EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XLVII - Page 29
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
killerdog
Denmark6522 Posts
| ||
|
killerdog
Denmark6522 Posts
| ||
|
infii
Germany153 Posts
First let's analyze the whole case which went against Chairman Ray. On September 06 2013 05:39 Holyflare wrote: + Show Spoiler + On September 04 2013 07:36 Chairman Ray wrote: Regardless of the math, a day 1 lynch as the norm gets people talking. No lynch = no incentive to give up information. Unless everyone is super cooperative and gives great information, we lynch. + Show Spoiler + On September 04 2013 08:16 Chairman Ray wrote: A lynch on day 1 incentivizes people to avoid being the scummiest looking player since that player WILL be lynched A possible no lynch on day 1 doesn't achieve this incentive since unless you completely crumble and blurt our something incriminating, then you don't get lynched So under the first case, as long as every genuine townsperson is being very active and contributing, then mafia is forced to do the same. Even if we lynch a town on the first day, we're still on a good start. If not every genuine townsperson is active or contributing, lynching them isn't a big loss. + Show Spoiler + On September 05 2013 03:32 Chairman Ray wrote: Since there's already been a few people suggesting they would rather no lynch than risk killing a quiet townie, then I'm gonna go ahead and say it: yes, there's a possibility of voting no lynch on first day. We threaten to lynch on the first day, and in the back of our minds we think about the option of no lynch. However the threat of a first day lynch no longer is a threat if people say it's just going to be a threat. By vocalizing that it's just a threat and we're actually allowing quiet people to live the first day, then the mafia will know that they have that option. So what we're all supposed to do is pretend that lynch is mandatory until the very end to make people think they need to talk, and then at the very end, we decide what's best. Now that this info is out there, I think we should actually do mandatory lynch. myRZeth has not said anything yet, and if that keeps up, then I will definitely be voting him. Who's in agreement? These 3 posts are all talking about no-lynching. This is fair enough seeing as the topic at the time was that, however, the third post was after the whole conversation had ended and infii had posted this post: + Show Spoiler + On September 04 2013 23:36 infii wrote: I would also love to see more participation from the people with the lower post counts (of course including me), so I did dive a bit into the filters. heavenz: Considering the fact that the discussion about yes/no-lynch on D1 was already going on for about 1 hour at the time you posted this, why did you go ahead and claim it to be 'a bit of a discussion starter' with your second post? myrzeth: Yup... we need to hear more from you merzeth. What is your opinion on lynching the most inactive player on Day1? Pharcyd: His only post, though he stated before that he would have plenty of time to keep up with the thread. So why not also contribute to the discussion? Chairman Ray: Took part in the early discussion about Day1 lynch with 2 posts saying the exact same thing. Also I disagree a bit with you here, because you don't have to actually execute the lynch to get people talking. A lynch threat is more than enough. Don’t you think lynching a less active townmember early on is a loss? Because they could still improve on Day 2 for example. Ok basically everyone listed above should step up and contribute to the discussion. You can start by answering my questions. On another note: Don’t you think the effect of a lynch threat will be reduced when you always have someone voted? If you want other players to know who you are targetting just write it in this thread for everyone to see. Since I addressed everyone seperately where is the problem of directly answering to the section directly related to ray? There was not even anything to discuss for people not mentioned in my post because I inteded to squeeze some information out of the low-post players instead of analyzing. On September 06 2013 05:39 Holyflare wrote: To insinuate further confusion he posted this: + Show Spoiler + On September 05 2013 04:03 Chairman Ray wrote: I am currently working on my scum reads right now, and will post them in a sec. As for Umasi/HolyFlare, one of the best scum tactics is to have two scum ragging on each other the first day. It monopolizes the discussion preventing productive town discourse, paints them both as very pro town, and in the case that one of them turns mafia, there's a strong argument for the other one being town. Because of this, I am not willing to read them both as town. Right now, there's a possibility of both being scum, both being town, or one being mafia, so lynching one will not give us ANY headway, I say keep them both alive on day 1. Based on who gets lynched and who gets killed by mafia, we may be able to eliminate one of the possibilities. What better way to confuse townies than put them against each other? Stating that one of them is mafia and one of them is town is planting the seed for later when people get confused and re-read these things. Not to mention his 'scum' reads that come later are just as lackluster (will post that bit further down). The conversation had already stopped between me and umasi and then it was brought up again with possibilities. He states that a mafia strategy can be to divert attention to their argument and stifle the town but that whoever gets killed or lynched will reveal the alignment of the other. That is not true either, nothing can be sought at from those posts as they were merely a heated discussion about policies etc. Thats exactly what he was saying. Nothing could be concluded from the heated discussion between holy and umasi. But it dictated the pace and direction in the early game. Which is indeed a valuable scum tactic. Holy's refutation of this argument does only work if we assume that both of them are scum... but ray said they could be both town or town/scum or both scum, so this argument looks to me like something blown out of proportion with the only intent to bolster the next points he will bring up. On September 06 2013 05:39 Holyflare wrote: This is where it gets the most scum like. READ THIS ABOVE ALL ELSE. Who was his previous post about? Me and Umasi. Who did he say not to lynch day 1 because it would be a mistake? Me and Umasi. Who is his scum read on? + Show Spoiler + On September 05 2013 06:07 Chairman Ray wrote: My intention was not to suggest ignoring the entire discussion. My intention was two things: firstly, to the few people suggesting that either you or Holy may be town (or both), I disagree completely and I would like to consider both of you just as much as everyone else. Secondly, your discussion with HolyFlare and everyone else set up a lot of variables and a few equations. This is the best thing to carry into the second round since we have almost enough information to deduce pairs of people who cannot both be mafia. This is why I'm suggesting lynching either you or holyflare first turn is unproductive for town. I will give my first set of reads. When HolyFlare said that he was withholding his reads, he dug himself an obligation. By the end of this day, he must make a play justifying that he withheld his reads with good reason, or else he's mafia. If we see his posts and decide that there's no reason why he didn't give his reads in the first place, I think he's a good mafia candidate. When you started attacking HolyFlare and threw in a vote, I don't think at that point there was any good indication that HolyFlare is mafia. I think that either both of you are mafia, in which case the discourse was counterproductive for town because you misled everyone, or you are town, in which case you were both pressuring HolyFlare and seeing who would ride the lynch train. This gives me a reason to ease up on the possibility that you are mafia and HolyFlare is town. Me and Umasi. lol? It isn't even a scum read or anything it just states the same thing as his last post. That we could be both town both mafia or one of each, that's just nothing of value. (One thing I'm sure everyone should be already aware of: Using caps to bolster your arguments does not shed a good light on you.) Again correct. This was not a scum read, holy and umasi were only possible scums from ray's perspective. So why then declare it as a read beforehand? On September 06 2013 05:39 Holyflare wrote: Not to mention the rest of his posts. + Show Spoiler + On September 05 2013 07:48 Chairman Ray wrote: Irrelevant post? Fixing keyboard? How do these two things even relate? Did anyone see the post before it was edited? I actually think we had a slipup. #vote Lord Velocity What was the post before you edited? He jumps right on top of velocity and hasn't unvoted him since. With no new information at all. That is why instead of voting out the lurker who may just be total crap to begin with I think this is a bigger scum tell for me so; ##Unvote ##Vote: Chairman Ray Since his vote was placed on LV so early (24h before lynch) this looks like a pressure vote which ray says himself later on. If you apply pressure on someone with a vote why would you unvote before getting new information? So like holy pointed out, there was not really much what ray said with his reads. And that makes even less sense to me why he is so certain about voting ray. What made him such a better lynch target than anyone else? There were much scummier plays then what ray did. I was astounded to read a post like this from holy. His previous posts had logic and were somewhat considered, I missed that here. But let's move on. Next one to jump on the train is LoneMeow. His votepost popped up 14 mins after holy's accusation. On September 06 2013 05:53 LoneMeow wrote: As to my top lynch candidate right now, I think I'd want to go for Chairman Ray: His early posts are reasonable, but he seems to be carefully avoiding taking sides and never really calls anyone scum (besides a 0-poster...) before jumping on Lord Velocity for that ridiculous edit mishap. I can easily see scum motivation for wanting not to implicate anyone until an easy target shows up to jump on. I could also consider Infii, but his "big post" does bring up some decent points that would have to be considered. ##Vote: Chairman Ray Interestingly Lonemeow did the exact same thing what he accused ray to be scummy with. Up until to this point he never took any side nor called anyone out as scum. This would be such bad scum play that it almost can't be true. Again it is hard to understand how of all the possible candidates one can choose ray to lynch. We had 48h of discussion and that went all over board for holy's accusation? After some time ray managed to dig himself even deeper into shit with this post: On September 06 2013 06:14 Chairman Ray wrote: I am confident that Lord Velocity is a good lynch target. Firstly, his slipup. This doesn't give any tells on his own, but the way he reacted to it, and other people reacted to it does. I see LV's slip as an easy mafia bandwagon target. One of my intentions of voting him was to potentially start a mafia bandwagon. If 3 other people jumped on him as well, there's a good chance we got our mafia right there. However only killerdog jumped on him. Since no other mafia backed him up, I am inclined to believe killerdog may be safe. And since there was absolutely no mafia bandwagon on Lord Velocity at all, there's a greater chance that he is the mafia. Basically what he is saying is: 'I did a scum play to catch more scum', which is understandable but naive. On September 06 2013 06:14 Chairman Ray wrote: My second piece of evidence is on how Lord Velocity reacted to it. This is killerdog's accusation of LV: When killer accused LV of hiding in qt, he had qt in lowercase. How did LV know to capitalize it? Also, the meaning of qt was clear as crystal just from the context of killerdog's accusation. Not only that, in this entire thread, qt has been mentioned many times. LV has been active. If he didn't know what qt is, why didn't he ask earlier? It was also defined earlier as well. But the strongest case comes from putting yourself in LV's shoes. If you are town, would you phrase it like that? If you are mafia, would you phrase it like that? LV's testimony of not knowing what QT is sounds exactly like someone who's deliberately feigning ignorance. From these piece of evidence, I would suggest that LV is in fact mafia. The whole QT thing is ray desperately reaching for straws in his case against LV. But that backfired on him and made the vote for the others even easier. Myrzeth voted 1min after this post but did only vote in the voting thread. (why?) The lack of content from Myrzeth makes it WIFOM to assign him any role, however in my eyes lurking hard is equal to scum play. 10mins after ray's post, 30mins before deadline Umasi hopped on as well: On September 06 2013 06:24 Umasi wrote: ##VOTE RAY ray scumslips don't exist, and you've done a lot of hunting for scumslips this game, with your qt talk at the beginning, then your accusing LV with quick topic crap.. I'm not buying it. He might have known it was an abbreviation, or he did what you did at the beginning and capitalized that. Why are you pressuring him hard on something as insignificant as THAT? sure, you 'could' be correct, and he's actually scum, and you caught a scum slip but..... not buying it. Had problems with this post a while ago, because it was like 'no guys they still could be scummy', which is correct, but not because of some kind of scum tactics, you just state every possible scenario which is totally pointless. velocity has both good and bad things in his filter, but I think you're scummier than him. Heavenz and infii aren't really off, they're still -.-.-.-.--egh, but you're pretty out there. Because ray basically shot himself in the foot, Umasi's argumentation is reasonable and I can't read a certain motivation out of it in this post. The last one to switch votes was killerdog. 9min after Umasi's vote: On September 06 2013 06:33 killerdog wrote: I really don't like letting myr live til day 2, but hopefully he'll start playing the game tomorrow. We wont lose from a second mislynch (if ray is town) so I guess it's not the end of the world if we have to kill myr off tomorrow for still being afk. ##vote chairman ray He states no reason for voting him but he already said earlier that ray would be a likely candidate for him to lynch. Also I assume he just agrees with Umasi's argumentation. But the fact that he voted on ray last although he had ray under suspicion for almost a day makes the whole thing fishy. Conclusion: I accuse Holyflare of starting a counter-wagon to pull votes off from LV or myrzeth. That's why I think Holy and one of the other two are scum. The reason I accused Umasi to be part of the scum team earlier was because of how I had his earlier posts in my memory. His vote is a null read. OTOH Lonemeow's vote was very scummy considering the point of time and his reasoning. But I don't know where I should place him yet. Next up: Analysis of everyone still alive. | ||
|
infii
Germany153 Posts
I have been roleblocked last night. I guess that makes me a more likely target for the next nk. | ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
| ||
|
infii
Germany153 Posts
On September 08 2013 03:07 Holyflare wrote: It's funny how you ignore the people that tried to put me off voting myrzeth and lv and just target me as if i started it You voting myrzeth beforehand will be a topic in my analysis because it is less of importance to the ray lynch. And you did start it or do you want to deny that? | ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
| ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
| ||
|
infii
Germany153 Posts
On September 08 2013 03:24 Holyflare wrote: Not to mention ray calling myrzeth town and then trying to lynch him off at the end, i even saw you call ray scummy during the time but you kept your vote on myrzeth, probably because ray was town right? No, because myrzeth was my first priority. Ray is partially to blame for his lynch because of his late 'defense'. | ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
| ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
On September 08 2013 02:48 killerdog wrote: Oh, also one quick thing. Whats the deal with pharcyd3? How long until he gets modkilled, and will there be a replacement? if he does not post until the next deadline he will be replaced | ||
|
infii
Germany153 Posts
On September 08 2013 03:58 Holyflare wrote: So heavenz you and ray were my top lynch targets before myRZeth even started talking and you vindicated yourself and so did heavenz somewhat, so who the fuck else was i supposed to go for if nobody wanted to lynch myrz?? Wut? At the time you switched to ray, myrz was in the lead of lynch votes. That is what I wanted to say with my lynch analysis. Since your accusation against ray looked so weak, why even switch to him, even though you had the majority of votes on myrz already? | ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
| ||
|
Bereft
United States1007 Posts
On September 07 2013 19:00 Holyflare wrote: This looked scummy as fuck - if he was town, why would he vote another town to save himself, it didn't make sense. in response to this, i think it's pretty obvious to me why he would rather save himself than the guy who's been useless as fk this entire game and said like 2 sentence max... | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
On September 08 2013 04:32 Holyflare wrote: Feel like a 3rd day replace is too late seeing as he has said 0 words so we can't get any reads on him at all till potentially mylo? Just quoting from the OP On August 20 2013 05:33 ShiaoPi wrote: Replacements This game uses replacements. Replacements will be made until Day 3. If a player is modkilled, they will be replaced by a player on the replacement list if possible. Type /replace if you want to be put on the replacement list. Replacements have to fulfill the same criteria as people who want to play (aka 3 games or fewer on TL Mafia). Rules were clear when you signed up. Replacements will be made until Day 3 | ||
|
Bereft
United States1007 Posts
On September 08 2013 02:55 infii wrote: Oh and another thing: I have been roleblocked last night. I guess that makes me a more likely target for the next nk. HolyFlare, surprised you didn't comment on this. this is basically a blue claim, no? unless regardless of your role you always get a notification. mods, do you get a role block notification regardless of your role or only when your action has been successfully role blocked? | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
On September 08 2013 04:48 Bereft wrote: mods, do you get a role block notification regardless of your role or only when your action has been successfully role blocked? If you get roleblocked, you will get a notification regardless of the fact whether or not you are capable of night actions. | ||
|
Bereft
United States1007 Posts
umasi how does this change your vote? do you believe it? if no one else counterclaims that they got roleblocked, it seems to me that either: (a) infii is 100% town and we have a severine in our midst (b) infii is on the mafia team and knows the roleblock is a safe claim to make (i.e. there's no severine in this game) | ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
On September 08 2013 04:48 Bereft wrote: HolyFlare, surprised you didn't comment on this. this is basically a blue claim, no? unless regardless of your role you always get a notification. mods, do you get a role block notification regardless of your role or only when your action has been successfully role blocked? Confirms there is a roleblocker so nothing to comment on and on phone presently so nit really replying with quotes will do soon though | ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
| ||
| ||
