|
On January 23 2013 03:50 gonzaw wrote:
I get better vibes out of sandro after that chat log.
Even though I'm not comfortable with him being this lazy, something tells me he'd try and be more active as scum, at least slightly.
Like, Toad instantly masons him as soon as D1 starts, and they start chatting. This already gives Toad some "activity" from sandro, but sandro doesn't feel the need to "channel" that activity in the thread?
I'd think scum sandro, when finding (likely town) Toad mason contacted him, and they started talking, he'd try to mirror that activity in the thread.
Also, as I suspected pretty early, sandro being mason with someone would explain some lack of effort from him, since some of that effort would be spent in the mason chat (don't really know how much time you guys chatted though).
That makes sense
|
On January 23 2013 03:56 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 03:53 gonzaw wrote:On January 23 2013 03:47 DearestSnot wrote:
I don't understand the scum Oats motivation for pushing you, gonzaw. It seems almost suicidal to me.
In another game I had recently I was inclined to vote someone for calling me scum in a situation where he was under heby pressure. My gut said that he was town based on the unlikelihood of him being willing to call me out so hard when I was the deciding vote. I decided to stubbornly ignore my suspicion and the guy flipped town.
I just don't see what kind of scum would come to the conclusion that one of the mayoral candidates is scum and then proceed to attack the one who is most likely to put forth a strong backlash with a serious and solid response. But it doesn't make sense from a town perspective to be honest. Like....he instantly OMGUSes me back on D1, seemingly accusing me of being scum, but backtracks it for some reason (saying "This doesn't mean I think he's scum"). That felt out of the ordinary almost instantly, and didn't seem like a townie would post that at all. Now it seems to me he wanted to stay "consistent" with that. Since he already posted "some" suspicion on me, I would think it wouldn't be that "hard" for him to just keep up with it to the "extreme". Also I've had my fair share of scum just blatantly OMGUSing me and FoSing me for no reason in like, every single game I'm town  I think you guys are attributing a little too much meaning to something that maybe doesn't matter at all. well yeah, maybe. Thing is we need one guy lynched tomorrow. I see no reason to lynch into those guys that have those kind of things that might or might not be worth something as a towntell. Doesn't have to be towntell, but why not just lynch the guy that doesn't have those aspects in the first place.
Well, I prefer lynching scum over "some guys"
But yeah, we obviously still have time, and night actions tonight can change a few things.
But I don't want people assuming Oats is town for some weak reasons. Like if I die or even if scum go all in and Five gets killed, and Oats is scum, then you+wbg would basically just let him live all game long lynching into lurkers.
Oh, I almost forgot about the double-lynch
I guess it makes sense to have a double-lynch on D3. I have a feeling we'll waste some of it on "lurkers", but we could count it as a "town-powered vig shot", in addition to the regular lynch that day
|
regarding Vivax's case
Alright, worked my way through Vivax's case, as well as the relevant parts of gonzaw and JX's filters. In all honesty most of the case had me thinking, "I do this, and I've never been scum... How is it really a scumtell?" I'm aware that I'm typically I'm a big question mark on everyone's spreadsheets, but I've never been mislynched for it (vigi'd once though). That's also pretty much all I've done this game so far (aside from voting for FiveTouch and a prplhz lynch), so it made me wonder what the difference was. I guess the supposed difference is that JX explicitly expresses the idea that multiple people are scummy, and then questions other people about other people instead. I guess I could see where Vivax is coming from, somewhat. I don't feel like it's enough to make me want to lynch JX.
Fortunately, JX himself responded to the case in the time it's taken me to write this, so I don't need to go all speculative (or at least type up all the speculation whirling through my head). I actually liked his answer. His explanation, while perhaps one that could be faked, gives him a couple of townie points in my eyes. It's the answer I was looking for when it popped up in the thread.
|
On January 23 2013 04:01 gonzaw wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 03:56 Toadesstern wrote:On January 23 2013 03:53 gonzaw wrote:On January 23 2013 03:47 DearestSnot wrote:
I don't understand the scum Oats motivation for pushing you, gonzaw. It seems almost suicidal to me.
In another game I had recently I was inclined to vote someone for calling me scum in a situation where he was under heby pressure. My gut said that he was town based on the unlikelihood of him being willing to call me out so hard when I was the deciding vote. I decided to stubbornly ignore my suspicion and the guy flipped town.
I just don't see what kind of scum would come to the conclusion that one of the mayoral candidates is scum and then proceed to attack the one who is most likely to put forth a strong backlash with a serious and solid response. But it doesn't make sense from a town perspective to be honest. Like....he instantly OMGUSes me back on D1, seemingly accusing me of being scum, but backtracks it for some reason (saying "This doesn't mean I think he's scum"). That felt out of the ordinary almost instantly, and didn't seem like a townie would post that at all. Now it seems to me he wanted to stay "consistent" with that. Since he already posted "some" suspicion on me, I would think it wouldn't be that "hard" for him to just keep up with it to the "extreme". Also I've had my fair share of scum just blatantly OMGUSing me and FoSing me for no reason in like, every single game I'm town I think you guys are attributing a little too much meaning to something that maybe doesn't matter at all. well yeah, maybe. Thing is we need one guy lynched tomorrow. I see no reason to lynch into those guys that have those kind of things that might or might not be worth something as a towntell. Doesn't have to be towntell, but why not just lynch the guy that doesn't have those aspects in the first place. Well, I prefer lynching scum over "some guys" But yeah, we obviously still have time, and night actions tonight can change a few things. But I don't want people assuming Oats is town for some weak reasons. Like if I die or even if scum go all in and Five gets killed, and Oats is scum, then you+wbg would basically just let him live all game long lynching into lurkers. Oh, I almost forgot about the double-lynch I guess it makes sense to have a double-lynch on D3. I have a feeling we'll waste some of it on "lurkers", but we could count it as a "town-powered vig shot", in addition to the regular lynch that day
oh no, I have 7 people down as "not town" in my sheet. Yellow being "might be mafia" and orange being "probably mafia" (and red being "KILL IT WITH FIRE" but that's only for confirmed mafias). Oats is still very much yellow, he's just not orange anymore like Annul and BKE are for me.
I would definitly say we just lynch/shoot those 7 people, starting with the two orange ones.
|
@grush I'm waiting on some explanation on that mason deal. Please enlighten me of your thought process when using that role.
|
Is BKE orange just for being AFK all game (but avoiding modkill/replacement, unlike Clarity)?
Did he even post this N1?
|
11589 Posts
On January 23 2013 04:11 sandroba wrote:
@grush I'm waiting on some explanation on that mason deal. Please enlighten me of your thought process when using that role.
I'm glad someone took notice of it.
|
On January 23 2013 04:11 gonzaw wrote:
Is BKE orange just for being AFK all game (but avoiding modkill/replacement, unlike Clarity)?
Did he even post this N1?
yeah he is. Clarity is actually green for me
|
Marshall Islands1474 Posts
On January 23 2013 03:53 gonzaw wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 03:47 DearestSnot wrote:
I don't understand the scum Oats motivation for pushing you, gonzaw. It seems almost suicidal to me.
In another game I had recently I was inclined to vote someone for calling me scum in a situation where he was under heby pressure. My gut said that he was town based on the unlikelihood of him being willing to call me out so hard when I was the deciding vote. I decided to stubbornly ignore my suspicion and the guy flipped town.
I just don't see what kind of scum would come to the conclusion that one of the mayoral candidates is scum and then proceed to attack the one who is most likely to put forth a strong backlash with a serious and solid response. But it doesn't make sense from a town perspective to be honest. Like....he instantly OMGUSes me back on D1, seemingly accusing me of being scum, but backtracks it for some reason (saying "This doesn't mean I think he's scum"). That felt out of the ordinary almost instantly, and didn't seem like a townie would post that at all. Now it seems to me he wanted to stay "consistent" with that. Since he already posted "some" suspicion on me, I would think it wouldn't be that "hard" for him to just keep up with it to the "extreme". Also I've had my fair share of scum just blatantly OMGUSing me and FoSing me for no reason in like, every single game I'm town I think you guys are attributing a little too much meaning to something that maybe doesn't matter at all.
This is correct. Most of what bugs has been posting tonight is simply incorrect. sandroba is calling things townie when there's no reason to do so, similar to how he called prplhz's posts genuine or sincere (...).
bugs has made two assertions in the last few hours:
1) mafia are unwilling to change their mind on someone as easily as town, used in conjunction with Oats' volte-face on his read on me.
2) mafia are unwilling to attack a stronger player with some influence, used in conjunction with Oats' case on gonzaw.
The problem is that 2 does not go with 1 if we're talking about Oats' attitude towards me on day 1. Oatsmaster attacked me early on when I was a random smurf calling him out as mafia, and then when it seemed clear that I was in a position of big influence, meekly backed down from his aggressive stance on me. This is in fact the polar opposite of 2.
What stance does bugs propose a mafia Oats takes on me during Day 1? If he keeps attacking me then he's attacking a strong player with influence, and mafia are unlikely to do this. If he turns his read around, mafia are less likely to do this than town. So whichever options Oatsmaster chooses, it's a town-tell in bugs' book.
Lazily applied heuristics.
|
Been partially keeping up with things today, can't fully do so until the evening.
Wavering back and forth on whether bodyguards should be outed. We have possible medics, possible jacks who could act as medics, and toad's sheriff power. Even if scum install two scum bodyguards, they can't be guaranteed to hit all three targets that would know the identity of the bodyguards. Moreover, if they fail to kill toad, there's the chance he masons someone tomorrow and is comfortable giving out the identities of the bodyguards to THAT player, and then killing FT/toad/sandro still doesn't hide the identities of the bodyguards if both are scum.
Just seems like "all-in" doesn't even describe how risky a play 2 scum bodyguards would be, because there's a decent chance you give up half your team for a SHOT at killing 3 players on N1.
That said, off the top of my head I don't see a ton of downside in giving out the names, because we hit mafia on D1 and protective roles could just as easily screw up mafia's ability to take out town bodyguards, except for Toad's jail.
Just as a side note, we're also almost guaranteed to out a mafia later in the game because of the mafia mason. I found it incredibly unlikely that you'd hold your mason power D1 if you/sand were scum Toad, and I also find it incredibly unlikely that ANY mason would hold that power. So it's likely that SOMEONE was contacted by the mafia mason during D1.
I don't think we need to force mason claims right now, but I remember mad men having some mafia masons get caught just because of their roles, and it's bound to happen here as well. Assuming we're already zeroing in on a list of a few players for tomorrow's lynch, if any of them masoned someone D1, the masonee should go ahead and out the mason if the masonee shares the general suspicion of that player.
/unrelatedspeculationoff
|
Oh hi, sandroba's mason post.
|
I actually reread annul's filter and I found some townie tidbits in it. If you are a vig please shoot into stutters/bke.
|
These aren't weak reasons. Oats didn't attack you, FT, for being a smurf. He attacked you for wanting to kill him. Plenty of people will do that regardless of their alignment.
Then, he said that despite your willingness to lynch him, you appeared town. How many mafia willingly say something like that? That's a knowing self-contradiction and it's a huge attention-drawing move. It's also incredibly honest and it takes a very transparent player to be able to admit that their attacker is town despite being wrong about their own alignment. How many noob scum do you see that do this? How many scum on the forum are even capable of doing that?
My opinion? Throw out all of the shit that oats did in response to the attack on him. It was far townier than what I'd expect scum to do, which is more in the line of what prpl did. He vaguely threw dirt on the case and simply lurked as a means to an end. I didn't find any particular anomaly with respect to Oats' activity nor his attitude. The reasoning you're using for him to attack you is flawed in my opinion. Townies under duress don't think initially of the calibre of their opponents, only the fact that they are wrong.
|
Marshall Islands1474 Posts
On January 23 2013 04:24 DearestSnot wrote:
These aren't weak reasons. Oats didn't attack you, FT, for being a smurf. He attacked you for wanting to kill him. Plenty of people will do that regardless of their alignment.
I didn't say this. He attacked me at the beginning of the game when my influence was least, and it wasn't even clear if I was a decent player or anything. What I'm getting at is that he attacked me while I was comparatively 'weak' and then backed off when I was 'strong'.
Then, he said that despite your willingness to lynch him, you appeared town. How many mafia willingly say something like that? That's a knowing self-contradiction and it's a huge attention-drawing move. It's also incredibly honest and it takes a very transparent player to be able to admit that their attacker is town despite being wrong about their own alignment. How many noob scum do you see that do this? How many scum on the forum are even capable of doing that?
Plenty? Not every single mafia calls their attacker mafia. It's much easier for mafia to call their attacker town than it is for a townie, because mafia know the guy is town, and a townie has no idea of the alignment of his attacker. From a mafia point of view, backing down from attacking me has obvious motive - basic survival. From a town point of view, his radical change is bizarre to say the least.
My opinion? Throw out all of the shit that oats did in response to the attack on him. It was far townier than what I'd expect scum to do, which is more in the line of what prpl did. He vaguely threw dirt on the case and simply lurked as a means to an end. I didn't find any particular anomaly with respect to Oats' activity nor his attitude. The reasoning you're using for him to attack you is flawed in my opinion. Townies under duress don't think initially of the calibre of their opponents, only the fact that they are wrong.
This is meaningless
|
wbg, what do you think of Oat's attack of me?
Disregard the "he's attacking a strong player that can backlash!" comment and focus on his actual points and what he is saying.
|
11589 Posts
Austin, I already outed Grush as mason.
Are people reading my filter?
|
11589 Posts
On January 23 2013 04:22 sandroba wrote:
I actually reread annul's filter and I found some townie tidbits in it. If you are a vig please shoot into stutters/bke.
Are you in support of the idea of lynching him tomorrow?
|
@palmar that's a bit of confirmation bias on your part. If you already think oats is mafia, yes, you can fit everything he posts into a mafia mindset, trying to explain how he is mafia in that situation. I really don't think we can tell for sure whether oats is mafia or not right now, because there are certain aspects of his posting that do feel a lot like a townie. My initial suspicion on Oats was based on when he called me out, I came back to the thread to answer him then posted something on JX, which he proceeded to ignore until Vivax brought it up. He then came up with a made up defense that looked bad.
Now if I set my mind on him thinking I'm scum I can see him ignoring my comment and being alarmed on someone ressurecting it afterwards, then defending my suspect based on his own bias. His subsequent posting look kinda townie as wbg pointed out, and I agree with his reasoning. Of course it's possible he is pretty good at scum and is faking all that, but I don't think it's likely, and at least we should chill a bit and check out subsequent behavior, especially regarding tomorrow's lynch.
|
On January 23 2013 04:41 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 04:22 sandroba wrote:
I actually reread annul's filter and I found some townie tidbits in it. If you are a vig please shoot into stutters/bke. Are you in support of the idea of lynching him tomorrow?
I want to see more of him, that's for sure. I wouldn't vote for him tomorrow given the other options.
|
11589 Posts
I think anything a person under suspicion does at night should be taken less seriously than something they do during the day with their actual vote with a lynch on the line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
