| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
On September 20 2012 15:39 Cubu wrote: Guys im sorry but i don't think i can play. My assignment is taking way way longer than i would expect. Are you mason? | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
Brilliant, don't bother quoting the post from a different page that you're responding to. You were saying that you supported a lynch of a lurker (Cubu in specific), yet when a lynch of a lurker happens you're saying "it's obvious now that the mafia had a strong hand in it". What's your reasoning behind that? | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
On September 20 2012 16:15 KillingTime wrote: I obviously know that lynching me would have been a mislynch aswell. For me, I left the thread with 2 votes on debears, and several people who had previously felt that he looked scummy... and instead drazak got lynched. Herp derp - before I think too much about the endgame hour though I think we need to sort out this cubu/sharrant mason thing asap given that some are still not convinced. Obviously Cubu is not going to help. Is it allowed to ask Sharrant to post a link to the mason quicktopic to prove his claim? I am asking the mods first because I feel like it might not be, but it wasn't clear in the rules (it says you can post your role pm and the sample role pm makes no mention of not being able to post the quicktopic link to the thread if you choose) In his defense he probably doesn't even know if he's town of mafia. I'm eager to post my wall-o-text analysis of the mason situation, but I kind of want a response from Sharrant first. | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
On September 20 2012 19:21 kushm4sta wrote: just woke up. I have a test today but after I will try to sort through this clusterfuck of a thread. for now just 1 thing. @sonic you keep saying that you want to wait for a response from sharrant before you post this epic wall of text case. What exactly do you want him to address. Maybe you said it before but this thread recently has blown up. Is there a secific question you want him to answer or an issue you want him to address? All this sharrant doubt seems really stupid to me. The only way sharrant is scum is if cubu is also scum. Therefore if sharrant was scum, a blue could identify one of them and boom we would have 2 scum. It makes no sense for scum to roleclaim mason like that. He could possibly have claimed Cubu (as town) hoping he wouldn't show up in the thread, at least before lynch. There's also a risk it's an epic super level and both are scum. Like I've said I find it both unlikely. The question to address is thrawn's. Why he dropped the reads on thrawn and debear after getting to know the correct mechanics of the game. | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
This is why the thread got so fucking empty all of a sudden. I know you, Killing, Jacob and Kush went poof when the heat got turned up, but there were probably more than that I haven't had the timecheck. Obviously it's likely some players had legitimate reasons for disappearing, but it's no coincidence so many players pulled the plug. Townies had no reason to leave the thread at that point, but scum had. That's why disappearing from the thread was scummy. This brings me to you. Just 1 minute after deadline you show up with a claim. You're not just saying something like "it's possible that the mafia had a hand in it", but "it's obvious now that the mafia had a strong hand in it". This is really weird. How is this even possible if you hadn't followed the thread? If you followed the thread as town, I would've expected you to contribute at least something. Instead you wait, claim to have knowledge and make a strong claim just 1 minute after deadline that it was a bad lynch. It strikes me as scummy. *That's not to say it was a good position for town, but it's not a tough spot because mafia is able to easily manipulating the situation. | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
On September 20 2012 20:48 JacobStrangelove wrote: @sonic When did I go poof? If it was before the lynch then there is an obvious reason. I listed even before any of this happened I have classes on this day at this time (I can bring up a time table if you really want...) If it was after the lynch I don’t have a reason apart from being really tired. Also Chaos can be an opportunity for scum to exercise great power as well... You seem to forget they could arrange/create the Chaos in the QT and then put it into action when the time comes. (preemptive strike)It wouldn’t be easy but not as hard as you probably think. While it can and is at times really useful for town to role call late (although don’t do it right after I leave the thread kinda rubs me the wrong way{in regards to actually backing up the role claim that is}) but mafia can also be the ones creating it thus in some form of control. However I do see the difference from role calling a few hours from the thread and 1 minute.... I will probably re-read the whole thread in the light of the lynch and considering I am not as tired now however considering it is night (in game) I might try and work on getting both my assignments done tonight(irl) and have more time tomorrow. That said I will still post tonight. I know you've claimed those reasonings way earlier. Killing and Art disappearing was more fishy. There are more, rethos seems to pull out as well. It's quite possible there was scum lurking while the shit storm started and then decided to continue doing so and of course I'm not claiming everyone who stayed is clean. Singling out player for this alone certainly isn't fair, but with the circumstances around Art in particular I think there's reason to question what he was doing. And I agree about your second point. I was about to mention it but didn't, since it's very closely connected to Sharrant's mason claim, which I plan to post about later. | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
I don't envy the position you're jumping into here, but Sharrant just claimed ~2 hours before the d1 lynch that the two of you are masons. He did it to save his own ass. You have to confirm or deny this, but I'll give you some time to catch up on the thread for you to realize for yourself. | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
| ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
Long post about Sharrant's mason claim: First something I'd like to point out. These posts were made simultaneously in the sense that I hadn't read his post before posting mine. We make the exact same argument independently, which at the time made me feel more comfortable in believe what he said was true. His reasoning matched mine and thus in my mind it made sense. + Show Spoiler + On September 20 2012 06:51 Sharrant wrote: I honestly wish I was trolling. I know, I know. Atreides defended me earlier, would've been great to have as a mason buddy. SDM? Would've been great as a mason buddy, he seems to know his shit and I think he's town. Thrawn? That'd be baller too. You'll notice how the only time I ever acknowledged Cubu about lurking is once when I said "We should go after the scummy lurker instead of the afk lurker" That's because Cubu is my partner. And has not said a single thing to me yet. Hopefully he shows up in this thread to confirm me. More like he will show up in this thread at 7:55 and I'll die because no one will be there to notice. On September 20 2012 06:54 Sonic Death Monkey wrote: Well, that would explain why you didn't have anyone to explain the rules for you. And why you've for some weird reason left Cubu out of the "lynch lurkers" discussion. My take on this right now: This is either some super sofisticated level or he's being honest. I think one interesting thing to note is how he brought this up rather early. At a point where it seems like he could've gotten away by other means. Him setting up a super advanced level in and of itself seems unlikely. Him setting up a super advanced level way ahead of time just seems even more unlikely. I still need time to process this. A rough read through of Sharrant's filter seems to make it clear that his plan must've been set up from the point he was first accused. His first hint on wanting Debears to "claim" came immediately after thrawn questioning his motives for voting debear. At that point no one had suspected him previously, he had no votes and more that 24h to deadline. I pointed this out during the shit storm, but it seems weird to set up such an elaborate plan at that point since he had no real reason to feel threatened. Besides, he replies to thrawn's accusation with a long post within 30min. Is he supposed to have come up with this plan and typed out this post within 30min? Or is it a plan he's been working on for a long time? Maybe since Debears started cock riding thrawn? It just seems way too far fetched. The other option is that it wasn't his original plan, but that he used this "forcing debear to claim" reasoning later to form his mason plan. This would require an insane ability to make up complicated plans on the fly. Basically all the puzzle pieces fell into place, it's highly unlikely this would happen unless he actually had a plan when first trying to "forcing debear to claim". Timeline of events: 1) 9 hours to deadline: This is Sharrant's first mention of the most suspected lurkers: + Show Spoiler + On September 19 2012 23:53 Sharrant wrote: 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. For some reason he didn't include Cubu at all in this post. This is weird because imo Cubu has been the #1 lurker of the game. But it's also worth noting he didn't mention Atreides or drazak. While not being as hardcore lurkers as Cubu, they were solid non-contributors. 2) 8 hours to deadline: Sharrant acknowledges that he had completely forgot Atreides, but still prefers Stutters: + Show Spoiler + On September 20 2012 00:38 Sharrant wrote: Hm. I had missed a post of yours before. That's why. Your Filter thing on the front page isn't working properly, so I had to scan through everything, and I missed at least one post. My apologies. I still think you came off a little scummy when you first entered the game, but I hadn't thought about Atreides posts before that. I'm now less suspicious of you, and a little more of Atreides, but not enough that you two are my preffered lurker lynch. That spot now goes solely to Stutters. 3) 3 hours to deadline: Sharrant's next interesting mention is this: + Show Spoiler + On September 20 2012 05:47 Sharrant wrote: @SDM, @debears I'm going to have to agree with you two at this point. At this point my vote is going to be going to killer, Stutters' recent posts have put him on good footing, and Cubu is still just an unkown quantity. ... @Drazak ... You honestly had time to got hrough every single post and then voted me with a single sentence completely lacking any justification AND you did it in such a way that you look like you're only suggesting that you might be voting for me. AND you commited the cardinal sin of putting someone at L-1 without giving them warning. You just reached my number one spot. ##unvote KillingTime ##vote Drazak You're scum, and you just had the most obvious bandwagonning in the world. For some reason his main focus was Killing and Stutters when it comes to scummy lurkers. He also just labeled Cubu an "unknown quantity". This is also the first time he finds drazak scummy, due to his weird voting post. 4) 2h and 15m to deadline: Sharrant officially outs Cubu as his mason buddy. + Show Spoiler + On September 20 2012 06:44 Sharrant wrote: Welp, I guess I may as well. It'll save him in the long run, if enough of you had believed me about being Mason without confirming him, you probably would have killed him for lurking anyways. Actually, I've changed my mind about this. If I out him most likely only one of us dies tonight, a confirmed townie will survive, and best of all, it will possibly save a blue's life. So here's the part where you guys either instantly decide I'm guilty by assosciation, or whether I just am the mason with the shittiest luck ever. My mason buddy... is (drum roll please)... CUBU The current post count in our QT is 10, 8 posts by me, 2 by Marvel! Hooray! So why did he never suspect Cubu despite his lurking? I can see three reasons: a) Sharrant is telling the truth, Cubu is his mason buddy (if Sharrant gets lynched, this will also help Cubu to claim mason later) b) Sharrant is scum and is making an elaborate mason plan (Cubu could possibly be either scum or townie, this scenario is unlikely imo for reasons explained above) c) Sharrant is scum and is protecting his scum buddy with no other motives in mind (ime at least including Cubu as a suspect is something a scum would do, not calling him an "unknown entity" when it's obvious Cubu is a hardcore lurker) I will also ahead of time type out what I find to be the only fully satisfying answer Sharrant can give to thrawn's new accusations: about Sharrant dropping the scum reads on thrawn and debears because he misunderstood the game mechanics: Sharrant never particularly suspected thrawn or debears. He was using his vote as a tool, because IF they happened to both be scum, they might fall for the trap. It's a long shot, but if it succeeds, he's trapped two scum. It also would make sense with all his actions imo (I've still only made a rough read through, but that's how it appears to me). When he realized his trap wouldn't work because of game mechanics, he didn't have to keep his mostly artificial scum reads of thrawn and debear anymore because his plan couldn't any longer succeed. He dropped his accusations. I kind of like this approach to the game in general. I don't think you need to have strong suspicions to throw out accusations and force reactions. However, I don't really like doing it by voting, at least not in TL newbie games. People will demand a reasoning for his vote and since Sharrant didn't have solid reasoning, he'll easily end up in the situation he did. However, it's possible that in the games he's used to play in, voting is used as such a tool. Others have mentioned this before, some players tend to use ##Vote instead of ##FOS. I honestly had a hard time to even understand the 50/50 sentence. Is he saying it had a 50/50 chance of working before he realized he had misunderstood the mechanics? If so, how does that make sense? This is something I still need him to clarify. (Of course, for you to believe this, you have to trust there's no sonic/sharrant scum team. That is entirely up to you to decide) | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
On September 20 2012 22:46 Sharrant wrote: @Thrawn The part where the 50/50 comes in is because of the altered Mason mechanics. You could have claimed Mason, and I would've been liked "Fuck yeah, mafia" in the standard I'm used to (All Masons know each other). However, that post came out after I found out about the different Mason mechanics. So if you had claimed Mason all I could've done is gone "Fuck yeah, those guys actually could be Masons because they haven't really had a 3rd buddy, or they might be mafia together with a lurker" suddenly you claiming Mason was not the be all end all of catching you. So suddenly you guys seemed a lot less scummy because it was actually possible you were both masons. I said before, I still wasn't sure about both of you. The fact that neither of you took the easy claim could have left you both as mafia that didn't want to take an easy out, or that only one of you is mafia so the claim is stupid and unsafe, or that neither of you are and the claim is unneeded. This isn't the exact reasoning I was looking for in order for it to fully make sense. The first paragraph is, but the second paragraph isn't. In the second paragraph you state that you were actually suspicious of thrawn and debears because of what I think is a silly association read. The reason you dropped those accusations is because he actually thought there was a decent possibility there were two pairs of masons in the game. I simply think this is bad reasoning. The association read is really weak and having 4 masons in a set-up with 13 players is highly unlikely. On the other hand, the association read goes hand in hand with his overly specific SK read on Kush. Maybe making overly specific reads is just something he does. I find that way more likely than his mason claim being a super sofisticated scum plot. The QT text certainly helps as well. | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
| ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
| ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
| ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
On September 21 2012 01:30 Sonic Death Monkey wrote: I'll take a break from this thread to clear my mind. I'll be back in ~12h. Whacking me while I'm on vacation is so fucking rude. Town, avenge me death please. /obs ***********dead************ | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
| ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
| ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
On September 26 2012 15:06 thrawn2112 wrote: lol it's happened in all my games. as the game progresses there is always one thing that people like to include in their cases more and more as the game continues until it reaches the point where reads get pretty awful. I guess it happens because A) everyone is a noob so they don't know exactly what to look for when catching scum and B) mafia pick up on it and start including it in their cases I think this is pretty spot on. I almost JK you n1. You were townie to me, so good job on that. I still think JK anyone except for Sharrant would be pretty bad. At first I thought Dandel made a decent point for JK thrawn, but now I'm pretty decided it was a weak argument. Still not decided on who the best n1 NK was from scum's perspective. I was pretty sure they'd kill thrawn, Sharrant or me though. | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
On September 26 2012 19:56 Dandel Ion wrote: Hm, I said that before I knew Sharrant was JK'd, when thrawn was the only one that claimed. But I still think that usually, it would be bad play to JK a mason in that situation. I guess it didn't matter since you can't JK yourself, but I think my logic is solid: Scum won't kill just 1/2 of the masons if there is still a JK/medic in the game. He will camp the confirmed town, forcing scum to shoot relatively blindly for the JK/medic instead of the confirmed town, all the while leaving a confirmed town in the game. Which would usually spell disaster for the scumteam, but the confirmed town this game was Sharky, so in the end, I guess it really didn't matter. But there was no real way for you to know sharky would be useless. I think your decision was wrong. It practically did not matter, because scum shot you (bad luck there), but it COULD have mattered and I stand by my opinion that you did not play your nightaction as well as you could have. Eh, as I said, not really applicable in THIS very game, but remember for the next time you roll JK  I think the problem with your argument is that I would be camping Sharrant anyway. Your argument would only be valid if there was a decent risk that the mason claim was false. If there was a decent risk, I agree confirming the mason claim by killing Sharrant would be bad. However, if you go back in the thread, you can see basically no one had doubts regarding the mason claim by the end of n1. Going by your argument, do you also think I should've pushed a Cubu (later Sharky) lynch d1? That would've guaranteed the outcome you want, a confirmed mason Sharrant that I could've protected. I was considering this briefly, but I thought the mason claim was likely enough to be legitimate in order for me to want to keep both in the game and I also felt confident I would be able to convince other players of this. If both are alive I can still guarantee the protection of Sharrant for as many nights I stay alive (which unfortunately turned out to be 0 :p). | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
On September 26 2012 20:41 Dandel Ion wrote: It was okay in THIS game, because there were no townier townies. I'm saying usually scum would avoid hitting just one of the masons (unless they have 2 KP to kill both or something), and if both masons are even approx. equally useful, there's no knowing which one will get hit. I'd have thought that's pretty logical, but apparantly not... Even so, I still have a 50% success rate protecting the "correct" mason (the mason about to get NKd), which is great. Even if I don't succeed, I end up in the situation you want: having one confirmed townie to protect for the rest of the game. | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
On September 26 2012 21:22 marvellosity wrote: no, pushing for a Cubu lynch would have been totally incorrect (it was suggested a few times in thread to my horror) I basically played all d1 not remembering I was JK. I think this idea was first suggested by thrawn and I went "ah, that might be a decent strategy if we have a JK... oh fuck, that's me". Anyway, given I was confident the claim was legitimate, I didn't give it too much thought. I was still close to JK thrawn, which in hindsight baffles my mind. I'm not even going to try to explain that thought process. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
GSL Code S
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs Bunny
The PondCast
OSC
Replay Cast
OSC
WardiTV Invitational
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
SOOP
sOs vs Percival
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
