EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XXXVII - Page 3
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
I'd point out that no one has really made a case against you at all. As far as I see it, your agenda has been to make the town atmosphere negative. Yes, it takes two to get into a flame war and I'm not giving war baby any credit avoiding those spats either. In the least Mocsta has shown that he's willing to listen, even though I think his vote for me is weak at best. You on the other hand have tunnel visioned on your target of the moment at each point. Scum hunting is fine and being aggressive is fine. But the belligerent tone you've taken at many points, especially over exceptionally minor things, isn't beneficial to the town. Rather, it seems to me like you want everyone to spend their time scrutinizing your target so that they avoid you entirely. Your "We haven't gotten scum day 1 lynching lurkers, so lets try a new tack" comment from a while back (would quote but still on phone) keeps on sounding like "Let's lynch a loud voice" to me. In my experience the louder voices are almost always town; I even think one of the guides says something similar. Now you're going to ask why I'm not voting for you (likely), but I still think that you're misguided right now and not an active dissident. So my vote remains in place for right now. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
Filtering now. And yes, WoS I saw your post but am finally home. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
Otherwise, if you have read my filter, then you would understand how I operate and where my thoughts are, where they have been and where they are going. If you think I haven't made adequate additions and won't be beneficial to the town, then voice that with your vote. It even appears that a few other people would be willing to join you. Also, could someone tell me what FoS means as I haven't seen that previously. As for sheep-able cases, I intend to address that during N1 as I will have adequate time to form a response. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On February 13 2013 10:07 warbaby wrote: One of the people that lynched glurio is scum. I refuse to believe 3 towns lynched him. We need to focus on: Sevryn Mocsta cdgCorazon And perhaps we can find a scum. It's fine if you guys still want to make cases on me, but I didn't just lynch a townie. Sorry but this is terrible reasoning. It's fine to try and hold people responsible for their vote; however, it equally could be said that people, like myself, who refused to move are responsible for allowing town to be lynched. Mislynches happen and are acceptable. Even if we agree that (exactly) one person on glurio is scum, the case you're proposing as of yet doesn't hold water. On February 13 2013 10:07 cDgCorazon wrote: Hey guess what, we didn't "lynch a loud voce" and he flipped town... And...? Mislynches happen. There is nothing unacceptable about a D1 mislynch. The best course of action is to go back and get to rereading and reanalyzing in anticipation of D2. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
As for sheep-able cases, in my mind they fall into one of two categories: the obvious and the policy. Obvious cases are either so strong in speech that there's no strong rebuttal or are accompanied other outside damning information. This ruleset seems far less likely to contain the latter imo. Policy lynches are lynches that people aren't likely to protest loudly, especially in newb games, as they tend to be generally accepted. Non-sheepable cases, imo, are cases in progress. Cases where there's still work to be done and the case isn't strong enough to stand on it's own. These type of cases can look scummy to join if you're just bandwagoning on. Overall in reviewing day 1, I don't think that there were any obvious or great cases. I'm going to try and work up two cases in a IID post. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On February 13 2013 09:23 cDgCorazon wrote: Lynching Glurio would go a long way in either proving or disproving my case towards WB. His town claim is even stupider than WB's as well. There's not much else to say. ##Vote: Glurio Ok, the only thing that I can think that helps prove Cora's case versus Warbaby is that if Glurio flips scum here, that makes Warbaby scummy as reading him worse than Sylencia or Sevyrn. I find that fair enough. But Cora goes a step further and notes that it also goes a long way to disproving his case versus Warbaby--which to me can only mean that if Glurio flips town then it makes Warbaby look better. But after the flip, On February 13 2013 10:22 cDgCorazon wrote: I'm still incensed that Warbaby did not get lynched. If his mistakes had come out later in D1, I'm hoping he would have been lynched. I've played a bunch of games of Mafia, and I still have yet to get a scum D1. I was hoping that the town would be up for doing something different, but I guess old habits never die. I'm not too happy I had to choose between two people who were basically playing the same game and not getting the support I needed behind my vote for my top scum read. But his previous comment makes no sense in light of still being frustrated about Warbaby not being lynching. Next, On February 12 2013 05:59 cDgCorazon wrote: Geript starts off by throwing a ridiculously silly vote out for Warbaby: The time for being silly was in the pre-game. It's over now. Take your votes seriously. Okay, that's all fine and good, but it makes no sense considering his actions at the end of the day... namely the point here. On February 13 2013 09:50 Sylencia wrote: ##Vote: Warbaby On February 13 2013 09:51 cDgCorazon wrote: Glurio, I've outlined my reasons why I'm not voting for WB, but still think he's scum. I would love to see WB get lynched today, but I know it's not going to happen. I have to choose between little things like your OMGUS vote and the fact that I'm not going to make the same vote as my top scumread... On February 13 2013 09:52 Mocsta wrote: Now it is obvious you aren't reading the thread cora and I, have been the proponents of warbaby all game. TOWN LYNCH THIS SCUM MUDAFARKER There's one vote on Warbaby; 3 votes at this point quite possibly could take it and, if not, there's still time to move to put another reasonable target over the top. So why not move his vote when he can get the person he wants to vote for and expressed such so voraciously. Remember, On February 13 2013 00:08 cDgCorazon wrote: I'm sticking to my guns. WB is going to be my vote. He's my scummiest read, and I'm trusting my gut feeling. and On February 13 2013 10:22 cDgCorazon wrote: I'm not too happy I had to choose between two people who were basically playing the same game and not getting the support I needed behind my vote for my top scum read. What's the real point in not staying consistent? On February 12 2013 14:38 cDgCorazon wrote: [/b]I want to try something different this game. If we keep LAL-ing we're not going to find scum. We haven't found scum D1 in a long time, so perhaps we should take a look at how we evaluate D1 in order to have a better chance of lynching scum (which would put them at a huge disadvantage if we could get one). We're never going to get better at Mafia unless we analyze what we are doing wrong and trying to make an effort to fix it. We can't just keep sitting here and say "Ok, we're gonna LAL. Cross your fingers everyone". I've said this before, but we need to have faith in our ability to find scum. I'm putting my confidence in scum-hunting into this vote. I think you should too (with whoever you think is scum). Additionally, he's been seemingly interested in lynching me; a point that WoS and Mocsta seemed in favor of. The only thing that I get from it is that he doesn't actually want to lynch any of his 'intended' targets now and intends to bring him up again later. On top of that there are other issues: On February 12 2013 14:12 Sn0_Man wrote: Warbaby: "All these damn lurkers. I can't even pick which one to lynch" Cora: "Warbaby you are so indecisive and won't stand on anything. no strong reads. That makes you scummy" Warbaby: "Fine. I think Sylencia is especially scummy. He is playing like he did last game he was scum" Cora: "OMG WB so retarded there are lots of other lurkers too. Picking one makes you scummy" ... I mean, it isn't like your points are wrong, but you are hammering him pretty unnecessarily. Browbeating people doesn't make them play better, and honestly how can you say that Warbaby is legit scum? Yeah he started off really poorly ("I was MVP last game bow to me. I WAS MVP OMG GUYS NOW I"M PLAYING MY META") but still, he has figured out that that was the wrong approach and has (in my eyes) cleared up some of the other issues with his play. I can see him as a townie who just can't find anything substantial to hang a case on. Its a realistic possibility. YES HE COULD BE SCUM TOO but it isn't like he has proved it anywhere that I've seen. I can point out numerous things to argue that Cora's actions haven't been conducive towards creating a positive town atmosphere, but I think this is the most telling for two reasons. One, it isn't me pointing any of this out in this post. Second and more importantly, I'm going to repeat the key quote: On February 12 2013 14:12 Sn0_Man wrote: and honestly how can you say that Warbaby is legit scum? This sums up the entire reason Cora's been on this kick. At least I can understand where's he's coming from on his posts toward me, but it's obvious that even Cora doesn't think his case versus Warbaby is that good. He's willing to pull off of Warbaby pre-deadline, then revotes him, then shifts off. He has the chance to form a 3 vote majority, but doesn't. Why? Cora doesn't think he's made his case. He doesn't think that his case against Warbaby is defensible. He doesn't want to take the credit/blame for if/when Warbaby flips town. One last quote: On February 12 2013 14:25 Sn0_Man wrote: I'm saying you are pressuring him for something, so when he tries to fix that by doing the opposite you pressure him for that thing instead. It smacks of last game really. I'm not saying he isn't scummy (again, much like last game). I legitimately am OK with day-1 mislynches. They generate lots of information and are a tool town can use to cull the useless members. Addition by subtraction and all that. Sure, I'd *love* to hit scum day 1 but sometimes I feel like removing active voices from the game just makes it easier for scum to glide like last game where Slay/Glurio posted essentially nothing and got away freely while cases were thrown at everybody who dared open their mouth and actually post a semi-intelligent thought. The fact that our blue roles bailed us out last game doesn't mean that the town atmosphere wasn't very scum-favoured for quite a while. I'm not sure the risk of trying to hit scum by lynching contributors is worth it if the downside is basically silencing town if we are wrong. Establishing the expectation that posting content on a decently regular basis is required to avoid getting lynched goes a long way towards making scum slip. I mean, you played scum, you know how attractive it must be to just glide if town is actively trying to silence all the loud voices... Sn0_man and Mocsta: Please contrast Cora's play towards the end of 36 with his play now. Please evaluate the case. Mandalor: Please evaluate the case. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On February 14 2013 01:44 warbaby wrote: I sort of agree, but I also think Cora's play is less aggressive than last game. I'm going to look at all of his past games, and see if there is any pattern to the meta that's relevant here. Geript's case on Cora does strike me as a little bit odd, the way it relies on comments by WoS, Mocsta, and Sn0, and not just Corazon's actions and posts on their own. If by WoS you mean Sylencia, then I guess? But the Mocsta and Syl quotes are only to prove that there was enough of a desire to lynch warbaby. My points can be summed as: 1. Cora showed interest in lynching active-blendy > LAL or scum read > lurker (dependent on how you look at it) 2. Cora 'wanted' to vote for warbaby (or secondarily myself) 3. Cora by his own admission has Glurio's flip either make or break the case vs warbaby 4. There clearly was enough votes willing to put a lead on either warbaby or myself. Synthesis: Cora's actions are not in consistent with either his policy preference or his "take your vote seriously" ideas. His unwillingness to vote warbaby means something which IMO is that he doesn't want to get blamed for a bad case and town/flip. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
WoS extended: WoS claims to have a strong scum read on glurio at two different points... still refuses to vote for him. Thinks there's a 50/50 shot of hitting scum between Glurio/Sevryn. Votes for neither and instead goes for a 25% chance. Claims to have strong reads on Sevryn being scum. Admits his scum reads haven't changed since earlier. Admits that his scum reads were not strong and would likely have been destroyed. Additionally, he tries to associate himself with Mocsta to gain town cred So far as I see it, WoS does not want to take credit for any negative actions. Not willing to risk having attention drawn to him. Wants to associate with positively viewed actions. Sorry, I have to be heading to work and can't quote it as I'd like. I'll expound on this more later if I can. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
| ||
