EPTNewbie Mini Mafia LX - Page 3
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
| ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On January 07 2015 07:25 TheWarWaffle wrote: No computer, 12% battery on IPhone. 2 hours until I am most likely lynched... Time for a desperate measure. I am town and possess a power role. I appear to have made a fool of myself through my and am unable to defend myself adequately at this time. All I can say is I'm not mafia and that there are better people to lynch. Softclaiming a power role about an hour and a half before...I think most of the rest of us playing this game are going to need a bit more than that to be honest. I'm open to be convinced to get onto one of the main bandwagons. I remain skeptical of LS and find jarjar to be very scummy but jarjar doesn't look like he'll get the votes and I'm not totally convinced that LS is a good day 1 lynch even if I do find his posts suspicious. So I'm open to being convinced to my vote to help swing things, but I'm not going to do it unless people have convincing arguments one way or another. And I don't see a convincing argument to help try to get the lynch off you. | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On January 07 2015 08:54 Trfel wrote: In the case of a tie, the first person to receive that number of votes would die. So even if someone other than WW got a vote he'd still die? | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
Didn't like that lynch at all. No idea how that wagon built up that much momentum.  | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On January 07 2015 09:59 rsoultin wrote: Celestial and Gumdrop both had useless votes, which bothers me more from Celestial than Gumdrop simply because he was actually here to do something about it. Can you explain your vote, Celestial? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/474146-newbie-mini-mafia-lx?page=25#484 I went over why I wasn't going with the top two earlier on before the kill. In fact I even acknowledged that my vote was likely going to be useless because jarjar was unlikely to get the votes needed but I was open to be convinced to change to a wagon. Nobody did in the end. In short: - Over and over again I've stated that WW was going a bad lynch. So I wasn't going to get on that wagon. I was leaning scum on him last set of reads, but when you decided to start the lynch train on him I was extremely uncomfortable hitching up to that because it was a train started over a pressure vote and not a clear analysis of him being scum. - LS I was originally voting for and was my D1 lynch until he demonstrated that this kind of play as townie has been normal for him several times in the past. Which led me to conclude that, although I was still suspicious, he was a bad D1 lynch. - I was never convinced of the case for a D1 Shining lynch though I explicitly stated in my last full set of reads that Shining was a possibly D2 lynch for me. I never saw enough from anyone in the last few pages to convince me otherwise to jump on the Shining train at this early point. Suspicious but not enough for me to condemn. - jarjar was my second top read after LS. After LS convinced me he was a bad D1 lynch it was natural to switch to jarjar. I left myself open to being convinced to change that but nobody did, so I saw no point in switching votes so late from someone I've been reading scum to someone I'm less sure about purely so my votes were "with a group". Ultimately in the end I wasn't convinced strongly enough either way on WW to try to kill him or save him. I felt it was a bad lynch but he didn't give me enough to go on to try to drive a campaign to save him, largely because he posted basically nothing. And nobody else posted anything to convince me of anyone else being a worthy target. So rather than throw my vote around randomly I felt it best to stick to my own reads, even if that meant a wasted vote. | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
| ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On January 07 2015 10:32 rsoultin wrote: It's clear here that you knew that WW claimed. So normally my BS meter would be going off, because you clearly stated here that you are also suspicious of LS, and a blue claim should be enough on Day 1 to convince people not to lynch WW. You also clearly knew that WW was going to be the lynch. I didn't personally like LS as a Day 1 lynch...although I think that of the players here he should be quicker to move his vote than anyone on that train and that does not sit well with me, considering I know that he was lynched as a blue role in his first game and was especially concerned about that the last several games, but apparently not this one... Yet there was still shining. Are you townreading Shining? If you're calling him a Day 2 lynch...I don't get it. Suspicious of LS and suspicious enough of Shining to consider lynching him, but you decided to park your vote instead? I think I've already explained all of this really across my posts before the vote but alright. WW's claim was a random, single post, drive-by claim. It was extremely unconvincing, at least I wasn't convinced. Should I just take that on faith more? In any case I wasn't particularly happy about the way it was going but by that time it was far too late to do anything other than vote WW, vote LS or vote Shining to have an impact. I was scumreading LS until he provided evidence against it. I still am suspicious of LS but he convinced me to change my vote away earlier on the basis that it was a bad D1 decision and there was not enough evidence to justify to myself to change it back. Shining I said quote "Could definitely be convinced for a D2 lynch here" after you started my mind thinking about him being scum, you can check my major read post from today for proof. I wasn't saying he was a lock-in for a D2 lynch, I was saying he was a possible good candidate to look at because at that point it looked like LS was taking a lot of the heat for D1. Basically the reason why not D1 is because my impression at that time was that nobody had enough of a feeling to commit to that lynch and personally I wanted to see more evidence before I decided or started trying to convince people to get on that wagon anyway. Nothing I saw since then convinced me that Shining was scum, so I couldn't in good faith vote there. If you or anyone else had seen something more convincing from Shining then I might well have changed my vote there, but the follow-up on the accusations wasn't enough and as it was everyone got rolling on the WW train in the end. I felt it best to be consistent to my reads rather than go with something I didn't feel was honest. Perhaps that's not the best way to play but I feel happier about making my own decision there than simply bandwagoning what was potentially one bad call over another bad call. | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
Yes, I threw my vote away. I own up to that and I'm sorry to WW for my part, small as it was, in the mislynch. I can't say I'm particularly happy about it but there it is and I'm really not sure what the you want from me here. I've already explained my reasoning, such as it is. I don't have much more I can really say. And with all due respect you're the person who started the train on WW in the first place. So if we're asking questions here about voting motivations then please explain these posts of yours: i want to lynch shining. i will settle for ww. my initial vote on WW was pure pressure You actively stated you preferred the Shining lynch over the WW one and your vote on WW was initially just pure pressure. But still remained on WW saying that you wouldn't be around at EoD to change it. Why? Why not go for the Shining vote that you were so convinced of? There were people who actually voted for WW around between his claim and the EoD that didn't change their votes. What of them? In essence why are you trying to throw blame around so much on a lynch you actively participated in, despite claiming that someone else was more desirable as a lynch for you? I can't say I'm proud of myself for letting a blue get killed, but you deliberately voted for the poor guy, despite explicitly saying someone else was a better target. | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
| ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On January 07 2015 11:46 rsoultin wrote: You're right. I did. At the time LS and WW were the only lynch wagons, with just HTS voting Shining, and I have only now become suspicious of LS. I did make an effort to convince people on Shining from my mobile during my lunch break, but Trfel and JarJar didn't vote until afterwards. Trfel himself was initially very reluctant to vote Shining and was the main one I was trying to convince, because I knew he had the best chance of pushing the lynch if I couldn't. It probably would have been better if I had just switched my vote. The reads on demand right before the lynch didn't impress me that much, but had I gotten any support, I definitely would have switched. You clearly made the effort to look through my filter. Can you honestly say that it reads any differently? Posting from bed on phone so please excuse spelling: Except...you know...its not exactly convincing when you're staying on WW like that. So no, I can't say I read it that way at all. Frankly because of your lack of switch meant my read of your case was "this guy looks really suspicious but I still think WW is the best lynch". You apparently couldn't even convince yourself enough to switch to Shining. If you'd actually switched I might have switched because I'd have taken your case more seriously. You want to lynch Shining tomorrow? Alright, we can look at doing that, just lay out your case in summary. I was never a big fan of Shining's posts here anyway, feels scummy; and a lot of your comments earlier were actually decent and on-point and reasonably convincing, especially looking back now. The problem for me is that they came across as very insincere at the time because you flat out were not backing them up with action by changing your vote. | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On January 07 2015 12:02 rsoultin wrote: To be frank, Celestial, your idea that being aggressive, asking questions and scumreading people is scum behavior is very odd, even for a new player. There are scum in this game. They did play a role in this lynch somehow. Actively or passively it's hard to say with only WW flipped. How do you expect to figure out and lynch scum without questioning people? Just sit there and it'll magically come to you as no one talks? I would expect more people to be trying to figure this out and questioning odd behavior, rather than complaining about people "blaming" others. I did not go hard after you. I all but said I'm inclined to chalk it up to this being a newbie game. LS I went after because he honestly should know better...and he has in the past been very leery about lynching blue roles. This does not fit with his past behavior, or my expectations of him in his fourth game here. Bah...I'll look at Shining again in the morning, because I still have strong suspicions about him. His last second vote switch to WW after the guy had claimed is icky and looks more like trying to save his own skin in case anyone changed their vote. (Although town can want to save their own skin, too, I do realize that.) But I want to bring new eyes to this. Bedtime for me. ...I'm not even saying that. Where am I saying that? Or giving the impression I'm saying that? I'm actually genuinely confused here. I have NO idea where you're getting that one from aside from my very, very early post about your very first entry to the game. | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On January 07 2015 22:28 rsoultin wrote: You and I are playing the game differently. I will try to vote for the most scummy train. If I can't convince people to go for my top scumread, I go for one of my other scumreads people are voting for. With no scumreads up for vote, I go with a null read. If all up for vote are townreads I try to convince people to consolidate on an alternative lynch starting at my scumreads and settling on null if I have to, cause it's better than voting a townread. I do it this way because you can be 100% right but if you're the only one voting someone they will never be lynched. So yay you can say "I told you so" at the end, but your vote was meaningless and town still lost. Does this make sense? Fair enough. I get where you're going with it. Either way the whole vote was kinda flakey. It's frustrating that you see questions as blame and accuse me of not looking into people voting WW between the claim and EoD and accuse me of blaming others in practically the same breath. What do you think I was doing all night? Is it just that you don't think I should be questioning people who were not voting WW or what gives? I don't actually have an issue with the questioning in general, you're missing my real problem. My problem is the apparent inconsistencies between what you're saying and what you're asking. This was from the first post where you started questioning people: On January 07 2015 09:59 rsoultin wrote: Anyway...Silverarte and I were not in the thread at the time. Tubesock and LS were. Shining was voting for a counterwagon, not scummy in and of itself. Shining...can you please explain your reasoning for voting WW over LS with a soft blue claim? Celestial and Gumdrop both had useless votes, which bothers me more from Celestial than Gumdrop simply because he was actually here to do something about it. Can you explain your vote, Celestial? What I have an issue with is this: Here you highlight Tube and LS as having been about and, indeed, the two of them actually VOTED for WW. And you flat out acknowledge that Shining had a inherently good reason for voting the way he did (counterwagon to himself). However the people you specifically call out for explanations in that post are me and Shining. Which seems completely inconsistent with what you just said. Shining is actually perhaps the most excusable of everyone who voted WW, because of wanting to ensure that someone else was lynched rather than him. Mine was a wasted vote, yes, but it was a wasted vote that I'd already stated the reasons for hours earlier with the option to being convinced and nobody actually made an attempt to do that except you, but you came across as insincere as I discussed. To acknowledge that some people were directly culpable for what happened and then to explicitly call out the one most easily explicable and someone else who was only indirectly responsible to explain themselves for it is inconsistent in my view. Hell, its as inconsistent as you saying that Shining was the best lynch and then staying on WW. Care to explain why you specifically picked me and Shining to call out first over those who were less explicable or more directly culpable? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt for now despite all of this because I have my own suspicions on Shining and if you're going that angle I'd quite like to see your full impressions of him over D2. Assuming I even survive the night. But if we do lynch Shining D2 his flip is going to be very, very interesting. | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
I'll try to address anything tomorrow if I can manage it. | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On January 08 2015 09:52 The Shining wrote: Celestial throwing away that vote on JarJar is really suspicious. That and the very early big post by Celestial that gave out a bunch of free town reads, mine included, a post that wasn't really warranted at the time. As has been mentioned before, Mafia likes to give out free town reads and hide in big posts. They also like to make excuses, which Celestial has done right as EoN and beginning of Day 2 started. Nice misrepresentation of my post you got there. If you actually look back to my first set of reads I was saying: Leaning town: Shining, ExO_ and Trfel. Suspicious of scum: rsoultin, jarjar, WW, Tube. Null: Pretty much everyone else largely due to lack of posts. Of course that's changed since then but..."Bunch of free town reads" indeed...makes me wonder why you're being so quick to actually LIE about what I posted. Pretty scummy behaviour. On January 08 2015 12:26 LightningStrike wrote: I don't like Celestial not liking the case on Shining from you I did like the case on Shining, BUT because rsoultin wasn't going for it in votes I got the feeling that she just wasn't convinced by her own case. Which in retrospect is pretty strange, but we've already discussed it endlessly by this point. That being said between rsoultin's case and my own feelings about The Shining I'm really not feeling good about him; especially since he was just trying to misrepresent my original set of reads just now. On January 08 2015 14:27 ExO_ wrote: Then there's Celestial. I think I'm starting to scum read him as well. I didn't like that he just parked his vote on jarjar. I also don't like how he seems to be going whichever way the wind blows. He's easily swayed with whoever is posting at the time. For example he hopped right on the LS train with me, then when I was gone for a while he backed off it, only to start agreeing with me more when I got back in the thread. Another example is he did a bit of an OMGUS on rsoultin after day 1, but immediately said he was willing to give he the benefit of the doubt. That's scum behavior in my mind. Scum read. If you actually check my posts you'd see I was already calling LS out with my original set of reads BEFORE you posted something to really set me off on that path; so no, it wasn't just you. Then I filter-dived for my second set of reads to confirm stuff before voting him; which was a very long time after you posted. But when LS demonstrated that he's played exactly this way before that set some doubt there, so getting off him was absolutely nothing to do with you. And note that I didn't switch back suspicions to LS because of you. Again, check my posts. I questioned you for your opinion on LS and then when LS decided to throw out a vague, apparently panicky, claim THAT is what made me suspicious of him again. Which makes me question precisely why you're lying about the progression of events here. My D1 issue with rsoultin is that having looked back over it her vote does not sit at all with her argument. Which I really, really don't like; I feel that if you believe that strongly you should vote and hope others follow. That being said I'm not entirely sure that makes rsoultin scum. On January 08 2015 14:35 Silverarte wrote: Celestial: You're been prolific in your posting, and it's led me to think town for you at first. The throwing away of your vote (as you put it) still puts a redmark on you to watch. I think my biggest fret is the free town passes early, straight to the vote...and then I'm not seeing much here about trying to contribute for the town and it feels floaty about-ish. Is Rsoultin your biggest target right now? Why? No. My issue with rsoultin I mentioned above. I'm just kind of floating on her. Sometimes I get a strong scum feel others I feel she's genuinely town. To be honest my biggest target right now would probably be Shining. Between what Shining posted yesterday, coupled with the fact that he's so quick to misrepresent what I actually said and twist it like that (detailed above)...that feels very, very wrong to me. Could just be a newbie error but I don't get that feeling. Anyway I'm going to hold off a little before I vote. Frankly from the early leaders I don't think BOTH of LS and Shining are scum unless they're bussing each other in the hope of one surviving. And I'm bouncing between town and scum on rsoultin, the posting seems genuine but the actions make me uncomfortable and I really don't like it when what people say doesn't really match up with what they do. Right now I'm inclined to go with Shining. I think I covered everything here. I'm still really ill but I'll try and get on again later to address anything that pops up. | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
LightningStrike just posted fluff and comments on other people's posts so far. Not really sure what to make of that honestly. I didn't like the fact he was just trying to avoid content. Then he mentioned that he was like this in other games which I took at face value until YOU posted your observations which I found compelling. Later on LS posted previous games for review, which drew me off him and it wasn't until he posted a claim (which I found to be an over-the-top panicked reaction to nothing at all) that I became incredibly suspicious again. | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
| ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
| ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
These are just my first impressions incidentally. If I have any more thoughts on the NK situation I'll post them later. The big talkers are potential doc saves so that makes them less likely to be targeted I reckon. Trfel was fairly quiet and hasn't put out a huge amount to go on. But he DID say that was going to be the case at first. Looking back he said: Oh, and a pregame excuse. Several days from now I will be moving back to school, so I will be less active for a while then. Sorry for the inconvenience. He's not been active in this game much but I'll take your word for it that he's been a good player previously. It seems to me out of the three you highlighted that he's been the quietest, making doc save less likely. I think the soft defend excuse against not killing Trfel of Shining and LS doesn't really add up. Both of LS and Shining are under intense pressure, killing Trfel and revealing him as town weakens cases against both of them precisely because of the "I don't think they're mafia" and him turning up dead. "Why would they kill someone defending them?" is the logic and it makes sense on the surface. But since he's relatively inactive he's not going to be much help actively defending them D2, assuming his activity stays the same. If Shining or LS were looking to sow a seed of doubt in the cases against them, a kill of a person who was supporting them but was relatively inactive and so is unlikely to be a huge amount of help in shifting accusations seems to be the way to go. Because it outs a supporter as a townie whilst not losing too much because he's inactive. Whilst simultaneously taking out a good player by reputation based on what you just said about his play in Carol. To me the real question is which of LS and Shining is the scum. Or are they both and bussing each other in the hopes that one will survive? | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On January 09 2015 02:11 ExO_ wrote: You are lying and I can prove it. Before my post, this is the only mention you made to lightning strike. And even though you say he posts fluff, in that same post you go on to say his last post was good and he gets some credit. The next time you mention LS, is quoting and agreeing with me. Except you just explicitly quoted me expressing doubt and highlighting him by saying I wasn't sure what to make of him. He posted AFTER I posted leading to my later comment about how I'd liked his post which put me off his scent. But that does NOT wipe out the fact I was originally dubious of his posting. You're misrepresenting me AGAIN here. Point out the lie. I mean really... Oh really? At this point in time I had been gone from the thread for a while. And thus the discussion moved away from LS for a while. As does your vote, and your vocal suspicions. Next comes: You finally go back on to LS with: Coincidentally guess what I posted just 6 posts and 12 minutes before the above quoted post:: HTS and I have a discussion about LS, and then you went back on him. So you're just going to straight up ignore this? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/474146-newbie-mini-mafia-lx?page=21#412 LS straight up claimed VT with zero pressure on him. AFTER my last reply to you, which influenced me to doubt him again. So once again you are completely misrepresenting the situation. So at the very least, you are lying about suspecting LS before I posted. You pushed suspicion onto the WW train while carefully parking your vote on jarjar. You have been careful this game and generally agreeable. But if there's one thing I believe: Liars should be lynched People make mistakes. But I believe your post is intentionally misleading, not accidental. ##Vote: Celestial I've just demonstrated I was dubious of LS on my initial impressions which was then improved by his later post (notice that it was an EDIT which brought that back), knocked back again by what you posted, redeemed by him demonstrating similar play in later games and then brought down somewhat again by his panicky claim. THIS is the factual story rather than the narrative you're making up and is what I was pointing out in my earlier reply. I was never happy with WW's posting but it was not enough to lynch but nor was it enough to encourage people not to lynch, which I've already explained multiple times to the point I'm getting tired of pointing it out. Its like banging my head against a goddamn wall. If I've been "generally agreeable" then I wouldn't be repeatedly sticking my neck out by being ever suspicious of the motives of rsoultin considering virtually everyone else has been apparently townreading her to date. Honestly, this is absurd. You are intentionally and very deliberately misrepresenting everything I've said so far and flat out making up a timeline of events to support your story. Frankly I question your motivations here. I had you down for town but now you're making a hell of an effort to twist the order of events to suit yourself. | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
So I guess my question to you is...why are you removing context and anyone else's input from the flow of events? | ||
| ||
