EPTOn March 17 2012 04:43 Velinath wrote:
I'll just throw the EBWOP in here so it makes more sense as I go.
Read this as "Lynching lurkers is a good idea except when it's not, and if they're acting like lurkers they might not actually be lurkers, so if they didn't show up and post they're not actually lurking". That's, like, the definition of lurking.
NT goes on to just say "let's suspect everyone on that list just in case". We're 6 hours into the game at this point, there isn't nearly enough posting to justify a pure town read on ANYONE...of course we should be suspecting everyone this early on. This is useless filler.
Okay, let's talk about this FOS mess on day 1.
Might as well just use this entire post rather than quoting everything that's nested inside it. First of all, reflex FOS after one post? That goes a little far, I think (never mind that FOS does nothing in this game, just inflames people and is essentially a push for early votes). Same sentiment could have been expressed as I have already - I've said already that I have a negative read on NT without making some big stink about it. Pressure plays should be vote based, because an FOS does nothing.
I found this quote funny because A) he accuses Eleanthus of being wishy-washy on lurker lynches when I believe I've done a fairly good job of illustrating that he did the same thing with his early post, and B) we've gone from "maybe we shouldn't lynch lurkers because they might not be lurking" to "hey, let's look at lynching lurkers if we need to, in order to get a lynch in". He then goes on to move his vote off of FirmTofu later because he doesn't think that FT's lurking is actually lurking - so we're back to his first viewpoint.
So much to talk about in this post. NT OMGUS's after Sbrubbles brings up the point that his recent posts had already been defensive. The reaction's totally out of proportion to what's going on here. The interesting thing that I see here is that NT keeps on emphasizing "I didn't accuse cosine!" I disagree.
(emphasis mine)
That's an accusation.
Let's move on to the OMGUS reaction in the post @ 14:58 (it's nested). Sbrubbles sums up the post sequence rather nicely in his first post where he points out that NT accuses cosine (I've already discussed why this is an accurate portrayal), and then immediately goes on the extreme defensive when people start asking questions. How is this suspicious? I have absolutely no idea, because NT's explanation doesn't make a ton of sense.
First of all, calling someone a scummy poster is apparently not the same as saying they're scum. What?
Secondly, I think I've made the point clear already that NT's been acting scummy in this thread. Why wouldn't Sbrubbles point out suspicions based on reading the thread - that's kind of the point of the game. Defensive, OMGUS reaction - that says scum to me.
Sbrubbles isn't misunderstanding an argument when he uses NT's own posts to make his point. He's pointing out an inconsistency. I'd say TN's making a pretty clear finger point especially after his second post.
Let's not forget this gem:
compare to:
I'd also like to point out at this point that Mafia is a game of information. Eliciting responses from other players helps the town; why would NT dislike the application of pressure if he was town?
DT lists are a terrible idea, because A) it gives scum the opportunity to react, knowing that the DT will be checking the people on the list and B) the DT should be investigating and breadcrumbing his own results, not going off a list that could be influenced by scum. While I do have a town read on phagga, nothing's guaranteed - what's to say that's not a scum list? Plus, you're not even taking into account the possibility of a framer. Endorsing this list is scummy play.
First of all, let's talk about Sbrubbles. NT does a great job WIFOMing his way out of this. "Well, it couldn't possibly be because Sbrubbles suspected me, it's because the mafia wanted me to be under closer suspicion!" We have only his word on this, and I'm not inclined to take it. WIFOM is not credible. By killing Sbrubbles, the mafia gain the benefit of silencing someone who was already suspicious of one of their members. Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is usually the most credible. I think this applies even more here because this is a newbie game. I doubt there are going to be the same level of mindgames here as there would be in a game full of vets.
NT uses the excuse of "Well, I decided Tofu was a townie" to justify his vote switch, but honestly, his vote switch was completely meaningless. The result was already set, so he could switch with impunity - in fact, you notice that he says things like
after the majority's already locked in on FT. At this point, he's able to backfill and make these posts, since it doesn't matter whether he votes for FT or someone else. Was he the motivator of this vote? No, but he certainly didn't object until after there was already a majority. He even states himself that it was "too close to the lynch deadline" to stop the bandwagon rolling.
Alright, now we get to come back to that point I made earlier about the Eleantris vote on day 1. I want to point out that NT's already made clear his early suspicions of Elea, and then posts his case on a Gosse/Elea/InfernO scumteam (It's a lot of words, I won't quote it here). He then proceeds to vote for...Gossemerr. Why? I have absolutely no idea, considering he already had his suspicions of Elea on day one. I'll also note here that he was one of the first people to swap his vote to Elea, and I'd actually argue that him doing so really got the bandwagon rolling, considering we really needed a lynch Day 2 (we were already at 3 on Gosse, and then everyone followed TN to Elea).
Lastly, I'd like to quote phagga:
I really didn't want to put this into my case if I was the only one saying it, but phagga's right there with me. This whole "connection analysis" thing that NT's pushing is very weak. I don't think it's a legitimate case, and it's meant to distract us from scumhunting.
I'd also like to take into account the lynch results of Day 2. Eleantris was TOWN. NT's been busy being "suspicious" of Elea since Day 1, and obviously nothing's changed since that point as far as his feelings have gone (see his day 2 case, as mentioned earlier). If you count Sbrubbles, that's two townies that have disappeared after attracting NT's attention - on this one, he even admits leading the mislynch. Interesting.
Nova_Terra
I'll just throw the EBWOP in here so it makes more sense as I go.
Read this as "Lynching lurkers is a good idea except when it's not, and if they're acting like lurkers they might not actually be lurkers, so if they didn't show up and post they're not actually lurking". That's, like, the definition of lurking.
NT goes on to just say "let's suspect everyone on that list just in case". We're 6 hours into the game at this point, there isn't nearly enough posting to justify a pure town read on ANYONE...of course we should be suspecting everyone this early on. This is useless filler.
Okay, let's talk about this FOS mess on day 1.
Might as well just use this entire post rather than quoting everything that's nested inside it. First of all, reflex FOS after one post? That goes a little far, I think (never mind that FOS does nothing in this game, just inflames people and is essentially a push for early votes). Same sentiment could have been expressed as I have already - I've said already that I have a negative read on NT without making some big stink about it. Pressure plays should be vote based, because an FOS does nothing.
On March 12 2012 07:16 Nova_Terra wrote:
This clarifies things substantially.
Lylo: a situation where town must lynch mafia or they lose.
FoS: finger of suspicion. Basically trying to get you to post to defend yourself.
The point i was trying to make about sloosh's play was that that other playstyle should not be overlooked, as it was a vexing position to be in as town.
Thanks for the compliment about liking my play, if you meant/included me in that statement. feels nice as i've been trying to justify my apparently hastily made Finger of Suspicion. Dont think that flattery will change anything on my end though. I'll be watching...
I agree with building cases on peoples posts rather than the alternative, but i am confused as to why you didnt say just that. To me it came across as if you were trying to make his post seem invalid in the eyes of others by calling it stupid. in the games i have read through, this played a big part in how the town functioned around some certain players.
unrelated side note, I have a nasty trigonometry class tomorrow, might need your help cosine xD
All jokes aside,
I think cosine is relatively cleared of suspicion for the most part.
Next, eleanthus (or something along the lines of that):
The main thing that bugged me about his post was just the "lynching lurkers maybe" thing. was wishy-washy, he presented nothing new to us and we couldnt even be sure of what his decision was. also, it slightly irked me that he totally seemed to ignore pretty much everything that had happened so far. I dont find it extremely suspicious or anything, but i want him to make a nice big post like cosine's so we can read into his thoughts so far.
Lastly, Lurkers and/or lurker lynches. In this case, if we cant get anything out of eleanthus, then he is likely to be the candidate of choice for lynching. however, in the high probability chance of him doing exactly what cosine did, and having no other major scum slips come out of anyone, we will likely be put into the situation where we have to lynch one of these three to avoid a no lynch.
Can i propose that we should decide which one of these three (or eleanthus) we should lynch no less than 8 hours before the deadline? this means that there wont be any last minute scrambling that results in a no lynch, and also provides enough of a time buffer that we should all be able to get votes in on that person before the deadline. This also leaves them plenty of time to come back and post before this decision. Reasonable?
okay, im out for the night, see you all in a few hours.
This clarifies things substantially.
Lylo: a situation where town must lynch mafia or they lose.
FoS: finger of suspicion. Basically trying to get you to post to defend yourself.
The point i was trying to make about sloosh's play was that that other playstyle should not be overlooked, as it was a vexing position to be in as town.
Thanks for the compliment about liking my play, if you meant/included me in that statement. feels nice as i've been trying to justify my apparently hastily made Finger of Suspicion. Dont think that flattery will change anything on my end though. I'll be watching...
I agree with building cases on peoples posts rather than the alternative, but i am confused as to why you didnt say just that. To me it came across as if you were trying to make his post seem invalid in the eyes of others by calling it stupid. in the games i have read through, this played a big part in how the town functioned around some certain players.
unrelated side note, I have a nasty trigonometry class tomorrow, might need your help cosine xD
All jokes aside,
I think cosine is relatively cleared of suspicion for the most part.
Next, eleanthus (or something along the lines of that):
The main thing that bugged me about his post was just the "lynching lurkers maybe" thing. was wishy-washy, he presented nothing new to us and we couldnt even be sure of what his decision was. also, it slightly irked me that he totally seemed to ignore pretty much everything that had happened so far. I dont find it extremely suspicious or anything, but i want him to make a nice big post like cosine's so we can read into his thoughts so far.
Lastly, Lurkers and/or lurker lynches. In this case, if we cant get anything out of eleanthus, then he is likely to be the candidate of choice for lynching. however, in the high probability chance of him doing exactly what cosine did, and having no other major scum slips come out of anyone, we will likely be put into the situation where we have to lynch one of these three to avoid a no lynch.
Can i propose that we should decide which one of these three (or eleanthus) we should lynch no less than 8 hours before the deadline? this means that there wont be any last minute scrambling that results in a no lynch, and also provides enough of a time buffer that we should all be able to get votes in on that person before the deadline. This also leaves them plenty of time to come back and post before this decision. Reasonable?
okay, im out for the night, see you all in a few hours.
I found this quote funny because A) he accuses Eleanthus of being wishy-washy on lurker lynches when I believe I've done a fairly good job of illustrating that he did the same thing with his early post, and B) we've gone from "maybe we shouldn't lynch lurkers because they might not be lurking" to "hey, let's look at lynching lurkers if we need to, in order to get a lynch in". He then goes on to move his vote off of FirmTofu later because he doesn't think that FT's lurking is actually lurking - so we're back to his first viewpoint.
On March 13 2012 01:08 Nova_Terra wrote:
No, I did not accuse him, however i did say that if he didnt post again and was lurking after a suspicious post that he had made, he would be a good lynch candidate. Its no more than suggesting we lynch a suspicious lurker during the day.
I insisted once again on explaining the motives for my change of atitude because you seemed to ignore it and continue along your train of thought. felt that i had to clarify again so you would be sure to understand my motives.
Now if you were suspicious of someone, and then somebody called you suspicious for being suspicious of that person, then went on to say the exact same reasons for also finding the person you accused of being suspicious of suspicious, wouldn't you be frustrated too? It just doesn't make sense to me. like, " This makes you seem guilty, but yeah i agree for all of the reasons you just said."
And where did i threaten you? The fact that i was working on showing why i found your post to be suspicious isnt a threat. Its just what i was working on already. I didnt do it as a result or becoming mad or anything, i just wanted to show why it was strange. And once again it appears that you seem to have completely ignored my post. You should go back and read/respond to it.
@Mementoss, yeah, im mad. Its because I dont understand why the rest of the town is thinking differently than me. or thinking the same and yet finding me suspicious for thinking in the way i am. It just doesnt make sense to me
Eleanthas has my vote currently, until he posts up, and i think that he is the best candidate as the other 'lurkers' posted and his post was widely found suspicious.
##Vote Eleanthas
No, I did not accuse him, however i did say that if he didnt post again and was lurking after a suspicious post that he had made, he would be a good lynch candidate. Its no more than suggesting we lynch a suspicious lurker during the day.
I insisted once again on explaining the motives for my change of atitude because you seemed to ignore it and continue along your train of thought. felt that i had to clarify again so you would be sure to understand my motives.
Now if you were suspicious of someone, and then somebody called you suspicious for being suspicious of that person, then went on to say the exact same reasons for also finding the person you accused of being suspicious of suspicious, wouldn't you be frustrated too? It just doesn't make sense to me. like, " This makes you seem guilty, but yeah i agree for all of the reasons you just said."
And where did i threaten you? The fact that i was working on showing why i found your post to be suspicious isnt a threat. Its just what i was working on already. I didnt do it as a result or becoming mad or anything, i just wanted to show why it was strange. And once again it appears that you seem to have completely ignored my post. You should go back and read/respond to it.
@Mementoss, yeah, im mad. Its because I dont understand why the rest of the town is thinking differently than me. or thinking the same and yet finding me suspicious for thinking in the way i am. It just doesnt make sense to me
Eleanthas has my vote currently, until he posts up, and i think that he is the best candidate as the other 'lurkers' posted and his post was widely found suspicious.
##Vote Eleanthas
So much to talk about in this post. NT OMGUS's after Sbrubbles brings up the point that his recent posts had already been defensive. The reaction's totally out of proportion to what's going on here. The interesting thing that I see here is that NT keeps on emphasizing "I didn't accuse cosine!" I disagree.
On March 12 2012 01:57 Nova_Terra wrote:
his post . . . seemed very scummy
his post . . . seemed very scummy
(emphasis mine)
On March 12 2012 01:59 Nova_Terra wrote:
EBWOP: and if cosine doesnt post and we dont get any other leads i feel that he would be a good lynch candidate.
EBWOP: and if cosine doesnt post and we dont get any other leads i feel that he would be a good lynch candidate.
That's an accusation.
Let's move on to the OMGUS reaction in the post @ 14:58 (it's nested). Sbrubbles sums up the post sequence rather nicely in his first post where he points out that NT accuses cosine (I've already discussed why this is an accurate portrayal), and then immediately goes on the extreme defensive when people start asking questions. How is this suspicious? I have absolutely no idea, because NT's explanation doesn't make a ton of sense.
I just want to point out like posts like this are scummy. Not making any “accusations” or anything.
1. Throws the blame onto others, as if I was the scummy acting one, whereas this was his first post and the point of it was to throw suspicion onto me.
2. Seemingly purposely not understanding my argument to provoke meaningless discussion
3. Discrediting posts by calling it inexperience/carelessness
4. Not wanting to actually point a finger at me or to throw enough blame that anyone would be suspicious.
1. Throws the blame onto others, as if I was the scummy acting one, whereas this was his first post and the point of it was to throw suspicion onto me.
2. Seemingly purposely not understanding my argument to provoke meaningless discussion
3. Discrediting posts by calling it inexperience/carelessness
4. Not wanting to actually point a finger at me or to throw enough blame that anyone would be suspicious.
First of all, calling someone a scummy poster is apparently not the same as saying they're scum. What?
Secondly, I think I've made the point clear already that NT's been acting scummy in this thread. Why wouldn't Sbrubbles point out suspicions based on reading the thread - that's kind of the point of the game. Defensive, OMGUS reaction - that says scum to me.
Sbrubbles isn't misunderstanding an argument when he uses NT's own posts to make his point. He's pointing out an inconsistency. I'd say TN's making a pretty clear finger point especially after his second post.
Let's not forget this gem:
On March 13 2012 01:10 Nova_Terra wrote:
EBWOP: also, why would Sbrubbles want to pressure me for a response?
EBWOP: also, why would Sbrubbles want to pressure me for a response?
compare to:
4. Not wanting to actually point a finger at me or to throw enough blame that anyone would be suspicious.
I'd also like to point out at this point that Mafia is a game of information. Eliciting responses from other players helps the town; why would NT dislike the application of pressure if he was town?
DT lists are a terrible idea, because A) it gives scum the opportunity to react, knowing that the DT will be checking the people on the list and B) the DT should be investigating and breadcrumbing his own results, not going off a list that could be influenced by scum. While I do have a town read on phagga, nothing's guaranteed - what's to say that's not a scum list? Plus, you're not even taking into account the possibility of a framer. Endorsing this list is scummy play.
First of all, let's talk about Sbrubbles. NT does a great job WIFOMing his way out of this. "Well, it couldn't possibly be because Sbrubbles suspected me, it's because the mafia wanted me to be under closer suspicion!" We have only his word on this, and I'm not inclined to take it. WIFOM is not credible. By killing Sbrubbles, the mafia gain the benefit of silencing someone who was already suspicious of one of their members. Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is usually the most credible. I think this applies even more here because this is a newbie game. I doubt there are going to be the same level of mindgames here as there would be in a game full of vets.
NT uses the excuse of "Well, I decided Tofu was a townie" to justify his vote switch, but honestly, his vote switch was completely meaningless. The result was already set, so he could switch with impunity - in fact, you notice that he says things like
after the majority's already locked in on FT. At this point, he's able to backfill and make these posts, since it doesn't matter whether he votes for FT or someone else. Was he the motivator of this vote? No, but he certainly didn't object until after there was already a majority. He even states himself that it was "too close to the lynch deadline" to stop the bandwagon rolling.
Alright, now we get to come back to that point I made earlier about the Eleantris vote on day 1. I want to point out that NT's already made clear his early suspicions of Elea, and then posts his case on a Gosse/Elea/InfernO scumteam (It's a lot of words, I won't quote it here). He then proceeds to vote for...Gossemerr. Why? I have absolutely no idea, considering he already had his suspicions of Elea on day one. I'll also note here that he was one of the first people to swap his vote to Elea, and I'd actually argue that him doing so really got the bandwagon rolling, considering we really needed a lynch Day 2 (we were already at 3 on Gosse, and then everyone followed TN to Elea).
Lastly, I'd like to quote phagga:
I really didn't want to put this into my case if I was the only one saying it, but phagga's right there with me. This whole "connection analysis" thing that NT's pushing is very weak. I don't think it's a legitimate case, and it's meant to distract us from scumhunting.
I'd also like to take into account the lynch results of Day 2. Eleantris was TOWN. NT's been busy being "suspicious" of Elea since Day 1, and obviously nothing's changed since that point as far as his feelings have gone (see his day 2 case, as mentioned earlier). If you count Sbrubbles, that's two townies that have disappeared after attracting NT's attention - on this one, he even admits leading the mislynch. Interesting.
Ok on point 1
“Read this as "Lynching lurkers is a good idea except when it's not, and if they're acting like lurkers they might not actually be lurkers, so if they didn't show up and post they're not actually lurking". That's, like, the definition of lurking”
No, read that as people who have lots of suspicion drawn to them and are about to be voted are more likely to post to defend themselves rather than not, if they are actually there. And I think a mafia would probably be there.
And of course it wasn’t enough posting yet to consider someone town. I meant that those should all be people that we may end up lynching day 1.
Onto the FOS, I feel that I sufficiently explained that multiple times. I do find that an FOS does things.
“I found this quote funny because A) he accuses Eleanthus of being wishy-washy on lurker lynches when I believe I've done a fairly good job of illustrating that he did the same thing with his early post, and B) we've gone from "maybe we shouldn't lynch lurkers because they might not be lurking" to "hey, let's look at lynching lurkers if we need to, in order to get a lynch in". He then goes on to move his vote off of FirmTofu later because he doesn't think that FT's lurking is actually lurking - so we're back to his first viewpoint.”
Next, pointing out a problem with lurker lynches and saying maybe we shouldn’t lynch them are two totally separate things. You may be reading into this a little too hard. I did say from the beginning that I would be open to a lurker lynch if there was some scum evidence.
I explained the FirmTofu thing as well as I could.
“That's an accusation.”
No, in my opinion an accusation would be saying “this person is scum.” This is pretty much saying that he is suspicious enough that a vote on him would make sense. Still, I was looking to generate discussion and posting.
“Let's move on to the OMGUS reaction in the post @ 14:58 (it's nested). Sbrubbles sums up the post sequence rather nicely in his first post where he points out that NT accuses cosine (I've already discussed why this is an accurate portrayal), and then immediately goes on the extreme defensive when people start asking questions. How is this suspicious? I have absolutely no idea, because NT's explanation doesn't make a ton of sense. “
Where did you explain why that’s an accusation?
I find that my explanation does make sense. Please tell me what doesn’t, and I can elaborate if necessary.
Uh, no. Calling a move scummy and saying that someone is scum are two different things. One is related to the other, of course.
When someone points out suspicions, becoming defensive makes more sense to me than pushing on aggressively and ignoring the suspicions.
“Let's not forget this gem:
On March 13 2012 01:10 Nova_Terra wrote:
EBWOP: also, why would Sbrubbles want to pressure me for a response?
EBWOP: also, why would Sbrubbles want to pressure me for a response?
compare to:
4. Not wanting to actually point a finger at me or to throw enough blame that anyone would be suspicious.
I'd also like to point out at this point that Mafia is a game of information. Eliciting responses from other players helps the town; why would NT dislike the application of pressure if he was town?[/i]”
Someone said that Sbrubbles was pressuring me for responses, I asked why.
“DT lists are a terrible idea, because A) it gives scum the opportunity to react, knowing that the DT will be checking the people on the list and B) the DT should be investigating and breadcrumbing his own results, not going off a list that could be influenced by scum. While I do have a town read on phagga, nothing's guaranteed - what's to say that's not a scum list? Plus, you're not even taking into account the possibility of a framer. Endorsing this list is scummy play.”
I find that DT lists aren’t a terrible idea for reasons that myself but mostly Phagga has already explained. Spreading town suspicion thoughts would make the dt more accurate. Of course I took into account the possibility of a framer. However, if the dt checked 1/3 people on this list there is a 1/3 chance the framer would hit the same one, and all players were lurkers I believe, so losing one wouldn’t be terrible and dt would know that mafia has a framer.
“First of all, let's talk about Sbrubbles. NT does a great job WIFOMing his way out of this. "Well, it couldn't possibly be because Sbrubbles suspected me, it's because the mafia wanted me to be under closer suspicion!" We have only his word on this, and I'm not inclined to take it. WIFOM is not credible. By killing Sbrubbles, the mafia gain the benefit of silencing someone who was already suspicious of one of their members. Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is usually the most credible. I think this applies even more here because this is a newbie game. I doubt there are going to be the same level of mindgames here as there would be in a game full of vets.”
If my WIFOM wasn’t credible, in what way was the case made by Seviro credible as well as his was also based on WIFOM? And where did I say anything that meant “well, it couldn’t possibly be because sbrubbles suspected me” what? I said the exact opposite. Because sbrubbles suspected me, he died. I find that argument just as simple.
Yes, I did say that that vote switch was wishy washy, and I did think that it might be able to influence the vote. I had a hope.
Yes, I explained my vote on gossemerr instead of eleanthas as well. The day 1 suspicions, as I said, were inactivity related. And, as I said, I was fine with an Ele lynch though as well, so I did change to ele to get a more likely lynch. And yeah I did say that that was probably my fault.
Yeah, I read too much into connections and convinced myself that they were correct. The fact that the points I had made in the individual portions of that post seemed suspicious from them was enough for me to continue to delude myself into thinking I was totally correct.
And yes, I feel that the mislynch was largely my fault.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vaArQ.jpg)
