|
The only thing supersoft have shown so far is that he is incapable of reading an OP and misunderstanding everything. Which isn't very alignment-showing either way.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
I agree Dirkzor. afaik Toad has quite a lot of experience with supersoft, so he has more insight than me with how he would be expected to post as townie/scum. According to his answer, nothing telling either way though.
|
On June 12 2012 20:54 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 17:17 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:Also this post is actually kinda bad and I'm surprised I'm the only one with a problem with it. On June 12 2012 07:56 kitaman27 wrote:
The biggest problem with setups where so many people have guns is the town's lack of organization. It eventually ends up in a trollfest, where townies shoot each other, while the scum team sits in the background without attracting much attention. If you are town, don't forget to submit your vote for a 48 hour day cycle.
If you shoot five minutes into the game, you will be shot day two.
If you shoot within the first 24 hours of a cycle, you will be shot the following cycle
If you shoot without the town's consensus, you will be shot
I don't care if you shoot a mafia player. If you break one of those three rules, you will be shot in return.
I support a miller claim on day one. If they fail to claim on day one, then they get shot if they claim miller at any point after d1. Millers shouldn't claim night one as it assists the mafia team with blue sniping.
It seems very unlikey that the mafia team has two godfather type roles. Based on the way the shot cooldown works, they would be able to day kill four consecutive days. Combined with the six night kills that come with their deaths and lynches, thats a 2:10 trade, assuming there isn't a SK or town night vig role. I like chaoser's plan of forcing certain players to shoot, but I wouldn't leave it up to them to decide their own target. By shooting early and often, the mafia godfather gets the most out of his role. We shouldn't allow a random player to shoot at will. Kita do you realize that the people shooting will most likely be townies? You're advocating for the death of lots of greens on the chance that you catch the gf or sk. I agree we need accountability but shooting people who step out of line like that isn't going to work. I made a post before this about holding ourselves accountable with I'll just repost here now: On June 12 2012 06:01 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:
Can we agree right now to not go rogue and shoot without discussion? There needs to be some deliberation behind peoples shots. If everyone just goes rambo then we'll never actually get a chance to scumhunt. Discussion is the key. Perhaps that sounds a bit kumbaya, but you have to realize that if you shoot people just because they made an unauthorized shot you're probably going to hit a disgruntled townie. I'd also be interested in seeing you post more kita. Well the difference is, Meapak, that yours was a tad wishy washy. The sentiment behind kitaman's post is clear. If town signals its ABSOLUTE INTENT to punish with the highest form of punishment, then it discourages rogue shooters. I'm fairly sure kita recognises your 'concerns', but the point is it discourages an anti-town mode of doing things. If you explicitly say, 'well, except in this case, or the result is this' then you weaken the sentiment. No?
Marv, why are you talking on behalf of Kita? You might even say you are defending him. While I do not disagree with you points I find it funny that you know how Kita thinks...
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
Dirkzor: I thought it was quite obvious what kita intended. The post was intended to show I was wary of Meapak picking up on kita's post, when I would have thought he would understand as well.
|
Well as I also wrote in the Policy lynching thread I'm all for setting up rules like these that enforces a townlike behavior. So no arguement there. But MZ does have a point that whoever shoots are most likely a townie. So we shouldn't just kill them... A point that was no way clear from Kita's post.
In other news: I think MrZentor might be scum. Go look at his filter.
He very clearly have been following the thread.
On June 12 2012 05:26 MrZentor wrote:
I never thought of that, Gonzaw. o.0
But he haven't really put any thought in what he have posted. He seems to jut be posting in order to increase his filter.
He also seemed to get very defence for no appearrant reason during his only real response in the thread:
On June 12 2012 02:30 MrZentor wrote:
He was trying to copy my reason for being suspicious of Rastaban, but he confused Rastaban with chaoser.
FAIL On June 12 2012 02:34 FreelanceSatan wrote:
I just woke up bro. And im not trying to "copy your reason" im agreeing with it. highlighting it and supporting it.
You dont like when people support your reads?? On June 12 2012 02:35 MrZentor wrote:
There's nothing wrong with copying as long as you do it accurately and add on your own ideas.
I have an irrational fear of being misquoted. >.<
So any reads MrZentor? Anything?
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
Zentor plays scummy regardless of his alignment
I wouldn't mind killing him really if I didn't wanna shoot gonzaw so much
|
On June 12 2012 21:59 marvellosity wrote:
I agree Dirkzor. afaik Toad has quite a lot of experience with supersoft, so he has more insight than me with how he would be expected to post as townie/scum. According to his answer, nothing telling either way though.
no not really. I only played 2 games with in in total if I remember correctly. Or maybe 3? He has been away for half a year without playing mafia I think and I'm not THAT much of a vet :p
He is in LV, he played in the Annul-disaster-game which he obviously remembers and maybe he was in L as well?
The only thing that's "weird" about him is that he hasn't called me mafia so far because he usually does that either way lol. But that's not even an argument, more of a funny sidenote.
|
@Marv: You still think RoL is scum after what happened?
+ Show Spoiler [referance] +On June 12 2012 10:11 marvellosity wrote:
Fairly likely he'd be GF yea.
To toad: I agree totally with the mentality and actually came back to the thread to make an EBWOP about it. A townie miller would be well aware that claiming miller would arise suspicion and discussion. VE was a townie miller claiming day 1 recently and he openly admitted that he would be scrutinised for it.
I don't see the townie mentality for multiple times casting suspicion on anyone wanting to think about the claim. He very specifically says there are no drawbacks in his claim post. No, townie miller would know that was a drawback and be upfront about it.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
To Dirkzor: from the policy lynch thread:
On June 08 2012 17:39 Dirkzor wrote:
Problems occuring during games when someone brings up policy lynching is that not everyone is for or against it which renders the idea of a policy lynch meaningless. If you can't get everyone on board, or at least say they are willing to policy lynch, scum (and townies aswell) won't feel the pressure to follow the rules set by the policy. So it all ebs out into an empty threat.
I usually always support any sort of policy in the start just to give the policy more power.
It's this I'm talking about. In this game telling everyone they get killed if they shoot willy-nilly is a pretty decent policy. But as you note yourself it "ebs out into an empty threat" if not everyone agrees. MZ saying that they are likely to be townies is how a pretty good policy ebbs away. Because it just opens the door more to people shooting unilaterally, which was the case less before MZ made his post. Despite the fact that what was in MZ's post should be obvious enough to not need to be stated.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On June 12 2012 22:26 Dirkzor wrote:@Marv: You still think RoL is scum after what happened? + Show Spoiler [referance] +On June 12 2012 10:11 marvellosity wrote:
Fairly likely he'd be GF yea.
To toad: I agree totally with the mentality and actually came back to the thread to make an EBWOP about it. A townie miller would be well aware that claiming miller would arise suspicion and discussion. VE was a townie miller claiming day 1 recently and he openly admitted that he would be scrutinised for it.
I don't see the townie mentality for multiple times casting suspicion on anyone wanting to think about the claim. He very specifically says there are no drawbacks in his claim post. No, townie miller would know that was a drawback and be upfront about it.
You mean his gun apparently being taken away?
|
On June 12 2012 20:54 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 17:17 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:Also this post is actually kinda bad and I'm surprised I'm the only one with a problem with it. On June 12 2012 07:56 kitaman27 wrote:
The biggest problem with setups where so many people have guns is the town's lack of organization. It eventually ends up in a trollfest, where townies shoot each other, while the scum team sits in the background without attracting much attention. If you are town, don't forget to submit your vote for a 48 hour day cycle.
If you shoot five minutes into the game, you will be shot day two.
If you shoot within the first 24 hours of a cycle, you will be shot the following cycle
If you shoot without the town's consensus, you will be shot
I don't care if you shoot a mafia player. If you break one of those three rules, you will be shot in return.
I support a miller claim on day one. If they fail to claim on day one, then they get shot if they claim miller at any point after d1. Millers shouldn't claim night one as it assists the mafia team with blue sniping.
It seems very unlikey that the mafia team has two godfather type roles. Based on the way the shot cooldown works, they would be able to day kill four consecutive days. Combined with the six night kills that come with their deaths and lynches, thats a 2:10 trade, assuming there isn't a SK or town night vig role. I like chaoser's plan of forcing certain players to shoot, but I wouldn't leave it up to them to decide their own target. By shooting early and often, the mafia godfather gets the most out of his role. We shouldn't allow a random player to shoot at will. Kita do you realize that the people shooting will most likely be townies? You're advocating for the death of lots of greens on the chance that you catch the gf or sk. I agree we need accountability but shooting people who step out of line like that isn't going to work. I made a post before this about holding ourselves accountable with I'll just repost here now: On June 12 2012 06:01 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:
Can we agree right now to not go rogue and shoot without discussion? There needs to be some deliberation behind peoples shots. If everyone just goes rambo then we'll never actually get a chance to scumhunt. Discussion is the key. Perhaps that sounds a bit kumbaya, but you have to realize that if you shoot people just because they made an unauthorized shot you're probably going to hit a disgruntled townie. I'd also be interested in seeing you post more kita. Well the difference is, Meapak, that yours was a tad wishy washy. The sentiment behind kitaman's post is clear. If town signals its ABSOLUTE INTENT to punish with the highest form of punishment, then it discourages rogue shooters. I'm fairly sure kita recognises your 'concerns', but the point is it discourages an anti-town mode of doing things. If you explicitly say, 'well, except in this case, or the result is this' then you weaken the sentiment. No?
Unfortunately, "wishy washy" is really the best we can do in this game. Kita's policy really doesn't discourage rogue shooters because it's a policy town cannot feasibly enforce. If kita does recognize my concerns then I don't think he'd have made this post. Hopefully we'll all act sane and this won't become a problem but my point is, if someone does go full retard on us and shoots out of the blue, kita's policy will not prevent it and should not be used to "punish" the lone ranger.
It doesn't do a good job signaling "absolute intent" when it's terrible to begin with.
|
But this game is different as we aren't punishing potential scum for doing something anti-town. We are most likely just punishing bad townies for doing something anti-town. We know they are "bad" because there aren't that many players who aren't town aligned that can make that stupid move.
|
On June 12 2012 22:30 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 22:26 Dirkzor wrote:@Marv: You still think RoL is scum after what happened? + Show Spoiler [referance] +On June 12 2012 10:11 marvellosity wrote:
Fairly likely he'd be GF yea.
To toad: I agree totally with the mentality and actually came back to the thread to make an EBWOP about it. A townie miller would be well aware that claiming miller would arise suspicion and discussion. VE was a townie miller claiming day 1 recently and he openly admitted that he would be scrutinised for it.
I don't see the townie mentality for multiple times casting suspicion on anyone wanting to think about the claim. He very specifically says there are no drawbacks in his claim post. No, townie miller would know that was a drawback and be upfront about it. You mean his gun apparently being taken away?
Yes. And the hit and the medic protect.
|
The following People need to post, they are very inactive, and if they have said anything it is only a few one liners.
risk.nuke
Kenpachi
payl
gonzaw I don't see him for mafia, but I don't have a problem with making him shoot someone else if it will lessen the distracting discussion on him. So far the biggest arguments against him have been that he supported ROL and that he claimed He hadn't seen a Mafia fake a miller claim before. To me he doesn't seem scum at all, and most of the case is hinged on defending ROL, If ROL is really a miller then all the discussion seems moot.
ROL Controversy, We still have no other Millers claiming, and until we get some other contenders I am very inclined to believe ROL. There should have been 2 hits last night (mafia & SK), and only 1 went down. Unless someone else claims to have been protected I see no reason to disbelieve this. I lean towards an SK 1 shot power as if it is reuseable it would be way over powered, I think we keep an eye on him and see how things progress. If the Mafia tried to shoot him, and an SK tried to remove the gun, then I think we should hold off on killing him for a bit since there must be a reason so many people tried to hit him last night. Again if more Millers come forward then I agree we should re-evaluate the claim but for now I think his play seems town and we should hold off a final judgment for him.
Meapak_Ziphh, your filter looked really bad last night tons of filler and no posts contributing to discussion, but you seem to be posting more like your normal self today. Mind explaining what was going on?
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
MZ, you asked about gonzaw:
+ Show Spoiler +On June 12 2012 12:18 marvellosity wrote:Because I'm so nice gonzaw, I'm just going to lay out a post for other people to read instead of tunnelling you. And I will not be unilaterally shooting you. To the rest of town: anyway, find below the case against RoL below. Now, the point isn't so much whether you have to agree with all of it, but it is nonetheless a case, consisting of analysis of content of posts, behaviour, and mentality. + Show Spoiler +On June 12 2012 09:50 marvellosity wrote:gonzaw, you've just made me read all the setup speculation on Millers. Damn thee. There is so much I do not like about the claim. Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 04:20 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
Alright, finished reading.
Any plan that involves millers and role checking is quite stupid. There are so many things that can interfere with proper results that it hinges on nothing. Anyone advocating some sort of role centric plan needs to shut up. It won't work, we don't even know if all the roles in the OP are the only roles in the game, but even from what we can tell it is still a crap shoot and it could only get worse.
I agree with what Chaoser said. If we think someone is scummy, we make them shoot who they think are scummy. If they can't shoot and can't explain themselves then we just kill them. Problem solved. On the off chance the DT figures out his sanity and claims to have found someone a Miller claim CANNOT absolve them. A DT will only get a red check back on non GF roles if his sanity is known. The non GF roles cannot shoot, so they would need to shoot to prove they are a Miller.
That claim can literally never work.
There is only one actual benefit of a Miller claiming in this set up. Hypothetically its day 5, we need to kill a mafia and the DT claims knowing his sanity and has a red check on someone. Assuming that person has NEVER shot during the day then he can now shoot to prove that he is not scum but a Miller. There is no way scum can emulate that play to the point where it would help a Miller to claim earlier on. The only thing that this helps is preventing a cop who knows there alignment to claiming publicly in that one very niche scenario.
In that scenario the N1 Miller claim would save the cop from going public. That is the only benefit. So does that single benefit justify having someone claim Miller? I can't see why someone would ever get shit for claiming Miller. The only mafia benefit to claiming Miller would be to avoid a RC but the only one who can do that is the GF who would get outed by a DT check and would prefer to get DT checked anyway.
The same thing applies to SK's.
Anyone faking Miller would eventually just get outed by some means and its not worth it. So I guess there is only that one benefit, but there is no real drawback besides people wasting time speculating on why someone claimed Miller.
But hey, since I outlined all the reasons above and there are no true drawbacks, might as well claim that I'm a Miller. Green text: Outlines in some depth how little benefit there is to Miller claiming in this setup. He calls the benefit a 'very niche' scenario. Red text: Having outlined why it's barely beneficial if at all to claim Miller, he leaps into categorically saying no-one should give miller claims any shit. Claims at the end he 'outlined all the reasons'. All the reasons? He clarified himself it would only help in a 'very niche scenario'. What gives? He then says mafia have no reason to fakeclaim miller. He's actively pushing this to discredit the notion. Blue text: Also see post below, but this looks like an attempt to halt any discussion of his miller claim. Because we're so busy on Night 0, right? Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 06:05 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On June 12 2012 04:55 FreelanceSatan wrote:On June 12 2012 04:37 chaoser wrote:
Isn't it Night 0? As in mafia get to do night kills if they want to? why did RoL claim miller already... yeah i didnt even think about that..looks like he jumped the gun a bit there.. what are the chances the mafia would want to shoot him instead of shooting for blues tho? It's not really a big deal. Half the reason I considered not claiming at all was just because I didn't think it was worth considering whether or not I was a Miller. I am sure if I continue being alive they will try to make me suspciious because of that. Or killing me, whatever. There is a chance that a medic could be on me because I claimed and they would be wasting their first hit. There is a number of things they have to take into account. Ultimately, I'm not really worried and whether I die or not its not that big of a deal. Again with the blue text, pushing the idea that talking about his claim is a bad thing. To the bold and underlined: twice he says his claim is not a big deal. More language in the middle with 'or killing me, whatever'. Basically totally flippant and acting unconcerned about it. Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 06:06 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On June 12 2012 04:58 Toadesstern wrote:On June 12 2012 04:55 FreelanceSatan wrote:On June 12 2012 04:37 chaoser wrote:
Isn't it Night 0? As in mafia get to do night kills if they want to? why did RoL claim miller already... yeah i didnt even think about that..looks like he jumped the gun a bit there.. what are the chances the mafia would want to shoot him instead of shooting for blues tho? about 0. I actually thought there's no way that's really a claim because that would be stupid. Maybe it's a trick to survive d0? :p Let's start the wifom machine lol. And here comes that suspicion thing I was talking about. It's the only downside I perceived of claiming regardless of timing. Idiots will always over-analyze shit for no reason. However that wasn't something I could articulate without just saying people are dumb and we can't work around them being suspicious of a miller claim regardless of how illogical it is for any non-town person to do it. Look at the change in tone! From his original claim with his "hey, I guess I'll claim miller" casual attitude and subsequent post with the 'whatevers' and 'it's not a big deal' he fucking jumps down Toad's throat. Now he's again pushing the idea that even talking about his claim is a bad thing. He admits here that he forsaw people being suspicious of the claim. Yet in his original post, the only 'benefit' he saw was with a very niche day 5 cop scenario. RoL said elsewhere in his filter that we should be working off behavioural analysis. I agree. I'm not questioning the claim because he claimed Miller, I'm questioning how he's gone about it. Scum. On June 12 2012 10:06 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 09:50 marvellosity wrote:gonzaw, you've just made me read all the setup speculation on Millers. Damn thee. There is so much I do not like about the claim. On June 12 2012 04:20 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
Alright, finished reading.
Any plan that involves millers and role checking is quite stupid. There are so many things that can interfere with proper results that it hinges on nothing. Anyone advocating some sort of role centric plan needs to shut up. It won't work, we don't even know if all the roles in the OP are the only roles in the game, but even from what we can tell it is still a crap shoot and it could only get worse.
I agree with what Chaoser said. If we think someone is scummy, we make them shoot who they think are scummy. If they can't shoot and can't explain themselves then we just kill them. Problem solved. On the off chance the DT figures out his sanity and claims to have found someone a Miller claim CANNOT absolve them. A DT will only get a red check back on non GF roles if his sanity is known. The non GF roles cannot shoot, so they would need to shoot to prove they are a Miller.
That claim can literally never work.
There is only one actual benefit of a Miller claiming in this set up. Hypothetically its day 5, we need to kill a mafia and the DT claims knowing his sanity and has a red check on someone. Assuming that person has NEVER shot during the day then he can now shoot to prove that he is not scum but a Miller. There is no way scum can emulate that play to the point where it would help a Miller to claim earlier on. The only thing that this helps is preventing a cop who knows there alignment to claiming publicly in that one very niche scenario.
In that scenario the N1 Miller claim would save the cop from going public. That is the only benefit. So does that single benefit justify having someone claim Miller? I can't see why someone would ever get shit for claiming Miller. The only mafia benefit to claiming Miller would be to avoid a RC but the only one who can do that is the GF who would get outed by a DT check and would prefer to get DT checked anyway.
The same thing applies to SK's.
Anyone faking Miller would eventually just get outed by some means and its not worth it. So I guess there is only that one benefit, but there is no real drawback besides people wasting time speculating on why someone claimed Miller.
But hey, since I outlined all the reasons above and there are no true drawbacks, might as well claim that I'm a Miller. Green text: Outlines in some depth how little benefit there is to Miller claiming in this setup. He calls the benefit a 'very niche' scenario. Red text: Having outlined why it's barely beneficial if at all to claim Miller, he leaps into categorically saying no-one should give miller claims any shit. Claims at the end he 'outlined all the reasons'. All the reasons? He clarified himself it would only help in a 'very niche scenario'. What gives? He then says mafia have no reason to fakeclaim miller. He's actively pushing this to discredit the notion. Blue text: Also see post below, but this looks like an attempt to halt any discussion of his miller claim. Because we're so busy on Night 0, right? On June 12 2012 06:05 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On June 12 2012 04:55 FreelanceSatan wrote:On June 12 2012 04:37 chaoser wrote:
Isn't it Night 0? As in mafia get to do night kills if they want to? why did RoL claim miller already... yeah i didnt even think about that..looks like he jumped the gun a bit there.. what are the chances the mafia would want to shoot him instead of shooting for blues tho? It's not really a big deal. Half the reason I considered not claiming at all was just because I didn't think it was worth considering whether or not I was a Miller. I am sure if I continue being alive they will try to make me suspciious because of that. Or killing me, whatever. There is a chance that a medic could be on me because I claimed and they would be wasting their first hit. There is a number of things they have to take into account. Ultimately, I'm not really worried and whether I die or not its not that big of a deal. Again with the blue text, pushing the idea that talking about his claim is a bad thing. To the bold and underlined: twice he says his claim is not a big deal. More language in the middle with 'or killing me, whatever'. Basically totally flippant and acting unconcerned about it. On June 12 2012 06:06 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On June 12 2012 04:58 Toadesstern wrote:On June 12 2012 04:55 FreelanceSatan wrote:On June 12 2012 04:37 chaoser wrote:
Isn't it Night 0? As in mafia get to do night kills if they want to? why did RoL claim miller already... yeah i didnt even think about that..looks like he jumped the gun a bit there.. what are the chances the mafia would want to shoot him instead of shooting for blues tho? about 0. I actually thought there's no way that's really a claim because that would be stupid. Maybe it's a trick to survive d0? :p Let's start the wifom machine lol. And here comes that suspicion thing I was talking about. It's the only downside I perceived of claiming regardless of timing. Idiots will always over-analyze shit for no reason. However that wasn't something I could articulate without just saying people are dumb and we can't work around them being suspicious of a miller claim regardless of how illogical it is for any non-town person to do it. Look at the change in tone! From his original claim with his "hey, I guess I'll claim miller" casual attitude and subsequent post with the 'whatevers' and 'it's not a big deal' he fucking jumps down Toad's throat. Now he's again pushing the idea that even talking about his claim is a bad thing. He admits here that he forsaw people being suspicious of the claim. Yet in his original post, the only 'benefit' he saw was with a very niche day 5 cop scenario. RoL said elsewhere in his filter that we should be working off behavioural analysis. I agree. I'm not questioning the claim because he claimed Miller, I'm questioning how he's gone about it. Scum. Yeah I totally agree here. That claim was really weird and as mentioned I wasn't even sure if it was a claim or a joke along the lines "well might as well claim miller" just to say a couple posts "...lol if I actually were a miller". The one thing that got to my attention the most was obviously the last part you quoted because he was jumping down my very own throat for saying that claim is stupid and he should have claimed on the deadline or d1. Here's the thing, he said himself the only downside to this (besides helping mafia bluesnipe, which he totally ignores although mentioned by me two times and by kita once) is idiots calling him suspicious on that one and he forsaw people being "stupid". Again, this just makes no sense from a townie point of view. If he thinks I'm someone overanalyzing something, that's a fucking great towntell. Why is he willing to shoot me for that one. He's basicly calling me an incredible paranoid townie that keeps overthinkin stuff a lot and concludes in shooting me. That's not making sense at all. On June 12 2012 10:11 marvellosity wrote:
Fairly likely he'd be GF yea.
To toad: I agree totally with the mentality and actually came back to the thread to make an EBWOP about it. A townie miller would be well aware that claiming miller would arise suspicion and discussion. VE was a townie miller claiming day 1 recently and he openly admitted that he would be scrutinised for it.
I don't see the townie mentality for multiple times casting suspicion on anyone wanting to think about the claim. He very specifically says there are no drawbacks in his claim post. No, townie miller would know that was a drawback and be upfront about it. On June 12 2012 10:13 marvellosity wrote:
Effectively he's saying anyone suspecting him is probably mafia. No no no no no. NOT townie mentality. Trying to deflect attention scum mentality. This is gonzaw's follow-up post: Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 10:14 gonzaw wrote:
I don't find him suspicious mostly because of the claim itself (I've never seen scum fake-claim Miller in my whole life, and I doubt I will).
We can force him to shoot and have trackers/watchers/cops (not all of them at the same time of course) on him to determine if he's GF or not.
As in, we force him to shoot someone of our (town) liking, with voting and shit, not just someone he randomly wants to shoot (like he says he'll shoot Toad).
Of course he'll have to follow this or we'll just shoot him the next day for being a scummy scum/rogue.
If he's really GF he'll be alive for quite a while (and obviously under quite scrutiny like he's under now) so I doubt he can get away with it (again, like I said in my other Miller post).
gonzaw completely ignores anything to do with the behaviour, content and mentality, because he has 'never seen scum fake-claim miller in his whole life'. His speculation on how to confirm or otherwise RoL is equally weak, as I note here: Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 10:23 marvellosity wrote:On June 12 2012 10:14 gonzaw wrote:
I don't find him suspicious mostly because of the claim itself (I've never seen scum fake-claim Miller in my whole life, and I doubt I will).
We can force him to shoot and have trackers/watchers/cops (not all of them at the same time of course) on him to determine if he's GF or not.
As in, we force him to shoot someone of our (town) liking, with voting and shit, not just someone he randomly wants to shoot (like he says he'll shoot Toad).
Of course he'll have to follow this or we'll just shoot him the next day for being a scummy scum/rogue.
If he's really GF he'll be alive for quite a while (and obviously under quite scrutiny like he's under now) so I doubt he can get away with it (again, like I said in my other Miller post).
For someone who likes his setup speculation this is some weak shit. We have no idea what roles we have and if they can come close to confirming anything. Watchers doesn't even make sense. Scum have 1 KP and they'd send their GF? Doesn't make sense either, what does a tracker do. Cop takes forever to confirm sanity and he can't keep checking RoL. Towns very rarely lynch mafia day 1 so forcing him to do anything is probably going to lead to a townie death regardless and will confirm nothing of his alignment. Anyway guys, RoL, gonzaw... Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 10:30 gonzaw wrote:
The "real" game hasn't started yet (the analysis and shit), so there's really no behaviour that can convince me Rol is GF (like I said his claim alone makes me think its legit).
There is no analysis yet despite the fact there is analysis. Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 11:03 gonzaw wrote:On June 12 2012 10:44 wherebugsgo wrote:On June 12 2012 10:14 gonzaw wrote:
I don't find him suspicious mostly because of the claim itself (I've never seen scum fake-claim Miller in my whole life, and I doubt I will).
Because the games where self-aware millers are possible on this forum are practically nonexistent. I played 2 (I think? Or maybe it was just once) games with self-aware Millers on UG and there weren't any fake-claims either. The rest of your post and filter is just unsubstantiated assumptions (for example, the repeated language toward you assuming RoL is town). And no, the "real" game hasn't started because there's basically nothing to analyze or to respond to. There aren't any cases, or people's thoughts on other players, and I'm lazy to check each filter to try and gauge a read out of people just by their opinion on the plans presented. For now I only have a few town reads, and a slight suspicion on Dirkzor for his "eagerness" to show people what to do or correct them but being absent since then. You also contradict yourself fairly heavily in that you urge specifically for a day 1 miller claim but you seem to have no problem at all with a n0 miller claim I already posted he fucked up by claiming right now. But at least he claimed, Miller claim >>>> no Miller claim, whether on N0 or D1 The only bad thing about doing so on N0 is that scum may shoot him....and that's not the end of the world or anything (again like I posted in my previous post wbg points out the fact that there are almost never self-aware millers for him to reference. gonzaw is forced to accept this and says he has played in at most 2, if not only 1, game with self-aware millers. So gonzaw ignores all the analysis of RoL's behaviour because he has played in at most 2 games where miller wasn't fake-claimed. He doesn't even bother actually looking at the content of the posts, and dismisses the case multiple times with "there haven't been analysis or cases yet". Yet his sole reason for dismissing was his 1 or 2 out of how many games he's played with self-aware millers.
+ Show Spoiler +On June 12 2012 19:31 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 15:20 gonzaw wrote:
He tried to act like a smartass doing the whole "Oh geez if you think no mafia would fake-claim miller... then you make quite an effort in posting your thoughts about the Miller wouldn't you think?" thing and he was indeed being needlessly aggressive, even before in the game.
Discrediting arguments with bad logic. It's not being smartass. I consider it extremely odd to make a 3-page long post outlining 20 different scenarios with tonnes of formatting which must have taken you close to an hour, when it's a scenario you never believe has occurred, will occur, or will ever occur. How is that NOT odd? Let's kill gonzaw.
In addition he more than once attacks the accuser rather than arguments (calls me aggressive, tells wbg he is SK).
He posts numerous times that plan discussion is 'alignment null' but that's ALL he's done, despite the fact he is under suspicion.
In other words he keeps making irrelevant posts and the sum total of his scumhunting is that he finds me and Cephiro (i think) a bit suspicious.
High post count. No content. omgus-y.
He says he is too lazy to filter and make reads and analysis but he's perfectly fine making really longwinded posts about plans and setup speculation.
|
On June 12 2012 22:09 Dirkzor wrote:Well as I also wrote in the Policy lynching thread I'm all for setting up rules like these that enforces a townlike behavior. So no arguement there. But MZ does have a point that whoever shoots are most likely a townie. So we shouldn't just kill them... A point that was no way clear from Kita's post. In other news: I think MrZentor might be scum. Go look at his filter. He very clearly have been following the thread. But he haven't really put any thought in what he have posted. He seems to jut be posting in order to increase his filter. He also seemed to get very defence for no appearrant reason during his only real response in the thread: Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 02:30 MrZentor wrote:
He was trying to copy my reason for being suspicious of Rastaban, but he confused Rastaban with chaoser.
FAIL Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 02:34 FreelanceSatan wrote:
I just woke up bro. And im not trying to "copy your reason" im agreeing with it. highlighting it and supporting it.
You dont like when people support your reads?? Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 02:35 MrZentor wrote:
There's nothing wrong with copying as long as you do it accurately and add on your own ideas.
I have an irrational fear of being misquoted. >.< So any reads MrZentor? Anything?
Thanks for bringing this up, I forgot about him. He really needs to start posting content, and he does seem very scummy. I will try and get some time to review some of his other games to see if he is always so useless to town.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On June 12 2012 22:39 Dirkzor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 22:30 marvellosity wrote:On June 12 2012 22:26 Dirkzor wrote:@Marv: You still think RoL is scum after what happened? + Show Spoiler [referance] +On June 12 2012 10:11 marvellosity wrote:
Fairly likely he'd be GF yea.
To toad: I agree totally with the mentality and actually came back to the thread to make an EBWOP about it. A townie miller would be well aware that claiming miller would arise suspicion and discussion. VE was a townie miller claiming day 1 recently and he openly admitted that he would be scrutinised for it.
I don't see the townie mentality for multiple times casting suspicion on anyone wanting to think about the claim. He very specifically says there are no drawbacks in his claim post. No, townie miller would know that was a drawback and be upfront about it. You mean his gun apparently being taken away? Yes. And the hit and the medic protect.
Doesn't say much either way to me. It does nothing to say he is innocent because if he is not he could just have bullshitted that. Basically everything about the hit/prot/gun-taking opens up inpenetrable wifom.
|
|
|
On June 12 2012 22:51 supersoft wrote:
risk.nuke? Are you here?
i wanna test you a little bit. Show up!
|
wow ty marvl. You mentioned planning as a null tell however given your other evidence I'd actually put it as a scum tell. You weren't in liar game but gonzaw spent the game scheming his ass off and he was scum. With all that you've got I can definitely get behind a gonzaw kill (lynch really isn't the right word  ).
also @rastaban I have no idea what you expect me to say. I had my last day of classes yesterday so I was at school for a large portion of the day if that makes any difference. I mean I'm not sure what your "you were playing bad and now you're not, explain why you were playing bad" means. This post actually rubbed me a bit the wrong way because if you think someone is playing bad then you don't ask them to justify their actions, you wait if they continue and see if it's townie bad or scum bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
