EPTSmurf Mini Mafia - Page 62
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
Let's play a game... | ||
|
Baker1986
217 Posts
| ||
|
Baker1986
217 Posts
On June 14 2013 21:27 Hurndall3 wrote: i know it pisses you off but it happens. you have seen it happen countless times in non smurf games I am sure. Absolutely and I hate it as much every time. but in this case you could be goddamn syllo and I wouldn't know anything. So yeah, you forgot that you cannot rely on your own badness to save you this game. | ||
|
Baker1986
217 Posts
also at PT, I will fucking policy lynch you if there's not at least 10 posts by you this cycle. | ||
|
Hurndall3
237 Posts
| ||
|
Baker1986
217 Posts
| ||
|
PTroughton2
82 Posts
On June 14 2013 20:17 Baker1986 wrote: @PT you need to get posting. On June 14 2013 21:31 Baker1986 wrote: also at PT, I will fucking policy lynch you if there's not at least 10 posts by you this cycle. Do you have specific questions while I go back to the project I started last night? Catching up first. On June 15 2013 05:59 Baker1986 wrote: It's a pleasure to be in lylo with you guys. My sarcasm-o-meter wasn't quite sure what to do with this. On June 14 2013 21:27 Hurndall3 wrote: also i got hella demoralized because I was wrong about everything when i tryharded. Help me understand this. When you are town and get something wrong, it makes you give up? You don't just gather yourself up and continue the hunt? What specifically about about this demotivated state means that you should try for one day and then give up when you are wrong? How would town win ever if everyone played like that? Half of these questions are rhetorical, I'm just staggered that you believe it's okay that citing a lack of motivation due to being wrong once justifies anything at all. Baker seemed somewhat demotivated after the second lynch. The difference between you and him is that he hasn't hidden behind it and he's made an effort to come back to the game swinging without being begged, poked, prodded, challenged, or shouted at constantly to do so. | ||
|
Baker1986
217 Posts
| ||
|
PTroughton2
82 Posts
On June 15 2013 07:00 Baker1986 wrote: You mention several times in your filter that you thought h3 established his innocence well on day 1. Can you explain where this comes from? My early stance was that he was likely town because he had no regard for his image. Posting one-liners and complaining about how hard the game was originally struck me as drawing too much attention to himself. On May 30 2013 00:52 Hurndall3 wrote: wow it is hard to play all smurf games. I can't keep people apart. On May 30 2013 00:54 Hurndall3 wrote: also it doesn't help that the names are as generic as possible Where I began to change my mind was when I realized he was consistently using simple rules for defining who his town reads are. In the case of HW he used the attitude of a post to disregard everything else about HW's play that made him scummy. On June 05 2013 06:18 PTroughton2 wrote: Admitting his behavior makes him look scummy, making several excuses for it, but him saying that somehow nullified everything before it for you? You were rather quick to pick up on that and disregard the rest of the post. In fact, you seem to have a history of using shortcuts in general. Do you attribute looking for an easy way to determine alignments to this game being a smurf game where there's nobody you recognize? Is this still the case? To me it's a possible explanation for your behavior, but on the other hand that is also a convenient excuse for: I think this is generally a town tell. But it's also evident that you're not thinking critically about things and letting the greenest reads do the majority of the work for you. So will this be your standard tactic for the remainder of the game, namely to sheep the loudest or strongest town voices? I would agree if someone argued you established innocence early, but that credit does decay over time without upkeep. This is very similar to how he defended H3 as well. On June 08 2013 08:29 Hurndall3 wrote: k I've been reading and rereading eccs filter and I think he's town. his early game record looks really scummy (shown by msmiths analysis.). In fact it looks so bad that scum would probably be more careful about how they were treating DrT, since all the powertowns were on drts wagon and it was pretty obvious he was going to be lynched. this is a tooscummytobescum argument but that doesn't mean its wrong. secondly there is this quote: I really can't imagine writing this as scum. And I don't mean the thought is particularly pro town. It's just that scum doesn't have thoughts like this. I eventually drew the connection between his insistence that we were "talking funny" or whatever was because he wanted the game to feel more natural and open to his own style of play. On June 07 2013 06:27 PTroughton2 wrote: Just caught up with the thread, and I see you're leaving at this point so I don't know if you'll be around to respond to this, but I must ask if you truly read what I wrote or if it was too long for you to sit through. Most of your filter exhibits the traits of putting in as little effort as possible. Smurfing provides the rare opportunity for everyone to divert from our normal play. This means that we can experiment if we feel the need, say things more freely without the baggage held in the words we use to play as those words would apply to our names, truly escape our meta. I would wager that no effort has been made on your part to do anything different in this game. In fact based on your writing style you could potentially already be identified by players in the thread. Although we are not allowed to openly speculate about the identities behind the players, those players who play very similarly to their natural styles are easier to identify and reveal their own identities through their natural process through the game. In a way, this is a clue to help each of us determine the alignment of others when it is applicable I do not believe you are making effort to diverge from your standard, no matter who you are. You seem to be playing a style that you are comfortable with. Without raising your standard, you even go so far as to call people out for playing differently in a smurf game (quote 1 above), as if the thought never crossed your mind why players would be acting differently in a game where they were free of the community-applied constraints of their standard play. This says to me that you have not even considered changing your approach to the game in favor of a style you are comfortable with and thus that you are either a) ignorant to the nature of this game, b) apply no special value to the game type when you can escape meta, or c) that you intentionally did not change your play for fear that it would out you should you divert from your standard "town" meta. Quotes two and three are also applicable to this point: acting upon your town meta that you are leaning on as a crutch is to not expend much effort in pushing ideas in the thread, your check-in check-out style leaves you open to excusing yourself repeatedly TL;DR (for you specifically because you have an issue with reading, apparently): I think you're scum because you're adhering to your previously established town meta despite that meta not applying in this game. Not to say that we know who you are or what your meta specifically is, but that you are adhering to your original style of play. Your lack of experimentation and insight into why people would play differently betrays that your thinking about the game is largely one dimensional and displays casual understanding and a largely disconnected approach. The point I make in the above, and the major reason I switched to a scum read, was not just that I disliked his play style for what it was, but that it looked like he was intentionally trying to be useless as a part of a previously comfortable play style in an effort to appear townie. The reason this is scummy is because that's entirely unnecessary in a smurf game. He's been intentionally useless on purpose. To emulate his town play in a game where we don't know what to expect of his town play and then count on us believing that his town meta is being intentionally useless for the most part exhibits that he feels intrinsic guilt about his alignment and is going his best to match what he knows has worked for him before. | ||
|
PTroughton2
82 Posts
| ||
|
Baker1986
217 Posts
| ||
|
PTroughton2
82 Posts
On June 08 2013 11:10 Hurndall3 wrote: yup mcgann died because he thought Ecc is town. Ecc IS TOWN. Do you think it's a coincidence that PT and HW (both scummy fucks) are now pushing him uber hard in tandem? Oh man. Look at this as a concept. How is a NK useful for pointing to someone specifically being town? First, it's a one-to-one cause and effect scenario without looking at the alternative reasons for the kill. Did McGann die because he thought Eccleston was town? How about an alternative explanation for the kill? He was a risk factor for H3 getting lynched. In an environment where McCoy seemed to be less certain of his reads as time went on, McCoy would be potentially malleable when it came to his read of H3. How about another alternative explanation? McGann was tunneling in on Davison. Killing McGann opens up Davison for a potential lynch candidate in the face of NK analysis. Why specifically does McGann dying clear Eccleston? Why is that the most important note to make regarding the night kill? On June 07 2013 03:40 A McGann wrote: I need to leave for work. I really don't have the time right now to convince you of TheDavison. If im too tunnelled on this then it is what it is. If nothing else, this flip will tell me all I need to know about TheDavison. Ill trust you and vote Hurndall, since his play has been shit. I asked him for better today, got nothing. ##Unvote ##Vote: Hurndall3 McGann's reluctance to vote for H3 stems from the basis that he thought Davison was scum and that they wouldn't likely be mafia together based on Davison's first post, the case on H3. This essentially invalidates the first alternate explanation. The second alternate explanation is a stretch and doesn't seem very likely given Davison had essentially become de facto town leader. So why was McGann killed? It looks like the purpose was specifically to set up his defense of Eccleston. It's either that or a no-information kill on a demotivated player? I find it hard to believe that there was no purpose whatsoever to McGann's death. Baker do you have other explanations that I am not considering? | ||
|
PTroughton2
82 Posts
On June 15 2013 09:00 Baker1986 wrote: Okay, another question, or request if you will. On the day tom got lynched you got into a conversation with McCoy that ultimately led to you agreeing to a Tom lynch over an Eccleston lynch. Can you summarize this conversation and the thought process behind your switch? Background: Tom was a town read early on. I especially liked his stance on behavior in the game. On May 30 2013 23:21 TomB4 wrote: and for the record, I'm not suggesting we figure out who he is, I'm saying that because we don't know the identities of players in this game we absolutely cannot tolerate such behaviour. Finding scum is that much harder when you have a player who is purposely an impedance to town efforts. To maximize the potential for finding scum, he stated that his expectation was to discourage shit posting. His first vote on me for the single post from my predecessor was testament that he meant business about it. He stuck to his guns so long that he nearly didn't switch to DrT. He did so with great reluctance. I immediately identified with him because of his stance on this issue. On June 01 2013 06:38 TomB4 wrote: No, my arguments were more based on his lack of content along with his roleplaying. It's one thing to troll and actually contribute-look at Foolishness writing limericks and still giving out worthwhile contribution. Perhaps I should have been more clear about this. Roleplaying is annoying at best if it's accompanied with actual contribution, but he was not only trolling, but not doing anything either. He still hasn't said anything of value, and it's still unknown whether we can expect him to continue to be worthless because we don't know who he is. There are some players who, even if they troll without contributing, you might still consider keeping alive because that's just what they do. In this case we have no way of knowing that, and such behaviour is directly harmful to us. I accepted the fact that he was wrong about DrT not being scum (don't forget I started reading halfway through day two, so my original overall impression is going to be somewhat different to yours) do you think that his purpose was to legitimately mislead town away from scum? I saw it as him trying to take out the trash (even though that trash was my slot!), in lieu of not being convinced of DrT being scum. I came to the conclusion that he was no-nonsense and principled about his play. My counter points to Davison's points against Tom where I basically felt like a mind reader. That post shows points and counter-points to him being potentially scum, but this is offset by my read that his principled no-BS style points to town. The point that finally convinced me was that Tom was scum was that in all of his efforts to dissuade people that he was scum, his alternative lynches were just people who were objectively scummier than him without thought out cases to push with. After that conversation with McCoy, instead of staying with his composed form and making counter-cases he fell into incredulity and last-ditch effort voteswitch posting which was something I could not associate with the play-style he had maintained up until that point. | ||
|
Hurndall3
237 Posts
| ||
|
Hurndall3
237 Posts
| ||
|
Hurndall3
237 Posts
don't equate tryhard to towniness. | ||
|
Hurndall3
237 Posts
| ||
|
Hurndall3
237 Posts
| ||
|
Hurndall3
237 Posts
-just summary, no statement of who he think is scum. He randomly muses on if baker could be considered scummy. -Suddenly he votes HW then JP without talking about either beforehand. -Summarizes some shit HW did. Then says he's a good lynch. Note: only makes an argument against HW AFTER voting for him the previous day. -Votes ECC. This is the bus. The only reason he gives is "disappearance." Proceeds to disappear for the entire weekend. EXAMPLE: this is the only post that leads to an ECC vote. He never even says why he thinks ECC is scummy really. Just talks about a bunch of random unconnected shit: On June 06 2013 08:31 PTroughton2 wrote: + Show Spoiler + Less than enthused that there was nothing from Eccleston after his latest promise almost a day ago. The developments over the early part of this cycle lead me to believe that he is using the opportunity to not take part in discourse and remain in the shadows as Davison, who is arguably being the loudest, leads discussion away from him. Of course I appear to be in that same category but right now I'm trying to wrap my head around Davison's case. Tom's rebuttal reads incredibly townie and he has explained, at least to my own satisfaction, his thoughts on each of the points brought against him. Moreover, I am concerned that this case seeks to discredit Tom who was one of two people eyeing Davison for a potential lynch on D1. It seems the other was also one of his current scum reads: McGann. It may be just a coincidence, after all, and the game is dynamic after all, so I'll take a look at Davison's responses to those suspicions. Okay so that was in the period Davison was inactive and heading for replacement. Fair enough. I don't think I can attribute his read on Tom now to the things that Tom wrote about his slot earlier in the game, especially when those concerns over Davison were assuaged by McCoy: On June 03 2013 06:05 SMcCoy wrote: If we don't lynch JP the only guy I'll vote today will be HartnellWill, I've grown doubts about Davis cause of this post: This was right after DrT jumped onto the Trout wagon. If Davison is his scumbuddy, why would he try to disrupt the only way for DrT to save himself? Also, I think this post is really townie, although I don't agree with his conclusion since HW also made clear he would switch onto Trout: No Davis lynch please. I think we have a false positive here. The new Davison is loud and in your face and even though I feel he is incorrect about Tom here, I am having trouble placing a scum motive on this case when it can just be explained as a genuine misunderstanding or misinterpretation as shown by Tom's response. Davison, would you please flesh out what exactly it is about McGann you find scummy other than assocation with Tom, or have you reconsidered your renewed read on Eccleston in the face of his timely disappearance? ##Vote: Eccleston | ||
|
Baker1986
217 Posts
On June 15 2013 10:34 Hurndall3 wrote: not offense baker but I don't think very highly of your play. about to read pt's filter and show you how it's done. If you hadn't read PT's filter prior to this, why was the conclusion foregone? Is there nowhere in the back of your mind the possibility that I'm the remaining scum? If not, you haven't explained why, I already stated why your oneliner that flipped your read on me from scum to town isn't valid. | ||
|
Baker1986
217 Posts
On June 15 2013 10:31 Hurndall3 wrote: one liner to motivate baker to vote for pt: don't equate tryhard to towniness. It's not about trying hard. It's about doing the right thing. If you had consistently been on the correct wagons since early game we wouldn't have a problem. The problem is that when you don't try and in addition your votes and whatever little influence you have is used in a way that benefits mafia. So now you're asking me to take a leap of faith and ASSUME you were wrong all this time for the right reasons. Because you certainly never wrote down any detailed reasoning for any of your reads, as best exemplified by your scumread on me. It's got nothing to do with tryharding and it's got nothing to do with being right or wrong. My problem is that there is a lack of information to decide WHY you were wrong, because you're an asshole that thinks you can play the game whatever way you want and get away with it. Your latest case is pointless, I already read PTs filter 3-4 times, I don't need you to tell me something about him, I've repeatedly asked you to explain yourself. I am way on top of reading PT on my own. On June 15 2013 10:32 Hurndall3 wrote: baker you are asking mafia very easy questions to answer. l2scumhunt kthxbai Good job, antagonize me, that'll get the job done. If you're right in your assumption that I'm town and you're somehow town yourself, you should be using any means necessary to convince me. Beg, threaten, lie, charm, kiss-ass, whatever you think will work on my personality and my attitude towards scumhunting. But whatever, I'll take scumhunting lessons from you after the game. Maybe you can teach me your ways. Today your mission is to convince me if you're somehow town. And the clock is ticking buddy. Remember that post I wrote where I asked for an explanation of why every single read of yours has changed since just yesterday? Yeah, you've never given any clarification on that. | ||
| ||
