|
On October 26 2012 01:36 debears wrote:
@Rad
Ah alright.
One more question.
Are 1,2 and 3 necessarily only mafia motivated? I don't see it.
1) Town - Create an ideal town atmosphere
Mafia - Appear to be a town doing so
2) Town - Try to lead the town by being a figure who knows what he's doing
Mafia - Try to be town doing that
3) Town - Confirmation Bias
Mafia - Mafia Bias???? (lol idk what to call it)
I'm going to reread the thread tonight. I do feel that it my case has confirmation bias at this point. No one has tried to actually break up the argument or put any real input into it. Mafia tend to love letting two townies go at it and not interfering. I'll reconsider my judgment
Fair enough, for #1 and #2, you could have just been overconfident for real, so I'll try to avoid it as a read one way or the other (for now, I'll look back over it again later).
For #3 though, I dunno, it's really hard to put a town spin on it. Like I said, I don't feel like I'm convinced enough to vote you or djo for it right now, but it leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
|
On October 26 2012 01:42 Djodref wrote:@RadMy comments in red in your quoted post. Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:28 Rad wrote:On October 26 2012 01:21 debears wrote:
Ok. But what individually makes us stand out as scum?
I'm going to reread the thread a couple of times tonight and figure this all out.
##Unvote This is some of what I've got from you and/or djo 1. Pushed the confidence theme hard, as if to make it seem like we NEED to have a scum lynch d1 rather than a policy lurker lynch. FUUUUUuuu. You are doing it again. Policy lynching is just an option and it is a bad option in my opinion because mafia can avoid it easily, especially when town decides to apply this strategy from the beginning. Lynching a suspicious player get us more chances to lynch mafia. We should start to scumhunt in order to do so, not throwing FoS at each other for disagreeing over policy.2. Acted overconfident as if it was easy to make a scum read on d1 (is it? doesn't seem like it, and that's not due to lack of confidence, it's due to lack of information). I'm not saying it is easy, I'm saying it is totally possible and you should have this mentality rather than the policy lynch solution mentality. Would you like to comment about Inig by the way ?3. Twisted people's statements, either responding with something that had nothing to do with the original statement, or focusing heavily on a particular statement as if to give it more importance than it really should have. Please be more specificAll of these things feel scummy to me.
You don't get it.
You establish a lurker-lynch policy early.
Potential lurkers see it and go all "oh shit if I lurk I'm gonna die"
So they don't lurk.
If you say "nah I'm completely against lynching lurkers" or "We should lynch the most active people"
What do lurkers do when they see that?
They'll tell themselves "cool, I'm set"
And then they lurk.
|
Alright. I got class then practice. Probably won't be back until tonight :/
We'll see what a reread or two of the thread brings
|
On October 26 2012 01:36 debears wrote:
@Rad
Ah alright.
One more question.
Are 1,2 and 3 necessarily only mafia motivated? I don't see it.
1) Town - Create an ideal town atmosphere
Mafia - Appear to be a town doing so
2) Town - Try to lead the town by being a figure who knows what he's doing
Mafia - Try to be town doing that
3) Town - Confirmation Bias
Mafia - Mafia Bias???? (lol idk what to call it)
I'm going to reread the thread tonight. I do feel that it my case has confirmation bias at this point. No one has tried to actually break up the argument or put any real input into it. Mafia tend to love letting two townies go at it and not interfering. I'll reconsider my judgment
There HAS been interference, though... I kinda OMGUS FOS'd you when you came out swinging hard and made you explain yourself, and I haven't been the only one raising eyebrows at you.
|
On October 26 2012 01:24 debears wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:10 Clarity_nl wrote:
@debears
You've used the word confidence an excessive amount of times. When someone mentioned day 1 policy lynches you immediately dismissed the idea. In fact, whenever anyone suggested something you turned it down, pushing your idea of "if you have a read, push it hard"
Policy lynching on day 1 exists for a reason. Lurkers hurt the town, whether they are mafia or town. If no one takes action mafia will win. Town needs to be organized and decisive, yet you are suggesting to basically follow your gut and push hard.
You follow that up by voting for Rad WAAAAAAY too early in the day.
You are advocating chaos.
If something is fishy, or a comment seems off, make a read or ask a question about it, but big bold statements like "be confident guys!!!" don't actually mean anything.
##FoS debears Do you see the contradiction in that statment clarity/ You want town to be decisive, yet when I am (by pursuing a scumread) you FOS me for it? Are you reading the damn thread? The confidence thing isn't my only contribution. Figure it out
I am reading the thread, yes. I realize the confidence thing isn't your only contribution but it is the one that stands out.
On October 26 2012 01:24 debears wrote:
Ugh Djo Y u answering questions addressed to me???
I don't know either, but the fact that you pointed it out is interesting. Djo agreed with you about the confidence thing at the start of the day, and now he's answering your questions and defending you.
When you made your case against Rad, he responded like this:
On October 25 2012 17:20 Djodref wrote:
Nice case, I need to discuss a little more with rad before voting him.
A completely blank statement, yet still backing you.
I urge everyone to remember this because I feel like it will be important down the road.
@Dandel
He is promoting discussion which is good. As I said, more information makes for better reads. My problem with it was how he was making an emotional argument, rather than a logical one. "If we all just pursue even the slightest whiff of scum we should all dogpile on it and don't look back!" Followed by him voting for someone.
I think unless someone slips lynching a lurker is the best move for town, even if the person that got lynched turns out to be town. This is a last resort though, if we cannot agree on anything solid. We should continue asking questions the way you have. The more scum has to post, the bigger the chance they will either slip up or stand out for how thought out and precise their posts are.
Inig is odd so far. His posts are all blank statements that don't further discussion. This is generally a scum trait but can be found in newer players as well. Saying things like Rad and debears should "watch out for eachother" because they come from different angles or pointing out that someone asked a good question.
|
On October 26 2012 01:36 Rad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:31 Djodref wrote:On October 26 2012 01:24 debears wrote:On October 26 2012 01:10 Clarity_nl wrote:
@debears
You've used the word confidence an excessive amount of times. When someone mentioned day 1 policy lynches you immediately dismissed the idea. In fact, whenever anyone suggested something you turned it down, pushing your idea of "if you have a read, push it hard"
Policy lynching on day 1 exists for a reason. Lurkers hurt the town, whether they are mafia or town. If no one takes action mafia will win. Town needs to be organized and decisive, yet you are suggesting to basically follow your gut and push hard.
You follow that up by voting for Rad WAAAAAAY too early in the day.
You are advocating chaos.
If something is fishy, or a comment seems off, make a read or ask a question about it, but big bold statements like "be confident guys!!!" don't actually mean anything.
##FoS debears Do you see the contradiction in that statment clarity/ You want town to be decisive, yet when I am (by pursuing a scumread) you FOS me for it? Are you reading the damn thread? The confidence thing isn't my only contribution. Figure it out Ugh Djo Y u answering questions addressed to me??? I'm still feeling bad for tunneling until death last game  I even didn't have the balls to state that I had changed my mind about you at the end. As I feel some townie vibes from you in this game, I thought I could at least defend you this one time. debears <3 Also debears it's stuff like this (which he's done before in this thread, if I remember correctly) that just make me raise an eyebrow and give thoughts that you're both scum. He's so confident you're town already?! Because you're being super active and aggressive? Maybe I'm just paranoid but I'm finding it really hard to believe anyone is town so far. @Djo, you're coming across, to me at least, as very "happy go lucky". Like, you've figured it all out as town last newbie game, and you're back now as town again but 100% more confident and ready to take down scum! Let's do this my friend debears, who is clearly also town! That's the vibe I'm getting from you and it feels really fake.
@Rad
Last game newbie game I was totally wrong with all my reads. But I'm not going to let it affect my faith in my ability to find scum. Moreover, even if I'm wrong, I'm giving mafia less room to hide if I take strong a clear stances about some players.
I don't have strong scumread at the moment but I would prefer to confront people in a very direct way if I start to be suspicious of them. Because that's how I think I can generate the most useful information. It seems natural for you but it wasn't at all in my previous newbie game, so I want to encourage people to have this state of mind. This is all I'm thinking about when I'm talking about confidence (so it's not exactly confidence in your reads).
On a side note, if you have understood that I've called debears town, I think you have misinterpreted my post. Feeling townie vibes from someone doesn't mean I consider him as town. It's a feeling I have from I read in his post (similar to the last game we have played together where he was townie) and his general behavior in his game.
Believe or not, being aggressive like this early game benefits town. Because it allows us to have constructed discussion...
|
On October 26 2012 01:45 Dandel Ion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:42 Djodref wrote:@RadMy comments in red in your quoted post. On October 26 2012 01:28 Rad wrote:On October 26 2012 01:21 debears wrote:
Ok. But what individually makes us stand out as scum?
I'm going to reread the thread a couple of times tonight and figure this all out.
##Unvote This is some of what I've got from you and/or djo 1. Pushed the confidence theme hard, as if to make it seem like we NEED to have a scum lynch d1 rather than a policy lurker lynch. FUUUUUuuu. You are doing it again. Policy lynching is just an option and it is a bad option in my opinion because mafia can avoid it easily, especially when town decides to apply this strategy from the beginning. Lynching a suspicious player get us more chances to lynch mafia. We should start to scumhunt in order to do so, not throwing FoS at each other for disagreeing over policy.2. Acted overconfident as if it was easy to make a scum read on d1 (is it? doesn't seem like it, and that's not due to lack of confidence, it's due to lack of information). I'm not saying it is easy, I'm saying it is totally possible and you should have this mentality rather than the policy lynch solution mentality. Would you like to comment about Inig by the way ?3. Twisted people's statements, either responding with something that had nothing to do with the original statement, or focusing heavily on a particular statement as if to give it more importance than it really should have. Please be more specificAll of these things feel scummy to me. You don't get it. You establish a lurker-lynch policy early. Potential lurkers see it and go all "oh shit if I lurk I'm gonna die" So they don't lurk. If you say "nah I'm completely against lynching lurkers" or "We should lynch the most active people" What do lurkers do when they see that? They'll tell themselves "cool, I'm set" And then they lurk.
I'm not against a policy lynch but I think it would be better to bring it up when the right time comes (like 6 hours before the lynch ? anyway at a time we can finally identify some serious lurker).
Taking an early decision against or for policy lynches is just going to help mafia to use this decision on their favor.
Anyway, a lot of people seem to favor a policy lynch for today. I'm not going to go against it but I would appreciate these people to get into super scumhunting mode right now. I'm not going to forgive laziness at all, especially if you are supporting a policy lynch.
By the way, what do you think about Inig ?
|
On October 26 2012 01:45 Dandel Ion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:42 Djodref wrote:@RadMy comments in red in your quoted post. On October 26 2012 01:28 Rad wrote:On October 26 2012 01:21 debears wrote:
Ok. But what individually makes us stand out as scum?
I'm going to reread the thread a couple of times tonight and figure this all out.
##Unvote This is some of what I've got from you and/or djo 1. Pushed the confidence theme hard, as if to make it seem like we NEED to have a scum lynch d1 rather than a policy lurker lynch. FUUUUUuuu. You are doing it again. Policy lynching is just an option and it is a bad option in my opinion because mafia can avoid it easily, especially when town decides to apply this strategy from the beginning. Lynching a suspicious player get us more chances to lynch mafia. We should start to scumhunt in order to do so, not throwing FoS at each other for disagreeing over policy.2. Acted overconfident as if it was easy to make a scum read on d1 (is it? doesn't seem like it, and that's not due to lack of confidence, it's due to lack of information). I'm not saying it is easy, I'm saying it is totally possible and you should have this mentality rather than the policy lynch solution mentality. Would you like to comment about Inig by the way ?3. Twisted people's statements, either responding with something that had nothing to do with the original statement, or focusing heavily on a particular statement as if to give it more importance than it really should have. Please be more specificAll of these things feel scummy to me. You don't get it. You establish a lurker-lynch policy early. Potential lurkers see it and go all "oh shit if I lurk I'm gonna die" So they don't lurk. If you say "nah I'm completely against lynching lurkers" or "We should lynch the most active people" What do lurkers do when they see that? They'll tell themselves "cool, I'm set" And then they lurk. It goes even deeper than that. It's not that people go into a game planning to lurk and hope people don't notice. It's that scum would like to get away without taking any positions at all. Forcing everyone to at least say something then gives us the option of holding them to what they have said. The idea being that together town should be able to figure out who are fake-contributing versus those who are genuinely trying to help.
I'd like to say that so far, I agree that Roco seems suspicious, but more than anything else, he just makes no sense. More than anything else that's a null read to me, especially with how early in the game we are. However, if his play doesn't change dramatically I would say he is at risk for getting a vote from me simply due to being unhelpful to town.
@Roco specifically, lynching people who talk too much just for talking is anti-town. We want people to talk a lot as that gives us material to base our opinions on them on. Take yourself right now for example, no one other than mafia have any idea about what to make of you right now, thus resulting in your participation amounting to one thing and one thing only: Confusion.
So far, I'm getting a slight town vibe from debears, although I think his arguments are a lot weaker than last game, and his conclusions seem a bit convoluted(particularly with regards to Rad. I didn't think Rad's posting seemed all that suspicious so debears jumping on it so hard is weird to me). That being said, putting himself "out there" as much as he has done so far feels pro-town.
Djod on the other hand actually comes across as somewhat scummy to me. I'll have time to post a case on it soonish.
|
On October 26 2012 02:04 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:45 Dandel Ion wrote:On October 26 2012 01:42 Djodref wrote:@RadMy comments in red in your quoted post. On October 26 2012 01:28 Rad wrote:On October 26 2012 01:21 debears wrote:
Ok. But what individually makes us stand out as scum?
I'm going to reread the thread a couple of times tonight and figure this all out.
##Unvote This is some of what I've got from you and/or djo 1. Pushed the confidence theme hard, as if to make it seem like we NEED to have a scum lynch d1 rather than a policy lurker lynch. FUUUUUuuu. You are doing it again. Policy lynching is just an option and it is a bad option in my opinion because mafia can avoid it easily, especially when town decides to apply this strategy from the beginning. Lynching a suspicious player get us more chances to lynch mafia. We should start to scumhunt in order to do so, not throwing FoS at each other for disagreeing over policy.2. Acted overconfident as if it was easy to make a scum read on d1 (is it? doesn't seem like it, and that's not due to lack of confidence, it's due to lack of information). I'm not saying it is easy, I'm saying it is totally possible and you should have this mentality rather than the policy lynch solution mentality. Would you like to comment about Inig by the way ?3. Twisted people's statements, either responding with something that had nothing to do with the original statement, or focusing heavily on a particular statement as if to give it more importance than it really should have. Please be more specificAll of these things feel scummy to me. You don't get it. You establish a lurker-lynch policy early. Potential lurkers see it and go all "oh shit if I lurk I'm gonna die" So they don't lurk. If you say "nah I'm completely against lynching lurkers" or "We should lynch the most active people" What do lurkers do when they see that? They'll tell themselves "cool, I'm set" And then they lurk. I'm not against a policy lynch but I think it would be better to bring it up when the right time comes (like 6 hours before the lynch ? anyway at a time we can finally identify some serious lurker). Taking an early decision against or for policy lynches is just going to help mafia to use this decision on their favor. Anyway, a lot of people seem to favor a policy lynch for today. I'm not going to go against it but I would appreciate these people to get into super scumhunting mode right now. I'm not going to forgive laziness at all, especially if you are supporting a policy lynch. By the way, what do you think about Inig ?
I certainly have concerns regarding Inig.
It's been said: He doesn't take a stance on anything.
And that is a worrying behaviour.
As far as my personal scummy lurker ranking goes, I'm still more suspicious of Roco (neither posted in the meantime, so it's hard to change opinion on that)
I'd like to say that so far, I agree that Roco seems suspicious, but more than anything else, he just makes no sense. More than anything else that's a null read to me, especially with how early in the game we are. However, if his play doesn't change dramatically I would say he is at risk for getting a vote from me simply due to being unhelpful to town.
I know "not making sense" doesn't neccessarily = scum, especially in newbies.
My biggest problem right now, is that he posted those confusing/nonsensical statements, and then just disappeared from the face of earth without explaining himself, even though people called him out on it in a very reasonable timeframe.
|
On October 26 2012 02:04 Djodref wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:45 Dandel Ion wrote:On October 26 2012 01:42 Djodref wrote:@RadMy comments in red in your quoted post. On October 26 2012 01:28 Rad wrote:On October 26 2012 01:21 debears wrote:
Ok. But what individually makes us stand out as scum?
I'm going to reread the thread a couple of times tonight and figure this all out.
##Unvote This is some of what I've got from you and/or djo 1. Pushed the confidence theme hard, as if to make it seem like we NEED to have a scum lynch d1 rather than a policy lurker lynch. FUUUUUuuu. You are doing it again. Policy lynching is just an option and it is a bad option in my opinion because mafia can avoid it easily, especially when town decides to apply this strategy from the beginning. Lynching a suspicious player get us more chances to lynch mafia. We should start to scumhunt in order to do so, not throwing FoS at each other for disagreeing over policy.2. Acted overconfident as if it was easy to make a scum read on d1 (is it? doesn't seem like it, and that's not due to lack of confidence, it's due to lack of information). I'm not saying it is easy, I'm saying it is totally possible and you should have this mentality rather than the policy lynch solution mentality. Would you like to comment about Inig by the way ?3. Twisted people's statements, either responding with something that had nothing to do with the original statement, or focusing heavily on a particular statement as if to give it more importance than it really should have. Please be more specificAll of these things feel scummy to me. You don't get it. You establish a lurker-lynch policy early. Potential lurkers see it and go all "oh shit if I lurk I'm gonna die" So they don't lurk. If you say "nah I'm completely against lynching lurkers" or "We should lynch the most active people" What do lurkers do when they see that? They'll tell themselves "cool, I'm set" And then they lurk. I'm not against a policy lynch but I think it would be better to bring it up when the right time comes (like 6 hours before the lynch ? anyway at a time we can finally identify some serious lurker).
Also, about that, I sometimes have the tendency to overexaggerate. I'm trying to restrain myself, but it keeps happening.
For the record, I know you never said you're completely against it :/
|
I have to go to bed so I'm not going to be able to see the case against me. Sorry, Alsn...
@dandel
I understand your stance about policy lynch. I guess it's just that we have different experience from our previous games. I liked your explanations but I'm not going to change my mind about it. Moreover, if we have to go for a policy lynch today, I would prefer to lynch a lurker like Inig (semi-lurker) than a complete lurker.
|
On October 26 2012 02:23 Djodref wrote:
I have to go to bed so I'm not going to be able to see the case against me. Sorry, Alsn...
@dandel
I understand your stance about policy lynch. I guess it's just that we have different experience from our previous games. I liked your explanations but I'm not going to change my mind about it. Moreover, if we have to go for a policy lynch today, I would prefer to lynch a lurker like Inig (semi-lurker) than a complete lurker.
Could you please expand upon this?
|
Well, if they don't vote/post, they'll get replaced or modkilled, so lynching super-lurkers is not only a crapshoot, but also redundant.
|
My reasons for thinking Djodref is slightly scummy so far is that he is asking a lot of questions. That in itself isn't particularly scummy(in fact, done right it's pro-town as it pressures people into sharing their opinions and such).
The problem I have with it so far is that you keep asking people to answer you, yet your own statements so far amount to picking on the people who are being lurky(Ini, Roco) while at the same time criticising Rad for supporting lurker policy lynch?! This makes no sense to me. This in combination with the slip leads me to believe that you are trying to make yourself look good by being active. I can definitely see the possibility of there being town motivations for your actions so far, but I'd just like to point out that I have my eye on you.
So, with that in mind, FoS Djodref.
I'll see if I can't take a look at some of the other things said so far before I go to bed but if not, I'll do it first thing tomorrow as I will have a lot more time then.
|
Really wanna see some of the quiet ones post more (Thanks Clarity, for speaking up! Figured it was just a matter of 'haven't been on yet' in the case of 0posters.) especially Ini and Roco, who posted a little (Ini dodged my question, which I don't fault him for because the question was kindof a shitty one anyway - but not a lot of meaty content and in Roco's case, some rather confusing/questioanble tactics which I already stated I consider anti-town.
If/when 24 hours pass since Roco's last comment and he hasn't put any meat into his stance, I'm going to vote him.
|
EBWOP: ##FOS: Roco69
Additionally:
I'm a little worried about whether or not I'll be online at deadline time (9:00 servertime - 30 hours from now) because I might be on the road at the time.
|
I'd rather chill on the policy discussion until such time as it looks like we may invoke it tomorrow (there are still 4 people who haven't posted much content.) The policy is not law, but it's something. If you disagree that the policy can be helpful, I would ask that you take it up with your coach or look it up.
At that point tomorrow, if you're going against policy, it means you have a reason that you can present to people for doing so.
|
Alright Ill give the reads I have right now because I know Ive said nothing so far.
I dont like debears playstyle, but I think hes town which is what matters. He seems like one of those people who needs to be right, which by itself would only be bad if he tunnels, but it looks like hes better than what I took him for. I think hes town because hes been so unafraid at this point, and sticking out a lot, both traits mafia tend not to have.
Rad seems town to me. Hes been called out the hardest and has adequately risen to the accusations against him. Pretty sure its a case of townie against townie, just as someone earlier said.
djo just likes to ask questions, so I cant tell about him. I think hes more likely town than scum, as hes contributing more than a scum needs to. Id love it if he suddenly came out with info he got from questions with strong reads and stuff like that.
As for everyone else I need to read their posts again. It seems my scum-hunting has so far resulted in town-finding, but thats how its gone. Also, I deliberately dodged sylvers question about what your favorite role is to play to show I was town(which, ironically because he was role hunting, still answered his question). I would never have posted such an awkward response I was mafia, I would have simply ignored the question all together, but it seems no one took it that way.
|
EBWOP:I would never have posted such an awkward response if I was mafia, I would have simply ignored the question all together, but it seems no one took it that way.
-before someone wastes time going 'OMG scum slip' on that.
|
Okay guys I'm back from class, will be on for the rest of the night.
Following up my FoS on Djodref--He's seeming more scummy as time goes on.
I'm concerned about his attitude in the thread. Check his filter, and look at how many ^^ :p, etc there are. He even uses a smiley when addressing his supposed scumslip, a time when you should be definite about your defense. He even gives Debears a <3 at some point. What is this all about? I think he's trying to show himself in a happy, innocent, and loving light; perhaps to cover up something sinister. This could just be his personality, but I don't buy it for a second.
Also, why would you say this, Djodref?
On October 26 2012 01:01 Djodref wrote:
my principal concern is to find the mafia.
Everybody's "principal concern" is to find mafia. Sort of like that "why are you afraid of seeming suspicious" question -- the answer is self explanatory. I fail to see a point here.
That's what I have to say concerning Djodref atm, and my FoS still applies.
In terms of the most active poster, Debears, I've a slight town read on him. Promoting discussion, getting people to talk. Could be scum trying to seem active, but I see no fault with him as of yet.
I'll be looking through the rest of the thread to get reads on other posters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
