|
I would like to join as penance for my sloppy play in Utopfia
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
Belatedly confirming. Wasn't expecting this to start so soon.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Abyssal Squid posted:I don't really like the case against Rarity either because fakeclaiming on your first contentpost seems like a super dumb thing to do, but straight-up claiming your actual flavor is pretty dumb too. If you don't know who your character is, ask outside the thread! Ask someone who has nothing to do with SA so there's no chance of spoiling the jury. Seems like someone's given a lot of thought about how to handle a potentially scummy role flavor! Abyssal Squid posted:I'd rather vote for a lurker than somebody who's said anything at all, but with 10 votes to kill I don't know if it'd be possible to build a bandwagon on someone in particular in time. I'll vote for Rarity or Byers if it'll make 'em claim, though, or if nobody better comes along. Abyssal Squid posted:I think I've got expectations set way too high for what town can accomplish on day 1. :I Oh no poor town we will never get anywhere today!! How are we supposed to lynch scum?! We might as well just give up Abyssal Squid posted:I've played in a couple of games before, but day 1 is still really confusing to me, especially since there's been clear choices before (like the guy saying "hey we shouldn't kill anyone on day 1"). I mostly to see everybody say something before I jump on the first bandwagon of the game. Abyssal Squid posted:Wait so Rarity claimed Hadvar, is Hadvar supposed to be obviously town (because it's a fakeclaim) or is the guy obviously scum? I want to see everybody say something before I jump on the first bandwagon of the game *immediately jumps on first bandwagon of the game to deflect suspicion*
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Abyssal Squid posted:Nice scumslip CPig, you used the wrong font. Oh please, Mr. Scum Font Expert, what the proper font for announcing your scum affiliation over PM is. I'm sure you have lots of experience from all the scum PMs you send. Because you're scum.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
ShadowGlass posted:Well, I was cooling on Squid anyway. He made some good posts since I voted. I know that doesn't cancel out the bad, but with the argument to not execute a fellow newb D1, it's enough for now. Squid has yet to make any good posts at all, which makes me suspect you're just opportunistically jumping on the hot new bandwagon now that people are backing off Squid.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
ShadowGlass posted:Your definition of hot new bandwagon is rather interesting. Chili was a topic ever since his first post in game. It's also not the first time I mentioned him. As for people backing off Squid that was Asiina and me. Two whole people, one of which was me. Quite the trend, yes. Chili's been a slow simmer that's just now picking up heat; the timing of your vote coincides with the Chili vote eclipsing former frontrunner Abyssal Squid. Regardless, pointing out one weak post hardly qualifies as "blowing things out of proportion." You getting super defensive about it might, though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
fiery_valkyrie posted:I really dislike this post from Asiina. It starts with a "hey, this might be newbie town or newbie scum, I can't tell", but finishes with a "would vote". It reads to me like she is definite on her opinion from the start, but wants an excuse for when Narc flips town. It seems pretty reasonable to me  Those posts are pretty bad and the rest of AnonymousNarcotics's posting is really low content, so I'm definitely watching him. I'm re-reading Asiina's posts but I'm not really seeing anything that jumps out at me.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:Did anyone actually explain the case on Chili? I wanna vote for it if it's good. It started because he did this: Chili posted:Good Christ, I got town again. It’s literally been over 3 years since I’ve drawn scum. And because he's been riding Rarity pretty hard. Other than that I'm not really seeing it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
EXAKT Science posted:RULES It sounds like it could go one way or the other on fakeclaims. I suspect the "clues to role" is the real motivation behind the warning, as I'm guessing town power roles have very obvious flavor.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Chili posted:##vote Gabriel Pope Mostly I'm just trying to poke at random things to see if I can provoke any telling reactions, although I agree I haven't been trying as hard as I could be. There's been a lot of noise today but I haven't really seen any compelling cases or telling behavior (not really buying anyone's case on the fakeclaim debacle) so I haven't really had any firm reads yet. Chili posted:It boils down to the fact that you're just really going down this crazy rabbit hole. I don't see the point you're trying to make, but I recognize that you're doing it in the pursuit of scumhunting. I agree that Byers is doing a decent job of scumhunting. That does not absolve him, as he points out himself: Byers2142 posted:The two-team set-up raises issues, because scum can, if they wish, actively and fully scum hunt because they know there are scum out there. But it's also a trap for them, one I think that Ecco's fallen into. Right now if I had to peg one person as being most likely to be scum I'd say Byers. He's persistently overstating a case that doesn't have much support and trying to dictate the lynch. Witness his "offer": Ecco has one (1) vote right now and Byers would have us believe that an Ecco lynch is a foregone conclusion. It feels like Byers is trying to dominate the town discourse in order to shield his team. He probably does think he's got a decent case on Ecco being scum but that's secondary to the objective of keeping the spotlight off of him and his scumbuddy. Sandwolf posted:I'll give you possible, but likely? I dunno. If he doesn't let off this tunnel-vision it's going to look scummier and scummier, and I doubt he's willing to commit that hard to white noise posting when usually he's pretty good at this game. I dunno, as long as Byers isn't letting blatant scumposting pass by unnoticed I don't think focusing on Ecco is necessarily hurting him. Several people have already come out and declared townie feelings for him based on it!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Sandwolf posted:I'm just fed up with being loving ignored by everyone in a community I felt apart of. Nothing personal, sorry. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Chili posted:I seriously don't mind being lynched. I like early day 1 the most, and after that, I start trailing off a bit so it's no biggy. I am assuming I'm getting lynched as of now because of the vote count and the fact that I won't be around to redirect the lynch later. So, if I must go down, the best thing I can do for the town is provide as many connections (like I'm doing with you now, sport) to other players so they have information to go off of once I'm gone. There's still... 4+ hours, which is prime posting time for a lot of people. So it's not really a foregone conclusion. Still think Byers is the best scum candidate. I agree that there are likely scum hiding with their vote on you, though. Your posts have been all over the place but I don't think that's a strong enough case to warrant the number of votes that have glommed on. Especially since none of them are from particularly high content posters: Chili posted:The last thing Fiery Valkyrie did was agree with me, his vote is currently on me. (Abyssal is definitely not the best and after his recent posts I'd still be totally down with lynching him.)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:I'm still not sure I get your case. In essence, you're agreeing with Ecco that I'm running a gambit where I hide in plain site while chasing a bad case on Ecco, yeah? Not a bad case per se, just an inconclusive one.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Asiina posted:I think it might be coordinated. Why wouldn't that make sense? How does a bunch of weird meta emoposting advance any scum agenda? You're presuming they're undertaking a lot of effort and coordination for something that doesn't actually make either of them look any better.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
[quote="Asiina" post="441731565"]Okay let's go over this then. I have been participating in the conversation the entire day. I have the 5th highest postcount all day. Yes some was skyrim chat, but I've also been engaged. I have not been standing on the sidelines. I have not dismissed all cases, just yours and Byers because I think they're both dumb. I've agreed with Gabriel's case on Squid and still feel it's a good one. I am making my own cases. I've made cases on AnonymousNarcotic and Glockenapfel, however both are new and I don't want to vote for them today. As for other thoughts I think that when you were tunneling on Rarity it was scummy as hell, but I appreciate that you've backed off and are willing to look at other cases, so it's not my strongest read. Byers I find hard to read cause he comes in guns blazing every game. I think his argument is dumb as hell, but he's making an effort to explain it in a way that doesn't ping me like yours against Rarity does. Sandwolf's temper tantrum is par for the course, but he's being really snipey which I do not like. And his conversation with Chili a little while ago feels very fake.[/quote[ The cases you've cited as having made were very basic and you haven't really kept up with them. Not really laurels to be resting on the way you are here. Your thoughts also seem to be disproportionately concerned with people who have voted or voiced suspicion of you. Up until now I thought the growing lynch vote on you was a bit suspicious but I'm starting to wonder if there might be something behind all these gut feels.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
i post goodAsiina posted:Okay let's go over this then. The cases you've cited as having made were very basic and you haven't really kept up with them. Not really laurels to be resting on the way you are here. Your thoughts also seem to be disproportionately concerned with people who have voted or voiced suspicion of you. Up until now I thought the growing lynch vote on you was a bit suspicious but I'm starting to wonder if there might be something behind all these gut feels. (same as above, fixed formatting)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Asiina posted:Yeah, nope, I'm done. I'm inclined to believe you, but you're still a poop.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:
I think I like your thinking but I'm thinking more like maybe 60%? Still pretty good odds and I'm a lot happier with a Chili lynch now.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 23:13
|
|
chili and narcotics are scum
|
Chili posted:The poetry here is actually rather astute. I'll self hammer if someone votes me quick. Being done in over this kind slip is pretty drat funny. Any takers? Hey, good idea. Now that we know that some town power roles level up if they hammer scum, let's make sure that nobody has the opportunity to get a reward for it. A+ town play.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
I do find it funny that self-hammering is now apparently a legitimate scum tactic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Does anyone else think this is legit?Chili posted:OH! Well how about that? I may get rewarded if I hammer scum.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
I guess I should rephrase my previous post as "does anyone think this is legit", because I don't particularly think it is myself.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
All setup spec aside, you did call for a lynch on a useful claimed town role with no counterclaim in sight and other viable lynch candidates for today.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Chili posted:You don't have to believe me now, but you NEED TO REMEMBER that after I flip town, Ecco grabbed the wheel when he saw a good opportunity and is driving a comical bandwagon, for an easy lynch. Hey now, don't try to pin this all on Ecco. Ecco, fiery_valkyrie, and I (maybe even CPig too!) all arrived at the same conclusion apparently independently (cross-scumteam collusion?!?!) and I feel good enough about this line of reasoning to accept responsibility for it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
##vote Chili RIP, you were a pretty chill(i) poster but you're probably scum
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Ecco, I agreed with your reasoning on Chili and Narc yesterday but I think this bears examining:EXAKT Science posted:Also, an announcement: I am bad at proofreading, so some PMs were sent out incomplete. This should be remedied now. It sounds like Narc's role PM was incomplete. Although I don't know if this is just a new mod scrambling to fix an obviously breakable setup...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Still wouldn't be opposed to lynching Narc, it would be nice to get some confirmation. We can do better, though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:Mods should never lie on things like this. If it's broken, let the game break, say mea culpa and fix the next one. That's how I'd feel too but I don't have any experience with how these things are done.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
##vote Byers Even if the setup spec on the town role PMs is entirely off the mark, the conclusion that Ecco jumped to is one that scum would have a very, very hard time making on short notice. EccoRaven posted:
This post only makes sense if Ecco is town and also has the same "get a reward for hammering scum player" mechanic that Asiina claimed. If Ecco didn't have a boon mechanic in her own role PM, she would have no reason to expect that Asiina's claim was a common feature to town roles in this game. The only logical assumption she could make is that it was a unique feature of Asiina's role. From her point of view there would be no reason for Chili and Narc to know about it. So we can conclude that Ecco has the boon mechanic in her role too. This alone doesn't prove anything--with two scumteams it is entirely possible that scum have the same feature, so maybe Ecco is a scum but still knew about the boon mechanic from her own PM. But finding out that Asiina also had a boon mechanic would not have the same significance to a scum player--a town player would have seen Asiina's claim as an emergent pattern that could be used as a scum hunting tool whereas a scum player would have seen the opposite, that players of all alignments have the boon mechanic and that it doesn't have anything to tell us about alignment. (Indeed, a scum player might even see a scum fakeclaim in Asiina's claim, since Asiina claimed her role included the same mechanic that they, a scum player, also had.) It's conceivable--barely--that even if Ecco were scum she could have been thinking fast enough to suppress what she would know about the setup as scum and puzzle out the conclusion that town players would logically be led to, but I think the speed with which she came to her conclusion and made her post is a good indicator that she came to her conclusion honestly. (Note that I make no such claim about my own endorsement of her theory, since it would have been easier for scum to spot the pattern and jump on board after a town player pointed it out.) It also helps that the scum thought fiery_valkyrie was dangerous enough to kill last night--for one of the scum teams, more important even than the claimed watcher. f_v's only contributions were 1) jumping on the Chili case early and 2) quietly agreeing with Ecco's conclusion on the Chili/Narc vote--and 1) did not harm scum at all, so she certainly wasn't targeted for that. Ecco (and to a lesser extent I) are much easier lynch targets and the scumteam (Byers) would likely have been banking on getting out ahead of the debate D2 to silence Ecco/me.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
CapitalistPig posted:fixed Welp, Byers just scumclaimed. Wrap it up folks
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
I am almost tempted to vote for Ecco just to see Byers' tortured attempts to wriggle out of the hole he's digging once Ecco flips town but on further consideration I believe lynching scum may be a more effective strategy so I'll keep my vote where itis
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:Gabe; he tried to keep pushing on the "you don't know what a boon is?" train even after EXAKT's mistake was pointed out, and that "Now I'm not saying I'm confirmed town here" aside in his big post was over the tope. I think it was a newbie scum mistake. I also think he's scumbros with Ecco, but the rest stands without Ecco being scum. EXAKT's mistake is irrelevant. The important part is people's reactions to the slip. Narc remains a viable scum candidate for other reasons, mainly his massively hammed up "i am noob how 2 mafia???" routine punctuated by scumposts. Also, your argument appears to be that Ecco and I are the most incompetent scumteam ever. I'd expect scumbros to be a little more subtle. Maybe something like this. AnonymousNarcotics posted:This makes a lot of sense. I'm thinking they're probably both scum. I'd vote byers first though bc if Rarity is posting stuff like that thinking we don't know its fakeclaiming, they're probably pretty dumb/weak (sorrynotsorry) and I'd rather get the strong player out first. Let's start off with a little bit of safe distancing... Asiina posted:These posts are bad, but I don't know if it's "new person saying a dumb thing and then hedging because they're new" bad or "new person saying a dumb thing and getting scolded by the scum team" bad. Whoops, someone's on to it! Better try to get rid of them. EccoRaven posted:I agree with this post as well and would vote Asiina. Byers2142 posted:I would, but like most everyone else it's more guts than anything specific I can point to. But not, y'know, being super obvious about it or anything. Just would like to vote them, for, whatever, no particular reason. AnonymousNarcotics posted:I understand everyone's arguments but I don't necessarily see the scumminess that they are talking about. The only one that kinda makes sense to me is Ecco because of what Byers was saying earlier. So far so good, it's probably safe to buddy up to your scum partner's case now, randomly, even though it completely contradicted your one and only read so far. AnonymousNarcotics posted:I'm not for/against voting for Asiina but can someone explain why you guys think he's scum? Well gee scumbuddy I don't know about the case you're pushing on the person who fingered me, if only someone could convince me. Byers2142 posted:She. And for me, it's gut and vibes. I can't point to any post and say, "That's why." But when I read her, it just feels off. Much obliged. AnonymousNarcotics posted:Jinx Byers Oh, ha ha, here we are making the same argument simultaneously! What a random coincidence! *winks roguishly at the crowd* There's a lot of harmless back and forth between the two. A really surprising amount; even considering how many posts Byers has made, I don't think he has nearly as many interactions with other low postcount players. It's also suspicious that for how quickly Byers is to pounce on "newbie mistakes" he has been entirely silent on Narc's posting despite some pretty scummy overtones.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
CapitalistPig posted:Im not saying I'[m a cop or anything, but Ecco is scum. EccoRaven posted:you caught me! I targeted Asiina last night, as I am a doctor. EccoRaven posted:she's dead??? Completely 100% legit action claims, as according to noted Mafia Expert (tm) Byers2142. Facing a serious cop softclaim from nationally ranked pro scum hunter CapitalistPig and realizing she was only 8 votes away from hammer, Ecco panicked and made a sincere attempt at fakeclaiming doc in the hope that this masterfully crafted claim would stave off her impending lynch  or, failing that, force the town to reveal one of their most powerful roles. I am annoyed that Ecco is trolling this much considering she's the only player I am willing to put any trust at all in and I don't want her to get herself killed/discredited, but I think goofing around D2 is not nearly as scummy as the ridiculous stretch lengths Byers is going to in order to paint these as serious posts worth adding to his ramshackle case against Ecco. I think Opop is joking around too with his vig claim and he's not being especially productive otherwise, which is pretty suspicious, but there are better scum candidates on the table right now (Byers and Narc) so I'm not going to get on his case for it just yet.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Opopanax posted:Why would I joke about the vig? That would cause too much trouble. Not as much as vigging our watcher 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:This is the case on Ecco. Yesterday, she acted on her knowledge of scum being provided fakeclaims, then when she realized she shouldn't have that knowledge she tried to backfill the reason a town person would believe so. But she also instantaneously, instinctively understood exactly what information town players would have and what significance they would see in Asiina's claim and Chili/Narc's reaction. You're simultaneously arguing that she scumslipped on setup knowledge and that she's too smart to scumslip on setup knowledge.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:Then, when she realizes that she made a mental mistake and asserted that scum got a fakeclaim when there was no evidence as such for town to think that, she began to try and backfill that reasoning: So Byers: had Ecco made her assumption about fakeclaims and then not "backfilled", would you have just said "well, at least she's not trying to justify it, will probably just leave it" or would you still think she's scum for the assumption?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
Epsilon Plus posted:Kinda want to vote Byers but I think right now he's just reading as frustrated town. CPig is being CPig, Ecco looks shady. Kinda wish we'd hear from some of our lurkers like AXE COP before Byers and Ecco get into it again and sink this thread into the depths. I'm not seeing frustrated town. Frustrated town players don't contradict themselves--and reality--in order to bend the facts to their case when convenient. Bad town players might, but as Byers frequently reminds us, he is smart and we are dumb and bad at mafia, so if his argument is terrible (it is) we must assume that it's deliberate. Anyhow, we're not likely to get to a lynch without the lurkers coming back in anyhow. Byers2142 posted:It's the backfill and the reaction to my case that's scummy. I'd have asked about it, probably, but to make the defense for why she "thinks" there were fakeclaims given to scum with no pressure speaks to a guilty conscious. Fair enough. So your argument isn't entirely contradictory. On the other hand: Byers2142 posted:Today, she came into the thread to find CPig had laid out a soft claim that made her scum, and so she made a fake doc claim. That claim was designed to either make the case go away or to draw out a counter, but when I stopped that she decided to start trolling instead. She had given up, which is why for a while it looked like a crazy person posting. Unfortunately, the only people who seemed interested in listening to my case yesterday were Chili, f_v, and Asiina, and now no one is even willing to consider it. This is pretty slick. Note that Byers cherry-picks the three confirmed town players as being on his side, even though f_v was lukewarm and Asiina didn't buy in at all. It's very, convenient to be able to paint yourself as a long-suffering martyr supported only by the Truest of Townies, who luckily happen to be dead and can't disagree. Other people also addressed Byers's case and some even agreed, but they're not confirmed townie, so it's convenient to pretend they don't exist so that Byers can play the Only Sane Man card. AnonymousNarcotics posted:The only one that kinda makes sense to me is Ecco because of what Byers was saying earlier. Some players' agreement is more convenient to ignore than others.  (Good Sir also gave the case as much consideration as Asiina did, and Glockenapfel actually agreed, but I don't think they're as suspicious as Narc.)Note that at the same time that Byers is bemoaning the fact that Town Is So Goddamned Dumb and the only people who agree with him are the dead confirmed townies, he insists that Ecco is on her last legs, she's going to be lynched any minute now (just like she has for the past 48 hours or so), there is so much pressure on Ecco she is scumslipping left and right oh god the humanity. Look at Ecco flailing around, grasping at all these goddamn straws because she knows the end is near, except town is doomed because nobody will vote Ecco.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:I nailed Ecco yesterday, everyone ignored it. Ecco came in even scummier today, everyone's excusing it. She weaseled out of yesterday, in part, by playing the "let's be reasonable and look at other people" card. I'm not going along with it again, so I'm going to play it somewhat petulant today. And now Byers is getting desperate and is making the kind of gambit he's been accusing Ecco of making all week, except unlike Ecco there's actually real pressure on Byers. Byers2142 posted:Gabe, what are you going to do when I flip town and Ecco flips scum? Pilot my way out of the Negative Zone and back into reality.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:My incredibly scummy contradictions and lies have been repeatedly caught and my strategy of pretending they don't exist isn't working, so I know I'm going down, but Ecco's goofing off makes her a convenient target so I might actually have a shot at dragging an effective town player out with me
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
Abyssal Squid posted:Man I'm actually leaning toward voting Ecco here, but goddamnit this isn't helping. Reminder: Byers's case against Ecco is literally that Ecco provided an explanation for her reasoning, which shows she has a "guilty conscience." Meanwhile, Byers outright lies about the game in order to push the Ecco lynch. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 17:17
|
|