| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
On February 10 2013 15:50 Sn0_Man wrote: RNG is a terrible idea. Not voting for it no matter what I roll. People in favour of it (after role pms are sent out) are scummy in my eyes. | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
| ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
 Oh well. I blame host starting 1/2 hour early. In other news, RNG lynch is still retarded and thankfully everybody with a brain has said no to it. I'd prefer if we avoided discussing it further. Looking forward to hearing introductory posts from everybody. Mocsta: I certainly hope you can bring yourself to post differently from last newb game you were in. You are not off on the right foot. Side-note: Misspelling and attempts to impress with words that you don't actually understand don't earn brownie points, although I'll have to admit they are hardly scumtells. + Show Spoiler [bad english] + On February 11 2013 10:02 Mocsta wrote: How do you plan to build a case on scum, if you can't even succintly manifest your thoughts on RNG. | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
On February 11 2013 10:24 cDgCorazon wrote: Try not to be so offensive Mocsta... "succinctly" is not a word in the English language. And South Africa was colonized by the British for a long time so I'm pretty sure English is his first language... Most white South-Africans speak Afrikaans as their first language not english. I'm Canadian and not ESL. Mocsta's modus operandi is to be as offensive as possible. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell this is always scum-motivated (although from what I read of NMM 34 he posted the same way as town). Succinctly is english, succintly isn't. Amusingly, I appear to be the only person who can differentiate between the two. "Manifest", when used in its verb form, is not synonymous with "type", "say", or any other more accurate word you should have used. Irrelevant discussion of english aside, @Mocsta: being as openly aggresive as you are is NOT helping town. You don't need to establish your dominance every time you post. If you continue to purposefully inflame the emotions of others in ALL your arguments I will see that as scum motivated. | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
Cya tomorrow guys. | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
For what it's worth mocsta I think that you too are looking kinda similar to the last game I played with you (minus a key difference in a post a while back about lynching lurkers and scum vs bad town). And we know what that entails. What I really want are introductory posts from our remaining players 9-bit, severyn and macheji. Well, that and for warbaby to lose his victim card somewhere so that he stops playing it. | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
On February 12 2013 00:18 warbaby wrote: Your RNG idea wasn't even bad. We just needed to work it out in pre-game, and we failed. I was trying to support your ideas in pre-game, Mocsta (by pushing you to improve the idea). It's hard to say that the people who have voted me are scum, since they are making effort in their case (even if I personally think it's a stupid case). Sn0_man has not put in effort, he just made some noises about me and ditched out, without even an FoS. Is he egging on the bandwagon, and waiting to vote until it's a sure thing? As of the time you made this post, I hadn't even mentioned your name. Justification? | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
| ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
On February 12 2013 00:23 Mocsta wrote: Im asking for clarification here: Are you suggesting if warbaby is your strongest scum read, you will not vote him due to activity? Or am I misinterpreting? Day 1 boils down to lynching a lurker (unless blatant scum misplays). Warbaby is pretty far from actually slipping up enough to be called sure scum, so right now I want to remove the non-contributing members of our game. Note that last game both scum located themselves squarely in the lurker pool. The game before that... well that was a bit different. One scum was super-active (you) and the other two replaced out. I'm not saying I won't vote for warbaby, I'm saying we are very far from compelling evidence, and as such my plan currently is to vote a lurker. There is still a long time till first lynch so who knows who ends up being a low-value contributor (or what evidence may appear for certain lynches). | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
On February 12 2013 00:57 Mocsta wrote: I will stay up for 5 min. Sorry what does that even mean? +1 | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
Regarding the WaveOfShadow case, I see some merit there but I'm still not here to lynch posting players unless more comes up. I agree with Mandalor about what part of the case is compelling. Unprompted soft AND hard town claims with some fairly stupid follow up excuses. | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
On February 12 2013 01:29 warbaby wrote: Good question sevryn. I suppose because more than 1 vote could pressure him more to actually post? No chance. As somebody who lurked (actually AFK'd) a day 1, I can assure you that multiple votes doesn't change anything. the first one may spark a comment if he is actually lurking, but my money is on "still haven't really checked/caught up with the thread yet". IMO spreading the pressure is more effective (ONLY ON LURKERS). On February 12 2013 01:29 warbaby wrote: The point is to lynch lurkers, not just vote for them. But we're also pretty far from the deadline. No, the point is to get lurkers to be active. Failing that, to lynch them yes, but right now in happyland nobody would lurk and we would have free reign to lynch our best scumreads. Shouldn't really do that with lurkers floating around (see: last game). | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
On February 12 2013 01:38 Sevryn wrote: there is a pretty good chance a townie is scum I'm assuming this was just a horrible mixup of words? Because this doesn't look good for you... | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
On February 12 2013 01:39 zarepath wrote: That's the thing -- he's not posting anymore. If you expect EVERYBODY to respond inside 11 hours then you might be disappointed. If I had to guess, he posted that, went to bed fairly shortly after, then woke up this morning and went to work/school. He'll get back to us with about 24-26 hours left to lynch. This is educated guessing based on both of us living in Canada (so I have a rough idea of his timezone). Not everybody can play from work or w/e. | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
| ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
At the start of the game (utterly disregarding pre-game), geript leads with some lighthearted banter-style posts, pretty much continuing the pre-game: + Show Spoiler [Fluff Posts] + On February 11 2013 09:38 geript wrote: /confirm /this time for realz Both geript and warbaby are self admitted to be terrible. In the interest in addition through subtraction, I suggest people make an argument as to which is better to keep. ##vote warbaby On February 11 2013 09:47 geript wrote: @Warbaby, did Mr. Bimble tell you to post that? That out of the way, geript proceeds with some "content" posts. These are short posts that seem primarily aimed at, well, establishing a non-fluff presence in town. They seem pretty null to me. + Show Spoiler [warning: this one is decently large] + On February 11 2013 09:51 geript wrote: Mocsta: four people one way or another have responded in the negatory to RNG vote. That in the least is enough to negate the usefulness of RNG vote. Please cease your discussion of RNG as it is more likely to be a waste of time (both posting and rereading) at this point. On February 11 2013 09:58 geript wrote: @Cora can we please keep the tone constructive. Turning people directly towards an emotional response is worthless right now. @Mcosta please reread my post. I did not say it was a majority at all, just that it was enough to negate any perceived value of RNG. On February 11 2013 10:29 geript wrote: My point was thus: should everyone else adhere to RNG, 4 votes represents a voting majority in most cases. This it is better to ignore RNG as the benefits it has/may have (dependent on viewpoint) are negated by an outside majority. /done with talking about RNG. On February 11 2013 12:00 geript wrote: @Sn0_man. If the English discussion/correction was irrelevant, why post it? On February 11 2013 12:30 geript wrote: I find it to be a rhetorical question in that things irrelevant to the game aren't worth discussing. My WB vote is just an opening I wanted to try out that got outpaced by RNG. I for one am fine with addition by subtraction as a policy as I feel it is the basis for both the Lynch All Lurkers policy--in that lurkers add little to nothing-- and is the basis of scum hunting--in that they tend to actively try to detract from discussion through inaction, burying and misdirection. On February 11 2013 12:46 geript wrote: I mean that the general concept of it: make the town better by removing the person(s) with the least qualitative additions. We are either removing detractors (thus net gain) or removing scum (actual gain). ## change vote unvote On February 11 2013 13:22 geript wrote: I would argue that removing room to hide is important as it forces scum to constantly be better than the guy in last place. If scum can in fact beat the curve so to speak, then it's the bottom end's fault for not making their role/side clear. I wouldn't blame to top end for voting out scummiest/least town-like in that case. I would argue least qualitative = least town-like; note that's qualitative not quantitative. Bare minimum does not automatically equal least qualitative. Having established his interest in "Addition by Subtraction" (a legitimate idea, though poorly explained), he moves on to his one big post (also his first post today). + Show Spoiler [Geript's big post] + On February 12 2013 01:11 geript wrote: I do think warbaby is town. On points 1 and 2: While this is a newbie game, I don't think that taking his townie claim or referencing 36 as anything other than a null read. Sorry, but I'm not seeing the point you're making in 4 either. As I read: more as trying to get the town as a whole involved rather than have Mcosta posting incessantly as he has been. While I agree on point 3, that warbaby hasn't really partaken in scum hunting, I don't think that this is a good measure of town v scum 6 hours into D1. To be honest, your case feels more like a gag. My concern would moreso be Mocsta. 1. He seems unconcerned as to who to throw towards the vote While some may read it as him aggressively trying to test the town, I read his posts and various switches and tests as just trying to see where he can gain traction. As well, he jumps on the first person having any real traction. 2. He doesn't even read his own posts First, he calls Warbaby's generic opening scummy when it's null at best. Next he tacks on his own important notes, and finally he calls Warbaby's initial post null. 3. He has diarrhea of the keyboard Additionally, he brings ups the post consolidation point which he actively avoids. Here he's accusing me, in effect, of running for mayor all while pushing his RNG agenda heavily. Blames warbaby for coming back to post 2 times after 'taking a break' when Mocsta has posted 8. At best, all this comes off as unintentional bad play. At worst it's an overexcited scum player. I find the latter more believable and either way I feel better about lynching him currently than lynching a lurker. A few things to highlight in the post above: 1) A town read on warbaby. While he gives OK reasons for a null read, I didn't really see any justification for "I do think warbaby is town". 2) A target that is distinctly not "addition by subtraction" based. Mocsta isn't a low-content poster. Sure most of his posts are bleh but at least he is making them. 3) Most of geript's points are based on ad-hominem attacks on mocsta and his style rather than on his play and contributions. I mean, I don't like Mocsta or his style either, but I think this game he has begun making real contributions to town. Rather than outline stuff that is scummy, geript is focusing on more peripheral stuff. Basically, I thought that yesterday, geript said a bunch of nothing while trying to look active, then today he made a big bullshit case trying to look like he was contributing. Not really clear scum, but not enough good things to deserve the easy ride he has had. I'm not voting him because I don't see the value in voting 30+ hours pre-deadline, and I thing "FoS"s are retarded, but I will say that geript has my attention. PS: geript's entire filter is in there minus his most recent fluff post. just btw. | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
On February 12 2013 02:32 Dandel Ion wrote: 9-BiT (1): Mandalor warbaby (1): Mocsta WaveofShadow (1): zarepath Not Voting (10): cDgCorazon, 9-BiT, Sevryn, WaveofShadow, Sn0_Man, Macheji, glurio, geript, Sylencia, warbaby Currently, 9-bit is set to be lynched! (due to tiebreakers) Hmmm, those tiebreakers seem wrong. On January 28 2013 09:37 Acrofales wrote: In the event of a tie the person with the most votes first wins (or loses). Now, this is open for interpretation, but Warbaby had 2 votes before 9-bit had 2 votes, nobody has ever had 3, and warbaby's existing vote is older than 9-bit's correct? Pretty irrelevant I guess but I'd like to have a good understanding of how tiebreaks will work in this particular game. | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
Even with your proposed clause, the rules aren't ironclad. I do understand how you are interpreting them, but still... seems wrong. On February 12 2013 02:48 Dandel Ion wrote: [blue] warbaby had 2 votes at some point, but got down to one. AFTER that 9-bit accumulated two. On January 28 2013 09:37 Acrofales wrote: In the event of a tie the person with the most votes first wins (or loses). Warbaby undeniably had "the most votes first". If we stick with your interpretation I'd like to see the OP changed | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
2 Admittedly, he was willing to toss some suspicion at mocsta but it was pretty weak and anybody could have pulled it off. Somebody who is obviously interested and invested in the game with exactly 2 posts is scummier than the 3 lurkers with 0 posts IMO (who as I said earlier may not have even read the thread yet). | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
On February 12 2013 04:57 geript wrote: @sn0_man What do you think are Mocsta's town contributions? What are the 'scummy things' Mocsta has done that you think I'm avoiding? Thats a long-ass filter you just asked me to read. The short version: He made a post a while back about the difference between lynching bad town and scum, which was spot on and actually was quite opposite of what scum would be telling noobs. Plus I think that he could easily have gotten away with a much more deceptive, scum motivated theory that I don't think town would have properly analysed. Plus he has avoided making super-ultra-ridiculously BS cases (something he did a lot of last time I played with him). It isn't that I have a strong town read, but I'm definitely leaning town here. Plus I still want to lynch a lurker today and slim this down to a game where everybody is contributing. BTW Glurio is squarely on my list of lurkers right now at 2 posts (no better than the 0-posters). | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games summit1g10820 shahzam1945 ViBE225 Maynarde133 WinterStarcraft118 NeuroSwarm91 Livibee80 RuFF_SC257 JuggernautJason25 |
|
Wardi Open
OSC
Stormgate Nexus
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
