761 replies to this topic

[Ali bin Turban]

 

No! I said a scum would like to blend and look like a pro-town player. NOT, being on a no-lynch wagon makes you a pro-town player FACT!  My statement is saying that a scum will want to look like a pro-town player, and a scum move might be being on the lynch-wagon then saying "i'm not scum, look a voted no lynch on d1."  Either way, from what I meant to what you think I said/took from it. I don't see what your point is. why does this matter to you.

 

"I would also like to think that there might be one hiding in the no lynch wagon. I scum might want to push for a lynch, but he would also like to blend in and look like a pro-town player." is my actually statement. What's irrelevant about the part "but he would also like?"

 

Also ATLEAST one scum on the wagon.  I didn't say that earlier, but I would like to add that to stop further "nip-picking"

 

But you've implied that he'd archive that look of a pro-town player by sitting in a no lynch wagon. It's hard to explain following sentence other way:

 

"I would also like to think that there might be one hiding in the no lynch wagon. I scum might want to push for a lynch, but he would also like to blend in and look like a pro-town player."

 

That's why I've asked my question. However it turns out that being on a no-lynch wagon is not pro-town move in your eyes. That's different from what I've got initially, but OK. Still it brings my next question, why would you think scum would say "I'm not a scum, look a voted no lynch on d1" when it's not really a pro-town move?

Also I called some parts irrelevant to my question, because you can't really vote no-lynch and push for a lynch at the same time (and pushing for a townie lynch is hardly a pro-town move)

 

And why Am I asking you all those questions? I'm just taking advantage of (hopefully not brief as usually) a moment of your activity to poke you a little and check your reaction. I think it's better than doing nothing, especially since we got an indication that this time it might not be a role madness game.

[KevinH]

the correlation coefficient ... at 0.50001

 

That means slightly better than random.

[KevinH]

I'm so embarrassed.
 
They might take away my nerd card.
 

 
A random Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient is 0 so my estimate of being slightly better than random should be .0001

[Ali bin Turban]

KevinH, your SuperTownieAnalysis looks suspiciously familiar to "Let's make a KevinH clone" .

 

Also I think voting on notorious lurkers on D1 is a good move and I don't really understand why letting them live for one night and lynching on D2 is better. That's especially since our no-lynch vote price was quite the same as misslynch - we were starting this game with 3 or 4 misses possible (depending on the number of scum) and now we're down to 2 or 3.

[KevinH]

What makes a player a "notorious lurker"?

 

I trust that roles are assigned randomly and that everyone has an equal chance at being scum.  If a player was a lurker in a prior game, that doesn't increase the chance of them being a scum in the current game.

 

On Day 1, the scum will not allow one of their own to be lynched so it's going to be a townie that gets lynched but the players that do the lynching are more than likely misguided townies so we get very little information from the lynch.

 

By Day 2, we can see who is truly inactive and those are the players that will hurt the town's chances of winning even if they are townie, but I believe that they are just as likely to be scum as any other player.  Therefore, they make the best lynch candidates.  At the same time, some townie power roles have had a chance to act and they can passively influence against lynching a known townie or in favor of lynching a discovered scum.

 

Mazuurek is the case in point this game.  He won't be there to deliver the vote as a townie when needed and he's just as likely to be scum as anyone else.

[SeaBeeGipson]

We are still fairly early in the game though where Mazuurek's vote isn't absolutely necessary. Granted he is lurking now, he may still be a townie that could add something in later days. With that being said, deadline is approaching and we need to do something to prevent us from going into D3 with nothing. What that is I'm still unsure of. Whether we lynch a lurker (probably won't give us any information, just a random shot at scum in my opinion.) Or we can wait and hope PRs can find something by D3.

I don't think a PR would claim this early. It would paint a huge target on them for the scum (unless they end up being a VT or weak role and fake claim. My specialty.) Given hints to them objecting a townie lynch due to what they found leaves a trail for scum to follow. If we can pick up on it, so can scum.

[iSocialism]

 

 

No! I said a scum would like to blend and look like a pro-town player. NOT, being on a no-lynch wagon makes you a pro-town player FACT!  My statement is saying that a scum will want to look like a pro-town player, and a scum move might be being on the lynch-wagon then saying "i'm not scum, look a voted no lynch on d1."  Either way, from what I meant to what you think I said/took from it. I don't see what your point is. why does this matter to you.

 

"I would also like to think that there might be one hiding in the no lynch wagon. I scum might want to push for a lynch, but he would also like to blend in and look like a pro-town player." is my actually statement. What's irrelevant about the part "but he would also like?"

 

Also ATLEAST one scum on the wagon.  I didn't say that earlier, but I would like to add that to stop further "nip-picking"

 

But you've implied that he'd archive that look of a pro-town player by sitting in a no lynch wagon. It's hard to explain following sentence other way:

 

"I would also like to think that there might be one hiding in the no lynch wagon. I scum might want to push for a lynch, but he would also like to blend in and look like a pro-town player."

 

That's why I've asked my question. However it turns out that being on a no-lynch wagon is not pro-town move in your eyes. That's different from what I've got initially, but OK. Still it brings my next question, why would you think scum would say "I'm not a scum, look a voted no lynch on d1" when it's not really a pro-town move?

Also I called some parts irrelevant to my question, because you can't really vote no-lynch and push for a lynch at the same time (and pushing for a townie lynch is hardly a pro-town move)

 

And why Am I asking you all those questions? I'm just taking advantage of (hopefully not brief as usually) a moment of your activity to poke you a little and check your reaction. I think it's better than doing nothing, especially since we got an indication that this time it might not be a role madness game.

 

Some see it as a pro-town move, regardless to how I feel about it. We had 5 on the NL wagon, and with the doubt of having all the scum on there. Means that a few towns, if not all, felt it was the best move for the town. It doesn't really set it up as a pro-town move just by NLing. More of a pro-town move because you were acting in the town best interest. My point is not; is or isn't a pro-town move, but rather does a scum want to blend into that group. In my eyes it's not pro-town, but it doesn't prevent other players from thinking so. Case in point, KevinH. some of the scum will know not to push for a lynch, but they also know that a no-lynch is not in their best interest. Being outside the wagon though can draw attention.

 

However, a clever scum will see a trend before it happens, and they will get there first. Imran is really good at this. He started the trend, and his defense was everyone else is following me.

 

The reason I got B's instead of A's in college was because I utter suck at getting my opinions out on paper/ like media, and also making them make sense.

[Ali bin Turban]

KevinH, I'm pretty sure you know exactly what "notorious lurker" means. You were seeing those conversations quite a few times - last time in your own game. But I'll repeat this again: if someone is lurking in first, second and third game it's not surprising to see him lurk in the fourth (and that's notorious lurker).

 

While I see your point, I'm pointing out that you're limiting yourself to just one Day, when it's easy to make predictions who will be the lurker basing on his game history. I assure you it was not my lucky guess to vote Rafay on D1 (your second on the list). Furthermore I dare to say we will get exactly the same amount information in case of lynching Mazuurek on D2 as we'd get on D1.

 

All in all we just seem to differ in the approach. You treat it as a tool for reaching your goals in a specific game (which I think has some faults). For me it's a way to deter behavior that's making games less fun for everyone (so it's best used when we have no other leads).

[Ali bin Turban]

 

Some see it as a pro-town move, regardless to how I feel about it. We had 5 on the NL wagon, and with the doubt of having all the scum on there. Means that a few towns, if not all, felt it was the best move for the town. It doesn't really set it up as a pro-town move just by NLing. More of a pro-town move because you were acting in the town best interest. My point is not; is or isn't a pro-town move, but rather does a scum want to blend into that group. In my eyes it's not pro-town, but it doesn't prevent other players from thinking so. Case in point, KevinH. some of the scum will know not to push for a lynch, but they also know that a no-lynch is not in their best interest. Being outside the wagon though can draw attention.

 

However, a clever scum will see a trend before it happens, and they will get there first. Imran is really good at this. He started the trend, and his defense was everyone else is following me.

 

The reason I got B's instead of A's in college was because I utter suck at getting my opinions out on paper/ like media, and also making them make sense.

 

So the conclusion is there could be unknown number of scums on NL wagon while rest of them could be anywhere else.

[iSocialism]

 

 

Some see it as a pro-town move, regardless to how I feel about it. We had 5 on the NL wagon, and with the doubt of having all the scum on there. Means that a few towns, if not all, felt it was the best move for the town. It doesn't really set it up as a pro-town move just by NLing. More of a pro-town move because you were acting in the town best interest. My point is not; is or isn't a pro-town move, but rather does a scum want to blend into that group. In my eyes it's not pro-town, but it doesn't prevent other players from thinking so. Case in point, KevinH. some of the scum will know not to push for a lynch, but they also know that a no-lynch is not in their best interest. Being outside the wagon though can draw attention.

 

However, a clever scum will see a trend before it happens, and they will get there first. Imran is really good at this. He started the trend, and his defense was everyone else is following me.

 

The reason I got B's instead of A's in college was because I utter suck at getting my opinions out on paper/ like media, and also making them make sense.

 

So the conclusion is there could be unknown number of scums on NL wagon while rest of them could be anywhere else.

 

Why is it that you are nip picking mine post, but not too many other people? Am I more of a threat to your cause? Are you hoping that I will say something that you can jump on?

All you have been doing is concluding my statements into something you want, but you have little to the conversation for what to do. If my statement are pointless, is you're implying. Then what should we do?

[Finster Baby]

KevinH, I'm pretty sure you know exactly what "notorious lurker" means. You were seeing those conversations quite a few times - last time in your own game. But I'll repeat this again: if someone is lurking in first, second and third game it's not surprising to see him lurk in the fourth (and that's notorious lurker).
 
While I see your point, I'm pointing out that you're limiting yourself to just one Day, when it's easy to make predictions who will be the lurker basing on his game history. I assure you it was not my lucky guess to vote Rafay on D1 (your second on the list). Furthermore I dare to say we will get exactly the same amount information in case of lynching Mazuurek on D2 as we'd get on D1.
 
All in all we just seem to differ in the approach. You treat it as a tool for reaching your goals in a specific game (which I think has some faults). For me it's a way to deter behavior that's making games less fun for everyone (so it's best used when we have no other leads).

The only notorious lurker I see right now is Rafay, since that's how he always seems to play.

[Sister Midnight]

KevinH, I'm pretty sure you know exactly what "notorious lurker" means. You were seeing those conversations quite a few times - last time in your own game. But I'll repeat this again: if someone is lurking in first, second and third game it's not surprising to see him lurk in the fourth (and that's notorious lurker). While I see your point, I'm pointing out that you're limiting yourself to just one Day, when it's easy to make predictions who will be the lurker basing on his game history. I assure you it was not my lucky guess to vote Rafay on D1 (your second on the list). Furthermore I dare to say we will get exactly the same amount information in case of lynching Mazuurek on D2 as we'd get on D1. All in all we just seem to differ in the approach. You treat it as a tool for reaching your goals in a specific game (which I think has some faults). For me it's a way to deter behavior that's making games less fun for everyone (so it's best used when we have no other leads).

The only notorious lurker I see right now is Rafay, since that's how he always seems to play.

If that doesn't ever get him lynched or murdered, then I guess it is great strategy. "Oh I will always lurk in every game, they'll just write that off as my style, and I'll never have to worry about saying the wrong thing and getting either killed or lynched,". Nice, especially since no one will ever catch any of his tells. The only problem is that I imagine after playing a few games with him I'd vote to lynch him right off since he's an unpredictable wildcard, adding nothing useful to my detective work.

[legoboyvdlp]

I really have nothing to input at the moment. I'm finding it hard to keep up with all the arguments and all that, which is why I'm not really posting much of value. Maybe next game I'll be better at it. I'm watching y'all for signs of scuminess or towniness.

 

FOS KevinH. 

[Sister Midnight]

I really have nothing to input at the moment. I'm finding it hard to keep up with all the arguments and all that, which is why I'm not really posting much of value. Maybe next game I'll be better at it. I'm watching y'all for signs of scuminess or towniness.
 
FOS KevinH. 

Yeah you're doing just right, says the person who is only playing her second full game. I was playing two games at once (huge mistake for someone as green as I felt) and I was way too serious, and not enjoying myself at all. I dropped out of one of the games because I didn't understand anything and it just seemed too intense for me, but I finished the other, smaller game and ended up having fun. Now I'm just trying to go with my gut, not get too serious, and have fun with it. I also discovered that I was not the only person who couldn't keep up with all the arguments and posts, so that helped me relax a bit.

As a near total newb, that is my advice for anyone starting out. Some might question whether you should take advice from someone as new as me, but I empathized with what you had to say, so I figured why not share.

[Finster Baby]

I really have nothing to input at the moment. I'm finding it hard to keep up with all the arguments and all that, which is why I'm not really posting much of value. Maybe next game I'll be better at it. I'm watching y'all for signs of scuminess or towniness.
 
FOS KevinH.

This is exactly my 3rd game. I still have my head spin at times.

I'm a touch suspicious of KevinH as well, for reasons I can't quite verbalize...just a gut feeling.

[Preston]

Unvote
 
Hi Preston

 
And good evening to you as well Finster. 
 
---
 
So a bit of activity today, good - seems to be following four main threads.
 
1. KevinH's List - another analysis list, and I'm a little amused he gave me the same rating as himself. Gryffindor indeed?   It doesn't stop me from watching him of course, but more notably he lays out a list of his current suspects: Lego, Samus, iSoc, Lyner, Rafay, mazuurek.
 
Kevin also accurately noted that I am riding on Myrrdin's legacy. He was an active poster apparently and not trying to hide, though skimming day 1 I can't get into his head on some bits either, particularly his unvoting prior to the day's end. He had voted for CoD before the day ended, along with Lego - and CoD was killed on night 1. Speculation, but I wonder if that kill was intended to shift suspicion onto Lego and Myrrdin as the two who had votes there?
 
2. iSoc and Ali arguing about iSoc's earlier statement regarding scum on the no-lynch vote. Either they're good at acting, or Ali is just that argumentative, or these two don't like each other and aren't on the same team. It's drawing a lot of attention to the pair of them, and feels like Ali doesn't want to let iSoc go.
 
3. Lego tossed a FoS on KevinH with minimal explanation, after previously focusing on Samus?
 
4. Votes/FoS being directed at Rafay and Mazuurek, the current minimums in vote count (if you exclude myself due to late joining or add in Myrrdin's posts to my count). 
 
Before going further, I decided to do a post count only since Day 2 started, to see how that looked without the spamminess of Day 1:
 
Ali bin Turban 7
Finster Baby 8
iSocialism 6
KevinH 9
King Hitler 6
legoboyvdlp 3
Lyner 1
Preston 2 (counting this one)
Rhizoctonia 2
Sister Midnight 6
Wolfpacks 3
Samus 0
Rafay 0
Mazuurek 0
 
So the subject of lurkers vs low post count vs inactives... the easy targets that can't (or are not) defend themselves. I'm always a little leery when this line of attack is used, because similar to the day 1 no lynch it is a "blameless" targeting - one where if the vote happens and a townie is lynched, everyone on that wagon can say it was sheer numbers and how can you question the statistics? My personal thought is that if someone is REALLY scum, then they have a power role of their own and that makes the game more exciting - i.e. scum are less likely to be truly inactive barring outside life issues, so lynching inactives is better-than-even odds to kill town instead of scum. If they're really dead weight we can try to get another replacement for future days. 
 
With that said, I also want to distinguish between "Lurker" and "inactive" - the first is scummier than the second. Both Mazurrek and Rafay (and Samus, and Lyner until today) have not posted on day 2, but have they been observed to be reading this thread without posting, by ANYONE? If so, then yes there is more info that they are lurking and it's on the word of the one who says they saw them reading without posting. 
 
The other question is when they last did anything else on the forums - to proactively answer this part myself, Rafay's last post in the forums was on June 17th; Mazuurek's was yesterday, June 27th; Lyner's only day 2 post was to say he's having a hard week (explanation for inactivity), today June 28th; Samus has been active elsewhere on the forums, last post today June 28th. 
 
So with all that said - unless someone can specify they have seen someone actively reading this thread (list on the bottom) but not posting, Samus and Mazuurek both hit the "active on forums but not posting here" criteria moreso than Rafay and Lyner. So are they lurking, or just not paying attention here - do they NOT have a role so they are bored with the game and less attentive, or are they trying not to make waves? Some pressure might help - and to spread out the votes so a wagon doesn't form, I am going to vote for the other active-but-not-here-and-no-day2-posts player.
 
Vote: Samus
 
Come rejoin the conversation to remove your inactivity/lurking and I'll remove the vote. 
 
As a relevant side question, would those who have played with him more recently consider Samus enough of a veteran that he would have been a better N1 target than CoD? Ignoring what seems to be a running joke about him, anyway...
 
-Preston

[legoboyvdlp]

@Preston, I still hold my vote for Samus, but I can still suspect other people without actually changing my vote, correct? Or is there a rule that you have to unvote to FOS someome? (serious question!)

[Sister Midnight]

I can see that Preston is a wall of text kind of guy. (I like an eloquent man!) Is that any indication of towniness or scumminess? Serious question, does anyone have an opinion?

His posts are insightful and logical and appear to help further the game, so I'm leaning towards town on Preston.

@Preston, I still hold my vote for Samus, but I can still suspect other people without actually changing my vote, correct? Or is there a rule that you have to unvote to FOS someome? (serious question!)

You can finger anyone at any time.

[Finster Baby]

@Preston, I still hold my vote for Samus, but I can still suspect other people without actually changing my vote, correct? Or is there a rule that you have to unvote to FOS someome? (serious question!)

Your vote is your vote. Keep in mind there are multiple scum - just because you have settled on your current vote doesn't mean you can't keep analyzing and making determinations for future days.
I'm wary about voting for Samus - even though his D2 activity has been rather suspicious. I'd like to see him at least attempt to make a case for himself before pulling the trigger.

So Samus - please join us!

[Preston]

@Legoboy, As both SM and Finster have commented you can FOS/suspect as many people as you wish at any time. 

 

And yes SM, I do tend to be a tad bit verbose - only way to get all the thoughts out of my head, so there's room to put more thoughts in! However quick responses like this can work for when there are only a few intervening posts to examine.

 

As a tangent/addendum however: I note that Mazuurek seems fairly active in Discord chat. I'm still curious if anyone has seen him actually reading this thread to directly lurk, but purely inactive he is not. It does not make him automatically scum, but does rub me the wrong way.

 

-Preston