EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XVII
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
| ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
if that's required.. >.> | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
Thanks! :D | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
| ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
| ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
| ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
| ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
| ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
Glad I got towned up for my first game, I'm hoping to be able to contribute to the analysis and casebuilding, as well as make some good reads of my own! I'll read up on the previous game that the 6 of you were a part of to see if I can't make some good calls when it comes time to vote. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
On June 13 2012 10:46 s0Lstice wrote: Would you care to comment on the topics sciberbia brought up? 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
Canada59 Posts
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? | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
However, I would like to bring your attention to someone else that is acting quite scummy as it stands. On June 13 2012 13:05 alan133 wrote: 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. 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 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. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
While this is not necessarily evidence of scummy play, there comes to attention the next post he makes. Forgot to proofread as my thoughts came down.. >.< | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
| ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
On June 13 2012 22:47 Mouldy Jeb wrote: you are suppose to be playing seriously if not then that would create the cloud of assumption that you are indeed scum random votes are related to scummy tactics so I already have my suspicions of you. also my suspicions of roflewaffles are slight but i have no further evidence that is incriminating him 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. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
On June 13 2012 23:48 alan133 wrote: @rolfwaffles55 + 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. While I am completely aware that my case has several holes in it, nobody can expect an ironclad case halfway through D1. The points you bring up in the first half of your response to me continue to be ambiguous, I'm glad you started to get your legitimate opinions out there, being quiet and neutral will get us nowhere. Both of our initial posts tended to agree with the majority, but as I said, that wasn't the focus of my argument, it was the post on the suki argument that got my suspicions roused. 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. As suki said, don't stay neutral, start posting your opinion on people, even if it brings attention to you. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
| ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
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? 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: ... 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. 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. 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. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
On June 14 2012 02:02 Crossfire99 wrote: 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. I agree that I may have been a bit too aggressive right off the bat, but I implore you to look at my arguments and his, and take more from it then just an overzealous attempt on my part. ##unvote alan133 There you go, I'm still suspicious, but I may have underestimated the significance of a vote. | ||
|
roflwaffles55
Canada59 Posts
On June 14 2012 02:45 s0Lstice wrote: Crossfire99, what do you think of what I said about Mouldy Jeb? Roflwaffles55, same question. I would agree with what you said, his statements and arguments have been fairly baseless with little to no purpose. He has his "suspicions" of me and says to watch Milton, but brings nothing substantial otherwise. The lack of bringing forth any real argument is what makes me suspicious. | ||
| ||
