EPT/in
Newbie Mafia XL
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
/in | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 03 2013 14:20 Promethelax wrote: Also @Moloch I am a fan of your name. I'm glad you like it. I've always had a soft spot for demons you sacrifice your children to. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
#Vote: Rainbows | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 05 2013 09:18 Moloch wrote: Rainbows is talking too much to be stuffing his face with pizza! He must not be a fattie! #Vote: Rainbows I forgot a pound sign. Does it still count? | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
| ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 05 2013 09:28 Rainbows wrote: Okay enough guys. ##Unvote Anyone who's here right now I want to give me their opinions on a statement. --- I don't want to talk about policy. You can policy me this or policy me that, or raise me a lynch-all-liar policy, but I don't want to hear it. Your policy is your own. Enact it when you see fit, if at all. Don't spew it in the thread incessantly to act like you're contributing or it's the 'must-do' in a mafia game. If you want to override this and go on with it, fine with me. Whatever you feel is best. I'm fine with you telling everyone why you're doing everything. If you try to implement a policy that you want everyone in the game to follow it exactly, you'll probably get people complaining since not everyone wants the same thing. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
People who don't say a lot and just stay low take a higher priority over people that say a lot. Especially early game. If the guys who talk a lot are good, they'll be better for the town than people who don't say much, and if they do happen to be non-fatties, there's a higher chance they'll slip up sooner or later. It's difficult to slip up when you don't say anything or don't have an opinion of your own. So, in your situation probably C or D. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
| ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 05 2013 10:50 TheRavensName wrote: Doesn't he need to jump around before hes a Guy A? If he's jumping around, we have to lynch him. Fatties can't jump. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
Moloch, in this post you calling Rainbows scum in a noncommital way (bolded by me). Do you think he is actually scummy for that post? That was supposed to be a joke at that point. I didn't actually think he was scummy at that point. My original vote for him was a joke as well, since it was based upon him posting a lot early and not having enough time to eat pizza. But, I've kept my vote on him for a couple reasons. According to this post, he gets very defensive about about being called scum, whereas I interpreted Saraf's comment to not be calling out anyone in particular - just being the way he thought about stuff. (It's possible that I don't feel like anyone's been spammy so far affected how I interpreted it). I also don't like how he changed his vote from Smancer to someone else to quickly. He gave a reason he thought Smancer was a suspect, then just changed it to Saraf because he got overly defensive (but he had a couple posts in between Saraf labeling him and switching his vote, which makes me suspect that it wasn't a hasty vote-switch caused by emotion) I'm not certain about anyone, but Rainbows seems like the best bet at the moment. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
| ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
Jarjar - He is certain kirby is skum in his first post because he feels kirby changed his mind too easily. I feel he reads too much into kirby's unvote. Everything he's posted has been aggressive towards kirby, while being certain Rainbows is a townie because of his read on kirby. I'm suspicious of him because his only reasons (that he's stated) come from kirby's noncommital way of saying that Rainbows is either scum or an idiot. Since then, he's done nothing aside from saying kirby is very suspicious ( using that as the reason he thinks Rainbows is townie). Smancer - Nothing he's said raised any red flags and I like the variety in his posting style. A mixture of his opinions and questions to try to keep conversation going. jampidampi - He hasn't given his own opinion on anything aside from saying that he thinks Rainbows misinterpreted Saraf's post. Also, a third of his posts talk about whether or not someone else is at their computer (even getting aggressive with kirby when kirby replies to him). I don't have a strong opinion of him, though. It could be that he feels a delay in posting is scum chatting with each other to try to figure out what to do. I don't think it's a good idea to base opinions off of this since there will be a lot more false-positives with strangely long reply times than there will be actual scum catches. Warent - He explains Rainbow's misinterpreting (which I completely agree with), and gave opinions on a couple other people. I like his style. Saraf - He's pushing to lynch the spammiest asshole a bit too much. I think he did imply that Rainbows was the spammy asshole, but he certainly did not state that Rainbows was a townie. kirby - I like his reasoning that he's given for his decisions recarding voting/unvoting Rainbows. At first he thinks he's malicious, then thinks he's an idiot fattie. I don't like how his reason to suspect jampidampi is that he isn't suspicious. It feels really weird to me. TRN - He has only made three posts that aren't spam. He hasn't made any statements about his own opinion, just ask questions of others (aside from his post about the hypothetical A, B, C, D policy question). I like him less now than I did before. Fishgle - I like that he appears to be posting a good mixture of calling other people out without accusing, and posting his own opinions. I like what he says about Warent's hypocrisy, but I'm unsure what I think about his suggestion that Rainbows got a blind hit on Saraf (I'll go into more once I'm done every person) Obzy - I have a positive opinion of how he's been posting. I get a general okay vibe from him. nobodywonder - His posting style seems defensive overall. It doesn't give me a good feeling, but I do like how he is able to critique why someone else voted for kirby, and then vote for kirby himself a little bit later. It implies an open mind. I have really mixed feelings about this guy, Rainbows - I feel this has been the most controversial person. I really don't like how he is pushing so hard to have Saraf lynched off a sentence that Rainbows misinterpreted (multiple people pointed it out to him and he still kept going hardcore against Saraf). | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 06 2013 12:25 Rainbows wrote: Like, you call it a 'vendetta' when i've given my reads on plenty of people so far. Stop homogenizing my play and actually read. I think he is correct in calling it a vendetta. You don't just say what you think and vote accordingly, you go over-the-top aggressive and then you shout at everyone to do exactly what you do. Then you switch targets at the drop of a pin. This is the very first day, there is no way anyone can be as certain about anyone as you claim to be about your reads. I'm keeping my vote on you for now because I'm not extremely suspicious about anyone else (just mildly suspicious about everyone), and you seem to feel the need to cause as much discord as you can. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 06 2013 12:40 Rainbows wrote: Bolded - Where? Go. You also claim I'm "certain" about my reads --- LOL BUT IM MAKING CASES ON DIFFERENT PEOPLE BRO. I'm rather disinterested with Saraf at the moment. Conflict yourself more. You use caps lock regularly and a large amount of sarcasm, which give your posts an overall feel of aggressiveness. Maybe that's just me. You said that everyone who doesn't trust you is either scum or an idiot. I have to admit I overstated you yelling at everyone to do what you do; you just yell (how I interpret the caps locks) at people and then say that people who don't do what you do are idiots. I don't believe anything I've said has conflicted with something else I've said. Yes, you've been reading a lot of people, yes, but the people you suspect (first Saraf, then TRN) you present in a 100% matter-of-fact way, which is what I was referring to. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 06 2013 12:58 Rainbows wrote: @ Moloch Come on. Answer me. You said I'm being over-the-top aggressive and shouting at people to do what I want. Prove it, quote me. You also say I'm very sure about my reads. But I've presented small cases on many people now. How does this make sense? Be a bit more patient next time. I had to answer the door and get my pizza. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 06 2013 12:44 nobodywonder wrote: Moloch, you complain of Rainbow being spammy, but what do you think about his analysis, itself. maybe if valid, rainbows kinda does have right to be aggressive to kill scum and inform others? His analysis does seem to be pretty good. I do like most of his contributions since he stopped pursuing Saraf over that stupid misunderstanding. On April 06 2013 13:11 Rainbows wrote: I'm an aggressive town. I'm actually physically hurting from the lack of intelligence in some people this game. How the heck am I supposed to convince people if Im going "Oh, well, maybe, this is scummy, but maybe not, idk guys!" You have to be to the point in this game or people won't follow you to the lynch. I want to lynch scum. Not beat around the bush here. I'm not trying to be an asshole. Most of the people either have no idea what scum look like or are scum themselves, and so call me scum because I'm super active, to the point, and vindictive about my reads. This is town behavior, because I actually care about who's getting lynched. I'm calling people idiots at this point because I'm angry. I like this explanation. I'll do my best to read your stuff in a better light, but you need to understand if I still don't trust you any more than anyone else. You post about everyone's idiocy, but you know that if everyone took the person who posts the most at face value, that would actually be the stupidest thing. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
Hahaha. Want a picture?  | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 06 2013 14:24 Rainbows wrote: Just because someone calls you scum doesn't mean they are scum. Mafia 101. You say this - ridiculing TRN for suspecting you just because you suspect him. Then you do the exact same thing. And your main reason is On April 06 2013 15:18 Rainbows wrote: I honestly can't believe a townie would be that dumb. Isn't this a bit hypocritical? | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 06 2013 15:31 Rainbows wrote: I'm the Vigilante. Just RB / Shoot me tomorrow night scum. I can't even stand being in this retarded mess anymore. I made reasonable posts and good points but everyone just kept being stupid. Moloch is probably town. Obzy is probably town. Fishgle maybe town. Smancer might be town. If you are actually vigilante, I fucking hate you. If you don't want to play anymore, just ask to be replaced. You signed up for a "Newbie Mafia" game, so the fact that others aren't good at reading into posts shouldn't be a surprise. Don't ruin the game for everyone else because you get frustrated barely halfway through the first day. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
If Mafia never analyzed anything, it would be stupidly easy to pick them out and the game wouldn't have any point. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
This is why people don't like discussing policy or meta. As soon as you mark down exactly how the townie should be posting, you'll never catch any mafia because they'll all be posting that way. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 05 2013 09:45 Rainbows wrote: Keep in mind the following question isn't policy-based. Let's say we have this one guy, super emotional, yelling at people, voting all over the place. Call him guy A. Guy B is cool, suave, making decent points here and there, voting is in line with his thinking. Guy C is hardcore lurking are barely here, but won't get modkilled because he votes. Guy D is kinda wimpy, and sheeps cases but is also hard to read. Who do we lynch? You say this isn't policy in the post, but that's exactly what you're asking everyone to tell you. I was really starting to warm up to you until this temper tantrum. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
Otherwise, actually start playing the game again. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
| ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
If you go through his entire post history, he only ever asks people questions and tries to get people to suspect Rainbows. He hasn't once given his opinion on anyone else. He's either scum who was trying to keep the train rolling on Rainbows, or a townie who has contributed nearly nothing. As far as first day lynch chances go, I think this is a pretty good option. ##Vote: jampidampi | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
##Vote: jampidampi | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
| ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 07 2013 04:39 Obzy wrote: @Saraf; That really is a good point that I missed too though lol - Even if it was fish and not me, I hadn't thought about that. Yeah, the real vigi would just shoot Rain, if rain was able to be counterclaimed. + Show Spoiler + Although maybe he would counterclaim him if it looked like Rain wasn't going to be lynched and he wanted to use his shot somewhere else so really it's not entirely solid. A good point, though. ^^; If Rainbow did fakeclaim, I think the vigi counterclaiming at this point would be quite stupid. If it looks like Rain isn't going to by lynched and someone counterclaims, we might end up lynching the counterclaimer instead (or the Mafia could hit him tonight). Whereas, if he just waits and killed Rainbow at night, then claims tomorrow, we know we can trust him then and, since he only gets one kill per game, it makes the scum decide whether to hit the guy who is effectively green now, or to try to find a blue for night two. Either way, if Rainbow is alive tomorrow, we can be certain he's telling the truth. Unless, I guess, the actual vigi doesn't do anything, but I can't see any possibility where the real vigi not killing rainbow is beneficial to the town. Another possibility (if Rainbows is lying) is the real vigi hitting him tonight, and then not claiming tomorrow. That would be a bad move, in my opinion. Follow my logic here It is given that the scum will kill one townie per night (barring any Doctor getting lucky) The scum want to hit blues for obvious reasons Once the vigi has hit someone, he is essentially the same as a couch potato The vigi should claim after he's hit someone to tempt the scum into hitting him instead of going for a blue Make sense? I guess the point of this is to convince people still voting for Rainbows that the best course of action is to not lynch him today. (and to give the vigi ideas if rainbows is lying) | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 07 2013 04:49 jampidampi wrote: Is there anything aside from my case/tunnel on Rainbows that makes me scummy? The thing I don't like about you is that every single opinion you've given so far this game has been about Rainbows. You have barely even mentioned anyone other name. You've mentioned several times how you want to get reads on people, and you ask generic questions, but never give an opinion on anything. So, to answer your question, it's more of what you haven't done than what you have done. JJD is in the same boat, but he has a much smaller sample size of posts to work with than you do. It's possible all of his were just context sensitive, so we'll have to see what he says when he posts again. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 07 2013 05:10 jampidampi wrote: Moloch, your forgetting the possibility that isn't a vigilante in the game. That's possible? Well, then. I'm going to have to rethink this. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 07 2013 06:58 Smancer wrote: Last post before he leaves makes me think he is scum. Not really posting a good defense. Not trying to convince anyone of his scum read. Maybe that is just his playstyle, but I disagree with it. If you are town, and you had a spotlight on you to be lynched, isn't the best thing to do to build your case against who you think is scum? I would defend myself politely and then take the time to pile all the evidence I could against someone who I thought was town. You didn't do any of that. I agree that it is really weird that he hasn't freaked out a bit more. I think you're wrong with "If you are town... who you think is scum?" because that would be the best course of action whether you're town or scum. I'm considering changing my vote to JJD because of lack of panic (I was debating between jampi and JJD when I first voted for jampi, so this just tips the scale a bit). On April 07 2013 06:58 Smancer wrote: In fact in this last post all you did was drive more confusion by pointing the finger at two people instead of narrowing it down to just one. I think he's using those as examples of why you shouldn't vote for him, rather than why you should vote for Rainbows or JJD. As in, "it's silly to vote Rainbows because he made a bad case, so don't vote for me because I made a bad case." I'm pretty sure that's what he's trying to say there. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 07 2013 19:05 Warent wrote: What bothers me is the heavy focus on how things are being presented instead of looking at the content. These questions from Jampi (Sarafs who brought them up first). Did anyone even try to answer them? So, Smancer, Fishgle, Moloch, care to honour JarJars wish and provide an answer to these questions? On April 07 2013 23:19 TheRavensName wrote: You've had some time to relook at Rainbow's blue claim as well as the lynch, do you have any thoughts or feelings you would like to share sense you were one of the ones who did vote for him? I'll do my best to answer both of these. I didn't particularly want to lynch JJD because, while he exhibited some of the same signs as jampi early-game (only ever talking about one person and never giving their own opinions on anything else), there wasn't nearly as many posts to go on. I realized that he might be scum lurking, but I felt there was a better chance he was just busy than he was lurking with malicious intent. As far as comparing him to Rainbows, the only thing the two of them have in common is that they each made a bad case. Overall, I felt the chance of the entire Rainbows ragequitting being legitimate was higher than being completely faked. While I've been thinking about it post-fact, I've been trying to think about Rainbows' move from a scum perspective. What would it gain them? - It gained them a non-Rainbows lynch. At the time of the explosion, I believe Rainbows was the one on track to being lynched. - It spread a lot of discord. Both of these things are obviously what they want short-term - especially if Rainbows actually is scum. BUT At the time of his declaration, they would have no way of knowing whether there's a real vigi. If there is, it's quite obvious the best thing for him to do is take out Rainbows - something the scum have no way of preventing unless they convince the doctor to protect him - which would result in good discussion and make people's alliance's easier to read. I'm going to wait until tomorrow before I read too much into anything. The scum hitting someone will give us another confirmed townie, so that will change almost every read we can make at the moment. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
I'll make sure I'm back here at least a few hours before deadline tomorrow to keep things going. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
After actual counting, there were four people (me, jampi, ravens, and fishgle) who were voting for him at the time of him claiming. After he claimed, this is the timeline. Rainbows jampi->ravens Me unvote Smancer Kirby-> jampi Obzy ravens ->jampi Fishgle rainbows->jampi Me ->jampi Saraf -> jjd Kirby -> jjd Jampi rainbows->jjd I know it's pretty useless information now, but it's the information I compiled when I thought I was actually on to something. Oh, and I'm not sure what to think about the Saraf lynch. I don't think they'd be as obvious as to hit someone who voted for scum, but it also seems like it would be a good idea to vote for someone that's onto them. Sorry again for not being here for the past couple days, I know it makes the game less fun for everybody else. I'll do better for the next while. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
Once rainbows has all but rage quit. Then he takes his vote off of him. WTF? I thought it was pretty clear that I believed Rainbows' claim. Rather, I thought there was enough credibility to it to wait and see what happens - which is what thispost of mine is about. Why would I not take my vote off him? If I had kept my vote on Rainbows, we would have most likely had a three way tie between Rainbows, jampi, and JJD. Rainbows got the three votes first, so Rainbows would have been lynched. IF I were scum, wouldn't killing the vig have been the best course of action? He doesn't build a case agains jampi like the three others of us that voted. He just agrees and votes. So, once three people have made cases against someone, you're saying every single person that agrees has to create their own, separate case? Furthermore he makes a post and then immediately changes the subject to JarJar. At the point I changed the subject to JJD, is there anyone in the game who didn't want to hear from him? He was a person of interest if for no other reason than he had three votes. I really don't see how you can realistically suspect me for agreeing with the three best-made cases where my inaction would have resulted in a vigi lynch. As far as my post last night, it sucked. I said in it that I made a mistake and that rendered everything I did wrong, so I figured I'd share what I could that was still useful. This is what I had in my word file last night when I realized I counted votes wrong. It was 1am once I finally did get my post up, and I had class at 8:30 this morning. If you want to say me caring about school isn't town-friendly, there's nothing I can argue there. + Show Spoiler + Smancer, obzy, and fishgle all voted for jampi on the same page Saraf, Kirby, jampi on jjd Jjd was a lurker TheRavensname (1) Rainbows Rainbows (2) Warent, TheRavensName Smancer (0) Saraf (0) jrkirby (2) JarJarDrinks, nobodywonder jampidampi (4) Smancer, Obzy, Fishgle, Moloch JarJarDrinks (3) Saraf, jrkirby, jampidampi Obzy: The problem is that Moloch, Kirby, nobodywonder, Jarjar, and Fish aren't posting (or at least - not enough). Ravens and Warent are posting and I'm getting scum vibes, but they could just be _relatively_ scummy compared to Rain and Smancer. To further identify if they are actually scum, I would like to be able to continue gathering thoughts on the other five. TheRavensname (1) Rainbows, Rainbows, Obzy, Rainbows Rainbows (2) Smancer, Moloch, Fishgle, jrkirby, Warent, TheRavensName, jampidampi Smancer (0) Rainbows, Rainbows Saraf (0) Rainbows jrkirby (2) JarJarDrinks, Smancer, nobodywonder jampidampi (4) Rainbows, Smancer, Obzy, Fishgle, Moloch JarJarDrinks (3) Saraf, jrkirby, jampidampi Note Voting: Noone Jampi, ravens, me and fishgle TheRavensname (0) Rainbows Obzy Rainbows (3) Smancer, Moloch, , jrkirby, Warent TheRavensName jampidampi Smancer (0) Rainbows, Rainbows Saraf (1) Rainbows jrkirby (3) JarJarDrinks, Smancer, nobodywonder Note Voting:, Saraf, , , jrkirby Rainbows is currently set to be lynched Rainbows (3), Moloch, Fishgle, , Warent Okay, so, the biggest thing that everyone is forgetting is that before Rainbows claimed vigi, SIX people were voting for him, and he was obviously going to get lynched. It’s been pointed out a couple times (including by myself) that it would be too risky for scum to fake reveal that way since they would probably get killed by the real vigi. The risk would be more worthwhile if it’s a given that you’re going to die if you don’t take the risk. That said, the people voting for him (6/11 people excluding rainbows) would all have to be all townies. It is possible that scum voted for one of their own to try to blend in, but if they had, they could have either avoided the situation entirely by bailing, or keep their votes on him, let him get lynched and be nearly confirmed townies. Overall, I feel it is highly unlikely half the players in the game would have their votes on a player without the scum being involved, Oh, the six players were Smancer, Me, jrkirby, Warent, TheRavensName, and jampidampi. As soon as he claimed, I unvoted, Rainbows jampi->ravens Me unvote Smancer Kirby-> jampi Obzy ravens ->jampi Fishgle rainbows->jampi Me ->jampi Saraf -> jjd Kirby -> jjd Jampi rainbows->jjd | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 10 2013 04:35 Obzy wrote: Moloch, had you posted that word file yesterday, I would've been quite a bit less worried, given that it has actual thoughts and analysis instead of just a summary list lol. I just didn't want to clog the thread up with useless information and hoped just giving the information that wasn't completely useless would be helpful in some way. On April 10 2013 04:35 Obzy wrote: What do you think of the case that has just been posted on Kirby? Also, how do you respond to the other cases against you, do you have any current scumreads, and do you agree with me that nw has completely picked up his game and is likely town? I'll look at those right now. If I remember correctly from my first readthrough, all the other cases on me were basically Smancer's argument rehashed. (I'll doublecheck that) I completely agree that nw has picked up his game, and I'll try to form an opinion on his orientation as I read through the thread again. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 10 2013 04:15 nobodywonder wrote: jrkirby is scum. lynch him. There are many suspicious, I will guide you through the exhibits of scumminess first, the sudden town read. this is, by itself, not incriminating, but provides a very important contrast to his later quotes and actions. considering that jamp actually gets lynched, jrkirby does set himself up to look good. this is weird because, in contrast this correct single town read, all of jrkirby's other posts seem to insinuate that he doesnt know what he is doing. here are some examples: herp derp, you were absolutely correct on jamp as a bad town. why cant you find other bad town or scum. then. you easily somehow saw the difference when everyone else didn't and dun goofed. I really like your analysis in this part. Being completely sure of anyone's orientation on the first day is suspicious, since the only things you have to go on are how people have been interacting with other unknown people. But, that being said, Kirby also changes his opinion of jampi from mystery scum read to well-meaning, but incompetent townie. Says he's suspicious of jampi: April 6, 7:36 (and at 8:54, and 11:26 [specifies he wouldn't vote on a hunch here]) Rainbows vote for jampi: April 6 15:21 Smancer votes jampi: April 6 21:40 Obzy votes: April 7 2:44 Fishgle votes: April 7 2:49 I vote: April 7 4:04 Kirby recants his suspicion of jampi: April 7 4:32 Kirby claims jampi is town: April 7 7:34 (note: I didn't mark down unvotes) Yes, Kirby says his suspicions on jampi at the beginning, but I think the fact that he tries defending him after so many have voted for him at one point or another makes him look more town. Earlier Kirby admitted it was unfounded suspicion and he'd never vote on it, but If Kirby was scum, he could easily have just let it happen without saying anything and we'd be in the same spot we are now, but without any (as much) kirby suspicion. On April 10 2013 04:15 nobodywonder wrote: this quote especially concerns me. WTF, if the town going to lynch townie and especially since you gave a very strong town read, I expect you to fucking stop the lynch. I think if you defended the shit of him, that would have been the correct move - you would actually look even better than after a switch to another lynch, because for someone to stop a bandwagon on a townie shows the likely characteristics of a townie provided there is good reasoning. but instead you just let him die, this is too convienent since allows your mafia agenda. The last quote of yours that concerns you is the weakest part of your argument. He wrote that five minutes before the end of the day, and he actually had made a couple posts saying that he thought jampi was town after he was on his way to be lynched. He even tried calling out to me to try to get me to switch my vote at the last minute. These two points of your so far are conflicting. First you're saying that kirby is scum because he claimed jampi was town, then you say that he's scum because he didn't do enough to save jampi. I don't buy it. On April 10 2013 04:15 nobodywonder wrote: 2nd thing is terrible post history, he has a lot of filler that is not only useless, but also confusing... does not compute, really. no jargon or metaphor is necessary, just give a simple answer plz. I play SC2 and I don't know what a lurker is. :/ He was obviously making a bad metaphor. Just because you haven't played BW (or HotS campaign, apparently), doesn't mean he's scum. That being said, I'm not exactly sure what his metaphor is supposed to mean, either.... I'm ending this post here. I feel it's getting too long. I'll respond to the rest of your post soon. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 10 2013 04:15 nobodywonder wrote: Hmm, youre not very committed to lynching this Rainbows guy. This combined with your metaphor makes me rather unclear about your thoughts. You seem so far to suggest a policy of lynching stupid behavior. this is interesting too, since you later propose a conspiracy theory of rainbows, obzy and jjd being mafia at night. What you quoted was from merely hours after the game started. He writes the conspiracy theory you mention over forty hours later. Of course he he's not going to be very committed to lynching rainbows at the start because the game just began! On April 10 2013 04:15 nobodywonder wrote: now here is also a huge contradiction. this is after the night kill. how the fuck did fishgle randomly change from being a scumread to townread? this makes no sense at all besides a very obvious scumslip. just explain this? if you are town, it shouldn't be too hard, you should be able to clearly demonstrate his transition from scumread to townread. and for that matter, you should told us why he was a scumread in the first place and a town read later. also smancer smells bad? lol is he sweaty or what? where is your scumread, jrkirby? and why do you have to wait for someone to come to make a case and then bandwagon. this is weak stuff lastly you play the noob card too much. though i understand this is newbie game, if you just use the noob card so much, town just misregards your opinion, which is useless agenda if you're town, but very convienent if you're scum since you can just blend in. I would also really like to know how fishgle went from being scumread to townread. I don't particularly blame him for using the noob card, I've been tempted to use that as an excuse for feeling pretty clueless about stuff. That said, you're correct that it does water down opinions and help stay out of mind, so he should stop saying it. My opinions about fishgle based only on his posts today: + Show Spoiler + I agree with fishgle's points about not letting Obzy have a free ride. He says that kirby pushed town towards voting jampi, then backed off - which isn't true (unless saying you're suspicious of someone, but not enough to vote for them is pushing the town towards a lynch). I don't know whether he said that mistakenly or if he's trying to build up animosity towards kirby and hoping nobody checks out what actually happened. I don't have a strong opinion on him, but I don't see anything that would change someone's opinion of him as much as kirby's apparently has. Maybe kirby just likes being suspected? Or, on a darker note, maybe fishgle is on to something and kirby is hoping that by saying fishgle is town, fishgle will ease up on kirby and not push a kirby lynch too hard On April 10 2013 04:15 nobodywonder wrote: this is also too convienent for you to just come in and drop a vote without any scrutinizing. at this point, you are scum - all your actions fit the perfect mold of scum. ##Vote jrkirby die scum. I like the conviction you've ended with, but I feel I've debunked a couple of your points, so I don't agree that kirby is the best offering for lynching (Well, he could be, but I've spent more time looking at your argument than making my own, so I have a limited view on who is doing what other than kirby). Since kirby seems to be everyone's top pick (aside from me), I'm going to take a look at smancer and jarjar and see if I can find kirby's reasoning for suspecting them most. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
Your Mafia perspective is spot on. There was basically no downside to claiming at the point he was at. Your town perspective should include a #3 - The mafia assumed the medic would protect Rainbows, so they didn't want to waste their hit on him, and they knew they could roleblock him so he couldn't do anything anyway. Because of this newly added possibility, your claim that there is no good reason for Mafia to keep Rainbows alive is false, which weakens your argument by a lot. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 10 2013 06:49 Obzy wrote: I'm feeling happier with Moloch since he's posting, and his logic is good too ^^ Moloch, if you were more active, you probably never would have left my happy townread group haha. You're making a revival atm but don't take that as a sign that it's okay to slow down or stop, because it definitely isn't. /crackwhip ^_^; I'm glad you like my logic! I'm here as much as real life lets me be, so don't worry about me disappearing again until next week-end (friend is coming in from out of town, there's a metal show I have to go to [GOATWHORE! YEAAHHH!] and it's the week-end after classes end, AND I have a full week before my first final, so I'll be pretty much constantly drunk the entire time) | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 07 2013 10:44 Smancer wrote: Damn it. Jkirby this makes you look really good. He votes/unvotes Rainbows a ~36 hours later. He builds a case against me ~ 24 hours after that. He hasn't mentioned Kirby again until On April 09 2013 21:56 Smancer wrote: I'll do it if everyone else is willing to. How do you know who is town? scumslip?? But he claims he was being sarcastic about the scumslip part, and just pointing out the bad logic. He then does his crazy conspiracy theory (his words) about Raven and me. This is where it starts getting interesting. He quotes kirby's three one-liners that imply Smancer is scum, and does a complete turnaround and goes aggressive on kirby. Then he ridicules kirby because kirby doesn't want to lynch me. An hour later, he says he likes how I addressed his case against me, but he's still voting for kirby. The only thing he's going on is that kirby has been "posting garbage reads" and that he doesn't seem to have a sense of urgency to find scum. To me, it feels like Smancer is just doing voting for kirby because kirby made a weak case against him. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 10 2013 07:54 Obzy wrote: Moloch who would you want to vote for if not kirby? nobody do you have any insights or are you still convinced? I'm not sure right now. I'm looking closer to TRN and JJD. TRN because I trust Rainbows more than anyone else at the moment, and JJD because I have a general bad feeling about him, but him almost being lynched yesterday makes me trust him slightly more. I'm going to briefly go over kirby's posting history first, though. All I've done with kirby is find flaws in people's arguments against him, which doesn't necessarily mean that I trust him. It kind of feels like I've wasted time wrecking other people's arguments rather than building my own. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 10 2013 08:05 jrkirby wrote: Moloch: Why do you trust rainbows? I understand not thinking him scum, as I don't think he's scum either. But I don't think he's got good reads, and he's just tunneling TRN for not a very good reason. That came out wrong. I meant "I trust him more than anyone else" as in, I think there's less chance he's scum than anybody else. It's not really a positive, just less negative. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
I like kirby's posts, for the most part. He's had good posts on multiple people and will probably be useful in the future. JJD. I don't like any of his arguments against kirby, and he hasn't done much since then. He's said stuff, but nothing with any substance that I can see. I wish I had more than half an hour to vote. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
Think about that, everyone. 50% of EVERYONE is voting for kirby. There are ten people alive. 9 people not including kirby. When 5/9 people are voting for kirby, chances are he's town unless scum are voting for their own. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
| ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
If he gets lynched, there is a good situation and a bad one. Good: He's scum! Bad: He's blue. But, this situation will also give us soooooooo much information. Much more than a kirby lynch would. I'm nearly convinced kirby is town. Like I said earlier, I don't see scum voting for their own when the race is close. So, if he is scum, the most likely candidates for scum are Fishgle and Obzy since they piled on at the end. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
I really think there's a better chance he's scum than kirby right now. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
My count: 2 ravens, 5 kirby, 1 jjd, 2 rainbows | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 10 2013 08:59 Acrofales wrote:  Are we actually entertaining to watch? I imagine it's somewhat like watching a bunch of toddlers trying to hit each other with those floaty long skinny pool things. Swinging, missing, losing balance, and falling down. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
| ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
| ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 11 2013 12:46 Rainbows wrote: Actually, it's 8 players left. 3 v 5. We can afford one more townie dying by NK. Whoever they kill, even if it's me, would give us great information. There is no reason to not go to a no-lynch. ##Vote: No-lynch At first this sounded idiotic, but it is actually the best idea at the moment. If we mislynch today, we've lost since tomorrow it will be 3v3. If we don't lynch until tomorrow, we have a better chance to hit scum (3/6 instead of 3/7 - not including yourself). Either way, if we miss a single lynch, we've lost. This way we just make our chances slightly better. ##Vote: No Lynch | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
If we don't lynch today, and do hit scum tomorrow, the scenario goes something like this: (Morning = at the time of day post, Evening = at the time of night post) (Tomorrow) Morning: 3v4 Evening: 2v4 Morning: 2v3 IF we miss this lynch as well, we lose, but if we hit then Evening: 1v3 Morning: 1v2 We have to hit this lynch exactly as well. So, the obvious downside of waiting until tomorrow is that town would have to hit every single lynch until all the scum are dead. Possible scenario if we hit a lynch today: (Tomorrow) Morning: 2v4 Here, we would be in the same situation we are now. We could either wait for a day to get better odds, and a mislynch would lose the game. If we wait, we're back in the 'must hit every lynch' stage, and if we don't wait (and get another lynch), we have the option of waiting (but not mislynching) the next day. Evening A: 2v4; Evening B: 1v4; Evening C: 2v3 (loss) Morning A: 2v3; Morning B: 1v3; Evening A1: 1v3; Evening A2: 2v3 (Loss); Evening B1: 0v3 (Win); Evening B2: 1v2 (Loss) Morning A1a: 1v2; Evening: Either loss or win. If we don't lynch today, our odds to hit scum go up to 50% hit tomorrow. If we lynch today (and hit), tomorrow we can choose to not lynch and our chance from tomorrow we go from 2v4 to 2v3 which increases our chance to hit from 33% to 40%. If we wait two days to not lynch, our odds of hitting a scum at random go from 25% to 33%. Each day we don't use our no-lynch option (given we survive), the benefit of not lynching goes down. The only downside to this is that we'll probably lose Rainbows tonight, and it feels like he gets the best reads on people. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 11 2013 15:46 Moloch wrote: The only downside to this is that we'll probably lose Rainbows tonight, and it feels like he gets the best reads on people. We'd probably lose Rainbows tonight anyway, so I guess even that isn't a downside. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
| ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 13 2013 06:08 TheRavensName wrote: What about the fact that theres only one person who cast the deciding vote as opposed to two? It doesn't matter if town wins by two votes or one vote. Having the extra person gives more chance townies will suspect each other (since there's more of them), and the vote will be split - giving scum a better opportunity to lynch a townie. Remember, if we miss this lynch, we've lost the game. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
...and a better chance that the vote will be split | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 13 2013 06:31 Warent wrote: Just feels like 5vs3 is a bit better though. The difference between 3/8 and 3/7 is only 5.4%... It feels like 5v3 is better, but like I said, it increases the chance of town not agreeing. If one town hates somebody (Rainbows, for example), and votes for him and is obviously not going to change his vote, scum can jump on Rainbows and have four votes. The rest of the town, which has the right idea, then cannot topple the obvious scum vote because they'd lose the tiebreaker. Yes, it feels better when you win by more, but it increases the chance of variability within the team and unexpected things happening. And 5.4% is high enough to have my attention. Hopefully the scum hit someone that I'm iffy on and it'll increase chances even more. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
^ I'm not saying that's an accurate representation of people's alliances, but it's just an example. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
| ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
So, whether we vote no-lynch or if you're correct about Warent, the game will keep going on for at least one more day. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
| ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
If he was, the rest of the scum could easily vote for something else and outvote the people voting for Warent. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 13 2013 09:20 Rainbows wrote: My god. I think moloch is town. NW is town warent is town. Raven is confirmed scum for that move he pulled. I'm not as sure about Warent as I was. There were more than enough people lurking and able to do last-minute vote changes that it's possible that that my claim of "why don't they vote for something else" was slightly premature. But, then it did achieve what I wanted, so... yeah.... | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
Am I missing something here, or did this just happen? Is that how it works? If the vig targets the scum who was going to carry out the kill, the scum's kill doesn't go through? | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
| ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
| ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
| ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
| ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
##Vote: JarJarDrinks. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
| ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
The general impression I get from Fishgle is jumping on the anti-JJD bandwagon to built trust while trying to steer blame towards Warent. He hasn't done anything that makes him look innocent like everyone else has. Go go gadget lynch Fishgle? | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 16 2013 10:10 nobodywonder wrote: I'm lil' confused about the setup stuff, just want to make sure so I get good theorycraft vigilant only has one shot, right? also the last mafia has to be roleblocker, right? Correct on both accounts. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
| ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 17 2013 12:59 Hapahauli wrote: One of the more interesting and instructive newbie games in a while - heck of a comeback by town! I'll do a write-up later. Awesome! I'm looking forward to reading it. | ||
|
Moloch
Canada222 Posts
On April 17 2013 13:55 jrkirby wrote: I would call this a scum failure rather than town victory. I guess all you have to do to lose as scum is just not submit night actions. I completely agree it was scum's failure, but even if they had submitted their actions, I think we still had a chance considering how badly they messed up their warent lynch attempt - it just would have been a lot closer. | ||
| ||
