EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XXI
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 13 2012 10:31 Hopeless1der wrote: Yay you found it! Meh, I wasn't expecting some hidden easter egg shiznit, and it's my final newbie game, so I was just going to /in and go back to dig out the juicy bits. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
If he's unconfirmed townie with a shot left heading into MYLO day. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 14 2012 03:15 Blazinghand wrote: Couldn't he just shoot the other unconfirmed townie and win, though? You could, theoretically, have nothing but unconfirmed townies going into MYLO, courtesy of WIFOM type logic, depending on how people played. Also, MYLO can occur at as many people remaining as 8 in a 12 person game, assuming all scum are still alive. Mislynch, plus NK, puts scum at half the population. That's a LOT of people and not much guaranteed info to work with. Granted, it's a non-ideal situation, and a non-ideal situation, but assuming he recognizes the situation before it happens, he'd change it from MYLO to LYLO with more information available to the town. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 16 2012 09:40 tube wrote: whats the point of fos btw doesnt that just make the fos'ed person more careful in their posts if they actually are mafia i mean i would rather just gather more evidence then outright accuse them Letting someone know you're watching them can A: get other people to help out, and B: get them talking, which may let you gather evidence more easily. In plurality lynch, I despise voting for pressure, so an FoS can have a similar effect. In fact, trying to suggest that people keep their suspicions to themselves can only hurt the town, as we're already at an information disadvantage to the scum. Anything that helps them retain that edge is scummy, and that's what you just suggested. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 16 2012 11:17 Hapahauli wrote: @ Calgar: Well-posted, but I disagree with you on the newb-lurker strategy being "overplayed." Fact is, this is a newbie game, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some of that stuff (or other "overplayed" tells) here. I fully expect to see at least one player go too obviously "hard-counter" to the scum-tells in the various guides. If we don't get at least one high-profile scum, I'll be shocked. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 16 2012 11:28 calgar wrote: You guys may end up being be right but I'm not expecting anything to come easily. I suppose we'll have to wait and see. Very quiet first night so far, though, so not much to be done really. See, that's suspect in and of itself. "Wait and see" is trouble. Make something happen or lose. And just your bit about not expecting things to come easily, just sounds like you're hoping to plant seeds of doubt early, so that you can point to it later when you go WIFOM crazy on us. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 16 2012 11:45 calgar wrote: I think you're reading into my words way too much. I mean them as plainly as possible - I'm not aiming to have any subtle ulterior-motive second speech going on. I agree, make something happen or lose. Difficult when people are not posting, though, agreed? Thus talking to try and instigate said discussion, agree? Should I rather become silent - no, disagree. I'm trying to be as productive as possible - and at least giving other people a little bit to go on and analyze to make decisions for themselves. What on earth are you talking about here? Why are you predicting that I will point to seeds of doubt later that I haven't even laid? What I said in my last post: 1: you guys may be correct that mafia will reveal with obvious tells. 2: i'm going to give them more credit than that though 3: very little dialogue occurring currently. What you say: you're going to turn on us with your seeds of doubt. Not very logical, imo. "Wait and see" is mutually exclusive with "instigate discussion". And I mean exactly what I say about seeds of doubt. You could easily be working with a scum ulterior motive. Saying you don't expect things to be easy is basically just invoking WIFOM without saying anything, in a way that could be used to cover things you say later. Remember, in this game, it's about finding a way to cooperate in an intentional atmosphere of mutual distrust. We have to find enough grains of information hidden within the subtext of the conversation to negate some portion of the scum's information advantage. Everything you say or do has to be treated like there's the potential for an ulterior motive, until and unless you're confirmed townie. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
The real issue you're accusing me of being distracted from is the real issue of finding and lynching scum. In what way is pointing out dangerous statements distracting from that? There's not going to be much substance to any conversation at this point. There can't be, with nobody weighing in. So, when there's almost nothing to discuss, you talk about what you can talk about, so that if there's a case down the line, you're in a good position. Also, it's very shady to say "the scum wouldn't do that". We can't know what the scum would or wouldn't do yet. It's all guesswork. It always will be until we have information. In fact, just pointing to "Well, scummy behavior would be X, see how I'm not doing that" sounds scummy as all hell, since the only people who know what the scum have planned are the scum. I'm really curious though, when there's no votes (I hate the risk of early bandwagons), and if you think this accusation is such a pointless distraction and so on, why are you squirming around so much under this very light pressure? | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
Right now you sound like an "Active lurker". Posting to be visible, to try and demonstrate townieness, but without really saying much. Until I called you on it. Now you're explaining what the scum would do, which is pure WIFOM, especially this early in the game. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 16 2012 14:10 YourHarry wrote: Also, forcing an interpretation of "wait and see" the way Jingle did could mean either of two things: 1. He wanted to argue for the sake of discussion. 2. He wanted to start a bandwagon on calgar You accuse me of trying to start a bandwagon after voting on someone for their first post? Didn't we have this conversation already? Somewhere else? And so far, people here don't seem insane enough to take it as scummy behavior to not like early bandwagons. This almost gives me the impression you're trying too hard to match your meta, which makes me wonder about you. FOS YourHarry | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
If anything, if he's scum trying to cover for an accomplice, I think it would be most likely to be Calgar. Let's look closely. He subtly casts doubt on the things I've pointed out. On July 16 2012 14:10 YourHarry wrote: Also, forcing an interpretation of "wait and see" the way Jingle did could mean either of two things: 1. He wanted to argue for the sake of discussion. 2. He wanted to start a bandwagon on calgar This, of course, flies in the face of his vote against Obvious, along with more doubts about what I said about Calgar. On July 16 2012 14:07 YourHarry wrote: ##Vote Obvious.660 Obvious scum BTW, "wait and see" does not mean that we should actively stop what we are discussing to see what happens. It could mean, carry on with discussions and finger pointing and see where our scum hunting leads us. Then, he does his own post pointing to the meta, jokingly implicating himself as scum, an air of confidence, in an effort to stir up feelings of "must be townie, no scum would say that". On July 17 2012 00:11 YourHarry wrote:  I actually had a thought that one of you may point this out. Not only we had a conversation about benefits of random voting, which I still disagree with you, but do you remember talking about the "contradictory first post"? I also replied in a similar - analyzing lazer's post to mean either #1 or #2. I realized this after I made both posts. So: 1. This is how I typically play OR 2. I am unconsciously trying to match my meta in the previous game, where I was vanilla town. OR 3. I consciously made plans to match the meta. If #3, you should be suspicious.  All in all, I think YourHarry looks suspicious as all hell, and while I'll keep my FOS Calgar, I'm going to ##Vote YourHarry based on the current signs. After all, he thinks that his vote on Obvious isn't a big risk, so he has no grounds to complain about mine based on considerably more evidence, right? | ||
| ||
