EPTGo make your case, I'll prove you wrong again and then you can hunt some actual scum k?
Newbie Mini Mafia XXXIII - Page 33
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6591 Posts
Go make your case, I'll prove you wrong again and then you can hunt some actual scum k? | ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6591 Posts
| ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On December 21 2012 09:42 Mocsta wrote: (1) Fellow townies, I realise its easy to point the finger at Aquanim or even myself; we both developed cases against Spaghetticus. If you want to question either of us, I suggest action be taken by middle of Night 1. I believe if this matter is not closed sooner than later, it will cloud our ability to constructively look at the sequence of events that led to Spaghetticus. (2) We need to consolidate and stick to a battle plan. I think part of this is absorbing the Day 1 posts before sling accusations at persons. We need to start questioning peoples motives critically; and understand the town atmosphere at the time of key events. (3) For me.. Key Events are: (1) Reactions when Chromatically began targetting Corazon (2) Threesr announcing himself in the thread, in the way he did (3) Reactions to Threesr being top of the vote count (4) Interplay with FatChunk (5) Aquanim/Spaghetticus/Myself Please feel free to add/remove events as you see fit.. I wrote this from recollection. (4) I am going to start examining these events with the following goals (a) Who is pushing these events to occur (b) Who is not posting at all (c) Who is joining the bandwagon,but, not adding original thought When I have had time to answer these questions, I will post again in the thread. I hope you all too... take a step back.. and do a similar process. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
I think its great you are being pro-active and finding points to challenge Omni. This will be beneficial to town. May I suggest (from my experiences Day 1) to take a step back, and consolidate your ideas into 1 or 2 logical and well-reasoned posts. I am sure you have good intentions, [perhaps purely prodding for tells] however, the variety of posts targeting different issues, is making it hard to track whether previous items have been addressed (sufficiently/satisfactorily) I hold the same commentary for OmniEulogy. Your defense is extremely passive aggressive. I know Chromatically is apply pressure to you, but reacting in a mannerism similar to "Threesr" is a not conducive to the scum hunt. Again please try and consolidate posts, and address multiple items perhaps with spoilers. ---- Lastly, Chromatically is spot on... On December 21 2012 10:08 Chromatically wrote: Theses are the people that need to post more: -Kickstart -Orangeremi -Sylencia -threesr (during the second half of d1) With 48hrs expired, this is unacceptable. I think it was Corozon who said, lurking can be begin to be classified post ~30hrs. If a potential scum target thinks 30hrs is lurking, well.. that does not bode well for you 4. Please start contributing. | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On December 21 2012 08:16 Mocsta wrote: @corozon im disapointed you raised the issue of sk. the pessimist in me things this is a distraction ploy.. But im optimistic today and instead ask of you... Why you think its relevant to raise this item 1hr before lynch. I assume you will respond in night phase I responded to these things the first moment I could when asked for clarity. I did not intend to time it with any lynch, and the issue of spag did not even include the sk issue. | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
GG spag. Thank you for your final thoughts, it will give us something to chew on this night. The hunt continues! Continued activity would be nice, but let us also exercise caution lest we give scum too much that will aid them in deciding their night actions. Those who have been relatively inactive should start joining in more, but those who have already had a lot to say may want to save some for later in the night, at least until just before the dawn of day. Well, time to pore over notes and voting patterns! To make up for my absence earlier yesterday I will stick around for an hour or two now and take brief questions on the side while I work on my analysis. | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On December 21 2012 07:39 cDgCorazon wrote: I do apologize for not answering your questions, which I will do so now in the little time I have before going to work. In terms of figuring things out, I would say between 24-36 hours should be allowed for someone at the beginning of the first day phase. That way, others can put some pressure on and make other arguments, and instead of focusing on the case of one person, they can sit back and see things from a wider perspective to make their reads. However, I do feel that they should come forward with at least their reads on Day 1, even if they do not vote for anyone. Contributing all at once with a great amount of information all at one place is a lot more convenient for all of us than make several reads as the day goes on. We know more information than we did 24 hours ago, and everyone has posted enough to get off the "lurker label", someone making a smart evaluation here would most certainly more than make up for 24 hours of not posting much detail. Unacceptable behavior would be coming to conclusions too fast, as in threesr's case. He likes to lurk, and besides a few posts here and there, and his self-defense from my attacks, he has mostly been in the shadows. He has openly accused multiple people of being scum, which signals something is not right. Why would you pursue multiple cases within a few hours when the focus is on one or two people. To figure that out, we must ask ourselves two questions: What would be a possible Mafia lynching policy? The mafia knows who the other mafia are, so they should be looking to defend fellow mafia that are under attack. On offensive lynching policy, they should all look to communicate with each other to be on the same page voting wise, and as long as a member of the mafia does not get lynched, they are content to see anyone and everyone get lynched, because it would be the town just killing themselves off and playing the game for them. Hypothetically, the mafia could not kill anyone and still win the game if the town manages to argue themselves to death. Of course, this is unlikely. What would be a possible SK lynching policy, assuming that we have an SK? The SK policy is similar to the mafia's lynching policy, except the only one they have to defend is themselves. They are ok with anyone and everyone getting lynched, as long as it is not them. Along with the Mafia, they could hypothetically win without killing anyone, as long as the town lynches each other, and he never get targeted. If you would like more detail, do not be afraid to ask. I will gladly be able to help you after work. Was this a good enough answer for you? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Do night actions get locked in 1 hr before deadline? | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
On December 21 2012 11:47 cDgCorazon wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 21 2012 07:39 cDgCorazon wrote: I do apologize for not answering your questions, which I will do so now in the little time I have before going to work. In terms of figuring things out, I would say between 24-36 hours should be allowed for someone at the beginning of the first day phase. That way, others can put some pressure on and make other arguments, and instead of focusing on the case of one person, they can sit back and see things from a wider perspective to make their reads. However, I do feel that they should come forward with at least their reads on Day 1, even if they do not vote for anyone. Contributing all at once with a great amount of information all at one place is a lot more convenient for all of us than make several reads as the day goes on. We know more information than we did 24 hours ago, and everyone has posted enough to get off the "lurker label", someone making a smart evaluation here would most certainly more than make up for 24 hours of not posting much detail. Unacceptable behavior would be coming to conclusions too fast, as in threesr's case. He likes to lurk, and besides a few posts here and there, and his self-defense from my attacks, he has mostly been in the shadows. He has openly accused multiple people of being scum, which signals something is not right. Why would you pursue multiple cases within a few hours when the focus is on one or two people. To figure that out, we must ask ourselves two questions: What would be a possible Mafia lynching policy? The mafia knows who the other mafia are, so they should be looking to defend fellow mafia that are under attack. On offensive lynching policy, they should all look to communicate with each other to be on the same page voting wise, and as long as a member of the mafia does not get lynched, they are content to see anyone and everyone get lynched, because it would be the town just killing themselves off and playing the game for them. Hypothetically, the mafia could not kill anyone and still win the game if the town manages to argue themselves to death. Of course, this is unlikely. What would be a possible SK lynching policy, assuming that we have an SK? The SK policy is similar to the mafia's lynching policy, except the only one they have to defend is themselves. They are ok with anyone and everyone getting lynched, as long as it is not them. Along with the Mafia, they could hypothetically win without killing anyone, as long as the town lynches each other, and he never get targeted. If you would like more detail, do not be afraid to ask. I will gladly be able to help you after work. Was this a good enough answer for you? Your answers provide a little more insight into how you would judge players, and are welcomed. I remain concerned about the lateness of the answer and the possible benefit of the clarity of hindsight, especially now that Day 1 is done. However, I will listen to you with a little more good faith on account of Spag's "will" post. As a follow up, I would like you to look away from threesr for a moment and consider those players who have had more to say in D1, especially early contributors such as Aquanim, Chromatically, Mocsta and myself, as well as shz and fatchunk with their early votes. Not all 3-4 scum are likely to sit relatively idle for 24-36 hours. With that in mind, how do you assess the players I have mentioned above? (please try to minimize the omgus) | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
| ||
|
Promethelax
Canada7089 Posts
On December 21 2012 11:54 Mocsta wrote: @mod Do night actions get locked in 1 hr before deadline? Nope Actions/votes will be accepted up to the posted time, but not after. | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
On December 21 2012 12:34 cDgCorazon wrote: I hate to ask, but what is OMGUS? It feels like it is when you vote someone because they voted for you. Close to that. It's "omg you suck", an emotional retaliation/counter-accusation that lacking solid reasoning, and founded on little beyond "you voted me, and that reads bad/scummy to me". | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On December 21 2012 12:49 Promethelax wrote: Nope Actions/votes will be accepted up to the posted time, but not after. @Cakepie I refer you to. On December 21 2012 11:42 cakepie wrote: The hunt continues! Continued activity would be nice, but let us also exercise caution lest we give scum too much that will aid them in deciding their night actions. Those who have been relatively inactive should start joining in more, but those who have already had a lot to say may want to save some for later in the night, at least until just before the dawn of day. Mod has confirmed night actions can be placed at the last second. If your intent was to post your commentary after the "lockdown" period to avoid putting a target on your head; well.. this is now null and void. I am very curious to hear your thoughts on how matters proceeded Day 1. I hope the comments above persuade you to enlighten us before late Night 1. | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On December 19 2012 20:01 Mocsta wrote: 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. 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!) I feel like he is creating too much discussion and trying too hard to get people to join in on the discussion that he appears to be very un-scummy. He is also advocating patience, which a mafia member would not advocate as long as the person who the lynch-train is going for is a mafia. He does not seem to want to jump to conclusions, which I applaud and see as being non-scum. Read: Good Town, or Really Good Mafia. Leaning toward Good Town. Aquanium- Very hasty to make a lynch instead of a FOS or telling the town what direction they should try and head in. On December 19 2012 17:40 Aquanim wrote: I'm not stuck in the middle. This has been largely useless so far. As for the way discussion starts... someone throws down a vote. ##Vote: cDgCorazon His posts have been particularly useless so far. Hasn't really responded to anything unless directly asked. While this is a good way to start discussion, I feel like less dramatic measures could have been taken, so overall, I really think he should have done that better instead of automatically coming to the conclusion that I should be lynched. He also attacked a member who flipped town: On December 20 2012 19:36 Aquanim wrote: A real case: Spaghetticus Spaghetticus is posting reasonably and being nice. In fact, he's being too nice. He hasn't accused anyone at all of anything. He hasn't expressed any suspicions of any other player, or posted any analysis. In fact, he hasn't done anything useful for the town at all, while still looking active, and that is textbook scum.
Well for all of the actions Spaghetticus has apparently shown that were scummy, he flipped town. It could have been a very bad misread, but it could have also been a ploy from a mafia member to get a productive and knowledge townie off the board after the first day. Read: Either looking into everything too much, or a mafia trying to direct the town to kill each other off. Suspicious. Chromatically- He is, in every single aspect of his recent play (last 12 hours or so), a sheep. He's jumped on the Corazon and FG lynch bandwagons, and has only made arguments recently about why lynching players already under pressure. On December 21 2012 00:09 Chromatically wrote: Actually, after looking at Corazon's defense again, I don't like it. His reads are terrible. He puts Aqua as probable scum and says that Spag is the best player this game? He puts half the people as possible scum to make sure that he can keep his options open. He says that FatChunk is probably town? I'll keep my vote on FC right now, but any of these three (Corazon/FC/Spag) has a good chance of flipping scum. Well now that Spag has flipped town, and with the knowledge that he did not defend me because we were both scum, he now has to reevaluate his opinions before proceeding. Jumping on bandwagons does not make you scum, but it is a very scummy move. What would be better for a mafia to continue to beat up on one person that everyone else has beaten up on? It would be seen as contributing to the scum hunt, but also being safe from being turned on should the person flip town. I'm 50-50 on Chrom right now, but that could change. Read: 50-50, but leaning every so slightly towards scum, so maybe 51-49 scum. @Cakepie- I feel like you are another one of those people who are making sense in this game. You are patient with reads, do not seem like a fellow who likes jumping on bandwagons, and seem like you know what you are doing. You are either a good town or a good mafia. One is good, one is bad. While I do feel like your scum/town status should be evaluated at some point in this game, I feel like we should worry about people who have more holes in their game who are more likely to be Mafia. Read: 50-50, but if it swings one way or another, it will be a huge swing. Either good Mafia or good Town. Good at the game either way. Shz- I'm sorry to say, but his analysis so far in this game has been substandard. He has been very thorough in his argument about why I should be lynched, and he also attacked Spag a little bit when he tried to defend me. He seems to be getting "Mafia Tunnel-Vision", and can only see reasons for me being lynched, instead of contributing more to the town. Afraid to open up new accusations for possible fear of being called out on them. Read: I challenge you Shz, to share your opinions like I have. How do you feel about the players in this game? How does Spag flipping town change your opinions on anyone? Until then, I am mildly suspicious of Shz. Fatchunk- I still feel like Fatchunk is using his head in the game, and he has stayed cool under pressure, and has even thrown out reads of his own, which I feel we not taking so seriously by everyone else. I feel like these are really solid reads. On December 21 2012 04:03 FatChunk wrote: Town reads: Mocsta - clear concise posting , good leadership, asks the right questions to promote discussion. I agree with his read of threesr. His argument against spag needs work but I think his head is in the right place. Spag - I felt I should elaborate on this one since he's getting lynched tonight. While I agree that he has not shared a lot of his own analysis, neither have a lot of people. Also, he mentions that his analysis is in the background and will present findings as they arise. If he is not lying, this could be very useful to town. He has at least been active in trying to promote discussion, and defending people under pressure comes as a sideaffect of good judgement and rational thinking, something I respect. While I don't clear him completely of being mafia, I think it is more than likely he is town and we gain nothing from voting out Spag. Possible scum: threesr - derailing town thinking, being useless. I stand by previous comments. chromatically - I have noticed that he pressures too hard to the point of almost lying and skewing my words and overanalyzing small reactions in order to further his agenda. Faint vibe that I think should be looked into. Also, he seems like an experienced player which is scary if hes mafia. Aquanim - I believe aquanim, the driver behind lynching both spag and corazone, could be mafia trying to control town direction or at least direct discussion away from his mafia mates. I feel like his reasons have been justified, and are not shots out of the blue to try and get someone lynched, which has been the majority of accusations so far. However, I do not agree with this statement. Also, he [Threesr] seems like an experienced player which is scary if hes mafia. I was asked to not talk about Threesr, so I will keep this brief. I do not agree with this opinion. I feel like it is mis-constructed and Threesr has not really done anything to prove this. I do feel a little bit suspicious with this reaction, but I do feel that his head is in the right place for this town by advocating patience. His vote for threesr was to pressure him to stop lurking and to defend himself. He did not feel like Threesr did a good job of doing that, so he stuck with his vote. Read: Being patient, which is not a characteristic of scum. Prefers to make the right lynch instead of the one the is most popular. Probably a hipster, but anyways, 60-40 town is my feeling on him. If you guys expect me to have reads that cannot be changed with one or two good posts, you are kidding yourself. It is always good to leave options open, especially in an unpredictable game like this one. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On December 21 2012 13:26 cDgCorazon wrote: .... cDgCorazon, congratulations. I want to thank you publicly for taking the time to absorb the thread and offer opinions that from my first read appear logically sound, and UNBIASED For me, this has gone a long way to prove Spaghetticus correct on his assumption regarding you. [Ramble] + Show Spoiler + The problem I am having with the game currently is the amount of people "flying under the radar". I can see 3 points of view. (1) Scared Newbie. In real life some people are natural leaders and appears confident at first attempt. Others prefer to follow the direction of someone who offers leadership. I think this is a legitimate reason to initially "fly under the radar" but now that 48hrs has passed, I do not think this counts anymore. Newbies need to stand up and be counted. cDgCorazon post I think is an excellent structure to imitate. (2) Blue Roles. Blues are worried about getting killed before putting power to use. Again a good reason to fly under the radar. The key differentiation I assume would be that Blue Roles still want Town to win. (3) Mafia. Not all players are witty enough to release retorts in a prompt manner (e.g. Aqua attacked Spag for taking 3 hrs to produce a reply). Hence, it will be natural for some mafia to want to fly under the radar, to give them time to make that have been checked by the mafia team before being released. I am doing 2 investigations today. (1) Examining the sequence of events, as I posted prior & (2) Trying to provide reasoning to bracket posters as (2) or (3). That aside, I think Cakepie is wrong about delaying posting. And I am concerned a person that has displayed his thought process, and NOT made an attempt to identify the below: We have a critical period now to influence the choices the blue roles make. We have the ability to ensure the ?cop? check is on a mafia. We have the ability to ensure the ?jailer? lock down is on a mafia. We have the ability to ensure the ?roleblocker? prevents a mafia kill! We have the ability to prevent/enable the ?vigilante? to make the right choice! @Cakepie, what are your thoughts on the above? | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
On December 21 2012 13:22 Mocsta wrote: @Cakepie I refer you to. Mod has confirmed night actions can be placed at the last second. If your intent was to post your commentary after the "lockdown" period to avoid putting a target on your head; well.. this is now null and void. No, I was aware that there would not be a lockdown in any case, so that is absolutely not the intent. I do not seek to overly influence the night actions of blue roles, if any. All that we know for sure is Spaghetticus' town flip; and the posting and voting behavior of day one is open for analysis. Any attempts to direct blue roles on what to do are WIFOM, since the one giving advice may be an earnest townie, or may be a god scum trying to lead town astray. In the end, it boils down to the same thing: blues now need to weigh what they see and come to their own decision of what to do. The rest of town may discuss a little, but ultimately must hope that any blues we have are up to the additional responsibility that their role confers. I have little new advice for blue roles; my most important thoughts toward end of D1 are there to be read and considered with an analytical mind. I may add a little more later perhaps, based on what happens over the next 10-12 hours. But mostly I do not want to add more WIFOM burden at this point. The more crucial goal is to thwart scum. Apart from their obvious goal of killing off townies, they will also maximize their utility by sowing chaos to confuse blues and VTs alike. They must decide if they want to hunt blues before they become too useful, or off the town players that are most dangerous to them. As for the second variety, how should they pick? By activity, by town cred, by amount of good intuition shown, or by amount of correct scumreads? Let scum ponder that on their own, try not to feed them any bones. We should of course all be looking closely at the D1 posting and voting patterns, but there is no need for us to help scum unravel that right now. Save it for the rise of the sun, when there is little time left for that to influence scum's decision of who to kill, but with plenty of daytime ahead to compare, study, and discuss our analyses. @Mocsta: Buy it or no, the above is my philosophy on night play and I am sticking to it. @Corazon: your effort and thought shows, even if it is only in response to my questions. Peace now, and form your analysis of D1; have it ready at start of D2, where we will hope for you to show more initiative rather than to be prodded into action. | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
On December 21 2012 14:47 cakepie wrote: or may be a god scum trying to lead town astray. ebwop: *good scum ... but perhaps indeed godly good if they do so well at it =) Going out now. Thanks corazon and mocsta for the light discussion. See y'all again in around 12 hours. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On December 21 2012 08:30 Spaghetticus wrote: - Aquanim I expect Aquanim to come under considerable pressure when I flip town, as he should. I did not have any read on him before, though I am scared of the possibility he is scum and masterstroked me from full health to zero in one hit. He's quite right here, starting a case on a (now) confirmed town should bring pressure in my direction. All I can really say is that I was as genuinely convinced by my case as the other townies on the wagon. I'd welcome any questions if you have them. I'll have to think for a while about how the lynch and the start of the night went down. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On December 21 2012 13:26 cDgCorazon wrote: While this is a good way to start discussion, I feel like less dramatic measures could have been taken, so overall, I really think he should have done that better instead of automatically coming to the conclusion that I should be lynched. I'ma gonna clarify this right now. My first vote, for you, was NOT a decision that I wanted to lynch you. That would be ridiculous based on three pages of play. That vote was an indication to you that your posting to date was not satisfactory. If you had continued to post like that, or reacted in a way that was clearly scummy, that would have become a vote with intent to lynch. Instead, you reacted well enough that I didn't want to lynch you day one. I don't have an updated read on you yet, haven't read the thread real thoroughly. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On December 21 2012 16:39 Aquanim wrote: He's quite right here, starting a case on a (now) confirmed town should bring pressure in my direction. All I can really say is that I was as genuinely convinced by my case as the other townies on the wagon. I'd welcome any questions if you have them. I have been waiting for you to come back... Im completely gobsmacked, no one has questioned you.. or I. + Show Spoiler + Perhaps i am over valuing my contribution. I am going to set the ball rolling, since no one else will. @Aquanim (1) You aggressively targeted Spagehtticus seemingly out of no where. Spaghetticus was placed under much duress, and wasnt able to express himself as eloquently as he would have liked to; playing a large part in his demise. Do you think your overall your approach was a success? (2) You say you had no serious motive to maintain a cote on Corazon. However, that can not be said for the Spaghetticus vote. Your case had conviction behind it, thus, I 100% agree you thought he was scum. Did Spaghetticus stick out like a sore thumb to you; or do you think you were lured towards his path? Aquanim, I look forward to your response; and welcome any commentary on my behaviour. I want to maintain a post made at the start Townies can make mistakes! What happened, happened; we need to consolidate and figure out where we went wrong. Ask yourself If I/we chased a gut feeling; we can make sure to consider more facts before posting. If I/we were lead to the evidence; we need to consider motives of who planted it. If I/we purely sheeped; ask yourself "why were you convinced" enough to follow? | ||
| ||
