|
On November 04 2012 00:12 Rad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 00:03 Djodref wrote:On November 03 2012 23:48 debears wrote:On November 03 2012 23:44 Djodref wrote:On November 03 2012 23:33 debears wrote:On November 03 2012 20:58 Djodref wrote:On November 03 2012 10:21 debears wrote:
@obsy
Its mafia favored compared to the last setup. Only 9 players means a quicker game. A quicker game is better foe mafia since they don't have to fake their townieness for so long.
Also look at the roles like medic. Medic can't target the same person twice (was it also that he can't target himself? I'm on my phone and i really don't want to check @ debearsSo, are you saying that the fact that we have a medic which cannot target the same person twice is such a big imbalance that this game is obviously mafia favored or are you role-fishing ? I'm not sure why you mention this in this post, could you elaborate ? Idk how you get that I'm role fishing from that. 1) I talked about the speed of the game and number of players being mafia favored 2) Combined with the roles setup, the game is pretty mafia favored imo How do you get that I'm role fishing for that when I in no way ask anyone if they are blue? @ debearsMaybe you were waiting for a possible medic to confirm you the fact that he cannot heal himself. I would expect a medic to carefully read his role's rules and I'm expecting you to know that medics usually cannot heal themselves. But you are asking this question nevertheless. I'm agreeing that the speed of this game is benefit the mafia but I don't see why the role setup would be mafia favored. It is only because the medic cannot heal the same person twice ? That, with no vig, no vet, yet the Mafia still have the same power roles for possiblities, except the godfather. Oh, and roleblocks aren't notified. Mainly it's the number of players and speed of the game combined with only having 2 mafia @ debearsI think that cop and jailkeeper are powerful roles, we might not have both of them though. Vig is not so good in newbie games (could you confirm this one, Rad?). Please also note that a framer couldn't use his power on his mafia partner. Anyway, I don't think the setup is imbalanced from a role point of view and I was surprised that you were only mentioning the medic. I'm not totally satisfied with your explanations but it was a minor thing. I'm more interested in sylverfire and daoud right now. Can the framer frame himself ? Regarding your bolded question to me, what do you want me to confirm? Define "good." Good for town winning or good for me having a blast? Cause I had a blast, even though I got the wrong shot, it was so fun trying to figure out who to use it on, and I submitted the kill request the very last second I could (probably why the night post took longer, I bet thrawn had to rewrite it). Had I gotten a scum with the shot, who knows what that would have done to me, hell it might have pushed my confirmation bias even further. Certainly I would have centered in on cheese 100% if kush flipped scum that game. Anyway, "good for town"? I have no idea. Good for getting me super interested last game? You bet. Also, it taught me some lessons I would not have learned otherwise.
@ Rad
Of course I was meaning good for town 
The risk of having of town player killed by a vigilante is greater in newbie games so I don't think this role really benefits the town. I wanted to take last game as an example so that's why I was mentioning you.
Anyway, let's drop this right now and focus and more important matters. I'm urging you to answer debears and give your input on the latest events in the thread
|
@ Cheese
The problem is that he didn't even mention these points. The reasons he has stated were that debears was posting mainly fluff. And what about the other scumslip where he says that he wants to cast suspicion upon debears ?
|
@ Rad
Ok, good point. Urging might not have been the best word I could have used but please remind that I'm not an english native speaker. I was not getting suspicious of your for not answering. Take your time ^^
|
On November 04 2012 00:31 da0ud wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 23:54 Djodref wrote:On November 03 2012 23:35 da0ud wrote:On November 03 2012 23:21 Djodref wrote:
I'm not sure to understand exactly what you mean...
Are you saying that I purposely misinterpret what sylver has said and done to attack him ?
Could you clarify where you think I am wrong ? Yes. Explanation of where I think you are wrong is in the previous post : the same one you said i am defending Slyfire and he can use it as a rope to start his own defense. What is the point of your question if you already replied to its own answer ? @ daoudOk, so you are not defending sylver but attacking me for misinterpreting the thread. Could you please tell me exactly where I misinterpreted the thread ? Show me it in a quote so I can be more precise. I did not say you misinterpreted the thread, I just said you did take too fast conclusions in my opinion. I like more the case against Sylver by Debears than yours.
@ daoud
Ok, sorry for the misunderstanding. Debears has indeed better points than mine against sylver. I think the main point is the inherent contradiction in his post.
"dedication among the townies" -> scumslip or gives a town read on people with a lot of posts (i.e. debears, Cheese and me)
"I don't know what to think about Alsn or debears" -> null read on them
"the vote on debears for the fluff in his posts and his fast FoS on Alsn" -> debears is now suspicious in his eyes
|
@ sylverfire
I don't know debears alignment. I'm already saying it in the post where I vote against you.
I think town players should not use their vote to cast suspicion upon someone. Town players should build cases to convince everybody to lynch the player they find the most suspicious.
You have the right to be suspicious of debears. But I think you have to bring better reasons to persuade us to do so. If you think that casting suspicion upon him is enough and expect other players to build a case against debears for you, then I would say that you are mafia.
Why did you use the word townies instead of players ?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 03 2012 14:10 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:*Sigh* Of course I'm focused on defending myself. I started to post some stuff you on Debears in regards to Alsn posting about you, but then Djo proceeds to tunnel me. Here's the obligitory OMGUS case on Djo. I learned a lot of stuff from Nack last game, despite him being an arrogant SOB. Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 13:51 Djodref wrote:
@ Cheese
Regarding your pokemon joke explanation, I didn't like how you focused on the content instead of precising what were your motivations for this joke at that time. It would be acceptable if you just told me that it was genuine or an attempt to frame me (it occurred during last game after all).
Nevertheless, I would agree that we should drop this discussion. But you are still on my radar. I made this exact mistake last game as scum, "Djo is not off the hook" thing. He wants to ensure that his suspicions for me are known. As town, he would not have to make this statement because he would have faith that we already know that. Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 12:06 Djodref wrote:On November 03 2012 12:00 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On November 03 2012 10:50 Djodref wrote:
@ debaers
I don't think this one deserves a FoS. When Alsn says that it is technically a lie, that's just Alsn arguing about math and logic. On November 03 2012 11:52 Djodref wrote:On November 03 2012 11:12 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On November 03 2012 11:11 Clarity_nl wrote:On November 03 2012 11:10 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On November 03 2012 11:09 debears wrote:On November 03 2012 11:04 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:Debears you seem really paranoid. On November 03 2012 10:42 debears wrote:
Yeah i am. He calls me a liarin red and then peaces out without wanting to hear my thoughts. Aint that scummy? Considering how active he was around lynch time last game, which was only an hour before this He didn't call you, Debears the person, a liar. You're taking Alsn's nit-pick of a post awfully personally. The quick, useless FoS is also the same exact tactic you used last game. Old hat, Debears, old hat.
1) i don't wear a hat2) i rescind my argument. The red text threw me off Scumtell. Howso? Mafia usually wear hats. He's so adamant that he most certainly does NOT wear a hat. Therefore, scumtell. @ CheesecakePlease refrain from joking when talking about scumtells. It's confusing. FoS Cheese The logic is strong with this one. @ CheeseI was re-reading the thread and I really didn't like this "it's a scumtell" joke. I'm not against jokes but scumtells are quite serious business. I've got my eyes on you. Again, another exact mistake I made last game. Feeling the need to tell people that you have been reading the thread. For the second part, he's assuring that we realize that he knows this game is important to him. As town, he wouldn't feel the need to tell us that the game is important. Then there is the entire "joke" case he makes, which is, no matter how you slice it, a terrible argument. He summons it up from nowhere and makes a huge deal about it. I want to drop the conversation because it's irrelevant and cluttering the thread. He insists that there is something there, but I reiterate, there is not. Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 13:53 Djodref wrote:On November 03 2012 13:48 debears wrote:On November 03 2012 13:43 Djodref wrote:On November 03 2012 13:28 debears wrote:On November 03 2012 13:26 Djodref wrote:On November 03 2012 13:22 debears wrote:On November 03 2012 13:11 Djodref wrote:On November 03 2012 13:04 Clarity_nl wrote:
Okay re-reading your post you're saying we shouldn't focus on one/two people, instead considering everyone and not consolidate on a lynch? @ ClarityExactly, I think you everyone should just vote for his top scumread while giving enough reason to do so and then we start again from there and see who is likely to be lynched, be it 2 or 3 players. I think it's the best way to use plurality lynch. Considering only 2 possibilities narrows the discussion and allows mafia players to have some excuse to lynch town (cf Cheese last game lynching daoud in the daoud/ini match-up). The downfall is that the end of the day could be a bit messy. seriously.....why are we having to explain this? 1) Scumhunt 2) Vote for your top scumread 3) When the voting comes down to 2 candidates and lynch is near, pick one of two said candidates and give reasoning why you're voting them Is that clear enough for all of you to understand? Please stop talking about policy @ debearsMy point is that it would benefit us to consider more than 2 candidates for the lynch. Anyway it's too late to discuss about it now, I was just answering Clarity's question about it. By the way it's not policy, it's lynch mechanics  More semantics, anyways it's useless. What do you think of Obsy's, Dau0d's, and Sylver's epic uselessness so far? @ debearsThe game has just started. Regarding daoud and sylver, the longer it takes for them to join the discussion, the bigger my expectations are for their future input. Obsy has to step up a little bit. @Obsy if you are town, you should definitively ask Hapa for help So you're saying Obsy is town????? Obvious scumtell omg guyszzzz instalynch him Lol NMM XXVIII Never forget @ debearsYou really made me chuckle with this one ^^ Need I even mention how utterly hypocritical this post is? ##FOS: Djodref
@ Cheese
Here is my response regarding your FoS on me. I've inserted your post in the spoiler.
First of all, let me say that using OMGUS to vote people is more a mafia trait than a town trait. Dandel has been really OMGUsing me last game when I have made my case against me. Anyway, you have your reasons, so let me address them.
Regarding the "you are still on my radar" part, I've been tunneling you for a while and I have not been fully satisfied with your explanations. Nevertheless, we agreed that we should better drop our argument because I was going too far and started to post some posts irrelevant to this game. I was just expressing my opinion on you after our argument which could have been different if you had provided me better explanations.
About me re-reading the thread, I was trying to explain you and everyone the context for my sudden FoS on you. You attacked me on the logic but I think the logic was fine because debears had FoS Alsn and I had FoS you for different reasons. In fact, I've realized that I had just dropped a bomb in the thread. That was my initial intent to spark discussion but I got bad feedback about it so I wanted to give better context.
To finish about jokes, I'm totally for using jokes in this game But I've been using jokes on purpose when I was mafia to buddy some other players or to lightly cast suspicion on them. So I'm wary of the "scum tell" jokes. In France, we say that there is also a part of truth in jokes and lies
And I've been an hypocrite, I admit it. But I really laughed to debears joke ^^
|
On November 04 2012 01:33 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 04 2012 01:20 Djodref wrote:
@ sylverfire
I don't know debears alignment. I'm already saying it in the post where I vote against you.
I think town players should not use their vote to cast suspicion upon someone. Town players should build cases to convince everybody to lynch the player they find the most suspicious.
You have the right to be suspicious of debears. But I think you have to bring better reasons to persuade us to do so. If you think that casting suspicion upon him is enough and expect other players to build a case against debears for you, then I would say that you are mafia.
Why did you use the word townies instead of players ?
So, you say that town players shouldn't vote as a pressure move / attract suspicion to someone? You used your vote last game on Inig as vote pressure: On October 26 2012 09:16 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 08:34 Inigmaticalism wrote:
Right now I dont have any scum reads, only town reads which Ive already said in earlier posts. So I would lynch one of the lurkers probably. Also, Djo you seem to be the only one really going after me, so while your asking everyone what they think of me, you should answer your own question. what you you think of me?
-Should be back to post something in around 6-7 hours. I have already my eyes on you and I think that your posts lack content and scumhunting. You are my top scumread right now. Let's assume that the lurkers are going to get modkill today, who would you like to lynch ? Vote-pressuring you ## Vote Inig Same with Nack: On October 28 2012 22:44 Djodref wrote:
We still have no insight from Nackht at all. He has only said that he was sure that Kush was scum.
I'm not sure about Cheese anymore. I'm null on him right now. His case shows good scumhunting efforts, even if they go in the wrong direction. Him using a "djo attempt to discredit me" paragraph in his case is a towntell for me because it shows that he has natural sense of innocence (in opposition of the usual self-culpability). If he still believes I am scum after my answers to his case, I want him to look for my potential scumbuddies. No by association by the way because I am town and anyway you should wait for me to flip to start this kind of thing.
I want dandel to decide if I am scum or SK and bring consequent proofs to his case.
I'm very very wary of Nackht. He has given us nothing (expect him being sure that Kush was scum) so far and I don't understand why a town replacement would be retaining info like he does. The other thing speaking against him is that I don't have a strong scumread at the moment and it makes the probability for the lurkers to be mafia higher. So I hope that we have a modkill on Roco today.
I'm going to vote pressure him to make nackht talk. Keeping this vote on him until he gives us a complete assessment of what is going on here according to him. He promised it but he has just given us a "lol" so far.
##Vote nackhtjogger
You obviously believe in vote pressure to cast suspicion from a townie perspective.
I have no problem with people using their vote to pressure people into talking or whatever reason they have if they state a reasonable explanation for a pressure vote.
My problem with sylverfire post is that the initial reasons he gave for his vote were that debears filter was fluffy and that he cast a quick FoS on Alsn. Then he said that he also wanted to cast suspicion upon debears. He never said that he was using his vote as a pressure vote in the first place. The regrettable thing is that other people said this before he could defend himself.
According to me, if you think that a player is suspicious enough to vote against him, you should persuade other players to vote for him, which sylverfire has failed to do imho. But I might not understand exactly the meaning of "cast suspicion", I see this expression as quite pejorative.
|
I would like to add a point regarding sylver's scumslip. Please take note how he reacted to it.
On November 04 2012 01:08 sylverfyre wrote:
/snip
And finally, on your final point:
I'm not saying townies will be more dedicated this game. I'm saying PLAYERS will be more dedicated this game. Why? The game filled up instantly and we don't have anyone from last game who lurked like crazy except for da0ud (who was on vacation, and is presumably more available now. I hope.) We have no Roco69 players this game, even da0ud has posted some content now. I don't think we'll have a day 1 lynch with anything less than 9 votes cast.
Your scumslip is grasping at straws and making up scum tells is really bad for town. Leaving my vote on you.
/snip
He denies the fact that he used the word "townies". In my opinion, a town player would have said "I've used the word townies but I meant players, I've slipped, my bad". Last game, I've accepted my slip and explained why I've slipped.
I think it is mafia reaction to deny it like that.
|
On November 04 2012 01:55 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 01:47 Djodref wrote:On November 04 2012 01:33 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 04 2012 01:20 Djodref wrote:
@ sylverfire
I don't know debears alignment. I'm already saying it in the post where I vote against you.
I think town players should not use their vote to cast suspicion upon someone. Town players should build cases to convince everybody to lynch the player they find the most suspicious.
You have the right to be suspicious of debears. But I think you have to bring better reasons to persuade us to do so. If you think that casting suspicion upon him is enough and expect other players to build a case against debears for you, then I would say that you are mafia.
Why did you use the word townies instead of players ?
So, you say that town players shouldn't vote as a pressure move / attract suspicion to someone? You used your vote last game on Inig as vote pressure: On October 26 2012 09:16 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 08:34 Inigmaticalism wrote:
Right now I dont have any scum reads, only town reads which Ive already said in earlier posts. So I would lynch one of the lurkers probably. Also, Djo you seem to be the only one really going after me, so while your asking everyone what they think of me, you should answer your own question. what you you think of me?
-Should be back to post something in around 6-7 hours. I have already my eyes on you and I think that your posts lack content and scumhunting. You are my top scumread right now. Let's assume that the lurkers are going to get modkill today, who would you like to lynch ? Vote-pressuring you ## Vote Inig Same with Nack: On October 28 2012 22:44 Djodref wrote:
We still have no insight from Nackht at all. He has only said that he was sure that Kush was scum.
I'm not sure about Cheese anymore. I'm null on him right now. His case shows good scumhunting efforts, even if they go in the wrong direction. Him using a "djo attempt to discredit me" paragraph in his case is a towntell for me because it shows that he has natural sense of innocence (in opposition of the usual self-culpability). If he still believes I am scum after my answers to his case, I want him to look for my potential scumbuddies. No by association by the way because I am town and anyway you should wait for me to flip to start this kind of thing.
I want dandel to decide if I am scum or SK and bring consequent proofs to his case.
I'm very very wary of Nackht. He has given us nothing (expect him being sure that Kush was scum) so far and I don't understand why a town replacement would be retaining info like he does. The other thing speaking against him is that I don't have a strong scumread at the moment and it makes the probability for the lurkers to be mafia higher. So I hope that we have a modkill on Roco today.
I'm going to vote pressure him to make nackht talk. Keeping this vote on him until he gives us a complete assessment of what is going on here according to him. He promised it but he has just given us a "lol" so far.
##Vote nackhtjogger
You obviously believe in vote pressure to cast suspicion from a townie perspective. I have no problem with people using their vote to pressure people into talking or whatever reason they have if they state a reasonable explanation for a pressure vote. My problem with sylverfire post is that the initial reasons he gave for his vote were that debears filter was fluffy and that he cast a quick FoS on Alsn. Then he said that he also wanted to cast suspicion upon debears. He never said that he was using his vote as a pressure vote in the first place. The regrettable thing is that other people said this before he could defend himself. According to me, if you think that a player is suspicious enough to vote against him, you should persuade other players to vote for him, which sylverfire has failed to do imho. But I might not understand exactly the meaning of "cast suspicion", I see this expression as quite pejorative. - He never said anything about the FoS on Debears, I did. He just said that his reaction was odd to Alsn. - In you're post about Inig, your explanation was "lack of content / scumhunting" ---> hardly a reason. Especially to have other people vote for him. Same with Nack, nobody else voted for him and you didn't persuade anyone else to do so. - In both instances, your prime goal was to cast suspicion. Get people interested in what Inig was doing, get people interested in what Nack was lurking about. Your logic is backward this game.
@ Cheese
FoS on debears ? Where did I say that ?
To be honest, my case on Inig was far-fetched last game and I knew it. I was really finding Inig suspicious at that time but he didn't really deserve a case. I was in a bad position and I wanted to show everybody that I was scumhunting. But, of course, I was not going to say something like that.
Also, you are wrong about my goals. When I'm saying that I'm pressure vote someone, my first goal is to put pressure on the player to react and start posting if he was lurking. Last game, I had no intent to lynch nachktjogger at the end of D2 nor did I find him really suspicious. But here again, it was a bluff, so he was not going say it in plain sight.
I make a distinction between pressure votes and suspicion votes. I don't think that sylver voting intent was to put pressure on debears to force him to post less fluff. If sylver wanted to cast suspicion upon debears, a FoS would have been more appropriate.
I understand now that you cast suspicion upon anyone while voting him, whatever your reason is. But this is a consequence of your vote and it should not be the reason why you vote someone.
|
@ Cheese
On November 03 2012 14:44 sylverfyre wrote:
Holy shit, this flavor. What.
If we're gonna lynch a lurker, I'd rather it be early game than late, at least. But I think that we have more... dedication among the townies this game.
<snip>
On November 04 2012 01:08 sylverfyre wrote:
<snip>
I'm not saying townies will be more dedicated this game. I'm saying PLAYERS will be more dedicated this game. <snip>
Is this not denial ?
On a side note, regarding my seriousness in this game, it's because I don't want to play like last game where everybody was suspicious of me. But it doesn't work out so well 
|
@ Cheese
He's talking about the reaction of debears against Alsn just after his vote on him. I'm pretty sure that it is a reference to the FoS.
On November 03 2012 14:44 sylverfyre wrote:<snip> ##Vote debearsYour fluff, and your reaction against Alsn seem odd to me. Also, your claim of always being perfect about on at lynchtime. Now we can't even use it (in the future) as a scumtell on you because it'd turn into WIFOM. + Show Spoiler [off-topic complaint] +TL went down for several minutes as I'm typing this. Frustrating, can't finish the post because I want to check more filters!
|
On November 04 2012 02:25 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 02:25 Alsn wrote:
Djod, I'd say you should just play like you want to play, within reason. Spending too much time thinking about what other people will think about you is what scum do. That is a great point. Djo why are you so concerned about not being suspicious?
@ debears
Because of last game... duh
|
On November 04 2012 02:27 Clarity_nl wrote:
I'd just like to point out that da0ud dissapeared off the face of the earth, and I'm not happy about this at all.
@ Clarity
It's 1.30 am in Hong Kong and it's Saturday night I guess he might be out...
I would be partying if I was not sick
|
On November 04 2012 02:37 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 02:36 Alsn wrote:
I refuse to answer pre-game stuff on principle. Please don't bring it up again. Very well. It still seems he's uneager to engage with me. He pretty much just sat on the sidelines when you and I were going at it
@ debears
Regarding your first argument with Alsn, I didn't want to take part of it because I thought it was not really important. Just the usual stuff to get the game started. I also wanted to discuss about policy because I thought I had a good point while everybody was inclined to enforce the "Lynch a Lurker" policy.
Also, right now, we are on the same side regarding sylver, so I'm not going to focus on you. Does it seem reasonable to you ?
|
On November 04 2012 02:35 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 02:33 Djodref wrote:On November 04 2012 02:27 Clarity_nl wrote:
I'd just like to point out that da0ud dissapeared off the face of the earth, and I'm not happy about this at all. @ ClarityIt's 1.30 am in Hong Kong and it's Saturday night I guess he might be out... I would be partying if I was not sick Perhaps... I guess I just like it when people mention they're leaving and will be back in X time. That way when you question them, it'll look weird if they say "be back in 12 hours guys!" without addressing the fact that you're questioning them.
@ Clarity
Why are you concerned about daoud not being in the thread but not about sylver ?
|
@ sylverfire
How can I be sheeping when I voted you before debears ?
I'm still thinking that you should better have used a FoS rather than a vote but I understand now what you wanted to do when you said "I want to cast suspicion on him with my vote".
I didn't like at all how your explanation for your slip.+ Show Spoiler +On November 04 2012 02:21 Djodref wrote:@ CheeseShow nested quote +On November 03 2012 14:44 sylverfyre wrote:
Holy shit, this flavor. What.
If we're gonna lynch a lurker, I'd rather it be early game than late, at least. But I think that we have more... dedication among the townies this game.
<snip> Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 01:08 sylverfyre wrote:
<snip>
I'm not saying townies will be more dedicated this game. I'm saying PLAYERS will be more dedicated this game. <snip>
Is this not denial ? On a side note, regarding my seriousness in this game, it's because I don't want to play like last game where everybody was suspicious of me. But it doesn't work out so well
|
On November 04 2012 02:05 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 02:01 Djodref wrote:I would like to add a point regarding sylver's scumslip. Please take note how he reacted to it. On November 04 2012 01:08 sylverfyre wrote:
/snip
And finally, on your final point:
I'm not saying townies will be more dedicated this game. I'm saying PLAYERS will be more dedicated this game. Why? The game filled up instantly and we don't have anyone from last game who lurked like crazy except for da0ud (who was on vacation, and is presumably more available now. I hope.) We have no Roco69 players this game, even da0ud has posted some content now. I don't think we'll have a day 1 lynch with anything less than 9 votes cast.
Your scumslip is grasping at straws and making up scum tells is really bad for town. Leaving my vote on you.
/snip
He denies the fact that he used the word "townies". In my opinion, a town player would have said "I've used the word townies but I meant players, I've slipped, my bad". Last game, I've accepted my slip and explained why I've slipped. I think it is mafia reaction to deny it like that. He's not denying using the word townies. He's denying the connotation of the word townies. There is no motivation for anyone to outright deny that they used a word, because, well, it's written in stone.Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 01:59 debears wrote:
@CC
What do you think of Djo's seriousness attitude this game?
His personality seems different from last game in that regard, where he seemed much more amicable Top scumread atm (Woa, is this last game already?) He's still smileydjo, but seasoned with something I can't recognize this game. He's contradicting his own town play and, previously, trying to nitpick at me for little to no reason.
@ Cheese
The word "townies" doesn't connote as "players". Kush helped me to understand this in my very first game on these forums. People don't use townies when they can use players. The meaning is different. It is a slip, so now we have to decided if it is a scumslip or not.
The way sylver reacted to it makes me thing that it is a scumslip indeed.
|
On November 04 2012 03:35 sylverfyre wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 03:30 Djodref wrote:On November 04 2012 02:05 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On November 04 2012 02:01 Djodref wrote:I would like to add a point regarding sylver's scumslip. Please take note how he reacted to it. On November 04 2012 01:08 sylverfyre wrote:
/snip
And finally, on your final point:
I'm not saying townies will be more dedicated this game. I'm saying PLAYERS will be more dedicated this game. Why? The game filled up instantly and we don't have anyone from last game who lurked like crazy except for da0ud (who was on vacation, and is presumably more available now. I hope.) We have no Roco69 players this game, even da0ud has posted some content now. I don't think we'll have a day 1 lynch with anything less than 9 votes cast.
Your scumslip is grasping at straws and making up scum tells is really bad for town. Leaving my vote on you.
/snip
He denies the fact that he used the word "townies". In my opinion, a town player would have said "I've used the word townies but I meant players, I've slipped, my bad". Last game, I've accepted my slip and explained why I've slipped. I think it is mafia reaction to deny it like that. He's not denying using the word townies. He's denying the connotation of the word townies. There is no motivation for anyone to outright deny that they used a word, because, well, it's written in stone.On November 04 2012 01:59 debears wrote:
@CC
What do you think of Djo's seriousness attitude this game?
His personality seems different from last game in that regard, where he seemed much more amicable Top scumread atm (Woa, is this last game already?) He's still smileydjo, but seasoned with something I can't recognize this game. He's contradicting his own town play and, previously, trying to nitpick at me for little to no reason. @ CheeseThe word "townies" doesn't connote as "players". Kush helped me to understand this in my very first game on these forums. People don't use townies when they can use players. The meaning is different. It is a slip, so now we have to decided if it is a scumslip or not. The way sylver reacted to it makes me thing that it is a scumslip indeed. I was trying to say that inactivity wouldn't be a problem. On the part of the entire town. I was looking at the player list, and the speed at which people signed up for the game, and making that judgement. I guess it could be construed as a slip to say townies. But if the entire player base is active, then the town doesn't need to worry about lurker policy, do they? I said townies, because Inactivity isn't a problem for scum. They won last game because of it. Inactivity is a problem for town, town is the only faction that needs to worry about it. I don't think it will be a problem this game - I'm forecasting we aren't going to have any massive lurk problems (like Roco). Maybe it was a slip, but I think it reflects exactly what I was thinking at the time. (Inactivity = problem for townies. Low inactivity = good for townies)
@ sylver
So you have used townies first, then you said that you meant players and now you are saying that townies was the right word to use ?
Do you have any town reads to share ?
|
@ Cheesecake
I want you to comment on these posts before you ask Obzy or other people what they think about my stance on "vote pressure". Are you trying to dismiss my explanations for what I wrote ?
Please check the spoilers and read carefully this time. I'm sorry for the tone of this post but you pissed me off by being unable to see the reference to debears FoS against Alsn in sylverfire post.
+ Show Spoiler +On November 04 2012 01:47 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 01:33 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 04 2012 01:20 Djodref wrote:
@ sylverfire
I don't know debears alignment. I'm already saying it in the post where I vote against you.
I think town players should not use their vote to cast suspicion upon someone. Town players should build cases to convince everybody to lynch the player they find the most suspicious.
You have the right to be suspicious of debears. But I think you have to bring better reasons to persuade us to do so. If you think that casting suspicion upon him is enough and expect other players to build a case against debears for you, then I would say that you are mafia.
Why did you use the word townies instead of players ?
So, you say that town players shouldn't vote as a pressure move / attract suspicion to someone? You used your vote last game on Inig as vote pressure: On October 26 2012 09:16 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 08:34 Inigmaticalism wrote:
Right now I dont have any scum reads, only town reads which Ive already said in earlier posts. So I would lynch one of the lurkers probably. Also, Djo you seem to be the only one really going after me, so while your asking everyone what they think of me, you should answer your own question. what you you think of me?
-Should be back to post something in around 6-7 hours. I have already my eyes on you and I think that your posts lack content and scumhunting. You are my top scumread right now. Let's assume that the lurkers are going to get modkill today, who would you like to lynch ? Vote-pressuring you ## Vote Inig Same with Nack: On October 28 2012 22:44 Djodref wrote:
We still have no insight from Nackht at all. He has only said that he was sure that Kush was scum.
I'm not sure about Cheese anymore. I'm null on him right now. His case shows good scumhunting efforts, even if they go in the wrong direction. Him using a "djo attempt to discredit me" paragraph in his case is a towntell for me because it shows that he has natural sense of innocence (in opposition of the usual self-culpability). If he still believes I am scum after my answers to his case, I want him to look for my potential scumbuddies. No by association by the way because I am town and anyway you should wait for me to flip to start this kind of thing.
I want dandel to decide if I am scum or SK and bring consequent proofs to his case.
I'm very very wary of Nackht. He has given us nothing (expect him being sure that Kush was scum) so far and I don't understand why a town replacement would be retaining info like he does. The other thing speaking against him is that I don't have a strong scumread at the moment and it makes the probability for the lurkers to be mafia higher. So I hope that we have a modkill on Roco today.
I'm going to vote pressure him to make nackht talk. Keeping this vote on him until he gives us a complete assessment of what is going on here according to him. He promised it but he has just given us a "lol" so far.
##Vote nackhtjogger
You obviously believe in vote pressure to cast suspicion from a townie perspective. I have no problem with people using their vote to pressure people into talking or whatever reason they have if they state a reasonable explanation for a pressure vote. My problem with sylverfire post is that the initial reasons he gave for his vote were that debears filter was fluffy and that he cast a quick FoS on Alsn. Then he said that he also wanted to cast suspicion upon debears. He never said that he was using his vote as a pressure vote in the first place. The regrettable thing is that other people said this before he could defend himself. According to me, if you think that a player is suspicious enough to vote against him, you should persuade other players to vote for him, which sylverfire has failed to do imho. But I might not understand exactly the meaning of "cast suspicion", I see this expression as quite pejorative.
+ Show Spoiler +On November 04 2012 02:11 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 01:55 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:On November 04 2012 01:47 Djodref wrote:On November 04 2012 01:33 Mr. Cheesecake wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 04 2012 01:20 Djodref wrote:
@ sylverfire
I don't know debears alignment. I'm already saying it in the post where I vote against you.
I think town players should not use their vote to cast suspicion upon someone. Town players should build cases to convince everybody to lynch the player they find the most suspicious.
You have the right to be suspicious of debears. But I think you have to bring better reasons to persuade us to do so. If you think that casting suspicion upon him is enough and expect other players to build a case against debears for you, then I would say that you are mafia.
Why did you use the word townies instead of players ?
So, you say that town players shouldn't vote as a pressure move / attract suspicion to someone? You used your vote last game on Inig as vote pressure: On October 26 2012 09:16 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 08:34 Inigmaticalism wrote:
Right now I dont have any scum reads, only town reads which Ive already said in earlier posts. So I would lynch one of the lurkers probably. Also, Djo you seem to be the only one really going after me, so while your asking everyone what they think of me, you should answer your own question. what you you think of me?
-Should be back to post something in around 6-7 hours. I have already my eyes on you and I think that your posts lack content and scumhunting. You are my top scumread right now. Let's assume that the lurkers are going to get modkill today, who would you like to lynch ? Vote-pressuring you ## Vote Inig Same with Nack: On October 28 2012 22:44 Djodref wrote:
We still have no insight from Nackht at all. He has only said that he was sure that Kush was scum.
I'm not sure about Cheese anymore. I'm null on him right now. His case shows good scumhunting efforts, even if they go in the wrong direction. Him using a "djo attempt to discredit me" paragraph in his case is a towntell for me because it shows that he has natural sense of innocence (in opposition of the usual self-culpability). If he still believes I am scum after my answers to his case, I want him to look for my potential scumbuddies. No by association by the way because I am town and anyway you should wait for me to flip to start this kind of thing.
I want dandel to decide if I am scum or SK and bring consequent proofs to his case.
I'm very very wary of Nackht. He has given us nothing (expect him being sure that Kush was scum) so far and I don't understand why a town replacement would be retaining info like he does. The other thing speaking against him is that I don't have a strong scumread at the moment and it makes the probability for the lurkers to be mafia higher. So I hope that we have a modkill on Roco today.
I'm going to vote pressure him to make nackht talk. Keeping this vote on him until he gives us a complete assessment of what is going on here according to him. He promised it but he has just given us a "lol" so far.
##Vote nackhtjogger
You obviously believe in vote pressure to cast suspicion from a townie perspective. I have no problem with people using their vote to pressure people into talking or whatever reason they have if they state a reasonable explanation for a pressure vote. My problem with sylverfire post is that the initial reasons he gave for his vote were that debears filter was fluffy and that he cast a quick FoS on Alsn. Then he said that he also wanted to cast suspicion upon debears. He never said that he was using his vote as a pressure vote in the first place. The regrettable thing is that other people said this before he could defend himself. According to me, if you think that a player is suspicious enough to vote against him, you should persuade other players to vote for him, which sylverfire has failed to do imho. But I might not understand exactly the meaning of "cast suspicion", I see this expression as quite pejorative. - He never said anything about the FoS on Debears, I did. He just said that his reaction was odd to Alsn. - In you're post about Inig, your explanation was "lack of content / scumhunting" ---> hardly a reason. Especially to have other people vote for him. Same with Nack, nobody else voted for him and you didn't persuade anyone else to do so. - In both instances, your prime goal was to cast suspicion. Get people interested in what Inig was doing, get people interested in what Nack was lurking about. Your logic is backward this game. @ CheeseFoS on debears ? Where did I say that ? To be honest, my case on Inig was far-fetched last game and I knew it. I was really finding Inig suspicious at that time but he didn't really deserve a case. I was in a bad position and I wanted to show everybody that I was scumhunting. But, of course, I was not going to say something like that. Also, you are wrong about my goals. When I'm saying that I'm pressure vote someone, my first goal is to put pressure on the player to react and start posting if he was lurking. Last game, I had no intent to lynch nachktjogger at the end of D2 nor did I find him really suspicious. But here again, it was a bluff, so he was not going say it in plain sight. I make a distinction between pressure votes and suspicion votes. I don't think that sylver voting intent was to put pressure on debears to force him to post less fluff. If sylver wanted to cast suspicion upon debears, a FoS would have been more appropriate. I understand now that you cast suspicion upon anyone while voting him, whatever your reason is. But this is a consequence of your vote and it should not be the reason why you vote someone.
|
@ Obzy
I told you to focus on some players and to vote for your top scumread. If you try to think by yourself, you might be able to find one player who hasn't any vote against him yet. In this case, due to the plurality lynch, he could be lynched even with a few votes, including yours. I don't see any contradiction with you focusing and how we should use plurality lynch.
Please tell me if you didn't understand my explanation. I'm afraid I wasn't very clear...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
