|
@Corazon: I'm not particularly interested in whatever defences you make, I'm interested in seeing you post constructively and looking for the scum. I'd like to see some actual cases from you (as opposed to isolated observations), go through all the posts of your scumreads, point out what you think is scummy. Hint: Voting for you is not an automatic scumtell.
As for the scumreads going around, I have some comments.
Personally, I believe there are two very different kinds of tells: a player can do something which is not hard for scum to do or they can do something which is just scummy. Some examples:
Things which are not hard for scum to do:
- Talking about policy
- Defending other players
- Rambling about Mafia theory
- Jumping on scumslips
- Posting rationally (about things that aren't scumhunting)
- Jumping on a wagon
etc.
Things which are scummy:
- Not voting for their best scumread when lynch is imminent.
- Derailing fruitful discussion.
And, for comparison:
Things which are generally hard for scum to do:
- Scumhunt. This is NOT the same thing as "put down a vote with some justification".
- Convincingly converse with their scumbuddies.
As you can see, the first list has a lot more stuff in it. Everyone does some things that are in the first list, but when they're ONLY doing those that's a problem. The point is, I'd encourage everyone to look at their scumreads and think "are they scummy, or just doing things which are easy for scum to fake"?
Similarly, look at your townreads and think "are they scumhunting"? Putting down votes isn't necessarily scumhunting BTW. If they're not scumhunting, they're not particularly town, I don't care how much they've written or how smart/cautious/nice they are.
Oh, and talk to your coaches about scumreads instead of listening to the opinions of some newb.
|
On December 20 2012 09:32 Chromatically wrote:
I'd like everyone's thoughts on these people that I'm suspicious of. (Second try, computer shut off during the first one)
You make good points. I hadn't picked up that they both are fine with lynching a town threesr (saying that about someone who endorses lurking is awfully tempting, though).
I'm very uncomfortable with Kickstart's lack of activity in particular, he's not a habitual lurker in my experience (as town or scum). As he's the most experienced player here by a fair margin I'd really like to see some opinions from him.
|
EBWOP: I forgot a pretty important scumtell:
- Apathy about who gets lynched.
|
I am writing up a defense of Corazon ATM. It's long, and complex. I expect people to put in the effort to read it, as I am spending a good amount of time writing it. We still have 15 hours or so (I think) before lynching, let's make them count!
I would have preferred to write a case on someone but I think it's more important at this moment to get town back to actively scum hunting.
|
Taking a coffee break.
Just did a quick check of the filters for lurker play.
*Note: I acknowledge completely, quality is more valuable than quantity.*
The people that have only 1 page of posts:
Cakepie:
Kickstart:
Orangeremi:
FatChunk:
Aquanim:
Sylencia:
Kickstart and Orangeremi and bolded, because in my opinion they have barely contributed to discussion.
Kickstart in particular even admits On December 20 2012 12:26 Kickstart wrote:
I don't have much to add at the moment.
Orangeremi/Kickstart...
Cakepie asked good questions.. Can you please answer them
@Kickstart
On December 19 2012 23:21 cakepie wrote: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: Show nested quote +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?
&
@Orangeremi
On December 19 2012 23:21 cakepie wrote: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. Show nested quote +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.
|
In defence of Corazon:
I conduct this defence with the caveat that I don’t actually think Corazon is innocent. I have a scum read on him, though I lack the confidence some of you display. My reasons for the defence will be explained shortly. I acknowledge that this could be construed as an attempt to sew confusion, to obtain a no-lynch, or to defend a scum buddy. I am faced with the option of either submitting this defence which I believe will benefit the town, or sit here and let a suboptimal state of play for town continue. I choose the former because I believe my position as town is strong enough to attempt something like this without having the bandwagon come knocking, I hope I am right.
I admit that Corazon is a decent lynch target. He has been selective with input, and has played the survival game more than the town game. He also claimed nub status, OMGUSed Aquanim, has questioned the use of pressure voting, has focussed in on the next biggest target (Threesr), shown that he actively aims for a no-lynch, AND HAS ADMITTED HE IS MAFIA.
Now, we have five competing hypotheses:
1) Corazon is good town.
2) Corazon is bad town.
3) Corazon is good mafia.
4) Corazon is bad mafia.
5) Corazon is a serial killer.
I think (and no offense intended), that we can rule out options one and three. There are more effective ways to hunt scum, and more effective ways to troll this game to pieces. I also rule out the possibility of SK due to it being unlikely, and not being in our best interest to look for SK over scum. That leaves options two and four: bad town or bad scum. I’m sorry Corazon, but you have not applied yourself to the same extent that some others have, you are behind due to your inadequate understanding of the meta coming in.
So we now have two competing hypotheses. Of the evidence I have mentioned earlier, the following can easily be interpreted for both a bad town and bad scum perspective:
- Claimed nub status
- OMGUSed Aquanim
- Misunderstood the value of pressure voting
- Got caught in a shit flinging fight with the other bottom dweller
- Aiming for a no-lynch
He is a noob, this is his first game, these behaviours are to be expected, and he is not alone in demonstrating them. His demeanour in itself does lead be to a mild scum read, but I have other reads that are just as salient if not more so.
This leads to the catalyst for the current bandwagon situation: the slip.
Do I think it means something? Maybe, I’d be impressed at this betrayal of the cognitions if it were. How much does this make him mafia? Not much. The only reason I’d jump on this case over others is if I was looking for an easy way out or I was scum.
My problem with the slip evidence is that it is not nearly as powerful as people think it is. I honestly don’t know much about Freudian parapraxis despite studying psychology, but I do know they are frequently used by cognitive misers to sling mud. People want the case to fall into their laps, and I am strongly opposed to such an unthinking outcome. The amount of information being transmitted at any one time in the brain is phenomenal, and the workings are often counterintuitive.
“BUT SPAG HE SAID HE WAS SCUM… HE BLOODY WELL SAID IT FFS!”
Miscognitions such as the current one are more likely to happen when someone is comfortable and lazy than is they are intensely monitoring their actions. Do you agree? Well then is this slip not evidence of his innocence? Seriously, if I were scum I’d bloody spell check.
Need more evidence?
On December 20 2012 09:29 OmniEulogy wrote:
##Vote: cDgCorazon He slipped up so badly I can't believe it was a mistake.
This slip by OmniEulogy also makes some sort of confangled sense… He believes that Corazon deliberately slipped in order to… err… kick my arse into launching this very defence? Thereby extending my protection over this seemingly scrabbly noob? No. It does not make sense for someone to think that, and thus we can dismiss the potential for this slip to mean anything more than a slip of the tongue. Corazon’s slip of course doesn’t have such a conclusive explanation, but considering the likelihood of it not being the perfect case (where he accidentally confesses), the disputed evidence shouldn’t count for much. I upped my estimate of his guilt up 2%, from the 26% I had written previously. I believe this estimate is more than reasonable.
“BUT SPAG, YOU SAID YOU THOUGHT HE WAS SCUMMY, WHY YOU DEFEND HIM YOU NOOBSCUMLOL?”
Because of three reasons:
1) By locking in our votes this early we are wasting time in day one. This reason would apply to if we voted this early for any player, even if they were my top read. This time could be used generating information for day two by pressuring other players. When the time for lynching comes, from this perspective I would gladly bandwagon the shit out of Corazon.
2) This one is more complex. Basically, this reason hinges on me being correct in my assumption that town are lynched day one 75-80% of the time. This assumption is open to dispute, so if you disagree, please, just find the numbers (ICBF). If the initial lynch is so unlikely to be successful, would it not be smart to change our vote from what we have been led to through the influence of the mafia. This actually comes surprisingly close to my beloved Monty Hall problem (look it up on Wikipedia if you haven’t heard of it).
3) The fact that there is almost zero effort by anyone to change the subject of our lynchery screams silently as to the lack of frustration expressed by covert scum.
By lynching this early with no resistance, not only are we denying ourselves the opportunity to collect more data for day two, we are almost certainly doing the scum’s jobs for them. This third argument, which I just thought of as I was typing my second, has actually changed my perspective of Corazon to the most probable towny here bar none. There is no trio of scum here skilled enough to resist tampering with the lynch of their scum buddy, and if there is we’ve almost certainly lost.
In conclusion; assuming your opponent is bad enough to hand you the kryptonite when their assumed disposition (caution) would incline them to do otherwise is foolishness. The majority of Corazon’s behaviour is equally plausible in a bad-town hypothesis, and can pretty much be discarded. We should not lock in votes this early as it discourages pro-town behaviour. If my assumptions are to be believed, the first target we are lead to is almost certainly not going to be scum, and therefore we should take a stab at a second case. Finally, the fact that I am the only one sticking up for this guy tells me that he is not scum, as a bussing at this level is unlikely.
I want responses particularly from those people voting for him. I also want activity that is centered around someone other than Corazon and Threesr. It is that are avoiding the dispute that you need to look for.
|
I did answer the question (or rather, request) earlier. Was it not adequate?
|
Mocsta, why aren't you still voting for Shz? Do you still think Shz is scum?
|
|
|
Im on bus..spag post is amazing. Great point about lack of effort to change vote. Enough time to not bus mafia.
What is your take on threesr then. He has been defended by the lurker kickstart...this aligns heavily with the reasoning used in your case to hunt mafia.
|
You have good points Spaghetticus but it doesn't really change my mind. People did come to his defense and tried to counter by voting for Threesr.
Corazon started off the game saying he hoped D1 would be quiet and peaceful and no real information should come out during it which also seems a little scummy as everybody else started off hoping for some good conversation and to build up leads. Not wait for N1/D2 where we lose somebody and have no information about why they die.
The fact that he's new CAN explain these things but I refuse to believe he is dumb. I think he thought it out and tried to come across as reasonable. I've already said I want to start going after the lurkers with our remaining time D1 and if we find something that removes Corazon from suspicion so be it.
My vote is not locked yet it is just on the person I find most likely to be scum. I don't think he's past the point of no return either. I believe the vote count is 5 for Corazon and 3 for Threesr at the moment. and as I said Threesr would be my #2 if it weren't for the fact that it wouldn't make any sense for both him and Corazon to be scum.
I'd like Corazon to tell us his top scum reads, and why they seem to be.
I'd also like to note to Spaghetticus and everybody else that if you are looking for more people who came to Corazon's defense, Orangeremi tried to make a case of why Corazon wasn't scum and went back to lurking. I'd like to actually hear why Orangeremi refused to give us an idea of who his top scum reads were and why he didn't actually say why Corazon wasn't acting scummy. The fact that he then put out the same three names for his top scum reads that everybody else had and then went into hiding again is also suspicious.
In Orangeremi's own words "Instead of looking for scum players, they would be making unjustified claims hoping others hop wagon in an attempt to get an innocent player lynched." and then "Otherwise, I have a slight suspicion of Sylencia that is based solely on a hunch and little to no evidence."
based on that... ##FOS Orangeremi
|
I hate doing this on the phone. Cant give the post the love it deserves.
@orangeremi. Your filter comments on corazon doing the slip.
You said you didnt pick up anytjing till someone else pointed it out.
Q. If scum have superior starting knowledge and know remaining scum.
Do you think it is reasonable to think you took corazon comments innocently because you knew he was innocent?
Do u have rationale to make me think otherwise?
##fos: orangeremi
|
EBWOP: ##FoS: Orangeremi oops.
|
On December 20 2012 18:14 Mocsta wrote:
Im on bus..spag post is amazing. Great point about lack of effort to change vote. Enough time to not bus mafia.
What is your take on threesr then. He has been defended by the lurker kickstart...this aligns heavily with the reasoning used in your case to hunt mafia.
You only answered half of the question. You've switched to Corazon, fair enough, but what do you think of Shz now?
Not sure whether you're asking me about my read on Threesr or Kick... the sentence seems to start talking about threesr and end with kick. I really wouldn't try to associate anyone day one.
Threesr isn't a scum read for me at the moment, but he's done nothing to make me think he's town. I'd like to see him do some pressure and analysis. Pressure, analysis and contribution does not have to be long, not wanting to post long things is not an excuse.
I'm very much expecting more from Kick, he didn't lurk at all in the game I played with him (and he was scum to boot). That being said, I called him as scum day one then (not that he got even nearly lynched, but still) - maybe he's not posting to not give anything away. If he hasn't contributed by the end of the day I'll be looking at him seriously.
|
EBWOP to emphasise this:
Mocsta, what is your current read on Shz?
|
On December 20 2012 18:37 Aquanim wrote:
EBWOP to emphasise this:
Mocsta, what is your current read on Shz?
Mate. Im on the bus and heading out. I read it but cant do a full case on the phone. IPomise i will get back to u within the next 4 hours
|
This is getting exciting. Two in a row :D
On December 20 2012 18:22 OmniEulogy wrote:
I'd also like to note to Spaghetticus and everybody else that if you are looking for more people who came to Corazon's defense, Orangeremi tried to make a case of why Corazon wasn't scum and went back to lurking. I'd like to actually hear why Orangeremi refused to give us an idea of who his top scum reads were and why he didn't actually say why Corazon wasn't acting scummy. The fact that he then put out the same three names for his top scum reads that everybody else had and then went into hiding again is also suspicious.
I refused at the time because I felt like the evidence towards any player wasn't nearly compelling enough. In essence I didn't have scumreads, only a few suspicions that I wasn't willing to voice because they were hardly substantial. And I also don't think jumping on a bandwagon when you aren't even slightly convinced is good play so I avoided doing so.
Regarding Corazon, I didn't claim he wasn't acting scummy. I believe he's been acting the scummiest in the game so far. I'm just unsure if it's on purpose or not. I put out the top three scum reads at the time because I was under the impression that the evidence pointed towards those players was good (as did everyone else, seeing as why they're top scum reads).
On December 20 2012 18:22 OmniEulogy wrote:
In Orangeremi's own words "Instead of looking for scum players, they would be making unjustified claims hoping others hop wagon in an attempt to get an innocent player lynched." and then "Otherwise, I have a slight suspicion of Sylencia that is based solely on a hunch and little to no evidence."
At this point I was responding to Chrom's post asking our thoughts on those lynches.
Regarding Sylencia, his first post seemed suspicious to me. And in making a random claim I was hoping to get a rise out of a less active player, see how they'd react to the pressure. His reaction (or lack thereof) and more recent posts have lowered my suspicion.
On December 20 2012 18:24 Mocsta wrote:
@orangeremi. Your filter comments on corazon doing the slip.
You said you didnt pick up anytjing till someone else pointed it out.
Q. If scum have superior starting knowledge and know remaining scum.
Do you think it is reasonable to think you took corazon comments innocently because you knew he was innocent?
Do u have rationale to make me think otherwise?
##fos: orangeremi
Completely reasonable. Clever, in fact. I'm happy you caught that, I never would've thought about it. I'm not sure what kind of rationale you're looking for. The only thing I can think of is how foolish it would be of me to post what I did if I were mafia. I'd have no reason to defend a non-mafia claiming to be one since he would be an obvious distraction and good lynch target for me to bandwagon without suspicion.
|
how long until lynching? I need to plan logistics.
@Mocsta
My read on Threesr mirror's Kickstart's, though I by no means condone Kickstart's lurking (still one page filter!?). The battle between Threesr and Conazon reminds me of my only other game. Both Kush and WeeTee were conspicuously weak players and everyone was gunning them down. I launched a defense similar to the one I just threw out, and while WeeTee got lynched (innocent), Kush (also innocent) managed to stay alive and we had scum gg after the second night. People that are new read too far into other noob's actions, it's a complex element that people in higher level games don't need to worry about as much.
While I am not saying that there is absolutely zero chance of these players being scum, I think that the information available points to them just being bad town. With Threesr, it's the fact he's been modkilled for lurking that gives me the feeling his obnoxious internet persona is not a skilfully crafted scumshield.
On top of me actually thinking neither of them scum, I also think it's best for the town if we talk about other people regardless of their level of guilt, as if either of them is scum they are almost certainly a weak one, and not likely to stay off our radar for long.
We waste time talking about points that have already been said, both players have been drilled to death. My inclination is to believe that the lurkers hold at least 1-2 mafia, as they have had no reason to step up because Threesr and Corazon have been taking all the heat. By being complacent and lazily voting for the conspicuous, we have let too many people fade into the background.
|
@Orangeremi Are those three still your top reads? If not who is new and can you give any additional information about why you are focused on those players. I don't really have any more to say about anybody for now so I'd like to hear some other opinions about the way things are going.
Also if we had to vote right now how would you feel about a Corazon lynch? Best option or do you have better reads on somebody else?
|
I believe we have roughly 14 hours 40 minutes. I could be very wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
