|
On September 06 2012 13:44 BlackMamba24 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 13:41 Hapahauli wrote:
@ DrH - I'll drop it, that's pretty much all I needed from you - same type of defense as in DN + I'm willing to chalk an inconsistency up to active play. Might be something worth looking into if somehow you're alive on Day 4, but otherwise, I'm satisfied.
Still think you should reconsider ottoxlol, or atleast try to look through his filter through a townie perspective once. What you call "not pushing his reads" looks a lot like him getting lost and frustrated in an argument.
Lastly, I still want miltonkram to get shot up by a vig tonight. No changing that. ... Even if he is caught up in his arguments, there is no town-aligned explanation to how he intentionally ignores the answer to his own questions to continuously push his agenda. That indicates, to me, that he has a forgone conclusion and is not interested in actually thinking about it. ...
I don't think "ignoring the answer to his own questions" is scummy. Like it's pretty clear he's not thinking, but that's not a scummy trait. Pushing one's agenda also isn't scummy. Also, having a "foregone conclusion" reads to me as raving-insane confirmation bias.
The #1 thing I'm considering is if he's playing with extra information (known player alignments as mafia). To me, there's no way this is the case. If he knew Mattchew was scum, he wouldn't defend him after the lie was confirmed. It's not a "too scummy to be scum" defense - it's more of a "mafia would not think like this considering their information advantage" defense.
Looks like we're reading into this completely oppositely, so it's probably best to leave it at that.
|
On September 06 2012 13:56 Z-BosoN wrote:
Thank you!
Being defensive is a general trait everybody has. But my main problem is that he said S&B had a red flag and was suspicious. Wouldn't a townie, even a newer one, be more insistent on this? I can't think of myself saying someone is really suspicious only to not bother attacking him at all..
If anything, I think newer townies are generally more passive in pushing their reads. They are generally lost and don't know how to push a case. I'd be more worried about this if he pointed a red flag against SnB and hadn't pursued it for several days.
The one thing that really gives me a town read on him is his trend of drawing suspicion to himself. He constantly acknowledges the FOS's against him and does so in the most confrontational way possible against his assailants. This strikes me as much more townie than mafia.
|
Oh geezus Mav isn't new? Looks like he has a couple of games under his belt that I'll have to look into a bit. All my "newer player" things should go out the window.
|
Well looking at Mav's filter in Aperture Mafia (Townie)...
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=319120&user=174863
Maverick is also pretty lurky in the early game, so I don't think his activity is indicative of his alignment. He really doesn't make too many significant contributions until mid-game, and he shows somewhat of a similar mentality to this game - slight pokes and prods, and an objection to an early vote.
I'm not sure completely what to make of his "OMGUS" stuff against people who FOS'd him. It still reads as slightly townie to me (calling attention to himself), but he has yet to respond to any significant case against him.
I really haven't seen anything in his filters that blatantly goes against his gameplay this game. Leaning town on him, but I hope to get more outta him in the next few days.
|
On September 06 2012 14:32 slOosh wrote:
Yea, I considered the new player stepping into the big stage being timid, but his history includes Space Station (big, themed game), and Aperture (the craziest game of all time), and you can see him standing his ground, speaking his thoughts, making stances. So he isn't timid, he isn't busy, he isn't afraid to do what he wants but this game shows a contradiction to his normal town play.
Well Mav definitely isn't timid this game, considering that his main suspicions are those who FOS'd him. In Aperture, he doesn't really stand his ground until mid-way through the game, and coasts until people cast significant suspicion on him.
|
On September 06 2012 16:16 BlackMamba24 wrote:Actually, thanks for pointing out his meta. It's completely damning. As town ottoxlol is not very aggressive, tries to be helpful and defends himself very actively. In this game he is very aggressive and extremely negative, gets caught up in arguments with a completely different attitude/tone. In Area Mafia he asks questions, seems to listen to other peoples posts, makes a lot of posts addressing general points rather than picking people apart and discrediting them. Ottox has done nothing to defend himself in this thread. Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 20:48 Ottoxlol wrote:
From "area mafia":
And insulting the other instead of arguing will help a lot, good tactic. Next you will claim JK right? Interesting. Anyway, vig hit ottox.
Regarding Ottox
Meta is a really dangerous road to go down when dealing with this type of player methinks. It's very easy to pick out the differences when his overall mentality seems the same to me. Being aggressive/angry isn't mafia-oriented. Think about it from his perspective; he thought he was being reasonable ("helping town discussion"), and a bunch of people railed on him for pages. That would make anyone angry/aggressive/whatever. Also, not defending ones-self when emotional is pretty understandable.
In fact, there are parts of his meta that go to his favor; his stubbornness, his activity level, etc.
This is the last I'll say on Ottox, but I'll restate my main point one more time:
"Mafia Ottox" would have known Mattchew's alignment. Given this, it makes no sense for Ottox to hard-defend Mattchew after the lie is confirmed. Think about it - you know your teammate is mafia, and you know the entire thread knows he fakeclaimed. He just lost a member of your team, and his first impulse is to hard defend him?! Not only that, but to roll with it for pages?!
Blinders man. Blinders.
Regarding Miltonkram
Let's talk about a hypothetical player within the factual setting of this game. The player's filter consists of:
- A fluff-intro post talking about his meta
- A couple of questions he never pursues
- A vote on the confirmed-scum, followed by a bad case against another player in the same post
- When backing down from bad case, he passively questions another player pointed out to him w/out taking a stance
- General lurkiness (11 total posts, most of which are very short)
I would shoot this hypothetical player on the spot, regardless of who his case was on or whatever. There are no blinders - this is the only lurker that I can attribute mafia-motive to so far. If you look at his filter, that's exactly how one would expect mafia to react to a buddy getting confirmed scum in the thread:
Fluff intro post --> "lolscumslip" post --> ##Vote post "oh hey this guy is also scummy" post --> "my case is bad, chill out i was tired...errr...can you explain this suspicious thing to me BillMurray?" post
Miltonkram's head needs to roll ASAP
|
On September 06 2012 23:02 DarthPunk wrote:
...
You have not answered me previously so I will ask again. Why are you so intent on defending who you seem to believe to be town Otto? Especially when you have leapt all over other players for far less scummy actions?
There is no scum motivation. Think about what the objectives of hard-defending a teammate as mafia are. The goal of hard-defending a teammate is to prevent their lynch. It’s pretty clear that defending someone after they have 20-something votes on them is not going to prevent said lynch, so how can it be a mafia objective? It’s not a mafia objective, it’s screamingly bad townie.
By contrast, If the lynch was close between two candidates, hard-defending makes sense from a mafia perspective. It’s not smart, but there’s mafia-motive.
Regarding the whole “Mattchew was stupid therefore Ottox could be stupid mafia” – that’s a load of BS. As stated above, there’s a huge difference between stupid and mafia-motivated stupid.
So as for your questions: I don’t find Ottox scummy. I see a lot of town motivation (even if stupid) behind his actions.
|
On September 07 2012 00:39 Z-BosoN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 14:38 Hapahauli wrote:Well looking at Mav's filter in Aperture Mafia (Townie)... http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=319120&user=174863Maverick is also pretty lurky in the early game, so I don't think his activity is indicative of his alignment. He really doesn't make too many significant contributions until mid-game, and he shows somewhat of a similar mentality to this game - slight pokes and prods, and an objection to an early vote. I'm not sure completely what to make of his "OMGUS" stuff against people who FOS'd him. It still reads as slightly townie to me (calling attention to himself), but he has yet to respond to any significant case against him. I really haven't seen anything in his filters that blatantly goes against his gameplay this game. Leaning town on him, but I hope to get more outta him in the next few days. Like I said, my mention issue with him is not lurkiness and being defensive, those are just toppings. It's the fact that he mentioned he has a red flag on someone, and did not pursue. His last game, regarding this, doesn't say much, but it does say that he is capable of making cases and establishing arguments, something in which he has not done this game yet, despite accusing someone of being highly suspicious.
Yes he is capable of making cases, but he didn't in the early game of his townie games. That's more of a mid-game thing for him, and I don't think it's indicative of his alignment.
While I lean town on him, it doesn't mean that I'm letting him off the hook by any means. I just think his behavior so far is not indicative of his alignment, and this is consistent with his meta. I think there's much more we need to hear from him, but I don't think he's extremely scummy or anything like that.
|
On September 07 2012 00:54 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 00:52 Hapahauli wrote:On September 06 2012 23:02 DarthPunk wrote:
...
You have not answered me previously so I will ask again. Why are you so intent on defending who you seem to believe to be town Otto? Especially when you have leapt all over other players for far less scummy actions? There is no scum motivation. Think about what the objectives of hard-defending a teammate as mafia are. The goal of hard-defending a teammate is to prevent their lynch. It’s pretty clear that defending someone after they have 20-something votes on them is not going to prevent said lynch, so how can it be a mafia objective? It’s not a mafia objective, it’s screamingly bad townie. By contrast, If the lynch was close between two candidates, hard-defending makes sense from a mafia perspective. It’s not smart, but there’s mafia-motive. Regarding the whole “Mattchew was stupid therefore Ottox could be stupid mafia” – that’s a load of BS. As stated above, there’s a huge difference between stupid and mafia-motivated stupid. So as for your questions: I don’t find Ottox scummy. I see a lot of town motivation (even if stupid) behind his actions. What town motive do you see?
Welcome back - where the hell have you been?
Did you not just read my damn post? I told you exactly why it's not scum motivated. The town motivation lies in him questioning a read he believes not to be true. Stupid? Absolutely. But as stated above, NOT mafia motivated.
|
On September 07 2012 01:00 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 00:56 Hapahauli wrote:On September 07 2012 00:54 Shady Sands wrote:On September 07 2012 00:52 Hapahauli wrote:On September 06 2012 23:02 DarthPunk wrote:
...
You have not answered me previously so I will ask again. Why are you so intent on defending who you seem to believe to be town Otto? Especially when you have leapt all over other players for far less scummy actions? There is no scum motivation. Think about what the objectives of hard-defending a teammate as mafia are. The goal of hard-defending a teammate is to prevent their lynch. It’s pretty clear that defending someone after they have 20-something votes on them is not going to prevent said lynch, so how can it be a mafia objective? It’s not a mafia objective, it’s screamingly bad townie. By contrast, If the lynch was close between two candidates, hard-defending makes sense from a mafia perspective. It’s not smart, but there’s mafia-motive. Regarding the whole “Mattchew was stupid therefore Ottox could be stupid mafia” – that’s a load of BS. As stated above, there’s a huge difference between stupid and mafia-motivated stupid. So as for your questions: I don’t find Ottox scummy. I see a lot of town motivation (even if stupid) behind his actions. What town motive do you see? Welcome back - where the hell have you been? Did you not just read my damn post? I told you exactly why it's not scum motivated. The town motivation lies in him questioning a read he believes not to be true. Stupid? Absolutely. But as stated above, NOT mafia motivated. Fell behind in this game and never got the chance to catch up. Voted Mattchew in this thread and got warned for it =S Alright, got it. I'm still leery of players like this though, because if this is how he plays town, are you sure we want him around at MYLO/LYLO?
Yes, because there's a pretty good chance he's town. Again, does this make sense as mafia?
This is the last I'll say on Ottox, but I'll restate my main point one more time:
"Mafia Ottox" would have known Mattchew's alignment. Given this, it makes no sense for Ottox to hard-defend Mattchew after the lie is confirmed. Think about it - you know your teammate is mafia, and you know the entire thread knows he fakeclaimed. He just lost a member of your team, and his first impulse is to hard defend him?! Not only that, but to roll with it for pages?!
Key here is the information advantage of mafia.
|
On September 07 2012 01:11 Z-BosoN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 00:52 Hapahauli wrote:On September 06 2012 23:02 DarthPunk wrote:
...
You have not answered me previously so I will ask again. Why are you so intent on defending who you seem to believe to be town Otto? Especially when you have leapt all over other players for far less scummy actions? There is no scum motivation. Think about what the objectives of hard-defending a teammate as mafia are. The goal of hard-defending a teammate is to prevent their lynch. It’s pretty clear that defending someone after they have 20-something votes on them is not going to prevent said lynch, so how can it be a mafia objective? It’s not a mafia objective, it’s screamingly bad townie. By contrast, If the lynch was close between two candidates, hard-defending makes sense from a mafia perspective. It’s not smart, but there’s mafia-motive. Regarding the whole “Mattchew was stupid therefore Ottox could be stupid mafia” – that’s a load of BS. As stated above, there’s a huge difference between stupid and mafia-motivated stupid. So as for your questions: I don’t find Ottox scummy. I see a lot of town motivation (even if stupid) behind his actions. Yes there might be! It would fit his meta as posting without thinking! The first instinct a scum would have is defending his little buddy. Nevertheless, you CANNOT use that as an argument to lower suspicion on someone. It boils down to WIFOM, how do you know that he didn't want you to think that? This exactly what I did, as scum, in XIV, I tried to desperately voteswitch on YH last minute thinking it would make me seem townie, but it had the extreme opposite effect. It can easily be both things, so no conclusion can be drawn from his actions. The reason I am inclined to think it goes on the scummier side of the fence is because of his meta, of how he just go ahead and sends posts without thinking about them. I am not convinced he is scum (I was after the "scumslip", but as you pointed out, it might have been meaningless as it implied having four mafia), but right now I am convinced that he is our best lynch. I don't think your case on Milton has enough on him to a point where he seems more scummy than otto. Not at this moment anyways. Can you explain this point in made on him: A couple of questions he never pursues? I don't recall this from your posts. Also, why is When backing down from bad case, he passively questions another player pointed out to him w/out taking a stance" scum-motivated? Also, if you want to include not going after his scumreads, making bad contributions, and general lurkiness, why do you still choose him over Mav? I personally think mav seems scummier because, unlike milton, he didn't even bother making a case on anyone. To me, that's scummier than making a bad case, as townies do it all the time.
Big misapplication of "WIFOM." There's nothing WIFOM about it - there's no mafia objective that can be seen!
Regarding your voteswitch on YH at the last minute, that's a hell of a different scenario. You were wildly inconsistent on YH, hence suspicion on you. Does Ottox look inconsistent about Mattchew? Hell no - he was up to his eyeballs in confirmation bias.
I'm done discussing Ottox. You all are running around looking for suspicious things in his filter and ignoring the one thing that makes him blitheringly townie. He is not thinking like mafia. If he knew allignments, defending Mattchew after having his lie confirmed does not make any sense. Defending a confirmed mafia member and doing everything to attract attention to yourself when 20+votes are on said mafia member does not make sense, especially if you're 99% sure to get shot for it the next day.
Regarding Milton -
Milton is doing the bare minimum to act like he's contributing. His bad case (regardless of it being against me or not) doesn't help him. Also, his case was filled with misinformation as opposed to bad logic. The latter is townie, while the former is not. It's consistent with scum trying to contribute without actually contributing.
Regarding Mav -
We're just reading him differently. Again, I need to hear much more from him before I make a solid read. His meta suggests that his play so far is not indicative of his alignment. Bad townies are perfectly capable of not making cases, especially given the atmosphere of D1 (voting for confirmed scum, huge temptation to slack off).
|
@ Z-Boson
I believe the misinformation distinguishes him from the other lurkers in a scummy way.
It's interesting that you bring up the whole "attacking active townie" thing, because the post he attacked me for was on page 2 (out of 6) on my filter. Seems pretty silly to determine who and who isn't an active townie only 2 hours into the game? For all he knows, I could go lurker-king after his accusation. Why should attacking a vocal townie or not determine whether or not he's mafia? Mafia-objectives are to cast illogical-suspicion to push for lynches; this is the core of their win-condition.
Anywho, we can agree to disagree. Arguing will get us nowhere if neither of our scumreads are posting.
|
On September 07 2012 03:31 Z-BosoN wrote:
...
Agreed, then. Shifting over, what is your take on H1's case against forumite?
Forumite's vote + Pre-emptive defense looks really off. What really catches my eye is the bolded part below:
Reading through the thread, my vote on Matt looks kind of odd. I made it after I got a PM-confirmation from Palmar but before I saw Palmars post in the thread.
Why do people fakevote, then say "lol, I never really voted!" It´s irritating. Making a vote in this thread might not count but I think it´s bad form. Similarly it´s bad to stealthvote in the other thread without confirming it here. If you want to pressurevote, do it for real.
...
After defending his "odd" vote, he goes and picks a fight over an issue that no one really brought up. What's the point of bringing up "fakevoting?" It doesn't read to me as genuine, and considering his relatively lacking filter, it bothers me.
Also, his first post is suspicious to me:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=361826¤tpage=13#259
He walks into the thread, nitpicks 4 players, and walks out. Again, suspicious.
I think Hopeless's case deserves attention. Forumite's pre-emptive defense of his vote should be catching some eyes.
|
Shame a shot got wasted on Ottox. Oh well.
##Vote Miltonkram
@ Grush
On September 07 2012 07:31 grush57 wrote:Hmm, goodkarma suiciding on BC the vet I guess. Plus we got rid of Ottox so gj viggies 
Shouldn't you... uh... NOT be happy vigi shot a green role?
|
But he's not vigi, so who cares? TBH it baffles me that you somehow think that this is a good thing.
|
Observations of GoodKarma's Filter
Well last night may have been a blessing in disguise considering GoodKarma flipped red. Now I'm going to be very careful going through GK's filter, since it's entirely possible his later posts are WIFOM bombs if he was planning to suicide-bomb people. However, from his earlier posts, I think we can make some educated opinions about player alignments.
As a general note, I'm a bit surprised to see GK kill himself - losing 2 scum before D2 is a pretty big deal, which indicates to me that the current scum are comfortable playing from behind. (Might have to retract my Miltonkram vote based on this)
Note: I'm especially wary of his fliter because he tried to buddy me all thread. I get the feeling this was an effort to get me lynched by association later in the game.
GK's "suspicious lurker" lists
First off, we need to decide when GoodKarma switched into "suicide mode." I find it unlikely that scum designated that GK would suicide bomb at the time he posted these lists. GK goes really silent after tunneling Ottox for a bit, and it's at that point that I believe GK locked into the suicide bombing. Thus I think we can infer a reasonable amount from these lists. Namely, that the people on them are very unlikely scum.
On September 04 2012 18:38 goodkarma wrote:
...
But we still should be trying to create a pro-town environment going into day two. Along those lines:
The guiltiest lurkers are listed as follows, in no particular order:
Gravan, austinmc, imallinson, Strongandbig, Miltonkram
I look forward to hearing more from these people in particular. That being said, you can expect from me tomorrow afternoon (~12 hours from now) a case writeup highlighting my current scum reads.
...
On September 05 2012 09:27 goodkarma wrote:
...
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 a side note, I really believe Gravan is town. GoodKarma mentions him casually too many times throughout his filter for him to be mafia IMO. Also he leads off with Gravan on both lists - this indicates to me that he wants to push him as a lynch.
That's really all I'm willing to infer from this for now. I'll get more to this later.
|
Oh also Z-Boson is probably town.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=361826¤tpage=16#319
GoodKarma's first post FOS's Z-Boson on pretty inconsistent reasoning. He also interacts with Z-Boson a lot (who was attacking GK's logic) and I'm pretty comfortable with it being a genuine exchange.
This is all generally consistent with my meta-read on Z-Boson as well, who's much more active in the thread than in his scum meta in Newbie XXIV.
|
Lastly,
##Unvote Miltonkram
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=361826¤tpage=32#636
This post was made very early in GoodKarma's filter, and indicates to me that Milton is actually town. That's it for a while, more to come.
As for Forumite's suspicion against me, believe what you want about "buddying up." I highly question your motives, and I'll have a lot to say about you later tonight.
|
Before I go to bed for the night:
BroodKingEXE
He has two very suspicious posts regarding two confirmed players: Mattchew and Ottoxlol.
A bit before Mattchew is scum-confirmed (right around when a few players start voting for Mattchew), Broodking posts this unbelievably wishy-washy opinion on Mattchew.
On September 04 2012 16:20 BroodKingEXE wrote:
About Mattchew (who I think is town):
Here's my breakdown of the situation : Matt's roleclaimed and given two reasons he claimed to avoid mislynch and/or draw a mafia shot. At first glance the roleclaim seemed like a great idea, but as I thought about it there were just too many holes. My initial thought was that it was a good idea and that could have been Matt's (based on the reasoning too). Another problem I find with lynching him is that what he has done (roleclaim) isn't verifiable until he is lynched. Right now its a coinflip and I haven't seen anything else that suggests he is scum. Fakeclaims aren't good basis for a lynch, they're not even able to be confirmed until the lynch, so I cant vote for him unless his posting sounds scummy.
Look at the logic - he first thinks its a great idea, then there are "too many holes."
He doesn't want to lynch him because his "roleclaim isn't verifiable until he is lynched" - the hell?
He said he's town originally, then says "its a coinflip"
Then he says "Fakeclaims aren't good basis for a lynch" and wants to wait until "mattchew sounds scummy". Again, the fakeclaim is the entire reason everyone voted for him.
But wait! Two pages after the fakeclaim (and before Mattchew posted anything in the interim):
On September 05 2012 00:12 BroodKingEXE wrote:
Unvote
##Vote: Mattchew
Wow.
After stating earlier that the fakeclaim wasn't enough to lynch Mattchew, he votes Mattchew for that very reasoning.
His viewpoints on Ottoxlol are the nail in the coffin:
Goes from top scumread:
No, his response was belivable based on posts he made after his sloosh interaction. Ottox has replaced him [ed note: Broodking's scumread on Toad due to the fact that he is pushing a "Matt is an assasin/townie scheme" instead of pushing his scum read toad.
Then proceeds to push cases against Miltonkram, Shadysands, and Gravan while Ottox is his top scumread:
Then says strange things about potentially townie Ottox while keeping a scumread on him.
filter
My 2 cents about the Ottox thing. I played with him in Area 53 and he's as stubborn as a mule. I could see him trying to derail a lynch from a town perspective. I just don't get why as town he wont push a lynch canidate (in all seriousness his isn't doing much to push toad or hapa). That's why Im keeping a scum read on him.
Then SOFT DEFENDS OTTOX when talking to DrH
On September 06 2012 16:03 BroodKingEXE wrote:It was later in the game from what I remember, just that he doesn't really listen (or ignores) others logic.
BroodKingEXE is scum!
##Vote BroodKingEXE
|
On September 07 2012 13:12 Maverick32x wrote:
@DoYouHas-
Solid defense, and you're right- I was probably tunneling too hard on filters. I still think the reliance on 'Meta' is not a reliable way to contribute to THIS game...
@Forumite-
I guess we have different perspectives when it comes to scum hunting? The majority of players are town.. so wouldn't it be smarter to do some 'innocent until proven guilty'? As opposed to just blasting everyone because everyone else is doing it?
All this being said- I'm wondering if we should just lynch a lurker? I feel like allowing scum to lurk is a bad plan?
Howabout lynching BroodKingEXE - what do you think?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=361826¤tpage=54#1062
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
