Newbie Mini Mafia XXIX - Page 7

On October 26 2012 23:58 sylverfyre wrote:
So now you're discounting my reasons too, saying I'm just sheeping? Can you address a single accusation made against you instead of just counter-accusing?

On October 27 2012 00:04 sylverfyre wrote:
The tone you're employing indicates frustration - could be mafia 'i'm caught' frustration or townie 'why lynch me?' frustration but you're getting accused while throwing out lots of accusations and 0 defenses.



Then you suddenly go silent on that issue.

And inactive players ARE suspicious (and you can't automatically say whether they're more suspicious or less suspicious than another suspicious player, without providing concrete examples) so it's a moot question anyway. Not your only moot question (you've been called out for asking the "are you mafia?" pointless question, too.)

On October 26 2012 21:35 sylverfyre wrote:
Running under the assumption that imcasey and Roco get modkilled if they don't show up, I'd lynch Djo. You say Inig has a lack of scumhunting but scrutinizing people and saying that you can only read town out of them is not a lack of scumhunting.

For now, I'm going with lynching the confusing lurker. If he either becomes A) not confusing, B) makes no action at all and makes me believe a modkill is incoming, or C) is replaced and the replacement can make some contribution.

Vote Roco69

On October 26 2012 23:05 sylverfyre wrote:
Early on, Djo, I felt a contradiction from you based on a combination of you criticizing the lurker policy + calling out a lurker. More recently, you've switched gears a lot and been unsatisfied in defenses mounted against your case.

Finally just now claiming "not needing to consolidate" is fishy to me too. If we don't consolidate, we're going to have someone get lynched with like 3 votes, reducing scum's need to assist in the lynchwagon as well as improving scum ability to make sure one of their own cannot be lynched - so we're less likely to find scum today, but equally importantly, we would have less information later in the game (and could cause town to go rabid on itself) We want to consolidate.

I dunno if mods have more replacements lined up, I sure hope so. Having 3 playerdrops happen on day 1 is really depressing to me.

On October 27 2012 00:24 sylverfyre wrote:




To make it a more comprehensive list

- poor responses to accusations in the past
be specific
- "You sure are taking policy seriously" -> Attack lurkers aggressively (the contradiction inherent here)
I attacked Roco because he was posting nonsense. Did I call him out for lurking ? I don't think so... Moreover, I couldn't have known at that time that he was going to lurk this hard.
I attacked Inig for good reasons in my opinion. You should have commented my case about him if you were disagreeing.
- accusing ini of "not scumhunting" when he posted his reads on people, simply because none of those reads were reads of scum (they were townie or null reads, and ini blatantly admitted such)
Please check Inig's filter, he is admitting himself that he was not scumhunting when I called him out for it
- Emotional levels running awfully high as people mount pressure on you, but not much defense from accusations.
I'm pissed off because I'm spending my whole time defending myself and people like you are saying that I'm not
- "I don't care if alsn has a FOS on me" is your only defense against him for a long time. Only just now did you even acknowledge his accusations as legit.
It was a mistake to answer like this. But I still think that Alsn's FoS was not really founded. Moreover, I provoked him on purpose because I was suspicious of him for meta reasons.
- Accusing me of sheeping when I've made it clear that I was suspicious of you pretty early. Since then, you've given me more reasons to suspect you.

On October 26 2012 00:52 sylverfyre wrote:
I admit that my question may not have been as useful as it sounded in my head at the time. If you don't want to answer it, don't. I think that it's not completely useless, I found the information you gave me interesting, because I don't know you as a player but this isn't your first game.

You're tunneling me pretty hard when you don't look particularly clean, yourself, Djo. How bout responding to some of the criticisms against yourself?

You even asked a more useless question than mine "Are you mafia?" is the classical question to which the entire game responds in chorus, "No."

On October 27 2012 00:42 kushm4sta wrote:
More on daoud:
He seems much more careful about what he says this game than last game.
Last games his posts were like WTF is this weird guy talking about.
This game they look like he doesn't want to catch anyone's attention.

Why we shouldn't lynch djodref today:
He does look pretty scummy. But I don't see how anyone can have a lot of certainty in that read.
Combination of high activity and low certainty means he should not lynch him.
Also realize that djodref is in a position where he NEEDS to evolve his meta whether he is town or scum.
His first game he played as a noob, understandable because it was his first game. His second game, he pretended to be a noob as a scum strat. I think showing that he is better than the newb he pretended to be last game would be the natural play for town djodref, and also scum djodref trying to appear as town djodref.

Djo: who out of the active players seems scummiest to you? Also why did you bring up how you want to lynch a lurker without even trying to pressure your scumreads?

On October 27 2012 00:59 sylverfyre wrote:
Yes, I was referring to that part. I had an FOS on Roco that I didn't really want to retract at the time, and wasn't certain about having multiple FOS out at the time. I have since asked about the rules on that, and been informed that multiple FOS are perfectly fine.

On October 27 2012 00:30 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:
@ Djo



The text you put in bold regarding my thoughts on you was, specifically, a reference to the point at which Rad was asking you about not changing your arguments on policy lynching.

+ Show Spoiler +

The point that I find most interesting is when Rad says the bolded portion.

Rad thinks it's scum mentality. Your only address on the issue is essentially that "I don't care if I look scummy, this discussion is pointless, and my arguement is better". Why are you so unwavering about your opinion in this matter?

On October 26 2012 14:14 Djodref wrote:
@Rad

I'm not saying that I'm not going to change my opinion on anything. For example, I've already changed my opinion about you (from scummy to light townie). I'm saying that I'm not going to change my opinion on a particular point. I didn't want to discuss about it anymore because I don't think that this particular point is relevant at all.
This particular point is when to agree on applying lurker policy lynch. I was discussing it with dandel. If you have something else in mind, then I would like you to tell me exactly what it is.

dandel would have liked us to agree to follow a strong lurker policy for this game at the beginning of D1. He presented his reasons for it and I found them totally acceptable, I even admitted them they were good. He has backed up his arguments with experience.
But I disagree with such a strategy because I firmly believe that it is quite easy for the mafia to avoid a lynch for lurking, pushing some mislynch on lurky townies and use this strategy for their benefit. And I'm not going to change my mind about it.

On October 26 2012 20:53 Djodref wrote:


@Rad

I gave more thoughts about your post and I've decided that I should try to address your concern in a better way than my last attempt. I understand that I need to answer the 2 following questions, please correct me if I am wrong
1)Why I was not open to change my stance ?
2)Why I was dodging this question at first ?

1) I wasn't open to change my stance because I think that enforcing a strict lurker policy is a bad strategy for town. I was quite stubborn on this point because I have seem some games where people forgot to scumhunt because they were relying on the policy too much. Except for this point, I believe that I can be quite open minded. I would go as far as to reconsider my position on the policy, given the incredible amount of lurkers that we have in this game.

2)I've been dodging your questions because I didn't understand the nature of your concern. I thought you were asking me about this particular point which I thought I had already addressed. That's why I gave you the same answer again and again. But I understand now that you were more concerned about my general state of mind which would lead me to not discuss anything. I wanted to end this discussion with dandel about the policy because it didn't really matter for me to agree with him or not. For me, disagreeing on policy is natural. What really counts is the general consistency of a player and whether or not he gives good reasons when he changes his mind. I felt like we were done talking about this with dandel and I wanted to close the subject while giving my final stance about it. After all, this is only policy discussion, which should be less relevant than scumhunting discussion.

On October 27 2012 01:13 debears wrote:
@Djo

On Alsn

The main part of Alsn's case is his meta and his FOS on you.

In terms of meta, Alsn has not been fitting his activity and involvement of the last game when he was town. However, he has stated suitable IRL reasons and has recently picked up his activity level with his active discussion with others. Right now, his meta is a null tell.

Then, with the FOS. I believe his FOS was suitable. He was wishy washy quite a bit last game. It seems to me more indicative of his looking at both sides of the motivation behind posts.

Alsn is a null read right now. I expect him to pick up his activity level day 2. If he doesn't, then we can do something about it. Lynching him today is a poor option.

On October 27 2012 01:34 kushm4sta wrote:
@debears
Djo does look scummy just from my first read through. I need to consider his case in more depth (planning on doing that after d1).
I'm not sure he is a viable d1 lynch though. This is because 1 he is active, 2 he is trying to change his meta. There is a lot of uncertainty regarding him.

@djodref

I didn't ask you for town reads. I asked you for scum reads.
You soft defend sylver in the wishy washiest way possible ("he had some nice reactions") then you give him as your biggest scumread.
Stop overdefending yourself. Start being helpful.

On October 26 2012 21:35 sylverfyre wrote:
Running under the assumption that imcasey and Roco get modkilled if they don't show up, I'd lynch Djo. You say Inig has a lack of scumhunting but scrutinizing people and saying that you can only read town out of them is not a lack of scumhunting.

For now, I'm going with lynching the confusing lurker. If he either becomes A) not confusing, B) makes no action at all and makes me believe a modkill is incoming, or C) is replaced and the replacement can make some contribution.

Vote Roco69

On October 27 2012 00:24 sylverfyre wrote:




To make it a more comprehensive list

- poor responses to accusations in the past
- "You sure are taking policy seriously" -> Attack lurkers aggressively (the contradiction inherent here)
- accusing ini of "not scumhunting" when he posted his reads on people, simply because none of those reads were reads of scum (they were townie or null reads, and ini blatantly admitted such)
- Emotional levels running awfully high as people mount pressure on you, but not much defense from accusations.
- "I don't care if alsn has a FOS on me" is your only defense against him for a long time. Only just now did you even acknowledge his accusations as legit.
- Accusing me of sheeping when I've made it clear that I was suspicious of you pretty early. Since then, you've given me more reasons to suspect you.

On October 27 2012 02:02 debears wrote:


Kush I haven't looked at your Dauod case yet. I am still going to consider Djo for the fact that I see the inference that he has extra information and that he is capable of roleplaying very well (the noobie card in his two games). I think he's fully capable of acting.

However, I do see your point on his activity. If he is scum, it will most likely show day 2.

What do you think of my thoughts on Inig?

@Djo

The post about your defense I mentioned earlier should be coming here in a while

On October 27 2012 02:10 debears wrote:
@Djo

About the previous case. I believe this was the most important part and you didn't really address it

"Feeling townie vibes from someone doesn't mean I consider him as town". What does this mean???????
So I'm townie to you but not at the same time? This is a weak statement that is a contradiction in a mafia-oriented way to his play. By saying that I have townie vibes but am not town is keeping a door open for suddenly accusing me later. Who wants to keep an open door for sudden accusation on any person in the game? Mafia."

Also, why were you so adamant to say that you didn't think I was town, when you have recently stated that you pretty much did ("townie vibes") and most definitely acted like it? If you were town, I feel that you would stick by your read instead of flip flopping when someone gets on you about it

On October 27 2012 01:53 sylverfyre wrote:
Addendum - it's obvious that NOW Djo's answered some accusations, but it took a long time and he is complaining a lot more loudly about "having been answering accusations instead of making them" an awful lot, when I don't think he really has been spending that much time answering accusations.

On October 27 2012 01:56 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:


@ Djo

That is exactly explanation I was looking for, thank you bringing it to the forefront. The second quote is a bit bulky... Read the part I bolded. If you were worried about people not scumhunting, why be so stubborn? You could have conceded your position on it and people would have moved on to scumhunt. I don't think people simply "forget" to scumhunt due to a lurker policy.

That's my concern with your decision: If you want people to scumhunt, why get people riled up over your defense and divert attention from scumhunting?

@ Dandel

What's all this stuff about you being confused and unsure? Yeah, the thread is jampacked with goodies concerning multiple participants, but that's to be expected. Don't try to play the "confused" card. It's almost as bad as the "noobie-card"

On October 27 2012 02:42 sylverfyre wrote:
No, I think that most of it was accusing other people. Accusing other people is by no means fluff, but it also isn't responding to accusations.