Ok, I read over Salubrious' posts. At the point Fade first voted him, I'd seen nothing suspicious out of the guy. There were then a couple things I didn't like out of him, but I can't even remember what they were as I'm writing this post. I don't really see the case against him.
100) & the post following it.
I think this is fishy but I could just be me. Just read it.
106)
You are still picking on CF…… . It is the begging of the day, beaker can wait until something happens with CF.
Skiping two posts….
121)
This is what I am talking about, All three saing that “Do not tell him how to vote, He will do what he wants. Plus you have no reason to defend him unless you all three mafia FOS: Coiled Flame, Ged, Fadeblue & Unvote
That is where I am right now, Impressions?
I forgot the /'s would some one please do that, or can have permission to do that myself?
1. He's not quite as lurkerish as chops, leading to an increased possibility for it being deliberate on his part. However the latest post alleviates this suspicion somewhat.
2. He's English.
Yup, that pretty much covers it
Unvote.
Time to reread.
hahah, yeah, I just noticed. All to the (one of cyan's first posts)
Care to elaborate upon how on earth this transcends to being suspicious of Ged, FB, and Coiled?
Who am I beating up on? I defended Coiled Flame consistently, despite a large portion of the town being on his case. And I'm voting for Salubrious, but, IMO he earned it.
I'd like to respond to MoT's 'PBPA', but, I don't understand what he's trying to say with it, and as stated, all of the links go to the same place. It seems awfully early for a PBPA as well. One thing I don't understand is that he does a PBPA of me, and comes to the conclusion that Coiled, Fadeblue, and Ged are suspicious? Some explanation of that would be great.
I was going to say something along the lines of 'It's a pity that when asked to say who they think are the scummiest players, so many are just choosing lurkers. While yes, lurking is a rather scummy thing to do, are you guys seriously thinking that there is no better option among the more frequent posters?' But then the most recent posts by some of the more lurky people have been rather off to me, so they actually do make it onto the list...
Anywho, my LoS has at it's top:
Coiled Flame - still currently the most suspicious person in the game to me.
Magician of Thought - none of your points make any sence, even if you bother to go back and check the actual posts that you are trying to link to. At the end you ask for impressions... I think that your fist point against Cyan sums it up rather nicely...
Diggy - Your last post bothered me a bit.
Quote from Diggy »
Sorry guys, life is really busy at the moment I've been reading but haven't found the time to post.
But hey. my top 3 right now:
1) Coiled Flame, in the long run it will hurt the town to have him around, lets get rid of him now, and see what happens from there.
2) Wuffles, why pick on me? Surely you have better things to follow up than a lurker hunt? Or maybe not of course
3) Mosschop, he's even more of a lurker than me (And thats saying something) i'd like a prod for him
My vote still stays on Colied Flame and i would like a name/role claim from him
At first I was going to bold the parts that bothered me, but realized it would be easier to bold what I was OK with about your post.
You being busy doesn't bother me, we all are. You saying that you have the time to read this, but not the time to post a "hey, I'm still here" or an "I'm reading, will post later" is a bit bothersome...
What you use as reasons for voting CF seem rather lame to me. If you think he is scum, then cool, suspect him all you want, but the way you say this makes it sound more like you think he is town, but we should lynch him anyway. I am of the opinion that it is never good to kill someone who you actually do think is town. It is always better to kill people that you assume are scum (now, I happen to not think he is town, so I'm not that upset about this one, but the logic still merits talking about).
I'm not sure what about your second point bothers me, but it just rubs me the wrong way. I really can't explain it better right now, I'll have to think more about why that irks me, so ignore that one for now...
Point three bothers me as you are calling out someone for lurking, while admitting that you are just about as lurky as him. "Hello, Kettle? This is Pot. I was just calling today to let you know that, hey, you are black"
How much experience does diggy have playing forum mafia? If he's relatively unexperienced, then I'd say that his last post is a scum tell, because it only takes considerably more effort to post when already reading if you're a mafia member, because you have to guage every move. CF provides a good example in my mind of when the opposite is true, when you are a townie constrained by time (or common sense) and don't need to or don't want to take much time between reading and posting. This justifies my next two moves unvote vote diggy
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Domanatrices are like dentists...you pay them to hurt you!"
Not voting: Cubus, Salubrious, Enigma 91, blinking spirit, beaker
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, the wisdom to know the difference, and a ****ing chainsaw.
You can't "take back" a hammah vote; as soon as the final vote is placed, that person is lynched, no questions asked. However, an Unvote might work.
Also, I don't get how you could be so absolutely wrong about the vote count. You were EIGHT votes off the hammah - try reading the thread again.
Vote Nymphe - Obviously, he is not paying anywhere near enough attention to the thread. Diggy's somewhat alleviated my attention now - my only reason for being suspicious of him was because he was a subtle lurker, unlike chops, who, (for obvious reasons now, see post 260) was totally AWOL until now.
You, however, are releasing the same vibe as Diggy was - except you're also posting really scummily.
Coiled's votes are getting close to being totally irrelevant, for me. As far as I can tell - he now just seems to be voting anyone he chooses for seemingly pointless reasons that only he is particularly sure make sense.
Ummm.... Wuffles I think it was a joke, and Beaker, you cant take back votes so your post was wierd too. I would like to hear more from MoT at the moment, and I would like maybe a follow up, with quotes that work unlike his last PBPA.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from hotshizzle »
<hotshizle> WINE IN FRONT OF MEAL
<hotshizle> i think
i simply didn't have enough time to go and count the votes before leaving for TKD...and I couldn't remember how many, if any, people voted for diggy previously. I understand now why I woudn't be able to take back a vote, but why is wanting to avoid accidentally lynching someone scummy? I seriously doubted that my vote was the final one and i posted that just to be safe. And yes, I am a noob
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Domanatrices are like dentists...you pay them to hurt you!"
It's scummy because you are in effect attempting to avoid taking responsibility for your previous actions. If by some miracle, you DO put the hammah vote on Diggy, and then, half an hour later, go
"ZOMGWTFBBQHAX I DIDNT KNOW I WAS HAMMAHING DIGGY UNVOTE"
then this actually would be totally irrelevant to the game, other than to definitively suggest that your vote was ignorance rather than "I'm scum, I want to get an innocent townie like Diggy lynched, so I'll pretend I didn't know the votecount as an explanation later"
And, FYI, I believe diggy is quite an experienced mafia player. Experienced players correct me if I'm wrong here?
as a semi-experienced player, yes, diggy has been in a couple of games that i've been in
@creampuff: that's the point, nymphe's posts were of that nature (note wuffles' last post for a good explanation...)
nymphe, i really dont like your explanation of why you did that, "i didnt check the vote count".......if you cant check the vote count, fos, explain why, and come back and vote later after you check the count.....vote:nymphe
From what I've seen, everyone just uses votes...the fos has basically become irrelevant. Maybe this isn't supposed to be the case, but that's what this game of mafia, being the ONLY one I've played, makes it look like to me
and the reason i couldn't count the votes later is that I didn't have access to a computer between that post and 7am this morning
Just out of irritation, Nymphe, your sig should be spelt
"dominatrices"
singular: Dominatrix
The FoS is not irrelevant. It is a finger of suspicion aimed at someone to warn them that their posts have been scummy and have gained another players suspicion.
Just out of irritation, Nymphe, your sig should be spelt
"dominatrices"
singular: Dominatrix
The FoS is not irrelevant. It is a finger of suspicion aimed at someone to warn them that their posts have been scummy and have gained another players suspicion.
rawr.
The FoS is used in two ways, from what I've seen.
1. As a warning to other players or the FOS'd person in question to point out scumminess, without actually risking getting on a bandwagon by voting.
2. Similar to 1, but when you already have a vote on someone that you consider more important.
WAH?! The game is up! Yeah, i can't see that anyone's voting in any reasonable pattern...although the fact that two people have voted for kakusho might suggest an organized pattern? Far more likely that it's nothing though...
...
yeah
A strange start, and he seems to hedge his bets… “there may be a pattern, but maybe not”
Quote from post 44 »
ooooooooook...I'm just gonna address a few things
1. This is indeed my first real game of mafia. If you really care enough you can go read my post about why i couldn't fulfill my playing duties in newb mafia, but's it's probably enough just to be aware that this is indeed my first real game of mafia.
2. In my first game of mafia, i was indeed a mafioso, and the one thing i learned in my VERY BRIEF period of playing is that it's not fun to post when you're mafia...which brings me to my next point.
Only fadeblue, diggy, and mosschop have yet to say anything.
4. However, I really can't ignore Coiled Flame's bandwagoning of me and near-instant switching of votes upon being called on it. So...Vote Coiled Flame. It's really the best vote i can think of that's based entirely on logic, as opposed to probability or, of course, the random vote.
A couple of slightly scummy things in this post
1. he’s taking the noob defense…not necessarily scummy, but it is an easy out for mafia playing in their first couple of games to say “I’m a noob, not scum”
2. He goes on a lurker hunt really early, this is page 3, less than 24 hours after the game started…lurker hunts aren’t necessarily scummy, but at this stage, it seems like a ploy to distract people from the slight scumminess of his first post.
Quote from 80 »
I agree with enigma on this. I don't think that any of the hostility towards coiled flame (including mine) is actually intended to start a bandwagon towards his lynching. Rather, it's an attempt to get him to explain his suspicious actions. Instead, it seems to have had the effect of putting him into wild accusation mode, in what some (including me) may see to be an attempt to shunt attention to someone else without having to explain his own actions.
“oh wait…I didn’t want to get us to lynch him…my last post said I was using logic, but now, I’m saying that I just wanted him to explain his actions…”
Quote from 87 »
where's mosschop? I'm starting to think that he's not so much lurking as just...not doing anything
and i find it awesome that two people posted stuff in the time it took me to verify that mosschop had indeed not said anything
More lurker hunting…….
Quote from 114 »
any reason for that vote fadeblue?
Questioning votes…wow...
Quote from 120 »
um, what? Are you suggesting that they pre-planned that conversation, including the fact that someone(me) would question fadeblue's vote? I don't think what you've said is scummy at all, it just doesn't make any sense...I mean, even if they were mafia and had planned that...what would it accomplish?
I really don’t understand this post anyway……and from experience, trying to second-guess things that happen in secret hasn’t been the best option…
Quote from 123 »
i just asked that...but thanks for your support anyway...i guess.
oh whoops, enigma beat me to the "after cyan" post, still, I find it annoying that cyan basically said the same thing i did without adding any new info or opinions
something’s annoying, not much addition…
Quote from 157 »
that, and have mosschop post something about anything
Wow…three posts now that have attacked mosschop for lurking…this was at the time where everyone was trying to get mosschop to post
Quote from 236 »
How much experience does diggy have playing forum mafia? If he's relatively unexperienced, then I'd say that his last post is a scum tell, because it only takes considerably more effort to post when already reading if you're a mafia member, because you have to guage every move. CF provides a good example in my mind of when the opposite is true, when you are a townie constrained by time (or common sense) and don't need to or don't want to take much time between reading and posting. This justifies my next two moves unvote vote diggy
I don’t see how telling us what he’s been doing means that diggy is scummy…this seems like CRAPLOGIC™ to me
Quote from 238 »
oh right, if my vote is somehow the one that lynches diggy, I withdraw it
Here’s the post that I see as the most scummy…he’s willing to vote for diggy in the last post, but “OMG, if that post may have been seen as scummy (a hammah), then I take my vote back”
Quote from 241 »
I think his behavior warrants discussion, but it's not nearly solid enough to justify a lynch
As I stated in my post, a FOS is the place for something like that
Quote from 244 »
i simply didn't have enough time to go and count the votes before leaving for TKD...and I couldn't remember how many, if any, people voted for diggy previously. I understand now why I woudn't be able to take back a vote, but why is wanting to avoid accidentally lynching someone scummy? I seriously doubted that my vote was the final one and i posted that just to be safe. And yes, I am a noob
Again with the noob defense…wanting to avoid accidentally lynching someone is where you use FOS, saying something like “FOS:----- and can we get a vote count please”
also after people started questioning your actions, you got really defensive…
Quote from 248 »
From what I've seen, everyone just uses votes...the fos has basically become irrelevant. Maybe this isn't supposed to be the case, but that's what this game of mafia, being the ONLY one I've played, makes it look like to me
and the reason i couldn't count the votes later is that I didn't have access to a computer between that post and 7am this morning
Note wuffles’s post 249 and WODog post 250 for the explanation of FOS’s
This leaves me confident to leave my vote on nymphe for now…mainly for the interactions in the recent posts (the diggy vote incident), and the overdefensiveness
I've already posted my opinion of PBPAs, and you've only confirmed it, Beaker. You're trying to pull something out of nothing. Nymphe's last few posts are readily interpretable as scummy, yes. But most of the rest of them? I see a newbie, and a reasonably intelligent newbie at that (unlike certain other ones I could name) - but that's really it.
In fact, FOS Beaker. I don't trust your motives for this pulling-of-something-from-nothing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
First things: FoS is useless. No one really pays attention to it, ever. Certainly, when you're mafia, it's much safer to flat-out ignore it than to worry about it.
Second thing(s): I'm not happy with Nymphe's vote on diggy, nor the manner in which he/she unvoted. I'm even less happy with his/her 'explanation' for it. Either way that you look at it, it's pretty bad. Either Nymphe just mindlessly hopped onto some bandwagon without having any clue what the vote count was(which is obviously dangerous) and immediately tried to cover his/her tracks by unvoting, or, it was carefully planned as a way that, presumably, someone new to the game thought would make them look good. Either of these methods, especially combined with how poorly Nymphe has reacted to the pressure that this situation brought, makes me satisfied with a Vote Nymphe.
EBWODP: I forgot to Unvote. So, Unvote Salubrious, Vote Nymphe.
I've already posted my opinion of PBPAs, and you've only confirmed it, Beaker. You're trying to pull something out of nothing. Nymphe's last few posts are readily interpretable as scummy, yes. But most of the rest of them? I see a newbie, and a reasonably intelligent newbie at that (unlike certain other ones I could name) - but that's really it.
In fact, FOS Beaker. I don't trust your motives for this pulling-of-something-from-nothing.
i dont see this as pulling something out of nothing...i specifically said that i saw the last few posts as most scummy. the earlier ones are only slightly scummy, but they arent the ones that i was specifically looking at and using as reasoning for my vote. but it would be scummy-er if i didnt include all of his posts in the PBPA.
if you are against pbpa's, what would you recommend as a better option? if we just react to the recent posts, we can never get the big picture, and a pbpa looks at the big picture.
What he's saying about PBPAs holds some relevancy. When you're presenting all of a person's posts as a whole, it's easy to make them all look scummy. It's hard to write a solid PBPA..most people try alot and usually fail(myself included, for the most part). However, there are some valid PBPAs, they're not all bad. Also, I don't think a PBPA is necessary to realize that Nymphe is scummy anyway.
I'm not sure about Nymphe's other actions (his earlier posts seem okay), but I am bothered by post 238: "oh right, if my vote is somehow the one that lynches diggy, I withdraw it". It could be a noob mistake, but, as others have mentioned, the post feels like nymphe's trying to absolve himself of culpability for hammering a player. I'm not going to vote him though, as we definitely need more evidence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By kingcobweb and Goblinboy.
Official Elitist of [thread=40859][RBS][/thread]
Quote from kingcobweb »
I don't understand the purpose of gimmick accounts.
At this rate, it really doesn't look like we're going to reach any kind of consensus soon, and posting has been fairly slow - particularly since the majority of players aren't posting at all. I'm tempted to motion for the typical Day 1 plan - simply wagon someone and proceed from there.
Heads-up to everyone, including Fayul: I'm going to be out of town (out of the country, in fact) starting Sept. 28 until Oct. 9. I'll have internet access, but don't expect me to be very productive.
OK...let me just say this in one post, and maybe it'll be clear. I never had any intention of lynching diggy at all, and my only purpose for voting was to get him to give a better reason for reading the thread but not posting. Based on what I had seen, i thought that votes were used to put pressure on people to say things (like when fadeblue voted, and I questioned him? Yeah, that's how i learn things) and that foses were simply a declaration of suspision but basically insubstantial, which is why very few people have responded to foses, but EVERYONE responds to votes. Also, you may judge my logic for voting diggy to be crap logic, but what solid evidence to we have for voting for anyone right now? We've exhausted a few leads, I'm just throwing out ideas.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Domanatrices are like dentists...you pay them to hurt you!"
Nymphe, the thing about Day One is that there are no leads, as such, and the day one lynch tends to happen to the person who makes the most cummy play. It does tend to be a lynch with slightly more of a leap in logic than the rest of the Days.
From what I've heard from more experienced players, information gathered from Day One provides most of the basis for lynches on other Days.
And right now, the most scummy play I've seen is when you said VOTE DIGGY. Then you panicked and try to take back your vote in case it hammers him. The only reason I can see for doing this, even for a self-confessed newb like you, is that you realised that whoever places the hammah vote on an innocent townie, especially if its a lynch that has had little discussion, is almost automatically the most suspicious the next Day.
I dont think I really need much more to justify an Unvote, Vote Nymphe.
EBWOP: omfg, I meant to say "Scummy" in the first line...:embarrass:
At this rate, it really doesn't look like we're going to reach any kind of consensus soon, and posting has been fairly slow - particularly since the majority of players aren't posting at all. I'm tempted to motion for the typical Day 1 plan - simply wagon someone and proceed from there.
I'd have to say I agree with this. Nyphe has been acting noobish / suspicious enough. I can see him as a Coiled Flame on a smaller scale or a Coiled Flame who's thinking more about his play.
Let's get this game goin somewhere. Unvote, Vote Nyphe.
@Nymphe: It's true that 'pressure/reaction-gauging' votes are applied all of the time. But I don't see how that is the case with yours. You cited something that you felt he was doing wrong, put a scummy explanation to it, and voted him for it. And that's not the problem, honestly, because you're right that it is suspicious to be constantly reading the thread but never post. The problem is that, almost immediately later, you unvoted him for seemingly no reason, and since then, your explanation(s) of why you unvoted him have made little to no sense.
Nymphe votes. It's like the fourth or fifth vote out of a necessary ten.
He very quickly withdraws the vote, apparently worried that he inadvertently killed his target when in fact he was nowhere near doing so.
Is this a reasonably intelligent play for a mafioso to make? It seems to me rather more likely that this would be a deliberate ploy were we up near eight or nine votes on someone. At four, I have trouble understanding why it would benefit the mafia (or at least look decently attractive to a member thereof) to do this.
From this follows my reasoning so: whether mafia ploy or newbie townie mistake, Nymphe's action was foolish. But all we can conclude from this is that Nymphe is a fool, not that he is scum. If it were smart for a scum to do what Nymphe did, then, since it seems wise to me to assume players are generally smart, we might get somewhere. So that is the burden of proof for those seeking to lynch Nymphe: to construct an argument for why to vote, then unvote, when we are nowhere near a lynch would be smart for scum.
i dont see this as pulling something out of nothing...i specifically said that i saw the last few posts as most scummy. the earlier ones are only slightly scummy, but they arent the ones that i was specifically looking at and using as reasoning for my vote. but it would be scummy-er if i didnt include all of his posts in the PBPA.
Actually, overstating a case doesn't look good for you at all, and ironically can make your accusee look better. If I say of someone, "Oh, his mass claim scheme led directly to our power roles dying, and he's also been lurking for three whole hours," then I obviously want him dead for reasons beyond what I'm willing to say; that is, reasons beyond what the town might agree with.
Quote from Beaker »
if you are against pbpa's, what would you recommend as a better option? if we just react to the recent posts, we can never get the big picture, and a pbpa looks at the big picture.
Of course I'm not saying you should only react to the last three pages or whatever. React to a person's entire posting history, and examine and re-examine it as necessary. However, quoting a person's entire posting history, and explaining how every post could be interpreted as scummy, is a good way to lynch an innocent player, especially if there are banal posts you are obviously stretching on, or parts of your PBPA are worded in such a way that it could be interpreted as saying "X is scummy," or not. For example, in your PBPA of Nymphe you make comments like "More lurker hunting...", "Questioning votes...wow...", and "Wow...three posts now that have attacked mosschop for lurking..." Am I supposed to interpret these comments to say that you think what you're describing is scummy? You don't say outright one way or the other, nor do you give reasons why these actions might be scummy, but nevertheless your skeptical/incredulous tone seems to imply scumminess, painting Nymphe with that brush, if you will, while keeping your clothes clean of stains. I don't like it. I think there's something fishy going on with this whole jumping-on-Nymphe.
First things: FoS is useless. No one really pays attention to it, ever. Certainly, when you're mafia, it's much safer to flat-out ignore it than to worry about it.
Well, I got a reaction, didn't I?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think that Nymphe's reaction to the pressure that he has received from that vote/unvote, and his explanation of it, are alot more telling than the vote/unvote itself, which could easily have just been a foolish mistake, as you said.
i simply didn't have enough time to go and count the votes before leaving for TKD...and I couldn't remember how many, if any, people voted for diggy previously. I understand now why I woudn't be able to take back a vote, but why is wanting to avoid accidentally lynching someone scummy? I seriously doubted that my vote was the final one and i posted that just to be safe. And yes, I am a noob
Doesn't exactly speak well for his mafia skills, but that's amply explained by his newbishness, and rendered a nonindicator of guilt by my logic. Note that in context* "And yes, I am a noob" is not exactly an out-of-nowhere desperate defense; Wuffles had previously called his posting "absolutely noobish," so he was simply confirming that assessment. And, let's face it, being a newbie is a defense, especially for this sort of apparent mistake.
*Don't know what this phrase means, PBPAers? Look it up; it's important.
OK...let me just say this in one post, and maybe it'll be clear. I never had any intention of lynching diggy at all, and my only purpose for voting was to get him to give a better reason for reading the thread but not posting. Based on what I had seen, i thought that votes were used to put pressure on people to say things (like when fadeblue voted, and I questioned him? Yeah, that's how i learn things) and that foses were simply a declaration of suspision but basically insubstantial, which is why very few people have responded to foses, but EVERYONE responds to votes. Also, you may judge my logic for voting diggy to be crap logic, but what solid evidence to we have for voting for anyone right now? We've exhausted a few leads, I'm just throwing out ideas.
A reiteration of what he's already said in his defense, for the most part.
So, everything nymphe has said on this matter has been consistent. Here's a hypothetical series of events to consider: He was suspicious; seems like he thought Diggy was a bit of a lurker. He voted, and gave an explanation for it. When someone asked for a vote count, he remembered that votes had that nasty other function besides indicating suspicion, newbie-panicked a bit, and "withdrew" his vote. And since then he has been saying, repeatedly, that that's what happened.
So where is the scummy?
(I'm really going to look bad if he turns out to be mafia, aren't I...)
EWP: Actually, on further thought, would you mind explaining this, Cyan?
Quote from Cyan »
I'm not happy with Nymphe's vote on diggy... Either Nymphe just mindlessly hopped onto some bandwagon without having any clue what the vote count was(which is obviously dangerous)...
Quote from Cyan »
You cited something that you felt he was doing wrong, put a scummy explanation to it, and voted him for it. And that's not the problem, honestly, because you're right that it is suspicious to be constantly reading the thread but never post.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm not really sure what you're after me to explain there, can you clarify?
As far as your defense of Nymphe, here are some things:
When Nymphe voted initially, it was clearly not a pressure vote. Pressure vote is a happy excuse that people use to get away with trying to encourage bandwagons. And alot of times, they're telling the truth. But in this case, I'm not buying it. Most of the time when someone puts a pressure vote onto someone else, they flat-out state that they're doing so. Sometimes they just don't say anything(I wouldn't really advise this). In this case, Nymphe provided a reason for why he/she was voting Diggy, initially, that had nothing to do with adding pressure. In this post, the best that you can surmise is that Nymphe is voting Diggy for lurking. Also, there's the whole 'if he's unexperienced then his lurking is a scum tell' statement which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Lurking is scummy regardless of your level of experience, it seems like Nymphe is just trying to fabricate reasons to vote for Diggy. At any rate, the best you could get out of this is that it's a vote for lurking. Not a big deal, although obviously it's very early in the game to get on someone's case for that. But then, to later try to justify the vote by saying 'yeah it was a pressure vote'? That just doesn't make sense, it's just falling back on an excuse that normally works for a suspicious vote. Except that it doesn't work if it flies in the face of why you said you were voting in the first case, which IMO, is what has happened here.
This is aside from the fact that he has used the noob defense repeatedly now, which is also scummy.
With Coiled, I felt like his play was just straight up noobsville. It was just obvious. But in this case, it seems like Nymphe has a good idea what is going on, but just messed up, got caught, and hasn't been able to get out of it.
Also, to repeat a sentiment that has already been stated previously..it's Day 1. Day 1 lynches are almost always the Right NowTM lynch, as opposed to an extremely accurate/solid lynch. You don't have alot of information to go off of, you don't have misvotes, misguided lynches, etc..so you go off of the scummiest person around. IMO, right now, that is most definetely Nymphe.
To address one somewhat related thing briefly at the end here. Yes, I think the FOS is useless. But that doesn't mean that it's okay to vote every person that you find suspicious for every little thing. Voting all of the time just makes you look suspicious. If you think a person is suspicious, all you have to do is say 'I think soandso is suspicious because of....' and you should get a response. FoS is just dumb, and usually just gets completely ignored.
But the problem is that Nymphe wasn't really using his/her vote as an FoS anyway, because he/she provided a reason that he/she thought was worthy of voting for. That's why it's pretty inexplicable that Nymphe just randomly unvoted such a short time later. Plus, to get on someone's case for reading and not posting and then show such extreme negligence as to not have any idea what the vote count is(to the point that Nymphe thought Diggy might be getting lynched) is hugely hypocritical.
I'm not really sure what you're after me to explain there, can you clarify?
As far as your defense of Nymphe, here are some things:
When Nymphe voted initially, it was clearly not a pressure vote. Pressure vote is a happy excuse that people use to get away with trying to encourage bandwagons. And alot of times, they're telling the truth. But in this case, I'm not buying it. Most of the time when someone puts a pressure vote onto someone else, they flat-out state that they're doing so. Sometimes they just don't say anything(I wouldn't really advise this). In this case, Nymphe provided a reason for why he/she was voting Diggy, initially, that had nothing to do with adding pressure. In this post, the best that you can surmise is that Nymphe is voting Diggy for lurking. Also, there's the whole 'if he's unexperienced then his lurking is a scum tell' statement which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Lurking is scummy regardless of your level of experience, it seems like Nymphe is just trying to fabricate reasons to vote for Diggy. At any rate, the best you could get out of this is that it's a vote for lurking. Not a big deal, although obviously it's very early in the game to get on someone's case for that. But then, to later try to justify the vote by saying 'yeah it was a pressure vote'? That just doesn't make sense, it's just falling back on an excuse that normally works for a suspicious vote. Except that it doesn't work if it flies in the face of why you said you were voting in the first case, which IMO, is what has happened here.
This is aside from the fact that he has used the noob defense repeatedly now, which is also scummy.
With Coiled, I felt like his play was just straight up noobsville. It was just obvious. But in this case, it seems like Nymphe has a good idea what is going on, but just messed up, got caught, and hasn't been able to get out of it.
Also, to repeat a sentiment that has already been stated previously..it's Day 1. Day 1 lynches are almost always the Right NowTM lynch, as opposed to an extremely accurate/solid lynch. You don't have alot of information to go off of, you don't have misvotes, misguided lynches, etc..so you go off of the scummiest person around. IMO, right now, that is most definetely Nymphe.
To address one somewhat related thing briefly at the end here. Yes, I think the FOS is useless. But that doesn't mean that it's okay to vote every person that you find suspicious for every little thing. Voting all of the time just makes you look suspicious. If you think a person is suspicious, all you have to do is say 'I think soandso is suspicious because of....' and you should get a response. FoS is just dumb, and usually just gets completely ignored.
But the problem is that Nymphe wasn't really using his/her vote as an FoS anyway, because he/she provided a reason that he/she thought was worthy of voting for. That's why it's pretty inexplicable that Nymphe just randomly unvoted such a short time later. Plus, to get on someone's case for reading and not posting and then show such extreme negligence as to not have any idea what the vote count is(to the point that Nymphe thought Diggy might be getting lynched) is hugely hypocritical.
fadeblue didn't say why he was voting for his pressure vote...and it had it's desired effect. Also, isn't giving a reason for voting in and of itself putting pressure on someone? How does giving a reason for voting negate it's pressure-putting powers? And i still don't see how my vote was a bandwagon at all. The only other vote for diggy (as it turns out) was coiled flame's voting for him for spelling his name wrong, a vote which surely he would have changed if anything else came up. And to reiterate once again, I had intended to go back and count the votes myself, but didn't have the time that afternoon/evening. The request for a vote count made me think that someone might have been close to a lynch, and in the off-chance that I might have accidentally lynched diggy for a weak aargument, i posted my conditional unvote
IMO, the real reason I'm drawing so much suspiscion is my defensiveness, but the thing is, this being day one, there's not much else I can do but simply explain my actions. Like you said cyan, first day's vote is based on sub-par evidence, and if i hadn't said anything you would have all assumed that I was a noob mafia trying to avoid the hammah vote, and then where would we be?
and i just realized that there was no point to quoting that
I think that the nymphe wagon is maybe not the best we have right now. I also think that it was more of newbishness than it was of scummy play. I also agree with the fact that nymphe, you are using the newb card a little to strongly. Personally, I found that vote more of a wierd comment then actually a scum tell. I also think that cyan is pushing the wagon a little too hard. Yes, it is day one, but that doesnt mean we cant discuss day one a little longer before we have a target for who we think is scum.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from hotshizzle »
<hotshizle> WINE IN FRONT OF MEAL
<hotshizle> i think
I'm not really sure what you're after me to explain there, can you clarify?
Certainly. In the one quote you seem to be saying that the infamous nymphe vote was itself scummy, while in the other you seem to be saying that it wasn't.
Quote from Cyan »
When Nymphe voted initially, it was clearly not a pressure vote. Pressure vote is a happy excuse that people use to get away with trying to encourage bandwagons. And alot of times, they're telling the truth. But in this case, I'm not buying it. Most of the time when someone puts a pressure vote onto someone else, they flat-out state that they're doing so. Sometimes they just don't say anything(I wouldn't really advise this). In this case, Nymphe provided a reason for why he/she was voting Diggy, initially, that had nothing to do with adding pressure. In this post, the best that you can surmise is that Nymphe is voting Diggy for lurking.
The subtle distinction between a lurker vote and a pressure vote might easily be lost on someone who's playing his first game - hell, I might confuse the two.
Quote from Cyan »
Also, there's the whole 'if he's unexperienced then his lurking is a scum tell' statement which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Lurking is scummy regardless of your level of experience, it seems like Nymphe is just trying to fabricate reasons to vote for Diggy.
So...
If I say "A in circumstances B" when in fact A regardless of circumstances, then I'm stating a fabrication? I don't follow your logic.
Quote from Cyan »
This is aside from the fact that he has used the noob defense repeatedly now, which is also scummy.
Granted, though if it really is a newbie issue, then what other defense do you expect him to use?
Quote from Cyan »
With Coiled, I felt like his play was just straight up noobsville. It was just obvious. But in this case, it seems like Nymphe has a good idea what is going on, but just messed up, got caught, and hasn't been able to get out of it.
Again, granted; nymphe has been rather more on-target than Coiled Flame.
Quote from Cyan »
Also, to repeat a sentiment that has already been stated previously..it's Day 1. Day 1 lynches are almost always the Right NowTM lynch, as opposed to an extremely accurate/solid lynch. You don't have alot of information to go off of, you don't have misvotes, misguided lynches, etc..so you go off of the scummiest person around. IMO, right now, that is most definetely Nymphe.
Hmmm... any reason you're in a hurry you'd like to let us know about?
Quote from Cyan »
That's why it's pretty inexplicable that Nymphe just randomly unvoted such a short time later.
"Randomly?" Not exactly.
Quote from Cyan »
Plus, to get on someone's case for reading and not posting and then show such extreme negligence as to not have any idea what the vote count is(to the point that Nymphe thought Diggy might be getting lynched) is hugely hypocritical.
Not exactly; it's more like irony than hypocrisy, as the one reads but doesn't post, while the other posts but doesn't read. Still, I see the point you're trying to make.
I think that the nymphe wagon is maybe not the best we have right now. I also think that it was more of newbishness than it was of scummy play. I also agree with the fact that nymphe, you are using the newb card a little to strongly. Personally, I found that vote more of a wierd comment then actually a scum tell. I also think that cyan is pushing the wagon a little too hard. Yes, it is day one, but that doesnt mean we cant discuss day one a little longer before we have a target for who we think is scum.
Hmmm... now I'm starting to have second thoughts about defending nymphe. This is largely a reiteration of what I've already said, but nothing about it seems quite right to me. Especially the "nymphe, you are using the newb card a little to [sic] strongly" bit. Directed at nymphe directly, it takes the appearance of a veiled suggestion, one scum to another.
Examination of the Hroth-Gar case later; I'm hungry, I'm bored, and I just bought Rome: Total War.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
My current thoughts are that there's not enough information available to really tie anyone down and that it is highly unlikely that any such information will be forthcoming on day one. I would make sense for all of those who have not yet voted to vote for the person who has that slight shade of scvum in their eyes so that we can begin the exciting and rewarding process of stringing someone up.
Why rush things? Barring mod action, we can take all the time in the world to look for scum, and there ain't much the scum can do about it (except for trying to hurry nightrall, of course). Time is on the side of the town.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
@Blinking Spirit: You're only 1/2 right. It's true that you generally do not want to 'rush' a day. However, it is also true that, when a day runs too long, alot of the information that you normally gain becomes 'lost in the wash', so to speak. People forget alot of what went on. The chance of lynching a townie on accident when you've waited too long is probably higher than under normal circumstances. Eventually, people just get tired of the day dragging, and lynch the closest prospect.
I'm not saying that has happened yet. We're still in the middle of the day in normal terms. I'm just saying that I think we have a good lynch candidate in Nymphe, and if we come up with a better one, on Day 1 at that, I'll be surprised.
I feel that those five votes on nymphe on the last page happened in too short a span of posts. It's bandwagony (word?). We have to think this through.
Quote from Wuffles_II »
If we're not voting based on noob tells, then CoiledFlame, Nymphe, or MoT are definitely NOT our lynches for today.
Enlighten me. In his four posts, what noob tells has MoT made? He strikes me more as confusing than noobish. Although the lurking is certainly unhelpful.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By kingcobweb and Goblinboy.
Official Elitist of [thread=40859][RBS][/thread]
Quote from kingcobweb »
I don't understand the purpose of gimmick accounts.
Are you saying that You and Colied Flame and Fadeblue are all mafia?
Unvote, Vote Ged.
My concern right now is that we haven't really been having 100% participation in this forum. Some people, namely mosschop, have given reasons for not participating, and that's ok, but i really don't like it when people read the thread but don't actually post. It may be a type of playstyle, but i find it annoying. So, hawkeyez, you really should post...after all, I saw you listed as viewing this thread a few days ago (i can only assume that you were reading), but you haven't really posted anything since your check-in post.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Domanatrices are like dentists...you pay them to hurt you!"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
PBPA on Cyan:
8)
17)
33)
38)
57) 59)
First six posts I really do not care about them
63)
I do not think that this was necessary
68)
Telling people how to vote.
72)
Please, “I am n00b” card can only work day one maybe day two.
77)
You are.
100) & the post following it.
I think this is fishy but I could just be me. Just read it.
106)
You are still picking on CF…… . It is the begging of the day, beaker can wait until something happens with CF.
Skiping two posts….
121)
This is what I am talking about, All three saing that “Do not tell him how to vote, He will do what he wants. Plus you have no reason to defend him unless you all three mafia
FOS: Coiled Flame, Ged, Fadeblue & Unvote
That is where I am right now, Impressions?
I forgot the /'s would some one please do that, or can have permission to do that myself?
By kingcobweb and Goblinboy.
Official Elitist of [thread=40859][RBS][/thread]
1. He's not quite as lurkerish as chops, leading to an increased possibility for it being deliberate on his part. However the latest post alleviates this suspicion somewhat.
2. He's English.
Yup, that pretty much covers it
Unvote.
Time to reread.
hahah, yeah, I just noticed. All to the (one of cyan's first posts)
Care to elaborate upon how on earth this transcends to being suspicious of Ged, FB, and Coiled?
That's what they say every game...
I'd like to respond to MoT's 'PBPA', but, I don't understand what he's trying to say with it, and as stated, all of the links go to the same place. It seems awfully early for a PBPA as well. One thing I don't understand is that he does a PBPA of me, and comes to the conclusion that Coiled, Fadeblue, and Ged are suspicious? Some explanation of that would be great.
Anywho, my LoS has at it's top:
Coiled Flame - still currently the most suspicious person in the game to me.
Magician of Thought - none of your points make any sence, even if you bother to go back and check the actual posts that you are trying to link to. At the end you ask for impressions... I think that your fist point against Cyan sums it up rather nicely...
Diggy - Your last post bothered me a bit.
At first I was going to bold the parts that bothered me, but realized it would be easier to bold what I was OK with about your post.
You being busy doesn't bother me, we all are. You saying that you have the time to read this, but not the time to post a "hey, I'm still here" or an "I'm reading, will post later" is a bit bothersome...
What you use as reasons for voting CF seem rather lame to me. If you think he is scum, then cool, suspect him all you want, but the way you say this makes it sound more like you think he is town, but we should lynch him anyway. I am of the opinion that it is never good to kill someone who you actually do think is town. It is always better to kill people that you assume are scum (now, I happen to not think he is town, so I'm not that upset about this one, but the logic still merits talking about).
I'm not sure what about your second point bothers me, but it just rubs me the wrong way. I really can't explain it better right now, I'll have to think more about why that irks me, so ignore that one for now...
Point three bothers me as you are calling out someone for lurking, while admitting that you are just about as lurky as him. "Hello, Kettle? This is Pot. I was just calling today to let you know that, hey, you are black"
Type II:
BGUWet Rock
GWTapping Token Beats
Extended:
GWREternal Slide
GRUBeasts (homebrew)
RGoblins!
Legacy:
GUBWROath of Barbarians (homebrew)
And magicianofthought is certainly not helping himself.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
By kingcobweb and Goblinboy.
Official Elitist of [thread=40859][RBS][/thread]
"i'll vote for diggy, but if that lynches him i'll take it back..."
unvote mosschop posted...
Coiled Flame 4 (Diggy, Creampuffeater, Ged, hrothgar)
Mosschop (wrath_of_dog)
Diggy 2 (Coiled Flame, nymphe)
Cyan (Kokusho)
Kokusho (Betrand)
Not voting: Cubus, Salubrious, Enigma 91, blinking spirit, beaker
I think his behavior warrants discussion, but it's not nearly solid enough to justify a lynch
You can't "take back" a hammah vote; as soon as the final vote is placed, that person is lynched, no questions asked. However, an Unvote might work.
Also, I don't get how you could be so absolutely wrong about the vote count. You were EIGHT votes off the hammah - try reading the thread again.
Vote Nymphe - Obviously, he is not paying anywhere near enough attention to the thread. Diggy's somewhat alleviated my attention now - my only reason for being suspicious of him was because he was a subtle lurker, unlike chops, who, (for obvious reasons now, see post 260) was totally AWOL until now.
You, however, are releasing the same vibe as Diggy was - except you're also posting really scummily.
Coiled's votes are getting close to being totally irrelevant, for me. As far as I can tell - he now just seems to be voting anyone he chooses for seemingly pointless reasons that only he is particularly sure make sense.
It's scummy because you are in effect attempting to avoid taking responsibility for your previous actions. If by some miracle, you DO put the hammah vote on Diggy, and then, half an hour later, go
"ZOMGWTFBBQHAX I DIDNT KNOW I WAS HAMMAHING DIGGY UNVOTE"
then this actually would be totally irrelevant to the game, other than to definitively suggest that your vote was ignorance rather than "I'm scum, I want to get an innocent townie like Diggy lynched, so I'll pretend I didn't know the votecount as an explanation later"
And, FYI, I believe diggy is quite an experienced mafia player. Experienced players correct me if I'm wrong here?
@creampuff: that's the point, nymphe's posts were of that nature (note wuffles' last post for a good explanation...)
nymphe, i really dont like your explanation of why you did that, "i didnt check the vote count".......if you cant check the vote count, fos, explain why, and come back and vote later after you check the count.....vote:nymphe
and the reason i couldn't count the votes later is that I didn't have access to a computer between that post and 7am this morning
"dominatrices"
singular: Dominatrix
The FoS is not irrelevant. It is a finger of suspicion aimed at someone to warn them that their posts have been scummy and have gained another players suspicion.
rawr.
1. As a warning to other players or the FOS'd person in question to point out scumminess, without actually risking getting on a bandwagon by voting.
2. Similar to 1, but when you already have a vote on someone that you consider more important.
A strange start, and he seems to hedge his bets… “there may be a pattern, but maybe not”
A couple of slightly scummy things in this post
1. he’s taking the noob defense…not necessarily scummy, but it is an easy out for mafia playing in their first couple of games to say “I’m a noob, not scum”
2. He goes on a lurker hunt really early, this is page 3, less than 24 hours after the game started…lurker hunts aren’t necessarily scummy, but at this stage, it seems like a ploy to distract people from the slight scumminess of his first post.
“oh wait…I didn’t want to get us to lynch him…my last post said I was using logic, but now, I’m saying that I just wanted him to explain his actions…”
More lurker hunting…….
Questioning votes…wow...
I really don’t understand this post anyway……and from experience, trying to second-guess things that happen in secret hasn’t been the best option…
something’s annoying, not much addition…
Wow…three posts now that have attacked mosschop for lurking…this was at the time where everyone was trying to get mosschop to post
I don’t see how telling us what he’s been doing means that diggy is scummy…this seems like CRAPLOGIC™ to me
Here’s the post that I see as the most scummy…he’s willing to vote for diggy in the last post, but “OMG, if that post may have been seen as scummy (a hammah), then I take my vote back”
As I stated in my post, a FOS is the place for something like that
Again with the noob defense…wanting to avoid accidentally lynching someone is where you use FOS, saying something like “FOS:----- and can we get a vote count please”
also after people started questioning your actions, you got really defensive…
Note wuffles’s post 249 and WODog post 250 for the explanation of FOS’s
This leaves me confident to leave my vote on nymphe for now…mainly for the interactions in the recent posts (the diggy vote incident), and the overdefensiveness
In fact, FOS Beaker. I don't trust your motives for this pulling-of-something-from-nothing.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Second thing(s): I'm not happy with Nymphe's vote on diggy, nor the manner in which he/she unvoted. I'm even less happy with his/her 'explanation' for it. Either way that you look at it, it's pretty bad. Either Nymphe just mindlessly hopped onto some bandwagon without having any clue what the vote count was(which is obviously dangerous) and immediately tried to cover his/her tracks by unvoting, or, it was carefully planned as a way that, presumably, someone new to the game thought would make them look good. Either of these methods, especially combined with how poorly Nymphe has reacted to the pressure that this situation brought, makes me satisfied with a Vote Nymphe.
EBWODP: I forgot to Unvote. So, Unvote Salubrious, Vote Nymphe.
i dont see this as pulling something out of nothing...i specifically said that i saw the last few posts as most scummy. the earlier ones are only slightly scummy, but they arent the ones that i was specifically looking at and using as reasoning for my vote. but it would be scummy-er if i didnt include all of his posts in the PBPA.
if you are against pbpa's, what would you recommend as a better option? if we just react to the recent posts, we can never get the big picture, and a pbpa looks at the big picture.
By kingcobweb and Goblinboy.
Official Elitist of [thread=40859][RBS][/thread]
Heads-up to everyone, including Fayul: I'm going to be out of town (out of the country, in fact) starting Sept. 28 until Oct. 9. I'll have internet access, but don't expect me to be very productive.
From what I've heard from more experienced players, information gathered from Day One provides most of the basis for lynches on other Days.
And right now, the most scummy play I've seen is when you said VOTE DIGGY. Then you panicked and try to take back your vote in case it hammers him. The only reason I can see for doing this, even for a self-confessed newb like you, is that you realised that whoever places the hammah vote on an innocent townie, especially if its a lynch that has had little discussion, is almost automatically the most suspicious the next Day.
I dont think I really need much more to justify an Unvote, Vote Nymphe.
EBWOP: omfg, I meant to say "Scummy" in the first line...:embarrass:
I'd have to say I agree with this. Nyphe has been acting noobish / suspicious enough. I can see him as a Coiled Flame on a smaller scale or a Coiled Flame who's thinking more about his play.
Let's get this game goin somewhere. Unvote, Vote Nyphe.
Nymphe votes. It's like the fourth or fifth vote out of a necessary ten.
He very quickly withdraws the vote, apparently worried that he inadvertently killed his target when in fact he was nowhere near doing so.
Is this a reasonably intelligent play for a mafioso to make? It seems to me rather more likely that this would be a deliberate ploy were we up near eight or nine votes on someone. At four, I have trouble understanding why it would benefit the mafia (or at least look decently attractive to a member thereof) to do this.
From this follows my reasoning so: whether mafia ploy or newbie townie mistake, Nymphe's action was foolish. But all we can conclude from this is that Nymphe is a fool, not that he is scum. If it were smart for a scum to do what Nymphe did, then, since it seems wise to me to assume players are generally smart, we might get somewhere. So that is the burden of proof for those seeking to lynch Nymphe: to construct an argument for why to vote, then unvote, when we are nowhere near a lynch would be smart for scum.
Actually, overstating a case doesn't look good for you at all, and ironically can make your accusee look better. If I say of someone, "Oh, his mass claim scheme led directly to our power roles dying, and he's also been lurking for three whole hours," then I obviously want him dead for reasons beyond what I'm willing to say; that is, reasons beyond what the town might agree with.
Of course I'm not saying you should only react to the last three pages or whatever. React to a person's entire posting history, and examine and re-examine it as necessary. However, quoting a person's entire posting history, and explaining how every post could be interpreted as scummy, is a good way to lynch an innocent player, especially if there are banal posts you are obviously stretching on, or parts of your PBPA are worded in such a way that it could be interpreted as saying "X is scummy," or not. For example, in your PBPA of Nymphe you make comments like "More lurker hunting...", "Questioning votes...wow...", and "Wow...three posts now that have attacked mosschop for lurking..." Am I supposed to interpret these comments to say that you think what you're describing is scummy? You don't say outright one way or the other, nor do you give reasons why these actions might be scummy, but nevertheless your skeptical/incredulous tone seems to imply scumminess, painting Nymphe with that brush, if you will, while keeping your clothes clean of stains. I don't like it. I think there's something fishy going on with this whole jumping-on-Nymphe.
Well, I got a reaction, didn't I?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Doesn't exactly speak well for his mafia skills, but that's amply explained by his newbishness, and rendered a nonindicator of guilt by my logic. Note that in context* "And yes, I am a noob" is not exactly an out-of-nowhere desperate defense; Wuffles had previously called his posting "absolutely noobish," so he was simply confirming that assessment. And, let's face it, being a newbie is a defense, especially for this sort of apparent mistake.
*Don't know what this phrase means, PBPAers? Look it up; it's important.
As you recently said something very similar to this, Cyan, I don't see how it could be scummy by your standards.
I will admit that he's blowing the newbie horn rather loudly, but again, it's quite possible that's really what happened.
Just some innocuous explanation.
Not unreasonable at all. I think the same thing about nymphe's behavior.
A reiteration of what he's already said in his defense, for the most part.
So, everything nymphe has said on this matter has been consistent. Here's a hypothetical series of events to consider: He was suspicious; seems like he thought Diggy was a bit of a lurker. He voted, and gave an explanation for it. When someone asked for a vote count, he remembered that votes had that nasty other function besides indicating suspicion, newbie-panicked a bit, and "withdrew" his vote. And since then he has been saying, repeatedly, that that's what happened.
So where is the scummy?
(I'm really going to look bad if he turns out to be mafia, aren't I...)
EWP: Actually, on further thought, would you mind explaining this, Cyan?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As far as your defense of Nymphe, here are some things:
When Nymphe voted initially, it was clearly not a pressure vote. Pressure vote is a happy excuse that people use to get away with trying to encourage bandwagons. And alot of times, they're telling the truth. But in this case, I'm not buying it. Most of the time when someone puts a pressure vote onto someone else, they flat-out state that they're doing so. Sometimes they just don't say anything(I wouldn't really advise this). In this case, Nymphe provided a reason for why he/she was voting Diggy, initially, that had nothing to do with adding pressure. In this post, the best that you can surmise is that Nymphe is voting Diggy for lurking. Also, there's the whole 'if he's unexperienced then his lurking is a scum tell' statement which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Lurking is scummy regardless of your level of experience, it seems like Nymphe is just trying to fabricate reasons to vote for Diggy. At any rate, the best you could get out of this is that it's a vote for lurking. Not a big deal, although obviously it's very early in the game to get on someone's case for that. But then, to later try to justify the vote by saying 'yeah it was a pressure vote'? That just doesn't make sense, it's just falling back on an excuse that normally works for a suspicious vote. Except that it doesn't work if it flies in the face of why you said you were voting in the first case, which IMO, is what has happened here.
This is aside from the fact that he has used the noob defense repeatedly now, which is also scummy.
With Coiled, I felt like his play was just straight up noobsville. It was just obvious. But in this case, it seems like Nymphe has a good idea what is going on, but just messed up, got caught, and hasn't been able to get out of it.
Also, to repeat a sentiment that has already been stated previously..it's Day 1. Day 1 lynches are almost always the Right NowTM lynch, as opposed to an extremely accurate/solid lynch. You don't have alot of information to go off of, you don't have misvotes, misguided lynches, etc..so you go off of the scummiest person around. IMO, right now, that is most definetely Nymphe.
To address one somewhat related thing briefly at the end here. Yes, I think the FOS is useless. But that doesn't mean that it's okay to vote every person that you find suspicious for every little thing. Voting all of the time just makes you look suspicious. If you think a person is suspicious, all you have to do is say 'I think soandso is suspicious because of....' and you should get a response. FoS is just dumb, and usually just gets completely ignored.
But the problem is that Nymphe wasn't really using his/her vote as an FoS anyway, because he/she provided a reason that he/she thought was worthy of voting for. That's why it's pretty inexplicable that Nymphe just randomly unvoted such a short time later. Plus, to get on someone's case for reading and not posting and then show such extreme negligence as to not have any idea what the vote count is(to the point that Nymphe thought Diggy might be getting lynched) is hugely hypocritical.
fadeblue didn't say why he was voting for his pressure vote...and it had it's desired effect. Also, isn't giving a reason for voting in and of itself putting pressure on someone? How does giving a reason for voting negate it's pressure-putting powers? And i still don't see how my vote was a bandwagon at all. The only other vote for diggy (as it turns out) was coiled flame's voting for him for spelling his name wrong, a vote which surely he would have changed if anything else came up. And to reiterate once again, I had intended to go back and count the votes myself, but didn't have the time that afternoon/evening. The request for a vote count made me think that someone might have been close to a lynch, and in the off-chance that I might have accidentally lynched diggy for a weak aargument, i posted my conditional unvote
IMO, the real reason I'm drawing so much suspiscion is my defensiveness, but the thing is, this being day one, there's not much else I can do but simply explain my actions. Like you said cyan, first day's vote is based on sub-par evidence, and if i hadn't said anything you would have all assumed that I was a noob mafia trying to avoid the hammah vote, and then where would we be?
and i just realized that there was no point to quoting that
and yes, overdefensiveness as well (mainly post 260 for that)
Certainly. In the one quote you seem to be saying that the infamous nymphe vote was itself scummy, while in the other you seem to be saying that it wasn't.
The subtle distinction between a lurker vote and a pressure vote might easily be lost on someone who's playing his first game - hell, I might confuse the two.
So...
If I say "A in circumstances B" when in fact A regardless of circumstances, then I'm stating a fabrication? I don't follow your logic.
Granted, though if it really is a newbie issue, then what other defense do you expect him to use?
Again, granted; nymphe has been rather more on-target than Coiled Flame.
Hmmm... any reason you're in a hurry you'd like to let us know about?
"Randomly?" Not exactly.
Not exactly; it's more like irony than hypocrisy, as the one reads but doesn't post, while the other posts but doesn't read. Still, I see the point you're trying to make.
Hmmm... now I'm starting to have second thoughts about defending nymphe. This is largely a reiteration of what I've already said, but nothing about it seems quite right to me. Especially the "nymphe, you are using the newb card a little to [sic] strongly" bit. Directed at nymphe directly, it takes the appearance of a veiled suggestion, one scum to another.
Examination of the Hroth-Gar case later; I'm hungry, I'm bored, and I just bought Rome: Total War.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This vague hypothesising really isn't getting us anywhere.
If we're voting based on scum tells, then CoiledFlame, Nymphe, or MoT are our potential lynches for today.
If we're not voting based on noob tells, then CoiledFlame, Nymphe, or MoT are definitely NOT our lynches for today.
Dammit, if Chamber or Loran were here it would make the whole "arbitrary lynch" thing so much easier. Now I actually have to find content.
Followed by Cyan of course.
No, you suck.
Why rush things? Barring mod action, we can take all the time in the world to look for scum, and there ain't much the scum can do about it (except for trying to hurry nightrall, of course). Time is on the side of the town.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm not saying that has happened yet. We're still in the middle of the day in normal terms. I'm just saying that I think we have a good lynch candidate in Nymphe, and if we come up with a better one, on Day 1 at that, I'll be surprised.
Enlighten me. In his four posts, what noob tells has MoT made? He strikes me more as confusing than noobish. Although the lurking is certainly unhelpful.
By kingcobweb and Goblinboy.
Official Elitist of [thread=40859][RBS][/thread]
My concern right now is that we haven't really been having 100% participation in this forum. Some people, namely mosschop, have given reasons for not participating, and that's ok, but i really don't like it when people read the thread but don't actually post. It may be a type of playstyle, but i find it annoying. So, hawkeyez, you really should post...after all, I saw you listed as viewing this thread a few days ago (i can only assume that you were reading), but you haven't really posted anything since your check-in post.