Hero Mini Mafia - Page 16

On December 10 2012 14:53 thrawn2112 wrote:


alright well I'm tired of the miller claim discussion so here's how it went down from my perspective.

At first it was mainly a joke, but it was also intended to jump start discussion. + Show Spoiler + Then people started taking it more seriously than I thought they would so I decided to be dickish about it in order to ignite further discussion. I actually don't mind being a potential mislynch, I think I'm better at discerning scum when they are trying to lynch me. I don't mind a bit of pressure during early D1 if it allows me to make better reads. Also.... anything is better than talking about lurker policy ffs

On December 10 2012 17:14 wherebugsgo wrote:
I counted 5, so it should be a 66% chance, but w/e. Regardless, there's a much higher chance IMO of finding scum for day 1 in those who haven't joined yet than looking at the currently active players.

I chose Palmar because he was one of those 5, because I want to see what he says, and because on balance concerns, if the host decided to balance teams, he's most likely to be the vet on the scumteam.

All of these things, again, are preliminary so they mean nothing until Palmar actually shows up. (or, for that matter, all of the other guys).

I have a heuristic for determining who out of that group is most likely to be scum, but I'll wait for them to appear before doing anything. No point till then anyway.

On December 11 2012 04:02 Z-BosoN wrote:

I don't get why you are assuming there are four scum, is this obvious due to the setup?
Also, I don't understand why you chose to use the "80%" argument in wanting to go for palmar BEFORE that explanation in the quoted post, when that argument is easily applied to any of the people who hadn't posted.

On December 11 2012 04:12 wherebugsgo wrote:



If not 4 scum, then what?

3 is too few, and 5 is too many.

With 1 kp per night any other numbers are not very balanced unless there is some sort of blue distribution that makes other numbers likely.

You don't understand the rest of it because you didn't read properly.

On December 10 2012 12:47 wherebugsgo wrote:
alrighty.

I've concluded from the current events that there's an 80% preliminary chance that Palmar is scum.

Therefore I'm voting him, at least until he comes back and proves me otherwise.

##unvote
##vote Palmar

On December 11 2012 04:29 wherebugsgo wrote:
To Z-Boson, who is scum, and why? Who do you intend on voting?

I'm not going to bother answering any questions that are irrelevant to the question of who is scum, since I've already adequately explained myself and anyone pursuing further lines of questioning regarding why I singled out palmar is not actively reading the thread or is seeking an easy alternative to doing real scumhunting.

On December 11 2012 01:35 Clarity_nl wrote:


I call people dumb or idiots?

So other than Thrawn, who is an easy bandwagon to you so should be avoided, who stands out as scummy?

On December 11 2012 04:43 jaybrundage wrote:

I didnt mean you specifically but some people in TL mafia do. I actually am starting to lean more neutral on Thrawn. In my early mind set I just couldnt see someone misclaiming as a joke, or risk getting them selves lynched. Im a little worried about our lurkers.

And i would prefer to see more posts out of ZBoston. Specifically ZBoston what do you think about Claritys case on me and some people soft defending me.

Also MunkE has had like 3 posts since his /in and every single one of them is mostly about WBG statistic. Do we really have to nitpick over something like that. WBG was mostly trying to bait Palmar out. Lets hear your thoughts on some cases

On Vivax its odd. He seems really interested in going after Thrawns claim and saying that Ve defended it as a joke. When its not a joke. Even when thrawn said his self it was just a joke. That he stubbornly. Refused to explain to generate discussion. I think he is concentrating on thrawns little joke to much to the exclusion of everything else. I can see him being scum.

##Vote Vivax
(Because some people get SOOOOO antsy if you dont follow your argument with your vote.)

On December 11 2012 01:44 Munk-E wrote:



This is actually my 4th or fifth game. I can't find the others in my post history, because i guess TL doesn't keep a post history that's that old.

Yes, day 1 lynch last time, I'm gonna try to be more active so people don't waste their lynch again for no reason other than i didn't say enough.

as for WBG, the more i think about it, the more I think he's more likely to be town. If he was scum, this play would either be to bus palmer if he's scum, which would be stupid and unnecessary, or to try to start a bandwagon on him if he's town, which would most likely be futile. He could be trying to appear to be an aggressive scumhunter, attacking harmless enemies though, so he seems town, but then again, aggressive scumhunting seems town.

I see his logic now, but it is flawed. I highly doubt that all the scum were lurkers.

On December 11 2012 04:23 Tunkeg wrote:
So I have skimmed through the thread. And these are my thoughts:

Thrawn's "claim" is a joke claim. He did it in the very beginning, and quickly and without concern went back on it. I didn't like his response when called out on it. But when he in the end explained why he did as he did, it was an ok (no more, no less) explanation. I truly think people read to much into stuff like this, and overfocuses on it. I have many times made posts early that people have labeled stupid, with them voting for me and almost misslynching me (mainly because they didn't get my logic behind doing them, even after I explained it). I don't think the millar "claim" is anything worth spending much time analysing, but I would say that I find it more likely that a townie would do this.

I like Clarity's post on jaybrundage. I think jaybrundage's posts are very non-commiting, and very fluffy. I have played games with jaybrundage before, and I may be wrong, but I think his style resembles what he did in Student, where he was scum. A very wishy-washy style, where he eventually did some major slips.

I am also abit concerned about Djodref, I think he is posting alot, but his posts are very fluffy. I haven't played with him before, is this his style or?

On December 11 2012 04:43 jaybrundage wrote:

I didnt mean you specifically but some people in TL mafia do. I actually am starting to lean more neutral on Thrawn. In my early mind set I just couldnt see someone misclaiming as a joke, or risk getting them selves lynched. Im a little worried about our lurkers.

And i would prefer to see more posts out of ZBoston. Specifically ZBoston what do you think about Claritys case on me and some people soft defending me.

Also MunkE has had like 3 posts since his /in and every single one of them is mostly about WBG statistic. Do we really have to nitpick over something like that. WBG was mostly trying to bait Palmar out. Lets hear your thoughts on some cases

On Vivax its odd. He seems really interested in going after Thrawns claim and saying that Ve defended it as a joke. When its not a joke. Even when thrawn said his self it was just a joke. That he stubbornly. Refused to explain to generate discussion. I think he is concentrating on thrawns little joke to much to the exclusion of everything else. I can see him being scum.

##Vote Vivax
(Because some people get SOOOOO antsy if you dont follow your argument with your vote.)

On December 11 2012 03:57 VisceraEyes wrote:
Clarity:
Perhaps he feels responsible for mislynches in the past? I don't know WHY he said that...I just feel like the statement is more likely to come from town than scum. I didn't say anything LIKE "too scummy to be scum". I pointed out that his posts read more town than scum to me.

What do you think about Vivax? I want him to hang.

On December 11 2012 05:10 Z-BosoN wrote:
@marv
thoughts on munk-E?

On December 11 2012 04:23 Tunkeg wrote:
Thrawn's "claim" is a joke claim. He did it in the very beginning, and quickly and without concern went back on it. I didn't like his response when called out on it. But when he in the end explained why he did as he did, it was an ok (no more, no less) explanation.

On December 10 2012 09:57 thrawn2112 wrote:
any answer I could possibly give would just betray the actual purpose behind that post, making whatever I hoped to accomplish with that post no longer possible