|
On April 12 2012 23:53 Dittert wrote:@Xatalos I think you have a decent case against ArcticFox, and I would feel comfortable voting for him Day 1 (as things stand right now). That being said, I am actually even more suspicious of willz22912. He's lurking now (or sleeping, or at work) after posting a decent number of posts in the first 2 hours of the game. In those posts, he says a couple of things that catch my attention. First, Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 09:05 willz22912 wrote:
Lynch all liars is dumb, don't dwell on that.. How does that not scream scum? It's not just that he doesn't want a Lynch all Liars policy (which would in theory encourage, or at least allow for, lying), but he dismisses it out of hand. "Don't dwell on liars" is exactly the kind of thing scum would say. Second, we have this gem: Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 09:16 willz22912 wrote:
If the rest of you are going to let that comment by Dittert slide, I'm going to be unhappy. That comment was 100% useless and even if he is town I'm willing to sacrifice him to weed out the real scum. Town willing to kill other town? Even a bad townie (or a townie with a bad idea) is still a townie. It seems to me that this is a numbers game, and you should want as many people on your team alive as possible. I think willz22912 saw my bad RNG play as an opportunity to get the town to lynch one of their own, hence all the commotion about it. That ArcticFox immediately joined willz makes me even more suspicious of him (him being AF).
1. I was sleeping.
2. If I claim to be a blue role ("thus lying") and take a shot meant for a blue role, is that lying considered bad for town? I said don't dwell on liars both for referring to the policy, and dwelling on people talking about lying, which is completely pointless. If you claim VT because that will be the most common role but you're really mafia, how am I supposed to prove that you're lying? Oh right, I can't because I'm not scum. Therefore we must deal with the lies because it's part of the game.
3. No, town willing to kill other town is fine as long as you can find out the real mafia who are bandwagoning on a town for a easy mis-lynch. You rarely(never seen it) win a game of Mafia without friendly fire and mis-lynching innocent town because they played poorly, if you play poorly as town (which I've already gone over what not to do) then you deserve to get lynched. Numbers game means with 9 town and 3 mafia, you can lose up to 6 town until it's over without killing a single mafia (3-3 situation forces whichever team to have the fastest 3 votes in plurality) This is why I'm against Xatalos' case, he's making a case on another player and drawing out way too many bandwagoners who are willing to readily adopt his case because it's the only "strong" one out there. Newbie town are scared to voice their opinion so they latch onto a strong leader, but then if that leader is really mafia, then we have a bad situation for town.
4. I told you to stop your comments on RNG policy lynches because there is no logic behind them and is detrimental to town to waste time discussing it. You hiding behind your newbiness is not helping. It's okay to be a newb but I'm not going to take one of your reads seriously over mine because you have less experience and you keep harping on that as a defense. You make a case against me when I didn't even vote you, I told you to stop, you stopped, I left you alone. I have you pegged as a newb town in his first game, which I can relate to because I felt similar to you, unsure of myself, unwilling to be firm in my accusations. If you really think I'm mafia, make your stronger case, otherwise I'm going to ignore you and leave you to your own devices.
|
On April 13 2012 02:48 willz22912 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 17:14 Xatalos wrote:On April 12 2012 16:54 imallinson wrote:
@ Xatalos
I didn't mention blue reads at all. I said lurker lynches can get a blue who is trying to hide in the shadows. I never mentioned anyone I thought was blue or how we would figure a blue out. You seem to be looking so hard for slip ups you are making some yourself. Nevertheless, you were THINKING about blue tells as you considered lynching lurkers = possibly killing blues. It's not a reason enough to lynch you yet, but if I had to choose between you or anyone else outside of ArcticFox, Dittert and yomi, I would choose to vote for you. And you seem to forget that blue players very rarely are lurkers: mostly they try to act like vanilla townies and be at least somewhat active. Being a lurker or semi-lurker means a higher chance of Mafia, since it's against Mafia's win condition to contribute. Besides, I found your hesitation and wishy-washiness more condemning than your comment about lurkers = blues. Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 19:03 Xatalos wrote:On April 12 2012 18:54 imallinson wrote:@ Xatalos I've had a good read through your argument against ArcticFox and haven't found any major holes in your logic there. I think that the talking about blues is less important than the stuff he says about policy lynches (although it definitely doesn't help his case). He seems to say that he doesn't want a policy lynch but keeps suggesting various policy lynches: On April 12 2012 10:28 ArcticFox wrote:
I would prefer not to have to policy lynch at all, but liars and lurkers is a good place to start. On April 12 2012 08:34 ArcticFox wrote:
I'm all for lynching liars above all else. On April 12 2012 10:08 ArcticFox wrote: I'm interested in your thoughts on our policy discussions and such so far. I'd like to see him put up some defence of your accusations. As for Dittert I still can't figure out whether he is just being a newb town or is trying to distract us as scum. He hasn't posted a proper defence yet. "I'm a newb, please don't lynch me" doesn't count Hmm, good answer. Your suspiciousness dropped a bit in my eyes. I want to see ArcticFox, Dittert, yomi and KharadBanar respond yet. You had suspicions in allinson, and then when he blindly followed your bandwagon you're okay with it and it drops your suspicion? I've played town every single time I've played mafia and it's always the bandwagoners that are suspicious. So quick to support you and you return the favor? No. Not this early, not without any credibilty earned.
Think about that a bit more closely. Why would Mafia want to lead the pressure visibly when they could just sit in the shadows and carefully manipulate the general opinion? That's what I did when I was Mafia. Also, I only had a slight suspicion of imallinson, and he made good comments on ArcticFox and Dittert, so I didn't see the point in pushing him for now.
|
Wow. I go climbing the afternoon and people start accusing eachother left right and center. Going through it semi-chronologically.
I like ArcticFox's response to the case, which I thought was a trumped up load of poppycock. I just wanted to see Arctic's reply, because I had a null read on him and seeing him post in response was good. While scrolling to the end of this, I see Willz has pretty much destroyed the case already: the main problem with the case is that it is completely false meta. You are not ArcticFox and he is not you. Additionally I didn't find his references to blues in any way shape or form a way of fishing for blues. However, it was interesting to see his response.
ArcticFox has acted townie so far. Something that I cannot possibly say about Dittert and while quite a few people are suspicious of him, I cannot understand why people have not jumped on his latest shitty post.
+ Show Spoiler [Dittert's absurd accusations] +On April 12 2012 23:53 Dittert wrote:@Xatalos I think you have a decent case against ArcticFox, and I would feel comfortable voting for him Day 1 (as things stand right now). That being said, I am actually even more suspicious of willz22912. He's lurking now (or sleeping, or at work) after posting a decent number of posts in the first 2 hours of the game. In those posts, he says a couple of things that catch my attention. First, Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 09:05 willz22912 wrote:
Lynch all liars is dumb, don't dwell on that.. How does that not scream scum? It's not just that he doesn't want a Lynch all Liars policy (which would in theory encourage, or at least allow for, lying), but he dismisses it out of hand. "Don't dwell on liars" is exactly the kind of thing scum would say. Second, we have this gem: Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 09:16 willz22912 wrote:
If the rest of you are going to let that comment by Dittert slide, I'm going to be unhappy. That comment was 100% useless and even if he is town I'm willing to sacrifice him to weed out the real scum. Town willing to kill other town? Even a bad townie (or a townie with a bad idea) is still a townie. It seems to me that this is a numbers game, and you should want as many people on your team alive as possible. I think willz22912 saw my bad RNG play as an opportunity to get the town to lynch one of their own, hence all the commotion about it. That ArcticFox immediately joined willz makes me even more suspicious of him (him being AF).
LaL IS a dumb policy and Willz pointing it out is good. Your RNG policy was dumb, and pointing that was good too. The butthurt OMGUS you're pulling here is pretty damned terrible. This is not a case against Willz, it's a half-arsed attempt to get out from under the pressure. I know I asked for reads... I just didn't know they'd be this bad. Dittert, please give me your opinion of Xatalos... more on him in a later post.
Btw, to get things straight: we should absolutely be on the lookout for lies, but policy lynching them is absurd. If you catch someone lying, by all means jump on it, but lies go in the box with the rest of the evidence. They are not the be-all end-all and I can reference 2 games off the top of my head, where town lies served a purpose.
##FoS: Dittert
So far Dittert. I will go through the rest of this random-accusation-town right now.
|
EBWOP: I forgot to save my list this morning, so the posts while I was at work aren't updated in my notepad. Gonna do this homework and the post about the rest of the thread will be a bit later.
|
On April 13 2012 02:58 Xatalos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 02:48 willz22912 wrote:On April 12 2012 17:14 Xatalos wrote:On April 12 2012 16:54 imallinson wrote:
@ Xatalos
I didn't mention blue reads at all. I said lurker lynches can get a blue who is trying to hide in the shadows. I never mentioned anyone I thought was blue or how we would figure a blue out. You seem to be looking so hard for slip ups you are making some yourself. Nevertheless, you were THINKING about blue tells as you considered lynching lurkers = possibly killing blues. It's not a reason enough to lynch you yet, but if I had to choose between you or anyone else outside of ArcticFox, Dittert and yomi, I would choose to vote for you. And you seem to forget that blue players very rarely are lurkers: mostly they try to act like vanilla townies and be at least somewhat active. Being a lurker or semi-lurker means a higher chance of Mafia, since it's against Mafia's win condition to contribute. Besides, I found your hesitation and wishy-washiness more condemning than your comment about lurkers = blues. On April 12 2012 19:03 Xatalos wrote:On April 12 2012 18:54 imallinson wrote:@ Xatalos I've had a good read through your argument against ArcticFox and haven't found any major holes in your logic there. I think that the talking about blues is less important than the stuff he says about policy lynches (although it definitely doesn't help his case). He seems to say that he doesn't want a policy lynch but keeps suggesting various policy lynches: On April 12 2012 10:28 ArcticFox wrote:
I would prefer not to have to policy lynch at all, but liars and lurkers is a good place to start. On April 12 2012 08:34 ArcticFox wrote:
I'm all for lynching liars above all else. On April 12 2012 10:08 ArcticFox wrote: I'm interested in your thoughts on our policy discussions and such so far. I'd like to see him put up some defence of your accusations. As for Dittert I still can't figure out whether he is just being a newb town or is trying to distract us as scum. He hasn't posted a proper defence yet. "I'm a newb, please don't lynch me" doesn't count Hmm, good answer. Your suspiciousness dropped a bit in my eyes. I want to see ArcticFox, Dittert, yomi and KharadBanar respond yet. You had suspicions in allinson, and then when he blindly followed your bandwagon you're okay with it and it drops your suspicion? I've played town every single time I've played mafia and it's always the bandwagoners that are suspicious. So quick to support you and you return the favor? No. Not this early, not without any credibilty earned. Think about that a bit more closely. Why would Mafia want to lead the pressure visibly when they could just sit in the shadows and carefully manipulate the general opinion? That's what I did when I was Mafia. Also, I only had a slight suspicion of imallinson, and he made good comments on ArcticFox and Dittert, so I didn't see the point in pushing him for now.
On April 12 2012 16:17 Xatalos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 15:44 imallinson wrote:
/confirm
Hello all just woke up and read through the thread so far.
I'm kind of worried that a load of time was wasted discussing RNG votes. It seems a bit like Dittert was sending us down a bad path. I'm not sure if that's due to scummyness or newbness but it's definitely something to watch out for.
As for Kharad's pressure vote on Hiro it makes sense if he is trying to get a read on him based on info from a previous game. I'm guessing he isn't that suspicious of him after his answer due to the unvote.
Finally on lurker votes I'll reiterate what I said in my last game that lurker votes should be a last resort because you have a fair chance of lynching a blue that is hiding in the shadows. This post is something to keep in mind going forward. It's full of hesitation and indecisive comments... And he even starts talking about blue reads, just like ArcticFox. Perhaps he and ArcticFox have been talking about their blue reads in Mafia chat and slipped that discussion over to this thread? People I'm fine with lynching right now: ArcticFox, Dittert, yomi, imallinson. I'm pretty sure at least 1-2 of these players are Mafia. If you four want to clear yourselves in my eyes, something major needs to happen. I suggest everyone to read my case on ArcticFox and vote for him. I'd put his chances of being Mafia at 70-80%, which is extremely high for me considering it's this early. I also want to see his response, though, but I don't know what would convince me otherwise at this point (I guess an EVEN stronger Mafia read on someone else, which isn't an easy feat to achieve!).
This is your first post on imallinson, you call this not suspecting him highly? You claim that he made good points on Arcticfox and Dittert. Arcticfox is the case you're trying to push. Dittert is easily regarded as suspicious for his poor rng proposal. So he gets away by agreeing with you on one case and following others thoughts on another? Yeah that's trying to blend in. If you bandwagon onto someone else's case and vote accordingly, you better have a good reason with your own opinions, otherwise that just lets mafia jump on the easiest mis-lynch case and defend themselves with "but Xatalos thought he was Mafia, and I believe in Xatalos, so thats why I voted this [innocent townie]!"
If you convince enough people to help you lynch Arcticfox because this is plurality vote, and he flips town, I'm going after you and whoever voted along with you without any good reason.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
@ArcticFox I'm not sure why you think yomi is certain BroodKing is scum you keep saying it.
On April 13 2012 02:19 ArcticFox wrote:
I'm still waiting on a good reason from you on why you're voting Dittert after flat out saying Brood is mafia. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing either way, I simply want your reasoning. Your play isn't making a lot of sense to me right now..
On April 13 2012 01:00 ArcticFox wrote:
EBWOP: Also for Yomi -- why is the vote for Dittert if you're sure Brood's scum?
But he never actually said he was sure Brood was scum. The closest he got was saying he was suspicious.
On April 12 2012 23:56 yomi wrote:
I said brood, kharad, dittert are leading a pointless discussion aka suspicious.
Or this
On April 12 2012 12:31 yomi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 11:56 BroodKingEXE wrote:
This is your first post, yet you do nothing to contribute. Why should we stop the discussion, it seems like people are already forming opinions on people based on the "pointless" discussion. Instead of trying to stop the talk, why dont you look over what has already been said and start forming ideas about the tone of the responses. nothing to contribute? I am one of the only people to post something substantive, specific, and concrete. I have looked over what's been said and formed ideas. For example I think you are mafia.
But even that isn't saying he is sure of it, it sounds a lot more like " I'm suspicious of you." It seems like you are stretching a bit with your accusation of yomi. I don't know whether its you misinterpreting what he is saying or are trying to divert attention away from yourself. To me yomi's vote makes sense, he thought Brood, Dittert and Kharad all had a pointless conversation which made them suspicious. Seeing as Dittert was the one who started that he seems like the most suspicious.
|
On April 13 2012 02:59 Acrofales wrote:Wow. I go climbing the afternoon and people start accusing eachother left right and center. Going through it semi-chronologically. I like ArcticFox's response to the case, which I thought was a trumped up load of poppycock. I just wanted to see Arctic's reply, because I had a null read on him and seeing him post in response was good. While scrolling to the end of this, I see Willz has pretty much destroyed the case already: the main problem with the case is that it is completely false meta. You are not ArcticFox and he is not you. Additionally I didn't find his references to blues in any way shape or form a way of fishing for blues. However, it was interesting to see his response. ArcticFox has acted townie so far. Something that I cannot possibly say about Dittert and while quite a few people are suspicious of him, I cannot understand why people have not jumped on his latest shitty post. + Show Spoiler [Dittert's absurd accusations] +On April 12 2012 23:53 Dittert wrote:@Xatalos I think you have a decent case against ArcticFox, and I would feel comfortable voting for him Day 1 (as things stand right now). That being said, I am actually even more suspicious of willz22912. He's lurking now (or sleeping, or at work) after posting a decent number of posts in the first 2 hours of the game. In those posts, he says a couple of things that catch my attention. First, Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 09:05 willz22912 wrote:
Lynch all liars is dumb, don't dwell on that.. How does that not scream scum? It's not just that he doesn't want a Lynch all Liars policy (which would in theory encourage, or at least allow for, lying), but he dismisses it out of hand. "Don't dwell on liars" is exactly the kind of thing scum would say. Second, we have this gem: Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 09:16 willz22912 wrote:
If the rest of you are going to let that comment by Dittert slide, I'm going to be unhappy. That comment was 100% useless and even if he is town I'm willing to sacrifice him to weed out the real scum. Town willing to kill other town? Even a bad townie (or a townie with a bad idea) is still a townie. It seems to me that this is a numbers game, and you should want as many people on your team alive as possible. I think willz22912 saw my bad RNG play as an opportunity to get the town to lynch one of their own, hence all the commotion about it. That ArcticFox immediately joined willz makes me even more suspicious of him (him being AF). LaL IS a dumb policy and Willz pointing it out is good. Your RNG policy was dumb, and pointing that was good too. The butthurt OMGUS you're pulling here is pretty damned terrible. This is not a case against Willz, it's a half-arsed attempt to get out from under the pressure. I know I asked for reads... I just didn't know they'd be this bad. Dittert, please give me your opinion of Xatalos... more on him in a later post. Btw, to get things straight: we should absolutely be on the lookout for lies, but policy lynching them is absurd. If you catch someone lying, by all means jump on it, but lies go in the box with the rest of the evidence. They are not the be-all end-all and I can reference 2 games off the top of my head, where town lies served a purpose. ##FoS: DittertSo far Dittert. I will go through the rest of this random-accusation-town right now.
I agree with you that the response from ArcticFox was good. It still doesn't mean he is town. You, like Willz, fail to see that metagame was only the starting point of my case, not the "meat" of it. The major part of my case was his flow of useless posts about policies and blues, neither related to Mafia-hunt but easy to talk about for Mafia (without giving town any new information). However, by no means is ArcticFox a "must-lynch" for me - just that he is my preference at the moment.
Also, you have to admit my case on ArcticFox has generated a lot of useful discussion and possible Mafia slips (we can't know them all yet, as some of them will become more clear once some player's alignments are revealed). I'm all for pushing another lynch target, since everyone voting for ArcticFox would make it too easy for Mafia to blend in. Seeing players' reactions to different lynch pushes will be very helpful.
|
On April 13 2012 02:51 Xatalos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 02:44 willz22912 wrote:
Terrible case on Arcticfox. You're willing to lynch someone 7 hours into the game based on your experiences of how you played Mafia in the GoT game? I looked through your filter, even you stated yourself that it felt too easy as Mafia to hide because you never drew attention to yourself. I also recognize that Acrofales was your scum buddy that game and your Mafia plan was to rely on his "noobiness" to let him get away with his opening post (but it almost got him lynched)
Your entire reasoning behind attacking him was that he mentioned blue roles a few times and he was in favor of policy lynches, something that you said you did "as Mafia." So basically if someone said something that you would do, you would assume that is suspicious even though you mostly coasted in GoT, you didn't lead the town towards a mis-lynch or towards wrong lines of thinking. Don't project your experience from GoT in here with that little reasoning, you're creating a bandwagon and getting everyone to agree with you based on terrible logic. Talking about policy lynches or blue roles isn't Mafia-like only because of my metagame experiences - it's universally not something town SHOULD be doing. I understand a new townie might not understand that, but you can't just let it slide based on "noob town". ArcticFox might just be a noob townie, but I haven't seen a better case against anyone else. What about you? Who do you think is Mafia and why?
I'm leaning strongly towards imallinson at this point because he hasn't posted anything unique for himself, he's been hiding behind supporting your case against Arcticfox. Other reads I have now I am not willing to divulge at this point so they don't get defensive early, I'm curious to see how some of my suspects proceed as we still have 29 hours to go till deadline. I'll post a case on my vote target after I collect more evidence.
The other suspicious person that everyone seems to agree on is Dittert, and I view him as simply a newb town and harmless. I'm taking note of the people so ready to jump on an easy target, being suspicious in itself should not be grounds for a lynch without decent evidence of malicious wrongdoing. I mis-lynched someone in Newbie V because he was "suspicious" and that was it, it was a mis-lynch and helped us lose the game because the other viable lynch was a real Mafia. I have learned from that and now I do not blindly agree with any lynches based on suspicion.
|
EBWOB.
Xatalos I notice you're active and posting, respond to my previous posts quoting you please, how do you view imallinson at this point and his readiness to agree with you?
|
On April 13 2012 03:23 willz22912 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 02:51 Xatalos wrote:On April 13 2012 02:44 willz22912 wrote:
Terrible case on Arcticfox. You're willing to lynch someone 7 hours into the game based on your experiences of how you played Mafia in the GoT game? I looked through your filter, even you stated yourself that it felt too easy as Mafia to hide because you never drew attention to yourself. I also recognize that Acrofales was your scum buddy that game and your Mafia plan was to rely on his "noobiness" to let him get away with his opening post (but it almost got him lynched)
Your entire reasoning behind attacking him was that he mentioned blue roles a few times and he was in favor of policy lynches, something that you said you did "as Mafia." So basically if someone said something that you would do, you would assume that is suspicious even though you mostly coasted in GoT, you didn't lead the town towards a mis-lynch or towards wrong lines of thinking. Don't project your experience from GoT in here with that little reasoning, you're creating a bandwagon and getting everyone to agree with you based on terrible logic. Talking about policy lynches or blue roles isn't Mafia-like only because of my metagame experiences - it's universally not something town SHOULD be doing. I understand a new townie might not understand that, but you can't just let it slide based on "noob town". ArcticFox might just be a noob townie, but I haven't seen a better case against anyone else. What about you? Who do you think is Mafia and why? I'm leaning strongly towards imallinson at this point because he hasn't posted anything unique for himself, he's been hiding behind supporting your case against Arcticfox. Other reads I have now I am not willing to divulge at this point so they don't get defensive early, I'm curious to see how some of my suspects proceed as we still have 29 hours to go till deadline. I'll post a case on my vote target after I collect more evidence. The other suspicious person that everyone seems to agree on is Dittert, and I view him as simply a newb town and harmless. I'm taking note of the people so ready to jump on an easy target, being suspicious in itself should not be grounds for a lynch without decent evidence of malicious wrongdoing. I mis-lynched someone in Newbie V because he was "suspicious" and that was it, it was a mis-lynch and helped us lose the game because the other viable lynch was a real Mafia. I have learned from that and now I do not blindly agree with any lynches based on suspicion.
Hmm. You have a good point about imallinson. I don't think he is a bad lynch target, and I'll wait with interest to see your actual case. However, since you mentioned metagame, allow me to say something about it too. In my previous game, where I was Mafia, the first two "bandwagons" (Acrofales and gumshoe) were actually real Mafia players. I don't think it's unlikely that either ArcticFox or Dittert (our two easy "bandwagons") would be Mafia, as well. And it's perfectly fine to put the pressure on them, not only to make them uncomfortable, but also to hopefully get some Mafia slips from other Mafia players. It's better to start pressure early than to talk about policies or roles all day and then make a hasty decision without good material.
|
I find that reading all my posts that a newbie town would be pressured to post something unique that's not bandwagoning for fear of my wrath, I have stepped up my activity and posting a lot more than previous games because it's better to be active than not for town.
If you want to be more active and useful for town yourself, take a moment and just pick a player (preferably someone not already under suspicion) and post your opinion on that person (including me if you want) whether he is looking pro-town, neutral, or anti-town. Don't lurk for fear of nothing to say. Try and contribute, and getting posts down where people can judge your reasoning and have a mental history of your opinions will be the reason you stay alive versus being targetted for lurking. This is targeted towards the players with less than a page of filter at this point. It's still midway through D1, but you need to step it up.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
@willz
I'm not entirely sure I'd call the second person agreeing with someones argument a bandwagon, third or fourth maybe. I couldn't really add anything to Xatalos's argument because he had gone through the entirety of ArcticFox's filter at the time. So I added my input my stating that I thought he was overstating part of his argument. There wasn't really much more I could add at the time.
That being said I will do it now.
Firstly I'm not entirely convinced by this defence
On April 12 2012 22:17 ArcticFox wrote:
I mentioned policy a bunch of times last night because there wasn't really a lot to discuss at the time. My primary goal was to get a bunch of people talking, which is working. As of right now, everyone has at least something in their filter to work with, even if it's not much, and we're barely 14 hours into a 48 hour day. Good start.
I can understand using discussion of plans as a good way to get people talking, but repeating the idea for a plan you think is bad so much seems strange to me. This however is more reasonable as a defence.
On April 12 2012 22:17 ArcticFox wrote:
I read through my filter to try to see what you saw. I think you're focusing too hard on the exact wording rather than my motivation behind it.
However, just after that he says.
On April 12 2012 22:17 ArcticFox wrote:
I was taking hard stances on the things that actually came up to take stances on.
Just as I'm going to do now.
Followed by very vague stances on Dittert, Kharad and Hiro. Followed by a reasonable argument against vonKlaust. I would say his point about this
On April 12 2012 08:49 vonKlaust wrote:
About keeping people from freaking out and start killing each other, I think that's pretty much a part of the game. People make bad reads, and innocent people get lynched.
is a bit off because at first it does sound bad and makes it seem like he is wanting town to get killed but it's fairly obvious it's just stating that inevitably there will be some mis-lynches.
Seems like its similar to his misinterpreting yomi's suspicion of Brood I posted about just before.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
EBWOP: I think I've said all I want on Arctic at the moment. He definitely has gone some way to alleviating my suspicions of him. I'm going to read through some of the more lurky players filters to see if there is anything suspicious there beyond them not posting.
|
On April 13 2012 03:08 willz22912 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 02:58 Xatalos wrote:On April 13 2012 02:48 willz22912 wrote:On April 12 2012 17:14 Xatalos wrote:On April 12 2012 16:54 imallinson wrote:
@ Xatalos
I didn't mention blue reads at all. I said lurker lynches can get a blue who is trying to hide in the shadows. I never mentioned anyone I thought was blue or how we would figure a blue out. You seem to be looking so hard for slip ups you are making some yourself. Nevertheless, you were THINKING about blue tells as you considered lynching lurkers = possibly killing blues. It's not a reason enough to lynch you yet, but if I had to choose between you or anyone else outside of ArcticFox, Dittert and yomi, I would choose to vote for you. And you seem to forget that blue players very rarely are lurkers: mostly they try to act like vanilla townies and be at least somewhat active. Being a lurker or semi-lurker means a higher chance of Mafia, since it's against Mafia's win condition to contribute. Besides, I found your hesitation and wishy-washiness more condemning than your comment about lurkers = blues. On April 12 2012 19:03 Xatalos wrote:On April 12 2012 18:54 imallinson wrote:@ Xatalos I've had a good read through your argument against ArcticFox and haven't found any major holes in your logic there. I think that the talking about blues is less important than the stuff he says about policy lynches (although it definitely doesn't help his case). He seems to say that he doesn't want a policy lynch but keeps suggesting various policy lynches: On April 12 2012 10:28 ArcticFox wrote:
I would prefer not to have to policy lynch at all, but liars and lurkers is a good place to start. On April 12 2012 08:34 ArcticFox wrote:
I'm all for lynching liars above all else. On April 12 2012 10:08 ArcticFox wrote: I'm interested in your thoughts on our policy discussions and such so far. I'd like to see him put up some defence of your accusations. As for Dittert I still can't figure out whether he is just being a newb town or is trying to distract us as scum. He hasn't posted a proper defence yet. "I'm a newb, please don't lynch me" doesn't count Hmm, good answer. Your suspiciousness dropped a bit in my eyes. I want to see ArcticFox, Dittert, yomi and KharadBanar respond yet. You had suspicions in allinson, and then when he blindly followed your bandwagon you're okay with it and it drops your suspicion? I've played town every single time I've played mafia and it's always the bandwagoners that are suspicious. So quick to support you and you return the favor? No. Not this early, not without any credibilty earned. Think about that a bit more closely. Why would Mafia want to lead the pressure visibly when they could just sit in the shadows and carefully manipulate the general opinion? That's what I did when I was Mafia. Also, I only had a slight suspicion of imallinson, and he made good comments on ArcticFox and Dittert, so I didn't see the point in pushing him for now. Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 16:17 Xatalos wrote:On April 12 2012 15:44 imallinson wrote:
/confirm
Hello all just woke up and read through the thread so far.
I'm kind of worried that a load of time was wasted discussing RNG votes. It seems a bit like Dittert was sending us down a bad path. I'm not sure if that's due to scummyness or newbness but it's definitely something to watch out for.
As for Kharad's pressure vote on Hiro it makes sense if he is trying to get a read on him based on info from a previous game. I'm guessing he isn't that suspicious of him after his answer due to the unvote.
Finally on lurker votes I'll reiterate what I said in my last game that lurker votes should be a last resort because you have a fair chance of lynching a blue that is hiding in the shadows. This post is something to keep in mind going forward. It's full of hesitation and indecisive comments... And he even starts talking about blue reads, just like ArcticFox. Perhaps he and ArcticFox have been talking about their blue reads in Mafia chat and slipped that discussion over to this thread? People I'm fine with lynching right now: ArcticFox, Dittert, yomi, imallinson. I'm pretty sure at least 1-2 of these players are Mafia. If you four want to clear yourselves in my eyes, something major needs to happen. I suggest everyone to read my case on ArcticFox and vote for him. I'd put his chances of being Mafia at 70-80%, which is extremely high for me considering it's this early. I also want to see his response, though, but I don't know what would convince me otherwise at this point (I guess an EVEN stronger Mafia read on someone else, which isn't an easy feat to achieve!). This is your first post on imallinson, you call this not suspecting him highly? You claim that he made good points on Arcticfox and Dittert. Arcticfox is the case you're trying to push. Dittert is easily regarded as suspicious for his poor rng proposal. So he gets away by agreeing with you on one case and following others thoughts on another? Yeah that's trying to blend in. If you bandwagon onto someone else's case and vote accordingly, you better have a good reason with your own opinions, otherwise that just lets mafia jump on the easiest mis-lynch case and defend themselves with "but Xatalos thought he was Mafia, and I believe in Xatalos, so thats why I voted this [innocent townie]!" If you convince enough people to help you lynch Arcticfox because this is plurality vote, and he flips town, I'm going after you and whoever voted along with you without any good reason.
He didn't only agree with me, he posted some additional potentially suspicious quotes from ArcticFox. That's why I didn't focus on him at that point... Mafia usually jump in sheepishly to vote once a very easy lynch target has been found, not as early as he did. Still, he hasn't done much else for this thread, and I'm watching him closely.
That's the risk I'll have to take. However, nobody was really pressuring anyone when I woke up and read the thread, so I figured I had to make the first move. There's no certainty that ArcticFox is Mafia, but given the information I have, I don't mind lynching him at the moment.
|
On April 13 2012 03:41 imallinson wrote:
EBWOP: I think I've said all I want on Arctic at the moment. He definitely has gone some way to alleviating my suspicions of him. I'm going to read through some of the more lurky players filters to see if there is anything suspicious there beyond them not posting.
Hmm.. I'll definitely want to hear your opinions on other players than ArcticFox or Dittert. Willz was right in that you didn't really push anything of your own, but rather followed behind. That doesn't look good in my eyes. Also, I wonder about your fast change of heart earlier - your first reaction was to label me as a possible Mafia for suspecting you (OMGUS reaction) and right after that you started agreeing with me on everything. How does that work?
|
Okay. I'm done. Was a short little stint: good thing we're not playing Mafia LI.
First things first. The air here is getting paranoid. If someone points out some suspect behaviour, address the content, however bad you think it is, not the person. This is especially addressed to Yomi, who will receive my second
##FoS: Yomi
A Yomi or Dittert lynch at this point seems to me to be a decent option, but I don't want to get ahead of myself, because there's plenty of time left, and pretty much everything so far can be attributed to noob overreactions. It does mean I really want these two players to start participating actively in the game and trying to read other players: I know it is hard, but simply throwing a tantrum and OMGUSing whoever suspects you will get you my vote.
So.. back to Yomi. Xatalos made a fluff call-out to lurkers. Lets note the timestamp:
On April 12 2012 23:45 Xatalos wrote:
9 minutes later, Yomi appears! Now I know nothing about what timezone Yomi is in and it could be coincidence, but it is something I noticed.
On April 12 2012 23:56 yomi wrote:
It was especially noteworthy, because Dittert did the same thing, although that didn't quite catch my attention as much, because people have been calling Dittert out repeatedly.
His post was a rather wishy washy explanation, but bad analysis is not scummy, it's just bad. At this point I didn't really note much, except for him appearing at a convenient time. However, his later posting made my spidersense tingle:
ArcticFox makes a perfectly obvious observation that Yomi needs to clear up:
On April 13 2012 01:00 ArcticFox wrote:
EBWOP: Also for Yomi -- why is the vote for Dittert if you're sure Brood's scum?
And here is Yomi's response:
On April 13 2012 01:30 yomi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 01:00 ArcticFox wrote:
EBWOP: Also for Yomi -- why is the vote for Dittert if you're sure Brood's scum? note arctic coming to the defense of dittert aka the most highly suspected player defending the second most highly suspected player. first big slip? not sure what to make of hiro accusing xatalos. I think the guy is kind of ridiculous but I think he (xatalos) is town. arctic/ditt/hiropro mafia 1/2/3 ?
Not only does he not answer the question, but he double OMGUSs in a single post. He also seems to have forgotten completely about his only argumented scumread: Brood. I find this behaviour extremely suspicious. He later does answer the question, but I just really really REALLY dislike this post.
On April 13 2012 01:44 yomi wrote:
also hiropro just retaliates against anyone who accuses him and does not post anything substantive himself.
Irony much? You have so far voted Dittert, which is understandable. You have posted a case on Brood and OMGUS'd HiroPro and ArcticFox. I also have not seen HiroPro exhibit the behaviour you accuse him of, but maybe I'm just dense.
All of this can be explained by an overreacting newbie, but it is far too defensive for my taste, when nobody actually accused him of anything in particular.
@Trumpetar: seems like a fair reply. I hope to see some of your reads. Your English is fine, don't be shy
@Xatalos: I have gone through ArcticFox's filter again and I really don't see how his brief posts shooting down policy proposals made by other people are scummy. He posts his opinion (in a grand total of 2 posts) without trying to keep the discussion going. In contrast to KB and Brood who seemed to be happy making more, and larger, useless posts about policy. I also don't see the fixation on blues that you do, which reinforces my opinion that you are just trying too hard.
I don't like the second part of your post at ALL. Why are you trying so hard to convince us you're town? Posting a bad case is just a bad case. Emphasizing how good, interesting and useful your posting the bad case was is trying to worm yourself into my good books. Seems scummy. And that is pretty much my summary of you. You alternate useful, townie posts, with posts that make me cringe and want to lynch you for the smarmy scumbag you are. So keep to posting cases and generating discussion: if you are contributing we will notice. No need to point it out.
|
On April 13 2012 03:43 Xatalos wrote:
He didn't only agree with me, he posted some additional potentially suspicious quotes from ArcticFox. That's why I didn't focus on him at that point... Mafia usually jump in sheepishly to vote once a very easy lynch target has been found, not as early as he did. Still, he hasn't done much else for this thread, and I'm watching him closely.
That's the risk I'll have to take. However, nobody was really pressuring anyone when I woke up and read the thread, so I figured I had to make the first move. There's no certainty that ArcticFox is Mafia, but given the information I have, I don't mind lynching him at the moment.
This is fallacious. Of course it's better for the crooks to try to put forward some solid evidence together with joining a lynch than to just, as you put it, sheepishly vote once a very easy target has been found. Not only does it make the chances of the target actually getting lynched, but it also makes them look towny. I can accept that you would rather focus at ArticFox, but this explanation is NOT sufficient for dropping your suspicions on Iamallison
To me this looks like a potential scum slip.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
My thoughts on Trumpetarn:
He so far has a total of 5 posts 3 of which are super short.
On April 12 2012 18:29 trumpetarn wrote:
About the preassure vote I have agree with acrofales and Xatalos that it seems edgeless the way KharadBanar is doing it and feels somewhat suspicious.
Also Dittert seems suspicous with his proposal going down and not contributing to much in the discussion.
This is just agreeing with what other people have said and doesn't actually add anything. It's also aiming for the two people who were probably most suspicious at the time.
On April 12 2012 18:57 trumpetarn wrote:
I agree with you on this what he said or did does not make him a scum, though I would like to hear mor from him and have my eyes on him.
More agreeing with other people, still hasn't actually added anything.
On April 12 2012 21:07 trumpetarn wrote:
I do feel that this early in the game pressure with 2-3 votes against players probably will get anyone of us to get a bit stressed and maybe make us slip no matter if we're scum or not.
This I really don't understand he says pressure voting might not be good but doesn't offer an alternative way of getting information. It also doesn't make sense because the pressure was starting to get people talking which is exactly what you want day 1.
On April 12 2012 21:07 trumpetarn wrote:
About Xatalos I feel some suspicion since he shows up so very eager point people out and so but still it what this game is about so its not much to go on just had some hinch when I read his post...
This seems like a mis-read because Xaltos's play so far has seemed very town especially the pressure he is putting on people.
On April 12 2012 21:07 trumpetarn wrote:
About KharadBanar and Acrofales I think it was pretty useless with the pressure vote and the discussion around everything have given some flavour to everything but I cant really say that KharadBanar is a scum based on it. And the defense from KharadBanar feels ok, it does at least explain the second post IMO pretty well.
This is very vague and seems to be echoing what a lot of other people are thinking.
On April 12 2012 21:13 trumpetarn wrote:
EDWOP: On the votes I also think that this is a game based on Voes so I also think the votes is needed to get pressure on people, we just should be aware of the fact that it might bring out reactions in townies aswell as scum and thats something to take into count. I still think it is a good way to get people to talk.
Now he seems to be for pressure, maybe it's because it has got people talking, but is still very cautious about it and seems to be giving scum an excuse for reacting badly to pressure.
On April 13 2012 02:06 trumpetarn wrote:
I will just refer to my edit were I state that I think It is something to have in mind when pressuring but still this is a part of the game which is our way to find out who are scum and who are not.
This is a pretty weak defence. It skirts around the fact that he is effectively giving scum an out.
On April 13 2012 02:06 trumpetarn wrote:
I will try to not parroting to much in the future, But since this is my first game ever I think it is hard to formulate things sometimes sinces English aint my native language. But as told I will try to be more my own in the future posts.
He says this then doesn't post at all after that in almost two hours. It's not parroting other people but he still isn't actually added much.
On April 13 2012 02:06 trumpetarn wrote:
I don’t really dislike his playstyle, The only thing really was the fact that he came into the game with a long post with accusations, this made me feel like he wanted to fast state that look extra on these people and telling us “I am innocent”. I don’t say he is scum though I just felt a small hinch that this could be a very good play to disguise a mafia play. But giving it some more thoughts I think that it is maybe overworking the analysis since it’s a beginners game but something I thought at least and I think it is important to say everything you think to give everyone as much of my information as possible.
This has a bit more on his reason for being suspicious of Xatalos but then straight after that he says he isn't actually that suspicious of Xalatos.
Overall I'm rather suspicious of trumpetarn because he has barely posted anything constructive and the one thought of his that wasn't a parrot of other people, his suspicions of Xalatos, he basically cancelled out by saying he was probably overthinking it and wasn't that suspicious of him anyway.
I think he is either an exceptionally lurky town or scum trying to stay in the shadows.
|
Because I am currently trying to figure out Xatalos: imallison, mind telling me why you think he's so townie?
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On April 13 2012 03:52 Xatalos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 03:41 imallinson wrote:
EBWOP: I think I've said all I want on Arctic at the moment. He definitely has gone some way to alleviating my suspicions of him. I'm going to read through some of the more lurky players filters to see if there is anything suspicious there beyond them not posting. Hmm.. I'll definitely want to hear your opinions on other players than ArcticFox or Dittert. Willz was right in that you didn't really push anything of your own, but rather followed behind. That doesn't look good in my eyes. Also, I wonder about your fast change of heart earlier - your first reaction was to label me as a possible Mafia for suspecting you (OMGUS reaction) and right after that you started agreeing with me on everything. How does that work?
I never thought you were mafia and wasn't trying to label you as such. I was just pointing out that what you had said about me wasn't quite accurate. Also this was before you had posted your suspicions on Arctic. You posting those suspicions definitely reinforced you as being probably town in my head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
