EPTFirst TL Mafia game after lurking! :D
Newbie Mini Mafia XIII
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
First TL Mafia game after lurking! :D | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
On May 10 2012 08:56 Hyaach wrote: this is exactly why i always hated day starts. just posting to let people know i'm here and ready to jump the big gun! This post strikes me as a somewhat suspicious one. The previous posts dealt with lynching lurkers and as a response you make a post, stating that you are not lurking, but nothing else. This seems weird to me as nobody pressured precisely you. They were just stating a general idea to get by and you just ignored the issue of lynching lurkers in your post. Maybe you just lacked time, it is just day1 anyway, but I'll be sure to keep an eye on you. | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
also the bolded part of your quote: On May 10 2012 23:26 Anacletus wrote: I am only voting because I don't have much to add. I would also like to point out that *if* we hang tofu for his suspicious behavior and he is mafia then we can rule out those voting as being mafia, no? But if he's town, shit. seems to me like either a really bad conclusion as a townie or as a scum seeking a way to gain town credibility by jumping on the next best bandwagon... Care to elaborate on your decision? Otherwise you'll have my vote as of now your play is ridiculously fishy and scummy. | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
| ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
I think it already made clear my suspicions but just for the record I'll do it again: The below excerpts are all from Anacletus' filter: Before gamestart we have these posts: + Show Spoiler + Can't wait  Oh man, did this just became even more pertinent  ?Taking these I would assume that he is somebody who is eager to play this game. But as soon as the game starts there are no posts of him. Kind of odd if he was really that psyched to begin playing. Between day1-post and Anacletus first post are about 15 hours of time in which he did nothing. Even if we take different timezones and other committments (such as school/job/college) this seems to me as a long period of time in which a eager player did absolutely nothing. Continuing the analysis with his first post: ##Vote FirmTofu It is basically a naked vote-post without any reasoning behind it. Now adding his second post to it: + Show Spoiler + I am only voting because I don't have much to add. I would also like to point out that *if* we hang tofu for his suspicious behavior and he is mafia then we can rule out those voting as being mafia, no? But if he's town, shit. His reasoning is basically that he likes to jump onto the first slowly emerging bandwagon in the thread. Although there are "only" 2 votes on FirmTofu at the moment, it could easily turn into a quick and easy lynch-target if more people changed their minds about him (My thoughts on tofu are in my previous post) The second part of his post is a conclusion that all people who vote for FirmTofu are Town if FirmTofu flips Mafia. This conclusion is utter nonsense (at least in my opinion). There is nothing that prevents Mafia from voting each other if they believe it to be necessary. Furthermore the logic is flawed as going with it, everybody who votes in a mislynch on a townie must be mafia according to Anacletus. The point is simply that nobody is a confirmed townie until he flips. Anacletus' next post is a weird contradiction of his own logic. He states that he believes the following: + Show Spoiler + I doubt that the mafia would try to be hyper-aggressive day 1. I think that the people who aren't voting are suspicious. I think it makes more sense for the mafia to try and be passive in voting yet vocal in chat to try and rule who otherw vote for and keep their hands clean. In his opinion the following things are characteristic of scum: vocal, not voting and directing the discussion in a way they see fit. Now compare these to the filter of FirmTofu, which consists of exactly one post. He is neither vocal nor directing, the only fitting one is "not-voting". But considering it was one of the very first posts after the gamestart that is not all too surprising. His until now last post were a few sentences about metagaming, which are in no relation to the mounting pressure we have put on him. So he is actively avoiding to answer us, glaringly obvious by the fact that he has not tried to defend himself. This is really fishy. If he is a townie, he should defend himself, explain his thoughprocess and state his reasons why he believes FirmTofu to be a good Day1-Lynch instead of disappearing into lurker-state again as the pressure adds up. Concluding from these points I believe it to be really clear that Anacletus is contradicting himself as his actions are not following his words. This strikes me as a really scummy behaviour, especially if we also consider his sudden inactiveness after gamestart and after the accusations and suspicions on him started to add up. To me Anacletus is scum, who tried to push the developing pressure on FirmTofu into an unstoppable bandwagon for an easy mislynch on day1. Now that I have firmly established my point of view: ##Vote: Anacletus Anacletus seems to be clearly scum, which is helping us a lot. If we look at the setup of 13 players I would take the guess that we probably have 3 mafia (considering that the last newbie mafia game had 9 players with a 7/2-split). So who might be the other members? I had suspected Hyaach first and he remains hard to read. His later posts are better than his first as they are actually related to the current discussion. His vote on Anacletus seems reasonable as well given my argumentation above. Although it seems obvious why he is pressuring Anacletus a little bit of explanation of your reasoning would in my eyes go a long way to gain more credibility as a townie. His posts still lack analysis, length and depth, which makes him still kind of fishy. After my initial suspects Anacletus and Hyaach let's just go through the players as they are listed in the OP. BroodkingEXE: -Replied on a middleground on the matter of lynching lurkers, which is fine with me -First one to pressure FirmTofu -Unvoted Tofu as soon as he read the defense -Suspicious of Anacletus He seems to be pro-town as his play seems solid. Utilizing pressure to gain more information, but no one is confirmed town until he flips. So yeah, I am inclined to place him as townie but in Mafia you can never be certain. Mufaa: -Not a single post..... Guess he is either a hardcore-lurker, which makes him a scum-candidate, or just lost interest and will be modkilled at night/end of day1. Nothing more to say I guess. austinmcc: -Defends Tofu a bit -Pressures Anacletus He seems to be reasonable to me. Although he does not have too many posts, they seem well thought out and transparent. I would tend to read him as a townie, but as I said before nobody is confirmed townie until they flip. Jailbreaker: -2 Posts which do not have a lot of content -Got defensive after dahdum pressured him a bit -waiting for everyone to post before voting Hard to tell to be honest, but I would count him as a possible scum. Low amount of posting with close to 0 information/usefullness in them. Got defensive as soon as somebody pressured him a bit and the withholding of his vote before "everybody" had a chance to post seems fishy to me. Keep your eyes on him. Dahdum: -Makes the first post of the game -Pressures Tofu, then Jailbreaker before voting on FirmTofu Generally aggressive pressure style with his posts, compared to his playstyle in Newbie Mafia XII, it seems like a complete switch. Not sure what to make out of him yet. Darkfirex5: -slight pressure in his first and only post on BioSC No clue, I need more posts to make something out of him. But inactiveness after putting out a suspicion does not help in making him a townie. Crossfire99: -2 posts and first one quite a bit after the start of the game -Defends Tofu -Pressures Anacletus Solid posts from him thus far. The number of posts are a bit disappointing but that could be due to time restraints. I am inclined to put him on the townie side, but remember, no one is confirmed townie until he flips. FirmTofu: -2 posts, first is some small talk with almost no content -2nd post seems like a good defense against the accusations and some well-written pressure on Anacletus Seems to be a townie, but a rather inactive one. And because I am sick of reiterating myself again and again, NOICTUHF (No one is confirmed townie until he flips) unforgiven_ve: -2 posts until now, which do not tell us a lot. -Slightly suspicious of Anacletus Cannnot say much about him, as his posts were short and not very informative. BisoSC: -Suspcious of FirmTofu (not sure if he was serious about it) -defends the view that people should be allowed to post before we lynch inactive/lurker Nothing more to say, strikes me as a townie for now, but NOICTUHF. So in closing remarks of this rather long post, what are my suspicions? Scumteam: Anacletus, Mufaa, ???? (Could be any of us, but I am inclined to believe him out of the group of: Jailbreaker, Dahdum, hyaach, darkfirex5) If Mufaa gets modkilled I will have to get two people out of aforementioned group obviously. | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
now correctly formatted | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
On May 11 2012 04:33 BroodKingEXE wrote: WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH!!!! ShiaoPi are you defending Hyaach? A null read? He has provided zero evidence for his vote. Your whole list is terrible, it provides nothing more than a bunch "I'm leaning town, but you can never be sure reads". I smell a scumwagon. Where was I defending hyaach? I merely gave him the benefit of doubt. If you read carefully I said he remains fishy and I put him onto the list of suspected scum. If that is defending to you I can't help you. considering that we only have day1, there is not a lot you can read into. I just did my best and thought it might be a good idea to share my list with you for more input/discussion. And I do give sure reads. I am pretty sure Anacletus is scum, reread that paragraph again if you do not see it. I also point out some suspicious things with several players. Again considering the number of posts we have to do reads and the information we have until now, I do think that my list is not that bad. You are invited to proof me wrong. | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
On May 11 2012 04:43 Anacletus wrote: Well, shit, I guess opting to lynch someone because several others were voting for them was silly. I'm not mafia TT Is that your defense? Seriously? BroodkingEXE if you believe me scum and starting a scumwagon, I would like to know the reasons how you came to that assumption. | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
I presented you the reasons why I am suspicious of your behaviour, what about trying to explain your thought-process? And for what kind of "evidence" are you waiting? I do not really understand the logic behind waiting for something to happen before defending yourself. The only thing which will give us any kind of evidence is a lynch, since that is still a bit away, I don't get your logic here. | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
On May 11 2012 05:38 BroodKingEXE wrote: ---snipped--- Your big post brings up a list of null reads. Its misleading due to its size when its content is a bunch of reiteration of events. Scum will make posts like this to make themselves seem useful. If you actually read your reasoning for voting for anacletus it is: he was not eager, a post lacking logic, and a bandwagon. The first two could be townie mistakes and bandwagons aren't very effective when people have strong objections to the canidate. On the other hand, you have voted with the person you first thought was scum and had dropped your suspicions based on...nothing. I do get what you mean by "misleading due to size", there are indeed many uncertainties inside, which you could consider as "null reads". Given the fact that we have day 1 and the low amount of posts we have from some people, not being able to give out a 100% read strikes me as being absolutely normal. Reiteration is also featured because I tried to be transparent in my thoughtprocess, you may say that these things devalue the usefullness of the post, but I believe they were needed. Do I have to repeat it again? My suspicions on hyaach are not dropped. Reread it again, I clearly state that he is still on my watchlist and also point out his lack of evidence/reason for the vote. Here it is:+ Show Spoiler + His later posts are better than his first as they are actually related to the current discussion. His vote on Anacletus seems reasonable as well given my argumentation above. Although it seems obvious why he is pressuring Anacletus a little bit of explanation of your reasoning would in my eyes go a long way to gain more credibility as a townie. His posts still lack analysis, length and depth, which makes him still kind of fishy. Now in rereading it myself I probably could have worded it a bit better. -His posts are now related to the discussion, which is sth. beneficial to us. -I did not say I vote with him, as in "he has convinced me", I state that I believe his vote to be understandable, since I am suspecting Anacletus myself for the reasons I posted. The next sentence is poorly phrased, I admit it. I should not have said that he could "gain more credibility as a townie" but instead said that it could move him away from the scumcamp, since he still appears fishy to me due to lacking analysis, length, depth. I did not want to make him into a "townie". My reasons to vote on Anacletus, could be worded in the way you did, but they can also be put as I did: mismatch in behaviour, posting a vote without reasons and contradiction of himself. Anacletus' last post is finally one which makes sense, after the ones before. Finally some explanation going on, I still believe that something is fishy about Anacletus and I am not the only one, you do so as well + Show Spoiler + This post makes sense, Anacletus' play has been pretty wierd. I need to hear a response from him before I vote though. | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
Hyaach's play remains fishy in my opinion, posts are more useful now, but his instantvote with reasoning following later is still scummy. A connection between him and Anacletus deems unlikely with the vote, but hyaach's play is really confusing. Jailbreaker actually promised to deliver something: posting this now, going to formulate a new post based on BroodKingEXE, ShiaoPi, Hyaach (page 7 to 8) but still no post yet. Laziness/slow at best but scummy and suspicious at the worst. Darkfirex5 campaigns caution and nothing overhasty in regards to the developing votes. Withholds his vote for this reason: Im still not placing a vote down yet but the starting reasonings for the votes lacks evidence and the follow up points (to me dont seem solid). Which is contradictory on his own suspicions on Tofu, Bio and dahdum as they lack evidence as well (every case on day1 lacks solid 100% evidence anyway). Keeps up a slight defense of Anacletus, while voting for him (in the wrong format though). Weird behaviour as Anacletus' play has not improved and remains scummy. Keeping an eye on him. | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
On the accusations on BroodKingEXE: You bring up some good analysis. I guess I overlooked those aspects of his posts because I was more busy defending my posts against him than analyzing. I'll have to reread his filter thoroughly though, before doing anything. | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
On May 12 2012 02:39 austinmcc wrote: It's a finger of suspicion. I'm suspicious of him. I've given my reasons that I think he's town and my reasons that I think he's scum. Don't try and discredit me. Try and discredit that case on you. Or maybe you're hoping it sits there and gets buried before the end of D1 so that you don't get lynched. I am actually pretty interested in what you have to say as well BroodkingEXE. Mind enlightening us? austinmcc seems to have made quite a good case against you, which I am inclined to give credibility. | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
##unvote I would assume that most people have read austinmcc's case now. Mind sharing your opinions? Thus far we got austinmcc's, hyaach's and my thoughts on them. Come on guys, post! | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
As crappy as it was Anacletus did try to defend himself. He still is one of the bigger scumreads right now and as austinmcc argued correctly he has absolutely zero credibility right now. So as scum, who might attempt to sway town's discussion he is worthless at the moment until he steps it up and starts to give us reasons to believe him again. BroodkingExe on the other hand just disappeared, ignoring the case completely and if you examine the last two posts of his you will see the recurring things austinmcc mentioned in his case. He again shifts a bit of focus on other people who have not really been called out until now, but does not start his own case (see this:+ Show Spoiler + Okay I've looked at the filters and have come up with two other people I view as posting scummy. Jailbreaker. So far he has offered nothing to the conversation at all. He pointed out lurkers, defended himself, and gave a bunch of half-ass responses along with another unsupported scum list. He's trying to point fingers with no real direction, scum behavior to me. BioSC. His posts have for the most part been defensive. Even his big post against Darkfire was like that. He starts off saying that Dark is trying to push attention toward him, but then goes on to try and justify his past actions. The conviction seems more like a diversion to save his own hide than to lynch scum. His other post calls out austinmcc as scummy for repeating his beliefs on Anacletus (that he is a bad townie but not necessarily mafia). BroodkingEXE's post were done after austinmcc's case against him and yet he managed to ignore it completely. So either 1) He did not see/read austinmcc's post (highly unlikely) 2) He did read it and chose to ignore it as he seems safe enough with the current votecount So the only way to get him into talking seems to be to unvote one by one and making him think of his own position of less than secure. I just want to hear more from him, if we do not get him to talk and Anacletus is lynched, at least we will know Anacletus' role and from there on we have more room to expand our discussion. Either way they are both top priorities for pressure/questioning regardless of whom we lynch today. | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
Seems like the majority of people caught up on the conversation while I was gone. Including BroodKingEXE, whose defense remains to be this post here: + Show Spoiler + The reason I have not addressed it is because it doesn't make me look scummy. I voted for Firm Tofu, because he implied that we should wait for everyone to get a post up before discussing. At least this is how I read into it. By lynching lurkers early, I mean we shouldn't lynch for being lurkers early. I'm not for lynching lurkers early because at least one person is going to point out a scum, and that scum will have to defend himself or other Mafia. If we can find that guy we can draw out the rest of the scum. Also, lynching scum lurkers don't provide any information as to the other scum members. Too many times I have seen lurker bandwagons based only on their lurker. I have been drawing information according to you, and that is my plan to call out others and form opinions on them so we can lynch scum. Our main questions and suspicions on you were not regarding your first vote on Tofu, which to me still seems like a reasonable way to gain some information on day 1, but we were much more concerned with the general picture that you seem to be calling out a few people, but not really making a case against them. Your response was that you have been "drawing information", which is a perfectly fine method to play. But now the spotlight is on you. When it was on Anacletus and he responded in a similar manner, you simply asked: + Show Spoiler + @Anacletus, What have you been doing? Has the pressure vote brought any information? Scum hunting means analyzing responses to stuff like this, I'm willing to give you the benifit of the doubt if you provide useful information. That is exactly what I am asking you now. What have you been doing all the time? You have obviously read the case against you, you had almost 48 hours to make up your mind on several suspects and things in a orderly manner. So what are your findings? What are the information you have gathered until now? If you cannot post something which convinces me of your opinion, you will have my vote. | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
On May 12 2012 06:13 BroodKingEXE wrote: ---snipped--- Am I not entitled to my own opinion? The things you have posted in your original case don't make me look that scummy. The thing that Tofu said and I said are different. He wants to lynch lurkers and I don't (at least not till a couple more days). I have called out others, do you see all those "useless one-liners"? They are calling out things I saw as potentially scummy. Do I have to wait and post a culmination of these posts all at once? For the most part you haven't actually looked at the majority of my posts for their content. Your final sentence doesn't make sense in terms of scum. Why would I not defend myself (as scum), when the town was obviously against me? Look at where waiting has got me, second-highest lynch canidate for day 1. It could just be I didn't see your post like I didn't see this response. As I said already the Tofuvote was fine by me and you are indeed not someone, who seems to be a obvious scum candidate but the general "feeling" your posts give out is that you contribute maybe too little for the activity you are showing. All your posts and suspicions so far have been pretty much sheeping the opinions of others, instead of pointing out maybe additional oddities you have found (except for your slight pressure on austinmcc as in here: + Show Spoiler + You can't keep a FoS on someone and be on the fence about them being scum. You obviously think he is town, but are setting yourself up so that it looks like you had suspicions on him. Hedging would allow you to say "I didn't think he was scum" if he flipped town. This strikes me as scummy. That is in fact the first notice you take on someone or somebody's action which has not been pointed out by others beforehand. Your posts in general give me the feeling that you try too hard to be unnoticeable. Generally there are only two kind of players who want to be unnoticeable to the town, without being suspicious, which are blue roles or scum. Blue roles want to be unnoticeable in fear of the night-hit but they also need to have some town credibility if they are forced to roleclaim at some point. Scum wants to unnoticed, because, well we are searching for them. So a lynch on BroodkingEXE could strike out in both ways for us. We could be totally screwing us over by lynching a blue role or we get some scum on day 1. Quite a risk I guess. | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
I guess I just wanted to say that considering the uncertainties we have on day 1 it might actually be better to let a lynch-candidate, on whom we still have open questions, live into day 2. | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
Regarding BroodkingEXE, I guess I already said that he is either scum or blue. The case pushed by Mufaa is Jailbreaker, who is for sure another player high on the scum list, but there is also too little to make of him and I do not believe it warrants a lynch. Other suspects have posted little so really making a solid case against them is hard, especially within ~1 hour. So in the end I guess we are still left with the question to lynch either Anacletus or BroodkingExe. I should probably stop rambling now and wait for your thoughts on it. | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
##vote BroodKingEXE Unless something drastic happens, my vote stays. | ||
| ||
