Mafia is an educated guessing game of epic proportions. The objective of the game is to lynch or kill all mafia members before they outnumber the rest of the town. It's much like a game of poker because mafia members are also part of the town during the day and may manipulate the vote to their liking. If the mafia at any time outnumber or equal the townspeople, they win. The town's goal is to lynch all the members of the mafia.
The game is typically very active, so the thread will get big quickly. However, it is essential to read the thread to play the game. If you do not have the time or patience to read the whole thread, do not play. I will not compensate for ignorance.
Rules:
Cheating: Cheating includes (but is not limited to): 1. Posting after death. You may have one polite goodbye post, but it may not contain any potentially game-changing information. 2. Ruining the game by doing something like hand out your mafia's member list to the town. 3. Logging on to someone else's account to get their role or looking over someone's shoulder to get their role. 4. Comparing role PM times to determine roles. 5. Posting screenshots of your inbox. 6. Posting or sharing any PM you receive from a host. 7. Getting yourself modkilled to help your team. Your non-majority-decided death may not be used as a bargaining chip. 8. Signing up more than once using smurf accounts. 9. Betting items outside of the game in exchange for in-game benefits. 10. Sharing accounts with other players unless cleared by the host in advance. Otherwise, only you may post on your account. 11. Breadcrumbing the specific phrasing of your role PM. Do not compare the phrasing in your role PM to prove your alignment. You can claim the abilities you have, but you can't use the specific phrasing of your role PM. Cheating is not tolerated here. The punishment will be severe.
Posting:
Mod Font: This is mod font. It is reserved for moderators. Please do not use it.
Rules specific to this game are also shown in blue text in this thread.
Question Font: This is question font. Use it to ask the moderators questions about the rules. Please do us a favor and read the rules before you ask anything.
Activity: You must post in this thread once per day/night cycle and vote every day while you are alive. If you fail to do so, you will be modkilled.
Smurfs: No smurfs please
Spam: Please keep out of topic chatter out of the thread.
Editing: Editing is not allowed for any reason. Editing will result in a warning. After that, you will be modkilled. This is the one part of the site where it is okay to be double posting, even triple-posting. While I ask for everybody to post as concisely as possible, post again if you have to edit anything.
Inappropriate posts: If you want to post something insulting or inappropriate and know the TL mods would have a problem with it elsewhere, don't post it here. If you do, a host will warn you or modkill you and request that you be banned from future games. The hosts have the final say on what is inappropriate. If you do not like how someone is talking to you, please PM a host, Flamewheel, or Mig before involving the TL staff. If you are unsatisfied with how the situation is resolved, then you can appeal to the TL staff normally.
I expect everyone to treat each other civilly. Attack the argument, not the player. Failure to do so will result in a warning, followed by a modkill if inappropriate posting continues
Reporting posts: The report button is a nice feature for regular TL, but not for this forum. We prefer to deal with things in house if possible to avoid confusion among the TL staff. If you have a problem with how someone is posting, talk to the host, co-host, Flamewheel, or Mig before using your report button. Please do not use your report button for anything other than inappropriate posts which you feel are not being dealt with adequately.
Ban discussions: Please wait until this game is over to talk about modkills and bans resulting from this game.
Play to win. This means you play your best to help your team win while you are alive and in the game. However, this does not mean that you should try to win by being a jerk to the other players so they all want to quit playing.
This also means that you cannot leave the game without a good reason without a ban. These situations will be dealt with on a case by case basis. PM your host if you need to leave the game.
You have been warned.
Voting rules:
1. Voting is done here. Please keep votes here, and only vote here. Do not PM me your vote. 2. Please vote in the following format: ##Vote Kavdragon. Votes not done in the correct fashion will not be counted. I will update vote counts whenever I get the chance. 3. No conditional voting. 4. You may vote for yourself. You may not vote for anyone dead or outside the game. 5. In the event of a tie the person with the most votes first is lynched. 6. Voting is mandatory. You may NOT abstain. 7. Whomever has the most votes at the end of the day will be lynched!
Signups:
This game is open to Newbies Only. That means 3 games or less played on TL.
Game-specific rules:
Modkills: This game follows the TL Mafia Ban List. If you are modkilled, your punishment will go beyond being eliminated from this game. Please refer to it for questions about your punishment. If you want to use this game to sit out your ban, please PM Flamewheel or post in the Ban List.
Replacements This game will use replacements if possible. You are encouraged to find your own replacement.
Clues: There are no clues.
PMs PMs are not allowed in this game.
Time Cycle: This game will follow a 24 hour night/48 hour day cycle. In case I am not able to post around deadline, any votes after the 48 hour mark will not count and the game will be put on halt until the night post is up. Currently the deadline is 00:00 GMT (+00:00), but that is subject to change. Actions/votes will be accepted up to and including the posted time, but not after.
Credits: Thanks to anyone who has ever hosted a game. This list grows ever longer.
If you have not read all the rules, go back and do so. I will very likely compensate for ignorance.
This is a semi-open setup, that is, exact role counts will not be known, but the possible roles will be known. All roles presented here are not necessarily in the game, but no roles not included here are present.
Town Roles
Townie - You are just a normal citizen with no night actions. All you can do is vote during the day for someone to be lynched. Your wits and your votes will carry the town to glorious victory or shameful defeat.
Cop - You've been on the department for years. You're sharp and perceptive. Once at night you may choose a single person to investigate. At dawn you will find out if they are Town or Mafia. You win with the town.
Medic - As the town's doctor, your medical knowledge and healing skills give you the power to save lives. Once per night you can watch a player. If your target is attacked, you will block one hit aimed at them. If you make a successful save, both you and your target will be notified of the save. You cannot save yourself. You win with the town.
Veteran - You're as tough as they come. You've been around the block a few times and know how to escape an attack on your life. It takes two attacks to kill you. You win with the town.
Jailkeeper - Equipped with chloroform and rope, you steal into the night to kidnap a random person and lock them in your basement “for safety”. Once per night, you may target a player to protect and roleblock. You win with the town.
Vigilante - You hate criminals, you hate them SO much. You dispise the system, and have taken justice into your own hands. Once per game, at night, you may target one player to shoot with one kp. You win with the town.
Miller - You are just an ordinary citizen of the town of Liquidia. Well, almost ordinary. Unbeknownst to you, you sleepwalk and often end up visiting the graveyard and other suspicious locations. For that reason, you return Mafia to detectives who choose to check you. Millers are not informed that they are millers; rather, they are given regular vanilla townie PMs. The Miller will be revealed as a Miller upon his/her death. The Miller is on the side of the Townies and wins if they win.
Town Win Condition - The town wins when there are no mafia left in the game
Mafia Roles
Mafia Goon - You're a new recruit in the mafia organization. You haven't learned any special tricks yet but you're hungry for money and power! You win with the mafia.
Mafia Roleblocker - You're a senior member of the mafia. You're good with distractions. Once per night you may choose a person to cause a distraction for. That player will be occupied and unable to perform an action that night. You win with the mafia.
Mafia Framer - You're one of the mafia elites. Years with the mafia have taught you a thing or two about manipulation. Once per night you may choose a person to visit and plant suspicious items in their house. For that night, that person will show as mafia for cops. You win with the mafia.
Mafia Rolecop - You're one of the mafia elites. A former cop, your skills made you a valuable asset to the mafia. Once per night you can investigate a persons house. At dawn you will know the persons role. You win with the mafia.
Mafia Godfather - You're the head of the mafia. You've been the leader for as long as anyone can remember. All those years have taught you one thing. You can never be to carefull. You will show as Town to cops. You win with the mafia.
Mafia Win condition - The mafia wins when they equal or outnumber the remaining townies. Useful Guides
You are a Townie - You are just a normal citizen with no night actions. All you can do is vote during the day for someone to be lynched. Your wits and your votes will carry the town to glorious victory or shameful defeat. Breadcrumbing the content or format of this pm is not allowed.
xxx is your assigned coach. Feel free to pm him for advice, but don't ask direct questions, such as "who do you think is scum". Referencing the identity of your coach is not allowed.
On June 21 2012 00:35 blubbdavid wrote: JieXian is the new bluelightz
what bluelightz?
Blubb is being mean. Bluelightz is a player who does his own thing and didn't bother to learn in his early mafia career. However he has since picked up his game and is doing much better now. He is also from Singapore so maybe that has something to do with what Blubb meant (similar region).
Mr JieXian, I would highly suggest reading the guides linked in the OP and contacting the coaches when you get your PM. There are some basic rules of mafia that really help in newbie games. Number one being, post. If you don't contribute, people will think you are scum. So post, even if you don't think you can add a lot just having a thread presence helps.
On June 21 2012 00:35 blubbdavid wrote: JieXian is the new bluelightz
what bluelightz?
Blubb is being mean. Bluelightz is a player who does his own thing and didn't bother to learn in his early mafia career. However he has since picked up his game and is doing much better now. He is also from Singapore so maybe that has something to do with what Blubb meant (similar region).
Mr JieXian, I would highly suggest reading the guides linked in the OP and contacting the coaches when you get your PM. There are some basic rules of mafia that really help in newbie games. Number one being, post. If you don't contribute, people will think you are scum. So post, even if you don't think you can add a lot just having a thread presence helps.
Good luck!
Or i might not contribute on purpose but I actually read the guides but I'm a confirmed townie who never dies because I'm actually a mafia
On June 21 2012 00:35 blubbdavid wrote: JieXian is the new bluelightz
what bluelightz?
Blubb is being mean. Bluelightz is a player who does his own thing and didn't bother to learn in his early mafia career. However he has since picked up his game and is doing much better now. He is also from Singapore so maybe that has something to do with what Blubb meant (similar region).
Mr JieXian, I would highly suggest reading the guides linked in the OP and contacting the coaches when you get your PM. There are some basic rules of mafia that really help in newbie games. Number one being, post. If you don't contribute, people will think you are scum. So post, even if you don't think you can add a lot just having a thread presence helps.
Good luck!
Or i might not contribute on purpose but I actually read the guides but I'm a confirmed townie who never dies because I'm actually a mafia
On June 21 2012 00:35 blubbdavid wrote: JieXian is the new bluelightz
what bluelightz?
Blubb is being mean. Bluelightz is a player who does his own thing and didn't bother to learn in his early mafia career. However he has since picked up his game and is doing much better now. He is also from Singapore so maybe that has something to do with what Blubb meant (similar region).
Mr JieXian, I would highly suggest reading the guides linked in the OP and contacting the coaches when you get your PM. There are some basic rules of mafia that really help in newbie games. Number one being, post. If you don't contribute, people will think you are scum. So post, even if you don't think you can add a lot just having a thread presence helps.
Good luck!
Or i might not contribute on purpose but I actually read the guides but I'm a confirmed townie who never dies because I'm actually a mafia
^^
Ok maybe Blubb was right. That sounds just like Bluelightz
First game on TL. Actually first post ever. I've played mafia for years IRL and on irc though, so I'm pretty familiar with the basics.
Welcome to TL, maybe your blood be green and never spilled. Playing forum based mafia is nothing like IRL or IRC so I would suggest, as above, that you read some of the guides and perhaps an old game or two. It really, really helps. Also, use the coaches, seriously, use the coaches.
On June 21 2012 00:35 blubbdavid wrote: JieXian is the new bluelightz
what bluelightz?
Blubb is being mean. Bluelightz is a player who does his own thing and didn't bother to learn in his early mafia career. However he has since picked up his game and is doing much better now. He is also from Singapore so maybe that has something to do with what Blubb meant (similar region).
Mr JieXian, I would highly suggest reading the guides linked in the OP and contacting the coaches when you get your PM. There are some basic rules of mafia that really help in newbie games. Number one being, post. If you don't contribute, people will think you are scum. So post, even if you don't think you can add a lot just having a thread presence helps.
Good luck!
Or i might not contribute on purpose but I actually read the guides but I'm a confirmed townie who never dies because I'm actually a mafia
^^
Ok maybe Blubb was right. That sounds just like Bluelightz
_|_ ^.^ _|_
edit: testing if editing looks different here
edit: nop (thought it'll look like something I saw from another thread, just dreaming then)
A word of forewarning: I won't be playing/posting as much as i have in previous games because studies got serious. I still have more than an hour a day though.
I'm not even in this game, but I know what to do ##Vote: Release I can't wait to see the red blood squirting from your severed carotid as your head rolls down the street and becomes the soccer-ball for the local under 8 soccer team. + Show Spoiler +
On June 22 2012 12:14 Mordanis wrote: I'm not even in this game, but I know what to do ##Vote: Release I can't wait to see the red blood squirting from your severed carotid as your head rolls down the street and becomes the soccer-ball for the local under 8 soccer team. + Show Spoiler +
7. Whomever has the most votes at the end of the day will be lynched!
So just to double check, we're not using a majority lynch system?
Um just gonna ask again since it seems my question got buried. Sorry if it seems like a stupid question but I just wanted to double check since from what I've seen most TL games use a majority lynch system?
7. Whomever has the most votes at the end of the day will be lynched!
So just to double check, we're not using a majority lynch system?
Um just gonna ask again since it seems my question got buried. Sorry if it seems like a stupid question but I just wanted to double check since from what I've seen most TL games use a majority lynch system?
Are we allowed to ask our coach a direct yes or no question and expect an answer? Ex. Do you think 'player' is scum?
Or should we be trying to get analysis on posts we are suspicious of to confirm/deny our reads? (probably superior for learning purposes, but getting a straight answer from other players in this game seems like a pipe dream.)
Coaches typically will help you with advice on how to hunt scum, whether certain actions are scummy, how to establish yourself as town, etc. Straight-up asking your coach directly who scum is isn't fair since coaches know for sure certain things about the game (since he's a town coach coaching townies). Typical questions include asking how to defend yourself, how to push someone, and how to identify scum and find scumtells. Coaches won't do analysis for you, because they are lazy they want you to learn how to do it for yourself.
I'm hesitant to start the game tonight. Only about 50% responded to my confirmation pm. I may wait until Sunday to start the game unless I hear from a bunch of people shortly. Sorry for the delay!
I'll continue to accept replacement signups and replace out anyone who doesn't respond by tomorrow.
On June 24 2012 00:24 JieXian wrote: erm actually since I'm at +8 gmt wouldn't there be a problem for me when it comes to voting? I'd have to vote a lot earlier than everyone else
On June 24 2012 01:39 JieXian wrote: ya 8 am but i'll still have to read all the posts and think right......
The answer is clear: do not sleep. Sleep is overrated anyway...
I get sick instantly if I accumulate a few hours of sleep debt during the weekdays and I don't sleep it off during the weekends...... ya I know it's lame and I'd prefer not to be so weak.
On June 24 2012 00:24 JieXian wrote: erm actually since I'm at +8 gmt wouldn't there be a problem for me when it comes to voting? I'd have to vote a lot earlier than everyone else
You're not the only one, I'm at +10 GMT.
No man if you get up at 8 you still have 2 hours before voting. To achieve the same thing I'd have to get up at 6 =(
I'd be glad if kita can move the date line to at least 10pm but either way I'll win ^^
On June 24 2012 12:34 TehTemplar wrote: is it too late to /obs? :o Or am I incredibly stupid and all I need to do is read the thread?
There will be a quicktopic provided that only observers and dead players may view (for example this one from NMMIV). In this area, people chat about the game, make predictions and try to make reads, and generally have a good time. You can ask our host, kitaman27, or myself, blazinghand, for the obs qt and we'll PM it to you. Due to the additional info of outside players providing reads and analysis in the QT, the link is not to be shared until after the game is over. This is also why replacement players don't have access to it.
On June 24 2012 13:29 Keirathi wrote: A friend of mine wrote a very very comprehensive mafia bot a few years ago, and we used it to play ~10,000 games back in the day.
On June 24 2012 13:29 Keirathi wrote: So, are people still interested in IRC mafia?
A friend of mine wrote a very very comprehensive mafia bot a few years ago, and we used it to play ~10,000 games back in the day. All your favorite roles are in (cop, doc, vig, watcher, track, roleblocker, miller, sk, jester, etc etc etc), and there are many gametypes (fully modular, so making new game types is a piece of cake as well), including some basic types like c10, c11, etc, and many themed games (Mario, TF2, Deus Ex, Simpsons). It handles making a random seperate channel for the mafia, fully handles voting, day actions, night actions; basically everything you could possible want, and its handled instantly.
The only problem is that QuakeNet is fairly restrictive on the amount of "spam" you can have, and between the necessary channel messages that keep the game rolling, and the role/action PMs, it ends up getting flood kicked. So we would have to play on an irc server that has looser flooding rules (the only one I 100% know it works on is irc.tribalwar.com because thats the server it came from).
Anyways, if anyone would be interested in at least trying it out, let me know and I can get everything set up and running.
wth Keirathi if you've played over 10000 games what are you doing in the newbies' game?
I didn't say *I* have played over 10,000 games, although I have played probably 1000-2000. But IRC Mafia is fairly different from forum mafia, and I mentioned when I /in'd that I had played IRL and IRC mafia a fair amount in the past.
On June 24 2012 00:24 JieXian wrote: erm actually since I'm at +8 gmt wouldn't there be a problem for me when it comes to voting? I'd have to vote a lot earlier than everyone else
You're not the only one, I'm at +10 GMT.
No man if you get up at 8 you still have 2 hours before voting. To achieve the same thing I'd have to get up at 6 =(
I'd be glad if kita can move the date line to at least 10pm but either way I'll win ^^
Sorry, its hard to come up with a time that works for everyone. If I bump it a few hours back, then we have europeans that have to wake up a 3am
I've heard from everyone so the game will definitely be starting tonight!
I think that Kitaman27 and BlazingHand are going to die day 1. If this happens, i think i will lay my suspicions upon Miltonkram, because he has obviously been the most antagonistic towards those two.
Another hot day dawns on Liquidville, a small town on the brink of nowhere. The dust cakes hotly on the ground, and this place, once a bustling center, has dried up like the gold mine that once supported it. It's not a ghost town, not yet. But it's a harsh world we live in, and without the income from the mine, the place has taken a turn for the worse. Without the lawmen around around, things would be a lot worse than they are now.
Suddenly, a cry rings out. All the townsfolk run to the main square, where they find that Blazinghand the Deputy has been killed! He died gun in hand, but hadn't fired a shot. Who could have done this? People begin to argue. VisceraEyes soon reveals that he is the semi-third party parishoner 1-shot viligilante death miller mad hatter with no hats and is promptly hung by the angry townsfolk.
Overnight, Sheriff Kitaman27 manages to trail the horse tracks of the killer, and soon finds himself face-to-face with the man himself. The heartless creature who murdered the deputy was none other than his evil twin brother, wherebugsgo. The two gunmen stared each other down, and the night was lit and punctuated by gunfire.
In the morning, the townspeople came across the body of the sheriff, riddled with bullets, and the corpse of wherebugsgo, with one shot through the heart. They were breathless. Had the sheriff given his life to rid the town of the murderer? They turned Kitaman27's body over. What was this? Clutched in his hand was a note, scrawled on paper with his own blood as he died:
"There are 3 more."
Blazinghand the Deputy was strangled with a live ferret! The ferret enjoyed the experience even less than he did! VisceraEyes the semi-third party parishoner 1-shot viligilante death miller mad hatter with no hats has been hung for a bad claim! wherebugsgo the Lex Luthor clone has been shot! Kitaman27 the Sherriff has been shot!
Day 1 has started. You have a little less than 48 hours left to vote. Deadline is 00:00 GMT (+00:00) in roughly 48 hours.
Let's have all policy talk done within 24 hours. Some people may be asleep, others awake. Give them the BOTD for the moment. That being said, i expect everyone to post at least 2 times usefully, within this 24 hour period.
Oh, and something that has bugged me both of the other times that i have played:
If you're going to do FOS or ##VOTE, please do it at the top of the post (as opposed to the bottom) because that makes it much easier to see what you intentions are and what the tone/direction of your post is.
If you don't and you don't provide any relevant reason for doing so, i will assume that you're being intentionally vague.
No more sheriff...well ain't that something special. What in the Sam Hill do we do now? Surely someone knows who else could be behind these treacherous murders.
I say we root these varmints out and string em right up in the middle of town, just like that VisceraEyes. Now to do this we're gonna need a couple of...'Rules'.
I will say that I am a firm believer in the truth. Anyone caught in a lie deserves to die! Who's with me?
Perhaps the best way to approach this situation is circumspectly, that is to say don't rush into any stupid decisions. I agree with Hopeless1der, truth should be our banner and justice our sigil!
I've played in one other newbie mafia game, and lurking town + scum made it hard to make reads. So post, and post often, lest I find you and do horrible things to your bodies.
I think Mafia is a very intricate game, and to say Lynch those who do not tell the truth is retarded. The Mafia knows the truth about the town. Townies know nothing (or very little). So in your scenario, the Mafia would never get lynched because in theory, they could always tell the truth. On the other hand, a honest and earnest townie may be pouring his heart into a case on another townie (calling him scum) and he is not telling the truth. That townie would get caught in a lie and would therefore deserve to die, in your opinion.
I believe that we should be honest, because as a townie, we have no way of knowing if we are telling the truth or not.
And while we're at it, let's get lurkers get out of the way:
Lurkers who are at risk for being modkilled should be left to get modkilled. I don't see any reason wasting a lynch on someone like that; we get very little information for doing so and we waste a potential opportunity to hunt scum, as well as letting another round of night actions go through.
Lurkers who barely qualify to stay above modkills should probably be lynch targets, but i believe that players showing scummy behavior should still be placed higher on the priority list.
I think Mafia is a very intricate game, and to say Lynch those who do not tell the truth is retarded. The Mafia knows the truth about the town. Townies know nothing (or very little). So in your scenario, the Mafia would never get lynched because in theory, they could always tell the truth. On the other hand, a honest and earnest townie may be pouring his heart into a case on another townie (calling him scum) and he is not telling the truth. That townie would get caught in a lie and would therefore deserve to die, in your opinion.
I believe that we should be honest, because as a townie, we have no way of knowing if we are telling the truth or not.
##FOS: Release this seems like very flawed logic to me. You can very well accuse someone of being scum without lying. Saying things like "I 'think' X is scum" ; "i 'suspect' X of being scum" and so forth and giving logical reasons on what led you to this conclusion is in no way come by as a lie. Of course if someone bluntly states "X is scum" without reasoning behind it, it is pretty surely much more suspicious for the poster itself. in my opinion you just try to stir up this whole thing a bit, by directly voting for him, so I'll keep my eye on you.
I think Mafia is a very intricate game, and to say Lynch those who do not tell the truth is retarded. The Mafia knows the truth about the town. Townies know nothing (or very little). So in your scenario, the Mafia would never get lynched because in theory, they could always tell the truth. On the other hand, a honest and earnest townie may be pouring his heart into a case on another townie (calling him scum) and he is not telling the truth. That townie would get caught in a lie and would therefore deserve to die, in your opinion.
I believe that we should be honest, because as a townie, we have no way of knowing if we are telling the truth or not.
##FOS: Release this seems like very flawed logic to me. You can very well accuse someone of being scum without lying. Saying things like "I 'think' X is scum" ; "i 'suspect' X of being scum" and so forth and giving logical reasons on what led you to this conclusion is in no way come by as a lie. Of course if someone bluntly states "X is scum" without reasoning behind it, it is pretty surely much more suspicious for the poster itself. in my opinion you just try to stir up this whole thing a bit, by directly voting for him, so I'll keep my eye on you.
Don't put words in my mouth.
I never said it was lying now did I? I said that they wouldn't be telling the truth.
Hypothetical scenario: BlazingHand is town. Toad is town. BlazingHand says "[insert logical reasoning here], therefore, Toad is scum." Was he telling the truth? Absolutely not, but he was being honest. Lying is intentional false, whereas someone can be honest and false too.
EBWOP: i managed to sneak a "lie" in there, (it was more for the idiomatic saying), but i said truth multiple times before. So if you acknowledge this EBWOP and your opinion doesn't change, let me know.
I think Mafia is a very intricate game, and to say Lynch those who do not tell the truth is retarded. The Mafia knows the truth about the town. Townies know nothing (or very little). So in your scenario, the Mafia would never get lynched because in theory, they could always tell the truth. On the other hand, a honest and earnest townie may be pouring his heart into a case on another townie (calling him scum) and he is not telling the truth. That townie would get caught in a lie and would therefore deserve to die, in your opinion.
I believe that we should be honest, because as a townie, we have no way of knowing if we are telling the truth or not.
##FOS: Release this seems like very flawed logic to me. You can very well accuse someone of being scum without lying. Saying things like "I 'think' X is scum" ; "i 'suspect' X of being scum" and so forth and giving logical reasons on what led you to this conclusion is in no way come by as a lie. Of course if someone bluntly states "X is scum" without reasoning behind it, it is pretty surely much more suspicious for the poster itself. in my opinion you just try to stir up this whole thing a bit, by directly voting for him, so I'll keep my eye on you.
And why do you seem so satisfied to leave the discussion at policy? That's all we have talked about besides formality. What i posted will generate (and it has) discussion which is good for town.
By saying this, you are saying that you would prefer to sit back and talk about nothing/policy all day.
I'm honestly pretty convinced that the statement you gave as example there can be seen as a "suspicion", not as a statement of a fact. And while blazing in your example states that toad is scum and that's not the case, it should be pretty obvious that that he is just suspecting it, because there is no way of him knowing it for a fact. But that might be just arguing semantics at that point, let's drop it.
Instead I would like to hear what policy you would suggest, since you are obviously not happy with the policy that was originally proposed. Maybe I like it better than the original one too, I am not too familiar with different policies in this game.
Any statement preceeded by "I think..." is inherently true until a contradictory "I think.."or similar statement is made. Nevertheless Release's logic should be addressed and I will concede that I committed the same error that he did prior to his EBWOP: equating truth to honesty, which are not the same.
Basically if someone decides to flip flop on a decision without some ironclad reasoning, I'm saying lynch the sucker
I think Mafia is a very intricate game, and to say Lynch those who do not tell the truth is retarded. The Mafia knows the truth about the town. Townies know nothing (or very little). So in your scenario, the Mafia would never get lynched because in theory, they could always tell the truth. On the other hand, a honest and earnest townie may be pouring his heart into a case on another townie (calling him scum) and he is not telling the truth. That townie would get caught in a lie and would therefore deserve to die, in your opinion.
I believe that we should be honest, because as a townie, we have no way of knowing if we are telling the truth or not.
##FOS: Release this seems like very flawed logic to me. You can very well accuse someone of being scum without lying. Saying things like "I 'think' X is scum" ; "i 'suspect' X of being scum" and so forth and giving logical reasons on what led you to this conclusion is in no way come by as a lie. Of course if someone bluntly states "X is scum" without reasoning behind it, it is pretty surely much more suspicious for the poster itself. in my opinion you just try to stir up this whole thing a bit, by directly voting for him, so I'll keep my eye on you.
And why do you seem so satisfied to leave the discussion at policy? That's all we have talked about besides formality. What i posted will generate (and it has) discussion which is good for town.
By saying this, you are saying that you would prefer to sit back and talk about nothing/policy all day.
That is not what that was trying to say. I was just saying directly voting for him seems a bit severe to me, and like a complete overreaction for what he has done (which is propose a policy). I guess you just wanted to take a shot in the dark, because the reasoning behind that vote seems very thin to me.
On June 25 2012 11:20 Release wrote: ##vote Hopeless1der
I think Mafia is a very intricate game, and to say Lynch those who do not tell the truth is retarded. The Mafia knows the truth about the town. Townies know nothing (or very little). So in your scenario, the Mafia would never get lynched because in theory, they could always tell the truth. On the other hand, a honest and earnest townie may be pouring his heart into a case on another townie (calling him scum) and he is not telling the truth. That townie would get caught in a lie and would therefore deserve to die, in your opinion.
I believe that we should be honest, because as a townie, we have no way of knowing if we are telling the truth or not.
FOS: Release
I don't see any situation where our infestation of evil (Mafia) can get out of this situation without lying. They can bend truths and suggest things that seem scummy, but in the end, they know who they are and who we are and will have to tell some lies or, at the very least, half truths.
Making a case that someone is scum isn't lying, assuming you are town and you have some kind of reasoning that drew you to that conclusion. Being wrong != lying.
Now, with all that said, your flawed logic isn't the reason for my suspicion towards you. Fast voting someone who has an argument with you is no way to catch the perps. If you honestly think someone disagreeing with your initial logic (which in this case was actually a disagreeing logic to *ANOTHER* person), then you're just asking to lynch innocent people because they have different ideas than you.
On June 25 2012 12:12 dNa wrote: I'm honestly pretty convinced that the statement you gave as example there can be seen as a "suspicion", not as a statement of a fact. And while blazing in your example states that toad is scum and that's not the case, it should be pretty obvious that that he is just suspecting it, because there is no way of him knowing it for a fact. But that might be just arguing semantics at that point, let's drop it.
Instead I would like to hear what policy you would suggest, since you are obviously not happy with the policy that was originally proposed. Maybe I like it better than the original one too, I am not too familiar with different policies in this game.
semantics are important. I ended up lynching a medic once because we couldn't synchronize our semantics.
Of course he doesn't know it for a fact. But he stated it. And that's why, in that hypothetical scenario, he would be being untruthful. Honest, but untruthful.
On June 25 2012 11:20 Release wrote: ##vote Hopeless1der
I think Mafia is a very intricate game, and to say Lynch those who do not tell the truth is retarded. The Mafia knows the truth about the town. Townies know nothing (or very little). So in your scenario, the Mafia would never get lynched because in theory, they could always tell the truth. On the other hand, a honest and earnest townie may be pouring his heart into a case on another townie (calling him scum) and he is not telling the truth. That townie would get caught in a lie and would therefore deserve to die, in your opinion.
I believe that we should be honest, because as a townie, we have no way of knowing if we are telling the truth or not.
FOS: Release
I don't see any situation where our infestation of evil (Mafia) can get out of this situation without lying. They can bend truths and suggest things that seem scummy, but in the end, they know who they are and who we are and will have to tell some lies or, at the very least, half truths.
Making a case that someone is scum isn't lying, assuming you are town and you have some kind of reasoning that drew you to that conclusion. Being wrong != lying.
Now, with all that said, your flawed logic isn't the reason for my suspicion towards you. Fast voting someone who has an argument with you is no way to catch the perps. If you honestly think someone disagreeing with your initial logic (which in this case was actually a disagreeing logic to *ANOTHER* person), then you're just asking to lynch innocent people because they have different ideas than you.
Hence, in theory. It was a hypothetical scenario to show the fault with "lynch those who don't tell the truth."
Response to bold: I never fucking said it was lying. I said it was being untruthful. Get it straight. You can be untruthful and honest at the same time but you can't be lying and honest at the same time.
Look at the activity pre-##vote and compare that to the activity post-##vote Thank me later.
I think Mafia is a very intricate game, and to say Lynch those who do not tell the truth is retarded. The Mafia knows the truth about the town. Townies know nothing (or very little). So in your scenario, the Mafia would never get lynched because in theory, they could always tell the truth. On the other hand, a honest and earnest townie may be pouring his heart into a case on another townie (calling him scum) and he is not telling the truth. That townie would get caught in a lie and would therefore deserve to die, in your opinion.
I believe that we should be honest, because as a townie, we have no way of knowing if we are telling the truth or not.
##FOS: Release this seems like very flawed logic to me. You can very well accuse someone of being scum without lying. Saying things like "I 'think' X is scum" ; "i 'suspect' X of being scum" and so forth and giving logical reasons on what led you to this conclusion is in no way come by as a lie. Of course if someone bluntly states "X is scum" without reasoning behind it, it is pretty surely much more suspicious for the poster itself. in my opinion you just try to stir up this whole thing a bit, by directly voting for him, so I'll keep my eye on you.
And why do you seem so satisfied to leave the discussion at policy? That's all we have talked about besides formality. What i posted will generate (and it has) discussion which is good for town.
By saying this, you are saying that you would prefer to sit back and talk about nothing/policy all day.
That is not what that was trying to say. I was just saying directly voting for him seems a bit severe to me, and like a complete overreaction for what he has done (which is propose a policy). I guess you just wanted to take a shot in the dark, because the reasoning behind that vote seems very thin to me.
On June 25 2012 12:13 Hopeless1der wrote: Any statement preceeded by "I think..." is inherently true until a contradictory "I think.."or similar statement is made. Nevertheless Release's logic should be addressed and I will concede that I committed the same error that he did prior to his EBWOP: equating truth to honesty, which are not the same.
Basically if someone decides to flip flop on a decision without some ironclad reasoning, I'm saying lynch the sucker
Actually scratch that: One can actually say "i think..." and have the ... be something completely contradictory to what they actually believe. But in general, we have to assume it's honest.
On June 25 2012 12:53 Hopeless1der wrote: To further clarify my response to Release:
I'm saying lynch people that we can collectively agree have been dishonest in something they have said or done.
Further discussions on what constitutes 'dishonesty' may follow at a later time, or right now if whoever is reading this should so happen to desire.
Right now would be the perfect time to discuss it, seeing as we've been talking about it since game start. Now would be a good time to say some things, seeing as how you have the first vote and all.
Absolutely not. I was just pointing out how horrible a lynch people who don't tell the truth policy would be. Esspen said it, and I've repeated it, lynch scum.
Kerithai, have you changed your mind about me yeT?
@Release: You completely glossed over the important section of my post. More scum for the scum train.
Getting all read to bandwagon someone who had a policy idea that you didn't agree with less than 2 hours intot he game will when you no friends, no matter how much discussion it spawned. Your post with the ##Vote line = good discussion. Your post with the ##Vote line = mind boggling.
On June 25 2012 13:01 Keirathi wrote: @Release: You completely glossed over the important section of my post. More scum for the scum train.
Getting all read to bandwagon someone who had a policy idea that you didn't agree with less than 2 hours intot he game will when you no friends, no matter how much discussion it spawned. Your post with the ##Vote line = good discussion. Your post with the ##Vote line = mind boggling.
when= win i presume?
Clearly, you've chosen not to be my friend but let other people speak for themselves.
Bandwagon? Why we hardly have enough people to constitute a majority. Who am i trying to convince?
And thus we've arrived at the point of my original policy: dishonesty is a move for scum. Townies shouldn't have a reason to lie, at least not a good one.
It's hard to imagine a game where someone instantly knows every scum and townie correctly - what would be the point of the game? We're going to have times where we're completely convinced of someones scumminess and manage to flip them as town. It happens, but I'd also rather Mislynch (when you're really really sure) than No-Lynch.
No-Lynching basically gives Mafia a free kill while denying us a chance to get rid of someone, at the very least someone that is not necessarily scum but definitely not helping the town. Only if such a person can not be found would I actively pursue a No-Lynch.
@Release: I pretty much agree with your stance on 'honesty'. Hence I moved on to Mis vs No Lynches
Yes I meant win. Sorry my typing was atrocious, its late.
As far as "friends", its way too early to know who I can trust. Need to hear some input from other people, but for now, yes you are my leading candidate. I 100% feel that your vote was too premature and has no reasonable explanation other than "to get the ball rolling", which is a terrible reason to vote. It accomplishes nothing other than to put a vote on someone who has a 75% chance of being a townie for the SOLE REASON that he had a good intentioned, albeit impossible, idea for a lynch policy.
On June 25 2012 13:13 Hopeless1der wrote: And thus we've arrived at the point of my original policy: dishonesty is a move for scum. Townies shouldn't have a reason to lie, at least not a good one.
It's hard to imagine a game where someone instantly knows every scum and townie correctly - what would be the point of the game? We're going to have times where we're completely convinced of someones scumminess and manage to flip them as town. It happens, but I'd also rather Mislynch (when you're really really sure) than No-Lynch.
No-Lynching basically gives Mafia a free kill while denying us a chance to get rid of someone, at the very least someone that is not necessarily scum but definitely not helping the town. Only if such a person can not be found would I actively pursue a No-Lynch.
@Release: I pretty much agree with your stance on 'honesty'. Hence I moved on to Mis vs No Lynches
I completely disagree with your first point, and mildly disagree with your second.
There are definitely situations where dishonesty as a townie can win you the game. If you don't believe this is true, then I can list examples later, but I assure you that it is.
As far as the second point, there are situations where No-Lynching is the correct choice, i.e. when lynching a townie then mafia night kill would lose the game, but if you no-lynch then mafia gets their night kill, you still have another day to play (and with better odds). Also depending on available roles (and more importantly what roles have been claimed with legitimate rationale), that no-lynching is a good solution. But I agree with you that no-lynching just for the sake of not taking a chance is silly.
On June 25 2012 13:15 Keirathi wrote: Yes I meant win. Sorry my typing was atrocious, its late.
As far as "friends", its way too early to know who I can trust. Need to hear some input from other people, but for now, yes you are my leading candidate. I 100% feel that your vote was too premature and has no reasonable explanation other than "to get the ball rolling", which is a terrible reason to vote. It accomplishes nothing other than to put a vote on someone who has a 75% chance of being a townie for the SOLE REASON that he had a good intentioned, albeit impossible, idea for a lynch policy.
actually, i'm a mental retard. There is a separate voting thread. But i think it's still good to know show our intentions through votes in this thread.
On June 25 2012 13:15 Keirathi wrote: Yes I meant win. Sorry my typing was atrocious, its late.
As far as "friends", its way too early to know who I can trust. Need to hear some input from other people, but for now, yes you are my leading candidate. I 100% feel that your vote was too premature and has no reasonable explanation other than "to get the ball rolling", which is a terrible reason to vote. It accomplishes nothing other than to put a vote on someone who has a 75% chance of being a townie for the SOLE REASON that he had a good intentioned, albeit impossible, idea for a lynch policy.
something else that is bothering: If you're in the middle of a conversation and you have to leave for whatever reason, a "night" of "gtg" is helpful in letting us know that you will not be continuing the conversation.
Good to see that we already have some conversation going + Show Spoiler +
even if it is just Release flailing his FoS everywhere. :D
.
Figure I'll address a couple of the policy points with my opinions while I'm here.
I haven't really seen a good reason to NL early game, so I'd prefer a mislynch to a NL day 1/2. As for Release's strategy, at the moment, it is likely just scaring scum from posting. I'm exhausted, going to sleep now, I'll contribute something more meaningful in the morning.
On June 22 2012 10:37 Release wrote: A word of forewarning: I won't be playing/posting as much as i have in previous games because studies got serious. I still have more than an hour a day though.
On June 25 2012 10:16 Hopeless1der wrote: No more sheriff...well ain't that something special. What in the Sam Hill do we do now? Surely someone knows who else could be behind these treacherous murders.
I say we root these varmints out and string em right up in the middle of town, just like that VisceraEyes. Now to do this we're gonna need a couple of...'Rules'.
I will say that I am a firm believer in the truth. Anyone caught in a lie deserves to die! Who's with me?
I'd assume based on the op that there are blues, or a vigilante at least. I'd want them to lie to protect themselves, so I disagree with that policy
Fos: release
you got everyone including me to spend time thinking about irrelevant nonsense instead of getting to the point, which in my opinion, is to simple protect blues.
I do not get all that "lynch the liar" for several reasons. Townies obviously cannot know whether someone lied or not, only clues they can grasp onto are inconsistencies and vagueness. The only players who know the truth are scums and if the whole game is going to revole around us identifying who lied, mafia is going to win rather easy. Mafia can win just by ereasing their memory that they are mafia and simply playing with a mindset of a townie, leaving townies lyinching each other as they find innocent inconsistencies in their speeches (ie posts). Secondly, even blues have to lie in order to survive.
But that also means when I say "I am mafia." you should lynch me no matter whether it is true or not, as if I'm telling the truth, you just lynched mafia, and if it is not true you lynched liar. (breaks my heart )
But I believe we should try to identify and lynch blues first, confusing mafia and leaving them vulnerable...
Been trying to read through all the discussion so far. Release sticks to his general style with a few slight deviations, but back to the topic: It's about lynch all liars atm.
I'll give you my opinion on this policy from my experience as scum the previous game. Mafia doesn't have to lie without very specific reasons like claims. You will be able to find contradictions and mistakes in townie play aswell, I found plenty of them and used them to make cases against townies. But when a weird townie guy claimed DT for no reason and claimed one of ours to be scum, mafia had to counterclaim and openly lie, which bit our team in the arse within a few hours.
lynch all liars shouldn't be adopted as a general policy, but needs the right situation to be applied correctly. If someone lies in a way that it's not a mistake but a consciously made up lie, then that one has to be lynched unless it proves to have been in the towns' interest (beware bussing tho).
lynch all lurkers is important. Mafia doesn't have to post if there's no pressure. Most of the time it will be scumtells which lead to a lynch. But it has to be clear that people with low activity will switch into town's focus in absence of good cases, and this pressure is what town needs to gain information equally from everybody.
Most games it becomes very clear that at the beginning of a game, town's attention first hits the people who post a lot. I think that is a mistake. In order for the lynch all lurkers policy to work, attention has to hit especially people who didn't post a lot in order for them to post more and exercise pressure.
Common knowledge seems to say that mafia profits from policy discussion. Very situational imo. Policies should be set day 1, and town should have a consensus.Then it depends on the way they are discussed: Everyone should first have an opinion about policies before posting something concerning them, and they should then post their approval/disapproval of the policy based on facts. This way, policy discussion can be kept to a minimum of amount and a maximum of transparency. Policy discussion shouldn't be avoided since else it can come back after day 1.
What we don't want of policy talk is: People starting to discuss whether it's good or bad in a way that you end up having one page of policy discussion.
What we want is: People saying yes/no to certain policies AND BEING SURE OF THEMSELVES, then giving reasons for their attitude. And then we want others not starting to pick on the points the people wrote, but posting their own!That way town will have a quick overview of general consensus about policies, have them out of the way for the following days, and can start scumhunting for real without wasting further time on policy talk.
We have to restrict scum's options regarding policies, cases, activity. They have to take responsibility for what they write. What we don't want is: People who start writing cases on others who already are in the center of attention. This is a great opportunity for scum to blend in. This is where bussing happens when the real scum can't escape that center of attention.
To find mafiavibes, try to look at posts from a point of view where you have almost all the information.
tl;dr: Pro lynch all lurkers, against lynch all liars, not gonna throw around FoS like crazy at the start of the game, townies react to that with quick OMGUS, since they know of their own alignment and feel threatened unjustly (mafia can act the same if they are experienced I guess). Try to post cases on people who aren't in trouble aswell. Don't give mafia that chance to blend in.
First of all, for everyone FOSing release for his very early vote, have a look at his past games. I happened to skim over a past newbie game that he so happened to be involved in as a townie, and he did the exact same thing: putting in a very early vote to foster discussion. Whether or not you agree with his decision is not the point; he has done it before and he is doing it again. In fact, what little reasoning was behind his early vote in this game is more than what was in the other game. I am obviously not saying we should just stop looking at him of course, we should continue scrutinising him as much as any other player throughout the game. I am just saying that you guys should approach this particular action of his with caution. Also JieXian, I don't agree with your use of pre-game posts as part of your case against release (in regards to your "create escape route" point. I think analysis of posts should start when the game actually starts.
Now, I interpreted hopeless1der's post to mean that we should lynch those who are actively lying/trying to mislead town (aside from blues protecting themselves, of course). Release, I do really think you were arguing semantics here. Obviously someone putting effort and logic into building their case, but turns out to be wrong shouldn't be lynched even though that could be technically considered "being caught in a lie". That's all I'm going to say about this argument, which has wasted a lot of discussion time IMO.
Esspen, your contributions to the thread so far:
On the policy: I believe we should try to identify and lynch mafia first. Simple policy, but with great results
Which is the whole point of the game and stating the obvious...
I do not get all that "lynch the liar" for several reasons. Townies obviously cannot know whether someone lied or not, only clues they can grasp onto are inconsistencies and vagueness. The only players who know the truth are scums and if the whole game is going to revole around us identifying who lied, mafia is going to win rather easy. Mafia can win just by ereasing their memory that they are mafia and simply playing with a mindset of a townie, leaving townies lyinching each other as they find innocent inconsistencies in their speeches (ie posts). Secondly, even blues have to lie in order to survive.
But that also means when I say "I am mafia." you should lynch me no matter whether it is true or not, as if I'm telling the truth, you just lynched mafia, and if it is not true you lynched liar. (breaks my heart )
But I believe we should try to identify and lynch blues first, confusing mafia and leaving them vulnerable...
And this post. No one is saying we should focus on finding liars. Lies will be just some of the evidence we will use to build up cases against the mafia. And did you just say we should actively find and lynch blue roles? This is some pretty bizarre logic, and you can bet that the rest of the players in this game will be questioning you when they see that post. That had better be some catastrophic typo, or you'd better have a good explanation for that. If you don't, by the next time you post, I will be placing my vote on you for trying to fish for blue roles.
I don't see how a lie could possibly help town. Town players are supposed to establish their innocence by being open and honest in their posting, lying does not help to achieve this. Special cases apply where blue roles are concerned of course, but we shouldn't be trying to find blue players and forcing them to lie in the first place. Thus, I am inclined to lynch all liars.
As for lynching lurkers, things get a bit murky for me. Both lynching and not lynching lurkers hurt town in my first game, so this is something that depends on the situation. I am of the opinion that we should stick to our convictions and vote for who we actually think is mafia, rather than stack our votes on a lurker because of pressure from other players (remember, lurkers are easy targets for mafia to bandwagon).
On June 25 2012 20:23 Esspen wrote: I do not get all that "lynch the liar" for several reasons. Townies obviously cannot know whether someone lied or not, only clues they can grasp onto are inconsistencies and vagueness. The only players who know the truth are scums and if the whole game is going to revole around us identifying who lied, mafia is going to win rather easy. Mafia can win just by ereasing their memory that they are mafia and simply playing with a mindset of a townie, leaving townies lyinching each other as they find innocent inconsistencies in their speeches (ie posts). Secondly, even blues have to lie in order to survive.
But that also means when I say "I am mafia." you should lynch me no matter whether it is true or not, as if I'm telling the truth, you just lynched mafia, and if it is not true you lynched liar. (breaks my heart )
But I believe we should try to identify and lynch blues first, confusing mafia and leaving them vulnerable...
maybe it's a joke? In both games i played, i managed to lynch the medic, but it doesn't confuse the mafia. It prevent a save...
Well, English is not esspen's first language I presume, so if anything, it could be that something got lost in translation. Seems pretty clear to me what he's trying to say in that last line though, so I'd like an explanation.
EBWOP: an explanation of how getting rid of our blue players puts town in a favourable situation instead of an unfavourable one, and how it confuses mafia.
But I believe we should try to identify and lynch blues first, confusing mafia and leaving them vulnerable...
Wat
You crazy?
Vivax and I found that confusing = We must be mafia lolololol
Take my "game plan" for what you will. I can't decide how you think.
If yourself and vivax found that confusing, doesn't that make him Mafia (as opposed to yourselves)? Townies are trying to avoid confusion while mafia try to cause confusion. If you say his reasoning is the reasoning is your reasoning, that's kind of a catch 22
On June 25 2012 22:28 JieXian wrote: Jokes aside, Esspen why the hell did you post that?
To be quite honest, just to see reactions of people. And maybe catch some scummy behaviour. Btw I must say that Release seems to be the scum as all reacted to my post it the form of "wtf? please explain" etc. wanting some explanation, yet Release is the only one actually attacking.
On June 25 2012 23:52 Release wrote: If yourself and vivax found that confusing, doesn't that make him Mafia (as opposed to yourselves)? Townies are trying to avoid confusion while mafia try to cause confusion. If you say his reasoning is the reasoning is your reasoning, that's kind of a catch 22
On June 25 2012 23:29 BassInSpace wrote:Also JieXian, I don't agree with your use of pre-game posts as part of your case against release (in regards to your "create escape route" point. I think analysis of posts should start when the game actually starts.
I admit my analysis was a long shot but holy shit does it seem to fit... It does assume that Release had both smart planning and was lucky enough to be a mafia.
However I totally disagree that the game actually starts during the game. Flash and iloveoov used interviews to win man.
On June 25 2012 23:52 Release wrote: Take my "game plan" for what you will. I can't decide how you think.
If yourself and vivax found that confusing, doesn't that make him Mafia (as opposed to yourselves)? Townies are trying to avoid confusion while mafia try to cause confusion. If you say his reasoning is the reasoning is your reasoning, that's kind of a catch 22
Release that's why I kinda suspicious about him but it does assume that he is an absolute idiot if he's mafia hahahahaha
Also, someone please answer me.... I'll need to sleep/vote soon
On June 25 2012 22:28 JieXian wrote: Jokes aside, Esspen why the hell did you post that?
To be quite honest, just to see reactions of people. And maybe catch some scummy behaviour. Btw I must say that Release seems to be the scum as all reacted to my post it the form of "wtf? please explain" etc. wanting some explanation, yet Release is the only one actually attacking.
On June 25 2012 23:52 Release wrote: If yourself and vivax found that confusing, doesn't that make him Mafia (as opposed to yourselves)? Townies are trying to avoid confusion while mafia try to cause confusion. If you say his reasoning is the reasoning is your reasoning, that's kind of a catch 22
To be fair I think you deserved that attack for the textbook mafia confusion creating move
On June 25 2012 23:29 BassInSpace wrote: Also JieXian, I don't agree with your use of pre-game posts as part of your case against release (in regards to your "create escape route" point. I think analysis of posts should start when the game actually starts.
I admit my analysis was a long shot but holy shit does it seem to fit... It does assume that Release had both smart planning and was lucky enough to be a mafia though.
However I totally disagree that the game actually starts during the game. Flash and iloveoov used interviews to win man.
@ JieXian - We have 48 hours from the day 1 post to decide a lynch target, and then 24 hours to submit night actions. The mafia get to shoot at this time as well. Then it all starts over.
But I believe we should try to identify and lynch blues first, confusing mafia and leaving them vulnerable...
Blues are townies as well, yes? In what game would your suggestion be beneficial to the town? Certainly not a newbie game. This is an insane statement to make, regardless of "I wanted to see the reactions." Also, Release hasn't really questioned you except for the whole "OMGUS" as the opening post:
On June 25 2012 10:04 Release wrote: Fos: Esspen
I don't like your name. Do something about it.
Oh noes...Granted Release is attacking just about anyone right now, but that's to get things going. Your statement was ridiculous and right now, I'm suspect you of trying to shift the attention back onto him since he's been so vocal that it makes him an easier target.
On June 25 2012 23:52 Release wrote: If yourself and vivax found that confusing, doesn't that make him Mafia (as opposed to yourselves)? Townies are trying to avoid confusion while mafia try to cause confusion. If you say his reasoning is the reasoning is your reasoning, that's kind of a catch 22
This is the most confusing sentence in this thread, so maybe *YOU'RE* the mafia.
In all seriousness though, i feel like you are putting yourself in the limelight a bit too much on day1 for oyut o be mafia, unless you're just an idiot, which I assume isn't the case.
As far as the whole "lynching the blues" comment by Esspen, really boggling. I can't even see how this would create good discussion; 1) you're serious, in which case WORST MAFIA EVER or 2) you're making a joke, people call you out, you say you're joking, people still suspect your motives but move on. I dont feel like anything that has come out of that statement has been useful towards finding whoever the mafia is, so that just makes it more suspicious/boggling.
Now: lynch the lurkers. I've played around tis strategy many many times, and while it doesn't always work, it does have some key benefits: 1) a lot of mafia (especially inexperienced ones) are going to try to keep a low profile for a long as they can and 2) people who arent giving input, well, aren't giving input or opinions for others to base anything on, therefor aren't helping town to win. The chance of mafia nightkilling lurkers is exceptionally low, as well, because 1) thats one more person to cast suspicion on, and 2) the lurker isnt going to casting any suspicion on them.
So thats my 2cents. Lynch All Lurkers is probably our best plan of action.
As far as policy, I would prioritize lurkers over liars. However, getting scum reads is of course priority #1. Policy lynching should be our last resort, and only when a No-Lynch on Day1&2 looks likely. Beyond that, it becomes play by ear as we'll finally have something to discuss other than the usual drivel.
Ok, on the serious note, I completely agree with Keirathi and Hopeless1der - lurkers should be our priority. Even lynching a lurking townie is not going to be some major setback as he/she was not contributing to the discussion anyway and as Keirathi said, a lot of newbie mafia lurk.
And on the silly thing I wrote, I really hope you don't think that if I was mafia I would be so obvious. Though I understand concern as this is newbie game after all.
And just a question: why would anyone no-lynch on the Day 1?
Fear of lynching a townie and not having a decent read on anyone. Its why I think policy lynching is developed in the first place: to avoid a No-Lynch early in the game .
are we sure that we want to lynch someone who has not even typed anything yet? I mean, they'll be modkilled anyway if they haven't made a post, seems like a wasted lynch to me.
I'm not changing policy, I'm prioritizing multiple policies. I don't define lurking as literally not typing anything. That would invoke modkills, just like dNa pointed out. There are other ways to lurk, which I believe you are doing. As a result, you appear most scummy to me out of the available pool of players to choose from.
Whatever. My point was that you want to lynch lurkers. AegonC isn't going to be modkilled. He's met the quota (Barely, but he has) Release called you out on your first policy, and now you are shifting to lurkers.
Who says I cannot maintain multiple policies. Not enough has been said for me to conclude that anyone has been dishonest. I do not agree with No-Lynch, especially in the early game. Are you not a lurker BioSC? In what way...what have you done that suggests otherwise?
(p.s. I know I have to vote in the Vote Thread thread for it to count)
On June 26 2012 12:55 Hopeless1der wrote: ##VOTE BioSC
Who says I cannot maintain multiple policies. Not enough has been said for me to conclude that anyone has been dishonest. I do not agree with No-Lynch, especially in the early game. Are you not a lurker BioSC? In what way...what have you done that suggests otherwise?
(p.s. I know I have to vote in the Vote Thread thread for it to count)
Sorry, I'm not going to make a case on myself for you. If you believe me to be scum, make the case. Look through my filter. I've discussed policy (Hint: I want people to post too)
You are voting for me? Why? Am I a lurker? I'm not even sure you know why you are voting for me. We've done and posted about pretty much the same things. So, I bounce the question back to you. What makes me a lurker, a candidate for YOUR policy, over someone who's filter I can quote in 4 lines?
This is my first mafia game, I believe I am signing up correctly.
On June 25 2012 10:22 AegonC wrote: Perhaps the best way to approach this situation is circumspectly, that is to say don't rush into any stupid decisions. I agree with Hopeless1der, truth should be our banner and justice our sigil!
On June 26 2012 12:55 Hopeless1der wrote: ##VOTE BioSC
Who says I cannot maintain multiple policies. Not enough has been said for me to conclude that anyone has been dishonest. I do not agree with No-Lynch, especially in the early game. Are you not a lurker BioSC? In what way...what have you done that suggests otherwise?
(p.s. I know I have to vote in the Vote Thread thread for it to count)
Sorry, I'm not going to make a case on myself for you. If you believe me to be scum, make the case. Look through my filter. I've discussed policy (Hint: I want people to post too)
You are voting for me? Why? Am I a lurker? I'm not even sure you know why you are voting for me. We've done and posted about pretty much the same things. So, I bounce the question back to you. What makes me a lurker, a candidate for YOUR policy, over someone who's filter I can quote in 4 lines?
This is my first mafia game, I believe I am signing up correctly.
On June 25 2012 10:22 AegonC wrote: Perhaps the best way to approach this situation is circumspectly, that is to say don't rush into any stupid decisions. I agree with Hopeless1der, truth should be our banner and justice our sigil!
Your opening post contains some cliche townie wisdom. Second post defers back to me to elaborate instead of contributing anything further Third explains the rules of the game itself Fourth comments on my suspicions against you, followed again by requesting that I provide all sides of the conversation.
I fail to see how you "discussed policy" in those posts. Sweet - you've met both my policies. STRING HIM UP BOYS.
Im giving Aegon the BOTD. He hasn't done anything overly suspicious. You have. I have little interest in prolonging this with you BioSC. Should anyone else wish to chime in, I'm all ears.
Odd, because I was about to say similar to you. You have yet to explain to me why I've met your random, mysterious qualities for lurking, over someone with bare minimum posting standards.
On June 25 2012 11:01 BioSC wrote: I like Esspen. A man after my own heart!
I've played in one other newbie mafia game, and lurking town + scum made it hard to make reads. So post, and post often, lest I find you and do horrible things to your bodies.
And hi everyone else!
Hmm... so lets see, now who's meeting policy? Don't try to make a half assed case on me and ignore portions of my filter, especially this early, there is no reason for it. We wanted policy talk done early. I made my statement about lurkers, and that was it.
Now, lets go through YOUR posts.
Your opening post contains some cliche townie wisdom/ Your "policy" (don't lie) wrapped up in some cute dialect. 2-4th posts are you floundering about when Release calls you out on your policy. Trying to make yourself seem better when you are called out (I.E. excuse making.)
But I believe we should try to identify and lynch blues first, confusing mafia and leaving them vulnerable...
Blues are townies as well, yes? In what game would your suggestion be beneficial to the town? Certainly not a newbie game. This is an insane statement to make, regardless of "I wanted to see the reactions." Also, Release hasn't really questioned you except for the whole "OMGUS" as the opening post:
Oh noes...Granted Release is attacking just about anyone right now, but that's to get things going. Your statement was ridiculous and right now, I'm suspect you of trying to shift the attention back onto him since he's been so vocal that it makes him an easier target.
Release has gone to bed, so his pressure is off you, and now you begin shifting attention away from yourself. Start with the easiest case, Esspen with his really bad "joke" statement. Easy target to shift focus to.
Finally, we arrive to your 3rd policy of the day, Lurkers. No one is really biting on Esspen for whatever reason, so you need to find something that sticks. Lurkers gets some comments, as some people have already expressed interest in that policy.
So your choices are arbitrarily narrowed down to 2 people. If you honestly expect people to follow your lynch lurker policy, Aegon would have probably been a better choice. Hell, I may have gone along with you. But for whatever reason you have yet to explain adequately, you focus me. I think you may have made a few too many scumslips. You can stick to policy lynching lurkers. I'll policy lynch scum.
On June 25 2012 23:52 Release wrote: If yourself and vivax found that confusing, doesn't that make him Mafia (as opposed to yourselves)? Townies are trying to avoid confusion while mafia try to cause confusion. If you say his reasoning is the reasoning is your reasoning, that's kind of a catch 22
This is the most confusing sentence in this thread, so maybe *YOU'RE* the mafia.
In all seriousness though, i feel like you are putting yourself in the limelight a bit too much on day1 for oyut o be mafia, unless you're just an idiot, which I assume isn't the case.
As far as the whole "lynching the blues" comment by Esspen, really boggling. I can't even see how this would create good discussion; 1) you're serious, in which case WORST MAFIA EVER or 2) you're making a joke, people call you out, you say you're joking, people still suspect your motives but move on. I dont feel like anything that has come out of that statement has been useful towards finding whoever the mafia is, so that just makes it more suspicious/boggling.
Now: lynch the lurkers. I've played around tis strategy many many times, and while it doesn't always work, it does have some key benefits: 1) a lot of mafia (especially inexperienced ones) are going to try to keep a low profile for a long as they can and 2) people who arent giving input, well, aren't giving input or opinions for others to base anything on, therefor aren't helping town to win. The chance of mafia nightkilling lurkers is exceptionally low, as well, because 1) thats one more person to cast suspicion on, and 2) the lurker isnt going to casting any suspicion on them.
So thats my 2cents. Lynch All Lurkers is probably our best plan of action.
While lynching lurkers to make mafia come out is a good idea wouldn't it be a better idea to target scummy behaviour since we have so many examples? And leave the lurkers policy for when there's no better choice?
i.e. scum>lurkers>liars
Actually assuming both Esspen and Release are smart won't totally rule them out because they are causing commotion and confusion while being safe from lynching (just like how I've gave Esspen the benefit of the doubt earlier) by:
- Claiming to attempt to draw out mafia. - Assuming people would assume that they are not complete idiots. - Having the same play style (according to Vivax ) (( holy shit if Release turns out to be mafia that'll mean something but there's nothing concrete on vivax for now imo ))
I had to skim past Hopeless and Release's argument on policy because I just couldn't read it and they could be staging it for all I know (again, assuming they are smart). **wild assumption no. 2**
Esspen panics and targets Release for a reasoning that doesn't make sense for his response, which makes him look weak.
Hopeless targets BioSC now but *coincidnetally* BioSC targeted Hopeless earlier.... (So they don't interest me .. yet.)
I feel really bad targeing lurkers without having any info on them because holy shit I'm spoilt for scummy choices.
Assuming all are smart, Esspen's wasn't really effective in protecting himself or creating commotion, though he posts less and he and Release seem to be on the opposite side. (just maybe)
They may be lynching lurkers now since that would mean that they will be safe. **wild guess when it comes to hopeless**
Voting for Release since I wanted to vote for him earlier for creating so much bullshit.
tldr: He's completely safe if we assume he's stupid. What if we assume he's smart ?
Oh ya since Esspen's wasn't really effective in protecting himself or creating commotion of course, we also have the possibility that he isn't so smart.
So to clarify: voting for release for causing commotion for no reason. Even if he's townie we can be much more focused with people like Vivax and Keraithi and dna.
Hopeless1der, you say that policy lynching should be our last resort, but then you post this?
Okay then...which lurker are we lynching? Im seeing Aegon, NrGmonk and BioSC as our prime candidates.
You have a FOS on esspen, who you already said you find suspicious for trying to bring attention back to release, but then you ask which of our "prime candidates" out of those 3 we should lynch? If policy lynching really is the last resort, should you not be pressuring esspen more, or waiting closer to the voting deadline when there has been more activity before you start wanting to lynch lurkers (by my count there are still 22 hours until the deadline)? That is the whole point of a last resort. I really don't like how much attention you were putting on voting for lurkers before BiosC responded to you. I'm not sure if you'll get to see this and respond any time soon because of time zones, but I will hold off putting my vote on you until I go to bed just in case you manage to post before then.
As for esspen, I really don't know. That really is just way too obvious a move for mafia to make as others have said, but I am getting a stronger read from hopeless1der.
Okay then...which lurker are we lynching? Im seeing Aegon, NrGmonk and BioSC as our prime candidates.
You have a FOS on esspen, who you already said you find suspicious for trying to bring attention back to release, but then you ask which of our "prime candidates" out of those 3 we should lynch? If policy lynching really is the last resort, should you not be pressuring esspen more, or waiting closer to the voting deadline when there has been more activity before you start wanting to lynch lurkers (by my count there are still 22 hours until the deadline)? That is the whole point of a last resort. I really don't like how much attention you were putting on voting for lurkers before BiosC responded to you. I'm not sure if you'll get to see this and respond any time soon because of time zones, but I will hold off putting my vote on you until I go to bed just in case you manage to post before then.
As for esspen, I really don't know. That really is just way too obvious a move for mafia to make as others have said, but I am getting a stronger read from hopeless1der.
Wow you're right, I totally missed it. I was not really interested in hopeless so I didn't read too much into his posts. Reconsidering my vote on Release but I still don't like how Release looks like for now.
But I believe we should try to identify and lynch blues first, confusing mafia and leaving them vulnerable...
Wat
You crazy?
Vivax and I found that confusing = We must be mafia lolololol
If you're still stuck one this, i don't know what to say...
"They may be lynching lurkers" I never said. I said go for scum. I even said lynchscum>lynchliars>lynchnottruth. I said that lurkers will always take a position lower than scum on priority list. Words in my mouth.
Yeah, i caused commotion. We weren't exactly making a lot of progress. I think commotion>banter because at least we get some honest opinions in there. Maybe even a scumslip if someone gets too emotional...
Okay then...which lurker are we lynching? Im seeing Aegon, NrGmonk and BioSC as our prime candidates.
You have a FOS on esspen, who you already said you find suspicious for trying to bring attention back to release, but then you ask which of our "prime candidates" out of those 3 we should lynch? If policy lynching really is the last resort, should you not be pressuring esspen more, or waiting closer to the voting deadline when there has been more activity before you start wanting to lynch lurkers (by my count there are still 22 hours until the deadline)? That is the whole point of a last resort. I really don't like how much attention you were putting on voting for lurkers before BiosC responded to you. I'm not sure if you'll get to see this and respond any time soon because of time zones, but I will hold off putting my vote on you until I go to bed just in case you manage to post before then.
As for esspen, I really don't know. That really is just way too obvious a move for mafia to make as others have said, but I am getting a stronger read from hopeless1der.
My FOS on Esspen was based on him making me confused. Townies shouldn't be trying to cause confusion imo, so that concerned me. Not enough to vote him, but enough to make note for future reference. Many have come to the conclusion that it would have been insane for mafia to make that move, but I still need to consider WIFOM as we progress.
You're right on the deadline, there is time available to pressure for scum tells. However, there isn't really enough info to push that very far, so I essentially singled out BioSC and took a go at him under the premise of saying hes a lurker.
(NrGmonk has literally not posted and is subject to modkill, as dNa pointed out. Aegon had 1 post and fits the bill for a lurker to a tee, but I felt I could squeeze BioSC for more info since he seemed inclined to respond.)
BioSC responded with a strongly toned OMGUS analysis of my posts so far.
Please read through both of our cases and see who you agree with more. I didn't randomly target BioSC; hes the strongest read I have so far, hence he has my vote, and my scrutiny.
On June 26 2012 14:56 Release wrote: ##Vote Hopeless1der
No time for a thorough explanation. He seems to have been changing his stance to suit the current opinion of the town.
@Release: You know I was the one who steered the Lynch all liars AND lurkers policies...So is the town changing its stance to suit me? Maybe you feel I'm just dancing in circles hoping no one catches on...but there is plenty of discussion between me and other players already. I'm not hiding, and I'm not suddenly jumping back and forth. My posts follow a consistent train of thought. Here's hoping you change your mind about me, or at least flesh out something that I might have a chance to rebut.
And on that note: Good Night, sweet Liquidville. This is Hopeless...
This game will follow a 24 hour night/48 hour day cycle.
shit I just noticed that this wasn't what i thought it was. This actually means that we have 2 days to vote right?
Release's game plan seems to be:
1) Create escape route. (just in case he got mafia)
So night. I will be less active in the following days (until night 3) for aforementioned reasons.
2) Create chaos 3) Claim it leads to more productive posting 4) Hide with aforementioned excuse
On June 25 2012 21:49 Vivax wrote:
On June 25 2012 20:23 Esspen wrote:
But I believe we should try to identify and lynch blues first, confusing mafia and leaving them vulnerable...
Wat
You crazy?
Vivax and I found that confusing = We must be mafia lolololol
If you're still stuck one this, i don't know what to say...
"They may be lynching lurkers" I never said. I said go for scum. I even said lynchscum>lynchliars>lynchnottruth. I said that lurkers will always take a position lower than scum on priority list. Words in my mouth.
Yeah, i caused commotion. We weren't exactly making a lot of progress. I think commotion>banter because at least we get some honest opinions in there. Maybe even a scumslip if someone gets too emotional...
Night
No, As I mentioned several times before... I'm not voting for you based on that.
About your second paragraph I have no idea what you're talking about. I think we're on the same page with lynching policies. I was actually disagreeing with Keraithi (and now hopeless) since he said lynch lurkers and I even quoted him.
3rd point fits my arguement of a smart mafia. I think it doesn't look good for you whether you're smart or stupid hahaha now that I think about it.
Good night to you. I just woke up a few hours ago hoho
I think the focus has to switch to the less active posters (NrGmonk, AegonC, roflwaffle55y, Esspen).
Consider the amount of content, not just the amount of posts.
I'll give you my opinions regarding the lurkers, I hope it's gonna help you in making a decision on which one to lynch. If someone of the would-be-modkilled lurkers just posts and votes shortly before the lynch without a damn good reason to do so, we should obviously lynch him. I think it's good to have a consensus on this alternative, I would appreciate if townies expressed their approval if they agree with this.
NrGMonk: Gonna vote for him if he posts right before deadline to escape the modkill.
AegonC: Doesn't offer any reads with his generic minipost. His priority is next to NrG's.
Esspen: Kinda weird posts. He posts first when it's about discussing the lynch all liars policy. What strikes me here is that he questions the policy, but concludes the post with his line about lynching blues and confusing scum. That might have been a slip.His next post says it was intentional, and he immediately uses that explanation to put his FoS on Release. He never took a hard stance during this, he never tried to post a case on Release when he had reason to. And then he completely forgets Release in his last post, to 'completely agree' with Keirathi and hopeless1der about the lurker lynch policy. Saying that he would be a too obvious mafia isn't a valid defense for me either, mafia can be obvious if the players make mistakes, and I still don't buy above blue role lynch mistake as intentional. It might have been, but that'd be very risky play by a townie.
roflwaffle55: He comments on policy (lynch > NL), doesn't like Release style of posting, promises more contribution after sleeping. Him commenting negatively on Release very early looks townie to me. I wouldn't vote for him instead of the other three as of now.
First of all, for everyone discussing the merits of no-lynching vs mislynching: I just remembered no-lynching is pretty much impossible at this stage. This particular game isn't using a majority lynch system; whoever has the most votes on them will get lynched regardless of whether or not they have more than half of the players voting for them.
5. In the event of a tie the person with the most votes first is lynched. 6. Voting is mandatory. You may NOT abstain. 7. Whomever has the most votes at the end of the day will be lynched!
Because of this, I am very hesitant to decide between BioSC and hopeless1der right now with the current info in the thread, since this will be my last post for the night and I may not be around in time for the deadline. Both players' cases against each other are not enough to convince me, and I would love to be able to analyse both players' posting more. Hopefully I have the time in the morning to read more, but I doubt I will have time to post thorough reasoning for my vote (will be on my phone as well).
For now however, I am going to vote for roflwaffles55.
On June 25 2012 14:37 roflwaffles55 wrote: Good to see that we already have some conversation going + Show Spoiler +
even if it is just Release flailing his FoS everywhere. :D
.
Figure I'll address a couple of the policy points with my opinions while I'm here.
I haven't really seen a good reason to NL early game, so I'd prefer a mislynch to a NL day 1/2. As for Release's strategy, at the moment, it is likely just scaring scum from posting. I'm exhausted, going to sleep now, I'll contribute something more meaningful in the morning.
He didn't post anything useful in his first post, and hasn't made good on his promise to post "something more meaningful in the morning"
If I don't see anyone who sticks out more to me in the morning (or I don't get the time to check), then I am leaving my vote on him/her.
VIvax, in regards to NrGmonk, here is a post from the NMM XIX thread:
On June 26 2012 05:33 NrGmonk wrote: I can /in if I'm allowed to play 2 newbie games at the same time and as long as this doesn't start for another week. I have a shitload of TL-related stuff to do this week.
Just something I thought I'd bring up for others to keep in mind.
We seem to disagree on roflwaffles55. His commenting negatively of release isn't "very early" as you put it was easy for him to do. Release's early vote/fos style is brash and sure to attract attention/criticism. Plenty of people thought it was the wrong move due to the lack of information, and roflwaffles55 was third to comment on it negatively, after Hopeless1der and dNa.
We seem to disagree on roflwaffles55. His commenting negatively on release was easy for him to do; release's early vote/fos style is brash and sure to attract attention/criticism. It's not a bold move or particularly townie to disagree with it; plenty of people thought it was the wrong move due to the lack of information. Also, roflwaffles55 was third to comment on it negatively, after Hopeless1der and dNa.
Sorry, been really busy lately; I thought I would have more time. Writing IPL TAC Preview atm which has a deadline today, as well as helping with TSL qualifiers, as well as a few other secret things. I'll then be able to then read all the mafia rules and contribute later tonight. If that's too late, feel free to replace me.
Ok, so NrG is announcing a contribution. According to BassInSpace, roflwaffle55 bandwagoned with the Release criticism.
I took a look at his post again, and it's true. It's a very soft criticism too. Actually a mistake by me in calling it an early post. There were FoS on Release out already at that point when rofl made his first post. With this, I have no reason to believe he might be town yet.
I still find Esspen's behavior to be strange, and I wouldn't be able to choose between him and rofl decisively yet. Esspen on the other hand posted more, but has one potential slip.
Since NrG announced himself and two of the lurkers are hard to choose from, I'll simply place my vote on AegonC and await further developments/good posts.
Originally I planned to vote for either BioSC or Release, but now reading posts about Hopeless makes me want to lynch him too... anyway I'll probably vote for what majority votes, no sense in a No-lynch.
Case on BioSC: His posts before someone accused him as lurker:
On June 25 2012 11:01 BioSC wrote: I like Esspen. A man after my own heart!
I've played in one other newbie mafia game, and lurking town + scum made it hard to make reads. So post, and post often, lest I find you and do horrible things to your bodies.
On June 25 2012 12:53 Hopeless1der wrote: To further clarify my response to Release:
I'm saying lynch people that we can collectively agree have been dishonest in something they have said or done.
Further discussions on what constitutes 'dishonesty' may follow at a later time, or right now if whoever is reading this should so happen to desire.
Right now would be the perfect time to discuss it, seeing as we've been talking about it since game start. Now would be a good time to say some things, seeing as how you have the first vote and all.
On June 26 2012 03:32 BioSC wrote: @ JieXian - We have 48 hours from the day 1 post to decide a lynch target, and then 24 hours to submit night actions. The mafia get to shoot at this time as well. Then it all starts over.
So far he has said the obvious, embraced the discussion (while not adding anything to it - this is just weird) and answered a question. Contribution to town - zero.
But after he gets mentioned as a possible target for lynch for being a lurker, he gets active and tries to put the focus on the other lurker who is even more lurkerious. He also mentiones he's not lurker which can only mean that he saw himself being active - might indicate that he wrote such vacuous things for a reason. Also he attacks the one who proposed him for the lynch. His posts after getting accused for being a lurker:
On June 26 2012 10:47 Hopeless1der wrote: Very well dNa, that rules our NrGmonk.
BioSc vs AegonC
Im inclined towards BioSc because he has more useless posts, whereas Aegon could just be super inactive
I'm confused... You want to change policy to lynching lurkers, but want to lynch me because I'm not lurking? Huh...
On June 26 2012 12:41 BioSC wrote: Whatever. My point was that you want to lynch lurkers. AegonC isn't going to be modkilled. He's met the quota (Barely, but he has) Release called you out on your first policy, and now you are shifting to lurkers.
On June 26 2012 12:55 Hopeless1der wrote: ##VOTE BioSC
Who says I cannot maintain multiple policies. Not enough has been said for me to conclude that anyone has been dishonest. I do not agree with No-Lynch, especially in the early game. Are you not a lurker BioSC? In what way...what have you done that suggests otherwise?
(p.s. I know I have to vote in the Vote Thread thread for it to count)
Sorry, I'm not going to make a case on myself for you. If you believe me to be scum, make the case. Look through my filter. I've discussed policy (Hint: I want people to post too)
You are voting for me? Why? Am I a lurker? I'm not even sure you know why you are voting for me. We've done and posted about pretty much the same things. So, I bounce the question back to you. What makes me a lurker, a candidate for YOUR policy, over someone who's filter I can quote in 4 lines?
This is my first mafia game, I believe I am signing up correctly.
On June 25 2012 10:22 AegonC wrote: Perhaps the best way to approach this situation is circumspectly, that is to say don't rush into any stupid decisions. I agree with Hopeless1der, truth should be our banner and justice our sigil!
On June 26 2012 13:43 BioSC wrote: ## Vote Hopeless1der
Odd, because I was about to say similar to you. You have yet to explain to me why I've met your random, mysterious qualities for lurking, over someone with bare minimum posting standards.
On June 25 2012 11:01 BioSC wrote: I like Esspen. A man after my own heart!
I've played in one other newbie mafia game, and lurking town + scum made it hard to make reads. So post, and post often, lest I find you and do horrible things to your bodies.
And hi everyone else!
Hmm... so lets see, now who's meeting policy? Don't try to make a half assed case on me and ignore portions of my filter, especially this early, there is no reason for it. We wanted policy talk done early. I made my statement about lurkers, and that was it.
Now, lets go through YOUR posts.
Your opening post contains some cliche townie wisdom/ Your "policy" (don't lie) wrapped up in some cute dialect. 2-4th posts are you floundering about when Release calls you out on your policy. Trying to make yourself seem better when you are called out (I.E. excuse making.)
But I believe we should try to identify and lynch blues first, confusing mafia and leaving them vulnerable...
Blues are townies as well, yes? In what game would your suggestion be beneficial to the town? Certainly not a newbie game. This is an insane statement to make, regardless of "I wanted to see the reactions." Also, Release hasn't really questioned you except for the whole "OMGUS" as the opening post:
Oh noes...Granted Release is attacking just about anyone right now, but that's to get things going. Your statement was ridiculous and right now, I'm suspect you of trying to shift the attention back onto him since he's been so vocal that it makes him an easier target.
Release has gone to bed, so his pressure is off you, and now you begin shifting attention away from yourself. Start with the easiest case, Esspen with his really bad "joke" statement. Easy target to shift focus to.
Finally, we arrive to your 3rd policy of the day, Lurkers. No one is really biting on Esspen for whatever reason, so you need to find something that sticks. Lurkers gets some comments, as some people have already expressed interest in that policy.
So your choices are arbitrarily narrowed down to 2 people. If you honestly expect people to follow your lynch lurker policy, Aegon would have probably been a better choice. Hell, I may have gone along with you. But for whatever reason you have yet to explain adequately, you focus me. I think you may have made a few too many scumslips. You can stick to policy lynching lurkers. I'll policy lynch scum.
On June 26 2012 13:51 BioSC wrote: Don't think I've forgotten about you Aegon
FOS Aegon
Step up the activity. If you don't want to be next.
I'm going to bed. See everyone in the morning.
Now on Release: There is just something wrong with him. Seems like a smart guy, might as well be the most heard one so noone would assume he's mafia. Why would anyone assume that the most outgoing person is mafia? That's it on him.
Anyway we should all reach some consensus for whom to vote, and then all vote for him.
I'd be happy to help Esspen narrow it down by noting this from his post with regard to BioSC:
On June 27 2012 04:12 Esspen wrote: Contribution to town - zero.
Its also a plurality lynch: Whoever has the most votes in a given day gets lynched. Does not require majority. This also means that I am currently on the chopping block. Keep an eye out for bandwagoners.
I've been looking through this case against BioSC.
Esspen follows Hopeless1der with a case.
I think initially it was good by Hopeless to get BioSC out of his cover, but I'm not liking the followup. Points of accusation against Bio are the lurking and the lack of content in his posts before he had to defend.
He sure should be subject to discussion and I am not sure what to think of him yet. He has yet to post some reads. But just skipping over his defense that he stopped lurking isn't ok imo. You are just giving other lurkers more options to keep lurking if you only have 1 target you're still accusing for lurking after he unlurked.
I would rather like Bio posting good cases to prove that he's valuable to town rather than having him defend himself when he already did.
Its also a plurality lynch: Whoever has the most votes in a given day gets lynched. Does not require majority. This also means that I am currently on the chopping block. Keep an eye out for bandwagoners.
I'm highlighting this for the guys who say they vote for the majority cause they fear No lynch (hey, Esspen).
No Lynch isn't possible here, you will only vote for the ones you truly believe to be mafia, and not try to hide behind the majority. If you do vote hiding behind a majority, it will come back to haunt you cause it's scummy.
Even after I pressured BioSC, he responded with an OMGUS and to me still has not contributed to any other discussions. Instead he has been trying to counter-case me. He did comment on Aegon lurking but never followed up. His actions are not very committed to any stance except escaping from under my thumb. Things are said, but they are of very little consequence.
As for other lurkers, NrGmonk has let us know he is very busy. We've yet to hear from AegonC. Both of them have not really contributed to town. But BioSC has had plenty of posts and opportunities to chime in and support discussions and has not done so. Maybe he needs more time? Maybe I should let up? Who knows, but his actions paint him scum on my canvas and so I voted for him.
Its also a plurality lynch: Whoever has the most votes in a given day gets lynched. Does not require majority. This also means that I am currently on the chopping block. Keep an eye out for bandwagoners.
I'm highlighting this for the guys who say they vote for the majority cause they fear No lynch (hey, Esspen).
No Lynch isn't possible here, you will only vote for the ones you truly believe to be mafia, and not try to hide behind the majority. If you do vote hiding behind a majority, it will come back to haunt you cause it's scummy.
I hope you wouldn't hold it against me if I bandwagoned to keep myself alive.
he strikes me as the guy who wants to stay under the radar the most, swim with the stream. I'm not really seeing any REAL tells by the guys you all voted on so far.
even though hopeless's switch of 'targets' seems a bit odd to me, it just seems to me that he just did not post a "yeah okay, you are right, lynching lurkers might be better". lynching someone just based on such a 'missing link' seems hapharzadly to me. Release might want to play the "i'm so active in this thread there is no way that you can really see me as a threat"-card, but again, so far he has not given any real tells, besides his very fast vote, which might just be a way to start a discussion, that might very well just be his play style For the judgement of BioSC i'd like to refer to Vivax's post here, since this basically said everything I thought.
I really hope you people don't get into the hopeless1nder vs BioSC fight, and instead really think about if all the stuff they said really makes them look like scum.
On June 27 2012 04:43 Hopeless1der wrote: Even after I pressured BioSC, he responded with an OMGUS and to me still has not contributed to any other discussions. Instead he has been trying to counter-case me. He did comment on Aegon lurking but never followed up. His actions are not very committed to any stance except escaping from under my thumb. Things are said, but they are of very little consequence.
As for other lurkers, NrGmonk has let us know he is very busy. We've yet to hear from AegonC. Both of them have not really contributed to town. But BioSC has had plenty of posts and opportunities to chime in and support discussions and has not done so. Maybe he needs more time? Maybe I should let up? Who knows, but his actions paint him scum on my canvas and so I voted for him.
If you really think my case against you was OMGUS, you need to learn what a case is.
Examples of active lurking include posts made only of taunts, excuses for not posting, incoherent gibberish that will lead people to suspect that you do not have the Internet savvy to play Mafia, general bland agreement with whatever is going on, and so forth. For the less couth readers, this is frequently called "bullshitting" in MeatWorld.
Posts made only of taunts - nope Excuses for not posting - nope incoherent gibberesh - perhaps if someone didn't speak english, nope Bland agreement - I'm the only one to make a case on you, so gonna disagree there.
I really hope people aren't buying his weak case over his obvious scummy actions.
I'm going to work out, be back in an hour and a half. I'll make some more reads if that's what you really want.
Examples of active lurking include posts made only of taunts, excuses for not posting, incoherent gibberish that will lead people to suspect that you do not have the Internet savvy to play Mafia, general bland agreement with whatever is going on, and so forth. For the less couth readers, this is frequently called "bullshitting" in MeatWorld.
Posts made only of taunts - nope Excuses for not posting - nope incoherent gibberesh - perhaps if someone didn't speak english, nope Bland agreement - I'm the only one to make a case on you, so gonna disagree there.
I really hope people aren't buying his weak case over his obvious scummy actions.
I'm going to work out, be back in an hour and a half. I'll make some more reads if that's what you really want.
First off, those are examples, not an exhaustive list of what constitutes active lurking. Also: + Show Spoiler +
but the material posted is irrelevant or otherwise useless for scumhunting
See Also:
On June 26 2012 03:32 BioSC wrote: @ JieXian - We have 48 hours from the day 1 post to decide a lynch target, and then 24 hours to submit night actions. The mafia get to shoot at this time as well. Then it all starts over.
This isn't all that bad, but it still counts towards my case against you. I would prefer to let the mods sort out the rules in the future
Secondly: Posts made only of taunts (this ones a stretch, and one of the last posts hes made but still...implies I'm stupid.) + Show Spoiler +
On June 27 2012 04:43 Hopeless1der wrote: Even after I pressured BioSC, he responded with an OMGUS and to me still has not contributed to any other discussions. Instead he has been trying to counter-case me. He did comment on Aegon lurking but never followed up. His actions are not very committed to any stance except escaping from under my thumb. Things are said, but they are of very little consequence.
As for other lurkers, NrGmonk has let us know he is very busy. We've yet to hear from AegonC. Both of them have not really contributed to town. But BioSC has had plenty of posts and opportunities to chime in and support discussions and has not done so. Maybe he needs more time? Maybe I should let up? Who knows, but his actions paint him scum on my canvas and so I voted for him.
If you really think my case against you was OMGUS, you need to learn what a case is.
On June 26 2012 12:55 Hopeless1der wrote: ##VOTE BioSC
Who says I cannot maintain multiple policies. Not enough has been said for me to conclude that anyone has been dishonest. I do not agree with No-Lynch, especially in the early game. Are you not a lurker BioSC? In what way...what have you done that suggests otherwise?
(p.s. I know I have to vote in the Vote Thread thread for it to count)
Sorry, I'm not going to make a case on myself for you. If you believe me to be scum, make the case. Look through my filter. I've discussed policy (Hint: I want people to post too)
You are voting for me? Why? Am I a lurker? I'm not even sure you know why you are voting for me. We've done and posted about pretty much the same things. So, I bounce the question back to you. What makes me a lurker, a candidate for YOUR policy, over someone who's filter I can quote in 4 lines?
This is my first mafia game, I believe I am signing up correctly.
On June 25 2012 10:22 AegonC wrote: Perhaps the best way to approach this situation is circumspectly, that is to say don't rush into any stupid decisions. I agree with Hopeless1der, truth should be our banner and justice our sigil!
On June 25 2012 11:01 BioSC wrote: I like Esspen. A man after my own heart!
I've played in one other newbie mafia game, and lurking town + scum made it hard to make reads. So post, and post often, lest I find you and do horrible things to your bodies.
I'm going to work out, be back in an hour and a half. I'll make some more reads if that's what you really want.
3 hours left to deadline at time of post. Which leaves you about an hour and a half for you to make some reads and allow people time to review in order to decide who to vote for. That's some serious scum maneuvering right there.
If people are unsure of whether to vote BioSC and are in a tossup between a couple of choices, I'd propose temp-voting BioSC until he at the very least provides the reads he has kind of said he'd be willing to do...you know, if that's what we really want
Examples of active lurking include posts made only of taunts, excuses for not posting, incoherent gibberish that will lead people to suspect that you do not have the Internet savvy to play Mafia, general bland agreement with whatever is going on, and so forth. For the less couth readers, this is frequently called "bullshitting" in MeatWorld.
Posts made only of taunts - nope Excuses for not posting - nope incoherent gibberesh - perhaps if someone didn't speak english, nope Bland agreement - I'm the only one to make a case on you, so gonna disagree there.
I really hope people aren't buying his weak case over his obvious scummy actions.
I'm going to work out, be back in an hour and a half. I'll make some more reads if that's what you really want.
First off, those are examples, not an exhaustive list of what constitutes active lurking. Also: + Show Spoiler +
but the material posted is irrelevant or otherwise useless for scumhunting
See Also:
On June 26 2012 03:32 BioSC wrote: @ JieXian - We have 48 hours from the day 1 post to decide a lynch target, and then 24 hours to submit night actions. The mafia get to shoot at this time as well. Then it all starts over.
This isn't all that bad, but it still counts towards my case against you. I would prefer to let the mods sort out the rules in the future
He asked a question. I knew the answer. This is a newbie game. I suppose I'll just let everyone fend for themselves from now on, because that is scummy.
Secondly: Posts made only of taunts (this ones a stretch, and one of the last posts hes made but still...implies I'm stupid.) + Show Spoiler +
On June 27 2012 04:43 Hopeless1der wrote: Even after I pressured BioSC, he responded with an OMGUS and to me still has not contributed to any other discussions. Instead he has been trying to counter-case me. He did comment on Aegon lurking but never followed up. His actions are not very committed to any stance except escaping from under my thumb. Things are said, but they are of very little consequence.
As for other lurkers, NrGmonk has let us know he is very busy. We've yet to hear from AegonC. Both of them have not really contributed to town. But BioSC has had plenty of posts and opportunities to chime in and support discussions and has not done so. Maybe he needs more time? Maybe I should let up? Who knows, but his actions paint him scum on my canvas and so I voted for him.
If you really think my case against you was OMGUS, you need to learn what a case is.
I don't make personal attacks. Don't imply that I do. If you don't know what OMGUS is, that is ignorance. I did not OMGUS. Making a case isn't OMGUS.
This is OMGUS - (Insert your accusal of me being a lurker) "OMG you think I'm a lurker! You must be scum! (Votes you back)
On June 26 2012 12:55 Hopeless1der wrote: ##VOTE BioSC
Who says I cannot maintain multiple policies. Not enough has been said for me to conclude that anyone has been dishonest. I do not agree with No-Lynch, especially in the early game. Are you not a lurker BioSC? In what way...what have you done that suggests otherwise?
(p.s. I know I have to vote in the Vote Thread thread for it to count)
Sorry, I'm not going to make a case on myself for you. If you believe me to be scum, make the case. Look through my filter. I've discussed policy (Hint: I want people to post too)
You are voting for me? Why? Am I a lurker? I'm not even sure you know why you are voting for me. We've done and posted about pretty much the same things. So, I bounce the question back to you. What makes me a lurker, a candidate for YOUR policy, over someone who's filter I can quote in 4 lines?
If you really think I'm going to make a case on myself for why I'm scum, I really can't help you. It's not my job to tell you why I'm scummy. I'm not, and you have failed to do so adequately.
This is my first mafia game, I believe I am signing up correctly.
On June 25 2012 10:22 AegonC wrote: Perhaps the best way to approach this situation is circumspectly, that is to say don't rush into any stupid decisions. I agree with Hopeless1der, truth should be our banner and justice our sigil!
On June 25 2012 11:01 BioSC wrote: I like Esspen. A man after my own heart!
I've played in one other newbie mafia game, and lurking town + scum made it hard to make reads. So post, and post often, lest I find you and do horrible things to your bodies.
And hi everyone else!
Uh huh. One of the first posts of the game (7th) and I began the policy talk on lurkers. Totally agreeing with people blindly there.
I'm going to work out, be back in an hour and a half. I'll make some more reads if that's what you really want.
3 hours left to deadline at time of post. Which leaves you about an hour and a half for you to make some reads and allow people time to review in order to decide who to vote for. That's some serious scum maneuvering right there.
If people are unsure of whether to vote BioSC and are in a tossup between a couple of choices, I'd propose temp-voting BioSC until he at the very least provides the reads he has kind of said he'd be willing to do...you know, if that's what we really want
Responses in spoilers in bold
Honestly, your case is bad and I don't know how to make people see it more.
I don't need to make reads. The read I want dead is right here.
On June 27 2012 08:04 NrGmonk wrote: ##Vote Keirathi Rather random vote that won't affect anything, because I don't expect Keirathi to get enough votes to get lynched.
Get your vote off of him. That is probably the scummiest thing you could possibly do right now.
EBWOP: That goes for Esspen as well. There is NO excuse. There are plenty of cases to choose from. How people are missing Hopeless' scumminess is beyond me, but do NOT waste votes like that. You are too easy targets for scum to manipulate your votes like that.
I'm sorry that I haven't been on at all lately, I've been busy with preparing for a trip and diploma exams, I'm getting myself replaced out if I live tonight.
As it is, looking over the thread the main semi-active players that are suspicious to me are Hopeless1der and BioSC, however, I was more convinced by Bio's argument then Hopeless', and I don't have the time to extensively look at filters.
I'll be voting for Hopeless because he is the most obvious scum read to me.
On June 27 2012 08:07 BioSC wrote: EBWOP: That goes for Esspen as well. There is NO excuse. There are plenty of cases to choose from. How people are missing Hopeless' scumminess is beyond me, but do NOT waste votes like that. You are too easy targets for scum to manipulate your votes like that.
There are cases, but those cases are not going to be lynched anyway as now it's either Hopeless or Rofl. I unfortunately cannot vote for Hopeless as only thing he's done is gone maybe too far with attacking you, otherwise I completely agree with him.
On June 27 2012 08:04 NrGmonk wrote: ##Vote Keirathi Rather random vote that won't affect anything, because I don't expect Keirathi to get enough votes to get lynched.
Get your vote off of him. That is probably the scummiest thing you could possibly do right now.
Can you tell me why, because I honestly don't know. Is it scummy because it's asshole-ish or because it makes me seem like mafia? I honestly haven't paid enough attention to the discussion to make an informed vote, so I'd rather make a vote that essentially won't count rather than adversely affect the game. I would vote for myself, but according to the rules, it says I have to try to win.
On June 27 2012 08:07 BioSC wrote: EBWOP: That goes for Esspen as well. There is NO excuse. There are plenty of cases to choose from. How people are missing Hopeless' scumminess is beyond me, but do NOT waste votes like that. You are too easy targets for scum to manipulate your votes like that.
There are cases, but those cases are not going to be lynched anyway as now it's either Hopeless or Rofl. I unfortunately cannot vote for Hopeless as only thing he's done is gone maybe too far with attacking you, otherwise I completely agree with him.
You aren't seeing my point. Voting for yourself does
NOTHING. FOR. TOWN.
As it is right now, Scum could have come into today, put all their votes on <insert random target here> and left, without saying a word, and he would be lynched. Do you really want town's major KP manipulated like that? I sure as hell don't.
Make a read on a case. Vote on it. There is NO excuse. This is how you play Mafia, and its what people should be doing. Otherwise, this game is a waste, for both town AND scum.
On June 27 2012 08:04 NrGmonk wrote: ##Vote Keirathi Rather random vote that won't affect anything, because I don't expect Keirathi to get enough votes to get lynched.
Get your vote off of him. That is probably the scummiest thing you could possibly do right now.
Can you tell me why, because I honestly don't know. Is it scummy because it's asshole-ish or because it makes me seem like mafia? I honestly haven't paid enough attention to the discussion to make an informed vote, so I'd rather make a vote that essentially won't count rather than adversely affect the game. I would vote for myself, but according to the rules, it says I have to try to win.
@NrGmonk: If you would rather not contribute to what you see as a mislynch, voting for yourself is not necessarily throwing the game. Some might see it that way, but you can almost always make a case for any action that isn't explicitly cheating. Only because of your posts in this and the other newbie game do I think you deserve to be able to do this today.
I know you have other obligations, but please keep up with the reading portion at least going forward so you don't get forced into something like this again. Thanks.
@roflwaflles55: I'm pretty sure you're voting for me because it gives you the best chance at survival. Bio and I are the only two to really rip into one another (so far to limited avail. But goddamn have we tried.)
Can't really argue to much since I just did the same thing.
On June 27 2012 08:39 Vivax wrote: I don't understand town atm.
We had policy lynch discussion just at the beginning of the game where the general consensus seemed to be lynch all lurkers.
I have yet to see one guy who says that we should lynch lurkers in absence of clear scumtells.
And yet there are people voting for all sorts of people except for AegonC, the biggest lurker (looks like there's gonna be lots to be replaced tho).
Did I miss any decisive scumtells out there?
I've made my case. This town seems so set on lynching lurkers that they can't see a scum right in front of their faces. It's going to be tough to motivate myself to play if this is the activity level I'm going to get from here on out.
On June 27 2012 08:04 NrGmonk wrote: ##Vote Keirathi Rather random vote that won't affect anything, because I don't expect Keirathi to get enough votes to get lynched.
Get your vote off of him. That is probably the scummiest thing you could possibly do right now.
Can you tell me why, because I honestly don't know. Is it scummy because it's asshole-ish or because it makes me seem like mafia? I honestly haven't paid enough attention to the discussion to make an informed vote, so I'd rather make a vote that essentially won't count rather than adversely affect the game. I would vote for myself, but according to the rules, it says I have to try to win.
See my post towards Esspen.
I see your point, but I don't understand how that makes me "scummy" in that means it makes me seem like I'm mafia. Is that a misuse of words or am I missing something?
Esspen just dropped his vote, hopeless gonna get lynched. I am not sure about him when I quickly look through his posts, but there are so many who will probably be modkilled that my choice won't even change much.
I might try to switch the vote to roflwaffles at this point, but to be honest I don't know what the right choice would be atm. I'll go by guts feeling and vote rofl tho. That's what I initally wanted: Get rid of a lurker, and hopeless doesn't look scummy enough to me.
Quietly, the people gathered around the town square. Roflwaffles55 and Hopeless1der stared each other down, knowing only one would die today. The commotion and noise of the town came to a quiet cessation as the two nearly condemned men stared each other down. Equal power had been pushed onto either side, equal will to kill, equal will to die.
There was only one thing that would determine who would live to see the sun fall once more. The only thing that matters in the wild, wild west: Who's the quicker draw?
The clock rang out and both men drew, but soon only one stood. Hopeless1der was too fast, and Roflwaffles55's fate seemed sealed. There was no way he could be as fast! When all seemed lost for Roflwaffles55, Esspen came galloping into town, and fired upon Hopeless1der. His blood splattered the ground just before his corpse struck the earth.
"There's only three kinds of folk in this world, the quick, the dead, and the lucky."
Hopeless1nder the Vanilla Townie has been put to death!
Night 1 will end in ~24 hours, on Thursday, Jun 28 12:00am GMT (GMT+00:00), so please remember to send in your night actions to both Blazinghand and me by then. We are currently looking for replacements for the people who have not voted.
Biosc I'm nit vitiing for hopeless because the weight of your case lies on him making what you likely think is a bad case. I actually agree withvyou as here. However, a bad case by itself cou. ld just as likely be a mistaken townie as mafia. As itty if I misinterpreted your recentvposts though haven't had time to go through properly.
Actually it would have he changed his vote to roflwaffle. I was actually wanted to get my vote off him after reading gis reason for nit posting but I did nit want a hopeless lynch. I will be looking at DNA later when I have time. Also esspen why the vote on hopeless? No explanation and you didn't even go with majority of town like you Saud you would. At the time it your vote, rofl was ser to be lynched, look at the voting thread.
Since you were reminded it is plurality lynch and you didn't need to vote with majority to get a lynch, why vote for hopeless? Your vote was the lynch changer.
On June 25 2012 12:53 Hopeless1der wrote: To further clarify my response to Release:
I'm saying lynch people that we can collectively agree have been dishonest in something they have said or done.
Further discussions on what constitutes 'dishonesty' may follow at a later time, or right now if whoever is reading this should so happen to desire.
Right now would be the perfect time to discuss it, seeing as we've been talking about it since game start. Now would be a good time to say some things, seeing as how you have the first vote and all.
We're discussing fucking semantics. Some people called me out. I pursued it to try to get some more emotional/scumslip material into the thread.
And what do we get? You posting this gem. "Keep going on with your bullshit. I'll watch here while you don't post anything useful."
You actually approved of our silly time-wasting. You also managed to sheep a "more activity" attitude when the activity you were promoting was shit. I said that my vote was to generate activity, and you act like it's a serious, life-threatening vote. You also manage to avoid taking any serious stances in this post and the posts after it until your vote.
Don't try to bullshit me with "it's just one post." Scumslips are supposed to be frequent. 1 is usually enough.
I stand by my case. I noticed he was constantly changing topics, and was a main point in my case against him. He reacted badly.
Why the hell would I want to add to an already useless topic? I wanted him to post more to see if he made any more scummy moves. He did, and I followed through. Sucks that he's town, but it is what it is.
I don't remember saying that it was a "Serious, life-threatening vote". It is a vote, however, and it got him nervous being under the spotlight. THAT'S on you.
Am I saying your scummy? ATM, no. But to say that his constant stance switching and bad posts were my fault is ignorant at best.
I was promoting posts. I didn't want to vote a lurker, but this game is so obviously full of them that it has to be looked into.
Am I saying your scummy? ATM, no. But to say that his constant stance switching and bad posts were my fault is ignorant at best. ________________________
Did i say it was your fault? I was pointing out what looked like promotion of useless discussion while trying to appear helpful.
Either way, this is getting us nowhere. We need to go back to hunting scum. I'm just afraid that there won't be much to go off of when I look through the filters again.
Springing to mind are a couple potential targets.
Esspen - wanting to vote for himself, I called him out on it, then ends up voting to seal Hopeless' fate. I would like to know why he voted for Hopeless, and why he didn't feel like explaining the vote.
Jiexian - Vote on release early on in the cycle, on to lurking. Could be the timezone difference, could simply be a scum allowing town to mislynch. Get in here, make some reads.
<insert random lurker here> - pretty self explanatory. I would rather focus on finding at least one scum tomorrow, but if I can't, the ones who were just barely above posting limits should be looked at.
Honestly, a 4 vote lynch in a 13 player pool is just silly. It's going to be even worse if there are 2 mod kills in this game. Hopefully they find replacements and they are active.
On June 27 2012 08:40 Vivax wrote: EBWOP: I have yet to see one guy who didn't say that we should lynch lurkers in absence of clear scumtells.
No, at least Release and I both want to lynch scummy behavior
BioSC, I have to get my sleep before I go to work. As I said earlier, the deadline is 8am for me and I tried requesting for a change to 10pm edt but I didn't get it.
GG hopeless. TBH if the timing was better on my side I'd have voted for you anyways based on what I've said earlier. You seemed really weird for a townie trying to contribute. Bio didn't look like an angel either but I never liked what you did with Release.
There's been extremely low activity since death post. Considering i am putting like 1 hour a day into this game while having a longer filter than most, this is quite shit.
This time due to the level of inactivity I really feel like lynching some lurkers but I don't know how the replacement system is done
On June 27 2012 11:55 Release wrote: I think the activity level in this game is quite shit.
On June 27 2012 15:21 Release wrote: There's been extremely low activity since death post. Considering i am putting like 1 hour a day into this game while having a longer filter than most, this is quite shit.
However just like before, Release can be seen doing his thing.
Jiexian, miltonkram will be replacing one of aegonc or keirathi, who did not vote at all, if that's what you're unsure about. What exactly is holding you back from voting from the remaining lurkers (you do say you really feel like lynching lurkers) and sticking to release? What do you mean by release "doing his thing". He's right, activity isn't good in this game at all, with 2 players being modkilled/replaced already, and a bunch of others posting very little. I didn't like your original case against release; I think it's gotten even worse now.
On June 27 2012 08:07 BioSC wrote: EBWOP: That goes for Esspen as well. There is NO excuse. There are plenty of cases to choose from. How people are missing Hopeless' scumminess is beyond me, but do NOT waste votes like that. You are too easy targets for scum to manipulate your votes like that.
There are cases, but those cases are not going to be lynched anyway as now it's either Hopeless or Rofl. I unfortunately cannot vote for Hopeless as only thing he's done is gone maybe too far with attacking you, otherwise I completely agree with him.
On June 27 2012 08:53 Esspen wrote: ##Vote Hopeless1der
What was that? I gave you the benefit of doubt at first, but I'm gonna be looking at you very closely again.
For example, you obviously are contributing. Get it right?
Actually I'm spoilt for choices between Release, Esspen (plus hopeless earlier) and lurkers, just like I said earlier. What's keeping me from voting lurkers is my game plan of scummy behavior > lurkers.
I chose Release because he's the most chaotic/irritating + confusing + noisy as you can see, but I'm not leaning too hard on him. As I said if I were around I'd have changed my vote.
On June 27 2012 17:14 BassInSpace wrote: Jiexian, miltonkram will be replacing one of aegonc or keirathi, who did not vote at all, if that's what you're unsure about. What exactly is holding you back from voting from the remaining lurkers (you do say you really feel like lynching lurkers) and sticking to release? What do you mean by release "doing his thing". He's right, activity isn't good in this game at all, with 2 players being modkilled/replaced already, and a bunch of others posting very little. I didn't like your original case against release; I think it's gotten even worse now.
On June 27 2012 08:07 BioSC wrote: EBWOP: That goes for Esspen as well. There is NO excuse. There are plenty of cases to choose from. How people are missing Hopeless' scumminess is beyond me, but do NOT waste votes like that. You are too easy targets for scum to manipulate your votes like that.
There are cases, but those cases are not going to be lynched anyway as now it's either Hopeless or Rofl. I unfortunately cannot vote for Hopeless as only thing he's done is gone maybe too far with attacking you, otherwise I completely agree with him.
Esspen voted for hopeless when rofl was set to lynch, as already mentioned.
If one of them is scum, the other most likely is, too. With the current information available, I would go for one of them.
Also remember that posting cases during the night can make you a target for scum. Speaking of it, I think I'm the designed nightkill simply cause noone suspected me yet. Townies who are believed to be townies are dangerous for scum, and I didn't see any blue role vibes for them to use yet, so they don't have many alternatives.
We are currently looking into replacements for AegonC and Keirathi, who did not vote during D1. If it all possible, we will avoid modkilling them and attempt to replace instead. There will be a more comprehensive update with the Daypost.
On June 27 2012 18:01 JieXian wrote: Doing his thing by not contributing anything.
For example, you obviously are contributing. Get it right?
Actually I'm spoilt for choices between Release, Esspen (plus hopeless earlier) and lurkers, just like I said earlier. What's keeping me from voting lurkers is my game plan of scummy behavior > lurkers.
I chose Release because he's the most chaotic/irritating + confusing + noisy as you can see, but I'm not leaning too hard on him. As I said if I were around I'd have changed my vote.
On June 27 2012 17:14 BassInSpace wrote: Jiexian, miltonkram will be replacing one of aegonc or keirathi, who did not vote at all, if that's what you're unsure about. What exactly is holding you back from voting from the remaining lurkers (you do say you really feel like lynching lurkers) and sticking to release? What do you mean by release "doing his thing". He's right, activity isn't good in this game at all, with 2 players being modkilled/replaced already, and a bunch of others posting very little. I didn't like your original case against release; I think it's gotten even worse now.
Esspen:
On June 27 2012 08:14 Esspen wrote:
On June 27 2012 08:07 BioSC wrote: EBWOP: That goes for Esspen as well. There is NO excuse. There are plenty of cases to choose from. How people are missing Hopeless' scumminess is beyond me, but do NOT waste votes like that. You are too easy targets for scum to manipulate your votes like that.
There are cases, but those cases are not going to be lynched anyway as now it's either Hopeless or Rofl. I unfortunately cannot vote for Hopeless as only thing he's done is gone maybe too far with attacking you, otherwise I completely agree with him.
On June 27 2012 08:53 Esspen wrote: ##Vote Hopeless1der
What was that? I gave you the benefit of doubt at first, but I'm gonna be looking at you very closely again.
I'm quite busy, so the few times i pop in to check up on the thread, i expect to see some valuable discussion. I'm quite annoyed when there isn't.
If this level of inactivity keeps up, the scum will win without having to do anything.
Release, wouldn't the solution be to post some reads, like Bassinspace for example? His reads weren't gamebreaking but it got the game moving right?
On June 27 2012 19:25 Vivax wrote: Esspen voted for hopeless when rofl was set to lynch, as already mentioned.
If one of them is scum, the other most likely is, too. With the current information available, I would go for one of them.
Also remember that posting cases during the night can make you a target for scum. Speaking of it, I think I'm the designed nightkill simply cause noone suspected me yet. Townies who are believed to be townies are dangerous for scum, and I didn't see any blue role vibes for them to use yet, so they don't have many alternatives.
If only I could Pm you.. why are you asking to be killed
On June 27 2012 19:25 Vivax wrote: Esspen voted for hopeless when rofl was set to lynch, as already mentioned.
If one of them is scum, the other most likely is, too. With the current information available, I would go for one of them.
Also remember that posting cases during the night can make you a target for scum. Speaking of it, I think I'm the designed nightkill simply cause noone suspected me yet. Townies who are believed to be townies are dangerous for scum, and I didn't see any blue role vibes for them to use yet, so they don't have many alternatives.
So myself, rofles, and bio? (for clarification)
I think the self-pity attitude is silly. Strong cases make you the target for scum.
On June 27 2012 19:25 Vivax wrote: Esspen voted for hopeless when rofl was set to lynch, as already mentioned.
If one of them is scum, the other most likely is, too. With the current information available, I would go for one of them.
Also remember that posting cases during the night can make you a target for scum. Speaking of it, I think I'm the designed nightkill simply cause noone suspected me yet. Townies who are believed to be townies are dangerous for scum, and I didn't see any blue role vibes for them to use yet, so they don't have many alternatives.
So myself, rofles, and bio? (for clarification)
I think the self-pity attitude is silly. Strong cases make you the target for scum.
gtg.
What self-pity attitude?Just writing what I think. And I think I am a clean target for scum, if Esspen and rofl aren't. If they are, killing me might cause a pretty sure lynch of one of them (assuming town is rational). But even if I don't die, I'll still be pushing for a lynch of these two based on the information we got so far.
I'm actually not suspecting you, Release, cause you still have your style that makes it hard to play scum, although you seem to be busy cause of studies. You have been targetted hard at the beginning for that style and now went for a less aggressive one. If you are scum, the metagame forces you to play like that, but once you manage to survive the beginning, you may change your style, so I can't believe you to be 100 % townie.
Atm I would vote for roflwaffle55 or Esspen.
I'm not sure about Bio, but it seems to be untypical for scum to push cases like that. I don't like his initial posts for lack of content though. He started becoming very active once suspected by hopeless. I won't give him an absolution yet. I have quite a list of people I believe to be townie, but I prefer to keep it to myself during this night and focus on those I believe to be scum.
On June 27 2012 19:25 Vivax wrote: Esspen voted for hopeless when rofl was set to lynch, as already mentioned.
If one of them is scum, the other most likely is, too. With the current information available, I would go for one of them.
Also remember that posting cases during the night can make you a target for scum. Speaking of it, I think I'm the designed nightkill simply cause noone suspected me yet. Townies who are believed to be townies are dangerous for scum, and I didn't see any blue role vibes for them to use yet, so they don't have many alternatives.
So myself, rofles, and bio? (for clarification)
I think the self-pity attitude is silly. Strong cases make you the target for scum.
gtg.
No. It was between roffles and Hopeless. You weren't on the chopping block at all.
If roffles was scum and Esspen saved him at the last moment -> Esspen = scum. Simple right?
Man, just 5 people posted since the lynch. Activity in this game is really sucky. Can't even blame people for lurking and bandwagoning if town plays like this.
The problem is... I can't even figure out a way to make it stop. Hopefully, the mods found replacements and they actually come in and have any kind of say at all in the game.
The sun rises over Liquidville, and the people are shocked, saddened, by what they find as day breaks.
Release was never a man to sit by quietly. He knew things were going south, and he knew exactly what needed to be done. In contravention of the law, he was out past curfew. He slid shadow-like through the town, drawing closer and closer to his target. Slowly, he eased his revolver out of his holster, and got ready to do what was necessary to keep order in the town. He may live or die, but he'd rather die a hero than live as a slave.
He charged into the square, and turned and saw a mafioso-looking fellow. "I've caught you!" he exclaimed, "Die, scum!" But the fellow only smiled assuredly to himself.
"Any last words?" Release asked self-confidently.
"I'm not alone."
A shot rang through the night. Release fell to his knees, dropped his revolver, and coughed up blood. Why did it have to end this way?
Release the Vigilante has been shot in the back!
Keirathi has been warned for inactivity! aegonC has been replaced by MiltonKram! RoflWaffles55 has been replaced by JingleHell!
Day 2 has started. You have a little less than 48 hours left to vote. Deadline is 00:00 GMT (+00:00) in roughly 48 hours.
So, my friends, while I waited to go live at the daypost, I looked through things a bit. Obviously, I can't help much the lack of interest shown by my alternate personality, the dear distracted roflwaffles, but I hope the ability to look at things from the outside has given me a bit of perspective.
I'm not entirely convinced by most of the current cases being thrown around, but I have some reasons to wonder about a would-be "town leader", under the circumstances.
While overall, being up-front and visible shouldn't scream "Scum", with the overall activity level right now, it almost seems like a role-reversal. There's far too much lurking and too little discussion for any policy lynches to be all that likely to work out in favor of our beloved town.
There's one person practically calling out the scum, perhaps he knows he's safe? It certainly appears nothing happened, almost like an effort to earn airtight credibility in this low activity hunt.
I think the focus has to switch to the less active posters (NrGmonk, AegonC, roflwaffle55y, Esspen).
Consider the amount of content, not just the amount of posts.
I'll give you my opinions regarding the lurkers, I hope it's gonna help you in making a decision on which one to lynch. If someone of the would-be-modkilled lurkers just posts and votes shortly before the lynch without a damn good reason to do so, we should obviously lynch him. I think it's good to have a consensus on this alternative, I would appreciate if townies expressed their approval if they agree with this.
NrGMonk: Gonna vote for him if he posts right before deadline to escape the modkill.
AegonC: Doesn't offer any reads with his generic minipost. His priority is next to NrG's.
Esspen: Kinda weird posts. He posts first when it's about discussing the lynch all liars policy. What strikes me here is that he questions the policy, but concludes the post with his line about lynching blues and confusing scum. That might have been a slip.His next post says it was intentional, and he immediately uses that explanation to put his FoS on Release. He never took a hard stance during this, he never tried to post a case on Release when he had reason to. And then he completely forgets Release in his last post, to 'completely agree' with Keirathi and hopeless1der about the lurker lynch policy. + Show Spoiler +
Saying that he would be a too obvious mafia isn't a valid defense for me either, mafia can be obvious if the players make mistakes, and I still don't buy above blue role lynch mistake as intentional. It might have been, but that'd be very risky play by a townie.
roflwaffle55: He comments on policy (lynch > NL), doesn't like Release style of posting, promises more contribution after sleeping. Him commenting negatively on Release very early looks townie to me. I wouldn't vote for him instead of the other three as of now.
Note the levels of effort. It's almost like it should be a foregone conclusion who to target.
Its also a plurality lynch: Whoever has the most votes in a given day gets lynched. Does not require majority. This also means that I am currently on the chopping block. Keep an eye out for bandwagoners.
I'm highlighting this for the guys who say they vote for the majority cause they fear No lynch (hey, Esspen).
No Lynch isn't possible here, you will only vote for the ones you truly believe to be mafia, and not try to hide behind the majority. If you do vote hiding behind a majority, it will come back to haunt you cause it's scummy.
Pointing out a definition of scummy that suits his agenda of trying to get people targeted.
On June 27 2012 08:39 Vivax wrote: I don't understand town atm.
We had policy lynch discussion just at the beginning of the game where the general consensus seemed to be lynch all lurkers.
I have yet to see one guy who says that we should lynch lurkers in absence of clear scumtells.
And yet there are people voting for all sorts of people except for AegonC, the biggest lurker (looks like there's gonna be lots to be replaced tho).
Did I miss any decisive scumtells out there?
Again, targeting specific people based on a policy lynch that actually doesn't favor town very well in the current climate.
On June 27 2012 19:25 Vivax wrote: Esspen voted for hopeless when rofl was set to lynch, as already mentioned.
If one of them is scum, the other most likely is, too. With the current information available, I would go for one of them.
Also remember that posting cases during the night can make you a target for scum. Speaking of it, I think I'm the designed nightkill simply cause noone suspected me yet. Townies who are believed to be townies are dangerous for scum, and I didn't see any blue role vibes for them to use yet, so they don't have many alternatives.
Calling out the scum, but absolutely no interest in him? It's like he wants to look above reproach.
I agree this is by no means airtight, but I've got an FoS on you, Vivax, and I'll be keeping an eye on you as well.
Some of this has already been covered, but I'll just consolidate it all in this post.
On the policy: I believe we should try to identify and lynch mafia first. Simple policy, but with great results.
States the obvious with his very first post
On June 25 2012 20:23 Esspen wrote: I do not get all that "lynch the liar" for several reasons. Townies obviously cannot know whether someone lied or not, only clues they can grasp onto are inconsistencies and vagueness. The only players who know the truth are scums and if the whole game is going to revole around us identifying who lied, mafia is going to win rather easy. Mafia can win just by ereasing their memory that they are mafia and simply playing with a mindset of a townie, leaving townies lyinching each other as they find innocent inconsistencies in their speeches (ie posts). Secondly, even blues have to lie in order to survive.
But that also means when I say "I am mafia." you should lynch me no matter whether it is true or not, as if I'm telling the truth, you just lynched mafia, and if it is not true you lynched liar. (breaks my heart )
But I believe we should try to identify and lynch blues first, confusing mafia and leaving them vulnerable...
We've already talked about how anti town this tactic would be.
On June 25 2012 22:28 JieXian wrote: Jokes aside, Esspen why the hell did you post that?
To be quite honest, just to see reactions of people. And maybe catch some scummy behaviour. Btw I must say that Release seems to be the scum as all reacted to my post it the form of "wtf? please explain" etc. wanting some explanation, yet Release is the only one actually attacking.
On June 25 2012 23:52 Release wrote: If yourself and vivax found that confusing, doesn't that make him Mafia (as opposed to yourselves)? Townies are trying to avoid confusion while mafia try to cause confusion. If you say his reasoning is the reasoning is your reasoning, that's kind of a catch 22
Goes with the flow of the thread by casting yet more suspicion on release, saying he was "the only one attacking" him for that post regarding blues. This isn't true, as he'd raised most active posters' alarm bells, and release's reaction was not any more aggressive than the others.
On June 27 2012 04:12 Esspen wrote: Originally I planned to vote for either BioSC or Release, but now reading posts about Hopeless makes me want to lynch him too... anyway I'll probably vote for what majority votes, no sense in a No-lynch.
Case on BioSC: His posts before someone accused him as lurker:
On June 25 2012 11:01 BioSC wrote: I like Esspen. A man after my own heart!
I've played in one other newbie mafia game, and lurking town + scum made it hard to make reads. So post, and post often, lest I find you and do horrible things to your bodies.
On June 25 2012 12:53 Hopeless1der wrote: To further clarify my response to Release:
I'm saying lynch people that we can collectively agree have been dishonest in something they have said or done.
Further discussions on what constitutes 'dishonesty' may follow at a later time, or right now if whoever is reading this should so happen to desire.
Right now would be the perfect time to discuss it, seeing as we've been talking about it since game start. Now would be a good time to say some things, seeing as how you have the first vote and all.
On June 26 2012 03:32 BioSC wrote: @ JieXian - We have 48 hours from the day 1 post to decide a lynch target, and then 24 hours to submit night actions. The mafia get to shoot at this time as well. Then it all starts over.
So far he has said the obvious, embraced the discussion (while not adding anything to it - this is just weird) and answered a question. Contribution to town - zero.
But after he gets mentioned as a possible target for lynch for being a lurker, he gets active and tries to put the focus on the other lurker who is even more lurkerious. He also mentiones he's not lurker which can only mean that he saw himself being active - might indicate that he wrote such vacuous things for a reason. Also he attacks the one who proposed him for the lynch. His posts after getting accused for being a lurker:
On June 26 2012 12:41 BioSC wrote: Whatever. My point was that you want to lynch lurkers. AegonC isn't going to be modkilled. He's met the quota (Barely, but he has) Release called you out on your first policy, and now you are shifting to lurkers.
On June 26 2012 12:55 Hopeless1der wrote: ##VOTE BioSC
Who says I cannot maintain multiple policies. Not enough has been said for me to conclude that anyone has been dishonest. I do not agree with No-Lynch, especially in the early game. Are you not a lurker BioSC? In what way...what have you done that suggests otherwise?
(p.s. I know I have to vote in the Vote Thread thread for it to count)
Sorry, I'm not going to make a case on myself for you. If you believe me to be scum, make the case. Look through my filter. I've discussed policy (Hint: I want people to post too)
You are voting for me? Why? Am I a lurker? I'm not even sure you know why you are voting for me. We've done and posted about pretty much the same things. So, I bounce the question back to you. What makes me a lurker, a candidate for YOUR policy, over someone who's filter I can quote in 4 lines?
This is my first mafia game, I believe I am signing up correctly.
On June 25 2012 10:22 AegonC wrote: Perhaps the best way to approach this situation is circumspectly, that is to say don't rush into any stupid decisions. I agree with Hopeless1der, truth should be our banner and justice our sigil!
On June 26 2012 13:43 BioSC wrote: ## Vote Hopeless1der
Odd, because I was about to say similar to you. You have yet to explain to me why I've met your random, mysterious qualities for lurking, over someone with bare minimum posting standards.
On June 25 2012 11:01 BioSC wrote: I like Esspen. A man after my own heart!
I've played in one other newbie mafia game, and lurking town + scum made it hard to make reads. So post, and post often, lest I find you and do horrible things to your bodies.
And hi everyone else!
Hmm... so lets see, now who's meeting policy? Don't try to make a half assed case on me and ignore portions of my filter, especially this early, there is no reason for it. We wanted policy talk done early. I made my statement about lurkers, and that was it.
Now, lets go through YOUR posts.
Your opening post contains some cliche townie wisdom/ Your "policy" (don't lie) wrapped up in some cute dialect. 2-4th posts are you floundering about when Release calls you out on your policy. Trying to make yourself seem better when you are called out (I.E. excuse making.)
But I believe we should try to identify and lynch blues first, confusing mafia and leaving them vulnerable...
Blues are townies as well, yes? In what game would your suggestion be beneficial to the town? Certainly not a newbie game. This is an insane statement to make, regardless of "I wanted to see the reactions." Also, Release hasn't really questioned you except for the whole "OMGUS" as the opening post:
Oh noes...Granted Release is attacking just about anyone right now, but that's to get things going. Your statement was ridiculous and right now, I'm suspect you of trying to shift the attention back onto him since he's been so vocal that it makes him an easier target.
Release has gone to bed, so his pressure is off you, and now you begin shifting attention away from yourself. Start with the easiest case, Esspen with his really bad "joke" statement. Easy target to shift focus to.
Finally, we arrive to your 3rd policy of the day, Lurkers. No one is really biting on Esspen for whatever reason, so you need to find something that sticks. Lurkers gets some comments, as some people have already expressed interest in that policy.
So your choices are arbitrarily narrowed down to 2 people. If you honestly expect people to follow your lynch lurker policy, Aegon would have probably been a better choice. Hell, I may have gone along with you. But for whatever reason you have yet to explain adequately, you focus me. I think you may have made a few too many scumslips. You can stick to policy lynching lurkers. I'll policy lynch scum.
On June 26 2012 13:51 BioSC wrote: Don't think I've forgotten about you Aegon
FOS Aegon
Step up the activity. If you don't want to be next.
I'm going to bed. See everyone in the morning.
Now on Release: There is just something wrong with him. Seems like a smart guy, might as well be the most heard one so noone would assume he's mafia. Why would anyone assume that the most outgoing person is mafia? That's it on him.
Anyway we should all reach some consensus for whom to vote, and then all vote for him.
Then this post, where he basically rehashes everything hopeless1der said about biosc with reworded commentary. Also note how he basically spams biosc's entire filter in this post towards the end with no commentary at all, padding out his post and making it look like he's contributing more than he really has. Note also that he is very indecisive; he planned to vote for biosc or release, then hopeless1der, makes a case against biosc and then votes for roflwaffles55
I know we gave him the benefit of the doubt after that bizarre post saying we should lynch blues, but he can't hide behind this cover forever. I think this is something we should deal with now rather than later. For now I'm voting for him, but this is of course subject to change if a better target presents themselves. Jinglehell, I might have something to add to your vivax case later, but I have to rush now, so it'll have to wait.
Massive screw up in the second last paragraph, it's meant to read:
Note also that he is very indecisive; he planned to vote for biosc or release, then hopeless1der, makes a case against biosc and then votes for hopeless1der despite saying he wouldn't.
On June 27 2012 08:07 BioSC wrote: EBWOP: That goes for Esspen as well. There is NO excuse. There are plenty of cases to choose from. How people are missing Hopeless' scumminess is beyond me, but do NOT waste votes like that. You are too easy targets for scum to manipulate your votes like that.
There are cases, but those cases are not going to be lynched anyway as now it's either Hopeless or Rofl. I unfortunately cannot vote for Hopeless as only thing he's done is gone maybe too far with attacking you, otherwise I completely agree with him.
So, BassInSpace, you think there may actually be more than an FoS worth of a case on Vivax? I'm game for seeing any good reads anyone has, we desperately need better activity to flush the scum out, unless the guess about role reversal was on track.
Honestly, it isn't looking good for us right now. Not only was a KP killed at night, there has been a grand total of TWO (2) people to even bother to check in.
Esspen: Where the hell are you? Your vote and subsequent lurking are looking really scummy, man. Do you think that you can't save yourself? I beg to differ. Coming in and saying SOMETHING, anything at all, can help. Right now we have NOTHING to go on, and the 3 or so of us talking can't exactly make any headway.
Bass: You bring up some valid points. Obviously Esspen is acting scummy. I would be down with a vote on him, barring he come and actually bring up some amazing defense. What are your thoughts on some of the lurkers? Keiriathi comes to mind off the top of my head, posting early but obviously disappearing.
MiltonKram: Welcome to the game, I really hope you don't meet the same fate as your predecessor... >.>
Same goes to you Jingle. You already have 100% more contribution than your replacement, but as the 2nd highest vote getter (of a mislynch) I can't exactly just ignore that.
If we kill Esspen and he is scum, then JingleHell most likely is scum, too. (For being protected by Esspen against his own beliefs) If we kill Esspen and he is townie, then JingleHell can be anything.
If we kill Jinglehell and he is scum, then Esspen is either scum or a misled townie with confusing playstyle. If we kill Jinglehell and he is town, then Esspen probably isn't scum cause scum would have known Jinglehell (roflwaffle55) was town, and wouldn't have had to vote like that.
I still find these options to be risky overall, so I went on with looking at other information:
Let's have a look at the nightkill, scum has to be sloppy to use it to kill people suspecting them openly. They would rather use nightkills to cast suspicion upon others. However, in this case, Release had a lot of interesting interactions at the start:
-He was the first to suspect Hopeless1der -dNa was the first to suspect Release -immediately after, Keirathi put his FoS on him aswell based on the same argument dNa used (using votes so early isn't good, they said.)
Ok, I got suspicious about Keirathi here, so I had a quick look at his filter, and
-Keirathi tried to put doubt on the most active townie soon and only after another one did. -He doesn't post anything suspicious about Release on his own, instead he tries to encourage more policy discussion. When he's done with that, he suddenly drops his Release FoS cause 'he's putting himself too much into the limelight for a townie'. After dropping the FoS, he immediately follows other townies into the attention switch onto Esspen.
Keirathi: Bandwagony, really weak contributions, tries to blend in, keeps activity to a minimum.
- JieXian posted a case against Release. - After the lynch, Release called out BioSC for his criticism of high activity. No real threat for Bio here yet.
Then, he got killed.
I'd like to hear some more regarding Release's death and especially Keirathi. Latter has a very passive, safe playstyle, the mafiavibes are strong with this one.
Vivax, let's be realistic here. I'd call that an OMGUS if it made sense, but it's more like the verbal equivalent of funhouse mirrors.
You receive an FoS, and start discussing the merits of lynching me compared to a person who has a reasonable case against them. Better still, after running in those circles faster than a poodle on cocaine, you attempt to misdirect suspicion to a third party for lurking, even though killing just for lurking is a horrible plan when there's so many lurkers.
What's the matter? You wanna say that the lynch all lurkers policy is bad? If they're gonna be replaced/modkilled, then yes. But else, it's a policy that doesn't allow people to sit back, be it lazy townies or passive scum.
I still am insecure regarding you and Esspen
I still find these options to be risky overall
After all you just entered the game, so I went on with scumhunting, and Keirathi is on the list for scummy behavior right now. You aren't ony my list cause of OMGUS, i suspected roflwaffle55/you before you even posted against me.
Lynch all Lurkers is a horrible policy when there's so many lurkers the scum could win before we finish if we aren't careful.
I can't help that my alternate personality roflwaffles seemed suspicious to you. Hell, I know he was town, and he still looks a little fishy to me. I can, however, look at inconsistencies and strange behavior in people, and what you've been saying is enough to make me wonder about you.
Granted, I don't know why Esspen made that miracle vote to save me. What I do know is that there's a few of us trying to pierce the pall of lies and the veil of obfuscation hanging over our town, and there's you, just adding a huge pile of vague suspicions and serpentine logic, trying to cast doubt in every direction.
I'm terribly sorry for lurking, for some reason I thought we could not post during the night (based on what I read here: http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Night ), and the day started for me at 2 am when I was already asleep.
My defence is that I'm not mafia. And I voted for Hopeless in the end because I've read all BioSC's case against him few minutes before voting and decided to vote for him, and in the worst case that he was townie I would just press against BioSC even more (which I'm going to do as of now).
I wanted to wait to see what Vivax would post before adding to Jinglehell's FOS, and he has more than delivered.
@Jinglehell, while you raise an interesting point about him making his presence known in a relatively inactive game to appear towny, my case doesn't actually revolve around any of that.
My case against Vivax:
The post that made me suspicious of Vivax was this one:
On June 27 2012 19:25 Vivax wrote: Esspen voted for hopeless when rofl was set to lynch, as already mentioned.
If one of them is scum, the other most likely is, too. With the current information available, I would go for one of them.
Also remember that posting cases during the night can make you a target for scum. Speaking of it, I think I'm the designed nightkill simply cause noone suspected me yet. Townies who are believed to be townies are dangerous for scum, and I didn't see any blue role vibes for them to use yet, so they don't have many alternatives.
What exactly makes you so special Vivax? If your definition of a townie believed to be a townie is someone who hadn't had suspicion cast on them yet, then at the time of that post, dNa, keirathi, JieXian and myself all fit the bill. Why would you be the only candidate for being shot? I think you're trying to make yourself look more towny than you really are.
Now for this next part I'd like people to follow his filter as they read my post, because there are too many suspicious posts for me to place here:
The other thing that I find suspicious is your habit of going after easy targets, and insistence in voting for JingleHell over esspen. Your basis for voting rofl in the first place was his lurking. Jinglehell has already posted way more than rofl has, yet you still prefer his lynch over esspen because you think a Jinglehell lynch would yield more information. We now know rofl didn't post because of RL issues; he was replaced. He wasn't lurking with a mafia agenda. His replacement is now active, not lurking. Why are you still going after him over esspen or dNa?
Your main target now is Keirathi. Again, the easy target because he hasn't done anything in awhile. But again, why Keirathi over esspen or dNa? Since the policy discussion on day 1, Keirathi didn't even vote, and should have been modkilled/replaced by now. Keirathi is not lurking with a mafia agenda either.
I'm thinking you're trying to leave the esspen vs jinglehell lynch alive as long as possible by going for Keirathi. This way, town will have to deal with the potential relationship between esspen and jinglehell and lynch one, when YOU know that neither one is mafia.
He put a lot of effort into discussing policy the entire game (look at how detailed and thorough his first post in the game is compared to the rest), and has not made a single case against anyone. I don't count casting suspicion all over the place (especially with regards to esspen and jingle) and then wanting to go after keirathi for lurking (which i already pointed out as flawed) as making cases.
On June 28 2012 20:41 Vivax wrote: If we kill Esspen and he is scum, then JingleHell most likely is scum, too. (For being protected by Esspen against his own beliefs) If we kill Esspen and he is townie, then JingleHell can be anything.
If we kill Jinglehell and he is scum, then Esspen is either scum or a misled townie with confusing playstyle. If we kill Jinglehell and he is town, then Esspen probably isn't scum cause scum would have known Jinglehell (roflwaffle55) was town, and wouldn't have had to vote like that.
I still find these options to be risky overall, so I went on with looking at other information:
Let's have a look at the nightkill, scum has to be sloppy to use it to kill people suspecting them openly. They would rather use nightkills to cast suspicion upon others. However, in this case, Release had a lot of interesting interactions at the start:
-He was the first to suspect Hopeless1der -dNa was the first to suspect Release -immediately after, Keirathi put his FoS on him aswell based on the same argument dNa used (using votes so early isn't good, they said.)
Ok, I got suspicious about Keirathi here, so I had a quick look at his filter, and
-Keirathi tried to put doubt on the most active townie soon and only after another one did. -He doesn't post anything suspicious about Release on his own, instead he tries to encourage more policy discussion. When he's done with that, he suddenly drops his Release FoS cause 'he's putting himself too much into the limelight for a townie'. After dropping the FoS, he immediately follows other townies into the attention switch onto Esspen.
Keirathi: Bandwagony, really weak contributions, tries to blend in, keeps activity to a minimum.
- JieXian posted a case against Release. - After the lynch, Release called out BioSC for his criticism of high activity. No real threat for Bio here yet.
Then, he got killed.
I'd like to hear some more regarding Release's death and especially Keirathi. Latter has a very passive, safe playstyle, the mafiavibes are strong with this one.
FoS: Keirathi
You can't speculate on night kills like this. I could just as easily say mafia killed the people who WERE suspecting them openly because they figure people would never think they'd do something that obvious. I believe prompting discussion about night kills like this (half of that whole post) and your constant focusing on "lurkers" who aren't actually lurking in a scummy fashion is an attempt at confusing town and stifling useful discussion.
For now, I am getting off esspen and going for you Vivax
I'm thinking you're trying to leave the esspen vs jinglehell lynch alive as long as possible by going for Keirathi. This way, town will have to deal with the potential relationship between esspen and jinglehell and lynch one later in the game, when YOU know that neither one is mafia.
Well well, I want to hear other opinions regarding me before I post my defense. I don't feel threatened by a lynch as of now, and there are still too many lurkers.
Vivax, you're trying to direct suspicion on three different people at once, based on incomprehensible logic. I think the real reason you're deferring your defense is an effort to buy time to straighten out your story; it's as crooked as a paper clip right now.
I don't know why you keep pressing lurkers, in a town of this activity level, that's like a surefire way to keep the heat off of the scum until it's too late.
What we need to do is increase the pressure in general, spot inconsistencies, and lean on people. Right now, I have my sights on you. Think about it, people, Vivax is arguing in favor of a policy lynch that isn't clearly in the town's best interest right now, he's sowing confusion, he's trying to spread the blame around.
This isn't majority lynch, so if there's enough confusion, all it could take is 1-2 scum votes to tilt things, without them even looking like they're working together.
On June 29 2012 00:19 BassInSpace wrote: You can't speculate on night kills like this. I could just as easily say mafia killed the people who WERE suspecting them openly because they figure people would never think they'd do something that obvious.
Actually his confidence about his nightkill speculation might be linked to saving BioSC - if BioSC stands for BioSCUM hahaha
On June 27 2012 10:45 Release wrote (in reply to biosc): That's plausible, and honestly, i can't disagree with Hope's wishy-washy play.
On June 27 2012 19:25 Vivax wrote: Esspen voted for hopeless when rofl was set to lynch, as already mentioned.
If one of them is scum, the other most likely is, too. With the current information available, I would go for one of them.
Also remember that posting cases during the night can make you a target for scum. Speaking of it, I think I'm the designed nightkill simply cause noone suspected me yet. Townies who are believed to be townies are dangerous for scum, and I didn't see any blue role vibes for them to use yet, so they don't have many alternatives.
So myself, rofles, and bio? (for clarification)
I think the self-pity attitude is silly. Strong cases make you the target for scum.
gtg.
No. It was between roffles and Hopeless. You weren't on the chopping block at all.
If roffles was scum and Esspen saved him at the last moment -> Esspen = scum. Simple right?
JieXian, you posted this earlier. Don't you support the gain of information from a lynch of either Esspen or the roflewaffle55 replacement?
Right now two are pushing a case against me, one of them might be scum, and you prefer to suspect Bio. While I don't trust Bio entirely cause of Release's connection to him and his following death, it would be nice if town could focus and handle single cases instead of making so many at once, and atm my case and the Esspen vs rofl one are unsolved and need feedback.
I was hunting Release for his style and you seem to be following his footsteps, FOSing to create commotion (keiraithi wth >_>), which we sadly didn't bite. That in addition to your weird night post which looks too bloody pretentious to me.
"I'll most probably be killed"
"Also remember that posting cases during the night can make you a target for scum."
And this huge wall of text on D1 screaming HI IM TOWNIE while not saying much and sounding like a coach lol
On June 25 2012 21:47 Vivax wrote: Been trying to read through all the discussion so far. Release sticks to his general style with a few slight deviations, but back to the topic: It's about lynch all liars atm.
I'll give you my opinion on this policy from my experience as scum the previous game. Mafia doesn't have to lie without very specific reasons like claims. You will be able to find contradictions and mistakes in townie play aswell, I found plenty of them and used them to make cases against townies. But when a weird townie guy claimed DT for no reason and claimed one of ours to be scum, mafia had to counterclaim and openly lie, which bit our team in the arse within a few hours.
lynch all liars shouldn't be adopted as a general policy, but needs the right situation to be applied correctly. If someone lies in a way that it's not a mistake but a consciously made up lie, then that one has to be lynched unless it proves to have been in the towns' interest (beware bussing tho).
lynch all lurkers is important. Mafia doesn't have to post if there's no pressure. Most of the time it will be scumtells which lead to a lynch. But it has to be clear that people with low activity will switch into town's focus in absence of good cases, and this pressure is what town needs to gain information equally from everybody.
Most games it becomes very clear that at the beginning of a game, town's attention first hits the people who post a lot. I think that is a mistake. In order for the lynch all lurkers policy to work, attention has to hit especially people who didn't post a lot in order for them to post more and exercise pressure.
Common knowledge seems to say that mafia profits from policy discussion. Very situational imo. Policies should be set day 1, and town should have a consensus.Then it depends on the way they are discussed: Everyone should first have an opinion about policies before posting something concerning them, and they should then post their approval/disapproval of the policy based on facts. This way, policy discussion can be kept to a minimum of amount and a maximum of transparency. Policy discussion shouldn't be avoided since else it can come back after day 1.
What we don't want of policy talk is: People starting to discuss whether it's good or bad in a way that you end up having one page of policy discussion.
What we want is: People saying yes/no to certain policies AND BEING SURE OF THEMSELVES, then giving reasons for their attitude. And then we want others not starting to pick on the points the people wrote, but posting their own!That way town will have a quick overview of general consensus about policies, have them out of the way for the following days, and can start scumhunting for real without wasting further time on policy talk.
We have to restrict scum's options regarding policies, cases, activity. They have to take responsibility for what they write. What we don't want is: People who start writing cases on others who already are in the center of attention. This is a great opportunity for scum to blend in. This is where bussing happens when the real scum can't escape that center of attention.
To find mafiavibes, try to look at posts from a point of view where you have almost all the information.
tl;dr: Pro lynch all lurkers, against lynch all liars, not gonna throw around FoS like crazy at the start of the game, townies react to that with quick OMGUS, since they know of their own alignment and feel threatened unjustly (mafia can act the same if they are experienced I guess). Try to post cases on people who aren't in trouble aswell. Don't give mafia that chance to blend in.
the bolded text is so funny considering that your post took up a page hahahaha
Yet you're still alive, what a surprise
On June 29 2012 00:39 Vivax wrote: Well well, I want to hear other opinions regarding me before I post my defense. I don't feel threatened by a lynch as of now, and there are still too many lurkers.
Not enough, but I like that you find a reason to post something that could bite you in the ass later, so I'm satisfied for now.
Still, you understand my point regarding the two I would lynch for information, as proven by my above post, and you skip it to put a FoS and a vote other than your FoS a few minutes later.
Note, I still have to post my complete defense, and I still need to hear more people's opinions before doing so.
On June 27 2012 19:25 Vivax wrote: Esspen voted for hopeless when rofl was set to lynch, as already mentioned.
If one of them is scum, the other most likely is, too. With the current information available, I would go for one of them.
Also remember that posting cases during the night can make you a target for scum. Speaking of it, I think I'm the designed nightkill simply cause noone suspected me yet. Townies who are believed to be townies are dangerous for scum, and I didn't see any blue role vibes for them to use yet, so they don't have many alternatives.
So myself, rofles, and bio? (for clarification)
I think the self-pity attitude is silly. Strong cases make you the target for scum.
gtg.
No. It was between roffles and Hopeless. You weren't on the chopping block at all.
If roffles was scum and Esspen saved him at the last moment -> Esspen = scum. Simple right?
JieXian, you posted this earlier. Don't you support the gain of information from a lynch of either Esspen or the roflewaffle55 replacement?
Right now two are pushing a case against me, one of them might be scum, and you prefer to suspect Bio.
While I don't trust Bio entirely cause of Release's connection to him and his following death, it would be nice if town could focus and handle single cases instead of making so many at once, and atm my case and the Esspen vs rofl one are unsolved and need feedback.
You're trying to push three people at once, one a lurker, and you say we should handle single cases? Then, from the same bit...
On June 27 2012 19:25 Vivax wrote: Esspen voted for hopeless when rofl was set to lynch, as already mentioned.
If one of them is scum, the other most likely is, too. With the current information available, I would go for one of them.
Also remember that posting cases during the night can make you a target for scum. Speaking of it, I think I'm the designed nightkill simply cause noone suspected me yet. Townies who are believed to be townies are dangerous for scum, and I didn't see any blue role vibes for them to use yet, so they don't have many alternatives.
So myself, rofles, and bio? (for clarification)
I think the self-pity attitude is silly. Strong cases make you the target for scum.
gtg.
No. It was between roffles and Hopeless. You weren't on the chopping block at all.
If roffles was scum and Esspen saved him at the last moment -> Esspen = scum. Simple right?
JieXian, you posted this earlier. Don't you support the gain of information from a lynch of either Esspen or the roflewaffle55 replacement? + Show Spoiler +
Right now two are pushing a case against me, one of them might be scum, and you prefer to suspect Bio. While I don't trust Bio entirely cause of Release's connection to him and his following death, it would be nice if town could focus and handle single cases instead of making so many at once, and atm my case and the Esspen vs rofl one are unsolved and need feedback.
You suggest lynching for "information". We stand to gain just as much, if not more, information from lynching for truly suspicious behavior and wishy-washy play than we do lynching based on some hapazard spreading of guilt.
On June 28 2012 14:53 JieXian wrote: Right now Esspen is both scummy and lurking.
Vivax is being confusing
Bio stops lurking but his D1 behavior is weird
NrGmonk has the BOTD for being busy as TLStaff
JingleHell had the BOTD from me since roflwaffle was replaced for being busy
Keraithi is next on my list after Esspen for lurking, unless he's replaced and I have to give him the BOTD
Esspen looks like a good lynch imo - fits both criterias for it.
Esspen explained his lurking. Which, leaves scumminess -- and you are 10x more scummy than him. Esspen just looks like he's a real newbie ATM (14 posts >_>) (( or a genius acting like and idiot )), though I cannot be sure of than and he still has my FOS.
If you read my earlier posts on D1 I have FOSes on a few people but chose Release in the end.
Same thing happening again here, since I'm getting the exact same vibes from you.
I'm consistent with my behavior:
On June 25 2012 21:47 Vivax wrote: What we want is: People saying yes/no to certain policies AND BEING SURE OF THEMSELVES, then giving reasons for their attitude.
On June 27 2012 19:25 Vivax wrote: Esspen voted for hopeless when rofl was set to lynch, as already mentioned.
If one of them is scum, the other most likely is, too. With the current information available, I would go for one of them.
Also remember that posting cases during the night can make you a target for scum. Speaking of it, I think I'm the designed nightkill simply cause noone suspected me yet. Townies who are believed to be townies are dangerous for scum, and I didn't see any blue role vibes for them to use yet, so they don't have many alternatives.
So myself, rofles, and bio? (for clarification)
I think the self-pity attitude is silly. Strong cases make you the target for scum.
gtg.
No. It was between roffles and Hopeless. You weren't on the chopping block at all.
If roffles was scum and Esspen saved him at the last moment -> Esspen = scum. Simple right?
JieXian, you posted this earlier. Don't you support the gain of information from a lynch of either Esspen or the roflewaffle55 replacement?
No man........ I was mere clarifying to him his logic............ dude which part of that post implies anything like that?
Jingle, there is a difference between a town suspecting lots of different people at once (what I actually wrote and claimed to be bad) and a townie having multiple targets at once (what I am doing). What I'm saying is that town should be able to reach conclusions on single players, not that each townie should just focus on one.
There are 3 mafia, and what you are doing at the moment is either having really bad reads and tunneling me blindly, or you are scum trying to evade that lynch I'm proposing by attacking me directly.
You completely ignored Esspens weird posts, and from a townie perspective, lynching either you or him would bring a lot of clarity into the game. His behavior is incredibly suspicious, and yours is just bad. You never posted anything besides things against me, you are only able to take into consideration one player in the whole game, and that makes you either really bad as townie or really scummy.
If you are townie, start reading from the first post on. If you are scum, then keep posting, but what I still have to post will send you to a grave. And I'm keeping that for myself until it's gonna be really effective.
Sorry for my inactivity. Random bad time with tons of extra work, and a friend came in from out of town for a few days. I'll try to catch up tonight and give some input.
Also, to remind you of the information gained from lynching one of you:
On June 28 2012 20:41 Vivax wrote: If we kill Esspen and he is scum, then JingleHell most likely is scum, too. (For being protected by Esspen against his own beliefs) If we kill Esspen and he is townie, then JingleHell can be anything.
If we kill Jinglehell and he is scum, then Esspen is either scum or a misled townie with confusing playstyle. If we kill Jinglehell and he is town, then Esspen probably isn't scum cause scum would have known Jinglehell (roflwaffle55) was town, and wouldn't have had to vote like that.
And don't forget that my main target is Keirathi cause of his mafiavibes. You're putting words into my mouth saying that I prefer a policy lynch to a scumminess lynch, Jingle. The post I'm quoting myself from proves it, too.
At this point, I don't know what you prefer, which is my entire point. Your self quote proves nothing, it just demonstrates that you want to kill someone random "for information", almost like you're not entirely worried about what information comes out.
Right now it's feeling more and more like you're trying to flood irrelevant posts to cover for the inconsistencies we've been pointing out. I'm not going to take the bait on your OMGUS directed at me, because the evidence against you is standing for itself.
FOS BioSC From the moment he got out of focus, he starts again being silent. There is something terribly wrong with this man. Plus after hopeless got lynched he posted:
On June 27 2012 09:44 BioSC wrote: GG Hopeless1der.
I hope that town learns a lesson from this. Scum didn't even need to vote for Hopeless OR Rofl to get a townie lynch.
Lurkers, step up the posting. This is unacceptable.
Having voted for him, this seems like he's trying to shift attention from him to others.
FOS Vivax
On June 29 2012 01:46 Vivax wrote:
Jingle, there is a difference between a town suspecting lots of different people at once (what I actually wrote and claimed to be bad) and a townie having multiple targets at once (what I am doing). What I'm saying is that town should be able to reach conclusions on single players, not that each townie should just focus on one.
Can you please try to explain this? I find this response incredibly scummy.
And I agree with other cases on you, there are so many inconsistencies in you which actually seem to have sense if looked from mafia's perspective.
I think you are confusing silent with making reads.
That post you quoted? Yeah, that's a bit of frustration pouring out. Obviously it fell on some ears, as the replacements flooded in and started posting. Heck, even you are here.
Honestly, If you were going to keep lurking, I would push to lynch you. Now that you are here, and have posted your reads, which of me or Vivax is the bigger scum read atm?
On June 29 2012 01:50 Keirathi wrote: Sorry for my inactivity. Random bad time with tons of extra work, and a friend came in from out of town for a few days. I'll try to catch up tonight and give some input.
As much as it sucks to say, we don't have as much time as you probably think. I'm holding you to this post. Come in and post some reads, otherwise, this post sounds suspiciously like a scum "dodging activity" post.
On June 27 2012 08:07 BioSC wrote: EBWOP: That goes for Esspen as well. There is NO excuse. There are plenty of cases to choose from. How people are missing Hopeless' scumminess is beyond me, but do NOT waste votes like that. You are too easy targets for scum to manipulate your votes like that.
There are cases, but those cases are not going to be lynched anyway as now it's either Hopeless or Rofl. I unfortunately cannot vote for Hopeless as only thing he's done is gone maybe too far with attacking you, otherwise I completely agree with him.
40 minutes later:
On June 27 2012 08:53 Esspen wrote: ##Vote Hopeless1der
You said you voted cause Bio posted a case.
On June 28 2012 21:57 Esspen wrote: I'm terribly sorry for lurking, for some reason I thought we could not post during the night (based on what I read here: http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Night ), and the day started for me at 2 am when I was already asleep.
My defence is that I'm not mafia. And I voted for Hopeless in the end because I've read all BioSC's case against him few minutes before voting and decided to vote for him, and in the worst case that he was townie I would just press against BioSC even more (which I'm going to do as of now).
Plus I'm good soul and like saving people.
Your defence is that...You are not mafia...Thumbs up.
Why do you even suspect Bio?Cause of a mislynch?They can happen especially at the start of the game. I saw a OMGUS match between Bio and hopeless turning worse for hopeless, but that doesn't mean Bio is scum.
With this post you actually are admitting to have bandwagoned. You made your vote in the very last as a lurking player. You're telling me you voted for him cause you ate the case of the guy you're FoSing now (Bio). Why exactly would you FoS him only after that mislynch YOU provoked? If you felt the case by Bio against hopeless was solid, why do you all of sudden try so hard to distance yourself from it and blame Bio for that mislynch?
It is your fault only that hopeless got lynched, stop blaming Bio for it, he posted the case, you decided to kill him. Now that I want you and/or the guy you covered with your vote (roflwaffle55) dead, you both try pretty hard to get me lynched.
Vivax, in light of the fact that your "defense" is to ignore the actual case against you, twist some words, and then try to go on the attack based on the clear-as-mud logic that anybody who sees an inconsistency in your posts is clearly scum, I'm going to have to ##Vote Vivax
On June 29 2012 02:45 BioSC wrote: Now that you are here, and have posted your reads, which of me or Vivax is the bigger scum read atm?
Both, I'm certain for you 98% and Vivax 102% (ok that means Vivax).
And this defence of eachother just makes me think you are both scums.
In case Vivax (i know i said i believe both BioSC and Vivax are scums, but more people seem to dislike Vivax) won't seem to get lynched this day I have two propositions: 1: you lynch me and if I turn out to be townie, you lynch Vivax 2: you lynch Vivax and if he turns out to be townie, you lynch me
Alright, I finally got caught up on all the action in the thread. It was difficult reading because the entire early discussion was a giant clusterfuck of semantics. Rather frustrating because I think the current cases against Vivax and BioSC are pretty good. I still need to reread the thread a few times, but here are the things that jumped out to me about their play:
First up is Vivax. Just take a look at some of these posts.
Esspen voted for hopeless when rofl was set to lynch, as already mentioned.
If one of them is scum, the other most likely is, too. With the current information available, I would go for one of them.
Also remember that posting cases during the night can make you a target for scum. Speaking of it, I think I'm the designed nightkill simply cause noone suspected me yet. Townies who are believed to be townies are dangerous for scum, and I didn't see any blue role vibes for them to use yet, so they don't have many alternatives.
He first broaches the topic of lynching for information.
Regarding JingleHell vs Esspen: I think lynching Jinglehell would give us more information. Esspen might very well just be a sloppy player.
But I prefer a Keirathi lynch cause of the scummy behavior and the low attention on him right now.
He continues with the idea of lynching for information. Also he is for a lynch of Keirathi because Keirathi doesn't have a lot of attention on him right now.
JieXian, you posted this earlier. Don't you support the gain of information from a lynch of either Esspen or the roflewaffle55 replacement?
Right now two are pushing a case against me, one of them might be scum, and you prefer to suspect Bio. While I don't trust Bio entirely cause of Release's connection to him and his following death, it would be nice if town could focus and handle single cases instead of making so many at once, and atm my case and the Esspen vs rofl one are unsolved and need feedback.
Lynching for information... again!!! Let me outline the motivations for town. Town wants to lynch scum. That's it. Scum want to entice town not to lynch them so they throw out tempting points such as to lynch "for information" or "to gain a clearer picture of the town." These are not town motives for a lynch. These are really scummy.
Further points against him: - He's been extremely wishy-washy with his reads, especially in regards to Esspen. Notice how lately he's switched to full on attacking Esspen, when before he had posted this. What's the matter? You wanna say that the lynch all lurkers policy is bad? If they're gonna be replaced/modkilled, then yes.
But else, it's a policy that doesn't allow people to sit back, be it lazy townies or passive scum.
After all you just entered the game, so I went on with scumhunting, and Keirathi is on the list for scummy behavior right now. You aren't ony my list cause of OMGUS, i suspected roflwaffle55/you before you even posted against me.
It seems like he's just throwing suspicion out there when it's useful for him to deflect pressure. - In the last game I played with Vivax (NMM XV, he was town) he posted his reads early and often. He had a confidence in his reads on players that almost bordered on foolishness. This game most of his reads have been extremely wishy-washy.
That's all the time I have right now. I'll post my opinions on BioSC when I get the time. For now I think the case on Vivax is a pretty slam-dunk case and I will support it. If things go my way I would like to lynch Vivax this day cycle, BioSC the next, and continue the hunt for the 3rd and final scummy player later. I'll be voting Vivax today.
There is one thing I did that is pretty failsafe proof of my townie status. I'll post it in the second half of day 2.
If you think you are a good townie, then you should have found it already. At least now town will know that there is at least one scum jumping on the bandwagon against me, and scum might even have started it.
first of all sorry for my inactivity in the past 24 hours, i meant to check in but i kinda forgot :/
after reading everything that has been said in my absence, i come to the conclusion that there's too much bandwagoning going on. This might not neccessarily be a bad thing though. It might very well be, that all the people, who made a major case out of Vivax are scum. I'm pretty sure Esspen is scum, reason behind it being that he changed his mind about 5 minutes before the deadline to kill off hopeless instead of roflwaffles, whom i still consider to be scum as well. JingleHell (roflwaffle's replacement) is the other one who is making alot of ruckus in Vivax's general direction. Overall this whole case against him seems like a VERY good distraction from this little head-over-heels misshap that could've been disasterous for scum if it wasn't swept under the rug by a lot of commotion. The reason why i vote for Esspen and not for JingleHell is that, Esspen's posts overall are just confusing, not really helpful, and even if all my suspicions on them were wrong and they really would be townies, he seems the better guy to lose of them.
Further points against him: - He's been extremely wishy-washy with his reads, especially in regards to Esspen. Notice how lately he's switched to full on attacking Esspen, when before he had posted this. What's the matter? You wanna say that the lynch all lurkers policy is bad? If they're gonna be replaced/modkilled, then yes.
But else, it's a policy that doesn't allow people to sit back, be it lazy townies or passive scum.
I still am insecure regarding you and Esspen
I still find these options to be risky overall
After all you just entered the game, so I went on with scumhunting, and Keirathi is on the list for scummy behavior right now. You aren't ony my list cause of OMGUS, i suspected roflwaffle55/you before you even posted against me.
It seems like he's just throwing suspicion out there when it's useful for him to deflect pressure. - In the last game I played with Vivax (NMM XV, he was town) he posted his reads early and often. He had a confidence in his reads on players that almost bordered on foolishness. This game most of his reads have been extremely wishy-washy.
That's all the time I have right now. I'll post my opinions on BioSC when I get the time. For now I think the case on Vivax is a pretty slam-dunk case and I will support it. If things go my way I would like to lynch Vivax this day cycle, BioSC the next, and continue the hunt for the 3rd and final scummy player later. I'll be voting Vivax today.
Further points against him: - He's been extremely wishy-washy with his reads, especially in regards to Esspen. Notice how lately he's switched to full on attacking Esspen, when before he had posted this.
What's the matter? You wanna say that the lynch all lurkers policy is bad? If they're gonna be replaced/modkilled, then yes. But else, it's a policy that doesn't allow people to sit back, be it lazy townies or passive scum.
I still am insecure regarding you and Esspen
I still find these options to be risky overall
After all you just entered the game, so I went on with scumhunting, and Keirathi is on the list for scummy behavior right now. You aren't ony my list cause of OMGUS, i suspected roflwaffle55/you before you even posted against me.
It seems like he's just throwing suspicion out there when it's useful for him to deflect pressure. - In the last game I played with Vivax (NMM XV, he was town) he posted his reads early and often. He had a confidence in his reads on players that almost bordered on foolishness. This game most of his reads have been extremely wishy-washy.
That's all the time I have right now. I'll post my opinions on BioSC when I get the time. For now I think the case on Vivax is a pretty slam-dunk case and I will support it. If things go my way I would like to lynch Vivax this day cycle, BioSC the next, and continue the hunt for the 3rd and final scummy player later. I'll be voting Vivax today.
---snip The reason why i vote for Esspen and not for JingleHell is that, Esspen's posts overall are just confusing, not really helpful, and even if all my suspicions on them were wrong and they really would be townies, he seems the better guy to lose of them.
Not good reasoning. We're here to lynch scum, not confusing/suboptimal players. dNa's reasoning reeks of scumminess. I think we just found our last scum guys. My plan is we lynch Vivax today, BioSC tomorrow, and dNa the next, though I really don't care about the order. Any takers?
Another scummy point for Vivax: - He's been pretty content to sit back and just pressure lurkers. This is another deviation from his town play in NMM XV. I'd imagine a town Vivax would put a bit more effort into cases against active players. Pushing for a lurker lynch is a really non-confrontational move. Tralalala, obvious scum is obvious.
Since Esspen has come under heavy fire, here's a town point in his favor.
In case Vivax (i know i said i believe both BioSC and Vivax are scums, but more people seem to dislike Vivax) won't seem to get lynched this day I have two propositions: 1: you lynch me and if I turn out to be townie, you lynch Vivax 2: you lynch Vivax and if he turns out to be townie, you lynch me
He's either making a ballsy scum move, or this is extremely pro-town. Offering to take the lynch in order to confirm that your reads are made in good faith isn't a move most scum would think of IMO. If the assumptions I've made on our scumteam are wrong, then I'll rethink taking Esspen up on his offer. I've got to take a rather long trip, my case on BioSC will have to wait for a little while.
On June 29 2012 08:17 Vivax wrote: There is one thing I did that is pretty failsafe proof of my townie status. I'll post it in the second half of day 2.
If you think you are a good townie, then you should have found it already. At least now town will know that there is at least one scum jumping on the bandwagon against me, and scum might even have started it.
You keep bringing up this whole notion that spotting your inconsistencies somehow makes people anti-town, and that your behavior is so textbook that anybody who's above suspicion should refuse to suspect you because of it.
This isn't a defense. This is an effort to encourage a fear reaction in anyone wanting to push a read on you.
Also, if you've done something too textbook to miss, I would also consider it to be too textbook to trust entirely.
first of all sorry for my inactivity in the past 24 hours, i meant to check in but i kinda forgot :/
after reading everything that has been said in my absence, i come to the conclusion that there's too much bandwagoning going on. This might not neccessarily be a bad thing though. It might very well be, that all the people, who made a major case out of Vivax are scum. I'm pretty sure Esspen is scum, reason behind it being that he changed his mind about 5 minutes before the deadline to kill off hopeless instead of roflwaffles, whom i still consider to be scum as well.
JingleHell (roflwaffle's replacement) is the other one who is making alot of ruckus in Vivax's general direction. Overall this whole case against him seems like a VERY good distraction from this little head-over-heels misshap that could've been disasterous for scum if it wasn't swept under the rug by a lot of commotion. The reason why i vote for Esspen and not for JingleHell is that, Esspen's posts overall are just confusing, not really helpful, and even if all my suspicions on them were wrong and they really would be townies, he seems the better guy to lose of them.
I can understand why you'd see it that way, dNa. Like I said earlier, I can't help much the bizarre things that happened before I came in, regarding Esspen's behavior. The best I could suggest is that he might be scum, (there's some reasonable cases, for sure), and seeing a mislynch was guaranteed with either winner, he did a miracle save to make my predecessor look like a false positive.
There is one thing I did that is pretty failsafe proof of my townie status. I'll post it in the second half of day 2.
If you think you are a good townie, then you should have found it already. At least now town will know that there is at least one scum jumping on the bandwagon against me, and scum might even have started it.
There is no such thing as failsafe proof in Mafia. The fact that Vivax is waiting to post his proof is HUGE evidence against him. Town needs as much time to process information as possible because we're dealing with a lack of information. It's pretty clear that we're set on lynching Vivax today so any information he can give us would help and yet he waits. The fact that he's waiting to post (I'm guessing a breadcrumb/blue claim) is really unhelpful to town. I think he's waiting so that town doesn't have enough time to process his "huge reveal" and might knee-jerk a voteswitch off of him.
@ Jinglehell What do you think of dNa's reasoning for his Esspen vote? Pretty scummy right?
@ Jinglehell What do you think of dNa's reasoning for his Esspen vote? Pretty scummy right?
I have a few thoughts on this, but just in case you're right, I'd rather wait to post them until he's stated his reasoning for himself, to avoid muddying things up.
On June 29 2012 08:17 Vivax wrote: There is one thing I did that is pretty failsafe proof of my townie status. I'll post it in the second half of day 2.
If you think you are a good townie, then you should have found it already. At least now town will know that there is at least one scum jumping on the bandwagon against me, and scum might even have started it.
Honestly, if you think you have some mysterious, game changing info to prove your innocence/explain all this round-about play you've had, why wait to post? Post it now, please. Info is what we need, there has been too many lurkers to keep waiting on information.
Esspen - I'm not getting into an OMGUS with you. If you think I'm a scum for making a case on a townie, well, not much to say about that. I've already defended myself on that front.
On June 29 2012 01:50 Keirathi wrote: Sorry for my inactivity. Random bad time with tons of extra work, and a friend came in from out of town for a few days. I'll try to catch up tonight and give some input.
Yup. Still waiting mate. Here's a little motivation to not lurk and participate.
---snip The reason why i vote for Esspen and not for JingleHell is that, Esspen's posts overall are just confusing, not really helpful, and even if all my suspicions on them were wrong and they really would be townies, he seems the better guy to lose of them.
Not good reasoning. We're here to lynch scum, not confusing/suboptimal players. dNa's reasoning reeks of scumminess. I think we just found our last scum guys. My plan is we lynch Vivax today, BioSC tomorrow, and dNa the next, though I really don't care about the order. Any takers?
Another scummy point for Vivax: - He's been pretty content to sit back and just pressure lurkers. This is another deviation from his town play in NMM XV. I'd imagine a town Vivax would put a bit more effort into cases against active players. Pushing for a lurker lynch is a really non-confrontational move. Tralalala, obvious scum is obvious.
Since Esspen has come under heavy fire, here's a town point in his favor.
In case Vivax (i know i said i believe both BioSC and Vivax are scums, but more people seem to dislike Vivax) won't seem to get lynched this day I have two propositions: 1: you lynch me and if I turn out to be townie, you lynch Vivax 2: you lynch Vivax and if he turns out to be townie, you lynch me
He's either making a ballsy scum move, or this is extremely pro-town. Offering to take the lynch in order to confirm that your reads are made in good faith isn't a move most scum would think of IMO. If the assumptions I've made on our scumteam are wrong, then I'll rethink taking Esspen up on his offer. I've got to take a rather long trip, my case on BioSC will have to wait for a little while.
I'm feeling pretty good about this game
I really enjoy where you put out all the reasoning behind my vote and just quoted the one thing that does not 100% point into esspen's direction, although part of it does. really great manipulation in this post, i'll give you that.
to your points against vivax i'm only seeing alot of "metagaming" on your end, no actual tells in this game.
in regards to your points about Esspen i agree, this is one thing not many scum players would have done... then again maybe he saw that after the history he has gotten in this channel, he has lost his value as a scum asset and therefore - after consolidating with his teammates, decided to make this move to: 1. appear not scummy for once 2. increase the amount of attention in regards to Vivax's case.
So, following what dNa said, I think my original conclusion on his reasoning was correct. He did say
after reading everything that has been said in my absence, i come to the conclusion that there's too much bandwagoning going on. This might not neccessarily be a bad thing though.
While I don't agree with all of his reasoning, it seems to me that this was intended to suggest that he was contributing his final thought process, after reading cases made against both myself and Esspen. Not that it was his sole reasoning.
Even with the weight of evidence stacking in certain places, the last thing we want is to tunnel so badly that scum could straight up roleclaim as scum and get away with it. I like his effort at objectivity, even if I don't agree with him on everything.
On my phone right now, skimmed over stuff. Vivax still holding out on defense post? And I'm guessing your failproof defense is that you attempted to switch last minute to roflwaffle in the day one vote but it wad too late.
On June 29 2012 11:57 BassInSpace wrote: On my phone right now, skimmed over stuff. Vivax still holding out on defense post? And I'm guessing your failproof defense is that you attempted to switch last minute to roflwaffle in the day one vote but it wad too late.
I'd guess he's hoping that someone will come up with a good defense for him, since his efforts to misdirect reads and pressure people into changing their votes have all failed. It would sound better if someone else found his "failsafe" evidence.
I'd be willing to switch to another person with a fairly solid read against them if he could present his defense, but for now, delaying and scare tactics seem like an effort to just create enough confusion to get him benefit of the doubt, rather than a reason to target someone else.
I'm still keeping vigilant, though, as should we all.
On June 29 2012 02:45 BioSC wrote: Now that you are here, and have posted your reads, which of me or Vivax is the bigger scum read atm?
Both, I'm certain for you 98% and Vivax 102% (ok that means Vivax).
And this defence of eachother just makes me think you are both scums.
In case Vivax (i know i said i believe both BioSC and Vivax are scums, but more people seem to dislike Vivax) won't seem to get lynched this day I have two propositions: 1: you lynch me and if I turn out to be townie, you lynch Vivax 2: you lynch Vivax and if he turns out to be townie, you lynch me
WTF? You start the post attacking and linking Bio and Vivax together and end by putting the 2 people who are most likely to be lynched on the line? To gain what?
You don't make any sense Esspen....................................
For now you're next on my list after Vivax.
On June 29 2012 10:00 Miltonkram wrote: Let's take a look at what dNa just said:
---snip The reason why i vote for Esspen and not for JingleHell is that, Esspen's posts overall are just confusing, not really helpful, and even if all my suspicions on them were wrong and they really would be townies, he seems the better guy to lose of them.
Not good reasoning. We're here to lynch scum, not confusing/suboptimal players. dNa's reasoning reeks of scumminess. I think we just found our last scum guys. My plan is we lynch Vivax today, BioSC tomorrow, and dNa the next, though I really don't care about the order. Any takers?
Another scummy point for Vivax: - He's been pretty content to sit back and just pressure lurkers. This is another deviation from his town play in NMM XV. I'd imagine a town Vivax would put a bit more effort into cases against active players. Pushing for a lurker lynch is a really non-confrontational move. Tralalala, obvious scum is obvious.
Since Esspen has come under heavy fire, here's a town point in his favor.
In case Vivax (i know i said i believe both BioSC and Vivax are scums, but more people seem to dislike Vivax) won't seem to get lynched this day I have two propositions: 1: you lynch me and if I turn out to be townie, you lynch Vivax 2: you lynch Vivax and if he turns out to be townie, you lynch me
He's either making a ballsy scum move, or this is extremely pro-town. Offering to take the lynch in order to confirm that your reads are made in good faith isn't a move most scum would think of IMO. If the assumptions I've made on our scumteam are wrong, then I'll rethink taking Esspen up on his offer. I've got to take a rather long trip, my case on BioSC will have to wait for a little while.
I'm feeling pretty good about this game
I'm giving you the BOTD for now in abscence of much evidence but HOLY SHIT that really sounds like a scumslip: How the hell can you be so dead sure of yourself?
That defense of Esspen isn't a defense at all imo, everyone knows both of them are on the chopping block either way. However if Esspen is scum you won't be feeling good about yourself. So I'm not linking both of you together as scum. Rather I see it as a pretentious defense of Esspen for townie cred since he's probably going to die anyways and you would know that he's townie.
If both Vivax and Esspen flip townie I'm going to hunt for Milton. (Unless of course either Bio or Dna flip scum)
ok I'm quite worried about dying now so IF I GET SHOT TONIGHT FUCKIGN HUNT MILTON DOWN
If I'm wrong and I know it's a long shot with a lot of ifs, Milton sorry for being crazy. If either 3 of them from your list flip scum you're gonna get some townie cred from me.
I've been withholding my defense for so long to force more posts from scum. You have to understand that scum doesn't like the prospect of sudden roleclaims or strong evidence against them. The reason I'm gonna post it late is that it won't allow scum to get themselves back into a safe spot once they realize that they made a mistake.
I'm back now, gonna go over the last few pages in detail. Vivax, you realise this makes it very hard for JieXian and myself who are on the other side of the world right? I was looking forward to reading your defense and weighing it up against the case I and the others made against you. Instead, I now have to put in my vote in a few hours' time before I sleep without having read anything substantial from you. That aside, posting your case so late is going to confuse, and could potentially cause last minute vote switches when people can't even discuss your case. Should we just all post our reads and defenses at the last minute so mafia can't "get themselves back into a safe spot?"
Also remember that there is scum pushing other cases than against me aswell. Only dumb or very ballsy scum would pull on one string at the same time with the whole team.
Miltonkram wrote My plan is we lynch Vivax today, BioSC tomorrow, and dNa the next, though I really don't care about the order. Any takers?
I'll give you my taker, none of them are scum in my book.dNa not jumping on the bandwagon against me and focusing on the really suspicious guy with numerous slips made me sure of his townie status.
I had huge insecurity about BioSC regarding that matter, but I looked extensively at his filter and he didn't look scummy enough for me.
Mostly because of his agitation when random votes occurred. I doubt a real mafia would act like that if he saw townies throw around votes without real effect. Mafia would lean back, watch the lynch happen. Not start ranting about pointless votes.
Miltonkram.Question 1: Did you get booted from the obs qt for being a replacement? This is also a question to the host.
Saying my reads are wishy washy is super wrong. You can see the full reasoning behind the information lynch and what we gain from lynching either Jingle or Esspen.
The best part is that your case consists of saying that we should lynch based on scumreads, not for information or lurking. Since I want to lynch for information or lukring, I am the only scumread in the game by your logic. The problem is that I never made my cases ignoring scumreads, there simply weren't any available besides from those concerning Esspen.
This seems to be what you are thinking: Esspen suggests lynching blues, Esspen changes vote last minute after announcing he wouldn't vote for that, Esspen doesn't contribute anything useful to town, and instead of getting more active after his slips, he gets even more silent than he was during day 1. Still, he can't be scum.
So do me a favor, Milton: Say it out loud that you ignore all these facts against Esspen, that I am scummy for suspecting him cause you claim that it's just for information and policy. And then say that killing him won't reveal us anything about Jingle's alignment, the guy covered last minute by Esspens vote.
I'm not just lynching for policy. I'm lynching for scumtells of a lurking guy that will give us information about another one upon his death.
Also, thank you for giving in to the pressure created by my delayed defense. Upon my eventual death you might be the first to land on the chopping block.
By Milton I think he's waiting so that town doesn't have enough time to process his "huge reveal" and might knee-jerk a voteswitch off of him.
I'm pretty sure you were also discussing this in the mafia qt haha.
JieXian isn't one of my suspects either. I don't like his general style but I highly doubt him to be scum.
I am inclined to believe BassInSpace to be townie. But he apologizes a lot for time zone differences. I don't know your rhythm and cannot estimate the time available to you for real.
Many of his posts seem to be on-the-go, some have craploads of mistakes in them. I don't believe mafia would post carelessly like that.
That said, I'll give you my list of potential mafia to be used in case I get lynched:
Here's my problem with esspen. We can all agree he has been posting... sub-optimally.So much so that most of us have voted or FOS'd him at some point in the game but were never quite sure because of how blatantly weird/anti-town his posts have been. However, the bolded section of this post by dNa got me thinking:
On June 29 2012 10:00 Miltonkram wrote: Let's take a look at what dNa just said:
---snip The reason why i vote for Esspen and not for JingleHell is that, Esspen's posts overall are just confusing, not really helpful, and even if all my suspicions on them were wrong and they really would be townies, he seems the better guy to lose of them.
Not good reasoning. We're here to lynch scum, not confusing/suboptimal players. dNa's reasoning reeks of scumminess. I think we just found our last scum guys. My plan is we lynch Vivax today, BioSC tomorrow, and dNa the next, though I really don't care about the order. Any takers?
Another scummy point for Vivax: - He's been pretty content to sit back and just pressure lurkers. This is another deviation from his town play in NMM XV. I'd imagine a town Vivax would put a bit more effort into cases against active players. Pushing for a lurker lynch is a really non-confrontational move. Tralalala, obvious scum is obvious.
Since Esspen has come under heavy fire, here's a town point in his favor.
In case Vivax (i know i said i believe both BioSC and Vivax are scums, but more people seem to dislike Vivax) won't seem to get lynched this day I have two propositions: 1: you lynch me and if I turn out to be townie, you lynch Vivax 2: you lynch Vivax and if he turns out to be townie, you lynch me
He's either making a ballsy scum move, or this is extremely pro-town. Offering to take the lynch in order to confirm that your reads are made in good faith isn't a move most scum would think of IMO. If the assumptions I've made on our scumteam are wrong, then I'll rethink taking Esspen up on his offer. I've got to take a rather long trip, my case on BioSC will have to wait for a little while.
I'm feeling pretty good about this game
I really enjoy where you put out all the reasoning behind my vote and just quoted the one thing that does not 100% point into esspen's direction, although part of it does. really great manipulation in this post, i'll give you that.
to your points against vivax i'm only seeing alot of "metagaming" on your end, no actual tells in this game.
in regards to your points about Esspen i agree, this is one thing not many scum players would have done... then again maybe he saw that after the history he has gotten in this channel, he has lost his value as a scum asset and therefore - after consolidating with his teammates, decided to make this move to: 1. appear not scummy for once 2. increase the amount of attention in regards to Vivax's case.
If indeed esspen is scum (and is now seen as a liability to his team) and vivax is town, he could very well just be adding another vote to vivax to force the lynch, not caring that he will be up next if the flip reveals vivax is town, hence his fearlessness in saying that we should lynch him should vivax flip town to give himself town cred (what do you think of this Miltonkram? This was your soft defense of him after all). Even though I've switched to pressuring Vivax now, I'm still very suspicious of esspen; I feel that my original case against him from a few days ago is still valid, and what I've discussed here doesn't help improve my opinion of him. However...
Vivax, as it is, I cannot change my vote from you, because I haven't read your secret defense post. Again, I sincerely did want to, because I did agree with you that it was hard not to target lurkers considering that amount of activity in the thread at that point. It was that post I highlighted in my case (where you said you thought you were the most towny and therefore most likely to be shot) and your choice in exactly which lurkers to target that pushed me to making a case on you. I will try to get online before the deadline to read it, and if it is convincing enough, change my vote accordingly.
At the very least, I am pleased with the activity this has generated. On top of my suspicion, part of the reasoning for my posting an actual case was so we could get discussion on something other than esspen and lurkers. Btw Vivax, when you say my posts have "craploads of mistakes in them" I hope you are talking about the typos rather than the actual content... If so, let's just say I'm not a fan of the Android system's autocorrect function. I do apologise about that though, and the sometimes brief/quick posts when I'm rushing. I normally post the meatier stuff around this time (my night) if you haven't noticed, so this is usually when I can really delve into things. That being said, I have a party tomorrow night, so I won't be as active. Also, I forgot to actually
On June 29 2012 02:45 BioSC wrote: Now that you are here, and have posted your reads, which of me or Vivax is the bigger scum read atm?
Both, I'm certain for you 98% and Vivax 102% (ok that means Vivax).
And this defence of eachother just makes me think you are both scums.
In case Vivax (i know i said i believe both BioSC and Vivax are scums, but more people seem to dislike Vivax) won't seem to get lynched this day I have two propositions: 1: you lynch me and if I turn out to be townie, you lynch Vivax 2: you lynch Vivax and if he turns out to be townie, you lynch me
WTF? You start the post attacking and linking Bio and Vivax together and end by putting the 2 people who are most likely to be lynched on the line? To gain what?
You don't make any sense Esspen....................................
On June 29 2012 10:00 Miltonkram wrote: Let's take a look at what dNa just said:
---snip The reason why i vote for Esspen and not for JingleHell is that, Esspen's posts overall are just confusing, not really helpful, and even if all my suspicions on them were wrong and they really would be townies, he seems the better guy to lose of them.
Not good reasoning. We're here to lynch scum, not confusing/suboptimal players. dNa's reasoning reeks of scumminess. I think we just found our last scum guys. My plan is we lynch Vivax today, BioSC tomorrow, and dNa the next, though I really don't care about the order. Any takers?
Another scummy point for Vivax: - He's been pretty content to sit back and just pressure lurkers. This is another deviation from his town play in NMM XV. I'd imagine a town Vivax would put a bit more effort into cases against active players. Pushing for a lurker lynch is a really non-confrontational move. Tralalala, obvious scum is obvious.
Since Esspen has come under heavy fire, here's a town point in his favor.
In case Vivax (i know i said i believe both BioSC and Vivax are scums, but more people seem to dislike Vivax) won't seem to get lynched this day I have two propositions: 1: you lynch me and if I turn out to be townie, you lynch Vivax 2: you lynch Vivax and if he turns out to be townie, you lynch me
He's either making a ballsy scum move, or this is extremely pro-town. Offering to take the lynch in order to confirm that your reads are made in good faith isn't a move most scum would think of IMO. If the assumptions I've made on our scumteam are wrong, then I'll rethink taking Esspen up on his offer. I've got to take a rather long trip, my case on BioSC will have to wait for a little while.
I'm feeling pretty good about this game
I'm giving you the BOTD for now in abscence of much evidence but HOLY SHIT that really sounds like a scumslip: How the hell can you be so dead sure of yourself?
That defense of Esspen isn't a defense at all imo, everyone knows both of them are on the chopping block either way. However if Esspen is scum you won't be feeling good about yourself. So I'm not linking both of you together as scum. Rather I see it as a pretentious defense of Esspen for townie cred since he's probably going to die anyways and you would know that he's townie.
If both Vivax and Esspen flip townie I'm going to hunt for Milton. (Unless of course either Bio or Dna flip scum)
ok I'm quite worried about dying now so IF I GET SHOT TONIGHT FUCKIGN HUNT MILTON DOWN
If I'm wrong and I know it's a long shot with a lot of ifs, Milton sorry for being crazy. If either 3 of them from your list flip scum you're gonna get some townie cred from me.
This is another take regarding esspen that I had considered earlier. That nagging feeling that in fact esspen is town and we're all being played by mafia. However, JieXian, I disagree with you holding Miltonkram's confidence against him. Him saying that he feels "pretty good about the game" is a rather trivial remark. I think we both agree that his soft defense of esspen may warrant further discussion though, but that is for another day I think.
Damn it, I suspected you were the DT. Your playstyle kind of reminded me of my own when I played DT in my first game, but I couldn't be sure. Because of this, I'm willing to take the chance and take you on your word that you are in fact the DT. I'm not too sure about your decision to roleclaim, since I don't think your lynch is set in stone and you could've breadcrumbed as insurance, but I understand it's hard given that 2 of the votes on you were in different time zones and may not have been changed.
On June 29 2012 02:45 BioSC wrote: Now that you are here, and have posted your reads, which of me or Vivax is the bigger scum read atm?
Both, I'm certain for you 98% and Vivax 102% (ok that means Vivax).
And this defence of eachother just makes me think you are both scums.
In case Vivax (i know i said i believe both BioSC and Vivax are scums, but more people seem to dislike Vivax) won't seem to get lynched this day I have two propositions: 1: you lynch me and if I turn out to be townie, you lynch Vivax 2: you lynch Vivax and if he turns out to be townie, you lynch me
WTF? You start the post attacking and linking Bio and Vivax together and end by putting the 2 people who are most likely to be lynched on the line? To gain what?
You don't make any sense Esspen....................................
On June 29 2012 10:00 Miltonkram wrote: Let's take a look at what dNa just said:
---snip The reason why i vote for Esspen and not for JingleHell is that, Esspen's posts overall are just confusing, not really helpful, and even if all my suspicions on them were wrong and they really would be townies, he seems the better guy to lose of them.
Not good reasoning. We're here to lynch scum, not confusing/suboptimal players. dNa's reasoning reeks of scumminess. I think we just found our last scum guys. My plan is we lynch Vivax today, BioSC tomorrow, and dNa the next, though I really don't care about the order. Any takers?
Another scummy point for Vivax: - He's been pretty content to sit back and just pressure lurkers. This is another deviation from his town play in NMM XV. I'd imagine a town Vivax would put a bit more effort into cases against active players. Pushing for a lurker lynch is a really non-confrontational move. Tralalala, obvious scum is obvious.
Since Esspen has come under heavy fire, here's a town point in his favor.
In case Vivax (i know i said i believe both BioSC and Vivax are scums, but more people seem to dislike Vivax) won't seem to get lynched this day I have two propositions: 1: you lynch me and if I turn out to be townie, you lynch Vivax 2: you lynch Vivax and if he turns out to be townie, you lynch me
He's either making a ballsy scum move, or this is extremely pro-town. Offering to take the lynch in order to confirm that your reads are made in good faith isn't a move most scum would think of IMO. If the assumptions I've made on our scumteam are wrong, then I'll rethink taking Esspen up on his offer. I've got to take a rather long trip, my case on BioSC will have to wait for a little while.
I'm feeling pretty good about this game
I'm giving you the BOTD for now in abscence of much evidence but HOLY SHIT that really sounds like a scumslip: How the hell can you be so dead sure of yourself?
That defense of Esspen isn't a defense at all imo, everyone knows both of them are on the chopping block either way. However if Esspen is scum you won't be feeling good about yourself. So I'm not linking both of you together as scum. Rather I see it as a pretentious defense of Esspen for townie cred since he's probably going to die anyways and you would know that he's townie.
If both Vivax and Esspen flip townie I'm going to hunt for Milton. (Unless of course either Bio or Dna flip scum)
ok I'm quite worried about dying now so IF I GET SHOT TONIGHT FUCKIGN HUNT MILTON DOWN
If I'm wrong and I know it's a long shot with a lot of ifs, Milton sorry for being crazy. If either 3 of them from your list flip scum you're gonna get some townie cred from me.
This is another take regarding esspen that I had considered earlier. That nagging feeling that in fact esspen is town and we're all being played by mafia. However, JieXian, I disagree with you holding Miltonkram's confidence against him. Him saying that he feels "pretty good about the game" is a rather trivial remark. I think we both agree that his soft defense of esspen may warrant further discussion though, but that is for another day I think.
Ok I trust your decision since you were correct about Release. It's still nothing but a BOTD or a light FOS for now since Milton's new and we'll have to wait for more tells if they come.
On June 29 2012 22:56 Vivax wrote: Well, read the secret then, I don't even have to play with unrevealed cards cause I am going to die anyway:
Now decide if you would rather take the risk of lynching me or the guy who initiated all this bandwagon on me.
It's sad however that noone suspected him besides me.
It's sad that it's really hard for me to give you the BOTD to avoid another mislynch. Please post clear arguements that we can understand and not bloody hints like it's a treasure hunt.
So a false roleclaim and a false accusation is your "perfect" proof? Again, an effort to contravene the weight of evidence based on trying to force a reaction.
I suppose, Vivax, that on night 1, you checked every single individual who was going to make a case against you today, and everyone is scum, right?
Tell me, out of your "scumlist" you posted earlier, of
Miltonkram, JingleHell, Esspen, Keirathi, NrGMonk
listed in that order, why would you not have listed or weighted the names differently? Why would you discuss lynching for information that you already have and aren't uncomfortable giving out with a roleclaim?
Something doesn't add up here, so I'm going to accuse you of a false roleclaim to get your head off the chopping block.
On June 29 2012 23:11 BassInSpace wrote: Damn it, I suspected you were the DT. Your playstyle kind of reminded me of my own when I played DT in my first game, but I couldn't be sure. Because of this, I'm willing to take the chance and take you on your word that you are in fact the DT. I'm not too sure about your decision to roleclaim, since I don't think your lynch is set in stone and you could've breadcrumbed as insurance, but I understand it's hard given that 2 of the votes on you were in different time zones and may not have been changed.
## Vote JingleHell
I won't call that a breadcrumb. Going to look into the Jinglehell claim.
On June 29 2012 23:11 BassInSpace wrote: Damn it, I suspected you were the DT. Your playstyle kind of reminded me of my own when I played DT in my first game, but I couldn't be sure. Because of this, I'm willing to take the chance and take you on your word that you are in fact the DT. I'm not too sure about your decision to roleclaim, since I don't think your lynch is set in stone and you could've breadcrumbed as insurance, but I understand it's hard given that 2 of the votes on you were in different time zones and may not have been changed.
## Vote JingleHell
I won't call that a breadcrumb. Going to look into the Jinglehell claim.
ok my mistake. In that case I don't understand you or your logic.
On June 28 2012 20:45 Vivax wrote: Regarding JingleHell vs Esspen: I think lynching Jinglehell would give us more information. Esspen might very well just be a sloppy player.
But I prefer a Keirathi lynch cause of the scummy behavior and the low attention on him right now.
You prefer a Keirathi lynch over someone you claim to KNOW is scum? Intriguing. This is all sounding increasingly desperate.
I don't know what you don't understand, but let me take a stab at guessing. I'm saying it might have been preferable for him to breadcrumb INSTEAD of straight out roleclaiming, on the chance that he doesn't get lynched, so that our DT stays hidden.
There isl no chance he's detective, I'm ready to bet on my kidney. Why would he be accusing all the people he accused if he could focus on the one he knew to be the scum and make a good case on him. This seems like a very sad fake roleclaim.
On June 29 2012 23:28 BassInSpace wrote: I don't know what you don't understand, but let me take a stab at guessing. I'm saying it might have been preferable for him to breadcrumb INSTEAD of straight out roleclaiming, on the chance that he doesn't get lynched, so that our DT stays hidden.
ok got it now.
Bass you have to read the latest posts and reconsider your position... I have confirmed mine.
On June 29 2012 23:18 JingleHell wrote: So a false roleclaim and a false accusation is your "perfect" proof? Again, an effort to contravene the weight of evidence based on trying to force a reaction.
I suppose, Vivax, that on night 1, you checked every single individual who was going to make a case against you today, and everyone is scum, right?
Tell me, out of your "scumlist" you posted earlier, of
listed in that order, why would you not have listed or weighted the names differently? Why would you discuss lynching for information that you already have and aren't uncomfortable giving out with a roleclaim?
Something doesn't add up here, so I'm going to accuse you of a false roleclaim to get your head off the chopping block.
Jinglehell, the DT is meant to play like a normal town player. He is allowed to have a scumlist, based on relationships he believes exists between players. It can be argued that a relationship exists between Miltonkram, Esspen and yourself, for instance. He doesn't need to check a person before making a case against them. People would then be asking why he is so slow to make cases or confirm his position, and could make others supicious of his true role. Also, the way he formatted the list is something that is trivial at best IMO.
Esspen, same points apply to you. He is allowed to accuse more than one person even though he has a positive check on one. His decision to vote keirathi is strange, I'll admit, and hopefully he can explain it before I sleep. However, I'm still leaving my vote on you jinglehell.
I suppose, Vivax, that on night 1, you checked every single individual who was going to make a case against you today, and everyone is scum, right?
Lol what. I can only check one, and you know it. Also,there was no case against me on night 1. The cases started when I unfolded my suspect list, just that I wasn't sure of Esspen cause he covered you with his vote in the last minute, so I tried to breadcrumb it in a way that town would lynch one of you.
Keirathi was simply the next one to suspect. There are still 2 other mafia besides you, and 4 people left to choose them from my list.
Your behavior proves that you are scum, too.
Something doesn't add up here, so I'm going to accuse you of a false roleclaim to get your head off the chopping block.
If you knew you were townie, you could just stay cool now, since no matter who of us dies today, the other will die too the next day. That's a situation with a guaranteed -1 scum.
I suppose, Vivax, that on night 1, you checked every single individual who was going to make a case against you today, and everyone is scum, right?
Lol what. I can only check one, and you know it. Also,there was no case against me on night 1. The cases started when I unfolded my suspect list, just that I wasn't sure of Esspen cause he covered you with his vote in the last minute, so I tried to breadcrumb it in a way that town would lynch one of you.
Keirathi was simply the next one to suspect. There are still 2 other mafia besides you, and 4 people left to choose them from my list.
Something doesn't add up here, so I'm going to accuse you of a false roleclaim to get your head off the chopping block.
If you knew you were townie, you could just stay cool now, since no matter who of us dies today, the other will die too the next day. That's a situation with a guaranteed -1 scum.
Actually, the cases started BEFORE you unfolded your "suspect list", and I believe they helped shape it, as it's been changing constantly since.
I'm unsure how posting evidence (what I've done) is supposed to make me scum, compared to someone who's entire case is a (fake) roleclaim and a rather weak attempt at bullying the vote.
You aren't answering why you were more interested in lynching Keirathi than me until recently, when you theoretically knew I was scum, and only really had him for lurking. I wouldn't buy that with a coupon and someone else's money.
I've already given you all my clear arguments regarding JingleHell.
And in a game where there are 3 mafia, he goes in for the replacement to only suspect one guy, namely the guy who on the other hand wants to lynch him.
I've been tunneled mercilessly by this guy cause I was about to bring town on the right track to lynch him. There's probably a scum in here who tried to help him dilute my points against Jingle.
Oh, and Esspen came back once I claimed, what a coincidence:
On June 29 2012 23:28 Esspen wrote: There isl no chance he's detective, I'm ready to bet on my kidney. Why would he be accusing all the people he accused if he could focus on the one he knew to be the scum and make a good case on him. This seems like a very sad fake roleclaim.
I'm making the case on him since the beginning of this fucking day, dude.And against you for covering him.
On June 29 2012 23:48 JingleHell wrote: Actually, the cases started BEFORE you unfolded your "suspect list", and I believe they helped shape it, as it's been changing constantly since.
nope.
I suspected the person you replaced to be mafia before night 1, and after night 1, I included Keirathi for his style aswell.
You act as if I should just pursue one case at once like you do when there are three mafia.
If I just breadcrumbed my post to suspect you, that would have made me look like I tunneled you for no reason since we didn't have much information from the guy you replaced at that point. Think I would have had success in getting town to lynch you with such a strat? It would only have worked if I claimed immediately, but I wasn't at danger and had no reason to.
You aren't answering why you were more interested in lynching Keirathi than me until recently, when you theoretically knew I was scum, and only really had him for lurking. I wouldn't buy that with a coupon and someone else's money.
Never been more interested in lynching him. I just found the reasons to add him to my list of suspects. I can place my FoS on multiple people at once.
But I prefer a Keirathi lynch cause of the scummy behavior and the low attention on him right now.
Somehow that's supposed to line up with
Never been more interested in lynching him. I just found the reasons to add him to my list of suspects. I can place my FoS on multiple people at once.
Your inconsistencies have been the primary basis of my case the entire time. And as usual, your tactic is to lie and manipulate, rather than just making a clear case and a clear defense.
You accuse me of tunnel vision, but I've mentioned Esspen's behavior, even suggested a possible explanation for his bizarre vote, and reminded people that while there's a pile of evidence building, we should still remain vigilant for anything. I suppose that's tunnel vision too?
Vivax I'm ready to give you the BOTD and unvote you since I mainly voted you to get because you were really irritated me by wanting to post after feeling threathened, if you can clarify a few things:
On June 27 2012 19:25 Vivax wrote: Esspen voted for hopeless when rofl was set to lynch, as already mentioned.
If one of them is scum, the other most likely is, too. With the current information available, I would go for one of them.
Also remember that posting cases during the night can make you a target for scum. Speaking of it, I think I'm the designed nightkill simply cause noone suspected me yet. Townies who are believed to be townies are dangerous for scum, and I didn't see any blue role vibes for them to use yet, so they don't have many alternatives.
Why are you as a DT asking to be killed? Especially since you didn't breadcrumb anything as insurance?
On June 27 2012 09:00 Vivax wrote: ##unvote ##Vote roflwaffle55
On June 27 2012 09:02 Vivax wrote: Oh god my vote didn't get through in time -.-
And that gives me seeeeeeeeeeeerious doubts about for roleclaim right there.
But I prefer a Keirathi lynch cause of the scummy behavior and the low attention on him right now.
Has anyone seen Keirathi posting in this day? Well he has no reason to, since most of town has never pressured him the slightiest.
That was the whole purpose of lynch all lurkers: Don't let them lurk. Yet they were able to keep lurking cause someone here stirred up a case against me. The whole supposed scumslip by me was the fact that I suspected Jingle and Esspen and wanted to lynch them for information. That's what you build your post up on, and 4 lines:
JingleHell's first post against me contains these accusations (actually they are lines) after he quotes me 4 times to inflate his post, bolded ones are my answers:
1.Note the levels of effort. It's almost like it should be a foregone conclusion who to target. I get criticized for effort. Ridiculous.
2.Pointing out a definition of scummy that suits his agenda of trying to get people targeted. If a last minute vote to protect a lurker against an active poster isn't scummy, then I don't know what definition for scummy you use.Also remember that I almost managed to save the first mislynched townie with my vote, why would I do that as mafia???[/b]
3.Again, targeting specific people based on a policy lynch that actually doesn't favor town very well in the current climate. It's not a policy lynch. I didn't target people day 2 just cause they were lurking, I analyzed their posts.
4.Calling out the scum, but absolutely no interest in him? It's like he wants to look above reproach.
[b]Exactly which post of mine suggests that I have no interest in what I'm targetting?What kind of bad accuse is this?
Aside from your ridiculous arguments in your first case against me, you seem to assume again that I would just blindly pursue you in front of the other townies cause you returned scum.
You should know that I wouldn't have managed to get you lynched if I didn't claim.
On June 30 2012 00:19 BassInSpace wrote: The DT can only make checks at night. That was still during day 1.
What the heck are you talking about. I suspected the guy he replaced to be scum day, so I checked him night 1, and I knew for a fact that he was scum day 2. But people immediately jumped on a bandwagon created by him and others against me.
Also, try to debunk this defense:
Why the hell did I try to get roflwaffle55 lynched instead of a townie? How can scum do this? Why would scum try and stop a townie from getting lynched?Scum managed to get a townie lynched day 1, and I should be scum cause I tried to stop that from happening? Dude, please.
Imagine if I were scum, had switched that vote successfully and hit the said-to-be townie roflwaffle55/JingleHell. I would have been instalynched day 2 for looking like I had protected hopeless from getting lynched. And for what then?He was town anyway.
What the heck are you talking about. I suspected the guy he replaced to be scum day 1, so I checked him night 1, and I knew for a fact that he was scum day 2. But people immediately jumped on a bandwagon created by him and others against me.
Vivax, my post was in reply to this post by JieXian, explaining why it wasn't possible for you to have a scum check on waffles on day 1.
On June 30 2012 00:11 JieXian wrote: Vivax I'm ready to give you the BOTD and unvote you since I mainly voted you to get because you were really irritated me by wanting to post after feeling threathened, if you can clarify a few things:
On June 27 2012 19:25 Vivax wrote: Esspen voted for hopeless when rofl was set to lynch, as already mentioned.
If one of them is scum, the other most likely is, too. With the current information available, I would go for one of them.
Also remember that posting cases during the night can make you a target for scum. Speaking of it, I think I'm the designed nightkill simply cause noone suspected me yet. Townies who are believed to be townies are dangerous for scum, and I didn't see any blue role vibes for them to use yet, so they don't have many alternatives.
Why are you as a DT asking to be killed? Especially since you didn't breadcrumb anything as insurance?
Now decide if you would rather take the risk of lynching me or the guy who initiated all this bandwagon on me.
It's sad however that noone suspected him besides me.
Are you really claiming DT? The only way I'm going to believe a claim like this 100% is if you flip. Though I understand your hand is kind of forced, as you are on the chopping block.
TBH, with the lack of breadcrumbs and play in general, sorry to say but I don't believe it. If you die today, and flip DT, then we can finally have a track to go on.
JingleHell's first post against me contains these accusations (actually they are lines) after he quotes me 4 times to inflate his post, bolded ones are my answers:
1.Note the levels of effort. It's almost like it should be a foregone conclusion who to target. I get criticized for effort. Ridiculous.
2.Pointing out a definition of scummy that suits his agenda of trying to get people targeted. If a last minute vote to protect a lurker against an active poster isn't scummy, then I don't know what definition for scummy you use.Also remember that I almost managed to save the first mislynched townie with my vote, why would I do that as mafia???[/b]
3.Again, targeting specific people based on a policy lynch that actually doesn't favor town very well in the current climate. It's not a policy lynch. I didn't target people day 2 just cause they were lurking, I analyzed their posts.
4.Calling out the scum, but absolutely no interest in him? It's like he wants to look above reproach.
Exactly which post of mine suggests that I have no interest in what I'm targetting?What kind of bad accuse is this?
Aside from your ridiculous arguments in your first case against me, you seem to assume again that I would just blindly pursue you in front of the other townies cause you returned scum.
You should know that I wouldn't have managed to get you lynched if I didn't claim.
You complain about my criticism of your effort, where it was clearly related to individual effort in each of your supposed "cases". Some of them were a single line (something you're trying to accuse me of now), while others were closer to a paragraph.
You seem to consider Esspen's last minute save of [b]me to be scummy, why shouldn't your "attempt" also be scummy?
You claim to be targetting people day2 based on analysis. Shortly after your fake roleclaim. Which is supposed to support a case that's utterly inconsistent with your agenda from the beginning of the day.
And point four, I was talking about you calling out the scum, and them showing no interest in you. Why are you trying to turn that into something so unrelated?
All of your "defense" is based on a rather bad semantics game. And right at the end, you admit that you're only roleclaiming to support your OMGUS case against me.
Do what you want, I'm done explaining. And this game sucks thanks to the inactivity of people who would make a difference, I've played to win but can't be arsed to be posting so much more. For 5 things I write 1 returns.
On June 30 2012 00:44 Vivax wrote: Lol Bio, you would rather lynch someone who claimed DT for information instead of the guy he's accusing?
You don't understand. If you lynch the guy I'm accusing, you know if I spoke the truth and you still have the DT.
If you lynch the DT, you know the guy he accused is scum, but you lost the DT.
Why do you choose the worse option? Both give the same information, but one kills a blue role.
No. You lynch DT's to prove they are DT's. You could just as easily be scum fake roleclaiming to save yourself, and the possibility exists that there isn't actually another DT to counter-claim.
DT's just aren't supposed to be getting targeted this early, so your forced to claim. If you flip Detective, we know that your checks are 100% true. Weather they are accurate or not (Godfather, Miller, ect) is another story.
I trust Vivax' judgement, especially since i've been sure of jingle's (or rather waffle's) scumminess on day 1. I changed my vote to JingleHell, i strongly advise everyone else to do so as well. At this point I'm pretty certain that everyone who votes for Vivax is HIGHLY suspicious (I'm talking 90% scum).
here is my reasoning behind this: If he indeed would be scum, There would be more people making a case for someone else. At this point the only one who IS making a case against someone else is me (and him of course). [this is the weakest point, it gets even better!]
So, if you lynch Vivax now, He might or might not be scum. If he was scum, we have no tells about any other scum whatsoever, and the remaining scum is free to kill whoever makes the most sense. same with him being detective, but even worse, because we lost our detective.
Here's what happens when we lynch JingleHell: If he really is scum (which i deem very likely at this point), we can be pretty sure that Esspen is likely to be scum as well, furthermore the rolecall has been made by Vivax, which means, while we still lose our detective, scum has either to choose between killing off one of the people who really make sense or the detective. Or he might be town, which gives us viable information regarding Vivax as well!
Please people, vote with reason this time, vote for Jingle, let him hang.
So after catching up in the thread, 2 things stick out:
Why would you want to vote me if you're detective and have proof that someone is scum?
and 2, despite that, I actually feel inclined to trust the detective claim. There's really not much point tot he claim at that point if you're getting bandwagoned, because if you're wrong about the scum, then you just get lynched the next day, which doesn't really help the mafia out very much.
Although, you *COULD* be claiming det and giving up a teamate to appear clean for a while until someone else claims det and we are forced to decide who's lying.
On June 30 2012 01:18 Keirathi wrote: So after catching up in the thread, 2 things stick out:
Why would you want to vote me if you're detective and have proof that someone is scum?
and 2, despite that, I actually feel inclined to trust the detective claim. There's really not much point tot he claim at that point if you're getting bandwagoned, because if you're wrong about the scum, then you just get lynched the next day, which doesn't really help the mafia out very much.
Although, you *COULD* be claiming det and giving up a teamate to appear clean for a while until someone else claims det and we are forced to decide who's lying.
Wrong. A mislynch is something that is ALWAYS good for mafia. Why would the scum team settle for just losing one of their own, when they could take a townie with them?
I know the OP says there doesn't necessarily have to be a detective/cop and doctor, but there usually is one of each, right? Or is there always one of each? I feel like people are posting assuming at least one of each exists. Just want a clarification
I'm fine with people lynching me. I've been inactive, I can understand why I would warrant suspicion. I'm just a regular 'ol citizen though, so the loss of me doesn't hurt town too much. At least not as much as the loss of a blue role.
But just think about it for a minute; if Vivax *IS* scum, then why would he put me out there as a target to vote, before he was getting bandwagoned? He would gain more in the *LONG RUN* if he had people at the end of the game that seemed scummier than he did.
Lynch All Lurkers is a town policy. Lynch *NO* Lurkers is a mafia policy.
4) We lynch Jester, hes Mafia. Mafia targets someone else. 1 Mafia down, mild suspicion on Vivax still, at least 1 more night of "investigations".
5) We lynch Jester, hes Mafia. Doc save on Vivax. 1 mafia down, and another night of confirmed investigations.
6) We lynch Jester, hes NOT Mafia. We lynch Vivax tomorrow.
It's pretty easy to see that 4 is our BEST CASE SCENARIO.
You are assuming. Why, in a game where we literally have NO IDEA who is what, what possible roles there are, ect. you are assuming stuff? I really can't believe this. There is only one way to make Vivax's claim true, and that is to flip him.
I honestly can't think of how all these wild assumptions are being made and then taken as true. I'm going to be comparing things I can actually see, which is posts/playstyle in this game.
On June 30 2012 01:36 JingleHell wrote: Vivax thought Keirathi was a better target for a vote than me earlier in the day cycle.
Vivax fakes roleclaim to support an OMGUS against me.
Keirathi jumps in supporting that.
And somehow, according to Vivax, the case against HIM is a bandwagon?
As far as you, this is a contentless post. Tell me why my logic is wrong. Present a case to me.
Don't just accuse me of bandwagoning you. I gave solid evidence and a fully laid out list of why I'm voting for you, yet you did nothing to try to change my mind. Seems like you've already given up.
On June 30 2012 01:36 JingleHell wrote: Vivax thought Keirathi was a better target for a vote than me earlier in the day cycle.
Vivax fakes roleclaim to support an OMGUS against me.
Keirathi jumps in supporting that.
And somehow, according to Vivax, the case against HIM is a bandwagon?
As far as you, this is a contentless post. Tell me why my logic is wrong. Present a case to me.
Don't just accuse me of bandwagoning you. I gave solid evidence and a fully laid out list of why I'm voting for you, yet you did nothing to try to change my mind. Seems like you've already given up.
If it seems I'm resigned to my fate, it's because all of the posts I've already made demonstrating that Vivax is manipulating reactions and emotions to support his OMGUS against me have been utterly ignored, and the bandwagon is being jumped on.
On June 30 2012 01:56 BioSC wrote: You are assuming.
What!?
Are you dense? My list was *EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO THAT CAN HAPPEN* regardless of what roles there are.
Okay, actually I missed a couple of possible scenarios. Vivax could be DT, and there could be no doc. The outcome is basically the same as #3.
The last possible scenario is that Vivax isnt DT *AND* Jingle isn't Mafia. In which case, Vivax is retardedly dumb, and town ends up losing. Now, for obvious reasons, you can see why I didn't list this one. It makes no sense whatsoever.
On June 30 2012 01:56 BioSC wrote: You are assuming.
What!?
Are you dense? My list was *EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO THAT CAN HAPPEN* regardless of what roles there are.
Okay, actually I missed a couple of possible scenarios. Vivax could be DT, and there could be no doc. The outcome is basically the same as #3.
The last possible scenario is that Vivax isnt DT *AND* Jingle isn't Mafia. In which case, Vivax is retardedly dumb, and town ends up losing. Now, for obvious reasons, you can see why I didn't list this one. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Yes. You are making the assumption that Vivax is a DT, and saying its the best path for town. I do not believe Vivax is the DT at all. So how am I dense? You leave out scenarios and call ME dense? Amusing. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it isn't possible.
On June 30 2012 01:56 BioSC wrote: You are assuming.
What!?
Are you dense? My list was *EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO THAT CAN HAPPEN* regardless of what roles there are.
Okay, actually I missed a couple of possible scenarios. Vivax could be DT, and there could be no doc. The outcome is basically the same as #3.
The last possible scenario is that Vivax isnt DT *AND* Jingle isn't Mafia. In which case, Vivax is retardedly dumb, and town ends up losing. Now, for obvious reasons, you can see why I didn't list this one. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Yes. You are making the assumption that Vivax is a DT, and saying its the best path for town. I do not believe Vivax is the DT at all. So how am I dense? You leave out scenarios and call ME dense? Amusing. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it isn't possible.
2) We kill Vivax, he doesnt flip DT. 1 mafia down.
6) We lynch Jingle, hes NOT Mafia. We lynch Vivax tomorrow.
Where did I leave out scenarios where Vivax isn't DT? Thats what those look like to me.
On June 30 2012 01:56 BioSC wrote: You are assuming.
What!?
Are you dense? My list was *EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO THAT CAN HAPPEN* regardless of what roles there are.
Okay, actually I missed a couple of possible scenarios. Vivax could be DT, and there could be no doc. The outcome is basically the same as #3.
The last possible scenario is that Vivax isnt DT *AND* Jingle isn't Mafia. In which case, Vivax is retardedly dumb, and town ends up losing. Now, for obvious reasons, you can see why I didn't list this one. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Yes. You are making the assumption that Vivax is a DT, and saying its the best path for town. I do not believe Vivax is the DT at all. So how am I dense? You leave out scenarios and call ME dense? Amusing. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it isn't possible.
2) We kill Vivax, he doesnt flip DT. 1 mafia down.
6) We lynch Jingle, hes NOT Mafia. We lynch Vivax tomorrow.
Where did I leave out scenarios where Vivax isn't DT? Thats what those look like to me.
Yes, you posted your wonderful list of things that could happen. I'm saying YOU are assuming he's a DT, thus you are saying that the best scenarios involve you taking 100% gospel of Vivax's claim. I don't. Not one bit. Case coming up shortly.
On June 28 2012 20:41 Vivax wrote: If we kill Esspen and he is scum, then JingleHell most likely is scum, too. (For being protected by Esspen against his own beliefs) If we kill Esspen and he is townie, then JingleHell can be anything.
If we kill Jinglehell and he is scum, then Esspen is either scum or a misled townie with confusing playstyle. If we kill Jinglehell and he is town, then Esspen probably isn't scum cause scum would have known Jinglehell (roflwaffle55) was town, and wouldn't have had to vote like that.
And don't forget that my main target is Keirathi cause of his mafiavibes. You're putting words into my mouth saying that I prefer a policy lynch to a scumminess lynch, Jingle. The post I'm quoting myself from proves it, too.
You said this before your claim of DT, but after your check. Why would you be pushing/claiming a main target of Keirathi if you claim to have a red check? Why, as a town aligned DT, would you go after someone you believe to be red, rather than someone a check says is red?
Also:
On June 28 2012 20:45 Vivax wrote: Regarding JingleHell vs Esspen: I think lynching Jinglehell would give us more information. Esspen might very well just be a sloppy player.
But I prefer a Keirathi lynch cause of the scummy behavior and the low attention on him right now.
From even earlier in the day. You are changing your votes based on the person suspecting you to be lying. I honestly can't see why you would suddenly just change your suspicions around until after someone comes swinging at you.
I don't believe your claim. I feel like you are simply claiming just to save your own neck while its on the chopping block. I would rather lynch into you to confirm your role than to suddenly switch votes based on inconsistencies.
On June 30 2012 01:56 BioSC wrote: You are assuming.
What!?
Are you dense? My list was *EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO THAT CAN HAPPEN* regardless of what roles there are.
Okay, actually I missed a couple of possible scenarios. Vivax could be DT, and there could be no doc. The outcome is basically the same as #3.
The last possible scenario is that Vivax isnt DT *AND* Jingle isn't Mafia. In which case, Vivax is retardedly dumb, and town ends up losing. Now, for obvious reasons, you can see why I didn't list this one. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Yes. You are making the assumption that Vivax is a DT, and saying its the best path for town. I do not believe Vivax is the DT at all. So how am I dense? You leave out scenarios and call ME dense? Amusing. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it isn't possible.
2) We kill Vivax, he doesnt flip DT. 1 mafia down.
6) We lynch Jingle, hes NOT Mafia. We lynch Vivax tomorrow.
Where did I leave out scenarios where Vivax isn't DT? Thats what those look like to me.
Yes, you posted your wonderful list of things that could happen. I'm saying YOU are assuming he's a DT, thus you are saying that the best scenarios involve you taking 100% gospel of Vivax's claim. I don't. Not one bit. Case coming up shortly.
The problem I'm seeing is that YOU are assuming that I am assuming he's DT. My only assumption is that town wants to win. The best possible case for town to win is if we ALL assume he's DT (and hope we have a Doc).
And you were right about one thing; I am completely disregarding the scenario where Vivax is not DT but also still town. If you want to believe that, go ahead. I'm going to trust that fellow townies aren't that stupid though.
I don't trust anything. I've seen games where Vanilla Townies Claim Blue roles. Most of the time, they don't work. I'm going off the way he's playing. He didn't breadcrumb his check, he only tells us about it after he has a majority vote on himself, switching targets between you and Jingle... yeah. I don't believe he is blue at all.
On June 30 2012 02:31 BioSC wrote: I would rather lynch into you to confirm your role
So you would rather lose a blue role than keep one? You make no sense and I'm done arguing with you. If other people believe that garbage, then town is doomed and there's very little point to any discussion.
On June 30 2012 02:31 BioSC wrote: I would rather lynch into you to confirm your role
So you would rather lose a blue role than keep one? You make no sense and I'm done arguing with you. If other people believe that garbage, then town is doomed and there's very little point to any discussion.
Same. I fail to see how my argument is "garbage" when I'm not the one taking random claims as true over the way people are actually playing.
From even earlier in the day. You are changing your votes based on the person suspecting you to be lying.
Prove it. I suspected roflwaffle55, the role behind him, before Jingle accused me. Keirathi never suspected me. Esspen never suspected me before I suspected him.
This is also directed to Jingle for saying my case against him is OMGUS. It can't be OMGUS cause I made it before you even started with your 4 lines of proof that I am scum.
I am surprised, Bio, you are going pretty much against common sense. You already managed to get Hopeless killed when I wanted to keep him alive since your case against him was weak, but townies listened to you, and scum helped you.
Now you try to get me lynched instead of the real scum, if we nail Jingle, we will also have information about your alignment cause you also covered Jingle day 1 by pushing hopeless.
If you kill me, you can hide saying you had no reason to believe I might be DT. And you fail to see that it's favorable to kill Jingle first, instead you kill DT's by a matter of principle to check if their claim was right.
The amount of information gained should have precedence before your irrational principles.
If you kill me, you can hide saying you had no reason to believe I might be DT.
This statement literally only makes sense if you're not DT. How else could people hide behind that disbelief? Thank you for admitting you made up the case against me.
If you kill me, you can hide saying you had no reason to believe I might be DT.
This statement literally only makes sense if you're not DT. How else could people hide behind that disbelief? Thank you for admitting you made up the case against me.
Why? He's trying to get me killed cause he doesn't believe I'm the DT. Once I flip , he will exactly say that he didn't believe I was the DT and thus got me lynched. He will just admit to have made a mistake by not believing I'm the DT. He also was the main pusher against the first mislynched townie, and noone can blame him for that mistake, like noone could blaim him if you killed the DT now, that's me. That's what I say with that post: If you kill me, he will be able to wash off guilt, if you kill Jingle, it won't be so easy and you will still have a DT.
Also notice how JingleHell is running out of options, his post become increasingly smaller. His last one revolves around one line he misunderstands.
And if you wonder why a Jingle lynch will tell us more about BioSC than a lynch of me, then guess who the two candidates for the day 1 lynch were: roflwaffle55/jingles and hopeless1der.
Guess who made the case against the townie: BioSC. Who has been covered by letting town believe that case? roflwaffle55/ Jingle. Who went in for the kill?Esspen.
If BioSC is so active now, then cause he'll be in the dirt once Jingle flips scum.
Also notice how JingleHell is running out of options, his post become increasingly smaller. His last one revolves around one line he misunderstands.
I don't misunderstand it at all. If you get lynched and flip DT, anybody who refused to believe you will look like they jumped on your bandwagon to save me. Nobody in their right mind would hide scumminess behind scum behavior.
The only way it could possibly be safe to admit they didn't believe your roleclaim after a lynch on you is if you flip anything other than DT.
I don't call it running out of options. If I go back and reiterate every single point against you, it will look scummy, like I'm trying to confuse the issue with inflated posts. You've already accused me of that once, so make up your mind on which one is bad.
My posts become smaller because there's less I need to say to point out your inconsistencies, because they're coming one at a time now.
On June 30 2012 03:16 Keirathi wrote: The simple fact of the matter is that its better for the town if Jingle flips town than it is for Vivax to flip DT.
Thats really all it comes down to. Simple game mechanics.
This is the problem with your play right now. You've spent so much time out of the thread, you refuse to actually read into players' feeds and make reads off of them. Right now, vivax is lying about being a DT. I know it. He's trying to save himself by pushing the scummiest person from Day 1 after being called out for his play. After he claims DT, you are resorting to mechanics to try and justify his bad play. Look through his filter, and the cases. I don't believe he's a DT at all. How people are buying this claim from a person who was set to die and has this horrible case with suspicions pointed at pretty much everyone is beyond me.
Keirathi, what would a roleclaim by me at this point prove? If people refuse to see my case on it's own merits, and react to a manipulative OMGUS against me, a roleclaim to counter Vivax's or try to make myself seem more valuable than him would easily be turned into a transparent last ditch effort.
No, either take the case I laid out for it's merits, or don't. It's not in my hands at this point, but I hope we can all take a step back, read through filters again, and see what really makes sense, before it's too late.
On June 30 2012 03:08 JingleHell wrote: I don't misunderstand it at all. If you get lynched and flip DT, anybody who refused to believe you will look like they jumped on your bandwagon to save me. Nobody in their right mind would hide scumminess behind scum behavior.
Wait, so first you use that line of mine to say I admitted not to be the DT.
Now you you use that line to say that it will make anyone look guilty who jumped on the bandwagon against me if I flip DT.
I didn't say that anyone jumping on the bandwagon is guilty, in fact, the bandwagon is what protects scum cause they can share responsibility for what happened to the mislynched. You can't share responsibility that easy when you protected someone who flips scum, that's why BioSC will end up in deep if you get lynched and flip red, but he can minimize his responsibility if he kills me.
You JUST made the case that some people aren't OMG SUPER SMART players, then discount the fact that maybe Vivax is one of them, and he's doing the only thing he knows to do to clear himself.
Do I think he is suspicious? Hell yes. Do I think there is a possibility that he's not lying about DT and wants to clear himself? Yes, yes I do.
If there's any possibility that he is actually DT, then lynching him to prove it is just dumb.
On June 30 2012 01:36 NrGmonk wrote: I know the OP says there doesn't necessarily have to be a detective/cop and doctor, but there usually is one of each, right? Or is there always one of each? I feel like people are posting assuming at least one of each exists. Just want a clarification
The possible blue roles in this game are Cop, Medic, Veteran, Jailkeeper, and Vigilante. This is a semi-open setup, that is, exact role counts will not be known, but the possible roles will be known. All roles presented here are not necessarily in the game, but no roles not included here are present.
Ok, I'm catching up on the thread again, but this is really starting to piss me off.
How does anyone have a read on rofls/JingleHell? roflwaffles had to replace himself out, so he really was busy. This is neither evidence for or against JingleHell. The case against him is bullshit. Just calling him how I see it.
The only thing Esspen has been guilty of in my eyes is being a weak/confusing player. In no way does that make him scum, but it does make him a good target for scum to tunnel. That is why Vivax is scummy.
How do people not see that Vivax's "lynching for information" is one of the biggest scumtells in the book? I don't believe his DT claim, not for a second. His play has been incredibly scummy and I will not stop pressuring him until he is lynched.
@ Vivax I was never in the Obs QT. Being a replacement I was not allowed in.
Now decide if you would rather take the risk of lynching me or the guy who initiated all this bandwagon on me.
It's sad however that noone suspected him besides me.
Who's the guy you suspected from day 1? You have FoS for both Esspen and Keirathi.
Btw Esspen just removed his vote off JingleHell, just as he was about to be set to be lynched. This puts a lot of suspicions on Esspen, as he did the exact same thing yesterday and is just generally flimsy. He actually voted for Jingle at 1:36 and then took his vote off Jingle at 2:36.
As of now, with a bit over 2 and a half hours left until the day is up, I'm going to ##vote JingleHell, because of this. Going to be active until one hour from this post, at which time I have to leave. Going to look for more stuff and I'll try to post more soon.
You guys, Vivax's DT claim is one of the scummiest DT claims I've ever seen. He pushes for a Keirathi lynch even when he has a red check on JingleHell. He is scum, and he is obvious scum. If we don't lynch him, it will be one of the worst town plays I've ever seen. He has slipped and it's been obvious. Please, please, please lynch this guy.
On June 30 2012 06:34 Miltonkram wrote: You guys, Vivax's DT claim is one of the scummiest DT claims I've ever seen. He pushes for a Keirathi lynch even when he has a red check on JingleHell. He is scum, and he is obvious scum. If we don't lynch him, it will be one of the worst town plays I've ever seen. He has slipped and it's been obvious. Please, please, please lynch this guy.
Now decide if you would rather take the risk of lynching me or the guy who initiated all this bandwagon on me.
It's sad however that noone suspected him besides me.
Who's the guy you suspected from day 1? You have FoS for both Esspen and Keirathi.
Btw Esspen just removed his vote off JingleHell, just as he was about to be set to be lynched. This puts a lot of suspicions on Esspen, as he did the exact same thing yesterday and is just generally flimsy. He actually voted for Jingle at 1:36 and then took his vote off Jingle at 2:36.
As of now, with a bit over 2 and a half hours left until the day is up, I'm going to ##vote JingleHell, because of this. Going to be active until one hour from this post, at which time I have to leave. Going to look for more stuff and I'll try to post more soon.
Well, the lurker bandwagon seals my fate, without actually looking at the cases. I bet Vivax is laughing about how easily manipulated this town is, all it took was a couple of implied threats and a fake roleclaim.
I agree that Vivax seems quite fishy, but your sudden switch of votes seems even more fishy to me. If you can convince me of a reason you switched voting within the span of one hour, I definitely reconsider my vote.
Also, I rushed to vote for JingleHell to give me options, because if Esspen re-voted Vivax or JingleHell before me, my vote would have essentially not counted.
On June 30 2012 06:38 NrGmonk wrote: I agree that Vivax seems quite fishy, but your sudden switch of votes seems even more fishy to me. If you can convince me of a reason you switched voting within the span of one hour, I definitely reconsider my vote.
I don't understand this logic. Do you really believe right now that Rofl/Jingle is more scummy than Vivax?
Here's why I think JingleHell isn't scum. Roflwaffles was attacked almost entirely for lurking D1. He was actually busy, otherwise he wouldn't have gotten himself replaced. Ever since JingleHell got into the thread he's been posting reads with confidence. He's been contributing. He's been doing everything you could ask of a town player.
We are holding roflwaffles play against JingleHell, even though roflwaffles was definitely busy. This case is complete shit. It holds no water.
I decided to lynch him right before the townie mislynch happened, but it was one minute too late, it even came before the mod's post.
This is also my defense outside of the claim. As scum I would have no reason to do something this risky (if Jingle was town as most believe). I would cause a lynch of just another townie, would get blamed for saving hopeless in the literal last minute, and would have achieved nothing better than the mislynch of hopeless already was.
If people actually thought this far, I wouldn't have had to roleclaim.
On June 30 2012 06:38 NrGmonk wrote: I agree that Vivax seems quite fishy, but your sudden switch of votes seems even more fishy to me. If you can convince me of a reason you switched voting within the span of one hour, I definitely reconsider my vote.
I don't understand this logic. Do you really believe right now that Rofl/Jingle is more scummy than Vivax?
No, but Esspen's behavior is really scummy and the logic I'm going by is that I'm assuming that Esspen switched votes yet again to protect his fellow scum. If i could vote for Esspen right now and that vote would matter, I would do that. Again, my vote is by far not a solid vote and I'm just voting quickyl to insure that I have a voice in this.
Also, if I'm understanding this right, Vivax pointed Keirathi as definite scum. But why did he vote for Jingle? Also, why is Keirathi also voting for Jingle if Vivax accused him of returning scum? Either Vivax is detective or not. I don't see a combination of roles which would make this make sense, unless something is really wrong.
Sorry for the short posts btw. I'm/we're really short on time, and I really want to get quick responses.
On June 29 2012 08:17 Vivax wrote: There is one thing I did that is pretty failsafe proof of my townie status. I'll post it in the second half of day 2.
If you think you are a good townie, then you should have found it already. At least now town will know that there is at least one scum jumping on the bandwagon against me, and scum might even have started it.
Don't understand exactly what you did. Is it the last minute switching of votes on Day 1 or is it something else?
@ NrGmonk He switched his vote right before the lynch. It didn't do anything considering Esspen had voted 7 minutes prior. The fact that he is so self-aware of this "proof" is evidence against him IMO. I think he just wanted to make a bold play as proof of his townieness, but he's not.
@ Vivax I really hope you're scum, because if you really are DT your play has been terrible.
I do not get all this Jingle vs Vivax discussion. Whomever we lynch, the result will be the same in the end. Even if we confirm that Vivax is the DT, he'll be killed during the night immediately.
Ok, so I still don't understand the "failsafe proof of townie status".
Also, I want a good explanation of why Esspen switched last minute.
After reading both Jingle and Vivax's filters, I've found Jingle's points to be much less convoluted and easy to follow, which leads my suspicion a bit off of Jingle and more on Vivax.
Also, I find this segment increasingly hard to believe:
On June 29 2012 23:27 JingleHell wrote: Also, remember this?
On June 28 2012 20:45 Vivax wrote: Regarding JingleHell vs Esspen: I think lynching Jinglehell would give us more information. Esspen might very well just be a sloppy player.
But I prefer a Keirathi lynch cause of the scummy behavior and the low attention on him right now.
You prefer a Keirathi lynch over someone you claim to KNOW is scum? Intriguing. This is all sounding increasingly desperate.
Because of Vivax's confusing and convoluted posts, I was led to believe that Vivax had checked Keirathi and he returned scum. Not gunning for Jingle as much initially after you know he's definite scum seems fishy to me, even if you're trying to hide you're detective.
@ NrGmonk He switched his vote right before the lynch. It didn't do anything considering Esspen had voted 7 minutes prior. The fact that he is so self-aware of this "proof" is evidence against him IMO. I think he just wanted to make a bold play as proof of his townieness, but he's not.
I'm aware of this as well, that his vote switch didn't actually matter and it could very well have been planted "proof".
Because of all these points, I'm leaning towards voting Vivax at the moment, but I'm not going to change my vote until the last minute possible for me to leave my options open.
PS, being staff helps in this game. I can use the "all" function for any thread and I have filters for Jingle even though it's not linked in the front page. ^^
On June 30 2012 06:46 NrGmonk wrote: Also, if I'm understanding this right, Vivax pointed Keirathi as definite scum. But why did he vote for Jingle? Also, why is Keirathi also voting for Jingle if Vivax accused him of returning scum? Either Vivax is detective or not. I don't see a combination of roles which would make this make sense, unless something is really wrong.
Sorry for the short posts btw. I'm/we're really short on time, and I really want to get quick responses.
No, Jingle returned scum to the check, not Keirathi. Keirathi was lurking and playing passively and earned my FoS for it. I have already said that it would have been useless for me to attack Jingle alone at that point. Noone was willing enough to lynch him, so I emphasized the extra gain of information from lynching him over Esspen.
@ Miltonkram
Yeah, I should just have let Jingle get me lynched based off ridiculous claims. That would sure have been the better play from a DT. In my last game the medic got lynched day 1 and he didn't claim. It's stupid to not claim as blue when you're in danger of getting lynched. That I couldn't breadcrumb the results better is due to the fact that Jingle's countercase gained momentum much faster than mine. I had to go for the direct way.
On June 30 2012 07:08 Esspen wrote: I do not get all this Jingle vs Vivax discussion. Whomever we lynch, the result will be the same in the end. Even if we confirm that Vivax is the DT, he'll be killed during the night immediately.
Not unless there's a doctor. This post seems scummy, as it's the only important decision we have to make at the moment, and the discussion in the end will benefit town, so why not discuss it? But then again, it could be bad play.
I'm aware of this as well, that his vote switch didn't actually matter and it could very well have been planted "proof".
I posted before the mod, and you really think mafia would try to ninja the mod post and risk being the next sure lynch if it fails when a mislynch is all you can wish for the moment, when you are scum and don't have to do anything except watching a townie getting killed?
Because of all these points, I'm leaning towards voting Vivax at the moment, but I'm not going to change my vote until the last minute possible for me to leave my options open.
Just don't be late like Vivax last day if you decide to change your mind.
I can't believe so many people bought into the smoke and mirrors.
On June 29 2012 20:58 Vivax wrote: Also, thank you for giving in to the pressure created by my delayed defense. Upon my eventual death you might be the first to land on the chopping block.
Directed at Milton, a threat, not so subtle. "Agree with me or else".
He's made similar attempts to direct people via reactions that way throughout. He hasn't trusted in his innocent motive to shine through his "case". He's shoved his purported innocence down people's throats, even going so far as to make a blatantly false DT claim.
The whole OMGUS against me (he'll say it wasn't, but after I replaced in for an inactive player, I went for him long before he was interested in anything besides lynching Keirathi, even though he claims to have known all along I was scum. Sure.) anyways, the whole OMGUS against me is based on his claimed innocence and the fake roleclaim. If you don't assume he's innocent, and look at the cases side by side, where he's tried to manipulate, I've tried to expose.
I'll be waiting by the tree. Hopefully to see justice done.
I'm aware of this as well, that his vote switch didn't actually matter and it could very well have been planted "proof".
I posted before the mod, and you really think mafia would try to ninja the mod post and risk being the next sure lynch if it fails when a mislynch is all you can wish for the moment, when you are scum and don't have to do anything except watching a townie getting killed?
?? Your vote wouldn't have mattered even if it went through and you know it. Don't even understand the rest of your post.
Another point regarding the version where i bluff-protect hopeless to gain cred:
If I bluff-protected him, then that means I didn't plan on lynching roflwaffle55/JingleHell at that moment. So how do you explain that I try to get him lynched afterwards? Why would I try to lynch the guy I didn't want to be lynched when I bluffed-vote him to gain cred? That would be pointless. And way too risky for a scum player when there's no need to do something like that, but I already mentioned this.
And that is how I debunk this version of events where I voted so late to gain cred.
On June 30 2012 07:08 Esspen wrote: I do not get all this Jingle vs Vivax discussion. Whomever we lynch, the result will be the same in the end. Even if we confirm that Vivax is the DT, he'll be killed during the night immediately.
Thats not necessarily true.
What if there's a doctor and he saved Vivax?
What if we lynch Vivax and hes DT, and then mafia kills another blue role tonight?
There are lots of possibilities where this plays out differently than Jingle and Vivax both dying.
Here's how I see it: There's a small but very real possibility that Vivax is actually DT. He was being put under pressure via votes, so decided to claim his role.. If that's the case, then lynching him to "prove" it hurts town more in the long run. We can always hope for a Doctor, and guarantee some good results.
There's a decent probability that he's Mafia and use the claim to buy himself an extra day. In this case, lynching his target hurts town in the short run, but basically guarantees us a mafia kill tomorrow, and possibly more leads from a real DT.
IMO, its better to take the safe route than to just bet on the fact that he's lying. The opportunity cost is small enough at 10 players that its worth it.
I wasn't aware of the rule where the first to gain a majority is going to be lynched at that point.
The host actually responded to this in the previous page. I have not been taking that into consideration all the time.
I realize that this puts me in a bad spot. I would also understand if you voted for me now that you mentioned it, at least then I can finally lean back and post what I've prepared in case I get lynched.
Let me just tell you one thing: whatever happens, from the kill of either of both of us there's gonna be much information to be gained. And I will be coming up with a huge post right before my death adressing that information, should i finally get lynched.
On June 30 2012 07:27 Keirathi wrote: Here's how I see it: There's a small but very real possibility that Vivax is actually DT. He was being put under pressure via votes, so decided to claim his role.. If that's the case, then lynching him to "prove" it hurts town more in the long run. We can always hope for a Doctor, and guarantee some good results.
There's a decent probability that he's Mafia and use the claim to buy himself an extra day. In this case, lynching his target hurts town in the short run, but basically guarantees us a mafia kill tomorrow, and possibly more leads from a real DT.
IMO, its better to take the safe route than to just bet on the fact that he's lying. The opportunity cost is small enough at 10 players that its worth it.
Small opportunity cost? With three scum, and only 7 of us left, with night kills, there's only 2 mislynches needed to bring our team down to equal with the scum.
Worse, it's plurality, so if the scum vote fast at that point, we lose.
On June 30 2012 07:27 Keirathi wrote: Here's how I see it: There's a small but very real possibility that Vivax is actually DT. He was being put under pressure via votes, so decided to claim his role.. If that's the case, then lynching him to "prove" it hurts town more in the long run. We can always hope for a Doctor, and guarantee some good results.
There's a decent probability that he's Mafia and use the claim to buy himself an extra day. In this case, lynching his target hurts town in the short run, but basically guarantees us a mafia kill tomorrow, and possibly more leads from a real DT.
IMO, its better to take the safe route than to just bet on the fact that he's lying. The opportunity cost is small enough at 10 players that its worth it.
Small opportunity cost? With three scum, and only 7 of us left, with night kills, there's only 2 mislynches needed to bring our team down to equal with the scum.
Worse, it's plurality, so if the scum vote fast at that point, we lose.
On June 30 2012 07:27 Keirathi wrote: Here's how I see it: There's a small but very real possibility that Vivax is actually DT. He was being put under pressure via votes, so decided to claim his role.. If that's the case, then lynching him to "prove" it hurts town more in the long run. We can always hope for a Doctor, and guarantee some good results.
There's a decent probability that he's Mafia and use the claim to buy himself an extra day. In this case, lynching his target hurts town in the short run, but basically guarantees us a mafia kill tomorrow, and possibly more leads from a real DT.
IMO, its better to take the safe route than to just bet on the fact that he's lying. The opportunity cost is small enough at 10 players that its worth it.
Small opportunity cost? With three scum, and only 7 of us left, with night kills, there's only 2 mislynches needed to bring our team down to equal with the scum.
Worse, it's plurality, so if the scum vote fast at that point, we lose.
One scum dies either today or tomorrow.
If a scum dies today, we don't lose a town vote in the process of lynching a scum. If a scum dies tomorrow, we do lose a town vote.
Since the DT claim is easily refuted, and an obvious desperation measure, buying into it makes no sense, so why not just vote based on behavior to begin with, and keep a town vote alive?
Just because it's desperation doesn't necessarily mean he's lying.
Basically it comes down to why he was pressuring my if he knew jingle was scum. It's a valid question, and one I want to know a good answer for. Lynching a lurker to give another night of investigations, while eliminating a possible mafia sort of makes some small amounts of sense, though.
However I'm much more inclined to believe hes just a newbie (this is the newbie mafia after all) and was trying to conceal the fact that he was DT for as long as possible, than I am inclined to lynch a DT claim on day2, no matter how desperate.
Keirathi, the question doesn't come down to "what does town lose if player X is telling the truth." It comes down to who you think is scum. The fact that you acknowledge that there is a decent case against him but you does not reflect well on your alignment. Here is why I'm voting Vivax over JingleHell: Vivax's play has been incredibly scummy, JingleHell's has not. It's that simple.
I really hope for town's sake that I'm wrong and his claim was a last ditch effort at avoiding a lynch, because if he IS the DT, town basically loses the game as soon as the vote goes through.
On June 30 2012 07:59 Miltonkram wrote: Keirathi, the question doesn't come down to "what does town lose if player X is telling the truth." It comes down to who you think is scum. The fact that you acknowledge that there is a decent case against him but you does not reflect well on your alignment. Here is why I'm voting Vivax over JingleHell: Vivax's play has been incredibly scummy, JingleHell's has not. It's that simple.
I 100% disagree. This game is ALL about making careful decisions than win the game in the LONG TERM; fully clearing or condemning someone is much more important than any single days lynch.
Ok, now that I know I'm gonna die, I'm gonna try and drop a huge pack of information and hope that the remaining town manages to hunt down mafia.
First of all, I'm not the DT, I'm Vanilla Townie. Since I knew that Jingle would succeed with his OMGUS case by getting so surprisingly quick backup, probably thanks to mafia, I decided to first delay my defense and see who would support a case against me, while I kept it passive until enough came out of their cover to post.
My motive for lying: I really didn't want to just sit back and get lynched without fighting back, knowing I'm a townie and that I was getting tunneled based on weak claims by someone who I believed to be scum. The momentum on my case made me more suspicious of mafia trying to get me mislynched, and I think the arguments against me before the claim were really, really bad, those were the 4 lines of accuse by Jingle. Once he managed to create a bandwagon with that, I decided to fake claim and manage to get scum lynched.
Enough of the justifications, here's the information I could get from this day and fake-claim story:
First of all, my claim caused a lot of discomfort among scum, all (scum) players have posted in this matter (a real improvement compared to day1), and you have to consider that scum knew I am townie.
So that leads to these different possibilities:
- If mafia knew I was Vanilla townie and knew I was accusing another townie based on a false claim (cause a real DT wouldn't accuse a townie), the only alternative left for them was to believe that I checked the miller and truly was a DT. In this version (unless they assume miller got checked) mafia has to do nothing except bandwagoning and watch two townies get each other lynched. This didn't happen.Scum posted a lot during this day.
- If Jingle was one of mafia and they really believed I was DT, then they wouldn't defend him/accuse me directly. They would bandwagon.
- If mafia knew I wasn't DT cause either
1) JingleHell is actually a godfather and knows that he can't return scum cause of a check. 2) I have been checked by a mafia rolecop during the night.
then all they have to do is get me lynched, show town that I wasn't DT and walk away unharmed.
And I believe this last possibility to be what they are believing and trying. The other two options allow/force mafia to play way more passive.
But once I saw the posts from every player coming up after my claim and case against Jingle, I knew that I hit a weak spot there, there was absolutely noone supporting my case against him, and that meant that scum
1) had no interest in lynching Jingle 2) felt the need to post cause I was threatening one of them. If this situation wasn't hot for scum, they wouldn't have posted and instead would have watched me kill a townie by using a fake roleclaim.
Cause of this I felt I had a confirmation for Jingle's scum status.
Then there is a person who I saw make scumslips (or roleslips). There are two options regarding this person:
- It's either the DT knowing that I'm lying (thing I DON'T believe when looking at his post history and stances regarding me)
- or it's mafia knowing that I'm lying.
That person is BioSC, here are the mentioned slips:
On June 30 2012 02:37 BioSC wrote: I don't trust anything. I've seen games where Vanilla Townies Claim Blue roles. Most of the time, they don't work. I'm going off the way he's playing. He didn't breadcrumb his check, he only tells us about it after he has a majority vote on himself, switching targets between you and Jingle... yeah. I don't believe he is blue at all.
He actually knows what's up (he seems to know my role) and rather mentions that alternative instead of the option that I'm scum trying to evade the lynch.
On June 30 2012 03:29 BioSC wrote: Right now, vivax is lying about being a DT. I know it.
Does it sound like BioSC backs his knowledge with facts visible to townies? He's pretty sure of himself and would even take the risk of losing a DT for the sake of not lynching Jingle.That'd be nuts from a townie not knowing my role. Keirathi has been adressing the issue all the time.
Imagine how much mafia has to lose if Jingle flips red. It will automatically cast suspicion on Milton, Esspen and Bio, and that's also the initial reason I wanted to lynch Jingle even BEFORE he was successful in starting the bandwagon against me.
A jingle lynch would have revealed clues about many different alignments at that point, and it was the only clue I had back then.
Then think about the confirmed townies gained with this: You think mafia would risk their neck by defending a lying townie? Nope. And that's why dNa, BassInSpace and Keirathi can't be mafia. Cause noone with scummy intentions would have attempted to defend me while I was lying. Cause If I got Jingle lynched and he flipped town, then I would have been in deep and the people defending me aswell. Why would scum stop a mislynch to happen in favor of another mislynch when both of them were equally good for mafia?
Conclusion: the mafia is among these: Miltonkram, BioSC, JingleHell, Esspen, NrGMonk. I'm not entirely sure about JieXian, but Id prefer to not include him in the list as of now, I'd still keep an eye on him as townie.
tl;dr:
I almost fooled you all successfully cause I am so sure of Jingle being scum and cause I was set to be lynched and wanted to do some bold stunt. But what you know now is that the people NOT suspecting me can't be scum unless they are so sloppy to defend a townie they know is lying, and that scum's best option was to get me lynched. If they've been so active (the scum players), then cause I was threatening another scum player. If there weren't scum players threatened by a lynch, then the other two scum would have had the option to remain silent and neutral and let the townies kill each other.
I hope this is gonna help town after the second mislynch/fail, sadly I didn't manage to stop the first in time.
Long they argued into through the day. Tempers ran high, and the question was: who was scum? Who should be lynched? How would they stop the mafia? Dusk rapidly approaches, and they new a decision had to be made.
The town had settled between two players, and was trying to determine who to lynch. The townspeople gathered in the square, once more ready for blood, for an end to things, and maybe a beginning to new things. They had chosen who would die, and they had chosen Vivax. "Wait!" he shouted, "I'm the cop!" but they did not listen.
"Wait," he shouted, "I'm a VT!" but it was far too late.
Vivax the Vanilla Townie has been put to death!
Night 1 will end in ~24 hours, on Sunday, Jul 01 12:00am GMT (GMT+00:00), so please remember to send in your night actions to both Kitaman27 and me by then.
On June 29 2012 23:28 Esspen wrote: There isl no chance he's detective, I'm ready to bet on my kidney. Why would he be accusing all the people he accused if he could focus on the one he knew to be the scum and make a good case on him. This seems like a very sad fake roleclaim.
And in the end looks like I was correct... GG Vivax, why fake roleclaim? It just made you even more suspicious...
EBWOP: Gg to Vivax I guess. I just hope you realize that if we did vote Jingle and you were wrong (and you really had no concrete evidence against him, just a hunch), that the game would have been 100% over because of your fake claim. With 10 people, Jingle would have died, then flipped town. Mafia kills a town at night, we lynch you tomorrow, mafia kills another town tomorrow night. That would have put us down to 6 players, with 3 being mafia. Game over.
Since it would be unproductive and silly to even consider discussing suspicions right now, I'd like to just go ahead and mention the elephant in the room, so we can get back to hunting scum sooner.
We all know why Vivax looked like scum. Apparently, in his mind, we're not good enough to understand his reads, so he had to resort to scummy behavior, instead of just working with us and trusting us to do the right thing. So let's have a moment of silence for the dearly departed, and clear the air after that unfortunate mislynch.
I was banking on vivax playing a timid/overly cautious DT only making solid cases after he made checks, hence my vote change despite his qeustionable play. I'm gonna review everything and have jinglehell pushed back to a null read for now despite vivax's last post, since I am not a fan of his focus on hypotheticals.
Ebwop: only wanting to make solid cases on people after he had checked them during nights, hence his apparent inconsistencies before he could actually make said checks. This is why I believed his DT claim. Maybe it's from having played DT in my previous game.
Since this is just a game I'm obliged to acknowledge a posts that really made me laugh after catching up on all the back and forth tension.
On June 29 2012 23:28 Esspen wrote: There isl no chance he's detective, I'm ready to bet on my kidney. Why would he be accusing all the people he accused if he could focus on the one he knew to be the scum and make a good case on him. This seems like a very sad fake roleclaim.
Esspen, is that a common Croation saying or is it just you? That was just hilarious.
On June 30 2012 09:02 Blazinghand wrote: "Wait!" he shouted, "I'm the cop!" but they did not listen.
"Wait," he shouted, "I'm a VT!" but it was far too late.
On June 30 2012 15:32 Keirathi wrote: Maybe a bit premature, but is no-lynch possible in this setup at all? Say we get a unanimous no-lynch vote, can we end the day early?
You may all vote for a no-lynch, but it would still take 48 hours
On June 30 2012 15:32 Keirathi wrote: Maybe a bit premature, but is no-lynch possible in this setup at all? Say we get a unanimous no-lynch vote, can we end the day early?
You may all vote for a no-lynch, but it would still take 48 hours
EBWOP: Not sure if I made that super clear. Town always has better voting odds on days with an odd number of people compared to days with an even number of people.
With 2 minutes left until night ends, I would like to propose a policy for the town to discuss. I'm doing it now because of the fact that it is possible I will be killed tonight, and want to have the chance to express it in the case of that eventuality; my last will and testament of sorts. If I don't die, I am fully willing to explain in more details my plan tomorrow, but I would like to lay out the basics now.
All of this is with the assumption that there isn't a doc save tonight. If there is, then disregard everything I'm saying now, and we can discuss things tomorrow.
1) We no-lynch tomorrow, unless there is very, very, VERY solid evidence against someone. I don't mean hunches. I mean nearly concrete evidence. I listed in my previous post why this is beneficial, and it gives us another night of blue roles, if we have any.
2) Assuming we do no-lynch tomorrow, I propose that on the following night, everyone claims their role (and results, if applicable) absolutely as close as possible to the following night ending, preferably with just minutes or seconds to spare, so we don't give the mafia time to change their kill/role targets.. The following day will be do-or-die, so there's no point in holding back information at that point. We HAVE to get it right.
I hope everyone at least gives my proposal some serious thought and discussion. I 100% believe its the best course of action for the town if we want to have any chance of winning the game.
P.S: If this post is out of line or against the rules, I sincerely apologize. I couldn't find anything against it in the rules post, and I pm'd kitaman but didn't get a response before it was time to post. I saw nRgMonk ask, but no response as well.
On July 01 2012 09:13 Esspen wrote: I'm confused, why would mafia kill somebody we suspected of being mafia? Wtf?
Well, answering that requires that we understand what the scum were thinking. We don't, so all we can do is drive ourselves into a state of paranoia trying to metagame the people who know more than us.
The best thing we can do is try to find the case where Milton being dead is beneficial to the scum. Look at his discussions, look at his thought process, look at other people's thought processes about him. Time to dive into the filters and start trying to piece things together, IMO.
P.S: If this post is out of line or against the rules, I sincerely apologize. I couldn't find anything against it in the rules post, and I pm'd kitaman but didn't get a response before it was time to post. I saw nRgMonk ask, but no response as well.
P.S: If this post is out of line or against the rules, I sincerely apologize. I couldn't find anything against it in the rules post, and I pm'd kitaman but didn't get a response before it was time to post. I saw nRgMonk ask, but no response as well.
You really butchered my name.
Haha, I apologize. I noticed it after I had already posted, but it seems a bit of a waste to double-post just to fix it. It was obvious who I was talking about
Milton calls Keirathi scummy. Which was something Vivax also thought before the OMGUS against me exploded into a rather unfortunate shitstorm. + Show Spoiler +
On June 30 2012 07:59 Miltonkram wrote: Keirathi, the question doesn't come down to "what does town lose if player X is telling the truth." It comes down to who you think is scum. The fact that you acknowledge that there is a decent case against him but you does not reflect well on your alignment. Here is why I'm voting Vivax over JingleHell: Vivax's play has been incredibly scummy, JingleHell's has not. It's that simple.
On June 30 2012 08:02 Miltonkram wrote: EBWOP: "The fact that you acknowledge that there is a decent case against him but you don't vote for him does not reflect well on your alignment."
Keirathi, of course, was right in the thick of a lot of the hot points of that mess, and now he's trying to discuss policy when we're in a world of trouble numerically.
Milton's other suspicion mentioned at one point...
On June 29 2012 10:20 Miltonkram wrote:
What do you think of dNa's reasoning for his Esspen vote? Pretty scummy right?
Bear in mind, even though yesterday went terribly, Milton was one of the few people really trying to consider the cases, and look at alternatives even after it started exploding.
This isn't even a read, this is ONLY Milton's last couple of times saying someone looked scummy, which gives us a place to start looking. After the debacle, I'm going to be as methodical as possible to avoid a town loss because of another OMGUS shouting match.
These are only highlights, please read filters and help with this, the last thing we want is for scum to poke and prod us into a horrid bandwagon.
Keirathi, of course, was right in the thick of a lot of the hot points of that mess, and now he's trying to discuss policy when we're in a world of trouble numerically.
Not sure if you realize it, but my policy discussion was *BECAUSE* of the numerical trouble we are in.
Keirathi, of course, was right in the thick of a lot of the hot points of that mess, and now he's trying to discuss policy when we're in a world of trouble numerically.
Not sure if you realize it, but my policy discussion was *BECAUSE* of the numerical trouble we are in.
I am aware of that. There's a reason I'm trying to advocate caution, because I agree with that much of what you said. I was just giving us a starting point based on the question of why Milton would be the scum's target. It seemed like leaving the extra consideration out wouldn't help, so I made sure to put a heavy disclaimer on my post instead.
The last thing I want is a shouting match again, I just want us to start breaking down posting, working on filters, and "why did Milton die" seemed like a good place to start.
I certainly agree, a shouting match doesn't solve anything.
So, you said you agree with much of what I have said. What specifically do you not agree with?
And to the point of defending myself because Milton pointed a very, very fragile argument towards me: since we now know that Vivax *WAS* town, how was my staunch DEFEND THE DT stance anti-town at all, even if he wasn't DT in the end? I still fully stand by my actions; taking a chance on lynching the DT, no matter how small, is silly.
And for more defense, lets assume that I am mafia for one moment. Why would I, BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE, lobby for a no-lynch policy for today? It's an extremely pro-town stance to take; a no-lynch doesn't benefit Mafia in any way whatsoever, and in every possible situation, its actually a bad thing for them. Higher odds that one of them gets lynched and all. Agreeing with the proposal after-the-fact is one thing; you can't really afford ti disagree with it if people in the town feel its the right decision, but to flat out propose it during the night before any discussion has taken place would be flat out idiotic. Not to mention, the call for last minute role-claims tonight hurts mafia too, because assuming everyone complies, they *WILL* be forced into lying. They will have to make up evidence to support there claims, and dismiss evidence of other people's claims. Much more liable to slip up when you have to lie.
On July 01 2012 09:53 Keirathi wrote: I certainly agree, a shouting match doesn't solve anything.
So, you said you agree with much of what I have said. What specifically do you not agree with?
And to the point of defending myself because Milton pointed a very, very fragile argument towards me: since we now know that Vivax *WAS* town, how was my staunch DEFEND THE DT stance anti-town at all, even if he wasn't DT in the end? I still fully stand by my actions; taking a chance on lynching the DT, no matter how small, is silly.
And for more defense, lets assume that I am mafia for one moment. Why would I, BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE, lobby for a no-lynch policy for today? It's an extremely pro-town stance to take; a no-lynch doesn't benefit Mafia in any way whatsoever, and in every possible situation, its actually a bad thing for them. Higher odds that one of them gets lynched and all. Agreeing with the proposal after-the-fact is one thing; you can't really afford ti disagree with it if people in the town feel its the right decision, but to flat out propose it during the night before any discussion has taken place would be flat out idiotic. Not to mention, the call for last minute role-claims tonight hurts mafia too, because assuming everyone complies, they *WILL* be forced into lying. They will have to make up evidence to support there claims, and dismiss evidence of other people's claims. Much more liable to slip up when you have to lie.
My biggest concern is that discussing policy may well be what tips us into the point where we don't have time to hunt scum. I'm not entirely against a no-lynch, in fact, I prefer it if it's the best option, I just feel we're really running far too late to take that sort of risk. It's entirely in what-if land, and assumes scum don't have any scum-vigi holding a shot.
As for how Vivax flipped, yes, that was unfortunate, but it really has no bearing on the actual cases involved. Like I said, I'm not accusing you, not right now, likely not at all. I just thought those things were at least worth mentioning, and since Milton pointed that admittedly light finger at you, it would have been strange not to mention them as well, for things to look at while digging through filters.
Frankly, though, I think I may be looking too much at the small picture now, though. Can we find anything Milton and Release had in common? The two night shots?
On July 01 2012 10:00 JingleHell wrote: I'm not entirely against a no-lynch, in fact, I prefer it if it's the best option, I just feel we're really running far too late to take that sort of risk. It's entirely in what-if land, and assumes scum don't have any scum-vigi holding a shot.
There is no mafia extra shot role. The only possibility for losing tonight if we no-lynch is if we have another town vigi and he shoots a townie. I would certainly hope that wouldn't happen though.
On July 01 2012 10:00 JingleHell wrote: I'm not entirely against a no-lynch, in fact, I prefer it if it's the best option, I just feel we're really running far too late to take that sort of risk. It's entirely in what-if land, and assumes scum don't have any scum-vigi holding a shot.
There is no mafia extra shot role. The only possibility for losing tonight if we no-lynch is if we have another town vigi and he shoots a townie. I would certainly hope that wouldn't happen though.
Oh, damn, I should have read through the list of available scum roles more carefully.
I'd still rather dig through and find something, though, than discuss policy. Can we at least agree to disagree on that, and I'll promise not to point a finger if someone else wants to discuss it with you later and you talk about it with them? At least in the absence of an abundance of other reasons to suspect you?
So, back on track, can you think of a possible link between Milton and Release?
Or, maybe we're supposed to get confused about something like that. Maybe that's what we're supposed to do. That's the problem with the metagame. Regardless, since you're here and open to hunting, can you think of anything?
While I agree that we have to find some credible evidence to decide on who to lynch eventually, it's pretty counter-productive to discuss it today if we do decide to no-lynch. If we have even the slightest evidence against someone, and lay it out, then decide to no-lynch and they are in fact town, then there is virtually 0% chance that the mafia night-kills that person, which just leads to more suspicion towards them the next day, giving mafia a stronger case to get them lynched and win the game. No-lynching gives us one less person to have to try to build a case against.
Like I said, its not that I don't agree with you, its just that no-lynching is our best solution, and until it happens, any information we disclose can give mafia ammunition to use during the next day.
FoS: Esspen On both nights of votes, Esspen switched to the guy we eventually lynched who turned out to be a townie. On both nights, he switched from roflwaffles55/JingleHell(same person) to that townie. On both nights, he switched when he was the deciding vote and extremely late into the game. Other suspicious comments:
There isl no chance he's detective, I'm ready to bet on my kidney. Why would he be accusing all the people he accused if he could focus on the one he knew to be the scum and make a good case on him. This seems like a very sad fake roleclaim.
I do not get all this Jingle vs Vivax discussion. Whomever we lynch, the result will be the same in the end. Even if we confirm that Vivax is the DT, he'll be killed during the night immediately.
In addition, Esspen was on Vivax's short list of people he narrowed down mafia to be in.
Of course, also FoS: JingleHell. If Esspen is indeed mafia, then my argument makes perfect sense that he's been trying to protect JingleHell.
Also, if Esspen is mafia, then BioSC probably isn't mafia, because of how rather adamantly Esspen tried to go after BioSC at the beginning of the game(check his filter)
Also, I suggest we pay close attention to Vivax's list that he left us. Vivax lost his life to give us his last testament, part of which is the list of people he suspects to be mafia. We know that Vivax is telling the truth, because we know his role, and we know that he tried rather hard to provide us with this information. I find it suspicious that no one has yet mentioned much about it, probably because mafia are trying to discredit it. The list is as follows:
Conclusion: the mafia is among these: Miltonkram, BioSC, JingleHell, Esspen, NrGMonk. I'm not entirely sure about JieXian, but Id prefer to not include him in the list as of now, I'd still keep an eye on him as townie.
So with Miltonkram eliminated, the list boils down to the following, from my perspective:
Esspen-I suggest lynching this guy first and if he's mafia my whole argument falls into place.
JingleHell-The guy Esspen's been trying to protect.
BioSC-Esspen's antagonized him at the start of the game, so if you buy my argument, he's probably not mafia.
NrGmonk-this is me, but I don't mind being suspected as of now, as according to Vivax and my analysis combined, I'm most probably the 3rd mafia member from an outside perspective if you buy both our arguments.
JieXian-another maybe, possibly the 3rd mafia if you believe Esspen/Jingle to be mafia and not me
Of course there still might be people on mafia not on Vivax's list. I'm going to go through Vivax's argument in depth and check all the filters of people he suspects in the near future. I suggest all townies do the same.
My initial gut impression on Miltonkram's lynching is that mafia wants to throw us off the trail, discrediting Vivax's list and forcing us to discuss something rather irrelavent. If they lynched someone not on the list, it would further reinforce the credibility of the list.
I'm going to let my defense stand as it already is, for now.
As a short recap: I can't help what rofl did or did not do, but the majority of the case against him was lurking, which I have not done.
The Vivax vs myself situation could have potentially been resolved much differently had he not OMGUS'd and then faked a roleclaim to try and force his assumption (based mostly on rofl's lurking) down all our throats.
As for Esspen, he could easily be scum seeing towny vs towny mislynch scenarios trying to set things up to force a third mislynch, via suspicious behavior.
I did ask if anyone wanted to discuss this during the night, I assume nobody really got in on that out of some sort of fear it was a scum ploy, which I suppose I should have considered, but I actually just wanted to get it out of the way ASAP, so we wouldn't waste time on it today.
On July 01 2012 02:32 Keirathi wrote: Because with 8 players left, if we mislynch, the game is over, barring a doc save (which we don't even know if we have a doc).
8 people left: if we lynch a townie (5/8 chance), then mafia kills a townie, that leaves us at 6 people with 3 mafia. Game over.
If we no-lynch at 8 players: mafia kills an extra townie, but we are at 7 players now. 3/7 chance to get mafia, rather than 3/8.
Let me point out some glaring flaws in your idealised assumption.
Firstly, you're correct. But you were wrong in leaving out a few facts:
You do know that at 7 players every single townie needs to be on the same page to win?
Thats a really huge risk you left out from your analysis, just like your arguement for Vivax. You're presenting a situation while hiding some facts.
ATM I have very little confidence that all townie can be on the same page. I wonder why you do.
On July 01 2012 09:53 Keirathi wrote: I certainly agree, a shouting match doesn't solve anything.
So, you said you agree with much of what I have said. What specifically do you not agree with?
And to the point of defending myself because Milton pointed a very, very fragile argument towards me: since we now know that Vivax *WAS* town, how was my staunch DEFEND THE DT stance anti-town at all, even if he wasn't DT in the end? I still fully stand by my actions; taking a chance on lynching the DT, no matter how small, is silly.
And for more defense, lets assume that I am mafia for one moment. Why would I, BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE, lobby for a no-lynch policy for today? It's an extremely pro-town stance to take; a no-lynch doesn't benefit Mafia in any way whatsoever, and in every possible situation, its actually a bad thing for them. Higher odds that one of them gets lynched and all. Agreeing with the proposal after-the-fact is one thing; you can't really afford ti disagree with it if people in the town feel its the right decision, but to flat out propose it during the night before any discussion has taken place would be flat out idiotic. Not to mention, the call for last minute role-claims tonight hurts mafia too, because assuming everyone complies, they *WILL* be forced into lying. They will have to make up evidence to support there claims, and dismiss evidence of other people's claims. Much more liable to slip up when you have to lie.
If higher odds are so good why wouldn't a 3-3 be a better situation since it's 50%?
Because it means you have no power in the voting. That' why 3-9 is better than 3-8.
On July 01 2012 09:53 Keirathi wrote: I certainly agree, a shouting match doesn't solve anything.
So, you said you agree with much of what I have said. What specifically do you not agree with?
And to the point of defending myself because Milton pointed a very, very fragile argument towards me: since we now know that Vivax *WAS* town, how was my staunch DEFEND THE DT stance anti-town at all, even if he wasn't DT in the end? I still fully stand by my actions; taking a chance on lynching the DT, no matter how small, is silly.
And for more defense, lets assume that I am mafia for one moment. Why would I, BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE, lobby for a no-lynch policy for today? It's an extremely pro-town stance to take; a no-lynch doesn't benefit Mafia in any way whatsoever, and in every possible situation, its actually a bad thing for them. Higher odds that one of them gets lynched and all. Agreeing with the proposal after-the-fact is one thing; you can't really afford ti disagree with it if people in the town feel its the right decision, but to flat out propose it during the night before any discussion has taken place would be flat out idiotic. Not to mention, the call for last minute role-claims tonight hurts mafia too, because assuming everyone complies, they *WILL* be forced into lying. They will have to make up evidence to support there claims, and dismiss evidence of other people's claims. Much more liable to slip up when you have to lie.
On July 01 2012 09:53 Keirathi wrote: I certainly agree, a shouting match doesn't solve anything.
So, you said you agree with much of what I have said. What specifically do you not agree with?
And to the point of defending myself because Milton pointed a very, very fragile argument towards me: since we now know that Vivax *WAS* town, how was my staunch DEFEND THE DT stance anti-town at all, even if he wasn't DT in the end? I still fully stand by my actions; taking a chance on lynching the DT, no matter how small, is silly.
And for more defense, lets assume that I am mafia for one moment. Why would I, BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE, lobby for a no-lynch policy for today? It's an extremely pro-town stance to take; a no-lynch doesn't benefit Mafia in any way whatsoever, and in every possible situation, its actually a bad thing for them. Higher odds that one of them gets lynched and all. Agreeing with the proposal after-the-fact is one thing; you can't really afford ti disagree with it if people in the town feel its the right decision, but to flat out propose it during the night before any discussion has taken place would be flat out idiotic. Not to mention, the call for last minute role-claims tonight hurts mafia too, because assuming everyone complies, they *WILL* be forced into lying. They will have to make up evidence to support there claims, and dismiss evidence of other people's claims. Much more liable to slip up when you have to lie.
If higher odds are so good why wouldn't a 3-3 be a better situation since it's 50%?
Because it means you have no power in the voting. That' why 3-9 is better than 3-8.
About roleclaiming, it sounds good.
3-3 is game over. Theres no possible way for town to win. I dunno if the rules specifically state that mafia has to OUTNUMBER the town to win, but since we're using priority voting, it works out to the same thing.
On the day that its 3-3, the 3 mafia just agree to fast vote someone as soon as the day starts, and since their 3 votes happened first, they have priority. Even if the 3 town consensus to vote on one of the mafia, its too late.
On July 01 2012 09:53 Keirathi wrote: I certainly agree, a shouting match doesn't solve anything.
So, you said you agree with much of what I have said. What specifically do you not agree with?
And to the point of defending myself because Milton pointed a very, very fragile argument towards me: since we now know that Vivax *WAS* town, how was my staunch DEFEND THE DT stance anti-town at all, even if he wasn't DT in the end? I still fully stand by my actions; taking a chance on lynching the DT, no matter how small, is silly.
And for more defense, lets assume that I am mafia for one moment. Why would I, BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE, lobby for a no-lynch policy for today? It's an extremely pro-town stance to take; a no-lynch doesn't benefit Mafia in any way whatsoever, and in every possible situation, its actually a bad thing for them. Higher odds that one of them gets lynched and all. Agreeing with the proposal after-the-fact is one thing; you can't really afford ti disagree with it if people in the town feel its the right decision, but to flat out propose it during the night before any discussion has taken place would be flat out idiotic. Not to mention, the call for last minute role-claims tonight hurts mafia too, because assuming everyone complies, they *WILL* be forced into lying. They will have to make up evidence to support there claims, and dismiss evidence of other people's claims. Much more liable to slip up when you have to lie.
I'm going to have to FOS Keraithi for that.
Also I'm not really sure why the statement you bolded initiated a FoS. If you can tell me how lobbying for no-lynch is anti-town, then please do.
On July 01 2012 02:32 Keirathi wrote: Because with 8 players left, if we mislynch, the game is over, barring a doc save (which we don't even know if we have a doc).
8 people left: if we lynch a townie (5/8 chance), then mafia kills a townie, that leaves us at 6 people with 3 mafia. Game over.
If we no-lynch at 8 players: mafia kills an extra townie, but we are at 7 players now. 3/7 chance to get mafia, rather than 3/8.
Let me point out some glaring flaws in your idealised assumption.
Firstly, you're correct. But you were wrong in leaving out a few facts:
You do know that at 7 players every single townie needs to be on the same page to win?
Thats a really huge risk you left out from your analysis, just like your arguement for Vivax. You're presenting a situation while hiding some facts.
ATM I have very little confidence that all townie can be on the same page. I wonder why you do.
I guess I could have combined these all into 1 post, I apologize.
Anyways, 4 townies have to be on the same page in either situation. It's basically one extra night of possible blue roles vs arguing today over who to lynch and then voting with lesser odds.
On July 01 2012 02:32 Keirathi wrote: Because with 8 players left, if we mislynch, the game is over, barring a doc save (which we don't even know if we have a doc).
8 people left: if we lynch a townie (5/8 chance), then mafia kills a townie, that leaves us at 6 people with 3 mafia. Game over.
If we no-lynch at 8 players: mafia kills an extra townie, but we are at 7 players now. 3/7 chance to get mafia, rather than 3/8.
Let me point out some glaring flaws in your idealised assumption.
Firstly, you're correct. But you were wrong in leaving out a few facts:
You do know that at 7 players every single townie needs to be on the same page to win?
Thats a really huge risk you left out from your analysis, just like your arguement for Vivax. You're presenting a situation while hiding some facts.
ATM I have very little confidence that all townie can be on the same page. I wonder why you do.
I guess I could have combined these all into 1 post, I apologize.
Anyways, 4 townies have to be on the same page in either situation. It's basically one extra night of possible blue roles vs arguing today over who to lynch and then voting with lesser odds.
No no no >_> once again you seem to keep leaving out things. Yes, 4 townies need to be together in either situation. However today 80% need to be on the same page (with better timing) as opposed to 100% tomorrow. Your idealised situation is only optimal if you already have a 4 townie alliance.
It's an extremely pro-town stance to take; a no-lynch doesn't benefit Mafia in any way whatsoever, and in every possible situation,
I'm arguing that this statement is not true. Mafia does have something to gain as I explained above, hence I question "extreme pro-townness".
On the other hand, what would you expect from a roleclaim? (this isn't an attack) I'd assume mafia will claim VT and blues can be excluded from being targets. I don't get how you can "catch people lying".
On July 01 2012 02:32 Keirathi wrote: Because with 8 players left, if we mislynch, the game is over, barring a doc save (which we don't even know if we have a doc).
8 people left: if we lynch a townie (5/8 chance), then mafia kills a townie, that leaves us at 6 people with 3 mafia. Game over.
If we no-lynch at 8 players: mafia kills an extra townie, but we are at 7 players now. 3/7 chance to get mafia, rather than 3/8.
Let me point out some glaring flaws in your idealised assumption.
Firstly, you're correct. But you were wrong in leaving out a few facts:
You do know that at 7 players every single townie needs to be on the same page to win?
Thats a really huge risk you left out from your analysis, just like your arguement for Vivax. You're presenting a situation while hiding some facts.
ATM I have very little confidence that all townie can be on the same page. I wonder why you do.
I guess I could have combined these all into 1 post, I apologize.
Anyways, 4 townies have to be on the same page in either situation. It's basically one extra night of possible blue roles vs arguing today over who to lynch and then voting with lesser odds.
No no no >_> once again you seem to keep leaving out things. Yes, 4 townies need to be together in either situation. However today 80% need to be on the same page (with better timing) as opposed to 100% tomorrow. Your idealised situation is only optimal if you already have a 4 townie alliance.
It's an extremely pro-town stance to take; a no-lynch doesn't benefit Mafia in any way whatsoever, and in every possible situation,
I'm arguing that this statement is not true. Mafia does have something to gain as I explained above, hence I question "extreme pro-townness".
On the other hand, what would you expect from a roleclaim? (this isn't an attack) I'd assume mafia will claim VT and blues can be excluded from being targets. I don't get how you can "catch people lying".
Sorry about this, but I think I'm going to sleep before I reply. I wrote up a long post, but it felt like I was just rambling without getting my point across and repeatedly losing my train of thought. I'll discuss more in the morning.
after 2 mislynches, mainly because of him, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that he is scum. Additionally he has a ton of scummy behaviour apart from those last minute votes.
On July 01 2012 09:13 Esspen wrote: I'm confused, why would mafia kill somebody we suspected of being mafia? Wtf?
Well, answering that requires that we understand what the scum were thinking. We don't, so all we can do is drive ourselves into a state of paranoia trying to metagame the people who know more than us.
The best thing we can do is try to find the case where Milton being dead is beneficial to the scum. Look at his discussions, look at his thought process, look at other people's thought processes about him. Time to dive into the filters and start trying to piece things together, IMO.
On July 01 2012 09:30 JingleHell wrote: Milton calls Keirathi scummy. Which was something Vivax also thought before the OMGUS against me exploded into a rather unfortunate shitstorm. + Show Spoiler +
On June 30 2012 07:59 Miltonkram wrote: Keirathi, the question doesn't come down to "what does town lose if player X is telling the truth." It comes down to who you think is scum. The fact that you acknowledge that there is a decent case against him but you does not reflect well on your alignment. Here is why I'm voting Vivax over JingleHell: Vivax's play has been incredibly scummy, JingleHell's has not. It's that simple.
On June 30 2012 08:02 Miltonkram wrote: EBWOP: "The fact that you acknowledge that there is a decent case against him but you don't vote for him does not reflect well on your alignment."
Keirathi, of course, was right in the thick of a lot of the hot points of that mess, and now he's trying to discuss policy when we're in a world of trouble numerically.
Milton's other suspicion mentioned at one point...
What do you think of dNa's reasoning for his Esspen vote? Pretty scummy right?
Bear in mind, even though yesterday went terribly, Milton was one of the few people really trying to consider the cases, and look at alternatives even after it started exploding.
This isn't even a read, this is ONLY Milton's last couple of times saying someone looked scummy, which gives us a place to start looking. After the debacle, I'm going to be as methodical as possible to avoid a town loss because of another OMGUS shouting match.
These are only highlights, please read filters and help with this, the last thing we want is for scum to poke and prod us into a horrid bandwagon.
JingleHell, I feel like your second post is doing exactly what you cautioned against in your first post: metagaming the people who know more than us. Besides, I don't think Milton's point against keirathi holds any weight anymore, considering how Vivax flipped.
On July 01 2012 10:22 Keirathi wrote: While I agree that we have to find some credible evidence to decide on who to lynch eventually, it's pretty counter-productive to discuss it today if we do decide to no-lynch. If we have even the slightest evidence against someone, and lay it out, then decide to no-lynch and they are in fact town, then there is virtually 0% chance that the mafia night-kills that person, which just leads to more suspicion towards them the next day, giving mafia a stronger case to get them lynched and win the game. No-lynching gives us one less person to have to try to build a case against.
Like I said, its not that I don't agree with you, its just that no-lynching is our best solution, and until it happens, any information we disclose can give mafia ammunition to use during the next day.
This might be true if it wasn't for one factor: Esspen. There is already evidence against him (and 2 votes currently against him from NrGmonk and dNa). We have to come to a consensus regarding him as soon as possible. He has been suspected the entire game so far and with good reason. If we decide on a no lynch, people will still be arguing about him the next day and mafia knows it. As you said, they won't shoot him; he's too valuable an asset for them if he's town (granted at this point even if he is mafia, he could still be considered an asset, just look at how many cases have been made against him or revolve around him, and he is STILL alive with no mafia lynched). If you want to no lynch, this point, combined with JieXian's points, must be considered.
I also feel we are wasting our nights because we are too afraid of posting some revolutionary new idea or case that will get us shot. If it is posted and gains enough momentum during the night with enough people agreeing, I don't see why mafia would choose to shoot that person over any other player who agreed. This no lynch is something that we could definitely have discussed in the night. Keirathi, you could've posted your no lynch idea earlier in the night for others to discuss. Had we reached a consensus before the day started, I see no reason for mafia to target you over any other player. Even if we did not reach a consensus during the night, your idea and posts during the night would still have been there for us to reflect on while discussing a no lynch.
Anyway, I am opposed to a no lynch for the above mentioned reasons for now, and am very likely to vote for Esspen.
On July 01 2012 20:31 Esspen wrote: I agree with all of you!
Uhm, half of what you're blindly posting nonsense to agree with is accusations against you. You might want to read through them and start considering some sort of actual defense. ##Vote Esspen
On July 01 2012 09:13 Esspen wrote: I'm confused, why would mafia kill somebody we suspected of being mafia? Wtf?
Well, answering that requires that we understand what the scum were thinking. We don't, so all we can do is drive ourselves into a state of paranoia trying to metagame the people who know more than us.
The best thing we can do is try to find the case where Milton being dead is beneficial to the scum. Look at his discussions, look at his thought process, look at other people's thought processes about him. Time to dive into the filters and start trying to piece things together, IMO.
On July 01 2012 09:30 JingleHell wrote: Milton calls Keirathi scummy. Which was something Vivax also thought before the OMGUS against me exploded into a rather unfortunate shitstorm. + Show Spoiler +
On June 30 2012 07:59 Miltonkram wrote: Keirathi, the question doesn't come down to "what does town lose if player X is telling the truth." It comes down to who you think is scum. The fact that you acknowledge that there is a decent case against him but you does not reflect well on your alignment. Here is why I'm voting Vivax over JingleHell: Vivax's play has been incredibly scummy, JingleHell's has not. It's that simple.
On June 30 2012 08:02 Miltonkram wrote: EBWOP: "The fact that you acknowledge that there is a decent case against him but you don't vote for him does not reflect well on your alignment."
Keirathi, of course, was right in the thick of a lot of the hot points of that mess, and now he's trying to discuss policy when we're in a world of trouble numerically.
Milton's other suspicion mentioned at one point...
What do you think of dNa's reasoning for his Esspen vote? Pretty scummy right?
Bear in mind, even though yesterday went terribly, Milton was one of the few people really trying to consider the cases, and look at alternatives even after it started exploding.
This isn't even a read, this is ONLY Milton's last couple of times saying someone looked scummy, which gives us a place to start looking. After the debacle, I'm going to be as methodical as possible to avoid a town loss because of another OMGUS shouting match.
These are only highlights, please read filters and help with this, the last thing we want is for scum to poke and prod us into a horrid bandwagon.
JingleHell, I feel like your second post is doing exactly what you cautioned against in your first post: metagaming the people who know more than us. Besides, I don't think Milton's point against keirathi holds any weight anymore, considering how Vivax flipped.
Here's what got me considering that sidetrack. In retrospect, it feels like a rather obvious false trail. No contribution to the point he's bringing up, but it could easily be encouraged into tons and tons of finger pointing in every direction. Hell, it almost worked.
On July 01 2012 09:13 Esspen wrote: I'm confused, why would mafia kill somebody we suspected of being mafia? Wtf?
It seems that everyone is against the no-lynch then role-claim idea. I really don't understand, but whatever. I'm not going to keep defending the idea over and over and over again.
I just want to make this clear before I move on. The entire idea was because INFORMATION beats HUNCHES every time. If we do have a Cop, or a doc saves someone, or a Veteran gets shot, those are people WE CAN CLEAR. We CANNOT mislynch again. It is game over if we do. The odds are more favorable at 7 people than 8. Thats really all I'm going to say about it. If you can't see the merits of my proposal, then talking it to death is just wasting time.
So, first things first: Lets take a look at the votes for the first 2 days:
Votes for JingleHell Unconfirmed: BassInSpace - Unconfirmed Vivax - Townie dNa - Unconfirmed Keirathi - Unconfirmed
The repeat votes on the mislynches go to BioSC, rofl/JingleHell, and Esspen. Turns out all of them were in Vivax's list, but I'm not really sure how much stock we can put into that. It does seem fishy that rofl/Jingle had a large number of votes both days, and got out of it with an Esspen vote change. However, Jingle has his vote on Esspen right now. Has the mafia decided to give up one of their own already? Or is it possible that Esspen is just playing badly and mafia sees a chance to railroad him?
I assume, based on roleclaims, which we've already seen a demonstration of helping us oh so much, that we're supposed to somehow have more information? We're still going to come down to "Who trusts who" and "Who believes what", but in the meantime, at that point, we're still down a town vote when we get down to it. While I'm not entirely against a no-lynch, I don't think we're in a situation where it contributes much, if anything.
I'm not voting for Esspen based on some sort of scum ulterior motive, like you seem to be suggesting. My vote on Esspen comes from generally scummy behavior, and the fact that twice now, he's vote-switched at the last minute to set up the only living person I know is town.
Granted, I can't prove my innocence in any foolproof way. The best I can do is ask that you please give a read on me that doesn't involve rofls, or Esspen, and treat those as "potential additional weight", rather than the basis for a case. I've already explained the best rationale I can think of for Esspen's switch.
While I understand why I'm under scrutiny at this point, all I ask is that we have more reasoning behind any votes against me than there were supporting yesterdays catastrophe of an OMGUS.
On July 02 2012 02:18 Keirathi wrote: The repeat votes on the mislynches go to BioSC, rofl/JingleHell, and Esspen. Turns out all of them were in Vivax's list, but I'm not really sure how much stock we can put into that. It does seem fishy that rofl/Jingle had a large number of votes both days, and got out of it with an Esspen vote change. However, Jingle has his vote on Esspen right now. Has the mafia decided to give up one of their own already? Or is it possible that Esspen is just playing badly and mafia sees a chance to railroad him?
Keiraithi.. kei kei keirathiiiii... his list was made up of people who voted against him .. .... .... .. ... .... .. >_>
1 thing i don't understand. Why the hell are so many people using Vivax's list as a starting point? Just post proper reasonings. I already wrote so much on Esspen so I don't feel like regurgitating everything out again.
Keirathi, I think now the evidence against Esspen is indisputable and "concrete", with quotes like:
On June 29 2012 23:28 Esspen wrote: There isl no chance he's detective, I'm ready to bet on my kidney. Why would he be accusing all the people he accused if he could focus on the one he knew to be the scum and make a good case on him. This seems like a very sad fake roleclaim.
On June 30 2012 07:08 Esspen wrote: I do not get all this Jingle vs Vivax discussion. Whomever we lynch, the result will be the same in the end. Even if we confirm that Vivax is the DT, he'll be killed during the night immediately.
On July 01 2012 09:13 Esspen wrote: I'm confused, why would mafia kill somebody we suspected of being mafia? Wtf?
meant to throw us off
On July 01 2012 20:31 Esspen wrote: I agree with all of you!
He's basically giving up here, agreeing with all our accusations against him. If he were townie and he said this, he would basically be breaking the rules of the game, which would be trying to win. Suiciding as townie is definitely not trying to win. Because evidence against Esspen is so damning, it would be foolish for even mafia to vote against Esspen, as that would be a clear scum tell. We should also not waste too much time arguing about Esspen and move onto other suspicious activity, deciding who is the next best person to lynch on the next day.
On July 02 2012 03:06 JieXian wrote: I see Monk being so afraid for no reason too. You can chill for now, I think anyone will have anything against you yet. Focus on reads.
I'm not afraid at all. I was just using the list to advance my argument in my previous post. I don't mind that I'm implicated in the list, because there's been no other reason for anyone else to suspect me. The list is logcial, and I agree that according to that logic alone, I can't be narrowed down to "not mafia". I also think my contributions to town are enough for people to not suspect me.
On July 02 2012 10:04 NrGmonk wrote: No one's posted in 5 hours O_O.
Well, I didn't feel the need to respond directly to your analysis, and I didn't want to spam it out of existence, because it makes a lot of sense. If there's anything you'd like my input on (I have kind of already given mine on Esspen, including a vote, after all), I'll happily get on it.
On July 02 2012 04:58 NrGmonk wrote: Keirathi, I think now the evidence against Esspen is indisputable and "concrete", with quotes like:
No. That is exactly the opposite of concrete.
Does he have the most compelling case against him? Certainly. Does that make it a concrete case? Definitely not.
Think about our judicial system. Everything you quoted is circumstantial evidence. Its probably enough to convince a jury of our peers of the defendants guilt, but it is very much not guaranteed.
Think about it like this: if you assume that he is mafia, then those quotes can easily feel like indicators of that. But what if you assume he is town?
Now, I agree that he probably still has the strongest individual case against him. But it is NOT concrete. But, our only hope for concrete evidence at this point are credible blue role claims, and the slim chance that they actually have useful information. And claiming them during the day today would just be suicide, hence my whole no-lynch policy.
On July 02 2012 04:58 NrGmonk wrote: Keirathi, I think now the evidence against Esspen is indisputable and "concrete", with quotes like:
No. That is exactly the opposite of concrete.
Does he have the most compelling case against him? Certainly. Does that make it a concrete case? Definitely not.
Think about our judicial system. Everything you quoted is circumstantial evidence. Its probably enough to convince a jury of our peers of the defendants guilt, but it is very much not guaranteed.
Think about it like this: if you assume that he is mafia, then those quotes can easily feel like indicators of that. But what if you assume he is town?
Now, I agree that he probably still has the strongest individual case against him. But it is NOT concrete. But, our only hope for concrete evidence at this point are credible blue role claims, and the slim chance that they actually have useful information. And claiming them during the day today would just be suicide, hence my whole no-lynch policy.
If you assume he's town you'd also need to assume he's ...... kinda confused about the game or something.
On July 01 2012 20:31 Esspen wrote: I agree with all of you!
Are you just opting out? If you are scum, this is the strangest bus I've seen. If you are town, then IDK what to say. Are you just going to afk till tomorrow?
On July 02 2012 04:58 NrGmonk wrote: Keirathi, I think now the evidence against Esspen is indisputable and "concrete", with quotes like:
No. That is exactly the opposite of concrete.
Does he have the most compelling case against him? Certainly. Does that make it a concrete case? Definitely not.
Think about our judicial system. Everything you quoted is circumstantial evidence. Its probably enough to convince a jury of our peers of the defendants guilt, but it is very much not guaranteed.
Think about it like this: if you assume that he is mafia, then those quotes can easily feel like indicators of that. But what if you assume he is town?
Now, I agree that he probably still has the strongest individual case against him. But it is NOT concrete. But, our only hope for concrete evidence at this point are credible blue role claims, and the slim chance that they actually have useful information. And claiming them during the day today would just be suicide, hence my whole no-lynch policy.
If you assume he's town you'd also need to assume he's ...... kinda confused about the game or something.
Thats kind of my point. Just look at the Vivax case.
On July 02 2012 04:58 NrGmonk wrote: Keirathi, I think now the evidence against Esspen is indisputable and "concrete", with quotes like:
No. That is exactly the opposite of concrete.
Does he have the most compelling case against him? Certainly. Does that make it a concrete case? Definitely not.
Think about our judicial system. Everything you quoted is circumstantial evidence. Its probably enough to convince a jury of our peers of the defendants guilt, but it is very much not guaranteed.
Think about it like this: if you assume that he is mafia, then those quotes can easily feel like indicators of that. But what if you assume he is town?
Now, I agree that he probably still has the strongest individual case against him. But it is NOT concrete. But, our only hope for concrete evidence at this point are credible blue role claims, and the slim chance that they actually have useful information. And claiming them during the day today would just be suicide, hence my whole no-lynch policy.
What exactly does a mass blue role claim achieve? Nothing. Medic: Only knows as much as the rest of town. Veteran: Same as above, at this stage; there has been a night kill each night so far. Jailkeeper: Also only knows as much as the rest of town at this stage. Vigilante: Dead
The ONLY role that would provide us with more information is the detective, and we don't even know if we have one. So please clarify exactly what concrete information would be gained from a mass role claim? You are taking the risk that we actually have a detective, which is not "concrete". You would need EVERYONE to actually trust the role claims if we go ahead with your no lynch in order to get some "confirmed" town.
If we have even the slightest evidence against someone, and lay it out, then decide to no-lynch and they are in fact town, then there is virtually 0% chance that the mafia night-kills that person, which just leads to more suspicion towards them the next day, giving mafia a stronger case to get them lynched and win the game.
This might be true if it wasn't for one factor: Esspen. There is already evidence against him (and 2 votes currently against him from NrGmonk and dNa). We have to come to a consensus regarding him as soon as possible. He has been suspected the entire game so far and with good reason. If we decide on a no lynch, people will still be arguing about him the next day and mafia knows it. As you said, they won't shoot him; he's too valuable an asset for them if he's town (granted at this point even if he is mafia, he could still be considered an asset, just look at how many cases have been made against him or revolve around him, and he is STILL alive with no mafia lynched). If you want to no lynch, this point, combined with JieXian's points, must be considered.
You didn't even address that post, so how can you hope to convince others if you don't even defend the flaws in your idea?
It seems that everyone is against the no-lynch then role-claim idea. I really don't understand, but whatever. I'm not going to keep defending the idea over and over and over again.
You can't just propose an idea and expect us all to go along with it if you don't even address the points made against it. Or maybe you just didn't read my post, I don't know.
To add on, what makes a medic or veteran claim believable? There has been a kill every night. A jailkeeper claim would also not be 100% believable for the same reasons.
Medic: Only knows as much as the rest of town. Veteran: Same as above, at this stage; there has been a night kill each night so far. Jailkeeper: Also only knows as much as the rest of town at this stage. Vigilante: Dead
Key words: at this stage. Maybe there's a doc save tonight. Maybe a Vet is shot. Maybe a Jailer roleblock's the mafia kill role. Maybe we O* have a detective. We just don't know anything for sure. And being wrong is game over.
I didn't address your post because there's nothing new to address. If we don't get extra information tomorrow after a no-lynch, then we're back at this exact spot again, but we only have 7 people to make cases against, rather than 8.
My whole spiel only works if we do both things I propsed, and it might already be too late for the no-lynch to be effective.
The repeat votes on the mislynches go to BioSC, rofl/JingleHell, and Esspen. Turns out all of them were in Vivax's list, but I'm not really sure how much stock we can put into that. It does seem fishy that rofl/Jingle had a large number of votes both days, and got out of it with an Esspen vote change. However, Jingle has his vote on Esspen right now. Has the mafia decided to give up one of their own already? Or is it possible that Esspen is just playing badly and mafia sees a chance to railroad him?
IMO Esspen is still the best target out of those 3. I was actually getting suspicious of BioSC, who hasn't said much at all recently, but then I realised yesterday that it was his birthday (he had a birthday icon while I looked through his filter), so I'm not sure if this is really lurking with a mafia agenda or not. I'm not sure about JingleHell, but Esspen's last minute vote switches are either an attempt to save a mafia JingleHell from a lynch, or a continuous attempt at setting up suspicions. If he is a poor town player who just doesn't care (if he is a town player I was ok with the poor posting since it's a newbie game, but that last post was just in poor form), then I'm sorry, but he will still be causing problems for the next day if we leave him alive.
But again, you are still gambling on all of us agreeing on the lynch for the next day Keirathi. Also, a jailkeeper can't roleblock a mafia kill role, they can only keep a player safe FROM a night kill if I understand correctly. To be honest, I am actually still open to a no lynch, it's just that I think Esspen really would cause us problems if left alive. So much discussion has been about whether or not he is brazen mafia or misguided (and now lazy) town. My vote currently boils down to esspen vs no lynch.
No. I'm gambling on the fact that the probability of having concrete information tomorrow is greater than the certainty that we have ZERO concrete information today.
Oh, and as far as Jailer, it says to protect AND roleblock. So it kind of sounds like a doc + roleblocker rolled into one. I've never played with that type of jailer though, so I'm not entirely sure how it works mechanics wise.
On July 02 2012 15:31 JieXian wrote: what .. pretty sure you can't roleblock a "mafia kill role" because there isn't one in the OP >_> And the game won't make sense if there was one.
And I highly doubt a vigi would sit quietly without shooting Esspen or JingleHell.
What I meant was that in other versions of Mafia that I have played, the mafia nightkill goes through a single person, generally the lowest on the mafia totem pole (for example, vanilla mafia aka mafioso). It works like this because it enables other advanced roles, like for instance a Watcher/Tracker, who can see who visits someone at night, or if a person visited someone at night. In a situation like this, if the mafia kill goes through a single person, then a roleblock of the mafia night kill is possible.
But I reiterate, I don't know the technical mechanics here, so its just speculation based on previous experience.
A jailkeeper does not roleblock a kp. However, if he jails the person being shot, that person will be saved as though he were a medic. The roleblocking portion of his role only applies towards mafia power role actions and town blue actions.
On July 02 2012 15:09 Keirathi wrote: No. I'm gambling on the fact that the probability of having concrete information tomorrow is greater than the certainty that we have ZERO concrete information today.
We won't have any concrete information. Unless you expect the scum to actually claim red roles, which I'm guessing isn't on the agenda. What we'll have is fewer town votes than today, and the same amount of good information.
I can't imagine a scenario where this could possibly benefit the town.
If it was early game and there were a lot of lurkers, to the point of it nearly being a shot in the dark, no lynch could easily make some sense. But not when it's so perilously close to us losing, and as good a case against one person as we could hope for.
On July 02 2012 15:09 Keirathi wrote: No. I'm gambling on the fact that the probability of having concrete information tomorrow is greater than the certainty that we have ZERO concrete information today.
We won't have any concrete information. Unless you expect the scum to actually claim red roles, which I'm guessing isn't on the agenda. What we'll have is fewer town votes than today, and the same amount of good information.
I can't imagine a scenario where this could possibly benefit the town.
If it was early game and there were a lot of lurkers, to the point of it nearly being a shot in the dark, no lynch could easily make some sense. But not when it's so perilously close to us losing, and as good a case against one person as we could hope for.
No. No, no, no to every single one of your points.
On July 02 2012 21:27 JingleHell wrote: We won't have any concrete information.
I can't imagine a scenario where this could possibly benefit the town.
How do you know we won't have any concrete information?
Lets just make a hypothetical situation: Let's say I'm a doctor, and tonight I decide to protect you. I did my last minute role claim, saying that I'm protecting you tonight, and no one else claims any kind of vet/doc/jailer role. Day dawns tomorrow, and no one dies. I get a PM that my target was shot, and I share that information with the town.
Now there are 2 people that are 100% clear (The Doc and his Target). Everything they've said and everything they will say, none of it has scummy motives; you don't have to try to pick apart their arguments.
I'm not sure why you don't see the benefit of this. Yes, there is a chance that we have no useful information and we are back at this exact same spot tomorrow, but if we do by some miracle get concrete information, we are in a MUCH BETTER spot tomorrow.
That's really all I can say. I don't want to spoon-feed the mafia with what to do to hard-counter my proposal.
JingleHell wrote:
If it was early game and there were a lot of lurkers, to the point of it nearly being a shot in the dark, no lynch could easily make some sense. But not when it's so perilously close to us losing, and as good a case against one person as we could hope for.
There are definitely more solid cases that can be made.
Lets go back to my previous hypothetical. Now we have 2 people that are completely clean, and then 6 people (there was a doc save) that are still suspects. Even just the elimination of 2 people from the suspect pool has some subtle (and in some case, not so subtle) changes on every other individual suspect's case. Every thing that the 2 clear people have said has slightly more weight just because of the fact that we KNOW they aren't lying. Anyone who has every made an accusation towards the 2 clear people now looks slightly scummier, just because of the what-if of them being mafia and knowing that the cleared people were town beforehand.
That said, there's not NECESSARILY a more solid case that can be made in our situation, even if we no-lynch. Its a gambling game (although, despite what everyone thinks, i don't think losing a townie is actually detrimental, ie 4 townies to vote tomorrow vs 5 today, but i can't seem to get the idea from my head and expressed into print in a convincing way, so I'm intentionally avoiding those arguments) on the hope that we do have blue role claims with good information. There's a very good possibility that we don't, but at the same time, I don't see how the case against Esspen changes any if we're back in this spot tomorrow. It doesn't magically make his case not the strongest still, it just means that maybe we have other information to consider alongside it.
On July 02 2012 21:27 JingleHell wrote: We won't have any concrete information.
I can't imagine a scenario where this could possibly benefit the town.
How do you know we won't have any concrete information?
Lets just make a hypothetical situation: Let's say I'm a doctor, and tonight I decide to protect you. I did my last minute role claim, saying that I'm protecting you tonight, and no one else claims any kind of vet/doc/jailer role. Day dawns tomorrow, and no one dies. I get a PM that my target was shot, and I share that information with the town.
Now there are 2 people that are 100% clear (The Doc and his Target). Everything they've said and everything they will say, none of it has scummy motives; you don't have to try to pick apart their arguments.
I'm not sure why you don't see the benefit of this. Yes, there is a chance that we have no useful information and we are back at this exact same spot tomorrow, but if we do by some miracle get concrete information, we are in a MUCH BETTER spot tomorrow.
That's really all I can say. I don't want to spoon-feed the mafia with what to do to hard-counter my proposal.
If it was early game and there were a lot of lurkers, to the point of it nearly being a shot in the dark, no lynch could easily make some sense. But not when it's so perilously close to us losing, and as good a case against one person as we could hope for.
There are definitely more solid cases that can be made.
Lets go back to my previous hypothetical. Now we have 2 people that are completely clean, and then 6 people (there was a doc save) that are still suspects. Even just the elimination of 2 people from the suspect pool has some subtle (and in some case, not so subtle) changes on every other individual suspect's case. Every thing that the 2 clear people have said has slightly more weight just because of the fact that we KNOW they aren't lying. Anyone who has every made an accusation towards the 2 clear people now looks slightly scummier, just because of the what-if of them being mafia and knowing that the cleared people were town beforehand.
That said, there's not NECESSARILY a more solid case that can be made in our situation, even if we no-lynch. Its a gambling game (although, despite what everyone thinks, i don't think losing a townie is actually detrimental, ie 4 townies to vote tomorrow vs 5 today, but i can't seem to get the idea from my head and expressed into print in a convincing way, so I'm intentionally avoiding those arguments) on the hope that we do have blue role claims with good information. There's a very good possibility that we don't, but at the same time, I don't see how the case against Esspen changes any if we're back in this spot tomorrow. It doesn't magically make his case not the strongest still, it just means that maybe we have other information to consider alongside it.
So basically, you're suggesting that we play russian roulette, but with 5 bullets and one empty chamber? No thanks.
If you can post an argument that doesn't rely on a hypothetical best-case pure luck scenario for your suggestion to be a good idea, that's one thing. But right now, it sounds like a distinctly bad-for-town suggestion.
Well, we've just wasted half a day discussing the no lynch policy rather than hunting mafia. I suspect there is 1 or more mafia currently on the esspen wagon. We've had Keirathi, JingleHell, JieXian and myself discussing the no lynch for awhile now, while dNa and NrGmonk, who posted after the discussion started, haven't said a word about it and threw their votes on esspen. I'm starting to suspect that esspen really isn't mafia, but I don't think I can push a solid case on either of those 2 in this MYLO situation with what I currently have. Maybe they'll post later, but I am actually going to vote for the no lynch for now.
But right now, it sounds like a distinctly bad-for-town suggestion.
This is the part of your argument that I don't understand.
Right now: We have no concrete information, but a decent circumstantial case against Esspen.
Worst Case Scenario tomorrow: We still have no concrete information, but still have a decent circumstantial case against Esspen.
I don't see how that is distinctly bad for town.
In fact, in every case EXCEPT for the worst case, its distinctly good for town.
Every case except the worst case isn't a real analysis though. Right now, there's 3 scum. There's 8 of us total. Assuming we no-lynch and HAVE a doctor, since that's the only example you've given that provides real information, he has to pick 1 of 7 people who aren't himself to protect. Assuming he actually has perfect scum reads, that leaves him a 25% chance of picking the correct person to protect with his WIFOM logic. If he has 2 of the 3 scum pegged accurately, it drops to a 20% chance. It gets nothing but worse from there, down to ~17% and ~14%.
So, in the best case scenario on your no-lynch plan, it's actually only a 25% chance of providing information.
The same logic applies to jailer as it does to Doctor. Veteran would be slightly different, as only 1 person is clear rather than two, but same principals. DT is, of course, a different ballgame (albeit a less trustworthy one).
But you hit the nail on the head: today we have 0 information. Tomorrow we have a 14-25% chance of information per bleu role we have. Maybe we have 0 blue roles, which is our absolute worst case scenario. We don't lose anything by prolonging our decision by a day to see if we do in fact gain information.
On July 02 2012 21:27 JingleHell wrote: We won't have any concrete information.
I can't imagine a scenario where this could possibly benefit the town.
How do you know we won't have any concrete information?
Lets just make a hypothetical situation: Let's say I'm a doctor, and tonight I decide to protect you. I did my last minute role claim, saying that I'm protecting you tonight, and no one else claims any kind of vet/doc/jailer role. Day dawns tomorrow, and no one dies. I get a PM that my target was shot, and I share that information with the town.
Now there are 2 people that are 100% clear (The Doc and his Target). Everything they've said and everything they will say, none of it has scummy motives; you don't have to try to pick apart their arguments.
I'm not sure why you don't see the benefit of this. Yes, there is a chance that we have no useful information and we are back at this exact same spot tomorrow, but if we do by some miracle get concrete information, we are in a MUCH BETTER spot tomorrow.
That's really all I can say. I don't want to spoon-feed the mafia with what to do to hard-counter my proposal.
If it was early game and there were a lot of lurkers, to the point of it nearly being a shot in the dark, no lynch could easily make some sense. But not when it's so perilously close to us losing, and as good a case against one person as we could hope for.
There are definitely more solid cases that can be made.
Lets go back to my previous hypothetical. Now we have 2 people that are completely clean, and then 6 people (there was a doc save) that are still suspects. Even just the elimination of 2 people from the suspect pool has some subtle (and in some case, not so subtle) changes on every other individual suspect's case. Every thing that the 2 clear people have said has slightly more weight just because of the fact that we KNOW they aren't lying. Anyone who has every made an accusation towards the 2 clear people now looks slightly scummier, just because of the what-if of them being mafia and knowing that the cleared people were town beforehand.
That said, there's not NECESSARILY a more solid case that can be made in our situation, even if we no-lynch. Its a gambling game (although, despite what everyone thinks, i don't think losing a townie is actually detrimental, ie 4 townies to vote tomorrow vs 5 today, but i can't seem to get the idea from my head and expressed into print in a convincing way, so I'm intentionally avoiding those arguments) on the hope that we do have blue role claims with good information. There's a very good possibility that we don't, but at the same time, I don't see how the case against Esspen changes any if we're back in this spot tomorrow. It doesn't magically make his case not the strongest still, it just means that maybe we have other information to consider alongside it.
I'm really finding trouble seeing the benefits to your proposition............... why wait 1 more day? WE can roleclaim right away if you want. I see a absolutely no sense in giving in to a 3-4 when we have a 3-5.
Your doctor proposition is a waaaaaaaaay riskier gamble as compared to the evidence we have against Esspen that you discredited.
On July 03 2012 01:26 Keirathi wrote: The same logic applies to jailer as it does to Doctor. Veteran would be slightly different, as only 1 person is clear rather than two, but same principals. DT is, of course, a different ballgame (albeit a less trustworthy one).
But you hit the nail on the head: today we have 0 information. Tomorrow we have a 14-25% chance of information per bleu role we have. Maybe we have 0 blue roles, which is our absolute worst case scenario. We don't lose anything by prolonging our decision by a day to see if we do in fact gain information.
But it still comes down to a ridiculous gamble, and it still all involves a lot of second guessing everything. And we potentially DO lose something, in losing a townie vote.
And no matter what roleclaims pop up, it still comes down to neurotic metagame recursive logic to decide if we're thinking what the scum want us to think or not.
On July 03 2012 01:26 Keirathi wrote: The same logic applies to jailer as it does to Doctor. Veteran would be slightly different, as only 1 person is clear rather than two, but same principals. DT is, of course, a different ballgame (albeit a less trustworthy one).
But you hit the nail on the head: today we have 0 information. Tomorrow we have a 14-25% chance of information per bleu role we have. Maybe we have 0 blue roles, which is our absolute worst case scenario. We don't lose anything by prolonging our decision by a day to see if we do in fact gain information.
But it still comes down to a ridiculous gamble, and it still all involves a lot of second guessing everything. And we potentially DO lose something, in losing a townie vote.
Let me put it to you like this: You are walking down the street today, and someone hands you a random Lottery ticket thats scheduled to be drawn tomorrow. When you get home, do you throw it away? Or do you check the numbers tomorrow just on the off-chance that you've beaten all probability?
On July 03 2012 01:26 Keirathi wrote: The same logic applies to jailer as it does to Doctor. Veteran would be slightly different, as only 1 person is clear rather than two, but same principals. DT is, of course, a different ballgame (albeit a less trustworthy one).
But you hit the nail on the head: today we have 0 information. Tomorrow we have a 14-25% chance of information per bleu role we have. Maybe we have 0 blue roles, which is our absolute worst case scenario. We don't lose anything by prolonging our decision by a day to see if we do in fact gain information.
But it still comes down to a ridiculous gamble, and it still all involves a lot of second guessing everything. And we potentially DO lose something, in losing a townie vote.
Let me put it to you like this: You are walking down the street today, and someone hands you a random Lottery ticket thats scheduled to be drawn tomorrow. When you get home, do you throw it away? Or do you check the numbers tomorrow just on the off-chance that you've beaten all probability?
No, see, that's not a valid analogy, because with the lottery ticket, if I don't win, I don't lose anything. In your suggestion of no lynch, we DO lose something if we don't win. Your continued refusal to look at this objectively is only making me wonder about your motives.
I just don't agree with you that we do lose something. In fact, I think we GAIN something, in having less people to make cases against and therefor better voting odds. But, like I said, I can't seem to articulate my thoughts into print here, so I've avoided that argument.
On July 03 2012 02:00 Keirathi wrote: I just don't agree with you that we do lose something. In fact, I think we GAIN something, in having less people to make cases against and therefor better voting odds. But, like I said, I can't seem to articulate my thoughts into print here, so I've avoided that argument.
Better odds? Right now, with 8 people, we can have a single townie get misled and avoid a mislynch, as long as the scum gets 4 votes first. At 7 people, a single misled townie is 100% disaster for us. The only people who get "better voting odds" are the scum.
You're either a hopelessly misguided optimist, or scum. After Esspen flips red, we're going to have a pretty much airtight case against you. Or were you hoping to fake a roleclaim to keep yourself out of the spotlight?
Of course I'm not going to role claim. I claimed vanilla like 3 days ago. If I thought it would help town, I would offer myself up as a sacrifice so that blue roles would have another night for possible information. But that's obviously not possible at this point. In hindsight, maybe I should have proposed it yesterday to defuse the Vivax vs You situation.
As far as a case against me; I proposed all of this BEFORE anyone started laying out their case against Esspen, so its not like I knew who I would be "defending". I have no problem voting him, because he seems to have given up. That's unacceptable and ruins the spirit of the game, and if he's town, actually costs us the game.
But that aside, its still not the point. I honestly believe that the possibility of concrete information combined with the different voting odds, combine with the guaranteed elimination of 1, and possibly multiple, suspects outweighs this minor point you keep harping on. We have a difference of opinion; all I can really say is that my opinion is based on various successes and failures in similar situations from my past mafia experience, which is irrelevent because I can't document it and was in a different environment, with different, like-minded individuals.
Also, your hypothesis seems to hang on the premise that mafia won't vote on one of their own, if its benefits them.
My hypothesis hangs on the fact that under the current circumstances, we can't do anything but look at the numbers, and the numbers make it harder to lynch scum, all else being equal, with less townies.
And frankly, setting it up before suspicion dropped on Esspen would be the only way to go if you were scum. If things were pointing at a townie for a mislynch, you could easily just not press the case for no-lynch. But since you mentioned it early, it becomes a viable contingency plan in case there's pressure, without seeming like a direct attempt to misdirect attention off of a scum.
The only way I could possibly be scum is if I agreed with you about town being better off voting today, but defended town voting tomorrow. Does it honestly sound like I have any inkling of agreement with you?
That doesn't make even the remotest semblance of sense. Let me paraphrase what you just said:
The only way I could be scum would be if I agreed with you that better mathematical odds are good, but kept pushing for a very anti-town decision that would, conveniently, protect the single most clear scum-read in the game.
You don't have to have more flip flops than Daytona Beach to make what you're pushing for seem pretty ridiculous. The evidence already does that.
Yes, yesterday was my birthday. I would apologize for not wanting to be here more, but that would be lying =D
I'm catching up on the No-Lynch vs. Esspen case right now. ATM, I'm leaning towards Esspen. I've given the poor guy lots of chances through this game, but I think I need to re-look at him.
I'm not 100% against a No-Lynch, but right now it's all just theory and probability. I would rather try to make a read on people than hope we have any blues left.
I didn't comment on no-lynch because I thought it was going to be just a distracting idea and I wanted to steer the conversation towards a new direction. And that's exactly what it's turned out to be so far. Here's one way to look at it. I think we've all concluded that either Esspen is mafia or that he's terrible at the game, or he's confused about the game. So either he's mafia or he's a bad townie. So the possible scenarios are:
We lynch Esspen and he is mafia-obviously good for us.
We lynch Esspen and he is townie-pretty much game over.
We no-lynch and Esspen is mafia-worse situation than situation 1. We're going to have only 4 townies, and everyone's going to bandwagon on Esspen the next round. We might not get any role claims, and we're going to be down 1 townie from then on out.
We no-lynch and Esspen is townie-This mean that Esspen is an uncooperative townie, and that it's going to be extremely difficult for everyone to agree and finish the game.
I honestly don't see much merit for no-lynch when we have what I believe is such a solid case against Esspen. Honestly, if Esspen is a townie, then this game is already over, as I don't see it possible for us to get him aboard. Basically, I see no benefits to keeping him alive, and we might as well bet, with good odds I might add, that Esspen is mafia.
Also, I don't think Keirathi is considering just the thought power that comes with 4 townies instead of 3. If we lynch a mafia member today, assuming we pick right, it will be 4 townies to 2 mafia tomorrow. If we decide no lynch, then in two days, it will be 3 townies to 2 mafia. The first case scenario is much much more desirable in terms of the ability for the 4 townies to reason and not get overwhelmed. We're basically betting that Esspen is mafia to get a 4:2 townie to mafia ratio instead of a 3:2 ratio, which again, is a bet I would definitely make.
No. You are twisting my words. My point is that the combined effects of better voting odds (you can't argue that 3/8 is better than 3/7) is better when COMBINED with the possible information from an extra night, than having a "spare town vote".
The difference in you and I is that I value information and you seem to think its a fruitless endeavor that has zero chance of helping. I'm willing to make a sacrifice in the name of gaining said information because if there is information, then we are in a better spot tomorrow.
I value information, when it's there. What I'm not doing is counting my chickens before they've hatched, like you are. I don't expect to get anything truly trustworthy and solid. Your 3/7 vs 3/8 case only works if the vote is random. The only people who would want to vote at random are scum, so you probably shouldn't push that line any further.
A no-lynch scenario for information and time only makes sense if there's a lot of people and little information. Get it down to the wire like this, where there's almost no time left, and there's plenty of available information to sift through, and lynching makes sense.
This isn't a game of chance, it's an educated guessing game. Some of us are actually trying to play that. If you want to play odds, try cards or dice.
On July 03 2012 03:32 Keirathi wrote: No. You are twisting my words. My point is that the combined effects of better voting odds (you can't argue that 3/8 is better than 3/7) is better when COMBINED with the possible information from an extra night, than having a "spare town vote".
The difference in you and I is that I value information and you seem to think its a fruitless endeavor that has zero chance of helping. I'm willing to make a sacrifice in the name of gaining said information because if there is information, then we are in a better spot tomorrow.
This is way too much theorycraft for my taste. 3/7 is only much better than 3/8 if it's a game of chance. With educated guesses, the odds are quite far from that. Yes, we might get extra information tomorrow, but we just might as well get another blue role killed. And if Esspen is mafia, which imo is a high probability, then we'll be in a much better spot tomorrow than if we no-lynch. Again, I think we should focus more on who else is suspicious rather than waste time with this discussion.
On July 03 2012 03:28 NrGmonk wrote: Also, I don't think Keirathi is considering just the thought power that comes with 4 townies instead of 3. If we lynch a mafia member today, assuming we pick right, it will be 4 townies to 2 mafia tomorrow. If we decide no lynch, then in two days, it will be 3 townies to 2 mafia. The first case scenario is much much more desirable in terms of the ability for the 4 townies to reason and not get overwhelmed. We're basically betting that Esspen is mafia to get a 4:2 townie to mafia ratio instead of a 3:2 ratio, which again, is a bet I would definitely make.
Finally a reasonable argument that I agree with. The only small problem is that we can't be wrong today, which you seem to understand but discount as a possibility.
JingleHell wrote: This isn't a game of chance, it's an educated guessing game.
This, I think, is our fundamental disagreement. I firmly believe it is a combination of both, based on past experiences.
But, I'm tired of the arguing. I'm obviously not going to convince you, and I fundamentally disagree with you.
You've backed me into a damn-if-I-do, damned-if-I-don't corner.
On July 03 2012 03:28 NrGmonk wrote: Also, I don't think Keirathi is considering just the thought power that comes with 4 townies instead of 3. If we lynch a mafia member today, assuming we pick right, it will be 4 townies to 2 mafia tomorrow. If we decide no lynch, then in two days, it will be 3 townies to 2 mafia. The first case scenario is much much more desirable in terms of the ability for the 4 townies to reason and not get overwhelmed. We're basically betting that Esspen is mafia to get a 4:2 townie to mafia ratio instead of a 3:2 ratio, which again, is a bet I would definitely make.
Finally a reasonable argument that I agree with. The only small problem is that we can't be wrong today, which you seem to understand but discount as a possibility.
No, I take that into account. Rather, my argument was that if Esspen is townie, we're almost as screwed if we don't lynch him(as opposed to lynching him), because of how uncooperative he's being.
I'm not sold on the No-Lynch today. Esspen seems to have deserted the thread, and I just can't see a reason for town to just abandon the game like he has.
The problem with No-Lynch in my eyes is that it relies too much on unknowns. We don't know if there even are any more blue roles, or if they are even going to be helpful in a MYLO/Mass Claim scenario. I would rather put my trust in voting someone who's been acting scummier and scummier as the game goes on.
You can gamble in a game where the random factors aren't what make the game. Yes, this game is about educated guesses and gambles, nobody argues that. But luck isn't what determines the outcome. The hosts don't throw an eight sided die and the corresponding player gets lynched. That's russian roulette, essentially. We pick, based on all available information. And I've already pointed out, numerically, why the odds are stacked against your plan of combining a throw of the dice and WIFOM and hoping lady luck is with us.
What you're trying to do now is railroad a bad plan over everybody. I don't know if it's emotional investment or ulterior motive, but given that Monk has used similar reasoning and you didn't respond to him nearly the same as you did to me, it's clear that you've got success of something tied to this plan in your mind, and it somehow involves me.
Now I'm with Monk. We should forget about this no-lynch nonsense, and start working on the next set of suspicions. However, I'm getting a little frustrated right now, so I'd like some time to compose myself before I start my work on that, to avoid tunneling or confirmation bias, as I'd like to be objective so we can be as sure as possible of catching the scum.
Luck might not determine the outcome, but it certainly plays a part in it. Luck of what roles town has, luck of what roles mafia has, luck in role actions, and even occasionally luck on a lynch vote. Its the same as poker. You can win games with just educated guessing and playing the odds, but some games, in the end, it just comes down to luck.
As far as arguing with you: I only argued so vehemently because you attacked me with your arguments. Monk was non-confrontational, so he got a non-confrontational reply.
I think you need to stop being emotionally invested in your idea. An attack on the suggestion isn't an attack on you. And, since the point of the game is to spot suspicious behavior, looking for potential motives for your suggestion is what I'm supposed to do under the whole "Play to win" rule. So saying "These things could be taken this way to seem scummy" isn't an attack on you. It's just what a townie should be doing.
Trying to evoke an emotional response to avoid debate doesn't help anyone, except maybe the scum, so stop doing it.
In particular, when I've already hinted I'm done with the discussion, and said I want time to compose myself before making a case, you trying to push the argument just looks like an effort to discredit any future reads I make.
JingleHell wrote: you trying to push the argument just looks like an effort to discredit any future reads I make.
That's exactly what you've done to me. Seriously, where do I go from here?
If I refuse to vote Esspen because I truly believe my plan can work, then I look scummy.
If I vote Esspen, then I didn't really believe it in the first place, so I look scummy.
I'm really in a lose-lose situation now.
No, if you're town and truly believe your plan can work, that's up to you, although in light of the arguments against it, it comes back to what I said earlier about hopeless optimism. I did suggest that as a possible alternative to scum.
I'm not going to make a case against you based off of just one thing, or off of an emotional reaction. I'm committing words, more than once now, to both of those being distinct possible alternatives to scum out of your behavior. Under the circumstances, you should be glad for that, as it's a big grain of salt that can be applied to any reads on you based on everything you've done, although I still intend to go through your filter with a fine-toothed comb.
By the way, if there's anything we need to discuss before the deadline, it should be brought up soon. I'm going to be unavailable for about 20-30 minutes, and then about an hour after that, I have to leave for TKD. So I'll be leaving about 70 minutes prior to deadline. Won't be back until somewhere around an hour after.
As of this time, the current vote is 5 to lynch Esspen and 2 for no-lynch with only Esspen not voting. Barring something major, we have to proceed with the assumption that Esspen will be lynched and that is indeed mafia. (If he isn't, the game is over.) After we are down to 7 players, I will re-read everyone's filters and compile detailed analysis of what I think of each player before the night is over. I encourage everyone else to do so as well, so we can catch slips and reason out who has the best chances of being scum or townie. It's not at all too difficult with only 6 other players to make reads on, and it's best to get all 5 townies' opinions rather than only 4 after the night is over. With this strategy, we will have two additional major pieces of information by tomorrow morning. We will have the information that Esspen was scum and the testimony of a confirmed townie.
But is there any sense in keirathi trying so hard to push this idea if he were mafia? Everyone wanted esspen dead. It would be much easier for mafia to just bus him at this point. He has pushed this idea so hard that it would indeed put him in bad light if esspen flips mafia. There is no reason for him to take such a big risk when mafia still have w pretty good chance of winning considrting we have no other reads. I believe he is townie and I know I a, leading me to the conclusion that mafia are bandwagonning esspen.
I wouldn't necessarily call it bandwagonning. It would look suspicious if you didn't vote Esspen at this point tbh. And atm I'm borderline on what to think about Keriathi. His posts could be interpreted as helping town or it could be interpreted as wasting time, because so far we have not talked about anyone else besides Esspen, something I specifically cautioned against.
I am willing to take the chance that I look suspicious if I don't vote him, but I don't care. I believe I am right. I would try to push a DNA lynch if it weren't so late.
And I understand that esspen has a decent case against him so its not really.bandwagonning, which is what makes this situation and this whole game hard. I am not voting for esspen purely because I believe keirathi is town, and I know I am, which jeans mafia wants a town lynch.
The standoff lasted for days, with shouting filling the town. Some wanted to wait. Some were angry, some were calm. Most, though, wanted Esspen shot.
He went more quietly than you'd think. Whereas most men tried to put up a fight, or demanded a duel, Esspen seemed sadly resigned to his fate. And as he clutched his wounds, and his blood spurted out, the entire town was aghast to find him bleeding Blue.
Esspen the Doctor has been killed by the town!
dNa the VT has been endgamed! BassInSpace the VT has been endgamed! NrGmonk the VT has been endgamed!
BioSC the Mafia Goon is victorious! JingleHell the Mafia Godfather is victorious! JieXian the Mafia Rolecop is victorious!
Omg lol did I actually get warned? NrGmonk clearly just mad he didn't get to obs the showmatch
I'd have liked to have seen more activity out of town. I think JieXian did a good job of blending in but BioSC and JingleHell seemed like decent lynch targets.
I was pretty sure about jinglehell for shutting down keirathi so hard, but but was sure I couldn't push a case against you with the current votes so I figured a no lynch was my next best bet. Bio's birthday let him off the hook and jiexian I suspected earlier but he took a backemseat during the vivax debacle and now this, but wp guys.
Esspen really wasted our time. The whole last day was hinged on him. Not only did he not do a good role as a blue, but he impeded towns' progress by just giving up. Not to mention his general scummy behavior. I also don't agree with how Vivax played, but he did provide us with some valuable information imo.
Esspen's last post seemed like a big "screw you guys" cus everyone said he posted poorly. I'm wondering if we were too harsh considering this is a newbie game.
On July 03 2012 09:15 BassInSpace wrote: Esspen's last post seemed like a big "screw you guys" cus everyone said he posted poorly. I'm wondering if we were too harsh considering this is a newbie game.
No, you were not. Actually you weren't harsh at all. Part of the game is defending yourself when under (possibly heavy) attack. That's just how things work.
Oh, uh, as a side note. Esspen did not vote. This coupled with his lack of any defense whatsoever is troubling. I will discuss with Kitaman27 what to do about this situation.
Good game, gents, however I think this will be my sole TL Mafia game. It was such an exercise in frustration and was ruined by 2 people's...I don't want to say terribleness, but maybe just lack of dedication/preperation/knowledge that 100% cost us the game.
As an aside, it is nice to know that in my personal notes, I had the mafia picked, although with a Esspen/JieXian tie for the third spot. Its just unfortunate that because of Esspen giving up, no one would have ever voted for them over him, so the game was basically lost anyways.
I honestly felt like I played the best I could have for my first game. Was a bit inactive first day due to not being familiar with this game and actually being busy. Then, I was misled not by maifa, but by scummy behavior by town, Vivax/Esspen. Given the same game, with the experience I have now, I probably would have made the same calls I did in this game, expect probably contribute more the first few days.
On the 2nd day, I would have voted for Vivax over Jingle again, because of Vivax's fail at claiming dt.
I had dna and bass pegged down as townies, and Jingle and Esspen as mafia with Jiexian as the most probable choice of 3rd mafia member. Esspen really messed everything up, having the most scumming behavior and drawing suspicion away from BioSC2, who I had suspected before I saw Esspen accused him. Not only did Esspen show extremely bad play/scumming behavior, he just gave up on the last day, sealing our fate and wasting an entire day for all of us.
Really depressing how one player can ruin an entire game. And really depressing for me in general, as I think there was no way I could have done anything substantial given my experience to affect the outcome of this game. =/
It's a learning experience Monk. One of the finer skills (extremely, EXTREMELY hard to get a grip on) is distinguishing bad townies from scum.
You played pretty decently I thought.
Mafia were well organised and worked very well as a team, not needing much input from me. From pretty early on I couldn't see anything other than a mafia victory.
BassInSpace figured it all out too late (but i mean, props to him figuring it out), getting a town-read on another townie and realising most, if not all, the scum were on Esspen. With a bit of help he could have averted the lynch. The margins are always a bit smaller than they first appear.
And Vivax, remember. As town, it's perception and persuasion, not knowledge, that matter. I (barely) took that because I was able to make your side of it look scummy, even though you were pushing the right target for the wrong reason.
Like I said, you did a fair job on reads and analysis, but you started working from that angle a little late. If you'd posted like you did right before you got lynched through that whole day, this would be heading for a townie victory right now, and we'd both be in the Obs QT, from a Jingle lynch, Vivax NK.
GG all. Monk, you had me nervous a couple times. You were one of my biggest fears, since you know me a little.
Also, I really am curious how the rest of the game would have played out had we actually no-lynched.
Maybe people still think its a silly plan, but I *know* it works. Certainly not every time, but obviously lynching doesn't work every time either
It probably still would have been too easy for mafia to get Esspen bandwagoned though. I'm just curious who would have died if we delayed and it that death could have helped town.
It might be able to work, but frankly, the arguments against it are entirely too convincing in a situation like that when you have an easy bandwagon target to pound on as scum.
JingleHell wrote: Well, bear in mind that Keirathi will instantly believe ANY half-assed roleclaim, so he probably thinks scum would actually claim red. It's the only thing I can imagine making sense.
No. No, no, no, no, no. I mentioned in one of my posts that I didn't want to spoon feed the mafia the game. What I meant was, mafia claiming blue roles would be the easiest way to cause confusion. Since you only needed to get one person lynched to win, it would have probably been worth the risk for one or two of you to fake role claim, even though in doing so, you're painting a big sign on your back. Everyone else seemed to expect the mafia to claim VT, which is the safe thing, but you were in a position where you didn't have the be safe, you just had to get a single lynch.
Although, to be fair to Vivax, if nothing else, the fakeclaim seriously forced the shit out of my hand, I hadn't planned to dump that much leading pressure on you at all.
Actually, I planned to FoS you and drop it until you started attacking me because rofls lurked. I ended up with a huge target on my back. It was just way too late.
On July 03 2012 09:57 Keirathi wrote: Also, I really am curious how the rest of the game would have played out had we actually no-lynched.
Maybe people still think its a silly plan, but I *know* it works. Certainly not every time, but obviously lynching doesn't work every time either
It probably still would have been too easy for mafia to get Esspen bandwagoned though. I'm just curious who would have died if we delayed and it that death could have helped town.
If you spent half the time actually scumhunting rather than making plans, town would have stood a better chance.
JingleHell wrote: Well, bear in mind that Keirathi will instantly believe ANY half-assed roleclaim, so he probably thinks scum would actually claim red. It's the only thing I can imagine making sense.
No. No, no, no, no, no. I mentioned in one of my posts that I didn't want to spoon feed the mafia the game. What I meant was, mafia claiming blue roles would be the easiest way to cause confusion. Since you only needed to get one person lynched to win, it would have probably been worth the risk for one or two of you to fake role claim, even though in doing so, you're painting a big sign on your back. Everyone else seemed to expect the mafia to claim VT, which is the safe thing, but you were in a position where you didn't have the be safe, you just had to get a single lynch.
That post was directly related to you actually believing Vivax's roleclaim. The fact that it actually swung so many votes ACTUALLY confused me. Somewhere in the QT, I said something about having trouble keeping it in mind that I was the scum, and not Vivax, just due to his countercase.
As an aside, is it actually possible for mafia to not kill anyone at night? I never really thought about that, because in every version I've played its not possible.
On July 03 2012 10:15 Keirathi wrote: As an aside, is it actually possible for mafia to not kill anyone at night? I never really thought about that, because in every version I've played its not possible.
No idea, but it seemed like a good contingency plan at the time.
On July 03 2012 10:17 dNa wrote: i can think of no reason whatsoever not to kill anyone at night... maybe to fake a medic safe... but.. that would be some deep game ..
You know, Esspen's play has a glimmer of sense in it, aside from the voting for me. Somehow he thought we could help him protect the other blue roles. If he hadn't been so contradictory about his posts, we might have noticed his breadcrumbing his role as well:
On June 28 2012 21:57 Esspen wrote: I'm terribly sorry for lurking, for some reason I thought we could not post during the night (based on what I read here: http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Night ), and the day started for me at 2 am when I was already asleep.
My defence is that I'm not mafia. And I voted for Hopeless in the end because I've read all BioSC's case against him few minutes before voting and decided to vote for him, and in the worst case that he was townie I would just press against BioSC even more (which I'm going to do as of now).
On July 03 2012 10:17 dNa wrote: i can think of no reason whatsoever not to kill anyone at night... maybe to fake a medic safe... but.. that would be some deep game ..
Since Keirathi was pushing no-lynch, if it gained enough traction to do that and roleclaim, I suggested it specifically to fake a medic save and grab some townie cred for a couple of us to keep the confusion up.
Before I forget, thanks to Marv, VE, and bugs for their help coaching!
I think this is a great example of a close game that turned into a flawless victory because of a few unfortunate swings early on.
The last minute vote swap off the godfather on day one was devestating for town. Had they been sucessful, it really could have been a day two town win. The mafia team switched their hit, mid cycle, off Vivax, who was being protected, to Release, the vigilante. Day two could have again gone either way with the godfather close to a lynch.
Prior to sending out the role pms, I sent a pm stressing the importance of activity. Throughout the game, there were too many occasions where the thread would be dead. Avoiding these kinds of situations is the easiest way to improve and it doesn't even require any experience.
Here are my thoughts about the town play(mafia will come tomorrow). Each person is pretty brief, so if you want to go into more detail or have any questions feel free to give me a pm.
Miltonkram
I liked the fact that you showed strong resolve on day two during the Vivax lynch. Even if you were wrong, you still came out looking townie, resulting in a night two hit. You replaced into a tough spot, but were able to contribute right away. The only criticism I would have is that you mention your suspicion on bio on several occassions, but never follow through with a case as promised. It's fine if you want to push Vivax as your main target, but I would suggest either not mentioning bio to begin with or following up with your suspicions after the mislynch at night.
Release
You came out blazing and encouraged activity early on, which was excellent. I would try to cut down on the one-line spam if possible (though I'm not one to talk -_-). Also, try not to respond to every accusation against you. It's fine if you just ignore minor points. I know you mentioned you were busy, but your reasoning for the day one vote was pretty weak and could have come back to haunt you later on. It's fine if you don't want to shoot night one, but if you have a strong read, don't take it to your grave.
Vivax It was good that you were so open with your opinion early on. However, you were a bit indecisive about what direction the lynch should take on day one. Even if you are unsure, its best to make a stand one way or the other. Last minute vote switches are always nasty business, try not to wait until the deadline if possible. Obviously the day two dt claim was a high risk, high reward decision. It's excellent that you didn't go out quietly, however lying as town generally isn't the best course of action. If you were wrong about jingle, you would have essentially thrown the game. Convincing a mob of your innocence after they have already decided you are guilty is one of the hardest tasks to accomplish. The easiest way to overcome this is to avoid the situation completely by playing pro-town on day one. You had good reads for the most part, just try to play less crazy :p
dNa You weren't really active enough, which could have really hurt you late game. I'm not sure if you were just too busy or weren't sure what to talk about. You have to try to do more than announce your vote once every 48 hours. Instead, try to push your lynch targets and follow up with suspicions.
BassInSpace I actually don't have much to say as I felt you played quite well. The effort you put into your cases seemed to excede everyone else, which helped you look town. Now you just have to work on convincing others. Swinging a day one godfather lynch could have won you the game if you were more vocal. The no-lynch plan on day three was pretty silly (see post below).
Keirathi Not voting on day one is pretty harmful to town. Not only does it mean one less town aligned vote in the lynch, it also prevents others from getting a good read on you. More posting on day one definitely would have helped. Your logic was pretty sound throughout the game and you were one of the easiest players to follow. The biggest problem was that you only pushed one target the entire game. The no-lynch plan that you pushed on day three doesn't work in a game that isn't majority lynch. If the entire town votes for no lynch, the three mafia players swap to a player at the deadline and its GG.
Hopeless1der Obviously getting lynched d1 is not the prefered outcome. Discussing policy is fine, as long as you follow up with other substance early on. I find myself often posting thoughts on the setup or thoughts on policy and always getting in trouble for it. While you may feel the direction is helping the town, others will see it as an attempt to contribute without providing much substance. This is why it is important to share your reads early and apply pressure on other players. Your play wasn't all that bad, but you got caught up in a early bandwagon that you weren't able to overcome.
NrGmonk You weren't active enough to have much of an impact on the game. Your explanation of your vote on Keirathi is something that the mafia team could have easily jumped on if they had chosen to do so. When there is a close lynch between two players on day one, as a townie, you should want to be the one who decides who dies, rather than post a throwaway vote elsewhere. Your activity was much better on day three, but that can look quite bad to other players who may see this as a mafia player who is suddenly interested in securing the mislynch on the final day. Getting distracted by "scummy townies" is tough to overcome. The only thing I would suggest is to try applying pressure to other players on days where only 1-2 people are the center of focus. It may open up new options if they respond poorly.
Esspen Another player with activity issues. On day one, you mention that lynching lurkers should be the priority, yet make no effort to actually remove yourself from this category. Voting for yourself is one of the worst things you can do in a game. I'm glad you chose to make a decision on day one, even if it was wrong. When you are the swing vote for a lynch you have to valid reasoning for your vote. Also, try not to wait until the last few minutes of a cycle to make a decision. If jingle were to ever flip, he was likely to take you down with him. Your flip flopping on day two was quite strange. It's tough for other players to understand what you are thinking if you aren't more open with your opinion. Day three you threw in the towel when the game was on the line. That is unacceptable play. Your medic choices were pretty good. You nearly pulled off a save on day one and you did a good job surviving until endgame as a powerrole.
When you analyze scum, please bear in mind that I actually originally didn't intend Vivax to turn into a big target, and that all-in D2 was totally NOT on the agenda, it was just making the best of a bad spot.
I just wanted to establish a thread presence to get some credit to disassociate from rofls.
On July 03 2012 10:15 Keirathi wrote: As an aside, is it actually possible for mafia to not kill anyone at night? I never really thought about that, because in every version I've played its not possible.
Yes. It's been done before to preserve a 3 vs 1 vote. But the town turned around and no lynched and the host forced the mafia to use their hit the next night. I don't remember the game where that happened. It was also done in a game with a 3rd party to help the town win instead of the SK. That was PYP3.
If I could stress this enough, Activity (lack thereof) is what killed town. I sure as hell know I wasn't playing a perfect scum (It was my first scum game) but the lack of posts in the thread at times let us come up with a plan, even when it turned bad. Like the hosts said, this game could have soooooooo easily been a town victory. Well played guys, can't wait for analysis on this game, because I feel like I could have played way better.
On July 03 2012 12:11 BioSC wrote: If I could stress this enough, Activity (lack thereof) is what killed town. I sure as hell know I wasn't playing a perfect scum (It was my first scum game) but the lack of posts in the thread at times let us come up with a plan, even when it turned bad. Like the hosts said, this game could have soooooooo easily been a town victory. Well played guys, can't wait for analysis on this game, because I feel like I could have played way better.
This is usually the downfall of towns. It is a good lesson to learn early on. However, towns don't just need activity. They need constructive activity. A bunch of spam doesn't help that much. However, the entire town discussing suspects in a calm and organized fashion and then working their way down to one candidate every day? That town will win 80% of the time or more.
Thanks for the analysis Kita. I was planning on writing up a case against Bio but work ended up getting in the way and I didn't have time.
If Vivax hadn't DT claimed and just played standard VT, Bio was next on my list and I would have put more effort into hunting him. I think a Bio lynch D2 could have won us the game considering how much more information a scum lynch gives the town.
On July 03 2012 12:22 Miltonkram wrote: Thanks for the analysis Kita. I was planning on writing up a case against Bio but work ended up getting in the way and I didn't have time.
If Vivax hadn't DT claimed and just played standard VT, Bio was next on my list and I would have put more effort into hunting him. I think a Bio lynch D2 could have won us the game considering how much more information a scum lynch gives the town.
We actually thought you were DT, with a check on me. That's why you got the bullet.
Since we knew I would show green to a check, we figured that's why you were so vehemently on my side during D2's wreck.
On July 03 2012 12:22 JingleHell wrote: We actually thought you were DT, with a check on me. That's why you got the bullet.
Since we knew I would show green to a check, we figured that's why you were so vehemently on my side during D2's wreck.
I just didn't think much of the case against you. Roflwaffles hadn't been very active and you came into the thread with an opinion I agreed with. Vivax's "lynching for information" posts seemed really scummy to me and his case against you felt like OMGUS. Kudos to you for entering the game with a bit of a fire under your belly. It made you look really townie and it threw off my reads.
On July 03 2012 11:05 kitaman27 wrote: Keirathi Not voting on day one is pretty harmful to town. Not only does it mean one less town aligned vote in the lynch, it also prevents others from getting a good read on you. More posting on day one definitely would have helped. Your logic was pretty sound throughout the game and you were one of the easiest players to follow. The biggest problem was that you only pushed one target the entire game. The no-lynch plan that you pushed on day three doesn't work in a game that isn't majority lynch. If the entire town votes for no lynch, the three mafia players swap to a player at the deadline and its GG.
I found him to be terribly stubborn and incapable of seeing logic and argue once he has his mind set on something, for d3 and d2 as in the QT.
I found Release, Milton and Monk to be smart and sensible townies, though those 2 don't have time to post and Release was chaotic, I'm sure he'll be good at scum hunting. It's just that we got lucky with Esspen.
On July 03 2012 09:59 BassInSpace wrote: Out of curiosity, it seems everyone in obs had esspen pegged as town. Is this true?
Well, I bet my kidney twice that Esspen is town in the obs QT Otherwise, as others stated before, there was not enough questioning each other to get a clear read for me, only Bio was an early scum read for most observers.
I'm wondering: JieXian announces a big post in N2, doesn't deliver and nobody cares??
On July 03 2012 11:05 kitaman27 wrote: Keirathi Not voting on day one is pretty harmful to town. Not only does it mean one less town aligned vote in the lynch, it also prevents others from getting a good read on you. More posting on day one definitely would have helped. Your logic was pretty sound throughout the game and you were one of the easiest players to follow. The biggest problem was that you only pushed one target the entire game. The no-lynch plan that you pushed on day three doesn't work in a game that isn't majority lynch. If the entire town votes for no lynch, the three mafia players swap to a player at the deadline and its GG.
I found him to be terribly stubborn and incapable of seeing logic and argue once he has his mind set on something, for d3 and d2 as in the QT.
As far as D2, I was right to trust my gut. Lynching the target rather than the, admittedly fake now, DT is just a smarter practice than lynching the claimer, as long as you make the assumption that the claimer isn't trying to throw the game.
D3 is a whole other story. I honestly wasnt aware that even if we had 5 no-lynch votes, and 3 votes on someone, that there would be a lynch instead of a no-lynch because I've never played in a game like this. No one ever made that argument, and when I asked for no-lynch clarification, it wasn't mentioned. That would have made it a completely different ball game, and a no-lynch could never work in that circumstance.
I could keep arguing my point about it working, because I know for a fact it does work, but that's not the point of this discussion.
Oh I didn't know that about the no lynch either. The only reason I chose to vote for it though was because at that stage of the game I thought there was a higher chance of getting a no lynch than a lynch of a player besides esspen. We really did waste too much time talking about the no lynch.
On July 03 2012 15:01 BassInSpace wrote: Oh I didn't know that about the no lynch either. The only reason I chose to vote for it though was because at that stage of the game I thought there was a higher chance of getting a no lynch than a lynch of a player besides esspen. We really did waste too much time talking about the no lynch.
That's probably true, but Esspen was the least scummy of my suspects in my personal notes, and simultaneously the hardest to make a case for being townie. Despite everything he did, it just didn't "feel" like he was scum. It felt like he was a townie that was being railroaded and didn't know how to defend himself, so he threw in the towel. There's no way to defend that. So I resorted to constantly arguing a point that I see now was utterly stupid.
On July 03 2012 09:59 BassInSpace wrote: Out of curiosity, it seems everyone in obs had esspen pegged as town. Is this true?
Well, I bet my kidney twice that Esspen is town in the obs QT Otherwise, as others stated before, there was not enough questioning each other to get a clear read for me, only Bio was an early scum read for most observers.
I'm wondering: JieXian announces a big post in N2, doesn't deliver and nobody cares??
hahahaha trying top Esspen eh?
I was about to post a long post about Keraithi but I dropped it since there wasn't the need for it and there seemed to be more important issues.
On July 03 2012 11:05 kitaman27 wrote: Keirathi Not voting on day one is pretty harmful to town. Not only does it mean one less town aligned vote in the lynch, it also prevents others from getting a good read on you. More posting on day one definitely would have helped. Your logic was pretty sound throughout the game and you were one of the easiest players to follow. The biggest problem was that you only pushed one target the entire game. The no-lynch plan that you pushed on day three doesn't work in a game that isn't majority lynch. If the entire town votes for no lynch, the three mafia players swap to a player at the deadline and its GG.
I found him to be terribly stubborn and incapable of seeing logic and argue once he has his mind set on something, for d3 and d2 as in the QT.
As far as D2, I was right to trust my gut. Lynching the target rather than the, admittedly fake now, DT is just a smarter practice than lynching the claimer, as long as you make the assumption that the claimer isn't trying to throw the game.
D3 is a whole other story. I honestly wasnt aware that even if we had 5 no-lynch votes, and 3 votes on someone, that there would be a lynch instead of a no-lynch because I've never played in a game like this. No one ever made that argument, and when I asked for no-lynch clarification, it wasn't mentioned. That would have made it a completely different ball game, and a no-lynch could never work in that circumstance.
I could keep arguing my point about it working, because I know for a fact it does work, but that's not the point of this discussion.
I don't plan on arguing with you since the game is over but not clarifying 1 last time would be rude, especially since I didn't expect the QT to be opened up.
Posting complete arguement is making me feel like I'm still posting a case against you so in short my problem with you is that you base your entire thought process around assumptions (maybe even gut feelings as you so put it) as axioms. Which is terribly fallacious. More so since you were convinced that you could make deductions based from it.
A common point between your D2 and D3 was to treat mafia like it were a game of chance, taking away the human element of it which is to ANALYSE and THINK whether someone is scummy or not but most of all being completely oblivious to oppositing arguements while you were "arguing".
Lynching the target rather than the, admittedly fake now, DT is just a smarter practice than lynching the claimer, as long as you make the assumption that the claimer isn't trying to throw the game.
That was only a small part of the D2 anti vivax arguement which was raised by Bio and I was against him making that statement in the QT because it made 0 sense to me.
Your D3 point doesn't seem like a defense or attack at all because this is the first time anything like it was brought up.
That last line shows that you're still stubborn after even Kita told you it won't work. Either you can't present the merits of a no-lynch properly, or refuse to listen to and address opposing ideas.
Since I don't think you're that stupid to not know the merits, I think this further proves my point that you're stubborn and refuse to believe anything that goes against your idealised assumptions which frequently ignores other points (sometimes facts) that doesn't fit it.
However a mass roleclaim makes some sense as a last minute town all-in in case anyone slips (though we'd all claim VT anyways) and I was aiming to not let that happen. I don't think anyone was really opposing that, because there was nothing wrong with it.
On July 03 2012 15:42 JieXian wrote: That last line shows that you're still stubborn after even Kita told you it won't work.
I'm sorry, I wasn't specific in that line. I meant "I know that a no-lynch can work in a majority vote system." Because I've seen it work (and I've seen it not work too, but with a higher success rate than flat out lynching). It was obviously an extremely stupid argument in this case, like I said, because there's no way for it to work. I misunderstood the mechanics, and I admitted that.
On July 03 2012 15:42 JieXian wrote: That last line shows that you're still stubborn after even Kita told you it won't work.
I'm sorry, I wasn't specific in that line. I meant "I know that a no-lynch can work in a majority vote system." Because I've seen it work (and I've seen it not work too, but with a higher success rate than flat out lynching). It was obviously an extremely stupid argument in this case, like I said, because there's no way for it to work. I misunderstood the mechanics, and I admitted that.
To repeat, you would have been a much greater asset to town if you'd actually scumhunted and made cases rather than proposing no lynch plans and the like.
Also I feel your point on never killing claimed DT is incorrect. It's just sloppy thinking.
On July 03 2012 15:42 JieXian wrote: That last line shows that you're still stubborn after even Kita told you it won't work.
I'm sorry, I wasn't specific in that line. I meant "I know that a no-lynch can work in a majority vote system." Because I've seen it work (and I've seen it not work too, but with a higher success rate than flat out lynching). It was obviously an extremely stupid argument in this case, like I said, because there's no way for it to work. I misunderstood the mechanics, and I admitted that.
To repeat, you would have been a much greater asset to town if you'd actually scumhunted and made cases rather than proposing no lynch plans and the like.
Also I feel your point on never killing claimed DT is incorrect. It's just sloppy thinking.
That isn't helpful at all. Please for the love of god tell me how I could have possibly convinced enough people to vote Jingle or Bio over Esspen (I ID* have them as the 2 strongest reads in my personal notes) after he basically said "Screw it, I give up" on top of his other scummy actions? So, despite how ultimately ignorant it was, I argued for the option that was at least getting a bit of traction.
While I certainly understand your point, there was never a time when I could realistically lay out my reads.
And I didn't say never kill the person who claims DT. Or maybe that's what I implied, but its certainly not what I meant. There are certainly times when killing the claimer is the right course of action.
On July 03 2012 15:42 JieXian wrote: That last line shows that you're still stubborn after even Kita told you it won't work.
I'm sorry, I wasn't specific in that line. I meant "I know that a no-lynch can work in a majority vote system." Because I've seen it work (and I've seen it not work too, but with a higher success rate than flat out lynching). It was obviously an extremely stupid argument in this case, like I said, because there's no way for it to work. I misunderstood the mechanics, and I admitted that.
To repeat, you would have been a much greater asset to town if you'd actually scumhunted and made cases rather than proposing no lynch plans and the like.
Also I feel your point on never killing claimed DT is incorrect. It's just sloppy thinking.
That isn't helpful at all. Please for the love of god tell me how I could have possibly convinced enough people to vote Jingle or Bio over Esspen (I ID* have them as the 2 strongest reads in my personal notes) after he basically said "Screw it, I give up" on top of his other scummy actions? So, despite how ultimately ignorant it was, I argued for the option that was at least getting a bit of traction.
While I certainly understand your point, there was never a time when I could realistically lay out my reads.
And I didn't say never kill the person who claims DT. Or maybe that's what I implied, but its certainly not what I meant. There are certainly times when killing the claimer is the right course of action.
I would have killed Vivax in that situation. Of course in this situation he was VT, but he was definitely lying. If you really had a strong read on Jingle, then you push THAT fact, rather than that you shouldn't be lynching the DT (that's how it came across).
The best time to lay out your reads is asap.
See towards the end, where BassinSpace got a town read on you and figured that Esspen were town and mafia were trying to secure the mislynch? You weren't to know that's what he was thinking. But if you'd laid out your suspects with good cases earlier in the day, then between you/Bass/Monk you could have perhaps worked things out and lynched someone else instead.
Again, if I was townie on the final day, I wouldn't have spent my efforts trying to get a no lynch, but instead desperately trying to push through my strongest read. How is town supposed to avoid a lynch on Esspen if you were unwilling/unable to push and make a case on your strongest reads??
Edit: This goes for Vivax too. His play day 2 was just insane. His plan seemed to be to wait until everyone found him scum and then make a desperate DT claim? With all the "I have info later". Noooooooo. You clear your name by pushing your strongest scumread with good logical reasoning and getting town to see your point of view :/
On July 03 2012 15:42 JieXian wrote: That last line shows that you're still stubborn after even Kita told you it won't work.
I'm sorry, I wasn't specific in that line. I meant "I know that a no-lynch can work in a majority vote system." Because I've seen it work (and I've seen it not work too, but with a higher success rate than flat out lynching). It was obviously an extremely stupid argument in this case, like I said, because there's no way for it to work. I misunderstood the mechanics, and I admitted that.
To repeat, you would have been a much greater asset to town if you'd actually scumhunted and made cases rather than proposing no lynch plans and the like.
Also I feel your point on never killing claimed DT is incorrect. It's just sloppy thinking.
That isn't helpful at all. Please for the love of god tell me how I could have possibly convinced enough people to vote Jingle or Bio over Esspen (I ID* have them as the 2 strongest reads in my personal notes) after he basically said "Screw it, I give up" on top of his other scummy actions? So, despite how ultimately ignorant it was, I argued for the option that was at least getting a bit of traction.
While I certainly understand your point, there was never a time when I could realistically lay out my reads.
And I didn't say never kill the person who claims DT. Or maybe that's what I implied, but its certainly not what I meant. There are certainly times when killing the claimer is the right course of action.
I would have killed Vivax in that situation. Of course in this situation he was VT, but he was definitely lying. If you really had a strong read on Jingle, then you push THAT fact, rather than that you shouldn't be lynching the DT (that's how it came across).
The best time to lay out your reads is asap.
See towards the end, where BassinSpace got a town read on you and figured that Esspen were town and mafia were trying to secure the mislynch? You weren't to know that's what he was thinking. But if you'd laid out your suspects with good cases earlier in the day, then between you/Bass/Monk you could have perhaps worked things out and lynched someone else instead.
Again, if I was townie on the final day, I wouldn't have spent my efforts trying to get a no lynch, but instead desperately trying to push through my strongest read. How is town supposed to avoid a lynch on Esspen if you were unwilling/unable to push and make a case on your strongest reads??
Edit: This goes for Vivax too. His play day 2 was just insane. His plan seemed to be to wait until everyone found him scum and then make a desperate DT claim? With all the "I have info later". Noooooooo. You clear your name by pushing your strongest scumread with good logical reasoning and getting town to see your point of view :/
Its so easy to say that when you're in the mafia QT and know that Vivax was checked night 1 and was a VT.
From my perspective, he really only had 2 options. He was either DT, or he was Mafia. Because being a VT and making that claim is just insane, and basically asking to lose the game. I would take the chance on him being DT and just an inexperienced player (it was day2...it wasn't do or die time) 9 times out of 10.
And you're right. I almost certainly could have convinced Bass to vote one of them on the last day. But I felt at the time that I had a better chance of getting a no-lynch than of convincing 2 more people not to vote Esspen. Especially since he had quit posting altogether.
Meh @ easy to say. Objectively I would have lynched him. BH and I briefly talked about it at the time and he agreed with me too.
Maybe I'm being too aggressive because you're getting defensive, I'm just trying to explain how I see it. You spent a lot of time on scenarios, while disregarding actual analysis of the content of people's posts (at least that's how it came across).
I'm glad you see where I'm coming from on the final day. Generally speaking, pushing your strongest read, hard, is the best way of getting someone lynched. I've been killed off in LVI now, but I replaced in to day one, 3 hours before lynch time - and I got someone who previously had 0 votes lynched. Anything is possible if you push your read(s).
On July 03 2012 22:24 marvellosity wrote: Meh @ easy to say. Objectively I would have lynched him. BH and I briefly talked about it at the time and he agreed with me too.
Maybe I'm being too aggressive because you're getting defensive, I'm just trying to explain how I see it. You spent a lot of time on scenarios, while disregarding actual analysis of the content of people's posts (at least that's how it came across).
I'm glad you see where I'm coming from on the final day. Generally speaking, pushing your strongest read, hard, is the best way of getting someone lynched. I've been killed off in LVI now, but I replaced in to day one, 3 hours before lynch time - and I got someone who previously had 0 votes lynched. Anything is possible if you push your read(s).
Interesting.
Lynching Vivax was certainly the safer option. I have playing risky so ingrained into my playstyle because that's how me and my friends have always played. That is to say, my friends and I that play together would almost always take the risk of killing a VT over the risk of killing a DT (its a much different case when the fake DT target happens to be a blue role, then things really get messy). It's a different style of play where we try to game the system, and only resort to reads as a worst case scenario.
Sorry if I came off as being defensive, I certainly didn't intend to. I find your post not aggressive whatsoever, so I honestly didn't intend to be defensive. Just arguing a point now, for the sake of it :p
On July 03 2012 22:43 marvellosity wrote: Unfortunately trying to game the system in TL Mafia will only get you so far.
And by so far, I mean lynched
That's the part that is so baffling to me.
I've broken so many games with clever strategizing
Well, clever strategizing broke this game too. Fakeclaim secured D2, and left Esspen as the one better target than me.
So your pattern is unscathed at least, it just broke it a way you didn't want.
Touche, good sir.
Although, I think that was more of a case of unclever strategizing :p
That all depends on your point of view, though, the same case could be made about your gambling fetish D3. No matter if it can work, this game is all about perception and persuasion. The fakeclaim was a similar sort of gamble, and, in fact, since he had me and Bio pegged as scum, it could have won the game, had he done it right, by building a case first, rather than hoping the claim would stand on it's own.
Granted, it almost did stand on it's own, but almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
The mafia team ended with a flawless victory so obviously all three of them played well. The communication in the quicktopic was excellent from night one and on. One minor area that you could have put a bit more effort into was blue-hunting. You managed to sucessfully snipe the vig on night one, but I think it was more of a hit on a strong player. With the rolecop, you are able to find the medic/dt in half the time, but he still ended up surviving until endgame. Another thing I happened to pick up on while going through each of your filters was signs of post lynch guilt. While nobody is likely to pick up on it, there were quite a lot of GG's towards players you pushed hard to get lynched
BioSC You did a good job pretending to express town frustration about activity and Esspen's self vote. On day one, you spent too much effort defending yourself. No one is going to listen to a couple of one liners against you, so don't feel compelled to respond to every accusation. It makes it look like you care more about survival than pushing town objectives. Your posts were pretty void of content. Your case against Hopeless is going to come off as omgus, even if it isn't what you intended. Try to beat him to the punch if possible. For a closely contested day one lynch, you never mention roffles once. If someone picks up on this, it could get you in trouble. I was quite pleased that you managed to swing Esspen's vote to a mislynch on day one. This was probably the most important point in the game. In the scum quicktopic, you seemed as if you were ready to throw in the towel thinking the godfather would be lynched. You always need to try to have a plan B, as things are always going to go wrong as some point of the game. Events swing back and forth so quickly in a game, so don't give up after the first struggle.
Day two and three you were quite sucessful at pushing mafia objectives. The only thing I would mention is that you again appear not to consider jingle being scum or even reference him at any point, which could hurt you if he was to ever flip. Careful not to reveal that you have additional knowledge when posting. People are going to follow through with scumslips like that in most games. One other thing you could work on is more interaction with your fellow scumbuddies in thread. Take a look at your filter and count how many town players you quote, compared to scum.
JingleHell You had to enter the game from a defensive position, based on the play of roffles, which is certainly not an easy task. I liked that you came out contributing from the start. Well done shooting down the dt claim based on flaws in logic present in older posts. That's exactly how it should have been done. You spend a lot of time trying to convince town players of your innocence, don't be afraid to come up with a fake conversation with a scum buddy, attempting to convince them as well. Day three was pretty straightforward so there isn't much to add. Your interation with Keirathi makes it somewhat apparent that you probably aren't scumbuddies.
JieXian While you're reasoning for not being availible at the deadline was certainly reasonable, you were a liability when your vote was needed. If you had been able to coordinate with your team more sucessfully, the day one lynch could have been a lock, but instead it came down to a last minute switch by a townie. By placing, a throwaway vote on Release, it showed you didn't care about placing a vote on a player who was actually going to flip.
Careful about providing weak reads. You call players "werid" and "confusing" rather than "town" or "scummy". It is a bit tough to follow your thought process on suddenly voting Vivax, after sharing suspicion of several other players. As scum, it's not as much of a concern, but a lot of your posts were either one-liners or conversational, rather than well-constructed. It would make you look better if you had a few more beefy posts, however. It's fine to share suspcion of your fellow scumbuddies, but calling them obvious scum is going to limit your options later on, unless you are going 100% with the bus.
On July 04 2012 09:18 JingleHell wrote: <3 kita. Got any suggestions for something I should try to improve?
Probably the biggest thing would be to interact with your scum buddies more often in the thread. I think if you were to flip at any point, bio would have come out looking pretty bad and several town players would be tough to lynch.
On July 04 2012 09:18 JingleHell wrote: <3 kita. Got any suggestions for something I should try to improve?
Probably the biggest thing would be to interact with your scum buddies more often in the thread. I think if you were to flip at any point, bio would have come out looking pretty bad and several town players would be tough to lynch.
I'll keep it in mind. I got paranoid when the spotlight landed on me, and probably overdid the separation.
Of course, no matter what you do, it's all about the wine.
Yeah, I didn't really ever mean to make Hopeless the target, but With Rofl opting out of the game and Jiex asleep during a pretty pivotal time, I kinda went a little stir crazy =D I had to come up with something quick, because it was a policy lynch on the GF and I felt like I was left out to dry a bit.
Same question about personal improvement tips, I like the scum interaction tips, I'll try to incorporate that next time.
thanks for the criticism kita. I do realise after some time that I'm FOSing everywhere with weak reads. I was thinking that an FOS could spark discussion and doubt before a strong case is built. Wrong approach to the game?
About the D1 lynch, 8 am is really bad for me and I wasn't expecting that at all, being my first game. Sorry Bio, d1 was great play by you.
About weird and confusing, am I just missing a few lines to imply that they are hence scummy or is it a wrong approach?
I used obvious to mean that it's obvious that he's in a bad position, not that he's obvious scum, meaning I don't need to provide any justification to my list of 4 people under suspicion. Let me know if you still think it's a bad move.
And as for the 1 liners, which I think was mostly on D3 (correct my if I'm wrong) were when Esspen was the obvious lynch target, without me wanting or having any townie motive to change chat and I was left pointing out the problems in Keirathi's no-lynch proposition. I didn't know what else to post >_>
On July 04 2012 09:15 kitaman27 wrote: Postgame part two Another thing I happened to pick up on while going through each of your filters was signs of post lynch guilt. While nobody is likely to pick up on it, there were quite a lot of GG's towards players you pushed hard to get lynched .
So... what's with GGs and post lynch guilts? Could you elaborate please?
On July 04 2012 14:21 JieXian wrote: thanks for the criticism kita. I do realise after some time that I'm FOSing everywhere with weak reads. I was thinking that an FOS could spark discussion and doubt before a strong case is built. Wrong approach to the game?
About the D1 lynch, 8 am is really bad for me and I wasn't expecting that at all, being my first game. Sorry Bio, d1 was great play by you.
About weird and confusing, am I just missing a few lines to imply that they are hence scummy or is it a wrong approach?
I used obvious to mean that it's obvious that he's in a bad position, not that he's obvious scum, meaning I don't need to provide any justification to my list of 4 people under suspicion. Let me know if you still think it's a bad move.
On July 04 2012 14:21 JieXian wrote: thanks for the criticism kita. I do realise after some time that I'm FOSing everywhere with weak reads. I was thinking that an FOS could spark discussion and doubt before a strong case is built. Wrong approach to the game?
About the D1 lynch, 8 am is really bad for me and I wasn't expecting that at all, being my first game. Sorry Bio, d1 was great play by you.
About weird and confusing, am I just missing a few lines to imply that they are hence scummy or is it a wrong approach?
I used obvious to mean that it's obvious that he's in a bad position, not that he's obvious scum, meaning I don't need to provide any justification to my list of 4 people under suspicion. Let me know if you still think it's a bad move.
I told you about this in QT
Really? Could you please repeat?
They don't have a filter in QT and I don't feel like going through 1000 posts =D I only remembered that part about keeping a list of scumminess and unleashing it only when there's a substantial amount.
Well, it's technically less of a "button" and more of a "link", it's the blue, underlined text that says "All Messages" in between the ^ that lets you invert the messages on the page, and the links to go back a page.
JW, for the average maifa game, what is the average win rate for either side? Also, does maifa tend to win more or less in games filled with relative noobs?