EPTNewbie Mini Mafia IV - Page 17
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
FourFace
701 Posts
| ||
|
FourFace
701 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i43.tinypic.com/2ezqnp0.jpg) | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
|
FourFace
701 Posts
| ||
|
dreamflower
United States312 Posts
| ||
|
Alderan
United States463 Posts
| ||
|
JekyllAndHyde
42 Posts
On February 27 2012 11:28 Qatol wrote: Play nice please. 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. I'm just staying in-character, I'm not "heated up" or anything  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. Okay, fair enough. I find that "ask the scum QT for tips on playing off gumshoe's meta" situation unlikely if he was scum. If he decided to act crazy and was scum, well, I'm sure he decided so from the getgo and not from being indecisive and being "convinced" by his scumbuddies. Nothing to do with timestamps. However, I find it unlikely that he would decide to act like this from the get-go, I've never seen a noob scum act like this before, and until I do I'm gonna believe he's town. On February 27 2012 13:02 Janaan wrote: 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. You should have mentioned that before though, since it didn't seem you implied that at all. On February 27 2012 13:02 slOosh wrote: 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. You do know that "not tunneling =/= not pushing who you think is scum", right? You don't need to "tunnel" to make yourself heard, and you don't need to just stay under the radar and don't push your reads in the "fear" of "tunneling a townie". @ghost, why are you ignoring all these cases and FoSes against you? I'm not convinced about a ghost or Choco lynch though. Like I said before, people's opinion on lynches is not an alignment tell to me, so this whole thing about ghost "being intent on lynching", or choco wanting to "lynch lurkers" doesn't convince me. I still want their responses to me though. Either way, we are achieving nothing this day. Nobody posts, nobody responds to the cases made against them (with the exception of Janaan). FF trolls and clogs up the thread, some people vote for lurkers, others for ghost/choco, and we are like 7 hours before the day ends. However I prefer a Choco lynch rather than a ghost one, since he's contributed less and flew under the radar more. So I'm putting a placeholder vote on Chocolate, and hope Jekyll can come before the deadline and make a better assessment before the day ends. ##Vote: Chocolate. P.S: People, please just ignore FourFace from now on. /Hyde | ||
|
Janaan
United States381 Posts
On February 28 2012 04:10 JekyllAndHyde wrote: You should have mentioned that before though, since it didn't seem you implied that at all. /Hyde Yeah, maybe I should've mentioned it before, but my original response to FF defense was primarily to say essentially "hey, what you just said won't convince anyone that you're town, you should maybe try again". I really wanted him to post again about the evidence against him. I think adding "but I don't think you're scum" to my post could have taken away some of the pressure for FF to post again. Once he didn't post, and you asked for my read on him, I gave it. | ||
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
Chocolate: I still cannot tell if his play was actually scummy or just poor play/mentality. I still want to hear from him about his adamant lurker policy into jumping on FF though. Cannot tell if he's in collusion with ghost since they both have different approaches. Ghost: Similar to chocolate but with an adamant lynch someone policy. Pushing a lynch on anyone comes off more scummy to me than chocolate, but they're both up there. Likewise, cannot say if those two are in collusion. Would also like to hear from him about his aggressive lynching. Igabod: Hasn't really done anything and just lurking. Would really like to see him start participating. FourFace: Not worth the time and effort right now given how he has been posting. Ghost and chocolate are the most suspicious in my opinion based on their actions. I'd favour lynching ghost over chocolate as I think chocolate has just been playing poorly and ghost comes off more scummy. I really hope that either of them can adress the cases against them since it may clairify the situation. Igabod is just straight up lurking from what I can tell. So what it comes down to is that we should go after a definite lurker or one of the other two suspicious players. I think ghost's aggressive lynching mindset is more toxic to the town and scummy than the alternatives. Igabod, while a viable candidate, isn't going to slip off anyone's radars for his inactivity. Nor will people just suddenly warm up to him if he comes back without extremely good reasoning and/or contributions. I'd personally rather lynch an individual who may be negaitively influencing the town over someone who is just being inactive and not directly influencing town. Chocolate's play was somewhat toxic, but I'm not convinced it was genuinely scummy. ##Vote: ghost_403 Unless an exceptional defense comes up shortly, I am unlikely to change my vote. | ||
|
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
|
slOosh
3291 Posts
On February 28 2012 02:52 ghost_403 wrote: I'm going to assume that pursuing a lynch on FourFace is counterproductive at this point. I still feel that we should be looking for someone to lynch day 1. I thought I explained myself well enough the first time, but I am more than happy to reiterate my position. Let's say that everyone agrees to no-lynch day 1. Instead of arguing and creating content, everyone agrees and nothing happens. The deadline from day 1 comes and goes, and the mafia gets to kill one random townie for free. Day 2 starts, and we are left in the same position that we were in Day 1, only now we have one less townie. This outcome has no benefit for the town. Instead, let's say that we agree to lynch a lurker. (Obviously, scum would be better. This goes without saying.) Now, we have people arguing over who is the better lynch. The lurkers are forced to interact with the town. Sides are picked, fights are fought, and maybe we lose a townie over it. Night 1 comes and goes, and we start day 2, AT WORST, down two townies. Instead of having nothing to go on, we have pages of content that we can analyze for inconstancies and patterns. The mafia are most likely going to kill people who are on the right track, giving us clues as to who they are. The town may be down a player, but has so much more information to go on. Of course, one could make the argument of "Well, why don't we just pretend to lynch someone." Empty threats aren't going to force people to interact with the town. The follow-through is important. And that is why I support lynching a lurker (scum would be better) day 1. When I get home, I'll take another look at the thread and throw in an opinion on who might be a good day 1 lynch. For me this clears some of my initial suspicions and pushes ghost into null read. He provides decent reasoning once pressured - my current read is that he is perhaps overzealous with his stance on lynching, treating it like a 100% policy, and not adopting a helpful attitude for town. ghost, I hope to continue seeing quality posts like these without having to FOS / make cases against you. As for his actual stance: While I strongly disagree with the idea of "lynching for information", I do agree that a no lynch should be a last resort than an easy way out. Otherwise it can give mafia an avenue of being non commital, which is the essence of lurking anyways. Right now that leaves me with Chocolate, as he hasn't yet responded. I don't think his case is worth voting for yet, but it defeats the whole purpose of the soft deadline if all we do is FOS and vote last minute. (Thus my preliminary, not necessarily final, vote will be on) ##Vote: Chocolate | ||
|
phagga
Switzerland2194 Posts
FourFace: Please do not vote for this guy. He is on the verge of getting modkilled/replaced, and even if he stays, it's quite unclear if he is scum or not. He may not be helpful at the moment, but that does not make him scum, and IMO he is a bad lynch target. Igabod: The Lurker. Unfortunately not active until now, I can understand that some people want him lynched. As I said earlier, I dislike a policy lynch on lurkers, and although he wrote he should be available on Sunday, he is not running anywhere. I hesitate to vote him. ghost_403: I don't think I want him lynched atm. He is active and trying to show his points of view. At the same time his agressive stance on lynching anyone that is not clearly pro-town is toxic, but it's not enough reason to lynch him. Chocolate: He has disappeared after people started questioning him. His vote-switching seems like he wants to please a majority, his reasoning is bad, if not non-existent. My Vote stays on Chocolate. | ||
|
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
@alderan I called out chocolate in thread for doing that. At best, that argument is WIFOM. Also wrong, chocolate voted to lynch phagga first. @sloosh I don't like no-lynches. See #. Happy to readdress this if you don't feel that is sufficient. @janaan Again, see above. I think that no-lynches are more dangerous that mislynches. @phagga At the time, Hyde had not posted in thread, therefore he was a lurker. Since then, he has posted in thread, making him not a lurker. Now, according to my own logic, I need to prove that he is scum in order to lynch him. As I can't do that, I'm not going to vote for him. I don't see the problem here. @k2hd Again, that was premature, see comment for hyde. @phagga See above comment. @nightfury I think I've addressed most of your concerns already. If not, point out what you're not happy with. | ||
|
dreamflower
United States312 Posts
On February 28 2012 06:18 phagga wrote: It's less than 6 more hours until Night. Currently we have 4 candidates with 2 votes each. Don't forget, we need a majority vote. So if everyone votes, this means that at least 8 people have to vote for one person for a successful lynch. I just wanted to clarify that this is not true, actually. As discussed in the long OP, under voting rules: "This game follows Extended Majority Lynch Rules. Majority = number of total voters/2 (rounded down) + 1. Unlike in traditional majority lynch, the lynch is NOT decided the moment that majority is reached. Instead, only the final vote count matters. If there is no majority at the deadline, the day ends with a no-lynch. Non-voters will be modkilled for failure to vote." Thus, the lynch will be decided by a majority of the total number of voters, not the total number of players. This is intended to prevent a no-lynch from occurring simply because too many inactive players failed to vote. This way, active players are not unfairly penalized for other peoples' inactivity. With the current numbers of voters (10 at the moment), the first person who reaches a majority (6/10) will be lynched. | ||
|
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
Hopefully I can format this correctly + Show Spoiler + On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote: Note: this didn't start as a PBPA but it ended that way because literally everything he has done is scummy. 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 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: 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: 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. I got off the "lurker idea" because obviously it wasn't that good. I just wanted people to perhaps panic and get them to start posting. My idea was that votes DO=pressure, because noobs tend to panic a little when they see they are getting voted on. I said our vote will probably end up on a lurker because frankly that's what happened in my most previous game: most of the people lynched were either lurkers or scum, and most of the cases were on either lurkers or scum. I switched to fourface because I wanted him to keep posting, to see if I could get a good case on him. Obviously, he has continued, but hasn't adressed my points. I think he'll get replaced though so I'm going to hold off on voting for him for now. I'll try to make a case against someone shortly. That's my schedule, there isn't much to say about it. I'm in HS, and my parents make me get off the computer and my phone at 9 on weeknights, so I won't be online for the last hour of voting. + Show Spoiler + On February 27 2012 14:17 NightFury wrote: @Alderan I believe your case is good, but I feel it is slightly flawed. I'm not getting a very good town/scum read on Chocolate at this moment. While suspicious, I think he was overzealous with the mentality he had on the outset of the game and prone to a knee-jerk reaction. I'm unsure whether this is actually scummy or just reckless play. Also, out of curiosity, what does PBPA stand for? (Hope I don't butcher how TL handles quotes...) His full post goes more like this: A few things about this. - This was posted on the very outset of the game. This irks me because he's already making predictions on previous games he's played. Also the fact that it's not later on since it could possibly be valid if we had no cases and a bunch of lurkers. - I'm interested in his previous two games here. He mentioned that "...the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post...". I haven't looked at his previous games yet but I'm not sure if that's even a valid statement. If he's only played 2 games here then that's not a large sample size or it's possible that he has experience elsewhere and it's just a trend he's noticed. I will come back to this later after some analysis... also he mentions for us not to look. - He establishes the "vote to pressure" mentality early. This does come back later. - This was in response to an earlier statement by him since Janaan questioned why he thought the early deadline would likely target a lurker. - He's maintaining his "vote to pressure" mentality. Namely he was looking at people who have yet to post listed by gumshoe. - At this point there hasn't been any significant cases. FF has already posted and some discussion has arisen... but no case when he posted. - As far as I can tell, he's just sticking to his ideology at this point. - The case on FF hasn't been posted yet. - He's still sticking to his ideology of pressuring lurkers via votes. - I'm willing to be think that he just has a poor plan with "vote to pressure" at this point. So prior to his sudden switch to targeting FF (which hasn't happened yet)... I don't think he realized that "vote to pressure" wasn't a good idea. I'm not sure if anyone even tried to tell him this? - In short, this is also irks me. He went from adamant lurkers to FF. - He did mention that he would ditch lurkers if there was a huge scumslip or something of that nature. - However he may think it was a scumslip or something as a knee-jerk reaction. - This may have been a taken out of context. I think he was referring to my second deadline suggestion (no quotes or @me, but he already commented on the first soft deadline and this follows my post). - Since it does not appear we are going to use a second deadline system, he can't use this as a defense priming technique if we don't use the second deadline. @Chocolate: Why would you vote for someone just for being weird? Or was there something especially scummy about it? As discussed in the thread, FF may not be scum just from his insanity defense alone. When I switched to FF,as I said earlier, I was trying to get him to post more. It didn't work, because he hasn't posted any real content since then. + Show Spoiler + On February 27 2012 14:22 Janaan wrote: I agree that Chocolate does seem a little wishy washy, saying stuff like then he seems to say at least slightly differently in his next post It seems to me that for the most part, though, his posts are fairly consistent with the idea of lynching lurkers in mind. I don't really know what was about, and it does seem like he could be just trying to cover for himself so he can justify not being active near the voting deadline. Particularly when he did say that he'd most likely be online . 17-21 EST is the hours before the deadline, so he may've contradicted himself there. There's not really enough for me to call him scum right now, but he looks like he could be potentially. Saying something is probable and that I'm not sure of it doesn't seem contradictory to me at all. Isn't that what you mean when you say probably? 17-21 EST is right before the deadline except the last hour, so I'm notcontradicting myself. Honestly if your case on me is because of these that's pretty fishy, either you're sheeping or you're voting along with the mafia (possibly both). If there's anything I missed please point it out to me so I can address it. | ||
|
Janaan
United States381 Posts
## Unvote: Ghost_204 | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
| ||
|
Janaan
United States381 Posts
On February 28 2012 06:32 Chocolate wrote: + Show Spoiler + On February 27 2012 14:22 Janaan wrote: I agree that Chocolate does seem a little wishy washy, saying stuff like then he seems to say at least slightly differently in his next post It seems to me that for the most part, though, his posts are fairly consistent with the idea of lynching lurkers in mind. I don't really know what was about, and it does seem like he could be just trying to cover for himself so he can justify not being active near the voting deadline. Particularly when he did say that he'd most likely be online . 17-21 EST is the hours before the deadline, so he may've contradicted himself there. There's not really enough for me to call him scum right now, but he looks like he could be potentially. Saying something is probable and that I'm not sure of it doesn't seem contradictory to me at all. Isn't that what you mean when you say probably? 17-21 EST is right before the deadline except the last hour, so I'm notcontradicting myself. Honestly if your case on me is because of these that's pretty fishy, either you're sheeping or you're voting along with the mafia (possibly both). To me Probable is more strong than saying you're not sure of it. But I could just be arguing semantics here. Also, if I was merely sheeping/voting with mafia like you suggest, I would've voted for you. As it is, I just found a couple things I felt were a bit odd and commented on that. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
| ||
| ||
