|
United Kingdom10823 Posts
Hey Grack and Velinath!
On December 05 2011 01:58 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 01:49 Hassybaby wrote:On December 05 2011 00:32 Blazinghand wrote:On December 05 2011 00:26 Hassybaby wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Ok, firstly, I want to actually say why I haven't posted since the game started: in all honestly, I didn't even know we were starting tonight. So I basically was out all day, and I come back to see the game's begun and I'm already lurking. Now that i know that the game's started, I will be posting plenty more to share my views. About Lynching all Liras/Lurkers: On December 04 2011 13:06 Blazinghand wrote:
It's acceptable for not everyone to agree on "lynch all liars"-- as long as a fair majority of us do, Nobody will lie. But lying or not, I think the thing we should focus on here is lynching lurkers. I say this because we NEED to make it so mafia talks. Everyone has to contribute. The reason lurking is considered a "viable strategy" is because the less a mafia guy talks, the less mistakes he makes, and the less chances there are that he'll seriously blunder.
If there were no serious repercussions, a Mafia guy will barely talk at all. This game begins with assymetric information-- Mafia know who's town (but not blue), but each individual townie/blue doesn't know anything but his own alignment. In this case, it's absolutely vital we encourage mafia members to talk so we can flush them out. They won't slip up unless they have the opportunity to do so.
This is the prime reason why lynching lurkers is a good idea. If we all strongly believe in this policy, there will be no lurkers. All the townies will be contributing, and all the mafia members will be torn between contributing AND trying to be unhelpful. It puts a huge amount of pressure on the mafia members. The additional reason for lynching lurkers is that we need all of the help the townspeople can give. It's important also to provide a lively conversation for the Blues (we have 2) to take part in. We have a cop and/or a rolechecker and they can't adequately get their information into the conversation without there being a conversation to begin with.
If it turns out we have a lot of townie lurkers even implementing this policy, we're dead anyways. The idea that we shouldn't lynch lurkers because there might be a lot of townie lurkers is inherently flawed-- if there's 1 townie lurker, it's good to get rid of him anyways, and if there are a lot of townie lurkers we're basically boned.
So, we should Lynch All Lurkers. Anyone who disagrees with me better have a damn good reason why. While I agree wit this idea in theory, you have to remember that this is a special case. For a start, the game is very newbie based, and despite the fact that you ant them to talk, people just don't feel like that they can contribute, even though just stating opinions is better than nothing. On top of this, the game has barely been 12 hours, and started quite suddenly. Going after lurkers this early is just not a good idea because odds are people don't even know the game's started. Later on, I'm all for it. But not Day 1 imo, and especially not less than 24 hours since the start of the game. Still reading! Ah, yeah, I didn't know the game at first either. That's a fair point, and I don't hold your previous inactivity against you. However, I think it's exceptionally important to not lurk since this is a newbie game, and the town tends to lose in newbie games. Furthermore (and this is even more important), we have no info on the first day. We have to lynch, but our Detective and/or Watcher haven't had a chance to do any checks yet. At this moment in time, the Mafia hold all the cards and we have no info (yet). Because we're flying the most blind on the first day, it's on this day that it's most important to get the pot stirring, imo. My vote isn't on you because I want to lynch you-- my vote is on you because I don't want to lynch you. I want you to prove yourself, so my vote can move on to Adam where it belongs. Please help me. Agreed. Lurking in a game this small has to be discouraged, especially considering you won't lean anything through it. However, the pot should be stirred through responses of policies, not open call outs. You have an interesting way of getting people to participate. It may be working, but it really shouldn't be encouraged.There is no sense of cohesion if you start off by accusing people. As for cases, I'll go back through everyone's filter one by one, and see if i spot anything. initial reads have not made me feel like there's a definitive scum read, or a totally strong one yet, but I may have easily missed something. It's always good to have more analysis. Thanks for the help, and I can't wait to hear your insights. However, I'd like to defend my methods. You say there's no sense of cohesion if I start off by accusing people. You'll note, however, that I never explicitly state that someone is scum. I haven't stated any reads yet because I dont' have any. In fact, I've been doing the opposite-- I'm concerned because there's so little content I literally am not able to form reads. I explicitly state in the message of mine you quote that I'm not voting you because I think you're scum-- i'm voting you because I want you not to be. I'm just trying to flush out lurkers. Some criticize me because my votes are "weak" and i'm flinging them around. Some criticize me because of my strong accusations. Either criticism has some validity. But I'm not convinced yet that I should change my ways. So far I have forced some activity out of a very quiet town. As people start posting and lurk no more, I may not need to be as aggressive going forwards. However, I refuse to back down. There will be no silence as long as I have a say in things. We need all the information we can get, so I will go and get it.
I know you haven't. That bit was directed more at Tunkeg. If you look at his filter, there is a lot of accusatory posts there, which is why I mentioned Serejai. I just don't see his method to be constructive at this stage of the game.
|
On December 05 2011 01:49 Hassybaby wrote:Ok, read through the thread now. A few things: Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 00:02 Tunkeg wrote:On December 04 2011 23:21 xtfftc wrote:
Tunkeg, I approve of the way you're pressuring but would you mind answering the questions you've been so happy to ask the others? Not just a summary of the thread activity but how this makes people more or less likely to be mafia. Who do you trust and who would you lynch? Of course. Some of the answers I have asked I have summarized in my opening post. But I will be more spesific about my thoughts on players alignment and who I at this moment would lynch if I had: + Show Spoiler +AlignmentFor a starter I don't think the scum players have been all that active yet. Adam4167 Neutral. Got to little info on him, only 2 posts. Abit scummy that he makes the first post after the game starts, and then do nothing (almost) when the discussions get going. Grackorini Neutral. Not a whole lot of posts here either. Mainly policy posts, but I agree on his point of view here. And I am leaning town here. Velinath Neutral. Leaning town. Alot of posts, some of them I see as pro town, but also alot of fillers whic I see as pro scum. xtfftc Neutral. Abit to many policy posts for my liking. The other posts are ok/good. Especially this last post where you called me out I see as very pro-town (Unless you are scum and think my ramblings are bad for town  ) xsksc Scum. If I had to pick three scums right now xsksc would be my third pick, I'd say more based on a hunch and not so much reasoning. It is his way of gaining trust, while not really providing any pressure to anyone or other pro town activities. jaybrundage Scum. "Veteran", posts to little and with to little content, should know that thats anti-town. ey215 Town. Even though coming of as very defensive, his posts so far says town to me. He is balancing out Blazinghand. Blazinghand Town. Aggreessive play, scumhunting. May be spreading his votes around to much, but for now I see him as the most towniest. BroodKingEXE Neutral, leaning scum. He is posting far to little, but I think it is because he is new. Hopefully if more people challange him with direct questions it will be easier to get a read on him. He is the fourth scummiest though. ElectricBlack Neutral. One post, hard to say anything. Needs to post more or be considered a lurker. Hassybaby Scum. Another veteran, and this one have not posted yet. Bbyte Neutral, leaning town. Not many posts yet. But seems open and are answering questions given to him.
At this point I trust no one, I know to little yet.
For lynch I would go for either jaybrundage or Hassybaby at this point. They need to step up their game or GTFO. Firstly, I'm honoured that you think I'm a veteran, but you're totally wrong. I'm not a veteran in any way shape or form. This is my second game, and my first game was XLVII, and we all know how that went Secondly, while I've already addressed this point to Blazing, I want to emphasize this one a bit more, because I'm wondering about your methods considering the game situation. It's been just over half a day in a game that suddenly started, and you already have a scumlist based on the fact that people haven't posted? Really? The day lasts 48 for a reason dude; time-zones exist, as does RL. I've already mentioned to Blazing that I have been out all day, and I didn't even know that the game had started until I came back home. I suspect that there are one or two others in the same boat. So actually wait for responses before instantly preparing the gallows. While its awesome that you guys are getting the ball rolling, you have to remember that pushing easy targets this earlier is actually very anti-town. You're basing your actions on very limited information, if any, and you're also discouraging discussions, and instead forcing players to defend themselves as opposed to looking at evidence and discussing THAT with people. At no point is that a good idea. This goes especially to you Tunkeg, because right now it feels like you're playing the Serejai role from XLVII. Accusing everyone isn't going to help. In fact, it can easily get you ignored in the thread. Accusing people is fine, but do it within reason considering situations in the game. Show nested quote +[B]On December 05 2011 00:32 Blazinghand wrote: [B]On December 05 2011 00:26 Hassybaby wrote: [spoiler]Ok, firstly, I want to actually say why I haven't posted since the game started: in all honestly, I didn't even know we were starting tonight. So I basically was out all day, and I come back to see the game's begun and I'm already lurking. Now that i know that the game's started, I will be posting plenty more to share my views. About Lynching all Liras/Lurkers: On December 04 2011 13:06 Blazinghand wrote:
It's acceptable for not everyone to agree on "lynch all liars"-- as long as a fair majority of us do, Nobody will lie. But lying or not, I think the thing we should focus on here is lynching lurkers. I say this because we NEED to make it so mafia talks. Everyone has to contribute. The reason lurking is considered a "viable strategy" is because the less a mafia guy talks, the less mistakes he makes, and the less chances there are that he'll seriously blunder.
If there were no serious repercussions, a Mafia guy will barely talk at all. This game begins with assymetric information-- Mafia know who's town (but not blue), but each individual townie/blue doesn't know anything but his own alignment. In this case, it's absolutely vital we encourage mafia members to talk so we can flush them out. They won't slip up unless they have the opportunity to do so.
This is the prime reason why lynching lurkers is a good idea. If we all strongly believe in this policy, there will be no lurkers. All the townies will be contributing, and all the mafia members will be torn between contributing AND trying to be unhelpful. It puts a huge amount of pressure on the mafia members. The additional reason for lynching lurkers is that we need all of the help the townspeople can give. It's important also to provide a lively conversation for the Blues (we have 2) to take part in. We have a cop and/or a rolechecker and they can't adequately get their information into the conversation without there being a conversation to begin with.
If it turns out we have a lot of townie lurkers even implementing this policy, we're dead anyways. The idea that we shouldn't lynch lurkers because there might be a lot of townie lurkers is inherently flawed-- if there's 1 townie lurker, it's good to get rid of him anyways, and if there are a lot of townie lurkers we're basically boned.
So, we should Lynch All Lurkers. Anyone who disagrees with me better have a damn good reason why. While I agree wit this idea in theory, you have to remember that this is a special case. For a start, the game is very newbie based, and despite the fact that you ant them to talk, people just don't feel like that they can contribute, even though just stating opinions is better than nothing. On top of this, the game has barely been 12 hours, and started quite suddenly. Going after lurkers this early is just not a good idea because odds are people don't even know the game's started. Later on, I'm all for it. But not Day 1 imo, and especially not less than 24 hours since the start of the game. Still reading! Ah, yeah, I didn't know the game at first either. That's a fair point, and I don't hold your previous inactivity against you. However, I think it's exceptionally important to not lurk since this is a newbie game, and the town tends to lose in newbie games. Furthermore (and this is even more important), we have no info on the first day. We have to lynch, but our Detective and/or Watcher haven't had a chance to do any checks yet. At this moment in time, the Mafia hold all the cards and we have no info (yet). Because we're flying the most blind on the first day, it's on this day that it's most important to get the pot stirring, imo. My vote isn't on you because I want to lynch you-- my vote is on you because I don't want to lynch you. I want you to prove yourself, so my vote can move on to Adam where it belongs. Please help me. Agreed. Lurking in a game this small has to be discouraged, especially considering you won't lean anything through it. However, the pot should be stirred through responses of policies, not open call outs. You have an interesting way of getting people to participate. It may be working, but it really shouldn't be encouraged.There is no sense of cohesion if you start off by accusing people. As for cases, I'll go back through everyone's filter one by one, and see if i spot anything. initial reads have not made me feel like there's a definitive scum read, or a totally strong one yet, but I may have easily missed something.
Well, my approach is not similar to Blazinghand's approach. I want pressure, but I won't toss my votes around. I want information, as much as possible to make the best lynch possible. You say I have made accusations, well that list is the only thing that can be considered accusations. The rest of my posts have mainly evolved around asking questions.
For the scumlist I was asked a direct question by xtfftc, and I responded. But yes, I do agree a scumlist based on this little information is of little value. But still it was my view based on the information available at the time, and it made a stir, seeing that you commented on it. My voting may or may not correspond to this list.
That beeing said I feel you response is very defensive, almost overly defensive. At the time of my post you had not posted, and of course you were on my list then. I totally expect people to be AFK for long periods of time, and thats ok, but they have to be ready for some heat when they are back then, thats the only way to get any information out of them.
Now, if you don't like the way I play and don't like the way Blazinghand play, how do you suggest the game should procede? IMO if no one asks the questions and no one applies the pressure, the only discussions we will get will be on the policy lynches, and we need more than that to get the information needed.
|
On December 05 2011 02:48 Hassybaby wrote:
I know you haven't. That bit was directed more at Tunkeg. If you look at his filter, there is a lot of accusatory posts there, which is why I mentioned Serejai. I just don't see his method to be constructive at this stage of the game.
Well, again, that is not true. There is one post were I have made anything resembling an accusation, and that was a direct response to a question. If you have other examples please feel free to list them.
|
Hassybaby:
If I am interpreting you right you consider both my play and Blazinghand's play anti-town. Would you go so far as to say that our play is leaning scum? Or are we just playing really bad town in your opinion?
|
Blazinghand: he is my strongest town read right now because of his agressive play. For scum the more you post the more likely you are going to make a scumslip. So I would believe that hes is extremely likely to be town, and if not he will definately reveal his allignment over time( It's not like he can just start contributing less after the large amount of participation hes shown). I like that he is being agressive because it is the best way to force scumslips. However he is creating a dominating presence in the thread and i hope people post their own opinions and do not begin sheeping him.
Ey215: He took a post from blazinghand calling him a lurker and acted very defensively. I believe that this is a trait that would be found among Mafia or Town. (I mean nobody wants to get lynched  ) I think he is someone who I should watch more but he is contributing so he should not be lynched today.
Velinath: I think Velinath is making a lot of sense right now and is another candidate that is very likely to be town. He seems to be actively scumhunting and was right when he said that ey215/Blazinghand should back off of each other for a bit and let other people post because tunneling on one person is not the best (especially since I think they're both town blazing a bit more sure than Ey215)
Xsksc : He is participating a fair amount to the thread an altering viewpoint to Blazinghand saying that he should give everyone a chance to post before voting and that it is unlikely that the lurkers would be scum. I'm not sure about his alignment but he is right that we are focusing way too much on lurkers. We should only be voting for lurkers if we cannot find a good case on an active player. (because even though it's unlikely that the lurker is scum he is not participating and will not help the game.)
Xtfftc: He is a null read for me. He has posted enough to avoid being lynched as a lurker, which is who the town has been pressuring so far. He has kind of tunneled on Ey215, but i don't see why he is mafia he just seems very defensive. I really don't understand why you would not lynch somebody for lying as we've made it clear that we don't want any townies to lie.
Tunkeg: I like how Tunkeg has been participating in the thread and his willingness to comment on every player rather than tunneling hard on somebody. It looks to me like you are really analyzing every players posts and that makes me think you are likely to be town.
Everybody else (unless I'm missing something) did not post a huge amount to the game and needs to start posting more. I would much prefer that our first lynch is based off of analysis so that we can see why people are voting the way that they are, but we have no choice other than to lynch a lurker if you do not become more active.
|
Whee, time to copy in my reads. Keeping a spreadsheet is going to be quite helpful, I think.
Blazinghand: Feels very Townie to me. Posting reasonable content and post analysis already. Willing to take actions on his stances. Softclaimed Vanilla Townie http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291067¤tpage=8#152 Bringing lurkers out, which can ONLY help town. I approve. Call it 90% town. Also, his discussion with ey215 looked good, and convinced me further of his townieness.
BroodKingEXE: Empty post. Worries me.Feels scummy but could be a noob. Amend: Six posts that don't sit right with me, but again, could be new player.
xkskc: Leaning town for now. Started our policy discussion. Discussion is good. While he disagrees with BH's methods, I clearly feel like he's playing a townie game right now. Different methodolgy, same goal. To note, he pointed out that there may be mafia in the group leadership., which should be something to keep in mind. Question is whether it's sowing suspicion or genuine pro-town, and I haven't figured that out yet.
xtfftc: Null read. He argued against LAL and LALurkers, and I don't wanna go with that. Let's look again once he posts again. (Amend: Looked through his filter to update this post, and I really liked his post here. Still a null read, but this feels positive to me.)
ey215: Pointed out some good things. He sees Blazinghand's methods as creating tension within the town, and that's fine - he's entitled to opinion. Like xkskc, he disagrees with methods but seems to be working towards the same goal. Their discussion, while heated, really brought out to me that they both seem very town-aligned, and willing to take positions and defend them.
EB: Makes good points. At this point I'm leaning town, simply because he's pro-discussion this early. That said I'd love to see more posts here.
Tunkeg: Posted his reads, and is encouraging discussion. I think this is a good thing, and might peg him as one of the influential voices in the town soon. Largely a null read, but I'm starting to lean town.
BByte: I'm not totally impressed yet. One post about breadcrumbs (which is more about the game in general than a content post) and one post about a couple of the players. That post was good, and I agree that we shouldn't be intimidated by one person, but I'd like to see more.
jaybrundage: Neutral for now, but a lack of content disturbs me. We've still got like 30 hours though.
Adam4167: Two posts, neither of which hugely impress me. I liked how he went through and stated a clear opinion on BH's play. While I disagree with his opinion, I think that the way he put things is pro-town in that post. I'd love to see more content here, but so far looks pretty good.
Hassybaby: Disagrees with early targets, and I can see why. I think he is overly defensive towards Tunkeg - not an OMGUS vote, but definitely that kind of idea. Not sure what to think, but this early just a null read.
Grackaroni: Posted reads, but before that there's a bunch of policy posts. Not that I haven't made a ton of policy posts too, but I'll wait for more content. Null read.
|
EBWOP: haha, I misread that post entirely (the first one I linked). Disregard anything I said about a softclaim because there isn't one there.
|
[QUOTE]On December 05 2011 01:49 Hassybaby wrote:
Ok, read through the thread now. A few things:
[QUOTE]On December 05 2011 00:02 Tunkeg wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 04 2011 23:21 xtfftc wrote:
Tunkeg, I approve of the way you're pressuring but would you mind answering the questions you've been so happy to ask the others? Not just a summary of the thread activity but how this makes people more or less likely to be mafia. Who do you trust and who would you lynch?[/QUOTE]
Of course.
Some of the answers I have asked I have summarized in my opening post. But I will be more spesific about my thoughts on players alignment and who I at this moment would lynch if I had:
+ Show Spoiler +AlignmentFor a starter I don't think the scum players have been all that active yet. Adam4167 Neutral. Got to little info on him, only 2 posts. Abit scummy that he makes the first post after the game starts, and then do nothing (almost) when the discussions get going. Grackorini Neutral. Not a whole lot of posts here either. Mainly policy posts, but I agree on his point of view here. And I am leaning town here. Velinath Neutral. Leaning town. Alot of posts, some of them I see as pro town, but also alot of fillers whic I see as pro scum. xtfftc Neutral. Abit to many policy posts for my liking. The other posts are ok/good. Especially this last post where you called me out I see as very pro-town (Unless you are scum and think my ramblings are bad for town ) xsksc Scum. If I had to pick three scums right now xsksc would be my third pick, I'd say more based on a hunch and not so much reasoning. It is his way of gaining trust, while not really providing any pressure to anyone or other pro town activities. jaybrundage Scum. "Veteran", posts to little and with to little content, should know that thats anti-town. ey215 Town. Even though coming of as very defensive, his posts so far says town to me. He is balancing out Blazinghand. Blazinghand Town. Aggreessive play, scumhunting. May be spreading his votes around to much, but for now I see him as the most towniest. BroodKingEXE Neutral, leaning scum. He is posting far to little, but I think it is because he is new. Hopefully if more people challange him with direct questions it will be easier to get a read on him. He is the fourth scummiest though. ElectricBlack Neutral. One post, hard to say anything. Needs to post more or be considered a lurker. Hassybaby Scum. Another veteran, and this one have not posted yet. [b]Bbyte Neutral, leaning town. Not many posts yet. But seems open and are answering questions given to him.
[b]Trust and lynch
At this point I trust no one, I know to little yet.
For lynch I would go for either jaybrundage or Hassybaby at this point. They need to step up their game or GTFO. [/QUOTE]
Firstly, I'm honoured that you think I'm a veteran, but you're totally wrong. I'm not a veteran in any way shape or form. This is my second game, and my first game was XLVII, and we all know how that went
Secondly, while I've already addressed this point to Blazing, I want to emphasize this one a bit more, because I'm wondering about your methods considering the game situation.
It's been just over half a day in a game that suddenly started, and you already have a scumlist based on the fact that people haven't posted? Really? The day lasts 48 for a reason dude; time-zones exist, as does RL. I've already mentioned to Blazing that I have been out all day, and I didn't even know that the game had started until I came back home. I suspect that there are one or two others in the same boat. So actually wait for responses before instantly preparing the gallows.
While its awesome that you guys are getting the ball rolling, you have to remember that pushing easy targets this earlier is actually very anti-town. You're basing your actions on very limited information, if any, and you're also discouraging discussions, and instead forcing players to defend themselves as opposed to looking at evidence and discussing THAT with people. At no point is that a good idea. This goes especially to you Tunkeg, because right now it feels like you're playing the Serejai role from XLVII. Accusing everyone isn't going to help. In fact, it can easily get you ignored in the thread. Accusing people is fine, but do it within reason considering situations in the game.
I would actually agree with this. While i think that your'e activity and posting so far is pro-town, I really wish that we could start taking a look into the more active players; and stop focusing only on people who have not posted much yet. give the players time to read the thread and they will post. then we can start focusing on them but for now look at some active players. Obviously if a lurker does not make a sufficient amount of quality posts by the end of the day and there is no likely scum candidate then we will lynch him.
|
lol i fucked up the quote but basically i just put in the last paragraph my feelings about what Hassybaby said that Tunkeg posted above.
|
United Kingdom10823 Posts
If I misinterpreted you, I am sorry. But to me posts like:
On December 04 2011 23:23 Tunkeg wrote:
You are the number one poster quantitywise in this thread, you are also one of those who have voted early. You are also perhaps the one I consider to be most likely (as of now) to get a bandwagon started on someone (either as number one voter or two). Based on that, my question is: Are you trying to give yourself an alibi with the statement above?
and
On December 04 2011 21:39 Tunkeg wrote:
So are you trying to establish yourself as a boring townie by not posting anything or what?
Adam, a couple of questions for you:
What is your thoughts on Blazinghand's aggressiveness? How do you perceive him thus far? Is his play pro-town or anti-town?
Any thoughts on xsksc's play? Is he a key player in this game? If he is scum, what effect will that have on the game?
sound accusatory, on top of the list. So I hoe you can see why i said hat. However, if that wasn't your intention, I understand.
And no, I don't see either of you as scummy yet. As of now, I see both of you townies aggressively forcing discussions through different means, whether it be through voting like Blazing, or through hard-hitting questions like you do. I don't question the motives, I question the timings of them. While they have been successful, I think they're better served in the later stages of the day, as opposed to the start. In that way, you can have some backing to your questions as well, through quotes and possibly votes. I prefer seeing responses to questions about policies that town intends to implement, and then following up through that, like the lurker point I made with Blazing.
My main issue with early pressure is that it makes it too easy to OMGUS it, unless there's a clear slip. But with the support of quotes that they have made over the past day or 2, you can make a clear case against them, and defences will be tested better.
Definitely going to commend the results though. Discussions have started, and now we can build cases, and really force people to respond.
|
On December 05 2011 01:38 Adam4167 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 21:39 Tunkeg wrote:
So are you trying to establish yourself as a boring townie by not posting anything or what?
Adam, a couple of questions for you:
What is your thoughts on Blazinghand's aggressiveness? How do you perceive him thus far? Is his play pro-town or anti-town?
Any thoughts on xsksc's play? Is he a key player in this game? If he is scum, what effect will that have on the game? If my lack of posting thus far has crowned me as a boring townie, I guess it’s a mantle I’ll wear; I had a Sunday off and decided to go out drinking. My thoughts on Blazinghands aggression so far is that I feel he is trying to generate discussion. However, I question whether he is trying too hard to establish himself as a townie by his badgering. This, coupled with his apparent buddy-buddy relationship with Velinath has me keeping a close eye on both of them as I find it strange that they are apparently “BFF’s” after only 12 hours of play. So to directly answer your question, Tunkeg, I find his behaviour suspicious and erring on the side of Anti-town. 5 separate votes in 12 hours is akin to spam and is just leading the town around in circles, rather than focusing on any one target. Xsksc is someone I’m more familiar with after close examination of the Newbie Mini Mafia thread. So far he has begun discussion, scolded Blazinghands reckless aggression and defended himself well when called out. Is he a key player in the game? Not yet, but neither is anyone else. Is he pro-town? All signs are pointing towards yes. If he turns out to be mafia, id hope to think we can still catch him out and hang him even with his greater mafia experience over us. Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 16:03 Blazinghand wrote:
Adam has correctly noted that there are no no-lynches in his sole post. Helpful, but not enormously so. Also, he's certainly awake since he's Australian. I'm gonna slap my vote on him and wait for him to contribute some more. Maybe he's eating or out or something, but hopefully this will get more than 1 post
Adam, I'd like to see you contributing to the discussion more. I'm heading to bed relatively soon, but when I wake up I hope to see a new post from you.
##Vote Adam4167
I don't necessarily think you're scum or that other people should vote for you, but you've only made one post, and that's simply not good enough.
Hurry up. As previously stated, I went out drinking. And after I finish this post, I'm going to need at least 6 hours to sleep it off. I feel that by flinging your vote in every direction, you have cheapened the weight of your vote when you eventually do decide to settle on a target. I also feel the need to point out again that you have had 5 separate votes in 12 hours, which is almost half of the players participating.You’ve caught my attention Blazinghand, don’t slip =).
This guy is most likely to be scum IMO.
He has not contributed at all to town, yet he is more than willing to discredit both blazinghand and Velinath. Both of these people are giving me very strong town vibes, and just because they have been acting closely with each other in no way makes them scum. In fact from what I've noticed is that people who are willing to outright make a connection with another player is usually town. (palmar/wbg in XLVII)
You need to start giving us reads and contribute to the town instead of discrediting the active townies.
|
On December 04 2011 20:58 Tunkeg wrote:
jaybrundage: The dissapointment of the game this far (strong words, but I think jaybrundage can take it). He is also a veteran, and should now that posting quality stuff is important. As of now there have been alot of filler posts.
Ok you come out and call me a disappointment of the game And that i haven't been posting quality stuff. Thats Bullshit
I post what im thinking about. I gave my opinion on lynching policies. I said what i thought about Blazinghands aggressiveness
(which i agree with btw) And i gave my read on BKEXE. Who i think could very well be a noobie mafia.
On December 05 2011 00:02 Tunkeg wrote:
jaybrundage Scum. "Veteran", posts to little and with to little content, should know that thats anti-town.
For lynch I would go for either jaybrundage or Hassybaby at this point. They need to step up their game or GTFO.
But im curious how did i go from not posting quality stuff to being mafia. Seeing that i havent even posted from then to your next post. While i think posting your reads on people is good. You got the wrong person in your cross hairs. Moving on here's more stuff that i noticed
Ok so far i see adam has done quite a bit of lurking. He makes a single post at the start of the game.Correcting a mistake someone made about not being able to lynch. Then after ward after someone calls him a bored townie. He jumps on it claiming him self to be a bored townie. And then talks about mentions Blazinghand and Veli so called buddy buddy relationship. Soft claiming them to be mafia. He responds to Tunkegs questions and leaves it at that.
Im going to right my reads out in a little bit i just need more time to reread the thread
|
On December 04 2011 21:14 xtfftc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 12:52 xsksc wrote:On December 04 2011 12:35 xtfftc wrote:On December 04 2011 12:06 xsksc wrote:
What do you guys think of policy lynches in general? Do you think they are a good idea, if so, why?
Personally I disagree with lynching a lurker JUST because they're lurking, in a game like this anyway. The risk of hitting a townie is way too high.
Lynch all liars is a great idea though. It discourages people from lying right from day 1, the only people with a good reason to lie are scum. Both sound great but in reality they don't work. Lynch All Liars.. People get lies and opinions mixed up all the time, and even when a lie is a lie, eventually you realise that there are different types of lies and lynching for some of them is a bit too much. Then comes the argument that if we lynch everyone caught in a lie, townies would stop lying, so we would not have to deal with all of this. But the reality is that you lynch a townie for lying, then you lose the game because of wasting a lynch in order to teach the liars a lesson, then you join another game and you realise that there's so many other players you have to teach that same lesson, and so on. If we start doing it in every single game, it might work after a while. But when you've invested a week in the game, you don't want to throw it away just because some townie attempted a stupid gamble. All you are focused on is lynching mafia. And townies tend to get lynched for lying all the time anyway, even without having the policy in place - simply becase when someone is caught lying, they are usually accused of being mafia. Agreeing upon whether someone is lukring or not is easier but simply lynching all lurkers is not optimal. What's important is that people realise that sometimes every active player is a townie. If your analysis leads you to the conclussion that the active players are townies, then you start lynching lurkers. That's the best we can do. I don't understand your part about lynch all liars. Think about it logically, if we say, "Lie and you're gonna get lynched" then no townie is going to lie, are they? It's not just to teach a lesson, scum benefit greatly from lies and deceit. I want lynch-all-liers in effect today. Also, on day 1 it's very easy for scum to post nonsense and get away with it, because day 1 can be such a mess, hell, sometimes the most active players are scum. Just because someone posts a lot doesn't make them town, lol. Look at the last newbie mini-game. Ciryandor was scum, and he posted more analysis than anyone, everyone assumed he was town and that was a big reason why town lost. If we say lynch all liars, townies will carry on lying like they always do. If we do lynch all liars, townies will eventually realise that they should stop. Activity doesn't prove that someone is a townie, of course. But if you have a town read on all the active players, lynching a lurker is great. Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 13:01 ey215 wrote:
On the lurker bit, I do think there's a time and place for lynching. If we don't have a case on someone it's better to lynch a lurker than someone active. If they're lurking then they're not contributing or giving us something to go on. Of course, if we've got a good case on someone it's better to lynch them. 100% agree, this was pretty much my point anyway. And there's a lot of similar views expressed later in the thread by others, so can we say that we've reached consensus? If we don't get a good case, we lynch a lurker.
Ok, just got back to the thread and I'll respond to things as I see them. I agree that we've reached a consensus to get rid of a lurker. That means lurkers, it's your time to step up and contribute.
|
On December 05 2011 03:52 Hassybaby wrote:If I misinterpreted you, I am sorry. But to me posts like: Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 23:23 Tunkeg wrote:
You are the number one poster quantitywise in this thread, you are also one of those who have voted early. You are also perhaps the one I consider to be most likely (as of now) to get a bandwagon started on someone (either as number one voter or two). Based on that, my question is: Are you trying to give yourself an alibi with the statement above? and Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 21:39 Tunkeg wrote:
So are you trying to establish yourself as a boring townie by not posting anything or what?
Adam, a couple of questions for you:
What is your thoughts on Blazinghand's aggressiveness? How do you perceive him thus far? Is his play pro-town or anti-town?
Any thoughts on xsksc's play? Is he a key player in this game? If he is scum, what effect will that have on the game? sound accusatory, on top of the list. So I hoe you can see why i said hat. However, if that wasn't your intention, I understand. And no, I don't see either of you as scummy yet. As of now, I see both of you townies aggressively forcing discussions through different means, whether it be through voting like Blazing, or through hard-hitting questions like you do. I don't question the motives, I question the timings of them. While they have been successful, I think they're better served in the later stages of the day, as opposed to the start. In that way, you can have some backing to your questions as well, through quotes and possibly votes. I prefer seeing responses to questions about policies that town intends to implement, and then following up through that, like the lurker point I made with Blazing. My main issue with early pressure is that it makes it too easy to OMGUS it, unless there's a clear slip. But with the support of quotes that they have made over the past day or 2, you can make a clear case against them, and defences will be tested better. Definitely going to commend the results though. Discussions have started, and now we can build cases, and really force people to respond.
I can see how my questions there, and other questions might be interpreted as accusations. But they are not meant like accusations, I'd rather call them pokes, to get a reaction. The red naming I did in the scumlist post I see as more as an accusation, and while not taking any glory, but the rednaming of you have led to an intersting arguement at least. Where you have put some pressure back at me, which is only fair. Also players like Grackorini and jaybrundage have told me to back off abit, which I take into consideration. It can also be a usefull read for later.
|
@Ey215 I'd really like to hear some of your strong town reads and who you think is being anti-town. You've already shown your opinion on Blazinghand but I'd like to hear your opinions
|
On December 05 2011 04:08 jaybrundage wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 20:58 Tunkeg wrote:
jaybrundage: The dissapointment of the game this far (strong words, but I think jaybrundage can take it). He is also a veteran, and should now that posting quality stuff is important. As of now there have been alot of filler posts.
Ok you come out and call me a disappointment of the game And that i haven't been posting quality stuff. Thats Bullshit I post what im thinking about. I gave my opinion on lynching policies. I said what i thought about Blazinghands aggressiveness (which i agree with btw) And i gave my read on BKEXE. Who i think could very well be a noobie mafia. Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 00:02 Tunkeg wrote:
jaybrundage Scum. "Veteran", posts to little and with to little content, should know that thats anti-town.
For lynch I would go for either jaybrundage or Hassybaby at this point. They need to step up their game or GTFO. But im curious how did i go from not posting quality stuff to being mafia. Seeing that i havent even posted from then to your next post. While i think posting your reads on people is good. You got the wrong person in your cross hairs. Moving on here's more stuff that i noticed Ok so far i see adam has done quite a bit of lurking. He makes a single post at the start of the game.Correcting a mistake someone made about not being able to lynch. Then after ward after someone calls him a bored townie. He jumps on it claiming him self to be a bored townie. And then talks about mentions Blazinghand and Veli so called buddy buddy relationship. Soft claiming them to be mafia. He responds to Tunkegs questions and leaves it at that. Im going to right my reads out in a little bit i just need more time to reread the thread
The disappointment remark were perhaps abit over the top, but my remark about wanting more qulity posts from you still stands. Now that the game is established itself I hope to see more analyzing from you. This last post from you is what I want more of if I am to see you as greener. Listing you as mafia in my scumlist happend (as I've mentioned before) after xtfftc asked me what I thought of the players alignment. At the time you were one of those I considered more scummy than the rest.
|
@Tunkeg: also since you're here. I am curious why you painted Ey215 town in your reads. He is somebody that I am unsure of right now and all you explained is that "his posts so far says town to me. He is balancing out Blazinghand."
|
On December 05 2011 04:51 Grackaroni wrote:
@Ey215 I'd really like to hear some of your strong town reads and who you think is being anti-town. You've already shown your opinion on Blazinghand but I'd like to hear your opinions
Oddly enough, I think you'll find that while I'm not crazy about his methods I do think his play has been pro-town. I'm just not convinced it's optimal. I'm going to go make a googledocs spreadsheet with links to filters and then read everyone's. I'll get back to you in a bit, but as it's do shit around the house Sunday it may take a while.
|
|
|
On December 05 2011 05:05 Grackaroni wrote:
@Tunkeg: also since you're here. I am curious why you painted Ey215 town in your reads. He is somebody that I am unsure of right now and all you explained is that "his posts so far says town to me. He is balancing out Blazinghand."
To be honest I did go abit wild with the coloring. I should perhaps have used more leaning town/leaning scum reads i my post. Anyways the reason I put ey215 as town was the feel I got from his posts. He posts his view about town-environment, he states his view about the risk of bandwagoning and that sort of stuff. All of which I consider pro-town posting.
What I didn't incorperate in my analysis when posting the list was the defensive attitude he initially took against Blazinghand. Still my read on him is leaning town
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
