CryMeARiver wrote:
The contract is meant because it supports town points CLEARLY.
So since you are CLEARLY such a brilliant player...explain the contracts awesomeness for us lesser minds.
I never said I was a brilliant player.
I know i was being sarcastic...i'm thinking quite the opposite actually.
CryMeARiver wrote:
Numbers 1, 3, 4 are just pains on lynches. No one likes having all the WIFOM when it comes down to a serious lynch.
This is not sufficient reasoning for me to abide by it.
CryMeARiver wrote:
Number 2 is because I ABSOLUTELY HATE when people vote without providing reasoning. I really don't care if the reasoning is "I like so and so's case on so and so", but give me something. Also, it's an antitown thing to
bandwagon
vote someone without giving them something to defend themselves against, barring RVS,
which we are now out of.
This is true. I share a similar sentiment, and probably 99% give reasoning, or have given reason beforehand (and the 1% i'm sure had reason either not too, or came shortly after).
CryMeARiver wrote:
Because lengthy RVS's do not help the town in any way, so I am looking to start genuinely scumhunt.
There are other much better ways to exit a rvs, or to begin scumhunt rather than declaring the rvs over.
DrModem wrote:RVS for me doesn't end until day 2.
Soooo yeah CryMaR, further explanation defending the contract would be appreciated....Also while we're on it, what do you intend to do if people break said contract.
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:36 am
by MacavityLock
xvart wrote:
danakillsu wrote:Everybody raising themselves is stupid for trying to say others are scum. Not everyone can raise themselves, or nobody will get the double vote.
But not everyone is raising themselves... And, I don't see anyone that is raising himself/herself to try and say others are scum. They may be doing it to say "I'm not scum" but not the other way around.
Yeah, I totally FoSed people for it. So, does that change things?
RichardGHP wrote:@Drip: It's hard to analyse stuff when there have only been RVS posts that will most likely not affect the game in any way.
Haha, wrong. There's all sorts of tasty stuff to analyze so far.
RichardGHP wrote:@CMAR: I find it pretty hilarious that you have a "genuine scum read" on me when we're only on Page 3 and nothing has even happened yet. If you have actual reasons, I'd like to see them. Otherwise, stop trolling.
Stuff has happened, and you playing this off like it's trolling is scum-mojo.
DrModem, are you an alt or a newb? If a newb, have you played mafia on other sites?
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:00 am
by DrModem
I've played mafia on other sites.
I should say that there is no random vote "period" in my mind. I make one random vote unless something solid grabs my attention.
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:04 am
by Deer
I didn't want to start a wagon. Again, sorry, it was a legitimate question.
But yeah. The contract is dumb and from the two games I've seen where said contract is proposed, the ones in favor of it most have flipped scum. Richard knows.
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:15 am
by Drippereth
xvart wrote:
Drippereth wrote:(5) being RichardGHP
What does this mean?
Drippereth wrote:
Benmage wrote:Whats point 5 there drip...?
Classic IIoA scumtell in post #27.
Mcav, whatya think of Deer?
Cmar = Town
Mcav = Town
Benmage = Town
Modern = Town
Ani = Town
Thoughts:
I don't see what contract exist in this game and if one does exist, I don't care. I just want to play the game.
I don't like how Drippereth is so serious about his case on Deer. So far, I have not see any scum tells that Deer has commited. Hopefully, this is how he plays instead of a gimmick he's trying to pull off. It's not really scummy now, but it's annoying.
danielkillsu wrote:Everybody raising themselves is stupid for trying to say others are scum. Not everyone can raise themselves, or nobody will get the double vote.
The reason why everyone is raising themself is because we have very little information to go on. We should start raising on other people once we're confident we have at least one town and scum read that is solified.
MagnaofIllusion wrote:Vote: Super Smash Bros Fan.
You've never played a game with me so the fact that you know I like long posts indicates you've been heavily Wiki studying other players.
You are absolutely correct on this. Sometimes, it gives me some form of idea of what I should expect from you. I also read some of your posts and they're pretty long.
MagnaofIllusion wrote:Only if you believe that meta is a strong scum-hunting tool. Which I don't. So in my eyes no, it's not a good thing.
I'm not those type of people who let meta dominate who I find suspicious, but saying that meta is a bad thing entirely is not true. Sure you shouldn't rely on it, but it can help give you the idea of how a player will play. For example, I am not voting Deer because he prefers smaller posts overall.
DrModem wrote:RVS for me doesn't end until Day 2
If we stay in RVS during Day 1, we will get very little information overall. Now I know RVS is fun and all, but seriously, we can't afford it to dominate the whole of Day 1.
DrModem wrote:I've played mafia on other sites.
I should say that there is no random vote "period" in my mind. I make one random vote unless something solid grabs my attention.
Really does contradict what you said earlier where you said RVS existed for you until Day 2. Then you turned back on saying there was no "Random Voting period" and you only make one random vote until you found something.
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:04 pm
by Rifka Viveka
Vote:Deer
Right now im considering raising xvart or drippereth.
Vote: Super Smash Bros Fan.
You've never played a game with me so the fact that you know I like long posts indicates you've been heavily Wiki studying other players.
This strikes me as an odd reason for a vote. The quote seems to be implying that the writer sees that SSBF is reading wiki meta before or around the game, and that this is somehow scummy while at the same time implying its a null tell. Perhaps he means the use of meta is scummy, but imo working hard is a towner tell.
I also dont like animorph just ignoring everything, and i dont like any of the people being obstructionist(aka ''you cant find me\anyone scum yet nyah nyah'')
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:07 pm
by Super Smash Bros. Fan
And my vote on Deer needs to go...
Unvote
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 2:58 pm
by animorpherv1
@RV:
I'm in a terrible mood today. If I post about anything, I'll just have to go back when I'm in my normal mood and fix it.
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:07 pm
by MacavityLock
Drippereth wrote:Mcav, whatya think of Deer?
Tastes good in stews and as a steak.
I see the tell of trying to avoid all responsibility for a potential vote. I'd say he's leaning towards the scummy side. Still, I do think that there are other people scummier.
Super Smash Bros. Fan wrote:
DrModem wrote:I've played mafia on other sites.
I should say that there is no random vote "period" in my mind. I make one random vote unless something solid grabs my attention.
Really does contradict what you said earlier where you said RVS existed for you until Day 2. Then you turned back on saying there was no "Random Voting period" and you only make one random vote until you found something.
Agree, explain DrModem.
SSBF: Why the unvote on Deer? Why a separate post from the big one previous?
And Richard certainly remains deserving of my vote.
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:10 pm
by DrModem
I see some stuff stays consistent between player sets.
Ok, I'm obviously a mafia because of my stance on randomly voting people. Kill me.
/sarcasm.
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:26 pm
by Benmage
MacavityLock wrote: Still, I do think that there are other people scummier.
Who, or...whom?
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:28 pm
by Super Smash Bros. Fan
MacavityLock wrote:SSBF: Why the unvote on Deer? Why a separate post from the big one previous?
1. To be honest, I can't really find anything that's scummy about Deer now. Maybe I need to re-read him in ISO. As for your second question, I felt a random vote on Deer was useless.
2. I was planning on waiting until tomorrow to unvote him, but I feel we are out of RVS already, so no need to keep my random vote on. I probably should have done it in my big post.
With that said, my first serious vote:
Vote: DrModem
For reasons in my first serious post here. Sorry but no N00bs Johns.
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:29 pm
by Super Smash Bros. Fan
DrModem wrote:I see some stuff stays consistent between player sets.
Could you please explain further? You're not making much sense here.
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:40 pm
by MacavityLock
DrModem wrote:I see some stuff stays consistent between player sets.
Ok, I'm obviously a mafia because of my stance on randomly voting people. Kill me.
/sarcasm.
Doesn't answer the question.
Benmage wrote:
MacavityLock wrote: Still, I do think that there are other people scummier.
Who, or...whom?
The people I'm in the process of questioning.
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:04 pm
by Percy
MacavityLock 23 wrote:
FoS: Everybody who's not Raising themselves.
If you're town, you're risking giving a double-vote to scum.
Yes, and if you vote somebody you risk lynching town
DrModem 53 wrote:He plays like a jester or something.
JESTER SPEC OMGOBVSCUM
Unvote, Vote: DrModem
CMAR 58 wrote:1)
I will not claim VT
unless I am at L1, I am the leading wagon with an impending deadline, or during a massclaim, or our claim can somehow shed light on someone elses (for example: someone claims to have tracked you going somewhere).
2) I will provide reasoning with each and every one of my votes.
3) I will not selfvote, barring the 2:1:1 endgame scenario.
4) I will not lie about my roles. Period.
Bolded wut?
3) is obv, 4) is mostly obv so OK.
CMAR 69 wrote:Number 2 is because I ABSOLUTELY HATE when people vote without providing reasoning.
I used to feel this way. I still feel this way in the majority of cases. But I think voting and not explaining your vote straight away is a valid course of action in some situations, and your indignant attempts to classify all possible votes into "good" and "bad" via "reasoned" and "unreasoned" is insufficient.
CMAR 58 wrote:Again, pay attention, RVS = OVER
Oh shut up.
Rifka Viveka 82 wrote:Right now im considering raising xvart or drippereth.
Care to explain?
To explain my raise vote and thus avoid hypocrisy, I think xvart was a truly impressive town force in the prequel mini. Either he's town and he gets to be double awesome, or he's scum and he gets double scrutiny. Not saying my vote is locked in stone, but I do have a reason.
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:52 pm
by RichardGHP
CryMeARiver wrote:
Richard wrote:Vote: Super Smash Bros Fan for having too long a name.
Are we allowed to self-raise?
Sigh, this question came across very weird to me. No one else had even thought of it prior to this and it seemed, I don't know how to describe it, so I classify it as anti-town. Yes, I realize I am self raising myself, but the fact that he thought to ask the question does not sit right with me.
So I'm not allowed to ask for a clarification of the rules??
Richard wrote:Uh...
Fakeclaims are given to scum specifically to counter something like what you suggest.
Early blip on the scumdar.
It was so obvious that he was joking, and you're not one to normally be serious and misunderstand humor. Also, the fake claim thing, why even speculate about scum? You find him scummy for making a joke? Oh please.
But the fact that you took it seriously and are SO advert to it is kind of ridiculous. Why is a mass name claim so bad right now?
It wasn't obvious to me that he was joking. So, I criticised his motion. Nothing wrong with that.
Richard wrote:Also, you can't use one game where it was successful and tell me it's 100% proof that it will work this time.
Again the lack of humor he has and again the why does he care so much about a suggested mass name claim? Why did you feel the need to reiterate how bad a mass name claim would be for town?
How is an EBWOP containing one surplus sentence caring so much about a mass nameclaim?
Richard wrote:The FoS on people not self-raising works both ways. Scum can self-raise too. But then, townies who are not self-raising are suspicious because they are giving scum a clear oppurtunity to get more raise votes.
Again with the speculation about scum, the WIFOM, and reading it from a scum standpoint makes more sense to me than reading it from a town standpoint.
Yes, it is WIFOM, but it isn't speculation. It's just common sense.
Richard wrote:@CMAR: I find it pretty hilarious that you have a "genuine scum read" on me when we're only on Page 3 and nothing has even happened yet. If you have actual reasons, I'd like to see them. Otherwise, stop trolling.
Hey guys, look here, blatant contradiction, number 1 scumtell!
So I'm trolling because there is no way I found a scumread through three pages. But, this is okay?:
Richard wrote:Fakeclaims are given to scum specifically to counter something like what you suggest.
Early blip on the scumdar.
Hmmm...so it's not okay for me to scumhunt in three pages, but you can scumhunt with one? Why am I not allowed to scumhunt again?
So me pointing out one tiny little thing is scumhunting?
Richard wrote:Also, I do not agree to the contract.
If there is a pro-town reason for not agreeing with the contract, by all means, explain it to me.
I'm not going to agree to a contract I will potentially break (see: bandwagoning), nor am I going to agree to a contract proposed by the only person in the game who is pushing on me. When, and only when, you are dead, I will agree to the contract.
Richard wrote:Screw it
##Unvote Vote CMAR
Trying to lead town out of RVS on PAGE 2, claiming he has a scumread on me when I haven't done anything wrong, and stating he knows "for a fact" that he is town. Oh, and the contract thing, too.
Seriously, what townie does all that?
Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet, now I'm scummy for trying to help the town in his words. This is pure brilliance folks
Twist my words less please? I said you're scum-like for trying to LEAD the town. I do not see how you are helping it in any way. I did not say anything about you helping the town.
Responses in
bold
.
I would support a lynch of either CMAR or Drippereth (the latter being based on policy).
I concur with post 78. Deer and I both were/are in the two games in question and I can attest to his statement.
Also, CMAR, you are not the end-all-be-all dictator of this game. No one cares if you say RVS is over; the town will decide that for themselves. Nothing annoys me more than someone who tries to take control of the town on the first page or two.
@Macavity 76: There wasn't anything to analyse (of note, anyway) when I made that statement. IIoA is a nulltell, too, along with contradictions.
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:36 pm
by LimMePls
@RGHP What policy would you lynch Drippereth for?
I don't get the Deer wagon. I don't think he was saying he wanted a mass name claim, I think he was joking about the small game where they kept pushing for one. I don't think this makes him scum, although I like that we're leaving RVS.
I'm still trying to figure out the impact of the raising a hand mechanic on the game. If we always vote for who we think is most town, we make NKs much easier for the scum. On the other hand, we certainly don't want scum double voters. I'm wondering if we wouldn't be better off casting our raise votes with a random number generator or abstaining from raising a hand at all. I really like the idea from a fluff perspective. Those who are raised to Hand probably won't last very long, which is very fitting.
I think the contract is great, but I'm not sure I understand the point of proposing people agree to it. If we're town, we should be doing all those things anyways, and it isn't like the scum aren't going to agree to it as well. I don't think proposing it does anything but distract us from actually scum hunting.
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:55 pm
by Benmage
LynchMePls wrote:
I think the contract is great, but I'm not sure I understand the point of proposing people agree to it. If we're town, we should be doing all those things anyways, and it isn't like the scum aren't going to agree to it as well. I don't think proposing it does anything but distract us from actually scum hunting.
Cha-ching.... from what i've seen/heard about the contract is suppose to protect from retard(newb) play...I'm sure we are all capable of playing just fine without a contract, and if people suck, we can handle poor play ourselves.
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 6:38 pm
by Percy
Please don't put new (your) content in quote tags. Quotes are for quotes.
Still, I'm not too hot for CMAR's townleading and overall petulance.
LynchMePls wrote:If we always vote for who we think is most town, we make NKs much easier for the scum.
What do you mean by "always"? As far as I can see, we vote for a Hand today and that's it.
I've heard the argument that stating townreads leads to good townies getting killed, and this seems like a variation. I don't think this is true. People who are considered very town are more likely to attract the attention of protective/watcher roles, so it's always a risk for scum (who don't know whether these roles exist, presumably) to go after the stellar pro-town players. If anyone can honestly tell me that they don't think about this when they're scum and picking NK targets, I'd be interested to hear their story. Besides, people can appear very pro-town but have completely wrong suspicions, lessening the scum's desire to NK them, so I think most of the links this argument relies upon are spurious at best.
I just don't see the harm in calling out townreads when you see them. I'm not trying to say that there isn't any risk involved, but that asking players to talk about who they like and why is a good way to profile a player, and trying to remove such discussion means a loss of information that I (and others) can use to help find scum.
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 7:26 pm
by RichardGHP
@Lynchmepls - Drippereth, assuming she's who I think she is, will only make newb townies and/or bad townies crumble under pressure whilst not actually finding scum.
@Percy - Town reads though are still suspicious, because there are likely more stellar town players than power roles.
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:41 pm
by Rifka Viveka
Percy wrote:
Rifka Viveka 82 wrote:Right now im considering raising xvart or drippereth.
Care to explain?
Sure. I see two ways to proceed with this double vote-either give it to a town read, or give it to a scummy player to try to ''nk magnet'' him\her. Ill play it face value and thus go with one of these townish players.
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:25 pm
by CryMeARiver
You guys COMPLETELY misunderstood my point when I said "RVS is over".
RVS is a period of random voting. I had made a statement of nonrandom voting and suspicion, therefore it brought us out of the RVS.
I was NOT saying "RVS is over because RVS is stupid and it should end now."
So shut the fuck up about the dictator shit Richard. No one wants to hear it.
Mod~ Let's keep it a little more civil than that, please and thank you.
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:43 pm
by RichardGHP
There you go again. You keep trying to dictate the game by leading the town and speaking on behalf of them.
Sorry to tell you, but one serious vote by one player =/= town going out of RVS.
It brought YOU out of the RVS, but you can't expect the whole playerlist to follow your lead right off the bat. I do not believe that any misunderstanding on our part took place.
98 solidifies my scum read on CMAR for the facts that he: Uses AtE; attemtps to lecture us on the definition of RVS; still believes that he is in control of the game; and resorts to profanity which had to be intercepted by the mod. GG.
