|
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.
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.
@austin Now 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?
|
Later BKE! Hope I can read you better next time
|
One more thing that's nagging at me:
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...
|
On September 09 2012 08:21 austinmcc wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 08:07 Z-BosoN wrote:One more thing that's nagging at me: 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.
Ah, I get it now, makes sense. Well, I think it's poor, you don't, whatever. However, I wouldn't say things like "I've been doing well lately, I'm sure you are scum, etc." as it will make you look insanely bad later on, should you be wrong. Like I said, and I will say again, this is my last attempt to go through your thickness: let's discuss me in day three. Me being scum or townie is pointless right now. I want the town focus to be on the veterans, because of the part you completely ignored in my post.
|
On September 09 2012 08:21 Hapahauli wrote:@ Z Boson1)First of all, I don't like you making posts criticizing BKE's play. I'm still a bit stupified from the result, but in retrospect, he did all he could to defend himself. Show nested quote +@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. 2)Austin doesn't necessarily have a poor argument. Your Mattchew Vote post does not make you look good. I know I mentioned that I thought you were town based on GoodKarma's filter, but the more and more I think about it, the more and more I think that GK's filter was a massive WIFOM mindbomb. I never said you were a confirmed townie I said you were "likely" town, and I'm going to have to throw that assumption out the window for now.
1) Yea, jumping around his vote, ignoring his own cases, and looking to join the bandwagon with most votes on it seems extremely defensive.
2) How does it not make me look good? What's the theory? Are you gonna throw me in with the other dozen of people who could have maybe soft-defended Mattchew? And dare you not use the GK argument, as I have shown it to be terribad, and you actually agreed with it. Also, I don't absolutely neglect looking suspicious, my concern with you is more related to the timing of when you chose to go after me. What could you, as town, have possibly hoped to accomplish? The town focus should have been on validating the BKE lynch. Do you agree with this? Don't dodge, answer: yes or no.
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.
|
Also, @austin:
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.
|
@austin Ok, I tried... I'm definitely ignoring you all-out now. I've shared that reason well enough with the class. I even repeated it a few times. Disagreeing with it is one thing, blatantly mind blocking the text is a whole other.
@Hapa
Theory is simple - why attack the person pushing the lynch and seemingly criticize the argument behind the lynch... then end up voting for the lynch. As town, it would make more sense for you to full-on support the lynch with your post. I find that stuff scummy, but no where near definitive (hence me not bolding your name red).
Well, I answered this a while back:
+ Show Spoiler +On September 09 2012 05:51 Z-BosoN wrote:Well to be honest, I was a little edgy regarding BC: Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 12:06 Z-BosoN wrote: (...) 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.
Wait what? He's a one-liner semi-lurker who answers in riddles and you are ok with that and is defensive on him? Tell us why you think that not answering the godamn question straight-up of why he is so sure of the whole miller deal is pro-town? Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 12:29 Z-BosoN wrote: It's not like it's the end of the deadline, we are still a long ways to go... plus, votes don't count in this thread.
Also, the discussion up to now is going nowhere. BC has made it a point to say that he knows something we don't, but won't clarify. If he did indeed learn something game changing as that, I presume Palmar would have announced it in this thread.
So, he's directed the whole discussion at him, and has disappeared. This is all but productive.. So I began the post by saying how full of shit he was. So that first part I wrote before reading slOosh's post, which clarified the situation and sounded extremely reasonable: Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 12:58 slOosh wrote: BC is forcing a 1-1, basically a lynch between him and Mattchew.
On his side its raw gutsyness, and as people have pointed out if it's a scum strat then it ends up with a D2 lynch on him, or even a N1 vig shot; it is unlikely that he would pull this off to kill a town Mattchew as I don't think anyone can wriggle out of the subsequent backlash lynch. A 1-1 on Mattchew is stupid, especially if it could end up him (BC) lynched first, which would make it a 1 for nothing.
On Mattchew's side is the self-aware miller claim. If millers were self-aware, they would out themselves, and it would strengthen his claim. If they aren't self-aware as they usually aren't, he would be safe until someone flipped nosy neighbor, in which case his lie would be exposed and he lynched. In a big game like this, potentially worth it.
Unlikely that both are town as it would mean a lying townie. Unlikely that both are scum cause it's so sub-optimal.
I'd lynch Matt first on the basis that BC's demeanor seems more honest than Mattchew's. I mean, some guy is screaming his head off that you are a liar, and if you know that your role PM is "Nosy Neighbour" then the other guy (BC) must be an idiot or a liar. Mattchew isn't treating him like an idiot, nor is he treating him like a liar. The response is off (I base this off my experience fake claiming in Bureaucracy Mafia). If we get ... news of something otherwise, it's easy enough to switch. But even without it behavior analysis should be enough.
Dunno why you haven't thought of voting him though BC. ##Vote: Mattchew So then I made the rest of the post agreeing that it was perfectly reasonable for mattchew to be lynched. I honestly just forgot to erase the beginning of the post, which initially was meant to say that BC was full of shit (note how I started with "first of all").
I agree it doesn't look too good, you can believe that's what happened or not, whatever.
I agree with you. I stated somewhere before in my filter that scum were willing to sacrifice GoodKarma. The scumteam's willingness to part with another member after the Mattchew lynch tells me that the scumteam was not afraid to play from behind. They must have been in very good standing after Day 1. There's a reason why they went all out to kill the two best scumhunters in the thread night 1.
Well great. I will go through forumite's filter, revisit our dear friend Toad, and see what I can find. Bill Murray is a stone that cannot be read, and I don't like him at all, but I will look at his filter anyways. S&B and imallinson are two players I haven't look at at all this game, so I'll do that as well.
Also, keep in mind that if you are town, the odds of you dying are high, so right now is the time to get shit done
Well of course yes, though I don't know what exactly the purpose of this question is.
To understand why you chose to go after me, in a sea of suspicious people (i.e grush, mav, etc.).
I thought I had BKE nailed as scum and was comfortable to pursue other reads. Again, your ##vote post really stands out to me. I'll have to read your filter and decide whether it makes you scummy or not. That's all.
But I guess this explains it.
I'm missing a lot of people here. Where is everybody? Toad, this is the time you should be scared shitless of death and start posting all your reads, no?
|
On September 09 2012 09:36 Toadesstern wrote: yeah I'm back but it's 2 am so I won't really read anything yet other than what's really obvious because I'm tired and will post tomorrow. Why should I be scared? The assumption that mafia was looking d1 and therefore suicided GK is complete bullshit. They suicided because they wanted to kill blues, not because they thought they could afford it. That's the worst reasoning ever. Even if they thought they could afford it they wouldn't just do it until they think it's worth it so what you've got is an action that made sense from a scumpoint of view no matter of "standing".
If they considered it a -EV move they wouldn't have done it no matter how good or bad in a spot they thought they are. If they considered it a +EV move they would have done it no matter how good or bad in a spot they thought they are.
They apparently thought they're going to get a bunch of blues when bombing into BM24. Everything else would be playing against their wincon as they'd be giving away "charity" lol
Well, it was because they wanted to kill blues AND because they thought they could afford it. If they thought they couldn't afford it, they would probably suicide GK later in the game.
It could also be that they felt forced to suicide him because he was posting ultra-scummy, and he would have been a nice delicious lynch choice for day 2.
You should be scared just like you were scared in night 1, remember your-good-bye-they-are-going-to-kill-me post? Especially now, with two vets gone.
What is a +-EV move?
|
On September 09 2012 09:55 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 09:43 Z-BosoN wrote:On September 09 2012 09:36 Toadesstern wrote: yeah I'm back but it's 2 am so I won't really read anything yet other than what's really obvious because I'm tired and will post tomorrow. Why should I be scared? The assumption that mafia was looking d1 and therefore suicided GK is complete bullshit. They suicided because they wanted to kill blues, not because they thought they could afford it. That's the worst reasoning ever. Even if they thought they could afford it they wouldn't just do it until they think it's worth it so what you've got is an action that made sense from a scumpoint of view no matter of "standing".
If they considered it a -EV move they wouldn't have done it no matter how good or bad in a spot they thought they are. If they considered it a +EV move they would have done it no matter how good or bad in a spot they thought they are.
They apparently thought they're going to get a bunch of blues when bombing into BM24. Everything else would be playing against their wincon as they'd be giving away "charity" lol Well, it was because they wanted to kill blues AND because they thought they could afford it. If they thought they couldn't afford it, they would probably suicide GK later in the game. It could also be that they felt forced to suicide him because he was posting ultra-scummy, and he would have been a nice delicious lynch choice for day 2. You should be scared just like you were scared in night 1, remember your-good-bye-they-are-going-to-kill-me post? Especially now, with two vets gone. What is a +-EV move? There's no difference in when you use the suicide-bomber except for the fact that it is better the earlier you use it because with a lot of people alive it's more likely to kill multiple people. The KP is stable, it's no difference whether they lose him n1 or n2 or n3 except for the fact that doing it later might actually risk not being able to use his ability because he might be lynched (although quite unlikely at that point of time). There's not a single reason to use that role late except if you don't want to use it at all because you're going to lose that one guy no matter what. The night has just started I'm not going to post something about my reads right now lol. a +EV move is something from poker, something that gives you more advantages than drawbacks, while -EV is the opposite. For example if you have to pay 1$ to role a dice (6 sides) and get 10$ if you role a 6 but don't get something when rolling 1 to 5 that's +EV because you'll end up making money by doing that. If you have to pay 1$ but only get 5$ it's -EV because you lose money. Same thing goes for mafia. If they thought they could bomb away multiple people they thought it has more advantages than drawbacks. Like if they thought they'd kill BM24 + 2 blues in exchange for 1 mafia memeber that might be worth the trade no matter of position, or if they considered it likely to get BM24 + 3 blues, go figure. If they think it's worth the trade they'll do it no matter what position they're in because it always improves you position, no matter if you've got 5$ in your pocket or 100$, doing the 1$ to win 10$ thing always makes sense. If they think it's not worth the trade they wouldn't ever do it because no matter if you've got 5$ in your pocket or 100$, doing the 1$ to win 5$ will always but you at a worse position in the long run. So what we get from that is that mafia thought bombing BM24 will kill a bunch of blues. Nothing else because if it's -EV they wouldn't have done it no matter what, if they thought it's +EV they would have done it no matter what.
Oh, as in Expected Value =) Yea, that makes sense. There is also my argument for suspecting vets. I think that BKE could have been saved if someone had confirmed the question I made in the above post. If, in this kind of setup, there is a 4/5 chance of having one, and exactly one watcher, that would certainly raise the EV on us doing a voteswitch on BKE. Yet this didn't happen, no vet confirmed this. Forumite was the only active one at the time, and you and BM were awol. Don't you think that's reason enough to be suspicious that at least one veteran is scum? For this to be true, my main premise must be confirmed as well. Please answer, if you can, my ending bolded question in my first night post:
Can we, with bloodyc0bbler's 100% certainty, assume that there necessarily is one, and just one watcher?? If not 100%, how likely is it?
This is what I base my entire suspicions on.
|
On September 09 2012 19:05 Forumite wrote:I don´t understand why Z-boson talks about asking vets to confirm the number of watchers. There are probably more watchers in this game but we can´t know, so using that as any basis for a lynch is a very bad idea. His post-lynch post about how vets should have confirmed the number of watchers and that there must be a scum among the vets, it's a useless post and doesn´t sit well with me. He´s trying to shift the blame on vets even though none of his suspicions have any grounds, but posts like that usually makes it easier to start a wagon later in the game because "people have been suspicious". I´d rather see Z-boson make a real case on someone. Toades, we don´t know if Palmar deliberately made sure to put vets on the scumteam. Even if Palmar put vets on the scumteam, I once lost the game for town (as town) by trying to start a wagon on Palmar, because he was leading town too well. Do you think it´s likely he´d try and boost the scumteam by adding me? Also; Bill Murray, get in here.
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. But now both you and Toad said that it can be anything, so I'll agree with you, this bit does not weigh in at all to pointing fingers. However, I already have my suspicions on Toad, and he has some on you. BM and Toad were gone during the BKE lynch, and you weren't weighing in too heavily on it. BM is playing the drunken fool, and I don't if that's so no one can accuse him properly, if that's because he doesn't want to get shot, or if it's because that's just how he is. Seems reasonable what's not there to like. Oh - cases are coming, chillax.
Also, the accusations on Hapa are worthless right now, save them for D3. 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?
|
EBWOP:
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?
|
Toad I like you so much, that I've even gone over your filter again. Here's a section just for you, since you like attention
Toad's Case on Forumite
On September 10 2012 02:36 Toadesstern wrote:I've got a little task for people, read this game: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330925Also make sure to read the obs-QT and especially Syllos opinion on forumite ( click me!) I know I don't usually ask people to read older games because it's a pain in the ass but this one is important.When you're done reading I want you to think about forumite. There's 4 major things that come to my mind when thinking about forumite: - He is cautious when posting
- He is only posting when he has to
- He is isn't interested in what's going on or helping town at all
- He's doing apeshit right now
It's the very same thing we had in WoF. Town-Forumite is useful, good and will do STUFF. Can you think of one important post forumite has done this game? Just one that instantly pops into your mind? I can't without having his filter opened because there's really not much that sticks out. His most important post probably was this: + Show Spoiler [click me] +On September 09 2012 06:32 Forumite wrote: Kreb (Miltonkram) (0)
Hapahauli
BroodKingEXE (16) Hapahauli slOosh imallinson
Shady Sands Hopeless1der ShiaoPi Rewok DoYouHas Maverick32x
grush57 Forumite Gravan
Toadesstern
grush57 strongandbig grush57 Toadesstern Shady Sands Z-BosoN Kreb (Miltonkram)
DoYouHas (1) Bill Murray
ShiaoPi (0)
Maverick32x
Maverick32x (0)
BroodKingEXE
Shady Sands (0)
grush57
grush57 (1) DarthPunk
Toadesstern
Shady Sands
Z-BosoN (2)
grush57 austinmcc BroodKingEXE
Not yet voted! (1) Lvdr (mkfuba07) LOL About his cautiousness:I already quoted this but just as an example for this, you'll find multiple posts like the following in his filter: Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 10:18 Forumite wrote: @Toades
After the D2-post you said you didn´t like the case on me provided by Hapless and Hapa, but you still thought I was probably scum. The only reason I remember was elimination, out of the people you stated are vets they are either dead or me, and those who died flipped town. Is that your case, "There should be scum among the vets, and now that some flipped town, the living ones are probably scum"? Because it´s a very convenient thing to say for scum, if people say there must be scum in a group, then scum kill half the group if it´s full of town, and leave it alone if there´s a scum in it so their buddy can hide better. I´m not saying that´s what happened, but it´s shaky to claim this early in a game that the last survivor of a group of must be scum event though the others flipped town.
Apart from that you said you thought I wasn´t as aggressive as usual. Partly that is because I don´t keep myself as updated as I usually do due to more stuff happening IRL than usual, but I also don´t want to make the mistake I did in DF-Mafia.
Anyway you need more reasons to you call me scum. What is it? You'll find stuff like that all over his filter. He's always making sure to have a possible retreat when posting and not committing in the slightest. He only really posts when he has to:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 07:48 Forumite wrote: =(
Toades, what do you want most, an answer to the case on me posted during the night, or my top scumreads. It´s late and I´m too tired to do both right now. Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 08:17 Forumite wrote:On September 07 2012 07:56 Toadesstern wrote:On September 07 2012 07:48 Forumite wrote: =(
Toades, what do you want most, an answer to the case on me posted during the night, or my top scumreads. It´s late and I´m too tired to do both right now. I don't consider the case on you to be good and I don't agree with it. I want to lynch you because of method or elimination. So I'd rather see you talk about targets for today. I have two scumreads right now. I had Ottox down as scum, I was wrong but it shouldn´t affect the other reads. They are both based on the time around Matts claim. The first one is Maverick for his first post in the game, it was a reaction to Matts claim and the situation around it, and he was basically trying to divert attention to everyone else, without committing to anything. The second one is Hapa for his posts during the same time. The post below sums it up well. On September 04 2012 09:32 Hapahauli wrote:On September 04 2012 09:26 Mattchew wrote:On September 04 2012 09:22 Hapahauli wrote: Yeah I know what the role does, so what about it? I'll ask a question if I don't understand something. there is no information given to the role, it is a VT that (randomly) visits people. If a tracker or watcher see me on their check it could lead to a stupid mislynch Ah thanks for clearing it up. I'm just a bit wary of D1 claims in general after having seen SnB's "self-aware miller" claim in DeathNote Mini Mafia, justified or not. On September 04 2012 09:22 Toadesstern wrote:On September 04 2012 09:17 Mattchew wrote:On September 04 2012 09:16 Hapahauli wrote:On September 04 2012 09:12 Mattchew wrote: I am a nosy neighbor. Anyone else with this role should insta-claim as well. Hold up. Why would we want people with information roles to claim? ##vote hapahauli need an honest answer. What do you consider worse: a) People not thinking while posting / reading b) People defending other people 1 hour into the game when they have no reason to do such a thing and should be happy to see as much posts from the person in question defending himself rather than stopping the discussion defending him. Howabout c) People who pick fights with people who are trying to start conversation (slOosh) for the sake of picking fights? When I read this post at first, I see Hapa buddying up with Matt and throwing suspicion on those attacking him. It didn´t feel right, Matt claiming didn´t arouse any suspicion in him. He said hi to Matt and then chided those attacking him. That´s the ones that jumped out at me when reading the thread. Yes, I should reread all the spam from yesterday, I´ll see about that tomorrow. tl;dr: Hapahauli Maverick32x That's something we rarely see when looking through foru's filter: He's talking about his read after being pressured by me and giving some minor insight on what he thinks is happening. However, why is that only happening after I call him out as mafia? I tell people he's mafia, he instantly gets in the thread and posts something like that when all the time people weren't talking about him he did nothing like that. That my dear friends is scummy as shit
As mentioned I don't think he's interested in what's happening. I can't remember a significant post foru did because there was none. He isn't even trying to help. No "shut up guys, here's what's going on: XXXX, Therefore we lynch Y". No pushing his reads to make sure the best possible lynch ends up happening. He's just completly standing by, posting some minor things if he has to but nothing else. Town-Foru would be interested in what's going on. Town-Foru would be pushing his reads. Town-Foru would be actively trying to help town and not just stand by.
It's just the same thing as WoF. He was mafia in that game and did apeshit. For some reason he never ended up being lynched although Sandroba and I called him mafia straight from d1 and sadly nothing happened. Let me assure you, Foru would be doing SOMETHING to help if he was town. He isn't. Forumite is mafia Also vote me for mayor
So, the main argument against forumite is that he has not being helping out with the thread and being useful. Of course, this by itself would be useless, but given your understanding of his meta, this is completely absurd for a town forumite. Is this correct?
I've gone over his filter, and I do agree he's not been too useful. He simply steered along with the thread all game. His only two cases were weak and he didn't go through with them at all. During the day, I'll see if his differences in meta are big enough to actually make him scum.
What's nagging at me, is that you completely shat on hopeless1's case, saying you didn't like cases against vet's in general. Also, in his case, there are some parts where he mentions some of the things you did on his case against forumite. If you were inclined to think that forumite is scum, why didn't you give emphasis to some of those parts?
Comments on Toad's answers from a while back
On September 08 2012 08:06 Toadesstern wrote:About the conclusion: I agree / agreed with the conclusion that Foru is mafia. Not sure what to make of him considering the most recent BKE posts though. 1 +2 ) Yeah. It was a "trap" if you want. I wanted to see whether they went for the easy way and just attack me with the usual "but toad is unreadable"-fear mongering or if they did not. Yeah I'd consider fear mongering a mafia trait when talking about vets, so yes I would have definitely attacked someone like Foru if he had done that. I see this as a weak and unconvincing trap... I think it's very presumptuous, but whatever. 3) I never said I don't want to target vets (I think?). I obviously didn't mess around with talking about something like that d1 because we had a confirmed mafia. What point would there be in lynching someone else. I considered the case on him weak because I didn't think what was mentioned (some specific points in the case, not everything but a bunch) was alignment indicating considering who we were talking about. I didn't get into detail with what I disagree about the case because I obviously want Foru to talk about it. Why would I want to defend him if I think he's mafia (for different reasons)? After all that's more chances for him to show poor performance, no matter if the case in question was decent or not to begin with. Ok, you said you didn't like cases against vets in general, considering we are in day on1:
I really don't like the cases on forumite (or vets in general this game) as they're incredibly far-fetched, which is obvious considering the fact that we're still on d1/n1. That being said I still (somewhat?) agree with the conclusion but I'll post shortly before deadline But it still feels a little weird, considering you were thinking that forumite is scum. Anyways, you are being fairly consistent in this regard, so whatever, I choose to believe you here.4) Again, I'm okay with targeting vets I just haven't found anything that screams mafia at me when going through forus filter, yet I've got the feeling he is + I've got the feeling the rest of the vets are looking way better. Combine those two and I'm feeling quite good about lynching him in general. It's a question of who looks the worst and explaining why we should lynch foru is just hard to do right now. When we've got other people who I'd consider to be about equally scummy right now that's just not worth the fuss. Especially if my "feeling" on foru is so vague it's really going to be a pain in the ass to explain why I want him dead right now. a)So now you have done it. I was hoping you wouldn't so I could try to destroy you later... actually, when I insisted that vets should be posting, your case on foru was more of what I had in mind.5) I'd say / I thought one of them will end up being mafia, yeah. But the most recent BKE talk is making me a little uncertain here. It's something with a lot of different things taking into consideration like meta, balance and whatever else so if people like BKE / S&B, who are good as well, are considered vets I might have to scratch that though. Given that I don't think very highly of those 2 right now I'm still trying to figure out what's the best target for today and wether or not that assumption from yesterday was correct or if I should forget it for the time being and just stick to "traditional" targets, aka the one we've got cases on. b*) So you DO think that one of forumite or BM will end up being mafia. In this case, forumite. What can you tell us about Bill Murray? Because he's so useless up to now that it's annoying. If you aren't targeting him, that means that he is consistent with his meta, yes? Tell us more. 5.5) I thought he's feeling quite alright about me before he did his most recent post, which I considered to be odd because he saw my most recent games as mafia. In PTP3 I played quite decently as mafia, he was in that game as well. In Magic I totally destroyed town on my own manipulating town. Same thing happened in the infamous Annul-game. I get that people who haven't played with me a lot don't know these things but like other vets he should know himself that I'm pretty decent as mafia. Basicly I expected him to go in this game with a bias (at least a little one) thinking I'm mafia no matter what given what the most recent games happened. I just didn't see that happening. c*) So, do you still feel strongly about S&B? I've made a case on him below, after going over his filter and finding one particularly suspicious post, tell me what you think of it/him.6) Yes as mentioned, it's quite a luxury problem we've got today: We've got a lot of good lynches. There's bound to be townies within those possible lynches and it's about who truely is the best for today. 7) Well not particually hard if you're in a 30 player game and you end up calling 100% of the vets mafia + 10 random other people. Surely you've got to be right about some :p
And one last thing: z) Who are you top scum reads at the moment, besides forumite? At the moment, I still think you stink, mainly due to your "goodbye post". But you seem very consistent, so for now, I will consider you townie.
Suspicious reads at the moment
strongandbig Mainly because of his post:
On September 09 2012 02:25 strongandbig wrote: I don't think grush is scum. As far as I can tell the case on him from toad started off as "grush is trying harder to look/be townie than he usually does, therefore he must be scum." The alternative explanation is that maybe he's just trying harder to look/be townie? I played/obsed the recent PTP game, where grush survived until almost the end - that game, trolly as it was, was the towniest grush has ever been.
I'm still not entirely sold on BKE, but I feel much better about him than about Grush.
The claim, I don't know about. It's a very easy claim for mafia to make, and we can't prove it false or true, especially since he'll be able to claim roleblocked. There's the fact that if he checked the person who was suicide bombed he should be dead, but I give zero weight to the argument that's been made by some people that his claim is too weird to be made by mafia. If the claim is fake, it's possible that he was the one who delivered the KP on BC - or one of the two if he was double stacked - and the claim is designed to be safe against trackers and real watchers.
Anyway, I don't think we should ignore the case on him just because he claimed a PR. I agree with whoever it was up above who said that if we do that, then scum can just always claim PRs and get free extra life by claiming to be roleblocked.
So I'm back to the original core of the case against him - his scummy shift in position on Mattchew before and after Palmar's post in the thread. Sure it's not 100% a sure thing, but I like that case better than the case on Grush, and so ##vote: broodkingexe
pre-edit Reading over Austin's post right above mine it looks like some decent arguments on z-boson as well - big lists, not following up on his own stuff, inconsistency, etc. Also someone to consider.
This has the most contradictions I've ever seen. 1) I don't think grush is scum. 2) I'm not entirely sold on BKE, but I feel much better about him than about Grush. 3) So I'm back to the original core of the case against him - his scummy shift in position on Mattchew before and after Palmar's post in the thread. Sure it's not 100% a sure thing, but I like that case better than the case on Grush, and so ##vote: broodkingexe. WHAT??? How does that even make sense?? This looks to me more like a scumslip. He must have felt that grush was too easy a target to go for as scum, and really wanted to go for BKE. This sheep is the most casual looking one I've seen. BLah, we should just ignore his claim, otherwise scum will always do that... sure it's not 100% but whatever, now I like that case better than the case on grush."
Just wow on that one. He doens't make a case on anyone (his hopeless post above is the first real attempt at a case, and he simply follows that guy's cases on me, just spouting out keywords and not taking a stance. This looks quite scummy to me.
EDIT: actually, now that hopeless mentions it, doesn't anyone find this kissing-ass-ery very odd between S&B and that guy? This shit is disgusting:
On September 10 2012 04:21 that guy wrote: strongandbig asked for my thoughts on Forumite/your case. I've got him down as one of my stronger town reads. I think that was a good request for to make, and I've obliged.
This needs more explanations I would think.
maverickx Well, I already had my initial case on him:
On September 06 2012 08:18 Z-BosoN wrote:Let me! let me! First of all, you post this: Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 23:52 Maverick32x wrote: I voted for Matt due to the lying- but I would be curious to hear if he has a defense of some kind?? Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 00:41 Maverick32x wrote: Well, I must of skimmed past the FoS on me from Bill Murray, so I'll weigh in a bit.
The reason I was hesitant to jump on Matt was because 'bad play' doesn't equal Scum play. And our goal is to hunt Scum, not hunt bad players. That being said, lying goes a bit beyond 'bad' and starts to seem more scummy.
@Broodking- I re-read your post like 10 times and I have no idea what point you're trying to make...
These seem like soft-defending attempts on your scum buddy. You are on the same train as Graven, you figured out it wasn't a good idea to defend him and backed off. But these arguments are weak, if I want to judge someone strictly on defending a now-confirmed scum, then I wouldn't bother with anyone else other than Ox. However: You DON'T SCUMHUNT!Show nested quote +This is a huge red flag to me.... how is that ONLY something that scum does? I agree with everything else you've written.. but using those sort of generalizations really makes me suspicious. So now you say that you have a huge red flag and it really makes you suspicious. Yet, you don't make a single post later on, to anyone else. You just seemingly forget all about s&b and the huge red flag you have on him. If you were townie I'm sure you would be more focused into attacking someone you have a huge red flag on than on defending yourself. You show more interest in defending yourself than in making cases and scumhunting. And thus, your first non-casual FOS: ##FOS Maverick
And now we have this:
On September 08 2012 06:55 Maverick32x wrote:Ok, this probably will be my last post of the day, but I'm finally home and could read through BKE's filter properly. To be honest, I went into looking at BKE from a "Everyone is ganging up on him, and I don't think its deserved" perspective. I don't think anyone said this, but this is the evidence that I'm considering as the most damning... Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 09:21 BroodKingEXE wrote:On September 04 2012 09:16 Hapahauli wrote:On September 04 2012 09:12 Mattchew wrote: I am a nosy neighbor. Anyone else with this role should insta-claim as well. Hold up. Why would we want people with information roles to claim? Its basically a miller role that the town knows about why not? Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 12:13 BroodKingEXE wrote: Actually, Mattchew why should they claim now? Can't they just wait till its pointed out? Well okay, I know THIS has been brought up... but I just want to reiterate that this 'soft defending' makes me suspicious... not 100% scum.. just suspicious. Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 09:52 BroodKingEXE wrote:On September 04 2012 09:36 Toadesstern wrote:--snipped-- On September 04 2012 09:35 BroodKingEXE wrote: @Toad Im still confused about the vote on slOosh. You didn't agree with him for starting a useless discussion and that's grounds for keeping your vote on him? There never was a vote on him to begin with lol An honorary vote, and even so you never got anything out of it despite the six or so posts metioning him. Seemed more like some sort of a push, against slo0sh, than a minor disagreement. This is just the last post on his slight attack on Toad. Which is significant to me beecaaauusse: Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 04:41 BroodKingEXE wrote:On September 06 2012 03:57 Ottoxlol wrote:On September 06 2012 03:49 Z-BosoN wrote: @goodkarma Just because he is up on my suspicion bar does not mean that he is scum. He could very well be a bad townie. If he is, the only motivation he has for defending matt and attacking toad is that he actually thinks that toad is more suspicious than matt, and if so, he's doing a shitty job at explaining himself. Also, him being obnoxious doesn't contribute to his defense. At least I am not that retarded to attack someone on the ground of their first post that was clearly a joke. I already explained my motivation two post ago. If you need some help understanding it you can ask for it nicely You dont joke about scum reads. You're scum, because you are trying to derail a lynch and not trying to bring up another canidate. Real townie would create a case and present a new option, but scum dont want to give away to much and wont do that. They'll try to plug an easy lurker after a derail. I really see this as putting the responsibility on someone else to make claims and to avoid doing it himself.... He just lights touched on a couple people, but clearly expected town to start lynching themselves. So yea, I'm good with this lynch....AND the one thing I'm concerned about is that we are tunneling. And that concerns me.... still worried about the lurkers!!
This ending right there is ridiculous. He's a lurker, a bad one, and his confirmation on BKE is quite weak. I can see him being just a very bad town, but I still think he's scum.
Top vigi shots at the moment I mentioned I'm all for a "general lurker with some scumminess on him". I still think that. The top scum shots, right now, for me would be, in order of preference:
Maverickx - Fits the bill perfectly. ShiaoPi - I agree with hapa on him grush07 - He's useless, doesn't help, and unlike BM, is not a vet, and thus should die. Many people here think he's townie. If he is, well, he's sure not acting like it. mkfuba - Lvdr and mkfuba, in a almost 80-page game, have two useless posts. If they are scum, we cannot find out, and it would be stupid to waste a watch or a track on him. Rewok + Gravan They are low on this list because I think they might be town. I actually only put this here because some people (aka imallinson) seem to think not.
Will probably make another post before nightfall. Let me know if you guys heavily disagree with anything here.
|
In the same post, he has a contradiction:
1) I don't think grush is scum. grush isn't scum. 2) I'm not entirely sold on BKE, but I feel much better about him than about Grush. he think grush isn't scum, but BKE is even less scummier, because he feels better about BKE than on grush. 3) So I'm back to the original core of the case against him - his scummy shift in position on Mattchew before and after Palmar's post in the thread. Sure it's not 100% a sure thing, but I like that case better than the case on Grush, and so ##vote: broodkingexe. And now BKE is scummier than grush? Didn't he feel much better about BKE?
|
HOW NOT?? Unless "feeling better about BKE" = I want him dead, I don't see how there is no contradiction...
|
Feeling better about lynching someone =/= feeling better about someone. But given the context, I guess you could assume that. Hoo boy someone's gonna have a field day with this one. I retract this argument, but the point regarding him just being swayed into reads other than making them stands.
|
On September 10 2012 05:41 imallinson wrote: @Z-Boson I might just be missing it but I can't see toad shitting on hopeless' case in his filter.
He dismissed it saying he didn't like his case against forumit (and cases against vets in genera)l, but that he agreed with the conclusion. i.e. "your case sucks, but I also think forumite is scum"
|
On September 10 2012 05:53 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 05:47 Z-BosoN wrote:On September 10 2012 05:41 imallinson wrote: @Z-Boson I might just be missing it but I can't see toad shitting on hopeless' case in his filter. He dismissed it saying he didn't like his case against forumit (and cases against vets in genera)l, but that he agreed with the conclusion. i.e. "your case sucks, but I also think forumite is scum" I don't see why that makes him scummy. Hopeless' case + Show Spoiler +On September 04 2012 13:18 Hopeless1der wrote:Supposing we table the nosy-neighbor discussion(which appears to still be going strong), I would like to point out my take on Forumite: Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 09:36 Forumite wrote:On September 04 2012 09:12 Mattchew wrote: I am a nosy neighbor. Anyone else with this role should insta-claim as well.
The reason people policy lynch people like BM and Grush is because they get by into later in the game because they are unreadable. This is because they barely actually play the game and if you end up in lylo with one of them left, you've basically already lost. I completely understand anyone wanting to policy lynch them, but we should also not allow them to be off the hook for some sort of scum read during the day.
That being said, I remember thinking to myself that I don't hate BM's play in the last few games I have been in with him. I do not want to policy lynch today.
Why would you claim this? You eliminated yourself as a possible blue from scums list of townies, and it´s not like you doing this eliminates you as a scum suspect. If someone see you visiting a player who dies the we´re lynching you anyway. "We're lynching you anyway" Not cool. First, I disagree with the notion that revealing yourself as a nosy neighbor is scummy. Oh wait, Forumite didn't really say that. He didn't really say much of anything here if you ask me, but back to the point of "lynching you anyways", I don't like the blanket statements from Forumite. Here's another one: Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 09:46 Forumite wrote:On September 04 2012 09:42 BlackMamba24 wrote:On September 04 2012 09:27 Forumite wrote:On September 04 2012 09:07 BlackMamba24 wrote: I mean that blues should do what they feel is best with their own judgment and ignore any direction from the "town" Sorry, I should have been more specific. I wondered about this phrase: On September 04 2012 07:55 BlackMamba24 wrote: Never lynch someone just because they wouldn't claim to the town leader or whatever, that's asinine, asiten, asieleven, asitwelve, etc. What is there to explain? There's a difference between lynching someone for not backing themselves up after they're caught lying or whatever and lynching someone because they don't trust the town circle. It sounded weird. It´s common for the voteleader to be lynched unless he claims (convincingly). As an aside, "It sounded weird" is not a phrase I like to see. Immediately makes me suspicious. Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 09:55 Forumite wrote:On September 04 2012 09:43 Mattchew wrote:On September 04 2012 09:36 Forumite wrote:On September 04 2012 09:12 Mattchew wrote: I am a nosy neighbor. Anyone else with this role should insta-claim as well.
The reason people policy lynch people like BM and Grush is because they get by into later in the game because they are unreadable. This is because they barely actually play the game and if you end up in lylo with one of them left, you've basically already lost. I completely understand anyone wanting to policy lynch them, but we should also not allow them to be off the hook for some sort of scum read during the day.
That being said, I remember thinking to myself that I don't hate BM's play in the last few games I have been in with him. I do not want to policy lynch today.
Why would you claim this? You eliminated yourself as a possible blue from scums list of townies, and it´s not like you doing this eliminates you as a scum suspect. If someone see you visiting a player who dies the we´re lynching you anyway. Because there is no town benefit to me hiding this information. and for all everyone knows I could be a blue role trying to avoid being incorrectly tracked as well if I get tracked to a dead person atleast there will be something to think about before mislynching me Lying to town as a blue is a bad idea. If you fakeclaim nosy neighbor to fool scum, then you risk getting lynched by town. You are still going to draw a few trackers during the first few nights, just to make sure that you are really visiting people at random with no effect, so because of this you might actually be hurting town by distracting blues. Why are trackers going to be inclined to 'verify' a nosy neighbor claim? Even if Mattchew is scum, he just needs to do something and his claim is still up in the air. Why is Forumite trying to manipulate our blues? There's also the point about lying as a blue. How about lying in general to the town? There isn't any value in this statement. Town is supposedly harmed because our Trackers have to make sure Mattchew is really visiting random people with no effect. And then they get a confirmed townie out of the exchange. Wait, how does that hurt us again?
Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 10:00 Forumite wrote:On September 04 2012 09:55 slOosh wrote:On September 04 2012 09:05 Forumite wrote:Finished with page 12. On September 04 2012 08:01 slOosh wrote:On September 04 2012 07:58 Toadesstern wrote:On September 04 2012 07:56 slOosh wrote: Hapa, what is your idea of a town circle and how does it help us find / lynch / kill scum?
Toad - How is that useless stuff that has nothing to do with the game? The setup changed and maybe people haven't read the updates. I've asked you once and I'll do it again, what else do you want to talk about? I don't know what you want to talk about. I'm talking about your useless post being useless. Well BlackMamba's recent post just shows that people can miss information. My post has already proven itself useful, and your opening post which tries to discredit mine has not. Do you think I'm scum by my first post? What is your problem with Toades? Do you think he´s deliberately disruptive? What makes you think I think that? Let me rephrase: What is your problem with Toades play in this game? You were reacting very strongly to a random vote coming right at the beginning of the game. Dat Over-reaction: Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 07:42 slOosh wrote: Cool ... you wanna talk about something else? Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 07:56 slOosh wrote: Hapa, what is your idea of a town circle and how does it help us find / lynch / kill scum?
Toad - How is that useless stuff that has nothing to do with the game? The setup changed and maybe people haven't read the updates. I've asked you once and I'll do it again, what else do you want to talk about? And then of course slo0sh himself points out: Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 10:17 slOosh wrote:On September 04 2012 10:00 Forumite wrote:On September 04 2012 09:55 slOosh wrote:On September 04 2012 09:05 Forumite wrote:Finished with page 12. On September 04 2012 08:01 slOosh wrote:On September 04 2012 07:58 Toadesstern wrote:On September 04 2012 07:56 slOosh wrote: Hapa, what is your idea of a town circle and how does it help us find / lynch / kill scum?
Toad - How is that useless stuff that has nothing to do with the game? The setup changed and maybe people haven't read the updates. I've asked you once and I'll do it again, what else do you want to talk about? I don't know what you want to talk about. I'm talking about your useless post being useless. Well BlackMamba's recent post just shows that people can miss information. My post has already proven itself useful, and your opening post which tries to discredit mine has not. Do you think I'm scum by my first post? What is your problem with Toades? Do you think he´s deliberately disruptive? What makes you think I think that? Let me rephrase: What is your problem with Toades play in this game? You were reacting very strongly to a random vote coming right at the beginning of the game. I reacted strongly because there was no grounds for the vote / read. I still have a problem with the fact that he keeps emphasizing the uselessness of the post (it isn't, because as clearly seen that people can miss setup information), which I take as soft discrediting of my posts in general. I'm not claiming my opening post is super useful, but to call it useless is unwarranted. That said I can see this coming from a town perspective, so my problem with his play thus far is a matter of taste rather than alignment. On September 04 2012 10:04 Z-BosoN wrote:On September 04 2012 09:55 slOosh wrote:On September 04 2012 09:05 Forumite wrote:Finished with page 12. On September 04 2012 08:01 slOosh wrote:On September 04 2012 07:58 Toadesstern wrote:On September 04 2012 07:56 slOosh wrote: Hapa, what is your idea of a town circle and how does it help us find / lynch / kill scum?
Toad - How is that useless stuff that has nothing to do with the game? The setup changed and maybe people haven't read the updates. I've asked you once and I'll do it again, what else do you want to talk about? I don't know what you want to talk about. I'm talking about your useless post being useless. Well BlackMamba's recent post just shows that people can miss information. My post has already proven itself useful, and your opening post which tries to discredit mine has not. Do you think I'm scum by my first post? What is your problem with Toades? Do you think he´s deliberately disruptive? What makes you think I think that? Um... this: " My post has already proven itself useful, and your opening post which tries to discredit mine has not" You are saying that he tries to discredit you ---> you think he tried to discredit you ---> if he tried to discredit you, you are saying he wanted to do this and is being deliberately disruptive. Why not just straight answer the question without adding another one? There is a difference in someone discrediting me and someone being deliberately disruptive. Forumite phrased the question in a way that seemingly put words in my mouth as I said the former but not the latter (or never intended to so I checked with my question). Specifically the last paragraph is what I want noted. Then again, slo0sh addressed the 'strong reaction' in the first part of that quote, but I don't think slo0sh reacted 'strongly' at all. Forumite is just stirring the pot here and not really being helpful to me. He looks like he's pushing discussion, but slo0sh was taking care of that all on his own. We didn't need Forumite to prompt him.
I see a lot of roundabout advice from Forumite on why claiming self-aware miller is terrible and how our blues are screwed for it. But nowhere does he tell us that Mattchew is scummy, just that he'll still be suspicious no matter what. His prodding at slo0sh dead-ended pretty quickly and he's ducked out of the thread after making this post: Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 10:01 Forumite wrote: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? I don't think his posts have contributed anything to getting scum lynched, and I think it is because Forumite is scum. ##Vote: Forumite+ Show Spoiler +Pregame answer for Rewok, I got curious when going through Forumite's filter: On September 03 2012 01:49 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 00:51 Rewok wrote: There's a word for arguing for arguments sake but I can't remember it. Anybody want to help me out? No there isn't! + Show Spoiler + Eristic is kind of shitty it's based on some vauge stuff about Forumite's posting around the pre Palmar post Mattchew situation. Sure Forumite wasn't playing to his town meta then but it was still very early game so that wasn't enough to go on with so little time played.
And where did I say this made him scummy? Did you read my post? I actually said he was consistent in this regard. I was trying to peg him down later in case he didn't make a proper case. I said he stinks because of his good-bye post, which I thought suspicious.
|
On September 10 2012 06:06 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 05:12 Z-BosoN wrote: [...]
What's nagging at me, is that you completely shat on hopeless1's case, saying you didn't like cases against vet's in general. Also, in his case, there are some parts where he mentions some of the things you did on his case against forumite. If you were inclined to think that forumite is scum, why didn't you give emphasis to some of those parts?
[...]
I did not completly shat on hopeless1's case saying I didn't like cases against vet's in general. I said I don't like it that much because it's far-fetched. What I meant with that is that I see some points on foru and I agree with them but I also got some things I completly disagree with in his case as I do not think everything he pointed out is a mafiatrait or scummy at all. Also about the I don't like cases against vet's in general-phrase as at least 5 people have asked about that by now and it seems no matter how often you guys ask about there's always someone who's still misunderstanding what I said back than. What I meant was I don't like the cases we've got on foru (or vets in general) so far, saying the cases on vets we've got are not good as they're far-fetched. I never said or intended it to sound like I don't like cases against vets. I think I should have made that misunderstanding clear by now but apparently people come back to that all the time and ask me about it... About other Mafiareads:Not much right now. We've already got 2 flipped mafias and there're not going to be 191518696 more mafias in this game. I'm still standing by my point that either Grush or Shady has to be mafia. They're both giving me a hard time and everytime I want to get something going on Grush, Shady gets in the thread saying something that just screams "LYNCH ME" and vice verca. So I'm kind of having a hard time on those two. I'm still suspicious of S&B but I don't really want to go into details about him for a reason.
Oh, I forgot about shady. I have one hell of a suspicion on him, mostly meta-based. His meta is totally balls-out off from his townie death note and townie XXIV. Since he's mostly lurking and not being useful with his reads, I would add him somewhere between mav and Shiaopi.
|
Also, you forgot this part, which I consider very important:
".... What can you tell us about Bill Murray? Because he's so useless up to now that it's annoying. If you aren't targeting him, that means that he is consistent with his meta, yes? Tell us more."
|
On September 10 2012 06:16 Toadesstern wrote:I think I've seen Shady twice in newbie games and the general idea about his town meta seems to be something along the lines of "not posting at all, lurking not contributing" so I wouldn't say his play is off meta-based at all. Yeah it's hearsay because I haven't played with him myself but that's not a reason to lynch him. If it is you would have to say BM is mafia as well while we both seem to agree that BM looks somewhat townish. Shady looks bad because of posts that just scream "LYNCH ME" like those: Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 01:36 Shady Sands wrote:On September 09 2012 01:35 Toadesstern wrote:On September 09 2012 01:32 DarthPunk wrote:On September 09 2012 01:27 Toadesstern wrote:On September 09 2012 01:21 DarthPunk wrote:On September 09 2012 01:15 Toadesstern wrote: I'm thinking about this claim and I've got to say I don't like lynching BKE right now although I said otherwise an hour ago before thinking this trough.
It just really doesn't make sense right now. The only thing I dislike about BKE's claim is that he claims BM24 was suicide bombed and not BC because I consider BC more likely to be the target, but BM24 being the target isn't out of the ordinary that much.
On top of that with Palmars statement it really could be he's telling the truth and if something like: Suicide vs BM24 1KP vs BC 1KP vs other vet (myself, maybe Foru or whoever else) or someone being really active (not going to call names here for obvious reasons) who got protected isn't that unlikely at all.
The thing about late switches is they almost always turn out bad because they're not thought through and mafia has an easy time to manipulate. I'm pretty sure that either Shady or Grush is mafia right now and I could see both flipping red (though not both), so we could go for either of those two but as mentioned, those things really go wrong all the time... It Is also bad to potentially mislynch a watcher. I would rather mislynch a VT then a Watcher. If that is the worst consequence from mafia manipulation. So be it. Of course it's bad to lynch a watcher but we can't consider that a reason to not lynch him and have to take both lynching a VT and a Watcher as equally bad. If we don't we're giving mafia the easiest time ever to just get in here "LOL I'm a mad hatter" and everyone insta unvotes because of something that can't be proven at all. That being said I still dislike the BKE lynch right now and would prefere a grush lynch. Hmm I hadn't thought of that. In my last game The scummiest player claimed vig after a vig shot. He was so scummy no one believed him and he was lynched, In the obs QT Marv said that lynching blue claims was something newbies loved to do. I understand your point about all scum making easy claims. But this wagon smells. Grush smells. I skimmed through the thread and alarm bells started blaring in my head. well yeah I agree. I really don't like the situation we're in right now. Lynching BKE sounds really stupid right now and I don't like Grush's attitude at all. I'm going to vote for Grush. I've still got about an hour left before I have to go so let's see what we can do and whether or not it's possible. ##vote Grush Alright, let's get this wagon going. ##Vote Grush
LOL. His meta is exactly this... he makes posts that scream "lynch me!" all the time, and he posts a LOT. Thing is, it's mostly his reads, his him asking everybody random questions, his generally quietness that feels weird. I've never seen him as scum so, dunno =/
|
|
|
|