|
I don't think "having assignments due" makes Cubu any less scummy. Last game we gave a pass D1/2 to weetee who had to get replaced and let Xatalos off the hook because he was at the army - they were still scum and that was a mistake.
As
far as "My" case (not really "my" case - but my vote) on Debears goes I still prefer him slightly over sharrant. see Debears as more scummy than sharrant because he led with stupid play and then tried to explain it away, whereas on my reading the Sharrant case seems more "bad towny" than a strong scum read, he started trying to help town and then made a dumb mistake.
also why are so many people already voting sharron? His play is really stupid with the roleclaim call, but stupid play doesn't make you mafia. you think first time mafia would really be so confidently retarded like that?
Isn't sharron's roleclaim call as stupid as my defense of thrawn early on? You could make the same argument for me.
So for me it is kind of similar - but yours looks worse. That said, this game still has too many lurkers - I am not sure at the moment whether debears is strong enough to justify not shooting one of them, hopefully I won't need to make that decision because they will all come in with plenty of useful posts (fat chance).
|
Ok since nobody is offering I did a vote count:
Debears: 4, Sharrant: 3, Stutters: 1.
Switches:
Sharrant from Kushm4sta to debears
JacobStrangelove from Sharrent to Stutters695
|
hah yeah fat chance... I guess you and I are on different sides of the feel reads at the moment. I have to admit both feel (and have good reasons for being) scummy but I still think Sharrant is worse. I wish I had the time to read the thread over from the begining again but I fear I do not.
Oh and don't remind me about the weetee thing... that was probably the worst I have ever been manipulated in my life... I couldn't get over that...
So I guess the question to the thread is do we lynch a lurker like cubu (seems to be lurking the most) or go for stutters lurking partly and apears scum (at least to me or go for /debear/sharrant? Both active but suspisious people. I still think stutters because he seems to be lurking and scum but at the moment I seem to be alone in this opinion.
|
Oh thanks rethos.  wow it appears it is all down to Debears/Sharrant at the moment.. I will have to go through both filters in more detail before bed it seems.
|
I think people should post their votes as soon as possible so the town knows where it stands. Random last minute voting is bad. People that have not voted (I can be bothered to go check who they are) show your side. Looking into stutters right now.
|
Some thoughts on Sharrant. First some comments on Atreides' defense:
+ Show Spoiler +On September 19 2012 11:55 Atreides- wrote:
In defense of Sharrant -
He's in a similar position to debears - bad decisions do not necessarily mean scum. Think about it - what could a mafia hope to gain by this? Getting a lynch is far too ambitious, and a role claim isn't worth getting so much attention to yourself Note that in my case against Sharrant, nothing is based on him simply playing bad. I don't think he's playing bad in the most commonly used sense of the word: he doesn't appear like a confused newbie who has no idea what he's doing. However, there's 1) an odd call out of Kush as SK and 2) a scum slip. On September 19 2012 11:55 Atreides- wrote:
He's actively scumhunting, and both of his ideas (kush being SK, pressuring on debears) are original.
The Kush being SK read I've already commented on. His target is not original and I think calling out SK is weird. The Debears read is most certainly not original, since he's adding basically nothing to my case. He also made after he had already gotten accused.
I also mentioned a feel read yesterday that I didn't commented on. Being a feel read it's possible it's weak, but I might as well spell it out as well as I can to see how others view it:
+ Show Spoiler +Sharrant's is posting not like confused newbie. It's apparent he's got a reasonably good understanding of the game and how it works. If you look at his first posts they are kind of fluffy and don't add much. It's also apparent he's using what I would call a cold, calculating and logical style. Looking back at XXVI, his style is very reminiscent of Xatalos and I would also argue rather similar to mine. This is a style that makes sense for a logical and reasonably good player playing as scum. However, aside from Xatalos and me, there wasn't really anyone using it in XXVI. It seems to me it's not a very common town style, because as town you're usually going to be more confused whether you like it or not.
To add to the read, look at his way of responding to accusations. It's textbook maffia. It says in the maffia guide to just keep calm when faced with accusations and that's how Sharrant has reacted. Again, looking back at XXVI, that's also exactly how Xatalos and myself reacted, but basically no one else. For example, when drazak came under fire he became very apologetic and Stutters shot back with his own accusations.
Like I've said before, one big problem as scum is that you don't know how you would've reacted as town. I found myself pretty much emotionless when someone accused me and kind of like a sociopath asked myself, "how am I supposed to feel here". This is where discrepancy between scum and town might shine through. When I voted for Sharrant, his response was that he was "glad to see another person is voting". That's really not the way I would react to me getting wagoned as town and probably not how you should react.
The reason I think you're likely to feel emotionless and cold as scum is because knowing the allignment of basically everyone in the game, a lot of the excitement is gone. When you make a case on someone, you're just doing it to survive. In contrast, I felt excited making a case against Sharrant because I was having the feeling I was solving a mystery. As scum you're never solving a mystery.
I will make a separate post in response to his answers and about why I'm still not entirely convinced.
|
There is not a lot of substance in Sharrant's case in my opinion. The only real point I agree is that for a person that has claimed having a lot of time he is not posting like it.
You ignore the fact that he is the first one to point that it is stupid so it makes sense that he would follow it. That makes it in my eyes a person that should be posting more but nothing more.
|
On September 19 2012 23:19 rethos wrote:
There is not a lot of substance in Sharrant's case in my opinion. The only real point I agree is that for a person that has claimed having a lot of time he is not posting like it.
You ignore the fact that he is the first one to point that it is stupid so it makes sense that he would follow it. That makes it in my eyes a person that should be posting more but nothing more.
EBWOP: *facepalm* i was talking about the case against Stutters695 not Sharrant.
|
those votes don't count lurkers though and I think a lot of us want to switch to a lurker. so its either debears sharrant or x lurker
|
I will be droping by again around 3-4 hours before deadline. My vote for now stays. Debears has shown decent level of activity and if not for his first post I would actually put him as town. But that post still rubs me the wrong way.
|
Oh he was the first to post? Reading filters doesn't get you this kind of infomation unfortuantaly. Also sonics case is insane... (in a good way) he is cold in his posting style and while I still don't like stutters at all however considering nothing will happen with my vote I guess I have to switch back to Sharrants.
That said. I still want stutters to respond to my questions before.
So
#FOS Stutters
##unvote Stutters695
##Vote: Sharrent
Also should we update the voting as we go?
Debears: 4, Sharrant: 4.
Switches:
Sharrant from Kushm4sta to debears
JacobStrangelove from Sharrent to Stutters695
JacobStrangelove from Stutters695 to Sharrent
|
Good morning, everyone.
Yes, SDM, I like staying calm. It doesn't really help if I suddenly flip off the handles at being accused. I stay calm because I know I'm town, and I want to win. If you can't stay calm, and think cooly, you can't set traps for scum. I was happy that you voted for me, just because everyone in this game sits on their hands when it comes to voting, I said before, it's a tool not a weapon. I wasn't happy being under that much pressure right away, I'm still not happy about the amount of pressure I'm under. But it brought more activity and has made people use their votes more. I know I'm innocent, so I know I'll be fine.
I'm used to mafia games where I have more information about the set up of the game, and in those situations using a logical analysis makes for very easy wins.
Now here is where I run into a problem. We're 2 votes away from the point I set out to get debears to. I still want to force a claim on him, no matter how scummy you think that is, it just doesn't make sense from a mafia perspective. Nor an SK perspective. But I have a plan, and I am sticking to that plan. I won't say it's the best plan ever, in fact there's a huge chance that it fails.
Here is how it stands for me. In order of most to least scummiest: debears, Thrawn, KillingTime/Stutters, Kush, everyone else, SDM.
Scummiest lurkers to me are: KillingTime, and Stutters.
My ideal situation is: push debears up to L-1, get him to roleclaim, then if I am satisfied with his answer, vote up either KillingTime or Stutters.
I still feel there's a decent chance of debears and Thrawn ending up being Mason, and that would just mean I've been on the wrong track the whole time, but their buddy-buddyness is making me think mafia.
But then I come back to the fact that they're still posting, and that's better than the lurkers. So you now all of you know exactly what I want to do, and you know exactly how scummy it is in plain English. I want to put him up to L-1, hear what he has to say, and then move onto one of the people we're not getting information from.
|
sharrant if you say roleclaim again I'm changing vote to you..just stfu about roleclaim...it makes no sense
|
I still don't understand the role claim part of your plan though. If we go through all possible senarios.
If he is town he will role claim as vanilia town
if he is cop or anyother blue role he will role claim as vanilia town
if he is mafia he will role claim as vanilia town
if he is Serial killer he will role claim as vanilia town...
now you mentioned before this means mafia can't change there role late in the game but neither can the blue... Also it's semi open set up we could have two cops as far as I know... (unlikely though)
Also saying there is a huge chance of failture seems like allowing yourself a way out of the lynch if it goes go wrong.
|
That said I must sleep now so I will try to wake up with at least half an hour before I leave(give me time to assess the situation) and that will be about 3 hours before lynch.
|
Those are the most likely role claims possible. Either it doesn't happen, and I'll discuss it afterwards, or it happens, and I'll discuss it afterwards. Discussing it before it happens will make it fail 100% of the time.
This is my alternative to lynching him day 1. My plan at the start was just pressure, now I do sort of want to lynch him, but I'd rather just pressure and go after a lurker for day 1.
|
@sharrant
My ideal situation is: push debears up to L-1, get him to roleclaim, then if I am satisfied with his answer, vote up either KillingTime or Stutters.
Here's what this line of reasoning looks like me. It looks like you are scum and your motivation here is to get someone to roleclaim. Then you back that up with a lurker vote. Except killing really isn't a lurker. And for some reason you ignore the huge lurker cubu.
|
And if that happened, you guys would auto lynch me and the guy who came in with the lurker vote. It'd be suicide. Killing one townie (even a blue) is not worth one mafia, let alone 2. KT definitely has been lurking, he only just made a few posts with no substance.
So if I'm mafia, my plan is akin to gamethrowing. I'd be killing two mafia to kill a single person that 3 other people agree is suspicious enough to warrant a vote. THAT MAKES NO SENSE. I'll gladly tell you after my plan fails or succeeds what it was. Hell, at this point it's almost worth dropping just because it's going to get me lynched at this pace.
|
On September 19 2012 19:46 kushm4sta wrote:
ok second question: why do I want to lynch debears over sharrant...I talk about this a lot. basically i see scum motivation in debears bad play but not in sharrants bad play.
Can you go into more depth about what you see as scum motivation?
Most of your argument is in this post. -
+ Show Spoiler +On September 19 2012 03:11 kushm4sta wrote:##FOS Debears
I looked at this guy's filter again. And yeah it's fishy as hell. So now I'm less suspicious of killingtime, more suspicious of debears. First thing isn't it da bears not de bears?? His initial dickriding of thrawn strikes me as something that could just be indicative of newbie play. It's more productive to make cases against scum than cases for town, especially out of the blue when no one is even accusing the townie. But the latter is easier so it is very possible this is just a newb mistake. But in his latest post he simultaneously continues the dick ride and defends his right to dickride. Incoming possible scumslip: Show nested quote + However, if you look at the motivations from a townie and mafia perspective, it doesn't make sense as a mafia post. There's little reward for the risk as mafia. Here's what I showed earlier.
1) Thrawn as town - prevent the lurker discussion from going overboard. Present an idea that should provoke an "you're an idiot" response from town members (with a long shot of some mafia jumping on him about the idea).
2) Thrawn as mafia - Put up an idea that a thinking town would "not" take seriously, make himself look suspcicious. Possibly lynch the most inactive player if it works. People really need to learn to specify antecedents btw. After about an hour of rereading I figured out that what he is actually saying here is that thrawn's retarded idea to lynch the last person who posts makes him town. He purports himself an expert on the "mafia perspective" even though this is his first game. I would like more explanation about this line specifically: Show nested quote +
1) Thrawn as town - prevent the lurker discussion from going overboard. Present an idea that should provoke an "you're an idiot" response from town members (with a long shot of some mafia jumping on him about the idea).
What do you mean mafia would "jump on him about the idea?" As in they would like or get mad at him for it? Are you saying that thinking that idea is bad makes you scum?
It is pretty much information that had been mentioned before, so can you elaborate more?
|
On September 20 2012 00:16 Sharrant wrote:
And if that happened, you guys would auto lynch me and the guy who came in with the lurker vote. It'd be suicide. Killing one townie (even a blue) is not worth one mafia, let alone 2. KT definitely has been lurking, he only just made a few posts with no substance.
So if I'm mafia, my plan is akin to gamethrowing. I'd be killing two mafia to kill a single person that 3 other people agree is suspicious enough to warrant a vote. THAT MAKES NO SENSE. I'll gladly tell you after my plan fails or succeeds what it was. Hell, at this point it's almost worth dropping just because it's going to get me lynched at this pace.
ANTECEDENTS PEOPLE.......
And if that happened, you guys would auto lynch me and the guy who came in with the lurker vote.
What is "that"?
No idea what this sentence means.
No idea what your "plan" is (all I know is it's stupid)
No idea who you are saying would be lynched or who would be mafia.
Sounds like a bunch of wifom speculation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
