EPTWarbaby raised some questions for discussion. I already answered them,b ut you are more than welcome to have a go, might stimulate further points.
Newbie Mini Mafia XXXVII - Page 5
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
Warbaby raised some questions for discussion. I already answered them,b ut you are more than welcome to have a go, might stimulate further points. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
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 | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On February 11 2013 13:28 cDgCorazon wrote: 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. 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 !! | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On February 11 2013 13:41 warbaby wrote: 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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On February 11 2013 14:01 warbaby wrote: I won't claim my actual role right now (just that my alignment is not mafia rofl), but if we get to a point later (d2+) where others are considering claiming, I will not hesitate this time. Since we mass claiming alignment. My alignment is not mafia either rofl; is this what you meant by effective scum hunting? I thought you said you were going to take a break from posting anyways.... | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
I have no idea why he has made the references he did; its just odd play in general. I think the easiest approach is to, wait for warbaby explanation to corazon's valid points; and adjust pressure as necessary. I believe it is still bedtime for him; so hopefully some of the other inactives start contributing | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
I know u want revenge for me. But spending time trying to kick a guy when he is on the floor. I.e. prove something is dead when it is indeed dead.... reads to me as trying to contribute without contributing. Since u talking about lurkers. Can i assume ur in luv with geript? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On February 11 2013 20:45 warbaby wrote: How can I forget about my mislynch in 36 when within ten minutes of this game starting two people vote me for the same bullshit reasons I was miskynched for in 36? You guys are repeating your mistakes from 36, plain and simple. Maybe you're bad at mafia, and you're jealous that I actually tried to make contributions that could help town, instead of waving my dick around. I honestly don't give a shit anymore. Go ahead and mislynch me, so I can make fun of you all (again) in the obs qt. Maybe I'll even be named town MVP again (it's not hard with competition like this). I waited 8 hours for THAT... ##vote: warbaby I never seen a town player defend themselves so meekly early game.it shows complete lack of care. Logicial deduction. U must be scum. good find corazon. Perhaps i wad wrong with RNG | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
Way to go just calling everyone dumb. And u think u were a proponent of a pro-town friendly atmosphere. Ur last 3 posts are anything but that. Just cos u scum doesnt mean u have to be out of line like this.. Seriously. Esp when u called out corazon for this behaviour earlier. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On February 11 2013 20:59 warbaby wrote: I was trying to get Mocsta to shut up because he's an idiot and bad at this game (look at his play in the non-newbie games, it's atrocious and people have called him out for it). Firstly. U obviously have not read the games. What u say is simply not true. Secondly it is against rules to discuss ongoing games. Pls dont reference me in live games again.. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
I already explained why ur tells u think are pro town. Are actually null. Then u follow up by being derogatory towards everyone. Then Instead of attacking the case against u.. U go ad hominem by saying they have small minds... Seriously warbaby not impressed. My vote remains with this defense. Again ur not living up to what u promised. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
That is even worse than. By day1 i was essentially a confirmed town for the majority of players. This was proven by ppl posting their reads.. I was also onto the last remaining scum from day dot and was close to getting him to concede. If u gonna pretend to read a game. At least do it properly. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
In short:
As I said prior, I have not seen a townie defend himself in the manner you have chosen, in particular for Day1 where the most uncertainty resides. This is exacerbated by your claims of being MVP. Let us quickly go over your derogatory and ad-hominem comments one more time, because regardless of alignment I find it inexcusable. On February 11 2013 20:45 warbaby wrote: I honestly don't give a shit anymore. Go ahead and mislynch me, so I can make fun of you all (again) in the obs qt. Maybe I'll even be named town MVP again (it's not hard with competition like this). On February 11 2013 20:57 warbaby wrote: Are you fucking dense? ..... You must be fucking dense. On February 11 2013 20:59 warbaby wrote: I was trying to get Mocsta to shut up because he's an idiot and bad at this game On February 11 2013 21:31 warbaby wrote: I'm being condescending because it's mind boggling that people like Corazon would make the same mistake two games in a row. Just remember what I said to you before you went ad-hominem on me, and called me an idiot. On February 11 2013 13:50 Mocsta wrote: .... 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..... Your approach to me can be summed up by this quote. On February 11 2013 21:22 warbaby wrote: It pisses me off after I got named town MVP in my last game, I try to repeat my playstyle in the next game (in order to be useful to town!) and I get shit all over for it. I conclude with this reminder On February 11 2013 20:57 Mocsta wrote: I waited 8 hours for THAT... ##vote: warbaby I never seen a town player defend themselves so meekly early game.it shows complete lack of care. Logicial deduction. U must be scum. good find corazon. Perhaps i wad wrong with RNG | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
| ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On February 11 2013 23:33 glurio wrote: Posting a shitload of fluff, useless RNG and grammatics discussion isn't pro-town behaviour Mocsta. Then hopping on the easy lynch wagon after warbaby made those terrible posts? Let's start with that and don't post endlessly. While i agree with everyone that warbabys posts have been really horrible he basically did everything he shouldn't do (soft-blue claim, getting overly emotional, giving up, citing countless times hes town), i think we should really step back and take a look at the whole picture. (2) I think he would be much more cautious with his posts if he actually was scum. (1) I'd like everyone to look at mocstas filter. Does he do anything to seriously scumhunt? He asks questions in every direction, has people on his "watch" but this is the same as NMM XXXV, where he was infact the mafia gf. He picks the easiest target and highlights everything everyone already read. Sn0 didn't add anything useful with his arguably limited posting time, only talk about RNG and english grammatics. Useless but i'm sure he'll pick it up. Glurio, (1) why are you asking others to look into my filter? Heres a suggestion, if you dont like my play; look into my filter and fire away your concerns. I will be here for prob the next hour, so your welcome to talk to me whilst I am here (2) I was considering the "cautious" line of thought as well. But I dunno; when I was scum in NMM XXXV i was posting off-the-cuff and recklessly, and with high emotion. i think either alignment is capable of acting that way, so the high emotion is null. Its more to do with why he became highly emotional, for me that is more so leaning scum than town. I think a town player is confident in their role PM and has no need to be this hysterical, derogatory or ad-hominem so early. P.S. This is not NMM XXXV; and regardless is being played out completely different to that game. That game my play focused on flaming, this game my play is focused on expounding logic and reasoning. P.P.S. Fact: I have rolled Link Hogthrob - but won't say what this role is  That my role is a muppet already indicates the difference between this and NMM XXXV!! heheh | ||
| ||
