|
On September 09 2012 04:53 slOosh wrote:
Ok austin I don't understand you so I'm gonna rephrase the question. What makes you think BKEXE is town? There were..."easier" claims to make. Vigi, protective role, etc. Instead, he claims a role that visited one of the dead folks, one of the very outspoken townies D1.
From that I get - (1) He didn't make the easiest fakeclaim. (2) He claimed something that could very well be disputed. The big vets were clear targets N1. If I'd been a watcher, I'd have been watching one probably. If I were fakeclaiming watcher, I'd claim to have watched someone odd, where there's little chance that someone ACTUALLY watched the person I was claiming, and knew I hadn't visited.
Beyond that, there's the above bit about BKE usually looking scummy. Again, I championed a lynch on him one game, he was town. Looked scummy in LVI, town.
If he's scum, how is the team responding? This point is weak, but ... I feel like there have been points where the lynch MIGHT have been able to be shifted. To grush, for example. Scum is DOWN TWO PLAYERS after ONE CYCLE. That's...a lot. Doesn't scum TRY to shift the lynch there? Either to grush, or maverick, or anyone? Instead, lynch has stayed pretty comfortably on BKE.
Also, I know this doesn't answer the related question - "Why does BKE's filter make you think he's townie?" Because there I've got ... nothing or much less. Just finding Z-BosoN much scummier, know that BKE has often been mislynched D1 or been a target, etc.
|
EBWOP: by "easiest fakeclaim," I mean he could have claimed to vig ottoxlol, or protect some random person that didn't get killed. Instead he chose to claim something that directly interacted with a guy we know was a target last night, and that someone might have been on, and that causes us to do NK math. Any claim that ends in town doing NK math seems much more ... difficult, because then later stuff can prove/disprove you very easily.
|
To anyone who likes that heuristic, you can add ad hominem attacks. Not entirely, because he is trying to dispute part of what I've said, but there's still plenty of personal stuff there.
|
On September 09 2012 04:34 BroodKingEXE wrote:
@Boson youve totally taken what austin said out of context. Here's what he said:
1) You had an almost happy reaction to being FoSed
2) You voted for Matt while having believing his claim. Then you dont address the fakeclaim instead coming back and giving a useless connection post based on Matt's alignment.
3) You talk about Ottox, tell everyone to shut up, yet keep talking about Ottox
4) You have information on LI, which you could only know if you had read the game, or you had a scum mate who obsed or played feed you the meta information.
(1) Is that his interaction with GK was different from the other two he played with.
(2) Is relatively correct. Votes matt while seeming to partially believe the claim. Then not addressing.
(3) Yes. "Guys don't do this," then does this.
(4) Sort of, yeah. Mainly just that he read LI, showing he was very concerned with Toad (that's a lot to read). He then asks all those questions of Toad, again, very concerned with Toad. However, he does nothing with his concern, and Toad doesn't even think that someone would read that game, whereas Z-BosoN clearly either read the game or knows a good bit about it. So much interest in Toad, yet nothing but those empty questions.
|
On September 09 2012 05:23 Hapahauli wrote:
^ did you not read anything he just said above? It sound pretty reasonable. You have grounds to accuse me, and the confirmed-town BM24 on the same rationale.
Also, personal attacks =/= scum. To me, he sounds pretty pissed off that you made a bad case against him, and I agree fully. I agree that personal attacks =/= scum. I don't like that one myself. Some people seem to, I've seen it brought up before.
Yes, I did read what he wrote. I'm less convinced than you when a lot of the defense is "Here is a thing you said I did that was scummy. Here are 2 other people that did that thing." It's not just that Z-BosoN did a single thing right? That's not the extent of what I'm saying, I'm not pointing to a single thing. So the fact that someone else did this one thing doesn't trouble me. Because it's the combination, it's the bunch of little things, that worries me.
Moreover, unsure how I feel about "If you want to say I'm scum because of x, you should be accusing y and z because of x" as a defense. It's got some merit I guess, but it doesn't make me feel like he's been less scummy, just that other people have done some scummy things, which is always going to be true.
|
Like...here is why I don't find it as convincing as you may. Him blue, me red, just so I'm not ENTIRELY tunneling him.
On September 09 2012 05:15 Z-BosoN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 04:35 austinmcc wrote:On September 09 2012 03:47 Shady Sands wrote:On September 09 2012 03:40 austinmcc wrote:On September 09 2012 03:37 Shady Sands wrote:
I'm not convinced on Z-B being a scum because he had some pretty acrimonious exchanges with GK on D1. In all the games I've played, scum pretty much ignore each other D1, so that's a very strong town-tell in my books. Look at their filters. The most acrimonious thing is GK FoSing Z-Boson. To which he responds with smilies. GK points out that weird "If matt is town if matt is scum" post, but does nothing with it. I find no acrimonious exchanges, and only one real accusation that's just an FoS followed by smilies. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=361826¤tpage=32#630This is what I was referring to. Still on a second look it does look weaker than I expected. Could be a distancing move, although at this point it's not enough for me to base a lynch upon (especially when BKE looks so scummy.) Going to take a nap now. That one has strong language, but nothing behind it. Inconsistent, contradictory, post full of crap, your post has been quite suspicious...POOF. That's it. His conclusion is "you demonstrate a lack of reading and a lack of consistency." Not that GK was scummy. Not that GK was scum. Just that GK didn't read, was inconsistent, contradictory, suspicious, and...nothing. IF Z-BosoN was really calling out GK there, really making him seem scummy, really being acrimonious, wouldn't GK respond? Wouldn't he answer some of Z-BosoN's questions? Get upset that Z-BosoN found him scummy? Cuz he didn't. At no point in time does he respond to that Z-BosoN post. Ok, now you've cleared things up. Your main case against me is:
1) me calling out goodkarma
2) him not responding No, that's not really the "main case." The case is a number of things. By picking ONE out to respond to, he's isolating a single scummy portion of what he's done, and finding other people who did this. Did any of these other people lie about reading LVI? If he's not lying about LVI, then he had a HUGE mafiaboner for Toad, read Toad's filter in that game just to see what Toad had talked about in this side comment. Yet he doesn't follow up with anything about Toad, and doesn't really have legit questions for Toad. Etc. By starting off this way, he's skirted around responding to a lot of what I'm talking about, and chosen to fight this single point hereOk, let's see. Hapa calls him out much stronger, even saying he is scum: Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 09:32 Hapahauli wrote:
@ GoodKarma
Are we reading the same game? Why are you agreeing with me on Mattchew? I wasn't the one who made the case.
Also, Grush is nowhere near a modkill - he has several posts and a vote already.
In that list of lurkers, how is Lvdr "semi-lurking" - he doesn't even have a post! Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 09:52 Hapahauli wrote:On September 05 2012 09:51 BlackMamba24 wrote:
GoodKarma - are you going to vote for mattchew right now?
GoodKarma is scum for this reason - he says that mattchew is confirmed scum but then doesn't vote for him and tries to push suspicion onto me instead, appeals to BC (buddying up to a vet, classic newbie scum)
basically the same as treehugger or whoever in tl mafia xxx who says "yeah youngminii is scum for sure but im not gonna vote for him and instead make a case on this random dude" The strange thing is that he buddied up to me and not to BC. Hell it's pretty clear from his post that he didn't read the thread, given his stances on Grush and lvdr. He says this, but doesn't push or vote on GK. Why? Because the town focus was not on him, it was on mattchew, who was pretty much confirmed scum after the confirmation!!And hmm... gk doesn't answer him... suspicious.... SO WHAT ?!??! He didn't answer because he didn't want to. So if this is your main point, why are you not going for him? [red]Again, it's not the only point, and not the "main" point. Association is pretty weak when you associated for a single cycle, that should NOT be anyone's main reason right now, imo.[red] Also, there was blackmamba who noted gk's shitty post: Right now you have two logical choices, expand your dumb accusations to include another active poster, or back off because your arguments are terribad. Given the situation we are in right now, I will insist for the last goddamn time you choose the latter. We don't need more lynch targets. I am trying to provide one single scummy person that I want to lynch, because I don't like the other two options. I'm not trying to add 4 other lynch candidates, THAT would be anti-town at this point. He's asking why don't I do something that would not be helpful.PRE EDIT: LOL. So he was scummy in a game you played with him. So if he's scummy now, he must be town because that's what you expect, and you want me to waste time reading that game? AND, that is supposed to be stronger than him making a bad claim and trying to wriggle his way out by jumping on the most promising bandwagon. Ok, I'm done answering you. EDIT#2: Yes, I forgot about BM, who also made accusations vs gk that were unanswered: Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 09:51 BlackMamba24 wrote:
GoodKarma - are you going to vote for mattchew right now?
GoodKarma is scum for this reason - he says that mattchew is confirmed scum but then doesn't vote for him and tries to push suspicion onto me instead, appeals to BC (buddying up to a vet, classic newbie scum)
basically the same as treehugger or whoever in tl mafia xxx who says "yeah youngminii is scum for sure but im not gonna vote for him and instead make a case on this random dude" Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 09:37 BlackMamba24 wrote:On September 05 2012 09:27 goodkarma wrote:I would agree with Hapa that Mattchew is almost a 100% scum read. He's done a good job of highlighting why. But there is more than one scum. We need to move past Mattchew onto pressuring other people. A scum lynch day one puts us in an excellent position going forward. Looking at others' filters I couldn't help but notice that there still are a considerable number of people that need to participate more to help ensure a strong pro-town environment going into day 2. Grush is at modkill-threshold. I don't expect he's going to be around all that much longer. Until he makes his first post, I consider any time spent pressuring him as a waste. On the other hand, Gravan, Lvdr, austinmc, maverick, ShadySands, and ShioPi all stand out to me as semi-lurkers. Some of them seem to have legitimate reasons (such as ShadySands), but that doesn't mean they aren't scum with legitimate reasons. As for things that have stood out to me: -Obviously, Ottoxlol made a rather out of place vote after it was apparent Mattchew was lying. I don't feel this is a scum tell, as from a scum perspective Mattchew is pretty much "confirmed scum" at this point. Scum would be dumb to not bus him. It doesn't guarantee he's innocent, but it feels like his vote is too out of place to have been made by scum. -BlackMamba's early vote against Cobbler still stands out to me. Cobbler started the initiative to get Mattchew lynched, convincing me that he's "confirmed town." I just don't see any scenario where Cobbler as scum aggressively buses his partner day one. Yet BlackMamba voted him with little reason, then turned around and tacked on more of an explanation a little later. BlackMamba's play here makes sense from a scum perspective, as he could have been trying to avert attention away from Mattchew. Also, he isn't transparent with his reads. As town, I see no reason why he'd withhold them, as he does here: On September 04 2012 12:05 BlackMamba24 wrote:On September 04 2012 12:00 goodkarma wrote:@BlackMamba:On September 04 2012 11:30 BlackMamba24 wrote:On September 04 2012 11:03 goodkarma wrote:Hey all  A couple general observations for what I've just read: -I don't follow some of the voting that's already taken place in this thread. I don't get why some of us feel the need to vote for each other this early with little to no information to back a vote up. Imho, we should be working to establish a strong, pro-town atmosphere just as much as we are to find a lynch candidate for today. -I remember Hapa saying this once before: lynching one of the most vocal members day one is typically not the best idea. Looking back at how NMM XXIV turned out (Shady's lynch), others here should agree with me that there's at least some evidence to support this. Town loses so much more from a mislynch of a vocal town than of a semi-lurker, and, at least in my experience, you're much more likely to lynch a town than a scum when you target the most vocal day one player. I'm not going to assume that sloosh is town at this point, but the effort he's taken to pressure others with his posts is definitely conducive towards a pro-town atmosphere. Along those lines, I feel that Z-Boson's early vote on sloosh could very well be scum motivated. I disagree that sloosh's discussion is unhelpful. Maybe scum or town could pressure people like sloosh has, but he's pushing for more information so he's not stuck making a weak case against others, as Z-Boson has with sloosh: ##FoS: Z-Boson Can you explain why it's scum motivated? Why does scum want sloosh out of the game when all he's doing is arguing with Toadesstern and asking dumb questions First, I'd like to specify that asking questions that get others to discuss their reads on other players, or to defend themselves for something suspicious said in their posts, is not "dumb." I in fact find it suspicious from a townie perspective to call many of the lines of questioning recently presented in this thread as "dumb," since so far most of it has produced productive discussion. From a scum perspective, though, a statement like this does make sense. Scum has the knowledge of who is and isn't scum, so to them watching people they know to be town attacking each other could look pretty "dumb." Second, at the time I posted that sloosh was one of the most outspoken people in the game. From a scum perspective, it would make sense to remove an outspoken person day one. Especially if said person was furthering discussion by poking and prodding others with a lot of questions. While we're at it, I'd like to ask about this: On September 04 2012 11:34 BlackMamba24 wrote:
Anyway - ##vote BloodyC0bbler. Nosy Neigbor specifies that you will not know who you visited, not "you will not know that you are the nosy neighbor" which implies that they would at least know they are the nosy neighbor.
Nosy Neighbor makes a lot of sense as a scum fakeclaim it's probably what I would claim if I had to and thinking about SNB from Death Note mafia I have no reason to implicitly trust mattchew but the fact that you're throwing suspicion on him this early and this stupidly is completely consistent with your scum meta so bye What's with the vote for BloodyCobbler? He's pretty much a lurker at this point, but you're voting him for non-policy reasons... This feels like a scum getting behind a safe lurker lynch vote, at least at the time you wrote it (it just came to my attention as I'm about to post this that another page of postings have taken place, and cobbler has just made another post...)... My guess is this is a pressure vote, but I would appreciate a bit more of an explanation if you could provide it. because BC is full of shit and also making up stuff mattchew never said i'll never policy vote, i hate even reading the words next to each other i respectfully disagree about sloosh and how productive he has been but i'm not going to argue about it. i won't say anything about my read on him or toadesstern right now. hope that satisfies you I don't understand why it is that he can't share reads on sloosh and toadstern if he has them. Refusing to be transparent does not help town. ##FoS: BlackMamba I look forward to hearing BlackMamba's reply, especially regarding his reads on sloosh and toadstern that he refused to share. this is dumb, ask BC why also no i'm not giving you my reads, reads are fucking stupid any other questions So that means he's scum right?? I mean, he attacked GK, but a bit uncompromisingly, no? And.. lol... GK DIDN'T ANSWER HIM??? omfg scum! scum! See, again. He's focused on this one bit of what I find scummy, the associative bit.No. This means SHIT given the context the thread was in. I'm done. If you are town, I honestly hope you trip, bang your head, and when you wake up you realize the error of your ways.
Just ask yourself, what am I doing by proposing Z-BosoN for lynch. I don't want to lynch BKE or Grush. But I need to vote someone. So I look through filters, imallinson, shiaopi, couple other players. I POSTED ABOUT THIS. Just vomited looks through their filters, saying why I wasn't going to push them. Then I came upon Z-BosoN. Z-BosoN felt like scum to me. I'm not, at this point, concerned about other players. There are other scum. We can only lynch one per day. It does not help town if I find everyone who has ever done anything scummy. It helps town if I present a scummy person, some sort of case on them, and explain why I don't like BKE or Grush for a lynch.
What he's asking, or partially asking, why didn't you accuse all these other people? is silly. Because it wasn't what I was trying to do, wouldn't have helped town. Seriously, think about that.
|
On September 09 2012 05:38 Hapahauli wrote:@ austinmcc Okay admittedly I'm a bit biased because of my meta-read, and I sat down to take a look at your case again. The one thing I want some answers from Z-Boson is his ##Vote post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=361826¤tpage=21#413I just don't understand what he's saying here. It's as if he criticizes the reasoning for voting Mattchew, then turns around and votes Mattchew. ^
He doesn't think BC can be sure nosy neighbors aren't self-aware. What does that mean? It means he thinks there's a chance matt is self-aware, i.e., not lying. Then he votes mattchew anyway, in the same post where it looks like he doubts that mattchew is fakeclaiming nosy neighbor.
|
On September 09 2012 06:42 imallinson wrote:
I've been out all day and caught up with the thread on the bus home. The day is almost over so sorry if this is a bit hasty. I'm not buying BKE's watcher claim.
First a few assumptions I'm making:
1) Mafia has one vig thus had effectively three kp night one not including GK's bomb.
2) Mafia used all their kp. Someone suggested they saved some to out blues but that seems like it would only work if pressure was being put on that blue so I think it's unlikely.
3) Mafia did not shoot Ottox.
If BKE is watcher then GK must have bombed BM and shot BC without a double stack. Therefore we are missing two kp. The only way for this to happen is a combination of a medic/jailer getting a lucky save, a scum shot hit an assassin or the jailer rb'd a scum.
To me this seems very unlikely because BC seems like the better bomb target and barring a medic saving BKE he should be dead. Also missing two kp feels really fishy to me. One getting blocked I could understand but two seems a little far fetched given the information available at the time (that no one apart from the two dead people seemed that town). If BKE is a watcher then scum did not double stack. He only saw GK, and he wouldn't be lying if he were actually a watcher.
|
On September 09 2012 06:48 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 06:47 austinmcc wrote:On September 09 2012 06:42 imallinson wrote:
I've been out all day and caught up with the thread on the bus home. The day is almost over so sorry if this is a bit hasty. I'm not buying BKE's watcher claim.
First a few assumptions I'm making:
1) Mafia has one vig thus had effectively three kp night one not including GK's bomb.
2) Mafia used all their kp. Someone suggested they saved some to out blues but that seems like it would only work if pressure was being put on that blue so I think it's unlikely.
3) Mafia did not shoot Ottox.
If BKE is watcher then GK must have bombed BM and shot BC without a double stack. Therefore we are missing two kp. The only way for this to happen is a combination of a medic/jailer getting a lucky save, a scum shot hit an assassin or the jailer rb'd a scum.
To me this seems very unlikely because BC seems like the better bomb target and barring a medic saving BKE he should be dead. Also missing two kp feels really fishy to me. One getting blocked I could understand but two seems a little far fetched given the information available at the time (that no one apart from the two dead people seemed that town). If BKE is a watcher then scum did not double stack. He only saw GK, and he wouldn't be lying if he were actually a watcher. That's what I said: "GK must have bombed BM and shot BC without a double stack." I am dumb.
On September 09 2012 06:50 slOosh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 05:13 austinmcc wrote:
EBWOP: by "easiest fakeclaim," I mean he could have claimed to vig ottoxlol, or protect some random person that didn't get killed. Instead he chose to claim something that directly interacted with a guy we know was a target last night, and that someone might have been on, and that causes us to do NK math. Any claim that ends in town doing NK math seems much more ... difficult, because then later stuff can prove/disprove you very easily. This basically boils down to "if I were scum I'd do a better job" which is not a good reason. I mean we've seen Mattchew fakeclaim, and you could have defended him on the same basis "if I were scum I would have double checked that they were not self aware". The fact is there is no good claim to make because the NK were pretty straightforward. Yes, it does boil down to that, basically. I'm not going to claim to have the best reasons in the world here, but I don't like the BKE lynch, and I'd rather lynch folks I find scummier.
|
Also an option that mafia pretty much KNOWS ottox is gonna get killed. Half the town calling for him to be vigi-d. So town may have put a watcher on him to see who came calling. Mafia vigi shooting ottox gives him a legitimate claim later on, can be backed up by watching.
Come to think of it...woulda been interesting if scum had suicided on Ottox last night, in hopes of catching blues on him.
|
On September 09 2012 07:57 Z-BosoN wrote:BKE played this awfully... I think two things could have absolved him (disregarding his poor choices of decisions toward the very end): 1) Him leaving a breadcrumb. This would make his claim seem more believable... 2) A vet confirming my question earlier on, a question in which I probably would have insisted in if I weren't unnecessarily pressured to having defending myself during the last hours of day two. Show nested quote +He's saying that he visited BC and got back GK, because GK was the only one who visited him, when he exploded over BC.
I'm not too comfortable lynching a watcher this early in the game, should he be telling the truth.
To the vets: how common is there for there to be a watcher in a game of this size? Because if he is lying right now, the real watcher will screw him over later in the game, no?
I'll think more about his claim, it seems way too convenient. This makes me highly suspicious of the remaining vets. Because BKE would clearly be a scumtell later on once the real watcher showed himself and attacked BKE. The only information that was required was the likelihood of there actually being a watcher, in which case BKE's claim would have been stupid as hell, as we were certainly gonna peg him scum once the real watcher showed himself. I don't like how none of the veterans helped out at all during all of this. I am strongly inclined to think that at least one of them is scum. I also expected hapa to consider this, because something similar happened in XXIV (thrawn's vigi claim would have been utterly stupid as scum, because the real vigi would simply unmask him later on.) The situation here was a bit more delicate, because we don't know for certain if there HAS to be a watcher. If someone could confirm the likelihood of there being a watcher (as I think it is very high), then BKE might actually have been saved. But I'm sure that if this were the case, then at least someone with more experience would manifest himself. I myself should have just not bothered with the crappy case against me, because lynching a watcher is quite a loss, and I should have been more insistent of when I thought of this possibility. We are still in a good position, and I will go over the vets' filter, probably tomorrow. @austinNow that you cannot possibly lynch me, save your case against me for day 3, should we both live. Discuss what I've discussed here, and see if you agree. If your case against me had come a little bit later, (it was 5 minutes after the quote referenced above), I would have interpreted this as scum-motivated attempt, because it could have been an intentional disruption. Your attack on me couldn't have been more badly timed, and your reasoning for giving up on voting for BKE would have even gotten my support if I had a clearer head about my initial thought on how stupid it would be for a watcher fakeclaim, if the odds are there is always a watcher. You are thick, but I'm confident that I can defend myself against your arguments if you can be more objective and less narrative/judgemental with your cases. @Hapa: I don't like how you ignored/didn't see this possibility. Also, you hopped on austin's poor arguments needlessly, as it was clearly not going to get anything done, and even questioned a distant post I had made. His case against me seemed genuine (but stupid), your decision to hop on it + not even considering this point I made about a BKE fakeclaim out of the blue, after having said that you thought I was a "confirmed townie" did not.
After cooling off and having thought more carefully about this, I feel very strongly about this point. Now that I have basically called everyone out, someone please confirm, as I am confident there is at least a townie vet: Can we, with bloodyc0bbler's 100% certainty, assume that there necessarily is one, and just one watcher?? If not 100%, how likely is it? (1) Breadcrumbs can be laid by both sides. No reason for scum not be leaving breadcrumbs for fakeclaims except laziness.
(2) It's a watcher/tracker game. Generally in a normal the roles aren't in the OP if they're not going out. We don't know #s, but all of those roles are most likely in the game. The numbers are up to whatever setup palmar rolled or picked, we can't know for sure. Nobody can answer your question.
On September 09 2012 08:07 Z-BosoN wrote:One more thing that's nagging at me: Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 15:58 BroodKingEXE wrote:
Guys this lynch is not happening. Its like 12:00 PST I'll make a good case in the morning, but Im forced to say Im Watcher. Night One I visited BC and got back GK -_-. If he visited BC and got back GK, why didn't he die? If the watcher watches a house, is he not "visiting" it as well, and thus will get killed by the bomber? I'm not getting these roles at all...
All scum can carry out a NK in addition to their role. GK used his role on BM24, killing BM24 and anyone who was visiting him. GK carried out 1 of the scum NKs on BC. It did 1 KP, nobody protected or jailed BC, BC died. Some unknown person carried out the 2nd scum NK on an unknown person. That person was protected or jailed.
The case against you isn't poor. You say it is, hapa doesn't like it because of his earlier meta read, but I'm alright with calling you out for what you've done so far. You look bad. I'm not awful at this when I put effort in. Not a vet, played poor in newbie games, but I've been doing pretty well lately. Pretty sure you're scum.
|
On September 09 2012 08:44 Z-BosoN wrote:Also, @austin: Show nested quote +It's a watcher/tracker game. Generally in a normal the roles aren't in the OP if they're not going out. We don't know #s, but all of those roles are most likely in the game. The numbers are up to whatever setup palmar rolled or picked, we can't know for sure. Nobody can answer your question. Yea, but bloodyc0bbler "knew" that nn weren't self-aware. This could easily be one of those things. That's why I want a vet confirming this, what is the statistical likelihood. BC noticed the OP didn't specify and asked Palmar a question. The OP states that you're not allowed to speak in thread about asking questions. That's why he "knew." He didn't have some intrinsic knowledge of the game, he asked hosts for an answer, got one, but couldn't reveal how he got the answer to the thread under the rules.
Number of roles isn't something that host is going to answer in a setup like this. Either we know from the bat or we don't. Nobody can tell you exactly how many there are, and statistical likelihood gets you nothing, even if anyone wants to play with that, which they shouldn't.
[Did you read my post? Both you and austin have ignored the most important part of my post. Like I've stated, I think focusing on the veterans, for this night, should be ideal, as I have reason to believe at least one of them is.
What is this? Seriously, what is this? "I think focusing on the veterans should be ideal as I have reason to believe on of them is." Would you like to share that reason with the class? Would you like to explain why focusing on that is a good idea? I'm reading your posts. I know you want to discuss vets. If you think one of them looks scummy, bring that to the thread, but "Hey guys, let's talk about the vets....GO!" is not really a good way to get discussion.
Otherwise, and stop me if this is not your reasoning, but otherwise you're giving the same argument that comes up every game - if the host didn't use RNG (and I don't know how Palmar does his alignments) then generally you are going to have a veteran player on the scum team. Bill Murray and I sort of talked sideways at each other about that N1. But we don't know whether there's a scummy vet right now, and scummy vets become easier to see the longer the game goes.
Nobody is ignoring your posts, you're just giving people no reason to do what you want, and people are scattered with sleep/post-townie-lynch malaise.
p.s. you scummy
|
On September 10 2012 00:44 Z-BosoN wrote:
I asked this, because I thought that it could be likely to have just one. My reasoning was: if the odds are high that there is only one, then we shouldn't have lynched BKE.
(1) Hi guys, I had this question. Depending on the answer, I didn't want to lynch BKE. It didn't get answered, but I lynched BKE anyway. Oops.
(2) Why does the number of watchers matter here? We shouldn't be lynching townies regardless of how many we have. 1 watcher has 1 watcher of value, whether we have 1, 2, 3, infinity. Z-BosoN seems to be indicating here that if we only had one watcher we shouldn't have lynched a claimed watcher, but if we had multiple ones...we should? The number of roles has absolutely no bearing on BKE's claim, except that if we have more watchers then it's technically more likely that any given person is a watcher, because math.
(3) Before the flip, we didn't even know if BKE was a watcher or not. Seeing as how most of town voted for him, you clearly didn't. Z-BosoN voted for BKE, didn't believe he was a watcher, this reasoning doesn't make any sense, because the number of watchers doesn't matter when Z-BosoN thought BKE was not one of them.
For anyone not liking Z-BosoN for scum, please read these posts talking about his reasoning, then notice that he didn't care enough to not vote BKE.
On September 10 2012 01:11 Z-BosoN wrote:EBWOP: Show nested quote +Right now the town focus should be more productive to help the vigi determine who he will shoot. I think the discussion should be entirely about vets right now, as you guys have more experience with each other and with the game, and that the odds are high one of you dies tonight. I'm sure we can all agree to this, no? I phrased myself wrong, let me correct myself. Not entirely. Vigi shooting a vet right now is dumb, and reading right now I wasn't clear with this in the above post. What I mean is: 1) Vets should post more. Our reads on vets should be made clear right now, so they can also comment and so we can know what they think of each other, given their experience and their likelihood to die. 2) However, vigi must also decide who to shoot (if at all), and a lurker with inconsistencies and a general scummy profile would fit this best, in my opinion. Shooting a high-profile person right now is risky as hell, unless there is irrefutable scum evidence, which I find unlikely at this stage. 1) and 2) in order of priority, from my opinion. Does this make sense? Guys, stop scumhunting and focus only on the people I want to talk about. I want our vigi(s) to decide who to shoot, but I only want to talk about vets, except I don't want vigi(s) shooting vets. In fact, I want shots on "a lurker with inconsistencies and a general scummy profile," but I'll won't name anyone specific AND if you try to discuss non-vets I'll be sad.
|
Assorted stuff - - Hapa's not a vet.
- I have a town read on ShadySands.
- The amount someone posts is not super convincing, unless there's a very long history and it's very clear that ~x posts is scummy, ~y posts is townie. Otherwise "usually posts more" just means "less active this game" which could be for a number of reasons
- Last night was quite useful, despite there being a lack of talking about vets like Z-BosoN talking. Concentrated posting by a couple people really helps us make reads on them.
- Currently have a town read on Bill Murray. Not terribly sure why, but a hunch.
On September 09 2012 13:40 Shady Sands wrote:
No, I'm calling for the shot on you[Hapahauli] and calling for the lynch on grush. I know I can get grush lynched, given how anti-town he's playing. You're a tougher nut to crack, especially with scumbuddies and misguided townies to soft-defend you.
Whether Grush is town or mafia, I absolutely disagree that he's been playing anti-town this game. He shat up the thread at one point, noting that he was doing so. Apart from that, he's been surprisingly helpful. I do not understand where you're getting your read.
|
can you give a # for syllo's post on Forumite in obs?
|
Just gonna note that right at this point, after his post about his reasoning and BKE and watchers, I am less convinced he's scummy. Something about the way he's responding to pressure and being called scummy + something about him oddly caring/not caring about BKE's lynch + the concern for watchers has changed my mind. I'm now reading him more as third-party assassin than as scum. Could be a momentary thing, I dunno, but that's actually where my head is after those most recent two posts.
Just saying, if you're a non-Z-BosoN assassin, you might want to check him tonight. Wink.
Reading the stuff on forumite, but I swear I can't find syllo's post in obs about him.
|
EBWOP: Is there more than "when he is town he is actually useful"? Or is that what you're pointing to?
|
On September 10 2012 03:04 austinmcc wrote:
EBWOP: Is there more than "when he is town he is actually useful"? Or is that what you're pointing to? Sorry, this was the actual quote from Syllogism, not what I'm boiling down your case to. Was just seeing if this was the syllo comment on Forumite that we were supposed to look at.
|
Making notes but will put them in thread so you can see my thought process:
Reading WoF scum QT : + Show Spoiler +Forumite not a scum leader, but seems to be thinking about whether his actions look town or scummy. Choosing targets to go after based on who his town self would go after. Some of not being the scum leader could be the fact that he's scum with Ace, who he and VE probably deferring to. Based off that, I don't expect to be able to look at who Forumite is pushing and say "scummy target," but perhaps the logic will be slightly different/lacking. Unsure whether to expect Forumite to be pushing scum's agenda or not.
Reading WoF itself : + Show Spoiler +- Lots of questions. However, not in the scummy "I don't care about the answer, I'm asking to be active/look myself" way, but actually following up with the answers he gets, engaging in dialogue.
- Makes lynch preference on Zentor known, continutes referencing Zentor until deadZentor
- Engages other people's cases, but sticks with just Zentor as his case
- Likes to use his questions to mess with town heads. I see you made a case on x, why would x have done this? Sort of halfway pushing his own options, "I am forumite and I want you to think x did this because of ___" but not explicitly (See the VE/Marv stuff for some of this)
- Often times if directly asks about someone, he's either wishy-washy or gives a cursory read. When asked to contribute views on people he isn't aiming at, doesn't really do so. Pestering him about players he's unconcerned with in his own posts may be a good way to discern alignment.
- At least from WoF, scumForumite doesn't seem to build a massive case based on a filter. Only at the end, on Phagga (althought that was the final lynch, so there's more filter to use). Unsure on townForumite's way of building a case, but his Zentor case sort of just looked at 2/3 of what Zentor did and called it scummy, building and building.
Reading current game : + Show Spoiler +- Lots of questions.
- Questions feel...slightly different? Whereas in WoF I see a lot of picking at other people's cases, here he seems to be agreeing, or asking for more, or something slightly different than just "How do you explain this one bit of your case?"
- Engages Mav, his scumread, but feels different than engaging Zentor in WoF. Some of that could be that Zentor did some very scummy things like selfvote off the bat, but he's not grabbing onto everything Mav posts and twisting it to be scummy like he did with Zentor in WoF.
Thoughts on Toad's case
Agree that Forumite has not been involved. Gone most of BKE lynch, no comments on Grush apart from one "he's trolling with that awesome sesame street song and I want to lynch him" bit. No comment on Z-BosoN. However, at points he has commented on random extra stuff - last night's argument and saying he thought it was silly and everyone was town.
Your cautiousness section is weaksauce. You posted a very mushy "Forumite is the vet I feel least confident" post/case-ish-thing, then noted that you disliked the cases others made on forumite, while still liking the forumite = scum conclusion.
End result - I'm not entirely convinced. He doesn't look great. But while I think he's still doing a lot of questioning and not a lot of his own contribution at this point, the questions feel slightly different. I wish he'd give thoughts on other players, but scumForumite in WoF was picking apart a lot of cases that didn't focus his target. Forumite is not doing that here, he's on Maverick but doesn't really keep poking at other people to try and get them off their cases and onto Maverick. Right now I would not vote for him.
However, I'll go read another game or two of his either before day or if I survive. I don't like drawing all my conclusions from (1) a game where he was scum and (2) a mini. Especially for those of us who haven't played with him much, of course he's going to look bad if we only read one scum game and see comments like "Forumite usually helpful" "Forumite usually pushing his reads." I'd like to confirm those thoughts with my own reads of other games.
|
B-B-B-BONUS FIND!
While reading through Forumite, there's this:On September 04 2012 10:01 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 10:00 Z-BosoN wrote:
Hello folks ^^
I would appreciate it if someone could clear some things up, since I've never played in this setup yet. Right now I've noticed this new mechanic: visiting someone.
A nosy neighbor will randomly visit someone. This will be caught up by the town watcher and/or tracker.
Now what I don't understand: if a medic saves someone, or if a roleblocker blocks some, or if a Suicide Bomber plants a bomb somewhere, or if a goon tks someone, will they also "visit" this person? Yes, all nightactions, including mafia nightkills, can be detected by watchers and trackers. I´ve never seen you before. Have you been on TL-mafia long? What do you think about the game so far?
Again, Z-BosoN so concerned with watchers. What do watchers see? What counts as visiting? How many watchers are in the game?
Why is he so concerned with watchers? Cuz he's doing something that could get watched. And again, leaning assassin now because he's putting that in thread rather than into QT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
