|
Yay! I've been checking literally twice a day for the past week and it's here! Thanks Bluelightz and Blazinghand for hosting.
/in
I will not be banned in the first game Bluelightz is hosting
I really like the setup type, but I have some questions on specifics:
Can you vote for no lynch?
Are the mafia allowed to not kill?
Will the saver and/or savee be notified by PM of a successful doc save?
If you are roleblocked, will you be notified by PM even if you are Vanilla Townie?
The scum team consists of 1 roleblocker and 2 goons for a total of 3 scum?
The scum team designates one player to carry out the kill?
Can the scum roleblocker both carry out a kill and roleblock in the same night?
If scum roleblocker both roleblocks and carries out a kill, which action(s) will show up on tracker/watcher reports?
Thanks in advance for answering.
|
On August 05 2012 12:52 Bluelightz wrote:
2. Please vote in the following format: ##Vote Quatol.
Did Qatol copyright his name or something :p
On August 05 2012 12:52 Bluelightz wrote:
5. In the event of a tie the person with the most votes first wins (or loses).
7. This game uses a plurality lynch system (player with most votes in the end wins, if there is a tie all people included in said tie get's lynched).
These rules seem to be somewhat contradictory. Rule 7 seems a bit too havoc-inducing to be believed. Which rule is for realz?
|
On August 05 2012 16:59 Bluelightz wrote:
Tracker & Watcher show's role block action as they track role actions and not factional actions.
So let's hypothetically say that I am a mafia goon and on N1 I carry out the mafia night kill on Keirathi.
If the tracker was tracking sciberbia, will he see that sciberbia visited Keirathi?
If the watcher was watching Keirathi, will he see that sciberbia visited Keirathi?
On August 05 2012 12:52 Bluelightz wrote:
5. This game uses a plurality lynch system (player with most votes in the end wins, if there is a tie all people included in said tie get's lynched).
It seems to me that a good town strategy would be to intentionally orchestrate a vote where several scummy suspects are all tied, in order to lynch multiple scummy players and increase town KP. Is this allowed? For example, lynching the 3 scummiest suspects on D1?
Also, if I understand correctly, it is physically impossible for town to ever No Lynch, even in a situation such as 4-person LYLO. Is this correct?
|
On August 05 2012 17:36 Bluelightz wrote:
yes you can do that, but watch out when you utterly destroy 3 town players.
Haha that's all part of the plan! + Show Spoiler +I'm mafia goon, remember?
Thanks again for answering my excessive setup questions. I can't wait to start!
|
Hello everyone! Top of the morning to ya :D
First thing's first: I can truthfully report that I have rolled Dwarf, so I'll try my utmost to root out this nasty Goblin infiltration, protect our fortress's stock of booze, and avenge our fallen leaders: Qatol and UristMcUrist! As per usual, I hope to convince you all of my righteous alignment by way of some successful scumhunting. Let's hammer us some goblins!
I have 2 goals for this post:
1) Share some (IMO mildly helpful) information and opinions
2) More importantly, get discussion started as quickly as possible
everything you want to know about sciberbia+ Show Spoiler +I will amicably respond to either 'sciberbia' or 'scib'. TL Mafia History =========================================================================================== Lost as Vanilla Townie in Newbie Mini XIVLost as Vanilla Townie in Newbie Mini XVLost as Vanilla Townie in Newbie Mini XVIILost as Vanilla Townie in Newbie Mini XIXWon as Mason in Can't Believe It's Not Themed MiniI work from roughly 11AM to 6PM (EDT) on weekdays. But I'm often busy until 9PM. The vast majority of time that I spend on the game (on weekdays) will be between 9PM and 3AM (EDT). Unfortunately, I'll be asleep in the hours leading up to deadlines, but I'll make an effort to check the thread just before 11 in case I need to switch my vote for whatever reason. Who I've played with before: Old faces: Keirathi, Shiaopi, marvellosity, Mordanis New faces: HiroPro, Custos Luna, prplhz, slOosh, Forumite, DoYouHas, risk.nuke
I see that Shiaopi is discouraging policy talk, but I contend that policy talk is the best (only?) way to get meaningful discussion started, and I don't think this stuff is that obvious, so here we go:
Thoughts on roleclaims+ Show Spoiler +Vanilla TowniesPlease do not roleclaim without a very good reason. DoctorAs long as there is more than one Goblin alive, I don't think it's wise to spare an otherwise scummy candidate just because they roleclaim doc. We essentially have 2 different policy options: A) If our top suspect roleclaims doc, we spare them unless there is a doc cc (counterclaim) + Show Spoiler +
The problem with this policy is that a mafia who is about to be lynched has nothing to lose (and a lot to gain) from fakeclaiming doc. Our real doc will be forced to cc, and will surely be subsequently NK'd. So, this policy would essentially force our doc to out himself before we could even lynch 1 mafia.
The one scenario where this policy is useful is the scenario where we are about to lynch our real doc. Doc will claim, and mafia will almost surely not cc. We will hastily lynch somebody else (probably a mislynch), and our doc will die that night anyway. So, this policy maybe saves us 1 ML in the case where we are about to lynch our doc.
IMO, the benefits don't outweigh the costs, and this is not a good policy.
B) We lynch our top suspect even if they roleclaim doc -- don't wait for a cc + Show Spoiler +
I like this policy much better. Under this policy, mafia have no prospect of worming their way out of a lynch by fakeclaiming doc. The only downside is that we may in fact ML on our real doc, but that is a risk that I'm willing to take.
In summary: I think policy B is much better than policy A. I will not unvote a scummy candidate just because he is claiming doc. I will not even ask for counterclaims. I believe this to be the best policy for this setup, and suggest that you all adhere to it as well. Cop/Tracker/WatcherDepending on the situations with the doc and the scum RB'r, I might be willing to unvote an otherwise scummy candidate if they roleclaim cop/tracker/watcher, depending on the plausibility of the claim. I think that the policy of waiting for a cc is better in this case for a few reasons: 1) We can avoid mislynching on our cop/tracker/watcher. 2) Not only can we avoid the mislynch on a blue, but cop/tracker/watcher can be kept alive during night phases by the doc. So, we can get some more reports (if RB'r is dead). 3) If we are about to lynch a mafia and they have a good cop/tracker/watcher fakeclaim ready, this would force our real cop/tracker/watcher to out himself, which really isn't the end of the world so long as we have a doc alive. Letting mafia know the identity of our cop/tracker/watcher is not nearly as bad as letting mafia know the identity of our doc. In summary: If cop/tracker/watcher is about to be lynched, I think they should claim. If the claim makes sense, I'd possibly be willing to leave them alive (unless there is a counterclaim of course).
How many people should we aim to lynch each day?+ Show Spoiler +This game uses a plurality lynch system with a twist: if multiple players are tied with the highest number of votes, then all players included in said tie are lynched. This leaves open the possibility for us to intentionally create a tie amongst several candidates in order to lynch all of them and increase our KP. I have thought about this a LOT over the past couple days and have come to the following conclusions: 1) Trying to lynch 3 or more players on the same day is usually a very bad idea + Show Spoiler +reasoning is somewhat involved... not gonna type it all out unless someone is interested 2) There are situations where it is clearly in our best interest to lynch 2 people in one day + Show Spoiler +
Here are two clear examples to prove my point. So don't close your mind to the possibility.
Example #1: 3 VT's and 1 goon remain
This is MYLO, and we would have roughly a 25% chance of winning the game if we lynch one person.
It is clearly better to lynch 2 people in this situation. This increases our odds to 50%. You might ask how this would be accomplished. Well, label the four remaining players A, B, C, and D. Assume that the consensus opinion is that A and B are most likely town and C and D are most likely mafia (due to either blue information or scumreads). Now voting goes as follows:
A votes for C
B votes for D
C votes for D
D votes for C
Note that neither C nor D can prevent their own lynch, so they might as well take the other scummy player down with them. Town gets off 2 lynches and has at least a 50% chance of winning.
Example #2: 6 VT's and 1 goon remain
Through conventional lynching methods, town can afford exactly 2 mislynches. The first mislynch and subsequent NK would bring us down to 4 VT's and 1 goon. The 2nd mislynch and subsequent NK would bring us down to 2 VT's and 1 goon. We can afford two mislynches and no more.
However, if we arrange a lynch on 2 people on the first day, we can afford a total of 3 mislynches. Even if both people we lynch on the first day turn out to be town, the mafia NK will bring us down to 3 VT's and 1 goon. As detailed above, we can still lynch 2 more people, 1 of which may be a mislynch. So in total, we get off 4 lynches in the worst-case scenario.
Lynching two people at a time lets us lynch one extra person in this scenario, and is clearly beneficial.
3) We should only aim to lynch one person on D1 + Show Spoiler +
This is for two major reasons.
1) It is generally acknowledged that D1 reads are least reliable. It seems a bit overly ambitious to make two lynches after only 48 hours of scumhunting.
2) In order for a double-lynch to be successfully orchestrated, absolutely everybody must agree that it is in our best interest. I can't see this happening today. Therefore, I think we would just waste a lot of valuable time arguing about this policy, and any naysayers would sabotage the plan in the end anyway.
So yea, let's just lynch 1 person today.
Wow that was long.
Unfortunately, I'm already late for work, so I won't be posting much (if at all) for the next 8-10 hours. I urge everyone to start making meaningful posts ASAP because D1 always feels too short.
|
On August 08 2012 00:46 Forumite wrote:
What´s the point of watcher and tracker? DT is easy, check someone you think is scum. Watcher and Tracker just seem like weaker versions of a DT, with many false positive results. Are there any advantages?
I agree that watcher seems like weaker version of cop. Tracker seems pretty useless for everything except confirming our doc IMO. I'm not expecting mafia to be all that liberal with their RB'r.
On August 08 2012 00:50 marvellosity wrote:
Relatedly, and it should go without saying but sometimes I see people not adhere to this, everyone must let town know when they've been roleblocked.
100% agree that townies should always claim roleblocks in this setup.
On August 08 2012 00:51 ShiaoPi wrote:
@scib:
I can agree with your thoughts about the roleclaims, but I have a question about the 1+ Lynches.
In your 2nd example you say that we can get an extralynch off if we lynch 2 instead of 1 at 6 vs 1
wouldn't it end still in 2 cycles as the night following a double mislynch would be 4-1. with the subsequent nighthit it gets to 3-1 and another mislynch ends the game as it will be 1-1 after the NK.
Just my maths being wrong or an oversight from your side?
Ah but shiaopi you must build upon what you have learned. After a double mislynch you are correct that it would be 4 vs 1. Then after the NK, it would be 3 vs 1. Then, borrowing the idea from Example #1, we can lynch 2 people in that situation, not just 1, for a total of 4 total lynches, not 3.
|
On August 08 2012 01:01 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 01:00 sciberbia wrote:On August 08 2012 00:46 Forumite wrote:
What´s the point of watcher and tracker? DT is easy, check someone you think is scum. Watcher and Tracker just seem like weaker versions of a DT, with many false positive results. Are there any advantages?
I agree that watcher seems like weaker version of cop. Tracker seems pretty useless for everything except confirming our doc IMO. I'm not expecting mafia to be all that liberal with their RB'r. What do you mean by this?
Well I don't really want to get into scum strategy, but what I meant is that if there is a tracker/watcher about, I'm expecting scum to be extremely careful about actually using their RB at all.
|
On August 08 2012 01:33 Keirathi wrote:
Sciberbia: any reason that 6v1 and 3v1 are the only places double lynch could work, or were those just the only 2 examples you mentions but there are in fact other ones?
I am quite sure that there are other situations in which it is beneficial to double-lynch. I just used those two examples because there is very clearly an upside and no downside.
In a perfect, idealized world, I don't think double-lynch can ever actually hurt (unless it puts us in situation where scum can pull some voting shenanigans and end the game). However this is not a perfect world, I don't think the extra bickering over policy is worth some slight mathematical benefits, one of the reasons I'm not advocating a double-lynch today.
|
Just got home and I'm about to reread and form some preliminary reads. Just wanted to clear some things up about the setup (you guys would do well to read my pregame posts):
On August 08 2012 00:53 marvellosity wrote:
hum, Can mafia roleblocker roleblock and kill, or must the duties be separated?
On August 08 2012 06:03 Forumite wrote:
Can scum send the roleblocker to perform the nightkill AND roleblock even when there are other goblins alive, thereby reducing the number of people at risk of being Tracked?
The roleblocker is allowed to both RB and NK in the same night. See here: + Show Spoiler +On August 05 2012 16:59 Bluelightz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 15:43 sciberbia wrote:
...
Can the scum roleblocker both carry out a kill and roleblock in the same night?
...
...
Yes.
...
However, keep in mind that tracker cannot track night kills.
On August 08 2012 06:24 risk.nuke wrote:
Bluelightz, what's the point of having adesignated mafia killer when it's completely uneffected by town roles?
If the watcher is watching the person who dies, the watcher will know who killed him. See here:+ Show Spoiler +On August 05 2012 17:36 Bluelightz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 17:28 sciberbia wrote:On August 05 2012 16:59 Bluelightz wrote:
Tracker & Watcher show's role block action as they track role actions and not factional actions.
So let's hypothetically say that I am a mafia goon and on N1 I carry out the mafia night kill on Keirathi.
If the tracker was tracking sciberbia, will he see that sciberbia visited Keirathi?
If the watcher was watching Keirathi, will he see that sciberbia visited Keirathi?
Tracker finds nothing. Watcher finds that Keirathi was visited by sciberbia.
On August 08 2012 06:15 HiroPro wrote:
Tracker doesn't track night kills. And if it's a setup with a tracker, there's a good chance scum would hold their RBs. On August 08 2012 06:28 marvellosity wrote:
that's fucking ridiculous. so you have one setup - cop, which is already by far the most powerful
then you neuter the other two setups completely by denying watcher/tracker of like 90% of their power.
wtf is that about.
Yes, tracker is almost laughably bad. Cop >>> watcher >>> tracker. But we're stuck with whatever we've got.
|
On August 08 2012 08:40 DoYouHas wrote:
P.S. Could someone explain the innocent child thing to me? I looked up the term on mafiascumwiki and it didn't seem to apply to this game.
@DoYouHas
An innocent child is a mod-confirmed townie with no special powers.
HiroPro pointed out that (a potentially existent) tracker is a rather useless blue as far as actual night abilities go. However, HiroPro's idea was to essentially turn tracker into an Innocent child by having tracker claim today.
If the tracker were to claim today, mafia would be very unlikely to counterclaim, and we would essentially have a confirmed townie with no special powers (seeing as he would be a RB-magnet), hence the term innocent child.
I'm fairly indifferent about this idea myself. I agree with marv's recent sentiments that we are wasting too much time talking about a potentially existent tracker, and it's time to start scumhunting.
|
On August 08 2012 09:36 Forumite wrote:
@sciberbia
Fair enough, we´ve talked too much about the innocent child and need to scumhunt. Any tips on where to start?
Also, did you write your first post with all the policy in advance?
@Forumite
Yes, I have some tips on where to start. See my next post.
And no, I didn't start actually writing my first post until I read my role PM. But I've been thinking a lot about the setup ever since I /in'd, and I outlined everything I wanted to say on some scratch paper (I was planning on making the same post regardless of my role). I didn't want to be too late for work this morning lol.
|
OK I've made brief notes on everybody. Here are the people I find sketchiest so far:
Shiaopi
On August 08 2012 00:08 ShiaoPi wrote:
Well well, let's get started!
Skip policytalking, we all know lurkers suck, you should not lie etc. etc. LiquidTomb's fallen demand justice, so let's go hammer some goblins.
I agree with Forumite that this post seems off. Shiaopi is no vet, yet he starts off the thread with this bravado, confidence, and authority. It just doesn't seem to fit with the more reserved Shiaopi I remember from NMM XIV. I see this post as a conscious attempt to look bold, which fits in more with scum goals than town goals.
+ Show Spoiler +On August 08 2012 05:39 ShiaoPi wrote:
@HiroPro:
Seeing as you seem to want a tracker to claim at some point, how do you plan to confirm him (like an innocent child would be)? I don't think we would get mod-confirmation for a tracker and therefore scum could fakeclaim just as well. Kind of defeats the entire purpose you had when you try to confirm a townie via claiming. On August 08 2012 06:28 ShiaoPi wrote:
@risk:
It's more the general concept of Hiro to use a tracker claim as means of confirming town that I am against, not against claiming in general, but scum can easily counterclaim so it won't work that way.
Shiaopi's analysis of HiroPro's innocent child proposal really doesn't sit well with me. He objects to the innocent child plan on the grounds that the tracker wouldn't even be confirmed town because scum might counterclaim.
On August 08 2012 06:36 ShiaoPi wrote:
While it would be sub-optimal play for scum to trade 1 for 1 that early, you cannot dismiss the possibility.
This is the part I have an issue with. He admits that it would actually be suboptimal for scum to counterclaim, but says that you should consider the possibility anyway.
This suggests to me that he was just nitpicking the plan for the sake of nitpicking the plan. Why would townie Shiaopi object to a plan on the grounds that scum will play suboptimally and defeat the plan? Shouldn't he be assuming scum plays optimally? I'd really like other people's opinions on this point, because I might be biased by my own view of the innocent child proposal.
prplhz
On August 08 2012 06:43 prplhz wrote:
Too weak?
Callign ShiaoPi out for nothing and now you are actually complaining about the setup, in a game that already started. What exactly are you trying to do?
This post seems sketchy. He is basically just criticizing Fortumite's play for the sake of criticizing Fortumite's play. This isn't constructive in any way -- prplhz doesn't say or even directly imply that Fortumite is scummy.
Forumite
I'm surprised nobody is calling out Forumite as I write this. His wishy/washy suspicions on Shiaopi are clearly sketchy:
+ Show Spoiler +On August 08 2012 00:46 Forumite wrote:
I think ShiaoPi is a Goblin
On August 08 2012 01:09 Forumite wrote:
I´d prefer not to discuss my read yet though, I hope you understand. On August 08 2012 06:07 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 05:38 prplhz wrote:
Hey didn't read thread yet can anybody tell me who is scum? Yay, prplhz! ShiaoPi looks like scum, just read the few introposts. On August 08 2012 06:37 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 06:08 marvellosity wrote:On August 08 2012 06:07 Forumite wrote:On August 08 2012 05:38 prplhz wrote:
Hey didn't read thread yet can anybody tell me who is scum? Yay, prplhz! ShiaoPi looks like scum, just read the few introposts. don't be insidious, explain why you find them scummy or shut up about it. Okay. It´s based on the first post, quoted below: Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 00:08 ShiaoPi wrote:
Well well, let's get started!
Skip policytalking, we all know lurkers suck, you should not lie etc. etc. LiquidTomb's fallen demand justice, so let's go hammer some goblins.
When I read that I see someone who is rushing a greeting to show that he´s here, doesn´t say anything on his own views and wants to shut down policydiscussion. It´s the very first post of the game, and he wants us to NOT talk about the only thing there is to talk about. On August 08 2012 07:00 Forumite wrote:
On ShiaoPi, I wanted to see if my scumsenses were working after my break with a quick read. No, I´m not convinced he´s scum.
Seems like he makes a falsely confident read, voices a falsely confident case, and then backs off when marv and prplhz call him out on it.
I'd appreciate some thoughts on any of the points I brought up.
|
@forumite
Can you more fully explain your initial read on shiaopi, your current read on shiaopi, and why your read has changed? That last post makes it look like you have completely thrown out your initial suspicions on shiaopi. Is this solely because people such as prplhz have disagreed with you?
|
@keirathi
I'm glad you find Forumite's explanation suspicious as well, because I don't think I've ever felt this good about a scumread after only 12 hours of D1. I'm planning on writing a sizeable case against him as soon as I finish playing my evening starcraft.
If you're still online, can you tell you me if you agree with anything I said about shiaopi?
|
my case on Forumite. Sorry for the length, but I think it's worth a thorough read.
His read on shiaopi (the logical inconsistencies)
1) Why didn't he explain his initial read on shiaopi?+ Show Spoiler +On August 08 2012 00:46 Forumite wrote:
I think shiaopi is a Goblin
On August 08 2012 01:09 Forumite wrote:
I´d prefer not to discuss my read yet though, I hope you understand. On August 08 2012 03:17 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 01:12 shiaopi wrote:
Well, I understand if you understand me not taking it serious at all then. That´s okay, you are more likely to scumslip if you don´t think there´s any danger. If Forumite wanted shiaopi to feel a sense of security, why did Forumite voice his suspicions of shiaopi at all? I see no good explanation for why Forumite voiced his suspicions, but would not explain them. I find it suspicious that Forumite tried to provide townie motivation for his behavior, but it didn't really make sense.
2) What exactly did Forumite find scummy about shiaopi?+ Show Spoiler +On August 08 2012 06:37 Forumite wrote:Okay. It´s based on the first post, quoted below: Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 00:08 shiaopi wrote:
Well well, let's get started!
Skip policytalking, we all know lurkers suck, you should not lie etc. etc. LiquidTomb's fallen demand justice, so let's go hammer some goblins.
When I read that I see someone who is rushing a greeting to show that he´s here, doesn´t say anything on his own views and wants to shut down policydiscussion. It´s the very first post of the game, and he wants us to NOT talk about the only thing there is to talk about. When I asked Forumite to explain precisely why he has changed his mind about shiaopi, Forumite said this: On August 08 2012 11:11 Forumite wrote:
Current read:
Nullread. I´ve thrown out my initial scumread, it was probably just the one odd post, especially as shiaopi showed that he was willing to discuss the setup just a few posts after the initial incriminating post. What I gather from this is that: -- Forumite's main beef with shiaopi was shiaopi's stance on policy discussion -- Forumite later decided to null this suspicion because shiaopi showed willingness to discuss the setup This logic is dubious to me, but what I find really suspicious is that Forumite continued to talk about his bold, red scumread on shiaopi even after shiaopi made some posts about setup and policy. The timing doesn't match up. Here are the relevant posts in chronological order: + Show Spoiler +On August 08 2012 00:46 Forumite wrote:
I think shiaopi is a Goblin
On August 08 2012 00:51 shiaopi wrote:
@scib:
I can agree with your thoughts about the roleclaims, but I have a question about the 1+ Lynches.
In your 2nd example you say that we can get an extralynch off if we lynch 2 instead of 1 at 6 vs 1
wouldn't it end still in 2 cycles as the night following a double mislynch would be 4-1. with the subsequent nighthit it gets to 3-1 and another mislynch ends the game as it will be 1-1 after the NK.
Just my maths being wrong or an oversight from your side?
On August 08 2012 00:55 shiaopi wrote:
Watcher/Tracker are probably weaker than DT. Speculating on them being in the possible setups does not get us far though imo. Maybe for balance purposes but as marv points out the watcher at least has 2 things to watch. On August 08 2012 00:58 shiaopi wrote:
Ah so another doublelynch instead of a single one. Makes sense now. On August 08 2012 05:39 shiaopi wrote:
@HiroPro:
Seeing as you seem to want a tracker to claim at some point, how do you plan to confirm him (like an innocent child would be)? I don't think we would get mod-confirmation for a tracker and therefore scum could fakeclaim just as well. Kind of defeats the entire purpose you had when you try to confirm a townie via claiming. On August 08 2012 05:54 shiaopi wrote:So your scenario would not differ much from a standard claim and therefore it should be examined and then judged based on the situation and not just accepted (like child claim would be), would be too easy for scum then. Too bad I thought you found a way to circumvent the gamerules to modconfirm a tracker  On August 08 2012 06:07 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 05:38 prplhz wrote:
Hey didn't read thread yet can anybody tell me who is scum? Yay, prplhz! shiaopi looks like scum, just read the few introposts. On August 08 2012 06:21 shiaopi wrote:
But stilll there is no need for him to claim. Just with his presence it would let our doc work much easier as scum cannot do too many RB's with his potential check. Do not see the need to lynch both claimers, just evaluate on the claims independently,I dislike both options , whether it is giving it a freepass or lynching. On August 08 2012 06:36 shiaopi wrote:
While it would be sub-optimal play for scum to trade 1 for 1 that early, you cannot dismiss the possibility.
On the other hand I could see it working out for the better if he claims as early as you suggest. He would leave scum fishing for the doc between the other townies. On August 08 2012 06:37 Forumite wrote:Okay. It´s based on the first post, quoted below: Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 00:08 shiaopi wrote:
Well well, let's get started!
Skip policytalking, we all know lurkers suck, you should not lie etc. etc. LiquidTomb's fallen demand justice, so let's go hammer some goblins.
When I read that I see someone who is rushing a greeting to show that he´s here, doesn´t say anything on his own views and wants to shut down policydiscussion. It´s the very first post of the game, and he wants us to NOT talk about the only thing there is to talk about. ... On August 08 2012 11:11 Forumite wrote:
Current read:
Nullread. I´ve thrown out my initial scumread, it was probably just the one odd post, especially as shiaopi showed that he was willing to discuss the setup just a few posts after the initial incriminating post. To recap 1) shiaopi is aganist discussing setup/policy 2) Forumite finds shiaopi very suspicious for not discussing setup/policy 3) shiaopi discusses a good deal of setup/policy 4) Forumite still finds shiaopi quite suspicious ... 5) Forumite no longer finds shiaopi suspicious because of the posts shiaopi made in phase (3) I trust you can all see the inconsistency here. In Forumite's explanation to me on why he has retracted his suspicions on shiaopi, Forumite references that "shiaopi showed that he was willing to discuss the setup just a few posts after the initial incriminating post". But this did not stop Forumite from telling prplhz all about how shiaopi is scum. And I don't believe for a second that Forumite wasn't paying close attention to shiaopi's posts after he stuck his neck out and accused shiaopi. I see a significant contradiction here.
3) Why exactly did Forumite change his mind on shiaopi?+ Show Spoiler +This post took him 28 minuts to come up with after I asked him to more fully explain why he changed his opinion on shiaopi: On August 08 2012 11:11 Forumite wrote:
Current read:
Nullread. I´ve thrown out my initial scumread, it was probably just the one odd post, especially as shiaopi showed that he was willing to discuss the setup just a few posts after the initial incriminating post. I changed my mind because I knew I wasn´t getting anywhere. I didn´t have much to start with, and I got conflicting reads the first time I reexamined the case. That HiroPro, marvel and prplhz spoke up against me making accusations and/or against the actual case mattered a lot too, because I doubted my read if none of the other "veterans" agreed, and because I didn´t want to distract the thread more than I had allready done.
That´s about it, I´m back to square one on shiaopi. OK so let me break this down: 1) shiaopi showed that he was willing to discuss the setup -- I discussed my issues with this logic previously 2) Forumite knew he wasn't getting anywhere -- This means nothing to me 3) Forumite didn't have much to start with and got conflicting reads -- That's not what it sounded like when he told prplhz how shiaopi is scum 4) The vets didn't agree This last point about the vets I find especially bad. Forumite references marv, HiroPro, and prplhz marvOn August 08 2012 06:08 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 06:07 Forumite wrote:On August 08 2012 05:38 prplhz wrote:
Hey didn't read thread yet can anybody tell me who is scum? Yay, prplhz! shiaopi looks like scum, just read the few introposts. don't be insidious, explain why you find them scummy or shut up about it. This is all marv says on shiaopi. Marv doesn't actually give any read on shiaopi whatsoever. Marv merely expresses displeasure at Forumite's behavior. This does not count as 'disagreeing with the case' HiroProOn August 08 2012 05:00 HiroPro wrote:
(directed at Mordanis)
What do you think of Forumite witholding his reason for thinking Shiao is scum? On August 08 2012 06:49 HiroPro wrote:
Forumite, what do you make of the fact that Shiao has been willing to discuss the setup right after that? In the first quote, HiroPro casts some doubt on Forumite's behavior, but doesn't address shiaopi at all. In the second quote, unless I'm mistaken, HiroPro is actually supporting the idea that shiaopi is scum, by showing how shiaopi has contradicted his own distaste for discussing setup/policy. HiroPro certainly doesn't "disagree" with the case in any way. prplhzOn August 08 2012 06:43 prplhz wrote:
Too weak?
Callign shiaopi out for nothing and now you are actually complaining about the setup, in a game that already started. What exactly are you trying to do? prplhz does think that Forumite's case on shiaopi is bad, but like Keirathi said, why on earth is Forumite taking prplhz's opinion into account here? First of all, prplhz has done nothing to convince anyone that he is town. And secondly, prplhz doesn't even explain why the case on shiaopi is bad. Put yourself in Forumite's shoes: 1) You have a scumread on shiaopi that you feel good enough about to announce to the thread 2) some vet comes into the thread and calls you an idiot but doesn't justify himself 3) You conclude that you must have been wrong about your scumread??? It just doesn't follow. See his thoughts on prplhz here: On August 08 2012 10:39 Forumite wrote:
On prplhz
Right now I´m in danger of falling into the OMGUS-trap, because the only thing I´ve gotten from him is the greeting and him calling me out. prplhz calling me out makes me think there´s something wrong with MY play, which makes prplhz a nulltell. I have a hard time believing that this would be any townie's reaction to essentially being called an idiot with no justification given.
Other scummy points
the way in which he discredits his own reads+ Show Spoiler +On August 08 2012 10:39 Forumite wrote:
On me
HiroPro called me out too.
I agree that my case was bad and that it makes me look bad, but I object to one thing; I´m always falsely confident of my bad reads.
I find this response suspicious. It looks like he is trying to garner sympathy and not inflate the issue. I don't know why a townie would call his own cases bad and cast doubt on his own scumhunting ability.
he seems scared of marv, prplhz, me + Show Spoiler +Not sure if all of this really fits under the term buddying, but I get the feeling that he is playing a bit scared of influential players: marv-- Forumite explains his read on shiaopi only when demanded by marv -- "I agree with marvellosity, not tracking nightkills make the Tracker and Watcher too weak." -- changes his read on shiaopi based on opinion of vet marv prplhzHis interactions with prplhz seem really odd. It's like he worships prplhz. I looked through Forumite's D1 of Wheel of Fortune, where Forumite was scum and spent some time defending prplhz, so I find this especially suspicious. On August 08 2012 06:07 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 05:38 prplhz wrote:
Hey didn't read thread yet can anybody tell me who is scum? Yay, prplhz! shiaopi looks like scum, just read the few introposts. -- backs off his read on shiaopi after scolded by prplhz -- concludes that he himself must be playing bad because prplhz thinks he is scummy meOn August 08 2012 09:36 Forumite wrote:
@sciberbia
Fair enough, we´ve talked too much about the innocent child and need to scumhunt. Any tips on where to start? On August 08 2012 10:39 Forumite wrote:
On me
HiroPro called me out too.
I agree that my case was bad and that it makes me look bad, but I object to one thing; I´m always falsely confident of my bad reads.
It's actually remarkable how much of his filter I take issue with considering we are like 15 hours into D1. As I've been writing this case, I have a pretty good feeling about it. The only thing that really makes me hesitate is it seems almost too obvious, and that no scum would be so obvious on D1. Forumite doesn't seem like a bad/noob player, and I think he made it to the end of Wheel of Fortune as scum.
I really want opinions on this case. If you are online, please post your thoughts.
I think Forumite is more likely scum than not, and he is far and away my top scum candidate at this point, so
##Vote Forumite
|
On August 08 2012 16:35 slOosh wrote:
Here you take issue with the same post that your case on Forumite is based off. What are your current thoughts on ShiaoPi, and how do they play in relation with Forumite?
@sloOsh
Earlier, I pointed out two things in Shiaopi's filter that I feel are a cause for concern. Nothing in his filter jumps out at me as especially townie-looking, so overall I'm slightly suspicious of Shiaopi.
My personal views on shiaopi's posts don't really factor into my case on Forumite at all. I'm not saying Forumite is scummy because he made a bad case on a townie looking player. Rather, I think Forumite is scummy (in part) due to inconsistencies in the way in which he presented his case, explained his case, and backed down from his case. His first actual points about shiaopi's first post seem reasonable IMO, although I think he overstates their importance by calling shiaopi scum.
I'm not sure if you are trying to ask if I think Shiaopi and Forumite can both be scum, but the answer would be that I'm not really thinking about them that way right now. Forumite looks rather suspicious to me regardless of Shiaopi's alignment.
|
Checking in from work.
Mordanis
I don't feel that strongly about him one way or the other. I'll look closer at him and provide more detailed thoughts if he is still up for lynching when I get home this evening.
Custos Luna
I'm kinda surprised marv is voting for CL when he seemed to like my case on Forumite. As far as I can tell, the bulk of marv's issue with CL is that CL didn't provide much content (until recently). Marv clearly sees this as alignment indicative, but not contributing any content isn't good town play or good scum play, so I wouldn't be comfortable voting CL on the evidence thus far.
Forumite
Nobody has really dissuaded me from my case on Forumite. I still think he is most likely to flip scum. I just want to point out this further, direct contradiction since my last posts:
On August 08 2012 17:45 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:35 slOosh wrote:
Read sciberbia's case and it's pretty good - there are some clear inconsistencies in Forumite's play, and he does seem to be "taking the temperature" of the thread according to player sentiments. I'd disagree with some of your interpretations of said players' intentions but it doesn't change the fact of Forumite's reactionary play. It could possibly be a result of lowered confidence in play due to a period of inactivity, so I'll be waiting to see how he responds to it. I think it went like; "Hey guys, ShiaoPi looks scum to me! Let´s pressure him!" "Nah, I don´t see it, let´s not pressure him." "Oh, okay, nevermind then." ... Even my first post accusing ShiaoPi of being scum was premature, it would have been better to take that initial read as a sign to watch ShiaoPi more closely, but at the time I wanted to create some pressure.
Forumite clearly states that he wanted to pressure shiaopi. If Forumite had explained his read and asked for other players' opinions, that would have constituted a legitmate attempt at pressure.
But, what Forumite did, stating that you think somebody is scum, not explaining why, and then talking about other things in the thread, is not creating pressure. Forumite's early posts don't look like at attempt to create pressure at all IMO.
On August 08 2012 03:17 Forumite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 01:12 ShiaoPi wrote:
Well, I understand if you understand me not taking it serious at all then. That´s okay, you are more likely to scumslip if you don´t think there´s any danger.
Furthermore, you can see from that early Forumite quote that he was consciously trying not to make Shiaopi feel too much pressure. Am I missing something here? Because it looks like Forumite is directly contradicting his earlier stated intentions.
I still have a hard time believing that Forumite is townie.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On August 09 2012 02:57 DoYouHas wrote:
Currently I am basing my reads as much on intuition as on logic.
Although scrib makes good points against Forumite I don't find myself convinced. The motive I read behind Forumite's inconsistencies and subsequent posts is an attempt to get things going and then trying to both be transparent and move the thread forward. I completely agree that the way he has handled himself so far has been bad, but both town and scum can play badly. What matters is the motivation behind the actions. I feel like his motivation is more likely to be town than scum at the moment.
I agree with CL's opinion of Mord. I see Mord's focus on the VT claim that wasn't really a VT claim and make note of how that whole exchange gained the town exactly zilch and wasted our time. His first and last posts also bother me. His first post only stands out because of the end. He ends his post with a strong statement about how he is going to go scum hunting. What comes of that? 1 Question to CL. Then Mord completely sidetracks to the "VT claim" thing. Then the only other thing we get from him is the very lackluster response to Hiro about Forumite. It reads as very likely to be scum to me.
prplhz is looking worse and worse in my eyes because of his lack of quality early and his lurking now. I don't really have anything new to bring against him as he hasn't written anything new. But his silence is condemning, his apparent desire to fly under the radar while everyone is focusing on Shiao/Mord/Forum. He needs to be kept in the spotlight with all our other suspects and he has earned my vote.
##Vote: prplhz
This post of DoYouHas makes me suspicious of him.
1) Perhaps I am biased, but I don't like his reasons for soft defending Forumite. I don't know how announcing a read but keeping it to yourself is 'transparent' and 'trying to move the thread forward'. His stance on Forumite seems wishy/washy and I'm not a fan.
2) He says that Mordanis reads as 'very likely scum', but then he votes prplhz for lurking? wtf? If you think somebody is very likely scum, and they already have two votes on them, you as a townie should add your vote, not vote for a lurker to 'keep him in the spotlight'.
FoS DoYouHas
|
@Forumite
I know you asked me a question, but I don't have time to address it right now.
On August 09 2012 04:34 DoYouHas wrote:
I have more reasons for voting prplhz than I do Mord right now, and my opinion is only reenforced as time goes by without prplhz contributing.
@DYH
Please answer the following question for me: who do you think is more likely to be scum: Mordanis or prplhz? I'm not asking about who you have more reasons for voting for, or who you want to keep in the spotlight. If you had to bet your life savings right now on who is scum, who would you bet on?
|
On August 09 2012 06:25 Forumite wrote:
Are you talking about how I didn´t follow up my initial accusation of scum with real pressure? I accused him of being scum based in the first post. Since then I realised that my initial my read was unsure and my case weak. Once I had called ShiaoPi scum on weak grounds it was a lose-lose situation. I could drop it and look wishy-washy, or keep it up and look like I was secretive with important information. I opted for the second one, because then at least scum would have to keep guessing, and I might keep a bit of pressure on them. That´s why I didn´t like that you asked me to reveal or shut up, and why I questioned you about it earlier today. It made me (that post was a big part of the reason I dropped the "case") abandon my plan and show that I really had nothing on ShiaoPi.
@Forumite
I don't think that is what marv was asking about.
Can you explain why you didn't simply explain your (supposedly legitimate) read on shiaopi in your first couple posts where you called him scum?
Please clearly explain
1) Why you thought it was a good idea to announce your read
2) Why you thought it was a good idea to not explain your read
@prplhz
If you are going to lurk, and admit to being lurkish, could you at least give a good reason for your lurking? Are you just disinterested in the game for some reason? Will you contribute more in future?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
