|
EBWOP:
On July 31 2012 14:35 DarthPunk wrote:
Where is mordanis? he goes from making huge waves on the first day. Leads the case on Golbat, jumps on Shady Sands lots of posting etc. It is now 9 hours till deadline on day 2. He has made a case on ange777 with his singular post and has since disappeared. This is quite a contrast to his case on golbat in which there is a large loud and consistent follow up on golbat.
What was that said about burnout? That playing loud mafia is hard, and that he will either scumslip or dramatically lower his contribution if he was scum?
Right.
|
On July 31 2012 14:23 alan133 wrote:
When you call for other people to make case, it occurs to me; didn't you disagree with that method of scum hunting that you're avoiding from? Why are you asking for them to post now?
I think this is the key thing: I realize the necessity of all those other small points, I just don't like to play like that. What I mean is that while I would love everyone to just post big, solid, well-reasoned cases, I realize that without the small cases and pressure that those big cases would be harder to make. Maybe I need to change my playstyle, but like I"ve said, this is what has worked for me in the past and changing habits is hard.
|
On July 31 2012 14:36 DarthPunk wrote:EBWOP: Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 14:35 DarthPunk wrote:
Where is mordanis? he goes from making huge waves on the first day. Leads the case on Golbat, jumps on Shady Sands lots of posting etc. It is now 9 hours till deadline on day 2. He has made a case on ange777 with his singular post and has since disappeared. This is quite a contrast to his case on golbat in which there is a large loud and consistent follow up on golbat.
What was that said about burnout? That playing loud mafia is hard, and that he will either scumslip or dramatically lower his contribution if he was scum?
Right.
Sorry, life exists. The details are boring, but I worked about 9 hours today with a 6 hr. lunchbreak. I spent that time playing Deus Ex because I'm really tired. The details are also irrelevant because I'll be able to post much more tomorrow. Anyways, I'm not going to post anything more right now because I just had trouble counting to 16. Literally. My sincere apologies. I'll be back though in around about 9 hours to help catch some scum. Anyways, regardless of whether loud mafia will scumslip/burnout, I have been far too inactive, and I understand suspicion for that reason. I will however do my best to come up with some fresh ideas when I return. Feel free to hold me to this, as I should be back 5ish (I think?) hours before the deadline.
I just realized that even 5 hours may not be enough to clear my inactivity or change the vote. Caffeine incoming, I should be back in about 45 minutes.
|
EBWOP
I don't trust myself to think coherently for at least 45 minutes, so I'll start analyzing then. Mayben 1/2 hour from then?
|
I'm here to chat with you if you need a sound board, Mordanis. Been trying to organize my thoughts on a case for the past hour and I'm struggling to get anything coherent to come through the fog right now. So far the only thing that it has really occurred to me to look at is identifying who I think have had the most advanced cases (I don't consider mine that advanced, for those wondering) and working backwards from there. I'm also sort of concerned there were no solid votes outside of getting GK to explain his "mystery person" behavior, which was later retracted after GK's explanation.
|
One of the main things I've been thinking of looking for is instances of players either stalling scum-hunting with policy and also players who have only been posting when pressured to. Over that, perhaps a player who has no chance of being lynched until a certain set of criteria are met. In my thought patterns this could be used by scum to stall lynches, both on that specific player and the other scum. Other than that, hard to explain teamwork would be great. Caffeine hasn't caught up with me yet though, BRB.
|
What do you guys think of the MrMedic situation? I am hesitant to go for a lynch on him just because it looks like he is headed for a mod kill for inactivity and therefore it is a waste of a lynch. Thoughts?
|
On July 31 2012 04:56 Zorkmid wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 18:37 Ange777 wrote:
TLDR:
I don't really understand what exactly it is that is supposed to make me scummy. You might say that I am throwing suspicion at every single player (which is an exaggeration!) but I am only trying to get people to talk by pointing out flaws in their posting. Golbat was not online otherwise I would have pressured him for more information so I looked into other players instead. Something doesn't sit right with me about this post.... If I were you, and it was my goal to look into other players, I would strongly consider moving my vote onto them. It's very tough to pressure a player so late in a day cycle when other players have multiple votes hanging over them. A vote on GK would have been much scarier than a FoS, don't you think?
Golbat was still my number 1 scum read at that moment. Don't see why I should have voted against my conviction. And without my vote I might have even lead to a no lynch.
@goodkarma:
While I didn't think your post against my accusation was satisfactory I do believe your posting has improved. For now I am dropping my case against you.
@Promethelax:
When reading through someone else already mentioned it but I too dislike Promethelax buddying other players. I saw you gave up your case against goodkarma as well. What about your case against Shady? Why aren't you pushing it?
|
We would be wasting time talking about MrMedic currently, as there's not much there to go off of. We can clear it up with the host(s) how this scenario will be dealt with pretty easily. He will have a lot of explaining to do if he does show up though, almost to the point where it could be distracting us from our other cases.
If MrMedic is modkilled tonight, will he be replaced or simply dead?
|
It's a complete gamble. He hasn't posted anything, just went with the flow by posthumously voting for the dead vigi. Could be a townie who thought he'd have more time or scum waiting for ez win. Being likely without any vigi now (I think its possible in this setup to have multiple vigis, but I'm not really sure), it would turn into a nightmare situation. Policy talking instead of scum-hunting, little information except what people believe about policy, etc. It's a shitty situation, kind of have to hope for modkill or altruistic scum kp. Because while we'd lose even more from today, if we went to LYLO or MYLO, having someone with no content is impossible for town.
Just for clarity, is there definitely 3 scum or is the number ambiguous? Same for other roles, i.e. could there be multiple vigis or medics etc.?
|
On July 31 2012 17:01 DarthPunk wrote:
What do you guys think of the MrMedic situation? I am hesitant to go for a lynch on him just because it looks like he is headed for a mod kill for inactivity and therefore it is a waste of a lynch. Thoughts?
I agree that he seems like a waste of a lynch but we also can't have him here in a lylo situation. I suggest that we give him some time to improve his posting and hopefully give us something to read him by. If everyone is split and refuses to consolidate one of the candidates he might be an okay vote to avoid a mislynch but even there I would prefer to kill one of the more active scum players (assuming he is scum) so that they lose thread presence as well as a body.
I still think that SS and GK are the scummiest players in this game and will be voting for one of them. I am going back over their filters now to decide which of them to vote.
I'll be around for a little while so lets get this discussion going.
|
On July 31 2012 17:14 Mordanis wrote:
Just for clarity, is there definitely 3 scum or is the number ambiguous? Same for other roles, i.e. could there be multiple vigis or medics etc.?
This has been answered previously http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=C9++ we are loosely based on this setup.
so multiple blue roles and no confirmed number of reds or blues.
|
On July 31 2012 16:51 Mordanis wrote:
One of the main things I've been thinking of looking for is instances of players either stalling scum-hunting with policy and also players who have only been posting when pressured to. Over that, perhaps a player who has no chance of being lynched until a certain set of criteria are met. In my thought patterns this could be used by scum to stall lynches, both on that specific player and the other scum. Other than that, hard to explain teamwork would be great. Caffeine hasn't caught up with me yet though, BRB.
See one of my more recent posts for my thoughts on alan133 and DarthPunk. As mentioned later in the thread and I quoted him in my response to it, Shady Sands pointed out that there could be two OR three scum in this game (C9++ basis) which seems to me like it's kind of a big deal when it comes down to looking at votes/patterns as the game progresses. This also means that my conclusion doesn't necessarily add up in the case I made that one of them would flip scum, so I need to withdraw that claim for now. I can see a 2-scum team both voting for Golbat considering how "easy" a case it was.
|
On July 31 2012 17:16 DarthPunk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 17:14 Mordanis wrote:
Just for clarity, is there definitely 3 scum or is the number ambiguous? Same for other roles, i.e. could there be multiple vigis or medics etc.? This has been answered previously http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=C9++ we are loosely based on this setup. so multiple blue roles and no confirmed number of reds or blues.
C9++ also allows for SK, which is why I wanted to make sure this is indeed the case. How loose is loosely?
|
On July 31 2012 17:29 Mordanis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 17:16 DarthPunk wrote:On July 31 2012 17:14 Mordanis wrote:
Just for clarity, is there definitely 3 scum or is the number ambiguous? Same for other roles, i.e. could there be multiple vigis or medics etc.? This has been answered previously http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=C9++ we are loosely based on this setup. so multiple blue roles and no confirmed number of reds or blues. C9++ also allows for SK, which is why I wanted to make sure this is indeed the case. How loose is loosely?
If you have set up questions ask the host otherwise you are just wasting thread space and padding your filter while adding nothing to the thread.
|
@Zorkmid:
In day 1 you stated that you found both Shady and Golbat suspicious.
On July 27 2012 22:11 Zorkmid wrote:Okie dokey. Just got finished reading the thread pages 10-14. First off on the advice of Promethelax, my schedule for this weekend is that I'll be following this thread throughout the day until about 4PM EDT, then I'm off to a Blue Jays game. Tomorrow is a bit of a milestone birthday for me (official old man), but I'll be back and active Sunday afternoon. Before I talk about the Mordanis-Keir thing, I want to answer Promethelax. The reason that my opinion from "lynch all liars and lynch all inactives" to not feeling as strongly about it is just because I was not aware that a non-lynch was possible. Mordanis's Case on KeirathiI actually got a town vibe from this post. We've all heard about how it is self contradictory and based on a false premise (Keir claiming RB), but I buy Mordanis' explanation that he rushed the case and that the lack of consistent logic and difficulty to follow the case is a result of this. On the same subject, I'm a little suspicious of those players who were so completely convinced that Mordanis is a scum based on this one post, as this was not a reaction I had. Among these people is Shady Sands:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 13:29 Shady Sands wrote:
When you look at all that, and the weak logic against Keir, then what you see is the following pattern:
Mordanis first claims that Keir is the likeliest candidate for lynching because he a likely candidate to be red. Then he backs off and claims that Keir could go red or green. Then he argues that we should lynch controversial candidates first. The point is, lynching controversial candidates would be fine, if it were not for the fact that Mordanis is the only one stirring up controversy about Keir. This totally smacks of a Red finding out his original tactic for generating a bandwagon has failed, acknowledging that he is the only one arguing for a lynch, and then stating that because he is the only one arguing for a lynch, the person is "controversial" and should be lynched.
What? I see this as a GIANT leap of reasoning, and I still see Mordanis's case as an attempt (albeit a clumbsy one) to get the ball rolling in XXII. Another of these people is Golbat: So far, Golbat has, in this order: voted Mordanis
unvoted Mordanis
FoS MordanisHis unvote seems to coincide with Mordanis's making a case on him. He claims he backed off the vote because: Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 18:51 Golbat wrote:
The reason I backed off of Mord is because I felt like I may have been pushing too strongly against him based on his first bad read. I didn't want to appear to be scum myself, so I backed off for the moment. I still have a sneaking suspicion about him that he may be mafia, but I didn't want to lynch myself by pushing too hard on a bad read.
I feel like i've been talking in circles around mord, "He's scum, no he's town, no he might be scum, no he's probably town", so I feel like I need to take a definite stance on the matter, and that is #FoS Mordanis
+ Show Spoiler +This reminds me of that futurama ambassador from the neutral planet. "All I know is that my guy says maybe." I'm not sure what this could mean, but I think that it's worth pointing out. It's one of the stranger seeming posts I've read in this game. Is the deadline today at 17:00 EDT?I am suspicious of both of these players right now, but there's lots of daylight left.
After that post you don't even mention Shady a single time. Instead you go off to state your suspicion about goodkarma.
On July 30 2012 23:50 Zorkmid wrote:After reading the last 50 or 60 posts in this thread, one of the things that jumped out at me was this: Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 11:21 Keirathi wrote:On July 30 2012 10:44 Promethelax wrote:
I wanted to know why it was those two mosre than the other three. That is why you feel that your cases against them are better than the ones against Me, Mord and Zork.
goodkarma - I just can't imagine a townie reasoning for his disrupting discussions and bringing us back to talking about lurkers repeatedly. Add in to that the case that you made, and for now I feel the strongest about him. Let's have a look at GK!Goodkarma says that he was hesistant to "join the Mordanis lynch bandwagon" early on in the game, a statement in keeping with his lurker policy. At this point he voted for aRyuujin, while averring his suspicions of MrMedic and Promethelax for the same reasons. He then changed his vote from aRyuujin to Golbat, at that time it was the 5th vote on Golbat. GK explains why he didn't vote for shady " he has provided some meaningful discussion for the town, and hasn't jumped on every bandwaggon he sees...". I'm curious as to why after dropping his vote on aRyujin, he leapt to Golbat next, and not those he was originally suspicious of: Myself, Obvious and MrMedic. I know I voted for the same guy, but I'm just a bit surprised at your choice to vote for Golbat given your "call to action". GK, would you have been likely to change your vote a second time, had Golbat done a better job of defending himself?
In total you have made three cases against players, all of them were made previously by other players. I can't get the feeling out of my head that you are just conveniently sheeping cases. Especially seeing this:
On July 31 2012 04:47 Zorkmid wrote:
MrMedic, I really would like to hear a little bit more from you.
I don't have any strong scum reads at this point at all, and the whole Golbat thing leaves me gun shy to start pushing up on another active poster. Unless I reach some epiphany soon, or am convinced by someones case, my next vote will likely fall upon a lurker.
It's a perfect excuse. What happend to Shady who was previously on your scum list? Are you just waiting for others to start a convincing case which you can bandwaggon?
|
EBWOP:
On July 31 2012 17:34 Ange777 wrote:
It's a perfect excuse. What happend to Shady and goodkarma who were previously on your scum list? Are you just waiting for others to start a convincing case which you can bandwaggon?
|
@Promethelax:
On July 31 2012 17:16 Promethelax wrote:
I still think that SS and GK are the scummiest players in this game and will be voting for one of them. I am going back over their filters now to decide which of them to vote.
I'll be around for a little while so lets get this discussion going.
In your last post you just unvoted goodkarma for explaining his reasoning:
On July 31 2012 06:48 Promethelax wrote:
GK: Since you have explained your reasoning ##: Unvote
If he was still scummy enough to be one of your top scum why unvote?
|
On July 31 2012 17:40 Ange777 wrote:@Promethelax:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 17:16 Promethelax wrote:
I still think that SS and GK are the scummiest players in this game and will be voting for one of them. I am going back over their filters now to decide which of them to vote.
I'll be around for a little while so lets get this discussion going. In your last post you just unvoted goodkarma for explaining his reasoning: Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 06:48 Promethelax wrote:
GK: Since you have explained your reasoning ##: Unvote
If he was still scummy enough to be one of your top scum why unvote?
Because that was a pressure vote to get him to reveal his reads. I unvoted him when he gave me the read he had been hiding but I still find him scummy.
I'm working on part two of my case on him.
as to your points on Zork, I find him to be the scummiest lurker (see my d1 mini case) but I don;t think that lurker lynches are good right now. Like MrM we need him to post more before he is totally readable.
|
On July 31 2012 17:17 Obvious.660 wrote:
See one of my more recent posts for my thoughts on alan133 and DarthPunk.
Might be best to also make him aware of how you used a complete misrepresentation of what I actually posted to come to your conclusion. The fact that after I corrected you, you are still willing to refer people to that post without any clarification on how misleading/wrong it was is astounding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
