EPT/in
Questions
Will the game start with Day or Night?
Can medics save themselves?
When will the game start?
Newbie Mini Mafia XVII
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
/in Questions Will the game start with Day or Night? Can medics save themselves? When will the game start? | ||
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
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. | ||
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
On June 13 2012 11:12 roflwaffles55 wrote: 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. | ||
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
+ 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 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. | ||
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
I would like to know, about the setup. It says "You will know which roles may appear in the game but not the number", does it mean it is possible to have, for an extreme example: 3 godfather, 8 cops, 0 medics, 0 vet, 0 jailer, 0 vig and 1 VT? I know this is an extremely imbalanced setup but I just want to know if I can assume: a) Not all roles will be given. b) Not all roles are unique (more than 1) | ||
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + 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. Well, you were the one asking for my opinion on what has already posted. 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. You can decide if I am honest about writing the post before s0lstice, which was also stated in my post. (I refreshed to see if there are new post before I "submit") I also shortened it to avoid long repeated post. I wrote the possible motivations behind suki's case. I don't see how it is "anti-town" or "just fillers", as these were exactly my thoughts on the case. FMPOV, anyone can be scum, and having no FoS does not mean I do not suspect anyone. I merely state that I have no strong scum read as of currently, and in my context, strong means pretty much confirmed. IMO those who are decisive in throwing votes based on weak or insubstantial claims were somewhat suspicious. I think it is normal for townies to hold doubts and and being decisive as they were less informed. If anything, I just tried to keep an open mind. Also, is it me or you were trying to divert the attention AWAY from suki? I don't see how keeping the attention on suki is a bad thing, as you suggested. 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. Well if you're complaining about not bringing up any of my thoughts, there you have it. I were trying to avoid throwing out suspicions with little to no proof, but if by not doing so is anti-town As a matter of fact, roflwaffles55 asked for my opinion replying to my opening post, and criticise it being a bandwagon, while forgetting he did the same. + Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 11:03 roflwaffles55 wrote: Sure! When it comes to lynching lurkers I would agree in that it shouldn't be the focus, and would prefer to lynch someone acting scummy day 1. As to NL, I am firmly against it and if we can't get a clear majority on scummy-acting folks then we should at least lynch a lurker, especially on D1 and 2. roflwaffles55 also mentioned that I somehow "bandwagoned" and provided little to no additional content on suki's case, which I don't think is true. Well, he also voted me on these insubstantial reasons. Of course, he also missed one or two post made by Miltonkram and austinmcc, which posted something more or less what I said. Also, if I am the only one not bringing up cases, there should be at least 11 other cases already. Of course, those were ignored and he proceed to vote me. @trackd00r + Show Spoiler + Looks like you intented to write something else about me, but a single post of S0lstice made your opinion change quite quickly, very quickly IMO. This is a weird speculation, as there is no indication nor proof I was not doing otherwise. I guess there is no way to say "I swear I was backing you up even before I read anything else!!111", but oh well. I did edit my post after I saw ss0lstice's post, mostly shortening what was already mentioned by ss0lstice, as most of my points were agreeing with him. My policy is to stay as neutral as possible, accessing all the possibilities while passively waiting/reading what other people has posted. I do believe this is not a bad-town play, as I am trying to avoid town fighting town scenario while scums lurks and look at the drama while eating pop-corns. That said, Crossfire99 is still missing while HeavOnEarth only has his opening post. I would like to see other people's thought on suki and rolfwaffles55's cases. | ||
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Yes, I did vote you, but you forget that votes are easily removable, and the fact that you had to write a sensationalist paragraph in red text rather then just poke through the obvious logical holes in my cases convince me that you have something to lose, whether it be scum, blue, or just poor play. The red text was meant to emphasize on how easily I could've built a case against you if I were to use the same speculations and baseless assumptions. I also noticed you were focusing a lot on me, from asking my opinion to my opening post, proceeding to accuse me of supposedly leaking "scum-tells", and then voting me. I thought of your possible motives, and it made sense for both town and scum plays. (see summary) But enough of you, it is late over here so I think it is better for me to notify my leave as well as writing a summary. + Show Spoiler + I feel like there are still not enough post to build any case on. Maybe because of time difference everyone is sleeping while I am refreshing the page every 3 seconds. My standing on voting. + Show Spoiler + I know I might be talking votes too seriously as stated, but IMO townies should behave seriously and cast every votes (even if it is retractable) as if they are not allowed to retract, in other words, use ##FoS to declare an "eyeing" instead. Furthermore, I think it is beneficial to town if people cast votes seriously. Of course, I do agree on using it to apply pressure, but the effect diminishes if everyone just throws it around. @roflwaffles55 Current strategy seems to be "pressing one guy until he is dry", which make sense for both Scums and Town. Scum:+ Show Spoiler + <pick one target> and hope (s)he is inexperience and find out if (s)he has a power role. If (s)he slips, proceed to pursue for a mislynch. Town: + Show Spoiler + There is very little activity right now. <target> seems most scummy, lets see what we can squeeze out of him, and even if I am wrong we can get people to talk more. @suki First started case based on false contradictions. Votes trackd00r. Retracts later and claims she thought the (non-existence) contradiction was not as severe as she thought. I find this slightly scummy but it is well within reason for a townie to behave this way (get discussions rolling, which no doubt is successful) That said, I sensed an organized "pattern". Sending two goons to + Show Spoiler + Reads post --> Throw out case (with weak evidence/logical support) --> vote --> see response/find ways to abuse. I think I might have read too much into it, and it was just 2 eager townies trying to get things rolling. I would like to hear opinions from other people. I took too long just to type out a post (constant googling, spell checking) I only listed two person here because they stood out more to me: I planned to write a summary for everyone but it is too late now. Living at the other side of the hemisphere from the rest of players kind of suck. Will be seeing you guys in 7 hours, off to bed. | ||
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
I am not sure if this is a impulsive call caused by the below statement I made: + Show Spoiler + @suki First started case based on false contradictions. Votes trackd00r. Retracts later and claims she thought the (non-existence) contradiction was not as severe as she thought. I find this slightly scummy but it is well within reason for a townie to behave this way (get discussions rolling, which no doubt is successful) That said, I sensed an organized "pattern". Sending two goons to - Hide Spoiler - Reads post --> Throw out case (with weak evidence/logical support) --> vote --> see response/find ways to abuse. while one hiding in the dark. I think I might have read too much into it, and it was just 2 eager townies trying to get things rolling. I would like to hear opinions from other people. I see you changed from soft defending me, to an instant "write a case->vote". But given that you aren't, l will just refute to the summary you made. + Show Spoiler + Summary 1. He's pro-actively defensive + Show Spoiler + I was tunneled by rolf, and I choose to confront it head on hoping it will clear myself. 2. Justifies his own actions instead of trying to make pro-town actions + Show Spoiler + How else am I going to defend myself other than justifying it? And you claimed I did not make "pro-town" actions. I beg to differ. I actively throw out all the possible motives. I believe later on day 2 when more solid facts are present (killing pattern/blue role have more ideas), we can rule out some of these motives to get a better picture. Right now, I am merely focusing on reading every player's patterns. 3. Defensive Aggression + Show Spoiler + You just repeated point 1. 4. Inconsistency regarding a neutral/suspicion-throwing playstyle + Show Spoiler + If you are referring to the "red text mocked up case" I posted in defense of rolf's case by "proof by contradiction". 5. Attacks the two most controversial posters with a questionable theory for townies to think of that he just kind of throws out there. + Show Spoiler + How is rolf controversial? Also, I don't find my theory "questionable". I merely listed what happened. Please provide clear "questions" instead of vague accusation. 6. Still no solid reads, analysis or suspicions despite (kind of??) conceding that not throwing out suspicions is anti-town. + Show Spoiler + Throwing random "solid reads" without proofs or substantial supporting reason is just as well as filler. I did not throw "solid reads", instead I posted the possibilities, which because of (refer to reply to #2), I think it is not scummy or even anti-town. ##vote alan133 + Show Spoiler + Another vote? I hope you read my stand on the weight of votes. It seems to me like you are either trying to start a bandwagon, or is not interested to play in a serious manner, which to me, is a solid anti-town behavior. Also, + Show Spoiler + This is extremely extremely scummy to me. What he's saying here is essentially this: "If not giving throwing out suspicions is anti-town, then I will prove my towniness by throwing out suspicions.", followed by attacking the person who attacked him. He finishes the post by saying My policy is to stay as neutral as possible, accessing all the possibilities while passively waiting/reading what other people has posted. I do believe this is not a bad-town play, as I am trying to avoid town fighting town scenario while scums lurks and look at the drama while eating pop-corns. There is a mental disconnect here. 1. He feels throwing out suspicions is bad for town 2. He tries to prove his towniness by throwing out a suspicion at his attacker 3. He reinforces his belief that staying neutral is not bad town play If he really was town and he really believed that his way of playing was optimal, why would he have the need to go completely against his beliefs to prove his towniness? In his next post, the same trend continues. He spends time justifying his red text: The red text was meant to emphasize on how easily I could've built a case against you if I were to use the same speculations and baseless assumptions. but the interesting thing is.. if it was so easy for him to build a case against waffles, why didn't he? Of course, because he didn't have any. He was simply defending via attacking. I did not build a case against waffle because it was merely a "proof by contradiction". I did not proceed to make a case against him because I want to refrain from being bias, which should agree with my policy. I just reasoned with myself why people think being neutral is bad. Pressuring someone even without firm evidence does not mean it is bad, even when the target is innocent, it gets people talking, and we can observe people's response and analyse the pattern. I got too paranoid of being too bias in my judgement. I also realize why people despise neutrals like what I originally wanted to be, that is because neutrals are seen to be afraid to face the consequence when people realized he lead a lynch on a townie. I hope people don't go "oh u contradicted your original policy" but nevertheless, I will change my game plan after seeing how it is beneficial. As for my opinion on the game right now, my attacking policy is to find "patterns" or indications of players "working" in a group. For day 1, there is no kill pattern to analyse. I suggested a "theory" based on a pattern I noticed, and was hoping third parties will comment on it, but unfortunately, only rolf and suki, the subject of my observation, commented on it. I am going to take on rolf and suki. I know it may seems like I am retaliating whoever that pressure me, and it could be bias, but this is what I honestly feel. This is my revised "conspiracy theory". + Show Spoiler + Suki screwed up with a really bad case. Rolf tried to divert attention from suki, so suki can retract "easily". -Rolf picked a weaker target -> me -Rolf ignore suki's case Both rolf and suki was convinced they got the scums in their opening case, but was easily swayed when they get little to no support. -Rolf toned down a lot when he sees no support Rolf's case gain more popularity. Suki jumps on the bandwagon and proceed to vote me. -Although this point is much weaker now consider that I provoked her I question Rolf's quote Yes, I did vote you, but you forget that votes are easily removable, and the fact that you had to write a sensationalist paragraph in red text rather then just poke through the obvious logical holes in my cases convince me that you have something to lose, whether it be scum, blue, or just poor play. Scum slip? That statement does not benefit town at all, and it seems like you were testing if I was "blue". Suki seems very sloopy. In the first case she bought up, it seems like she was convinced. Rolf share similar traits, however was less obvious. Summary: 1-Suki and Rolf is working together 2-Rolf avoided commenting on suki's case 3-Rolf took suki out of the spotlight, or at least, brought another person into it 4-Rolf can be seen to be scum hunting 5-Suki and Rolf confidently brought a case, and is easily swayed when they get no support. (staying out of the spotlight much?) 6-Suki hops on the bandwagon All in all, suki seemed more scummy than rolf. Rolf has understandable reason to suspect me, but suki start off with a bad case, followed by bandwagoning me to for a lynch. | ||
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
Summary: 1-Suki and Rolf is working together 2-Rolf avoided commenting on suki's case 3-Rolf took suki out of the spotlight, or at least, brought another person into it 4-Rolf can be seen to be 5-Suki and Rolf confidently brought a case, and is easily swayed when they get no support. (staying out of the spotlight much?) 6-Suki hops on the bandwagon | ||
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
My final vote would be: ##vote suki This is based on the reason given above. | ||
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
@austinmcc I thought spoilers are supposed to keep it neat and more readable, but apparently not, so I will avoid that from now. Edit: I unconsciously included spoilers tag where it was appropriate, hope you won't mind. @Crossfire99 The majority seems to agree that Crossfire99 is one of the potential lynch target. I beg to differ. His posts was generally neutral, did not put pressure on anyone. I would like to say the case against Crossfire holds the same premise with the case rolf against me: not applying pressure while playing passively. The difference is Crossfire did not actively defend himself + Show Spoiler + edit: until now Not under suspicion currently @HeavOnEarth His first few points seem disconnected. None of them relates to each other: From FoSing Golden for his opening post, + Show Spoiler + And I thought rofl@me and suki@trap was bad He also state that he is waiting for responses. Upon being debunked on Gold's read, he basically dismiss it similar the way suki has dismissed her case on trap, claiming they are trying to start conversation. In suki's case, this is still believable. Before her case there was no controversy, and very little to talk about. However, when Heave posted on Gold, there were already controversies + Show Spoiler + rolf@me suki@trap Very Suspicious @Mouldy Jeb's He echoed what I said, and came to the conclusion that it is dismiss-able without anything at all. Pure filler. The gut feeling about rofl is really weird. Look at this: Rolf said: Hey mouldyjeb, glad to see you posting! Do you have any other evidence or reasons beyond miltons lighthearted attitude at the beginning? State them if you do, as well as any suspicions against me! Don't keep them to yourself! Also, what are your opinions on the cases so far, like mine against alan133 and suki's against trackd00r? I ask these because that was a fairly lackluster post when it comes to your first of the game and id like you to bring some fresh opinions to the table. nope roffle that was a gut feeling about you that why I stated I have no evidence This is confusing as hell, and I don't think I want to read too much into it. His other posts were also echoes of what other people have said. He seems to still have an issue with Milton's "joke" vote, but never pursue it without saying why. I am interested to see what his views are, which he promised will be post shortly. Mildly suspicious Can't believe I took 1 hours just to write all this down. I also did a filter check on s0Lstice since no body has suspect him, and I realize I was writing a lot of fillers, and my conclusion is indecisive-he currently looks town, so it is gone. I refreshed and realize suki is still running her case upon me. @Suki Let me address your reiterated summary. 1. It's not that he is defensive. It's the way he's being defensive. He was extremely conscious of misinterpretations of his words in the beginning. He attacks his attackers. Despite feeling that throwing suspicions around was bad town play, he threw suspicions at roflwaffle to prove his towniness. I don't buy that his response was 'proof by contradiction', the tone is completely off. I am playing this game seriously. I reason people won't don't spoils the game, and that is both bad town and bad scum play. I know carelessly written post may lead to many different interpretation. I am trying to avoid that while struggling with the language itself. My first mocked-up case against rolf was indeed me attempting a "proof of contradiction", nothing more. Believing me or not is a subjective matter so I won't comment more than that. I do agree I did intensify my tone when I defend myself, I can't deny that, and if I am offer a chance to explain, I felt challenged. Also, attacking head on is nothing but defensive. I brought the spotlight to myself, trying to be as transparent as possible, believing it will establish my innocent. 2. He is inconsistent. He states that he doesn't like throwing out suspicions, that he thinks neutral play by town isn't bad for town. Yet he throws suspicions at those attacking him, and he continues to work with this idea that rofl and I are working together as a mafia ploy. Is that really the most suspicious part of this entire thread, are roflwaffle and me really the most suspicious people out of everyone else? I highly highly doubt it. He is inconsistent because he doesn't like throwing out suspicions (his reasoning for not commenting on anyone else it seems), yet he freely throws suspicions at his attackers. I did explained that I rethink on the "neutral" issue, and my conclusion is pressing someone is actually good. My second attack based on the theory is real. My "conspiracy theory" was based on a plausible scenario, given what stands out more to me. I don't want to be biasly attacking my attackers, but it is also bias if I consciously avoid to voice out what I think is wrong just because my subject attacked me. I also included you as scum in my theory when you were defending me, did I not?. A more precise way to describe it is that "I attack those who deem suspecting to me, whether they are defending me or attacking me, they brought me the most attention" When I first mentioned the "theory", I was still being neutral, and I originally intended to list it out as a possibility. Your bandwagoning on me also diverted my attention, with you and rolf focusing on me, I naturally re-focused on both of you. In addition, Alan's suspicions on rofl and I have more been about finding a way to make our play scummy, rather than pointing out scum motivations and tells. I stated my policy on coming out with the theory: finding group patterns. It strikes me as rolf was "defending" suki, suki later bandwagoned on rolf when he get more support. I did not want to make an excuse on "I am new", but I am still figuring out the meta-game, as I did with "being neutral" 3. He still hasn't done any analysis on any other players. Why? Has it not been made clear to you that your opinions are needed? Let me say it clearly: What are your opinions on everyone else? Do something productive for the town for once. Yes. Refer above, although time spending refuting your case could be used to look at other players. I also feel reluctant to give analysis after rolf's case, criticising me on repeating other people's point and has no opinion. That took me another hour, thanks suki -.- That said, I am willing to put down my theory for now due to this reason: Suki's first "meh" post was not as bad as I initially thinks. I read + Show Spoiler + Day 1 doesn't truly begin until someone makes a 'meh' case against someone else with a few 'meh' points. Of course, don't count this "theory" out yet, I am leaving it aside for Day 1. Right now, I find Heav and MJ were the best lynch candidates, and HeavOnEarth appears to be more scummy ##unvote: Suki ##vote: HeavOnEarth I am off to bed, it is 3 am right here. I will get up in 4 hours so we can get a successful lynch. Another refresh reveals more post from crossfire. My opinion on him has not swayed. | ||
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
1. It's not that he is defensive. It's the way he's being defensive. He was extremely conscious of misinterpretations of his words in the beginning. He attacks his attackers. Despite feeling that throwing suspicions around was bad town play, he threw suspicions at roflwaffle to prove his towniness. I don't buy that his response was 'proof by contradiction', the tone is completely off. I am playing this game seriously. I reason people WHO* don't PLAY SERIOUSLY* spoils the game, and that is both bad town and bad scum play. I know carelessly written post may lead to many different interpretation. I am trying to avoid that while struggling with the language itself. My first mocked-up case against rolf was indeed me attempting a "proof of contradiction", nothing more. Believing me or not is a subjective matter so I won't comment more than that. I do agree I did intensify my tone when I defend myself, I can't deny that, and if I am offer a chance to explain, I felt challenged. Also, attacking head on is NOT* defensive. I brought the spotlight to myself, trying to be as transparent as possible, believing it will establish my innocent. Proof check after post -- Genius. | ||
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
Are we allowed to post after the deadline, 4:30 hours later? Are we allowed to post during the night? | ||
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
| ||
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
@mouldy/unforgiven_ve swap - my thoughts @sciberbia - my slight suspicion due to his discussion about night actions. @suki and rolf "conspiracy theory"- dismissing it @my thought on O.Golden_ne vs austinmcc. My suspicion on Golden has grown while austinmcc's filters strikes me as being town. @my prime suspect - roflwaffle55, please look at my reasoning before judging if I have a bias. I am aware I focused on him and suki a lot and seems to be counter attacking hard. I don't see why I should hide my suspicion just because I fear people will take it wrongly. Judge my reasoning!! I have not focused on other players yet, I will post my content soon. | ||
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
I am not sure what to think of this, I feel like it has reset MJ/unforgive's rather bad position. Question + Show Spoiler + Is it cheating if I used mod's actions (modkill/player swapping) to backup my reasoning? I don't see this in the "cheating" section: I am not posting sharing mob's PM, just pointing out a very visible action mod did. I removed my reasoning as it potentially breaks the rule, but you should be able to see what I was going to talk about. @sciberbia I find his night post similar to the day post: giving advise. I am fine with the day post, but not with the night post Keep in mind the mafias game that I have played (outside TL, non forum-ish), discussions is not allowed right after the role flip. I may have overlook the "neutrality" on sciberbia's suggestions. That said, my idea was night action should never be discussed as it might reveal a blue. The only information that mafia does not already have is who among us has a power role. I also find the role block claim suggestion weird, especially he mentioned there is may or may not be a Jail Keeper and we can't differentiate which is what. This made me look through his filters again. His filters reveals that he has been focusing a lot on suki's cases, and has been defending me against her case. He is also having doubts on suki, but is with a valid reasoning. sciberbia is also one of the few who brought our attention to heavOnEarth. At that time, almost no one else paid attention to him, and I think there is no reason to "bus" a scum buddy in this early part of the game, unless it is a really (to avoid confusion) "high level mind game". I looked through his filter and seems like there is nothing else fishy about him, other than the night post, his analysis seems objective and clear, and is generally helping town. I know I am inconsistent with me deeming him "suspicious" in my summary post, but I did not read in detail at that time and now I actually think he is neutral if not, town sided for calling out a good read. sciberbia is off my radar for now @O.Golden I find Golden carelessly friendly. + Show Spoiler + Reluctant to vote on suki or alan113 at the current time, because i honestly feel like theyre clashing for the wrong reasons. i'd be more inclined to lynch suki just because of the tunneling, however i dont feel a Mafia would be so aggressive day one (MAAAASSIVE RISK, but risk = reward?). He don't "feel" like any of us is scum. He thinks Alan and suki is town. Then he commented about Crossfire + Show Spoiler + Crossfire seems okay too me, i liked his posts. If he posted a few more like it, with about 40% more content (pulled a # out of my ass) on players and some reads/opinions on cases i'd be a happy chappy. Time will tell on this character. He thinks crossfire is townie, until this + Show Spoiler + honestly i can't believe i missed sciberbia's case on Crossfire99. FML maybe i got the totally wrong read on him. Ima refresh my mind on HeavonEarth and Sciberbia and then post after i mull their feeds over a game of SOTIS. Talk soon lovers. GauldenWahn How are you sure sciberbia is not a scum, trying to misguide you? You seems to agree with anyone, but when someone else is questioned, you suddenly turn your Super Scum Detector towards said person. I find his reason for voting HeavonEarth echoes from other players, while this is a non issue consider how late he is and there is nothing much to add, These sentences really bothers me. + Show Spoiler + On June 15 2012 06:27 O.Golden_ne wrote: also, if we're too take a hard stance on lurking behaviour. Perhaps we can focus on someone with a smaller content count than myself? Worth a thought mang. in regards to HeavonEarth. In relation to my: a) knowing i'm town. b) Him trying to bus me one the grounds of "seems like a solid case". c) lacklustre contribution and no rebuttle to any arguments. i feel like he see's a bandwagon forming and jumps on straight away. #VOTE: HeavonEarth i still maintain a #FOS on MouldyJeb i still owe the group a comment on Crossfire99 but i honestly dont have time for it before work. The first highlighted sentence seems to me you are trying to avoid a fight, you are afraid to stand out too much, even after being able to reply with a convincing answer for your defense, you just want it to stop right here, right now, "don't look at me". While I understand not everyone wants to stand out - The second statement set off alarm for me. Unless neutrals are involved, everyone "knows" themselves as town. This just shows me you are constantly aware that you want to present yourself as "town". + Show Spoiler + comments: i like suki's approach to the situation, she's changed it up and she's added some new content to her vote which is refreshing. We'll obviously need to keep an eye on Alan113 just because everyone needs to be pressured several times during the course of the game, i just never found him to be as scummy as say HeavonEarth is looking atm. SOOO much angleshooting from peoples previous performances in other games. Keep it relevant is all i'm saying. This post agree with how I painted you so far. You diverts attention to me. What did you add to that post?
But wait, what did you said a few post ealier? + Show Spoiler + Alan113 is now hard-tunneled by suki for the rest of the day. I'm finding this the most frustrating day one tunnel i've seen, i was indecisive regarding suki and then i saw her most recent posts and hoped to god she looked at something other than Alan113. But her argument against Alan113 here is essentially saying that he is mafia because he is defending himself. I'm finding it hard to see how Alan113 can do anything but defend himself up until this point. You contradicted yourself saying I was being tunneled too hard and is not able to contribute when you defended me If I overlooked anything, please point it out. My point:
O.Golden is my secondary Suspect @austinmcc Looking at austinmcc's filter, he seems to be playing very dis-trustingly. This strikes me as a town trait for being uncertain of the situation. I would like to mention that in his Lurker and broken promise post, he did not mention Heave. He also did not vote Heav. Regardless, it wouldn't change the outcome, there is no risk of a NK. His reasoning behind voting Cross instead of Heave was pretty convincing too. austinmcc looks town to me @suki and rolf "conspiracy theory" Other than the reason I stated in my previous post how I over weighted suki's scum tell, I don't find her response consistence with my reading. If they were indeed partners, I don't see any motivation behind scum suki's outburst and openly confronted me. If scum suki is scum, she would have been intentionally defending me against her buddy. She should be aware that I wasn't only attacking the ones that attack me. Scum suki would want to stay quiet, like what rolf did. He simply did a "OMGUS", ignoring the reasoning I gave, while repeating his case with the exact same points. Suki, on the other hand, did a case with valid reasoning on me, and she was pushing her agenda on me until she got a satisfying answer. This gives me a town read on her. I would like to see other people's standing with suki. Suki-rolf scum-buddies scenario is unlikely. Suki's seems probable town to me @rolfwaffle55 I will dedicate a separate post just for you. I have more than enough proof in your Day 1 play to write a decisive case on you. | ||
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
@blue action discussion I am backing off my "night action discussion issue" from sciberbia. The first glance I thought it is weird for someone to post such a thing in the middle of a game, I feel like it is making blue obvious. While thinking about it I realized I failed to see this is exactly the "discuss blue strategy" in the beginning, which, while I think it is abusable by scums, I don't see why it does not benefit town. My two cents: @Cops should not check rolf. We have a very strong case against him already. I don't see him getting out of this. @Medics should save more influential or talk-active players. @Vigils should just shoot rolf, I don't see him getting out of this, so rather than wasting a lynch I suggest killing him right here right now. @The case against rolfwaffles55 I don't have time to write a long post, basically sciberbia covered what I wanted to say. The part that gives me a 100% confidence towards rolfwaffles55 being scum #2 is this post. + Show Spoiler + On June 15 2012 02:44 roflwaffles55 wrote: I'm going to post as though all of these people are scum, and the impact they have a chance to make if they are left alive. I think it will give a different way of thinking about it. Crossfire99 Sciberbia posted a convincing case on him already, and several people have posted tidbits on him, however, nobody has put the focus on him (partially my fault). Therefore, if he is in fact following the thread and trying slide under the radar of suspicion while we focus on alan133, suki, and HeavOnEarth, he is going to get away with it. His play was very lackluster and never brought fresh reads to the table. Out of everyone, if he is scum, he seems to be one of the most dangerous to let live. alan133 I've already tunneled the crap out of him, and his defenses have been drastic and overly reactionary. If he were left alive, I honestly think he could do a fair bit of damage as scum, just because he defends very well and seems to have people convinced as to his innocence. HeavOnEarth His play is quite suspicious and his accusations and suspicions lackluster at best. He could just as easily be an awful townie as scum. Overall he's been fairly ineffectual, but if he's hiding behind a mask of confusion and bad reads, he could be an annoyance as scum later on. suki It would be self-serving of me to defend suki, as she took my case against alan133 and improved it, I believe in her case. But for the benefit of the doubt, let's assume she's scum. The strength or lack thereof (trapd00r case) of her cases imply that she's trying to lead the vote towards those that aren't scum. If she is scum, she could be quite dangerous later on. All of that theorizing on what they "could" do if they were scum being done... I believe that the most lynchable potential scum right now would be Crossfire99. I understand that there are already votes on HeavOnEarth, but if he really is that incompetent at bringing cases to the table, as a scum, why would he try to post them? He is suspicious to me, but not as suspicious as Crossfire. Unless he responds to the accusations in a convincing and collected manner soon, I strongly believe that he should be lynched. ##vote Crossfire99 This post screams SCUM in my face. The priority in a day 1 lynch is to discuss who is the best candidate to kill, not who is more dangerous if left alive. There is not even one, yes, not even ONE legitimate motivation for a townie to say. No. Instead, it makes a lot of sense in the scum's POV. Scums, if possible, has all the motivation to look for the most potentially dangerous townie to lynch. This is pretty much the nail in the coffin. "Okay, lets not get away with ourselves. What if rolfwaffles55 is just making a big noob mistake." No. This is a noob scum mistake. Besides, go through his filter if you must. He show no sigh of being town, constantly accusing people for not standing to the spotlight, but he contradicts his own policy by backing off when he gain no support for his case. He leave a case because no one supported him, not his target give him a satisfying answer. There, thanks sciberbia for writing. It saves my time from a few hours of constant googling. I think rolfwaffle55's case is rock solid and we should start looking for a 3rd scum now. I would like to know other people's opinion on my O.Golden's case. I was not suspicious on him until I looked closely on his filter. I would also like to see s0Lstice's 3rd scum. | ||
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
@Crossfire I love your analysis post on who voted Heave. I hope you can do one based on Heave and rolf's actions, FoSes and votes too. I did a quick look myself, but I think it will take too much time for me to write it out, and it is going to be really hard to read anyway. I think we can used this to rule out bad townie play from scummy methods. @Unforgiven Welcome! Given that Heave is Godfather, and rolf being second scum, their actions suggests MJ was simply being a very bad town player. I suggest people reread their filters @me on Golden Based on the patterns of both scums, I lowered my suspicion towards Golden. To refute my own point about trusting me and suki, there are already a few posts ahead of him indicating our innocents. I still don't like how he changes his judgement based on other people's opinion. For now, I want to rule him out because it is inconsistent with heave's and rolf's motives. @suki on trapd00r I do not have time to evaluate trapd00r's filters and it is really late now. Upon quick investigation, I somehow found something that I never really pay attention to before. On June 13 2012 23:48 alan133 wrote: @trackd00r This is a weird speculation, as there is no indication nor proof I was not doing otherwise. I guess there is no way to say "I swear I was backing you up even before I read anything else!!111", but oh well. I did edit my post after I saw ss0lstice's post, mostly shortening what was already mentioned by ss0lstice, as most of my points were agreeing with him. Expand quote to see trackd00r's attempted to put words into my mouth. Rolf bandwagoned later. If rolf and track are really scums, I feel like that picked a wrong target. It is 3:14 am here and I am going to bed. I will most likely be back after the day post, so just in case I die, here is my current view and hopes for future town direction. I think rolfwaffle55's case is decisive. Tomorrow there will be a kill so if rolf was not shot, please evaluate that kill pattern. Who did they went for, what was their stand. Think about if they were trying to push a victim's misread before he die. Think of all the possibilities, and if there are too many clashing possibilities from both sides, skip it. It won't lead you anywhere. I hope crossfire can contribute by evaluating HeavE's and Rolf's actions in day 1. I hope suki can continue to pressure trackd00r the way she pressured me. I hope rolf dies in a night kill  Stay focus on getting the last scum, don't throw out FoS all over the place, work together and analyse one player at a time, and we should be on our way to an "Overwhelming Town Victory" | ||
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
I wrote: 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. On June 13 2012 23:48 alan133 wrote: @trackd00r This is a weird speculation, as there is no indication nor proof I was not doing otherwise. I guess there is no way to say "I swear I was backing you up even before I read anything else!!111", but oh well. I did edit my post after I saw ss0lstice's post, mostly shortening what was already mentioned by ss0lstice, as most of my points were agreeing with him. Cheers. | ||
|
alan133
Malaysia159 Posts
I just woke up and have something to attend to, so here is my quick thought. @austin I was on the fence on austin, but I will look at the kill pattern later. @s0Lstice VIGIL DO NOT CLAIM. There is no advantage for town to get hard confirmed townie right now, only scums benefits from that. I get rather suspicious on s0lstice, but it could be a logic flaw from a townie. I am going to look at his filter later when I am free. I think I came to a solid analysis on my rolf + suki case, but since s0l brought it up I will do a quick review to see if I missed anything. | ||
| ||
