EPTImperial Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
| ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
well man when you put it that way /in i'm in another game at the same time (format unknown but i believe it to be a 9p micro with bizarre roles), is this going to be a problem | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
On December 28 2014 09:34 Fecalfeast wrote: needs at least 2 serial killers Fire this guy from the balance committee | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
Ex have millers as possible role but not godfathers so inno checks are 100% but guilty checks aren't. Or vice versa | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
On December 28 2014 13:49 ObiWanShinobi wrote: Eh. i miss u bby | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
| ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
| ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
On December 31 2014 14:19 Damdred wrote: Also not really claiming scum just bad humor baby why did you post this? | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
On December 31 2014 14:27 Damdred wrote: cause of mine and geripts history where he takes mee a bit to serious at points. Like he told me to post seals one time and I did and he went a bit nuts was a bit funny. I think he was scum that game but I think he would do the same as town. uhh that's odd but i guess i'll allow it? just seems like you're trying to justify behavior which need not be | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
On December 31 2014 15:06 DoctorHelvetica wrote:I believe strongly in Lynch All Liars. i don't, why do you? i feel like i can just look at a particular situation and decide for myself if someone who was caught lying was town and trying too hard to do something cool or if they're mafia. and i'm putting all my votes on my best mafia read not on any policy. On December 31 2014 15:06 DoctorHelvetica wrote:I will also more or less ignore every single "town" plan involving mass claims, trying to rig/game the setup, it's way too hard to get everyone on the same page and it has never ever worked in my experience. just peeking at the setup real quick i'm almost positive this isn't going to be an issue, not seeing anything to game On December 31 2014 15:06 DoctorHelvetica wrote:How does everyone feel about lurking players? Lower than expected activity can indicate blue just as much as scum. I like when DTs focus their checks on the lurkers rather than players who are active. There isn't a great in thread way to deal with lurkers. If I analyse lurkers post history at all, I usually wait until Day 2 or 3, that's enough time for the people who are lurking for a reason to make themselves more apparent I think. not to be rude but this all seems obvious to the point of fluff... i rather just put all my votes on best mafia read and attempt to discern b/t town lurkers and mafia lurkers as the game goes along instead of making activity a point of interest. i don't worry about them until i get a vote record unless i'm really stumped verdict: Doc's post seems stiff and awkwardly timed, and I feel like most of the policy discussion that might ensue from this won't really get anywhere, but it beats chasing people up trees for opening game banter. I guess I like Doc as town for now | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
On December 31 2014 15:14 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Uh, I don't want to make your dick hard. I don't think anything about anyone yet. On December 31 2014 15:07 DoctorHelvetica wrote: That being said I'd like to show everyone my spreadsheet ranking Day 1 joke posts from least to most scummy. what's up with the second post here though? seems like if you have opinions about which posts are suspicious you have opinions about which people are suspicious. non? | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
and i mean yeah, "intense scrutiny and questioning" sure, but are you afraid people are actually NOT going to do this? this almost seems like an empty statement | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
On December 31 2014 15:24 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Seems like you take everything literally, we're gonna have problems if you waste your time with shit like this. just checking, it seemed like a joke but i didn't want to supply that answer in case it weren't~ sure, i'm not sure what you meant by "shut down this line" in the previous part of the post btw so if you want a reply to that please clarify for my addled brain as for why i read it townie, like i said, it seemed like an effort to get discussion somewhere besides early-game banter, which imo wasn't going anywhere. i followed up on the post because even if the object-level discussion ends up being pretty pointless, i can get some possibly useful meta-level reads from it - and hey, maybe it is going somewhere and i miss it, y'know? | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
On December 31 2014 15:44 geript wrote: By shut it down, I mean shut down any further discussion on useless policy. Nobody needs to find policy to find discussion. The problem with your "townread" is that your reasons for finding him town are complete bullshit. That post is a throwaway post that I could recite to newbies to "get discussion going" as either alignment and potentially useful dependent on how it's driven and moved (even moreso to scum imo not that it matters). There actually were things to be talked about in the thread already (my townread on Damdred, the ??? on sicklucker who IIRC also made a passing townread on Damdred, Robik not posting anything while making a few posts, etc.). It's odd that you comment that his post was stiff and awkwardly timed, two bad reasons that people's posts are often called scummy for and then settle on a bad reason to call him town for it. As for meta reads, what type of meta reads do you expect will lead to any sort of meaningful read off of policy discussion? I don't think they're bullshit, not sure what else to tell you there. I think we disagree about the value of what you were talking about before, which is leading to our divergent views on this particular post; I got nothing out of what had happened to that point and briefly dug into the only thing that was interesting to me, so where you saw things to be discussed, I didn't. Sorry for using the term "meta-level," I'm not referring to meta reads. What I meant is that even if people are talking about policy or jokes or whatever and the actual objects of that discussion aren't going anywhere, you can dig into other players' thought processes and perhaps get a read on them despite that, in which case it's hard to say the discussion was useless. As an example I'm bothered by this more recent post from the Doc: On December 31 2014 15:37 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Yeah, I do fear that sadly enough. Ov course , in the timeframe of a single game it doesn't mean anything. I'm just talking general meta and from when I did most of my playing (a while ago) it was v eady to get away with fakeclaims as scum (ive been scum many times and done it myself many times) or set up weird vuses (buses) in themed games and sfuff (stuff). When towns in general are lax about that stuff (as i have once known them to be) i don't worry so much if i roll scum. Townies who lie just throw a wrench into everything by creatinf (creatinf /€ fuck) we Creating mislynch opportunities. Sorry for the typos amd weird formatting. Did it again. Can't backspace on my mobile for some reason, really abboying annoying seeing as I have enormous thumbs. And the thought process behind it. I don't get why a townie would already be worried about people lying and other people not at all questioning it. It seems like something I'd expect a newer player to say without really realizing that it's not saying anything, except that as I understand it Doc isn't a new player. It's odd to me that he's taking an impression about the meta-environment from months ago and extrapolating concerns about it in the here and now, particularly since that impression contradicts my own. It comes off as just saying stuff to say stuff. And the fact that he had this explanation behinds it takes it from, as you called it, geript, "a throwaway post that I could recite to newbies to "get discussion going" as either alignment" to being slightly suspicious to me, because the explanation attempts to justify it as genuinely-held concerns about the meta-environment instead of as a generic post to kickstart discussion, concerns which I don't believe would be genuinely held. | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
On December 31 2014 16:05 DoctorHelvetica wrote: You seem like youre gonna get stuck in a way of playing where you feel that any unreasonable or perplexing behavuor warrants suspicion. Not planning on it, guess we'll see. Not a lot going on right now imo. It just seems to me that if you were that bothered about a meta-environment from your last experience months ago, you might check a couple recent games to see if the meta-environment is the same, y'know? | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
On December 31 2014 16:18 DoctorHelvetica wrote: @Eden - I'm not much good at anything besides reading in between the lines and bullying (apprentice of Ace style), but when I start to see the things I understand and that jump out of me I really stick to it. I do think you're town and that since you seem to be pretty diligent and detailed I feel good about what you might be able to add or pick out of my cases later. I'm actually pissed I didn't roll scum in this game. I started playing mafia as scum in like 8 straight games and then really got it again. I do look at meta if I'm really suspicious of someone or can't figure out their behavior. It's too much of a pain in the ass to do if I'm not gonna really make use of it Lemme revisit this later, the appeals to me in here are setting off alarms but I can't tell if I'm being unfair/suffering from confirmation bias or if there's something there. I'll rattle off a brief idea of the problems and see if I still agree with it on a later read / if anyone else has anything to say about it. It makes me feel like I'm being buddied but again, I'm not sure I'm being fair. - The appeal both to my perceived innocence and alleged attention to detail and diligence bother me in a site meta-environment where, broadly speaking, aggressive asshole = town and not-aggressive-asshole = mafia. I actually feel really bad calling this out because I really would like to believe Doc is town and just not running with that meta-environment (which I would love, because I think it's not a fun meta-environment), but based on my past experiences here, these kinds of appeals are more likely to come from mafia than town than chance suggests. - Addendum to the above, my rough recollection of Ace is that he practically wrote the heuristic I mentioned above with his harsh but effective town plan, so it's (again?) incongruous to me that Doc plays a "read between the lines, bullying" game and then is nice and relatively uncritical of me in this post. - The appeals shifted toward something about being mad about not rolling scum that I swear I've only ever heard mafia say. Maybe my past experience is broken but it just feels off. | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
On December 31 2014 16:22 ritoky wrote: i think he made a joke that has 0 alignment indicative information in it. but i am not the one spouting crap about policy lynching liars and shitters. you are, yet you choose not to follow through on that. ritoky, where's this going? My recollection of you from our newbie game as an insightful player who catches crucial details and asks on-point questions isn't matching up with what I'm seeing unfold before me right now. You claim to have caught Doc lying by not pursuing a policy lynch on a joke. Do you think this actually makes him mafia? | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
| ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
On December 31 2014 16:55 geript wrote: I'm pretty sure that I've been the first person to discuss lurker lynches in almost all of my games (a large majority of which are town). 86% of your statistic is bullshit. Ooh, my turn. Earlier, geript, you had some issues with my posting about Doc's policy discussion instead of about your reads, and had criticized my choice of focus on Doc's policy discussion. Now that ritoky, sicklurker(?) and I have, through different avenues of discussion, concluded that Doc is suspicious, you chose to reenter the thread to... critique a statistic tied to a minor point against Doc. Of the recent developments surrounding Doc in the thread right now, why is this your choice of focus? It strikes me as self-evidently going nowhere. | ||
|
Eden1892
United States5866 Posts
On December 31 2014 17:06 TheChyz wrote: Hello all. Currently I don't like the direction that dr.H and ritoky are going. Basically I just see it as dr.H doing something not alignment indicative (someone always talks about policy lynches :/ ) and now ritoky is just trying to either prove that dr.H is scum or (my most probably guess) is he just wants to get an early acknowledgement of dominance by trying to force dr.H into admitting he did not follow his own policy (which most people don't follow anyway). I don't see a reason why ritoky would push this so far without any agenda. @ritoky lets move onto something a bit more important than trying to prove your dick is bigger than dr.H's. If there is anything substantial you have then go ahead, but currently your just being more of a filter spammer than anything. this post also gives me the heebie jeebies. I can understand not liking ritoky's choice to push on the Doc's joke but he comes to an end conclusion that other posters did as well and for not terrible reasons. Entering the thread, declaring that push a dick-measuring contest and then basically tone-policing ritoky's aggression without providing any original insight is really bothersome. (And this is even coming from someone who thought about asking ritoky et al to tone it down a bit myself, but I figured the smarter thing to do was to play my game and not spend posts trying to criticize the way others play theirs.) Chyz looks suspicious to me for this, he's clearly paying enough attention to have opinions but so far he's elected only to comment on things that don't really matter (imo) and didn't even address the strongest parts of those things he did comment on. | ||
| ||
