EPT1. He wanted to argue for the sake of discussion.
2. He wanted to start a bandwagon on calgar
Newbie Mini Mafia XXI - Page 13
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
1. He wanted to argue for the sake of discussion. 2. He wanted to start a bandwagon on calgar | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
| ||
|
Bluelightz
Indonesia2463 Posts
On July 16 2012 19:08 Probulous wrote: I kinda umm...... forgot about this o_o, oops. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On July 16 2012 10:26 tube wrote: I found this post to be rather odd. It doesn't seem like you're putting any time or thought into your posts - just what randomly comes to mind. You said lurking isn't a good idea but that's what you've managed to do so far. I feel the same way about your intro post.in a game this small where everyone said "i will be active" i dont think lurking is a good idea for anyone, esp mafia IGMEOY | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 16 2012 14:10 YourHarry wrote: Also, forcing an interpretation of "wait and see" the way Jingle did could mean either of two things: 1. He wanted to argue for the sake of discussion. 2. He wanted to start a bandwagon on calgar You accuse me of trying to start a bandwagon after voting on someone for their first post? Didn't we have this conversation already? Somewhere else? And so far, people here don't seem insane enough to take it as scummy behavior to not like early bandwagons. This almost gives me the impression you're trying too hard to match your meta, which makes me wonder about you. FOS YourHarry | ||
|
tube
United States1475 Posts
On July 16 2012 20:49 calgar wrote: I found this post to be rather odd. It doesn't seem like you're putting any time or thought into your posts - just what randomly comes to mind. You said lurking isn't a good idea but that's what you've managed to do so far. I feel the same way about your intro post. IGMEOY idk what igmeoy means but i just didnt do any analysis | ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
On July 16 2012 22:10 JingleHell wrote: You accuse me of trying to start a bandwagon after voting on someone for their first post? Didn't we have this conversation already? Somewhere else? And so far, people here don't seem insane enough to take it as scummy behavior to not like early bandwagons. This almost gives me the impression you're trying too hard to match your meta, which makes me wonder about you. FOS YourHarry  I actually had a thought that one of you may point this out. Not only we had a conversation about benefits of random voting, which I still disagree with you, but do you remember talking about the "contradictory first post"? I also replied in a similar - analyzing lazer's post to mean either #1 or #2. I realized this after I made both posts. So: 1. This is how I typically play OR 2. I am unconsciously trying to match my meta in the previous game, where I was vanilla town. OR 3. I consciously made plans to match the meta. If #3, you should be suspicious.  | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
iamperfection
United States9634 Posts
On July 16 2012 23:25 tube wrote: idk what igmeoy means but i just didnt do any analysis It means i got me eye on you google is kind of usefull. Although calgar's premise is wrong. I think a mafia member is more likely to put much more thought into their posts then a non mafia member. From my 1 game of experience in which i played more of a lurker role as a mafia member the other 2 members put a ton of thought and effort into their posts. Even as going as far as having the coach review their posts before posting them to see what they thought. You are by far looking the more sucpicious right now. The accusation on tube is telling to me. After the heat on you it seems you like you know want to set up a policy of lynching lurker or people that do one liners. Instead of drving the attention on one person it appears to me you are trying to get us looking at a whole group in order to confuse the town FOS Calgar Also, i think there is a possibility yourharry post was an attempt to get attention away from calgar smaller FOS on YourHarry On July 16 2012 12:49 Hopeless1der wrote: I don't care if you have a scummy meta, SCUMMY PLAY DOES NOT HELP TOWN! If I find your play scummy, I'm going to read you as scum and push for your lynch. Our goal is to win............ I dont care if someone walks in with a t shirt with im scum plasterd on the front of it we lynch SCUM. | ||
|
ObviousOne
United States3704 Posts
FOS YourHarry I guess it was an easy way to make myself a convenient target by posting something low content early in the first day before I would be able to contribute anything for another 12 hours or so. Regardless, choosing the last name you see for your vote when others have already provided much more to go on seems scummy to me when I wouldn't even be around to defend myself. YourHarry's self analysis might be indicative that mafia is going with some kind of sacrificial lamb ploy to get our trust. If that's the case, I'll have to follow it up with smaller, more wrinkly and arthritic FOS on iamperfection as their entire strategy may have been hinted right in front of us. YourHarry gets to be the sacrificial lamb and anyone on his case early is riding the gravy train for day 1 as they will be safe from lynch tonight. On July 17 2012 00:42 iamperfection wrote: Also, i think there is a possibility yourharry post was an attempt to get attention away from calgar Of course there's a third scumbucket somewhere around here that hasn't been factored in my theory, for which I will be searching on top of building my current case against these two. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
If anything, if he's scum trying to cover for an accomplice, I think it would be most likely to be Calgar. Let's look closely. He subtly casts doubt on the things I've pointed out. On July 16 2012 14:10 YourHarry wrote: Also, forcing an interpretation of "wait and see" the way Jingle did could mean either of two things: 1. He wanted to argue for the sake of discussion. 2. He wanted to start a bandwagon on calgar This, of course, flies in the face of his vote against Obvious, along with more doubts about what I said about Calgar. On July 16 2012 14:07 YourHarry wrote: ##Vote Obvious.660 Obvious scum BTW, "wait and see" does not mean that we should actively stop what we are discussing to see what happens. It could mean, carry on with discussions and finger pointing and see where our scum hunting leads us. Then, he does his own post pointing to the meta, jokingly implicating himself as scum, an air of confidence, in an effort to stir up feelings of "must be townie, no scum would say that". On July 17 2012 00:11 YourHarry wrote: I actually had a thought that one of you may point this out. Not only we had a conversation about benefits of random voting, which I still disagree with you, but do you remember talking about the "contradictory first post"? I also replied in a similar - analyzing lazer's post to mean either #1 or #2. I realized this after I made both posts. So: 1. This is how I typically play OR 2. I am unconsciously trying to match my meta in the previous game, where I was vanilla town. OR 3. I consciously made plans to match the meta. If #3, you should be suspicious. All in all, I think YourHarry looks suspicious as all hell, and while I'll keep my FOS Calgar, I'm going to ##Vote YourHarry based on the current signs. After all, he thinks that his vote on Obvious isn't a big risk, so he has no grounds to complain about mine based on considerably more evidence, right? | ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
"That air of confidence". ... | ||
|
YourHarry
United States1152 Posts
If you were using that as a meta tell, I would hear you out. Although, if you think that meta tell based on the last game we played together points to me being scum, I would argue that you are wrong. But we can argue about it. | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
FOS tube While he has five posts in this game, all of them are substance-less and short. Beyond an initial burst of one-liners early in the game, he hasn’t done anything of value so far. I find his last two posts especially suspicious: On July 16 2012 10:26 tube wrote: in a game this small where everyone said "i will be active" i dont think lurking is a good idea for anyone, esp mafia Incredibly obvious one-liner. Note the wishy-washy wording, “I don’t think lurking is a good idea” – OF COURSE lurking isn’t a good idea! He’s being timid and posting obvious statements. On July 16 2012 23:25 tube wrote: idk what igmeoy means but i just didnt do any analysis He plays off his lack of substance and analysis as no big deal. This is incredibly suspicious and is anti-town mentality – townies JUMP at the opportunity to provide analysis instead of playing it off as no big deal. | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
| ||
|
ObviousOne
United States3704 Posts
On July 17 2012 02:55 JingleHell wrote: Ah, but Obvious, what if you're doing the same thing you're accusing them of? Your case is built on what-if, and it utterly implicates you, if we continue on your logic. Much as I hate YourHarry's voting habits, and won't discount the possibility of him trying to play the meta game, I don't think it automatically points to anyone else. I can vouch that I am 100% town. I still cringe every time I read "obvious scum." I'm getting a name change after this game. I wouldn't have brought up the plan I detailed publicly were I mafia. If I were mafia given this situation, I would have let someone else try to put pieces together this way and instead latched on to someone who is acting suspicious in a different way, or distracting with other no-content bandwagon posting or content-less posting. If I end up hanging from the end of a rope or brained to death with a bottle of prune juice, when I flip town my statements here get to act as evidence either way, so I feel comfortable contributing any ideas I have openly. Admittedly, my first post could be considered anti-town as it was no content: just checking in as I promised to be active and had just arrived home near the start of the game. Wanted to do a quick greet before sleep. I'm sure someone looking for mafia tells is going to come across that and use it as evidence against me more than once in this thread. It's self-contained so they can do so at their own peril. My method works for me because I am town. It doesn't have to work for you, as it's not your methodology. I'm just trying to get information. Any information I can elicit from my statements and accusations is good for the town. We are talking. I would be worried if we were not talking. | ||
|
tube
United States1475 Posts
On July 17 2012 03:33 Hapahauli wrote: Jeebus, I expected to see a couple of more pages of posts by the time I got back online. The lack of activity and substance so far is very disturbing almost 1 day into the game. FOS tube While he has five posts in this game, all of them are substance-less and short. Beyond an initial burst of one-liners early in the game, he hasn’t done anything of value so far. I find his last two posts especially suspicious: Incredibly obvious one-liner. Note the wishy-washy wording, “I don’t think lurking is a good idea” – OF COURSE lurking isn’t a good idea! He’s being timid and posting obvious statements. He plays off his lack of substance and analysis as no big deal. This is incredibly suspicious and is anti-town mentality – townies JUMP at the opportunity to provide analysis instead of playing it off as no big deal. what lol maybe i just dont see anything to analyze in day 1 with no information | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 17 2012 04:30 tube wrote: what lol maybe i just dont see anything to analyze in day 1 with no information So instead of looking for information, reading between the lines, or talking at the people who ARE talking to try and get things established, you make useless one-liners that clutter up the thread? Did the other scum help you with this strategy? | ||
|
ObviousOne
United States3704 Posts
On July 17 2012 04:30 tube wrote: what lol maybe i just dont see anything to analyze in day 1 with no information You're not giving us anything to talk about by saying there's nothing to talk about. You're now at ~6 posts from the beginning of the game and have made zero actual effort in any of those posts at participating in the discussion. Textbook active lurker. Everyone will question your motives for that so you might want to make some small effort here or the town will withhold your prune juice. | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
On July 17 2012 04:30 tube wrote: what lol maybe i just dont see anything to analyze in day 1 with no information The issue I have is how flippant your attitude is toward analysis so far. You're not making an effort to converse - you've just asked some neutral questions, posted neutral statements, made some fluff one-liners, and responded "what lol" to the first accusation against you. Zero substance, and highly suspicious. | ||
| ||
