|
|
|
On September 11 2016 22:52 NeverUnlucky wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2016 11:57 NocturneMage wrote:On September 11 2016 10:03 Shapelog wrote:
We might need so more coaches lol.
Unless I get the scum team, and HTS gets to coach all the newbies? Or opposite way around? rule #1 for newbie coaches: do not ever allow hts to coach any mafia players. it should be clear why. look at what she did to luna, and she's even worse with her teammates xD in any case, you all need coaches? work's kept busy, but I could spare the time for a townie I suppose. I personally do not need a coach, and I doubt that Calix is interested in having one too.
I think you should try it out, it's enjoyable 
|
On September 14 2016 16:19 Rels wrote:Welcome back (= why not /in ?
Thanks!
I just got added to a different game I had /replaced on a week or two ago so unfortunately I will have to stay as a /replace.
|
On September 18 2016 06:16 Half the Sky wrote:Welcome to the fray. And welcome back Jealous.
Thanks HtS!
See ya Unlucky );
|
I will /in because my other game finished (Newbie - I think I am still allowed? Otherwise - as a replacement for whoever doesn't confirm, or whatever).
|
|
|
On September 23 2016 18:44 Artanis[Xp] wrote:
You can play if Stutters doesn't want to play. If not, I'd urge you to coach as we're in desperate need of more coaches!
I call shotty on HtS.
|
On September 23 2016 19:15 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 18:44 Artanis[Xp] wrote:
You can play if Stutters doesn't want to play. If not, I'd urge you to coach as we're in desperate need of more coaches! I call shotty on HtS.
I can share with Calix because we will both be town.
|
|
|
|
|
On September 24 2016 08:19 Stutters695 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 08:04 Xatalos wrote:
Unfortunately, looks like you can't vote for yourself in this setup :/ To everyone else, this is why we should lynch him today. He's always one step ahead, we'll never catch him. On a more serious note, how does everyone feel about going with the scummiest of the inevitable inactives? Activity always seems to be a struggle in these games and I won't be lynchbait for once.
I'm usually pro-PL but it's too early to make such a decision. We need to see how others are posting. It's odd that you suggest this so early.
|
On September 24 2016 08:26 Stutters695 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 08:21 Jealous wrote:On September 24 2016 08:19 Stutters695 wrote:On September 24 2016 08:04 Xatalos wrote:
Unfortunately, looks like you can't vote for yourself in this setup :/ To everyone else, this is why we should lynch him today. He's always one step ahead, we'll never catch him. On a more serious note, how does everyone feel about going with the scummiest of the inevitable inactives? Activity always seems to be a struggle in these games and I won't be lynchbait for once. I'm usually pro-PL but it's too early to make such a decision. We need to see how others are posting. It's odd that you suggest this so early. This is how I get reactions (or saying something controversial then lurking and waiting for reactions, but you don't want that). Obviously I don't want to lynch a lurker though because I want to lynch Xata.
Huh. So what do you get out of this tactic?
|
On September 24 2016 08:24 Calix wrote:
It's pretty obvious how you deal with inactives.
Threaten to lynch the scummy low-post players so that they post more.
Threaten to vig the idiotic players so that they get smart.
Even if there's no vig, nobody knows that so it forces the scum to post constructively and often or get fucked.
Also means you don't stick yourself down in a policy lynch like an hour in, lol.
The end.
Sounds like a good plan to me.
|
On September 24 2016 08:29 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 08:26 Stutters695 wrote:On September 24 2016 08:21 Jealous wrote:On September 24 2016 08:19 Stutters695 wrote:On September 24 2016 08:04 Xatalos wrote:
Unfortunately, looks like you can't vote for yourself in this setup :/ To everyone else, this is why we should lynch him today. He's always one step ahead, we'll never catch him. On a more serious note, how does everyone feel about going with the scummiest of the inevitable inactives? Activity always seems to be a struggle in these games and I won't be lynchbait for once. I'm usually pro-PL but it's too early to make such a decision. We need to see how others are posting. It's odd that you suggest this so early. This is how I get reactions (or saying something controversial then lurking and waiting for reactions, but you don't want that). Obviously I don't want to lynch a lurker though because I want to lynch Xata. Huh. So what did you get out of this tactic?
EBWOP do -> did
|
On September 24 2016 08:36 Stutters695 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 08:28 Calix wrote:On September 24 2016 08:26 Stutters695 wrote:On September 24 2016 08:21 Jealous wrote:On September 24 2016 08:19 Stutters695 wrote:On September 24 2016 08:04 Xatalos wrote:
Unfortunately, looks like you can't vote for yourself in this setup :/ To everyone else, this is why we should lynch him today. He's always one step ahead, we'll never catch him. On a more serious note, how does everyone feel about going with the scummiest of the inevitable inactives? Activity always seems to be a struggle in these games and I won't be lynchbait for once. I'm usually pro-PL but it's too early to make such a decision. We need to see how others are posting. It's odd that you suggest this so early. This is how I get reactions (or saying something controversial then lurking and waiting for reactions, but you don't want that). Obviously I don't want to lynch a lurker though because I want to lynch Xata. You only got two responses before claiming it was a reaction-test? My dear Watson, the game is afoot. That does seem kind of counterproductive in retrospect. I think this is the part though where you guys debate if I'm terrible, trying to come off as terrible while scum or part of some master play.
Confused as to why you would intentionally create such a scenario in the first place if you acknowledge less than 5 minutes later that it was a terrible choice. It's not like you got any smarter in between then and now.
|
On September 24 2016 08:52 Stutters695 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 08:39 Jealous wrote:On September 24 2016 08:36 Stutters695 wrote:On September 24 2016 08:28 Calix wrote:On September 24 2016 08:26 Stutters695 wrote:On September 24 2016 08:21 Jealous wrote:On September 24 2016 08:19 Stutters695 wrote:On September 24 2016 08:04 Xatalos wrote:
Unfortunately, looks like you can't vote for yourself in this setup :/ To everyone else, this is why we should lynch him today. He's always one step ahead, we'll never catch him. On a more serious note, how does everyone feel about going with the scummiest of the inevitable inactives? Activity always seems to be a struggle in these games and I won't be lynchbait for once. I'm usually pro-PL but it's too early to make such a decision. We need to see how others are posting. It's odd that you suggest this so early. This is how I get reactions (or saying something controversial then lurking and waiting for reactions, but you don't want that). Obviously I don't want to lynch a lurker though because I want to lynch Xata. You only got two responses before claiming it was a reaction-test? My dear Watson, the game is afoot. That does seem kind of counterproductive in retrospect. I think this is the part though where you guys debate if I'm terrible, trying to come off as terrible while scum or part of some master play. Confused as to why you would intentionally create such a scenario in the first place if you acknowledge less than 5 minutes later that it was a terrible choice. It's not like you got any smarter in between then and now. I'm older and thus wiser. The findings are TBD btw. Rest assured, I have top men on it. If you had to guess, why do you think I did it?
Underestimating your fellow players is my best guess.
On September 24 2016 10:52 Stutters695 wrote:
Ebwop: Agreed about Calix. Very tonal, but it feels very genuine
Too early to have much better, but I would like to talk to Jealous and DH some more.
I'm always open to conversation my friend.
On September 24 2016 11:46 SoulEaterQUEEN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 08:04 Xatalos wrote:
Unfortunately, looks like you can't vote for yourself in this setup :/ Interesting idea. What does this achieve? Last time I checked, voting for yourself is a lazy way of avoiding pressure, gives no info, doesn't get you reads. Unless you are schizo ^_^ Also hi there. I'm one of the newbs, this is my first on-site mafia, therefore I am not aware of the site meta. Also find it pointless to link off site meta examples personally. Too many players fall into the meta trap to conclude reads. Anyway this is shit fluff talking. Grill me, bake me, do whatever that makes you happy until my alignment cookie crumbles infront of you. I'll post my RVS vote, and call it a night.
I second your point about meta. At the end of the day, meta is so often skewed by perspective and interpretation. While it may help in some cases, it is rarely a solid argument when trying to convince others because it boils down to "Town X wouldn't do that! They didn't do it in game Y!" and then X says "But in game Z I did that and I was town!" so on and so forth.
On September 24 2016 12:05 SoulEaterQUEEN wrote:
I get a light town read on Calix based on #204, #207.
I'd like to hear more from Jealous, in #213, it sounds like a light scum read or suspicion on Stutter - but the way they phrase it as a question because they are confused makes me think they are hesitant on the read, just maybe?
Not a scum read just yet. I don't crystallize or publicize my reads until I have a decent catalog of posts on which to base them, because I feel like weak pressure and baseless reads are harmful to town because they lack substance, have a higher probability of being wrong, and can lead to ML. I am just trying to get a feel for the players I am not familiar with and see what kind of person is behind the keyboard, why they say what they say, and thus look for inconsistencies in-game.
|
On September 24 2016 14:02 SoulEaterQUEEN wrote:
I liked that last bit you wrote in the post. I feel the same way but I tend to be impulsive and pressurize my way into getting reads as a natural reaction when I begin playing through RVS which has lead to some results in getting activity in the game which is nice. I still have yet to see the point in the RVS in general but noticed the lack of presence of it so far here. Would like to hear the views of how you perceive RVS/what kinds of points given. This may not lead to alignment indicative posts, but gives me an understanding of where people's heads are at this point in the game.
That being said, I like how confident tone in that post, it could be from a very well seasoned player, but normally see caution amongst scum at the beginning, so I am definitely light town reading Jealous based on the #233, I also like how there is consistency on the behaviour reasoning for the post I questioned which again feels like they are not frabricating a reasoning.
Please note, my reads tend to have a dynamic flow as the game state changes so take it with a grain of salt.
I don't believe in RVS for much the same reasons that I listed for reads. I will rarely if ever trust a player that votes and un-votes and re-votes multiple times per lynch cycle. Decisions like that need to be done with a firm hand, and not frivolously. Too many people playing silly pressure games can result in a ML. Mafia is a game of psychology, and voting creates social pressure on parties that may otherwise be more objective and thus could contribute to the discussion/analysis and not simply sheep or jump on a train. Not sure what you mean by the bolded above.
I'm in this as a newbie so I'm definitely not a well-seasoned player ^^ Thank you, but don't suck up to me just yet, I tend to be wrong a lot, unfortunately.
On September 24 2016 14:31 Stutters695 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 11:46 SoulEaterQUEEN wrote:On September 24 2016 08:04 Xatalos wrote:
Unfortunately, looks like you can't vote for yourself in this setup :/ Interesting idea. What does this achieve?
Last time I checked, voting for yourself is a lazy way of avoiding pressure, gives no info, doesn't get you reads. Unless you are schizo ^_^Also hi there. I'm one of the newbs, this is my first on-site mafia, therefore I am not aware of the site meta. Also find it pointless to link off site meta examples personally. Too many players fall into the meta trap to conclude reads. Anyway this is shit fluff talking. Grill me, bake me, do whatever that makes you happy until my alignment cookie crumbles infront of you. I'll post my RVS vote, and call it a night. Emphasis mine. I'd lynch for this
I would appreciate some elaboration on this.
|
|
|
On September 24 2016 19:37 Rels wrote:I don't like Jealous. And I don't like all the townreads he's getting simply for writing the most words in the thread. 80% of his content are about things that are not scumhunting and are very easy to write about: RVS, meta, PL. The only thing he's done in terms of reads has been questionning Stutters with Calix. I don't liek that he's already justifying himself to not having to take a stance: Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 13:29 Jealous wrote:On September 24 2016 12:05 SoulEaterQUEEN wrote:
I get a light town read on Calix based on #204, #207.
I'd like to hear more from Jealous, in #213, it sounds like a light scum read or suspicion on Stutter - but the way they phrase it as a question because they are confused makes me think they are hesitant on the read, just maybe? Not a scum read just yet. I don't crystallize or publicize my reads until I have a decent catalog of posts on which to base them, because I feel like weak pressure and baseless reads are harmful to town because they lack substance, have a higher probability of being wrong, and can lead to ML. I am just trying to get a feel for the players I am not familiar with and see what kind of person is behind the keyboard, why they say what they say, and thus look for inconsistencies in-game. So, Jealous, I want you to explain your stance on Stutters' answers to your questions.
Pretty hard to scum hunt just 20-40 posts when I'd classify most stuff until that point to be largely NAI. I felt that policy was important to talk about because bringing up policy lynch a few hours into the game. That's counter-productive so my aim was to quell that idea to open the floor to actual discussion.
As far as Stutters' answers, I don't think you could even call them that. I'm not liking how dodgy he is, feels like he doesn't want to give things away which is not a very town thing to do.
|
On September 24 2016 21:20 Lunaticman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 20:51 Rels wrote:On September 24 2016 20:49 Lunaticman wrote:On September 24 2016 20:27 Rels wrote:On September 24 2016 20:07 Lunaticman wrote:On September 24 2016 19:29 Rels wrote:On September 24 2016 18:13 Lunaticman wrote:On September 24 2016 17:32 Calix wrote:Yo. I have a bit of time in the morning to pop in. I actually don't mind the activity as much as I usually would because the posting isn't just a bunch of useless spam and it's much easier to catch up/ reread stuff. On September 24 2016 11:46 SoulEaterQUEEN wrote:On September 24 2016 08:04 Xatalos wrote:
Unfortunately, looks like you can't vote for yourself in this setup :/ Interesting idea. What does this achieve? Last time I checked, voting for yourself is a lazy way of avoiding pressure, gives no info, doesn't get you reads. Unless you are schizo ^_^ Also hi there. I'm one of the newbs, this is my first on-site mafia, therefore I am not aware of the site meta. Also find it pointless to link off site meta examples personally. Too many players fall into the meta trap to conclude reads. Anyway this is shit fluff talking. Grill me, bake me, do whatever that makes you happy until my alignment cookie crumbles infront of you. I'll post my RVS vote, and call it a night. Just to pop in with my two cents on this matter. Meta is good for establishing what is NAI for a player. (e.g., how often they vote or if they talk in a particular way) but I agree that a lot of people, myself included at times, use it as a substitute for analysis. I'm not familiar with many people here (I've only really played with Skynx/ Superbia/ Jealous before) and I'd like to keep it that way so that my analysis isn't skewed by some subjective interpretations of how XYZ played in a game like, 486973 years ago. Only exception is if it's a bad player who has pronounced differences between their town/ scum game that means they make themselves obvious or some shit. So if we could keep the "X is scum/ town due to meta" talk down to a minimum then that'll be lovely. As far as initial impressions go, I town-lean Jealous (this is mainly because we were posting similar things at approximately the same time when we were questioning Stutters so he's more likely to be coming from the same mindset as myself) Ambivalent on Daneler. I didn't like his entrance because he was using someone else's words to put forth his opinion and then commented on something that looks odd but his follow-up made sense. Stutters has done some questionable things with his claims to want to generate discussion. These two posts struck me as strange: On September 24 2016 08:26 Stutters695 wrote:On September 24 2016 08:21 Jealous wrote:
[quote]
I'm usually pro-PL but it's too early to make such a decision. We need to see how others are posting. It's odd that you suggest this so early. This is how I get reactions (or saying something controversial then lurking and waiting for reactions, but you don't want that). Obviously I don't want to lynch a lurker though because I want to lynch Xata. Here he says that he was reaction-testing. NAI by itself but the fact that he capitulated so quickly makes me skeptical. Scum are more likely to shy away from their actions in this manner compared to town (who would be more confident in their ability to defend themselves) because they don't want too much attention. Stutters:Calix:
You only got two responses before claiming it was a reaction-test? My dear Watson, the game is afoot. That does seem kind of counterproductive in retrospect. I think this is the part though where you guys debate if I'm terrible, trying to come off as terrible while scum or part of some master play. Here he notes that people are likely to discuss his posts. Again, totally normal thing to say by itself, but what I don't like is the fact that he notes most of the possibilities before anyone can actually talk about him...since this limits opportunities for discussion...which goes against his stated aim of getting reactions and thus starting conversation. It's not a legit contradiction or anything but I'd like Stutters to flesh out his reasoning here. On September 24 2016 16:38 Lunaticman wrote:On September 24 2016 16:18 Skynx wrote:
Hmm Lunatic intro worst i guess.
Man i dont get why get this PL discussion every game. Its quite simple, odds are town barely have any info D1 to decide on a proper lynch, hence guy with 2 posts dies. Sometimes scum slip, or someone has incredible meta read confidence or w/e, then you dont't pl. Simple stuff. Somehow I knew you would say that. I hope we can stay on friendly terms this time around but I doubt it. Stutters is so far the most obvious townie. I am a bit afraid of the logical development of this game. TL is filled with smarties that loves to talk the talk but always lynch the random dude that didnt sound smart. This will be the doom of us all I tell you, nobody can look more perfect then the mafia because they already know everything! This looks like the current meta afk townies and leading mafia for sure. This totally reminds me if the palmar/hf domination game check it out. What makes you think Stutters is the most townie player in the thread? Are you claiming to be one of the dumb-sounding people?  Fourth part is just weird. It states the obvious ("mafia are informed and will try to look townie") but it does it in a hyperbolic manner. Where are you going here? If you think mafia are leading the discussion then that implies that you suspect players and this is something you did not put down in favour of a town-read. Who could fall under this category of 'leading mafia' in your eyes, if anyone? Stutters is obvious town for me at least, I can understand why you wouldn't notice but I have played with him 4 times in a row and I'm pretty sure he is town. Please explain Well I don't want to day 1 because of reasons to be disclosed at a later date. He is not going to be lynched today at the very least. I'll remember that. This "I promise I have ghood reasons" comes more often from scum than from town though. That is just speculation and if you were town you wouldn't force me to say why I have a town read. Why woudln't I do such a thing ? So apparently you think I'm scum ? No I didn't say that you are scum I just find it suspect why I have to tell you why I town read him even though I don't want to yet.
Another dodgy poster, whose counter-suspicions directed at Rels are pretty silly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
