|
lol cool
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
##vote Monathin trying too hard to appear town also fyi i voted support
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Monathin have you read any forum Mafia games and/or wikis
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:Fiery I know we're friends here but I want you to consider something, I am going to try to lead you through it. Dugong made the same mistake so this is for his benefit as well. Shut up lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 15:36
|
|
".
|
I'm not sure what I should be sucking, the fact your own article says champing at the bit is the original expression or the part where it says that using it is the better choice for dealing with readers who are versed in English?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
technically correct: the best kind of correct
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
I don't like that JJ made a big show of humming and hawing over who might have sabotaged the mission when I was on the vote and he was 100% convinced I was scum yesterday. To not even mention me now and bend over backwards trying to blame Ernie or at least look conflicted about it is suspicious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
Puntification posted:I'm not sure what I should be sucking, the fact your own article says champing at the bit is the original expression or the part where it says that using it is the better choice for dealing with readers who are versed in English? - Language changes - How a word or phrase is used matters more than what someone says it means - "Chomping" is 20 times more popular than "champing" - "Chomping" is a perfectly acceptable replacement for "champing" Your attempts at grammar policing have failed, take your antiquated ideas out of this thread and out of your life! Opopanax posted:I don't like that JJ made a big show of humming and hawing over who might have sabotaged the mission when I was on the vote and he was 100% convinced I was scum yesterday. To not even mention me now and bend over backwards trying to blame Ernie or at least look conflicted about it is suspicious. Yeah I'm thinking JJ is a solid vote for today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Opopanax posted:I don't like that JJ made a big show of humming and hawing over who might have sabotaged the mission when I was on the vote and he was 100% convinced I was scum yesterday. To not even mention me now and bend over backwards trying to blame Ernie or at least look conflicted about it is suspicious. Yeah, ##vote JJ See you day 3.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but with 23 players, 2 3ps(probably more?) that makes for 16 town players and 5 scum. Then there's currently 15 town and 4 scum, so there's about a 1/5 chance we could random lynch scum. If we take the 1:4 distribution it'll be 17 town and 4 scum and 16 alive town and 3 alive scum, which means we have just under a 1/6 chance for a succesful random lynch, which means that in this case it's good to pay attention to the team because we have a better chance of getting a succesful random lynch from the volcano team than random lynching everyone. So I'm sure your "let's ignore the guy who voted fail, because it's no use finding him!!!" idea doesn't really pan out that well. Also math doesn't really help us find scum so thanks for making me write this useless post fuuuuuuck. The math might be way off because I'm writing this half-asleep but yeaahhhhhh
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
v v I'm not a math person, I suppose if you consider the already-dead town it brings it closer to parity, but I still really question the efficacy of voting from among the 6 exclusively - even if it were better than random chance, it would only be slight.merk posted:Yeah, ##vote JJ Hey merk are you playing this way because you don't want to be killed or because you're phoning it in? And if it's the former, is it because you're town or because you're scum? Because if you're town you should roll up your sleeves a bit more, I would like more input from you right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
I think JJ is scum based on Opo's case. I found the serial killer on day 1. I'm in a game on another forum with 6000 posts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
I may light up when I see more stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
merk posted:I think JJ is scum based on Opo's case. I found the serial killer on day 1. I'm in a game on another forum with 6000 posts. So you're phoning it in because you're in a stupid game with stupid people, gotcha. ##vote JJ agreeing with the case just being a jerk about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
I am going to post in the discussion thread when the game is over (or when me and hiipfire are both dead), because the general guidelines are "it is better to scumhunt than to RNG," and "if a strategy catches scum more than 1/3 of the time it's better than chance," but the ratios actually do change as the game goes on. It might actually be more efficacious to RNG a vote in lylo for instance rather than agonizing over two candidates. This is not related to his particular game so feel free to ignore this post (or use it against me as not scumhunting!), I just want to write it down so I remember to talk about it later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:v Why is it not possible to use the challenge results to play mafia? Why are you choosing to frame the decision to scumhunt inside or outside of the challenge pool as a question of chance? Why do you want Merk's input when he thinks or recently thought you're scum? Why are you arguing this position when you haven't voiced any opinions on any challenge contributors today? You don't even seem very convinced in what you're saying, but then v  v I'm not a people person so who can say if my argument has any merit haha
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:Why is it not possible to use the challenge results to play mafia? If we have reason to believe there's more than 1 scum among the challengers (or that the odds of that being the case are better than pure chance), then it's helpful to focus on them exclusively. But we don't. quote:
quote:Why are you arguing this position when you haven't voiced any opinions on any challenge contributors today? Somber why are you being so aggressive re:me this game? Is it because Day 1 I threatened - impotently - to shoot you? It encourages you to make mistakes like the third quote, and I know you can do better than that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Like I mean even if the numbers are a little off, straight up multiple people have fought me on this really simple point. JJ said "I see no reason why we shouldn't look at the challengers exclusively today." That is a silly thing to think and say. This is what I have been posting about. I haven't been saying "let's give all the challengers a pass!", I haven't been saying "it would hurt us to look at only challengers!". I am saying it'd be a waste of our time, so we should ignore whether someone was a challenger or not since it doesn't really tell us anything either way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:Why is it not possible to use the challenge results to play mafia? Why are you choosing to frame the decision to scumhunt inside or outside of the challenge pool as a question of chance? This dude is another scum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
I was just telling you your math was a bit off. I feel exclusively hunting for scum in the volcano group is good, because the people in the volcano group were also some of the most active so we'll be able to get the best reads from them(I'll go and write cases tomorrow) and the entire eliminate 6 means that the last 1 is guaranteed scum thing. One thing I'm wondering though, since there are already 2 third party roles dead this might mean that there's a really high amount of third parties thougj, probably not, but it was just a thought I was having.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
HiipFire posted:One thing I'm wondering though, since there are already 2 third party roles dead this might mean that there's a really high amount of third parties thougj, probably not, but it was just a thought I was having. That being said it's going to be speculation probably until after the game when we can see the setup. If you want to focus on the 6 exclusively be my guest, might I suggest JJ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:It is possible, I just question to what extent it's efficacious. If the 7 challengers are representative of the distribution of the game - there are similar ratios for town, scum, and neutral third parties respectively - then focusing exclusively on the remaining 6 players (as JJ proposed) is not substantively different than RNG'ing a list of players and choosing among those. Sure, it's possible, but why do it? Again, you're assuming six town and one scum in the challenge group, which is a weird assumption because like you said, we don't know. It is not equivalent to compare a group of seven random players against a group of seven players where at least one is confirmed anti-town. You would probably end up with a similar distribution of alignment in the RNG group, but that means very little. I understand that the odds of lynching one scum in seven players are not good. If we were randomly lynching players, that would be a bad strategy! As it is, we're combining challenge information with game information to make a useful lynch with which you and I both agree. JJ will probably eat it today and that works for me. EccoRaven posted:Because merk is a good mafia player and I specifically PM'd him to play this game because I wanted to play a game with him, but if he's phoning it in because he's distracted then I am disappointed but understanding. It seems odds to prod an active player for not being overly active. Saying that merk is phoning it in feels disingenuous at best, like you're trying to discredit his stance on you indirectly. That might be confirmation bias because I'm already fairly convinced you are scum, but your behavior makes so little sense to me I'm having trouble rationalizing it any other way EccoRaven posted:Save for Challenger JJ, who is probably scum due to Opop's case. My bad. I still think it's telling that you're engaging more in mafia rhetoric rather than scumhunting. I'm being "aggressive" because I think you're scum. I hardly think aggressive is a fair characterization when I've called out a couple posts and haven't had time to follow up on your responses. Why are you making my scumhunting personal? Why are you sidelining us into an distracting tangent you initiated and has long since passed having any relevancy? It's not productive. It doesn't feel like you want to find scum this game, Ecco. Even your case against Ernie, which scored a not-town so congratulations, felt safe because your conclusion was based on setup speculation. Back to your transparent vig claim, what happened to your suspicion on me? Did me repeatedly calling you scum somehow convince you of my alignment? That would be a far more productive case for you to make than whatever you're arguing now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
merk posted:This dude is another scum. On a scale of one to five, how wolfy would you say I am?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
I'm probably gonna re-read the thread tomorrow, but I can definitely get behind the JJ scumread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
There's something I don't get about opop's case, we are supposed to take the fact that JJ doesn't mention opop as a volunteer he thinks is scummy as suspicious, so in this scenario he votes opop and calls him scum repeatedly yesterday but then decides overnight to drop this position and not comment on it again? Or he simply forgets because he wasn't actually invested in what he was saying? Also saying JJ bent over backwards to blame ernie doesn't really ring true to me either. merk posted:This dude is another scum. Why?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Ecco, how am I phoning it in when yesterday I caught the Serial Killer?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
merk posted:Ecco, how am I phoning it in when yesterday I caught the Serial Killer? I just want someone to talk to who isn't a loon 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:I just want someone to talk to who isn't a loon You're on the wrong forums then
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:Again, you're assuming six town and one scum in the challenge group, which is a weird assumption because like you said, we don't know. It is not equivalent to compare a group of seven random players against a group of seven players where at least one is confirmed anti-town. You would probably end up with a similar distribution of alignment in the RNG group, but that means very little. We know at least one of the 6 is scum. True, if we RNG'd people we wouldn't have that certainty. It doesn't actually change what I'm describing though. Somberbrero posted:It seems odds to prod an active player for not being overly active. Saying that merk is phoning it in feels disingenuous at best, like you're trying to discredit his stance on you indirectly. I want to talk with someone who gets really basic poo poo so I don't have to explain it to the rest of you. Somberbrero posted:My bad. I still think it's telling that you're engaging more in mafia rhetoric rather than scumhunting.  grammar) if I didn't even have to tell people why "let's only focus on 6 players exclusively" is a dumb way to play the game. Just once I'd love to play a game with a town of sensible people, who are reasonable and thoughtful from the start, so I don't have to act like the voice of reason and I can just focus on the game. It'd be really nice. quote:Why are you making my scumhunting personal? Why are you sidelining us into an distracting tangent you initiated and has long since passed having any relevancy? It's not productive. It doesn't feel like you want to find scum this game, Ecco. Even your case against Ernie, which scored a not-town so congratulations, felt safe because your conclusion was based on setup speculation. Whenever I have to force a town to be sensible, the response from critics always comes down to "but ecco, why did you waste all our time with this dumb thing!!", as if it was my fault multiple players believe a particularly silly line of thinking. It always stems from setup speculation and wild assumptions, be it "there was a weird nightkill once, therefore THERE IS A SERIAL KILLER", or "a kill was stopped and we don't know why, THE CLAIMED DOCTOR MUST BE LYING" (all true stories). Nobody's perfect (in that first example, there actually was an SK, he just sat on his kills all game). But we need to be sensible, because otherwise we run off on tangents and goose chases, and that's a really solid way to lose a game. I'm done talking about this particular point for now and forever more. Let's please avoid speculation and just try to focus on the game. quote:
When you started saying "Ecco is scum!", I had to back off you a bit. I have a gut feeling about you, but I can't substantiate it, and if I still ran with it, it could (and you would) easily dismiss it as OMGUSm, or if we got embroiled into it people would dismiss us both as "townie slapfighting." This is because of mafia politics; you can't go after someone who is going after you unless you have some meat to the case. It's stupid but, wishes and horses and all. It's nice that you're not posting with your PR. It's helpful since it makes you easier to read. I dislike that you're going after me for silly points; you didn't like that I didn't want to vote Ixt over Ernie. So what? You don't like that I have opinions about challengers. So what? It's all a lot of nothing, Somber - you're saying a lot of words to say ultimately very little (and believe me I know what that's like). And you haven't even voted for me yet! Again, mafia politics - I was kinda expecting you to vote me first thing, it's weird that you haven't. It's weird that you've more or less ignored everything else that's happening today just to go after me. I made it "personal" because it feels personal - because it doesn't feel like it's coming from a sincere place, since so many of your points against me are so silly or otherwise not representative of what's actually happening. It feels like you're going after me because you want to, not because you actually think I'm scum trying to lie and deceive the town. But it's a feeling. I can't really substantiate it, and as such I'm leaving it on the backburner. I don't expect anyone to actually read this post except for you (and I wouldn't be surprised if you later tell me you only skimmed it). This is because lots of words in a post are boring, but, alas, I don't know how to condense my thoughts without coming off like an even bigger jerk than I normally do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:I just want someone to talk to who isn't a loon am I a loon? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
HiipFire posted:am I a loon? Everyone is a loon until proven raven. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Okay, I think we're having a disconnect in language here. I say "Opop is 100% scum", you hear "Jon Joe has no reason to believe Opop is not scum.", I meant "I think Opop is scum also I wanted to make a joke". The context of the statement was, I said Opop is scum. fiery_valkiery said "I am literally blown away* *not really", so I doubled down on the direction of the joke and said Opop is 100% scum. Did I think Opop was scummy for his post? Yes. Do I actually have any information to prove to myself, much less any of you, that any player in this game is for sure, without a doubt, scum? No, and it's really weird to me any of you think I was serious. Furthermore, when the day opened and I saw the sabotage, I said what I said about only lynching a volcano goer because it was a conclusion I arrived at prior ever seeing the results; if there was a sabotage, we should lynch a member to find them. Then I realized, hey, we have a dead confirmed third party on that vote, suddenly my idea is crap. It may be crap for other reasons, too, but that was the conclusion I came to. After reading the discussion surrounding it, I am of the camp that no special notice should be paid attention as to whether someone was or wasn't on the vote. Anyone who thinks Ecco is suspicious for using MATHS to debate my point, isn't getting the point I think. Ecco's state was a simple "IF TRUE THEN FOLLOWS" statement, which was correct, but WAS NOT supporting or in any way suggesting excluding volcano-goers from the vote. Any questions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Is your intent to try and type me into submission? I'm at a loss for any other explanation as to why you would take the time to compose a post that accomplishes so little.Ecco Raving posted:More empty words. Blah blah blah. Maybe I don't know what you're actually describing then. If anyone is actually advocating for focusing on the challengers to the exclusion of all other vote candidates, then that's bad. If a number of people were actually advocating that position with any kind of seriousness, then my apologies. However, it's my interpretation that the challenge data is being used as a contributing vote factor, not the sole factor. That should be absolutely clear, as multiple people are voting JJ for his perceived change in position on Opopanax. I think your semantics to the contrary are anti-town and kind of nonsense as an aside. EccoRaven posted:His stance on me seemed totally baseless, in that he said absolutely no words on it either way. That isn't a natural response. I immediately valued merk's opinion on this game less as a result of him being wrong about my alignment. EccoRaven posted:I am a bad leader, I don't do things by example, so sue me. I point out when people say things that are silly or unreasonable. Yes it'd be better if I spent my time hunting scum. It'd be even more better ( grammar) if I didn't even have to tell people why "let's only focus on 6 players exclusively" is a dumb way to play the game. You know, Ecco, if you want to create a meaningful game dialog, maybe don't treat the people you're playing the game with as if they were idiots? Please show me where popular opinion dictated that today, we the town had collectively agreed that we would focus on the Challenger 7 to the exclusion of all other vote candidates. That is what you are saying happened. That is not what happened. This is not a rhetorical imperative, please cite what you are talking about. As an aside: EccoRaven posted:There's a number of players chomping at the bit to find any reason to vote me, but, it's the truth, do the math. How presciently defensive. Lucky thing that you have math on your side! Or not, depending on what is convenient. EccoRaven posted:I didn't start it" applies here; JJ said something dumb, I said it was dumb, and people disagreed, because people are bad at not being silly sometimes. This entire paragraph is completely unrelated to the game. It is a distraction and it is scummy. EccoRaven posted:When you started saying "Ecco is scum!", I had to back off you a bit. I have a gut feeling about you, but I can't substantiate it, and if I still ran with it, it could (and you would) easily dismiss it as OMGUSm, or if we got embroiled into it people would dismiss us both as "townie slapfighting." This is because of mafia politics; you can't go after someone who is going after you unless you have some meat to the case. It's stupid but, wishes and horses and all. Right, which is why I'm reacting exactly that way to merk. I KNOW THIS IS ALL VERY BORING EVERYONE BUT AT LEAST READ THIS PART You're still not talking about whether or not I am scum right now. You practically refuse to say, and that is scummy. You have so much content you could analyze on this page alone, but it's still not enough to substantiate your gut? Why not actually play mafia, Ecco Raven? I wasn't sure you were scum, I kept working at it. Your increasingly evasive responses, general disinterest in finding scum, manufactured distractions, and status as a challenger have convinced me that you are scum. See how that works? It's so bizarre that you say you were afraid to argue with me because of how it would appear. I don't play the game that way as town. Maybe you do, but I find it unlikely. THANKS FOR READING ^ THIS MUCH APPRECIATED EccoRaven posted:I dislike that you're going after me for silly points; you didn't like that I didn't want to vote Ixt over Ernie. So what? You don't like that I have opinions about challengers. So what? It's all a lot of nothing, Somber - you're saying a lot of words to say ultimately very little (and believe me I know what that's like). I have no idea what you're talking about. That might have been a point I had made, but it's so far removed that I'm not sure what relevance it has in this current conversation. EccoRaven posted:And you haven't even voted for me yet! Again, mafia politics - I was kinda expecting you to vote me first thing, it's weird that you haven't. I didn't realize the deadline was imminent, my apologies. EccoRaven posted:It's weird that you've more or less ignored everything else that's happening today just to go after me. I made it "personal" because it feels personal - because it doesn't feel like it's coming from a sincere place, since so many of your points against me are so silly or otherwise not representative of what's actually happening. It feels like you're going after me because you want to, not because you actually think I'm scum trying to lie and deceive the town. Let me be clear, I am not under the illusion that I will get you lynched today. JJ is a good candidate, I feel I can say he's scum, you're good at mafia, and I am too drained to keep up with your volume of posting. What part of this case seems convenient or opportunistic to you? That's the point you're getting to, right? You're doing that thing where you dismiss a bunch of points at once by being generally negative without actually responding to them. What content am I ignoring? I haven't really noticed any scumhunting going on outside of The People v. JJ and myself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Ecco if you are town then find a scum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:This entire paragraph is completely unrelated to the game. It is a distraction and it is scummy. I firmly disagree with this statement; ecco's putting his thoughts about a lot of things in a single post. Just because one of those things isn't directly related to "WHO IS SCUM IN THIS GAME?!" doesn't make it scummy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:Ecco if you are town then find a scum. I did, now you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
didn't read your post somber never will AITCH-TEE-AITCH
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:I did, now you. Done. ##vote EccoRaven Ernie was a survivor so you casing him means nothing and claiming otherwise is nonsense or scummy. Mad Rancher posted:I firmly disagree with this statement; ecco's putting his thoughts about a lot of things in a single post. Just because one of those things isn't directly related to "WHO IS SCUM IN THIS GAME?!" doesn't make it scummy. I would argue those thoughts aren't related to this game at all. He's talking about having to handhold the precious simpletons of Mafia Past as an anecdote meant to explain his frustration with all the idiots in this game, who keep making all these terrible posts that only he can see. He could be haunted by mafia, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:Ernie was a survivor so you casing him means nothing and claiming otherwise is nonsense or scummy. I mean whatever!
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
Mad Rancher posted:Do I actually have any information to prove to myself, much less any of you, that any player in this game is for sure, without a doubt, scum? No, and it's really weird to me any of you think I was serious. The case against you is that you ended yesterday seeming really, really, really certain that Opop was probably scum. Sure, maybe you didn't notice the sabotage, and when you did you paused, but you rightly conclude a second later "ernie probably wouldn't sabotage it" (this is an assumption everyone is assuming but it's worth reminding people it's an assumption). So why didn't you immediately turn on Opop? It's just weird. I like that you're not a loon though, thank you, it's really not very hard right? Gosh some people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 20:41
|
|