|
On February 13 2013 02:34 geript wrote:
I think the real question is that if Zare's initial post was fake, why wouldn't s/he re-evaluate it before removing the vote off you? Making a fake case is perfectly fine and has it's uses at points imo. But being fake doesn't mean that the case has no value.
Because his actions read town. I think Mocsta explained it pretty well, actually, when he contrasted his response to your response to being attacked. And since then he's been pretty active in scum hunting. I'll certainly still look at him, but he's not on my current radar.
|
That's a fair point, Sn0_man. There is still time for lurkers to post more, so we can re-evaluate our opinions on them. But I do feel like Mandalor (and sevryn) showed a bit more effort in their posts than Sylencia, so far. Maybe it's just a gut feeling.
I definitely will pay more attention to the active posters later, especially their actions during the critical late-day period. But currently I'm still more interested in the lurkers.
|
On February 13 2013 02:36 Sn0_Man wrote:
Regarding Mandalor, voting a lurker with more than a day left to lynch is a safe vote, not a pressure vote. Its a "well now that my vote is down I can go back to hiding and only change it if I need to" kind of vote. Admitting that it is a "pressure vote" also defeats the purpose (as Sylencia has pointed out). Town care about their votes, as votes are (generally) the only power they have. Scum want their votes to give away as little information as possible, to cheapen the very concept of a vote. It should be decently clear which of those two things random "pressure votes" are. Including some of the ones you have thrown around too.
Yes, but you're speaking more to the effectiveness of his actions than to the inherent scumminess of them.
|
On February 13 2013 02:46 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 02:38 glurio wrote:On February 13 2013 00:57 zarepath wrote:
glurio, who are your top scum reads right now? Mandalor i'd like to hear more from. Sevryn might be scum making a terrible case on me voting and hoping for a wagon. Other than that i have nothing right now. I can understand how a town would feel like this as well, but as I recall one of the hallmarks of newer scum is an inability to make cases due to knowing everybody's alignment (and of course not wishing to bus the real scum). Plus glurio has kept his post/contribution levels quite low (although admittedly if he doesn't have any leads then posting doesn't make a ton of sense). At least there is much less sheep in his play this game compared to last. Again though, that could definitely be a meta update based on the results of last game.
Well i feel like you are really tunneling me. Nothing i'll do will please you. If i post less, i'm scum, if i get more active i changed my meta, still scum. What do you want from me?
Right now i try to ask questions in mandalors direction. If he simply doesn't answer and does not give me anything to work with i really can't make a case on him right now.
|
I'm sorry if you feel tunnelled glurio. I'm not targetting you in particular, merely those who aren't really contributing. Inconveniently, you are still on your first page of filter. I appreciate the fact that you took the time and made a real case post, and I appreciate the fact that you looked at your case objectively and evaluated people's responses to it accordingly.
However, last game you avoided suspicion by: low number of posts, no real commitment to lynching any one person, and sheeping others. This game, you have a low number of posts and no real commitment to lynching any one person. The sheep is mostly gone, which I again think is a point in your favour, but I don't wish for people to let you off the hook based on just that point.
Basically, I want more posts. I'd like activity, and activity will allow me to read you based on what you say instead of what you don't say. More activity won't get you a free ride, but it will save you from my current interest in lynching those who don't contribute.
Again, sorry if you feel like you are in the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position, because that isn't what I'm trying to do to you. I just want posts that keep the game moving. As I previously mentioned, it is your responsibility to differentiate your play this game from your scum play last game. And in a meaningful, convincing manner.
|
Zare, IIRC (on phone) Mocsta contrasted Warbaby and WoS. My point is a simple one: if I can be put on blast for 'setting up' sheep able cases for which I can put the blame on other people then I at least get credit for interest in having cases be made and heading towards the scum hunt. Can you honestly see anything in his filter that shows interest in more than having votes moved off of him and not making actual contributions to the scum hunt?
|
On February 13 2013 03:00 geript wrote:
Zare, IIRC (on phone) Mocsta contrasted Warbaby and WoS. My point is a simple one: if I can be put on blast for 'setting up' sheep able cases for which I can put the blame on other people then I at least get credit for interest in having cases be made and heading towards the scum hunt. Can you honestly see anything in his filter that shows interest in more than having votes moved off of him and not making actual contributions to the scum hunt?
I really don't want to waste time defending myself again so I'll keep it short.
On February 12 2013 05:52 WaveofShadow wrote: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. I don't really expect my name to be cleared by my defense; I essentially deserve the accusations against me due to shitposting. All I can hope for is for people to stop looking in the wrong direction as scumreads become stronger and I prove myself. Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 05:48 zarepath wrote:
I think it's telling that your main defense for each of my points was "I immediately regretted it" or "I now come to regret it." You say that you are bad town, but that is exactly how mafia want to be seen.
I also see your very committal vote onto someone who hasn't even posted yet. My vote remains and we'll see how the rest of the day unfolds. Fair. Now I've been looking at Sylencia's filter and he was one of the only people who came up with the best reason to turn down an RNG lynch (it mathematically favours scum) and performs and interesting analysis on warbaby's blue/maybe-not-blue claim but has contributed absolutely nothing else, short of a weak noncomittal accusation of warbaby. I was interested by his analysis though, and I'd like to see some more from him.
My very first post after my admittedly shitty defense (which apparently worked, despite people pointing out otherwise, since people got off my back, except for you, of course).
I accept my mistakes and only wish to move on, starting with the first post regarding Sylencia almost a full 24 hours ago. How is this not moving the scum hunt along, exactly?
Since then I make a couple cases regarding glurio and warbaby and you choose to dump on one of them, fine. If you're so worried about contribution, however, where is yours? You only re-evaluate my case at my behest and have accomplished nothing else all day other than claiming WB is town.
How is THIS moving the scumhunt along, exactly?
The only person I directly talked to regarding the vote on me was you. I never pleaded or asked either you or Zare to change your votes; he did it on his own. You're welcome to keep your vote on me for the day but it will be wasted.
I was fairly confident before Zare made his triumphant return that I would not be lynched D1 and now I am even more confident.
|
You're right, it was warbaby, not you.
But I'm pretty sure he went out of his way to talk about several people that weren't already bieng talked about. Will check the filter again while I check everyone else's, but I think you're exaggerating and perhaps reading too much into it.
And here's a question -- what is a non-sheepable case? It's not something I've thought about before and apparently people are talking about sheepable cases. What's the difference?
|
@Warbaby
Who is playing more similarly to when they were scum: Sylencia or Glurio?
|
On February 13 2013 03:49 cDgCorazon wrote:
@Warbaby
Who is playing more similarly to when they were scum: Sylencia or Glurio?
I'm also interested in hearing this from zarepath since he has played against both of them when they were scum (in different games OFC).
|
I'll address that when I get home Zarek and am not on phone.
|
Then I'll open it up to anyone. Feel free to answer it.
|
On February 13 2013 02:36 Sn0_Man wrote:
Regarding Mandalor, voting a lurker with more than a day left to lynch is a safe vote, not a pressure vote. Its a "well now that my vote is down I can go back to hiding and only change it if I need to" kind of vote. Admitting that it is a "pressure vote" also defeats the purpose (as Sylencia has pointed out). Town care about their votes, as votes are (generally) the only power they have. Scum want their votes to give away as little information as possible, to cheapen the very concept of a vote. It should be decently clear which of those two things random "pressure votes" are. Including some of the ones you have thrown around too.
If you didn't feel like my vote is a "safe vote" and attacked me for it, I would've never said that its purpose is to pressure lurkers. If you have a problem with the vote itself, fine. But when you ask me about or attack me because of it, I'm gonna have to give an honest response.
Pressure voting is totally fine and a decent power, but here it is you who defeated its purpose.
##unvote
|
On February 13 2013 03:49 cDgCorazon wrote:
@Warbaby
Who is playing more similarly to when they were scum: Sylencia or Glurio?
It's hard to call. Probably sylencia -- his first 24-48 hours of XXXIV (as scum) seem pretty similar to his behavior so far in this game. I see what you're saying about glurio, I'll keep it in mind.
|
![[image loading]](https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net/profile_images/2752616335/4b3ae0f60a4556ba1b2b4088d779492b_normal.jpeg) Count Vote:
WaveofShadow (1): geript
Macheji (1): WaveofShadow
geript (1): Mocsta
warbaby (1): cDgCorazon
glurio (1): Sevryn
Sylencia (1): warbaby
Not Voting (7): 9-BiT, Sn0_Man, Macheji, glurio, Sylencia, zarepath, Mandalor
Currently, WaveofShadow is set to be lynched! (due to tiebreakers)
~6 hours remaining until deadline.
Remember you have to vote!
|
I don't know much about Sylencia but from glurio's previous NMM game which I was half-obsing he lurked the hell out of D1 and a little less D2, weakly mentioned fellow scum when talking about reads but eventually just aggressively tunnelvisioned when accused himself.
Probably better someone like Sn0/WB/Zare to answer this though, since they actually played the last game with him.
|
On February 13 2013 04:01 Mandalor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 02:36 Sn0_Man wrote:
Regarding Mandalor, voting a lurker with more than a day left to lynch is a safe vote, not a pressure vote. Its a "well now that my vote is down I can go back to hiding and only change it if I need to" kind of vote. Admitting that it is a "pressure vote" also defeats the purpose (as Sylencia has pointed out). Town care about their votes, as votes are (generally) the only power they have. Scum want their votes to give away as little information as possible, to cheapen the very concept of a vote. It should be decently clear which of those two things random "pressure votes" are. Including some of the ones you have thrown around too.
If you didn't feel like my vote is a "safe vote" and attacked me for it, I would've never said that its purpose is to pressure lurkers. If you have a problem with the vote itself, fine. But when you ask me about or attack me because of it, I'm gonna have to give an honest response. Pressure voting is totally fine and a decent power, but here it is you who defeated its purpose. ##unvote
I get credit for single-handedly defeating the "pressure" vote on a no-posts player who is getting replaced in 6 hours? I'll take it.
I was under the impression I had explained the invalidity of attempting to pressure actual AFK players with votes, and how it cheapens the very concept of a vote down to something that we throw around.
Pressure votes are legitimate, but I expect them to be associated with a real case. And I expect some measure if intent-to-lynch behind them if the pressure reveals some cracks.
|
Pressure voting someone who clearly is not playing the game is a waste of your vote and an excuse to slink into the shadows, as Sn0 said. Why are you trying to pressure someone who is obviously not going to respond? It's a waste of time. People will make their first post without being pushed. Trying to push someone to make their first post is simply wasteful.
|
On February 13 2013 04:01 Mandalor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 02:36 Sn0_Man wrote:
Regarding Mandalor, voting a lurker with more than a day left to lynch is a safe vote, not a pressure vote. Its a "well now that my vote is down I can go back to hiding and only change it if I need to" kind of vote. Admitting that it is a "pressure vote" also defeats the purpose (as Sylencia has pointed out). Town care about their votes, as votes are (generally) the only power they have. Scum want their votes to give away as little information as possible, to cheapen the very concept of a vote. It should be decently clear which of those two things random "pressure votes" are. Including some of the ones you have thrown around too.
If you didn't feel like my vote is a "safe vote" and attacked me for it, I would've never said that its purpose is to pressure lurkers. If you have a problem with the vote itself, fine. But when you ask me about or attack me because of it, I'm gonna have to give an honest response. Pressure voting is totally fine and a decent power, but here it is you who defeated its purpose. ##unvote
Why cave so quickly when under such weak pressure? To me this looks like you found a quick out to change your vote to a 'better' target later on in the day.
|
EBWOP last paragraph: "... And I expect some measure of intent-to-lynch..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
