@NF replying to your defense
On March 01 2012 11:39 NightFury wrote:Seems like I have quite a bit to do now. Starting with Chocolate, I will be following up with DYH's case. + Show Spoiler +On March 01 2012 09:36 Chocolate wrote:I've been brooding on this case for a while. And that case is NightFury. I'll try to make this as objective as possible but if I die and flip green it should help a lot. First 16 or so posts aren't important; he discusses lurkers and lynch policy. + 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...) Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
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. His full post goes more like this: Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 12:23 Chocolate wrote:
It could be possible that someone makes a big scumslip but from the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post, and since the pressure is on them the vote momentum is on them. Usually the lurkers are also new and some of their defenses are just based on OMGUS or accusing their accuser, instead of making insightful posts and contributing to prove their innocence.
I'm not sure we will lynch a lurker on Day1, but it is the most likely outcome in my eyes. 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. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote: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? - 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. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote: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. - 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? Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
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. - 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. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote: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. - 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. Basically notes Alderan's comments. States he had a null read. + Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 05:06 NightFury wrote:
Alright. I'm at work so I'll be keeping this fairly short since I'm here a bit past the soft deadline, I just want to get this out. The day has calmed down a bit so I think I will be able to keep up with the thread now.
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. Now I'm more scummy. I haven't posted anything between the last two posts but his opinions have changed. I have become an option to lynch over ghost, although he states he will almost certainly stay on ghost. Not convinced I'm scummy. Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 07:33 NightFury wrote:I'm back at home. @ghost: After looking into your statement, you have addressed my concerns already. While I do not necessarily agree with your initial play style - you are being active and can address statements and inquiries. On February 28 2012 06:32 Chocolate wrote:Hi guys I'm back. 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 Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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. 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...) Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
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. His full post goes more like this: Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 12:23 Chocolate wrote:
It could be possible that someone makes a big scumslip but from the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post, and since the pressure is on them the vote momentum is on them. Usually the lurkers are also new and some of their defenses are just based on OMGUS or accusing their accuser, instead of making insightful posts and contributing to prove their innocence.
I'm not sure we will lynch a lurker on Day1, but it is the most likely outcome in my eyes. 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. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote: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? - 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. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote: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. - 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? Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
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. - 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. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote: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. - 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. Voting to pressure actually kinda worked in my previous game. If you take the time to look back on it you'll notice sacredsystem taking votes very harshly. 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:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:06 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 13:59 Janaan wrote:One thing that stands out most to me about Ghost's posting is this gem right here Show nested quote +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.
He seems to think that it's perfectly fine for us to go 3 days without lynching a mafia, which would put us in a MYLO situation. Not exactly what I'd call a pro-town position to be in. His justification for saying this is pretty weak I think. 1. If the game gets to this point, scum obviously haven't been easy to spot, and it doesn't really get much easier. Sure, the "odds" might be more in your favor, but if you're in this situation, scum probably are pretty good at hiding in plain sight. 2. Yeah, scum might sacrifice one of their own. But 5 town/ 3 scum is still MYLO. I don't see how a townie could say that this is "no problem". Janaan, talk to me about Chocolate. 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 Show nested quote +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. 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. Okay. Why do you want people to panic and start posting? Getting people to panic is not a great idea because it can easily cause a lot of confusion. A townie panicking can make themselves appear suspicious and draw a lot of attention. Building a case off of panic doesn't make sense since the information you obtain may not be reliable. Yes, you could possibly cause scum to panic and get something - but how do you differentiate this from a townie? Also you mention this is to target newbies? How does experience dictate which role they have? I feel this strategy to begin with is extremely flawed and should not be a viable option. In hindsight, going after FourFace with that strategy was a bad idea (maybe his insanity defense was just a panic defense). But you don't even listen to your own philosophy. You wanted to build a case against him by making him post more. But you don't even present a case of your own - you just outright vote for him. I did take a look just now at your previous game with SacredSystem (only looked around Day 1 btw). Once again, the plan didn't even work. I would like you to explain how this plan worked in your eyes. He wasn't inactive. The vote wasn't even against him - he started off against someone's analysis about random lynching. He was town! Same thing with the person you immediately voted for because he didn't mention anything (he claimed he was at school, perfectly fair). Also, you were mafia in the previous game. I don't necessarily want to try to use posting meta in this game but now this is a bit too much. If you're mafia, the idea of causing someone to panic and gather a lot of attention benefits the mafia team. It leads the town down a useless path unless the person can defend themselves well... but a newbie panicking may not perform that too well. The big question I have for you: why are you using the same strategy to cause newbies to panic if you're truly town? How can you differentiate townie panic versus mafia panic? As of right now given the new circumstances - I do not believe you are town. ##Unvote: Ghost_304##Vote: Chocolate Drops ghost, thinks he has an adequate explanation. Ghost's post + Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 06:28 ghost_403 wrote:@hyde Voting to lynch FourFace because of that post was short sighted of me. Probably should not have been so hasty. The other possible outcome was evil genius using drunken boxing. Can't ever be too sure. @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. I don't really see how this quelled everyone's suspicion. He says that he doesn't like no-lynches and just apologized for voting 4face. Also corrects others' mistakes. So that's ghosts "exceptional" defense, according to nightfury. Dislikes me for tyring to pressure in a "dishonest way. Understandable. Thinks panic is not good for town, but in my opinion it is good if it's not out of hand. + Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 10:04 NightFury wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 08:59 DoYouHas wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 07:33 NightFury wrote:I'm back at home. @ghost: After looking into your statement, you have addressed my concerns already. While I do not necessarily agree with your initial play style - you are being active and can address statements and inquiries. Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 06:32 Chocolate wrote:Hi guys I'm back. 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 Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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. 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...) Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
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. His full post goes more like this: Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 12:23 Chocolate wrote:
It could be possible that someone makes a big scumslip but from the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post, and since the pressure is on them the vote momentum is on them. Usually the lurkers are also new and some of their defenses are just based on OMGUS or accusing their accuser, instead of making insightful posts and contributing to prove their innocence.
I'm not sure we will lynch a lurker on Day1, but it is the most likely outcome in my eyes. 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. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote: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? - 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. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote: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. - 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? Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
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. - 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. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote: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. - 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. Voting to pressure actually kinda worked in my previous game. If you take the time to look back on it you'll notice sacredsystem taking votes very harshly. 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:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:06 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 13:59 Janaan wrote:One thing that stands out most to me about Ghost's posting is this gem right here Show nested quote +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.
He seems to think that it's perfectly fine for us to go 3 days without lynching a mafia, which would put us in a MYLO situation. Not exactly what I'd call a pro-town position to be in. His justification for saying this is pretty weak I think. 1. If the game gets to this point, scum obviously haven't been easy to spot, and it doesn't really get much easier. Sure, the "odds" might be more in your favor, but if you're in this situation, scum probably are pretty good at hiding in plain sight. 2. Yeah, scum might sacrifice one of their own. But 5 town/ 3 scum is still MYLO. I don't see how a townie could say that this is "no problem". Janaan, talk to me about Chocolate. 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 Show nested quote +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. 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. Okay. Why do you want people to panic and start posting? Getting people to panic is not a great idea because it can easily cause a lot of confusion. A townie panicking can make themselves appear suspicious and draw a lot of attention. Building a case off of panic doesn't make sense since the information you obtain may not be reliable. Yes, you could possibly cause scum to panic and get something - but how do you differentiate this from a townie? Also you mention this is to target newbies? How does experience dictate which role they have? I feel this strategy to begin with is extremely flawed and should not be a viable option. In hindsight, going after FourFace with that strategy was a bad idea (maybe his insanity defense was just a panic defense). But you don't even listen to your own philosophy. You wanted to build a case against him by making him post more. But you don't even present a case of your own - you just outright vote for him. I did take a look just now at your previous game with SacredSystem (only looked around Day 1 btw). Once again, the plan didn't even work. I would like you to explain how this plan worked in your eyes. He wasn't inactive. The vote wasn't even against him - he started off against someone's analysis about random lynching. He was town! Same thing with the person you immediately voted for because he didn't mention anything (he claimed he was at school, perfectly fair). Also, you were mafia in the previous game. I don't necessarily want to try to use posting meta in this game but now this is a bit too much. If you're mafia, the idea of causing someone to panic and gather a lot of attention benefits the mafia team. It leads the town down a useless path unless the person can defend themselves well... but a newbie panicking may not perform that too well. The big question I have for you: why are you using the same strategy to cause newbies to panic if you're truly town? How can you differentiate townie panic versus mafia panic? As of right now given the new circumstances - I do not believe you are town. ##Unvote: Ghost_304##Vote: Chocolate NightFury, you wanted to know what I thought was invalid in your post. If I read this correctly your main point here is the pressuring someone with a vote causes panic which leads the town to make poor reads on a person. Sometimes true, but not always true. A panicking player's quality of post will probably go down, but you also are more likely to get posts that reveal their motivation, making pressure very very useful. You are using something that a townie would quite reasonably do to convince yourself of Chocolate's guilt. (In hindsight "invent" was a poor choice of words) Yes, you read my main point correctly. And I do agree - applying pressure is a great way to reveal motivations. I do not agree with Chocolate's method though and it comes off as scummy (in my opinion). My concern is that there may have been better ways to achieve this result. Pressuring someone by developing a case is one way. Pressuring a lurker by asking them questions is good. Just voting for someone to get a response can work too... but how useful is it? He claimed that his method targets newbies by making them panic. That's fair. He also claims that mafia are more likely to panic as well. Now I see two variables that may confound the read. I do agree that even this way can get someone posting. However, he believes that his method can draw out scumtells when it doesn't strictly probe affiliation - contrary to what he said (not saying it cannot though, just unreliably). So yes, I do see there is some merit in what he did after some thought. However, how he performed this doesn't sit well with me at this moment. For example: He said he voted for FourFace to try to develop a case against him. He also said that FourFace never addressed his points and just kept on posting eventually. I looked at Chocolate's filter and I could not see what points he brought up. He basically tells him he is going to vote for him for acting weird and will not unvote him until he has explained himself. I don't think asking someone to explain themselves is a point... just a broad topic. It doesn't facilitate the idea to reveal motivation without giving the individual something specific to work with (in my opinion). Also saying that he will not unvote him unless he does so was an empty threat since he later stated there wasn't enough to go off of. Well there wasn't anything to go off of since he didn't propose any specific points. I don't see why Chocolate had to lie/make an empty threat. It comes off scummy. Anyways, I am off for dinner. I will not be back for some time (probably around the deadline). My vote remains the same. Now he thinks my pressure policy could have worked but was scummy. I guess he thinks it's underhanded, but I don't see how scum can benefit from something. He sees the merit in my idea, just doesn't like it??? + Show Spoiler +On February 29 2012 09:07 NightFury wrote:
Okay. Caught up with the thread.
As for the no lynch - Can't say I'm 100% pleased with the decision. But I suppose people do have different priorities. All I know is that we have one extra day/night cycle. And since it has already come to pass, I see no reason to dwell on it.
Really happy we have substitutions for the two inactives and one with questionable sanity. Hope this leads to productive discussions.
As for the new cases proposed - I'm still trying to digest information on them. I don't have anything new or constructive to add at this moment in time.
I do have one question for Chocolate. This is mostly for my understanding than anything else. I do understand your strategy on day 1 was to get people talking and I definitely see the merit in that. So I won't be beating that dead horse anymore.
Why would you choose a dishonest strategy that basically involves empty threats to produce conversation over others (i.e. case building)?
I cannot wrap my head around why you opted to do this. I did state previously that it could have just been reckless play and that could still be a possibility - but I need to know more information before I can return to that stance. Just for clarity - I remain in the opinion that your play has been scummy and that you are still a valid lynch candidate.
I am heading out for dinner now. Will be back in a little while! His most recent post (!). Only substance is the one question. Claims my methods are scummy, but previously states he sees merits in them. He claims they are dishonest. Now while my methods seem dishonest I don't see how that is scummy. They are not attempts to trick town as a whole, only pressure individual people in the town. In summary his case isn't the strongest but he is one to watch out for. Almost all his posts have been focused on ghost and me. We are the only people who have seemed scummy to him. He was only suspicious of ghost while the general suspicion was on him, then backs down while he said it was very likely that he wouldn't. Then he focuses on me, the most suspicious person since ghost. He might be someone to watch for as additional lynch candidates are exposed, to see if he bandwagons onto them and off them, and if he posts good cases against them. So far he has made no "cases" only provided general reads and has asked me some questions. Phew, glad that's done. Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 09:36 Chocolate wrote:
Now I'm more scummy. I haven't posted anything between the last two posts but his opinions have changed. I have become an option to lynch over ghost, although he states he will almost certainly stay on ghost. Not convinced I'm scummy.
I do not see where I said you are more scummy. I retained the same indecisiveness as before. I do believe your play was toxic to town - but that does not make you scum at that moment in time. Due to formatting, cannot quite quote the correct section. In regards to your next point where I drop ghost in favour of you though: Two reasons how that post came to be. 1) Seeing how ghost could at least address an issue was good to see and I had no further questions for him - I had nothing else to pursue with at the time. 2) For the reasons I stated, I found your play more scummy than his and directed my attention to you. Maybe since it was my first case where I think I had substance to it, I opted to leave ghost where he was for the time being. I was also a little bit excited to see how my first case would go. Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 09:36 Chocolate wrote:
Now he thinks my pressure policy could have worked but was scummy. I guess he thinks it's underhanded, but I don't see how scum can benefit from something. He sees the merit in my idea, just doesn't like it???
Just to be as clear and concise as I can. I understand the merit of making people talk due to pressure. I do not agree by the method you used which was dishonest. Like I said, case building may be a better way. I do not see a reason for town to be dishonest. Your dishonesty is what makes me think your specific method was scummy. Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 09:36 Chocolate wrote:
His most recent post (!). Only substance is the one question. Claims my methods are scummy, but previously states he sees merits in them. He claims they are dishonest. Now while my methods seem dishonest I don't see how that is scummy. They are not attempts to trick town as a whole, only pressure individual people in the town.
Essentially the same answer as before. Dishonesty = scummy. Applying pressure in general to produce a response = has merit. The method is scummy, the intention may actually be good. The intention may not be to trick the whole town, but a low quality read based on panic can possibly be tricky (in my opinion). Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 09:36 Chocolate wrote:
In summary his case isn't the strongest but he is one to watch out for. Almost all his posts have been focused on ghost and me. We are the only people who have seemed scummy to him. He was only suspicious of ghost while the general suspicion was on him, then backs down while he said it was very likely that he wouldn't. Then he focuses on me, the most suspicious person since ghost. He might be someone to watch for as additional lynch candidates are exposed, to see if he bandwagons onto them and off them, and if he posts good cases against them. So far he has made no "cases" only provided general reads and has asked me some questions. Phew, glad that's done.
Funny how my gumshoe inquiry and your post essential coincided. I have glimpsed DYH's post and I feel you will find additional information there. If you have anything else to add, feel free to send it my way. Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 09:58 Chocolate wrote:
Nightfury what do you think about
Chocolate
Alderan
k2hd
ghost
phagga
DoYouHas
Short snippets are fine, I just want to hear about more people from you. Chocolate - Appears reckless and had a scummy policy. Not too much in terms of content. Extremely uncertain. Between null and leaning scum. Alderan - I'm null. I didn't like his lack of clarity earlier when making a case against Chocolate but he may be legitimately pressuring people and not making multiple targets. k2hd - Leaning scum. Has made a few suspicious comments and hasn't produced too much in content. ghost - Leaning scum. Apart from his recent post against Chocolate, I don't think he's said much in terms of content and his initial aggression is still suspicious. phagga - Leaning town. Arguments appear reasonable and acts pro-town. DYH - Leaning town. Arguments are reasonable and provides direction.
You didn't directly say that I'm more scummy. You said I'm the most suspicious and that i'm toxic- that's different from null.
1) Seeing how ghost could at least address an issue was good to see and I had no further questions for him - I had nothing else to pursue with at the time. 2) For the reasons I stated, I found your play more scummy than his and directed my attention to you. Maybe since it was my first case where I think I had substance to it, I opted to leave ghost where he was for the time being. I was also a little bit excited to see how my first case would go.
I could address issues too, no? I never saw why you thought I was scummier than him, all of a sudden you change from ghost being the most scummy to me after his explanation.
Rest of it is you saying dishonesty is scummy. My strategy wasn't too dishonest but this is really a matter of opinion.
Disproves my last point. He was making a big analysis post on gum.
Two things to point out about the end. Phagga being town is pretty contradictory to my belief, he focused on me for a good part of the game. DYH is town with solid arguments but was defending my a good deal Day1.
Overall I'm not as suspicious as before but he's an option for me. I'd be interested to see how he and phagga interact, especially if one dies.
|
On March 02 2012 03:11 Alderan wrote:
Hyde's case COMPLETELY revolved around me "dropping cases" which was clearly not the situation. I made two cases during the night period. That's it.
Please look objectively?
"we can't really bank on Alderan and k2hd posting satisfactorily".... There is only one way to take this sentence, regardless of the fluff you just posted above.
I understand we need more contributions, and we need to come to a come to consensus which is why I'm dropping this fight with you.
Your vote is on gumshoe, would you consider switching it to k2hd?
No, you made 4 players suspicious throughout the night:
-sloosh
-k2hd
-Janaan
-gumshoe
You made a case out of nowhere, and dropped it instantly, even on D2.
+ Show Spoiler +On March 02 2012 02:50 Alderan wrote:Ok guys, sorry about the absence, was going to take the afternoon off after my last post but then I got caught up with some GF shit all night last night. Let's see what we got here: I think I can address all of Sloosh and Jekyll's worries about me in one sentence: A person can have more than one case active at a time, especially when the town is as inactive as this one.Look, I posted a couple cases of people I find scummy at the end of the night/beginning of the day period to see what everyone thinks about the cases. Sloosh I used to think you were just playing poorly (while ridiculing my play nonetheless) but now I realize you are just misleading the town to cast suspicion on me. Show nested quote +Alderan puts up a case against k2hd, but as Hyde points out he drops case and suspects Janaan. I did not drop anything, I'm suspicious of multiple people, ya know, because there are more than one scum. Then you had this post: Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 15:52 slOosh wrote:
Alright, gotta sleep now. DYH I don't think right now holding off too much on your case is the best choice.
Right now our votes are spread between 4 suspects, and it is critical that we rally and focus on the best possible choice. It could be the case that more than 1 of them are mafia, but even then we should be unified in which one to lynch.
Thinking about our friends in alternate timezones, they may not be able to read your case and we can't really bank on Alderan and k2hd posting satisfactorily and I think in this situation a soft deadline would also be helpful.
But I trust your judgement - we need content from everyone and not just a few of us.
I just want us to be mindful of the situation that we are in. What in the hell does that even mean? Again you continue to try to discredit my name, my cases, and my contributions for seemingly no reason. You already admit that you don't find me as suspicious as you originally did with your first case, so why the blatant cut down.
Here you go after sloosh, but one post later:
+ Show Spoiler +On March 02 2012 03:01 Alderan wrote:
Now for who we should vote for....
K2hd has still not provided anything of value, under the guise of being a "noob town". Quite frankly I'm sick of responses like this. WE'RE ALL NOOBS.... hence the title of this game. Read filters and make cases. I say from this point forward we stop accepting responses like this.
His vote is currently on Ghost_403. His reasons:
- He thinks Chocolate is town.
- Ghost voted for Chocolate.
- Ghost made a slightly suspicious post (a point that I actually brought up initially)
- Therefore Ghost is scum.
What? It doesn't work like that.
##vote K2hd
You go back to voting k2?
This only causes confusion in the thread, you accuse someone while voting for someone else, create 2 different discussions (at least if k2 had addressed your case more thoroughly), where one doesn't even matter since you are not voting said player.
You made a very bad excuse for your case against choco, which I pointed out and you didn't even address.
On March 02 2012 06:05 Alderan wrote:If our mafia last game was looking at the situation last night, we would have split the votes equally, definitely no more than 2 on the same person so as to cut losses if some shit hit the fan. I would have set it up where it was 2 maybe on Chocolate (assuming he's town), one on igadob (assuming he's town) and one on a random other. I think the wrench in things when comparing it to last game is the orientation of igadob. Because he was a lurker, and didn't even vote, it's highly possible he was just a scum inactive player, and because we have heard next to nothing from his replacement there's still no way to tell. If this was the case they would make sure to save igadob's life if at all possible because a replacement was almost guaranteed. In this situation I would put one on igadob and the rest on his closest competitor, who at the time was Chocolate. As scum, I would not have wanted any of our cases to have been one of the one's leading the lynch on the first day (I know mine against Dimmuklok was, but I've already said I did not want him to get lynched at all). So that being said everyone would post soft arguments and coast into the first night. The Day 2 was about starting casting suspicion, but again, you don't want to come out real strong against someone and them flip green. So you come out hard against people, but not necessarily put a vote on, or actually try to get them lynched. I did this with Sloosh last game, I believe he might be doing this to me now. There were two lurkers on our team through day 2, and I would expect that to be fairly similar here. Then we had semi active noob scum, Steveling, who reminds me of K2hd from this game. It's all WIFOM'y, nothing solid, but I certainly keep how our scum played in the back of my mind, as this game does seem to be playing out similarly.
This is a completely irrelevant post. Why would scum imitate the scum play from SNM7?
Why try to analyse people assuming that scum would?
You conclude it's "WIFOMy" and "nothing solid"...then why post it?
You say "this game does seem to be playing out similarly", if you were townie, how could you say that if you don't know who scum is? If you wouldn't know who scum is, how would you know scum is playing like that game?
I don't see how this game is playing similar to that one, and I've never seen 2 mafia games that were alike, so I don't know why you even decided to dwell with that in this post.
Too bad your lynch won't happen.
People, I'd really like you guys to stop ignoring Alderan, and either keep pressuring him, or attack the cases against him head on if you think he's town.
I don't want a 2nd NL in a row at all. If we were to misslynch on D3, it would drive us to D4 LYLO instead of MYLO, which I would guess is arguably worse, we need to have a lynch today.
I don't really think gumshoe is scum, but considering his change of playstyle, and considering I think most of the players voting him are town, that's a possibility.
DYH, why are you so afraid to vote for gumshoe? Chocolate, do you want a NL? Why are you voting nttea who doesn't have any other votes on him/her?
The way I see it, Alderan isn't voting gumshoe, so I'm down with his lynch for now.
If gumshoe were to be town, then at least in my case it reduces the amount of possible suspects, which makes it easier to me to find the remaining scum.
#Vote: gumshoe
|
6536
3221
465
EPT
