EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XXXVII
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
| ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
In fellow newbies!  | ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
| ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
| ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
No posts so far. Let's lynch! | ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
don't want to lynch with RNG, it seems to me stupid as hell. My take on policy lurker lynch is the same as always: scumread -> scummy lurker -> lurker. With that i'm going to bed now. Good night. | ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
Then hopping on the easy lynch wagon after warbaby made those terrible posts? On February 11 2013 09:55 Mocsta wrote: + Show Spoiler + On February 11 2013 09:43 warbaby wrote:
Agreed, no lurky lurk. When appropriate is very loose wording, setting you up to change your agenda as you see fit. My thoughts are: Im going to lynch my best scum read. If scum reads are ambiguous and cases are grasping at straws, I will RNG out of the pool of lurkers (no pun on RNG intended,m ore so how do you chose between 3 or 4 ppl with 1 post) Post consolidation definitely important. No need to hear every thought. But this is no excuse for lurking either. + Show Spoiler + Will try my best. But do I really have to tolerate idiotic play. But yes. OMGUS is terrible and often scum motivation. Theres a difference between OMGUS and making a well-reasoned counter-case. Let's start with that and don't post endlessly. While i agree with everyone that warbabys posts have been really horrible he basically did everything he shouldn't do (soft-blue claim, getting overly emotional, giving up, citing countless times hes town), i think we should really step back and take a look at the whole picture. I think he would be much more cautious with his posts if he actually was scum. I'd like everyone to look at mocstas filter. Does he do anything to seriously scumhunt? He asks questions in every direction, has people on his "watch" but this is the same as NMM XXXV, where he was infact the mafia gf. He picks the easiest target and highlights everything everyone already read. Sn0 didn't add anything useful with his arguably limited posting time, only talk about RNG and english grammatics. Useless but i'm sure he'll pick it up. | ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
sn0: So wait i was scum last game and lurked and town the game before and lurked, how is it you only point out the scum game? I'll have some more stuff to finish, after that expect my case on sn0. And no it's no OMGUS. | ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
He has a total of 26 posts since the game started. I'll now spoiler all posts with actual content that isn't discussing the english language or talking about lurkers. (Why i don't count these i'll explain later). + Show Spoiler + On February 12 2013 00:19 Sn0_Man wrote: Warbaby looks scummy, but I don't see how you lynch somebody this active day 1. FWIW he looked something like this last game (although he was doing a lot more "scumhunting" and a lot less "plz don't lynch me I townie for sure") For what it's worth mocsta I think that you too are looking kinda similar to the last game I played with you (minus a key difference in a post a while back about lynching lurkers and scum vs bad town). And we know what that entails. What I really want are introductory posts from our remaining players 9-bit, severyn and macheji. Well, that and for warbaby to lose his victim card somewhere so that he stops playing it. + Show Spoiler + On February 12 2013 01:55 Sn0_Man wrote: Personally, I think geript is getting a bit of a free ride with a bunch of low-content posts designed to look "active" without really helping town or pushing much of an agenda. Long post to follow once I finish it (be warned). + Show Spoiler + On February 12 2013 02:21 Sn0_Man wrote: My review of geript: At the start of the game (utterly disregarding pre-game), geript leads with some lighthearted banter-style posts, pretty much continuing the pre-game: + Show Spoiler [Fluff Posts] + On February 11 2013 09:38 geript wrote: /confirm /this time for realz Both geript and warbaby are self admitted to be terrible. In the interest in addition through subtraction, I suggest people make an argument as to which is better to keep. ##vote warbaby On February 11 2013 09:47 geript wrote: @Warbaby, did Mr. Bimble tell you to post that? That out of the way, geript proceeds with some "content" posts. These are short posts that seem primarily aimed at, well, establishing a non-fluff presence in town. They seem pretty null to me. + Show Spoiler [warning: this one is decently large] + On February 11 2013 09:51 geript wrote: Mocsta: four people one way or another have responded in the negatory to RNG vote. That in the least is enough to negate the usefulness of RNG vote. Please cease your discussion of RNG as it is more likely to be a waste of time (both posting and rereading) at this point. On February 11 2013 09:58 geript wrote: @Cora can we please keep the tone constructive. Turning people directly towards an emotional response is worthless right now. @Mcosta please reread my post. I did not say it was a majority at all, just that it was enough to negate any perceived value of RNG. On February 11 2013 10:29 geript wrote: My point was thus: should everyone else adhere to RNG, 4 votes represents a voting majority in most cases. This it is better to ignore RNG as the benefits it has/may have (dependent on viewpoint) are negated by an outside majority. /done with talking about RNG. On February 11 2013 12:00 geript wrote: @Sn0_man. If the English discussion/correction was irrelevant, why post it? On February 11 2013 12:30 geript wrote: I find it to be a rhetorical question in that things irrelevant to the game aren't worth discussing. My WB vote is just an opening I wanted to try out that got outpaced by RNG. I for one am fine with addition by subtraction as a policy as I feel it is the basis for both the Lynch All Lurkers policy--in that lurkers add little to nothing-- and is the basis of scum hunting--in that they tend to actively try to detract from discussion through inaction, burying and misdirection. On February 11 2013 12:46 geript wrote: I mean that the general concept of it: make the town better by removing the person(s) with the least qualitative additions. We are either removing detractors (thus net gain) or removing scum (actual gain). ## change vote unvote On February 11 2013 13:22 geript wrote: I would argue that removing room to hide is important as it forces scum to constantly be better than the guy in last place. If scum can in fact beat the curve so to speak, then it's the bottom end's fault for not making their role/side clear. I wouldn't blame to top end for voting out scummiest/least town-like in that case. I would argue least qualitative = least town-like; note that's qualitative not quantitative. Bare minimum does not automatically equal least qualitative. Having established his interest in "Addition by Subtraction" (a legitimate idea, though poorly explained), he moves on to his one big post (also his first post today). + Show Spoiler [Geript's big post] + On February 12 2013 01:11 geript wrote: I do think warbaby is town. On points 1 and 2: While this is a newbie game, I don't think that taking his townie claim or referencing 36 as anything other than a null read. Sorry, but I'm not seeing the point you're making in 4 either. As I read: more as trying to get the town as a whole involved rather than have Mcosta posting incessantly as he has been. While I agree on point 3, that warbaby hasn't really partaken in scum hunting, I don't think that this is a good measure of town v scum 6 hours into D1. To be honest, your case feels more like a gag. My concern would moreso be Mocsta. 1. He seems unconcerned as to who to throw towards the vote While some may read it as him aggressively trying to test the town, I read his posts and various switches and tests as just trying to see where he can gain traction. As well, he jumps on the first person having any real traction. 2. He doesn't even read his own posts First, he calls Warbaby's generic opening scummy when it's null at best. Next he tacks on his own important notes, and finally he calls Warbaby's initial post null. 3. He has diarrhea of the keyboard Additionally, he brings ups the post consolidation point which he actively avoids. Here he's accusing me, in effect, of running for mayor all while pushing his RNG agenda heavily. Blames warbaby for coming back to post 2 times after 'taking a break' when Mocsta has posted 8. At best, all this comes off as unintentional bad play. At worst it's an overexcited scum player. I find the latter more believable and either way I feel better about lynching him currently than lynching a lurker. A few things to highlight in the post above: 1) A town read on warbaby. While he gives OK reasons for a null read, I didn't really see any justification for "I do think warbaby is town". 2) A target that is distinctly not "addition by subtraction" based. Mocsta isn't a low-content poster. Sure most of his posts are bleh but at least he is making them. 3) Most of geript's points are based on ad-hominem attacks on mocsta and his style rather than on his play and contributions. I mean, I don't like Mocsta or his style either, but I think this game he has begun making real contributions to town. Rather than outline stuff that is scummy, geript is focusing on more peripheral stuff. Basically, I thought that yesterday, geript said a bunch of nothing while trying to look active, then today he made a big bullshit case trying to look like he was contributing. Not really clear scum, but not enough good things to deserve the easy ride he has had. I'm not voting him because I don't see the value in voting 30+ hours pre-deadline, and I thing "FoS"s are retarded, but I will say that geript has my attention. PS: geript's entire filter is in there minus his most recent fluff post. just btw. + Show Spoiler + On February 12 2013 05:12 Sn0_Man wrote: Thats a long-ass filter you just asked me to read. The short version: He made a post a while back about the difference between lynching bad town and scum, which was spot on and actually was quite opposite of what scum would be telling noobs. Plus I think that he could easily have gotten away with a much more deceptive, scum motivated theory that I don't think town would have properly analysed. Plus he has avoided making super-ultra-ridiculously BS cases (something he did a lot of last time I played with him). It isn't that I have a strong town read, but I'm definitely leaning town here. Plus I still want to lynch a lurker today and slim this down to a game where everybody is contributing. BTW Glurio is squarely on my list of lurkers right now at 2 posts (no better than the 0-posters). + Show Spoiler + On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote: WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve. I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name. @Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name. Thats a total of 5 out of 26 If you include the one liner #2. Now let's look at some of his posts. Heres one quoted for your convenience. + Show Spoiler + On February 12 2013 05:12 Sn0_Man wrote: Thats a long-ass filter you just asked me to read. The short version: He made a post a while back about the difference between lynching bad town and scum, which was spot on and actually was quite opposite of what scum would be telling noobs. Plus I think that he could easily have gotten away with a much more deceptive, scum motivated theory that I don't think town would have properly analysed. Plus he has avoided making super-ultra-ridiculously BS cases (something he did a lot of last time I played with him). It isn't that I have a strong town read, but I'm definitely leaning town here. Plus I still want to lynch a lurker today and slim this down to a game where everybody is contributing. BTW Glurio is squarely on my list of lurkers right now at 2 posts (no better than the 0-posters). I bolded the odd part. Why wouldn't scum tell the town what exactly they should be looking for and just avoid exactly these things? Since Sn0 spotted the seemingly non-scum-motivated theory how come he thinks he wouldn't have spotted the much more deceptive scum-motivated theory? On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote: WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve. I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name. @Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name. So I would up my game if i roll scum again, but i'm not so i'm a scummy lurker? What? That doesn't even make sense. If I up my game now am i scum? If i won't i'm a scummy lurker? WIFOM Now let's get to all the lurker posts, i won't quote them all, just read the filter it's most of his posts. It's the easiest thing in the world to point to lurker. Be it the no-post lurker or the few-post lurker which, according to sn0, are actually worse then the no-post lurker. Everyone can do it. I can just look into the thread every hour, post something about the guy with the lowest post count, tell everyone he only has X posts. After that i start pointing out the other lurkers, because hey don't forget about them. And then theres always the thing about recent games where at some point of the game one of the scum players lurked. If you really want me to do that, it wouldn't be a problem, but i try to actually contribute something with my posts. Not bury my filter in useless posts about lurkers. | ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
Also the reason why i didn't vote or FoS sn0. I'd like to point in Mandalors direction. He's a poster who heavily goes against lurkers, but since decided to just not post. All of his posts are low content and mostly "lurker-hunting" which, as i stated in my post about sn0, scum can do easily all day. After that he mentioned that he finds it impossible to make a case on anybody, but finds mocsta randomly scummy without being able to put your finger on it. I'll make it easier for you mandalor. What do you think about WoS right now? Can you elaborate on the scumminess of mocsta? | ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
On February 12 2013 23:28 zarepath wrote: [/b]Reactions to my Fake WoS Case in order of appearance + Show Spoiler + On February 12 2013 00:45 warbaby wrote: FoS WaveofShadow I'm not voting until we've had more time for the remaining lurkers to report in, and Shadow can respond to zarepath. I agree with zarepath that the people actually voting me aren't looking that scummy; compared to those just trawling for a convenient bandwagon. On February 12 2013 00:46 cDgCorazon wrote: Thank you Zare. I liked the points in your analysis for the 3rd and 4th posts. While it's not enough to make me vote for him (and I'd like to see his defense), a lot of the same things could be said about many players (especially with the non scum-hunting). The point that town never uses WIFOM made me laugh (you know why). Maybe you should rethink using WIFOM as a 100% scum tell (yeah it's scummy but if town Zare (from last game) does it why can't other towns do it and not be scum?). On February 12 2013 00:52 Mocsta wrote: Guys im going to bed. zarepath, I am not sure if the start of your post was addressed to me? If so, I had mandalor as null read; he said a few things but until he follows through its all NON-alignment indicative. btw, quite a few decent points in that case; I think some are educated assumptions, and others are really contradictory to ideal town play. Will wait and see what wave has to say for himself before proceeding further. On February 12 2013 01:06 Sevryn wrote: @ zare Thats a very interesting case you made. I think you over looked the fourth post a little bit in that the way it was worded is basically setting up WoS to defend any lurker he doesn't want lynched and any lurker he does want lynched with a line of qualitative additions which could be interpreted any which way. On February 12 2013 01:19 warbaby wrote: EBWOP: Not to say that I won't vote for someone that makes an obvious scumslip D1, but nobody has done that so far (except maybe WoS). On February 12 2013 01:20 Mandalor wrote: I feel like this is the most interesting part of the case. "Don't look much into it". What is that? Townies should be comfortable with others analysing them. In fact, the more townies do that, the less scum will be able to sway them. I don't like his overly town attitude ("my town" etc.) and the fact that (apart from a few weak attacks on Mocsta), he didn't analyse anybody yet. ##FoS: WaveOfShadow On February 12 2013 01:33 Sn0_Man wrote: Regarding the WaveOfShadow case, I see some merit there but I'm still not here to lynch posting players unless more comes up. I agree with Mandalor about what part of the case is compelling. Unprompted soft AND hard town claims with some fairly stupid follow up excuses. On February 12 2013 01:40 geript wrote: @zarepth On the first couple of reads I like the case. I'll come back with more after my test. Wish me luck! On February 12 2013 05:25 warbaby wrote: FWIW, Mocsta's play is a bit like his scum play in XXXV, but maybe it's also his idea of optimal town play (which is why he tried to do it as scum in 35 -- as a ruse). I don't see anything scummy in what Mocsta's done (other than some meta wifom crap based on his play in 35). I'm not dismissing the scum Mocsta idea, but I think zarepath's case on WaveofShadow is much more concrete at this point. I'm waiting to hear more from WaveofShadow before I consider voting him. I am also more interested in lynching lurkers (than Mocsta) if WoS makes a non-scummy defense. I do not really count glurio as a lurker -- his last post was very atypical of his scum play in 36 and counts as a real contribution in my book. I also expect he'll continue making decent contributions before D1 is over. On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote: WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve. I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name. On February 12 2013 05:48 geript wrote: @zare Second post: + Show Spoiler + On February 11 2013 11:21 WaveofShadow wrote: As far as I'm concerned, early game banter based on taking offense to others cheap shots or picking apart grammar is useless and should just be ignored. I'm fairly sure at this point enough people have declined the RNG vote so the topic should be dropped by everyone. Can the scumhunting begin now? Your other points are valid in that none if his posts have been effective. In context, his third post seems worse to me than anything else as Mocsta asks him to "Lead the way" and he takes a reasonably impassioned LAL stance which is unlikely to draw any attention. You do miss a post re: filter burying of which the highlight is While he returns to lurking after that, it's a valid point that has been brought up a few times now but started, imo, with Sno's earlier post: His last post is more of the same. While I still don't like Mocsta so far, your case is better and his last post nails it in for me. Ummm what? So, you're seeing alarm bells and aren't interested in putting pressure on them. Instead you're more interested in deflecting towards anyone else? You have clearly no interest in trying to make a case whatsoever or in doing any analysis. ##change vote waveofshadow On February 12 2013 05:59 cDgCorazon wrote: WoS- Zare already made a good case against him. Reading through his defense, he says: Note the bolded lines. He says that he regrets a few posts, but stands by them anyways. That appears a little bit contradictory to me. Why doesn't he just admit that he made a mistake and keep it at that? Why would he make a post full of WIFOM and only apologize for it when he gets called out on it? The next thing he does, once he's defended himself, is voted for a lurker. Now LAL isn't a bad policy, but it should not be used 30 hours before a lynch. That's just being lazy. It's giving up on all discussion for 30 hours (if one is going to stick with LAL), and it allows the scum to escape the radar D1 as long as they are slightly active (and it's not hard to make cases on people D1 as there are many players that can be targeted). Voting for Macheji this early is a scummy move to me and one that should be looked at further. I'm less suspicious on WoS than Geript, but I'm still curious. I'll keep my eye on him. On February 12 2013 07:07 warbaby wrote: Also WoS's post is a start in the right direction. IMO none of the proposed cases have enough merit to be worth voting scum at this point. And I don't see why we'd want to lynch glurio right now, over someone with actually zero posts. On February 12 2013 09:57 Mocsta wrote:
- Guy effectively says, great posts I am going to struggle to refute…
Whats important to me, is that on Day1 (post 24hrs) there are two guys that majorly fucked up. (warbaby and WoS) The question comes down to: are they both bad townie; are they both bad scum; or is one bad townie, one bad scum. Look at the approach warbaby Does not address case criteria Incites emotional arguments Continues to flame people, even when they agree to back off Just blindly follows others, once the heat is off. WaveofShadow Attempts to address case criteria Blindly follows others (voting lurkers) Puts some analysis into Glurio post The key differentiator is that WoS admits the situation outright, and has tried to still contribute (some parts blind following, other parts on his own accord). Im reading WoS as pretty genuine right now; and am willing to put him at this stage as “bad townie” Warbaby simply has done nothing to establish his innocence all game; My analysis and my gut is still telling me “first time scum”. On February 12 2013 10:28 warbaby wrote: Me vs WaveofShadow is a false dichotomy, Mocsta. What about sylencia? He could easily be a scum trying to blend in. I can't seriously vote WaveofShadow when there are other people who have made very small contributions. On February 12 2013 20:09 glurio wrote: I'll make it easier for you mandalor. What do you think about WoS right now? Can you elaborate on the scumminess of mocsta? A summary of the timeline: 1. warbaby absolutely hops onto it and FoSes without digging any deeper 2. Cora likes two specific points I made, but cautions that a lot of what I said could be said about others, and that my WIFOM point wasn't necessarily true in my own case last game 3. Mocsta generally likes it but thinks some tells are just educated assumptions on WoS's part and we have to wait to see what else he produces 4. Sevryn likes the case and adds some WIFOM to it 5. warbaby suggests that no one's made an obvious scum slip (except maybe WoS) 6. Mandalor emphasizes my point about WoS telling others to not analyze him, adds in the stuff about "my town" 7. Sn0 likes the case, but doesn't want to lynch an active player today 8. geript likes my case on first couples of reads, will post more later (has a test) 9. warbaby says my case is concrete but won't vote until he sees his defense 10. Sn0 really dislikes WoS's defense 11. geript analyzes my case, points out one of my points which wasn't really valid, but likes the others and votes for him 12. cora doesn't like WoS's defense, analyzes it a bit 13. warbaby says that WoS's posting is good enough for now to not vote for him 14. Mocsta analyzes WoS's defense and posting, reads him as genuine 15. warbaby emphasizes not having to vote for WoS 16. glurio wants Mandalor's read on the WoS case Have to go to work now, but I think that looking at this, you can separate players into how seriously they took this case as opposed to just bandwagoning on it. This you got wrong. Since WoS was the only one who actually called me out on my crappy case on Sn0, i have a slight town read on him. I actually wanted to see if Mandalor has got the same idea by now. ("WoS got it right", to quote myself) | ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
On February 13 2013 00:31 Sevryn wrote: [/b]the only one? do you have anything to say in reply to my post? also you say you made your case only because you said you would. why would you make a case you know is weak except to try and appear like your contributing when your obviously not. I made the case regardless of knowing that it's weak to see the reactions. Anyone who jumps on it would probably be an idiot or scum. Whoever points out the weakness in a decent manner would get town cred from me. (No, your comment wasn't anything i would call decent.) | ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
On February 13 2013 00:57 zarepath wrote: glurio, who are your top scum reads right now? Mandalor i'd like to hear more from. Sevryn might be scum making a terrible case on me voting and hoping for a wagon. Other than that i have nothing right now. | ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
On February 13 2013 02:46 Sn0_Man wrote: I can understand how a town would feel like this as well, but as I recall one of the hallmarks of newer scum is an inability to make cases due to knowing everybody's alignment (and of course not wishing to bus the real scum). Plus glurio has kept his post/contribution levels quite low (although admittedly if he doesn't have any leads then posting doesn't make a ton of sense). At least there is much less sheep in his play this game compared to last. Again though, that could definitely be a meta update based on the results of last game. Well i feel like you are really tunneling me. Nothing i'll do will please you. If i post less, i'm scum, if i get more active i changed my meta, still scum. What do you want from me? Right now i try to ask questions in mandalors direction. If he simply doesn't answer and does not give me anything to work with i really can't make a case on him right now. | ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
He obviously made some terrible posts at the beginning of the day, but he did so last game too, also he soft-blue claimed last game to and turned out to be the doc. Hes also very active so if he's scum he'll actually slip up sooner or later. I'd prefer lynching one of the lurkier players, sevryn, syl or mandalor right now. | ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
| ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
| ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
That's something i wouldn't expect from scum. | ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
When exactly is the lynch? In one hour or two? | ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
On February 13 2013 08:54 Mocsta wrote: WTF is this shit.. you come in here and just re-quote things I have been saying You're really starting making me want to join the lurker lynch with shit like that. Please address the below Where have you said what i said? With all the crap you posted sorry i missed a single line, which might remotely mean kinda a little bit the same like what i said but less elaborate and easier to miss. I know my alignement, don't know theres, i'm town. Mandalor always talked about lurker lunch etc. but hardly contributed a thing. Sev at least tried to make a shitty case on me. Syl i couldn't find anything too scummy in his iso and hes getting active so i want to let him live for now. | ||
| ||
