currently in a game so i guess ill
/in as replacement
Also, same question as last game - if cop can only find alignment, wouldn't Godfather always default to town (unless I guess they want to show as mafia as part of intricate plan)?
Forum Index > TL Mafia |
slOosh
3291 Posts
currently in a game so i guess ill /in as replacement Also, same question as last game - if cop can only find alignment, wouldn't Godfather always default to town (unless I guess they want to show as mafia as part of intricate plan)? | ||
slOosh
3291 Posts
Current thoughts so far: I really like the idea of the soft deadline to avoid last minute switching, but I would only implement it day 1. From personal experience (my 2nd game T.T), trying to enforce a soft deadline where everyone votes can be very detrimental to town as it has the possibility of stifling discussion / people rushing to make poorly built cases as Janaan mentioned. As for this idea of lynching lurkers, how would it interact with the deadline? Say we are at soft deadline and there are several lurkers. We vote one, and they happen to respond by producing good content and such. Then we would have to choose the next lurker, but that would bring us closer to the true deadline and thereby defeat the whole purpose. There isn't really a feasible way to choose lurkers with a comfortable cushion of time before the deadline. I'd rather we just start keeping each other accountable and make sure everyone is contributing right away. I know that in the ObsQT from prior games people have pegged mafia day 1, and I think we should aim for that goal, pressuring inactives so that we don't have to worry about last minute lurker switches. | ||
slOosh
3291 Posts
On February 27 2012 10:50 JekyllAndHyde wrote: Show nested quote + On February 26 2012 15:40 slOosh wrote: Hi all. This will be my third newbie game. Current thoughts so far: I really like the idea of the soft deadline to avoid last minute switching, but I would only implement it day 1. From personal experience (my 2nd game T.T), trying to enforce a soft deadline where everyone votes can be very detrimental to town as it has the possibility of stifling discussion / people rushing to make poorly built cases as Janaan mentioned. As for this idea of lynching lurkers, how would it interact with the deadline? Say we are at soft deadline and there are several lurkers. We vote one, and they happen to respond by producing good content and such. Then we would have to choose the next lurker, but that would bring us closer to the true deadline and thereby defeat the whole purpose. There isn't really a feasible way to choose lurkers with a comfortable cushion of time before the deadline. I'd rather we just start keeping each other accountable and make sure everyone is contributing right away. I know that in the ObsQT from prior games people have pegged mafia day 1, and I think we should aim for that goal, pressuring inactives so that we don't have to worry about last minute lurker switches. Okay sloosh. You were pretty active last game, why did you go lurking all of a sudden? /Hyde I decided to take a slower approach to the game. Last game I came out guns blazing, argued with a townie and then tunneled another one hard, allowing mafia to lurk and get away with posting fluff. I really want to fight my tendencies to tunnel / confirmation bias so I'm taking it as slow as I can. But being mindful of a deadline, I'll try posting what I have progressively rather than waiting until the eleventh hour to post a big case. Hopefully this will quell paranoia and promote a healthy town atmosphere. My current suspicions are on: ghost_403 I'm really not sure if this is unintentional anti-town play or soft pushing mafia agenda. On February 27 2012 02:32 ghost_403 wrote: @alderan I really don't see any time where it would be advantageous to the town to not lynch. The town should first be lynching scum. If we can't find scum, we should instead lynch people who are not useful to the town. Lurkers fit the second criteria perfectly. By lurking, you are providing cover for the scum to hide, which is in every case bad for the town. He seems to advocate, in the event we can't agree on a good mafia suspect, lurker lynches. Lurker lynches are good, but only to flush mafia out of hiding, as he says so himself. Right now this is a null post to me as I can see both town or mafia thinking this. However: On February 27 2012 04:43 ghost_403 wrote: @Janaan Nope. I would love to start lynching into the other non-posters and fluffy posters as well, but alas, I have only one vote. Although, I would expect more posting from a hydra. It seems between the two of them that at least one could post on here "Don't lynch me". His stance is consistent but questionable. He wants to lynch, not pressure to get people to post and produce content and thus flush out mafia. It's almost like he will policy lynch a lurker. Still null, but worth looking into. On February 27 2012 07:18 ghost_403 wrote: Just got back and I've seen a few things that I'm not too happy about It seems that most of the discussion on this thread has been built around the idea of a soft deadline and a no-lynch day 1. Here are my thoughts on both of those. A soft deadline isn't really needed. At all. If your concern is that people change their votes at the last minute and mess up votes, there is a simple solution to that: we lynch people who change their votes at the last minute and mess up votes. I would rather lynch scum over people who mess up votes, but I'm down with policy lynching. Townies, don't change your vote at the last minute and mess up votes. I will vote to policy lynch you. A no lynch day 1 is a bad idea. Pretty much, no matter who you are, a no lynch plays against your win condition, unless you're the Batman. As there is not the Batman in this game, no lynching goes against your win condition. Look at it this way: no matter your alignment, you win when there is no one else in the game. Period. Another way to look at that is if you are still left during day 3 after 2 mislynches. There are 6 townies and 4 scum. The scum are either (1) forced to work together to stay alive, and are pretty easy to spot or (2) are going to sacrifice one of their own. Unless something goes horribly, horribly wrong, the worst case scenario for day 4 is 5 townies to 3 scum. No problem. Responses to posts in thread: @chocolate If this wasn't a newbie game, I would lynch you for that post. @DoYouHas I think you're right on with that post. Not a big fan of the FOS thing, but whatever. I think it gives them room to run and hide. Instead, GO FOR THE KILL. @gumshoe See above. @fourface Start explaining yourself, or I'll start the bandwagon rolling. @phagga I stand by what I said. I would much rather lynch scum, but if I can't, I'll lynch lurkers. The town lost that game because they let Palmar double lynch every day. As far as those two specific cases, rgTheSchworz should have been modkilled, and I would have lynched Lanaia instead mderg if I had had the time that day. She had no case against him, and I would have pointed that out, regardless of my alliance in that game. There is a heavy fixation with lynching. It's no longer a means flush out lurking mafia from hiding. He threatens at least 3 active posters with the lynch. He emphasizes over and over that we have to lynch no matter the circumstances. Even if we don't have a good case, he is willing to lynch lurkers, unhelpful townies, and seemingly anything. I'm trying to see what motives a townie might have for needing to get lynches so badly, and I can't think of anything. ##FOS: ghost_403. (I'm ending it with FOS rather than a vote since I really want other people's input as I think that is the best way I don't go tunnel mode). | ||
slOosh
3291 Posts
| ||
slOosh
3291 Posts
On February 27 2012 13:24 gumshoe wrote: Sloosh: In regards to ghost, yeah, you'll see early on that I pressured him a bit, currently he's also my highest candidate of suspicion because before anything, he pushed other players to vote without voting himself... definitely worth tunnelling. That's the one thing I'm trying to avoid >.<; Anyways, with regard to the Choco case, I've been looking over his filter and trying to think objectively into it: it's really hard to gauge his alignment as there isn't that much content. I'm really interested in this though. On February 27 2012 09:37 Chocolate wrote: @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. I think seeing them interact with each other can give us more substantial information (and it puts pressure on them if they are both mafia as they are paranoid at their interaction being put in the spotlight) | ||
slOosh
3291 Posts
On February 28 2012 02:52 ghost_403 wrote: I'm going to assume that pursuing a lynch on FourFace is counterproductive at this point. I still feel that we should be looking for someone to lynch day 1. I thought I explained myself well enough the first time, but I am more than happy to reiterate my position. Let's say that everyone agrees to no-lynch day 1. Instead of arguing and creating content, everyone agrees and nothing happens. The deadline from day 1 comes and goes, and the mafia gets to kill one random townie for free. Day 2 starts, and we are left in the same position that we were in Day 1, only now we have one less townie. This outcome has no benefit for the town. Instead, let's say that we agree to lynch a lurker. (Obviously, scum would be better. This goes without saying.) Now, we have people arguing over who is the better lynch. The lurkers are forced to interact with the town. Sides are picked, fights are fought, and maybe we lose a townie over it. Night 1 comes and goes, and we start day 2, AT WORST, down two townies. Instead of having nothing to go on, we have pages of content that we can analyze for inconstancies and patterns. The mafia are most likely going to kill people who are on the right track, giving us clues as to who they are. The town may be down a player, but has so much more information to go on. Of course, one could make the argument of "Well, why don't we just pretend to lynch someone." Empty threats aren't going to force people to interact with the town. The follow-through is important. And that is why I support lynching a lurker (scum would be better) day 1. When I get home, I'll take another look at the thread and throw in an opinion on who might be a good day 1 lynch. For me this clears some of my initial suspicions and pushes ghost into null read. He provides decent reasoning once pressured - my current read is that he is perhaps overzealous with his stance on lynching, treating it like a 100% policy, and not adopting a helpful attitude for town. ghost, I hope to continue seeing quality posts like these without having to FOS / make cases against you. As for his actual stance: While I strongly disagree with the idea of "lynching for information", I do agree that a no lynch should be a last resort than an easy way out. Otherwise it can give mafia an avenue of being non commital, which is the essence of lurking anyways. Right now that leaves me with Chocolate, as he hasn't yet responded. I don't think his case is worth voting for yet, but it defeats the whole purpose of the soft deadline if all we do is FOS and vote last minute. (Thus my preliminary, not necessarily final, vote will be on) ##Vote: Chocolate | ||
slOosh
3291 Posts
It's going to end up a NL, and it should. We spent a large portion of D1 discussing the merits of a soft deadline for this exact purpose. Working to catch up on the thread more thoroughly and will address the stuff I missed. | ||
slOosh
3291 Posts
The reason why I haven't gone hard yet (aside from IRL conflicts cutting down my activity) is that I'm really working on improving my objective analysis. My past 2 games I have constructed cases like ~5 hrs before the deadline, and its been agreed upon that they were weak and full of confirmation bias. Instead this time I've focused on gathering as much information as possible without biasing myself. I'll be presenting my finds with my upcoming posts | ||
slOosh
3291 Posts
On February 28 2012 08:21 gumshoe wrote: Here he is the first person to attack ghost, he does so in a rather soft manner, taking a much less aggressive tone than weve seen out of him in the past. You then were the also first person to defend him He drops his suspicion of ghost for decent but not great reasons, last game steve eventually dropped his suspicion of me when no one else thought I was scum anymore, ghost could be just dropping his suspiciun of four face cause he saw how much heat he was getting for it. Sloosh then switches to chocolate who sloosh hasn't even really provided a case for, in fact the only reason sloosh really mentioned chocolate before was because he perceived that chocolate was interacting with ghost. Furthermore he doesn't even continue considering ghost as a suspect, he says he's null, last game we all had at least two suspects in the red, why does sloosh feel the need to drop ghost off his radar? I did call out ghost with a case. It was on the basis that he was aggressively pro-lynch, with the idea itself rather than pro-lynch against any specific people. I made a soft case, making the most of what I could with D1 knowledge, thinking something might have been there, as it seemed like he was pushing a reckless mindset onto town. He responded with a post clarifying himself, and I saw that he is logically consistent. On February 28 2012 06:12 slOosh wrote: Show nested quote + On February 28 2012 02:52 ghost_403 wrote: I'm going to assume that pursuing a lynch on FourFace is counterproductive at this point. I still feel that we should be looking for someone to lynch day 1. I thought I explained myself well enough the first time, but I am more than happy to reiterate my position. Let's say that everyone agrees to no-lynch day 1. Instead of arguing and creating content, everyone agrees and nothing happens. The deadline from day 1 comes and goes, and the mafia gets to kill one random townie for free. Day 2 starts, and we are left in the same position that we were in Day 1, only now we have one less townie. This outcome has no benefit for the town. Instead, let's say that we agree to lynch a lurker. (Obviously, scum would be better. This goes without saying.) Now, we have people arguing over who is the better lynch. The lurkers are forced to interact with the town. Sides are picked, fights are fought, and maybe we lose a townie over it. Night 1 comes and goes, and we start day 2, AT WORST, down two townies. Instead of having nothing to go on, we have pages of content that we can analyze for inconstancies and patterns. The mafia are most likely going to kill people who are on the right track, giving us clues as to who they are. The town may be down a player, but has so much more information to go on. Of course, one could make the argument of "Well, why don't we just pretend to lynch someone." Empty threats aren't going to force people to interact with the town. The follow-through is important. And that is why I support lynching a lurker (scum would be better) day 1. When I get home, I'll take another look at the thread and throw in an opinion on who might be a good day 1 lynch. For me this clears some of my initial suspicions and pushes ghost into null read. He provides decent reasoning once pressured - my current read is that he is perhaps overzealous with his stance on lynching, treating it like a 100% policy, and not adopting a helpful attitude for town. ghost, I hope to continue seeing quality posts like these without having to FOS / make cases against you. As for his actual stance: While I strongly disagree with the idea of "lynching for information", I do agree that a no lynch should be a last resort than an easy way out. Otherwise it can give mafia an avenue of being non commital, which is the essence of lurking anyways. Right now that leaves me with Chocolate, as he hasn't yet responded. I don't think his case is worth voting for yet, but it defeats the whole purpose of the soft deadline if all we do is FOS and vote last minute. (Thus my preliminary, not necessarily final, vote will be on) ##Vote: Chocolate I don't defend him, but change my stance on him. There is a difference, and I don't want facts to be misinterpreted as that will hurt town atmosphere. Null read does not mean I drop all my suspicions - it means I put the information aside to be able to take a comprehensive view of how D1 is unfolding. I know that in the last game, meta filled my mind with paranoia, leading me to tunnel so hard. I wish for none of that this game, from both myself or others, so please don't misconstrue me "dropping a case" when I'm actually putting it aside until more relevant information appears. Moving onto my vote on Chocolate - it is what I said it is. A preliminary vote. Why did we bother discussing the merits of soft deadlines and no lynching if we aren't even going to use it? I did not want to put my vote on igabod since 1) Putting it on Chocolate puts pressure on him to produce more content and reasoning, allowing us to have a better read of who he is, and true enough, he does. 2) Despite what people may think, I thought igabod was an easy way out. Having people voting for chocolate and providing their reasoning why can reveal more information than having people vote igabod and say "he hasn't posted". DYH picked up on it when he commented on how the bandwagon was rolling. Even with a no lynch there is much information to be gleaned, and going for igabod was not the way to do it. Will hopefully find time tomorrow to post my upcoming case. I expect to find time to do it in around ~14 hours. | ||
slOosh
3291 Posts
The Alderan Case: This case revolves in observing the context in which his actions occur in the thread. Analysis starts with his PBPA on Chocolate, who he thinks is "super scummy". + Show Spoiler + On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote: Note: this didn't start as a PBPA but it ended that way because literally everything he has done is scummy. Chocolate is super scummy to me right now. Says things like "our vote will probably end up being a lurker"... Who says this? Even if it is the case you're giving mafia free reign to post a couple BS posts and get out of the thread. He later goes on to say Show nested quote + I'll give them until ~6 EST to post but if they still haven't by them we should vote one. Pretty adamanent about this lurker idea, right? Wrong. NOT 3 POSTS LATER he's off his lurker train now, and onto the easiest target, namely, Fourface. Fourface, for reasons stated above is very likely not scum, but I could see Chocolate's beady little eyes now getting as wide as an anime characters in joy when he saw that Fourface made one of the most "interesting" (as to avoid getting in trouble) posts I've ever seen. Oh and this: Show nested quote + We should probably spread out our votes, don't need two people on one lurker yet imo I don't get this either. Why would you split your votes up? If it's for pressure here is a newsflash: Votes DO NOT = Pressure Pressure is cases, pressure is discussion, a one liner and vote in the vote thread doesn't cut it. Period. Then there's: Show nested quote + That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. There is some biased reads in this case, as it is very speculative in nature. With phrases like "even if it is the case", "I could see Chocolate's eyes (something about anime)", "Steve, how often ...". I first thought he was getting some confirmation bias and stayed quiet to see Chocolate's response. After this post, he throws up some speculation on ghost, based on his speculation on Chocolate. 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. So he has his eyes on both Chocolate and ghost. When I post my case concurrently with his post on ghost, he refrains from responding to it saying On February 27 2012 13:16 Alderan wrote: Show nested quote + On February 27 2012 13:08 slOosh wrote: Oop - missed Alderan's post while building my case. Looking over and will post thoughts soon. I'm going to wait for him to respond to make a comment on your case. I've got a hunch. And later when Janaan want's to discuss ghost's actions, he does not discuss the matter at hand (ghost), but redirects focus onto Chocolate On February 27 2012 14:06 Alderan wrote: Show nested quote + On February 27 2012 13:59 Janaan wrote: One thing that stands out most to me about Ghost's posting is this gem right here Another way to look at that is if you are still left during day 3 after 2 mislynches. There are 6 townies and 4 scum. The scum are either (1) forced to work together to stay alive, and are pretty easy to spot or (2) are going to sacrifice one of their own. Unless something goes horribly, horribly wrong, the worst case scenario for day 4 is 5 townies to 3 scum. No problem. He seems to think that it's perfectly fine for us to go 3 days without lynching a mafia, which would put us in a MYLO situation. Not exactly what I'd call a pro-town position to be in. His justification for saying this is pretty weak I think. 1. If the game gets to this point, scum obviously haven't been easy to spot, and it doesn't really get much easier. Sure, the "odds" might be more in your favor, but if you're in this situation, scum probably are pretty good at hiding in plain sight. 2. Yeah, scum might sacrifice one of their own. But 5 town/ 3 scum is still MYLO. I don't see how a townie could say that this is "no problem". Janaan, talk to me about Chocolate. On February 28 2012 07:09 Alderan wrote: @Steveling have you been actively pursuing getting a replacement or no? @Chocolate aside from igabod who are you thinking is appearing scummy? Are you really getting a null read on everyone? To anyone who cares, I don't think Ghost_403 is that suspicious anymore. I realized that it is more likely that either Ghost or Chocolate are scum, Chocolate strikes me as someone riding the middle and keeping his head down. There is a clear leaning away from ghost and leaning toward Chocolate. The bolded post (which is without reasoning), sets up that only one of them is likely to be scum, and that is Chocolate. And yet when DYH provides some clear thinking into the situation, Alderan is all too quick to sheep him. On February 28 2012 08:29 Alderan wrote: Show nested quote + On February 28 2012 08:04 DoYouHas wrote: Anybody else think that this bandwagon is forming a little quickly on Chocolate? It wouldn't be so odd to me, but when I see a post like NightFury's which attacks Chocolate with points that are not very conclusive I start thinking that people are talking themselves into a Chocolate lynch instead of being objectively convinced. If you thought that he was our best lynch candidate because you found a few of thing things he said fishy and did not like his early lurking/middle of the road posts, that is one thing. But when you invent fairly invalid points to convince us that you aren't just sheeping the vote, it is very bad for town. Right now I am very comfortable with my igabod vote. With how the conversation is being directed towards either a ghost lynch or a Chocolate lynch, I think igabod has a better chance of flipping scum than either of them. I almost made literally the exact same post. The Chocolate thing is coming along too easily, I would have expected at least a case made against someone else. That in combination with his mildly sufficient answers have me reconsidering my vote. I would love for a case to come a long that was better, which is why I was asking everyone to come up with an opinion? I think Steveling is acting very suspiciously. I've found that after playing as scum, town is much more relaxing and less time consuming. I find it strange that he finds it the opposite. He instantly agrees with DYH, and drops his strong suspicions on Chocolate for "mildly sufficient answers". Its worth suspicion because soon after he picks it back up keeps trying to sway town to consider him. (I understand this is starting to look like a PBPA but it isn't. I'm trying to show how the development of his stance on Chocolate does not make sense within the context of the thread. There has been nothing on Chocolate between the time of his posts to either incriminate or absolve him (Chocolate). I recommend opening Alderan's filter and reading along with the actual thread to see how his posts align. Will continue analysis without posting quotes here.) Later on with his post with lists, and a couple of posts on Steveling, he shows preference again saying that since who he believes are townies are stacked against Chocolate, and since Steveling did not vote Chocolate, that both people should be lynched. His reasoning? Information - contradicting his openness to no lynch which is actually gives least information (in the sense that it does not give a 100% confirmed flip). Summary: Alderan has shown a great bias against Chocolate. He tries to focus people on him (such as Janaan when he posted about ghost) but is perfectly willing to drop it when DYH comes in to call out what is going on. Even so he picks it back up and tries to get people to look at it, and then tries to get something on Steveling started on the sole basis that he is involved with Chocolate. Conclusion: It could be a case of serious tunneling (which I doubt as he seemingly listened to DYH), but I find it more likely that he is casting confusion amongst town by setting up multiple suspects without good reason or case. | ||
slOosh
3291 Posts
Hopefully will find time during the day to follow up and drive discussion. | ||
slOosh
3291 Posts
It forces people to make reads prior to the issue being resolved - it wouldn't do much good if Alderan was the only one to post and defend himself well and lurker mafia to come in and say 'oh yea I knew that and I agree'. Right now my greatest concern is the potential lurker issue. When the most active players go at each other, it gives even more hiding grounds for mafia - right now I only have semi-decent reads on ~3 people, and there is a total of 14. Replacements especially, please contribute / voice your thoughts - it will help us in the long run. | ||
slOosh
3291 Posts
On February 29 2012 04:42 Alderan wrote: Sloosh- The thing I find most concerning about Sloosh is his change of pace from last game. I know he's said that hes slowing down his posting to try and clean up his play but he has been extremely lurkish. He pushes Ghost pretty hard, but ironically enough it was his case against Ghost that made Ghost less suspicious for me. He ends up taking an extremely soft stance on the matter. He then makes a case against someone (me) who had a very similar train of though in terms of vote targets to himself. I'll have to wait to hear his response to my rebuttal to discern more probably but I do have my suspicions. I really want to clear this up as it is incorrect. I did not push Ghost hard. I put up a case with a FOS, voicing my thoughts transparently to town. I think your interpretation that I am taking a soft stance is unjustified - ghost posted his reasoning to explaining his behavior, and I took that info and adjusted my reads accordingly. Even though we may have had similar suspects of suspicions, it is the reasons why they we think them suspicious that separates us, which is ultimately why I built my case on you (as I don't/didn't think you had good reasoning). You may have missed this post while you were typing up your reads, but I will wait and give opportunity for the new replacements to clear themselves before posting my thoughts. On February 29 2012 04:20 slOosh wrote: I would really like it if not only Alderan, but other people chime in their opinions and thoughts as the night and day progresses. It forces people to make reads prior to the issue being resolved - it wouldn't do much good if Alderan was the only one to post and defend himself well and lurker mafia to come in and say 'oh yea I knew that and I agree'. Right now my greatest concern is the potential lurker issue. When the most active players go at each other, it gives even more hiding grounds for mafia - right now I only have semi-decent reads on ~3 people, and there is a total of 14. Replacements especially, please contribute / voice your thoughts - it will help us in the long run. If you honestly think I'm evading/lurking, then just say so. But I think this is what is best for town in the long run (D3 onwards). I don't want to dominate this thread - it hasn't helped in my past experience and I want to play more like my first game style, which was more contributory rather than telling people what to do / believe. I'll be busy all tonight and will be unable to comment on discussion / the N1 results until tomorrow morning (CST). Please don't let the thread stagnate - even if it is night, time is a crucial commodity for town. | ||
slOosh
3291 Posts
On February 29 2012 07:53 Chocolate wrote: As for the alderan case, he does seem to be moving around a lot too, but at least he is driving discussion. This is a dangerous mindset to hold as is untrue. There is a difference in a person driving discussion and discussion being generated about/around a person. In this case it is the latter, and it is easy for either mafia or town to defend themselves and thereby "create" content. It shouldn't be considered a town tell on that account, let alone the fact that there are mafia playstyles that are very active (zarepath in NMMIII comes to mind). Stuff revolving around Alderan: First off is the flushing of lurkers. I held off on commenting because of this exact reason, and we see nttea come out, sheeping my case. Could be a newbie townie unsure of how to contribute or a mafia supporting a mislynch, or a mafia busing a teammate under scrutiny to take attention off of themselves. Its good that people are keeping watch of everyone, and a few people have called him out. Please stay on that, and for everyone else keep an eye on that (it is counter productive if we all turn our attention to that since if case he is newbie town we just wasted the whole day, and it might turn into easy bandwagon on him, and we don't need whole town to pressure lurkers) Second: On February 29 2012 16:13 k2hd wrote: Sloosh, I wanted to ask you about this part of your case against alderan Show nested quote + Summary: Alderan has shown a great bias against Chocolate. He tries to focus people on him (such as Janaan when he posted about ghost) but is perfectly willing to drop it when DYH comes in to call out what is going on. Even so he picks it back up and tries to get people to look at it, and then tries to get something on Steveling started on the sole basis that he is involved with Chocolate. Conclusion: It could be a case of serious tunneling (which I doubt as he seemingly listened to DYH), but I find it more likely that he is casting confusion amongst town by setting up multiple suspects without good reason or case. It does seem, as you say, that alderan is focusing hard on chocolate, but is he really trying to set up multiple targets? From what I can tell, at the point you made that post, he was only setting up chocolate and steveling to be scrutinised, and dropped his case against ghost. I think it's becoming more and more likely that chocolate is town, so if alderan were scum, why waste his vote on steveling, who he knew was not going to attract enough votes for a lynch? . I think we have different usage of the word "set up". Mine is more along the lines of what I bolded in your post, and what I wrote as my conclusion: " he is casting confusion amongst town by setting up multiple suspects without good reason or case". I don't think his goal was to pull off the mislynch D1 (I doubt mafia would be so brazen to do that last minute when it would result in intense scrutiny of whoever caused the last minute swing) - I'm saying that it is suspicious to cast suspicion on people without good reason. Third: I didn't bring this piece of information up since I wanted to see how Alderan, and others would respond to my case and his defense. If you look at his PBPA on Choco and read where the quotes come from in Choco's filter, you will realize that the quotes are not chronological (the 3rd quote is actually written before the 1st and 2nd quotes). This is why my suspicion remains on him - removing time stamps so people won't instantly be able to realize it to build a misleading case and cast suspicion on Choco. At best this is a biased townie who built the case with the mindset of proving that Choco is mafia. Was it an honest mistake? Maybe, but if we spend the whole game excusing potentially intentionally poor play by saying it is a newbie game we won't ever get anywhere. Stance on gumshoe On March 01 2012 00:07 gumshoe wrote: Whats wrong with trying to deduce motive? Please, if you guys have something better to say I am all ears, why is it pointless to discuss motive? This is our space, were supposed to feel comfterble here to talk as we please, the mafia are the ones who are unwelcome. As to the discussion revolving around the N1 Janaan kill - Phagga put it best himself: On March 01 2012 00:23 phagga wrote: We have no idea what the motives of the mafia are. We can only speculate. And if we speculate wrong, we might start hunting and lynching people for the wrong reasons, we will get WIFOM, it will create more uncertainty than facts. The only ones profiting from it will be the mafia. It is discussion that is inconclusive. We can try to guess what the mafia were thinking, but that is all it will amount to. A guess. Even if we discussed it over and come to a consensus, it is still at best conjecture that isn't strong enough to help find and lynch mafia. The reason why we should stop talking about it, is that it allows an easy avenue for mafia to contribute, because its ultimately meaningless - they don't fear saying anything condemning because everyone doing is just guessing and no one is going to be called out on a guess. I don't like gumshoe right now for two reasons: 1) Is the obviously weak accusations he is flinging at me. For someone who is obviously against the use of meta On February 29 2012 00:15 gumshoe wrote: Now unless you want invole the m word(i dare you to say it) theres not much all to discuss about the matter. Any other questions? his sole suspicion of me revolves around meta. I've clearly explained the intentional change in my playstyle, and he tries casting suspicion on me, and getting others to do it for him. On February 29 2012 15:11 gumshoe wrote: DYH think about it from scums perspective, alderaan is one of the biggest players, his primary suspicion happens to be a town, what better way to throw doubt on Alderaan? Personally I think we should just look back at the people who were trying to build cases against alderaan. a few come to mind, one in particular has been acting strange all game, you might know him, after all, he killed you in a past life. Not only is it suspicious for him to do this, I have to divert attention and time addressing this each time so people don't start thinking like him and start ignoring my cases and discussion points, and it is really hindering my ability to generate quality posts. Zelblade basically built a case while I was writing up this post. Will read over it and Alderan's response when I have time during the latter part of the day. | ||
slOosh
3291 Posts
On March 01 2012 02:21 Alderan wrote: + Show Spoiler + On March 01 2012 01:55 slOosh wrote: Mindset correction: Show nested quote + On February 29 2012 07:53 Chocolate wrote: As for the alderan case, he does seem to be moving around a lot too, but at least he is driving discussion. This is a dangerous mindset to hold as is untrue. There is a difference in a person driving discussion and discussion being generated about/around a person. In this case it is the latter, and it is easy for either mafia or town to defend themselves and thereby "create" content. It shouldn't be considered a town tell on that account, let alone the fact that there are mafia playstyles that are very active (zarepath in NMMIII comes to mind). Stuff revolving around Alderan: First off is the flushing of lurkers. I held off on commenting because of this exact reason, and we see nttea come out, sheeping my case. Could be a newbie townie unsure of how to contribute or a mafia supporting a mislynch, or a mafia busing a teammate under scrutiny to take attention off of themselves. Its good that people are keeping watch of everyone, and a few people have called him out. Please stay on that, and for everyone else keep an eye on that (it is counter productive if we all turn our attention to that since if case he is newbie town we just wasted the whole day, and it might turn into easy bandwagon on him, and we don't need whole town to pressure lurkers) Second: Show nested quote + On February 29 2012 16:13 k2hd wrote: Sloosh, I wanted to ask you about this part of your case against alderan Summary: Alderan has shown a great bias against Chocolate. He tries to focus people on him (such as Janaan when he posted about ghost) but is perfectly willing to drop it when DYH comes in to call out what is going on. Even so he picks it back up and tries to get people to look at it, and then tries to get something on Steveling started on the sole basis that he is involved with Chocolate. Conclusion: It could be a case of serious tunneling (which I doubt as he seemingly listened to DYH), but I find it more likely that he is casting confusion amongst town by setting up multiple suspects without good reason or case. It does seem, as you say, that alderan is focusing hard on chocolate, but is he really trying to set up multiple targets? From what I can tell, at the point you made that post, he was only setting up chocolate and steveling to be scrutinised, and dropped his case against ghost. I think it's becoming more and more likely that chocolate is town, so if alderan were scum, why waste his vote on steveling, who he knew was not going to attract enough votes for a lynch? . I think we have different usage of the word "set up". Mine is more along the lines of what I bolded in your post, and what I wrote as my conclusion: " he is casting confusion amongst town by setting up multiple suspects without good reason or case". I don't think his goal was to pull off the mislynch D1 (I doubt mafia would be so brazen to do that last minute when it would result in intense scrutiny of whoever caused the last minute swing) - I'm saying that it is suspicious to cast suspicion on people without good reason. Third: I didn't bring this piece of information up since I wanted to see how Alderan, and others would respond to my case and his defense. If you look at his PBPA on Choco and read where the quotes come from in Choco's filter, you will realize that the quotes are not chronological (the 3rd quote is actually written before the 1st and 2nd quotes). This is why my suspicion remains on him - removing time stamps so people won't instantly be able to realize it to build a misleading case and cast suspicion on Choco. At best this is a biased townie who built the case with the mindset of proving that Choco is mafia. Was it an honest mistake? Maybe, but if we spend the whole game excusing potentially intentionally poor play by saying it is a newbie game we won't ever get anywhere. Stance on gumshoe Show nested quote + On March 01 2012 00:07 gumshoe wrote: Whats wrong with trying to deduce motive? Please, if you guys have something better to say I am all ears, why is it pointless to discuss motive? This is our space, were supposed to feel comfterble here to talk as we please, the mafia are the ones who are unwelcome. As to the discussion revolving around the N1 Janaan kill - Phagga put it best himself: Show nested quote + On March 01 2012 00:23 phagga wrote: We have no idea what the motives of the mafia are. We can only speculate. And if we speculate wrong, we might start hunting and lynching people for the wrong reasons, we will get WIFOM, it will create more uncertainty than facts. The only ones profiting from it will be the mafia. It is discussion that is inconclusive. We can try to guess what the mafia were thinking, but that is all it will amount to. A guess. Even if we discussed it over and come to a consensus, it is still at best conjecture that isn't strong enough to help find and lynch mafia. The reason why we should stop talking about it, is that it allows an easy avenue for mafia to contribute, because its ultimately meaningless - they don't fear saying anything condemning because everyone doing is just guessing and no one is going to be called out on a guess. I don't like gumshoe right now for two reasons: 1) Is the obviously weak accusations he is flinging at me. For someone who is obviously against the use of meta Show nested quote + On February 29 2012 00:15 gumshoe wrote: Now unless you want invole the m word(i dare you to say it) theres not much all to discuss about the matter. Any other questions? his sole suspicion of me revolves around meta. I've clearly explained the intentional change in my playstyle, and he tries casting suspicion on me, and getting others to do it for him. Show nested quote + On February 29 2012 15:11 gumshoe wrote: DYH think about it from scums perspective, alderaan is one of the biggest players, his primary suspicion happens to be a town, what better way to throw doubt on Alderaan? Personally I think we should just look back at the people who were trying to build cases against alderaan. a few come to mind, one in particular has been acting strange all game, you might know him, after all, he killed you in a past life. Not only is it suspicious for him to do this, I have to divert attention and time addressing this each time so people don't start thinking like him and start ignoring my cases and discussion points, and it is really hindering my ability to generate quality posts. Zelblade basically built a case while I was writing up this post. Will read over it and Alderan's response when I have time during the latter part of the day. Sloosh this is getting repetitive.... - You say I'm just defending myself and that's where I'm generating content. If I'm correct I have posted more player analysis than anyone in this thread. Just because they are not "Super long, one post a day posts" (that I did last game when I was scum; that you are doing now) doesn't mean I'm not generating content. - I didn't remove the stamps, it's just much easier to copy and paste and then add quote brackets. They are out of order because the post was not set up chronologically but topically. I wanted to put all the posts on lynching lurkers together, and then I wanted to talk about his lynch deadline availability. - I don't know how you can call me a biased towny, I've said multiple times that my Chocolate case was not that strong, I've taken into account other's input, and I've posted new cases to see what others thought about it. This is how you scum hunt, and it's also the best way to maximize reactions of the town for more reads. Any other questions? After reading zelblade's third party advice, it does seem like I think you are suspicious for not playing to a certain degree of aptitiude that I expect from you. It may just be our paranoias playing off of each other from the previous game, and I really do want to avoid a tunneling mentality. The intent of that last post was not to implicate you, but to explain my reasoning, correct what I thought was illogical thinking, and update my current reads. On that note, I've read over zelblade's analysis of gumshoe and find myself agreeing with him for the most part. It really messes with my read when he actively looks for a replacement / encourages others to lynch him, but as testsubject893 has pointed out, maybe it should not be considered as an alignment tell as either party could do that. Now aside from all that stuff, I have a huge problem with his last post: On March 01 2012 04:00 gumshoe wrote: Seeing as there is no going back now I will address every point against me, first off in terms of my accusation against sloosh, it was founded on a similar basis as to the one now up against me, that sloosh's behavior has changed drastically since last game just as you believe mine has, I never considered that strong enough evidence to lynch sloosh, I wanted to find someone associated with him and lynch that individual, if that person flipped scum, I would have a basis against sloosh, if that person flipped green I would back off, at the time that person was ghost, but since that point in the game I have lost most of my suspicion against ghost, reason being that ghost seems to care about his image and has criteria as to when he should drop his suspicions. Now the only persons who seem connected to sloosh are those accusing him, one of which is me and another is Alderaan, so I am content for the time being to put aside my suspicion of him and pursue the lynch of a lurker so that we can limit our casualties. Also zell blade I would rather you never have stated that information at all, nothing good can ever come from discussing non hit night actions. He advocates a lynch on an individual associated with me (independent of how scummy he thinks the player is likely to be), to gain information on my alignment. I really don't know how he couldn't have thought this one through - he is willing to trade a player (townie or not it doesn't seem like he cares) for more information (we lynch to rid mafia, not for info) so he can build a case against me (on whom he has suspicions solely on meta). Couple this with his insistence on discussing the night action and dangerous discussion revolving around blues, distracting town from focusing on generating useful content and finding mafia and allowing them an avenue to "contribute" My preliminary vote is cast: ##Vote: gumshoe | ||
slOosh
3291 Posts
zelblade you forgot to put the vote in the vote thread | ||
slOosh
3291 Posts
It is really disconcerting that the main cases / lurker of D1 should fade away once the spotlight has been taken off them. | ||
slOosh
3291 Posts
| ||
slOosh
3291 Posts
Its a solid case, and strangely enough, Alderan has totally ignored it and focused on my case alone, even though it was a response to his question: On February 29 2012 06:58 Alderan wrote: Jekyll, what do you think about the current cases at hand, namely the ones against Chocolate, myslef, and k2hd. I thought he responded decently against my case, so I put him in null, and I really want to hear his defense of this before casting a vote on him, as I believe I am suspect to confirmation bias after being so involved in discussion with him and want to approach it with a clear, refreshed mind. As for k2hd (considering him independently of Alderan) His filter doesn't bring up that much content after N1 is over, and I was giving him the benefit of the doubt as he is a hydra (therefore more busy etc.), but after this post, there isn't any reason I should On February 28 2012 22:04 k2hd wrote: Also, I should be able to post more in the 2 upcoming days, because I don't have uni. Again, all posts on k2hd account by BassInSpace. His D2 posts consist of little tidbits on the N1 actions, the confusion around roleblock and then a small question on my Alderan case, ending with calling out nttea (who rightfully should be called out - seriously where is this guy?). Its hard to get a proper read because of the lack of content in his filter, but that in itself is a tell - I'm leaning mafia lurker. Now as for their interactions, it is really strange. Alderan puts up a case against k2hd, but as Hyde points out he drops case and suspects Janaan. k2hd seems to suspect Alderan, but (if you follow his filter), he never gets a response, and for no clear reason he drops his suspicions on Alderan and starts soft defending him when the heat on him starts turning up. As individuals their actions are suspect. As a pair their actions are even more suspect - perhaps they are faking an "argument" early game creating safety nets where if one flips the other won't be suspected. I don't think this is pure speculation as both of them drop their cases on each other, and they dropped off their interaction around start of D2. | ||
slOosh
3291 Posts
Right now our votes are spread between 4 suspects, and it is critical that we rally and focus on the best possible choice. It could be the case that more than 1 of them are mafia, but even then we should be unified in which one to lynch. Thinking about our friends in alternate timezones, they may not be able to read your case and we can't really bank on Alderan and k2hd posting satisfactorily and I think in this situation a soft deadline would also be helpful. But I trust your judgement - we need content from everyone and not just a few of us. I just want us to be mindful of the situation that we are in. | ||
| ||
World Team League
2024 Summer: Round 1 - Day 2
Krystianer vs ShoWTimELIVE!
Cham vs TriGGeR
RotterdaM1448
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War hero 2134 Dota 2Horang2 1674 Bisu 1485 Soulkey 906 Stork 409 BeSt 405 Last 283 Snow 210 Light 187 Leta 146 [ Show more ] Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations
StarCraft 2 • intothetv StarCraft: Brood War• Kozan • Poblha • Migwel • Laughngamez YouTube • aXEnki • LaughNgamez Trovo • IndyKCrew • Gussbus League of Legends Other Games |
BSL
Zhanhun vs DragOn
Dewalt vs Sziky
CSO Cup
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
ESL Pro Tour
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
Gypsy vs Bonyth
Mihu vs XiaoShuai
ESL Open Cup
[ Show More ] ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
Online Event
|
|