|
On July 31 2012 07:20 Hapahauli wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 23:10 JingleHell wrote:On July 30 2012 22:14 Hapahauli wrote:On July 30 2012 13:34 JingleHell wrote:On July 30 2012 13:30 Blazinghand wrote:
No problem dude! Only Calgar and I spotted it-- most people didn't till it was pointed out to them.
And you told me it was too obvious. Which is when I started coming up with tons of contingency plans for it that had NOTHING to do with the original intent. Never show indecisiveness. Even if you backtrack all over yourself, do it aggressively. It makes you townie. Like Hapa. He stayed assertive and stayed below people's most scummy spot. What was the original plan behind your breadcrumb? I didn't know what to think when you mentioned you were trying to get me NK'd xD The original plan was to RB Calgar, who I thought was shady. The notion of "trying" to get you NKed to see if scum were after you came when I was told it was blatantly obvious by BallsinHand. Well, if it's that obvious, how can I use that? You got to admit, from a contingency plan point of view, it was a good use. Or could have been, had it been actually noticed. I thought your read (regarding me being not dead) was pretty good, and you might have gotten on the right track had you not stuck to the Me + Calgar scumteam theory. Wasn't too much a fan of the "obviousness" of the breadcrumb though - Jailer's a pretty powerful townie role, and is pretty bad to get a blue role like that shot N2.
Well, yes, like I said, I wasn't expecting people to notice it readily since I was already a prolific poster. Apparently that worked better than BH thought, but since Calgar brought it up, I decided to play that hand instead. I just overdid it a bit, instead of seeing the obvious part that I did later, where only one of you could possibly be scum, or I'd just have turned into a mislynch, since any two of the three of us could have controlled town opinion at that point in the game.
It wasn't until the Wiggles vote that I realized that, though, since both of you being scum might not have been able to turn it into a mislynch on me safely, but you certainly could have sustained the votes on YH into a mislynch and brushed it off easily for a cakewalk D3 mislynch on me.
|
On July 30 2012 23:44 Bluelightz wrote:
School maek me destroyed = can not halp co host t_t
*Shakes fist*
BLUELIGHTZ!
Just kidding, we still love you 
|
On July 31 2012 07:35 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 07:20 Hapahauli wrote:On July 30 2012 23:10 JingleHell wrote:On July 30 2012 22:14 Hapahauli wrote:On July 30 2012 13:34 JingleHell wrote:On July 30 2012 13:30 Blazinghand wrote:
No problem dude! Only Calgar and I spotted it-- most people didn't till it was pointed out to them.
And you told me it was too obvious. Which is when I started coming up with tons of contingency plans for it that had NOTHING to do with the original intent. Never show indecisiveness. Even if you backtrack all over yourself, do it aggressively. It makes you townie. Like Hapa. He stayed assertive and stayed below people's most scummy spot. What was the original plan behind your breadcrumb? I didn't know what to think when you mentioned you were trying to get me NK'd xD The original plan was to RB Calgar, who I thought was shady. The notion of "trying" to get you NKed to see if scum were after you came when I was told it was blatantly obvious by BallsinHand. Well, if it's that obvious, how can I use that? You got to admit, from a contingency plan point of view, it was a good use. Or could have been, had it been actually noticed. I thought your read (regarding me being not dead) was pretty good, and you might have gotten on the right track had you not stuck to the Me + Calgar scumteam theory. Wasn't too much a fan of the "obviousness" of the breadcrumb though - Jailer's a pretty powerful townie role, and is pretty bad to get a blue role like that shot N2. Well, yes, like I said, I wasn't expecting people to notice it readily since I was already a prolific poster. Apparently that worked better than BH thought, but since Calgar brought it up, I decided to play that hand instead. I just overdid it a bit, instead of seeing the obvious part that I did later, where only one of you could possibly be scum, or I'd just have turned into a mislynch, since any two of the three of us could have controlled town opinion at that point in the game. It wasn't until the Wiggles vote that I realized that, though, since both of you being scum might not have been able to turn it into a mislynch on me safely, but you certainly could have sustained the votes on YH into a mislynch and brushed it off easily for a cakewalk D3 mislynch on me.
You trying to get both of them convinced me that one of them was definitely scum. I really thought it was calgar and iamperfection.
@Hapa, did you really have a train to catch day1?
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On July 31 2012 10:02 Hopeless1der wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 07:35 JingleHell wrote:On July 31 2012 07:20 Hapahauli wrote:On July 30 2012 23:10 JingleHell wrote:On July 30 2012 22:14 Hapahauli wrote:On July 30 2012 13:34 JingleHell wrote:On July 30 2012 13:30 Blazinghand wrote:
No problem dude! Only Calgar and I spotted it-- most people didn't till it was pointed out to them.
And you told me it was too obvious. Which is when I started coming up with tons of contingency plans for it that had NOTHING to do with the original intent. Never show indecisiveness. Even if you backtrack all over yourself, do it aggressively. It makes you townie. Like Hapa. He stayed assertive and stayed below people's most scummy spot. What was the original plan behind your breadcrumb? I didn't know what to think when you mentioned you were trying to get me NK'd xD The original plan was to RB Calgar, who I thought was shady. The notion of "trying" to get you NKed to see if scum were after you came when I was told it was blatantly obvious by BallsinHand. Well, if it's that obvious, how can I use that? You got to admit, from a contingency plan point of view, it was a good use. Or could have been, had it been actually noticed. I thought your read (regarding me being not dead) was pretty good, and you might have gotten on the right track had you not stuck to the Me + Calgar scumteam theory. Wasn't too much a fan of the "obviousness" of the breadcrumb though - Jailer's a pretty powerful townie role, and is pretty bad to get a blue role like that shot N2. Well, yes, like I said, I wasn't expecting people to notice it readily since I was already a prolific poster. Apparently that worked better than BH thought, but since Calgar brought it up, I decided to play that hand instead. I just overdid it a bit, instead of seeing the obvious part that I did later, where only one of you could possibly be scum, or I'd just have turned into a mislynch, since any two of the three of us could have controlled town opinion at that point in the game. It wasn't until the Wiggles vote that I realized that, though, since both of you being scum might not have been able to turn it into a mislynch on me safely, but you certainly could have sustained the votes on YH into a mislynch and brushed it off easily for a cakewalk D3 mislynch on me. You trying to get both of them convinced me that one of them was definitely scum. I really thought it was calgar and iamperfection. @Hapa, did you really have a train to catch day1?
As a personal stylistic choice, I assume literally every excuse for inactivity is a bald faced lie.
Only legit scum hunting and pro town play can alleviate some of this suspicion- excuses are as easily made by scum as by town, and therefore carry zero meaning whatsoever. Anyone who leans on one has something to hide.
But I'm a paranoid bastard-- don't mind me.
|
On July 31 2012 10:08 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 10:02 Hopeless1der wrote:On July 31 2012 07:35 JingleHell wrote:On July 31 2012 07:20 Hapahauli wrote:On July 30 2012 23:10 JingleHell wrote:On July 30 2012 22:14 Hapahauli wrote:On July 30 2012 13:34 JingleHell wrote:On July 30 2012 13:30 Blazinghand wrote:
No problem dude! Only Calgar and I spotted it-- most people didn't till it was pointed out to them.
And you told me it was too obvious. Which is when I started coming up with tons of contingency plans for it that had NOTHING to do with the original intent. Never show indecisiveness. Even if you backtrack all over yourself, do it aggressively. It makes you townie. Like Hapa. He stayed assertive and stayed below people's most scummy spot. What was the original plan behind your breadcrumb? I didn't know what to think when you mentioned you were trying to get me NK'd xD The original plan was to RB Calgar, who I thought was shady. The notion of "trying" to get you NKed to see if scum were after you came when I was told it was blatantly obvious by BallsinHand. Well, if it's that obvious, how can I use that? You got to admit, from a contingency plan point of view, it was a good use. Or could have been, had it been actually noticed. I thought your read (regarding me being not dead) was pretty good, and you might have gotten on the right track had you not stuck to the Me + Calgar scumteam theory. Wasn't too much a fan of the "obviousness" of the breadcrumb though - Jailer's a pretty powerful townie role, and is pretty bad to get a blue role like that shot N2. Well, yes, like I said, I wasn't expecting people to notice it readily since I was already a prolific poster. Apparently that worked better than BH thought, but since Calgar brought it up, I decided to play that hand instead. I just overdid it a bit, instead of seeing the obvious part that I did later, where only one of you could possibly be scum, or I'd just have turned into a mislynch, since any two of the three of us could have controlled town opinion at that point in the game. It wasn't until the Wiggles vote that I realized that, though, since both of you being scum might not have been able to turn it into a mislynch on me safely, but you certainly could have sustained the votes on YH into a mislynch and brushed it off easily for a cakewalk D3 mislynch on me. You trying to get both of them convinced me that one of them was definitely scum. I really thought it was calgar and iamperfection. @Hapa, did you really have a train to catch day1? As a personal stylistic choice, I assume literally every excuse for inactivity is a bald faced lie. Only legit scum hunting and pro town play can alleviate some of this suspicion- excuses are as easily made by scum as by town, and therefore carry zero meaning whatsoever. Anyone who leans on one has something to hide. But I'm a paranoid bastard-- don't mind me.
Yeah, like I told Obvious in the obs thread. You don't trust anyone, always be ready to pound someone else if they make a slip. Like Wiggles.
Frankly, if someone looks scummy enough that inactivity looks scummy, you probably have enough case to pressure anyways, and if they look townie enough that inactivity doesn't get questioned, they probably don't need to mention a reason unless it's going to be directly prior to deadline.
|
On July 31 2012 10:02 Hopeless1der wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 07:35 JingleHell wrote:On July 31 2012 07:20 Hapahauli wrote:On July 30 2012 23:10 JingleHell wrote:On July 30 2012 22:14 Hapahauli wrote:On July 30 2012 13:34 JingleHell wrote:On July 30 2012 13:30 Blazinghand wrote:
No problem dude! Only Calgar and I spotted it-- most people didn't till it was pointed out to them.
And you told me it was too obvious. Which is when I started coming up with tons of contingency plans for it that had NOTHING to do with the original intent. Never show indecisiveness. Even if you backtrack all over yourself, do it aggressively. It makes you townie. Like Hapa. He stayed assertive and stayed below people's most scummy spot. What was the original plan behind your breadcrumb? I didn't know what to think when you mentioned you were trying to get me NK'd xD The original plan was to RB Calgar, who I thought was shady. The notion of "trying" to get you NKed to see if scum were after you came when I was told it was blatantly obvious by BallsinHand. Well, if it's that obvious, how can I use that? You got to admit, from a contingency plan point of view, it was a good use. Or could have been, had it been actually noticed. I thought your read (regarding me being not dead) was pretty good, and you might have gotten on the right track had you not stuck to the Me + Calgar scumteam theory. Wasn't too much a fan of the "obviousness" of the breadcrumb though - Jailer's a pretty powerful townie role, and is pretty bad to get a blue role like that shot N2. Well, yes, like I said, I wasn't expecting people to notice it readily since I was already a prolific poster. Apparently that worked better than BH thought, but since Calgar brought it up, I decided to play that hand instead. I just overdid it a bit, instead of seeing the obvious part that I did later, where only one of you could possibly be scum, or I'd just have turned into a mislynch, since any two of the three of us could have controlled town opinion at that point in the game. It wasn't until the Wiggles vote that I realized that, though, since both of you being scum might not have been able to turn it into a mislynch on me safely, but you certainly could have sustained the votes on YH into a mislynch and brushed it off easily for a cakewalk D3 mislynch on me. You trying to get both of them convinced me that one of them was definitely scum. I really thought it was calgar and iamperfection. @Hapa, did you really have a train to catch day1?
I regretted typing it immediately after I sent it, but it was 100% truth - I was travelling in and out of the city for the past week
EDIT: And I promise this is not covering my bases for future game meta or anything =P
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
Regardless, like most things in Mafia, Its not what's true that matters, its who you can convince and what you can prove. Whether or not he was really busy is literally irrelevant IMO.
|
On that subject BH, even though I was telling the truth, there was still mafia-motive behind me posting that. I had posted earlier that I would try and lobby against the Obvious.660 lynch, and given my meta in Newbie XX of doing just that with Lazermonkey D1, I wanted to cover my bases.
Non-suspicious player trying to look less suspicious = mafia motive
|
On July 31 2012 10:42 Blazinghand wrote:
Regardless, like most things in Mafia, Its not what's true that matters, its who you can convince and what you can prove. Whether or not he was really busy is literally irrelevant IMO.
True story. The mafia know who's who. Everyone else only knows about themselves and flips.
Best solution, never trust anybody. Never make a soft case. Even if a case is weak, make a hard sale. People seemed to think I was overly relentless early, that's actually just because if you back off from a position without a good reason, it's scummy as all hell.
Hapa, can you honestly tell me you wouldn't have had me mislynched in five minutes if I'd been similarly vocal, but with soft pressure instead of the relentless shit I did? Wishy washy, preparing busses, spreading confusion...
The only way to play active town is to be implacable. If you're really town, you should be able to explain most of your motive for actions if you get quizzed on them. That's why scum lurk a lot. Less to explain. But it does lose you the hidden benefit of having provided a town read (assuming you can stay fairly consistent).
Example - If Hapa had tried what Wiggles did, when he did, it would have turned into a last minute 50/50 OMGUS shouting match to see who got lynched. Or just a straight up success for the ploy. 50% from an OMGUS war would have been my BEST odds of living through it.
|
On July 31 2012 10:51 JingleHell wrote:
True story. The mafia know who's who. Everyone else only knows about themselves and flips.
Best solution, never trust anybody. Never make a soft case. Even if a case is weak, make a hard sale. People seemed to think I was overly relentless early, that's actually just because if you back off from a position without a good reason, it's scummy as all hell.
Hapa, can you honestly tell me you wouldn't have had me mislynched in five minutes if I'd been similarly vocal, but with soft pressure instead of the relentless shit I did? Wishy washy, preparing busses, spreading confusion...
I have to say I disgree here. By your own logic town don't know who is scum, so pressuring someone and then changing your mind is not a scum tell. There is a fine line between throwing around doubt with no intent to make things clear and changing your read based on responses.
Being relentless in the early game is dangerous because you can implicate townies who just don't know how to respond. In addition you create a situation where it is hard to change your read. I used to play like that, go hard, go early, never let go. But it lead to me lynching townies and letting scum hide. There is nothing wrong with strong pressure but it can be dangerous.
I find scum in the people who immediately agree with my pressure without thinking clearly, also those that don't comment on anything that is happening. It is very rare that my firt pressure target is actually scum.
Thoughts?
|
On July 31 2012 10:57 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 10:51 JingleHell wrote:
True story. The mafia know who's who. Everyone else only knows about themselves and flips.
Best solution, never trust anybody. Never make a soft case. Even if a case is weak, make a hard sale. People seemed to think I was overly relentless early, that's actually just because if you back off from a position without a good reason, it's scummy as all hell.
Hapa, can you honestly tell me you wouldn't have had me mislynched in five minutes if I'd been similarly vocal, but with soft pressure instead of the relentless shit I did? Wishy washy, preparing busses, spreading confusion... I have to say I disgree here. By your own logic town don't know who is scum, so pressuring someone and then changing your mind is not a scum tell. There is a fine line between throwing around doubt with no intent to make things clear and changing your read based on responses. Being relentless in the early game is dangerous because you can implicate townies who just don't know how to respond. In addition you create a situation where it is hard to change your read. I used to play like that, go hard, go early, never let go. But it lead to me lynching townies and letting scum hide. There is nothing wrong with strong pressure but it can be dangerous. I find scum in the people who immediately agree with my pressure without thinking clearly, also those that don't comment on anything that is happening. It is very rare that my firt pressure target is actually scum. Thoughts?
Well, I can kind of agree. Day 2 I really got into that stride more, D1 was just a disaster. Partly due to being relentless on slim info, but, let's face it, Obvious's direction shift on D1 sounded incredibly bad. It was actually just a careless play, but it set things into a good position for scum, happening so early D1, it prevented too much need for discussion, and created an early bandwagon.
I think, more than anything, it's just a double edged sword.
|
On July 31 2012 10:51 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 10:42 Blazinghand wrote:
Regardless, like most things in Mafia, Its not what's true that matters, its who you can convince and what you can prove. Whether or not he was really busy is literally irrelevant IMO. True story. The mafia know who's who. Everyone else only knows about themselves and flips. Best solution, never trust anybody. Never make a soft case. Even if a case is weak, make a hard sale. People seemed to think I was overly relentless early, that's actually just because if you back off from a position without a good reason, it's scummy as all hell. Hapa, can you honestly tell me you wouldn't have had me mislynched in five minutes if I'd been similarly vocal, but with soft pressure instead of the relentless shit I did? Wishy washy, preparing busses, spreading confusion...
I agree with being aggressive, but as Probulous said, it's very dangerous to cross the line into being relentless. In a game with such limited information, it gets really easy to lock onto an opponent and twist everything he/she says into scummy behavior (re: my case on you D2 in Newbie XX). So yes, it's rarely a good idea to be wishy-washy and simply point suspicion. However, it's not scummy to be aggressive against someone, then simply switch to another target if they seem townie enough.
As for a hypothetical Jingle playing wishy-washy... well I'd wonder if there were two scumteams in the game or something o_O
The only way to play active town is to be implacable. If you're really town, you should be able to explain most of your motive for actions if you get quizzed on them. That's why scum lurk a lot. Less to explain. But it does lose you the hidden benefit of having provided a town read (assuming you can stay fairly consistent).
Example - If Hapa had tried what Wiggles did, when he did, it would have turned into a last minute 50/50 OMGUS shouting match to see who got lynched. Or just a straight up success for the ploy. 50% from an OMGUS war would have been my BEST odds of living through it.
Highly highly disagree with the bolded statement. While a lot of newbie-game cases tend to focus on pointing out inconsistent play, it's rarely mafia behavior. For example, YourHarry, Tube, and Calgar all got mislynched for "inconsistent" play (and an inability to explain their play), however, they were all town. For example, YourHarry's consipracy theories should have made him seem very town, even though they were crazy theories overall. Also, Calgar's play was inconsistent, it was more inline with "recklessness" rather than scummy behavior.
Basically, I think the typical newbie-game participant tends to emphasize the wrong reads when finding scum. Inconsistent play is often townie play, and if you don't have a perfect story for your actions, I'd be inclined to read you as town. Inconsistent play isn't bad townie play - it just can be bad in newbie games since newbies focus on surface-reads rather than looking for mafia-motive.
|
I can only assume people say things relatively intentionally. I look for a scum motive, and if it doesn't sound like YourHarry came up with it, I look for supporting things. Yeah, you can make a case on anyone this way, but until you have a reason not to, you probably SHOULD be looking at a case on anyone.
The second you start second guessing your reads under the assumption that it could just be strange or bad play, you've set yourself up for serious WIFOM trouble.
|
On July 31 2012 11:41 JingleHell wrote:
I can only assume people say things relatively intentionally. I look for a scum motive, and if it doesn't sound like YourHarry came up with it, I look for supporting things. Yeah, you can make a case on anyone this way, but until you have a reason not to, you probably SHOULD be looking at a case on anyone.
The second you start second guessing your reads under the assumption that it could just be strange or bad play, you've set yourself up for serious WIFOM trouble.
See I always do that 
When you write a case there will always be pros and cons to it. There will generally be opposing ways to interpret actions. By indentifying them you can decide which fits their overall play better. For me the best clue that someone is scum is that they are not actively trying to find mafia. A strong case could be mafia pushing a misslynch or it could be a townie pushing their suspect. The way in which the case is presented will tell you whether it is a genuine case versus a fake case.
Bad play fits this theme as well. If someone does stupid stuff you have to ask yourself why they do it. It is very very very rare that mafia do nothing but play badly. More often than not the bad players are town. Mafia have more information and the ability to bounce ideas off of each other so they generally will make more sense than townies. Ultimately most bad play is irrelevant as it has no impact of scum hunting.
If someone plays terribly making no sense but every now and then asks an inciteful question and follows it up, or they post a case that has some good points, they are likely town. If they just post badly and never attempt to find mafia then they are likely mafia. Ultimately the arbiter is whether they are genuinely looking for scum.
This is obviously a massive generalisation but it works for me.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
yeah, tunneling someone day 1 can have pretty bad consequences.
|
On July 31 2012 20:55 marvellosity wrote:
yeah, tunneling someone day 1 can have pretty bad consequences.
Nah, it always works out.
|
I was intending to sort out my notes and post tem, but life has gotten in the way. Briefly, what I remember:
@JingleHell: that breadcrumb was really ad and your subsequent claim possibly even worse: you were under no pressure and outed a really strong town role for no reason. Be more careful with that. Not that I think it would've mattered: if I had been scum I would've shot you n1 and if not, then n2 even without the claim. Your D1 was all over the place, but you were activel promoting town atmosphere and discussion. This almost directly lead to wiggl3s slipping up.
@d1 townies: d1 had some rally reall ad postin going on that reall just let mafia sit back and let the fireworks happen. I believ it was about 4 hours befor the deadline when I said in the mod qt that if town went with a lrke policy lynch theyd have a 50 percent chance of hitting scum. Both wiggl3s and mufaa did nothing at all. The pressure on tube went on long after it was quite clear he was a lost townie and quite a few townies came out of that looking really bad. There was also some terrible logic based on mafiascum's bogus statistics and some other stuff I forgot now. I know d1 is often hard to get some decent discussion going, but this was quite exceptional. Some topics to start with in future games:
a serious discussion of policy lynches
a random vote with some bogus reason to gauge responses
calling out lurkers about 24 hours in and follow that up
I'd add metagame discussion on people you know, but using that is trick and probably only useful for more experienced players.
@hapa: well done. Clearly mvp this game.
@calgar: I think that if you had been more forceful, you could've won this for town,but you were quite unsure in your stances from the start and scum took full advantage of that to discredit you. That's a pity, because your instincts were good and your reads converged perfectly on nailing the scumteam.
@scumteam: please go and read the guides... your nks were really off base. Killing evulrabbitz was still somewhat excusable (and thanks for saving us the effort of looking for a replacement), because town was in utter pandemonium, but killing fulla over yourharry made no sense. Oh, and if you were bluesniping you really should be reading attentively for readcrumbs (jingle)... but not using advanced numerology (calgar). This is where that kinda paranoia will lead you: http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Code-Michael-Drosnin/dp/0684849739
Other than that: please do not be inactive as town. The easiest way to find scum is by having an active town and forcing scum ot into te open. This game had 2 prime examples of that. The first was wiggl3s slipping up when he felt pressured to make a post. The second was calgar being able to find the scumteam through a process of deduction (and scum shooting fulla  ). Speedbump came into a tough situation, but general town inactivity let him hide until it was over. He should not have been able to get away with that. In general, remember that scum hate making posts that scumhunt, because the more contributing posts you make the easier it is to have inconsistencies that cannot be explained from a town viewpoint. Town inactivity lets scum get away without making those posts... and lets hapa get into a town leader position.
|
Acro, did your "B" key take a shit by some chance?
|
Walls of text and ipads dont go well together :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
