EPTWhite Flag Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
| ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
| ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
| ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On October 31 2013 12:37 Grackaroni wrote: Those are some pretty good odds. I'm not against RNG if people are up for it. 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. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On October 31 2013 12:05 Asinine wrote: Why label Stutters as town As a conversation starter. Up until that point only little blue men were being discussed and I am unable to partake in that discussion to to my unfamiliarity with big green or red men. Obviously I did not think that Stutters' post gave a clue to his alignment, but I may not of conveyed the tone correctly. On October 31 2013 12:05 Asinine wrote: and leave the thread? Due to Stutters reply. As you begin to read his post he appears to care about what I said, then when you get to the end I realised that he does not care. There was no reason to continue that line of conversation with him and I had nothing that I wanted to post, so I decided to spare the poor tl.net servers the effort of adding another one of my posts for a short while. On October 31 2013 12:05 Asinine wrote: Your post serves no greater purpose other than to gain Stutters' support. But my post gave you something to post about and in turn gave me something to post about. Now I can wonder why you commented on my post twice even though that you thought my post had no purpose. You might be mafia looking for something to post about, but obviously this early in the game there is no real need for that. You may be town attempting to move a conversation forward. Or perhaps you genuinely thought I had a clue as to Stutter's alignment two hours into the game when only five people had posted, and felt the need to call me out on that. Either of those possibilities fit in with your second post. On October 31 2013 12:07 Asinine wrote: Looks like he didn't even gain Stutters support... Regardless, hzflank does not look good right now. The (rhetorical) question is: did you post that for the sake of posting something? Or did you post that hoping that I would reply directly to you? Or did you post that because when you were reading the thread for the first time you were already looking for scum, and my post was the only thing so far that looked like it might be scum? I have no flipping idea, but less than five hours into the game and when I am tired, that's the best that I can do at the moment. On October 31 2013 10:17 Stutters695 wrote: Why so srs? Oh, you wanted me to be less serious? Oops  | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
I guess we can all stop posting for the next 45 hours. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On October 31 2013 22:00 JarJarDrinks wrote: 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." Yet the post of mine that you quoted shows clearly that my first thought on random lynching was: “But what if scum decides the supposedly random number?”. Also, I did not actually advocate a random lynch. I thought it would be pretty obvious that I was against a random lynch when I said that we should all just stop posting for 45 hours (because if we do not have to vote on a lynch then we don't get the good discussion). On October 31 2013 23:01 JarJarDrinks wrote: Seemed like there's a decent amount of support for a hzflank lynch Why is that relevant to your vote? Would you not have voted for me if there seemed to be no support for it? | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On November 01 2013 01:44 JarJarDrinks wrote: Is this a fact? The best stat I found in a quick look is that in a normal mini game, town gets lynched 78% of the time on day one. Considering that in a normal game around 75% of players are town, that does not surprise me. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On October 31 2013 22:00 JarJarDrinks wrote: First off I'll add my name to the very much against random lynching list for the exact reasons Oats posted. On October 31 2013 13:40 Oatsmaster wrote: Random lynching is bad and lets not do it. If we hit scum, great, but then what do we do on day 2? If we hit town, fuck, but then what do we do on day 2? On October 31 2013 22:00 JarJarDrinks wrote: hzflank because he only said he was for it On October 31 2013 13:19 hzflank wrote: 20103741 mod 14 = 7 = Pandain. I guess we can all stop posting for the next 45 hours. The most obvious thing to take from that is that my meaning was not clear enough. But that is not useful. The useful thing is the old: was he looking for scum of looking for someone to call scum? My initial reaction was that he was town looking for scum. If he thought that my longer post was scummy then there would always be some confirmation bias, so he might of missed the fact that I was against a random lynch. The problem with that is that he never goes into detail about why my longer post was scummy. He only mentions it briefly: On October 31 2013 23:08 JarJarDrinks wrote: Yeah. Other people pointed out stuff that didn't look for him good either Therefore I must conclude that JJD actually thinks exactly what he said here: On October 31 2013 22:00 JarJarDrinks wrote: First off I'll add my name to the very much against random lynching...I'm suspicious of the people pushing for it. And we arrive at the problem that I was not in fact one of the people pushing for a random lynch, which makes everything that JJD said (regarding myself) rather arbitrary. I cannot get any reads from talk of rng or policy lynching, which means I cannot get a better read on JJD at this time until the discussion moves on a bit. I am very aware that scum may just be lurking at this point while town goes after eachother. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On November 01 2013 02:34 JarJarDrinks wrote: How could anyone read this post and not think you were for random lynching? 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. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
| ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
| ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On November 01 2013 03:03 JarJarDrinks wrote: If that was your stance then what was the point of suggesting that we vote for someone to pick the random person? 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. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On November 01 2013 05:25 Asinine wrote: An answer or a response to this post: … I did not think that you wanted a direct reply to that, as your post was fairly closed and based on an assumption into the meaning of my initial post to Stutters. On October 31 2013 13:31 Asinine wrote: It is quite apparent that you were trying to bait Stutters into posting. This is not what I take issue with. My issue is that your first post is stated as a fact and an imperative. In other words, you are essentially saying that Stutters should post -- when he doesn't have to -- and you will automatically consider him town. Now this may not be what you wanted to say, but it is exactly what it sounds like you are saying to any third-party. "Come out to play, Stutters! If you post a lot, I won't think you're scum." I really did not put that much thought into that one liner to Stutters. Stutters posting a lot will not make me think that he is town. I should also say that it was not meant offensively (towards Stutters) as I am not sure now as to whether I offended him. You said yourself that your interpretation may not be what I wanted to say, and it wasn't. Therefore, there is nothing that I can say about your interpretation. On October 31 2013 13:31 Asinine wrote: I don't see much town motivation in this strategy. Yes, you may get Stutters to post a little more. This, in theory, should give you town cred. However, you are quite clearly choosing one of the most obvious lynchbait targets to talk about on Day 1. Additionally, after Stutters reply, you just disappear with no follow-up. I am going to assume that you mean town cred with you rather than that I was fishing for town cred. In which case, I have no idea why you consider Stutters to be one of the most obvious lynchbait targets. Why is this? Also, there was no reason for you to expect that I would only want to talk about a single person on day one. As I have posted previously, Stutters reply made it seem that the best thing to do would be to wait a couple of hours and see who else posted on the subject. On October 31 2013 13:31 Asinine wrote: When you return, you make a lengthy post that focuses on defending yourself. There is a wishy-washy accusation towards me, but it is weak and unsubstantiated. I made a lengthy post as talk of policy is not my preferred discussion material. Other people might like policy talk but I was hoping to generate something different, which is why I turned some short quotes into a longer post. There was no wishy washy accusation towards you. I was attempting to find out the perspective from which you wrote your posts. If anything my post ended favourably towards you, when I posted this: On October 31 2013 12:53 hzflank wrote: Or did you post that because when you were reading the thread for the first time you were already looking for scum, and my post was the only thing so far that looked like it might be scum? You seem to think that it is wrong for me to question whether or not you might be scum. The fact is that I am going to question that for as long as we are both in the game. On October 31 2013 13:31 Asinine wrote: You are also strong-arming Stutters to play a particular way that could make his meta harder to read in the long run. I was not attempting to strong arm Stutters and it is a very big stretch for my post (below) to be considered as such. On October 31 2013 09:31 hzflank wrote: Stutters posting when he does not have to is a town Stutters. The most important part of your post is the claim that my motivation was anti-town because I picked on someone who is lynchbait. Personally, I would not call what I posted picking on anyone. Also, I would not call Stutters lynchbait. Therefore, I don't think that there was any anti-town motivation involved. I simply prodded someone and waited to see what happened. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
At the moment I would have to say that I want to lynch LaughingJack. This is based on a single sentence that jumped out at me when I read it. On November 01 2013 03:25 Laughing Jack wrote: And that was because you didn't type it with any conclusion in mind. To me, if someone does not have a conclusion in mind when they start a post it is because they are lacking either information or motivation. This makes them more likely to be town. LaughingJack thinks that makes someone more likely to be scum. Therefore, I would say that LaughingJack did have a conclusion in mind when he wrote that post, which is that he wanted to call JJD scum. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On November 01 2013 03:09 mkfuba07 wrote: the apparent inconsistency in his position is the most concerning thing to me, though I'm not even sure there is one. You say that you are not sure whether the most concerning thing actually exists. On November 01 2013 03:09 mkfuba07 wrote: I agree with jjd that he appears to be supporting it in one post, then the next one appears to be agreeing with the first. However, I guess it could be interpreted the way hzflank says he meant it, so overall that just makes me lean slight scum on him. Altogether, I feel pretty confident with a vote on hzflank. You feel pretty confident with a vote on someone that you only lean slightly scum on. I would say that you decided on where to park your vote before you decided on the reasons for it. ##vote: mkfuba07 | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On November 01 2013 12:30 Grackaroni wrote: I see JJD as very likely town. I see you jumping on lynch bait because JJD said that thing about others also supporting a hzflank lynch. I think it makes you scummy. That's about as far as it goes for me right now. maybe Pandain can elaborate on whatever he was saying. For me that does not make Oats scum. I almost called JJD scum for the same reason that Oats did, and the only thing that stopped me was the realization that JJD would have to have balls of steel to post what he did as scum. I can't criticize Oats for not thinking about JJD's balls. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On November 01 2013 23:52 Mig wrote: hzflank besides mkfuba who are you suspicious of? What do you think about Oats/grack/myself? They are easy targets, but I think the fact that Odin and Poofter and actively playing another game but are absent in this one is suspicious. If they don't get involved then I will certainly consider voting for them. I don't want to vote for Oats today. The main point against Oats is that he is so good that he should of read a statement as too scummy to be scum. This holds absolutely no weight for me, as with an experienced player like Oats it has nothing to do with how good he is at spotting scum, but instead is based on what sort of thing looks scummy to Oats. I can believe that Oats genuinely thought that JJD was scum when he did. I don't want to vote for Grack either. In a slow game such as this there is no real need for scum to post as much as Grack has. I have minor disagreements with some of Grack's points but that does not make him scum. On the initial read I obviously did not like your (Mig's) first post as I did not agree with either point. Initially I thought that those points were from scum looking for something to post about (particularly due to the timing), but upon further consideration I could see how they could be genuine. Your prod towards Poofter put me slightly at ease, as it showed that you were at least following thoroughly (Poofter was the right person to make that comment towards at the time of the post). Your last post then makes me think that you are probably scum, for the same reason that I think Fuba is scum. On November 01 2013 23:52 Mig wrote: The evidence against hzflank is unquestionably circumstantial but that being said it is still better than anything else I have seen. His point against mkfuba is solid enough In one sentence you say that the evidence against me is circumstantial and that my point against mkfuba is solid. Yet in that same sentence you also say that the evidence against me is the best that you have seen so far. Therefore, you are acting as if you believe that circumstantial is better than solid. There are only two reasons that you would do that. Either your play is slightly dictated by the fact that you want your initial read to be correct, or you are scum. I think that scum is more likely. Still, you have posted more than Fuba and we are in a game with several lurkers. That is not really enough to make me move my vote from Fuba to you, at the moment. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
| ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On November 01 2013 17:41 Laughing Jack wrote: And I'm starting to think Oats will be a good lynch for today. | ||
| ||
