EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XXXIV - Page 13
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
StriX
Australia42 Posts
| ||
|
Spaghetticus
Australia451 Posts
(1) What do you make of cDgCorazons play so far. What do you think of his reaction to my lynch vote? I assume you’re done with the questioning of Corazon for now? I like people to play things out before giving reads, allowing people the most opportunities to make mistakes. By asking for my response now, I take no responsibility for any decrease in pressure applied to Corazon. I assume you’ve moved on to me anyway. Corazon attacked your list making without thought for your motives, he assumed the only point of making the updates was to garner towncred, which is either log-headed or scummy. He was either too immersed in appearing town, and projected this motive (scummy), or is letting forum prejudice against lists colour his view, giving some easy content (spammy or unthinking). Your suspicion of Corazon’s waiting to give an answer was weak, I assume you just wanted to make sure you were pressuring (which is fine). His response was adequate, though I had a simpler explanation in mind (that he wanted people to develop their own opinions). Corozan’s reprimand on Zare is entirely expected, I believe I did precisely the same to OrangeRemi last game (I was town). Corazon then concludes that he gets a mild town read off of you (Mocsta). I have already stated my opinion on this (that it is an unfounded read). He later stated that he had a null read, whether this was because he was pressured to change, or he genuinely agreed, is still in question. So you would rather lynch a lurker than a strong scumread D1? Yes. Strong scum reads have already revealed a lot about themselves, and you can expect pressure on them later. Lurker scum have the opportunity to sit by and let the town destroy themselves, which is a well-known phenomenon in newbie games. From my perspective, which has changed over the course of my mafia career (this is my third game), there is no scummier behaviour than lurking. If a scum is lurking you have zero information on him day two. They have an entire 72 hours worth of chat to adjust their playstyle to. They are the most dangerous scum (second only to a scum that has managed to be confirmed town). If me or Mocsta were scum, come day two you would have a massive paper trail with which to track us down with. For that reason alone, there is no way I will be voting Mocsta day one. From what I’ve seen, newbie games are dictated almost entirely by lurkers and their allocation of alignment. XXXIII was won by town simply because scum was two lurkers out of three players that were so lazy they didn’t even attempt to defend themselves once the bandwagon came knocking. We had OrangeRemi modkilled, and Threesr replaced. For the sake of town getting a clear scumhunting environment, for what I see as a positive move towards town victory, and for my own enjoyment of the game, I will be voting the biggest lurker unless I somehow find a completely active game (damn unlikely). @Sylencia My LAL policy is not laziness. It is thought out, and I genuinely believe it to be the best policy for me to have. My enthusiasm for pondering conceptual queries knows no bounds, for scabbing up readily available info, not so much. How do you characterise your standard play? So far, your post count to post quality ratio is skewed heavily towards post count [NOT a good sign] My standard play is to actually post cases day one. My play last game was non-standard because through a mixture of laziness and curiosity, I attempted to get through day one by both being active and not scum hunting. It did not work. While I expect I will continue to tinker with this element of the game, I have scaled down my experimentation for the sake of my self-esteem (and town win-rate). You already know most of my meta from XXXIII. I am highly analytical and loathe posting accusations that imply a reality I do not believe. I adhere to theory over empiricism, which gives me difficulties with the more aggressive players. I play for the long game, and think little of the chance of day one scum lynches. I try to encourage town play through indirect means. I emphasise original content, and am strongly averse to bandwagoning and recycling opinions. I try to keep a flexible understanding of the game, but am having difficulties converting flexible thinking into anything but WIFOM (hence the LAL update). Admiting laziness is not a solid town trait Spag. You know this. Its not indicative of scum play either. You know this as well. As they cancel each other out, let us now consider your potential to generate "small discussion" due to Scum QT. What did you have in mind? Please lead this discussion. I did not have much in mind. I wanted to know about scum QT so that I’d know whether scum were organised or tentative. Generating discussion was the only foreseeable outcome, though it was not my motive. The information was for my own use (not discussion), any discussion that was generated would be in people picking me up for soft claiming town. A minor and non-committal scum trap if you will. I genuinely thought it was an entirely small deal, and anyone picking up on it would be making a mountain out of a mole-hill (something I still believe). Unfortunately, you (Mocsta) picked it up, and my read on your behaviour is that it is consistent with a town Mocsta, and it seems to be backfiring pretty hard, considering how much attention you’ve brought to bear on me (normally something I welcome, but after XXXIII I’m a tad apprehensive). (b) I never stated you were directly claiming to have limited scum gameplay knowledge. I called you out, because I expect a player of 3 games to know the answer to what you asked. Even as a player of 1 game, I knew that answer. There must be a motive, and that is what I want to find out. I have never been scum, and I’ve always assumed they had immediate and direct communication . In between this game, and last, however, I came across some information that implied that scum were alone to begin with, and got the QT come night. I did not think on it much at the time, but once I was motivated to know the answer, it became paramount. I am now certain that I was mistaken, or reading information on a variant | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
The psychological impact it has one the other member is immense, especially on Day 1 where 1) They suddenly feel like the town can read through them and 2) they make desperate, and often times, stupid moves. Instead, you're going to lynch a lurker with a 2/9 chance that you hit scum. I can understand why you want to do it, but personally I just don't think it's justifiable to leave scum be and take them out the next day. Remember that people can change their perception of someone pretty quickly in this game, for better or for worse, as we saw with Cora last game. If his teammates were a bit more active, they could have easily taken out the game and a primary reason for that would've been the sudden change to him being town in our eyes. Same thing could easily happen here, and I don't want that to happen. | ||
|
zarepath
United States1626 Posts
On January 04 2013 00:20 Spaghetticus wrote: In between this game, and last, however, I came across some information that implied that scum were alone to begin with, and got the QT come night. What info where? | ||
|
jampidampi
Finland386 Posts
Mocsta + Show Spoiler + Very active, as he was in Newbie Mini Mafia XXXIII. He's constantly trying to pressure people into posting, going as far as giving them advice on what to post. He was also doing it during XXXIII, so I wouldn't read too much into it. Also, he is the only one who has taken concrete actions (the vote on cDgCorazon) during this whole time. Leaning towards town Spaghetticus + Show Spoiler + If we exclude the the QT question, he plays the way he played in earlier games. First posting a list of lurkers and pressuring them to contribute, then beginning to analyse individual cases. I believe that On January 03 2013 11:42 Spaghetticus wrote: DO NOT LURK. IDGAF WHO PLAYS SCUMMY I WILL BE VOTING THE LURKIEST PLAYER DAY ONE PERIOD. was his way of saying that he hates lurkers. Regarding the QT question: If he was scum, he would have gotten the QT link with his role PM. Would anyone ask something they already know of? Or was it a way to get his scumbuddy to come to the QT? It is all just speculation, but I hope everyone here would have the brains to check out the QT from their PM. Leaning towards town cDgCorazon + Show Spoiler + Appears to be playing diffrently from Newbie XXXIII. He hasn't been as active this time around, and he isn't as aggressive with his scum claims. And I don't think he would be purposefully bringing up his scum game so many times if he actually was a scum. Leaning towards town Please note that the analysis on Spaghetticus was written before his post answearing questions. | ||
|
Spaghetticus
Australia451 Posts
From my perspective, there is no greater scum tell than lurking. This is not only because scum tend to lurk, but because the consequences of leaving it until the next day are more dire. On top of this, the percentage chance of lynching that scummy player and him actually being scum, is very low. Scum have control of the first lynch if you base it on active but scummy reads. While XXXIII may seem an accessible counter example (we were ready to lynch a scum day one, and I intervened), this is not an accurate statistical representation. Day one scum lynch is a dream, and it is as winmore as it gets. Yes the game is easy if you catch a scum day one, but it's not likely to happen and the win-rate is to be had from planning for day two. Also. the chance to hit scum is 25% (2/8), not 22% (2/9). When I stick with a LAL policy I do not intend on being one of those that are eligible. | ||
|
Spaghetticus
Australia451 Posts
@Sylencia With respect, you are not listening. From my perspective, there is no greater scum tell than lurking. This is not only because scum tend to lurk, but because the consequences of leaving it until the next day are more dire. On top of this, the percentage chance of lynching that scummy player and him actually being scum, is very low. Scum have control of the first lynch if you base it on active but scummy reads. While XXXIII may seem an accessible counter example (we were ready to lynch a scum day one, and I intervened), this is not an accurate statistical representation. Day one scum lynch is a dream, and it is as winmore as it gets. Yes the game is easy if you catch a scum day one, but it's not likely to happen and the win-rate is to be had from planning for day two. Also. the chance to hit scum is 25% (2/8), not 22% (2/9). When I stick with a LAL policy I do not intend on being one of those that are eligible. | ||
|
Spaghetticus
Australia451 Posts
On January 04 2013 00:37 jampidampi wrote: Spaghetticus + Show Spoiler + Regarding the QT question: If he was scum, he would have gotten the QT link with his role PM. Would anyone ask something they already know of? Or was it a way to get his scumbuddy to come to the QT? It is all just speculation, but I hope everyone here would have the brains to check out the QT from their PM. Leaning towards town I think you misunderstand what the accusation is. Mocsta is proposing that as a scum, I asked a question that I already knew the answer to, in order to imply that I did not know the answer and therefore could not possibly be scum. He thinks I was soft claiming town. | ||
|
Sylencia
Australia1057 Posts
On January 04 2013 00:20 Spaghetticus wrote: I play for the long game, and think little of the chance of day one scum lynches. Why do you push for a random lynch on day 1 over something such as no lynch (even though I explained earlier, does not give information)? You want to play for the long game, but killing off random players pushes the game into a faster pace, where we could end up losing on Night 3 if all goes wrong (all mislynches, a night kill per night). Rereading what I just wrote from this sentence, I have a feeling I'm misinterpreting what you're saying here, so feel free to correct me, but it just sounds rather contradictory to me to have these two actions. | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On January 03 2013 22:08 Mocsta wrote: [*]cDgCorazon + Show Spoiler + (1) What do you make of Spaghetticus and his request for scum QT knowledge. If the motives are indeed town in nature, do you think it aligns with the reasoning he presented? (2) At this stage, TeMiL & OmniEulogy have roughly the same contribution (= zilch). Which candidate do you think we should target for more information? Please lead the discussion as you did today with the opening post  1: I think that it was a huge mistake by Spag requesting the scum QT knowledge. It is really something I wouldn't expect him to do. I don't think we should let his soft town claim fly under the radar, which you have done a good job of bringing things to the forefront. He hasn't presented too much information about it, besides "I was too lazy to read the OP, but it does not make me scum". I think that it was a genuine mistake, but we shouldn't go after him too much for it. I really think that you're being quick to jump on the trigger early on Mocsta. You're creating (with or without trying) a "French Revolution" atmosphere where everyone who makes a slight slip-up is going to get scrutinized for it. In that environment, scum thrive, which makes me really curious why you are trying to keep this environment up. 2: I think we should let TeMiL and OE react to what has been going on, and then pressure them for more information based off of what they have to say. | ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6590 Posts
| ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6590 Posts
First things first. Spag has already said he's changing his style from his last game because it got him lynched D1. He's also right that I bandwagoned last game instead of sticking on Cora who was my strongest scum read D1 and ended up getting him lynched. I'm going to try and avoid that kind of play this game. Spag your questions and calling them laziness doesn't really fly considering how you played last game however I don't really see it as being scummy. Your posts seem good so far and I agree we should try to pressure lurkers but just like XXXIII I don't think we should lynch a lurker D1 unless there is absolutely no other option. That being said ##FoS: Zerepath The no-lynch is a scummy trait. As this is one of your first games on TL I'm not reading too far into it but it is not a townie mind set at all. You make a good reason for having a no-lynch but again... that is NOT a townie mindset. It's a reason for scum to slip through us and kill somebody N1 while knowing they only have to play it safe and just have to vote no-lynch or join the only wagon. Very hard to find scum like that. @Mocsta I think Spag seems slightly more suspicious based on his change of play styles but we all knew he would be doing it so I'm trying not to judge him based on that. What I find more incriminating on him so far is that he says he is lazy when he was very active and making larger posts D1 with no mention (I believe) of being lazy. I think your play looks almost identical to your town play last game Mocsta so I'll give you a weak town read for the moment. The only difference is that Aqua is not here this game so you had to vote yourself, I believe this is also not a move scum would make so early into the game so you've cleared yourself of my suspicion unless you make some posts that make me seriously ask myself WTF. @Sylencia the chances of lynching scum D1 are indeed very low and I believe that is what Spag was saying. The fact that we almost had one last game should be forgotten because if we DO lynch Scum D1 it means they screwed up and the amount of information we would get would be MASSIVE. example: if we lynched Cora D1 last game we would have had FC lined up and ready for D2. 2/3 scum gone in 2 days. While I hope something like this happens we need to scum hunt to get it done. @Zarepath I'd like to know your thoughts behind how I explained a no-lynch to hurt town and what you think of Mocsta's aggressive behavior so far in the game in leading discussions. | ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6590 Posts
| ||
|
zarepath
United States1626 Posts
What strikes me as more odd is the fact that you are so adamant about how this is such a scummy thing to say because it lets lurkers get away scot free, but in place of putting pressure on lurkers (as your policies would/should drive you to do), instead you are putting pressure on an active player who is already contributing. If flushing lurkers is so important, why aren't you asking questions of TemiL (the Hero) and StriX? | ||
|
zarepath
United States1626 Posts
Omni, Strix, TemiL, jangi, and Corazon are the players I need to participate more before we can get more solid scum reads. Most of it now has been active players suspecting other active players because they're the only ones with anything to read and dissect. | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On January 04 2013 04:37 zarepath wrote: Omni, Strix, TemiL, jangi, and Corazon are the players I need to participate more before we can get more solid scum reads. Most of it now has been active players suspecting other active players because they're the only ones with anything to read and dissect. If you want to go accusing people of not participating, make sure you have more than 3 posts of useful information. | ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6590 Posts
It seems like a setup for doing nothing D1 so you can just keep saying you don't have a good read on anybody so you vote no-lynch. That isn't going to fly for me and trying to hide behind "lurkers" during the first few hours of daylight for most of us is also extremely defensive play which I believe you said gave you away as mafia in a previous game. | ||
|
zarepath
United States1626 Posts
Examine Sylencia's filter. I'd like to know what others think about this. + Show Spoiler + Sylencia's first post is a non-convicted declaration of his policy on lynching lurkers, which "changes depending upon the flow of the game," and ends with a hope that people don't wait until the last minute to vote or come out with new analysis. In doing so, he adds the caveat "(assuming their info is good)." Already trying to discredit in-depth analysis at the last minute. Mafia would hate last-minute vote changes, as they've already planned on and around another outcome. If one of their own is being targeted, a last-minute vote change wouldn't be in their favor as there wouldn't be enough people around to necessarily make it successful, and when their mafia flips red, it incriminates them as well. Also, his answer to Corazon's "how do mafia mislead us" post is a very vague, general one that basically says "when in the last game they misled us." No concrete new info, very non-committal on everything. Possibly scum. Next post is a simple time zone declaration. Next post is involving him in the useless "should blues lie?" debate, with the "duh!" statement of "you can't expect cops to say 'yes' if someone asks them if they are a cop." And that's all he says. Contributes nothing, but went out of his way to do it. Possibly scum. Next post he bandwagons on calling out Spaghetticus for the QT slip, and puts pressure on TemiL to post something. Next post he says "the only person we're waiting on now is Strix." This is basically a non-post that can be construed as being productive. Possibly scum. Continues pressure on Spaghetticus in a passive-aggressive way, then notes Strix's absence again. Possibly scum. Changes his mind on Spaghetticus "after looking at it again," but doesn't provide his reasoning. Suggests that all of us should be stepping it up, but has done literally zero stepping it up himself. Shifts attention from his noncontributions onto others' noncontributions. Also, he gives a thought about newbies posting more so as to help town out more. A little out of his way and a little sweet for my taste, especially considering the substance of what he's posted. Possibly scum. Next post he essentially takes credit for Mocsta's post, saying "I was going to say that same thing but I was busy reading! Good one!" This is the equivalent of a "+1". Taking credit for others' contributions without having to contribute anything, and all of these pseudo-contributions are aimed towards Spaghetticus, along with the caveat that "after looking at it again it could have just been a slip," given with no reasoning. So on the flip he has a backdoor. Possibly scum. Next post he closes that backdoor and uses a non-tell on Spaghetticus to FoS him -- his dramatic quote about lynching lurkers even if there's a good scum tell. Saying you're going to vote out the lurkiest player, especially that dramatically, is hardly a scum tell at all; and if it were, it would be a big, enormous one because it was so emphatic, and would warrant a vote over an FoS if Sylencia really believed it. Next post is just him saying he won't talk to Spag in real life about it -- unnecessary, flooding the thread with non-contributions. Final post is entirely on theory and policy, at a time when more than enough names are being tossed around for him to contribute something much more concrete. A waste of effort and discussion, and scummy. | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
However, I do think you have fair points on analyzing Sylencia's filter. I would like to see how Syl answers these accusations, and then I will make a read based on those as well. Are you saying so far that everything Sylencia has done has been scummy or fluff?? You used the word "scum" in analyzing every most of his posts (and the other ones you called fluff). | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9387 Posts
On January 04 2013 08:17 zarepath wrote: I've felt active, but perhaps this has been in my head -- my filter doesn't seem to suggest I've been inactive. fluff post on phone. Get used to thinking your active but not. So much rereading in this game. Worse thing is when you spend 1hr on a post and before sending hit refresh and find out your 1hr post is not valid anymore.. I did it before with a 4hr case lol. Had to submit it out of principle!! Either way. U got me thinking. When i get time i am going to post a couple pointers that were passed to me last game. will post my thoughts on last 12hrs later when i have time. | ||
| ||
