|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 19:49:02 GMT -5
Post by ArizonaTeach on May 30, 2007 19:49:02 GMT -5
While I'm here, I'd like to talk about zuma. Something about his posts so far have seemed odd to me, so I decided to research his history. It didn't take long; he has nine posts. Well, I"m glad someone else noticed that. I was worried that if I drew too much attention to it I'd be targetted as driven too much by vengeance. But yes, I've thought the exact same things about zuma.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 19:54:52 GMT -5
Post by ArizonaTeach on May 30, 2007 19:54:52 GMT -5
Ok, I've been looking over old posts, and someone who is standing out a bit to me is MadTheSwine. Hasn't posted a lot, and posts aren't necessarily "unsubstantintive" (and is defensive if one suggests it-- they DO relate to the matters at hand but ONLY to the matters immediately at hand, offering nothing more than a driveby vote, and then frequently of easy targets-- noobs and the absent Auto)) but he tends to swoop in with short posts, usually accusatory, and very frequently invoking authority: "That's a scum tell according to mafiascum.net". Has done this citation of mafiascum.net a fair number of times, especially for a veteran player: a sort of passing the blame of suspicion onto the Gods. I feel the same way about people who excessively source random.net in the opening. Maybe we should get a count of that...it does seem like a pretty obvious way to wash hands of a situation.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 19:59:01 GMT -5
Post by ArizonaTeach on May 30, 2007 19:59:01 GMT -5
And Auto, I say this loud and proud. I will vote for you if you don't contribute to the game in a meaningful manner! Your deadline has passed...take some vitamin E and get to work...
I wasn't big on pounding on the low post count in the first Day, but there are too many people who aren't participating right now - and that's seriously unacceptable. Thank you, cookies for understanding that. For right now, though, I need to see Lakai, zuma, and Auto say something.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 21:55:13 GMT -5
Post by autolycus on May 30, 2007 21:55:13 GMT -5
Something (karaoke night. BBL. When come back, bringing content)
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 22:23:03 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 30, 2007 22:23:03 GMT -5
Autolycus:I hate to be mean, but, um, that'll be a first. While I'm here: I share storyteller's suspicion of zuma (nice analysis there), although I'm fresh off of having dropped zuma bound and gagged forty feet to the ground in the other game, so I'm not feeling quite as lynchacidal to him as I might otherwise. But right now I'm gonna vote mhaye for the reasons stated in Post #169 and previous posts. To sum them up: mhaye has been a low-volume poster who's been assertive and confident (yet not particularly verbose) in each of the posts he has made. He gives the consistent impression of choosing his words very carefully (with the obvious exception that I'll address in a second), which, as I said near the end of Day One, isn't something that strikes me as quintessentially townie behavior (insert disclaimer here about how there's a discernible townie tone but not necessarily a discernible scum tone, meaning that mhaye could simply be, for lack of a better word, an atonal townie). I've mentioned my theory a couple of times about scum likely scattering themselves out in a seemingly "random" pattern (kudos to whoever came up with that analogy a few pages ago; I forget) in terms of posting volume, aggressiveness, and style...simply put, the way mhaye posts conforms to one of the general "types" of posting personas that I'd expect to see if scum were trying to diversify themselves...and there really isn't anyone else in this game who posts like he does. (Consulting my handy chart in Post #142, I see that I've likened mhaye to storyteller---who's now been posting more often, and whose posts are more densely packed with insight and observations---and cowgirl, who posts much more often as well, and has been less pingily confident in herself. And Kyrie, I suppose, but he vibes way different also.) Finally, mhaye's interesting verbal slip in Post #59, which he admittedly corrected in Post #60, really stands out to me. For these reasons, of the players I've got my eye on at the moment, I think mhaye's the likeliest to be scum. Which is why I'm voting for him.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 22:47:13 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 30, 2007 22:47:13 GMT -5
Heh...I was just thinking about this game while brushing my teeth---because, y'know, I'm a big dork---and I realized that I've been giving great weight to a lot of what storyteller says, because his observations are generally extremely incisive and because I often very much agree with them. Specifically, I was thinking about how struck I was by storyteller's comments about how FCOD is behaving in this game exactly the way he did when he was scum in Mafia II. That's a powerfully persuasive thing to say, and storyteller, more than most players, would be in a prime position to know. But then I realized: storyteller (of course) was scum in that game, too! And he's an excellent player! So why should I trust what he says right now?
In any event, my toothbrush musings led me to this question: storyteller, what assurances can you give us that you're not once again playing the role of silver-tongued scum? How are you playing differently now than you did then, and is there any way that (if you were in our shoes) you could suggest to test your now-townieness (or putative townieness) against your then-scumminess?
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 23:01:54 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on May 30, 2007 23:01:54 GMT -5
Autolycus:I hate to be mean, but, um, that'll be a first. While I'm here: I share storyteller's suspicion of zuma (nice analysis there), although I'm fresh off of having dropped zuma bound and gagged forty feet to the ground in the other game, so I'm not feeling quite as lynchacidal to him as I might otherwise. But right now I'm gonna vote mhaye for the reasons stated in Post #169 and previous posts. To sum them up: mhaye has been a low-volume poster who's been assertive and confident (yet not particularly verbose) in each of the posts he has made. He gives the consistent impression of choosing his words very carefully (with the obvious exception that I'll address in a second), which, as I said near the end of Day One, isn't something that strikes me as quintessentially townie behavior (insert disclaimer here about how there's a discernible townie tone but not necessarily a discernible scum tone, meaning that mhaye could simply be, for lack of a better word, an atonal townie). I've mentioned my theory a couple of times about scum likely scattering themselves out in a seemingly "random" pattern (kudos to whoever came up with that analogy a few pages ago; I forget) in terms of posting volume, aggressiveness, and style...simply put, the way mhaye posts conforms to one of the general "types" of posting personas that I'd expect to see if scum were trying to diversify themselves...and there really isn't anyone else in this game who posts like he does. (Consulting my handy chart in Post #142, I see that I've likened mhaye to storyteller---who's now been posting more often, and whose posts are more densely packed with insight and observations---and cowgirl, who posts much more often as well, and has been less pingily confident in herself. And Kyrie, I suppose, but he vibes way different also.) Finally, mhaye's interesting verbal slip in Post #59, which he admittedly corrected in Post #60, really stands out to me. For these reasons, of the players I've got my eye on at the moment, I think mhaye's the likeliest to be scum. Which is why I'm voting for him. I'm glad to see someone agrees with me on MHaye. You did an excellent job pinpointing the less tangible reasons for my initial suspicion, which I hadn't really substantiated in any way. Thanks. Oh, and FTR, that was me with the whole psuedo-random vs. true-random analogy. ;D
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 23:06:57 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 30, 2007 23:06:57 GMT -5
BM:Oh yeah! Nice job with that.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 23:09:22 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on May 30, 2007 23:09:22 GMT -5
Heh...I was just thinking about this game while brushing my teeth---because, y'know, I'm a big dork---and I realized that I've been giving great weight to a lot of what storyteller says, because his observations are generally extremely incisive and because I often very much agree with them. Specifically, I was thinking about how struck I was by storyteller's comments about how FCOD is behaving in this game exactly the way he did when he was scum in Mafia II. That's a powerfully persuasive thing to say, and storyteller, more than most players, would be in a prime position to know. But then I realized: storyteller (of course) was scum in that game, too! And he's an excellent player! So why should I trust what he says right now? In any event, my toothbrush musings led me to this question: storyteller, what assurances can you give us that you're not once again playing the role of silver-tongued scum? How are you playing differently now than you did then, and is there any way that (if you were in our shoes) you could suggest to test your now-townieness (or putative townieness) against your then-scumminess? Interesting point here, but I have to say, he seems to be playing quite differently. What got him along before was agreeability and not a whole lot of sticking his neck on the line. Meanwhile here, he led the lynch on KatiRoo yesterday, and he's again the first to vote, this time for Zuma. IOW, he's seemed to have stepped up his aggression, rather than a sort of tenative aggression like he had before. Now, obviously, he HAD to change his play some, because if it was identical to his M2 play, he'd have no defense; however, his play is exactly how i'd expect a vanilla-crewman to play... balls to the wall, with little regard for whether it gets him night killed (better vanilla night kill than power-role, right?). Of course, I'm keeping an eye on him because I was fooled long enough to be moot, but I certainly don't think it would be wise to start a lynch wagon on him yet. ...Of course, that doesn't mean I'm not still interested in reading his response.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 31, 2007 0:19:27 GMT -5
Post by Lakai on May 31, 2007 0:19:27 GMT -5
Lakai, FOS on you for calling me out twice and voting for me for behaving exactly the same way you are. I did not call you out for your low post count. I called you out for your weak reasons for voting for two people. Both times you used someone else's rational for your vote and once you said that you think someone is scum "Because her posts don't read as crew to me. Her posts seem more like an inexperienced player with a scum role." This isn't concrete evidence of your scumminess by any leaps or bounds, but it makes you more likely to be scum. It is a lot better than me saying your posts just read as a pirate rather than a town. I had to reconsider my vote for a moment when you said you did not have time to analyze the games as well as others because of your RL commitments. Then I realized that this was Augecheek's excuse in the last game, and he turned out to be scum. ArizonaTeach had the same excuse too, but he ended up being town. So it can go either way. I feel like I shouldn't give as much credit to the RL commitments excuse as I did in the last game because Pirates can have RL commitments just like crew.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 31, 2007 0:35:26 GMT -5
Post by Lakai on May 31, 2007 0:35:26 GMT -5
In any event, my toothbrush musings led me to this question: storyteller, what assurances can you give us that you're not once again playing the role of silver-tongued scum? How are you playing differently now than you did then, and is there any way that (if you were in our shoes) you could suggest to test your now-townieness (or putative townieness) against your then-scumminess? Like Blaster Master pointed out, he is definitely playing more aggressively this game than in the last. He also has more concrete reasons for voting for someone this time around. Though I share your suspicion that since he revealed that he used flimsy suspicion at the end of M2, he would be smart enough not to do it in this game.
|
|
Parzival
Mome Rath
Let's all strive to do our best today![on:forgot to log out][of:forgot to log in]
Posts: 201
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
May 31, 2007 2:00:48 GMT -5
Post by Parzival on May 31, 2007 2:00:48 GMT -5
After some serious worrying when I thought my notes hadn't been saved from the weekend, I did get them okay and digested today's thread so far.
I know the voting choices today are hardly any better than what I had yesterday. Here's who or what I've found suspicious.
Flying Cow of Doom's vote on capybara earlier on just smacked of a manufactured flimsy reason. This has been hashed out already, but it still smells a bit.
HockeyMonkey seems a little on the edge of pirate/crew for me. I don't think there's anything solid there, but we should keep an eye on her.
I will stand with her on one thing, though - the vote for Lakai. I can't pick a good candidate from the talky posters, so I'll shine my lantern in the direction of the lurkers.
The thing that bothers me about Lakai is that he doesn't seem to have defended his lurking at all. I even had a vote on him for it (granted, for only 6 hours so it could have been missed but the reason for it still stands) yet he seems to be happy to ignore votes, knowing that they aren't likely to stick.
I feel a bit more confident about putting the vote on today.
vote Lakai
|
|
|
Day Two
May 31, 2007 6:16:34 GMT -5
Post by zuma on May 31, 2007 6:16:34 GMT -5
Well, maybe I can un-odd them for you, or at least respond to them. While I'm here, I'd like to talk about zuma. Something about his posts so far have seemed odd to me, so I decided to research his history. It didn't take long; he has nine posts. They are summarized below: 1 - Greeting post 2 - Test post 3 - Leaps off by saying that his initial impression of NAF, Pleonast, and CaerieD is that they are town. As I said earlier, I think suggesting that another player is town for no good reason is just as potentially scummy - maybe more so - than suggesting that another player is scum for no good reason. It's safer, creates allies, and raises fewer eyebrows. Suppose that zuma had come out of the gate stating, on the basis of general feeling, that the three players named above seemed like pirates to him. We'd all be freaking out calling zuma a pirate, right? So why does doing the opposite for just as little reason get a pass? Also in this post, he accuses and votes for ArizonaTeach, for three reasons. One is flimsy - an "aversion to early votes" is scummy? Really? - one is fair enough - he thinks AZ's attack on capybara was questionable - and one was outright misattributed. 4 - Acknowledges this misattribution, and retracts his vote. 5 - Votes KatiRoo. No reasoning is provided. Explicitly a bandwagon vote. 6 - Weird, weird post in re: Autolycus. Because the syntax of the post is so important, I'll reproduce it directly here: I don't understand this post at all. His final line suggests that he thinks Auto is clueless - ie, innocently misunderstanding the game. But he would be OK with an Autolycus lynch? Why? Because he is fucking with us, as he did last game, when he was town? Because he is clueless? I've read this post a dozen times, and can't make sense of it. It could make sense if zuma is scum, and was going back and forth on whether or not he wanted to try to back an Auto lynch, then got confused halfway through the post. I called him on this post, asked for clarification almost immediately after it appeared, but was never given an answer at all. 7 - Thinks the debate over who-killed-whom is pointless, but wants to discuss why fluiddruid was killed. Aside from the fact that trying to figure that out is (as I've said before) a fairly pointless exercise - how does zuma propose that we puzzle out why the kill happened without at least briefly considering who made the kill? 8 - Votes ArizonaTeach again, on the basis of the fact that Az was interested in discussing who killed fluid. He suggests that this discussion is a distraction. Which seems fine and dandy, until you consider that Az was not the only person to express interest in this question. Nor was he the first (that would be Gadarene), nor the one who devoted the most column inches to the subject ( Gadarene again). If this is zuma's justification, why vote for Az and not Gadarene?9 - Says that capybara talks too much to be a pirate. So, in seven substantive posts, we have: 4 different townies called out as probably town (posts 3 and 9) for no real reason 1 bandwagon vote for a now-known townie with no justification provided 2 weakly justified votes for ArizonaTeachand 1 seemingly self-contradictory post on Autolycus, coupled with a failure to defend that post when asked for clarification. 1 and 2 - meaningless 3 - giving my initial impressions. We all "leap off" somewhere. giving general vibes early in the game is about all i have to go on. I won't apologize for it. 4- acknowledged a mistake. 5- Damn right I voted katieroo. This was shortly before deadline (within an hour) and someone had just jumped in and put the lynching vote on capy. I did not like that one bit. From my (albeit limited) experience, the most prolific posters on day one all turned out town. I didn't have much to go on, but I thought capy was town more than katie. This was hardly a bandwagon!!! I made a somewhat dramatic, last-second decision that almost single-handedly ended up changing the lynch from capy to katie. That's about the most opposite of a bandwagon as you can get. Do not even dare call that a "bandwagon" vote. Why do you portray it as such? 6. Auto all throughout game 2 and in this one does not cooperate one bit. In fact, openly harmed his own side. I would not be sad to see him go. Unfortunately Katie was town (I'd rather have seen AZ swing but at those last minutes it was between katie and capy... I sided with capy). I stand by this decision as well. I still find capy pro-town (ooh.. general feelings again!). 7. The debate over who the killer was (between pirates and Dick)was kind of pointless.. They're both scum and both have similiar motivations. They're on the same side. Picking nits over which one of them did it is a waste of time. 8. Of course we want to find out who killed fluid. Spending inordinate time trying to figure out if it was Dick or the pirates was kind of a waste of time. I view them all as the same side. 9. Yeah. capy talks to much to be a pirate. Anyway. I think we're on the same side here so I'm giving my responses. But you calling that Katie vote a "bandwagon" vote seems a little odd to me, as it was as un-bandwagon as you could get. Maybe you didn't follow the final hours of day one closely enough.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 31, 2007 6:33:42 GMT -5
Post by zuma on May 31, 2007 6:33:42 GMT -5
Well, AZ isn't going to gain any traction again. He still strikes me as scummy based on his wanting to horn in on vig kills. And he's still going on over early random votes being bad.
But, this just may be a continuing disagreement on strategy. It also reminds me a little bit of day 2 in M2, when I latched onto Queuing and would not let go. I could be as clueless today who is scum and who isn't as I was then.
I do know that a townie needs to just be open and honest, and a fair amount of scum will get tripped up. Which leads me to...
In the two games I did play (one here, one newb game at mafiascum), two similiar things happened. In M2 at SD, someone got offed because they referred to a night-kill as a lynch. In my mafiascum game (newb 324 if you want to look it up), early on, someone (who turned out to be scum) referred to scum as "other scum" and nobody caught it. I only noticed it after the fact.
So I'm beginning to think that these sort of things are the best type of tells early on. And it's the best I have to go on for now.
unvote: AZTeach vote: MHaye
The original mistake was bad. The quick correction strikes me as "OMFG I got caught!"
|
|
|
Day Two
May 31, 2007 6:47:20 GMT -5
Post by tirial on May 31, 2007 6:47:20 GMT -5
I've just finished Day 1, and taken a lot of notes. There is one thing in particular I would be grateful if a poster could clarify.
KatiRoo was, as NAF pointed out (in D1 466), an experienced mafiascum player and after being lynched was confirmed crew. In D1 483 (Page 17) she makes a post about MadTheSwine, which storyteller objects to by pointing out a logical flaw in D1 489.
Storyteller, I'd be grateful if you could give your opinions on her analysis of MadTheSwine now KatiRoo's known to be town. (If you already have, my apologies - I'm only on Page 1 of Day 2).
|
|
|
Day Two
May 31, 2007 6:54:56 GMT -5
Post by zuma on May 31, 2007 6:54:56 GMT -5
mild FOS with a dab of OMGUS: Storyteller for the bizarre "bandwagon" comment about my day 1 vote. He was never that careless in M2.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 31, 2007 7:53:18 GMT -5
Post by ArizonaTeach on May 31, 2007 7:53:18 GMT -5
OMGUS?
|
|
|
Day Two
May 31, 2007 8:08:30 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 31, 2007 8:08:30 GMT -5
Zuma-
I never said it was definitive, just worthy of examination. Saying "I think so-and-so strikes me as town" is more of a pro-scum indicator than a pro-town indicator in my opinion; it just seems like genuine townies have relatively little reason to trust anyone, ever but especially this early in the game.
Well, in the voting post, you said that you weren't comfortable with the capybara bandwagon and would be more comfortable with KatiRoo. Far as I could tell, there were two bandwagons going on that day - one for KatiRoo and one for capybara. I parsed your post as choosing one bandwagon over the other. I don't think there's anything particularly scummy about a bandwagon vote - hell, I started the one for KatiRoo - but your choosing the one over the other without an explicit reason for doing so (why did you prefer KatiRoo as a target to capybara?) struck me as sketchy.
I think I am not effectively expressing my problem with this post, which is that it does not appear to say what you wanted it to say, or seems to say two things at once. Its syntax is very confusing. Can you re-read it and tell me if you can at least understand why I think this?
On balance my "gut," as it were, is more satisfied with your defense than with FCoD's. I'd like to think over my final vote for a bit, so in the meanwhile, I'm going to
+++unvote zuma+++
|
|
|
Day Two
May 31, 2007 8:21:34 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 31, 2007 8:21:34 GMT -5
In any event, my toothbrush musings led me to this question: storyteller, what assurances can you give us that you're not once again playing the role of silver-tongued scum? How are you playing differently now than you did then, and is there any way that (if you were in our shoes) you could suggest to test your now-townieness (or putative townieness) against your then-scumminess? I would like to answer this, because I think it's an important question. The answer to the question of "what assurances can I give you that I'm not once again playing the role of silver-tongued scum" is none. Why should you trust me? You should not. Unless and until my alignment is proven by death or other means, you should be treating me - as you should be treating every living player - as unproven scum. I don't want people to trust me the way they did in the last game. If people trust me in that way, then they might trust another player in the same way; if that player turns out to be scum, the crew is screwed. Don't trust me. Don't trust anyone; don't put anyone into that "probably town" column except those who are definitively proven to belong there. Anything else I could say in response to your question would be dishonest and unhelpful. --------------------------------- As far as how I am playing differently, well, I think (as others have said), I've been much less careful about making accusations, drawing inferences, voting and unvoting, and so on. As I said to auntbeast, getting killed isn't so bad for a crew member, however it happens; getting killed with analysis or ideas still unshared because you were worrying about maybe getting lynched, though, that you want to avoid.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 31, 2007 8:40:40 GMT -5
Post by tirial on May 31, 2007 8:40:40 GMT -5
Arizonatech, from mafiaIII I think OMGUS is apparently "Oh my God you suck" and means voting from someone who voted for you.
(That definition came from dnooman who seemed pretty new to the game, so take it for what its worth).
|
|
|
Day Two
May 31, 2007 8:57:21 GMT -5
Post by zuma on May 31, 2007 8:57:21 GMT -5
Well, in the voting post, you said that you weren't comfortable with the capybara bandwagon and would be more comfortable with KatiRoo. Far as I could tell, there were two bandwagons going on that day - one for KatiRoo and one for capybara. I parsed your post as choosing one bandwagon over the other. I don't think there's anything particularly scummy about a bandwagon vote - hell, I started the one for KatiRoo - but your choosing the one over the other without an explicit reason for doing so ( why did you prefer KatiRoo as a target to capybara?) struck me as sketchy. There were two bandwagons going on that day, yes. Capy and KatieRoo. I objected to the "bandwagon" accusation because with less than an hour to go, capy was ahead by one vote. You're right I didn't give an explicit reason off the bat, but I explained it later. I felt and still feel that based on my experience that prolific posters on day one are not scum. This is why I threw it into a tie at the last hour. I may have made an awful mistake, and capy may (altho i doubt it) be scum, but I was more comfortable with katie going than capy. My point was that my katie vote was not in any way, shape, or form, a bandwagon vote. It was a risky vote which ultimately ended up getting a townie lynched (altho of course my choices were limited between the two, and I still think capy is town). I think I am not effectively expressing my problem with this post, which is that it does not appear to say what you wanted it to say, or seems to say two things at once. Its syntax is very confusing. Can you re-read it and tell me if you can at least understand why I think this? OK, you have a point here. Auto throughout game 2 and into this one has been a complete and total distraction. I'm not sure what to make of him. We're most likely to lynch someone on day 1 who is town, and auto is a complete wildcard. I am still not sure if he was just fucking with us in M2 or not and am not sure if he's doing it in this game. I'm completely confused and confounded by his style of play and his motivations. I think I was trying to say that nobody knows what he's doing, and if we lynched him, he'd be no big loss. Anyway, I'm fine with my MHaye vote, I'm fine with my town vibes day 1, and I'm sorry for not answering your questions sooner. In this game, I've learned not to take offense at accusations, and learning from what scum-tells i've experienced in previous games. I still think there is a decent chance Mhaye gave himself away with that one.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 31, 2007 9:05:30 GMT -5
Post by zuma on May 31, 2007 9:05:30 GMT -5
ugh.. maybe I didn't explain my vote good enough.
capy is up by one vote on day 1 with less than an hour to go in the countdown stage. If nothing happens with less than an hour to go, cappy dies. I voted katieroo to throw it into a tie and extra innings, with a kind of lame "i'm not comfortable with capy going" explanation.
town eventually votes between the two and katie goes.
Truly I wasn't entirely comfortable with either of them getting lynched, but I was less comfortable with capy due to prolific posting.
Really I am surprised that nobody called me out on this, after katie turned up town (altho lots of us had a part in that). But calling my vote a "bandwagon" bothered me a bit, considering how risky it was.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 31, 2007 9:17:51 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 31, 2007 9:17:51 GMT -5
storyteller0910:Thanks for the explanation, storyteller; whether you're scum or not, that's some useful advice. And thanks to those who weighed in on storyteller, as well---I didn't follow Mafia II particularly closely from the end of the third day until the absolute endgame, so I'm not as immediately familiar as some of you are with his playing style in that game. zuma:You and me both, man.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 31, 2007 9:26:08 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 31, 2007 9:26:08 GMT -5
I've just finished Day 1, and taken a lot of notes. There is one thing in particular I would be grateful if a poster could clarify. KatiRoo was, as NAF pointed out (in D1 466), an experienced mafiascum player and after being lynched was confirmed crew. In D1 483 (Page 17) she makes a post about MadTheSwine, which storyteller objects to by pointing out a logical flaw in D1 489. Storyteller, I'd be grateful if you could give your opinions on her analysis of MadTheSwine now KatiRoo's known to be town. (If you already have, my apologies - I'm only on Page 1 of Day 2). Just saw this post. MadtheSwine. He is a significant problem for me, because I've now closely watched his play twice; once he was scum, and once he was not. His play style here as KatiRoo described it is similar to his play in both other games: he posts a lot, he goes with his gut, he makes oddly and excessively definitive statements. He gives reasons for his actions, but rarely in-depth analysis. He is definitely not the type to do lengthy post histories. He enjoys choosing one target and worrying them constantly until they are dead. He's having fun, pinballing from post to post. Again, I have seen him do this as both town and scum. So I am unwilling to draw conclusions from this pattern of behavior alone (once more, with feeling - I think analyzing posting style or frequency, in a vacuum, is a dead end, because there is no set "scum style" or "scum frequency"). As to an overall analysis of Mad: he hasn't touched my radar much beyond what is described above. I'll read over his posts a bit more and see what there is to see.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 31, 2007 9:44:44 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 31, 2007 9:44:44 GMT -5
I've just finished Day 1, and taken a lot of notes. There is one thing in particular I would be grateful if a poster could clarify. KatiRoo was, as NAF pointed out (in D1 466), an experienced mafiascum player and after being lynched was confirmed crew. In D1 483 (Page 17) she makes a post about MadTheSwine, which storyteller objects to by pointing out a logical flaw in D1 489. Storyteller, I'd be grateful if you could give your opinions on her analysis of MadTheSwine now KatiRoo's known to be town. (If you already have, my apologies - I'm only on Page 1 of Day 2). Just saw this post. MadtheSwine. He is a significant problem for me, because I've now closely watched his play twice; once he was scum, and once he was not. His play style here as KatiRoo described it is similar to his play in both other games: he posts a lot, he goes with his gut, he makes oddly and excessively definitive statements. He gives reasons for his actions, but rarely in-depth analysis. He is definitely not the type to do lengthy post histories. He enjoys choosing one target and worrying them constantly until they are dead. He's having fun, pinballing from post to post. Again, I have seen him do this as both town and scum. So I am unwilling to draw conclusions from this pattern of behavior alone (once more, with feeling - I think analyzing posting style or frequency, in a vacuum, is a dead end, because there is no set "scum style" or "scum frequency"). As to an overall analysis of Mad: he hasn't touched my radar much beyond what is described above. I'll read over his posts a bit more and see what there is to see. Ok, I am going camping in the wilderness ashore this island over there, but you might both look at my post #204 a tad upstream and see if that adds any thoughts. I'm content enough with my MadTheSwine vote to leave it there knowing that I'll miss the end of the day, probably.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 31, 2007 10:43:47 GMT -5
Post by Caerie on May 31, 2007 10:43:47 GMT -5
[Game Off]
I hate to do this and I'd hoped it wouldn't come to this, but I'm going to have to sub out. I thought I'd be able to keep up, especially after I got killed off in the other game, but it's just not happening. I pushed myself too hard over the weekend and crashed on Tuesday. I've been trying to catch up, but it seems like sitting at the computer long enough to read everything is just making the heart palpitations worse.
I'm really, really sorry about the disruption. I hope I can be replaced without too much fuss.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 31, 2007 10:48:47 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on May 31, 2007 10:48:47 GMT -5
So, we have a little over 24 hours left in the day?
Could we get another vote count Mal?
|
|
|
Day Two
May 31, 2007 10:50:29 GMT -5
Post by auntbeast on May 31, 2007 10:50:29 GMT -5
One thing I don't understand at this level of the game, which may be common, I barely have enough time to stay on top of the posts here, much less slough through the other games on SDMB, so maybe it is just the way that it is, but here is what I don't understand.
How can anyone be absolutely certain of anyone other than themselves? At this stage, we have so little to go on, I find it very odd when people doggedly accuse one person. Now, maybe it is because if you shake a pirate out of THIS bush then you don't have to worry about them anymore and can move on to the next bush.
I'm very hesitant to say "hey, yer a pirate and I'm stickin' with my story." This style of game doesn't really reward the sit back and wait strategy, so we do have to ponder, guess, detect and suspect. But when I see someone doggedly persuing one person, it sets off my radar in a big way because it just seems counterintuitive.
Storyteller says not to trust anyone. I think he gave us good advice. I can definitely see how in his previous scum role he was able to get into a position of trust with others. I've already seen evidence of that trustiness come out in this game. He is experienced, well spoken and endearing. I've even admitted I wanna curl up with him and eat cookies and have him tell me a story. He is good. Whether he be pirate or crew, he is definitely a valuable addition to either side.
The Once And Future Lynching Of Capybara- Some folks seem absolutely certain that she is pirate. Evidently, she is pinging radars for various reasons, but she is radar-silent for many people as well. For me, she is radar silent. I think I need to reread her posts to try to see what others see because I just don't see it.
I do have a few people that are pinging my radar, I'm hoping with by the end of the Day I will feel a bit more comfortable with who I want to vote for.
To quote Cervaise from a current thread on SDMB "One thing you never really see is a wild-eyed moderate?"
|
|
|
Day Two
May 31, 2007 10:51:26 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on May 31, 2007 10:51:26 GMT -5
CaerieD I hope you feel better. Take care of yourself, and I am sorry that you can't continue.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 31, 2007 11:15:26 GMT -5
Post by Mad The Swine on May 31, 2007 11:15:26 GMT -5
he tends to swoop in with short posts, usually accusatory, and very frequently invoking authority: "That's a scum tell according to mafiascum.net". Has done this citation of mafiascum.net a fair number of times, especially for a veteran player: a sort of passing the blame of suspicion onto the Gods. I can understand being suspicious of random.org votes as stated here: I feel the same way about people who excessively source random.net in the opening. Maybe we should get a count of that...it does seem like a pretty obvious way to wash hands of a situation. But citing scum tells discussed at mafiascum seems scummy to you? Forgive me for pointing out some tells that scum do and mentioning my source.I thought it might have carried a bit more weight that way, rather than just throwing out a vote and yelling scum tell. At least this way we have something to reference, rather than taking my word for it. This game, outta the three I have played, marks the first time I looked at mafiasum.I only wish I woulda done it sooner,I think it would have helped a lot. Also some spots of spurious logic--like "those who didn't vote for KatiRoo" includes a majority of the ship-- not too helpful. Not too helpful? Thats funny,maybe you oughta remember those three words when making your mud. As far as being spurious,IIRC correctly, only ONE scum voted for the first Day victim in MII,I would wager it's the same here,unless of course you, Capy, are a pirate and late votes where cast for Kati to protect you. Which is actually something I hadn't thought of while I was being "spurious". Looking back, after I had cast what I thought would have been the deciding vote in Day One(for Capy), zuma was quick to jump in with a vote for Katiroo,forcing a tie and an extension which sealed poor Katiroo's fate. In all honesty Capy,seems like you are trying to get back at me for earlier FOS's on you and my vote for you,which woulda killed you right there had it not been for Zuma. Feeling threatened? ...or am I being gormless? I will unvote Auntbeast and vote Zuma for his early lurking and what seemed like a protection vote in Capy's defense.
|
|