|
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?
|
@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?
|
Regarding the aRyuujin case:
I went through his filter one more time. On the first impression there is not much. It's more like a case against a lurker than a scum.
What surprised me though is that aRyuujin had posted reads on other players using haiku whereas when he stopped using haiku he also stopped the reads. That would acutally fit goodkarma's argument about using haiku to make it more difficult to get a correct read on him. I thought it was a rather weird argument but now ... aRyuujin, I would like to see you make some effort in scum hunting.
|
On July 31 2012 17:53 DarthPunk wrote:Show nested quote +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.
What are you referring to?
Regarding lurker lynches:
I would differ between MrMedic and Zork. I strongly hope that MrMedic will be modkilled or at least replaced as he has not posted anything of importance at all while as Zork has posted little and therefore can be judged by what he has posted or when he has decided to not post/lurk.
I strongly disagree in lynching lurkers day 1. Sometimes real life issues are there and people can't manage to play. But if the lurking still continues after 72 hours I am inclined to say that it is intentional lurking. If we manage to find scummy things in lurkers I am not against lynching them. Right now I would put both Zork and aRyuujin in the scummy lurker category and strongly advise both to step up your scum hunting.
|
On July 31 2012 18:41 Obvious.660 wrote:
Can't remember why I was looking at Ange777. Might have been because Ange777 was shutting down policy talk while talking up inactivity.
@Ange777: What do you make of alan133? Seems like two distinct writing styles are emergent in his last few posts.
Where have I been talking up inactivity?
I'll have to go through alan's filter again before I can answer.
|
+ Show Spoiler +Just to be clear, talking up means to promote something right? Or did you mean that I myself was inactive?
|
That post you quoted was a direct answer to Promethelax. He had made the case against Zork and asked me who else I thought was inactive at that time.
On July 27 2012 19:22 Ange777 wrote:
@Promethelax:
While I agree with your suspicions on Zorkmid there are several players who need to step up their game. Posting fluff is not helping town at all!
On July 27 2012 19:28 Promethelax wrote:
Which others players do you feel need to be looked at besides Zork? He clearly isn't the only guy who seems a little red, I just felt that he was flying too far under the radar.
Timing might have been unfortunate for you but you were pretty much inactive at that time. So I don't see anything wrong with my statement.
On July 31 2012 18:45 Promethelax wrote:
I have an explanation for the buddying thing that you are unhappy with that I will reveal before the end of the night cycle. It has a good motivation and I promise town that I will explain it before the end of n2.
as opposed to this
On July 30 2012 18:16 Promethelax wrote:
Oh, and based on the unwillingness to share this other mystery suspect with the thread I am going to ##Vote: Karma hiding your suspects doesn't help town and gives you as scum a huge asset in that you can come out with a case at any time and say "I've been suspicious of X for a long time. See this post here, I totally meant this guy you all see as scummy so I'm not jumping on this bandwagon, I've been on it forever"
I will not unvote you until you reveal your mystery scum read.
So you are not willing to share information that might help you to prove your town status and therefore help town to rule out one possible scum candidate? (Fake) claiming?
|
On July 31 2012 18:41 Obvious.660 wrote:
@Ange777: What do you make of alan133? Seems like two distinct writing styles are emergent in his last few posts.
What do you mean by writing style? I re-read his last posts again and tried to compare it to his filter in general but I really don't know what you are hinting at. Reading his filter alone just gives me a null read, I have to see how he interacts with others.
|
I'll be out for a few hours. For now I am putting my vote on Zorkmid for:
- semi-lurking
- playing inconsistently: he previously stated that he believes Shady to be suspicious and goodkarma seems to be on his scum list as well but now he says
On July 31 2012 04:47 Zorkmid wrote:
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.
- waiting for others to start cases in order to sheep them
On July 31 2012 04:47 Zorkmid wrote:
Unless I reach some epiphany soon, or am convinced by someones case, my next vote will likely fall upon a lurker.
We have ~9 hours till deadline so I want to see something good coming from you Zork!
##Vote Zorkmid
|
@Zorkmid:
On July 31 2012 22:02 Zorkmid wrote:I'm happy to have a vote against me on a basis other than activity! It does kinda suck waking up everyday to 50 new posts when I was watching the thread all day yesterday and like 6 or 7 posts popped up, none of any value, but I guess everyone can't be on the same schedule. Schedule today: It's 8:30, I'm at work until 5 (might be another post or two out of me if I get some time), I think I'm going to be around the house afterwards, but I need to mow the lawn and stuff. Might be some evenings posts out of me. As for this: Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 20:24 Ange777 wrote:I'll be out for a few hours. For now I am putting my vote on Zorkmid for: - semi-lurking - playing inconsistently: he previously stated that he believes Shady to be suspicious and goodkarma seems to be on his scum list as well but now he says On July 31 2012 04:47 Zorkmid wrote:
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. - waiting for others to start cases in order to sheep them On July 31 2012 04:47 Zorkmid wrote:
Unless I reach some epiphany soon, or am convinced by someones case, my next vote will likely fall upon a lurker. We have ~9 hours till deadline so I want to see something good coming from you Zork! ##Vote Zorkmid I honestly just forgot about SS, but your accusation has led me to go back through his filter. I've noticed that he has never addressed my accusation about him. + Show Spoiler +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. I don't know if he didn't see this, or didn't feel he had to defend himself from it. He was under attack from Ange, and Prom around this same time. The other thing that I notice is that since the night post, the only posts that he has made have concerned: 1. Speculation about what night actions happened. 2. C9++ format possibilities 3. Posted massive quote walls with a useless sentence at the end. This is in stark contrast to his heavy activity earlier in the game. This could mean that he is part of the mafia, and that the medic save/roleblock in night 1 has confused the reds to the point where they haven't figured out how to proceed. It could also mean that Shady is mafia switching up strategies because he had so much heat on him day 1, and he wants to duck it by being more selective about what he If I vote for MrMedic and he is Modkilled does that mean my vote is wasted?
You say you have simply forgotten about Shady. Which I am inclined to believe for now for the apparent reason that Shady is just not active at all. You are right about his lack of analysis during day 2. Still all these points by you were already stated in Obvious' case against Shady so I am not completely happy with your own scum hunting.
On July 31 2012 22:46 Zorkmid wrote:
I also think that your "relief post" is strange. It's sort of WIFOM, but I don't think that as a green or blue I would ever post something like that. It's just yelling out "I'm A TOWNIE huehuehue". I wouldn't post it because it reeks of redness
I actually don't think that this is scummy behaviour at all. If it had been my name, the post would have scared the hell out of me as well so I see nothing wrong with that particular post.
On July 31 2012 23:53 Zorkmid wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 18:45 Promethelax wrote:
@DarthPunk
My day two play is how I play the game when I have enough time. I'm glad you found my day one helpful and I'll try to replicate the strength of the cases I built but you'll note that d1 I had my SS case and since that point I have made others which are at least as strong (in my eyes stronger).
I honestly don't feel that I am jumping up and down saying “oooh me I'm green! I'm green!” I am explaining the reasons for my play and my actions. As I said there are three goals that I have as a townie.
The bolded section of this quote is the MOST flagrant example of saying "oooh me I'm green! I'm green!" that I can imagine. This comes after questioning GK's "relief claim" after the flavored night post (which I agree, is not something I'd do if I were green or blue)
This however sounds valid. Especially in combination with the fact that Promethelax himself doubts goodkarma based on something similar. I am going to reread Promethelax' filter to see what I can find.
In light of your activity and effort ##Unvote Zorkmid
|
Because this is a post that I might have posted if it had been my name. I would not have thought that it might be seen as scummy. Please keep in mind that I also don't get a town vibe from that post. It's just a fluff post after a flip which sometimes happens in other games as well.
|
My top scum reads right now are mostly due to their sudden change in playstyle and/or activity: Shady and Promethelax.
While I think that goodkarma's case was a little stretched in some points (the word choice part especially), overall I can agree with it. DarthPunk's case was well written, the only thing I feel missing is something I stated earlier and to which Promethelax has not commented yet as well:
On July 31 2012 19:13 Ange777 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 18:45 Promethelax wrote:
I have an explanation for the buddying thing that you are unhappy with that I will reveal before the end of the night cycle. It has a good motivation and I promise town that I will explain it before the end of n2. as opposed to this Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 18:16 Promethelax wrote:
Oh, and based on the unwillingness to share this other mystery suspect with the thread I am going to ##Vote: Karma hiding your suspects doesn't help town and gives you as scum a huge asset in that you can come out with a case at any time and say "I've been suspicious of X for a long time. See this post here, I totally meant this guy you all see as scummy so I'm not jumping on this bandwagon, I've been on it forever"
I will not unvote you until you reveal your mystery scum read. So you are not willing to share information that might help you to prove your town status and therefore help town to rule out one possible scum candidate? (Fake) claiming?
He suspects goodkarma for withholding information. Now he does the exact same. I can't think of a reason to imply a blue role without going through with it and actually claim.
Furthermore I think we all know that claiming to be townie is not exactly the most convincing way to get town cred. Just have a look at how badly Golbat's defense being a newbie townie was taken. Promethelax' last post:
On July 31 2012 18:45 Promethelax wrote:
@DarthPunk
My day two play is how I play the game when I have enough time. I'm glad you found my day one helpful and I'll try to replicate the strength of the cases I built but you'll note that d1 I had my SS case and since that point I have made others which are at least as strong (in my eyes stronger).
I honestly don't feel that I am jumping up and down saying “oooh me I'm green! I'm green!” I am explaining the reasons for my play and my actions. As I said there are three goals that I have as a townie.
We as town do win through living and having more obvious townies is a huge asset that is why Mason is an incredibly strong role.
I'm going to stop harping on about my work and real life, when I'm here I am here and will be posting in a way that helps town you will have to decide for yourself if there is a scum agenda or a town one in my posts.
As long as you promise to read over everything I say with no confirmation bias I welcome your FoS. Keep an eye on me and my actions should prove my alignment to you.
I have an explanation for the buddying thing that you are unhappy with that I will reveal before the end of the night cycle. It has a good motivation and I promise town that I will explain it before the end of n2.
You mentioned "town" six times. And this is after you explained previously that the constant mention of town was supposed to be a joke. Still joking? This is anti town play. Pro town play would be to stop the constant mentioning of being a townie town and instead hunt for scum. Which I am sure you would have had time to do if you had not been busy claiming town.
Given the obvious contradiction in Promethelax' play: ##Vote Promethelax
|
We have almost only 2 hours left till deadline and 6 guys still haven't voted yet ...
|
To be honest I think meta reads are not a good idea to use in newbie games. Everyone is a newb and being a newb we learn with every game we play. Therefore the playstyle may vary from game to game, especially if people point out your obvious mistakes/slips in the postgame discussion and you are eager to change them.
I don't know how many games Promethelax has played but it can't be more than 4. This isn't a very convincing basis for a meta read.
|
On August 01 2012 04:00 Keirathi wrote:
EBWOP: In fact, I'll vote now.
I may consolidate just to avoid a no-lynch if I have to, but for now:
##Vote goodkarma
Could you give me your reasoning for this vote? I quickly skimmed through your filter to look for your suspicions against goodkarma and only found the following:
- pushing for lurker lynches
- not immediately telling us his second scum read
- the "in retrospect" thing
I feel his posting has improved a lot in comparison to earlier, he did reveal his second scum read later on and well about the "in restrospect" thing, I guess this is just whether you are willing to give him the benefit of doubt.
Compared to this I think the case on Promethelax is much more stronger. Is the meta read the only thing that is keeping you from voting him?
|
@Mordanis: Why are you waiting for your vote? Even if they do post, you are free to unvote if you are convinced by their defense. I believe it is important to take clear stances early as it gives the rest of us something to work with.
|
From page 1:
On July 17 2012 21:00 ghost_403 wrote:What Marv said, with the addendum that if the first one happened, it's gonna be super dramatic and suspenseful and stuff.
The scum work as a team, so one team member can send in the nightkill and any scum night actions (assuming the power role says it's okay). So, for example, if Marv, Chezinu and me were all scum, and I was a scum RB, Marv could send in
Chezinu kills Qatol, Ghost roleblocks Dreamflower
If Chezinu was roleblocked, the nightkill would not go through.
On July 17 2012 22:42 ghost_403 wrote:Both roleblockers are notified that they are roleblocked. If one of the roleblockers is supposed to carry out the nightkill, it doesn't go through.
On July 17 2012 22:58 ghost_403 wrote:
A single scum can carry out the nightkill and any night action they might have at any point in the game.
Can't say if that's a good idea or not.
|
On August 01 2012 04:28 Keirathi wrote:
Also, I just want to add that I am curious about Prom's pseudo-claim. We know we have another blue role (Medic or Roleblocker) or that mafia held their KP to fake claim medic (which despite aRyuujin and Zorkmid's pessimism, I DO feel like is a possibility in a newbie game).
In my first game ever I rolled scum and I would have never thought of that possibility. What would they gain by faking a medic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
