The Syndicate

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Marco wrote:Also, I can imagine Vigilante taking out Epignosis. While the Frog voters all had their own reasons, it definitely felt like Epignosis' vote was what resulted in the CFD. That along with Long Con's activity, I can imagine Vigilante killing Epi. Though it would have to be someone who's not used to being Vig. I think most people believe it's better to save their Vig kills for more conclusive targets. Epi had admittedly not caught up and I doubt a Vigilante would go after him last night even if they suspected him.
I don't understand this. You start this train of thought with imagining the vig taking out Epignosis. You finish it with doubting a vig took him out. Did you change your mind along the way?

I'm not sure what's not clear. I never said I believed that Town Vig killed Epignosis. I was just pointing out that I can imagine why Town Vig could've done so. I don't believe it was a Town Vigilante, but I should point out that when I first saw the Nightphase write-up, I immediately thought it was the Town Vig's kill and it wasn't until a couple seconds later that I remembered the other possibilities from the Matrix.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I addressed this in response to MM here:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Oh, that's a really good point. I just saw both of the kill targets and immediately thought mafia vig, because as far as I can remember, nearly all of us were town reading Silver to at least some degree, and Epi seemed to take a strong presence in the thread given he replaced in very late in the phase. I didn't think about a town vig killing him for his Frog vote, that could be a possibility as well.

Feels like an odd response to me, but maybe that's just from my own experience with Vanilla setups. I feel like 1-shot mafia vigilantes aren't all that common and most people's immediate response would be to assume the second kill was a Town Vigilante.

MovingPictures07 wrote:In addition, when I looked at the matrix, I saw more 1-Shot Mafia Vigilantes than Town Vigilante possibilities.

If you looked at the matrix before making that post and realized that there were Town Vigilante possibilities, then I'm even more surprised you presumed it was the 1-shot Mafia Vig. Especially since you're saying your initial reaction was that it was a mafia vig (for reasons you stated in response to MM). So, if you then went and checked the matrix, it feels weird that you would presume it was the mafia's doing instead of opening a discussion about whether it was town or mafia.

Also, I can imagine Vigilante taking out Epignosis. While the Frog voters all had their own reasons, it definitely felt like Epignosis' vote was what resulted in the CFD. That along with Long Con's activity, I can imagine Vigilante killing Epi. Though it would have to be someone who's not used to being Vig. I think most people believe it's better to save their Vig kills for more conclusive targets. Epi had admittedly not caught up and I doubt a Vigilante would go after him last night even if they suspected him.

MovingPictures07 wrote:RIP Frog, Silverwolf, and Epignosis.

I presume this means we're playing with a 1-Shot Mafia Vigilante.

If I were around for that EoD madness (which I'm sad I missed out on), I would have supported the Frog lynch and possibly moved my vote.

I need to conduct some more ISOs, look at those votes, and reevalaute, but note that I'm not sure my activity will be nearly as strong going forward. I'll try my best, but I didn't study enough this past weekend (obviously) due to sacrificing time for mafia. For now, I'm around for like a half hour tops until the afternoon/evening. Who else is here?

This stood out to me. My initial reaction was that it was a Town Vigilante kill because I'm used to that over other secondary kill setups. But then I remembered that there were various other possibilities.

But why did you immediately assume this was a 1-shot mafia vigilante?

If IAWY flips scum, wouldn't look good for Golden.

Dyslexicon wrote:I'm ok with the Frog lynch actually. If scum yay. If town, better than a lurker lynch imo.

This is actually true. And Frog's reactions right now aren't making me feel that good about him.

There should be a sudden death. Whoever gets the next vote dies (only fresh votes allowed).

Sloonei wrote:Ultimately you're shoving a false narrative that straddles every side. I don't like it.

For instance, here he is saying exactly what I just said about him. Frog's case against Marco and I at this time, and he can add any points that I'm missing if he wants, was that Marco and I were working together because Marco responded to sig when sig misunderstood something I said. Based on that, Frog made up a relationship between Marco and I which I'm still confused about. He clung to it and dragged us both through the mud. We kept trying to explain this to him, and yet he accuses us of "discrediting my content based on fallacious logic, often times side stepping my points entirely." And he never addressed any of the things I said about him.[/quote]

Frog moved on from us long ago. Both of us are his town reads now.

Dyslexicon wrote:
ika wrote:if your willing to take a bet i might answer
I don't care about your bet. Sure. Yes. No. Fine, whatever, tell me. How sure are you based on what?

It's just his read. He can't actually have concrete knowledge.

Golden wrote:I see Frog's content almost as deliberate wifom - on one hand I can read it as trying to avoid being the NK target. On the other as trying to avoid being the lynch target. The one thing I have difficulty seeing it as is absolutely straight. He started off feeling quite straightforward to me, but he's wobbled his way off the road.

We'll be in a better position to judge that once we see a couple flips.

@MetalMarsh89, you may have missed this.

Marco wrote:@MetalMarsh, how highly would you rate your own scum-game? And can you describe one or two of your best scum performances, preferably with links to them?

ika wrote:
Marco wrote:
Epignosis wrote:I've made a rainbow list.

Spoiler: show
Is there no rep system on this board?
thats the last thing needed on a site

Really? I like repping for things I like. And it provides a nice "snapshots" in your CP.

Golden wrote:
Marco wrote:Either way, I don't see how expecting you to be available at EOD is a difficult standard.
It's a ridiculous standard. If rl calls me away from EOD, rl wins.

True. But does that mean if someone doesn't get called away, they had a difficult time being available? RL is a valid reason for not being around, but that doesn't mean it's a difficult standard or that people won't remark on your absence if it's unexpected.

@MetalMarsh, how highly would you rate your own scum-game? And can you describe one or two of your best scum performances, preferably with links to them?

Epignosis wrote:I've made a rainbow list.

Spoiler: show

Is there no rep system on this board?

@MM, have you made a rainbow list?

sig wrote:Fine though if nobody wants to listen to me and switch there vote, then we can get to lynching the mafia tomorrow starting with those who are voting for Inaword, I'd actually right now like to lynch Silver. If either herself or Soneji flip mafia I'm confident the other is.

I could also see MM being mafia even if inaword does flip, which is why he didn't vote for him and tried to move it away from inaword a bit.

If it helps, Soneji's activity is not at all indicative of his alignment.

Soneji wrote:
Marco wrote:
Soneji wrote:In regards to avoiding major wagons, you mean the sole two that have more than a couple votes? Why should I exactly care to be voting for either, rather than the person I personally suspect the most at this moment?
In my opinion, you can make your suspicions well known without needing to waste your vote. Even though you might not have a strong feeling towards any of the major wagons, at least voting among them gives you some agency over town's greatest weapon, the lynch, and also helps the rest of the people in reading you.
Yet, considering the time left, my lynch choice was and is still able to garner enough votes to be the actual person lynched. I have still yet to get to where the MM suspicion starts, might just ISO him if I don't get there in time. IAWY I have already been pinged by so in the case of choosing between the two as of now, it would be him.

First, I wasn't saying you're wasting your vote. I was just explaining why one should care to vote between wagons he doesn't care about if people aren't following his suspicion.

Second, and this is my opinion but I think majority share it, we shouldn't be lynching Frog today. He is on the top of majority's town lists and has given a lot of activity, so he has more value alive than dead in the absence of a conclusive case.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Marco wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:It didn't occur to me that I might actually be lynched until 20 minutes ago or so. But on the other hand, I don't like to act rashly (though I admit I do sometimes anyway), so if I don't seem "urgent" to you, that would be why.

But I am disappointed in the situation, yes.
How come? You and MP were leading in votes. And then you tried to get a wagon started on Sloonei? Did that have nothing to do with the wagon on you?
I'm not really sure to be honest. But from the general feel I had of the game at the time, the table was still wide open. MP had several votes, but he still had people defending him (namely zebra), and he put the time into ISOing players to dispel that suspicion (I'm still waiting to hear where those votes went). I also had a few votes, but the votes were for acclaimed placeholder votes until I was able to participate. It felt like pressure, which did dissipate.

Sounds reasonable. I might be scrunching up the timeline in my head because I skimmed through the last 8-10 hours of game very fast, too.

MetalMarsh89 wrote:I couldn't tell you why the votes came back though. I'm at a loss there.

Well, I explained my vote on you already.
Frog has had his vote on you forever, mostly following his "slanker" lead.
sig voted you to save zebra/MP and later found your actions scummier (voting Frog, the points I mentioned, etc)
zebra was wasting her vote on someone. Decided to switch to you because of aforementioned reasons.

Can someone tell me how much time we have exactly?

Soneji wrote:
sig wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
sig wrote:So how about a counterwagon onto Soneji? Now that he has made a less then inspiring entrance.
Why?

You hate CFD's why should we lynch Soneji at this moment?

Linki: why don't you like them?
I do hate CFD's yes however, I'm fighting agaisnt a CFD which I believe is being used to save a baddie teammate. I know I"m not mafia so this is a slightly better CFD.

It seemed like he made some posts to appear and not be lurking, yet really didn't say anything that much. I also really disliked his vote and the fact he hasn't posted again since appearing or mention any of the big wagons and things going on.
In regards to avoiding major wagons, you mean the sole two that have more than a couple votes? Why should I exactly care to be voting for either, rather than the person I personally suspect the most at this moment?

In my opinion, you can make your suspicions well known without needing to waste your vote. Even though you might not have a strong feeling towards any of the major wagons, at least voting among them gives you some agency over town's greatest weapon, the lynch, and also helps the rest of the people in reading you.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Marco wrote:I wasn't wrong. You had stopped engaging. And you never responded to my post before you went away. Either way, I don't see how expecting you to be available at EOD is a difficult standard. Anyway, you're here now.

I don't think I overlooked your engagement. I already pointed out why I found your behavior scummy. As for your primary contribution this phase: I, personally, don't have a conclusive read on Sloonei, and your case wasn't convincing to me. In fact, I felt that your focus on finding an alternative lynch was not a very townie reaction. Everyone has different meta, of course, but I would have expected you to focus a little more on why the lynch on you is wrong.
It didn't occur to me that I might actually be lynched until 20 minutes ago or so. But on the other hand, I don't like to act rashly (though I admit I do sometimes anyway), so if I don't seem "urgent" to you, that would be why.

But I am disappointed in the situation, yes.

How come? You and MP were leading in votes. And then you tried to get a wagon started on Sloonei? Did that have nothing to do with the wagon on you?

sig wrote:Hey everyone please look over Soneji's posts and tell me what you think. I don't like them at all, and I don't like his vote. Or the fact he hasn't posted again.

It's very characteristic of him. He'll generally make very few posts Day 1 with some things that pique his interest. Also, he looks to be still catching up and early in the thread, which explains the vote to me. I would be interested if he would still keep his vote on Frog after catching up completely.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Marco wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Marco wrote:After some thought, I'm going with MetalMarsh. It feels like he has stopped engaging once the IAWY wagon overtook him.

VOTE METALMARSH89
You have very difficult standards of engagement and/or timing to meet.

I made a case. I got a pat on the back from Golden, MP, and zebra with a "Good job, that's much better" and people moved off to other things.

I still want to lynch Sloonei today. He falls into that category of lurkers/low-participants, even if he doesn't want to. I don't think anyone else has been ready to acknowledge that either.
I don't think it's all that difficult. You were away for a majority of the day and were not indicating you'll be around for EOD. And then you didn't respond to my post and looked like disappeared after IAWY wagon overtook you.
My point is that I disappear for an hour to do other things, and come back to find I'm being accused of "having stopped engaging".

I feel that my "engagements" have been overlooked anyway. You yourself haven't commented on them, but only the after-the-fact behavior.

I wasn't wrong. You had stopped engaging. And you never responded to my post before you went away. Either way, I don't see how expecting you to be available at EOD is a difficult standard. Anyway, you're here now.

I don't think I overlooked your engagement. I already pointed out why I found your behavior scummy. As for your primary contribution this phase: I, personally, don't have a conclusive read on Sloonei, and your case wasn't convincing to me. In fact, I felt that your focus on finding an alternative lynch was not a very townie reaction. Everyone has different meta, of course, but I would have expected you to focus a little more on why the lynch on you is wrong.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Marco wrote:After some thought, I'm going with MetalMarsh. It feels like he has stopped engaging once the IAWY wagon overtook him.

VOTE METALMARSH89
You have very difficult standards of engagement and/or timing to meet.

I made a case. I got a pat on the back from Golden, MP, and zebra with a "Good job, that's much better" and people moved off to other things.

I still want to lynch Sloonei today. He falls into that category of lurkers/low-participants, even if he doesn't want to. I don't think anyone else has been ready to acknowledge that either.

I don't think it's all that difficult. You were away for a majority of the day and were not indicating you'll be around for EOD. And then you didn't respond to my post and looked like disappeared after IAWY wagon overtook you.

Dyslexicon wrote:Is someone has extensive meta on Zebra that accounts for something like, yes this is definitely her town play, then please share.

Marco wrote:@Dyslexicon, I can see how a2thezebra's self-vote looks like a gambit but from what people have informed me about her meta, she's prone to theatrical displays for things she believes in (like "don't push lurkers" or "I will sacrifice myself for my town-read").

This post might interest you too (follow link for Zebra quotes).

Spoiler: show

Marco wrote:I would like some input on a2thezebra's post and "performance". Is she generally a principled player who likes doing show-and-tell to make her points? Someone who shows their disapproval of an idea by demonstrating how it fails? Is she someone who has a history of being vehemently against policy lynching low-posters?

This is basically in reponse to a2thezebra's opposition to Frog's plan. I think the case she makes is correct, that we can't automatically assume low posters are scum. It's true. But instead of just pointing that out in a single post with a couple examples, she performs this whole song and dance of making filler posts to rack up her post count, to "demonstrate" the flaw in Frog's plan. That anyone could easily make posts for the numbers. But she's missing out the point.

Scum that lurk and don't post a lot don't just do it to not attract attention. That's counter-intuitive since they know that being on the bottom of the Activity list is bound to draw attention to them. Similarly, just posting for the heck of it (spam posts, etc) to rack up your post count is also not going to help as people are going to find you suspicious if you just fluff-post. So, it's not as simple as low-posting scum coming in and posting a bunch of garbage and they'll be fine. Barring RL reasons, scum who are on the bottom of the activity list are usually there as they don't know how to act town. Primarily because they're not actually motivated to "solve" the game an/or they're uncomfortable with acting in that manner.

To better explain my train of thought, I'll describe a scenario that I have come across myself. You see that you flipped scum, you talk a bit with your scumbuddies but don't post in game thread since you feel a bit awkward just posting on the first page or so when nothing has gone down. You come online much later to find 500+ posts already made. Now, you have to catch up on all this and post your thoughts, but as scum, you already know the motivations behind everyone's posts and it can get both, boring and awkward, to frame responses. So, you just respond to 3-4 posts, maybe make a post or two about your reads, etc, and then hop back to your QT to watch town towning each other. This is the general pattern I see in low posting scum who are at least trying to look like they're making an effort.

Anyway, getting back to my point about a2thezebra, I feel like she is misrepresenting the "low posters are scum" or "policy lynch lurkers" philosophy, whether intentionally or unintentionally. I don't disagree with her that just because someone has low activity/lurking doesn't automatically mean they're scum any more than the people who have high activity. In my experience (and I believe, most everyone else), in practice, it's actually true that each game will have a couple scum at the bottom of the activity list. It's not 100% of course, but the motivation behind pushing low posters / lurkers is understandable and one that I support.

While all 4 lowest activity posters are unlikely to be scum, it's likely that at least one or two among them are scum. This isn't a true "scientific" fact, i.e. logically speaking it can be easily refuted, and I know I've played in games where none of the scum were low posters. And I feel that a2thezebra is using this knowledge (that low posts = scum isn't necessarily true) to discredit Frog's entire stand. Because, even if none of the low posters are scum, pushing them and forcing them to post more is only a good thing for us.

Now, the question I pose is that "Is a2thezebra discrediting Frog's plan to "policy lynch" lurkers because she is completely against this school of thought (Low posters = scum) and can't see the merit of pushing these people to post more? Or is she so convinced that Frog is scum for pushing the "policy lynch" angle that she can't see the merit in going after low posters? Or is she discrediting Frog's plan in an attempt to soft-defend her fellow low posters?"

I think I was a far too wordy above, so I'll lay down my points again in a concise manner. But I suggest people to read the above for better context:

1. While Frog's plan isn't perfect (IMO as I've already pointed out in another post), I think the intent and basic motivation behind the plan is sound. i.e. we pressure the lurkers and not give anyone (even town) an opportunity to post less than they should.
2. a2thezebra is against Frog's plan to "policy lynch" lurkers, which I agree with, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even pressure them.
3. And while a2thezebra isn't actually saying we shouldn't pressure them, the way she went about discrediting Frog's plan seems far too "passionate" and "theatrical" (I don't mean to say fake, just with a flair) to just be an observation. 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.

After some thought, I'm going with MetalMarsh. It feels like he has stopped engaging once the IAWY wagon overtook him.

VOTE METALMARSH89

@Frog, Epignosis replaced Long Con.

Epignosis wrote:
Marco wrote:
Epignosis wrote:I recall reading something about Frog that I didn't care for. Did he come up with a plan for everyone to out themselves when only Mafia know the set up?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but VOTE FROG.

And sober up or get a bigger tolerance.
His plan was actually a little more than that. He was suggesting everyone to hypo-claim all the possible roles in the setup. It's still only a pro-town strategy in a couple of the setups, and anti-town in some, so, until we have a better idea of the setup, we should not do it. But I wouldn't be against it down the line when we know what setup we're in.
Define please.

Basically, everyone claims hypothetically to provide cover for actual PR. eg: In a game where town has a cop, everyone makes a hypothetical claim stating their targets and results every day. This has multiple advantages:

1. If cop dies, we already know all his reports.
2. Everyone provides cover for the cop's reports, so mafia still have to figure out who it is.
3. Provides reads on others. eg: Say X guilted Y in his hypo claim. If X dies, it's safe to assume Y is indeed mafia. One can argue that it was an attempt to frame Y, but if that's the case, do you think mafia would waste a kill on someone they know isn't cop?

Now, this works because people in the setup know that town has cop. We don't know what setup we're playing. To counter that, Frog suggested we claim all the possible roles and give our hypothetical claims. However, after some quick number-crunching, it became obvious that not all setups favor hypo-claiming, so it would not be smart to do a hypo claim strat until we know what setup we're in.

Epignosis wrote:I recall reading something about Frog that I didn't care for. Did he come up with a plan for everyone to out themselves when only Mafia know the set up?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but VOTE FROG.

And sober up or get a bigger tolerance.

His plan was actually a little more than that. He was suggesting everyone to hypo-claim all the possible roles in the setup. It's still only a pro-town strategy in a couple of the setups, and anti-town in some, so, until we have a better idea of the setup, we should not do it. But I wouldn't be against it down the line when we know what setup we're in.

@Dyslexicon, I can see how a2thezebra's self-vote looks like a gambit but from what people have informed me about her meta, she's prone to theatrical displays for things she believes in (like "don't push lurkers" or "I will sacrifice myself for my town-read").

sig wrote:
Marco wrote:Apparently, he has already stated that he's not going to put in any effort this game. How does that make you feel about the wagon?
I'll look it over, it partly makes me want to lynch him, but at the same time I think it is a more civvie thing to do. I don't want to CFD him though and I think MM looks scummier. Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but I don't think so.

If he doesn't increase his posting and continues to not care, I'd be fine with lynching him. However, I think the chances of him being scum is weaker then MM.

I thought the same thing when Frog informed us of IAWY's intent to slank.

Honestly, I don't have a conclusive scum-read in either of them, but I'm good with either IAWY or MetalMarsh. Though it feels a alight bit dick-ish to suddenly lynch IAWY when he's not around to defend himself.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Marco wrote:
sig wrote:I think MM is trying to joke his way out of this lynch, by switching around and appearing jokey not serious mafia. I dislike his posts alot, they give no content what so ever, but makes him seem no lurky compared to other people.

@Golden I don't understand what you mean about over bussing?
I share similar thoughts. Also, how he only started scumhunting a couple hours ago when the day is coming to an end and he's one of the lynch candidates. From my little experience playing with him, I was expecting more emphasis on his own defence (thought there wasn't much of a case on him) than finding an alternative candidate.
I did state a little over 24 hours ago I'd be AWOL until today. It's not because of pressure, I just wasn't able to fully commit until then.

To be fair, this phase had already gone on for 20-30 hours before that. And it's not like I found your absence scummy. Just that when a townie comes in at the end of the phase and sees that he's probably getting lynched, I expect their response to be more urgent about defending themselves and convincing people they shouldn't be lynching him instead of finding a viable alternative for the masses.

sig wrote:@MP I think you raise some good points, but I still believe it is cultural and I really really dislike Ika saying ppl who have played with him think he is mafia, when he specifically said he wasn't playing his MU meta. I mean I know I change my meta from here to MU, in fact I'm playing more like I would on my home site right now. So I don't like the meta case agaisnt him, espacilly with Ika pushing it. SO I call bullshit on the meta bad thing since while he is playing different then MU nobody here knows his home site meta. It seems opportunistic to do a meta push when so few people actually know his meta. That is the main reason why I don't like his wagon. However, I'd like to see more content from him I'd say if he doesn't improve we lynch him tomorrow.

Apparently, he has already stated that he's not going to put in any effort this game. How does that make you feel about the wagon?

If you liked Death Note, you should definitely watch Code Geass. A more expansive and interesting plot with an extremely satisfying pay-off, along with some crazy twists throughout.

sig wrote:I think MM is trying to joke his way out of this lynch, by switching around and appearing jokey not serious mafia. I dislike his posts alot, they give no content what so ever, but makes him seem no lurky compared to other people.

@Golden I don't understand what you mean about over bussing?

I share similar thoughts. Also, how he only started scumhunting a couple hours ago when the day is coming to an end and he's one of the lynch candidates. From my little experience playing with him, I was expecting more emphasis on his own defence (thought there wasn't much of a case on him) than finding an alternative candidate.

Frog wrote:Oh god I'm so hungover.

Marco, I'll just sheep you for the EOD vote.

Well, how do you feel about IAWY lynch now? Cause he's my biggest scum-read. I'm willing to go for a MetalMarsh lynch too.

Frog wrote:Ok, looks like it'll be between moving pictures and metalmarsh.

As of right now metal marsh should be lynched because has most votes before EOD.

If MM and MP tie, the lynchs hould be randomized - but whoever votes last second is prob a wolf trying to save a wolf bro.

Have we decided whether or not this is a w/v, or w/w wagon?

As of this point, I don't think MP is scum. The thing is, I'm not a fan of his style of play. Not that it's a bad way to play. Just that I personally don't like it because it is harder for me to read because of a combination of things.

1. Using the thread as a sort-of notebook for one's thoughts. Such players will constantly pour their thoughts out, even while catching up ("I'm on Page 00 now and I find X, Y, Z and A points of discussion interesting).
2. Always making it a point to keep everyone informed about one's current level of engagement ("I'll be driving for the next few hours", "in an exam for a couple hours", "am on my desktop and catching up", etc).
3. Laying out one's rationale behind everything ("I found this line in this exact post by Y during this conversation odd, especially in context with X's post that Y chose to ignore").
4. Always, ALWAYS, engaging others from a position of respect. They will keep trying to empathize with and getting their adversaries to empathize with themselves ("You're should try to look at it from my POV").
5. Acting as guides to anyone that requires. Just generally very helpful to everyone and affable.

Basically, they're things townies should do. But when you get really good at doing all this, it doesn't take much effort to act the same as scum. And it's hard to "catch" such scum because of the nature in which they engage you and because by appearing to be completely transparent, they have plausible deniability for a lot of scummy behaviour.

I went off on a tangent there, but basically, I can imagine MP being scum. He definitely seems capable of it. But he's definitely not worth a Day 1 lynch. Despite my dislike for his playstyle, I also have to admit that his high level of engagement and activity means that it's objectively better to keep him alive longer as we'll get more interaction from him and everyone else.

But yeah, gun to the head, I think he's town.

Quite a bit of activity while I was busy. I quickly skimmed through most of it and a disheartening amount of posts just seemed to be a giant misunderstanding between Silver, ika, Golden, and MP from my POV.

Anyway, I worked up a rainbow, though I'm not satisfied with how deeply I've looked into everyone's posts.

Dyslexicon
Frog
Golden
Silverwolf

MovingPictures07
a2thezebra
ika

Sloonei
Zexy
sig

Long Con / Epignosis
Metalmarsh89

DrWilgy
Inawordyes

Total nulls: Psittaciform and Soneji

I decided against divulging my secondary reads as I want to approach them after some death flips before making them public. But I do think at least 1 of my green reads is probably wrong. Owing to my secondary reads on a majority of them.

I want to vote for IAWY but I'm willing to give him the benefit of doubt on Frog's word. I'm also willing to commit to the Metalmarsh wagon.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Marco wrote:I might not be as active today. It's Sunday evening and I have to finish up some work for tomorrow. I am completely caught up, though, I didn't read the last 2-3 pages as thoroughly as I'd want to.

I see that some people are interested in more reads from me, and specifically a rainbow list. I'll get to that in a few hours after I ISO some people. Just want to point out that it won't exactly be a rainbow list. For starters, I'm not conclusively reading most of the players and I'll be much more confident of my reads after we see a couple deaths. Second, I tend to have these dual reads on some people, eg: if I consider someone really good at acting town as scum, I might have them on the top of my town list because of their activity this game, but be heavily considering the possibility of them being scum. I'm not the strongest of scumhunters and I rely on ISO reading someone much less than VCA, associations with others players, inclination to follow X or Y logic, etc.

Just sort of giving reasons for why my rainbow list won't be as "solid" as most of you are used to. By solid, I mean that my rainbow list might change dramatically in the coming phases.
Oh, that's normal at least from my point of view. My rainbow list is subject to radically change, as are my views, because tunneling without legitimate reasons to do so is my downfall, and I try my best to avoid that.

So, to be clear, your (rainbow) list won't be considering the nuances of your dual reads, correct?

I haven't yet decided it but I'm leaning on explaining my dual reads too, as I'm not familiar with playing with any of you and I think it will be better, for me and people reading my list, to let my complete thoughts be known. I'm more used to withholding information as town unless I feel it is immediately relevant (because 1. I am generally a priority target where I come from, so I like to avoid being too transparent and attracting a kill. 2. My preferred method of tone-reading people is to lead them on without letting them know my initial read), but that mostly helps only when you're familiar with the people you're playing with.

So, yeah, I'll probably expand on my dual reads too. I think I have more to gain this game by letting people chime in on my secondary reads rather than withholding them.

I might not be as active today. It's Sunday evening and I have to finish up some work for tomorrow. I am completely caught up, though, I didn't read the last 2-3 pages as thoroughly as I'd want to.

I see that some people are interested in more reads from me, and specifically a rainbow list. I'll get to that in a few hours after I ISO some people. Just want to point out that it won't exactly be a rainbow list. For starters, I'm not conclusively reading most of the players and I'll be much more confident of my reads after we see a couple deaths. Second, I tend to have these dual reads on some people, eg: if I consider someone really good at acting town as scum, I might have them on the top of my town list because of their activity this game, but be heavily considering the possibility of them being scum. I'm not the strongest of scumhunters and I rely on ISO reading someone much less than VCA, associations with others players, inclination to follow X or Y logic, etc.

Just sort of giving reasons for why my rainbow list won't be as "solid" as most of you are used to. By solid, I mean that my rainbow list might change dramatically in the coming phases.

So, I'm guessing the website was down for everybody.

Frog wrote:@Marco

While I didn't explicitly say this, I agree with everything you've just posted here, as I've alluded to in several of my more recent posts.

As for never lynch IAWY D1 - it's more of an MU thing that I was originaly skeptical of well. But some great players are simply never on D1 lynch.

I don't disagree. But these people (who are simply never a D1 lynch) are more than capable of ensuring that they won't be a Day 1 lynch. This is a very long day-phase and we still have around 20 hours to go, right? If IAWY as good as you believe, he doesn't need any help defending himself.

Frog wrote:Imagine you are a vigilante and you have a D1 shot.

Your options are:
1) high posters / contributors
2) Medium posters
3) Medium posters but well known players
4) Slankers

I'd always choose a slanker over the top 3.

I would definitely choose the slankers if I had to choose my vig shot before Day 1 is over. But there's a difference between voting for someone and killing them. Voting is an intent to lynch, not a lynch itself. A vote allows you pressure people and get responses to build reads on. A vig shot is different because you cannot actually use it openly to question someone without claiming vigilante and threatening to kill them. Just thought it's a distinction I should mention. D1 I generally never feel too pressed to follow any one wagon. It generally takes till Day 2 (after a couple death flips) for me to really start scum-reading people conclusively. I like the idea of voting the low posters but I'm not going to be against voting others if I feel strongly.

Sloonei wrote:@Frog: Soneji will turn up, he doesn't need to be replaced. If that's who you're talking about, I dunno. I definitely have town reads (I've already named sig as one this game) but I also never ever rule anybody out unless the host explicitly tells me to.
You've said a number of things this game so far that have had me scratching my chin, furrowing my brow, etc. I'll get more into it once I've reenergized. Right now I'm watching baseball and being a zombie.

Can you tell me some of your town-reads besides sig?

MovingPictures07 wrote:Zexy, I appreciate your detailed responses to my questions. I understand now re: Marco, let me know what you think after you've taken a closer look.

As per this post.

Spoiler: show

To be honest, I wasn't very satisfied with his response. He never actually told me why he found my posts lacking of thought or scum-motivated. He just told me he likes my recent posts and is leaning town on me. He said he'll ISO me, so I'm waiting on that and some more interaction with him.

Frog wrote:I find it curious how A2theZebra is only on my list.

After I came up with my plan on slankers, A2theZebra began posting quite a bit on quite a lot of the same.
Mostly disagreeing with my plan :-P
I mean, if I were scum pigeonholed into being lynched, I'd probably disagree and pad my post count too I guess.

What do you think about this post?

Spoiler: show

Marco wrote:I would like some input on a2thezebra's post and "performance". Is she generally a principled player who likes doing show-and-tell to make her points? Someone who shows their disapproval of an idea by demonstrating how it fails? Is she someone who has a history of being vehemently against policy lynching low-posters?

This is basically in reponse to a2thezebra's opposition to Frog's plan. I think the case she makes is correct, that we can't automatically assume low posters are scum. It's true. But instead of just pointing that out in a single post with a couple examples, she performs this whole song and dance of making filler posts to rack up her post count, to "demonstrate" the flaw in Frog's plan. That anyone could easily make posts for the numbers. But she's missing out the point.

Scum that lurk and don't post a lot don't just do it to not attract attention. That's counter-intuitive since they know that being on the bottom of the Activity list is bound to draw attention to them. Similarly, just posting for the heck of it (spam posts, etc) to rack up your post count is also not going to help as people are going to find you suspicious if you just fluff-post. So, it's not as simple as low-posting scum coming in and posting a bunch of garbage and they'll be fine. Barring RL reasons, scum who are on the bottom of the activity list are usually there as they don't know how to act town. Primarily because they're not actually motivated to "solve" the game an/or they're uncomfortable with acting in that manner.

To better explain my train of thought, I'll describe a scenario that I have come across myself. You see that you flipped scum, you talk a bit with your scumbuddies but don't post in game thread since you feel a bit awkward just posting on the first page or so when nothing has gone down. You come online much later to find 500+ posts already made. Now, you have to catch up on all this and post your thoughts, but as scum, you already know the motivations behind everyone's posts and it can get both, boring and awkward, to frame responses. So, you just respond to 3-4 posts, maybe make a post or two about your reads, etc, and then hop back to your QT to watch town towning each other. This is the general pattern I see in low posting scum who are at least trying to look like they're making an effort.

Anyway, getting back to my point about a2thezebra, I feel like she is misrepresenting the "low posters are scum" or "policy lynch lurkers" philosophy, whether intentionally or unintentionally. I don't disagree with her that just because someone has low activity/lurking doesn't automatically mean they're scum any more than the people who have high activity. In my experience (and I believe, most everyone else), in practice, it's actually true that each game will have a couple scum at the bottom of the activity list. It's not 100% of course, but the motivation behind pushing low posters / lurkers is understandable and one that I support.

While all 4 lowest activity posters are unlikely to be scum, it's likely that at least one or two among them are scum. This isn't a true "scientific" fact, i.e. logically speaking it can be easily refuted, and I know I've played in games where none of the scum were low posters. And I feel that a2thezebra is using this knowledge (that low posts = scum isn't necessarily true) to discredit Frog's entire stand. Because, even if none of the low posters are scum, pushing them and forcing them to post more is only a good thing for us.

Now, the question I pose is that "Is a2thezebra discrediting Frog's plan to "policy lynch" lurkers because she is completely against this school of thought (Low posters = scum) and can't see the merit of pushing these people to post more? Or is she so convinced that Frog is scum for pushing the "policy lynch" angle that she can't see the merit in going after low posters? Or is she discrediting Frog's plan in an attempt to soft-defend her fellow low posters?"

I think I was a far too wordy above, so I'll lay down my points again in a concise manner. But I suggest people to read the above for better context:

1. While Frog's plan isn't perfect (IMO as I've already pointed out in another post), I think the intent and basic motivation behind the plan is sound. i.e. we pressure the lurkers and not give anyone (even town) an opportunity to post less than they should.
2. a2thezebra is against Frog's plan to "policy lynch" lurkers, which I agree with, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even pressure them.
3. And while a2thezebra isn't actually saying we shouldn't pressure them, the way she went about discrediting Frog's plan seems far too "passionate" and "theatrical" (I don't mean to say fake, just with a flair) to just be an observation. 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.

Frog wrote:I forgot to answer your question MP regarding IAWY never being a D1 vote. IAWY is a very valuable member of the town when he rands town. Typically with IAWY's high posts, IAWY leads the town as town. It should become apparent what IAWY randed by tomorrow.

We have about 30 hours left in this phase. If IAWY is really that valuable, I'm sure he'll be able to convince people to shift votes off him. There should be no need to defend him.

Zexy wrote:
Marco wrote: Anyway, no, my posts don't tend to be one-liners. I admit every post of mine isn't a bunch of thoughts requiring a lot of exposition but I think I have posted more substance-full posts (I mean quantity, the actual number of non-superficial posts, not that any post of mine has more substance or value than anyone else's) than the majority, in this game. But I do believe not every post has to be a bunch of lines. Sometimes a one-liner is more than appropriate.

I think I put a fair lot of thought behind most of my posts. Some have been on a whim but if I'm making a read, suggestion, etc, I generally think about it more than once before posting. I definitely don't think any of my posts have a scum motivation behind them. Why do you think my posts don't have thought behind them? Or that they're scum-motivated?

Particularly, in the post you quoted, what is so "thoughtless" or "scum-motivated" about it? You say it is a wagon that scum can easily lead on a townie and look fine. Why do you find my post "thoughtless" when multiple others (Golden, MovingPictures) have acknowledged that my observation is legit? And does your read change knowing that I actually rescinded my vote on Silver soon after that vote?
Agreed, you have indeed stepped it up recently. I can see the thought and I actually have a town lean as of now (but this is page 11 mind you). I didn’t say it was “thoughtless”, I said it was easy for scum to attempt pushing for a wagon there in case they are town. I didn’t completely agree with Golden/MP views anyway, still paranoid on Golden, not on MP.
Tbh you’ve confused me kinda so I’ll have to ISO you later on. By this point my read isn’t even based on that vote.

I, personally, didn't see that shift into thoughtless one-liners. You can do a quick ISO to see for yourself, for now. And yes, you didn't say "thoughtless". But you said there wasn't much thought behind my posts. Which I completely disagree with. I still don't understand what you found so "without a thought" or "scum-motivated" about my posts in the middle. Anyway, I look forward to you ISOing me.

Frog wrote:I am exceptionally fast on the draw. Trying to catch people off guard, but meh, you're already tried and tested.

I see your misunderstanding and point of divegence.

I originally said, we should evenly distribute the 8 votes amongst the bottom 4 posters.
You're saying, fuck even disgtribution, let's leave it to free will
I'm saying, THIS PARTICULAR group of bottom 4 posters
You're saying, we should collectively decide which 4 we put wagons on, and wait until later to decide

Now - I'm saying - the plan is out of the bag now. Meow. Scum will be attempting to pad their post counts ever since I mentioned the topic of slankers. We should stick to bottom 4.

Pretty much. I don't disagree with focusing on low posters / lurkers. I don't even disagree with "policy lynching" them, i.e. if you're policy lynching them and they still aren't contributing or are unsuccessful at making me think they're town, it's not really policy lynch any more.

My only problem was that we shouldn't waste the Top 8 players' votes by making them evenly distributing them. Much better if we all agree on 3-4 people that need to contribute more and then letting everyone else vote for them.

Though, it's not going to be easy to have everyone follow through with such a plan. I know it would be very hard on my home boards, and from what I can tell from the responses here, seems to be the case too. Either way, it's not a bad thing because at least some of us will be pressuring the low posters.

In any case - you are free to decide as you wish - I'm saying we stick to:
a2thezebra
DrWilgy
Metalmarsh89
Psittacoform

I've given my logic which I believe is more than reasonable.

Which 4 players do you, and everyone else suggest?

I liked a2thezebra's response so I'm leaning on town on her. Metalmarsh is someone I've played with before (I totally forgot when someone asked me who I've played with, before), and IIRC he's not the kind to lurk just because he's scum. Looks to me he's actually busy IRL but I could be wrong.

Anyway, my 4 picks would be:

Inawordyes
DrWilgy
Psittacoform
Metalmarsh89

Also, Soneji has not made a single post yet. He is from my home board though, and this is not at all uncharacteristic of him, so I'm still waiting on what he has to post.

I see you're actually still catching up, my bad. MP had framed that question a couple times, even as recently as just a page or two ago, so I thought you're caught up. Take your time. I'm just really curious about your read changing from "looks towny" to "thoughtless one-liners which are scum-motivated".

Zexy, I would like you to respond to this post. You may have missed it.

Marco wrote:
Zexy wrote:
Marco wrote:I feel like Silverwolf's posts have a very "drifter" quality to them. Just moving along, picking random posts and responding to them. There seems to be no desire to interact beyond the occasional observation or to engage anyone. The participation seems superficial. What do others think?

VOTE SILVERWOLF
While I don’t disagree, I think this is the kind of wagon scum could easily lead on a townie and look just fine.

Do your post just tend to be one-liners? It feels like there is not much thought and a scum motivation behind them…
First, I feel you're leading me in your questions. They don't look like questions you actually want answers to. You're just saying those things under the guise of actually asking me those questions.

Anyway, no, my posts don't tend to be one-liners. I admit every post of mine isn't a bunch of thoughts requiring a lot of exposition but I think I have posted more substance-full posts (I mean quantity, the actual number of non-superficial posts, not that any post of mine has more substance or value than anyone else's) than the majority, in this game. But I do believe not every post has to be a bunch of lines. Sometimes a one-liner is more than appropriate.

I think I put a fair lot of thought behind most of my posts. Some have been on a whim but if I'm making a read, suggestion, etc, I generally think about it more than once before posting. I definitely don't think any of my posts have a scum motivation behind them. Why do you think my posts don't have thought behind them? Or that they're scum-motivated?

Particularly, in the post you quoted, what is so "thoughtless" or "scum-motivated" about it? You say it is a wagon that scum can easily lead on a townie and look fine. Why do you find my post "thoughtless" when multiple others (Golden, MovingPictures) have acknowledged that my observation is legit? And does your read change knowing that I actually rescinded my vote on Silver soon after that vote?

Zexy wrote:Do we have any ideas on Marco meta? Latest posts look townier than before, even Frog acknowledged it.
Lastly, can you tell me what started making my posts look like "thoughtless one-liners" with "scum motivation" behind them when just some time ago you thought I was looking townier, and that others acknowledged it, even the person who was convinced I was scum?

Marco wrote:
Long Con wrote:I guess it's not, roleclaiming and info dumping are legal, just seems like a way to try and bypass letting people play the roles themselves, instead automating the info directly to the thread.
I'm still not getting what you mean. What do you mean "bypass letting people play the roles themselves instead of automating the info directly to the thread"?

Frog wrote:
Marco wrote:There's nothing wrong with pushing lurkers but your plan involves making the Top 8 posters vote indiscriminately among the lowest 4 posters. That basically eliminates any way we can read their intentions since they're being "forced" to vote in a way that equalizes the votes among the lowest 4 posters.
This just isn't true though.

Assuming there is one wolf in the town group of 8 top posters.

That one wolf would naturally vote for the non-wolf in the bottom 4 slankers.
Why? If we're asking everyone to distribute their votes evenly among the lowest 4 posters, he can vote for anyone he wants because he knows we're going to distribute the votes evenly.

That is an extreme example, but you're missing the point entirely with VCA.

If we have a group of 4 players, at least one of them is a wolf.
If we choose town and wolves to vote amongst the 4, then the VCA comes from the wolves purposefully saving their own wolf bro! There is the VCA! They aren't forced to vote for their wolf bro, in fact they can SAVE their wolf bro. How is this lost on you?

VCA comes from voting amongst choices. Usually it's difficult because you can usually deduce when you were voting amongst TvT, but then you must decide if you were voting amongst w/w, or v/w, or any comibnation.

This makes it easier. This creates a w/?/?/?
AT LEAST one wolf will be in this group.
We can analyze the voting patterns of WHO is being saved.
Wolves don't HAVE to save anyone though. Not when we're asking people to equally distribute their votes.

Here's the post in question. You can clearly see I'm talking about the Top 8 posters having to distribute their votes. Nothing to do with bottom 4. I'm not sure where you got that idea that

Frog wrote:UNLESS - you're TMI -ing right now and saying there are no wolves in the bottom 4 posters?

Reposting cause I botched the post.

Frog wrote:
Marco wrote:Wolves don't HAVE to save anyone though. Not when we're asking people to equally distribute their votes.
Yes, wolves have every incentive to save their wolf bro.
Assuming at least 1 wolf exists in that group of 4 slankers, wolves will be compelled to 'save' their wolf bro by instead pushing a villager.

UNLESS - you're TMI -ing right now and saying there are no wolves in the bottom 4 posters?

Honestly, I'd find it almost impossible to believe there isn't at LEAST one wolf in that group of 4. Probably 2.

This has nothing to with the bottom 4 posters. You're really fast on the draw, I've noticed. Please go through my post again and you'll see that my problem is with making the top 8 posters waste their votes. Not with focusing on the bottom 4.

That is the context. If any of the Top 8 posters are scum, and their scum-buddies are in the bottom 4, by asking all 8 posters to evenly distribute their votes, we're making sure that who they vote for is pointless. They have no incentive to save their wolf bro because regardless of who they vote for, another person in the Top 8 list will equalize the votes.

Frog wrote:Wolves don't HAVE to save anyone though. Not when we're asking people to equally distribute their votes.

Yes, wolves have every incentive to save their wolf bro.
Assuming at least 1 wolf exists in that group of 4 slankers, wolves will be compelled to 'save' their wolf bro by instead pushing a villager.

UNLESS - you're TMI -ing right now and saying there are no wolves in the bottom 4 posters?

Honestly, I'd find it almost impossible to believe there isn't at LEAST one wolf in that group of 4. Probably 2.[/quote]

This has nothing to with the bottom 4 posters. You're really fast on the draw, I've noticed. Please go through my post again and you'll see that my problem is with making the top 8 posters waste their votes. Not with focusing on the bottom 4.

That is the context. If any of the Top 8 posters are scum, and their scum-buddies are in the bottom 4, by asking all 8 posters to evenly distribute their votes, we're making sure that who they vote for is pointless. They have no incentive to save their wolf bro because regardless of who they vote for, another person in the Top 8 list will equalize the votes.

Frog wrote:1) My plan accounted for variation. I expected any one of the 4 slankers to receive 1-5 votes each, with free will of choice between the 4.

2) I do not like the idea of choosing players outside of the 4 slankers.

Then it should be free will of choice completely. I think forcing everyone to vote for the lowest 4 posters but letting them decide who, on their own, is significantly much better than forcing the Top 8 posters to evenly distribute their votes. You basically lose insight on 8 people's votes as they don't need to justify their vote any more than "we needed to equalize our vote distribution".

Frog wrote:The entire point of choosing the 4 slankers was:

A) Randomness. ±1/4 (4/16) players are mafia. The bottom 4 players fulfill the 'randomness' aspect a bit. The 4 players chosen, if picked, will be skewed off of that random probability one way or another. The input for choosing the subsequent list of 4 players could result in 4 towns if Wolves dictated it to be so (basically it's an unnecessary risk).
B) Estimated guess - Those who were lurk slankin hardcore start of day had no intetion to contribute. Wolves have no need to contribute. Town must contribute to solve the game. Therefore lurkers = more likely than no wolves.
c) Estimated Guess Part 2 - Every big wolf team seems to have a mix between actives and slankers. This way we can target those slanking wolves. There isn't an exact science to it, but more often than not, there is at least one slakning wolf
d) FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE TOWN! - If we lynch a wolf AWESOME. If we lynch a Town, we can VCA that shit and now we have a decent POE. More importantly, we will have lit fire under the slankers butt to actually PLAY.

A) By going after the lowest 4 posters, there's no guarantee we're not going after 4 apathetic or RL busy townies. I think a much better distinction than relying purely on post count would be to take people's opinions on who is lurking/not contributing/laying low, etc. You're admitting yourself this is a random distribution of 4 you're looking for and lowest 4 counts.

B) This is not entirely true. I'm talking technicalities here (i.e. I agree bottom activity players generally have at least one scum among them), but just because wolves have no need to contribute doesn't mean they won't. Especially when they know that lurkers are going to attract attention. So, wolves are just as motivated to pad up their post count. Now, in general games (especially in boards where I usually participate), the general level of competition is not going to be as high as in a game aimed at "Champions", and it's likely that some scum is lurking. But it's just as likely here that members of the scum-team are doing their best not to single themselves out. Of course, it's neither here nor there but I'm asking you to look at it fairly.

C) I agree with this. It's not technically true, and a perfect scum-team would never be so, but in my experience, this is generally true. Which is why I agree with putting the pressure on lurkers.

D) Completely fair. In the absence of actual suspects, I often support a lynch on someone who isn't participating enough and I don't town-read them. If it's a scum, wonderful. If it's a town, there will be information to be gained from the vote history. Regardless, it motivates low posters to participate more.

All in all, my main complaint with your plan is that the Top 8 posters have to equally divide their votes. I see no need for this and I think it's better if everyone is free to vote how they want among the "4 low posters". And secondly, I think everyone should decide the 4 low posters subjectively and not just on post count. Also, we'll need cooperation of the majority of players. And I think focusing on low posters is better done after at least a day or two has passed.

Search found 210 matches