|
On November 05 2013 13:16 Umasi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 13:06 raynpelikoneet wrote:
It's not the point Umasi. You are supposed to tell us why the interactions are scummy. they're not scummy, they're just not townie. nothing has really made my read on vanesco matured, he's just scummy from the first post and no one has supplanted him for #1. Not everyone's going to post ridiculous cases hzflank, and I'm not going to go restate why someone could be scum if it was just me reading a point that I agreed with :| I agree with WoS point about Sn0 and how people are wishy-washying towards him as the lynch.
We cannot work with you unless you tell us why you think someone is scum.
You mentioned ET and Sn0, why do you think that they are scum?
|
On November 05 2013 13:13 Cephiro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 12:56 Sylencia wrote:On November 05 2013 08:02 Cephiro wrote:
Aight. That was an interesting read.
As for witchpowershiznit, I suggest we claim our votes only, 72 hours after. I've come up with an interesting idea as well. We will claim the votes in order, one at a time. I have an algorhithm based on certain actions in the game that make me very confident in the idea this will work.
Also, vote me for blue.
I'd like to hear more from players: raynpelikoneet, hzflank, thrawn, Sn0_Man + Myself.
##Vote: WaveOfShadow Have you actually read the thread? I'm sure you would've already dismissed your idea already because we already discussed revealing witchcraft votes and it was either too risky or there were problems in regards to the overlap of blues because we're not likely to change our votes that much between the days, so it's a simple blue shot no matter when we really reveal... I don't really buy the fact that there's an algorithm which would work in our favour 'depending on certain actions in the games' because there are so many things which can happen. Following on from that, why would it ever be a smart move to try gather WC votes so obviously when it just sets you up to be a vig target? The vote on WoS in your very first post sets you up here for a long long tunnel which I'm still currently getting through (though I've taken a skip over the wall of text for now) - if anything I feel like you decided to target WoS after seeing recent posts and then did the long filter dive process to back it up at a later point. This is obviously baseless conjecture but I can see that happening from a scum player. Yes, I have read the thread. I still do not consider revealing witchcraft votes after the blues have been re-chosen. I do not consider it smart to keep choosing the same people over and over again, some changes will have to be done. As long as preferably 1 person at most overlaps between consequential nights, it is still very unlikely for scum to hit our blues with the additional information from our voting patterns. If we follow my plan of claiming in a certain order based on my algorhithm, it will be very likely we'll catch scum on that alone since they are forced to lie about their witchcraft votes, as they do not have any. As for why it would be smart to gather WC votes publically? How do you even know if I actually want the votes? What if I am just building a start for something to presenting myself as a possible target for the bullet to be wasted on? Or maybe I just really really like being a blue and doing stuff? Think about it. I fail to see how I am tunneling WoS. I have provided my opinions on several other players. There is not enough to convince me he is town currently. Is pressuring your most certain scumread, while actively discussing others tunelling in your opinion? Read the case before accusing me of making an useless wall of text. Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 12:56 Sylencia wrote:On November 05 2013 09:05 Cephiro wrote:On November 05 2013 08:47 thrawn2112 wrote:On November 05 2013 08:43 Cephiro wrote:
I was simply curious of your opinion about ET. Even though I cannot be sure it's from a town point of view, it still helps to hear perspectives of others as well, to ensure one is not too tunneled with their own opinion, whether it's about thinking someone is town or scum. Even though a certain confidence in one's reads is a must. Ok. So what are your thoughts on this game? You've just now made your first post, but it's somewhat devoid of content which is surprising since you already know who you want to vote for. You've discussed some things with me without really talking about your own views on the game. So far, despite you making a serious vote and having a serious conversation with me about another player, I still have no clue how you're thinking about the game. Why is this and can you fix it? Yes, I didn't intend to start off with a case, neither reason my vote on WoS more specificly. If there is someone you want my general or specific opinion on, just ask. I have several reads to a direction or another, as well as many nullreads. I just don't consider most of them to be worth sharing right now. Nevertheless I'm content with joining in like this, and I intend to make my thought process clear regarding my reads to the most extent, excluding possible thingamagics I have a tendency of pulling off. As for a more concise reply: It is because I wanted to not present all my thoughts in the open immediately. I can "fix" it by replying to any queries you might have. I will also be sharing more content when I find it necessary. How is actively choosing not to give reasoning behind your votes ever townie here? Especially when you make a 'serious' vote on the first post which means that literally no one knows that your train of thought has been before you voted? Choosing to present thoughts only when asked is basically allowing yourself to reveal as little about what you think as possible, which really only has scum motivation behind it since it reduces the likelihood of inconsistencies popping up in the future, no? Skimming over your case, half the points honestly seem like a stretch and rayn's covered pretty much my thoughts on that, I'll have to get back to your reply soon but honestly it's taken me an hour to hit this point because everyone seems to want to write essays these days :{ Conclusion: I don't really buy Ceph's case, and his entrance to me looks like a forced tunnel into WoS. That said, I still need to look at a few other filters before getting deeper reads but Ceph's on my radar at the moment. Because I was open to replying at any point, as shown in my answers to thrawn's queries. I also fairly quickly followed up with my reasoning. I present thoughts also when not asked, however I don't consider it useful for me to randomly ramble about how I'm unsure about person Y's alignment. Or do you really find it useful? When I have good content to share, I do. When I don't, I follow the thread, ask questions, and reply to questions. I do like that you are criticizing my play, however I hope my replies will show you why they are from a town perspective.
What you're saying there is that we shouldn't choose our top X town reads to be our votes over the course of the days if they remain the same? Why? Regardless of whether or not I keep my top X the same, it's likely that other people are voting for them too because they are clearly being shown as townie. As the days go on, I'm assuming there'll be mislynches here and there we can't actually afford to switch up our votes that much before we start hitting scum with our votes.
I doubt scum would shoot someone who calls for blue votes so openly, it's too much of a bait. Basically, I just questioned it because from my point of view it seemed like this:
Town calling for blue votes - Bait / basically making the rest of town unwilling to vote for you because it's too much of a risk to have them killed by the blue vig for being too obvious
Scum calling for the blue votes - Just a bonus if he actually gets it, never was a serious call for votes.
It's a fairly weak point anyways, but I just think it's weird to do such an action.
You were tunnelling him for the majority of the time, and gave Van a scum read through association from your points about WoS. You've given points about other players, I agree, I just thought at the time you were way too focused on WoS, since that filter dive post looks like you were being overly nitpicky over everything he's done. It's not a bad thing to nitpick, there's just a point though where I think you were reaching for points which didn't necessarily imply anything but you put it in a context where it tries to make him look scummy (The first point I found was where you said he was pointing out his own mistakes, which isn't really that implicating)
I never said that you should ramble about how unsure you are about a player, but if you'regoing to vote for someone, why not just state why in the first place rather than make people question you? At least it becomes clear from the start where you are coming from. I can see that you answered when asked and you gave your reasoning fairly soon after, I just think it would've had the same effect with less questions about motive if you did it from the start.
On November 05 2013 13:17 thrawn2112 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 13:14 WaveofShadow wrote:
Alright let's play a game.
It's called, 'What are people's reads on Syl?'
When I get 3-4 answers I will explain my own and why.
Bonus points to hzflank if he is one of them. Umasi too. Also Rayn. haha that syl vote for ET is a doozy aint it
??
On November 05 2013 13:25 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 13:14 WaveofShadow wrote:
Alright let's play a game.
It's called, 'What are people's reads on Syl?'
When I get 3-4 answers I will explain my own and why.
Bonus points to hzflank if he is one of them. Umasi too. Also Rayn. I think his posting before the last couple of posts is fine. I don't like his vote on ET - what it is based on, and how it happened. ET's posting Sylencia calls him out for was fine at that point he posted the case on thrawn. There is nothing wrong with it and while thrawn has imo made better posts now it seems like Syl is trying to say "look at this guy voting for a person many people think is town" and misrepresenting the vote based on circumstances that were present when ET actually made the vote. Also the vote happened after Sylencia called Cephiro "something to watch out for", then he goes reading filters and suddenly there is a vote on ET as a result of filter diving (in about 15 minutes, i doubt he read many filters..) and i don't like it at all.
Ya, it was like the 3rd filter I read. Tbh I should be reading more but I've procrastinated, and only read like 1 more following that post. I am a bad man.
On November 05 2013 13:33 Cephiro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 19:28 Sylencia wrote:
I've seen quite a few times where it's just thrown out there as a casual observation and people see this kind of activity as being townie because they are scum hunting. (this ended up being a random rant that serves no real purpose) ^ Amazing points like the bolded. Please others, look into things like this. Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 19:28 Sylencia wrote:
Also just to add on here, scum have bigger fish to fry than to plan how to foil our plans. Time constraints and what not means they'd rather go for mislynches than going all out on figuring a loophole in strategies suggested.
Then posts like this make me go ugh. Why do the two close out each other? Forcing mislynches while figuring out loopholes in strategies isn't that hard to do in my opinion. Feel free to disagree. If Sylencia truly think they are constrained by time and forced to concentrate on mislynches rather than anti-strategizing town, shouldn't we by that logic TRY to make up nice strategies as town, as it forces scum to account for more things, and "being restricted on time", have a hard time of dealing with both mislynches and strategy loopholes? Yet according to his own opinions, it seems that he is against the idea of strategizing further. (This is the vibe I got from your posting, correct me if I am wrong.) Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 13:09 Sylencia wrote:
Has he done anything since last night to further strengthen your scum read on him? As I said before, I don't really agree with what he's said that much but I can see the train of thought behind it. The contributions which you've provided is just a weak case on Vanesco and continuing to push it.
That said, ET's filter looks pretty horrendous as it can be summed up as so:
Vanesco looks null to scummy because it didn't match Newbie Mafia L (weak)
thrawn posted a list of players who had posted but wasn't advocating lurker lynch (weak)
Nothing else has been said really...
Tbh at the moment ET's filter is really sticking out like a sore thumb to me the more I think about it, since the rest of his posts look like really weak attempts at looking townie :|
##vote EchelonTee
Continuing on to more reading... 1) Seems like a legit opinion, and he is actually trying to carry the conversation into something more useful, rather than going all "Nope that's useless" 2) I don't like how he says short actions that are appareantly weak, but doesn't tell why they are weak. (Not too hard to figure out if you think about, I assume the Van one is related to meta, and thrawn for pointing out something and not carrying on with it -> unnecessary filter). I just prefer townies to explain their reasons rather than keep the reader guessing. He has pro-town and pro-scum points quite evenly, but at the moment slightly based on my gut read and the way he presents himself, I am leaning slightly town on Syl. (In response to WoS's queries.)
I thought it was apparent why they were weak... (I typed out the below before realising what you wrote in brackets LOL)
1) It's a meta read based on a single game, and no points have truly been raised about what he's said or done in the current game. Someone who isn't active or pressuring as the previous game isn't necessarily scummy. People have mentioned this, but just because rayn is not spamming and pressuring people as much doesn't necessarily make him scum.
2) For Thrawn he just agrees with vayn, and then just stops pretty much.
hz: (too lazy to quote here)
Yes, I implied it, I'm just not 100% confident about my own points so I pursued others whilewaiting for a response, since that would either explain something that I was mistaken about or futher imply someone's guilt. In this case, I don't think I got a solid response that necessarily says "Ok, I was wrong about Ceph", but there's enough there where I can say that I wouldn't give him my Witchcraft vote, but I probably wouldn't pursue him further for now becuase there are others who look worse.
|
Alright my turn.
This was what stuck out the most for me about Syl:
On November 05 2013 12:56 Sylencia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 08:02 Cephiro wrote:
Aight. That was an interesting read.
As for witchpowershiznit, I suggest we claim our votes only, 72 hours after. I've come up with an interesting idea as well. We will claim the votes in order, one at a time. I have an algorhithm based on certain actions in the game that make me very confident in the idea this will work.
Also, vote me for blue.
I'd like to hear more from players: raynpelikoneet, hzflank, thrawn, Sn0_Man + Myself.
##Vote: WaveOfShadow Have you actually read the thread? I'm sure you would've already dismissed your idea already because we already discussed revealing witchcraft votes and it was either too risky or there were problems in regards to the overlap of blues because we're not likely to change our votes that much between the days, so it's a simple blue shot no matter when we really reveal... I don't really buy the fact that there's an algorithm which would work in our favour 'depending on certain actions in the games' because there are so many things which can happen. Following on from that, why would it ever be a smart move to try gather WC votes so obviously when it just sets you up to be a vig target? The vote on WoS in your very first post sets you up here for a long long tunnel which I'm still currently getting through (though I've taken a skip over the wall of text for now) - if anything I feel like you decided to target WoS after seeing recent posts and then did the long filter dive process to back it up at a later point. This is obviously baseless conjecture but I can see that happening from a scum player.Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 09:05 Cephiro wrote:On November 05 2013 08:47 thrawn2112 wrote:On November 05 2013 08:43 Cephiro wrote:
I was simply curious of your opinion about ET. Even though I cannot be sure it's from a town point of view, it still helps to hear perspectives of others as well, to ensure one is not too tunneled with their own opinion, whether it's about thinking someone is town or scum. Even though a certain confidence in one's reads is a must. Ok. So what are your thoughts on this game? You've just now made your first post, but it's somewhat devoid of content which is surprising since you already know who you want to vote for. You've discussed some things with me without really talking about your own views on the game. So far, despite you making a serious vote and having a serious conversation with me about another player, I still have no clue how you're thinking about the game. Why is this and can you fix it? Yes, I didn't intend to start off with a case, neither reason my vote on WoS more specificly. If there is someone you want my general or specific opinion on, just ask. I have several reads to a direction or another, as well as many nullreads. I just don't consider most of them to be worth sharing right now. Nevertheless I'm content with joining in like this, and I intend to make my thought process clear regarding my reads to the most extent, excluding possible thingamagics I have a tendency of pulling off. As for a more concise reply: It is because I wanted to not present all my thoughts in the open immediately. I can "fix" it by replying to any queries you might have. I will also be sharing more content when I find it necessary. How is actively choosing not to give reasoning behind your votes ever townie here? Especially when you make a 'serious' vote on the first post which means that literally no one knows that your train of thought has been before you voted? Choosing to present thoughts only when asked is basically allowing yourself to reveal as little about what you think as possible, which really only has scum motivation behind it since it reduces the likelihood of inconsistencies popping up in the future, no? Skimming over your case, half the points honestly seem like a stretch and rayn's covered pretty much my thoughts on that, I'll have to get back to your reply soon but honestly it's taken me an hour to hit this point because everyone seems to want to write essays these days :{ Conclusion: I don't really buy Ceph's case, and his entrance to me looks like a forced tunnel into WoS. That said, I still need to look at a few other filters before getting deeper reads but Ceph's on my radar at the moment.
I looked over this a couple of times and I'm not sure what conclusion to draw. Initially I thought 'Well here's a completely new point nobody has brought up regarding the Ceph case before. I disagree with the conclusion (same as Umasi) but it looks like he's legitimately diving and putting forth effort. Townie points.'
The issue I'm finding now upon reading it again is, what mindset does it take to assume that Ceph's aggression is forced? Sylencia's assumption obviously wasn't a common thought amongst those people who tried to debunk Cephiro's case on me, otherwise it would have been brought up already.
I think originally I had Sylencia as town but on second thought now I'm not so sure. It seems my thoughts may be more in line with hzflank. He calls his own idea of pre-targeting 'baseless conjecture,' and most importantly he calls it something he could see as scum being likely to do---but would a townie immediately consider this? I think it speaks of a scum mindset honestly. I have him just below null on the scum-o-meter and I will not be lynching him today; as was stated I don't think it will be too difficult to garner reads on him as we go forward.
The point of my game though was to see who would engage freely and see which of the points I initially thought of when looking through Sylencia were brought up by others and why---again this can often be very telling as to where others' mindsets lie when performing analysis.
As it stands right now I shared some of Umasi's and hzflank's thoughts enough that I am still fine in where my vote stands---on Onegu, who did not bother to address what was going on in thread, rather he chose to comment on my post defending his activity and throw out some other irrelevant reads for the moment.
|
Oh and thrawn sitting back and baiting reactions looks like shit honestly.
I don't know what responses he was looking for doing that, but to me it appears as though he left the meaning of 'doozy' (positive/negative connotation?) purposefully ambiguous.
|
On November 05 2013 14:18 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 13:16 Umasi wrote:On November 05 2013 13:06 raynpelikoneet wrote:
It's not the point Umasi. You are supposed to tell us why the interactions are scummy. they're not scummy, they're just not townie. nothing has really made my read on vanesco matured, he's just scummy from the first post and no one has supplanted him for #1. Not everyone's going to post ridiculous cases hzflank, and I'm not going to go restate why someone could be scum if it was just me reading a point that I agreed with :| I agree with WoS point about Sn0 and how people are wishy-washying towards him as the lynch. We cannot work with you unless you tell us why you think someone is scum. You mentioned ET and Sn0, why do you think that they are scum?
lack of overall effect on the thread, although (as wave mentioned) it feels like enough of us are defaulting towards that lynch it's dangerous.
('that lynch' being a lynch on sn0 or ET.)
|
On November 05 2013 14:27 Umasi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 14:18 hzflank wrote:On November 05 2013 13:16 Umasi wrote:On November 05 2013 13:06 raynpelikoneet wrote:
It's not the point Umasi. You are supposed to tell us why the interactions are scummy. they're not scummy, they're just not townie. nothing has really made my read on vanesco matured, he's just scummy from the first post and no one has supplanted him for #1. Not everyone's going to post ridiculous cases hzflank, and I'm not going to go restate why someone could be scum if it was just me reading a point that I agreed with :| I agree with WoS point about Sn0 and how people are wishy-washying towards him as the lynch. We cannot work with you unless you tell us why you think someone is scum. You mentioned ET and Sn0, why do you think that they are scum? lack of overall effect on the thread, although (as wave mentioned) it feels like enough of us are defaulting towards that lynch it's dangerous. ('that lynch' being a lynch on sn0 or ET.)
Okay. Why do you think that the town was moving towards a Sn0 lynch? (I agree that it was, buy why?)
|
On November 05 2013 14:27 Umasi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 14:18 hzflank wrote:On November 05 2013 13:16 Umasi wrote:On November 05 2013 13:06 raynpelikoneet wrote:
It's not the point Umasi. You are supposed to tell us why the interactions are scummy. they're not scummy, they're just not townie. nothing has really made my read on vanesco matured, he's just scummy from the first post and no one has supplanted him for #1. Not everyone's going to post ridiculous cases hzflank, and I'm not going to go restate why someone could be scum if it was just me reading a point that I agreed with :| I agree with WoS point about Sn0 and how people are wishy-washying towards him as the lynch. We cannot work with you unless you tell us why you think someone is scum. You mentioned ET and Sn0, why do you think that they are scum? lack of overall effect on the thread, although (as wave mentioned) it feels like enough of us are defaulting towards that lynch it's dangerous. ('that lynch' being a lynch on sn0 or ET.)
Who is 'defaulting' towards ET?
If anything I would think an ET lynch should have stronger points put forth regarding his lynch since there's very little to go on, and not as 'easy' of a lynch as Sn0's might be. This is made all the more curious by the fact that Syl's ET vote seems almost tossed out at random. Not something I think scum would be likely to do necessarily because there are easier targets---although my taking Sn0 off of the table may have ruined some things for scum---maybe ET is the next best thing in terms of lurk?
|
I do not know how you can say you your taking Sn0 off the table does make things "harder" for scum. I have no idea what that means or how you can think like that. First of all you can't even know if Sn0 is town or not, it's impossible for you at this point of the game unless you are scum. Second, you can't assume you saying something makes it teh absolute truth and that people will follow you, unless your reasoning is really good, which it's not. Third, i don't know why you even want to take Sn0 "off the table" in the first place?
|
You took Sn0 off the table too early, WOS 
|
just overall thread progression, really. Often enough, someone like WoS would be brought up as a talking point, but it feels like it kind of returns to those two.
No one specifically can be accused of leaning into those lynches, because it's not something you should accuse them of. ET and Sn0 are both scummy, but not....REALLY scummy?
idk if I'm communicating my point properly, but there you go.
(I think that answered both of you, wos and hz)
|
On November 05 2013 14:35 raynpelikoneet wrote:
I do not know how you can say you your taking Sn0 off the table does make things "harder" for scum. I have no idea what that means or how you can think like that. First of all you can't even know if Sn0 is town or not, it's impossible for you at this point of the game unless you are scum. Second, you can't assume you saying something makes it teh absolute truth and that people will follow you, unless your reasoning is really good, which it's not. Third, i don't know why you even want to take Sn0 "off the table" in the first place?
I don't like him being 'on the table' for today because of how many people migrated to him as a backup---he appeared almost certain to become the lynch of choice for the day and it wasn't because people felt strongly about him being a good lynch. Does that sound like an inevitable scum lynch to you?
As far as me taking him off 'too early...' what does that mean hzflank?
|
On November 05 2013 08:38 hzflank wrote:Sigh, missed this. Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 09:22 EchelonTee wrote:On November 04 2013 08:53 Sylencia wrote:
So to anyone who was in the original game, other than our usual win-con, what else should we be looking at in terms of how Witchcraft works? Kind of strange to say "ususual win-con" as opposed to just "other than our win-con". How do YOU think Witchcraft should be handled? Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 11:48 EchelonTee wrote:On November 04 2013 09:22 EchelonTee wrote:On November 04 2013 08:53 Sylencia wrote:
So to anyone who was in the original game, other than our usual win-con, what else should we be looking at in terms of how Witchcraft works? Kind of strange to say "ususual win-con" as opposed to just "other than our win-con". How do YOU think Witchcraft should be handled? On November 04 2013 10:07 Sylencia wrote:On November 04 2013 09:50 Vanesco wrote:On November 04 2013 08:53 Sylencia wrote:
So to anyone who was in the original game, other than our usual win-con, what else should we be looking at in terms of how Witchcraft works? I don't really like this. You don't really put effort in to even cross-check the players from the last game (of witchcraft) which is really simple to do. The only player to play in the last one is Thrawn who was shot night 1. But I think that is not very relevant since each game can turn out different. I think you should come to your own conclusions on how to play this themed game instead of hoping others tell you how to play. It just seems like your not willing to put the effort in to even try to solve this game for yourself. It's also very dangerous to discuss strategy because scum can see everything also and can use that against town. I'm of the opinion that everybody should play the way THEY think is the correct way to play. Relax there. Anyone who's played with me before nows I'm at work during these hours - though lazy on my part I don't have the time to extensively browse through the past to find all the information I want. In any case I wasn't asking "how to win guys", it was more of a "were there any traps which caused trouble for town that we should look out for" but since there's an entirely new cast of players pretty much there's not really any answers to give unless someone here obsed the last game and can remember it. If you have the time to write that paragraph, you have time to answer my question. Why won't you discuss your thoughts on Witchcraft, and only spend time defending yourself? I disagree with people claiming actions, because if I voted someone as a blue and they avoided the blue-vig, I'd like to continue voting them. Why is it so important for Syl to answer your question about blue roles? I mean, that is the least important type of question that someone could ignore. What were you expecting to get out of Syl?
That was the very beginning of the game. I wanted Syl to talk. It did not succeed because apparntly I am supposed to expect that Syl will not respond rationally to questions.
|
On November 05 2013 08:02 Cephiro wrote:
Aight. That was an interesting read.
As for witchpowershiznit, I suggest we claim our votes only, 72 hours after. I've come up with an interesting idea as well. We will claim the votes in order, one at a time. I have an algorhithm based on certain actions in the game that make me very confident in the idea this will work.
Also, vote me for blue.
I'd like to hear more from players: raynpelikoneet, hzflank, thrawn, Sn0_Man + Myself.
##Vote: WaveOfShadow
I find it very strange that your first post of the game does not address many issues. It's quite narrow actually. This contrasts sharply with your play in Liar Game and Hogwarts, where your first posts attacked a lot of people (incorrectly, mind you), but it showed how you were interested in all people as possible suspects.
|
On November 05 2013 14:43 WaveofShadow wrote:
As far as me taking him off 'too early...' what does that mean hzflank?
Doesn't matter now. I was trying to fish in multiple ponds with a single rod, and I messed it up.
|
On November 05 2013 14:23 WaveofShadow wrote:Alright my turn. This was what stuck out the most for me about Syl: Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 12:56 Sylencia wrote:On November 05 2013 08:02 Cephiro wrote:
Aight. That was an interesting read.
As for witchpowershiznit, I suggest we claim our votes only, 72 hours after. I've come up with an interesting idea as well. We will claim the votes in order, one at a time. I have an algorhithm based on certain actions in the game that make me very confident in the idea this will work.
Also, vote me for blue.
I'd like to hear more from players: raynpelikoneet, hzflank, thrawn, Sn0_Man + Myself.
##Vote: WaveOfShadow Have you actually read the thread? I'm sure you would've already dismissed your idea already because we already discussed revealing witchcraft votes and it was either too risky or there were problems in regards to the overlap of blues because we're not likely to change our votes that much between the days, so it's a simple blue shot no matter when we really reveal... I don't really buy the fact that there's an algorithm which would work in our favour 'depending on certain actions in the games' because there are so many things which can happen. Following on from that, why would it ever be a smart move to try gather WC votes so obviously when it just sets you up to be a vig target? The vote on WoS in your very first post sets you up here for a long long tunnel which I'm still currently getting through (though I've taken a skip over the wall of text for now) - if anything I feel like you decided to target WoS after seeing recent posts and then did the long filter dive process to back it up at a later point. This is obviously baseless conjecture but I can see that happening from a scum player.On November 05 2013 09:05 Cephiro wrote:On November 05 2013 08:47 thrawn2112 wrote:On November 05 2013 08:43 Cephiro wrote:
I was simply curious of your opinion about ET. Even though I cannot be sure it's from a town point of view, it still helps to hear perspectives of others as well, to ensure one is not too tunneled with their own opinion, whether it's about thinking someone is town or scum. Even though a certain confidence in one's reads is a must. Ok. So what are your thoughts on this game? You've just now made your first post, but it's somewhat devoid of content which is surprising since you already know who you want to vote for. You've discussed some things with me without really talking about your own views on the game. So far, despite you making a serious vote and having a serious conversation with me about another player, I still have no clue how you're thinking about the game. Why is this and can you fix it? Yes, I didn't intend to start off with a case, neither reason my vote on WoS more specificly. If there is someone you want my general or specific opinion on, just ask. I have several reads to a direction or another, as well as many nullreads. I just don't consider most of them to be worth sharing right now. Nevertheless I'm content with joining in like this, and I intend to make my thought process clear regarding my reads to the most extent, excluding possible thingamagics I have a tendency of pulling off. As for a more concise reply: It is because I wanted to not present all my thoughts in the open immediately. I can "fix" it by replying to any queries you might have. I will also be sharing more content when I find it necessary. How is actively choosing not to give reasoning behind your votes ever townie here? Especially when you make a 'serious' vote on the first post which means that literally no one knows that your train of thought has been before you voted? Choosing to present thoughts only when asked is basically allowing yourself to reveal as little about what you think as possible, which really only has scum motivation behind it since it reduces the likelihood of inconsistencies popping up in the future, no? Skimming over your case, half the points honestly seem like a stretch and rayn's covered pretty much my thoughts on that, I'll have to get back to your reply soon but honestly it's taken me an hour to hit this point because everyone seems to want to write essays these days :{ Conclusion: I don't really buy Ceph's case, and his entrance to me looks like a forced tunnel into WoS. That said, I still need to look at a few other filters before getting deeper reads but Ceph's on my radar at the moment. I looked over this a couple of times and I'm not sure what conclusion to draw. Initially I thought 'Well here's a completely new point nobody has brought up regarding the Ceph case before. I disagree with the conclusion (same as Umasi) but it looks like he's legitimately diving and putting forth effort. Townie points.' The issue I'm finding now upon reading it again is, what mindset does it take to assume that Ceph's aggression is forced? Sylencia's assumption obviously wasn't a common thought amongst those people who tried to debunk Cephiro's case on me, otherwise it would have been brought up already. I think originally I had Sylencia as town but on second thought now I'm not so sure. It seems my thoughts may be more in line with hzflank. He calls his own idea of pre-targeting 'baseless conjecture,' and most importantly he calls it something he could see as scum being likely to do---but would a townie immediately consider this? I think it speaks of a scum mindset honestly. I have him just below null on the scum-o-meter and I will not be lynching him today; as was stated I don't think it will be too difficult to garner reads on him as we go forward. The point of my game though was to see who would engage freely and see which of the points I initially thought of when looking through Sylencia were brought up by others and why---again this can often be very telling as to where others' mindsets lie when performing analysis. As it stands right now I shared some of Umasi's and hzflank's thoughts enough that I am still fine in where my vote stands---on Onegu, who did not bother to address what was going on in thread, rather he chose to comment on my post defending his activity and throw out some other irrelevant reads for the moment.
I just said I havent caught up only skimmed as I have a doctors appointment (in waiting room now). You calling me out again for this is you just ignoreing what I am saying and comeing after me for precieved ignoreing of thread. Ill get to it in a few hours as I have to have a IV treatment I wont be around for now.
|
On November 05 2013 14:59 Onegu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 14:23 WaveofShadow wrote:Alright my turn. This was what stuck out the most for me about Syl: On November 05 2013 12:56 Sylencia wrote:On November 05 2013 08:02 Cephiro wrote:
Aight. That was an interesting read.
As for witchpowershiznit, I suggest we claim our votes only, 72 hours after. I've come up with an interesting idea as well. We will claim the votes in order, one at a time. I have an algorhithm based on certain actions in the game that make me very confident in the idea this will work.
Also, vote me for blue.
I'd like to hear more from players: raynpelikoneet, hzflank, thrawn, Sn0_Man + Myself.
##Vote: WaveOfShadow Have you actually read the thread? I'm sure you would've already dismissed your idea already because we already discussed revealing witchcraft votes and it was either too risky or there were problems in regards to the overlap of blues because we're not likely to change our votes that much between the days, so it's a simple blue shot no matter when we really reveal... I don't really buy the fact that there's an algorithm which would work in our favour 'depending on certain actions in the games' because there are so many things which can happen. Following on from that, why would it ever be a smart move to try gather WC votes so obviously when it just sets you up to be a vig target? The vote on WoS in your very first post sets you up here for a long long tunnel which I'm still currently getting through (though I've taken a skip over the wall of text for now) - if anything I feel like you decided to target WoS after seeing recent posts and then did the long filter dive process to back it up at a later point. This is obviously baseless conjecture but I can see that happening from a scum player.On November 05 2013 09:05 Cephiro wrote:On November 05 2013 08:47 thrawn2112 wrote:On November 05 2013 08:43 Cephiro wrote:
I was simply curious of your opinion about ET. Even though I cannot be sure it's from a town point of view, it still helps to hear perspectives of others as well, to ensure one is not too tunneled with their own opinion, whether it's about thinking someone is town or scum. Even though a certain confidence in one's reads is a must. Ok. So what are your thoughts on this game? You've just now made your first post, but it's somewhat devoid of content which is surprising since you already know who you want to vote for. You've discussed some things with me without really talking about your own views on the game. So far, despite you making a serious vote and having a serious conversation with me about another player, I still have no clue how you're thinking about the game. Why is this and can you fix it? Yes, I didn't intend to start off with a case, neither reason my vote on WoS more specificly. If there is someone you want my general or specific opinion on, just ask. I have several reads to a direction or another, as well as many nullreads. I just don't consider most of them to be worth sharing right now. Nevertheless I'm content with joining in like this, and I intend to make my thought process clear regarding my reads to the most extent, excluding possible thingamagics I have a tendency of pulling off. As for a more concise reply: It is because I wanted to not present all my thoughts in the open immediately. I can "fix" it by replying to any queries you might have. I will also be sharing more content when I find it necessary. How is actively choosing not to give reasoning behind your votes ever townie here? Especially when you make a 'serious' vote on the first post which means that literally no one knows that your train of thought has been before you voted? Choosing to present thoughts only when asked is basically allowing yourself to reveal as little about what you think as possible, which really only has scum motivation behind it since it reduces the likelihood of inconsistencies popping up in the future, no? Skimming over your case, half the points honestly seem like a stretch and rayn's covered pretty much my thoughts on that, I'll have to get back to your reply soon but honestly it's taken me an hour to hit this point because everyone seems to want to write essays these days :{ Conclusion: I don't really buy Ceph's case, and his entrance to me looks like a forced tunnel into WoS. That said, I still need to look at a few other filters before getting deeper reads but Ceph's on my radar at the moment. I looked over this a couple of times and I'm not sure what conclusion to draw. Initially I thought 'Well here's a completely new point nobody has brought up regarding the Ceph case before. I disagree with the conclusion (same as Umasi) but it looks like he's legitimately diving and putting forth effort. Townie points.' The issue I'm finding now upon reading it again is, what mindset does it take to assume that Ceph's aggression is forced? Sylencia's assumption obviously wasn't a common thought amongst those people who tried to debunk Cephiro's case on me, otherwise it would have been brought up already. I think originally I had Sylencia as town but on second thought now I'm not so sure. It seems my thoughts may be more in line with hzflank. He calls his own idea of pre-targeting 'baseless conjecture,' and most importantly he calls it something he could see as scum being likely to do---but would a townie immediately consider this? I think it speaks of a scum mindset honestly. I have him just below null on the scum-o-meter and I will not be lynching him today; as was stated I don't think it will be too difficult to garner reads on him as we go forward. The point of my game though was to see who would engage freely and see which of the points I initially thought of when looking through Sylencia were brought up by others and why---again this can often be very telling as to where others' mindsets lie when performing analysis. As it stands right now I shared some of Umasi's and hzflank's thoughts enough that I am still fine in where my vote stands---on Onegu, who did not bother to address what was going on in thread, rather he chose to comment on my post defending his activity and throw out some other irrelevant reads for the moment. I just said I havent caught up only skimmed as I have a doctors appointment (in waiting room now). You calling me out again for this is you just ignoreing what I am saying and comeing after me for precieved ignoreing of thread. Ill get to it in a few hours as I have to have a IV treatment I wont be around for now.
Then I await it.
Until then, vote stands.
Eventually there is going to have to be talk of consolidation btw, especially since I will not likely be around for the deadline.
There are way too many targets floating around today and some of them need to be removed.
|
On November 05 2013 13:09 Sylencia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 12:37 Umasi wrote:
I disagree with the aggression on WoS, how he's playing is pretty much in keeping with a town WoS. That said, don't be so angry wave, you're kind of overreacting.
Regardless, would it piss everyone off to say I still think vanesco is the best lynch?
He's still the best lynch. Has he done anything since last night to further strengthen your scum read on him? As I said before, I don't really agree with what he's said that much but I can see the train of thought behind it. The contributions which you've provided is just a weak case on Vanesco and continuing to push it. That said, ET's filter looks pretty horrendous as it can be summed up as so: Vanesco looks null to scummy because it didn't match Newbie Mafia L (weak) thrawn posted a list of players who had posted but wasn't advocating lurker lynch (weak) Nothing else has been said really... Tbh at the moment ET's filter is really sticking out like a sore thumb to me the more I think about it, since the rest of his posts look like really weak attempts at looking townie :| ##vote EchelonTeeContinuing on to more reading...
If I was scum, I would be pushing a mislynch on a poor-playing townie because it is extremely easy to do so. My last game as scum I do so ineffectively (but still do), but if you look at any of my previous scum games (liar game, jubjub mafia) you'll see. Since I am town, I am must less sure about my reads.
Since the entirety of your case seems to be that I have weak opinions, which is true as it is Day 1, there's nothing more I have to say to you.
|
My top three scum reads are Sn0, Thrawn, and Cephiro. Post forthcoming.
|
On November 05 2013 14:25 WaveofShadow wrote:
Oh and thrawn sitting back and baiting reactions looks like shit honestly.
I don't know what responses he was looking for doing that, but to me it appears as though he left the meaning of 'doozy' (positive/negative connotation?) purposefully ambiguous.
I think that Thrawn is scum.
On November 04 2013 12:47 thrawn2112 wrote:
i'm out for a bit...fairly bland start so far
PSA: it is Nov 04 2013 which means I'm wearing a special hat for special people so I will likely NOT be sober at any given moment over the next 24-ish hrs
I don't see anything blatantly scummy atm, but I do want to throw this list out there:
rayn
WoS
Sylencia
OO
Vanesco
Umasi
if you aren't on this list then that means you either haven't posted, or you haven't posted anything memorable and as such you will be who I focus on first upon returning to the thread.
He never pursued the people not on his list. I find claiming that you will do something, then not doing it scummy; it looks like you are pursuing leads when you are not actually.
On November 04 2013 14:59 thrawn2112 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 14:38 EchelonTee wrote:On November 04 2013 12:47 thrawn2112 wrote:
i'm out for a bit...fairly bland start so far
PSA: it is Nov 04 2013 which means I'm wearing a special hat for special people so I will likely NOT be sober at any given moment over the next 24-ish hrs
I don't see anything blatantly scummy atm, but I do want to throw this list out there:
rayn
WoS
Sylencia
OO
Vanesco
Umasi
if you aren't on this list then that means you either haven't posted, or you haven't posted anything memorable and as such you will be who I focus on first upon returning to the thread. So you are advocating a lurker lynch. how's it goin? no, not even thinking about lynching yet. but i'm glad you brought it (lurker lynching) up what do you think about the drama? is it real drama or is it " real" drama? or just distracting and annoying?
I thought these questions were strange because they don't serve any purpose. If his purpose was to get me to talk (as when I questioned Syl), he didn't respond to me at all, which makes me wonder why he asked me these. It feels to me like fake activity.
On November 05 2013 09:30 thrawn2112 wrote:
-rayn - I want to fucking lynch this guy because I know he's capable of doing so much more. I'm not talking about quantity of posts. On November 05 2013 10:56 thrawn2112 wrote:
rayn goddammit you cannot play like kushm4sta
only kush can do that and still be readable
Thrawn votes rayn but never really explains why. Does not quote rayn or outline his reasoning. Yet he wants to "fucking lynch him". This does not feel like a real scum read to me.
On November 05 2013 13:17 thrawn2112 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 13:14 WaveofShadow wrote:
Alright let's play a game.
It's called, 'What are people's reads on Syl?'
When I get 3-4 answers I will explain my own and why.
Bonus points to hzflank if he is one of them. Umasi too. Also Rayn. haha that syl vote for ET is a doozy aint it
I don't like posts like this that don't say anything. It doesn't feel like thrawn has an actual read on Syl and is just commenting on the current topic for some activity.
A brief filter of analysis of Thrawn's previous two games, Desert Mini and British Empire Mini corroborate my views. Posts like these outline clear reasons why Thrawn views there's players as scum and show an intent to scumhunt. In this game, he has done a lot of lists and lightly push rayn for a lack of activity. I think there is a stark contrast.
##Vote: Thrawn2112
|
On November 05 2013 12:32 ObviousOne wrote:
Like I just mentioned a couple posts ago, I'm drawing parallels between what Sn0 is doing and what WoS is doing, but WoS is actually here. Doesn't seem inquisitive enough to me for a town WoS but I didn't read the beginning of the Les Mafia game so I don't know how he opens up and if it will even be applicable given that it's a single game.
I think this a pretty good point. Sn0 just seems "not here". He has had plenty of time to formulate opinions. His presence feels really floaty; it reminds me of scum players who skirt the edge; noticeable enough to not be called out for lurking, but not noticeable enough to be forced to give out concrete reads.
On November 05 2013 03:58 Sn0_Man wrote:Well I don't have a nice blue role this game to claim and be conftown but w/e. This is more or less my day 1  I promise I'm developing reads and thinking about the game, just not at a rate that provides anything interesting to town right now. I try to gather data with a more or less null read on everybody so as to be objective, then study the data once I feel like its enough for a "read".
There is a promise to develop reads, but there is nothing shown in thread. It's understandable that Day 1 reads are not the best, but to me it feels like Sn0 is putting in absolutely no effort to provide legitimate reads.
On November 05 2013 05:25 Sn0_Man wrote:
You are like, incredibly desperate to justify yourself. If you weren't so uptight I'd be leaving it alone. Actually I was leaving it alone ur the one pushing it lol.
I agree with other people's sentiments that this post is very strange. Sn0's post feels like one that is shrinking away. While it is true that some scum players are comfortable with arguing, the baseline idea is that scum have inherent guilt and would rather avoid confrontation.
I would be fine with a Sn0 lynch if Thrawn cannot happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
