I Can't Believe it's not Themed MiniMafia - Page 82

On July 13 2012 01:54 austinmcc wrote:


Here's Matt's post

Gonna try not to poke at this past this post, because this isn't helpful and I still think that both stages of your plan are bad. Matt is worried about (1) stupid reads and (2) connection theories. Although my (2) is slightly like Matt's (1), I'm worried about (1) shitting up the thread later with whether not posting 3 cases is scummy and (2) voting based on suspicions quantity, not quality.

On July 13 2012 02:04 austinmcc wrote:
EBWOP: Sounds dumb with your vote on him, but it's a serious question.

On July 13 2012 08:05 austinmcc wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

Okay, I guess this is how you read Gonzaw. Nice to see everything that's fallen out of his poking half the thread, will be looking it over after posting this.

Well, here's my response I guess.

(1)
So everyone agrees that the Talismania bits come off weird, and don't seem townie. 'Cause Talismania comes off weird to me, and I guess that made my thoughts on him and response less than clear. In the beginning, he proposes a plan expecting it to get negativity. Been clear that he expected that. Except he then engages some magical Part 2, in which he wants to get information from how people shat on it. Really, I still don't like this second stage. Because you end up with is "Here are 7 people that didn't like the plan, and here's how some of them didn't like it in non-novel ways," then you got us nothing. It's a lot of posting, and what seems like activity, for nothing. And seriously, what did we actually take away from the Plan Part 1 or Plan Part 2? I don't think we got anything out of it at all.

If I don't think Part 2 was helpful, then I'm not going to like him trying to call me out for that. Look at my response, and see that there's a difference between me (1) pointing out why the initial plan was bad and (2) pointing out why Part 2, where he says I didn't contribute anything new. I'm addressing why my critiques were different than the ones already made, and to the extent that I'm rehashing what those critiques were, it's to show that they were different.

Basically, nobody liked Part 1. Talis pulls out Part 2, calls me scummy with it. I don't think Part 2 is helpful to town, and I think he's misrepresenting my earlier post, saying that there was nothing new. That's what I'm responding to, it's a little convoluted because it's both me trying to show where he's misrepresenting what I'm saying, but also the whole time I'm writing that Part 2 of this plan isn't sitting right with me.

Was it brief? No. Was it particularly well thought-out? No. But I wouldn't say that I'm usually brief. Both in game and in obs chats I tend to be a little wordy.

(2)
As to the Risen bits, you're misreading and Marv is correct. Those were Risen's thoughts on dropbear: + Show Spoiler +

As Marv pointed out "He could be scum bussing a scumbuddy. He could be scum calling out town. He's probably a townie. He's a townie but I don't like what he's doing. A lot of filter, but nothing really said" was my summary of Risen's posts. You must have missed them, because my words there are exactly what Risen said about DropBear. That's the only actual read he'd given at this point, and it was summed up by my quote. I'm not posting in a confusing manner there, I'm showing how DropBear posts were confusing and you just missed them earlier.


As to the rest of the bit on Risen, I was weirded out by this post. Just straight up says he doesn't like making reads without connections. Yet that's what EVERYONE has to do D1 basically. I went back through his filter and he does lean towards connection cases, so I'm less weirded out by it but...did this not strike other people as odd? Not just it's too early, but it's too early + I don't like making reads without connections. If you're scum, it's an easy way to coast through a few days. If you're town, then what's the reasoning? I assumed the reasoning was he didn't like making reads early because he didn't trust them much. That's why my response has some feel-good crap in it about how it's fine being wrong, because I don't see the reasoning behind that statement unless it's "I don't like that my early reads are wrong."


Overall Gonzaw, you misread my stuff on Risen. I responded to your concerns about him, but reread the back half of my bad post and see if it looks better once you actually look at his posts on DropBear. That stupid quote from me was basically what he'd said. You also, and this is important, because I'm not liking Talismania right now, misread both the fallout from Talismania's plan AND my post. My post is addressing his Part 2, showing why one of the few things he's offering up as the reason he started Part 1 is him being disingenuous about what I'd added. I think you're being slightly disingenuous as well when you say .. okay, seriously. My computer won't accept end quote tags all of a sudden. That's why I keep giving URL links. Gonna have to fix this. But you say "Even more importantly....why does it matter? How could heavily debating why tali's plan was bad (even after 90% had already stated why) be any helpful at all? It just clutters things up and makes your post look big, and of course it just makes it so you appear active and contributing when you haven't done shit until then."

(1) 90% of people hadn't already stated why it was bad. Look at Talis's little summary of people who commented. It's 7 people long, and one of them is him misinterpreting your post. That's not 90% of the thread.
(2) Again, I'm not saying why the plan was bad. I'm trying to say that he's incorrect in saying I didn't add anything. I think he's really stretching what people have said to try and make it seem like Part 2 of the plan was somehow helpful, when really it's not.

##Vote: Talismania
I don't buy this two-part plan nonsense, and I don't think it's helpful at all.

On July 12 2012 13:31 sciberbia wrote:
A couple minor things:


I just want to Mention that Miltonkram sAid he'd be buSy so wait befOre you go braNding him as quiet/lurky.



Sk has a 50% prObability of Inclusion in Setup? as per A c9++?

what nUmbers of mafS are there poTentially? iIrc 2 or 3 are oNly possible mafia counts in c9++ and 3 is more likely. Is it the same here?