|
Just woke up. I'll start with that only as a last resort will I be for lynching a lurker Day 1. If we can get some good scum hunting done Day 1 we will have a more productive lynch than just a random lurker. Now onto what has been happening.
On the whole suki and trapdoor issue:
+ Show Spoiler +On June 13 2012 12:44 suki wrote:Is it just me or is trackd00r coming off as scummy already? Show nested quote +
If I understood correctly, it doesn't mean that I would stop any lynch that I didn't mention on my analysis. Just because I have a candidate for lynch, it doesn't imply that I discard any other possibility.
It's something related to common sense. If any other cases are convincing enough, I'll throw my vote there in the case I can't get a majority. In the other hand, if we end up like RNG lynching (which is a bad idea), any other poster that could be doing silly mistakes, or even a player practically saying ''hey guys, I'm mafia, lynch me'' that's when it goes against my mindset. Any possibility is valuable, but if there is something absurdly wrong, I'll call it, even if that means a no lynch.
This post screams to me that he's trying to be super cautious with his words, so that he'll have a safety net if/when he ever changes a vote or bandwagons on someone else. He throws out some 'obvious' examples of reasons of what wouldn't agree with him, and even mentions that he would follow through on a read, even if it that means a no lynch.BUT WAIT! Just ONE post previous to that he says this: Show nested quote +I won't accept a NO LYNCH unless I believe we may have a serious mislynch coming. ... Dude. You try to take a firm stance against something, and then you do the most scummy wishy-washy-ness thing ever the very next post. You're clearly informed about mafia as you brought up the idea of a day 1 RNG lynch, and being against a no lynch is not a difficult or complicated policy to hold. I feel that such a simple logical slip only happens if you're trying to play it safe and keep your options open. ##vote trackd00r
I think suki was just being aggressive. I admit that I found trapdoor's response post to be weird, but then I realized that English is probably not his native language, so I reread it a few times. I don't see a contradiction in there, he is just explaining that he would try to stop a lynch that he really believed was on a townie. I'll give suki the benefit of the doubt on this case and say she is an over eager townie for now.
On roflwaffle and alan:
+ Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 22:28 roflwaffles55 wrote:I woke up this morning to the arguments made towards trackd00r, and while the arguments made against him weren't particularly convincing, his defense was a little bit lackluster as well. However, I would like to bring your attention to someone else that is acting quite scummy as it stands. Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 13:05 alan133 wrote:On June 13 2012 11:12 roflwaffles55 wrote:On June 13 2012 11:03 alan133 wrote:
Good morning everyone. Looks like the first thing I am going to do in the office is to play mafia on TL. I don't recognize anyone here since this is my first game, well except for s0Lsitce since he is in the game I read. That's my brief introduction, and habitually in the beginning of any game, GLHF.
I am new and am unsure how to proceed with the game, but my current strategy is to wait for more post to come. Currently I have no FoS. That also mean I do not trust anyone yet. What are your thoughts on what's been posted as of yet? On the inactive/lurkers lynch + Show Spoiler +
I believe inactive players/lurkers are generally anti-town/bad town play in any mafia game, so lynching them isn't a bad idea (Since I believe d1 lynch is good, refer below), if there aren't better candidates of course.
On the day 1 lynch/no lynch + Show Spoiler +
I agree on lynching day 1 based on my experience with other mafia games (outside TL) with similar setup. By reading other games on TL I also notice the current meta game is to lynch when there are more players, as it gives townies clues.
I am off to lunch, will be commenting on my thoughts later as I see some interesting posts/votes already. His first post puts him on the bandwagon with his opinion on the inactives and lurkers, and is generally a contentless post with little to no controversy. Otherwise, nothing to bring the spotlight to him at all. While this is not by any means evidence of scummy play, there comes to attention the next post he makes. Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 15:40 alan133 wrote:My thoughts on suki's case: + Show Spoiler +Any possibility is valuable, but if there is something absurdly wrong, I'll call it, even if that means a no lynch. I won't accept a NO LYNCH unless I believe we may have a serious mislynch coming. I started writing before I refresh and saw s0lstice's post. As he already pointed it out, there are no contradictions between the two statements. trackd00r merely states that NL is bad unless it is a "serious" mislynch in both highlighted sentence. If I am missing something, please correct me. Also, Miltonkram: + Show Spoiler +On June 13 2012 10:35 Miltonkram wrote:
Hey all, glad to see we've got a bit of activity already.
In NMM XV we actually had a decent discussion about no-lynches (involving me making a fool of myself) and how they can actually be beneficial in certain setups. That being said, we don't know for certain if we'll have any modkills so we should leave no-lynches off the table until we hit the unlikely scenario that a no-lynch is beneficial for the town.
Town, the best way to contribute is just to get posting. Let everyone know what your thoughts are. Did someone post something suspicious? Let us know about it. Do you think the town is making a bad move? Let us know about it. If a townie lurks he/she is letting down his/her entire team. So don't do it, K? I'm sooooooooper serious. Like sooooper, soooooooooooper serious.
Hey sciberbia, remember this
##Vote: sciberbia
...heh heh heh
Is it me or you are not actually + Show Spoiler +soooooooooooooooooper serious ? I personally think (well played) townies are not the ones that bluffs around, let alone voting someone without any reason at all? Generally, fooling around, to me, is anti-town/ bad town play. My current opinion + Show Spoiler +FMPOV, suki's case was most probably based on a misunderstanding, but (s)he could very well did it intentionally hoping for a bandwagon leading to a mislynch. Note that I am merely listing the possibilities, I do not FoS anyone yet, which can also mean that I do not trust anyone yet. This is the post that really got me wondering. How by now can you have no suspicions? There has been quite a few suspicious decisions by several people, giving you more then enough time to form a case against someone, or at least apply some pressure. His statement about trackd00r comes after s0lstice, leaving his opinion tied to a fairly influential player and just reiterating what s0lstice said with no additional evidence or opinionated comments. Again, seeming like he's contributing without actually bringing anything to the table. He throws around some suspicion towards Miltonkram, however not enough to constitute a case or apply any pressure, just enough to make people go filter milton and consider what he might have done, which yet again, leaves him out of the spotlight. The last statement he makes in this post is the most suspicious and the largest tell of his indecision and lack of real input. He restates his opinion that suki's case is a misunderstanding, again, nothing of value. He then continues to explain that he has no FoS and that he doesn't trust anyone, leaving his options open, and having no real contrary opinions. His current play is anti-town at best, as he hasn't brought any of his thoughts to the table, and has only left ambiguous and bandwagoning answers to keep attention on those with controversial opinions.
I think roflwaffle is jumping a little too hard on alan here. It is like 1/3 of the way through Day 1. We are not going to have a lot to work with and consequently we aren't going to really know what to think of people until we get more information. Therefore, I feel alan is playing smartly by not rushing to find every little thing that might possibly be suspicious and throw a vote on someone because of it.
On Milton: He was just joking around. If he doesn't stop then I'll start getting suspicious of him.
As for my current thoughts:
The bolded part of this post by austin makes me suspicious of him.
+ Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 22:23 austinmcc wrote:
I don't read those posts as contradictory, believe the second one clarifies the first and explains that, while he'd consider a NL, the standard is higher than "Town is lynching someone that isn't one of my top couple reads."
That said, even if the two statements are entirely contradictory, I don't really see anything scummy in that. More inclined to see contradictions concerning votes and reads as scummy, where someone has stated one thing but then has to take a party line, rather than super early statements concerning a no lynch. There's no agenda to push on that issue.
Two completely contradictory statements without reasoning for the change is very suspicious. This is a good way to catch scum. They know the alignment of every person, so they have to make cases that they know are wrong (excluding bussing). This can lead to contradictory posts to make them better fit in with the current town mindset.
Austin, why don't you think that contradictory statements are suspicious?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 01:56 Crossfire99 wrote:Just woke up. I'll start with that only as a last resort will I be for lynching a lurker Day 1. If we can get some good scum hunting done Day 1 we will have a more productive lynch than just a random lurker. Now onto what has been happening. On the whole suki and trapdoor issue: + Show Spoiler +On June 13 2012 12:44 suki wrote:Is it just me or is trackd00r coming off as scummy already? Show nested quote +
If I understood correctly, it doesn't mean that I would stop any lynch that I didn't mention on my analysis. Just because I have a candidate for lynch, it doesn't imply that I discard any other possibility.
It's something related to common sense. If any other cases are convincing enough, I'll throw my vote there in the case I can't get a majority. In the other hand, if we end up like RNG lynching (which is a bad idea), any other poster that could be doing silly mistakes, or even a player practically saying ''hey guys, I'm mafia, lynch me'' that's when it goes against my mindset. Any possibility is valuable, but if there is something absurdly wrong, I'll call it, even if that means a no lynch.
This post screams to me that he's trying to be super cautious with his words, so that he'll have a safety net if/when he ever changes a vote or bandwagons on someone else. He throws out some 'obvious' examples of reasons of what wouldn't agree with him, and even mentions that he would follow through on a read, even if it that means a no lynch.BUT WAIT! Just ONE post previous to that he says this: Show nested quote +I won't accept a NO LYNCH unless I believe we may have a serious mislynch coming. ... Dude. You try to take a firm stance against something, and then you do the most scummy wishy-washy-ness thing ever the very next post. You're clearly informed about mafia as you brought up the idea of a day 1 RNG lynch, and being against a no lynch is not a difficult or complicated policy to hold. I feel that such a simple logical slip only happens if you're trying to play it safe and keep your options open. ##vote trackd00r I think suki was just being aggressive. I admit that I found trapdoor's response post to be weird, but then I realized that English is probably not his native language, so I reread it a few times. I don't see a contradiction in there, he is just explaining that he would try to stop a lynch that he really believed was on a townie. I'll give suki the benefit of the doubt on this case and say she is an over eager townie for now. On roflwaffle and alan: + Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 22:28 roflwaffles55 wrote:I woke up this morning to the arguments made towards trackd00r, and while the arguments made against him weren't particularly convincing, his defense was a little bit lackluster as well. However, I would like to bring your attention to someone else that is acting quite scummy as it stands. Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 13:05 alan133 wrote:On June 13 2012 11:12 roflwaffles55 wrote:On June 13 2012 11:03 alan133 wrote:
Good morning everyone. Looks like the first thing I am going to do in the office is to play mafia on TL. I don't recognize anyone here since this is my first game, well except for s0Lsitce since he is in the game I read. That's my brief introduction, and habitually in the beginning of any game, GLHF.
I am new and am unsure how to proceed with the game, but my current strategy is to wait for more post to come. Currently I have no FoS. That also mean I do not trust anyone yet. What are your thoughts on what's been posted as of yet? On the inactive/lurkers lynch + Show Spoiler +
I believe inactive players/lurkers are generally anti-town/bad town play in any mafia game, so lynching them isn't a bad idea (Since I believe d1 lynch is good, refer below), if there aren't better candidates of course.
On the day 1 lynch/no lynch + Show Spoiler +
I agree on lynching day 1 based on my experience with other mafia games (outside TL) with similar setup. By reading other games on TL I also notice the current meta game is to lynch when there are more players, as it gives townies clues.
I am off to lunch, will be commenting on my thoughts later as I see some interesting posts/votes already. His first post puts him on the bandwagon with his opinion on the inactives and lurkers, and is generally a contentless post with little to no controversy. Otherwise, nothing to bring the spotlight to him at all. While this is not by any means evidence of scummy play, there comes to attention the next post he makes. Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 15:40 alan133 wrote:My thoughts on suki's case: + Show Spoiler +Any possibility is valuable, but if there is something absurdly wrong, I'll call it, even if that means a no lynch. I won't accept a NO LYNCH unless I believe we may have a serious mislynch coming. I started writing before I refresh and saw s0lstice's post. As he already pointed it out, there are no contradictions between the two statements. trackd00r merely states that NL is bad unless it is a "serious" mislynch in both highlighted sentence. If I am missing something, please correct me. Also, Miltonkram: + Show Spoiler +On June 13 2012 10:35 Miltonkram wrote:
Hey all, glad to see we've got a bit of activity already.
In NMM XV we actually had a decent discussion about no-lynches (involving me making a fool of myself) and how they can actually be beneficial in certain setups. That being said, we don't know for certain if we'll have any modkills so we should leave no-lynches off the table until we hit the unlikely scenario that a no-lynch is beneficial for the town.
Town, the best way to contribute is just to get posting. Let everyone know what your thoughts are. Did someone post something suspicious? Let us know about it. Do you think the town is making a bad move? Let us know about it. If a townie lurks he/she is letting down his/her entire team. So don't do it, K? I'm sooooooooper serious. Like sooooper, soooooooooooper serious.
Hey sciberbia, remember this
##Vote: sciberbia
...heh heh heh
Is it me or you are not actually + Show Spoiler +soooooooooooooooooper serious ? I personally think (well played) townies are not the ones that bluffs around, let alone voting someone without any reason at all? Generally, fooling around, to me, is anti-town/ bad town play. My current opinion + Show Spoiler +FMPOV, suki's case was most probably based on a misunderstanding, but (s)he could very well did it intentionally hoping for a bandwagon leading to a mislynch. Note that I am merely listing the possibilities, I do not FoS anyone yet, which can also mean that I do not trust anyone yet. This is the post that really got me wondering. How by now can you have no suspicions? There has been quite a few suspicious decisions by several people, giving you more then enough time to form a case against someone, or at least apply some pressure. His statement about trackd00r comes after s0lstice, leaving his opinion tied to a fairly influential player and just reiterating what s0lstice said with no additional evidence or opinionated comments. Again, seeming like he's contributing without actually bringing anything to the table. He throws around some suspicion towards Miltonkram, however not enough to constitute a case or apply any pressure, just enough to make people go filter milton and consider what he might have done, which yet again, leaves him out of the spotlight. The last statement he makes in this post is the most suspicious and the largest tell of his indecision and lack of real input. He restates his opinion that suki's case is a misunderstanding, again, nothing of value. He then continues to explain that he has no FoS and that he doesn't trust anyone, leaving his options open, and having no real contrary opinions. His current play is anti-town at best, as he hasn't brought any of his thoughts to the table, and has only left ambiguous and bandwagoning answers to keep attention on those with controversial opinions. I think roflwaffle is jumping a little too hard on alan here. It is like 1/3 of the way through Day 1. We are not going to have a lot to work with and consequently we aren't going to really know what to think of people until we get more information. Therefore, I feel alan is playing smartly by not rushing to find every little thing that might possibly be suspicious and throw a vote on someone because of it. On Milton: He was just joking around. If he doesn't stop then I'll start getting suspicious of him. As for my current thoughts: The bolded part of this post by austin makes me suspicious of him. + Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 22:23 austinmcc wrote:
I don't read those posts as contradictory, believe the second one clarifies the first and explains that, while he'd consider a NL, the standard is higher than "Town is lynching someone that isn't one of my top couple reads."
That said, even if the two statements are entirely contradictory, I don't really see anything scummy in that. More inclined to see contradictions concerning votes and reads as scummy, where someone has stated one thing but then has to take a party line, rather than super early statements concerning a no lynch. There's no agenda to push on that issue. Two completely contradictory statements without reasoning for the change is very suspicious. This is a good way to catch scum. They know the alignment of every person, so they have to make cases that they know are wrong (excluding bussing). This can lead to contradictory posts to make them better fit in with the current town mindset. Austin, why don't you think that contradictory statements are suspicious?
We need more information, and the only way to get that information is by pressuring people, scum starts with an information advantage and the faster we work to even that out, the better position we'll be in.
|
On June 14 2012 01:35 roflwaffles55 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 23:48 alan133 wrote:@rolfwaffles55 + Show Spoiler +His first post puts him on the bandwagon with his opinion on the inactives and lurkers, and is generally a contentless post with little to no controversy. Otherwise, nothing to bring the spotlight to him at all.
Well, you were the one asking for my opinion on what has already posted. This is the post that really got me wondering. How by now can you have no suspicions? There has been quite a few suspicious decisions by several people, giving you more then enough time to form a case against someone, or at least apply some pressure. You can decide if I am honest about writing the post before s0lstice, which was also stated in my post. (I refreshed to see if there are new post before I "submit") I also shortened it to avoid long repeated post. I wrote the possible motivations behind suki's case. I don't see how it is "anti-town" or "just fillers", as these were exactly my thoughts on the case. FMPOV, anyone can be scum, and having no FoS does not mean I do not suspect anyone. I merely state that I have no strong scum read as of currently, and in my context, strong means pretty much confirmed. IMO those who are decisive in throwing votes based on weak or insubstantial claims were somewhat suspicious. I think it is normal for townies to hold doubts and and being decisive as they were less informed. If anything, I just tried to keep an open mind. Also, is it me or you were trying to divert the attention AWAY from suki? I don't see how keeping the attention on suki is a bad thing, as you suggested. His current play is anti-town at best, as he hasn't brought any of his thoughts to the table, and has only left ambiguous and bandwagoning answers to keep attention on those with controversial opinions. Well if you're complaining about not bringing up any of my thoughts, there you have it. I were trying to avoid throwing out suspicions with little to no proof, but if by not doing so is anti-townAs a matter of fact, roflwaffles55 asked for my opinion replying to my opening post, and criticise it being a bandwagon, while forgetting he did the same. + Show Spoiler +On June 13 2012 11:03 roflwaffles55 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 10:46 s0Lstice wrote:On June 13 2012 09:56 roflwaffles55 wrote:
Hey everyone!
Glad I got towned up for my first game, I'm hoping to be able to contribute to the analysis and casebuilding, as well as make some good reads of my own!
I'll read up on the previous game that the 6 of you were a part of to see if I can't make some good calls when it comes time to vote. Would you care to comment on the topics sciberbia brought up? Sure! When it comes to lynching lurkers I would agree in that it shouldn't be the focus, and would prefer to lynch someone acting scummy day 1. As to NL, I am firmly against it and if we can't get a clear majority on scummy-acting folks then we should at least lynch a lurker, especially on D1 and 2.
Well, he also voted me on these insubstantial reasons. Of course, he also missed one or two post made by Miltonkram and austinmcc, which posted something more or less what I said. Also, if I am the only one not bringing up cases, there should be at least 11 other cases already. Of course, those were ignored and he proceed to vote me.@trackd00r + Show Spoiler +
Looks like you intented to write something else about me, but a single post of S0lstice made your opinion change quite quickly, very quickly IMO.
This is a weird speculation, as there is no indication nor proof I was not doing otherwise. I guess there is no way to say "I swear I was backing you up even before I read anything else!!111", but oh well. I did edit my post after I saw ss0lstice's post, mostly shortening what was already mentioned by ss0lstice, as most of my points were agreeing with him. My policy is to stay as neutral as possible, accessing all the possibilities while passively waiting/reading what other people has posted. I do believe this is not a bad-town play, as I am trying to avoid town fighting town scenario while scums lurks and look at the drama while eating pop-corns. That said, Crossfire99 is still missing while HeavOnEarth only has his opening post. I would like to see other people's thought on suki and rolfwaffles55's cases. While I am completely aware that my case has several holes in it, nobody can expect an ironclad case halfway through D1. The points you bring up in the first half of your response to me continue to be ambiguous, I'm glad you started to get your legitimate opinions out there, being quiet and neutral will get us nowhere. Both of our initial posts tended to agree with the majority, but as I said, that wasn't the focus of my argument, it was the post on the suki argument that got my suspicions roused. Yes, I did vote you, but you forget that votes are easily removable, and the fact that you had to write a sensationalist paragraph in red text rather then just poke through the obvious logical holes in my cases convince me that you have something to lose, whether it be scum, blue, or just poor play. As suki said, don't stay neutral, start posting your opinion on people, even if it brings attention to you.
Be careful roflwaffle, votes are only easily removable if you are around to remove them. You never know what might happen. Also, votes early on in the day cycle that don't really mean much followed by complete disappearance during a controversial lynch can be scum tactic to avoid making mistakes in a heated debate that occurs last minute.
|
On June 14 2012 02:00 roflwaffles55 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 01:56 Crossfire99 wrote:Just woke up. I'll start with that only as a last resort will I be for lynching a lurker Day 1. If we can get some good scum hunting done Day 1 we will have a more productive lynch than just a random lurker. Now onto what has been happening. On the whole suki and trapdoor issue: + Show Spoiler +On June 13 2012 12:44 suki wrote:Is it just me or is trackd00r coming off as scummy already? Show nested quote +
If I understood correctly, it doesn't mean that I would stop any lynch that I didn't mention on my analysis. Just because I have a candidate for lynch, it doesn't imply that I discard any other possibility.
It's something related to common sense. If any other cases are convincing enough, I'll throw my vote there in the case I can't get a majority. In the other hand, if we end up like RNG lynching (which is a bad idea), any other poster that could be doing silly mistakes, or even a player practically saying ''hey guys, I'm mafia, lynch me'' that's when it goes against my mindset. Any possibility is valuable, but if there is something absurdly wrong, I'll call it, even if that means a no lynch.
This post screams to me that he's trying to be super cautious with his words, so that he'll have a safety net if/when he ever changes a vote or bandwagons on someone else. He throws out some 'obvious' examples of reasons of what wouldn't agree with him, and even mentions that he would follow through on a read, even if it that means a no lynch.BUT WAIT! Just ONE post previous to that he says this: Show nested quote +I won't accept a NO LYNCH unless I believe we may have a serious mislynch coming. ... Dude. You try to take a firm stance against something, and then you do the most scummy wishy-washy-ness thing ever the very next post. You're clearly informed about mafia as you brought up the idea of a day 1 RNG lynch, and being against a no lynch is not a difficult or complicated policy to hold. I feel that such a simple logical slip only happens if you're trying to play it safe and keep your options open. ##vote trackd00r I think suki was just being aggressive. I admit that I found trapdoor's response post to be weird, but then I realized that English is probably not his native language, so I reread it a few times. I don't see a contradiction in there, he is just explaining that he would try to stop a lynch that he really believed was on a townie. I'll give suki the benefit of the doubt on this case and say she is an over eager townie for now. On roflwaffle and alan: + Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 22:28 roflwaffles55 wrote:I woke up this morning to the arguments made towards trackd00r, and while the arguments made against him weren't particularly convincing, his defense was a little bit lackluster as well. However, I would like to bring your attention to someone else that is acting quite scummy as it stands. Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 13:05 alan133 wrote:On June 13 2012 11:12 roflwaffles55 wrote:On June 13 2012 11:03 alan133 wrote:
Good morning everyone. Looks like the first thing I am going to do in the office is to play mafia on TL. I don't recognize anyone here since this is my first game, well except for s0Lsitce since he is in the game I read. That's my brief introduction, and habitually in the beginning of any game, GLHF.
I am new and am unsure how to proceed with the game, but my current strategy is to wait for more post to come. Currently I have no FoS. That also mean I do not trust anyone yet. What are your thoughts on what's been posted as of yet? On the inactive/lurkers lynch + Show Spoiler +
I believe inactive players/lurkers are generally anti-town/bad town play in any mafia game, so lynching them isn't a bad idea (Since I believe d1 lynch is good, refer below), if there aren't better candidates of course.
On the day 1 lynch/no lynch + Show Spoiler +
I agree on lynching day 1 based on my experience with other mafia games (outside TL) with similar setup. By reading other games on TL I also notice the current meta game is to lynch when there are more players, as it gives townies clues.
I am off to lunch, will be commenting on my thoughts later as I see some interesting posts/votes already. His first post puts him on the bandwagon with his opinion on the inactives and lurkers, and is generally a contentless post with little to no controversy. Otherwise, nothing to bring the spotlight to him at all. While this is not by any means evidence of scummy play, there comes to attention the next post he makes. Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 15:40 alan133 wrote:My thoughts on suki's case: + Show Spoiler +Any possibility is valuable, but if there is something absurdly wrong, I'll call it, even if that means a no lynch. I won't accept a NO LYNCH unless I believe we may have a serious mislynch coming. I started writing before I refresh and saw s0lstice's post. As he already pointed it out, there are no contradictions between the two statements. trackd00r merely states that NL is bad unless it is a "serious" mislynch in both highlighted sentence. If I am missing something, please correct me. Also, Miltonkram: + Show Spoiler +On June 13 2012 10:35 Miltonkram wrote:
Hey all, glad to see we've got a bit of activity already.
In NMM XV we actually had a decent discussion about no-lynches (involving me making a fool of myself) and how they can actually be beneficial in certain setups. That being said, we don't know for certain if we'll have any modkills so we should leave no-lynches off the table until we hit the unlikely scenario that a no-lynch is beneficial for the town.
Town, the best way to contribute is just to get posting. Let everyone know what your thoughts are. Did someone post something suspicious? Let us know about it. Do you think the town is making a bad move? Let us know about it. If a townie lurks he/she is letting down his/her entire team. So don't do it, K? I'm sooooooooper serious. Like sooooper, soooooooooooper serious.
Hey sciberbia, remember this
##Vote: sciberbia
...heh heh heh
Is it me or you are not actually + Show Spoiler +soooooooooooooooooper serious ? I personally think (well played) townies are not the ones that bluffs around, let alone voting someone without any reason at all? Generally, fooling around, to me, is anti-town/ bad town play. My current opinion + Show Spoiler +FMPOV, suki's case was most probably based on a misunderstanding, but (s)he could very well did it intentionally hoping for a bandwagon leading to a mislynch. Note that I am merely listing the possibilities, I do not FoS anyone yet, which can also mean that I do not trust anyone yet. This is the post that really got me wondering. How by now can you have no suspicions? There has been quite a few suspicious decisions by several people, giving you more then enough time to form a case against someone, or at least apply some pressure. His statement about trackd00r comes after s0lstice, leaving his opinion tied to a fairly influential player and just reiterating what s0lstice said with no additional evidence or opinionated comments. Again, seeming like he's contributing without actually bringing anything to the table. He throws around some suspicion towards Miltonkram, however not enough to constitute a case or apply any pressure, just enough to make people go filter milton and consider what he might have done, which yet again, leaves him out of the spotlight. The last statement he makes in this post is the most suspicious and the largest tell of his indecision and lack of real input. He restates his opinion that suki's case is a misunderstanding, again, nothing of value. He then continues to explain that he has no FoS and that he doesn't trust anyone, leaving his options open, and having no real contrary opinions. His current play is anti-town at best, as he hasn't brought any of his thoughts to the table, and has only left ambiguous and bandwagoning answers to keep attention on those with controversial opinions. I think roflwaffle is jumping a little too hard on alan here. It is like 1/3 of the way through Day 1. We are not going to have a lot to work with and consequently we aren't going to really know what to think of people until we get more information. Therefore, I feel alan is playing smartly by not rushing to find every little thing that might possibly be suspicious and throw a vote on someone because of it. On Milton: He was just joking around. If he doesn't stop then I'll start getting suspicious of him. As for my current thoughts: The bolded part of this post by austin makes me suspicious of him. + Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 22:23 austinmcc wrote:
I don't read those posts as contradictory, believe the second one clarifies the first and explains that, while he'd consider a NL, the standard is higher than "Town is lynching someone that isn't one of my top couple reads."
That said, even if the two statements are entirely contradictory, I don't really see anything scummy in that. More inclined to see contradictions concerning votes and reads as scummy, where someone has stated one thing but then has to take a party line, rather than super early statements concerning a no lynch. There's no agenda to push on that issue. Two completely contradictory statements without reasoning for the change is very suspicious. This is a good way to catch scum. They know the alignment of every person, so they have to make cases that they know are wrong (excluding bussing). This can lead to contradictory posts to make them better fit in with the current town mindset. Austin, why don't you think that contradictory statements are suspicious? We need more information, and the only way to get that information is by pressuring people, scum starts with an information advantage and the faster we work to even that out, the better position we'll be in.
I agree that we need more information and we get that from pressuring people, but we need to do that smartly. If too many people are throwing around minor accusations all the time, it just confuses the town and allows mafia to sit back and laugh. That is what happened in NMM XIII when I was mafia. Ask austin, he was in it too.
|
Activity level is decent, I am pleased. Here's my current thoughts.
Miltonkram
His vote was a joke. Maybe it was more clear to people in the game that the joke is from, but don't read too far into it.
trackd00r
Suki's post concerning trackd00r met my approval. It did nothing to prove his scummyness (as she later clarified), but it got the ball rolling. My read on trackd00r is still neutral.
suki
the sample size is extremely small, but her strawman case against trackd00r immediately goes against her scum meta. Day 1 doesn't truly begin until someone makes a 'meh' case against someone else with a few 'meh' points. Being that first person is a position of pseudo-leadership, and I consider it less likely that a scummer would be so bold. I don't put a ton of stock into this, but it is something to keep in mind.
Mouldy Jeb
You are my #1 suspicion at this point. You make a big deal out of Milton's vote. You profess a nebulous, baseless suspicion of roflwaffles55, then compliment him on his scumhunting. If you knew this was a contradiction why did you even type it?
On refresh, I see Crossfire99 has shown up. Hello and welcome. I'm gonna put you under a magnifying glass now ;D
|
On June 14 2012 02:02 Crossfire99 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 01:35 roflwaffles55 wrote:On June 13 2012 23:48 alan133 wrote:@rolfwaffles55 + Show Spoiler +His first post puts him on the bandwagon with his opinion on the inactives and lurkers, and is generally a contentless post with little to no controversy. Otherwise, nothing to bring the spotlight to him at all.
Well, you were the one asking for my opinion on what has already posted. This is the post that really got me wondering. How by now can you have no suspicions? There has been quite a few suspicious decisions by several people, giving you more then enough time to form a case against someone, or at least apply some pressure. You can decide if I am honest about writing the post before s0lstice, which was also stated in my post. (I refreshed to see if there are new post before I "submit") I also shortened it to avoid long repeated post. I wrote the possible motivations behind suki's case. I don't see how it is "anti-town" or "just fillers", as these were exactly my thoughts on the case. FMPOV, anyone can be scum, and having no FoS does not mean I do not suspect anyone. I merely state that I have no strong scum read as of currently, and in my context, strong means pretty much confirmed. IMO those who are decisive in throwing votes based on weak or insubstantial claims were somewhat suspicious. I think it is normal for townies to hold doubts and and being decisive as they were less informed. If anything, I just tried to keep an open mind. Also, is it me or you were trying to divert the attention AWAY from suki? I don't see how keeping the attention on suki is a bad thing, as you suggested. His current play is anti-town at best, as he hasn't brought any of his thoughts to the table, and has only left ambiguous and bandwagoning answers to keep attention on those with controversial opinions. Well if you're complaining about not bringing up any of my thoughts, there you have it. I were trying to avoid throwing out suspicions with little to no proof, but if by not doing so is anti-townAs a matter of fact, roflwaffles55 asked for my opinion replying to my opening post, and criticise it being a bandwagon, while forgetting he did the same. + Show Spoiler +On June 13 2012 11:03 roflwaffles55 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 10:46 s0Lstice wrote:On June 13 2012 09:56 roflwaffles55 wrote:
Hey everyone!
Glad I got towned up for my first game, I'm hoping to be able to contribute to the analysis and casebuilding, as well as make some good reads of my own!
I'll read up on the previous game that the 6 of you were a part of to see if I can't make some good calls when it comes time to vote. Would you care to comment on the topics sciberbia brought up? Sure! When it comes to lynching lurkers I would agree in that it shouldn't be the focus, and would prefer to lynch someone acting scummy day 1. As to NL, I am firmly against it and if we can't get a clear majority on scummy-acting folks then we should at least lynch a lurker, especially on D1 and 2.
Well, he also voted me on these insubstantial reasons. Of course, he also missed one or two post made by Miltonkram and austinmcc, which posted something more or less what I said. Also, if I am the only one not bringing up cases, there should be at least 11 other cases already. Of course, those were ignored and he proceed to vote me.@trackd00r + Show Spoiler +
Looks like you intented to write something else about me, but a single post of S0lstice made your opinion change quite quickly, very quickly IMO.
This is a weird speculation, as there is no indication nor proof I was not doing otherwise. I guess there is no way to say "I swear I was backing you up even before I read anything else!!111", but oh well. I did edit my post after I saw ss0lstice's post, mostly shortening what was already mentioned by ss0lstice, as most of my points were agreeing with him. My policy is to stay as neutral as possible, accessing all the possibilities while passively waiting/reading what other people has posted. I do believe this is not a bad-town play, as I am trying to avoid town fighting town scenario while scums lurks and look at the drama while eating pop-corns. That said, Crossfire99 is still missing while HeavOnEarth only has his opening post. I would like to see other people's thought on suki and rolfwaffles55's cases. While I am completely aware that my case has several holes in it, nobody can expect an ironclad case halfway through D1. The points you bring up in the first half of your response to me continue to be ambiguous, I'm glad you started to get your legitimate opinions out there, being quiet and neutral will get us nowhere. Both of our initial posts tended to agree with the majority, but as I said, that wasn't the focus of my argument, it was the post on the suki argument that got my suspicions roused. Yes, I did vote you, but you forget that votes are easily removable, and the fact that you had to write a sensationalist paragraph in red text rather then just poke through the obvious logical holes in my cases convince me that you have something to lose, whether it be scum, blue, or just poor play. As suki said, don't stay neutral, start posting your opinion on people, even if it brings attention to you. Be careful roflwaffle, votes are only easily removable if you are around to remove them. You never know what might happen. Also, votes early on in the day cycle that don't really mean much followed by complete disappearance during a controversial lynch can be scum tactic to avoid making mistakes in a heated debate that occurs last minute.
I agree that I may have been a bit too aggressive right off the bat, but I implore you to look at my arguments and his, and take more from it then just an overzealous attempt on my part.
##unvote alan133
There you go, I'm still suspicious, but I may have underestimated the significance of a vote.
|
As for my suspicions, golden still hasn't replied, and there seems to be a lot of random fluff RIGHT AFTER my accusation, by both Mouldy Jeb AND crossfire( oh hey there nice of u to suddenly wake up )
this is a common mafia tactic, to throw the spotlight off someone being accused.
check out Mouldy Jeb's posts, and accusations
On June 14 2012 00:20 Mouldy Jeb wrote:
nope roffle that was a gut feeling about you that why I stated I have no evidence
Why would someone try to direct suspicions with NO reasoning?
|
Crossfire99, what do you think of what I said about Mouldy Jeb?
Roflwaffles55, same question.
|
Hey guys. I've been trying to keep up with the thread from work, but there are more posts than I have time to read and it's not really working out. Just posting to let you know that I'll not be doing major analysis and/or posting until 6-12 hours from now. Sorry about that. Keep up the discussion - it looks good.
|
On June 14 2012 02:02 Crossfire99 wrote:
--snipped
Be careful roflwaffle, votes are only easily removable if you are around to remove them. You never know what might happen. Also, votes early on in the day cycle that don't really mean much followed by complete disappearance during a controversial lynch can be scum tactic to avoid making mistakes in a heated debate that occurs last minute.
What an odd thing to say. Your message boils down to: don't vote because you might not be around later, and when that happens you are going to look scummy. Discouraging voting for such an arbitrary reason looks kind of scummy. Also, this hall-monitor stuff is a comfortable way for scum to post and have it look like they are pro-town.
|
On June 14 2012 01:56 Crossfire99 wrote:As for my current thoughts: The bolded part of this post by austin makes me suspicious of him. + Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 22:23 austinmcc wrote:
I don't read those posts as contradictory, believe the second one clarifies the first and explains that, while he'd consider a NL, the standard is higher than "Town is lynching someone that isn't one of my top couple reads."
That said, even if the two statements are entirely contradictory, I don't really see anything scummy in that. More inclined to see contradictions concerning votes and reads as scummy, where someone has stated one thing but then has to take a party line, rather than super early statements concerning a no lynch. There's no agenda to push on that issue. Two completely contradictory statements without reasoning for the change is very suspicious. This is a good way to catch scum. They know the alignment of every person, so they have to make cases that they know are wrong (excluding bussing). This can lead to contradictory posts to make them better fit in with the current town mindset. Austin, why don't you think that contradictory statements are suspicious? They can be, depending on what they concern, and when they occur. See the italicized above, although I should have more explicitly qualified the bolded bit.
If someone had barged into the thread yesterday saying "I love no lynches" and then "I hate no lynches" in the very next post, that's not scummy to me. There's no debate here (nobody is proposing we NL), it's not important at this time (start of day, no NL proposal). There's no scummy reason to swap between those two statements on that particular topic at this particular time.
|
On June 14 2012 02:45 s0Lstice wrote:
Crossfire99, what do you think of what I said about Mouldy Jeb?
Roflwaffles55, same question.
Yeah Mouldy is acting really weird. He needs to get active to explain himself. Everything he has said so far lacks good reasoning.
|
First of all, sorry for my bad English. I'll try to check my grammar before posting.
Mouldy Jeb's play is confusing as hell.
Not only his posts have no real town content, but the way he writes them makes me feel I'm looking at a completely different game.
Anyways, I can't tell if this is scum play or just plain bad town play. Since he stated that in his last game he got lynched D1, the latter option is what I'm taking at the moment.
@Mouldy: What do you think of last miltonkram post? Do you keep your stance on him?
|
@roflwaffles55
+ Show Spoiler +Yes, I did vote you, but you forget that votes are easily removable, and the fact that you had to write a sensationalist paragraph in red text rather then just poke through the obvious logical holes in my cases convince me that you have something to lose, whether it be scum, blue, or just poor play. The red text was meant to emphasize on how easily I could've built a case against you if I were to use the same speculations and baseless assumptions. I also noticed you were focusing a lot on me, from asking my opinion to my opening post, proceeding to accuse me of supposedly leaking "scum-tells", and then voting me. I thought of your possible motives, and it made sense for both town and scum plays. (see summary)
But enough of you, it is late over here so I think it is better for me to notify my leave as well as writing a summary.
+ Show Spoiler +I feel like there are still not enough post to build any case on. Maybe because of time difference everyone is sleeping while I am refreshing the page every 3 seconds. My standing on voting. + Show Spoiler + I know I might be talking votes too seriously as stated, but IMO townies should behave seriously and cast every votes (even if it is retractable) as if they are not allowed to retract, in other words, use ##FoS to declare an "eyeing" instead. Furthermore, I think it is beneficial to town if people cast votes seriously. Of course, I do agree on using it to apply pressure, but the effect diminishes if everyone just throws it around. @roflwaffles55 Current strategy seems to be "pressing one guy until he is dry", which make sense for both Scums and Town. Scum: + Show Spoiler +<pick one target> and hope (s)he is inexperience and find out if (s)he has a power role. If (s)he slips, proceed to pursue for a mislynch. Town: + Show Spoiler +There is very little activity right now. <target> seems most scummy, lets see what we can squeeze out of him, and even if I am wrong we can get people to talk more. @suki First started case based on false contradictions. Votes trackd00r. Retracts later and claims she thought the (non-existence) contradiction was not as severe as she thought. I find this slightly scummy but it is well within reason for a townie to behave this way (get discussions rolling, which no doubt is successful) That said, I sensed an organized "pattern". Sending two goons to + Show Spoiler +Reads post --> Throw out case (with weak evidence/logical support) --> vote --> see response/find ways to abuse. while one hiding in the dark. I think I might have read too much into it, and it was just 2 eager townies trying to get things rolling. I would like to hear opinions from other people.
I took too long just to type out a post (constant googling, spell checking) I only listed two person here because they stood out more to me: I planned to write a summary for everyone but it is too late now. Living at the other side of the hemisphere from the rest of players kind of suck. Will be seeing you guys in 7 hours, off to bed.
|
On June 14 2012 03:24 s0Lstice wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 02:02 Crossfire99 wrote:
--snipped
Be careful roflwaffle, votes are only easily removable if you are around to remove them. You never know what might happen. Also, votes early on in the day cycle that don't really mean much followed by complete disappearance during a controversial lynch can be scum tactic to avoid making mistakes in a heated debate that occurs last minute.
What an odd thing to say. Your message boils down to: don't vote because you might not be around later, and when that happens you are going to look scummy. Discouraging voting for such an arbitrary reason looks kind of scummy. Also, this hall-monitor stuff is a comfortable way for scum to post and have it look like they are pro-town.
I never said don't vote. I just said be careful about throwing your votes around willy-nilly under the premise that you are going to remove them later. I never even said don't do that. I just don't want someone sticking someone else with a vote for flimsy reasons that ends up sealing a lynch because they couldn't get back in time to change it. That was the entire point of those two sentences.
As for the mention of the scum tactic, I'm just saying that sometimes scum can not take part in big discussions later in the day by voting early and then disappearing. I'm just trying to help roflwaffle, by trying to get him to think about taking his vote seriously and having good reasons for whatever he does. If no one holds anyone accountable mafia can just breeze on by.
|
On June 14 2012 02:45 s0Lstice wrote:
Crossfire99, what do you think of what I said about Mouldy Jeb?
Roflwaffles55, same question.
I would agree with what you said, his statements and arguments have been fairly baseless with little to no purpose.
He has his "suspicions" of me and says to watch Milton, but brings nothing substantial otherwise. The lack of bringing forth any real argument is what makes me suspicious.
|
On June 14 2012 03:51 roflwaffles55 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 02:45 s0Lstice wrote:
Crossfire99, what do you think of what I said about Mouldy Jeb?
Roflwaffles55, same question. I would agree with what you said, his statements and arguments have been fairly baseless with little to no purpose. He has his "suspicions" of me and says to watch Milton, but brings nothing substantial otherwise. The lack of bringing forth any real argument is what makes me suspicious.
my apologies, either way that was very early game 1. really should a sensible person take suspicions that were made very early on and 2. yes that was probably not the best thing to say.
@trackd00r
that was an early game suspicion I didn't cast a vote or persist I merely summarised my views in a post.
I just got back from work and ill read over some of the cases that have been raised and post my view on the situation shortly.
|
On June 13 2012 12:04 trackd00r wrote:
s0lstice: Is it my idea or you already gained trust from Sciberbia?
I'm off to bed now. Can't do much atm. Will be back in 8 hours ~
Sorry I missed this. You are asking if I trust sciberbia right now? Put simply: no. He hasn't posted enough yet.
|
Alright, I caught up on the thread after I woke up. Here are my thoughts.
suki
I can see her play being overzealous townie, but she hasn't done much to convince me. Another reason I'm suspicious is that she's ignored my case against her. I remember during my game as scum it was very tempting to ignore pressure and just hope that people would drop their cases instead of actually defending myself. I won't be dropping my pressure until I get a satisfactory response. @ s0Lstice, be wary of meta arguments. Scum, especially newbie scum, adapt their play from game to game.
Crossfire99
He's been coaching a lot without putting up any real content besides his weak pressure on austinmcc. I've got my eye on him.
alan133
roflwaffle's case on him was fairly decent. I don't understand why he dropped it. He's "contributed" without putting much pressure on players.
roflwaffles55
I'm suspicious of this guy based on two of his posts. First one is a response to s0Lstice/sciberbia: Sure!
When it comes to lynching lurkers I would agree in that it shouldn't be the focus, and would prefer to lynch someone acting scummy day 1.
As to NL, I am firmly against it and if we can't get a clear majority on scummy-acting folks then we should at least lynch a lurker, especially on D1 and 2.
Notice the eager to please tone of his post. I'm looking at it as a possible scumslip. His 2nd suspicious post: I agree that I may have been a bit too aggressive right off the bat, but I implore you to look at my arguments and his, and take more from it then just an overzealous attempt on my part.
##unvote alan133
There you go, I'm still suspicious, but I may have underestimated the significance of a vote.
Notice how self-conscious he is in this post, especially in that last line. I realize that several players weren't interested in his case, but there is absolutely no harm in keeping pressure on a player until they give you a satisfactory defense. Essentially he backs down from his pressure based on a tiny reprimand from Crossfire. It seems like he's trying to keep himself out of the spotlight.
Mouldy Jeb
Ditto what s0Lstice said. The one thing I have to add is for people to look at his latest post. He apologizes and makes a bare bones defense of his posting that reeks of self-conscious play. He's #1 on my scumdar right now.
Golden + HeavOnEarth
Get in the thread and post more. You guys can start by giving me your opinions on this post.
Obviously all these players can't be scum. I'll be looking through the thread more to see what I can do about narrowing down my list of suspicious players. Right now I'm leaning towards roflwaffles and MJ. I'm waiting to see if suki actually defends herself this time around.
|
On June 14 2012 06:38 Miltonkram wrote:roflwaffles55I'm suspicious of this guy based on two of his posts. First one is a response to s0Lstice/sciberbia: Show nested quote +Sure!
When it comes to lynching lurkers I would agree in that it shouldn't be the focus, and would prefer to lynch someone acting scummy day 1.
As to NL, I am firmly against it and if we can't get a clear majority on scummy-acting folks then we should at least lynch a lurker, especially on D1 and 2. Notice the eager to please tone of his post. I'm looking at it as a possible scumslip. His 2nd suspicious post: Show nested quote +I agree that I may have been a bit too aggressive right off the bat, but I implore you to look at my arguments and his, and take more from it then just an overzealous attempt on my part.
##unvote alan133
There you go, I'm still suspicious, but I may have underestimated the significance of a vote. Notice how self-conscious he is in this post, especially in that last line. I realize that several players weren't interested in his case, but there is absolutely no harm in keeping pressure on a player until they give you a satisfactory defense. Essentially he backs down from his pressure based on a tiny reprimand from Crossfire. It seems like he's trying to keep himself out of the spotlight. Obviously all these players can't be scum. I'll be looking through the thread more to see what I can do about narrowing down my list of suspicious players. Right now I'm leaning towards roflwaffles and MJ. I'm waiting to see if suki actually defends herself this time around.
You've defeated yourself in your own argument against me, with the explanation as to why I backed down on alan133. I backed down because I hadn't received any support towards my case. You also defeated yourself by saying that I'm trying to keep myself out of the spotlight, if I wanted that, I wouldn't have been the third person to post a case, let alone one I knew would net me a bunch of flak.
I made the case to put pressure on someone that was lacking any real opinion, whether because he felt that there wasn't enough data to form one, or because he was hiding from the spotlight himself.
The evidence or suspicions that you have brought up can be answered so easily I'm not sure why you didn't come up with them yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
