|
On November 01 2012 10:49 Hopeless1der wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 10:40 Acrofales wrote:Hi Mattchew. On the one hand I agree with you, although for different reasons. However, I have seen this kind of finger pointing go terribly wrong too often. It is entirely possible Release is a newbienoob (which I kinda suspect given that I have no clue who he is) and is simply jumping on the first bad play of the game, in what I will happily call the second bad play of the game. My main problem with Release is this post: On November 01 2012 10:09 Release wrote:On November 01 2012 09:05 kushm4sta wrote:On November 01 2012 09:01 Release wrote:
EBWOP: those are three separate ideas, although kushmasta is looking scummy for both trying to change who should claim and being deceitful about it. I'm not being deceitful about it, I just got their names mixed up. I think they should probably both claim actually. @releaseAre you suggesting that I'm trying to trick power roles like vig, dt, etc into mass claiming? Are millers' true alignment revealed upon death? well, you were assigning Mason traits to the miller, which led to the confusion that it did between who should claim. Also, you didn't mention mason but the "town who can talk to each other." You avoided saying mason. Mason is clear. "town who can talk to each other" could be mason, but could be miller if someone assumed you were talking about who YOU thought "could talk to each other." Mafia is a game in which posts can't be editted. People tend to check their posts for any dubious or tentative information. I highly doubt that you "mixed up" their names because things like that tend to get checked, which leads me to believe you said such things on purpose. I wasn't talking about the mass claim. That was rather obvious. This is pathetic and reaks of scum. While I was willing to write off his first post as one derp of accusing another derp, this one just seems malevolent. He is trying to paint a scum reason for making a mistake and dreaming up wild unprovable theories in the process. This is not a town move. It's an easy way for scum to (try to) get a mislynch bandwagon going. Nevertheless, it's a terrible scumplay. Holding off on my vote to see where this goes. Zealos is being Zealos. I have nothing much to say about him yet. Acro, I just want to confirm that you think Kush derped (i.e. is probably town) and that Release might have derped but it was very scummy and you'd lean towards him being scum. Is that correct?
That is correct.
@Release: I could vote for you, but there's no point yet. Why the rush with over 40 hours left in D1? As I said at the top of that post: I don't like your followup and can easily read a scum motive into it. However, it's D1 and tunneling on one player is not the way I like to play D1 (it leads to a mislynch 90% of the time).
|
On November 01 2012 10:52 Release wrote:
where is your vote? Mattchew felt strongly enough to vote, as did Thrawn (although less convincingly).
Your words seem the strongest of all yet no vote.
meant to quote
I missed the holding off the vote (haha i'm a hypocrite): but now that i read it, what stopped you?
|
ebwop: no refresh; feel free to ignore
|
On November 01 2012 10:54 Mattchew wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 10:40 Acrofales wrote:
Zealos is being Zealos. I have nothing much to say about him yet. can you expand and explain this to me like im 5
Zealos has the rather horrid quality of a scummy meta as town (although I have been away from TL Mafia for a while, so maybe he's improved). That allows him to slide by as scum, but also causes him to get mislynched early in the game as town. However, I find him easier to get a bead on later in the game (somewhat similar to bluelightz).
I don't see anything inherently wrong with Zealos first posts. It's setup discussion, but we were about 5 minutes into the game.
|
On November 01 2012 10:59 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 10:49 Hopeless1der wrote:On November 01 2012 10:40 Acrofales wrote:Hi Mattchew. On the one hand I agree with you, although for different reasons. However, I have seen this kind of finger pointing go terribly wrong too often. It is entirely possible Release is a newbienoob (which I kinda suspect given that I have no clue who he is) and is simply jumping on the first bad play of the game, in what I will happily call the second bad play of the game. My main problem with Release is this post: On November 01 2012 10:09 Release wrote:On November 01 2012 09:05 kushm4sta wrote:On November 01 2012 09:01 Release wrote:
EBWOP: those are three separate ideas, although kushmasta is looking scummy for both trying to change who should claim and being deceitful about it. I'm not being deceitful about it, I just got their names mixed up. I think they should probably both claim actually. @releaseAre you suggesting that I'm trying to trick power roles like vig, dt, etc into mass claiming? Are millers' true alignment revealed upon death? well, you were assigning Mason traits to the miller, which led to the confusion that it did between who should claim. Also, you didn't mention mason but the "town who can talk to each other." You avoided saying mason. Mason is clear. "town who can talk to each other" could be mason, but could be miller if someone assumed you were talking about who YOU thought "could talk to each other." Mafia is a game in which posts can't be editted. People tend to check their posts for any dubious or tentative information. I highly doubt that you "mixed up" their names because things like that tend to get checked, which leads me to believe you said such things on purpose. I wasn't talking about the mass claim. That was rather obvious. This is pathetic and reaks of scum. While I was willing to write off his first post as one derp of accusing another derp, this one just seems malevolent. He is trying to paint a scum reason for making a mistake and dreaming up wild unprovable theories in the process. This is not a town move. It's an easy way for scum to (try to) get a mislynch bandwagon going. Nevertheless, it's a terrible scumplay. Holding off on my vote to see where this goes. Zealos is being Zealos. I have nothing much to say about him yet. Acro, I just want to confirm that you think Kush derped (i.e. is probably town) and that Release might have derped but it was very scummy and you'd lean towards him being scum. Is that correct? That is correct. @Release: I could vote for you, but there's no point yet. Why the rush with over 40 hours left in D1? As I said at the top of that post: I don't like your followup and can easily read a scum motive into it. However, it's D1 and tunneling on one player is not the way I like to play D1 (it leads to a mislynch 90% of the time).
yeah im voting because of the opposite, often on day 1 town loses focus and direction for its lynch and ends up in a last minute scramble. I trust my early reads pretty heavily so it will take a lot to move my vote right now
|
Acro, do you think zealos knows better than to call aggression a townie quality?
|
Misleading question. Here's the actual quote:
On November 01 2012 09:09 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 09:07 thrawn2112 wrote:
release, you are looking scummy. what was kush "deceitful" about? your accusation against him is spin-city
thinking prplhz meant mason when he said miller is what kush did, i even did it to for a while... i don't see how it even comes close to being deceitful I highly doubt a mafia would get so aggressive right off the bat imo. Just seems like dumb reasoning, is all.
I read this as Zealos making a judgement call about Release: he highly doubts that this act is a scumplay as it is badly timed agression from a scum point of view.
I don't think this is Zealos saying that aggression is a town trait, however I don't claim to have insight knowledge about what Zealos was thinking when he made that post.
Imho it contains too little information to make a read on.
|
Do not use this post later to claim that i am shifting attention off myself. I acknowledge that I am under suspicion.
So in the flurry of comment regarding the claiming, we seem to have dismissed the possibility of enacting a Lynch-all-liars policy. The main con i see if we do enact it is that we can't pull use fishing for reactions as freely. The main pro, however, is that people can't claim to be fishing for reactions. Another consequence is that more information is in the thread. Both town and mafia know more about true intentions and can react accordingly.
Personally, i am against such a policy because people can very easily say "i changed my mind" and blame/vindication will tend to be imposed base on a town/scum flip.
|
he does say "i highly doubt a mafia would get so aggressive right off the bat"
a mafia is the key word(s) that defines it as a general read
|
release what do you think of zealos's posts
|
On November 01 2012 10:50 thrawn2112 wrote:
kush you think release is scum or town?
If I had to vote right now I would vote him if that answers your question.
@release Please clarify this while it's still fresh in your mind.
On November 01 2012 10:47 kushm4sta wrote:
About your suspicion of me: Let me get this straight. You think my scumplan was to convince the masons to claim then cover my ass by pretending I mixed up masons and millers?
Am I correct in describing your suspicion this way?
|
On November 01 2012 11:20 Release wrote:
Do not use this post later to claim that i am shifting attention off myself. I acknowledge that I am under suspicion.
So in the flurry of comment regarding the claiming, we seem to have dismissed the possibility of enacting a Lynch-all-liars policy. The main con i see if we do enact it is that we can't pull use fishing for reactions as freely. The main pro, however, is that people can't claim to be fishing for reactions. Another consequence is that more information is in the thread. Both town and mafia know more about true intentions and can react accordingly.
Personally, i am against such a policy because people can very easily say "i changed my mind" and blame/vindication will tend to be imposed base on a town/scum flip.
Why bring up a policy you don't agree with yourself? In fact, why bring up a policy that in a previous game you described as:
On June 25 2012 11:20 Release wrote:
##vote Hopeless1der
I think Mafia is a very intricate game, and to say Lynch those who do not tell the truth is retarded.
<snip>
Can you explain why you thought bringing up this policy is now a good idea?
|
EBWOP: phrased wrong.
Can you explain your thoughts behind bringing up this policy which you evidently don't agree with yourself?
|
On November 01 2012 11:26 kushm4sta wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 10:50 thrawn2112 wrote:
kush you think release is scum or town? If I had to vote right now I would vote him if that answers your question.
@release Please clarify this while it's still fresh in your mind. Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 10:47 kushm4sta wrote:
About your suspicion of me: Let me get this straight. You think my scumplan was to convince the masons to claim then cover my ass by pretending I mixed up masons and millers?
Am I correct in describing your suspicion this way?
I would add subtly before convince, but yes. And thought. not think (see below).
However, hope has attested to your derp, and that makes 2. I don't have any glaring suspicions to cast against hope so as of now, I will admit that my theory is probably too far-fetched to be the truth.
On November 01 2012 11:48 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 11:20 Release wrote:
Do not use this post later to claim that i am shifting attention off myself. I acknowledge that I am under suspicion.
So in the flurry of comment regarding the claiming, we seem to have dismissed the possibility of enacting a Lynch-all-liars policy. The main con i see if we do enact it is that we can't pull use fishing for reactions as freely. The main pro, however, is that people can't claim to be fishing for reactions. Another consequence is that more information is in the thread. Both town and mafia know more about true intentions and can react accordingly.
Personally, i am against such a policy because people can very easily say "i changed my mind" and blame/vindication will tend to be imposed base on a town/scum flip. Why bring up a policy you don't agree with yourself? In fact, why bring up a policy that in a previous game you described as: Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 11:20 Release wrote:
##vote Hopeless1der
I think Mafia is a very intricate game, and to say Lynch those who do not tell the truth is retarded.
<snip>
Can you explain your thoughts behind bringing up this policy which you evidently don't agree with yourself?
1st bold: I don't want a lynch-all-liars.
2nd bold: lynch-all-liars is retarded aka i don't want a lynch-all-liars.
I agree with myself. However, i don't see how a game 4 months ago has much pertinence to me this game: I have played a grand total of 5 games (including this one) and my mind could have changed between those 4 months.
|
he's not pointing out a contradiction in your opinion he is asking if you are so adamantly against it, why even bring it up?
|
On November 01 2012 11:26 Mattchew wrote:
release what do you think of zealos's posts
First post agrees with the general consensus. Has a point in that he can't be blamed for not agreeing.
Second post reinforces the miller not mason claim. Clarifies part of the problem.
Third post seems to allude to that fact that he thinks I'm town or that my posts are insignificant.
If he had posted something more, i would think of it as "there are more important things to do" but he has yet to make a further contribution. I honestly have no idea what he trying to do with this post because his filter is rather meager, so this doesn't seem like fluff.
Zealos, please explain in detail what you mean by this post because there seems to be ambiguity surrounding it.
_____________________________________________
Personally, i'd like to hear from someone who has not yet posted to get another perspective on this, and the case on me.
|
On November 01 2012 12:05 Mattchew wrote:
he's not pointing out a contradiction in your opinion he is asking if you are so adamantly against it, why even bring it up?
It was left with kind of a dangling end; no real agreement, no disagreement. I prefer to have things be explicit so it has much less chance to be used manipulatively.
|
Sup Guys. Just caught up with the thread. So I have a town read on Kush, Unless he has put a great deal of effort into shifting his meta he is playing his town meta this game. So unless something drastic changes I guess that this is the first time I will not be gunning for you buddy. ^_^
If you are a miller you should claim. But I will be wary of such a claim as there have been times in the past in which an uncontested miller claim day one has sealed the win for scum. So we should exercise our judgement on such claims rather than put blind faith on their townieness.
From my first read through Release is looking suspicious. Firstly he is tunnelling townie kush, although he may be unaware of kush's meta he has a scum read over something which is at worst a null tell.
Secondly his posting feels off somehow this post in particular is scummy as shit.
On November 01 2012 11:20 Release wrote:
Do not use this post later to claim that i am shifting attention off myself. I acknowledge that I am under suspicion.
So in the flurry of comment regarding the claiming, we seem to have dismissed the possibility of enacting a Lynch-all-liars policy. The main con i see if we do enact it is that we can't pull use fishing for reactions as freely. The main pro, however, is that people can't claim to be fishing for reactions. Another consequence is that more information is in the thread. Both town and mafia know more about true intentions and can react accordingly.
Personally, i am against such a policy because people can very easily say "i changed my mind" and blame/vindication will tend to be imposed base on a town/scum flip.
So after acknowledging that this post is a distraction from the suspicions on himself he attempts to create a tangent discussion on policy. And he proposes a lynch all liars policy that he talks about for a good deal and then decides he is against?
It was fluffy and served to distract the thread from pursuing him. Claiming that you are not doing that does not cause it to be untrue, rather it speaks as if he was guilty of doing EXACTLY THAT.
|
On November 01 2012 12:09 Release wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 11:26 Mattchew wrote:
release what do you think of zealos's posts First post agrees with the general consensus. Has a point in that he can't be blamed for not agreeing. Second post reinforces the miller not mason claim. Clarifies part of the problem. Third post seems to allude to that fact that he thinks I'm town or that my posts are insignificant. If he had posted something more, i would think of it as "there are more important things to do" but he has yet to make a further contribution. I honestly have no idea what he trying to do with this post because his filter is rather meager, so this doesn't seem like fluff. Zealos, please explain in detail what you mean by this post because there seems to be ambiguity surrounding it. _____________________________________________ Personally, i'd like to hear from someone who has not yet posted to get another perspective on this, and the case on me.
Well, I haven't properly commented on you yet Release. Based on what I've seen, really scummy push against kush.
However, I'm going to read those newbie games you posted seeing as I was in two of them and then come back to this. We'll see how some meta analysis holds up. Also, I doubt I get that done tonight since I need to be up really early for work; Going to bed in a bit so I'll post my findings in an approximate 15 hours from now.
|
Oh and before I forget. The scummiest thing about release in my mind is that he jumped all over Kush for a mistake. This is generally what scum do instead of scum hunting. But the problem is that he did not look at the motivation behind kush's mistake and could not paint it as scummy in any way. It was just that. A mistake. Something kush is known for and is not a particularly scummy mistake either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
