We are one but we are many
Newbie Mini Mafia III
Forum Index > TL Mafia |
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
We are one but we are many | ||
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
They will swing from the gallows. They will swing from the lamposts. They will swing from the slightly elevated mayor's office; and we will never surrender! For one, for all. BROMANCIPATION! | ||
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
Just letting everyone know that both Jitsu and I (Probulous) have played here before. You can check out our profiles for the details if you want. We are sharing this account because of our oh so busy lives. Have no fear, we will be active and will be participating. Finally, I tend to spam, so in an effort to not swamp the thread with crap, I will be actively controlling the number of posts that come from me. I am getting it out of my system now. /Probulous "The nectar of freedom tastes like awesomeness"-someone wise | ||
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
| ||
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
On January 25 2012 09:04 jaj22 wrote: Everyone's going to think you're scum because of your drastic style change. [checks player list for Gonzaw] I'll be PMing for the ObsQT tomorrow, assuming that there is one. Oh that's mean! <3 Gonz! People can be stupid if they want. I could care less if they think I'm scum because I'm not spamming. Stupidity begs to be ignored. Besides once Jitsu arrives that reasoning makes no sense. He doesn't spam at all so the bromance is not changing style, merely choosing. | ||
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
On January 25 2012 13:28 zarepath wrote: So, the first question I think has to be this: What do we want to accomplish on Day 1? We either no-lynch or randomly lynch, as far as I can tell. We don't have much game history to draw upon as far as deciding who to cut early. I see several possible outcomes: Randomly lynch a mafia/red: This is clearly the best possible outcome. If we have worthwhile hunches to go on, it's possible we can lynch a mafia on the first Day. From what I've read it's unlikely, but still possible; it all depends on what kind of discussion we see today. Randomly lynch a townie/blue: Bad. The only upside is that we can then use the information from that lynching to determine likely mafia. Who was most excited about randomly lynching that particular person? Who bandwagonned on? Who were the last few votes who made the lynch possible? No-lynch: We don't get a mafia, or confirmation of who isn't mafia. Because there's no risk of lynching a townie/blue, this seems to be very safe. But what I wonder is this: if we don't lynch anyone today, our information for Day 2 is limited, and we give the mafia a night to kill someone. We end up with 1 dead townie before we're willing to make deductions. Maybe it's riskier to not lynch someone on the first night, because we'd have less information to go on. So what I'm suggesting is this: we lynch someone randomly. Say, by reverse-alphabetical order. There's no reason at all for us to suspect this person. But by deciding to lynch them, we'll either see a lot of defense (ie, they're mafia), or a lot of people agreeing with killing that person (ie, those people are mafia.) Once that person flips blue or red, we'll know who was who. TLDR; I suggest that we randomly lynch zelblade, or seriously discuss it, and see what happens from there. Gentlemen, First post and we are already talking about Random Lynches. I am definitely not a fan of it. Part of lynches, even if it's a miss-lynch, is that it still has the possibility of giving you information. Every little detail can give you information. I will not endorse a random lynch, especially so early in the game. + Show Spoiler + On January 25 2012 14:05 MidnightGladius wrote: And we're off! I'm looking forward to an exciting and educating game. I'd like to begin Day 1 with earnest and open discussion, with high activity and clear lines of reasoning. My style of scumhunting is to use Bayesian inference on evidence derived from the character and reasoning of peoples' posts. The base rate of being mafia is 4/13. Considering that I can confirm myself as innocent, the chance of anyone else being mafia, a priori, is 1/3. The probability distribution will change as people post and reveal their motivations, until I'm willing to lynch someone on even odds or better. Regardless, in the interests of objectivity, it is important to keep in mind the base rate, the false positive rate, and the true positive rate. Any statement can be made by either an innocent or a mafia, and the prior rate is fairly low. Thus, it is important to isolate statements that exclusively mafia would make, or at least to find examples of reasoning that lean towards indicating mafia motivations. This way, we can try to prevent suffering from confirmation bias and scumhunt more effectively. On the topic of zarepath's proposal, I find it alarming. Lynching randomly has a 1/3 chance of success, which is far too low for me to support. Your reasoning, especially, suffers from confirmation bias. In response to this plan, anyone can either a) support the lynch, b) argue against the lynch, and c) say nothing. Since saying nothing leads to modkills, we can eliminate the case. Supporting the lynch, in your argument, is evidence of being mafia. However, you claim that arguing against the lynch is also evidence of being mafia. That is inconsistent, unless you would like to claim which case is more indicative of being mafia. To continue, the "random" process used to select zelblade is also odd. Why not use either an entirely random process (RNG), or one that is motivated by initial evidence (on the basis of inactivity or level of contribution)? In conclusion, I have to defer my support for zarepath's proposal, and I am also inclined to raise suspicions towards him. His plan has a low probability of success, and his procedure for deriving information from ensuing discussion is flawed with confirmation bias. Could we instead opt to lynch on the basis of inactivity and low levels of contribution? The odds are no worse than a random selection, so long as everyone is participating properly, and this encourages the generation of more useful information than zarepath's choice of testimony would. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, because it's really not clear in anyway. You're talking about Bayesian inference, and yet, i'm quite sure a small majority of this game would even know what that is, let alone understand how it works. You don't even bother to explain it - you just continue on describing the in's and out's how the Theory works. But at the end of it all, it comes down to the "importance of isolating statements mafia would make," which is what happens in pretty much every mafia game. So instead of having you fall into you're own confirmation bias, are you going to let go of you're statistics theory and play the game? If you want to scum hunt more effectively, be my guest, but don't take two paragraphs describing a system of mathematical reasoning that the majority of this game probably don't understand. It amounts to nothing. You want you're reads, you're analysis, and everything you have, to be 100% clear, transparent, and easy to read for everyone to see in the thread. Trying to confuse people Day 1 and fog up everyone's view about how you are going to hunt scum isn't the way of going about it. With all that being said, on to my personal ideas about lynch targets this early. I don't think a random lynch, as I stated before, to be anything good. Information can be gleaned even from a miss-lynch. As for lynching lurkers/inactive players, it is also not effective in aiding us. What do we gain from killing a lurker? I see little gain coming from it, except with the off-chance that they flip red. I'd much rather use logical reasoning to determine who would should hang Day 1, and there is still plenty of time to do just that. | ||
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
I would really like to see FakePromise get back in here. The point (I say point, because he has only one post in this game) is very valid. Things that did catch my eye is his apparent "don't care" attutude about whether the lynch is successful or not. "seems good to me." Seems good to you? I see. Get back here in defend yourself. You are already on the chopping block. On January 25 2012 15:15 MidnightGladius wrote: I'm sorry if my first post came across as unhelpful, but I want to establish first principles before getting down to the nitty-gritty. I'll try to be more clear and direct. In simpler terms, players who suggest courses of action that hurt the town's chances are suspicious, as innocents should never be making these kinds of proposals unless they have much more information than they're letting on. As it's Day 1, this is clearly impossible, so I look askance at zarepath and FakePromise, who both advocate a plan with very low expected value. The other part of my methods take a bit longer to develop, as I need to see more posts before picking up any trends. Scummy behavior is such that it betrays access to hidden information, and then does not adjust accordingly as information is made public to the town. Players who behave in this way are either not updating their beliefs properly (tunnel-vision, confirmation bias, or ignorance are common causes), or updating them according to hidden information (perhaps a blue investigative role, but overwhelmingly likely to be mafia). Does that explain my position more clearly? As for the second part of you're methods. If i'm reading it right (and I would like to think that I am, since I've read it three times now) says that players who "betray access to hidden information, and then do not adjust accordingly as information is made public to the town" is scummy behavior. So, if a Detective in this game finds someone that's Mafia, do you think he should out himself as soon as possible and tell everyone what he's found? Or should he betray the town of this information? That in combination with you're voting makes me worried: On January 25 2012 15:24 MidnightGladius wrote: With regards to your lynch proposal, I don't agree with not pressuring lurking/inactive players with the threat of a first-day lynch. Truly non-participating players can be excluded from analysis due to modkilling, and it stands to reason that more posting of positions will increase the sample size of data. Makes sense. You don't want to pressure vote on lurkers. I don't know why, but it's you're opinion. If you want the lurkers to stay lurking, that's all well and good, but it doesn't contribute anything to a town atmosphere. Yet, with you're very first vote of the game, you contradict yourself and vote on someone who has a grand total of one post, and even at that, it's one line. I would still classify that as lurking, and you vote for him. And beyond that, you even SAY that you are going to want to hear him defend himself, and he has more than enough time to defend himself. That tells me you are pretty non-committal in ACTUALLY voting to lynch him. Tell me this also - would you bet on you're life that he is mafia? | ||
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
On January 26 2012 12:21 Jitsu wrote: Actually, it's not a random lynching. You laid out that there was a 30% chance of getting a Mafia. Explain why you decided to endorse it. Trying to backtrack now is a terrible idea. Right now, you dug yourself a hole with your reasoning behind the random lynch, and now you are trying to Counter Attack Sacred for catching wind of it. This was me. Sorry Qatol/Dreamflower. On January 26 2012 12:25 MidnightGladius wrote: EBWOP: I see that I've been ninja'd again. This and the quoted posts are responses to Bromancipate. While I'm here, I'd like to ask you about your views on the other players. At this point, your somewhat mishandled aggression towards me is starting to make me suspicious of your own motives. So, because I've shown aggression towards you're posting, that makes you suspicious of my motives? How is it mishandled? I don't see it as mishandled at all - infact, what you are doing is generally referred to as "Oh My God U Suck," where you get upset about a player putting aggression on you and try to throw suspicion back on them. I just read you're post again. It's pretty easy to read. It doesn't matter if it's in reference to another post, you said [and I will quote it again, for clarity]: On January 25 2012 15:24 MidnightGladius wrote: With regards to your lynch proposal, I don't agree with not pressuring lurking/inactive players with the threat of a first-day lynch. Truly non-participating players can be excluded from analysis due to modkilling, and it stands to reason that more posting of positions will increase the sample size of data.. You said, "I do not agree with pressuring lurking/inactive players with the thread of a first-day lynch." You're doing it right now. You voted a person with, at the time, one post, and expected him to come in and defend himself. That is the definition of pressure voting. Than you say "it stands to reason that more posting of positions will increase the sample size of data." I agree, you want have people to post so that we can get a better understand of their motives. So you do the only logical thing, for which you are preaching in this post as well as others...and use you're vote on a guy that has a whopping sample size of one post. Either you like to contradict yourself, or you are hiding something. Also, you never answered my second question. But, in light of clarity, you ask my position on other players, presumably to get me to stop looking at you. The latter won't happen, but the former will. I think Sacred is on to something. There is definite cohesive-ness going on between FakePromise and [zarepath?]. Not sure what it is yet, as FakePromise has JUST come back, but they are two definite players to continue to spy on. FakePromise jumped on that "random lynch" thing way too fast. Also, as said prior, zelblade doesn't look too shiny. I don't like how he is constantly trying to apologize, when there is nothing to really apologize for at the moment. In my experience, people who are too flaky to piss anyone off is trying to stay neutral for a reason. Everyone else is still gray, as there is only two pages of posts thus far, and still 24 hours left in the day. That being said, you make me curious. | ||
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
Ahhh, I missed the Not and read it wrong. It's worded extremely awkwardly. That also will clear up the second question I have for you. The question was based around the fact that I missed the Not, and you already answered my follow up question of "Now that he has posted, has you're opinion changed of him." He came back for a quick second, and than disappeared into the night again. He has yet to return, again. -.- I agree that voting him does add to the discussion, however, I don't necessarily agree that not posting aggressively at him is another way of doing it. I like the second way, and while pressure voting certainly has it's benefits, I think going after people in an aggressive stance is helpful as well. RE: Fake I don't like the OMGUS thing. It's just another thing to the fire. FakePromise, respond to my post, please. | ||
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
Actually, it's not a random lynching. You laid out that there was a 30% chance of getting a Mafia. Explain why you decided to endorse it. Trying to backtrack now is a terrible idea. Right now, you dug yourself a hole with your reasoning behind the random lynch, and now you are trying to Counter Attack Sacred for catching wind of it. | ||
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
I am heading off to class right now, and I should be back by the time the lynch occurs. If new circumstance arise by that time, I should have sufficient time to respond. | ||
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
Few things of note in my opinion. I agree with Adam in his most recent post. I will be posting my thoughts closer to the deadline. My reasoning for doing this: As it stands, we have still a few hours to decide to lynch. If I display my reads to the thread, the mafia has an equal opportunity to read it as well. Like Adam, I will wait closer to the deadline to post my reads. It provides less opportunity for mafia to make a strong hit target based on their current reads. RE: MG The reason I chose to play on a Hydra is because I have class, Monday Through Friday, all day. That alone isn't much reason to excuse inactivity. Beyond class, however, I am also in the process of moving out of my apartment that I am in, which was the deciding factor in sharing accounts. Due to the possibility of having unstable internet/actually moving, ect., I chose to play on a hydra. Probu is actually away with his ladyfriend, I believe, until this week, so i've been trying to stay as active as possible. Second, you come back to the miss-interpretation of a sentence, that I admitted I read wrong. For reference, go back and check Newbie Mafia II. I was doing the same thing with pressing constantly on a few players, not only to get reactions from them in particular, but from others as well. I find it odd you came back to this, again, after I already explained it was a oddly worded sentence. Maybe if you posted with more clarity, it would be easier to decipher what you are ACTUALLY trying to say. Beyond that, I think you're just upset that I called you out and put you in the spotlight. Hopefully Probu is coming back tomorrow, because i'm actually in the process of getting my EMT/Paramedic lisence from my local college, so as well as moving, by day will be booked mostly tomorrow. I can drop in a bit and comment here and there while i'm in between breaks. This all ok, slOosh? I'll be back at about ten of to post my reads. ~J | ||
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
I like the way he is trying to generate discussion. He is activily leading things in the town, however, he is also doing it at a time when the town is most vulernable (when the mafia has the power to use their kill power.) I don’t think this is any indication of scum play, quite the contrary. I feel that his overall desire to get communication rolling is one that can only benefit the town. The more posts that fill the thread, and the more the filter pages pile on, the more we have to dissect information and figure out the cancers in the town atmosphere. Secondly, he is actively calling out players in the thread for poor play and things that he feels is scum behavior. Getting on peoples cases is another thing indicative of good town atmosphere. I just wish his transparency in to why he wants people to post so much during the night phase was something that I could agree with. I feel that there is plenty of time to post, and the time to ask these questions would be when the day hits, and for him to tunnel people hard to get the information he desires. The most important thing that I bares interest is his ability to stop what he’s doing, step back for a second, and recalculate what is going on. Sometimes it’s beneficial to pressure, pressure, pressure, stop and wait, and then step back to recalculate relevant information. That alone would have gotten me a green feel, since mafia don’t require the need to stop what they are doing, step back, and think about their actions. They have the ability to continue to pressure because they are the informed minority – they know who is town and who isn’t. They don’t need to stop and think. Strongest Scum Read – zelblade I agree with what a lot of players were saying previously about him. He’s constantly apologetic, barely posting anything of substance, and just seems to be an absence member of the thread at this point. One of the first tasks for town players is to prove their innocence. He hasn’t even come to an inch of proving this point. Top that off with his bandwagon voting of FakePromise (fourth one to vote?) and I think he would be a pretty strong lynch candidate. However, since there is already considerable negative vibes towards zelblade, my other choice would be… Second Scum Read - Balt11t Someone go back and check his filter. It’s not extremely big. Of that, is there anything in there of substance? I can’t really find much. He’s also constantly apologizing for many things that come up negative towards him, and saying sorry for playing poorly. He seems altogether TOO apologetic, almost as much as Zelblade, and like he doesn’t want to step on any toes. In my opinion, people that are afraid to piss someone off aren’t trying to draw attention to themselves for a reason. I think his general apologetic nature, as well as his lack of making any real reads and pushing anything of substance. For someone who has been lurking these Mafia games for a long time, he seems to be doing a sight less than what he should be as someone dedicated to taking the fight to the mafia. I think a strong spotlight should be on him to step up his play in the second Day and try to find someone who is playing scum. I actually can’t pull anything out of his filter because there is a significant lack of anything there. -.- | ||
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
Adam has jumped up to my second most town read at the moment. I've watched him play in other games, such as Student Mafia, and it seems very similar to his play then, with better reads. + Show Spoiler + On January 30 2012 03:09 zelblade wrote: I didnt attack SS because he was an "easy targert", but because he keeps contradicting himself, dodges many of adams questions, and his posts are also difficult to understand. As for the coming out of lurking part, I really did have some IRL stuff come up, and I "came out of lurking" before the zarepath case appeared in the first place. Thus this point doesnt make sense and I really dont see what you mean by "stuff leading to me". Does this sound like a mafia bus to anyone else? I'm curious to how you shed the suspicion that was onto you already into the second day of the game when there was a good majority of people starting to want to hang you. Why were you so reluctant to switch to Zarepath until you realized that there was no way he was going to get out of being killed? Just strikes me as odd since you seem to have absolutly no opinions on the current game at all. He attacks zarepath for wanting to pressure the many lurkers at this point. I dont see how wanting to pressure lurkers is anti-town at all, yet SS simply jumps onto him, claiming that he is trying to mislead the investigation, being on a wild goose chase. Lurkers are bad for town, and they need to post. zarepath is trying to get them to post, yet SS seems to defend these lurkers by shooting down zarepath's post, allowing lurkers to lurk more, eventually adding more confusion for town. This really sounds like Chainsaw Defense to me, or, at least, the beginning of it. You're so reluctance to vote for Zarepath, until slOosh tells you directly to do it. On January 29 2012 13:50 DoYouHas wrote: + Show Spoiler + On January 29 2012 12:46 zarepath wrote: I don't have a lot of time tonight (or much of tomorrow) to address everything individually, but one of the biggest scum reads people are making on me is my plea to be DT'd. It's wrong to say that a townie would never request to be investigated. The only mislynch I could be 100% sure of is a lynch against myself. If I'm about to be voted off, of course I request that someone just wait and confirm I'm mafia before lynching me. I even noted that it would be a waste of an investigation, except that nobody seemed to believe me otherwise. It's a tool that could establish my innocence and save the town from a mislynch; it can also ascertain a mafia player, but as the guy up for vote, I'm going to selfishly suggest the one that keeps me in the game. People are also WIFOMing that that request somehow suggests that I'm a Godfather, trying to set up a wasted investigation. Let me respond with a WIFOM of my own: in a game with 9 and 4, I don't know how likely it is that mafia get a Godfather. Oh, and also this: no, I'm not a godfather, and not mafia, either. I'll do a better case-by-case response tomorrow afternoon/evening -- I am actually busier on weekends than during weekdays. Meanwhile I suggest an interrogation of anyone who hasn't contributed post-Night-1, like sloosh did last night. This is another opportunity for people to fly below the radar, and considering the rest of my defense isn't coming until tomorrow evening, it'll give us another data-font. "It's wrong to say that a townie would never request to be investigated." Actually it is absolutely right to say that a townie who thought it through would never ask to be rolechecked. The very possibility that a godfather is in the game means that an asked for rolecheck does not confirm innocence. It's a tool that would have failed to establish anything other than a wasted rolecheck. As for my suggestions that you are the godfather, they are not WIFOM. I based these comments on your posting, not on speculation about the setup. Even if we are in a setup with no godfather, it does not change that you have acted as I think a godfather would. Yet another defensive post with falsehoods. My case only grows stronger. I like what you have to say, DoYou, and you make a good point here. Although, I think there is something else to draw from this. Townie play lends itself to being as transparent as possible to everyone else. Seeming to have hidden agenda's and making everyone have trouble actually reading you're posts are two signs to me that someone isn't a townie player. So, this is the question I asked myself. Why would I want the Detective to waste his nightly check on a Town player? He gets a Townie check, which might also end up being the Godfather. Always a possibility. But beyond that, it also prevents the DT from finding a scum-player that night, because i'm asking the DT to confirm my role as a Townie. There really isn't any reason to do that. Good town play proves you're town in the thread. You don't need to verify with the DT. However, from a mafia standpoint, it does a number of things. Firstly, since Zarepath was already starting to drown, he could have thrown it out to prevent his other scumbuddies from being detected. Secondly, he could be the Godfather, and was trying to pull in the DT check to waste it, and "confirm" himself as a Townie. However, I think the most important thing to look at is the fact he asked the DT to do it How would the DT reveal his information to the thread? Unless he breadcrumbed and died, he would need to reveal himself, which only benefits one faction so early...the Mafia. Looking back on it with all the additional information that popped up, his desire to want to get checked keeps poking me in the arm. It's like putting a puzzle together and missing just two pieces...and BAM, there they are! They fell under the table! ##vote Zarepath | ||
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
My apologies to you all for making this more difficult than it had to be. I am reading the thread and will post something more concrete soon enough. Finally my upmost apologies to Jitsu who has been a trooper about this. If you want to give our hydra crap for not posting, blame me. He has done the best he could with the time he had. Thanks for listening. /Probulous | ||
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
Nice Vig shot by MG there. Not surprisingly I agree with Adam that it would have been better to claim near the day break but hopefully mafia cannot roleblock you. Alright, business time. Here are my reads. Town
Now to the important stuff SCUM SacredSystem Before I begin I would like to thank Adam in particular for providing a nice case on SS. This is by no means merely a copy of that, but I feel it appropriate to give credit where it is due. SS may not be a controversial target, but he has been vocal. My biggest concern with SS is his inconsistency and contradictory style. I am trying to avoid PBPA as I find them too long to read and prone to comfirmatory bias. Here is my summary of the filter of SacredSystem. He starts off by pointing out why random lynching is a bad idea and targets both Fake and Zare for supporting the idea. Then he straight up votes Fake promise. Fine you have to choose I have no problem with that. But when Cosmos points out that he goes from general suspicion to voting after the MG vote he blasts Cosmos with i was saying that we shouldnt make wild assumptions based on inconclusive logic traps, which many of you were doing also if you arnt saying anything, then dont say it He doesn’t refute what Cosmos was saying, he merely deflects it with a nice OMGUS. He doesn’t even try to explain what is wrong with what Cosmos says merely that he is making assumptions. Well, SS made the assumption that because Fake supported random lynching even with a 30% success rate he must be mafia. Balt pushes him further to explain and he asks “is fakepromise agreeing with a 30% success rate not logic enough for you”. Which is fine except that the reason SS gave was … Nothing. He was suspicious of Fake for the 30% thing but he never stated that was his reason for voting for him. Then he backtracks by stating i advised against making non conclusive accusations accusing fakepromise seems conclusive to me even though i probably should have waited This is daming for me. He is now taking back his reason for voting for Fakepromise. He has not explicitly stated his reasoning and when called out for it backtracks but doesn’t remove his vote. Then when zarepath (I know he was mafia but he was right) states “who's probably just a townie with bad arguments.” he flat out states that Fake IS mafia. He has provided no reasoning for his vote but is 100% certain that Fake was mafia. Why the change? Well others had started voting for Fake so he could keep pushing that wagon and get one of us lynched. Well this is all very suspicious but how does it fit with a mafia plan? Simple really, SS knew that Zarepath was mafia and knew that Fake was town. The random lynch thing was a nice way to cast suspicion on the townie proposing the idea and push for his lynch. He was being deliberately oblique and when called out for it, waves away the questions. He never actually stated his reasoning for his vote so he didn’t have to defend his logic. Then when others joined the wagon he could sit back and let MG and the rest of us push it along. But Brothers, what of Zarepath? SS made a lovely first post after the lynch. He doesn’t state anything about his decision to supply zero reasoning for lynching a townie, or to go after the other person who was supporting a random lynch, no instead he states if zarepath was mafia he would have know that fakepromise was town and it would have been very easy for him to justify killing of FP, so then why not kill him? Aside from the obvious WIFOM, huh? According to my reading Fake was mafia because he was in support of random lynching despite the odds. If that is the case why would you assume that the guy who proposed the idea is not mafia? Then he attacks zelblade for apologizing and not sufficiently proving his innocence. linky How is that mafia motivated? Maybe, just maybe, he actually is new and is having trouble proving his innocence. How have you proved your innocence? By no reason voting for a townie? Then he jumps on Chocolate for quietly suggesting that SS is mafia because he is being deliberately vague (ring a bell anyone?) and he attacks him for it. A townie would ask what was unclear and explain it. A mafia would deflect with a nice OMGUS. Now Chocolate’s post was weak, but the response from SS was typical mafia smokescreen. Then he goes back to zelblade being a noob and now Chocolate is mafia. His reason for Chocolate being mafia “now i think chocolate is mafia because hes labeling me as mafia and using confusing posts as his means of convincing everyone, even though he said my posts were concise, which points out a clear contridiction on chocolates logic”. No my friend, it does not. Your posts can be concise but provide no analysis, no clarity and be obvious attempts to deflect suspicion. In fact, it is probably easier if you don’t say much. Then Adam rightly calls out SS and he responds with this beauty and why wouldnt zarepath be suspicious of defending fakepromise you tell me why anyone would defend fakepromise Contrast this with his earlier post if zarepath was mafia he would have know that fakepromise was town and it would have been very easy for him to justify killing of FP, so then why not kill him? I will go on if people want me to but I am aware that this is becoming a wall of text. TLDR SacredSystem is mafia because he has been deliberately oblique and refuses to be clear about his reasons for voting for people. He has been contradictory throwing suspicion around with no analysis to back it up. When he has been called out for this he has responded with anger and not with explanation. ##Vote SacredSystem /Probulous | ||
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
I just got a PM from Qatol saying that my vote doesn't count. Doesn't change the fact that I want him lynched. | ||
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
On January 30 2012 14:38 slOosh wrote: Can you vote at night for the following day? If anything could you put it on Zelblade? I know some people mentioned that they don't think SacredSystem is scum. Like in the case of zarepath before, I would really like us to lynch one mafia at a time. I think we all agree zelblade is scum, and so as to avoid division and a no-lynch can we go for zelblade? In the meantime we can discuss SS since we have the time. I will take a closer look at zelblade. I am still trying to catch up on everyone's agenda here. SS just screamed mafia too me hence my case on him. I understand you wanting to consolidate lynch targets. My only caution is that this allows mafia to wagon the vote really easily. We had this in my last game where everyone (I mean everyone, including the lynch target himself) voted for Sheth. Now he turned out to be scum but the lynch gave us no info because there was no requirement to provide decent reasoning. So for now my target remains SacredScum but I will take a closer look at zelblade and come back to you. PS Jitsu is sleeping so I can't confirm what his thoughts were on zelblade. /Probulous | ||
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
I am heading home now everyone. I will try and jump back online in a few hours but I can't guarantee anything. Otherwise I will be on from about 4pm your time (I think, I am terrible with timezones). You know what to do, survive the night, lynch SacredScum. /Probulous | ||
Bromancipate
Oman52 Posts
I don't agree, I think zelblade is town and just has no credibility. He obviously opposed random lynching and then makes a nothing post about mafia KP. Sl0osh jumps on him for this and for saying "to town" which is not a case in my mind. I assumed at this point sl0osh was just presuring zelblade. Zelblade straight up explains his motivations. DYH points out that he hasn't provided his reads when in the spotlight but instead apologised. Well he explains this as his first game and then what does he do, he targets SS. He puts together a read and pushes it. Just like he was asked to do. Poor guy, he then gets blamed for deflecting attention from himself by doing exactly what he was asked to do. I don't know about Zelblade. Everything he has written has seemed geniune to me. Newb and scared of voicing his opinions sure, but when asked to provide his thoughts he did. Now people are attacking him for it. If you want a comparison, in Newbie II CatsnHats was labelled scum the whole game for exactly this behaviour. I was the only one then to stand up for him. Well he was town in the end and he was actively contributing by the final day. So with this in mind I will withold my judgement of Zelblade until I can speak with Jitsu and we can agree on our reads. It is in the spirit of transparency that I post my thoughts before consulting him. /Probulous | ||
| ||