EPTHello TL Mafia, this will be my first game
Newbie Mini XIV
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
Hello TL Mafia, this will be my first game | ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
| ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
| ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
| ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
Be on notice mafia members, I will defend our town's honor to the last. Anyway, just wanted to say hi before bed. I'll be back in the wee hours of the morning, checking this thread when I should be working. | ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
Can we stop discussion about policy now please? It creates an environment where scum can comfortably post and be 'CREDIT TO TEAM.' Scumhunting must begin now. I'm looking first to sciberbia. I'm not sure if Release reads you as green, but I currently do. More fluff and I'll change my mind though. Your stated purpose was to generate discussion...mission accomplished. I'll be looking for you to make something out of it. ShiaoPi has a small filter as well. You just like that back off your suspicions on sciberbia? Scum post fluffy quasi-useful posts all the time. They want to appear to be contributing without actually saying anything incriminating. Miltonkram confuses me. You say you don't want people to share town reads because it's giving information to the mafia. What? Scum know who is town and who is not. Scumhunting is ALL ABOUT posting your reads on people. They are accused, and must defend. You smell fishy to me Milton. ##FOS: Miltonkram | ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
Shiaopi, my filter is small as well, yes. The onus is on both of us to contribute. | ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
I will.. ## unFOS: Miltonkram ...for the time being. I'll go over his filter again when back, and see if I agree with sciberbia's latest post. | ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
On May 22 2012 16:25 Miltonkram wrote: sciberbia- What do you have to say about the accusations pointed at you? There's quite a bit of fluffy information in your post. Let's try to keep the conversation more focused on who might be scum, everything else is secondary. As pressure goes, that's pretty weaksauce. You'll have to do more, Miltonkram, if you expect us to believe you are working in the town's best interest. If you filter stays as it is now as we approach vote time tomorrow, I'll be leaning strongly towards you. ShiaoPi, hegeo has made a case against you and I want to add to it. I called you out, and you said this: On May 23 2012 00:21 ShiaoPi wrote: Regarding my small filter, yes I did not post much until now, but how come that you with the exact same amount of posts (since the daypost) can claim that my filter is small. This strikes me as odd. Why complain about my filter if yours is not that much as well? Discrediting your accuser instead of addressing the accusation smacks of fear. What's with the knee-jerk? You could have easily just said something like 'my small filter will be a short lived problem as I plan to contribute more soon.' What's more, I even put the spotlight on the two of us after our exchange, and before leaving the thread for a few hours: On May 23 2012 00:45 s0Lstice wrote: Just a quick note (I'm on my phone), but days are 48 hours. Shiaopi, my filter is small as well, yes. The onus is on both of us to contribute. ...and your contributions since then are what? Mainly defense, and a half-baked (see:one game) meta argument on Mufaa, where you yourself admit that you may be biased. | ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
Milton, in response to your suspicions of me: I based it on what amounted to a reading comprehension fail. As it seems to be the basis for your suspicion against me, I'll try to clarify. Here is my brief explanation: + Show Spoiler + On May 23 2012 01:32 s0Lstice wrote: I will be away for a few hours, but before I go I do think I read Milton's point the wrong way. It was: a townie posting a read of any kind, vs. a read declaring someone as town. I went with the former, which as sciberbia pointed out wasn't the intent. I will.. ## unFOS: Miltonkram ...for the time being. I'll go over his filter again when back, and see if I agree with sciberbia's latest post. And here is your quote, for reference: + Show Spoiler + On May 22 2012 19:55 Miltonkram wrote: Golden- This early in the game I think any town reads are going to be weak, so I don't see much value in posting them. We have to remember that mafia have 90% of the information here. Posting town reads can just cut into the 10% that they don't know. If there is a time when it's important that we post such information (e.g. we think we're about to die, we think the town is about to mislynch) then by all means post it, but right now is not one of those crucial times. You said we shouldn't post reads on a person when the result of the read is town. I see the logic behind this argument and wouldn't have taken issue with it. I read it as: none of us townies should be posting reads of any sort, as it is giving scummies information they dont have. I think you'd agree that there is no town motivation for saying such a thing? I agree that it appears flighty to ##FOS and un##FOS on you like I did, but the error was pointed out to me and I owned up to it. Regarding your second point, I removed my FOS because the pressure stopped existing, as I was the only one pressuring you at the time. Sciberbia posted his case against you before I hit submit (I usually do a refresh before posting, and my post was sitting there on screen for awhile thanks to a busy day at the office!), and I knew I should address it as it was particularly cogent. I promised to have a look at your filter again following my gaffe to get a fresh read, and to comment on sciberbia's case. If you look you'll see I did as I promised. | ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
Notice that all I've done is apply pressure. I've never claimed that a small filter is a scum guarantee. Being relatively quiet is plenty of reason to pressure you, just as it is plenty of reason to pressure me. You've responded with gusto, and that's good for everybody, as we have more to go on. I still don't buy your explanation for why you didn't address my accusation. The fact remains that you attacked instead of explained. You wanting to throw the ball my way is fine, but doing so in lieu of a defense to pretty weak pressure (based on filter size, which I agree with you is weak) is scummy. As such I still suspect you. You wonder why I don't focus on him (Mufaa). Everybody is suspicious of him, me saying so serves no purpose. We know already his name will probably come up for lynch tomorrow because lurkers are at best useless and at worst dangerous. | ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
Gonna go through this in detail. On May 23 2012 08:39 ShiaoPi wrote: --snipped @solstice: If you are not buying my explaination I cannot help you. To me your main argument seemed to be me dropping my suspicions on scriberbia, I answered it and went on to attack you, simply because taking filter size as an argument in beforementioned circumstances seems like a feeble attempt to give a random accusation/suspicion more weight. Therefore you are suspicious in my opinion. You are correct that at the time of that post, the main thrust was that you accused and then backed off sciberbia. This combined with your lack of other input was enough for me to call you out. Your filter size was just supporting information. It was a fact, and I put it there as additional incentive/pressure to get you talking. You've said yourself: On May 22 2012 18:47 ShiaoPi wrote: --snip I must say I really like release's approach until now, we won't get anything worthwhile from just being nice to each other. Pressuring is a great way to get some more information and should be utilizied. That was basically what I was after. You can agree that pointing out your lack of input applies additional pressure yes? It's simple. If I say "Hey you why aren't you posting?!," all you had to do was contribute and then *poof* the pressure disappears. You say also that I ignored your explanation on backing off of sciberbia. This is half true, as I had accepted it and moved on, but did not explicitly say so. I assumed this was clear in my further accusations of you which made no mention of it. On May 23 2012 08:39 ShiaoPi wrote: On another note you have not answered my other question, regarding you tunneling me all the time when your argumentation which you base it on (contribution, filter size) also fits others. My argument hasn't been based on the size of your filter since that very first post I made referencing you. You want to know why I am still picking on you? On May 23 2012 08:39 ShiaoPi wrote: After I explained my stance on sciberbia all you had to work with was filtersize and my reaction. My reaction was explaining my opinion on sciberbia and an attack on you. You continue to ignore my explaination and just go on about my attack on you. I'll repeat: it's because your defense was to attack me and take the focus off of yourself. My filter size was, and always will be, a separate and unrelated issueto yours. I think you panicked when I pressured you for little content and a wishy-washy accusation of sciberbia, and I wasn't pressuring all that hard. The intent was to get you talking. What I'm doing now is hard pressure, because you keep scummy squirming with the spotlight on you. I obviously have not forgotten my other reads. You'll hear more from me. You, however... ##FOS:ShiaoPi | ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
My suspicion against ShiaoPi comes from his reaction to my initial accusation. You say that we are knee-jerk voting for eachother, but be mindful of the fact that it started with my initial pressure. His response, as I see it, was to try to discredit me instead of addressing the accusation. It escalated from there, but it started with him overreacting to my pressure, and this seemed suspicious to me. As far as tunneling on eachother, I think you are right. As we are getting close to lynch time, I will be spending my time looking at the other cases in depth (as I said in my last post). My filter is full of my feelings on ShiaoPi for others to consider for themselves, and our recent exchanges have reinforced my initial suspicions, but nothing really new has been added. Stay tuned, I'm at work so the interruptions are frequent. | ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
Hegeo + Show Spoiler + He has had to spend a lot of time defending himself. In his other posts, he has applied soft pressure on a few people but then quickly backs off. He is very apologetic, and lacks conviction. This would all read as nervous townie, except his scumhunting leaves a lot to be desired. He has towed the line on ShiaoPi some, but beyond that, all there is is a Mufaa pressure. This appears to be his only decisive action. I will consider voting for him sciberbia + Show Spoiler + I don't love that he was warned for making fluffy posts, and then continued to do so. Release has stated this before. The most egregious example is the post directed at Mordanis where he accuses him of 'jumping all over him.' This response seemed overblown and pointless to me. Defending against an imagined slight is questionable to me. His one accusation of note is against Miltonkram, which I thought was a good start. The pool gets muddled when he switches back to hegeo, but that doesnt remove what I think is a decent attempt on Milton. Because he has made attempts to scumhunt, and is actively trying to contribute, I would not feel comfortable voting for him today. Miltonkram + Show Spoiler + Ah wow, I had this written, then refresh and saw Milton posted a defense. Put frankly, I think he has adequately defended himself. I dont like his out of sequence and seemingly random Mufaa vote, but as he said, he was doing it not as his main thrust, but in addition to pressure on ShiaoPi. He screwed up in pressuring me, just as I screwed up when I pressured him. It's a knock against both of us, but I dont see it as damning. Other than that, he has been after ShiaoPi. He supported the existing case and added some new content to it. I see nervous townie play, trying to make all the right plays, but coming through as inconsistant. I would prefer not to vote for him, but will do so if it means him or nobody. ShiaoPi + Show Spoiler + I don't want to rehash, all I want to say here is that this is where I feel the strongest. I see also that he has posted a bit ago while I was writing. I'll have a look momentarily and comment as needed. Voting for ShiaoPi would be my wish, but if it doesn't get any traction I will look elsewhere for now. | ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
The OMGUS is there I think. I'd prefer to not cease communication with each other however...I'd rather try to make it constructive. You say there are parts of your counter-pressure I have not answered. Can you tell me what you would like answered? | ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
| ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On May 23 2012 00:15 s0Lstice wrote: ShiaoPi has a small filter as well. You just like that back off your suspicions on sciberbia? Scum post fluffy quasi-useful posts all the time. They want to appear to be contributing without actually saying anything incriminating. This was two pronged pressure. First prong is your filter size, second prong is you backing off your slight pressure on sciberbia. Your response is this: + Show Spoiler + On May 23 2012 00:21 ShiaoPi wrote: If you reread my first post on sciberbia I would have assumed that it was easily visible that I had a bit of concern regarding him but not really a suspicion. Regarding my small filter, yes I did not post much until now, but how come that you with the exact same amount of posts (since the daypost) can claim that my filter is small. This strikes me as odd. Why complain about my filter if yours is not that much as well? You explained your view on sciberbia. This answered the question: why did you back off sciberbia? The second question was: why is your filter small? You answered: yes my filter is small, why is your filter small? I look at that and think: he just answered a question with a question. And more, his question was an accusation at his accuser. He would now discredit the questioner/have the discussion be about me instead of him. The scum motivation for this is to get the focus off yourself. I don't really see a town motivation for not answering a simple question. This got me suspicious of you. You address this specifically in a reply to hegeo's pressure: + Show Spoiler + On May 23 2012 05:25 ShiaoPi wrote: I was being put under suspicion so I defended myself, sounds pretty reasonable? You can interpret text in many ways, if we assume that I said "had no time/wanted to see how things go", you can also claim that it looks scummy, it really is a matter of interpretation. I see nothing wrong with my defense, firstly I clarified my stance on sciberbia, then I point out a flaw in his 2nd argument. Here you acknowledge that you didn't answer the second part of accusation, and instead accused your accuser. This maintained my suspicion. What you called 'pointing out a flaw,' I called bringing in a separate and unrelated issue (my filter size) to deflect the pressure. A quick note on my filter:+ Show Spoiler + I'm not saying I'm not accountable for my content. I will answer for it if someone has a problem with it. I know you did before ShiaoPi. My content has been: to build a case on you, take the time to read all the other major cases in the thread and comment on them, some defense, promote discussion early on, and discourage needless focus on an obvious lurker. Now this: + Show Spoiler + On May 23 2012 07:12 ShiaoPi wrote: Contributionwise I admit that there was not much from me yet. I gave my opinion on the cases others have posted and pointed out that we have a hardcore-lurker (which is more than just a "half-baked metacomment") right now. Really contributing as in lots of activity and some cases, are Release, sciberbia, hegeo and Mordanis. That makes 3 other people besides yourself, whose list of contributions is just as "meager" as mine and still you do not tunnel them. Why? Because of my small filter? But what about Mufaa's? Your argument of small filter = scum/should be pressured seems to go haywire with your case against me, so I naturally suspect you. Here you defend your lacking filter, and I believe this is the first time. You basically say that you have commented on other cases and pointed out a lurker. That stuck out like a sore thumb, it seemed to me a paltry contribution, even with your comments on your playstyle. The follow-up is also very telling. You again shift the focus by bringing in other names, and then go on the attack again. I see this as scummy. You speak more on it here: + Show Spoiler + On May 23 2012 08:39 ShiaoPi wrote: If you are not buying my explaination I cannot help you. To me your main argument seemed to be me dropping my suspicions on scriberbia, I answered it and went on to attack you, simply because taking filter size as an argument in beforementioned circumstances seems like a feeble attempt to give a random accusation/suspicion more weight. Therefore you are suspicious in my opinion. To me the character of these words is summed up as 'I wont respond to weak pressure. You want me to talk, you have to seriously pressure me.' This is not inherently scummy or town; it is important for all players to be economical with their words, and pick their battles. What it made me want to do is pressure you more, and follow through with my initial read. Concerning your activity, its all well and good if you want to play laid back on day 1, but you also have to understand that this is another strike against you as scum typically play this way. You dont come down hard on anyone but me (the one going hard after you), and a lurker. Your defense on this appears to be, 'this is how I play day 1 guys.' This on it's own isn't a big knock against you, but when added to everything else it certainly isn't nothing. One last thing on this: the posts where you site a passive day 1 playstyle when others. This would have functioned as a response for me. Was this not simpler, more town? You address this here: + Show Spoiler + On May 23 2012 05:25 ShiaoPi wrote: I was being put under suspicion so I defended myself, sounds pretty reasonable? You can interpret text in many ways, if we assume that I said "had no time/wanted to see how things go", you can also claim that it looks scummy, it really is a matter of interpretation. I see nothing wrong with my defense, firstly I clarified my stance on sciberbia, then I point out a flaw in his 2nd argument. yet here you say: + Show Spoiler + On May 23 2012 05:25 ShiaoPi wrote: I am simply not playing as aggressive as Release is and therefore I naturally lack "original" content, as you already pointed out my playstyle might seem as you phrased it: Seems to me like a not too shabby way to play on Day 1. Not much yet you can base reads off and still quite some time to the deadline, whose approach always brings out the more mattering posts (at least in my opinion). You say you didn't want to cite your playstyle in the first defense because it could be interpreted as scummy, yet you go on to cite it anyway when further pressure was applied. The way you talk about your play seems very inconsistant. So I need to wrap this up because vote time nears. I hope this makes it clear why I suspect you. | ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
| ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
| ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
| ||
| ||
