|
As for threesr: try harder. Two brief cases against Mocsta and FatChunk, but refusing to elaborate on the question of Corazon? Dislike writing? Why do you sign up to play then?
Elaborate on your case against FatChunk.
On December 20 2012 04:04 threesr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 03:55 cakepie wrote:I offer an alternative explanation: the weak aspects of the case put forward by threesr could be merely lazy scumhunt by someone who has been accustomed to lurking and not following closely, but has been forced to participate under pain of lynch. (This is by no means defending threesr or offering an excuse for his behavior.)
Sounds about right.
Not a valid excuse. Lazy is worse than just plain bad.
-----
On December 20 2012 02:57 shz wrote:
I don't agree with your vote for Orangeremi at the moment though. Yes, he did not contribute until now, but I would give him some more hours before lynching him for that.
It is early yet. The vote stands as a reminder so that OrangeRemi is not forgotten while we carry on at length about other players. Yes, there are several more hours, let’s wait a bit and see what he/she does with that time.
Other key suspects have votes on them already, my FoS stands to back those up as well. As we draw closer to the lynch, there will be a process of consolidation. But I shall leave this pressure vote where it is for now, rather than switch frivolously, and will see where things stand in a few hours.
On December 20 2012 02:57 shz wrote:
I don't have an opinion on FatChunk yet, as he did not contribute enough. If we don't find a conses by the lynch-deadline, we should lynch one of the lesser active players, for sure.
Really? As opposed to Mocsta, who you have your vote on?
If you had to lynch for inactivity and/or lack of serious contribution, how would you order the 3-4 candidates?
-----
It is past 3 am, going to bed now. I like that some NA folks are starting to chip in more now that it is day over there, and look forward to longer filters to analyze when I get back.
|
I am fairly confident that Mocsta is town. In a game like this, where there are a lot of lurkers, scum has no reason to post a lot and contribute to discussion like he has. If Mocsta was actually scum, he would have a much easier time sitting back and watching discussion die off as no one says anything. In addition, I can't see a first-time scum Mocsta posting as much as he has. I don't like his case on threesr, but I don't see him making that as scum. It draws too much attention to himself and stimulates discussion at the same time.
I also don't really feel scum from threesr either, for some of the same reasons. He's said things that draw attention to himself unnecessarily and is at least posting often (if not very helpfully). Possibility of scum, but not someone we should lynch today.
|
Votecount:
cDgCorazon (2): Aquanim, Chromatically
threesr (2): FatChunk, Mocsta
Mocsta (1): shz
Orangeremi (1): cakepie
FatChunk (1): threesr
Not voting (6): OmniEulogy, Kickstart, cDgCorazon, Orangeremi, Spaghetticus, Sylencia
Currently, cDgCorazon is set to be lynched! ~28 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.
Full version:
+ Show Spoiler +cDgCorazon (2): Aquanim, Chromatically
threesr (2): FatChunk, Mocsta
Mocsta (1): shz, threesr,
Orangeremi (1): cakepie
FatChunk (1): threesr
shz (0): Mocsta
Not voting (6): OmniEulogy, Kickstart, cDgCorazon, Orangeremi, Spaghetticus, Sylencia
|
On December 20 2012 03:47 FatChunk wrote:
[b]@threesr[b]
In a game where opinion and discussion are encouraged, you seem to be quite reluctant to contribute. Your respones to questions are often dodged or ill-presented out of laziness, and I think this is not acceptable. You have to be able to develop your reasoning, and the type of posts you create paint a picture of someone trying to get the attention off himself.
My attempt to be consistent is important because as town we need to structurally build arguments and if those compounding arguments contradict one another, we cannot make a logical FoS or lynch. Without consistency, why did we discuss policy on LAL and lurking?
My opinion on corazon is the following: he's relatively new to the game and any form of aggression toward him will be met with a stiff upper lip. I know this because I am new to the game too. Thus my read on him is questionable at best.
My read for threesr stands as per my previous posts and is only amlipified by his recent comments. Mocsta's decision to confirm threesr as scum was a little bit hasty and agressive in my eyes, yet also I don't think that mafia would come out so early as to present a confirmed scum. Thus I lean against the vote for Mocsta, and toward lurkers (Sylencia, aquanim, OrangeRemi?) and threesr as a possible lynch.
Why is Corazon different from everyone else? You say that he's relatively new, but he's just as new as OrangeRemi or threesr (basically, modkills don't count). Yet you don't have any problem lynching those people, just you don't want to lynch Corazon. You also say that you want to lynch lurkers, but don't include Corazon in that list. Why?
|
Good to know what I go to sleep and when I wake up and finish school my head is on the chopping block. Lovely.
If you guys want a better answer to question number 2, you're not going to find it from me. This is my first game of Mafia on TL, and I'm still not sure of the strategies that scum would use to infiltrate the town. If I had to say anything, it would just be acting like the townies, but more cautious of accusations and trying to stay just enough out of the spotlight where they can be an influence on the game, but won't attract too much attention from the town.
I've never been one to jump to conclusions, and to vote someone out on Day 1 just by character analysis sounds like a really silly idea to me. I was going to push for a no-lynch vote, but unfortunately when you're being head-hunted, you need to fight back. For this reason:
Vote##: Aquanim
He was the first one to start the campaign to lynch me, even when there are people who haven't posted at all. If he's already jumping on me, which one of you will be next if you lynch me? He started an environment of head-hunting that is just going to lead to more town lynches, and ultimately a scum victory. Sorry bud, it's self-defense.
|
Edit: ##Vote: Aquanim
Messed up the placing of the ##
|
Just wanted to say a few things of my own:
Spaghettius and Cakepie are both making lists of lurkers and their thoughts on everyone. Maybe it is just me, but it would not seem wise to put your thoughts on everyone on Day 1 unless you were trying to get a town lynched. I have this preconception that we really should not look into posts on Day 1, where there is no pressure, and start looking after someone has been killed and roles have been played. I believe that people's true meaning always comes out under pressure. I was hoping we could be peaceful for the first day, but I guess all is fair in love and war.
And sorry if my answers to the opening questions were unsatisfactory, I thought they were just opinion questions, and that our stances on lurkers and scum and all of that would not be scrutinized to every detail. Once again, I am new to the game, so you really should not read too deep into those answers, it is just the viewpoint of an ignorant beginner. Thank you.
|
On December 19 2012 22:10 Chromatically wrote:
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.
I clarified what I meant in your question. I understood that my wording was bad, and I fixed it. It is my first game, and I'm still trying to figure things out. I'm not trying to play the noob card, and no one has asked me a basic question that I have not already answered fully, or have just answered fully. Another person trying to head-hunt.
|
@Corazon
You talk about head-hunting as if it's a bad thing. It's not. This is a game of head-hunting. If no one hunts, then we don't lynch mafia and we lose. Why does Aqua's vote on you make you think that he's mafia? Who do you think are the scummiest people right now?
|
So to go into more detail the reason why I voted for BigChunk, I think his reasoning for voting me is pretty weak. He goes on and on about this mafia environment. What exactly did I do to promote this so called environment? I just answered questions I was asked. I think his mafia environment speech is just filler, but is actually meaningless. Of all the people who have voted so far his vote seems to be the least reasonable. Even if he says it was to start conversation, it seems odd to me that I was randomly voted for by this person.
|
quote]Why is Corazon different from everyone else? You say that he's relatively new, but he's just as new as OrangeRemi or threesr (basically, modkills don't count). Yet you don't have any problem lynching those people, just you don't want to lynch Corazon. You also say that you want to lynch lurkers, but don't include Corazon in that list. Why?[/quote]
Okay here we go. OrgangeRemi has posted very little in this game so far, so it is difficult for me to answer your first question with him as an example. Corazon is different from O.R. because he actually posted something in a defensive manner and I am explaining what my read is on this, as per your request. Regarding theesr I have expressed my opinion on him. He is different from corazon because his motives, if he were mafia, can more easily be predicted because of the nature of his posting and his quantity of posts as well. He may share similar qualities as Corazon, but he has quite simply posted more than Corazon and supported his arguments. I simply await more posts from corazon to make a more accurate read.
Is this sufficient for you? I am sooo sorry that I didnt put corazon in that list - I either omitted him because I presented my thought on him already, or maybe just to bring light to the fact that we need to discuss other lurkers AS WELL AS Corazon.
|
|
|
On December 20 2012 05:43 Chromatically wrote:
@Corazon
You talk about head-hunting as if it's a bad thing. It's not. This is a game of head-hunting. If no one hunts, then we don't lynch mafia and we lose. Why does Aqua's vote on you make you think that he's mafia? Who do you think are the scummiest people right now?
I agree that it is a game for head-hunting, but I feel like there is a right time and place for it. Day 1 with only post analysis to go off of, I feel like that is a good way to lynch townies.
Who wins by a Day 1 lynch? Mafia. Just by numbers, the chances of a town getting voted off the first Day are statistically higher than a Mafia getting voted off. Perhaps talking about being suspicious of someone is ok, but outright voting for someone just to start a conversation just seems like a Mafia trying to get pressure off of himself and onto others.
In my opinion, the scummiest people right now are Aqua and Threesr. Aqua is head-hunting at a time where it would be good for Mafia to get an early lynch, and for accusing someone with only marginal evidence to go off of. Threesr just seems to be a bit of a shady character, he is answering questions less clearly than I was before. However, I would like to see how his defense goes before making any more judgements on him.
I would be happy to unvote for Aqua if he unvotes me, but voting someone just to start discussion instead of just talking about them just sounds like a rash and scummy move.
|
Edit: Want to change "Who wins by a Day 1 lynch?" to "Who benefits from a Day 1 lynch?"
|
On December 20 2012 05:54 cDgCorazon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:43 Chromatically wrote:
@Corazon
You talk about head-hunting as if it's a bad thing. It's not. This is a game of head-hunting. If no one hunts, then we don't lynch mafia and we lose. Why does Aqua's vote on you make you think that he's mafia? Who do you think are the scummiest people right now? I agree that it is a game for head-hunting, but I feel like there is a right time and place for it. Day 1 with only post analysis to go off of, I feel like that is a good way to lynch townies. Who wins by a Day 1 lynch? Mafia. Just by numbers, the chances of a town getting voted off the first Day are statistically higher than a Mafia getting voted off. Perhaps talking about being suspicious of someone is ok, but outright voting for someone just to start a conversation just seems like a Mafia trying to get pressure off of himself and onto others. In my opinion, the scummiest people right now are Aqua and Threesr. Aqua is head-hunting at a time where it would be good for Mafia to get an early lynch, and for accusing someone with only marginal evidence to go off of. Threesr just seems to be a bit of a shady character, he is answering questions less clearly than I was before. However, I would like to see how his defense goes before making any more judgements on him. I would be happy to unvote for Aqua if he unvotes me, but voting someone just to start discussion instead of just talking about them just sounds like a rash and scummy move.
inb4 this guy hops on the threesr bandwagon
|
On December 20 2012 06:10 threesr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:54 cDgCorazon wrote:On December 20 2012 05:43 Chromatically wrote:
@Corazon
You talk about head-hunting as if it's a bad thing. It's not. This is a game of head-hunting. If no one hunts, then we don't lynch mafia and we lose. Why does Aqua's vote on you make you think that he's mafia? Who do you think are the scummiest people right now? I agree that it is a game for head-hunting, but I feel like there is a right time and place for it. Day 1 with only post analysis to go off of, I feel like that is a good way to lynch townies. Who wins by a Day 1 lynch? Mafia. Just by numbers, the chances of a town getting voted off the first Day are statistically higher than a Mafia getting voted off. Perhaps talking about being suspicious of someone is ok, but outright voting for someone just to start a conversation just seems like a Mafia trying to get pressure off of himself and onto others. In my opinion, the scummiest people right now are Aqua and Threesr. Aqua is head-hunting at a time where it would be good for Mafia to get an early lynch, and for accusing someone with only marginal evidence to go off of. Threesr just seems to be a bit of a shady character, he is answering questions less clearly than I was before. However, I would like to see how his defense goes before making any more judgements on him. I would be happy to unvote for Aqua if he unvotes me, but voting someone just to start discussion instead of just talking about them just sounds like a rash and scummy move. inb4 this guy hops on the threesr bandwagon
Saying stuff like this is going to get you lynched. Defend yourself with a good argument, don't complain that everyone is ganging up on you.
|
My first OMGUS vote. What joy.
@Corazon: You can't deny that our discussion has become a lot more worthwhile in terms of looking for scum (as opposed to discussing policy) since I voted you, which was my intention. As for why I voted you as opposed to a "lurker", I don't believe there are any lurkers until 24 hours have passed (to give everyone in every time zone an opportunity). You had had a significant amount of time to post (and had made a fair few posts, too), and none of them were constructive at all. In my eyes, that's just as bad as a lurker, if not worse.
My vote will stick for the moment, but if you continue to post constructively I imagine I'll take it off after work.
Town benefits from day one discussion, and the only way to generate that really is with a day one lynch. Besides, scum is catchable day one.
especially @ Aquanim, Chromatically, Kickstart, Spaghetticus, shz
Q: what do you think of mocsta’s flurry of posts and vote switch? Is he merely overly excited, or could there be merit in the accusation that his incessant questions were noise without substance?
I am distinctly unimpressed with mocsta's posting so far, but not certain it makes him scum. I'll reread him again when I get home.
|
On December 20 2012 06:12 cDgCorazon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:10 threesr wrote:On December 20 2012 05:54 cDgCorazon wrote:On December 20 2012 05:43 Chromatically wrote:
@Corazon
You talk about head-hunting as if it's a bad thing. It's not. This is a game of head-hunting. If no one hunts, then we don't lynch mafia and we lose. Why does Aqua's vote on you make you think that he's mafia? Who do you think are the scummiest people right now? I agree that it is a game for head-hunting, but I feel like there is a right time and place for it. Day 1 with only post analysis to go off of, I feel like that is a good way to lynch townies. Who wins by a Day 1 lynch? Mafia. Just by numbers, the chances of a town getting voted off the first Day are statistically higher than a Mafia getting voted off. Perhaps talking about being suspicious of someone is ok, but outright voting for someone just to start a conversation just seems like a Mafia trying to get pressure off of himself and onto others. In my opinion, the scummiest people right now are Aqua and Threesr. Aqua is head-hunting at a time where it would be good for Mafia to get an early lynch, and for accusing someone with only marginal evidence to go off of. Threesr just seems to be a bit of a shady character, he is answering questions less clearly than I was before. However, I would like to see how his defense goes before making any more judgements on him. I would be happy to unvote for Aqua if he unvotes me, but voting someone just to start discussion instead of just talking about them just sounds like a rash and scummy move. inb4 this guy hops on the threesr bandwagon Saying stuff like this is going to get you lynched. Defend yourself with a good argument, don't complain that everyone is ganging up on you.
Defend myself from what? Ive already made my arguments, they might be pretty bad but I tried anyway. Also it wasn't a complaint I just think its funny that you put me into that paragraph, seems obvious that you want to switch off aqua and on to me.
|
On December 20 2012 06:12 Aquanim wrote:My first OMGUS vote. What joy. @Corazon: You can't deny that our discussion has become a lot more worthwhile in terms of looking for scum (as opposed to discussing policy) since I voted you, which was my intention. As for why I voted you as opposed to a "lurker", I don't believe there are any lurkers until 24 hours have passed (to give everyone in every time zone an opportunity). You had had a significant amount of time to post (and had made a fair few posts, too), and none of them were constructive at all. In my eyes, that's just as bad as a lurker, if not worse. My vote will stick for the moment, but if you continue to post constructively I imagine I'll take it off after work. Town benefits from day one discussion, and the only way to generate that really is with a day one lynch. Besides, scum is catchable day one. Show nested quote +especially @ Aquanim, Chromatically, Kickstart, Spaghetticus, shz
Q: what do you think of mocsta’s flurry of posts and vote switch? Is he merely overly excited, or could there be merit in the accusation that his incessant questions were noise without substance? I am distinctly unimpressed with mocsta's posting so far, but not certain it makes him scum. I'll reread him again when I get home.
I respect that, my offer to unvote you if you unvote me is still on the table.
I feel like we should pursue threesr more. His posts have been uninformational and useless, and now he's making sarcastic remarks about suspicion on him instead of having posts with substance. Have you given up already threesr?
|
On December 20 2012 06:16 threesr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:12 cDgCorazon wrote:On December 20 2012 06:10 threesr wrote:On December 20 2012 05:54 cDgCorazon wrote:On December 20 2012 05:43 Chromatically wrote:
@Corazon
You talk about head-hunting as if it's a bad thing. It's not. This is a game of head-hunting. If no one hunts, then we don't lynch mafia and we lose. Why does Aqua's vote on you make you think that he's mafia? Who do you think are the scummiest people right now? I agree that it is a game for head-hunting, but I feel like there is a right time and place for it. Day 1 with only post analysis to go off of, I feel like that is a good way to lynch townies. Who wins by a Day 1 lynch? Mafia. Just by numbers, the chances of a town getting voted off the first Day are statistically higher than a Mafia getting voted off. Perhaps talking about being suspicious of someone is ok, but outright voting for someone just to start a conversation just seems like a Mafia trying to get pressure off of himself and onto others. In my opinion, the scummiest people right now are Aqua and Threesr. Aqua is head-hunting at a time where it would be good for Mafia to get an early lynch, and for accusing someone with only marginal evidence to go off of. Threesr just seems to be a bit of a shady character, he is answering questions less clearly than I was before. However, I would like to see how his defense goes before making any more judgements on him. I would be happy to unvote for Aqua if he unvotes me, but voting someone just to start discussion instead of just talking about them just sounds like a rash and scummy move. inb4 this guy hops on the threesr bandwagon Saying stuff like this is going to get you lynched. Defend yourself with a good argument, don't complain that everyone is ganging up on you. Defend myself from what? Ive already made my arguments, they might be pretty bad but I tried anyway. Also it wasn't a complaint I just think its funny that you put me into that paragraph, seems obvious that you want to switch off aqua and on to me.
I'm still a bit suspicious, but now he has responded to my accusations with full detail and grace, whereas you have not done that same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
