EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XXVI - Page 18
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Kreb
4834 Posts
| ||
|
JacobStrangelove
Australia1572 Posts
On September 04 2012 10:40 Kville wrote: O.O ##vote imcasey Haha that was almost my reaction to having thrawn in the thread. Just policy lynch him  but jokes aside.We had 8 votes on cubu, 5 of which were town at least. (Some of the mafia might have when they realised it was a good lynch started up other lynches to seem town) (Part of the reason I still am not ruling out killing time)In my opinion there were far better people to lynch than WeeTee (now imcasey) although he did change his vote. The problem is it was such a good lynch. (At least at the time when I left the thread) There was little talk of a stutters lynch. And Drazak had just become active. So who started the bandwagon? Who joined in?(in a strange manner) I am almost sure one of the three sonic, myself or killing is mafia. More killing because he promised a (probably longer post in the evening then just said goodnight.) Admittedly this is a really weak reason. That said I believe sonic said something was up (with cubu) and then kush and I latched on. Just noticed kerb posted and Xatalos posted. We shouldn’t feel too bad about it but it is annoying. YES Exactly Kreb about the weak lynch *cough* Killing *cough* also good point about who was opposed. However I thought sonic started the suspicion? + Show Spoiler + On September 03 2012 00:56 Sonic Death Monkey wrote: If that was the case, then Kville, TeeWee, dazark and you would be prime candidates. You're the ones flying under the radar atm. The observations you make in this post are both obvious and have been covered earlier in the thread. It isn't very convincing and it makes you suspicious. I'm sorry if it's just due to inexperience, but if you want to contribute you need up your level of analysis. To update my list: Townie: kush xatalos thrawn Scum: teewee cuba Killer and Kreb dropped from suspect list due to solid contributions. When did he become a sceptic? Was it after he got the ball rolling? To Xatalos I would simply wait for Imcasey to start posting. Stutters would be a stronger read for me but that is just my opinion. And now Sonic posts. It is true shouldn’t read too much into it but is this because you started this? | ||
|
Kreb
4834 Posts
On September 03 2012 15:34 Sonic Death Monkey wrote: I think at this point we need to start some wagons, we need them to start with some time left for EOD to be able to get some reactions and information to work with. More than one, because have 2-3 wagons will give us better opportunities to analyze voting patterns later. I think the best strategy is to wagon suspect lurkers to force reactions/info and adjust accordingly. I'm sure there are at least one scum among the more active posters but we can deal with active posters later. My take on the lurkers (Kville, Cubu, drazark, stutters, weetee): Kville Essentially hasn't posted anything. This is definitely suspect, but IF he is a townie who is just really busy starting a wagon won't force any reactions and thus he's not a good target for a wagon right now. Cubu: The weird spazz of this thread. A solid non-contributor. I tend to give the spazzes the benefit of the doubt. Let's look at his short posting history (highlighting points of interest): + Show Spoiler + On September 02 2012 11:02 Cubu wrote: But how do you lynch that which you cannot see? On September 02 2012 11:04 Cubu wrote: And it might be that they are busy doing something offline (school, work etc) so it's hard to judge whether they are lurking or just afk. On September 03 2012 00:37 Cubu wrote: I was thinking, what if the mafias are staying quiet to avoid attention to themselves. Maybe, those lurkers are infact the mafia and are trying to just let the others kill each other. There are 12 people playing and 4 mafias (or was it 3?). The fact of the matter is that we have no clues in the first day. So no matter how much we think about it, its all random. Lets kill A, no lets kill B, makes no difference in terms of probability. Of course the chance is in favour of the mafia, because they are the minority. 3/12 = 25% in a random choice. That is 25% chance of randomly lynching the mafia on the first day, which means 75% chance of lynching the townie. I'm thinking the mafia is just waiting for people to accuse each other while they stay silent, away from the accusations, away from the townies attention. So overall, there is 25% chance of someone being mafia, but if we are not thinking about all 12 to kill (i.e a discussion involving severall loudmouths accusing and defending each other while the mafia are quietly taking their time) it isn't really 25% but infact 0. On September 03 2012 11:44 Cubu wrote: guys, before you lynch me, how about we go on with the plan of lynching the lurkers? On September 03 2012 11:44 Cubu wrote: and its cubu, not cuba This is a really bad defense on his part. His posts doesn't make any sense. He suspects scum to have a plan of lurking, while being a lurker himself, and he doesn't know if there's 3 or 4 scum in the game. But the thing is, when looking at his posting history, he has to be on some weird ass level for him to be scum. Let's apply occram's razor, newbie scum don't level. As I said before, lurking scum usually tends to make their few posts rational (see: stutters). He comes across more as a confused townie to me. drazark: Contributes little to nothing. Claims to have little time to post due to helping his father to move. I don't think making up excuses like that is something scum would do to avoid posting. They already tend to start out the game feeling kind of guilty, spending the first entire day building up an unnecessary lie isn't very scum-like. Not a strong read either direction, he just recently posted and hopefully he can contribute more shortly. Stutters: Only made one post in this thread. In it he adds little in terms of analysis and rationalizes that a low post count doesn't have to be scummy by using an old thread as "alibi", which in itself is weak argumentation. Along with his non-contribution I think he makes a good lynching candidate. WeeTee: Not willing to let him off the hook after making a fluffy intro post and then a list of suspects mostly re-hashing old information/reads from earlier in the thread. A decent candidate for lynching, but since he's shown signs of being willing to contribute more, he might be better to reevaluate later. I personally favor a ##vote stutters wagon. I don't mind a cubu or weetee wagon to see how they react. Drazark would be fourth. Thats the post im referring to Jacob about Sonic. Page 13. Thats towncred to me. | ||
|
Kreb
4834 Posts
| ||
|
JacobStrangelove
Australia1572 Posts
| ||
|
KillingTime
France101 Posts
the game will be put on halt until the night post is up and this just means we can't start voting again until after the night post? | ||
|
JacobStrangelove
Australia1572 Posts
On September 04 2012 17:00 KillingTime wrote: Sorry I thought we are not meant to discuss things until after the night post or did I misunderstand? and this just means we can't start voting again until after the night post? Oh... never seen that before. I assume it's just not voting but it might be good to remain low key just incase. | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
On September 04 2012 17:00 KillingTime wrote: Sorry I thought we are not meant to discuss things until after the night post or did I misunderstand? and this just means we can't start voting again until after the night post? No we can talk during the night. That quote is referring to a hypothetical scenario where the host is unable to make the night post on time. night post = lynch results | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
On September 04 2012 16:26 Sonic Death Monkey wrote: You're saying we're focus too little on motives? The motive of flying under the radar is to just sit back while the town starts flinging poo on eachother. I'm still not sure what your motive of making generic posts was. Maybe someone who followed XXIV can chime in? Thrawn, it seems like you were playing that game? I'm not exactly sure what you want me to chime in on but I'll talk about scumhunting priorities that you and stutters seem to be arguing about. In XXIV, there was a massive shit-flinging fight between shady and I. There were people who thought shady was being completely illogical, and there were people who though I was being completely illogical. The vote was closely split between shady and I and shady ended up getting lynched. But the people who voted for either of us voted on the premise that illogical posting = scum. There weren't any good scum-motive explanations for either shady or my actions and the votes were completely based on "well this guy says dumb stuff." Then D2 I got lynched and flipped vigilante, and once again nobody was voting based off scum-motive suspicions. The case against me was that my vig claim was unbelievable, and there was an association case against me because another player and I had made extremely similar posts at the exact same time which made people think that we were in conversation with each other as scum. Meanwhile there was a player who had been saying extremely illogical stuff, but most people gave him a town read because they thought there'd be no way that a scum would be so illogical. His actual actions/votes were so extremely scummy throughout the whole game. However, people ignored that because they were spending too much time trying to make reads based on the quality of his posts, when instead they should have been looking at his motives behind the posts. The point is motives>quality of posts in terms of importance to making reads. That was the reason I favored lynching stutters over cubu. They both were heavy lurkers without much actual contribution in the few posts they had made. The people who voted for cubu did it because the quality (reasoning, writing style, and relevance to the thread) of stutter's posts was much higher than cubu's. So in their eyes, having low quality posts (see my earlier definition of quality) makes you look scummy. I didn't think that was a good assumption to make, and I preferred voting stutters because stutters had done less scumhunting than cubu. At the time of deciding between the two, the only scumhunting stutters had done was the very last paragraph of this post. Cubu of course hadn't done as much scumhunting as most poeple, but his contributions towards finding scum were more than what stutters gave. It was a vote based on motives instead of quality... somebody who doesn't scumhunt (ask questions, state what you find scummy, accuse people with FOS and such) is not a town player. | ||
|
JacobStrangelove
Australia1572 Posts
So what do you think now? I have been ranting at you for a while (maybe misguided) but you could give me something to go on. You also mention that it is "Kush's Cubu wagon" any particular reason for this? Just thought it was slightly strange that you would point out who started the wagon in particular.Also you could have a scum motivation for trying to stop people talking at night. Just saying. Also here Leaving aside your other points for the moment You left them aside forever. The only other comment you seemed to make was Jacob, I did not find your response to me very helpful, it was clearly contradictory for you to say that my reads were very/too safe and then give the "reads" that you did. You would think you could come up with something better than that? When people accuse me of things I list reasons why it's illogical and such. You seem to be hiding under short posts now. | ||
|
drazak
United States479 Posts
Regarding lynching Cubu, it wasn't due to how his posts looked, I could care less. I felt the content of his posts was lacking and poorly thought out. A lot of my posts will have and have had poor formatting. | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
On September 04 2012 22:53 drazak wrote: I don't think I'm going to try and make any reads until we see who mafia kills. I think Stutters and Kville are both good options at the moment, and I'd really still like to see kville go because he made almost no contributions. Regarding lynching Cubu, it wasn't due to how his posts looked, I could care less. I felt the content of his posts was lacking and poorly thought out. A lot of my posts will have and have had poor formatting. You "could care less" how his posts looked yet you voted for him because you "felt the content of his posts was lacking and poorly thought out." That looks like a contradiction could you clarify what you meant? | ||
|
JacobStrangelove
Australia1572 Posts
| ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
On September 04 2012 23:09 JacobStrangelove wrote: Also if you "Could care less" that implies that you care at least a little bit. Horrible american use of the saying... I know what you mean though. lol gm league trolling from tyler Yeah, I agree with continuing on sharing reads. There's the reason for doing it in case you're night-killed, and also putting a stop on scumhunting will stifle discussion when D2 starts. | ||
|
drazak
United States479 Posts
| ||
|
JacobStrangelove
Australia1572 Posts
Haha, It's not so much the meaning or the straight logical definition it's the imposibility of telling how much someone could care. For example I would go I don't care much. I couldn't care less is also a problem as most people do care (why I didn't say he was wrong just saying the saying in it's self is annoying. But... I only brought it up because you said it was a contradiction when it might not have been. (also this shouldn't even be an issue I just don't have anything else to say now lol) | ||
|
JacobStrangelove
Australia1572 Posts
| ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
On September 04 2012 16:30 Kreb wrote: He did reply to my post Sonic. I really shouldn't be posting before my morning coffee, I missed that reply. On September 04 2012 21:44 thrawn2112 wrote: I'm not exactly sure what you want me to chime in on but I'll talk about scumhunting priorities that you and stutters seem to be arguing about. In XXIV, there was a massive shit-flinging fight between shady and I. There were people who thought shady was being completely illogical, and there were people who though I was being completely illogical. The vote was closely split between shady and I and shady ended up getting lynched. But the people who voted for either of us voted on the premise that illogical posting = scum. There weren't any good scum-motive explanations for either shady or my actions and the votes were completely based on "well this guy says dumb stuff." Then D2 I got lynched and flipped vigilante, and once again nobody was voting based off scum-motive suspicions. The case against me was that my vig claim was unbelievable, and there was an association case against me because another player and I had made extremely similar posts at the exact same time which made people think that we were in conversation with each other as scum. Meanwhile there was a player who had been saying extremely illogical stuff, but most people gave him a town read because they thought there'd be no way that a scum would be so illogical. His actual actions/votes were so extremely scummy throughout the whole game. However, people ignored that because they were spending too much time trying to make reads based on the quality of his posts, when instead they should have been looking at his motives behind the posts. The point is motives>quality of posts in terms of importance to making reads. That was the reason I favored lynching stutters over cubu. They both were heavy lurkers without much actual contribution in the few posts they had made. The people who voted for cubu did it because the quality (reasoning, writing style, and relevance to the thread) of stutter's posts was much higher than cubu's. So in their eyes, having low quality posts (see my earlier definition of quality) makes you look scummy. I didn't think that was a good assumption to make, and I preferred voting stutters because stutters had done less scumhunting than cubu. At the time of deciding between the two, the only scumhunting stutters had done was the very last paragraph of this post. Cubu of course hadn't done as much scumhunting as most poeple, but his contributions towards finding scum were more than what stutters gave. It was a vote based on motives instead of quality... somebody who doesn't scumhunt (ask questions, state what you find scummy, accuse people with FOS and such) is not a town player. I was mainly asking for your (or others') opinion on whether his posts made sense knowing the XXIV background, but thanks for describing the event in detail. Stutters, I think it's a fine to make the argument that low post counts doesn't necessarily equal scummy behaviour and that motives > quality. But trying to rationalize that low post counts doesn't equal scum while at the same time contributing nothing is shady. We don't want to justify lurking, we want people to look for motives while at the same time making good observations/reads/analyses (d1 you did neither). I got some thoughts on last yesterday's events, but I still got some catching up to do in this thread. | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
Kville is a huge problem. Here's a summary of his actions so far: His first post which is 12 hours into the game, is only to inform us: "Im not lurking! I just woke up!" In his next post, 6 hours later, he says that he's not in favor of a D1 lynch which isn't even possible. He also says that reads are pointless during D1. Then he self-votes. When asked why he self-voted, he said it was to make a point. His point was that trying to have any reads at all during D1 is a waste of time, therefore his vote on himself and his vote for another player have equal merit. If he doesn't like voting based on reads during D1, then why not vote for one of the lurkers? His vote is completely useless and is anti-town regardless of whether he's town/scum. I do not see his actions or opinions as logical. If we were to take his advice and not try to make any reads during D1, then we will have nothing to start with on D2. Even if a townie gets lynched on D1 it will at least cause people to commit to reads which we can later analyze for how genuine their read seemed. I pointed out that his logic and play are so unbelievably horrible that it must be trollling, and I asked him for an explanation as to what exactly it is he's doing by playing so anti-town. His response was this post where he not only didn't answer my question, he also said my interrogation of him looks scummy. What happened to his strong conviction that we shouldn't make reads during the first day? He goes out of his way to prove his point that making reads is useless, but immediately as I put pressure on him he abandons his "no reads on D1" policy in order to call me scummy? After the lynch he goes on about about his "scumhunting is worthless in D1" idea. So kville, according to you when is a good time to start making reads? Surely you don't think that we should continue to not make reads? So what is your read then, now that D1 is over? I see you voted for the replacement player imcasey but you didn't put it in the voting thread. Is this another one of your anti-town troll posts or do you have a read on him which for some reason you won't explain? Once again I want you to answer to why you're playing so incredibly anti-town. | ||
|
KillingTime
France101 Posts
In regards to the phrase ""Kush's Cubu wagon" I think that is a fair reflection of the thread at that point. Kush pushed kubu as the "best" lynch of the small number of lurkers. No-one else was talking much about weetee, (except to say he was an ok lynch but not their preferred choice) so I tried instead to be helpfull to town by supporting the read of a player who I had no real scum read on and who I felt was making a solid, logical case for a lynch. you could have a scum motivation for trying to stop people talking at night. Just saying. I don't, it was just a mistake/misunderstanding of how the game works. Looking back at other games I should have worked it out without being told, but it hardly inhibited discussion much?I did leave your other points aside because it was clear that at that point the thread was moving on. The main problems you had with my play as I understood it were: a) the time of my postings - which I addressed to your satisfaction I think and b) The fact that my reads were too "safe" - which I did not feel needed a longer comment. Looking back at the thread I don't think it would have been possible to make a scum read that was not absurd that you could not have twisted into an opinion that it was "safe" at that point, and the fact that you then posted your reads which were a) me - for reasons I did not credit (obviously) and otherwise essentially the same players - still seems like nonsense to me. In regards to my complaints about your posting style & your response to it. I continue to find it hard to read but I have not formed a revised opinion about how scummy it is. With you & sonic - I need to find time to look through your filter's again and look at your play over time & in context before I come to any new opinions, as you were never going to be lynched yesterday I put this on the backburner. | ||
| ||
