|
BlackMamba's "case" against me is a pretty awful attempt at analysis. I don't mind trifling votes here and there (since there's so little to talk about), but BlackMamba uses some terrible logic in his suspicions. I just want to find out if he's a clueless townie or has mafia motivations.
Firstoff, BlackMamba only votes me after Shady is suspicious of me. This is small but noteworthy.
On August 31 2012 16:19 BlackMamba24 wrote:
I sat down and read the whole thread now. I don't know Hapahauli's meta but I agree with Shady Sands' FOS. Hapahauli immediately breadcrumbs the VT rolename "detective" then qualifies/explains the post following it immediately.
Town wouldn't breadcrumb if they know mafia has a safeclaim and they wouldn't breadcrumb without knowing that. He didn't ask. Mafia, however, immediately like to abuse any defense they have. There is inherent guilt. If supplied with a safeclaim it's a very reasonable thing to do. I missed the Zephirrds post about the safeclaims because I'm very unattentive. When I first entered the thread, I only scanned and read the longer posts and made my comments about policy lynches. I forgot the game was starting tonight and saw my role PM right before I was about to watch a movie.
First, he talks about mafia "abusing defenses." Other than the fact that calling my first two posts a "defense" is insane, look at the last three sentences of the quote.
He's already making excuses for his lack of reading and "late" start, even though no suspicion is on him. Mafia try to look less suspicious even though they aren't suspicious. This is made all the worse by your "abusing defenses" comment earlier in the paragraph.
Why would a townie, after making a specific reference to his role name then immediately post that he will no longer be using real role names? Why would he even need to tell us that? Is he afraid someone is going to point it out as an inconsistency? the first two posts in the thread are him and they're both passively defensive. Scum like to announce things that are meaningless for some reason.
Making a big deal out of nothing - scum love to do that as well. What part of my first post should point to my allignment in any way?
In his post history, he only goes on and on about lurkers and other bullshit like that. It's so tired and worthless. "Lurking is anti-town." What a revelation. Mafia are no more likely to lurk than town are and if town goes on a "let's kill the lurkers" bend how easy is it for the scum team to tell everyone on the team to just post a lot? It's stupid.
##vote Hapahauli
Well lurking is anti-town. I've explained why and you never offered any reasoning against it. You just disagree with it on semantics. What's with "mafia are no more likely to lurk than town" - mafia are very likely to lurk, and many have lurked in the recent games I've observed (normal and newbie alike).
And what do you mean it's easy for the scum team to "tell everyone on the team to just post alot?" That would be AWESOME for town. This is bursting at the seams with anti-town mentality.
##Unvote
##Vote BlackMamba24
|
Off to class - see y'all in a couple of hours
|
The only person that hasn't posted so far is Node from what I gather - good first half of the day so far!
Regarding BMB's Case - if he's indeed a veteran player on a smurf, shouldn't his bad case be setting off some alarm bells? He basically comes in, argues on semantics about policy lurker lynching, then makes a really bad case. Ghost mentioned the "WIFOM" argument that "he wouldn't make a case that bad as mafia", but from what I gather, he wouldn't make a case this bad as town either, no? As it stands, his behavior is far more anti-town than pro-town, and my vote will stay as is.
|
On September 01 2012 00:33 Shady Sands wrote:
Where are node and mementoss?
Also, Solarsail seems to be trying to skulk through an active discussion. I don't really like that.
Speaking of skulking through an active discussion...
|
Still have suspicions on me Shady? What do you think about Black Mamba's case and my analysis of it?
|
Well since no one else is here, may as well respond to Strongnbig's suspicions:
Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 11:46 Hapahauli wrote:On August 31 2012 11:40 Hopeless1der wrote:
Zeph is likely to take care of any actual lurking, but Hapa is right. If I'm too silent for too long, I expect to hear about it, preferably before I'm policy lynched for it. I'll apply the same principle to everyone else in the game. I disagree. No one here is a newbie, and every competent town player should know that lurking is bad in a 24 hour setup. As far as I'm concerned, if someone is not putting in the effort on their own after committing to such an intense setup, they are anti-town and deserve significant suspicion. I don't want to have to let anyone know. If someone lurks, my "reminder" will be a D1 lynch hammer, and they'll have to claw their way out to survive. I really don't like this post - I don't think it's a pro-town attitude. Policy lynches aren't "traps" to be sprung, you won't catch scum with a trap you announce beforehand. Policy lynches exist to promote good town behavior, and if you can get that behavior literally any other way, then that's better than the policy lynch.
You're mis-interpreting my intent. I'm just saying that we shouldn't have to remind people about their lurkiness. If a player is not taking it upon themselves to establish themeslves as town and make some reads in a game that necessitates activity, they deserve to be lynched. What part of this suggests a "trap?"
Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 11:58 Hapahauli wrote:On August 31 2012 11:40 Hopeless1der wrote:
Zeph is likely to take care of any actual lurking, but Hapa is right. If I'm too silent for too long, I expect to hear about it, preferably before I'm policy lynched for it. I'll apply the same principle to everyone else in the game. Actually waaaaait a minute here. Are you suggesting that you'll be lurky or something? Surely you shouldn't be worried about "reminders" or whatnot if you're indeed pro-town and intend to post? ##Vote Hopeless1der I find this to be completely insufficient reasoning to justify a vote. It's aggressive for no reason. My impression here is that Hapahauli is voting Hopeless because he doesn't think Hopeless is on board enough with his anti-lurker policy, rather than because he's scum. Sure, lurking can be scummy, but I see no indication why this post would make Hapahauli think Hopeless is scum.
Aggressive for no reason? A guy made a comment (that I interpret as possibly scummy) that I want an answer to. Therefore I voted. What's the problem here?
|
|
|
Err sorry MrZentor, no idea why I confused that.
|
On September 01 2012 01:38 Mementoss wrote:
...
Didn't you say you wanted to enforce policy lynches on people that were lurking the town? Or did you just say that because you thought that would be a typical town opener to the game?
Actually, I do use it as a typical town opener - it creates discussion and keeps people on alert for lurking players. And "policy-lynch" is a bit of a misnomer - I'm suggesting pressure on lurkers more than anything else, hence this post:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=363625¤tpage=5#88
I think my actions right now are within the bounds of my "policy" - BlackMamba (DrHelvetica I think?) skirted in, made a bad case, and hasn't posted in hours. I want to get some answers.
|
On September 01 2012 01:38 Mementoss wrote:Yeah that's correct. I didn't say I found ghost to be scummy because of it, I just feel you can get a more "real" reaction out of someone under more pressure defending themselves without help from another player, especially in a situation so far away from lynch. BMB I'm awaiting a response from. Risen hasn't posted enough to make a definite opinion on him. Didn't you say you wanted to enforce policy lynches on people that were lurking the town? Or did you just say that because you thought that would be a typical town opener to the game?
The problem I'm having is that you're waiting for opinions and waiting for posts when you have legitimate reasons to pressure posters. What does voting MrZentor even do, when you find other people suspicious? You came in, passively fingerpointed a bunch of players, and aren't pressuring them for information.
|
Exactly what part of my play defends Zentor - soft, hard, or otherwise? I'll give you a cookie if you can find something.
|
On September 01 2012 02:07 strongandbig wrote:
...
So the problem with your first point is "bad =\= scum." There are bad townies who don't try very hard to help the town, and if we want to win we need to be lynching scum. Still, another true thing is "thinking bad = scum =\= scum", although "bad=scum" is something scum do sometimes try to push.
What does this even have to do with my first point? I'm suggesting that players who lurk in this format deserve suspicion. This has nothing to do with "bad townies" or whatever. Also, this ain't a newbie game, and I think everyone here knows that lurking is bad for town.
Also, I have no idea what your last sentence there means...
On the other thing, I guess you have a point - I think hopeless was being reasonable, but if you thought otherwise and your vote was a pressure vote I guess it could have a town motivation. It would have been really suspicious if you'd just tried to tunnel in on that, though.
So I'll take it you're no longer suspicious of me then?
Also, many people need to post more in the next few hours. Actually, what if we RNG the policy lynch between the lurkers? That might actually have a better chance of hitting scum than just choosing one, since scum couldn't nudge the RNG towards a scummy lurker. My lurker list currently reads: node, zentor, palmar, solarsail, and mkfuba, although mkfuba will be off soon if he keeps posting like he said he would. Still guys, node hasn't posted since his /in. With Palmar he could be doing anything on purpose as part of some kind of "plan", but he also has only posted once since the game started. If people are proposing a lurker lynch, I think we should come up with a list that a majority of us can agree on and then RNG it using some method.
No. It prevents players from taking stances on specific players. Sure we could end up lynching a lurking townie D1 - it happens. But the votes give us so much information for future days, and an "RNG" vote deprives us of this.
On the other hand, Marv seems to be proposing a "lynch zentor because he doesn't try" policy lynch. I just don't feel comfortable with that this early in the game, given how grush changed his style in the ptp game. People do change. Still, if zentor doesn't post again a few times before the deadline, I could get on board with it.
I didn't see anything in Marv's filter about MrZentor... you're talking about momentoss, right?
|
|
|
Any reads on any players (town/mafia) so far fuba?
|
Grawww I read that as pre-game banter for some unknown reason. Though I doubt marv is being serious at all with his comments anywho.
You also want to consider lurking to be an exclusively scum trait, which is completely untrue.
Acutally, I argue that in this particular gametype with this particular playerpool - it is almost exclusively scummy. Everyone here should know not to lurk as town.
|
On September 01 2012 02:27 Hopeless1der wrote:
...
SnB's point with the bad town vs scum discussion is that scummy players will pick up on things that are bad for town and try to exploit them into a mislynch. He's semi-accusing you of doing this because your assumption that all players know lurking is bad means that the only people who will lurk are either Scum or they're just bad at this game, i.e. Bad Townies. There are no other options based on the way you've explained yourself. You also want to consider lurking to be an exclusively scum trait, which is completely untrue.
Oh, forgot to thank you for clearing up SnB's argument. However, I'm interested why he's accusing me of considering lurkiness inherently suspicious, then turning around and wanting to RNG lynch lurkers?
|
...and by he I mean SnB - unclear pronouns ftw.
|
On September 01 2012 02:54 strongandbig wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 02:16 Hapahauli wrote:On September 01 2012 02:07 strongandbig wrote:
...
So the problem with your first point is "bad =\= scum." There are bad townies who don't try very hard to help the town, and if we want to win we need to be lynching scum. Still, another true thing is "thinking bad = scum =\= scum", although "bad=scum" is something scum do sometimes try to push. What does this even have to do with my first point? I'm suggesting that players who lurk in this format deserve suspicion. This has nothing to do with "bad townies" or whatever. Also, this ain't a newbie game, and I think everyone here knows that lurking is bad for town. I'm paraphrasing, but basically you say that "anyone who lurks and doesn't help the town deserves to die." This is untrue - we want to kill the scum. Scum don't help the town, but townies often also don't help the town. Scum try and be subtle about it.
Wait what? But you just were suggesting to RNG lynch a lurker a couple of posts ago!
|
[QUOTE]On September 01 2012 03:00 strongandbig wrote:
I think I've said it before in this thread, but my position is pretty much always the same. Policy lynches and lurker lynches are almost always a bad idea. The only time they're a good idea is when you don't have any better candidates or cases - or when there's a serious need to force everyone to shape up.[Quote]
But you suggested that we should RNG lynch a lurker!!!
[url=http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=363625¤tpage=11#201]http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=363625¤tpage=11#201[/url]
[Quote]I think the case against blackmamba is bad.[/Quote]
Whyyyyyy?
|
EBWOP: Reformatted - missed a /quote
On September 01 2012 03:00 strongandbig wrote:
I think I've said it before in this thread, but my position is pretty much always the same. Policy lynches and lurker lynches are almost always a bad idea. The only time they're a good idea is when you don't have any better candidates or cases - or when there's a serious need to force everyone to shape up.
But you suggested that we should RNG lynch a lurker!!!
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=363625¤tpage=11#201
I think the case against blackmamba is bad.
Whyyyyyy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
