Here is a link to the standard eula thing. This game follows most of the rules in this one.
My Buddy ghost_403 is cohosting this game
I'm only going to list up important rules in this post because I only expect experienced players to be playing in this game.
General information that is unique to Palmar games:
Questions All questions should be PMd to the moderator. You are not allowed to say in thread you’re going to ask the moderator something, and you are not allowed to share your answer with the thread. If the question is a clarification all town needs to know, I will simply post an announcement in the thread.
Do not ask questions in the thread once the game has started.
Activity: There are no activity requirements.
Spam: Strategical spam within reason is fine. Don’t be an idiot with it.
Play to win. This means you play your best to help your team win while you are alive and in the game. However, this does not mean that you should try to win by being a jerk to the other players so they all want to quit playing.
This also means that you cannot leave the game without a good reason without a ban. These situations will be dealt with on a case by case basis. PM your host if you need to leave the game.
Threatening to ask to be replaced or even simply announcing it is a modkillable offense. Just PM the mod
Night Posting:
In order to prevent some gamebreaking strategies, everyone will be silenced during the night. This means absolutely no posting during the night
Setup specific issues and rules:
Smurfs:
At the start of the game, and possibly over the course of the game you will be given access to a smurf. Do NOT change the passwords to those and do not use them for anything except this game. Posting outside this thread using the smurfs will result in a warning, and possibly a modkill. Just take care.
Player guessing:
This is not technically a rule, more of a policy, but I don't want people to speculate on who might be playing what smurf. And don't try to be cute with it, I'm not dumb. Play the game, don't try to meta in the thread. I have no problem with people trying to guess on their own, but don't bring such guesswork to the thread. The thread should be about who is mafia.
Voting rules:
1. Voting is done in this thread 2. Please vote in the following format: ##Vote Qatol. 3. You may vote for yourself. You may not vote for anyone dead or outside the game. 4. Instant majority lynch
Signups:
This game is open to anyone with a very, very strong preference to experienced players that have played multiple games on Teamliquid. I originally meant to make this an invite game, but decided against it. It's important that I can trust the players to respect the rules and the smurf accounts.
Sign up by sending me a private message. Do not sign up in this thread
I want it to remain a mystery who is playing the game.
PMs PMs are not allowed in this game.
Time Cycle: The night will be close to 24 hours. However, the day will last until a lynch is reached. There is no hard deadline, although I will most certainly implement one if the days start stretching far beyond 72 hours-ish. Yes, this is a very new thing to TL mafia.
This game uses an open setup. The setup is as follows:
Vanilla Townie
Vanilla Townie
Vanilla Townie
Vanilla Townie
Vanilla Townie
Mafia Goon
Mafia Goon
- Instant majority lynch - Mafia KP is 1
What makes this game unique is the manner in which the mafia delivers the night kills. Instead of the normal procedure of killing someone every night, the mafia additionally assumes the identity of the player they murdered. This means of course that the game is played entirely with smurfs, since I'm not going to make people share their normal accounts.
Here's an example:
Palmar murders Quatol
Normally Quatol would end up dead. What happens in this game instead is that Quatol is notified he has been killed. However, the next morning Palmar turns up dead. The player behind Palmar will now control Quatol instead of his previous identity. The player behind Quatol (originally) is removed from the game.
The town's job is obviously to identify who among them has been replaced by the evil mafia.
All roles and smurfs are out now. Please don't post at all in this thread until the game starts at 22:00 GMT (+00:00) tonight
And once again. Please be careful with the smurfs. Don't post on your mains in the thread and don't post on your smurfs outside of this thread. Use another browser for this game or something, that's what I normally do when I'm smurfing.
Also, no trying to break the game through stupid shit. You are not allowed to post a cipher promising the key later. In fact, any malicious future promises of content to prove your identity will just be modkillable. That's not to say you cannot say "I'll post an analysis later", you just can't use it in a way to break the game.
And lastly, don't forget this game has a silent night phase.
Should a majority happen, please consider it hammered. ie: No discussion after the hammer. No "that was dumb" or whatever you want to say. Just don't post once a player has been hammered, even if a host is not around.
Day1 scum hunting is mostly going to be similar to other games. Scum will have an interest in posting less and not reveal their natural posting style. On day2 we can scumhunt in a way unique to this game; by figuring out whose posting style looks more like the dead scum and less like his own day1 content. It's an open setup, there are no roles and no meta. The only thing we can do is to post and read.
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.
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.
I completely disagree with this. Yes it is possible to manipulate it, but I think it could be a very reliable tell under certain circumstances. Say someone completely switches their aggression level after a Night Kill - this can be very compelling evidence to give someone. But this is probably a topic for tomorrow.
However, one of the key mechanics in this game is to know exactly who is scum on D1 after the NK. In order to NK, have to give up their old identity, revealing all their D1 information. Scum will probably lean towards indecisiveness and not revealing information before their NK. I want to prevent this, therefore I propose a very aggressive lynch-lurker policy. Scum talking more, especially in this format is of great importance to the town.
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.
I completely disagree with this. Yes it is possible to manipulate it, but I think it could be a very reliable tell under certain circumstances. Say someone completely switches their aggression level after a Night Kill - this can be very compelling evidence to give someone. But this is probably a topic for tomorrow.
However, one of the key mechanics in this game is to know exactly who is scum on D1 after the NK. In order to NK, have to give up their old identity, revealing all their D1 information. Scum will probably lean towards indecisiveness and not revealing information before their NK. I want to prevent this, therefore I propose a very aggressive lynch-lurker policy. Scum talking more, especially in this format is of great importance to the town.
First bolded thing - change of stance and change of "posting style" are different things imo. Not really important until tomorrow though.
Mislynches: on the one hand, you make sense, but we only have one mislynch until LYLO. I would really hope that no one in this game would lurk, it would hurt the game very much. Yeah, if it looks like someone is holding back and trying not to expose themselves, that is definitely something we should see as promoting a scum agenda.
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.
Sure, we need to look at the normal signs of a scum as well but don't dismiss posting style analysis just like that. There are many people on this forum who have very distinct posting style and even in this game where we are all smurfs who do not want to be figured out it's going to show. Posting style analysis can be just as effective as normal analysis but of course they will both have to compliment each other for a complete analysis.
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.
I completely disagree with this. Yes it is possible to manipulate it, but I think it could be a very reliable tell under certain circumstances. Say someone completely switches their aggression level after a Night Kill - this can be very compelling evidence to give someone. But this is probably a topic for tomorrow.
However, one of the key mechanics in this game is to know exactly who is scum on D1 after the NK. In order to NK, have to give up their old identity, revealing all their D1 information. Scum will probably lean towards indecisiveness and not revealing information before their NK. I want to prevent this, therefore I propose a very aggressive lynch-lurker policy. Scum talking more, especially in this format is of great importance to the town.
A policy against lurkers is going to be supported by everyone but everyone also knows that we have to take things as they come and evaluate the situation we find ourselves in. That said, we only have one single mislynch and I don't think we should take any chances with it. Lurkers are devastating because we don't have any of the usual tools for dealing with them (cop, vigilante) at our disposal.
I do not support a lynching of a lurker. I do however think that this is extremely suspicious of Douglas Quaid to suggest this.
Lynching lurkers on this day 1 is basically an auto-loss for town. In all likelyhood scum will be amongst the most active on this day1 because there are no meta reads and the amount of setup discussion about the unique aspects of this game will provide plenty to discuss without having to scumhunt while being active.
Douglas Quaid should realize how reckless it is to lynch anyone based on just activity. Activity should always be accounted for but any plan involving a policy lynch is a plan most likely to fail for town. I feel that in a lot of past games there is always people suggesting the lurker lynch as both town and scum. For this game it would make a really easy way to blend in as scum, while only having to be active with one teammate and forcing a mislynch into lylo.
##FOS Douglas Quaid
Also, voting has to be done extremely carefully. We have to remember that if we are 1 vote from a mislynch a scum can jump on it immediately and then replace their smurf with whomever they kills. This means that interactions and player to player connection theories should be much less accounted for than normal, if at all.
On October 17 2012 12:29 Jack Slater wrote: I do not support a lynching of a lurker. I do however think that this is extremely suspicious of Douglas Quaid to suggest this.
Lynching lurkers on this day 1 is basically an auto-loss for town. In all likelyhood scum will be amongst the most active on this day1 because there are no meta reads and the amount of setup discussion about the unique aspects of this game will provide plenty to discuss without having to scumhunt while being active. #1
Douglas Quaid should realize how reckless it is to lynch anyone based on just activity #2. Activity should always be accounted for but any plan involving a policy lynch is a plan most likely to fail for town. I feel that in a lot of past games there is always people suggesting the lurker lynch as both town and scum. For this game it would make a really easy way to blend in as scum, while only having to be active with one teammate and forcing a mislynch into lylo.#3
##FOS Douglas Quaid
Also, voting has to be done extremely carefully. We have to remember that if we are 1 vote from a mislynch a scum can jump on it immediately and then replace their smurf with whomever they kills. This means that interactions and player to player connection theories should be much less accounted for than normal, if at all.
#1) How do you know how active scum is going to be? It makes no sense for scum to be magically active in this specific setup when the general trend of scum-play is far more lurky. What makes this game any different? An anonymity mechanic won't encourage people to be active - arguably, it'll encourage people to be more lurky, as normally active townies (assuming a veteran presence in this game) don't have to worry about their meta.
#2) I should realize how reckless it is? You don't even know who I am.
#3) Scum are more than welcome to be active. The problem is that it bites them in the ass the second they make an NK and we have the filter of a confirmed scumteam member.
Oh, and on the subject of an instalynch mechanic, I really don't think people should be afraid of throwing around their votes. I encourage people to throw around their votes as it provides a lot of pressure in an insta-lynch game, and I suggest that when people vote, they try and post the vote-count so that we can keep track of votes throughout the day. HOWEVER, while I like voting, you better have a very damn good reason for hammering someone.
1. I don't, I do realize that it wont be hard to appear active in this game and that with only 2 scum its not hard to have them both being active. That is why this is different because of the extremely small nature of this game.
2. I would hope that any competent townie would realize how reckless any policy lynch is in such a small game. I don't feel a sense of fear of a mislynch in your posting.
3. This is why in scum in thread relationships will be more forged than ever.
HOWEVER, while I like voting, you better have a very damn good reason for hammering someone.
Scum can hammer all they want and just have that person do their killing.
On October 17 2012 13:18 Jack Slater wrote: 1. I don't, I do realize that it wont be hard to appear active in this game and that with only 2 scum its not hard to have them both being active. That is why this is different because of the extremely small nature of this game.
I still really disagree - you're assuming that scum will play well or optimal, which is just silly. Especially since we don't know who's in the game.
2. I would hope that any competent townie would realize how reckless any policy lynch is in such a small game. I don't feel a sense of fear of a mislynch in your posting.
Why the hell would I be scared of a mislynch a few hours into the game? And i really don't think my policy lynch is as reckless as you suggest.
3. This is why in scum in thread relationships will be more forged than ever.
HOWEVER, while I like voting, you better have a very damn good reason for hammering someone.
Scum can hammer all they want and just have that person do their killing.
Oh I suppose that's true in this specific setup. Scum can hammer and then shed their skin to replace another person. I'll have to think about this one a bit more.
And to continue on lurker lynching - ideally we don't use it at all. But it's each of your individual duties as town to be active and create a situation where if we have to lynch a lurker, it will be scum guaranteed.
On October 17 2012 12:29 Jack Slater wrote: I do not support a lynching of a lurker. I do however think that this is extremely suspicious of Douglas Quaid to suggest this.
Lynching lurkers on this day 1 is basically an auto-loss for town. In all likelyhood scum will be amongst the most active on this day1 because there are no meta reads and the amount of setup discussion about the unique aspects of this game will provide plenty to discuss without having to scumhunt while being active. #1
Douglas Quaid should realize how reckless it is to lynch anyone based on just activity #2. Activity should always be accounted for but any plan involving a policy lynch is a plan most likely to fail for town. I feel that in a lot of past games there is always people suggesting the lurker lynch as both town and scum. For this game it would make a really easy way to blend in as scum, while only having to be active with one teammate and forcing a mislynch into lylo.#3
##FOS Douglas Quaid
Also, voting has to be done extremely carefully. We have to remember that if we are 1 vote from a mislynch a scum can jump on it immediately and then replace their smurf with whomever they kills. This means that interactions and player to player connection theories should be much less accounted for than normal, if at all.
#2) I should realize how reckless it is? You don't even know who I am.
Hmmm... this is a pretty interesting reaction. "you should know because you have experience" is not at all how I would have interpreted that. It shouldn't take experience to know that if we only have one mislynch before lylo, using it on a policy lynch is dangerous. Why did you interpret it in this way and why did you react so strongly (evidenced by the bold)?
Lurkers - All players should be judged by the content of their posts and the ramifications of their actions in-thread. That being said, the only successful towns are active towns. Let's be a successful town, yes? Penchant to lurk is certainly going to factor in to lynchable offenses whether we make a policy of it or not. It's been said before, and I'll repeat it in assent...we should judge each case individually, and decide if the lurking is scummy vs. just blindly lynching for activity. How easy is it going to be for scum if even 1 person goes inactive for half a day and everyone has agreed to a policy of lynching lurkers?
WIFOM - Due to the nature of this setup, there is likely to be quite a bit of WIFOM regarding the hammers and the NKs. For my part, I'd like to keep the WIFOM to a dull roar. First of all, scum get to read everything in this thread - let's not make their lives easier by inventing motivations for others or tunneling each other unto insanity. Try and use only facts in your theories.
Thread Consolidation - It's D1, so I gotta say it: please please PLEASE try and condense your thoughts into larger, well thought out posts. Not only is it going to make the thread easier to read, but it's going to force scum to fake-contribute more. Win-Win. The easier the thread is to read, the better it's going to be for town in the long run. This is not debatable. This is a fact.
Scum-Hunting
Method - This game is going to be interesting for me for a number of reasons, but mostly because I've been interested in "metaless" games recently. However I don't think this game is going to be that. It's going to be "personality-less", but the metagame is going to be EXTREMELY potent in this game. As the scum replace their night-kill, I expect we'll be in a phear-phrenzy by D2 and will be trying to come up with ALL SORTS of external ways to incriminate people...from the times that people are active to the number of ellipses in their posts. THIS IS ALL HORRIBLE! THIS IS ALL EASILY FAKED BY SKILLED SCUM.
Instead I urge town to focus on things that matter - people keeping their stories straight in regard to A) their motivations for posting, and B) their suspicions and the reasoning for them.
The Catch - We get to start over every new day. Joy.
And so, let us go forth and hunt the scums together.
Longer posts don't make the thread more readable. Clearly you've never played with gonzaw.
What makes the thread more readable is concision, thoughtfulness, and clear explanations. Please to strive for those. The post you just posted does not have those.
Thanks for boiling down my post unfairly to that one point. o.o
What I meant by "longer" was basically just not popping in with one-liner responses to everything going on in the thread. There's nothing more infuriating than 2 people quoting back and forth for pages and pages. This isn't IRC, this is a forum. Say everything you mean to say all at once...then let EVERYONE get a chance to respond.
Hi all! Had some smurf issues, but let's get rockin ^^
On October 17 2012 15:41 Ben Richards wrote: Day 1, MAGNIFIED
Lurkers - All players should be judged by the content of their posts and the ramifications of their actions in-thread. That being said, the only successful towns are active towns. Let's be a successful town, yes? Penchant to lurk is certainly going to factor in to lynchable offenses whether we make a policy of it or not. It's been said before, and I'll repeat it in assent...we should judge each case individually, and decide if the lurking is scummy vs. just blindly lynching for activity. How easy is it going to be for scum if even 1 person goes inactive for half a day and everyone has agreed to a policy of lynching lurkers?
WIFOM - Due to the nature of this setup, there is likely to be quite a bit of WIFOM regarding the hammers and the NKs. For my part, I'd like to keep the WIFOM to a dull roar. First of all, scum get to read everything in this thread - let's not make their lives easier by inventing motivations for others or tunneling each other unto insanity. Try and use only facts in your theories.
Thread Consolidation - It's D1, so I gotta say it: please please PLEASE try and condense your thoughts into larger, well thought out posts. Not only is it going to make the thread easier to read, but it's going to force scum to fake-contribute more. Win-Win. The easier the thread is to read, the better it's going to be for town in the long run. This is not debatable. This is a fact.
Scum-Hunting
Method - This game is going to be interesting for me for a number of reasons, but mostly because I've been interested in "metaless" games recently. However I don't think this game is going to be that. It's going to be "personality-less", but the metagame is going to be EXTREMELY potent in this game. As the scum replace their night-kill, I expect we'll be in a phear-phrenzy by D2 and will be trying to come up with ALL SORTS of external ways to incriminate people...from the times that people are active to the number of ellipses in their posts. THIS IS ALL HORRIBLE! THIS IS ALL EASILY FAKED BY SKILLED SCUM.
Instead I urge town to focus on things that matter - people keeping their stories straight in regard to A) their motivations for posting, and B) their suspicions and the reasoning for them.
The Catch - We get to start over every new day. Joy.
And so, let us go forth and hunt the scums together.
Most of this post is pretty bad. One of the main, obvious (it's been pointed out) facts about this setup is that we only have ONE mislynch. Further, the NK mechanic on top of this leads to what should be an undeniable conclusion:
Lurking in this setup is much, much worse for town than in pretty much any other setup ever.
You say "and decide if the lurking is scummy" - in this setup lurking is simply downright scummy in itself, rather than just bad / fucking infuriating. Anyone who lurks IS absolutely playing with scum objective, and in this game where I hope everyone is experienced, we should be punishing lurking really, really heavily.
Your WIFOM point. Thank you for saying pointless nothings about WIFOM, super helpful. "Using only facts"?? what does this even mean?
Thread Consolidation, again why are you telling experienced players how to post?
Your 'Method' of scumhunting - again, the nature of this setup is that we have ONE mislynch, and therefore the analysis of NK/replacement is going to be absolutely vital to us. Downplaying this is ridiculous. Of course skilled scum will do well to imitate who they replace, this goes without saying. We have to be better than that and look beyond the obvious and make reads. It's a vital tool.
The whole post is pretty scummy for talking crap / stating the obvious / downplaying important aspects such as lurking / NK analysis.
Someone else brought up that several players in this game could well be easily recognisable. As town, this can only be a good thing. Thinking about it before the game started, I'd say it is in the absolute best interests of townies to be as 'stylistic' and non-neutral as possible in their posting. To make NKs that much harder. I want Harry Tasker to be really motherfucking Harry Tasker and you guys should want that for yourselves too, I think.
Thread Consolidation - It's D1, so I gotta say it: please please PLEASE try and condense your thoughts into larger, well thought out posts. Not only is it going to make the thread easier to read, but it's going to force scum to fake-contribute more. Win-Win. The easier the thread is to read, the better it's going to be for town in the long run. This is not debatable. This is a fact.
Sorry to double post, but this part irked me even more having pressed Submit on my last post.
Personally I find it quite easy as scum to make larger, "well thought out" posts. Why? Because you get to think about them and construct them. I get plenty of town/scum reads by how people simply interact in the thread, whether they're asking apposite questions, whether they're invested in town, how they relate to other people. In addition, in a 7 player setup, it's not very likely in the slightest, even if we're all posting demons, that the thread is going to get wildly out of control.
Fake-contributing = ez pz. Interactions and relations with other players (i.e. often by shorter posts) - not so easy to maintain.
On October 17 2012 12:29 Jack Slater wrote: I do not support a lynching of a lurker. I do however think that this is extremely suspicious of Douglas Quaid to suggest this.
Lynching lurkers on this day 1 is basically an auto-loss for town. In all likelyhood scum will be amongst the most active on this day1 because there are no meta reads and the amount of setup discussion about the unique aspects of this game will provide plenty to discuss without having to scumhunt while being active. #1
Douglas Quaid should realize how reckless it is to lynch anyone based on just activity #2. Activity should always be accounted for but any plan involving a policy lynch is a plan most likely to fail for town. I feel that in a lot of past games there is always people suggesting the lurker lynch as both town and scum. For this game it would make a really easy way to blend in as scum, while only having to be active with one teammate and forcing a mislynch into lylo.#3
##FOS Douglas Quaid
Also, voting has to be done extremely carefully. We have to remember that if we are 1 vote from a mislynch a scum can jump on it immediately and then replace their smurf with whomever they kills. This means that interactions and player to player connection theories should be much less accounted for than normal, if at all.
#2) I should realize how reckless it is? You don't even know who I am.
Hmmm... this is a pretty interesting reaction. "you should know because you have experience" is not at all how I would have interpreted that. It shouldn't take experience to know that if we only have one mislynch before lylo, using it on a policy lynch is dangerous. Why did you interpret it in this way and why did you react so strongly (evidenced by the bold)?
I really don't care how you interpreted it - what's important to scumhunting is how I interpreted it. And I don't see my interpretation as necessarily wrong here. What does "one mislynch before lylo" have to do with anything? There's no reason why I should be scared of a mislynch hours into the game. It's not a concern yet, and won't be a concern until we really start generating content in order to effectively scumhunt.
On October 17 2012 22:58 Douglas Quaid wrote: @ Harry - Oh come on. That post by Ben Richards is such a try-hard post.
It reads like you're picking a fight with him for the sake of it, and not because he's actually suspicious.
Top suspect is you dooood.
it's the fact it's try-hard...
it's contentless and wrong
Being "try-hard" is not a scumtell. It's the opposite.
Also, his post is content-less, but it's NOT completely "wrong" as you suggest. Hell you yourself accuse him of "stating the obvious" (hellooooo contradiction). I'm more interested in reading into sincerity when reading that post, and he seems rather eager to start things off. Townie to me for now.
On October 17 2012 22:58 Douglas Quaid wrote: @ Harry - Oh come on. That post by Ben Richards is such a try-hard post.
It reads like you're picking a fight with him for the sake of it, and not because he's actually suspicious.
Top suspect is you dooood.
it's the fact it's try-hard...
it's contentless and wrong
Being "try-hard" is not a scumtell. It's the opposite.
Also, his post is content-less, but it's NOT completely "wrong" as you suggest. Hell you yourself accuse him of "stating the obvious" (hellooooo contradiction). I'm more interested in reading into sincerity when reading that post, and he seems rather eager to start things off. Townie to me for now.
I'm for now (perhaps wrongly) assuming a base level of competence for this game due to the nature of signups.
What you're seeing as try-hard I'm seeing as fluff that actually contributes nothing at all to the conversation.
A bunch of stating the obvious and stuff I consider wrong (make long consolidated posts, don't make smaller posts where you quote each other and talk to each other) is practically the definition of looking like you're contributing without actually doing so (and being misleading in the process).
On October 17 2012 15:48 Alan Schaefer wrote: Longer posts don't make the thread more readable. Clearly you've never played with gonzaw.
[...]
ROFL I'm not going to lynch you, you're funny.
I wanted to bash Ben Richards for all the things he wrote but I see that Harry Tasker has done this for me. The only thing I disagree with is the conclusion; I don't think that Ben Richards is scum right now because it makes no sense for scum to push scum agenda in their first post. It's simply barely ever worth it to stick your neck out like that and say obviously wrongs things like "Don't use posting style for analysis". I think it's a little scummy that he's just repeating me on his "Be careful of lynch-a-lurker policies because scum will just not lurk then", the consolidation thing could be said by either alignment but as Harry Tasker pointed out it's probably not going to be a problem. This is a 7 player game, not a 80 player beast, and it's going to be easy enough to read by everyone. Not doing 20 page one-liner tunneling fests and consolidating isn't the same thing at all. I also think it's townie for him to say that scum can easily fake things like posting style and activity patterns because I don't think that's true at all. People have sleeping patterns and they have work and school, most people have only around 2-4 hours where they are really active on mafia. I consider this a townie thing to say because generally townies think it's a lot easier to be scum than scum think it is. Consequently, I disagree with the scum read on Ben Richards.
I don't agree that Harry Tasker wants to "roleplay" his character at all though. I want Alex Hesse to be me, because scum will have an easier time faking me faking Alex Hesse than they will have faking just good old me. Also, I have no clue who most of these guys are even though I get the theme of "Arnold Schwarzenegger characters".
On October 17 2012 15:48 Alan Schaefer wrote: Longer posts don't make the thread more readable. Clearly you've never played with gonzaw.
[...]
ROFL I'm not going to lynch you, you're funny.
I wanted to bash Ben Richards for all the things he wrote but I see that Harry Tasker has done this for me. The only thing I disagree with is the conclusion; I don't think that Ben Richards is scum right now because it makes no sense for scum to push scum agenda in their first post. It's simply barely ever worth it to stick your neck out like that and say obviously wrongs things like "Don't use posting style for analysis". I think it's a little scummy that he's just repeating me on his "Be careful of lynch-a-lurker policies because scum will just not lurk then", the consolidation thing could be said by either alignment but as Harry Tasker pointed out it's probably not going to be a problem. This is a 7 player game, not a 80 player beast, and it's going to be easy enough to read by everyone. Not doing 20 page one-liner tunneling fests and consolidating isn't the same thing at all. I also think it's townie for him to say that scum can easily fake things like posting style and activity patterns because I don't think that's true at all. People have sleeping patterns and they have work and school, most people have only around 2-4 hours where they are really active on mafia. I consider this a townie thing to say because generally townies think it's a lot easier to be scum than scum think it is. Consequently, I disagree with the scum read on Ben Richards.
I don't agree that Harry Tasker wants to "roleplay" his character at all though. I want Alex Hesse to be me, because scum will have an easier time faking me faking Alex Hesse than they will have faking just good old me. Also, I have no clue who most of these guys are even though I get the theme of "Arnold Schwarzenegger characters".
To the bold: this is a misunderstanding. I agree with what you're saying, it's also what I was saying (or what I meant to say). Obviously I cannot say my name, so my point was that I want me to be obviously me, I just threw in my given name there
Interesting point on how easy townies/scummies see it playing scum. Hmm. Yes, ok, that's eased my view on him a bit. Hrr, kinda annoying how bad I find Ben's post then if he's town :/
Alex, could you tell me how these two points mesh together please?
On October 17 2012 09:42 Alex Hesse wrote:
Sure, we need to look at the normal signs of a scum as well but don't dismiss posting style analysis just like that. There are many people on this forum who have very distinct posting style and even in this game where we are all smurfs who do not want to be figured out it's going to show. Posting style analysis can be just as effective as normal analysis but of course they will both have to compliment each other for a complete analysis.
On October 17 2012 23:44 Alex Hesse wrote:
I don't agree that Harry Tasker wants to "roleplay" his character at all though. I want Alex Hesse to be me, because scum will have an easier time faking me faking Alex Hesse than they will have faking just good old me. Also, I have no clue who most of these guys are even though I get the theme of "Arnold Schwarzenegger characters".
In the first quote it looks like you're saying we don't want to be figured out (I find this untrue) and in the second it looks like you're wanting to be figured out?
I don't see the contradiction there Harry. One is talking about players hiding their normal identity while the second is talking about maintaining a consistent and unique identity in this game
Also I want to propose that no one actually vote until we are ready to actually lynch. For now we should just compile fos's until there is a consensus. This will make it much harder for scum to hammer without reason.
Sure, we need to look at the normal signs of a scum as well but don't dismiss posting style analysis just like that. There are many people on this forum who have very distinct posting style and even in this game where we are all smurfs who do not want to be figured out it's going to show. Posting style analysis can be just as effective as normal analysis but of course they will both have to compliment each other for a complete analysis.
I don't agree that Harry Tasker wants to "roleplay" his character at all though. I want Alex Hesse to be me, because scum will have an easier time faking me faking Alex Hesse than they will have faking just good old me. Also, I have no clue who most of these guys are even though I get the theme of "Arnold Schwarzenegger characters".
In the first quote it looks like you're saying we don't want to be figured out (I find this untrue) and in the second it looks like you're wanting to be figured out?
On October 18 2012 00:14 Jack Slater wrote: I don't see the contradiction there Harry. One is talking about players hiding their normal identity while the second is talking about maintaining a consistent and unique identity in this game
Also I want to propose that no one actually vote until we are ready to actually lynch. For now we should just compile fos's until there is a consensus. This will make it much harder for scum to hammer without reason.
Well, I actually think that Harry Tasker is right that the way I said it sounded self contradictory. This is a smurf game and we don't want to be figured out or else we wouldn't be playing in a smurf game or we could intentionally try to make sure that people figured us out. I could post a list of the games that I was in or post catch phrases ("You"). We also need to be careful with the smurf accounts and all this will make everybody post slightly different from what they usually do but we're still us and we have no intention of not being us if we're townies. We just can't (and consequently we don't want to) make it obvious and that's going to slightly affect us.
Anyway, I don't want to talk about this because it's borderline talking about identities which is disallowed. Just wanted to explain myself.
I like the idea that we just vote. Everybody knows by now that we need to be careful of scum hammering and then he doesn't have to take any responsibility because he'll just be gone the next day so just let people do what they want to. This is not a newbie game, I imagine that every townie in this game is smart enough to figure things out on his own.
With the no hard deadline thing we have around 72 hours though and there's no reason to end the day within the first 24.
I make no such assumptions about the base skill level of the playerbase in this game. I know that I was allowed to play.
Frankly I don't care if you think my post was contentless and bad, because A) it was my very first post and B) virtually nothing had happened otherwise.
What I do care about though is the idea that my post is pushing a scum agenda. If you disagree with my post that's fine. But I draw the line at "I disagree, you must be scum". Because that's what that boils down to with Harry Tasker, regardless of how he cries "No, see, it's because fluff contentless blah blah blah". If you responded at all to the post, then it generated discussion about how we look for scum motherfucker. Cool, you disagree on my point about consolidating our posts? Well good luck with that! I'm going to be consolidating my posts in an attempt to keep the thread tidy. If that makes me wrong or bad, cool. I don't fucking care. But shit like
On October 17 2012 15:48 Alan Schaefer wrote: Longer posts don't make the thread more readable. Clearly you've never played with gonzaw.
[...]
ROFL I'm not going to lynch you, you're funny.
I wanted to bash Ben Richards for all the things he wrote but I see that Harry Tasker has done this for me. The only thing I disagree with is the conclusion; I don't think that Ben Richards is scum right now because it makes no sense for scum to push scum agenda in their first post. It's simply barely ever worth it to stick your neck out like that and say obviously wrongs things like "Don't use posting style for analysis". I think it's a little scummy that he's just repeating me on his "Be careful of lynch-a-lurker policies because scum will just not lurk then", the consolidation thing could be said by either alignment but as Harry Tasker pointed out it's probably not going to be a problem. This is a 7 player game, not a 80 player beast, and it's going to be easy enough to read by everyone. Not doing 20 page one-liner tunneling fests and consolidating isn't the same thing at all. I also think it's townie for him to say that scum can easily fake things like posting style and activity patterns because I don't think that's true at all. People have sleeping patterns and they have work and school, most people have only around 2-4 hours where they are really active on mafia. I consider this a townie thing to say because generally townies think it's a lot easier to be scum than scum think it is. Consequently, I disagree with the scum read on Ben Richards.
I don't agree that Harry Tasker wants to "roleplay" his character at all though. I want Alex Hesse to be me, because scum will have an easier time faking me faking Alex Hesse than they will have faking just good old me. Also, I have no clue who most of these guys are even though I get the theme of "Arnold Schwarzenegger characters".
^ the bolded? Alex Hesse has me as a townread, yet simultaneously thinks I'm pushing a scum agenda? Like what the FUCK? Scum are just dying for shit like that to hit the thread, because it tells them that I'm a viable fucking MISLYNCH LATER.
Whatever, I'm going to cool off and then look over the thread after I've had a cup of coffee.
Just because it generated conversation doesn't necessarily make it inherently not-scummy, dear.
Also, you should care about people being able to get a better read on you, re: consolidated posts. Do you disagree with what I said about posting like that? If so, why? Do you not get reads from conversations, relations, tidbits, questions, interactions and the like?
On October 18 2012 00:30 Alex Hesse wrote: I like the idea that we just vote. Everybody knows by now that we need to be careful of scum hammering and then he doesn't have to take any responsibility because he'll just be gone the next day so just let people do what they want to. This is not a newbie game, I imagine that every townie in this game is smart enough to figure things out on his own.
With the no hard deadline thing we have around 72 hours though and there's no reason to end the day within the first 24.
While we have 72 hours, it's worth talking about the instant-lynch mechanic in a previous game (GSL Mini II) in regards to the deadline length. The 72 hour day made people really complacent about contributing early (and leading to last-minute deadline scrambles), which should be avoided at all costs this game. We have time, but don't be afraid to contribute early and often.
@ Ben Richards
That thing by Alex Hesse you pointed out is really off. It's a "too scummy to be scum" read, and is questionable logic at best.
The entire post is just strange - he seems to be half-accusing you of being scum and then overall disagreeing with the scumread on you.
On October 17 2012 15:48 Alan Schaefer wrote: Longer posts don't make the thread more readable. Clearly you've never played with gonzaw.
[...]
ROFL I'm not going to lynch you, you're funny.
I wanted to bash Ben Richards for all the things he wrote but I see that Harry Tasker has done this for me. The only thing I disagree with is the conclusion; I don't think that Ben Richards is scum right now because it makes no sense for scum to push scum agenda in their first post. It's simply barely ever worth it to stick your neck out like that and say obviously wrongs things like "Don't use posting style for analysis". I think it's a little scummy that he's just repeating me on his "Be careful of lynch-a-lurker policies because scum will just not lurk then", the consolidation thing could be said by either alignment but as Harry Tasker pointed out it's probably not going to be a problem. This is a 7 player game, not a 80 player beast, and it's going to be easy enough to read by everyone. Not doing 20 page one-liner tunneling fests and consolidating isn't the same thing at all. I also think it's townie for him to say that scum can easily fake things like posting style and activity patterns because I don't think that's true at all. People have sleeping patterns and they have work and school, most people have only around 2-4 hours where they are really active on mafia. I consider this a townie thing to say because generally townies think it's a lot easier to be scum than scum think it is. Consequently, I disagree with the scum read on Ben Richards.
I don't agree that Harry Tasker wants to "roleplay" his character at all though. I want Alex Hesse to be me, because scum will have an easier time faking me faking Alex Hesse than they will have faking just good old me. Also, I have no clue who most of these guys are even though I get the theme of "Arnold Schwarzenegger characters".
Read the red/bolded line then read his conclusion. It makes no sense for him to include that in his analysis.
In addition, the whole post is just incredibly over-justified for this point in the game.
On October 18 2012 01:05 Harry Tasker wrote: Just because it generated conversation doesn't necessarily make it inherently not-scummy, dear.
Also, you should care about people being able to get a better read on you, re: consolidated posts. Do you disagree with what I said about posting like that? If so, why? Do you not get reads from conversations, relations, tidbits, questions, interactions and the like?
Strawman. Interesting.
Yes, of course I care about people getting a better read on me. Do YOU disagree that we should judge people based on the content of their posts and their actions in-thread? Do you disagree that people arguing back and forth is poisonous to an environment conducive to finding scum?
Try considering the context of things others post rather than just labeling things that you disagree with "scummy" in the future.
@DQ
Ultimately I'm keeping an eye on Alex for the reasons you laid out. I agree that it's strange that he agrees that I did something scummy, yet says "I disagree with the scum read on Ben". What do you make of Harry Tasker? Should we believe his "True Lies"? OOOHHHHHHHH!
Harry is making an effort to gun for people, so I have no reason to suspect him so far. He's aggressive and making his opinions known - me disagreeing with some of them is irrelevant for my read on him. He's behaving townie so far, though obviously I can't make a definitive read on him based on only 7 posts
On October 18 2012 01:05 Harry Tasker wrote: Just because it generated conversation doesn't necessarily make it inherently not-scummy, dear.
Also, you should care about people being able to get a better read on you, re: consolidated posts. Do you disagree with what I said about posting like that? If so, why? Do you not get reads from conversations, relations, tidbits, questions, interactions and the like?
Strawman. Interesting.
Yes, of course I care about people getting a better read on me. Do YOU disagree that we should judge people based on the content of their posts and their actions in-thread? Do you disagree that people arguing back and forth is poisonous to an environment conducive to finding scum?
Try considering the context of things others post rather than just labeling things that you disagree with "scummy" in the future.
Firstly, don't tell me what to do.
Yes, obviously we should judge people based on the content of their posts and their actions in-thread.
And yes, I do disagree that people arguing is poisonous to an environment for finding scum. Within arguments are all sorts of interesting possibilities for divining alignments; sincerity, fervour, investment, honesty, interactions, etc. etc. Obviously within reason; this does not extend to "you suck!" ... "no u"
The 'context' of your post is a 7 player game, i.e. a very low number, where ensuring there is plenty of activity, especially with this setup, is paramount; and your point looks to be discouraging this.
In this setup, posting too much is *considerably* less of a problem than not posting enough, imo.
On October 17 2012 22:58 Douglas Quaid wrote: @ Harry - Oh come on. That post by Ben Richards is such a try-hard post.
It reads like you're picking a fight with him for the sake of it, and not because he's actually suspicious.
Top suspect is you dooood.
it's the fact it's try-hard...
it's contentless and wrong
Being "try-hard" is not a scumtell. It's the opposite.
wrong
soooo very wrong - incredibly wrong in fact. That kind of contentless tryhard first post is a super easy thing for scum to do in order to get town cred and seem like they're contributing to the thread.
On October 18 2012 00:30 Alex Hesse wrote: I like the idea that we just vote. Everybody knows by now that we need to be careful of scum hammering and then he doesn't have to take any responsibility because he'll just be gone the next day so just let people do what they want to. This is not a newbie game, I imagine that every townie in this game is smart enough to figure things out on his own.
With the no hard deadline thing we have around 72 hours though and there's no reason to end the day within the first 24.
While we have 72 hours, it's worth talking about the instant-lynch mechanic in a previous game (GSL Mini II) in regards to the deadline length. The 72 hour day made people really complacent about contributing early (and leading to last-minute deadline scrambles), which should be avoided at all costs this game. We have time, but don't be afraid to contribute early and often.
@ Ben Richards
That thing by Alex Hesse you pointed out is really off. It's a "too scummy to be scum" read, and is questionable logic at best.
The entire post is just strange - he seems to be half-accusing you of being scum and then overall disagreeing with the scumread on you.
On October 17 2012 15:48 Alan Schaefer wrote: Longer posts don't make the thread more readable. Clearly you've never played with gonzaw.
[...]
ROFL I'm not going to lynch you, you're funny.
I wanted to bash Ben Richards for all the things he wrote but I see that Harry Tasker has done this for me. The only thing I disagree with is the conclusion; I don't think that Ben Richards is scum right now because it makes no sense for scum to push scum agenda in their first post. It's simply barely ever worth it to stick your neck out like that and say obviously wrongs things like "Don't use posting style for analysis". I think it's a little scummy that he's just repeating me on his "Be careful of lynch-a-lurker policies because scum will just not lurk then", the consolidation thing could be said by either alignment but as Harry Tasker pointed out it's probably not going to be a problem. This is a 7 player game, not a 80 player beast, and it's going to be easy enough to read by everyone. Not doing 20 page one-liner tunneling fests and consolidating isn't the same thing at all. I also think it's townie for him to say that scum can easily fake things like posting style and activity patterns because I don't think that's true at all. People have sleeping patterns and they have work and school, most people have only around 2-4 hours where they are really active on mafia. I consider this a townie thing to say because generally townies think it's a lot easier to be scum than scum think it is. Consequently, I disagree with the scum read on Ben Richards.
I don't agree that Harry Tasker wants to "roleplay" his character at all though. I want Alex Hesse to be me, because scum will have an easier time faking me faking Alex Hesse than they will have faking just good old me. Also, I have no clue who most of these guys are even though I get the theme of "Arnold Schwarzenegger characters".
Read the red/bolded line then read his conclusion. It makes no sense for him to include that in his analysis.
In addition, the whole post is just incredibly over-justified for this point in the game.
however, i like this post. Feeling conflicted about DQ.
I also very much don't like ben richards's first post.
I'm going to make a point of posting in this thread every time I open it. I usually don't do that, but I agree with those who've pointed out that in this game getting content into the thread is more important than ever.
@Alan, what do you not like about Ben Richards first post exactly?
@DQ, I will field your question about Alex.
I don't see anything scum or scum agenda pushing in Alex's posts so far and while he disagrees with some of my posts I don't feel like he does it in a scummy way. The problem I do have with his posting is even this early in the game it is lacking in content. His posts also read as being carefully worded and thought out, like how he answered to the accusations against his contradiction. He seems like he didn't want to cause a stir centering around him, despite me answering for him in what I believe to be a reasonable manner and explaination. + Show Spoiler +
you can all be jealous that I am a character from the greatest movie of all time
On October 18 2012 03:48 Douglas Quaid wrote: Goddamnit I can't read. Questions not supposed to be asked in thread. Bah.
Anywho, since you're around Harry, what do you think of Alex?
Not sure, I don't like the scum wouldn't push a scum agenda point either, but I did like his viewpoint on how townies/scum view playing scum.
I also agree with him on the voting. I really disagree with whoever it was (Jack?) who said we should collect our FoS and then vote. To me, this sounds like a way for scum having to worry far less about how they're casting their votes. And as Alex said, we're not stupid, so I *want* scum to worry about how they're voting (rather than going "this is the time for voting guise!") as I know I can always explain mine just fine. The more shit scum have to worry about the better, and trying to lay down voting rules beyond common sense doesn't seem to help this.
On October 18 2012 04:04 Jack Slater wrote: @Alan, what do you not like about Ben Richards first post exactly?
@DQ, I will field your question about Alex.
I don't see anything scum or scum agenda pushing in Alex's posts so far and while he disagrees with some of my posts I don't feel like he does it in a scummy way. The problem I do have with his posting is even this early in the game it is lacking in content. His posts also read as being carefully worded and thought out, like how he answered to the accusations against his contradiction. He seems like he didn't want to cause a stir centering around him, despite me answering for him in what I believe to be a reasonable manner and explaination. + Show Spoiler +
you can all be jealous that I am a character from the greatest movie of all time
it's really easy for scum to make silly contributions like that
plus all of his points are either wrong or obvious
Harry, I don't think you understand my plan. For all intents and purposes the FOS's are meant to serve as your "vote" but because it will not be officially counted 2 or 3 incorrect FOS's that are going to be changed can't be hammered by scum and then have them just switch accounts.
Scum don't have to worry about looking scummy as long as they can lockdown a mislynch. I don't want them having any control over who and when we lynch someone
That idea makes little to no difference. What this does is force everyone voting a lynch target to give their reasons and allows others to make judgment calls on the reasons presented before it is too late. The only people that should be sure of who they want to vote on are scum, and I want to make it as hard as possible for them to get away with voting on a candidate they want
On October 17 2012 22:58 Douglas Quaid wrote: @ Harry - Oh come on. That post by Ben Richards is such a try-hard post.
It reads like you're picking a fight with him for the sake of it, and not because he's actually suspicious.
Top suspect is you dooood.
it's the fact it's try-hard...
it's contentless and wrong
Being "try-hard" is not a scumtell. It's the opposite.
wrong
soooo very wrong - incredibly wrong in fact. That kind of contentless tryhard first post is a super easy thing for scum to do in order to get town cred and seem like they're contributing to the thread.
Suspiciously wrong
I think we have different definitions of try-hard. If I see a "contentless" post that shows effort/enthusiasm/etc, that's a town-tell to me. I view reading intent as much more important than reading logic and content early in the game. That's different from pretending to contribute (scumtell).
Intent/tone can be manufactured, strong contributions are simply strong contributions.
We're not dealing with newbies just come out of their Newbie games here, Douglas.
I find Alex's joke completely meaningless/not worth commenting on. Unless you genuinely believe he would somehow not lynch a person because he made a joke about not earlier, which I don't.
Not really. You just gave a huge non-answer on him.
Not sure, I don't like the scum wouldn't push a scum agenda point either, but I did like his viewpoint on how townies/scum view playing scum.
I also agree with him on the voting. I really disagree with whoever it was (Jack?) who said we should collect our FoS and then vote. To me, this sounds like a way for scum having to worry far less about how they're casting their votes. And as Alex said, we're not stupid, so I *want* scum to worry about how they're voting (rather than going "this is the time for voting guise!") as I know I can always explain mine just fine. The more shit scum have to worry about the better, and trying to lay down voting rules beyond common sense doesn't seem to help this.
What part of this is an answer? You're not sure, then you just mention you like/dislike a couple of his points. You talked nothing about anything remotely related to determining an alignment read on him.
Well for starters you can address the points I laid out here. What I really don't understand is that you're not sure about him, yet seem to be soft-defending him with your recent posts.
Not sure, I don't like the scum wouldn't push a scum agenda point either, but I did like his viewpoint on how townies/scum view playing scum.
I also agree with him on the voting. I really disagree with whoever it was (Jack?) who said we should collect our FoS and then vote. To me, this sounds like a way for scum having to worry far less about how they're casting their votes. And as Alex said, we're not stupid, so I *want* scum to worry about how they're voting (rather than going "this is the time for voting guise!") as I know I can always explain mine just fine. The more shit scum have to worry about the better, and trying to lay down voting rules beyond common sense doesn't seem to help this.
That's what I have to say about his post, and I'm getting quite bored of repeating myself. If I had a particularly scummy read off it clearly I would have told you by now.
Nor have I soft-defended him, unless you somehow count the fact I found his joke irrelevant as a soft-defence (hint: it is not, if you think it is, please stop being bad).
On October 17 2012 22:58 Douglas Quaid wrote: @ Harry - Oh come on. That post by Ben Richards is such a try-hard post.
It reads like you're picking a fight with him for the sake of it, and not because he's actually suspicious.
Top suspect is you dooood.
it's the fact it's try-hard...
it's contentless and wrong
Being "try-hard" is not a scumtell. It's the opposite.
wrong
soooo very wrong - incredibly wrong in fact. That kind of contentless tryhard first post is a super easy thing for scum to do in order to get town cred and seem like they're contributing to the thread.
Suspiciously wrong
I think we have different definitions of try-hard. If I see a "contentless" post that shows effort/enthusiasm/etc, that's a town-tell to me. I view reading intent as much more important than reading logic and content early in the game. That's different from pretending to contribute (scumtell).
Some players are very good at manufacturing enthusiasm when they're scum. Others are worse at it. But faking enthusiasm as scum is definitely a skill some players have.
On October 18 2012 06:40 Alex Hesse wrote: Okay right now I want to lynch Alan Schaefer.
On October 18 2012 06:40 Alex Hesse wrote: Okay right now I want to lynch Alan Schaefer.
##Vote Alan Schaefer
why am I having to ask you to explain?
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.
On October 18 2012 06:40 Alex Hesse wrote: Okay right now I want to lynch Alan Schaefer.
##Vote Alan Schaefer
why am I having to ask you to explain?
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.
So your points on me are ... that I'm more confident in my theory on how to play normal games than on how to play this weird-ass new gametype, and that I want to explicitly commit to posting more?
Yeah actually maybe I'll explain a bit more where I'm coming from with the "posting every time" thing - I think that in this game, unlike other games, posting more than normal is worthwhile even if I'm only going to point out something stupid or scummy by saying "bro you serious?"
Normally I would think to myself, "now is that post really worth making or is it just gonna clutter up the thread?" but in this game, making it has a couple of additional advantages - the game is so small that thread clutter isn't something we really have to worry about (or at least, that's my position until we see otherwise) and extra posting is good because it helps establish a baseline to compare later days' posting to when people try and figure out who got killed in the night and replaced by scum.
On October 18 2012 06:40 Alex Hesse wrote: Okay right now I want to lynch Alan Schaefer.
##Vote Alan Schaefer
why am I having to ask you to explain?
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.
Why are you using language that's almost designed to turn me off your case? "Read the filter yourself... except I can't even tell you some of the reasons properly". I also don't know what games you've been playing in TL where you don't have to explain why you're voting for someone, especially as you have to convince the rest of town to vote with you. What gives?
Actually you do have a decent point or two, but I don't get why you're antagonising me to make them. meh. There is a little bit of a difference between his cavelier attitude in places and more cautious in others. The posting every time coming into the thread thing is definitely odd... why is it scummy though?
I'd prefer to see Ben Richards swing than Alex atm. Actually most of all I'd like to see John Matrix swing.
Voting for John Matrix isn't going to give us anything. He is legitimately away or he would have posted, absolutely no doubt about that. You are policy lynching someone who is probably going to get modkilled (or replaced since Palmar apparently had more signups than spots). Not only is this a lynch in the dark, it's very likely not going to give us anything.
Voting for John Matrix isn't going to give us anything. He is legitimately away or he would have posted, absolutely no doubt about that. You are policy lynching someone who is probably going to get modkilled (or replaced since Palmar apparently had more signups than spots). Not only is this a lynch in the dark, it's very likely not going to give us anything.
Why does this have to be the case, at all, given the scenario I described?
On October 17 2012 07:55 Alex Hesse wrote: Day1 scum hunting is mostly going to be similar to other games. Scum will have an interest in posting less and not reveal their natural posting style. On day2 we can scumhunt in a way unique to this game; by figuring out whose posting style looks more like the dead scum and less like his own day1 content. It's an open setup, there are no roles and no meta. The only thing we can do is to post and read.
On October 18 2012 08:09 Alex Hesse wrote: But
Harry Tasker
Voting for John Matrix isn't going to give us anything. He is legitimately away or he would have posted, absolutely no doubt about that. You are policy lynching someone who is probably going to get modkilled (or replaced since Palmar apparently had more signups than spots). Not only is this a lynch in the dark, it's very likely not going to give us anything.
While I would generally agree with his sentiment regarding voting someone who hasn't posted, A) this is a small setup where by definition there's little excuse for having not posted by now and B) the act of defending John Matrix is in direct conflict with his stated assessment of how scum would act in this setup.
Added to other stuff previously mentioned, and I'm most interested in lynching Alex today.
Voting for John Matrix isn't going to give us anything. He is legitimately away or he would have posted, absolutely no doubt about that. You are policy lynching someone who is probably going to get modkilled (or replaced since Palmar apparently had more signups than spots). Not only is this a lynch in the dark, it's very likely not going to give us anything.
Why does this have to be the case, at all, given the scenario I described?
Because I have never seen scum deliberately not post. They show up, see the thread, make a dumb small post because you have to post, it's kind of in the rules (not really but do you really think that Palmar will tolerate abusive shit like that?). Right now his lack of posting is a sign of him not being here, not a sign of him being scum.
On October 18 2012 00:30 Alex Hesse wrote: I like the idea that we just vote. Everybody knows by now that we need to be careful of scum hammering and then he doesn't have to take any responsibility because he'll just be gone the next day so just let people do what they want to. This is not a newbie game, I imagine that every townie in this game is smart enough to figure things out on his own.
With the no hard deadline thing we have around 72 hours though and there's no reason to end the day within the first 24.
While we have 72 hours, it's worth talking about the instant-lynch mechanic in a previous game (GSL Mini II) in regards to the deadline length. The 72 hour day made people really complacent about contributing early (and leading to last-minute deadline scrambles), which should be avoided at all costs this game. We have time, but don't be afraid to contribute early and often.
@ Ben Richards
That thing by Alex Hesse you pointed out is really off. It's a "too scummy to be scum" read, and is questionable logic at best.1
The entire post is just strange - he seems to be half-accusing you of being scum and then overall disagreeing with the scumread on you.2
On October 17 2012 15:48 Alan Schaefer wrote: Longer posts don't make the thread more readable. Clearly you've never played with gonzaw.
[...]
ROFL I'm not going to lynch you, you're funny.
I wanted to bash Ben Richards for all the things he wrote but I see that Harry Tasker has done this for me. The only thing I disagree with is the conclusion; I don't think that Ben Richards is scum right now because it makes no sense for scum to push scum agenda in their first post. It's simply barely ever worth it to stick your neck out like that and say obviously wrongs things like "Don't use posting style for analysis". I think it's a little scummy that he's just repeating me on his "Be careful of lynch-a-lurker policies because scum will just not lurk then", the consolidation thing could be said by either alignment but as Harry Tasker pointed out it's probably not going to be a problem. This is a 7 player game, not a 80 player beast, and it's going to be easy enough to read by everyone. Not doing 20 page one-liner tunneling fests and consolidating isn't the same thing at all. I also think it's townie for him to say that scum can easily fake things like posting style and activity patterns because I don't think that's true at all. People have sleeping patterns and they have work and school, most people have only around 2-4 hours where they are really active on mafia. I consider this a townie thing to say because generally townies think it's a lot easier to be scum than scum think it is. Consequently, I disagree with the scum read on Ben Richards.
I don't agree that Harry Tasker wants to "roleplay" his character at all though. I want Alex Hesse to be me, because scum will have an easier time faking me faking Alex Hesse than they will have faking just good old me. Also, I have no clue who most of these guys are even though I get the theme of "Arnold Schwarzenegger characters".
Read the red/bolded line then read his conclusion. It makes no sense for him to include that in his analysis.3
In addition, the whole post is just incredibly over-justified for this point in the game.4
1: That's not at all what I said or meant. Townies push scum agendas all the time. Did you seriously never make a case on someone where you described all the scummy shit he was doing only to have him flip town? He was pushing what I consider to be a scum agenda but he was doing it in a townie way.
2: I am not agreeing with the scum read. I am acquitting him of the bad things while pointing out the good thing. He is probably my biggest town read right now.
3: I don't see why it makes no sense to include my opinion in my analysis.
4: And how exactly is this? I am commenting on the stuff he has posted, why couldn't I do that at that point in the game?
On October 17 2012 07:55 Alex Hesse wrote: Day1 scum hunting is mostly going to be similar to other games. Scum will have an interest in posting less and not reveal their natural posting style. On day2 we can scumhunt in a way unique to this game; by figuring out whose posting style looks more like the dead scum and less like his own day1 content. It's an open setup, there are no roles and no meta. The only thing we can do is to post and read.
Voting for John Matrix isn't going to give us anything. He is legitimately away or he would have posted, absolutely no doubt about that. You are policy lynching someone who is probably going to get modkilled (or replaced since Palmar apparently had more signups than spots). Not only is this a lynch in the dark, it's very likely not going to give us anything.
While I would generally agree with his sentiment regarding voting someone who hasn't posted, A) this is a small setup where by definition there's little excuse for having not posted by now and B) the act of defending John Matrix is in direct conflict with his stated assessment of how scum would act in this setup.1
Added to other stuff previously mentioned2, and I'm most interested in lynching Alex today.
##Vote: Alex Hesse
1: No it isn't. Scum will try to lurk and post little but they will still be here because everybody who plays this game is here. You are kidding yourself if you think that scum will come up with a plan like that because frankly, it's not any fun and it's pretty abusive. Do you think someone joined this game not to play it at all? Do you even think that that will be allowed? John Matrix is very likely not here and that doesn't really point anywhere on the town/scum scale.
2: I can't find other stuff you previously mentioned besides the last part of this post where you say I am calling you town while calling you scum which is just not true. I am saying that you are pushing a scummy agenda but like I wrote earlier in this post, that doesn't have to make you scum (actually it doesn't say anything about your alignment at all). Have you never seen a townie push a scum agenda before? Have you never written a huge dumb analysis on someone exposing how they're clearly doing things that benefit scum only to have them flip town?
Voting for John Matrix isn't going to give us anything. He is legitimately away or he would have posted, absolutely no doubt about that. You are policy lynching someone who is probably going to get modkilled (or replaced since Palmar apparently had more signups than spots). Not only is this a lynch in the dark, it's very likely not going to give us anything.
Why does this have to be the case, at all, given the scenario I described?
Because I have never seen scum deliberately not post. They show up, see the thread, make a dumb small post because you have to post, it's kind of in the rules (not really but do you really think that Palmar will tolerate abusive shit like that?). Right now his lack of posting is a sign of him not being here, not a sign of him being scum.
And you've also never been in a smurf-only setup where the mafia replaces their NK, am I right?
Why are you guessing what hosts would do? It is clear in the OP that there are NO ACTIVITY REQUIREMENTS.
In my opinion, optimal scum strategy is absolutely what I described.
Guys, I think Alex might just be a bit slow. The scummiest guy in the thread is the one who hasn't posted.
There's still the play to win rule and you need to play to win. Not playing is not playing and it is clearly modkillable. Do you seriously think that if one guy got hit by a meteor and another forgot about the game and we had two people who didn't post at all that this game and this original setup would just be over and done with like that? Would suck for all participating parties and that's not really why we came here.
Optimal scum strategy might be to not say anything but I still don't think that they would not say anything because then they would be doing what the optimal scum strategy is and what the least optimal town strategy is and that would probably get them lynched. Or modkilled.
There's still the play to win rule and you need to play to win. Not playing is not playing and it is clearly modkillable. Do you seriously think that if one guy got hit by a meteor and another forgot about the game and we had two people who didn't post at all that this game and this original setup would just be over and done with like that? Would suck for all participating parties and that's not really why we came here.
Optimal scum strategy might be to not say anything but I still don't think that they would not say anything because then they would be doing what the optimal scum strategy is and what the least optimal town strategy is and that would probably get them lynched. Or modkilled.
None of this post makes sense; why would playing their optimal strategy get them modkilled?
Also, I am the only one voting for the guy who hasn't posted, so playing (what I believe to be) the optimal scum strategy hasn't done so much harm so far, has it? People are *monumentally* resistant to lynching absolute lurkers/no-posters.
There's still the play to win rule and you need to play to win. Not playing is not playing and it is clearly modkillable. Do you seriously think that if one guy got hit by a meteor and another forgot about the game and we had two people who didn't post at all that this game and this original setup would just be over and done with like that? Would suck for all participating parties and that's not really why we came here.
Optimal scum strategy might be to not say anything but I still don't think that they would not say anything because then they would be doing what the optimal scum strategy is and what the least optimal town strategy is and that would probably get them lynched. Or modkilled.
None of this post makes sense; why would playing their optimal strategy get them modkilled?
Also, I am the only one voting for the guy who hasn't posted, so playing (what I believe to be) the optimal scum strategy hasn't done so much harm so far, has it? People are *monumentally* resistant to lynching absolute lurkers/no-posters.
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 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.
This is like the 3rd time you've said "what we get from the lynch". The only thing that matters is whether they flip scum.
No-one likes lynching no-posters or total lurkers in any normal setup. I would not advocate it in any setup but this. In any normal setup, if you don't post, then you get modkilled, or if you vote at the last minute, you're are massively in the firing line the next day. Due to activity requirements and NK mechanics, neither of these things are the case here.
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.
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 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.
I would listen to you, perhaps, if any of your points held any validity.
You "refuse to believe" - that's not an argument, that's just an admission of your own limitation.
Why is it longterm? It's one day cycle.
Why is it unreliable?
Why is it unlikely scum will do it?
As a quick note to one of your potential responses - 'it's not fun to play' - you miss one day cycle and then you get the most fun/challenging role in the game - replacing someone.
All your responses look like unsubstantiated emotional ones to a legit scum strategy.
Is your only real objection "it's too risky for scum"?
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.
I can and have played very long-termist as scum, one day cycle is fucking peanuts :/ And it's not like it's complicated to implement, come on now.
The risk is low because people like you will argue vehemently against it, and the reward is very high - it'd be halving the chances of scum getting lynched day 1, and also you'd have no tells in your play to compare to after the NK (for example, if I'm scum and I carry out NK, I not only have to assume someone else's identity, but I have to make sure I don't manage to sound anything like Harry Tasker pre-flip - it's a double task).
All you do is you keep saying what's unlikely or crazy or unreliable, which is just WIFOMing because your arguments repeatedly boil down to "I wouldn't do this", against a clearly demonstrable strong plan as outlined by myself. Personally, I play to win.
Ben Richards pointed it out - you yourself said scum have an interest in posting much less. The only difference is that he's not posted at all. You're seeing this as some massive logical leap, and there's no reason for it.
Ben Richards - what do you make of Alex now? I find his arguments quite sincere - he seems annoyed at me, and he's willing to take the fight to me singlehandedly - which seems townie. What say you?
Harry Tasker thinks that John Matrix is scum. The premise is that John Matrix is purposely abstaining from posting and that's scummy in any game but more scummy in this game because he can hammer and night kill out of his responsibility. I agree with the argument but not with the presmise: I don't believe that John Matrix is purposely abstaining from posting. I believe that John Matrix is genuinely away. That is scummy in itself but not a lot and not enough to warrant a lynch considering Alan Schaefer.
You got that right, I'm quite sincere. I also just concluded that you have to be quite sincere but I'm not all sold on you being town. That said, I have absolutely no interest in lynching you.
I'm also thinking that tomorrow is going to be pretty much like day1 because anybody could be scum. Even if someone did something very townie on day1 we have to forget all that and get new reads. Of course we have one more tool at our disposal which is posting analysis and two flips, at least one of them mafia.
I don't think that Alex is scum, he has vehemently argued against lynching an easy lynch candidate. I don't recall too many times that scum pushed that hard AWAY from lynching a lurker. I mean, even if John flipped scum after the NK, Alex would be the top of the lynch list d2.
Harry in all likelyhood is not scum either. He has provided way more paranoid reasoning than necessary to push this lynch.
This leaves Alan, Doug, John, and Ben as possible scum candidates for my initial reads right now.
Alan has still yet to talk about anything but the setup and how it affects play.
Doug has been scummy to me since the start of the game
John needs to fucking post.
Ben has basically only mentioned alex and setup, he could get my vote right now if I was voting.
Jack, I'd like some clarification on this post, please:
On October 17 2012 12:29 Jack Slater wrote: I do not support a lynching of a lurker. I do however think that this is extremely suspicious of Douglas Quaid to suggest this.
Lynching lurkers on this day 1 is basically an auto-loss for town. In all likelyhood scum will be amongst the most active on this day1 because there are no meta reads and the amount of setup discussion about the unique aspects of this game will provide plenty to discuss without having to scumhunt while being active.
Douglas Quaid should realize how reckless it is to lynch anyone based on just activity. Activity should always be accounted for but any plan involving a policy lynch is a plan most likely to fail for town. I feel that in a lot of past games there is always people suggesting the lurker lynch as both town and scum. For this game it would make a really easy way to blend in as scum, while only having to be active with one teammate and forcing a mislynch into lylo.
##FOS Douglas Quaid
Also, voting has to be done extremely carefully. We have to remember that if we are 1 vote from a mislynch a scum can jump on it immediately and then replace their smurf with whomever they kills. This means that interactions and player to player connection theories should be much less accounted for than normal, if at all.
Here you're suspicious of Dougy for suggesting lynching a lurker. Is the difference between him and me purely that I've provided so much "paranoid reasoning"?
If you find my reasoning paranoid, could you explain why you find it incorrect? (I believe that's implied with 'paranoid'). You also say that John is an 'easy' target, but I'm finding it quite the opposite atm ^_^
On October 19 2012 00:01 Alex Hesse wrote: Why are you afraid to be the first vote on someone? Are you afraid that the three scum will hammer?
I'd also like you to explain this post and be as wordy as you can.
As you can see from my previous posts, I am trying to enact a plan of voting. I am not afraid of 3 scum hammering, I am afraid not not being around when 3 other people vote. There is a huge difference, because I want the ability to see who else is voting as I am before a lynch occurs with me voting it
On October 19 2012 00:03 Harry Tasker wrote: Jack, I'd like some clarification on this post, please:
On October 17 2012 12:29 Jack Slater wrote: I do not support a lynching of a lurker. I do however think that this is extremely suspicious of Douglas Quaid to suggest this.
Lynching lurkers on this day 1 is basically an auto-loss for town. In all likelyhood scum will be amongst the most active on this day1 because there are no meta reads and the amount of setup discussion about the unique aspects of this game will provide plenty to discuss without having to scumhunt while being active.
Douglas Quaid should realize how reckless it is to lynch anyone based on just activity. Activity should always be accounted for but any plan involving a policy lynch is a plan most likely to fail for town. I feel that in a lot of past games there is always people suggesting the lurker lynch as both town and scum. For this game it would make a really easy way to blend in as scum, while only having to be active with one teammate and forcing a mislynch into lylo.
##FOS Douglas Quaid
Also, voting has to be done extremely carefully. We have to remember that if we are 1 vote from a mislynch a scum can jump on it immediately and then replace their smurf with whomever they kills. This means that interactions and player to player connection theories should be much less accounted for than normal, if at all.
Here you're suspicious of Dougy for suggesting lynching a lurker. Is the difference between him and me purely that I've provided so much "paranoid reasoning"?
If you find my reasoning paranoid, could you explain why you find it incorrect? (I believe that's implied with 'paranoid'). You also say that John is an 'easy' target, but I'm finding it quite the opposite atm ^_^
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
Alright, that makes sense. So you find what Ben has posted inherently more scummy than John not posting at all?
Is that because you find what he's posted sufficiently scummy to warrant this, or is it because you believe the chance that John is simply AFK is too high to bet on?
Ben at the moment is my second choice. He comes across as pretty angry/emotional in this post, but subsequently doesn't really get involved at all. There seems to be a disconnect between that level of apparent emotion and subsequent lack of investment in the thread.
So because the thread is dead while I'm awake and comes to life while I sleep, I'm "not invested in the thread".
That's fucking nice.
In other news, Johnny Matrix still hasn't posted.
##Unvote ##Vote: John Matrix
@Harry
Yeah, I agree about Alex. I misunderstood when he said "pushing a scum agenda" - took it to mean that he thought I was deliberately pushing a scum agenda, then turning around in the same post and saying he disagreed with a scum read on me. Since he's told me what he meant, and because he's brought the fight to your cheeky ass () I agree that he's looking much better.
@Alex
Elaborate on your read of Alan - I'm not seeing what you're seeing in Alan's posting. I tend to agree with Harry when he says that lurking is absolutely viable as a scum strategy, and presently I think John is our best bet for scum. To a lesser degree, Jack is fitting the bill of lurking, disinterested scum too. Why is Alan scummier than both of these guys?
@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
Elaborate on your read of Alan - I'm not seeing what you're seeing in Alan's posting. I tend to agree with Harry when he says that lurking is absolutely viable as a scum strategy, and presently I think John is our best bet for scum. To a lesser degree, Jack is fitting the bill of lurking, disinterested scum too. Why is Alan scummier than both of these guys?
You can't just drop this, you have to explain it.
He has 10 posts, you have 6. Lurking, disinterested... ?
How about how he's suspicious of DQ for "pushing a policy of lynching lurkers", yet is buddy buddy with you in spite of you being the one who took the initiative and actually VOTED for John Matrix?
How about he's using your suspicion of me to further excuse not voting for his scumbuddy?
Like, I'm interested in this game. My views on posting in this game are DOCUMENTED in my very first post. Indeed, you took issue with it yourself. Yet, I don't give a fuck and am continuing to attempt to consolidate my posts and attempting to keep the thread tidy. Unfortunately, it's all for naught because we have so many people just waiting for something to happen, and OH HEY LOOKIE THERE BEN IS MAKING THINGS HAPPEN IN SPITE OF HAVING THE SECOND LOWEST POST COUNT IN THE GAME!
Take your bias elsewhere Harry. Not fucking interested. If you want to get me lynched, that's fine - but don't be surprised if you're not who you think you are tomorrow. Your style is exceedingly easy to emulate, dear.
On October 19 2012 02:10 Ben Richards wrote: Yes, but obviously I know my own alignment.
How about how he's suspicious of DQ for "pushing a policy of lynching lurkers", yet is buddy buddy with you in spite of you being the one who took the initiative and actually VOTED for John Matrix?
How about he's using your suspicion of me to further excuse not voting for his scumbuddy?
Like, I'm interested in this game. My views on posting in this game are DOCUMENTED in my very first post. Indeed, you took issue with it yourself. Yet, I don't give a fuck and am continuing to attempt to consolidate my posts and attempting to keep the thread tidy. Unfortunately, it's all for naught because we have so many people just waiting for something to happen, and OH HEY LOOKIE THERE BEN IS MAKING THINGS HAPPEN IN SPITE OF HAVING THE SECOND LOWEST POST COUNT IN THE GAME!
Take your bias elsewhere Harry. Not fucking interested. If you want to get me lynched, that's fine - but don't be surprised if you're not who you think you are tomorrow. Your style is exceedingly easy to emulate, dear.
Red 1 - I questioned him on this and was satisfied with his answer. Are you not? Why have you ignored his response on it?
Blue - This is just stupid.
Green - What are you making happen?
Red 2 - How am I biased? You're just saying random stuff now. What's me possibly wanting to get you lynched got to do with me perhaps getting nightkilled?!
Regarding the John Matrix lynch - I'm all for a policy lynch on someone who hasn't posted, but there's no point in voting/pressuring him now. We have a lot of time to lynch him (36 hours), and it's best if we not focus on what his rationale could be and simply pressure the players that actually post.
Regarding Alex's Defense - Seems calm and reasoned, and he gets some townie points. Though, I would like a more thorough explanation of Ben Richards being his "biggest town read."
2: I am not agreeing with the scum read. I am acquitting him of the bad things while pointing out the good thing. He is probably my biggest town read right now.
@Jack Slater
I found this post horrendously scummy:
On October 18 2012 23:45 Jack Slater wrote: I am starting something new
I don't think that Alex is scum, he has vehemently argued against lynching an easy lynch candidate. I don't recall too many times that scum pushed that hard AWAY from lynching a lurker. I mean, even if John flipped scum after the NK, Alex would be the top of the lynch list d2.
Harry in all likelyhood is not scum either. He has provided way more paranoid reasoning than necessary to push this lynch.
This leaves Alan, Doug, John, and Ben as possible scum candidates for my initial reads right now.
Alan has still yet to talk about anything but the setup and how it affects play.
Doug has been scummy to me since the start of the game
John needs to fucking post.
Ben has basically only mentioned alex and setup, he could get my vote right now if I was voting.
##FOS Ben
Makes no damn sense. I've been scummy to you since the beginning of the game, and your top suspect is Ben?
Also, for someone who's suspicious of me, I haven't seen you push your suspicions at all. You interacted with me a little bit when I was explaining policy and the like, but that's it. You have never posted a single thing about why I'm suspicious after the initial burst of posting - yet you still have a scumread on me.
Seriously, there's something fucking not-right about Ben going - "you can try to lynch me, but you'll get night killed." That's all kinds of screwed up.
I know that Harry's style is easy to emulate and logic would dictate that's one of the requisites for NKs. Add to the fact that I'm town, and I'm going to FLIP town, and the ideal place for a scum to hide would be among the loudest voices in my opposition. Why? Because it doesn't make any sense! Because why would scum do that? That's EXACTLY how I play scum, because most people are only interested in searching for the "optimal play".
It was a playful jab intended to make you consider the ramifications of continuing to tunnel me. I'm trying to find scum, whether you believe that or not. Obviously it's my job to MAKE you believe it, regardless of my alignment. Rest assured that I fully intend to do so - but it's hard to do that when there are people in the game who just think I'm scum regardless what I do or say. Call that an excuse, at this point I don't care.
I'm keeping my vote on John because honestly, at this point it like HAS to be intentional. And there's no town motivation for joining a game and proceeding to intentionally not post.
I still don't understand, at all, the logical connection between tunnelling you and getting NKed.
Whether you're town or scum, the fact I'm pursuing you has *nothing* to do with the nightkills. Your flip is irrelevant to this and I don't get how you tied them together.
On October 19 2012 02:47 Ben Richards wrote: I know that Harry's style is easy to emulate and logic would dictate that's one of the requisites for NKs. Add to the fact that I'm town, and I'm going to FLIP town, and the ideal place for a scum to hide would be among the loudest voices in my opposition #1. Why? Because it doesn't make any sense! Because why would scum do that? That's EXACTLY how I play scum, because most people are only interested in searching for the "optimal play"#1
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?
2) So you have an active scum meta... but a lurky town one?
It was a playful jab intended to make you consider the ramifications of continuing to tunnel me #3. I'm trying to find scum, whether you believe that or not. Obviously it's my job to MAKE you believe it, regardless of my alignment. Rest assured that I fully intend to do so - but it's hard to do that when there are people in the game who just think I'm scum regardless what I do or say. Call that an excuse, at this point I don't care.
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?
I'm keeping my vote on John because honestly, at this point it like HAS to be intentional. And there's no town motivation for joining a game and proceeding to intentionally not post #4.
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.
Why did you drop this hyper aggressive lurker lynching policy you were talking about? Where is this "elsewhere" that you want us to spend our time? You are also accusing all over the place without ever taking a stance, first someone is scummy then someone else, but never a vote or anything.
If we can't lynch Alan Schaefer then lets go for this Douglas Quaid guy.
Actually I pretty much just want to kill Alan Schaefer. He hasn't been around in the timespan that he was yesterday (~3:00 KST to ~7:00 KST). He's absolutely my biggest scum read and should be lynched.
On October 19 2012 06:03 Alex Hesse wrote: Hey Douglas Quaid
Why did you drop this hyper aggressive lurker lynching policy you were talking about? Where is this "elsewhere" that you want us to spend our time? You are also accusing all over the place without ever taking a stance, first someone is scummy then someone else, but never a vote or anything.
If we can't lynch Alan Schaefer then lets go for this Douglas Quaid guy.
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 17 2012 22:58 Douglas Quaid wrote: @ Harry - Oh come on. That post by Ben Richards is such a try-hard post.
It reads like you're picking a fight with him for the sake of it, and not because he's actually suspicious.
Top suspect is you dooood.
it's the fact it's try-hard...
it's contentless and wrong
Being "try-hard" is not a scumtell. It's the opposite.
wrong
soooo very wrong - incredibly wrong in fact. That kind of contentless tryhard first post is a super easy thing for scum to do in order to get town cred and seem like they're contributing to the thread.
Suspiciously wrong
I think we have different definitions of try-hard. If I see a "contentless" post that shows effort/enthusiasm/etc, that's a town-tell to me. I view reading intent as much more important than reading logic and content early in the game. That's different from pretending to contribute (scumtell).
Some players are very good at manufacturing enthusiasm when they're scum. Others are worse at it. But faking enthusiasm as scum is definitely a skill some players have.
On October 18 2012 06:40 Alex Hesse wrote: Okay right now I want to lynch Alan Schaefer.
##Vote Alan Schaefer
why am I having to ask you to explain?
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.
On October 18 2012 06:40 Alex Hesse wrote: Okay right now I want to lynch Alan Schaefer.
##Vote Alan Schaefer
why am I having to ask you to explain?
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.
So your points on me are ... that I'm more confident in my theory on how to play normal games than on how to play this weird-ass new gametype, and that I want to explicitly commit to posting more?
Yeah actually maybe I'll explain a bit more where I'm coming from with the "posting every time" thing - I think that in this game, unlike other games, posting more than normal is worthwhile even if I'm only going to point out something stupid or scummy by saying "bro you serious?"
Normally I would think to myself, "now is that post really worth making or is it just gonna clutter up the thread?" but in this game, making it has a couple of additional advantages - the game is so small that thread clutter isn't something we really have to worry about (or at least, that's my position until we see otherwise) and extra posting is good because it helps establish a baseline to compare later days' posting to when people try and figure out who got killed in the night and replaced by scum.
- brief though my post is, I believe it answers his entire case except for his "undescribable feeling" that I'm "acting too carefully." (and interestingly enough, if you look at the post I made after he voted me and before he explained why - the first post in that spoiler - does that really feel "careful" to you? But he never addresses that post at all.)
So in my opinion, Alex Hesse is less interested in actually pushing his "case" or his "scum read" on me, and much more interested in reminding everyone of the fact that he made a case and has a scum read. He hasn't once tried to explain his case further, or made any attempt at arguing with the people (read: everyone else in the thread) who are just pretty much ignoring his case and his push. This is either the biggest combination of "vocal" and "inarticulate" that I've ever seen, or it's scum.
On October 19 2012 06:03 Alex Hesse wrote: Hey Douglas Quaid
Why did you drop this hyper aggressive lurker lynching policy you were talking about? Where is this "elsewhere" that you want us to spend our time? You are also accusing all over the place without ever taking a stance, first someone is scummy then someone else, but never a vote or anything.
If we can't lynch Alan Schaefer then lets go for this Douglas Quaid guy.
I didn't "drop" it. There's just no point in tunneling someone who isn't here. I'd rather use my time and attention elsewhere - tunneling a person who isn't posting isn't going to help us scum-hunt.
And so what about my aggression? Fact of the matter is, I have a bunch of null reads on people, and I want them to answer questions so I can figure out what their motives are. Alex for example, still hasn't answered my question his seemingly inexplicable strong town read on Ben.
Ben also still hasn't answered my last post on him.
Very simple - I want to demand answers from people, and then I'll vote. I'm not going to vote someone I'm not sure is scum.
Oh and Alex, still waiting for you to explain this:
2: I am not agreeing with the scum read. I am acquitting him of the bad things while pointing out the good thing. He is probably my biggest town read right now.
You haven't explained much of your read on Alan either. Most of your case amounts to a gut feeling, which is an absurd reason to lynch someone.
doug what do you think of my contention that alex is more interested in reminding us that he has a scum read on me and reminding us that he made a case, than he is in actually persuading people or pushing his case?
On October 18 2012 06:40 Alex Hesse wrote: Okay right now I want to lynch Alan Schaefer.
##Vote Alan Schaefer
why am I having to ask you to explain?
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.
On October 19 2012 02:47 Ben Richards wrote: I know that Harry's style is easy to emulate and logic would dictate that's one of the requisites for NKs. Add to the fact that I'm town, and I'm going to FLIP town, and the ideal place for a scum to hide would be among the loudest voices in my opposition. Why? Because it doesn't make any sense! Because why would scum do that? That's EXACTLY how I play scum, because most people are only interested in searching for the "optimal play".
It was a playful jab intended to make you consider the ramifications of continuing to tunnel me. I'm trying to find scum, whether you believe that or not. Obviously it's my job to MAKE you believe it, regardless of my alignment. Rest assured that I fully intend to do so - but it's hard to do that when there are people in the game who just think I'm scum regardless what I do or say. Call that an excuse, at this point I don't care.
I'm keeping my vote on John because honestly, at this point it like HAS to be intentional. And there's no town motivation for joining a game and proceeding to intentionally not post.
Being an egotistical mofo, my mind started wandering - is my style really easy to emulate? Am I breakable down to a series of obvious tells, and the style of my writing is that mimicable? I don't actually know the answer to this, but it did make me think of something else - one thing about my play that IS hard to mimic is my activity. Firstly, I post quite a lot as you can tell by my post count. But secondly (perhaps more importantly?), I think it's clear that I'm quite attentive to the thread; if someone says something i want to respond to, I respond pretty quickly; or if I'm asked a question, usually I am quite fast on the uptake. This... this is not easy to copy. Not at all. And it brought me back to an earlier post of Ben's:
On October 17 2012 15:41 Ben Richards wrote:
Thread Consolidation - It's D1, so I gotta say it: please please PLEASE try and condense your thoughts into larger, well thought out posts. Not only is it going to make the thread easier to read, but it's going to force scum to fake-contribute more. Win-Win. The easier the thread is to read, the better it's going to be for town in the long run. This is not debatable. This is a fact.
I've attacked this point before for the reason that getting reads off shorter posts and interactions is good, blablabla. But seriously, 3 well condensed posts per day (say) is way easier to mimic than someone who posts a lot and freely. And also like I said before, in a 7 player game, thread readability is not an issue. Having thought about the activity aspect of my play and how that is hard to copy, this point he makes seems to have a distinct scum agenda behind it.
When you add this stuff to the fact Ben was bizarrely, and still unsatisfactorily explainedly (that's a word right ^^), linking me pursuing him to my NK (???) and that his opening post in general was uncontributory fluff, it's just really scummy. And:
On October 19 2012 01:42 Ben Richards wrote:
Elaborate on your read of Alan - I'm not seeing what you're seeing in Alan's posting. I tend to agree with Harry when he says that lurking is absolutely viable as a scum strategy, and presently I think John is our best bet for scum. To a lesser degree, Jack is fitting the bill of lurking, disinterested scum too. Why is Alan scummier than both of these guys?
Throws in Jack as a scumread, I push him, and his subsequent explanation:
On October 19 2012 02:10 Ben Richards wrote: Yes, but obviously I know my own alignment.
How about how he's suspicious of DQ for "pushing a policy of lynching lurkers", yet is buddy buddy with you in spite of you being the one who took the initiative and actually VOTED for John Matrix?
How about he's using your suspicion of me to further excuse not voting for his scumbuddy?
I myself asked Jack on this and received what I thought was a reply that made a lot of sense. Jack clearly explained his viewpoint, but here Ben totally disregards Jack's answer. The second point about suspicions is just ludicrous.
I see no townieness in this guy's play, and plenty of scumminess. Let's lynch Ben.
He might have a real reason, but I haven't seen it. His initial defense seemed fairly calm/logical, but I still have some major questions about his lack of rationale for just about anything else.
His strong town read on Ben is the thing that gets to me the most - Ben's recent posting has been off (treating Harry like he's town), and I haven't seen any rationale for the read at all.
Also, to clarify exactly where I stand, my scumreads are (in no particular order): Ben - for treating Harry like he's town (scumslip?) Alex - for lack of rationale of all his reads John Matrix - For not posting. If John continues to not post into tomorrow, he has to be lynched. There's simply no excuse for not posting in a game that you PM'd the host to enter.
On October 19 2012 02:47 Ben Richards wrote: I know that Harry's style is easy to emulate and logic would dictate that's one of the requisites for NKs. Add to the fact that I'm town, and I'm going to FLIP town, and the ideal place for a scum to hide would be among the loudest voices in my opposition #1. Why? Because it doesn't make any sense! Because why would scum do that? That's EXACTLY how I play scum, because most people are only interested in searching for the "optimal play"#1
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? -snip-
Just for the record I have never had a strong town read on Ben, but I don't think you meant to write that
I am willing to vote for Ben too, DQ would you vote for him?
Oh geezus I'm starting to confuse names. Gimme one sec to sort things out.
I do want to vote Ben, however, I also want to give him a chance to explain himself, as well as give a chance for John Matrix to post. I don't want to rush things when we have 24 hours to go.
On October 19 2012 08:47 Douglas Quaid wrote: Oh geezus I'm starting to confuse names. Gimme one sec to sort things out.
I do want to vote Ben, however, I also want to give him a chance to explain himself, as well as give a chance for John Matrix to post. I don't want to rush things when we have 24 hours to go.
There is no '24 hours to go'. 72 hours was an arbitrary time Palmar said he'd start thinking about wrapping things up if we hadn't got our voting shoes on. It was precisely playing to the 72-hours that got town in a funk in GSL II played recently.
Hm ok. I still want to give it another day to see if John posts. It would be a disaster for town if John is scum and can shed his profile without giving us any reads at all.
On October 19 2012 02:16 Douglas Quaid wrote: Couple of things
Regarding the John Matrix lynch - I'm all for a policy lynch on someone who hasn't posted, but there's no point in voting/pressuring him now. We have a lot of time to lynch him (36 hours), and it's best if we not focus on what his rationale could be and simply pressure the players that actually post.
Regarding Alex's Defense - Seems calm and reasoned, and he gets some townie points. Though, I would like a more thorough explanation of Ben Richards being his "biggest town read."
2: I am not agreeing with the scum read. I am acquitting him of the bad things while pointing out the good thing. He is probably my biggest town read right now.
On October 18 2012 23:45 Jack Slater wrote: I am starting something new
I don't think that Alex is scum, he has vehemently argued against lynching an easy lynch candidate. I don't recall too many times that scum pushed that hard AWAY from lynching a lurker. I mean, even if John flipped scum after the NK, Alex would be the top of the lynch list d2.
Harry in all likelyhood is not scum either. He has provided way more paranoid reasoning than necessary to push this lynch.
This leaves Alan, Doug, John, and Ben as possible scum candidates for my initial reads right now.
Alan has still yet to talk about anything but the setup and how it affects play.
Doug has been scummy to me since the start of the game
John needs to fucking post.
Ben has basically only mentioned alex and setup, he could get my vote right now if I was voting.
##FOS Ben
Makes no damn sense. I've been scummy to you since the beginning of the game, and your top suspect is Ben?
Also, for someone who's suspicious of me, I haven't seen you push your suspicions at all. You interacted with me a little bit when I was explaining policy and the like, but that's it. You have never posted a single thing about why I'm suspicious after the initial burst of posting - yet you still have a scumread on me.
I call bullshit.
On October 19 2012 08:39 Douglas Quaid wrote: He might have a real reason, but I haven't seen it. His initial defense seemed fairly calm/logical, but I still have some major questions about his lack of rationale for just about anything else.
His strong town read on Ben is the thing that gets to me the most - Ben's recent posting has been off (treating Harry like he's town), and I haven't seen any rationale for the read at all.
Also, to clarify exactly where I stand, my scumreads are (in no particular order): Ben - for treating Harry like he's town (scumslip?) Alex - for lack of rationale of all his reads John Matrix - For not posting. If John continues to not post into tomorrow, he has to be lynched. There's simply no excuse for not posting in a game that you PM'd the host to enter.
There's some things I don't like about these posts. Probably the most glaring is how in the first quote he said Jack was super scummy for his post, but then... in his later post doesn't mention Jack at all as a potential scumread? This is despite the fact that Jack didn't address that first post in any way (incidentally, why not Jack?). He hasn't pursued Jack in any way for it either, despite wanting the day to extend so that people can answer questions. Generally speaking I also find Douglas quite non-committal - always waiting for answers, wants more time, etc. Further, in the 2nd post there - he posts 3 scumreads in no particular order - what use is that? There's nothing to be held accountable for there. No preferred lynch, but a bunch of names... ugh, I'm totes talking myself into a scumread here.
On October 19 2012 08:10 Alan Schaefer wrote: doug what do you think of my contention that alex is more interested in reminding us that he has a scum read on me and reminding us that he made a case, than he is in actually persuading people or pushing his case?
On why I'm not pursuing Jack - I have outstanding questions on several players right now, it's impossible for me to keep track of all of them. But thanks for reminding me, and I would like a response from Jack.
Secondly, I am very non-committal in regards to the Ben lynch, and I believe rightfully so. I'm surprised you aren't as well (if you're town). We have a player who hasn't posted yet, and there is a risk that he's scum. We can't ignore this, or mafia gets a huge D1 win and we have nothing to hold them accountable for.
I have scumreads yes, but nothing set in stone. I find Ben scummy, but I think there are possible ways for him to explain his actions if he's town. Alex and Jack as well. I want to wait for responses rather than jumping the gun on inconclusive evidence.
On October 19 2012 08:10 Alan Schaefer wrote: doug what do you think of my contention that alex is more interested in reminding us that he has a scum read on me and reminding us that he made a case, than he is in actually persuading people or pushing his case?
On October 19 2012 09:15 Douglas Quaid wrote: On why I'm not pursuing Jack - I have outstanding questions on several players right now, it's impossible for me to keep track of all of them. But thanks for reminding me, and I would like a response from Jack.
Secondly, I am very non-committal in regards to the Ben lynch, and I believe rightfully so. I'm surprised you aren't as well (if you're town). We have a player who hasn't posted yet, and there is a risk that he's scum. We can't ignore this, or mafia gets a huge D1 win and we have nothing to hold them accountable for.
I have scumreads yes, but nothing set in stone. I find Ben scummy, but I think there are possible ways for him to explain his actions if he's town. Alex and Jack as well. I want to wait for responses rather than jumping the gun on inconclusive evidence.
No, I don't get how you call something very scummy earlier in the day and then magically forget about it when creating your list of reads with no god-damn preference.
On October 19 2012 09:15 Douglas Quaid wrote: On why I'm not pursuing Jack - I have outstanding questions on several players right now, it's impossible for me to keep track of all of them. But thanks for reminding me, and I would like a response from Jack.
Secondly, I am very non-committal in regards to the Ben lynch, and I believe rightfully so. I'm surprised you aren't as well (if you're town). We have a player who hasn't posted yet, and there is a risk that he's scum. We can't ignore this, or mafia gets a huge D1 win and we have nothing to hold them accountable for.
I have scumreads yes, but nothing set in stone. I find Ben scummy, but I think there are possible ways for him to explain his actions if he's town. Alex and Jack as well. I want to wait for responses rather than jumping the gun on inconclusive evidence.
No, I don't get how you call something very scummy earlier in the day and then magically forget about it when creating your list of reads with no god-damn preference.
I forgot, since I'm pursuing a whole bunch of other stuff. What you want me to do - lie and give you a half-assed excuse? That wouldn't be too hard.
On October 19 2012 09:15 Douglas Quaid wrote: On why I'm not pursuing Jack - I have outstanding questions on several players right now, it's impossible for me to keep track of all of them. But thanks for reminding me, and I would like a response from Jack.
Secondly, I am very non-committal in regards to the Ben lynch, and I believe rightfully so. I'm surprised you aren't as well (if you're town). We have a player who hasn't posted yet, and there is a risk that he's scum. We can't ignore this, or mafia gets a huge D1 win and we have nothing to hold them accountable for.
I have scumreads yes, but nothing set in stone. I find Ben scummy, but I think there are possible ways for him to explain his actions if he's town. Alex and Jack as well. I want to wait for responses rather than jumping the gun on inconclusive evidence.
No, I don't get how you call something very scummy earlier in the day and then magically forget about it when creating your list of reads with no god-damn preference.
I forgot, since I'm pursuing a whole bunch of other stuff. What you want me to do - lie and give you a half-assed excuse? That wouldn't be too hard.
So should Jack have been on the list? If not, why not? Who ARE your preferred lynches?
I want to hear from Jack before I make a determination on him. (I'm also curious if you found my point on him to have any merit)
For now, top two lynch candidates are Ben and John.
But for emphasis - I really want to wait to see if John posts before we lynch anyone. There's absolutely no reason to rush things, and it benefits town the more discussion we can generate on D1.
On October 19 2012 09:13 Alan Schaefer wrote: Harry and Jack same question:
On October 19 2012 08:10 Alan Schaefer wrote: doug what do you think of my contention that alex is more interested in reminding us that he has a scum read on me and reminding us that he made a case, than he is in actually persuading people or pushing his case?
not a lot
Why?
He completely ignored my response to his case. He also completely ignored ben's further questioning him on his case:
On October 19 2012 01:42 Ben Richards wrote: @Alex
Elaborate on your read of Alan - I'm not seeing what you're seeing in Alan's posting. I tend to agree with Harry when he says that lurking is absolutely viable as a scum strategy, and presently I think John is our best bet for scum. To a lesser degree, Jack is fitting the bill of lurking, disinterested scum too. Why is Alan scummier than both of these guys?
And yet, five different times later in the thread (I counted in his filter), he continued to insist that "we have a better lynch in Alan" and "there is a better case on Alan."
He continued to bring up and talk about that case while ignoring the response, ignoring questions about it, ignoring the fact that everyone else was ignoring it.
To me, that says he wants everyone to know that he is "making cases and having scum reads" but doesn't care enough to go in depth or fight with people over them.
If you disagree with me, then one of the following things must be true: - you think I'm misinterpreting what he did - ie, you think he actually was trying to convince people, etc - you think it's possible to do exactly what I've described and still be town.
I think it's negligent, but I also get townie feelings elsewhere in his filter (his discussions with me on John).
Ugh. Actually I don't like how he's (not) pushed your case either. I just find Ben significantly scummier - I don't see any townieness in his posts whereas I can see townieness in Alex's.
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.
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.
"Scum is just dying for shit like that" again shows that he has no idea about scum. I also think that him voting me after my very early and very confident town read in him is consistent with how other townies act in the same situation.
What I posted before is it. That's the case. Overall he's just acting like scum, he doesn't have much opinion and spends the time defending himself. There are not a lot of reads but a bunch of prodding and careful posting. His first post looks incredibly scummy with the "don't do that because maybe scum will do this and that", look at Ben Richards when he told me that posting analysis was bullshit, he just came out and said it in caps and shit. Alan Schaefer is posting like a guy who doesn't want to get noticed and who doesn't feel confident in having an original opinion and that's scummy.
By his own admission he's happy to play scum in a way that's counterintuitive or he does things that scum "shouldn't" do. Voting you falls into this category.
The very fact that he talked about it indicates he's capable of that level of understanding about how to play scum.
I don't think so Harry Tasker. I'm going to go with what I know are common scum and town tells because I find that they work for me more often than not. I think that his posting looks honest and I think that it is hard for scum to fake what I think makes him town so I believe that he is town. I am not going to second guess myself in case he might just be a scum mastermind because that never worked out for me before.
Fairly null usually translates into scum. I mean isn't this common knowledge that traditional nulls are a lot more dangerous that traditional scum? If someone is sticking his neck out to make "dumb" cases then he's probably not town because (as you can see with me) that usually just leads to a bunch of over zealous townies voting him for actually dumb reasons. If someone is doing fuck all then he's probably scum. Jack Slater also fitted into this category which was why I poked him earlier today with his change of opinion and weird "Did you see that in the scum qt?" comment, but I think he explained himself okayish. It's not like he is confirmed or anything but I'd much rather lynch Alan Schaefer.
Same boat as Douglas for me. I can't tell you he's definitely town or anything but I don't see reason to lynch him either when I can see scum agenda in someone else's posts.
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.
@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
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.
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.
On October 19 2012 02:47 Ben Richards wrote: I know that Harry's style is easy to emulate and logic would dictate that's one of the requisites for NKs. Add to the fact that I'm town, and I'm going to FLIP town, and the ideal place for a scum to hide would be among the loudest voices in my opposition #1. Why? Because it doesn't make any sense! Because why would scum do that? That's EXACTLY how I play scum, because most people are only interested in searching for the "optimal play"#1
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?
It was a playful jab intended to make you consider the ramifications of continuing to tunnel me #3. I'm trying to find scum, whether you believe that or not. Obviously it's my job to MAKE you believe it, regardless of my alignment. Rest assured that I fully intend to do so - but it's hard to do that when there are people in the game who just think I'm scum regardless what I do or say. Call that an excuse, at this point I don't care.
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?
I'm keeping my vote on John because honestly, at this point it like HAS to be intentional. And there's no town motivation for joining a game and proceeding to intentionally not post #4.
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.
Actually rereading Alan's case on Alex, it's pretty solid. I've caught scum before by them attempting to bloat their contributions to the thread, and I hadn't read Alex's case on Alan earlier which is understandable because in spite of referencing it a couple of times
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 06:40 Alex Hesse wrote: Okay right now I want to lynch Alan Schaefer.
##Vote Alan Schaefer
why am I having to ask you to explain?
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.
His posting looks bad
His contributions look wishywashy
...While others look more confident?
Is overly aware of his posting
Other unquantifiable things
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.
Uh... whatever Alex, behaving like a dick isn't going to help anyone.
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.
I think it looks a bit manufactured yes. I'm more confident in my town read on you than I am in my town read on Ben Richards now so I'll go for him if you really want to.
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.
No-lynching twice and seeing two scum flips before deadline but not having any lynches seems like, well I don't want to do that. I don't even know if we can no-lynch. I'm up for John Matrix, Alan Schaefer, Ben Richards. Someone needs to die today.
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.
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?
I'm not any good but I know a guy who is just trying to stay middle of the road when I see one. Just look at his first post which was what set me off:
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.
I took a look at Alex's read on Ben and largely agree with it. Ben just isn't thinking as if he was mafia. His NK comment seems absurd for mafia to post, and suggesting Harry's posting style is easy to emulate strikes me as very town. It's not what mafia would think. Combined with his first post (which I still read as "try-hard"), I think he's town.
My top two reads are Jack and John
John for not posting (duh).
Jack for what was a very unsatisfying response to my initial query:
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
Firstly, I don't like how he's "testing the waters" in regard to voting Ben. Why should it matter if we're willing to vote Ben? If he's suspicious of him, he should be throwing down his vote.
He was suspicious of me in that post, yet he FOS'd Ben instead. What his read is now has no bearing - I'm interested in the logic of that post, and he still hasn't responded to it.
It seems totally arbitrary to go for Jack Slater over Alan Schaefer. Alan Schaefer is "testing the waters" a lot more than Jack Slater is doing in that quote. Jack Slater ignoring you isn't a scum tell at all. Both of your lynches seem like semi-policy lynches and still you don't have the guts to actually do anything. Two people voting John Matrix, he's your scum read (don't know how he can be a read when he hasn't said anything though), around 4 hours until deadline, but you're still not voting. What's it take?
Yea I changed my opinion on Douglas Quaid because of this post. Him and Alan Schaefer are my scum reads for today. Gotta say I'm not too hot on this no-deadline-no-activity-requirements thing.
So... this cycle has been very frustrating for me, because as of right now I feel like I've been on the wrong track with stuff. I've been waiting to hear back from Douglas what he thought about Ben, and he didn't do what was perhaps the obvious scum thing to do, which was agree with the near-universal town read (I think?) on him - me. So I'm kinda backing off Douglas right now.
Relatedly, after Alex's comments I went back and re-read and re-read and re-read the parts of the posts he was talking about, and I did find it very hard to rationalise/picture from a scum perspective. I think maybe I got too caught up in the fact I really vehemently disagreed with his Thread Consolidation point, and the NK thing... maybe just fucking weird and not necessarily scummy?
Also at the moment I just don't want to lynch Alex. Maybe he's scum manipulating me, but ugh, I just don't think so.
This leaves me lynching into Alan Schaefer, John Matrix, and Jack Slater. Due to busyness I've not re-read Alan's filter yet, but I will read his and Jack's this evening and see if I can come to a conclusion.
On October 20 2012 01:55 Douglas Quaid wrote: A couple of things:
I'm against lynching Ben Richards for now
I took a look at Alex's read on Ben and largely agree with it. Ben just isn't thinking as if he was mafia. His NK comment seems absurd for mafia to post, and suggesting Harry's posting style is easy to emulate strikes me as very town. It's not what mafia would think. Combined with his first post (which I still read as "try-hard"), I think he's town.
My top two reads are Jack and John
John for not posting (duh).
Jack for what was a very unsatisfying response to my initial query:
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
Firstly, I don't like how he's "testing the waters" in regard to voting Ben. Why should it matter if we're willing to vote Ben? If he's suspicious of him, he should be throwing down his vote.
He was suspicious of me in that post, yet he FOS'd Ben instead. What his read is now has no bearing - I'm interested in the logic of that post, and he still hasn't responded to it.
On October 20 2012 01:55 Douglas Quaid wrote: A couple of things:
I'm against lynching Ben Richards for now
I took a look at Alex's read on Ben and largely agree with it. Ben just isn't thinking as if he was mafia. His NK comment seems absurd for mafia to post, and suggesting Harry's posting style is easy to emulate strikes me as very town. It's not what mafia would think. Combined with his first post (which I still read as "try-hard"), I think he's town.
My top two reads are Jack and John
John for not posting (duh).
Jack for what was a very unsatisfying response to my initial query:
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
Firstly, I don't like how he's "testing the waters" in regard to voting Ben. Why should it matter if we're willing to vote Ben? If he's suspicious of him, he should be throwing down his vote.
He was suspicious of me in that post, yet he FOS'd Ben instead. What his read is now has no bearing - I'm interested in the logic of that post, and he still hasn't responded to it.
This is unbelievably hypocritical, though. Ugh.
It's not just hypocritical - it's flat-out wrong, and possibly anti-town. Jack Slater is, IMO, trying to start organizing a move towards a consensus lynch, which is what we should all be doing a better job of at this point in the game. But Douglas characterizes that as "testing the waters", being non-committal. Quite bad.
On October 20 2012 01:55 Douglas Quaid wrote: A couple of things:
I'm against lynching Ben Richards for now
I took a look at Alex's read on Ben and largely agree with it. Ben just isn't thinking as if he was mafia. His NK comment seems absurd for mafia to post, and suggesting Harry's posting style is easy to emulate strikes me as very town. It's not what mafia would think. Combined with his first post (which I still read as "try-hard"), I think he's town.
My top two reads are Jack and John
John for not posting (duh).
Jack for what was a very unsatisfying response to my initial query:
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
Firstly, I don't like how he's "testing the waters" in regard to voting Ben. Why should it matter if we're willing to vote Ben? If he's suspicious of him, he should be throwing down his vote.
He was suspicious of me in that post, yet he FOS'd Ben instead. What his read is now has no bearing - I'm interested in the logic of that post, and he still hasn't responded to it.
This is unbelievably hypocritical, though. Ugh.
It's not just hypocritical - it's flat-out wrong, and possibly anti-town. Jack Slater is, IMO, trying to start organizing a move towards a consensus lynch, which is what we should all be doing a better job of at this point in the game. But Douglas characterizes that as "testing the waters", being non-committal. Quite bad.
On October 20 2012 02:47 Alex Hesse wrote: It seems totally arbitrary to go for Jack Slater over Alan Schaefer. Alan Schaefer is "testing the waters" a lot more than Jack Slater is doing in that quote. Jack Slater ignoring you isn't a scum tell at all. Both of your lynches seem like semi-policy lynches and still you don't have the guts to actually do anything. Two people voting John Matrix, he's your scum read (don't know how he can be a read when he hasn't said anything though), around 4 hours until deadline, but you're still not voting. What's it take?
Yea I changed my opinion on Douglas Quaid because of this post. Him and Alan Schaefer are my scum reads for today. Gotta say I'm not too hot on this no-deadline-no-activity-requirements thing.
Firstly, there's no goddamn deadline.
Secondly, you can say whatever the hell you want about "guts" but I'm torn between two scumreads and I'm not sure which one I want to lynch over the other.
Lastly, for emphasis:
Two people voting John Matrix, he's your scum read (don't know how he can be a read when he hasn't said anything though), around 4 hours until deadline, but you're still not voting. What's it take?
DAFUQ son? You were voting for John at the time of this post. GTFO with that hypocritical shit, and I'll have to take another look at you as well.
Douglas, why are you undecided at all? You were quite adamant about what had to be done yesterday
On October 20 2012 03:13 Douglas Quaid wrote:
Secondly, you can say whatever the hell you want about "guts" but I'm torn between two scumreads and I'm not sure which one I want to lynch over the other.
On October 19 2012 08:39 Douglas Quaid wrote: John Matrix - For not posting. If John continues to not post into tomorrow, he has to be lynched. There's simply no excuse for not posting in a game that you PM'd the host to enter.
On October 20 2012 01:55 Douglas Quaid wrote: A couple of things:
I'm against lynching Ben Richards for now
I took a look at Alex's read on Ben and largely agree with it. Ben just isn't thinking as if he was mafia. His NK comment seems absurd for mafia to post, and suggesting Harry's posting style is easy to emulate strikes me as very town. It's not what mafia would think. Combined with his first post (which I still read as "try-hard"), I think he's town.
My top two reads are Jack and John
John for not posting (duh).
Jack for what was a very unsatisfying response to my initial query:
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
Firstly, I don't like how he's "testing the waters" in regard to voting Ben. Why should it matter if we're willing to vote Ben? If he's suspicious of him, he should be throwing down his vote.
He was suspicious of me in that post, yet he FOS'd Ben instead. What his read is now has no bearing - I'm interested in the logic of that post, and he still hasn't responded to it.
This is unbelievably hypocritical, though. Ugh.
It's not just hypocritical - it's flat-out wrong, and possibly anti-town. Jack Slater is, IMO, trying to start organizing a move towards a consensus lynch, which is what we should all be doing a better job of at this point in the game. But Douglas characterizes that as "testing the waters", being non-committal. Quite bad.
I disagree with what you're characterizing Jack's post as. How is it consolidating?
He had a scumread on Ben up until that point, and presumably Ben is his only current scumread. So why isn't he voting? Why is he looking to consolidate when there's only 1 candidate he want's to vote for? I'd sympathize if he was torn between multiple reads (like myself), but he's not. There's nothing "consolidating" about his request - he's reluctant to vote his only scumread. That's scummy.
Secondly, you can say whatever the hell you want about "guts" but I'm torn between two scumreads and I'm not sure which one I want to lynch over the other.
On October 19 2012 08:39 Douglas Quaid wrote: John Matrix - For not posting. If John continues to not post into tomorrow, he has to be lynched. There's simply no excuse for not posting in a game that you PM'd the host to enter.
Two reasons 1) I think my suspicions on Jack have more merit than my other two at the time of my previous post (on Alex and Ben) 2) I still want to give John some time to post. We have a couple of hours until the 72 hour mark.
Like I'll admit the whole "John situation" has really thrown me for a loop. It's really fucking hard to choose between someone I find really scummy on posting (Jack) and someone who's not posting and playing into "optimal" scum strategy (John). So I'll set the 72 hour mark to draw a line somewhere. I think both have good chances of flipping scum.
I'm not finding much agreeable at the moment :/ What I'm especially disliking right now, though, is Alan popping into the thread, telling us something is bad (but not scummy), telling us we should be doing a better job of consolidating, and then disappearing again.
I completely disagree with Alan's assessment of Jack, but I don't find him scummy. I'll have to look into Alex's case more, but Alan's fairly null to me. I also find semi-unlikely that scum would turn around and go directly after their accuser in a coherent manner (his vote on Alex).
On October 20 2012 03:33 Harry Tasker wrote: why is that unlikely at all?
Mafia's natural reaction isn't confrontational. I can see how mafia would do something like that, but I think that reaction is more likely from a townie.
Of course you get pissed at your accuser, but he didn't "just turn around" he posted a response which was really just an opinion piece and then he prodded to see if he could vote me and then he just did that. I don't find that inconsistent with scum behavior at all. You need to discredit whoever is accusing you anyway so you might just as well accuse him the hell back.
I think I could get down with lynching, Alan, Alex.
His last post and subsequent disappearance is pretty terribad. He comes in and posts on something randomly happening in the thread, but he says nothing about his main scumread, you, despite the fact you've posted quite extensively today.
Okay lets lynch Alan Schaefer then. You in Douglas Quaid? I think it's going to be troublesome getting a lynch on him though because I don't see who our fourth vote is going to be. If he's town we probably wont need one though LOL.
Ok. I don't want to lynch Alan right now - this lynch feels like a really emotionally-swing lynch to a post he made 30 minutes ago. I mean there are some odd things in his filter, particularly this:
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.
That line strikes me as a bit strange, since he isn't posting alex nearly as hard as he should be. He's posting ben harder then alex. However, I sympathize with the overall indecisiveness as that's pretty much what I've been doing.
Let's give the guy a chance to post (longer than 30 minutes at the very least) before we swing a rapid lynch on him.
On October 20 2012 01:55 Douglas Quaid wrote: A couple of things:
I'm against lynching Ben Richards for now
I took a look at Alex's read on Ben and largely agree with it. Ben just isn't thinking as if he was mafia. His NK comment seems absurd for mafia to post, and suggesting Harry's posting style is easy to emulate strikes me as very town. It's not what mafia would think. Combined with his first post (which I still read as "try-hard"), I think he's town.
My top two reads are Jack and John
John for not posting (duh).
Jack for what was a very unsatisfying response to my initial query:
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
Firstly, I don't like how he's "testing the waters" in regard to voting Ben. Why should it matter if we're willing to vote Ben? If he's suspicious of him, he should be throwing down his vote.
He was suspicious of me in that post, yet he FOS'd Ben instead. What his read is now has no bearing - I'm interested in the logic of that post, and he still hasn't responded to it.
1. I am still implementing my 4 vote at a time plan... Either that or I will hammer any of my top 2 scum reads I have... As with everyone in this game votes are more important than ever... I want to be one of the 4 voting on the lynch.
2. That question was complete bs and you should know it.. I obviously felt stronger about ben flipping scum then you at that time... But your self centered fear of what people think about you is shining on display... At the time I was reading all of your posts not as neutrally as I should have been, I was aware of this but because you were in my final four and I had spoke on you I didn't feel the need to rehash my read...
Dq is nervous about my read on him and wants to constantly know exactly what I think of him... Because I may think of him as scum he uses ad hominem against me and then calls me scum with baseless accusations... Some of you pointed out the hypocrisy in his posts and there is more when he says I only have 1 scum read and then quotes a post where I put 4 players as my could be scum list while he only has me and John matrix (which isn't even a read) as his "reads"...
Dq is scum lashing back at the thread and myself for trying to organize a lynch that won't allow for a lack of reads or reason behind the votes... This is pushing a scum agenda.
Anyone that says my filter looks bad please explain why? I hate being called scum without reason
I don't have time to post as much as I want to right now in about 3 hours I will be able to post more
On October 20 2012 03:44 Harry Tasker wrote: no, that post was a tipping point, not the cause of an emotional reaction.
The tipping point? You were null about him until that post and all of a sudden decided to lynch him? That post was far from a tipping point for me. It's strange, yes, but not damning.
He was canvassing opinion, and you yourself haven't laid down a single vote all game. I think he's playing pretty badly, but I would agree with Alex that Alan ends up scummier when comparing two similar players.
On October 20 2012 03:44 Harry Tasker wrote: no, that post was a tipping point, not the cause of an emotional reaction.
The tipping point? You were null about him until that post and all of a sudden decided to lynch him? That post was far from a tipping point for me. It's strange, yes, but not damning.
What I hadn't really noticed on my previous look at Alan is the post you yourself reference a couple of posts ago.
He couldn't be any more non-committal if he tried, where he says he can't even decide between two *secondary* lynch candidates while not pushing his primary one.
He came into the thread telling us town should be doing a better job consolidating, while his post itself did nothing of the sort, and then he left. That's preachy scummy play.
That's a fair point on Alan, I'm still unsold about lynching him over John though. Jacks' recent post seems legitimately offended that I'd consider him scummy. I'm willing to give him a pass for that.
I'm goign to look through Alan's filter 1 more time and see if I can find anything that makes me think he's town. If not, I think you two (Alex and Harry) have brought forth enough points to lynch him.
Let it be known that I'm not very comfortable with Douglas Quaid suddenly wanting to lynch Alan Schaefer right when Harry Tasker and I tell him to get the hell out.
Ok, reading through Alan's filter again, there's not much of substance in it. Even his case on Alex, while directed at his accuser, isn't much. He isn't confrontational with Alex at all, and he's not generating any meaningful content.
On October 20 2012 04:04 Alex Hesse wrote: Let it be known that I'm not very comfortable with Douglas Quaid suddenly wanting to lynch Alan Schaefer right when Harry Tasker and I tell him to get the hell out.
Sniped woo.
You both have been pushing me to lynch Alan for a while, and you convinced me to vote him. So you're not comfortable with me lynching someone that you think is scum and have been pushing?
No, I'm not comfortable with you at all. You've had ages to look over Alan Schaefer, we've had conversations about him but only now when Harry Tasker and I poke you with Jack Slater joining in you finally get your shit together and then you apparently just read his filter in like 10 mins and decided that he probably wasn't town.
On October 20 2012 04:11 Alex Hesse wrote: No, I'm not comfortable with you at all. You've had ages to look over Alan Schaefer, we've had conversations about him but only now when Harry Tasker and I poke you with Jack Slater joining in you finally get your shit together and then you apparently just read his filter in like 10 mins and decided that he probably wasn't town.
You're pointing out things that I haven't considered - especially his ltest post, since I was mostly replying to you guys and posting about Jack.
I'll be the first to admit I didn't give his filter a hard look. He's been flying under the radar in my analysis, and given what you brought up, I think he's scum.
On October 20 2012 03:13 Harry Tasker wrote: Also, Alan - Alex has actually tried to push his read on you today, and was willing to explain things about it when I asked him about it.
What do you make of this?
i don't like it very much - he's doing what I called him out for not doing, after I called him out for it, when he had plenty of time to do it before. Plus his additional reasoning is pretty shitty.
I was worried for a minute that this might be confirmation bias - I say "he's scummy because he's not doing this" and then when he does it I say "he's scummy because he's only doing this after I called him out for not doing it."
However, he had plenty of time to do it before getting called out on it and he should have done that if he was town. So yeah, I still think he's scum.
Someone tell me what is scummy about being unsure whether I want to lynch someone who fucking hasn't posted once. It's a lose-lose situation for a townie - it fundamentally comes down to a gut check on "do I really think someone would disrespect the game and his fellow players enough to do this on purpose or do I think that someone is being an asshole and didn't tell palmar they would be away, which is more likely."
If I was scum I would either know that he's scum ("we shouldn't lynch him because we don't have enough information, policy lynching bad for town, etcetera) or I would know that he's town ("lynch him not posting is optimal scum play.")
You people are fucking ridiculous. This is a hard situation and having trouble deciding what to do is not "wishy washy scum play." Requiring some kind of absurd false self confidence out of everyone and calling them noncommital when they want to be honest with the thread about their decision making process can only hurt the town.
Like, of course I'm going to be uncertain how do deal with the new aspects of an unusual gametype. This game has multiple unusual mechanics - the skin-wearing thing and the all smurfs thing. So anyone who pretends to just immediately know how to deal with them is putting forward a false persona because they want to seem sure of themselves because "being uncertain about things is scummy."
It's really unfortunate that both townies and scum feel this way.
The thing is, you vote for Alex, and then you don't really push it at all, while proposing 2 secondary lynch candidates which you can't decide between.
You say that town should be better at consolidating but in fact you have done absolutely nothing yourself to help town consolidate.
On October 20 2012 03:55 Harry Tasker wrote: And yes, timing does matter.
He came into the thread telling us town should be doing a better job consolidating, while his post itself did nothing of the sort, and then he left. That's preachy scummy play.
the purpose of the post you're criticizing was just to recognize that Douglas Quaid had attacked Jack Slater for "testing the waters" when in my opinion, Jack Slater was "trying to organize,' which is a very different thing.
Yes in an ideal world I should have been doing more to organize as well. But I still wanted (still want) to kill Alex Hesse. I've been trying to get people to talk about him, but it hasn't been super effective.
Actually speaking of that, Harry, what do you think about the fact that Alex only started explaining himself and pushing his scum read on me after I posted a case on him and got people to start talking about it? Does that get rid of your "bad feeling" from earlier about how he hadn't been pushing that read/case?
How did I not push it at all? I did my best to get people thinking about him. I got one other person to vote for him, and I got you to start thinking about him and at least admit some suspicion.
On October 20 2012 04:34 Harry Tasker wrote: Alan, if not Alex, then who?
Okay I spent as much time as I could on reading filters. I have to leave soon.
Ben's defense post doesn't switch him to a full-on town read but it does make me feel more townie on him.
Then there's you and douglas. Right now I think both of you are town. I hope I'm not letting myself be convinced by the Austinmcc "more posts more townie!" fallacy. But I don't think I am.
That leaves john matrix and jack slater.
jack slater's filter is pretty small, and he spends a lot of it going after ben without really posting much on him in the way of reasoning on him. But I feel like there are some townie elements in there too - I like that he put pressure on doug for the lurker lynch stuff (before we knew there would be someone who just wouldn't fucking post - usually I'm against things like lurker lynches and policy lynches, so I can empathize with townie suspicion of people who push them).
So john matrix. There are four things that make this a pretty unique situation - the small game, Palmar's no activity requirement, the skinchanging thing, and the fact that he literally hasn't posted once. The small game makes us way more vulnerable to lurking in general. The lack of an activity requirement means we can't count on modkills or replacement. The skinchanging means if he's scum he can just drop the lurker act and replace someone. And the fact that he hasn't even posted at all is different from what people usually think of when they say "lurkers," it makes it impossible to get even a bad read on him and makes it less likely that his activity will pick up later. At this point I think we can't keep waiting for him to post, it's been several days. We have to assume either that he's scum, or that if he's town he will continue to never ever post at all.
So what I think that means is that if he's town, leaving him alive still hurts us. It's one less town vote we can use to outvote scum, which makes it easier for scum to influence the lynch. And the "we should policy lynch him" debate continues to take up time and energy.
So at this point, my second choice would be John Matrix. I will vote him if it is completely clear that Alex Hesse isn't getting lynched today.
Now I'm leaving, I will check in on the thread when I get where I'm going and see if it's time to move my vote.
Having read Alan's recent burst of posting, I'm not comfortable lynching him. He's thinking the exact same way as I am about the John Matrix thing, especially his hesitancy between John and his top scumread (Alex). That's my mentality to a T, and I'd be insane to lynch him for that.
That being said, I think we have no choice but to lynch John Matrix today.
There are two situations: 1) John Matrix is scum. If we lynch him, yay! If we don't, mafia gets a free NK an we're at lylo. 2) John Matrix is afk town. If we lynch him, shit. If we don't lynch him, we'll be horrendously distracted by him tomorrow, and chances are he won't be back to post.
I also think it's fairly reasonable that John flips scum here. This is an unusual setup and you had to PM Palmar to /in the game. I find it unlikely that a townie showed enough interest in the game to PM Palmar and promptly peace out. I also think a townie would have called for a replacement if he/she was afk for 3 days.
Ok that last post especially puts me over the edge.
Doug is pushing anyone that he can that is not active in the thread, and when they become active he is no longer willing to push them.
It started with me. Then I posted, so he looked at Alan, saw Alan wasn't posting anymore and voted him. Then when Alan had some activity he immediately unvoted Now with a resurgence in John Matrix suspicion look who Doug is on
Doug has not pushed a lynch with a solid case yet as evidenced by how quickly he is willing to unvote. Do you honestly see a townie being wavered from his strongest scum read because of one post in answer to a case? He has yet to provide almost any reason other than activity to why he is voting for whomever he is voting for. He also has failed to provide almost any reasoning other than activity for his town reads as well. Literally nothing he has said has been actual scum hunting, just weak attempts and call outs that he immediately rescinds due to fear.
Doug should be lynched today. I want Alex, Alan, Harry, and Ben to all comment on this and the rest of my filter
On October 20 2012 05:45 Jack Slater wrote: Ok that last post especially puts me over the edge.
Doug is pushing anyone that he can that is not active in the thread, and when they become active he is no longer willing to push them.
It started with me. Then I posted, so he looked at Alan, saw Alan wasn't posting anymore and voted him. Then when Alan had some activity he immediately unvoted Now with a resurgence in John Matrix suspicion look who Doug is on
Doug has not pushed a lynch with a solid case yet as evidenced by how quickly he is willing to unvote. Do you honestly see a townie being wavered from his strongest scum read because of one post in answer to a case? He has yet to provide almost any reason other than activity to why he is voting for whomever he is voting for. He also has failed to provide almost any reasoning other than activity for his town reads as well. Literally nothing he has said has been actual scum hunting, just weak attempts and call outs that he immediately rescinds due to fear.
Doug should be lynched today. I want Alex, Alan, Harry, and Ben to all comment on this and the rest of my filter
Trouble is, I kinda do? I'm pretty unsure myself and it's poo. Why has Ben not been around at all today? :/
To add, because no one is talking WTF where is everyone.
Doug's supposed "best read" is on someone who hasn't posted. He doesn't even really have a 2nd scum read. How after 72 hours and about ~12 pages of game posts in a 7 player game is your only read the guy who hasn't posted?
On October 20 2012 05:45 Jack Slater wrote: Ok that last post especially puts me over the edge.
Doug is pushing anyone that he can that is not active in the thread, and when they become active he is no longer willing to push them.
It started with me. Then I posted, so he looked at Alan, saw Alan wasn't posting anymore and voted him. Then when Alan had some activity he immediately unvoted Now with a resurgence in John Matrix suspicion look who Doug is on
Doug has not pushed a lynch with a solid case yet as evidenced by how quickly he is willing to unvote. Do you honestly see a townie being wavered from his strongest scum read because of one post in answer to a case? He has yet to provide almost any reason other than activity to why he is voting for whomever he is voting for. He also has failed to provide almost any reasoning other than activity for his town reads as well. Literally nothing he has said has been actual scum hunting, just weak attempts and call outs that he immediately rescinds due to fear.
Doug should be lynched today. I want Alex, Alan, Harry, and Ben to all comment on this and the rest of my filter
Trouble is, I kinda do? I'm pretty unsure myself and it's poo. Why has Ben not been around at all today? :/
Please dont nit-pick at one part of my case. And the answer to that rhetorical question is no. If a townie feels strongly about a case it will take more than just 1 post to change their mind. Remember he felt so strongly about this that he was willing to lynch me regardless of how weak his accusations actually turned out to be.
His accusations against Alan were just as bad as witnessed by anyone else who has read his filter
On October 20 2012 03:43 Douglas Quaid wrote: Ok. I don't want to lynch Alan right now - this lynch feels like a really emotionally-swing lynch to a post he made 30 minutes ago. I mean there are some odd things in his filter, particularly this:
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.
That line strikes me as a bit strange, since he isn't posting alex nearly as hard as he should be. He's posting ben harder then alex. However, I sympathize with the overall indecisiveness as that's pretty much what I've been doing.
Let's give the guy a chance to post (longer than 30 minutes at the very least) before we swing a rapid lynch on him.
Guess how many times Alan posted in between all three of these posts+ Show Spoiler +
0
On October 20 2012 03:57 Douglas Quaid wrote: That's a fair point on Alan, I'm still unsold about lynching him over John though. Jacks' recent post seems legitimately offended that I'd consider him scummy. I'm willing to give him a pass for that.
I'm goign to look through Alan's filter 1 more time and see if I can find anything that makes me think he's town. If not, I think you two (Alex and Harry) have brought forth enough points to lynch him.
On October 20 2012 04:07 Douglas Quaid wrote: Ok, reading through Alan's filter again, there's not much of substance in it. Even his case on Alex, while directed at his accuser, isn't much. He isn't confrontational with Alex at all, and he's not generating any meaningful content.
##Vote Alan Schaefer
LOOK AT ALL THAT REALLY GREAT REASONING AND SCUM HUNTING GUIZE
I'm not around for long. As I said earlier I'll lynch Alan Schaefer, Douglas Quaid or John Matrix if you guys really feel like going down that road. Douglas Quaid voting Alan Schaefer and putting him to 3 makes me a little worried but he unvoted pretty fast and I'm tired and I want a lynch.
Kind of sucks that neither Ben Richards nor John Matrix is around because if they're both town then we can't get a scum lynch off today. Scum has no reason to kill each other.
Checking out Ben Richards filter, he's not going to be around for another while (around 10 hours).
So this is how it is. If Alan Schaefer and Douglas Quaid are scum then we can't make them lynch each other and John Matrix is the only available lynch to us. If only one of them is scum then I believe that John Matrix is the other scum and we might as well lynch him. So right now we're looking at John Matrix or wait and see what happens.
Reading Jack Slater's last post on Doug, I was like "what he's only pushing inactive people? and then jumping off of them when they become active? why that does indeed sound scummy, let me look into it!"
The thing about this kind of accusation is, without evidence it's impossible to know how accurate of a characterization it is, and how much it's an impression influenced by a pre-existing scum read or confirmation bias.
With that I now present some actual evidence from Doug's filter.
I'm inserting the conclusion at the beginning, as a tl;dr. Then, I go through Doug's filter looking for places where he changes his mind. Finally, I leave the conclusion where it was initially typed, and talk a little bit more about Jack's accusation.
First, Doug's scum reads jump around like a fucking mexican bean. Usually, reads jumping around is perceived as scummy because it lets scum be noncommittal and morph their positions later. However, in this setup scum can just morph their positions by taking someone's skin like a suit, so I'm not sure what these jumping reads do other than make it easier for scum to pretend to be him later.
Second, Doug sometimes provides reasoning for his reads changing and sometimes doesn't. I was hoping this part would be clearer one way or the other, but there's a lot of times when he just puts up one or two sentences about why his read changed, and those sentences could be genuine or they could be excuses.
Third, the reasoning for some of Doug's strongest scum reads is quite weak. For example, his read on Ben first came about because "he was treating Harry like he's town (scumslip?)", and went away because he agreed with Alex's post on Ben and because he thought Ben's first post was townie. His read on Jack Slater was because of one post he found scummy where Jack was inconsistent, and then the read sort of died down, and then came back because of another specific post he found inconsistent. There are a few times where this doesn't hold, but by and large his scum reads don't happen because of overall impressions or trends, but rather because of single specific posts that he finds scummy or hypocritical. However, those specific posts he does call out seem to be important ones, so I'm not ready to say "he's looking for scummy behavior but not for scum". It's a possibility.
As of the point where I'm starting this post, I haven't made any conclusions, so you can learn with me as we go along! Won't this be fun?
I'll use spoilers for the sake of my own sanity when I proofread this.
On October 18 2012 00:30 Alex Hesse wrote: I like the idea that we just vote. Everybody knows by now that we need to be careful of scum hammering and then he doesn't have to take any responsibility because he'll just be gone the next day so just let people do what they want to. This is not a newbie game, I imagine that every townie in this game is smart enough to figure things out on his own.
With the no hard deadline thing we have around 72 hours though and there's no reason to end the day within the first 24.
While we have 72 hours, it's worth talking about the instant-lynch mechanic in a previous game (GSL Mini II) in regards to the deadline length. The 72 hour day made people really complacent about contributing early (and leading to last-minute deadline scrambles), which should be avoided at all costs this game. We have time, but don't be afraid to contribute early and often.
@ Ben Richards
That thing by Alex Hesse you pointed out is really off. It's a "too scummy to be scum" read, and is questionable logic at best.
The entire post is just strange - he seems to be half-accusing you of being scum and then overall disagreeing with the scumread on you.
On October 17 2012 15:48 Alan Schaefer wrote: Longer posts don't make the thread more readable. Clearly you've never played with gonzaw.
[...]
ROFL I'm not going to lynch you, you're funny.
I wanted to bash Ben Richards for all the things he wrote but I see that Harry Tasker has done this for me. The only thing I disagree with is the conclusion; I don't think that Ben Richards is scum right now because it makes no sense for scum to push scum agenda in their first post. It's simply barely ever worth it to stick your neck out like that and say obviously wrongs things like "Don't use posting style for analysis". I think it's a little scummy that he's just repeating me on his "Be careful of lynch-a-lurker policies because scum will just not lurk then", the consolidation thing could be said by either alignment but as Harry Tasker pointed out it's probably not going to be a problem. This is a 7 player game, not a 80 player beast, and it's going to be easy enough to read by everyone. Not doing 20 page one-liner tunneling fests and consolidating isn't the same thing at all. I also think it's townie for him to say that scum can easily fake things like posting style and activity patterns because I don't think that's true at all. People have sleeping patterns and they have work and school, most people have only around 2-4 hours where they are really active on mafia. I consider this a townie thing to say because generally townies think it's a lot easier to be scum than scum think it is. Consequently, I disagree with the scum read on Ben Richards.
I don't agree that Harry Tasker wants to "roleplay" his character at all though. I want Alex Hesse to be me, because scum will have an easier time faking me faking Alex Hesse than they will have faking just good old me. Also, I have no clue who most of these guys are even though I get the theme of "Arnold Schwarzenegger characters".
Read the red/bolded line then read his conclusion. It makes no sense for him to include that in his analysis.
In addition, the whole post is just incredibly over-justified for this point in the game.
He's suspicious of Alex for giving "too scummy to be scum" logic and for over-justifying an early post.
On October 19 2012 02:16 Douglas Quaid wrote: Couple of things
Regarding the John Matrix lynch - I'm all for a policy lynch on someone who hasn't posted, but there's no point in voting/pressuring him now. We have a lot of time to lynch him (36 hours), and it's best if we not focus on what his rationale could be and simply pressure the players that actually post.
Regarding Alex's Defense - Seems calm and reasoned, and he gets some townie points. Though, I would like a more thorough explanation of Ben Richards being his "biggest town read."
2: I am not agreeing with the scum read. I am acquitting him of the bad things while pointing out the good thing. He is probably my biggest town read right now.
On October 18 2012 23:45 Jack Slater wrote: I am starting something new
I don't think that Alex is scum, he has vehemently argued against lynching an easy lynch candidate. I don't recall too many times that scum pushed that hard AWAY from lynching a lurker. I mean, even if John flipped scum after the NK, Alex would be the top of the lynch list d2.
Harry in all likelyhood is not scum either. He has provided way more paranoid reasoning than necessary to push this lynch.
This leaves Alan, Doug, John, and Ben as possible scum candidates for my initial reads right now.
Alan has still yet to talk about anything but the setup and how it affects play.
Doug has been scummy to me since the start of the game
John needs to fucking post.
Ben has basically only mentioned alex and setup, he could get my vote right now if I was voting.
##FOS Ben
Makes no damn sense. I've been scummy to you since the beginning of the game, and your top suspect is Ben?
Also, for someone who's suspicious of me, I haven't seen you push your suspicions at all. You interacted with me a little bit when I was explaining policy and the like, but that's it. You have never posted a single thing about why I'm suspicious after the initial burst of posting - yet you still have a scumread on me.
I call bullshit.
He "likes Alex's defense." No real explanation why, but alright.
On October 19 2012 02:47 Ben Richards wrote: I know that Harry's style is easy to emulate and logic would dictate that's one of the requisites for NKs. Add to the fact that I'm town, and I'm going to FLIP town, and the ideal place for a scum to hide would be among the loudest voices in my opposition #1. Why? Because it doesn't make any sense! Because why would scum do that? That's EXACTLY how I play scum, because most people are only interested in searching for the "optimal play"#1
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?
It was a playful jab intended to make you consider the ramifications of continuing to tunnel me #3. I'm trying to find scum, whether you believe that or not. Obviously it's my job to MAKE you believe it, regardless of my alignment. Rest assured that I fully intend to do so - but it's hard to do that when there are people in the game who just think I'm scum regardless what I do or say. Call that an excuse, at this point I don't care.
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?
I'm keeping my vote on John because honestly, at this point it like HAS to be intentional. And there's no town motivation for joining a game and proceeding to intentionally not post #4.
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.
Here he asks ben some questions, but doesn't make it into a full-on scumread. That's fine - asking people questions like that, or pointing out their inconsistencies and asking them to react, can be a good way to pressure.
On October 19 2012 08:39 Douglas Quaid wrote: He might have a real reason, but I haven't seen it. His initial defense seemed fairly calm/logical, but I still have some major questions about his lack of rationale for just about anything else.
His strong town read on Ben is the thing that gets to me the most - Ben's recent posting has been off (treating Harry like he's town), and I haven't seen any rationale for the read at all.
Also, to clarify exactly where I stand, my scumreads are (in no particular order): Ben - for treating Harry like he's town (scumslip?) Alex - for lack of rationale of all his reads John Matrix - For not posting. If John continues to not post into tomorrow, he has to be lynched. There's simply no excuse for not posting in a game that you PM'd the host to enter.
Some interesting stuff here - Ben and Alex are his scumreads, rather than Jack Slater - no real reasoning for dropping that; ben transitions from minor pressure to one of his main scumreads; and he brings back Alex as a scum read. The latter of those two is fine - I had been making a (pretty fiiiine) case on Alex in the thread at the time. His reason for moving Ben to a full-on scum read is "for treating Harry like he's town (scumslip?)"
On October 19 2012 09:15 Douglas Quaid wrote: On why I'm not pursuing Jack - I have outstanding questions on several players right now, it's impossible for me to keep track of all of them. But thanks for reminding me, and I would like a response from Jack.
Secondly, I am very non-committal in regards to the Ben lynch, and I believe rightfully so. I'm surprised you aren't as well (if you're town). We have a player who hasn't posted yet, and there is a risk that he's scum. We can't ignore this, or mafia gets a huge D1 win and we have nothing to hold them accountable for.
I have scumreads yes, but nothing set in stone. I find Ben scummy, but I think there are possible ways for him to explain his actions if he's town. Alex and Jack as well. I want to wait for responses rather than jumping the gun on inconclusive evidence.
Forgetting to mention the person who was his main scum read sounds odd, but it is in line with how his filter actually looks. He is pushing several people at once.
On October 19 2012 09:15 Douglas Quaid wrote: On why I'm not pursuing Jack - I have outstanding questions on several players right now, it's impossible for me to keep track of all of them. But thanks for reminding me, and I would like a response from Jack.
Secondly, I am very non-committal in regards to the Ben lynch, and I believe rightfully so. I'm surprised you aren't as well (if you're town). We have a player who hasn't posted yet, and there is a risk that he's scum. We can't ignore this, or mafia gets a huge D1 win and we have nothing to hold them accountable for.
I have scumreads yes, but nothing set in stone. I find Ben scummy, but I think there are possible ways for him to explain his actions if he's town. Alex and Jack as well. I want to wait for responses rather than jumping the gun on inconclusive evidence.
On October 19 2012 08:47 Douglas Quaid wrote: Oh geezus I'm starting to confuse names. Gimme one sec to sort things out.
I do want to vote Ben, however, I also want to give him a chance to explain himself, as well as give a chance for John Matrix to post. I don't want to rush things when we have 24 hours to go.
On October 19 2012 09:30 Douglas Quaid wrote: I want to hear from Jack before I make a determination on him. (I'm also curious if you found my point on him to have any merit)
For now, top two lynch candidates are Ben and John.
But for emphasis - I really want to wait to see if John posts before we lynch anyone. There's absolutely no reason to rush things, and it benefits town the more discussion we can generate on D1.
"top two lynch candidates are ben and john" - doug has posted a bunch about ben but not with too much more info or reasoning, but keeps bringing him up.
On October 20 2012 01:55 Douglas Quaid wrote: A couple of things:
I'm against lynching Ben Richards for now
I took a look at Alex's read on Ben and largely agree with it. Ben just isn't thinking as if he was mafia. His NK comment seems absurd for mafia to post, and suggesting Harry's posting style is easy to emulate strikes me as very town. It's not what mafia would think. Combined with his first post (which I still read as "try-hard"), I think he's town.
My top two reads are Jack and John
John for not posting (duh).
Jack for what was a very unsatisfying response to my initial query:
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
Firstly, I don't like how he's "testing the waters" in regard to voting Ben. Why should it matter if we're willing to vote Ben? If he's suspicious of him, he should be throwing down his vote.
He was suspicious of me in that post, yet he FOS'd Ben instead. What his read is now has no bearing - I'm interested in the logic of that post, and he still hasn't responded to it.
So there's two interesting things here: he's persuaded on Ben by Alex's post, because "ben isn't thinking as if he were mafia and his nk comment is weird from mafia," and he also feels townie about Ben's first post. What I don't like about this is, if Doug felt townie about Ben's first post, then why did he just casually consider Ben the main non-john-matrix lynch candidate for so long without mentioning that he had reservations?
Then there's the revival of the Jack scumread. I'm not saying I find Jack's filter incredibly townie, as I said in my last post he's one of the people I'm pretty suspicious of. However, I didn't agree with this characterization.
On October 20 2012 02:47 Alex Hesse wrote: It seems totally arbitrary to go for Jack Slater over Alan Schaefer. Alan Schaefer is "testing the waters" a lot more than Jack Slater is doing in that quote. Jack Slater ignoring you isn't a scum tell at all. Both of your lynches seem like semi-policy lynches and still you don't have the guts to actually do anything. Two people voting John Matrix, he's your scum read (don't know how he can be a read when he hasn't said anything though), around 4 hours until deadline, but you're still not voting. What's it take?
Yea I changed my opinion on Douglas Quaid because of this post. Him and Alan Schaefer are my scum reads for today. Gotta say I'm not too hot on this no-deadline-no-activity-requirements thing.
Firstly, there's no goddamn deadline.
Secondly, you can say whatever the hell you want about "guts" but I'm torn between two scumreads and I'm not sure which one I want to lynch over the other.
Two people voting John Matrix, he's your scum read (don't know how he can be a read when he hasn't said anything though), around 4 hours until deadline, but you're still not voting. What's it take?
DAFUQ son? You were voting for John at the time of this post. GTFO with that hypocritical shit, and I'll have to take another look at you as well.
I guess at this point he means he's torn between john matrix and jack slater. Okay, then. ... blah blah blah, still on Jack, starts to talk about me + Show Spoiler [switches to me] +
On October 20 2012 04:07 Douglas Quaid wrote: Ok, reading through Alan's filter again, there's not much of substance in it. Even his case on Alex, while directed at his accuser, isn't much. He isn't confrontational with Alex at all, and he's not generating any meaningful content.
##Vote Alan Schaefer
Interesting - one of his points is that my case on Alex isn't very much, despite the fact that it persuaded him to make Alex one of his top scum reads for a while. + Show Spoiler [off me] +
On October 20 2012 05:11 Douglas Quaid wrote: Having read Alan's recent burst of posting, I'm not comfortable lynching him. He's thinking the exact same way as I am about the John Matrix thing, especially his hesitancy between John and his top scumread (Alex). That's my mentality to a T, and I'd be insane to lynch him for that.
That being said, I think we have no choice but to lynch John Matrix today.
There are two situations: 1) John Matrix is scum. If we lynch him, yay! If we don't, mafia gets a free NK an we're at lylo. 2) John Matrix is afk town. If we lynch him, shit. If we don't lynch him, we'll be horrendously distracted by him tomorrow, and chances are he won't be back to post.
I also think it's fairly reasonable that John flips scum here. This is an unusual setup and you had to PM Palmar to /in the game. I find it unlikely that a townie showed enough interest in the game to PM Palmar and promptly peace out. I also think a townie would have called for a replacement if he/she was afk for 3 days.
First, Doug's scum reads jump around like a fucking mexican bean. Usually, reads jumping around is perceived as scummy because it lets scum be noncommittal and morph their positions later. However, in this setup scum can just morph their positions by taking someone's skin like a suit, so I'm not sure what these jumping reads do other than make it easier for scum to pretend to be him later.
Second, Doug sometimes provides reasoning for his reads changing and sometimes doesn't. I was hoping this part would be clearer one way or the other, but there's a lot of times when he just puts up one or two sentences about why his read changed, and those sentences could be genuine or they could be excuses.
Third, the reasoning for some of Doug's strongest scum reads is quite weak. For example, his read on Ben first came about because "he was treating Harry like he's town (scumslip?)", and went away because he agreed with Alex's post on Ben and because he thought Ben's first post was townie. His read on Jack Slater was because of one post he found scummy where Jack was inconsistent, and then the read sort of died down, and then came back because of another specific post he found inconsistent. There are a few times where this doesn't hold, but by and large his scum reads don't happen because of overall impressions or trends, but rather because of single specific posts that he finds scummy or hypocritical. However, those specific posts he does call out seem to be important ones, so I'm not ready to say "he's looking for scummy behavior but not for scum". It's a possibility.
So I was hoping this analysis would either corroborate or deny Jack Slater's accusation, but it doesn't. I have spent way more time on this already than I can afford right now, but to be completely comprehensive someone would need to go through the posts from Doug's filter where he changes his mind and look at them each in the thread context, to see if there's been a corresponding change in activity in one of the people he has a scum read on. That would be the next step, but I can't promise I'll do it tonight because of work.
Harry if you're still around then I would very much like your comments on Doug's wandering scumread focus.
I'm not convinced that it in itself is scummy from him. Parts of his filter strike me as quite genuine, like he's putting his thought process out there in the thread. But the thing is, some of the reasoning for his changing reads doesn't ring true to me.
If you think I'm suspicious, man the fuck up and vote me. Otherwise, quit whining.
Me jumping around doesn't make me scum. I'm trying to pursue anything I find suspicious, and if I get answers at the cost of me looking bad, that's completely cool with me.
Jack in particular, you find my stance on Alan strange (0 of his posts between switching stances), but you ignored the entire conversation between Me, Alex, and Harry.
Alan, your entire post is about me jumping around. Cool. What does that even do? If you find me suspicious, vote me. Otherwise, take your shitty case somewhere else.
Now no one has yet to tell me why lynching John is a bad idea. It's either we take care of this now (and IMO he has a good chance of flipping), or if somehow he isn't scum, we waste the entirety of tomorrow figuring out if he's scum or not based on 0 posting.
I mean, I mentioned in my filter before - he never seemed to have a single top scumread, always a list of like 3 scumreads or two scumreads, never one guy he was saying "let's lynch". Then you saw me talking to him earlier about lynching John, and I almost had to cajole him into the idea, though it was him saying yesterday that we must lynch him today. And I still don't like how he 'forgot' about Jack because he was pursuing other things. How do you forget reads in a 7 player game with, what, maybe 7 pages of posts at the time?
On October 20 2012 07:28 Harry Tasker wrote: Like, if John is town, even if he is afk and he's replaced, scum just kill him and what do we do tomorrow?
Basically this. It's a really shitty situation to lynch someone who hasn't posted, but there's just so much that can go wrong. Either he's not scum and he gets killed, or he is scum and NK's someone without giving us any evidence.
And again, what kind of guy signs up for a game via PM then peaces out for 3 days w/out calling a replacement as town?
Either I'm completely misinterpreting the phrase, or "hedging bets" is the worst possible way to describe my play. I'm giving opinions on pretty much everyone - how am I withholding anything?
I'm not here to hide anything - you're getting my thoughts in real-time as I make them. So yes, you could say I'm easily distracted.
On October 20 2012 07:25 Douglas Quaid wrote: @ Jack and Alan
If you think I'm suspicious, man the fuck up and vote me. Otherwise, quit whining.
Me jumping around doesn't make me scum. I'm trying to pursue anything I find suspicious, and if I get answers at the cost of me looking bad, that's completely cool with me.
Jack in particular, you find my stance on Alan strange (0 of his posts between switching stances), but you ignored the entire conversation between Me, Alex, and Harry.
Alan, your entire post is about me jumping around. Cool. What does that even do? If you find me suspicious, vote me. Otherwise, take your shitty case somewhere else.
Now no one has yet to tell me why lynching John is a bad idea. It's either we take care of this now (and IMO he has a good chance of flipping), or if somehow he isn't scum, we waste the entirety of tomorrow figuring out if he's scum or not based on 0 posting.
It's not supposed to be a case.
Jack said that you called people scummy when they weren't active and then went off of them as soon as they started being active and defending themselves. That sounds like scum behavior to me but just because he says that you behaved that way doesn't mean you actually did.
I went through a bunch of thread archaeology to try and find out whether or not he was right or if you posted good reasons for your jumping around. Unfortunately, just looking at your filter didn't convince me one way or the other.
So what I posted isn't a "case". It's a step in evaluating the case against you and it's a step in determining your alignment.
On October 20 2012 07:33 Douglas Quaid wrote: Either I'm completely misinterpreting the phrase, or "hedging bets" is the worst possible way to describe my play. I'm giving opinions on pretty much everyone - how am I withholding anything?
I'm not here to hide anything - you're getting my thoughts in real-time as I make them. So yes, you could say I'm easily distracted.
Hedging your bets because you have rarely expressed a top scumread that you have pursued. It's always a list, there's 3 people in no order, there's 2 top scumreads, but it's hard to know who you're really pushing at any time.
The trouble is, procedurally, I think we simply have to lynch John.
Say John is town, and we lynch someone else, and they flip scum. Good!
The remaining scum nightkills John.
What do we do tomorrow? Do we lynch John then because it's another cycle he's not talked? We're practically forced into it. So we just have to lynch him today.
If we're at 3, I'm going to hammer him. Not gonna do it yet in case anyone wants to say something.
the problem with lynching him because what he's doing is "optimal scum play" is that now that he's at L-1 it's no longer "optimal scum play" for him to just not post.
Okay actually wait a minute Harry - I'm misunderstanding something
Basically because scum can just replace John Matrix every cycle it's a problem that isn't made better by waiting one more cycle. At some point we'd have to lynch the dude not saying anything.
In your scenario, I'm assuming the remaining scum nightkills John and then just doesn't post - it seems like what we do is look at the cases on other people, and then kill John if no one's posting looks to have changed.
If we lynched someone other than John and they flipped scum, and the scum NK'd john, then john would die the next night when the NK someone else.
So I guess I'm just confused why you think that means we would have to lynch John?
Alan, that entire (long) post comes to very little conclusion.
You point out a bunch of quotes that are literally the epitome of what I am talking about in regards to Doug's play yet you somehow still don't draw the same conclusions. I don't understand it.
I would also like to see where you think Doug's genuine thought process is shown to the thread when scumhunting (not setup-like discussion)
Will you actually lynch Doug, or are you just going to soft defend him with as many words as humanly possible?
On October 20 2012 07:25 Douglas Quaid wrote: @ Jack and Alan
If you think I'm suspicious, man the fuck up and vote me. Otherwise, quit whining.
stop telling me this, i've answered this like 10 times and you keep re-hashing it as if it is an actual issue. stfu
Me jumping around doesn't make me scum. I'm trying to pursue anything I find suspicious, and if I get answers at the cost of me looking bad, that's completely cool with me.
what makes you scum is your lack of reasoning behind jumping around. Can you provide what answers you have gotten?
Jack in particular, you find my stance on Alan strange (0 of his posts between switching stances), but you ignored the entire conversation between Me, Alex, and Harry.
Yes I did because this is about your personal read on Alan. Also, you are admitting that you just copied someone else's scum read after telling them they are wrong?
Alan, your entire post is about me jumping around. Cool. What does that even do? If you find me suspicious, vote me. Otherwise, take your shitty case somewhere else.
Now no one has yet to tell me why lynching John is a bad idea. It's either we take care of this now (and IMO he has a good chance of flipping), or if somehow he isn't scum, we waste the entirety of tomorrow figuring out if he's scum or not based on 0 posting.
Because mislynching puts us in lylo and atleast 1 scum is active.
I would rather do everything in my power to try and lynch the active scum. If we can hit scum, and John Matrix is scum, he has to "shed his skin". If we do lynch scum, and there is no night kill, i say we no-lynch forcing scum into killing, because there is the chance they with hold a kill to push a john matrix mislynch.
No I think you're right - the thing is, though, if we kill a scum before we have to lynch the dude not saying anything then we move lylo back a cycle and get extra time and information to look at everyone else's filters.
Like, I guess that the question of lynching the dude not saying anything is the same every cycle as it is now, do we have anyone else who looks scummier.
No wait also - the reason for lynching john matrix today was that scum could have him do the NK and then start talking, so they get a free first cycle out of it.
So if we lynch someone else and they flip town then we always have to worry "john matrix is still alive, what if he's scum he could just kill himself and we know nothing about how he posted etc" but if we lynch someone else and they flip scum then I think we don't have that problem because as long as there is an NK we know the scum wasn't john matrix.
On October 20 2012 07:45 Jack Slater wrote: Alan, that entire (long) post comes to very little conclusion.
You point out a bunch of quotes that are literally the epitome of what I am talking about in regards to Doug's play yet you somehow still don't draw the same conclusions. I don't understand it.
I would also like to see where you think Doug's genuine thought process is shown to the thread when scumhunting (not setup-like discussion)
Will you actually lynch Doug, or are you just going to soft defend him with as many words as humanly possible?
They're not the epitome of what you're talking about in regards to doug's play. What you said, and what sounds really scummy to me, is that Doug's scum reads are influenced by how active someone is. What I found is that he jumps around a lot but he usually gives reasons, but I can't tell if those reasons are genuine.
So if what I posted is what you were talking about, then I see the same information as you, but I don't agree that it necessarily implies that he's scum.
On October 20 2012 07:45 Jack Slater wrote: Alan, that entire (long) post comes to very little conclusion.
You point out a bunch of quotes that are literally the epitome of what I am talking about in regards to Doug's play yet you somehow still don't draw the same conclusions. I don't understand it.
I would also like to see where you think Doug's genuine thought process is shown to the thread when scumhunting (not setup-like discussion)
Will you actually lynch Doug, or are you just going to soft defend him with as many words as humanly possible?
They're not the epitome of what you're talking about in regards to doug's play. What you said, and what sounds really scummy to me, is that Doug's scum reads are influenced by how active someone is. What I found is that he jumps around a lot but he usually gives reasons, but I can't tell if those reasons are genuine.
So if what I posted is what you were talking about, then I see the same information as you, but I don't agree that it necessarily implies that he's scum.
You are giving far too much credit to posts like
On October 20 2012 04:17 Douglas Quaid wrote: ##Unvote
Let's give Alan some time to explain himself. No harm in doing so.
On October 20 2012 05:11 Douglas Quaid wrote: Having read Alan's recent burst of posting, I'm not comfortable lynching him. He's thinking the exact same way as I am about the John Matrix thing, especially his hesitancy between John and his top scumread (Alex). That's my mentality to a T, and I'd be insane to lynch him for that.
On October 20 2012 03:57 Douglas Quaid wrote: Jacks' recent post seems legitimately offended that I'd consider him scummy. I'm willing to give him a pass for that.
which are his "reasons" for jumping off of me and Alan.
From a gameplay point of view I'd have to be as certain as can be we're definitely hitting red and I don't think I am.
And if we lynch John and he flips town then town was already given a crippling disadvantage to start with given not posting at all is both within the rules AND a strong scum strategy.
From a personal point of view the game is already ruined if John is town. This isn't a full-sized normal, or even a fucking mini with 12 players or whatever. 1/7 of our players isn't here. That's a really large chunk of the game. That just fucking sucks.
And just so you know, you not voting me IS AN ISSUE, because you've been screaming how scummy I am and you're so reluctant to vote me.
What are you waiting for? Why does it matter that no one else is voting with you? Put your vote where your mouth is. I'm having some second thoughts about you.
What fucking difference does it make if I vote you or not right now? I am not voting John matrix and need 3 other votes to lynch you... If I can get the votes to lynch you I will be first in line...
You are so worried about a vote that doesnt even fucking matter unless there are 3 others alongside it
... why does it matter if he votes you? unless his vote is the third vote (putting you in scum-hammer range if you're town) it's just words. He's committed enough to his read on you at this point that if he says something later like "oh but I wasn't that serious I didn't actually vote" we will just laugh at him.
I would rather do everything in my power to try and lynch the active scum. If we can hit scum, and John Matrix is scum, he has to "shed his skin". If we do lynch scum, and there is no night kill, i say we no-lynch forcing scum into killing, because there is the chance they with hold a kill to push a john matrix mislynch.
This doesn't make any sense from any town perspective I know of...
Harry you gotta distinguish who you are talking about... And I don't want to leave my vote on someone that John matrix or ben can hammer if they are actually scum lurking... I want all the votes to be reasoned and accounted for
I would rather do everything in my power to try and lynch the active scum. If we can hit scum, and John Matrix is scum, he has to "shed his skin". If we do lynch scum, and there is no night kill, i say we no-lynch forcing scum into killing, because there is the chance they with hold a kill to push a john matrix mislynch.
This doesn't make any sense from any town perspective I know of...
What? The bolded part? If John is scum and we lynch scum, johns account will be killed with the night kill (that's how the nk mechanics work)
On October 20 2012 08:32 Douglas Quaid wrote: Also, I want y'all to read this by Jack:
I would rather do everything in my power to try and lynch the active scum. If we can hit scum, and John Matrix is scum, he has to "shed his skin". If we do lynch scum, and there is no night kill, i say we no-lynch forcing scum into killing, because there is the chance they with hold a kill to push a john matrix mislynch.
This doesn't make any sense from any town perspective I know of...
What? The bolded part? If John is scum and we lynch scum, johns account will be killed with the night kill (that's how the nk mechanics work)
Yeah, which is really fucking bad for town. Why would we want to have scum shed their account and give us no information?
On October 20 2012 08:32 Douglas Quaid wrote: Also, I want y'all to read this by Jack:
I would rather do everything in my power to try and lynch the active scum. If we can hit scum, and John Matrix is scum, he has to "shed his skin". If we do lynch scum, and there is no night kill, i say we no-lynch forcing scum into killing, because there is the chance they with hold a kill to push a john matrix mislynch.
This doesn't make any sense from any town perspective I know of...
What? The bolded part? If John is scum and we lynch scum, johns account will be killed with the night kill (that's how the nk mechanics work)
Yeah, which is really fucking bad for town. Why would we want to have scum shed their account and give us no information?
What? If any other scum sheds their skin we will know John wasn't scum day 1 and we can read everyone else the next day
So what? The point here is that the NK mechanic gives scum a huge disincentive to be active, because they leave behind a trail. John "shedding" his account is really bad in that regard. Much better for a posting scum to shed his account.
On October 20 2012 08:32 Douglas Quaid wrote: Also, I want y'all to read this by Jack:
I would rather do everything in my power to try and lynch the active scum. If we can hit scum, and John Matrix is scum, he has to "shed his skin". If we do lynch scum, and there is no night kill, i say we no-lynch forcing scum into killing, because there is the chance they with hold a kill to push a john matrix mislynch.
This doesn't make any sense from any town perspective I know of...
What? The bolded part? If John is scum and we lynch scum, johns account will be killed with the night kill (that's how the nk mechanics work)
Yeah, which is really fucking bad for town. Why would we want to have scum shed their account and give us no information?
Also are you completely ignoring the fact that it revolves around us lynching scum day 1...
On October 20 2012 08:32 Douglas Quaid wrote: Also, I want y'all to read this by Jack:
I would rather do everything in my power to try and lynch the active scum. If we can hit scum, and John Matrix is scum, he has to "shed his skin". If we do lynch scum, and there is no night kill, i say we no-lynch forcing scum into killing, because there is the chance they with hold a kill to push a john matrix mislynch.
This doesn't make any sense from any town perspective I know of...
What? The bolded part? If John is scum and we lynch scum, johns account will be killed with the night kill (that's how the nk mechanics work)
Yeah, which is really fucking bad for town. Why would we want to have scum shed their account and give us no information?
What? If any other scum sheds their skin we will know John wasn't scum day 1 and we can read everyone else the next day
You make no sense
How the fuck does that make sense? If another scum sheds his skin, they jump on to John and proceed not to post. That's called like really terribad for town.
On October 20 2012 08:32 Douglas Quaid wrote: Also, I want y'all to read this by Jack:
I would rather do everything in my power to try and lynch the active scum. If we can hit scum, and John Matrix is scum, he has to "shed his skin". If we do lynch scum, and there is no night kill, i say we no-lynch forcing scum into killing, because there is the chance they with hold a kill to push a john matrix mislynch.
This doesn't make any sense from any town perspective I know of...
What? The bolded part? If John is scum and we lynch scum, johns account will be killed with the night kill (that's how the nk mechanics work)
Yeah, which is really fucking bad for town. Why would we want to have scum shed their account and give us no information?
What? If any other scum sheds their skin we will know John wasn't scum day 1 and we can read everyone else the next day
You make no sense
How the fuck does that make sense? If another scum sheds his skin, they jump on to John and proceed not to post. That's called like really terribad for town.
On October 20 2012 08:32 Douglas Quaid wrote: Also, I want y'all to read this by Jack:
I would rather do everything in my power to try and lynch the active scum. If we can hit scum, and John Matrix is scum, he has to "shed his skin". If we do lynch scum, and there is no night kill, i say we no-lynch forcing scum into killing, because there is the chance they with hold a kill to push a john matrix mislynch.
This doesn't make any sense from any town perspective I know of...
What? The bolded part? If John is scum and we lynch scum, johns account will be killed with the night kill (that's how the nk mechanics work)
Yeah, which is really fucking bad for town. Why would we want to have scum shed their account and give us no information?
Also are you completely ignoring the fact that it revolves around us lynching scum day 1...
Why would I acknowledge the alternative? You want to lynch me and I am town. If we lynch scum D1, it won't be me, and it won't be because of you.
On October 20 2012 08:32 Douglas Quaid wrote: Also, I want y'all to read this by Jack:
I would rather do everything in my power to try and lynch the active scum. If we can hit scum, and John Matrix is scum, he has to "shed his skin". If we do lynch scum, and there is no night kill, i say we no-lynch forcing scum into killing, because there is the chance they with hold a kill to push a john matrix mislynch.
This doesn't make any sense from any town perspective I know of...
What? The bolded part? If John is scum and we lynch scum, johns account will be killed with the night kill (that's how the nk mechanics work)
Yeah, which is really fucking bad for town. Why would we want to have scum shed their account and give us no information?
Also are you completely ignoring the fact that it revolves around us lynching scum day 1...
Why would I acknowledge the alternative? You want to lynch me and I am town. If we lynch scum D1, it won't be me, and it won't be because of you.
My argument was about lynching scum (whoever that is) day 1... You can't take the argument out of context because my plan is to lynch you... It doesn't have anything to fucking do with you
On October 20 2012 08:32 Douglas Quaid wrote: Also, I want y'all to read this by Jack:
I would rather do everything in my power to try and lynch the active scum. If we can hit scum, and John Matrix is scum, he has to "shed his skin". If we do lynch scum, and there is no night kill, i say we no-lynch forcing scum into killing, because there is the chance they with hold a kill to push a john matrix mislynch.
This doesn't make any sense from any town perspective I know of...
What? The bolded part? If John is scum and we lynch scum, johns account will be killed with the night kill (that's how the nk mechanics work)
Yeah, which is really fucking bad for town. Why would we want to have scum shed their account and give us no information?
Also are you completely ignoring the fact that it revolves around us lynching scum day 1...
Why would I acknowledge the alternative? You want to lynch me and I am town. If we lynch scum D1, it won't be me, and it won't be because of you.
My argument was about lynching scum (whoever that is) day 1... You can't take the argument out of context because my plan is to lynch you... It doesn't have anything to fucking do with you
So your plan is to guarantee 100% a D1 scum lynch? Tell me your seekrit, I really want to know. It would make this game much easier for me.
This is the original point of argument... Notice it has nothing to do with you yet you warped this argument into being "you are talking about lynching me"
On October 20 2012 08:32 Douglas Quaid wrote: Also, I want y'all to read this by Jack:
I would rather do everything in my power to try and lynch the active scum. If we can hit scum, and John Matrix is scum, he has to "shed his skin". If we do lynch scum, and there is no night kill, i say we no-lynch forcing scum into killing, because there is the chance they with hold a kill to push a john matrix mislynch.
This doesn't make any sense from any town perspective I know of...
The point is still true, if we lynch scum today, and John matrix is the other scum, his account will die n1 when he has to night kill
On October 20 2012 08:33 Harry Tasker wrote: Alan, given you're around enough to still be posting, why haven't you given us a more definitive read of Douglas yourself?
Yeah I'm kind of just checking in. But I'll do my best.
When doug goes after Alex the first time, Alex isn't inactive. He had recently posted before Doug started going on him.
When doug goes after jack slater the first time, jack had also posted relatively recently.
When doug goes after ben the first time, he had been inactive.
But overall I don't see a consistent pattern of going after inactive players.
That leaves me with the same stuff I was working on before - he jumps around a lot and sometimes for bad reasons.
On October 20 2012 08:32 Douglas Quaid wrote: Also, I want y'all to read this by Jack:
I would rather do everything in my power to try and lynch the active scum. If we can hit scum, and John Matrix is scum, he has to "shed his skin". If we do lynch scum, and there is no night kill, i say we no-lynch forcing scum into killing, because there is the chance they with hold a kill to push a john matrix mislynch.
This doesn't make any sense from any town perspective I know of...
What? The bolded part? If John is scum and we lynch scum, johns account will be killed with the night kill (that's how the nk mechanics work)
Yeah, which is really fucking bad for town. Why would we want to have scum shed their account and give us no information?
Also are you completely ignoring the fact that it revolves around us lynching scum day 1...
Why would I acknowledge the alternative? You want to lynch me and I am town. If we lynch scum D1, it won't be me, and it won't be because of you.
My argument was about lynching scum (whoever that is) day 1... You can't take the argument out of context because my plan is to lynch you... It doesn't have anything to fucking do with you
So your plan is to guarantee 100% a D1 scum lynch? Tell me your seekrit, I really want to know. It would make this game much easier for me.
My plan is to lynch someone who is scummy and not inactive... I would say there's around a 25 % chance of John matrix flipping scum... While IMO there is a much higher chance of you flipping scum (like 90%)
On October 20 2012 08:33 Harry Tasker wrote: Alan, given you're around enough to still be posting, why haven't you given us a more definitive read of Douglas yourself?
Yeah I'm kind of just checking in. But I'll do my best.
When doug goes after Alex the first time, Alex isn't inactive. He had recently posted before Doug started going on him.
When doug goes after jack slater the first time, jack had also posted relatively recently.
When doug goes after ben the first time, he had been inactive.
But overall I don't see a consistent pattern of going after inactive players.
That leaves me with the same stuff I was working on before - he jumps around a lot and sometimes for bad reasons.
i don't give a shit about the inactive, i want a god-damn read
In an ideal world, I'd love to go for the "active scum." The problem is, John's inactivity forces our hand to lynch him due to the mechanics of the game.
1) John is scum (and secretly "active" in the QT). John simply sheds his skin and begins to post. We get no information from his flip. 2) John is town (but inactive). There's a really high chance of mafia NK'ing John (and just not posting), and we'll spend all of D2 wifoming ourselves thinking about the John lynch.
So if we lynch someone else, and John is scum or town, the consequences are bad either way. Add this to the fact that John very well could be scum (not asking for a replacement, etc), and I think he's the clear lynch for today.
On October 20 2012 08:33 Harry Tasker wrote: Alan, given you're around enough to still be posting, why haven't you given us a more definitive read of Douglas yourself?
Yeah I'm kind of just checking in. But I'll do my best.
When doug goes after Alex the first time, Alex isn't inactive. He had recently posted before Doug started going on him.
When doug goes after jack slater the first time, jack had also posted relatively recently.
When doug goes after ben the first time, he had been inactive.
But overall I don't see a consistent pattern of going after inactive players.
That leaves me with the same stuff I was working on before - he jumps around a lot and sometimes for bad reasons.
Define posting relatively recently and respond to my post about his "reasons" for jumping around
On October 20 2012 08:33 Harry Tasker wrote: Alan, given you're around enough to still be posting, why haven't you given us a more definitive read of Douglas yourself?
Yeah I'm kind of just checking in. But I'll do my best.
When doug goes after Alex the first time, Alex isn't inactive. He had recently posted before Doug started going on him.
When doug goes after jack slater the first time, jack had also posted relatively recently.
When doug goes after ben the first time, he had been inactive.
But overall I don't see a consistent pattern of going after inactive players.
That leaves me with the same stuff I was working on before - he jumps around a lot and sometimes for bad reasons.
i don't give a shit about the inactive, i want a god-damn read
the inactive was my reason for going in on him originally.
fuck it. gut check: I think he's town. I don't see the scum motivation for jumping around like that on purpose, especially given this setup. It feels more to me like a genuine thought process.
On October 20 2012 08:58 Douglas Quaid wrote: In an ideal world, I'd love to go for the "active scum." The problem is, John's inactivity forces our hand to lynch him due to the mechanics of the game.
1) John is scum (and secretly "active" in the QT). John simply sheds his skin and begins to post. We get no information from his flip. 2) John is town (but inactive). There's a really high chance of mafia NK'ing John (and just not posting), and we'll spend all of D2 wifoming ourselves thinking about the John lynch.
So if we lynch someone else, and John is scum or town, the consequences are bad either way. Add this to the fact that John very well could be scum (not asking for a replacement, etc), and I think he's the clear lynch for today.
If we lynch john and he flips town we literally start all over again d2 but with even LESS town against scum... 1 wrong vote at ANYTIME can lose the game
On October 20 2012 08:33 Harry Tasker wrote: Alan, given you're around enough to still be posting, why haven't you given us a more definitive read of Douglas yourself?
Yeah I'm kind of just checking in. But I'll do my best.
When doug goes after Alex the first time, Alex isn't inactive. He had recently posted before Doug started going on him.
When doug goes after jack slater the first time, jack had also posted relatively recently.
When doug goes after ben the first time, he had been inactive.
But overall I don't see a consistent pattern of going after inactive players.
That leaves me with the same stuff I was working on before - he jumps around a lot and sometimes for bad reasons.
Define posting relatively recently and respond to my post about his "reasons" for jumping around
When I look at the thread in "all posts" mode, and there's only three or four screens of posts between one of yours and the one where he starts going after you.
I think his reasons are bad. (or possibly, badly expressed.) But I don't feel like they're manufactured.
On October 20 2012 08:33 Harry Tasker wrote: Alan, given you're around enough to still be posting, why haven't you given us a more definitive read of Douglas yourself?
Yeah I'm kind of just checking in. But I'll do my best.
When doug goes after Alex the first time, Alex isn't inactive. He had recently posted before Doug started going on him.
When doug goes after jack slater the first time, jack had also posted relatively recently.
When doug goes after ben the first time, he had been inactive.
But overall I don't see a consistent pattern of going after inactive players.
That leaves me with the same stuff I was working on before - he jumps around a lot and sometimes for bad reasons.
Define posting relatively recently and respond to my post about his "reasons" for jumping around
When I look at the thread in "all posts" mode, and there's only three or four screens of posts between one of yours and the one where he starts going after you.
I think his reasons are bad. (or possibly, badly expressed.) But I don't feel like they're manufactured.
On October 20 2012 08:58 Douglas Quaid wrote: In an ideal world, I'd love to go for the "active scum." The problem is, John's inactivity forces our hand to lynch him due to the mechanics of the game.
1) John is scum (and secretly "active" in the QT). John simply sheds his skin and begins to post. We get no information from his flip. 2) John is town (but inactive). There's a really high chance of mafia NK'ing John (and just not posting), and we'll spend all of D2 wifoming ourselves thinking about the John lynch.
So if we lynch someone else, and John is scum or town, the consequences are bad either way. Add this to the fact that John very well could be scum (not asking for a replacement, etc), and I think he's the clear lynch for today.
If we lynch john and he flips town we literally start all over again d2 but with even LESS town against scum... 1 wrong vote at ANYTIME can lose the game
Unfortunately that's a situation better than the alternative (not lynching John). As stated before, regardless of whether John is scum or not, we're in a really bad spot as town if we don't lynch him.
If we do lynch him, we either get rid of scum or a useless townie. We'll also have information from 1 scum member from the NK "shedding".
On October 20 2012 08:33 Harry Tasker wrote: Alan, given you're around enough to still be posting, why haven't you given us a more definitive read of Douglas yourself?
Yeah I'm kind of just checking in. But I'll do my best.
When doug goes after Alex the first time, Alex isn't inactive. He had recently posted before Doug started going on him.
When doug goes after jack slater the first time, jack had also posted relatively recently.
When doug goes after ben the first time, he had been inactive.
But overall I don't see a consistent pattern of going after inactive players.
That leaves me with the same stuff I was working on before - he jumps around a lot and sometimes for bad reasons.
Define posting relatively recently and respond to my post about his "reasons" for jumping around
When I look at the thread in "all posts" mode, and there's only three or four screens of posts between one of yours and the one where he starts going after you.
I think his reasons are bad. (or possibly, badly expressed.) But I don't feel like they're manufactured.
This defense is softer than baby shit
Oh please Mr. "I think Doug is scum but I'm too scared to vote him." Yeah. Please talk to me about "soft."
On October 20 2012 08:33 Harry Tasker wrote: Alan, given you're around enough to still be posting, why haven't you given us a more definitive read of Douglas yourself?
Yeah I'm kind of just checking in. But I'll do my best.
When doug goes after Alex the first time, Alex isn't inactive. He had recently posted before Doug started going on him.
When doug goes after jack slater the first time, jack had also posted relatively recently.
When doug goes after ben the first time, he had been inactive.
But overall I don't see a consistent pattern of going after inactive players.
That leaves me with the same stuff I was working on before - he jumps around a lot and sometimes for bad reasons.
Define posting relatively recently and respond to my post about his "reasons" for jumping around
When I look at the thread in "all posts" mode, and there's only three or four screens of posts between one of yours and the one where he starts going after you.
I think his reasons are bad. (or possibly, badly expressed.) But I don't feel like they're manufactured.
This defense is softer than baby shit
What? You'd rather I hard defend him?
I don't like his filter but I don't see scum motivation for it so I come down to a gut read which is that he's town.
That's the long and the short of it.
Given that starting point, how would you prefer I express it?
Yeah I'm furious and wanna see who is scum... Fuck it... Maybe I'll be the most wrong I've almost ever been and that would be awesome... Maybe I'm tunnel visioned out... Doug you are an asshole
Honestly, I don't know how Palmar wants to do the flips (as far as what TL user died at the end of the day), so I'm going to leave that out. R-R-R-REDACTED, you may post a 'gg' post in the John Matrix account if you wish.
John Matrix, the mafia goon was lynched by the town!
It is now Night 1. Night 1 will end in 24 hours. As a reminder, there is to be no talking during this time.
Worst thing is that we don't really have anything to talk about today. The setup has kind of been discussed and now someone is scum. What Ben Richards said yesterday is totally useless since none of the players left were scum yesterday. This is day1 all over without the setup to discuss.
We can talk about who Ben Richards would be more likely to take over though, I guess that's our best lead for now.
My clothes are still here, we lynched scum, and I'm still alive! Woooo!
Bleh I was totally wrong about Ben, and us lynching scum actually works against us a bit today since everyone here was town yesterday =/
Now onto WIFOM'ing about NK's, I'd gander that scum would NK either Jack or Alan due to their comparative lack of posting to the rest of us. I'll be monitoring the activity of the rest of the players as well, and I expect you to do the same for me.
But yeah, as far as I'm concerned, It's a brand new day. Back to policy talk - I'll be lynching me some D2 lurkers. Get postin'.
I think we've got our first replacement suspect in Douglas Quaid.
In his first post back, he makes a big show of still having his clothes and being alive. This is null. He could be trying to reestablish his posting style as a townie or putting on a show as scum.. His second and third posts are where my problems lie.
@DQ Your assumption about Alex was based on the John Matrix lynch, when the newest information we've received is the Ben Richards scum flip. Still posessing the same information he had before and not receiving any new information, I see the previous Ben Richards making that kind of assumption more likely than a townie. And the fact that you redacted the question makes the whole accusation seem insincere. Alex has just as much chance of being the one who was replaced as any of us, it doesn't make sense to answer questions for him and correct yourself unless you're trying to keep him and/or the rest of town from being suspicious of you for misunderstanding his 3 word, 1 line check in.
Why did you automatically assume Alex was referring to the John Matrix lynch?
If your first reaction was to accuse Alex based on his first post, then why would you redact the question before he has a chance to respond to it?
I was actually thinking that Ben Richards was most likely to be night killed but then he was scum.
I'm probably least likely to be night killed. I was wrong, vocal, active, emotional yesterday and I think he'd just avoid that. Hopefully I'll just just as much of a mess today as yesterday.
Harry Tasker and Douglas Quaid second, they were comparatively more right while also being really active. Last come Alan Schaefer and Jack Slater.
Activity is key so get posting. Hopefully we can get like 10 pages before we have to lynch.
fuck I was right. Stupid 'town-tells' that I bought into after demonstrating a clear mafia agenda. Screw you guys.
2/2! Although I don't know if I was right about John or if we just got lucky, which is super annoying.
So how do we approach today? Because no-one can be consistent with yesterday because everyone knows scum isn't who they thought they were. Meh.
Douglas - why did you get so antagonistic before the lynch? Why were you so massively keen for Jack to vote and why were you so aggressive about it? It made little sense to me.
Alan - you were at least somewhat around during the run up to the lynch. What stopped you hammering John yourself? You were fence-sitting like a baws.
On October 21 2012 13:23 Douglas Quaid wrote: Oh lawl I guess you had a town read on Ben too huh? Sympathies brah.
Redacted.
Just read this page again. This... this is fucking weird.
Douglas was suspicious of Ben based on his own feelings and on the back of my case, and it was Alex pointing out his "town-tells" that dissuaded him from Ben.
Now it's all "I guess you had a town read on Ben too?" What???
On October 21 2012 16:22 Alan Schaefer wrote: I think we've got our first replacement suspect in Douglas Quaid.
In his first post back, he makes a big show of still having his clothes and being alive. This is null. He could be trying to reestablish his posting style as a townie or putting on a show as scum.. His second and third posts are where my problems lie.
@DQ Your assumption about Alex was based on the John Matrix lynch, when the newest information we've received is the Ben Richards scum flip. Still posessing the same information he had before and not receiving any new information, I see the previous Ben Richards making that kind of assumption more likely than a townie. And the fact that you redacted the question makes the whole accusation seem insincere. Alex has just as much chance of being the one who was replaced as any of us, it doesn't make sense to answer questions for him and correct yourself unless you're trying to keep him and/or the rest of town from being suspicious of you for misunderstanding his 3 word, 1 line check in.
Why did you automatically assume Alex was referring to the John Matrix lynch?
If your first reaction was to accuse Alex based on his first post, then why would you redact the question before he has a chance to respond to it?
Why did you automatically assume Alex was referring to the John Matrix lynch?
If your first reaction was to accuse Alex based on his first post, then why would you redact the question before he has a chance to respond to it?
1) Errrr... I kinda just assumed ya know? I was a bit over-celebratory about the John lynch I suppose.
2) Why wouldn't I redact something that was a stupid question made on a bad assumption?
@ Harry
Just read this page again. This... this is fucking weird.
Douglas was suspicious of Ben based on his own feelings and on the back of my case, and it was Alex pointing out his "town-tells" that dissuaded him from Ben.
Now it's all "I guess you had a town read on Ben too?" What???
Yah I forgot again lol. The end of Day 1 is a bit of an emotional blur to me. I guess this isn't a very convincing explanation, but it's the truth.
Douglas - why did you get so antagonistic before the lynch? Why were you so massively keen for Jack to vote and why were you so aggressive about it? It made little sense to me.
What in the fuck? Dude. You KNOW I WAS TOWN YESTERDAY. I could possibly be scum today, but what I did yesterday is proven to be 100% town.
I need an explanation for this right now. This reads as pretty fucking scummy ya know?
On October 22 2012 03:48 Harry Tasker wrote: Are you really that god-damn stupid? Seriously?
I'm trying to get insight into your thought process pre-NK to see if I would agree with your explanation of it now, post NK, and get a read off it.
How can you not see that kind of thing is beneficial/needed today?
That line of yours read to me like you found it scummy, and I still read it as such.
But if you want my "reasoning," I'm just a huge asshole to people who don't agree with me. Questionable way to go about things for sure, but Jack was being extremely difficult yesterday. He was both resisting the John lynch and was convinced I was scum. So I got pissed off and apparently hurt his feelings.
On October 22 2012 03:48 Harry Tasker wrote: Are you really that god-damn stupid? Seriously?
I'm trying to get insight into your thought process pre-NK to see if I would agree with your explanation of it now, post NK, and get a read off it.
How can you not see that kind of thing is beneficial/needed today?
That line of yours read to me like you found it scummy, and I still read it as such.
But if you want my "reasoning," I'm just a huge asshole to people who don't agree with me. Questionable way to go about things for sure, but Jack was being extremely difficult yesterday. He was both resisting the John lynch and was convinced I was scum. So I got pissed off and apparently hurt his feelings.
Yes, at the time I found it scummy. Ditto with Alan's fence-sitting.
So knowing that I found something scummy, but it came from townies, it's valuable to hear the explanations for why scummy things came from townies.
On October 22 2012 03:48 Harry Tasker wrote: Are you really that god-damn stupid? Seriously?
I'm trying to get insight into your thought process pre-NK to see if I would agree with your explanation of it now, post NK, and get a read off it.
How can you not see that kind of thing is beneficial/needed today?
That line of yours read to me like you found it scummy, and I still read it as such.
But if you want my "reasoning," I'm just a huge asshole to people who don't agree with me. Questionable way to go about things for sure, but Jack was being extremely difficult yesterday. He was both resisting the John lynch and was convinced I was scum. So I got pissed off and apparently hurt his feelings.
No you didn't hurt my feelings you just literally made no sense and played like an idiot imo, however you are obviously the same DQ as you were yesterday
On October 22 2012 03:48 Harry Tasker wrote: Are you really that god-damn stupid? Seriously?
I'm trying to get insight into your thought process pre-NK to see if I would agree with your explanation of it now, post NK, and get a read off it.
How can you not see that kind of thing is beneficial/needed today?
That line of yours read to me like you found it scummy, and I still read it as such.
But if you want my "reasoning," I'm just a huge asshole to people who don't agree with me. Questionable way to go about things for sure, but Jack was being extremely difficult yesterday. He was both resisting the John lynch and was convinced I was scum. So I got pissed off and apparently hurt his feelings.
Yes, at the time I found it scummy. Ditto with Alan's fence-sitting.
So knowing that I found something scummy, but it came from townies, it's valuable to hear the explanations for why scummy things came from townies.
Geddit?
Sounds reasonable.
Bah ppl need to get posting and shiz. Alan not posting is bothering me - scum too timid to emulate his posting style perhaps?
On October 22 2012 06:12 Harry Tasker wrote: Douglas, I'm thinking that Jack should be explaining to us what he meant by interesting, whether it requires further evidence or not.
If you found it interesting and didn't want to bring it to the thread Jack, then I don't know why you posted it at all.
What gives?
i was assuming that Alan would post more after that post.
He used some style choices that were different from his day 1 posting.
He also said this
And the fact that you redacted the question makes the whole accusation seem insincere.
which doesn't sound like the Alan of yesterday who stuck up for your sincerity
He has also gone pretty inactive which was true of Ben too
On October 22 2012 06:12 Harry Tasker wrote: Douglas, I'm thinking that Jack should be explaining to us what he meant by interesting, whether it requires further evidence or not.
If you found it interesting and didn't want to bring it to the thread Jack, then I don't know why you posted it at all.
What gives?
i was assuming that Alan would post more after that post.
He used some style choices that were different from his day 1 posting.
And the fact that you redacted the question makes the whole accusation seem insincere.
which doesn't sound like the Alan of yesterday who stuck up for your sincerity
He has also gone pretty inactive which was true of Ben too
To the bolded, presumably that's because he was thinking Douglas wasn't Douglas, so it makes sense in that regard.
I agree with you about Douglas I think... the way he came to me asking after you is quite like his day 1 self. Maybe he just went full-derp at the start of the day - something I'd expect scum to be *very* careful to avoid doing.
What did you find different about Alan's style choices?
On October 22 2012 06:12 Harry Tasker wrote: Douglas, I'm thinking that Jack should be explaining to us what he meant by interesting, whether it requires further evidence or not.
If you found it interesting and didn't want to bring it to the thread Jack, then I don't know why you posted it at all.
On October 22 2012 06:12 Harry Tasker wrote: Douglas, I'm thinking that Jack should be explaining to us what he meant by interesting, whether it requires further evidence or not.
If you found it interesting and didn't want to bring it to the thread Jack, then I don't know why you posted it at all.
What gives?
What are you even asking here?
Goddamnit you were asking that to Jack. I'm derping so hardcore right now.
@ Jack Reasoning for finding me the same person is fair - I suppose I'll accept anything that benefits me amirite? Go me.
On October 22 2012 07:28 Jack Slater wrote: This post is very similar to Harry yesterday and probably really hard to fake. So he is most likely the same person
Looked through his filter a bit, and unlike his first post today... 1) Alan always refers to me as "Doug" or "doug" later in his filter. Never by full name, or never by "@ DQ" 2) He uses italics in that post - never used italics ever in his filter 3) His post just looks really really edited. It's very overly-formal. 4) That format isn't how Alan asked people questions on D1 at all.
On October 22 2012 08:43 Alex Hesse wrote: There's really no reason to hammer right now. We have quite a while until deadline.
I'd quite like to hear you and Alan more before I hammer anything. Well, everyone really I guess. Like you say, impatience aside, there's no reason to do it right now.
I don't know lynching him over an @, searching his filter he did call you "DQ" once here. Well if scum is around and he's town then he's dead now with 2 votes on him.
Well honestly I haven't read the thread a lot since yesterday so I'm not really going to influence this at all. Harry Tasker reads town to me and he was the one I had the most interactions with yesterday I think so I'll just let him decide.
If DQ is town as I suspect, Alan is confirmed scum, because both Alex and Harry coulda mislynch hammered if either of them was scum. This means that you are both confirmed town and that Alan or DQ is confirmed scum
Uh well basically we'll be in a 3-1 lylo, 'cause scum will never have to NK, and Palmar will make us vote eventually. I mean honestly, I think Alan has a good-enough chance of flipping red that I'm willing to take the risk here. And I really don't think it's much of a risk. Then again, I'm not the hammer vote so bleh.
But if you think I'm town (which apparently you do), it should come between Jack and Alan no? Between Jack and Alan, it has to be Alan in my mind.
Well I'll just leave you to figure this one out Harry Tasker. I would probably not have showed up and told people to calm down because we have like 48 hours to decide and this is just an @ if all I wanted was for you to hammer.
On October 22 2012 09:24 Alex Hesse wrote: Well I'll just leave you to figure this one out Harry Tasker. I would probably not have showed up and told people to calm down because we have like 48 hours to decide and this is just an @ if all I wanted was for you to hammer.
I see no reason not to think about all the possibilities right now.
On October 22 2012 09:24 Alex Hesse wrote: Well I'll just leave you to figure this one out Harry Tasker. I would probably not have showed up and told people to calm down because we have like 48 hours to decide and this is just an @ if all I wanted was for you to hammer.
I see no reason not to think about all the possibilities right now.
Well if we want to think about all the possibilities, I could say that you're playing a sick game with us and taunting us whereupon you'll eventually hammer and flip scum.
On October 22 2012 09:27 Alex Hesse wrote: You know if I were scum I could just hammer right now since I've been figured out anyway.
This isn't true because it's in scum's best interest NOT to NK, and you can't hammer now that you've told me I have the hammer.
So I guess if you were scum and Alan was town you COULD hammer, but you'd be putting yourself into the suboptimal position of having to make a NK. Correct?
No I think Alan Schaefer is scum. I might even hammer him in a second because I'm impatient. Alan Schaefer's post was at 16:22 which is almost an hour later than he's ever posted (15:33 is the latest) but Ben Richards has posted 4 times within that timespan. Doing the same for Jack Slater and Douglas Quaid reveals that their day2 activity time look a lot more consistent with their filters. Additionally, Ben Richards has never been around at these hours but they're both around right now.
Thanks for playing guys. Please leave your smurfs untouched, I might use them later. Will probably change the passwords to them when I'm less lazy.
About the setup, it was really unfortunate for the mafia to get hanged on day 1. In fact, if they had been there they could've hammered a townie at some point. The game is very volatile, just think that if town mislynches on day 1, all it takes is a single wrong town vote on day 2 and the mafia can hammer for the win. But in return town has some very useful information, as proven on day 2.
How did you like playing this? Would you change it or keep it the same for later games?
Credits:
prplhz starring as Alex Hesse hapahauli starring as Douglas Quaid marv starring as Harry Tasker strongandbig starring as Alan Schaefer mattchew starring as Jack Slater
echelontee starring as John Matrix visceraeyes starring as Ben Richards
You should have left the names out for epic guessing game.
I would have had Hapahauli right :D
Also I probably shouldn't have hammered that early on day2.
I guess small games are always volatile, I don't think it was unbalanced though. The day1 mafia lynch was kind of lucky. The worst thing for VisceraEyes was that he's in another timezone than just about everybody else. This timestamp method of figuring him out isn't all that fulfilling. EchelonTee not being around and then more or less getting policy lynched for it just shows that not being around is a bad scum strategy because you'll end up getting lynched even if townies argue vehemently for you His biggest support ended up being a frustrated second vote for him.
Also well done marvellosity for not mislynching me.
So yea, maybe have only EU or only US playing (should be possible with such a small setup) so timestamping isn't that powerful and then post in the misc thread asking people to randomly post in this thread and edit to so that it's impossible to find out who is failing at smurfing and who is just trolling. And then replace EchelonTee for not playing at all.
I was pretty convinced that Douglas Quaid was Gonzaw though.
And prplhz was Alex Hesse, that explains everything! No wonder I got a scummy feeling from him, I always get a scummy feeling from prplhz, for reasons I can't ever quite identify.
Also winner of the obs QT goes to this post by "debears"
early scum call - not certain. indicator though
Schaefer- Uses 2 full sentences of italics after day post. Previously had only used about 2 words in italics. Richards, however, had used full sentences of italics. These ones here:
"""""Why did you automatically assume Alex was referring to the John Matrix lynch?
If your first reaction was to accuse Alex based on his first post, then why would you redact the question before he has a chance to respond to it?""""
Watch your lips!
Also, Schaefer fits my previous categories. Low volume poster. Said scummy things. easy style to replicate
WOWOWOWOWOW
Look at the use of the @DQ in bold by Schaefer. SCHAEFER HASN'T USED @ THIS WHOLE GAME. LET ALONE BOLD @.
Scum? EZed?
E: this was posted like, immediately after the post in the thread. Way before anyone still alive in the game got it.
On October 22 2012 18:54 strongandbig wrote: [...] And prplhz was Alex Hesse, that explains everything! No wonder I got a scummy feeling from him, I always get a scummy feeling from prplhz, for reasons I can't ever quite identify.
Yea, I don't know how I do it. Just happy that marvellosity saw through it.
@palmar (lol) about the setup: I liked it, I thought it was quite fun. Day1 scumhunting is pretty interesting since you don't have meta to go on, or preconceived notions of who is a "good" player.
I am pretty disappointed in ET for deciding to play the way he did. Regardless of whether or not it's "optimal" scum strategy, it feels like it makes the game less fun for both teams. (And it was a decision, Ghost mentioned in the obs QT that he actually posted a few times in the mafia QT so he wasn't afk.)
I also wish VE had actually put an effort into emulating my posting style after he stole my clothes. I saw that post and was like, "that doesn't sound like me at all!" Props to mattchew for catching it. I should've known.
On October 22 2012 18:54 strongandbig wrote: [...] And prplhz was Alex Hesse, that explains everything! No wonder I got a scummy feeling from him, I always get a scummy feeling from prplhz, for reasons I can't ever quite identify.
Yea, I don't know how I do it. Just happy that marvellosity saw through it.
Like, I can recognize it by now - if I had known you were posting through that account, I would probably not have gone after you :p
On October 22 2012 19:07 strongandbig wrote: @palmar (lol) about the setup: I liked it, I thought it was quite fun. Day1 scumhunting is pretty interesting since you don't have meta to go on, or preconceived notions of who is a "good" player.
I am pretty disappointed in ET for deciding to play the way he did. Regardless of whether or not it's "optimal" scum strategy, it feels like it makes the game less fun for both teams. (And it was a decision, Ghost mentioned in the obs QT that he actually posted a few times in the mafia QT so he wasn't afk.)
I also wish VE had actually put an effort into emulating my posting style after he stole my clothes. I saw that post and was like, "that doesn't sound like me at all!" Props to mattchew for catching it. I should've known.
yeehaw, nailed John correctly on setup strategy and nailed VE on mafia motivation. Sweeeet. Somewhat unfortunate we were smurfs, don't think I'd have let prplhz talk me off my read normally ;p
prplhz - you were pretty much my strongest townread day 1, so lynching you was simply a no-go for me.
ET hasn't contacted me at all since like early day 1. He did post in the scum QT, so I can only assume something came up leading him to play the way he did. I don't think it was a strategy.
On October 22 2012 19:18 Palmar wrote: ET hasn't contacted me at all since like early day 1. He did post in the scum QT, so I can only assume something came up leading him to play the way he did. I don't think it was a strategy.
Well, that makes me feel a bit better.
Regardless, the game was quite fun. Interesting that even though we were using undercover smurfs, "playing like yourself" was kind of the key to victory
First and foremost VE and ET I am disappoint.. Idk what the reason was but that was really really poor play from both of you
Hapa as palmar pointed out had scum actually been around we wOuld have mislynched day 1.. This is why we don't vote recklessly and why I only voted twice... Mislynching is one thing but having a townie lynched cause 2 other townies are too impatient to not type in ##vote for awhile is unacceptably bad play... Especially given the nk mechanics
On October 22 2012 21:32 Mattchew wrote: First and foremost VE and ET I am disappoint.. Idk what the reason was but that was really really poor play from both of you
Hapa as palmar pointed out had scum actually been around we wOuld have mislynched day 1.. This is why we don't vote recklessly and why I only voted twice... Mislynching is one thing but having a townie lynched cause 2 other townies are too impatient to not type in ##vote for awhile is unacceptably bad play... Especially given the nk mechanics
Yeah this is a hollow victory for me
Yes, it's a shame ET was totally afk. I'd love to play this setup again with everyone actually playing. Also glad you went fuck it and voted John during Day 1. Very nice catch on Alan at the end, although I think we'd have got there eventually anyways.
I think lynching John in that situation is the best play anyway. You have to be certain you're flipping a red player, and the only person I had a decently strong town-read on was Alex.
GG guys. Kudos to the Schaefer/Richards read early on Mattchew!
Also, I fully bow down to Z-Bo on pointing out Hap and Marv. Man I sucked at that. I do have to admit VE and marv had some similar word choice in this game :/
And Palmar. The only thing that I would suggest to improve this game would be to somehow get rid of the timestamps. Some people just live too far away/have completely different schedules. Don't know if it's possible though.
Also did anyone notice me try to post only at the 45th minute? ... I was trying to set that up to prove myself being the same person but palmar said no to that
On October 22 2012 22:11 debears wrote: GG guys. Kudos to the Schaefer/Richards read early on Mattchew!
Also, I fully bow down to Z-Bo on pointing out Hap and Marv. Man I sucked at that. I do have to admit VE and marv had some similar word choice in this game :/
And Palmar. The only thing that I would suggest to improve this game would be to somehow get rid of the timestamps. Some people just live too far away/have completely different schedules. Don't know if it's possible though.
haha, really? I find it hard to believe anyone couldn't recognise me almost immediately. I guess when you've been around a little longer it'll be easier ^_^
VE and I have a somewhat similar style I guess, and he was my first coach here... Ben Richards was very obviously VE straight away to me. He has a certain way of wording things.
On October 22 2012 22:15 Mattchew wrote: Also did anyone notice me try to post only at the 45th minute? ... I was trying to set that up to prove myself being the same person but palmar said no to that
Gosh I hit someone good in Alan didn't I? I killed based on circumstances and didn't really read through his posts until I was researching the character.
On October 18 2012 01:05 Harry Tasker wrote: Just because it generated conversation doesn't necessarily make it inherently not-scummy, dear.
Also, you should care about people being able to get a better read on you, re: consolidated posts. Do you disagree with what I said about posting like that? If so, why? Do you not get reads from conversations, relations, tidbits, questions, interactions and the like?
Super marv tell right there.
Man the smurfs were really screwing with my head for some reason - I couldn't remember names at all throughout the game and just wasn't thinking much in general =P
For the record, I COULD have smashed this game as scum. It was just a perfect storm of RL stuff that kept me away from the game, and ET getting activity lynched the day prior didn't do anything to help the situation.
I posted the @DQ that way intentionally. I was "baiting" the "scum" to try and use bullshit like that to find me, and had every intention of laying into whomever suggested it....but found I had been hammered when I made it back. *shrug*
The silver lining? Our Oogie Boogie pumpkin looks FANTASTIC.
Actually hapa, VE and marv both used the word dear in their posts. Also ve said blah blah blah, something else marv does. Just saying. I realized later on that tasker was also likely marv
Anyways ve i don't think that strat wouldve worked that well in a game where consistency rules, a town purposely "breaking their meta" to catch scum would be stupid. The scum would already have their hands full replicating activity amount, activity timing, posting style, word choice, personality, and actual scumhunting.
Why would you need to try a trap like that as town?
It's not so much a trap to "catch scum" as a means to see who's actually scumhunting and who's looking for the shortest distance to a lynch. Did anyone disagree with my assessment of Hapapapa? Cause I almost convinced MYSELF that he was scum.
I didn't say I would have lolDestroyed town with that strat, simply saying what my strat would have been if I was around.
On October 23 2012 03:05 VisceraEyes wrote: It's not so much a trap to "catch scum" as a means to see who's actually scumhunting and who's looking for the shortest distance to a lynch. Did anyone disagree with my assessment of Hapapapa? Cause I almost convinced MYSELF that he was scum.
I didn't say I would have lolDestroyed town with that strat, simply saying what my strat would have been if I was around.
On October 23 2012 05:05 Z-BosoN wrote: Yea he was my first scum read. He was scum guys. Had your identity by your first two posts btw
Oh yeah, I basically did everything I could to go with my meta - lurker lynch policy should've tipped any player off who has played with me in a game =P
EPT
