@Sciberbia
in addition to what u said on crossfire, notice that he
1) only replies when called out. Every message he is replying to someone, not making his own points aside from his opening.
2) Every one of his posts feels like complete filler to me. he is trying to LOOK helpful, without actively contributing anything
+ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 02:06 Crossfire99 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 02:00 roflwaffles55 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 01:56 Crossfire99 wrote:Just woke up. I'll start with that only as a last resort will I be for lynching a lurker Day 1. If we can get some good scum hunting done Day 1 we will have a more productive lynch than just a random lurker. Now onto what has been happening. On the whole suki and trapdoor issue: + Show Spoiler +On June 13 2012 12:44 suki wrote:Is it just me or is trackd00r coming off as scummy already? Show nested quote +
If I understood correctly, it doesn't mean that I would stop any lynch that I didn't mention on my analysis. Just because I have a candidate for lynch, it doesn't imply that I discard any other possibility.
It's something related to common sense. If any other cases are convincing enough, I'll throw my vote there in the case I can't get a majority. In the other hand, if we end up like RNG lynching (which is a bad idea), any other poster that could be doing silly mistakes, or even a player practically saying ''hey guys, I'm mafia, lynch me'' that's when it goes against my mindset. Any possibility is valuable, but if there is something absurdly wrong, I'll call it, even if that means a no lynch.
This post screams to me that he's trying to be super cautious with his words, so that he'll have a safety net if/when he ever changes a vote or bandwagons on someone else. He throws out some 'obvious' examples of reasons of what wouldn't agree with him, and even mentions that he would follow through on a read, even if it that means a no lynch.BUT WAIT! Just ONE post previous to that he says this: Show nested quote +I won't accept a NO LYNCH unless I believe we may have a serious mislynch coming. ... Dude. You try to take a firm stance against something, and then you do the most scummy wishy-washy-ness thing ever the very next post. You're clearly informed about mafia as you brought up the idea of a day 1 RNG lynch, and being against a no lynch is not a difficult or complicated policy to hold. I feel that such a simple logical slip only happens if you're trying to play it safe and keep your options open. ##vote trackd00r I think suki was just being aggressive. I admit that I found trapdoor's response post to be weird, but then I realized that English is probably not his native language, so I reread it a few times. I don't see a contradiction in there, he is just explaining that he would try to stop a lynch that he really believed was on a townie. I'll give suki the benefit of the doubt on this case and say she is an over eager townie for now. On roflwaffle and alan: + Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 22:28 roflwaffles55 wrote:I woke up this morning to the arguments made towards trackd00r, and while the arguments made against him weren't particularly convincing, his defense was a little bit lackluster as well. However, I would like to bring your attention to someone else that is acting quite scummy as it stands. Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 13:05 alan133 wrote:On June 13 2012 11:12 roflwaffles55 wrote:On June 13 2012 11:03 alan133 wrote:
Good morning everyone. Looks like the first thing I am going to do in the office is to play mafia on TL. I don't recognize anyone here since this is my first game, well except for s0Lsitce since he is in the game I read. That's my brief introduction, and habitually in the beginning of any game, GLHF.
I am new and am unsure how to proceed with the game, but my current strategy is to wait for more post to come. Currently I have no FoS. That also mean I do not trust anyone yet. What are your thoughts on what's been posted as of yet? On the inactive/lurkers lynch + Show Spoiler +
I believe inactive players/lurkers are generally anti-town/bad town play in any mafia game, so lynching them isn't a bad idea (Since I believe d1 lynch is good, refer below), if there aren't better candidates of course.
On the day 1 lynch/no lynch + Show Spoiler +
I agree on lynching day 1 based on my experience with other mafia games (outside TL) with similar setup. By reading other games on TL I also notice the current meta game is to lynch when there are more players, as it gives townies clues.
I am off to lunch, will be commenting on my thoughts later as I see some interesting posts/votes already. His first post puts him on the bandwagon with his opinion on the inactives and lurkers, and is generally a contentless post with little to no controversy. Otherwise, nothing to bring the spotlight to him at all. While this is not by any means evidence of scummy play, there comes to attention the next post he makes. Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 15:40 alan133 wrote:My thoughts on suki's case: + Show Spoiler +Any possibility is valuable, but if there is something absurdly wrong, I'll call it, even if that means a no lynch. I won't accept a NO LYNCH unless I believe we may have a serious mislynch coming. I started writing before I refresh and saw s0lstice's post. As he already pointed it out, there are no contradictions between the two statements. trackd00r merely states that NL is bad unless it is a "serious" mislynch in both highlighted sentence. If I am missing something, please correct me. Also, Miltonkram: + Show Spoiler +On June 13 2012 10:35 Miltonkram wrote:
Hey all, glad to see we've got a bit of activity already.
In NMM XV we actually had a decent discussion about no-lynches (involving me making a fool of myself) and how they can actually be beneficial in certain setups. That being said, we don't know for certain if we'll have any modkills so we should leave no-lynches off the table until we hit the unlikely scenario that a no-lynch is beneficial for the town.
Town, the best way to contribute is just to get posting. Let everyone know what your thoughts are. Did someone post something suspicious? Let us know about it. Do you think the town is making a bad move? Let us know about it. If a townie lurks he/she is letting down his/her entire team. So don't do it, K? I'm sooooooooper serious. Like sooooper, soooooooooooper serious.
Hey sciberbia, remember this
##Vote: sciberbia
...heh heh heh
Is it me or you are not actually + Show Spoiler +soooooooooooooooooper serious ? I personally think (well played) townies are not the ones that bluffs around, let alone voting someone without any reason at all? Generally, fooling around, to me, is anti-town/ bad town play. My current opinion + Show Spoiler +FMPOV, suki's case was most probably based on a misunderstanding, but (s)he could very well did it intentionally hoping for a bandwagon leading to a mislynch. Note that I am merely listing the possibilities, I do not FoS anyone yet, which can also mean that I do not trust anyone yet. This is the post that really got me wondering. How by now can you have no suspicions? There has been quite a few suspicious decisions by several people, giving you more then enough time to form a case against someone, or at least apply some pressure. His statement about trackd00r comes after s0lstice, leaving his opinion tied to a fairly influential player and just reiterating what s0lstice said with no additional evidence or opinionated comments. Again, seeming like he's contributing without actually bringing anything to the table. He throws around some suspicion towards Miltonkram, however not enough to constitute a case or apply any pressure, just enough to make people go filter milton and consider what he might have done, which yet again, leaves him out of the spotlight. The last statement he makes in this post is the most suspicious and the largest tell of his indecision and lack of real input. He restates his opinion that suki's case is a misunderstanding, again, nothing of value. He then continues to explain that he has no FoS and that he doesn't trust anyone, leaving his options open, and having no real contrary opinions. His current play is anti-town at best, as he hasn't brought any of his thoughts to the table, and has only left ambiguous and bandwagoning answers to keep attention on those with controversial opinions. I think roflwaffle is jumping a little too hard on alan here. It is like 1/3 of the way through Day 1. We are not going to have a lot to work with and consequently we aren't going to really know what to think of people until we get more information. Therefore, I feel alan is playing smartly by not rushing to find every little thing that might possibly be suspicious and throw a vote on someone because of it. On Milton: He was just joking around. If he doesn't stop then I'll start getting suspicious of him. As for my current thoughts: The bolded part of this post by austin makes me suspicious of him. + Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 22:23 austinmcc wrote:
I don't read those posts as contradictory, believe the second one clarifies the first and explains that, while he'd consider a NL, the standard is higher than "Town is lynching someone that isn't one of my top couple reads."
That said, even if the two statements are entirely contradictory, I don't really see anything scummy in that. More inclined to see contradictions concerning votes and reads as scummy, where someone has stated one thing but then has to take a party line, rather than super early statements concerning a no lynch. There's no agenda to push on that issue. Two completely contradictory statements without reasoning for the change is very suspicious. This is a good way to catch scum. They know the alignment of every person, so they have to make cases that they know are wrong (excluding bussing). This can lead to contradictory posts to make them better fit in with the current town mindset. Austin, why don't you think that contradictory statements are suspicious? We need more information, and the only way to get that information is by pressuring people, scum starts with an information advantage and the faster we work to even that out, the better position we'll be in. I agree that we need more information and we get that from pressuring people, but we need to do that smartly. If too many people are throwing around minor accusations all the time, it just confuses the town and allows mafia to sit back and laugh. That is what happened in NMM XIII when I was mafia. Ask austin, he was in it too. On June 14 2012 03:38 Crossfire99 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 02:45 s0Lstice wrote:
Crossfire99, what do you think of what I said about Mouldy Jeb?
Roflwaffles55, same question. Yeah Mouldy is acting really weird. He needs to get active to explain himself. Everything he has said so far lacks good reasoning. On June 14 2012 03:50 Crossfire99 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 03:24 s0Lstice wrote:On June 14 2012 02:02 Crossfire99 wrote:
--snipped
Be careful roflwaffle, votes are only easily removable if you are around to remove them. You never know what might happen. Also, votes early on in the day cycle that don't really mean much followed by complete disappearance during a controversial lynch can be scum tactic to avoid making mistakes in a heated debate that occurs last minute.
What an odd thing to say. Your message boils down to: don't vote because you might not be around later, and when that happens you are going to look scummy. Discouraging voting for such an arbitrary reason looks kind of scummy. Also, this hall-monitor stuff is a comfortable way for scum to post and have it look like they are pro-town. I never said don't vote. I just said be careful about throwing your votes around willy-nilly under the premise that you are going to remove them later. I never even said don't do that. I just don't want someone sticking someone else with a vote for flimsy reasons that ends up sealing a lynch because they couldn't get back in time to change it. That was the entire point of those two sentences. As for the mention of the scum tactic, I'm just saying that sometimes scum can not take part in big discussions later in the day by voting early and then disappearing. I'm just trying to help roflwaffle, by trying to get him to think about taking his vote seriously and having good reasons for whatever he does. If no one holds anyone accountable mafia can just breeze on by.
3) notice his defensive, and meek tone; in addition to his low post count. he's obviously afraid to attract attention to himself
4) he was lurking for a LONGGG time before he finally decided to post . What u thought we all forgot about that?
As for golden i admit my analysis was pretty damn bad LOL , but he didn't really have any other posts for me to provoke him with, and i still feel its a strong play to accuse lurkers of being scummy, just to get them to talk. The way he went about replying though felt really odd to me. For example, i don't really care if you're taking a few mins to write up a post. Why tell me about it(unless you're about to be majority lynched or something). Just feels off.
|
EPT
