...before he writes so many walls that I end up replacing out again!
Shout-outs to ICEninja, Me=Weird, Oso, Shattered Viewpoint, and Xine. Nice to see you all once more.
Okay, guys, I'm on
ICEninja wrote:1) What is your timezone? This can be important if you live overseas and we're waiting for a post from you.
2) What is your mafia experience, here and elsewhere?
3) How frequently do you expect to be able to post? This is exceptionally important this game.
Moment of stupidity: No, I wasn't. I just gunned for AGar's game as soon as it was in the Replacement Queue.Netlava wrote:Equinox, thanks for disappearing for a few days. Were you aware of the BaM ruleset when you agreed to replace in? (Personally, I wasn't)
Not to seem like a jerk, but disappearing for a few days is a pretty big deal considering the deadline length. And thanks for changing your avatar after your first post.
Did you feel Netlava's reasoning was legitimate? Why or why not?Llamarble wrote:That Netlava provided a reason for his vote also influenced me, since votes + a reason = more pressure and is more likely to produce discussion.
(This was written a bit later.)FeRnAnDo wrote:are we still on RVS? i think so. then i'll VOTE: Netlava, for making 4 posts in a row with that scary avatar.
The wording in this post really, really bothers me. Why aren't you even trying to refute Llamarble's vote? You've just validated it instead, which... really irks me.Zinive wrote:I think we still don't have a good reason to start moving a bandwagon to already make a lynch but assuming the short deadline and the low amount of content we have right now I don't think your vote on me is too suspicious Llamarble.
If you had enough time to type up a summary like that, you had time to pitch in your opinion. Where and what was it? (...and I'm ninja'd by ICEninja. How appropriate.)Xine wrote:So far, Oso gets a quick little wagon, doesn’t seem to particularly notice, until other players bring it up. Llamarble gets one vote, and a few players mention amiability towards the reason, yet don't place vote, and Llamarble feels the need to self defend as if he were the subject of a wagon.
Also, Netlava places a random vote on Oso, for "being ansty" and "antsy could describe the tone of every one of his posts since then.
Then I will reiterate the problem I had with your post. You weren't thinking anything; you were simply rehashing. I can understand doing it as a note to yourself, but in that case, posting it wasn't necessary; if you were doing it as an "I'm here" kind of thing, you've wasted your time. Your post gives off the image of participating in the party when in fact you're standing at the wall, sipping punch.Xine wrote:It let's you all know that I am still here and what I'm thinking about, and gives anyone the opportunity to correct me on false assumptions.
This post is ugly and not just in its tone. Instead of analyzing or doing something to advance the game, Shattered Viewpoint places down a voteShattered Viewpoint wrote:ICEninja, if you don't like my playstyle, nightkill me. Don't badger me to death in-thread. You'll just end up pissing me off and that won't end well for anyone.
Xine wasn't directing anything at anyone; why did you feel the need to say this?Llamarble wrote:I think it's always useful to explain yourself if somebody is suspicious of you as long as you're not just being repetitive; content is good.
Geez, this sounds several levels of terrible. It's betraying an "I'm looking for lynches" mindset, rather than the town "I'm looking for scum" mindset.Zinive wrote:Llamarble I did not vote for you sinceI thought it isn't justified just yetand I simply sounded my opinion.
Do you have a problem with that? It's not like we've been devoid of content, even if you personally feel it's worthless.cruelty wrote:why are you posting scumlists on page three?
That's a matter of opinion. Some say that such lists help scum narrow down their NK choices; others say it doesn't really matter because scum already have an idea of who to take out.Llamarble wrote:Why are scumlists anti-town?
It seems to me like they just carry information about your opinions and thus help people read you.
Oso wrote:If you ISO him, you will see there is only one post he has made so far (it's ISO-#2/Game Post-#23) where he doesn't make mention to the short amount of time.
What about ICEninja's case beyond FeRnAnDo's inactivity was invalid? I don't see any opportunism there; looking back at FeRnAnDo's post, I see ICEninja has a valid reason.Oso wrote:His vote on Fernando reeks for that reason. Granted, Fernando hasn't posted but once and that does merit suspicion but not one Day 1. Lurker hunting makes no sense in a normal game Day 1 and makes about as much in a game run under BaM. If he is a true lurker preparing to flake, he'll be mod-killed. If not, it will be obvious he is trying to fly under the radar especially since everyone is already hyped to see low participation as being automatically scummy, he(Fernando) won't be able to do it for long.
Do you feel Netlava's action is more likely to be done as scum or as town? Bandwagoning is done by both factions.Me=Weird wrote:Okay, so there's 4 people who hadn't posted more than once yet. Why pick him? Looks like bandwagoning to me.
You went on defensive mode pretty quickly here. Why did ICEninja's vote against you feel so threatening?FeRnAnDo wrote:Also, ICEninja, you might have noticed that Shattered Viewpoint also claimed he would post at least once a day, and yet you only pointed at me for stating so. Don't worry, my posts are generally long.
(Link addition is mine.)
It does matter how you came to that conclusion. A number of people had asked you why you found Oso "antsy." (By the way, timing is a null tell. Why would Oso wait, anyway?)Netlava wrote:Does it really matter how I came to the conclusion that Oso was antsy? I read his post, thought to myself, "Oso seems antsy" and voted Oso. His quick response on some side topic seemed, well, antsy.
[...]
As for my vote on Fernando, it's really not that critical when I decide to move it. I'll move it if the time comes.
Defense of ICEninja is a GO! Llamarble's case is founded on a whole bunch of null tells.Llamarble wrote:Prioritizing not getting flustered over scumhunting shows a scummy focus on appearance.
The "it would distract the town" excuse is dubious, it's not like we're in a room together where only one person can talk at a time
and we were low on content anyway, so a couple of players going at it and the reactions of others to the situation would have been helpful.
Ice's sentence about watching and intending to deliver a case later sounds like he already has an opinion on Shattered's alignment.
While I can see not wanting to push lynches on lurkers purely on policy, I disagree that we shouldn't focus on them. This ruleset deals out very harsh punishments, and Oso makes an excellent point: People with relatively uninteresting roles (e.g., Vanilla Townie) are more likely to lose interest, and if we don't push posts from these people, we're going to get very damaging modkills.Zinive wrote:I believe we should not focus on the lurkers to much care of the lurkers as we can't do anything about it and the ruleset is pretty strict in this regard.
All right, answer me this question: Do you see pro-scum motivation behind SV being as antagonistic as he's being?Zinive wrote:However as I have stated I am willing to vote on shattered since I consider this kind of play as distracting for the town and thus its a playstyle (shattereds) I consider scummy.
Heh, the irony indeed.ICEninja wrote:I'm looking forward to reading everything Equinox has to say. If he has a significant wall to post on only 4 pages of info, there could be some really good analysis in there. I'd like to note how he random voted me on virtue of my tendency to post walls. This isn't scummy, but it is ironic.
I saw it. I was going to wait to see if Netlava would respond further, and I see that he just did.ICEninja wrote:Equinox, did you notice my case on Net? You touched on almost every significant event, but the only thing I saw you referring to Net was a point against him. Judging by how you didn't include him on your possible scum list, I'm going to be inclined to believe that you disagreed with my case. If you disagreed, why did you not bring it up?
...and you thought a vote on ICEninja would accomplish this how?Shattered Viewpoint wrote:He hadn't; I was cautioning him not to glom onto me and pursue something that, in the long run, would be unproductive.
To be fair, his post on Wednesday was from a phone, so his access on Thursday may have been similarly limited. What irks me more, though, is that he replaced into a game, which implies that he has the time to dedicate to this game. Given that we're on a BaM ruleset, there's no reason to skimp on activity here, and I'm not letting scum coast by just because the days are "too short."Llamarble wrote:The Perardua situation is really strange.
Maybe he didn't think we'd notice he's logged in recently?
I see no reason for town to act like that.
Would you elaborate on this, please?Llamarble wrote:In fact, most reasonable actions can have a scum motive or a town motive.
Three questions:Zinive wrote:Interesting question and if you mean if I would vote for them when a bandwagon starts then yes if the deadline draws close.ICEninja wrote:Zinive, you don't have your vote on anyone yet you've made a few statements suggesting you suspect people. Are you waiting for an opportunistic time to vote?
I'm having a little trouble wrapping my head around this. Just because Llamarble happened to use the same logic you'd used against him before doesn't necessarily make his logic correct, and if you're town, you know for a fact he's just wrong, regardless of appearances. Why did you accept Llamarble's vote just like that?Zinive wrote:The logic Llama used was partly one I have stated previously against him. This simply means I can understand why it appeared this way.Equinox wrote:The wording in this post really, really bothers me. Why aren't you even trying to refute Llamarble's vote? You've just validated it instead, which... really irks me.Zinive wrote:I think we still don't have a good reason to start moving a bandwagon to already make a lynch but assuming the short deadline and the low amount of content we have right now I don't think your vote on me is too suspicious Llamarble.
Why would this be a policy lynch?Zinive wrote:I could vote for him based on a policy to vote for players that actively try to confuse/annoy the town.
Odd because the reason Llamarble singled out Zinive was not the same reason you brought up yourself and PerArdua.Me=Weird wrote:Me and PA were the first to people I thought of who'd barely posted. I don't get why it's odd.
Thanks, AGar.AGar wrote:@Equinox The player slot needs to request replacement for any changes to take place.
That makes sense. For a moment there, I thought you were saying that each action has both town and scum motives, which sounded funny.Llamarble wrote:One way to analyze a play such as a making a vote or a case is to ask
"why would a scum do this" and "why would town do this"
Usually both questions have reasonable answers (hence the statement you asked me to elaborate on).
If the specifics make one answer look more believable than the other, then the statement is a tell.
A few things I find wrong here:Zinive wrote:I believe its good to discuss as long as possible and going as close as possible to the deadline. There are exceptions however for example a major mistake, a chain of many small mistakes or a cop points out someone guilty. Having my vote on someone just for the sake of having my vote on someone seems pointless to me and could potentially help scum to end the day before it should be done.
I'll ask this straight, then.Zinive wrote:I said this already I saw no threat in this vote and his argument on this case did not seem to be made up by scum but a genuine try to scum hunt.
You previously stated that he's a neutral read. Does your willingness to "policy-lynch" him mean you don't have any scum reads?Zinive wrote:Based on these experience I'm willing to vote on someone for there playstyle and voting based on playstyle is policy to me.
Uh... You don't take clearer stances because people want you to. You take clearer stances because you just do. While I appreciate that you finally took a stance, you taking it because we're pressuring you to do so is scummy.Zinive wrote:Since people want me to take a 'clearer stance' I place my vote. I don't get the argument that waiting till the deadline draws close could just remotely be twisted into something scummy as I believe more time equals more discussion but I guess it is a way to force my vote out for whatever reason.
Post 95 implies it was a mistake.Zinive wrote:Furthermore his vote was still on ICE as he said that ICE is most likely town.
In a nutshell, yes.Netlava wrote:Also, I noticed a couple of players saying my case on fernando is reasonable or what not. Does that mean you agree with it?
Female.Xine wrote:Equinox, are you male or female?
Do you disagree with our cases on Zinive? Why or why not?Xine wrote:I could move my vote to fernando, or Netlava.
I don't get why you felt the need to confront me about this. This game runs on short deadlines; every time I can't dedicate myself fully to this game, I feel guilty. Do you have a problem with the "huge wall posts" (besides having to read them)?Me=Weird wrote:Equinox, I don't get why you keep apologizing for not much time and saying more later, and then making(and being aware of it, judging my your apologies) huge wall posts.
Antihero replaced in 26 minutes after AGar announced this. I don't think we're getting an extension.AGar wrote:In the event that a replacement isn't found quickly (although I have one in mind) there will be a slight deadline extension. Votecount incoming.
No, what I meant by my second point was that your statement was superfluous. The point of not ending a day is to discuss until town decides someone is scum; you went on about how long days are good, and then you say it's okay to shorten a day if scum slips. That's just stating the obvious.Zinive wrote:Longer days lead to more discussion and thats good for the town. I don't get point 2 do you mean I should have added a wording that includes medium mistakes?
OH YE OF LITTLE FAITH.Zinive wrote:Because of the possibility of reaching the needed votes.
The whole problem was that you were quite wishy-washy about Shattered Viewpoint (the player himself, not his playing style) and about voting up until we pressured you. Even here, in this quote, you emphasize that "people wanted to see my vote" and you delivered.Zinive wrote:I thought I made a clear stance as I called who I thought is scum but based on the reactions that was not enough and people wanted to see my vote. That is why I repeated my suspicion towards SV and made a vote.
You're the biggest hypocrite in this game if you're seriously voting me for not contributing. Also, did it never occur to you that I might, just maybe, be busy in real life?Shattered Viewpoint wrote:Please reference my earlier comments about Equinox and her procrastination.
Clearly, Equinox is not an English major.Equinox wrote:one of the most stupidest
Not quoting the rest of this, since the link is there.ICEninja wrote:I don't, however, find Shattered to be very town.
It is interesting to note this disparity:
FeRnAnDo wrote:Llamarble, a late random vote was enough to place me as the 2nd. scummiest? About Zinive's case, sure is suspicious, but wouldn't it be very silly of him to jump on a wagon that needs 4 more votes? I don't see a big deal there, yet.
As Netlava pointed out, Zinive didn't wagon anybody; in fact, Zinive was the first to vote Oso, and after his unvote, he didn't make another vote until after FeRnAnDo's disappearance. That's a strange mistake to make, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.FeRnAnDo wrote:It's suspicous because he joined a forming wagon too quickly, and yet not a big case because since zinive's started he has played 8-9 mafia games i don't believe he would make such a newbish move like joining a wagon on page 2 expecting 4 more votes. clear?
3 votes = L-4Llamarble wrote:Zinive is thethird player to go after me. (Opportunism)
He tries to add to the reasoning against me so it looks like he's not just following the most promising lynch (Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a common scum technique?)
But his added reason seems very weak to me. (running into the "scum say things they don't believe" situation again)
The fact that he doesn't vote me after stating suspicion and adding a reason makes it seem like he wants to lay low and avoid looking opportunistic.
(Scum want to avoid notice while pushing the town toward false lynches; stating suspicion and not voting lies in this vein.)
I don't quite understand this last part. Would you elaborate for me, please?Xine wrote:Necessary or not, I'd like to see what you wrote, and sincethis is an ongoing game, I only feel comfertable reading it in thread.
Just went through that. That was a waste of time. (Boo. I even went through the trouble of adding the links. Guargh.)
Yes, sir, it would, if the reason behind your wish to replace out is based purely on the game situation.ICEninja wrote:The top 2 scummiest players during day 1 were the town power roles, and the scummiest player pre-lynch was a vanilla townie. A 4th player isn't even playing. would it be unreasonable at this point to request replacement?
I don't think scum lurk THAT hard; even lurker Zorblag-scum posted at least once a day until RL made him forget (Open 233).Antihero wrote:If he's picking up the prods and not posting, that = epic superscumfail.
How was ICEninja cultivating this kind of atmosphere? The way I read his posts was a push for more activity, not less; he merely emphasized the need to generate content as much as possible given short deadlines, and he's never pushed for a quick lynch. Your points here against ICEninja do not hold water.Oso wrote:Basically, I accuse him of setting an atmosphere where its urgent that a lynch take place and that I can see scum using it to go after low activity players. And that is exactly what I see happening because at that point his vote is on, you guessed it, Fernando.
Well, then, please present the thought process that you had at the time.Oso wrote:Second post won't be coming. What I thought as as a second obvious scum may not be that at all. Got excited I might have caught two for one, need to think on it some.
Llamarble wrote:Sure, the odds aren't great, but it's all the more glory if we somehow manage to win.
I hope the other town players will take a similar attitude, since we'll all have more fun (it is a game after all) and a much better chance of winning.
Dude. Don't fall for that. If you're town, and I believe you are, you know you're right; don't let a case like this one pull you down.ICEninja wrote:Right. This makes me want to replace out even more.
Xine, I would be *very interested* in your reasoning.Xine wrote:based on place on these wagons, I'm gonna say
VOTE: Antihero
My experience with BaM games have been that the modkills occur at the end of the day following the lynch, and the game still goes into night. The scum get to kill, regardless.ICEninja wrote:Our odds of either PerArdua or (preferably and) whoever we decide to lynch are the same regardless if he is mod killed or not, but we're denying a night kill by allowing the mod kill. The only argument for killing him today is the pool for who we lynch tomorrow is smaller.
I realize that, at this point, you firmly believed in a FeRnAnDo-Zinive scum team. ...but why did you say, "because lynching PRs is bad"?Llamarble wrote:This claim therefore doesn't reduce my suspicion of Zinive (actually increases it by Bayes' rule, since a scum in his position would probably claim a PR whereas a town player has a smaller chance of doing so), butbecause lynching PRs is bad it does make Fernando look like a better lynch.
And you didn't address Antihero's concern about said data and your conclusions...Xine wrote:You are really upset about this vote. I made a gut move, based on the imression I got from viewing some data. you only need to fear this if you are guilty, right?
Why is it more likely that scum would do this than town?Netopalis wrote:6) Refusing to criticize a wagon which he started
...how did you go from "This case is weaksauce" to "This case is fakesauce"? >_>Antihero wrote:Iceninja, Netopalis' case isn't faked (though I don't agree with it).
Not what I asked. I was wondering how you interpreted ICEninja's post to mean that he was accusing Netopalis of making a fake case.Antihero wrote:A case can be weak, but that doesn't necessarily point to the deliverer of it being scum.
A faked one does though, so that's what I'm more concerned with.
Only in a deadline situation? What do you think of the cases against Oso so far?Netopalis wrote:I'll support an Oso lynch in a deadline situation....But I'd really like to hear from more players.
chesskid3 wrote:Ok first of all, when I saw the flips, I figured Shattered was the scum kill, and the JK was the vig shot.
Beautiful demonstration of a "misrepresentation," sir. A+chesskid3 wrote:And now he's telling the vig not to shoot.
I have question about that case you made against Antihero. Did you read 253 before disappearing?Xine wrote:3.Scum seemed less likely to hammer, slightly. I presented a vote count, I made a gut read based on presentation, invited the town to consider said information with me, and I think the question I presented help you put the pieces together while I disappeared into RL for a few days
I've got a question for you, Llamarble. How confident are you in your read of Xine?Llamarble wrote:I do think we should claim earlier than normal since if the scum have some kind of quicklynch signal players can get quicklynched from L-2 (assumes 2 scum are left) to end the game. That said I don't think you should claim at L - 3 unless a enough players to lynch you have expressed readiness to vote.
If the vig is one-shot, I would think s/he would have claimed by now to give us an extra clear.Llamarble wrote:It sounds like everyone RCing only helps us if we have a vig who can shoot tonight.
So maybe we should say "Any vig with a shot left should claim"
And if nobody does then we no-lynch?
I thought about that this morning. There's no other answer. I have a strong town read on you and a town read on Me=Weird; therefore, it boils down to {Netopalis, Xine}. Xine's the stronger scum read of the two, and she hasn't convinced me otherwise with her claim or her posts today.ICEninja wrote:Does anybody have anything remotely decent other than Xine? Town seems moderately united here.
If my memory serves me correctly, Oso ignored more people than that. I don't particularly care to check.Netopalis wrote:Oso doesn't even mention Equinox in any substantive message for any of his page 1 ISO posts. He's similarly light on Xine.
Eh? I was wishy-washy? Maybe you're thinking of the wrong game, sir.Netopalis wrote:Equinox seems a bit wishy-washy coming into the game, then lays heavily into Oso, but only after other players have attacked him.
In the past, I've lynched scummy people who flipped PR. That experience has made me do double-takes on things.Llamarble wrote:To add to Netopolis' latest, Equinox specifically wondered whether Xine was a night 2-missing vig.
I don't see why she would think the person she found scummiest more likely to be a town PR than anyone else.
I lol'd at this line.Llamarble wrote:I guess the kissing is done more fiercely now and with tires.
The single most convincing thing that would back up a vanilla townie claim is scum hunting. You spent almost all of your time defending on Day 3, which hurt your chances of surviving; your case on Day 2 was torn apart when you missed answering my and Antihero's concerns about your vote analysis. You also tended toward posting IoA-type posts on Day 1, which made it look like you weren't contributing. If you can't post analysis, be upfront and say you can't.Xine wrote:I really have nothing to say that could be convincing, other then to repeat my claim. I would like to see the game not end today, so I would hope to not be lynched.
Be careful with the breadcrumbing/softclaiming. There were a couple of things you said prior to the mass claim that made me guess you were the vigilante (though I didn't expect the one-shot).Llamarble wrote:Were there any other aspects of my play I should improve on?