|
I'm going to back down from my pressure on alan based on this post. ---snip
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.
It looks like he's a non-native English speaker. I can understand him having difficulty with the language, let alone conveying a tone that pressures other players. If that's the case I would like to hear more of what he has to say. He's shown a willingness to think deeply and consider all possible lines of play that I think may be valuable to the town. By no means am I clearing him of suspicion, but there is a certain townie logic to some of his actions now that I think more about it. I think we have several better lynch targets anyway. I'll outline who I will support for lynch in my next post.
|
@suki
I am not sure if this is a impulsive call caused by the below statement I made:
+ Show Spoiler +@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 - Hide 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 see you changed from soft defending me, to an instant "write a case->vote".
But given that you aren't, l will just refute to the summary you made.
+ Show Spoiler +Summary 1. He's pro-actively defensive + Show Spoiler +I was tunneled by rolf, and I choose to confront it head on hoping it will clear myself. 2. Justifies his own actions instead of trying to make pro-town actions + Show Spoiler +How else am I going to defend myself other than justifying it? And you claimed I did not make "pro-town" actions. I beg to differ. I actively throw out all the possible motives. I believe later on day 2 when more solid facts are present (killing pattern/blue role have more ideas), we can rule out some of these motives to get a better picture. Right now, I am merely focusing on reading every player's patterns. 3. Defensive Aggression + Show Spoiler +You just repeated point 1. 4. Inconsistency regarding a neutral/suspicion-throwing playstyle + Show Spoiler +If you are referring to the "red text mocked up case" I posted in defense of rolf's case by "proof by contradiction". 5. Attacks the two most controversial posters with a questionable theory for townies to think of that he just kind of throws out there. + Show Spoiler +How is rolf controversial? Also, I don't find my theory "questionable". I merely listed what happened. Please provide clear "questions" instead of vague accusation. 6. Still no solid reads, analysis or suspicions despite (kind of??) conceding that not throwing out suspicions is anti-town. + Show Spoiler +Throwing random "solid reads" without proofs or substantial supporting reason is just as well as filler. I did not throw "solid reads", instead I posted the possibilities, which because of (refer to reply to #2), I think it is not scummy or even anti-town. ##vote alan133 + Show Spoiler +Another vote? I hope you read my stand on the weight of votes. It seems to me like you are either trying to start a bandwagon, or is not interested to play in a serious manner, which to me, is a solid anti-town behavior.
Also,
+ Show Spoiler +
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.
I did not build a case against waffle because it was merely a "proof by contradiction". I did not proceed to make a case against him because I want to refrain from being bias, which should agree with my policy.
I just reasoned with myself why people think being neutral is bad. Pressuring someone even without firm evidence does not mean it is bad, even when the target is innocent, it gets people talking, and we can observe people's response and analyse the pattern. I got too paranoid of being too bias in my judgement. I also realize why people despise neutrals like what I originally wanted to be, that is because neutrals are seen to be afraid to face the consequence when people realized he lead a lynch on a townie.
I hope people don't go "oh u contradicted your original policy" but nevertheless, I will change my game plan after seeing how it is beneficial.
As for my opinion on the game right now, my attacking policy is to find "patterns" or indications of players "working" in a group. For day 1, there is no kill pattern to analyse. I suggested a "theory" based on a pattern I noticed, and was hoping third parties will comment on it, but unfortunately, only rolf and suki, the subject of my observation, commented on it.
I am going to take on rolf and suki. I know it may seems like I am retaliating whoever that pressure me, and it could be bias, but this is what I honestly feel.
This is my revised "conspiracy theory".
+ Show Spoiler +
Suki screwed up with a really bad case.
Rolf tried to divert attention from suki, so suki can retract "easily".
-Rolf picked a weaker target -> me
-Rolf ignore suki's case
Both rolf and suki was convinced they got the scums in their opening case, but was easily swayed when they get little to no support.
-Rolf toned down a lot when he sees no support
Rolf's case gain more popularity.
Suki jumps on the bandwagon and proceed to vote me.
-Although this point is much weaker now consider that I provoked her
I question Rolf's quote
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.
Scum slip? That statement does not benefit town at all, and it seems like you were testing if I was "blue".
Suki seems very sloopy. In the first case she bought up, it seems like she was convinced. Rolf share similar traits, however was less obvious.
Summary:
1-Suki and Rolf is working together
2-Rolf avoided commenting on suki's case
3-Rolf took suki out of the spotlight, or at least, brought another person into it
4-Rolf can be seen to be scum hunting
5-Suki and Rolf confidently brought a case, and is easily swayed when they get no support. (staying out of the spotlight much?)
6-Suki hops on the bandwagon
All in all, suki seemed more scummy than rolf. Rolf has understandable reason to suspect me, but suki start off with a bad case, followed by bandwagoning me to for a lynch.
|
EDIT:
Summary:
1-Suki and Rolf is working together
2-Rolf avoided commenting on suki's case
3-Rolf took suki out of the spotlight, or at least, brought another person into it
4-Rolf can be seen to be scumblue hunting
5-Suki and Rolf confidently brought a case, and is easily swayed when they get no support. (staying out of the spotlight much?)
6-Suki hops on the bandwagon
|
I wasn't aware I am the #1 candidate for lynching until I refreshed, and by changing game plan mid-way it is going to pretty much generate more controversy. I believe scums could be trying to band-wagon into pushing me for a lynch, both of my reads were trying to get me. I also believe townies will generally be hesitate to vote, especially during day 1 where they have zero reliable facts while scums knows who exactly is what.
My final vote would be:
##vote suki
This is based on the reason given above.
|
gimme 20 minutes alan113 i have big post half written. would be good to get your opinion. i see your suspicion on suki, but i dont want everything to devolve to shit-flinging between you and suki day one.
|
I apologize if i stray from the format i laid out previously
Summary of Day One - My Perspective.
I see early on a bandwagon forming on Alan113, initially ROLF (i like how this nickname has cropped up) argument has a little basis but is quickly disputed and resolved by the group. Alan113 is now hard-tunneled by suki for the rest of the day. I'm finding this the most frustrating day one tunnel i've seen, i was indecisive regarding suki and then i saw her most recent posts and hoped to god she looked at something other than Alan113. But her argument against Alan113 here is essentially saying that he is mafia because he is defending himself. I'm finding it hard to see how Alan113 can do anything but defend himself up until this point.
I'm sitting here at my laptop and i honestly am 50-50 on Suki. I like your writing style and you can word your insights well and you have been aggressive from the get go. These are all very useful traits in day one. Tunnelling Alan113, where i can't see a small case against him, however is a big cross against your name for me.
Notable Events Day One - My Opinion
Suki's barrage on Alan113 and her flash in the pan vote on Trackd00r.
RAWFL's pushover regarding Crossfire's passing comment about changing votes. (could his following #fos be a response to a scum-slip vote-pull to then posture as a hardline-aggressive-townie?)
My People! - The Presets. (Queue this track for dramatic effect.)
Crossfire99 - i'm agreeing with what he's said about being careful with your votes. I personally think the #FOS should be used a bit more. With his posts though i would like a little more player-read-relevant posts towards the end of this day =]
Sciberbia - i know its a little dangerous for me to be using these terms early on (or at all) but i'm getting a good vibe from sciberbia. I read a pseudo-leadership role coming from him. His argument and opinions are tending to align themselves with me well.
HeavonEarth - sorry for being afk bro. hopefully some of this analysis clears me off your radar.
Reluctant to vote on
suki or alan113 at the current time, because i honestly feel like theyre clashing for the wrong reasons.
i'd be more inclined to lynch suki just because of the tunneling, however i dont feel a Mafia would be so aggressive day one (MAAAASSIVE RISK, but risk = reward?).
Suspicion???
i'm looking at MJ and austinmcc at the moment. I know its a bit rich for me to be pointing the finger at anyone for lurking. However i just dont like what i'm reading, especially MJ. The early gentle push on Miltonkram was a bit off. Considering it was a joke! I may make a case on MJ in the coming hours.
On June 14 2012 10:07 s0Lstice wrote:
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.
#FOS Mouldy Jeb
|
Ok I've been thinking pretty hard since work and there are three players I would feel good about lynching: Crossfire, HeavOnEarth and MJ.
Mouldy Jeb
I've looked back over his posts as well as his play in the MTG mafia game. A lot of the reason people aren't sure on him is because his current behavior fits in with his previous town meta. I say this is crap and we need to rethink his play. His very last post in the MTG game was this. so am i actually, overall this has been a learning experience
So he used that learning experience to... post the exact same way? This doesn't make sense to me. His last post in that game indicates a desire to improve. If his current play in this game shows anything it's that he hasn't. I'd expect to see some change in his behavior or approach to the game, but I just don't see it from that game to this one. I'd imagine his reaction to getting a scum PM was something like this, "Well I have a pretty good meta to blend in with, might as well use it."
HeavOnEarth
I was checking on the game at work + Show Spoiler +even though I'm not supposed to  ... heh heh heh 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
This just seems like an excuse for a lack of activity. He explains that he's waiting on MJ even though there's plenty of other things going on in the thread. He's also frustrated by one lurker (Golden) even though he's played Mafia before and knows that lurking usually happens in every game. The confused tone is what really gets me. I feel like town would push through the confusion and post reads no matter what. His "confusion" looks like an excuse not to post to me.
Crossefire99
His play has already been outlined by sciberbia, so I won't expand on it too much. I'm also really suspicious at the timing of his disappearance from the thread. He hasn't posted since his defense against s0Lstice's probing pressure. It seems like the perfect time to go lurkey if he's scum. He just made his post and then could have hoped that his defense would be enough to keep himself out of further discussion. Obviously it hasn't, but I can definitely see scum motivation in his decision to go silent at the time that he did.
Just to sum up, I feel pretty confident in a lynch of any of these three players. I'll gladly put my vote behind any of them.
In regards to suki, I'm really on the fence about her. My opinion keeps flip-flopping as I read through her filter. I'm no longer confident in my suspicion of her. I liked parts of her defense and then her later pressure on alan, but there are parts I didn't like too. I'm withholding judgement until I have more time to think on her play.
|
On June 14 2012 17:27 sciberbia wrote:
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.
@Sciberbia.
I only glazed over the HeavonEarth issue when i was catching up on everything. I feel like a nob because i remember he had that attack at me and i never really addressed it. I don't like defensive voting per se but i'll form and post some opinions on him shortly.
Crossfire seems okay too me, i liked his posts. If he posted a few more like it, with about 40% more content (pulled a # out of my ass) on players and some reads/opinions on cases i'd be a happy chappy. Time will tell on this character.
about suki, well read above. I want to reserve judgement on both alan113 and suki until day two. I think a Mouldy Jeb lynch may be a little more productive.
|
honestly i can't believe i missed sciberbia's case on Crossfire99. FML maybe i got the totally wrong read on him. Ima refresh my mind on HeavonEarth and Sciberbia and then post after i mull their feeds over a game of SOTIS. Talk soon lovers.
GauldenWahn
|
@ GauldenWahn
I'm loving the nickname. It made me laugh
I'm off to bed guys, please contribute your opinions on the likely lynch candidates.
|
@Sciberbia
in addition to what u said on crossfire, notice that he
1) only replies when called out. Every message he is replying to someone, not making his own points aside from his opening.
2) Every one of his posts feels like complete filler to me. he is trying to LOOK helpful, without actively contributing anything
+ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 02:06 Crossfire99 wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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. On June 14 2012 03:50 Crossfire99 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 03:24 s0Lstice wrote: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.
3) notice his defensive, and meek tone; in addition to his low post count. he's obviously afraid to attract attention to himself
4) he was lurking for a LONGGG time before he finally decided to post . What u thought we all forgot about that?
As for golden i admit my analysis was pretty damn bad LOL , but he didn't really have any other posts for me to provoke him with, and i still feel its a strong play to accuse lurkers of being scummy, just to get them to talk. The way he went about replying though felt really odd to me. For example, i don't really care if you're taking a few mins to write up a post. Why tell me about it(unless you're about to be majority lynched or something). Just feels off.
|
On Alan, since he seems to be the main topic of discussion:
Strongly dislike Suki's two early cases. Already discussed the trackdoor one, and that's long over. But the alan one looks flimsy as well. For all it's size, some of Suki's points are that:- He's defensive, with a quote that was him defending trackdoor, not himself
- He uses the color red to signify different things
- He spends a lot of time defending/justifying himself
- He throws out suspicions once he's told not doing so is anti-town
- He still wants to be neutral
None of that does anything for me. I know that's kind of giving the entire thing short shrift, but she's really stretching to find some of this stuff scummy.
Rofl's posts on him are equally unconvincing to me. He posts a case, admit it has holes because it's D1, drop your vote, then come back and seem to OMGUS alan for OMGUSing Rofl/Suki. To the extent you want independent opinions Rofls, I'm not reading alan as scummy at the moment. I think you guys are just accusing each other back and forth.
That said, I'll watch alan going forward. I DO hope he makes good on being less neutral and wishy-washy. I also hope he does so in a way that doesn't push his "conspiracy theory," because you've got 0 support for that right now. Wait a while before trying to tie together a team, because right now we need to find ONE scum. And when we do that, we'll have way more information to look for #2 and #3. Also, and it looks like you've started doing this, but please less spoilers. Hard to find statements from you and hard to read your posts when they're just big spoiler trees.
I'd like to see some original content from Suki apart from the cases. I see a lot of commenting on little things around the thread, I agree with this/disagree with that. I see the two big cases, which aren't convincing me at all. But I get a gut feeling that something is lacking there, something in between those types of activity, because it's easy to fill a filter with those two things, and posting a bunch of weak cases doesn't look good, it looks like you're trying to contribute and scumhunt but not really doing so. I'd rather see smaller, more concise original thoughts aimed at a player, but not trying to tie together everything they've done.
Most everyone else I need to keep reading to get a definite opinion on. However, I want to specifically address crossfire, looking at what everyone has said about him. Either we've got a good candidate, or we've got a guy who looks a little scummy and is going to get D1 steamrolled. At the very least, we need to be aware of what each person is contributing re: crossfire looking scummy.
|
suki what do you think of lynching HeavOnEarth today?
|
Personal thoughts on crossfire:
A LOT of us have been posting in the style of his first post, and I dislike it across the board (I think I've done it as well). Here are my thoughts on the things that have been happening, here is the one thing I would like to add. Can't quite put my finger on why, but it feels like an easy way to boost filters. Commentary on everything, add a single original thought so it doesn't look like just commentary on everything, and then whoosh! gone.
I don't love the "don't vote early" stuff, but don't hate it. He's got reasoning there, although I disagree with it. If we're worried about people who vote early and don't come back to change it, the alternative is people who don't vote and don't come back to vote. Both are problems. The problem with voting early and not returning ISN'T voting early, it's not returning, which causes problems no matter whether you've voted or not.
Other than that, there's nothing. A question to me, but no real accusation of scumminess. A comment that Mouldy Jeb is acting weird and lacks reasoning. Nothing else more of substance really.
As to others addressing him:
Sciberbia - I agree with his initial point, tbh I was surprised I didn't catch more flak for that statement. The bit on MJ doesn't do anything for me, it's not solid enough for me to base anything on, especially when Crossfire doesn't seem to actually have robust thoughts on MJ.
Milton - I will say that Crossfire was mafia in XIII and was pretty lurky, at least in the mid and later game. Will have to go back and look at his D1 from that game.
Golden - What do you like about Crossfire's posts, specifically?
|
Let me go over my reads of the other players.
Crossfire99:
I spent a lot of time trying to figure out if he is scum or not. Looking into the filter of his two previous games, I found that his posting style is more or less the same.
In game 1, he rolls blue and lurks quite hard. He states out of game reasons for lurking, but he plays more or less non-commital, pointing out suspicious behavior but not really heavily pressuring anyone.
In game 2 as mafia, he starts out the game by doing two things. First, he posts a defense of a townie that had come under scrutiny. Second, he immediately starts pointing out errors in one particular person's posts. He actually tunnels this person for the entire Day 1 and only just fails to get him lynched. He survives for the whole game without really being under fire and mafia wins the game.
In this game I see a lot of policy talk, a lot of guidance talk, and hardly any pressure at all. I find it quite different from his previously successful mafia play. In addition, his helpful tone is quite present in the mafia QT from the previous game, which makes me feel more inclined to think he's actually trying to help, despite his posts not really pressuring or helping town much.
Basically, his meta has changed from his last scum game, and it's changed in a confusing way, and he isn't using the tactics that lead him to a win in the previous game. I'm waiting for more contributions from him before deciding whether I think he's scum or not.
About HeavOnEarth:
HeavOn's attack against Golden is weak, and his offhanded comment on MouldyJeb is simplistic. His points against Crossfire are thought out and straightforward.
While he has not taken a strong stance against anyone, he's also not been wishy washy. He's also kind of aggravating, mocking and provoking MJ and golden while waiting for their responses. He hasn't contributed much, especially in the way of the major cases of the day, which is a big point against him. I feel HeavOn isn't as suspicious as people are making him out to be, and am waiting for his response on topics such as me, alan113 and crossfire before making a decision.
@Austin
Since you seem to be awake now, can I hear your thoughts on who you think is suspicious? You haven't stated anything of the sort yet, despite writing a lot about the current cases. Since you dont like the cases presented, care to make one yourself?
I've already posted my opinions on MouldyJeb, so I think that about covers everyone interesting at the moment. Tonight I'll go over the filters of the people who I haven't touched on and see if I can find something.
Defense post incoming.. I wanna post this before I write the defense since they're two different topics.
|
On June 14 2012 17:38 zelblade wrote:
Day 1 Votecount
Sciberbia
Miltokram
trackd00r
suki
alan133 (1)
roflwaffles55
suki
suki (1)
alan133
7 votes required to lynch. Remember that voting is mandotary.
Deadline is at 00:00 GMT (+00:00), which is approx 9 hours from now.
|
Not explicit enough again.
I find you and crossfire mildly scummy. Wasn't just commenting on the lack of content from you apart from tiny musings and the big cases, that looks scummy to me. At the moment I don't plan on voting for you, because posts like the one I see above are more like what I found missing.
Crossfire's filter is nearly empty, and what's there isn't really pro-town. The only thing I read as helpful to town or pushing discussion forward that he's done is question me, and then not comment at all on my answer. Was it satisfactory? Does he find my explanation scummy? Did he find my scummy in the first place? A big post of nothing + 1 question that he never follows up on doesn't look good.
In all honesty, I'm feeling like, so far, we've done a bad job of drumming up discussion today and that's led to us not having a great D1 lynch target. Will try and figure out some way to change that.
|
I'm confused why sciberbia would be so suspicious of me. Perhaps its bias from the previous game when I was mafia, but I don't feel I've been playing in a scummy way.
His points on my defense is basically that I was being non-transparent. Another way to look at it is I used the wrong wording and I'm more concerned about scumhunting than pursuing and discussing moot topics. In any case, my defense is what it is.
The part about looking bold is just WIFOM and not very helpful at this point.
In any case, only he and alan have thought I looked suspicious. Let me talk about alan.
His points against my case:
Summary
1. He's pro-actively defensive
I was tunneled by rolf, and I choose to confront it head on hoping it will clear myself.
By pro-actively defensive, I mean he was defensive before any accusations against him occured (by being extremely careful with his words). The point still stands.
2. Justifies his own actions instead of trying to make pro-town actions
How else am I going to defend myself other than justifying it? And you claimed I did not make "pro-town" actions. I beg to differ. I actively throw out all the possible motives. I believe later on day 2 when more solid facts are present (killing pattern/blue role have more ideas), we can rule out some of these motives to get a better picture. Right now, I am merely focusing on reading every player's patterns.
Yes, defend yourself. What I want to point out is that alan has spent a lot of effort defending himsef, but hasn't done anything pro-town following the defense. His only suspicions lie on rofl and me, both who have accused him. Where is the focus on reading 'every player's patterns'? You've only looked at two.
3. Defensive Aggression
You just repeated point 1.
No, this is different. This is being aggressive to defend yourself. You attacked the person who is attacking you, and it seems like you do it for the sake of defending yourself, by pointing out the attacker's own inconsistencies. This is not good scum hunting, this is a knee-jerk defensive reaction.
4. Inconsistency regarding a neutral/suspicion-throwing playstyle
If you are referring to the "red text mocked up case" I posted in defense of rolf's case by "proof by contradiction".
That seems like a very sensational and ultimately unhelpful way of defending yourself. The fact that you do it in an aggressive rather than logical tone makes me feel like you wanted to get the heat off yourself as fast as possible.
5. Attacks the two most controversial posters with a questionable theory for townies to think of that he just kind of throws out there.
How is rolf controversial? Also, I don't find my theory "questionable". I merely listed what happened. Please provide clear "questions" instead of vague accusation.
rofl was controversial because his case against you was weak, and he was also getting questioned for backing off quickly. Your theory on me and rofl is questionable, because it feels like you're stretching to make some connections between the two people who are on your case the hardest.
6. Still no solid reads, analysis or suspicions despite (kind of??) conceding that not throwing out suspicions is anti-town.
Throwing random "solid reads" without proofs or substantial supporting reason is just as well as filler. I did not throw "solid reads", instead I posted the possibilities, which because of (refer to reply to #2), I think it is not scummy or even anti-town.
What I was focusing on was the fact that besides what you have wrote on me and rofl, you have not done any analysis at all on anyone else. You hide behind this excuse that you want to be neutral, but your posts have not been at all helpful to scumhunting.
Let me reiterate the key points of my case on alan:
1. It's not that he is defensive. It's the way he's being defensive. He was extremely conscious of misinterpretations of his words in the beginning. He attacks his attackers. Despite feeling that throwing suspicions around was bad town play, he threw suspicions at roflwaffle to prove his towniness. I don't buy that his response was 'proof by contradiction', the tone is completely off.
2. He is inconsistent. He states that he doesn't like throwing out suspicions, that he thinks neutral play by town isn't bad for town. Yet he throws suspicions at those attacking him, and he continues to work with this idea that rofl and I are working together as a mafia ploy. Is that really the most suspicious part of this entire thread, are roflwaffle and me really the most suspicious people out of everyone else? I highly highly doubt it. He is inconsistent because he doesn't like throwing out suspicions (his reasoning for not commenting on anyone else it seems), yet he freely throws suspicions at his attackers.
In addition, Alan's suspicions on rofl and I have more been about finding a way to make our play scummy, rather than pointing out scum motivations and tells.
3. He still hasn't done any analysis on any other players.
Why? Has it not been made clear to you that your opinions are needed? Let me say it clearly: What are your opinions on everyone else? Do something productive for the town for once.
And everyone else, what do you think of my case? I really don't think it's flimsy at all.
|
Ok I'm late for work :> . See you guys later.
|
Some housekeeping stuff first..
I am removing alan133 from my scum list. The main thing that had me suspicious was his strong-arm defense, but everything following that has been fine. I like that he is holding himself accountable for his style, and I want to see what he can do when not under pressure.
austin and suki have commented on crossfire99, and I have to say I agree. I was planning on wrighting a post similar to what suki has done. The cogent point is that he has long bouts of inactivity when he is both scum and town. He should get the same level of suspicion that every lurker gets, but nothing special beyond that I feel. His filter right now is pretty garbagey, and hard to get a read on. I wouldn't be upset if we lynched him, but I think we can do better.
Here is better: HeavOnEarth. Nothing has happened to change my initial opinion on him for the better. In fact, him buddying up to sciberbia in his latest post makes him look worse. Go read my case if you missed it. I'm not the only one to see him as suspicious, so I think there is plenty of traction here.
##vote HeavOnEarth
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
