|
@sloosh No problem, just trying to tidy up some real life stuff before jumping in.
As a note to everyone, I think that a gumshoe lynch is acceptable, but not optimal. If we are to believe him, that he is just a townie disinterested in playing the game (and I don't see a good reason not to), I think we are wasting a lynch at this point. I would much rather focus on weeding out other scum at the moment. Let's not just agree to lynch gumshoe and be done with it.
|
I just got home . Not many people were on yesterday for me to talk to.
Also zell blade I would rather you never have stated that information at all, nothing good can ever come from discussing non hit night actions
Ok first I'm going to be a hypocrite and tell you to stop talking about this, by talking about it  Same goes for analyzing night actions, they are exercises in WIFOM and attempting to draw conclusions from them is stupid and scummy. Definitely agreeing with phagga here.
In fact this is making me very suspicious of gumshoe. I wouldn't expect someone like him to try to do that at all, and the blue discussion with zell can't help town one bit. In addition, why wouldn't he claim RB? The only thing I can think of is if zell is mafia and is trying to make it seem like there is an rb, but I'd get suspicious if he kept claiming rb every day. In addition, if he gets lynched and flips red, any other players who have claimed RB would probably get lynched quickly.
Zellblade's point on gum's posting habits is good.
I dislike gum's choice to curb his posting, imo it seems to be an excuse to post less (think the amount I posted in II ) while still seeming town, because he has an excuse. I hope to see substantial posts from gum, and answering questions when needed. If he goes lurker mode I won't hesitate to lynch him.
|
On March 01 2012 06:47 Chocolate wrote:I just got home . Not many people were on yesterday for me to talk to. Show nested quote +Also zell blade I would rather you never have stated that information at all, nothing good can ever come from discussing non hit night actions Ok first I'm going to be a hypocrite and tell you to stop talking about this, by talking about it Same goes for analyzing night actions, they are exercises in WIFOM and attempting to draw conclusions from them is stupid and scummy. Definitely agreeing with phagga here. In fact this is making me very suspicious of gumshoe. I wouldn't expect someone like him to try to do that at all, and the blue discussion with zell can't help town one bit. In addition, why wouldn't he claim RB? The only thing I can think of is if zell is mafia and is trying to make it seem like there is an rb, but I'd get suspicious if he kept claiming rb every day. In addition, if he gets lynched and flips red, any other players who have claimed RB would probably get lynched quickly. Zellblade's point on gum's posting habits is good. I dislike gum's choice to curb his posting, imo it seems to be an excuse to post less (think the amount I posted in II ) while still seeming town, because he has an excuse. I hope to see substantial posts from gum, and answering questions when needed. If he goes lurker mode I won't hesitate to lynch him.
I will adress any questions directed towards me,but I will no longer have casual conversations or significantly pressure people(seeing as how doing so has brought me nothing but scrutiny I will leave it to those who wish to take up the practice), though I will ask people questions, and post cases.
|
Let's take but a moment to examine our dear friend Chocolate.
My problem with him, in addition to the things that I brought up on Day 1, is that he brings nothing new to the game. He is the perfect example of a scummy lurker. His goal is to post enough in the thread to make himself look townie while providing nothing of value. Let's take a look at a couple of the posts that he's made. (Fun fact: these are in fact ALL of his posts since Night 1.)
On February 28 2012 11:42 Chocolate wrote:
Didnt like night because he was ambivalent until I told him I wanted people to panic a little.
Phagga because he voted me because I was voting around w/o intentions of lynching.
Can't figure out who he's talking to in this post. He basically says here that he doesn't like the people that voted to lynch him.
On February 28 2012 11:54 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 11:52 ghost_403 wrote:
@sloosh Here's what you missed. All (almost all) the people voting against Chocolate have held their ground, all the other people have hopped, skipped, and leaped all over the place, finally deciding on trying to lynch the guys who's going to get modkilled for not voting in order to force a no-lynch. I bet the other 2 will get replaced too
Responds to me with a contentless post. Useless.
On February 29 2012 07:53 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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 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.
TL;DR - I agree with Alderan, begin wishy-washy is bad, Steveling was a better lynch than Igabod (which Alderan already stated here).
Next post, he defends himself from Phagga. Posts some thoughts, nothing profound. We have to note here that the only reason he did this was that he was provoked.
Next three posts say nothing.
On February 29 2012 11:03 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 09:07 NightFury wrote:
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! I think the answers produced while under pressure would just be better, and people might actually feel the need to respond more.
Responds to pressure, nothing new.
On February 29 2012 21:36 Chocolate wrote:
Then we should play out the day and see what presents itself -.- Also don't contribute just for the sake of contributing, contribute to try to find scum. I'm already getting bad vibes from you, nttea
My favorite post. Yells at nttea for posting without saying anything. LOL.
On March 01 2012 06:47 Chocolate wrote:I just got home . Not many people were on yesterday for me to talk to. Show nested quote +Also zell blade I would rather you never have stated that information at all, nothing good can ever come from discussing non hit night actions Ok first I'm going to be a hypocrite and tell you to stop talking about this, by talking about it Same goes for analyzing night actions, they are exercises in WIFOM and attempting to draw conclusions from them is stupid and scummy. Definitely agreeing with phagga here. In fact this is making me very suspicious of gumshoe. I wouldn't expect someone like him to try to do that at all, and the blue discussion with zell can't help town one bit. In addition, why wouldn't he claim RB? The only thing I can think of is if zell is mafia and is trying to make it seem like there is an rb, but I'd get suspicious if he kept claiming rb every day. In addition, if he gets lynched and flips red, any other players who have claimed RB would probably get lynched quickly. Zellblade's point on gum's posting habits is good. I dislike gum's choice to curb his posting, imo it seems to be an excuse to post less (think the amount I posted in II ) while still seeming town, because he has an excuse. I hope to see substantial posts from gum, and answering questions when needed. If he goes lurker mode I won't hesitate to lynch him.
Tells us that the guy who thought about getting modkilled is kinda fishy. Profound thought here.
Take a minute to go back and read through his filter. All of his posts thus far have been either, A) agreeing with other players, B) finding lurkers scummy, or C) defending himself.
Chocolate has not brought anything new to this thread, and is therefore, a scummy lurker.
|
Lest I be accused of tunneling, next one's for Alderan.
|
Nevermind, I don't have enough to post on Alderan at the moment. My bad!
After my fourth reading, it seems that you are most consistent than I previously believed.
|
Oh I forgot to vote in voting thread. Doing so now.
|
This reminds me that I completely forgot to vote on him, as I said I would during the Night.
##vote Chocolate
Also, gumshoe, that was pathetic. Your next.
|
On March 01 2012 08:41 phagga wrote:
This reminds me that I completely forgot to vote on him, as I said I would during the Night.
##vote Chocolate
Also, gumshoe, that was pathetic. Your next.
Play nice, please. Thanks!
|
I've been brooding on this case for a while. And that case is NightFury. I'll try to make this as objective as possible but if I die and flip green it should help a lot.
First 16 or so posts aren't important; he discusses lurkers and lynch policy.
+ 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.
Basically notes Alderan's comments. States he had a null read.
+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 05:06 NightFury wrote:
Alright. I'm at work so I'll be keeping this fairly short since I'm here a bit past the soft deadline, I just want to get this out. The day has calmed down a bit so I think I will be able to keep up with the thread now.
Chocolate: I still cannot tell if his play was actually scummy or just poor play/mentality. I still want to hear from him about his adamant lurker policy into jumping on FF though. Cannot tell if he's in collusion with ghost since they both have different approaches.
Ghost: Similar to chocolate but with an adamant lynch someone policy. Pushing a lynch on anyone comes off more scummy to me than chocolate, but they're both up there. Likewise, cannot say if those two are in collusion. Would also like to hear from him about his aggressive lynching.
Igabod: Hasn't really done anything and just lurking. Would really like to see him start participating.
FourFace: Not worth the time and effort right now given how he has been posting.
Ghost and chocolate are the most suspicious in my opinion based on their actions. I'd favour lynching ghost over chocolate as I think chocolate has just been playing poorly and ghost comes off more scummy. I really hope that either of them can adress the cases against them since it may clairify the situation. Igabod is just straight up lurking from what I can tell.
So what it comes down to is that we should go after a definite lurker or one of the other two suspicious players. I think ghost's aggressive lynching mindset is more toxic to the town and scummy than the alternatives. Igabod, while a viable candidate, isn't going to slip off anyone's radars for his inactivity. Nor will people just suddenly warm up to him if he comes back without extremely good reasoning and/or contributions. I'd personally rather lynch an individual who may be negaitively influencing the town over someone who is just being inactive and not directly influencing town. Chocolate's play was somewhat toxic, but I'm not convinced it was genuinely scummy.
##Vote: ghost_403
Unless an exceptional defense comes up shortly, I am unlikely to change my vote.
Now I'm more scummy. I haven't posted anything between the last two posts but his opinions have changed. I have become an option to lynch over ghost, although he states he will almost certainly stay on ghost. Not convinced I'm scummy.
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
Drops ghost, thinks he has an adequate explanation. Ghost's post + Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 06:28 ghost_403 wrote:@hyde Voting to lynch FourFace because of that post was short sighted of me. Probably should not have been so hasty. The other possible outcome was evil genius using drunken boxing. Can't ever be too sure. @alderan I called out chocolate in thread for doing that. At best, that argument is WIFOM. Also wrong, chocolate voted to lynch phagga first. @sloosh I don't like no-lynches. See #. Happy to readdress this if you don't feel that is sufficient. @janaan Again, see above. I think that no-lynches are more dangerous that mislynches. @phagga At the time, Hyde had not posted in thread, therefore he was a lurker. Since then, he has posted in thread, making him not a lurker. Now, according to my own logic, I need to prove that he is scum in order to lynch him. As I can't do that, I'm not going to vote for him. I don't see the problem here. @k2hd Again, that was premature, see comment for hyde. @phagga See above comment. @nightfury I think I've addressed most of your concerns already. If not, point out what you're not happy with.
Dislikes me for tyring to pressure in a "dishonest way. Understandable. Thinks panic is not good for town, but in my opinion it is good if it's not out of hand.
+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 10:04 NightFury wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 08:59 DoYouHas wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 07:33 NightFury wrote:I'm back at home. @ghost: After looking into your statement, you have addressed my concerns already. While I do not necessarily agree with your initial play style - you are being active and can address statements and inquiries. Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 06:32 Chocolate wrote:Hi guys I'm back. Hopefully I can format this correctly + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Note: this didn't start as a PBPA but it ended that way because literally everything he has done is scummy. Chocolate is super scummy to me right now.
Says things like "our vote will probably end up being a lurker"... Who says this? Even if it is the case you're giving mafia free reign to post a couple BS posts and get out of the thread. He later goes on to say Show nested quote +I'll give them until ~6 EST to post but if they still haven't by them we should vote one. Pretty adamanent about this lurker idea, right? Wrong.NOT 3 POSTS LATER he's off his lurker train now, and onto the easiest target, namely, Fourface. Fourface, for reasons stated above is very likely not scum, but I could see Chocolate's beady little eyes now getting as wide as an anime characters in joy when he saw that Fourface made one of the most "interesting" (as to avoid getting in trouble) posts I've ever seen. Oh and this: Show nested quote +We should probably spread out our votes, don't need two people on one lurker yet imo I don't get this either. Why would you split your votes up? If it's for pressure here is a newsflash: Votes DO NOT = Pressure Pressure is cases, pressure is discussion, a one liner and vote in the vote thread doesn't cut it. Period. Then there's: Show nested quote +That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. I got off the "lurker idea" because obviously it wasn't that good. I just wanted people to perhaps panic and get them to start posting. My idea was that votes DO=pressure, because noobs tend to panic a little when they see they are getting voted on. I said our vote will probably end up on a lurker because frankly that's what happened in my most previous game: most of the people lynched were either lurkers or scum, and most of the cases were on either lurkers or scum. I switched to fourface because I wanted him to keep posting, to see if I could get a good case on him. Obviously, he has continued, but hasn't adressed my points. I think he'll get replaced though so I'm going to hold off on voting for him for now. I'll try to make a case against someone shortly. That's my schedule, there isn't much to say about it. I'm in HS, and my parents make me get off the computer and my phone at 9 on weeknights, so I won't be online for the last hour of voting. + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 14:17 NightFury wrote:@Alderan I believe your case is good, but I feel it is slightly flawed. I'm not getting a very good town/scum read on Chocolate at this moment. While suspicious, I think he was overzealous with the mentality he had on the outset of the game and prone to a knee-jerk reaction. I'm unsure whether this is actually scummy or just reckless play. Also, out of curiosity, what does PBPA stand for? (Hope I don't butcher how TL handles quotes...) Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
Says things like "our vote will probably end up being a lurker"... Who says this? Even if it is the case you're giving mafia free reign to post a couple BS posts and get out of the thread. His full post goes more like this: Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 12:23 Chocolate wrote:
It could be possible that someone makes a big scumslip but from the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post, and since the pressure is on them the vote momentum is on them. Usually the lurkers are also new and some of their defenses are just based on OMGUS or accusing their accuser, instead of making insightful posts and contributing to prove their innocence.
I'm not sure we will lynch a lurker on Day1, but it is the most likely outcome in my eyes. A few things about this. - This was posted on the very outset of the game. This irks me because he's already making predictions on previous games he's played. Also the fact that it's not later on since it could possibly be valid if we had no cases and a bunch of lurkers. - I'm interested in his previous two games here. He mentioned that "...the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post...". I haven't looked at his previous games yet but I'm not sure if that's even a valid statement. If he's only played 2 games here then that's not a large sample size or it's possible that he has experience elsewhere and it's just a trend he's noticed. I will come back to this later after some analysis... also he mentions for us not to look. - He establishes the "vote to pressure" mentality early. This does come back later. - This was in response to an earlier statement by him since Janaan questioned why he thought the early deadline would likely target a lurker. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:He later goes on to say I'll give them until ~6 EST to post but if they still haven't by them we should vote one. Pretty adamanent about this lurker idea, right? - He's maintaining his "vote to pressure" mentality. Namely he was looking at people who have yet to post listed by gumshoe. - At this point there hasn't been any significant cases. FF has already posted and some discussion has arisen... but no case when he posted. - As far as I can tell, he's just sticking to his ideology at this point. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Oh and this: We should probably spread out our votes, don't need two people on one lurker yet imo I don't get this either. Why would you split your votes up? If it's for pressure here is a newsflash: Votes DO NOT = Pressure Pressure is cases, pressure is discussion, a one liner and vote in the vote thread doesn't cut it. Period. - The case on FF hasn't been posted yet. - He's still sticking to his ideology of pressuring lurkers via votes. - I'm willing to be think that he just has a poor plan with "vote to pressure" at this point. So prior to his sudden switch to targeting FF (which hasn't happened yet)... I don't think he realized that "vote to pressure" wasn't a good idea. I'm not sure if anyone even tried to tell him this? Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
Wrong.
NOT 3 POSTS LATER he's off his lurker train now, and onto the easiest target, namely, Fourface.
Fourface, for reasons stated above is very likely not scum, but I could see Chocolate's beady little eyes now getting as wide as an anime characters in joy when he saw that Fourface made one of the most "interesting" (as to avoid getting in trouble) posts I've ever seen. - In short, this is also irks me. He went from adamant lurkers to FF. - He did mention that he would ditch lurkers if there was a huge scumslip or something of that nature. - However he may think it was a scumslip or something as a knee-jerk reaction. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Then there's: That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. - This may have been a taken out of context. I think he was referring to my second deadline suggestion (no quotes or @me, but he already commented on the first soft deadline and this follows my post). - Since it does not appear we are going to use a second deadline system, he can't use this as a defense priming technique if we don't use the second deadline. @Chocolate: Why would you vote for someone just for being weird? Or was there something especially scummy about it? As discussed in the thread, FF may not be scum just from his insanity defense alone. Voting to pressure actually kinda worked in my previous game. If you take the time to look back on it you'll notice sacredsystem taking votes very harshly. When I switched to FF,as I said earlier, I was trying to get him to post more. It didn't work, because he hasn't posted any real content since then. + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 14:22 Janaan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:06 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 13:59 Janaan wrote:One thing that stands out most to me about Ghost's posting is this gem right here Show nested quote +Another way to look at that is if you are still left during day 3 after 2 mislynches. There are 6 townies and 4 scum. The scum are either (1) forced to work together to stay alive, and are pretty easy to spot or (2) are going to sacrifice one of their own. Unless something goes horribly, horribly wrong, the worst case scenario for day 4 is 5 townies to 3 scum. No problem.
He seems to think that it's perfectly fine for us to go 3 days without lynching a mafia, which would put us in a MYLO situation. Not exactly what I'd call a pro-town position to be in. His justification for saying this is pretty weak I think. 1. If the game gets to this point, scum obviously haven't been easy to spot, and it doesn't really get much easier. Sure, the "odds" might be more in your favor, but if you're in this situation, scum probably are pretty good at hiding in plain sight. 2. Yeah, scum might sacrifice one of their own. But 5 town/ 3 scum is still MYLO. I don't see how a townie could say that this is "no problem". Janaan, talk to me about Chocolate. I agree that Chocolate does seem a little wishy washy, saying stuff like then he seems to say at least slightly differently in his next post It seems to me that for the most part, though, his posts are fairly consistent with the idea of lynching lurkers in mind. I don't really know what Show nested quote +That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. was about, and it does seem like he could be just trying to cover for himself so he can justify not being active near the voting deadline. Particularly when he did say that he'd most likely be online . 17-21 EST is the hours before the deadline, so he may've contradicted himself there. There's not really enough for me to call him scum right now, but he looks like he could be potentially. Saying something is probable and that I'm not sure of it doesn't seem contradictory to me at all. Isn't that what you mean when you say probably? 17-21 EST is right before the deadline except the last hour, so I'm notcontradicting myself. Honestly if your case on me is because of these that's pretty fishy, either you're sheeping or you're voting along with the mafia (possibly both). If there's anything I missed please point it out to me so I can address it. Okay. Why do you want people to panic and start posting? Getting people to panic is not a great idea because it can easily cause a lot of confusion. A townie panicking can make themselves appear suspicious and draw a lot of attention. Building a case off of panic doesn't make sense since the information you obtain may not be reliable. Yes, you could possibly cause scum to panic and get something - but how do you differentiate this from a townie? Also you mention this is to target newbies? How does experience dictate which role they have? I feel this strategy to begin with is extremely flawed and should not be a viable option. In hindsight, going after FourFace with that strategy was a bad idea (maybe his insanity defense was just a panic defense). But you don't even listen to your own philosophy. You wanted to build a case against him by making him post more. But you don't even present a case of your own - you just outright vote for him. I did take a look just now at your previous game with SacredSystem (only looked around Day 1 btw). Once again, the plan didn't even work. I would like you to explain how this plan worked in your eyes. He wasn't inactive. The vote wasn't even against him - he started off against someone's analysis about random lynching. He was town! Same thing with the person you immediately voted for because he didn't mention anything (he claimed he was at school, perfectly fair). Also, you were mafia in the previous game. I don't necessarily want to try to use posting meta in this game but now this is a bit too much. If you're mafia, the idea of causing someone to panic and gather a lot of attention benefits the mafia team. It leads the town down a useless path unless the person can defend themselves well... but a newbie panicking may not perform that too well. The big question I have for you: why are you using the same strategy to cause newbies to panic if you're truly town? How can you differentiate townie panic versus mafia panic? As of right now given the new circumstances - I do not believe you are town. ##Unvote: Ghost_304##Vote: Chocolate NightFury, you wanted to know what I thought was invalid in your post. If I read this correctly your main point here is the pressuring someone with a vote causes panic which leads the town to make poor reads on a person. Sometimes true, but not always true. A panicking player's quality of post will probably go down, but you also are more likely to get posts that reveal their motivation, making pressure very very useful. You are using something that a townie would quite reasonably do to convince yourself of Chocolate's guilt. (In hindsight "invent" was a poor choice of words) Yes, you read my main point correctly. And I do agree - applying pressure is a great way to reveal motivations. I do not agree with Chocolate's method though and it comes off as scummy (in my opinion). My concern is that there may have been better ways to achieve this result. Pressuring someone by developing a case is one way. Pressuring a lurker by asking them questions is good. Just voting for someone to get a response can work too... but how useful is it? He claimed that his method targets newbies by making them panic. That's fair. He also claims that mafia are more likely to panic as well. Now I see two variables that may confound the read. I do agree that even this way can get someone posting. However, he believes that his method can draw out scumtells when it doesn't strictly probe affiliation - contrary to what he said (not saying it cannot though, just unreliably). So yes, I do see there is some merit in what he did after some thought. However, how he performed this doesn't sit well with me at this moment. For example: He said he voted for FourFace to try to develop a case against him. He also said that FourFace never addressed his points and just kept on posting eventually. I looked at Chocolate's filter and I could not see what points he brought up. He basically tells him he is going to vote for him for acting weird and will not unvote him until he has explained himself. I don't think asking someone to explain themselves is a point... just a broad topic. It doesn't facilitate the idea to reveal motivation without giving the individual something specific to work with (in my opinion). Also saying that he will not unvote him unless he does so was an empty threat since he later stated there wasn't enough to go off of. Well there wasn't anything to go off of since he didn't propose any specific points. I don't see why Chocolate had to lie/make an empty threat. It comes off scummy. Anyways, I am off for dinner. I will not be back for some time (probably around the deadline). My vote remains the same.
Now he thinks my pressure policy could have worked but was scummy. I guess he thinks it's underhanded, but I don't see how scum can benefit from something. He sees the merit in my idea, just doesn't like it???
+ Show Spoiler +On February 29 2012 09:07 NightFury wrote:
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!
His most recent post (!). Only substance is the one question. Claims my methods are scummy, but previously states he sees merits in them. He claims they are dishonest. Now while my methods seem dishonest I don't see how that is scummy. They are not attempts to trick town as a whole, only pressure individual people in the town.
In summary his case isn't the strongest but he is one to watch out for. Almost all his posts have been focused on ghost and me. We are the only people who have seemed scummy to him. He was only suspicious of ghost while the general suspicion was on him, then backs down while he said it was very likely that he wouldn't. Then he focuses on me, the most suspicious person since ghost. He might be someone to watch for as additional lynch candidates are exposed, to see if he bandwagons onto them and off them, and if he posts good cases against them. So far he has made no "cases" only provided general reads and has asked me some questions. Phew, glad that's done.
|
Got home a little late from work. Here's what I'm thinking up to now!
Not too sure of what to make of the Janaan hit. As previously stated, trying to deduce what happened is probably WIFOM and should be left alone unless new and relevant content shows up.
On the gumshoe case. I find the statements being made in his case to be reasonable. I spent some time going through his filter and found something else of interest. In short: gumshoe is convinced that Alderan is town. If you look through his filter, I do not see an instance where gumshoe opts to pressure Alderan. Instead, gumshoe very frequently defends Alderan - either directly or indirectly.
I'd like to highlight some of his posts that support my statement (there are some fluff ones, I'll ignore those - feel free to examine them at your own free will though):
On February 28 2012 08:29 gumshoe wrote:
I really don't like how drastically sloosh's style has shifted, even alderaan who seems like he's playing a convincing town hasn't changed that much in terms of tone from last game when he was scum, sloosh sounds like a different person and I would like to put pressure on him by attacking his potential proxy, ghost.
At this point in time, gumshoe believes Alderan is town based on his play (or at least a convincing town).
On February 29 2012 00:04 gumshoe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 23:26 phagga wrote:what about my second question, gumshoe? On February 28 2012 21:35 phagga wrote:On February 28 2012 11:27 gumshoe wrote:
god I hate no lynches ) : like unless its analytically the right move(as was the case last game when we had a potential inactive townie) I feel like were just depriving ourselves of information
If chocolate flips green(which he probably will considering it looks like he's getting bussed, not gonna lie about that) i'll take responsibility. Why do you want to take responsibility for it? Because i wanted it to happenat the time more so than anyone else, that said i felt there was a good chance chocloate wasnt scum becaise it looked like he was getting bussed, to that end i knew someone would have to pay if he flipped green, i was willing to take on that responsibility to get information, but dyh sorta talked me out of it when he said lynching for info is bad, to sum it up as i said before i hate no lynches, i feel like they make town stagnate, that said i was aware that chocolate could be town, in which case if i was willing to lynch him for information i had to be willing to take the fall for it if he turned out to be a mistake. Thats how my thought process worked, i wanted it the most i had to be willing to take the heat for it, besides in my opinion everyone should fall under a bit of suspiciun early in the game so scum cant pull a " you know this guy mightve been playing us the whole time" stunt. Is that wrong? I dont know lynch me.
In isolation, I wouldn't know what to think of this one. With other evidence, I think gumshoe was soft defending Alderan (indirectly) as he put up the first accusations against Chocolate. The responsibility would be shared among all who voted for Chocolate.
On February 29 2012 13:54 gumshoe wrote:
well now we know one thing, janaan was town, and I think alderaan is being framed. Could be the other way but Alderaan just doesn't seem like the kinda guy who would try and meta us by lynching his own suspect.
While thinking into the Janaan hit itself isn't worth the effort as of right now. The fact that gumshoe is still defending Alderan's innocence is worth noting - regardless if it's based in WIFOM.
I took a little time to look into how gumshoe and Alderan interacted. Please note that I may be mistaken as there may be more statements supporting or opposing this and I may have missed them - so feel free to correct me (long day at work).
I see that gumshoe always acts favourably towards Alderan. Alderan has shown both favourable and unfavourable actions towards gumshoe. I do not think this is enough to speculate if they're working together. It is worth noting though. A few examples:
On February 28 2012 11:16 gumshoe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 10:26 Alderan wrote:
Is gum around? It's going to take mine and his votes as it stands now to get the majority. I'm here watcha need boss.
gumshoe acting favourably towards Alderan
On February 28 2012 11:24 Alderan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 11:22 gumshoe wrote:
I like what ghost said about him and chocolate, we lynch igo meh, we lynch one of them we can back track and look at the history of pressure, willing to lean chocolate right now because ghost actually brought that to attention which I really appreciate. I'm leaning Chocolate as well over igabod. I'm trying to decide where "no lynch" falls in my preference order. .
Alderan working with gumshow (this is in reference to the day 1 lynch vote direction - there are more posts related).
On February 29 2012 04:42 Alderan wrote:
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.
Alderan pressuring gumshoe.
So the way I see it - gumshoe believes Alderan to be innocent and this can be applied to the recent cases involving both.
If gumshoe is green and believes Alderan is green (regardless of actual alignment) - I think he should be able to propose a reasonable argument why he thinks Alderan is green.
If gumshoe is red and knows Alderan is green - He knows Alderan's alignment and he is defending Alderan for some reason. It is possible to speculate that if Alderan flips green, he would use the fact he defended to support his defense. May not have evidence that to support Alderan being green (not a definite).
If gumshoe is red and Alderan is red - They're simply working together as mafia.
@gumshoe
Why are you convinced that Alderan is innocent? It may be critical for not just for your case, but may also help out with the Alderan case. I can see you being town if this can be explained adequately.
So there's a bit over a day left until the next vote deadline. I really want to hear about this. This will help everyone learn more about the current developments and possibly lead to lynching scum over a town.
And I'm just briefly going to comment on Chocolate. Please provide your own arguments or even your opinion on relevant matters. Your actions still say to me that you're a scummy lurker. To save space, ghost's case appears reasonable after a first read. Anything you can provide can be of help. There's a good chunk of time until the next lynch.
That's all for now. I am still suspicious of both gumshoe and Chocolate. Hearing more from them will be very useful. Despite me being a little tired this evening, I am up for discussion (I still need to do more reading though).
Questions/Thoughts/Opinions?
|
EBWOP:
Thank you Chocolate for posting something. I will be addressing your case shortly. I need food.
|
I believe NightFury is scum.
NightFury
Let us meander what NightFury has done so far this game.
1. Debate policy and propose a stringent 2nd fake deadline where votes would be 'locked in'.
2. Support Alderan's case against Chocolate.
3. Support slOosh's case against Ghost. (At least that better have been what it was, because if it wasn't then his own points do not justify this statement, "Unless an exceptional defense comes up shortly, I am unlikely to change my vote.")
4. Switch back to Chocolate with some additional weak reasoning.
5. Debate the value of voting for pressure with me and Chocolate.
6. Come back after Chocolate recently.
Now let's review things that I am looking for in scum atm.
1. Skating by through day1.
2. Nudging other players along.
3. Pigeonholing Ghost and Chocolate as our lynch targets for day1.
4. Posting empty of helpful content.
5. Posting that shows they feel the need to apologize or feel under pressure (that isn't actually there).
NightFury is guilty of all 5 of those things.
1. NightFury skated through day1 with a fairly short filter, and managed to not give any solid opinions on anyone except Chocolate and Ghost. He also bothered me with this:On February 28 2012 10:04 NightFury wrote:
Anyways, I am off for dinner. I will not be back for some time (probably around the deadline). My vote remains the same.
He says he will be back in around 10 hours (which is the deadline) but his next post is this one:
On February 29 2012 06:28 NightFury wrote:
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
Which is a little over 10 hours past the deadline. I find it strange that he actively lurked and offered nothing to the thread when so much was happening in those hours leading up to the deadline. I get it that he had work and dinner and sleep and all sort of things. But I sincerely doubt that he did not check the thread in those 20 hours. And if he did check the thread, he has been so good about telling us when he is here and when he is absent, why didn't he post. There was tons to post about.
2. NightFury nudged me along an unhelpful path by suggesting a further deadline, which if I had agreed with would have wasted the town's time as the issue drew too much attention. He also nudged Alderan along with his support and tweaking of Alderan's case on Chocolate. He also nudged slOosh and Alderan along with their suspicions on Ghost.
And it may just be me, but I think the way that NightFury pursued his case against Chocolate is remarkably similar to what zelblade did to me in SNMM7.
3. Not much needs to be said here. NightFury stayed on point with Ghost and Chocolate, and was definitely one of the voices getting them to be our top candidates.
4. I'm going to look past the early posts that all dealt with policy because it is too easy to point at those and say, "no real content". Instead lets look at the posts after that.
His posts break down into essentially 4 things after he gets past policy. "I like Alderan's case", "I don't like that Chocolate is referring to past games", "I don't like Chocolate voting to apply pressure", and "I don't like that Chocolate switched to FF without quality reasoning".
5. NightFury is constantly updating us on him just getting back or him having to leave, or telling us when he won't be around.
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)
At first this didn't stick out to me, but after I noticed how pervasive these comments were in his posting I started thinking about some of the reasons he would be doling out so many updates to us.
1. He is overeager and just wants us to know when he is around/not around.
2. He wants to make us feel like we can account for him at all times so that we don't get suspicious about him not posting much.
3. Same as 2, but it is caused by a desire to cover up the time he is spending in a scumQT, and therefore unintentional.
I see all these little unnecessary updates he has given us as little apologies or signs that he feels pressured by the town even though we haven't said anything.
##Vote: NightFury
P.S. Honorable mention goes to k2hd. Many of my scum standards applied to NightFury here also apply to him.
|
On March 01 2012 09:44 NightFury wrote:Got home a little late from work. Here's what I'm thinking up to now! Not too sure of what to make of the Janaan hit. As previously stated, trying to deduce what happened is probably WIFOM and should be left alone unless new and relevant content shows up. On the gumshoe case. I find the statements being made in his case to be reasonable. I spent some time going through his filter and found something else of interest. In short: gumshoe is convinced that Alderan is town. If you look through his filter, I do not see an instance where gumshoe opts to pressure Alderan. Instead, gumshoe very frequently defends Alderan - either directly or indirectly. I'd like to highlight some of his posts that support my statement (there are some fluff ones, I'll ignore those - feel free to examine them at your own free will though): Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 08:29 gumshoe wrote:
I really don't like how drastically sloosh's style has shifted, even alderaan who seems like he's playing a convincing town hasn't changed that much in terms of tone from last game when he was scum, sloosh sounds like a different person and I would like to put pressure on him by attacking his potential proxy, ghost.
At this point in time, gumshoe believes Alderan is town based on his play (or at least a convincing town). Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 00:04 gumshoe wrote:On February 28 2012 23:26 phagga wrote:what about my second question, gumshoe? On February 28 2012 21:35 phagga wrote:On February 28 2012 11:27 gumshoe wrote:
god I hate no lynches ) : like unless its analytically the right move(as was the case last game when we had a potential inactive townie) I feel like were just depriving ourselves of information
If chocolate flips green(which he probably will considering it looks like he's getting bussed, not gonna lie about that) i'll take responsibility. Why do you want to take responsibility for it? Because i wanted it to happenat the time more so than anyone else, that said i felt there was a good chance chocloate wasnt scum becaise it looked like he was getting bussed, to that end i knew someone would have to pay if he flipped green, i was willing to take on that responsibility to get information, but dyh sorta talked me out of it when he said lynching for info is bad, to sum it up as i said before i hate no lynches, i feel like they make town stagnate, that said i was aware that chocolate could be town, in which case if i was willing to lynch him for information i had to be willing to take the fall for it if he turned out to be a mistake. Thats how my thought process worked, i wanted it the most i had to be willing to take the heat for it, besides in my opinion everyone should fall under a bit of suspiciun early in the game so scum cant pull a " you know this guy mightve been playing us the whole time" stunt. Is that wrong? I dont know lynch me. In isolation, I wouldn't know what to think of this one. With other evidence, I think gumshoe was soft defending Alderan (indirectly) as he put up the first accusations against Chocolate. The responsibility would be shared among all who voted for Chocolate. Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 13:54 gumshoe wrote:
well now we know one thing, janaan was town, and I think alderaan is being framed. Could be the other way but Alderaan just doesn't seem like the kinda guy who would try and meta us by lynching his own suspect.
While thinking into the Janaan hit itself isn't worth the effort as of right now. The fact that gumshoe is still defending Alderan's innocence is worth noting - regardless if it's based in WIFOM. I took a little time to look into how gumshoe and Alderan interacted. Please note that I may be mistaken as there may be more statements supporting or opposing this and I may have missed them - so feel free to correct me (long day at work). I see that gumshoe always acts favourably towards Alderan. Alderan has shown both favourable and unfavourable actions towards gumshoe. I do not think this is enough to speculate if they're working together. It is worth noting though. A few examples: Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 11:16 gumshoe wrote:On February 28 2012 10:26 Alderan wrote:
Is gum around? It's going to take mine and his votes as it stands now to get the majority. I'm here watcha need boss. gumshoe acting favourably towards Alderan Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 11:24 Alderan wrote:On February 28 2012 11:22 gumshoe wrote:
I like what ghost said about him and chocolate, we lynch igo meh, we lynch one of them we can back track and look at the history of pressure, willing to lean chocolate right now because ghost actually brought that to attention which I really appreciate. I'm leaning Chocolate as well over igabod. I'm trying to decide where "no lynch" falls in my preference order. . Alderan working with gumshow (this is in reference to the day 1 lynch vote direction - there are more posts related). Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 04:42 Alderan wrote:
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.
Alderan pressuring gumshoe. So the way I see it - gumshoe believes Alderan to be innocent and this can be applied to the recent cases involving both. If gumshoe is green and believes Alderan is green (regardless of actual alignment) - I think he should be able to propose a reasonable argument why he thinks Alderan is green. If gumshoe is red and knows Alderan is green - He knows Alderan's alignment and he is defending Alderan for some reason. It is possible to speculate that if Alderan flips green, he would use the fact he defended to support his defense. May not have evidence that to support Alderan being green (not a definite). If gumshoe is red and Alderan is red - They're simply working together as mafia. @gumshoe
Why are you convinced that Alderan is innocent? It may be critical for not just for your case, but may also help out with the Alderan case. I can see you being town if this can be explained adequately.So there's a bit over a day left until the next vote deadline. I really want to hear about this. This will help everyone learn more about the current developments and possibly lead to lynching scum over a town. And I'm just briefly going to comment on Chocolate. Please provide your own arguments or even your opinion on relevant matters. Your actions still say to me that you're a scummy lurker. To save space, ghost's case appears reasonable after a first read. Anything you can provide can be of help. There's a good chunk of time until the next lynch. That's all for now. I am still suspicious of both gumshoe and Chocolate. Hearing more from them will be very useful. Despite me being a little tired this evening, I am up for discussion (I still need to do more reading though). Questions/Thoughts/Opinions?
The real reason I defend alderaan? because I think hes an active poster and i dont think he would lynch his primary suspect, also his style is totally different from last game where his mafia worked so well(and he was mafia last game so I could just be naive thinking he's town this time ) : I defend him because I think there are way worse players, lurkers finger pointers, people who wifom(like yours truly) and Alderaan seems to legitimately contribute.
One thing I will say is that my lack of suspicion is a personal decision, if I flip green please don't consider him absolved of any of your qualms, an efficient town works in all directions, aldraan just dosent happen to be in mine, there are 4 mafia after all.
I also don't like how much he's being tunneled and attacked by people who haven't provided there own cases on him, but more on that soon.
I really appreciate you actually asking me a question instead of just accusing me night fury ( :
|
Nightfury what do you think about
Chocolate
Alderan
k2hd
ghost
phagga
DoYouHas
Short snippets are fine, I just want to hear about more people from you.
|
Seems like I have quite a bit to do now. Starting with Chocolate, I will be following up with DYH's case.
+ Show Spoiler +On March 01 2012 09:36 Chocolate wrote:I've been brooding on this case for a while. And that case is NightFury. I'll try to make this as objective as possible but if I die and flip green it should help a lot. First 16 or so posts aren't important; he discusses lurkers and lynch policy. + 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. Basically notes Alderan's comments. States he had a null read. + Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 05:06 NightFury wrote:
Alright. I'm at work so I'll be keeping this fairly short since I'm here a bit past the soft deadline, I just want to get this out. The day has calmed down a bit so I think I will be able to keep up with the thread now.
Chocolate: I still cannot tell if his play was actually scummy or just poor play/mentality. I still want to hear from him about his adamant lurker policy into jumping on FF though. Cannot tell if he's in collusion with ghost since they both have different approaches.
Ghost: Similar to chocolate but with an adamant lynch someone policy. Pushing a lynch on anyone comes off more scummy to me than chocolate, but they're both up there. Likewise, cannot say if those two are in collusion. Would also like to hear from him about his aggressive lynching.
Igabod: Hasn't really done anything and just lurking. Would really like to see him start participating.
FourFace: Not worth the time and effort right now given how he has been posting.
Ghost and chocolate are the most suspicious in my opinion based on their actions. I'd favour lynching ghost over chocolate as I think chocolate has just been playing poorly and ghost comes off more scummy. I really hope that either of them can adress the cases against them since it may clairify the situation. Igabod is just straight up lurking from what I can tell.
So what it comes down to is that we should go after a definite lurker or one of the other two suspicious players. I think ghost's aggressive lynching mindset is more toxic to the town and scummy than the alternatives. Igabod, while a viable candidate, isn't going to slip off anyone's radars for his inactivity. Nor will people just suddenly warm up to him if he comes back without extremely good reasoning and/or contributions. I'd personally rather lynch an individual who may be negaitively influencing the town over someone who is just being inactive and not directly influencing town. Chocolate's play was somewhat toxic, but I'm not convinced it was genuinely scummy.
##Vote: ghost_403
Unless an exceptional defense comes up shortly, I am unlikely to change my vote. Now I'm more scummy. I haven't posted anything between the last two posts but his opinions have changed. I have become an option to lynch over ghost, although he states he will almost certainly stay on ghost. Not convinced I'm scummy. 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 Drops ghost, thinks he has an adequate explanation. Ghost's post + Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 06:28 ghost_403 wrote:@hyde Voting to lynch FourFace because of that post was short sighted of me. Probably should not have been so hasty. The other possible outcome was evil genius using drunken boxing. Can't ever be too sure. @alderan I called out chocolate in thread for doing that. At best, that argument is WIFOM. Also wrong, chocolate voted to lynch phagga first. @sloosh I don't like no-lynches. See #. Happy to readdress this if you don't feel that is sufficient. @janaan Again, see above. I think that no-lynches are more dangerous that mislynches. @phagga At the time, Hyde had not posted in thread, therefore he was a lurker. Since then, he has posted in thread, making him not a lurker. Now, according to my own logic, I need to prove that he is scum in order to lynch him. As I can't do that, I'm not going to vote for him. I don't see the problem here. @k2hd Again, that was premature, see comment for hyde. @phagga See above comment. @nightfury I think I've addressed most of your concerns already. If not, point out what you're not happy with. I don't really see how this quelled everyone's suspicion. He says that he doesn't like no-lynches and just apologized for voting 4face. Also corrects others' mistakes. So that's ghosts "exceptional" defense, according to nightfury. Dislikes me for tyring to pressure in a "dishonest way. Understandable. Thinks panic is not good for town, but in my opinion it is good if it's not out of hand. + Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 10:04 NightFury wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 08:59 DoYouHas wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 28 2012 07:33 NightFury wrote:I'm back at home. @ghost: After looking into your statement, you have addressed my concerns already. While I do not necessarily agree with your initial play style - you are being active and can address statements and inquiries. Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 06:32 Chocolate wrote:Hi guys I'm back. Hopefully I can format this correctly + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Note: this didn't start as a PBPA but it ended that way because literally everything he has done is scummy. Chocolate is super scummy to me right now.
Says things like "our vote will probably end up being a lurker"... Who says this? Even if it is the case you're giving mafia free reign to post a couple BS posts and get out of the thread. He later goes on to say Show nested quote +I'll give them until ~6 EST to post but if they still haven't by them we should vote one. Pretty adamanent about this lurker idea, right? Wrong.NOT 3 POSTS LATER he's off his lurker train now, and onto the easiest target, namely, Fourface. Fourface, for reasons stated above is very likely not scum, but I could see Chocolate's beady little eyes now getting as wide as an anime characters in joy when he saw that Fourface made one of the most "interesting" (as to avoid getting in trouble) posts I've ever seen. Oh and this: Show nested quote +We should probably spread out our votes, don't need two people on one lurker yet imo I don't get this either. Why would you split your votes up? If it's for pressure here is a newsflash: Votes DO NOT = Pressure Pressure is cases, pressure is discussion, a one liner and vote in the vote thread doesn't cut it. Period. Then there's: Show nested quote +That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. I got off the "lurker idea" because obviously it wasn't that good. I just wanted people to perhaps panic and get them to start posting. My idea was that votes DO=pressure, because noobs tend to panic a little when they see they are getting voted on. I said our vote will probably end up on a lurker because frankly that's what happened in my most previous game: most of the people lynched were either lurkers or scum, and most of the cases were on either lurkers or scum. I switched to fourface because I wanted him to keep posting, to see if I could get a good case on him. Obviously, he has continued, but hasn't adressed my points. I think he'll get replaced though so I'm going to hold off on voting for him for now. I'll try to make a case against someone shortly. That's my schedule, there isn't much to say about it. I'm in HS, and my parents make me get off the computer and my phone at 9 on weeknights, so I won't be online for the last hour of voting. + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 14:17 NightFury wrote:@Alderan I believe your case is good, but I feel it is slightly flawed. I'm not getting a very good town/scum read on Chocolate at this moment. While suspicious, I think he was overzealous with the mentality he had on the outset of the game and prone to a knee-jerk reaction. I'm unsure whether this is actually scummy or just reckless play. Also, out of curiosity, what does PBPA stand for? (Hope I don't butcher how TL handles quotes...) Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
Says things like "our vote will probably end up being a lurker"... Who says this? Even if it is the case you're giving mafia free reign to post a couple BS posts and get out of the thread. His full post goes more like this: Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 12:23 Chocolate wrote:
It could be possible that someone makes a big scumslip but from the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post, and since the pressure is on them the vote momentum is on them. Usually the lurkers are also new and some of their defenses are just based on OMGUS or accusing their accuser, instead of making insightful posts and contributing to prove their innocence.
I'm not sure we will lynch a lurker on Day1, but it is the most likely outcome in my eyes. A few things about this. - This was posted on the very outset of the game. This irks me because he's already making predictions on previous games he's played. Also the fact that it's not later on since it could possibly be valid if we had no cases and a bunch of lurkers. - I'm interested in his previous two games here. He mentioned that "...the games I've played in a lot of the day1 pressure falls upon lurkers to get them to post...". I haven't looked at his previous games yet but I'm not sure if that's even a valid statement. If he's only played 2 games here then that's not a large sample size or it's possible that he has experience elsewhere and it's just a trend he's noticed. I will come back to this later after some analysis... also he mentions for us not to look. - He establishes the "vote to pressure" mentality early. This does come back later. - This was in response to an earlier statement by him since Janaan questioned why he thought the early deadline would likely target a lurker. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:He later goes on to say I'll give them until ~6 EST to post but if they still haven't by them we should vote one. Pretty adamanent about this lurker idea, right? - He's maintaining his "vote to pressure" mentality. Namely he was looking at people who have yet to post listed by gumshoe. - At this point there hasn't been any significant cases. FF has already posted and some discussion has arisen... but no case when he posted. - As far as I can tell, he's just sticking to his ideology at this point. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Oh and this: We should probably spread out our votes, don't need two people on one lurker yet imo I don't get this either. Why would you split your votes up? If it's for pressure here is a newsflash: Votes DO NOT = Pressure Pressure is cases, pressure is discussion, a one liner and vote in the vote thread doesn't cut it. Period. - The case on FF hasn't been posted yet. - He's still sticking to his ideology of pressuring lurkers via votes. - I'm willing to be think that he just has a poor plan with "vote to pressure" at this point. So prior to his sudden switch to targeting FF (which hasn't happened yet)... I don't think he realized that "vote to pressure" wasn't a good idea. I'm not sure if anyone even tried to tell him this? Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:
Wrong.
NOT 3 POSTS LATER he's off his lurker train now, and onto the easiest target, namely, Fourface.
Fourface, for reasons stated above is very likely not scum, but I could see Chocolate's beady little eyes now getting as wide as an anime characters in joy when he saw that Fourface made one of the most "interesting" (as to avoid getting in trouble) posts I've ever seen. - In short, this is also irks me. He went from adamant lurkers to FF. - He did mention that he would ditch lurkers if there was a huge scumslip or something of that nature. - However he may think it was a scumslip or something as a knee-jerk reaction. Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:22 Alderan wrote:Then there's: That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. Steve, how often did we sit around IRC last game and joke about the thread in the hour running up to the vote? Spoiler: It was every time. Scum are going to stay absent at the end of the day unless they need to affect the vote. Chocolate has conveniently positioned himself out of that responsibility but left the opportunity open that he might be there. Just priming his defense in case he needs it. - This may have been a taken out of context. I think he was referring to my second deadline suggestion (no quotes or @me, but he already commented on the first soft deadline and this follows my post). - Since it does not appear we are going to use a second deadline system, he can't use this as a defense priming technique if we don't use the second deadline. @Chocolate: Why would you vote for someone just for being weird? Or was there something especially scummy about it? As discussed in the thread, FF may not be scum just from his insanity defense alone. Voting to pressure actually kinda worked in my previous game. If you take the time to look back on it you'll notice sacredsystem taking votes very harshly. When I switched to FF,as I said earlier, I was trying to get him to post more. It didn't work, because he hasn't posted any real content since then. + Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 14:22 Janaan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:06 Alderan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2012 13:59 Janaan wrote:One thing that stands out most to me about Ghost's posting is this gem right here Show nested quote +Another way to look at that is if you are still left during day 3 after 2 mislynches. There are 6 townies and 4 scum. The scum are either (1) forced to work together to stay alive, and are pretty easy to spot or (2) are going to sacrifice one of their own. Unless something goes horribly, horribly wrong, the worst case scenario for day 4 is 5 townies to 3 scum. No problem.
He seems to think that it's perfectly fine for us to go 3 days without lynching a mafia, which would put us in a MYLO situation. Not exactly what I'd call a pro-town position to be in. His justification for saying this is pretty weak I think. 1. If the game gets to this point, scum obviously haven't been easy to spot, and it doesn't really get much easier. Sure, the "odds" might be more in your favor, but if you're in this situation, scum probably are pretty good at hiding in plain sight. 2. Yeah, scum might sacrifice one of their own. But 5 town/ 3 scum is still MYLO. I don't see how a townie could say that this is "no problem". Janaan, talk to me about Chocolate. I agree that Chocolate does seem a little wishy washy, saying stuff like then he seems to say at least slightly differently in his next post It seems to me that for the most part, though, his posts are fairly consistent with the idea of lynching lurkers in mind. I don't really know what Show nested quote +That sounds like a good idea. I really can't see any problems with that tbh, and it works well for me because in the event of a massive vote swing I probably won't be online to provide input. was about, and it does seem like he could be just trying to cover for himself so he can justify not being active near the voting deadline. Particularly when he did say that he'd most likely be online . 17-21 EST is the hours before the deadline, so he may've contradicted himself there. There's not really enough for me to call him scum right now, but he looks like he could be potentially. Saying something is probable and that I'm not sure of it doesn't seem contradictory to me at all. Isn't that what you mean when you say probably? 17-21 EST is right before the deadline except the last hour, so I'm notcontradicting myself. Honestly if your case on me is because of these that's pretty fishy, either you're sheeping or you're voting along with the mafia (possibly both). If there's anything I missed please point it out to me so I can address it. Okay. Why do you want people to panic and start posting? Getting people to panic is not a great idea because it can easily cause a lot of confusion. A townie panicking can make themselves appear suspicious and draw a lot of attention. Building a case off of panic doesn't make sense since the information you obtain may not be reliable. Yes, you could possibly cause scum to panic and get something - but how do you differentiate this from a townie? Also you mention this is to target newbies? How does experience dictate which role they have? I feel this strategy to begin with is extremely flawed and should not be a viable option. In hindsight, going after FourFace with that strategy was a bad idea (maybe his insanity defense was just a panic defense). But you don't even listen to your own philosophy. You wanted to build a case against him by making him post more. But you don't even present a case of your own - you just outright vote for him. I did take a look just now at your previous game with SacredSystem (only looked around Day 1 btw). Once again, the plan didn't even work. I would like you to explain how this plan worked in your eyes. He wasn't inactive. The vote wasn't even against him - he started off against someone's analysis about random lynching. He was town! Same thing with the person you immediately voted for because he didn't mention anything (he claimed he was at school, perfectly fair). Also, you were mafia in the previous game. I don't necessarily want to try to use posting meta in this game but now this is a bit too much. If you're mafia, the idea of causing someone to panic and gather a lot of attention benefits the mafia team. It leads the town down a useless path unless the person can defend themselves well... but a newbie panicking may not perform that too well. The big question I have for you: why are you using the same strategy to cause newbies to panic if you're truly town? How can you differentiate townie panic versus mafia panic? As of right now given the new circumstances - I do not believe you are town. ##Unvote: Ghost_304##Vote: Chocolate NightFury, you wanted to know what I thought was invalid in your post. If I read this correctly your main point here is the pressuring someone with a vote causes panic which leads the town to make poor reads on a person. Sometimes true, but not always true. A panicking player's quality of post will probably go down, but you also are more likely to get posts that reveal their motivation, making pressure very very useful. You are using something that a townie would quite reasonably do to convince yourself of Chocolate's guilt. (In hindsight "invent" was a poor choice of words) Yes, you read my main point correctly. And I do agree - applying pressure is a great way to reveal motivations. I do not agree with Chocolate's method though and it comes off as scummy (in my opinion). My concern is that there may have been better ways to achieve this result. Pressuring someone by developing a case is one way. Pressuring a lurker by asking them questions is good. Just voting for someone to get a response can work too... but how useful is it? He claimed that his method targets newbies by making them panic. That's fair. He also claims that mafia are more likely to panic as well. Now I see two variables that may confound the read. I do agree that even this way can get someone posting. However, he believes that his method can draw out scumtells when it doesn't strictly probe affiliation - contrary to what he said (not saying it cannot though, just unreliably). So yes, I do see there is some merit in what he did after some thought. However, how he performed this doesn't sit well with me at this moment. For example: He said he voted for FourFace to try to develop a case against him. He also said that FourFace never addressed his points and just kept on posting eventually. I looked at Chocolate's filter and I could not see what points he brought up. He basically tells him he is going to vote for him for acting weird and will not unvote him until he has explained himself. I don't think asking someone to explain themselves is a point... just a broad topic. It doesn't facilitate the idea to reveal motivation without giving the individual something specific to work with (in my opinion). Also saying that he will not unvote him unless he does so was an empty threat since he later stated there wasn't enough to go off of. Well there wasn't anything to go off of since he didn't propose any specific points. I don't see why Chocolate had to lie/make an empty threat. It comes off scummy. Anyways, I am off for dinner. I will not be back for some time (probably around the deadline). My vote remains the same. Now he thinks my pressure policy could have worked but was scummy. I guess he thinks it's underhanded, but I don't see how scum can benefit from something. He sees the merit in my idea, just doesn't like it??? + Show Spoiler +On February 29 2012 09:07 NightFury wrote:
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! His most recent post (!). Only substance is the one question. Claims my methods are scummy, but previously states he sees merits in them. He claims they are dishonest. Now while my methods seem dishonest I don't see how that is scummy. They are not attempts to trick town as a whole, only pressure individual people in the town. In summary his case isn't the strongest but he is one to watch out for. Almost all his posts have been focused on ghost and me. We are the only people who have seemed scummy to him. He was only suspicious of ghost while the general suspicion was on him, then backs down while he said it was very likely that he wouldn't. Then he focuses on me, the most suspicious person since ghost. He might be someone to watch for as additional lynch candidates are exposed, to see if he bandwagons onto them and off them, and if he posts good cases against them. So far he has made no "cases" only provided general reads and has asked me some questions. Phew, glad that's done.
On March 01 2012 09:36 Chocolate wrote:
Now I'm more scummy. I haven't posted anything between the last two posts but his opinions have changed. I have become an option to lynch over ghost, although he states he will almost certainly stay on ghost. Not convinced I'm scummy.
I do not see where I said you are more scummy. I retained the same indecisiveness as before. I do believe your play was toxic to town - but that does not make you scum at that moment in time.
Due to formatting, cannot quite quote the correct section. In regards to your next point where I drop ghost in favour of you though:
Two reasons how that post came to be. 1) Seeing how ghost could at least address an issue was good to see and I had no further questions for him - I had nothing else to pursue with at the time. 2) For the reasons I stated, I found your play more scummy than his and directed my attention to you. Maybe since it was my first case where I think I had substance to it, I opted to leave ghost where he was for the time being. I was also a little bit excited to see how my first case would go.
On March 01 2012 09:36 Chocolate wrote:
Now he thinks my pressure policy could have worked but was scummy. I guess he thinks it's underhanded, but I don't see how scum can benefit from something. He sees the merit in my idea, just doesn't like it???
Just to be as clear and concise as I can. I understand the merit of making people talk due to pressure. I do not agree by the method you used which was dishonest. Like I said, case building may be a better way. I do not see a reason for town to be dishonest. Your dishonesty is what makes me think your specific method was scummy.
On March 01 2012 09:36 Chocolate wrote:
His most recent post (!). Only substance is the one question. Claims my methods are scummy, but previously states he sees merits in them. He claims they are dishonest. Now while my methods seem dishonest I don't see how that is scummy. They are not attempts to trick town as a whole, only pressure individual people in the town.
Essentially the same answer as before. Dishonesty = scummy. Applying pressure in general to produce a response = has merit. The method is scummy, the intention may actually be good. The intention may not be to trick the whole town, but a low quality read based on panic can possibly be tricky (in my opinion).
On March 01 2012 09:36 Chocolate wrote:
In summary his case isn't the strongest but he is one to watch out for. Almost all his posts have been focused on ghost and me. We are the only people who have seemed scummy to him. He was only suspicious of ghost while the general suspicion was on him, then backs down while he said it was very likely that he wouldn't. Then he focuses on me, the most suspicious person since ghost. He might be someone to watch for as additional lynch candidates are exposed, to see if he bandwagons onto them and off them, and if he posts good cases against them. So far he has made no "cases" only provided general reads and has asked me some questions. Phew, glad that's done.
Funny how my gumshoe inquiry and your post essential coincided. I have glimpsed DYH's post and I feel you will find additional information there. If you have anything else to add, feel free to send it my way.
On March 01 2012 09:58 Chocolate wrote:
Nightfury what do you think about
Chocolate
Alderan
k2hd
ghost
phagga
DoYouHas
Short snippets are fine, I just want to hear about more people from you.
Chocolate - Appears reckless and had a scummy policy. Not too much in terms of content. Extremely uncertain. Between null and leaning scum.
Alderan - I'm null. I didn't like his lack of clarity earlier when making a case against Chocolate but he may be legitimately pressuring people and not making multiple targets.
k2hd - Leaning scum. Has made a few suspicious comments and hasn't produced too much in content.
ghost - Leaning scum. Apart from his recent post against Chocolate, I don't think he's said much in terms of content and his initial aggression is still suspicious.
phagga - Leaning town. Arguments appear reasonable and acts pro-town.
DYH - Leaning town. Arguments are reasonable and provides direction.
|
On March 01 2012 09:52 DoYouHas wrote:I believe NightFury is scum. NightFuryLet us meander what NightFury has done so far this game. 1. Debate policy and propose a stringent 2nd fake deadline where votes would be 'locked in'.
2. Support Alderan's case against Chocolate.
3. Support slOosh's case against Ghost. (At least that better have been what it was, because if it wasn't then his own points do not justify this statement, "Unless an exceptional defense comes up shortly, I am unlikely to change my vote.")
4. Switch back to Chocolate with some additional weak reasoning.
5. Debate the value of voting for pressure with me and Chocolate.
6. Come back after Chocolate recently. Now let's review things that I am looking for in scum atm. 1. Skating by through day1.
2. Nudging other players along.
3. Pigeonholing Ghost and Chocolate as our lynch targets for day1.
4. Posting empty of helpful content.
5. Posting that shows they feel the need to apologize or feel under pressure (that isn't actually there). NightFury is guilty of all 5 of those things. 1. NightFury skated through day1 with a fairly short filter, and managed to not give any solid opinions on anyone except Chocolate and Ghost. He also bothered me with this: Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 10:04 NightFury wrote:
Anyways, I am off for dinner. I will not be back for some time (probably around the deadline). My vote remains the same.
He says he will be back in around 10 hours (which is the deadline) but his next post is this one: Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 06:28 NightFury wrote:
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 Which is a little over 10 hours past the deadline. I find it strange that he actively lurked and offered nothing to the thread when so much was happening in those hours leading up to the deadline. I get it that he had work and dinner and sleep and all sort of things. But I sincerely doubt that he did not check the thread in those 20 hours. And if he did check the thread, he has been so good about telling us when he is here and when he is absent, why didn't he post. There was tons to post about. 2. NightFury nudged me along an unhelpful path by suggesting a further deadline, which if I had agreed with would have wasted the town's time as the issue drew too much attention. He also nudged Alderan along with his support and tweaking of Alderan's case on Chocolate. He also nudged slOosh and Alderan along with their suspicions on Ghost. And it may just be me, but I think the way that NightFury pursued his case against Chocolate is remarkably similar to what zelblade did to me in SNMM7. 3. Not much needs to be said here. NightFury stayed on point with Ghost and Chocolate, and was definitely one of the voices getting them to be our top candidates. 4. I'm going to look past the early posts that all dealt with policy because it is too easy to point at those and say, "no real content". Instead lets look at the posts after that. His posts break down into essentially 4 things after he gets past policy. "I like Alderan's case", "I don't like that Chocolate is referring to past games", "I don't like Chocolate voting to apply pressure", and "I don't like that Chocolate switched to FF without quality reasoning". 5. NightFury is constantly updating us on him just getting back or him having to leave, or telling us when he won't be around. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)At first this didn't stick out to me, but after I noticed how pervasive these comments were in his posting I started thinking about some of the reasons he would be doling out so many updates to us. 1. He is overeager and just wants us to know when he is around/not around. 2. He wants to make us feel like we can account for him at all times so that we don't get suspicious about him not posting much. 3. Same as 2, but it is caused by a desire to cover up the time he is spending in a scumQT, and therefore unintentional. I see all these little unnecessary updates he has given us as little apologies or signs that he feels pressured by the town even though we haven't said anything. ##Vote: NightFuryP.S. Honorable mention goes to k2hd. Many of my scum standards applied to NightFury here also apply to him.
I will be addressing your points in order. However, you do mention that I do not provide real content or opinion as well. I will be address that after the other details in your post as it pertains my to entire game experience up until now.
1. In regards to my absence. I was actually gone for the entire duration of ~20 hours. By off for dinner I was actually heading out with company. I did not return until much later than expected and immediately went to bed. I had a busy day at work and was not able to sit down in front of a computer. Was only able to do so when I got home. In terms of not commenting on the previous events, see below.
2. I believed that a secondary deadline would have been a good idea - locking in would prevent "last minute vote switches" if people went with it. Apart from some people either agreeing or whatnot, it effectively generated no discussion. And I believe it was Janaan who said it could have caused chaos, but I provided my rationale before.
As for the Alderan tweak. I did support his case in general but I also stated that it was flawed (it lacked clarity). At that time, while Chocolate did seem scummy for the switch, I wanted to bring up the possibility that it may have just been reckless play. I don't see that as a nudge more as something to be re-evaluated.
3. No problems here I'm assuming?
4. I would like to address this entire point below.
5. I started this because it appeared everyone else would be doing it too. With reflection, you're assessment that I am overeager is accurate. As I mentioned in response to Chocolate, I am capable of getting excited. This was the motivation behind trying this. However, I know I have not been able to always perform it due to not always being at a computer and things do come up. I did not anticipate this action could be viewed in such a manner.
In regards to not generating real content.
This is my very first game of TL mafia (and of forum mafia to begin with). My #1 priority this game is to have a good learning experience. I've been playing solo this game as there are no coaches and I didn't know about hydras until the game was underway. I've been trying to post whatever I could to see if I could help generate discussion. But I have clearly not been able to do such. This may be due to what I think would be useful (second deadline, clarifying Alderan's case, pushing my case on Day 1...) has actually been useless? The problem I have is that I get swept under the rug whenever I do this. I only find myself being quoted by Chocolate (and for good reason) and the occasional other post. So I find myself reading over posts and thinking of what to contribute - but find a lot of things I did find out to already be stated. I do not see how quoting someone and saying "I agree" without any content is useful. I have no issue posting, but anything original just gets swept under the rug. Even you brought up how part of my case on Chocolate was useless and I was trying to determine why. But again, no discussion was generated. I'm at a point where I do not know how to generate discussion since my attempts have come and gone. I do feel being prompted (like right now) is good since it has a focus.
|
People, I don't like where this is going.
There are some PBPAs and bad cases thrown around, like this:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=314813¤tpage=33#644
I don't want a Choco nor a Night lynch.
Here is Choco's filter from Newbie Mafia III where he was scum:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=305805&user=135961¤tpage=2
Here is his filter from this game:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=314813&user=135961
He's posted as much this D1-N1-D2 as he did that whole game. There he lurked, never posted any reads, and when he posted some of his posts had completely different subjects that did nothing but make the intention of his post harder to read.
This game he's posting WAY more, and I get the feeling every post of his has an intention. He's playing somewhat more aggresively, I get how some of his posts may be fluff, but at least there is some thought put into them, not like the ones from Newbie III.
As for NightFury, the same applies from Chocolate. He's way too enthusiastic (sp?), just look at his post and the tone of them; it's not the tone of a scum trying to hide.
Actually, I'd put both of them, along with phagga with the most "townie" ones out there, at least judging by the way they are playing, are responding, and how they do so.
I also don't like how everybody is ignoring Alderan right now, and apart from an interaction between him and sloosh, he hasn't done anything today, hopefully waiting for the cases against him to be buried.
I specially think this since he never responded to my case.
Sorry, I may not be as active as I want, but I won't let you guys ignore me like I'm some useless townie.
I don't know where the hell Jekyll is either, was hoping to discuss with him before casting our vote, but I'll vote now and we can decide to change it later:
##Vote: Alderan
|
|
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 01 2012 12:43 NightFury wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 09:52 DoYouHas wrote:I believe NightFury is scum. NightFuryLet us meander what NightFury has done so far this game. 1. Debate policy and propose a stringent 2nd fake deadline where votes would be 'locked in'.
2. Support Alderan's case against Chocolate.
3. Support slOosh's case against Ghost. (At least that better have been what it was, because if it wasn't then his own points do not justify this statement, "Unless an exceptional defense comes up shortly, I am unlikely to change my vote.")
4. Switch back to Chocolate with some additional weak reasoning.
5. Debate the value of voting for pressure with me and Chocolate.
6. Come back after Chocolate recently. Now let's review things that I am looking for in scum atm. 1. Skating by through day1.
2. Nudging other players along.
3. Pigeonholing Ghost and Chocolate as our lynch targets for day1.
4. Posting empty of helpful content.
5. Posting that shows they feel the need to apologize or feel under pressure (that isn't actually there). NightFury is guilty of all 5 of those things. 1. NightFury skated through day1 with a fairly short filter, and managed to not give any solid opinions on anyone except Chocolate and Ghost. He also bothered me with this: On February 28 2012 10:04 NightFury wrote:
Anyways, I am off for dinner. I will not be back for some time (probably around the deadline). My vote remains the same.
He says he will be back in around 10 hours (which is the deadline) but his next post is this one: On February 29 2012 06:28 NightFury wrote:
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 Which is a little over 10 hours past the deadline. I find it strange that he actively lurked and offered nothing to the thread when so much was happening in those hours leading up to the deadline. I get it that he had work and dinner and sleep and all sort of things. But I sincerely doubt that he did not check the thread in those 20 hours. And if he did check the thread, he has been so good about telling us when he is here and when he is absent, why didn't he post. There was tons to post about. 2. NightFury nudged me along an unhelpful path by suggesting a further deadline, which if I had agreed with would have wasted the town's time as the issue drew too much attention. He also nudged Alderan along with his support and tweaking of Alderan's case on Chocolate. He also nudged slOosh and Alderan along with their suspicions on Ghost. And it may just be me, but I think the way that NightFury pursued his case against Chocolate is remarkably similar to what zelblade did to me in SNMM7. 3. Not much needs to be said here. NightFury stayed on point with Ghost and Chocolate, and was definitely one of the voices getting them to be our top candidates. 4. I'm going to look past the early posts that all dealt with policy because it is too easy to point at those and say, "no real content". Instead lets look at the posts after that. His posts break down into essentially 4 things after he gets past policy. "I like Alderan's case", "I don't like that Chocolate is referring to past games", "I don't like Chocolate voting to apply pressure", and "I don't like that Chocolate switched to FF without quality reasoning". 5. NightFury is constantly updating us on him just getting back or him having to leave, or telling us when he won't be around. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)At first this didn't stick out to me, but after I noticed how pervasive these comments were in his posting I started thinking about some of the reasons he would be doling out so many updates to us. 1. He is overeager and just wants us to know when he is around/not around. 2. He wants to make us feel like we can account for him at all times so that we don't get suspicious about him not posting much. 3. Same as 2, but it is caused by a desire to cover up the time he is spending in a scumQT, and therefore unintentional. I see all these little unnecessary updates he has given us as little apologies or signs that he feels pressured by the town even though we haven't said anything. ##Vote: NightFuryP.S. Honorable mention goes to k2hd. Many of my scum standards applied to NightFury here also apply to him. I will be addressing your points in order. However, you do mention that I do not provide real content or opinion as well. I will be address that after the other details in your post as it pertains my to entire game experience up until now. 1. In regards to my absence. I was actually gone for the entire duration of ~20 hours. By off for dinner I was actually heading out with company. I did not return until much later than expected and immediately went to bed. I had a busy day at work and was not able to sit down in front of a computer. Was only able to do so when I got home. In terms of not commenting on the previous events, see below. 2. I believed that a secondary deadline would have been a good idea - locking in would prevent "last minute vote switches" if people went with it. Apart from some people either agreeing or whatnot, it effectively generated no discussion. And I believe it was Janaan who said it could have caused chaos, but I provided my rationale before. As for the Alderan tweak. I did support his case in general but I also stated that it was flawed (it lacked clarity). At that time, while Chocolate did seem scummy for the switch, I wanted to bring up the possibility that it may have just been reckless play. I don't see that as a nudge more as something to be re-evaluated. 3. No problems here I'm assuming? 4. I would like to address this entire point below. 5. I started this because it appeared everyone else would be doing it too. With reflection, you're assessment that I am overeager is accurate. As I mentioned in response to Chocolate, I am capable of getting excited. This was the motivation behind trying this. However, I know I have not been able to always perform it due to not always being at a computer and things do come up. I did not anticipate this action could be viewed in such a manner. In regards to not generating real content. This is my very first game of TL mafia (and of forum mafia to begin with). My #1 priority this game is to have a good learning experience. I've been playing solo this game as there are no coaches and I didn't know about hydras until the game was underway. I've been trying to post whatever I could to see if I could help generate discussion. But I have clearly not been able to do such. This may be due to what I think would be useful (second deadline, clarifying Alderan's case, pushing my case on Day 1...) has actually been useless? The problem I have is that I get swept under the rug whenever I do this. I only find myself being quoted by Chocolate (and for good reason) and the occasional other post. So I find myself reading over posts and thinking of what to contribute - but find a lot of things I did find out to already be stated. I do not see how quoting someone and saying "I agree" without any content is useful. I have no issue posting, but anything original just gets swept under the rug. Even you brought up how part of my case on Chocolate was useless and I was trying to determine why. But again, no discussion was generated. I'm at a point where I do not know how to generate discussion since my attempts have come and gone. I do feel being prompted (like right now) is good since it has a focus.
Wow, that post struck me as... earnest. Very well, I'll switch my vote to k2hd. I'll present a more thorough reasoning as to why a little later.
##Unvote: NightFury
##Vote: k2hd
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
