EPTYour Clothes, Give them to me. [mafia] - Page 10
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
| ||
|
Alex Hesse
72 Posts
I'm going to leave now. ##Vote John Matrix I'm satisfied with lynching him today since it can't be Alan Schaefer. Who knows, maybe he turns out to be scum. I also think we should consolidate now. | ||
|
Alex Hesse
72 Posts
| ||
|
Jack Slater
46 Posts
@Ben, can you please elaborate on your Alex scumread and any other reads you have? @Alan and DQ would you both be willing to vote Ben? Also, DQ, I think my initial read on you was hastey and it clouded my judgment. Upon re-reading I have moved you back to the neutral zone | ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
 | ||
|
Ben Richards
11 Posts
I've explained my actions. I've explained them as thoroughly as I can, and just repeating the points and demanding further answers isn't going to change anything. Re: I flip town = You get NK Being wrong /= Being scum. It would be so easy...SOOOOO FUCKING EASY...to explain away my mislynch tomorrow based on your "un-mimicable" activity and your play today. I fucking dare you to tell me I'm wrong about that. You've not only explained your reasoning, TWICE, but you're the one pushing the wagon - drawing attention to yourself and putting yourself in a very strong townie-looking position. Why would scum not kill you in this setup? Because they're afraid of having to mimic your activity? Versus having to deal with an active discussion-leader all game long? I thought we were assuming experience here Harry... Re: Jack Honestly my lashing out at Jack was an emotional response to this post, specifically the bolded: On October 19 2012 01:45 Jack Slater wrote: @Alex I forgot to answer the second part of your question. It was just to point out the amount of absolute you spoke with in regards to John was sketchy. I was checking in on the thread on my phone and noticed that post by you and thought that wording looked sketchy. It was more of a reminder. @Harry I think that John's alignment is a complete toss up which is why I am not willing to lynch him today. Unless people can make a super compelling counter argument to every other player in the thread being town I don't think that he is the smart lynch today. Since someone else has to be scum other than him I would rather try and sniff out that person first. Ben's voting John makes me not want to lynch him even more The reason I found him scummy initially was exactly why I told you - because he was suspicious of Doug for a reason that apparently didn't apply to you. I find the assertion that "John's alignment is a complete toss up" far more indicative of pushing an agenda of forgiving lurkers than my request to consolidate our posts. FAR more, Harry. And you say his reasoning makes sense - except I do not find his reasoning to make sense. His reasoning was On October 19 2012 00:45 Jack Slater wrote: *snip* I am suspicious of DQ pushing the general policy of lynching a lurker because of the lack of reasoning behind it. Your reasoning of it being optimal play is a true statement which is why I have not called him town. DQ's reasoning was just the general offering of the policy, an easy way to start discussion and pushing a scum agenda without looking scummy because of previous starts to games There's virtually no difference between offering up the policy and explaining the policy in regard to there being a scum motivation behind it. While historically it's true that just offering up a "lynch lurkers" policy in most games with nothing else IS indicative of pushing a scum agenda, as you've pointed out and as Jack apparently agrees with in this post, scum have a vested interest in not disclosing their normal posting style D1 specifically. As such, offering up the policy as a means of generating discussion (at the VERY beginning of the game no less, when there's NOTHING else to comment on) has the same end-result as your explaining of the policy - it puts the idea in town's head when that's clearly NOT what scum want. It's a double-standard, and on the back of him not wanting to vote my target "just because Ben is on him" pissed me the fuck off. Sorry, I get that way. Now...I've explained myself. Hopefully to your satisfaction, because I'm now going to actually READ and look for scum. I've spent a fucking HOUR on this defense that I could have been looking for scum, and I'm a little salty that you forced me to spoonfeed you the reasoning behind my little jab at you earlier. It was meant to make you THINK, as I said before, but now scum don't have to decipher what I meant and now I'll be all fucking PARANOID that they did EXACTLY what I said. Unreal. | ||
|
Alan Schaefer
42 Posts
On October 19 2012 11:45 Jack Slater wrote: @Alex, why are you all of a sudden apathetic about the lynch, changing your mind about John after vehemently arguing against the idea of lynching him. Why do you have a town read on Ben Richards. @Ben, can you please elaborate on your Alex scumread and any other reads you have? @Alan and DQ would you both be willing to vote Ben? Also, DQ, I think my initial read on you was hastey and it clouded my judgment. Upon re-reading I have moved you back to the neutral zone Right now I'm having trouble deciding whether I want to lynch john matrix or ben more as a second choice to alex hesse. On the one hand, I never felt good about ben's first post, plus he's being indirectly defended by my scumread alex (when alex attempts to put through the john matrix lynch). On the other hand, I agree with (I think it was henry?) who was talking about how good of a plan it is for scum to just not post day one, and how anti-town that is. So I'm undecided. | ||
|
Ben Richards
11 Posts
On October 19 2012 04:09 Douglas Quaid wrote: 1) How do you know mafia's going to do this? Sure they could, but it's far from set in stone. Also, there's this guy named Jack Slater who has a strong town read on you. What do you think of him? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=374903¤tpage=7#135 2) So you have an active scum meta... but a lurky town one? 3) Playful jab, sure, but you're still treating him like he's town. "Ramifications" only apply if he's town - he could be scum tunneling you no? 4) Let's focus on people who are actually posting for now. Why should we waste precious time tunneling someone who isn't here? We have ~30 hours of time left in the day, and I'd much rather it be spent pressuring other people. I'm all for lynching John, but our time for now is better spent elsewhere. Read this, saw that it's one of your excuses for not having any scumreads, thought I should reply. 1) I answered this in detail responding to Harry, but in short: I have a pretty strong town-read on Harry. He's generating discussion, he's coming at me, and he doesn't afraid of anything. He's not hanging back waiting for others to tell him who to suspect. And my guess is, correct me if I'm wrong, he's pretty much UNANIMOUSLY considered so. In a game where the scum get to fill the shoes of their nightkill, he's the OBVIOUS choice to kill/replace. We can WIFOM all day about whether that's too obvious and whether town would be able to notice a difference in posting, but the fact remains: of anyone in town, Harry is the most likely to be nightkilled based on the level of play and town sentiment. 2) At the risk of venturing into forbidden zones of discussion, the statement you're referring to was made as a means of reinforcing my point. I wasn't making any kind of reference to my meta (obviously, because in a game like this that would be meaningless.) I'm as active as I'm capable of being right now. If it's not enough for you, lynch me for it...but I prefer to lynch John if we're lynching on activity. 3) He could be scum. But given the stances he's taken and his thread actions, I think he's town. So yes, I made a post in which I addressed him as town. 4) That's fine. I've been trying to read the thread and find scum too, but each time I get a moment alone with the thread, Harry is still pushing me as scum. Because he's the towniest motherfucker in the game and because I want to lynch scum today, I feel compelled to respond. Like, I know that's a copout, and I don't really know what to say about it...even now, after defending myself from the Harry-Bullet-Tunnel-To-Oblivion, I was reading your filter because I couldn't remember you ever saying anyone was suspicious and found that you're using the fact that I hadn't responded as an excuse for not scumhunting, so I have to respond to you too in order to get any kind of read on you. Furthermore, I'm not "tunneling" Johnny. That word is used far too frequently. I'm "voting" for Johnny, but I'm looking elsewhere and trying to find other scums too. Like, yeah...I haven't yet because I keep having to answer questions about my posts (which I swear weren't scummy when I posted them :/). I'm working on it. But in the meantime, Johnny is probably scum and THERE ARE NO ACTIVITY REQUIREMENTS. | ||
|
Ben Richards
11 Posts
On October 18 2012 20:47 Alex Hesse wrote: Okay, I'm not saying that John Matrix is town. I'm saying that John Matrix is an asshole (sorry if you have a legit excuse for not being here) and that we have a better case in Alan Schaefer. On October 18 2012 21:51 Alex Hesse wrote: I think my points are very valid. Yes, I am limited in my ability to believe that he is the scummiest in the thread because he didn't say anything compared to someone who said scummy things. One day is a very long time, when was the last time you concocted a 48-72 hour plan as scum? And on day1 in a smurf game where you have no idea what people will think about it beforehand, the risk/reward is simply too high. It's unreliable because it's a crazy plan in a 72 hour day smurf game. That's why it's unlikely. Whatever, people didn't PM Palmar to join this game thinking "Wow, I can't wait to afk for 72 hours and then replace someone". But they're not. Your responses look like they were written in faroese by an okapi. There is a better case on Alan Schaefer and I've fleshed out repeatedly why the case on John Matrix isn't convincing. That's plenty of reason to oppose his lynch and push Alan Schaefer instead. On October 19 2012 10:10 Alex Hesse wrote: I didn't repeat my case on Alan Schaefer because it's already there and his response didn't make me feel any more townie about him. His prodding around right now doesn't make me think that he's any more townie. I am confident that Ben Richards is town, I already made an early post to show distinct town traits in his posting and there's been a couple more since then. I'm on board with Alan Schaefer and John Matrix today and we need to start wrapping up. If you want me to respond to your points against me I'll do that: Douglas Quaid says "lack of rationale for all his reads" but this is just absolutely untrue, I have rationale. If he can't be persuaded that I have rationale, then he needs to ask himself if it is scummy not to have any rationale yet be outspoken and active. Ben Richards, I responded to his points already. Maybe there was more but I probably ignored it because it was dumb. I don't know if there's anything else against me. Alan Schaefer has pointed out a random fact that I already explained and that he doesn't in any way try to explain why it is scummy instead of townie. Fact is that it is neither, I am not repeating my case because it's already there but no one can say that I am not pushing it. Can anybody tell me why Alan Schaefer is town? ...all I could find that constitutes this "case" that would be so trying to repeat was On October 18 2012 06:54 Alex Hesse wrote: I don't know why you can't just read his filter yourself but since you're apparently feeling too lazy to do that I'll summarize. His posting looks bad. His original contributions to this game looks wishy washy (here and here). On the contrary, contributions that he took with him from other games such as this and the first part of this post look a lot more confident. It's like he only dares to stick his neck out when it's something he knows is townie (or at least, he knows he'd think this as a townie because he thought it in other games). He also seems worried about his contributions in last part of this post with the "I'm going to post every time I open the thread", why does he think that he is not posting enough? He has a decent filter and all that. It's also just my opinion from other things that I can't really explain because I can't really quantify them. He's just acting a little more careful than I think his language shows that he usually is.
The wishywashy contributions he linked were, in my opinion, insightful posts regarding playing in this setup. Nowhere does he even give an OPINION of anyone to be "wishywashy" about. You want to know what "wishywashy" looks like? On October 18 2012 20:39 Alex Hesse wrote: If you don't think that "The other thing" is a good argument then just ignore it, it's supplemental and the other arguments should be enough to convince you. I refuse to believe that John Matrix has been gone because he figured out the scum strategy of not playing the game at all and relying on people defending him in the thread to keep him from getting lynched just so he could hammer and then just nightkill his way out of his responsibilities. It's long term, it's unreliable, it's not likely that scum will do it. Deal with it. On October 18 2012 20:47 Alex Hesse wrote: Okay, I'm not saying that John Matrix is town. I'm saying that John Matrix is an asshole (sorry if you have a legit excuse for not being here) and that we have a better case in Alan Schaefer. Or perhaps On October 18 2012 20:25 Alex Hesse wrote: I think that I am "*monumentally*" resistant to lynching people who are just not here (who else is "people", am I not the only one who is resisting right now?), especially when I have a perfectly good case on a guy who is actually doing scummy things. The other thing about no-post lynches is that we probably don't get anything from it because it's either you like lynching no-posters or you don't. He only did one single thing that you can discuss (nothing) and it's pretty easy to just take one stance instead of the other, especially when we have no meta to hold people up to. On October 19 2012 10:53 Alex Hesse wrote: Well I'm not going to lynch Ben Richards. He's been a town read for me all game and he still is. Hopefully he'll god damn show up and respond to your accusations. According to his filter you can expect him in a few hours. I'm going to leave now. ##Vote John Matrix I'm satisfied with lynching him today since it can't be Alan Schaefer. Who knows, maybe he turns out to be scum. I also think we should consolidate now. ##Unvote ##Vote: Alex Hesse I'm willing to lynch John Matrix if we want to go for the safe bet, too...although arguably I think they're both safe bets at this point. | ||
|
Alex Hesse
72 Posts
I'll hammer just about anything that comes along. | ||
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
Whether Alex is scum or not (I say not), what Ben has presented there is actually just atrocious and shouldn't persuade my cat. I can't tell if it's manufactured/scummy or just one of the worst things I've ever seen. The things pointed out as wishy-washy simply are not, it's just mindbogglingly bad. You think that case is from a townie, Alex? | ||
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
##Unvote ##Vote: John Matrix | ||
|
Alex Hesse
72 Posts
No we probably can't. It's probably just our job to find out if someone who isn't here is more scummy than someone who is here. | ||
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
| ||
|
Alex Hesse
72 Posts
| ||
|
Alex Hesse
72 Posts
This is so frustrating. | ||
|
Alex Hesse
72 Posts
Douglas Quaid is dumb for rejecting my case but he did it in a townie way so I'm okay with him really. He's also reasonably active and it looks like he's thinking about the game. | ||
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
On October 19 2012 20:02 Alex Hesse wrote: Seriously, Alan Schaefer is scum. This is so frustrating. Let me try a different tack. Like... no matter how good you are, it's generally quite hard to be quite certain about a lynch. I think I have a good thing on Ben, and perhaps Douglas too, but I'm not *sure*. I know you've stated your case on Alan, but what in particular is it that makes you so convinced he's scum? | ||
|
Harry Tasker
107 Posts
| ||
|
Alex Hesse
72 Posts
On October 17 2012 09:15 Alan Schaefer wrote: We don't want to rely too much on the "comparing posting styles" though. It's definitely possible to manipulate that kind of thing. I think we have to watch out for the "themed game pitfall," focusing on the "new and interesting" information to the exclusion of traditional analyses. It's just one more piece of information; but part of me thinks that scum will be pretty focused on it day2 so it may be less reliable than we think. "We don't want rely too much" "It's possible to manipulate" "part of me thinks" "may be less reliable" This is a post of someone who doesn't actually want to say a single thing. And that translates into scum like 75% of the time in my experience. This was his first post of the game, why doesn't he have any original thoughts that he wants to share? He's just wishy washying a response to my post saying absolutely nothing. Ben Richards may be making dumb cases and John Matrix may be doing the ultimate scum strategy but this guy is trying to get away with doing absolutely nothing unless he has to. That's why I want to lynch him. But honestly, it's a waste of time arguing this because you're not going to lynch him. Nobody expressed any sort of interest in my case beyond saying that it is shit and I'm done with it. Maybe I'm wrong but I feel like you guys just don't want to understand. | ||
| ||
