EPTFirst game, whoo.
Newbie Mafia XL
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
First game, whoo. | ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
On April 04 2013 05:14 Smancer wrote: Just go up to any woman at all and say something. She will instantly think you are scum. This is woman policy. Even if you are, play like you are town. Get your wingman DT to return a town read, and build your case until you get her to ##Unvote But what if you are scum? Should your wingman fake claim, or would it be better to bus your wingman for town cred? | ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
Can we vote for a no-lynch in this game, or must votes be placed on individuals? 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. Not talking policy Day 1 is bullshit. Scum know who scum are but we don't, and the only way we catch scum is by making them fuck up. Even if the policy ends up being "there is no policy", the debate drives conversation and conversation is the only reliable way we have of rooting out scum and eliminating them. Problems arise for town when scum derails the conversation, so here's some day 1 policy to chew on: In the absence of really strong reads, lynch the spammiest asshole who shits up the thread the most. Spamming the thread is a scum tactic to distract and disrupt town; even if the spammiest asshole is just some poor well-meaning fattie (who should have applied the litmus test "does this post help town?"), at the very least in Day 2 the thread will be less shit up, and it'll be easier to find scum without him shitting up the thread. | ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
Rainbows, you're obviously up, what do you actually think about the policy? | ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
| ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
Rainbows, I'm surprised you're sticking to me as I really thought that was a joke vote. You might just be getting real defensive because you thought I wanted to lynch you at the time (you're misreading it, willfully or not) so I'm going to spell out the idea again, and this time I actually want your thoughts on it instead of tunneling me on a case so weak it honestly didn't look real. + Show Spoiler + Policy (and I really don't see how this is lulzy): In the absence of a strong scumread, lynch the spammiest asshole. ((Try reading this again in a vacuum, Rainbows, instead of imagining it is directed at you; I quoted your post about "don't talk policy" because I began by responding to the point about not talking policy)) Reasoning: Spam is anti-town, so lynching the spammiest asshole de-clutters the thread and makes scumhunting easier. Two possibilities exist: either the spammiest asshole is scum and becomes dead scum, or the spammiest asshole is a bad townie whose actions are hurting town. IF the spammiest asshole turned out to be a bad townie, then at least the bad townie will not be hurting town on N1 and D2. But, the spammiest asshole will never be a good townie. And, as I explained in my second post, actively scumhunting is not the same thing as spamming. Here are the primary things I'm still looking to get at: (1) Rainbows, I still want to see you actually respond to my policy suggestion; look at it again, note that the policy is not "policy lynch Rainbows", and tell my why you hate it. Since it's been thrown out, I haven't seen the thread getting shit up so as far as I'm concerned it's served its puprose. I also want to know why you included an entire paragraph about how I didn't suggest any policy when I very clearly did, and then followed it with a one-sentence minimalist retraction. If I clearly suggested a policy (which people weren't really talking about at the time anyway) why devote so much time (read: any at all) to saying I didn't? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt since you were the one who got discussion going (so I'm going to read it as a misread and OMGUS) but I really don't like that paragraph. (2) jrkirby, you'd best get to explaining your "mystery read" because keeping that to yourself doesn't help town and looks mighty shady. Whoever it is, pressure them and they'll either come away clean or fuck up, because saying "I have a secret read" is highly suspect. Bolded for emphasis. Also, re: Obzy, it seems like people don't want a policy for pretty well-founded reasons (and on a related note I really liked jampidampi's response to my policy). We should be lynching based on scumreads rather than based on policy, but having a policy in place can help keep a pro-town environment in place so we never have to actually use it. For instance, if people never spam the thread to shit we don't have to lynch a spammiest asshole, the fear that we might if there was is itself a deterrent. | ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
| ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
jampidampi: If we're lynching people for cases that don't fucking make sense, then in the time we lynch jampidampi we should have lynched Rainbows twice. That's basically my feeling on him. Is he trying to get Rainbows lynched? Yes. Is his case pretty bad? Damn right it is. But is Rainbows's play helping town? No, not really, he's being irrational and flinging shit all over the place so trying to lynch him isn't even really a bad choice. But more on Rainbows in his section. Rainbows: See above. If we lynch people for shitty cases we'd lynch Rainbows all week; I don't see what he's doing as helping town and the only thing stopping me from just voting Rainbows right now is that nothing he's doing really makes any sense from a scum perspective. That's absolutely the only thing because he has been all over the place all day and I just don't see why you would do that as scum. He's basically spent Day 1 tanking his town cred and then getting mad that he doesn't look towny; not exactly the best scum move. I'm writing him off until he cools the fuck down but I'll come back to him if nobody gets on the wagon of great justice. Obzy: Scum if Rainbows is, town otherwise. You've been pretty well-reasoned but to be honest your sheep onto TRN and now onto jampi for basically doing the same thing as Rainbows is pretty iffy to me. If Rainbows gets lynched and flips red we need to grill you something hardcore. And re: your assertion about counter-claiming, there is no way in hell the real Vigi would actually claim, he'd just shoot Rainbows who would then flip red because there is no fucking reason to fake claim Vigi if you're town, especially when the case against you is awful. TRN: No real reason to point out that I'm lurking if he's scum; he already has Rainbows shooting himself in the face all over the thread and that's such an easy target there's almost no reason to bring up anything else, especially when he's already OMGUS'd onto him. I don't think he's a very good lynch today. JarJarDrinks: Has fewer posts than me and I've been lurking something fierce, but all of his posts have been devoted to tunneling jrkirby. Absolutely nothing he has done has actually helped town and "you're a little bit scummy" is pretty much the extent of his reasoning. At the very least jampidampi has been trying to get information out of people; it's not working, but that's just because nobody was actually even trying with him. JJD is trying to get by under the radar and that is not going to fly anymore. ##vote JarJarDrinks | ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
| ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
But here's the biggest reason I'm not fighting his lynch: his parting shot is basically an excerpt from my last post right after he calls me suspicious. Take a look (relevant parts only and bolded/underlined for emphasis): On April 07 2013 04:15 Saraf wrote: jampidampi: If we're lynching people for cases that don't fucking make sense, then in the time we lynch jampidampi we should have lynched Rainbows twice. That's basically my feeling on him. Is he trying to get Rainbows lynched? Yes. Is his case pretty bad? Damn right it is. But is Rainbows's play helping town? No, not really, he's being irrational and flinging shit all over the place so trying to lynch him isn't even really a bad choice. But more on Rainbows in his section. JarJarDrinks: Has fewer posts than me and I've been lurking something fierce, but all of his posts have been devoted to tunneling jrkirby. Absolutely nothing he has done has actually helped town and "you're a little bit scummy" is pretty much the extent of his reasoning. At the very least jampidampi has been trying to get information out of people; it's not working, but that's just because nobody was actually even trying with him. JJD is trying to get by under the radar and that is not going to fly anymore. ##vote JarJarDrinks On April 07 2013 05:50 jampidampi wrote: Since it's almost midnight, I'll post this and go to bed. If you are lynching me for doing nothing, why aren't you lynching JarJar? If you are lynching me for bad cases, why aren't you lynching Rainbows? If you can answear these question, then fine, lynch me. But if you lynch me, you better make the most out of it postflip. Pressure the shit out of anyone who can't answear these questions. Pressure the shit out of anyone who voted for me with halfassed reasoning or blatantly sheeped. Hopefully I'm alive when I wake up. Goodnight folks. So he calls me suspicious when he switches his vote to JJD but then basically says the exact same thing as me when he logs? I think that's pretty suspect but I think we'll get more information if there's a last-second vote-switch onto jarjar, so I'm going to leave my vote where it is. | ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
| ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
| ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
Also, is there a Swede in the audience who can translate that? | ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
The Rainbows case: Exhibit A -- + Show Spoiler + On April 05 2013 09:28 Rainbows wrote: 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. On April 05 2013 09:45 Rainbows wrote: My point. 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? Rainbows begins the game by starting some conversation; "don't talk policy", etc. "This is a hypothetical question", etc. At first glance, this seems very pro town. But how much does Rainbows actually contribute to the conversation? Other than "I was guy A", and Exhibit B, the rest of his posts before my first post are either trolly or directed at TRN and have nothing to do with the game. And, he never comes back to address anything about policy later, or people's opinions on policy. Exhibit B -- + Show Spoiler + On April 05 2013 10:03 Rainbows wrote: ##Vote: Smancer This vote is serious. On April 05 2013 10:08 Rainbows wrote: Because he said hi and trolled with me but won't answer simple questions. It's that simple. Alright, a serious vote, or so he claims. Note that Smancer has not posted since Rainbows posted his hypothetical question. Possibly just a pressure vote, maybe looking to draw an OMGUS. Note that this worked very well for the scumteam in NMM XXXIX, because rayn caused TRN to OMGUS and be useless, then Rainbows played the straight man to get TRN to follow him around like a lost sheep. This time, Rainbows is playing the funny man, and I will reference this point again later. Remember also that Rainbows does not answer questions unless he is absolutely bombarded with them and is forced to answer. Exhibit C -- + Show Spoiler + On April 05 2013 13:04 Rainbows wrote: I fakeclaimed as a troll move and it worked =|. Felt bad for town that game. I think we should all rally around lynching Saraf, because he called me town and expressed interest in lynching someone he called probably town. ##Unvote ##Vote: Saraf The logic here, it is very strong indeed. On April 05 2013 23:37 Rainbows wrote: Saraf It is obvious that Saraf is referring to me here. I'm spamming, I'm doing a bunch of nuisance-like things and he doesn't like it. He says he would like to lynch me; even if I'm probably town. Saraf seems to know I'm town, because he refers to me as such and tells me how I should be playing. Notice the hypocrisy in this underlined statement. Saraf wants policy talk. Awesome, go for it man... wait, what policy has he brought up -- none. He wants people to talk about policy but is doing nothing to drive the discussion. He's trying to come off all pro-town by being 'yeah, we should lynch a scummy spammer guy, and totally talk about policy because it generates discussion!". He completely ignores A) that discussion is already happening, and we can talk about that and B) He himself is not bringing up policy to talk about and "get information". I digress, he's brought up the policy to 'lynch the spammiest asshole', but that in itself people are already talking about because I'm the center of discussion. So antagonisitic. Here we go, his case on me. The vote itself is a little suspect because it's based on a reading of my post that is just flat-out wrong. He takes my policy post, reads it as an attack on him and then you get the above. That can be hand-waved away as perhaps fishing for a reaction, but the second part cannot. He devotes an entire paragraph to point out a contradiction in my post that doesn't exist ("wants policy talk"/"doesn't bring up policy" when I did, in fact, talk policy) and follows it with a one-sentence retraction. He obviously knows he's lying here, so what the hell is going on here? I posit that he was hoping nobody would notice the contradiction in his own case while leaving himself an out in case the wagon on me didn't get rolling. Exhibit D -- + Show Spoiler + On April 05 2013 23:37 Rainbows wrote: Nobodywonder NW gives a huge summary. and throws some shit. He meditates on the policy thing, which I told everyone wasn't policy. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW PEOPLE THINK AND POLICY JESUS CHRIST PEOPLE. Had to get out of the way. This post, and subsequently the spoiler, show no effort on NW's part to come to a conrete read on me. He simply says that I'm doing things. He seems really apprehensive about giving an actual read and just flops around. I want peoples opinions of NW. Saraf might just be a banality-spewing town; and I'm unsure if his lolpolicy was serious or not. But NW - that guy. He's scummy. Next up, from the same post, his case on nobodywonder. If he hadn't included the reference to me it might have come across fine. "This guy is scummy, but not as scummy as I think Saraf is." He doesn't say that though. He does specifically what he accuses me of doing: he says I might be town, but leaves his vote on me anyway. He then says NW is scummy and wants more opinions on him. He knows the wagon on me might not stick so he's getting ready to start another one. Exhibit E -- + Show Spoiler + On April 06 2013 12:12 Rainbows wrote: TheRavensName is a fantastic lynch for today! He didn't do anything of use early game. He was around, but chose to do nothing useful. He barely even talked to me, and pretty much ignored events in the thread. His real 'entrance' post to the thread is here: Notice the complete lack of any sort of read or pressure in the post. Does Raven care about current events, does he look like he's hunting scum? He tells people to not vote me for spammyness, but does nothing to pressure those attacking me for that reason alone. He simply affords people the opportunity to lynch me by coming up with alternate reasons by the end of D1. Where's the scumreads? Vote? Nothing. I hate this defense of NW. "Oh he's just bad townie, we shouldn't lynch him even if he's really scummy" Spare me, Raven. That's bullshit reasoning and you know it. Town has no reason to defend NW right now; Scum does. Scum looks good if he's town and gets lynched, or if they're both scum it's protecting his buddy. Note how he also never gives a read on NW, just calls him bad. Last post, pretty void of any reads whatsoever. The only thing he's pointed out is my vote on Saraf, which the entire thread has already said many times. I hate to meta people, but TRN in previous games was active, scumhunting, and voted early Day 1. He's reserving his vote right now which irks me. He has done no scumhunting this game and is teetering on the edge of null on everybody. ##Unvote ##Vote: TheRavensName P.S. Raven, it's SINCE, not SENSE ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh His case on TheRavensName. Three tries and none of the wagons stuck, and he didn't get OMGUS'd. This one was guaranteed. He saw how TRN played in XXXIX, he knows TRN is going to OMGUS and make himself look bad. The case itself isn't bad because he's right about TRN's contributions to that point: basically calling nobodywonder bad (and somehow therefore a townie?), and calling out Rainbows's case on me. Exhibit F -- + Show Spoiler + On April 06 2013 12:36 Rainbows wrote: JarJarDrinks First post of the day. Neglects to comment on my play which I find exceedingly odd. I was pretty much the entire thread at that point. The worst read on the world on me. He reads me as town, but only because kirby is scum. JJD can use this to justify a scumread on me later when kirby flips town. He likes that I'm talking, but instantly turns down this read by saying I play well as scum and am capable of doing so. Epic proportions of non-committing going on. JJD is focusing on one person this entire game. He has neglected to give reads on any other player than Kirby. He does nothing to convince the rest of town that Kirby is scum, either ---> "Every post you make looks more and more scummy" why not QUOTE them... CONVINCE town? He doesn't want to. He's probably scum. Another case, this time on JarJarDrinks. Now, JJD had the same number of posts as I do (excluding my "going to bed" post and the "brb, writing cases" post, he was (and still is) lurking something hardcore. This is an easy case to make, and a very good way to divert suspicion. With these last two cases he's saying "Why lynch me? I'm trying to hunt scum and help town! We should lynch TRN who's useless or JJD who's lurking!" Here's the part where Rainbows, if he was REALLY the Vigilante could have spent his bullet in the morning. In conclusion, while Rainbows gets conversations started, he never comes back to them to actually contribute. His cases are based on either misinformation (Exhibit C & D) or on easy targets (Raven = OMGUS & JJD = lurking). He is throwing wagons against the wall to see if they will stick, he is deliberately trying to get rises out of people by machine-gun voting and once called out instead of defending himself, he explodes. "I'm obviously town", he says, "you all must just be stupid". He is playing the "funny man" in a two-man (in this particular instance 3-man) shtick and the other two mafia look way reasonable by comparison. It worked for scum in NMM XXXIX and they're trying to get away with it again here. | ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
 Should have let me watch my porn, at least my arm would have been buff. | ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
| ||
| ||
