|
On October 26 2012 06:43 Clarity_nl wrote: Let me ask everyone this: Who is more likely to plan out how they will behave day 1, town or scum?
Are both town/scum not equally as inclined to plan out actions? Each player individually, regardless of role, must elect to play aggressively, passively, or somewhere in between. I don't think either side is "more likely" to plan out d1 actions. Being a good player at anything requires foresight.
That being said, you bring up some interesting points concerning Debears and his "buzzword" of confidence. I see what you mean, however I don't read the repetition of a single word as trying to appeal to emotion. I responded to one of his early confidence posts without much thought to it. He does use the word a plethora of times, but I can't see an intentional, malevolent reason for doing so.
On October 26 2012 06:43 Clarity_nl wrote: "You don't understand having confidence to pusb d1 scum reads over lurkers?
What do scum want? Easy lynchs. Who are easy lynches? Lurkers.
Actually, that's a scumslip
##Vote Rad" [b]Using backwards logic, followed by casting his vote, which he later withdrew without explaining It's easy to retort: What do townies want? Active town. What doesn't contribute to an active town? Lurkers.
I may be having trouble reading this, the wordy is a bit odd/choppy: How is this backwards logic? Should town not be more focused on good scum reads on d1 than lurkers?
I agree that the Vote for Rad was very hasty by Debears, and I don't agree with his stance on that note. However, while I commend your post, I cannot see the ill-intentions of confidence as a buzzword.
|
On October 26 2012 07:38 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 07:19 Mr. Cheesecake wrote: I may be having trouble reading this, the wordy is a bit odd/choppy: How is this backwards logic? Should town not be more focused on good scum reads on d1 than lurkers?
Ofcourse town should focus on getting reads and forcing people to explain themselves. Rad said "if we have no good lynch option we should probably lynch a semi-lurker as a policy" debear's argument was against a strawman. Rad didn't say "fuck it, I have no clue whos scum, just lynch the lurkers". "Anyone who wants to lynch a semi-lurker over a crappy guess/hunch must be scum" is just backwards.
Thanks for clarifying. Pun intended.
|
On October 26 2012 07:42 Inigmaticalism wrote: Oh ok. Guess Ill not try to make myself look like a townie in the thread. Might get mistaken as WIFOM. So then what would be a wifom defense vs a non wifom defense? You can argue anything that way a long as you dont like it. I find just about every argument/case presented so far to be stupid and pointless.
I'm not sure how to comprehend this answer. Inig is obviously very distressed, as he's discrediting everything by calling it blatantly "stupid and pointless". Either he doesn't know how to form a coherent response to an accusation or is cracking under pressure.
I don't like the response at all. With him going afk after this, I'm beginning to get suspicious of him.
|
Just got back from some dinner,
Djodref, while you're the subject of debate, I realize you haven't answered one of my questions.
On October 26 2012 03:51 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:Also, why would you say this, Djodref? Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:01 Djodref wrote: my principal concern is to find the mafia. Everybody's "principal concern" is to find mafia. Sort of like that "why are you afraid of seeming suspicious" question -- the answer is self explanatory. I fail to see a point here.
This is a statement you seem to make a lot. Self-explanatory / unneeded. Why do you find it necessary to explicitly mention your main concern is to hunt scum?
|
On October 26 2012 10:33 Rad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 10:15 Djodref wrote:On October 26 2012 10:08 Clarity_nl wrote:So.... you're trying to get a strong response by asking what Alsn thinks Inig, which he has done to two other people before him. So what's the reason you brushed off his FoS? On October 26 2012 01:21 Djodref wrote:On October 26 2012 01:10 Clarity_nl wrote: @debears
You've used the word confidence an excessive amount of times. When someone mentioned day 1 policy lynches you immediately dismissed the idea. In fact, whenever anyone suggested something you turned it down, pushing your idea of "if you have a read, push it hard"
Policy lynching on day 1 exists for a reason. Lurkers hurt the town, whether they are mafia or town. If no one takes action mafia will win. Town needs to be organized and decisive, yet you are suggesting to basically follow your gut and push hard. You follow that up by voting for Rad WAAAAAAY too early in the day.
You are advocating chaos.
If something is fishy, or a comment seems off, make a read or ask a question about it, but big bold statements like "be confident guys!!!" don't actually mean anything.
##FoS debears @ClarityI don't think that debears is advocating chaos. In my point of view, he is certainly promoting discussion. We could as well being still discussing policy lynches if he wasn't here. And please remind that it's quite easy for mafia to avoid a policy lynch. By the way, do you believe that we can lynch a scum on D1 ? What do you think of Inig ? On October 26 2012 02:04 Djodref wrote:On October 26 2012 01:45 Dandel Ion wrote:On October 26 2012 01:42 Djodref wrote:@RadMy comments in red in your quoted post. On October 26 2012 01:28 Rad wrote:On October 26 2012 01:21 debears wrote: Ok. But what individually makes us stand out as scum?
I'm going to reread the thread a couple of times tonight and figure this all out.
##Unvote This is some of what I've got from you and/or djo 1. Pushed the confidence theme hard, as if to make it seem like we NEED to have a scum lynch d1 rather than a policy lurker lynch. FUUUUUuuu. You are doing it again. Policy lynching is just an option and it is a bad option in my opinion because mafia can avoid it easily, especially when town decides to apply this strategy from the beginning. Lynching a suspicious player get us more chances to lynch mafia. We should start to scumhunt in order to do so, not throwing FoS at each other for disagreeing over policy.2. Acted overconfident as if it was easy to make a scum read on d1 (is it? doesn't seem like it, and that's not due to lack of confidence, it's due to lack of information). I'm not saying it is easy, I'm saying it is totally possible and you should have this mentality rather than the policy lynch solution mentality. Would you like to comment about Inig by the way ?3. Twisted people's statements, either responding with something that had nothing to do with the original statement, or focusing heavily on a particular statement as if to give it more importance than it really should have. Please be more specificAll of these things feel scummy to me. You don't get it. You establish a lurker-lynch policy early. Potential lurkers see it and go all "oh shit if I lurk I'm gonna die" So they don't lurk. If you say "nah I'm completely against lynching lurkers" or "We should lynch the most active people" What do lurkers do when they see that? They'll tell themselves "cool, I'm set" And then they lurk. I'm not against a policy lynch but I think it would be better to bring it up when the right time comes (like 6 hours before the lynch ? anyway at a time we can finally identify some serious lurker). Taking an early decision against or for policy lynches is just going to help mafia to use this decision on their favor. Anyway, a lot of people seem to favor a policy lynch for today. I'm not going to go against it but I would appreciate these people to get into super scumhunting mode right now. I'm not going to forgive laziness at all, especially if you are supporting a policy lynch. By the way, what do you think about Inig ? On October 26 2012 08:25 Djodref wrote:On October 26 2012 02:40 Alsn wrote: My reasons for thinking Djodref is slightly scummy so far is that he is asking a lot of questions. That in itself isn't particularly scummy(in fact, done right it's pro-town as it pressures people into sharing their opinions and such).
The problem I have with it so far is that you keep asking people to answer you, yet your own statements so far amount to picking on the people who are being lurky(Ini, Roco) while at the same time criticising Rad for supporting lurker policy lynch?! This makes no sense to me. This in combination with the slip leads me to believe that you are trying to make yourself look good by being active. I can definitely see the possibility of there being town motivations for your actions so far, but I'd just like to point out that I have my eye on you.
So, with that in mind, FoS Djodref.
I'll see if I can't take a look at some of the other things said so far before I go to bed but if not, I'll do it first thing tomorrow as I will have a lot more time then. @AlsnI would expect more from you than an half-assed FoS on me What do you think about Inig ? Honestly, I don't really care if Alsn has a FoS on me if it is for the reasons he has stated in his post. I know he is totally able to come at me with something more consistent if he really thinks I'm scum. Right now, I think his reasons are poor and I'm more interested in his opinion about Ini. This seems extremely suspicious to me, like scumslip suspicious, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe someone else can jump in on it? I'll think about it more in the meantime...
I think he's referring to past game they've played together, in which Alsn was much more active.
|
Just checking the posts before i head off to bed.... and that clarity thing was unsuspected.
|
I'll post on the case in a moment; I've a few things to take care of first
|
On your case Debears: You've reiterated some of what's been said, or what I have observed already. You did present some new information, though. In particular, the following quote that I cannot agree with:
Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 12:03 debears wrote:
@Rad
Last game newbie game I was totally wrong with all my reads. But I'm not going to let it affect my faith in my ability to find scum. Moreover, even if I'm wrong, I'm giving mafia less room to hide if I take strong a clear stances about some players. I don't have strong scumread at the moment but I would prefer to confront people in a very direct way if I start to be suspicious of them. Because that's how I think I can generate the most useful information. It seems natural for you but it wasn't at all in my previous newbie game, so I want to encourage people to have this state of mind. This is all I'm thinking about when I'm talking about confidence (so it's not exactly confidence in your reads).
On a side note, if you have understood that I've called debears town, I think you have misinterpreted my post. Feeling townie vibes from someone doesn't mean I consider him as town. It's a feeling I have from I read in his post (similar to the last game we have played together where he was townie) and his general behavior in his game. Believe or not, being aggressive like this early game benefits town. Because it allows us to have constructed discussion...
"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.
I have a little problem with this notion. You can definitely get a "town vibe" from somebody but not fully consider them town. Always being suspicious and vigilant, especially with no hard evidence like on d1, is wise. I don't think this is a valid point, to be honest.
Despite this, Djodref has a mountain against him. One of your new points really stuck out to me:
On October 26 2012 12:03 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:01 Djodref wrote: @sylver
I've explained why I've answered this question ("are you mafia") already. Could you please re-read my filter and tell me if you are satisfied or not with my explanations ?
I don't care if I look clean or not, my principal concern is to find the mafia. And, for your information, I'm not tunneling you, just putting you under some pressure. The only player I have a FoS on is Inig as for now.
I'm accepting your explanations and I would like you to tell us what you think about Inig. I'm insisting on him because mafia players have this tendency to semi-lurk while looking like they contribute.
Regarding Rad, I'm trusting debears to take care of him right now ^^ I'm following their exchanges with great interest. He's "trusting me to take care of Rad". Wow. Why the disinterest in pursuing him? Why is he willing to lay back and let me take the reins on accusing him? Why would a townie want another townie to "take care of" pursuing someone? Scum, on the other hand, want townies to do the dirty work for them.
If Djodref really thinks Rad is scum, why let someone else pursue? If you have a read, go for it. Don't beat around the bush and go off into the distance. Being multi-focused is acceptable, it's confusing why Djo would just "let debears take care of it". It makes no sense, unless he somehow knows Debears is town.
In terms of the scumslip, I'm still thinking that the reference to Do0ud being town is a scum tell. His explanation for it, while being entirely plausible, fails to convince me whatsoever. His saying "my main concern is finding mafia" also doesn't sit well.
The constant asking for info on Ingi / diverting attention, his useless "are you mafia?" question that I pointed out earlier, the inability to adequately answer some of the accusations/questions thrown at him. It doesn't add up. Actually, it does add up. I'm thinking he's scum. I've had a FoS on you for quite some time now, Djodref. Time to upgrade it.
##Vote: Djodref
|
And to respond to Djodref, since he is always asking about people's reads on Inig.
On Inig: The only two things I find suspicious about him are
A.) Him throwing a tantrum over the WIFOM incident. "This argument is stupid" etc. B.) Semi-Lurking.
Hardly enough to go on. Until he posts more, I have an -at best- slight scum read on him.
|
If anyone has any questions/concerns please post now. I'm heading for bed soon, and won't be back until after my 10:00AM class (~12 hours)
|
Hello gentlemen, just got home and beginning to address some questions on me.
@ Inig I understand your concerns with this post, and I address them in bold.
On October 26 2012 16:35 Inigmaticalism wrote:Also, I now have some suspicion on Cheesecake. I like pretty much every post hes given actually, except this one: Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 08:56 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On October 26 2012 07:42 Inigmaticalism wrote: Oh ok. Guess Ill not try to make myself look like a townie in the thread. Might get mistaken as WIFOM. So then what would be a wifom defense vs a non wifom defense? You can argue anything that way a long as you dont like it. I find just about every argument/case presented so far to be stupid and pointless.
I'm not sure how to comprehend this answer. Inig is obviously very distressed, as he's discrediting everything by calling it blatantly "stupid and pointless". Either he doesn't know how to form a coherent response to an accusation or is cracking under pressure. I don't like the response at all. With him going afk after this, I'm beginning to get suspicious of him. Oh ya and look cheese also calls me out about being emotional and freaking out in thread. His arguments good too, although I wish he put in a 'outside mafia influences' reason as well, but thats fine. I actually have found cheese to be more likely town than I said djo was, so this is why I called this out. -This point is not doing anything other than saying he read it. Like my earlier posts, it doesnt really contribute at all, doesnt really push me either except in the most indirect of ways. This was simply something I noticed. I read that post and went "wow" due to your emotive state. It came off as suspicious to me, as it didn't seem like you could form a decent sentence in your defense.-The 'Im beginning to get suspicious of" me. Ive re-read my own filter. Cheese you should already be suspicious of me, not beginning to be. Ive barely been pro-town at all. I wasn't very suspicious of you at the time, for the same reasons I wasn't suspicious of Rad; too little posts, too little content. The only other thing that sent lights off in my head was you "only having town reads". This was the tipping point where you become null, to becoming slightly scum orientated in my mind.-While those points are fun and are probably included in numerous posts in this game, I call it out because it seems like Cheese is simply trying to look good by joining a case that had potential to go somewhere (and so far has). I think what Im trying to say is that I read it and then after re-reading it I realized it had 0 content, but it looked like it did. No treally a scum-tell, but I guess I saw it because it seemed different than his other posts. The only other person who had even mentioned that post was Djodref, but he had not focused in on your "rage quit" scenario. In the context of the thread, I was the first person to point it out. I believe it was worthy of mention as it stuck out so blatantly to me.
@ Debears
On October 26 2012 13:28 debears wrote: @cheese
On the point of djos "townie vibes". Why would he defend me if he thought i wasnt town, which he stated after he stated he had townie vibes on me?
The "townie" vibes mean he's simply leaning town on you, and didn't want to see you lynched today (in favor of prospects such as Inig.) That's the only motivation I could see behind it.
@Djo I'll be addressing your post shortly.
Still rereading the thread and updating myself on current events.
|
@ Djo
On October 26 2012 13:42 Djodref wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 26 2012 12:50 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On your case Debears: You've reiterated some of what's been said, or what I have observed already. You did present some new information, though. In particular, the following quote that I cannot agree with: Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 12:03 debears wrote:
@Rad
Last game newbie game I was totally wrong with all my reads. But I'm not going to let it affect my faith in my ability to find scum. Moreover, even if I'm wrong, I'm giving mafia less room to hide if I take strong a clear stances about some players. I don't have strong scumread at the moment but I would prefer to confront people in a very direct way if I start to be suspicious of them. Because that's how I think I can generate the most useful information. It seems natural for you but it wasn't at all in my previous newbie game, so I want to encourage people to have this state of mind. This is all I'm thinking about when I'm talking about confidence (so it's not exactly confidence in your reads).
On a side note, if you have understood that I've called debears town, I think you have misinterpreted my post. Feeling townie vibes from someone doesn't mean I consider him as town. It's a feeling I have from I read in his post (similar to the last game we have played together where he was townie) and his general behavior in his game. Believe or not, being aggressive like this early game benefits town. Because it allows us to have constructed discussion...
"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. I have a little problem with this notion. You can definitely get a "town vibe" from somebody but not fully consider them town. Always being suspicious and vigilant, especially with no hard evidence like on d1, is wise. I don't think this is a valid point, to be honest. Despite this, Djodref has a mountain against him. One of your new points really stuck out to me: Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 12:03 debears wrote:On October 26 2012 01:01 Djodref wrote: @sylver
I've explained why I've answered this question ("are you mafia") already. Could you please re-read my filter and tell me if you are satisfied or not with my explanations ?
I don't care if I look clean or not, my principal concern is to find the mafia. And, for your information, I'm not tunneling you, just putting you under some pressure. The only player I have a FoS on is Inig as for now.
I'm accepting your explanations and I would like you to tell us what you think about Inig. I'm insisting on him because mafia players have this tendency to semi-lurk while looking like they contribute.
Regarding Rad, I'm trusting debears to take care of him right now ^^ I'm following their exchanges with great interest. He's "trusting me to take care of Rad". Wow. Why the disinterest in pursuing him? Why is he willing to lay back and let me take the reins on accusing him? Why would a townie want another townie to "take care of" pursuing someone? Scum, on the other hand, want townies to do the dirty work for them. If Djodref really thinks Rad is scum, why let someone else pursue? If you have a read, go for it. Don't beat around the bush and go off into the distance. Being multi-focused is acceptable, it's confusing why Djo would just "let debears take care of it". It makes no sense, unless he somehow knows Debears is town. In terms of the scumslip, I'm still thinking that the reference to Do0ud being town is a scum tell. His explanation for it, while being entirely plausible, fails to convince me whatsoever. His saying "my main concern is finding mafia" also doesn't sit well. The constant asking for info on Ingi / diverting attention, his useless "are you mafia?" question that I pointed out earlier, the inability to adequately answer some of the accusations/questions thrown at him. It doesn't add up. Actually, it does add up. I'm thinking he's scum. I've had a FoS on you for quite some time now, Djodref. Time to upgrade it. ##Vote: Djodref @CheesePlease specify which accusations/questions I couldn't address (please refer to the part in bold font in the spoiler). I'll try to answer adequately to them this time.
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 +On October 26 2012 08:29 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 08:22 Rad wrote:On October 26 2012 08:13 Djodref wrote:On October 26 2012 08:07 Clarity_nl wrote:On October 26 2012 07:54 Djodref wrote:On October 26 2012 02:26 Clarity_nl wrote:On October 26 2012 02:23 Djodref wrote: I have to go to bed so I'm not going to be able to see the case against me. Sorry, Alsn...
@dandel
I understand your stance about policy lynch. I guess it's just that we have different experience from our previous games. I liked your explanations but I'm not going to change my mind about it. Moreover, if we have to go for a policy lynch today, I would prefer to lynch a lurker like Inig (semi-lurker) than a complete lurker. Could you please expand upon this? @ClarityI was talking with Dandel about policy lynch, especially the fact that you have to agree early about it or not. I don't think it's good to establish a policy early and I'm not going to change my mind, even if dandel has good arguments for it. Why did you pick on this sentence ? As you can see I basically insta-posted this response when you made your post. Reason being it's a bit wishy-washy. "I agree with you but I'm not gonna change my mind" It doesn't add up dandel has a stance about policy lynching and I have another one. We both have arguments to support our stances, his are good and mine are good (I would say that they are better). I guess it's our different experience which is really defining our opinion about it. I can't think of any good reason a townie would have to be completely unopen to changing their opinion on something regardless of the arguments presented. Worst case scenario for a townie is you're just not convinced by the argument so you keep your original opinion, then someone's not happy that they couldn't convince you. Seems like a scummy stance. The scummy reasoning would go something like "I need to be consistent, and if someone changes my opinion on something, I'll look inconsistent, so I'm going to just make it clear that I'm not going to change my mind on this so it's dropped."That's what you sound like with that statement djo. @RadI don't care, it's an argument about policy lynch. I don't even understand why you are putting such an interest in this. I'm not saying that I'm not going to change my mind about a player or a lynch or something important... What do you think about Inig's posts by the way ? On October 26 2012 09:23 Djodref wrote: @Rad
by the way,
His argument is good by my argument is better. Not going to change my mind. Are you satisfied ?
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?
|
@ Djo
I responded to your post already, sir.
@ Kush
Interesting take on Da0ud. I don't like his voting of Inig at all, especially when Inig has debunked arguments in a concise manner and has begun to ask questions as of late. I really need Da0ud to post more before I can get a concrete read on him.
|
On October 27 2012 01:17 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 00:30 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:@ Djo On October 26 2012 13:42 Djodref wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 26 2012 12:50 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On your case Debears: You've reiterated some of what's been said, or what I have observed already. You did present some new information, though. In particular, the following quote that I cannot agree with: Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 12:03 debears wrote:
@Rad
Last game newbie game I was totally wrong with all my reads. But I'm not going to let it affect my faith in my ability to find scum. Moreover, even if I'm wrong, I'm giving mafia less room to hide if I take strong a clear stances about some players. I don't have strong scumread at the moment but I would prefer to confront people in a very direct way if I start to be suspicious of them. Because that's how I think I can generate the most useful information. It seems natural for you but it wasn't at all in my previous newbie game, so I want to encourage people to have this state of mind. This is all I'm thinking about when I'm talking about confidence (so it's not exactly confidence in your reads).
On a side note, if you have understood that I've called debears town, I think you have misinterpreted my post. Feeling townie vibes from someone doesn't mean I consider him as town. It's a feeling I have from I read in his post (similar to the last game we have played together where he was townie) and his general behavior in his game. Believe or not, being aggressive like this early game benefits town. Because it allows us to have constructed discussion...
"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. I have a little problem with this notion. You can definitely get a "town vibe" from somebody but not fully consider them town. Always being suspicious and vigilant, especially with no hard evidence like on d1, is wise. I don't think this is a valid point, to be honest. Despite this, Djodref has a mountain against him. One of your new points really stuck out to me: Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 12:03 debears wrote:On October 26 2012 01:01 Djodref wrote: @sylver
I've explained why I've answered this question ("are you mafia") already. Could you please re-read my filter and tell me if you are satisfied or not with my explanations ?
I don't care if I look clean or not, my principal concern is to find the mafia. And, for your information, I'm not tunneling you, just putting you under some pressure. The only player I have a FoS on is Inig as for now.
I'm accepting your explanations and I would like you to tell us what you think about Inig. I'm insisting on him because mafia players have this tendency to semi-lurk while looking like they contribute.
Regarding Rad, I'm trusting debears to take care of him right now ^^ I'm following their exchanges with great interest. He's "trusting me to take care of Rad". Wow. Why the disinterest in pursuing him? Why is he willing to lay back and let me take the reins on accusing him? Why would a townie want another townie to "take care of" pursuing someone? Scum, on the other hand, want townies to do the dirty work for them. If Djodref really thinks Rad is scum, why let someone else pursue? If you have a read, go for it. Don't beat around the bush and go off into the distance. Being multi-focused is acceptable, it's confusing why Djo would just "let debears take care of it". It makes no sense, unless he somehow knows Debears is town. In terms of the scumslip, I'm still thinking that the reference to Do0ud being town is a scum tell. His explanation for it, while being entirely plausible, fails to convince me whatsoever. His saying "my main concern is finding mafia" also doesn't sit well. The constant asking for info on Ingi / diverting attention, his useless "are you mafia?" question that I pointed out earlier, the inability to adequately answer some of the accusations/questions thrown at him. It doesn't add up. Actually, it does add up. I'm thinking he's scum. I've had a FoS on you for quite some time now, Djodref. Time to upgrade it. ##Vote: Djodref @CheesePlease specify which accusations/questions I couldn't address (please refer to the part in bold font in the spoiler). I'll try to answer adequately to them this time. 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 +On October 26 2012 08:29 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 08:22 Rad wrote:On October 26 2012 08:13 Djodref wrote:On October 26 2012 08:07 Clarity_nl wrote:On October 26 2012 07:54 Djodref wrote:On October 26 2012 02:26 Clarity_nl wrote:On October 26 2012 02:23 Djodref wrote: I have to go to bed so I'm not going to be able to see the case against me. Sorry, Alsn...
@dandel
I understand your stance about policy lynch. I guess it's just that we have different experience from our previous games. I liked your explanations but I'm not going to change my mind about it. Moreover, if we have to go for a policy lynch today, I would prefer to lynch a lurker like Inig (semi-lurker) than a complete lurker. Could you please expand upon this? @ClarityI was talking with Dandel about policy lynch, especially the fact that you have to agree early about it or not. I don't think it's good to establish a policy early and I'm not going to change my mind, even if dandel has good arguments for it. Why did you pick on this sentence ? As you can see I basically insta-posted this response when you made your post. Reason being it's a bit wishy-washy. "I agree with you but I'm not gonna change my mind" It doesn't add up dandel has a stance about policy lynching and I have another one. We both have arguments to support our stances, his are good and mine are good (I would say that they are better). I guess it's our different experience which is really defining our opinion about it. I can't think of any good reason a townie would have to be completely unopen to changing their opinion on something regardless of the arguments presented. Worst case scenario for a townie is you're just not convinced by the argument so you keep your original opinion, then someone's not happy that they couldn't convince you. Seems like a scummy stance. The scummy reasoning would go something like "I need to be consistent, and if someone changes my opinion on something, I'll look inconsistent, so I'm going to just make it clear that I'm not going to change my mind on this so it's dropped."That's what you sound like with that statement djo. @RadI don't care, it's an argument about policy lynch. I don't even understand why you are putting such an interest in this. I'm not saying that I'm not going to change my mind about a player or a lynch or something important... What do you think about Inig's posts by the way ? On October 26 2012 09:23 Djodref wrote: @Rad
by the way,
His argument is good by my argument is better. Not going to change my mind. Are you satisfied ? 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? @ CheeseI have missed your post. Regarding this point, I've have misunderstood Rad's arguments against me. I thought he was calling me out on this point while he was bringing the my stance on a more general level. That's why I found it totally stupid and I didn't want to discuss about it anymore. I've tried to address it in two previous posts. I did not have feedback on the last one so tell me what do you think of it. first one Show nested quote +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. second one Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 20:53 Djodref wrote:On October 26 2012 14:34 Rad wrote:On October 26 2012 14:21 Djodref wrote: @Rad
So your main concern about me was I said that I wouldn't change my mind ? Do you have other concerns ?
Did you understand I was only speaking about a particular point (agreeing that a strict lurker policy should be part of our strategy) ? My original concerns came from the "confidence" ordeal from before. As I found with debears, that can turn out to be a huge ordeal and I'll address it again if I feel the need to. My concerns about your unwillingness to change your stance on something regardless of the arguments provided are still there. To me, as I've stated, this feels like a scummy perspective. I can't see a good reason for a townie to not be open to changing their opinions on something based on further arguments. "No no no not going to budge on this!" feels scummy. "Let me hear your points, ok, I disagree and here's why" feels townie. It was the way you handled the questions. It doesn't matter that it was about just a particular point, or even if that point mattered in the end, but that you were so specific about never changing your opinion on it regardless of the arguments provided. It didn't feel like a townie move, so I can only suspect scum, but furthermore, you've dodged my questions until now. Why? If you can so simply answer them now, why didn't you do it before? You clearly saw them, acknowledged them, but didn't answer them. Instead, you said you were done with me. Going to have to look over all this in more depth tomorrow as I'm getting tired and need to wind down. @RadI 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.
@ 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"
|
@Sylverfyre
Djo provided us with some comprehensive quotes about your interaction with him. I'm inclined to agree that a few of your reasons aren't specific enough. Granted, my vote is still on him at this point--I'd like to know, specifically, what are your biggest scum tells concerning Djo?
|
Just a heads up folks--I may or may not be around for lynch time this evening. Something of grave importance has sprung up, and it needs attending to. I hope I can make it and post my thoughts pre-lynch. Gotta go for now.
|
Okay I just got back, and will be here pre and post lynch.
My thoughts on the current state of affairs. It seems the lynch is in favor of Inig, but Da0ud following close behind. My vote on Djo is obviously not doing any good. I still consider him suspicious, and he is by no means off the hook. My efforts right now are better spent deciding who is a better lynch candidate: Da0ud or Inig.
On Inig:
Honestly, I have no idea why people suddenly started piling on top of him. I found him -slightly- suspicious after his emotional outburst and semi-lurking. However, since then he has been asking questions (to myself included) and improving his post count. The cases against him are weak, imo. I've read through them I don't see much of a reason to lynch him. His vote on Imcasey I don't view as scum-intentioned; it was an attempt to draw out the lurker. I don't think scum would be that bold, because a vote like that would (and surely did) draw attention. That is not at all blending in.
His recent vote on Dandel, however, doesn't make sense from any role viewpoint I think, so I don't know what to think about that. I'll be reading more into his posts about Dandel later.
On Da0ud:
I skimmed through the cases concerning him, and by my own standards think he is more scummy-looking than Inig.
In particular, this post about the modkill.
On October 26 2012 23:07 da0ud wrote: One thing worries me and seems to have caught no ones attention. Clarity has been modkilled!! We are already one less town!! And he was posting actual content.
We all saw the modkill. This isn't contributing anything. Why talk about it? A townie died, there's nothing we can do about it, especially since he basically suicided. This is a useless topic.
Then, there is the entire percentage-based town read on Djo. I believe Kush mentioned this. 90% town on the first day? I most surely don't see it that way, and a 90% town read based on little concrete evidence? I don't get it.
In addition, he's a semi-lurker / blending in.
There is also an entire meta-arguement against him as well. I cannot address this as I know nothing of his previous game meta.
This being said, I find Da0ud to be much more scummier than Inig.
##Vote: Da0ud
I apologize for not being here sooner and for this post being somewhat rushed; I had a personal matter to attend to that required my immediate assistance.
|
EBWOP: Forgot to ##Unvote, then ##Vote: Da0ud
|
On October 27 2012 08:31 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 08:20 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:Okay I just got back, and will be here pre and post lynch. My thoughts on the current state of affairs. It seems the lynch is in favor of Inig, but Da0ud following close behind. My vote on Djo is obviously not doing any good. I still consider him suspicious, and he is by no means off the hook. My efforts right now are better spent deciding who is a better lynch candidate: Da0ud or Inig. On Inig:Honestly, I have no idea why people suddenly started piling on top of him. I found him -slightly- suspicious after his emotional outburst and semi-lurking. However, since then he has been asking questions (to myself included) and improving his post count. The cases against him are weak, imo. I've read through them I don't see much of a reason to lynch him. His vote on Imcasey I don't view as scum-intentioned; it was an attempt to draw out the lurker. I don't think scum would be that bold, because a vote like that would (and surely did) draw attention. That is not at all blending in. His recent vote on Dandel, however, doesn't make sense from any role viewpoint I think, so I don't know what to think about that. I'll be reading more into his posts about Dandel later. On Da0ud:I skimmed through the cases concerning him, and by my own standards think he is more scummy-looking than Inig. In particular, this post about the modkill. On October 26 2012 23:07 da0ud wrote: One thing worries me and seems to have caught no ones attention. Clarity has been modkilled!! We are already one less town!! And he was posting actual content. We all saw the modkill. This isn't contributing anything. Why talk about it? A townie died, there's nothing we can do about it, especially since he basically suicided. This is a useless topic. Then, there is the entire percentage-based town read on Djo. I believe Kush mentioned this. 90% town on the first day? I most surely don't see it that way, and a 90% town read based on little concrete evidence? I don't get it. In addition, he's a semi-lurker / blending in. There is also an entire meta-arguement against him as well. I cannot address this as I know nothing of his previous game meta. This being said, I find Da0ud to be much more scummier than Inig. ##Vote: Da0udI apologize for not being here sooner and for this post being somewhat rushed; I had a personal matter to attend to that required my immediate assistance. Really? The cases against inig are bad? When have you even addressed the inig cases? And how are the cases weak when you're accusing dauod of the same?
I never said the cases were bad; don't twist my words. I said they were weak from my point of view. You made a case against Inig, yes? The only thing I found relevant was his post that spread suspicion on multiple people but only followed up on Dandel. You referenced the post that Inig made against me, which I thought was a decent attempt to get answers for things he deemed odd.
What am I accusing Da0ud of thats the same as Inig, Debears?
|
On October 27 2012 08:46 debears wrote: Bad word choice on my part. Bad = weak in my post.
And the same points on inig and dauod. 1) semi lurker 2) town reads/ percent town reads 3) generally blending in
Give me
Allow me to ameliorate for you, sir.
1.) Inig was a semi lurker to begin with. As of late, he has been posting more and with greater content. Da0ud, on the other hand, has contributed much less and is still lurking.
2.) Let's look at both of their percentage town reads. Inigs:
On October 26 2012 16:17 Inigmaticalism wrote: I would label Djo as like 70% town. Hes been consistent and contributing. I think hes gone after me too long to be mafia. He has talked an awful lot though. Its probably more likely, with all his questions and style of scumhunting, thats hes a vigi or SK or something like that, seeing who he can get lynched (who he thinks is scum if hes vigi, etc), and then who he cant hes found his night targets. Just a thought.
Da0ud's:
On October 26 2012 22:41 da0ud wrote: Talking about smileyDjo he has put a lot of pressure on people. Asking open questions etc. For having played a game with him where he played to nice lovable newbie card, I believe he is trying to step up and actually be a leader for town. I put him 90% town.
Inig has more reason for considering Djo town, and puts it at 70% (leaning town). He says he's been consistent, obviously posting alot, and going after him of all people. He likes this, and even offers some counter-roles that he could be instead of mafia.
Da0ud on the other hand only says "hey, he's asking questions, must be 90% (almost definitely town)" I find Da0uds reasons for thinking Djo town less plausible than Inigs, and he almost considers him town.
3.) Inig has been more distinguished in asking questions / contributing. His theory on Dandel is intriguing and unique, and something I may want to follow up on in the future. His vote of imcasey and Dandel is anything BUT blending in.
|
|
|
|