EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XXXVII - Page 25
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
warbaby
United States510 Posts
| ||
|
Sevryn
698 Posts
| ||
|
Mandalor
Germany2362 Posts
On February 12 2013 00:38 zarepath wrote: Sixth post, weird defensiveness against others addressing him: "Don't look too much into it." "Don't worry, don't read what I say, you'll know that I'm town soon enough, don't even bother thinking about me as mafia." What kind of townie says "don't analyze me in any way, please!"? Also, kind of overemphatic about his town-alignment claim here. I feel like this is the most interesting part of the case. "Don't look much into it". What is that? Townies should be comfortable with others analysing them. In fact, the more townies do that, the less scum will be able to sway them. I don't like his overly town attitude ("my town" etc.) and the fact that (apart from a few weak attacks on Mocsta), he didn't analyse anybody yet. ##FoS: WaveOfShadow | ||
|
warbaby
United States510 Posts
Does it make sense for us to all vote the same zero-post player, or spread out our anti-lurker votes among all the zero-post players? The point is to lynch lurkers, not just vote for them. But we're also pretty far from the deadline. | ||
|
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. | ||
|
warbaby
United States510 Posts
On February 12 2013 01:33 Sn0_Man wrote: I would have though it more kosher for you to target one of the other 2 lurkers, if nothing else. 2 lurkers with 1 vote each are not going to feel much pressure. Pressure only works if the person you're pressuring actually thinks there's a chance they're going to be lynched if they don't respond to the pressure. | ||
|
Sevryn
698 Posts
| ||
|
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). | ||
|
zarepath
United States1626 Posts
On February 12 2013 01:33 Sn0_Man wrote: Regarding the WaveOfShadow case, I see some merit there but I'm still not here to lynch posting players unless more comes up. That's the thing -- he's not posting anymore. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
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... | ||
|
warbaby
United States510 Posts
On February 12 2013 01:38 Sevryn wrote: yes but your only putting pressure on one lurker. and there is a pretty good chance a townie is scum so if you are going to pressure vote lurkers you should pressure vote all of them so they post and you can get a real read. any pressure vote now however is not going to be very effective because you came out and said it was just for pressure. LAL should not even be seriously considered until closer to the end of day 1 IMO when we will actually lynch the lurkers You're right, we shouldn't consolidate LAL votes until much closer to the deadline. But what is even the point of putting 1 vote on each lurker? It's not going to make them feel much pressure if there's (at that time) no chance of them actually being lynched. Anyway, you are right that we shouldn't consolidate now. I didn't think of that -- I'm trying to get work done today and I'm not paying 100% attention to the game right now (I work Mon-Fri 9-5 EST). ##Unvote Voting nobody for now. Still FoS WaveofShadow. | ||
|
Sevryn
698 Posts
| ||
|
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. | ||
|
Sevryn
698 Posts
| ||
|
zarepath
United States1626 Posts
| ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
| ||
|
zarepath
United States1626 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. | ||
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
![[image loading]](https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net/profile_images/2752616335/4b3ae0f60a4556ba1b2b4088d779492b_normal.jpeg) Count Vote: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) ~31.5 hours remaining until deadline. Remember you have to vote! | ||
| ||
