Zrk2: Is lurking no longer a cause for suspicion? Because UI only has 4 posts up till now, and a few others haven't posted much either.
I picked the two with the fewest posts. Four is also terrible.
-snip-
I never said it wasn't true. Anyway, as I said before, this seems you're voting for him because he had a different opinion. I could see it being a pressure vote, but as a lynch vote it looks scummy. You accuse him of trying to fly under the radar, but fail to keep in mind that it's his first game.
I'm voting for him because he had an idea with obviously terrible consequences and also because he held to it until it started to look like it would get him lynched. Only the fear of being lynched made him change it, not the cases presented explaining why it was bad for the town. Ergo scum.
I'm usually not very forceful
Why not get people worked up?
Are you acting out of character for yourself here, or is it something else?
Usually being the key word. Sometimes I get worked up and post like that. Furthermore it is possible to get others worked up without getting worked up yourself.
Zrk2:
I find that lynches on D1 do not have enough information to find scum with any reliability. It always comes down to who looks scummy, which is usually synonymous with playing poorly, and with some meta mixed in, at least until there are inspects protects and all the other paraphernalia that accumulate in the night. Thus if lynches D1 are going to be based solely on ability to scumhunt one might as well be honest and cut right to the chase. Furthermore losing an unproductive townie isn't terrible and just ensures that the townies that are around later on are more likely to actually find scum. Is that clear enough?
There is a MAJOR problem here actually; if you make your vote entirely based on a set of rules day one and have no further reasons, you WILL hurt the town N1 & D2. Vote by rule/meta is simplistic; the reasons for your vote are "Well, he was playing like he didn't know what he was doing and that warrants my vote." The problem with this is when the person lynched flips we have no more information on you. So we then have to waste roles N1 and precious time early D2 in trying to get some other way of reading you. Which is a lot of trouble you'd save us by actually scum hunting and finding whatever information you can D1.
I did not make the case that there should be no scumhunting D1, I said that policy lynches or acceptable. Obviously if someone seems very scummy then we should lynch them. But baring overtly obvious scum then a policy lynch of a lurker/terrible scumhunter is not a terrible alternative.
How'd you guess? Of course I'm scum.
Really? WIFOM? I know you're joking, but I refuse to not use this sound byte.
I denial is exactly as useful as that, so I might as well indulge my sarcastic side.
It was a fucking RVS vote. I placed it because that's proper form. I wasn't particularly concerned with it. I've found someone I actually think is scum, now I care where it is.
Your vote has weight, no matter how little you cared about it. proper form seems to me to be to change the vote when you stop questioning the first person your vote is on. This would have been a good post to do this on.
Votes can become useful, and can apply pressure but the vote blocks formed up early in this game so my single vote all by its lonesome was applying essentially zero pressure so I wasn't worried about it. Now that the votes are getting closer and the day is drawing towards a conclusion my vote becomes much more important.
To flesh it out.
No... that's not the goal of RVS questions. At least not what I meant by it in that case. A RVS question feeds you stuff to pull apart and over-analyze to see what they'll say about your reads into what they are saying. A RVS question in and of itself probably won't cause someone to give up a read. It's what happens when you pressure them a bit more that's interesting.
Fair enough. Unfortunately I'm not very good at forcing people so I tend to keep an eye on everyone, responding to questions and analyzing the arguments of others until I find someone who I think is scum. Then I check through their posts, and if it seems likely I compile my case and move my vote. It's simply a different approach to scumhunting.
Lurking of the magnitude seen by those to is very serious, so of course it makes it onto my list.
Out of sheer curiousity, what percent of games that you've been in/read have the scum lurking day one?[/quote]
No idea. I don't keep statistics.
To me it looks like you are trying to taunt him into becoming angry and looking scummy. That, Zrk2, is a pretty bad move.
Tell me, have you got anything out of the "keep him talking" thing? Because according to what you said, it only achieved that: making him talk.
That's a goal in and of itself. Why not get people worked up? It gives a different perspective on them. However, that was not my goal, I just wanted to draw him out and get him to answer the question. If he gets a little carried away so much the better. Why do you feel it is a bad move?
Yes, keeping a player talking is a goal by definition. But is it in anyway useful, or does it just create a smoke screen of noise that the scum can hide in?
Yes. It gives additional insight into their mind. I don't see how the scum are supposed to hide behind it. Please elaborate.
So Zrk2, my vote is on you primarily because I feel the way you are acting in D1 is the most harmful to the town in the long run. Yes you're playing qualitatively better than Ranger, but Ranger has been learning over the course of the game, and has expressed what felt like genuine concern that he doesn't have reads yet. You on the other hand seem to be playing a self-fulfilling prophesy, if the only lynch we should do D1 is the weakest player, then the town will always be lynched D1. Not [#mafia]/[#players]*100 percent of the time. ALWAYS. Why you ask? the mafia have their chat, the strongest player can help the weaker players play better in the game, ensuring that if that rule is followed D1 will end in a town lynch.
I don't think coaching in scumchat can have that drastic of an effect. You are dramatically overstating the possibility for scum to help each other in scumchat.
But more than that, you deprive us of a valuable read on you as I mentioned earlier. You're crippling the town N1 and early D2 by your vote for the weakest strategy.
Please tell me why you feel that this is an acceptable loss again?
No wait:
I'm scum.
It's an acceptable loss because they weren't doing anything for the town anyway.
As you seem to miss questions, the ones I want you to answer are:What percent of games that you've been in/read have the scum lurking day one?
Is it in anyway useful, or does it just create a smoke screen of noise that the scum can hide in?
Why you feel that this is an acceptable loss again? (read the post and make sure you understand all that I consider lost)
We are clearly out of RVS. You ask Griffon a wall of RVS questions. Andd now you shrug it off by saying that?
I answered yours above. To Deathsword: Yes I do. It wasn't too much to ask for someone to answer questions, was it? Heaven forbid we expect answers. We might find the scum or something.
Firstly, on your target picks, you're poking at them - believing lurking is a damnable offense on D1 (you didn't explain or expound this in much detail) - and focusing on Ranger for his...honestly, flawed way of logic; while it is flawed, it doesn't brush me in any malevolent way. Here I ask you this: Why do you lack faith in the lynch when it hasn't even happened yet? Do you think the other two beside you are more viable lynch-targets? If so, then what do you think about them. If not, can you summarize your case on Ranger and quote/link why? Lastly; do you really believe Ranger is scum, or 'unproductive' Town? If the latter, why unproductive? If he lives on, do you think he won't shape up?
Lurking is a damnable offence because it is unproductive. It hurts the town because you aren't finding scum. It hurts the town because they can't get reads on you. It hurts the town because there could be a more productive player in your place. Lurkers are a waste of a player space.
I lack faith in D1 lynches because almost every last one ends in a townie lynch. As I said earlier there simply isn't enough information available D1 to make a conclusive case, so rather than risk the lynch on someone who has been productive but "scummy" is a bad idea. If they really are scummy they will still be scummy D2, and lurkers will also still lurk D2. Thus lynching a lurker is more likely to pay off because it gets rid of a guaranteed threat rather than a possible one.
My case on Ranger was summarized above. It is that he wanted to hurt the town with a D1 no-lynch. BUT ALSO did not shift away from that stance until it threatened to get him lynched, not after it had been demonstrated to be fallacious.
Thus I think he is scum. But if he is town and he lives on he may shape up, but he also may not. That's just semantics.
Griff:
How'd you guess? Of course I'm scum.
Really? WIFOM? I know you're joking, but I refuse to not use this sound byte.
You should see the time he jokingly claimed cult leader.
11. Nothing. It certainly is possible as this is a BYOR and thus roles will always be interesting and cults certainly create interesting play. Oh and I'm the leader.
Spoiler: He was lynched primarily for that.
I have a bad time treating the internet as srs bsns.
Zrk2:
I have had people rub me the wrong way, but so far I have not seen enough to place anyone else on the list. It's a work in progress.
Who, and what are you doing about it?
I still need to go back through the thread. I've had so many questions to address I haven't had time to go looking for scum. It's unfortunate I was hoping to have my list and justifications all written up today, but I have too much else going on.
Also, I still haven't seen Vector, which black hole ate her? 
I believe it's called "real life."
That only took about an hour. Now I have to go. I may have time for a solid post later tonight, but probably not.
Author
Topic: Magic Mafia - Game Over! (Read 217613 times)