|
On February 28 2012 10:04 DoYouHas wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 09:56 phagga wrote:On February 28 2012 09:47 DoYouHas wrote:
We don't know igabod is getting modkilled. There is every chance that he will be replaced. Because of this I still think that he is our best lynch option.
This argumentation is absolutely stupid. If igabod is getting replaced, then he was not playing the game at all. Therefore him lurking does not say anything at all about his alignement. He might even be a blue for all we know, and some real life matter keep him from playing. This is exactly the reason why we should NOT just lynch any lurker. So as long as igabod is not casting a vote, we should not try to lynch him. It is too late to swing a vote towards someone not Ghost/Chocolate/igabod or maybe Steve. I do not believe that Ghost/Chocolate should be lynched today. Yes, it is possible that igabod is not scum, we don't know. The reason we lynch igabod now is so that we don't go into day2 with a person we have absolutely no information on, which is not a situation I want to be in. That makes him a better lynch target than Chocolate or Ghost to me.
Dude, seriously? You'd rather risk lynching an inactive townie instead of waiting for the next day when a new guy approaches that might actually help us? Why? He is not running away. When we lynch someone who is actually playing the game, we get so much more information and benefit out of it.
|
Jekyll, what do you think about the current cases at hand, namely the ones against Chocolate, myslef, and k2hd.
|
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.
I really want to clear this up as it is incorrect. I did not push Ghost hard. I put up a case with a FOS, voicing my thoughts transparently to town. I think your interpretation that I am taking a soft stance is unjustified - ghost posted his reasoning to explaining his behavior, and I took that info and adjusted my reads accordingly.
Even though we may have had similar suspects of suspicions, it is the reasons why they we think them suspicious that separates us, which is ultimately why I built my case on you (as I don't/didn't think you had good reasoning).
You may have missed this post while you were typing up your reads, but I will wait and give opportunity for the new replacements to clear themselves before posting my thoughts.
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.
If you honestly think I'm evading/lurking, then just say so. But I think this is what is best for town in the long run (D3 onwards). I don't want to dominate this thread - it hasn't helped in my past experience and I want to play more like my first game style, which was more contributory rather than telling people what to do / believe.
I'll be busy all tonight and will be unable to comment on discussion / the N1 results until tomorrow morning (CST).
Please don't let the thread stagnate - even if it is night, time is a crucial commodity for town.
|
On February 29 2012 06:55 phagga wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 10:04 DoYouHas wrote:On February 28 2012 09:56 phagga wrote:On February 28 2012 09:47 DoYouHas wrote:
We don't know igabod is getting modkilled. There is every chance that he will be replaced. Because of this I still think that he is our best lynch option.
This argumentation is absolutely stupid. If igabod is getting replaced, then he was not playing the game at all. Therefore him lurking does not say anything at all about his alignement. He might even be a blue for all we know, and some real life matter keep him from playing. This is exactly the reason why we should NOT just lynch any lurker. So as long as igabod is not casting a vote, we should not try to lynch him. It is too late to swing a vote towards someone not Ghost/Chocolate/igabod or maybe Steve. I do not believe that Ghost/Chocolate should be lynched today. Yes, it is possible that igabod is not scum, we don't know. The reason we lynch igabod now is so that we don't go into day2 with a person we have absolutely no information on, which is not a situation I want to be in. That makes him a better lynch target than Chocolate or Ghost to me. Dude, seriously? You'd rather risk lynching an inactive townie instead of waiting for the next day when a new guy approaches that might actually help us? Why? He is not running away. When we lynch someone who is actually playing the game, we get so much more information and benefit out of it.
-_-, You seem to want me to justify lynching lurkers to you. That is a waste of typing and I'm not going to bother. I thought I made my position pretty clear last night. On February 28 2012 10:21 DoYouHas wrote:
Moving on then,
Gumshoe, I think we might be in extraordinary enough circumstances to go for a no-lynch today. With at least 2 people being replaced/modkilled and possibly 3(FourFace). We are in a pretty bad place to be deciding our lynch, especially when 2/4 of the people we are considering lynching are among the ones being replaced/killed. I just don't think we should take the chance of a mislynch, a modkill, and a night hit leaving us 3 townies down at the start of day2.
My opinion, igabod or no-lynch.
I didn't trust Alderan so I wasn't going to vote Steveling. (Although objectively, Alderan is correct. Steveling was the better lynch.) And I was not going to vote Chocolate. So, igabod or no-lynch. Lynch lurker or no-lynch. Of the two I was advocating the no-lynch harder.
Phagga, if you find my play suspicious, present a case. Stop throwing the fact that you don't like lurker lynching in my face. I don't like it either, but that is just where yesterday landed us.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 07:57 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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? 1 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. Show nested quote +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. 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. 2 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. Show nested quote +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. 3 I just hope if I die that you all look in to some of them, especially votes 4-7.
1 Why should I take your vote seriously then? If you are flipflopping with your vote, you are not pressing anyone.
2 So you voted him to make him post even more? I mean, you said yourself that he was already posting (see bolded part here+ Show Spoiler +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.
3 Do you think they are suspicious or not? If they are suspicious, why? Give us some arguments to work with, not that maybe-crap.
+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 10:06 Chocolate wrote:
That's odd alderan, I have null-worse reads on my accusers.4 Why won't you list the ones you think are town?
4 Same as number 3. Wild accusations, but no arguments or facts.
+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 11:14 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 11:03 ghost_403 wrote:
You see, this is how I see it.
We could vote to lynch Igabod. That's not even really a bad idea. He's been lurking hardcore. Kinda scummy if you ask me. And I don't like scummy. However, his flip doesn't tell us anything. Maybe, we'll get lucky and lynch a scum. Odds are about, what, 28%? You can do worse than that.
Other option: You lynch either me or chocolate. I think it's pretty well established, one of the two of us is scum. If whoever gets lynched flips red, awesome! Lynched a scum! If not, guess who the first person on the chopping block is tomorrow. The guy who wasn't lynched. Either way, going into day 3, the town is down one scum. I don't think we are necessarily on different teams. In fact, I'm reasonably sure we are both town since if I get lynched, I will flip green. If you were mafia you wouldn't say this, knowing I'm town, because you are setting up your own lynch. So if I do get lynched and am green I wouldn't say you are mafia. 5Have to go to bed in 10min, should I go igabod, steve, or other?
5 This is only going WIFOM, bad try to make you look green.
In all your posts you have not presented a single reason beyond "he's lurking!" why someone should be lynched. You are blindly casting votes on people that are being suspected by others already. You deliver no arguments why people are suspicious, but already hinted 3 times that you have a list of people that you think are suspicious. You have not tried to make a case against anyone, you are hiding behind arguments of others.
As soon as the new day starts, I will vote for you again.
|
On February 29 2012 06:58 Alderan wrote:
Jekyll, what do you think about the current cases at hand, namely the ones against Chocolate, myslef, and k2hd.
I'm still a case -.-
Just read the thread, I think the cases of alderan and k2hd are pretty good.
On February 29 2012 03:54 Alderan wrote:
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.
The first part is a good find, he does seem to be contributing the bare minimum, not really doing anything productive but providing "safe" views.
Agree with the bringing igabod up part. Agree with the fluff part.
Now this is seperate but alderan brings up another good point Janaan, who was posting enough, just not making a stand on anyone this wishy washy stance is not beneficial for anyone but mafia.
As for the alderan case, he does seem to be moving around a lot too, but at least he is driving discussion. Voting for steveling over igabod makes sense with his explanation. Basically those two points are the whole case? With those alone I'm not bought.
|
On February 29 2012 07:40 DoYouHas wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 06:55 phagga wrote:On February 28 2012 10:04 DoYouHas wrote:On February 28 2012 09:56 phagga wrote:On February 28 2012 09:47 DoYouHas wrote:
We don't know igabod is getting modkilled. There is every chance that he will be replaced. Because of this I still think that he is our best lynch option.
This argumentation is absolutely stupid. If igabod is getting replaced, then he was not playing the game at all. Therefore him lurking does not say anything at all about his alignement. He might even be a blue for all we know, and some real life matter keep him from playing. This is exactly the reason why we should NOT just lynch any lurker. So as long as igabod is not casting a vote, we should not try to lynch him. It is too late to swing a vote towards someone not Ghost/Chocolate/igabod or maybe Steve. I do not believe that Ghost/Chocolate should be lynched today. Yes, it is possible that igabod is not scum, we don't know. The reason we lynch igabod now is so that we don't go into day2 with a person we have absolutely no information on, which is not a situation I want to be in. That makes him a better lynch target than Chocolate or Ghost to me. Dude, seriously? You'd rather risk lynching an inactive townie instead of waiting for the next day when a new guy approaches that might actually help us? Why? He is not running away. When we lynch someone who is actually playing the game, we get so much more information and benefit out of it. -_-, You seem to want me to justify lynching lurkers to you. 1 That is a waste of typing and I'm not going to bother. I thought I made my position pretty clear last night. Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 10:21 DoYouHas wrote:
Moving on then,
Gumshoe, I think we might be in extraordinary enough circumstances to go for a no-lynch today. With at least 2 people being replaced/modkilled and possibly 3(FourFace). We are in a pretty bad place to be deciding our lynch, especially when 2/4 of the people we are considering lynching are among the ones being replaced/killed. I just don't think we should take the chance of a mislynch, a modkill, and a night hit leaving us 3 townies down at the start of day2.
My opinion, igabod or no-lynch. I didn't trust Alderan so I wasn't going to vote Steveling. (Although objectively, Alderan is correct. Steveling was the better lynch.) And I was not going to vote Chocolate. So, igabod or no-lynch. Lynch lurker or no-lynch. Of the two I was advocating the no-lynch harder. Phagga, if you find my play suspicious, present a case. Stop throwing the fact that you don't like lurker lynching in my face. I don't like it either, but that is just where yesterday landed us. 2
1 No, I want to make clear to you that I think your way is bad for town. I hope to convince you to avoid another situation like this which was clearly suboptimal in my eyes.
2 I don't find your play suspicious. I'm just trying to show my point of view. I am very unhappy how the day ended yesterday, and I want to avoid that this happens again.
|
On February 29 2012 07:47 phagga wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 07:57 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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? 1 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. Show nested quote +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. 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. 2 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. Show nested quote +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. 3 I just hope if I die that you all look in to some of them, especially votes 4-7. Why should I take your vote seriously then? If you are flipflopping with your vote, you are not pressing anyone. 2 So you voted him to make him post even more? I mean, you said yourself that he was already posting (see bolded part here + Show Spoiler +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. ), so you just cast a vote on someone to make him post even more? That is just ridicoulus. 3 Do you think they are suspicious or not? If they are suspicious, why? Give us some arguments to work with, not that maybe-crap. + Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 10:06 Chocolate wrote:
That's odd alderan, I have null-worse reads on my accusers.4 Why won't you list the ones you think are town? Same as number 3. Wild accusations, but no arguments or facts. + Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 11:14 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 11:03 ghost_403 wrote:
You see, this is how I see it.
We could vote to lynch Igabod. That's not even really a bad idea. He's been lurking hardcore. Kinda scummy if you ask me. And I don't like scummy. However, his flip doesn't tell us anything. Maybe, we'll get lucky and lynch a scum. Odds are about, what, 28%? You can do worse than that.
Other option: You lynch either me or chocolate. I think it's pretty well established, one of the two of us is scum. If whoever gets lynched flips red, awesome! Lynched a scum! If not, guess who the first person on the chopping block is tomorrow. The guy who wasn't lynched. Either way, going into day 3, the town is down one scum. I don't think we are necessarily on different teams. In fact, I'm reasonably sure we are both town since if I get lynched, I will flip green. If you were mafia you wouldn't say this, knowing I'm town, because you are setting up your own lynch. So if I do get lynched and am green I wouldn't say you are mafia. 5Have to go to bed in 10min, should I go igabod, steve, or other? This is only going WIFOM, bad try to make you look green. In all your posts you have not presented a single reason beyond "he's lurking!" why someone should be lynched. You are blindly casting votes on people that are being suspected by others already. You deliver no arguments why people are suspicious, but already hinted 3 times that you have a list of people that you think are suspicious. You have not tried to make a case against anyone, you are hiding behind arguments of others. As soon as the new day starts, I will vote for you again.
1. It was the beginning of day1, you tell me why you would take my vote seriously?? They aren't meant to be definitive votes.
2.I wanted him to post more after his first "crazy" post to get a read on him. He had already posted, but that was only one post. I did want him to post more, and he did, but I couldn't get anything from them.
3. I think you mean this? On February 28 2012 07:27 Chocolate wrote:I said I wasn't getting strong reads, not null reads. My reads are currently on Show nested quote +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.
Crap I messed up the formatting, oh well. I stated that they're suspicious and why.
4. How is that an accusation? I dislike them because i know I'm town (of course I'm going to say that, obviously) and I was getting pushed to get lynched basically for moving votes around early on in day1.
5. But if I do flip green (my death was a possibility then) I would say he is town.
I feel like I'm reiterating my points over and over again but if you have anything more you want me to post about please say so.
|
@phagga Why did you do that. Now we have to listen to him pass off other peoples arguments as his own for the next few days.
This post brings nothing new to the thread. Not impressed.
|
On February 29 2012 08:09 ghost_403 wrote:
@phagga Why did you do that. Now we have to listen to him pass off other peoples arguments as his own for the next few days.
Lol, that made me laugh. Well, yeah... I did not think about it that way 
|
On February 29 2012 08:09 ghost_403 wrote:@phagga Why did you do that. Now we have to listen to him pass off other peoples arguments as his own for the next few days. This post brings nothing new to the thread. Not impressed.
Yeah he didn't ask anything new.
|
On February 29 2012 08:14 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 08:09 ghost_403 wrote:@phagga Why did you do that. Now we have to listen to him pass off other peoples arguments as his own for the next few days. This post brings nothing new to the thread. Not impressed. Yeah he didn't ask anything new.
Then why did you post it?
|
Sorry if this is a really newbie question, but what should we be trying to accomplish during this night phase? I want to contribute, but I feel a bit directionless right now. I feel like I should be making a case, but I can't come up with a lot that's conclusive. Is it just a waiting game until we see the results of the night actions and then work from there?
|
Because you were asking me to... I didn't want to ignore it, but I didn't want to link you my old posts because that would imply that you didn't read them. Hopefully consolidating them in one place will help.
|
@test Really, right now is just an extension of the day time where we don't actually vote. Do feel bad that you don't immediately have a case. Just try to get caught up on the thread, and focus on trying to figure out how to use your action if you have one. We're not going to lynch you for being a lurker...
ghost_403 narrows his eyes
...yet.
|
On February 29 2012 08:30 Chocolate wrote:
Because you were asking me to... I didn't want to ignore it, but I didn't want to link you my old posts because that would imply that you didn't read them. Hopefully consolidating them in one place will help.
Ok, I think we are talking about 2 different things here...
ghost_403 linked this post and said there was nothing new in it. When you then answered with "yeah, I know", I thought you meant the same post. But now I think you did not? Because I can't find a post where anyone has asked you to reply to Alderans Post.
On February 29 2012 08:30 TestSubject893 wrote:
Sorry if this is a really newbie question, but what should we be trying to accomplish during this night phase? I want to contribute, but I feel a bit directionless right now. I feel like I should be making a case, but I can't come up with a lot that's conclusive. Is it just a waiting game until we see the results of the night actions and then work from there?
IMO there is not to much pressure to actually contribute a lot through the night. I just had a few thoughts I wanted to get rid off, which is why I posted several things. I guess the main activity will be during the 48 hours of day.
I'm off to bed now. Hopefully see you in the morning of day 2.
|
On February 29 2012 08:36 phagga wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 08:30 Chocolate wrote:
Because you were asking me to... I didn't want to ignore it, but I didn't want to link you my old posts because that would imply that you didn't read them. Hopefully consolidating them in one place will help. Ok, I think we are talking about 2 different things here... ghost_403 linked this post and said there was nothing new in it. When you then answered with "yeah, I know", I thought you meant the same post. But now I think you did not? Because I can't find a post where anyone has asked you to reply to Alderans Post. Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 08:30 TestSubject893 wrote:
Sorry if this is a really newbie question, but what should we be trying to accomplish during this night phase? I want to contribute, but I feel a bit directionless right now. I feel like I should be making a case, but I can't come up with a lot that's conclusive. Is it just a waiting game until we see the results of the night actions and then work from there? IMO there is not to much pressure to actually contribute a lot through the night. I just had a few thoughts I wanted to get rid off, which is why I posted several things. I guess the main activity will be during the 48 hours of day. I'm off to bed now. Hopefully see you in the morning of day 2.
Well for when you're up again
I responded to his post (I guess you mean the initial one? that started the accusations?) Here
|
Okay. Caught up with the thread.
As for the no lynch - Can't say I'm 100% pleased with the decision. But I suppose people do have different priorities. All I know is that we have one extra day/night cycle. And since it has already come to pass, I see no reason to dwell on it.
Really happy we have substitutions for the two inactives and one with questionable sanity. Hope this leads to productive discussions.
As for the new cases proposed - I'm still trying to digest information on them. I don't have anything new or constructive to add at this moment in time.
I do have one question for Chocolate. This is mostly for my understanding than anything else. I do understand your strategy on day 1 was to get people talking and I definitely see the merit in that. So I won't be beating that dead horse anymore.
Why would you choose a dishonest strategy that basically involves empty threats to produce conversation over others (i.e. case building)?
I cannot wrap my head around why you opted to do this. I did state previously that it could have just been reckless play and that could still be a possibility - but I need to know more information before I can return to that stance. Just for clarity - I remain in the opinion that your play has been scummy and that you are still a valid lynch candidate.
I am heading out for dinner now. Will be back in a little while!
|
Okay, I have finally caught up to the last post of the thread.
(Yeah, I did spend actually around 10 minutes if not more per page, I am serious when it comes to forum mafia.)
@ Alderan, I will be addressing your question in my analysis of everyone that will be posted as I finish reading everyone's filters individually.
I have got my hands on Hyde, and after talking about our opinions, we agreed to disagree in some things. So we will be posting our individual analysis, and even though it may confuse some of you that we do not agree in our reads, I think that 2 analysis on people is always more to go on from than 1.
|
EBWOP: Above post was made by yours truly, Jekyll.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
