EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XIX - Page 3
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On June 30 2012 06:39 Hopeless1der wrote: Argh...Thanks for derailing us hard ghost. It's time to get back to scumhunting now? and for future reference, the quoted post is usually seen as a complete waste of time and reason for suspicion. Wow, that's completely meta, a waste of content post about waste of content posting. I agree, though. Not ready to shift a vote yet, but I've got an FoS on Fencer710. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On June 29 2012 18:22 Fencer710 wrote: Sorry T_T. I was literally asleep during the day. For better or for worse, my views are the same as Umlaut's. I can't really add anything. :\ Well, there's also this shady bit that never got completely cleared up. Add that to spammy posts, and yeah, you're at least worth watching. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On June 30 2012 09:30 Fencer710 wrote: + Show Spoiler + On June 30 2012 09:24 Fencer710 wrote: Yeah I'm an idiot for sure.  Elaborating on this a bit: I had forgotten that posting 1-liners/spam is considered 'scum'. I need to reread the rules T_T. I said this since in your first game you fuck up and learn a lot more than your second and third, at least in my experience with playing games for the first time, unless you do so on purpose. Now, what I should have done, in spoilers if you don't want to read it: + Show Spoiler + I should have said I will stay and post through the night to prove my claim that I was asleep through the first portion. I should have paid more attention to the general guide to mafia. A lot more. I should have re-read everything 5 times, and been very very careful what I posted. I should have posted far far less. I'm an idiot for forgetting why Anacletus was called out as scum. T_T Also It's pretty easy to point out a newbie's mistakes as scum behaviour, I consistently start stopping 'scummy' behaviour, aka spamming and indecisiveness as you/I catch it. We already know you're a newbie. Just like the rest of us. ##Vote Fencer710 It's not a crutch, it should be a similar sort of hindrance (we're all willing to spend time on a website dedicated to competitive video games, don't tell me about not reading the guide.) | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On June 30 2012 10:48 Intact wrote: In addition, should we lynch analectus and he turns put to be mafia, it would make it fairly easy to point out the other mafia. And if he turns out to be townie it would be very easy to confirm some townies. Uhm, it really doesn't work that way. Because they know that we know that they know that we know... you can get as meta as you want, what it really comes down to is educated guesses, and convincing other people those judgement calls are reasonable. Both sides know the same things, and both sides can try to meta-game. You can't second guess the people who know more than you and get the same updates to info as you. All you can do is look for what they do with the information. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
However, I can easily see this, like I said, as you just trying to be consistent with your earlier behavior to try and get BotD. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On June 30 2012 23:03 Hopeless1der wrote: I think Anacletus and Fender have had the scummiest play so far. However, I do not think that there is enough evidence that the [i]are[]/i] scum. However, I feel obliged to lynch someone, and Fender's death would be less hurtful to the town since Anacletus (was) posting somewhat relevant things to the thread. <--This is not a good reason to lynch someone I know, but its the best I can come up with under the circumstances for placing my initial vote. As you've already changed your vote to ensure a lynch, it probably doesn't matter anymore, but I was going to do the same thing (Switch vote from Fender to Anacletus) closer to the deadline (unless Fender got jumped). My reason for not immediately voting Anacletus was that they're both looking scummy and if I hammered, it could very well have halted all discussion for the rest of the day until we lynched him. This sounds vaguely suspicious to me. Noncommital, but a lot of words to say it, and no real interest in who dies. We might be looking the wrong way on both of them. Why would you want to bandwagon on what you think is a mislynch? Remember, a mislynch actively hurts the town. Sure, information is good, but if we lose a townie vote to get it, we're hurting. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On June 30 2012 23:19 Hopeless1der wrote: Would you rather No-Lynch in a situation like this Jingle? I would not, but I can see the merits to both decisions. I'd rather lynch scum. I'm just reminding people that while a no-lynch can be bad, because scum is +1 kill against us, with a mislynch, they're +2 kills. As much as I like information, the fact remains that information is the scum's game, ours is perception. Nothing we know or think matters unless others see it. So, while I'm not 100% against taking a risk day 1, we shouldn't just tunnel into lynching for info, and should go back through filters, see what we can really see, take a step back, and try to get a shot at lynching a scum. I'm planning to do that myself as soon as I finish getting my kid fed and doing some cleaning up. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 01 2012 00:08 Hopeless1der wrote: Based on what I've seen, I am not convinced that either Anacletus or Fencer is scum. (I was calling him Fender for a while there, sorry) I don't have a full scum read on anyone. Thanks for evading the Yes or No question I asked though. I'm not trying to trap you here, its just that you seem of the opinion that we shouldn't be lynching anyone right now due to lack of sufficient scumtells My point with the two players under suspicion is that I value the information from either lynch higher than the analysis of the lynched player or the lynched player's vote (Because they're targeting each other and not posting much analysis). I know town is down a player (potentially two) but the game is practically designed to mislynch day 1. I agree that our goal should be finding scum, not just getting information, but there is too little to go on so far other than ensuring someone gets lynched today due to bandwagoning. If you'll look back, since the very start, I've been against "yes or no" type play. I'm not evading anything, I'm saying we need to actually consider the angles. This isn't something we can just say one or the other is always better, so I'm not going to be forced to answer a question that doesn't line up with the way I believe we should play, and I'm not going to be called scum for being consistent that way. Why are you trying to force a decision based on too little information? That seems entirely more relevant at this point, because in the end, you'll see what decision I come to when I place a vote. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 01 2012 00:53 Hopeless1der wrote: You have been against yes/no play, I agree. You didn't really want to policy lynch to begin with. For the record I do not think your play is scummy. However, in order to vote for anyone you must come to the conclusion that it would be (or at least seems to be) beneficial for town. My problem with your answer is it assumes we will always be able to find scum, which right now I cannot. Too many bandwagons and lurkers. Therefore, my choices are to (semi-)knowingly go into either a mislynch or no-lynch situation. I qualified my question with "in a situation like this", by which I meant relatively poor cases, only two real options for voting, and a good chance to mislynch. My stance is it is better to mislynch for information than to no-lynch for an extra vote tomorrow. The votes that do get made are based off of better analysis due to having more information available. There is also the chance that we are lucky enough to pull scum. I think we're better off continuing discussion to try and force a scumslip, and if we reach the point of no return on a vote, I'll make the decision then on what vote to make based on all the information available at the time. I should (almost always) be here by the deadline. However, today I might not be, so like I said, I'll be going through the available information and working with it. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On June 29 2012 07:17 Hopeless1der wrote: Let's suppose many people neglect to post...if we can't get a decent case going, are we cool to lynch lurkers? Everyone on board? Early on, suggesting Policy on Lurkers, at a point when it would have been a terrible option. Category of useless posts, spoilered to stay concise. + Show Spoiler + On June 29 2012 07:56 Hopeless1der wrote: Aha! That's what we're looking for you lieing...Or maybe 10 minutes counts as a bit...Whatevs, Not a big deal. I do probably need to read better though. Everyone else needs to hurry up and get in here, im freaking out man. On June 29 2012 11:35 Hopeless1der wrote: i have one post-it note and a small whiteboard. =p Mind you, those fly in the face of: On June 29 2012 11:57 Hopeless1der wrote: Anacletus you're actively refusing to participate. Not even neglecting to do so (which I was also doing by joking around), but literally saying Dumb jokes aside, that is garbage and scummy behavior for anyone in this game. You would be better off lurking and pretending you weren't here, and even that could be considered suspicious. Our goal this early should be making whatever little reads we can and start building cases. Unfortunately we cannot do that with joke posts. Are you planning on giving us any reads? Right now, you have at best 1 post so far that I don't consider a complete write-off. Everyone has to start somewhere... You try to dismiss your as "dumb jokes" and attack Analfetus for it at the same time. Then, you try to drag me into a policy discussion when I've already made myself 100% clear about policy, all the while encouraging what you admit is a probably mislynch "for information", despite not really believing either is scummy. On July 01 2012 00:53 Hopeless1der wrote: I qualified my question with "in a situation like this", by which I meant relatively poor cases, only two real options for voting, and a good chance to mislynch. My stance is it is better to mislynch for information than to no-lynch for an extra vote tomorrow. The votes that do get made are based off of better analysis due to having more information available. There is also the chance that we are lucky enough to pull scum. ##Unvote ##Vote Hopeless1der | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 01 2012 02:09 AmericanUmlaut wrote: Myles: You're right to a certain extent. I was looking at your and Monk's contributions specifically because you were the only two not to have cast a vote. However, just because two players have the same post count doesn't mean they're making the same contribution. The vast majority of your posts so far have been filler that haven't added in any meaningful way to the conversation. For the record, I don't have a scummy read on you, I just feel like you could be contributing more with your posting. JH: Less nuttiness, and more posts like that, please! I for one am persuaded. I still have a scummy read on Anacletus, but actively arguing in favor of a mislynch over no lynch at all is far scummier play than he's demonstrated so far. ##Unvote Anacletus ##Vote Hopeless1der My read on Anacletus isn't changed at this point, though; I still think he's got a good chance of flipping scum. I'm a bit concerned that there might be too many players who will be inactive between now and the lynch, in which case I'll be switching my vote back to Anacletus to prevent a no-lynch. You just agreed with my reasoning against Hopeless1der because of the underlined text, and then said the bolded. Bandwagoning on my read, with a huge, glaring inconsistency, with the threat of further bandwagoning. You're still on my scum radar. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 01 2012 02:21 Hopeless1der wrote: The biggest scumtell I've had so far is the whole mislynch vs no lynch. To that I submit the following: WORST CASE SCENARIO No Lynch Day1 + Show Spoiler + Day1: 9 Town, 3 Scum (33.333% Chance of hitting scum with random lynch) No Lynch, Mafia hit on town Day2: 8 Town, 3 Scum (37.5% Chance of hitting scum with random lynch (Mis)Lynch Day1 + Show Spoiler + Day1: 9 Town, 3 Scum (33.333% Chance of hitting scum with random lynch) Lynch Town, Mafia hit on town Day2: 7 Town, 3 Scum (42.8% Chance of hitting scum with random lynch) Conclusion: Mislynch Bad. No Lynch Worse. WTF YOU ALREADY KNOW THIS WHY AM I DEFENDING MYSELF TO YOU?? Your math requires that we have no new reads to work with based off the mislynch and D2 discussion, and are forced to randomly lynch on D2. If we avoid a crapshoot on the D2 vote, we have better odds of winning a vote with scum being a smaller percentage of the population. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
Perhaps we should contemplate who looks shady now, in light of the new information. | ||
| ||
