I knooooooow, which was something I was hoping to avoid.Huge Ltin deja-vu! People from Masquerade will know what I mean...
(Had hoped you would not claim yet, but I understand within the circumstances)
Yes, yes, I get it, you don't want a target on your back, but seriously, what do you expect me to think when you start off very powerfully, making strong claims about *some* players being guilty, and then gradually decrease your input when you turn out to be correct about Duffie, so you've done your necessary to appear innocent and then start distancing yourself. (Work, fine, but I don't take outside influences into account unless they render you completely unable to post, such as being away on a vacation or camp or something.)I am not yet ready to claim (unless there is no last resort) since I don't like putting a target on my back as of this moment, but let me just say I had very good reasons to vote you during the first Day until you claimed and have an even better reason to vote Duffie right now.
Forgot to unvote after this, though now I can say I do believe in digi's claim almost completely. The only thing that puts me off is the defeatist attitude she adopted in her last post =SI'm going to put a bit of temporary trust into Digi for now, while I try and look into everyone else, mainly the lurkers, or maybe the people that still have ignored the questions and/or don't really seem to be trying to do much for the town.
I was worried that we, as a town, were putting what little effort we were into this game into bickering about what Digi/Storm/Swate were/are, and considering that we've maybe killed one Pirate so far (I'm beginning to think a little more strongly that we have by this point), we needed to look at other people too to be able to look for other potential Pirates, since there were likely at least 4 others running around. As for pointing people away from me, that's what I believe everyone would do, regardless of what side they're on, though I hadn't believed that I had really been doing so very strongly. Hope that helps explain things a bit more.Why the sudden interest in analysing everyone and everything, pointing very strongly away from self?
I do see that the focus is kind of being steered away from Storm and I, but ultimately by the end of the day the choice will come down to us two. But I'll read through the thread and see what I can muster up.Samlen said:Digitalmez: Was uncertain for awhile, figured was anti-town at first, then when I looked back at the previous day and thought about it awhile, I starting leaning towards more pro-town. Now with her revealing what her role does, it makes sense to me, and the only thing that worries me about her is her defeatist attitude, which I can't see as really helping us cowboys, but still feels more pro-town than most people, surprisingly enough.
I believe Std voted for Digital as well.Alpha's Mid-Day Vote Count - The battle between Alpha and GmK for vote count supremacy continues!
storm886 (1) - 77_is_the_best
digitalmez (1) - JKangaroo
Not voted(11) - THE CURRENT NEUTRALS(GmK, Endersteve5, Hypeburst, Jeercrul, digitalmez, std1997, cooliorules, timdood3, storm886, ansoro2112, Samlen)
Sorry but I think I've posted here a lot more then like 50% of the players so stfu. Thanks <3the few times she posts.
Hate to break it to you, but people who say that immediately become suspicious.endersteve5: Hi yes I'm town thank you very much
I did explain it. For your convinience:"Classic coolio"
Can you (@GmK and @endersteve5) tell me what you mean by "Classic coolio"
It's a vague statement to make, then not explain it exactly.
I might add to that that you always seem to try and come up with theories that no one else has suggested yet, or something along those lines. It's like you always try so hard to make sure you're different from the general consensus or whatever. That's what "classic Coolio" means to me, it means the general behaviour of yours that you always have and pretty much never changes. That's also the reason why I'm having a hard time getting a reading on you, because you're always exactly the same to me.I sort of feel like you're town, but then again you're sort of hard to read because you're always exactly the same. And I do mean, exactly the same. Kind of leaving the feeling that you get a lot of theories that may or may not make sense, and then run around frantically trying to defend yourself when someone doesn't understand.
What do you expect me to say? "Hi, I'm Mafia, please lynch me!"? Obviously I know that I'm town, I wasn't defending against anyone, I was only giving my opinions on players, and yes, of course I know I'm town. I honestly don't understand how that makes me suspicious. I guess it would be somewhat different if I was under heavy fire from you guys, and actually defending myself against you all, "Hi yes I'm town pls dun lynch me" would indeed accomplish nothing in that kind of a situation, but I fail to see how it makes me suspicious in this particular scenario.endersteve5 said: ↑
endersteve5: Hi yes I'm town thank you very much
Click to expand...
Hate to break it to you, but people who say that immediately become suspicious.
I've learnt that from two seasons ago (I think it was 2) (yeah I was stupid and fed up and had no way out of it) that you don't just say "I'm town". Especially on epicmafia. But still. People who blantantly say "I'm town" just call out anti-town to me. There is nothing else, really, against you people. Just as a general point out.
What. I'm sorry, seriously, what? If someone has a theory that they can back up with either explanations, proof or logic, why on Earth should we not agree with it when it's perfectly likely in our minds? We can't all be unique little snowflakes, coming up with our own theories and whatnot, sometimes, someone else gets there first and posts it first, and then there's not much for us to do than simply agree to it. Otherwise we'll get called out for lurking and then deemed suspicious anyway. Let me remind you that agreeing to a theory is the only reasonable way that we can actually lynch scum. If we all do our own thing and then end up with two or three votes being the high limit, then we'll end up lynching a townie because of a deadline, and we really wouldn't want that, would we?Okay so lastly:
I don't like it when people continuously agree with each other. What I mean is person A saying thing, and person B agreeing. Then that happening over and over. If I see it much more, the person following will get my vote.
Yeah, not really, no. Every single town member should also give their best at not looking suspicious, because of either a) Being a power role and it would really suck lynching a town PR or b) Simply being town and it would really suck lynching any town.Otherwise we'll get called out for lurking and then deemed suspicious anyway.
Because I don't like to just restate what others are saying. I'd like to have my own opinion or perspective from things. Is that against the rules?It's like you always try so hard to make sure you're different from the general consensus or whatever.
Maybe you could just said "oh yup me" or something. I never said ANYTHING about you saying you saying to say you're mafia (wow that didn't make much sense to me.... just that sentence....).What do you expect me to say? "Hi, I'm Mafia, please lynch me!"
I don't mean once or twice, I mean over. And over. And over. And over. And over.What. I'm sorry, seriously, what? If someone has a theory that they can back up with either explanations, proof or logic, why on Earth should we not agree with it when it's perfectly likely in our minds?
Let me just search in my brain for why I would call you suspicious for that....Also, if you're gonna call me out now as "not wanting to look suspicious" because of this:
Otherwise we'll get called out for lurking and then deemed suspicious anyway.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not really, no. Every single town member should also give their best at not looking suspicious, because of either a) Being a power role and it would really suck lynching a town PR or b) Simply being town and it would really suck lynching any town.
No, it's not against the rules, I don't mean to say there's anything wrong with that. You simply asked for a definition of "classic Coolio" and I provided one for you.Because I don't like to just restate what others are saying. I'd like to have my own opinion or perspective from things. Is that against the rules?
I don't mean once or twice, I mean over. And over. And over. And over. And over.
OhhhhIt's just when it's repetitive. One person agreeing with someone else on e v e r y t h i n g.
It just screams team to me, honestly.
I am surprisingly okay with this, to be honest. It makes sense. Something in my mind now cannot unsee what GmK just stated about std. I can volunteer to be the third vote, if nobody else wants to be that considering what GmK just said.Ok, so, these are great posts, even if they - on the face of it - don't get us closer to a vote and lynch (as of yet).
I took the liberty and summarised all the main suspicions of each person (please correct me if wrong):
Coolio: Endersteve5, std1997, Timdood3, Storm886
JKang: Digi, coolio, tim, std
HypeBurst: std, (samlen)
Samlen: std, gmk, storm, coolio
ansoro: (digi?)
endersteve5: gmk, (std)
gmk: std, samlen, (storm / digi)
(in brackets if it seemed to me that you deemed the person slightly suspicious)
Of course we'd need more input to complete the list properly, but it tells me one thing:
Most of those that posted deem std1997 in some way or another shifty / suspicious. And I hope that these suspicions aren't based on what somebody else has written.
I've personally been wrecking my brain about why exactly I have a weird feeling about std, which is not only based in "lurking". Bored vanilla townies often lurk, but std himself has stated a while back that he only posts when he deems it necessary.
The question is: What makes him deem it necessary to post?
I went back to the last page and the pages before, and one thing got clear: Std appears when somebody puts suspicion on him, he appears very fast in that case, posts something, tries to seem "normal", and disappears again. Let's take a look at the last page:
Appears (after me noting that his lurking and not having an opinion seems shifty)
Votes digi, rehashing the arguments of others (which is fine, it's a justification of the vote at least!)
Disappears
Digi posts explanations about role...
...but std is missing yet again, "his job is done".
But is that proof of anything? Nope, certainly not...
-----
You see the issue I have with std: Many people feel he is suspicious, but it cannot be pinpointed exactly, and it can especially not be pinpointed to any actual proof that he might be scum.
Except:
There is one thing that people might call massively flawed, but it has generally served me very well in scumhunting, and that are standarised scum tells which work with probability calculation within hundreds upon hundreds of forum mafia games. Some people have spent very very long in devising these things and have tested and re-tested them over and over.
And one of the strongest standarised scum tells is: The third person in a voting wagon is most likely mafia (followed with less probability by the fourth being likely mafia). There are other tells of course, but this one fits the situation very well: std was the third vote on digi (at that point).
Bandwagonning Redefined: "The Butter Zone"
After some experience off-site (this section is written as of 12/29/10), I came to an interesting conclusion: the scum there almost always had a particular voting range: votes 3-5. Why was that? Why that particular zone? Why were the scum almost always right there? I found the answer. Why?
Because it's right in the middle of a wagon. It's not just on MafiaScum where people late on the bandwagon are considered scummy, you know. That seems to be pretty universal, actually. But why not the first vote? It's simple scum reasoning, really. People voting early are not likely to be scum, because they're pushing for a lynch early, which is risky as scum. Quite simply put, while scum CAN start a wagon, they don't want to.
For starters, they need pro-town players lynched. A new bandwagon has no guarantee of achieving this. Scum being the pragmatic folks they are tend to want a more practical approach: stick with what's there, already. More than that, there's always a risk their started wagon IS successful. What happens to the original starter of the wagon? They will almost universally catch flak. Sure, probably not much and easily deflected, but still, scum don't like that kind of attention on them.
As for why they don't vote late? As mentioned, EVERYONE knows it's a scumtell. Everyone. That includes the scum, by the way. And as we all know, things evolve over time. Including how scum play. We all know scum voting late in a wagon is a scumtell. Therefore, scum try to avoid it at all costs. Because it's common knowledge that scum arrive late on the wagon, scum...won't arrive late on the wagon. Simple as that. It's so common, in fact, that this knowledge might as well make the tell null.
"But Mastin!" you cry. "If they don't want to be early on the wagon, yet hate to be late on the wagon, what do they do? Stay off every wagon?!? That makes no sense!" Well, let's not ramble on about that. (Fencesitting is a personal tell of mine; always has been. But as I have done it before, I recognize there's a difference between town-fencing and scum-fencing.) Instead of focusing on people not on the wagon, let's focus on a third category:
People in the middle.
"What's so bad about being in the middle?!?" Well, true, town can be in the middle, too. It's just that it's far more likely to come from scum. Why? Process of elimination. Simply put, scum want the middle. They want that sweet spot which most players overlook in a wagon. People pay attention to the wagon-starters. People pay attention to the late-wagoners. Not nearly as many people pay attention to the middle--and as scum, that makes it the perfect hangout, no? Scum prefer to be in the MIDDLE of a wagon, which (depending on the game's size) is anywhere from votes 2-6. I call it the "Butter Zone". Where the scum have the least amount of chance (by current site meta expectations) to be found. If everyone looks at the end, and everyone looks at the beginning, hang out in the middle.
My playstyle will always be to use rash-seeming votes in order to elicit a reaction from players, which can tell extremely much (and often clear that player, but will always get me to be suspicious, oh well), so for now:
vote std1997
(and please, only follow that if you see any merit in my argumentation. I personally do feel like std could be scum, but I simply want him to start explaining and talking a bit more, otherwise he is a risk to the town by not actively working with us to go against scum)
inb4 we will never get more votes than two, since everybody will all be "third vote, must be scum!!!" - that was not my intention at all of course, the rule only applies if there is a general suspicion anyhow, otherwise it would be completely nonsensical to go by "who voted when" on itself every single time.I am surprisingly okay with this, to be honest. It makes sense. Something in my mind now cannot unsee what GmK just stated about std. I can volunteer to be the third vote, if nobody else wants to be that considering what GmK just said.
I vote a post necessary to reply to when you start picking at straws to try and prove that I'm somehow Mafia and when posting my somewhat composed thoughts of the day/night. I also post when I have suspicions or a vote to cast. I also prefer not to reply every time a thought decides to grace my brain with it's presence because that seems like a waste of my time trying to post it and a waste of everyone's time by making everyone try to understand my thought process.Most of those that posted deem std1997 in some way or another shifty / suspicious. And I hope that these suspicions aren't based on what somebody else has written.
I've personally been wrecking my brain about why exactly I have a weird feeling about std, which is not only based in "lurking". Bored vanilla townies often lurk, but std himself has stated a while back that he only posts when he deems it necessary.
The question is: What makes him deem it necessary to post?
I went back to the last page and the pages before, and one thing got clear: Std appears when somebody puts suspicion on him, he appears very fast in that case, posts something, tries to seem "normal", and disappears again. Let's take a look at the last page:
I make a massive post for you. Be proud of me GmK-Senpai <3And I can see std reading the thread - always there when needed <3
Yes, of course. I didn't mean it like that, I was just expressing support for the general idea, because honestly, it makes sense.inb4 we will never get more votes than two, since everybody will all be "third vote, must be scum!!!" - that was not my intention at all of course, the rule only applies if there is a general suspicion anyhow, otherwise it would be completely nonsensical to go by "who voted when" on itself every single time.
And I can see std reading the thread - always there when needed <3