EPTUser was banned for this post.
Newbie Mini Mafia XVI - Page 8
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
VanDrift
Moldova4 Posts
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
| ||
|
Lazermonkey
Sweden2176 Posts
Regarding lynches: I really really dislike nolynching for three reasons. 1. because the information that we are able to get out of it is very limited. Yes, we avoid a potential misslynch but on the other hand scum will score a more or less a free-kill during night. Essentially, we are back on D1 but this time we are in a 6-2 instead of a 7-2. 2. If we agree to nolynch then what is there to discuss? It's like asking for people to lurk even more. 3. With no vigilante in the game the only way we can win is to lynch scum. Kinda obvious but still. We require 5+ votes in order to get a lynch done. With that in mind I hope that people are willing to vote for someone who isn't their top 1 scum. Obviously, if you REALLY don't think there is any chance that the person that is about to be lynched can be scum, then sure, don't vote him. But if it seems like your target hardly gets any votes and your second highest scumread is at 4 votes with 30 minutes untill deadline, then I think you should swap your vote onto him. Lurkers!: There are two types of lurkers. The ones who doesn't post anything and the sneaky ones, who posts ALOT but nothing of value. The first category could either be bad town play or scum play. But the second category is almost exclusivly scum play. If you are a townie, speak your mind, don't make a super duper long post when you could've said it on just a few lines. Keep it simple. With that being said, post! I wanted to get this post out as fast as possible because it's my first one. Will be reading the rest of the thread now! | ||
|
The_Zen_Man
Sweden202 Posts
I have read some of the grush-release discussion, and i can say that i did found Grush comment weird. Also some of his later post is also strange. I will post a analysis on him later. But release, you are going against him to hard. You said it yourself before, that your comment is useless to anyone but grush. If it's like that, you should let others give their opinions about him, and focus on someone else for a bit. Also, as to my opinions on lynching, i agree that in case there is a hard lurker and no scum reads we should lynch the lurker, as he is not contributing anyways. But lynching with not much information (like d1) will probably result in a misslynch. We still gain information even is there is no lynch, by observing how players act before lynch, what they vote for, reaction after lynch, etc. | ||
|
Lazermonkey
Sweden2176 Posts
Your second post is this: On June 09 2012 11:13 grush57 wrote: (Yes, lets pressure the only non-lurker) Woo! So this doesn't add anything to the discussion really. If I understand this correctly, you think that because you are posting (which at the point isn't true at all because you only posted once before but w/e) it makes you look townie and that s0Lstice and Release should instead focus at the people that havn't posted yet. Long story short: you think that lurkers are scummy. On June 09 2012 11:38 grush57 wrote: So your third post is this. Now you changed your mind. It's fine if people lurk. (What case?) Whats to talk about, seriously give me something lol. People are lurking? Yeah mlg is on and it's not even 3 hours On June 09 2012 12:07 grush57 wrote: Yeah, but I'm not a lurker. Some hours later you post this. You clearly don't want to be viewed as a lurker. Still you post only very short posts, wouldn't it be more effective to post longer posts with better content if you wanted to apear non-lurker? Instead of telling everyone that you aren't a lurker? On June 09 2012 12:12 grush57 wrote: Even later, Unless you find a clear scum(this is on D1, aka hard to find clear scum) you are fine with lynching lurkersYeah but I want scum lynched not necessarily a lurker. However, if there are no clear scum then a lurker lynch would be best. On June 09 2012 12:22 grush57 wrote: So you don't want to lynch a scum. You want to lynch a lurker that will give no information. Ah, that isn't scummy. Once again you change your mind. Lurkers gives no information. I take this as lynching lurkers are terrible I guess. The last post before you are off. On June 09 2012 13:55 grush57 wrote: So now you are once again really suspicious of people not posting. Also if there are two mafia among the lurkers it means that you have a townread on s0Lstice, KtheZ and Release. Correct?K well it's hard to do with half the people didn't even post yet. I wouldn't be suprised if the 2 mafia are in those lurkers. You are all over the place atm. You don't take a clear stance with your opinion on lurkers but flip your opinion like 4 times. And you also seem very concerned with the possibilty of being a lurker. It's really simple. If you post good stuff, you will not be considered a lurker. There is no point in trying to convince us wheter oor not you are one. FoS: grush57 | ||
|
Lazermonkey
Sweden2176 Posts
On June 09 2012 18:11 The_Zen_Man wrote:Also, as to my opinions on lynching, i agree that in case there is a hard lurker and no scum reads we should lynch the lurker, as he is not contributing anyways. But lynching with not much information (like d1) will probably result in a misslynch. We still gain information even is there is no lynch, by observing how players act before lynch, what they vote for, reaction after lynch, etc. There isn't ever going to be a situation where we have no scumreads at the deadline. Never. We already have grush57 being massivly suspicious and this is just a couple of hours into the game! Yes we gain info from nolynches but nowhere as much as a normal lynch. The reason being is that nolynch isn't really a bad choice for scum so they don't really have to take a specific stance anywhere in order to fit in. I think no lynch simply is inferior to lynching. | ||
|
grush57
Korea (South)2582 Posts
| ||
|
ha236
Sweden36 Posts
As a first time player I probably would have made the same mistake grush did (I don't know if this is his first time but w/e) and say that there is nothing to talk about on the first day, but as Release said that obviously puts us in a bad situation when no one is posting at all. Also the content of grush's posts has been pretty lackluster but again, seeing as this is a noob-game I think that's something we have to expect. The This being said I think Release is being way too hard on the guy, just after a couple of posts by grush he says "grush is appearing incredibly scummy" which I think is very harsh to say this early on in the game. After this discussion ended we tasted some new blood in the thread - Lazermonkey and Zen man. While not being able to get a good "read" on any of you two (you not having posted much yet) some of Lazermonkey's comments on the Release-grush discussion seemed strange to me. He does not say that it is "fine if people lurk". My interpretation of the sentances is that he does not know what to post about and then proposes the subject of why people are not posting and offers his explanation (being that the game just started, people might not be by the computer and even if they are they may be watching MLG). So now you are once again really suspicious of people not posting. Also if there are two mafia among the lurkers it means that you have a townread on s0Lstice, KtheZ and Release. Correct? In this paragraph Lazermonkey is trying to make the rest of us believe that grush said something he has not, that he is "suspicious of people not posting". Grush says he "wouldn't be surprised if the two mafia are in those lurkers" and from this Lazermonkey believes him to have a town read on the rest of the posters at that time. Lastly, I like the way Lazermonkey explained his stance on lurkers (two different kinds) however I don't think you can justifiably apply the one about posting stuff with no actual content so early on in the game and I ultimately agree that grush has been changing his stance on whether it is good or not to lynch lurkers. | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
I'm always the fucking wife but for once I get to be the noble dude! As you were, gentlemen | ||
|
KtheZ
United States813 Posts
On June 09 2012 18:11 The_Zen_Man wrote: Hey guys, just woke up(time difference suck). I have read some of the grush-release discussion, and i can say that i did found Grush comment weird. Also some of his later post is also strange. I will post a analysis on him later. But release, you are going against him to hard. You said it yourself before, that your comment is useless to anyone but grush. If it's like that, you should let others give their opinions about him, and focus on someone else for a bit. Also, as to my opinions on lynching, i agree that in case there is a hard lurker and no scum reads we should lynch the lurker, as he is not contributing anyways. But lynching with not much information (like d1) will probably result in a misslynch. We still gain information even is there is no lynch, by observing how players act before lynch, what they vote for, reaction after lynch, etc. Personally I think its ok for release to keep pressuring grush; I'm interested in grush's responses. The more he talks the more evidence he will create for or against himself. Although, as noted in my earlier comment, ad hominem gets us nowhere, so hopefully it wont degenerate into that. | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
only managed to make some time for posting now. Going through the thread until now the only real content on we have is the discussion on grush. His first post is suspicious and given the lack of other content to analyze right now best person to push at the moment. Especially since his responses really did not satisfy. But given the fact that we still have 24+ hours for day 1 I would rather wait for everybody to form his opinion before really comitting to a lynch. So to all you resident lurkers I want to see you posting! | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
On June 09 2012 23:09 ha236 wrote: Allright, I've read this boring discussion between grush and release and I hope I can give some insight as to what my opinions are. What makes the first worthwhile thing on day 1 boring to you? | ||
|
ha236
Sweden36 Posts
On June 10 2012 01:56 ShiaoPi wrote: What makes the first worthwhile thing on day 1 boring to you? Seriously? That's the point that stands out the most to you in my post? You highlighting it being the "first worthwhile thing" makes it seem to me as though you're implying that therefore it cannot be boring which I find hard to understand. However, it was boring because both of them were in my opinion just going around in circles throughout three pages of posts. | ||
|
Lazermonkey
Sweden2176 Posts
On June 09 2012 22:57 grush57 wrote: Lazermonkey you'r misinterpreting things and putting words in my mouth. The words I type are what they mean, I was never lying. I never said that you lied. I think at least ; ). You are the person with the most posts atm but out of those posts 50% are about how you want to lynch scum and what not. They didn't really give us anything. The other 50% is about lurkers. The major issue for me is that even after theese posts I don't get a clear view on your opinion on lurkers. Yes, we know that you prefer to lynch obvious scum instead of lurkers. Anything but that would be strange. Except for that, your opinion seem to flip back and foreward. | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
On June 10 2012 02:19 ha236 wrote: Seriously? That's the point that stands out the most to you in my post? You highlighting it being the "first worthwhile thing" makes it seem to me as though you're implying that therefore it cannot be boring which I find hard to understand. However, it was boring because both of them were in my opinion just going around in circles throughout three pages of posts. I did read through your post and I felt obliged to point out something which stood out to me. I am saying that it is not boring as it gives us something to discuss and analyse on in order to go scumhunting. As scumhunting (obviously) takes top priority I do not see how it could be boring to you to get something to work with. | ||
|
Lazermonkey
Sweden2176 Posts
On June 09 2012 23:09 ha236 wrote: He does not say that it is "fine if people lurk". My interpretation of the sentances is that he does not know what to post about and then proposes the subject of why people are not posting and offers his explanation (being that the game just started, people might not be by the computer and even if they are they may be watching MLG). I might have been exaggerating a bit but if you compare with the tone of his previous post there is a clear difference. On June 09 2012 11:13 grush57 wrote: (Yes, lets pressure the only non-lurker) Woo! Feel free to correct me grush, but I take this as; Why push me when you could push someone who isn't posting? And why would you ever push someone if you didn't think they were scummy? He is implying that there is scum among lurkers, which at that point wasn't to bold of a claim to make due to the fact that only 3 people had posted back then. The second post is more like; Sure people lurks atm but it's fine due to the circumstances None of the posts individually strikes me as scummy but together I feel he is contradicting himself quite a bit. If he thinks there is scum among lurkers then why doesn't he push any of them? And if he thinks that it's okay with people lurking at some circumstances why is he now suspicious of the lurkers? On June 09 2012 23:09 ha236 wrote: In this paragraph Lazermonkey is trying to make the rest of us believe that grush said something he has not, that he is "suspicious of people not posting". Grush says he "wouldn't be surprised if the two mafia are in those lurkers" and from this Lazermonkey believes him to have a town read on the rest of the posters at that time. How? If he thinks there is two scum among lurkers and there is a total of two scum in the game, there cannot be any scum among those who are posting, right? | ||
|
ha236
Sweden36 Posts
On June 10 2012 02:55 Lazermonkey wrote: How? If he thinks there is two scum among lurkers and there is a total of two scum in the game, there cannot be any scum among those who are posting, right? This isn't the point I am making. He says he "wouldn't be surprised" if this were the case, not that he is sure that it is the case and from what I understand he isn't making this assumption based on his "readings", rather a motto that players that don't post alot are usually mafia (which, to me isn't very logical). | ||
|
Lazermonkey
Sweden2176 Posts
On June 10 2012 03:07 ha236 wrote: This isn't the point I am making. He says he "wouldn't be surprised" if this were the case, not that he is sure that it is the case and from what I understand he isn't making this assumption based on his "readings", rather a motto that players that don't post alot are usually mafia (which, to me isn't very logical). Why would he say ''I wouldn't be suprised if the 2 mafia are in those lurkers.'' if he didn't even think that himself? He could've just kept his mouth shut if his thoughts were very vauge. He choosed not to. So he thinks it's of enough substance to be posted. And even if you are correct I don't like this post. He doesn't help us at all by saying ''there is a possibilty of 2 scum hiding among the lurkers''. Everyone understands this. | ||
|
The_Zen_Man
Sweden202 Posts
You also jumped to conclusion when grush wrote: On June 09 2012 11:38 grush57 wrote: So your third post is this. Now you changed your mind. It's fine if people lurk. (What case?) Whats to talk about, seriously give me something lol. People are lurking? Yeah mlg is on and it's not even 3 hours [QUOTE][B] Where you assumed his stance was changed on lurkers. I think he only wanted to state a reason for people not posting. I agree that grush seemed scummy, but don't try to come up with conclusion that are not true. | ||
|
The_Zen_Man
Sweden202 Posts
| ||
| ||
