EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XVII
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
| ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
| ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
For those of you from XV and XIII, I'm hoping to be a little more assertive early this game and also hoping to, y'know, actually have a correct read. Don't give me the reverse-Xatalos where if I get anything right I must be scum. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
| ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
Plurality lynch, yes? | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
I think with a little more experience we would have played the game out differently, but take a look at Newbie XIII for the opposite. We had less modkills, but 2/3 the scum team lurking for huge chunks of time, leaving town to point fingers at ourselves until endgame. I'm not looking to push lurkers early and stay on them for an entire day cycle, killing discussion, but they need to be considered and I'd rather be looking at them on earlier days than when we're close to/at LYLO/MYLO. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
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. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
On June 14 2012 01:56 Crossfire99 wrote: They can be, depending on what they concern, and when they occur. See the italicized above, although I should have more explicitly qualified the bolded bit.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? If someone had barged into the thread yesterday saying "I love no lynches" and then "I hate no lynches" in the very next post, that's not scummy to me. There's no debate here (nobody is proposing we NL), it's not important at this time (start of day, no NL proposal). There's no scummy reason to swap between those two statements on that particular topic at this particular time. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
Strongly dislike Suki's two early cases. Already discussed the trackdoor one, and that's long over. But the alan one looks flimsy as well. For all it's size, some of Suki's points are that:
None of that does anything for me. I know that's kind of giving the entire thing short shrift, but she's really stretching to find some of this stuff scummy. Rofl's posts on him are equally unconvincing to me. He posts a case, admit it has holes because it's D1, drop your vote, then come back and seem to OMGUS alan for OMGUSing Rofl/Suki. To the extent you want independent opinions Rofls, I'm not reading alan as scummy at the moment. I think you guys are just accusing each other back and forth. That said, I'll watch alan going forward. I DO hope he makes good on being less neutral and wishy-washy. I also hope he does so in a way that doesn't push his "conspiracy theory," because you've got 0 support for that right now. Wait a while before trying to tie together a team, because right now we need to find ONE scum. And when we do that, we'll have way more information to look for #2 and #3. Also, and it looks like you've started doing this, but please less spoilers. Hard to find statements from you and hard to read your posts when they're just big spoiler trees. I'd like to see some original content from Suki apart from the cases. I see a lot of commenting on little things around the thread, I agree with this/disagree with that. I see the two big cases, which aren't convincing me at all. But I get a gut feeling that something is lacking there, something in between those types of activity, because it's easy to fill a filter with those two things, and posting a bunch of weak cases doesn't look good, it looks like you're trying to contribute and scumhunt but not really doing so. I'd rather see smaller, more concise original thoughts aimed at a player, but not trying to tie together everything they've done. Most everyone else I need to keep reading to get a definite opinion on. However, I want to specifically address crossfire, looking at what everyone has said about him. Either we've got a good candidate, or we've got a guy who looks a little scummy and is going to get D1 steamrolled. At the very least, we need to be aware of what each person is contributing re: crossfire looking scummy. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
A LOT of us have been posting in the style of his first post, and I dislike it across the board (I think I've done it as well). Here are my thoughts on the things that have been happening, here is the one thing I would like to add. Can't quite put my finger on why, but it feels like an easy way to boost filters. Commentary on everything, add a single original thought so it doesn't look like just commentary on everything, and then whoosh! gone. I don't love the "don't vote early" stuff, but don't hate it. He's got reasoning there, although I disagree with it. If we're worried about people who vote early and don't come back to change it, the alternative is people who don't vote and don't come back to vote. Both are problems. The problem with voting early and not returning ISN'T voting early, it's not returning, which causes problems no matter whether you've voted or not. Other than that, there's nothing. A question to me, but no real accusation of scumminess. A comment that Mouldy Jeb is acting weird and lacks reasoning. Nothing else more of substance really. As to others addressing him: Sciberbia - I agree with his initial point, tbh I was surprised I didn't catch more flak for that statement. The bit on MJ doesn't do anything for me, it's not solid enough for me to base anything on, especially when Crossfire doesn't seem to actually have robust thoughts on MJ. Milton - I will say that Crossfire was mafia in XIII and was pretty lurky, at least in the mid and later game. Will have to go back and look at his D1 from that game. Golden - What do you like about Crossfire's posts, specifically? | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
I find you and crossfire mildly scummy. Wasn't just commenting on the lack of content from you apart from tiny musings and the big cases, that looks scummy to me. At the moment I don't plan on voting for you, because posts like the one I see above are more like what I found missing. Crossfire's filter is nearly empty, and what's there isn't really pro-town. The only thing I read as helpful to town or pushing discussion forward that he's done is question me, and then not comment at all on my answer. Was it satisfactory? Does he find my explanation scummy? Did he find my scummy in the first place? A big post of nothing + 1 question that he never follows up on doesn't look good. In all honesty, I'm feeling like, so far, we've done a bad job of drumming up discussion today and that's led to us not having a great D1 lynch target. Will try and figure out some way to change that. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
LURKERS AND BROKEN PROMISES Crossfire - Crossfire has had a whopping 2 hours of activity this day cycle. Lurked, posted a few things in that time span, and now has not been back for 22 hours. We've got no reads from him, no response to the thread's suspicions of him, and that ain't good. Trackdoor - 16-17 hours MIA. Could be sleep/job, but he was active at a lot of different points of the first half of D1. Hasn't commented on anything since Rofl's case on alan. Mouldy Jeb - 22 hours MIA. Was active about 2 hours before this time and 2 hours after this time during the first real day of D1. Contributed some super shoddy reads, called out crossfire for lurking, and also gave us this: On June 14 2012 04:34 Mouldy Jeb wrote: Broken promise to contributeI just got back from work and ill read over some of the cases that have been raised and post my view on the situation shortly. Golden - Has 2 posts of substance + Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 09:43 O.Golden_ne wrote: agreed. NL is bad. Killing lurking is necessary. Lynching scum is great.  Lets get the ball rolling and squeeze out the lurkers early so we can narrow things down later on. Looking forward to scumhunting, i'm happy with the deadline on this as its 10am for me in Aust, which means i'll be able to meet the deadlines for lynching in the mornings a little easier. I'll try my hardest this game to meet these deadlines and to contribute useful information rather than filler. Essentially i'm all for an agressive early game. I want to be able to establish some basic reads by the end of Day one, and if theres no-one who's appropriately scummy then we lynch a lurker. Golden On June 14 2012 19:18 O.Golden_ne wrote: I apologize if i stray from the format i laid out previously Summary of Day One - My Perspective. I see early on a bandwagon forming on Alan113, initially ROLF (i like how this nickname has cropped up) argument has a little basis but is quickly disputed and resolved by the group. 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. I'm sitting here at my laptop and i honestly am 50-50 on Suki. I like your writing style and you can word your insights well and you have been aggressive from the get go. These are all very useful traits in day one. Tunnelling Alan113, where i can't see a small case against him, however is a big cross against your name for me. Notable Events Day One - My Opinion Suki's barrage on Alan113 and her flash in the pan vote on Trackd00r. RAWFL's pushover regarding Crossfire's passing comment about changing votes. (could his following #fos be a response to a scum-slip vote-pull to then posture as a hardline-aggressive-townie?) My People! - The Presets. (Queue this track for dramatic effect.) Crossfire99 - i'm agreeing with what he's said about being careful with your votes. I personally think the #FOS should be used a bit more. With his posts though i would like a little more player-read-relevant posts towards the end of this day =] Sciberbia - i know its a little dangerous for me to be using these terms early on (or at all) but i'm getting a good vibe from sciberbia. I read a pseudo-leadership role coming from him. His argument and opinions are tending to align themselves with me well. HeavonEarth - sorry for being afk bro. hopefully some of this analysis clears me off your radar. 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?). Suspicion??? i'm looking at MJ and austinmcc at the moment. I know its a bit rich for me to be pointing the finger at anyone for lurking. However i just dont like what i'm reading, especially MJ. The early gentle push on Miltonkram was a bit off. Considering it was a joke! I may make a case on MJ in the coming hours. #FOS Mouldy Jeb On June 14 2012 19:25 O.Golden_ne wrote: @Sciberbia. I only glazed over the HeavonEarth issue when i was catching up on everything. I feel like a nob because i remember he had that attack at me and i never really addressed it. I don't like defensive voting per se but i'll form and post some opinions on him shortly. 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. about suki, well read above. I want to reserve judgement on both alan113 and suki until day two. I think a Mouldy Jeb lynch may be a little more productive. On June 14 2012 19:31 O.Golden_ne wrote: 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 On June 14 2012 19:31 O.Golden_ne wrote: 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 Broken promise to contribute Honorable Mention - Sciberbia - You said you'd be away, but given the way this day is going so far we're going to need contributions when you return. Where are you guys? Where are these promised posts? Golden, what about this - On June 13 2012 08:27 O.Golden_ne wrote: ?I'll seriously try my hardest. If i fail this game, i'll give up for good. <3 | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
Crossfire may tend to lurk, but he's been active for 2 hours this game and didn't contribute much, if anything, during those 2 hours. 1/2 golden's activity was promising some giant omnibus post, which he immediately began to apologize for because it didn't mention some of the more recent topics at all. He failed to make good on his promise to talk to us soon. I no longer wish to be his lover, don't know about the rest of you. Moreover:+ Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 09:43 O.Golden_ne wrote: No help rolling balls. No help squeezing lurkers. Not being aggressive at all. THESE are contradictions that stick out to me. Taking a pro-town position, doing so strongly, and then never following up on that, in fact, actively doing the things he said he was going to combat.Lets get the ball rolling and squeeze out the lurkers early so we can narrow things down later on. Looking forward to scumhunting, i'm happy with the deadline on this as its 10am for me in Aust, which means i'll be able to meet the deadlines for lynching in the mornings a little easier. I'll try my hardest this game to meet these deadlines and to contribute useful information rather than filler. Essentially i'm all for an agressive early game. I want to be able to establish some basic reads by the end of Day one, and if theres no-one who's appropriately scummy then we lynch a lurker. Golden Solstice, as to heavonearth, I don't prefer him to other targets. I agree that him calling out Golden wasn't much of a case, but Golden's first post IS weak. On your second point about time, I read that post as him being confused because your post made it sound like the deadline was really, really close. The third point on his contradictory comments does look odd, but I don't want to lynch him off of that. Look at it this way - MJ got lynched in MTG because he looked scummy D1, yet he was townie. So his posts definitely looking scummy IS consistent with when he was townie, as stupid as that sounds. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
On June 15 2012 03:32 s0Lstice wrote: Go have a look at newb mini XIV. It may give you some insight on Golden. I built a huge case on him for day 2 based on many of the points you are making this game. He flipped town. I'm not saying he couldn't be scum, but I'm seeing similarities here. I looked, and yes...it's freakishly similar. I'm reluctant to give someone a pass based on that, however: - Granted he got replaced early in XV, but I don't remember him playing quite this same sort of game - He played VERY different in XI (as town) (filter - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=331498&user=92568) - He says he's really going to try and improve. That's some sort of...meta promise? Not just within game. - I don't want to excuse scummy behavior as someone's meta. Just as a policy, especially going forward, it's easier for everyone if we take a hard stance against lurking/scummy behavior. Catching up on the last page or so. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
On June 15 2012 03:14 s0Lstice wrote: If somebody considers outside information concerning their playstyle, recognizes its value, and makes changes, I consider it a good thing. Nobody should be tarred and feathered for changing their minds, provided they adequately explain their reasoning. This is the rule of thumb by which I examine situations like these. In this situation, alan is accused for being neutral/passive. He recognizes the criticism, acknowledges it publicy, and begins making a change. This was the sequence of events..there is no contradiction here. Whether you like his reads or not, he DID double down on them and he DID pursue them more aggressively. On June 12 2012 20:55 marvellosity wrote: I believe you were given a warning and not a game ban because you were apologetic last game, golden. However you have been replaced in one game and modkilled in another, so it'd be nice to know you had the commitment to see this one through. Crossfire responded to everyone. Not quite loving it, but that may be because last time I got aggressive with him, I accepted his defense and he later flipped scum. Gotta think and figure out how much that's clouding my vision here. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
Crossfire, going to hold you to this: On June 15 2012 03:28 Crossfire99 wrote: Let me know if I didn't respond enough for your liking. I'll be gone for a few hours and then I'll be back for the deadline to respond more and vote. You responded to all the concerns about you, but that was it. I'd like to see something proactive from you. When you vote, please give a decent explanation of whom you're voting for, more than just "He looks scummy/cases on him look good." I'd also like you to give a scum read outside of the current 3 candidates for lynch. Who else is suspicious to you? | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
On June 14 2012 19:31 O.Golden_ne wrote: 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 You were going to refresh your mind, mull 2 filters from D1, and talk soon. The broken promise to contribute would be not doing that. On June 15 2012 06:27 O.Golden_ne wrote: 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 No read on crossfire. A couple minor thoughts on HeavOn. The frustration seems genuine, however. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
See your comment towards him. Yes, his reads would help town. Yes, he ought to defend himself. But he may actually have been gone these last few hours, and I want to see his response before I lynch him. If it looks bad, there's D2. I think I'm saying the same thing over and over, so I'll knock it off. Apart from those basic statements, I'll note this. He DOES fit into a category of people trying to look like they're scumhunting but not. The 1 post suspicion of Golden, his comment on MJ - On June 14 2012 02:39 HeavOnEarth wrote: his chiming in on crossfire - + Show Spoiler +check out Mouldy Jeb's posts, and accusations Why would someone try to direct suspicions with NO reasoning? On June 14 2012 20:15 HeavOnEarth wrote: @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: 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: 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: 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? That leaves me with cross. ##Vote: Crossfire99 What I'd ask of everyone is to show me where Crossfire has done any scumhunting. He posted a little, dropped off the face of the earth, came back, responded to everyone's comments towards him, but never even gave us a single read throughout the day. Nobody looked scummy, because he really just didn't comment on ANYONE. I'm confused as to how that can be towny behavior, and he dropped in, spent time responding to all these people, but spent 0 characters doing any kind of hunting himself. Lurking is bad, but you can lurk and contribute when you pop up. HeavOnEarth didn't contribute when he came back. Crossfire didn't contribute when he came back, except addressing our concerns about him. Between the timing of the votes on HeavOn and the lack of any push on him, I'd rather go with Crossfire today. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
So it's really a tossup between absolutely 0 attempt to scumhunt at all, and what feels like a failed attempt to look like you're trying to hunt. Neither looking good, and neither really worse than the other. | ||
|
austinmcc
United States6737 Posts
| ||
| ||
