EPT/in
Newbie Mini Mafia XXXVII
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
geript
10024 Posts
/in | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
we all know pro stache is a clear scum tell | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
##change vote Unvote ##change vote warbaby You are likely scum. If my logic/analysis is bad, then I am either scum or terrible; in either case you should've voted for me instead of just casting suspicion. Also, JSL's analysis is amazing. I am a bearded Dutch woman who speaks German and is looking for love. Any takers? | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
2. Can roles (other than vanilla) be duplicated? | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
## vote exterminate JSL | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
Yes I would like to know where he got those coconuts. There're rather stylish and would be great bust support while matching my beard. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On February 09 2013 12:32 warbaby wrote: The game hasn't started yet, geript. Please return your beard to it's full, upright, and stowed position until the Captain turns off the fasten seatbelts light. You know nothing jon snow | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
I think we should vote Dandel Ion for mayor. That way we can lynch him when things go wrong. Clearly he will be the key to our success or failure. No pressure Dandel. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
/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 | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
@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. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
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. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
## change vote unvote | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
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 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. 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. On February 11 2013 11:36 Mocsta wrote: See you guys in 12 hours. 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. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On February 12 2013 02:21 Sn0_Man wrote:+ 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: 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 Additionally, he brings ups the post consolidation point which he actively avoids. Here he's accusing me, in effect, of running for mayor all while pushing his RNG agenda heavily. 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. First thing to realize is that was a post I had typed up as of Cora's following post on p21. I wanted to reread and edit it after getting up to make sure I was making sense and posting effectively. + Show Spoiler + On February 11 2013 14:46 cDgCorazon wrote: ##Vote: Warbaby Congratulations WB, it's been 5 hours and I already think you are scum. I'm going to break this down into a few points: 1. Your "I'm not Mafia rofl" claim. The biggest problem is that you have claimed town within the first 4 hours. You not only claimed town, but you're basically waving a giant sign that says "HEY LOOK EVERYONE, I'M TOWN". The nature of your claim is ridiculous, almost too much. Examples: You're coming on way too strong with this claim for me to believe it. 2. Continuing to play the victim from the mislynch in NMM 36. Examples: It's another part in trying to associate yourself too hard with being townie. You need to get it through your head that this isn't XXXVI anymore. We're all sorry for the mislynch last game, but you need to come in here and forget about it. It's a whole different game with different players. Stop trying to stay in the past. 3. Your lack of scumhunting. Goes without saying, you've done none of it yet. All the jabs you made at Mocsta have been points that myself and other people have discussed to death already. Bring something new to the table. 4. Trying to change the subject when the pressure is on you. This is the scummiest part. If you are town, you should be trying to prove that your claim is true, and not kill discussion right when it starts to pick up. For these reasons, you are getting my vote for the time being. If you are really town, you should have no trouble proving your innocence. 1. I don't have great reasons that I can point to for warbaby being town. My read is/was that he's just a VT/veterant that was trying to pull an attack his way. As his other posts have made him a more reasonable sounding lynch/mislynch target for which a case could be made against, I think he negated the attack pull. If you want a more concrete case/reasons, then I'm sorry I can't oblige there. 2. I disagree fully. Take for example the following: + Show Spoiler + On February 12 2013 00:52 Mocsta wrote: Guys im going to bed. zarepath, I am not sure if the start of your post was addressed to me? If so, I had mandalor as null read; he said a few things but until he follows through its all NON-alignment indicative. btw, quite a few decent points in that case; I think some are educated assumptions, and others are really contradictory to ideal town play. Will wait and see what wave has to say for himself before proceeding further. Is there any actual content in this post? This post specifically states that he his posting simply for the sake of posting. "A few decent points..." Ok, fine which ones and why; expand the case. "Some educated assumptions..." = "adlkjfa;ldhfaldha;fl. "Others are really contradictory ideal town play..." then point it out. "Will wait and see..." sounds more like bandwagoning or sheeping. Considering his other activity (jumping on warbaby early after my opening attempt and again after following Cora's post) to willfully follow instead of lead, he looks far more like scum than actually and actively dig/hunt for his own ideas or espouse his own concepts. But when it looks like he's been trying to run for mayor, to switch gears into following others lead instead of espousing his own looks suspicious to me. 3. I think there's enough content in this post and the previous to realize that I'm not just making ad homenim attacks. ##vote mocsta @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? | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
Second post: + Show Spoiler + On February 11 2013 11:21 WaveofShadow wrote: As far as I'm concerned, early game banter based on taking offense to others cheap shots or picking apart grammar is useless and should just be ignored. I'm fairly sure at this point enough people have declined the RNG vote so the topic should be dropped by everyone. Can the scumhunting begin now? Your other points are valid in that none if his posts have been effective. In context, his third post seems worse to me than anything else as Mocsta asks him to "Lead the way" and he takes a reasonably impassioned LAL stance which is unlikely to draw any attention. You do miss a post re: filter burying of which the highlight is On February 11 2013 11:35 WaveofShadow wrote: (@Mocsta)You talk a lot, and it's not always useful. While he returns to lurking after that, it's a valid point that has been brought up a few times now but started, imo, with Sno's earlier post: On February 11 2013 10:35 Sn0_Man wrote: I have no interest in reading more from Mocsta tonight. I await contributions from the as-yet silent members of our game. His last post is more of the same. While I still don't like Mocsta so far, your case is better and his last post nails it in for me. On February 12 2013 05:31 WaveofShadow wrote: Now as far as I'm concerned, LAL. Glurio basically fitting to his MO from last game rings alarm bells for me much more strongly than a 9-bit or Macheji lynch, I must admit. There are others however, who have not even done the bare minimum in my eyes, namely Sylencia who jump on the warbaby train and disappears, and Sevryn who has contributed nothing worthy of note so far. In my LAL spirit though, until I see something, I'm going to stick with it. Ummm what? So, you're seeing alarm bells and aren't interested in putting pressure on them. Instead you're more interested in deflecting towards anyone else? You have clearly no interest in trying to make a case whatsoever or in doing any analysis. ##change vote waveofshadow | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
1. Geript is familiar with TLmafia board play 2. Geript is familiar with TLmafia newbie players 3. Geript follows usual TLmafia board play While I have read a few games here and skimmed others, where I am used to playing openings are different and people are more liberal with their use of votes (in general) but especially so in early game As for getting on Mocsta for being Mocsta, I am new here and as such am unfamiliar with everyone's general play (in the current game). Where I'm from I'm not one of the better players, I am here to get better. In general because of various gaming history, I have found that group think--where people bounce ideas off of one another--is the analysis method that works best for me to synthesize correct information. Thus, why you are reading jabs without an uppercut follow through. While I do try and shoot from the hip as best I can, I prefer to have time to allow thoughts to ruminate before making a decision. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
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. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On February 11 2013 21:22 warbaby wrote:If you're upset that I'm giving up this early, I would consider requesting a replacement. Just let me know if you'd prefer to shit all over someone other than me. Which reads to me as, "Don't look at me." In context, I think it's more of a wanting to catch his breath between arguments. If you want to make a case against Warbaby, then do that. My question to you is why are you guys so interested in having me waste time talking about a town read rather than actually going back and evaluating who is likely scum? On the chainsaw defense: If you read my post on 24: + Show Spoiler + 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: 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 Additionally, he brings ups the post consolidation point which he actively avoids. Here he's accusing me, in effect, of running for mayor all while pushing his RNG agenda heavily. 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. in light of Cora's post on 21 + Show Spoiler + On February 11 2013 14:46 cDgCorazon wrote: ##Vote: Warbaby Congratulations WB, it's been 5 hours and I already think you are scum. I'm going to break this down into a few points: 1. Your "I'm not Mafia rofl" claim. The biggest problem is that you have claimed town within the first 4 hours. You not only claimed town, but you're basically waving a giant sign that says "HEY LOOK EVERYONE, I'M TOWN". The nature of your claim is ridiculous, almost too much. Examples: You're coming on way too strong with this claim for me to believe it. 2. Continuing to play the victim from the mislynch in NMM 36. Examples: It's another part in trying to associate yourself too hard with being townie. You need to get it through your head that this isn't XXXVI anymore. We're all sorry for the mislynch last game, but you need to come in here and forget about it. It's a whole different game with different players. Stop trying to stay in the past. 3. Your lack of scumhunting. Goes without saying, you've done none of it yet. All the jabs you made at Mocsta have been points that myself and other people have discussed to death already. Bring something new to the table. 4. Trying to change the subject when the pressure is on you. This is the scummiest part. If you are town, you should be trying to prove that your claim is true, and not kill discussion right when it starts to pick up. For these reasons, you are getting my vote for the time being. If you are really town, you should have no trouble proving your innocence. Then you'll see that I address his points as he presented them. I didn't claim warbaby as town; I stated I think he's town. There's a big difference between the two. As for attacking you, if you call me saying you have taken a wet watery crap all over your filter attacking you, then I'm guilty. But hey, I'm not the only person who's "attacked" you by commenting on your style. As for Cora's problem with me throwing jabs, he's wrong. I work best as part of group think being able to bounce ideas off of people. I enjoy figuring out the positioning and the setup far more than the finish; plus it's what I'm good at. If you don't like it, then either deal with it (as you do with Mocsta and his 'style') or vote me off the island. back to rereading | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
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. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On February 12 2013 15:15 WaveofShadow wrote: Care to address this? 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. 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. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On February 11 2013 18:41 Sylencia wrote: I got up to here on the bus, and spent a bit of time working out the reasoning behind this blue claim so early on: If he's scum, a way to extend his life through the chance he is telling the truth. Problem is the plan is spoiled when he doesn't die on night 1 - since he would be a prime candidate for a kill. If he's actually blue, dumb move unless he plans to Vig shot someone on night 1 and hoping for a 1:1 trade? Alternatively if he's a vet aiming to prolong the life of the town - but even then that's a questionable move. Being the SK with bulletproof wouldn't help too much since he will still end up suffering the same fate as the Vig of being shot over 2 nights. Helps town more than scum. VT taking a bullet for the team is also a possibility here, but I don't understand why such a seed needs to be planted to early on. Basically, I'm leaning towards either scum or vig on warbaby. No more defense, you want that then read my previous posts that you likely ignored. Time to go back on the attack. The main thing I hate about this post is that it makes no sense to me. For warbaby to be soft-claiming a role, and presumably soft-claiming blue, on day 1 makes no sense as a scum. Hard or soft claiming blue will attract undue attention for which one has to either start down the web of lies or backpedal from unnecessarily. While I could see soft claim on blue (as scum) later on when there's actual pressure on instead of the general D1 crap that happens, doing it D1 while under no real pressure is inconceivable to me. Even if you try to factor in the 36 meta where he got lynched after roleclaiming, then that's a pretty weak case as there's literally no value in any claim over trying to defend/deflect first. Even as a panicking player, from warbaby I would expect more inward retreat/turtling or voracious exposition. SK is in the same boat as scum so that make equally little sense. The question then is blue or green for me which is a pretty simple answer: the only thing worse than scum claiming D1 in that situation is blue claiming D1 in that situation. Voila: Warbaby is most likely green. Even if you factor in the Vigilante idea, planning to fire before what ~8 hours into D1; that's unthinkable to me. I play poker aggressively and that's even too gambly for my blood. Additionally, nothing I have read from warbaby's posts leads to an emotional state outside of my standard expectations if he were vanilla. I read frustration far more than panic or desperation and after having read his filter multiple times in context I'm not seeing your guys cases whatsoever. Therefore, when I see people attacking a person that, even if not amazing, is far more likely to be town in my eyes than not, then I see no reason not to defend that person as sometimes you just need someone in your corner rooting for you to be your best. So Cora and Mocsta, why didn't you read this post and come to the same conclusion? Why haven't you attacked Sylencia for bad logic, low count and miminal (if any) content? Rather, Cora hounded warbaby on why Sylencia in specific. Read the thread, look at it in context, pull it apart, reread it. You guys wanted a bone. Fine, ball's back in your court now. I'll try to post more on this tomorrow but will likely be spending time with my nieces instead. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On February 12 2013 12:51 WaveofShadow wrote: On other news, geript's last post was a thorough defense of himself from Mocsta's assault, yet he has said nothing more regarding his vote on me. The last things he pointed out regarding me were weak affirmations of everything zarepath already pointed out, and his only original point was 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. But hey, just for you I went back and reread everything again. So let's cover it then. Your defense was really nothing but fumbling over yourself. Then you admit that your defense was bad. Plus make some worthless comment about Sylencia's RNG voicing. Next you essentially ask, "What do you want me to do to get you to remove your vote from me?" Fluff Random worthless stuff re: Glurio. Then you ask about policy lynches (posting lurker v 0 post lurker). fluff correction Wishwashing on low content v 0 post Agreeing that another person isn't posting anything Then you make your best post + Show Spoiler + On February 12 2013 08:58 WaveofShadow wrote: 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? But even with your best post you really pick your own thoughts. Most importantly is an odd little line I bolded, "I expect more from you." There's still nothing here that says, "I'm interested in scum hunting." At best, this post reads, "Softball evaded." Then back to the usual, other people aren't posting enough. Then you ask a question that I believe Cora had asked a few times. Next you have what I consider to be an absolutely awful post: On February 12 2013 11:18 WaveofShadow wrote: Problem with this is, warbaby, is you're really just echoing exactly what I and other members have been saying for hours already. You have contributed nothing new to the thread and upon viewing your filter, you jump on whatever bandwagon seems best to you at the time. Zarepath makes a case on me? FoS. (Then you go on to talk about 'false dichotomies' and I don't even know what you were talking about. You either think I'm suspicious or you don't.) LA comes up? Vote 9-bit. Except of course you contradict yourself right after: I want to see a case from you; at the very least something more concrete then following everything everyone else has already laid the groundwork for. Be your own man! Note that I'm pressuring you because I want to see something positive come out of you; I'm inclined to agree with Mocsta's analysis of bad town. Stop focusing on defending yourself because you only make yourself look worse. Notice the trend. Still interested in having everyone else present the case and you evaluate them. Do your own legwork. fluff correction Pressure post to try and move my vote off of you I could go on and continue to summarize why your filter is bad but people should read it themselves | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
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
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On February 20 2013 07:55 cDgCorazon wrote: While you're here can I ask you why you are mad at me and never want to play with me again? Because you played like an asshole the whole game. I have no problems with people being wrong, that happens. I can deal with pushing bad reads. But I stand behind everything I said about you two creating a negative town atmosphere; at least Mocsta had a reason to be harming atmosphere. I think part of the reason for no consolidation was the fact that no one wanted to deal with the bullshit you'd give them. I think I even stated in game, there's a difference between being aggressive (which can be good) and being an asshole (which is always worthless). Letting off the gas can be as effective in reading people as putting it on. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On February 20 2013 12:43 cDgCorazon wrote: If you think I played like an asshole, you need to go look at NMM XXXVI. That was a shitfest. It gets frustrating when your case does not gain any traction (especially after WB's emotional reaction to it), and then you have to go with a lynch that you really wish you didn't need to make, get called out for it (it was a fair case) multiple times even though you've already answered it, and then have to deal with another guy tunneling you for the same reasons. Perhaps if you guys didn't irritate me with your play so much, I wouldn't snap as easily. Ever thought about that? If your case doesn't gain any traction, then maybe your case is bad. I know that when I saw your initial case I thought it was both hasty and weak at best. I didn't feel bad about the Mocsta case being set aside as I didn't think it was a great case; I kept on wanting to make a better case on him but just couldn't find it. My point was that how you acted in the thread didn't help to either the atmosphere or to your case being taken seriously. Also, if multiple people are re-asking the same question, then perhaps you should go back and look at your answers and see if you actually answered the question. There were a number of times in the game when you deflected answers and questions instead of just being straight up. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On February 20 2013 12:59 cDgCorazon wrote: Are you still waiting for an answer on the Glurio question? All I got from your argument was that I didn't vote for WB and that I voted for Glurio. I'm not trying to be mean. The very first point was: how does glurio flipping town have any effect on the read? It went seemingly unnoticed by everyone. The next points were that you didn't stay consistent with any of your 'scumtell' preferences or your 'lynch a voice' preference. I wasn't asking, "why did you vote for glurio?" at all but really "Why can we trust anything you say?" + Show Spoiler + On February 14 2013 01:19 geript wrote: Case 1: Cora 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, But his previous comment makes no sense in light of still being frustrated about Warbaby not being lynching. Next, 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. 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, and What's the real point in not staying consistent? 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: 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: 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: 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
Part of becoming a better player in every game is learning when to question game state. When the most active/loudest voices persist, you really need to ask yourself why they're persisting. Are these people who are being manipulated? Are these people who are actively leading the town to bad decisions? What's the purpose for scum leaving them around? Sure you might argue that's all a circumstantial case, but the cumulative effects of being wrong and loud add up to something. Personally I was very surprised when neither Cora nor Mocsta wanted to discuss cases day 2 as that seemed very anti-town. I was surprised when nobody put them on blast for it. I was actually kinda mad dying night 1 as I felt like I was going to be building momentum to steal the shared mayor position from Mocsta/Cora and get the town headed in a more effective direction. I was also mad at myself for not sharing my suspicions of Mocsta even if I couldn't find the case I wanted to make on him. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
| ||
