EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XVII
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
| ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
if that's required.. >.> | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
Thanks! :D | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
| ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
| ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
| ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
| ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
| ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
Glad I got towned up for my first game, I'm hoping to be able to contribute to the analysis and casebuilding, as well as make some good reads of my own! I'll read up on the previous game that the 6 of you were a part of to see if I can't make some good calls when it comes time to vote. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
On June 13 2012 10:46 s0Lstice wrote: Would you care to comment on the topics sciberbia brought up? Sure! When it comes to lynching lurkers I would agree in that it shouldn't be the focus, and would prefer to lynch someone acting scummy day 1. As to NL, I am firmly against it and if we can't get a clear majority on scummy-acting folks then we should at least lynch a lurker, especially on D1 and 2. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
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? | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
However, I would like to bring your attention to someone else that is acting quite scummy as it stands. On June 13 2012 13:05 alan133 wrote: 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. 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 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. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
While this is not necessarily evidence of scummy play, there comes to attention the next post he makes. Forgot to proofread as my thoughts came down.. >.< | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
| ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
On June 13 2012 22:47 Mouldy Jeb wrote: you are suppose to be playing seriously if not then that would create the cloud of assumption that you are indeed scum random votes are related to scummy tactics so I already have my suspicions of you. also my suspicions of roflewaffles are slight but i have no further evidence that is incriminating him Hey mouldyjeb, glad to see you posting! Do you have any other evidence or reasons beyond miltons lighthearted attitude at the beginning? State them if you do, as well as any suspicions against me! Don't keep them to yourself! Also, what are your opinions on the cases so far, like mine against alan133 and suki's against trackd00r? I ask these because that was a fairly lackluster post when it comes to your first of the game and id like you to bring some fresh opinions to the table. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
On June 13 2012 23:48 alan133 wrote: @rolfwaffles55 + Show Spoiler + His first post puts him on the bandwagon with his opinion on the inactives and lurkers, and is generally a contentless post with little to no controversy. Otherwise, nothing to bring the spotlight to him at all. Well, you were the one asking for my opinion on what has already posted. This is the post that really got me wondering. How by now can you have no suspicions? There has been quite a few suspicious decisions by several people, giving you more then enough time to form a case against someone, or at least apply some pressure. You can decide if I am honest about writing the post before s0lstice, which was also stated in my post. (I refreshed to see if there are new post before I "submit") I also shortened it to avoid long repeated post. I wrote the possible motivations behind suki's case. I don't see how it is "anti-town" or "just fillers", as these were exactly my thoughts on the case. FMPOV, anyone can be scum, and having no FoS does not mean I do not suspect anyone. I merely state that I have no strong scum read as of currently, and in my context, strong means pretty much confirmed. IMO those who are decisive in throwing votes based on weak or insubstantial claims were somewhat suspicious. I think it is normal for townies to hold doubts and and being decisive as they were less informed. If anything, I just tried to keep an open mind. Also, is it me or you were trying to divert the attention AWAY from suki? I don't see how keeping the attention on suki is a bad thing, as you suggested. His current play is anti-town at best, as he hasn't brought any of his thoughts to the table, and has only left ambiguous and bandwagoning answers to keep attention on those with controversial opinions. Well if you're complaining about not bringing up any of my thoughts, there you have it. I were trying to avoid throwing out suspicions with little to no proof, but if by not doing so is anti-town As a matter of fact, roflwaffles55 asked for my opinion replying to my opening post, and criticise it being a bandwagon, while forgetting he did the same. + Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 11:03 roflwaffles55 wrote: 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. roflwaffles55 also mentioned that I somehow "bandwagoned" and provided little to no additional content on suki's case, which I don't think is true. Well, he also voted me on these insubstantial reasons. Of course, he also missed one or two post made by Miltonkram and austinmcc, which posted something more or less what I said. Also, if I am the only one not bringing up cases, there should be at least 11 other cases already. Of course, those were ignored and he proceed to vote me. @trackd00r + Show Spoiler + Looks like you intented to write something else about me, but a single post of S0lstice made your opinion change quite quickly, very quickly IMO. This is a weird speculation, as there is no indication nor proof I was not doing otherwise. I guess there is no way to say "I swear I was backing you up even before I read anything else!!111", but oh well. I did edit my post after I saw ss0lstice's post, mostly shortening what was already mentioned by ss0lstice, as most of my points were agreeing with him. My policy is to stay as neutral as possible, accessing all the possibilities while passively waiting/reading what other people has posted. I do believe this is not a bad-town play, as I am trying to avoid town fighting town scenario while scums lurks and look at the drama while eating pop-corns. That said, Crossfire99 is still missing while HeavOnEarth only has his opening post. I would like to see other people's thought on suki and rolfwaffles55's cases. While I am completely aware that my case has several holes in it, nobody can expect an ironclad case halfway through D1. The points you bring up in the first half of your response to me continue to be ambiguous, I'm glad you started to get your legitimate opinions out there, being quiet and neutral will get us nowhere. Both of our initial posts tended to agree with the majority, but as I said, that wasn't the focus of my argument, it was the post on the suki argument that got my suspicions roused. Yes, I did vote you, but you forget that votes are easily removable, and the fact that you had to write a sensationalist paragraph in red text rather then just poke through the obvious logical holes in my cases convince me that you have something to lose, whether it be scum, blue, or just poor play. As suki said, don't stay neutral, start posting your opinion on people, even if it brings attention to you. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
| ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
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? 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: ... 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. 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. 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. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
On June 14 2012 02:02 Crossfire99 wrote: Be careful roflwaffle, votes are only easily removable if you are around to remove them. You never know what might happen. Also, votes early on in the day cycle that don't really mean much followed by complete disappearance during a controversial lynch can be scum tactic to avoid making mistakes in a heated debate that occurs last minute. I agree that I may have been a bit too aggressive right off the bat, but I implore you to look at my arguments and his, and take more from it then just an overzealous attempt on my part. ##unvote alan133 There you go, I'm still suspicious, but I may have underestimated the significance of a vote. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
On June 14 2012 02:45 s0Lstice wrote: Crossfire99, what do you think of what I said about Mouldy Jeb? Roflwaffles55, same question. I would agree with what you said, his statements and arguments have been fairly baseless with little to no purpose. He has his "suspicions" of me and says to watch Milton, but brings nothing substantial otherwise. The lack of bringing forth any real argument is what makes me suspicious. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
On June 14 2012 06:38 Miltonkram wrote: roflwaffles55 I'm suspicious of this guy based on two of his posts. First one is a response to s0Lstice/sciberbia: Notice the eager to please tone of his post. I'm looking at it as a possible scumslip. His 2nd suspicious post: Notice how self-conscious he is in this post, especially in that last line. I realize that several players weren't interested in his case, but there is absolutely no harm in keeping pressure on a player until they give you a satisfactory defense. Essentially he backs down from his pressure based on a tiny reprimand from Crossfire. It seems like he's trying to keep himself out of the spotlight. Obviously all these players can't be scum. I'll be looking through the thread more to see what I can do about narrowing down my list of suspicious players. Right now I'm leaning towards roflwaffles and MJ. I'm waiting to see if suki actually defends herself this time around. You've defeated yourself in your own argument against me, with the explanation as to why I backed down on alan133. I backed down because I hadn't received any support towards my case. You also defeated yourself by saying that I'm trying to keep myself out of the spotlight, if I wanted that, I wouldn't have been the third person to post a case, let alone one I knew would net me a bunch of flak. I made the case to put pressure on someone that was lacking any real opinion, whether because he felt that there wasn't enough data to form one, or because he was hiding from the spotlight himself. The evidence or suspicions that you have brought up can be answered so easily I'm not sure why you didn't come up with them yourself. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
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. 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. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
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. And then, you start again: 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 | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
On June 15 2012 00:50 s0Lstice wrote: 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 What exactly in alan133's play made you suddenly change your mind? He reworded his arguments and continued to attack the two people who are putting pressure on him. He still hasn't brought anything new to the table, except for try to expand on this conspiracy theory that he has running between me and suki. He improved his wording, and he says he changed his playstyle. However, all he did was become more aggressive towards me... and suki... His play maintains relatively the same. It's increasingly suspicious, I got called out for changing my play when the public opinion seemed to want me to, and then he does the same thing. I'll be posting my opinions on the rest of the cases brought against HeavOnEarth, Crossfire99 and suki shortly. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
Crossfire99 Sciberbia posted a convincing case on him already, and several people have posted tidbits on him, however, nobody has put the focus on him (partially my fault). Therefore, if he is in fact following the thread and trying slide under the radar of suspicion while we focus on alan133, suki, and HeavOnEarth, he is going to get away with it. His play was very lackluster and never brought fresh reads to the table. Out of everyone, if he is scum, he seems to be one of the most dangerous to let live. alan133 I've already tunneled the crap out of him, and his defenses have been drastic and overly reactionary. If he were left alive, I honestly think he could do a fair bit of damage as scum, just because he defends very well and seems to have people convinced as to his innocence. HeavOnEarth His play is quite suspicious and his accusations and suspicions lackluster at best. He could just as easily be an awful townie as scum. Overall he's been fairly ineffectual, but if he's hiding behind a mask of confusion and bad reads, he could be an annoyance as scum later on. suki It would be self-serving of me to defend suki, as she took my case against alan133 and improved it, I believe in her case. But for the benefit of the doubt, let's assume she's scum. The strength or lack thereof (trapd00r case) of her cases imply that she's trying to lead the vote towards those that aren't scum. If she is scum, she could be quite dangerous later on. All of that theorizing on what they "could" do if they were scum being done... I believe that the most lynchable potential scum right now would be Crossfire99. I understand that there are already votes on HeavOnEarth, but if he really is that incompetent at bringing cases to the table, as a scum, why would he try to post them? He is suspicious to me, but not as suspicious as Crossfire. Unless he responds to the accusations in a convincing and collected manner soon, I strongly believe that he should be lynched. ##vote Crossfire99 | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
| ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
On June 15 2012 03:23 Crossfire99 wrote: I'm just going to go down the thread and respond to people who have questions or suspicions addressed to me. Let me know if I miss your particular post. First up Austin: + Show Spoiler + On June 14 2012 03:37 austinmcc wrote: They can be, depending on what they concern, and when they occur. See the italicized above, although I should have more explicitly qualified the bolded bit. If someone had barged into the thread yesterday saying "I love no lynches" and then "I hate no lynches" in the very next post, that's not scummy to me. There's no debate here (nobody is proposing we NL), it's not important at this time (start of day, no NL proposal). There's no scummy reason to swap between those two statements on that particular topic at this particular time. Thanks for qualifying your statement. I was confused why said it, but now I understand what you meant. I definitely agree with your italicized statement. Differences in voting behavior and reads are very important in finding scum. Next up Milton: + Show Spoiler + On June 14 2012 08:05 Miltonkram wrote: @ 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. Mouldy: If I can read the time right on his post (hopefully I can lol), he hasn't posted in a day even though he promised a case when he came back from work yesterday. So far he's just thrown around baseless accusations and hasn't contributed. He needs to post. Alan: I don't like his case on suki. I don't know how she has played in past games, but it seems like she is being open and contributing her own reads and putting in good work like going through my game history (props for doing that, I don't have time for that much research). I also don't like him trying to link people together so early. We know next to nothing so far. Don't make links between supposed "mafia" when no one has even flipped yet. Just find one person based on their scumminess and push to lynch them. This makes me feel a little suspicious of him. Respone to sciberbia: + Show Spoiler + On June 14 2012 14:10 sciberbia wrote: 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: 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. Yeah I questioned Austin because I found that one sentence suspicious. Isn't that the whole point of this game: to ask questions about suspicious behavior, so they respond and then you can learn more about their alignment. (I also responded to him above) Yeah I responded to solstice's question. There wasn't much original content that I could put forth at the time. I believe Mouldy had like 3 posts with little content, therefore I agreed with him because it made sense. Also, I had just woken up and responded to what were the hot topics at the moment and then started going through the thread and pointing out different things I saw and responding to questions like solstice's. Also, sciberbia, you have a lot of expectations about how mafia should play. They can play any way they want. Don't assume that they will play a certain way. Ask austin about anacletus from our game. He had way too many thoughts about how mafia should play and I don't think my mafia team played the way he assumed we would at all. Another one from Milton: + Show Spoiler + On June 14 2012 19:21 Miltonkram wrote: Ok I've been thinking pretty hard since work and there are three players I would feel good about lynching: Crossfire, HeavOnEarth and MJ. 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. I can't do anything about my posting times. I pop in, read some, and post when I have time. I can't make any promises about the exact times that this will be so...idk what else to say. On to Suki: + Show Spoiler + On June 15 2012 00:06 suki wrote: 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. Impressive research. I hadn't even thought about my helpfulness until you pointed that out until. I'll let people make their own conclusions about this, so I'll leave it at that. Your responses to s0lstice were clearly lacking, you said that you questioned austin on his sentence to extract some information, however you never actually followed up on your question. While that may have something to do with your posting schedule, it is still a problem. You can't expect to play the game and get away with posting no real cases and content without being lynched. As of yet, you still have not formed your own suspicions it seems, you're just giving your opinion on other people's suspicions. The MJ question I'll let you off on because there's honestly nothing to talk about with him. As to s0lstice's third point, you never responded as to why you haven't been more actively scumhunting. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
I'll go with the flow because he's fairly blatant with his scumminess (real word?) but I'd like to keep an eye on Crossfire, as well as keeping Mouldy Jeb in mind for a D2 lynch. ##unvote Crossfire99 ##vote HeavOnEarth I'm not sure if I'll be on tonight, I'll do my absolute best to be on in case there's a swing of opinion. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
On June 15 2012 03:52 s0Lstice wrote: What? This is a really, really odd question. Your question assumes that he thinks of himself as incompetent, and actively tries to compensate for it. You clear him on this basis: a scum HeavOnEarth would look in the mirror and be like 'boy are you incompetent, don't go posting any cases now!', whereas a townie HeavOnEarth would be blissfully unaware of his incompetence and post as he sees fit. Furthermore, it's obvious scum are going to make an effort to accuse people, they have to appear town... ##FoS: rofflwaffles55 You're right, it was more of a musing then a deliberate thought, I wasn't thinking from his perspective. I do still believe that HeavOnEarth's play is extremely scummy, and I still am not satisfied with Crossfire's defenses. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
| ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
gg | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
| ||
| ||
