EPTWhite Flag Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
| ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
Also, I'm suspicious of the people pushing for it. Most notably hzflank because he only said he was for it after people brought it up. Like, even though it's only a 30% chance, if I'm scum and someone talks about random lynching my first thought is probably something like "Oh god, what if one of us gets chosen? There'd be nothing we could do." So he makes his post saying he'd be for a RNG lynch to show everyone that he's not afraid of it. Even going as far as saying On October 31 2013 12:53 hzflank wrote: How in the world could his odds actually be worse than random? Even if he had no scumhunting skill whatsoever, it would be @ worst equal to random.I would think my chances of actually identifying scum on day one are less than 31%, therefore RNG would yield better results for me. Ofcourse, We would need to decide on who rolls the dice. How should we do that? I suggest we vote on it. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On October 31 2013 22:20 Grackaroni wrote: Basically. I think people agreeing to lynch randomly are just showing everyone "Look @ me, I don't care who we lynch!". I equate it to when someone says that they'll just automatically lynch whoever another player picks no questions asked. It's scummy.I don't understand. You believe that scum are afraid of being picked by random lynches, yet you say that people are scummy for pushing something scum are afraid of? | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On October 31 2013 22:30 Oatsmaster wrote: JJD, im confused, are you saying that Random lynching is Pro town or Pro scum? I think it's pro-scum. But I still think it'd be something I'd be afraid of if I was scum if that makes sense. Because there still is that 30% chance that my team would get screwed on day 1 and there'd be nothing I could do about it. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
Might as well untill I see a better choice. Seemed like there's a decent amount of support for a hzflank lynch | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On October 31 2013 23:01 Oatsmaster wrote: Yeah. Other people pointed out stuff that didn't look for him good either. And like, the way I see it, when there's something that people need to take a stance on, very rarely will all the scummies end up on the same side of the issue. So I think there's a real good chance that one of the pro-RNGers is scum. And I think hzflank is the scummiest of them.So what exactly are you calling Hzflank scummy for? Promoting random lynch? | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On October 31 2013 23:09 Grackaroni wrote: OK. You also cant lynch people without other people supporting it. You do realize you can't just lynch people because others support it right? On October 31 2013 23:09 Grackaroni wrote: I'm sorry. Do you have a better reason for the people you've voted for?The only reasoning you have given is that hzflank was the 3rd person to say yes to random lynch, thus he was pretending to agree with it to show that he is not afraid. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 01 2013 00:53 Grackaroni wrote: still didn't answer his question. Why would an RNG lynch be better than a lurker lynch?This whole game is lurkers lol | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 01 2013 01:12 hzflank wrote: Possibly not. If I thought someone was scummy but I didn't think there was any chance that person could get lynched then I probably wouldn't waste my vote there.Why is that relevant to your vote? Would you not have voted for me if there seemed to be no support for it? | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 01 2013 01:13 Grackaroni wrote: Is this a fact?That is the reason why statistically day 1 RNG lynches come out more successful than analysis. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 01 2013 01:24 Laughing Jack wrote: What do you mean I don't bring up anything new? I'm the first person to bring up that supporting RNG lynch is scummy. Whether or not you agree w/ it, it's something new. And who really cares if I brought up something new? I commented on the main topic of conversation. Jarjar doesn't bring up anything new but just says he's against randomlynching, However most of the post is just fluff about what rng-lynching is to make it seem like his saying more then "Yeah I agree". And it's very certainly fluff because he doesn't reach a conclusion with it. And what exactly do you mean by "he doesn't reach a conclusion with it"? What conclusion could I have reached? | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
OK, I just saw that. I was thinking that you meant games where people actually employed a random lynch. Ok based on that information you can assume that random lynch on day 1 will in fact lynch scum more often on day 1. However, I'd be willing to bet that it would result in a town win less of the time. For reasons already pointed out regarding the amount of information gathered. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 01 2013 02:09 Grackaroni wrote: Well @ the very least, wouldn't it make more sense to randomly choose someone out of the lurkers?I don't really wish to argue over the benefits of RNG but you are wrong. Scum can push town lurkers and we would be none the wiser. RNG is completely objective. /still against random lynching | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On October 31 2013 12:53 hzflank wrote: How could anyone read this post and not think you were for random lynching?I would think my chances of actually identifying scum on day one are less than 31%, therefore RNG would yield better results for me. Ofcourse, We would need to decide on who rolls the dice. How should we do that? I suggest we vote on it. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 01 2013 02:37 hzflank wrote: This is exactly my point. You pretend like you're ok w/ random lynching when you are clearly concerned about it. First you say that you're worried about who gets to choose the random person. Then when it's pointed out to you that there is indeed a way for a random selection to be chosen, you change your stance to: If we lynch randomly then we wont get any discussion.Because the whole point of that was that I did not like the idea of random lynching because I was worried that scum might control the random. If that was your stance then what was the point of suggesting that we vote for someone to pick the random person? | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 01 2013 03:25 Laughing Jack wrote: Oats said RNG was bad. I said the people that were supporting it were scummy. Not exactly the same thing.No, oats said why we shouldn't rng. You just talked some general reasoning for why scum/town would or wouldn't want to rng. You said townies shouldn't want to do it and that scum wouldn't want to do it. A lot of people were confused to what you actually ment. And that was because you didn't type it with any conclusion in mind. You could had reached a conclusion by for example saying. I believe scum wouldn't do this because the risk it pose to themselves are high, so rng supporters are town. or I believe townies wouldn't do this because it's bad play so rng supporters are scum. Regardless if what you choose is true or not picking one side means you believe in it or are pretending to believe in it. Picking neither means you're full of fluff. But fine, so what do you mean by rng is scummy, which was what you were first to bring up?, Is it that it is bad townplay and scummy because of it. Then how was it you and not Oats who brought that up? And I explained what I meant about why townies and scum both wouldn't really want it. It's not just a black and White conclusion like you're making it out to be. What do you think about RNG lynching? For someone claiming that my posts are full of fluff, I sure don't know what your opinion is on pretty much anything. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 01 2013 04:08 hzflank wrote: OK, you're saying that you were being sarcastic in that post as well as the following one. Didn't understand that's what you were saying. If that's the case then it didn't come across that way to me at all but I can definately see it that way now. I suggested that we vote for someone so that we do not have to vote for someone. That is not a serious suggestion, that is me saying that I want to vote and not rng. Since that was the bulk of my case: ##unvote hzflank | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
- I thought I already explained this but: I never said my reason for voting hzflank was because other people suspected him. I voted for him because I felt he was scummy for my own reason and the fact that other people also suspected him made it so I felt comfortable putting my vote there because I thought there was a decent chance that he would get lynched. If everyone in the thread thought he was like super town then I probably don't vote for him because I don't want to waste time voting for someone that has no chance of being lynched. - I didn't reconsider my opinion because it got shit on. I changed my opinion because I believe I misinterpreted what hzflank was saying. I wasn't the only person that missed his sarcasm but now that he pointed it out I think it's very likely that he was indeed against a random lynch from the getgo. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
The rest of his posts are him asking other people their opinions. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
And would either of you care to comment on laughing jack ? | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 01 2013 20:30 Laughing Jack wrote: Dude, ur all over the place. Do you not have a scumread on me anymore? Did grack change your mind?If the deadline was right now, Hzflanks or you Oatsmaster. They are the flips who right now would give us information whom I'd feel comfortable lynching. But it's hard to say who I want dead tonight since half the players in the game have barely participated and I hate lurkers. There is hopefully an increase in activity before tonight. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 01 2013 22:30 Laughing Jack wrote: I think trying to claim false towncred is suspicious. It's not something I come around about. However I reconsidered lynching you today since you might just be newbie-town and you're at least somewhat active. What do you mean about trying to claim false towncred ? | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
Odin and hermeane haven't posted anything so they should probably be exempt. Mig and fuba have like 2 posts each. And they both went after hzflank which seemed like an easy bandwagon @ the time tehpoofter, Pandain, Bereft and Asinine can't have posted much either. I'm gonna go through their filters now. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 01 2013 23:30 JarJarDrinks wrote: So, I think we should lynch a lurker. There's like 7 of em so odds are pretty good that there's scum among em. Odin and hermeane haven't posted anything so they should probably be exempt. Mig and fuba have like 2 posts each. And they both went after hzflank which seemed like an easy bandwagon @ the time tehpoofter, Pandain, Bereft and Asinine can't have posted much either. I'm gonna go through their filters now. Rest of the lurkers: Tehpoofters posts might as well not exist. He speaks out against random lynching because "there can be more logical reasons generated from a flowing conversation but in the days beyond as well" which is pretty obvious as was stated by others. The thing is. he hasn't tried to generate or even participate in any flowing conversations. There is literally zero content in any of his posts. Pandain similiarly doesn't have much content in his posts though there is some I suppose. His vote for oats is strange. He's claiming it's wierd that oats is posting so much. I'm not sure why he thinks that's scummy Bereft has few post but I think they actually have content in them. Though I'm not crazy about him trying to spearhead the RNG lynch. Asinine gets my vote for towniest lurker. He goes after hzflank like Mig and fuba do but I think he that was before the bandwagon started to form. He really seems to want to engage hzflank. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 02 2013 02:29 hzflank wrote: This is what I meant by him being all over the place. LJ and Oats both though that JJD was scum for a similar reason. You thought that Oats was scum because as a good player he should not think JJD is scum. I think we can assume that LJ is also an experienced player. Therefore, I would think that LJ would disagree with your reasons for thinking that Oats is scum. In fact, LJ should of thought your reasons pretty bad. It's a bit odd that Oats would become his preferred lynch just because he once refused to answer some questions. I was hoping for additional reasoning. When I questioned him on it, he gave a pretty wierd response: On November 01 2013 22:59 JarJarDrinks wrote: What do you mean about trying to claim false towncred ? I still don't get what he was trying to say w/ that post. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
| ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
| ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 02 2013 04:07 Grackaroni wrote: Is your town read on Pandain simply based on the fact that you don't think he'd be a dick to his mafia temamates?Oats has played over 30 games on TL. I don't think he's quite as clueless as people perceive him to be, but If not oats than I think we need a new lynch besides Pandain. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 02 2013 04:21 Grackaroni wrote: That reasoning was good enough for syllo so it's good enough for me. He doesn't HAVE to be town but I really don't see Pandain just screwing over his teammates like that. I'd rather not lynch him. Well if he's town, he's dicking over his towny teammates by his play so I;m not sure I buy that argument. In any case, I don't support lynching any active player with as many lurkers as we have in this game. Maybe if there was an active player who seemed super scummy to me but I don't think anyone qualifies. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
I want to vote for a lurker. Who should it be if not Pandain? I'm thinking maybe fuba? | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 02 2013 05:14 hzflank wrote: Aren't you currently voting for mkfuba ?If your vote is just for lurking then Tehpoofter is probably the one to go for. While mkfuba might be legitimately busy, Tehpoofter was posting in the newbie game more than 24 hours after he stopped posting in this one. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 02 2013 05:32 hzflank wrote: Lol, he never responded to you because he has literally 2 posts in the game so far. Pretty sure that means you're lynching him because he's a lurker.Sure, but not just because he is lurking. He never responded to my points against him so I left my vote there. I am happy to lynch mkfuba, it's just that if I were to lynch solely for lurking I would lynch tehpoofter. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
I'm not really convinced by Gracks analasis (nor do I really trust him). I'll check back thoughout the rest of the phase to see if there's any reason to move my vote elsewhere. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
##vote: fuba I can't believe people are voting for one of the most active people in the game when the race is between him and someone w/ 3 posts. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 02 2013 09:06 hzflank wrote: You will put the guy who was almost lynched instead of the scum on the backburner, while you lynch the guy who dropped the hammer on the scum? Yeah, I read that and was like: Did he see the flip? I guess he backed off Stutters a little bit he still thinks "he should be looked into". Uh how about we look into people trying to save scum? Asinine, Mig, Laughing Jack, Bereft, Oatsmaster all had their votes on people that are now pretty much confirmed town while scum was pretty close to escaping a lynch. Hopefully we have a vig who can shoot into that group for us. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 02 2013 12:41 Pandain wrote: IDK. I think I'd add stutters as close to confirmed town as well. He changed his vote when it was 5-5. Why not just allow the lynch to got though?That would go the same for Tehpoofter, except even more for him really probably. I think they both have a slight town read, for now. It is entirely possible scum just gave up tuba and bussed him, so really Jack, me, and Grack are the only confirmed towns as I think it's really really unlikely for JarJar to just help bus his teammate. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
| ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 03 2013 02:14 Mig wrote: Anyone who has any common sense whatsoever should realize pretty easily that I am town. I put legitimate effort into scum hunting all of yesterday, before I had to leave. This post from Mig seems so disingenuous. I can understand him defending himself by pointing out that he was scum hunting. But does he really believe that someone thinking he's scum means that person has no common sense simply because he "put legitimate effort into scum hunting"? Where was Migs common sense when voting for hzflank, who put more effort into scum hunting than most did? | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 03 2013 07:51 Mig wrote: OK but I highly doubt more that 1 scum voted for him. So we definately need to lynch into the group that didn't vote for him because we're probably looking @ 2/5 instead of 1/7 (probably 1/6 after tonight)With nearly 1/3rd of the players in this game being mafia I think it is pretty optimistic to think that none of the mafia voted for Fuba (unless hermeane's replacement ends up being mafia). | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
Look @ how Mig avoids actually saying anything while still trying to keep me as possible scum in peoples minds here: On November 01 2013 09:28 Mig wrote: I don't agree with this when talking about new scum players. It is pretty normal for a new scum player to jump on an easy bandwagon and use that as their reasoning. That being said new townies do the same thing and I am more leaning new townie on JJ. Grack what do you think about hzflank? ? So he thinks that my whole bandwagon vote could be a noob scum move. But it could also be noob town. But for some reason he's leaning town on me. Well why is he leaning town on me? Because he just said the bandwagon vote thing was null. You'd think he's say "I'm leaning scum on JJD because...." So I thought @ first, well maybe he was liking the fact that I was going after hzflank since that was his main scumread throughout all of day 1. But I reread and Mig made this post AFTER I backed off of HZ. I would think that if he really suspected HZ then the fact that I pressured him a bunch and then 180ed my opinion would likely make him MORE suspicious of me. Not less. Like I really can't figure out why he would have had a town read on me @ that point. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
I've been saying all game that his posts have no consistency. Totally abonding his scumread on me for what seemed like no reason. Speaking of which: On November 02 2013 04:04 Laughing Jack wrote: OK, this post was after he already said that he didn't want to lynch me anymore. He had already posted his diagram and had said that he wanted to lynch HZ or oats. I took a break from the thread and I'll be unexpectedly going to a party tonight, I'll try to find some corner and read up on the thread and vote later tonight. I probably want to lynch into the first three quarters of of the day lurkers, but not 1-posters. So when I read that he's going to a party and will try to find some corner to read and vote, doesn't that sound like there's a chance he wont make it back to the thread? So why wouldn't he move his vote off of me and on to someone he does want to lynch just incase? I think that if fuba wasn't threatened, we would have never seen LJ again last night. It's not a coincidence that he managed to find time to vote right when Fuba pulled into a tie w/ HZ. And that doesn't even mention the fact that he said he wanted to vote a lurker in that post and voted the super active guy. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
| ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 04 2013 23:12 Stutters695 wrote: Yeah, I was just reading this and the fact that he made this post before the flip:Now, what I consider most compelling as a reason to lynch him stems from his desire to lynch me after my vote switch. On November 02 2013 08:51 Asinine wrote: And then this post after the flip:That Stutters vote is soooo suspicious if fuba flips town. Let's not forget that post. On November 02 2013 09:03 Asinine wrote: I want to lynch Stutters tomorrow. I'm putting hzflank on the backburner until we lynch this guy. is just terrible. He specifically says that you're suspicious if Fuba flips town. So Fuba flips scum and the first thought Asinine has is "We should lynch this guy"? | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 02 2013 09:09 Asinine wrote: Check again, Stutter's vote was extraneous and was only placed after it was obvious that fuba would die. On November 02 2013 09:12 Asinine wrote: Oh right, Stutters unvoted as well as voted. Fair enough. I still think he should be looked into, along with tehpoofter, I mean, let's just assume that he was right with that fist post about the stutters vote being extraneous. Well why would he have said that an extraneous vote on a townie is suspicious? | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 04 2013 23:53 Mig wrote: Was getting to it:JarJar do you plan on voting Asinine? It doesn't look like anyone is going to vote LJ. ##Unvote ##Vote: Asinine | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 04 2013 23:53 Mig wrote: JarJar do you plan on voting Asinine? It doesn't look like anyone is going to vote LJ. And I'll also say that LJ was right in that looking @ Oats filter, I have a hard time believing that they were scumbuddies. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 04 2013 23:50 Stutters695 wrote: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=420356JJD can you link me your most recent scum game when you get a chance? Thanks. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 05 2013 01:56 Mig wrote: I think it's very likely that you're his teammate.So no one has a problem that every single person besides me/grack/odin has essentially voted for asinine? Everyone go look @ migs filter. Specifically night 1. He's totally anti-asinine throughout the whole night. Then after Oats flips and the mafia are a lynch away from losing, his attitude towards asinine totally changes and he starts looking for any reason not to lynch him. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 05 2013 03:06 Asinine wrote: So then whet did you mean by this post from right before the flip?I thought you had voted fuba after his lynch had gained a decisive majority. After I realized I was wrong, I downgraded you to only possible scum. On November 02 2013 08:51 Asinine wrote: That Stutters vote is soooo suspicious if fuba flips town. Let's not forget that post. | ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
| ||
|
JarJarDrinks
United States1302 Posts
On November 05 2013 03:32 Asinine wrote: No, that only explains why you were suspicious about stutters AFTER the flip. You thought that his vote was just a token vote for a teammate after the fact.Let me spell it out for you. When you made that first post you thought that Fuba was gonna flip town. Why was stutters vote suspicious @ that point? | ||
| ||
