Hello AP, lol on my name it must be really difficult for you.
AP wrote:
There was one major difference in play, the fact that cflip voted and nikit did not, in fact could not since he asked to be replaced and made it clear why he had to be replaced.
Drop the second one, please. Nikitakit asking to be replaced was a good think to do but that has nothing to do whit play more with personality.
The second why is Chkflips votting more suspicios than Nikitakits not voting? You seem to have a problem with voting.
BTW: How do you fell about your unstable vottingpattern today?
AP wrote:
Look at his bolding comments pattern. It’s an ineffectual way of making a defense, because its not. It only flags comments he doesn’t like without addressing the core argument.
Hm? What does that mean, sorry just don't understand it.
Interesting that you don't make your claim clear (sure you want to live), noted.
BTW: Hurristat should post tonight his V/LA is over, good night.
Ghostlin wrote:He's been lurking, also been kind of fishing and I still do not trust him.
Actually, ever since I realized the game had started, and with the exception of my V/LA, I haven't been lurking. And the fishing comment (which was the only one), was something I said due to the way that I learned how to play mafia online.
I know you mentioned the "eat crow" thing, but why the sudden switch off of AP and onto me? You mention later that it's to keep the pressure on, but you also mention in the post I'm quoting above that you think "he's trying to figure out who the doc is." So you're switching off of him because he's docfishing and you're switching onto me because I was docfishing?
Haylen wrote:Btw, just for info guys. It's really poor form to lynch somebody whilst they're V/LA, it's one of those few things that make me yell in a game.
Honestly, I don't mind, as long as you don't
hammer
me while I was V/LA.
Ghostlin wrote:What AP didn't say was much more interesting then what he did.
This sentence is kind of strange to me -- you can't make assumptions based on what you think the other person is thinking, you only have what they have said.
StefanB wrote:At the same time I don't think you should ignore someone completely because he is V/LA.
It makes sense to try and figure out who the mafia are even when someone is V/LA -- you still have the posts that they left behind.
Ghostlin wrote:Apparently you and I didn't read the same post, because he didn't claim vanilla at all. He claimed
Town
. I could quote it for you:
I claim Town, and when I flip Town you will be sure.
I chose not to keep my vote as a prod to preserve a possible power role that you're going on about. He could be claiming VT there, he could be scum claiming anything; but the fact that he refused to give away his claim part and parcel interested me.
I know it could be protecting himself, but the claim of "town" could apply to all of us -- we would all claim town and then we'd be right back where we started. I don't quite see how the claim exonerates him at all yet.
The posts after this are mostly Ghostlin and Zachrulez tunneling on each other -- not really much to say besides that about those posts. I'm back from my V/LA now, also (if you hadn't noticed)
I think the main thing that concerns me with Zach is his votes and how they've fallen according to the wagons. Which really comes down to a lot of WIFOM. That and chk's lurking that occured, but do I think Zach warrants a vote right now over AP/Hurr? No.
hurristat wrote:
Actually, ever since I realized the game had started, and with the exception of my V/LA, I haven't been lurking. And the fishing comment (which was the only one), was something I said due to the way that I learned how to play mafia online.
That's because I forgot I was playing the game for about 5 days or so irl. Have I been lurking since my first post, at all? No. So I don't think that people can say that I'm a lurker now, considering I have more posts than both Haylen and AP.
Honestly, I don't mind, as long as you don't hammer me while I was V/LA.
That's exactly what to lynch means here. As long as you are not V/LA very near deadline that's a big no.
Welcome back Hurristat, you haven't miss mutch beside the APWagon losing stream whitch is bad.
Sorry if someone is very much likly scum, doesn't really defend himself and on L-1 doesn't claim a powerrole you don't unvote, you lynch. (The last sentence is not directed at Hurristat)
StefanB wrote:Sorry if someone is very much likely scum, doesn't really defend himself and on L-1 doesn't claim a power role you don't unvote, you lynch. (The last sentence is not directed at Hurristat)
I know it's not directed to me, but I don't entirely understand this sentence -- how does this scenario lead to mafia? It seems that lynching someone who claims oc and doesn't defend themselves leads to lynching more town than mafia.
Hurristat it wasn't about you, it was about AwesomePoe.
And if someone claimed a powerrole that is a reason to unvote (If the claim is belivibel) and defending themselves is important.
Will try again.
Someone scummy, voted on L-1.
Defend himself? If you think the defence is good, you can unvote. If no continue.
Claims a powerrole. Lynching the player is often not the best play. If the player doesn't do it, continue.
Lynch.
If players are good that shouldn't hurt town, if you give someone enough time to respond.
Sorry hope thats understandable. What do you think should have happened after AwesomePoes claim(?).
: Not that I like it, but Ghostlin is voting Zachrulez at the moment. Joined before AwesomePoe.
Let me be blunt here for a minute: we need to lynch
today
(meaning in the gamestate). The folks I like for lynch, in no particular order (except maybe alphabetical) are AP, hurristat, Zach. (Yes, I realize that's three possibles and two scums) I'm not voting for StefanB unless he outright claims scum.
AP and hurristat are guilty of doc fishing and in hurri's case, lurking most of D1. AP has done some misrepresentation of people's votes (trying to identify lurkers where there was none). AP has claimed Town; but not VT. I found that curious. The rest of town did not. We've not gotten an idea of what hurri has by way of claims. The only thing more I can lay at AP's feet is what I'll call him picking at it. Oh, and the vote analysis which clears him.
Zach is an interesting case: he's continued to pick at Haylen even though he's not really convinced she's scum (at least via vote); his approach to the game at first is to ask us all that who's scum, and his exact suspicions match that: he came out of the gate suspecting hurri and AP, voted AP; he put pressure on Haylen that never really went anywhere (this could be a precursor to a Haylen lynch), claimed the case on AP was due to the doctor fishing (which is a touch hypocritical, hurri did it first, and Zach hasn't voted him or really prompted him for more info). ISO 11 is almost exactly the same tactic as the voting pattern analysis AP did: while there is a old chestnut that scum can always be found on a D1 lynch wagon; looking at only those players does two things:
1) Creates WIFOM
2) Seemingly clears Zach (chkflip was not on the WIR wagon).
Plus, chkflip was active lurking to begin with until he dissapeared. He only posted at the end of Day 1. Yes, Zach's been active; but it is worth reiterating.
The two direct things I dislike most about Zach's play is aggressiveness when AP asked directly for a case (Zach's more than capable of building one) and his almost indirect first dismissal of my PBDP 'You can make anyone look scummy with these.')
I'd rather lynch scum today than anyone else, but any lynch will give us information.
"You live for the fight when it's all that you've got."--Bon Jovi, Living on a Prayer
Ghostlin: Interesting post, that you choose to state that, the one where I told the mod the Votecount is wrong.
Ghostlin wrote:
Let me be blunt here for a minute: we need to lynch
today
(meaning in the gamestate).
Yes I know and that means we should decied soon and not start new waggons. I am very much convinced that we should try to lynch the right person.
AP has claimed Town; but not VT. I found that curious. The rest of town did not.
The rest wrote is as either VT or thinks its not a good idea to let someone live who is so unclear (that's me). If we do that, we are don't need claims anymore.
We've not gotten an idea of what hurri has by way of claims.
That's right but he wasn't at L-1, so ne need to claim.
Oh, and the vote analysis which clears him.
The vote analysis doesn't clear him, he made some work which is good, but that doesn't even make it more likly he is town. It was an instrument to start attacks.
Seemingly clears Zach (chkflip was not on the WIR wagon).
Funny think is it doesn't. Even if you go by his words. He said, that he believes that at last one scum is on the waggon. (that means that at last one can be off the waggon)
Yes we need to lynch and in my opinion AP is still the best candidate. What information will us a Zachflip really give? Plus that I'm sure we lynch scum in AP and not a PR.
Ghostlin wrote:hurristat [is] guilty of doc fishing and in hurri's case, lurking most of D1.
I won't refute either of those claims, but let me point out: I have done neither since, and both were miscues due to my acclimation to this style of mafia.
We've not gotten an idea of what hurri has by way of claims.
I wasn't at L-1, I saw no reason to claim (it'd only help the mafia at that point)
No lynching would suck here, and most of what's been said about AP is still in fact, true. We're not going to play that game. I don't think the Zach or hurristat wagons will take off, town is more invested in the AP wagon.
Unvote
Vote: AwesomePoe
(Back to L-1)
"You live for the fight when it's all that you've got."--Bon Jovi, Living on a Prayer
Hi, I'm in a lot of pain right now. Best not to ask.
Anyone else find Zach's vote opportunistic? He's the leading wagon and votes for the second highest one.
Stefan wrote:Haylen you think that AP is not scum, why? (Yes I'm repeating Ghostlin's question, I asked the same think but a lot more complicated, so I take the easy version)
As i've said, I've never seen newbie scum take the time and effort to do a full vote count analysis followed by graphs and if I'm reading him correctly, most of what's been said about him seems to be genuine mistakes he's made.
Ghostlin wrote:1) Are you convinced that the meta argument really holds water? Maybe you changed your meta just a touch between the last games you played with him, or he's forgotten what the meta was. How relevant do you consider meta to be in this game?
2) Why do you think AP is town?
3) If it was 24 hours before deadline, who would you lynch: AP or hurristat AND -why-?
1) Yep, I find meta to be extremely important in games, probably because my favourite topic in psychology is Individual Differences. Impossible, there have been games where I have failed to change my meta and totally failed. The failproof way to find out my alignment is to see if I genuinely believe what I'm arguing. If I do, then I'm town. That's an observation by a player who knows me extremely well and has seen samples of my play over the past 2 years. I consider meta to be important if the person has played enough games (enough to qualify as an IC), otherwise I don't advocate it's usage.
2) See above.
3) I would lynch Hurristat if it was close to deadline because I still believe AP is town and I'm not going to vote to lynch somebody I'm as sure as I am right now is town. I agree with the points brought up about Hurristat combine with the above and thats why I'd be more inclined to deadline lynch her.
Seriously. Read your role PM before playing.
I am sorry if you have to prod me, I have absolutely no concept of time.
My prefered pronoun set is "cie/cir/cirs[elf]" but they is more than acceptable.
Ghostlin wrote:hurristat [is] guilty of doc fishing and in hurri's case, lurking most of D1.
I won't refute either of those claims, but let me point out: I have done neither since, and both were miscues due to my acclimation to this style of mafia.
We've not gotten an idea of what hurri has by way of claims.
I wasn't at L-1, I saw no reason to claim (it'd only help the mafia at that point)
I know, I was just saying that particular opportunity, fair or not, was sorta ruined by the singularity of town's belief that AP is scum.
"You live for the fight when it's all that you've got."--Bon Jovi, Living on a Prayer
I'm starting to become slightly suspicious of Zach. AP, Ghost, and then AP have been his votes. I do see his vote on Ghost for being an attempt with Ghost's point 4, but the vote definitely seems like OMGUS to me, while voting for someone that people have all suspected. However, his actual posts besides votes seem pro-town, which is why I'm torn with him, he has pro-town posts, but scummy votes, and replaced a lurker.
Definitely need to hear from Nobody Special, and I want to see Ghost's PBP he was going to do on hurri as well.
Nocmen wrote:I'm starting to become slightly suspicious of Zach. AP, Ghost, and then AP have been his votes. I do see his vote on Ghost for being an attempt with Ghost's point 4, but the vote definitely seems like OMGUS to me, while voting for someone that people have all suspected. However, his actual posts besides votes seem pro-town, which is why I'm torn with him, he has pro-town posts, but scummy votes, and replaced a lurker.
Definitely need to hear from Nobody Special, and I want to see Ghost's PBP he was going to do on hurri as well.
I had forgotten all about it. It is incoming, and will be up no later than tomorrow for your reading pleasure.
"You live for the fight when it's all that you've got."--Bon Jovi, Living on a Prayer
If my lynch will say anything. I want it to say: Zach == scum. Somebody hammer, the town has sanctioned this. The candidates are Haylen and Nocman. I want to give my read on these candidates.
Nocman: went through day one and day two posted his comments and reactions to the days events. Came to a conclusion of his two scum picks. He proceed to question me on my Deer policy and accepted it without reservation as what it was. He makes his own effort to get information from NobodySpecial. Has mentioned my possible doc-fishing but hasn't used that information to build any case on me. Instead questions Haylen on what this behavior would be. I can't conclude much from this behavior, but this position was neutral when he got. And it hasn't moved much from there.
Haylen: she(this is the female player, right?) has been in the game since D1. I find her case of meta persuasive. Most of her posts have been informative of how the game is played. Even if I attacked her L-1 vote, there was plenty of time for WIR to claim(and not self-hammer), and plenty of time for WIR to turn himself around. The case based on her L-1 vote was faulty. I take full blame. Yet instead of taking the attack as a means to just place a vote on me. She saw something else in me. And something more dangerous in somebody else.
I'll say one thing about the doc issue. I'm from the future. I can here in a time machine that the Doc invented. Now I need his help to get back to the year 1985.
-AP Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:35 pm
ISO 0: RVS fluff.
ISO 1: Statement of the obvious. Maybe trying to affirm the vote on WIR
ISO 2: No information, really, says will catch up.
ISO 3: Reads. These did wait two days. Some of these are insightful: tunnel vision for AP for example. Some of these
are extreme IIoA; though, like his read on me. I could go on and on, and on, but nothing bites me.
ISO 4: "Oh, crap, I just posted a text wall and didn't vote anyone?"
ISO 5: EBWOP
ISO 6: Lurking is bad, and Stefan B is townish for making the lurkers talk. Oh, and Italian.
ISO 7: Defense of Haylen. FoS of WIR. Rebuttal of AP's 'you suck' rebuttal.
ISO 8: His reads of Town. IIoA mostly because he doesn't really cite it. Is going with the flow here.
ISO 9: misunderstanding of the word 'lynch'
--End of Day 1, beginning of Day 2--
ISO 10: The infamous Doc post.
ISO 11: Where WIR played. Which is imporant due to ISO 9, but fluffy.
ISO 12: Fluff, except where he thanks the doctor. I'm sure the doctor, wherever he is, would say 'you're welcome.'
ISO 13: Nikita prod. Acutally, I'll say he's being somewhat useful here.
ISO 14: Rebuttal/defense to AP's vote count
ISO 15: Agreed with something AP said. Picked up a prod....I guess. Analysis to follow.
ISO 16: Defends SB's voting pattern. Not sure what to make of it (I'm not sure consistency here, it reads like he favors AP.
ISO 17: "SB, I'm staying out of your fight! I'll just not vote, even though I've made 7 Day 2 posts!" +lurking explanation. D
Dude, it's not the lurking, it's the active lurking that's killing you.
ISO 18: "Yeah, I know I'm wishy washy." Discounts his own vote and that of Deer here. Regardless of alignment, he's putting
away his weapon, which is never a good thing.
ISO 19: "No, SB, I'm not getting between you and AP." I forced a list out of him at this point which had AP at the top, however.
SB has more towncred, but he doesn't dislike that lynch it seems.
ISO 20: Informs us of upcoming VLA
ISO 21: Modified town list, minus replacements; the funny thing is the value of your vote rhetoric is something I agree with
and will have to reread, because that would give AP town points from me. Not huge ones, but town points. Accuses Stefan's
case to be OMGUS-y. Asks Deer for his case. Votes AP!
ISO 22: Confrontational is usually town(ish).
ISO 23: Welcomes Zach and Nocmen. Fluff.
ISO 24: Inexperience defense for Doc post.
ISO 25: EBWOP
ISO 26: Second line is interesting "Vote for me if you think I'm scummer, but I don't know if you want anyone at L-1 yet."
That's WIFOM. A lot of inexperence defense,
ISO 27: Well, I didn't see an AtE either. Didn't understand something posed to him. Explains that that IRC games are different
In his defense, they probably are.
ISO 28: He's got a point here, but Hurri: reactions are vital. Never fail to gauge a reaction in this game.
ISO 29: Reads...very twisted. "I am scumhunting, but why would I change my play if I wasn't scumhunting to scumhunting on your
say so?" Seriously, that's how the logic he employs reads.
ISO 30: Hurri didn't like WIR's hammer and didn't think he was playing to Wincon. Uses the word rude, which is rather tempered.
I think I said I was angry. Pissed off is acutally more like it.
ISO 31: Not an AtE, wouldn't hammer self as town, and got clarification.
ISO 32: Another VLA reminder.
ISO 33: I'm not sure SB trusting Haylen's word over hurri's is necessarly a bad thing (over the AtE bit), considering I think
SB thinks Haylen's got more towncred. Hurri; I don't know if you know this, polygon dude, but you come off as really passive.
It took you 11 posts to come up with a vote for Day 2. And two lists. Agree "with it's not long enough." being a bad defense.
AP Vote analysis=null read.
ISO 34: Well, it's nice to know Hurri can get angry. Now, I wish it was something that wasn't the fact the quotes didn't work.
ISO 35: OK. Yeah, I get the SB tunneling on AP. We apparently understand each other. Asks AP to defend himself. Asks Haylen
about activity. Likes Zach and Nocmen.
ISO 36: On VLA.
ISO 37: To answer this post; I thought AP was hinting at a possible PR. I try to avoid lynching them if possible. I think
I mention this later, but I'll cover it now. Doesn't mind the rash vote to put him at L-2. Yup, Zach and I enjoy tunnelling.
ISO 38: Yay, more posts than Haylen/AP! Now let's work on content!
ISO 39: I'll explain that to you. Stefan's pissed at me.
ISO 40: Reexplains about not claiming (I know why you didn't, I just said it was a blooming shame you didn't get to.)
Analysis: A lot of posts. Not sure if they really say much, tho'. While I can rail Zach for not forming opinions (or rather
parrotting town), it could be said it's a while to prod hurri into voting (11 posts). I don't trust anyone who doesn't have
strong opinions in this game, mostly because it's a good way for scum to hide. I still don't like the doctor post, and the
inexperience with MS doesn't clear him at all.
"You live for the fight when it's all that you've got."--Bon Jovi, Living on a Prayer
