Mafia Championship Scrimmage [END]

#441

Spoiler: show

I really like this post and Dyslexicon is starting to be one of my strongest town reads this game.

Dyslexicon wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:What is a TMI post?
Too much information. Like "But mafia could just block them with their roleblocker!"
The example Frog gave doesn't necessarily read TMI to me. I think I tend to talk to people like they are town in most instances naturally. Cause I'm just that much of a trusting, warm and kind individual.

I want to clarify what I meant in that post since I seem to have caused some misunderstanding.

Spoiler: show

This is the post he was referring to when he said I had "too much information".

Marco wrote:@Frog, you came in encouraging a strategy involving hypo-claiming. How did you think about going about it accurately if you don't know what setup we're playing?

What I'm saying here is that, "If Frog is town, he doesn't know what setup we're playing. Then why is he advising a hypo-claim strategy?" This is because I thought Frog was asking us to hypo-claim just one role each.

Here's what I said right before the above quoted post:

Marco wrote:Assuming I'm Vanilla Townie, I have no way to know which setup we're playing until we see some PR (town and/or mafia) deaths. I could see the potential for PR cover after we have better idea of what setup we're in but mafia is going to probably have that knowledge alone for a while and hypo-claiming requires the contribution of quite a number of well-informed townies.

Link: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 48#p263448

Here's more clarification I provided on this "TMI" point.

Marco wrote:
Frog wrote:My friend Marco, if you want to be taken seriously, at least make an argument. You've read my analysis from various perspectives that involve claims, warrants, and basis. Your response is: I disagree because reasons. But you don't list reasons. LOL. You haven't even engaged which parts you disagree with with respect to my analysis. It really just seems like you're randomly defending Marco, but cautiously backing off in case you get linked. I think you know I'm onto something, I've just posted TWO of Marcos slips.

1) TMI - he KNOWS that I don't have knowledge of the entire setup - aka, he's presuming me a Town, and yet he's voting me, lol.
2) Defending you after you make THESE trolls posts that I've ALREADY brought to your attention, and told you to please refrain from self-lynch baiting. I even explain WHY self-lynch baiting is horrible for Town. If you choose not to interact with me in actual content based discussion I can only concluded the worst for you.
1. That was my point. I was calling out that if you're town, you don't know which setup we're playing. Then how could you be suggesting a hypo-claim strategy. As I admitted, I hadn't understood your strategy clearly. I didn't get that you meant we claim all the possible roles. It appeared to me that you knew the setup we're in and forgot that the rest of us don't have that information.
2. I wasn't defending Sloonei. I was pointing out that Sig was answering the wrong question.

Silverwolf wrote:What do you think about the possibility this will harm VCA (vote count analysis for those who are not familiar with the terminology) later in the game?

This is my biggest problem with Frog's plan. I find vote histories to be very informative. Here's my post that you may have missed.

Marco wrote:
Frog wrote:Quick Plan:

These players
Spoiler: show
Golden 53
Marco 43
Sloonei 41
Frog 34
Dyslexicon 27
Silverwolf 25
sig 20
Zexy 20
Will Split up into groups of 2 and vote these players, putting each of them at 2 votes:
Spoiler: show
DrWilgy 4
Metalmarsh89 4
a2thezebra 3
Psittaciform 2
These guys will have to make a cases for each of the slankers, and finish up the votes:
Spoiler: show
MovingPictures07 13
ika 11
Long Con 11
Inawordyes 10

Spoiler: show
If this splits evenly, all 4 slankers should be put at 3 votes each.

For reference, with a hammer, the vote required to hammer is currently 9 votes.
Since there are 4 wolves, it would require 5 town to pile onto the incorrect pick, and all 4 wolves to snipe the incorrect pick, thereby explicitly revealing their team. What I'm saying is, if we choose these 4 players as wagons now, we are certainly safe within the realms of variation putting each of the 4 lurkers to 3+/- 2 votes (1-5 votes on each).

I think this is an optimal strategy since, as I've pointed, I believe wolves are least likely to be engaged in the game because it is not in their wincon, and wolves are lazy AF in games unfortunately. I believe at least one wolf must exist in that group of 4, although I believe more exist in that group of 4 personally. If we force wolves to vote amongst wolves and nonwolves, we put them in a situation that makes them mechanically vulnerable! This is optimal IMO.
I hope you all join me in my plan to make wagons on these 4 players and collect everyone's reads on these 4 players.
I like that you want to focus on the lurkers but I don't think performing vote gymnastics to build competing wagons is a good idea. This works best if you can believe the Top 8 posters are all town (which I think is very improbable). Following this plan basically means their votes are going to be "random". In the sense that we can't use the vote history later for any information. They will just be splitting their votes among the 4 lowest posters regardless of their own suspicions and we'd be at a loss for vote patterns today. Only people we'll really get information on are the MIDposters for stating their cases for or against the LOWposters. Also, we're not yet past half of Day 1 either, I wouldn't say it's fair to say that the low posters are low posters, just yet. There's plenty of time to post and contribute.

I support the spirit of your plan but not the execution. I have an alternative. We each make a list of 4-5 low posters/lurkers/etc. A list of people we think are trying to skirt by with no effort or just people we want to see more participation for. And then we place our votes accordingly.

#442

Spoiler: show

Zexy, I have the following questions and comments regarding this reads list of yours:
1) What good points has Golden brought up?
2) How does the method by which Marco post make his activity faked? What do you think of the content of his "one-liners"? I find the fact that you are considering the method rather than the content of his activity as the basis of your read suspect.
3) What's the strange cover you are referring to with respect to IAWY? I can't recall off the top of my head after doing all that reading.

Thanks, Zexy! You're the best for dealing with all of my questions, assuming you continue to do so.

Also, what is slank cover, anyone?

#443

a2thezebra wrote: I do however think that in general going after lurkers is a common baddie tactic, and I also think that the way he's gone about it by denying that it's a policy lynch is very alarming.

Well, I hate to self meta but here goes, I will try to keep lurkers around as scum. I would much rather go after a higher quality poster. That said, and I believe this was already brought up by someone, it isn't the quantity of the posts that matters but the content. I do keep that in mind and more try to go for UTR (under the radar players) that I can't read or who are not being noticed more than just low content overall.

#444

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Marco wrote:Quick semi-OT:
1. Can someone explain the color tagging here to me?
2. Is there any way to have the quoted post be linked in the quote box? The board I come from lets us attach the post number after the player's name - quote=ProfessorX;2837489. Convenient, especially when you want to cut out superfluous text but don't want to make tough for people to find out the context.
Did anyone ever answer this question of Marco's, does anyone know? Sorry if it has been answered, but I saw it asked a little while ago on page 5 and I haven't seen a response yet. If not, I can respond.

Yes, I asked this a couple times already and no one responded.

#445

Dyslexicon wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Using the hammer by this means will help us gain valuable information based on flip. If I cannot be judged based on my little contribution, at least by this plan I can assist town in some way.

The only negative I see is the potential of hitting a low key civ power role.

No I'm horribly behind. I've been looking for my name during my skim though. Still have a bad gut feel on Sloon. I'm having trouble reading Sig. I have a bad gut feel on Golden.
What valuable information would be gathered by lynching a lurker?
What information do you see coming out of lynching you based on you having low content?

What is your reason for mentioning you have trouble reading Sig, is there a point to this?

Wagons with this plan it will be easier to pick apart wagons. Better analysis latter, if my lynch is avoided within the 4 provided, yay me! If not, oh well.

Sig is try harding harder than I've seen sig try hard... Or at least it feels that way.

#446

Dyslexicon wrote:
Frog wrote:However- going to have to agree with you. Ore flip associations are usually lol. But let the ENTP in me lay out all of the tinfoils anyway!!!
You're ENTP? You should join PersonalityCafe lol \o/

I'm INTJ.

#447

Psittaciform only has 2 posts: First one looked townish, second one was null, need to see a lot more here

Inawordyes-vote for Soneji is bad, even I don't agree with voting someone who has posting nothing at all, claims it is RVS but why hasn't he moved it yet then? null scum lean

Went through my other nulls-they are still null, I need to see more

So basically I have Golden and Inawordyes as possible scum so far, a few townreads, and lots of null reads, MP's latest posts are ok, I'm curious how he will react after all his questions are answered-I want to see his final analysis, reads

#448

Dyslexicon wrote:I'm thoroughly over Ika defending Silver at any given chance. Can someone just clarify what their relationship normally is in games? It's bizarre as hell.

Ika should contribute something else.

Between the whole Silver/Golden discussion my thoughts are roughly this: First of all I didn't really see anything wrong with the MP vote. Second, none of Golden's questions were unreasonable or misrepping or whatever else Silver called it, it was just normal questioning. Reacting in this way seems to be normal for Silver though as I read it. All in all Silver reads townish to me, even if I don't agree with how she takes Golden's questioning. She seems to be putting herself in a position of being above questioning. Which she is not. Still reads more town to me. Golden however is if he is scum given a golden opportunity (see what I did there? :3) to defend himself in a way that makes logical sense all the way and he could objectively defend his position.
However my question is: Golden, do you still suspect Silver?
I also note that Golden is slightly apologetic in this interaction for "ticking Silver off" (which I don't think he needs to be cause he did nothing wrong). He may just be a polite young gentleman, but it reads a bit guilty mindset.
Like, I find it really hard to trust Golden, and I don't know whether I'm paranoid or not.

I don't know if this thought process will make sense to anyone.

The former.

#449

DrWilgy wrote:Wagons with this plan it will be easier to pick apart wagons. Better analysis latter, if my lynch is avoided within the 4 provided, yay me! If not, oh well.

Sig is try harding harder than I've seen sig try hard... Or at least it feels that way.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Can you please clarify
- What do you preceive "this plan" to be, and how will it make it easier to pick apart wagons. Examples?
- What do you mean with "the 4 provided".

You mentioned you couldn't read sig, so I wondered why you felt the need to say that. Now you're saying he's different somehow (if I understand you correctly)?

#450

Dyslexicon wrote:I guess Zebra, Wilgy, Golden, Ika, Inaword, LC and sig are in my suspicion pile atm.

MP could be but he is totally cute so he is excused *buddies*
Metal and Soneji null for obvious reasons.

I have reads. I have the best reads. (someone please take this joke)

I'm cute? Wow, that's the first time I've heard that come from anyone other than my wife.

#451

a2thezebra wrote:
Marco wrote:Looks to me like she's either very passionate against policy lynches on low posters or she's trying to soft-defend low posters by discouraging a push on them.
It's both. I take no shame in soft(?) defending the lower posters, if for no other reason that I feel like they get taken advantage of by manipulative baddies almost every game. I'm not ruling out the possibility that any of them are bad, but I am ruling out the possibility that they are bad simply for not posting a lot of content.

I like that. I too am prone to chastising people for focusing on low posters, especially this early in a game, but I see the merit in going after the lurkers once you're in midgame. It's no good to go into the final stages of the game with people you have not interacted with in a meaningful manner. Which is why I find that that barring an actual wagon, I don't mind letting people put pressure on lurkers. I mind it if pushing lurkers is all you do.

This is why I found your whole "A, B, C... etc" theatrics and then completely pouncing on Frog strange.

a2thezebra wrote:And to answer your concern Marco, I'm not entirely sold on a baddie read of Frog yet, because this approach could just be his style and therefore I could be suspecting him for something irrelevant to his alignment. I do however think that in general going after lurkers is a common baddie tactic, and I also think that the way he's gone about it by denying that it's a policy lynch is very alarming.

Understandable. What do you think about this alternative tactic?

Besides our town-reads and scum-reads, we also point out 3-4 people who should be posting more (not just quantity, but content) than they actually are. Yeah, I guess if it's a strong enough read, you can just include them in your scum-reads, but in my experience, I don't get convincing reads on people if they're not posting enough. So this last category can be included to count people who you think are scum but they haven't posted enough posts or thoughts to actually have a solid case against them.

If a bunch of us agree on the "luker" list, I think they will be good candidates for voting on. This tactic will be more useful going into Day 2 or 3, by the way.

#452

Marco wrote: I like that you want to focus on the lurkers but I don't think performing vote gymnastics to build competing wagons is a good idea. This works best if you can believe the Top 8 posters are all town (which I think is very improbable). Following this plan basically means their votes are going to be "random". In the sense that we can't use the vote history later for any information. They will just be splitting their votes among the 4 lowest posters regardless of their own suspicions and we'd be at a loss for vote patterns today. Only people we'll really get information on are the MIDposters for stating their cases for or against the LOWposters. Also, we're not yet past half of Day 1 either, I wouldn't say it's fair to say that the low posters are low posters, just yet. There's plenty of time to post and contribute.

I support the spirit of your plan but not the execution. I have an alternative. We each make a list of 4-5 low posters/lurkers/etc. A list of people we think are trying to skirt by with no effort or just people we want to see more participation for. And then we place our votes accordingly.

I'd sooner follow this than Frog's plan, but I'd much rather Day 1 not turn into "let's decide which lurker to lynch". I think it's in our best interest to avoid this as much as possible.

With that said, if multiple players do not post much game-related content by the end of Day 1, then I'm not averse to analyzing what semblance of game-related content is there and judging based on that, if any of that content is particularly suspicious. I just don't want to judge it based on post count alone, and I think we have a lot to base our votes on already, let alone after more discussion.

#453

Dyslexicon wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Dyslexicon wrote:Okay, cool, thanks.

In order to help me solve the game and feel comfortable that I can start substantively reading players (particularly in the early stages of the game), I've found that I like to engage other players in live conversation, particularly after I've recently caught up on a bunch of content, and unfortunately I haven't been able to do that yet.

Likely I'll be working on a rainbow list once I'm caught up as well. Helps me sort my thoughts on everyone and keeps me transparent. And I always like feedback on it, though usually only Golden gives it to me.
I see. I'm partial to rainbow lists. I often do them as well, it's quite common on PerC. However, I don't think I'm going to do one here, cause I just don't feel like it now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Awww, bummer. I like comparing rainbow lists with my fellow players.

#454

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'd sooner follow this than Frog's plan, but I'd much rather Day 1 not turn into "let's decide which lurker to lynch". I think it's in our best interest to avoid this as much as possible.

With that said, if multiple players do not post much game-related content by the end of Day 1, then I'm not averse to analyzing what semblance of game-related content is there and judging based on that, if any of that content is particularly suspicious. I just don't want to judge it based on post count alone, and I think we have a lot to base our votes on already, let alone after more discussion.

I agree. Day 1 is too early to follow this tactic. I think this revised version I suggest is better.

Marco wrote:Besides our town-reads and scum-reads, we also point out 3-4 people who should be posting more (not just quantity, but content) than they actually are. Yeah, I guess if it's a strong enough read, you can just include them in your scum-reads, but in my experience, I don't get convincing reads on people if they're not posting enough. So this last category can be included to count people who you think are scum but they haven't posted enough posts or thoughts to actually have a solid case against them.

If a bunch of us agree on the "luker" list, I think they will be good candidates for voting on. This tactic will be more useful going into Day 2 or 3, by the way.

#455

Silverwolf wrote:I just woke up and am still a little cranky but I have to rant for a bit cuz it's bugging me and will make me feel better:

In Turf Wars, I went after low content lurkers and turned out to be right that some of them were scum. I was basically discredited by townies in that game as being tinfoil because those posters had low content and they kept going after each other and the wrong people. Even after I was killed, they ignored me.

My MP vote was to get a reaction out of him. I DO NOT appreciate Golden's insinuations that I was going after him for RL which I would never do. Golden kept twisting it to that and it pissed me off. There was nothing wrong with my vote and I have no idea of MP's alignment-I'm gonna go read all his posts a little later-but I DO NOT appreciate Golden interfering with my vote and interaction with MP and defending MP the way he did. If MP is town and Golden is town, it's fine but there is no way for Golden to know that unless he's scum.

I think he's scum who knows MP's alignment. It's the only way for him to be that defensive of him because it's way too early with too little content to get a read on MP so he's not defending a townread as town.

He's a damn good player. As scum, it is easy to get into an argument and be all logical and level headed and look like town. Who's to say he didn't do that? That said, I'm gonna read all the reactions to is and see what others thing. I incorrectly tunneled Golden in Turf Wars when he was town and even though I realized that and backed off then, I don't want to make the same mistake here. Also, us tunneling back and forth will get us nowhere. I need to get some reads on and ISO others today.

ika defending me is null, he defends me all the time but I need to see more than just defending me here from him when he can post properly again

I can understand your view here, but from my perspective, I think Golden defended me with points that were not altogether illogical or reaching. I didn't read any of his posts in response to you re: me and think "wow, why would he feel town on me because of this?", even with a paranoid mindset. It seemed to me he was more so defending against your argument that I'm mafia, rather than strongly arguing that I'm town. That's the impression I got anyway.

#456

I don't generally make rainbow lists but I like when others do as it helps a lot in reading them, so let's see these rainbow lists. And in the interest of others getting the same insight of me, I'll post my rainbow list too, but as of now, it's pretty gray along the middle.

#457

Dyslexicon wrote:I'm a bit bothered that noone has had more than 3 votes at a point (iirc). I'm not used to that at all. We need more wagons. We need clear lynch candidates.

Most players on this site are accustomed to nonchangeable votes; changeable votes have become a thing (and relatively common, at that) only within the past year or two tops.

That said, half the player list isn't native to this site, so it could partially be because we're still only a bit over 24 hours into the day.

#458

Silverwolf wrote:I didn't get upset that the fact ika and I were dating was brought up but in Turf Wars we were both early read as scum for concentrating on each other to start the game and that's really NAI with us. It' not alignment indicative and it was frustrating to be scumread for playstyle. That said, I don't do that nearly as much in games now. It helps me broaden my focus.

Pedit-or linki (depending on what lingo I want to use)

I am used to wagoning people as well. For whatever reason they don't do that as much here. I'm gonna check out the wagons later today.

You can understand though why others might find hard claiming based on meta to be worth conversation (and furthermore, suspicion). I think that's what largely was occurring, especially since you both were brand new to everyone.

#459

Dyslexicon wrote:Let's wagon Golden then. Only because of love and support, naturally.

VOTE GOLDEN

While Golden isn't my strongest town read, I don't support this.

#460

ika wrote:
Dyslexicon wrote:
ika wrote:so after rereading the first few pages (more like glossed), sig seems odd, I agree on silvers idea of MP being "cautious" (town should not care IMO)

town read delex, frog (not doing the plan), and sloonie.

anyone else want to talk to me go right ahead i got about 20-30 mins
I want to know if you have the intention of reading the whole thread before day ends?
probally not. this is not only due to the fact im heading out, but if i fall behind and try to read i jsut start glossing over and get disintrested.

its noramly why i try to go from the start

I'd highly suggest reading all content when you get the chance, because I'd like to hear more from you. You're towards the bottom of my upcoming rainbow right now, so I'd support your lynch and you should have at least some sense of urgency for that reason.

#461

ika wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
ika wrote:so after rereading the first few pages (more like glossed), sig seems odd, I agree on silvers idea of MP being "cautious" (town should not care IMO)

town read delex, frog (not doing the plan), and sloonie.

anyone else want to talk to me go right ahead i got about 20-30 mins
Town shouldn't care about where they cast their votes?

"sig seems odd".
1) Does odd = suspicious?
2) How does sig seem odd?
3) Do you suspect sig?
yes, town has a lack of anwareness and woundt car if they voted willy nilly(ie me and silver do it all the time as town), scums try to move their votes little as possible to not be caught by their votes

that being said, what i find odd about sig is that hes diffrent then what i played with him before.

That's entirely a meta-based assessment (re: underlined).

Further, you didn't address whether odd = suspicious or whether you suspect sig. I find this suspect.

#462

Dyslexicon wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Wagons with this plan it will be easier to pick apart wagons. Better analysis latter, if my lynch is avoided within the 4 provided, yay me! If not, oh well.

Sig is try harding harder than I've seen sig try hard... Or at least it feels that way.
I don't understand what you mean by this.

Can you please clarify
- What do you preceive "this plan" to be, and how will it make it easier to pick apart wagons. Examples?
- What do you mean with "the 4 provided".

You mentioned you couldn't read sig, so I wondered why you felt the need to say that. Now you're saying he's different somehow (if I understand you correctly)?

If I interpereted the plan correctly it's to place the high posters evenly amongst the low posters, followed by the medium. With a more specified pool to pick from it will be interesting to see where people place thier vote and in what order they do so. Will baddies stack up? Will they bus? What type of voting plan do they have. While the results may not be of immediate use, a technicolor vote chart would benefit greatly from this plan.

Or... I'm being optimistic about endgame, not really too sure.

Yeah, he's acting different. I don't know how I feel about it, so I thought I should mention it.

#463

Dyslexicon wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Feeling slightly town about this post, Dizzy. Digging it. Your reads are easy to comprehend yet they appear genuine. Can you elaborate on your reads of sig and Zexy?
Think I had town point on sig at first just due to mention he liked living (seemed like a town mindset). But I've grown suspicious of him, cause I don't feel he adds a lot. Not much else to say, but I should probably ISO him at a point.

Zexy, I don't know. On the townier side of null to me. Just due to the fact that I'm able to look at his whole play and see it as a comprehensive town play I guess. I don't have much specifics here either.

Dizzy, what do you think of PSI this game?
I commented on this in the post you quoted above this one. Most of all I want him to post more now.

Thanks for this.

#464

Silverwolf wrote:Dyslexicon-I didn't borrow your reasoning but I can see where you would think that as it does look similar. Don't know what else to say. I do agree with you there on Golden but I've given several independent thoughts on him as well as directly interacting with him last night.

ika does not defend me as much when I am scum, he has caught on to me pretty quick in 2 of my scum games against him, the third I fooled him most of the game but this was before we were dating so I think the defending things is due to that plus if he truly believes I am town, he will strongly defend me no matter what. He can answer a lot more to this. He's still out of town.

I agree with MP that ika should let me answer for myself so ika, please do that, TIA.

What's TIA? Sorry, the abbreviations are numerous and I'm catching most, but not all of them.

#465

Marco, I'll get to your post on zebra in a bit, but I want to finish technically catching up so I can work on my rainbow.

#466

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Silverwolf wrote:Dyslexicon-I didn't borrow your reasoning but I can see where you would think that as it does look similar. Don't know what else to say. I do agree with you there on Golden but I've given several independent thoughts on him as well as directly interacting with him last night.

ika does not defend me as much when I am scum, he has caught on to me pretty quick in 2 of my scum games against him, the third I fooled him most of the game but this was before we were dating so I think the defending things is due to that plus if he truly believes I am town, he will strongly defend me no matter what. He can answer a lot more to this. He's still out of town.

I agree with MP that ika should let me answer for myself so ika, please do that, TIA.
What's TIA? Sorry, the abbreviations are numerous and I'm catching most, but not all of them.

Yeah, I'm trying to explain as many as I can. It is thanks in advance

At the risk of looking like I'm defending him, why do you want to lynch ika?

#467

Marco wrote:
Zexy wrote:Marco 43 – Too many one-liners, kinda “fake” activity if you ask me. Not feeling too good about him yet.
What do people think about this? I ISO'd myself and I can sort of see some one-liners, but I can't really see how Zexy is calling my activity fake. She feels disingenuous IMO. I have had other reasons to suspect Zexy, too, but it could be that it's OMGUS-motivated, so I request others to ISO me and tell me what they think about Zexy's read on me.

I commented on this already, but I wanted to emphasize it, because it's currently one of the strongest points against Zexy being town in my opinion. This could be a way for a mafia Zexy to fabricate a suspicion, but the train of thought is flawed (criticizing your method of posting rather than your content).

#468

a2thezebra wrote:
Marco wrote:Looks to me like she's either very passionate against policy lynches on low posters or she's trying to soft-defend low posters by discouraging a push on them.
It's both. I take no shame in soft(?) defending the lower posters, if for no other reason that I feel like they get taken advantage of by manipulative baddies almost every game. I'm not ruling out the possibility that any of them are bad, but I am ruling out the possibility that they are bad simply for not posting a lot of content.

For those that care about meta, I want to say that this is 100% within zebra's typical meta. NIA for me.

#469

NAI, not NIA. Dang it.

#470

Dyslexicon wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:I find it very much in character for Golden to defend me, regardless of his alignment, since it's something we both will not hesitate to do if we think the other one is town and is attracting heat early on, since we both often talk a lot and attract a lot of early suspicion, whether fairly or unfairly. A town Golden will not hesitate to defend with conviction any player he believes is town, but a scum Golden would have a similar incentive here since he would know I'm town. So the fact that he defends me is NAI, but I wanted to elaborate upon this nonetheless, in an attempt to provide meaningful context for Silverwolf and anyone else interested.
Do you think Golden had any reason to read you town at that time?

Not particularly, no. As I mentioned earlier, I saw it more as an attempt to defend me from being mafia based on my content in the thread at that time, rather than defend me for being town, if that makes sense. If others disagree, please state so.

#471

a2thezebra wrote:Oh and one last thing, I'd just like to make a comment about how all the newcomers are doing an outstanding job with the game so far, regardless of alignment. You all should fit in nicely here.

This.

#472

Silverwolf wrote:
a2thezebra wrote: I do however think that in general going after lurkers is a common baddie tactic, and I also think that the way he's gone about it by denying that it's a policy lynch is very alarming.
Well, I hate to self meta but here goes, I will try to keep lurkers around as scum. I would much rather go after a higher quality poster. That said, and I believe this was already brought up by someone, it isn't the quantity of the posts that matters but the content. I do keep that in mind and more try to go for UTR (under the radar players) that I can't read or who are not being noticed more than just low content overall.

I would say that's generally the most common mafia approach; it's rarer for them to kill off lurkers and keep the talkative ones around, but that strategy has merit as well, as it leads to more tinfoiling.

#473

This isn't rainbow but more towniest to scummiest list.

Dyslexicon
Frog
Marco
Sloonei
Zexy

a2thezebra
MovingPictures07
DrWilgy
ika
Long Con
Metalmarsh89
Psittaciform

sig
Inawordyes
Golden

#474

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Silverwolf wrote:
a2thezebra wrote: I do however think that in general going after lurkers is a common baddie tactic, and I also think that the way he's gone about it by denying that it's a policy lynch is very alarming.
Well, I hate to self meta but here goes, I will try to keep lurkers around as scum. I would much rather go after a higher quality poster. That said, and I believe this was already brought up by someone, it isn't the quantity of the posts that matters but the content. I do keep that in mind and more try to go for UTR (under the radar players) that I can't read or who are not being noticed more than just low content overall.
I would say that's generally the most common mafia approach; it's rarer for them to kill off lurkers and keep the talkative ones around, but that strategy has merit as well, as it leads to more tinfoiling.

Oh hey, and to elaborate on this and also ika's scum meta:

He like to WIFOM NK's so he will kill of people who don't make sense for mafia to kill. He's a hardcore busser to. IF he's scum here, this is something to keep in mind. That said, I don't know what he is yet.

#475

Marco wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Marco wrote:Quick semi-OT:
1. Can someone explain the color tagging here to me?
2. Is there any way to have the quoted post be linked in the quote box? The board I come from lets us attach the post number after the player's name - quote=ProfessorX;2837489. Convenient, especially when you want to cut out superfluous text but don't want to make tough for people to find out the context.
Did anyone ever answer this question of Marco's, does anyone know? Sorry if it has been answered, but I saw it asked a little while ago on page 5 and I haven't seen a response yet. If not, I can respond.
Yes, I asked this a couple times already and no one responded.

I got this.

1. I'm not sure whether you mean how to do it or what they're for, so I'll assume you meant both.
The off-topic (OT) tag is for when in-game players want to comment on something strictly not game related. Such as if I talk about what my favorite album is, what movie I just watched, or whether ika was visiting Silverwolf. It can be generated by [ OT ] and [ / OT ] without the spaces.
The dead tag is for players who are dead and talk strictly off-topic, so it's basically the OT tag but for players who are no longer in the game. It can be generated by [ dead ] and [ / dead ] without the spaces.
The np tag is for non-players who talk strictly off-topic, such as the Moderator on Duty (in this game, Dom). It can be generated by [ np ] and [ / np ] without the spaces.
The sarc tag is for players when posting something sarcastic and want to make it apparent so that another player doesn't miss that point or get pissed off, since tone can be difficult to convey via text only. For example, if I wanted to say "What a great point!" when I really think it was absolutely absurd and want to use sarcasm to emphasize the absurdity of that person's point, I'd put it in orange. It can be generated by [ sarc ] and [ / sarc ] without the spaces.
Lastly, the ped tag is for pedantic statements, and it was created recently by Golden. Pedantic pink is for when you're feeling pedantic.

It can be generated by [ ped ] and [ / ped ] without the spaces.

These are all customs that developed organically in Lostpedia-based mafia communities way back when and have become a normal part of The Syndicate culture for that reason, since many of the site's original (and current) members originally came from one or multiple of the various LP-based mafia communities (all now long defunct).

2. Unfortunately, we don't have this mod currently added to the site (consider this on the to-do list though, since I want it). You can always copy the URL of a specific post by clicking the "Re: Mafia Championship Scrimmage" at the top of the post, so that URL will lead directly to that post. That's what I do when I want to reference a post specifically, since you can use [ url ] and [ / url ] tags to make text linkable. Like this.

Hope that sufficiently answers your questions.

#476

Ah, crap, I messed up the sarcastic portion because I tried to use sarc tags within sarc tags. Oops.

But you get the idea.

#477

DrWilgy wrote:
Dyslexicon wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Using the hammer by this means will help us gain valuable information based on flip. If I cannot be judged based on my little contribution, at least by this plan I can assist town in some way.

The only negative I see is the potential of hitting a low key civ power role.

No I'm horribly behind. I've been looking for my name during my skim though. Still have a bad gut feel on Sloon. I'm having trouble reading Sig. I have a bad gut feel on Golden.
What valuable information would be gathered by lynching a lurker?
What information do you see coming out of lynching you based on you having low content?

What is your reason for mentioning you have trouble reading Sig, is there a point to this?
Wagons with this plan it will be easier to pick apart wagons. Better analysis latter, if my lynch is avoided within the 4 provided, yay me! If not, oh well.

Sig is try harding harder than I've seen sig try hard... Or at least it feels that way.

DrWilgy, how does this (underlined) impact your read of sig, if at all?

#478

Marco wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:I'd sooner follow this than Frog's plan, but I'd much rather Day 1 not turn into "let's decide which lurker to lynch". I think it's in our best interest to avoid this as much as possible.

With that said, if multiple players do not post much game-related content by the end of Day 1, then I'm not averse to analyzing what semblance of game-related content is there and judging based on that, if any of that content is particularly suspicious. I just don't want to judge it based on post count alone, and I think we have a lot to base our votes on already, let alone after more discussion.
I agree. Day 1 is too early to follow this tactic. I think this revised version I suggest is better.

Marco wrote:Besides our town-reads and scum-reads, we also point out 3-4 people who should be posting more (not just quantity, but content) than they actually are. Yeah, I guess if it's a strong enough read, you can just include them in your scum-reads, but in my experience, I don't get convincing reads on people if they're not posting enough. So this last category can be included to count people who you think are scum but they haven't posted enough posts or thoughts to actually have a solid case against them.

If a bunch of us agree on the "luker" list, I think they will be good candidates for voting on. This tactic will be more useful going into Day 2 or 3, by the way.

I'm with you more here.

#479

Marco wrote:I don't generally make rainbow lists but I like when others do as it helps a lot in reading them, so let's see these rainbow lists. And in the interest of others getting the same insight of me, I'll post my rainbow list too, but as of now, it's pretty gray along the middle.

Working on mine now.

#480

MovingPictures07 wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
Marco wrote:Looks to me like she's either very passionate against policy lynches on low posters or she's trying to soft-defend low posters by discouraging a push on them.
It's both. I take no shame in soft(?) defending the lower posters, if for no other reason that I feel like they get taken advantage of by manipulative baddies almost every game. I'm not ruling out the possibility that any of them are bad, but I am ruling out the possibility that they are bad simply for not posting a lot of content.
For those that care about meta, I want to say that this is 100% within zebra's typical meta. NIA for me.

I'm leaning on town with her responses too. But is it really typical of zebra to even discourage pushes on low posters, not actual lynches? Maybe I'm reading into it a bit much and she doesn't care about the push and if that's the case, I understand.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Marco wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Marco wrote:Quick semi-OT:
1. Can someone explain the color tagging here to me?
2. Is there any way to have the quoted post be linked in the quote box? The board I come from lets us attach the post number after the player's name - quote=ProfessorX;2837489. Convenient, especially when you want to cut out superfluous text but don't want to make tough for people to find out the context.
Did anyone ever answer this question of Marco's, does anyone know? Sorry if it has been answered, but I saw it asked a little while ago on page 5 and I haven't seen a response yet. If not, I can respond.
Yes, I asked this a couple times already and no one responded.
I got this.

1. I'm not sure whether you mean how to do it or what they're for, so I'll assume you meant both.
The off-topic (OT) tag is for when in-game players want to comment on something strictly not game related. Such as if I talk about what my favorite album is, what movie I just watched, or whether ika was visiting Silverwolf. It can be generated by [ OT ] and [ / OT ] without the spaces.
The dead tag is for players who are dead and talk strictly off-topic, so it's basically the OT tag but for players who are no longer in the game. It can be generated by [ dead ] and [ / dead ] without the spaces.
The np tag is for non-players who talk strictly off-topic, such as the Moderator on Duty (in this game, Dom). It can be generated by [ np ] and [ / np ] without the spaces.
The sarc tag is for players when posting something sarcastic and want to make it apparent so that another player doesn't miss that point or get pissed off, since tone can be difficult to convey via text only. For example, if I wanted to say "What a great point!" when I really think it was absolutely absurd and want to use sarcasm to emphasize the absurdity of that person's point, I'd put it in orange. It can be generated by [ sarc ] and [ / sarc ] without the spaces.
Lastly, the ped tag is for pedantic statements, and it was created recently by Golden. Pedantic pink is for when you're feeling pedantic. It can be generated by [ ped ] and [ / ped ] without the spaces.

These are all customs that developed organically in Lostpedia-based mafia communities way back when and have become a normal part of The Syndicate culture for that reason, since many of the site's original (and current) members originally came from one or multiple of the various LP-based mafia communities (all now long defunct).

2. Unfortunately, we don't have this mod currently added to the site (consider this on the to-do list though, since I want it). You can always copy the URL of a specific post by clicking the "Re: Mafia Championship Scrimmage" at the top of the post, so that URL will lead directly to that post. That's what I do when I want to reference a post specifically, since you can use [ url ] and [ / url ] tags to make text linkable. Like this.

Hope that sufficiently answers your questions.

1. This is perfect. Exactly the information I was looking for. I'd noticed it in the Sign-up Topic too but I forgot the actual tags and which stands for what. Very helpful and I'll definitely try to migrate this to my home board.

2. I don't mind doing the URL bit either. Was just wondering if I was just missing out on the direct link to the quote.

#481

Marco wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
Marco wrote:Looks to me like she's either very passionate against policy lynches on low posters or she's trying to soft-defend low posters by discouraging a push on them.
It's both. I take no shame in soft(?) defending the lower posters, if for no other reason that I feel like they get taken advantage of by manipulative baddies almost every game. I'm not ruling out the possibility that any of them are bad, but I am ruling out the possibility that they are bad simply for not posting a lot of content.
For those that care about meta, I want to say that this is 100% within zebra's typical meta. NIA for me.
I'm leaning on town with her responses too. But is it really typical of zebra to even discourage pushes on low posters, not actual lynches? Maybe I'm reading into it a bit much and she doesn't care about the push and if that's the case, I understand.

Yeah, probably. zebra aggressively pushes whatever she feels is best at any given time.

#482

@MP it makes me wanna murk him... But everytime I feel like I wanna murk Sig he's civillian...

#483

Spoiler: show

Silverwolf, consider me a bit surprised you don't have more of a read on ika. Is it because you're giving him more time to provide reads, or for some other reason? I think he's had time to do that already, at least to a degree.

Silverwolf wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Silverwolf wrote:Dyslexicon-I didn't borrow your reasoning but I can see where you would think that as it does look similar. Don't know what else to say. I do agree with you there on Golden but I've given several independent thoughts on him as well as directly interacting with him last night.

ika does not defend me as much when I am scum, he has caught on to me pretty quick in 2 of my scum games against him, the third I fooled him most of the game but this was before we were dating so I think the defending things is due to that plus if he truly believes I am town, he will strongly defend me no matter what. He can answer a lot more to this. He's still out of town.

I agree with MP that ika should let me answer for myself so ika, please do that, TIA.
What's TIA? Sorry, the abbreviations are numerous and I'm catching most, but not all of them.
Yeah, I'm trying to explain as many as I can. It is thanks in advance

At the risk of looking like I'm defending him, why do you want to lynch ika?

Should have figured that out. Thanks.

A combination of small observations/reasons that together make me want to lynch ika:
1) He NO U voted for Marco because he threw suspicion your way, yet made no attempt to try to understand where Marco was coming from.
2) Then did the same exact thing to Golden, all the while failing to provide any commentary on anything else.
3) Over half of his content is mindlessly defending you.
4) This post:

Spoiler: show

ika wrote:
Dyslexicon wrote:
Dyslexicon wrote:
Silverwolf wrote:I just woke up and am still a little cranky but I have to rant for a bit cuz it's bugging me and will make me feel better:

In Turf Wars, I went after low content lurkers and turned out to be right that some of them were scum. I was basically discredited by townies in that game as being tinfoil because those posters had low content and they kept going after each other and the wrong people. Even after I was killed, they ignored me.

My MP vote was to get a reaction out of him. I DO NOT appreciate Golden's insinuations that I was going after him for RL which I would never do. Golden kept twisting it to that and it pissed me off. There was nothing wrong with my vote and I have no idea of MP's alignment-I'm gonna go read all his posts a little later-but I DO NOT appreciate Golden interfering with my vote and interaction with MP and defending MP the way he did. If MP is town and Golden is town, it's fine but there is no way for Golden to know that unless he's scum.

I think he's scum who knows MP's alignment. It's the only way for him to be that defensive of him because it's way too early with too little content to get a read on MP so he's not defending a townread as town.

He's a damn good player. As scum, it is easy to get into an argument and be all logical and level headed and look like town. Who's to say he didn't do that? That said, I'm gonna read all the reactions to is and see what others thing. I incorrectly tunneled Golden in Turf Wars when he was town and even though I realized that and backed off then, I don't want to make the same mistake here. Also, us tunneling back and forth will get us nowhere. I need to get some reads on and ISO others today.

ika defending me is null, he defends me all the time but I need to see more than just defending me here from him when he can post properly again
Have you read my posts on this topic before writing this?
Silver, this was for you in case you didn't see it.
She might of not.

that being said im gonna try to skima agin to get my reads oragnized. i havnt been payign enough attention due to me being out fo state

and MP no we are not visiting each other right now

Of anyone currently in the game, I found this the most likely "excuse" for not providing game-related content... and that's because (and this is by far my strongest point / ping)

****5) This post:

Spoiler: show

After actually engrossing himself in the game, all he is able to provide is that "sig seems odd" with regards to suspicions, and it's not even clear whether that's a suspicion. When I followed this up, he failed to answer my questions and provide whether he actually finds sig suspicious for it:

Spoiler: show

I also think his thoughts on me are inconsistent, and here's why: (1) he agreed with you that I seemed too cautious, yet (2) when I asked him about why town shouldn't care about casting their votes, he said town has a lack of awareness and try to move their votes as little as possible, and that's the key:

What you criticized me for (being cautious) was precisely because I was cautious keeping my vote where it was, which is exactly the opposite of what ika said when he elaborated.

Therefore, I have reason to believe his thoughts regarding me are fabricated.

#484

Dammit, I screwed up, and on my most key point too. EBWOP: ika said town try to move their votes as much as possible. Not little (that would be mafia). But what you criticized me for was a propensity to not keep my vote where it was (i.e., move it around).

#485

@mp

Your the ore misrepresenting, I said scums move it as little as possible town doesn't give a damn about the vote.

I'm in a meeting but if you suspect me back it up with a vote

#486

MovingPictures07 wrote:Dammit, I screwed up, and on my most key point too. EBWOP: ika said town try to move their votes as much as possible. Not little (that would be mafia). But what you criticized me for was a propensity to not keep my vote where it was (i.e., move it around).

ika is in a weird spot for me and dont't take this as a defense, but IIRC he said that "mafia tries to move their votes as less as possible" and not "town tries to move their votes as much as possible". While they both sound similar, they are quite different things.

#487

ika wrote:@mp

Your the ore misrepresenting, I said scums move it as little as possible town doesn't give a damn about the vote.

I'm in a meeting but if you suspect me back it up with a vote

I just clarified. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Your logic is unsound and you refuse to recognize it.

#488

Marco wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Dammit, I screwed up, and on my most key point too. EBWOP: ika said town try to move their votes as much as possible. Not little (that would be mafia). But what you criticized me for was a propensity to not keep my vote where it was (i.e., move it around).
ika is in a weird spot for me and dont't take this as a defense, but IIRC he said that "mafia tries to move their votes as less as possible" and not "town tries to move their votes as much as possible". While they both sound similar, they are quite different things.

That's a worthwhile distinction I hadn't thought of. I'll mull over it. I'm glad you said it because I was feeling pretty close to tunnel mode right before I read this, and I have a bad habit of tunneling even when I try to remain as cautious as possible.

#489

With all of that said, I want it to be made clear that I think ika's point, either way, is a sweeping generalization that fails to consider the nuance of different playstyles and vote approaches. Some players will be more apt to move their vote than others, regardless of alignment.

#490

MovingPictures07 wrote:
ika wrote:@mp

Your the ore misrepresenting, I said scums move it as little as possible town doesn't give a damn about the vote.

I'm in a meeting but if you suspect me back it up with a vote
I just clarified. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Your logic is unsound and you refuse to recognize it.

And how many times have I said in the past 2 games I say "screw logic"?

I don't care for logic one bit.