|
The K2hd Case
Why I found you suspicious the originally:
- You had, prior to the very end of the day yesterday, exactly 1 productive post.
- Your first point in said post was to say you didn't find FF very scummy.
- Your second point was to find Ghost suspicious for the same thing that seemed to clear him for everyone else.
- You soft agree with me about Chocolate.
- You vote for a no lynch.
You had no strong convictions, made no original cases, you simply agreed with other people sentiments, and then chose to vote for a no-lynch, the ultimate middle of the road move.
Important note: Notice the fact that you voted for igadob is no where to be found in this reasoning. It's because that move is not inherently scummy, I found you and 3 others that were voting for igadob suspicious, which in turn lead me to believe that Chocolate could be scum. I had enough doubt however to choose to vote for either lynching the scummiest lurker in my mind, or no lynching.
Why I find you more suspicious:
- Opening sentence of your second meaningful post is "Now for those who are starting to suspect me." What a bizzarre way to start a post, I've never heard a towny be worried about being "suspected"
- The rest of his post has absolutely no substance.
- Spends 3 paragraphs saying he's going to be inactive a lot.
- Says he couldn't make an informed enough decision to switch votes to get a lynch because of his inactivity.
- Touts being the first to "bring igadob up. He was a lurker, you didn't do anything special, you just voted for a lurker. Who tries to make their actions look more meaningful than they are? Scum.
- Agrees with Sloosh and Zelblade that I look suspicious. Makes 1 extra point about the case that was inherently flawed. You state that I was giving Janaan a pass. I wasn't. In case you did not notice all of those people were lurking really hard, except for Janaan, who was posting enough, just not making a stand on anyone, and that's what I was asking him to do.
See what you guys think.
|
Forgot to quote the posts I was referring to.
Post number 1:
+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 21:08 k2hd wrote:Right then. First off, FourFace. His posts sound like a town player who is very enthusiastic about playing things his way, and having fun with his writing style, hence the kooky posting, so I agree that we should take the heat off of him just for now... As for chocolate and ghost, I must say I have my suspicions regarding them as well. I'm not going to quote too much because I think others have done enough of that already while I've been away. Ghost seems VERY insistent on lynching. He's even against using FOS and wants to straight out lynch anyone he considers suspicious, as some have already pointed out. Then, when FourFace places a vote on jekyl just to "pressure" them, ghost posts this: Show nested quote +@fourface That's not how you apply pressure on someone to post. This is how you apply pressure on someone to post. It doesn't really say much about WHY FourFace is doing it wrong, and conveniently places another vote on jekyl. Then, FourFace presents himself as a better, and more possible target for a mislynch. Ghost accuses FourFace of scummy/crazy play, and it seems to me like he is out to get the easy mislynch again. Does he actually just think that FourFace is playing a very weird and seemingly nonsensical style? Maybe, but he has yet to unvote FourFace in the voting thread. Now for chocolate. I don't have as much to go on for chocolate aside from what's already been said, but I think it's interesting that he is voting for FourFace with ghost as well, perhaps hoping to start some sort of bandwagon? This part of his post: I'm going to vote for you for the time being because that was really weird. If you sufficiently explain yourself and start to make sense I will unvote you.Seems like a way of joining ghost in starting the bandwagon, while at the same time giving him the option of pulling out if the bandwagoning fails. I'm just not sure why you would actually put your vote into the voting thread at this stage, instead of just posting the thought and leaving it at that till FourFace actually DID post more so he could decide. To be fair to him though, he (seemingly) hasn't had the chance to read why posters such as alderaan and jekylandhyde don't think FourFace is scum yet. For now, I will remain suspicious of these 2 without voting yet, for reasons that will be explained below. I'm also very curious though to know why everyone is ignoring igabod. Up until now, his contributions have been these 2 posts: Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 00:04 igabod wrote:
I just finished reading the thread. I agree with lynching someone day one. I also think that the fake voting deadline could work. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 00:24 igabod wrote:
I will be available most of the time on Saturday and Sunday. I won't have much time on Tuesdays. I have about 3 hours when I can post on Tuesday. All he has done is agree with what has been said so far (without even bothering to put it into his own words, or back his agreement up with his own logic), and since then we have heard nothing from him. Now I should say that this will likely be my last post from now until the voting deadline (the real one) because I have to head off to bed soon for class tomorrow, and will be in uni when the deadline is up. I have pretty much no breaks tomorrow either in between classes. Because of this, I will vote for a no lynch for today only. Since I will be away for so long, I'd rather not vote for a lynch on someone who posts a proper defense when they wake up, or if a better target presents themself and I'm not available to change my vote. Just to confirm, can I ACTUALLY vote for a no lynch, or does that only occur when there is no majority? I will actually probably come online tomorrow during a lecture just to check this post (and change my vote if I have to), wouldn't want to be modkilled for a stupid mistake like thisJust fyi, If I cannot vote for a no lynch, I will be voting for igabod no matter what, because I won't have time to go through posts properly in a lecture to consider what everyone has to say. It seems like a safe enough option for now because I am sure I will not get a majority on him anyway at this stage, so this vote shouldn't have an effect on tomorrow's lynch. I'll be able to post more as I have Wednesday and Thursday off (GMT +11). ##vote: no lynch
Post #2:
+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 21:58 k2hd wrote:Now for those who are starting to suspect me. Ghost_403, I have already explained why I've been inactive (or "hardcore lurking" as you put it). I'm in Melbourne, Australia, which puts me at my most active when you are all busy/asleep it seems (with the exception of the new additions I guess). When you are all active, I am either in class or asleep. It is as simple as that. I can't discuss lynch options with you when you're up, and I can't bounce ideas off others or discuss things when -I- am up, which is why I've pretty much just been making 1 significant post each irl 24 hours. Note that I was able to post multiple times before the game started because it was a Sunday for me, and I was home. I am also going to repeat again that the other part of this hydra account is unable to play at all because of some stuff that has come up, so she cannot post for me. All posts up until now have been by me; BassInSpace, and I will be continuing to post by myself for the rest of the game. Gumshoe, I know you asked me to change my vote from igabod, but as already stated above, I was not going to because I could not consider all the new posts that had been made. That 1 sentence post where I said I would change from voting no lynch (which I couldn't do) to igabod was made on my ipod in uni, where I had no time to check posts aside from the one post asking the hosts if it was possible to vote no lynch. Alderan, I want to ask you now, do you think I'm still suspicious for "stacking" my vote on igabod to potentially save chocolate? I see that you yourself changed your vote away from chocolate, so I'd like to hear what your case is against me now. I already stated why I voted igabod. I had suspicions regarding chocolate and ghost like everyone else (was leaning more towards ghost in fact), but did not want to vote for either one in case they posted some convincing arguments while I was gone, and still have my vote on one of them because I wasn't around to change it. I was the first to bring igabod up, and voted for him because I didn't want to affect the outcome of today's lynch as I figured that sure, he was lurking, but was that by itself enough to convince others to vote for him? Turns out he did almost get lynched, but hey, I missed out on a LOT while I was gone. Not that it matters now anyway. Hi to the new entrants btw  Sloosh, I find your case against alderaan very interesting. And just to add to what zelblade has said, here's this post by alderan: + Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 01:28 Alderan wrote:
Obviously we need to hear more from everyone, but here is who I'm specifically looking forward to:
- Igabod
- Chocolate
- Janaan (In that, I would like to hear who you want to vote for)
- Ghost_403
- Steveling
I still like Chocolate as the lynch candidate for today, but I'm going to hold out as I wait for a response.
Also I have more reads on Ghost, but again, I'd rather wait for him to respond so as not to jump the gun with divulging information.
A note on Steveling. Last game he played a very "I'm a noob town don't lynch me" game as stated in one of his first posts in the scum qt. He obviously can't do this again if he's scum, because he knows I'm town, and I'll call it out. After playing a game with him it seems like he is a person who would use a shtick as scum. Steveling I'm telling you now, if a lurker scum is your thing, I'll find you.
He wanted to hear about what those 4 had to say, but janaan is exempt from explaining himself, he just has to tell him who he's voting for. He has now stated that janaan makes him suspicious (in alderan's post regarding those among igabod's voters who he found suspicious), so we will have to see how convincing a case he posts for janaan, or if he is going to post a weak case and let someone else tear it down because it is not concrete enough, thus absolving janaan of any guilt. I say all this because I have also started to get suspicious of janaan. However, I don't think I have enough yet to be any more than moderately suspicious of either at this point (would alderan really shove himself into the spotlight this much if he were mafia? It must be awfully hard to keep from any slips this way... But I'm new to mafia, so who knows). I would like to hear from both of them first before going further with this. I'd also just like to sleep on this too, I've spent hours looking at everyone's filters, having over 10 tabs open and trying to find what I want in each of those tabs. Also, I obviously want to see what the night brings along. I'd also like to read more from jekylandhyde, who hasn't really taken a firm stance on anyone. So far he's put what he called a "placeholder vote" on Chocolate, which he changed to another placeholder vote on DoYouHas. He didn't REALLY want to vote chocolate, he didn't REALLY want to vote DoYouHas, and he didn't want to vote igabod because replacements were coming in, so that he could pressure them. This is while he has had access to the thread more than me. It seems like he may be stalling if you ask me. Show nested quote +I dislike the fact that so many decided to switch to igabod and eventually a no-lynch. I agree with sloosh that igabod can be considered the "easy way out", and I find it surprising that you guys actually think that he has a higher chance of flipping scum as opposed to choclate or ghost. He has posted nothing, and I dont see how you guys see that he is auto-scum. It is much more probable that he had some IRL issues or lost interest in the game, which says zlich about his alignment.
zelblade, I voted igabod with plenty of time to go before the deadline, so he still had a chance to post after I voted.
|
On February 27 2012 01:21 Alderan wrote:
When I play mafia I HATE defining anything in absolutes, for example "we should NEVER no lynch", "X player is definitely town" etc.
In my mind there are very real reasons we would want to no-lynch Day 1, namely, if there is a DEFINITIVE lack of reasonable cases at the end of the voting period, which we will have to determine. Also a Day 1 early vote deadline for me serves little to no purpose. I'd bet someone a dollar that by that time there will be someone who still has not posted yet, and there will be 2-4 people with only one introductory post.
I liked this part of Alderan's first post, until he became the person who was scrambling the hardest to get a lynch at the end of the day. I'm curious what Alderan would define as "a DEFINITIVE lack of reasonable cases at the end of the voting period" if what we dealt with yesterday wasn't it. None of the cases against chocolate were all that reasonable, and the other two had posted practically nothing.
He then tempers his initial statement with this post:
On February 27 2012 02:45 Alderan wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I mean, look, I get it, if there's a hardcore lurker then we should lynch them, I'm fine with that. If there's not, and there are no adequate cases on who is scum I don't think it's worth it. Disclaimer: It is much more likely that we have an adequate lynch target than we don't. My point is that we don't rule the possibility out.
This leads me to another curiosity. There wasn't that much to distinguish Steveling and igabod yesterday. Steveling did give us a few more posts and actually put in a request to be replaced instead of being modkilled->replaced. However, Alderan gives 2 reasons for his vote switch to Steveling:
On February 28 2012 09:51 Alderan wrote:
I honestly get the feeling Steveling is more likely to be scum than igabod, It's only on't a gut feeling, but let's be real, we're lynching lurkers, we don't have much else.
##vote: Steveling
On February 28 2012 10:20 Alderan wrote:
I think a good compromise between my last post and the people on igadob/ We vote Steveling, we're killing a lurker that we don't know, and he's voting with the others that I find suspicious.
The first post doesn't make much sense until you look at it with the second post. I see this as a sort of reverse of my feelings towards a Steveling lynch. I didn't trust Alderan, so I was unwilling to switch to the lurker of his choosing. He even states that he finds multiple people voting igabod to be suspicious. So why is he trying to convince that same group of people to switch over to Steveling? Why does he direct his efforts in an area almost guaranteed to not achieve his goal? With 4 of us on igabod, and at least 2 he finds supicious, he would have to convince people on the chocolate vote as well to get a lynch done. My point is this, for someone who started the game admitting there are real reasons we would end up at a no-lynch Alderan seemed afraid to admit the possibility that, at the end of the day, a no-lynch was our best option. Alderan's end of the day actions don't quite sit right with me.
I wrote this a while back:
On February 28 2012 02:51 DoYouHas wrote:
I find myself agreeing with you fairly often, Alderan. But I've been burned by you before, so I'm keeping an eye out.
I was clearly touchy about the possibility of Alderan buddying me. I found myself spotting many of the same things that Alderan pointed out on my first read through. He even echoed some of my logic from last game:
On February 27 2012 15:17 Alderan wrote:Because I think you might be town I'm trying to help you set up your post so you will be taken seriously and given even an ounce of attention. As it stands now you are just being a nuisance. This is coming from someone who finds Janaan suspicions.
I recognized that Alderan's initial case on Chocolate was not very strong. I was surprised when he posted this:
On February 28 2012 08:29 Alderan wrote:Show nested quote +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. I almost made literally the exact same post. The Chocolate thing is coming along too easily, I would have expected at least a case made against someone else. That in combination with his mildly sufficient answers have me reconsidering my vote. I would love for a case to come a long that was better, which is why I was asking everyone to come up with an opinion? I think Steveling is acting very suspiciously. I've found that after playing as scum, town is much more relaxing and less time consuming. I find it strange that he finds it the opposite.
This set off the warning bells for me because he 'might' be trying to buddy me. Also, I was of the opinion that Alderan was one of the chief people directing our conversation towards Ghost and Chocolate. So I found it strange that he would so readily agree with a post that infers him having scummy motivation.
Alderan, you will notice that similar to my FF case, this one isn't conclusive on you being scum. What I need from you is transparency. Don't waste your time defending yourself on the points I just made (unless something I said was completely untrue). Instead, I want you to write significant posts on what you think about me, slOosh, gumshoe, Janaan, and phagga. I know you do not like giving town reads, but I need to be reassured so I can start looking elsewhere for scum. I already stated that I think we are generally on the same wavelength this game, if I can trust you on top of that then we can go to work on this thread.
|
Let me address a couple things real quick:
- I'm not sure I was scrambling the hardest to get a lynch, I think that if you go back and look through that last hour or so, I was legitimately torn with which direction to go, because admittedly my Chocolate case was not as damning as I'd originally hoped.
- On voting Steveling rather than igadob. Here is my logic. Steveling had cast a vote, igadob had not. If Steveling was indeed an inactive scum, we could in all likely hood clear igadob's replacement. If igadob was scum we had much less information to work off of.
I addressed some of the other things in my response to Sloosh. Let me know if you need any more clarification.
|
I would really like it if not only Alderan, but other people chime in their opinions and thoughts as the night and day progresses.
It forces people to make reads prior to the issue being resolved - it wouldn't do much good if Alderan was the only one to post and defend himself well and lurker mafia to come in and say 'oh yea I knew that and I agree'.
Right now my greatest concern is the potential lurker issue. When the most active players go at each other, it gives even more hiding grounds for mafia - right now I only have semi-decent reads on ~3 people, and there is a total of 14.
Replacements especially, please contribute / voice your thoughts - it will help us in the long run.
|
On February 29 2012 04:20 slOosh wrote:
I would really like it if not only Alderan, but other people chime in their opinions and thoughts as the night and day progresses.
It forces people to make reads prior to the issue being resolved - it wouldn't do much good if Alderan was the only one to post and defend himself well and lurker mafia to come in and say 'oh yea I knew that and I agree'.
Right now my greatest concern is the potential lurker issue. When the most active players go at each other, it gives even more hiding grounds for mafia - right now I only have semi-decent reads on ~3 people, and there is a total of 14.
Replacements especially, please contribute / voice your thoughts - it will help us in the long run.
grats on your zergling btw, I'll post all my significant reads soon.
|
Sloosh- The thing I find most concerning about Sloosh is his change of pace from last game. I know he's said that hes slowing down his posting to try and clean up his play but he has been extremely lurkish. He pushes Ghost pretty hard, but ironically enough it was his case against Ghost that made Ghost less suspicious for me. He ends up taking an extremely soft stance on the matter. He then makes a case against someone (me) who had a very similar train of though in terms of vote targets to himself. I'll have to wait to hear his response to my rebuttal to discern more probably but I do have my suspicions.
Gumshoe- I think we need a case from Gumshoe soon, he's been active but not assertive, he needs to post an original case rather thanto continue to just evaluate others' cases.
Janaan- Extremely suspicious in my eyes, and after looking through his filter I think this case could be more suspicious than my k2hd case.
Here is a quote from "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."
This quote sums up how he is playing to me. He's not making any original cases, he's not taking any hard stances. He defends with WIFOM constantly, and he has done nothing but agree with the most popular decision of the thread. Here is his filter.
I don't have time to make a complete case on him at the moment, about to have to run to class, but just read through this filter and you'll see how useless he has been to the town up to this point.
Will return with more after my classes, maybe even in class, if I'm feeling friskey.
|
Ok guys, I've caught up on the thread now. Like I said before, this is my first time playing online, so you'll have to bear with me if I'm a little slow with any acronyms (although after reading the thread, I think I've gotten most of them), or otherwise am unfamiliar with some nuance of online play. Anyway, on to my thoughts..
Thoughts on Day 1 Voting
I was torn between thinking that all of the push to vote igabod was useless and counter-productive, and thinking that it was a good alternative in to a no lynch in a spot where we didn't have a lot of information. When I had only read up to the end of Day 1, I was definitely suspicious of Chocolate, but knew his case was far from 100%. As such, I want to look back and say a no lynch was clearly the right move, but if I had had to cast a vote, it probably would have been for Chocolate, since he seemed to be the most likely to be scum at that point in time.
Current Reads
+ Show Spoiler +Some of these are dependent or conditional on my thoughts of other people, so I'll try my best to order them in the way that's easiest to consume in order.
Alderan - He is definitely the player I'm most suspicious of right now. In addition to the other points mentioned in the recent cases against him, his attempts to get players to move from igabod to steveling make me think he has some information about igabod that everyone else doesn't.
nttea (igabod) - I really wish I had more information here. Right now its basically a null read, but if Alderan flips red, my suspicion of him goes up drastically.
Janaan - Someone suspicious, but he seems to be getting a decent amount of scrutiny right now, so I'm confident we'll have the information we need before the next lynch comes around. I think he also looks scummier if Alderan turns out to be mafia.
Chocolate - As has been noted, he's been pretty aggressive and someone willing to target anyone. This makes me want to keep an eye on him.
gumshoe - For as active as he has been he hasn't really said that much meaningful. I think he probably deserves more scrutiny than he has gotten, although I'm far from ready to lynch him.
sloosh - His early inactivity had me suspicious, but I'm back to a null read on him after his posts lately.
zelblade (FourFace) - I feel like he may have been put in a hard spot here. FF's posts seemed pro-town to me, but I don't know how much to trust that info given the crazy/troll nature. I'm definitely leaning townie on him, but new info could change my opinion quickly.
I wish I had more information on: JekyllAndHyde, phagga, k2hd
Some of these are time zone/RL issues, but the jury is still out on these 3 for me. I could definitely still go either way.
Basically neutral reads: DoYouHas, NightFury, ghost_403
Early suspicions of ghost seemed to get cleared up pretty well. I'm not ready to call pro-town on anyone this early, but these three are on the right track.
|
P.S. Everytime I seem someone use the term WIFOM I can't help but laugh as I recall that scene from The Princess Bride .
|
On February 29 2012 04:42 Alderan wrote:Sloosh- The thing I find most concerning about Sloosh is his change of pace from last game. I know he's said that hes slowing down his posting to try and clean up his play but he has been extremely lurkish. He pushes Ghost pretty hard, but ironically enough it was his case against Ghost that made Ghost less suspicious for me. He ends up taking an extremely soft stance on the matter. He then makes a case against someone (me) who had a very similar train of though in terms of vote targets to himself. I'll have to wait to hear his response to my rebuttal to discern more probably but I do have my suspicions. Gumshoe- I think we need a case from Gumshoe soon, he's been active but not assertive, he needs to post an original case rather thanto continue to just evaluate others' cases.
Janaan- Extremely suspicious in my eyes, and after looking through his filter I think this case could be more suspicious than my k2hd case. Here is a quote from "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." This quote sums up how he is playing to me. He's not making any original cases, he's not taking any hard stances. He defends with WIFOM constantly, and he has done nothing but agree with the most popular decision of the thread. Here is his filter. I don't have time to make a complete case on him at the moment, about to have to run to class, but just read through this filter and you'll see how useless he has been to the town up to this point. Will return with more after my classes, maybe even in class, if I'm feeling friskey.
I'm uninspired to be frank, not nearly as exciting as last game, but i'll see what I can dig up.
|
also I was the first person to bring up the case against sloosh, and used that as my reasoning to vote for ghost -_- because of his ties to sloosh, in fact everything youve said about sloosh I said ages ago(with the exveption of his accusation of you which was recent) I will post a good case when something happens. Or I find something, till then I'll do some general reads and maybe take a closer look at jeckyl.
|
I just want to walk everyone through this one more time and then I'm dropping it because it's not an issue anymore.
2 lurkers. Steveling had placed a vote. Igadob had not. Both equally likely to get replaced. Both had not posted anything to give anyone a read either way.
Lynch Igadob results in:
Lurker lynched
If town, no additional information.
If scum, no additional information aside from voting patterns.
Lynch Steveling results in:
Lurker lynched
If town, no additional information.
If scum, evidence (not definitive) that igadob may be town, as well as voting patterns.
Playing optimally, in the event that we would have lynched a lurker, Steveling would have been the correct choice.
|
Damn, reading filters/thread takes more time than I thought.
Anyways, I'll post my thoughts after night ends preferably
/Hyde
|
Hello everyone, at first I would like to place my apologies for not turning up earlier, I was afraid the game would start very quickly, and I knew my weekend would be busy. Unfortunately it turned out even busier than expected, as did Monday.
I am here now though, I skimmed through the read quickly and noticed we unfortunately went to a no-lynch on D1. I hope we'll get ourselves coordinated and lynch scum on D2.
I am now reading through the thread in-detail and will try to respond any questions that come up right after. This may take me two-three hours though, since when I play forum mafia, I take it seriously.
/Jekyll
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 10:02 Alderan wrote:
I might have lied to you. I just went back to the voting thread and here is what I saw:
igabod - 5
k2hd
DoYouHas
Chocolate
Janaan
Steveling
Chocolate - 5
phagga
JekyllAndHyde
slOosh
ghost_403
NightFury
Of the 5 voting igabod I have suspicions of 4 of them.
k2hd
Chocolate
Janaan
Steveling
Of the 5 voting for Chocolate I have town reads on 3 (and a half) of them. Obviously not going to list them.
The way this looks to me, without one clear bus target is that we might be right. I think Chocolate may actually be scum. I think they are in a position where they have to stack on the inactive so as to save their team mate.
Potentially changing my vote, what does everyone think?
So, let me get this straight. Correct me where I'm wrong.
1) You think Chocolate is scummy and make a not terrible case against him.
2) He defends, adequately (according to you), and you decide that he might not be the best day 1 lynch.
3) You complain that people are busing against Chocolate, and change to a Steveling lynch.
4) You then go wishywashy in-between an Igabod lynch and a Steveling lynch, based on almost nothing.
5) You then make the above post saying that you think most of the people on the Chocolate lynch are townies and that they might be right.
6) Call Chocolate fishy.
7) Return to being wishy washy on the no lynch/lurker lynch thing.
By the way, you were right on the Steveling thing. If I had been less sure that Chocolate was scum, I would have lynched him instead. Voting lurker? Not in my town.
|
By the way, I forgot to welcome the new players. All three of you, glhf!
|
By the way, this post was directed at Alderan. Probably should have mentioned that somewhere in there. My bad.
|
Back from work. Going to catching up on the thread and posting my thoughts/opinions on current events.
First order of business though: Greetings to all the new players. :D
|
On February 29 2012 06:21 ghost_403 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 10:02 Alderan wrote:
I might have lied to you. I just went back to the voting thread and here is what I saw:
igabod - 5
k2hd
DoYouHas
Chocolate
Janaan
Steveling
Chocolate - 5
phagga
JekyllAndHyde
slOosh
ghost_403
NightFury
Of the 5 voting igabod I have suspicions of 4 of them.
k2hd
Chocolate
Janaan
Steveling
Of the 5 voting for Chocolate I have town reads on 3 (and a half) of them. Obviously not going to list them.
The way this looks to me, without one clear bus target is that we might be right. I think Chocolate may actually be scum. I think they are in a position where they have to stack on the inactive so as to save their team mate.
Potentially changing my vote, what does everyone think?
So, let me get this straight. Correct me where I'm wrong. 1) You think Chocolate is scummy and make a not terrible case against him. 2) He defends, adequately (according to you), and you decide that he might not be the best day 1 lynch. 3) You complain that people are busing against Chocolate, and change to a Steveling lynch. 4) You then go wishywashy in-between an Igabod lynch and a Steveling lynch, based on almost nothing. 5) You then make the above post saying that you think most of the people on the Chocolate lynch are townies and that they might be right.6) Call Chocolate fishy. 7) Return to being wishy washy on the no lynch/lurker lynch thing.
By the way, you were right on the Steveling thing. If I had been less sure that Chocolate was scum, I would have lynched him instead. Voting lurker? Not in my town.
1) Yes.
2) He never made a defense, I was just concerned about how fast the votes come together, then came his defense that I said was "ok",
3) I never complained people are bussing, I just said a case taking on legs that easily sometimes mean the scum are throwing votes onto them.
4) Not wishwashy, I've explained this enough times though.
5) I stand by that.
6) I stand by that.
7) Couldn't decide if my case was good enough to lynch. Decided it was not and put a vote on Steveling.
|
Okay, I will try to wrap up my opinions as I'm reading through the thread.
I hope this does not confuse anyone, as I might be late to reply to many things, or to some that have already been adressed.
Firstly, my opinion about a fake deadline, I don't really like it.
Obviously everyone should have a fair idea of who they want to vote way before the lynch, but sometimes late changes may be needed. The time of the vote is not the most important thing, the reason of the vote is. But clearly we shouldn't all go around voting at the last minute.
Secondly, my opinion on lynching lurkers. If there is active scum that we have viable cases on, obviously we should push them first.
But a good point to note out is that if the lurkers are active enough to not get mod-killed and stay until endgame, it is much harder to make reads on them, which benefits the scum.
About making a case, I like to play with open cards myself, If anyone wants to know what I think, just ask.
Unless it's a very special situation, I am always ready to give my opinion and reads.
When you make cases or analysis, please concentrate on finding scum, not confirming town, unless you find it necessary for a specific reason.
If any townie feels like they found something pointing out to a player being scum, please raise the issue.
If it's not totally wishy-washy, it forces the accused person to defend himself, creating more discussion and more for us as town to go on from.
Also, if anyone at any point of the game accuses you of something, always defend yourself. If you do not, it can easily be considered as scum play, trying to move the attention to someone else.
Definitely pressure persons you are suspicious about, but do not tunnel. (Mindlessly blaming them for everything, just being 100% sure you are right.)
Every single one of us can be wrong, and no possibility should left out.
About metagaming: Please don't even try. We all have played 3 or less games, and that is not sufficient data to try to be clever and metagame someone.
This is just my opinion though.
As for my and Gonzaw's hydra: Due to both of us being mostly busy, we are going to have to play to some extent independently.
We do though to our best extent communicate with each other, so that we wouldn't confuse you by having two outright different opinions.
(Although this can happen, since humans do not always agree with each other.)
When you vote for someone, please provide a reason for it. I hate it when people vote for anyone just "for the heck of it".
Consider this as my "introduction post". Next up will be an analysis post, where I will provide my reads on EVERYONE.
This is so that every single one of you is up to my current opinions and are able to address them, as I have no reason to hide anything.
PS: I tried to bold the most important parts to make it easier for everyone.
PS2: A link to my only previous game, Newbie Mini Mafia II This is in case someone for any possible for reason wants to read my earlier play. I recommend that you do not try to metagame me based on this though, or you are just shooting yourself and possibly the town in the leg.
/Jekyll
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
