|
On February 12 2013 07:48 cDgCorazon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 07:23 WaveofShadow wrote:On February 12 2013 07:12 glurio wrote:
So wait i posted when i had time, RL kicks in and i'm suddenly lurking? Sorry but sometimes shit comes up which really doesn't allow me to be here 24/7 even midday.
sn0: So wait i was scum last game and lurked and town the game before and lurked, how is it you only point out the scum game?
I'll have some more stuff to finish, after that expect my case on sn0. And no it's no OMGUS. Glad to be hearing from you, glurio. The strength of your case will essentially decide for me whether or not I should bother keeping my eye on you for D1, so make it a good one. Also interested to see how you're going to avoid OMGUS since I'm pretty sure Sn0 has avoided any suspicion thus far. (Except maybe WB early?) Also what are people's stances on lurker lynching re: 'semi-active' lurking v complete lurking? Those that fall into the first category being glurio and Sylencia (though I'm debating adding Sevryn to that list. Sevryn shares my stances on lurkers it seems though hasn't committed to anything or laid any cases down.) The second category being 9-bit and Macheji. As of now I'm still sticking with lynch of second category being more useful but those in the first had better contribute more than they have. Where does Mandalor fit into this? It's funny how he makes a post saying that at least one lurker has been scum over past games and yet decides to lurk himself...
I was debating adding Mandalor to my list despite his FoS on me since he seems to have the right idea, but you're right. It's been almost 24 hours and we need to see more from him as well if he doesn't want to be included in his own definitions of lurking.
|
Mandalor, after a quick review of the filter, is another low content, sheeptacular poster. "GOTTA PRESSURE LURKERS" -> safe vote on basically nobody (9-bit). Then a fairly safe sheepy FoS with a very weak "addition" to the case on him. Actually, I think mandalor's voting/posting was quite a bit townier the game we mislynched him day 1...
@mandalor you can feel free to invalidate this post. Even a "nuh-uh" post would at least indicate that you are around 
|
On February 12 2013 07:21 Sn0_Man wrote:
@Warbaby: Lynching a 0-poster is functionally a no-lynch (unless they get replaced, which I suppose is what happens in newb games). I'm happy with asking 0-posters to post, but people who demonstrate presence and ability to post and fail to demonstrate willingness to contribute are worth less to town than possible useful replacements.
Yeah, you're absolutely right. I've even thought the same thing myself before, I was just distracted when I posted earlier and didn't think first. Lynching the lowest post count player definitely makes more sense than a zero-post player, in absence of any convincing scum cases.
|
Almost at a desk to write my thoughts.
Sno will answer your syl q then. And update my scum reads
Guys im hesitant to spam walls of text. Do u want me to address geript case points?
I am more than happy to.
|
On February 12 2013 08:43 Mocsta wrote:
Almost at a desk to write my thoughts.
Sno will answer your syl q then. And update my scum reads
Guys im hesitant to spam walls of text. Do u want me to address geript case points?
I am more than happy to.
Please go ahead. Maybe if you have so much to say, try to condense it alot?
|
Let's take a look at sn0, shall we?
He has a total of 26 posts since the game started.
I'll now spoiler all posts with actual content that isn't discussing the english language or talking about lurkers. (Why i don't count these i'll explain later).
+ Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 00:19 Sn0_Man wrote:
Warbaby looks scummy, but I don't see how you lynch somebody this active day 1. FWIW he looked something like this last game (although he was doing a lot more "scumhunting" and a lot less "plz don't lynch me I townie for sure")
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.
+ Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 01:55 Sn0_Man wrote:
Personally, I think geript is getting a bit of a free ride with a bunch of low-content posts designed to look "active" without really helping town or pushing much of an agenda. Long post to follow once I finish it (be warned).
+ Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 02:21 Sn0_Man wrote:My review of geript: 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: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:54 warbaby wrote:
Since we've both posted plenty, how about we not post for a while? 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 Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:55 Mocsta wrote:
Post consolidation definitely important. No need to hear every thought. But this is no excuse for lurking either. Additionally, he brings ups the post consolidation point which he actively avoids. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:52 Mocsta wrote:
Did not realise 4 people represented a majority in this game.
Why dont you give others a chance to post their own thoughts instead of trying to forcefully influence them before they have spoken.
Are you trying for a dictatorship here or something? Here he's accusing me, in effect, of running for mayor all while pushing his RNG agenda heavily. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 14:15 Mocsta wrote:\
I thought you said you were going to take a break from posting anyways.... 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.
+ Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 05:12 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +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).
+ Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
@Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name.
Thats a total of 5 out of 26 If you include the one liner #2.
Now let's look at some of his posts. Heres one quoted for your convenience.
+ Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 05:12 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +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).
I bolded the odd part. Why wouldn't scum tell the town what exactly they should be looking for and just avoid exactly these things? Since Sn0 spotted the seemingly non-scum-motivated theory how come he thinks he wouldn't have spotted the much more deceptive scum-motivated theory?
On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
@Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name.
So I would up my game if i roll scum again, but i'm not so i'm a scummy lurker? What? That doesn't even make sense.
If I up my game now am i scum? If i won't i'm a scummy lurker? WIFOM
Now let's get to all the lurker posts, i won't quote them all, just read the filter it's most of his posts.
It's the easiest thing in the world to point to lurker. Be it the no-post lurker or the few-post lurker which, according to sn0, are actually worse then the no-post lurker.
Everyone can do it. I can just look into the thread every hour, post something about the guy with the lowest post count, tell everyone he only has X posts. After that i start pointing out the other lurkers, because hey don't forget about them. And then theres always the thing about recent games where at some point of the game one of the scum players lurked.
If you really want me to do that, it wouldn't be a problem, but i try to actually contribute something with my posts. Not bury my filter in useless posts about lurkers.
|
On February 12 2013 08:24 Sn0_Man wrote:Mandalor, after a quick review of the filter, is another low content, sheeptacular poster. "GOTTA PRESSURE LURKERS" -> safe vote on basically nobody (9-bit). Then a fairly safe sheepy FoS with a very weak "addition" to the case on him. Actually, I think mandalor's voting/posting was quite a bit townier the game we mislynched him day 1... @mandalor you can feel free to invalidate this post. Even a "nuh-uh" post would at least indicate that you are around
My vote on 9-Bit is not a "safe vote". It's a pressure vote. We have more than 24 hours to go - most people change their vote tons of times during such a long time period.
Honestly, I'm having trouble making good cases right now. I looked at glurio, but he was already mentioned. Sylencia is kind of in the same boat. I would LOVE to make a case on Mocsta, but while he always feels scummy to me, I just can't put a finger on it (and I was wrong about him in two of his past games where he was an all new category - "annoying town").
That's gonna have to be it for now. I'm off to bed - hopefully you guys give me some stuff to analyse tomorrow.
|
Currently at work - I can answer questions and make shallow comments about posts but I can't go too indepth with analysis at the moment (though this part has never really been a strong point of mine in these games)
1) I made my posts last night and the disappearance was me going to bed.
2) Everyone who has been posting about voting lurkers and outright saying it's a pressure vote is completely nullifying the effect of the pressure vote. The post above from Mandalor further shows how useless it is now - since it's stated that votes change so often anyways. Unless you're voting seriously for a lurker and plan to follow through with it, it's much better not to vote at all.
|
On February 12 2013 08:46 glurio wrote:Let's take a look at sn0, shall we? He has a total of 26 posts since the game started. I'll now spoiler all posts with actual content that isn't discussing the english language or talking about lurkers. (Why i don't count these i'll explain later). + Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 00:19 Sn0_Man wrote:
Warbaby looks scummy, but I don't see how you lynch somebody this active day 1. FWIW he looked something like this last game (although he was doing a lot more "scumhunting" and a lot less "plz don't lynch me I townie for sure")
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. On February 12 2013 01:55 Sn0_Man wrote:
Personally, I think geript is getting a bit of a free ride with a bunch of low-content posts designed to look "active" without really helping town or pushing much of an agenda. Long post to follow once I finish it (be warned). On February 12 2013 02:21 Sn0_Man wrote:My review of geript: 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: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:54 warbaby wrote:
Since we've both posted plenty, how about we not post for a while? 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 Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:55 Mocsta wrote:
Post consolidation definitely important. No need to hear every thought. But this is no excuse for lurking either. Additionally, he brings ups the post consolidation point which he actively avoids. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:52 Mocsta wrote:
Did not realise 4 people represented a majority in this game.
Why dont you give others a chance to post their own thoughts instead of trying to forcefully influence them before they have spoken.
Are you trying for a dictatorship here or something? Here he's accusing me, in effect, of running for mayor all while pushing his RNG agenda heavily. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 14:15 Mocsta wrote:\
I thought you said you were going to take a break from posting anyways.... 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. On February 12 2013 05:12 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +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). On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
@Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name. Thats a total of 5 out of 26 If you include the one liner #2. Now let's look at some of his posts. Heres one quoted for your convenience. + Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 05:12 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +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). I bolded the odd part. Why wouldn't scum tell the town what exactly they should be looking for and just avoid exactly these things? Since Sn0 spotted the seemingly non-scum-motivated theory how come he thinks he wouldn't have spotted the much more deceptive scum-motivated theory? Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
@Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name. So I would up my game if i roll scum again, but i'm not so i'm a scummy lurker? What? That doesn't even make sense. If I up my game now am i scum? If i won't i'm a scummy lurker? WIFOM Now let's get to all the lurker posts, i won't quote them all, just read the filter it's most of his posts. It's the easiest thing in the world to point to lurker. Be it the no-post lurker or the few-post lurker which, according to sn0, are actually worse then the no-post lurker. Everyone can do it. I can just look into the thread every hour, post something about the guy with the lowest post count, tell everyone he only has X posts. After that i start pointing out the other lurkers, because hey don't forget about them. And then theres always the thing about recent games where at some point of the game one of the scum players lurked. If you really want me to do that, it wouldn't be a problem, but i try to actually contribute something with my posts. Not bury my filter in useless posts about lurkers.
Honestly glurio, I don't think your case really holds water, I appreciate the analysis though.
You talk about how it's the easiest think in the world to point to a low or no-post lurker but you make a case about how only 5 of Sn0's posts are useful? Wouldn't that make him an active lurker?
Then you accuse him of WIFOM, and frankly I'm ready to just ignore all WIFOM cases brought up because it really gets us nowhere. More likely in this case to be a factor of bad town than scum (see my case as example). It looks as though his WIFOM was on accident and was really just looking for a way to paint you as scummy. This is null.
As for his lurker posts, maybe I'm biased because I agree with him somewhat, but I don't see how bringing up points about low post count lurkers is not contributing. If anything massive wall-of-text posts drawing attention away from important targets and baseless accusations are more likely to be distractions since they are more difficult to follow and require much more analysis. In short, I don't see anything overly scummy about Sn0's play so far, though I appreciate the effort. As this to me seems like a pretty weak case (didn't detect TOO much OMGUS but I guess it's a possibility?) I expect more from you, and preferably something a little more valuable.
With your claims that posting about lurkers are useless, will you be lynching an active poster today?
|
Mandalor and Sylencia it seems as though pressure works, doesn't it?
Waiting to hear something besides game theory from you, Sylencia. Mandalor has at least made a commitment which sits well with me, though I'd still like to see more from him eventually.
|
I resent any implication that my allusion to glurio's previous scum game is WIFOM.
My point is, having played scum he KNOWS what his scum play is and if he can't differentiate between his play now from his scum play then, well then that is going to look scummy. Furthermore, having had a "warmup" round as scum, I expect his second round of scum to be at least slightly more convincing. As such, in my mind there is a higher bar than just "some difference" between his previous game and this one. If the best he can do is one mildly less scummy post than last game, that doesn't really make me think of him as town.
At least him posting a nice big piece on me gives us something to work with. Given that he has contributed more than others now, I'll look to them for the time being.
|
That's a fair point Sn0_man. So who are the lurkiest players still?
Sylencia - Currently at work? promises to post more, posts appear reasonable, but not really moving discussion forward so far.
Mandalor - Few decent posts, nothing really interesting here, yet. Please do "put a finger" on scummy Mocsta, if you can. I can't without relying on meta wifom. Hope you have more time later to post more.
Zarepath - More decent posts, seems legitimately busy but puts effort into reading the thread and making a sensible case. Really not lurking, especially if he continues his current pace for the next 24h. Hardly lurkier than glurio.
Macheji - 0 posts, 24 hours in
I don't think we can accuse anyone else of lurking at this point? I'm actually still busy with work (overtime yay) so I may not be posting a whole bunch tonight.
|
Oh and obviously 9-bit, another zero-poster.
|
OK guys
Musing Overnight
(trying out new communication method, I know its still large but I am trying short points to communicate many items….please give me feedback if this works better)
- Warbaby follows status quo
- Geript employs chainsaw defense to protect warbaby
- Glurio follows through
- Lurkers are still an issue
- Waveofshadow effectively concedes
- WoS vs warbaby
- warbaby follows status quo
Warbaby basically follows who ever is giving him direction. Votes a lurker; then swaps to different lurkers etc.
@warbaby: copying others blatantly is not helping you; I want to see some original thought from you, that is not based on the pre-tense of your last game.
You can start by giving me your thoughts on Geript.
- Geript employs chainsaw defense to protect warbaby
- Chainsaw Defense: When person A attacks person B; person C defends person B by attacking credibility/personality of Person A (instead of attacking the argument). It is considered on average to be a major scum tell (as it is the natural inclination of scum to protect their buddies)
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..
Geript claims warbaby as town; yet says the actions are null at best Wat the?!?!?
He then proceeds to defend his “town” read, by diverting attention to the attacker (Mocsta) upon a foundation of OMGUS, character swipes and poor reasoning. Henceforth, the chainsaw defense criteria is satisfied.
Ask yourself, if you didn’t like warbaby case I see three options of approach
(1) Breakdown the case presented – and present flaws in logic
(2) Query warbaby for more information – to devine his alignment
(3) Attack the attacker
Clearly, (3) is the scummiest action of those three.
##Vote: Geript
- Glurio makes a post asking everyone to look into my filter; but also hints towards grievance with Sn0
- Follows through with Sn0; as of yet, I haven’t had a chance to read it in depth; but from first read, I am confused by the logic deductions.
@Glurio
This game isn’t about making cases for the sake of making cases. I find it odd, you come into the game; call out two people and instead of pressuring them for alignment-indicative information; you outright make a case (and one that is hard to read at best; and poorly written intentionally at worst)
With your track record, I want to treat this as bad townie. Your last town game, you lurked so hard, so with that meta, I am treating this “increase in effort” as a town attempt – for now.
- lurkers are still an issue
-I don’t think guys like 9-bit posts over night. This is a major problem, 24hrs and no post?
-Then guys like Sylencia have still not offered anything other than irrelevant RNG discussion; or summary information.
Sn0_Man wanted my thoughts on scum Sylencia.
Simple: Blendy as… just sits in the middle and says what you want to hear.
-Mandalor is interesting; starts off with lurking pushing. Which to me is NOT alignment indicative. Posts some statistics, which might be good for him to circle-jerk over, but again, doesn’t help town scum hunt; it just gives him purpose to pursue the lynch all lurkers. Pretty selfish play so far. I think there is much better reads out there, but have it on note to check in on him from time to time.
- WaveofShadow effectively concedes
- Guy effectively says, great posts I am going to struggle to refute…
Whats important to me, is that on Day1 (post 24hrs) there are two guys that majorly fucked up. (warbaby and WoS)
The question comes down to: are they both bad townie; are they both bad scum; or is one bad townie, one bad scum.
Look at the approach
warbaby
Does not address case criteria
Incites emotional arguments
Continues to flame people, even when they agree to back off
Just blindly follows others, once the heat is off.
WaveofShadow
Attempts to address case criteria
Blindly follows others (voting lurkers)
Puts some analysis into Glurio post
The key differentiator is that WoS admits the situation outright, and has tried to still contribute (some parts blind following, other parts on his own accord). Im reading WoS as pretty genuine right now; and am willing to put him at this stage as “bad townie”
Warbaby simply has done nothing to establish his innocence all game; My analysis and my gut is still telling me “first time scum”.
+ Show Spoiler [Breakdown of Geript case on Mocsta] +On February 12 2013 01:11 geript wrote:
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 #1 – Disagree. My discussions have been transparent, and I have been more than clear about my read and follow up pressure on warbaby. Secondly, I have been actively trying to review information from both sides of the fence to remove confirmation bias. If anything, that is a sign of a guy who “actually cares” about who he votes. #2 – I called warbabys posts null; I am starting to think it is you who is not reading MY posts. On February 11 2013 14:11 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:54 warbaby wrote:
My posts so far have either been suggesting ways town can play better (my first post) or helping town keep track of who's posted, and who hasn't. Action: "Suggest ways town can play better" Tell: "Null" Action: "summary list of postings" Tell: "Null"
Think long and hard before responding, if you want to counter and say that those actions are indeed pro-town. Anyone can do those actions; it comes down to whether genuinely trying to create a solid atmosphere; or trying to score easy town cred. That you want to cease discourse when we are finally getting somewhere, is disconcerting to say the least. The ball is in your court on how to proceed. #3 – Nice personal attack there On February 12 2013 01:11 geript wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:55 Mocsta wrote:
Post consolidation definitely important. No need to hear every thought. But this is no excuse for lurking either. Additionally, he brings ups the post consolidation point which he actively avoids. I haven’t been sharing every thought. People were engaging me for discussion. On February 12 2013 01:11 geript wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:52 Mocsta wrote:
Did not realise 4 people represented a majority in this game.
Why dont you give others a chance to post their own thoughts instead of trying to forcefully influence them before they have spoken.
Are you trying for a dictatorship here or something? Here he's accusing me, in effect, of running for mayor all while pushing his RNG agenda heavily. No, A mayor is a person who tries to coordinate town efforts. I am implying you think you speak for the town and do not bother to consult them. On February 12 2013 01:11 geript wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 14:15 Mocsta wrote:\
I thought you said you were going to take a break from posting anyways.... 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.
I have not witnessed one point in your “case” that indicates bad play, let alone scum play.
I finish with how I started.
This post reeks of chainsaw defense to protect warbaby, and is scummy as.
|
Sorry forgot to vote properly
##Unvote
##Vote: Geript
|
On February 12 2013 05:59 cDgCorazon wrote:He then goes and says that he thinks Warbaby is town (after voting him): Either he is scum trying to defend a townie (if he is scum he would know WB is town or not) to get towncred, defending his scum buddy, or I can't take him seriously.
Could you please explain this more to me? I feel like I'm missing something.
|
Mocsta, I've already commented on the noises people are making about your play. I don't think they make enough sense to call you scummy, yet.
Me vs WaveofShadow is a false dichotomy, Mocsta. What about sylencia? He could easily be a scum trying to blend in.
I can't seriously vote WaveofShadow when there are other people who have made very small contributions. I'm not commenting on the case against me any more at this point, except to maintain that I think it's fairly ridiculous.
|
Also Mocsta, I don't think geript is using a chainsaw defense for me, I think he's just trying to make a case against you. Your association here is pretty shaky, although not entirely unfounded.
|
![[image loading]](https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net/profile_images/2752616335/4b3ae0f60a4556ba1b2b4088d779492b_normal.jpeg) Count Vote:
WaveofShadow (2): zarepath, geript
9-BiT (1): Mandalor
Macheji (1): WaveofShadow
geript (1): Mocsta
Not Voting (8): cDgCorazon, 9-BiT, Sevryn, Sn0_Man, Macheji, glurio, Sylencia, warbaby
Currently, WaveofShadow is set to be lynched!
~a day remaining until deadline.
Remember you have to vote!
|
So 3 people have made a case against me, clearly I am not doing my job then. Grab your butts folks as defense is incoming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
