|
EccoRaven posted:I think I know what you're doing if you're town and I'm telling you it's a good idea but you chose the exact wrong person to do it to, you should really consider changing up your strategy! what
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
Votecount for Day 2  EccoRaven (1): BottleKnight MG2 (1): EccoRaven Jose Valasquez (1): Max, Quandary, Max (1): Jose Valasquez Not Voting (7): Flying Leatherman, imgay, Max, MG2, Murmur Twin, SirSamVimes, The Lord of HatsWith 11 alive, it's 6 votes to lynch. The current deadline is February 19th, 2016 at 9 p.m. EST -- that's in about 1 day, 6 hours.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Max posted:Haven't seen a good old fashioned Ecco gambit in a while. it is an open secret that I ecco gambit most games I'm in, even if I don't call it as such. mafia players have such an aversion to voting out non-entities early on, even if in a vacuum they agree it's better for the game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
I decided to look up ecco gambit on the mafia wiki. Ecco did you write that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
BottleKnight posted:what "I am going to get into the game by picking a fight with an active poster, making a case against them, and rolling with the punches over it." It's a pretty common strategy for town to motivate themselves in a game that's stagnating. SirSamVimes posted:I decided to look up ecco gambit on the mafia wiki. Ecco did you write that? nope but I invented the concept.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
I asked because the article had a clear pro-eccogambit bias and I expect integrity in my mafia wiki Also, I find the fact that you are declaring a case against you to just be a "picking a fight with town" gambit kinda suspicious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
SirSamVimes posted:Also, I find the fact that you are declaring a case against you to just be a "picking a fight with town" gambit kinda suspicious. it's not a good case. It exaggerates my actual post history to make a point that isn't even that strong if it were true. It came out of nowhere. I think my interpretation is very reasonable. How is it "kinda suspicious" anyway? What does that even mean? Do you think scum are more likely than town to address cases against them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:"I am going to get into the game by picking a fight with an active poster, making a case against them, and rolling with the punches over it." I tried to come up with a way to disagree with this without insulting myself. Regardless, I disagree with this and find it very condescending.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Random observation made in the middle of a work meeting: Hats' lack of posts makes me feel like he is town, strangely enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
BottleKnight posted:Regardless, I disagree with this and find it very condescending. Then why don't you address the weaknesses to the case I brought up? You admitted to exaggerating the "like five times" part, but it was a really, really bad exaggerating. It wasn't four or three times, it was once, maybe one and a half if you count my minor suspicion against you not disappearing overnight. It's a bad case BK. I assumed you knew. I am sorry to be the one to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Ecco's starting to read like scum who is annoyed they're being cased so early despite their activity. Your ecco gambit is bad and isn't good for town. Vote for who you think is scum, please, and if that is still Magnus then fine, but just say so. Even in a vacuum, voting for alignment-neutral posters takes very necessary tools away from the town. Like reasonable scumhunting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
I hadn't heard about the Ecco Gambit before but I agree with it 100%
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
BottleKnight posted:Ecco's starting to read like scum who is annoyed they're being cased so early despite their activity. quote:Your ecco gambit is bad and isn't good for town. Vote for who you think is scum, please, and if that is still Magnus then fine, but just say so. also nah. people can disagree about the merits of an ecco gambit but you can't disagree with the reality of what it helps prevent: a lategame where active posters have been largely cleared out by nightkills and executions, and the few remaining players have to essentially at best flip a coin and at worst have to choose one of many bad options.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
BottleKnight posted:Ecco's starting to read like scum who is annoyed they're being cased so early despite their activity. You are bad and not good for town! Take that!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:it's not a good case. It exaggerates my actual post history to make a point that isn't even that strong if it were true. It came out of nowhere. There's nothing wrong with arguing with against a case. It's weird to declare it to be some kind of invalid gambit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:I hadn't heard about the Ecco Gambit before but I agree with it 100% have you read over magnus yet? He has the appearance of playing the game with his words, but especially in context his posts are nonsense. He is a solid vote imho.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:have you read over magnus yet? He has the appearance of playing the game with his words, but especially in context his posts are nonsense. He is a solid vote imho. I'm waiting on this but if there isn't a good answer I'd be fine with a Magnus execution MG2 posted:Not currently (at work) but I can put some thoughts to words when I get off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
SirSamVimes posted:There's nothing wrong with arguing with against a case. It's weird to declare it to be some kind of invalid gambit. Well ignoring that weird does not mean scummy, do you disagree with the buildup as to why I said what I said? The case is unsound, and that he talks about it like it's a good case to pursue seems unreasonable -> insincere. like Max said, it feels like BK only posted like he did because I'm the latest one to say his name. Making a bad case though doesn't necessarily make someone scum! And in this case there is a valid explanation for why BK would post his bad case as town.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Max posted:Random observation made in the middle of a work meeting: Hats' lack of posts makes me feel like he is town, strangely enough. It's because I'm less confident. In Qal I already knew who the scum was, so I had the benefit of certainty--I could look for whatever pretty much, or see somebody else's case and piggyback on that, because I knew I was going along with a townie (who was wrong). Here, I'm hesitant about "Oh no what if I'm agreeing with a scum!" so I post less. Still don't like MG2, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:Still don't like MG2, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
This game has been pretty cagey for a while, so I'm glad this whole conversation is happening now because it gives me something to sink my teeth into. Which I will do later, once this meeting is over and I get a chance to eat my late lunch / pretty much dinner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
I agree with what you were saying up until this.EccoRaven posted:"I am going to get into the game by picking a fight with an active poster, making a case against them, and rolling with the punches over it." That's the thing I've been saying is weird.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
SirSamVimes posted:That's the thing I've been saying is weird. Is it weird because you don't think it's something someone could do, or is it only weird because I'm the one who said it? If it's the former, well, it's actually very sensible, since it forces you to play and act and react, and it's not a common scum strategy since it draws a lot of attention to yourself very quickly by making yourself a part of a conversation (scum almost universally prefer being ignored and left alone for obvious reasons). If it's the latter, then that's silly. I wanted to see if BK would own up to doing something insincere as town. He hasn't, which makes me think it's more likely he's scum if only because that townie explanation is dismissed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
I think it's weird because it is a means of disregarding a case against you regardless of the validity of said case. Even if the case wasn't great, it still pings me. Then again, I did wake up half an hour ago so maybe I'm just being bad at mafia
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Looking over MG2's post history, besides the "wow, there's not much here", my main reaction is that he does the whole "making reference to things that didn't happen" thing that I distrust so much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
SirSamVimes posted:I think it's weird because it is a means of disregarding a case against you regardless of the validity of said case. Even if the case wasn't great, it still pings me. It's a good thing then that I dismissed the case on its merits first, and continued to bring up its poor merits even during this back and forth with you. And you can't say "regardless of the validity" and then in the next sentence say "even if it wasn't great." it's one thing to dismiss a case against you without addressing its merits; it's another to dismiss it for being bad, explaining why, and then coming up with alternate theories other than just "scum!! SCUMMMMMMMMmmmmm" SirSamVimes posted:Then again, I did wake up half an hour ago so maybe I'm just being bad at mafia
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
MG2 posted:This post from Ecco seems to be awkwardly defending Ecco from the accusatory post I made w/r/t Ecco. The accusatory post in question being "Hey, remember this one time when Merk and Ecco were a scumteam"? It's just... nothing. ##vote MG2
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:Murmur Twin - has been moving but if she can't participate more fully she should get replaced. I fully agree  I requested a replacement, unfortunately it's going to be like a week before I'm going to have any reliable ability to contribute to the game. Sorry about that, all.The Lord of Hats posted:It's because I'm less confident. In Qal I already knew who the scum was, so I had the benefit of certainty--I could look for whatever pretty much, or see somebody else's case and piggyback on that, because I knew I was going along with a townie (who was wrong). Here, I'm hesitant about "Oh no what if I'm agreeing with a scum!" so I post less. I had a scum read on Hats until this explanation but this changed my mind because it sounds like something town-me would say. My two biggest reads right now based on general feel are BK and SSV.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
chaoslord replaces Murmur twin!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Votecount for Day 2 MG2 (2): EccoRaven, The Lord of Hats EccoRaven (1): BottleKnight Jose Valasquez (1): Max, Quandary, Max (1): Jose Valasquez Not Voting (6): chaoslord, Flying Leatherman, imgay, Max, MG2, SirSamVimes With 11 alive, it's 6 votes to lynch. The current deadline is February 19th, 2016 at 9 p.m. EST -- that's in about 1 day, 5 hours.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
I didn't agree with Ecco's condescension re: my case, so therefore scum? It's like you don't want to be caught in an OMGUS, Ecco, so instead you're just spinning your wheels endlessly in an attempt to dismiss it. EccoRaven posted:it's one thing to dismiss a case against you without addressing its merits; it's another to dismiss it for being bad, explaining why, and then coming up with alternate theories other than just "scum!! SCUMMMMMMMMmmmmm" yes but both are dismissals and you read more like you're throwing theories at the wall than actually really thinking anything. Am I scum for casing you or town? I'm probably scum, based entirely on my reaction to your dismissal. But don't forget that I came up with an entirely different theory where BK is town, so I didn't just dismiss it haphazardly, I gave it the greatest of care. You're scum, Ecco.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
BottleKnight posted:yes but both are dismissals and you read more like you're throwing theories at the wall than actually really thinking anything. Am I scum for casing you or town? I'm probably scum, based entirely on my reaction to your dismissal. But don't forget that I came up with an entirely different theory where BK is town, so I didn't just dismiss it haphazardly, I gave it the greatest of care. On a reread the grammar of this paragraph is misleading and bad so let me rephrase. The "Am I scum for casing you or town? I'm probably scum, based entirely on my reaction to your dismissal." is me talking about myself. The "But don't forget that I came up with an entirely different theory where BK is town, so I didn't just dismiss it haphazardly, I gave it the greatest of care." is you talking about yourself. I should've fixed that but I didn't, life goes on etc
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
BottleKnight posted:I didn't agree with Ecco's condescension re: my case, so therefore scum? BottleKnight posted:It's like you don't want to be caught in an OMGUS, Ecco, so instead you're just spinning your wheels endlessly in an attempt to dismiss it. I called you scummy first  so technically yours is the OMGUS.BottleKnight posted:yes but both are dismissals and you read more like you're throwing theories at the wall than actually really thinking anything. Am I scum for casing you or town? I'm probably scum, based entirely on my reaction to your dismissal. But don't forget that I came up with an entirely different theory where BK is town, so I didn't just dismiss it haphazardly, I gave it the greatest of care. BottleKnight posted:On a reread the grammar of this paragraph is misleading and bad so let me rephrase. thank you. BottleKnight posted:The "Am I scum for casing you or town? I'm probably scum, based entirely on my reaction to your dismissal." is me talking about myself. The "But don't forget that I came up with an entirely different theory where BK is town, so I didn't just dismiss it haphazardly, I gave it the greatest of care." is you talking about yourself. I should've fixed that but I didn't, life goes on etc this doesn't help you, bad BK. I think there's a good chance you're scum. I think there is a possibility you're town, because the reasons why I think you're scum aren't 100%, and I wanted to see if you were doing a (very reasonable) town strategy. what are you even trying to say here? That it's scummy to admit you're not 100% confident about a case? it's just a lot of incoherent words.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:this is a nonsense paragraph. a lot of words that say nothing. I pretty clearly state that you aren't committing to any of your scumhunting. This is scummy because instead of scumhunting you want to just vote out alingment-neutral posters. It makes you look like you are helping the town when you aren't at all. EccoRaven posted:I think there's a good chance you're scum. I think there is a possibility you're town, because the reasons why I think you're scum aren't 100%, and I wanted to see if you were doing a (very reasonable) town strategy. I still don't even get your theory on why I'm town. And no, it's scummy to call posts and people scummy while resting your vote on Magnus, someone who you have given no indication of thinking they are scum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
BottleKnight posted:I pretty clearly state that you aren't committing to any of your scumhunting. This is scummy because instead of scumhunting you want to just vote out alingment-neutral posters. It makes you look like you are helping the town when you aren't at all. Okay let's break this down: - "Aren't committing to any of your scumhunting" is another exaggeration. For starters, I haven't done much scumhunting this game - I have a vague feeling about Quandary, and I have a less vague feeling about you, but that's about it. This isn't particularly damning since not many people have done scumhunting so far, which is very reasonable since up to today the game has been pretty stagnant. I think what you mean to say is, it's scummy that I didn't come out of the gate accusing you as soon as I thought something was fishy, which is a bad way to play the game. - I think you need to move beyond this idea that voting out non-entities early on is a bad idea. I am generously willing to admit it's a contentious idea, but even if it's "bad for the town" (it isn't), how does that make me scum? The gambit is named after me for a reason. Ironically if the real reason why you're voting for me is because I want to get rid of players like Magnus, then it is you who are voting for me for alignment-neutral reasons. BottleKnight posted:I still don't even get your theory on why I'm town. it's not a theory, it's an explanation. It begins with your case being bad, and yet you don't qualify it as bad - you push it as if it's a solid case. You continue to treat it like it's solid, when much of it is nonsense and what isn't is grossly exaggerated. I am left thinking either you're scum pushing a bad case because you're incapable of making a good case (possible), or that you're town deliberately pushing it for some other reason. A potential other reason is: "I am going to get into the game by picking a fight with an active poster, making a case against them, and rolling with the punches over it." The game was stagnating, and you were a pretty empty poster day 1. I was too! My method of getting more involved with the game was making a list of every player and seeing how I felt about them. Yours could easily have been the above, since posting a case would get your brain working, it would cause others to read and respond to it, it'd cause the player you're casing to react, and you would necessarily garner a lot of attention. I figured there was no way you reasonably believed your bad case was actually good. I figured there might have been a good chance you were town deliberately just trying to jumpstart your activity. It's not really condescending except insofar as I respect you well enough to think you'd know when you're making a bad case or not. I certainly do. But on the off-chance you genuinely don't, then I'll say it again: Your case is bad! It is based off points that are untrue and/or really exaggerated! You do not appear to be a Good Townie for your case, since it looks even in a charitable light as reactionary and opportunistic! You should consider either admitting the faults in your case and instead couching your suspicions somewhere else or admitting you weren't being sincere in the first place and explaining why.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:"I am going to get into the game by picking a fight with an active poster, making a case against them, and rolling with the punches over it." ##vote ecco This post is incredibly weird to me. Ecco whole train of thought is based off of Ecco knowing bottle knight is town. Knowing because bottle knight is not on ecco's scum team. Ergo Ecco knows he's town and interprets his actions as they state in the quote above.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:"I am going to get into the game by picking a fight with an active poster, making a case against them, and rolling with the punches over it." ##vote ecco This post is incredibly weird to me. Ecco whole train of thought is based off of Ecco knowing bottle knight is town. Knowing because bottle knight is not on ecco's scum team. Ergo Ecco knows he's town and interprets his actions as they state in the quote above.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Oops double post
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
MG2 posted:This post is incredibly weird to me. Ecco whole train of thought is based off of Ecco knowing bottle knight is town. Knowing because bottle knight is not on ecco's scum team. Ergo Ecco knows he's town and interprets his actions as they state in the quote above. nah that's not true. coming up with a reason why a suspicion might not be true is both not indicative of "knowing" the case is wrong, and also not actually scummy. asking BK about it is super helpful at figuring out his alignment. like what is my endgame here as scum? make a case on BK and then immediately deflate it, so that... I can... ??
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
EccoRaven posted:I think what you mean to say is, it's scummy that I didn't come out of the gate accusing you as soon as I thought something was fishy, which is a bad way to play the game. A lot of your post hinges on this idea so I'm just going to spell it out again: You are scummy because you say you have scum feelings but instead of posting cases on these people (ie scumhunting) you are going for this ecco gambit thing which allows you hide and hedge while maintaining a high post count. You are taking parts of my case and saying that's the whole, which is wrong. And since the rest of your post is just calling my case bad, I'm just going to ignore it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:54
|
|