EPTNewbie Mini XV
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
suki
Canada1159 Posts
| ||
|
suki
Canada1159 Posts
On May 31 2012 11:49 O.Golden_ne wrote: @Xatalos. I think that Miltonkrams vote is too pressure a better explanation of his post. I don't suspect a bandwagon, rather just get the ball rolling and hold sciberbia accountable. no lynch d1 is a strange push so early and i'd like to hear his rebuttal to the vote before casting my own. Even if it's a vote to pressure the explanation, I still find it a very confusing move to make, simply because of how early it is in the game. Many players haven't even made their first posts yet, let alone respond to sciberbia, so I don't think it was necessary to 'pressure' an explanation, simply because sciberbia gave no indication that he wouldn't further support his claims. Simply voting to 'pressure' an explanation seems too flimsy - he could have simply asked for one and saved his pressure vote for later on if he needed it. Rather, it feels like he has a distinct purpose in throwing out a vote that early, as if to say 'hey, I'm a townie because I'm not afraid to take bold actions'. Let's say sciberbia is lynched on day 1 and turns out to be scum. Milton gains credibility for making a good read, and for being the first one to make it. On the other hand, if sciberbia is lynched and turns out to be town, Milton can hide behind the 'pressure vote' reasoning, and claim that it was too early to really know for sure when he made the vote. And then there's the possibility that sciberbia isn't lynched at all, in which case his vote ends up making no real difference - except that he still gains some townie credibility for being bold enough to take action. I'm leaning towards Milton being town, simply because it would take a pretty ballsy mafia to make such a move so early on, but between sciberbia and Milton, Milton is the more suspicious to me at the moment. Although I don't agree with a Day 1 NL, I find that sciberbia's motives for pushing of a Day 1 NL are sincere and at the very least is generating discussion (which is good for the town regardless), whereas Milton's vote is just confusing. @Miltonkram I'd like a clear explanation of why you felt it was so important to vote for sciberbia this early in the game. | ||
|
suki
Canada1159 Posts
[b]Are you allowed to change your vote after you make it?[/] I dont see any explicit answer in the rules. I assume you can't since we're not able to edit our posts, but just to make sure... | ||
|
suki
Canada1159 Posts
MiltonKram On May 31 2012 16:13 Miltonkram wrote: Since you have pointed out the flaws in my logic... and math, I will hereby ##UnVote: sciberbia Apologies. First, the ability to change your vote kind of lessens the importance of Milton's extremely fast voting, and sort of discounts a lot of my initial suspicions of him, but his response to criticism is... lackluster at best. I find it interesting that after making such a big action early on, he's content to simply apologize, meekly acknowledge that sciberbia's math was right and recede his vote... On May 31 2012 19:11 Miltonkram wrote: I'm still suspicious of sciberbia, just like I'm suspicious of everyone else in this game... And yet he still sits on the fence about sciberbia, and 'everyone else'. Just like s0lstice, I find it suspicious that he's so aggressive without conviction. Only after prodding (5 hours after he receded his vote), does he start sharing his thoughts about other players, and even then he only targets three, two for being lurkers and one for a glaring contradiction. He fails to make any committing calls for action. Finally, although I suspect that his apology was directed to everyone, he did not respond to my question, when my entire first post was directed towards asking him his motivations in voting (the fact that he didn't respond to me is suspicious to me regardless of how valid my points actually were). Miltonkram, I'm keeping my eye on you. Eishi_Ki On May 31 2012 13:18 Eishi_Ki wrote: Anyway, so far what I've got is that Cattivik seems the most likely candidate for scum (overuses collectives such as 'us' and 'we') and doesn't provide any evidence for initially supporting Scib and then saying he wants to LD1 anyway. However, I'm also cautious of Milton. Sciberbia seems like the obvious guy who is going against the grain here and I feel that was jumped on at the first available opportunity. Promoting Townies to be active for more information helps everyone, not just the Townies but his post was tendered towards the Townies which I feel may be a guise. Needz moar infos Eishi_Ki seems bandwagon-y in his first post. By the time he posts, Cattivik already has heist and golden posting their suspicions on him. He then calls out Milton for targetting sciberbia for... going against the grain? It doesn't seem to contribute anything. The rest of his posts are defending himself, and then he calls out me, Xatalos and Super. His insight on Xatalos is interesting... but I feel like Xatalos has been contributing his thoughts quite a bit in the thread and calling out people for scummy behaviour. In any case, I don't think Eishi is scum, but he hasn't contributed that much to the thread as of yet. Unforgiven Unforgiven seems to be the hot topic of the day, for his inconsistencies. I agree that he seems really suspicious. He also hasn't even accused anyone yet, much less contributed anything other than generalities and apologize for his english. Really scummy. For the sake of brevity, I'll keep this short, but I'm willing to expand on my thoughts on Unforgiven if asked. ##Vote Unforgiven_ve It may change later but for now I feel he is the most suspicious one in the game. I'd also be up for a lurker vote on day 1.. From reading everyone's opinions it seems lurkers can be really dangerous. In which case, I'll call out Ange777 and superouman. | ||
|
suki
Canada1159 Posts
| ||
|
suki
Canada1159 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On May 31 2012 20:20 Cattivik wrote: ... Miltonkram has finally understood the point sciberbia was trying to make ... Also, there is one more tell for him being actually town: It's unlikely that such a mistake would happen to three mafia at the same time, who without doubt know each others' posts before they are out. In fact, posting in blue font confirms him as townie. Aswell as the fact that it would require a pretty solid plan for mafia to start with the first post, I don't see anything unfolding here though Obviously I took him into defense cause I don't want the most active posters to die first cause they have the balls to expose their neck to easy triggers who do all the work for the mafia by doing so. ... You confused something, first I said i want to LD1, then i defended sciberbia. ... I'll wait to see how he reacts to his arguments' dismissal now that sciberbia should be a confirmed townie. If I was scum, I'd know about his status and wouldn't have taken him into defense against a majority. Cattivik's entire defence of his innocence in the initial stages of the game seems to revolve around him either knowing or not knowing whether sciberbia is a townie. He also throws out a vote for Eishi, because he claims Eishi says he has 'a reason to keep lurking.' I didn't see anything of this sort in Eishi's posts. The only thing close is the very reasonable statement that he lives in Korea so his schedule is different from everyone else. It feels like his vote is purely a defensive reaction to Eishi calling him out. Add Cattivik to my scum list.+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
suki
Canada1159 Posts
On June 01 2012 02:04 Superouman wrote: And from my first mafia game ever point of view, the first day is no more than a lottery The first day is not a lottery, though, and even if it was, the information that we gain from everyone posting their thoughts is invaluable in the later stages of the game. You NEED to post your opinions, and you need to post them often. Your Day 1 posts may be the only thing keeping you from getting lynched come Day 4 or whatever. I'm starting to see why people dislike lurkers so much. Over time, we may find out more clear reads on Cattivik and Unforgiven_ve by analysing their posts, but someone who doesn't contribute will a) never give a read and b) will be a wildcard come voting time and may not properly push the town's agenda. | ||
|
suki
Canada1159 Posts
People accusing cattivik Consider both sides of the spectrum. Can you really not see a logical town motivation behind his posts thus far? Getting in everyone's faces, tunneling Eishi_Ki, and staunch, energetic defense of his actions. He has been very active thus far. I don't agree with his methods, but they sure as hell read town to me. Don't make mountains out of molehills. Consider not just his words, but the aims behind them. s0lstice, I'm inclined to agree with you, but don't you think it's strange that cattivik seems so confident that sciberbia is town, simply from the first few posts in Day 1? It just strikes me as really off. The fact that he was so quick to lash out at Eishi_Ki may just be 'getting in his face', and I suppose both sides of the argument seem pretty petty all things considered.. But I'm not so sure that you can say that his actions strictly read town. Cattivik, I think the discussion regarding the earlier posts of Eishi_Ki and sciberbia should be set aside for a moment. I'd like to hear your opinions on other players. | ||
|
suki
Canada1159 Posts
For what it's worth, I've only changed my mind on someone once, and that is on Cattivik. Let me go over the accusations brought to me. He hasn't even mentioned unforgiven before, but now he jumps on the bandwaggon, simply agreeing with everyone else who thought Unforgiven was suspicious. Suki, you said you'd be willing to expand your thoughts on Unforgiven. I'd appreciate it if you did. Is agreeing with someone bandwagoning? I never mentioned Unforgiven before because I hadn't considered his posts before someone brought up some very good points on him. My reasons for voting for Unforgiven: + Show Spoiler + His first three posts were general advice that was confusing at worst, contradictory at best. He states that you shouldn't use past games as a guide, yet he references two past games in the same post. He states that blue people shouldn't roleclaim, and yet they should roleclaim (as a last resort!). He states that mafia is more active during the last hours of the day, yet he slips in that he'll save his vote for the last hours as well, as if by stating it early he alleviates all suspicions on his actions later on. He's really against bandwagons, yet he asks for a town leader for people to follow. I regret not posting my thoughts before, I was trying to avoid a huge wall of text but apparently it has come back to bite me. I felt that the points were already explored by s0lstice and Xatalos and didn't want to simply repeat their words. I'm not sure what I would do in this situation in the future, where I feel I have a strong read against someone, so I want to put in a vote, yet I have nothing new to add to the topic. Say nothing, and not let your stance be known? Agree with another player and be accused of bandwagoning? On Miltonkram: + Show Spoiler + I don't feel I've been wishy-washy towards Miltonkram. When I analyzed the possible outcomes of either player being town/scum: So why is suki analyzing what a townie Miltonkram stands to gain from that vote? What's the point of that analysis? Doesn't reputation mean a lot, especially for a townie? I was simply going through all the possibilities to be thorough, it seems strange to call me out simply because I was looking at all the possible outcomes of a lynch. At this point I felt that Milton was suspicious and asked him to explain his actions, reserving a firm opinion for after he responded to me. OK so before he said he was leaning toward Miltonkram being town. s0lstice stated he was suspicious of Miltonkram. Now suki piles on some suspicion, but is so damn wishy/washy about it. He describes Milton's response as "lackluster" and his actions as "interesting". Then he concludes by saying "I'm keeping my eye on you." All this seems scummy to me. He changes his mind about Milton, bandwaggoning with s0sltice, and is quite noncomittal about it. I don't understand what's wrong with my choice of language here. Milton's response WAS lackluster. It was a simple 'hey, I'm sorry I didn't understand your point. I'll back off here.', and then he proceeds to ignore my question to him completely. Let me reiterate my negative points on him - he makes a big move then apologizes without so much of an explanation, he takes his time and then posts a safe list of obvious lynch candidates. Everyone seems to be willing to forgive him for his early actions, but his actions scream wishy-washy to me. In fact, at the end of this post I'll further back up my suspicions with his most recent posts. On Eishi_ki: + Show Spoiler + This also seems like scummy analysis. He piles suspicion on Eishi_Ki, but then says he doesn't think eishi_ki is scum. Again, what is the point of posting this analysis? It seems to me like he's just trying to make it look like he's doing analysis, without actually accusing anybody. I wasn't piling suspicion on Eishi_ki. Eishi was under fire by Cattivik, so I was posting my read on him, and my read was that, based on his posts thus far, Eishi had not contributed anything, but I did not feel he was scum. On Cattivik: + Show Spoiler + Really bandwaggony here. Heist, eishi_ki, and golden had all already accused cattivik. Suki basically just repeats their reasons and adds cattivik to his 'scum list'. I did not simply repeat the accusations. I was the first to point out and elaborate that his entire self defence relied on him being sure/not sure that sciberbia was town. I also pointed out his vote on Eishi wasn't even valid, he was completely twisting Eishi's words. This was not bandwagoning in the least. s0sltice addresses cattivik's accusers and defends cattivik against them. Now look how suki tries not to take a stance. He's "inclined to agree" with s0sltice. Whereas just a minute ago Cattivik was on his 'scum list', now he "supposes that both sides of the argument seem pretty petty". s0lstice's statement about reading into the town motivation behind his posts makes sense. I was focusing on Cattivik's inconsistencies and quick, aggressive defense, and s0lstice was pointing out that it makes sense for a town to act this way. I'm 'inclined to agree' that you COULD see a town motivation behind Cattivik's actions, but I then proceed to ask s0lstice to clarify how he explains the point I had initially made against Cattivik, because you can also see a SCUM motivation as well. That is, how strange it is that Cattivik is so confident in his read on sciberbia. I reiterate that it feels off to me. I don't feel this is wishy-washy. Maybe I should have stated clearly in that post 'I am still suspicious of Cattivik' before I asked him to start commenting on other players, but I didn't feel that my intentions were unclear. Let me state it really clearly here: I wanted to acknowledge to s0lstice that it was possible to read Cattivik as townie, but that didn't mean that he had to be townie. I never retracted my suspicions on Cattivik, and in fact asked him to start talking about other players, so that there would be more information about him other than a petty quarrel between one other player. Not wishy washy. I just didn't feel it was necessary to make clear in every post that my opinion on Cattivik hadn't changed. But he's "not so sure that you can say Cattivik's actions stricly read town". This is about as wishy/wasy as it gets. Scummy behavior. I conceded that his staunch, energetic self defense could just as easily be a genuine townie reaction. That's not wishy-washy, that's simply acknowledging the other side's validity. My statement was made to point out that just because it could be a genuine townie reaction, doesn't mean it couldn't also be a genuine scum action. The only way I could see this as wishy-washy is if you take the phrase literally. 'I'm not so sure' is not a statement of indecisiveness, it's a figure of speech used in every day conversation to politely point something out to someone. In Summary: + Show Spoiler + In summary suki displays many characteristics of a mafia - he is very hesitant to take a hard stance on anything - he tried to pile suspicion on miltonkram, eishi_ki, unforgiven, and cattivik without really taking a strong stance - he was wishy/washy in his accusations of both miltonkram and cattivik - he tries to befriend active posters such as myself and xalatos 1. I have taken a hard stance on unforgiven. I have also been clear about my suspicions regarding Miltonkram. 2. This is the same as point one, but let me reiterate. I've been suspicious of Milton from the start, and Unforgiven and Cattivik after my own analysis. And I have never thought Eishi was scum. 3. Please, explain again how I was wishy-washy. 4. I stated that your motives were clearer than Milton's, and I stated my opinion on Xatalos as an example for how Eishi_ki's point against Xatalos wasn't quite valid, thus backing up my claim that Eishi_ki hadn't contributed much to the thread at that time. Is this really 'befriending' or simply discussion? Does every statement of agreement or support carry with it the implicit motive to befriend someone? Also, for both sciberbia and unforgiven who are singling out my comment that 'it may change later', I made it because I wanted to reserve my right to change my vote if the town wanted to lynch someone else. In hindsight, I realize that that's a given, and that it was an unnecessary or even stupid comment to make. I clarified in the post right below that I was sure my read on unforgiven was scum, and that I was reserving my right to change my vote. These words aren't as extreme as you make them out to be. In summary, I have clearly addressed each and every point made against me by Unforgiven and sciberbia. I have shown that I have not swayed in my suspicions nor simply bandwagoned on any topic. I admit that I have used the wrong vocabulary (such as 'I'm not so sure you can say that...' and 'I'm inclined to agree'), and that at times I did not spell out that I was suspicious of someone (relying on context to imply that I was still suspicious, as I had made no statement to the contrary). I'm still getting used to Mafia where using colloquial phrases can be analysed to death, so one has to be extremely clear about what they're saying. That said, I don't think that my intentions or actions have been wishy-washy at all. ON MILTONKRAM BEING SUSPICIOUS Take a look at Milton's most recent posts (After his apologies). His opinion on Unforgiven is 'confused'. He lists all sorts of inconsistencies and says its easier to 'extrapolate some sort of scum logic' for unforgiven's call for town leadership.... And then doesn't commit to either calling him suspicious or not suspicious. He states that Cattivik/Vivax is his 'top scum read as of this moment', then later on says: 'Alright Vivax, I'm still not a big fan of your play, but I'll give you some time off... I'm not completely satisfied with your defence, but tunneling you mercilessly doesn't help anyone either.' and 'If you really are town, spend the time you would be using to defend yourself and post a decent case against a player or two.' It really, really sounds to me like he's trying to ease off from his extreme stance against Cattivik. Finally, he writes a large post directed towards superouman in which he points out superouman's contradictions, and states that he could be 'either lazy town or mafia'. Up to this point, Miltonkram has made a strong attack on sciberbia, which he quietly retreated from. He has targeted superouman and ange777 for lurking (safe choices). He has called Cattavik out for being scum, followed by what may preparing to ease off of him ('If you are town...'). He has been wishy-washy regarding unforgiven. Aside from this, Miltonkram has not even commented on anyone else in the game. I don't see how you can look at my play and call it wishy-washy, but look at his play and not even criticise it a little. @unforgiven_ve suki: his first post is about the NL d1 theme, and asking Miltonkram about his fst vote. His 3rd post is some semi-analysis about the people the town is talking about and to close his post he throws a vote against me, before make it clear "it may change"...then a couple more post naming Cattivik, Superouman and me. That's it...he nevers really pressure someone, playing it really safe, his filter is short, he's just taunting Cattivik in hopes of preparing a Day 2 candidate. I'm 85% sure suki will flip mafia, he is playing a pretty standar mafia or a really bad (till now) blue. I will wait for his response. I'm 85% sure that unforgiven hasn't even read my filter. The last 15% is that unforgiven is a REALLY BAD BLUE. I'm sorry, your only solid 'read' on me is to call me out on being wishy washy for stating the obvious (that I can change my vote if I want to), and then you add in a safety clause that I may be town? I voted unforgiven for a reason. | ||
|
suki
Canada1159 Posts
He says his suspicions based on Milton's aggressiveness are reduced because he found out you can change your vote, but then maintains that Milton is being super aggressive, and it's making him suspicious. To me this look like circular logic, and it sticks out. I think it's a matter of looking at my opinion of Milton in degrees, rather than a black and white suspicious/not suspicious point of view. While it's true that my suspicion of him was decreased because I found out you can change votes, but voting for someone still applies a lot of pressure and it shows you at least have some degree of certainty that they are worth the vote. Voting for someone is still a big deal, regardless of the fact that you can change your vote later. I don't think what I said was circular logic at all. + Show Spoiler + In his defense post, this immediately jumped out: On June 01 2012 14:50 suki wrote: --snipped For what it's worth, I've only changed my mind on someone once, and that is on Cattivik. Let me go over the accusations brought to me. On June 01 2012 14:50 suki wrote: --snipped Let me state it really clearly here: I wanted to acknowledge to s0lstice that it was possible to read Cattivik as townie, but that didn't mean that he had to be townie. I never retracted my suspicions on Cattivik, and in fact asked him to start talking about other players, so that there would be more information about him other than a petty quarrel between one other player. This again is in the same post, and it seems contradictory. Changing his mind on cattavik presumably means that he stopped being so suspicious, yet later he says his suspicions have not changed. If you can see both town and scum motivation on a players actions, then you really have nothing, no case. A case begins when an action reads purely scum. I apologize for the contradiction in my post. Changing my mind on cattivik referred to changing from thinking he was clearly scum to entertaining the idea that his actions could show that he was town. Yes, he's still suspicious to me. The extreme certainty of sciberbia's role and his twisted accusation of Eishi_ki still read scummy to me... but I conceded that there was a possibility to read them as town as well. Like I said previously, I wanted to acknowledge that it was possible to read Cattivik as townie, as opposed to my previous stance where I was sure he was scum. As you saw, Milton has already called me out on backing off of Cattivik, so I feel justified in putting in the clause that 'I've changed my mind only once'. If I had instead said 'I have never changed my mind', would I have not been criticised of backing off of Cattivik? I've also accused Milton of backing off of Cattivik, but what sticks out to me is that he has not shown any commitment to a scum read on a player, whereas I have. If I'm suspicious for being non-commital and political, I don't see why Miltonkram isn't much higher on the suspicion list. | ||
|
suki
Canada1159 Posts
Ange777 already has four votes on him, and by lynching him we rid ourselves of a lurker. To guarantee a Day 1 lynch I will vote for Ange777. ##Unvote Unforgiven_ve ##Vote Ange777 | ||
|
suki
Canada1159 Posts
I wanted to say that my vote switch to Ange on day 1 was because I was going to be out for the rest of the day, and I wouldn't be on to convince people of my read. I think a lot of people read into that switch more than it should have but it's my fault I didn't say it =D At best it would have kept me alive until Day 2, though. Too much evidence against me :> Also, I thought we had thrown the game when both heist and xatalos kinda panicked and tried to save me.. it definitely got heist killed but Xatalos managed to spin his actions well. So kudos to xatalos. Finally, thanks to everyone for making my first mafia game such a nerve-wracking experience. I don't think I had a good night's sleep once the game started, my mind was just so consumed with figuring out how to best play. When I logged on and saw that I was lynched on Day 1, I was surprised but also incredibly relieved. Hahaha. | ||
|
suki
Canada1159 Posts
| ||
|
suki
Canada1159 Posts
| ||
|
suki
Canada1159 Posts
| ||
| ||
