EPTOn December 19 2012 20:13 Aquanim wrote:
Which accusations are you referring to here?
Which accusations are you referring to here?
Fair enough.
Perhaps accusation is the wrong word.
In context, I referenced the vote as an act of accusation.
Newbie Mini Mafia XXXIII - Page 17
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Fair enough. Perhaps accusation is the wrong word. In context, I referenced the vote as an act of accusation. | ||
|
Spaghetticus
Australia451 Posts
I will now try and compile a synopsis before bed. | ||
shz
Germany2687 Posts
On December 19 2012 20:01 Mocsta wrote: Thanks for the support! Always appreciated. I wasn't concerned about the vote. At some stage everyone will have a vote cast against them. Its the nature of the game. Ultimately, all the items he raised (I should say re-quoted...), I had already refuted in previous posts. My concern was over shz sheeping others comments. Not sure if bad/lazy townie play, or mafia motives. [i.e. Need to read filters] For all of the lurker discussions going to and fro. I think its disconcerting to throw accusations without either evidence, or bringing any new thought process to the table. Either way, as Cakepie referenced before in his awesome (and ?sole?) post. I agree with this sentiment, and do not want to discourage people from making comments. We need a town environment where people are willing to speak up (CONSTRUCTIVELY!) What is sheeping? It is nothing more than a suspicion at the moment, but I do get a scummy vibe from you because of your over-townie-acting. Just like a person who is overly-nice. I don't buy it. Also, accusing bad town play is not a good way of convincing anyone. Its just a distraction. Don't just refer to your posts, quote them if you think you refuted everything already. | ||
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
cDgCorazon (1): Aquanim Mocsta (1): shz Not voting (11): OmniEulogy, cakepie, Kickstart, Chromatically, Mocsta, cDgCorazon, Orangeremi, FatChunk, Spaghetticus, threesr, Sylencia Currently, cDgCorazon is set to be lynched! ~36 hours remaining in day 1. Please PM any of your friendly neighborhood hosts if your vote is counted incorrectly. Remember: If you don't vote at all, you will be smitten by divine wrath. Just as a reminder, this game uses plurality lynch! Whoever has the most votes get lynched. In case of a tie, first come, first die. Full version: + Show Spoiler + cDgCorazon (1): Aquanim Mocsta (1): shz Not voting (11): OmniEulogy, cakepie, Kickstart, Chromatically, Mocsta, cDgCorazon, Orangeremi, FatChunk, Spaghetticus, threesr, Sylencia | ||
|
Spaghetticus
Australia451 Posts
Threesr: He seems to want to defend lurking, which is really weird. Only contribution to date is disputing LAL. Cakepie: One very solid post. Would like to see more, though I think you have contributed more than a few other people here. Orange: Very little substance so far. Fatchunk: One post. Kickstart: Two posts. Sylencia: Seems to want to contribute, but is struggling. Corazon: One post. Shz: low contribution, attempts to stimulate discussion have been weak. So we have a bit of a lurker problem. Some of you I think will have no problem increasing production, but some others seem reluctant. If all you have done is discuss LAL policy up to this point, you need to contribute more. Give us your scummy reads if you have any. I would put money on the day1 lynch being one of the names I just mentioned, please try and make sure it’s not you. At this moment in time my prediction is that either Corazon, Shz, or Threesr will get bandwagoned. | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
----- @Spaghetticus: this is my first game. If my count is right, this is the first time for 7 of us, and 4 others have just one game under their belt (not counting threesr who has played elsewhere before). Quite the newbie game! ----- On December 19 2012 17:58 Mocsta wrote: If i haphazard a guess i would say he is concerned about being outwitted. I.e. Mafia or even town intentionally misconstruing his comments As I have already stated, my belief is that such fear is unfounded, counterproductive, and not a valid reason for a townie to lurk. By posting, even if a player is misunderstood and killed for it, a trail will remain for others to follow. This is crucial in this game that is built about asymmetry of information. I can understand if players with blue roles are inclined curtail their activity so as not to stand out too much and present an obvious target for scum kp. However, that is not a free pass to completely lurk either. ----- On December 19 2012 17:16 Aquanim wrote: A big thing which has jumped out at me so far is cakepie's first post. Everyone else replied to those questions pretty briefly, cakepie dumped a wall of text. Well, sorry for wanting to answer thoroughly and spell things out clearly. =( | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On December 19 2012 21:08 cakepie wrote: @Spaghetticus: this is my first game. If my count is right, this is the first time for 7 of us, and 4 others have just one game under their belt (not counting threesr who has played elsewhere before). Quite the newbie game! I think your count's a little off: afaik Kickstart has three games, Sylencia, Chromatic, Spaghetticus and myself have one each. | ||
|
Spaghetticus
Australia451 Posts
| ||
|
Chromatically
United States1700 Posts
First, he comes in to the thread without answering the questions that everyone else was answering. Corazon, why didn't you answer those questions or at least provide your opinions on policy? Then, after I ask him specifically some questions, he answered with: On December 19 2012 10:24 cDgCorazon wrote: I think it should be handled on a case to case basis when it comes to lurking. Sometimes it helps when someone just sits back and tries to figure things out instead of discussing every point. If it comes towards the end of the game, maybe the lurker needs to come out of the shadows. However, lying as town is basically team-killing, especially if it gets another townie lynched. However there can be certain circumstances where lying can get a mafia member to lose focus and say something stupid. Thanks for pressing me for an answer I guess, just curious as to why you needed an answer from me =/ His answers here are very noncommittal and he doesn't take a stand (ex: could argue later that he thinks a scumbuddy's lurking is fine). The bolded line what really struck me as odd, though. He gets pretty defensive over me asking him the same questions that everyone else was answering. After I keep asking him questions: On December 19 2012 12:17 cDgCorazon wrote: When I said "lose focus", I meant as in like trying to come out and saying something that would out them as mafia. I admit that it doesn't sound right when I say it, but of course this is my first time on TL Mafia, and it's all theorycrafting for me. He is clearly uncomfortable when I ask him to simply clarify what he meant in his earlier post. He also plays the noob card: "hey guys, I don't know anything, I'm just a noob, don't mind me." He seems generally uncomfortable in the thread with basic questions, something I would expect from a first-time scummer. ##Vote: cDgCorazon | ||
|
Spaghetticus
Australia451 Posts
| ||
|
FatChunk
Canada93 Posts
On December 19 2012 16:05 Spaghetticus wrote: While I'm a bit of a fence sitter in regard to lurkers, your assertion that mafia are equally likely to lurk as town causes me concern. Mafia, particularly new mafia, derive benefit from lurking if nobody picks them up on it. Town, new or otherwise, damage their chances of success if they do not contribute. While arguments can be made about the certainty of judgement, this game is not about certainties, and unless you can think of a good reason for a town to lurk that statistically counteracts the motivated tendency of a scum player, it is best to strongly pressure lurkers into action with your vote. I see your point regarding the reason for lurking. Upon reflection, I agree that lurking should be discouraged and if apparent, you will be questioned and proded. I think its very simple, as Mocsta said: lurking is not a free pas to fly under the radar. I also agree with Kickstart regarding lynching scum leads of randomly lynching lurkers. This, I feel, is obvious. As far as I understand an environment where mafia thrive is that of uncertainty, confusion. An environment which contains people who have split views, people that are not confident in their stance and can be swayed by logic, reason, should the situation call for it. Threesr did a good job of contradicting views regarding lurking, diverting town chat paths, and the town seems to be talking a little bit but we are dancing around constructive discussion (not to mention the fact that Threesr has been quite inactive recently). Perhaps this is scum behaviour. I understand policies on LAL and lurking needs to be discussed, and most of the tough thinking will come when it`s time to vote by ultimately making a read. This makes it really important to present strong arguments when it comes to FoS because others will base their arguments upon the information you present. I think we should be asking ourselves a few questions (whether to find scum or to eliminate uselss town), who is contributing constructively to discussion and who is simply causing the town to get hung up on lesser-than-top-priority thoughts and ideas. Top priorities, to me, are: establishing a wagon using a strong argument, reading into feedback and responses after suspicion has been vocalized, and developing an opinion (certainties are non-existen in this game, right?). The town atmosphere seems to be good so far and this is good for finding scum: perhaps we should start prodding the lurkers and advocates of lurking. I say this because inactivity seems to be common, and as we have all agreed, uncontributing town is useless and detrimental to town goals, whether they are mafia or town. My read is currently for Threesr, but am open to discussion. Would liek to hear more from him regarding lurking and why HE thinks it can be benificial for town to allow. ##Vote: theesr | ||
|
FatChunk
Canada93 Posts
| ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
This is starting to get interesting. A few people have now made their "pleas" - not to state innocence, but infer. I think enough bullsh!t is on the table to start getting info from the filters. Translation: A lot of lurkers are posting well-thought out responses, with one caveat. The content is all repeating what has been stated!! There is no circulation of NEW THOUGHT! | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
Can you give us more reason on your vote on threesr. I assume it is because he said he is ok with lurking but you don't specifically say anywhere. If that is why (which atm I assume it is), then do you think that him saying this is scummy? Because earlier I expressed my feelings that even though I disagree with him about lurking I don't think scum would come in the thread and do that. | ||
|
FatChunk
Canada93 Posts
| ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
----- Aquanim: put some effort to find suspicious players, albeit evidence is too scant at this early point to build strong cases. Regardless, boldly throws down the first vote to get things rolling. I cannot fault the choice of voting cDgCorazon as a pressure vote; an excellent choice. I would hope to see more fleshed out cases as this day phase continues, and as the rest of the progresses. ----- cDgCorazon: you need to justify your stance on why lurkers should be handled on a "case to case basis" as this is a point of disagreement between you and several other players, myself included. On December 19 2012 10:24 cDgCorazon wrote: I think it should be handled on a case to case basis when it comes to lurking. Sometimes it helps when someone just sits back and tries to figure things out instead of discussing every point. Q1. How much time should someone be allowed in order to "sit back and figure things out?" A day phase is 48 hours long. What do you think is a reasonable expectation in terms of productive contribution from each player within that time frame? Is two to three substantial posts too much to ask? Q2. threesr openly condones lurking, and claims a lurking playstyle (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=17239117). He was banned elsewhere, and modkilled in his last game here on TL. How do you propose we approach this situation, from your standpoint of handling on a "case to case basis" ? Where would you draw the line for unacceptable behavior, if his effort does not improve? My focus now is on forcing activity from lurkers and broadening the search for scum suspects, but if his play does not improve in the rest of the day, and questions are not answered satisfactorily, I would be happy to jump on the cDgCorazon wagon when we get to the phase of narrowing down the list. For now, ##FOS: cDgCorazon ----- Chromatically: pressed threesr and corazon earlier in the day, and brief discussion with mocsta, but has probably gone to sleep since, assuming NA timezones. Looking forward to more when he wakes up in a few hours from now. ----- FatChunk: not much besides a promise to be fearless. Needs to step it up. Q:Now that there are fairly substantial filters for several players and a conspicuous lack thereof for others, who do you think is suspicious, and why? You also need to address the question: On December 19 2012 17:25 Mocsta wrote: Please be fearless and share your thoughts on what you think promotes an environment for Mafia to thrive? ----- Kickstart: we agree that hunting scummy scum takes precedence over lurkers. Fingered to threesr’s defense of lurking, although that was pretty obvious, and comes after several others already pointed it out. Play so far seems less active than in previous games. Would like to see more activity and contribution in the remainder of the day phase. Show us the experience from your three games. Q1: re: threesr, he has openly declared that his playstyle was lurky, tried to defend it, and, well, did it. You said that: On December 19 2012 17:05 Kickstart wrote: I think scum would be hesitant to say something like that because allowing for people to just lurk creates a very bad town atmosphere, so I don't think scum would come in and so "o hey lurking is fine by me". What do you think of the possibility that threesr has adopted this meta in order to benefit himself when he rolls (eventually) scum? Q2: what do you think of the shz’s case on mocsta? What is your current read on mocsta? Does it look like scum with useless questions and creating a false impression of activity? Or an earnest townie? Q3: Apart from cDgCorazon, mocsta and threesr, has anything else caught your attention by now? ----- Mocsta: prolific, but does come across as a little over-eager. A bit too excited about first game? The FOS on sylencia was definitely too hasty. Shz’s case on mocsta so far does not look like it holds much water right now. Nonetheless, the time for banter about policy is past; it is time to put forward cases. Q: You accused shz of sheeping. What do you think after studying his filter? Are there the beginnings of a case that can be built upon? Whatever you find unsatisfactory about his play, I would like to see you question him and push him to take a position on someone or something. ----- OmniEulogy: NA time, was active up till 4 am ET, before cases started being made. Will assume sleeping, awaiting further contributions once awake. In particular, please comment on the cases so far, and see if you can build a case against someone. ----- OrangeRemi: Nothing apart from useless, "unsure" answers on mocsta’s initial questions, deferring to earlier answers and pleading inexperience -- we are all new here, but that is no excuse for not even putting some thought into simple questions. Besides that, only noted timezone and first game. This is despite three posts spanning over 4+ hours during which others were active. On December 19 2012 09:08 Orangeremi wrote: Just for the record, my timezone is GMT-7, but my waking hours are rather unorthodox. Conveniently enough, seeing as a few of us are aussies :D If waking hours are "unorthodox" in a way that is "convenient" for the aussies, we could have expected much more substance by now. Q: Pick and make a case against someone. Pressure voting. ##Vote: OrangeRemi ----- shz: Tried to provide a case on mocsta as an alternative to cDgCorazon. However, the fast town read was first pointed out by spaghetticus, and OmniEulogy was the one who first pointed to the questions about scum startegy. Not sure the case is viable at this point, but I agree that Mocsta seems a bit too eager. Q: Evaluate my play. Does it look town, or does it look scum? Why? ----- Spaghetticus: solid so far, no complaints. Would like to see you start getting on one of the cases or form one of your own. ----- Sylencia: Declared busy, has been mostly absent. Would hope to see at least some participation in the lynch discussion. Expecting to be much more active after your work dinner party when you are "free from any obligations whatsoever." ----- threesr: Has posted nothing but useless one- and two- liners. It is coming up to daytime EST, time to step up your play or else. As I and others have already mentioned, lurking is not acceptable here. In the absence of scummier targets, I will not hesitate to lynch you. ##FOS: threesr | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
----- On December 19 2012 21:12 Aquanim wrote: I think your count's a little off: afaik Kickstart has three games, Sylencia, Chromatic, Spaghetticus and myself have one each. We actually agree, then: 7 first-timers, 4 with one game, and threesr and kickstart, a total of 13. ----- FatChunk has addressed the question posed by mocsta and put forward a case against threesr. keep the good stuff coming. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On December 19 2012 20:36 shz wrote: What is sheeping? ... Don't just refer to your posts, quote them if you think you refuted everything already. Sheeping in my opinion is blindly following the lead of others. As for you asking me to reference posts. [Even though most people will probably flame me for this] NO! ... Look it up yourself ... Rationale: (1) Lets look at your vote justification first. On December 19 2012 18:33 shz wrote: So if we need another wagon to jump, or not, to jump on: ##Vote: Mocsta Why? He/She did start a discussion, but I don't think that was all that useful, other than proving him being active and establish an alibi. Questions like the seafood one waste time and distract from substantial discussion. Also he/she is quite fast on "reading" someone as Town. Additionally he/she asked repeatedly about Mafia strategies. This is no way a waterproof case, but I think its a start and something we could work with. Your entire justification reads as a regurgitation of Day1 Activity in a flavour copied from another forum mafia site. Where is the critical analysis, you simply quote questions raised by others (OmniEulogy/Sylencia/Spagehtticus) To add icing to the cake, you then close by admitting your case is as creditable as a comb for a bald guy. Please remind me how this promotes a town atmospheric conducive to scum hunting (2) Lurking/Laziness If you ask me a new q | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
(2) If you ask me a new question, I will answer it. If you want to re-ask a question someone else answered, I am not going to bother. Especially with your vote justification. I can't tell if your too lazy to read the filters properly.. or you are trying to cause confusion. Either way, your not helping town. My vote is heading your way. ##Vote: Shz (This is in no way.. OMGUS).. i actually wanted to vote a lurker, but after re-reading the waterproof case comment, I think this is mafia trying to derail the town atmosphere. | ||
| ||
