/in
TL Mafia LII: JubJub Mafia
Forum Index > TL Mafia |
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
/in | ||
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
| ||
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
On March 07 2012 03:09 prplhz wrote: MORE JUBJUBS ... and those lazy hosts need to update the player list. | ||
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
| ||
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
| ||
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
| ||
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
I will be announcing to the thread who I decide to PM with when I do, and if someone adds me I will announce that as well. I think we should all partake in this practice | ||
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
On March 11 2012 14:07 DoctorHelvetica wrote: So if someone PMs you will you ignore it? Seems like an easy way to avoid pressure. PMs are better for town than they are for scum and if you're not scum you have nothing to be afraid of. In fact, talking to scum should be your first priority as town, why would you just want to PM other townies for?? No i just meant i wont be picking until day 2 or 3. I will respond and talk to anyone that picks me whenever. On March 11 2012 14:09 gumshoe wrote: I dont think we should have to announce who were pming, but I do think we should all say when we have at least two people who have decided to pm us. Why? Because I dont think everyone should be pming the one guy who we all think is a great townie, everyone should have 4 contacts ideally, that way the spread of information is even and we have a better chance to gain more information as opposed to having everyone pming one guy. Of course that is optional and I wont suggest that you announce who has decided to pm you, just tell us when you have two contacts so we can keep the spread of pm lines even. no. more transparency and more town information the better. Say who you are sharing PM's with | ||
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
| ||
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
On March 11 2012 14:50 DoctorHelvetica wrote: scum can already PM each other tbh i don't see any reason for scum to hide their PM targets if you can explain why that's something scum would want to do then you should explain how it's scummy if i see a good veteran pm a not so good newbie that will raise an alarm really quickly. | ||
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
On March 11 2012 15:36 EchelonTee wrote: gumshoe did better in that game than you mattchew -.- i wasnt in that game? and in the game you are refering to no he didn't | ||
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
What i want to know is who people were talking to outside of thread before they die. It seems very helpful to scum to not reveal who they are PM'ing and kill them off if they are suspicious of them and we don't want to hold them accountable for being in talks with them? | ||
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
On March 12 2012 04:06 layabout wrote: hmmm... it is pretty obvious and has been stated in part already. wait a minute vote mattchew unless somebody claims scum i am killing this guy lol my first game, and i was scum and i was pissed at the game | ||
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
On March 12 2012 05:43 Curu wrote: I wouldn't mind a jaybrundage lynch right about now. I would suggest everyone keeping at least 1 PM target unused for now so if we get a confirmed Townie we can set up a Town circlejerk. do you really think a town circle jerk can actually be pulled off | ||
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
On March 12 2012 07:09 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Caller is trolling, mafia shouldn't be that scared of me to push me day 1 for no reason because I often back off my correct reads if I get distracted. It's up to an individuals discretion whether or not they share who they are PMing with, policy lynching someone for not doing it is stupid. Also, town circles could be set up so that somebody can claim DT to someone they confirm and then use that person to broadcast their reads, or a tracker/watcher/etc. That can be useful. In that case the last thing you want is everyone saying who they are with. Jackal58 is being a bit silly with what Wiggles and people like that are saying. His point is that scum know who town is and because of that they can cut down any circles that arise that they aren't directly involved in themselves. Especially it would be dangerous for someone to say "i'm pming with A B C and D" and then later come out and say "I'm PMing the DT and..." when say, B and C are dead or something. It's up to an individual to share their PM targets or not. Gumshoe is posting a lot and very focused on town circles and such. For that reason, I'm voting for him. He has 2 pages of filter all completely disconnected from finding scum. The way you're probing Caller looks as though it would be helpful, but doesn't actually lead to anything. It's wishy washy, I feel like it's the kind of thing that scum would feel they can't ignore but don't want to commit to Caller if he's town. That'll satisfy me for now, it's pretty likely I'll come up with something better or that Gumshoe will just make himself look worse you clearly haven't played with gumshoe before | ||
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
On March 12 2012 08:03 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: These two pro-transparency posts lead me to ask you this - what do you think of Mattchew? Look at his filter, his one, concrete opinion is to share who you're PMing. Would this make him scum in your eyes. prplhz is my homeboy. coupled with the fact that matt's argument and suspicion has been idiotic thus far, I shall place an FOS on Mattchew. the only "idiotic" suspicion and argument has come from you sir | ||
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
| ||
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
On March 12 2012 11:10 Curu wrote: The votes on Mattchew are also incredibly bad. Asking questions and forcing opinions is fine on day 1 when there's nothing else to work off and his assertion that day 1 should revolve around strong meta reads is absolutely correct. There is nothing dumb about the post like Katina would have you believe, certainly nothing even close to scummy. Sentinel's vote is even worse, there are different merits and failures for sharing/not sharing who you are PMing. Neither option is inherently pro Town or pro Mafia, wanting a lynch on him because he advised sharing who you PM with is absurd. That said Mattchew you on board with the Jackal case? You advocated strong meta reads on day 1. This is a strong meta read on day 1 with precedents. Take a look at Jackal's games/posts and tell us what you think. So I actually kind of like the case against Jackal. Its pretty meta based, but for day 1 thats ok. With next to no new players in the game there is an extremely low chance of any actual scum slips or any bad play that would result in scum. From what I have read of Jackal and about Jackal he is one to be feared as mafia. Personally this will cause me to keep a closer eye on him than anyone else even if he is town, which could be bad for my game. I also think that if Jackal were to flip town we would be rewarded with (in my eyes) 3 confirmed town. There is some WIFOM in this line of thinking but in a game of no-absolutes, this would be an extremely logical conclusion. If Jackal flips town then that means nothing about the alignment of those 3 and thats pretty much it. On March 12 2012 18:53 EchelonTee wrote: + Show Spoiler + So it seems that the flow of conversation has been something like this: 1. LaL policy lynch trolololol for a few pages 2. people making nonsense cases on each other to arouse "reactions" 3. fastest forming bandwagon on Jackal ever Town needs to rebuild a conducive atmosphere, it's clear that Mafia has been trying to distract with all the LAL talk. I'm going to focus on someone I feel is exhibiting a lot Mafia traits, Jitsu. The ironic thing here is that Jitsu hounds constantly against one anti-town activity, but is doing another anti-town activity himself, aka his incessant dedication to policy lynching/policy lynching discussion. On March 11 2012 13:19 Jitsu wrote:+ Show Spoiler + That meme is some good stuff. I love you Jackal. So, let's get this ball rolling, then. I'm not sure I want to comment on Lurkers or anything yet. Looking at the player list, I think everyone will have a decently good job of staying active enough to contribute to a pro-town atmosphere. No one really stands out to me as a lurking player, so enough of that. 1 Also, this is going to be pretty much a direct rip from my first post in Storm. It's something that I think should set the mood for town discussion. I hate liars, unless there is a clear and logical reason to do so (blue prolonging his anonymity, ect.), anyone lying should (and will) be 100% held accountable for the actions they decided to run with. Does anyone in anyway disagree with this, and if so, why? I will hold myself to the same standard, and anyone who is found blatantly lying, crossing stories, anything of that sort is going to be pushed by me, and i'd like to assume that the majority of the town players can agree with me on that.1 1. When talking about lynching lurkers Jitsu states his opinion and gets off it easily enough. just state your opinion on a matter, let town know, easy enough. but then begins the escapade of talking about LA Liars incessantly. Policy lynching is rehashed every game and there is simply no need to dwell on it long. it's like spending a lot of time talking about blues or setup; you're only doing it because you have nothing else to talk about. with that in mind Jitsu finds the need to continually argue with layabout on the subject as such: On March 11 2012 13:41 Jitsu wrote:+ Show Spoiler + What about lying in PM's? In what situation would you use it? Can you logically and clearly explain you're reasoning to the rest of the town when the lie is brought out to the forums? If yes - yes, I would be ok with that. If no - no, don't lie. Simple. Again, calculated lies are something that could potentially have high risk/low reward. Remember that as well.2 On March 12 2012 01:37 Jitsu wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On March 12 2012 01:29 layabout wrote: + Show Spoiler [ tedious LaL crap] + On March 12 2012 01:20 Jitsu wrote: What do you think it means? Accountable means subject to the obligation to report, explain, or justify something; responsible; answerable. If a player lies, and can't do the above, we kill him. If he can justify it, and it's a logical and clearly visible motive, we don't. Why do you think a player who lies shouldn't be lynched? Is it you're opinion that lying isn't Anti-Town? Town lie all the time. Town make illogical moves all the time. Town play anti-town all the time. But if we think they are town we do not lynch them. So, a player that is, according to you: 1. lying 2. playing illogically 3. playing anti-town ...has the potential to not be lynched because we might think they are town?3 No. That person will be getting my vote, and I will be doing what I can to push for their lynch, especially if those three things come up. You can do whatever you want with your vote, I guess. On March 12 2012 03:05 Jitsu wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On March 12 2012 02:01 layabout wrote: + Show Spoiler + The steps to overcoming the belief that town players will do what is best for town 1. Click on this link 2. Scroll down 3. When you reach the playerlist click on Toadesstern and rgtheschworz 4. Read through both fliters, paying particular attention to the numerous lies both of them make 5. Discover that townies lie, play anti-town and play illlogically 6. Apologise to layabout Jitsu, being able to guess whether or not a player is town or scum is quite difficult even if players are all acting sensibly. You have to learn to deal with the additional complexity introduced by players playing poorly, illogically or even against their own win condition. I don't have to click that link, because those were the two people I was thinking about from Arkham as well. Part of me thinks that they were allowed to run rampant around because they weren't held accountable for the shit they did. If I remember correctly, RGTS made it alive to the end, or close to it. Instead of him, would you think town would have benefit from someone who didn't spout lies every other post? I certainly do. So again, just because townies lie, don't think logically, and play anti-town, yes, I, and I hope you, will hold them accountable for that.4 There's really no need to carry on this discussion this long; being stubborn and keeping a consistent opinion is a good way to try and look constructive, but in reality the majority of your posts are content-less. They are all just fluffed up varieties of "liars are bad lynch them", and you're just ignoring contrasting opinions to you so that you can post more. problems with your posts: 2. The first part of your post ur like "lies can be good and bad. simple". and it is simple. but the second half of your post you try and make the matter seem complicated with your "lies could potentially be scarry... remmeber that". ??? There's no need for you to try and fear-monger here, especially when in the very same post you acknoledge that lies can be calculated and logical. 3.people who play bad =/= mafia and that fact that you blatantly ignore this with your "NOPE NOPE lying is bad" is pretty glaring. Gumshoe, in Surprisingly Normal VII is pretty indicative of this: his early posts were bad and everyone was like "lol look at this scum", but if you actually analyzed his motivations it was clear he was a hapless newbie. you're giving yourself a reason to auto-lynch someone off of "policy", and when it comes up that the dude was just did a town gambit, you'll respond "well he was being anti-town and I will never consider the slight possibility that an anti-town person could be town." -.- 4. you hold people who play anti-town accountable by telling them in thread "ur playing bad stop". your version of holding people accountable is "push to lynch them off of pre-determined reason". policy lynches are bad because you don't have to use actual reasoning to advance them. you're ignoring layabout's point, that we should focus on lynching scum, whereas you are focusing on lynching people who are "bad". 95% of my cases as scum have been on people who were playing bad, and I passed it off as "well he was playing terribly anti-town good riddance". This is NOT an acceptable way to conduct lynches, especially considering this is supposed to be a higher level game. Remember that this is essentially all Jitsu has been talking about all game. what's the motivation for him to do this and only this? He harps on these purported anti-town figures instead of actually hunting for people acting anti-town, which he could easily do with the type of posting that has gone on thus far. Finally, Jitsu's first "case" On March 12 2012 09:41 Jitsu wrote:+ Show Spoiler + Hmmm, looking at it again, I think prphlz's reason to vote for Jackal is a much larger amount of bullshit then Caller's. For instance, you point out that he is using things such as Instead he is pushing it in a very meek way with his "forgive me" and "sir". That yells sarcasm to me a lot more then it screams scum. Wiggles brings up a good point. prphlz is a player that wouldn't just happen to miss the name of someone that posted. It's almost like prphlz was waiting for Curu to post something, realized he fucked up, then tried to cover it. 6 It's not surprising that prphlz mistakes Curu for Caller, and then 10 minutes later, Curu ACTUALLY comes out with a small little case against Jackal as well. Shit reeks.5 ##vote prphlz 5. Super flimsy case. you just cherry picked the person who put the least substantial case on Jackal, then fabricated reasons why prplhz's actions are scummy. Your case boils down to "I think your case on Jackal is wrong", and "a town prplhz would not mistake Curu's name for Caller". Do I even need to explain why this is so fake? voting someone off of a mistaken name? jesus ur scum I don't hate this at all which is why I won't lay a vote down on Jackal yet. You also inserted a red 6 and didn't make a response to it in the final spoiler. This is a relatively strong day 1 case (notice day 1 is included), his early contradictions are that to take note of. ##vote Jitsu Also, on a side note, if you look at my previous games (especially Surprisingly Normal Mini Mafia VII) I am a huge advocate against meta reads. I have adjusted this stance for day 1 because of reading enough examples where it works better than more traditional scum hunting in the very beginning of the game. | ||
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
On March 12 2012 21:16 EchelonTee wrote: so it turns out all nighters are bad i made a few posting mistakes: i said the wrong game titles a few times: i was scum with fake case in Normal Mini I, and made bad meta case on DYH in surprisingly VII. my #6 was supposed to be that jitsu is sheeping a rly weak point from wiggles. wiggles was like "it's weird that you talked about caller but thought it was curu", and jitsu takes that and says "prplhz being weird? must be scum!". jitsu twists what wiggles' was saying about prplhz, to make prplhz look bad. @mattchew you go for the case that you merely "don't hate" over the one you "like"? buh? i thought you were going to agree with me that meta is a weak arguement, but ur post, and ur vote dont seem lined up they don't but I have my reasons for the time being. oh and I don't buy into your meta is weak argument | ||
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
| ||
| ||