EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XXV
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
| ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On August 23 2012 23:45 Dandel Ion wrote: Oh if that's the case, then it's okay.. My next scumread is ghost. Clearly a scumslip Pointing fingers everywhere and causing chaos. ## Vote Dandel Ion | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
| ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
Reasoning? I don't want to give scum the "second mover" advantage where they can just park outside the thread and then push depending on which way the wind is blowing. If scum lurk outside the thread and then come in late, I want them to pay for it by being forced to dump a read right from the get go without being able to test the waters beforehand. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On August 24 2012 08:54 Lvdr wrote: Having learned from hapa, I think mafia tend to be pretty lurky in newbie games. Therefore, d1 lurker lynch is a great policy. However, this should not be a reason to not be scum hunting: scum hunting is vital, and forcing reads early is how town can catch mafia later in the game. I'm confused here: you seem to be implying that D1 lurker lynch and scumhunting are mutually exclusive. How? | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On August 24 2012 06:30 mkfuba07 wrote: Hi everyone! I'm going to second everything that thrawn has said, as well as mention that this goes for night as well as day. As long as we keep the scumhunting going during the day, I think the conversation will carry over into night as well. Let's just make sure we keep it up! :S I don't get what you're trying to say here. If you believe the scumhunting convo will carry automatically from day to night, then why do you need to encourage activity specifically during the night as well? | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On August 24 2012 09:03 Lvdr wrote: Shady this is like the third game I've played with you in the last few days. If you don't know my lurker policy you must be thick as a brick. Policy: LYNCH LURKERS. Hopefully there are no lurkers and we can vote scumreads. Fair enough, just wanted to get a clarification off you. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
| ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On August 24 2012 09:25 Lvdr wrote: Wait has everyone posted already? I think so. Right now I'm concerned about Kush. His post at the very best is completely useless to town. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On August 24 2012 09:33 kushm4sta wrote: So everyone wants to lynch me because I didn't share my thoughts about if lurkers are really bad or just kind of bad? Everyone's posts so far have been useless IMO. I have a lot of free time so yeah I will read this thread pretty much constantly and carefully. And as soon as I suspect someone or have something to say I will say it. But at this point it's impossible to know anything about anyone so dont point fingers at me because Im new. No worries, all of us here were once new (or are new). What I meant there was that when you post something which is basically "I have nothing to say" Then that doesn't help out the town, because the town doesn't get a read on your opinion, one way or another. Even on small things like lurker lynching, that's important, because every opinion is another piece of evidence for town to better determine whether or not you're guilty. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
| ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On August 24 2012 09:34 thrawn2112 wrote: If it comes down to voting for a strong scumread and one of several lurkers, I'd rather go with the scumread. Being too focused on lurkers caused me to play poorly in my last game. If I make a strong case against a player I am definitely going to vote for them. Excluding that, lynching a lurker is the backup plan. FWIW I think what happened last game was that you got me lynched when I rolled town, in spite of me being the most active D1 poster by far, so I'm not sure how you could say that your focus on lurkers caused you to play poorly in the last game. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On August 24 2012 09:54 thrawn2112 wrote: you know... my whole obsession with archrun and the vig shot on him N1 thing Ah, I wasn't around for that.... being dead, thanks to you. j/k I tunneled you just as hard that game, no hard feelings. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On August 24 2012 10:02 thrawn2112 wrote: By that you mean examining and questioning everything he possibly can? I gotta agree with that. Well someone has to do it. The last game's attempt to spark activity (mass posting filters) turned out to be a waste of time. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
| ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On August 24 2012 06:30 mkfuba07 wrote: Hi everyone! I'm going to second everything that thrawn has said, as well as mention that this goes for night as well as day. As long as we keep the scumhunting going during the day, I think the conversation will carry over into night as well. Let's just make sure we keep it up! So MkFuba was fairly active before the game started, then posts as soon as the game starts... then is silent when everyone is actually making cases--in spite of arguing for the benefits of active scumhunting. His behavior thus far doesn't line up with what he's been arguing for. Also, he's pushing for active night posting, which is kind of strange from a townie perspective. Townies usually don't think about day/night cycles in terms of activity. And finally, his meta lines up with how he played when he rolled scum with me in the first half of XXIII, so, for now: FoS mkfuba07 Reviewing the other cases posted, will add my reads on them after I get some work done. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On August 24 2012 11:45 kushm4sta wrote: Wow you sounded really smart about lvdr he seems fishy how he constantly shifts the focus to those he knows aren't mafia. And he does it in a very non constructive way. However you suspect me for some reason which is just wrong. If I were mafia I would be super nice and would not be aggressive or defensive in any way actually. It's because im town that I'm not afraid to act like this because I have nothing to hide. Basically I think you are mistaking "bad play" for guilt. Lvdr is 85 percent mafia in my mind though. We should lynch him. You can't apply what you would do if you yourself rolled scum to other scum behavior, except in a set of very limited circumstances (e.g. scum will usually never bus their scumbuddy on D1, barring an imminent townie-led lynch on their scumbuddy.) Why do you think Lvdr is scum? | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On August 24 2012 15:00 Alsn wrote: I'd just like to state the fact that among the people that have been active so far, every single one has pointed out that kushm4sta's posting quality has not been particularly stellar or helpful from town's point of view, it has sparked a lot of conversation, I also feel that we have all conveyed our feelings that in order for his posting to help town, he needs to start putting a lot more thought into his arguments. That being said, while there has been some analysis of other posters, I would love it if we could stop focusing on kushm4sta for now. This in order to make sure people who hasn't contributed much yet are grilled about it, and that we make sure there is more than a single person being attacked. I noticed that Shady Sands also completely dodged the accusations by Spaghetticus after a post claiming he had to get some work done but has been very busy on TL for the last 2,5 hours. So, in conclusion, please stop the tunnelvisioning on kushm4sta for now and let's see if we can't find something else to talk about for a while too. After all, there's a lot of time left before lynch. That was the work I was talking about. Got the email with a request to do some on the ground research about it =) | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On August 24 2012 12:34 Spaghetticus wrote: ... I do however, disagree with Lvdr's assessment of Shady Sands. He has been very critical so far, but nothing he has said comes to mind as particularly proactive (I'll eat my word if he can give me a counter-example). In particular, his critique of Lvdr's comment: filter On August 24 2012 08:54 Lvdr wrote: He said: This seems like empty criticism, as he almost seems to deliberately misinterpret the statement in order to give himself something to say. If Lvdr thinks we should lynch lurkers, but not give up actively scumhunting in order to do this, then it does not at all seem that he is suggesting these two things are mutually exclusive. Yet this is what Shady seems to suggest. Furthermore, Lvdr has played with Shady before, and claims that Shady should by now have an idea of Lvdr's policy preference. Soon afterwards, he had the following criticism of Fubu's post: On August 24 2012 06:30 mkfuba07 wrote: He wrote: This is an accurate criticism, but not particularly useful. IMO (and fubu feel free to step in and correct me) Fubu's post was poorly written and he mistakenly made his both a descriptive and prescriptive assertion: that we will all look for scum during the day and the night and that we should all look for scum in the day and the night. If my interpretation is correct, then this is a completely understandable mistake and speaks extremely little of some scummy motivation he may or may not have. So far I have shown you two examples of what I believe are needlessly critical posts, that is: posts that are needlessly skeptical of things that will not help us catch scum. Now, as WeeTe has already mentioned, posting lots is generally attributed to town behaviour. However, posting lots of unproductive criticism seems like the sort of thing a scum would do to look like town but not contribute to the lynching of scum. FoS Shady Sands I would like to note that I am the first person to my knowledge that is acting against Shady, and IMO I am the first person to put up a decent reason to actually suspect anyone. I'm gonna get back to study, and I'll likely be unable to post for the next 11 hours, at which point I'll go through a read and post before heading to bed. On accusing Lvdr: I saw a policy disagreement developing in the thread--between leaning towards lurker lynching versus scumhunting--and I wanted to make sure Lvdr wasn't trying to unfairly equivocate on it. basically, in questions of policy, if someone posts on it, the post should have a clear preference one way or another so that we can judge their later play against their policy prefs--or combine them in such a way to have a clear lean in terms of policy, again, so we can judge their later play against their earlier view on policy. Lvdr's post didn't do that--it just balanced between the two while also saying they were different. I personally feel the two should be balanced but combined, so I wanted to see if Lvdr wanted to keep the two parts separate. On Fuba: most of my doubts on Fuba have gone away by now, but at the time, I thought that Fuba's emphasis on night activity itself is scummy. Scum have greater power to use and abuse the thread than town does at night, so encouraging heavy activity at night without saying daytime activity is more important hands an edge to scum. But given that was his first post I didn't want to push him too hard on it. Now, moving to Kush: Kush is running the classic "bad townie" defense. It's an argument where the poster says: 1) I am a bad townie 2) People are just targeting me because I'm a bad townie, and hence easy to lynch 3) Those people must be targeting me because I'm easy, and not because they actually think I'm scum 4) Because those people aren't targeting me because I'm scum, then they must be trying to trick town 5) They must be scum. This is a really bad defense because every links 1-2, 2-3, and 3-4 are all not 100% airtight. Hence Kush's entire defense, to me, is a wash--it neither makes him look scummier, nor makes him look like more of a townie. If Kush keeps posting like this, though, then I'm probably going to vote him because my initial read will be unchanged. But if Kush decides to start posting coherent, long cases backed by logic instead of OMGUS, then I might change my mind. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On August 24 2012 15:27 Alsn wrote: I do not mean that my suspicion against kush has gone away, I am still not satisfied with his defense against my concerns about his posting. What I mean is that it is harmful for town if we keep arguing back and forth about kush and do not discuss anyone else. This because if it turns out that noone else is scummy, and we lynch him and he turns out to be town and just wasnt defending himself very well, we will be back at square one, except with 5 town against 2 scum(scum will undoubtely kill a townie during night 1). If at that point the only thing we have done is attack someone that had a hard time defending himself, we would have almost no usable information at all to try and find out who is scum and who isnt. Thus, I just want us to all agree that kush needs to get his act together but that we need to start talking about something/someone else too. This is quite true. Kush sucks up more town energy than he provides. He'd be an ideal target for a vigi shot but not one town should waste time trying to lynch over and above all other lynch candidates. | ||
| ||
