Mini 865 -- Evil Eyes (Over)

ekiM · Post Post #19 (isolation #0) » Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:35 pm

Confirming, humans.

ekiM · Post Post #56 (isolation #1) » Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:22 pm

Vote: SophisticDoctrine

.

ekiM · Post Post #90 (isolation #2) » Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:53 am

Liking my vote.

ekiM · Post Post #101 (isolation #3) » Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:25 am

Claims are for stopping power roles getting lynched. Apart from that function, claims are bad. They let the scum know whom to target.
Unnecessary claims are really bad. Claims should happen when a clear and solid majority wants to lynch someone. Not before.
Don't ask for a claim too early. Just because someone is at L-1 doesn't mean "it's time for them to claim". Only if everyone currently on the wagon is still gung-ho for a lynch, and someone else is ready to hammer. L-2 is ridiculously early.
If someone asks you to claim and you think it's too soon, don't just submit. Argue against it.
Vanilla claims should never stop a lynch, if the claim was requested at the right time. If they did, it means they were asked too early. (N.B., it's not scummy to claim as vanilla, it's just a bad idea. Argue the wagon instead.)

ekiM · Post Post #102 (isolation #4) » Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:27 am

julienvonwolfe what was the value in making a long post analyzing a silly argument?

ekiM · Post Post #149 (isolation #5) » Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:45 am

Hey, MrSuave, or anyone else who doesn't understand what claims are for. Read this. Now understand: do not claim unless you are at L-1; everyone on your wagon is serious about your lynch; and someone is seriously threatening to hammer. Do not request a claim unless you are ready to see someone hang; in a position to hammer them; and want to avoid killing a power role. If someone requests a claim at a bad time, this is anti-town. Point it out. Argue against it. Don't acquiesce without a fight.

Also MrSuave should try doing something besides asking whether it's time to claim and defending himself.

Hey, xRECKONERx, you say that "increased" usage of emoticons is a scum-tell, and warn MrSuave not to do it. Two points:

First, what are you comparing with to decide that he's "increased" his usage?

Second,

if you think someone is subconsciously dropping a scum-tell, why are you warning him about it

? If you're town his alignment should be unknown to you, so why wouldn't you note it silently and keep scrutinizing him? Warning people of unknown alignment how to avoid your suspicion doesn't seem like the best possible scum-hunting method.

I'd love to hear why iamausername has a pro-town read on xRECKONERx.

Nuwen, in 132 you forgot SophisticDoctrine. He's lurking scum, no?

I don't see how Hoopla was rolefishing.

ekiM · Post Post #152 (isolation #6) » Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:29 am

Depends whether they're actively lurking or literally not playing, I guess. We'll see.

tubby, that all you got?

ekiM · Post Post #163 (isolation #7) » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:57 pm

Nope, Hoola, not this time.

How likely are these "are you scum" questions to get any useful response?

I'm a little nonplussed by xRECKONERx's mea culpa. It feels town.

Unvote; Vote: tubby216

for doing notheeeeng.

ekiM · Post Post #231 (isolation #8) » Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:59 am

Welcome, Symbol.

Symbol seems pretty townie to me. There is no problem with temporarily unexplained votes. He's giving plenty of analysis now, and it reads sincere.

Neither Suave or tubby have done any scumhunting at all this game. Either is a good lynch.

geekalicious's last post is weak. Symbol's tone is obviously something he was aware of. It wasn't some subconscious scumslip. I agree with IAUN's comment that scum really want to undermine any correct reads on townies, and geek's explanation for doing that is wanting. The "contradiction" he finds is weak.

He's called out on this somewhat by Symbol and Macavity, and he quits the game. And keeps playing elsewhere. None of this is good.

unvote; Vote geekalicious

ekiM · Post Post #296 (isolation #9) » Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:08 am

Zazie, your `style' of posting one thought per post is unacceptable. It is incredibly hard to read. There is no good reason not condense your thoughts into fewer posts.

Stop posting that way or I am requesting replacement.

ekiM · Post Post #318 (isolation #10) » Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:53 am

Zazie, you can look up "mea culpa" on wikipedia or onelook. Why would you ask that in a post? What possibly value is there in doing that?

It means 'my bad'.

I think geekalicious is reasonably likely to be scum, but I realize now we probably can't think of lynching him until he gets replaced (for claiming purposes). Reasons being his undermining of townie reads, his last post before leaving, and the act of quitting itself.

MrSuave has been coasting all day, tubby has done literally nothing but voting. I still think either is a perfectly good lynch today. Reasonably likely they're scum, and if not, we don't lose a townie who will play in a useful fashion.

Juvenilewolf I have a bad feeling about but I don't know why.

About Zazie. His posting style is incredibly, outrageously annoying and utterly detrimental to the game. From past experience, coercion will not help at all. Yet it's not alignment indicative. He was just this terrible in the last game I played with him. I don't know what the solution is. I've intentionally avoided games he joins, but what can you do when he replaces in?

I'm declining to share my town reads.

tubby is there a reason you've only asked questions once so far this game? Why are you lurking, eh?

MrSuave, give some damn opinions and analysis.

Hoopla, you said you had some great thoughts to share. Where they at? Also, you had your vote on MrSuave before but said you had no read on him. Now you're supporting a policy lynch. Whom do you actually suspect?

ekiM · Post Post #331 (isolation #11) » Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:43 am

I don't think we should lynch geek while his player slot is empty (no claiming opportunity). Let's lynch tubby or MrSuave for astounding lack of scumhunting.

Unvote; vote: MrSuave

ekiM · Post Post #358 (isolation #12) » Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:43 am

Crap, I can't be here this weekend. I will catch up later this evening.

ekiM · Post Post #372 (isolation #13) » Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:05 am

D1 info may not be relevant in the endgame, but it's sure as hell relevant D2.

I'd much rather lynch someone who has been patently useless today. Either they're an unhelpful townie, which is a small lose, or they're scum going for the "lol im so bad at scumhunting guys" tactic, which is a big win.

So, let's lynch MrSuave or tubby. I don't care much which.

ekiM · Post Post #373 (isolation #14) » Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:05 am

Oh and geek got replaced; could lynch his replacement.

ekiM · Post Post #431 (isolation #15) » Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:38 pm

Got the prod... did say I'd be away this weekend.

Nuwen wrote:I'm a little bothered by this. When I read post 1, I glanced over the "for claiming purposes" addendum and focused only on "can't think of lynching him until he gets replaced." After rereading, I'm now more concerned by the parenthetical statement - pulling out claims is not the best reason to value a replacement on Day 1. A replacement needs to speak, commit, and tether himself to the game on day 1; valuing claim ability indicates that you might already know that slot's alignment.

You're going to have to explain this. I thought geek's behavior was scummy enough to lynch him. But his slot was empty so we couldn't ask for a claim. So we couldn't lynch him. So I said that.

I don't understand why this "indicates that you might already know that slot's alignment".