|
Vote to extend the day please town. This lynch is critical for us, we don't want people afk or drunk for when it really matters.
|
Reading over the posts again, Seraph just seems redder and redder to me. Let's look at this defense here:
On December 29 2010 16:10 seRapH wrote:Responses in blueShow nested quote +On December 29 2010 05:26 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Now for RoL's badass analysis of the game, raping Red's day 1. SeraphOn December 27 2010 10:28 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 10:25 TheMango wrote:
where are my mafia team mates? lets start getting rid of some people. Hey guys this is an obvious slip-up, we should lynch TheMango. Town wouldn't want to "get rid" of people  Also DrH because there's always a high chance of him being mafia. A nothing post, just the pregame jovial attitude usually shown by mafia. :D I'm a jovial person ^_^On December 27 2010 10:54 seRapH wrote:
I highly doubt there's any more than 1 framer in this game, but we should keep rolecheck candidates to 4 or 5 to minimize framer/miller influence. One of my favorite little tells that a lot of people give off is format speculation early on, he is one of the first to discuss it. Seraph and LD. Although a LOT of people have done it in this game because their was a new role I think we can view this as an additional circumstance to his "mafia" behavior since a lot of people exemplify this strait. I don't really get why this is scummy? This isn't so much speculation as it is drawing from previous game experience.On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote:
Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? At this point he gets on the"lets lynch inactives" train and trying to figure out how to define inactives. First off I am going to say this right now. Fuck lynching inactives. It is such a stupid plan most of the time, lynching an inactive does two VERY anti town things. One it provides ZERO information because generally there is no vote split on inactives its usually a unanimous decision among the town, and on top of that since there is NO information to decide on who we are going to lynch because they are inactive the mafia have a huge influence over just which inactive guy we decide to kill. In summary lynching inactives makes Day 1 a day we get NO information and on top of that the lynch is more readily swayed by the mafia, yielding our daily KP to them. It is just stupid. What annul did is exactly what I would do. Just start throwing shit and see who comes out of the wood work. Ideally though you aim to target someone who you believe is red. But either way the important thing is we are getting information. I wanted to discuss lynching inactives because it does incline the would-be lurkers to start posting. Who knows if it worked or not, but at least it's a prod. I would never actually go ahead and lynch an inactive/lurker day 1 though, I agree, the information we get from that is minimal. On December 27 2010 13:36 seRapH wrote:
Inactives with zero posts or votes will be modkilled/replaced, so I guess what I meant was lurkers. How will we determine who are lurkers and how will we pick which to be irradiated? On December 27 2010 13:40 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 13:37 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote:
Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? + Show Spoiler +Disclaimer: I don't believe that we'll actually lynch an inactive. How about Zero meaningful posts? If all they have is spam and one vote with an explination of "I agree". That would be an inactive Or if we seriously have no idea what to do, we could lynch someone about to be modkilled, a way to essentially abstain Except they could be replaced, not necessarily modkilled. On December 27 2010 14:04 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 13:43 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:40 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 13:37 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote:
Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? + Show Spoiler +Disclaimer: I don't believe that we'll actually lynch an inactive. How about Zero meaningful posts? If all they have is spam and one vote with an explination of "I agree". That would be an inactive Or if we seriously have no idea what to do, we could lynch someone about to be modkilled, a way to essentially abstain Except they could be replaced, not necessarily modkilled. Hmm... I wonder if the mafia would try to modkill one of their own members in hopes of getting the person replaced by DoctorH Ace did that back in insane. Well, we forced the mafia to find their own repacements, and Ace choose L. Bah DrH is our only replacement right? I kinda wish there were a few more but whatev =\ We are going to see a recurring trend with Seraph, He doesn't really ever stop talking about inactives and mod kills at all. Hooray. Clarify how this makes me scum?On December 27 2010 14:22 seRapH wrote:
I don't want luck to have any more to do with this than it has to. Early vig hits is much too risky, and has just as much if not more chance of hitting blue than it does of hitting red. Sure reducing KP is important, but keeping our number of blues is even moreso. On December 27 2010 14:53 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 14:35 LunarDestiny wrote:
Vigs can only hit on or AFTER night 2 Right, so this isn't something that's exactly urgent, is it? Day 1 lynching, however, is. Now one big thing to notice here, he advises against using KP and uses a TERRIBLE argument. This is a giant redflag to me. Why the hell would there be a better chance of hitting a blue then a red with a vigi hit? If we hold off our vigi hits there is a better chance the mafia will kill the vigi and we lose that KP too. That's roughly equivalent to telling mad hatters not to place bombs until night 3 because chances are they will just bomb a blue. It just chances us wasting our KP that we shouldn't be. On top of that if a vigi is doing ANY amount of behavioral analysis then they should be able to hit a god damn red by night 2 if they choose to, MAYBE hold it off until night 3. I generally would not recommend holding off your hit because it increases the chance of the town losing it. RoL you seem pretty confident in our blue's scumhunting capabilities. You may be right but I'd rather play this on the safe side and not waste the hit. I'm more confident in vigi's ability to stay alive than their scumhunting abilities. And I still don't see how this labels me red, isn't the whole point of discussion to get rid of bad ideas and spread good ones? Why weren't you chiming in?And on top of that Seraph says we have more important things to discuss then vigi's, like the day 1 lynch. Alright, I can agree with that but seriously what the fuck is there to talk about if you are lynching an inactive? Exactly, nothing. Its just basically RNG whichever person not posting the mafia approves of and unanimously killing them. Once again, I had no intention of pushing a lynch on an inactive.On December 27 2010 15:00 seRapH wrote:
Well given that it's day 1 we're mostly waiting for people to check in. So people should be pitching in about their stances on the following issues:
Day 1 lynch- Inactives or suspects, and then who?
Role of PMs in this game
Any questions you guys may have should also be asked, an informed town is a good town ^_^ Alright let me get this strait. By your agenda we should be lynching inactives and searching for them but we need to wait for people to check in day 1...? Pretty much self explanatory. So far we have seen a good amount of anti town posting from Seraph on top of a bit of spammyness. Straits are small rivers. And we were only a few hours into the day, so pretty much everyone was "inactive".On December 28 2010 07:49 seRapH wrote:
It's pretty obvious that the Pandain wagon makes zero sense, so if you were mafia trying to establish credibility letting that go through would be stupid.
Annul my vote is going on you now because after reading through this thread I also think your analysis has been forced.
Also I'm keeping an eye on meapak. This is one of the posts I found really interesting. The pandain wagon did make no sense and Seraph says what I think he is trying to do. We can just label it wifom. At the same time he discredits Annul saying his argument is forced On December 28 2010 08:55 seRapH wrote:
A forced argument is when you try to conjure up something out of nothing. Then explains what forced means! But seriously, how is Annul's analysis forced? I read it, it felt pretty natural to me. Annul remains dedicated and keeps going for his lynch of LSB and LSB OMGUS him back which is a really shitty way to play and incredibly anti town. The thing is I also believe that could just be a blue tell from LSB believing his role to be important for town victory. The last thing he does is FOS on Meapak but not saying ANYTHING about why. At least give some reason. Annul's analysis included taking a bunch of LSB's various bad and semi-bad jokes (and even a few worth chuckling for!) and treating them seriously. I mean really, you'd have to be from romania... Meapak was the first person to follow annul's case, but obviously since then many others have joined in. So the point's moot. Still, one of the first three or four on the wagon is likely mafia.On December 28 2010 11:54 seRapH wrote:On December 28 2010 11:52 why wrote:
Hi everyone, just got off from work and caught up with the thread.
It seems to me that the annul vs. LSB debate is distracting from the issue at hand, hunting inactives. This is clearly the way to avoid an apathetic town.
The list that LunarDestiny suggested isn’t the best idea. If there are 10 people on the list, then no one will feel pressured to respond unless everyone else on the list is responding. They will just be lurking amongst the people on the list who aren’t responding on the list.
The best way to pressure inactives is to vote for them and actually intend to lynch them unless they contribute something useful.
As such, I'm going to pick someone that hasn't posted yet and put my vote on them. If they come to the thread and contribute then I'll move my vote off them. My pick is GeorgeClooney. I like that you're going to help us with this inactive thing, but we shouldn't be lynching someone who's about to get modkilled for not showing up. On December 28 2010 17:17 seRapH wrote:On December 28 2010 16:42 Node wrote:I think between annul and LSB it's actually quite likely that one of them is scum. In Haunted Mafia, DocH and Pandain continually re-iterated the same arguments against each other, making huge walls of text that consumed many pages, and diverted town discussion from important things for like two whole game days. In the end, Pandain was scum. The difference there was that there were no PMs that game, so it was more important to be able to follow the thread well. All the same, I'm sensing echoes of that here, especially since annul seems to want to continue to force the issue. I'll also say that I find annul's posting to be much scummier than LSB's. The way he's posting reminds me a lot of the way he played Experimental Mini Mafia (which was an interesting experience, as I knew he was scum from the beginning ), whereas LSB's defense and contribution seems a lot more like his posting in Pokemafia, where he was green. For now, I'm putting my vote on annul. I'm also going to be analyzing LunarDestiny, as I think his posting has been... strange, to say the least. Gonna work on that now. Just clearing this up, but you do mean Insane Mafia, not Haunted, right? Seraph then stresses that we go back to lynching inactives while clearing up such a trivial issue between insane/haunted mafia. The running trend with Seraph is anti town play, just focusing on lynching an inactive and really not committing at ALL on the annul/LSB situation. This could be because he doesn't want to be associated with supporting a bad lynch of either of them, or not wanting to side at risk of being exposed when his ally gets lynched. What? Did you even check to see who I voted for? I defended LSB when I was here and put my vote on annul. I suppose I can't really say that I wouldn't risk chainsaw defending LSB now that he's been flipped, but I did!With that being said, I strongly believe Seraph is mafia and we should lynch to kill him and hold off on the LSB/Annul situation because of how important blue roles are to a town victory. On top of that if/when LSB fails to prove his claim we get another free mafia kill that we can make a vigi use. LSB is claiming to be able to PROVE his alliance by night 2 and if he can't then well I am sure we can do something about that can't we? We just need to stay focused and get him killed then and not get distracted by other "better" targets. RoL your analysis really doesn't say too much about exactly why you think I'm mafia.
A major point of the Seraph's defense is that he never would never actually want to lynch an inactive player. Instead, he just wants to put pressure on players so that they will be more likely to post more. Ok, fine, right?
On December 31 2010 07:33 seRapH wrote:SoulfireShow nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:45 Soulfire wrote:
I had meant to contribute earlier, but I was watching some streamed games of my team's CW.
I'm a new player, so for the most part I've just been reading what everybody has said thus far and trying to come up with any reasonable conclusion, which not surprisingly has been futile. I've gone over previous games and observed common posting habits for many of the more veteran players in this game and I honestly don't notice anything alarming enough to begin to point fingers safely. I'd definitely have to agree with Pandain, Wiggles and others; focus attention on the inactives, but struggle to differentiate between those who just don't care and are probably going to be modkilled and people who are trying to lay low, specially people making pointless posts to avoid the modkill.
But I will speak for other players who are new like I am, it is difficult to post something that contributes in Day 1 - so yet another thing to differentiate: new players who are lost and can only agree with others, and mafia trying to slip under the radar and avoid modkill. Few points here: He’s new, he doesn’t want to out himself, and hands lurkers the excuse of not caring. First point isn’t incriminating, but the other two are pretty notable. Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 18:01 Soulfire wrote:
Yet another vote for Pandain - can you guys seriously stop that? There's no reason to be doing that, and the only thing we know about him thus far is that he's been pretty damn helpful, and past games show that he knows what he's doing. There's no reason to be piling votes on people, and new players will just be prompted to join the bandwagon. Ok, fine, Pandain wagon was bullshit, I have no clue why anyone joined it at all, town or not. What I do find interesting is that apparantly Pandain is "pretty damn helpful" while LSB, evidently, has not been. Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 14:22 Soulfire wrote:
Just read the last 5 pages, and like many others, paid attention to the argument between Annul and LSB. BOTH come off as scummy, but to be totally honest I think it's a safer bet to go with a lurker, for the same reasons that many have said - the more talkative a scum is, the more likely he is to make a mistake and thus be lynched. We have NOTHING to go by other than very slight hints in posting style. Our best bet easily is to lynch a lurker because they may continue lurking later on, and we won't be able to gather any hints from them that may identify them as scum. However, Annul and LSB will both continue posting frequently, thus increasing the chance that they may make mistakes and reveal themselves. If they all of a sudden STOP posting frequently, that'd be out of the character developed on day 1 and would be a pretty strong hint that they're scum.
Just my 2 cents. I don’t really get this. I’m thinking that if we can get Soulfire lynched or nightkilled then annul can be cleared of most suspicions. Once again he pushes lynching lurkers too. Also, people don’t switch roles midway (or at least not in this setup), so a change in character indicates they’re either dodging an accusation or real life problems. Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 08:19 Soulfire wrote:
I've been on the whole "lynch LSB" bandwagon, but after reading Pandain's logic, even though it makes HIM sound incredibly scummy as well the the information fishing, I'm gonna vote for Brocket. When I read over Pokemafia he indeed acted quite differently, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was trying to hide under the radar.
But yeah, Pandain really strikes me as a mafia trying to save LSB - but then again, is there any way to protect someone WITHOUT appearing suspicious? Atleast he presents a logical argument. If LSB does not "prove himself", LYNCH HIM ON DAY 2. Completely dodges the LSB/Annul situation by going for a new bandwagon on brocket. Also staying under the radar by following pandain quite closely: Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 11:36 Soulfire wrote:
Gonna actually have to agree with Pandain's analysis here, I didn't think of it the way he put it: We don't have much to go on, so we might as well guarantee important information with a lynch of LSB.
##Unvote
##Vote LSB Conclusion: Very likely scum. Not too many posts at all, and none of them offering any original insight. imo this is a better lynch than anyone else so far, but Mr Wiggles earns second place. If Soulfire dodges the lynch then I’d at least like someone to DT check him.
But wait! Then Seraph posts this analysis of soulfire who is as close to inactive as we have at this point. After saying that he never intended to lynch inactives, he then goes ahead and posts an analysis of one and pushes a lynch on him.
But there is still one possibility left: that Seraph wants to pressure soulfire into posting more, like he said his original intention was back during day 1.
On December 31 2010 14:44 seRapH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2010 13:41 Jackal58 wrote:
Coagulation informs me Hanna Montana is performing tomorrow at Disney World.
He seems to believe this fact has relevance here.
I don't get it. Get yourself banned and you'll see the relevance ;D I keep forgetting that not everybody knows what they're doing. =\ I'll give Soulfire a pass for now but he really needs to show up and take some sides
I guess pressure wasn't really the goal either.
The only conclusion seems to be that Seraph posted that analysis for no real reason except to seem like he was contributing. At this point, it would take a lot for me to move my vote off of Seraph.
|
Day has been extended and will end on Saturday at 10:00 EST.
|
On December 31 2010 07:33 seRapH wrote:SoulfireShow nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:45 Soulfire wrote:
I had meant to contribute earlier, but I was watching some streamed games of my team's CW.
I'm a new player, so for the most part I've just been reading what everybody has said thus far and trying to come up with any reasonable conclusion, which not surprisingly has been futile. I've gone over previous games and observed common posting habits for many of the more veteran players in this game and I honestly don't notice anything alarming enough to begin to point fingers safely. I'd definitely have to agree with Pandain, Wiggles and others; focus attention on the inactives, but struggle to differentiate between those who just don't care and are probably going to be modkilled and people who are trying to lay low, specially people making pointless posts to avoid the modkill.
But I will speak for other players who are new like I am, it is difficult to post something that contributes in Day 1 - so yet another thing to differentiate: new players who are lost and can only agree with others, and mafia trying to slip under the radar and avoid modkill. Few points here: He’s new, he doesn’t want to out himself, and hands lurkers the excuse of not caring. First point isn’t incriminating, but the other two are pretty notable. Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 18:01 Soulfire wrote:
Yet another vote for Pandain - can you guys seriously stop that? There's no reason to be doing that, and the only thing we know about him thus far is that he's been pretty damn helpful, and past games show that he knows what he's doing. There's no reason to be piling votes on people, and new players will just be prompted to join the bandwagon. Ok, fine, Pandain wagon was bullshit, I have no clue why anyone joined it at all, town or not. What I do find interesting is that apparantly Pandain is "pretty damn helpful" while LSB, evidently, has not been. Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 14:22 Soulfire wrote:
Just read the last 5 pages, and like many others, paid attention to the argument between Annul and LSB. BOTH come off as scummy, but to be totally honest I think it's a safer bet to go with a lurker, for the same reasons that many have said - the more talkative a scum is, the more likely he is to make a mistake and thus be lynched. We have NOTHING to go by other than very slight hints in posting style. Our best bet easily is to lynch a lurker because they may continue lurking later on, and we won't be able to gather any hints from them that may identify them as scum. However, Annul and LSB will both continue posting frequently, thus increasing the chance that they may make mistakes and reveal themselves. If they all of a sudden STOP posting frequently, that'd be out of the character developed on day 1 and would be a pretty strong hint that they're scum.
Just my 2 cents. I don’t really get this. I’m thinking that if we can get Soulfire lynched or nightkilled then annul can be cleared of most suspicions. Once again he pushes lynching lurkers too. Also, people don’t switch roles midway (or at least not in this setup), so a change in character indicates they’re either dodging an accusation or real life problems. Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 08:19 Soulfire wrote:
I've been on the whole "lynch LSB" bandwagon, but after reading Pandain's logic, even though it makes HIM sound incredibly scummy as well the the information fishing, I'm gonna vote for Brocket. When I read over Pokemafia he indeed acted quite differently, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was trying to hide under the radar.
But yeah, Pandain really strikes me as a mafia trying to save LSB - but then again, is there any way to protect someone WITHOUT appearing suspicious? Atleast he presents a logical argument. If LSB does not "prove himself", LYNCH HIM ON DAY 2. Completely dodges the LSB/Annul situation by going for a new bandwagon on brocket. Also staying under the radar by following pandain quite closely: Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 11:36 Soulfire wrote:
Gonna actually have to agree with Pandain's analysis here, I didn't think of it the way he put it: We don't have much to go on, so we might as well guarantee important information with a lynch of LSB.
##Unvote
##Vote LSB Conclusion: Very likely scum. Not too many posts at all, and none of them offering any original insight. imo this is a better lynch than anyone else so far, but Mr Wiggles earns second place. If Soulfire dodges the lynch then I’d at least like someone to DT check him.
This "analysis" really strikes me as an attempt to shift the focus off of yourself - pretty much every single one of your points is incredibly flawed and forced, and i'll explain why:
Quote #1: "Few points here: He’s new, he doesn’t want to out himself, and hands lurkers the excuse of not caring. First point isn’t incriminating, but the other two are pretty notable."
Seriously? I'm not 100% sure if this is you you meant by "not wanting to out myself", but this post was damn near the beginning of the game (first hour or two?). It does the town NO GOOD to point fingers that early with no real evidence. All it could do is start some illogical bandwagon that would be nothing better than a complete gamble. And your third point completely ignored the other part of that sentence, about the other kind of lurker that very well could be a mafia trying to hide...
Quote #2: Ok, fine, Pandain wagon was bullshit, I have no clue why anyone joined it at all, town or not. What I do find interesting is that apparantly Pandain is "pretty damn helpful" while LSB, evidently, has not been.
Holy shit this sounds forced. I wasn't even talking about "helpful people" in general, I was just commenting on the illogical bandwagon on Pandain (started by the blind FoSing earlygame that you said I should have done - yet you disagree with the bandwagon also?). Re-read what I said again: In no place should it have been expected that I mention LSB; I simply commented on the value of Pandain to this game, shown by his previous activity in other games and what he had already done to help newbies this game.
Quote #3:I don’t really get this. I’m thinking that if we can get Soulfire lynched or nightkilled then annul can be cleared of most suspicions. Once again he pushes lynching lurkers too. Also, people don’t switch roles midway (or at least not in this setup), so a change in character indicates they’re either dodging an accusation or real life problems.
For starters, I push lynching lurkers (even though you said I defended them in the first quote...?) because at the time this seemed like the most logical option to us, and frankly it still kind of is, for the reasons I explained above - a lurker will lurk and we have no guarantee of ever catching them, but an active mafia make slip up. I don't even get how I'm connected to the suspicion of annul; I think annul was suffering from some serious tunnel vision, and LSB slipped up in his defense. A change in character could easily be a scum trying to hide at an opportune moment - I don't really understand that last sentence.
Quote #4: Completely dodges the LSB/Annul situation by going for a new bandwagon on brocket. Also staying under the radar by following pandain quite closely.
Um, I've always been in favor of voting inactives (for reasons listed above), and above you even stated that. I viewed the long argument between LSB and annul as, as stated above, tunnel vision - both were active players that may slip up in the long run to reveal to us their potential role as scum. It seemed much more logical to lynch Brocket, especially since he was more active in the other game of Mafia he played. As for my vote against LSB, I admittedly followed a hunch that wasn't safe after reading Pandain's analysis - if he was red, it would've given us a LOT of information, but unfortunately he wasn't. Not sure how this is scummy; this is more like the act of a newb to the game.
Quote #5: Conclusion: Very likely scum. Not too many posts at all, and none of them offering any original insight. imo this is a better lynch than anyone else so far, but Mr Wiggles earns second place. If Soulfire dodges the lynch then I’d at least like someone to DT check him
Basically your analysis felt madly forced, and then in the end without contributing ANYTHING legitimate in your analysis you feel strongly enough to say "very likely"? That seems suspicious to me, quite frankly, but I'll let the others decide on that.
Apart from that, I'm following the discussions carefully and have for now decided to vote for Mr. Wiggles as mostly a temporary vote.
|
Sorry about the layout of the above post, probably shoulda made that easier to read. The text after the quote #(x) is his comment, and the paragraph below is my comment on that.
|
United States1967 Posts
On December 31 2010 16:14 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:Show nested quote +The fact is this "Non-Relevant Trivia" could cause some players to be suspicous in other player's minds. lol wut? If it causes a player to be suspicious of someone than it is relevant. I however don't beleive what I wrote qualifies as such. The fact that pandain has voted the most times really doesn't matter. Now what does matter is who each of those votes was for but by itself it's just something funny I thought I would share. Get a grip people, if you all honestly think I'm scum because of this post than this town is dead. It was admittedly a ill timed post but the fact that we're bickering over the semantics of whether I fosd someone or not is pretty stupid especially since I've said several times that I did not intend my post to be an fos of any sort. I'll just state my fos subjects now so we can put the debate of my fos to rest. Seraph, insanious, jackal58, pandain and themango are all suspicious in some degree to me. Tomorrow I'll load my goddamn spreadsheet somewhere so everyone can see it and be satisfied that there's nothing malicious in it.
Out of curiosity, I'd like to know why you're suspicious of me.
|
On December 31 2010 18:01 Incognito wrote:
Day has been extended and will end on Saturday at 10:00 EST.
10:00 = 10 AM?
do you mean 22:00?
|
FREEAGLELAND26780 Posts
|
Holy crap, Meapak is extremely scummy. He only vaguely addresses all of the non-spreadsheet points brought up, he argues that his spreadsheet isn't scummy in and of itself (duh, of course it isn't, but what's important is the way he brought it up), and gets really over-defensive while not properly arguing the things brought up against him.
On December 31 2010 14:58 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:You're really grasping at straws right now. All you've been doing is putting words in my mouth claiming I've fos'd a whole bunch of people.
He's "grasping at straws"... note how this never actually addresses the argument that's being made, it's just dismissive. And really, it's true: just because he never actually used the words "fos" doesn't mean that the purpose wasn't to call people out. I sure as hell don't bold player's names and make a post regarding their voting patterns unless I'm trying to say something about them.
On December 31 2010 14:58 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:You're doing nothing but trying to rile up the town, this is an appeal to passion that will probably work well to draw in inactive votes but it really doesn't help any serious discussion.
"Hey guys, don't pay attention to the analysis, it's just an appeal to passion". What the hell? I sure as hell didn't read Insanious' posts as an "appeal to passion".
On December 31 2010 16:14 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:
Get a grip people, if you all honestly think I'm scum because of this post than this town is dead. It was admittedly a ill timed post but the fact that we're bickering over the semantics of whether I fosd someone or not is pretty stupid especially since I've said several times that I did not intend my post to be an fos of any sort.
He's getting really over-defensive here. And anything like "xxx or this town is dead" sets off alarm bells in my head, it's basically "saaaave meeee..... for the good of the town! really! town town town!"
A really large FoS on Meapak_Ziph
|
This post is to prove Mr.Zergling is mafia.
I will show you that firstly, Mr.Zergling plays different than his last game as town in HP mafia, and secondly he cannot be a blue role.
First, notice these posts, some of his first posts with content (my comments are in bold):
+ Show Spoiler + On December 28 2010 11:39 Mr.Zergling wrote:
My vote has gone to LSB, as his responses to annul's analysis have been weak. However, from HP mafia, LSB seems to always act somewhat scummy (which is why he got lynched last game). Also deconduo's analysis gives some convincing reasons to lynch LSB (for instance: that recommending abstaining from voting is not a pro-town suggestion (also abstaining is against the rules))
Although, no day 1 lynch is ever clear, more of a shot in the dark than anything
(((I love parenthesis))) Wishy washy post. Every argument has a counter argument. On December 29 2010 12:10 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 12:03 Insanious wrote:
So LSB fliped blue... here is my current game plan:
1) Vote Paindain because of how he acted when we started to vote for someone that wasn't LSB. This to me seems like the mafia are trying to get a 5th KP by killing LSB a claimed blue who is active. So Paindain looks like the most like a mafia to me.
2) Ignoring Annul for rest of game. He got tunnel vision towards a blue, who even if he was red we shouldn't of voted for right now, we should of voted for in 2 days. He had a bad gut feeling, and ignored when people put forth good reasoning to not follow that gut feeling. Annul is about 99% likely to be a green. So he shouldn't be voted for... just ignored 99% of the time unless he finds something increadibly useful... not likely to happen after this debacle.
- - - -
Also... told you so... Annul listen to me more... I looked at this logically, you were attacking LSB. You were obviously wrong like 15 pages ago.
Brocket and Paindrain... one of them is Red and I assume its Paindrain. Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 10:48 Pandain wrote:On December 29 2010 10:31 Insanious wrote:On December 29 2010 10:24 Barundar wrote:
I understand you want to save yourself, but Brocket is the worst scapegoat you could possibly find. He is as scummy as Kenpachi when posting, and now he is even afk. Voting him is the same as abstaining, and really gets us nowhere. Between Brocket and LSB, I would much much much rather Brocket dead then LSB... There really isn't another choice now due to time constraints... Annul brought us to this point, a 1 person bandwaggon is pretty much the worst thing that can happen to the town. 0 analysis can be done concerning votes, mafia can hide where ever they want to when voting for a town... You need at least 2 candidates every day for voting or it might as well just be a random.org vote. LSB has a high chance of being a blue, and killing a blue, especially early is terrible.\ Brocket is most likely green or a lurking mafia... and since there have been 4 people comming out of no where to defend Brocket it makes me think Brocket is even more red. I vehemently disagree. FIrst off, LSB doesn't have a high chance of being blue, he's claimed everything from vigi to dt, and his supposed plan which no one knows what possibly could be he refuses to tell. Furthormore now your saying that we're forced to either vote brockett or LSB, and previously you had been saying you were voting him because "he played differently." Plus right now we can find out so much from LSB's flip. I know people usually say not to lynch for information but this is a special scenario. IT's all because LSB has claimed blue, and mafia know that, or that LSB is mafia, and they're trying to swing a bandwagon onto brockett to save him.
If LSB flips red- Great! We caught probably at least 3-4 scum who tried to swing the bandwagon onto Brockett, in addition to information from posting. Furthormore we caught a scum! IF LSB flips blue LSB is not DT, so we don't have to worry about that. Why?
-Claimed very early to be blue, DT wouldn't have done that being most important role. Would've waited.
-Revealed pms where RoL said LSB might be DT, and hinted strongly because it was the only role that could fit the plan. Why would DT be so reckless, especially when he seemingly doesn't want to claim? So we don't have to worry about losing a DT. So when, if blue, he would most vigi, then that's not even that bad of a loss. But most importantly mafia would be wanting him dead, since he's blue, and they know it. So people who voted for LSB should be looked upon with suspicion, myself included. But again I would like to stress people that LSB is 99% not blue, that he is 99% red. And I urge you to read my analysis I made of him, and realize whats happening here. Vote LSB. Stop the Bandwagon. mmm This does have me suspicious of Paindain, but would a mafia really be that overt and outspoken about lynching a blue, or would they try and lay low so they are not associated with the impending mess when the target flips blue? Now though, we can look at all previous analysis in a new light Again he won't point fingers without being back and forth. The last line is just filler.
Now compare that to his first posts in HP mafia as town:
+ Show Spoiler + On December 11 2010 12:14 Mr.Zergling wrote:
I think LSB is making himself suspicious by proposing a 1st kill voting style that can be easily manipulated He has no problem pointing out what he finds suspecious about other players, without adding a "but maybe it's not". On December 12 2010 15:19 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 13:13 Airbag wrote:
who would you kill instead of LSB meapak? Why does it matter when meapak says he's gonna have votes on first lynch? Again, straight up posting. On December 14 2010 10:36 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 10:24 why wrote:
1) Can Mr. Zergling and Lunar Destiny prove that they are mod-confirmed? Like by breadcrumb? Sorry if this has already been addressed.
2) My interpretation is that 3 death eater hits went out, 1 on Amber, 1 on RoL, and 1 on Beneather. RoL survived the hit, but got taken out by a 3rd-party (quite possibly town-aligned since he was garnering a lot of suspicion). I think RoL got hit by death eater because only 1 person has claimed to be hit and because RoL was playing more scummy than normal. A scum would interpret this as trying to make him a less attractive target (you don't NK scummy players) and NK'ed him anyway.
This makes LSB more likely to be scum as RoL was quite vocal in his denunciation.
3) Kenpachi and LSB = mod-confirmed patil sisters? The only thing I can think of that makes his defense make sense (other than them both being scum, of course). In this case your play is REALLY STUPID Kenpachi. 1)Ummm...Breadcrumb? fill a noob in please 2) I think there was more than one town-hit that went down as Beneather was being considered as suspected scum by some players, and the mafia wouldn't really want to kill a suspected scum as a suspected scum can draw attention away from real scum Asks for advice, but post his thoughts without fear of them being wrong (and indeed he was right)
Compare that to his general posting patterns on the forum:
+ Show Spoiler + I think randoms don't really have that much of an advantage because their race is not shown. Whatever advantage that may give is negated by them probably not being as good with the race they get as someone who mains one race. Edit: Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 09:49 holynorth wrote:
Random is already at a disadvantage of having to know more match-ups than you.. Stop complaining about their one advantage.
lol beat me to it. Gives opinion in the same way as when he was playing green in HPmafia. On December 10 2010 09:56 Mr.Zergling wrote:
Considering whats been said already, if you have early game ff issues, I find running a small group of zerglings and/or banelings close to their army to make them panic and throw down a lot of ff is fairly effective, repeat until there is no more sentry energy left Another straight up opinion
The posts from this game are much more unclear than his general posting habbits. That made me suspicious of him. For now it's enough to conclude that he has a role in this game. People don’t arbitrary change their posting style from one day to another.
He tuned up the frequency when attention was switched to him. DrH wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 29 2010 13:16 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
i believe mr zergling is mafia, in fact i have since his very first few hosts
he would be a good dt check as well as seraph and insanious
ill reanalyse things when i get home. also why can noone spell "pandain" On December 30 2010 07:19 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
We don't need to be discussing who to lynch until tomorrow. I think silence is the best policy during the night, don't give the mafia information with which they can better their hit list with.
That being said I agree with a lot of Pandain's suspects. Mr.Zergling is probably mafia. I wouldn't be surprised if Mr.Wiggles was either.
Before those posts, he had posted 11 times. While I wouldn’t read too much into this, the posting amount has increased by 16 since, possibly enhanched by me sharing my thoughts with the wrong people in PM’s. What’s interesting is however when he got called out for lurking in HP mafia, he simply posted + Show Spoiler +On December 12 2010 01:44 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 01:14 Thegilaboy wrote:
I agree with the notion of voting to lynch an inactive. In most cases they are either a red trying to stay under the radar or an inactive townie who is no good to the team. Either case they've got to go I've only posted once, because I right now feel there is nothing to add to this discussion.
So far we can conclude that his posting behaviour is different from last game as town. This could either be because he is blue or red.
Characteristic for blues are they will try and blend in, contributing without getting attention to themselves. Characteristic for red is they will want to appear to be contributing, without actually adding anything.
With that in mind, let’s look at how much he is actually contributing.
Own thoughts posts: + Show Spoiler + On December 27 2010 12:43 Mr.Zergling wrote:
we should lynch inactives, if only to prevent the "paindain" disaster like what happened in HP mafia were we lynched a townie and one vote could have changed it This is good advice, but it follows straight after Pandain said the same thing, and LSB starts questioning Mr.Wiggles of his thoughts on it. On December 31 2010 11:44 Mr.Zergling wrote:
I think a double lynch is a bad idea at this point, as we only have two of them for the whole game, and still don't have a clear first lynch target, much less second. I think annul is being a bit hasty in voting for double lynch Again not bad, but it follows straight after I posted On December 31 2010 05:56 Barundar wrote:
Anyone else with thoughts on option for double lynch? I personally think it's too early yet, atleast untill we get a better idea of targets for today. ... and annul votes without providing a reason. He doesn’t add anything to this. On December 29 2010 15:43 Mr.Zergling wrote:
I am interested in why Pandain went from defending LSB (quite vehemently) to pushing strongly to lynch LSB, I suppose the role claim (which was never really clear) could have affected his view of LSB.
Two scenarios:
Pandain is blue: The unclear roleclaim threw him off and he decided that even though LSB had said he would prove his blueness, Pandain just wanted info (stated)
-or-
Pandain is red: He saw the bandwagon shifting to his possible scumbuddy Brocket, and decided that it wouldn't be too suspicious if he shifted the bandwagon back on to LSB by touting an "info lynch". Also making himself more trustworthy by saying that everyone who voted LSB should be under suspicion (which they should) Thinks of possible scenarios, but it’s based on faulty logic. Only the mafia knew LSB was innocent for sure. Notice the blatant contradiction in the last line. He voted away from LSB himself, does that mean we should look at him more trustworthy? Nothing is gained from the post overall, except: “he thinks pandain is suspicious” On December 30 2010 13:02 Mr.Zergling wrote:
Also added to my response a couple posts up:
If you do have strong opinions on day 1 without an obvious scumslip, thats just an awful playstyle, especially if you change strong opinions every couple hours This adds nothing.
He quote other people’s reasons, instead of giving his own, when voting: + Show Spoiler + On December 29 2010 09:24 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 08:58 Insanious wrote:On December 29 2010 08:47 bumatlarge wrote:I am curious as to how people are shifting votes around together very smoothly. Im sure RoL gave a relatively similar arguement on seraph and it pittered out. Now insanious points brocket very reasonably and 5 people shift their votes? Im actually itching to see what LSB would pop now... Sorry if you are a vig buddy  Few reasons why. For starters seraph is an active and experienced town player, so losing him as a town sucks. The more experienced players like LSB, seraph, RoL, tree.hugger etc... live longer the better shot town has. Next Brocket is posting vastly different then he did in Pokemafia, which points out different behaviour between his town play and his play now. As well, Brocket is not a strong town voice, meaning between losing Brocket and LSB, Brocket hurts less. Finally, most people have read the case for not lynching LSB now that wasn't there when RoL brough up seraph. Meaning now people are looking for a way to switch off of LSB. There wasn't a good candidate to switch to before brocket. Annul is town Seraph is experience d3 is being voted for by pandrain when no one is really listening to now Then there is Brocket, random inactive who is playing vastly different then he did when he was town. Best choice offered. If there was someone better to vote for I would, and I will be the first to vote LSB come day 3 if he doesn't prove that he is blue. This is a good enough reason for me to change my vote to brocket. Also, on my lurking, I often don't feel the need to post if I fell I do not have anything to contribute to analysis. This is especially compounded by this being the first day.
+ Show Spoiler +On December 30 2010 12:59 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2010 12:58 Node wrote:
For now I'm voting Pandain, as his antics have done little more the cause confusion and split the vote a bajillion different ways. I'll move it pending a more convincing case.
~snip~ ^^This, and what I presented earlier
Instead of giving reasons he quote others. Because of this, and since he doesn’t contribute, we can rule out blue. This leaves only the possibility of a mafia. With this in mind, let’s try and have a look through some of his individual posts. We are looking for hints that support our conclusion based on the posting analysis above.
Brings up that he likes to lurk, even though noone said he was lurking:+ Show Spoiler + On December 29 2010 09:24 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 08:58 Insanious wrote:On December 29 2010 08:47 bumatlarge wrote:I am curious as to how people are shifting votes around together very smoothly. Im sure RoL gave a relatively similar arguement on seraph and it pittered out. Now insanious points brocket very reasonably and 5 people shift their votes? Im actually itching to see what LSB would pop now... Sorry if you are a vig buddy Few reasons why. For starters seraph is an active and experienced town player, so losing him as a town sucks. The more experienced players like LSB, seraph, RoL, tree.hugger etc... live longer the better shot town has. Next Brocket is posting vastly different then he did in Pokemafia, which points out different behaviour between his town play and his play now. As well, Brocket is not a strong town voice, meaning between losing Brocket and LSB, Brocket hurts less. Finally, most people have read the case for not lynching LSB now that wasn't there when RoL brough up seraph. Meaning now people are looking for a way to switch off of LSB. There wasn't a good candidate to switch to before brocket. Annul is town Seraph is experience d3 is being voted for by pandrain when no one is really listening to now Then there is Brocket, random inactive who is playing vastly different then he did when he was town. Best choice offered. If there was someone better to vote for I would, and I will be the first to vote LSB come day 3 if he doesn't prove that he is blue. This is a good enough reason for me to change my vote to brocket. Also, on my lurking, I often don't feel the need to post if I fell I do not have anything to contribute to analysis. This is especially compounded by this being the first day. There is talk about lurking, and other names are mentioned, but his isn’t. Why does he feel the need to defend himself without being accused? Because mafia feel inherently guilty, and wants to defend themselves before a suspicion is even raised. In HP mafia he wrote the same: + Show Spoiler + On December 12 2010 01:44 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 01:14 Thegilaboy wrote:
I agree with the notion of voting to lynch an inactive. In most cases they are either a red trying to stay under the radar or an inactive townie who is no good to the team. Either case they've got to go I've only posted once, because I right now feel there is nothing to add to this discussion. But here he is individually targeted. In this game he brings it up himself.
The time incident+ Show Spoiler + On December 29 2010 10:27 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 10:23 Insanious wrote:
There is still 2 hours left to vote, its not over yet... we just need to get some people to switch from LSB to Brocket, we have 2 hours... I fail at 12/24hr conversion.........my bad Also PM from paindain: why are you voting brockett tell me here in your own words why What is the relevance of the PM in this context? If he really wants to save LSB he should be relieved it isn’t over? Instead the PM make it sound like there is mafia trying to save LSB, and that we actually should continue lynching him. All it really is, is a diversion.
Illogical voting/scumhunting: + Show Spoiler + On December 31 2010 05:08 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2010 05:03 Barundar wrote:
Mr.zergling would you mind posting your reason for voting mr.wiggles? And why you pick hin over the other suggested targets? I thought his last 18min switch to LSB was strange, but thats been noted. I think I am changing to Orgo after reading GGQ's analysis, but I think Ill give him time to respond before i change my vote again Mafia knows that vote switching draws attention. Yesterday he switched away from LSB to Brocket, but why would he be caught lynching a blue? Now he recognises his vote is based on wrong reasons, but doesn’t switch it. If he was scumhunting, he would want to pressure orgolove into posting by voting for him. It doesn’t make sense to state beforehand, that you are going to vote for him after he posts. There is no rationale for this, apart from a mafia’s fear of suspicious voting.
Empty fingerpointing:+ Show Spoiler + Show nested quote +On December 30 2010 14:34 Node wrote:
You guys are seriously still having this argument?
At this point, it's irrelevant. The fact that we're still arguing that LSB is scum just makes me think the people dragging it up are suspicious. Insanious, annul, Mepeak arguing just to throw us off? Sounds like a plausible way for reds to be able to deny association if someone gets lynched and flips red. This is distracting us from real scumhunting and making people feel like they need to jump on one bandwagon, thus fracturing the Town, and allowing the mafia to more or less control our lynch  The first part of this post is not bad, if it had been to lead the town into more fruitful discussions. But the last sentence is out of context. It is a barely hidden mafia gloat post about yesterday, and it serves no purpose here but as a filler.
And finaly: + Show Spoiler + On December 31 2010 15:26 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2010 15:07 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:lol you say Dude, your post makes it seem like people should be suspicious of the people you bolded. Read what you wrote and how your wrote it. You didn't say "this data means nothing but was interesting" you said "I'm making a spreadsheet to find reds, and look what I found..." you FoS'd people based on how you posted, not on what you said.
But hey look, I even did what you said I did Here is some random trivia Using the words "random" and "trivia" to preface what I said normally indicates that the following information isn't really relevant but somewhat funny nontheless. Dude... I need to mention, the pandain bandwagon was going on before I made that first post that got you all wrapped up in knots. I want to say one thing quick in case anyone else got things mixed up like you did MY ABOVE POST IS NOT MEANT TO FOS ANYONE, IF I FOS YOU, I WILL TELL IT STRAIGHT AND NOT TRY AND HIDE IT. Hey, if the trivia is random, then why include it? Non-Relevant trivia has no place in scumhunting, unless you are trying to FoS someone in a subtle manner. The fact is this "Non-Relevant Trivia" could cause some players to be suspicous in other player's minds. This is an FoS. Why do this when it makes you look incredibly scummy? This post looks very different from all the rest of Mr.Zergling’s posting. It’s sharp, direct, suggests he is scumhunting, and it is intelligent. No more wishy washy tone like in this game, or statement of opinions like in HPmafia. Compare it to this other post: On December 29 2010 12:27 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 12:22 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
so pandain is scum because he was wrong? that is a very stupid idea. I was trying to say something more along the lines of: Some people are suspicious of paindain (myself included), but we cannot tell if he is scum based on what we think scum would do. This all sounds better in my head. Is there any doubt these posts are not written by the same person?
Conclusion: Mr.Zerglings posting behaviour differs from his last game as town. He has added little to none individual contribution to the thread, and we can therefore rule out blue. This leaves only mafia.
Lynch Mr.Zergling
|
Orgolove and annul - What possible purpose does a double lynch serve at this juncture?
I can understand why red would want a double lynch on day two but it makes no sense for town to push for a double lynch today.
|
My new years eve starts now, but we got extended time so we can bag this kill. Please don't forget to vote!
|
so, from what I've read on this last page, seraph and mr. zergling are suspected to be mafia? and the analysis doesnt look bad, esp. the one on zergling.
also, TheMango is definitely red. Look at his name ^^;
|
Here Goes
+ Show Spoiler +On January 01 2011 00:11 Barundar wrote:This post is to prove Mr.Zergling is mafia. I will show you that firstly, Mr.Zergling plays different than his last game as town in HP mafia, and secondly he cannot be a blue role. First, notice these posts, some of his first posts with content (my comments are in bold): + Show Spoiler + On December 28 2010 11:39 Mr.Zergling wrote:
My vote has gone to LSB, as his responses to annul's analysis have been weak. However, from HP mafia, LSB seems to always act somewhat scummy (which is why he got lynched last game). Also deconduo's analysis gives some convincing reasons to lynch LSB (for instance: that recommending abstaining from voting is not a pro-town suggestion (also abstaining is against the rules))
Although, no day 1 lynch is ever clear, more of a shot in the dark than anything
(((I love parenthesis))) Wishy washy post. Every argument has a counter argument. On December 29 2010 12:10 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 12:03 Insanious wrote:
So LSB fliped blue... here is my current game plan:
1) Vote Paindain because of how he acted when we started to vote for someone that wasn't LSB. This to me seems like the mafia are trying to get a 5th KP by killing LSB a claimed blue who is active. So Paindain looks like the most like a mafia to me.
2) Ignoring Annul for rest of game. He got tunnel vision towards a blue, who even if he was red we shouldn't of voted for right now, we should of voted for in 2 days. He had a bad gut feeling, and ignored when people put forth good reasoning to not follow that gut feeling. Annul is about 99% likely to be a green. So he shouldn't be voted for... just ignored 99% of the time unless he finds something increadibly useful... not likely to happen after this debacle.
- - - -
Also... told you so... Annul listen to me more... I looked at this logically, you were attacking LSB. You were obviously wrong like 15 pages ago.
Brocket and Paindrain... one of them is Red and I assume its Paindrain. Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 10:48 Pandain wrote:On December 29 2010 10:31 Insanious wrote:On December 29 2010 10:24 Barundar wrote:
I understand you want to save yourself, but Brocket is the worst scapegoat you could possibly find. He is as scummy as Kenpachi when posting, and now he is even afk. Voting him is the same as abstaining, and really gets us nowhere. Between Brocket and LSB, I would much much much rather Brocket dead then LSB... There really isn't another choice now due to time constraints... Annul brought us to this point, a 1 person bandwaggon is pretty much the worst thing that can happen to the town. 0 analysis can be done concerning votes, mafia can hide where ever they want to when voting for a town... You need at least 2 candidates every day for voting or it might as well just be a random.org vote. LSB has a high chance of being a blue, and killing a blue, especially early is terrible.\ Brocket is most likely green or a lurking mafia... and since there have been 4 people comming out of no where to defend Brocket it makes me think Brocket is even more red. I vehemently disagree. FIrst off, LSB doesn't have a high chance of being blue, he's claimed everything from vigi to dt, and his supposed plan which no one knows what possibly could be he refuses to tell. Furthormore now your saying that we're forced to either vote brockett or LSB, and previously you had been saying you were voting him because "he played differently." Plus right now we can find out so much from LSB's flip. I know people usually say not to lynch for information but this is a special scenario. IT's all because LSB has claimed blue, and mafia know that, or that LSB is mafia, and they're trying to swing a bandwagon onto brockett to save him.
If LSB flips red- Great! We caught probably at least 3-4 scum who tried to swing the bandwagon onto Brockett, in addition to information from posting. Furthormore we caught a scum! IF LSB flips blue LSB is not DT, so we don't have to worry about that. Why?
-Claimed very early to be blue, DT wouldn't have done that being most important role. Would've waited.
-Revealed pms where RoL said LSB might be DT, and hinted strongly because it was the only role that could fit the plan. Why would DT be so reckless, especially when he seemingly doesn't want to claim? So we don't have to worry about losing a DT. So when, if blue, he would most vigi, then that's not even that bad of a loss. But most importantly mafia would be wanting him dead, since he's blue, and they know it. So people who voted for LSB should be looked upon with suspicion, myself included. But again I would like to stress people that LSB is 99% not blue, that he is 99% red. And I urge you to read my analysis I made of him, and realize whats happening here. Vote LSB. Stop the Bandwagon. mmm This does have me suspicious of Paindain, but would a mafia really be that overt and outspoken about lynching a blue, or would they try and lay low so they are not associated with the impending mess when the target flips blue? Now though, we can look at all previous analysis in a new light Again he won't point fingers without being back and forth. The last line is just filler. Now compare that to his first posts in HP mafia as town: + Show Spoiler + On December 11 2010 12:14 Mr.Zergling wrote:
I think LSB is making himself suspicious by proposing a 1st kill voting style that can be easily manipulated He has no problem pointing out what he finds suspecious about other players, without adding a "but maybe it's not". On December 12 2010 15:19 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 13:13 Airbag wrote:
who would you kill instead of LSB meapak? Why does it matter when meapak says he's gonna have votes on first lynch? Again, straight up posting. On December 14 2010 10:36 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 10:24 why wrote:
1) Can Mr. Zergling and Lunar Destiny prove that they are mod-confirmed? Like by breadcrumb? Sorry if this has already been addressed.
2) My interpretation is that 3 death eater hits went out, 1 on Amber, 1 on RoL, and 1 on Beneather. RoL survived the hit, but got taken out by a 3rd-party (quite possibly town-aligned since he was garnering a lot of suspicion). I think RoL got hit by death eater because only 1 person has claimed to be hit and because RoL was playing more scummy than normal. A scum would interpret this as trying to make him a less attractive target (you don't NK scummy players) and NK'ed him anyway.
This makes LSB more likely to be scum as RoL was quite vocal in his denunciation.
3) Kenpachi and LSB = mod-confirmed patil sisters? The only thing I can think of that makes his defense make sense (other than them both being scum, of course). In this case your play is REALLY STUPID Kenpachi. 1)Ummm...Breadcrumb? fill a noob in please 2) I think there was more than one town-hit that went down as Beneather was being considered as suspected scum by some players, and the mafia wouldn't really want to kill a suspected scum as a suspected scum can draw attention away from real scum Asks for advice, but post his thoughts without fear of them being wrong (and indeed he was right) Compare that to his general posting patterns on the forum: + Show Spoiler + I think randoms don't really have that much of an advantage because their race is not shown. Whatever advantage that may give is negated by them probably not being as good with the race they get as someone who mains one race. Edit: Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 09:49 holynorth wrote:
Random is already at a disadvantage of having to know more match-ups than you.. Stop complaining about their one advantage.
lol beat me to it. Gives opinion in the same way as when he was playing green in HPmafia. On December 10 2010 09:56 Mr.Zergling wrote:
Considering whats been said already, if you have early game ff issues, I find running a small group of zerglings and/or banelings close to their army to make them panic and throw down a lot of ff is fairly effective, repeat until there is no more sentry energy left Another straight up opinion The posts from this game are much more unclear than his general posting habbits. That made me suspicious of him. For now it's enough to conclude that he has a role in this game. People don’t arbitrary change their posting style from one day to another. He tuned up the frequency when attention was switched to him. DrH wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 29 2010 13:16 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
i believe mr zergling is mafia, in fact i have since his very first few hosts
he would be a good dt check as well as seraph and insanious
ill reanalyse things when i get home. also why can noone spell "pandain" On December 30 2010 07:19 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
We don't need to be discussing who to lynch until tomorrow. I think silence is the best policy during the night, don't give the mafia information with which they can better their hit list with.
That being said I agree with a lot of Pandain's suspects. Mr.Zergling is probably mafia. I wouldn't be surprised if Mr.Wiggles was either. Before those posts, he had posted 11 times. While I wouldn’t read too much into this, the posting amount has increased by 16 since, possibly enhanched by me sharing my thoughts with the wrong people in PM’s. What’s interesting is however when he got called out for lurking in HP mafia, he simply posted + Show Spoiler +On December 12 2010 01:44 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 01:14 Thegilaboy wrote:
I agree with the notion of voting to lynch an inactive. In most cases they are either a red trying to stay under the radar or an inactive townie who is no good to the team. Either case they've got to go I've only posted once, because I right now feel there is nothing to add to this discussion. , and his posting intensity remained the same. So far we can conclude that his posting behaviour is different from last game as town. This could either be because he is blue or red. Characteristic for blues are they will try and blend in, contributing without getting attention to themselves. Characteristic for red is they will want to appear to be contributing, without actually adding anything. With that in mind, let’s look at how much he is actually contributing. Own thoughts posts: + Show Spoiler + On December 27 2010 12:43 Mr.Zergling wrote:
we should lynch inactives, if only to prevent the "paindain" disaster like what happened in HP mafia were we lynched a townie and one vote could have changed it This is good advice, but it follows straight after Pandain said the same thing, and LSB starts questioning Mr.Wiggles of his thoughts on it. On December 31 2010 11:44 Mr.Zergling wrote:
I think a double lynch is a bad idea at this point, as we only have two of them for the whole game, and still don't have a clear first lynch target, much less second. I think annul is being a bit hasty in voting for double lynch Again not bad, but it follows straight after I posted On December 31 2010 05:56 Barundar wrote:
Anyone else with thoughts on option for double lynch? I personally think it's too early yet, atleast untill we get a better idea of targets for today. ... and annul votes without providing a reason. He doesn’t add anything to this. On December 29 2010 15:43 Mr.Zergling wrote:
I am interested in why Pandain went from defending LSB (quite vehemently) to pushing strongly to lynch LSB, I suppose the role claim (which was never really clear) could have affected his view of LSB.
Two scenarios:
Pandain is blue: The unclear roleclaim threw him off and he decided that even though LSB had said he would prove his blueness, Pandain just wanted info (stated)
-or-
Pandain is red: He saw the bandwagon shifting to his possible scumbuddy Brocket, and decided that it wouldn't be too suspicious if he shifted the bandwagon back on to LSB by touting an "info lynch". Also making himself more trustworthy by saying that everyone who voted LSB should be under suspicion (which they should) Thinks of possible scenarios, but it’s based on faulty logic. Only the mafia knew LSB was innocent for sure. Notice the blatant contradiction in the last line. He voted away from LSB himself, does that mean we should look at him more trustworthy? Nothing is gained from the post overall, except: “he thinks pandain is suspicious” On December 30 2010 13:02 Mr.Zergling wrote:
Also added to my response a couple posts up:
If you do have strong opinions on day 1 without an obvious scumslip, thats just an awful playstyle, especially if you change strong opinions every couple hours This adds nothing. He quote other people’s reasons, instead of giving his own, when voting: + Show Spoiler + On December 29 2010 09:24 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 08:58 Insanious wrote:On December 29 2010 08:47 bumatlarge wrote:I am curious as to how people are shifting votes around together very smoothly. Im sure RoL gave a relatively similar arguement on seraph and it pittered out. Now insanious points brocket very reasonably and 5 people shift their votes? Im actually itching to see what LSB would pop now... Sorry if you are a vig buddy Few reasons why. For starters seraph is an active and experienced town player, so losing him as a town sucks. The more experienced players like LSB, seraph, RoL, tree.hugger etc... live longer the better shot town has. Next Brocket is posting vastly different then he did in Pokemafia, which points out different behaviour between his town play and his play now. As well, Brocket is not a strong town voice, meaning between losing Brocket and LSB, Brocket hurts less. Finally, most people have read the case for not lynching LSB now that wasn't there when RoL brough up seraph. Meaning now people are looking for a way to switch off of LSB. There wasn't a good candidate to switch to before brocket. Annul is town Seraph is experience d3 is being voted for by pandrain when no one is really listening to now Then there is Brocket, random inactive who is playing vastly different then he did when he was town. Best choice offered. If there was someone better to vote for I would, and I will be the first to vote LSB come day 3 if he doesn't prove that he is blue. This is a good enough reason for me to change my vote to brocket. Also, on my lurking, I often don't feel the need to post if I fell I do not have anything to contribute to analysis. This is especially compounded by this being the first day. On December 30 2010 12:59 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2010 12:58 Node wrote:
For now I'm voting Pandain, as his antics have done little more the cause confusion and split the vote a bajillion different ways. I'll move it pending a more convincing case.
~snip~ ^^This, and what I presented earlier Instead of giving reasons he quote others. Because of this, and since he doesn’t contribute, we can rule out blue. This leaves only the possibility of a mafia. With this in mind, let’s try and have a look through some of his individual posts. We are looking for hints that support our conclusion based on the posting analysis above. Brings up that he likes to lurk, even though noone said he was lurking:+ Show Spoiler + On December 29 2010 09:24 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 08:58 Insanious wrote:On December 29 2010 08:47 bumatlarge wrote:I am curious as to how people are shifting votes around together very smoothly. Im sure RoL gave a relatively similar arguement on seraph and it pittered out. Now insanious points brocket very reasonably and 5 people shift their votes? Im actually itching to see what LSB would pop now... Sorry if you are a vig buddy Few reasons why. For starters seraph is an active and experienced town player, so losing him as a town sucks. The more experienced players like LSB, seraph, RoL, tree.hugger etc... live longer the better shot town has. Next Brocket is posting vastly different then he did in Pokemafia, which points out different behaviour between his town play and his play now. As well, Brocket is not a strong town voice, meaning between losing Brocket and LSB, Brocket hurts less. Finally, most people have read the case for not lynching LSB now that wasn't there when RoL brough up seraph. Meaning now people are looking for a way to switch off of LSB. There wasn't a good candidate to switch to before brocket. Annul is town Seraph is experience d3 is being voted for by pandrain when no one is really listening to now Then there is Brocket, random inactive who is playing vastly different then he did when he was town. Best choice offered. If there was someone better to vote for I would, and I will be the first to vote LSB come day 3 if he doesn't prove that he is blue. This is a good enough reason for me to change my vote to brocket. Also, on my lurking, I often don't feel the need to post if I fell I do not have anything to contribute to analysis. This is especially compounded by this being the first day. There is talk about lurking, and other names are mentioned, but his isn’t. Why does he feel the need to defend himself without being accused? Because mafia feel inherently guilty, and wants to defend themselves before a suspicion is even raised. In HP mafia he wrote the same: + Show Spoiler + On December 12 2010 01:44 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 01:14 Thegilaboy wrote:
I agree with the notion of voting to lynch an inactive. In most cases they are either a red trying to stay under the radar or an inactive townie who is no good to the team. Either case they've got to go I've only posted once, because I right now feel there is nothing to add to this discussion. But here he is individually targeted. In this game he brings it up himself. On December 29 2010 10:27 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 10:23 Insanious wrote:
There is still 2 hours left to vote, its not over yet... we just need to get some people to switch from LSB to Brocket, we have 2 hours... I fail at 12/24hr conversion.........my bad Also PM from paindain: why are you voting brockett tell me here in your own words why What is the relevance of the PM in this context? If he really wants to save LSB he should be relieved it isn’t over? Instead the PM make it sound like there is mafia trying to save LSB, and that we actually should continue lynching him. All it really is, is a diversion. On December 31 2010 05:08 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2010 05:03 Barundar wrote:
Mr.zergling would you mind posting your reason for voting mr.wiggles? And why you pick hin over the other suggested targets? I thought his last 18min switch to LSB was strange, but thats been noted. I think I am changing to Orgo after reading GGQ's analysis, but I think Ill give him time to respond before i change my vote again Mafia knows that vote switching draws attention. Yesterday he switched away from LSB to Brocket, but why would he be caught lynching a blue? Now he recognises his vote is based on wrong reasons, but doesn’t switch it. If he was scumhunting, he would want to pressure orgolove into posting by voting for him. It doesn’t make sense to state beforehand, that you are going to vote for him after he posts. There is no rationale for this, apart from a mafia’s fear of suspicious voting. Show nested quote +On December 30 2010 14:34 Node wrote:
You guys are seriously still having this argument?
At this point, it's irrelevant. The fact that we're still arguing that LSB is scum just makes me think the people dragging it up are suspicious. Insanious, annul, Mepeak arguing just to throw us off? Sounds like a plausible way for reds to be able to deny association if someone gets lynched and flips red. This is distracting us from real scumhunting and making people feel like they need to jump on one bandwagon, thus fracturing the Town, and allowing the mafia to more or less control our lynch The first part of this post is not bad, if it had been to lead the town into more fruitful discussions. But the last sentence is out of context. It is a barely hidden mafia gloat post about yesterday, and it serves no purpose here but as a filler. On December 31 2010 15:26 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2010 15:07 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:lol you say Dude, your post makes it seem like people should be suspicious of the people you bolded. Read what you wrote and how your wrote it. You didn't say "this data means nothing but was interesting" you said "I'm making a spreadsheet to find reds, and look what I found..." you FoS'd people based on how you posted, not on what you said.
But hey look, I even did what you said I did Here is some random trivia Using the words "random" and "trivia" to preface what I said normally indicates that the following information isn't really relevant but somewhat funny nontheless. Dude... I need to mention, the pandain bandwagon was going on before I made that first post that got you all wrapped up in knots. I want to say one thing quick in case anyone else got things mixed up like you did MY ABOVE POST IS NOT MEANT TO FOS ANYONE, IF I FOS YOU, I WILL TELL IT STRAIGHT AND NOT TRY AND HIDE IT. Hey, if the trivia is random, then why include it? Non-Relevant trivia has no place in scumhunting, unless you are trying to FoS someone in a subtle manner. The fact is this "Non-Relevant Trivia" could cause some players to be suspicous in other player's minds. This is an FoS. Why do this when it makes you look incredibly scummy? This post looks very different from all the rest of Mr.Zergling’s posting. It’s sharp, direct, suggests he is scumhunting, and it is intelligent. No more wishy washy tone like in this game, or statement of opinions like in HPmafia. Compare it to this other post: On December 29 2010 12:27 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 12:22 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
so pandain is scum because he was wrong? that is a very stupid idea. I was trying to say something more along the lines of: Some people are suspicious of paindain (myself included), but we cannot tell if he is scum based on what we think scum would do. This all sounds better in my head. Is there any doubt these posts are not written by the same person? Mr.Zerglings posting behaviour differs from his last game as town. He has added little to none individual contribution to the thread, and we can therefore rule out blue. This leaves only mafia. Lynch Mr.Zergling
Ok, so I had a blue role in HP mafia (we all kind of did). I have only been a member of this forum for a little while, and played one game of mafia here. Based on that you're applying metagame to your anaylsis of me? Have fun wasting your lynch on a green. I don't really know how else to defend myself from this, all pretty much true, but I am a relatively new palyer and am kind of growing into mafia here on TL.
|
Vatican City State1650 Posts
On January 01 2011 00:56 Jackal58 wrote:
Orgolove and annul - What possible purpose does a double lynch serve at this juncture?
I can understand why red would want a double lynch on day two but it makes no sense for town to push for a double lynch today.
... serious?
On December 31 2010 06:04 LunarDestiny wrote:
The double lynch is for day3. It will be helpful when dt a checked a mafia and we have an extra lynch to be used for another suspects.
We have 2 double lynch total in the game. As the game continues, we will get more information on who to lynch. But we are too many losing experience players too soon. Mafia will have an easier time to defer lynch when we have an inactive, indecisive town. On December 31 2010 14:42 orgolove wrote:
And don't make the mistake of... I think it was XXXIV or something like that, where town only used one. With a game where mafia has this many KP, town needs to use the double lynch - The longer we wait the larger the breath of the reds will be.
We need the double lynch.
|
On January 01 2011 05:40 orgolove wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2011 00:56 Jackal58 wrote:
Orgolove and annul - What possible purpose does a double lynch serve at this juncture?
I can understand why red would want a double lynch on day two but it makes no sense for town to push for a double lynch today. ... serious? Show nested quote +On December 31 2010 06:04 LunarDestiny wrote:
The double lynch is for day3. It will be helpful when dt a checked a mafia and we have an extra lynch to be used for another suspects.
We have 2 double lynch total in the game. As the game continues, we will get more information on who to lynch. But we are too many losing experience players too soon. Mafia will have an easier time to defer lynch when we have an inactive, indecisive town. Show nested quote +On December 31 2010 14:42 orgolove wrote:
And don't make the mistake of... I think it was XXXIV or something like that, where town only used one. With a game where mafia has this many KP, town needs to use the double lynch - The longer we wait the larger the breath of the reds will be.
We need the double lynch.
I would agree with Lunar Destiny on a day 3 double lynch.
|
What you don't seem to understand is that voting for a double lynch today means that we have a double lynch tomorrow.
|
On January 01 2011 06:25 GGQ wrote:
What you don't seem to understand is that voting for a double lynch today means that we have a double lynch tomorrow.
Ahh. Alright then. I assumed the vote was for today's actions.
|
Ok hi everyone sorry for being "inactive"(although throughout this entire time I've been watching and waiting for some observations.) First of all I'd like to note the same thing as tree hugger, that yes, why haven't people been calling me out for instance? Although we shouldn't expect people to post every second of their lives, we should point out when someone should be talking but isn't.
Killing Insanious is a horrible idea, the only reason being that "oh, he KNEW LSB was blue." But really, he didn't. Go reread his posts, you'll never find that stated. But for some reason he's managed to garner up a heck of a lot of votes, and killing off one of our most active townies is not what we want right now. Throughout the entire thread has he been stating the same stuff? No, he's been giving new ideas and bringing forth discussion. Has he been lurking? No, he's been one of the most active people. Is he spamming? No, at least not the bad kind of spam.
Since especially some people in this game have taken a liking to staying in the shadows, again, we need to pressure them to talk. And for some reason people have been content to ignore me when I suggest orgolove, which is as alarming as orgolove.
Seraph should not be lynched if only for the reason that he has been contributing to the discussion, which is what we really need right now. People seem to content to just lurk, and we can't have that. Ryu/darthien, Tevo, and orgolove and opz especially need to be contributing more, but there are alot that need to speak up as well.
With that it's time to start my analysis of some inactives, so you can see.
8. why-likely town
+ Show Spoiler +On December 28 2010 11:52 why wrote:
Hi everyone, just got off from work and caught up with the thread.
It seems to me that the annul vs. LSB debate is distracting from the issue at hand, hunting inactives. This is clearly the way to avoid an apathetic town.
The list that LunarDestiny suggested isn’t the best idea. If there are 10 people on the list, then no one will feel pressured to respond unless everyone else on the list is responding. They will just be lurking amongst the people on the list who aren’t responding on the list.
The best way to pressure inactives is to vote for them and actually intend to lynch them unless they contribute something useful.
As such, I'm going to pick someone that hasn't posted yet and put my vote on them. If they come to the thread and contribute then I'll move my vote off them. My pick is GeorgeClooney. pretty good first post. On December 28 2010 14:33 why wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 14:06 Insanious wrote:Alright, I went through and looked at posts and here's what I found: 1. Brocket (If replaced, let me know, might of missed it) 2. GeorgeClooney (If replaced, let me know, might of missed it) 3. Orgolove | 4. ~OpZ~ | 5. ShoCkeyy || 6. bumatlarge || 7. Tevo || 8. Soulfire || 9. why ||| 10. RebirthOfLeGenD ||| 11. tree.hugger ||| 12. Mr.Zergling |||| 13. deconduo |||| 14. Ryuu314 |||| 15. Insanious |||| This is in decending order for number of posts, the |'s represent 1 post. Anyone with over 4 posts I thought that they had posted enough to not be 100% lurking. As such, I think these 15 people (go go half of the game) need to start posting more (yes I realize I'm in the list too... but ya). I haven't looked at WHAT people have posted, just how many times. So ya... with a little more activity, scum hunting will be a lot easier. So here's goes my random vote, going to be on Shockeyy, you were a lurking mafia in Pokemafia, and your lurking now. Post more, and lets prove your innocence . Since you chose a person at random, why not vote for Opz? There are already three people voting for him to pressure him (also, he semi-lurked in HP mafia and ended up being mafia then). A fourth vote makes it more likely that there will actually be a response to the pressure, as one vote is easy to just ignore. If Opz posts, then we can pressure Shockeyy next I promise. Also good, note that he said he was going to vote opz previously so that someone will actually respond to multiple votes. I like this cause it seems to me he's actively trying to root out inactives, and this post "please help lynch opz" screams that to me. On December 31 2010 17:02 why wrote:Reading over the posts again, Seraph just seems redder and redder to me. Let's look at this defense here: Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 16:10 seRapH wrote:Responses in blueOn December 29 2010 05:26 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Now for RoL's badass analysis of the game, raping Red's day 1. SeraphOn December 27 2010 10:28 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 10:25 TheMango wrote:
where are my mafia team mates? lets start getting rid of some people. Hey guys this is an obvious slip-up, we should lynch TheMango. Town wouldn't want to "get rid" of people Also DrH because there's always a high chance of him being mafia. A nothing post, just the pregame jovial attitude usually shown by mafia. :D I'm a jovial person ^_^On December 27 2010 10:54 seRapH wrote:
I highly doubt there's any more than 1 framer in this game, but we should keep rolecheck candidates to 4 or 5 to minimize framer/miller influence. One of my favorite little tells that a lot of people give off is format speculation early on, he is one of the first to discuss it. Seraph and LD. Although a LOT of people have done it in this game because their was a new role I think we can view this as an additional circumstance to his "mafia" behavior since a lot of people exemplify this strait. I don't really get why this is scummy? This isn't so much speculation as it is drawing from previous game experience.On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote:
Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? At this point he gets on the"lets lynch inactives" train and trying to figure out how to define inactives. First off I am going to say this right now. Fuck lynching inactives. It is such a stupid plan most of the time, lynching an inactive does two VERY anti town things. One it provides ZERO information because generally there is no vote split on inactives its usually a unanimous decision among the town, and on top of that since there is NO information to decide on who we are going to lynch because they are inactive the mafia have a huge influence over just which inactive guy we decide to kill. In summary lynching inactives makes Day 1 a day we get NO information and on top of that the lynch is more readily swayed by the mafia, yielding our daily KP to them. It is just stupid. What annul did is exactly what I would do. Just start throwing shit and see who comes out of the wood work. Ideally though you aim to target someone who you believe is red. But either way the important thing is we are getting information. I wanted to discuss lynching inactives because it does incline the would-be lurkers to start posting. Who knows if it worked or not, but at least it's a prod. I would never actually go ahead and lynch an inactive/lurker day 1 though, I agree, the information we get from that is minimal. On December 27 2010 13:36 seRapH wrote:
Inactives with zero posts or votes will be modkilled/replaced, so I guess what I meant was lurkers. How will we determine who are lurkers and how will we pick which to be irradiated? On December 27 2010 13:40 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 13:37 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote:
Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? + Show Spoiler +Disclaimer: I don't believe that we'll actually lynch an inactive. How about Zero meaningful posts? If all they have is spam and one vote with an explination of "I agree". That would be an inactive Or if we seriously have no idea what to do, we could lynch someone about to be modkilled, a way to essentially abstain Except they could be replaced, not necessarily modkilled. On December 27 2010 14:04 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 13:43 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:40 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 13:37 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote:
Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? + Show Spoiler +Disclaimer: I don't believe that we'll actually lynch an inactive. How about Zero meaningful posts? If all they have is spam and one vote with an explination of "I agree". That would be an inactive Or if we seriously have no idea what to do, we could lynch someone about to be modkilled, a way to essentially abstain Except they could be replaced, not necessarily modkilled. Hmm... I wonder if the mafia would try to modkill one of their own members in hopes of getting the person replaced by DoctorH Ace did that back in insane. Well, we forced the mafia to find their own repacements, and Ace choose L. Bah DrH is our only replacement right? I kinda wish there were a few more but whatev =\ We are going to see a recurring trend with Seraph, He doesn't really ever stop talking about inactives and mod kills at all. Hooray. Clarify how this makes me scum?On December 27 2010 14:22 seRapH wrote:
I don't want luck to have any more to do with this than it has to. Early vig hits is much too risky, and has just as much if not more chance of hitting blue than it does of hitting red. Sure reducing KP is important, but keeping our number of blues is even moreso. On December 27 2010 14:53 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 14:35 LunarDestiny wrote:
Vigs can only hit on or AFTER night 2 Right, so this isn't something that's exactly urgent, is it? Day 1 lynching, however, is. Now one big thing to notice here, he advises against using KP and uses a TERRIBLE argument. This is a giant redflag to me. Why the hell would there be a better chance of hitting a blue then a red with a vigi hit? If we hold off our vigi hits there is a better chance the mafia will kill the vigi and we lose that KP too. That's roughly equivalent to telling mad hatters not to place bombs until night 3 because chances are they will just bomb a blue. It just chances us wasting our KP that we shouldn't be. On top of that if a vigi is doing ANY amount of behavioral analysis then they should be able to hit a god damn red by night 2 if they choose to, MAYBE hold it off until night 3. I generally would not recommend holding off your hit because it increases the chance of the town losing it. RoL you seem pretty confident in our blue's scumhunting capabilities. You may be right but I'd rather play this on the safe side and not waste the hit. I'm more confident in vigi's ability to stay alive than their scumhunting abilities. And I still don't see how this labels me red, isn't the whole point of discussion to get rid of bad ideas and spread good ones? Why weren't you chiming in?And on top of that Seraph says we have more important things to discuss then vigi's, like the day 1 lynch. Alright, I can agree with that but seriously what the fuck is there to talk about if you are lynching an inactive? Exactly, nothing. Its just basically RNG whichever person not posting the mafia approves of and unanimously killing them. Once again, I had no intention of pushing a lynch on an inactive.On December 27 2010 15:00 seRapH wrote:
Well given that it's day 1 we're mostly waiting for people to check in. So people should be pitching in about their stances on the following issues:
Day 1 lynch- Inactives or suspects, and then who?
Role of PMs in this game
Any questions you guys may have should also be asked, an informed town is a good town ^_^ Alright let me get this strait. By your agenda we should be lynching inactives and searching for them but we need to wait for people to check in day 1...? Pretty much self explanatory. So far we have seen a good amount of anti town posting from Seraph on top of a bit of spammyness. Straits are small rivers. And we were only a few hours into the day, so pretty much everyone was "inactive".On December 28 2010 07:49 seRapH wrote:
It's pretty obvious that the Pandain wagon makes zero sense, so if you were mafia trying to establish credibility letting that go through would be stupid.
Annul my vote is going on you now because after reading through this thread I also think your analysis has been forced.
Also I'm keeping an eye on meapak. This is one of the posts I found really interesting. The pandain wagon did make no sense and Seraph says what I think he is trying to do. We can just label it wifom. At the same time he discredits Annul saying his argument is forced On December 28 2010 08:55 seRapH wrote:
A forced argument is when you try to conjure up something out of nothing. Then explains what forced means! But seriously, how is Annul's analysis forced? I read it, it felt pretty natural to me. Annul remains dedicated and keeps going for his lynch of LSB and LSB OMGUS him back which is a really shitty way to play and incredibly anti town. The thing is I also believe that could just be a blue tell from LSB believing his role to be important for town victory. The last thing he does is FOS on Meapak but not saying ANYTHING about why. At least give some reason. Annul's analysis included taking a bunch of LSB's various bad and semi-bad jokes (and even a few worth chuckling for!) and treating them seriously. I mean really, you'd have to be from romania... Meapak was the first person to follow annul's case, but obviously since then many others have joined in. So the point's moot. Still, one of the first three or four on the wagon is likely mafia.On December 28 2010 11:54 seRapH wrote:On December 28 2010 11:52 why wrote:
Hi everyone, just got off from work and caught up with the thread.
It seems to me that the annul vs. LSB debate is distracting from the issue at hand, hunting inactives. This is clearly the way to avoid an apathetic town.
The list that LunarDestiny suggested isn’t the best idea. If there are 10 people on the list, then no one will feel pressured to respond unless everyone else on the list is responding. They will just be lurking amongst the people on the list who aren’t responding on the list.
The best way to pressure inactives is to vote for them and actually intend to lynch them unless they contribute something useful.
As such, I'm going to pick someone that hasn't posted yet and put my vote on them. If they come to the thread and contribute then I'll move my vote off them. My pick is GeorgeClooney. I like that you're going to help us with this inactive thing, but we shouldn't be lynching someone who's about to get modkilled for not showing up. On December 28 2010 17:17 seRapH wrote:On December 28 2010 16:42 Node wrote:I think between annul and LSB it's actually quite likely that one of them is scum. In Haunted Mafia, DocH and Pandain continually re-iterated the same arguments against each other, making huge walls of text that consumed many pages, and diverted town discussion from important things for like two whole game days. In the end, Pandain was scum. The difference there was that there were no PMs that game, so it was more important to be able to follow the thread well. All the same, I'm sensing echoes of that here, especially since annul seems to want to continue to force the issue. I'll also say that I find annul's posting to be much scummier than LSB's. The way he's posting reminds me a lot of the way he played Experimental Mini Mafia (which was an interesting experience, as I knew he was scum from the beginning ), whereas LSB's defense and contribution seems a lot more like his posting in Pokemafia, where he was green. For now, I'm putting my vote on annul. I'm also going to be analyzing LunarDestiny, as I think his posting has been... strange, to say the least. Gonna work on that now. Just clearing this up, but you do mean Insane Mafia, not Haunted, right? Seraph then stresses that we go back to lynching inactives while clearing up such a trivial issue between insane/haunted mafia. The running trend with Seraph is anti town play, just focusing on lynching an inactive and really not committing at ALL on the annul/LSB situation. This could be because he doesn't want to be associated with supporting a bad lynch of either of them, or not wanting to side at risk of being exposed when his ally gets lynched. What? Did you even check to see who I voted for? I defended LSB when I was here and put my vote on annul. I suppose I can't really say that I wouldn't risk chainsaw defending LSB now that he's been flipped, but I did!With that being said, I strongly believe Seraph is mafia and we should lynch to kill him and hold off on the LSB/Annul situation because of how important blue roles are to a town victory. On top of that if/when LSB fails to prove his claim we get another free mafia kill that we can make a vigi use. LSB is claiming to be able to PROVE his alliance by night 2 and if he can't then well I am sure we can do something about that can't we? We just need to stay focused and get him killed then and not get distracted by other "better" targets. RoL your analysis really doesn't say too much about exactly why you think I'm mafia. A major point of the Seraph's defense is that he never would never actually want to lynch an inactive player. Instead, he just wants to put pressure on players so that they will be more likely to post more. Ok, fine, right? Show nested quote +On December 31 2010 07:33 seRapH wrote:SoulfireOn December 27 2010 13:45 Soulfire wrote:
I had meant to contribute earlier, but I was watching some streamed games of my team's CW.
I'm a new player, so for the most part I've just been reading what everybody has said thus far and trying to come up with any reasonable conclusion, which not surprisingly has been futile. I've gone over previous games and observed common posting habits for many of the more veteran players in this game and I honestly don't notice anything alarming enough to begin to point fingers safely. I'd definitely have to agree with Pandain, Wiggles and others; focus attention on the inactives, but struggle to differentiate between those who just don't care and are probably going to be modkilled and people who are trying to lay low, specially people making pointless posts to avoid the modkill.
But I will speak for other players who are new like I am, it is difficult to post something that contributes in Day 1 - so yet another thing to differentiate: new players who are lost and can only agree with others, and mafia trying to slip under the radar and avoid modkill. Few points here: He’s new, he doesn’t want to out himself, and hands lurkers the excuse of not caring. First point isn’t incriminating, but the other two are pretty notable. On December 27 2010 18:01 Soulfire wrote:
Yet another vote for Pandain - can you guys seriously stop that? There's no reason to be doing that, and the only thing we know about him thus far is that he's been pretty damn helpful, and past games show that he knows what he's doing. There's no reason to be piling votes on people, and new players will just be prompted to join the bandwagon. Ok, fine, Pandain wagon was bullshit, I have no clue why anyone joined it at all, town or not. What I do find interesting is that apparantly Pandain is "pretty damn helpful" while LSB, evidently, has not been. On December 28 2010 14:22 Soulfire wrote:
Just read the last 5 pages, and like many others, paid attention to the argument between Annul and LSB. BOTH come off as scummy, but to be totally honest I think it's a safer bet to go with a lurker, for the same reasons that many have said - the more talkative a scum is, the more likely he is to make a mistake and thus be lynched. We have NOTHING to go by other than very slight hints in posting style. Our best bet easily is to lynch a lurker because they may continue lurking later on, and we won't be able to gather any hints from them that may identify them as scum. However, Annul and LSB will both continue posting frequently, thus increasing the chance that they may make mistakes and reveal themselves. If they all of a sudden STOP posting frequently, that'd be out of the character developed on day 1 and would be a pretty strong hint that they're scum.
Just my 2 cents. I don’t really get this. I’m thinking that if we can get Soulfire lynched or nightkilled then annul can be cleared of most suspicions. Once again he pushes lynching lurkers too. Also, people don’t switch roles midway (or at least not in this setup), so a change in character indicates they’re either dodging an accusation or real life problems. On December 29 2010 08:19 Soulfire wrote:
I've been on the whole "lynch LSB" bandwagon, but after reading Pandain's logic, even though it makes HIM sound incredibly scummy as well the the information fishing, I'm gonna vote for Brocket. When I read over Pokemafia he indeed acted quite differently, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was trying to hide under the radar.
But yeah, Pandain really strikes me as a mafia trying to save LSB - but then again, is there any way to protect someone WITHOUT appearing suspicious? Atleast he presents a logical argument. If LSB does not "prove himself", LYNCH HIM ON DAY 2. Completely dodges the LSB/Annul situation by going for a new bandwagon on brocket. Also staying under the radar by following pandain quite closely: On December 29 2010 11:36 Soulfire wrote:
Gonna actually have to agree with Pandain's analysis here, I didn't think of it the way he put it: We don't have much to go on, so we might as well guarantee important information with a lynch of LSB.
##Unvote
##Vote LSB Conclusion: Very likely scum. Not too many posts at all, and none of them offering any original insight. imo this is a better lynch than anyone else so far, but Mr Wiggles earns second place. If Soulfire dodges the lynch then I’d at least like someone to DT check him. But wait! Then Seraph posts this analysis of soulfire who is as close to inactive as we have at this point. After saying that he never intended to lynch inactives, he then goes ahead and posts an analysis of one and pushes a lynch on him. But there is still one possibility left: that Seraph wants to pressure soulfire into posting more, like he said his original intention was back during day 1. Show nested quote +On December 31 2010 14:44 seRapH wrote:On December 31 2010 13:41 Jackal58 wrote:
Coagulation informs me Hanna Montana is performing tomorrow at Disney World.
He seems to believe this fact has relevance here.
I don't get it. Get yourself banned and you'll see the relevance ;D I keep forgetting that not everybody knows what they're doing. =\ I'll give Soulfire a pass for now but he really needs to show up and take some sides I guess pressure wasn't really the goal either. The only conclusion seems to be that Seraph posted that analysis for no real reason except to seem like he was contributing. At this point, it would take a lot for me to move my vote off of Seraph. and an analysis. So far, since he's been contributing but not active, I would say he's most likely town.
15. ShoCkeyy-likely scum
+ Show Spoiler +On December 28 2010 10:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Came back from work, going to read up. For now I'm putting a vote on myself >.< okay On December 28 2010 22:42 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 20:15 Node wrote:Analysis of LunarDestiny so far (my comments in blue):+ Show Spoiler +On December 27 2010 10:51 LunarDestiny wrote:
Lets discuss about the game. Framer is the only role new to me and the role is damn powerful. If we focus on a small group of people, the framer can easily frame someone who dts will check. We should try to focus on a bigger group of people so the framer could not misled the town easily.
On December 27 2010 11:03 LunarDestiny wrote:
I think the framer role encourages dts to use check on lurkers. On December 27 2010 11:10 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:08 Mr.Zergling wrote:On December 27 2010 11:03 LunarDestiny wrote:
I think the framer role encourages dts to use check on lurkers. why would it do that? Because it is unlikely that mafia would frame a lurkering town. So if dts check lurkers, then it will reduce the risk of them mischecking a framed target. He spends his first few posts addressing the framer role, and how it should affect DT checks. I'm not a big fan of directing blues, but I'm not about to call this scummy posting. When people start asking blues to take specific actions (ie put bomb on this guy, check this guy, protect so-and-so), then it sets off alarms.On December 27 2010 12:25 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:50 Pandain wrote:
WHAT TO DO FOR TODAY
I say to do this ery day, I say to do this now. Town should lynch inactives. This is actually a somewhat complicated process. Right now in the beginning I will just begin voting people(pressuring) until they make enough of a meaningful post and then I’ll vote someone else. Now, the point is to lynch those who “contribute without really contributing” not those who are just going to get modkilled. That is why at the end it’ll end up being one of the “semi lurkers”, not the dead ones.
SUMMARY
1.Contribute without spamming
2.Be active, make well thought out posts.
3.Lynch the semi inactives, inactives for now.
Contradiction? Pandain say we should lynch inactive for day1 then vote for Mr. Wiggles? Pandain, please explain. He calls Pandain out on voting Mr. Wiggles. IMO Pandain's vote was justified by his post, but I don't have a problem with this. On December 27 2010 14:17 LunarDestiny wrote:Since there are many new players in the game, they will probably base their night actions, if they have blue roles, on advices of others. Pandain did give out many good advices but I'll nitpick this one: Show nested quote +Vigi- I still think this should really be a town decision who to shoot. There are so many times when town is going to need that extra certain kp in situations in the future, in addition to the fact that most likely you will shoot a town. Only shoot if we tell you too, or(and I’m being very cautious on this) you just know I like the idea that vig's shot should be decided by town. Unless vigs are veteran, the town are better figuring out who is scum. Also, shots from vigs aren't wasted if more than one shots at the same person are made. I also want to discuss should vigs use their shots early to try to get lucky and kill mafia? Reducing mafia KP is very important and we also have two double lynch to compensate for lack of vig in the later in the game. Continues to advise blue roles, this time focusing on vig. I think it's a terrible, terrible idea to base the town's night kills on luck, enough that I'd call it scummy to ask for it. He also notes that newb blues are likely to base their action on town advice, which is exactly why I'm beginning to find it a bit weird just how much advice LunarDestiny is giving. Any mafia influence over special town roles is good for them.On December 27 2010 14:33 LunarDestiny wrote:
Vigs can only hit on night 2. At that time, we will most likely have multiple suspects. These suspects are likely to be our main lynch targets on day3. So if they are not killed, we have to deal with them anyway. The risk is that they are town and can be proven innocence on night 2 by a dt. But the existence of the framer discourage dts to check on suspects. So dt checks on suspected people returning town aren't convincing information.
Also in most of the games I played, vigs are killed before they were able to make shots. More blue advice.On December 27 2010 14:55 LunarDestiny wrote:
I was trying to give people someone to discuss. There is no better topic that I can find. I find it hard to believe that there's really nothing else to discuss, but I'll let this slide.On December 27 2010 17:00 LunarDestiny wrote:
People will ask what your opinion is on something and it is safe to respond on these pm. Just don't tell anyone your role. If you strongly sense that someone is trying to fish out your role, you should tell town since it is good indication that the person is mafia.
After night 1, dts would have checked some townies and pms are encouraged between them. There is a slight chance that a mafia will take the risk to fake the dt role, but it would be hard for them to do since they have to predict but role that person is.
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap. We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves. More blue advice. Also, he wants a list made rather than pressuring inactives on an individual basis -- which other people have mentioned isn't the greatest of ideas.On December 28 2010 03:43 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 00:56 LSB wrote:EBWOP On December 28 2010 00:50 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 28 2010 00:40 LSB wrote:@LunarDestinyOn December 27 2010 17:00 LunarDestiny wrote:
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap. We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves. What do you think we should do about inactives then? Can you read his post? It doesn't do anything about inactives. It just says we make a list of inactives and see what happens. We've done this practically every single game. Does it work? Not really. LunarDestiny, can you elaborate a bit more then?
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap.Looking at the voting thread, there are 3 people that were voted. Mr.Wiggies quickly responded after pandain voted on him. Pandain also respond after the mass vote on him. But Jackal had yet to respond after being voted by pandain. Accusing someone encourages participation from that that person. But what if that person is afk? He won't be able to respond. Also, IF pandain is mafia, then town will be sidetracked. Other inactive mafia will go under the radar.
We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves.I am saying that we should not target inactive (afk/spam/suspect) at a time for day 1 lynch. At some point on day1, we should come up with a list of possible lynch and that will encourage those people on the list to speak up. Again all of the above is for day 1's lynch when town have almost no information. I want to put pressure on all inactives to speak up and maybe contribution. He clarifies that he wants to not target an inactive for a day 1 lynch, but wants to pressure them into posting via his list. Which... I don't really get. Why would they post if there was no actual threat of being lynched? Also, I don't think mafia pressuring inactives would actually be bad, as long as . In addition the last time a complete inactive got lynched day 1 (salem mafia w/BrownBear), they ended up being red, though to be fair it was a traitor role, so the mafia wasn't aware of their alignment.
I don't agree with this post, but I'm more inclined to say that his thoughts come from a town point of view.On December 28 2010 04:08 LunarDestiny wrote:
Also, I somewhat don't agree with Dr.H that dts should check the people they think are the most likely to be mafia. The people that seem to most likely to be mafia are a combination of:
-Lurkers who post bare minimum to stay alive.
There is a lower chance that framer will framer a lurking town. I encourage dts to check these people. There is the downside where these people are more likely to be modkilled because they might be people who lost interest in the game. Without more people as replacement, dt checks might be wasted. So dts have to judge between lurkers who lost interest in the game and those who are posting minimum to stay alive.
-People who have taken a huge stand on issues and are in long debates with others. These people are most likely to be framer's target since there are, at most, a few of people in this categories. The probability of successful framing of these people is higher than probability of successful framing on lurking town. And even if a dt check says that a person of these categories comes out to be mafia, this information is useful, but less compared to other mafia games where there are no framer
To summarize, dts should use checks on lurkers to avoid framer. But should judge between real lurkers and discouraged players. Again with the blue advice.On December 28 2010 04:53 LunarDestiny wrote:
I am not saying that we should go after inactive all game. On day 1 where very few information is available, we should pressure all inactive to speak up. Because this game have the role framer in it, we should let dts deal with inactive and discourage dt checks on people are suspicious because they are in heated debates.
I agree that behavior analyze is important. Especially in this game, mafia check by dt on people who are in long debates are less convincing compared to other games because they are likely to be a framed townie. On December 28 2010 05:20 LunarDestiny wrote:
Yes, my posts are general and are related to how should we play this game because of minor difference (framer) compared to other mafia games.
@1)I want to ask you how should we put pressure on specific player to contribute. It would be bad if a mafia is calling out inactive townie. Also, who should we choose? Go to a list of inactive and randomly pick one of them and say "xxxx, please contribute."
@2)If the list is short enough (less than 10 people?), then the list is convincing enough to pressure people to speak up.
@3)Again, I am not trying to post to make me look town. Heck, I could have lurked from the beginning and not attract attention to myself.
By my "plan", I assume you mean me saying "who should dts check" and "on day 1, we should pressure inactive to speak". Yes, both requires almost no work on my part. The first is advice to dts and the second is relating to generating discussions.
As of now, I do not have good point of why or why not anyone is mafia. I do not want to accuse anyone without good point. Here he's defending himself after Barundar's post accusing him of not posting much in the way of content. I'll go through point by point.
1. I already stated how I disagree with not pressuring players individually. And it's not like a list is going to be particularly persuasive in the way of getting inactives more active, unless people actually act on it. That requires votes.
2. See #1
3. Anyone could say this. Of course you don't have to post anything helpful, but it certainly assists your own case if you're mafia.
Altogether, an inconclusive post.On December 28 2010 05:34 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:23 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:20 LunarDestiny wrote:
@1)I want to ask you how should we put pressure on specific player to contribute. It would be bad if a mafia is calling out inactive townie. Also, who should we choose? Go to a list of inactive and randomly pick one of them and say "xxxx, please contribute."
@2)If the list is short enough (less than 10 people?), then the list is convincing enough to pressure people to speak up.
What's the difference between the two scenarios? In both we are putting pressure on people to contribute. In both we need to make a list of inactives. Because if we do something like "xxxx you have not been contributing and that makes you look mafia, please contribute." We get contribution like Mr.Wiggle which is good. But if the mafia is the one pointing fingers, then other mafia will be left alone. Also, we are targeting a smaller group of people compared to having a list of people. I also like to say that I am not discouraging pointing fingers at non-inactive. Having debates between active players especially useful since it is the best way to find mafia because a mafia dt checks on these people are less convincing than other mafia games. So, it's okay to point fingers at active players because it encourages debate, but it's not okay to do so at inactive players because they might be afk. Again, I disagree, but that's a common theme at this point.On December 28 2010 05:46 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:26 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:23 LunarDestiny wrote:On December 28 2010 04:57 Barundar wrote:I’m sorry to point it out, but I can’t help but notice how general and unproductive your posts are, LunarDestiny. At some point on day1, we should come up with a list of possible lynch and that will encourage those people on the list to speak up 1) Lists are a good way to appear like you are contributing, without actually adding anything. I want to put pressure on all inactives to speak up and maybe contribution. 2) Pressure is not done in general, pressure is specific to make the player unable to hide. Your list of pressuring “all” inactives is the same as pressuring none. 3) There is a fine line between a plan, and suggestions that make you appear to be active while sending the town on a goosechase. Your plan requires no work from yourself (“we” should do this and that), is very general (“at some point”), and it’s limited to inactives instead of scumhunting, making it mechanic, so even when we hit town, the mafia is not guilty. In general, the player list is a little more stacked with active players than Pokemafia/HPmafia, so inactives shouldn’t be as much as a problem (even if I just replaced one…) My respond is above. (Thought I could post right under without quoting) Okay, now your post makes a bit more sense. But the point still stands. Why is it so bad to put pressure on one person and then move? Why is this better than RNG? I think I answered your first question in my post above. For your second question: The list is better because it will affect more inactive. Now I think RNG people to pressure them can be use in combination with having a list because I don't see why we can't use them together. To rephrase what I was saying, only RNG people and accuse them is not a good choice to pressure inactive. Having a list will pressure on a bigger group of people. You can RNG people and pressure them, BUT the list is needed because RNGing people is not enough. More pushing for the all-important inactive list. Why Insanious ended up making it instead of LunarDestiny is beyond me. On December 28 2010 05:57 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:51 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 28 2010 05:34 LunarDestiny wrote:On December 28 2010 05:23 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:20 LunarDestiny wrote:
@1)I want to ask you how should we put pressure on specific player to contribute. It would be bad if a mafia is calling out inactive townie. Also, who should we choose? Go to a list of inactive and randomly pick one of them and say "xxxx, please contribute."
@2)If the list is short enough (less than 10 people?), then the list is convincing enough to pressure people to speak up.
What's the difference between the two scenarios? In both we are putting pressure on people to contribute. In both we need to make a list of inactives. Because if we do something like "xxxx you have not been contributing and that makes you look mafia, please contribute." We get contribution like Mr.Wiggle which is good. But if the mafia is the one pointing fingers, then other mafia will be left alone. Also, we are targeting a smaller group of people compared to having a list of people. I also like to say that I am not discouraging pointing fingers at non-inactive. Having debates between active players especially useful since it is the best way to find mafia because a mafia dt checks on these people are less convincing than other mafia games. Everyone has to point fingers. Even mafia point fingers at their own for weak posting or inactivity, but they will rarely push for a lynch. It should be our job as town to make sure that all of the necessary people are brought into the spotlight and to lynch those we find lacking. As posted above, I think pointing finger is good but a list is needed because pointing finger is not enough. Also, the list thing is most useful in day1 since that is the day with the least information. After day1, I suppose that the lynch will be based on behavior analysis like other games. Also, I want to ask Pandain to stop voting at random people to pressure them to talk. If we are also pressuring random inactive, then the same person must not be the one pointing fingers. I find this post in particular especially strange. Pandain is getting results and encouraging discussion, and apparently that's a bad thing. The last sentence is garbled, but by the sound of it he means inactives should not be the ones to pressure inactives. Um... okay. So how else can they contribute?On December 28 2010 07:34 LunarDestiny wrote:I am following debates between Annul and LSB. There are something I don't get. Annul's conclusion in his first post about why LSB should be lynched. Show nested quote +in conclusion, LSB has been making pure nonposts and/or pure informative posts without analysis, with the two exceptions being his insistence on the "kill inactives" theme and his defenses of pandain and mr. wiggles. yet he has like 30 posts up while saying almost absolutely nothing.
my vote is on LSB now. Annul, your conclusion for lynching LSB is because he have about 30 posts. All 30 posts, except 2, are posts that means nothing and pure informative posts without analysis? LSB, are your reasons for lynching Annul in page 17? -1. Giant wall of text that pretends to be contributing -2. He doesn't want to do anything about inactives -3. He makes a faulty analysis that is forced -4. Annul posts without brining anything new I will say what I think of this later, but I want to get these two points straight. Finally he gets involved in the discussion that the town has been most concerned with lately. But whatever happened to pressuring inactives? In his whole post history, he has not actually called anybody out, or even commented on the list he wanted. Also, despite being quite active in the game so far, he hasn't cast a vote, even though he emphasizes pressure.On December 28 2010 08:33 LunarDestiny wrote:I also think that Annul's initial post about LSB being mafia is illogically since the town will definitely not lynch a veteran like LSB because he have some meaningless posts. LSB actually have way more than 2 good posts before annul's accusation. Annul's second reason on p.18 Show nested quote +insistence on going after inactives instead of scumhunting. it would be very easy for a mafia to know his team all happen to be active and then say "hey kill inactives over all else EVEN IF scummy targets exist Well, we know that there is a lot of inactive in this game. I also assume there must a some mafia inactive in this game so LSB going after inactive doesn't say much about him being scum. What I don't understand is why Annul accused LSB without good evidence why LSB is mafia. -I don't think Annul accuse LSB to save Pandain because the bandwagon on Pandain is a joke and there is no good reason to lynch pandain. -LSB also mentioned that Annul do the analysis on LSB to make himself look good by using it as a reference that he did lengthy analysis. But LSB also say that annul want his post to be ignored. I have to question why would annul choose LSB to accuse if he want his post to be ignored. It makes no sense. If annul want his post to be ignore, he could have analyze someone other than LSB, because pointing finger at LSB would certainly result in some lengthy responses that annul can't slip by. More comments on the LSB / annul debate. I'm happy to see him voice his thoughts on the matter, though I would rather see an actual position taken instead of just listing the various issues that are guiding the debate. He could be genuinely unsure of which side to take, or it could be the typical wishy-washy mafia.
So, final thoughts. LunarDestiny, up until commenting on the annul / LSB debate is all about lurkers and blues. Blues, lurkers, blues, lurkers. DTs should check them. We should pressure them this way, not that way. It's a good idea to lynch one. So on and so forth.
Final verdict: undecided. I'm going to leave it at 50/50 for now. His thoughts aren't inherently scummy, but I really wish that he would get a bit more specific and actually start pointing fingers instead of encouraging others to do so. I think what made me suspicious of him was how many of his points I disagreed with. I just think the inactive town list, asking Pandain to stop doing what's clearly working, and the desire to control blue actions are all misguided notions. The key here is that we don't actually know anything about him -- it would be quite easy for a scum to be behind these posts and say "I'm contributing!" even though everything he has said could be summed up in a few sentences. It's true that for most of the game he's been re-iterating the same thing over many posts.
If he is town, I think he could do better. Ok, what im wondering is, why would you go off posting who's blue, if he is or isn't. You're just making it easier for mafia to pick and choose on who to kill. Explain as to why you did this? If he is a blue I want to know why you did an analysis on him if he's really trying to help the town and hasn't posted scummy at all. I have my FoS on you. Misunderstands that post. On December 28 2010 22:46 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Ahh i read that wrong... this is what happens when you get 2hrs of sleep and are reading/posting from a phone. _.
Anyways, fosing myself cause im an idiot. explains that. On December 30 2010 12:48 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I vote for Pandain he keeps sending me messages and harassing me while im working.. I don't get home till tomorrow after 1pm, so I won't be able to keep up as much till then or be even able to post cause like I said, reading/posting on my phone is terribad. Horrible reason for voting, but humurous to me. So thus far we have seen no real content from shockeyy, so now time to look at his previous games. Basically pokemafia. In that game he contributed a whole bunch more, and actually contributed. Now, he was under pressure for like that entire game but posts like this make me suspicious of his activity this game. On December 12 2010 05:51 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 04:35 tree.hugger wrote:On December 11 2010 17:41 tree.hugger wrote:My hunch is that he's not going to be able to commit fully to anything, no matter how much we prod.
On December 12 2010 02:30 Kenpachi wrote:
asdf. even when i post, i get pointed scum On December 12 2010 02:35 Kenpachi wrote:
okay so yea my posts were bad but what can i say? i couldnt offer anything there and there. So i voted Gabriel for blatant bandwagon. Then he reacts and i defend. On December 12 2010 02:27 Kenpachi wrote:
##vote tree.hugger On December 12 2010 04:10 Kenpachi wrote:On December 12 2010 03:39 DCLXVI wrote:
Thank you insanious and tree.hugger, I hope to see more people post like that. I don't understand why people are letting Kenpachi off the hook for bad posting. So what if he has a history of being less than stellar for the town. We cannot allow him to spam and distract the town because even if he isn't mafia, this helps the mafia. He is playing in a way that benefits the mafia, so even if he isn't (though I think he is), he is dangerous for the town. I really don't like the defense used by darth and meepak of "oh, well this is just how he normally plays". Townies don't intentionally hurt the town by doing what kenpachi is doing.
I'll hopefully be back in a bit before the vote ends, but I feel safe in putting my vote on Kenpachi. Every vote on him is a vote to clean up the town. youre dumb. what if i happened to be DT or Medic? On December 12 2010 04:13 Kenpachi wrote:On December 12 2010 04:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 12 2010 04:10 Kenpachi wrote:On December 12 2010 03:39 DCLXVI wrote:
Thank you insanious and tree.hugger, I hope to see more people post like that. I don't understand why people are letting Kenpachi off the hook for bad posting. So what if he has a history of being less than stellar for the town. We cannot allow him to spam and distract the town because even if he isn't mafia, this helps the mafia. He is playing in a way that benefits the mafia, so even if he isn't (though I think he is), he is dangerous for the town. I really don't like the defense used by darth and meepak of "oh, well this is just how he normally plays". Townies don't intentionally hurt the town by doing what kenpachi is doing.
I'll hopefully be back in a bit before the vote ends, but I feel safe in putting my vote on Kenpachi. Every vote on him is a vote to clean up the town. youre dumb. what if i happened to be DT or Medic? Are you claiming DT or medic? no i am not Word. I suppose we'll get treated to angry defending eventually, as he's in the lead right now, but hey, that might be too committed. Alright, I feel like kenpachi is getting way to agressive here. All his post have been aggressive and not helpful in anyway. + Show Spoiler +A) 4 hours does not judge that. what if i went on TL tomorrow for the first time in the past 3 days? B) Anyone who posts would want to look active.. Why would they post if they want to look inactive? C) Why are you assuming i read the rules? how do you know i didnt just assume the KP? D) It doesnt. shh E) ?? its enlightenment F) I dont agree with you voting for Infundibulum. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174831¤tpage=14#270When he starts saying, that why do people assume that he reads the rules, makes me question him. Everyone reads the rules and we know this because that's part of the game. If he's saying he doesn't that just seems phishy to me imo. I also feel like, he posted the DT or Medic theory in order to try and get some people off of his case cause he can possibly be a TR member. I've seen this happen plenty of times where they pull out the "I might be a DT or Medic" and they end up not being it. My two cents, maybe I am wrong, but this is what I've been able to read off of.
orgolove-scum
+ Show Spoiler +
23. GeorgeClooney-unsure, leading confused
+ Show Spoiler +On December 28 2010 14:33 GeorgeClooney wrote:
I'm active, and I'm a noob, so i'm just reading! brings noob excuse On December 28 2010 14:33 GeorgeClooney wrote:
And sorry, going to contribute once I get his whole logic thing of mine going okay? On December 29 2010 21:14 GeorgeClooney wrote:
I'm properly going to vote Paindrain when day begins, cause he won't make up his mind. I thought lynching ESB was a retarded move, he would have roleclaimed after, and for god sakes he was a Vet. He could of established a town circle, nor was he scummy after the other guy (forgot his name) decided to bit his ass and not let go.
Lets hope its not another blue lol.
By the way, I want to start a town circle. Ofcourse i'm not going to lead this, but I ain't mafia, and I want to win a game lol. Straight forward.
Anyone else for a town circle? In this post I think it just really shows he doesn't care about the game. Gets my name wrong on LSB's name wrong, and if he'd been reading the thread he would've known those for sure. The post is scummy but overall ilt just shows a really dumb townie. Finally the last post is just wtf. I'm really confused, but am going to say he's just being not very smart by trying to start a town circle. On December 30 2010 18:36 GeorgeClooney wrote:
Fuck, I've got work tomorrow and over here it would be new years. Right now I'm going to vote for myself. Why? Although for some strange reason I think its Paindrain, I have analysed the post enoguh to know its him for certain. And if I think its not him afterwards the analyses then I can always change my vote to someone else. I would vote for him IF he had limited votes on him already, but for some reason there's quite a lot of votes on him already, so i'll lay off just incase I'm too wasted on NYE to change it.
Says "I don't know who to vote for." I'm really confused by this guy so time to go into his only previous game, salem mafia! http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=168375¤tpage=17#331http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=168375¤tpage=25#482posts like that show he was at least contributing. So I'm really confused by this guy. Of course it's suspicious about how in that game he said "why should town circles be formed" but maybe he changed his mind based on the responses.
GGQ-town
+ Show Spoiler +On December 27 2010 10:41 GGQ wrote:
Pretending to be mafia to make it seem like you couldnt possibly be mafia is actually kind of scummy. Town shouldn't be trying to play tricks on town like that, it may be kind of funny but it's not helpful. First post, quite early. First of all this has pro town vibes towards me. Way too early for mafia to already be trying to cast suspicion on someone. It's more the townie that is just over eager, mafia only comes in when they want stuff down. THe argument and point made is horrible, but that just indicates dumb townie to me. On December 27 2010 15:11 GGQ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 15:00 seRapH wrote:
Well given that it's day 1 we're mostly waiting for people to check in. So people should be pitching in about their stances on the following issues:
Day 1 lynch- Inactives or suspects, and then who?
Role of PMs in this game
Any questions you guys may have should also be asked, an informed town is a good town ^_^ Well for the first question, I think the answer is clear, and has already been said. We pressure inactives by moving to lynch on them. Hopefully scum slips up and gives us a lead to lynch a suspect, else we just lynch an inactive and hope. Obviously lynching someone who is acting suspicious is better than lynching a random inactive, but lynching the inactive is a good backup plan to get people posting and create a healthy town. For the second question, that's much more in-depth, and I imagine that the best way to use PMs will depend on your skill level. As a relatively new player, I'll stick to corresponding only with people I have very good reason to trust. Me likes this post. On December 29 2010 13:07 GGQ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 12:09 Insanious wrote:Anything by me should also be ignored... since I was defending the blue. I don't particularly FOS you, but it should be pointed out that this doesn't clear you by a long shot. Mafia knows better than anyone who is clear, and it's very easy for them to buddy a townie to appear clean when he flips. As for annul and pandain, we shouldn't lynch them just because they are wrong. But we also shouldn't let them get away too easily. Some people have suggested that they wouldn't be so bold if they were mafia. But with the godfather and the framer(s) to mess with the DTs, mafia can afford to be pretty bold this game. This is another post I like. Again, we shouldn't lynch people just because they are wrong. This is something mafia LOVE to do, so yay for him. On December 31 2010 04:20 GGQ wrote:
I feel that I should reveal this information since mafia already knows it; I was roleblocked last night.
I just read through the entire thread again and here are my thoughts:
-Pandain doesn't seem like scum to me, just a flip-flopping townie.
-Brockett narrowly avoided a lynch and still hasn't contributed anything. Much fewer posts and different posting style than his townie play in Pokemafia
-I'm still suspicious of TheMango but don't have solid reasoning for it
-I am pretty confident that ROL is town, but I dont necessarily agree with all his picks for mafia
-Insanious doesn't seem scummy to me. People keep saying that he was 'so sure' LSB was blue, but if you actually read his posts, that's not what he was saying
-I'm on the fence about annul. I always thought his tunneling on LSB was stupid, but that doesn't make him mafia. He certainly could be, though
-I'm most suspicious atm of Seraph (as ROL pointed out) and Mr Wiggles. While reading, I noticed that all of Mr Wiggles posts are riddled with uncertainty, fear, and unwillingness to commit. He may be a newer player, but it still makes me very susicious of him. My vote goes on him for now SAying you were roleblocked is especially pro town since the fact that no one else said they were roleblocked means that either GGQ is mafia, and they roleblocked someone they shot(what?), or that he was really roleblocked.
5. Brocket-likely town
+ Show Spoiler +On December 28 2010 20:41 Brocket wrote:
LSB made a huge mistake in pokemafia but he turned out to be a townie. So he's playing a bad townie again or he's mafia. No regrets flipping LSB here. Suspicious post"I don't really care if he's townie cause he's bad", but not incriminating yet. On December 29 2010 18:38 Brocket wrote:
Also if you know what's good for you don't get on my case. If you say anything dumb or wrong I'm going to call you out on it and it won't be pleasant. This is a very interesting post. I really think that this shows town instead of mafia, mainly because this is just SO suspicious. It seems more bored townie than mafia to me, since he's saying "ya don't accuse me", instead of actually defending himself. On December 31 2010 12:15 Brocket wrote:
Ahh what the hell.
I ought to contribute so I'll just make a decision now. Looking at the voting thread I have to disagree with a double lynch, it's honestly better when you have 2 or 3 people being suspected/pressured and who we need to see flipped.
Soulfire: I don't think Soulfire is a mafia, he seems to support his choice to vote well enough. I did the same thing in pokemafia and got a lot of shit from it day 1 and I was new.
Wiggle: Don't know. He doesn't annoy me like gabe did. Like Gabe made my buttcheeks clench every time I had to read his posts. And it didn't matter if gabe ended up being townie, I just wanted him out or myself killed. I can see why people would vote him though because he's a grey area.
Insanious: Draws attention to himself for this reason. I notice now that insanious was really pushing to get me lynched because I was inactive, and because I was inactive I didn't reply which just encouraged him to lynch me more. How amusing. Brocket almost didn't play the first 48 hours it because he was doing 7 hour driving stints from victoria to new south wales and had to sleep when he got home. Insanious hasn't been particularly convincing in lynching inactives and it wasn't a good idea to begin with. I don't lurk unless I say I'm lurking (check pokemafia).
RoL doesn't seem to like Insanious and he's been a pretty active dude keeping track of posts and so far that's good enough for me. I don't like late day bandwagons or bad assumptions and insanious seems to have done both. ##vote insanious.
I like this post cause he's actually sharing his opinions. Again, it shows the dumb townie rather than the mafia to me. Furthormore, the main thing that makes me indicate he's town is the fact if he was just a "lurking" mafia, why wouldn't he have defended himself? That shows to me to be a bored townie rather than mafia.
6. TheMango-unsure, leaning town.
+ Show Spoiler +On December 27 2010 10:23 TheMango wrote:
Just got my role, so who should I kill first? what? Joking but :o On December 27 2010 10:44 TheMango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 10:41 GGQ wrote:
Pretending to be mafia to make it seem like you couldnt possibly be mafia is actually kind of scummy. Town shouldn't be trying to play tricks on town like that, it may be kind of funny but it's not helpful. sounds like fake outrage, trying to cover something up there? insta lynch imo I'm noting this is his first time playing online mafia, so this is very suspsicious to me. First of all, he doesn't just say to lynch him, but insta lynch. And over a very weak reason ("sounds like fake outrage"). On December 27 2010 10:56 TheMango wrote:
I'm sure whoever the detective is will keep that in mind. Early rounds, detective picks should be pretty random anyway. Disagree, dts should check suspicious people. On December 27 2010 11:25 TheMango wrote:I'm a newbie at online mafia, so don't lynch me cause I'm asking too many stupid questions Why would we lynch u? On December 28 2010 06:36 TheMango wrote:
I was obviously joking with my first two posts. I'm new to forum/online mafia, but I consider myself pretty decent at irl mafia. So far my instincts say LSB is mafia, hence my vote. This I don't like,says he feels lsb is mafia without really saying anything. I pressured him in pms and this is what I got: being overly defensive and picking on the tiny things, while annul seems to be taking a more general approach. Basically I believe annul over LSB, though I guess they could both be townies? Him deciding to bring me up as a possible mafia suspect in the middle of the argument with annul raised my suspicions as well (trying to draw/deflect attention away from him). I think I've said enough to you, how about you give me YOUR opinion?
-----------------------------------------
Original Message From Pandain:
as in?
-----------------------------------------
Original Message From TheMango:
not much to go by really, since it's only the first night. Mostly instinct based on how he's been defending himself vs annul.
-----------------------------------------
Original Message From Pandain:
why do you think lsb is mafia? This actually struck me as pro town, since I agreed with that. However I don't like how immediately he said "well I'm not that sure but..." On December 28 2010 08:12 TheMango wrote:
I guess you missed my post above? I'm getting a strong scum sense from you based on how you're defending yourself and attacking annul. I don't see how one can 'do much' when its the first day. As I've said before, i'm new to playing mafia in this medium, so don't read too much into me being relatively quiet for now. fyi, i'm voting you (LSB) for now. I don't like how he's started to bring up the newbie card so often. Especially since he loves irl mafia and joined this because he wanted to try it, I'd assume he'd be much more active, trying to figure stuff out. So O.o so far. On December 29 2010 06:56 TheMango wrote:
I think LSB is lying about being vigilante. Makes no sense from a townie perspective. How would we even know at the start of night two? If he kills someone as vigilante that we choose, he could just as easily be mafia killing someone, no? Someone correct me if I'm wrong... okay post. On December 29 2010 12:13 TheMango wrote:
lol, that sucks. I wasn't even aware until now that roles were revealed when people died. I'm used to IRL mafia, where that was kept secret. Knowing now that LSB was not mafia, and how quickly paindain PM'ed me to NOT switch my vote to brocket, I'd say chances are good that both are mafia. Paindain also has been very active in fishing for information via PM from a lot of people it seems, which people have mentioned previously is a scum like behavior. Suspicious to me, though also not. I'm really not sure about mango. The reasons are pretty bad, but also the way he's thinking is also good "Well he quickly switched over to brockett so that's suspicious".
7. Mr.Zergling-dumb townie
+ Show Spoiler +On December 28 2010 11:39 Mr.Zergling wrote:
My vote has gone to LSB, as his responses to annul's analysis have been weak. However, from HP mafia, LSB seems to always act somewhat scummy (which is why he got lynched last game). Also deconduo's analysis gives some convincing reasons to lynch LSB (for instance: that recommending abstaining from voting is not a pro-town suggestion (also abstaining is against the rules))
Although, no day 1 lynch is ever clear, more of a shot in the dark than anything
(((I love parenthesis))) This post is very unsure to me. First I note it contradicts his first post about lynching inactives, and if he's unsure about LSB, why lynch him already. Very suspicious to me. On December 29 2010 09:24 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 08:58 Insanious wrote:On December 29 2010 08:47 bumatlarge wrote:I am curious as to how people are shifting votes around together very smoothly. Im sure RoL gave a relatively similar arguement on seraph and it pittered out. Now insanious points brocket very reasonably and 5 people shift their votes? Im actually itching to see what LSB would pop now... Sorry if you are a vig buddy Few reasons why. For starters seraph is an active and experienced town player, so losing him as a town sucks. The more experienced players like LSB, seraph, RoL, tree.hugger etc... live longer the better shot town has. Next Brocket is posting vastly different then he did in Pokemafia, which points out different behaviour between his town play and his play now. As well, Brocket is not a strong town voice, meaning between losing Brocket and LSB, Brocket hurts less. Finally, most people have read the case for not lynching LSB now that wasn't there when RoL brough up seraph. Meaning now people are looking for a way to switch off of LSB. There wasn't a good candidate to switch to before brocket. Annul is town Seraph is experience d3 is being voted for by pandrain when no one is really listening to now Then there is Brocket, random inactive who is playing vastly different then he did when he was town. Best choice offered. If there was someone better to vote for I would, and I will be the first to vote LSB come day 3 if he doesn't prove that he is blue. This is a good enough reason for me to change my vote to brocket. Also, on my lurking, I often don't feel the need to post if I fell I do not have anything to contribute to analysis. This is especially compounded by this being the first day. Says he's going to vote people because of what other people said, without giving his own reasons. Furthormore does the guilt scum tell, where he has to explain himself for his lurking. It doesn't prove anything yet, but I'm noting it. On December 29 2010 10:02 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 09:41 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:On December 29 2010 09:32 Insanious wrote:On December 29 2010 09:26 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:
Lemme sum up why brocket should be lynched "ZOMFG, he's posting different than in the last game he played!!111!!! He mus be red lynch himmm!!!111!!!... correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this brocket's second game? Isn't it to early to apply metagame? and the reason why we should vote for LSB being "Annul says he is red. HE IS RED!!!! KILL HIM!!!" Is any better? At least Brocket logic is Brocket is playing exactly like the mafia in the mafia game he last played. Is better logic then LSB spammed and is therefore scum... Actually I'm voting LSB becuse I had suspicions of LSB before Annul even started posting, when he came out with his comments and several people agreed with him it validated my concerns. LSB's defense has only cemented my view of him. More concerns I have is that LSB claims a blue and everyone believes him when it's the oldest trick in the book for a mafia about to get lynched. Another thing I don't like is how all of a sudden people are crawling out of the wood work to accuse people who really haven't done anything to bring suspicion on them other than acting like disinterested townies who are disapointed they didn't get a blue or red role. The case against brocket feels like a mafia attempt to pull votes and save LSB. In short, LSB had me suspicious at the start and has only gotten redder as the game has gone on. But, he has offered to prove that he is indeed a blue role by night 2, thus if he can not satisfactorily prove that, he dies. repeats what others has said, doesn't really give anything new. On December 29 2010 10:22 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 10:19 Insanious wrote:On December 29 2010 10:16 Barundar wrote:
Sigh what is the point of putting pressure by votes on a player who is clearly afk, this shortly before the day ends? Its not pressure votes, its votes to have LSB not die tonight so he can prove he is a blue later... and we have a possability of hitting a red. Too damn late, goodbye LSB This is especially suspicious. He's acting like he failed him, also that he knows that LSB is blue, but he hasn't been contributing. He says he contributes if he feels he can, and this post indicates that, but why isn't he doing anything. Also note this is two hours before lsb got lynched, and before and after mr. zergling will not contribute more. On December 29 2010 12:10 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 12:03 Insanious wrote:
So LSB fliped blue... here is my current game plan:
1) Vote Paindain because of how he acted when we started to vote for someone that wasn't LSB. This to me seems like the mafia are trying to get a 5th KP by killing LSB a claimed blue who is active. So Paindain looks like the most like a mafia to me.
2) Ignoring Annul for rest of game. He got tunnel vision towards a blue, who even if he was red we shouldn't of voted for right now, we should of voted for in 2 days. He had a bad gut feeling, and ignored when people put forth good reasoning to not follow that gut feeling. Annul is about 99% likely to be a green. So he shouldn't be voted for... just ignored 99% of the time unless he finds something increadibly useful... not likely to happen after this debacle.
- - - -
Also... told you so... Annul listen to me more... I looked at this logically, you were attacking LSB. You were obviously wrong like 15 pages ago.
Brocket and Paindrain... one of them is Red and I assume its Paindrain. Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 10:48 Pandain wrote:On December 29 2010 10:31 Insanious wrote:On December 29 2010 10:24 Barundar wrote:
I understand you want to save yourself, but Brocket is the worst scapegoat you could possibly find. He is as scummy as Kenpachi when posting, and now he is even afk. Voting him is the same as abstaining, and really gets us nowhere. Between Brocket and LSB, I would much much much rather Brocket dead then LSB... There really isn't another choice now due to time constraints... Annul brought us to this point, a 1 person bandwaggon is pretty much the worst thing that can happen to the town. 0 analysis can be done concerning votes, mafia can hide where ever they want to when voting for a town... You need at least 2 candidates every day for voting or it might as well just be a random.org vote. LSB has a high chance of being a blue, and killing a blue, especially early is terrible.\ Brocket is most likely green or a lurking mafia... and since there have been 4 people comming out of no where to defend Brocket it makes me think Brocket is even more red. I vehemently disagree. FIrst off, LSB doesn't have a high chance of being blue, he's claimed everything from vigi to dt, and his supposed plan which no one knows what possibly could be he refuses to tell. Furthormore now your saying that we're forced to either vote brockett or LSB, and previously you had been saying you were voting him because "he played differently." Plus right now we can find out so much from LSB's flip. I know people usually say not to lynch for information but this is a special scenario. IT's all because LSB has claimed blue, and mafia know that, or that LSB is mafia, and they're trying to swing a bandwagon onto brockett to save him.
If LSB flips red- Great! We caught probably at least 3-4 scum who tried to swing the bandwagon onto Brockett, in addition to information from posting. Furthormore we caught a scum! IF LSB flips blue LSB is not DT, so we don't have to worry about that. Why?
-Claimed very early to be blue, DT wouldn't have done that being most important role. Would've waited.
-Revealed pms where RoL said LSB might be DT, and hinted strongly because it was the only role that could fit the plan. Why would DT be so reckless, especially when he seemingly doesn't want to claim? So we don't have to worry about losing a DT. So when, if blue, he would most vigi, then that's not even that bad of a loss. But most importantly mafia would be wanting him dead, since he's blue, and they know it. So people who voted for LSB should be looked upon with suspicion, myself included. But again I would like to stress people that LSB is 99% not blue, that he is 99% red. And I urge you to read my analysis I made of him, and realize whats happening here. Vote LSB. Stop the Bandwagon. mmm This does have me suspicious of Paindain, but would a mafia really be that overt and outspoken about lynching a blue, or would they try and lay low so they are not associated with the impending mess when the target flips blue? Now though, we can look at all previous analysis in a new light Does a very common tell, saying "oh look, now we can analyze stuff!" without analyzing it themselves. On December 29 2010 15:43 Mr.Zergling wrote:
I am interested in why Pandain went from defending LSB (quite vehemently) to pushing strongly to lynch LSB, I suppose the role claim (which was never really clear) could have affected his view of LSB.
Two scenarios:
Pandain is blue: The unclear roleclaim threw him off and he decided that even though LSB had said he would prove his blueness, Pandain just wanted info (stated)
-or-
Pandain is red: He saw the bandwagon shifting to his possible scumbuddy Brocket, and decided that it wouldn't be too suspicious if he shifted the bandwagon back on to LSB by touting an "info lynch". Also making himself more trustworthy by saying that everyone who voted LSB should be under suspicion (which they should) First I find it interesting that he only said pandain is blue or red. I had breadcrumbed that I Was DT early on(im not though), just to lead mafia off. Maybe they had caught on to that? But regardless of that, the fact he only laid out the two scenarios without commenting on it is very suspicious to me. On December 30 2010 12:56 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2010 07:11 Pandain wrote:
~snip~
Mr-Zergling: Very unsure in his posts, not making any strong opinions. More importantly when he was under the impression day had ended early, he said "sorry LSB, too late." Besides possibly(note that word) showing that he knew LSB was blue, the fact that before hand and after hand he hadn't been helping. Compare that with his previous post saying he only contributes when he feels he can. The only thing saving him is that its semi-consistenent with his previous play in games, but major FoS on him nonetheless.
~snip~
Hard to have strong opinions on day 1. I really am terrible at 12/24hr conversions (said voting ended at 19:00 PST, I converted that in my head to 5:00 PST, fail on my part). I did believe that LSB was blue, as he said he could show it by night 2. First, just because he said that doesn't mean that you should've believed that he was blue, merely been content to wait. On December 30 2010 12:59 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2010 12:58 Node wrote:
For now I'm voting Pandain, as his antics have done little more the cause confusion and split the vote a bajillion different ways. I'll move it pending a more convincing case.
~snip~ ^^This, and what I presented earlier Still not giving his own opinions.Common trend so far. On December 30 2010 15:16 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2010 14:34 Node wrote:
You guys are seriously still having this argument?
At this point, it's irrelevant. The fact that we're still arguing that LSB is scum just makes me think the people dragging it up are suspicious. Insanious, annul, Mepeak arguing just to throw us off? Sounds like a plausible way for reds to be able to deny association if someone gets lynched and flips red. This is distracting us from real scumhunting and making people feel like they need to jump on one bandwagon, thus fracturing the Town, and allowing the mafia to more or less control our lynch Again suspicious, saying "we need to be scum hunting" but not scum hunting at all. On December 31 2010 05:08 Mr.Zergling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2010 05:03 Barundar wrote:
Mr.zergling would you mind posting your reason for voting mr.wiggles? And why you pick hin over the other suggested targets? I thought his last 18min switch to LSB was strange, but thats been noted. I think I am changing to Orgo after reading GGQ's analysis, but I think Ill give him time to respond before i change my vote again Orgo never responded, yet mr zergling later votes wiggles without really giving reasons why. On December 31 2010 15:28 Mr.Zergling wrote:
^^Also, Major FoS on Meapak now Doesn't say why. So right now I feel that he is either mafia or a dumb townie. So now I'm going to go into his previous games. After looking into HArry potter, he's posting pretty much the same, and he was part of a confirmed circle. Furthormore he also said he doesn't contribute until he feels he can. So right now, I'm saying he's just a dumb townie.
more to come.
But this kind of analysis is what we need right now. I highly suggest and say everyone should take the person below them and post an analysis on them to get some discussion going.
|
On January 01 2011 04:12 Mr.Zergling wrote:
Ok, so I had a blue role in HP mafia (we all kind of did).
less than half the town did ;\
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
