EPTWho does that sound like?
To early to call him obv town. We shall see.
Newbie Mini Mafia IV - Page 13
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Alderan
United States463 Posts
Who does that sound like? To early to call him obv town. We shall see. | ||
|
Steveling
Greece10806 Posts
He doesn't give me that town vibe that gum was. Meh. | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
|
gonzaw
Uruguay4911 Posts
| ||
|
JekyllAndHyde
42 Posts
Fuck, forgot to sign in with the correct account >_> Here's the post again: Didn't realise I joined this, thought Ceph would do it in the next game, lol Anyways, I (gonzaw) shall be refered to as Hyde from now on (just to stay in character). First of all, as much discussion as the no-lynch/lynch thing brings, it totally fucking sucks for finding scum. Scum are less likely to say they want a NL, knowing EVERYBODY at TL HATES NLs. However, that's WIFOM, and pretty bad one at that since it's useless info basicly. If you want my opinion then I always prefer lynches, unless I think the lynchee is town, in which case I prefer a NL, that's it. About the soft-deadline: It may work for organizing town and avoiding last-minute switches, however it can draw away discussion and make us waste time, specially those 8-12 hours afterwards. I'd just encourage townies NOT to last-switch votes, NO MATTER WHAT. If it means having a NL, then you keep your vote on the player it is, since last-minute bandwagons are the worst thing that can happen to us. Second of all: What the fuck is wrong with fourface? His posts are a pain in the ass to read, like seriously. Reminds me of gumshoe on SNMM7. However, I don't see how the hell he can be scum. He's putting himself in the spotlight just by being so crazy and outspoken, specially with that crappy "trap" he made. This makes me suspicious of the other ones basicly "falling for it" and "thinking" FF is scum, specially these: On February 27 2012 09:37 Chocolate wrote: wtf is going on fourface.. that's NOT how you should defend yourself at all. I could barely even tell what the point of that post was. From now on try to be concise with your posts,, i.e. don't post a bunch of useless fluff to make your post longer, because that is scummy. I'm going to vote for you for the time being because that was really weird. If you sufficiently explain yourself and start to make sense I will unvote you. @ghost you thought I was scummy because I voted on a lurker? I don't see anything wrong with that at all, please explain why you dislike it. Wtf is this? You vote for him just because he made a weird post? You think he's scum because of it? + Show Spoiler + On February 27 2012 06:36 DoYouHas wrote: Alright, I have seen a few things already that I don't like and I'm ready to throw some suspicion around. FourFace I don't like that his first post places unwarranted suspicion on the hydras. He could argue that he was just putting pressure on them, but this post shows he doesn't quite understand how to put pressure on someone properly yet. I also don't like his lack of opinion on the soft deadline (thanks for the phrase slOosh). He says he is waiting for a thorough pro/con discussion. But a few of us had already provided pros, so in order to be ambivalent to the idea he must have had some cons in mind, but chooses not to post them. 1. Lowering our expectations of him. Not a big deal, it is a newbie game. 2. Wants to lynch lurkers over suspicious people... unless they are posting advice and protocol. That is what would make a person suspicious enough to FourFace that they need to be voted over a lurker. Seems a bit off to me. At best this statement is wishy-washy and means nothing. At worse it reveals FourFace to have a skewed point of view. 3. This whole section says 1 thing of value. In a worst case scenario, a no-lynch on day1 gives us 1 more day of play before game over. The rest is pointing out the obvious, needless speculation, and trying to get others to jump on board with discussion about the setup. I think that the majority of this first post, while big, says almost nothing. Very suspicious. (I'm taking the spoilers out of this next one) Pro - Not vote for who you think is scum, vote for who you think benefits the town the least. Pro - FF seems to want to rely on blues to provide us with information. And speculation on who gets shot by scum tends to be WIFOM and useless. FF downplays the value of information gained by a lynch, up-plays the value of information gotten by a mafia hit. And goes back to blues for actually figuring the game out. This is a very wrong way of looking at the game. Con - First off, it isn't a 40% chance, it is closer to a 29% chance. 4/14, not 4/10. Secondly, FF has wandered into random lynch territory instead of staying on pro/con for nolynch. I don't like it one bit. Con - Just like in his pro-nolynch argument he is espousing voting for those who are least valuable to town, not scum. I italicized the statement in this section that I just hate and think betrays FF's attitude. I asked you all to have a purpose in mind when you posted things. So what is the purpose of this post? From what I can see the purpose of this post is to foment conflict between gumshoe and Alderan, to undercut/place suspicion on Steveling, and to hint at a secret strategy. Also, wtf is with this statement, "I don't know, lynch me". As to that secret strategy, I sure hope an integral part of it is letting us know that a trap is out there. Because if it isn't then all you have done is made people more afraid to post for fear of stepping into your trap. So if your trap doesn't depend on letting us know that it exists, you are acting very scummy. ##FOS: FourFace Okay, so why does that make FF scum? That makes him a HORRIBLE townie, perhaps, but how the fuck does the no-lynch talk about "wanting to lynch the person least benefits town" makes him scum? You know better than that DYH, why are you going after the "easy" target? Or are you just "making a purposefully bad case to draw out reactions" like sloosh did last game? On February 27 2012 07:49 Janaan wrote: So FourFace, pretty much all I got out of that post was that you don't like Mafia guides, and that you're readily admitting that you lied when you told me there wasn't a reason why you voted for JekyllAndHyde. That's not really a very good start to defending yourself in my opinion. You say that DYH and gumshoe made "good observations", that you were waiting for FF to defend himself, and now you say that wasn't a very good start to defending himself. ....so? What do you think about it? Did that convince you he was scum or not? On February 27 2012 07:50 ghost_403 wrote: FourFace, I have no idea what game you're playing here. Your rants about insanity are baffling to me even on repeat readings. The only thing worse than scum in a game are townies that waste other peoples time while they are looking for scum. Instead, we have to identify and ignore your madness, which is insanely counter productive. As far as your trap, still don't know what you're going for there. Once the game starts, people have a responsibility to actually be playing. If they can't make it, they tell the GM and he replaces them; not a big deal. My head still hurts. So, do you think he's scum, or a "townie that wastes other people's time while they are looking for scum"? @gumshoe: What exactly makes you think his play mirrors Steve's from last game? Steve didn't talk crazy and didn't propose a "trap" as far as I remember. I just advice all of you to just ignore what he says until he starts taking this game seriously. I get the feeling he's town, and I wouldn't want an "easy misslynch" on D1. So FF, for fucks sake stop trolling. On February 26 2012 15:40 slOosh wrote: Hi all. This will be my third newbie game. Current thoughts so far: I really like the idea of the soft deadline to avoid last minute switching, but I would only implement it day 1. From personal experience (my 2nd game T.T), trying to enforce a soft deadline where everyone votes can be very detrimental to town as it has the possibility of stifling discussion / people rushing to make poorly built cases as Janaan mentioned. As for this idea of lynching lurkers, how would it interact with the deadline? Say we are at soft deadline and there are several lurkers. We vote one, and they happen to respond by producing good content and such. Then we would have to choose the next lurker, but that would bring us closer to the true deadline and thereby defeat the whole purpose. There isn't really a feasible way to choose lurkers with a comfortable cushion of time before the deadline. I'd rather we just start keeping each other accountable and make sure everyone is contributing right away. I know that in the ObsQT from prior games people have pegged mafia day 1, and I think we should aim for that goal, pressuring inactives so that we don't have to worry about last minute lurker switches. Okay sloosh. You were pretty active last game, why did you go lurking all of a sudden? Also, I'm starting uni tomorrow so I won't be very active. Let's hope my counterpart can counteract that. /Hyde | ||
|
Qatol
United States3165 Posts
Also, I mentioned earlier that I don't like unnecessary cursing. The post above me is the kind of thing I was talking about. I can understand if it was a heated moment, but this isn't really one. | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
You are absolutely right. There is a reason my case ended with a FOS instead of a vote. I had 3 things in mind when I made my case. 1. FF's early posting was either bad townie or scummy. I wanted to draw FF out and get a response from him in hopes of figuring out if he leans town or scum. My case wasn't conclusive on him as scum, but it was strong enough to warrant a response. 2. I wanted to move past the point of talking about policy and start getting into the real discussion. The best way of doing this is to give the town a solid piece of analysis to start playing with. 3. I wanted to gauge the responses of others to my case. (You kind of blew this for me when you posted, but that's ok.) After his response I am leaning town for FF. Why? Because of the timestamps. FF posted his fairly long response to me 66 minutes after I posted my case against him. If you look at his pre-game posts, FF was brand new and fairly oblivious to previous games (mentioning that he did not know the abbreviations and such). That tells me that it is VERY unlikely that he is playing off gumshoe's meta from last game for 2 reasons. I find it hard to believe that FF could have read my case, gone to a scumQT, asked for help, received it in the form of "play off gumshoe's meta", written up his post, and have it checked by that scumQT, and posted it in 66 minutes. It's possible, but super unlikely. That leaves me with the option that he read SNMM7 after this game started and decided on his own to play off gumshoe's meta, also super unlikely. So, to me, the craziness of his response is geniune. Which makes me lean town for him. For now. | ||
|
Alderan
United States463 Posts
Chocolate is super scummy to me right now. Says things like "our vote will probably end up being a lurker"... Who says this? Even if it is the case you're giving mafia free reign to post a couple BS posts and get out of the thread. He later goes on to say I'll give them until ~6 EST to post but if they still haven't by them we should vote one. Pretty adamanent about this lurker idea, right? Wrong. NOT 3 POSTS LATER he's off his lurker train now, and onto the easiest target, namely, Fourface. Fourface, for reasons stated above is very likely not scum, but I could see Chocolate's beady little eyes now getting as wide as an anime characters in joy when he saw that Fourface made one of the most "interesting" (as to avoid getting in trouble) posts I've ever seen. Oh and this: We should probably spread out our votes, don't need two people on one lurker yet imo I don't get this either. Why would you split your votes up? If it's for pressure here is a newsflash: Votes DO NOT = Pressure Pressure is cases, pressure is discussion, a one liner and vote in the vote thread doesn't cut it. Period. Then there's: That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. | ||
|
Alderan
United States463 Posts
Here's how I see this vote on Jeckyll going: - Ghost puts his vote on Jeckyll, cause you know they're pressuring lurkers and all. - Chocolate also puts his vote on Jeckyll, cause you know they're pressuring lurkers and all. - Ghost gets pissed in the scum qt by saying "dude back up off me, we don't need to get too associated with each other" - Chocolate is like "shit, how can I back out of this? Oh I got it! I'll say we need to diversify our pressure portfolio!!!!!11!!" - Chocolate votes on another random lurker. - Alderan figures it out. | ||
|
Janaan
United States381 Posts
On February 27 2012 10:50 JekyllAndHyde wrote: You say that DYH and gumshoe made "good observations", that you were waiting for FF to defend himself, and now you say that wasn't a very good start to defending himself. ....so? What do you think about it? Did that convince you he was scum or not? At the moment, I'm leaning toward noob townie, much like my read on Gumshoe last game, but I'll probably keep a close watch on his posts. I was really hoping that FourFace would post again, maybe try to clarify his post at least, but he's still nowhere to be found. | ||
|
slOosh
3291 Posts
On February 27 2012 10:50 JekyllAndHyde wrote: Okay sloosh. You were pretty active last game, why did you go lurking all of a sudden? /Hyde I decided to take a slower approach to the game. Last game I came out guns blazing, argued with a townie and then tunneled another one hard, allowing mafia to lurk and get away with posting fluff. I really want to fight my tendencies to tunnel / confirmation bias so I'm taking it as slow as I can. But being mindful of a deadline, I'll try posting what I have progressively rather than waiting until the eleventh hour to post a big case. Hopefully this will quell paranoia and promote a healthy town atmosphere. My current suspicions are on: ghost_403 I'm really not sure if this is unintentional anti-town play or soft pushing mafia agenda. On February 27 2012 02:32 ghost_403 wrote: @alderan I really don't see any time where it would be advantageous to the town to not lynch. The town should first be lynching scum. If we can't find scum, we should instead lynch people who are not useful to the town. Lurkers fit the second criteria perfectly. By lurking, you are providing cover for the scum to hide, which is in every case bad for the town. He seems to advocate, in the event we can't agree on a good mafia suspect, lurker lynches. Lurker lynches are good, but only to flush mafia out of hiding, as he says so himself. Right now this is a null post to me as I can see both town or mafia thinking this. However: On February 27 2012 04:43 ghost_403 wrote: @Janaan Nope. I would love to start lynching into the other non-posters and fluffy posters as well, but alas, I have only one vote. Although, I would expect more posting from a hydra. It seems between the two of them that at least one could post on here "Don't lynch me". His stance is consistent but questionable. He wants to lynch, not pressure to get people to post and produce content and thus flush out mafia. It's almost like he will policy lynch a lurker. Still null, but worth looking into. On February 27 2012 07:18 ghost_403 wrote: Just got back and I've seen a few things that I'm not too happy about  It seems that most of the discussion on this thread has been built around the idea of a soft deadline and a no-lynch day 1. Here are my thoughts on both of those. A soft deadline isn't really needed. At all. If your concern is that people change their votes at the last minute and mess up votes, there is a simple solution to that: we lynch people who change their votes at the last minute and mess up votes. I would rather lynch scum over people who mess up votes, but I'm down with policy lynching. Townies, don't change your vote at the last minute and mess up votes. I will vote to policy lynch you. A no lynch day 1 is a bad idea. Pretty much, no matter who you are, a no lynch plays against your win condition, unless you're the Batman. As there is not the Batman in this game, no lynching goes against your win condition. Look at it this way: no matter your alignment, you win when there is no one else in the game. Period. Another way to look at that is if you are still left during day 3 after 2 mislynches. There are 6 townies and 4 scum. The scum are either (1) forced to work together to stay alive, and are pretty easy to spot or (2) are going to sacrifice one of their own. Unless something goes horribly, horribly wrong, the worst case scenario for day 4 is 5 townies to 3 scum. No problem. Responses to posts in thread: @chocolate If this wasn't a newbie game, I would lynch you for that post. @DoYouHas I think you're right on with that post. Not a big fan of the FOS thing, but whatever. I think it gives them room to run and hide. Instead, GO FOR THE KILL. @gumshoe See above. @fourface Start explaining yourself, or I'll start the bandwagon rolling. @phagga I stand by what I said. I would much rather lynch scum, but if I can't, I'll lynch lurkers. The town lost that game because they let Palmar double lynch every day. As far as those two specific cases, rgTheSchworz should have been modkilled, and I would have lynched Lanaia instead mderg if I had had the time that day. She had no case against him, and I would have pointed that out, regardless of my alliance in that game. There is a heavy fixation with lynching. It's no longer a means flush out lurking mafia from hiding. He threatens at least 3 active posters with the lynch. He emphasizes over and over that we have to lynch no matter the circumstances. Even if we don't have a good case, he is willing to lynch lurkers, unhelpful townies, and seemingly anything. I'm trying to see what motives a townie might have for needing to get lynches so badly, and I can't think of anything. ##FOS: ghost_403. (I'm ending it with FOS rather than a vote since I really want other people's input as I think that is the best way I don't go tunnel mode). | ||
|
slOosh
3291 Posts
| ||
|
Alderan
United States463 Posts
On February 27 2012 13:08 slOosh wrote: Oop - missed Alderan's post while building my case. Looking over and will post thoughts soon. I'm going to wait for him to respond to make a comment on your case. I've got a hunch. | ||
|
gumshoe
Canada3602 Posts
On February 27 2012 10:50 JekyllAndHyde wrote: EBWOP: Fuck, forgot to sign in with the correct account >_> Here's the post again: Didn't realise I joined this, thought Ceph would do it in the next game, lol Anyways, I (gonzaw) shall be refered to as Hyde from now on (just to stay in character). First of all, as much discussion as the no-lynch/lynch thing brings, it totally fucking sucks for finding scum. Scum are less likely to say they want a NL, knowing EVERYBODY at TL HATES NLs. However, that's WIFOM, and pretty bad one at that since it's useless info basicly. If you want my opinion then I always prefer lynches, unless I think the lynchee is town, in which case I prefer a NL, that's it. About the soft-deadline: It may work for organizing town and avoiding last-minute switches, however it can draw away discussion and make us waste time, specially those 8-12 hours afterwards. I'd just encourage townies NOT to last-switch votes, NO MATTER WHAT. If it means having a NL, then you keep your vote on the player it is, since last-minute bandwagons are the worst thing that can happen to us. Second of all: What the fuck is wrong with fourface? His posts are a pain in the ass to read, like seriously. Reminds me of gumshoe on SNMM7. However, I don't see how the hell he can be scum. He's putting himself in the spotlight just by being so crazy and outspoken, specially with that crappy "trap" he made. This makes me suspicious of the other ones basicly "falling for it" and "thinking" FF is scum, specially these: Wtf is this? You vote for him just because he made a weird post? You think he's scum because of it? + Show Spoiler + On February 27 2012 06:36 DoYouHas wrote: Alright, I have seen a few things already that I don't like and I'm ready to throw some suspicion around. FourFace I don't like that his first post places unwarranted suspicion on the hydras. He could argue that he was just putting pressure on them, but this post shows he doesn't quite understand how to put pressure on someone properly yet. I also don't like his lack of opinion on the soft deadline (thanks for the phrase slOosh). He says he is waiting for a thorough pro/con discussion. But a few of us had already provided pros, so in order to be ambivalent to the idea he must have had some cons in mind, but chooses not to post them. 1. Lowering our expectations of him. Not a big deal, it is a newbie game. 2. Wants to lynch lurkers over suspicious people... unless they are posting advice and protocol. That is what would make a person suspicious enough to FourFace that they need to be voted over a lurker. Seems a bit off to me. At best this statement is wishy-washy and means nothing. At worse it reveals FourFace to have a skewed point of view. 3. This whole section says 1 thing of value. In a worst case scenario, a no-lynch on day1 gives us 1 more day of play before game over. The rest is pointing out the obvious, needless speculation, and trying to get others to jump on board with discussion about the setup. I think that the majority of this first post, while big, says almost nothing. Very suspicious. (I'm taking the spoilers out of this next one) Pro - Not vote for who you think is scum, vote for who you think benefits the town the least. Pro - FF seems to want to rely on blues to provide us with information. And speculation on who gets shot by scum tends to be WIFOM and useless. FF downplays the value of information gained by a lynch, up-plays the value of information gotten by a mafia hit. And goes back to blues for actually figuring the game out. This is a very wrong way of looking at the game. Con - First off, it isn't a 40% chance, it is closer to a 29% chance. 4/14, not 4/10. Secondly, FF has wandered into random lynch territory instead of staying on pro/con for nolynch. I don't like it one bit. Con - Just like in his pro-nolynch argument he is espousing voting for those who are least valuable to town, not scum. I italicized the statement in this section that I just hate and think betrays FF's attitude. I asked you all to have a purpose in mind when you posted things. So what is the purpose of this post? From what I can see the purpose of this post is to foment conflict between gumshoe and Alderan, to undercut/place suspicion on Steveling, and to hint at a secret strategy. Also, wtf is with this statement, "I don't know, lynch me". As to that secret strategy, I sure hope an integral part of it is letting us know that a trap is out there. Because if it isn't then all you have done is made people more afraid to post for fear of stepping into your trap. So if your trap doesn't depend on letting us know that it exists, you are acting very scummy. ##FOS: FourFace Okay, so why does that make FF scum? That makes him a HORRIBLE townie, perhaps, but how the fuck does the no-lynch talk about "wanting to lynch the person least benefits town" makes him scum? You know better than that DYH, why are you going after the "easy" target? Or are you just "making a purposefully bad case to draw out reactions" like sloosh did last game? You say that DYH and gumshoe made "good observations", that you were waiting for FF to defend himself, and now you say that wasn't a very good start to defending himself. ....so? What do you think about it? Did that convince you he was scum or not? So, do you think he's scum, or a "townie that wastes other people's time while they are looking for scum"? @gumshoe: What exactly makes you think his play mirrors Steve's from last game? Steve didn't talk crazy and didn't propose a "trap" as far as I remember. I just advice all of you to just ignore what he says until he starts taking this game seriously. I get the feeling he's town, and I wouldn't want an "easy misslynch" on D1. So FF, for fucks sake stop trolling. Okay sloosh. You were pretty active last game, why did you go lurking all of a sudden? Also, I'm starting uni tomorrow so I won't be very active. Let's hope my counterpart can counteract that. /Hyde Mr hyde, last game steve and a few other players systematicaly attempted to destroy my reputation, there goal was to discredit a potentially useful townie, I saw a similar trend in four faces play, But four faces fantastic response has totally taken him off my radar, why? Because I doubt his team would let him post something so ridicules, (if anyone dares say the m word I will in fact rip their face off) which means four face behaved recklessly, so either a) hes scum and he will eventually be his own down fall because of his reckless play, or b) he is a noob, and he panicked which is far more likely. Also none of us should be concerned with four face anymore because he him self has said that he is insane, he may as well be obsing this game now, it's gonna take a lot for us to start warming up to him again. The issue of four face solves itself in this regard. When we lynch, we lynch lurkers, confirmed scum, or threats Four face is none of these things as of yet. Best way to sum up this whole situation? SOME MOTHER FUCKAS ALWAYS TRYING TO ICESKATE UPHILL K now lets stop talking about four face of we can help it. @steveling: Of course you got a towny feel from me last game you knew I was town (ooooooo I get it, clever girl  )Alderaan: I concur, good find on chocolate and ghost. Sloosh: In regards to ghost, yeah, you'll see early on that I pressured him a bit, currently he's also my highest candidate of suspicion because before anything, he pushed other players to vote without voting himself... definitely worth tunnelling. | ||
|
Steveling
Greece10806 Posts
On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote: Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. Quoted for truth. | ||
|
FourFace
701 Posts
On February 27 2012 11:37 DoYouHas wrote: I'm so glad you are in this game Hyde :D, You are absolutely right. There is a reason my case ended with a FOS instead of a vote. I had 3 things in mind when I made my case. 1. FF's early posting was either bad townie or scummy. I wanted to draw FF out and get a response from him in hopes of figuring out if he leans town or scum. My case wasn't conclusive on him as scum, but it was strong enough to warrant a response. 2. I wanted to move past the point of talking about policy and start getting into the real discussion. The best way of doing this is to give the town a solid piece of analysis to start playing with. 3. I wanted to gauge the responses of others to my case. (You kind of blew this for me when you posted, but that's ok.) After his response I am leaning town for FF. Why? Because of the timestamps. FF posted his fairly long response to me 66 minutes after I posted my case against him. If you look at his pre-game posts, FF was brand new and fairly oblivious to previous games (mentioning that he did not know the abbreviations and such). That tells me that it is VERY unlikely that he is playing off gumshoe's meta from last game for 2 reasons. I find it hard to believe that FF could have read my case, gone to a scumQT, asked for help, received it in the form of "play off gumshoe's meta", written up his post, and have it checked by that scumQT, and posted it in 66 minutes. It's possible, but super unlikely. That leaves me with the option that he read SNMM7 after this game started and decided on his own to play off gumshoe's meta, also super unlikely. So, to me, the craziness of his response is geniune. Which makes me lean town for him. For now. 3. No, that's not quite it. You are way to meticulous about the whole thing, I didn't ask for any help and gumshoe was one of the people I didn't read in on, but the rest is pretty true so if the 'he's playing off gumshoe's meta' part is helping you have the right impression of me just go with that 1 & 2: I really appreciate that we are starting to point fingers. I give you a pat on the back for the effort of breaking the trivial chit-chat | ||
|
gumshoe
Canada3602 Posts
Steveling you haven't been terribly useful this game, so let me put you to use! What do you think of ghost, chocolate and four face? Also that comment on how four face didn't strike you as towny as me, what did you mean by that? | ||
|
gumshoe
Canada3602 Posts
On February 27 2012 13:32 FourFace wrote: 3. No, that's not quite it. You are way to meticulous about the whole thing, I didn't ask for any help and gumshoe was one of the people I didn't read in on, but the rest is pretty true so if the 'he's playing off gumshoe's meta' part is helping you have the right impression of me just go with that 1 & 2: I really appreciate that we are starting to point fingers. I give you a pat on the back for the effort of breaking the trivial chit-chat sigh four face what do you think of your accusers? And try not bash them in a way that could hurt their persona if they are actually town. | ||
|
Steveling
Greece10806 Posts
I'll post after my sleep, xD. | ||
|
slOosh
3291 Posts
On February 27 2012 13:24 gumshoe wrote: Sloosh: In regards to ghost, yeah, you'll see early on that I pressured him a bit, currently he's also my highest candidate of suspicion because before anything, he pushed other players to vote without voting himself... definitely worth tunnelling. That's the one thing I'm trying to avoid >.<; Anyways, with regard to the Choco case, I've been looking over his filter and trying to think objectively into it: it's really hard to gauge his alignment as there isn't that much content. I'm really interested in this though. On February 27 2012 09:37 Chocolate wrote: @ghost you thought I was scummy because I voted on a lurker? I don't see anything wrong with that at all, please explain why you dislike it. I think seeing them interact with each other can give us more substantial information (and it puts pressure on them if they are both mafia as they are paranoid at their interaction being put in the spotlight) | ||
| ||
