|
On February 12 2013 12:17 warbaby wrote:
9bit and macheji have 0 posts and will be replaced. No point lynching them
OK.
I will just say this:
I think that is a silly reason; ppl present these arguments all the time, and its very rare they do just drop out.
Look at Acid in NMM XXXV; had 0 posts, people present the modkill argument, and then he came in with a bang.
If your going to push lurkers; push them all please; otherwise I want genuine reasons why you are giving preferential treatment.
|
if you dont have a strong opinion; as far as I am concerned, that is the same as having no opinion
Im not sure why you are calling this out as a lie? seems pretty desperate to me.
|
On February 12 2013 12:38 warbaby wrote:
No, they are not the same. I am forming opinions, which will later become strong opinions as the game develops. You read my post, and then claimed I said something different. Therefore you lied about what I said.
I'm only saying you lied, not that you're scum. I think you're probably just impulsive, you simply have confirmation bias for me, so you twisted my words in your own mind, which isn't necessarily scummy (potentially just suboptimal town play).
This is an argument about matter of perspective, I dont think either is objectively wrong so bin it pls.
If you want my perspective it is as I said.
If you dont have an opinion you can share; then there is no opinion.
Saying you are forming means nothing; that is something we all are doing with every post we read.
In my head, i did no lie OR misrepresent your post.
|
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... on phone sorry for typo but i think this is important enough..
If i may step in. Both of u raise fair points.
Sno
it does read u are not giving full consideration to warbaby.
Cora
u approach warbaby as damned if u do. Damned if u dont.
Fact is we all want the same thing. Scum lynch day1 or infornation leading to scum lynch day2.
Now sno where your argument above becomes unstuck is the assumption warbaby is active.
Personally i dont think he is. Unless u measuring purely by filter size.
If u gauge by quality of contributions.. I am sorry to say.. But there is not much more in there than the low post lurkers. Heck even sevryn had the balls to bust in over the top of you guys and give an opinion. Whether right or wrong is more than what warbaby has done.
Also whilst warbaby has calmed down somewhat i am still finding him over emotional.
lastly. Sno. Can i pls have thoughts on geript and the chainsaw defense.
|
Cora agreed.
policy talk is meant to be a tool for discussion. Not something that is followed through becauseu get no informaion.
It like doing a night kill during the day.
Meant to rely on scum hunting
....or RNG hehe
|
On phone sorry if confused.
Yes i dont supporting policy lynch on lurker
Evaluating day1 play is scum hunting too in my mind because its about discussng refinement AND is an opportuntiny for those less confident in making cases to chip in and start thinking logically.
As long as evaluation doesnt stop pressure from occuring. Thumbs up from me
|
On February 12 2013 15:02 geript wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 14:53 Mocsta wrote:
Evaluating day1 play is scum hunting too in my mind because its about discussng refinement AND is an opportuntiny for those less confident in making cases to chip in and start thinking logically.
As long as evaluation doesnt stop pressure from occuring. Thumbs up from me Considering your and Cora's attitudes, I don't think either of you believe that at all.
Home now.
Umm.. how about instead of making witty quips; you expound on what you think is the issue at hand.
The attitude you are taking, serves nothing but to incite emotions.
|
On February 12 2013 15:03 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 14:41 Mocsta wrote:
lastly. Sno. Can i pls have thoughts on geript and the chainsaw defense.
You came up with a hilarious association based OMGUS accusation because everybody who questions you is clearly scum in your eyes? Okay thats a bit harsh. You've shown real difference (IMO) in your play this game compared to 35. Still, the fact that your defense against geript is "you are attacking me to clear warbaby" is a thinner defense than WoS's "I'm so sorry plz don't lynch me" Defense. That said, his case isn't exactly damning... I still don't see it as a "chainsaw defence of a scumbuddy". I mean seriously, thats a very heavy association to make day-1. All he is saying is that you like to shit up the thread, which is true (improvement is noted). If you think Warbaby and geript are scumteam, and you are highly suspicious of WoS as well, I can almost guarantee you are wrong somewhere. There is always a lurker scum.
You know what, *this* post made me realise where geript commentary came from, specifically claim town vs think town.
just keep in mind please; chainsaw defense doesnt apply to just defending scum buddy. its basically just attacking the someones attacker personally (instead of their argument). So can be applied to defending town.
As I said before in that "Case": as town, would you defend someone Day1 with such a method? The only reason i can think of is if you were masoned with someone; hence KNEW they were town. There are simply better avenues to approach the situation.
warbaby is a scum read of mine; yes so makes sense to say its association based. BUT, note, we can only vote one person.
I think you will notice my vote is actually on geript because his actions have made him a stronger read.
(its just I am continuing to pressure my other read warbaby)
|
On February 12 2013 15:21 WaveofShadow wrote:
If he responds soon that would be nice as I'm going to bed soon, and have an insanely busy day tomorrow. I'll try to pop in intermittently but I'm not going to be nearly as active as I was today, just sayin'. Would also be nice if we heard from glurio, Sylencia, and maybe a little more outta Sevryn but I'm not getting my hopes up.
I'm 100% certain that of those three and the two no-shows at least one is mafia.
Sarcasm not intended.
If you have 2 guys who have 1 post to their name.
Are you planning to RNG to determine who gets your vote?
|
On February 12 2013 15:53 geript wrote:Sure. I got back to rereading and still thought Cora and Mocsta are getting away with bs and stopped. I haven't gone back and reworked the read so it's staying there. Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 15:16 Mocsta wrote:
Umm.. how about instead of making witty quips; you expound on what you think is the issue at hand.
The attitude you are taking, serves nothing but to incite emotions. Attitude I'm espousing? If you and Cora can't realize how you two have essentially been "My way or the highway" this whole game, then you have no idea how to promote healthy conversation. I'd even go so far as you're not even actually interested in having conversation period; my read of you is that you're more interested in having people reflect back to you what you're already saying in one term or another. IE: I'm happy to have people improve my cases but not anyone else's. But for me to start a case looking for help and feedback is a bad thing, but for you it's peachy keen. That's just a bunch of bung. I'll give you credit for both having an agenda to push, but I'm not sold that it's in the towns favor in the slightest. Quite frankly, I have no interest in playing with either of you again and am far more interested in being replaced than finishing this game out.
I am genuinely sorry you feel that way; enough that you would consider replacing.
Look, mafia isn't a game for everyone: some struggle with the reading commitments; others struggle with expressing themselves clearly. But don't worry, you have given the game a go, and by no means will I (and I hope others) look at this as you being a "sore loser".
I ask that you take a step back and reconsider what you have said.
If you are town, please take the opportunity to look at the feedback sent your way (through cases/posts) and build a rational and well-reasoned argument on why your interests were town aligned. Throwing emotional arguments; or weak straw-man accusations is not the way to proceed.
If you are scum, well, ignore the above and please but don't leave, I would prefer you lynched than replaced !! 
|
Thanks Geript for sticking in the game.
Some ideas you have represented above are cohesive and make sense.
e.g. warbaby I can see as frustrated; rather than panicked.
But, overall I see more flaws than gems in the logic above.
The crux comes down to heuristics; I and I think you need to be more open to what plays are available.
e.g. you say vig is a bad idea 8hrs in.. heck
I just replaced in a game where the vigilante claimed within 6 hours and was ASKING town to essentially vote for who he should shoot at night.
The other problem I see is the benefit of hindsight.
Day1 reads change and evolve as new information is released.
You have re-read the game (multiple times) , took into account information that came into light POST-EVENT, and are now querying people over why they made the decisions they did?
Frankly, with the information we *had* I saw nothing wrong with Sylencia logic statement.
Fact is, soft-claiming VT is always a stupid play. People are not going to trust you; and it gives mafia someone *NOT* to hit (if seeking blue roles). In poker terms, the pot odds arent worth calling.
If you re-examine with the information *POST-EVENT*; i still see nothing wrong with the assumptions Sylencia took.
VT is still a stupid play; and warbaby is a guy who doesnt want to be treated as stupid. So it means I rule this out of the equation.
Lastly, I appreciate you opening my eyes to warbaby being frustrated vs panicking; but I am not sure what the point is. I have stated from the start, emotional play is NOT alignment-indicative; its what you do with the play.
So yes, warbaby is frustrated (scum or town can be frustrated) but are you trying to tell me, warbaby has not gone out of his way to flame people in his filter?
TL;DR
I dont have a problem with Sylencia logic then, and I still dont.
Claiming VT early is stupid, and creates less targets for scum to choose to eliminate blues.
Hence,
It really becomes: did he really soft-claim blue role; or did he make an all-in play based on his MVP last game.
|
Mandie.
I disagree and have already commented about this sylencia post to geript last page...
Even before your post. Sylencia made an addendum detailing again the reasoning for why it is a soft blue claim.
Frankly your post reads to me as if you didn't bother to read the thread.
I know u say busy IRL., but we all have lives outside forum Mafia. That argument doesn't allow someone to lurk. Full stop
So yes, if LAL is enforced I think u just became my recommendation.
|
On February 12 2013 22:42 zarepath wrote:
I agree with Mandalor that people are making too big a deal of warbaby's roleclaim, which imo wasn't a roleclaim at all. I find it highly unlikely that warbaby would soft blue claim two games in a row, especially when the feedback from the last game was overwhelmingly "DON'T SOFT CLAIM, WARBABY!" It is all hypothetical when he says it, and wouldn't read much into it.
But there's plenty of other stuff in his filter to look at, imo.
Zarepath
Let's pretend we are in the OBS talking about the claim
Why is it so unlikely someone claims two games in a row?
Maybe you wouldn't do this. But why are heuristics that you apply to yourself now valid for others?
Its like when people say scum team has to have a lurker. Simply not true. Its an educated guess, but not a guarantee by any means.
My point is
I'm not fussed if u don't want to interpret war baby post as soft blue claim. That's a personal decision.
What I am fussed about is if your idea rejection is based on the heuristic he wouldn't do it two games in a row. That is illogical reasoning and is actually an educated guess on your behalf. Unless u r in a scum team with war baby I don't see how u would be privy to that information to be so certain.
(I am not accusing u of being scum BTW)
|
On February 12 2013 23:07 Mandalor wrote:
I read Syl's post and I just don't see the connection between "I won't claim my actual role right now" and vig/scum.
In fact, warbaby only said that sentence after he was kinda asked for a specific role by Corazon. There's nothing else to say to that other than "I won't claim my actual role right now" if you don't want to.
It's not Syl's suspicion of warbaby that feels weird to me, but his thorough analysis of warbaby's actual role that doesn't feel right. There's absolutely zero contribution in that post for town, only for scum.
K now i understand the concern
Its process of elimination
I would rather detail this post game, because blue talk is just not a good thing to be focusing on day1. Need to scum hunt.
All I will say is, some blue roles are worth claiming, and others perhaps not so . The vig falls into the claimable category. Let's move on pls
Since u r here @mandalor.
Zarepath did an interesting experiment. Perhaps u could provide some analysis of any notable reactions.
|
Well to be fair with sn0.. the WoS defence was laugh out loud able... and I just couldn't see scum being that "honest" about themselves.
I'm going to bed.
Who said it before was right. Looks like we heading to a split between scummiest player or policy lurker.
Will be interesting which way town chooses.which ever way u decide just ensure the reasoning is given please.
My vote remains on geript. For all the same reasons as before. His post attempt coming back did little to sway me away as well.
|
On February 13 2013 07:36 warbaby wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 07:34 cDgCorazon wrote:
If you are VT, you would've said it to avoid being killed.
If you are blue, you would not have tried to look so pro-town that the scum would try to kill you. What? Scum does not know who is VT and who is blue yet. If I claim VT or blue, scum will gain information. As town (which scum already knows), I will not do anything to give scum information unless it helps town. Anyone claiming their role on D1 is not helping town. It's that simple.
Im back
This is seriously suspect
You never took this line of reasoning UNTIL I outlined it here:
On February 12 2013 17:25 Mocsta wrote:Frankly, with the information we *had* I saw nothing wrong with Sylencia logic statement. Show nested quote +Fact is, soft-claiming VT is always a stupid play. People are not going to trust you; and it gives mafia someone *NOT* to hit (if seeking blue roles). In poker terms, the pot odds arent worth calling. If you re-examine with the information *POST-EVENT*; i still see nothing wrong with the assumptions Sylencia took. Show nested quote +VT is still a stupid play; and warbaby is a guy who doesnt want to be treated as stupid. So it means I rule this out of the equation. TL;DRI dont have a problem with Sylencia logic then, and I still dont. Claiming VT early is stupid, and creates less targets for scum to choose to eliminate blues. Hence, It really becomes: did he really soft-claim blue role; or did he make an all-in play based on his MVP last game.
|
On February 13 2013 06:21 glurio wrote:
I'd prefer lynching one of the lurkier players, sevryn, syl or mandalor right now.
Glurio
Please detail why YOUR contributions are better than the three people listed above.
I am shocked that you would turn your back on your own kind; because as far as I am concerned:
YOU are a lurker, which is what I believe you are nominating the above three for.
*ironic* is it not?
|
Guys; the vote count is seriously split
This is my idea for the situation
Some camps want a lurker; others want the scummiest person
I recommend we have 2 lynch candidates
i.e. 1 agreed representative for the lurkers
1 agreed representative for the actives
I hope this will help to consolidate votes
Thoughts?
|
Well i havent been paying too much attention to the lurkers
but I thought sevryn having the balls to come in and say "hey, listen to my case" was a town thing to do?
wouldnt lurker scum be content hiding in the shadows?
I will read the filters, see if I can find something dodgy; but thats all i remember of sevryn.
|
On February 13 2013 08:07 warbaby wrote:WaveofShadow claimed town as well: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:04 WaveofShadow wrote:
obviously the Day is still young but I expect more from my Town as the day progresses.
Dude, we were all over that at the start of the thread too...
Theres no special treatment for you
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
