EPTNewbie Mini Mafia III
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On January 25 2012 19:22 zarepath wrote: Lynching lurkers is not as great a strategy as it sounds. As others pointed out, mafia can just decide to post more, and then suddenly we're looking at lynching the less-active townies just because they don't talk enough. People who don't post at all get modkilled anyway, and seeing as how this is a newbie game, there are probably several lurkers who just don't know where to get started. I also agree that we should go after suspicious people. And I think we'll find out who they are by continuing to pressure zelblade. From the general tone of the posting so far I agree that today we are more likely to get mafia by lynching someone suspicious rather than a lurker. If people come up with better ways of getting lurkers active I am all ears. As for things I have looked at so far, I am not going to reiterate points made on MidnightGladius and zelblade but here are a couple of people on the lurker list whose first posts were very similar and I did not like. On January 25 2012 13:57 balt11t wrote: FakePromise, I feel as though saying that you are willing to take a 70% chance of killing an innocent man seems like you might have something to hide. Criminals tend to be fine with killing off innocent people, and you seem to fit that profile. Normal people would not be willing to take such a risk. On January 25 2012 14:07 balt11t wrote: In extension, I feel as though the proposed plan by zarepath is simply too great of a risk. Why take nearly a 70% chance of taking an innocent person's life? No, we should wait to find the lurkers, I agree with slOosh, we need to wait for a little more discussion to happen in order to make a decision. What bothers me in the first post is the second half. He is making the statement "That seems scummy." but unnecessarily longer and strangely worded. In his second post he tones down the strange wording a bit but more troubling is his espousing of a wait and see style. We need to be making discussion happen, not just letting it happen. On January 25 2012 14:55 SacredSystem wrote: Zarepath's decision to lynch someone at random does sound like the calculated mind of a mobster. However, despite several conclusions that we all wish to draw, we need to wait, the mafia will all expose themselves at some point in time. on a side note Fakepromise agreed with him at 30% odds -_- This caught my attention after I had been looking at balt11t. It is almost the exact same post. Lengthy substitute for scummy, wait and see attitude (though even worse this time), and pointing to Fakepromise's questionable agreement with a random lynch. | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On January 25 2012 15:48 zelblade wrote: 1) Opps my bad, didnt see that part. 2) I was simply trying to generate some discussion as it would seem that no one was talking much, and trying to emphasise that we need to use our lynches carefully. 3) I am sorry if that came off at scummy, and what i simply meant by that part was that town needs to post more. On January 26 2012 00:14 zelblade wrote: If i wasnt clear here, i apologise. What i meant to say i that we ought to lynch a lurker if we cannot find a better targert at the end of the day, and that it should be done only if there is/are no clear targert(s) at the end of day 1, instead of using RNG (or in this case, reverse-alphabetical order) to determine who is our day 1 lynch (which i believe zarepath seems to be advocating). On January 26 2012 00:37 zelblade wrote: I was trying to explain the contradiction u pointed out earlier. He has been apologizing and clarifying posts (which were already pretty clear) ever since spl0osh criticized his second post. Instead of using the spotlight to voice his own suspicions or convince us of his innocence, he has tried to move out of the spotlight as quickly and quietly as possible, while avoiding offending anyone. While his initial posts weren't particularly scummy, his responses have been nothing but suspicious. ## Vote: zelblade | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
CosmosXAM seems more scummy to me than FakePromise for a few reasons. On January 26 2012 06:39 CosmosXAM wrote: I had yet to post because I was at school, sorry if inactivity would lead people to this conclusion. But in my opinion even pressuring someone like that will be cause of an emotional and defensive response making them see even more likely to be right to lynch. I am completely against random lynches on the first day because the odds are just too small, you wouldnt bet your life on a 1/3 chance would you? That is the same stance I am taking here even on the chance we do kill a mafia in my opinion it comes at too great of a risk and we dont need to kill a townie only to have more killed in the night, that just brings our numbers too low to fast. Not only is this a weak first post that focuses on a settled issue, his second sentence says that even if we find scummy things in his posts, it is our fault for pressuring him into it. He shortly follows this with 3 questionable statements in his second post. On January 26 2012 07:04 CosmosXAM wrote: If I had to say I would probably go with fakepromise because of how he was so quick to agree. Also Chocolate seems mildly suspicious because of his quick jump to voting straight for me based on little information, but I havent found enough conclusive evidence to make a post strongly against someone. This is just my first game and I can only be active for a few hours in the day so hopefully people dont misconstrue that information. First, he goes after FakePromise. This is reasonable, possibly bandwagoning, and easy. I expect someone who has been lurking for a full day could find something suspicious to mention that hasn't been repeated so often. Second, he overreacts to Chocolate's placing a vote on him and lashes back purely based on that. Third, he points us to this being his first game and how rarely he will be able to post. So not only should we not expect many posts from him, but when they come we shouldn't expect them to have quality. I don't really take issue with his third post and 4-5 have no content so I'll move to FakePromise. I don't have anything new to say on the things FakePromise has done wrong. I simply agree that his actions make for a very poor defense and he definitely is not pro-town so far. I do not agree with zarepath's defense of FakePromise. To me, it is equally likely for the explanations of 'no mafia would behave in the way FakePromise has / no mafia team would allow FakePromise to behave in the way he has' and 'FakePromise has played this first round very poorly' to be true. It is not out of the question. Especially since most of us are new players. In spite of CosmosXAM being the scummier candidate, I believe we gain more information for day 2 if we lynch FakePromise. Not only can we start to look at people who seem to have jumped on the bandwagon but we would also gain some insight into zarepath's motivations. I am torn between the scummier candidate and having more information. At the moment I am leaning towards CosmosXAM. In my real life mafia experience bumbling defenses like FakePromise's tend to be town who don't know how to act under pressure. I'm trusting that experience for now. | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On January 27 2012 09:26 Simberto wrote: If Zarepath should flip red, that would make FakePromise an almost 100% red too (while this does not necessarily work the other way around). Also that whole defense of FakePromise could really be the work of a frustrated mafia, too. And should he flip green, we need to take a VERY careful look at CosmosXAM and sloosh. I really dislike the way this case was built in the last minute, and the try to pull me on board beforehand, but i must admit that it seems like a strong case to me. Be very careful with that assumption. From the perspective of zarepath being scum I think there are only 3 possible likelihoods. 1. We lynch FakePromise, he flips town, and zarepath looks good for defending him. 2. We lynch CosmosXAM, he flips scum, and zarepath looks good for being the first real accuser. 3. We lynch CosmosXAM, he flips town, and zarepath looks the same. I left out the possibility of FakePromise flipping scum because zarepath's own actions make it very unlikely. Just look at the statements laced through his posts. On January 25 2012 13:28 zarepath wrote: Randomly lynch a townie/blue: Bad. The only upside is that we can then use the information from that lynching to determine likely mafia. Who was most excited about randomly lynching that particular person? Who bandwagonned on? Who were the last few votes who made the lynch possible? On January 25 2012 19:22 zarepath wrote: The point is that upon flip, we have much more to go on. Anyone irrationally defending you now, if it turns out you're mafia, has a solid chance of also being mafia. So no, not anyone defending you is necessarily mafia, and not necessarily anyone accusing you, but upon flip, we can figure out which side of that we can throw our suspicions. On January 25 2012 19:38 zarepath wrote: Upon flip, we'll know whether the plan's supporters or detractors were likely mafia or not. Not both sides at once, regardless of flip. It's far better than a random lynch because, with a specific target, people have to reveal themselves by defending/accusing him. The information we gain from his flip then has repercussions; the information we'd gain from a random lynch would just be hit/miss with zero opportunity for analysis, save theory-based ("anyone who votes for random is mafia" "with 4/13 random vote is actually worse for mafia" etc.). Instead we can see who defended him and who attacked him and have actual leads from there headed into Day 2. If anything zarepath has been trying to get us to focus on who supported and attacked whoever is lynched. This makes it seem very unlikely to me that he would adamantly defend someone he knows is mafia when that person holds little to no sway over the town and is still likely to be lynched. It is far more likely that he has set himself up to defend an innocent or bus a fellow scum. He gains favor in the town regardless of the way the lynch goes. So, to counter your point, if zarepath flips red I think it is far more likely that FakePromise is town and it will cast even more suspicion on CosmosXAM. | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
should like to see some substantial posts from SacredSystems. He has gotten by with short posts and few real contributions. Everyone needs to be posting more now that we have another piece of solid information instead of a day2 drop off. In regards to the contributions from Bromanicpate, I skimmed over a bunch of their posting in Newbie Mini Mafia II and both similarities and sketchy elements to their play were revealed. In that game jitsu/Probulous were townie and detective respectively.They seem to be significantly more involved, practically spamming short to medium length posts (probulous more than jitsu). But while the sizes and frequency of their posts is different this game (which is partially explained by a pre-game post they made) the style is changing very little from their previous game. Even with the quoting gaff and suspicious absence I still find people like zarepath and CosmosXAM the be equally or more suspicious. My point being that while Bromancipate has put himself under suspicion, don't get completely sidetracked and forget earlier analysis. Here are their filters from the previous game in case you want to read up on them yourself. jitsu: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=299955&user=187886 Probulous: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=299955&user=156748 | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On January 28 2012 07:59 Adam4167 wrote: You are correct in that I inherited a townie spot, but you can only take me at my word on that =) I read the entire thread last night. I will be posting my case closer to the deadline. SlOosh, in regards to your questions: I will answer them once day 2 stars. I’d rather not paint a target on my back if I am heading in the right direction. In what way would you be painting a target on your back? With how scattered the focus of this thread is, you are not going to draw any more suspicion than anyone else by providing the mediums sized post that sl0osh is asking for. In fact, not answering makes you easier to push into being lynched tomorrow. The risk is extremely low that you will be killed tonight for answering. The risk of drawing too much town attention to yourself and wasting our time is high. Please just answer the question or do one better and give us something to work with. | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
First, I went after zelblade (after sl0osh did). I have not changed my stance on him, his first posts were scummy and his absence did not help. However he has promised to be much more active today so I am at least willing to see his new posts before condemning him. Second, I went after CosmosXAM. He has largely alleviated my suspicion of him due to better posting and most importantly, due to staunch opposition to the person I consider to be the scummiest in the game. That person is zarepath. I am going to write an exhaustive post listing all the reasons why this is true shortly. But for right now, when we are cataloging suspicions I felt I needed to get mine out there sooner rather than later. Included in this will be my answer to Simberto's questioning of how we saw the FakePromise situation play out. I am absolutely confident that zarepath is scum, and I am reasonably confident that he is the godfather. You backed off too easily sl0osh. Your analysis wasn't wrong it just came too late in the day to swing the town. Also, some of the most incriminating posts of zarepath were his responses to your accusation. I want to present this case right, so I'm going to start writing it tonight before bed and possibly finish it when I get up. Third, I had been leaning gradually to a scum read for SacredSystem. However, in reviewing his filter I noticed that in multiple posts he has been openly opposed to zarepath. This at the very least gives him benefit of the doubt to me. Lastly, because I am so certain of zarepath's guilt, I think we need to take a hard look at people who both helped pull suspicion off of zarepath after sl0osh's post and bandwagoned FakePromise, regardless of their activity level. And now to address CosmosXAM's suspicion of my collaborating with zarepath. I did not say this in my post deflecting suspicion from FakePromise to CosmosXAM, but core to my conviction that FakePromise was innocent was the premise that zarepath was guilty. I believe that zarepath spotted the trend towards a FakePromise lynch and proceeded to put himself in an all-win situation where no matter the outcome he would come off looking good. I never would have made my post 'defending' FakePromise if I had not made this connection. | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
Zarepath's filter. On January 27 2012 10:13 zarepath wrote: I've done nothing but further town discussion, point towards suspicious people, contribute actual analytical defense of people that others are accusing, trying to aright the lynchpath -- etc. Let's move past zarepath's first post. All it did was paint a target on zelblade and I will get to that later. After this there is a string of 6 posts which do nothing. For the most part he is pointing out flaws in MidnightGladius' plans but the important thing here is that a large part of what we have used to establish him as an 'active' player did nothing to 'further town discussion'. Not only that, in these posts he is placing himself in the position of a provider of information, not a searcher for information. The second part of the quoted statement, 'point towards suspicious people, contribute actual analytical defense of people that others are accusing, trying to aright the lynchpath' are all summed up in a single one of his posts. His WIFOM defense of FakePromise. + Show Spoiler + On January 26 2012 22:00 zarepath wrote: I do NOT think that FakePromise is a mafia. Let's look at his (quite limited) post history: If he's mafia, he runs these numbers through his head and goes, "Hey, that's great for us!" OR, he notes that I picked zelblade, and thinks to himself, "Hey, he's not a mafia, that's great for us!" So his first response is to immediately endorse the lynching of a townie... ...by suggesting that the lynching odds are good? That would be the worst, most obvious mafia move possible. And that's ALL he says. Doesn't respond at all to the point of my failed plan, which was to get information based on who likes it and who doesn't, and then use the flip to confirm one way or the other. All he likes is the percentage. AWFUL mafia play. However, saying the same thing as a townie is just as bad of a play, if not worse. Either way, let's establish that he's being careless. Let's continue. How does he defend his 30% endorsement? "I guess I was wrong." Then he follows that up with a complaint that people are trying to random lynch him. Also: "Now that I think of it..." as if he was just now running the numbers, which seems like an outright lie and an obvious escape route. The last part of his defense -- that he wonders why Sacred is after him because of some random timing on what he was reading(?) -- doesn't make any sense at all. It's the most scatterbrained defense imaginable. Now think about this if he's mafia. He makes a horrible, obvious first post right at the beginning of the game. There are three other mafia players who are going to PM him and say "look, that was the scummiest thing I've ever seen. You need to back off of that real carefully." They may even tell him what to say. They're sure as heck not going to let him post excuses like "just because I happened to be reading zelblade's post" or "now that I think about it..." (Disclaimer: the other mafia may be just as dense, but that's not a good assumption to make. Or Fake just read all the PMs and the thread at once, bugged out, and made an awful response.) If he IS mafia, this is the worst possible way to defend yourself of the fact -- lashing out, completely switching your stance, no explanation of your thought process, and something that doesn't even make sense at all. Either way, it's careless. But if he were mafia, I don't think he'd have a careless retraction like this, one that comes so late in the thread. It would be far earlier, with all the other mafia PMing him saying "what's going on? get over here and defend yourself, they're getting real restless and I sure as heck ain't going to defend your post." I think this post would be much better crafted defense, and would probably point out someone more suspicious than him to try to throw off the scent. Now his third and latest post: Really? As a mafia, I suppose this is a potential defense: seeming so confident in your innocence that nobody should have any accusations against you worth responding to. I don't see any guilt in that post. But really? Everyone is all for lynching you based on a single offhand belief that you made at the beginning with no back-up or reasoning. You don't know what you're supposed to respond to? Is that even possible? He doesn't see a need to defend himself anymore, even after his awful, scattered defense in his second post. This belies an utterly clueless view of the game. Additionally, who here has rushed to defend him (other than myself at this point)? Nobody. There are a couple of moves that could be seen as misdirections -- people voting for zelblade and Cosmon, but those votes made some basic sense. He's all alone in his defense because nobody else is on his team. (Knowingly, anyway.) He is alone in a corner, consistently clueless, and apparently sees no need to defend himself. What I'm saying is that it seems more likely to me that he is just a really awful townie. As an alternative, I suggest voting for Cosmon: First post is an apology Bandwagons on the popular vote based on little information, and then also throws suspicion on Chocolate because Chocolate's voting for Cosmos on little information(?) And then he accuses SacredSystem of bandwagoning on Fake (even though that's exactly was Cosmos did). The 'analytical defense' of FakePromise can be summed up in two statements. If FakePromise was mafia he would not be playing so poorly, and if FakePromise was mafia his team would not let him play so poorly. Instead he spreads this argument out, making assumption after assumption about how the mafia is operating. This confidence in how the mafia is acting this game makes me think he DOES actually know how the mafia are acting this game. And then he drops this little gem. + Show Spoiler + On January 26 2012 13:21 FakePromise wrote: What am I suppose to respond to? Really? As a mafia, I suppose this is a potential defense: seeming so confident in your innocence that nobody should have any accusations against you worth responding to. I don't see any guilt in that post. What purpose does this statement have in a defense of FakePromise? Absolutely none. In fact he is providing evidence against his own point. He states quite clearly that FakePromise provided a defense he can only see working if he was mafia and then immediately says, "I don't see any guilt in that post." Why write this part at all? Because of the contradictory nature of this statement I looked at the wording and I believe that 'As a mafia, I suppose this is a potential defense' was a scumslip. This is also the only time that he actually 'points towards suspicious people', (his 7th post has suspicion towards 3 people, but instead of asking them to defend themselves, he asks 2 inactives to give their opinions on those 3. So I am not counting it as 'pointing to suspicious people') which hardly warrants its position on his list of "all I have done". As for correcting the lynchpath, I will now get into my explanation of what surrounded zarepath's defense of FakePromise and FakePromise's lynching. I think zarepath was using Simberto (possibly the most influential person day1) as a signpost for his plans. Let's look at a statement that zarepath makes a couple times after sl0osh's attack. + Show Spoiler + On January 27 2012 10:48 zarepath wrote: and risked my neck a second time according to my honest analysis even when it would've been easier to simply bandwagon on Fake if I were mafia. I've only risked myself when it would've been super easy to blend back into the quasi-lurkers On January 27 2012 11:45 zarepath wrote: If I were mafia, it would've looked even better for me to just climb on the FakePromise Lynching Wagon so the doubt just goes onto Simberto and everyone else. On January 27 2012 12:24 zarepath wrote: Look, I'm not mafia. I don't know why mafia would behave the way I've behaved this entire first day. He states that if he was mafia the best thing he could do would be to bandwagon onto FakePromise. This is a false statement. A better thing to do is to place yourself as the only "defender" (air quotes because the defense was weak) of the innocent townie and then point to another inactive. If he does that then we can't use his voting record against him day2, he looks clean if we kill FakePromise in spite of what his defense, and he can't be accused of bandwagoning since he provided the first real case against CosmosXAM even if that is who we kill. It is an all-win situation. Here is what I think happened. After zarepath notices the trend towards a FakePromise lynch, multiple mentions, 3 votes. He waits for Simberto's vote after which there is a good chance that his defense of FakePromise is not going to change the lynchpath, especially if he has other mafia helping. He doesn't even add a vote to CosmosXAM right away in order to make his point. Yet again, he waits for Simberto to change his vote before zarepath commits and votes for CosmosXAM. And by the way, he already agrees with this analysis. + Show Spoiler + On January 27 2012 10:13 zarepath wrote: Honestly, the least-suspicous timing would have been for me to vote exactly when I posted. And why did he pick CosmosXAM to go after in the first place? Well, Simberto had already voiced his suspicion of CosmosXAM twice, making him quite a safe target. This was going to work without a hitch until sl0osh attacked zarepath. Zarepath goes into overdrive defending himself and as soon as Simberto switches his vote back to FakePromise there is an instant change in zarepath's attitude. He is RELAXED. Soon to follow he posts 2 short messages that I can only describe as bantering with FakePromise who was then resigned to death. And I'm not the only one to recognize the strangeness of this exchange. + Show Spoiler + On January 27 2012 11:56 slOosh wrote: Anyone else see this scripted dialogue? He is not concerned that that FakePromise, a person whom he is certain is town, is about to be lynched. He only has 3 things on his mind: relief that he dodged the bullet, making sure that everyone remembers he defended FakePromise, and pointing out that this is a very un-mafialike thing to do. Ok, moving on to my direct attack of zarepath's defense. + Show Spoiler + On January 27 2012 10:13 zarepath wrote: But honestly, if you were to decide that any other active player were mafia simply because you read a thread about active mafia, you would find similar "inconsistencies" that are simply misunderstandings in semantics. There are numerous others who only accuse without good argument, refuse to defend themselves, or don't even post at all. While a wall of text analysis is impressive, it's operating on assumptions and while it might feel cool to be suspicious of an active town contributor, you really have nothing to go on here. Zarepath defends himself on the virtue of being active alone. The fact is your inconsistencies and posting led both sl0osh and me to suspect you more than 'any other active player'. So not only is this a bad defense (also one that zarepath disagrees with + Show Spoiler + On January 26 2012 04:28 zarepath wrote: Forcing mafia to post more is always good, granted. But if the only reason they're posting more is so that we eliminate one of our obviously inactive townies, it would be better to focus our lynch on an active, suspicious person. The inactive townies will get replaced by active players and then we'll know who was lurking and who was just inactive. So yes, let's pressure the inactives and see what happens. But I would much rather lynch an active suspicious person than someone who probably just AFK'd a couple days. Then there are these parts. + Show Spoiler + On January 27 2012 10:13 zarepath wrote: Well, that was surprising, to say the least. Sloosh's post is quite rigorous. I think your intentions are good, but you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm impressed with how thoroughly you've examined my posts. But honestly, if you were to decide that any other active player were mafia simply because you read a thread about active mafia, you would find similar "inconsistencies" that are simply misunderstandings in semantics. Zarepath is surprised and impressed by sl0osh's analysis, and feels it is quite rigorous. He also agrees that the inconsistencies are present. Then he uses a euphemism 'barking up the wrong tree' which softens his 'you're wrong' statement. All of this makes me think he is mafia. And look at this part + Show Spoiler + On January 27 2012 10:13 zarepath wrote: I'm the ORIGINAL pressure on zelblade. All zelblade pressure originated from me calling for his lynch at the very beginning. I have a few more small points but this post is already too long so I'm going to end it with why I think that zarepath could be the godfather. It is mostly based on this post + Show Spoiler + On January 27 2012 10:58 zarepath wrote: Also: feel free to investigate me at night, if there's a DT (which I highly suspect to be the case, considering the numbers). It will be a waste of an investigation, but with numerous lurkers not being pressured, multiple suspicious people not being followed up on, we're going to waste too much time and attention on me without a confirmation. | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On January 29 2012 04:50 SacredSystem wrote: i agree with doyouhas i feel like to divert attention way from himself zarepath began attacking me, using logic that doesnt lead to the conclusion that i am mafia, further more he only did so after adam made if convenient for him to do so but doyouhas how do you feel about zarepath's attacks on me? i am of the opinion that zarepath is creating a giant smokescreen just as he done on day 1 I think that zarepath's attacks on you are convenient because of previous posts made already establishing you as suspicious. His reason given for voting you is not a bad one, but at the same time it is another WIFOM argument based on a hunch. I find two things strange about it. The first is that he had sources posted before him that have more solid grounds for suspecting you that he did not refer to. And the second is that he is voting for you when the 1 of the 2 strongest cases against you is coming from zelblade, a person whom he thinks we should be circling the wagons against day2, and this does not give him pause. | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On January 29 2012 08:57 Adam4167 wrote: SlOosh, you are not being objective in your analysis. You start with your conclusion, that zarepath is scum and then work the details in around it to make it all fit. You even state you’re doing it here: Analysing night actions is an exercise in WIFOM. The only thing that can be taken from them is that they attempted to shoot at someone who was probably town. In this scenario we don’t even know for sure that that is the case, as no one died. I sincerely doubt both SacredSystem and zarepath are mafia. I find SacredSystem almost surely to be mafia, whereas I see things in zarepaths filter that I wouldn't expect from a scum player. I feel we should lynch the guy who has been evasive, non-contributal and overly defensive (ie SacredSystem). You are quite right that trying to do in depth analysis of night action motivations is an exercise in WIFOM. I have bolded your own mistake. It is wrong to think that all of an active player's posts are going to fit neatly into a box labeled scum. Especially with a player who has been as inconsistent as zarepath. Let me make a couple points on the SacredSystem vs zarepath debate. SacredSystem has at the very least been consistent. He is either very aggressive or very defensive. (Yes, I realize that this is a contradiction with 1 part of his first post, but it is silly to condemn people for the generalized statements we all made in our first posts after day1.) He has stuck to his guns that his initial read on FakePromise was all he needed to justify lynching him. He has even become predictable in his overreaction OMGUS defenses. In fact the only thing, so far as I can tell, that has changed his style of posting was my stating that I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. This consistent style, even in the face of being voted against, is just another reason I am starting to lean town for sacred. The counterpoint to this is zarepath. He has been all over the place with his style of posting. I have already pointed out a ton of inconsistencies in his play this game. | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
On January 29 2012 12:46 zarepath wrote: I don't have a lot of time tonight (or much of tomorrow) to address everything individually, but one of the biggest scum reads people are making on me is my plea to be DT'd. It's wrong to say that a townie would never request to be investigated. The only mislynch I could be 100% sure of is a lynch against myself. If I'm about to be voted off, of course I request that someone just wait and confirm I'm mafia before lynching me. I even noted that it would be a waste of an investigation, except that nobody seemed to believe me otherwise. It's a tool that could establish my innocence and save the town from a mislynch; it can also ascertain a mafia player, but as the guy up for vote, I'm going to selfishly suggest the one that keeps me in the game. People are also WIFOMing that that request somehow suggests that I'm a Godfather, trying to set up a wasted investigation. Let me respond with a WIFOM of my own: in a game with 9 and 4, I don't know how likely it is that mafia get a Godfather. Oh, and also this: no, I'm not a godfather, and not mafia, either. I'll do a better case-by-case response tomorrow afternoon/evening -- I am actually busier on weekends than during weekdays. Meanwhile I suggest an interrogation of anyone who hasn't contributed post-Night-1, like sloosh did last night. This is another opportunity for people to fly below the radar, and considering the rest of my defense isn't coming until tomorrow evening, it'll give us another data-font. "It's wrong to say that a townie would never request to be investigated." Actually it is absolutely right to say that a townie who thought it through would never ask to be rolechecked. The very possibility that a godfather is in the game means that an asked for rolecheck does not confirm innocence. It's a tool that would have failed to establish anything other than a wasted rolecheck. As for my suggestions that you are the godfather, they are not WIFOM. I based these comments on your posting, not on speculation about the setup. Even if we are in a setup with no godfather, it does not change that you have acted as I think a godfather would. Yet another defensive post with falsehoods. My case only grows stronger. | ||
|
DoYouHas
United States1140 Posts
| ||
| ||
