EPTWant to do better this time.
Newbie Mini Mafia IV
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
Want to do better this time. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
I agree that the early deadline could be a good idea but I think we should still be aware of and responsive to any scummy play after the deadline. I don't want us to harm ourselves by trying to make a decision with 25% less information to work off. Our vote will probably end up being a lurker and I urge you all to change it away from him if he begins to contribute and makes good points after the initial "lynch". | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
I'm not sure we will lynch a lurker on Day1, but it is the most likely outcome in my eyes. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
| ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On February 26 2012 12:54 gumshoe wrote: are we agreed on no no lynch? Yup On February 26 2012 12:56 gumshoe wrote: Also I would really like everyone to post the time they will be active, Ill be on probably 07-12 est then 17-22 7:30 EST 17-21 EST | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On February 27 2012 00:28 gumshoe wrote: As of now 11 people have been accounted for in the thread. Jeckl, Phaaga Alderaan any particular reason you haven't let us know your all alive yet? I'll give them until ~6 EST to post but if they still haven't by them we should vote one. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
| ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
We should probably spread out our votes, don't need two people on one lurker yet imo. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
I'm going to vote for you for the time being because that was really weird. If you sufficiently explain yourself and start to make sense I will unvote you. @ghost you thought I was scummy because I voted on a lurker? I don't see anything wrong with that at all, please explain why you dislike it. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
Hopefully I can format this correctly + Show Spoiler + On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote: Note: this didn't start as a PBPA but it ended that way because literally everything he has done is scummy. Chocolate is super scummy to me right now. Says things like "our vote will probably end up being a lurker"... Who says this? Even if it is the case you're giving mafia free reign to post a couple BS posts and get out of the thread. He later goes on to say Pretty adamanent about this lurker idea, right? Wrong. NOT 3 POSTS LATER he's off his lurker train now, and onto the easiest target, namely, Fourface. Fourface, for reasons stated above is very likely not scum, but I could see Chocolate's beady little eyes now getting as wide as an anime characters in joy when he saw that Fourface made one of the most "interesting" (as to avoid getting in trouble) posts I've ever seen. Oh and this: I don't get this either. Why would you split your votes up? If it's for pressure here is a newsflash: Votes DO NOT = Pressure Pressure is cases, pressure is discussion, a one liner and vote in the vote thread doesn't cut it. Period. Then there's: Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. I got off the "lurker idea" because obviously it wasn't that good. I just wanted people to perhaps panic and get them to start posting. My idea was that votes DO=pressure, because noobs tend to panic a little when they see they are getting voted on. I said our vote will probably end up on a lurker because frankly that's what happened in my most previous game: most of the people lynched were either lurkers or scum, and most of the cases were on either lurkers or scum. I switched to fourface because I wanted him to keep posting, to see if I could get a good case on him. Obviously, he has continued, but hasn't adressed my points. I think he'll get replaced though so I'm going to hold off on voting for him for now. I'll try to make a case against someone shortly. That's my schedule, there isn't much to say about it. I'm in HS, and my parents make me get off the computer and my phone at 9 on weeknights, so I won't be online for the last hour of voting. + Show Spoiler + On February 27 2012 14:17 NightFury wrote: @Alderan I believe your case is good, but I feel it is slightly flawed. I'm not getting a very good town/scum read on Chocolate at this moment. While suspicious, I think he was overzealous with the mentality he had on the outset of the game and prone to a knee-jerk reaction. I'm unsure whether this is actually scummy or just reckless play. Also, out of curiosity, what does PBPA stand for? (Hope I don't butcher how TL handles quotes...) His full post goes more like this: A few things about this. - This was posted on the very outset of the game. This irks me because he's already making predictions on previous games he's played. Also the fact that it's not later on since it could possibly be valid if we had no cases and a bunch of lurkers. - I'm interested in his previous two games here. He mentioned that "...the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post...". I haven't looked at his previous games yet but I'm not sure if that's even a valid statement. If he's only played 2 games here then that's not a large sample size or it's possible that he has experience elsewhere and it's just a trend he's noticed. I will come back to this later after some analysis... also he mentions for us not to look. - He establishes the "vote to pressure" mentality early. This does come back later. - This was in response to an earlier statement by him since Janaan questioned why he thought the early deadline would likely target a lurker. - He's maintaining his "vote to pressure" mentality. Namely he was looking at people who have yet to post listed by gumshoe. - At this point there hasn't been any significant cases. FF has already posted and some discussion has arisen... but no case when he posted. - As far as I can tell, he's just sticking to his ideology at this point. - The case on FF hasn't been posted yet. - He's still sticking to his ideology of pressuring lurkers via votes. - I'm willing to be think that he just has a poor plan with "vote to pressure" at this point. So prior to his sudden switch to targeting FF (which hasn't happened yet)... I don't think he realized that "vote to pressure" wasn't a good idea. I'm not sure if anyone even tried to tell him this? - In short, this is also irks me. He went from adamant lurkers to FF. - He did mention that he would ditch lurkers if there was a huge scumslip or something of that nature. - However he may think it was a scumslip or something as a knee-jerk reaction. - This may have been a taken out of context. I think he was referring to my second deadline suggestion (no quotes or @me, but he already commented on the first soft deadline and this follows my post). - Since it does not appear we are going to use a second deadline system, he can't use this as a defense priming technique if we don't use the second deadline. @Chocolate: Why would you vote for someone just for being weird? Or was there something especially scummy about it? As discussed in the thread, FF may not be scum just from his insanity defense alone. When I switched to FF,as I said earlier, I was trying to get him to post more. It didn't work, because he hasn't posted any real content since then. + Show Spoiler + On February 27 2012 14:22 Janaan wrote: I agree that Chocolate does seem a little wishy washy, saying stuff like then he seems to say at least slightly differently in his next post It seems to me that for the most part, though, his posts are fairly consistent with the idea of lynching lurkers in mind. I don't really know what was about, and it does seem like he could be just trying to cover for himself so he can justify not being active near the voting deadline. Particularly when he did say that he'd most likely be online . 17-21 EST is the hours before the deadline, so he may've contradicted himself there. There's not really enough for me to call him scum right now, but he looks like he could be potentially. Saying something is probable and that I'm not sure of it doesn't seem contradictory to me at all. Isn't that what you mean when you say probably? 17-21 EST is right before the deadline except the last hour, so I'm notcontradicting myself. Honestly if your case on me is because of these that's pretty fishy, either you're sheeping or you're voting along with the mafia (possibly both). If there's anything I missed please point it out to me so I can address it. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
| ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
| ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
Alderan- On February 27 2012 12:50 Alderan wrote: Also, if this reasoning stands I think Ghost is scum as well. Here's how I see this vote on Jeckyll going: - Ghost puts his vote on Jeckyll, cause you know they're pressuring lurkers and all. - Chocolate also puts his vote on Jeckyll, cause you know they're pressuring lurkers and all. - Ghost gets pissed in the scum qt by saying "dude back up off me, we don't need to get too associated with each other" - Chocolate is like "shit, how can I back out of this? Oh I got it! I'll say we need to diversify our pressure portfolio!!!!!11!!" - Chocolate votes on another random lurker. - Alderan figures it out. I never voted for jeckyll to begin with. I don't even think I've even mentioned him so far. If you're implying that 1-4 all took place in a scum qt, all there is ostensibly is me voting on a lurker, making the only connection both me and ghost voting on lurkers. I also dislike you painting me as stupid or unintelligent, because it is common to portray dumb people as using !!111!!!. This is an underhanded tactic to try to get people to dislike me. Another reason I'm suspicious of you is simply because you got on my case when I felt like I didn't do anything wrong, although I probably should've explained more why I was voting on FF. Fourface- not too sure about this guy but I think he may just be scum acting out, trying to act so boldly that nobody thinks he's scum. I hope he gets replaced or shapes up, if he doesn't I'd be fine with voting on him. Steveling- he posted day 1 about lynch policy, otherwise has done absolutely NOTHING That's it for now I suppose. I'd be up for lynching them plus igabod. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On February 28 2012 07:31 ghost_403 wrote: As I said before, I am happy to lynch lurkers... --UNLESS-- ...there are scum. Oh boy, are there scum in this thread. I'm not down with an Igabod lynch (at the moment. Igabod, post more.) simply because there are scummier targets. Tells us not to jump on the bandwagon. Immediately jumps on the bandwagon. Also, he's posted very little content up til now. His post history is "let's lynch lurkers, let's not lynch lurkers, let's lynch lurkers who don't post in the next hour, let's lynch phagga for lurking, sorry for jumping on the FourFace bandwagon, let's lynch Igabod." Chocolate's Filter And now, his most recent post is "Alderan used an OMGUS sort of, FourFace is fishy, and here's another lurker." Not impressed. Scummy lurker >> regular lurker. ##vote chocolate Just as an aside, did you know that out of the 14 people playing this game, only 4 of them agreed to a no-lynch on day 1? I want igabod to post more, is that so bad? Votes are not set in stone. As I said I'd be up for all the people I previously outlined, but igabod is the most scummy to me because of his lack of posts. My "lurker policy" hasn't been the greatest, and hasn't produced good results. Do you honestly think I would keep my vote on those people though? I don't even remember when I was against lynching lurkers, but if you're referring to my 2nd post during the game I didn't say I was for or against lynching them , only that they were the most likely lynch candidates. I don't see anything wrong with my most recent post. I'm not going to wildly say SLOOSH IS MAFIA, and find things to justify my point. I will find things and base my point off them, and those are the people who have garnered my suspicion. On February 28 2012 07:33 NightFury wrote: I'm back at home. @ghost: After looking into your statement, you have addressed my concerns already. While I do not necessarily agree with your initial play style - you are being active and can address statements and inquiries. Okay. Why do you want people to panic and start posting? Getting people to panic is not a great idea because it can easily cause a lot of confusion. A townie panicking can make themselves appear suspicious and draw a lot of attention. Building a case off of panic doesn't make sense since the information you obtain may not be reliable. Yes, you could possibly cause scum to panic and get something - but how do you differentiate this from a townie? Also you mention this is to target newbies? How does experience dictate which role they have? I feel this strategy to begin with is extremely flawed and should not be a viable option. In hindsight, going after FourFace with that strategy was a bad idea (maybe his insanity defense was just a panic defense). But you don't even listen to your own philosophy. You wanted to build a case against him by making him post more. But you don't even present a case of your own - you just outright vote for him. I did take a look just now at your previous game with SacredSystem (only looked around Day 1 btw). Once again, the plan didn't even work. I would like you to explain how this plan worked in your eyes. He wasn't inactive. The vote wasn't even against him - he started off against someone's analysis about random lynching. He was town! Same thing with the person you immediately voted for because he didn't mention anything (he claimed he was at school, perfectly fair). Also, you were mafia in the previous game. I don't necessarily want to try to use posting meta in this game but now this is a bit too much. If you're mafia, the idea of causing someone to panic and gather a lot of attention benefits the mafia team. It leads the town down a useless path unless the person can defend themselves well... but a newbie panicking may not perform that too well. The big question I have for you: why are you using the same strategy to cause newbies to panic if you're truly town? How can you differentiate townie panic versus mafia panic? As of right now given the new circumstances - I do not believe you are town. ##Unvote: Ghost_304 ##Vote: Chocolate Panicking can produce results. If someone panics it makes me think of them as mafia, because it shows that they may not be able to think up a good defense, whereas town should be able to make good decisions based on the current information (remember, scum has to be careful not to reveal their private information). It targets newbies but mafia are more likely to panic to me. I voted for 4face to get him to post more. If I hadn't voted for him there wouldn't have been sufficient pressure on him to get him to post. The vote causes that. If it were the end of the day I wouldn't have voted for him, simply because there wasn't too much to go off. Read more of that mafia game. SS was town and I was mafia, but from an objective view I think late into the game he was very scummy. I wanted people to panic because i thought mafia would be more likely to panic. On February 28 2012 07:37 Alderan wrote: Do you find no one else suspicious besides lurkers and 4F? We're trying to build as many cases as possible and put pressure on every one we find suspicious. The hypothetical Jeckyll vote thing was just something that popped into my head when making my case on you and I used it to push you both and see how you respond. Sorry if you think I tried to make you look dumb, that was not my intention. It's fine. I did say I found you suspicious, and you aren't really lurking. I'm inclined to think all the people voting for me are suspicious too, but I don't know. I just hope if I die that you all look in to some of them, especially votes 4-7. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
| ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On February 28 2012 08:32 Alderan wrote: Reason I don't vote for igabod is as of now he stands to be modkilled, correct? Yeah, he has to vote. I don't want him to vote at the last second and get away with it though. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On February 28 2012 08:42 Janaan wrote: Steveling is a possibility, but right now, it's just a WIFOM argument about why he doesn't want to play. I think if we have better ideas it would be better to wait for his replacement to come in and just watch the replacement carefully. I wouldn't necessarily say it's WIFOM in the strictest use of the term. WIFOM refers to circular reasoning like "Player A disliked/accused/pushed player B. Player B died last night, flipped town. Therefore A is mafia. But mafia may want him to be lynched." We are speculating but it's not wifom, and I think we can deduce a bit about steve's situation. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
| ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
| ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
| ||
| ||
