|
I do think mementoss has a point about how short a 24 hour day cycle is. We should keep that in mind.
Also, I'm considering voting blackmamba based on the Kenpachi rule, after re-reading that little list of opening posts from hapahauli's previous games. That's how I got caught as scum in a game he hosted once, so it would be pretty poetically ironic.
Also:
On September 01 2012 01:25 Hapahauli wrote:Well since no one else is here, may as well respond to Strongnbig's suspicions: Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 11:46 Hapahauli wrote:On August 31 2012 11:40 Hopeless1der wrote:
Zeph is likely to take care of any actual lurking, but Hapa is right. If I'm too silent for too long, I expect to hear about it, preferably before I'm policy lynched for it. I'll apply the same principle to everyone else in the game. I disagree. No one here is a newbie, and every competent town player should know that lurking is bad in a 24 hour setup. As far as I'm concerned, if someone is not putting in the effort on their own after committing to such an intense setup, they are anti-town and deserve significant suspicion. I don't want to have to let anyone know. If someone lurks, my "reminder" will be a D1 lynch hammer, and they'll have to claw their way out to survive. I really don't like this post - I don't think it's a pro-town attitude. Policy lynches aren't "traps" to be sprung, you won't catch scum with a trap you announce beforehand. Policy lynches exist to promote good town behavior, and if you can get that behavior literally any other way, then that's better than the policy lynch. You're mis-interpreting my intent. I'm just saying that we shouldn't have to remind people about their lurkiness. If a player is not taking it upon themselves to establish themeslves as town and make some reads in a game that necessitates activity, they deserve to be lynched. What part of this suggests a "trap?" Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 11:58 Hapahauli wrote:On August 31 2012 11:40 Hopeless1der wrote:
Zeph is likely to take care of any actual lurking, but Hapa is right. If I'm too silent for too long, I expect to hear about it, preferably before I'm policy lynched for it. I'll apply the same principle to everyone else in the game. Actually waaaaait a minute here. Are you suggesting that you'll be lurky or something? Surely you shouldn't be worried about "reminders" or whatnot if you're indeed pro-town and intend to post? ##Vote Hopeless1der I find this to be completely insufficient reasoning to justify a vote. It's aggressive for no reason. My impression here is that Hapahauli is voting Hopeless because he doesn't think Hopeless is on board enough with his anti-lurker policy, rather than because he's scum. Sure, lurking can be scummy, but I see no indication why this post would make Hapahauli think Hopeless is scum. Aggressive for no reason? A guy made a comment (that I interpret as possibly scummy) that I want an answer to. Therefore I voted. What's the problem here?
So the problem with your first point is "bad =\= scum." There are bad townies who don't try very hard to help the town, and if we want to win we need to be lynching scum. Still, another true thing is "thinking bad = scum =\= scum", although "bad=scum" is something scum do sometimes try to push.
On the other thing, I guess you have a point - I think hopeless was being reasonable, but if you thought otherwise and your vote was a pressure vote I guess it could have a town motivation. It would have been really suspicious if you'd just tried to tunnel in on that, though.
Also, many people need to post more in the next few hours. Actually, what if we RNG the policy lynch between the lurkers? That might actually have a better chance of hitting scum than just choosing one, since scum couldn't nudge the RNG towards a scummy lurker. My lurker list currently reads: node, zentor, palmar, solarsail, and mkfuba, although mkfuba will be off soon if he keeps posting like he said he would. Still guys, node hasn't posted since his /in. With Palmar he could be doing anything on purpose as part of some kind of "plan", but he also has only posted once since the game started. If people are proposing a lurker lynch, I think we should come up with a list that a majority of us can agree on and then RNG it using some method.
On the other hand, Marv seems to be proposing a "lynch zentor because he doesn't try" policy lynch. I just don't feel comfortable with that this early in the game, given how grush changed his style in the ptp game. People do change. Still, if zentor doesn't post again a few times before the deadline, I could get on board with it.
|
On September 01 2012 01:47 Hapahauli wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 01:38 Mementoss wrote:Yeah that's correct. I didn't say I found ghost to be scummy because of it, I just feel you can get a more "real" reaction out of someone under more pressure defending themselves without help from another player, especially in a situation so far away from lynch. BMB I'm awaiting a response from. Risen hasn't posted enough to make a definite opinion on him. Didn't you say you wanted to enforce policy lynches on people that were lurking the town? Or did you just say that because you thought that would be a typical town opener to the game? The problem I'm having is that you're waiting for opinions and waiting for posts when you have legitimate reasons to pressure posters. What does voting MrZentor even do, when you find other people suspicious? You came in, passively fingerpointed a bunch of players, and aren't pressuring them for information.
I don't know what else to say to you. I don't think ghost is scum, though I didn't like the way he defended bmb. BMB has been getting constantly talked about and called scum by every second person. I want to give him a chance to respond to the thread. Voting Mr.Zentor is going to make him post something I think is worthy of him showing that he is going to make an attempt at being useful this game. You've officially went from soft defending Zentor to hard defending him, in an aggressive way against me. Guess you voting him at the start of the game was two scum buddy buddying around in the thread?
+ Show Spoiler +On September 01 2012 01:40 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 01:21 Mementoss wrote:
I'm not too fond of the way ghost has been defending mamba at every chance he gets. It's fine to defend a player if you don't think they're town but leave it at that. Cause when he comes back to the thread he can just mirror the things that ghost said to defend him, or otherwise there is at least a lot less pressure on him to give an adquete response about his case and such. That being said, most of ghosts talk so far has been on this, so I would like to ask him if he had to make a vote now, who would it be and why?
My opinion on this BMB fiasco is that he seems a bit scummy to me. His posts just rub me the wrong way and his case was bad. I'm not going to go much farther into this as it's already been fleshed out by many but I'll be interested in seeing a response from him. The way he talks about his personal scum preferences is odd, and the question to the hosts could just be a scam to make himself look town, when he actually knew the answer because he received this fake role. I think the case was bad and forced from a scum perspective because if you look through his early filter he realized he was talking a lot, but it was purely filler, and was scared of getting called out on it soon, so he decided to make a case up so no one would call him out for "contributing without actually saying much".
I agree that Risen's play is not his normal town play, of guns blazing and doing crazy shit to get reactions out.
If we are going to set the tone here that lurking is unacceptable as town we might as well start day one, and try to set ourselves up for a winning situation later in the game. Also based on his less than stellar game history... So for now..
##Vote: Mr.Zentor
Also I think that people should be giving their gut thoughts and put in a vote at the start of each day, so we can discuss our way through the best person for the lynch throughout the day. People don't seem to realize how short a 24 hour cycle is, so getting a vote in ASAP is important for discussion and consolidation on voting out a scum. Obviously this is impossible to do on day 1, but I think it should be done for further days.
This post makes absolutely no sense. Momen can you further explain? Who dafuq is momen.
|
I wouldn't say grush changed that much snb >.>
|
Exactly what part of my play defends Zentor - soft, hard, or otherwise? I'll give you a cookie if you can find something.
|
On September 01 2012 02:07 strongandbig wrote:
...
So the problem with your first point is "bad =\= scum." There are bad townies who don't try very hard to help the town, and if we want to win we need to be lynching scum. Still, another true thing is "thinking bad = scum =\= scum", although "bad=scum" is something scum do sometimes try to push.
What does this even have to do with my first point? I'm suggesting that players who lurk in this format deserve suspicion. This has nothing to do with "bad townies" or whatever. Also, this ain't a newbie game, and I think everyone here knows that lurking is bad for town.
Also, I have no idea what your last sentence there means...
On the other thing, I guess you have a point - I think hopeless was being reasonable, but if you thought otherwise and your vote was a pressure vote I guess it could have a town motivation. It would have been really suspicious if you'd just tried to tunnel in on that, though.
So I'll take it you're no longer suspicious of me then?
Also, many people need to post more in the next few hours. Actually, what if we RNG the policy lynch between the lurkers? That might actually have a better chance of hitting scum than just choosing one, since scum couldn't nudge the RNG towards a scummy lurker. My lurker list currently reads: node, zentor, palmar, solarsail, and mkfuba, although mkfuba will be off soon if he keeps posting like he said he would. Still guys, node hasn't posted since his /in. With Palmar he could be doing anything on purpose as part of some kind of "plan", but he also has only posted once since the game started. If people are proposing a lurker lynch, I think we should come up with a list that a majority of us can agree on and then RNG it using some method.
No. It prevents players from taking stances on specific players. Sure we could end up lynching a lurking townie D1 - it happens. But the votes give us so much information for future days, and an "RNG" vote deprives us of this.
On the other hand, Marv seems to be proposing a "lynch zentor because he doesn't try" policy lynch. I just don't feel comfortable with that this early in the game, given how grush changed his style in the ptp game. People do change. Still, if zentor doesn't post again a few times before the deadline, I could get on board with it.
I didn't see anything in Marv's filter about MrZentor... you're talking about momentoss, right?
|
I think ghost 403 is town.
|
|
|
I don't have enough experience with the game to know whether or not lynching a lurker based on an RNG is more advantageous than voting individually (statistically speaking), but I agree with Hapa that that would deprive us of any information gained from the lynch itself. Whether we get scum or town with the RNG, what does that tell us about everyone else? Only that they've agreed to lynch based on lurking.
|
What exactly is the Kenpachi rule?
|
Any reads on any players (town/mafia) so far fuba?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 01 2012 02:16 Hapahauli wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 02:07 strongandbig wrote:
...
So the problem with your first point is "bad =\= scum." There are bad townies who don't try very hard to help the town, and if we want to win we need to be lynching scum. Still, another true thing is "thinking bad = scum =\= scum", although "bad=scum" is something scum do sometimes try to push. What does this even have to do with my first point? I'm suggesting that players who lurk in this format deserve suspicion. This has nothing to do with "bad townies" or whatever. Also, this ain't a newbie game, and I think everyone here knows that lurking is bad for town. Also, I have no idea what your last sentence there means... Show nested quote +On the other thing, I guess you have a point - I think hopeless was being reasonable, but if you thought otherwise and your vote was a pressure vote I guess it could have a town motivation. It would have been really suspicious if you'd just tried to tunnel in on that, though. So I'll take it you're no longer suspicious of me then? Show nested quote +Also, many people need to post more in the next few hours. Actually, what if we RNG the policy lynch between the lurkers? That might actually have a better chance of hitting scum than just choosing one, since scum couldn't nudge the RNG towards a scummy lurker. My lurker list currently reads: node, zentor, palmar, solarsail, and mkfuba, although mkfuba will be off soon if he keeps posting like he said he would. Still guys, node hasn't posted since his /in. With Palmar he could be doing anything on purpose as part of some kind of "plan", but he also has only posted once since the game started. If people are proposing a lurker lynch, I think we should come up with a list that a majority of us can agree on and then RNG it using some method. No. It prevents players from taking stances on specific players. Sure we could end up lynching a lurking townie D1 - it happens. But the votes give us so much information for future days, and an "RNG" vote deprives us of this. Show nested quote +On the other hand, Marv seems to be proposing a "lynch zentor because he doesn't try" policy lynch. I just don't feel comfortable with that this early in the game, given how grush changed his style in the ptp game. People do change. Still, if zentor doesn't post again a few times before the deadline, I could get on board with it. I didn't see anything in Marv's filter about MrZentor... you're talking about momentoss, right?
Hapa...Are you being deliberately obtuse?
On August 31 2012 19:35 marvellosity wrote:
why aren't we policy lynching zentor
On August 31 2012 21:54 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 21:51 Mementoss wrote:On August 31 2012 19:35 marvellosity wrote:
why aren't we policy lynching zentor Im not familiar with zentor fill me in is actively self-aware he's useless, could choose to be not useless, but purposefully chooses to be useless nonetheless
SnB's point with the bad town vs scum discussion is that scummy players will pick up on things that are bad for town and try to exploit them into a mislynch. He's semi-accusing you of doing this because your assumption that all players know lurking is bad means that the only people who will lurk are either Scum or they're just bad at this game, i.e. Bad Townies. There are no other options based on the way you've explained yourself. You also want to consider lurking to be an exclusively scum trait, which is completely untrue.
|
Grawww I read that as pre-game banter for some unknown reason. Though I doubt marv is being serious at all with his comments anywho.
You also want to consider lurking to be an exclusively scum trait, which is completely untrue.
Acutally, I argue that in this particular gametype with this particular playerpool - it is almost exclusively scummy. Everyone here should know not to lurk as town.
|
On July 06 2012 21:47 marvellosity wrote:First person to attack the VT claim is scum. Only works for ken though. So we're not lynching BL. Especially as he's one of the only players actually making an effort.
I like my search function =D
|
On September 01 2012 02:27 Hopeless1der wrote:
...
SnB's point with the bad town vs scum discussion is that scummy players will pick up on things that are bad for town and try to exploit them into a mislynch. He's semi-accusing you of doing this because your assumption that all players know lurking is bad means that the only people who will lurk are either Scum or they're just bad at this game, i.e. Bad Townies. There are no other options based on the way you've explained yourself. You also want to consider lurking to be an exclusively scum trait, which is completely untrue.
Oh, forgot to thank you for clearing up SnB's argument. However, I'm interested why he's accusing me of considering lurkiness inherently suspicious, then turning around and wanting to RNG lynch lurkers?
|
On September 01 2012 02:16 Hapahauli wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 02:07 strongandbig wrote:
...
So the problem with your first point is "bad =\= scum." There are bad townies who don't try very hard to help the town, and if we want to win we need to be lynching scum. Still, another true thing is "thinking bad = scum =\= scum", although "bad=scum" is something scum do sometimes try to push. What does this even have to do with my first point? I'm suggesting that players who lurk in this format deserve suspicion. This has nothing to do with "bad townies" or whatever. Also, this ain't a newbie game, and I think everyone here knows that lurking is bad for town.
I'm paraphrasing, but basically you say that "anyone who lurks and doesn't help the town deserves to die." This is untrue - we want to kill the scum. Scum don't help the town, but townies often also don't help the town. Scum try and be subtle about it.
Also, I have no idea what your last sentence there means...
Scum will often push the agenda "<player> is bad and isn't trying to help town he deserves to die let's kill him!" or "if anyone is lurking they must not be trying to help town and we should kill them" because it gets the heat off of them and redirects it to bad townies. However, sometimes townies also confuse "playing badly" with "playing scummy". So it's reason for suspicion, but not in and of itself sufficient to kill someone.
Show nested quote +On the other thing, I guess you have a point - I think hopeless was being reasonable, but if you thought otherwise and your vote was a pressure vote I guess it could have a town motivation. It would have been really suspicious if you'd just tried to tunnel in on that, though. So I'll take it you're no longer suspicious of me then?
I didn't say that. I just don't want to kill you today.
|
...and by he I mean SnB - unclear pronouns ftw.
|
On September 01 2012 02:54 strongandbig wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 02:16 Hapahauli wrote:On September 01 2012 02:07 strongandbig wrote:
...
So the problem with your first point is "bad =\= scum." There are bad townies who don't try very hard to help the town, and if we want to win we need to be lynching scum. Still, another true thing is "thinking bad = scum =\= scum", although "bad=scum" is something scum do sometimes try to push. What does this even have to do with my first point? I'm suggesting that players who lurk in this format deserve suspicion. This has nothing to do with "bad townies" or whatever. Also, this ain't a newbie game, and I think everyone here knows that lurking is bad for town. I'm paraphrasing, but basically you say that "anyone who lurks and doesn't help the town deserves to die." This is untrue - we want to kill the scum. Scum don't help the town, but townies often also don't help the town. Scum try and be subtle about it.
Wait what? But you just were suggesting to RNG lynch a lurker a couple of posts ago!
|
On September 01 2012 02:50 Hapahauli wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 02:27 Hopeless1der wrote:
...
SnB's point with the bad town vs scum discussion is that scummy players will pick up on things that are bad for town and try to exploit them into a mislynch. He's semi-accusing you of doing this because your assumption that all players know lurking is bad means that the only people who will lurk are either Scum or they're just bad at this game, i.e. Bad Townies. There are no other options based on the way you've explained yourself. You also want to consider lurking to be an exclusively scum trait, which is completely untrue. Oh, forgot to thank you for clearing up SnB's argument. However, I'm interested why he's accusing me of considering lurkiness inherently suspicious, then turning around and wanting to RNG lynch lurkers?
I think I've said it before in this thread, but my position is pretty much always the same. Policy lynches and lurker lynches are almost always a bad idea. The only time they're a good idea is when you don't have any better candidates or cases - or when there's a serious need to force everyone to shape up.
I think the case against blackmamba is bad. As for you, I think you're suspicious but, considering your activity, not suspicious enough to the point where leaving you alive hurts town more than anyone else from the lurker pool. If you're scum, you're active enough for us to catch you out with analysis - or if you become less active, that's a separate point against you.
So this is one of the rare cases where there aren't better candidates and a lurker lynch or policy lynch might be a good idea.
I'm still hoping someone brings up a decent case before the end of the day, though.
|
United States1825 Posts
S+B: What are your thoughts on Mementoss at the moment?
|
[QUOTE]On September 01 2012 03:00 strongandbig wrote:
I think I've said it before in this thread, but my position is pretty much always the same. Policy lynches and lurker lynches are almost always a bad idea. The only time they're a good idea is when you don't have any better candidates or cases - or when there's a serious need to force everyone to shape up.[Quote]
But you suggested that we should RNG lynch a lurker!!!
[url=http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=363625¤tpage=11#201]http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=363625¤tpage=11#201[/url]
[Quote]I think the case against blackmamba is bad.[/Quote]
Whyyyyyy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
