EPTI am on a phone though and have skimmed a lot. Will update with a better post when I'm home and at a computer.
Witchcraft Mini Mafia III - Page 12
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
yamato77
11589 Posts
I am on a phone though and have skimmed a lot. Will update with a better post when I'm home and at a computer. | ||
|
FreezingFoot
457 Posts
##Vote: wherebugsgo | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
On June 08 2015 11:35 batsnacks wrote: @kickstart I sort of skimmed the whole thing and just assumed you backtracked because you posted that you were mistaken or something. I figured even if I was wrong getting you to respond/not respond couldn't be terrible. If I didn't like you I'd be raging at you :D. Doesnt read thread thoroughly. Tries to call someone scummy because didn't read. How dare you. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On June 08 2015 11:34 FreezingFoot wrote: Lol dude you can't be town. I didn't engage your arguments directly or instantly called you scum to see until when you would still push this matter. My first strike was "I've never had a scumread this quick in a mafia game", but since your reasons were too stupid, I thought you could be town trying to get discussion getting traction. So if I completely shut down your arguments I would break discussion development. The thing is: if you're town doing that, you'll drop those arguments quickly because they aren't made to hold water. So I decided I would give you space so I could analyse you better. You're still pushing a dumb matter, which makes me sure you're mafia trying to get behind a ridiculous policy lynch. You're mafia. this dude is sure I am mafia but isn't voting me right | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On June 08 2015 11:36 FreezingFoot wrote: Oh, votes are made in this thread? ##Vote: wherebugsgo oh there we go took you long enough to realize you can't live without doing that | ||
|
Breshke
Australia3749 Posts
On June 08 2015 11:28 Kickstart wrote: Breshke plz explain. You've posited and answered questions but you've not explained this vote imo. I liked this post. On June 08 2015 08:46 wherebugsgo wrote: you apparently don't understand. It is in town's benefit to know his identity. If he refuses while taking votes that's anti-town. So just vote him and see what he does. If he doesn't give town anything what use is he alive? His contribution to this conversation has been a gif in response to my quote post. It is early in the day, but this is a good chance to see how our smurf wants to play the game. I also further disliked freezingfoot trying to make it seem like WBG was purely pushing him because he was a smurf so I was happy with where my vote is. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
I just don't see how that is scum hunting at all. It's just being mad that someone is smurfing and trying to 'pressure' them but then letting themn get lynched when they don't give you what you want (identify or display towniness beyond reasonable doubt), but who decides what is a reasonable display of towniness. To me this still seems like people putting foot in a lose-lose situation where the lynch is setup to go through no matter what he does. It may prove to be effective though in that it forces him to "prove" he is town. But be warned that if by everyone's elses standards he seems town and you push the lynch because you've tunneled him from the beginning you are gonna come out looking real fucking scummy, scummier than you seem now imo. | ||
|
FreezingFoot
457 Posts
On June 08 2015 12:46 Breshke wrote: I liked this post. I also further disliked freezingfoot trying to make it seem like WBG was purely pushing him because he was a smurf so I was happy with where my vote is. No. I wanted him to explain why not telling my identity when being voted is a scum behaviour. I've pointed it out repeatedly so he could reveal his thought process. After inquiring three times, bugs just calls me scum and asks me to explain something HE is supposed to explain. You know why? Because he has no thought process. He simply went behind a policy lynch and tried to justify it by saying that not revealing my identity while being up to the lynch is scummy, something YOU should KNOW by now that his is the most nonsensical conclusion to it. You aren't a newbie anymore and you know that a method of scum hunting is to see who is trying more to survive than to catch scum. If you have a player that will only survive if he reveals his identity, a scum will be much more eager to blow his smurf than keeping his identity a secret. I just kept not voting and not defending myself to see how bugs thought process would be in the thread and to see how his thought process would develop. I just showed all of you he has no thought process (in other words, his read is fabricated) when he failed to explain WHY not blowing my smurf would be scim behaviour. His other argument is that I scumread him but I do not place a vote in him. This isn't alignment indicative, specially in the beginning of the game. I did not approached him more aggressively because of what I've already said I was trying to manage. In the other hand, he clearly identifies aggressiveness as town trait and does approach me very aggressive. He is self aware that aggressiveness is a town trait. But how his aggressiveness works? He isn't trying to analyse my alignment. He is just throwing suspicions at me and calling me scum for everything I say, or ridicule my inquiries on him. Which means his aggressiveness is not someone trying to have a read on a player, or to push a player to gather information. His aggressiveness is an attempt to look townie, especially when he believes this is a town trait. Your vote isn't well placed. It is opportunistic. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
Quite a convenient way to later say that "Oh I just thought that Bugses case was good thats why I voted, clearly since bugs pushed it though bugs is more likely to be scum than me who just thought the point was good". Especially since the only real reason to have a vote parked on foot at the moment is for pressure, but if your intent was to pressure you wouldn't just echo everything another player has said without asking the person you are trying to pressure any questions. Seems quite scummy to me, and since I asked for an explanation but didn't get a satisfactory one in my opinion: ##Unvote ##Vote Breshke | ||
|
Breshke
Australia3749 Posts
On June 08 2015 09:53 FreezingFoot wrote: Dude, you are scum reading me for something that makes no one scum. I want to understand your thought process before forming a solid read on you. I am NOT answering a question YOU were supposed to clarify. Yet he completely ignored WBG case which had nothing to do with him being a smurf. I don't see this as him trying to understand the thought process of the case against him. He just keeps focusing on the smurf thing. I agreed with you to begin with that WBG reasoning was wrong if you look at my ealier posts but then I was just like fuck it who cares nothing else is happening lets pressure this guy. Foot proceeds to do basically nothing and ignores what people say other than the smurf thing. Neither is it a lose lose situation for him. There is still more than 3/4 of the day left foot has plenty of time to be townie if he is town. I also don't get why you seem to think that the only thing against foot is that he is a smurf when that isn't the case. | ||
|
FreezingFoot
457 Posts
On June 08 2015 13:30 Breshke wrote: Kickstart do you think at this moment foot seems town? He posts this. Yet he completely ignored WBG case which had nothing to do with him being a smurf. I don't see this as him trying to understand the thought process of the case against him. He just keeps focusing on the smurf thing. I agreed with you to begin with that WBG reasoning was wrong if you look at my ealier posts but then I was just like fuck it who cares nothing else is happening lets pressure this guy. Foot proceeds to do basically nothing and ignores what people say other than the smurf thing. Neither is it a lose lose situation for him. There is still more than 3/4 of the day left foot has plenty of time to be townie if he is town. I also don't get why you seem to think that the only thing against foot is that he is a smurf when that isn't the case. What's the case then, Breshke? That I wasn't voting bugs? Who's on your town pile right now? All the voters? Tell me how this is alignment indicative | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
You choose to smurf this game, now you have the extra responsibility of proving beyond reasonable doubt that you are town. If you fail to do this purely through your posts and actions, we have no choice but to lynch you because we have no meta to go off of. I just think that most people have made this blatantly clear (and it is something that someone who is going to smurf probably already knows anyways) and I see the attempt to "pressure" him as convenient. I mean he has already been pressured on this point, having you come in and piggyback onto the pressure does not add anything. It could be genuine, but it could be opportunistic on your part, I haven't decided which is actually the case yet. That said foot needs to try not to OMGUS bugs too much and tunnel too hard on him cause that will likely work against him. | ||
|
FreezingFoot
457 Posts
On June 08 2015 08:36 wherebugsgo wrote: I think they would be more likely to reveal themselves as town. Granted, a smurf does not have to reveal themselves to be useful to town. I have smurfed myself, and the reason I do it is often quite simple-most people don't ask, and those who do can be placated by providing opinions and good reads. I have never had the luxury of rolling scum while smurfing, but if I ever did I do not doubt it would be one of the easiest ways to achieve victory. It is plainly obvious why smurfing is far more advantageous to the individual player than the team as a whole. The town only benefits if the player who is smurfing is a high caliber town player, rolls town, and escapes getting shot night 1 due to being a smurf. Otherwise, town stands to gain nothing from a mediocre townie or a bad townie smurfing other than a lack of insight into the player's behaviour. You should always hold smurfs to a higher standard because if they refuse to reveal their identity then you have no background to be working with. You have no expectation of their play, and an ordinarily good townie has rolled scum on a smurf you have no way of knowing. This post reveals how contrived his behaviour regarding smurfing is. He admits if there is a very good player smurfing, it is benefical to town because the town smurf can avoid a night kill. In other words, he understands that there is also mafia motivation to know who the player is, so they can know how to deal with him. Why does he insist in having the disguised person figured out then? This is also horrible because if you actually needed a player's background to properly play mafia, there would be no newbie games. So, his arguments are clearly forced / fabricated, as already revealed. | ||
|
FreezingFoot
457 Posts
On June 08 2015 13:36 Kickstart wrote: In my opinion they both have good points. I currently see them as mostly OMGUSing each other to an extent. I am not letting foot off at all, if I haven't been clear enough Ill make it blatantly clear to him and everyone else: You choose to smurf this game, now you have the extra responsibility of proving beyond reasonable doubt that you are town. If you fail to do this purely through your posts and actions, we have no choice but to lynch you because we have no meta to go off of. I just think that most people have made this blatantly clear (and it is something that someone who is going to smurf probably already knows anyways) and I see the attempt to "pressure" him as convenient. I mean he has already been pressured on this point, having you come in and piggyback onto the pressure does not add anything. It could be genuine, but it could be opportunistic on your part, I haven't decided which is actually the case yet. That said foot needs to try not to OMGUS bugs too much and tunnel too hard on him cause that will likely work against him. I'm not OMGUSing. If I was, I would have voted him earlier. Yet I took a step back to further analyse his approach towards me. You can check my filter and see my posts to realise that my intention was clearly to give him space to do his things. In the other hand, I have no bigger burden to prove my innocence than any other town. Saying so is letting the opportunity to mislynch me open. I will be trying to catch scum, and you will decide if I'm town or not. It's up to you if you think you should take smurfing into consideration. I will ask you, though, to evaluate my gameplay, and solely it, instead of feeding the paranoia of playing with a stranger that may be pocketing you. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
On June 08 2015 13:46 FreezingFoot wrote: I'm not OMGUSing. If I was, I would have voted him earlier. Yet I took a step back to further analyse his approach towards me. You can check my filter and see my posts to realise that my intention was clearly to give him space to do his things. In the other hand, I have no bigger burden to prove my innocence than any other town. Saying so is letting the opportunity to mislynch me open. I will be trying to catch scum, and you will decide if I'm town or not. It's up to you if you think you should take smurfing into consideration. I will ask you, though, to evaluate my gameplay, and solely it, instead of feeding the paranoia of playing with a stranger that may be pocketing you. Noted | ||
|
Breshke
Australia3749 Posts
On June 08 2015 13:29 Kickstart wrote: What is most concerning to me at the moment in this situation is that bugs seems genuinely concerned, but Breshke's vote is just piggybacking off of everything bugs is saying. This irks me because when asked to explain Breshke just quotes bugs again. I specifically asked for the vote with no explanation in the post to be explained and all I got was a quote from what someone else had said. Quite a convenient way to later say that "Oh I just thought that Bugses case was good thats why I voted, clearly since bugs pushed it though bugs is more likely to be scum than me who just thought the point was good". Especially since the only real reason to have a vote parked on foot at the moment is for pressure, but if your intent was to pressure you wouldn't just echo everything another player has said without asking the person you are trying to pressure any questions. Seems quite scummy to me, and since I asked for an explanation but didn't get a satisfactory one in my opinion: ##Unvote ##Vote Breshke Yeah because it is really realistic to think that I as scum would think voting for someone giving no reasoning would make me look better than the person who spearheads the lynch. I'm bad but i'm not retarded. Your right i didn't really help much at all with the pressure no denying that. + Show Spoiler + On June 08 2015 13:22 FreezingFoot wrote: No. I wanted him to explain why not telling my identity when being voted is a scum behaviour. I've pointed it out repeatedly so he could reveal his thought process. After inquiring three times, bugs just calls me scum and asks me to explain something HE is supposed to explain. You know why? Because he has no thought process. He simply went behind a policy lynch and tried to justify it by saying that not revealing my identity while being up to the lynch is scummy, something YOU should KNOW by now that his is the most nonsensical conclusion to it. You aren't a newbie anymore and you know that a method of scum hunting is to see who is trying more to survive than to catch scum. If you have a player that will only survive if he reveals his identity, a scum will be much more eager to blow his smurf than keeping his identity a secret. I just kept not voting and not defending myself to see how bugs thought process would be in the thread and to see how his thought process would develop. I just showed all of you he has no thought process (in other words, his read is fabricated) when he failed to explain WHY not blowing my smurf would be scim behaviour. His other argument is that I scumread him but I do not place a vote in him. This isn't alignment indicative, specially in the beginning of the game. I did not approached him more aggressively because of what I've already said I was trying to manage. In the other hand, he clearly identifies aggressiveness as town trait and does approach me very aggressive. He is self aware that aggressiveness is a town trait. But how his aggressiveness works? He isn't trying to analyse my alignment. He is just throwing suspicions at me and calling me scum for everything I say, or ridicule my inquiries on him. Which means his aggressiveness is not someone trying to have a read on a player, or to push a player to gather information. His aggressiveness is an attempt to look townie, especially when he believes this is a town trait. Your vote isn't well placed. It is opportunistic. See I really like this now though. Let me explain how I saw bugs play. Pressure this guy because he is a smurf for funsies and to get the thread going. Justify the reasoning with something really shallow that doesn't really make sense Oh wait this guy is actually doing something scummy now it is a legit push. I dont think not revealing who you are even if you are about to die is scummy let me make that clear. Just because people can meta you doesn't mean they should totally flop a read on you if they are already voting you coming to EoD. I don't think a meta read should be able to change a read like that. However I did have a problem with you apparently ignoring everything else he was saying and just focusing on the smurf thing but I understand now why you did this and it was on purpose and not intended to make WBG look bad by focusing on something that is not alignment indicative. As for the last paragraph I don't think that makes WBG scummy because as i said before it came off to me that you were purposely focusing on the smurf thing so I can't blame him for having the same reaction and dismissing what you were saying. ##Unvote | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On June 08 2015 13:41 FreezingFoot wrote: This post reveals how contrived his behaviour regarding smurfing is. He admits if there is a very good player smurfing, it is benefical to town because the town smurf can avoid a night kill. In other words, he understands that there is also mafia motivation to know who the player is, so they can know how to deal with him. Why does he insist in having the disguised person figured out then? This is also horrible because if you actually needed a player's background to properly play mafia, there would be no newbie games. So, his arguments are clearly forced / fabricated, as already revealed. It's not beneficial because the town smurf can avoid a night kill. It's only beneficial when that townie actually does something, which is usually the case when they are good. Which is why I told you, if that's the case (and you would know!) you certainly don't have to reveal yourself. Your failure to recognize this point is now really damning. I have pointed it out multiple times, yet you are completely fixated on cherry picking my posts. I have invited you to provide scumreads, and invited you to answer many questions that could prove without a shadow of a doubt that you are indeed town, but repeatedly you have failed to do so. If I were scum I would shoot the person with the best reads. It's clearly not you, because you're scum. It wouldn't matter if I'm talking to Foolishness in this game (and you're certainly not him) because your logic and your behaviour is unexplainable from a town perspective. You selectively cherry pick my posts in a way that paints you in the best light, and you repeatedly attempt to undermine my arguments by calling them bad without a shred of evidence backing you up. I'm going to stop crapping up the thread with you directly now, since it's probably just going to continue to scare people off from posting...although I don't really like how slow everyone is to come in and get involved. Again, to everyone in the game: PLEASE contribute, because we need a valid and diverse set of good perspectives to win this game of elimination. | ||
|
FreezingFoot
457 Posts
On June 08 2015 09:10 LightningStrike wrote: Okay I still here for a bit I thought we were leaving right away and and will answer Breshke's quote to me. It just seems preplanned so he could do that regardless of alignment I feel. What you get out of the pressure yourself? I was re reading and I saw this. Can you explain to me this pre planned thing and how a pre planned action isn't alignment indicative? | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
| ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On June 08 2015 13:57 Kickstart wrote: Again, for what it is worth, you both make valid points. Time for others to chime in and not lurk, whether on this topic of discussion or something else. You think his points are valid?? looool He claims he's not "omgusing" even though he more or less called me scum immediately after I voted him. This is not to "give me space". To me it looks like he's just very self-aware of his image. That's not very common among townies. | ||
| ||
