|
On February 12 2013 14:41 Mocsta wrote:
lastly. Sno. Can i pls have thoughts on geript and the chainsaw defense.
You came up with a hilarious association based OMGUS accusation because everybody who questions you is clearly scum in your eyes?
Okay thats a bit harsh. You've shown real difference (IMO) in your play this game compared to 35. Still, the fact that your defense against geript is "you are attacking me to clear warbaby" is a thinner defense than WoS's "I'm so sorry plz don't lynch me" Defense. That said, his case isn't exactly damning... I still don't see it as a "chainsaw defence of a scumbuddy". I mean seriously, thats a very heavy association to make day-1. All he is saying is that you like to shit up the thread, which is true (improvement is noted).
If you think Warbaby and geript are scumteam, and you are highly suspicious of WoS as well, I can almost guarantee you are wrong somewhere. There is always a lurker scum.
|
On February 12 2013 15:02 geript wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 14:53 Mocsta wrote:
Evaluating day1 play is scum hunting too in my mind because its about discussng refinement AND is an opportuntiny for those less confident in making cases to chip in and start thinking logically.
As long as evaluation doesnt stop pressure from occuring. Thumbs up from me Considering your and Cora's attitudes, I don't think either of you believe that at all.
Well looky who's back ladies and gentlemen!
Care to address this?
On February 12 2013 12:51 WaveofShadow wrote:Warbaby you still haven't addressed my concerns from last page.I'm pretty sure that this would come a long way in changing Mocsta's opinion of you, but the longer you go without addressing this, the harder it is for me to deny that maybe Mocsta is right. On other news, geript's last post was a thorough defense of himself from Mocsta's assault, yet he has said nothing more regarding his vote on me. The last things he pointed out regarding me were weak affirmations of everything zarepath already pointed out, and his only original point was Show nested quote + 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 I've already made my choice to put pressure on the no-post lurker I have chosen. Would you rather I flip-flop voting in the span of an hour like you just because someone brought up a superior case and you can hide behind it? I have done plenty of analysis since then + Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 08:58 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 08:46 glurio wrote:Let's take a look at sn0, shall we? He has a total of 26 posts since the game started. I'll now spoiler all posts with actual content that isn't discussing the english language or talking about lurkers. (Why i don't count these i'll explain later). + Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 00:19 Sn0_Man wrote:
Warbaby looks scummy, but I don't see how you lynch somebody this active day 1. FWIW he looked something like this last game (although he was doing a lot more "scumhunting" and a lot less "plz don't lynch me I townie for sure")
For what it's worth mocsta I think that you too are looking kinda similar to the last game I played with you (minus a key difference in a post a while back about lynching lurkers and scum vs bad town). And we know what that entails.
What I really want are introductory posts from our remaining players 9-bit, severyn and macheji. Well, that and for warbaby to lose his victim card somewhere so that he stops playing it. On February 12 2013 01:55 Sn0_Man wrote:
Personally, I think geript is getting a bit of a free ride with a bunch of low-content posts designed to look "active" without really helping town or pushing much of an agenda. Long post to follow once I finish it (be warned). 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. On February 12 2013 05:12 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +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). 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. Thats a total of 5 out of 26 If you include the one liner #2. Now let's look at some of his posts. Heres one quoted for your convenience. + Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 05:12 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +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). I bolded the odd part. Why wouldn't scum tell the town what exactly they should be looking for and just avoid exactly these things? Since Sn0 spotted the seemingly non-scum-motivated theory how come he thinks he wouldn't have spotted the much more deceptive scum-motivated theory? 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. So I would up my game if i roll scum again, but i'm not so i'm a scummy lurker? What? That doesn't even make sense. If I up my game now am i scum? If i won't i'm a scummy lurker? WIFOM Now let's get to all the lurker posts, i won't quote them all, just read the filter it's most of his posts. It's the easiest thing in the world to point to lurker. Be it the no-post lurker or the few-post lurker which, according to sn0, are actually worse then the no-post lurker. Everyone can do it. I can just look into the thread every hour, post something about the guy with the lowest post count, tell everyone he only has X posts. After that i start pointing out the other lurkers, because hey don't forget about them. And then theres always the thing about recent games where at some point of the game one of the scum players lurked. If you really want me to do that, it wouldn't be a problem, but i try to actually contribute something with my posts. Not bury my filter in useless posts about lurkers. Honestly glurio, I don't think your case really holds water, I appreciate the analysis though. You talk about how it's the easiest think in the world to point to a low or no-post lurker but you make a case about how only 5 of Sn0's posts are useful? Wouldn't that make him an active lurker? Then you accuse him of WIFOM, and frankly I'm ready to just ignore all WIFOM cases brought up because it really gets us nowhere. More likely in this case to be a factor of bad town than scum (see my case as example). It looks as though his WIFOM was on accident and was really just looking for a way to paint you as scummy. This is null. As for his lurker posts, maybe I'm biased because I agree with him somewhat, but I don't see how bringing up points about low post count lurkers is not contributing. If anything massive wall-of-text posts drawing attention away from important targets and baseless accusations are more likely to be distractions since they are more difficult to follow and require much more analysis. In short, I don't see anything overly scummy about Sn0's play so far, though I appreciate the effort. As this to me seems like a pretty weak case (didn't detect TOO much OMGUS but I guess it's a possibility?) I expect more from you, and preferably something a little more valuable. With your claims that posting about lurkers are useless, will you be lynching an active poster today? On February 12 2013 11:18 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 11:05 warbaby wrote:
Reasons I think sylencia is "scummy": his posts are minimal and blendy. But he has more than zero posts, so it could be possible to say we're lynching him as a lurker. There is still 50% of D1 left, so I want to see what more he posts. Sevryn and (less so) Mandalor are in the same category right now, IMO.
All these accusations of active players being scum around aren't completely bad, but none of them are really making sense to me right now in D1. Problem with this is, warbaby, is you're really just echoing exactly what I and other members have been saying for hours already. You have contributed nothing new to the thread and upon viewing your filter, you jump on whatever bandwagon seems best to you at the time. Zarepath makes a case on me? FoS. (Then you go on to talk about 'false dichotomies' and I don't even know what you were talking about. You either think I'm suspicious or you don't.) LA comes up? Vote 9-bit. Except of course you contradict yourself right after: Show nested quote +You're right, we shouldn't consolidate LAL votes until much closer to the deadline. But what is even the point of putting 1 vote on each lurker? It's not going to make them feel much pressure if there's (at that time) no chance of them actually being lynched.
Anyway, you are right that we shouldn't consolidate now. I didn't think of that -- I'm trying to get work done today and I'm not paying 100% attention to the game right now (I work Mon-Fri 9-5 EST). I want to see a case from you; at the very least something more concrete then following everything everyone else has already laid the groundwork for. Be your own man! Note that I'm pressuring you because I want to see something positive come out of you; I'm inclined to agree with Mocsta's analysis of bad town. Stop focusing on defending yourself because you only make yourself look worse. so I'm interested to see if you still find me inherently scummy and why.
I believe there are other outstanding opinions against you currently and I'm also interested to see how you respond to those, if you are indeed returning and not lurking. MAYBE FINALLY SOMEONE WILL RESPOND TO MEEEE
Also for the record, Sn0, don't make sound so desperate, 'cause I'm pretty sure my post history proves otherwise. 
|
On February 12 2013 15:02 geript wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 14:53 Mocsta wrote:
Evaluating day1 play is scum hunting too in my mind because its about discussng refinement AND is an opportuntiny for those less confident in making cases to chip in and start thinking logically.
As long as evaluation doesnt stop pressure from occuring. Thumbs up from me Considering your and Cora's attitudes, I don't think either of you believe that at all.
Home now.
Umm.. how about instead of making witty quips; you expound on what you think is the issue at hand.
The attitude you are taking, serves nothing but to incite emotions.
|
If he responds soon that would be nice as I'm going to bed soon, and have an insanely busy day tomorrow. I'll try to pop in intermittently but I'm not going to be nearly as active as I was today, just sayin'. Would also be nice if we heard from glurio, Sylencia, and maybe a little more outta Sevryn but I'm not getting my hopes up.
I'm 100% certain that of those three and the two no-shows at least one is mafia.
|
A few things before I go to bed (for realizes)
On February 12 2013 14:59 cDgCorazon wrote:
I think the question we need to ask ourselves to set-up for the end of D1 is "Are we going to lynch an active player that's looking scummy (whoever it is) or LAL?" You already know my answer to this.
Don't answer this question with discussion. Answer it with your vote.
On February 12 2013 15:03 Sn0_Man wrote:
There is always a lurker scum.
Don't assume that. You know why you shouldn't. Never assume anything in Mafia besides flips.
(You too WoS)
One thing that I want to add to my paragraph: If the town decides to reinvent it's play, the scum have to adjust to it. This could be a good way to catch scum (in theory), as the changes they would have to make would be a lot easier to screw up than the town's changes. That's only true if all of the town players buy in to reinventing their game, which is hard to do.
|
On February 12 2013 15:03 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 14:41 Mocsta wrote:
lastly. Sno. Can i pls have thoughts on geript and the chainsaw defense.
You came up with a hilarious association based OMGUS accusation because everybody who questions you is clearly scum in your eyes? Okay thats a bit harsh. You've shown real difference (IMO) in your play this game compared to 35. Still, the fact that your defense against geript is "you are attacking me to clear warbaby" is a thinner defense than WoS's "I'm so sorry plz don't lynch me" Defense. That said, his case isn't exactly damning... I still don't see it as a "chainsaw defence of a scumbuddy". I mean seriously, thats a very heavy association to make day-1. All he is saying is that you like to shit up the thread, which is true (improvement is noted). If you think Warbaby and geript are scumteam, and you are highly suspicious of WoS as well, I can almost guarantee you are wrong somewhere. There is always a lurker scum.
You know what, *this* post made me realise where geript commentary came from, specifically claim town vs think town.
just keep in mind please; chainsaw defense doesnt apply to just defending scum buddy. its basically just attacking the someones attacker personally (instead of their argument). So can be applied to defending town.
As I said before in that "Case": as town, would you defend someone Day1 with such a method? The only reason i can think of is if you were masoned with someone; hence KNEW they were town. There are simply better avenues to approach the situation.
warbaby is a scum read of mine; yes so makes sense to say its association based. BUT, note, we can only vote one person.
I think you will notice my vote is actually on geript because his actions have made him a stronger read.
(its just I am continuing to pressure my other read warbaby)
|
On February 12 2013 15:21 WaveofShadow wrote:
If he responds soon that would be nice as I'm going to bed soon, and have an insanely busy day tomorrow. I'll try to pop in intermittently but I'm not going to be nearly as active as I was today, just sayin'. Would also be nice if we heard from glurio, Sylencia, and maybe a little more outta Sevryn but I'm not getting my hopes up.
I'm 100% certain that of those three and the two no-shows at least one is mafia.
Sarcasm not intended.
If you have 2 guys who have 1 post to their name.
Are you planning to RNG to determine who gets your vote?
|
On February 12 2013 15:23 Mocsta wrote:
You know what, *this* post made me realise where geript commentary came from, specifically claim town vs think town.
Not sure what this quote is about but w/e.
I still get the same vibe from warbaby this game as last game. It isn't a good vibe but he turned out town last game...
I'm happy for you to pressure geript and WB, and I'd sooner lynch geript than WB unless that hasn't been clear. I still feel like too many people get off without really doing much contributing (even if they are town, pressuring town is fine by me).
|
On February 12 2013 15:24 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 15:21 WaveofShadow wrote:
If he responds soon that would be nice as I'm going to bed soon, and have an insanely busy day tomorrow. I'll try to pop in intermittently but I'm not going to be nearly as active as I was today, just sayin'. Would also be nice if we heard from glurio, Sylencia, and maybe a little more outta Sevryn but I'm not getting my hopes up.
I'm 100% certain that of those three and the two no-shows at least one is mafia.
Sarcasm not intended. If you have 2 guys who have 1 post to their name. Are you planning to RNG to determine who gets your vote?
My vote's already on someone, no need to.
The question remains as to whether I change it at some point tomorrow. I know some people are all gung-ho about lynching scumreads day 1 but I don't see anything strong enough in anyone to risk lynching an active townie.
I was also thinking this earlier on in the day and I figure now's a good time as any to bring it up.
Zarepath provided excellent analysis right from the get-go on me and then shortly after he disappeared. I know he's not being counted towards lurkers right now, and in all likelihood he will come back, but something strikes me as scummy about providing analysis on easy pickings for the town to jump all over and then disappear as the bandwagon forms and discussion takes things elsewhere.
I don't doubt his analysis was good, in fact as I have stated he picked a lot of mistakes in my play I will learn from, but (at least earlier on today) I was a safe vote considering how scummy I looked. He could accuse me and then leave it up to me to prove my innocence or the rest of the town to pick me apart.
Just some food for thought; I will leave no stone unturned despite my vote currently being where it is.
|
Honestly the thought of zarepath as scum terrifies me because nobody has mentioned him at all today. I REALLY hope he is town.
|
On February 12 2013 15:38 WaveofShadow wrote:
Honestly the thought of zarepath as scum terrifies me because nobody has mentioned him at all today. I REALLY hope he is town.
I thought the same thing about Spag in my first game. Turns out he WAS scum, and we lynched his ass then won the game (not really in that order). There is always hope. Day 1 always looks bleak tho in my experience.
FWIW zare looked like his regular townie self to me (based on 2 games as townmates). RL commitments don't make you a lurker/scummy. I expect him to post a bit more pre-lynch.
|
On February 12 2013 15:15 WaveofShadow wrote:
Care to address this?
Sure. I got back to rereading and still thought Cora and Mocsta are getting away with bs and stopped. I haven't gone back and reworked the read so it's staying there.
On February 12 2013 15:16 Mocsta wrote:
Umm.. how about instead of making witty quips; you expound on what you think is the issue at hand.
The attitude you are taking, serves nothing but to incite emotions.
Attitude I'm espousing? If you and Cora can't realize how you two have essentially been "My way or the highway" this whole game, then you have no idea how to promote healthy conversation. I'd even go so far as you're not even actually interested in having conversation period; my read of you is that you're more interested in having people reflect back to you what you're already saying in one term or another. IE: I'm happy to have people improve my cases but not anyone else's. But for me to start a case looking for help and feedback is a bad thing, but for you it's peachy keen. That's just a bunch of bung.
I'll give you credit for both having an agenda to push, but I'm not sold that it's in the towns favor in the slightest. Quite frankly, I have no interest in playing with either of you again and am far more interested in being replaced than finishing this game out.
|
On February 12 2013 15:53 geript wrote:Sure. I got back to rereading and still thought Cora and Mocsta are getting away with bs and stopped. I haven't gone back and reworked the read so it's staying there. Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 15:16 Mocsta wrote:
Umm.. how about instead of making witty quips; you expound on what you think is the issue at hand.
The attitude you are taking, serves nothing but to incite emotions. Attitude I'm espousing? If you and Cora can't realize how you two have essentially been "My way or the highway" this whole game, then you have no idea how to promote healthy conversation. I'd even go so far as you're not even actually interested in having conversation period; my read of you is that you're more interested in having people reflect back to you what you're already saying in one term or another. IE: I'm happy to have people improve my cases but not anyone else's. But for me to start a case looking for help and feedback is a bad thing, but for you it's peachy keen. That's just a bunch of bung. I'll give you credit for both having an agenda to push, but I'm not sold that it's in the towns favor in the slightest. Quite frankly, I have no interest in playing with either of you again and am far more interested in being replaced than finishing this game out.
I am genuinely sorry you feel that way; enough that you would consider replacing.
Look, mafia isn't a game for everyone: some struggle with the reading commitments; others struggle with expressing themselves clearly. But don't worry, you have given the game a go, and by no means will I (and I hope others) look at this as you being a "sore loser".
I ask that you take a step back and reconsider what you have said.
If you are town, please take the opportunity to look at the feedback sent your way (through cases/posts) and build a rational and well-reasoned argument on why your interests were town aligned. Throwing emotional arguments; or weak straw-man accusations is not the way to proceed.
If you are scum, well, ignore the above and please but don't leave, I would prefer you lynched than replaced !! 
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 11 2013 18:41 Sylencia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 14:01 warbaby wrote:On February 11 2013 13:58 cDgCorazon wrote:
@WB: Do you mean VT or some other blue role? If it makes you feel better, you have a 100% telling-the-truth rate when it comes to claiming roles. I won't claim my actual role right now (just that my alignment is not mafia rofl), but if we get to a point later (d2+) where others are considering claiming, I will not hesitate this time. I got up to here on the bus, and spent a bit of time working out the reasoning behind this blue claim so early on: If he's scum, a way to extend his life through the chance he is telling the truth. Problem is the plan is spoiled when he doesn't die on night 1 - since he would be a prime candidate for a kill. If he's actually blue, dumb move unless he plans to Vig shot someone on night 1 and hoping for a 1:1 trade? Alternatively if he's a vet aiming to prolong the life of the town - but even then that's a questionable move. Being the SK with bulletproof wouldn't help too much since he will still end up suffering the same fate as the Vig of being shot over 2 nights. Helps town more than scum. VT taking a bullet for the team is also a possibility here, but I don't understand why such a seed needs to be planted to early on. Basically, I'm leaning towards either scum or vig on warbaby.
No more defense, you want that then read my previous posts that you likely ignored. Time to go back on the attack.
The main thing I hate about this post is that it makes no sense to me. For warbaby to be soft-claiming a role, and presumably soft-claiming blue, on day 1 makes no sense as a scum. Hard or soft claiming blue will attract undue attention for which one has to either start down the web of lies or backpedal from unnecessarily. While I could see soft claim on blue (as scum) later on when there's actual pressure on instead of the general D1 crap that happens, doing it D1 while under no real pressure is inconceivable to me. Even if you try to factor in the 36 meta where he got lynched after roleclaiming, then that's a pretty weak case as there's literally no value in any claim over trying to defend/deflect first. Even as a panicking player, from warbaby I would expect more inward retreat/turtling or voracious exposition. SK is in the same boat as scum so that make equally little sense. The question then is blue or green for me which is a pretty simple answer: the only thing worse than scum claiming D1 in that situation is blue claiming D1 in that situation. Voila: Warbaby is most likely green. Even if you factor in the Vigilante idea, planning to fire before what ~8 hours into D1; that's unthinkable to me. I play poker aggressively and that's even too gambly for my blood.
Additionally, nothing I have read from warbaby's posts leads to an emotional state outside of my standard expectations if he were vanilla. I read frustration far more than panic or desperation and after having read his filter multiple times in context I'm not seeing your guys cases whatsoever. Therefore, when I see people attacking a person that, even if not amazing, is far more likely to be town in my eyes than not, then I see no reason not to defend that person as sometimes you just need someone in your corner rooting for you to be your best.
So Cora and Mocsta, why didn't you read this post and come to the same conclusion? Why haven't you attacked Sylencia for bad logic, low count and miminal (if any) content? Rather, Cora hounded warbaby on why Sylencia in specific. Read the thread, look at it in context, pull it apart, reread it. You guys wanted a bone. Fine, ball's back in your court now.
I'll try to post more on this tomorrow but will likely be spending time with my nieces instead.
|
Thanks Geript for sticking in the game.
Some ideas you have represented above are cohesive and make sense.
e.g. warbaby I can see as frustrated; rather than panicked.
But, overall I see more flaws than gems in the logic above.
The crux comes down to heuristics; I and I think you need to be more open to what plays are available.
e.g. you say vig is a bad idea 8hrs in.. heck
I just replaced in a game where the vigilante claimed within 6 hours and was ASKING town to essentially vote for who he should shoot at night.
The other problem I see is the benefit of hindsight.
Day1 reads change and evolve as new information is released.
You have re-read the game (multiple times) , took into account information that came into light POST-EVENT, and are now querying people over why they made the decisions they did?
Frankly, with the information we *had* I saw nothing wrong with Sylencia logic statement.
Fact is, soft-claiming VT is always a stupid play. People are not going to trust you; and it gives mafia someone *NOT* to hit (if seeking blue roles). In poker terms, the pot odds arent worth calling.
If you re-examine with the information *POST-EVENT*; i still see nothing wrong with the assumptions Sylencia took.
VT is still a stupid play; and warbaby is a guy who doesnt want to be treated as stupid. So it means I rule this out of the equation.
Lastly, I appreciate you opening my eyes to warbaby being frustrated vs panicking; but I am not sure what the point is. I have stated from the start, emotional play is NOT alignment-indicative; its what you do with the play.
So yes, warbaby is frustrated (scum or town can be frustrated) but are you trying to tell me, warbaby has not gone out of his way to flame people in his filter?
TL;DR
I dont have a problem with Sylencia logic then, and I still dont.
Claiming VT early is stupid, and creates less targets for scum to choose to eliminate blues.
Hence,
It really becomes: did he really soft-claim blue role; or did he make an all-in play based on his MVP last game.
|
Well i agree that my case on sn0 is weak at best. Honestly, i made it because i promised to make one. After reading the filter i didn't find anything too scummy, except his endless posting about lurkers. So yeah, WoS had it right.
Also the reason why i didn't vote or FoS sn0.
I'd like to point in Mandalors direction.
He's a poster who heavily goes against lurkers, but since decided to just not post.
All of his posts are low content and mostly "lurker-hunting" which, as i stated in my post about sn0, scum can do easily all day.
After that he mentioned that he finds it impossible to make a case on anybody, but finds mocsta randomly scummy without being able to put your finger on it.
I'll make it easier for you mandalor.
What do you think about WoS right now?
Can you elaborate on the scumminess of mocsta?
|
On February 12 2013 20:09 glurio wrote:
Well i agree that my case on sn0 is weak at best. Honestly, i made it because i promised to make one. After reading the filter i didn't find anything too scummy, except his endless posting about lurkers. So yeah, WoS had it right.
Also the reason why i didn't vote or FoS sn0.
Not sure if massive scum slip or . . .
|
##Unvote WaveofShadow
From the beginning of my WoS case:
On February 12 2013 00:38 zarepath wrote:
Firstly, let me add my thoughts to your reads (other than warbaby).
Although Sn0_Man has posted minimal contribution and his longest post is about the English language, it looks as though he went to bed, so I am not going to look too deeply at him until he comes back. It is certainly still up to him to contribute as of yet; however, I am kind of in the same boat, so I can't fault him for that just yet.
Kindly explain why Mandalor is so high on your list; I don't see much scum in his few posts, and wouldn't mind clarification.
Excusing warbaby as a bad townie and soft-attacking Mocsta and Sn0_Man is all that glurio's done. I think he's in mine and Sn0_Man's boat right now -- wait and see, in other words.
Wave of Shadow, though, is a whole other matter.
Please see the bolded capitals of the first four lines of my case post. Sorry to stress you out, Wave, but you were actually an early town read for me. I saw that a warbaby lynch was becoming inevitable, and I wanted to give scum an alternative bandwagon to see what they would do and made a completely confirmation-biased case (which is apparently pretty easy to make with the first 7 posts of any poster this game). While I have been pretty AFK since I made this case, I've been paying attention to how people reacted to it, especially those who agreed or came on board without actually addressing or picking apart the case.
I was hoping for the case to last a little longer, but I don't foresee scum jumping aboard anymore as it's lost some of its steam (and WoS has looked very pro-town), and figured it was time to pull back the curtains and help foster some real dialogue moving forward.
I'm going to take this morning to go through and really analyze everyone's reactions, but the two reactions I remember best are warbaby's immediate latching-onto the case without voting, and then geript's vote (which he hasn't unvoted, or evolved his read in any way). I'll have more in five or six hours or so.
|
EBWOP: really analyze everyone's original reactions to my original case
|
On February 12 2013 20:30 zarepath wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 20:09 glurio wrote:
Well i agree that my case on sn0 is weak at best. Honestly, i made it because i promised to make one. After reading the filter i didn't find anything too scummy, except his endless posting about lurkers. So yeah, WoS had it right.
Also the reason why i didn't vote or FoS sn0.
Not sure if massive scum slip or . . .
Don't think so - pretty sure it was in reference to
On February 12 2013 07:12 glurio wrote:
after that expect my case on sn0.
@Geript: I posted regarding Warbaby's post because it stood out so much due to the wording he chose to use. Would you ever use 'I won't claim my actual role right now' when referring to 'I won't claim VT right now'? It's extremely awkward and suggested so much more than that. As you already mentioned, it's really dumb to be claiming here on day 1 if he was, but I'm just considering the possibility he's using this as future leverage when it comes down to claiming, a fake claim wouldn't be too unusual by saying he already hinted it then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
