EPTSurprisingly Normal Mini Mafia X
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
ForTheDr3am
842 Posts
| ||
|
ForTheDr3am
842 Posts
| ||
|
ForTheDr3am
842 Posts
One thing to keep in mind is that we are using an Extended Majority Vote in this game. I want to encourage people to not consider no lynch too much. It might seem tempting to not lynch day 1 because of the lack of information, but the best way to gather information is by good discussion. Any sort of consensus to not lynch will only benefit scum. That being said, I won't be around for deadlines in this game, so I hope no major last-minute bandwagons take place. | ||
|
ForTheDr3am
842 Posts
On April 23 2012 06:10 MajuGarzett wrote: I agree that we should lynch someone. The only person who's shown signs of being something other than vanilla townie so far is St. Daniel as I'm unconvinced that a townie would need help so early. I don't want to vote yet though as since its a newbie game he might just want general help and has shown no distinct signs of being mafia. How are exactly are we to understand the fact that according to you, he has "shown signs of being something other than vanilla townie" but "no distinct signs of being mafia? | ||
|
ForTheDr3am
842 Posts
On April 23 2012 07:09 ArcticFox wrote: For example: Maju's idea to lynch lurkers. It's so standard that it's not even really worth discussing, BUT it's the only thing that's been brought up, so when you make your first post, post your thoughts on it. My personal thought is I want the game to be active enough that we don't have to, but if you won't talk, you can hang. Discuss! (P.S. Zealos stop acting so scummy, unless you *are* scum, in which case continue so we can lynch you first. <3) Lynch all lurkers is far from everything that has been brought up until now. You even brought up that Zealos is acting a bit scummy yourself, and I am still waiting on Maju's answer on the exact meaning of his latest post. That is a decent discussion ground already without giving people the opportunity to just make empty posts on lurker lynches. | ||
|
ForTheDr3am
842 Posts
On April 23 2012 08:58 St.Daniel wrote: Whoa, hold on a sec yomi. You think we shouldn't lynch D1 and you vote Maj? for what? I find that little odd. Please give us your reason. My analysis on Dr3am: Note how he propose that the players should actively vote to avoid no lynch, and then he goes on and say that the best way to gather information is by good "discussion." That doesn't make any sense. Acquiring information for good discussion has nothing to do with his proposal. It doesn't support why people shouldn't vote for no lynch. Also, how does no lynch benefit scum exactly. If we do not have a convincing case but vote anyway for the sake of lynching someone, the chance is that we may lynch townie, thus benefiting mafia. This post doesn't bring up any topic that we can discuss but rather a vague statement that doesn't serve any purpose. I'm not yet convinced that he is a scum but this is just a thought. The most fruitful discussions are those about whom to lynch. If townies agree to not lynch or even just play with the mindset of not lynching, it will stifle discussion and harm our scumhunting abilities. The reason why no lynch itself is bad should be obvious - lynching is our only way (apart from the vigilante) to kill mafia. If, after 2 days, there is no single decent case then we have failed as town. It wasn't my primary intention to start a huge discussion with that post, I mainly wanted to make sure no townie goes "let's just no-lynch day 1!". Surprisingly enough, you felt the need to discuss it anyways by saying that it doesn't bring up a topic to discuss. Frankly, you aren't even accusing me of anything specific. So, I have a few questions for you. a) Do you understand/agree with my point now? b) There are enough posts in the topic that actually don't serve any purpose. What made you jump on mine? Seeing that yomi (and apparently you) aren't convinced that not lynching is generally bad, it seems it was pretty necessary after all. c) You seem to have a slight inclination to think that I am scum. What, exactly, is your accusation? Am I trying to pretend to contribute? Inconsistency? As far as I am concerned, your post was pretty empty contentwise. Your analysis of my post was not really an analysis, it just has the vagueness that you claimed I was guilty of. I hope you can answer my questions satisfactory, at least. -------------------- As for other people. @Zealos: I didn't mention it before because I originally wanted to observe more of you, but what is with the negative tone in your first few posts, and the frequent one-liners? Such an aggression in tone is pointless at best and disrupts the town atmosphere at worst. All you have done is verbally hating on Maju without much content. @yomi: Others have asked already, please explain that last post of yours. @Maju: You specifically said he has shown no distinct sign of being mafia. If you actually thought he might have a blue role, it is bad play to say so in the thread. I'll be off for tonight, then. I hope the current open questions will be answered, and everybody will post. | ||
|
ForTheDr3am
842 Posts
On April 23 2012 11:41 St.Daniel wrote: @Dr3am: First off, I would like to clarify my stance on D1 lynch. I do not think D1 is bad. Done. What I was getting at was that there is no reason to rush it or force it just for the sake of voting. Right? I think I made myself clear now. a) I understand what you are getting at but your wording got me little confused. Also I had no idea how you got from discouraging no lynch to acquiring information from good discussion is the best way, not that I disagree. Next time, please reread your to make sure it makes sense. b) I have Maj as overly eager new player and yomi as eithera scum or an idiot. And nobody else said anything. Your post caught my attention because it sounds as there is a content but there really isn't. It only state that people should vote and good discussion is good which are pretty obvious. c) I'm not convinced that you are a scum yet, but overly eager expression for town "justice will prevail" and seemingly content -less post about D1 lynch tickle me in the ear. Also from my experience, scum always say that they won't be around for the deadline. Conclusion: Dr3am is not a scum and even if he is, there is not enough evidence to make a case. I hope my answers satisfied your questions. a) Fair enough. b) That is wrong. ArcticFox and Zealos had both also posted already. You also say that the fact that people should vote is obvious - after you felt the need to clarify that people should not vote for the sake of voting, and said that you were confused by my wording. c) It should be quite obvious from me asking for a deadline shift that I am saying the truth about not being around at the deadline. I suppose that was something that happened before the start of the game and takes a bit of putting points together itself. I am not as happy with your answers as I wish I could be. No, I do not think that you are scum either but your post looked to me as if you tried to appear to participate in scumhunting without actually doing anything. While my first post was not the most substantial itself, claiming it to be content-less strikes me as odd. I admit that everything I mentioned were only small details, but added together they give you an air of inconsistency which is not a strong scum-tell, but something I will keep in mind. ------- + Show Spoiler + On April 23 2012 18:23 Dracolich70 wrote: Hi, so the game got finally started. I have read through the posts, and thus far we have this: - Lynch could be good. It weeds out lurkers, whom must/can be scum". - Being dunce is valid for targeting. - A good discussion is good, it nearly got a scum on day 1 in another game. - Yomi and Maju accusing each other. - Zealous accusing Maju, which results in ArticFox and nreekay324 thinking Zealous is scummy. - Dream stating the validity of good discussions, while he states he will not be around for deadlines. - Those who post are less scummy. It may because I am a rookie, but it all seems very muddy. And to me, people stating "In the last game..." makes me think that a person knowing the behaviorism of both parties can emulate either one, and as such manipulate to their fitting. And while being aggressive can get this party started, it makes me feel some eager to muddy up the place with "information" on the basis of accusing left and right. It it works, it must be based on luck, if you ask me. I am okay with a d1 lynch, IF it is on the basis of valid information. This post is very weird even as a first post for a rookie. First, you post a list which is basically a mix of events and statements, so pretty much completely use- and contentless. The rest of the post apparently is written with the intention to slow down scumhunting. You state that people might be emulating behaviorism, which is quite pointless to say as scum will always try to appear as town, with or without reference play. Then, you claim that making too many accusations will muddy up the place with fake/useless information, and that making cases is based on luck. You seem to be afraid of the town getting things done. Why would you be? You should be making cases yourself and analyzing people instead if you want to be helpful. Posts like this one make you seem like scum. ------- Zealos' answer is still needed. ------- As for yomi, I think the case against him is fairly obvious. First he says he isn't sure about day1 lynch, then votes Maju without explanation. Then he refuses (!) to explain himself. Then he flames some more. On April 23 2012 15:21 yomi wrote: Because the two biggest sources of info in the game are who votes for who and the discussions that come out of discussing lynching. This statement isn't technically wrong, but he fails to realize that random votes without proper explanation don't help anyone, and shuts down any attempts of discussing his vote himself, claiming that Maju' is a dunce he won't talk to. It's also strangely ironic that he wants to mention his last game where he was mafia, while in the last game he also tried to refer to outside posts of him to prove that his posting style is ... erratic in general. It is bad to offer mafia a free bandwagon in case he actually is just a particularly unhelpful townie, but it seems that there is only one actual vote on him up to now, making me think that there are still people with an interest to keep him alive. ##Vote: yomi | ||
|
ForTheDr3am
842 Posts
On April 24 2012 01:24 Dracolich70 wrote: The list was trying to draw a picture of how I feel the events thus far. Which is either guided by paranoia, or as a initiator for debate(?). I am not sure if this is the right way, as it can clutter the thread mightily quickly. If you feel it is content less, then it is because most of the accusations are pretty weak. It was pretty much the highlights, as I see it. I just said that knowing the behavior of either one, makes it easier to manipulate, and right now, I feel/fear some are trying to manipulate the course of actions with pointing fingers left and right. I don't know if it is rocket science, but if we all take turns to point fingers at 2-3 in each of our posts, and they in turn do the same, it gets pretty muddied. Isn't saying "pointing too many accusations will muddy up the place" something logical? Sorry, it is to me. I have still said I am okay with a lynch, however I am not a supporter of just lynching someone to make something happen. And as I stated - I am very open to valid information. Is this the part where I should point fingers at you? Making "highlights" of what happened in the thread is a very easy way for scum to pretend that they are contributing. Unlike what you claim, it also does not give a picture about what you feel as you have no input on your own. It isn't even a proper list of events as random statements are mixed into it. When you say manipulate, who will manipulate what? The mafia the general flow of the thread? Other people? Yes, scum will sometimes try to control the thread and always try to appear as town. Saying that is just as empty as your list. Certainly, the fear of the thread going down in confusion from having too many people making too many accusations is a valid one - if that was actually happening. However, it isn't, and you preemptively tried to discourage people from making advances at a time where not too much has happened yet in first place. How, in your eyes, should town be productive at all if not by analyzing posts? If everybody posted like you did, we would have no suspects at the end of the day, no information to build on later. Why do you still refuse to put forth any sort of opinion apart from unsubtly hinting that I am cluttering up the thread? ----- @Zealos: It wasn't nreekay who made the case against you, it was ArcticFox. The question was, why would a townie be so blatantly unfriendly and disruptive. You have been called out several times now but only serve more posts of the same sort. ----- @yomi: You gave a very easy and obvious bandwagon to jump on, and I was surprised that apart from ArcticFox, nobody had voted for you yet. I am also pretty sure I did not say anywhere that I don't condone the sharing of information. I called you posting your filter from last game ironic, as just like last time, you seem to think that it actually means anything. Now to the latest wall of text. I'm genuinely voting for maju. Not just seeing his reaction. I was going to sit on that vote until I got a reaction I can really respond to (more on that later). So, you genuinely voted for him, not just to see his reaction, and were going to sit on that vote until you got a reaction. Ok. Because any remotely experienced player knows that fearless town play (you think I didn't know I would get a backlash?) wins games and that mafia DO NOT play this way. so vote guys. trust me it's a lot better. day 1 is so so painful and full of ridiculous awful shit. it's better if everyone just votes asap and we can see what happens and we can always back down from the votes later if we aren't sure enough to go through with it. "Mafia does not do this and that." The perfect line that makes town lose. If you think that what you are doing at the moment is good townplay, it stands to reason that you would attempt a similar play as scum as well. See how that works? You also keep telling town what they are supposed to do - without doing much of the sort yourself. You did point out oneplus' post, but only come up with even more WIFOM. "I think Mafia would do that because that what I tried to do when I was mafia!" (In the game where you nearly got lynched at day 1, one might add). As I said before, refusing to randomly spam "information" from outside of the game is not suspicious. These meta-arguments are always very iffy, and it surprises me that you are so adamant about it. Do you think just by acting slightly similar to last game you will get town-cred? Also, I wrote this post last night and decided to wait a little bit more before posting it how does withholding information (not that it was too relevant) help us? So that we have to spend more time contemplating the reasons of your erratic play? | ||
|
ForTheDr3am
842 Posts
Do you think just by acting slightly dissimilar to last game you will get town-cred? Fixed. | ||
|
ForTheDr3am
842 Posts
On April 24 2012 05:18 yomi wrote: It seemed to me that you were implying the people that "have an interest in keeping me alive" were mafia. Was this not your implication? Not exactly. I didn't mean to say that everyone who defends you automatically makes himself suspicious in my eyes, but that the fact that you weren't jumped on is a slight indicator that you are not a perfectly innocent townie. | ||
|
ForTheDr3am
842 Posts
| ||
|
ForTheDr3am
842 Posts
Since you apparently like highlights so much, I will try to summarize our conversation to you. After your first post, I call out to you claiming that it is empty, and that town needs not be afraid of vivid accusations. I thought you would respond either by posting analysis of other players, with an actual case against me or with the newbie card. Instead, you actually answer by insisting that your post was fine. I do clarify about why "highlight" lists are pointless/scummy while asking a few more questions about your stance as well as for analysis. Your response is yet another defensive one absolutely insisting that your first post was fine, while evading all questions and trying to fling a bit more mud at me. A few quotes which I want to point out: On April 24 2012 05:59 Dracolich70 wrote:The list was trying to draw a picture of how I feel the events thus far. Which is either guided by paranoia, or as a initiator for debate(?). I am not sure if this is the right way, as it can clutter the thread mightily quickly. On April 24 2012 05:59 Dracolich70 wrote:The highlights are pretty accurate, I believe. Highlights don't muddy threads, but clearify. I bet mafia likes obfuscation, what do you think? Inconsistency speaks for itself, and for me that shows that you did not want to "clearify" anything but rather struggled to find an explanation for writing it afterwards. To respond to your question, yes, mafia does like obfuscation. However, what mafia likes even more is an inactive thread where they barely ever have to defend themselves and everybody basically only lurks. They especially like a town that is afraid of making accusations, something that you still propose. On April 24 2012 05:59 Dracolich70 wrote:Do you just post to post? Town/"town" can play in a lot of different ways, as can mafia. I hope you realize the dynamism of people having played before. If you find it empty, then so be it. I think of it making people aware, especially when people accused, then got counter-accused. Right now you are trying to dictate how I should play. I am not in the know of what people know, as this is labeled newbie game. Rather than clarify what exactly you are afraid of, you throw together another bunch of sentences that look like an answer. You still haven't said what it is exactly you are afraid of due to what I assume is meta-play. I don't even know what "I hope you realize the dynamism of people having played before." is supposed to mean. You claim you are making people aware - of what? That accusations are bad? Why would scumhunting be bad? Which is something I asked you already and you refused to answer. On April 24 2012 05:59 Dracolich70 wrote: Can you make up your mind? If I pointed out this is what has transpired, and it is valid, then my posting is valid. I was the first to say it. If people have jumped onto the right track, then I have been of more use than you have thus far with your guns blazing at shadows. So far I have spent most time explaining a post that is pretty self explanatory in the first place - twice now. I have already given a name and accepted d1 lynch. I can still change it. You do two things here. Firstly, you completely misunderstood (be it by purpose or owing to my overly creative writing style) my post. I said being afraid of confusion resulting in too many people pointing fingers is alright if that was happening (hypothetical scenario). At that point it wasn't happening and I read your post as an unnecessarily angstly one. Secondly, you claim you are the first one to point that out, but in your next post On April 24 2012 05:59 Dracolich70 wrote:I am conflicted on yomi. On one hand he offers some of the same fears that I have with not giving away too much information, when it comes to roles, but more importantly it was this that caught my immediate attention on him: " it makes perfect sense if you don't play like maniac day1 townies who read way too much into things. there's nothing contradictory or unusual about what I said.", which is something I myself have tried to avoid, and thought was happening right off the bat. you basically say that he said that first, assuming that the fear of too many accusations and of maniac townies is the same. You still did not answer how you think town should catch scum, if not by accusation and analyzing. Next, you finally deign yourself to make an analysis, with your prime suspect being Maju (despite only mentioning yomi in an earlier post while Maju had already made basically all the relevant posts you build your case on). On April 24 2012 05:59 Dracolich70 wrote:I see a problem with this on multiple levels. First off, he offers consensus as the most important thing, but doesn't register that yomi is willing to bow down for this very consensus if it is as such. He asks for reasonable things from yomi - things he himself does not offer in return, when it comes to st. Daniel for the weak reason of him asking for help in a newbie game, much like he even did before Daniel, and I am "dumbfounded" as to why he did this. Lastly, that on one hand he offers to Zealos that we should lynch someone, but then uses the exact same reasoning against yomi as suspect. If we should suspect yomi on these things, then it should be more so with Maju. At best Maju is hypocritical. Firstly, wanting an consensus on lynch all lurkers is a few lightyears different from yomi "offering a consensus" by putting an unfounded vote into the room. He is asking yomi to at least give reasons (or anything more than half-flame oneliners) for the vote without giving reasons himself - because he wasn't the one randomly voting. When it comes to St.Daniel, I do agree that it was a questionable post, but what sort of reason would he need to give if the reason why he thought that St.Daniel might be suspicious is that he needed help that early in the game? You say that he is hypocritical for agreeing with the general fact that somebody should be lynched on day 1 while pointing out that yomi is putting an unfounded vote on him, making it more likely that someone is lynched - in the context that yomi said that he wasn't sure whether a day 1 lynch is good himself. Where is the issue? On April 24 2012 05:59 Dracolich70 wrote:Maybe the best answers can be found here: "Yes, I guess I was posting defensively. I did this not because I was mafia, but because yomi's was the first vote, and Zealos, one of the only others who had posted at that point, was accusing me of being scummy. I was fearful that yomi's ideas may gain traction early on so I was trying to highlight that your vote had no substance.". Why would he be fearful 1) as a townie. 2) That yomis near no-reason posts would gain traction? 2) Yomi. Let's play the "ask yourself that question" game. Why are/were you, too, fearful of accusations in general (while the thread is/was too inactive) and spent two posts being defensive by the means of insisting that your first post was fine? Justifying yourself is fairly natural even for a townie when being pressured (especially with a vote), but why would you use that as a case against Maju when you are doing that yourself? (While also saying that he is hypocritical.) Your case against yomi isn't really a case, you agree with him on one fact, then say he is of little use while saying yourself before that On April 24 2012 05:59 Dracolich70 wrote:If people have jumped onto the right track, then I have been of more use than you have thus far with your guns blazing at shadows. the pointing out what you agreed with him on is at least potentially useful. To me, all that reeks of inconsistency and scumminess. However, I am aware of the fact that I might be suffering from tunnel vision or confirmation bias, so I'd like to hear other people's response to this for now. ------- @ArcticFox: There is one thing I'd like you to clarify for me. What makes imallinson so different from other people who haven't posted a lot, such as insectoceanx or St.Daniel? Even mutant has basically only asked yomi questions that others have asked already. | ||
|
ForTheDr3am
842 Posts
In retrospect the low amount of votes on him is easily explained by overall inactivity, but at that point I thought it was weird and worth at least noting. Going from that to I am scum and want him lynched as fast as possible is quite a bit of a jump to make, and a rather weak basis to call someone mafia on. I originally wanted to respond to Dracolich, but our discussion is going in circles and I would really like to hear the opinions of a few other people on him/those posts first. My highest scumreads from the day would have been Zealos and Dracolich, but on the other hand of the scale we still have half a dozen lurkers who barely/don't post. There are a few things I want to point out on other people though. @nreekay: You have listed oneplus as strong townread for defending yomi. Not only is that an invalid reason because scum could just easily get cred for every mislynch, you also casually mention that you defended yomi yourself as well, one sentence before saying that singling himself out is something that mafia would not do. Not only is the latter part a baseless assumption again, he also wasn't exactly singling himself out when you said the same. (At least I did not have the impression that he was far more adamant about it than you, and even mentioned himself that he had lost confidence in him to an extent.) You also assume that mafia would definitely try to get yomi mislynched. Once again, a baseless assumption at best, and I don't see why However, I am convinced that the mafia worked to get yomi mis-lynched because yomi did so much of the mafia’s work for them. doing mafia's work would be a reason for mafia to try to lynch him. Since all your reads have this as base, I find your analysis rather weak and would urge you to redo it. @oneplus: You, too, take yomi's flip as cornerstone by only analyzing the people who voted for him, with apparently similar intentions to nreekay. I already gave my thoughts about that, and am particularly surprised that you don't give your thoughts on Zealos despite having voted for him. In first place, you basically said he was scummy for trying to say that people are scummy, which is an awkward explanation and something I'd ask you to clarify for me too. @insectoceanx: I just responded to you already about my lines, but I also want to ask one thing. What classifies as "scummy" for you? /I also like how you call nreekay's post well thought out. @ArcticFox: I'm very thankful that you try to get the lurkers posting, but I am surprised you have not given a lot of your opinions on other people apart from that. I know, or rather feel, myself that it is hard though, and I hope your deadline post will shine more light onto that. | ||
|
ForTheDr3am
842 Posts
a) Top 2 scumreads, with explanations that are not only founded on lurking. b) Top 1 townread, with a well formulated explanation. c) An overall definition of what sort of behaviour you would see as scummy. Does not necessarily have to overlap with your scumreads. d) One (or more) passage of text in the game from any player that bothers you specifically, do say why. I know it sounds a bit awkward to ask that, but the thread is so inactive that I feel that some radical measures are needed. I am going to answer the first point at the end of my post as well, but the others only later since I don't want them to be parroted. --------------- @imallinson: Your case against Dracolich is basically a rehash of what I have discussed against him. Not worth anything. Also, please explain this sentence to me. Oneplus defends Yomi but has actually contributed a decent amount. You imply that defending yomi is a bad thing. What makes you think so? @insectoceanx: You haven't posted yet since then, but I have asked you to explain to me what you think classifies as scummy as well. And even though the poor guy is deceased now, I want you to give a more in-depth opinion of what made you think that nreekay is town. @oneplus: I wouldn't hugely object to either a Zealos or a now Stosser (although I'd like to see some posts of the latter first) lynch, but your logic is a bit all over the place. There is not much base on which we can decently guess how scum voted day 1, and I also don't see why Maju would be so much more suspicious if one of them flipped red. In this inactive atmosphere, I don't see too much incentive for scum to bus each other. It's still a possibility of course, but nothing you can build a case on. --------------- Overall, my strongest suspicions currently lie on imallinson and Zealos. Both have posted a rehashed case only after being called out several times, with the biggest difference that imallinson managed to write more text and less original content. On the other hand, I expected Zealos to post something more substantial, especially after him implying that in the night and even calling his own case decent although it's just basically the same before and he could say the same (posting empty content) for several people. | ||
|
ForTheDr3am
842 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Hi everyone. I will get caught up to speed and be posting tomorrow. I did read a little bit though, and just want to comment on this: On April 25 2012 11:03 ArcticFox wrote: *sigh* gg As promised, I'm extremely disappointed in your Day 1. I see your thought process, but it's too antagonistic to get people to trust you. Unfortunately, the result of that is that we've lost an extremely active townie, in a game where most people are lurking like it's the Brood War. Going mostly silent for the Night. I'll post something close to the deadline, in case I'm shot. Please don't do this. Post as much as you can. We need to be active if we want to make an accurate assessment on people's alignments. NOBODY should be worried about dying or saying anything that might get them killed. An active town discussion is what we need. Not posting allows the scum to just sit around without having to contribute. So, lets get the discussion's, analyses, and POST-based cases going starting this night. He encouraged people (and specifically ArcticFox, out of all possibilities) to post more, promised to post the day after, and follows it up with no post at all. I think that is the first time I saw a lurker calling out people to post more, and it strikes me as extremely weird, as if he saw how easy it is to survive while lurking. --- Between Zealos and imallinson, one thought I had is that Zealos clearly isn't disinterested in the game - however, his main interest is insisting that suspicions against him are unfounded. The bandwagon against imallinson is going too fast currently. I did say that he was one of my prime suspects too, as his posts really looked as if he pretended to contribute, but now we are comparing that to people who don't even do that (and to a very defensive Zealos). I really want to hear from those. | ||
|
ForTheDr3am
842 Posts
#Vote: imallinson | ||
|
ForTheDr3am
842 Posts
On April 30 2012 21:12 Stossel wrote:Furthermore, the lynching of Arctic only serves to make an imallinson vote more worthwhile. The failure to lynch was not due to lack of suspicion and so scum could've easily kept Arctic alive another night to push imallinson for another lynching if he was town and used their hit to focus on someone else. What does keeping Arctic alive over the night have to do with lynching imallison during the day? As we can see right now, it is easy enough for an imallison lynch to happen anyways. Speaking of logic I can't follow, there is also this here. On April 30 2012 10:50 insectoceanx wrote: Also, since the replacements did not vote, the mafia must be someone who is still active. Since when does lurking mean that you are town? For all we know they might just have had some legit reasons to disappear regardless of whether they are town or not. Overall, I think that mafia got the best deal out of the last voting. A bandwagon on imallinson that still resulted in no-lynch means that we have no additional information to go on today, not to mention the overall inactivity. I would like a statement from oneplus as to why he did not switch votes, as he never claimed he had a townread on imallinson and only said that his scumread on Zealos is stronger - but no reason as to why not lynch the (at that point) lurking imallinson. | ||
|
ForTheDr3am
842 Posts
On April 30 2012 10:50 insectoceanx wrote: Also, since the replacements did not vote, the mafia must be someone who is still active. I originally wanted to wait a bit, but I figured I wouldn't get an explanation for this statement anyways. Let us examine it. He says that the inactive people did not vote and are therefore not mafia, implying that mafia would have voted for imallinson (as votes on anyone else would have made no difference). Now, in which situations would mafia vote for imallinson? Certainly, only if he was town, as they would have little reason to bus a scumbuddy if not absolutely necessary. However, insectoceanx thinks that imallinson is mafia, else he would not vote for him himself. The only explanation I see here is that he made a scumslip: He knows that imallinson is town, and thoughtlessly writes the above knowing that at least he tried to mislynch imallinson. If anyone has any alternate theories, I'm all ear. For now, ##Vote: insectoceanx | ||
|
ForTheDr3am
842 Posts
On May 02 2012 08:52 insectoceanx wrote: 4 Dream Voted for imallinson the first time around, second time around voted for me saying that imallinson flipping green would show a scumslip on my part. If dream is mafia himself he is trying to get town cred calling the green flip and throw me under the bus at the same time. This wouldnt stand out to me as mafia unless he hadnt just voted imallinson the day before without posting any reason at all for his change except to pick me out as mafia mislynching a townie. @Dream: What changed that you no longer thought imallinson was scum? Your scumslip was saying (or implying) that the replacements would have voted for imallinson if they were mafia, as I explained before. The post with why I voted for imallison is this one: Frankly, I don't like voting with so many people still not having posted anything. I don't really feel like choosing imallinson for his lurking alone is a particularly strong reason and it bothers me that everybody that votes for him just says that. At the risk of repeating myself, I originally found him more suspicious than others because his posts (especially his latest post) had the most fluff, giving me the impression that they were made to pretend to contribute. Now he apparently completely disappeared together with a bunch of others though, and I have to wonder how much that notion of mine is actually worth. Still, I have to make a decision now and I would rather take a shot at him than risk a no-lynch. I did say why I originally suspected him, but didn't feel much different towards him than towards other lurkers at that point anymore. Still, lynching a lurker was a better alternative to a no-lynch (even though the no-lynch happened) and as a side note, has been your reasoning as to why you voted for him as well (as well as many others). I also want to mention another part of your post: On May 02 2012 08:52 insectoceanx wrote: 5oneplus My number one townread this game. Has stuck to his guns on Zealos for entire game and but still has had good posts regarding other players. @oneplus: Who do you think the next player to lynch should be? I trust your judgement over everyone elses at this point. Which is very obviously insincere and shows that you are just making your reads up. Nevermind the fact that oneplus hasn't posted anything too substantial for quite a while, he voted for you the last day and yet you apparently trust his judgement. That is definitely not what a townie would ever say. ##Vote: insectoceanx | ||
|
ForTheDr3am
842 Posts
On April 30 2012 10:50 insectoceanx wrote: Also, since the replacements did not vote, the mafia must be someone who is still active. This is the quote I was referring too, and nothing in it implies that you only meant that not all of the replacements are mafia. You still haven't bothered to address my original case, which was this quote: + Show Spoiler + On May 01 2012 04:09 ForTheDr3am wrote: I originally wanted to wait a bit, but I figured I wouldn't get an explanation for this statement anyways. Let us examine it. He says that the inactive people did not vote and are therefore not mafia, implying that mafia would have voted for imallinson (as votes on anyone else would have made no difference). Now, in which situations would mafia vote for imallinson? Certainly, only if he was town, as they would have little reason to bus a scumbuddy if not absolutely necessary. However, insectoceanx thinks that imallinson is mafia, else he would not vote for him himself. The only explanation I see here is that he made a scumslip: He knows that imallinson is town, and thoughtlessly writes the above knowing that at least he tried to mislynch imallinson. If anyone has any alternate theories, I'm all ear. For now, ##Vote: insectoceanx Instead you attack me for making cases against you, claiming that I voted for you without much of a reason. Apart from the fact that I did gave reasons, oneplus actually voted for you without stating anything, and I did not see you noticing that. Him having suspicions of you doesn't change the fact that he is still town, while it makes me scum in your eyes. Fascinating. Your entire defence (and offence) is based on "I am town, so he who votes for me is scum", in a very unconvincing manner to boot. If I was mafia why would I be trying to get everyone to talk since the last night. I would probably be doing what dream is doing and trying to throw someone I know to be town down. I admit my posting wasnt the best and I made myself into an easy target. I am not mafia and you will see that once you vote for me. I'm going to vote for dream and I'll be back again later to answer any questions. You accuse me of trying to just get people to bandwagon you (I did post my reasoning), while your vote(s) against imallinson are explained by you in the following manner. + Show Spoiler + I agree we need consensus to do this. Anyone who does not agree/imallinson lets hear from you. ##Vote: imallinson Well we still need to vote to lynch someone tomorrow. I feel we should still lynch imallinson, unless everyone has a different cadidate or he can convince us otherwise. It was the plan before, and I think would have gone through if all the replacements weren't inactive. Also, since the replacements did not vote, the mafia must be someone who is still active. My List: imallinson maju zealos ##Vote: imallinson @Zealos You voted for imallinson before? Why are you voting for me now? @Townspeople We all need consensus to get a lynch through, as stossel said above me, sticking to the plan is important as Furthermore, the lynching of Arctic only serves to make an imallinson vote more worthwhile. The failure to lynch was not due to lack of suspicion and so scum could've easily kept Arctic alive another night to push imallinson for another lynching if he was town and used their hit to focus on someone else. On May 01 2012 08:07 insectoceanx wrote: EBWOP: Also since none of the replacements who didnt vote havn't said anything its much harder to form a case against them and get consensus. Meanwhile imallinson has posted very little of substance and has been a prime subject. He was arcticfox's prime suspect and he was lynched after the failed vote. Why isnt lynching you a good plan? The only reason you werent lynched was because so many people didnt vote. Just because people did not vote all of a sudden proves your innocence? i don't think all the pages of discussion about you is making the town blindly follow. Of course you are an easy town target as anyone could tell looking at your filter. What of all that is not blatant bandwagoning/pushing people without giving much information? | ||
| ||
