|
On February 11 2013 11:35 WaveofShadow wrote:You talk a lot, and it's not always useful. Clarified. Going to go eat and study. Will check on the thread every so often but I'm not expecting much activity for a while.
KK
I get the message I am not wanted. Enough people have said the same thing.
Fine, will abide by my "caveat"
See you guys in 12 hours.
|
@Sn0_man. If the English discussion/correction was irrelevant, why post it?
|
On February 11 2013 12:00 geript wrote:
@Sn0_man. If the English discussion/correction was irrelevant, why post it?
I don't understand why you are trying to discuss a little issue with someone who already said they were done posting for (their) night.
And your silly WB vote... If you think WB is scum, I'd love to hear an actual reason why other than your BS in your first post.
|
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 12:30 geript wrote:
I for one am fine with addition by subtraction.
Could you please clarify this for me? I'm confused on what you mean by this.
|
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 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
Geript,
sorry to pipe in, but I need to know if you just musing or being serious with intention.
I can not agree with always removing "detractors"
This game usually comes down to a choice between two guys: one is scum, one is bad town.
scum is making an effort to blend in, and using your criteria, we may be lynching bad town every time.
The net effect = Town Loss.
If I may paraphrase, I see nothing wrong with hunting lurkers, as yes, typically scum do reside there. However, when it comes to vote time, it must always be for the person we think has the HIGHEST chance to flip scum.
That does not necessarily imply "least qualitative additions"
Back to active lurking
|
Yay for active lurking!
I have to agree with Mocsta here, at the very least lurker removal D1 can be a useful strategy, but I can't say I'm in favor of removing those who are performing the bare minimum (read: have actual 'qualitative additions,' as geript put it) when there will be scum actively trying to disrupt our hunting efforts.
If it comes to pass that those who are performing the bare minimum ARE the scum who are detracting from our efforts, then that's another story, but I feel like we should be slightly more certain of this than a regular lurker lynch, and I would also argue that this kind of thing would have to happen after D1.
Once again, making my position very clear: if you are inactive or do not contribute to the hunt D1, then you are my target. Obviously the Day is still young but I expect more from my Town as the day progresses.
|
We still need to hear from:
9-Bit
Sevryn
Macheji
zarepath *
Mandalor *
* = expressed in pre-game that they would not be around at the start of D1
Start time was not a surprise; the non-* players should be posting soon please :D
|
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.
|
On February 11 2013 13:04 WaveofShadow wrote:
Yay for active lurking!
I have to agree with Mocsta here, at the very least lurker removal D1 can be a useful strategy, but I can't say I'm in favor of removing those who are performing the bare minimum (read: have actual 'qualitative additions,' as geript put it) when there will be scum actively trying to disrupt our hunting efforts.
If it comes to pass that those who are performing the bare minimum ARE the scum who are detracting from our efforts, then that's another story, but I feel like we should be slightly more certain of this than a regular lurker lynch, and I would also argue that this kind of thing would have to happen after D1.
Once again, making my position very clear: if you are inactive or do not contribute to the hunt D1, then you are my target. Obviously the Day is still young but I expect more from my Town as the day progresses.
So you are more likely to lean towards a "Lynch All Lurkers" position for D1?
If that is the case, I kind of disagree with this way of thinking. I think we should vote for the player who acts the scummiest.
This sums up my feelings about D1 lynches very well.
On February 11 2013 09:53 glurio wrote:
My take on policy lurker lynch is the same as always: scumread -> scummy lurker -> lurker.
I also like the soft town claim (I bolded it).
|
warbaby,
if I may come out of hibernation.
Thanks for the updated summary list.
So far, you are the guy I dont like the most and I am going to outline the reasons below.
#1 - In your entry you specified its direct from your last town game (i.e. soft claim for town)
If you want to re-use ice-breakers, do it... why specify its from your town game
#2 - Summary lists are an easy way to contribute, without contributing
All of us can easily do a filter click, off page1 + its pretty obvious we going through a USA/Europe vs Oceania shift
#3 - You even make comments alluding you to your "good ideas = town play" concept from your last game
Why are you trying SO SO hard to associate your self with being town?
The above is not worthy of a vote (yet), but I would appreciate your feedback to the above.
|
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.
Matey,
I have personally led several lynches against bad townies. I dunno what your playing history is, but will assume this is the first game.
Its really hard to tell the difference between bad townie & scum when you are confirmation biased.
Fact is, its night to sit on the high chair and blame the bad townie.. but really, we have to (at least partially) blame the lynch pusher, as quite often after a mislynch, you re-review the case material and go.. why the hell did i think this...
we have to be accountable for our actions; to me, that is a major constituent of high-level scum hunting.
|
On February 11 2013 13:28 cDgCorazon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:04 WaveofShadow wrote:
Yay for active lurking!
I have to agree with Mocsta here, at the very least lurker removal D1 can be a useful strategy, but I can't say I'm in favor of removing those who are performing the bare minimum (read: have actual 'qualitative additions,' as geript put it) when there will be scum actively trying to disrupt our hunting efforts.
If it comes to pass that those who are performing the bare minimum ARE the scum who are detracting from our efforts, then that's another story, but I feel like we should be slightly more certain of this than a regular lurker lynch, and I would also argue that this kind of thing would have to happen after D1.
Once again, making my position very clear: if you are inactive or do not contribute to the hunt D1, then you are my target. Obviously the Day is still young but I expect more from my Town as the day progresses. So you are more likely to lean towards a "Lynch All Lurkers" position for D1? If that is the case, I kind of disagree with this way of thinking. I think we should vote for the player who acts the scummiest. This sums up my feelings about D1 lynches very well. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:53 glurio wrote:
My take on policy lurker lynch is the same as always: scumread -> scummy lurker -> lurker.
I also like the soft town claim (I bolded it).
Lol.. nice pick up on the soft claim; phrased quite odd as well. Im not sure what to make of it, but it is not written naturally.
as for glurio, yes process is right in my opinion. Ironically, I think glurio is one of those guys who easily falls under the "lurker' category (at least based on his past 2 games). Hopefully this game he picks up the activity - it is not the weekend after all !!
|
On February 11 2013 13:28 cDgCorazon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:04 WaveofShadow wrote:
Yay for active lurking!
I have to agree with Mocsta here, at the very least lurker removal D1 can be a useful strategy, but I can't say I'm in favor of removing those who are performing the bare minimum (read: have actual 'qualitative additions,' as geript put it) when there will be scum actively trying to disrupt our hunting efforts.
If it comes to pass that those who are performing the bare minimum ARE the scum who are detracting from our efforts, then that's another story, but I feel like we should be slightly more certain of this than a regular lurker lynch, and I would also argue that this kind of thing would have to happen after D1.
Once again, making my position very clear: if you are inactive or do not contribute to the hunt D1, then you are my target. Obviously the Day is still young but I expect more from my Town as the day progresses. So you are more likely to lean towards a "Lynch All Lurkers" position for D1? If that is the case, I kind of disagree with this way of thinking. I think we should vote for the player who acts the scummiest. This sums up my feelings about D1 lynches very well. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:53 glurio wrote:
My take on policy lurker lynch is the same as always: scumread -> scummy lurker -> lurker.
I also like the soft town claim (I bolded it).
Put it this way: if there is an extremely strong scumread on someone that is nigh irrefutable, then great, I can get on board. Otherwise LAL, but as I said, we shall see how the day progresses.
Also regarding the soft claim (I feel I should address it) wouldn't I say the same thing if I were scum? 
|
On February 11 2013 13:30 Mocsta wrote:
warbaby,
if I may come out of hibernation.
Thanks for the updated summary list.
So far, you are the guy I dont like the most and I am going to outline the reasons below.
#1 - In your entry you specified its direct from your last town game (i.e. soft claim for town)
If you want to re-use ice-breakers, do it... why specify its from your town game
#2 - Summary lists are an easy way to contribute, without contributing
All of us can easily do a filter click, off page1 + its pretty obvious we going through a USA/Europe vs Oceania shift
#3 - You even make comments alluding you to your "good ideas = town play" concept from your last game
Why are you trying SO SO hard to associate your self with being town?
The above is not worthy of a vote (yet), but I would appreciate your feedback to the above.
So you have a problem with me claiming that I'm being pro-town? You clearly did not read the post-game analysis in '36. Claiming town is not a scummy thing to do. Would you prefer I claim scum? That's not possible since it would be suiciding as town (which is against town wincon) and suiciding as scum (which is against scum wincon).
I'm not trying to trick you into thinking I'm town. I had to defend myself against these ridiculous claims in '36, until I was finally mislynched for it.
Unlike you, I am not beating around the bush and posting a bunch of crap about RNG and whining about other people's efforts to promote a useful town environment. I'm listing lurkers because Corazon did it D1 in '36 and it was helpful. Corazon was town in '36 and so am I, right now, in '37.
|
On February 11 2013 13:37 WaveofShadow wrote:Also regarding the soft claim (I feel I should address it) wouldn't I say the same thing if I were scum?
Sorry, but, I cant even begin to fathom what you are implying with this? Please clarify, as it reads very WIFOM to me.
|
WaveOfShadow, this is not your town. It's not my town, and it's not Mocsta's town.
It is the town, and it's members shall think for themselves and analyze the thread before doing stupid things. Please.
|
On February 11 2013 13:41 warbaby wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:30 Mocsta wrote:
warbaby,
if I may come out of hibernation.
Thanks for the updated summary list.
So far, you are the guy I dont like the most and I am going to outline the reasons below.
#1 - In your entry you specified its direct from your last town game (i.e. soft claim for town)
If you want to re-use ice-breakers, do it... why specify its from your town game
#2 - Summary lists are an easy way to contribute, without contributing
All of us can easily do a filter click, off page1 + its pretty obvious we going through a USA/Europe vs Oceania shift
#3 - You even make comments alluding you to your "good ideas = town play" concept from your last game
Why are you trying SO SO hard to associate your self with being town?
The above is not worthy of a vote (yet), but I would appreciate your feedback to the above. So you have a problem with me claiming that I'm being pro-town? You clearly did not read the post-game analysis in '36. Claiming town is not a scummy thing to do. Would you prefer I claim scum? That's not possible since it would be suiciding as town (which is against town wincon) and suiciding as scum (which is against scum wincon). I'm not trying to trick you into thinking I'm town. I had to defend myself against these ridiculous claims in '36, until I was finally mislynched for it. Unlike you, I am not beating around the bush and posting a bunch of crap about RNG and whining about other people's efforts to promote a useful town environment. I'm listing lurkers because Corazon did it D1 in '36 and it was helpful. Corazon was town in '36 and so am I, right now, in '37.
Do you want me to think you are smart or dumb?
Do you want me to treat you as smart or dumb?
I wont insult you, I assume the answer to both is smart
Thus, an intelligent person is WELL-AWARE of their meta, and is WELL-AWARE of actions deemed pro-town in their town games. This is how I will choose to think/treat you.
Therefore, you saying, "town people did it last game"; if anything gives more credence towards suggesting it is scum motivated play.
If I decide to do an ice-breaker, its because I am trying to stimulate discussion or aid town. Not because I want to gain town cred to be perceived as pro-town.
And yes, claiming town is not a scummy thing to do.. Its about HOW you do it. And your method is what I deem subtle and almost subliminal.
warbaby, perhaps I am over-reading things; but when I last played scum, I did a very similar tact to yourself. Hence, I am a bit more aware of the cues to look out for.
The only tool I have to determine whether your motives are genuine/intentional is to call you out as I did. (aka. scum hunting)
Will let you know what I think, as you present more posts for me to digest.
|
On February 11 2013 13:41 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:37 WaveofShadow wrote:Also regarding the soft claim (I feel I should address it) wouldn't I say the same thing if I were scum? Sorry, but, I cant even begin to fathom what you are implying with this? Please clarify, as it reads very WIFOM to me.
I'm trying to say don't look too much into it. There are more important things to be done like scumhunt; determining as to my town alignment should become obvious by my future actions, not by my words.
On February 11 2013 13:44 warbaby wrote:
WaveOfShadow, this is not your town. It's not my town, and it's not Mocsta's town.
It is the town, and it's members shall think for themselves and analyze the thread before doing stupid things. Please.
Warbaby, this sure as hell is my town as I'm a part of it and I care about it. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm telling or leading people not to think for themselves or that I'm doing something stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
