EPTPTP3 - Pikachu's Revenge - Page 69
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 25 2012 10:44 HiroPro wrote: Hi wiggles you still havent answered my question Because I'm not very invested in the game. I was gone for a majority of Day 1, and how people were playing put me off somewhat. I'm town, but at this point, I'm not very interested or motivated because people like to bandwagon and not read, so I don't have much faith in living. Dying is probably better because it will force you to play the game yourselves. The game's going to come down to a bunch of non-"vets" having to figure out who the scum are among themselves. VE is scum and useless to the town, and Kenpachi won't be able to carry you and should be vigged before the end-game barring any strong mechanic reasons to not do so (Not just a DT check or something equally weak). So, let's turn this into a learning experience where there won't be anyone to sheep and you have to find the scum yourselves. I don't have much faith in you, but maybe people will learn about why their current paradigms for finding scum aren't working. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
Here's the first challenge. Someone has to explain why being inactive is a sign of being scum. They also have to explain why not being invested in the game or not caring is a sign of being scum. Anyone who mistakes active lurking for inactivity loses the game. Please speak in general terms and not in terms of specific players, since I've seen this applied over and over again with terrible results. Go! | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
On August 27 2012 05:06 Mr. Wiggles wrote: To the extent that you're saying that inactivity isn't necessarily scummy, you're correct and I agree with you.I split this up for the people who don't like to read and think anything longer than 5 lines is massive, so a shout-out to you! Here's the first challenge. Someone has to explain why being inactive is a sign of being scum. They also have to explain why not being invested in the game or not caring is a sign of being scum. Anyone who mistakes active lurking for inactivity loses the game. Please speak in general terms and not in terms of specific players, since I've seen this applied over and over again with terrible results. Go! At this point though, not all your votes are due to a generic "inactivity = scummy" rule. Some may be, and some may be pure sheep votes. BC mentioned that specific to you, the way you're playing this game was similar to your scumplay in past games. I know that, to me, the way you're playing this game feels similar to your scumplay in LV. At least some of the accusations in general are not an indictment of inactivity in general, but specific to your play. While you want someone to defend that heuristic "in general terms and not in terms of specific players," not everyone is indicting you in general terms. Moreover, if the accusation is no good when put in general terms, how is your counterargument, which seems to be I've seen this applied over and over again with terrible results a good counter? If you don't like the general rule because it's not specific, don't give a general defense. Plenty of inactive players have flipped town, but that doesn't somehow negate the fact that inactive players can also flip scum. | ||
|
Mementoss
Canada2595 Posts
On August 26 2012 06:52 VisceraEyes wrote: I think Bugs was mafia hit. I can't think of anyone off the top of my head who really thought he was scum, and given enough information I think he would have been dangerous to the scumteam later. That was a tactical scum hit that screwed Bugs over. That leaves the question: was it strictly because he would have been dangerous later, or was it because he was on the right track? Mr. Wiggles being still alive is pretty strange - considering the resistance to his lynch IN SPITE of the BC kill, it seems to me that he'd be an even more attractive kill than Bugs even playing lurky. Today I want to lynch between Misder and Mr. Wiggles. I'll put something together when I have time - I'm going out tonight, and won't have access to a computer. Still waiting for this. It scares me that VE has 2 more pages of filter than me, yet I don't recall him being a part of any important discussions during the game nor do I remember much of anything he said. o_0 | ||
|
Mementoss
Canada2595 Posts
On August 24 2012 08:12 VisceraEyes wrote: JingleHell officially giving me the willies. I wish Misder would come back. I'm putting something together and will be back in a while. Just like this never happened either lol | ||
|
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
so I can zap bad people with the zappy gun! | ||
|
Barbiero
Brazil5259 Posts
I don't like the case on wiggles. Even if the main player to attack him flipped town. Feels like scum shot him to set him up. BioSC disappeared. This much makes sense from grush's mouth. deadline is tomorrow right? How about we kill dirkzor who has been slipping from death case-after-case and shot-after-shot ? >_>" ##vote dirkzor | ||
|
HiroPro
United States2624 Posts
##Unvote | ||
|
Mementoss
Canada2595 Posts
On August 27 2012 07:31 HiroPro wrote: hm, wiggles sounds legitimately annoyed. Can't decide whether to kill biosc or misder, drrrr. ##Unvote What are your thoughts on VE /dirkzor | ||
|
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 27 2012 05:30 austinmcc wrote: To the extent that you're saying that inactivity isn't necessarily scummy, you're correct and I agree with you. At this point though, not all your votes are due to a generic "inactivity = scummy" rule. Some may be, and some may be pure sheep votes. BC mentioned that specific to you, the way you're playing this game was similar to your scumplay in past games. I know that, to me, the way you're playing this game feels similar to your scumplay in LV. At least some of the accusations in general are not an indictment of inactivity in general, but specific to your play. While you want someone to defend that heuristic "in general terms and not in terms of specific players," not everyone is indicting you in general terms. Moreover, if the accusation is no good when put in general terms, how is your counterargument, which seems to be a good counter? If you don't like the general rule because it's not specific, don't give a general defense. Plenty of inactive players have flipped town, but that doesn't somehow negate the fact that inactive players can also flip scum. Ok, cool, we've established that using activity as the reason to call someone scum is silly. I propose we start policy lynching for it in future games. Just one point about your last sentence though, is that I'm not saying all inactive players are town, I'm saying that general activity isn't and shouldn't be used as, an indicator of alignment. Moving on. Let's talk about meta now that you've brought it up. Here's the second challenge. Describe my scum play from LV, including appropriate motivations for it, as well as the general state of the game as my play existed in it. Next, describe the state of this game, and how my play resembles my play when I was scum, including similar motivations. So far, the people trying to apply meta to me (including BC) have yet to provide an adequate explanation of my play in previous games as scum, and how it is similar to this game. Simply stating something does not make it so, and if you wish to use meta, you should take the time to explain yourself and demonstrate how it applies. Simply saying that someone's play reminds you of their play in another game when they were scum isn't enough to make an accusation based on meta. Doing so is the same misuse of meta that causes some people to believe that meta is useless or even detrimental in scum hunting. Meta is very useful, but only if you can substantiate it and adequately explain it. | ||
|
HiroPro
United States2624 Posts
I haven't really read much since Toad died, so fresh look and all lol. Dirkzor I think is town. His early play I think was mostly just because of how much pressure he was under from BC and I think he's actually trying to contribute. I think VE is scum now for a couple of reasons. First, the thing with grush still strikes me as really uncharacteristic of town VE. VE is someone who throws out policy lynches as town, but it's almost always "if we have no strong scum reads, we should lynch a lurker". For him to push a policy lynch on a person for their play in other games is just mind-boggling. VE has always emphasized that there is no such thing as an "useless townie" because they're still a member of town to count against the mafia wincon, yet now his views have suddenly flipped. If you look at the LVI postgame (the last game with VE and grush in it), there's nothing to suggest that VE was unduly mad. Yes, I know he made some comment pregame about how grush would likely just lurk and troll, but at least before VE pushed the policy lynch, grush had seemed ok in activity and was at least responding to others. Next looking at the whole Wiggles-BC feud: Beforehand VE had said that he thought Wiggles was scum. But then when the cases come out, literally the only thing VE has to say about those two cases is a mild dislike of one of BC's points. Otherwise he just says afterward " BC died trying to get Wiggles lynched" and "Then he's absent for half of today, only to build a case against one of town's stronger scumhunters and disappear again.". That doesn't look like VE analyzing someone's play and reaching a conclusion based on that. It looks like him making a preconceived judgement and fitting what happens around it. On August 23 2012 17:50 VisceraEyes wrote: Why does BC keep referencing Bugs' post as if Bugs is accusing Wiggles? He's said it twice I think now, and I don't think Bugs was accusing Wiggles at all. On August 23 2012 18:20 VisceraEyes wrote: But it won't be - Bugs is alive to say "no guy, I think Wiggles is town (as my post indicates), LTR" That's my point - it won't be Bugs' fault at all. On August 24 2012 02:03 VisceraEyes wrote: What in the...was that shot not claimed AGAIN? Scum must really be getting desperate. Was that a blue flip? It looked like it, but everything has been colored blue so I wanted to make sure... I'm down with a Wiggles lynch guys. BC died trying to get Wiggles lynched, and I think we should oblige him. ##Vote: Wiggles On August 24 2012 02:28 VisceraEyes wrote: Is this a joke? First of all, Wiggles posted like ONE time D1, and that was to vote me and DISAPPEAR. He had NO inclination to affect the lynch yesterday and, as Bugs and Wiggles will tell you, scum seemed to be perfectly content with the way the wagons were going too. Then he's absent for half of today, only to build a case against one of town's stronger scumhunters and disappear again. In what way is Wiggles "devoting his time to this game"? This is strikingly similar to his play in LV - vote, disappear, return to build a case, vote, disappear. I'm voting Mr.Wiggles because I think he's scum. I hope you guys will join me. Then, the amount of times VE promises thoughts and reads but then when he comes back has pretty much nothing useful to say. I know someone is going to bring up the shot done by Toad, but frankly I think it could just be separation. Toad knew it was only 0.5 KP and not going to pose a threat to VE actually dying. Maybe I'm being an idiot right now in ignoring BC lol, but it's not like I've been doing anything this game for some time now. ##Vote VisceraEyes | ||
|
Dirkzor
Denmark1944 Posts
The only reason I can think of is that it would give VE more towncred in his crusade against getting me lynched. I just can't really see why scum would shoot just there at that time. The lynch was already steering in the direction of my or allinson - 2 townies. So no real reason for scum to try to switch targets or derail the thread to talk about the shot. At the same time I see now reason to shoot VE at that time if he was town either. Town or scum VE it doesn't make sense to shoot him there. At least not any sense I can find. I have to look at HiroPro later to figure this out. =/ | ||
|
Drazerk
United Kingdom31255 Posts
This is exactly why scum would shoot someone at that point (Ally or foe it matters not). This was done only to cause confusion and mayhem later in the game when we deal with VE since scum are clearly not going to kill him any time soon after that shot. | ||
|
Drazerk
United Kingdom31255 Posts
| ||
|
Dirkzor
Denmark1944 Posts
| ||
|
Dirkzor
Denmark1944 Posts
While looking through both HiroPro and VE's filters I can see what HiroPro means. Problem with VE is that he haven't done anything since d1. He stopped producing stuff like he usually does as town. The case from HP is very weak though with a lot of meta build in to the case instead of actions of what VE have done. The strange thing about VE is that he almost gave up when I pressured him D1. He then produced and posted a lot D1. After toad flipped and pressure was removed from VE he stopped caring about this game. He started posting excuses, downplaying himself and promise content that never arrived. On August 25 2012 06:40 VisceraEyes wrote: I swear to read the thread and post thoughts this cycle guys. Ugh, worst town performance ever I'm afraid. VE also changes his vote around a lot. Not that something like that is scummy in itself but it just comes of as forced and as if he don't care who gets killed. Most glaring was his unvote d1 of me. + Show Spoiler + On August 21 2012 21:47 VisceraEyes wrote: I can kill Zephirdd too, honestly. His filter consists mostly of setup speculation, but this doesn't bother me as his love of the Pokemans is well documented. What bothers me is this. There are a couple of things he could be doing here: he's either a medic claiming in the worst first post in TL town history, he's a townie who is NOT a medic and is attempting to draw roleblocks/NKs, or he's scum attempting something really profoundly stupid. From a strategic viability standpoint, I certainly HOPE it's the second one, but from a realistic standpoint and given everything else he's done in the thread (read: nothing) I'm inclined to believe that he's actually scum. He's almost certainly not a town medic, and if he is I hope I'm never town with him again. This is his next post with "content". In this post he literally sas "I like the idea of policy lynching grush, but I'm not that much of a fan of policy lynching". Literally. It's the very soul of wishy-washy scum posting. The parts I bolded are Zephirdd literally just shoveling shit hoping something sticks. I can get behind a Zephirdd lynch in addition to a Drazerk/Dirkzor lynch. Now, to decide which scummy bastard gets my vote. ##Unvote He post a long case on Zephirdd and says he don't know who of all the scum he have found we should lynch. But he still unvotes even though his vote is on one of the people he thought was scum. Why not a) keep his vote on him or b) vote zephirdd who is now his prime target? He doesn't care?! On August 22 2012 00:59 VisceraEyes wrote: ##Vote: Dirkzor Unless Zeph picks up steam. Somehow I doubt it considering no one is even MENTIONING my case. And when he votes me again it isn't because I'm scummiest even though him and me had just had a discussion. Its because he have no support on his Zephirdd case. There were still 6h to lynch. All in all VE still haven't done anything townlike and I believe he is scum. Some of his actions just doesn't add up. ##Vote VE | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
Drazerk
United Kingdom31255 Posts
| ||
| ||
