|
On June 15 2012 00:50 s0Lstice wrote:
Some housekeeping stuff first..
I am removing alan133 from my scum list. The main thing that had me suspicious was his strong-arm defense, but everything following that has been fine. I like that he is holding himself accountable for his style, and I want to see what he can do when not under pressure.
austin and suki have commented on crossfire99, and I have to say I agree. I was planning on wrighting a post similar to what suki has done. The cogent point is that he has long bouts of inactivity when he is both scum and town. He should get the same level of suspicion that every lurker gets, but nothing special beyond that I feel. His filter right now is pretty garbagey, and hard to get a read on. I wouldn't be upset if we lynched him, but I think we can do better.
Here is better: HeavOnEarth. Nothing has happened to change my initial opinion on him for the better. In fact, him buddying up to sciberbia in his latest post makes him look worse. Go read my case if you missed it. I'm not the only one to see him as suspicious, so I think there is plenty of traction here.
##vote HeavOnEarth
What exactly in alan133's play made you suddenly change your mind? He reworded his arguments and continued to attack the two people who are putting pressure on him. He still hasn't brought anything new to the table, except for try to expand on this conspiracy theory that he has running between me and suki. He improved his wording, and he says he changed his playstyle. However, all he did was become more aggressive towards me... and suki...
His play maintains relatively the same. It's increasingly suspicious, I got called out for changing my play when the public opinion seemed to want me to, and then he does the same thing.
I'll be posting my opinions on the rest of the cases brought against HeavOnEarth, Crossfire99 and suki shortly.
|
Okay, so, we're really stagnating here. Got ... three votes? on three people. Not a lot of thread activity. I'm still looking mainly at Crossfire, a little at Suki. But this has to happen.
LURKERS AND BROKEN PROMISES
Crossfire - Crossfire has had a whopping 2 hours of activity this day cycle. Lurked, posted a few things in that time span, and now has not been back for 22 hours. We've got no reads from him, no response to the thread's suspicions of him, and that ain't good.
Trackdoor - 16-17 hours MIA. Could be sleep/job, but he was active at a lot of different points of the first half of D1. Hasn't commented on anything since Rofl's case on alan.
Mouldy Jeb - 22 hours MIA. Was active about 2 hours before this time and 2 hours after this time during the first real day of D1. Contributed some super shoddy reads, called out crossfire for lurking, and also gave us this:On June 14 2012 04:34 Mouldy Jeb wrote:
I just got back from work and ill read over some of the cases that have been raised and post my view on the situation shortly. Broken promise to contribute
Golden - Has 2 posts of substance + Show Spoiler +On June 13 2012 09:43 O.Golden_ne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 09:25 austinmcc wrote:
-snip
I'm not looking to push lurkers early and stay on them for an entire day cycle, killing discussion, but they need to be considered and I'd rather be looking at them on earlier days than when we're close to/at LYLO/MYLO. agreed. NL is bad. Killing lurking is necessary. Lynching scum is great.  Lets get the ball rolling and squeeze out the lurkers early so we can narrow things down later on. Looking forward to scumhunting, i'm happy with the deadline on this as its 10am for me in Aust, which means i'll be able to meet the deadlines for lynching in the mornings a little easier. I'll try my hardest this game to meet these deadlines and to contribute useful information rather than filler. Essentially i'm all for an agressive early game. I want to be able to establish some basic reads by the end of Day one, and if theres no-one who's appropriately scummy then we lynch a lurker. Golden On June 14 2012 19:18 O.Golden_ne wrote: I apologize if i stray from the format i laid out previouslySummary of Day One - My Perspective. I see early on a bandwagon forming on Alan113, initially ROLF (i like how this nickname has cropped up) argument has a little basis but is quickly disputed and resolved by the group. Alan113 is now hard-tunneled by suki for the rest of the day. I'm finding this the most frustrating day one tunnel i've seen, i was indecisive regarding suki and then i saw her most recent posts and hoped to god she looked at something other than Alan113. But her argument against Alan113 here is essentially saying that he is mafia because he is defending himself. I'm finding it hard to see how Alan113 can do anything but defend himself up until this point. I'm sitting here at my laptop and i honestly am 50-50 on Suki. I like your writing style and you can word your insights well and you have been aggressive from the get go. These are all very useful traits in day one. Tunnelling Alan113, where i can't see a small case against him, however is a big cross against your name for me. Notable Events Day One - My Opinion Suki's barrage on Alan113 and her flash in the pan vote on Trackd00r. RAWFL's pushover regarding Crossfire's passing comment about changing votes. (could his following #fos be a response to a scum-slip vote-pull to then posture as a hardline-aggressive-townie?) My People! - The Presets. ( Queue this track for dramatic effect.) Crossfire99 - i'm agreeing with what he's said about being careful with your votes. I personally think the #FOS should be used a bit more. With his posts though i would like a little more player-read-relevant posts towards the end of this day =] Sciberbia - i know its a little dangerous for me to be using these terms early on (or at all) but i'm getting a good vibe from sciberbia. I read a pseudo-leadership role coming from him. His argument and opinions are tending to align themselves with me well. HeavonEarth - sorry for being afk bro. hopefully some of this analysis clears me off your radar. Reluctant to vote onsuki or alan113 at the current time, because i honestly feel like theyre clashing for the wrong reasons. i'd be more inclined to lynch suki just because of the tunneling, however i dont feel a Mafia would be so aggressive day one (MAAAASSIVE RISK, but risk = reward?). Suspicion??? i'm looking at MJ and austinmcc at the moment. I know its a bit rich for me to be pointing the finger at anyone for lurking. However i just dont like what i'm reading, especially MJ. The early gentle push on Miltonkram was a bit off. Considering it was a joke! I may make a case on MJ in the coming hours. Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 10:07 s0Lstice wrote:
Mouldy Jeb
There isn't really much of a case here. I went and looked at the Magic:The Gathering mafia, and his style is very similar. His style is dangerous, because it's near impossible to read. There is something to go on with his treatment of rofflwaffles, but that's it. Frankly, I hate the idea of him being around late game.
#FOS Mouldy Jeb On June 14 2012 19:25 O.Golden_ne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 17:27 sciberbia wrote:
Yikes only 16 hours until the deadline and I'll be sleeping/working during most of that. I'm really tired and going to sleep now. Won't be super active again until about 1.5 hours before the deadline, but I'll try to keep up with the thread from work.
It is really important that everyone gives their opinions on lynch candidates. If you'd be happy to vote for someone, say so!
Personally, I'd like to vote for suki, crossfire, or HeavOnEarth. I have no read on MJ or golden. I would not like to lynch alan. @Sciberbia. I only glazed over the HeavonEarth issue when i was catching up on everything. I feel like a nob because i remember he had that attack at me and i never really addressed it. I don't like defensive voting per se but i'll form and post some opinions on him shortly. Crossfire seems okay too me, i liked his posts. If he posted a few more like it, with about 40% more content (pulled a # out of my ass) on players and some reads/opinions on cases i'd be a happy chappy. Time will tell on this character. about suki, well read above. I want to reserve judgement on both alan113 and suki until day two. I think a Mouldy Jeb lynch may be a little more productive. On June 14 2012 19:31 O.Golden_ne wrote:
honestly i can't believe i missed sciberbia's case on Crossfire99. FML maybe i got the totally wrong read on him. Ima refresh my mind on HeavonEarth and Sciberbia and then post after i mull their feeds over a game of SOTIS. Talk soon lovers.
GauldenWahn On June 14 2012 19:31 O.Golden_ne wrote:
honestly i can't believe i missed sciberbia's case on Crossfire99. FML maybe i got the totally wrong read on him. Ima refresh my mind on HeavonEarth and Sciberbia and then post after i mull their feeds over a game of SOTIS. Talk soon lovers.
GauldenWahn
Broken promise to contribute
Honorable Mention - Sciberbia - You said you'd be away, but given the way this day is going so far we're going to need contributions when you return.
Where are you guys? Where are these promised posts? Golden, what about this - On June 13 2012 08:27 O.Golden_ne wrote:
I'll seriously try my hardest. If i fail this game, i'll give up for good. <3 ?
|
I'm going to post as though all of these people are scum, and the impact they have a chance to make if they are left alive. I think it will give a different way of thinking about it.
Crossfire99
Sciberbia posted a convincing case on him already, and several people have posted tidbits on him, however, nobody has put the focus on him (partially my fault). Therefore, if he is in fact following the thread and trying slide under the radar of suspicion while we focus on alan133, suki, and HeavOnEarth, he is going to get away with it.
His play was very lackluster and never brought fresh reads to the table. Out of everyone, if he is scum, he seems to be one of the most dangerous to let live.
alan133
I've already tunneled the crap out of him, and his defenses have been drastic and overly reactionary. If he were left alive, I honestly think he could do a fair bit of damage as scum, just because he defends very well and seems to have people convinced as to his innocence.
HeavOnEarth
His play is quite suspicious and his accusations and suspicions lackluster at best. He could just as easily be an awful townie as scum.
Overall he's been fairly ineffectual, but if he's hiding behind a mask of confusion and bad reads, he could be an annoyance as scum later on.
suki
It would be self-serving of me to defend suki, as she took my case against alan133 and improved it, I believe in her case. But for the benefit of the doubt, let's assume she's scum. The strength or lack thereof (trapd00r case) of her cases imply that she's trying to lead the vote towards those that aren't scum.
If she is scum, she could be quite dangerous later on.
All of that theorizing on what they "could" do if they were scum being done...
I believe that the most lynchable potential scum right now would be Crossfire99. I understand that there are already votes on HeavOnEarth, but if he really is that incompetent at bringing cases to the table, as a scum, why would he try to post them? He is suspicious to me, but not as suspicious as Crossfire. Unless he responds to the accusations in a convincing and collected manner soon, I strongly believe that he should be lynched.
##vote Crossfire99
|
Right now I would prefer a vote on Crossfire or Golden, either works.
Crossfire may tend to lurk, but he's been active for 2 hours this game and didn't contribute much, if anything, during those 2 hours.
1/2 golden's activity was promising some giant omnibus post, which he immediately began to apologize for because it didn't mention some of the more recent topics at all. He failed to make good on his promise to talk to us soon. I no longer wish to be his lover, don't know about the rest of you. Moreover:+ Show Spoiler +On June 13 2012 09:43 O.Golden_ne wrote:
Lets get the ball rolling and squeeze out the lurkers early so we can narrow things down later on. Looking forward to scumhunting, i'm happy with the deadline on this as its 10am for me in Aust, which means i'll be able to meet the deadlines for lynching in the mornings a little easier.
I'll try my hardest this game to meet these deadlines and to contribute useful information rather than filler.
Essentially i'm all for an agressive early game. I want to be able to establish some basic reads by the end of Day one, and if theres no-one who's appropriately scummy then we lynch a lurker.
Golden No help rolling balls. No help squeezing lurkers. Not being aggressive at all. THESE are contradictions that stick out to me. Taking a pro-town position, doing so strongly, and then never following up on that, in fact, actively doing the things he said he was going to combat.
Solstice, as to heavonearth, I don't prefer him to other targets. I agree that him calling out Golden wasn't much of a case, but Golden's first post IS weak. On your second point about time, I read that post as him being confused because your post made it sound like the deadline was really, really close. The third point on his contradictory comments does look odd, but I don't want to lynch him off of that. Look at it this way - MJ got lynched in MTG because he looked scummy D1, yet he was townie. So his posts definitely looking scummy IS consistent with when he was townie, as stupid as that sounds.
|
Oh shit, forgot about Mouldy Jeb.. obviously he's an easy lynch to make, and if we can't come to a majority then we should just get rid of him barring some legitimate posts on his part.
|
Ok back to the game.
At this stage of the day, the 3 most suspicious players that I have in my list are Suki and Crossfire99 andO.Golden_ne. I'd like to push a lynch to any of them. I'll post analysis in a moment.
|
On June 15 2012 02:24 roflwaffles55 wrote:
What exactly in alan133's play made you suddenly change your mind? He reworded his arguments and continued to attack the two people who are putting pressure on him. He still hasn't brought anything new to the table, except for try to expand on this conspiracy theory that he has running between me and suki. He improved his wording, and he says he changed his playstyle. However, all he did was become more aggressive towards me... and suki...
His play maintains relatively the same. It's increasingly suspicious, I got called out for changing my play when the public opinion seemed to want me to, and then he does the same thing.
If somebody considers outside information concerning their playstyle, recognizes its value, and makes changes, I consider it a good thing. Nobody should be tarred and feathered for changing their minds, provided they adequately explain their reasoning.
This is the rule of thumb by which I examine situations like these. In this situation, alan is accused for being neutral/passive. He recognizes the criticism, acknowledges it publicy, and begins making a change. This was the sequence of events..there is no contradiction here. Whether you like his reads or not, he DID double down on them and he DID pursue them more aggressively.
I don't like that we haven't seen much outside of OMGUS from him in regards to scumhunting.
I don't like that he uses connection reasoning in his reads.
These are the knocks against him as I see it. Does this make him scum? I say no. I've seen a number of examples where two people OMGUS eachother for most of the game and both end up being town. It's extremely common for town newbies to fall victim to the OMGUS bug. They know that they are town, and when they are accused they are only one bad logic step away from accusing their accuser.
Bottom line is, the evidence against him currently doesn't paint him as firmly scummy. The main arguments (assuming I caught them all on my re-read) are neutrality, accusing his accusers, and his knee-jerk defense, correct? There is definite newb townie motivation for all of these.
|
I'm just going to go down the thread and respond to people who have questions or suspicions addressed to me. Let me know if I miss your particular post.
First up Austin:
+ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 03:37 austinmcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 01:56 Crossfire99 wrote:As for my current thoughts: The bolded part of this post by austin makes me suspicious of him. + Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 22:23 austinmcc wrote:
I don't read those posts as contradictory, believe the second one clarifies the first and explains that, while he'd consider a NL, the standard is higher than "Town is lynching someone that isn't one of my top couple reads."
That said, even if the two statements are entirely contradictory, I don't really see anything scummy in that. More inclined to see contradictions concerning votes and reads as scummy, where someone has stated one thing but then has to take a party line, rather than super early statements concerning a no lynch. There's no agenda to push on that issue. Two completely contradictory statements without reasoning for the change is very suspicious. This is a good way to catch scum. They know the alignment of every person, so they have to make cases that they know are wrong (excluding bussing). This can lead to contradictory posts to make them better fit in with the current town mindset. Austin, why don't you think that contradictory statements are suspicious? They can be, depending on what they concern, and when they occur. See the italicized above, although I should have more explicitly qualified the bolded bit. If someone had barged into the thread yesterday saying "I love no lynches" and then "I hate no lynches" in the very next post, that's not scummy to me. There's no debate here (nobody is proposing we NL), it's not important at this time (start of day, no NL proposal). There's no scummy reason to swap between those two statements on that particular topic at this particular time.
Thanks for qualifying your statement. I was confused why said it, but now I understand what you meant. I definitely agree with your italicized statement. Differences in voting behavior and reads are very important in finding scum.
Next up Milton:
+ Show Spoiler + On June 14 2012 08:05 Miltonkram wrote:
@ roflwaffles
Ok, I see what you're saying. I thought you were completely backing off of alan even though you've made a decent case against him. I still don't like the fact that you took your vote off of him based on a wrist-slap from Crossfire, but I guess I misunderstood your intent. Since you're still pursuing your case on alan the unvote seems less scummy.
As far as alan133 is concerned I think you may have something. He's put very little pressure on anyone. When he does pressure he seems wishy-washy as hell.
Top two scumreads as of this moment: Mouldy Jeb and alan133.
@Crossfire, Golden, and HeavOnEarth
What do you think of these two players and the cases against them? Are there any scummy players you think we're missing? We need more activity out of you guys. Of the three of you, only heaven's put decent pressure on anyone and even that is difficult to take seriously because he hasn't followed up on his reads at all.
Mouldy: If I can read the time right on his post (hopefully I can lol), he hasn't posted in a day even though he promised a case when he came back from work yesterday. So far he's just thrown around baseless accusations and hasn't contributed. He needs to post.
Alan: I don't like his case on suki. I don't know how she has played in past games, but it seems like she is being open and contributing her own reads and putting in good work like going through my game history (props for doing that, I don't have time for that much research). I also don't like him trying to link people together so early. We know next to nothing so far. Don't make links between supposed "mafia" when no one has even flipped yet. Just find one person based on their scumminess and push to lynch them. This makes me feel a little suspicious of him.
Respone to sciberbia:
+ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 14:10 sciberbia wrote:As promised, here are my thoughts on crossfire and heavonEarth. crossfireThere isn't any one thing that looks super scummy, but nothing in his filter gives me a townie feel, and there are a handful of small things that suggest he is scum: his suspicions on austin + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +The bolded part of this post by austin makes me suspicious of him. + Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 22:23 austinmcc wrote:
I don't read those posts as contradictory, believe the second one clarifies the first and explains that, while he'd consider a NL, the standard is higher than "Town is lynching someone that isn't one of my top couple reads."
That said, even if the two statements are entirely contradictory, I don't really see anything scummy in that. More inclined to see contradictions concerning votes and reads as scummy, where someone has stated one thing but then has to take a party line, rather than super early statements concerning a no lynch. There's no agenda to push on that issue. Two completely contradictory statements without reasoning for the change is very suspicious. This is a good way to catch scum. They know the alignment of every person, so they have to make cases that they know are wrong (excluding bussing). This can lead to contradictory posts to make them better fit in with the current town mindset. Austin, why don't you think that contradictory statements are suspicious? This is exactly the kind of D1 case I would expect a scum to make. Austin makes the somewhat peculiar assertion that there is nothing scummy about contradicting yourself on policy during the early game. Whether or not you agree with this statement is irrelevant. The point is, what does a mafia Austin stand to gain by making a statement like this? Is he planning on contradicting himself later? No. It's very likely that he actually believes what he said so the fact that he said it isn't indicative of his alignment. I don't think Austin's statement is scummy at all. But, it is definitely a statement that a mafia could attack, because it seems illogical. It's easy to criticize. And that's what crossfire did. This is the kind of thing mafia do D1: attack people for seemingly illogical statements even though it isn't a scumtell. Like the mafia's attacks on Vivax from last game. his stance on Mouldy Jeb + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 03:38 Crossfire99 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 02:45 s0Lstice wrote:
Crossfire99, what do you think of what I said about Mouldy Jeb?
Roflwaffles55, same question. Yeah Mouldy is acting really weird. He needs to get active to explain himself. Everything he has said so far lacks good reasoning. s0Lstice, an influential player and good townie, calls Mouldy Jeb his #1 suspicion. s0Lstice then explicitly asks crossfire for an opinion on Mouldy. Crossfire does exactly what I would expect a mafia to do. Agrees with the influential player on his #1 scumread, reiterating what s0Lstice said. Mouldy Jeb would undoubtedly be an easy lynch today, and assuming that he is town, would take the pressure off mafia. And if crossfire is so suspicious of MJ, why didn't he say anything until s0Lstice prompted him? I grant that none of this is solid evidence and that a townie could plausibly act the same way, but crossfire's response is definitely consistent with mafia behavior. Otherwise is avoiding scumhunting + Show Spoiler +
Looking through the rest of his filter, he doesn't say much meaty stuff. In his first post, he rehashes a lot of what previous people had said. And after that, he talks a lot about policy issues such as when to vote and how to pressure people. Nothing too controversial in his entire filter.
Overall, I'd say crossfire looks a bit scummy.
Yeah I questioned Austin because I found that one sentence suspicious. Isn't that the whole point of this game: to ask questions about suspicious behavior, so they respond and then you can learn more about their alignment. (I also responded to him above)
Yeah I responded to solstice's question. There wasn't much original content that I could put forth at the time. I believe Mouldy had like 3 posts with little content, therefore I agreed with him because it made sense. Also, I had just woken up and responded to what were the hot topics at the moment and then started going through the thread and pointing out different things I saw and responding to questions like solstice's.
Also, sciberbia, you have a lot of expectations about how mafia should play. They can play any way they want. Don't assume that they will play a certain way. Ask austin about anacletus from our game. He had way too many thoughts about how mafia should play and I don't think my mafia team played the way he assumed we would at all.
Another one from Milton:
+ Show Spoiler + On June 14 2012 19:21 Miltonkram wrote:
Ok I've been thinking pretty hard since work and there are three players I would feel good about lynching: Crossfire, HeavOnEarth and MJ.
Crossefire99
His play has already been outlined by sciberbia, so I won't expand on it too much. I'm also really suspicious at the timing of his disappearance from the thread. He hasn't posted since his defense against s0Lstice's probing pressure. It seems like the perfect time to go lurkey if he's scum. He just made his post and then could have hoped that his defense would be enough to keep himself out of further discussion. Obviously it hasn't, but I can definitely see scum motivation in his decision to go silent at the time that he did.
Just to sum up, I feel pretty confident in a lynch of any of these three players. I'll gladly put my vote behind any of them.
In regards to suki, I'm really on the fence about her. My opinion keeps flip-flopping as I read through her filter. I'm no longer confident in my suspicion of her. I liked parts of her defense and then her later pressure on alan, but there are parts I didn't like too. I'm withholding judgement until I have more time to think on her play.
I can't do anything about my posting times. I pop in, read some, and post when I have time. I can't make any promises about the exact times that this will be so...idk what else to say.
On to Suki:
+ Show Spoiler + On June 15 2012 00:06 suki wrote:
Let me go over my reads of the other players.
Crossfire99:
I spent a lot of time trying to figure out if he is scum or not. Looking into the filter of his two previous games, I found that his posting style is more or less the same.
In game 1, he rolls blue and lurks quite hard. He states out of game reasons for lurking, but he plays more or less non-commital, pointing out suspicious behavior but not really heavily pressuring anyone.
In game 2 as mafia, he starts out the game by doing two things. First, he posts a defense of a townie that had come under scrutiny. Second, he immediately starts pointing out errors in one particular person's posts. He actually tunnels this person for the entire Day 1 and only just fails to get him lynched. He survives for the whole game without really being under fire and mafia wins the game.
In this game I see a lot of policy talk, a lot of guidance talk, and hardly any pressure at all. I find it quite different from his previously successful mafia play. In addition, his helpful tone is quite present in the mafia QT from the previous game, which makes me feel more inclined to think he's actually trying to help, despite his posts not really pressuring or helping town much.
Basically, his meta has changed from his last scum game, and it's changed in a confusing way, and he isn't using the tactics that lead him to a win in the previous game. I'm waiting for more contributions from him before deciding whether I think he's scum or not.
Impressive research. I hadn't even thought about my helpfulness until you pointed that out until. I'll let people make their own conclusions about this, so I'll leave it at that.
|
On June 15 2012 02:44 roflwaffles55 wrote:
I'm going to post as though all of these people are scum, and the impact they have a chance to make if they are left alive. I think it will give a different way of thinking about it.
Crossfire99
Sciberbia posted a convincing case on him already, and several people have posted tidbits on him, however, nobody has put the focus on him (partially my fault). Therefore, if he is in fact following the thread and trying slide under the radar of suspicion while we focus on alan133, suki, and HeavOnEarth, he is going to get away with it.
His play was very lackluster and never brought fresh reads to the table. Out of everyone, if he is scum, he seems to be one of the most dangerous to let live.
I believe that the most lynchable potential scum right now would be Crossfire99. I understand that there are already votes on HeavOnEarth, but if he really is that incompetent at bringing cases to the table, as a scum, why would he try to post them? He is suspicious to me, but not as suspicious as Crossfire. Unless he responds to the accusations in a convincing and collected manner soon, I strongly believe that he should be lynched.
##vote Crossfire99
Let me know if I didn't respond enough for your liking. I'll be gone for a few hours and then I'll be back for the deadline to respond more and vote.
|
On June 15 2012 02:47 austinmcc wrote:Right now I would prefer a vote on Crossfire or Golden, either works. Crossfire may tend to lurk, but he's been active for 2 hours this game and didn't contribute much, if anything, during those 2 hours. 1/2 golden's activity was promising some giant omnibus post, which he immediately began to apologize for because it didn't mention some of the more recent topics at all. He failed to make good on his promise to talk to us soon. I no longer wish to be his lover, don't know about the rest of you. Moreover: + Show Spoiler +On June 13 2012 09:43 O.Golden_ne wrote:
Lets get the ball rolling and squeeze out the lurkers early so we can narrow things down later on. Looking forward to scumhunting, i'm happy with the deadline on this as its 10am for me in Aust, which means i'll be able to meet the deadlines for lynching in the mornings a little easier.
I'll try my hardest this game to meet these deadlines and to contribute useful information rather than filler.
Essentially i'm all for an agressive early game. I want to be able to establish some basic reads by the end of Day one, and if theres no-one who's appropriately scummy then we lynch a lurker.
Golden No help rolling balls. No help squeezing lurkers. Not being aggressive at all. THESE are contradictions that stick out to me. Taking a pro-town position, doing so strongly, and then never following up on that, in fact, actively doing the things he said he was going to combat. Solstice, as to heavonearth, I don't prefer him to other targets. I agree that him calling out Golden wasn't much of a case, but Golden's first post IS weak. On your second point about time, I read that post as him being confused because your post made it sound like the deadline was really, really close. The third point on his contradictory comments does look odd, but I don't want to lynch him off of that. Look at it this way - MJ got lynched in MTG because he looked scummy D1, yet he was townie. So his posts definitely looking scummy IS consistent with when he was townie, as stupid as that sounds.
Go have a look at newb mini XIV. It may give you some insight on Golden. I built a huge case on him for day 2 based on many of the points you are making this game. He flipped town. I'm not saying he couldn't be scum, but I'm seeing similarities here.
|
Crossfire99
I don't like the way he has been playing. The only things he has done is:
- Making a summary with the earliest events of the game, using the same thoughts that we have on rofl, and suki's cases.
- Accusing austinmcc for his views on contradictions.
- ''Helping'' Roflwaffle by telling him to unvote alan33 (defending alan?)
- Responding to s0ltice pressure and questions.
After that, he just disappeared from the radar. I dislike the way that he is just checking the thread. He hasn't brought anything new to the table. His ''pressure'' against austinmcc never continued. It was just something to add so he could show to us that he is contributing to the discussion.
There is nothing really to quote to show some evidence, since there isn't really anything implicit about this.
O.Golden_ne
Very similar to crossfire, but acts in a much scummier way.
* The way he says that he is working hard:
+ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 17:36 O.Golden_ne wrote:
Okay. Love it or hate it i haven't been too present thus fair. That being said i'm about to drop some knowledge on everyone. I'm just gonna post this little post structure so you know im working on it as we speak.
Summary of D1 to date (this is more for my benefit because i've been away and i find it a good method of developing insight into a situation.
Response regarding Alan, HeavonEarth and Suki situations (at a glance these names seem to be trending highly)
My reads and analysis
Any sexy tidbits and notable nuggets
this is going to be my most active time over the next few hours as i've got the night off and i'm in bed on my laptop!
see you on the otherside of a Wall of Text.
+ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 19:03 O.Golden_ne wrote:
gimme 20 minutes alan113 i have big post half written. would be good to get your opinion. i see your suspicion on suki, but i dont want everything to devolve to shit-flinging between you and suki day one.
Bragging to much IMO about his task of writing stuff. He states that he wants write a summary for himself. Dude, you are not playing alone, you have 8 any other people doing the same thing, and the only way is by working togheter.
I found his ''wall of text'', quite disappointing:
+ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 19:18 O.Golden_ne wrote: I apologize if i stray from the format i laid out previouslySummary of Day One - My Perspective. I see early on a bandwagon forming on Alan113, initially ROLF (i like how this nickname has cropped up) argument has a little basis but is quickly disputed and resolved by the group. Alan113 is now hard-tunneled by suki for the rest of the day. I'm finding this the most frustrating day one tunnel i've seen, i was indecisive regarding suki and then i saw her most recent posts and hoped to god she looked at something other than Alan113. But her argument against Alan113 here is essentially saying that he is mafia because he is defending himself. I'm finding it hard to see how Alan113 can do anything but defend himself up until this point. I'm sitting here at my laptop and i honestly am 50-50 on Suki. I like your writing style and you can word your insights well and you have been aggressive from the get go. These are all very useful traits in day one. Tunnelling Alan113, where i can't see a small case against him, however is a big cross against your name for me. Notable Events Day One - My OpinionSuki's barrage on Alan113 and her flash in the pan vote on Trackd00r. RAWFL's pushover regarding Crossfire's passing comment about changing votes. (could his following #fos be a response to a scum-slip vote-pull to then posture as a hardline-aggressive-townie?) My People! - The Presets. ( Queue this track for dramatic effect.) Crossfire99 - i'm agreeing with what he's said about being careful with your votes. I personally think the #FOS should be used a bit more. With his posts though i would like a little more player-read-relevant posts towards the end of this day =] Sciberbia - i know its a little dangerous for me to be using these terms early on (or at all) but i'm getting a good vibe from sciberbia. I read a pseudo-leadership role coming from him. His argument and opinions are tending to align themselves with me well. HeavonEarth - sorry for being afk bro. hopefully some of this analysis clears me off your radar. Reluctant to vote onsuki or alan113 at the current time, because i honestly feel like theyre clashing for the wrong reasons. i'd be more inclined to lynch suki just because of the tunneling, however i dont feel a Mafia would be so aggressive day one (MAAAASSIVE RISK, but risk = reward?). Suspicion??? i'm looking at MJ and austinmcc at the moment. I know its a bit rich for me to be pointing the finger at anyone for lurking. However i just dont like what i'm reading, especially MJ. The early gentle push on Miltonkram was a bit off. Considering it was a joke! I may make a case on MJ in the coming hours. Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 10:07 s0Lstice wrote:
Mouldy Jeb
There isn't really much of a case here. I went and looked at the Magic:The Gathering mafia, and his style is very similar. His style is dangerous, because it's near impossible to read. There is something to go on with his treatment of rofflwaffles, but that's it. Frankly, I hate the idea of him being around late game.
#FOS Mouldy Jeb
In some parts, where he clearly explains events, it's got the name of an opinion.
Finally to end all this post, he FOS'd MouldyJeb with NO reasoning or whatsoever. He even took s0lstice analysis to back up his descsion, instead of using his unique arguments.
Then it comes his opinion about Crossfire:
+ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 19:25 O.Golden_ne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 17:27 sciberbia wrote:
Yikes only 16 hours until the deadline and I'll be sleeping/working during most of that. I'm really tired and going to sleep now. Won't be super active again until about 1.5 hours before the deadline, but I'll try to keep up with the thread from work.
It is really important that everyone gives their opinions on lynch candidates. If you'd be happy to vote for someone, say so!
Personally, I'd like to vote for suki, crossfire, or HeavOnEarth. I have no read on MJ or golden. I would not like to lynch alan. @Sciberbia. I only glazed over the HeavonEarth issue when i was catching up on everything. I feel like a nob because i remember he had that attack at me and i never really addressed it. I don't like defensive voting per se but i'll form and post some opinions on him shortly. Crossfire seems okay too me, i liked his posts. If he posted a few more like it, with about 40% more content (pulled a # out of my ass) on players and some reads/opinions on cases i'd be a happy chappy. Time will tell on this character. about suki, well read above. I want to reserve judgement on both alan113 and suki until day two. I think a Mouldy Jeb lynch may be a little more productive.
But then:
+ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 19:31 O.Golden_ne wrote:
honestly i can't believe i missed sciberbia's case on Crossfire99. FML maybe i got the totally wrong read on him. Ima refresh my mind on HeavonEarth and Sciberbia and then post after i mull their feeds over a game of SOTIS. Talk soon lovers.
GauldenWahn
Here, it clearly shows that his opinions are not more than a influence from other players. In just 6 minutes, CF passed from being okay for him, to ''omg might be suspicious''.
And, where is his case against MJ anyways?
In summary, Golden has been really inconsistent with his play The expectations I had from him are far from satisfactory, in function of what he has promised.
I'm at school right now so I can't post all that I have yet. I'll be back like just half an hour before lynch. I'll put my vote on Golden if I can't make it on time. If I can, i'll adapt what can be the most beneficial for town so we don't end with a NL.
##Vote: O.Golden_ne
|
@austinmcc
Sorry but as I've said, I'm busy and won't be able to post much for the next few hours. The thread will have my full attention for the last hour and a half before the deadline, and I'll help organize the lynch.
@all
Crossfire has drawn suspicions of several people, and now he has finally posted both a substantial post and defense. Getting fresh opinions on him is important right now. Please share your opinion on him if you haven't already, and update your opinion if it has changed as a result of his defense.
|
On June 15 2012 02:44 roflwaffles55 wrote:
I believe that the most lynchable potential scum right now would be Crossfire99. I understand that there are already votes on HeavOnEarth, but if he really is that incompetent at bringing cases to the table, as a scum, why would he try to post them? He is suspicious to me, but not as suspicious as Crossfire. Unless he responds to the accusations in a convincing and collected manner soon, I strongly believe that he should be lynched.
What? This is a really, really odd question. Your question assumes that he thinks of himself as incompetent, and actively tries to compensate for it. You clear him on this basis: a scum HeavOnEarth would look in the mirror and be like 'boy are you incompetent, don't go posting any cases now!', whereas a townie HeavOnEarth would be blissfully unaware of his incompetence and post as he sees fit. Furthermore, it's obvious scum are going to make an effort to accuse people, they have to appear town...
##FoS: rofflwaffles55
|
Yeah i gotta run as well, taking my car in for maintenance. Golden looks like a solid lynch to me.
#vote O.Golden_ne
|
@s0lstice
alan hasn't changed his playstyle. He's still maintaining neutrality on everyone except me and roflwaffle. He's clearly had time to hunt for suspicious behaviour of me and rofl. I don't like how he is hiding behind this 'neutrality' premise to avoid commenting on anyone he doesn't feel like.
I'm not OMGUSing him, I'm calling him out for not contributing to the town under the premise of 'neutrality'. I'm calling him out for failing to comment on any of the main players being discussed in the thread - HeavOnEarth, MouldyJeb, and Crossfire.
Yes, you could argue newb townie motivation for neutrality, accusing his accusers and knee-jerk defense, but shouldn't there also be motivation for contributing his thoughts on current topics?
|
Yes he should be commenting on other cases Suki. If his behavior continues past day 1 it will increasingly trouble me.
|
I see the current pressure are easing off from me. I also realize I has pretty much ignored everyone else except for rolf and suki.
@austinmcc
I thought spoilers are supposed to keep it neat and more readable, but apparently not, so I will avoid that from now. Edit: I unconsciously included spoilers tag where it was appropriate, hope you won't mind.
@Crossfire99
The majority seems to agree that Crossfire99 is one of the potential lynch target. I beg to differ. His posts was generally neutral, did not put pressure on anyone. I would like to say the case against Crossfire holds the same premise with the case rolf against me: not applying pressure while playing passively. The difference is Crossfire did not actively defend himself + Show Spoiler +. He is off my scum list for now, I would like to see him post more, as I believe posting more reveals yourself more, and that is giving more information to everyone. I see him employing similar policy for not jumping the gun.
Not under suspicion currently
@HeavOnEarth
His first few points seem disconnected. None of them relates to each other: From FoSing Golden for his opening post, + Show Spoiler +And I thought rofl@me and suki@trap was bad On June 14 2012 08:47 HeavOnEarth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 08:38 s0Lstice wrote:
Just checking in guys. I'm going to make a post on my top scumreads in a few hours, as well as some errata. Lynch time is fast approaching and we really need to buckle down. ? lynch isn't for another 24 hours?
He also state that he is waiting for responses. Upon being debunked on Gold's read, he basically dismiss it similar the way suki has dismissed her case on trap, claiming they are trying to start conversation. In suki's case, this is still believable. Before her case there was no controversy, and very little to talk about. However, when Heave posted on Gold, there were already controversies + Show Spoiler + and he ignore them altogether. I interpret his motive is to lynch a lurker over an already presented scummy player, and this can hardly be town.
Very Suspicious
@Mouldy Jeb's
He echoed what I said, and came to the conclusion that it is dismiss-able without anything at all. Pure filler. The gut feeling about rofl is really weird. Look at this:
Rolf said:
Hey mouldyjeb, glad to see you posting! Do you have any other evidence or reasons beyond miltons lighthearted attitude at the beginning? State them if you do, as well as any suspicions against me! Don't keep them to yourself!
Also, what are your opinions on the cases so far, like mine against alan133 and suki's against trackd00r?
I ask these because that was a fairly lackluster post when it comes to your first of the game and id like you to bring some fresh opinions to the table.
nope roffle that was a gut feeling about you that why I stated I have no evidence
This is confusing as hell, and I don't think I want to read too much into it.
His other posts were also echoes of what other people have said. He seems to still have an issue with Milton's "joke" vote, but never pursue it without saying why. I am interested to see what his views are, which he promised will be post shortly.
Mildly suspicious
Can't believe I took 1 hours just to write all this down. I also did a filter check on s0Lstice since no body has suspect him, and I realize I was writing a lot of fillers, and my conclusion is indecisive-he currently looks town, so it is gone.
I refreshed and realize suki is still running her case upon me.
@Suki
Let me address your reiterated summary.
1. It's not that he is defensive. It's the way he's being defensive. He was extremely conscious of misinterpretations of his words in the beginning. He attacks his attackers. Despite feeling that throwing suspicions around was bad town play, he threw suspicions at roflwaffle to prove his towniness. I don't buy that his response was 'proof by contradiction', the tone is completely off.
I am playing this game seriously. I reason people won't don't spoils the game, and that is both bad town and bad scum play. I know carelessly written post may lead to many different interpretation. I am trying to avoid that while struggling with the language itself.
My first mocked-up case against rolf was indeed me attempting a "proof of contradiction", nothing more. Believing me or not is a subjective matter so I won't comment more than that. I do agree I did intensify my tone when I defend myself, I can't deny that, and if I am offer a chance to explain, I felt challenged.
Also, attacking head on is nothing but defensive. I brought the spotlight to myself, trying to be as transparent as possible, believing it will establish my innocent.
2. He is inconsistent. He states that he doesn't like throwing out suspicions, that he thinks neutral play by town isn't bad for town. Yet he throws suspicions at those attacking him, and he continues to work with this idea that rofl and I are working together as a mafia ploy. Is that really the most suspicious part of this entire thread, are roflwaffle and me really the most suspicious people out of everyone else? I highly highly doubt it. He is inconsistent because he doesn't like throwing out suspicions (his reasoning for not commenting on anyone else it seems), yet he freely throws suspicions at his attackers.
I did explained that I rethink on the "neutral" issue, and my conclusion is pressing someone is actually good. My second attack based on the theory is real.
My "conspiracy theory" was based on a plausible scenario, given what stands out more to me. I don't want to be biasly attacking my attackers, but it is also bias if I consciously avoid to voice out what I think is wrong just because my subject attacked me. I also included you as scum in my theory when you were defending me, did I not?. A more precise way to describe it is that "I attack those who deem suspecting to me, whether they are defending me or attacking me, they brought me the most attention" When I first mentioned the "theory", I was still being neutral, and I originally intended to list it out as a possibility.
Your bandwagoning on me also diverted my attention, with you and rolf focusing on me, I naturally re-focused on both of you.
In addition, Alan's suspicions on rofl and I have more been about finding a way to make our play scummy, rather than pointing out scum motivations and tells.
I stated my policy on coming out with the theory: finding group patterns. It strikes me as rolf was "defending" suki, suki later bandwagoned on rolf when he get more support. I did not want to make an excuse on "I am new", but I am still figuring out the meta-game, as I did with "being neutral"
3. He still hasn't done any analysis on any other players.
Why? Has it not been made clear to you that your opinions are needed? Let me say it clearly: What are your opinions on everyone else? Do something productive for the town for once.
Yes. Refer above, although time spending refuting your case could be used to look at other players. I also feel reluctant to give analysis after rolf's case, criticising me on repeating other people's point and has no opinion.
That took me another hour, thanks suki -.-
That said, I am willing to put down my theory for now due to this reason:
Suki's first "meh" post was not as bad as I initially thinks. I read + Show Spoiler +Day 1 doesn't truly begin until someone makes a 'meh' case against someone else with a few 'meh' points.
Of course, don't count this "theory" out yet, I am leaving it aside for Day 1.
Right now, I find Heav and MJ were the best lynch candidates, and HeavOnEarth appears to be more scummy
##unvote: Suki
##vote: HeavOnEarth
I am off to bed, it is 3 am right here. I will get up in 4 hours so we can get a successful lynch.
Another refresh reveals more post from crossfire. My opinion on him has not swayed.
|
Also I'm still advocating, strongly, that we consolodate on HeavOnEarth. He has barely even taken the trouble to defend himself, and what he did post got quickly buried. I do not want to let him slip under the radar.
People who are on Crossfire99 should read his newest post and adjust accordingly. I feel we have a darn good chance at hitting scum on day 1 with HeavOnEarth.
|
On June 15 2012 03:23 Crossfire99 wrote:I'm just going to go down the thread and respond to people who have questions or suspicions addressed to me. Let me know if I miss your particular post. First up Austin: + Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 03:37 austinmcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 01:56 Crossfire99 wrote:As for my current thoughts: The bolded part of this post by austin makes me suspicious of him. + Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 22:23 austinmcc wrote:
I don't read those posts as contradictory, believe the second one clarifies the first and explains that, while he'd consider a NL, the standard is higher than "Town is lynching someone that isn't one of my top couple reads."
That said, even if the two statements are entirely contradictory, I don't really see anything scummy in that. More inclined to see contradictions concerning votes and reads as scummy, where someone has stated one thing but then has to take a party line, rather than super early statements concerning a no lynch. There's no agenda to push on that issue. Two completely contradictory statements without reasoning for the change is very suspicious. This is a good way to catch scum. They know the alignment of every person, so they have to make cases that they know are wrong (excluding bussing). This can lead to contradictory posts to make them better fit in with the current town mindset. Austin, why don't you think that contradictory statements are suspicious? They can be, depending on what they concern, and when they occur. See the italicized above, although I should have more explicitly qualified the bolded bit. If someone had barged into the thread yesterday saying "I love no lynches" and then "I hate no lynches" in the very next post, that's not scummy to me. There's no debate here (nobody is proposing we NL), it's not important at this time (start of day, no NL proposal). There's no scummy reason to swap between those two statements on that particular topic at this particular time. Thanks for qualifying your statement. I was confused why said it, but now I understand what you meant. I definitely agree with your italicized statement. Differences in voting behavior and reads are very important in finding scum. Next up Milton: + Show Spoiler + On June 14 2012 08:05 Miltonkram wrote:
@ roflwaffles
Ok, I see what you're saying. I thought you were completely backing off of alan even though you've made a decent case against him. I still don't like the fact that you took your vote off of him based on a wrist-slap from Crossfire, but I guess I misunderstood your intent. Since you're still pursuing your case on alan the unvote seems less scummy.
As far as alan133 is concerned I think you may have something. He's put very little pressure on anyone. When he does pressure he seems wishy-washy as hell.
Top two scumreads as of this moment: Mouldy Jeb and alan133.
@Crossfire, Golden, and HeavOnEarth
What do you think of these two players and the cases against them? Are there any scummy players you think we're missing? We need more activity out of you guys. Of the three of you, only heaven's put decent pressure on anyone and even that is difficult to take seriously because he hasn't followed up on his reads at all. Mouldy: If I can read the time right on his post (hopefully I can lol), he hasn't posted in a day even though he promised a case when he came back from work yesterday. So far he's just thrown around baseless accusations and hasn't contributed. He needs to post. Alan: I don't like his case on suki. I don't know how she has played in past games, but it seems like she is being open and contributing her own reads and putting in good work like going through my game history (props for doing that, I don't have time for that much research). I also don't like him trying to link people together so early. We know next to nothing so far. Don't make links between supposed "mafia" when no one has even flipped yet. Just find one person based on their scumminess and push to lynch them. This makes me feel a little suspicious of him. Respone to sciberbia: + Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 14:10 sciberbia wrote:As promised, here are my thoughts on crossfire and heavonEarth. crossfireThere isn't any one thing that looks super scummy, but nothing in his filter gives me a townie feel, and there are a handful of small things that suggest he is scum: his suspicions on austin + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +The bolded part of this post by austin makes me suspicious of him. + Show Spoiler + On June 13 2012 22:23 austinmcc wrote:
I don't read those posts as contradictory, believe the second one clarifies the first and explains that, while he'd consider a NL, the standard is higher than "Town is lynching someone that isn't one of my top couple reads."
That said, even if the two statements are entirely contradictory, I don't really see anything scummy in that. More inclined to see contradictions concerning votes and reads as scummy, where someone has stated one thing but then has to take a party line, rather than super early statements concerning a no lynch. There's no agenda to push on that issue. Two completely contradictory statements without reasoning for the change is very suspicious. This is a good way to catch scum. They know the alignment of every person, so they have to make cases that they know are wrong (excluding bussing). This can lead to contradictory posts to make them better fit in with the current town mindset. Austin, why don't you think that contradictory statements are suspicious? This is exactly the kind of D1 case I would expect a scum to make. Austin makes the somewhat peculiar assertion that there is nothing scummy about contradicting yourself on policy during the early game. Whether or not you agree with this statement is irrelevant. The point is, what does a mafia Austin stand to gain by making a statement like this? Is he planning on contradicting himself later? No. It's very likely that he actually believes what he said so the fact that he said it isn't indicative of his alignment. I don't think Austin's statement is scummy at all. But, it is definitely a statement that a mafia could attack, because it seems illogical. It's easy to criticize. And that's what crossfire did. This is the kind of thing mafia do D1: attack people for seemingly illogical statements even though it isn't a scumtell. Like the mafia's attacks on Vivax from last game. his stance on Mouldy Jeb + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2012 03:38 Crossfire99 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 02:45 s0Lstice wrote:
Crossfire99, what do you think of what I said about Mouldy Jeb?
Roflwaffles55, same question. Yeah Mouldy is acting really weird. He needs to get active to explain himself. Everything he has said so far lacks good reasoning. s0Lstice, an influential player and good townie, calls Mouldy Jeb his #1 suspicion. s0Lstice then explicitly asks crossfire for an opinion on Mouldy. Crossfire does exactly what I would expect a mafia to do. Agrees with the influential player on his #1 scumread, reiterating what s0Lstice said. Mouldy Jeb would undoubtedly be an easy lynch today, and assuming that he is town, would take the pressure off mafia. And if crossfire is so suspicious of MJ, why didn't he say anything until s0Lstice prompted him? I grant that none of this is solid evidence and that a townie could plausibly act the same way, but crossfire's response is definitely consistent with mafia behavior. Otherwise is avoiding scumhunting + Show Spoiler +
Looking through the rest of his filter, he doesn't say much meaty stuff. In his first post, he rehashes a lot of what previous people had said. And after that, he talks a lot about policy issues such as when to vote and how to pressure people. Nothing too controversial in his entire filter.
Overall, I'd say crossfire looks a bit scummy. Yeah I questioned Austin because I found that one sentence suspicious. Isn't that the whole point of this game: to ask questions about suspicious behavior, so they respond and then you can learn more about their alignment. (I also responded to him above) Yeah I responded to solstice's question. There wasn't much original content that I could put forth at the time. I believe Mouldy had like 3 posts with little content, therefore I agreed with him because it made sense. Also, I had just woken up and responded to what were the hot topics at the moment and then started going through the thread and pointing out different things I saw and responding to questions like solstice's. Also, sciberbia, you have a lot of expectations about how mafia should play. They can play any way they want. Don't assume that they will play a certain way. Ask austin about anacletus from our game. He had way too many thoughts about how mafia should play and I don't think my mafia team played the way he assumed we would at all. Another one from Milton: + Show Spoiler + On June 14 2012 19:21 Miltonkram wrote:
Ok I've been thinking pretty hard since work and there are three players I would feel good about lynching: Crossfire, HeavOnEarth and MJ.
Crossefire99
His play has already been outlined by sciberbia, so I won't expand on it too much. I'm also really suspicious at the timing of his disappearance from the thread. He hasn't posted since his defense against s0Lstice's probing pressure. It seems like the perfect time to go lurkey if he's scum. He just made his post and then could have hoped that his defense would be enough to keep himself out of further discussion. Obviously it hasn't, but I can definitely see scum motivation in his decision to go silent at the time that he did.
Just to sum up, I feel pretty confident in a lynch of any of these three players. I'll gladly put my vote behind any of them.
In regards to suki, I'm really on the fence about her. My opinion keeps flip-flopping as I read through her filter. I'm no longer confident in my suspicion of her. I liked parts of her defense and then her later pressure on alan, but there are parts I didn't like too. I'm withholding judgement until I have more time to think on her play. I can't do anything about my posting times. I pop in, read some, and post when I have time. I can't make any promises about the exact times that this will be so...idk what else to say. On to Suki: + Show Spoiler + On June 15 2012 00:06 suki wrote:
Let me go over my reads of the other players.
Crossfire99:
I spent a lot of time trying to figure out if he is scum or not. Looking into the filter of his two previous games, I found that his posting style is more or less the same.
In game 1, he rolls blue and lurks quite hard. He states out of game reasons for lurking, but he plays more or less non-commital, pointing out suspicious behavior but not really heavily pressuring anyone.
In game 2 as mafia, he starts out the game by doing two things. First, he posts a defense of a townie that had come under scrutiny. Second, he immediately starts pointing out errors in one particular person's posts. He actually tunnels this person for the entire Day 1 and only just fails to get him lynched. He survives for the whole game without really being under fire and mafia wins the game.
In this game I see a lot of policy talk, a lot of guidance talk, and hardly any pressure at all. I find it quite different from his previously successful mafia play. In addition, his helpful tone is quite present in the mafia QT from the previous game, which makes me feel more inclined to think he's actually trying to help, despite his posts not really pressuring or helping town much.
Basically, his meta has changed from his last scum game, and it's changed in a confusing way, and he isn't using the tactics that lead him to a win in the previous game. I'm waiting for more contributions from him before deciding whether I think he's scum or not.
Impressive research. I hadn't even thought about my helpfulness until you pointed that out until. I'll let people make their own conclusions about this, so I'll leave it at that.
Your responses to s0lstice were clearly lacking, you said that you questioned austin on his sentence to extract some information, however you never actually followed up on your question. While that may have something to do with your posting schedule, it is still a problem. You can't expect to play the game and get away with posting no real cases and content without being lynched. As of yet, you still have not formed your own suspicions it seems, you're just giving your opinion on other people's suspicions.
The MJ question I'll let you off on because there's honestly nothing to talk about with him. As to s0lstice's third point, you never responded as to why you haven't been more actively scumhunting.
|
EBWOP: soLstice is a dummy. consolodate=consolidate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
