|
It's been forever since I played mafia, but sure. I'm in.
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
EccoRaven posted:You got banned when you signed up for one of my previous games QPQ, promise you won't get banned again okay! I promise I won't every get banned during one of your games, Ecco! It was a horrible mistake and I'm sorry it happened.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
I was too busy playing Dance Dance Revolution to ever do Guitar Hero. Those mats were awful.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
I am happy to announce that I have received a role PM.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Ernie. posted:why even pretend you're town? if everyone claims their win-con now we can see which aren't mutually exclusive Then why haven't you claimed your win-con?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Ernie. posted:because it's controversial Odd. You had almost the exact same role in Legionaries in Ecco's 42 BC France game. That's convenient. ##vote: Ernie Ernie. posted:what's yours qpq friend? Win when all scum are eliminated. Pinterest Mom posted:ninja: nvm im dumb Did anyone catch this?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:if ernie doesn't actually have a way to kill or hunt for the doctor and cop, he's basically vt Do you think Ernie is serious in his claim, yes or no?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:what part of my post makes you think i don't? It's just that you are saying the extremely obvious, "if ernie is 3P, then we cant believe any additional information he gives us about his role" and if you believed ernie was truly an anti-town 3P, I would anticipate a vote.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:what's he going to do, lead a dunk on a claimed cop? you just said there was no way of knowing if he had any powers to compliment the role.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:if he has powers to complement the role, it's anti-town QuoProQuid posted:you just said there was no way of knowing if he had any powers to compliment the role. ##unvote, ##vote: Pinterest Mom I could handwave the white noise, but jumping on ernie while using semantics and hypotheticals to avoid tying yourself to his case is just too much for me. I want ernie to explain himself, especially seeing the parallels between his role here and a previous Ecco game, but in the meanwhile Mom is just as good a player to vote for. Pinterest, assuming Ernie is truthful as you say, what do you think should be done about him?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
You don't think ernie can be trusted but you also don't want to lynch him. What happens next?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
^^ That is directed at Mother, just to clarify.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:To be clear, you think I'm scum? I don't see an alignment call here, but you say I'm as good a player to vote for as the 3p claim who needs the cop/doctor dead to win? I think you are acting weird and are now trying to dodge questions by pushing against ernie without, again, committing to him. It's definitely not pro-town behavior.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Still don't see an alignment call~ So, I'm going to ask you again what exactly your position on Ernie is. You've said that you believe his claim, but that he shouldn't be lynched, because while he might have related abilities, he cannot be trusted. What is the benefit of keeping around a player that relies on killing town power roles? What are you trying to accomplish?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Sorry, I have a bad habit of getting overzealous early on in Mafia games. Let me try again.Pinterest Mom posted:I haven't said I believe his claim Which is contradicted by your post here: Pinterest Mom posted:what part of my post makes you think i don't? Pinterest Mom posted:and I haven't said he shouldn't be dunked though? which is contradicted by your lack of a vote (although now that I look again, you qualified that by saying you don't want to turbo in the first few hours of D1). Your content gives me bad ~~~vibes~~~~ and your differentiation between anti-town and "not necessarily anti-town" seems unproductive.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
a worthy uhh posted:I did not read the other game In the other game, Ernie claimed a pro-town role and CPig voted on Ernie because he thought it was a fake claim. In this game, Ernie claimed an anti-town role and CPig voted on Ernie because he thought it was real.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
a worthy uhh posted:That is a valid argument, but his point seemed to depend on CPig's alignment in other games, which has been scum AND town, and so I was misled You are thinking about it too hard. Ernie was just pointing out that CPig should never have believed any claim coming from him, especially after doing a similar fake claim less than two weeks ago, That CPig jumped aboard the bandwagon suggests scumminess.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:To Ernie: After 100 Years asked for additional examples of CapitalistPig voting for Ernie for a fake claim, I decided that it might be interesting to see whether there were any examples of this happening in their post histories. While, it took longer than I anticipated to find similar instances, Ernie's tendency to fakeclaim was brought up repeatedly in games that also included CapitalistPig, such as SA Mafia, which finished less than a month ago. The first instance that I found of Ernie claiming third party on D1 in a game with CapitalistPig was PokeMafia (1). Unfortunately, the Mod ruined the gambit by becoming involved in discussion and Capitalist Pig remained aloof to the claim. He was scum, but mod interference makes it a poor example. In Paranoia! (3), Ernie claimed that his role was “a racist word” which resulted in a vote from Capitalist Pig, the Mafia Roleblocker. A similar instance occurred in An Unfortunate Incident at Golden Ray Studios (3). Ernie role claimed and CapitalistPig retaliated with a vote. Both players were town. As the above examples indicate, Capitalist Pig has been exposed to Ernie's schtick more than a few times, but the issue is far from clearcut, because CPig voted for Ernie for his fakeclaims as both town and scum. The vote doesn't strike me as suspicious as his post claiming that nothing serious had happened (4). This statement reads as someone trying to avoid content after the debacle between myself and PinterestMom and the debate over Ernie's alignment. I also agree with 100 Years when she says that Capitalist Pig seems like he is waiting to jump on content to avoid providing his own (5). CPig has always been a low content poster, but he is especially lurky and avoidant while scum. His latest post (6) reminds me of how he was defended in PokeMafia: "CP, is well, CP. He always is lazy in his votes. He, of course, hides behind this meta as scum, but it is not indicative of alignment (7)." This line of thinking prevents the town from ever making a case against Capitalist Pig, because his content can always be excused as "CPig being CPig." a worthy uhh posted:The point of that comment is that no matter what Ernie says, there will still be doubt about his alignment all game, because backpedaling with "it was a joke" is a non-conclusion for any claim -- you can't unring a bell. a worthy uhh posted:Now he's "caught" CPig with his "gambit" and my vote is standing because I have yet to find a reason to unvote. Eh. I don't necessarily agree with Ernie's gambit, but I doubt there will "still be doubt about his alignment all game." There is nothing for a 3P to gain by brashly announcing his alignment to the world less than an hour into the game. There's no reason to believe that his post was made seriously, especially when you consider his past behavior and the context in which it was made. If you want to vote for Ernie, that's fine. Just find something other than his claim to justify it on, because it is not especially indicative of his scum playstyle. Holding a vote on him for that post and that post alone seems unproductive, especially now that people are talking about other things.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
@Amoeba: What do you think of Quandry? I just went through his post history and besides a few jabs at 100 Years for pursuing CPig, his post history reads to me like a lot of non-commital noise and set-up discussion. There's no actual scumhunting. I refer in particular to:Quandary posted:As a general rule Lynch all third parties is a good plan Quandary posted:Maybe we should hold off on specific role speculation until we see if he was just kidding or not. If that's his real win condition then he is actively anti town though and realistically is worse than a miller claim Quandary posted:While there are of course exceptions, Lynch All Third Parties is generally a good plan because Quandary posted:A worthy uhh I really doubt ernie's claim is real and backtracked. That would be an extremely dumb move as a third party, plus the win condition he described would be extraordinarily difficult Quandary posted:You hedge your bets by claiming ignorance on CPig before voting, and then jump on a joke comment and include some meta for some reason. It's a very very weak vote that you still felt the need to give yourself a way to backtrack out of. There's nothing inherently wrong with making a vote on a weaker case day 1 given we have less to go on, but giving an unrelated out on your vote is trying to take a stand while not making one simultaneously It rubs me the wrong way, especially in light of the suspicion on CPig.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
CapitalistPig posted:Jesus christ dude. i am running an analysis of competing hypotheses on this game right now. it is dissecting your playstyle, making furious beeps and boops as it gets closer to uncovering your alignment.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
The Joke, Self-Aligned Jester, was killed D1.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Amoeba102 posted:Back to Quandry: I may not have been specific enough. He said: "Is this a joke?" while pushing a vote 3P agenda. Later he's on about "I doubt it was serious". He's rather non-committal about the whole thing, which is, again, what sparked my attention. He starts by asking if it is a joke, and then adds a post saying that "as a general rule Lynch all third parties is a good plan" (1). This post is not a commitment to the case, but advances the pressure against Ernie. After the town mood starts shifting against the initial bandwagon, he says that he will hold off on role speculation (2). Again, it's not rejecting the votes against Ernie, but it is not supporting it either.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
I started writing a post about how I didn't agree with your read of Quandry and 100 Years's interactions, but after going back and rereading I'm a little more conflicted. While the claim that you can't trust someone a third of the way through D1 reads like a fairly transparent attempt to sow doubt about 100 Years's scumhunting, 100 Years response to him (1) is actually awkward and seems out of place. Quandry is doing much the same thing he accuses 100 Years of, giving himself an out by saying that "there's nothing inherently wrong with making a vote on a weaker case day 1," (2) but his critique actually isn't misplaced.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
merk posted:Did this post go anywhere? I see a lot of examples without a lot of alignment reads. I don't like CPig, but not for the reasons outlined by Ernie. CPig should be familiar with Ernie's schtick, but the examples show CPig doing the same thing repeatedly in the face of Ernie's fake claims. I'm more concerned with Capitalist Pig's dismissing content and pretending that we are still joking around. He's just latching himself to other people's content; I see him as a probable scum target for that reason. CPig is why I started looking at Quandry. I remembered Quandry jumping in to attack 100 Years's vote. After going through his content, I saw a lot of unproductive posts about general mafia theory and some jokes instead of scumhunting. I asked Amoeba for his opinion on the matter and the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a CPig-Quandry scum team. It's probably the only strong read I have thus far.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
winvirus posted:I have mixed feelings about Ernie's claim Those being...? And do you see the case against CPig as a policy lynch only?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
winvirus posted:On the one hand I see it as a thing ernie would do for jokes but on the other it may be a scum gambit so he could go "no look I did it here too and I was town" thats dumb
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Quandary posted:AWU's vote on ernie that he made during the fakeclaim and has kept haphazardly defending is really bad. How does a scum player benefit from clinging to a case that now seems more suspicious than credible? How do you explain his confused posts after Ernie returned to the thread (1), (2)? They read to me as genuine. I'm genuinely asking. If you want to make a case, I'd be happy to read it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
numerrik posted:Really? I reg'd before him, I would be a proto version if anything. Still, skimming the thread I saw a claim or two, and thought we were listing off. Votefinder tells me you have only played three games, this being one of them. How experienced would you consider yourself?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Also, I think you might be illiterate.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
FYI, my laptop is temporarily out of commission, so my posts my seem a little more informal than they typically are.merk posted:I don't really agree that you can glean anything about QPQ's alignment from the effort he put in because the effort goes nowhere. I think you made this up. How exactly is Glock making things up? I can understand your objections with my post, but I am not sure how Glock is being deceitful. What do you think he is trying to accomplish, exactly? Comes off as an easy attack against someone who can't defend themselves. Glock reads like every newbie town player that has ever existed. merk posted:Oh, a third party claim: ##unvote; ##vote numerrik merk posted:Quandary's didn't jump out at me when I read it, but you're right. I think saying less about why you're townie is probably worse than Ernie trying to actually dive into the argument, and it looks like Ernie and I might just disagree about a general mafia thing here. merk, real question: Are you scum in this game? I don't see anything here except an attempt to make an easy lynch against a bad, possibly new player. Your last post is just a mishmash of general thoughts that doesn't correlate with your vote at all. The white knight accusation is weak and disingenuous. What exactly does that mean? It is more an attack on the person than a critique of their actions. I am getting all sorts of bad vibes out of it. ##unvote, ##vote:merk
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
merk posted:No, I'm not scum this game. People can stop asking me if I'm scum in a game; it's happened in the last four games, one of which I was scum in! i thought i would ask politely, merk!!! I wait with secret hopes that one day, someone will tell me that they are, in fact, scum. As for your case work, it looks like deliberate misreadings of both Glock and Ernie. Nothing about Glock reads as particularly untrue when compared to other town players. His post is not terribly thought through, but nothing about it is necessarily scummy. Have you never encountered a town player that likes evidence of effort? As for Ernie, you accuse him of being a white knight after he indicates some holes in your attack. I can understand your unhappiness if you were just trying to needle Glock, looking for reactions, but your focus suddenly shifts toward Ernie for "white knighting." Are we going to consider an attack on every bad case "white knighting" now? Your accusation is disingenuous because it doesn't actually address Ernie's concerns. It's just name-calling, and the sudden posting of it in response comes off as awkward. Somberbrero posted:Accusing Ernie of White-Knighting Glock is obviously wrong, but what's more wrong is that merk is spinning that he was pressuring Glock. Merk undercut his own momentum by stopping to vote Numerrik immediately afterwards. Rambling about his own meta when questioned isn't a good response. I agree with this as well. Your last few series of posts is just throwing spaghetti at the walls. There's no focus. You flip suddenly between Glock, Ernie, and Numerik for poorly explained reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
numerrik posted:Town aligned elite bodyguard oh my god. i actually need to sit down for a second.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
merk posted:Huh? 1.) You make a bad argument. 2.) Ernie points out that you made a bad argument. 3.) Suddenly you run in screaming that Ernie is a white knight. You don't actually address whether his points are wrong until 4-5 posts later. It's a weird kneejerk reaction and poorly explained.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:Ninth you are a) a lunatic b) scum. Let's play a game Somberbrero. Let's assume for a moment that numerikk is scum. In what way does his claim make sense from that perspective? What do you think he wanted to accomplish by making that post?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:"ultimately it involves dunking a mafia during my night action. I am pro-Town." CCKeane posted:Yes, I think he has a third party alignment. I think new third party could easily say that. These are both two good hypotheses! Not sufficient for a vote by itself, though. Does make numerikk an easy target, though...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
AnonymousNarcotics posted:Merk is not scum Amoeba102 posted:Explain. ^^ Still waiting on this, Narcotics. ^^ Amoeba102 posted:You know who said explicitly they aren't town-aligned - PMom. Why are you going nuts over the elite bodyguard? Are you feeling threatened? Yo, I want a answer to this. Somberbrero posted:I am sorry you rolled a third-party ##vote Numerrik Somberbrero posted:"My wincon is pro-town" and "I'm town aligned" are not the same thing. Somberbrero posted:The win-condition that Numerrik presented allows him to win alongside the Mafia and he did not respond to questions about why this would be a town alignment. Somberbrero posted:My win condition is to eliminate all scum players from the game. I do not have to kill another player during the night to achieve my win condition. Numerrik does have to kill another player during the night to achieve his win condition. His win condition is different than mine, so he is not town. Somberbrero posted:Can you expand on that? I <3 how Numerrik gets increasingly sinister as Somberbero's post history continues. It starts off as a policy lynch and slowly becomes a huge existential threat that must be eliminated. It's an absolutely hilarious escalation over the course of three pages.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
AnonymousNarcotics posted:merk is playing like an rear end in a top hat but I know he's town. I may know something about him. Just trust me, guys. Is this a joke or your actual justification? If it is the latter, that's an insufficient way of settling my concerns and makes me want to lynch you both. Try again.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:All those posts say the same thing. Did you have a point? It's a reiteration of the shifting goalposts that have formed around numerrik. When it is no longer sufficient to justify his lynch on policy grounds, that his win condition is different from the town, the framework for discussion shifts to his supposed killing abilities, despite numerrik's consistent claims that they are passive. If you want to lynch a third party because he is a third party, that's fine. I disagree that it is always the right policy, but I at least understand the motivation. Trying to pretend that numerrik is somehow a unique threat that actively seeks the death of town players is not acceptable. You are either tunneled so severely on this case that you don't realize how much your rhetoric has changed, or you are scum gradually ramping up pressure against a really awkward new player. It's similar to the issue I have with merk's attack on Glock. I find your actions especially scummy in light of Mom. As Amoeba points out, your "policy lynch" seems to be inconsistently applied. Amoeba102 posted:Somber > merk > Jedit? In likelihood of being scum The one issue I'm conflicted about is the relationship between Somber and merk. While both jumped on him almost immediately, I don't get a sense of cooperation between the two players. If merk flipped scum, I would be hesitant to lynch Somber, and vice versa.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:I'm feeling imgay for scum. Soft claiming this early might be bad play, but it's not scummy. In what way do you see imgay as more likely to be scum than any of the other candidates discussed? You've been a little quiet about your reads since the elite bodyguard debacle (1).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
Amoeba102 posted:Yeah I reasoned myself in that post to Merk > Somber > Jedit. Not sure where CPig comes in on the "votes on nummerrik has one scum". I haven't really focused much attention on Jedit and CapitalistPig's latest posts still ping as odd to me. That's more gut than anything. Keane strikes me as genuine, especially after he realizes nummerrik has played only three games. He also seems to realize how easily the case against nummerick can be exploited (1). PMom's post about her alignment, which she has still not explained, makes me feel better about her. It reads less like a scum slip and more an "Aha!" moment degenerating into real confusion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 01:58
|
|