|
On February 28 2012 06:29 dreamflower wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 06:18 phagga wrote:
It's less than 6 more hours until Night. Currently we have 4 candidates with 2 votes each. Don't forget, we need a majority vote. So if everyone votes, this means that at least 8 people have to vote for one person for a successful lynch. I just wanted to clarify that this is not true, actually. As discussed in the long OP, under voting rules: "This game follows Extended Majority Lynch Rules. Majority = number of total voters/2 (rounded down) + 1. Unlike in traditional majority lynch, the lynch is NOT decided the moment that majority is reached. Instead, only the final vote count matters. If there is no majority at the deadline, the day ends with a no-lynch. Non-voters will be modkilled for failure to vote."
Thus, the lynch will be decided by a majority of the total number of voters, not the total number of players. This is intended to prevent a no-lynch from occurring simply because too many inactive players failed to vote. This way, active players are not unfairly penalized for other peoples' inactivity. With the current numbers of voters (10 at the moment), the first person who reaches a majority (6/10) will be lynched.
*facepalms* yeah right, there are 18 people in this game, not 14. And thanks for the clarification concerning the voting system, I see now that I was unclear about it in my post.
|
@Steveling have you been actively pursuing getting a replacement or no?
@Chocolate aside from igabod who are you thinking is appearing scummy? Are you really getting a null read on everyone?
To anyone who cares, I don't think Ghost_403 is that suspicious anymore. I realized that it is more likely that either Ghost or Chocolate are scum, Chocolate strikes me as someone riding the middle and keeping his head down.
|
I said I wasn't getting strong reads, not null reads. My reads are currently on
Alderan-
On February 27 2012 12:50 Alderan wrote:
Also, if this reasoning stands I think Ghost is scum as well.
Here's how I see this vote on Jeckyll going:
- Ghost puts his vote on Jeckyll, cause you know they're pressuring lurkers and all.
- Chocolate also puts his vote on Jeckyll, cause you know they're pressuring lurkers and all.
- Ghost gets pissed in the scum qt by saying "dude back up off me, we don't need to get too associated with each other"
- Chocolate is like "shit, how can I back out of this? Oh I got it! I'll say we need to diversify our pressure portfolio!!!!!11!!"
- Chocolate votes on another random lurker.
- Alderan figures it out.
I never voted for jeckyll to begin with. I don't even think I've even mentioned him so far. If you're implying that 1-4 all took place in a scum qt, all there is ostensibly is me voting on a lurker, making the only connection both me and ghost voting on lurkers. I also dislike you painting me as stupid or unintelligent, because it is common to portray dumb people as using !!111!!!. This is an underhanded tactic to try to get people to dislike me.
Another reason I'm suspicious of you is simply because you got on my case when I felt like I didn't do anything wrong, although I probably should've explained more why I was voting on FF.
Fourface- not too sure about this guy but I think he may just be scum acting out, trying to act so boldly that nobody thinks he's scum. I hope he gets replaced or shapes up, if he doesn't I'd be fine with voting on him.
Steveling- he posted day 1 about lynch policy, otherwise has done absolutely NOTHING
That's it for now I suppose. I'd be up for lynching them plus igabod.
|
As I said before, I am happy to lynch lurkers...
--UNLESS--
...there are scum. Oh boy, are there scum in this thread. I'm not down with an Igabod lynch (at the moment. Igabod, post more.) simply because there are scummier targets.
On February 28 2012 06:37 Chocolate wrote:
Right now I'm looking at igabod because he has almost no posts, and because I'm not getting strong reads on anybody else at the moment. I'm looking at some of the people who seemed to be bandwagoning/sheeping on to me, but I do realize that you all want a lynch to gain info, and I may represent the best case to you.
Tells us not to jump on the bandwagon.
Immediately jumps on the bandwagon.
Also, he's posted very little content up til now. His post history is "let's lynch lurkers, let's not lynch lurkers, let's lynch lurkers who don't post in the next hour, let's lynch phagga for lurking, sorry for jumping on the FourFace bandwagon, let's lynch Igabod." Chocolate's Filter
And now, his most recent post is "Alderan used an OMGUS sort of, FourFace is fishy, and here's another lurker." Not impressed.
Scummy lurker >> regular lurker.
##vote chocolate
Just as an aside, did you know that out of the 14 people playing this game, only 4 of them agreed to a no-lynch on day 1?
|
I'm back at home.
@ghost: After looking into your statement, you have addressed my concerns already. While I do not necessarily agree with your initial play style - you are being active and can address statements and inquiries.
On February 28 2012 06:32 Chocolate wrote:Hi guys I'm back. Hopefully I can format this correctly + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Note: this didn't start as a PBPA but it ended that way because literally everything he has done is scummy. Chocolate is super scummy to me right now.
Says things like "our vote will probably end up being a lurker"... Who says this? Even if it is the case you're giving mafia free reign to post a couple BS posts and get out of the thread. He later goes on to say Show nested quote +I'll give them until ~6 EST to post but if they still haven't by them we should vote one. Pretty adamanent about this lurker idea, right? Wrong.NOT 3 POSTS LATER he's off his lurker train now, and onto the easiest target, namely, Fourface. Fourface, for reasons stated above is very likely not scum, but I could see Chocolate's beady little eyes now getting as wide as an anime characters in joy when he saw that Fourface made one of the most "interesting" (as to avoid getting in trouble) posts I've ever seen. Oh and this: Show nested quote +We should probably spread out our votes, don't need two people on one lurker yet imo I don't get this either. Why would you split your votes up? If it's for pressure here is a newsflash: Votes DO NOT = Pressure Pressure is cases, pressure is discussion, a one liner and vote in the vote thread doesn't cut it. Period. Then there's: Show nested quote +That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. I got off the "lurker idea" because obviously it wasn't that good. I just wanted people to perhaps panic and get them to start posting. My idea was that votes DO=pressure, because noobs tend to panic a little when they see they are getting voted on. I said our vote will probably end up on a lurker because frankly that's what happened in my most previous game: most of the people lynched were either lurkers or scum, and most of the cases were on either lurkers or scum. I switched to fourface because I wanted him to keep posting, to see if I could get a good case on him. Obviously, he has continued, but hasn't adressed my points. I think he'll get replaced though so I'm going to hold off on voting for him for now. I'll try to make a case against someone shortly. That's my schedule, there isn't much to say about it. I'm in HS, and my parents make me get off the computer and my phone at 9 on weeknights, so I won't be online for the last hour of voting. + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 14:17 NightFury wrote:@Alderan I believe your case is good, but I feel it is slightly flawed. I'm not getting a very good town/scum read on Chocolate at this moment. While suspicious, I think he was overzealous with the mentality he had on the outset of the game and prone to a knee-jerk reaction. I'm unsure whether this is actually scummy or just reckless play. Also, out of curiosity, what does PBPA stand for? (Hope I don't butcher how TL handles quotes...) Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
Says things like "our vote will probably end up being a lurker"... Who says this? Even if it is the case you're giving mafia free reign to post a couple BS posts and get out of the thread. His full post goes more like this: Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 12:23 Chocolate wrote:
It could be possible that someone makes a big scumslip but from the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post, and since the pressure is on them the vote momentum is on them. Usually the lurkers are also new and some of their defenses are just based on OMGUS or accusing their accuser, instead of making insightful posts and contributing to prove their innocence.
I'm not sure we will lynch a lurker on Day1, but it is the most likely outcome in my eyes. A few things about this. - This was posted on the very outset of the game. This irks me because he's already making predictions on previous games he's played. Also the fact that it's not later on since it could possibly be valid if we had no cases and a bunch of lurkers. - I'm interested in his previous two games here. He mentioned that "...the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post...". I haven't looked at his previous games yet but I'm not sure if that's even a valid statement. If he's only played 2 games here then that's not a large sample size or it's possible that he has experience elsewhere and it's just a trend he's noticed. I will come back to this later after some analysis... also he mentions for us not to look. - He establishes the "vote to pressure" mentality early. This does come back later. - This was in response to an earlier statement by him since Janaan questioned why he thought the early deadline would likely target a lurker. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:He later goes on to say I'll give them until ~6 EST to post but if they still haven't by them we should vote one. Pretty adamanent about this lurker idea, right? - He's maintaining his "vote to pressure" mentality. Namely he was looking at people who have yet to post listed by gumshoe. - At this point there hasn't been any significant cases. FF has already posted and some discussion has arisen... but no case when he posted. - As far as I can tell, he's just sticking to his ideology at this point. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Oh and this: We should probably spread out our votes, don't need two people on one lurker yet imo I don't get this either. Why would you split your votes up? If it's for pressure here is a newsflash: Votes DO NOT = Pressure Pressure is cases, pressure is discussion, a one liner and vote in the vote thread doesn't cut it. Period. - The case on FF hasn't been posted yet. - He's still sticking to his ideology of pressuring lurkers via votes. - I'm willing to be think that he just has a poor plan with "vote to pressure" at this point. So prior to his sudden switch to targeting FF (which hasn't happened yet)... I don't think he realized that "vote to pressure" wasn't a good idea. I'm not sure if anyone even tried to tell him this? Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
Wrong.
NOT 3 POSTS LATER he's off his lurker train now, and onto the easiest target, namely, Fourface.
Fourface, for reasons stated above is very likely not scum, but I could see Chocolate's beady little eyes now getting as wide as an anime characters in joy when he saw that Fourface made one of the most "interesting" (as to avoid getting in trouble) posts I've ever seen. - In short, this is also irks me. He went from adamant lurkers to FF. - He did mention that he would ditch lurkers if there was a huge scumslip or something of that nature. - However he may think it was a scumslip or something as a knee-jerk reaction. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Then there's: That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. - This may have been a taken out of context. I think he was referring to my second deadline suggestion (no quotes or @me, but he already commented on the first soft deadline and this follows my post). - Since it does not appear we are going to use a second deadline system, he can't use this as a defense priming technique if we don't use the second deadline. @Chocolate: Why would you vote for someone just for being weird? Or was there something especially scummy about it? As discussed in the thread, FF may not be scum just from his insanity defense alone. Voting to pressure actually kinda worked in my previous game. If you take the time to look back on it you'll notice sacredsystem taking votes very harshly. When I switched to FF,as I said earlier, I was trying to get him to post more. It didn't work, because he hasn't posted any real content since then. + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 14:22 Janaan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:06 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 13:59 Janaan wrote:One thing that stands out most to me about Ghost's posting is this gem right here Show nested quote +Another way to look at that is if you are still left during day 3 after 2 mislynches. There are 6 townies and 4 scum. The scum are either (1) forced to work together to stay alive, and are pretty easy to spot or (2) are going to sacrifice one of their own. Unless something goes horribly, horribly wrong, the worst case scenario for day 4 is 5 townies to 3 scum. No problem.
He seems to think that it's perfectly fine for us to go 3 days without lynching a mafia, which would put us in a MYLO situation. Not exactly what I'd call a pro-town position to be in. His justification for saying this is pretty weak I think. 1. If the game gets to this point, scum obviously haven't been easy to spot, and it doesn't really get much easier. Sure, the "odds" might be more in your favor, but if you're in this situation, scum probably are pretty good at hiding in plain sight. 2. Yeah, scum might sacrifice one of their own. But 5 town/ 3 scum is still MYLO. I don't see how a townie could say that this is "no problem". Janaan, talk to me about Chocolate. I agree that Chocolate does seem a little wishy washy, saying stuff like then he seems to say at least slightly differently in his next post It seems to me that for the most part, though, his posts are fairly consistent with the idea of lynching lurkers in mind. I don't really know what Show nested quote +That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. was about, and it does seem like he could be just trying to cover for himself so he can justify not being active near the voting deadline. Particularly when he did say that he'd most likely be online . 17-21 EST is the hours before the deadline, so he may've contradicted himself there. There's not really enough for me to call him scum right now, but he looks like he could be potentially. Saying something is probable and that I'm not sure of it doesn't seem contradictory to me at all. Isn't that what you mean when you say probably? 17-21 EST is right before the deadline except the last hour, so I'm notcontradicting myself. Honestly if your case on me is because of these that's pretty fishy, either you're sheeping or you're voting along with the mafia (possibly both). If there's anything I missed please point it out to me so I can address it.
Okay. Why do you want people to panic and start posting? Getting people to panic is not a great idea because it can easily cause a lot of confusion. A townie panicking can make themselves appear suspicious and draw a lot of attention. Building a case off of panic doesn't make sense since the information you obtain may not be reliable. Yes, you could possibly cause scum to panic and get something - but how do you differentiate this from a townie? Also you mention this is to target newbies? How does experience dictate which role they have? I feel this strategy to begin with is extremely flawed and should not be a viable option.
In hindsight, going after FourFace with that strategy was a bad idea (maybe his insanity defense was just a panic defense). But you don't even listen to your own philosophy. You wanted to build a case against him by making him post more. But you don't even present a case of your own - you just outright vote for him.
I did take a look just now at your previous game with SacredSystem (only looked around Day 1 btw). Once again, the plan didn't even work. I would like you to explain how this plan worked in your eyes. He wasn't inactive. The vote wasn't even against him - he started off against someone's analysis about random lynching. He was town! Same thing with the person you immediately voted for because he didn't mention anything (he claimed he was at school, perfectly fair).
Also, you were mafia in the previous game. I don't necessarily want to try to use posting meta in this game but now this is a bit too much. If you're mafia, the idea of causing someone to panic and gather a lot of attention benefits the mafia team. It leads the town down a useless path unless the person can defend themselves well... but a newbie panicking may not perform that too well.
The big question I have for you: why are you using the same strategy to cause newbies to panic if you're truly town? How can you differentiate townie panic versus mafia panic? As of right now given the new circumstances - I do not believe you are town.
##Unvote: Ghost_304
##Vote: Chocolate
|
EBWOP:
##Unvote: Ghost_403*
##Vote: Chocolate
Sorry ghost, typo'd on your name. =(
|
Do you find no one else suspicious besides lurkers and 4F?
We're trying to build as many cases as possible and put pressure on every one we find suspicious.
The hypothetical Jeckyll vote thing was just something that popped into my head when making my case on you and I used it to push you both and see how you respond.
Sorry if you think I tried to make you look dumb, that was not my intention.
|
Gumshoe, where you at?
Chocolate or Ghost?
|
On February 28 2012 06:49 Janaan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 06:32 Chocolate wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 14:22 Janaan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:06 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 13:59 Janaan wrote:One thing that stands out most to me about Ghost's posting is this gem right here Show nested quote +Another way to look at that is if you are still left during day 3 after 2 mislynches. There are 6 townies and 4 scum. The scum are either (1) forced to work together to stay alive, and are pretty easy to spot or (2) are going to sacrifice one of their own. Unless something goes horribly, horribly wrong, the worst case scenario for day 4 is 5 townies to 3 scum. No problem.
He seems to think that it's perfectly fine for us to go 3 days without lynching a mafia, which would put us in a MYLO situation. Not exactly what I'd call a pro-town position to be in. His justification for saying this is pretty weak I think. 1. If the game gets to this point, scum obviously haven't been easy to spot, and it doesn't really get much easier. Sure, the "odds" might be more in your favor, but if you're in this situation, scum probably are pretty good at hiding in plain sight. 2. Yeah, scum might sacrifice one of their own. But 5 town/ 3 scum is still MYLO. I don't see how a townie could say that this is "no problem". Janaan, talk to me about Chocolate. I agree that Chocolate does seem a little wishy washy, saying stuff like then he seems to say at least slightly differently in his next post It seems to me that for the most part, though, his posts are fairly consistent with the idea of lynching lurkers in mind. I don't really know what Show nested quote +That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. was about, and it does seem like he could be just trying to cover for himself so he can justify not being active near the voting deadline. Particularly when he did say that he'd most likely be online . 17-21 EST is the hours before the deadline, so he may've contradicted himself there. There's not really enough for me to call him scum right now, but he looks like he could be potentially. Saying something is probable and that I'm not sure of it doesn't seem contradictory to me at all. Isn't that what you mean when you say probably? 17-21 EST is right before the deadline except the last hour, so I'm notcontradicting myself. Honestly if your case on me is because of these that's pretty fishy, either you're sheeping or you're voting along with the mafia (possibly both). To me Probable is more strong than saying you're not sure of it. But I could just be arguing semantics here. Also, if I was merely sheeping/voting with mafia like you suggest, I would've voted for you. As it is, I just found a couple things I felt were a bit odd and commented on that.
Janaan where would you place your vote if deadline was in 5 minutes?
|
On February 28 2012 07:31 ghost_403 wrote:As I said before, I am happy to lynch lurkers... --UNLESS-- ...there are scum. Oh boy, are there scum in this thread. I'm not down with an Igabod lynch (at the moment. Igabod, post more.) simply because there are scummier targets. Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 06:37 Chocolate wrote:
Right now I'm looking at igabod because he has almost no posts, and because I'm not getting strong reads on anybody else at the moment. I'm looking at some of the people who seemed to be bandwagoning/sheeping on to me, but I do realize that you all want a lynch to gain info, and I may represent the best case to you. Tells us not to jump on the bandwagon. Immediately jumps on the bandwagon. Also, he's posted very little content up til now. His post history is "let's lynch lurkers, let's not lynch lurkers, let's lynch lurkers who don't post in the next hour, let's lynch phagga for lurking, sorry for jumping on the FourFace bandwagon, let's lynch Igabod." Chocolate's FilterAnd now, his most recent post is "Alderan used an OMGUS sort of, FourFace is fishy, and here's another lurker." Not impressed. Scummy lurker >> regular lurker. ##vote chocolateJust as an aside, did you know that out of the 14 people playing this game, only 4 of them agreed to a no-lynch on day 1?
I want igabod to post more, is that so bad? Votes are not set in stone. As I said I'd be up for all the people I previously outlined, but igabod is the most scummy to me because of his lack of posts.
My "lurker policy" hasn't been the greatest, and hasn't produced good results. Do you honestly think I would keep my vote on those people though? I don't even remember when I was against lynching lurkers, but if you're referring to my 2nd post during the game I didn't say I was for or against lynching them , only that they were the most likely lynch candidates.
I don't see anything wrong with my most recent post. I'm not going to wildly say SLOOSH IS MAFIA, and find things to justify my point. I will find things and base my point off them, and those are the people who have garnered my suspicion.
On February 28 2012 07:33 NightFury wrote:I'm back at home. @ghost: After looking into your statement, you have addressed my concerns already. While I do not necessarily agree with your initial play style - you are being active and can address statements and inquiries. Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 06:32 Chocolate wrote:Hi guys I'm back. Hopefully I can format this correctly + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Note: this didn't start as a PBPA but it ended that way because literally everything he has done is scummy. Chocolate is super scummy to me right now.
Says things like "our vote will probably end up being a lurker"... Who says this? Even if it is the case you're giving mafia free reign to post a couple BS posts and get out of the thread. He later goes on to say Show nested quote +I'll give them until ~6 EST to post but if they still haven't by them we should vote one. Pretty adamanent about this lurker idea, right? Wrong.NOT 3 POSTS LATER he's off his lurker train now, and onto the easiest target, namely, Fourface. Fourface, for reasons stated above is very likely not scum, but I could see Chocolate's beady little eyes now getting as wide as an anime characters in joy when he saw that Fourface made one of the most "interesting" (as to avoid getting in trouble) posts I've ever seen. Oh and this: Show nested quote +We should probably spread out our votes, don't need two people on one lurker yet imo I don't get this either. Why would you split your votes up? If it's for pressure here is a newsflash: Votes DO NOT = Pressure Pressure is cases, pressure is discussion, a one liner and vote in the vote thread doesn't cut it. Period. Then there's: Show nested quote +That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. I got off the "lurker idea" because obviously it wasn't that good. I just wanted people to perhaps panic and get them to start posting. My idea was that votes DO=pressure, because noobs tend to panic a little when they see they are getting voted on. I said our vote will probably end up on a lurker because frankly that's what happened in my most previous game: most of the people lynched were either lurkers or scum, and most of the cases were on either lurkers or scum. I switched to fourface because I wanted him to keep posting, to see if I could get a good case on him. Obviously, he has continued, but hasn't adressed my points. I think he'll get replaced though so I'm going to hold off on voting for him for now. I'll try to make a case against someone shortly. That's my schedule, there isn't much to say about it. I'm in HS, and my parents make me get off the computer and my phone at 9 on weeknights, so I won't be online for the last hour of voting. + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 14:17 NightFury wrote:@Alderan I believe your case is good, but I feel it is slightly flawed. I'm not getting a very good town/scum read on Chocolate at this moment. While suspicious, I think he was overzealous with the mentality he had on the outset of the game and prone to a knee-jerk reaction. I'm unsure whether this is actually scummy or just reckless play. Also, out of curiosity, what does PBPA stand for? (Hope I don't butcher how TL handles quotes...) Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
Says things like "our vote will probably end up being a lurker"... Who says this? Even if it is the case you're giving mafia free reign to post a couple BS posts and get out of the thread. His full post goes more like this: Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 12:23 Chocolate wrote:
It could be possible that someone makes a big scumslip but from the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post, and since the pressure is on them the vote momentum is on them. Usually the lurkers are also new and some of their defenses are just based on OMGUS or accusing their accuser, instead of making insightful posts and contributing to prove their innocence.
I'm not sure we will lynch a lurker on Day1, but it is the most likely outcome in my eyes. A few things about this. - This was posted on the very outset of the game. This irks me because he's already making predictions on previous games he's played. Also the fact that it's not later on since it could possibly be valid if we had no cases and a bunch of lurkers. - I'm interested in his previous two games here. He mentioned that "...the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post...". I haven't looked at his previous games yet but I'm not sure if that's even a valid statement. If he's only played 2 games here then that's not a large sample size or it's possible that he has experience elsewhere and it's just a trend he's noticed. I will come back to this later after some analysis... also he mentions for us not to look. - He establishes the "vote to pressure" mentality early. This does come back later. - This was in response to an earlier statement by him since Janaan questioned why he thought the early deadline would likely target a lurker. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:He later goes on to say I'll give them until ~6 EST to post but if they still haven't by them we should vote one. Pretty adamanent about this lurker idea, right? - He's maintaining his "vote to pressure" mentality. Namely he was looking at people who have yet to post listed by gumshoe. - At this point there hasn't been any significant cases. FF has already posted and some discussion has arisen... but no case when he posted. - As far as I can tell, he's just sticking to his ideology at this point. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Oh and this: We should probably spread out our votes, don't need two people on one lurker yet imo I don't get this either. Why would you split your votes up? If it's for pressure here is a newsflash: Votes DO NOT = Pressure Pressure is cases, pressure is discussion, a one liner and vote in the vote thread doesn't cut it. Period. - The case on FF hasn't been posted yet. - He's still sticking to his ideology of pressuring lurkers via votes. - I'm willing to be think that he just has a poor plan with "vote to pressure" at this point. So prior to his sudden switch to targeting FF (which hasn't happened yet)... I don't think he realized that "vote to pressure" wasn't a good idea. I'm not sure if anyone even tried to tell him this? Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
Wrong.
NOT 3 POSTS LATER he's off his lurker train now, and onto the easiest target, namely, Fourface.
Fourface, for reasons stated above is very likely not scum, but I could see Chocolate's beady little eyes now getting as wide as an anime characters in joy when he saw that Fourface made one of the most "interesting" (as to avoid getting in trouble) posts I've ever seen. - In short, this is also irks me. He went from adamant lurkers to FF. - He did mention that he would ditch lurkers if there was a huge scumslip or something of that nature. - However he may think it was a scumslip or something as a knee-jerk reaction. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Then there's: That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. - This may have been a taken out of context. I think he was referring to my second deadline suggestion (no quotes or @me, but he already commented on the first soft deadline and this follows my post). - Since it does not appear we are going to use a second deadline system, he can't use this as a defense priming technique if we don't use the second deadline. @Chocolate: Why would you vote for someone just for being weird? Or was there something especially scummy about it? As discussed in the thread, FF may not be scum just from his insanity defense alone. Voting to pressure actually kinda worked in my previous game. If you take the time to look back on it you'll notice sacredsystem taking votes very harshly. When I switched to FF,as I said earlier, I was trying to get him to post more. It didn't work, because he hasn't posted any real content since then. + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 14:22 Janaan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:06 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 13:59 Janaan wrote:One thing that stands out most to me about Ghost's posting is this gem right here Show nested quote +Another way to look at that is if you are still left during day 3 after 2 mislynches. There are 6 townies and 4 scum. The scum are either (1) forced to work together to stay alive, and are pretty easy to spot or (2) are going to sacrifice one of their own. Unless something goes horribly, horribly wrong, the worst case scenario for day 4 is 5 townies to 3 scum. No problem.
He seems to think that it's perfectly fine for us to go 3 days without lynching a mafia, which would put us in a MYLO situation. Not exactly what I'd call a pro-town position to be in. His justification for saying this is pretty weak I think. 1. If the game gets to this point, scum obviously haven't been easy to spot, and it doesn't really get much easier. Sure, the "odds" might be more in your favor, but if you're in this situation, scum probably are pretty good at hiding in plain sight. 2. Yeah, scum might sacrifice one of their own. But 5 town/ 3 scum is still MYLO. I don't see how a townie could say that this is "no problem". Janaan, talk to me about Chocolate. I agree that Chocolate does seem a little wishy washy, saying stuff like then he seems to say at least slightly differently in his next post It seems to me that for the most part, though, his posts are fairly consistent with the idea of lynching lurkers in mind. I don't really know what Show nested quote +That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. was about, and it does seem like he could be just trying to cover for himself so he can justify not being active near the voting deadline. Particularly when he did say that he'd most likely be online . 17-21 EST is the hours before the deadline, so he may've contradicted himself there. There's not really enough for me to call him scum right now, but he looks like he could be potentially. Saying something is probable and that I'm not sure of it doesn't seem contradictory to me at all. Isn't that what you mean when you say probably? 17-21 EST is right before the deadline except the last hour, so I'm notcontradicting myself. Honestly if your case on me is because of these that's pretty fishy, either you're sheeping or you're voting along with the mafia (possibly both). If there's anything I missed please point it out to me so I can address it. Okay. Why do you want people to panic and start posting? Getting people to panic is not a great idea because it can easily cause a lot of confusion. A townie panicking can make themselves appear suspicious and draw a lot of attention. Building a case off of panic doesn't make sense since the information you obtain may not be reliable. Yes, you could possibly cause scum to panic and get something - but how do you differentiate this from a townie? Also you mention this is to target newbies? How does experience dictate which role they have? I feel this strategy to begin with is extremely flawed and should not be a viable option. In hindsight, going after FourFace with that strategy was a bad idea (maybe his insanity defense was just a panic defense). But you don't even listen to your own philosophy. You wanted to build a case against him by making him post more. But you don't even present a case of your own - you just outright vote for him. I did take a look just now at your previous game with SacredSystem (only looked around Day 1 btw). Once again, the plan didn't even work. I would like you to explain how this plan worked in your eyes. He wasn't inactive. The vote wasn't even against him - he started off against someone's analysis about random lynching. He was town! Same thing with the person you immediately voted for because he didn't mention anything (he claimed he was at school, perfectly fair). Also, you were mafia in the previous game. I don't necessarily want to try to use posting meta in this game but now this is a bit too much. If you're mafia, the idea of causing someone to panic and gather a lot of attention benefits the mafia team. It leads the town down a useless path unless the person can defend themselves well... but a newbie panicking may not perform that too well. The big question I have for you: why are you using the same strategy to cause newbies to panic if you're truly town? How can you differentiate townie panic versus mafia panic? As of right now given the new circumstances - I do not believe you are town. ##Unvote: Ghost_304##Vote: Chocolate
Panicking can produce results. If someone panics it makes me think of them as mafia, because it shows that they may not be able to think up a good defense, whereas town should be able to make good decisions based on the current information (remember, scum has to be careful not to reveal their private information). It targets newbies but mafia are more likely to panic to me.
I voted for 4face to get him to post more. If I hadn't voted for him there wouldn't have been sufficient pressure on him to get him to post. The vote causes that. If it were the end of the day I wouldn't have voted for him, simply because there wasn't too much to go off.
Read more of that mafia game. SS was town and I was mafia, but from an objective view I think late into the game he was very scummy.
I wanted people to panic because i thought mafia would be more likely to panic.
On February 28 2012 07:37 Alderan wrote:
Do you find no one else suspicious besides lurkers and 4F?
We're trying to build as many cases as possible and put pressure on every one we find suspicious.
The hypothetical Jeckyll vote thing was just something that popped into my head when making my case on you and I used it to push you both and see how you respond.
Sorry if you think I tried to make you look dumb, that was not my intention.
It's fine. I did say I found you suspicious, and you aren't really lurking. I'm inclined to think all the people voting for me are suspicious too, but I don't know. I just hope if I die that you all look in to some of them, especially votes 4-7.
|
|
|
On February 28 2012 07:48 Alderan wrote:
Gumshoe, where you at?
Chocolate or Ghost?
give me one sec 
|
Anybody else think that this bandwagon is forming a little quickly on Chocolate? It wouldn't be so odd to me, but when I see a post like NightFury's which attacks Chocolate with points that are not very conclusive I start thinking that people are talking themselves into a Chocolate lynch instead of being objectively convinced. If you thought that he was our best lynch candidate because you found a few of thing things he said fishy and did not like his early lurking/middle of the road posts, that is one thing. But when you invent fairly invalid points to convince us that you aren't just sheeping the vote, it is very bad for town.
Right now I am very comfortable with my igabod vote. With how the conversation is being directed towards either a ghost lynch or a Chocolate lynch, I think igabod has a better chance of flipping scum than either of them.
|
On February 28 2012 07:57 Chocolate wrote:
Panicking can produce results. If someone panics it makes me think of them as mafia, because it shows that they may not be able to think up a good defense, whereas town should be able to make good decisions based on the current information (remember, scum has to be careful not to reveal their private information). It targets newbies but mafia are more likely to panic to me.
I voted for 4face to get him to post more. If I hadn't voted for him there wouldn't have been sufficient pressure on him to get him to post. The vote causes that. If it were the end of the day I wouldn't have voted for him, simply because there wasn't too much to go off.
Read more of that mafia game. SS was town and I was mafia, but from an objective view I think late into the game he was very scummy.
I wanted people to panic because i thought mafia would be more likely to panic.
I'm arguing that panicking can produce misleading results instead of being conclusive results. Anybody can panic at a case against them - especially newbies as you mentioned. A panicked response contains emotion. It does not necessarily have to be completely logical which is why it can produce misleading results. I don't see how any panicked response can be conclusive or at least indicative of mafia unless something very specific is mentioned. I think you're more likely to get a misleading result than a real one in my opinion.
FourFace had an entire case against him before you voted him. A case is more than enough pressure for a follow-up. If he didn't follow-up, then he probably wouldn't be standing in the brightest of lights with everyone else.
To be honest, I'm not going to go through more of that game personally - unless you want to bring up very specific points in the game and provide rationale. Late into the game is different from day 1. There's a lot more information on the table and several days worth of voting and action. I think your statement is out of context to the situation at hand in this game.
|
@DoYouHas He's got a weak argument, for sure, but I don't see anything that I would call "invented" in there. What did you see that I missed?
@Janaan I second what alderan said. Who you voting for?
|
On February 28 2012 08:04 DoYouHas wrote:
Anybody else think that this bandwagon is forming a little quickly on Chocolate? It wouldn't be so odd to me, but when I see a post like NightFury's which attacks Chocolate with points that are not very conclusive I start thinking that people are talking themselves into a Chocolate lynch instead of being objectively convinced. If you thought that he was our best lynch candidate because you found a few of thing things he said fishy and did not like his early lurking/middle of the road posts, that is one thing. But when you invent fairly invalid points to convince us that you aren't just sheeping the vote, it is very bad for town.
Right now I am very comfortable with my igabod vote. With how the conversation is being directed towards either a ghost lynch or a Chocolate lynch, I think igabod has a better chance of flipping scum than either of them.
Is there anything specific you want me to address or elaborate on? Which points do you believe are invalid?
|
EBWOP
@Alderan Same goes to you. Who you voting for?
|
As of yet having read the cases I feel that some convincing doubts have been brought on to both the parties of ghost and chocolate, I do not think they are both scum (just because I would be sad to see scum play so blatantly awful) but it is likely that one of them is because scum love noob trains. I am equally suspicious of both of them, so I ask myself which lynch yields more information? The answer ties in directly with one of my current other suspicions
Right now I am suspicious of Sloosh of all people, sloosh, I do not appreciate your safe slow style, if your town, it makes you look an easy hit blue and your just not as constructive as you were last game, janaan and alderaan and DYH have completely stepped their game up despite the lack of evidence and have not just contributed but have helped the thread evolve and take shape, you on the other hand have been content for the most to just sit back and not take a guiding role in all of this. I am especially suspicious of you because your fate is tied up with ghosts.
+ Show Spoiler +filter
On February 27 2012 10:50 JekyllAndHyde wrote:
Show nested quote +
My current suspicions are on:
ghost_403
I'm really not sure if this is unintentional anti-town play or soft pushing mafia agenda.
On February 27 2012 02:32 ghost_403 wrote:
@alderan I really don't see any time where it would be advantageous to the town to not lynch. The town should first be lynching scum. If we can't find scum, we should instead lynch people who are not useful to the town. Lurkers fit the second criteria perfectly. By lurking, you are providing cover for the scum to hide, which is in every case bad for the town.
He seems to advocate, in the event we can't agree on a good mafia suspect, lurker lynches. Lurker lynches are good, but only to flush mafia out of hiding, as he says so himself. Right now this is a null post to me as I can see both town or mafia thinking this. However:
On February 27 2012 04:43 ghost_403 wrote:
@Janaan Nope. I would love to start lynching into the other non-posters and fluffy posters as well, but alas, I have only one vote. Although, I would expect more posting from a hydra. It seems between the two of them that at least one could post on here "Don't lynch me".
His stance is consistent but questionable. He wants to lynch, not pressure to get people to post and produce content and thus flush out mafia. It's almost like he will policy lynch a lurker. Still null, but worth looking into.
On February 27 2012 07:18 ghost_403 wrote:
Just got back and I've seen a few things that I'm not too happy about
It seems that most of the discussion on this thread has been built around the idea of a soft deadline and a no-lynch day 1. Here are my thoughts on both of those.
A soft deadline isn't really needed. At all. If your concern is that people change their votes at the last minute and mess up votes, there is a simple solution to that: we lynch people who change their votes at the last minute and mess up votes. I would rather lynch scum over people who mess up votes, but I'm down with policy lynching. Townies, don't change your vote at the last minute and mess up votes. I will vote to policy lynch you.
A no lynch day 1 is a bad idea. Pretty much, no matter who you are, a no lynch plays against your win condition, unless you're the Batman. As there is not the Batman in this game, no lynching goes against your win condition. Look at it this way: no matter your alignment, you win when there is no one else in the game. Period.
Another way to look at that is if you are still left during day 3 after 2 mislynches. There are 6 townies and 4 scum. The scum are either (1) forced to work together to stay alive, and are pretty easy to spot or (2) are going to sacrifice one of their own. Unless something goes horribly, horribly wrong, the worst case scenario for day 4 is 5 townies to 3 scum. No problem.
Responses to posts in thread:
@chocolate If this wasn't a newbie game, I would lynch you for that post.
@DoYouHas I think you're right on with that post. Not a big fan of the FOS thing, but whatever. I think it gives them room to run and hide. Instead, GO FOR THE KILL.
@gumshoe See above.
@fourface Start explaining yourself, or I'll start the bandwagon rolling.
@phagga I stand by what I said. I would much rather lynch scum, but if I can't, I'll lynch lurkers. The town lost that game because they let Palmar double lynch every day. As far as those two specific cases, rgTheSchworz should have been modkilled, and I would have lynched Lanaia instead mderg if I had had the time that day. She had no case against him, and I would have pointed that out, regardless of my alliance in that game.
There is a heavy fixation with lynching. It's no longer a means flush out lurking mafia from hiding. He threatens at least 3 active posters with the lynch. He emphasizes over and over that we have to lynch no matter the circumstances. Even if we don't have a good case, he is willing to lynch lurkers, unhelpful townies, and seemingly anything.
I'm trying to see what motives a townie might have for needing to get lynches so badly, and I can't think of anything.
##FOS: ghost_403.
(I'm ending it with FOS rather than a vote since I really want other people's input as I think that is the best way I don't go tunnel mode).
Here he is the first person to attack ghost, he does so in a rather soft manner, taking a much less aggressive tone than weve seen out of him in the past.
You then were the also first person to defend him
+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 02:52 ghost_403 wrote:
For me this clears some of my initial suspicions and pushes ghost into null read. He provides decent reasoning once pressured - my current read is that he is perhaps overzealous with his stance on lynching, treating it like a 100% policy, and not adopting a helpful attitude for town. ghost, I hope to continue seeing quality posts like these without having to FOS / make cases against you.
As for his actual stance:
While I strongly disagree with the idea of "lynching for information", I do agree that a no lynch should be a last resort than an easy way out. Otherwise it can give mafia an avenue of being non commital, which is the essence of lurking anyways.
Right now that leaves me with Chocolate, as he hasn't yet responded. I don't think his case is worth voting for yet, but it defeats the whole purpose of the soft deadline if all we do is FOS and vote last minute.
(Thus my preliminary, not necessarily final, vote will be on)
##Vote: Chocolate
He drops his suspicion of ghost for decent but not great reasons, last game steve eventually dropped his suspicion of me when no one else thought I was scum anymore, ghost could be just dropping his suspiciun of four face cause he saw how much heat he was getting for it. Sloosh then switches to chocolate who sloosh hasn't even really provided a case for, in fact the only reason sloosh really mentioned chocolate before was because he perceived that chocolate was interacting with ghost. Furthermore he doesn't even continue considering ghost as a suspect, he says he's null, last game we all had at least two suspects in the red, why does sloosh feel the need to drop ghost off his radar?
No I am not saying that sloosh is acting scummy, but he's definitely not acting like sloosh, he got mvp his first game because of his aggressive style and the style isn't bad so long as he listens to other people. DYH is a perfect example of someone whose correctly toned down his play because he was too aggressive, Sloosh just strikes me as timid, which as I said, isn't sloosh, its really very possible that Sloosh is playing off his crushing defeat last game to trick us into thinking that hes just indecisive and careful as opposed to scummy.
That said I do not feel that Sloosh has hurt town as of yet, so I suggest we lynch ghost and if ghost flips red, maybe we should take another look at Sloosh.
That is why I feel ghost is our best bet, because depending on his alignment we can get an idea if sloosh's new style is really a new style or if its scum tactics.
On a side note heres another suspect: Steveling, steveling has posted in only the most fluffy of ways, then suggests he wants to leave the game, look at some of his early posts before the game started.
+ Show Spoiler +Oh, I almost didn't make it. That's madness.
+ Show Spoiler +My first post in this game gonna be "Hi im scum" regardless of my allingment, xPPPP. ♥
These are not the posts of someone who doesn't want to play a game of mafia, these are the posts of someone whose excited to try something new, and then he clams up, doesn't talk much, doesn't comment on anyone when asked... You know what I think? I think steve was looking forward to playing town this game, I definitely think he was somewhat stressed out last game as mafia, mafia is stressful.
The most likely reason in my opinion for Steve's deflation was that he ended up with the same role, now I am not going to propose we lynch him on a hunch, but I would like to keep this thought out there in case he does get a replacement, so that we dont have to start from square one with a new player, steve is stressed out for a reason and roling scum twice is as good any reason to start sweating.
As I said, I think we should vote for ghost because it seems to me as if sloosh's fate is wrapped up with ghosts, sloosh was the first player to fully accuse ghost, he was also the first player to defend him, we lynch chocolate what does that tell us? That chocolate turns green or red when it expires, we lynch ghost? I think well learn sloosh's true colours.
FOS: Sloosh
FOS: Steveling
##Vote: ghost_403
|
On February 28 2012 07:55 Alderan wrote:
Janaan where would you place your vote if deadline was in 5 minutes?
Right now, I'd say it has to be between Chocolate and igabod.
Igabod since he's lurking heavily and it'd send a message not to lurk.
Chocolate, of all the people with cases against them seems the most scummy to me, and I can't quite put my finger on why exactly. But it doesn't make him scum. I think DYH makes a good point about how it's coming together a little too nicely when I can see all of Chocolate's posts from a town perspective.
Unless something else comes up, I think I'll be sticking with ##Vote: igabod
|
Also I would prefer if we not refer to four face's insane gameplay as "gumshoe meta", just a polite request
and I also propose that as of now we all say at the end of an accusation, "I dont know, lynch me."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
