|
On June 14 2012 03:50 alan133 wrote:@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.
Interesting that the first legitimate read that you come up with is a conspiracy between me and suki. Not only is it completely ridiculous, but you second guess it immediately, again leaving your options open so that you can't actually be held accountable for anything. Put yourself on the line, start contributing to the big picture and not just responding emotionally to me, and think logically about what you're going to post.
The biggest thing that keeps irking me about your play is your seeming avoidance of actual decision making, the fact that even when criticizing my play you can't say "I think this is scummy". You go all the way around it and put the possible motivations from both angles.
I would appreciate it if someone other then me looked at alan133's posts and formed their own independent opinion on him.
|
@ roflwaffles
Ok, I see what you're saying. I thought you were completely backing off of alan even though you've made a decent case against him. I still don't like the fact that you took your vote off of him based on a wrist-slap from Crossfire, but I guess I misunderstood your intent. Since you're still pursuing your case on alan the unvote seems less scummy.
As far as alan133 is concerned I think you may have something. He's put very little pressure on anyone. When he does pressure he seems wishy-washy as hell.
Top two scumreads as of this moment: Mouldy Jeb and alan133.
@Crossfire, Golden, and HeavOnEarth
What do you think of these two players and the cases against them? Are there any scummy players you think we're missing? We need more activity out of you guys. Of the three of you, only heaven's put decent pressure on anyone and even that is difficult to take seriously because he hasn't followed up on his reads at all.
|
Just got back and am in the process of making notes on everyone, but going to be afk for a couple hours. alan133 is the topic of discussion right now so here are my thoughts on him
"I started writing before I refresh and saw s0lstice's post" + Show Spoiler +
First of all, i think he is referring to my post. Don't know why everyone's been calling it s0lstice's post.
Anyway, alan has gotten some flak for this statement but I actually think it is more townie indicative than anything.
First of all, I highly doubt he'd lie about refreshing. There's really no point to that.
Secondly, consider that he didn't have to tell us about refreshing and editing. Nobody was pressuring him. He could have easily just scrapped his post and rewritten it. If he was scum, would he want to give us extra information about what posts he's been writing? Probably not. So I see his openness with us as a townie attribute.
Accusation that he has been wishy/washy+ Show Spoiler +
He has made some statements about being neutral and unsure, explicitly talking about "merely listing the possibilities" and how he "does not trust anyone yet".
While wishyness/washiness is a common attribute of newbie scum, I don't find his stances particularly scummy. It doesn't seem like a scummy wishy/washy, just an unsure wishy/washy.
He isn't being subtle about things; he is openly stating that he is unsure. I don't see this as a scumtell.
His question to the mods+ Show Spoiler +
Seems like a pretty honest question. I doubt he's trying to make himself seem townie by asking the mods questions. Looks like he just actually wants to know. And if he were mafia, I think he'd more likely be posting this in the mafia QT
His aggressive response to roflwaffles+ Show Spoiler +
He was put under the suspicion of roflwaffles and somewhat trackd00r. alan is a forum mafia newbie who doesn't know anyone here. If he was mafia, I'd expect him to be scared/timid about being accused, whereas if he is town, I'd expect him to be indignant. I liked that he was aggressive back at roflwaffles.
Overall, there is nothing I see as scummy about alan and a few things that look townie. So I think he's probably town.
got to go now. I'll be back in about two hours.
|
Just checking in guys. I'm going to make a post on my top scumreads in a few hours, as well as some errata. Lynch time is fast approaching and we really need to buckle down.
|
Hey guys
getting stuck into reading now, expect incoming analysis from myself.
currently at work but expect some @lunch
golden
|
I'm off to work. I'll post more later tonight. Leave me something to come back to.
|
On June 14 2012 08:38 s0Lstice wrote:
Just checking in guys. I'm going to make a post on my top scumreads in a few hours, as well as some errata. Lynch time is fast approaching and we really need to buckle down.
? lynch isn't for another 24 hours?
|
was sort of waiting for MJ to post something after he was like hurr durr ima post soon. i took a look at his previous game though and his posts seem consistent from when he was townie. hes really not helping at all, and definitely still looks scum, but it feels like poor town play rather than mafia.
as for golden im still undecided since he hasnt posted anything what the fuck -_-. why sign up if ur not gonna fucking play
but i guess i doubt hes mafia, i would've expected at least a simple reply to my accusations if he was mafia by now. but it seems he just doesnt give a fuck
@_@ idk. kinda confused at this point
|
Regarding rofl's case against alan:
I don't think that case will get us somewhere. Rofl's is tunneling him and the response he's had don't tell to much. I wonder if you are going to continue the pressure to him. Half day has passed, so it would be wise to vote for him if you don't have any other clear option at the moment.
I don't know if you are pushing this case any harder, or at least you are being kinda inconsistent with your thoughts. First you say you want to put down some pressure.
On June 14 2012 07:25 roflwaffles55 wrote:Show nested quote +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: 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. 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.
And then, you start again:
On June 14 2012 07:35 roflwaffles55 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 03:50 alan133 wrote:@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. Interesting that the first legitimate read that you come up with is a conspiracy between me and suki. Not only is it completely ridiculous, but you second guess it immediately, again leaving your options open so that you can't actually be held accountable for anything. Put yourself on the line, start contributing to the big picture and not just responding emotionally to me, and think logically about what you're going to post. The biggest thing that keeps irking me about your play is your seeming avoidance of actual decision making, the fact that even when criticizing my play you can't say "I think this is scummy". You go all the way around it and put the possible motivations from both angles. I would appreciate it if someone other then me looked at alan133's posts and formed their own independent opinion on him.
Are you really backing down? Maybe a vote or a FOS can make it up.
Anyways, Alan133, you can't drop analysis like that. Try to give a good effort to show your thoughts before its too late.
Austin, Have you taken la look to any of these current cases?
|
Alright, so I went filter spelunking and explored every nook and cranny. My general impression at this moment is one of disappointment. I know it's rare to get good reads on day 1, but some people's filters are incredibly barren. If I had to lynch right now, here would be my suspects.
HeavOnEarth
He's pretty lurky. His hard stance is on Golden, where he builds a case on the poor guy's intro post. Look at the case:
On June 13 2012 23:52 HeavOnEarth wrote:morning everyone  First off, id like to say im suspicious of everyone who tries to stay under the radar. I feel newer mafia players have a tendency to try and stay quiet. That said O.Golden_ne looks the most suspicious to me- Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 09:43 O.Golden_ne wrote:On June 13 2012 09:25 austinmcc wrote:
-snip
I'm not looking to push lurkers early and stay on them for an entire day cycle, killing discussion, but they need to be considered and I'd rather be looking at them on earlier days than when we're close to/at LYLO/MYLO. agreed. NL is bad. Killing lurking is necessary. Lynching scum is great. Lets get the ball rolling and squeeze out the lurkers early so we can narrow things down later on. Looking forward to scumhunting, i'm happy with the deadline on this as its 10am for me in Aust, which means i'll be able to meet the deadlines for lynching in the mornings a little easier. I'll try my hardest this game to meet these deadlines and to contribute useful information rather than filler. Essentially i'm all for an agressive early game. I want to be able to establish some basic reads by the end of Day one, and if theres no-one who's appropriately scummy then we lynch a lurker. Golden Is there anything even remotely helpful in this post? Everyone knows NL is bad. he seems to be posting for the sake of it also, i checked his last game, (he was townie) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=337671&user=92568 u can tell his tone is completely different, and he is generally more helpful.
Think of it like this. Scum will be making cases against people on day 1...they have to. I looked at all the cases people have made, and this one stank especially bad. It's built entirely around a hello post. It has a very artificial feel to it.
Also, he just posted this:
On June 14 2012 08:47 HeavOnEarth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 08:38 s0Lstice wrote:
Just checking in guys. I'm going to make a post on my top scumreads in a few hours, as well as some errata. Lynch time is fast approaching and we really need to buckle down. ? lynch isn't for another 24 hours?
Townies always feel the pressure of the ticking clock. Half of our time being gone doesn't seem to trouble him. He hasn't really bothered to comment on what's been going on in the thread outside of his own reads.
He's been on Mouldy Jeb's case as well. Here's some more recent(!) material:
On June 14 2012 09:32 HeavOnEarth wrote:
was sort of waiting for MJ to post something after he was like hurr durr ima post soon. i took a look at his previous game though and his posts seem consistent from when he was townie. hes really not helping at all, and definitely still looks scum, but it feels like poor town play rather than mafia.
Confused? Me too. I think this dude has a chance at flipping scum.
alan133
There is already suspicion surrounding him, so I won't rehash. The main thing that raises my eyebrows is his defense against rofflwaffles. It was strong, and that was the problem. He was lightly gouged and hit back full force. This can be a sign of fear, or 'something to hide' as waffles put it.
Mouldy Jeb
There isn't really much of a case here. I went and looked at the Magic:The Gathering mafia, and his style is very similar. His style is dangerous, because it's near impossible to read. There is something to go on with his treatment of rofflwaffles, but that's it. Frankly, I hate the idea of him being around late game.
I would vote for any of these three at this moment, but I'm not in love with any of these cases. We had it easy last game thanks to sciberbia. That said, you do the best with the circumstances you have, and lynch the scummiest player. We still have some time, so I hope we can improve our odds.
Now for the errata. Austinmcc and Crossfire99 really need to post more. Just awful filters. Sciberbia, I have a mental block where I auto-green you in my mind. I fought it off and you really aren't posting much either. I hope you have something for us soon.
|
I've been studying the thread and I currently find these 3 most suspicious: suki, Crossfire99, and HeavOnEarth
I've been staring at suki's filter for the last half hour, so I'll dedicate the rest of this post to my case on suki, and detail my thoughts on crossfire and heavonEarth in another post. Here are several reasons why I am suspicious of suki:
Her original accusation of trackd00r+ Show Spoiler +
suki's original accusation of trackd00r was quite strong. She says:
-- This post screams to me that he's trying to be super cautious...
-- BUT WAIT! Just ONE post previous to that he says...
-- try to take a firm stance, and then you do the most scummy wishy-washy-ness thing ever the very next post.
-- ##vote trackd00r
She clearly thinks trackd00r has a good chance of being scum, and is interested in making everyone suspicious of him. Keep this in mind for later.
Anyway, this original accusation drew my attention for a couple reasons.
-- First of all, she twists his words, so her case isn't good
-- As austinmcc said, even if trackd00r had contradicted himself, that's not a great scumtell. Mafia don't intentionally promote mafia policies. That's way too obvious. So I think suki is attacking him for a (percieved) confusing stance, not a scumtell.
-- We lynched suki last game for being wishy/washy. I could definitely see a mafia suki making a bit of a stretch just to make an early "bold" case, and try to look townie. trackd00r would make a good target of such a case since he is new and his first couple posts were a bit confusing (difficult to read).
The way that suki backs off trackd00r+ Show Spoiler +I wasn't too suspicious based on suki's initial accusation. But I really didn't like the way in which she backed down from it. + Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 00:06 suki wrote:
As has been pointed out, the contradiction isn't as severe as I initially thought it was.
##unvote trackd00r
I thought at the very least I could rouse a response from trackd00r, however my case was too weak and I feel that no useful information can be gleamed from people simply agreeing on its flimsiness.
Before, she thought there was a severe contradiction. Now, she says that there is still a contradiction, but it isn't that severe. What? I was expecting her to say that she had misread/misunderstood. I still don't see any contradiction at all. Her post suggests that she doesn't want to completely back down from her accusation, but I don't see why she is still suspicious of trackd00r at all. @suki please clarify this To me, the most scummy line in her whole filter is "I thought at the very least I could rouse a response from trackd00r". Reading her original response, she strongly accuses trackd00r and seems very interested in getting him lynched. This line about "at the very least" seems contradictory to that motivation.
general attitude in her filter+ Show Spoiler +
suki was super excited to play this game and was even more excited at the prospect of playing town. Look through her filter. Her posts so far aren't what I would expect from a town suki. After the initial accusation, everything she has said is bland and uninteresting. I don't think she has yet shared any real insight, or shown a lot of interest in helping town. It feels more like she is going through the motions.
how she opens the game+ Show Spoiler +
This is pretty circumstancial, so I don't expect many of you to buy into it, but I find the timing of her first two posts odd. First of all, starting the game about 4 hours late is slightly indicative of mafia. Secondly, why does she post a policy response 6 minutes after her first accusation post? She had clearly read the whole thread before posting either. This is all a bit odd to me, and I think it lends credence to the idea that she just wanted to start off boldly to avoid suspicion.
The only thing in her filter that gives me a townie feel is her recent statement about finding golden's opening post suspicious, but waiting to comment on it. Overall, I would rate suki as definitely suspicious, based mostly on her accusation of trackd00r and the way she backed down from it.
|
@Miltonkram
Suki has been painting track's two posts as directly contradictory even though they aren't. This could be an overzealous town play but I don't think it is. What possible motivation could there be for a strong attack on someone with a controversial opinion? Firstly, there's the chance that the town might bandwagon on it. This would be the best possible scenario for suki if she is scum. She leads a bandwagon D1 and she gets a mislynch. Secondly, she gains town cred for appearing aggressive even if she doesn't get the lynch. It seems like a win/win scenario for scum unless of course someone makes the analysis I'm making now.
In summary, the case on trackd00r is pure crap. Making a controversial statement is not a scumtell. I think suki is trying to cover her scumminess by appearing aggressive without making a good case.
Apologies for not addressing you directly. Quite simply you (and several other people after you) answered your question. The motivation is to get the ball rolling some way, any way. I feel I failed a bit in that regard as my attack was so full of holes that there hardly was any discussion developed from it, but it was made with good intentions.
Regarding Mouldyjeb, I agree that he is confusing, however his filter is also quite short. His words definitely are not pro-town, but in my opinion they aren't inherently scummy either, it could just as easily be poor town play.
Now I've gone through a few people's filters, and only one person really sticks out at me: alan133
roflwaffle initiated pressure on him, and then loosened up after Crossfire and I argued in alan's defense. I did not find the case convincing before, but now alan's posted his defense, and now the case is a lot more stronger to me.
As a quick rehash of rofl's initial case, he argued that alan made posts with little controversy, that he wasn't interested or willing to apply pressure on anyone, that he does some bandwagoning.
All true, but possible for both town and scum play. However, with his defense posts, I feel that things are starting to add up. Looking even closer at the filter I feel I've caught some things that I missed before.
+ 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.
His initial statement is very verbose and is pro-actively defensive. He's countering arguments to his words before they even come up. He's even countering counter arguments to his words.
"...hoping for a bandwagon leading to a mislynch. [counter] Note I am merely listing the possibilities, I do not FoS anyone yet, [counter-counter] which can also mean I do not trust anyone yet".
He also likes to use FMPOV and IMO a lot, further stressing how his words are subjective.
It's very telling when someone is that self-conscious and defensive, because only mafia really have that motivation.
When called out by waffle for not having suspicions, he gets extremely agitated.
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.
He spends a lot of words explaining his reasoning behind saying he doesn't have an FoS. He starts to really use red to emphasize his words, which he had used previously to point out inconsistencies and scummy lines, but not to add emphasis to his words.
Notice that he is spending a lot of effort defending himself and justifying his past words. I feel a townie would be less threatened by such accusations, and instead start trying to apply pressure and otherwise prove their towniness.
.
Following what he feels is an adequate self-defense, he goes on the offensive.
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. Show nested quote +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.
This is extremely extremely scummy to me. What he's saying here is essentially this: "If not giving throwing out suspicions is anti-town, then I will prove my towniness by throwing out suspicions.", followed by attacking the person who attacked him.
He finishes the post by saying
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.
There is a mental disconnect here.
1. He feels throwing out suspicions is bad for town
2. He tries to prove his towniness by throwing out a suspicion at his attacker
3. He reinforces his belief that staying neutral is not bad town play
If he really was town and he really believed that his way of playing was optimal, why would he have the need to go completely against his beliefs to prove his towniness?
In his next post, the same trend continues.
He spends time justifying his red text:
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.
but the interesting thing is.. if it was so easy for him to build a case against waffles, why didn't he? Of course, because he didn't have any. He was simply defending via attacking.
And then there's the whole weird analysis that he does where he analyses my case and waffle's case, comes to the conclusion that:
1. waffles could be either scum or town (???)
2. somehow finds me slightly scummy even though he previously thought that my case was based on a misunderstanding (and went to extra lengths to state that he did not FOS anyone yet),
3. Some sort of mafia conspiracy theory out of left field what??
4. Which he backs off saying 'I think I might have read too much into it."
So, he finally makes analyses on people, but only the two most active and controversial ones, and doesn't come to any solid conclusions. He makes a really weird statement regarding mafia alterior motives that doesn't make any sense coming from a town's perspective, but comes naturally to a mafia who is trying to spin scum motivations on townies.
Summary
1. He's pro-actively defensive
2. Justifies his own actions instead of trying to make pro-town actions
3. Defensive Aggression
4. Inconsistency regarding a neutral/suspicion-throwing playstyle
5. Attacks the two most controversial posters with a questionable theory for townies to think of that he just kind of throws out there.
6. Still no solid reads, analysis or suspicions despite (kind of??) conceding that not throwing out suspicions is anti-town.
##vote alan133
|
I'm still working on my response; hold your horses i have a busy life!
quickly now though, to me it was obvious that miltonkrams vote was a friendly gesture. obviously not to be taken seriously.
@HeavOnEarth. obviously i havent been super active, but i dont feel like my first post was nearly as scummy as its been made out to be. You yourself havent been the most active!
Golden
|
@sciberbia
I think a lot of your argument stems from the impression that I was absolutely sure trackd00r was scum. I definitely worded my post that way on purpose, in spite of knowing my case wasn't solid.
I was genuinely surprised that my case was as weak as it was. Basically one good post from you was strong enough to let everyone basically say 'yeah, I agree.' My comment that 'at the very least I could rouse a response from trackd00r' was because I thought even if my case was really weak, I could aggravate an interesting reply from trackd00r, but it didn't.
Regarding the contradiction, and the comment that the contradiction isn't as severe as I thought it was. It's simply not taking the time to really think about the topic, after reading the rebuttals and being disappointed. There is no contradiction, it was just me being careless with my choice of words.
Actually, the offhanded and subtly confident way he deflected my attack is a townie point for him in my book, so as it stands I don't suspect trackd00r at all.
Hmhm. I just posted a big thing on alan. I have been away all day and it took me forever to look at the thread and all the filters and make a post that really contributed to the thread.
As for opening the game, I posted my policy post after the accusation because I wrote the accusation first. I did want to start the thread off boldly, I'll give you that.
And now I've spent like three hours on these two posts and I have things to do before I sleep, so good night! I'll try to find time in the morning to contribute but I may not be able to until after work.
|
As promised, here are my thoughts on crossfire and heavonEarth.
crossfire
There isn't any one thing that looks super scummy, but nothing in his filter gives me a townie feel, and there are a handful of small things that suggest he is scum:
his suspicions on austin+ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +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? This is exactly the kind of D1 case I would expect a scum to make. Austin makes the somewhat peculiar assertion that there is nothing scummy about contradicting yourself on policy during the early game. Whether or not you agree with this statement is irrelevant. The point is, what does a mafia Austin stand to gain by making a statement like this? Is he planning on contradicting himself later? No. It's very likely that he actually believes what he said so the fact that he said it isn't indicative of his alignment. I don't think Austin's statement is scummy at all. But, it is definitely a statement that a mafia could attack, because it seems illogical. It's easy to criticize. And that's what crossfire did. This is the kind of thing mafia do D1: attack people for seemingly illogical statements even though it isn't a scumtell. Like the mafia's attacks on Vivax from last game.
his stance on Mouldy Jeb+ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 03:38 Crossfire99 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. Yeah Mouldy is acting really weird. He needs to get active to explain himself. Everything he has said so far lacks good reasoning. s0Lstice, an influential player and good townie, calls Mouldy Jeb his #1 suspicion. s0Lstice then explicitly asks crossfire for an opinion on Mouldy. Crossfire does exactly what I would expect a mafia to do. Agrees with the influential player on his #1 scumread, reiterating what s0Lstice said. Mouldy Jeb would undoubtedly be an easy lynch today, and assuming that he is town, would take the pressure off mafia. And if crossfire is so suspicious of MJ, why didn't he say anything until s0Lstice prompted him? I grant that none of this is solid evidence and that a townie could plausibly act the same way, but crossfire's response is definitely consistent with mafia behavior.
Otherwise is avoiding scumhunting+ Show Spoiler +
Looking through the rest of his filter, he doesn't say much meaty stuff. In his first post, he rehashes a lot of what previous people had said. And after that, he talks a lot about policy issues such as when to vote and how to pressure people. Nothing too controversial in his entire filter.
Overall, I'd say crossfire looks a bit scummy.
HeavOnEarth
I don't have all that much too analyze with HeavOn Earth, but a couple things look scummy
throws suspicion on several easy targets+ Show Spoiler +My main problem with him is that he has halfheartedly thrown suspicion onto golden, MJ, and crossfire. All three of these players were rather quiet (at least initially) and relatively easy targets. As s0sltice said, heavOnEarth's actual cases were unimpressive. Here are heavOnEarth's scumhunting posts: + Show Spoiler +On June 13 2012 23:52 HeavOnEarth wrote:...That said O.Golden_ne looks the most suspicious to me- *quotes Golden* Is there anything even remotely helpful in this post? Everyone knows NL is bad. he seems to be posting for the sake of it also, i checked his last game, (he was townie) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=337671&user=92568 u can tell his tone is completely different, and he is generally more helpful. also id like to point out crossfire is completely inactive, whereas in past games he was a pretty talkative little townie. thoughts? On June 14 2012 02:39 HeavOnEarth wrote: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 Show nested quote +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?
And now he becomes wishy/washy+ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 09:32 HeavOnEarth wrote:
was sort of waiting for MJ to post something after he was like hurr durr ima post soon. i took a look at his previous game though and his posts seem consistent from when he was townie. hes really not helping at all, and definitely still looks scum, but it feels like poor town play rather than mafia.
as for golden im still undecided since he hasnt posted anything what the fuck -_-. why sign up if ur not gonna fucking play
but i guess i doubt hes mafia, i would've expected at least a simple reply to my accusations if he was mafia by now. but it seems he just doesnt give a fuck
@_@ idk. kinda confused at this point In this post he becomes wishy/washy about his suspicions on MJ and golden. In particular he says "as far as golden im still undecided". What? Before, golden seemed most suspicious to heavOnEarth. Only recently has he become undecided. This is pretty wishy/washy. The only reason I don't see this as super scummy is that he voluntarily adjusted his reads; nobody asked him to clarify them.
My suspicions on HeavOnEarth are tempered by some of the boldness in his filter, such as
-- saying "it doesn't matter if your suggestions are completely bad"
-- his questioning s0Lstice about the lynch not being for 24 hours
-- his abrasive summary of how MJ and golden have been playing
Overall, I'd say HeavOnEarth is somewhat suspicious
suki
I see that suki has recently doubled or tripled the size of her filter in just two posts. I'm going to read through these and figure out how they affect my read on her.
|
On June 14 2012 09:38 trackd00r wrote:Regarding rofl's case against alan: I don't think that case will get us somewhere. Rofl's is tunneling him and the response he's had don't tell to much. I wonder if you are going to continue the pressure to him. Half day has passed, so it would be wise to vote for him if you don't have any other clear option at the moment. I don't know if you are pushing this case any harder, or at least you are being kinda inconsistent with your thoughts. First you say you want to put down some pressure. Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 07:25 roflwaffles55 wrote: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: 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. 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. And then, you start again: Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 07:35 roflwaffles55 wrote:On June 14 2012 03:50 alan133 wrote:@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. Interesting that the first legitimate read that you come up with is a conspiracy between me and suki. Not only is it completely ridiculous, but you second guess it immediately, again leaving your options open so that you can't actually be held accountable for anything. Put yourself on the line, start contributing to the big picture and not just responding emotionally to me, and think logically about what you're going to post. The biggest thing that keeps irking me about your play is your seeming avoidance of actual decision making, the fact that even when criticizing my play you can't say "I think this is scummy". You go all the way around it and put the possible motivations from both angles. I would appreciate it if someone other then me looked at alan133's posts and formed their own independent opinion on him. Are you really backing down? Maybe a vote or a FOS can make it up. Anyways, Alan133, you can't drop analysis like that. Try to give a good effort to show your thoughts before its too late. Austin, Have you taken la look to any of these current cases?
I'm currently waiting on Mouldy Jeb's and alan133's responses to the cases brought against them, until something convinces me otherwise, I still believe that alan133 is increasingly suspicious.
##FoS alan133
|
alan133
There has been a lot of material posted on alan and an influential handful of people find him suspicious. Here's a summary of opinions on him: + Show Spoiler +
suspicious: suki, s0Lstice, waffles, miltonkram
not convinced: trackd00r, crossfire
defensive: me
no comment: MJ, golden, austin, HeavOnEarth
More of my thoughts on alan+ Show Spoiler +
With 4 people willing to vote him, he is in danger of being lynched. I still do not think he is scum. His posts may be difficult reading, but overall, I think he has tried to be open and transparent.
It is true that he has taken up a policy of being indecisive and "open minded", but he has at least stated this forthright, instead of being sneaky about it.
I didn't follow his conspiracy theory either, but half-heartedly suggesting conpsiracy theories doesn't seem like something a mafia would be likely to do.
Finally, s0Lstice and suki have both talked about alan's over-defensiveness and reactionary aggressiveness. I'm just not convinced that these are attributes of a mafia. His defense just drew even more attention to himself - something that a mafia certainly would not want. To me, his defense reads as indignant and frustrated moreso than scared.
@MJ, golden, austin, HeavOnEarth
I'd like to hear opinions on alan. He's drawn several players' suspicions. Would you be comfortable with lynching him?
suki
my thoughts on suki's accusation of alan+ Show Spoiler +
suki recently posted a large, well-thought accusation of alan. I think she broke down his posts nicely and made some reasonable points. I could definitely see this post as analysis from a townie suki. However, alan has already been deemed suspicious by miltonkram, s0Lstice, and waffles. On top of that, his posts are difficult to follow and easy to attack. So I could also see a mafia suki making this post. Overall, I consider it a small point in her favor for doing some dedicated scumhunting.
my thoughts on suki's defense+ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 13:36 suki wrote:
@sciberbia
I think a lot of your argument stems from the impression that I was absolutely sure trackd00r was scum. I definitely worded my post that way on purpose, in spite of knowing my case wasn't solid.
I was genuinely surprised that my case was as weak as it was. Basically one good post from you was strong enough to let everyone basically say 'yeah, I agree.' My comment that 'at the very least I could rouse a response from trackd00r' was because I thought even if my case was really weak, I could aggravate an interesting reply from trackd00r, but it didn't.
Regarding the contradiction, and the comment that the contradiction isn't as severe as I thought it was. It's simply not taking the time to really think about the topic, after reading the rebuttals and being disappointed. There is no contradiction, it was just me being careless with my choice of words.
Actually, the offhanded and subtly confident way he deflected my attack is a townie point for him in my book, so as it stands I don't suspect trackd00r at all.
Hmhm. I just posted a big thing on alan. I have been away all day and it took me forever to look at the thread and all the filters and make a post that really contributed to the thread.
As for opening the game, I posted my policy post after the accusation because I wrote the accusation first. I did want to start the thread off boldly, I'll give you that.
And now I've spent like three hours on these two posts and I have things to do before I sleep, so good night! I'll try to find time in the morning to contribute but I may not be able to until after work. I'm suspicious of this explanation because it is admitting that she was being nontransparent. She's basically asking us not to hold her to what she said, because she didn't really mean what she said. It's possible that she is town and was just being devious to start some discussion, but non-transparency is a definite mafia characteristic. Similarly, her line about "I did want to start the thread off boldly, I'll give you that" suggests adhering to her own personal agenda to look townie, which is more consistent with a mafia's objectives than a townie's.
In summary, suki's last two posts do little to alleviate my suspicions.
|
Yikes only 16 hours until the deadline and I'll be sleeping/working during most of that. I'm really tired and going to sleep now. Won't be super active again until about 1.5 hours before the deadline, but I'll try to keep up with the thread from work.
It is really important that everyone gives their opinions on lynch candidates. If you'd be happy to vote for someone, say so!
Personally, I'd like to vote for suki, crossfire, or HeavOnEarth. I have no read on MJ or golden. I would not like to lynch alan.
|
Okay. Love it or hate it i haven't been too present thus fair. That being said i'm about to drop some knowledge on everyone. I'm just gonna post this little post structure so you know im working on it as we speak.
Summary of D1 to date (this is more for my benefit because i've been away and i find it a good method of developing insight into a situation.
Response regarding Alan, HeavonEarth and Suki situations (at a glance these names seem to be trending highly)
My reads and analysis
Any sexy tidbits and notable nuggets
this is going to be my most active time over the next few hours as i've got the night off and i'm in bed on my laptop!
see you on the otherside of a Wall of Text.
|
Day 1 Votecount
Sciberbia
Miltokram
trackd00r
suki
alan133 (1)
roflwaffles55
suki
7 votes required to lynch.
Deadline is at 00:00 GMT (+00:00), which is approx 15 hours from now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
