|
On February 12 2013 02:32 Dandel Ion wrote:
9-BiT (1): Mandalor
warbaby (1): Mocsta
WaveofShadow (1): zarepath
Not Voting (10): cDgCorazon, 9-BiT, Sevryn, WaveofShadow, Sn0_Man, Macheji, glurio, geript, Sylencia, warbaby
Currently, 9-bit is set to be lynched! (due to tiebreakers)
Hmmm, those tiebreakers seem wrong.
On January 28 2013 09:37 Acrofales wrote:
In the event of a tie the person with the most votes first wins (or loses).
Now, this is open for interpretation, but Warbaby had 2 votes before 9-bit had 2 votes, nobody has ever had 3, and warbaby's existing vote is older than 9-bit's correct?
Pretty irrelevant I guess but I'd like to have a good understanding of how tiebreaks will work in this particular game.
|
I'm curious to see what geript has to say when he comes back from his test. He said he had further thoughts on my Wave of Shadow case, and I'd like to see that, and his defense to Sno's case.
|
No they are not wrong.
9-bit is the one set to be lynched.
warbaby had 2 votes at some point, but got down to one. AFTER that 9-bit accumulated two.
Then warbaby unvoted 9-bit, but because he had more votes previously, he's still set to be lynched.
If you want it super technically exact and stuff, there should be a clause like "To lynch somebody else than the current vote leader, that somebody else need to overtake him in votes" or something.
(green is question font btw)
|
Yeah sorry I realized I should use green after I posted. No editing etc etc.
Even with your proposed clause, the rules aren't ironclad. I do understand how you are interpreting them, but still... seems wrong.
On February 12 2013 02:48 Dandel Ion wrote:
[blue]
warbaby had 2 votes at some point, but got down to one. AFTER that 9-bit accumulated two.
On January 28 2013 09:37 Acrofales wrote:
In the event of a tie the person with the most votes first wins (or loses).
Warbaby undeniably had "the most votes first". If we stick with your interpretation I'd like to see the OP changed
|
Alright ladies and gentlemen, I'm back!
I can honestly say I didn't expect to have an attempted bandwagon started against me in the time I was gone, but I will do my best to refute what zarepath has started against me.
Give me a few minutes to consolidate my shit.
|
In other news, Glurio has a smoking post total of + Show Spoiler +. This seems remarkably consistant with scum glurio...
Admittedly, he was willing to toss some suspicion at mocsta but it was pretty weak and anybody could have pulled it off. Somebody who is obviously interested and invested in the game with exactly 2 posts is scummier than the 3 lurkers with 0 posts IMO (who as I said earlier may not have even read the thread yet).
|
On February 12 2013 02:21 Sn0_Man wrote:+ Show Spoiler [Geript's big post] +On February 12 2013 01:11 geript wrote:I do think warbaby is town. On points 1 and 2: While this is a newbie game, I don't think that taking his townie claim or referencing 36 as anything other than a null read. Sorry, but I'm not seeing the point you're making in 4 either. As I read: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:54 warbaby wrote:
Since we've both posted plenty, how about we not post for a while? more as trying to get the town as a whole involved rather than have Mcosta posting incessantly as he has been. While I agree on point 3, that warbaby hasn't really partaken in scum hunting, I don't think that this is a good measure of town v scum 6 hours into D1. To be honest, your case feels more like a gag. My concern would moreso be Mocsta. 1. He seems unconcerned as to who to throw towards the vote While some may read it as him aggressively trying to test the town, I read his posts and various switches and tests as just trying to see where he can gain traction. As well, he jumps on the first person having any real traction. 2. He doesn't even read his own posts First, he calls Warbaby's generic opening scummy when it's null at best. Next he tacks on his own important notes, and finally he calls Warbaby's initial post null. 3. He has diarrhea of the keyboard Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:55 Mocsta wrote:
Post consolidation definitely important. No need to hear every thought. But this is no excuse for lurking either. Additionally, he brings ups the post consolidation point which he actively avoids. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:52 Mocsta wrote:
Did not realise 4 people represented a majority in this game.
Why dont you give others a chance to post their own thoughts instead of trying to forcefully influence them before they have spoken.
Are you trying for a dictatorship here or something? Here he's accusing me, in effect, of running for mayor all while pushing his RNG agenda heavily. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 14:15 Mocsta wrote:\
I thought you said you were going to take a break from posting anyways.... Blames warbaby for coming back to post 2 times after 'taking a break' when Mocsta has posted 8. At best, all this comes off as unintentional bad play. At worst it's an overexcited scum player. I find the latter more believable and either way I feel better about lynching him currently than lynching a lurker. A few things to highlight in the post above: 1) A town read on warbaby. While he gives OK reasons for a null read, I didn't really see any justification for "I do think warbaby is town". 2) A target that is distinctly not "addition by subtraction" based. Mocsta isn't a low-content poster. Sure most of his posts are bleh but at least he is making them. 3) Most of geript's points are based on ad-hominem attacks on mocsta and his style rather than on his play and contributions. I mean, I don't like Mocsta or his style either, but I think this game he has begun making real contributions to town. Rather than outline stuff that is scummy, geript is focusing on more peripheral stuff.
First thing to realize is that was a post I had typed up as of Cora's following post on p21. I wanted to reread and edit it after getting up to make sure I was making sense and posting effectively.
+ Show Spoiler +On February 11 2013 14:46 cDgCorazon wrote:##Vote: WarbabyCongratulations WB, it's been 5 hours and I already think you are scum. I'm going to break this down into a few points: 1. Your "I'm not Mafia rofl" claim.The biggest problem is that you have claimed town within the first 4 hours. You not only claimed town, but you're basically waving a giant sign that says "HEY LOOK EVERYONE, I'M TOWN". The nature of your claim is ridiculous, almost too much. Examples: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:41 warbaby wrote:
So you have a problem with me claiming that I'm being pro-town? You clearly did not read the post-game analysis in '36. Claiming town is not a scummy thing to do.
I'm not trying to trick you into thinking I'm town.
Corazon was town in '36 and so am I, right now, in '37.
You're coming on way too strong with this claim for me to believe it. 2. Continuing to play the victim from the mislynch in NMM 36.Examples: Show nested quote +Warbaby
"Also whatever guys, if you want to vote me for posting good ideas for town that you agree with, go ahead. That's why I got mislynched in '36 and now it's up for nomination as the worst lynch in 2013. I suppose you want to top '36 by mislynching me D1? :D"
"I had to defend myself against these ridiculous claims in '36, until I was finally mislynched for it."
It's another part in trying to associate yourself too hard with being townie. You need to get it through your head that this isn't XXXVI anymore. We're all sorry for the mislynch last game, but you need to come in here and forget about it. It's a whole different game with different players. Stop trying to stay in the past. 3. Your lack of scumhunting.Goes without saying, you've done none of it yet. All the jabs you made at Mocsta have been points that myself and other people have discussed to death already. Bring something new to the table. 4. Trying to change the subject when the pressure is on you.Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:54 warbaby wrote:
Since we've both posted plenty, how about we not post for a while? This is the scummiest part. If you are town, you should be trying to prove that your claim is true, and not kill discussion right when it starts to pick up. For these reasons, you are getting my vote for the time being. If you are really town, you should have no trouble proving your innocence.
1. I don't have great reasons that I can point to for warbaby being town. My read is/was that he's just a VT/veterant that was trying to pull an attack his way. As his other posts have made him a more reasonable sounding lynch/mislynch target for which a case could be made against, I think he negated the attack pull. If you want a more concrete case/reasons, then I'm sorry I can't oblige there.
2. I disagree fully. Take for example the following:
+ Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 00:52 Mocsta wrote:
Guys im going to bed.
zarepath, I am not sure if the start of your post was addressed to me?
If so, I had mandalor as null read; he said a few things but until he follows through its all NON-alignment indicative.
btw, quite a few decent points in that case; I think some are educated assumptions, and others are really contradictory to ideal town play. Will wait and see what wave has to say for himself before proceeding further.
Is there any actual content in this post? This post specifically states that he his posting simply for the sake of posting. "A few decent points..." Ok, fine which ones and why; expand the case. "Some educated assumptions..." = "adlkjfa;ldhfaldha;fl. "Others are really contradictory ideal town play..." then point it out. "Will wait and see..." sounds more like bandwagoning or sheeping. Considering his other activity (jumping on warbaby early after my opening attempt and again after following Cora's post) to willfully follow instead of lead, he looks far more like scum than actually and actively dig/hunt for his own ideas or espouse his own concepts. But when it looks like he's been trying to run for mayor, to switch gears into following others lead instead of espousing his own looks suspicious to me.
3. I think there's enough content in this post and the previous to realize that I'm not just making ad homenim attacks.
##vote mocsta
@sn0_man
What do you think are Mocsta's town contributions? What are the 'scummy things' Mocsta has done that you think I'm avoiding?
|
On February 12 2013 04:57 geript wrote:
@sn0_man
What do you think are Mocsta's town contributions? What are the 'scummy things' Mocsta has done that you think I'm avoiding?
Thats a long-ass filter you just asked me to read.
The short version: He made a post a while back about the difference between lynching bad town and scum, which was spot on and actually was quite opposite of what scum would be telling noobs. Plus I think that he could easily have gotten away with a much more deceptive, scum motivated theory that I don't think town would have properly analysed. Plus he has avoided making super-ultra-ridiculously BS cases (something he did a lot of last time I played with him). It isn't that I have a strong town read, but I'm definitely leaning town here. Plus I still want to lynch a lurker today and slim this down to a game where everybody is contributing. BTW Glurio is squarely on my list of lurkers right now at 2 posts (no better than the 0-posters).
|
FWIW,
Mocsta's play is a bit like his scum play in XXXV, but maybe it's also his idea of optimal town play (which is why he tried to do it as scum in 35 -- as a ruse). I don't see anything scummy in what Mocsta's done (other than some meta wifom crap based on his play in 35).
I'm not dismissing the scum Mocsta idea, but I think zarepath's case on WaveofShadow is much more concrete at this point. I'm waiting to hear more from WaveofShadow before I consider voting him.
I am also more interested in lynching lurkers (than Mocsta) if WoS makes a non-scummy defense. I do not really count glurio as a lurker -- his last post was very atypical of his scum play in 36 and counts as a real contribution in my book. I also expect he'll continue making decent contributions before D1 is over.
|
When I said 'do my best' I'm going to do a real shitty job because Zarepath's case is pretty solid. He essentially pointed out to me my own mistakes in posting early on and I will attempt to do a better job now that I'm around.
On February 12 2013 00:38 zarepath wrote:Wave of Shadow, though, is a whole other matter. His first post: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:40 WaveofShadow wrote:
/confirm
I thought we had to wait until 20:00 but I guess since others are posting...
I'm completely against RNG lynch I'd much rather to lurker if possible if we need a Day 1 strategy.
Mocsta I saw in a game you were recently in (i'm kinda busy to check right now) someone suggested RNG lynch and everyone immediately dumped all over him for scum. Why should this game be any different? Theory talk, and then soft-calls Mocsta scum, the person who has at that point looked the most Mayorly. Notice that he doesn't really follow up on this.
Enough with the Mayorly business. If I was really trying to control everyone's thoughts and actions (as THREE people have now addressed, one of which, Corazon, didn't even bother to address when I refuted it) I would have been around to do so. The soft-call on Mocsta was to prevent him from continuing to shit up his filter, which for the most part didn't work I can see. I don't really have a read on him.
Second post: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 11:21 WaveofShadow wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, early game banter based on taking offense to others cheap shots or picking apart grammar is useless and should just be ignored.
I'm fairly sure at this point enough people have declined the RNG vote so the topic should be dropped by everyone.
Can the scumhunting begin now? A few things here. WaveofShadow takes upon himself the mantle of being the Reasonable Break-It-Up! Guy, even though people have already moved on. It's not Being Town, it's Acting Town. Also note the insinuation that nothing in the thread so far has been worthy of contribution -- the scumhunting hasn't started yet, according to him. He simultaneously puts himself up as Pro-Town and everyone before him as Anti-Town. It's all posturing, zero substance.
Once again, breaking it up because Mocsta shit filter. I'm serious when I say I want to get scumhunting going, I guess it was just too early in the day and I had nothing to go on to contribute.
Third post is super scummy: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 11:29 WaveofShadow wrote:
Alright, I will begin so that people don't assume I'm just waiting for others to start so that I can dip back into the shadows.
We don't have a lot to go on as there are still people in the thread who haven't even posted since the start of D1 (more than half, so no point listing them yet) so I'm going to be ballsy and let Mocsta know that I have my eye on him for filter burying. That being said it's really because it's way too early to have a solid scumread at this point, so unless more people come out of the woodwork (and we can get a soild read on them) I will be voting to lurker lynch D1. Wait -- why is he posting? Only so that people don't assume he wants to dip back into the shadows. The number one motivation for this post is to NOT LOOK SCUMMY, by his own admission. But what about content? He basically says that there is nothing going on and that there's nothing to see here until the lurkers post. Does that sound like a productive Day 1 for town? Hardly. The main thing that's a contribution here is that he has his eye on Mocsta for filter-burying, pretty much the absolutely easiest and most obvious "read" to make in this thread. So in sum, this post contributes nothing and is made solely for the purpose of not looking like mafia. And has he never heard of Mocsta before, or what? (And even though his eye's on him, he says in the same post he's going to vote for a lurker. So there's really not any pressure put on Mocsta if he actually thinks he's scum.)
Fourth: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:04 WaveofShadow wrote:
Yay for active lurking!
I have to agree with Mocsta here, at the very least lurker removal D1 can be a useful strategy, but I can't say I'm in favor of removing those who are performing the bare minimum (read: have actual 'qualitative additions,' as geript put it) when there will be scum actively trying to disrupt our hunting efforts.
If it comes to pass that those who are performing the bare minimum ARE the scum who are detracting from our efforts, then that's another story, but I feel like we should be slightly more certain of this than a regular lurker lynch, and I would also argue that this kind of thing would have to happen after D1.
Once again, making my position very clear: if you are inactive or do not contribute to the hunt D1, then you are my target. Weird theory crap -- I still don't understand if he's saying that lurkers are more likely to be scum or poor contributors. It kinda sounds like both. In the end, he makes his position "very clear." Uh, what? Fifth post, super scummy: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:37 WaveofShadow wrote:Put it this way: if there is an extremely strong scumread on someone that is nigh irrefutable, then great, I can get on board. Otherwise LAL, but as I said, we shall see how the day progresses. Also regarding the soft claim (I feel I should address it) wouldn't I say the same thing if I were scum?  Um, if there's an irrefutable scum read on someone, and that's the only time when you'll get on board, there's a term for that -- it's called busing. The last part of the post is the best, though. Did he just call himself scum using WIFOM? And more importantly, why would town ever use WIFOM? As a very wise man who hadn't received his role PM once said: Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 05:22 WaveofShadow wrote:
Except that WIFOM doesn't get you anywhere more often than not and only serves to muck people up, so why bother using it if town? Sixth post, weird defensiveness against others addressing him: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:54 WaveofShadow wrote:I'm trying to say don't look too much into it. There are more important things to be done like scumhunt; determining as to my town alignment should become obvious by my future actions, not by my words. On February 11 2013 13:44 warbaby wrote:
WaveOfShadow, this is not your town. It's not my town, and it's not Mocsta's town.
It is the town, and it's members shall think for themselves and analyze the thread before doing stupid things. Please. Warbaby, this sure as hell is my town as I'm a part of it and I care about it. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm telling or leading people not to think for themselves or that I'm doing something stupid. "Don't look too much into it." "Don't worry, don't read what I say, you'll know that I'm town soon enough, don't even bother thinking about me as mafia." What kind of townie says "don't analyze me in any way, please!"? Also, kind of overemphatic about his town-alignment claim here.
My WIFOM post (which was the one I immediately regretted) was only to try and get people not to focus on me because IT IS A WASTE OF TIME. I stand by absolutely everything I have said thus far, I figure I should have just phrased most of it better.
Final post: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 14:12 WaveofShadow wrote:
Jeez you guys are sensitive. In no way did I insinuate that I am the leader or that I own you guys, nor am I or have I ever bossed anyone around thus far in the game; people need to stop looking for things to be offended about when there is nothing. Makes you look scummy.
Alright no more posting until I get something RL-related done but I leave with this final thing.
Warbaby, if you are soft-claiming blue, I would have thought you had learned from previous NMM; blue claim is really not a good idea this early into the game. People calling him out means that they are super-sensitive, not that there's something wrong with his posting? And in return, he calls those people scummy, outright, but doesn't back it up. Oh, by the way, has to go to RL now. And his final thought is hopping onto the Warbaby bandwagon, but in kind of a compromised way -- he's not calling him scum, he's insinuating bad blue. In sum Wave of Shadow has done nothing but promote to me the idea that he is scum, and while I can see a warbaby acting the way he has because of stress/pressure of people mislynching two days in a row, there's no town motivation for what Wave of Shadow has posted. ##Vote: WaveofShadow
I'm not hopping on any bandwagon, I was basing my 'advice' on what I had seen from warbaby in a previous game (which I can see most people have done to him already and have sent him off the deep end to no benefit). Zarepath I admire your scumhunting skills, and you make a very strong case, but honestly the strength of your case simply relies on bad town and nothing more. I will hopefully improve going forward and we can get something real done.
Now as far as I'm concerned, LAL. Glurio basically fitting to his MO from last game rings alarm bells for me much more strongly than a 9-bit or Macheji lynch, I must admit. There are others however, who have not even done the bare minimum in my eyes, namely Sylencia who jump on the warbaby train and disappears, and Sevryn who has contributed nothing worthy of note so far.
In my LAL spirit though, until I see something, I'm going to stick with it.
##Vote: Macheji
|
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
@Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name.
|
I think it's telling that your main defense for each of my points was "I immediately regretted it" or "I now come to regret it." You say that you are bad town, but that is exactly how mafia want to be seen.
I also see your very committal vote onto someone who hasn't even posted yet. My vote remains and we'll see how the rest of the day unfolds.
|
@zare
Second post: + Show Spoiler +On February 11 2013 11:21 WaveofShadow wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, early game banter based on taking offense to others cheap shots or picking apart grammar is useless and should just be ignored.
I'm fairly sure at this point enough people have declined the RNG vote so the topic should be dropped by everyone.
Can the scumhunting begin now?
Your other points are valid in that none if his posts have been effective. In context, his third post seems worse to me than anything else as Mocsta asks him to "Lead the way" and he takes a reasonably impassioned LAL stance which is unlikely to draw any attention. You do miss a post re: filter burying of which the highlight is
On February 11 2013 11:35 WaveofShadow wrote:
(@Mocsta)You talk a lot, and it's not always useful.
While he returns to lurking after that, it's a valid point that has been brought up a few times now but started, imo, with Sno's earlier post:
On February 11 2013 10:35 Sn0_Man wrote:
I have no interest in reading more from Mocsta tonight. I await contributions from the as-yet silent members of our game.
His last post is more of the same. While I still don't like Mocsta so far, your case is better and his last post nails it in for me.
On February 12 2013 05:31 WaveofShadow wrote:
Now as far as I'm concerned, LAL. Glurio basically fitting to his MO from last game rings alarm bells for me much more strongly than a 9-bit or Macheji lynch, I must admit. There are others however, who have not even done the bare minimum in my eyes, namely Sylencia who jump on the warbaby train and disappears, and Sevryn who has contributed nothing worthy of note so far.
In my LAL spirit though, until I see something, I'm going to stick with it.
Ummm what? So, you're seeing alarm bells and aren't interested in putting pressure on them. Instead you're more interested in deflecting towards anyone else? You have clearly no interest in trying to make a case whatsoever or in doing any analysis.
##change vote waveofshadow
|
On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
@Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name.
I don't really expect my name to be cleared by my defense; I essentially deserve the accusations against me due to shitposting. All I can hope for is for people to stop looking in the wrong direction as scumreads become stronger and I prove myself.
On February 12 2013 05:48 zarepath wrote:
I think it's telling that your main defense for each of my points was "I immediately regretted it" or "I now come to regret it." You say that you are bad town, but that is exactly how mafia want to be seen.
I also see your very committal vote onto someone who hasn't even posted yet. My vote remains and we'll see how the rest of the day unfolds.
Fair.
Now I've been looking at Sylencia's filter and he was one of the only people who came up with the best reason to turn down an RNG lynch (it mathematically favours scum) and performs and interesting analysis on warbaby's blue/maybe-not-blue claim but has contributed absolutely nothing else, short of a weak noncomittal accusation of warbaby.
I was interested by his analysis though, and I'd like to see some more from him.
|
On February 12 2013 05:48 geript wrote:
Ummm what? So, you're seeing alarm bells and aren't interested in putting pressure on them. Instead you're more interested in deflecting towards anyone else? You have clearly no interest in trying to make a case whatsoever or in doing any analysis.
##change vote waveofshadow
Just did, would you like me to put pressure onto absolutely everybody I currently suspect-of-maybe-being-scum-but-they-haven't-done-much-so-we'll-see?
I'm not deflecting, I'm sticking to my guns, and if I did anything else, you all would call me out on it.
|
I wouldn't mind some input from Mocsta regarding Sylencia's play, given that they played together when Syl was scum.
|
Syl really slipped by us. We were so eager to lynch the inflammatory active guy we didn't even bother reading his filter. It was a good lesson in the fact that the Number One thing that mafia want to do is simply escape attention.
|
My Thoughts on other players
Some of these points have been said by other players, so if I'm repeating anyone I am sorry.
Now that we're leaving the Warbaby saga for a little bit, I would like to give some thoughts on other potential lynch candidates and people I'm suspicious of.
Geript- He's someone I have been suspicious of for most of D1. Sn0 already made a case, but I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in, especially because Sn0 covers a few of the points I'm going to make:
+ Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 02:21 Sn0_Man wrote:My review of geript: At the start of the game (utterly disregarding pre-game), geript leads with some lighthearted banter-style posts, pretty much continuing the pre-game: + Show Spoiler [Fluff Posts] +On February 11 2013 09:38 geript wrote:
/confirm
/this time for realz
Both geript and warbaby are self admitted to be terrible. In the interest in addition through subtraction, I suggest people make an argument as to which is better to keep.
##vote warbaby On February 11 2013 09:47 geript wrote:
@Warbaby, did Mr. Bimble tell you to post that? That out of the way, geript proceeds with some "content" posts. These are short posts that seem primarily aimed at, well, establishing a non-fluff presence in town. They seem pretty null to me. + Show Spoiler [warning: this one is decently large] +On February 11 2013 09:51 geript wrote:
Mocsta: four people one way or another have responded in the negatory to RNG vote. That in the least is enough to negate the usefulness of RNG vote. Please cease your discussion of RNG as it is more likely to be a waste of time (both posting and rereading) at this point. On February 11 2013 09:58 geript wrote:
@Cora can we please keep the tone constructive. Turning people directly towards an emotional response is worthless right now.
@Mcosta please reread my post. I did not say it was a majority at all, just that it was enough to negate any perceived value of RNG. On February 11 2013 10:29 geript wrote:
My point was thus: should everyone else adhere to RNG, 4 votes represents a voting majority in most cases. This it is better to ignore RNG as the benefits it has/may have (dependent on viewpoint) are negated by an outside majority. /done with talking about RNG. On February 11 2013 12:00 geript wrote:
@Sn0_man. If the English discussion/correction was irrelevant, why post it? On February 11 2013 12:30 geript wrote:
I find it to be a rhetorical question in that things irrelevant to the game aren't worth discussing.
My WB vote is just an opening I wanted to try out that got outpaced by RNG. I for one am fine with addition by subtraction as a policy as I feel it is the basis for both the Lynch All Lurkers policy--in that lurkers add little to nothing-- and is the basis of scum hunting--in that they tend to actively try to detract from discussion through inaction, burying and misdirection. On February 11 2013 12:46 geript wrote:
I mean that the general concept of it: make the town better by removing the person(s) with the least qualitative additions. We are either removing detractors (thus net gain) or removing scum (actual gain).
## change vote unvote On February 11 2013 13:22 geript wrote:
I would argue that removing room to hide is important as it forces scum to constantly be better than the guy in last place. If scum can in fact beat the curve so to speak, then it's the bottom end's fault for not making their role/side clear. I wouldn't blame to top end for voting out scummiest/least town-like in that case. I would argue least qualitative = least town-like; note that's qualitative not quantitative. Bare minimum does not automatically equal least qualitative. Having established his interest in "Addition by Subtraction" (a legitimate idea, though poorly explained), he moves on to his one big post (also his first post today). + Show Spoiler [Geript's big post] +On February 12 2013 01:11 geript wrote:I do think warbaby is town. On points 1 and 2: While this is a newbie game, I don't think that taking his townie claim or referencing 36 as anything other than a null read. Sorry, but I'm not seeing the point you're making in 4 either. As I read: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:54 warbaby wrote:
Since we've both posted plenty, how about we not post for a while? more as trying to get the town as a whole involved rather than have Mcosta posting incessantly as he has been. While I agree on point 3, that warbaby hasn't really partaken in scum hunting, I don't think that this is a good measure of town v scum 6 hours into D1. To be honest, your case feels more like a gag. My concern would moreso be Mocsta. 1. He seems unconcerned as to who to throw towards the vote While some may read it as him aggressively trying to test the town, I read his posts and various switches and tests as just trying to see where he can gain traction. As well, he jumps on the first person having any real traction. 2. He doesn't even read his own posts First, he calls Warbaby's generic opening scummy when it's null at best. Next he tacks on his own important notes, and finally he calls Warbaby's initial post null. 3. He has diarrhea of the keyboard Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:55 Mocsta wrote:
Post consolidation definitely important. No need to hear every thought. But this is no excuse for lurking either. Additionally, he brings ups the post consolidation point which he actively avoids. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:52 Mocsta wrote:
Did not realise 4 people represented a majority in this game.
Why dont you give others a chance to post their own thoughts instead of trying to forcefully influence them before they have spoken.
Are you trying for a dictatorship here or something? Here he's accusing me, in effect, of running for mayor all while pushing his RNG agenda heavily. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 14:15 Mocsta wrote:\
I thought you said you were going to take a break from posting anyways.... Blames warbaby for coming back to post 2 times after 'taking a break' when Mocsta has posted 8. At best, all this comes off as unintentional bad play. At worst it's an overexcited scum player. I find the latter more believable and either way I feel better about lynching him currently than lynching a lurker. A few things to highlight in the post above: 1) A town read on warbaby. While he gives OK reasons for a null read, I didn't really see any justification for "I do think warbaby is town". 2) A target that is distinctly not "addition by subtraction" based. Mocsta isn't a low-content poster. Sure most of his posts are bleh but at least he is making them. 3) Most of geript's points are based on ad-hominem attacks on mocsta and his style rather than on his play and contributions. I mean, I don't like Mocsta or his style either, but I think this game he has begun making real contributions to town. Rather than outline stuff that is scummy, geript is focusing on more peripheral stuff. Basically, I thought that yesterday, geript said a bunch of nothing while trying to look active, then today he made a big bullshit case trying to look like he was contributing. Not really clear scum, but not enough good things to deserve the easy ride he has had. I'm not voting him because I don't see the value in voting 30+ hours pre-deadline, and I thing "FoS"s are retarded, but I will say that geript has my attention. PS: geript's entire filter is in there minus his most recent fluff post. just btw.
Geript starts off by throwing a ridiculously silly vote out for Warbaby:
On February 11 2013 09:38 geript wrote:
/confirm
/this time for realz
Both geript and warbaby are self admitted to be terrible. In the interest in addition through subtraction, I suggest people make an argument as to which is better to keep.
##vote warbaby
The time for being silly was in the pre-game. It's over now. Take your votes seriously.
He then goes on to tell Mocsta to give up on RNG (which was a good idea then), and then randomly decides to harp on me for language:
On February 11 2013 09:58 geript wrote:
@Cora can we please keep the tone constructive. Turning people directly towards an emotional response is worthless right now.
This post is ridiculously out of place. I used one cuss word and he is now trying to distract the town by making it a focal point that I used bad language to express how much I was against RNG. It's just a distraction tactic taking our eyes off of more important matters.
He only decides to unvote WB when I get on him for it:
On February 11 2013 12:46 geript wrote:
I mean that the general concept of it: make the town better by removing the person(s) with the least qualitative additions. We are either removing detractors (thus net gain) or removing scum (actual gain).
## change vote unvote
While his vote for policy was understandable, it was so out of place that it should not have even happened in the first place. Voting someone right off the get-go is ridiculously stupid and scummy in my book.
He then goes and says that he thinks Warbaby is town (after voting him):
On February 12 2013 01:11 geript wrote:
I do think warbaby is town.
Either he is scum trying to defend a townie (if he is scum he would know WB is town or not) to get towncred, defending his scum buddy, or I can't take him seriously.
For his scum hunting: He has thrown in a couple of jabs but hasn't followed up on any of them. He's also attacking Mocsta for playing like Mocsta (which I will get to a bit later). He's contributed very little to the town, and any progress that he makes he goes back and lurks before he can make anything out of them. It's really fishy and I don't like it.
He's voted for WoS and made some good points against him but I'd like to see a little bit more before I can [s] the above paragraph.
WoS- Zare already made a good case against him. Reading through his defense, he says:
On February 12 2013 05:31 WaveofShadow wrote:
This was a post that I didn't immediately regret posting, and only now do I realize how scummy it looks. Basically if I avoided saying the whole 'shadows' thing it would have been fine.
My WIFOM post (which was the one I immediately regretted) was only to try and get people not to focus on me because IT IS A WASTE OF TIME. I stand by absolutely everything I have said thus far, I figure I should have just phrased most of it better.
Note the bolded lines. He says that he regrets a few posts, but stands by them anyways. That appears a little bit contradictory to me. Why doesn't he just admit that he made a mistake and keep it at that? Why would he make a post full of WIFOM and only apologize for it when he gets called out on it?
The next thing he does, once he's defended himself, is voted for a lurker. Now LAL isn't a bad policy, but it should not be used 30 hours before a lynch. That's just being lazy. It's giving up on all discussion for 30 hours (if one is going to stick with LAL), and it allows the scum to escape the radar D1 as long as they are slightly active (and it's not hard to make cases on people D1 as there are many players that can be targeted). Voting for Macheji this early is a scummy move to me and one that should be looked at further.
I'm less suspicious on WoS than Geript, but I'm still curious. I'll keep my eye on him.
Sn0- Has made a couple of very good points (on Geript's filter), but has made issues out of small things such as the English language and the vote count. These actions make me conclude that he is trying to take the focus off the scum hunt and cloud up the thread in a bunch of nonsense. Please stop doing them Sn0, it's not helping us.
Mocsta- My problem with Mocsta is not his playstyle (Mocsta will be Mocsta, we've butted heads about this before), but it's that he promised pre-game to be a little bit more reserved and allow the town to take the lead on some things. He completely threw this promise out the door for the first few hours, but then decided to "actively lurk". Mocsta's version of "actively lurking" is a great balance between him contributing and not over-dominating. Mocsta's strengths are in his ability to keep up discussion and ask good questions (except when he asked Sevryn for information right off the bat). Sometimes he gets carried away and over argues things too much. I think the balance he has now is a great asset to town (but also can be scary if he isn't town. However, I'll hold off on the WIFOM).
Lurkers- These are the people I consider to be lurking:
9-Bit
Sevryn
Glurio
Macheji
Sylencia
Mandalor (one or two posts from becoming a non-lurker)
They need to step it up (I think one or two might be busy with RL, idk who though). Don't vote just because of lurking at this point in D1, that's just lazy and giving scum a free pass.
|
I still think Warbaby is the scummiest player, and still needs to step up to escape my vote. I'd also like to note that the only people I did not give opinions on are myself and Zare. I feel like Zare has not done much scummy actions, and has made one good case. I'd like to see a little bit more activity, but he said that he's busy every Sunday, so I'm looking forward to more from him soon.
|
On February 12 2013 05:59 cDgCorazon wrote:
However, I'll hold off on the WIFOM
[/b]
Eh, go ahead and WIFOM, I can't blame you for it
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
