Mini 1397: War is Hell (Game Over)
-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
I was going to advocate a similar voting plan... But rage changes things. I need to think. For now, no hurts or heals. If someone is rage attacked though we should heal them. Keeps them topped off, and it proves you weren't the one raging as it appears raging starts your CD.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 19, Zdenek wrote:I still have to think about what to do about townie rage, but my thoughts are that it should generally be kept secret because of it's potential usefulness in the end game. I'll have to think about this, but it seems to me that town should probably only be using rage early to accelerate lynches.
No. Absolutely not! This is a terrible idea. If we keep it secret only the scum win because they can better hide their plays.
In post 22, quadz08 wrote:We need to publicly announce when we use rage. Anyone who uses rage in secret is anti-town and will be treated as such.
Exactly this.
I'm still not 100% of voting-to-harm, but if we couple that with public raging that would be the best scenario. The more information that is open and honest, the less room we allow for the scum to manipulate the chaos. That is what killed us in WiH3. Also, if any Seraphim gets a hard on and starts just randomly hurting people and NO ONE STOPS HIM, so help megodBeelzebub. (See roflcopter, WiH3 for an example).Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
Can we not have an entire page or 1-2 line posts. Seriously, the two of you can spend an entire page going on about nothing and make it seem completely useless. I've been thinking about a mass claim and how it might be a good idea for this game. I have an idea that I've been wanting to try since WiH3, but I'm not sure about it... In the mean time, I want everyone else to think about Mass Claim and see if they think it might be a good idea here.
Specifically, claiming why type of role you have, names aren't necessary really, nor are powers. I think if we can split the town a little bit, we might have an easier time finding scum.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 52, kanyeknowsbest wrote:are you trying to set up scum/town versions of a role in a 1v1? whats to stop scum from just not claiming it an instead getting all of our prs big rage targets on their backs?
There is something... but I don't want to reveal it right now. In fact, I'd have to wait until after such a claim to reveal my main idea, because revealing it before the claim would stop the scum from "messing up", but that's why I want you to THINK about it. Think about the bad ideas for this plan because I'm not sure where they are yet. And if enough concerns are brought up, I'll think about what I think might help and whether it would be worth going through with such an idea and whether I want to push to try to convince others.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 54, Tierce wrote:
Sorry too busy watching ponies to actually notice stuff like this. >.> You can be Town. Proceed.In post 49, quadz08 wrote:Hell to Tierce, Hell to Tierce: please attempt reading the words again.
My latest experience with D1 massclaim was a massive game stall and general demotivation throughout the rest of the game. I'm against it if all that there is for it is ~vague benefits of vagueness~.
Its not a vague benefit that I'm thinking about, its a very specific course of action following the claim, but I don't want to go into details just yet.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 56, quadz08 wrote:To be honest, I think it's far too likely that Flay has includedfancy new thingsin this edition of the game to make massclaim a wise idea. Scum almost certainly has powers beyond what has been typically been included in WiH games in the past, now that Rage can be used by anyone.
Re: one-liners. If I'm not posting fairly regularly as other people speak in-thread, my gameplay quality falls drastically. So, I'm going to be posting frequently. Sorry. *shrug*
I'm worried more about moderation. That last page was brutal to read though because it had virtually nothing but a MattP/Quadz circlejerk. Posting frequently is good, but at least try to have some content, and wait until there is something to comment on. Your last post was fine, and I'm not asking for walls of text either, just enough so that it doesn't seem like I'm reading a bad AIM conversation.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 62, Lady Lambdadelta wrote:Just like a Vig who shoots someone who isn't the town consensus, they need to be accountable for that kill and the intent behind it can reveal quite easily whether they are a serial killer or an actual vig. (it's the reason why you won't see very many SKs claim Vig).
There are many more reasons why an SK won't claim Vig, among them, it puts a target on their back for the mafia. But most SKs DO claim Vig when they are pressured or "caught", so I don't really think this reasoning holds up.
At the same time, I see the hurt/heal mechanic much more similarly to a lynch system then a vig system. This isn't Texas showdown. It is the "vig" mentality that lead to the chaos that caused the town to lose every single War in Heaven game. Every time someone said "Let's just hurt and be hurt" the scum let them, and the town killed themselves off. Because the scum had the inherent advantage of both hidden attacks and coordination.
Now, the town has rage, but we have no idea when we will regain rage, when it will accumulate, or how much we will have throughout the game. Hell, in War in Heaven rage was accumulated only when a) an angel was killed, or b) at a set period of time. The "town" version of rage may not accumulate like that at all. We will see, but I don't think we should count too much on it just yet.
As for the mass claim plan, I have a pretty sure fire way to catch 1-2 scum with it if things go right. I'm just unsure if I've out thought Flay or not.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 64, Zdenek wrote:In post 23, Kinetic wrote:
No. Absolutely not! This is a terrible idea. If we keep it secret only the scum win because they can better hide their plays.
What do you think will stop them from lying? What scenario do you have in mind?
When making the decision about claiming rage, we should keep in mind the possibility of power roles like the ophans of last game, which may noit accumulate rage at the same rate as others, or stronger roles that accumulate it faster. If there are these roles in the game, they could be outed quickly if we start mass-claiming rage.
If you use rage, you should claim it. Simple. If you don't no need to claim it. This prevents someone taking a bunch of damage and no one claiming it. If someone takes damage and no one claims it, we can be sure its scum hurting someone.
In post 70, quadz08 wrote:In post 67, Zdenek wrote:In endgame, it will benefit scum to kill of people with the most accumulated rage, for them to not know who has spent the most rage benefits town because they will be able to kill off scum faster.
This is true. However, it is also of significantly lesser consequence thanallowing scum to be able to secretly kill someone, especially if we're letting town players get away with doing the same thing. I don't remember which past WiH it was (I think it was the completed large theme), but in mid-game, the scum basically went on a killing spree using rage, because there were so many town players who were at middling health, because town had been hurting each other willy-nilly. The same situation will occur here if we allow people to rage willy-nilly.
Rage gets claimed publicly. Period.
P-Edit: So... that thing that was suggested on the very first page that everyone who isn't LLD agrees with?
That was in WiH3, the thing was, the scum DIDNT KILL ANYONE, and yet the town REFUSED to heal the sudden dramatic and random damage. That needs to not happen here.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 76, quadz08 wrote:That's slightly more complex this time, due to heals costing the healer health. For the most part, though, I agree with you.
Agreed. However, everyone should be willing to heal once per accumulation date, since they will receive that HP back.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 79, Zdenek wrote:In post 74, quadz08 wrote:when somebody who we did not target to be lynched
is suddenly shown as missing health
we will know that scum has targeted them
we then follow the plan listed earlier of forcing scummyfolk to heal the person who's been targeted
anyone who cannot do so (because cooldowns) gets immediately lynched to death
Leaving aside the problems with this for now. Did you intend this to be an explanation for why we should announce rage use in the thread? Because I'm not seeing it.
We should assume that rage used for anything other than accelerating a chosen lynch is coming from scum.
This sounds overly broad... And for some reason my scumdar is pinging hard.FOS: ZdLarge Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 82, Zdenek wrote:It doesn't make sense to discuss the problems with it for now because if possible, I'd like to actually try it. If you are talking about something other than the implementation of the plan, what are you talking about? Also, you are welcome to explain the benefit that you see in town knowing how rage is being used. Do you think that town should use rage for anything other than accelerating lynches?
I think right now, no matter what plan is eventually chosen, that rage uses MUST be claimed. Unclaimed usage is scummy, and should be reason for the town to HEAL that person. I'm not taking a stance on anything else right now because the game is different enough from WiH3 that I want to think through everything else first.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 95, kdowns wrote:... Why is this healing going on... It's just going to put us back to square one?
Until the first accumulation.
Thats the point, Healing SEEMS zero-sum, but that's not true. Your first heal is actually sort of a loan. You get it back, and you don't take the heal back. Its subsequent heals that don't recover. Thus, you have one free heal per accumulation, and we should use it in a pro-town way. Heal someone you feel is pro-town.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 98, Tierce wrote:HEAL: Lady Lambdadelta
More later when I'm not half asleep.
Remember that we don't know whether accumulation hits all at the same time (and I don't think we should claim it--scum probably get to know it due to their own accumulation periods, but claiming ours may our PRs due to different recovery times).
Perhaps, although it makes more sense that everyone gets accumulation at the same time, while scum may get more accumulation or different abilities.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 110, Zdenek wrote:
In post 23, Kinetic wrote:The more information that is open and honest, the less room we allow for the scum to manipulate the chaos. That is what killed us in WiH3
Is there something specific that you are referring to?
In post 75, Kinetic wrote:That was in WiH3, the thing was, the scum DIDNT KILL ANYONE, and yet the town REFUSED to heal the sudden dramatic and random damage. That needs to not happen here.
Who wasn't healed? I remember SpringLullaby being hurt, but not killed, but if I remember correctly, she was healed after.
Specific? Not really. It is just sort of a general rule I've always lived by. The more information that is available the better, generally. Some information is better to keep secret, sometimes, but especially for a player like me, who looks for connections and patterns in the mod actions, even normally information that is good to be hidden I can find a better reason to have it. One too many mods has made the mistake of giving me JUST enough information in my role or through a mass claim that I can break the game. And these aren't simple games I've broken this way.
Re: Heals. The third War in Heaven was chaos. I thought I remembered no one being healed during that rage spike, but I could be wrong and I don't really want to double check. However, I was one of the first couple lynches in WiH 3 and rage was used on me, but it didn't kill me, only nearly killed me, and the town refused to heal me. Even though I was teetering on 1-2 life, long enough that another scum came and finished me off.
Re: Hit Points. I'm in agreement with Yos. Hit Points would not matter in the idea I have.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 113, Zdenek wrote:In post 112, Kinetic wrote:Specific?
I meant in WiH3.
In post 112, Kinetic wrote:However, I was one of the first couple lynches in WiH 3 and rage was used on me, but it didn't kill me, only nearly killed me, and the town refused to heal me. Even though I was teetering on 1-2 life, long enough that another scum came and finished me off.
Who is your alt?
Like I said. Not really.
No one... I was in WiH3...Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 114, Zdenek wrote:Looking at the first post of that game, the only two people killed by rage were Kublai Khan and inHim, and they were both killed in one shot, weren't they? Was there someone else killed by rage where it wasn't noted in the opening post?
Ah, I think that's where you're mistaken. I wasn't killed by rage. My kill was a spectacular misstep by the scum. One was trying to heal me, while another was trying to kill me. It was crazy. They tried to do it in coordination to gain town cred.
O SHIT, I was in War in Heaven 2! I didn't realize there was a War in Heaven after mine...
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10894
In post 2004, Mr. Flay wrote:Kinetic's desperate cries for assistance from his fellow angels are cut short just as Dripping Goofball approaches him; an unseen blow slashes through his back, cutting him nearly in two and leaving his body crumpled and broken on the ground, gleaming iridescently. A fading scream of rage ricochets off the clouds, with no visible source.God wrote:KINETIC, WHERE HAVE YOU GONE? A SUDDEN DEATH BODES NOT WELL FOR YOUR STRUGGLE.
Kinetic, Loyal Cherub, was cast out of Heaven.
DGB's heal in post 1909 does not count; her action is unspent.
Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 139, Zdenek wrote:Your suggestion that there are scum/3rd party in this game who could outed by this healing business is laughable.
Are you dense? The healing is to make it harder for scum or retarded town to rage kill someone in one shot. No one has claimed nor holds that it will catch scum.
Reading the sample role pm, it says that a hit point is subtracted when you heal and you get it back when rage accumulates. There is no discussion of whether you will still get it back if you've already gotten it back in some other way. The point isn't that it's impossible for this to work. The point is why is it so obvious that this is the way that it works that Kinetic would be suspicious of me for not thinking that.
Because you seem to have JUST read any of the rules or sample role PM in its entirety. Sounds to me your role PM is different maybe.
As to your nonsensical inability to understand that claiming rage use is town, the basic premise is town. And tips or tricks that we might use to catch scum who don't claim though would be useless if they were fully explained. And I am not going to clue in you or your scum buddies about how to avoid any missteps. Frankly, all you need to understand ins that failing to claim rage is scummy. You're free to accumulate rage all you want or not use it, but if you use, you claim.
vote : Zdthis is starting to get beyond the point where it can be excused. His lack of understanding seems to be to try and get information on how to avoid suspicious behavior, when all a townie needs to know is claim rage and everyone else in the game understands that.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
I know Yos expressed some concern about voting taking too long as well. How about a compromise, no hurting someone unless they have at least, say 5 votes. That number may need to be reduced as we get less people in the game, but for now it seems like a good number to keep the game speed up, but also have at least a modicum of support before any hurting begins. Anyone who hurts outside of that we will agree to heal them.
Hell, we could have 2-3 people set aside JUST to heal people who are hurt out of turn, or to react in emergencies to heal someone if scum decide to target someone.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 183, Zdenek wrote:On the other hand, Kinetic is being really obviously scum. There's clearly stuff that's happened in the thread that's worth talking about, but he's content to continue to talk about voting/hurting and healing.
Except, I've been using my iPad to read the thread/post, and I can barely do anything in the thread because I'm nearly 100 miles away from my computer. But I'm still trying to be here and participating. Oh, and I also had only one short line post since any of that happened. O wait, there are obvious, clear explanations as to why Kinetic has only had a little bit of participation in the last couple days, like a major holiday? And he even posted he'd have Limited Access, even though most didn't? I better disregard all that and stick to calling him scum, because its the only way to maybe get him off my back.
Zd, you are so obviously scum its actually getting laughable.
As for Tierce/Matt, I'm still waiting to get home to dig deeper into that, but for everyone who isn't scum, I'm trying to figure out if Tierce actually caught MattP scum, or if Tierce's timing on his attack was just a little too convenient and he is using that to chainsaw the obviously strong case against you.
Either way, calling someone out for not commenting on an issue during Thanksgiving (and the day after), when more than half the thread is currently in lurk mode is prettyfucking retardedignorant at best, and obviously trying make it seem like I'm the scum somehow.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 191, Zdenek wrote:In post 190, Kinetic wrote:Except, I've been using my iPad to read the thread/post, and I can barely do anything in the thread because I'm nearly 100 miles away from my computer. But I'm still trying to be here and participating. Oh, and I also had only one short line post since any of that happened. O wait, there are obvious, clear explanations as to why Kinetic has only had a little bit of participation in the last couple days, like a major holiday? And he even posted he'd have Limited Access, even though most didn't? I better disregard all that and stick to calling him scum, because its the only way to maybe get him off my back.
You're suggesting that I am scum for not cutting you slack because your posting from an iPad. How in God's name am I supposed to know that? That is such a bullshit and garbage attack. Eat rope.
I love how you picked the one thing there that you think you have an attack against and make the entire post about that. Nope, its to point out how hypocritical you're being. I'm sorry you have so much time to spend on this thread the past couple days, but most of us don't. The fact that I'm still here and contributing but, oh look, here is one thing he hasn't said anything about, I can nail him, is pretty obviously flimsy evidence. You're grasping at straws because you know I have you dead to rights.
In post 190, Kinetic wrote:if Tierce's timing on his attack was just a little too convenient and he is using that to chainsaw the obviously strong case against you.
What is this noise? Tierce is attacking Matt, who's calling me town, to chainsaw the case against me. What chainsaw is this?
Perhaps my meta is a bit dated, but I'm referring to a variant of the "Tarhalindur Chainsaw Defense". See here. The normal version would be if someone attacked me directly. That person would be extremely scummy. The version that Tiercemightbe using is a variant where you distract the town/wagon that was beginning to form on a scum buddy by instead attacking someone else in the town in an attempt to distract.
In post 190, Kinetic wrote:Either way, calling someone out for not commenting on an issue during Thanksgiving (and the day after), when more than half the thread is currently in lurk mode is pretty fucking retarded ignorant at best, and obviously trying make it seem like I'm the scum somehow.
Right, because Thanksgiving makes people blind to events in the game and since everyone else is lurking, it's fine for you to float by.
Is that what I said? No, what I said was that I haven't been able to comment as much as I would like to because of MAJOR FUCKING HOLIDAY. Yet, I'm still trying to contribute. The fact that I literally cannot comment on every. single. thing. in the thread is ludicrous. And it also predisposes the fact that maybe I didn't want to comment yet. I've told you I'm not sure, and why I'm not sure, maybe, idk, maybe I wanted to have more to say before I commented? O wait, no, that can't be. That is so obviously a town reason, that it can't possibly be what Kinetic is doing.
Isn't that sort of the same thing you said here:
In post 167, Zdenek wrote:In post 163, MattP wrote:Hey Zdenek, read on Tierce, go
I'm giving this read time to develop because of events in on going games that I can't discuss. Her immediate accusation that I'm tunneling is annoying, but I can understand why she would say it.
You've already decided that the best way to defend yourself is by just calling everything I do as scummy. That bullshit response just proves even further how much you need to die.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 193, Tierce wrote:
ITT we lean that voting a scumread when someone else has two votes on them (omg! And I haven't even given a read on him, too~)In post 192, Kinetic wrote:
Perhaps my meta is a bit dated, but I'm referring to a variant of the "Tarhalindur Chainsaw Defense". See here. The normal version would be if someone attacked me directly. That person would be extremely scummy. The version that TierceZdenek wrote:
What is this noise? Tierce is attacking Matt, who's calling me town, to chainsaw the case against me. What chainsaw is this?In post 190, Kinetic wrote:if Tierce's timing on his attack was just a little too convenient and he is using that to chainsaw the obviously strong case against you.mightbe using is a variant where you distract the town/wagon that was beginning to form on a scum buddy by instead attacking someone else in the town in an attempt to distract.mightbe "an attempt to distract". Uhm... what now? If I was attempting to distract fromanything, the attempt to defuse MattP's ad hominem attitude would be spectacularly out of place. I could have fanned that one spectacularly, and if there's something people who have played with me know, it's that I can get in catfights with my scumreads like nobody's business.
I understand your worry, but look at the facts. I was clearly voicing a scumread, and yes, I'd much rather lynch MattP than Zdenek, but that's because I have a scumread on MattP. The way events developed doesn't match with any "attempt to distract" from me re: Zdenek, because I was very clearly not brewing a distraction when I had motive and opportunity to do so.
Hence why I said I'm not sure. Its something that goes through my mind, but it's not something I'm sticking to yet because I want to see more develop. It doesn't help though when you then make this post...
In post 194, Tierce wrote:PS: vote MattP. Let Zdenek stew a while, he gets extremely OMGUSy while under pressure and is actually harder to read then.At least for me.
And make think again about whether I hit a chord...Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 196, Tierce wrote:You're looking at behaviors over motivations. Think deeper.
If Zdenek usually irritates me and I have issues reading him, won't I be trying to read him in my own time, and trying for a situation in which my read won't be biased? A player lashing back at his attackers just because he's frustrated is hard to read, as that frustration can be Town or scum. I deal better in seeing Zdenek produce his own work and getting a read from that. Forcing him into a reactive position is hell on my scumhunting and devolves into walls upon walls upon walls. He's fairly ignorable once I have a read, but until then,I have to read his posts. He does the same thing I've been trying to cut from my play: argue pages on end with scumreads. It's pointless, drags the game and kills Town motivation.
I'd rather pick my bones with Zdenek inwardly and get a clean read, instead of lynching him for things that are annoying yet don't make him scum. So I don't want you or anyone else to engage in behavior that will inevitably lead to the latter.
Except, I feel pretty strongly on my read of him.
At the same time I'm not going to force you to see my vision, I'm sure it'll be apparent on your own. I'll leave off him for now so you can get better reads, but I'm not changing my vote. As soon as we have some consensus I want to start hurting him.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 196, Tierce wrote:You're looking at behaviors over motivations. Think deeper.
If Zdenek usually irritates me and I have issues reading him, won't I be trying to read him in my own time, and trying for a situation in which my read won't be biased? A player lashing back at his attackers just because he's frustrated is hard to read, as that frustration can be Town or scum. I deal better in seeing Zdenek produce his own work and getting a read from that. Forcing him into a reactive position is hell on my scumhunting and devolves into walls upon walls upon walls. He's fairly ignorable once I have a read, but until then,I have to read his posts. He does the same thing I've been trying to cut from my play: argue pages on end with scumreads. It's pointless, drags the game and kills Town motivation.
I'd rather pick my bones with Zdenek inwardly and get a clean read, instead of lynching him for things that are annoying yet don't make him scum. So I don't want you or anyone else to engage in behavior that will inevitably lead to the latter.
Except, I feel pretty strongly on my read of him.
At the same time I'm not going to force you to see my vision, I'm sure it'll be apparent on your own. I'll leave off him for now so you can get better reads, but I'm not changing my vote. As soon as we have some consensus I want to start hurting him.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 199, Zdenek wrote:
In post 192, Kinetic wrote:Perhaps my meta is a bit dated, but I'm referring to a variant of the "Tarhalindur Chainsaw Defense". See here. The normal version would be if someone attacked me directly. That person would be extremely scummy. The version that Tierce might be using is a variant where you distract the town/wagon that was beginning to form on a scum buddy by instead attacking someone else in the town in an attempt to distract.
That is lulzy. Trying to tie people together before flips works rarely and on day one is just foolish. The stronger version of this tell is even questionable, so you are really grasping at straws with this, especially since you don't seem to have an independent read on either Tierce or Matt yet.
What are you trying to prove when I said something was a preliminary read, when it is incomplete? You're right, let me go get my actuary tables and give you a specific, full-proof case on someone I'm not focusing on right now, and a perfect read. O WAIT, the entire point of everything I've said is that I haven't had the time or ability to do that yet. I'm not grasping at straws, you are. I'm giving preliminary reads on OTHER players that don't matter TO YOU. I'm done trying to explain that to you.
In post 192, Kinetic wrote:Is that what I said? No, what I said was that I haven't been able to comment as much as I would like to because of MAJOR FUCKING HOLIDAY. Yet, I'm still trying to contribute. The fact that I literally cannot comment on every. single. thing. in the thread is ludicrous. And it also predisposes the fact that maybe I didn't want to comment yet. I've told you I'm not sure, and why I'm not sure, maybe, idk, maybe I wanted to have more to say before I commented? O wait, no, that can't be. That is so obviously a town reason, that it can't possibly be what Kinetic is doing.
The issue is what you are choosing to comment on
AND HERE WE GO! And here is EXACTLY that point. I'm choosing to comment on YOU. To attack YOU. How fucking dare I. Your entire "case" is OMGUS. You are attacking me because I would DARE point out how scummy you are being and the fact that you're scum.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
And just so you know, if all town claim rage, all scum MUST claim rage as well. I've already figured out three ways to catch scum if they don't, and no, I'm not revealing them to you scum. Keeping rage hidden is a scum-tactic because it allows scum to hide their rage usage. Those usages may be more powerful than all town usage combined.
You only want rage on "accepted lynches", but how is claiming rage usage incompatible with that idea? I've already said I'm not against that idea, IN ADDITION to claiming usage.
I'm trying to tip-toe around the issues that scum will have because town is on board to claim any rage usage, because I want to catch a scum lying.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 209, PeregrineV wrote:In post 181, Kinetic wrote:I know Yos expressed some concern about voting taking too long as well. How about a compromise, no hurting someone unless they have at least, say 5 votes. That number may need to be reduced as we get less people in the game, but for now it seems like a good number to keep the game speed up, but also have at least a modicum of support before any hurting begins. Anyone who hurts outside of that we will agree to heal them.
Hell, we could have 2-3 people set aside JUST to heal people who are hurt out of turn, or to react in emergencies to heal someone if scum decide to target someone.
It takes 7 to lynch in a normal game of 13, so why not 7?
Because this isn't a normal game. Yos's concern about voting taking too much time is valid, but we need a consensus. 7 would be preferable, but if it takes us as much time in this game as it does in a normal game to move from 5 votes to 7 then who knows what advantages the scum may gain.
Working from the last War in Heaven games we know two things:
1) An uncoordinated town will lose.
2) A town that takes too much time will lose.
We need to strike a balance between those two extremes. That's why I felt like 5 was the perfect "enough" consensus.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 222, PeregrineV wrote:In post 210, Kinetic wrote:In post 209, PeregrineV wrote:In post 181, Kinetic wrote:I know Yos expressed some concern about voting taking too long as well. How about a compromise, no hurting someone unless they have at least, say 5 votes. That number may need to be reduced as we get less people in the game, but for now it seems like a good number to keep the game speed up, but also have at least a modicum of support before any hurting begins. Anyone who hurts outside of that we will agree to heal them.
Hell, we could have 2-3 people set aside JUST to heal people who are hurt out of turn, or to react in emergencies to heal someone if scum decide to target someone.
It takes 7 to lynch in a normal game of 13, so why not 7?
Because this isn't a normal game. Yos's concern about voting taking too much time is valid, but we need a consensus. 7 would be preferable, but if it takes us as much time in this game as it does in a normal game to move from 5 votes to 7 then who knows what advantages the scum may gain.
Working from the last War in Heaven games we know two things:
1) An uncoordinated town will lose.
2) A town that takes too much time will lose.
We need to strike a balance between those two extremes. That's why I felt like 5 was the perfect "enough" consensus.
I see your point. However, If this is a normal sized mafia game, there are 3 scum. If 2 town and 3 scum decides someone dies, you can guarantee it'll be town that dies. This doesn't have to happen more than a few times to screw town over.
I think that we should stay with 7 for the first lynch. If this doesn't appear to work, we can modify for next lynch.
The killers should be the ones voting.
Votes will be tracked.
Votes without reasons should be subject to the most scrutiny.
I disagree. 7 Votes is too many. Even assuming your "theory" that all 3 scum will pile up And two townies will join in, that is much more dangerous for the scum. If lynches start going too fast it will be obvious something is at work. If those lynches keep hitting only town, it will be obvious something is at work. You want to push this into a normal game. This is not a normal game.
5 Votes is plenty. 7 is too many. If we have issues we can "modify" later, but we should be wary that we've already spent 7 days with the thread open and not a single person is CLOSE to 5 votes, let alone 7. In the other game, every week scum got more rage, or about that amount of time. 7 is a good way to stall the game out too much. And stalling is JUST as bad as random hurting, if not worse.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 240, PeregrineV wrote:In post 229, Kinetic wrote:I disagree. 7 Votes is too many. Even assuming your "theory" that all 3 scum will pile up And two townies will join in, that is much more dangerous for the scum. If lynches start going too fast it will be obvious something is at work. If those lynches keep hitting only town, it will be obvious something is at work. You want to push this into a normal game. This is not a normal game.
5 Votes is plenty. 7 is too many. If we have issues we can "modify" later, but we should be wary that we've already spent 7 days with the thread open and not a single person is CLOSE to 5 votes, let alone 7. In the other game, every week scum got more rage, or about that amount of time. 7 is a good way to stall the game out too much. And stalling is JUST as bad as random hurting, if not worse.
I might compromise at 6, but the last 7 days were also Thanksgiving week/weekend, and being in a hurry doesn't help when nobody is posting.
Also, we all get rage at some point, and any secret use of it will be caught by enforcing use of the HEAL mechanic immediately after secret rage is used. So, not sure why the concern about time at this point when it's all unknown and/or speculation.
You're right, we all have rage.
What makes you think the scum don't have a more powerful version, don't get it much more often, or have another new ability that is even more powerful? We're playing in a nightless game, that already weakens scum. Rage was supposed to be the equalizer. Now the whole town has rage? There has to be a catch. The fact that you're marginalizing that risk and pushing toward stalling even further is starting to get suspicious. You're not winning this argument.
I'm not compromising even at 6, I think that is still too many. If we get 6, then fine, but I'm not waiting around for #6. If I thought that was an option, I'd have suggested it. I've tried a lot of compromising and being wishy washy last time. Not this time. 5 is plenty. 5 is more than enough. 5 is a strong consensus. And unless you have a compelling reason as to why 5 doesn't work, then that's what we are going with.
There is also another option to this voting system that you're not taking into account. If someone takes off the pedal, and unvotes someone back down to 4, hurting stops. 5 votes is not an instance kill. The kill could still take up to 3 days, assuming everyone voting for him hurts on their timer.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 240, PeregrineV wrote:In post 229, Kinetic wrote:I disagree. 7 Votes is too many. Even assuming your "theory" that all 3 scum will pile up And two townies will join in, that is much more dangerous for the scum. If lynches start going too fast it will be obvious something is at work. If those lynches keep hitting only town, it will be obvious something is at work. You want to push this into a normal game. This is not a normal game.
5 Votes is plenty. 7 is too many. If we have issues we can "modify" later, but we should be wary that we've already spent 7 days with the thread open and not a single person is CLOSE to 5 votes, let alone 7. In the other game, every week scum got more rage, or about that amount of time. 7 is a good way to stall the game out too much. And stalling is JUST as bad as random hurting, if not worse.
I might compromise at 6, but the last 7 days were also Thanksgiving week/weekend, and being in a hurry doesn't help when nobody is posting.
Also, we all get rage at some point, and any secret use of it will be caught by enforcing use of the HEAL mechanic immediately after secret rage is used. So, not sure why the concern about time at this point when it's all unknown and/or speculation.
You're right, we all have rage.
What makes you think the scum don't have a more powerful version, don't get it much more often, or have another new ability that is even more powerful? We're playing in a nightless game, that already weakens scum. Rage was supposed to be the equalizer. Now the whole town has rage? There has to be a catch. The fact that you're marginalizing that risk and pushing toward stalling even further is starting to get suspicious. You're not winning this argument.
I'm not compromising even at 6, I think that is still too many. If we get 6, then fine, but I'm not waiting around for #6. If I thought that was an option, I'd have suggested it. I've tried a lot of compromising and being wishy washy last time. Not this time. 5 is plenty. 5 is more than enough. 5 is a strong consensus. And unless you have a compelling reason as to why 5 doesn't work, then that's what we are going with.
There is also another option to this voting system that you're not taking into account. If someone takes off the pedal, and unvotes someone back down to 4, hurting stops. 5 votes is not an instance kill. The kill could still take up to 3 days, assuming everyone voting for him hurts on their timer.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 259, Yosarian2 wrote:In post 245, Zdenek wrote:We definitely don't want to wait too long to lynch, but arbitrarily reducing the lynch threshold to 5 is a horrible idea because it will significantly reduce the value of vote count analysis and somewhat player's accountability for their votes (a la, I was voting for pressure and a couple of people piled on or i was V/LA and people piled on, and things of that ilk). We should aim to get majorities, and only consider reduced thresholds when it seems necessary, for instance we probably don't have to go faster than every two weeks.
In post 212, Yosarian2 wrote:Also, there is a very, very good reason for town to claim rage; if town claims whenever they use rage, then it makes it a lot harder for scum to dump rage for surprise daykills, and easier to catch them if they try.
People keep repeating this. I still have no clue why people think it, but evidently we can't have a reasonable discussion about it because then the scum might figure out what's going on, so I'm just going to say that later on, you're going to have to explain it.
Actually, I just thought it was obvious (and I might as well explain it, I'm sure the scum have already figured all this out).
If we all claim how much rage we have, and claim when we get rage, and then claim when we use rage, then scum probably have to lie in order to rage-dump. If scum lie in order to rage-dump, then we might be able to test them by making people we suspect use their rage when we want to lynch someone. If someone claims to never have used rage, and yet they don't have any when we tell them to use it, and the whole scum group just dumped rage to daykill someone, and all the town people have accumulated a fair amount of rage, then they're probably lying scum.
It's obviously not foolproof, but at least it makes it harder for the scum.
And thats one of three plans the scum now definitely know. -.-Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 262, Zdenek wrote:In post 259, Yosarian2 wrote:If we all claim how much rage we have, and claim when we get rage, and then claim when we use rage, then scum probably have to lie in order to rage-dump. If scum lie in order to rage-dump, then we might be able to test them by making people we suspect use their rage when we want to lynch someone. If someone claims to never have used rage, and yet they don't have any when we tell them to use it, and the whole scum group just dumped rage to daykill someone, and all the town people have accumulated a fair amount of rage, then they're probably lying scum.
It's obviously not foolproof, but at least it makes it harder for the scum.
I've kind of figured that we can just do this whether we all claim everything about rage or not, and then work out after the fact whether or not whoever gets caught is lying.
We don't claim anything, then we decide that we want to kill someone, so we get someone scummy to use their all their accumulated rage.
At least for the first time, this person, if scum, does not know how much rage town would have accumulated, and would be forced to make a decision. Town can then use that information to decide if it's scummy, if we should all claim in order to decide if that person is lying, or if that person should full claim to see if there is another explanation for why they had a different amount of rage than generally expected of them.
If we've all claimed, then scum know roughly what they need to do in order to lie.
So... set a giant time-bomb stall tactic for later in the game, which probably won't catch scum, instead of just simply having everyone claim rage if they use it... which would accomplish the same thing.
And it isn't like we can't force someone to dump rage and then debate about it later if we keep a simple rule, if you use rage you claim it...
We aren't claiming when we ACCUMULATE rage. We don't even know if everyone accumulates at the same rate. It could be town accumulate at different rates just to throw us off.
I really think you just don't understand exactly how simple of a rule we are asking the town to follow, and you are fighting something you think is a lot more encompassing than it is.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 265, Yosarian2 wrote:
It's all right. We were never going to trap them with something that obvious. But if we can screw up their ability to make kills, we're way ahead of the game.
Probably, but I have two other plans up my sleeve that are less obvious. I'd like less speculation from you on what they are. But, they are actually kind of ingenious .Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 288, Lady Lambdadelta wrote:In post 285, Tierce wrote:
There is literally nothing to lose from Healing him (you'll lose one Health point till your Accumulation, putting you at your original health temporarily, and that's it--it's a loan).In post 282, Lady Lambdadelta wrote:Tierce, I have zero desire to heal PeregrineV. Like, none. And don't give me that town solidarity lecture youse. >=(
Just for the sake of questioning, why should I heal someone I believe to be scum?
Believe me, I fully understand and sympathize with your stance here, but that is the kind of outlook that will lead to petty "I'm not Healing you!" down the road.
Hurting won't be made much more complicated by an extra Healing now, we have plenty of people to use. But it protects a bit against scum rage dumps.
Yeah, and down the road there will be most certainly more situations in which I will have problems complying with a town request I don't subscribe to.
This is what I was talking about with "whose definition of town" and "accountability".
Likelyhood is that while this heal will have no real severe consequence, future heals might and precedent is important. I'd like to discuss this a little more before I commit.
This is actually very simple LLD. Town have unlimited harms, given time, but from every game in WiH, the scum's rage mechanic has been limited in some way. Any scum mechanics are likely limited similarly in this game. Therefore, healing generally helps the town more because it gives scum less control over the decision to kill someone. Anyone. That is why it's town's greatest advantage.
You can argue over who deserves healing, but for now this heal all around plan only protects everyone if everyone subscribes. If someone doesn't, it breaks down and could bring chaos. In the future if there is a rage expenditure we don't want the town to think "Oh, well, I think he's scummy, so I shouldn't heal them." The correct response is "Someone just raged him, he needs to be healed before he is killed so we can question him." At anytime, it is the townie play to keep someone in the game UNTIL the town has decided to remove that person from the game. Part of that is keeping everyone topped off, even if you think they are scummy now.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 297, Zdenek wrote:In post 273, Kinetic wrote:How does claiming simply when you use rage out power roles?
So you've expressed suspicion of me over our disagreement over strategy, and it turns out that you've been ignoring my posts on the matter. Colour me surprised.
In post 64, Zdenek wrote:When making the decision about claiming rage, we should keep in mind the possibility of power roles like the ophans of last game, which may noit accumulate rage at the same rate as others, or stronger roles that accumulate it faster. If there are these roles in the game, they could be outed quickly if we start mass-claiming rage.
Ophans additionally could be outed because of, for instance, a reluctance to use rage.
The case on Matt, while it had reasonable beginnings, has become somewhat unbelievable. For purely wifom reasons, I think he's probably town, so I guess I don't care if you want to kill him, but I'm looking elsewhere.
I don't understand the town reads on Kinetic at all, but there's more scum in the game.
Vote: PeregrineV
There's a reason . . . .
My issue isn't the possibility, but... you seem to KNOW this. And I don't know HOW you could KNOW this. Everything Flay has said has been rather cryptic.
In post 21, Mr. Flay wrote:
You do not.Do we know whether Accumulation happens at the same time for everyone?
Add to that: your main "attack" against claiming WHEN rage is used, is:
In post 262, Zdenek wrote:At least for the first time, this person, if scum, does not know how much rage town would have accumulated, and would be forced to make a decision. Town can then use that information to decide if it's scummy, if we should all claim in order to decide if that person is lying, or if that person should full claim to see if there is another explanation for why they had a different amount of rage than generally expected of them.
The only way I can get these two opposing view points to fit together is thus: You are worried that power roles MIGHT be outed if we claim rage usage, but under your plan Power Roles must CLAIM in order to determine if someone's rage usage is scummy.
Is that correct?Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 300, Zdenek wrote:- The attack on him for disappearing was unwarranted.
- The attack on him for skimming when he said Kinetic rather than PV is poor because people get names wrong all the time.
- I disagree with the "setup to vote LLD" as being scummy. LLD's attack was reaching and him wanting her to explain herself makes sense.
- The logic of his attacks makes sense to me.
Here's what I agree with:
- I regard the points relating to him not playing to his post in Mafia Discussion as fairly weak. That argument seems to be something more along the line of a he's not playing what he believes is an optimal strategy argument as opposed to a he's scum argument. It's not an unreasonable point; I just don't think that it's good case for him being scum.
- the OMGUS happened, but I believe this is a bad scum-tell.
- the AtE, this has come up a lot, and it's the thing that I would actually be surprised if he did it as scum, but that's wifom so I like I said, if you want to lynch him for it, I don't care.
God damn it. This is a really good post.
Grumbleunvote.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 305, MattP wrote:In post 281, Xalxe wrote:Boooooring.
But thanks for the heal reminder, didn't realize charter hadn't done so.
HEAL: kdowns
VOTE: MattP
I don't know why this gem didn't quote
The quoting system seems to be on the fritz. I've been messing up and quoting or double posting all week.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 349, MattP wrote:I swear to God that if I watch from the Dead QT any of those three end up as scum winning it I will be livid and I don't give one single ounce of a shit if you take this as "AtE" and try to rip is apart like every single thing I've done this round. You've played a terrible game so far Tierce, you had complete legitimate reasons for half of your case but you allowed yourself to become completely overwhelmed with conf bias and antagonized every single thing I did this game. Even as scum I would not have done as many "negative intent" things as you've called me out for. It;'s absolutely preposterous that you would call out every single point I make as either AtE, a bad attack on a player, etc. At least recognize that calling my push on Xalxe opportunistic was a dick thing to do when I flip because as town there is no such thing as opportunism. Realize you were wrong and completely swelled up with conf bias. I'm disappointed in your play, you played a much better game in Catch 22 and I hope this is the last time I ever see you do this. Enjoy your mislynch. And no, I don't give a shit once again if you take this as AtE, you can come back to this post and reevaluate it when I flip.
I'll admit, I'm not 100% sold on the Matt case, but I'm having trouble with his targets as well. Xalve I can see. I would even put PV above Xalve, but I'm not seeing LLD and I'm not sure why he's 100% on Zd as well (although, granted, I've moved Zd to scummy neutral on my list away from solid scum). If anything, that is selling me more on the MattP case then on Tierce's attacks. I agree on his quadz town read though, and although I'm not 100% on his play, I do agree on Tierce though so he's not completely out of it.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
OK, Kinetic is annoyed that he doesn't quite like a lot of the players who are being active at scum, lets get down and find out who is not talking:
Scooby - I'll admit, I don't like this guy at all. I just played a game with him where we were both town, but at each other's throats the whole game. He had better reads than me, I had more town sway then him, but ultimately town won the game. Personally, it wasn't because of me that town did so. That being said, he was a lot more active and confrontational in that game, I'm curious why he isn't like that here.
Albert - Admittedly, a very lurky guy, so I'm not too surprised to see him on the not many posts list. Albert was also in the same game with me and scooby, but in that one he was individual scum (Arsonist). There is some reason to believe this might be a new scum meta for him (being lurky),FOS:Albert. Another note, Albert and I are friends outside of the game, but mainly over FB and not RL, because we have played in many games with each other. That being said, I have difficulty reading him sometimes and tend to think he's town when he isn't, so that may color my judgments.
kdowns - 4 posts, none of them useful. I don't know him though, so any clue on his meta?
There don't appear to be any other major lurkers. Everyone else has more than 10 posts... Well that was unfruitful. At best I'd say there is 1-2 scum in the lurkers here, but there could be none. Oy, ok, time for me to maybe re-read and see if I can pick up something on the backside.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 365, quadz08 wrote:What was the point of 363, Kinetic?
When I have trouble with some of my reads, or when I don't have a solid scum read on someone I will sometimes go to the people who are not doing anything and see if there might be scum there. Not a lot of those people in this game though, which means I'm missing something probably.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 368, MattP wrote:
Please say this same thing again for me Kinetic but like really dumb it down for me, as in explain EXACTLY what you mean to me
In post 363, Kinetic wrote:
There don't appear to be any other major lurkers. Everyone else has more than 10 posts... Well that was unfruitful.At best I'd say there is 1-2 scum in the lurkers here, but there could be none.Oy, ok, time for me to maybe re-read and see if I can pick up something on the backside.
This isn't even intuitively bad to me, this is concretely terrible
-.-; I'm not even sure what the first thing you're saying is saying. As for the second, I thought I'd find more in the lurker reads, but after looking into them and finding very few lurkers, I didn't know what to conclude with. I wrote down some quick thoughts, but instead of deleting the post and starting over I decided to post it anyway and see if anyone picked up on something I didn't.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 371, MattP wrote:You're not sold on the case on me being scum, right?
Correct.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 375, MattP wrote:In post 301, Kinetic wrote:In post 300, Zdenek wrote:- The attack on him for disappearing was unwarranted.
- The attack on him for skimming when he said Kinetic rather than PV is poor because people get names wrong all the time.
- I disagree with the "setup to vote LLD" as being scummy. LLD's attack was reaching and him wanting her to explain herself makes sense.
- The logic of his attacks makes sense to me.
Here's what I agree with:
- I regard the points relating to him not playing to his post in Mafia Discussion as fairly weak. That argument seems to be something more along the line of a he's not playing what he believes is an optimal strategy argument as opposed to a he's scum argument. It's not an unreasonable point; I just don't think that it's good case for him being scum.
- the OMGUS happened, but I believe this is a bad scum-tell.
- the AtE, this has come up a lot, and it's the thing that I would actually be surprised if he did it as scum, but that's wifom so I like I said, if you want to lynch him for it, I don't care.
God damn it. This is a really good post.
Grumbleunvote.
In post 361, Kinetic wrote:
I'll admit, I'm not 100% sold on the Matt case,butI'm having trouble with his targets as well. Xalve I can see. I would even put PV above Xalve, but I'm not seeing LLD and I'm not sure why he's 100% on Zd as well (although, granted, I've moved Zd to scummy neutral on my list away from solid scum). If anything, that is selling me more on the MattP case then on Tierce's attacks. I agree on his quadz town read though, and although I'm not 100% on his play, I do agree on Tierce though so he's not completely out of it.
Bolded should be "and" then because it makes no sense, it's like saying "I dislike you but I don't enjoy your company"
I don't understand why you thought Zdenek's points were good and it looks not like weird flipflopping because of this new post. I don't understand how you thought Zdenek's points were good (and I would like you to explain how they were good) and then fencesat here and then through out crappy weird opportunistic reads on three lurkers and said without knowing anything about them that there are 1-2 scum there. It's very sloppy
"I'll admit, I'm not 100% sold on the Matt case,butI'm having trouble with his targets as well." Maybe "as well" isn't the right word choice. Basically, while I don't like Tierce's case, I don't agree with who you find scummy as much. Your scum reads feel off to me, and your play hasn't been what I expect.
As for ZD, I liked thepost, not quite all the points. The post seemed like a very good town post hence why I backed off of Zd, but I didn't sign on to every single one of his points. I think that is your issue. You think because I agreed that Zd's post was good and a town-like post, that I implicitly signed on to all of his points against your case, but that isn't the how I saw it. I'm still suspicious of you, I'm just not completely sold you're scum yet. You've been acting a lot different from the last game we are in, both when Tierce pointed it out, and even now. I'm trying to figure out what that means still.
As for the "opportunistic reads", come off it. I was having trouble with my reads of people who were contributing and I decided to do something else to let it all settle out of my mind before coming back to those reads. I said there could be 1-2 or zero scum in them because I couldn't find anything. It was basically saying, AT BEST, maybe there are 2 scum there, but I don't think that is the case. Therefore, I turned up nothing of real value.
Nothing is inconsistent there.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 410, quadz08 wrote:>_>
*replaces in*
*votes on sole large wagon in game*
*comments on nothing else that has happened at all*
Yeah, I think we can mark you down as a scumread.
But is it a bus read? Now that I think about it, that would be an amazing scum replace-ing in tactic.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 414, quadz08 wrote:How so? I suppose it would pull some votes off of the target and on to the replacer... hrm.
I try not to think too hard about teams on D1; it usually ends up being counterproductive to me. I just call out things that seem scummy, and re-evaluate based on future flips.
P-EDIT: I'd like to hear about your townread on Yos, because Yos has been so thoroughly unremarkable in this game I didn't actually remember he was in it until you listed him as a townread.
It would be a delaying tactic, to be sure, and I'm not saying that's what happened here, but just some food for thought. Void's next post was a lot better.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life-
-
Kinetic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: July 9, 2007
- Location: Florida
In post 419, Voidedmafia wrote:P-EDIT: Yes, yes, I get that. To be frank, I agree with Kinetic. 7 votes is a bit too much to ask for. 5 votes for Pere came awfully easy, though, so perhaps that's a little low, but that may well just be an outlier experience. If you two really can't agree then why not compromise on 6?
6 was only floated after several posts of PV demanding 7. By that point I was (and still sort of am) stuck on 5 votes being plenty for this type of game. It has to strike a careful balance between "enough consensus" and "not wasting too much time/delaying". We've been remarkably patient so far, but the game has been open nearly two weeks at this point, it might be best to start some hurt'n.
timeline wrote:In post 209, PeregrineV wrote:It takes 7 to lynch in a normal game of 13, so why not 7?
In post 210, Kinetic wrote:Because this isn't a normal game. Yos's concern about voting taking too much time is valid, but we need a consensus. 7 would be preferable, but if it takes us as much time in this game as it does in a normal game to move from 5 votes to 7 then who knows what advantages the scum may gain.
Working from the last War in Heaven games we know two things:
1) An uncoordinated town will lose.
2) A town that takes too much time will lose.
We need to strike a balance between those two extremes. That's why I felt like 5 was the perfect "enough" consensus.
In post 222, PeregrineV wrote:I see your point. However, If this is a normal sized mafia game, there are 3 scum. If 2 town and 3 scum decides someone dies, you can guarantee it'll be town that dies. This doesn't have to happen more than a few times to screw town over.
I think that we should stay with 7 for the first lynch. If this doesn't appear to work, we can modify for next lynch.
If he had come with, 6 is more acceptable in THAT post, I would have been more inclined to maybe concede. But no, even though he agreed with my points, he stubbornly said, it still must be 7. At that point I felt it was a scumslip/delaying tactic and when I really started looking at PV as scum.
And for PV who is trying to claim credit on this "compromise", read his post:
In post 240, PeregrineV wrote:Imightcompromise at 6, but the last 7 days were also Thanksgiving week/weekend, and being in a hurry doesn't help when nobody is posting.
Bolding mine. He "might" compromise. It is couched in language making it seem like I'm the one being unreasonable, when his only argument is "Well in a normal game its like that". Even when he agreed with me that my two reasons for bringing a lower "vote" count made sense in this game he still wouldn't move off of seven until I basically brow beat all of his arguments and the rest of the game was agreeing with how scummy he was being.
At this point, 6 is not a compromise I'm willing to accept. 5 is plenty. I feel like the hurting should begin because I've reaffirmed myself that PV is scum.Large Theme List Mod Emeritus
On hiatus due to Real Life