EPTThat being said, I'm in.
Hearthstone Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
That being said, I'm in. | ||
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
| ||
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
(Question: If someone votes in the separate thread, is that vote binding for the day?) | ||
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
On October 31 2014 12:01 jrkirby wrote: No, you can unvote and vote for someone else. Excellent. Thanks for the info. | ||
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
On October 31 2014 12:05 Damdred wrote: Circumstance what do you think about the discussion so far If ritoky's picture of GB (which I presume stands for GlowingBear) is accurate, then being Jewish, I kinda have to be suspicious of him. | ||
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
On October 31 2014 12:09 Damdred wrote: That made me laugh, so what about the other prevalant conversation especially the scum read that's being discussed It's Day 1, you're gonna have to be a little more specific than "the scumread". Do you mean the joke thing? Because I've never seen any particular differentiation on that in my previous online Mafia experiences. | ||
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
On October 31 2014 12:13 Damdred wrote: well what do you think about glowings post then? I think it's jumping to conclusions a bit quickly - the game had a clearly defined starting time, so if you didn't post pretty quickly, you'd look suspicious in that you were laying low. Seems like an innocent misread. | ||
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
On October 31 2014 12:20 Damdred wrote: Why does it have to be a misread? Does scum not do what he did? Why are you so certain of a misread? Because I'm not ready to call out potential scum this early in, and the subject matter is pretty innocuous. Plus, I've dealt with a fair number of games where someone from town made these kind of quick claims that did not always pan out. | ||
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
On October 31 2014 12:24 GlowingBear wrote: Why do you assume it's a misread instead of just a null tell? Like, it sounds like you're assuming Kirby is town. Because I've never heard of the phrase "null tell" before. I can logic out its meaning, but I was using misread in a more general sense, not specifically stating a belief that the opposite of your assumption was true. | ||
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
On October 31 2014 12:45 Oatsmaster wrote: everyone, i dont care, im not reading that shit. Just making things clear - if you didn't read portions of the thread, then what makes you say it's all fluff? | ||
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
On October 31 2014 12:55 Damdred wrote: Always GB. Lian, what do you think about jrkirby and circumstance defending one another jrkirby didn't defend me from anything. Lian defended me, jrkirby just noted the way I was talking. | ||
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
On October 31 2014 13:42 ritoky wrote: If you're so certain that is what it does, then why wouldn't you volunteer yourself so that you are confirmed town for everyone? You do realize the it's kel'thuzad's cat, and in warcraft mythos kel'thuzad is an evil lich...so ummmmmm... But the post specifically stated a goal of eliminating the Horde, which someone (don't remember who) suggested would be the Mafia. So what I'm wondering is, was Mr. Bigglesworth a sort of game event, or is there a Kel'Thuzad role? | ||
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
On October 31 2014 13:59 jaybrundage wrote: Wait guys I just had an idea what if Mr.Bigglesworth is actually part of Kulthazard as a third party. Who's job is to eliminate the horde cause in that case we should never give votes to the cat. As it can't help us find scum. As horde is not indicative of Mafia Alignment. I considered that possibility, but the fact that Bigglesworth gives analysis daily suggests to me that the mods were the ones who set him up, and he wasn't released by a Kel'Thuzad character. | ||
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
The early suspicion for me is on Oats. A quick filter seems to show him being rather "floaty" - posting often enough to be seen as active, replying to discussion posts enough to be seen as involved, but not contributing to those same discussions enough to be seen as the originator of any idea. It seems like he's going out of his way not to initiate or develop any reads, not to move discussions forward, but merely to antagonize, to take existing discussions and say "this is bad, this is wrong, you don't know what you're doing". I can't tell if it's meant as a way to gain the trust of other players or something else entirely, but ATM, this doesn't feel like the way someone acts if they want the town to be moving towards any meaningful conclusion. Seuss, I understand where you're coming from on GB, but for my money, I think we might be learning more if we ##Analyze: Oatsmaster | ||
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
| ||
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
On November 01 2014 10:26 ritoky wrote: what strikes me as odd is that wasn't it circ who came in to hard defend jrkirby early on when he was being pressured? then once again jrkirby starts to take interest in a gb lynch and now circ is suddenly around and interested? there's something funky goin on between these two. Do you want me to explain my schedule to you? I will if you want. As for GB's question, my current reads aren't strong enough to lay out on the table right now, and frankly, I don't know how much it matters at this stage. We've got some clear targets that are slowly beginning to get multiple votes placed on them. If we don't consolidate, we run the risk of a no-lynch, which doesn't benefit anyone. I don't WANT to lynch you right now, GB, because I'm not a fan of RNG and you keep discussions going. But before I place my vote on risk.nuke, I want to hear the argument against it, assuming there is one, to see if it holds water. | ||
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
On November 01 2014 10:54 GlowingBear wrote: It's plurality lynch. The player with most votes dies. There is no "no-lynch" Well, that eliminates that concern, at least. | ||
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
On November 01 2014 11:31 jaybrundage wrote: Circumstance giving that your reason for holding on to your reads isn't necessary there can not be a No-Lynch. I would like you to put who you suspect on the table. Echoing GB Even if your reads are half baked it helps to see your thought process and how you arrived there. I do have some questions for you as well. You bring up risk.nuke what's your reasoning for wanting to lynch him? How do you feel about Oats? Do you still think hes worth analyzing? What's your read on him? LT has quite a bit of votes on him but you haven't mentioned him as a candidate. Why is that? Who is your ideal lynch candidate? I'll go over the questions first, since I need to do a proper filter runthrough before I go on with reads. I've been going mainly on instinct since I went to bed last night. I brought up risk.nuke because I noticed a push towards him, and given that I was assuming a majority requirement, I figured it would be pertinent to nail someone down quickly. Oats still feels like he's not really helping move things along. Holyflare's assessment of him mimics my thoughts to a certain extent. I think he's definitely worth an analysis, because he just doesn't seem to make sense right now. LT seemed like a placeholder more than anything - the rationale of voting seemed to be mainly "eh, no big loss if we're wrong." And I did see a few posts indicating that people were planning on unvoting him (though that evidently didn't wind up happening in the thread itself). If it were up to me, I had the power to off one player straight away, I wouldn't be prepared to do so just yet. I'm not seeing something I can put together and say "Yes, this player is definitely ideal to lynch today", so with the time we have, I'd like for us all to get a stronger case put together on someone. | ||
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
LT seemed like a placeholder more than anything - the rationale of voting seemed to be mainly "eh, no big loss if we're wrong." And I did see a few posts indicating that people were planning on unvoting him (though that evidently didn't wind up happening in the thread itself)./QUOTE] By this, I meant multiple people. Apparently, Kirby did actually unvote him, but then re-voted him for some reason. | ||
|
Circumstance
United States11403 Posts
On November 04 2014 14:25 jaybrundage wrote: Congratulations Circumstance You just won first place in JB's "Get in here and start fucking posting contest."  YOU know how to play. So get in here! AND start FUCKING POSTING  Remember You only have a limited time till you DIE!! OH NO!! Better start posting  ##Vote Circumstance FFS. I've had a long few days, and I already got an activity warning. I'll be able to be significantly more active after tomorrow (the last day of my internship). Anyway, I'm feeling like the GB nightkill probably was at least in part an attempted a frame on me, since his analysis on me was pretty effective at painting me in a scummy light. I'll directly say that my Night 1 ability wound up being a bust, since nobody did anything to my target. | ||
| ||
