EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XXI - Page 12
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
tube
United States1475 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 16 2012 11:17 Hapahauli wrote: @ Calgar: Well-posted, but I disagree with you on the newb-lurker strategy being "overplayed." Fact is, this is a newbie game, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some of that stuff (or other "overplayed" tells) here. I fully expect to see at least one player go too obviously "hard-counter" to the scum-tells in the various guides. If we don't get at least one high-profile scum, I'll be shocked. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On July 16 2012 11:21 JingleHell wrote: You guys may end up being be right but I'm not expecting anything to come easily. I suppose we'll have to wait and see. Very quiet first night so far, though, so not much to be done really.I fully expect to see at least one player go too obviously "hard-counter" to the scum-tells in the various guides. If we don't get at least one high-profile scum, I'll be shocked. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 16 2012 11:28 calgar wrote: You guys may end up being be right but I'm not expecting anything to come easily. I suppose we'll have to wait and see. Very quiet first night so far, though, so not much to be done really. See, that's suspect in and of itself. "Wait and see" is trouble. Make something happen or lose. And just your bit about not expecting things to come easily, just sounds like you're hoping to plant seeds of doubt early, so that you can point to it later when you go WIFOM crazy on us. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On July 16 2012 11:35 JingleHell wrote: I think you're reading into my words way too much. I mean them as plainly as possible - I'm not aiming to have any subtle ulterior-motive second speech going on. I agree, make something happen or lose. Difficult when people are not posting, though, agreed? Thus talking to try and instigate said discussion, agree? Should I rather become silent - no, disagree. I'm trying to be as productive as possible - and at least giving other people a little bit to go on and analyze to make decisions for themselves.See, that's suspect in and of itself. "Wait and see" is trouble. Make something happen or lose. And just your bit about not expecting things to come easily, just sounds like you're hoping to plant seeds of doubt early, so that you can point to it later when you go WIFOM crazy on us. What on earth are you talking about here? Why are you predicting that I will point to seeds of doubt later that I haven't even laid?What I said in my last post: 1: you guys may be correct that mafia will reveal with obvious tells. 2: i'm going to give them more credit than that though 3: very little dialogue occurring currently. What you say: you're going to turn on us with your seeds of doubt. Not very logical, imo. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 16 2012 11:45 calgar wrote: I think you're reading into my words way too much. I mean them as plainly as possible - I'm not aiming to have any subtle ulterior-motive second speech going on. I agree, make something happen or lose. Difficult when people are not posting, though, agreed? Thus talking to try and instigate said discussion, agree? Should I rather become silent - no, disagree. I'm trying to be as productive as possible - and at least giving other people a little bit to go on and analyze to make decisions for themselves. What on earth are you talking about here? Why are you predicting that I will point to seeds of doubt later that I haven't even laid? What I said in my last post: 1: you guys may be correct that mafia will reveal with obvious tells. 2: i'm going to give them more credit than that though 3: very little dialogue occurring currently. What you say: you're going to turn on us with your seeds of doubt. Not very logical, imo. "Wait and see" is mutually exclusive with "instigate discussion". And I mean exactly what I say about seeds of doubt. You could easily be working with a scum ulterior motive. Saying you don't expect things to be easy is basically just invoking WIFOM without saying anything, in a way that could be used to cover things you say later. Remember, in this game, it's about finding a way to cooperate in an intentional atmosphere of mutual distrust. We have to find enough grains of information hidden within the subtext of the conversation to negate some portion of the scum's information advantage. Everything you say or do has to be treated like there's the potential for an ulterior motive, until and unless you're confirmed townie. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On July 16 2012 11:50 JingleHell wrote: Interesting that you say that, considering it (and the the rest of my post) has instigated a discussion with you. Hence you reading into meanings of words whereas actions suggest otherwise. "Yes guys let's wait and see and not accomplish anything meaningful so that mafia can win easily" --> discusses. The first is what you suggest my motive to be, with just those 3 words, but does it not contradict the second? This goes back to my point with hapa - it seems very unintelligent to give yourself away so early. I think this 'tell' you're picking up on is unintentionally distracting from the real issue."Wait and see" is mutually exclusive with "instigate discussion". And I mean exactly what I say about seeds of doubt. You could easily be working with a scum ulterior motive. Saying you don't expect things to be easy is basically just invoking WIFOM without saying anything, in a way that could be used to cover things you say later. I'm just trying to promote discussion since it's slow right now. I don't even think this conversation is really about anything, other than you being suspicious of my words in ways I didn't intend them to be meant, so why would I point to it later? Seems like accusations, voting, and who suspects who would be much more important down the line. I'm not following your line of reasoning there.Remember, in this game, it's about finding a way to cooperate in an intentional atmosphere of mutual distrust. We have to find enough grains of information hidden within the subtext of the conversation to negate some portion of the scum's information advantage. Everything you say or do has to be treated like there's the potential for an ulterior motive, until and unless you're confirmed townie. In summary - I seem to have stepped onto the hot plate, so to speak, but I'll accept that to generate discussion. I think you can read into just about anything as much as you want. I just don't think there's actually any substance here. I hope that makes sense. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
The real issue you're accusing me of being distracted from is the real issue of finding and lynching scum. In what way is pointing out dangerous statements distracting from that? There's not going to be much substance to any conversation at this point. There can't be, with nobody weighing in. So, when there's almost nothing to discuss, you talk about what you can talk about, so that if there's a case down the line, you're in a good position. Also, it's very shady to say "the scum wouldn't do that". We can't know what the scum would or wouldn't do yet. It's all guesswork. It always will be until we have information. In fact, just pointing to "Well, scummy behavior would be X, see how I'm not doing that" sounds scummy as all hell, since the only people who know what the scum have planned are the scum. I'm really curious though, when there's no votes (I hate the risk of early bandwagons), and if you think this accusation is such a pointless distraction and so on, why are you squirming around so much under this very light pressure? | ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
Town (lynched day-1): NMM XVIII Town (Endgamed:NMM XIX Scum (lynched day-1);NMM XX I'm on MST, and should be active (or at least up to date on the thread) any time throughout the day from ~6AM-11PM. I disagree with the use of meta, at least in newbie, despite the fact that it seemed like Hapa relied on it heavily in NMMXX to get a big day-1 lynch. I made a terrible accusation against him that let him tunnel me to victory. The meta case could have easily gone either way in my opinion. Actual reads are always going to outweigh any meta analysis when I consider a case against any player. I don't care if you have a scummy meta, SCUMMY PLAY DOES NOT HELP TOWN! If I find your play scummy, I'm going to read you as scum and push for your lynch. Still nothing really serious going on. As of now, my goal is to not lynch any lurkers. That kind of sucks for me, because I have every intention of voting for a lurker. I know I just contradicted myself. My reasoning is that in a mini, and especially after we had to post "I will be active" to /in, lurking is beyond unacceptable. This does not mean I'm going to not try to get discussion going. Especially because: THIS IS PLURALITY LYNCH, NOT MAJORITY. My choice of which lurker is not going to be known until its much closer to the vote deadline. This is especially because I've found that early votes lead to very unreliable bandwagon activity from town players as well as scum. I'm hoping there is no one to choose from due to the amazing activity in the thread and I get to vote for a scummy read instead. -@Calgar Regarding the "wait and see" discussion: "I have nothing else to contribute right now, and there isn't really any info to make reads with the current information. Instead of mucking up the thread with random policy or spam, I'm just going to shut my trap and wait for some activity." Unless of course we want to get random policy discussion going. Or the merits of naming yourself after sex-toys, or why tube won't post using reasonable punctuation. There is always something to post, and I'd rather see remarkably random discussions being started instead of straight up saying "I'm just going to sit here and wait." On July 16 2012 11:50 JingleHell wrote: "Wait and see" is mutually exclusive with "instigate discussion". The only reason you're in this discussion is because Jingle thought what you said was (or could be interpreted as) scummy. He explicitly prevented you from waiting by pressuring you now. On July 16 2012 12:08 calgar wrote: Interesting that you say that, considering it (and the the rest of my post) has instigated a discussion with you. This is bullshit to me. You're post had no intention of instigating any discussion. On July 16 2012 11:28 calgar wrote: You guys may end up being be right but I'm not expecting anything to come easily. I suppose we'll have to wait and see. Very quiet first night so far, though, so not much to be done really. If it did, it was because you knew it was a scummy thing to say and someone would call you out on it. Otherwise you could literally have posted nothing, and achieved a similar result. I do think Jingle was reading too much into the initial statement, but I find your reactions to it to be over the top. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On July 16 2012 12:15 JingleHell wrote: No, I'm not contradicting myself. You're just not making sense. I pointed out that you said something that's at best bizarre and at worst scummy, so now you're trying to twist it into something completely different than what it was. The real issue you're accusing me of being distracted from is the real issue of finding and lynching scum. In what way is pointing out dangerous statements distracting from that? There's not going to be much substance to any conversation at this point. There can't be, with nobody weighing in. So, when there's almost nothing to discuss, you talk about what you can talk about, so that if there's a case down the line, you're in a good position. Also, it's very shady to say "the scum wouldn't do that". We can't know what the scum would or wouldn't do yet. It's all guesswork. It always will be until we have information. In fact, just pointing to "Well, scummy behavior would be X, see how I'm not doing that" sounds scummy as all hell, since the only people who know what the scum have planned are the scum. I'm really curious though, when there's no votes (I hate the risk of early bandwagons), and if you think this accusation is such a pointless distraction and so on, why are you squirming around so much under this very light pressure? Well, it seems as though I can only dig my hole deeper. I'll section my paragraphs to respond correspondingly to yours. I'm not trying to twist anything at all. I'll rephrase my argument as you say I'm not making any sense. Here is my take: This started because of the "bizarre and at worst scummy" lines 'wait and see' and 'not expecting it to be easy'. The root of this suspicion is that you believe these lines hint/suggest/promote anti-town behavior (I am mafia and have blown my cover in 3 hours - sorry I have to giggle at this). Discussion is pro-town. My posts caused discussion, so based on the previous, it was pro-town, in some sense at least. Do you agree with that? That was the point I was trying to make. Whatever message you see behind the words, there is discussion between us now. I'm not trying to twist anything and I stand by my previous words. Part of the reason I said I didn't expect it to be easy is because I specifically remember reading in a TL thread here that mafia had historically usually won these types of games. There were some notable exceptions where that wasn't the case. I can't remember the thread (someone may know or I can dig if you'd like), but that is where my rationale is coming from. I agree completely here. Pointing out dangerous statements is not distracting, in any way, from finding and lynching scum so you are correct in that regard. There isn't much substance to talk about. I agree with you here again. I see that you're barking up the only tree there is right now. I just happen to think that it's the wrong tree. That's all I mean by saying its a distraction. I don't mean to dismiss it though, so if you're unsatisfied I can try to answer more thoroughly. I disagree with you here on point 4, strongly. We can use logic to assume that mafia will behave rationally and in a way to maximize their chances of winning. This includes not posting silly giveaways that you can spot instantly. Maybe I'm just giving people too much credit here? I am speculating as to potential strategy based on what would give them the best chance of winning. Thus, when I say that it would be silly for mafia to reveal themselves in several hours when they could have lurked, I think you will agree with me, no? I'm really curious though, when there's no votes (I hate the risk of early bandwagons), and if you think this accusation is such a pointless distraction and so on, why are you squirming around so much under this very light pressure? A very interesting question jingle. Before I answer, let me ask you a question in return. Why did I continue posting, instead of saying good night and stopping after hapa was satisfied with my answer? Especially when 5/12 have not posted yet (yes, I'm tracking, I think it's useful to know). The simple answer is that I'm just trying to talk more. Not squirming, just talking. Squirm has a connotation of guilt. What makes you think that I am squirming? I've done my best to calmly and rationally use logic here. I understand where you're coming from and see your points. I ask that you try to make an effort to see from my point of view. Off to sleep now. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
The only reason you're in this discussion is because Jingle thought what you said was (or could be interpreted as) scummy. He explicitly prevented you from waiting by pressuring you now. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
Right now you sound like an "Active lurker". Posting to be visible, to try and demonstrate townieness, but without really saying much. Until I called you on it. Now you're explaining what the scum would do, which is pure WIFOM, especially this early in the game. | ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
On July 16 2012 12:57 calgar wrote: You have to understand that I voluntarily posted with nothing to post about (essentially). This post about, what I felt was nothing, started it up. So it doesn't make sense to dismiss my part in it as "bullshit". I felt like in this beginning scenario making a rather content-less post was better than not posting at all. I'm glad my post has caused him to pressure. It seems like you've misunderstood specifically what I was referring to, probably the crappy structure of my post.The b.s. part was where you said your post had instigated discussion. Basically Jingle's first paragraph above. | ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
Hopeless1der
United States5836 Posts
| ||
|
ObviousOne
United States3704 Posts
Regarding the direction we will wish to take today, I am not ready to make any comment quite yet. I've been awake for 31 hours. After I sleep I'll be in better shape to re-read everything and get scum hunting. | ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
Obvious scum BTW, "wait and see" does not mean that we should actively stop what we are discussing to see what happens. It could mean, carry on with discussions and finger pointing and see where our scum hunting leads us. | ||
| ||
