|
On February 18 2012 05:20 Steveling wrote:
Ok, just woke up and caught on the action.
So, my view on the whole thing is that we should push for a no lynch day 1.
The reasoning: We are close to the night, very close actually and we have zero solid cases on anyone.
Yes mannerkiss's weird 1 liner is scummy, also both eche and sloosh became defensive too fast and yes there are some lurkers as well. Nothing we can make a strong case on.
But chanses are that we are probably gonna misslynch day1 with the current situation.
So the way I see it, we either push for a lurker lynch or a no lynch. And with a no lynch we promote more discussion without losing an unlucky towny, more discussion always benefits the town.
What do you guys think?
I'm sorry Steveling, but I definitely think that no-lynch is no no.
We are not close to night. We've only had played for 21 hours and that's less than half of the time. We still have plenty of time to build a strong case on anyone. There have been several stances where we could gather information and I know that we can use it to push out a lynch. If it turns out mafia, great. If not, we will see the bandwagons and those who are dodging the cases to make a good and hopefully successful lynch in the second day.
Well, you have posted much more content than you did it on your previous post, but I insist, I disagree with a no-lynch.
Gumshoe, sometimes I think that you are going more pro-town, but in some other instances I just don't understand your intentions. Even you manage to contradict your self:
On February 17 2012 13:36 gumshoe wrote:Early reports! All very preliminary but hopefully it'll give everyone an idea of where some townies stand and where some lurkers don't. blae - absent but has an alibi(by alibi I mean he said before game that he would not be especially present day one) Alderan - Absent no alibi Ech - present but slightly suspicious ) : Do you has - present has contributed somewhat(a single post against the word of Ech) no basis for suspicion manner kiss- has presented himself but has not yet contributed to discussion. No basis for suspicion steveling - is present has contributed to discussion does not seem suspicious.track door - has made himself present has contributed somewhat to discussion no reason yet to suspect midnight- is present has contributed , (is mean to me but rightfully so )  no reason to suspect as of yet Sloosh - has contributed, acted out only to defend himself, does not seem suspicius Janaan- is absent no alibi tk hawakins- is absent no aibi dimmuKlk- is absent no alibi zell - is absent no alibi jaj22 - is present, is also somewhat mean but justifiably so as far as I can tell, his negative tone is striking negative but not yet suspicion worthy.
On February 18 2012 05:09 gumshoe wrote:
Now for stance number two! This ones about the lovely poll!
Unlike the topic of lynching lurkers, nearly everyone( with the exception of manner kiss and a few other lurkers) has stated an opinion on this matter, heres the breakdown of where everyone stands. Fore warning I'm a lot less objective here so take my opinions as you will.
Thinks I'm the nubbiest of noobs:
Blae(not much to say, just seems like he wants to move on from the poll which isn't really what a mafia would want)
Janan (just disregarded my poll and moved on, not very suspicious behaviour)
Steveling( hasn't commented to much, posted rather jokingly in response to my poll... Almost as if he wasn't worried about the prospect of me being mafia... Steve needs to post more.)
Midnight Gladius (didn't think I was mafia, not a suprise gladius dosent seem to take many risks)
TKHawkins( hasn't said much)
With this, I really want to make you think more carefully about you post. You say that Steveling has contributed to the discussion, when he actually didn't really at that point (he even loled at your poll) and then you suddenly realize deeper into the game that he hasn't commented much?
I'm letting of the suspicion of you but please, please, think carefully every post you make. Instead of replaying to every post, try to start a case or at least draw your lynch candidates in a clear way. I swear that I can't even understand some of your posts, and not only to me, but all the town right here.
For the moment, i'm lifting my suspicions about you and Steve
I need to keep checking the filters and try to build up a strong case. There have been a lot of situations going on here and I'm starting to lose focus >_<. Expect more posting from me, I will.
|
On February 18 2012 06:05 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 18 2012 05:20 Steveling wrote:
Ok, just woke up and caught on the action.
So, my view on the whole thing is that we should push for a no lynch day 1.
The reasoning: We are close to the night, very close actually and we have zero solid cases on anyone.
Yes mannerkiss's weird 1 liner is scummy, also both eche and sloosh became defensive too fast and yes there are some lurkers as well. Nothing we can make a strong case on.
But chanses are that we are probably gonna misslynch day1 with the current situation.
So the way I see it, we either push for a lurker lynch or a no lynch. And with a no lynch we promote more discussion without losing an unlucky towny, more discussion always benefits the town.
What do you guys think?
No reason for a no lynch yet big hoss, we've got plenty of time. Ok brahs, now for some case building.... Here's a little fliter you all should check out. DimmuKlokOnly three posts so let's investigate.
Post #1 + Show Spoiler +On February 17 2012 15:26 DimmuKlok wrote:
Hello everyone,
I just finished reading through the thread. I would first like to echo TKHawkins first post about lurking and availability when posting. I've been checking the thread nightly to see if the game had started, and tonight it did. I would not be surprised if the majority of people who haven't posted yet are unaware that the game has started.
Now a little bit about myself... This is my first mafia game, and I'm looking forward to it. I really like gumshoe's idea with the report. I'm sure it's already common place, but I recommend everyone make their own private version of it. It's not hard, and it makes it a lot easier to keep track of everyone. I don't have much to contribute yet when it comes to suspicions. It's still too early. - 1st he goes ahead and defends those who had not posted yet, not a huge deal in and of itself but we will see how this is a trend in his postings. - He then goes on to say that we should all have a list of lurkers. That's as scummy as making a list of lurkers but not actually doing the work to update it..... Post #2+ Show Spoiler +On February 17 2012 18:09 DimmuKlok wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 17:11 Janaan wrote:
3. Something I'm really concerned about right now is that there seems to be a few players who have posted since the game started, but only in the most fluffy of ways. Specifically, jaj22, DimmuKlok, trackd00r, MannerKiss, and to a lesser extent, Steveling and TKHawkins. I understand if they didn't have the time to do more than just check in at the start of the game, but still, for so many people to just put out one or two fairly useless posts is overall not a good pro-town atmosphere. We HAVE to find some way to get people involved and posting.
One player that concerns me right now is MannerKiss. First he gets called out to provide some decent content by DoYouHas, then he posts a single sentence acknowledging DoYouHas's post, but doesn't post any content. I'm getting slightly scummy vibes from his play right now. It's worth looking into as we go forward.
Alright, lets take a look. MannerKiss: I think it's unanimous that we would like to hear more from him. His first post was a simple one line introduction, and his second was his one line reply to DoYouHas, which was almost humorous in how suspicious it sounded. Jaj22: He was the one that initially started the conversation about lynching lurkers. I don't agree with his stance. I would rather not have a lynch than lynch a lurker on the first day. I'm not sure if his posts are much to be suspicious over, but worth keeping an eye on. Me: I don't see how someone could read my post and think it didn't have a pro-town atmosphere, but that's your opinion. Trackd00r: I found his first post to be useful and agreed with some of what he said. He never contributed again after that, but it's still pretty early. I don't see the anti-town atmosphere in his post. - First he agrees that the person who voted one time should be suspicious.....How incredibly helpful.... - Then he goes on to say he would rather no lynch than lynch a lurker on the first day. As someone posted above, giving the mafia a free kill and leaving in someone who is adding nothing to the town and only creating more confusion is counter productive.... - Denies how someone could think his all fluff no substance post would be scummy at all..... - Follows up with another fluff analysis of Track, saying nothing, making no stance, providing nothing.
Post #3Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 05:19 DimmuKlok wrote:
I've decided to change my stance on lynching lurkers. I was thinking it would be in towns favor to not lynch someone over lynching someone for being inactive, because there's not much to go off of. After reading everyone's response I'm convinced we should be looking for someone to lynch, but I do feel we should try to find a good reason to lynch someone before we target lurkers.
I'm must suspicious of MannerKiss right now, like most of you. I'm surprised he threw out that one line response to DoYouHas and then never came back to defend himself.
Another suspicion of mine is gumshoe. He's made a lot of posts so far, and most of them being him defending himself for making the poll in the beginning. From a scum perspective, this seems like a good idea. Opening with a useless poll gets your name out there while trying to make it seem like it had a purpose. From then you're able to clutter the thread with discussion over the useless poll, all the while falling back on being a new player as an excuse and some vague reasoning behind it(which might I add has changed several times).
Even if gumshoe is not scum, I can't see this as pro-town behavior.
- Immediately retracts his old lynching policy. Even saying "After reading everyone's response I'm convinced we should be looking for someone to lynch, but I do feel we should try to find a good reason to lynch someone before we target lurkers." - Announces that he is still suspicious of MannerKiss, in light of all the recent developments..... (that was sarcasm, of course you would still be suspicious.... he still hasn't posted). - Jumps on the latest flavor of the thread, Gumshoe, and makes a vague, semi accusatory statement. That, ladies and gentleman is what you call a lurker.... a real scummy looking lurker.....
Alderaan I 100 percent agree with you, his first substantial post was generic and unhelpful and then he proceeds to accuse the two most obvious people in the game after not posting for hours. He has has my vote as well if it comes to it.
|
My logic is that sl0osh is a decent to good player of mafia. As such I believe it is scummy for sl0osh to have ignored obvious reasoning and launched into OMGUS. It is that simple. I don't believe the quality of player that sl0osh is would have reacted in the way that sl0osh did as a townie.
|
On February 18 2012 06:14 gumshoe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 05:53 DoYouHas wrote:On February 18 2012 05:44 gumshoe wrote:
Definitley need to take the risk of a lurker lynch, there are three lurkers currently in the game, manner zell and one more I forget, theres a 75 percent chance one of them is mafia. A chance I think we need to take cause were one townie short.
Could you explain this further? I don't follow the 75% chance. In a sample group of 4 random players in a 16 player game with 4 mafia its almost a 100 percent chance that one of the 4 in the random group is mafia, this is not a random group though, none of these 3 specific lurkers have contributed much making them suspeicius which increases the odds of them bieng mafia. Overall if we pick a lynch from of the three random lurkers there is statistically speaking a good chance that one of them will be mafia, because a) one in four players is probably mafia and b) there behaviour is suspicious. I only see three obvious lurkers therefore the odds are not 100 percent of one of them being mafia. There is a 60 percent chance rather(15 divided by 5 = 3 three is 20 percent of 15. So the odds of three random players being lurkers is twenty percent, but the odds of one of them being mafia is 60 percent exactly.
Christ in buckets, it's FakePromise all over again :S
Gumshoe's statistical analysis is misleading and flawed. I'd rather not clutter up this topic with the details, but in non-technical terms, he's making WIFOM assumptions in setting up the problem, not counting the distribution of outcomes properly, and I don't even know how what he means by
[quote=gumshoe]There is a 60 percent chance rather(15 divided by 5 = 3 three is 20 percent of 15. So the odds of three random players being lurkers is twenty percent, but the odds of one of them being mafia is 60 percent exactly.[/quote]
At this point I'm going to have to assume malicious intent. Several of us have warned him about this, and he's continuing to try and derail the discussion. He's been spamming even more than before, using really bizarre logic to defend himself, and he still has yet to provide much in the way of content. In a way, this is worse than lurking, and it's way beyond what I would expect an innocent newbie to do :/
##Unvote: MannerKiss
##Vote: Gumshoe
|
On February 18 2012 06:28 trackd00r wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 05:20 Steveling wrote:
Ok, just woke up and caught on the action.
So, my view on the whole thing is that we should push for a no lynch day 1.
The reasoning: We are close to the night, very close actually and we have zero solid cases on anyone.
Yes mannerkiss's weird 1 liner is scummy, also both eche and sloosh became defensive too fast and yes there are some lurkers as well. Nothing we can make a strong case on.
But chanses are that we are probably gonna misslynch day1 with the current situation.
So the way I see it, we either push for a lurker lynch or a no lynch. And with a no lynch we promote more discussion without losing an unlucky towny, more discussion always benefits the town.
What do you guys think?
I'm sorry Steveling, but I definitely think that no-lynch is no no. We are not close to night. We've only had played for 21 hours and that's less than half of the time. We still have plenty of time to build a strong case on anyone. There have been several stances where we could gather information and I know that we can use it to push out a lynch. If it turns out mafia, great. If not, we will see the bandwagons and those who are dodging the cases to make a good and hopefully successful lynch in the second day. Well, you have posted much more content than you did it on your previous post, but I insist, I disagree with a no-lynch. Gumshoe, sometimes I think that you are going more pro-town, but in some other instances I just don't understand your intentions. Even you manage to contradict your self: Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 13:36 gumshoe wrote:Early reports! All very preliminary but hopefully it'll give everyone an idea of where some townies stand and where some lurkers don't. blae - absent but has an alibi(by alibi I mean he said before game that he would not be especially present day one) Alderan - Absent no alibi Ech - present but slightly suspicious ) : Do you has - present has contributed somewhat(a single post against the word of Ech) no basis for suspicion manner kiss- has presented himself but has not yet contributed to discussion. No basis for suspicion steveling - is present has contributed to discussion does not seem suspicious.track door - has made himself present has contributed somewhat to discussion no reason yet to suspect midnight- is present has contributed , (is mean to me but rightfully so ) no reason to suspect as of yet Sloosh - has contributed, acted out only to defend himself, does not seem suspicius Janaan- is absent no alibi tk hawakins- is absent no aibi dimmuKlk- is absent no alibi zell - is absent no alibi jaj22 - is present, is also somewhat mean but justifiably so as far as I can tell, his negative tone is striking negative but not yet suspicion worthy. Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 05:09 gumshoe wrote:
Now for stance number two! This ones about the lovely poll!
Unlike the topic of lynching lurkers, nearly everyone( with the exception of manner kiss and a few other lurkers) has stated an opinion on this matter, heres the breakdown of where everyone stands. Fore warning I'm a lot less objective here so take my opinions as you will.
Thinks I'm the nubbiest of noobs:
Blae(not much to say, just seems like he wants to move on from the poll which isn't really what a mafia would want)
Janan (just disregarded my poll and moved on, not very suspicious behaviour)
Steveling( hasn't commented to much, posted rather jokingly in response to my poll... Almost as if he wasn't worried about the prospect of me being mafia... Steve needs to post more.)
Midnight Gladius (didn't think I was mafia, not a suprise gladius dosent seem to take many risks)
TKHawkins( hasn't said much)
With this, I really want to make you think more carefully about you post. You say that Steveling has contributed to the discussion, when he actually didn't really at that point (he even loled at your poll) and then you suddenly realize deeper into the game that he hasn't commented much? I'm letting of the suspicion of you but please, please, think carefully every post you make. Instead of replaying to every post, try to start a case or at least draw your lynch candidates in a clear way. I swear that I can't even understand some of your posts, and not only to me, but all the town right here. For the moment, i'm lifting my suspicions about you and Steve I need to keep checking the filters and try to build up a strong case. There have been a lot of situations going on here and I'm starting to lose focus >_<. Expect more posting from me, I will.
Understood officer wont happen again;
|
On February 18 2012 06:31 MidnightGladius wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 06:14 gumshoe wrote:On February 18 2012 05:53 DoYouHas wrote:On February 18 2012 05:44 gumshoe wrote:
Definitley need to take the risk of a lurker lynch, there are three lurkers currently in the game, manner zell and one more I forget, theres a 75 percent chance one of them is mafia. A chance I think we need to take cause were one townie short.
Could you explain this further? I don't follow the 75% chance. In a sample group of 4 random players in a 16 player game with 4 mafia its almost a 100 percent chance that one of the 4 in the random group is mafia, this is not a random group though, none of these 3 specific lurkers have contributed much making them suspeicius which increases the odds of them bieng mafia. Overall if we pick a lynch from of the three random lurkers there is statistically speaking a good chance that one of them will be mafia, because a) one in four players is probably mafia and b) there behaviour is suspicious. I only see three obvious lurkers therefore the odds are not 100 percent of one of them being mafia. There is a 60 percent chance rather(15 divided by 5 = 3 three is 20 percent of 15. So the odds of three random players being lurkers is twenty percent, but the odds of one of them being mafia is 60 percent exactly. Christ in buckets, it's FakePromise all over again :S Gumshoe's statistical analysis is misleading and flawed. I'd rather not clutter up this topic with the details, but in non-technical terms, he's making WIFOM assumptions in setting up the problem, not counting the distribution of outcomes properly, and I don't even know how what he means by [quote=gumshoe]There is a 60 percent chance rather(15 divided by 5 = 3 three is 20 percent of 15. So the odds of three random players being lurkers is twenty percent, but the odds of one of them being mafia is 60 percent exactly.
At this point I'm going to have to assume malicious intent. Several of us have warned him about this, and he's continuing to try and derail the discussion. He's been spamming even more than before, using really bizarre logic to defend himself, and he still has yet to provide much in the way of content. In a way, this is worse than lurking, and it's way beyond what I would expect an innocent newbie to do :/
##Unvote: MannerKiss
##Vote: Gumshoe[/QUOTE]
there are 4 mafia, 9 townies, 15 players in total,if you were to lynch 4 random players simultaneuley one of them would turn up as mafia. If you were to lynch one of four suspicious players there is a greater chance that one of them turns up as mafia. Thats not Wifom, thats just considering the fact that a lurker who doesn't post much has a slightly greater chance of being mafia. All this is a case for lurker lynching its not meant to be harmful, I'm just suggesting that because theres one more mafia than usual its more likely we will lynch a lurker we have a better chance than of getting a mafioso then we usually would. Please explain to me whats wrong with this claim. Bore us with the details. After all you are accusing me, so I'm very much so interested, hope you can forgive me for that.
|
On February 18 2012 06:31 MidnightGladius wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 06:14 gumshoe wrote:On February 18 2012 05:53 DoYouHas wrote:On February 18 2012 05:44 gumshoe wrote:
Definitley need to take the risk of a lurker lynch, there are three lurkers currently in the game, manner zell and one more I forget, theres a 75 percent chance one of them is mafia. A chance I think we need to take cause were one townie short.
Could you explain this further? I don't follow the 75% chance. In a sample group of 4 random players in a 16 player game with 4 mafia its almost a 100 percent chance that one of the 4 in the random group is mafia, this is not a random group though, none of these 3 specific lurkers have contributed much making them suspeicius which increases the odds of them bieng mafia. Overall if we pick a lynch from of the three random lurkers there is statistically speaking a good chance that one of them will be mafia, because a) one in four players is probably mafia and b) there behaviour is suspicious. I only see three obvious lurkers therefore the odds are not 100 percent of one of them being mafia. There is a 60 percent chance rather(15 divided by 5 = 3 three is 20 percent of 15. So the odds of three random players being lurkers is twenty percent, but the odds of one of them being mafia is 60 percent exactly. Christ in buckets, it's FakePromise all over again :S Gumshoe's statistical analysis is misleading and flawed. I'd rather not clutter up this topic with the details, but in non-technical terms, he's making WIFOM assumptions in setting up the problem, not counting the distribution of outcomes properly, and I don't even know how what he means by [quote=gumshoe]There is a 60 percent chance rather(15 divided by 5 = 3 three is 20 percent of 15. So the odds of three random players being lurkers is twenty percent, but the odds of one of them being mafia is 60 percent exactly.
At this point I'm going to have to assume malicious intent. Several of us have warned him about this, and he's continuing to try and derail the discussion. He's been spamming even more than before, using really bizarre logic to defend himself, and he still has yet to provide much in the way of content. In a way, this is worse than lurking, and it's way beyond what I would expect an innocent newbie to do :/
##Unvote: MannerKiss
##Vote: Gumshoe[/QUOTE]
Sorry reposting due to format error.
there are 4 mafia, 9 townies, 15 players in total,if you were to lynch 4 random players simultaneuley one of them would turn up as mafia. If you were to lynch one of four suspicious players there is a greater chance that one of them turns up as mafia. Thats not Wifom, thats just considering the fact that a lurker who doesn't post much has a slightly greater chance of being mafia. All this is a case for lurker lynching its not meant to be harmful, I'm just suggesting that because theres one more mafia than usual its more likely we will lynch a lurker we have a better chance than of getting a mafioso then we usually would. Please explain to me whats wrong with this claim. Bore us with the details. After all you are accusing me, so I'm very much so interested, hope you can forgive me for that.
|
damm same thing came up, everything that is and is above the vote is gladeuses post everything below is mine
|
On February 18 2012 06:30 DoYouHas wrote:
My logic is that sl0osh is a decent to good player of mafia. As such I believe it is scummy for sl0osh to have ignored obvious reasoning and launched into OMGUS. It is that simple. I don't believe the quality of player that sl0osh is would have reacted in the way that sl0osh did as a townie.
If you want to lynch me based on meta just say so.
The reason why I started to banter with EchelonTee was to create discussion and also see how he (one of the more experienced members) would respond. Mission accomplished. I stopped when I felt like when it was going out of hand.
On February 17 2012 13:51 slOosh wrote:
Calm down. The worst scenario for town is to have discussion dominated by two townies going at each others throats.
So unless you think I am mafia, I would suggest that we both keep the town's best interest in mind and promote a good atmosphere.
|
Gumshoe if you are scum this is the most elaborate noob play I have ever seen that's for sure.
|
Gumshoe I am seriously considering lynching you due to your anti-town play. You are cluttering the thread despite numerous requests to stop. Your posts are still without content. Saying that we have a higher probability to hit mafia since there are 4 opposed to 3 is irrelevant and unhelpful in finding the mafia.
If you keep it up I will push for your lynch, because your play right now is detrimental to town.
|
On February 18 2012 06:54 slOosh wrote:
Gumshoe I am seriously considering lynching you due to your anti-town play. You are cluttering the thread despite numerous requests to stop. Your posts are still without content. Saying that we have a higher probability to hit mafia since there are 4 opposed to 3 is irrelevant and unhelpful in finding the mafia.
If you keep it up I will push for your lynch, because your play right now is detrimental to town.
Alright ill back of at your request. Look forward to something useful next time I post.
|
In case anyone was wondering, the chance of hitting at least one scum by lynching four random players in an 11 town 4 scum game is 76%. If you don't understand why, please avoid using statistical reasoning. It's rarely any use in this game anyway.
|
Gumshoe what's your view on jaj22?
|
I'm going to drag this Steveling lurker-lynch thing up because DYH is busy with his weird Sloosh case:
On February 18 2012 06:14 Steveling wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 06:03 DoYouHas wrote:
gumshoe brings up a good point against Steveling when you consolidate gum's posts on him. Steveling initially said that lynching lurkers is our best scumhunting option so long as nobody looks very scummy by the end of the day. But then when he thought the day was ending he decided to push a no-lynch. Please explain. Well, I thought we were 4 hours from night. With our current cases, I just thought that we were gonna lose a towny.
That doesn't make sense. When you lynch lurkers, you naturally have very little idea whether they're town or mafia, because they don't post enough to tell. Lynching lurkers makes more sense the less information you have on active players, hence a lurker lynch would be a relatively strong choice if the day was ending in a couple of hours time. Essentially, you lynch lurkers because your cases suck.
Also that vague OMGUS at Gumshoe and your general lack of reads are rather worrying. Make up your mind on the lurker lynch thing and post some reads please.
|
On February 18 2012 07:28 jaj22 wrote:I'm going to drag this Steveling lurker-lynch thing up because DYH is busy with his weird Sloosh case: Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 06:14 Steveling wrote:On February 18 2012 06:03 DoYouHas wrote:
gumshoe brings up a good point against Steveling when you consolidate gum's posts on him. Steveling initially said that lynching lurkers is our best scumhunting option so long as nobody looks very scummy by the end of the day. But then when he thought the day was ending he decided to push a no-lynch. Please explain. Well, I thought we were 4 hours from night. With our current cases, I just thought that we were gonna lose a towny. That doesn't make sense. When you lynch lurkers, you naturally have very little idea whether they're town or mafia, because they don't post enough to tell. Lynching lurkers makes more sense the less information you have on active players, hence a lurker lynch would be a relatively strong choice if the day was ending in a couple of hours time. Essentially, you lynch lurkers because your cases suck. Also that vague OMGUS at Gumshoe and your general lack of reads are rather worrying. Make up your mind on the lurker lynch thing and post some reads please.
About the lynch-no lynch, I just thought that it would be a better idea in the current circumstances for town.
But since I have no clue about statistics, if someone can justify that lynching is better then I'm all for that.
I think that's clear.
As for the reads, I'm filtering people as we speak.
|
On February 18 2012 06:46 slOosh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 06:30 DoYouHas wrote:
My logic is that sl0osh is a decent to good player of mafia. As such I believe it is scummy for sl0osh to have ignored obvious reasoning and launched into OMGUS. It is that simple. I don't believe the quality of player that sl0osh is would have reacted in the way that sl0osh did as a townie. If you want to lynch me based on meta just say so. The reason why I started to banter with EchelonTee was to create discussion and also see how he (one of the more experienced members) would respond. Mission accomplished. I stopped when I felt like when it was going out of hand.Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 13:51 slOosh wrote:
Calm down. The worst scenario for town is to have discussion dominated by two townies going at each others throats.
So unless you think I am mafia, I would suggest that we both keep the town's best interest in mind and promote a good atmosphere.
I am dropping my case on sl0osh for now for 2 reasons.
1. His explanation that I bolded fits and is reasonable.
2. Other cases have been presented that are stronger than mine and I want to free both sl0osh and myself up to be constructive in that area.
|
On February 18 2012 07:27 Steveling wrote:
Gumshoe what's your view on jaj22?
Hes hostile very hostile, but doesn't seem like mafia.
Right of the bat he introduced us to both his mentalities as scum and town. This is a bold move that says "I have nothing to fear about revealing my mafia strategies because I am town". If he's mafia he's just volunteered to change his strategy just to throw us off, which isn't out of the realm of possibility, or he's just setting an honest tone for his town play(which is more likely.
His next post is used to dismiss my poll because it clearly wont be of any use due to the inability to keep other posters not in this game from posting. this a useful way to address the poll because it allows for a) the immediate dismissal and the ability to avoid discussion if necessary not because the poll is stupid but because it validly flawed and b) the ability to put pressure on me for posting something that looked as if it had no way to go but down.
He chooses to follow up on option b and eventually proves I was lying, after that he backs off because he's already proven his point and fully discredited the poll(and me). This kind of finality to is useful for town and useful for crumbing suspicion on me for later use if I do turn out to be mafia. Him not pressing the investigation here seems a good sign that he not looking to start a train(or wagon was it?) but actually trying to just figure out another player.
he later on calls out a lurker who is especially suspicious because they claim in advance and time and time again that they have limited time and cant post effectively as a result = Blae. Blae said in advance he wouldn't be able to post that often, but if he's mafia he can use that to his advantage and jaj showcased that he was aware of that threat when he asked Blae to speak up. There is no harm in asking a player to talk but asking a player who no one has called out because they said "I wont be around because of x" seems shrewd.
Also Jaj has only REALLY been hostile towards one person(other than me),Steveling for a stupid suggestion.
All these things can be interpreted as good mafia play though. What really seals the deal for me in thinking hes town is his efforts to communicate with other mafia semish veterans. None of the other frequentish players have really done this. It gives me a sense that Jaj is trying to create a community of individuals he trusts, which he wouldn't have to do if he was mafia. He's also forcing those same people to talk, because they can also turn out to be the biggest threats having already played the game a bit.
Jaj is trying to make friends not by pointing fingers or discrediting someone, but by calling out to the players he knows. That seems like really strong positive play to me and sorta dispels his scumish vibe.
My one complaint is that jaj keeps virtually all his findings to himself so far. I expect a case out of him at least before vote just because It seems almost certain that he's picking up a lot on almost everyone here.
|
This thread is terribly quiet. I kinda miss Gumshoe. Status update time:
MannerKiss, Zelblade, TKHawkins and EchelonTee haven't shown up yet today. That's going to make it tough to get a majority lynch if they keep the same hours tomorrow. The first three of those have lurked hardcore so far and really need to post.
DimmuKlok hasn't posted since the case against him, which is increasingly scummy behaviour. I'd recommend that he posts some reads (not MannerKiss/Gumshoe: too easy) rather than defending it directly, but posting with substance is essential.
|
On February 18 2012 08:20 jaj22 wrote:
This thread is terribly quiet. I kinda miss Gumshoe. Status update time:
MannerKiss, Zelblade, TKHawkins and EchelonTee haven't shown up yet today. That's going to make it tough to get a majority lynch if they keep the same hours tomorrow. The first three of those have lurked hardcore so far and really need to post.
DimmuKlok hasn't posted since the case against him, which is increasingly scummy behaviour. I'd recommend that he posts some reads (not MannerKiss/Gumshoe: too easy) rather than defending it directly, but posting with substance is essential.
Let him respond as he normally would...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
