EPTDeath Note Mini Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
| ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
On August 30 2012 05:04 Blazinghand wrote: All this and I've been coaching the newbie towns. This newest wave of newbies (some of whom are in this game) will have all kinds of "good" skills and reading comprehension abilities I've passed along to them. Be excited! "reading comprehension abilities"  | ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
If you want me to /out of TL whatever, consider it done. Sorry Palmar, but I see you're in this game too so you can't get too mad. | ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
So I've been reading some discussion about this from past games, and I've decided to come forth and claim. I am a self-aware miller. I'm going to use this post to explain myself and my claim. Hopefully I'll do it well, but I'll also do my best to respond to questions, as well as just to establish my townieness through my play. So first off, why claim now? Well, it's clearly now or never. Millers claiming after they're checked are completely useless - in fact, they're worse than useless since they give actual scum cover to hide and potentially waste a lynch. Second, why claim at all? Well, the main reason is that everyone in this game is a detective. Usually, the main miller mechanic is that the presence of millers puts some doubt on a DT check and people actually have to discuss it. In a game with 30 people and one or two each of detectives and millers, it's pretty unlikely that the miller actually gets targeted with a DT check. (Unless you have a troll host who makes like the best three townies non-self-aware millers, thank you very much BC.) But, like I said, in this game everyone is a detective. I know VTs don't get to actually make DT checks - I guess Zeph wasn't lying when he said he would send everyone in the game a copy of the VT role PM. However, in a setup where everyone is a "detective", I expect that there will be a large number of roles which actually do have DT checks. This means that it's much more likely than normal for a miller to get DT checked. So, it's more important than usual for millers to claim early in this setup. If a non-claimed miller gets DT checked and returns scum, it just fucks with the town and could potentially waste an entire day's lynch. It's much better for the millers to claim on day 1 and then show they're town through their behavior. Like I said before, people claiming miller after day 1 are actively playing anti-town and should be destroyed. So finally, what should this mean for the town and for me? Well, it obviously puts an onus on me to show I'm town through my play. That's fine, I'm going to do my best to live up to that. It is a very exciting time for my experiment, but I can and will post as much as I can from work, as well as both before and after work. I'm also going to do my best to find scum (although historically I tend to be more successful at judging other peoples' cases and less at making my own, but that's why we have other players to judge my cases as well). For the rest of the town - it means you have to think critically about what I say. Am I pushing scum objectives? If so, lynch me. Am I promoting useful discussion that gets info out into the thread, or am I promoting trolling, spam, and ragefests? If any of the latter, lynch me. Are my cases good or bad? If they're bad, don't lynch me - bad cases =\= scum. Just tell me why you think they're bad, and see how I respond. It also means you have to think critically about what other people are saying about me. Putting myself out as a miller should naturally draw attention to me, and that's something scum could try and piggy-back or bandwagon on. If people say I'm scum, think critically about their cases and their motivations. So let's go town! PRE-EDIT: I should be a little bit more specific. I don't know whether checks on me will return scum or town - all I'm told is that some checks on me will return scum instead of town. I speculate that there are different types of DT check in this game and I am only a miller to some of them - maybe L has special DT powers, and one of their advantages is that they are immune to some or all millers? I also don't know whether it's likely to have more than one or two millers in such a small setup, but having a lot of DT power roles could mean we have more millers than normal. If there are other self-aware millers, they should claim asap as well, or else never claim at all. PRE-EDIT TWO: I AM IN EUROPE. This means I will be asleep for deadline; it's at 4:30AM my time. I'll do my best to compensate for this during the days here. | ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
On August 31 2012 11:34 MrZentor wrote: ##Vote: MrZentor + Show Spoiler + I'm not actually allowed to vote for myself, which is why it isn't bold, but just pretend like I did. Yeah, obv scum. Zentor, what is this? I'd really like you to step it up this game. Grush in PTP3 has shown that it really is possible to differentiate between terrible one-liners that do and don't demonstrate that you care about the game, and that actually help scumhunt and move the town forward. I'm not asking too much here, I just would like you to post about things that are relevant to the game. Can you comment on the case against Hapahauli that BlackMamba has put forward? + Show Spoiler [an aside] + BlackMamba, I assume you would prefer we call you that instead of DrH if you're leaving that other name behind for good? We need to figure out how to abbreviate it since we've already got a BM, maybe BMB? Now, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so I also looked into the case on Hapahauli. At first I was very hesitant about it for a couple reasons - first, it always feels a bit off when there's only one lynch candidate, and second, I didn't entirely agree with BMB's case up above my posts. He could be right about the scum motivation for what Hapahauli did, but I could also read that first post as Hapahauli being excited an get into the spirit of the themed game. I don't think he's played any themed games here before, so I thought it was possible that he just thought everyone would play "in character" or something like that. However, here's what I noted from him on my read-through of the thread so far: On August 31 2012 11:46 Hapahauli wrote: I disagree. No one here is a newbie, and every competent town player should know that lurking is bad in a 24 hour setup. As far as I'm concerned, if someone is not putting in the effort on their own after committing to such an intense setup, they are anti-town and deserve significant suspicion. I don't want to have to let anyone know. If someone lurks, my "reminder" will be a D1 lynch hammer, and they'll have to claw their way out to survive. I really don't like this post - I don't think it's a pro-town attitude. Policy lynches aren't "traps" to be sprung, you won't catch scum with a trap you announce beforehand. Policy lynches exist to promote good town behavior, and if you can get that behavior literally any other way, then that's better than the policy lynch. On August 31 2012 11:58 Hapahauli wrote: Actually waaaaait a minute here. Are you suggesting that you'll be lurky or something? Surely you shouldn't be worried about "reminders" or whatnot if you're indeed pro-town and intend to post? ##Vote Hopeless1der I find this to be completely insufficient reasoning to justify a vote. It's aggressive for no reason. My impression here is that Hapahauli is voting Hopeless because he doesn't think Hopeless is on board enough with his anti-lurker policy, rather than because he's scum. Sure, lurking can be scummy, but I see no indication why this post would make Hapahauli think Hopeless is scum. So yeah, at this point hapahauli is my top scum read. However, I'm not quite ready to vote yet - there are a few very good players who haven't posted yet and I'm interested to hear what they have to say. Aaaaand now I'm going to be late for work. T_T | ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
On August 31 2012 19:35 marvellosity wrote: why aren't we policy lynching zentor If Grush could turn over a new, slightly less moldy and gross leaf in PTP3, maybe Zentor can some day too! Anyway, we have an "actual case" to talk about - it may or may not be a good one, so let's maybe talk about it? Marv and Palmar and ghost, what do you guys think of the arguments against Huetzalcoatl? I mean, reading through the game many of the things he's said just give me a 'scum' feeling, but I'm not 100% yet. | ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
Are you saying you have a "town" read on him despite those things, because he's talking while other people are lurking? Or are you saying you think we should be lynching into lurkers rather than posters who contribute, even if we find those contributions suspicious? Because I'm a lot more sympathetic to one of those arguments than to the other. | ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
I've played like two games with him, and he was town in both of them, so he could be some kind of secret scum mastermind and I wouldn't know. But in one of the games I played with him I was really impressed because somehow he managed to just seem "townie" despite barely posting. (In the other game he didn't.) Anyway what I'm trying to say is that he hasn't posted much, but I don't think that's a tell; and that his posts are pretty reasoned-out, but I think that's a sign of him trying to play to his strengths since he just got mislynched in PTP. However, Hopeless - I don't really see much in the way of "actual opinions" or "positions" from you in the thread. I think you're probably town, but let me ask you - what do you think of the hapa situation, or Marv's zentor policy lynch? | ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
| ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
I do think that "he made a bad case" is not sufficient reason to go after blackmamba. I mean, many recent games show that veterans can and do make bad cases on occasion, even when they're town. It's a data point, but not the strongest one. But here's another question we should spend some time discussing before it gets too late. Assuming not enough players agree on lynching either hapahauli or blackmamba, what's better - no lynch or policy lynch on a lurker? The odds of hitting scum with a policy lynch are small unless it's Palmar's magic random lynch - so I see the main benefit of a policy lynch as forcing the survivors to shape up (and maybe some impact on future games, but imo we should be thinking about winning this one). Is that worth probably killing a townie? | ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
Also, I'm considering voting blackmamba based on the Kenpachi rule, after re-reading that little list of opening posts from hapahauli's previous games. That's how I got caught as scum in a game he hosted once, so it would be pretty poetically ironic. Also: On September 01 2012 01:25 Hapahauli wrote: Well since no one else is here, may as well respond to Strongnbig's suspicions: You're mis-interpreting my intent. I'm just saying that we shouldn't have to remind people about their lurkiness. If a player is not taking it upon themselves to establish themeslves as town and make some reads in a game that necessitates activity, they deserve to be lynched. What part of this suggests a "trap?" Aggressive for no reason? A guy made a comment (that I interpret as possibly scummy) that I want an answer to. Therefore I voted. What's the problem here? So the problem with your first point is "bad =\= scum." There are bad townies who don't try very hard to help the town, and if we want to win we need to be lynching scum. Still, another true thing is "thinking bad = scum =\= scum", although "bad=scum" is something scum do sometimes try to push. On the other thing, I guess you have a point - I think hopeless was being reasonable, but if you thought otherwise and your vote was a pressure vote I guess it could have a town motivation. It would have been really suspicious if you'd just tried to tunnel in on that, though. Also, many people need to post more in the next few hours. Actually, what if we RNG the policy lynch between the lurkers? That might actually have a better chance of hitting scum than just choosing one, since scum couldn't nudge the RNG towards a scummy lurker. My lurker list currently reads: node, zentor, palmar, solarsail, and mkfuba, although mkfuba will be off soon if he keeps posting like he said he would. Still guys, node hasn't posted since his /in. With Palmar he could be doing anything on purpose as part of some kind of "plan", but he also has only posted once since the game started. If people are proposing a lurker lynch, I think we should come up with a list that a majority of us can agree on and then RNG it using some method. On the other hand, Marv seems to be proposing a "lynch zentor because he doesn't try" policy lynch. I just don't feel comfortable with that this early in the game, given how grush changed his style in the ptp game. People do change. Still, if zentor doesn't post again a few times before the deadline, I could get on board with it. | ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
On September 01 2012 02:16 Hapahauli wrote: What does this even have to do with my first point? I'm suggesting that players who lurk in this format deserve suspicion. This has nothing to do with "bad townies" or whatever. Also, this ain't a newbie game, and I think everyone here knows that lurking is bad for town. I'm paraphrasing, but basically you say that "anyone who lurks and doesn't help the town deserves to die." This is untrue - we want to kill the scum. Scum don't help the town, but townies often also don't help the town. Scum try and be subtle about it. Also, I have no idea what your last sentence there means... Scum will often push the agenda "<player> is bad and isn't trying to help town he deserves to die let's kill him!" or "if anyone is lurking they must not be trying to help town and we should kill them" because it gets the heat off of them and redirects it to bad townies. However, sometimes townies also confuse "playing badly" with "playing scummy". So it's reason for suspicion, but not in and of itself sufficient to kill someone. I didn't say that. I just don't want to kill you today. | ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
On September 01 2012 02:50 Hapahauli wrote: Oh, forgot to thank you for clearing up SnB's argument. However, I'm interested why he's accusing me of considering lurkiness inherently suspicious, then turning around and wanting to RNG lynch lurkers? I think I've said it before in this thread, but my position is pretty much always the same. Policy lynches and lurker lynches are almost always a bad idea. The only time they're a good idea is when you don't have any better candidates or cases - or when there's a serious need to force everyone to shape up. I think the case against blackmamba is bad. As for you, I think you're suspicious but, considering your activity, not suspicious enough to the point where leaving you alive hurts town more than anyone else from the lurker pool. If you're scum, you're active enough for us to catch you out with analysis - or if you become less active, that's a separate point against you. So this is one of the rare cases where there aren't better candidates and a lurker lynch or policy lynch might be a good idea. I'm still hoping someone brings up a decent case before the end of the day, though. | ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
On September 01 2012 03:06 Hapahauli wrote: EBWOP: Reformatted - missed a /quote But you suggested that we should RNG lynch a lurker!!! http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=363625¤tpage=11#201 From the post you quoted literally right above your sentence: On September 01 2012 03:00 strongandbig wrote: I think I've said it before in this thread, but my position is pretty much always the same. Policy lynches and lurker lynches are almost always a bad idea. The only time they're a good idea is when you don't have any better candidates or cases - or when there's a serious need to force everyone to shape up. I suggested we RNG a lurker because it's more likely to kill scum, imo, than just choosing one, since they can manipulate that choice. On September 01 2012 01:17 strongandbig wrote: I do think that "he made a bad case" is not sufficient reason to go after blackmamba. I mean, many recent games show that veterans can and do make bad cases on occasion, even when they're town. It's a data point, but not the strongest one. Seriously the case on him is basically nothing but "he made a bad case". If there's more I haven't seen it explained, so please do. I'm going to go home and eat dinner now, then I will read the case on mementoss and his filter. I'll be back with thoughts. | ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
On September 01 2012 04:25 marvellosity wrote: ok it's not been discussed at all, but it keeps being pushed. s&b seems to think that Mamba's case which is full of crap is less scummy than Hapa's pressure vote on Hopeless1der, and it makes no sense to me at all. He says he's not happy to vote someone based on one bad case, but is extremely happy to be suspicious of Hapa pressuring Hopeless. Why this disparity? Marv you were obsing ptp. VE and wiggles both made cases that were just as crappy as this one, I called them both scum, and they both flipped town. I just am not convinced that making bad cases is a good scum tell anymore. Like, does his case push a scum agenda or sew confusion? No, to me it just looks bad. It is weird that blackmamba just disappeared. If he leaves his vote on hapahauli without making a new case then he'll jump to the top of my scum list. And one other thing - I had been looking at hapa's vote on hopeless as "I think you are scum and want to kill you." That's how I vote - if I vote early in the day like that, I expect everyone to understand from that "I really mean what I'm saying right now, I'm serious about it." Like I said last time, it makes no sense when you think of it as meaning that, but when you change how you're thinking of it to a "pressure vote" it sounds better. | ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
On September 01 2012 03:15 HiroPro wrote: Ok, I think we should lynch mementoss. I'm heading out for lunch and I'll be back in half an hour. In the middle of this post, Mementoss says that he voted for Mr. Zentor in order to get him to post something useful, indicating that he has no clear view of Mr. Zentor's alignment. However, right after that Mementoss accuses Hapahauli of soft/hard defending Mr. Zentor and being his scumbuddy. Not only does this not make any sense, as the only posts that Hapahuli has made about Zentor are asking Mementoss why he voted for him, but Mementoss displays a clear disconnect in the way that he perceives Zentor (on one hand being someone he needs to see more from, on the other hand as a scumbuddy). Mementoss is attempting to seem useful when his posts actually say very little. His reaction to Hapahauli's questions are to throw doubt and accusations in a nonsensical manner. He's scum. ##Vote Mementoss This is actually a decent point. It's a pretty odd contradiction for him to jump from saying explicitly, "this is a pressure vote" to "you scumbuddies?" That by itself isn't completely convincing, but then you add in the unjustified accusation of soft defending and the big list post that ended with the vote on zentor, and it does add up to looking pretty scummy. I do think he had a good point about the short 24 hour day and needing to get reads out etc, but it's the kind of good point that scum can make just as well as town. I'd like to hear what mementoss says in his own defense, but at this point I think I'd be willing to lynch him. | ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
| ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
On September 01 2012 05:47 BioSC wrote: Current Vote Count: Mr Zentor (1) - Hapahauli (2) - Risen, BlackMamba24 Hopeless1der (0) - BlackMamba24 (2) - Hapahauli, Marvellosity Mementoss (3) - HiroPro, ghost_403, mkfuba07 Node (1) - Shady Sands Palmar (1) - Mr Zentor Not Voting: SolarSail, Palmar, Node, Strongandbig, hopeless1der. Currently, Mementoss is set to be lynched. Deadline is set at 21:30 CDT (-05:00). Wait is this plurality lynch or majority? I checked the OP and it didn't say, so I thought the ability to vote "no lynch" meant it was majority (although now that I think about it, the ability to abstain makes it seem more like plurality). Anyway it would be good to have it explicitly stated. | ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
I always just control+f "plurality" and "majority" I need to stop doing that, I guess. | ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
On September 01 2012 07:17 BlackMamba24 wrote: Hapahauli actually found a huge contradiction on page 12 and it seems off to me too. If he really thinks policy lynches are that dumb (Like I do) why would he make suggestions or explanations in support of it? "If people are proposing a lurker lynch, I think we should come up with a list that a majority of us can agree on and then RNG it using some method." The whole tone of that sentence seems completely off to me for someone who doesn't like policy lynches in the first place. Also, the miller claim. It basically protects scum from the DT. If you get DT checked you'd return scum in stead of self-aware miller so nobody can confirm it until you're dead and it gives you a point of argument if you do get DT checked. I need to go over his first post a bit closer but By the way can we please not lynch or FoS people for being absent from the thread until certain times? I normally wake up between 2-4 PM PST and am quite busy most of the day so keep that in mind. Because only scum sleep in late or get sinus infections. I don't think there is a clear disconnect in the way Marvellosity sees MrZentor. If, in his mind, he thinks lynching Zentor is a good idea he's going to be biased and find and see things that support that preconceived notion. I'm guilty of building connections based on bad cases or even people I wasn't really that suspicious of because I want to be right. It's something that happens. I think SNB's strange disconnect is a lot more suspicious. I need to carefully read his first post some more because his claim did throw me off which is why if he is indeed scum I congratulate him for doing a move like that. At the time when I brought up rng'ing the lurker lynch, the only cases we had in the thread were on you and on hapa. Do you disagree that if there are no reasonable cases, a policy or lurker lynch makes sense? I really don't see this "contradiction". Even if something is a bad choice, sometimes there are no better choices, and at that point in the day it looked like this lynch might be one of those times. | ||
| ||
