EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XXXIII - Page 54
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Promethelax
Canada7089 Posts
| ||
|
Chromatically
United States1700 Posts
I've tried to give the three candidates for today an unbiased look to clear my head. I'm going to start with Kick (ha). I still think that his activity in and of itself is null. He doesn't lurk this hard as either alignment, which makes me think that there are IRL things involving him. There are two posts that really bothered me (other than his total sheep onto Spag, which looks pretty bad): On December 22 2012 15:37 Kickstart wrote: Cakepie being pretty ridiculous right now. First he basically claims blue. Then he spouts off a bunch of crap about who he thinks might be scum yet puts a vote on me who he gives a null read on (lol?) and he says I do nothing while saying a case can be made on shz, when I have already made a case and was the first to state suspicion of shz with this post: + Show Spoiler + On December 22 2012 00:04 Kickstart wrote: So I took a look through some filters and the person who stuck out most to me was SHZ. Just a quick lookthrough of his posts shows you that he been very wishy-washy on everything and committed to absolutely nothing. In my mind there are only 2 options for this sort of play, 1 is a timid towny who is unsure of themselves, 2 is scum trying to leave themselves options to try and work their way out of bad commitments. Since I believe this is SHZ's first game I am somewhat inclined to think that he is just a timid towny, but then I look at his voting and his justification behind them (read: NONE) and it seems he doesn't care at all about who gets lynched. Townys should worry very much about who gets lynched because they do not want to lynch town, even first time players know this and typically show that they care about who gets lynched. His votes are a big issue with me and I read them as scummy right now because to me it seems SHZ does not care who gets lynched (it is typical of mafia to not care who gets lynched, as long as it is town getting lynched), look at his vote posts: He takes every chance to hop on whatever bandwagon is popular at the moment, providing no reason for being on any of them. Given this I think he is the person I am most suspicious of at the moment and want to see some real reads and commitment, not wishy-washy posts that don't commit himself to anything. @SHZ Why did you jump on every bandwagon without giving any reasons at all for why you think those players are scummy? Do you have any current scum reads that you would be willing to push instead of sheeping? I also reiterated this read and stated that I felt I would be kept around because I am easy lurker lynch-bait here: And here cakepie is, saying he has a null read on me, listing tons of other slight scum reads, and throwing a vote on me. Not sure what he is doing, but the fact that he is voting me instead of one of his listed scum reads is suspicious. This really reminds me of when he tried to push an Oats mislynch in XXXI, and I'm not even entirely sure why. He's almost throwing suspicion onto cakepie for being 'bad' (even though he actually misunderstood the rules), something that he did to Oats. It's especially odd that he takes the time to put suspicion onto cake instead of looking at other people, like Corazon, who he just earlier was attacking Spag for having a town read on. This post feels similar to this post from XXXI: + Show Spoiler + On November 25 2012 21:27 Kickstart wrote: First off your format for your vote is wrong, secondly saying you are "intensely serious" is not a case on cheesecake. Frankly this is ridiculous and so anti-town so far that if it continues I don't think we should keep you around because this is either scum play or bad town play. The beginning of your filter is all fluff, which isn't that big of a deal since it is the start of the game and I don't really expect anything amazing from anyone, but then you post: I already told you before, if you are suspicious of someone you need to make a better post than that, you need to make a case against the person providing reasons for why they are suspicious. Then there is this: Why would you bring up "think about if I was scum", that is not a town mindset. Scum are the ones who would say something like that, all town needs to do is let their actions show that they are being pro-town, and so far you arent. And then the final straw for me so far is this: So you say yeah ok me saying cheese is scum without providing any reasoning is a bit extreme, THEN YOU DO IT ANYWAYS????? This is unacceptable. I suggest you start making some real cases, untill then: ##vote: Oatsmaster On December 24 2012 05:02 Kickstart wrote: Why the list post ;/. And why do that and say you are convinced we will find connections when you could look for them yourself and then post those? I was waiting for you to do something to convince me that you might be town but that post wasn't it. I'm not even sure what it is about this post that bothers me. The tone of this or something just feels weird. The last sentence feels more like scum justifying his artificial read than town honestly scum hunting, maybe? "Why the list post :/" also just feels like reaching for easy justification of his read by pointing and shouting "list! list!". Maybe someone else sees why this post bothers me, I don't know if I've quite put my finger on it. I don't like how fast this wagon is taking off, and I think all 3 lurkers need to be posting today, so I'd like to hear from FatChunk on who he thinks we should lynch: ##Vote: FatChunk | ||
|
Chromatically
United States1700 Posts
| ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
He is either scum, or a useless townie. Neither is acceptable at this point at the game. I believe that while it is a big risk to vote anyone who has not basically been defined as "100% scum" because of our dire numbers situation, I feel like the probability of Kick being scum will make this risk pay off. ##Vote:Kickstart I also feel like everyone needs to contribute to the scum hunt. Everyone needs to be all-in at this point. Lurking is absolutely not acceptable at this point. I would additionally like for the contributions to be toward the scum hunt and giving us new information, not just summarizing things or giving ambiguous posts. For that reason: FOS: FatChunk FOS: Shz FOS: OrangeRemi | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
I'd like to think that it was option a for this, and if he was given more time the scum probably would've been revealed right off on his first day here. Not something they wanted, so they silenced him. | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
----- On December 26 2012 09:24 Aquanim wrote: - What do you think about the issues raised in my wall above? I think you may be headed in a good direction with your reasoning here: On December 26 2012 08:51 Aquanim wrote: Mafia start with more information than town. It is in the Mafia's best interest to keep town from finding information. Conversely, it is in the Town players' best interests for the Town to gain information. Therefore, Townie players:
By comparison, Scum players:
It reminded me of something I brought up before myself. I would urge you not to take my questioning at face value only. Clearly, I must seek something by choosing to target and pressure specific people. I was looking for something with my questions. What were others seeking with their questioning (or the lack thereof)? This is turning out to be a useful line of reasoning. ~ On Shz: Lynching for information alone isn't really a good idea, but Shz is providing this insight into his thought process without being prodded. Could be mafia attempting to control the direction of play, but also could be honest town. He also defended Omni with his own ideas, not anyone else's. This is what I mean by finding alternative explanations and counterarguments. It helps to counter confirmation bias. ~ On Kickstart: Personally, there's no way I was confident enough on a scum read day 2 to just park all my suspicions and vote at the start of day 2 then leave, without even a pretence at pressuring anyone else. This struck me as well. It is too unlike a town Kickstart, and I have immense difficulty explaining it as some sort of blue play -- it would be too irresponsible. His response to Shz's list post is not even substantial pressure but a straight diss of the post: + Show Spoiler + On December 24 2012 05:02 Kickstart wrote: Why the list post ;/. And why do that and say you are convinced we will find connections when you could look for them yourself and then post those? I was waiting for you to do something to convince me that you might be town but that post wasn't it. While remaining disinterested in the ongoing wagon on Omni -- no mention at all. Does he not care? ~ On Orangeremi: What I really, really didn't like about his play, in addition to the lack of activity and not being forthcoming, is the way he was conspicuously "present but lurking" throughout D1. I was willing to extend the benefit of the doubt that he was just patiently observing, but the lack of anything coming of that is forcing me to reconsider. His D1 lurking includes some particularly unhelpful distractions: + Show Spoiler + On December 20 2012 07:28 Orangeremi wrote: as a side note, you edited the wrong post lol On December 20 2012 14:08 Orangeremi wrote: Forgot the pound sign this time. Not sure if intentionally, but now I'm laughing He's looking too hard for people slipping up instead of scum hunting. This, in particular, was especially flippant: On December 24 2012 02:37 Orangeremi wrote: I'd like to argue that I haven't made a case in over 100. All game, even. Someone behaving like this has no right to be asking: On December 20 2012 22:07 Orangeremi wrote: Omni, if you believe your theory true, who is scum #3? If you have a read, that is. In fact, this here: On December 24 2012 23:15 Orangeremi wrote: I'm not really looking to throw names out there if I'm not confident after that lynch. I'm sticking with my statement that lurkers need to come out before anything else. Well, he himself is definitely lurking, which is why we want him to come out with his reads. But no -- the scum hypothesis here says that he's going to wait for the next case to sheep on. ~ The rest: On Chromatically: I still have some small niggling suspicions about him, but I have to concede that he has used his vote and pressured well (relative to the majority) on both D1 and D2 before coming aboard the wagons of the eventual lynches. I still regret extending the easy sheep option to him on D1, was definitely in a hurry and not thinking clearly back there. On cDgCorazon: I concur on this read as an improving townie. A closer look at his post here shows some attempt at taking the case on Spaghetticus apart, albeit it was rushed, aggressive, and a bit emotional. On FatChunk: I need to go over his filter again. He has flown under my radar for far too long, while I was focusing on possible scum ringleaders or the worst lurkers. On Sylencia: His play isn't super active to begin with (from meta). I feel he may not be the type to take up the initiative, and could use a bit more prompting. Unlike the other lurkers, I can't find as much dirt to use on him from his filter, so it's still null here in light of stronger suspicions elsewhere | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On December 26 2012 15:01 Sylencia wrote: Chrom: I don't think the nk was that unexpected, yamato already did a good job breaking down and analysing each member, and so either a) he was getting too close to the right answer or b) he wasn't close and the scum are using that to lead us off the right track. I'd like to think that it was option a for this, and if he was given more time the scum probably would've been revealed right off on his first day here. Not something they wanted, so they silenced him. If you feel that Yamato was on the right idea, are you going to honor his final wish and lynch kick? Do you feel like we need to go in another direction? Or do you feel like we should give kick a chance to defend himself? | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
----- Aquanim: I like the direction you're thinking in, and I'm happy to let you continue posting at the pace you've been keeping for now. cDgCorazon: You had a nice thing against OrangeRemi going, until he somehow convinced you that he had only "suspicions" but no reads to share. Care to pick up where you left off on that? Chromatically: Assuming we do not lynch Kickstart, who out of the following looks like a better lynch candidate to you: OrangeRemi, shz, or FatChunk? Justify. Fatchunk: On December 24 2012 03:03 FatChunk wrote: Let's have your analysis, since you somehow considered the lynch to be potentially informative.Well so far I'm going to have to vote for Omni tonight because lynching omni gives us the most amount of information. Kickstart: Okay, we get it, your strongest case is on Shz. Let's look elsewhere for a moment. What do you think of the arguments raised against OrangeRemi and FatChunk? Is there any merit there? Which of the two cases is a more compelling lynch, in your opinion (or is there something else better, in your view?) OrangeRemi: Please play the devil's advocate, and try to knock holes in the arguments against shz laid out by Kickstart, myself and others. Are there good townie hypotheses that would explain how he voted? What of his early D2 defense of Omni, which ceased despite the lynch gaining momentum? Does this give you a overall town vibe or scum vibe on him? Shz: Please play the devil's advocate, and try to knock holes in the arguments against Kickstart laid out by yamato, chromatically and myself. Can you think of good reasons for a town Kickstart to hold his cards so close to his chest, when we are so starved for anything at all? Why has he answered and responded only selectively? Please steer clear of the OMGUS, I am asking you to attack the case, not the player. Sylencia: Please provide a risk-reward assessment on "lynch shz for voting irresponsibly" vs "lynch kickstart for delibarate calculated lurking". Based on their play and your current read on them, how would you weigh the costs of mislynching if they are town, and the potential damage from not lynching if they are scum? | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On December 26 2012 15:42 cakepie wrote: cDgCorazon: You had a nice thing against OrangeRemi going, until he somehow convinced you that he had only "suspicions" but no reads to share. Care to pick up where you left off on that? The reason I stopped pursuing Orange was that OE decided that he did not want to live anymore, and made a silly arguments that really made me feel like his erratic behavior was scummy. My suspicions of Orange are still strong, I just felt like OE was the better lynch choice at the time. The truth is, Orange still has not responded directly to my accusations. However, he has posted a little but more, and is a little less lurky than before. I would like Orange's accusations to come out into the open. Holding them back is only hurting the town. However, his slight increase in activity has put Kick in the role of "most likely scum/most useless town" position. Since the momentum is so obviously against Kick right now, I feel like putting Orange's name in the hat right now would only serve to create chaos in the town, which is the perfect environment for scum to thrive and lead the town astray. I would like to see Orange become more active today, and give us his reads. I feel like he is more of a mystery than Kick right now. After seeing four townies go down, we cannot afford to take risks, and we need to go for the more likely scum lynch. My most suspicious people, in order, are as follows: -Kick -Orange -FatChunk (I feel like while he has given some reads, his activity level has been sub-par. However, less sub-par than the above two) -Shz (Activity level has increased quite a bit since the start of Day 2, but has not given very many clear opinions on other players. The list was somewhat helpful, but in reality only organized info and did not give out much new info.) | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On December 26 2012 15:16 cDgCorazon wrote: If you feel that Yamato was on the right idea, are you going to honor his final wish and lynch kick? Do you feel like we need to go in another direction? Or do you feel like we should give kick a chance to defend himself? I have already done so (voted) since his thoughts aligned with mine. As I said in Night 2, it's better we all get our votes in early, see what the accused have to stay, and move appropriately from there. It gives a lot more information for us than blindly bandwagoning and not really putting pressure on your suspects. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On December 26 2012 15:42 cakepie wrote: Sylencia: Please provide a risk-reward assessment on "lynch shz for voting irresponsibly" vs "lynch kickstart for delibarate calculated lurking". Based on their play and your current read on them, how would you weigh the costs of mislynching if they are town, and the potential damage from not lynching if they are scum? I'll answer this soon, but with your second question are you referring to what happens if we lynch one of them and they are town / not lynching one and they are scum? | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
On December 26 2012 16:21 Sylencia wrote: I'll answer this soon, but with your second question are you referring to what happens if we lynch one of them and they are town / not lynching one and they are scum? Your understanding is correct. In particular, we can only pick one to lynch, I'd like to hear how you'd weigh each case against the other, and consider perhaps which is the greater or lesser of two evils. If you would like to consider other lynch candidates and compare them in the same way, even better. I just thought I'd start you off with two for now. | ||
|
Orangeremi
United States94 Posts
I'm gonna read up on the thread, be back soon. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
Kickstart has been extremely inactive during the course of this game, and has contributed very little to the game.In the case of a mislynch, what have we gained? Not very much - we have removed yet another suspicious person off our list yet it is another townie. That is a pretty bad situation for us, since that means the scum have lurked/blended in well enough that we literally have no idea what is going on. However, what we gain is that we end up cutting off what could be considered dead weight. Having participated the least, and providing nothing, it is hard for us to get anything from him. If Kick is a scum, he is doing so in a very obvious manner. Should he not be voted out today, he will probably be the number one target tomorrow and I don't think very much is going to change that unless he is killed off by the mafia. So if he is scum, and we kill someone who isn't scum, tomorrow would be 4:3, killing him would lead it down to be 3:2 etc. etc. meaning we would need to hit perfectly for the final rounds. Danger of leaving him really depends on how much information we can get out from voting someone else - at the current moment it'll probably be shz or FC. The risk of voting out shz is that if he is town, we're really leaving ourselves vulnerable to scum manipulation in votes. The majority of the town has not really been active in choosing votes, there's just a lot of bandwagoning happening. shz, while he has been voting non-optimally, still gives us a reasonable chance of voting out scum if we find one, if he is town. The problem lies with his loyalty, which is up in the air, but I am honestly unsure of his status. If we leave in shz and he is scum, the reverse of what I mentioned just now happens, where he can easily manipulate the votes with the rest of the scum playing a bandwagon game, requiring only one extra vote to end the game. This can easily be done, and it's rather risky. Personally, I'd still consider Kick a higher priority simply because it's easier to tell by the end of the next day what shz is since he does participate in the discussions. I've noticed people mentioning FC, but I honestly don't have enough to go off him to make any real comment. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
Day 2: Omni, cake Day 3: cake, Orange? Just need to make a note down but I'm not 100% sure and I don't want to really scour through the posts to find them at the moment. | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
On December 26 2012 19:31 Sylencia wrote: Just as a note too, what were the roleblock claims: Day 2: Omni, cake Day 3: cake, Orange? N1: 22 09:08 cake 22 13:36 omni 23 08:45 shz N2: 26 09:16 cake 26 18:51 orange I may or may not have been blocked by the same person; targeting the same player consecutive nights is allowed in this game. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On December 26 2012 21:16 Sylencia wrote: So the jailkeep gives the same message as a roleblocker? To the best of my knowledge, yes. Could a mod confirm this? | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36156 Posts
| ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
On December 26 2012 21:57 Aquanim wrote: To the best of my knowledge, yes. Could a mod confirm this? FFS guys, it's not that hard to find: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=386911¤tpage=38#755 | ||
| ||
