EPTNoir Mini Mafia: Chapter 1
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
| ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On March 30 2013 06:23 Lazermonkey wrote: So is this starting in 40 minutes or what? Given that the day doesn't have a deadline, I don't think it would be too big of a deal if someone would be afk the very beggining of D1 but obviously that's something up to the host. Day one has 48 hour deadline so it is important that everyone is there at the start | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On April 02 2013 07:06 Lazermonkey wrote: Hi everyone! I want to start things off by saying that this is my first time playing an instant majority lynch. While the first 48 hours obviously aren't instant majority, I still think we can start discuss some policy to get things going. 1.If we are about to kill someone, we should at least give the person 24 hours to be able to put up a solid defense. 2.Throw votes around all you want but if you hammer someone, you and everyone else on that wagon better provide good reasoning for that. Everyone who fails at these stuff should get policy lynched right away imo. With regards to point 2, I thought that Instant Majority lynch is supposed to shy away from throwing votes around carelessly? Well, that depends on what you mean about throwing votes around.. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On April 02 2013 08:16 Lazermonkey wrote: Your vote means literally nothing untill we hit majority or deadline. I don't see how instant majority would shy away from that. With that being said, I do think it is a good idea to be voting, even though the person isn't getting lynched in the near future. Doing that makes it easier to follow who you suspect at what time and will help especially later on when players start to get looong filters and what : /. Fair point, but I still disagree with votes counting for nothing until lynch time. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
My thoughts so far: - Ghor: Whether this is serious or not, language barriers are going to end up hurting us pretty bad if we don't get usefulness from him soon. Going back to my previous games, I had a Peruvian in the game who was scum (with me) and nothing he did could be interpreted since we weren't sure if it was ocmpletely understood or if he was just doing his own thing. I personally don't like having such a wildcard in the game. His 2 posts so far have shown he hasn't really provided any thought to what has been said and he's keeping the most trivial things secret. - risk: As noted by others, there've been a few flaws in what he's said, the primary one being the Kenpachi trap statement, with 0 followup and a backtrack of what was implied. I do feel though that the early votes are... a bit early. The vote I dislike the most being CC's vote which is an example of why I don't enjoy throwing around votes on Instant Majority. It'd be too easy to have scum hammer down with few words said. - Cheesecake: This filter looks atrocious in my eyes, casting an early vote with little thought, yet providing no substance while he's around. Not sure if trolling around is his meta but seems pretty scum from here. - Axle: As usual, I'm honestly not sure what is being said that often from you. - Rebirth: Main thing I don't like is the super early 'precaution' vote on VE, it's almost like baiting him into flaming you back hard so you could nail him for it. Doesn't seem like anythign came from it though but still strikes me as odd as to the reasoning behind it. Q: Is there actually such a thing as the Kenpachi Rule? RoL says he hasn't heard of it, I haven't been around long enough to hear about it at all, and so this oculd be a major point RoL has made if no one has seen this apparent rule in action. -VE: So far from what I've read, there are solid arguments and reasoning coming from VE with regards to risk, and as far as I can see so far, he's looking the most townie. This can obviously change with flips etc. but so far, he's the one I've got greatest town read on. I'm pretty much null on the other 2.. As for my vote, I'm wanting to wait for risk to see what he says but I find CC's vote to be just too casual and without providing anything else after just doesn't seem right to me. ##Vote Mr. Cheesecake | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
As for Kenpachi rule, probably should've googled it but dinner called  On April 02 2013 20:21 risk.nuke wrote: Glad you're capable of discussing anything at all without me. Cheesecakes early vote on me was a pressure-vote. It was completely fine, What's weird and not fine is he doesn't follow it up or does anything when the person he pressure-voted gains additional votes. People are asking me about the Kenpachi rule, I actually thought more people knew about it. Ghor, It was discussed in a post game I played one or two years ago, I don't think there were statistics but I remember people praised it's accuracy (before it got outed) Either way I know the post detailing the kenpachi rule was edited out because I tried to find it once. I'll talk about Hapa after breakfast. Pressure votes work better if you're going to be around to take them off, otherwise it could end up being manslaughter in this game :\ Lazer: There's a difference in timing in that I come in before there's the first fight between VE and nuke (well, I guess I was around to catch the very start of it), meanwhile Hopeless comes in afterwards and ignores everything that went on beforehand only to comment on Ghor instead. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On April 02 2013 23:03 Lazermonkey wrote: I don't see why you are still so paranoid about voting around. If two guys just randomly just goes ahead and votes Risk right now, then we just lynch them both and win the game ezpz, right? Policy or not, there are stuff you cannot simply get away without getting in a very bad position. And I'll gladly trade one mafia for a townie. Sure, I might be paranoid about it, but there are some people I wouldn't be surprised to see sheep lynch a townie through convincing. Hell, if the case was good enough it would be hard for me not to consider following along. That isn't the case here but my point is you can't just say "If 2 more people go for the kill here, they must both be scum." since that general kind of statement leads to dumb mislynches down the track when you use when they vote as a case. Ghor, since it's looking more trollish by the second, you could probably drop the third person at least or I'm not really going to be able to read your posts seriously enough. I don't even follow what you mean regarding what I said about risk + CC. As for why I haven't said if I thought risk's actions were scummy or not, that's because it's not exactly clear which way it goes. On one hand, you can say it's scummy because he says it was just looking for reactions but it looks more like no one followed what he was alluding to so he gave it up, but on the other hand it's hard to say he'd give it up so quickly and deny it as soon as he is questioned about it if he was scum because it's a lot more legit if you follow through with the case. Instead, he retracted it and it left him looking weak but that doesn't mean he's town. Happy? | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
| ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On April 02 2013 23:41 Ghor wrote: risk.nuke Sweden. April 02 2013 09:19: risk say no policy in first post, but risk talk about stupid policy in next post. risk say he no lynch RoL for kenpachi rule BEFORE defend himself, but say kenpachi rule legit and accurate when defend himself. ghor want sylencia to say if he think risk town or scum, not flipflop pinball, evidence there, comment on it. In addition, how is his statement about accuracy there that relevant to what happened before it? Are you suggesting that he said it to set up a bus on his buddy, then you're saying that he did that to say RoL is scum, then retract it? I don't even understand what you're getting at here. And at this point, no, he's played enough games where I don't see him making himself look suspicious 3 hours into the game. The case on him has its merits however I would rather first see more from the two I've heard least from today (Hopeless and CC) - moreso Hopeless because there's ever so slightly more from CC. Ghor - now that I've said it what are your thoughts on risk then? Would you say he is scum or not? Would you end up backing a vote on him if the time came for it? | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On April 03 2013 00:02 Ghor wrote: risk say kenpachi rule accurate and useful, that not general statement, that say "lynch someone if he do x=accurate". sylencia avoiding committment on risk. no inquiry of his own.no pushing cc. no quoting cc, not try convince ghor that cc scum, but try avoid risk issue. ghor think sylencia scum. ##Vote: Sylencia What is there to quote? He's literally written 6 posts, containing 3 one liners, two posts containing very generic statements about how town should act and a vote out of nowhere. Risk acknowledges it being a pressure vote on him, and yet he disappears for the next 18 hours but I can't hold that against him too much since people disappear all the time and it's not their fault. However, if I come along and vote for him for similar reasons "saying hello, general statement, goodbye" I'm suddenly scum? Interesting. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On April 03 2013 00:18 Ghor wrote: Ghor not understand why people ask questions about risk, people not read properly ghor posts?read thread then come back with good question please. only update is ghor not think RoL that scummy any more, but not like initial play. now better. risk talk about fluff after he say he not like doing content of his fluff (policy). his defense, bad, he contradict. So you seem convinced he's scum yet you don't take any action? Instead you choose to target myself in hopes that others will complete the vote for you? | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
If I wake up and this stupidity continues I won't hesitate to vote Ghor. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
Lazer: I unvoted because I was going to sleep, I don't leave votes hanging on someone I'm not entirely convinced about in an instant majority game. I already said that's why I didn't like what CC did, so why would I do the exact same thing he did? In any case, I haven't read what's happened since I left that deeply yet, since I'm at work but I'll do my best in writing whenever I get a break, and naturally once I get home. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On April 03 2013 02:23 Mr. Cheesecake wrote: Breaking it down: > Ghor calls out Syl for deflecting pressure off Risk. >Hopeless calls out Ghor for believing they (both syl+risk) are both the scumteam and not just voting Risk instead of bringing up a new candidate. >Hopeless pushes Ghor for this. >Hopeless then asserts that Ghor and Risk are the scumteam. ^ Logic is so messy. If Hopeless believed Risk was scum -> why not just lynch him, do what you advocated and not switch targets? Instead, he decides to fling shit at Risk but not vote him, and then vote Ghor when he thinks Ghor / Risk scumteam. This reasoning here though is also why I'm so confused by Ghor's arguments and vote against me. He says I'm deflecting from risk, suggesting I'm trying to take pressure off him (and at the time onto you) and since that in his eyes makes him scum, would imply that he sees my defense of risk makes risk scum too. However, rather than voting for risk we have a vote on a new candidate instead. This doesn't make sense to me, and yet the same thing happens with Hopeless. On April 03 2013 13:14 Ghor wrote: Ghor think Sylencia become more scummy, he always delay contribution. Many excuse, no push for direction. No pressure when Cheesecake here. Only justify himself.Ask others if they have question. Sylencia goal survive, not hunt scum. Delaying contributions? Have you not read what I posted earlier about when I do post and when I don't? On April 03 2013 03:42 Lazermonkey wrote: Sylencia So the reason I didn't want to out my scum read earlier was twofold 1. I wanted a little more basis for my accusations. His entrance into the game was scummy but could just have been a result of him beeing busy rather than scum. 2. I didn't have enough time to write a decent case. Sylencias first 2 posts said absolutely nothing of anything. He then posts a seemingly long post but all it really contains 2 reads, the rest was stuff like calling risk wierd but no conclusion about his alignment. In this post he calls CC scum, VE town, and then proceeds to vote CC. Now it gets interesting! What does he do with this scum read? Jack shit! Instead he goes into this drawn out argument with Ghor about Ghor's case on him. Why do this? Why is he not chasing his scum read instead of defending himself against 1 single vote which isn't threatening at all. Why doesn't he try to convince us that CC is scum? Why does he go fromToWITHOUT CC even posting in between??? And then goesStill without CC saying jack shit? Well I'll tell you folks, because he is scum! ##Vote: Sylencia First 2 posts were going to lead somewhere as I had intended to have a deeper conversation regarding the voting power and whatnot, but then work got busier and I completely lost the train of thought the next time I looked at the thread. Your case against my vote on CC is also fairly meaningless, during the entire time I had my vote on him, CC wasn't around. The amount I had to go off on him was limited, and so you were saying I should be stretching my imaginations to see what's so scummy about one-liner #2? Why would I not talk to others and get a better idea of where they are at? This leads on into the argument with Ghor, and I defend myself because I'm being accused of being scum. Is that not something you'd do as town? Instead, you let them run all over you while you try to push a weak case on someone else? We're not playing 8v1, even if I had thought that CC was scum that's no reason to stop looking at others. As for taking off my vote, I think I explained that earlier this afternoon. Risk: As for who I want to kill, it'd be moreso Ghor than Hopeless, but they both have the same base logic behind them: X accuses Y is scum because of their actions with regards to risk, and thus they both had thoughts of risk+Y being scumteam, yet they both refuse to vote risk for some reason. Now Ghor has suddenly done a 180 on risk saying he's town based on activity (...) and chooses to jump ship to Hopeless. So pretty much, I'm willing to hammer Hopeless here, but if it's town I still see this as looking horrible on Ghor. Not that he wasn't looking horrible to me anyways. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On April 03 2013 18:17 Lazermonkey wrote: Sylencia: Explain WHY hopeless and Ghors actions make them scum. Also, how did CC become town,suddenly? -.- Because (more for Ghor) you can't try to call someone out for not voting someone they think is a bit sketchy when they don't do it themselves. Again, for Ghor, he's put a vote on me saying that I was too wishy washy on risk, didn't push anything that hard and yet he said risk was scum, I was defending him but he didn't want to vote for risk. I understand not ending the day early and now I see we seem to all be shying away from voting since we could be silenced at any moment but if he's a scum read you vote for him. Adding on to that is that the vote on me is more on association with said scum suspect (at the time). Why vote for the associated one when you could remove the root of the problem and then branch from there? The same case then applies to Hopeless who goes for the associated scum rather than the one they are being associated with. Dumb lynch choices for town. On April 03 2013 20:49 Ghor wrote: ghor want kill sylencia very much, ghor think he look more scummy with each post. this look terrible terrible from sylencia. ghor facepalm, this more than just connection read, this connection justification for later bad push against ghor. whole play look terrible. ghor not need make case, sylencia filter is case. but ghor maybe try to make good case later, if town not convinced. ##Unvote ##Vote Sylencia Go ahead and make a case, and I'll defend. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On April 03 2013 21:46 Lazermonkey wrote: They are indeed hypocrites in that regard but why does that make them scum? Does scum apply bad logic more so than town in your opinion? Because I actually think the opposite ( though it would be terrible to call someone town because of him applying bad logic...). And wtf happend with your CC read? You still haven't answered yet. The read disappeared when CC came back? I told you my point on him was that he left a vote and disappeared, he's come back, he's made points and he's not that high on my radar at the moment. To your other questions, scum don't necessarily apply bad logic, they would more likely use actions others have done to justify something they didn't intend to do, run with it and hope it convinces enough people. So it's not really logic that I'm talking about there, just twisting other's actions would probably make for a better course of action. The problem I'd see with scum wanting to use logic is that it's easily backtracked and exposed, and that's why I don't see it being used as much of a point of attack as scum. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On April 03 2013 22:53 Lazermonkey wrote: Lolwtf. So you vote CC and say "Not sure if trolling around is his meta but seems pretty scum from here." because of how careless he throwes around his vote (which I think is a shit reasoning but that is quite irrelevant) but when he just unvotes, you just say "yhea, he is town NP". That makes 0 sense. Again, did I say "yeah he is town np", concentrating on more prominent targets is not the same as saying someone is town. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
| ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
| ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
| ||
| ||
