Mafia 85 - Murder at the Bus Stop (game over)
-
-
Megatheory
-
-
Megatheory
-
-
Megatheory Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 237
- Joined: July 23, 2008
-
-
Megatheory Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 237
- Joined: July 23, 2008
This is so true.Shanba wrote:
It's not pressure unless it has the threat of a lynch behind it.Cream147 wrote:
Neither am I. Pressuring lurkers is what I want.Shanba wrote:
I'm not down with lynching lurkers only because they are lurking.Cream147 wrote:
This is very, very true.Megatheory wrote:In this game, we absolutely have to come down hard on lurkers. With 25 people and two week deadlines, it will be extremely easy for scum to keep their heads down and let the townies lynch each other if we don't.-
-
Megatheory Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 237
- Joined: July 23, 2008
We shouldn't be talking about if pressure should lead to lynches on lurkers except regarding specific cases. What pressure means should be for the town to know and the scum to find out. But since the cat's out of the bad anyway, whether or not a lurker should be lynched is highly situational and any kind of policy will almost certainly bite the town in the ass.
Pressure is pressure. That should be the end of the discussion.
Oh, and I don't think we can find out who is town or scum based on their position on this issue.
Unvote
A) what akes Wall-E scummy now?farside22 wrote:unvote:
vote: Wall-e
No matter the alignment you always seem scummy.
B) How can you be sure he is scum if you always find him scummy?
Whoa, I didn't think you were being serious at first. Am I being singled out because I was the first to post on the subject, and if so, how does that make me scummy? Would anybody else who posted first about lurkers be suspicious also?Moratorium wrote: I had voted for Megatheory originally for starting that whole lurker metagaming theory block quote circlejerk, and I'll keep aFoS: Megatheoryin his general direction. I still get the feeling that it was all just meant as a "Hey, I'll put out a theory, possibly mega, about paying attention to lurkers, and then all my scumbuddies can respond, increase post counts, and scum will heretofore be known as the Anti-Lurker Justice League" or whatever.-
-
Megatheory Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 237
- Joined: July 23, 2008
There is no logical basis behind the idea that I started the lurker discussion to set up my scumpartners as an anti-lurker squad. Setting up a scumteam in this way is suicidal, as once one of them is killed, the others are seriously exposed.
Why is every protown play turned into some kind of ridiculous scum gambit? The doctor claims with two successful protections, so he must be clearing himself and his scumbuddies, right?
If there's anything behind the case on me besides silly paranoia, I'd love to hear it.-
-
Megatheory Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 237
- Joined: July 23, 2008
Pretending to play? I see Sir T being sarcastic and unhelpful here, but I really don't see where the votes on him are coming from. Can everyone who suspects Sir T explain why?Surye wrote:
I'm starting to side with the SirT votes. And this really did it for me. Pretending to play is unacceptable.Sir Tornado wrote:unvote
vote Empking
There! I am voting now. Want to add something?Vote: Sir Tornado
So you're looking at that one post and concluding that Sir T is "pretending to play." Can you really say that about his other posts? I think he's one of the better contributors so far, even if I don't agree with him.Surye wrote:
Pretending to play early is MUCH worse then making theory discussion in early game.Sir Tornado wrote:
This is ironic, considering only I and Armlx seem to be actually playing this game. The rest of you seem to think (before this page) discussing lurkers belongs to mafia games. Try the "mafia discussion" forum.Surye wrote: I'm starting to side with the SirT votes. And this really did it for me. Pretending to play is unacceptable. Vote: Sir Tornado
This isn't really helpful. If you see something worthy of a vote, sharing it with us will do a lot more than letting the scummy behavior you're seeing go on.Shanba wrote:
No.BlakAdder wrote:@Tornado: Yes, I get it, which I quite clearly stated, but you're missing the point. Just answer instead of trying to disguise your answer in quotes.
@Shanba: Care to explain your vote?
Why should I explain it? It's perfectly simple for others to go over your posts and see what I think I'm seeing. Besides, I'm voting you on a pattern of behaviour, and jumping the gun too soon may stop you from reinforcing that pattern if indeed you are scum.
Actually, there's a lot to comment on. But what really interests me is your FoS. Why not vote?Slicey wrote:Hmm.... not really much to comment on. EmpKing looks pretty suspicious right now, I don't like how he was trying to get everyone to vote. Sounds like he wants a quick lynch.
unvote
FoS: Empking
Don't be a retard.Xtoxm wrote:Claim: Day Cop
Guilty on Armlx
Ehh, i'm just pissing with you lol...
Good catch. I'd love to see some content from al4xz.RestFermata wrote:
when al4xz hasn't been contributing much more. All his posts have been about lynching lurkers. I haven't really been a major contributor myself thus far, but I don't want to be hypocritical about it and accuse others of doing the same. People might think I'm...trying to deflect attention onto someone else.al4xz wrote:Of course. Mega, by doing this, unintentionally or not, you've caused a stir of talking that both allows you to pretend your contributing and lurk in the open at the same time. Though, if it helps, I don't think you're too scummy. But perhaps that's because you're not contributing much. *glares* Whoooo aaarr uuuu? *chuckles*
I didn't know it was random at the time. I probably should have known it was.armlx wrote:Self-metaing is WIFOM, except in this case of confirming thoughts on game theory.
(random game theory aside over)
Vote Megatheory
I missed the part where he attacked farside for the same random vote.
I don't see the case on Sir T, seems like it's mostly over play style. I don't see the BlackAdder case, though there isn't really any to start with. I think there's some scummy bandwagoning on him.
I agree with farside that Surye's vote on Sir T was bandwagoning.Vote Surye-
-
Megatheory Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 237
- Joined: July 23, 2008
You're acting like your past actions have no relevance. They do. It's a big part of scumhunting.Surye wrote:
Can I say that about his other posts? Uhh.. no? Which is why I not only unvoted him, but also defended him? Are you even paying attention to this game?Megatheory wrote:So you're looking at that one post and concluding that Sir T is "pretending to play." Can you really say that about his other posts? I think he's one of the better contributors so far, even if I don't agree with him.
You're acting like I'm still voting him. Your post is full of silly.
You changed your mind later. That's not the point. Other than that one post you quoted, what made you think Sir T was pretending to play at the time you voted? I'm guessing you won't be able to point anything out because Sir T has contributed a lot. I think it's a bandwagon vote because you took one post and asserting that Sir T was pretending to play when his previous posts say otherwise.
By the way, your unvote post says nothing about Sir T's aleged "pretending to play."
Why are you trying so hard to make us think your past actions have no relevance? And, no you haven't explained it much at all.Surye wrote:[Megatheory] opens with an old post that has been discussed and explained...
So you admit you've never explained this. Why haven't you already? Since "pretending to play" is your reason for voting Sir T, I would think if you were town trying to expose Sir T as scum, you would have explained this right away.Surye wrote:...(for the most part, I can explain why I thought he was pretending to play if you want, but lets just move on for a moment)...
I am not voting you because the case on Sir T is mostly over playstyle. I am voting you because you voted and justified it by taking one post out of the overall context of Sir T's play. My confusion over why Sir T was suspected is a separate issue.Surye wrote:...He connects me strongly in many places to voting for Sir T.
He proceeds to be baffled as to why people are voting Sir T, and say the case is over his play style (pay attention to this, it's important). He then again comes back to me, repeats his earlier statement, connection it to his most recent post then votes me.
Please be more specific, I have no idea what you are talking about here.Alabaska J wrote:Even if there was, how is that scummy in the least?
That + the misrepresentation =unvote, vote: Megatheory
This is your vote post:Surye wrote:
You're clouding the issue. You're isolating my unvote post, and not looking at my discussion of how his meta makes the playstyle a null tell. When I voted, these things had not come into light. I may have been vague in my unvote post (I don't think so), but I continued to explain why Sir T didn't deserve a vote for several other posts.farside22 wrote:
I think he is being vague. I don't like vague.Alabaska J wrote:
He unvoted for the reasons he posted when he unvoted*farside22 wrote:The problem is you voted for him based on his play style and unvoted him because why exactly?
This is the only post between your vote and unvote:Surye wrote:
I'm starting to side with the SirT votes. And this really did it for me. Pretending to play is unacceptable.Sir Tornado wrote:unvote
vote Empking
There! I am voting now. Want to add something?Vote: Sir Tornado
This is your unvote post:Surye wrote:
Pretending to play early is MUCH worse then making theory discussion in early game.Sir Tornado wrote:
This is ironic, considering only I and Armlx seem to be actually playing this game. The rest of you seem to think (before this page) discussing lurkers belongs to mafia games. Try the "mafia discussion" forum.Surye wrote: I'm starting to side with the SirT votes. And this really did it for me. Pretending to play is unacceptable. Vote: Sir Tornado
This is the post where you discussed metagaming:Surye wrote:I'm liking SirT's responses, and I can see his point. I wish he had just been more clear, and avoided this all. His vote was really misleading.
Unvote
Your thoughs about Sir T's meta didn't come until after you had unvoted so you can't really use that as an explanation for why you unvoted. Further, you say his meta says that his play now is a null tell, so that wouldn't explain your unvote anyway. Further, none of this has anything to do with the idea that Sir T was "pretending to play."Surye wrote: Basically I'd see this particular pattern as a nulltell when meta supports it. Unless it's a REALLY bad pattern, it's not worth droning on when it's easily provable it's a null tell based on meta. And while his behavior was worth discussing, I don't think it's going to amount to much more.-
-
Megatheory Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 237
- Joined: July 23, 2008
That's awfully lazy. If you find me so suspicious that I deserve a vote, why aren't you explaining yourself, pushing me, and trying to figure out if I'm really scum or not?Alabaska J wrote:@Megatheory: read Surye's posts defending himself. I agree with him.FoS Alabaska J
No, you aren't restricted to "one shot," or whatever you're implying here. You're saying that you unvoted him because of his meta, but that isn't really explicit in your unvote post. It looks to me like you grafted his meta onto your reasons for unvoting.Surye wrote:
Really? You only get one shot? I'll keep that in mind. Discussions are not necessary, since you only get one post.MT wrote: Your thoughs about Sir T's meta didn't come until after you had unvoted so you can't really use that as an explanation for why you unvoted.
The rest of your post hinges on that, so I don't have a response to such nonsense. His meta game supports his non-play.
Since you all are harping on the pretending to play, I assure you that you're all getting tunnel vision no this fact. Look at the post I quoted in the vote. It's pretending to play, 100%. It's participating because he's told to. Now, how much did I invest in this? Did I lead the charge to have him lynched? No. Did I then proceed to follow the discussion on why he would do that, then weigh in, and unvote? Yes.
You're being so ridiculous.
That said, I'm not really convinced that you're scum. There are a few things that caught my attention, but nothing looks scummy enough for me, soUnvotefor now, butIGMEOY.
Oh hell, not this again.Sir Tornado wrote:unvote
vote Surye
I hope atleast a few people see what I see.
Look, if people aren't going to put reasons behind their votes, we're never going to catch scum. The game is too big for people to not mention what they are seeing.
I'm glad you recognize that this method is unhelpful.Shanba wrote:Meh, so be it. I'm not trying to be helpful, I'm trying to prove a point.
Annoying != scummy. When are people going to finally understand this?RestFermata wrote:EBWOP. There's a word for people who don't want to be helpful to the town. I can't think of what it is right now. I believe it starts with an S and ends with an M...
This is a really good case. I got the same general vibe when I caught that unvote and FoS post of his. I'll take a look at him once I"m caught up.Shanba wrote:...I'm voting Slicey because of his tentative posting.Hmm.... not really much to comment on. EmpKing looks pretty suspicious right now, I don't like how he was trying to get everyone to vote.
he's said he's suspicious of EmpKing and Blakadder, but has yet to place a single vote. He explains this by saying: "I don't think one somewhat scummy post automatically makes them scum. And I don't like unvoting and voting like crazy, unless it's the random voting phase", which is fair enough, but that's only part of what I find scummy. So far, he has said "Hmm..." twice, ">_>" (and variants) 4 times. He feels nervous. When he's asking Wall-E why he's voting for him, he adds "Just curious." at the end, as if he's afraid asking will get him into trouble. This might be excusable if he were a newbie, but he's posting meta opinions like:Hmm... BlakAdder looks suspicious to me, mainly cause I feel like he's attacking Sir T for the way he posts, which I don't like.
andI don't like unvoting and voting like crazy, unless it's the random voting phase
which indicate that he has a certain amount of mafia experience. Compare with my posting in Basic twelve player mafia, where I was scum. By the end of that game, I was horrifically nervous, and it was showing through in my posts, and the "defeatist" attitude was the reason most of the town had deduced I was scum.I'd say pressure people that seem scummy. If you think lurking is a scumtactic, well that's what you think. Evetually, they will have to post though, and we'll see if those posts seem scummy
Wow, that Slicey wagon grew incredibly fast. Do we really want to play "lynch the n00b" today?-
-
Megatheory Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 237
- Joined: July 23, 2008
QFT, especially when there has been almost no concensus up until the Slicey wagon.armlx wrote:I'd just like to note this wagon moved way too fast to not be scum powered in some way, regardless of Slicey's alignment.
So you think if Slicey is scum, then his parteners would show up earlier in the wagon?Wall-E wrote: I've seen mafia bus their partners on the early half of a BW only to watch in horror as the BW went to lynch. In fact, it's happened to ME before.
Oh really? What other votes look scummy to you, and why didn't you point them out before?Shanba wrote:Well, this is an interesting wagon. I could see so many of these votes as scumvotes (notably BlakAdder, but that could just be confirmation bias.)
I am not arguing against the Slicey lynch (yet), I am just cautioning the town against moving swiftly against an easy target for scum. In fact, this argument is especially valid when the speed of the Slicey wagon means it is probably scum driven.Alabaska J wrote: Also, your argument that we are just "lynching the noob" is invalid; noobs are just as likely to be scum as anyone else.
It seems like a lot of people want to end the day. Can we at least wait until tomorrow night before we lynch Slicey?
Copyright © MafiaScum. All rights reserved.
-
-