Mocsta, what is your current read on Shz?
Newbie Mini Mafia XXXIII - Page 2
Forum Index > TL Mafia |
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
Mocsta, what is your current read on Shz? | ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
Spaghetticus is posting reasonably and being nice. In fact, he's being too nice. He hasn't accused anyone at all of anything. He hasn't expressed any suspicions of any other player, or posted any analysis. In fact, he hasn't done anything useful for the town at all, while still looking active, and that is textbook scum.
A post-by-post analysis: + Show Spoiler + On December 19 2012 11:00 Spaghetticus wrote: K first post :D LAL: I think LAL the policy is stupid, but think LAL the conversation about whether to implement the LAL policy is great. My lynch decision making is flexible, but lurking constitutes a substantial markup on the probability of me lynching you. If you lurk, I will be on your case, and if your answers are not adequate I will put you on my to-lynch list. For lying I am the same. In the one game I've played I lied to hide that I was a cop. If you lie this draws massive attention, but it's important to look for motive, intention, and possible outcomes as well. - Cakepie - Kickstart - Fatchunk - Aquanim Have not posted yet (correct me if I'm wrong). Please disregard this list when considering my contribution, I post lists because they are useful and I have them anyway, not to appear useful. Keep your list hate to yourself @Threesr You are about to come under massive amounts of pressure if you don't conform/comply with LAL attitudes (not a threat, just a prediction). Your position at the moment is too empathetic for a game where the most important tool is the noose. There will be times when people will lurk because they don't know what to do, and at these times, it's more likely that they don't know what to do because they are a more complex role (scum). If you are looking for certainty then you are almost certainly playing the wrong game XD To nubs in general: Please make an effort to keep your posts clear and informative, as a lot of us will be playing catchup. Do not be under the impression that (wordcount) = (town behaviour), others and myself will go through your filter and swathes of cruddy posts actually draw attention. Please keep the bickering impersonal, and have a great game :D My previous game (cop) (win) I'll consider lists scummy all I please, you can't get out of posting useless fluff just by saying that's how you roll. + Show Spoiler + On December 19 2012 11:27 Spaghetticus wrote: Mocsta I honestly think it's too early to be getting town reads. This is in response to your acknowledgement of Chroma not your null on me. The positives of such a move (that I can think of) are that if you are good at reading people your reads yours will hold more weight than those of a bad reader. The negatives are that if you are a below average reader then you are throwing town off, if you are scum you could be solidifying a position as head town, and read confidence improves with time. I don't see it as a solid move this early. I like the drive you are giving town though. In my last game the scum only had two players and there were no ways to interfere with the reliability of the cop power. I was 100% certain that any inspection I made was correct, which made for a bit of a lopsided game. The game ended quickly as one of the scum was trying to opt out of the game and was playing fast and loose. I can't really give great insights into cop play as I was actually correct in my initial read on both scum, which is something due more to luck than any skill on my part. Lecturing other players isn't all that useful. Nobody has said anything useful at this point though. + Show Spoiler + On December 19 2012 12:30 Spaghetticus wrote: Strong post Cakepie, keep it up. @Everyone How many games have you played? I want to compile another list, for personal use and otherwise. Even if you have already made this information available could you please do so once more so I don't need to trawl through starter fluff again? I am concerned about people pulling the nub card, and want to be able to assess the legitimacy of these claims easily. A massive mistake people were making last game was to assume that people were scum if they were inexperienced, which IMO is pretty silly in a nub game. More fluff, and inviting other players to clog the thread. An unsubtle buddy to Cakepie for good measure. Some serious hypocrisy here: On December 19 2012 12:51 Spaghetticus wrote: Cheers Omni and Chroma. Things seem to have died down, I might head to the gym. We still have three people with no posts, if you are one of them I suggest you make a big and informative post after reading through everything that has been posted this game. Try and have questions for the players that have been posting, and develop a theory of who is town and scum. You are late to the part y but you can still be valuable and productive town. So he wants people to "develop a theory of town and scum" without doing anything of the sort himself? This is what first set off my alarm bells. + Show Spoiler + On December 19 2012 20:34 Spaghetticus wrote: I just looked though everyone's filters and took some notes. I have a terrible memory and find it gives some context to the names I try so hard to remember. If you find it difficult to associate a person's name with their actions so far, I suggest you look through their filter in order to put a face to the name, and prevent them lurking past you. I will now try and compile a synopsis before bed. On December 19 2012 21:02 Spaghetticus wrote: Lurkers: Threesr: He seems to want to defend lurking, which is really weird. Only contribution to date is disputing LAL. Cakepie: One very solid post. Would like to see more, though I think you have contributed more than a few other people here. Orange: Very little substance so far. Fatchunk: One post. Kickstart: Two posts. Sylencia: Seems to want to contribute, but is struggling. Corazon: One post. Shz: low contribution, attempts to stimulate discussion have been weak. So we have a bit of a lurker problem. Some of you I think will have no problem increasing production, but some others seem reluctant. If all you have done is discuss LAL policy up to this point, you need to contribute more. Give us your scummy reads if you have any. I would put money on the day1 lynch being one of the names I just mentioned, please try and make sure it’s not you. At this moment in time my prediction is that either Corazon, Shz, or Threesr will get bandwagoned. Anyone can compose a list of lurkers. Still no town motivation here. On December 19 2012 21:19 Spaghetticus wrote: For the record, I find Cakepies text dump(s) actually fairly good. For the most part he has stayed on track and made his positions clear. I also agree with most of what he has said. I'd still like more, but he is far from lurking or suspicious in my eyes (relative to many of the other lurkers). Yet more noise. + Show Spoiler + On December 20 2012 00:09 Spaghetticus wrote: I am someone with a natural inclination to lurk. So far I'm on my 6th page of notes, and once I have more than a 30% read on anyone as scum I'll make a case. Until then I just trawl through the data and try to keep others on track. I'm reluctant to play aggressively until I have a foot to stand on. Personally I would like people to focus their efforts away from Mocsta and Cakepie, and focus almost exclusively on the lurkers. If they do happen to be scum then at this rate they will leave a trail and we will nail them day two. Anyone looking for brownie points should try and focus on contributing OC, that is, post a case on one of the many lurkers. I'll give you a hint: if you are one of the lurkers, you need to score brownie points by proving yourself more useful than your lurker brethren. Bandwagonning on lurkers that have already been called out does not count! He's still asking for other people to make cases, and still contributing absolutly no analysis of his own. + Show Spoiler + On December 20 2012 10:47 Spaghetticus wrote: @Threesr Please leave the attitude at the door. By making things personal you are bringing out people’s emotions, when what we need is reason. When OMGUS votes are cast something is going wrong for town, the fact that you are causal to the OMGUS means your activity is hindering town. Please keep things civil and impersonal, and rather than address only comments made at you, please do your best to develop cases that are not immediate to your survival. If you contribute to town, you will be valued and your chances of getting lynched go down, more so than the knee-jerk slinging of mud has got you by far. Also, with your votes, you are flipping around so much that any case you do make seems like only a distraction until some new and shiny muckup catches your eye. If your vote is just a means of applying pressure (which my town hypothesis of you would indicate), then it’s better for you to stick to a person and pressure the shit out of them, than to switch willy-nilly, as people start to disregard your vote, knowing it will soon change. More lecturing of other players, more complete absense of analysis. On December 20 2012 10:55 Spaghetticus wrote: My internet is about to get shut off for an unspecified amount of time. I'm gonna go through filters and try to have a case for when it comes back on. Promises a case, never makes one. + Show Spoiler + On December 20 2012 12:02 Spaghetticus wrote: Internet back up, quicker than expected :D Chromatically I strongly disagree, I think the approach of Shz is great. I disagree with his conclusions, but the approach is immensely valuable, and I will likely be voting in line with this approach. I've said it twice and I'll say it again, this is not a game of certainty, and our first lynch is more likely to come up town. If anyone is having confidence in their reads of over 40% they are either prodigal or misguided. We should not only expect a town lynch, we should prepare for one. All this posturing is setting up for day two when the real game begins. More noise. He's trying to pass day one off as useless. + Show Spoiler + On December 20 2012 12:05 Spaghetticus wrote: @Corazon Any and all of your assertions that head/scum hunting is bad are wrong. It is cool that you have struck out to find your own understanding of the game, but at this point we really need some information, and the only way to get that is scumhunting. There are plenty of resources on this site that will tell you why scumhunting is protown, I shouldn’t need to convince you by way of this thread. You have made several slips that could be construed as scum behaviour. I do discount this evidence entirely as I do not believe Freudian slips to be of much substance. While it is unfortunate for you (and town if you are town) that this has happened, as some people are easily swayed by this type of evidence, I implore you to not let it affect your utility to the town by causing you to go defence mode. Rather, pick your best read, and stick to them like a limpet. Also proof read your posts just to make sure it doesn’t happen again. What I told Threest in regard to OMGUS is equally relevant to you if not more, as (don’t quote me on this) your OMGUS was more explicit. Your vote is not a bargaining chip, it is a tool for pressuring and lynching. Your idea that lynching useless town is better than lynching useful town does hold some merit, but honestly it shouldn’t influence the equation that much. I just finished reading your filter and your posts are all stuck in the past addressing Threesr, please bring some more up to date content to the table. More lecturing of other players, more complete absense of analysis. On December 20 2012 12:06 Spaghetticus wrote: @OmniEulogy Your contribution has been almost entirely limited to the Threesr/Corazon debacle. This is not an untapped vein to begin with, regardless of where your vote lies, please contribute elsewhere. You mentioned being suspicious of FC? More lecturing of other players, more complete absense of analysis. I'm getting tired of copy and pasting this by now. On December 20 2012 12:17 Spaghetticus wrote: @Orangeremi Do you still believe it is not beneficial for mafia to lurk? You shouldn’t, as you’d be wrong. As I have done before, I would point you to the resources available on this topic on this very forum. Lurking bad. Speaking of which, you still only have a one page filter. Admittedly my filter is only two pages, but your one page only has 1-2 posts of any substance. Step up if you’re town, continue to stagnate if you’re scum. Do I even need to repeat myself again? On December 20 2012 12:20 Spaghetticus wrote: @Sylencia I have not yet read your filter yet but you need to step up now as you have very little time left before you need to vote. You are actually a mildly scummy read for me in that the only real information I have on you is that you have claimed a legitimate reason to lurk. You will need to put a lot of effort in if you want your words to stay strong in your absence. Okay, this is still more lecturing and this is getting ridiculous. And then a huge block of lecuring of other players for good measure, while contributing nothing himself. + Show Spoiler + On December 20 2012 12:31 Spaghetticus wrote: @Kickstart I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear, though you were you for an update anyway XD I asked you because you've played the most games, how are the players in the current game acting in comparison to when you've played with them before? I assume you've run into at least one in your travels? This is at least a question. It's still not particularly constructive though. + Show Spoiler + On December 20 2012 13:26 Spaghetticus wrote: @Chrom I have absolutely zero problem currently with the way you conduct yourself. Your approach is direct, and simple. I begin to suspect they are a little forced, as I can't imagine anyone that is this selective in the data they choose to interpret wanting to play a ridiculously complex game like mafia, but for now you serve a purpose (that sounds more cold than I mean it ). I would normally brush your commentary aside, but I feel that while I have been very active, I have given next to nothing on my actual perspective. So that you have a standard to later judge my actions by, I will respond. "I dislike your post saying that we should "expect a town lynch". Good towns can find scum d1. Good players can be correct in their reads with over "40%" certainty. Your post reads like you're not going to even try to find scum." Assuming you are town, you should start the game with a neutral 25% suspicion of everyone (you are the 13th player). Through day one, people will pave the way with false bravado and bluster, but ultimately, day one only serves to identify the people you are playing with. I now have a feel for your styles, an have limited information about what you can and cannot do without bringing the scumhunt to your door. There is incredibly little actually being done, and evidence is inconclusive. I admit, I don't know the actual statistics, but I assume the chances of lynching scum on day one is 25% or less. I believe the inputs for this equation are actually very complex, but I'll try and simplify and communicate the little I do understand. You posit that 'good' town can find scum d1. This is true, and that should be a focus, but this is unlikely to happen because: 1) - Good scum are approximately equally as abundant good town. For every master inspector there is an escape artist. Your argument from town competency is counteracted. 2) - The scum are manipulating our vote. Three informed votes have a lot of sway in the uninformed majority. As I hope to have adequately expressed above, it is actually incredibly optimistic to expect a day one scum lynch. On top of this, any scum lynches could be the result of an early bus, which leaves the scum with all the cards. I expect the number of successful scum lynches that do not involve some more advanced mafia play are even less than the 20-25% mentioned earlier. Mafia, much like starcraft, is a game with phases. I play macrozerg, I win with broodlord infestor. Trying to 6pool out a win on day one is not my style. Some more rambling about his views on day one prospects. Still bloody useless in terms of contributing to finding scum. + Show Spoiler + On December 20 2012 13:34 Spaghetticus wrote: @Corazon The information is there for the reading. Please don't surrender if you are town, the voting is inconclusive. People have been pressuring with their votes all day, the only difference here is that they all decided to do it to the same person. Sheeping this hard this early is crazy and almost certainly scum manipulation. Despite your play being scummy, I would prefer someone else get the lynch just so that the sheeple will stop being so lazy and keep making cases. That a supposed majority have settled on one person this early is IMO retarded, people need to throw down the hivemind mentality. More lecturing, containing this gem: Despite your play being scummy, I would prefer someone else get the lynch just so that the sheeple will stop being so lazy and keep making cases? You must be joking. Spag has still not made anything even resembling a case. On December 20 2012 16:49 Spaghetticus wrote: I am writing up a defense of Corazon ATM. It's long, and complex. I expect people to put in the effort to read it, as I am spending a good amount of time writing it. We still have 15 hours or so (I think) before lynching, let's make them count! I would have preferred to write a case on someone but I think it's more important at this moment to get town back to actively scum hunting. So Spag thinks that the best way to get town back to scumhunting is to defend someone under pressure, not make a case himself? Words fail me. Then the defence of Corazon, I can't be bothered quoting it. Suffice it to say that it's still not scumhunting. While I agree that we shouldn't lock in votes on Corazon just yet, there's stuff to be learned from watching reactions to it. It's as good a topic for discussion as any. Spag's whole "I'm defending Corazon but still happy to vote for him" BS is a classic scum move too - keeping his options open for new developments so he doesn't have to contradict himself later. I'm not saying that town would never do this, but it's pretty damn scummy. + Show Spoiler + On December 20 2012 19:27 Spaghetticus wrote: how long until lynching? I need to plan logistics. @Mocsta My read on Threesr mirror's Kickstart's, though I by no means condone Kickstart's lurking (still one page filter!?). The battle between Threesr and Conazon reminds me of my only other game. Both Kush and WeeTee were conspicuously weak players and everyone was gunning them down. I launched a defense similar to the one I just threw out, and while WeeTee got lynched (innocent), Kush (also innocent) managed to stay alive and we had scum gg after the second night. People that are new read too far into other noob's actions, it's a complex element that people in higher level games don't need to worry about as much. While I am not saying that there is absolutely zero chance of these players being scum, I think that the information available points to them just being bad town. With Threesr, it's the fact he's been modkilled for lurking that gives me the feeling his obnoxious internet persona is not a skilfully crafted scumshield. On top of me actually thinking neither of them scum, I also think it's best for the town if we talk about other people regardless of their level of guilt, as if either of them is scum they are almost certainly a weak one, and not likely to stay off our radar for long. We waste time talking about points that have already been said, both players have been drilled to death. My inclination is to believe that the lurkers hold at least 1-2 mafia, as they have had no reason to step up because Threesr and Corazon have been taking all the heat. By being complacent and lazily voting for the conspicuous, we have let too many people fade into the background. And he's STILL telling everyone else to discuss and give reads while offering none of his own. This has gone far enough. Now, Spag has said that he prefers to build up to a case with his notes, and then drop it all at once. Fair enough, so do I. However, let's quickly check out his previous game, Newbie XXV, where he was town: + Show Spoiler + On August 24 2012 12:34 Spaghetticus wrote: This is a repost of my case against Shady Sands. I hope I'm using the tags correctly now... As I will probably be unable to respond to any criticism immediately for the next 10.5 hours, it would be lovely if any comments directed at me could be made quite salient. I'll be tired when I get home and deciphering pages and pages of text can be difficult without cues. @Kush So in the few hours this game has been running I have somehow managed to both bandwagon and lurk? This seems brash considering how tentative you have seemed to want to be so far. I have not bandwagoned. The extent of my contribution is having agreed with Scrawn's lurker policy, but also criticised it for being too conservative. I haven't had time to lurk, as afore mentioned I am a busy person who does not have time to sit on this thread all day and respond in real time to every comment. There is also very little to go on at the moment, just because I am not pretending to contribute does not mean that I am not going to actually contribute as soon as I have something to say. Now looky here... I do have something to say! I think Scrawn is doing a good job as town, this certainly does not mean he is beyond suspicion, but he has been fairly reasonable up until now. I do however, disagree with Lvdr's assessment of Shady Sands. He has been very critical so far, but nothing he has said comes to mind as particularly proactive (I'll eat my word if he can give me a counter-example). In particular, his critique of Lvdr's comment: filter On August 24 2012 08:54 Lvdr wrote: He said: This seems like empty criticism, as he almost seems to deliberately misinterpret the statement in order to give himself something to say. If Lvdr thinks we should lynch lurkers, but not give up actively scumhunting in order to do this, then it does not at all seem that he is suggesting these two things are mutually exclusive. Yet this is what Shady seems to suggest. Furthermore, Lvdr has played with Shady before, and claims that Shady should by now have an idea of Lvdr's policy preference. Soon afterwards, he had the following criticism of Fubu's post: On August 24 2012 06:30 mkfuba07 wrote: He wrote: This is an accurate criticism, but not particularly useful. IMO (and fubu feel free to step in and correct me) Fubu's post was poorly written and he mistakenly made his both a descriptive and prescriptive assertion: that we will all look for scum during the day and the night and that we should all look for scum in the day and the night. If my interpretation is correct, then this is a completely understandable mistake and speaks extremely little of some scummy motivation he may or may not have. So far I have shown you two examples of what I believe are needlessly critical posts, that is: posts that are needlessly skeptical of things that will not help us catch scum. Now, as WeeTe has already mentioned, posting lots is generally attributed to town behaviour. However, posting lots of unproductive criticism seems like the sort of thing a scum would do to look like town but not contribute to the lynching of scum. FoS Shady Sands I would like to note that I am the first person to my knowledge that is acting against Shady, and IMO I am the first person to put up a decent reason to actually suspect anyone. I'm gonna get back to study, and I'll likely be unable to post for the next 11 hours, at which point I'll go through a read and post before heading to bed. This is his fourth post in XXV, just four hours in - and he's already contributing and getting some accusations and analysis out there. I'd encourage everyone to read through some of his XXV filter and think about whether his play here is anything like his play there, or indeed anywhere near as worthwhile from a town perspective. tl;dr: Spag isn't taking a firm stance on anything and isn't scumhunting at all. Other people are doing the same, but there are two major differences: - Spag has posted a lot. While the lurkers worry me, the point of threatening to lynch lurkers is that they are then obliged to post, and scum will have to post useless things... like Spag is. The sheer quantity of his posts while saying nothing of worth is the clincher here. - Spag was constructive very early in his last game as town. ##Vote: Spaghetticus I'm not messing around with pressure votes anymore, this is a vote with intent to lynch. All aboard! @Everyone: If you're not on this wagon you'd better have a really good reason why. | ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
1) I have a better scum read. 2) I think he's looking for scum. Inexpertly, perhaps; but in between defending himself there are hints of genuine searching for scum. He'd be sheeping the Threesr case/general suspicion if he'd posted a rehashed case or voted him. In fact, Corazon tried to pressure Threesr. Not the same thing at all. Like I said earlier, I want to see more hunting from Corazon. I'm certainly not convinced that he isn't scum. | ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
| ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On December 20 2012 21:20 Spaghetticus wrote: My first issue is that you say I have done nothing useful. This is false. My contribution is substantial, you have just turned a blind eye to the benefits the town has wrought. I have not accused a single soul, and for good reason. People that are pressured say stupid things, that are misinterpreted by an overeager inquisition. I am more interested in observing the flow of the game until I feel I can make a solid case that will actually change minds, than in beating a horse beyond death. I quite agree with the last sentence here. However, there is nothing to be gained from discussing policy forever. That just allows helpful scum to "contribute" without committing themselves to anything, which is what you have been doing. When I tell people to ignore the list, I am telling you that my contribution will be substantial with or without the lists. And if your contribution had been, I wouldn't have brought it up. I try to keep people active without making them defensive (see how that worked out for Threesr and Corazon?). Indeed I do. Pressuring Threesr and Corazon, while it made them panic a little, did give us a better town atmosphere in which to hunt scum. It made your lack of constructive contribution more obvious. a scum Spag also does not make sense with your predefined expectations. A scum Spag would do everything in his power to appear useful while hindering town. I have gone out of my way to help town in ways that are not directly measurable. Have I even tried to sway the vote of anyone other than away from Threesr and Corazon? You HAVE done anything in your power to appear useful while hindering town by clogging up the thread with your supportive but worthless posts. Hypothesizing that Threesr and Corazon are town, as scum you would have a very good reason to defend them: one of them will probably be lynched, and you'll get town points for supporting them. And having got repeated town reads from other people for being nice and helpful, why wouldn't you continue? Now look, I'm not saying we should all be aggressive, pressuring machines making everyone's life here painful. I'm playing this way because someone has to, so that we have material to read. That said, if you are town you should have had some kind of analysis built up, even if you didn't post it, right? You proved you were capable of it in XXV... Apparently not. From the time of my case it took three hours for you to build anything resembling a case, and it's not even like you voted for Omni with it. If you were town, I'd have expected you to have some analysis you'd been doing for the last day and a half (you said you had notes, right?), and post it to prove you'd been doing something useful. Instead, you had to go and make an unconvincing case from scratch. A player who's not even been looking for scum privately IS NOT TOWN. | ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On No-Lynching If we no-lynch, we lose a productive town player overnight. We may obtain a useful cop check, but the odds aren't high, and that's the only thing we could possibly gain. We could lose a PR, too. If we lynch, we may lose a second town player in addition. However, they will be a town player who is playing in an unproductive way. However, we stand to gain a lot more than we lose if we lynch scum. And finally: A lynch is the only time scum are absolutely forced to commit to something. Votes at lynch are the biggest undisputable facts in the game. If we no-lynch we lose this information. Setup Speculation On December 20 2012 23:49 Mocsta wrote: Actually.. I think this is a very clever play. The dust needs to settle and votes need to be given the consideration they deserve. @Threesr: I also think that this is an extremely ironic statement given your pedigree this game. Now that I have read the thread. + Show Spoiler + I want to congratulate Mafia today. They have really stepped it up a notch in the second 24hr period. I have read the thread sporadically today, but topics and votes have changed significantly between p24 and p27 etc. This is exactly the type of confusion mafia need from us to survive. (i.e. have 2 or 3 ppl on the block, so they can spread their votes to hide identity). I am also surprised strong contributors from the 1st 24hrs have subsided in the second period. The last thing is: I re-read the OP for roles. + Show Spoiler + Out of the 13 roles, the default types of roles is 8 good guys, and (4+1) bad guys (1 = SK). I have not played this game before, but I am guessing the ratio may be balanced... i.e. 8 townies to 5 mafia. if we allow variance, it may be 9 townies and 4 mafia. (10/3 sounds way too skewed for town) My point is: I think there is 4 mafia this game. (Chance of 4 + 1 SK, still equates to 4 mafia) I am off to building a case. Rembember, scum have the two huge advantages of getting a kill on town every night, and knowing who one another are. 9-4 would be ridiculously mafia favoured. If you do the math, if town lynch randomly I believe 10-3 has a very large chance of scum win. (I know it's something like 70% in a 7-2 setup). If town has really weak PRs, 11-2 or 10-2-1 is even conceivable (check out C9++ for a sample of a 13-player setup). There's no guarantee, at all, that all of the roles in the OP are present. On Spaghetticus: @Corazon: I feel like this is the best course of action right now. Why don't you guys search for someone who is good at hiding their true and pick out their post instead of trying to lynch the noobs Day 1. Spaghetticus is not a newb. In fact, he's one of the more experienced players in this game. And he has indeed successfully hidden his true colours by appearing useful. So using your brain automatically makes you mafia? You have been posting rationally with your last couple of posts, does that make you Mafia. If you think he hasn't suspected anyone, read his long post in my defense. He said that I was still probably Mafia, but that you guys should not pursue me Day 1, as there were better Mafia players hidden in the shadows that you should have tried to confront to prevent them from having a bigger influence on the game. Using your brain does not make you mafia and it does not make you town. Using your brain in pursuit of mafia makes you town. And I did read his post. If he thought there are better Mafia players hiding, he should confront them himself. This is in fact exactly what I meant: he's telling everyone else to attack, pressure, make cases, etc. but not committing to any of them himself. So no one has said anything useful at all? Then why am I on the chopping block? Are you guys admitting that there is no good reason that I'm up here? (Disregard this if that post was in the quoted one, I wasn't sure). Well, you did scumslip pretty hard. And you've misinterpreted me a bit: at the time Spag made this post no-one had said anything useful. He has developed a theory of town and scum. It is day 1, you're not going to catch all of the scum in Day 1. He doesn't want to be the only one making reads, which since then most of us have made reads. You're just wrong. He made NO scum reads prior to my case. Why are you analyzing his first posts. This was before you started head hunting and turned this into the French Revolution, so I believe noting who has not posted is not a useless thing to do, and could definitely be a town action in my eyes. I agree, it's not useless. But it's an easy thing for scum to do convincingly. I don't argue that everything he's said is scummy, I argue that nothing he's said is particularly town. @Shz: 1. We should not assume someone is playing bad or good because of information from sources outside this game. I don't think this is very worthy of discussion. For all we know everybody could be a smurf, played with a smurf before, or just played somewhere else. Don't assume anything, look at their actions in this game. I agree partially with this. I don't assume that people without games on this site on this profile are inexperienced. I do assume that people with previous games on this profile on this site ACTUALLY PLAYED THOSE GAMES. And Spag demonstrated in the previous game which he played that he is capable of analysis and hunting, and has done neither this game. While I agree that Spaghetti is possible scum, the argument that rational posts = scum is dumb. I never argued this. I argue that rational posts does NOT equal town, and that there is good reason to think that Spag is scum. | ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
I don't argue that everything he's said is scummy, I argue that nothing he's said is particularly town. ... and given his volume of play and his experience, he SHOULD have said towny things by now. Also, one more thing: Defending people who are town, even if it's you, is a thing you can EXPECT mafia to do. It's called white-knighting and it's a common ploy to gain trust both from the person you protect and the rest of the town if and when they flip. | ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On December 21 2012 04:03 FatChunk wrote: ... Spag - I felt I should elaborate on this one since he's getting lynched tonight. While I agree that he has not shared a lot of his own analysis, neither have a lot of people. Also, he mentions that his analysis is in the background and will present findings as they arise. If he is not lying, this could be very useful to town. He has at least been active in trying to promote discussion, and defending people under pressure comes as a sideaffect of good judgement and rational thinking, something I respect. While I don't clear him completely of being mafia, I think it is more than likely he is town and we gain nothing from voting out Spag. Spag has in fact promoted very little useful discussion. He keeps telling other people to post constructively, while not doing so himself. The best way to promote a good atmosphere is to lead by example. Again, I think that if he in fact had been doing analysis he'd have been able to post a better case than he did in far less time. I respect his judgement and rational thinking, too - I just wish he hadn't rolled scum so we wouldn't have to lynch him. | ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On December 21 2012 05:57 Chromatically wrote: @Kick/Aqua FatChunk. Go. This is gonna have to be brief. He certainly hasn't posted a whole lot. While that's a problem, and if he's town I want to see it rectified day two, it makes me less confident of a read on him. Spag's sheer quantity of posts without any pressure or committment is the elephant in the room. In what posts he has made, FC did justify his vote on Threesr a little bit: ... Threesr did a good job of contradicting views regarding lurking, diverting town chat paths, and the town seems to be talking a little bit but we are dancing around constructive discussion (not to mention the fact that Threesr has been quite inactive recently). Perhaps this is scum behaviour. ... And he did proceed to pressure Threesr some more (insofar as that's possible with <10 posts). Threesr is a very easy target and FC hasn't done anything huge so far, but I can believe this from a newbie town. Which is not to say I have any confidence in his towniness, he just hasn't contributed enough. tl;dr: FC is more inexperienced, has posted less in general, but attemped to look for scum a little. Spag has more experience, has posted more and demonstrated a fair bit of knowledge, but has not looked for scum. | ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
Being a nice guy doesn't make Spag town. | ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On December 21 2012 08:30 Spaghetticus wrote: - Aquanim I expect Aquanim to come under considerable pressure when I flip town, as he should. I did not have any read on him before, though I am scared of the possibility he is scum and masterstroked me from full health to zero in one hit. He's quite right here, starting a case on a (now) confirmed town should bring pressure in my direction. All I can really say is that I was as genuinely convinced by my case as the other townies on the wagon. I'd welcome any questions if you have them. I'll have to think for a while about how the lynch and the start of the night went down. | ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On December 21 2012 13:26 cDgCorazon wrote: While this is a good way to start discussion, I feel like less dramatic measures could have been taken, so overall, I really think he should have done that better instead of automatically coming to the conclusion that I should be lynched. I'ma gonna clarify this right now. My first vote, for you, was NOT a decision that I wanted to lynch you. That would be ridiculous based on three pages of play. That vote was an indication to you that your posting to date was not satisfactory. If you had continued to post like that, or reacted in a way that was clearly scummy, that would have become a vote with intent to lynch. Instead, you reacted well enough that I didn't want to lynch you day one. I don't have an updated read on you yet, haven't read the thread real thoroughly. | ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
Do you think overall your approach was a success? I didn't do anything I regret (except for the end result, obviously), but if both Spaghetticus and I had been available for three hours before lynch we might have made a lot more of the day. If we'd had a more serious second case going that would have been preferable, but obviously I can't drive two wagons at once. Did Spaghetticus stick out like a sore thumb to you; or do you think you were lured towards his path? Well, most people had town reads on him, so I don't think anyone lured me there. Like I said, the combination of his large volume of posts and his small amount of hunting was what grabbed me. Speaking of which, I think everyone should take a look at their town reads and think "is this person's contribution helping us to find scum?". For me that's easy: I don't have any meaningful town reads. | ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
| ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
| ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On December 22 2012 00:35 cDgCorazon wrote: @Aqua On the issue of voting me without really meaning it: What did a vote do that a FOS would not have done? Did you need to react that hasty? There were other measure you could have come back to. I think that a FoS is pretty much worthless. A vote commits you a lot more, and if everybody commits to things scum have to make mistakes. | ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
| ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
| ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
| ||
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On December 22 2012 07:49 cDgCorazon wrote: I would also like to see your thoughts on Aqua's accusations on Omni. Right now it seems like you are not looking at the big picture, and are only seeing possible cases about people who are accusing you. Uh... that case was made by Chromatic. | ||
| ||