|
On January 29 2013 02:18 glurio wrote:
And i still want to highlight warbabys vote switching to afking instead of skapunk, isn't it basically the same thing with coras voting for the only lurker who nobody so far voted for zarepath? His reason is he wanted to draw an reaction, since it didn't work with skapunk.
He wanted to draw an reaction from someone who never posted in the thread, probably forgot about the game as soon as he registered himself for it. So now that he's sure skapunk dies he can make an easy switch. Well shame for him abenson wasn't in the game. Why not vote for Skapunk again few minutes before the lynch? The chance of drawing an reaction in that time span is really non-existant.
I just want everyones opinion on this.
At least I tried to draw a reaction, instead of just bandwagoning on SkaPunk. It's obvious I voted for SkaPunk in the first place. Why don't you also criticize this action, instead of focusing on the confusion around abenson?
I already explained to you why I didn't switch back to SkaPunk:
On January 28 2013 15:26 warbaby wrote:I didn't change my vote back to SkaPunk after the abenson revelation because I still didn't think I was going to get anywhere pressuring SkaPunk, and I wanted to see if it might work on AFKing.
|
Yeah, I really don't mind Cora's vote on abenson, even though he wasn't part of the game. It was intended to pressure a lurker, and I can live with that, although it doesn't really follow his posted theory on FoS vs Vote.
Warbaby's vote switching is odd, and is mildly reminiscent of scum jumping around, but with a crummy day 1 like we had I'm not sure we can read too much into anybody's vote. I mean, I can see a town motive of merely doing anything possible to try and trigger posts, but it is a lot easier to see the scum player overthinking the votes and trying to not be identified with the obviously wrong bandwagon. Then again, if I'm scum I'm holding firm with my vote on a indefensible lurker, because it's horrendously safe. Then again, so were his abenson/afking votes so... Yeah maybe this looks worse than I thought.
I would like to hear zare's thoughts on the vote given that he asked for a clearly consolidated vote, and then was *not* part of the consensus SkaPunk vote.
|
Sn0: few comments on coras case
I really like that he called him out on his inconsistencies. (friendly sparring -> going berserk, 1/3 chance -> no chance)
But all in all most of zares analysis is just that, calling out inconcistencies.
While i believe this is good information, some stuff is probably just overblown to get a point across. (the friendly sparring to going berserk, i think cora just wanted to make a point)
What i found really striking was this though:
On January 28 2013 08:05 zarepath wrote:
I think that it's out of character for Corazon to be speculating so severely as to the hypothetical spread of mafia among lurkers and the possibilities of replacements. And to knowingly break rules and ask for mods to tell him he's breaking a rule instead of just looking it up when he's unsure if he's breaking the rule or not.
and i really didn't like the vote post of cora especially the last sentence:
On January 28 2013 03:59 cDgCorazon wrote:
I'll cover that base WB.
##Vote: Abenson
If these are the three mafia their coach must be ridiculously annoyed.
Can't put my finger on it, but it really sounds scummy to me.
I'll try to post more after cooking and eating dinner.
|
On January 29 2013 02:39 Sn0_Man wrote:
Yeah, I really don't mind Cora's vote on abenson, even though he wasn't part of the game. It was intended to pressure a lurker, and I can live with that, although it doesn't really follow his posted theory on FoS vs Vote.
You don't mind that Corazon voted for someone you knew wasn't in the game? That really makes it sound like your true motivation was not actually to help pressure lurkers.
Thanks for answering my questions. I've had my say on this, and the open questions on my voting pattern. I'll shut up about it for now. I agree that we need to hear more about this from everyone else.
|
Sn0, I asked for consolidation early in the day, before any votes were out. I was the first person to vote on anyone, so it's not as if I was dodging Skapunk, and was basically AFK for the rest of the day, save the two small comments I made.
Warbaby's jump is justified by the fact that scum would want to bus Skapunk, and therefore anyone NOT voting for Skapunk cannot be mafia, and therefore Warbaby should vote with Cora or Zarepath. But then in the end, he still ends up voting for Skapunk??? I think Sn0's right that day 1 pretty much sucked for providing analysis material, but this is the most significant vote behavior we have to look at right now, and it's worth examining.
|
On January 29 2013 02:47 warbaby wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 02:39 Sn0_Man wrote:
Yeah, I really don't mind Cora's vote on abenson, even though he wasn't part of the game. It was intended to pressure a lurker, and I can live with that, although it doesn't really follow his posted theory on FoS vs Vote. You don't mind that Corazon voted for someone you knew wasn't in the game? That really makes it sound like your true motivation was not actually to help pressure lurkers. Thanks for answering my questions. I've had my say on this, and the open questions on my voting pattern. I'll shut up about it for now. I agree that we need to hear more about this from everyone else.
I, Currently, don't mind that Cora voted for somebody that he thought was in the game. Complex? no.
The fact that I believed abenson wasn't a part of the game is immaterial.
I suppose you could say that Cora seems to have been acting fairly ignorant of, well, a lot of aspects of this game that I would expect him to be on top of. I'm not calling that scummy yet, but it isn't helping my read on him overall.
|
On January 29 2013 02:46 glurio wrote:and i really didn't like the vote post of cora especially the last sentence: Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 03:59 cDgCorazon wrote:
I'll cover that base WB.
##Vote: Abenson
If these are the three mafia their coach must be ridiculously annoyed. Can't put my finger on it, but it really sounds scummy to me. I'll try to post more after cooking and eating dinner.
That last sentence is weird.
First of all is the setup error. Failing to understand the rules/setup is scummy. I'm also guilty of this. Second, why is he thinking about the mafia coach, and why is he even using the word coach after I got bonked by marv for mentioning coaching. Third, the sentence really doesn't help explain his vote at all, so it's a little odd that he included it in the first place. Finally, it looks like he was trying to spark setup speculation (and succeeding at it), which can be a way for scum to smokescreen/prevent more important discussion from taking place.
|
On January 29 2013 03:11 warbaby wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 02:46 glurio wrote:and i really didn't like the vote post of cora especially the last sentence: On January 28 2013 03:59 cDgCorazon wrote:
I'll cover that base WB.
##Vote: Abenson
If these are the three mafia their coach must be ridiculously annoyed. Can't put my finger on it, but it really sounds scummy to me. I'll try to post more after cooking and eating dinner. That last sentence is weird. First of all is the setup error. Failing to understand the rules/setup is scummy. I'm also guilty of this. Second, why is he thinking about the mafia coach, and why is he even using the word coach after I got bonked by marv for mentioning coaching. Third, the sentence really doesn't help explain his vote at all, so it's a little odd that he included it in the first place. Finally, it looks like he was trying to spark setup speculation (and succeeding at it), which can be a way for scum to smokescreen/prevent more important discussion from taking place.
...
Setup and rules misunderstandings are townie. Scum are in close contact with a scum coach who clears most of that stuff up for them, especially the number of scum rofl. What was scummy was Cora's blatant misrepresentation of the setup.
I'll admit it was kinda like he was trying to spark off topic speculation and discussion, but FWIW the setup in the 2of4 game is really really simple so there isn't much speculation room.
@glurio: There you go. More posts like that please. I'd rather not have to prompt you all the time, but that was a great start.
@Slayalot (and Acid): JUST MAKE POSTS PLEASE
|
I swear I read in a guide somewhere that rule/setup mistakes can be seen as scummy since town should be taking the time to actually verify this stuff, while scum can use confusion around it to their advantage.
On January 29 2013 03:23 Sn0_Man wrote:
@Slayalot (and Acid): JUST MAKE POSTS PLEASE
A thousand times this.
|
Acid has been warned for not voting. AFKing is modkilled, looking for a replacement.
|
|
|
I'm really sorry for missing the vote, lot of work stuff going on and still on for the next 24 hours or so. I'm re-reading the thread right now, will post before the end of N1.
|
Finally done with the reading part! (and looking up several words like LAL, bus, FOS and so on.)
Guys I'm sorry.. This game was much more time demanding than I thought. I thought this was like a lunch break game.
Pre-game / day 1 I didn't mind. Now there are page 9,10,11 since I last read - and in that time space I've been asked to post by almost all of you.
I'm not gonna abandon the game, I'll play it through to the end (cause I hate leavers) - but not nearly as actively as I know you guys want me to be.
The points that I had, around page 9 (I think), seem so ancient now!
And there are now 20 things that I have not yet commented on. I don't even remember the questions.
I'm going to give you my thoughts, but they are no way near as deep or well thought out as what you guys are writing about. (And you are even reading "meta" which I can understand is text from previous games) I take my hat of to everyone that does this - It's pretty pro 
Anyway. My thought are:
Thought 1:
On January 29 2013 01:53 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 01:42 warbaby wrote:That was an awesome post Zare. I will review the thread with what you've said in mind. On January 29 2013 00:30 Sn0_Man wrote:I had noticed that Abenson was in fact glurio How could you possibly have known this? Before stutter's PSA, there was not a single post in the entire thread indicating that abenson was glurio. Did someone tell you in the scum QT? And if you did know this as you claim, why the fuck didn't you point it out as soon as Corazon voted for abenson? Ambiguity like this is only going to hurt town, if you're town you should be trying to clear stuff like this up, ASAP. Not pulling it out 12 hours later like it's evidence in a case. A) you know full well I was away when Cora posted his vote. B) I wasn't using it as evidence in a case I was merely explaining my vote in detail C) I knew abenson was out for glurio because I was looking through the filter list for glurio and couldn't find him. Admittedly this was a logical fallacy because it could have been AFKing who glurio replaced, and I would have been none the wiser, but I assumed it was abenson because his was the last name on the list and I hadn't seen him post. Either way, I had him discounted as glurio.
The part I highlighted just seems like a straight up lie. Why would you assume the last person on any list?
Thought 2:
Right after we lynched a townie, warbaby seemed very nervous. Triple posting. Being too tired and misunderstanding stuff. And right after - pointing fingers at the people who voted for skapunk. (me, sn0 and glurio) You seemed very scummy to me, right there and then.
Reading the thread today, I was hoping that there would be more talk about this. But I just have the feeling that you are one step ahread, always redirecting the thread to other people. What does everyone els think on this subject?
|
On January 29 2013 05:27 Slayalot wrote:
Why would you assume the last person on any list?
So I'm looking through the list in the OP for glurio's filter, to judge his contributions. I get to the end, and he isn't there. "hey, where did glurio go?" I glance at the list again and I see this abenson guy, sitting right at the end (glurio was the last guy to /in), whose name I don't recognize and who hasn't posted a word since start. "oh, that must be glurio I remember something about him replacing in". Host hadn't updated the "important posts" part of the OP at that point so it was reasonable to assume that he hadn't updated the filter list either. People need to calm down about this.
On January 29 2013 05:27 Slayalot wrote:
Thought 2:
Right after we lynched a townie, warbaby seemed very nervous. Triple posting. Being too tired and misunderstanding stuff. And right after - pointing fingers at the people who voted for skapunk. (me, sn0 and glurio) You seemed very scummy to me, right there and then.
Reading the thread today, I was hoping that there would be more talk about this. But I just have the feeling that you are one step ahread, always redirecting the thread to other people. What does everyone els think on this subject?
Again, warbaby has played this game almost line for line like mocsta did last game (except moc was better at coming up with BS cases, something that WB hasn't grown into yet). I've indicated that I find that scummy, but there quite simply hasn't been enough people posting for there to have been legitimate discussion regarding that. I'm glad you bring it up though.
Posting anything helped your cause a lot, because your first post yesterday really smacked of scum putting in the mandatory 1 post + vote without contributing ANYTHING to the hunt for scum. At this point, however, you are still pretty high up on the lynch list, so keep posting 
|
So snoman, if you see Warbaby played exactly like Mocsta did last time, but not as well, that means he's your number one scum read, right?
|
Cakepie is replacing AFKing. Effective immediately.
|
Hi Cakepie.
@Zare: he reminds me a lot of mocsta, but you will notice that It wasn't me who really outed mocsta. I'm bad at seeing through play like this to real motives. I'll say more around deadline.
|
On January 29 2013 05:27 Slayalot wrote:
Guys I'm sorry.. This game was much more time demanding than I thought. I thought this was like a lunch break game.
Pre-game / day 1 I didn't mind. Now there are page 9,10,11 since I last read - and in that time space I've been asked to post by almost all of you.
I'm not gonna abandon the game, I'll play it through to the end (cause I hate leavers) - but not nearly as actively as I know you guys want me to be.
I'm totally fine with this. If you can make a few quality posts a day, like you have been so far, then in my opinion you're doing a decent job playing the game.
Don't worry about making a point way after the fact. Everything in the game is always open to discussion IMO.
|
I think it's also important to distinguish "trying to run town" with "behaving exactly like Mocsta literally, Hitler." (Exaggerated to make a point.) I've certainly gotten a Mocsta vibe but it's important to separate Alpha Town personality from Very Active Scum behavior.
Heading out soon for the night, look forward to seeing night actions and what people's wills are. I'll try to post a will-ish thing before deadline but no promises.
|
warbaby
On January 26 2013 11:16 warbaby wrote:I'd like to get this flawless town victory started by suggesting some ideas to promote a healthy town atmosphere: - No lurking! Personally I'm not yet decided on Lynch All Lurkers, but it sounds like a decent idea.
- Post succinctly. Don't ramble about your personal life. Don't post a stream of consciousness... coalesce your ideas before you post.
- Don't be needlessly aggressive. Pressuring scum to get information is great, being a jerk for no reason is not.
GLHF everyone 
This reads a lot to me like a combination of Mocsta and Spag from XXXV: trying hard to look town ("flawless town victory"), pushing for LAL, and claiming a desire to promote a "healthy" town atmosphere, notably by discouraging agression.
On January 27 2013 10:45 warbaby wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 10:20 Sn0_Man wrote:trying to scumhunt and trying to look like you are scumhunting are 2 very different things, and should be reasonably distinct. I don't agree. If someone pretends to scumhunt convincingly, they should appear to be the same as someone who is actually scumhunting. Just because Mocsta pretended effectively (for a while) in XXXV does not mean I'm doing the same thing. The way I see it, the only thing I can do to further address your other concerns is to play solid town, without being overly aggressive and feeding into your criticism. This seems reasonable so I'll give it a shot, unless you have a better suggestion, or some direct questions for me. Your point B is not possible for me to address further. You've made your point here, I gave my explanation before I realized I had broken the rules. Can we leave it at that?
It seems like warbaby is trying really hard to be everybody's friend. He also claims he's trying to scumhunt, whereas Mocsta was only pretending, but where is the actual scumhunting? I see a lot of theoreticals, of talking about scumhunting and also a whole lot of defending his play trying to point out how he's not like Mocsta.
If you are town and actually scumhuting, you don't need to claim it, it will show through your actions. And one of the ways it will show is you will not be afraid to pressure people. Warbaby has poked left and right at several different people, but it's been lukewarm. I don't see him inhabited by the righteous fire someone in his position should have. Except when he's talking about lurkers and urging people to post more.
This is interesting because in a game where scum are active, targetting lurkers is a win-win strategy as you get to appear town while setting up a safe vote (you have plausible deniability - "hey sure he flipped town but he was a lurker, so essentially playing for scum!"
On January 28 2013 00:28 warbaby wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 21:17 zarepath wrote:
Don't "shut up for a while." That's not town-motivated. Think about who else you'd like to pressure. If you shut up every time somebody criticizes you for pressuring them, that's not going to go super well.
Great point. I'm offering to cool my jets (for now) because I think sn0man has a legitimate complaint about controlling town. I totally don't agree with sn0man that scum hunting D1 is "rich", though. Would he prefer scum get a free pass D1? I would like others' take on this. Maybe there's someone else that sn0man would allow to scumhunt, without accusing them of being a Mocsta doppelganger? I didn't forget about you. You were manner enough to explain why your contributions were going to be thin D1. And the posts you are making are good.
I don't like this because, again, it seems like trying too hard to be really friendly, on top of that he acts like he has a good excuse to stop being active and if anyone calls him on it, he can just say "weeell, snoman said I was too controlling so I'm just trying to be nice, you know, I'm a really nice guy really, I'm so nice I couldn't possibly be a scummy scum scum."
On January 28 2013 00:39 warbaby wrote:
Also, I'm with Glurio.
##Vote: SkaPunk
SkaPunk has demonstrated that he is in fact capable of using the post box. Maybe if we pressure him some more, he'll actually contribute.
But you're NOT pressuring him. Just making a vote is not pressure. You didn't ask him anything. You just parked your vote on a lurker. Safe play.
On January 28 2013 04:53 warbaby wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 03:59 cDgCorazon wrote:
I'll cover that base WB.
##Vote: Abenson
If these are the three mafia their coach must be ridiculously annoyed. I will certainly not be annoyed if we lynch a lurker and they flip scum. I don't think this will happen D1 though, due to the scum team's information advantage. Going by statistics it's most probable one of the 3 lurkers is scum, if one assumes lurkers are evenly distributed.
There is a 1/3rd chance, if you assume scum is evenly distributed among the lurkers. I'm not sure this is a totally valid assumption, although it probably makes more sense than all of the lurkers being scum.
This is wrong. In a 9 player setup with 2 scum and 3 lurkers, assuming even distribution, then we have 2/9 chances of lynching scum by choosing a player at random, whether we lynch a lurker or not. Lynching a lurker is only advantageous if you know that scum are more likely to lurk than to be active. But you can't know that. Well, not if you're town. If you're scum and you *know* that both scum are active, then it's statistically advantageous for you to lynch a lurker, obviously.
Math warning:+ Show Spoiler +
Assuming even distribution, there is a 6/9 chance of the first scum player being an active player, and then a 5/8 chance of the second scum also being active, this makes it 5/12 chance of both scum being active.
Then you have a 6/9 chance of first scum being active, plus 3/8 chance of 2nd scum being lurker, coming down to 1/4 chance. Double it for the other way around, makes 1/2 chance (6/12) of having scum being split between actives and lurkers
Finally, you have a 3/9 * 2/8 chance of both scum being lurker (1/12)
Total 12/12
If you lynch a random active, you have the following chances of hitting scum:
2/6 out of 5/12 (case where both scum are active)
1/6 out of 1/4 (case one where scum are split)
1/6 out of 1/4 (case two where scum are split)
0 out of 1/12 (case where scum are both lurkers)
2/6 * 5/12 + 1/6 * 1/4 + 1/6 * 1/4 + 0 = 2/9
2/9 chances
If you lynch a random lurker, I'll directly simplify but it comes basically to 1/3 * 1/2 + 2/3 * 1/12 which is also 2/9
Why do I insist on this? Because I think warbaby is deliberately misleading us and pushing us into a lurker lynch when he knows scum aren't lurking, trying to back it up with numbers that are wrong.
Again, for the cheap seats: there is no statistical advantage to lynching a lurker, however if you make it seem like there is one and you direct your scumbuddies to not lurk, then you can fool town into a guaranteed mislynch while appearing perfectly reasonable.
On January 28 2013 08:35 warbaby wrote:
##Unvote: SkaPunk
##Vote: abenson
By glurio's metric, we should lynch scum, then scummy lurkers, then lurkers. If SkaPunk's single post was a scum trying to blend in then he's the worst scum ever. My (very weak) read on him is that he's town, but playing with extremely little effort so far. Pressure is apparently not getting a rise from him. Maybe he's not reading the thread, but one would really expect scum to put up some kind of defense when they're 2 hours (is that right?) from being lynched. So I'm going to vote for an actual 100% lurker.
I like that Corazon didn't vote for SkaPunk. If Cora was scum, there's a chance he would have just bandwagoned SkaPunk right off the bat. So I'm voting with Cora. The same applies to Zarepath, but Zare's been less active than Cora so I feel it's a bit riskier voting with Zare (in case AFKing suddenly steps up his game).
Speaking of pressuring people to get a rise from them, what the heck happened to Acid~? He defended himself from my bullshit aggression, then ignored Zare's question about LAL and peaced out.
Now that the lynch on SkaPunk seems guaranteed, you hop off the wagon claiming a (small) townread but you don't push for your next target. You're perfectly content to let town lynch someone on which you have a town read.
I'm going to stop the quotes here because there isn't much more to add. I still don't see you actually scumhunting like you claimed before. Just defending yourself, explaining your vote and discussing rules and theories and setups.
No strong lead on who you think is scum, not even a FoS, just a vague notion that you "don't believe both scum are lurkers". A pretty easy assumption to make since now the probability of having 2 scum amongst 2 lurkers in an 8 player game is ~3.6%
Anyway, I have to go back to work, will be back in >24hours but until then:
##FoS: warbaby
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
