of mafia ever. I don't think he's a smurf unless the guy smurfing is putting a ton of effort into roleplaying a new town and not playing the game beyond that, and I find that very unlikely. So, it's his first game. In that light, the things he says make sense from a town perspective. A lot of what he says, is just blatantly scummy, and things that no experienced town would even think of, much less say, but this is why I think it makes him more likely to be town. If he was part of a scum team, I don't think they'd let him promise to make a case (twice!), and not let him follow up on it and use the excuse that he was playing skyrim. As well, I don't think they'd let him vote for VE and then post that he thought VE was town the entire time. It's just blatantly wrong to do. So, I think that's the entire reason he was able to post those things. He hasn't had the benefit of any coaching, from town or scum, so he's just doing things on his own. As such, he's posting things that are wrong from a game-play perspective, and things that people learn to not do after a few games. It's somewhat hard to explain, because this is just my intuition on the matter, and it's telling me that he's new, inexperienced, town. I'm not voting him today.
As for Maju, the thing that really typifies his play is that he always takes the path of least resistance. Examples of this are that his contributions on Day 1 are arguing against whether Toad's claim was good for his role (which doesn't contribute anything), then on Day 2 arguing against VE's breadcrumb. Both of these are easy to do, since the mason claim was bad, and the breadcrumb was bad. However, this is a huge majority of everything he's done this game. Arguing whether Toad's claim was good play or not was useless, because it doesn't matter now that's he's claimed. Then, when arguing against VE, he doesn't state reasons for why he thinks VE is scummy besides sheeping MZ's case. Everything to do with VE is just arguing against the breadcrumb. Both of these are easy to do, because they provide points of contention where you can argue without actually providing any thoughts on alignment to the thread. It's easy to take a stand, because both of them were bad moves, and that makes it really easy to tear into them. Additionally, on Day 3, he ends up voting for Gambit, but nowhere in his filter does he mention original reasons for wanting to do so. He says at one point he likes the case, and that's it. So again, he's just taking the path of least resistance forward.
Even now, when pressured to give some reads, he ends up posting about Hassy and papapanda, who were generally thought to be scummy, so he could blend in. Again, he's taking the path of least resistance. Even in his analysis, notice how unsure he seems to be than when he was arguing against VE or Toad. It's because now he's talking about thread behaviour, not just arguing with bad plays, so it's harder for him to fake analysis. This is further shown, when he's called out on the Hassy check. If he really thought Hassy was scum, he would just argue that he was framed, was the GF, or that Prob was insane and Toad was framed Night 1 or something. All of those are valid reasons that could explain why the check came back town, but he doesn't try to argue any of them. Instead, he backs off completely and says in his own words to disregard anything he said about Hassy. This shows that he just wanted someone to make an easy case against, and that he didn't believe any of it.
So, without further ado: ##Vote: Maju
|
So is it just that no one is here, or do people just not want to switch their votes? Is no one going to address that Manason reads and feels more like a clueless new player than scum? Remember my vote counts double, so we only need 6 other people to vote maju. Manason is 1. With MZ and Toad, that's 3. So, only 3 others need to switch to kill Maju.
|
|
|
|