| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
I think your conclusions hold up still because OnceKing and Pixalated have been challenging the right topics along the right lines for town. So far I'm townreading OnceKing, Robik and Jarvis; scumreading Cavalinho. Gotta find a way to parse through the other four. | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
Jarvis is my strongest town read (besides myself durp) followed by OnceKing/Robik (equal). Of the Inaktiv Fukstix Brigade I think I townread Valenius the most for questioning OK about his lurker policy, but I wouldn't clear him for it alone. I'm optimistic about him though, what little he's done has been solid and on-point. Just need to see more to be sure. Next is probably Pixalated because again, he's been on the right side (fmpov) of the "is OK weird" event. But that's not enough to clear him either. sqrt's opening was amusing and as a player having fun with the game I liked it, but it's obviously not telling me anything. Tolkein I can't remember saying anything of substance yet. | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
Strike the last comment on Tolkein I'm reading now | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
Highlights of my concerns: - Reads on Valenius and Pixalated. ...how? Valenius asked some good questions to develop OnceKing's policy, but that's all. Certainly a good start but not nearly enough to declare him "super town" or "cleared." Especially in light of the fact that he said Pixalated is neutral-to-scummy... I have Pixalated as neutral-to-town if anything, but to be honest they've done virtually the same thing here (not post much, make solid contributions where they did). There's a lack of explanation for either read, which on its own doesn't say much, but... - Has already managed to place almost everyone's alignments. He's got the ones I think are fairly obvious (myself, OnceKing, Robik), but then all of the low posters/unknowns that I have, he's already decided on them being town (Valenius) or worrying-to-scummy (sqrt, Pixalated), and I just don't see how he's managed to do that already. One thing that I've observed in my past games, across multiple groups/metas, is that mafia posting early reads lists like this tend to do one of two things: they either betray their knowledge of the gamestate by not being hesitant enough to declare people unknowns, or they overcompensate for their knowledge by trying to appear as lost as they can. In Tolkein's case I get the sense that his reads are a little too solid (e.g. Pixalated, Valenius). - His position on Cavalinho is inconsistently soft wrt the rest of his list. Notice the "almost" above -- the one big exception is the guy that I personally think is obviously scum. He does some lip service to the idea (e.g. "these things should mark him clear scum"), but then handwaves every point he raises for Cavalinho on a shaky meta argument (e.g. "mark him as clear scum, but... might just be his playstyle). He says Cavalinho is "maybe the most scummiest read he has"*, but then declares sqrt his "probable" lynch target today. There's a lot of waffling on Cavalinho that isn't present with the others. (PREVIEW EDIT: Even concedes the case is strong, but still has sqrt as his top suspect. p l s) - His rationale for sqrt is weak. Of a handful of inactives so far he's singling out one post of sqrt's (the "I've never drawn mafia" post) as the thing that's so disconcerting to him? Already zeroed in on sqrt being a scum lurker and wants to lynch him over aforesaid "maybe most scummiest read"*? That's just strange to me because nothing that sqrt has done has been alignment-indicative yet. - Preview edit point: That last question is such a softball! Ideal to ask your fake scum read and your scum buddy, terrible as town. Why wouldn't he ask about the things Cavalinho and sqrt are doing that makes them suspicious to him? *: minor point and not at all a linchpin in my case on him, but the double superlative looks really hard like he's overcompensating his suspicion to distance slightly, even as he says to lynch someone else Tolkein right now reads pretty strongly like Cavalinho's partner, trying to deflect suspicion away from him with a weak, waffling concession and focus it on sqrt, who's low-hanging fruit right now. I think I still want Cavalinho more for D1 but either of them would be great and I want both out at some point (preferably "before we lose"). | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
On March 26 2014 06:31 Lord Tolkien wrote: ZzZ. I knew I should've tried posting that part some other time. Or maybe I should've approached it with more subtlety (see: any subtlety at all). Was trying to scumbait with it when questioning Cavalinho and sqrt. Was trying to see if they would piggyback off of it. Went back and deleted those sections specifically to try. My true reads: Valenius leans town at best. I'm hesitant to call him anything at this stage of the game, when his only post is at best asking for a PAINFULLY obvious clarification on a policy. Or in other words, in line with what everyone else has said. Pixelated is leaning town. He's had more posts and has given reads on sqrt and Valenius, but the main crux of their points have been similar to what OK and others in the thread have said (not much to be said this early into the game, however). He was however the first to defend OK's post (outside of OK), and rightly so. If we're continuing with the Cavalinho lynch, it is...unlikely for them to simultaneously bandwagon on a possible lynch and defend the person in question. On March 26 2014 20:46 Lord Tolkien wrote: Since Eden explicitly called out for those reads (like I said, no subtlety) which defeats the whole purpose, and because I think Eden is correct in pointing out that this is not the right day for these kind of tarps. Yeah I'm not buying this. Five problems here, folks: - The timing. His post setting the "trap" came over 20 minutes after the post containing the "bait," and the "trap" is at the end. Looks like an afterthought. I'm not convinced it's the result of prior planning. - The mechanism. He's essentially saying he was setting up a reaction test. There are four components that have to be in any reaction test: targets, purpose, rationale and conclusions. His targets are clear (his two scum reads) and his purpose is ostensibly credible (try to see if they sheep his reads). The problem is that this isn't alignment-indicative. Sometimes town accidentally sheep other people. Sometimes they even purposefully do. That alone doesn't tell us anything. Thus his conclusion from the test would have to be that it's null. That's not a good test and strong reason to think it wasn't a test at all. - The actual reads he's now giving. His Valenius read is in his own words "in line with what everyone else has said," and his Pixalated read is based entirely off of things that Pixalated said AFTER his "bait" post. In other words, he lied about what his Pixalated read was in his initial post because it's built entirely on posts made after the initial post. He cannot have read Pixalated town in his "bait" post because Pixalated commented on sqrt: Pixalated hadn't commented on sqrt yet! - The decision to reveal the trap so early. He wasn't under any obligation to reply to me until the trap was sprung. I can't see any reason why a town player would do this. I can see why a mafia player would do it, overestimating the extent to which he's under suspicion and feeling the need to concede more than necessary in order to shake suspicion starting to turn his way. But I can't see why a town player wouldn't simply ignore my comments about the different components of the trap until after the trap has been sprung. - The slip in the followup post. I never said anything about whether this is the right or wrong day. Looks to me like lies are piling up on top of lies here. On March 26 2014 06:31 Lord Tolkien wrote: As I EXPLICITLY note, it was posted AFTER the serious posting began, and AFTER IAmRobik's wtf on OK. The timestamp is key: if it were before that, and even OK's post, whatever. idgaf because that was part of the joke phase. That's what I find the most disconcerting of his posting, versus Valenius (whose post at least addressed something serious). It was also right before he went to sleep. Yeah, it's not a constructive post. That's not automatically scum, especially in isolation. Tolkein, you have one chance to explain why you lied about your Pixalated read from your bait post before we just kill you today and sort out Cavalinho tomorrow. | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
On March 26 2014 21:21 Lord Tolkien wrote: This was again in line with what OnceKing said about sqrt and Robik's clearing of him based on sqrt's long string of multi-posts on HS. That is not a read on sqrt. This is: On March 26 2014 20:29 Pixalated wrote: The one thing that I can agree with LT about is the sqrts thing. Upon my reread of the thread I noted that he left AFTER onceking started talking policy and Robik started pressuring him (I initially thought that he left before). I find it odd that he didn't take the time to make at least a quick comment on it before going to sleep. Still, it isn't enough to judge imo, and I find it oddly suspicious how he reads him to be scummier than Cav, who has had some very faulty logic (will get to that in abit). This is also after you said he gave a read on sqrt. I'm not convinced and neither should be anyone else. TOWN: Who should we kill first, Cavalinho or Lord Tolkein? This is important. Cavalinho and Lord Tolkein need not reply. | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
| ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
I can understand I guess why you'd buy his explanation but I think it's just more lies on top of lies now In any case noted, one for Cavalinho. I want to get the others to weigh in. | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
On March 26 2014 22:00 Pixalated wrote: Eden which would you prefer? LT I presume? Yes, for now. Cavalinho's play is more easily excused as incompetent. If as I suspect Lord Tolkein has been lying repeatedly, it is impossible to rationally assume anything but malevolence. | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
On March 26 2014 22:20 Lord Tolkien wrote: The reads themselves would've been sufficient. I wanted to see if anyone else would parrot it, not just Cav and sqrt. The questions tacked on afterwards was done specifically in regards to Cav and sqrt as they solidified themselves in my mind as the scummiest players I'm reading, and mostly to encourage them to post something substantive so I can analyze (which is their main problems this turn). This was not an essential part of the scumbait. On March 26 2014 20:31 Lord Tolkien wrote: ZzZ. I knew I should've tried posting that part some other time. Or maybe I should've approached it with more subtlety (see: any subtlety at all). Was trying to scumbait with it when questioning Cavalinho and sqrt. can we PLEASE kill this guy already | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
##UNVOTE Cavalinho ##VOTE Lord Tolkein | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
- OnceKing posts his lynch-lurker policy - Cavalinho checks in, makes no reference to or comment about the post - Robik says "wtf is this shit?" - Cavalinho says "I am also curious about aforementioned shit" - Robik asks Cavalinho about OK, Cavalinho says "OK is...Off. Like, his post is just...weird. I don't really know how to describe it, but it's like he says a thing about policy and it just kinda comes out of nowhere." - Robik continues to express skepticism/suspicion/etc., drops some curse bombs - Cavalinho: "Why would you even bother talking about policy lynching when we're barely one step out of RVS? Now that I think about it, I'm gonna go check our last game to see if OK did the same weird shit he's doing right now." - After I challenge Robik, Robik's stance on OK softens and he feels more townie about OK - Cavalinho literally in the next post decides that while weird OK is town Cavalinho doesn't think anything weird about OK's post until after Robik expresses surprise/etc. about it, and then Cavalinho's attitude toward it escalates in hostility as Robik's does, almost lockstep, and then he townreads OK as soon as Robik does. It's really clear that he was just mafia trying to make a mountain out of the molehill of alleged weirdness in OK's opening and that he backed down when Robik stopped worrying so much about it. The tone of his messages on the subject changes exactly like Robik's does. And then of course his freakout and vote for me was just a really lame effort to mimic the example he raised not the post before where he was townread for OMGUS. Guy hasn't contributed a thing good and has behaved pretty scummy. I really don't see how LT repeatedly lying is an honest mistake. | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
For the rest of the town, here are the issues with Cavalinho's last post: - He's distorting my arguments here. Specifically: he's framing my expectation that his questions have some purpose to them to mean that I expect him to walk us through every thought he has on the game; he's misinterpreting a question I posed ("why does he think OK is not mafia?" into "why does he think OK is mafia?") to avoid answering it; and he's introducing things I didn't talk about at all (him sleeping and not scumhunting as a result) in an effort to garner sympathy or otherwise discredit my arguments. - He's still not explained his vote for me at all. In fact he's claiming to have sheeped onto a vote...? But he's the only one voting for me. | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
| ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
One major outstanding issue though is his rationale for voting for me. Everything that he said about me in the one post where he's explained himself is false, and his vote appears to be contingent on Last Tolkein being town. However, he voted for me before I said anything about LT. Thus the rationale he provided cannot be the original rationale he had for voting for me. I would still prefer Lord Tolkein as I think it's obvious that he lied initially about his reads and then kept telling lies to cover up the first ones. I think my case on LT is stronger. | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
On March 27 2014 01:40 OnceKing wrote: LT gave a fake read, that's what I'm seeing. Lying? Yes, but scummy? No. It's only odd that he was so impatient and pulled in his trap early. It's just odd that he hasn't put down a vote yet though he's casting aspersions in several directions. Wanna explain this LT? He gave a fake read and called it a trap, yes. But it's not that he lied about the read, it's that he's lying about the trap. I think that's pretty obvious given the points I raised in this post. Even aside from all that there are multiple other issues: - the certainty in all of his reads including on multiple people who hadn't said anything - the strong push for a sqrt lynch based on nothing - reading Cavalinho as top scum, but neither voting for him nor pressuring him in any discernible way - related to above two, waffling on his Cavalinho read (while still reading him top scum) despite being certain of the others | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
There's a plethora of things you haven't addressed. The issue is that most of them aren't really arguable (not in the sense that there is no legitimate counterargument but more literally that they can't be argued). You're doing a lot of subtle things with the way you write; I raised the example of how your tone kept changing to match what Robik was doing re: OnceKing, for instance. You haven't said anything about it. I don't expect you to say anything productive or helpful, though, on that front, and it isn't worth arguing out. (You will say that either I am misinterpreting your tone or that your tone changes are coincidental, and it will simply be up to the audience to decide whether you are lying or I am wrong.) Even still, there are things I've raised which you could have argued but have elected not to argue, probably because they're unarguable (in the sense that there is no legitimate counterargument). You've repeatedly straw manned the arguments against you instead of addressing them charitably and reasonably. At no point did your questions, and responses to the answers you received, have any apparent constructive direction. Your voting rationale given was entirely post-hoc and despite your last message here it's obvious that you are sticking to your vote in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it, probably because you're desperate scum latching onto any last shred of capacity to cast doubt on me that you have. --- Why are all of you so quick to accept Tolkein's blatant lies about his test? Please. Until someone can rebut the five points raised in this post and establish that none of them are proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Tolkein is lying, no one in this thread has any reason to believe that Tolkein is being honest. | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
Cavalinho: How is it that my case on LT is good and I'm just mafia preying on town weakness? Why does your skepticism about my points and methods stop where your space ends and another's begins? | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
On March 27 2014 03:21 OnceKing wrote: I need LT to respond to Eden's five points, then. I don't and won't presume to speak for him and my estimation that he made an honest mistake might be biased from LII. Valenius seems to have an idea, though. So Valenius, I'd like you to respond to Eden's points too, as well as give your thoughts on Cav/Eden! Who is your partner and why is it Lord Tolkein? | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
On March 27 2014 05:27 IAmRobik wrote: This is a really weird interaction and I don't know what to make of it. Eden says he thinks OK is town or at least leaning town for his lynch all lurkers thing. Now he's asking who his partner is. I'm sure I'm just missing something here, but I'd love an explanation. We're (mostly) fucking around, OK and I play together a lot and a common question we like to throw at suspects is "who is your partner and why is it x". In that case I didn't like that he was prodding Valenius to defend Tolkien*. I don't think he's mafia. (*: Has it really been Tolkien all this time? God damn it I've been misspelling it like a total chump.) Now then... I'm pretty sold on Tolkien/Valenius scumteam right now. Looks like Tolkien really was just trying to get away with clearing his teammate and hoping no one would call him on it. Rationale: - His town reads are obvious and aren't saying anything new, and he's hesitating to actually call his other reads scum; it seems like no town person should be without clear scum reads at this stage; note that he's not even straight called sqrt, his dirtiest read, scum, he's just said "top of the totem pole" which doesn't actually say "is he scum or not" - He's pre-emptively defending Tolkien which is literally the opposite of what town should be doing in this situation; he should be sitting back on that issue and letting Tolkien defend himself in his own words to get a purer read on Tolkien's motives - He's taking up the sqrt torch and going after what I think is a lame, easy target in sqrt instead of actually scumhunting; I get the sense this is to legitimize Tolkien's sudden and poorly-explained strike at sqrt earlier | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
OSC
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Invitational
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
