EPT##Vote: Sevryn
Newbie Mini Mafia XXXVII - Page 46
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
##Vote: Sevryn | ||
|
zarepath
United States1626 Posts
 Will be doing some thorough analysis for this night cycle (starting tomorrow, assuming work doesn't get in the way.) | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9387 Posts
WoS Votes dont apply N1 lol  Im happy to discuss Sevryn further; what makes him scum to you? No need for a case, just outline some dot points you think are scum tells. | ||
|
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
On February 13 2013 11:09 Mocsta wrote: Im heading off. maybe back in a couple hours WoS Votes dont apply N1 lol Im happy to discuss Sevryn further; what makes him scum to you? No need for a case, just outline some dot points you think are scum tells. Lol yeah I wasn't sure of that, but I made it fairly obvious that that's who I'm gunning for anyway. I'm about 95% certain Sevryn is scum. On February 13 2013 04:52 WaveofShadow wrote: I feel like doing a full case on Sevryn right now but I have a midterm soon so I don't have the time to follow up. Will be back a few hours pre-vote. Sevryn has been tunneling Glurio REAL hard all game. The only post not directed at Glurio since yesterday was one talking about how he wants to see more from lurkers like Mandalor when they have contributed far more than he has. His filter is one page long and the first few posts are all game theory crap. Not linking here because you can check the filter yourself; real easy read. Now I don't like glurio this game either so I'm going to speculate a little. I don't believe they are both scum. If they were both scum and Sevryn implicates glurio, then he is in danger of being lynched D1 due to lurker/scummy reads on him so far. I can't see him doing this and leaving it up to chance at the end of the day like he says. I don't believe this is a bus attempt either because it's a newbie game, and bussing is real big talk most of the time. I don't believe they are both good town either because each has posted 'just enough' to attempt to stay under radar while contributing absolutely nothing of value. Essentially I believe either Sevryn or glurio are scum right now, with another scum being one of the 0-post lurkers, Sylencia or geript as I had stated earlier. From my earlier case. I'll admit I had a scumread on glurio but it wasn't enough to vote for him because I was scared to, as stated before. I wanted to change my vote to Sevryn but I was scared of being wrong because they had a 50/50 shot in my mind. Nothing has changed on my Sevryn read from D1 except now, he has helped lynch a townie---noticeably later in the day too when he began tunneling glurio with an incredibly weak case. (His 'FoS' was just copy-pasting glurio and saying 'you look scummy') This tunneling also only began well after the precedent was already set down by Sn0 and I. Essentially the only thing I'm worried about right now is if somehow 9-bit and...OO both rolled scum and we learned nothing from them D1...which makes up the 5% I'm not sure of. (Probability that both 0-posts are scum = 4.5%) | ||
|
zarepath
United States1626 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
As for sheep-able cases, in my mind they fall into one of two categories: the obvious and the policy. Obvious cases are either so strong in speech that there's no strong rebuttal or are accompanied other outside damning information. This ruleset seems far less likely to contain the latter imo. Policy lynches are lynches that people aren't likely to protest loudly, especially in newb games, as they tend to be generally accepted. Non-sheepable cases, imo, are cases in progress. Cases where there's still work to be done and the case isn't strong enough to stand on it's own. These type of cases can look scummy to join if you're just bandwagoning on. Overall in reviewing day 1, I don't think that there were any obvious or great cases. I'm going to try and work up two cases in a IID post. | ||
|
Sevryn
698 Posts
The only reason you think im scum is because you think a lurker is scum and while I know I havn't been very active which I will be fixing over the next days I have to ask. Why just me and glurio? your just looking at whats blaring in your face and not the whole picture. I had the confidence to share my read and kill glurios case why would scum do that? You talk about when during the day I posted my case like people normally post cases early day one when there is nothing to read which is kind of irrelavant because I posted my case after I read and reread his case. I'm going to bed now but Will be up tomorrow and will be ready to provide my opinions and takes on yesterdays last minute activity and the night that fight. | ||
|
ObviousOne
United States3704 Posts
On February 13 2013 10:57 Mocsta wrote: Hi being not involved in the thread, you might be the perfect guy for this. If you want to be active, can you please have a go at answering the below: Thank you. why have no wagons taken off this Day1? In short, what felt like the majority of Day 1 was policy talk. Even when people started to move past policy, Lynch All Lurkers was continually brought up. I understand that discussing policy is something that generally occurs in newbie games, and it seems to have definitely taken center stage here in the first 24 hours of the cycle and even bled further into the day as people were asked to clarify their intended lynches. If you(referring to generic town, not you specifically) are not convinced of your lynch candidate, don't expect anyone else to take you seriously. Vote with intent to lynch. Also: Push your read. You can sink your teeth into someone and still look for other scum. Ultimately the voting system lets everyone vote their top scum read. Bandwagons don't generally happen without help from town, possibly making some players reluctant to vote off their best scum read for a not-quite-as-scummy alternative. I realize this is a newbie game, but you newer guys/gals have to know this: you're going to make mistakes, bad reads, go with a gut feeling when it was really just gas from the chili you ate yesterday, etc. It doesn't physically harm you in any way, it just makes you wrong. How did we get to a situation where 5 or so people held 1/2 votes for a prolonged period of time. No overall accepted definition of lurker was accepted. There were differentiations between zero-post players and low-content players. Spring-boarding off policy talk, where very little agreement was met, no consensus was made and a policy without consensus cannot be called policy. In essence, a town free-for-all occurred. Did anyone create confusion in the middle of the cycle; perhaps allowing no consolidation to occur I can't say from my initial read that any one individual person is responsible for averting consolidation. You (Mocsta) seem to be one of the biggest voices, but garnered a very weak response to your call to arms. Again, this probably stems from the disagreement on terms. If one person thinks lurkers are 0-1 post players and another thinks they're "blendy half-page filter posters" or something, we can't really have an honest conversation. My conclusion is that there was no will to rally, with players more interested in their own scum reads, based on prior disagreements. This isn't absolutely terrible since it isn't a strict majority lynch, but clearly leaves room for shenanigans leading to wrong lynches when someone can unvote and change the final result between two candidates. Did anyone push for a lynch by cheap bandwagoning; or shitty justifications to "blend in" To be honest, I don't think I can look into this specific point tonight, but I'm tapped out on energy. I can follow up on this specifically later today or I can address it as part of my re-read of the game. No extra quotes, just writing from memory of reading from the thread. G'night. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9387 Posts
(Now that you have caught up) Welcome Your first post is not a bad start into a 30 page thread. I hope by the end of night cycle you will have digested the Day1 occurrences enough to share your best scum read. P.S. Your last game was like 6-8months ago according to profile; since it only shows town games: how would you describe your town play; as in, aside from being active what do you think we can expect from your play? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17733 Posts
| ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
I suppose I haven't articulated this quiet properly yet, but I'm really really displeased with how the vote turned out. Everybody voting for a different target is about the stupidest thing I've ever seen and it really ruined our chances of drawing good info from the vote. Since I don't have much to say anymore (Other than that you guys are colossal retards), I'm basically gonna wait for night actions to say much (unless anybody has something useful to say?). The fact that nobody has posted in 10 hours except the host isn't encouraging. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On February 13 2013 09:23 cDgCorazon wrote: Lynching Glurio would go a long way in either proving or disproving my case towards WB. His town claim is even stupider than WB's as well. There's not much else to say. ##Vote: Glurio Ok, the only thing that I can think that helps prove Cora's case versus Warbaby is that if Glurio flips scum here, that makes Warbaby scummy as reading him worse than Sylencia or Sevyrn. I find that fair enough. But Cora goes a step further and notes that it also goes a long way to disproving his case versus Warbaby--which to me can only mean that if Glurio flips town then it makes Warbaby look better. But after the flip, On February 13 2013 10:22 cDgCorazon wrote: I'm still incensed that Warbaby did not get lynched. If his mistakes had come out later in D1, I'm hoping he would have been lynched. I've played a bunch of games of Mafia, and I still have yet to get a scum D1. I was hoping that the town would be up for doing something different, but I guess old habits never die. I'm not too happy I had to choose between two people who were basically playing the same game and not getting the support I needed behind my vote for my top scum read. But his previous comment makes no sense in light of still being frustrated about Warbaby not being lynching. Next, On February 12 2013 05:59 cDgCorazon wrote: Geript starts off by throwing a ridiculously silly vote out for Warbaby: The time for being silly was in the pre-game. It's over now. Take your votes seriously. Okay, that's all fine and good, but it makes no sense considering his actions at the end of the day... namely the point here. On February 13 2013 09:50 Sylencia wrote: ##Vote: Warbaby On February 13 2013 09:51 cDgCorazon wrote: Glurio, I've outlined my reasons why I'm not voting for WB, but still think he's scum. I would love to see WB get lynched today, but I know it's not going to happen. I have to choose between little things like your OMGUS vote and the fact that I'm not going to make the same vote as my top scumread... On February 13 2013 09:52 Mocsta wrote: Now it is obvious you aren't reading the thread cora and I, have been the proponents of warbaby all game. TOWN LYNCH THIS SCUM MUDAFARKER There's one vote on Warbaby; 3 votes at this point quite possibly could take it and, if not, there's still time to move to put another reasonable target over the top. So why not move his vote when he can get the person he wants to vote for and expressed such so voraciously. Remember, On February 13 2013 00:08 cDgCorazon wrote: I'm sticking to my guns. WB is going to be my vote. He's my scummiest read, and I'm trusting my gut feeling. and On February 13 2013 10:22 cDgCorazon wrote: I'm not too happy I had to choose between two people who were basically playing the same game and not getting the support I needed behind my vote for my top scum read. What's the real point in not staying consistent? On February 12 2013 14:38 cDgCorazon wrote: [/b]I want to try something different this game. If we keep LAL-ing we're not going to find scum. We haven't found scum D1 in a long time, so perhaps we should take a look at how we evaluate D1 in order to have a better chance of lynching scum (which would put them at a huge disadvantage if we could get one). We're never going to get better at Mafia unless we analyze what we are doing wrong and trying to make an effort to fix it. We can't just keep sitting here and say "Ok, we're gonna LAL. Cross your fingers everyone". I've said this before, but we need to have faith in our ability to find scum. I'm putting my confidence in scum-hunting into this vote. I think you should too (with whoever you think is scum). Additionally, he's been seemingly interested in lynching me; a point that WoS and Mocsta seemed in favor of. The only thing that I get from it is that he doesn't actually want to lynch any of his 'intended' targets now and intends to bring him up again later. On top of that there are other issues: On February 12 2013 14:12 Sn0_Man wrote: Warbaby: "All these damn lurkers. I can't even pick which one to lynch" Cora: "Warbaby you are so indecisive and won't stand on anything. no strong reads. That makes you scummy" Warbaby: "Fine. I think Sylencia is especially scummy. He is playing like he did last game he was scum" Cora: "OMG WB so retarded there are lots of other lurkers too. Picking one makes you scummy" ... I mean, it isn't like your points are wrong, but you are hammering him pretty unnecessarily. Browbeating people doesn't make them play better, and honestly how can you say that Warbaby is legit scum? Yeah he started off really poorly ("I was MVP last game bow to me. I WAS MVP OMG GUYS NOW I"M PLAYING MY META") but still, he has figured out that that was the wrong approach and has (in my eyes) cleared up some of the other issues with his play. I can see him as a townie who just can't find anything substantial to hang a case on. Its a realistic possibility. YES HE COULD BE SCUM TOO but it isn't like he has proved it anywhere that I've seen. I can point out numerous things to argue that Cora's actions haven't been conducive towards creating a positive town atmosphere, but I think this is the most telling for two reasons. One, it isn't me pointing any of this out in this post. Second and more importantly, I'm going to repeat the key quote: On February 12 2013 14:12 Sn0_Man wrote: and honestly how can you say that Warbaby is legit scum? This sums up the entire reason Cora's been on this kick. At least I can understand where's he's coming from on his posts toward me, but it's obvious that even Cora doesn't think his case versus Warbaby is that good. He's willing to pull off of Warbaby pre-deadline, then revotes him, then shifts off. He has the chance to form a 3 vote majority, but doesn't. Why? Cora doesn't think he's made his case. He doesn't think that his case against Warbaby is defensible. He doesn't want to take the credit/blame for if/when Warbaby flips town. One last quote: On February 12 2013 14:25 Sn0_Man wrote: I'm saying you are pressuring him for something, so when he tries to fix that by doing the opposite you pressure him for that thing instead. It smacks of last game really. I'm not saying he isn't scummy (again, much like last game). I legitimately am OK with day-1 mislynches. They generate lots of information and are a tool town can use to cull the useless members. Addition by subtraction and all that. Sure, I'd *love* to hit scum day 1 but sometimes I feel like removing active voices from the game just makes it easier for scum to glide like last game where Slay/Glurio posted essentially nothing and got away freely while cases were thrown at everybody who dared open their mouth and actually post a semi-intelligent thought. The fact that our blue roles bailed us out last game doesn't mean that the town atmosphere wasn't very scum-favoured for quite a while. I'm not sure the risk of trying to hit scum by lynching contributors is worth it if the downside is basically silencing town if we are wrong. Establishing the expectation that posting content on a decently regular basis is required to avoid getting lynched goes a long way towards making scum slip. I mean, you played scum, you know how attractive it must be to just glide if town is actively trying to silence all the loud voices... Sn0_man and Mocsta: Please contrast Cora's play towards the end of 36 with his play now. Please evaluate the case. Mandalor: Please evaluate the case. | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
| ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
warbaby
United States510 Posts
On February 14 2013 01:30 Sn0_Man wrote: I'd be more inclined to call cora scum for all this if he didn't play so spectacularly poorly as town last game that I was forced to blue-claim to prevent his mislynch. I sort of agree, but I also think Cora's play is less aggressive than last game. I'm going to look at all of his past games, and see if there is any pattern to the meta that's relevant here. Geript's case on Cora does strike me as a little bit odd, the way it relies on comments by WoS, Mocsta, and Sn0, and not just Corazon's actions and posts on their own. Anyway I'm voting sevryn on D2 if he continues to lurk, and do stuff like drop a vote for terrible reasons and disappear for extended periods (including deadline). I stand by my assertion that there's a good chance one of the people voting Glurio were scum. The votes were very spread out, but I can't see how a scum would resist the temptation to either lead a bandwagon on Glurio, or drive one home. I'm going to busy again at work today, and not fully with the thread until 5PM EST. I'll do my best to make some more posts before N1 is out (I still have some things to say about sevryn, but I want to hear from him first). | ||
|
warbaby
United States510 Posts
| ||
|
zarepath
United States1626 Posts
On February 14 2013 01:44 warbaby wrote: I stand by my assertion that there's a good chance one of the people voting Glurio were scum. The votes were very spread out, but I can't see how a scum would resist the temptation to either lead a bandwagon on Glurio, or drive one home. When all they have to do is simply be one of the five people voting by themselves, escaping all suspicion? Easy temptation to resist; they can just have three townies mislynch somebody while they camp on a worthless vote that they won't ever get criticized for. I'm not saying that that's my read on what happened; I'm saying it seems just as likely. We need to be open to possibilities in our analysis. | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
On February 14 2013 02:02 zarepath wrote: When all they have to do is simply be one of the five people voting by themselves, escaping all suspicion? Easy temptation to resist; they can just have three townies mislynch somebody while they camp on a worthless vote that they won't ever get criticized for. I'm not saying that that's my read on what happened; I'm saying it seems just as likely. We need to be open to possibilities in our analysis. Basically, this vote was so bad any speculation on what it means turns into WIFOM almost instantaneously. I mean, all 3 scum could have bus-voted each other this round just to clear their buddies if one of them gets lynched later. We honestly have no clue. | ||
| ||
