EPT/in
Newbie Mini Mafia XXXIII
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
/in | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
Not sure. I'd have to go with yes for similar reasons as stated above. A lurking townie is doing us little good, so lynching lurkers should generally have a positive outcome (for town). I'm for it. 2) How do you think scum would try to infiltrate us? Also not sure. This is my first game of Mafia outside of some eight grade bastardization that shall never be spoken of again. 3) [Being from Australia] Do you like prawns/shrimp on the "barbie" Yes! Seafood is my favorite! | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
I've been thinking about lurking and I find that there is very little reason for it. For townies, it is in no way beneficial. You are not helping the rest of the town when you lurk. This I believe is the primary reason for the lynching lurkers policy. Now, none of this is new discussion so I'd like to throw something else out there: It is not beneficial for mafia to lurk either. Although it helps them more than the town. They are not forwarding their agenda in doing so. That, along with the ongoing consensus to lynch a less active player D1 would drive scum to play more actively, else they draw more attention to them (although they should be doing this anyway). This leads me to believe it isn't a player who is trying to hide in the shadows, but one who is just as active as any other townie. 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. This is scummy behavior and is what we should be on the look out for. I would like to note I'm not excluding lurkers/less active players from scrutiny. It just should not be a deciding factor. - Corazon, I disagree with your reasoning to vote Aqua. His behavior is hardly scummy. I don't agree with everything he has posted, but his vote for you was justified, even though I don't believe you're scum. He voted to stimulate discussion. It worked. - On December 19 2012 23:21 cakepie wrote: Q: Pick and make a case against someone. I don't feel obligated to respond to this question. I've found very little evidence to incriminate any player and deem it foolish to attempt a case towards anyone I'm entirely unsure of. Maybe I'll come across something before Day's end, but until then I'm inclined not to answer. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
On December 20 2012 06:29 cDgCorazon wrote: I'm voting for him in self defense. I've offered to take my vote off of the table if he does this same. I just believe that head-hunting on Day 1 isn't the most innocent thing to. I must admit, it did work to create discussion, but there are other ways to do it besides putting someone on the chopping block. Edit to this post below, look for the bolded words that aren't votes. I believe you were warned for this post. Even though you clearly stated the edit, you could've changed something else in the post and nobody would've been the wiser. Just don't edit posts at all. as a side note, you edited the wrong post lol | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
To be completely honest regarding Corazon's slip up (accidentally claiming mafia), I read it completely normally thinking he did anything wrong and didn't notice until Threesr pointed out that he had. I don't know what that says about me, but if he read it right and I read it right, he could possibly be telling the truth. I do agree with you that they're both acting incredibly defensive. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
Of all players nominated for lynching, FatChunk, Threesr, and cDgCorazon are the ones I'm considering. Otherwise, I have a slight suspicion of Sylencia that is based solely on a hunch and little to no evidence. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
On December 20 2012 12:17 Spaghetticus wrote: @Orangeremi Do you still believe it is not beneficial for mafia to lurk? You shouldn’t, as you’d be wrong. As I have done before, I would point you to the resources available on this topic on this very forum. Lurking bad. Speaking of which, you still only have a one page filter. Admittedly my filter is only two pages, but your one page only has 1-2 posts of any substance. Step up if you’re town, continue to stagnate if you’re scum. I suppose what I mean to say was that lurking isn't completely beneficial to Mafia. They will get much more done and be more successful (bar slip ups and mistakes) when active was my point. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
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. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
On December 20 2012 19:29 OmniEulogy wrote: @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'm not fond of how Kickstart is currently playing. He's the #1 lurker right now and I'd put him near the top of my list of suspicion. I want to see more of what he has to contribute, so far I'm not impressed. Corazon has done a lot more than expected in an attempt to redeeming himself. I'm not convinced he is scum anymore but I'd still keep my eye out. The other two players have yet to post anything since they've become top reads, I'm waiting on that. The case for Spag is huge, I'm leaning towards that. It's really the only case so far that has actually made me consider voting something other than no lynch (my previous top choice). I'd currently rate my voting choices at 1. Spag 2. Kickstar 3. FatChunk with a possibility of no lynch if they have sufficient evidence to the contrary. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
##Vote:No-lynch If I return I will do my best to find a more suitable vote. Until then, adieu! | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
##Vote: FatChunk | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
On December 22 2012 06:49 Aquanim wrote: @Orangeremi: What did you think of Spaghetticus' defence to my case? I wasn't swayed either way by it. Your case was a tough one to argue and he tried. I don't feel like he succeeded. When he answered my question about his defense it seemed to me even fluffier as well. At this point I think it's fairly obvious, unfortunately I woke up too late to detail a case myself. Most everything that could've been said about him has been. It will take a fair deal of convincing for me to change my mind before Day's end. ##Vote: OmniEulogy | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
I've got my eye on FC, but want to hold off on further judgements until I see him post this Day I'm also waiting on more from Kickstart, I'm wary of how he's playing this game as opposed to his last one. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
On December 22 2012 17:39 Aquanim wrote: It hasn't really changed much from what? Wasn't convince he's town before, still not convinced he is. No reads on being something else, either. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
On December 23 2012 00:40 cDgCorazon wrote: This is not a post to defend OE or to try to get you guys to not lynch him, this is a post about increasing pressure on Orangeremi. His answers to my accusations have been ungraceful, indifferent, and incomplete. Let us take a look at all of the posts he has made since I have made accusations against him. (Original Accusation post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=386911¤tpage=38#744) When I wrote my post accusing OJR, I finished with these words: + Show Spoiler + On December 22 2012 09:15 cDgCorazon wrote: I feel like OJR (which is what I’m calling he/she from now on, much easier to write) needs to step up his scum-hunting efforts in order to clear suspicion from myself. OJR has all the room to defend themselves, but until OJR picks it up, I am very suspicious of them. Now, I was expecting OJR to defend himself from my attacks, prove to me that he was not hiding anything. + Show Spoiler + (Which Cakepie has done an excellent job of so far) However, I am disappointed with the lack of a reaction by OJR so far. 1st Post After My Accusation: + Show Spoiler + On December 22 2012 12:30 Orangeremi wrote: I wasn't swayed either way by it. Your case was a tough one to argue and he tried. I don't feel like he succeeded. When he answered my question about his defense it seemed to me even fluffier as well. At this point I think it's fairly obvious, unfortunately I woke up too late to detail a case myself. Most everything that could've been said about him has been. It will take a fair deal of convincing for me to change my mind before Day's end. ##Vote: OmniEulogy Did not even bother to read my post accusing him before immediately answering. Made a half-answer about how Spag was making a bunch of fluff, and that Spag’s case was not good enough to change OJR’s mind (which is fair enough). However, he also just gives his case that he had no other good reasons to vote Spag, saying that Aqua literally picked Spag apart so much that there was nothing else he could say. It could be true, or could he just be bandwagoning or sheeping to try and keep attention away from him. It’s a scummy play, and he needs to justify his vote for Spag, who claimed and flipped VT. I didn't vote for Spag. I'm not sure what else there is to say about this. 2nd&3rd Posts: + Show Spoiler + On December 22 2012 12:59 Orangeremi wrote: Is there anything in specific you're looking for? All of your claims are valid, and you just asked me to step up my scum hunting. Not even trying to defend himself, just saying that I am right. Very suspicious play, but it’s hard to get anything from that. His third post is the most scummy post: On December 22 2012 13:26 Orangeremi wrote: I don't like how Threesr is playing if he's town. He's helping very little and I could see him playing a reverse psychological scum the way he is acting. I've got my eye on FC, but want to hold off on further judgements until I see him post this Day I'm also waiting on more from Kickstart, I'm wary of how he's playing this game as opposed to his last one. His three reads are Threesr, FC, and Kickstart: All easy targets that have come under fire in Day 1 and during Night 1. His arguments are basic for all three, and are arguments that others have come up with (Threesr is playing suspicious, FC is playing suspicious, Kick has been lurking). Not only are these arguments brief and weak, but they are not even his. An explanation for this is that he is scum, and he is not able to make fabricated lies. This lack of effort in scumhunting is ridiculously suspicious, and his lack in any discussion at all in the past 24 hours is disturbing and suspicious as well. I'd like to argue that the arguments are indeed mine, because I come to the conclusions on my own (as did other players, seeing as they're the same) although I agree they are brief and weak. In your original accusation you said that my lack of names implied either me being afraid of being put in the spotlight or I have not seen anything suspicious (which you doubted). While I'll say I don't like the spotlight, avoiding it hasn't been completely on purpose. But that isn't why. I wouldn't honestly say I don't have any suspicions, but that I don't have any convicting suspicions. That's why my 'reads' are the same as everyone else's and not in depth. 4th Post: + Show Spoiler + On December 22 2012 14:01 Orangeremi wrote: @cake I'm interested in his theory regarding you+OE+Chrom scum team, but I don't know how much credibility it has. This post is just a joke. I already asked Cake about the Cake/OE/Chrom scum team, and he had handled his answer with much grace. This is pressing someone else’s idea, not creating his own. This is textbook scum play, jumping on other’s idea without creating original content. I had actually typed up my post (as 'jokey' as it is) before I saw you had posted yours. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
On December 23 2012 10:47 Aquanim wrote: I think I disagree with you on preferences here. I too like both Orange and Shz as lynches, but Orange's behaviour around the day one lynch is pretty ridiculous. His first post after the Spag case is: He then proceeds to vote no-lynch after saying some other random stuff. When he comes back in the morning, he votes FatChunk. With absolutely no reason. So, did he switch from Spag because he found Spag's defence convincing? Nope. As for his read on Kick: This was in reference to Orange's read on Kick before his posts day 2. Kick only posted once during the night, and I don't see how a #2 scum read turns into a null with that one post. Basically, the only reason I can see for voting FatChunk is to avoid being on the Spag wagon, and the only reason for that is to avoid responsibility for lynching Spag. As for why he voted FC rather than Kick, FC was the more generally acceptable target at that time I think. In fact: ##Unvote ##Vote: Orangeremi Orangeremi, explain yourself. Now. @FatChunk: Still want to see more from you. I suppose I should clarify. I've had very few scum reads this game. I've had plenty of suspicions. When referring to 'scum reads' I'm just mentioning the players I'm suspicious of. I honestly couldn't say that I wasn't convinced any players were scum D1. My explanation for voting FC over Spag is I was convinced Spag was town after reading his long final post before being lynched. At that point I felt it was a toss-up between FC and Kickstart in my mind and I just voted to avoid voting no-lynch (since people seemed to not want me to). I would take all the players I've mentioned with a grain of salt, especially since I haven't made a case for any of them. However, none of my suspicions from then compare with how convinced I am with my D2 vote. After viewing Chrom's evidence towards Omni and then reviewing it myself, there's no way he's town. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
On December 24 2012 02:11 OmniEulogy wrote: ##Vote: Orangeremi The only "active" lurker throughout the game who hasn't made a case on anybody in nearly 100 hours. I'd like to argue that I haven't made a case in over 100. All game, even. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
On December 24 2012 18:07 Aquanim wrote: Well, given that he has, who are your main suspects now? Chrom's going to come under pressure (understandably) but I do think we need to pressure the less active players come next Day phase. I'm really thrown for a loop right now and don't know what to think. Looking over filters and after recent events I'm stumped  | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
On December 24 2012 21:31 Aquanim wrote: That wasn't really an answer to my question. Care to try again? I'm not really looking to throw names out there if I'm not confident after that lynch. I'm sticking with my statement that lurkers need to come out before anything else. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
I'm gonna read up on the thread, be back soon. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
On December 26 2012 15:42 cakepie wrote: OrangeRemi: Please play the devil's advocate, and try to knock holes in the arguments against shz laid out by Kickstart, myself and others. Are there good townie hypotheses that would explain how he voted? What of his early D2 defense of Omni, which ceased despite the lynch gaining momentum? Does this give you a overall town vibe or scum vibe on him? I found it difficult to knock any holes in the case. As town, starting the game with a vote for someone is a great way to trigger discussion and get things off in the right direction. Very possibly his intention. I see no townie explanation for the way he voted Corazon, possibly laziness. With Spag, he just hopped on the wagon. Nothing special for scum or town. And I think his vote for Chrom is justified to throw another opinion/point of view on the table (although rather poorly, not that I'm one to talk.) I don't understand why he would give up on defending Omni. His defense was perfectly sound, especially when Omni flipped town. Overall, I'd suppose a scum vibe. Although looking over his posts it wasn't at all my initial thought. His post voting for Chrom seemed townie to me, and his more recent advocation to go after lurkers seems so as well. Good question. Looking back, it's rather pointless. I suppose I just wanted it to be accurate that I haven't posed a case towards anyone. I don't know why. On December 27 2012 06:47 Aquanim wrote: He never came back. Confirmation bias tells me there's only one explanation for this. Something tells me confirmation bias would be wrong. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
On December 27 2012 23:43 Chromatically wrote: Why is shz a scum vibe if you see all these townie things in his filter? I wouldn't say 'all' these townie things in his filter. The two things I mentioned were the only two townie things I noticed. That's why I get vibe. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
The overwhelming vote count for Kick right now leads me to believe the scum are just hopping on his wagon. If he was actually scum, wouldn't the mafia would find another player to try and start a wagon for to save him. But that isn't happening. I think we need to reevaluate. In the meantime I'm going back to one of my initial reads. ##Vote: FatChunk | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
I don't feel strongly towards shz, and didn't even think him a possibility until I was asked to play devil's advocate for him. I don't understand Kickstart's play either, it doesn't emulate being a townie, really. But neither does it scum. FC seems to be benefiting from not being pressure most. He has really not contributed much on the voting front, just hopping on the Omni bandwagon and also voting threesr D1. Scummy? | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
Please, those of us who have not voted, VOTE! And do it for the player you think will benefit us most. It is crucial. We need to be productive today or else this game is over. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
##Vote: shz Chrom, if shz turns town I'm looking at you. Hopping off of FC wagon when it seemed to gain momentum was something I was looking for. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
##Unvote ##Vote: Shz | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
On December 08 2012 22:23 Promethelax wrote: Claudius Ptolemy (Framer) | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
On December 28 2012 09:19 Aquanim wrote: Well... what made you so convinced Shz was scum? If you were confident enough to last-minute switch (without giving anyone time to think about it) why didn't you push for his lynch earlier? Why did you think Shz was scummier than Kick? Look, trying to push a lynch away from scum at the last minute is just up-and-up scummy. Explain your reasoning. In detail. I wasn't convinced Shz was scum. My reasoning is based on Kick not being scum. His lynch was clear and nobody tried to intervene and take votes off of him. Why not? If he was scum, his scumbuddies would be trying to vote someone else. But that wasn't happening. Since it wasn't happening, I was convinced he was town. Which begs the question, why wasn't it happening? Chrom switched just as I did, I'd want to know why he didn't push it earlier either. I wanted to push for whichever vote had the better chance of winning that wasn't Kick, since I was under the impression that Kick wasn't scum. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
On December 28 2012 09:45 Sylencia wrote: Having a framer in play suggests there's a Cop in play, right? That would only make sense | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
I'm under the impression some scum voted for Kick to go under the radar. Probably the player who voted for him with the least conviction? I'm really very curious with Chrom's switch at the end (before mine) too. We have a night to go through, and the options to lynch will shrink. It might be simpler to decide then. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
On December 28 2012 10:55 cDgCorazon wrote: Another point we should think about. Was kick bussing Shz, or was he trying to get himself not lynched? I dont understand. could you possibly explain? | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
| ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
On December 28 2012 12:12 cakepie wrote: @orange: Assume not all scum is stupidly trying to swing onto shz. Who is scum initiating/moving with Kickstart onto shz: chrom, FC, or neither? And where in the Kick wagon is the remaining scum hiding? If both FC and chrom are misguided townies, what was Kickstart up to? How has he managed to misdirect both FC and yourself onto chrom's case? And who among the Kick wagon would you finger as the two likely scum, looking to gain town cred off of Kickstart's 'sacrifice' play? 1) I'm leaning towards neither, unless it's just bad scum play. If I had to choose, it'd be FC since he hopped on last and could use that fact as an excuse. 2) I wouldn't say I'm on chrom's case. I am suspicious because of that move, but his motives seem sound. I don't understand what Kickstart was doing AT ALL. The only thing I can think is that the rest of the mafia planned this lynch to avoid their own suspicion. The wagoners? I don't know, Syl and Aqua seemed to hop on that train with little initiative and rode it undercover. With what they've contributed, I'm surprised they haven't been nk'd yet. I still want to wait to see who gets killed tonight. I'm really curious who they'll pick. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
1) The mafia doesn't see these guys as a threat. They're on the wrong track or have some other misdirection 2) They are the mafia I'm using they as a term for either one of them here, please excuse me. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
this is why I want to see what happens at the end of this Night | ||
| ||
